cyclone259 Reviews

Alone in the Dark (2005)

A big Boll movement

[27 September 2010]

DISCLAIMER: This is my second time to post this. Apparently, I accidentally created a duplicate account.

This is one of those movies that in every message board regarding film making on the internet warns you to avoid, but you proceed anyway. In all fairness, my wife ordered this from Netflix and she doesn't know about Uwe Boll, but I'm just as guilty for sitting down to watch it.

In case you haven't already perused the commentary, this 'film' stars the fading stars Christian (I'm a poor man's Jack Nicholson) Slater and Tara (see my botched liposuction procedure pics in People magazine) Reid. You can tell Uwe Boll directed this travesty, because only he would cast Tara Reid, and have us believe she's an archaeologist. Christian Slater gives us his "I got out of bed, so now what?" performance as a paranormal investigator with a secret past.

Anyway, the plot is a hodge podge of thrown together scenes, which lack any direction or continuity. The acting, what there is of it, can be compared with those Sonic commercials, where the people sit in their car bantering back and forth until that punching sound is edited in for effect (see Youtube if you have never seen one). Most of the CGI is pretty laughable and the action is like going on a high speed chase through Disney World's 'It's a Small World' ride at half speed.

I gave it (2) stars because, it was awful, but not AS awful as other Uwe Boll movies I've seen. You could tell there was almost an attempt at some level of competency, but at the end of the day everyone cashed their paychecks and went home.

Someone mentioned that Christian Slater's career will hopefully be able to recover from this debacle, but honestly, what kind of career has he had in the years leading up to this or since? I say, no harm done.

The Machine Girl (2008)

Guilty pleasure

[9/10 · 14 July 2010]

How can I rate this a 9/10 when it so fails so handily on so many levels.

Cheap effects, recycled (borrowed) plot lines and under and over performances from all entities involved. Was this a problem for me? No. Why? It works well as pure, guilty, demented entertainment.

The Machine Girl is as much fun as the literally gallons of blood that were splattered on screen. As someone else commented, every cut hit an artery and even then the blood released was so grotesquely copious that you either laughed or became nauseous.

So much violence. Once The Machine Girl became equipped with her machine gun, just about every scene became a blood bath. When the bullets started flying, anyone in the way was torn to shreds, piece by piece, with those pieces flying all over the place. Heads and limbs exploded, were severed, cut in-half, fried in tempura (you have to see that one) or became mangled by the 'bra of death'.

Maybe you have to be mentally disturbed or have a sick sense of humor to enjoy it, but my wife and I did. I'm sure there will be those who decry just how gory and violent Machine Girl is, but it's so cartoonish that you can't take any of it seriously.

Believe it or not, I'm a fairly sensitive person and am not desensitized to real human pain and suffering. Machine Girl is nowhere close to reality. The action is comical as is the delivery. Maybe it's a guilty pleasure to enjoy something that others would be repulsed by, but to each their own. If I want to be revolted and repulsed, I'll sit through another installment of Twilight.

I Sell the Dead (2008)

Classic storytelling...

[8/10 · 13 July 2010]

Even after reading other reviewers comments on Netflix, I wasn't really sure what to expect.

This movie aligns itself more with the classic horror movies, which relied more on the story, acting, mood and what was unseen than the effects and amount of blood that is spilled.

For those expecting to see yet another slasher/gore fest, 'I Sell the Dead' will be a huge disappointment. It gets started rather slowly, but picks-up the pace as it goes along, moving from the mundane to the bizarre as the stories unfold. It's also not a 'scare a minute' type movie, although it has a few 'jumpy' moments intertwined.

The true beauty of this film is the delivery of the actors, especially by Dominic Monaghan (Lord of the Rings fame... I'm sure he's tired of that by now) as the character Arthur Blake. The tales play out, one after the other, each as tongue-in-cheek as the last, no matter how wild they get.

Even when the story moves from robbing the graves of the 'naturally' deceased to those of vampires and zombies, the mood of Blake doesn't change. He shrugs it off as being all part of the job and takes it all in stride. That's why it works. You ending up buying into the day-to-day reality of being a grave robber and 'almost' feel sympathy for the guy and his current state.

This film will not work for everyone. It may be too slow for those who want a fast-paced, blood and guts film that are so common. On the other hand, if you're a fan of old-fashioned storytelling this may just be you 'cup of tea'.

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century: Space Rockers (1980) Season 1, Episode 19

Light ropes, disco, Jerry Orbach and Bull...

