Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
What a terrible mess you've made.....
27 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
That line is not contained anywhere in the film, I wasn't being coy, I was scolding the director for even having the idea for this "film". Which really, to call anything shot on an XL1 or DVX100A (what is this, 2004?) that has been transferred to this horrible quality is an insult to everything Eadweard Muybridge did in the late 1800's. Someone said this is a festival screener....at this quality I would have preferred a VHS copy, at least then the image wouldn't be in the wrong aspect ratio. Which begs the question, if the director can't figure out an aspect ratio (it's a button, seriously) then how are we supposed to believe he made a film of any substance?

So after you're done taking the ideas of Jeff Lindsay and modifying them to fit current emo tides of popularity, all you need to do is go on LACasting and get a bunch of amateur actors. I won't let my horrified point of view affect my judgment of the actors, because you can tell Liam Smith, the lead actor, was a decent actor, however, he obviously had the disadvantage of working with an incompetent director, since there is no flow any given scene, entire ideas grind to a halt so the characters can messily try to serve the director's ego, discussing films of his that don't exist. It comes off as cheap and sad, like this scene is the only thing that gets the director up in the morning, as if someone else had said the words, not had them written by the director for them.

I don't feel sorry for any of the other actors however, their lack of talent is only overshadowed by their obvious lack of enthusiasm. It's great to call yourself an actor, it's insulting to actual actors when you don't even try. A lot has been said of the gore content in this film. I ask, what gore? There were 10 max kills in the film, each one was sloppily filmed and the f/x looked like they were purchased at the Target clearance bin the day after Halloween. The much hyped "cannibalism" is Christian making a human shake, which doesn't really make sense, as the character has displayed no tendency towards mutilation or post-mortem fixation, the two main components of cannibalistic behavior. I forget, actual psychology has no place here.

It's like Dexter, without the psychological implications, which is what makes Dexter work. Here, the main character wallows in

self pity, but we as an audience can't react, because he's a serial killer, and he doesn't even have a convincing past to get him to the point he's at in the film. Of course, the whole point of the film is Christian's love story, while he recants his killing ways, which is hilarious, because if his synapses ever had the tendency not to kill and to love, it would have happened long before this point, and the events of this film would have never taken place.

I'm a connoisseur of cheap horror films, and I can deal with bad film-making, as long as the film brings one element to the table. I can overlook silly dialogue when there are gorgeous shots to look at, or artfully done f/x. This movie has none of that. There aren't many different scenes, most of the movie consists of him finding a victim (most of the time it's randomly, which again, would defy the modus operandi of just about every real serial killer that ever existed) and the character hanging out with his friends and towards the end, his girlfriend.

So instead of being a realistic dissection of a serial killer's behavior, it becomes the realization of the director's favorite things: coy serial killers, emo love stories, and really terrible special f/x. This is what happens when a half baked film school idea is funded, I guess. Instead of making a film with any substance, the director chose to go the cheap route, in some feigned attempt at a Martino or Lenzi movie. It isn't, because those films have competent musicians, cinematographers, set designers, and stunt men, where this film has a bunch of college kids, a $1,000 DV camera, a script that was seemingly written by a 14 year old BrokenCyde fan, and tons of fake blood from Target's clearance rack.

Anyone brave enough to venture into the special features will only find self-serving (and equally silly) mini-documentaries on the film's production and theatrical premiere. The production scenes are just the director in his clashing orange hat (orange and blue? THAT is a color scheme) talking in front of the location that they were shooting at. A few other scenes show the crew standing around, the actors goofing around, and everyone having fun while they made the movie. I'm glad someone had fun during the run time of this film, because it certainly wasn't me. The premiere feature is silly, the director is so happy his movie is playing at the New Beverly Cinema (which he paid to do...) that he seemingly didn't notice that he couldn't even fill the theater, which honestly, isn't that hard. Despite that, the special features were seemingly not edited, since the camera man repositioning and refocusing were not edited out, rather, just lazily left in by whomever was supposed to be editing it.

Don't be fooled. Even for a $1, you are wasting your money if you buy this, I personally encourage anyone who enjoys staring at bloody train wrecks to at least download it illegally so they can witness it for themselves. I mean, if you saw a dead body you'd stop to look at it, but you wouldn't pay a $1 to do so, would you? I didn't think so. You're smarter than that. Unfortunately for everyone involved, the director is not as smart as the rest of us.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spun (2002)
7/10
If you even want to watch this, you'll like it.
27 December 2004
Because the only reason you would want to watch this is if you have done speed or know people that have. Otherwise you will probably hate this movie.