[10/10 · 22 June 2010]

Buck Rogers is pure schlocky, fun, camp.

This episode has it all: cheesy disco-rock, over-the-top quasi futuristic clothes, awful dialog, pre-Law and Order Jerry Orbach and pre-Night Court Richard Moll (ala the Bull reference). It was cool to see Richard Moll with a full head of hair and a few less world-weary lines on the late Jerry Orbach's face.

I'm giving this a (10) based solely on the Buck Rogers rating system: disco (check!), rope dancing (check!), hammy acting (check!), ruthless, conniving villain with henchmen (check!), form-fitting and revealing costumes (check!) and even some decent special effects.

I'm so glad Netflix put the whole series up for instant viewing (god bless their little souls). I can now share the pain, embarrassment and nostalgia of late 70s sci-fi with the whole family.

Buck Rogers in the 25th Century (1979–1981)

Stock footage a-go-go

[7/10 · 8 June 2010]

I remember seeing the Buck Rogers movie in 79', which was obviously trying to cash-in on the Star Wars craze that was still roaring across the world. Ironically, my brother and I tried to see a showing of the Buck Rogers movie (later re-worked and shown as the t.v. pilot) on Easter and it was actually 'sold out'. Funny the things you remember, but we did see the movie later in the month.

Moving on. Watching with the wide-eyed glee of a nine year-old, even then I loved it, although it wasn't 'as good' as Star Wars. Many, many years later the show has not stood the test of time that well, although on a campy/nostalgia level, it's great fun.

Flaws? So many flaws. They shaved the budget down to Kleenex level by re-using stock footage and the same shots over and over and over and over again. Even at nine, I realized it. Looking at it now, it's amazing how EVERY marauding ship is Draconian in nature. There was a scene where a shuttle leaves the hanger in one form and the next shot, it's Princess Ardala's ship from the pilot episode.

So much spandex. All the women either wore a variation made from curve-hugging spandex, a raunchy, revealing leather outfit or some god awful be-jeweled costume that also left nothing to the imagination. Did I complain? Back then, maybe. I wanted to see some space battles. Now? Not so much.

The ships themselves were pretty cool and the effects weren't too bad, aside from those terrible 'explosions' that were obviously super-imposed over certain vehicles (I guess they needed to save the models). Remembering that this was before anybody with a laptop could create an entire armada for about.99, Buck Rogers was actually decent. All in all, not too painful to watch.

Now for the characters. Buck had charisma and charm. Wilma had looks, although as wooden as a tree stoicism. Twikki was a C3PO wannabe and could be annoying, but gave needed comic relief. There were hordes of character actors who could be seen in other shows of the day and probably worked on the cheap. I mean, how often does (did) Frank Gorshin get work outside of sci-fi conventions and Batman reunions? I really didn't mind the switch to the new style with the bird guy back in the day, but I haven't gotten that far on Netflix yet, so who knows how I'll feel now? Along with all of the cameos, how about that one by the late Gary Coleman? I'm looking forward to that one.

Anyway, it seems there's a movie in the works. I really hope someone is able to update Buck Rogers for a whole other generation. Still, I have good memories of the show and have introduced my wife to it as well.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2010)

Some painful memories

[5/10 · 2 June 2010]

My wife and I took our nine year-old daughter and her best friend to see this at the discount movie theater (only .75 that day... cheaper than RedBox). I know that their age group is their intended audience, but had a small amount of interest in seeing it after perusing the books. I think the material is timeless, no matter who reads it. Most of us have experienced at least one of the incidences or feelings described.

As for the movie itself, the two young reviewers we took felt that the book was better. I have to agree. I don't feel the movie was nearly as clever as the source material, even with the interlacing of animation in the style of the book series. There were some of those 'ewwww!' moments, but personally, I see those as cheap humor (potty/fart/booger jokes) but, it's always guaranteed a laugh from the tween and younger set.

I also won't take 'it was a kids movie' as an excuse for lack of character development and plot. It wasn't insulting, but pretty tepid overall. I did relate to Greg and had an overall sense of 'been-there-done-that' when he let his friend take a fall and then regretted it. That scene made me uneasy and took me back to elementary/middle school. My favorite part of the entire film was the 'Just Be Yourself' and the cheesy 80's portrayal of self-esteem through break dancing. Truly awful and funny. If they'd just release that scene by itself, I'd buy it.

Now, this was by far not the best movie depicting the throws of youthful angst, but it was OK. The characters were once again, OK. Most were stereotypes, with little depth. There was an actual life lesson thrown in for good measure, but I don't see this one as staying above the fray for movies of this type. If you do like this one, you might check out 'Angus'. Although it pre-dates this one by a long time, it's worth watching, plus it's George C. Scott's last film.

Princess of Mars (2009 Video)

Good Lord(s)!

[2/10 · 14 May 2010]

I read somewhere that the makers of this travesty wanted to get something out in advance of the forthcoming 'Warlord of Mars' movie slated for 2012. Anyway, they certainly beat everyone to the punch (and unfortunately, put a turd in it).

Honestly, I hadn't expected much, since the 'big names' in the production were former adult film and now c-movie actress, Traci Lords, plus the unbankable, yet always eager to make a buck, Antonio Sabato Jr. I'd be willing to cut either one of them a bit of slack if the puffy-faced Lords or the overly tanned Sabato, Jr. could give a less wooden performance than a forest of oak trees. Maybe it was just the lack of decent dialog, poor CGI, or shoddy sets and costumes. It was less a made-for-direct-to-DVD-release than it was a poor execution of a YouTube video, but with less of a budget.

I've read the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs and this production didn't do the subject matter justice. If Burroughs were alive today, he'd be well into his 100's, but he'd also sue for defamation of character.

It wasn't 100% awful. I gave it (2) stars because I saw it for free and it helped me catch some sleep (I did manage to watch most of it though). I wouldn't pay to see this, but if you're an insomniac, this is a great remedy.

Serenity (2005)

Mixed feelings

[9/10 · 26 April 2010]

I wasn't an avid 'Firefly' fan when I first saw 'Serenity' back in 2005, although I'd heard of the show. I actually happened to catch Serenity on HBO and that's what introduced me to the characters and storyline. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie (I've seen it about five times), but by that time the series was long gone and I never seemed to catch it on re-runs.

We recently got Netflix and my wife and I both sat down over a period of a couple of weeks, and watched all of the episodes in order as they were supposed to be originally. It saddened me that a jewel of a show was lost because Fox managed to screw-up something worthwhile again, because it wasn't some reality show or sitcom. Firefly isn't easy to pigeonhole into one genre or another: true, it's sci-fi first, then it has western overtones, drama, comedy and amazing simple, yet effective character dynamics and story lines.

There's nothing convoluted about how they go about things in Firefly and I enjoyed it because, it wasn't a 'feel-good/happy ending'show. There are interpersonal issues and underlying feelings between all of the characters that are very strong and sometimes unpredictable, such as with River Tam portrayed brilliantly by Summer Glau.

Now that I've watched the complete series and know how the characters fit into their roles, I've re-watched Serenity through different eyes. Is it as good as Firefly? Mainly yes. The CGI and action in the movie was beyond what the show offered due to its budget and so there were improvements in that area.

I think for me the shortcomings were not giving a bit more of a role to Shepherd Book played by Ron Glass. I realize that his part in the series wasn't pivotal, but he helped give a different insight and viewpoint, especially given their exploits. To me, there was a lot more to him that they weren't fully able to explore in the series, such as how exactly he had all the military knowledge that was inferred in the t.v. show. He only made one vocal nod to Mal that there was indeed more to him, but that he wasn't willing to share it. I also thought more could've been done with Inara, but to those who didn't know the back story, it probably would've been confusing.

I understand why Books and Inara weren't given larger participation, because Joss Whedon wanted to make a movie not only for the fans, but also for a much wider audience. I don't want to nitpick the movie to death, because it is what it is and I still enjoy it. All in all, Serenity can easily stand on its own, but hopefully there will be more stories to tell someday.

Mutant Chronicles (2008)

Have faith...

[7/10 · 5 April 2010]

I'd seen a trailer for 'The Mutant Chronicles' back in 2008 and then it quickly disappeared. The concept looked intriguing as well as the feel of the film.

Before I was formally introduced to the whole 'steam punk' genre and knew that's what it was called, I liked it. There's a lot of material out there with the juxtaposed futuristic/antique look (ie. Hellboy, Sky Captain, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Golden Compass, etc.). Some do it better than others, but I felt that 'The Mutant Chronicles' used just enough to give it a twist, without overwhelming the subject matter.

I won't delve too heavily into the storyline except to say this earths alternate time line looks pretty bleak. You could easily draw comparisons between the corporations who rule this (the movies) world and our own, although ours isn't nearly as extreme. Much like other films of this type, there's the despair regarding the loss of humanity and then the proverbial 'light in the darkness' in the form of a savior (no, this isn't a religious movie per say, although one of the main characters is).

Moving along. The lack of development in each characters personage was to me the biggest shortcoming. They were all vehemently different and had their own minutiae, but just seemed to lack a 'soul'. I hate to say that the CGI saved this project, but in this case it helped to prop up the weaker areas and allowed it to not get too bogged down by the negative aspects.

I won't give it an A+ for being the best movie of its kind out there, but it was well worth the time it took me to finally hunt it down on Netflix.

2012 (I) (2009)

Guilty pleasure

[8/10 · 4 March 2010]

This movie is what it is, a terrible mess of CGI, overly dramatic schmaltz and has the honor of being an absurd, high-handed morality play. It's all of these things, but it's great fun. If you want a film with brilliance, depth and well-crafted dialog and a good plot, look elsewhere.

I realize that watching a disaster movie like this, you'll probably be knocked down a few IQ points, be disbarred from Mensa and end up wearing a bib from all the drool, I still enjoyed it. Roland Emmerich is also responsible for other great fiasco's like 'Independence Day',' The Day After Tomorrow' and 'Godzilla' all of which had their fair share of cheese ball, over-the-top effects, throwaway lines and mostly forgettable characters.

There's obviously a market for these types of films, because the movie-going public has been watching the world end in various ways for more than six decades. Up until the last 10 - 15 years though, the effects were usually not the centerpiece and they relied more on the localized, stark emotional after-effects of a major cataclysm than the huge, grand scale of it.

If 2012 was trying to be anything else other than a 'popcorn' film I wouldn't be able to forgive just how unapologetically tacky it all is. Personally, I feel that this was step backward for John Cusack's career, but after seeing other projects in the future, I'm not sure that this was merely one step in a long march into the manure pile of b-movies and/or anything by Uwe Boll.

Zombieland (2009)

Double tap...

[9/10 · 4 February 2010]

This movie will draw obvious comparisons to 'Shaun of the Dead' because it was more-or-less the first commercially successful zombie/comedy movie. It's like all bands coming out of Ireland being compared to U2, due solely to popularity. Maybe they weren't the first or the best, but they had the most ticket sales and notoriety and that holds sway with casual fans.

Now, Shaun of the Dead is actually a great film with more subtle British humor, with some blatant gore thrown in for comedic effect. Zombieland has substantially more gory effects and that's just the opening credits.

In Zombieland, the zombies weren't much different than other cannibalistic ghouls you've seen in other incarnations, other than they were of the very fast-moving type. Wherein the characters in Shaun of the Dead's confrontations with the undead were done in self-defense, there was a cold, taunting meanness in Zombieland which to me seemed to hearken back to the the Night of the Living Dead series. This is not a criticism at all, because Woody Harrelson delivering a smashing head blow with a banjo is hilarious, it's just an observation. I don't harbor any sympathy towards zombies since they're just flesh-eating automatons that just happen to inhabit your grandmas, sisters, pastors, etc.'s body.

There is a lot more action than Shaun of the Dead, although not as much as in some of George A. Romero's works. It seems to have a pretty good balance between gore, humor and the human condition and the main characters have interesting back stories to boot. It was a very diverse cast, along with one cameo which came to be a big surprise to those of us who hadn't seen the film yet.

All in all a very good movie, but the blood spatter might turn some off who were hoping to see a purely humorous movie.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Not the 'rollercoaster ride' of fear shown in the trailers...

[7/10 · 2 February 2010]

The trailers would lead you to believe that this was a non-stop, scare-a-minute horror film and although it's not, it's still a worthy endeavor.

The problem of course by misleading movie audiences is that those who went expecting this to be more than it was are going to be very disappointed. Thankfully, I didn't buy all the hype and since I didn't drop $10/person to watch it, I was a bit more open minded.

The style of the film will also be turn-off to some, particularly those who don't care for the 'amateur look' with camera shaking, etc. which has been used in The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield to name a few. When done well, it takes it out of the realm of being a professional production and makes it more 'real', but it's not for everyone, especially those prone to being motion sick.

The reason the film worked for me was all of the subtle effects used throughout the production. A lot of the atmosphere was created using only off-camera sound and by what you couldn't see. Even the effects, which were very low key, were quite successful in making my skin crawl a few times.

Although I too love gory movies (especially anything with the undead), I feel it takes a bit more creativity to deliver a scare without a hatchet-wielding psychopath or torture devices used on its hapless victims. The fear in Paranormal Activity is not a physical form like Freddy, Jason, Mike Myers or any numerous horror films and remakes of late, but more by what we don't know or understand.

I'm not going to try to defend this film by those who say it sucked or want to degrade it. That's OK with me, because I can certainly see the talking points against it. What's interesting is that (2) people I know that didn't like it and rented it recently, were occupied doing other things while it was on and weren't paying much attention. Is that good or bad? Was it so boring they lost interest or were they so preoccupied that they didn't play close attention to all the details? All I can say is that worked for me.

Dancing with the Stars (I) (2005– )

Two left feet...

[19 January 2010]

I've only seen this show because my mother loves it and to appease her, I sat through enough to form an honest opinion (before anyone starts yelling, it's my opinion and may differ from yours).

To me, the only reason they have this low cost reality show on the air is because The Love Boat is no longer in production and C-list has-beens have nowhere else to get a rent check. It's also very formulaic, with the panel of judges ala American(s) Idle (I mean Idol) rating the performances. Of course they don't have the same acerbic retorts as Simon, but nonetheless it's just as much theatrical drudgery to get ratings.

Like someone else said "These are stars?" It's like watching reruns on Nick at Nite of your old t.v. favorites to recapture the images of faded celebrities, except now they're dancing in prime time.

Doomsday (I) (2008)

Death drives a pale Bentley...

[8/10 · 2 January 2010]

I love most films of the post-apocalyptic kind and while this isn't EXACTLY post-apocalyptic it certainly fits the bill very well.

In a sense it is similar to its predecessors: 28 Days/Weeks Later, The Road Warrior and as some have mentioned, Escape From New York. Doomsday doesn't pretend to set new heights for originality and plays much more as an homage to movies of the genre. Saying that, it has it's own set of quirks, humor and creativity by taking what works from past films and bringing them all together.

Is this a perfect film? No. It has some pretty big flaws, but it doesn't attempt to be something it's not. This of course will draw huge criticisms from those who are looking for a giant, over-the-top blockbuster with A-list stars and a billion dollar CGI budget.

This has some great, albeit at times, cheesy acting from its cast. Like I said, it 'borrows' hugely from other films of the same ilk: The potentially world-ending virus, finding the cure (and bringing it back) from a quarantined area replete with Mad Max-type punks, the maniacal, self-serving ruler of said backwards and forgotten society, etc.

It definitely has some, let's say, stomach churning scenes due to the gratuitous gore and bloodshed. There's lots of action, a load of gore and a lot of 'fun' (fun being very subjective in this case).

I rate it high, not because it's the 'best I've ever seen', but because I'd actually had low expectations for it and was completely blown-away by just how creative and (here's that word again) 'fun' it actually was.

Avatar (2009)

Amazing

[9/10 · 21 December 2009]

Amazing... not perfect, but amazing.

It's difficult to add to the discussion, especially when you're one of a million-and-a-half moviegoers who saw Avatar and have already commented.

I'm not 'everything James Cameron touches is gold' kind of person, but he usually brings his 'A-game' when he makes a movie. With 'Titanic' he managed to once again do groundbreaking CGI to help tell a story (although I thought the story itself was saccharine-sweet sentimentality), visually it was as big as the ship itself.

With Avatar, the story is definitely much better, although still not as big as the effects. James Cameron is all about details in his movies and it really shows. Every nook and cranny of this film is jam-packed with information, almost to a point where you need to watch it two or three times to take it all in.

We've all heard about the new CGI imagery Cameron helped develop for Avatar. Even if you shake your head in disapproval in regards to the acting or storyline, I imagine most will have at least one scene they tell someone about that captivated them.

I won't necessarily go into the story itself because so many already have, but all-in-all, I found it okay, not over-the-top, but definitely watchable from that perspective. The acting was even and flowed well, plus there were some very funny parts thrown into the seriousness for good measure.

From the marketing of the trailer, I can imagine there will be a lot of kids who want to see Avatar. Is it appropriate? It all depends.

There is a LOT of violence and people (and aliens) getting killed (albeit, nothing too graphic). There is a good deal of intense fight scenes, destruction, etc., etc. The adult language is fairly sparse and there is one adult-themed scene that eludes to sex, but like I said about the bloodshed, nothing graphic. Some theatergoers mentioned CGI female breasts and YES, they are there, but most of the time CGI artfully conceals them. You also have to consider the running time of 2:30 hours. That alone may make parents want to wait for this to come out on video for the simple fact that some kids may get bored since there's not something exciting going on all the time.

Anyway, it's a huge movie in more than one sense. It's also something that calls for the big screen, 3-D approach as well. I do plan on buying it when it does come to DVD, but it will probably lose quite a bit in translation.

Princess Protection Program (2009 TV Movie)

Yawn...

[2/10 · 12 October 2009]

As a father, I'm subjected to all kinds of fare, which I realize is not meant for my age demographic. That being said, I try to watch material with an open, yet subjective eye and find the redeeming quality in it.

Sadly, the storyline wasn't original and the producers opted to use the recycled formulaic 'fish-out-of-water' plot, ie. girl from (insert nationality, Atlantis, background, culture here) and the difficulties and (although not found here) funny situations they encounter trying to 'blend-in' in a different society. Some movies (Splash and Pretty Woman) did a fairly reasonable job of conveying this successfully.

Basically, a princess from make-believe island nation is rescued after a deviant, power-hungry general attempts to overthrow the government before she can become it's future queen. She's swept away to Louisiana and hidden, making an attempt to disguise herself as a typical teenager. Of course, she has a difficult time adapting and letting go of her royal ways... yada yada yada...

My nine year-old loves to watch 'The Wizards of Waverly Place' with Selena Gomez, so this movie was a natural choice to rent. We've all had shows we watched growing up and 'Wizards' is innocent enough and actually isn't as insulting to the I.Q. as some of the things I used to watch as a kid. Anyway, aside from the forced 'comedic' situations and unoriginal story, the fact that Princess Rosalinda's (portrayed ineptly by Demi Lovato) accent kept fading in and out was and added distraction.

In the end, I had the feeling that this uninspiring project was thrown together quickly to cash-in on the tween set's love for Selena Gomez and Demi Lovato. I suppose Hollywood's (and Disney's) need to make a quick buck has been in existence ever since the dawn of children's programming, I just wish that every so often they'd put more effort into the assembly line fodder they churn out since in the end, parents are the ones having to pay the ultimate price.

I gave it (2) stars because my daughter liked it.

Horror of the Blood Monsters (1970)

Why is there no lower rating than 1?

[1/10 · 6 July 2009]

Bad, bad, bad. Not even the good kind of bad either. You can look at most any Ed Wood project and say "That movie was terrible, but it had heart" but, not this one. It was on life-support, bloated, pumped full of morphine and waiting to die.

Don't get me wrong, I love terrible cinema (Plan 9 From Outer Space) is part of my movie collection, but there's no excuse for this one. The sadder thing is that I regrettably paid a $1.99 to watch it on the 'Classics On-Demand' channel. That's 90 minutes I'll never get back.

Anyway, the storyline. It opens with some 'vampires' preying on hapless victims in LA? New York? Who knows. The vampires are clad in 60's era chic attire, lurking in the darkness to unleash their plastic-toothed evil upon the world.

Jump ahead... Scientists? from earth are traveling to a far-off planet and after a run-in with an unknown energy force end up making an emergency landing on a planet replete with cavemen, tinted cut scenes and lizards wearing latex appliances. Come to find out, this is apparently the home world to the vampires on earth. Whoopee.

After seeing John Carradine's excellent performance in 'The Grapes of Wrath' and then in this dreck (and apparently many other titles in the genre), it makes one think that someone was really hard up for a paycheck. Sad, truly, truly sad and almost heartbreaking. It made me think of Lugosi at the end of his career. Who knows, maybe he actually enjoyed working, no matter how crappy the project was.

Anyway, the cast and acting were as cardboard as the scenery. The irritating 'tinting' of the scenes (which allowed the insertion of clips from other awful movies) was a distraction. Overall, in my Top 10 of the worst movies I have ever seen. A must miss at any price.

Tooth and Nail (2007)

Post-apocalypse lite

[6/10 · 18 May 2009]

I'm a sucker for post-apocalypse movies, so when I saw this title at RedBox I had to check it out.

I won't go into a plot synopsis as that's already been done, but it reminded me a small bit of Doomsday and Mad Max. Nothing was over-the-top about 'Tooth and Nail', not the acting, violence, gore, sex, etc. but, it was decent and watchable.

The interaction between the characters trapped in the hospital was tense, although formulaic. You do get a sense of the emptiness in their world and the struggles of day-to-day existence. Time moves very slowly, like people waiting to die.

Like I mentioned, there was gore, but nothing spectacular. The sex scenes were appropriate for a PG-13 movie as there was a distinct lack of nudity. My wife and I figured out who the 'wolf in sheep's clothing' was early on and if you watch it, you don't need CSI to determine who it is.

Anyway, I give it some props for being a good distraction on a Saturday night. Although 'Tooth and Nail' isn't what I'd call an action film, wait until the ending... it's really cheesy and fun.

Vinyan (2008)

Thank god for RedBox

[1/10 · 18 May 2009]

"When someone dies a horrible death, their spirit becomes confused and angry." Which is exactly how I felt after watching this fiasco.

Before anyone lashes back at me for not understanding and getting the 'subtle meaning' of this film and all of its little nuances, I will say 'yes I got it'. The journey though was tedious and plodding, but I watched it all hoping for it to get better.

There is nothing 'otherworldly' about Vinyan and once again, I was led to believe by the description that this was a horror movie, but instead it was just horrible. I won't go into the actual plot, but all I can say is by the end of the film my wife and I looked at each other in disbelief that we'd just spent 90 minutes watching it.

"Has their search for their son led them to a fate more horrific than death?" No, just the audience. Like I said, it was only a buck to rent and I still wanted my money back.

Fortress 2: Re-Entry (2000)

Has been's in space...

[2/10 · 11 May 2009]

The original 'Fortress', while being pretty good, makes one wonder why they even bothered with this one. This is what I'd call a completely unnecessary sequel, simply made to cash in on Christopher Lambert's previous waning success and provide fodder for the already overflowing direct-to-video market (and it shows).

What they try to pass as a story involves essentially rehashing the original plot line, except moving it to space (wow, what a concept). The plot is sloppy and the acting is even worse. Basically, you have actors walking through their parts, like they didn't even care.

The movie felt like it had a $1.99 budget and the effects were staggeringly atrocious. The only redeeming quality (if you can call it that) was seeing actress Liz Brice in the completely unnecessary and gratuitous shower scenes.

Christopher Lambert had some decent successes early on, but the guys time has come and gone. He reminds me of the action stars who's star has long since burned out: Dolph Lundgren, Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven (what's-his-name), etc.

NOTE: I just saw this 'movie' on HBO recently and didn't even know they'd made a sequel to the original, so sorry if the review is ten years late.

Caprica (2009–2010)

Not what some are expecting...

[7/10 · 26 April 2009]

Just as the new BSG wasn't what fans of the original series were expecting, Caprica may not deliver what fans of the new BSG were expecting (for the most part). It is a very interesting, if not somewhat self-involved show, or at least the pilot is.

If you're looking for the big CGI thrills of the (new) BSG, you'll be sorely disappointed. If you liked the drama, you'll probably find something you like and maybe even identify with.

The storyline does examine on how the Cylons were developed, why Adama hates them and the origins of a monotheistic society. The writers also manage to tackle humans 'playing God(s)' and the creation or re-creation of 'human' life. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I found it to plod along in some parts and too preachy in others, but all in all it was promising. A small part of me wishes (or hopes) there might be some minor inklings of BSG in there (aside from the back story I mentioned), but that would probably convolute the storyline too much. Like BSG, I'll have to wait and see if Caprica grows on me, but it's way too early to tell.

It would really easy to chalk this up as a failure if you compare it to the previous series, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Overall, I thought it was interesting enough to make me see how the actual series is before 'throwing in the (proverbial) towel'.

UPDATE: I've thrown-in the proverbial towel. It just couldn't hold my attention. It's not because I was comparing it to BSG either. I'd held a lot of hope for it and the acting was good, but the pace was way too slow for my tastes. If I'm not mistaken, at the time I'm posting this update, I think Caprica has been canceled, so apparently I'm not the only one.

The Spirit (2008)

Like Sin City, but with 75% less sin...

[5/10 · 21 April 2009]

It's obvious to compare this movie to Sin City. Where Sin City was gritty and unrelenting in it's portrayal of brutality, The Spirit was more amiable and slapstick in it's approach.

From a strictly visual perspective, they're both impressive works, but The Spirit lacks what the title implies... spirit. The characters are one dimensional and campy. While I realize that it's 'drawn' from a graphic novel, nobody translates their traits well to the live action realm. Samuel L. Jackson is a good actor given the right part, but I've come to doubt his credibility after such debacles as the Star Wars prequels, Jumper and now his most current role as The Octopus. Eva Mendes was more or less 'eye candy', but nonetheless she served that role very well. As for Gabriel Macht as The Spirit, his performance didn't exactly send me into a tailspin; his acting was flat and lackluster.

I found the storyline tedious and lacking continuity. I really, really wanted to enjoy it and because I only paid a buck to rent it, I gave it a higher rating than I would've if I'd paid full price. I guess 'The Spirit' is what it is... namely good visuals with a lot of filler... too bad.

The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008)

...This will take some getting used to...

[6/10 · 13 April 2009]

I'm a huge fan of the 1951 production and when I heard that there was yet another remake of one of my sci-fi favorites I cringed for numerous reasons.

First, I thoroughly enjoyed Keanu Reeves in the (original Matrix) and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. He's a decent actor (not great, but OK) and as long as he doesn't have to emote he is able to hold his own. On that note, Klaatu was a role he could handle. He has nowhere near the skill of Michael Rennie in the original version, but he's passable (that's being gracious).

It's hard to do an honest comparison of the two films side-by-side, because each has their own 'spin' on the storyline. Each rendition is also a direct reflection on the time in which they were released. I do think there were some nods to the original, but some of the actors seemed out-of-place, namely Jaden Smith and John Cleese. I got the whole back story as to why Jaden's character Jacob was with Jennifer Connelly, but I really didn't care. In fact I didn't care for much of the cast and felt they were mostly throwaway.

As a sci-fi purist I should really loathe this movie, but I didn't watch it with high expectations (plus I paid $1 to rent it) and on that level it works. As I mentioned before, I don't think this film had much in the way of character development, but the CGI was good and the twist to the storyline was different. If you just watch it as one of those 'rainy day' movies (it was raining when I viewed it), it works. I think I would've been a lot harsher and disappointed if I'd paid full price.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

so-so

[5/10 · 8 April 2009]

I'm a huge Arnold Schwarzenegger fan, or at least I was. Politics aside, I've enjoyed most of his films, even if many of them were basically no-brainer, popcorn action flicks.

By all accounts he WAS a huge action star back in the day, but even with all the bodybuilding he did to get ready for T3, I still wasn't buying him as The Terminator I enjoyed from the first installments anymore. Everybody ages and even after most of the budget seems to have gone to pancake make-up and Oil of Olay to cover his wrinkles, I'm still unconvinced. I really, really wanted to give him a chance to reprise the role he so superbly fit back in 1984 and again in T2, but it's 19 years later. In the end, he's a 60+ year-old guy with a great build for his age.

As for the story; it was OK. I've certainly seen better sci-fi and action films. Did it add much to The Terminator universe? Not really. It did accomplish the feat of tying up some lose ends as to how John Connor survived the nuclear attack that is necessary for there to even be a Terminator plot line. I'm not sure that the movie could have been made without Schwarzenegger somewhere in the mix, but I guess we'll all find out when T4 opens.

The characters themselves were fairly cardboard and underdeveloped. Thankfully the first two movies gave some background because this one really did not help it along. I can say the the addition of a female Terminator was an interesting twist and broadened the scope of the Terminator world.

If you loved the first two as I did (I've seen The Terminator at least 100 times), you'll need to see T3, just don't get your hopes too high.

Blood Diner (1987)

Terrible, but with a lot of heart(s)...

[7/10 · 6 April 2009]

Although I wouldn't give an 'arm and a leg' (boo hiss) to see this movie it was actually a pleasant escape on an otherwise dull programming line-up the night I watched it for free on FearNet.

It was bad, but in a good way. Some movies, like the more recent 'Doll Graveyard' or anything with Uwe Boll, try too hard to be something they're not, ie. good. Blood Diner is essentially an awful, trashy yet weird nugget of a film. The movie doesn't try to 'rise above the fray' to be anything more than that and to me, that's what makes it enjoyable.

The characters themselves are odd and their performances for the most part were pathetic. The dialogue was abysmal, but the effects were pretty decent. There was also complete gratuitous nudity and gore throughout the production, which also made it even more campy (you need to watch the nude aerobics and 'karate' action to see what I mean).

Honestly, it is ridiculously horrible and that is how it works. I can see how many viewers loathe this film and I certainly don't make any apologies for it. I gave it a higher than average rating because it was so unique and original. Even so, I don't know that I'd recommend it to everyone.

On another note, if you like this film, you might even enjoy 'Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter'.....