The reason for this is the fact that this movie is a perfect representation of life on speed. It moves in circles, at a quick pace, the people don't know or care about each other, and the only motivation for anything happening is speed. Such is life on speed.

For this, the movie accomplishes its goal: To show life on speed. You'll either get or hate this one, and for the health of the nation, I hope most will hate it.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Orange County (2002)
8/10
New age teen comedy that knocks it out of the park.
18 May 2004
Orange County is a predictable, new age teen comedy. Then why is it so great?

Southern California surfer-dude Shaun Brumbder is all about surfing and partying until one of his good friends dies in a surfing accident and Shaun begins to question the point of his life which is all surfing and partying. Then he finds a book that changes his life and he decides he wants to become a writer. The problem? He lives in the rich LA suburban community of Orange County, where people are more obsessed with pop culture and themselves than being happy and Shaun feels he needs to get out to go become a writer and study under his favorite author at Stanford University. (which is about 6 hours north of where he lives)

Again, why is this great? First and foremost, we have the script. It's smart, but still wacky as a teen comedy needs to be. The characters aren't nitwits wander around aimlessly or purposely insult themselves by being complete morons. There's no pointless wandering for a car or bathing in urine. It knows what it is, a teen comedy, but it's smart enough to know it doesn't have to be grossly offensive or incredibly stupid to be funny. The story has a heart, and the wacky antics all support it.

Next is the cast. Without the perfect cast this movie could've been a dud. The main character is played by Colin Hanks (son of Tom Hanks) in his first major starring role and he nails it. He plays the smart surfer-dude with a dream perfectly and he deals and reacts to his environment and the rest of the superb cast as he should. If you really watch you can find a little bit of his father in him, but mostly he is his own actor, and a good one at that. He's very natural playing a realistic character. His girlfriend is played by Schuyler Fisk (daughter of Sissy Spacek), and she's a very positive, caring California girl. Her character wasn't as strong as Hanks', but she was mainly meant to be more of his sidekick than counterpart. Jack Black was the reason I saw this movie in theaters, and he was as awesome as usual (up until recently, where's he has just been taking whatever is thrown at him seemingly) as the unmotivated stoner older brother Hanks' character Shaun doesn't want to be. He's the worst example in the world, and is ultimately part of Shaun's motivation to not become like him. Next are Catherine O'Hara and John Lithgow, who both have seemingly come into their prime closer to middle age. They play off of each other wonderfully as Shaun's selfish parents that live the rich LA life and feel like their son owes them something. Chevy Chase is great as the school principle even though the role is small, he gets a laugh or two as he is bound to do. The teacher Mr. Burke is played by Mike White who strangely hits home as a California high school teacher more into pop culture than teaching, and he also wrote the fantastic script. Also, he is just another character in the long line of people hold Shaun down. Leslie Mann and George Murdock have funny bit parts as Shaun's step-parents who are also completely out of touch with the world. Kevin Kline has a great bit part as the author who inspires Shaun to become a writer and tells him exactly what he wants to hear.

After that, this is just quality film-making by good people. Jake Kasdan (son of Lawrence Kasdan) directed this and his style shines all the way through. I first became a fan of his after his work on the TV show Freaks and Geeks, which is rather similar to this movie in that it deals with the wackiness of teen life in a knowing way. The writer Mike White also wrote a few episodes of Freeks and Geeks, which if you haven't seen, I highly suggest you do as it just hit DVD. Kasdan knows where to put the laughs, but he also knows how to moderate them and not make it a wacky teen orgy fest like the American Pie movies which are motivated only by teen libidos rather than real ambitions. The movie has a good story, and it is well told.

In the end, there is nothing groundbreaking in Orange County. It's a pretty straightforward teen movie with a realistic plot and great performances. With another American Pie-type cast with emphasis on the goofiness, this movie would've been a low-grade teen sex flick. Instead we have a real story about ambition and teen life with a few falls off of roofs and vases falling on heads. 8/10
40 out of 50 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Jerry Springer Show (1991–2018)
A True Landmark in American Television
22 April 2004
Is it a landmark like I Love Lucy, Seinfeld, or the Brady Bunch? No, but it marks a very bizarre time for television.

As the 90's started times became radical, the censorship fights of the late 80's along with the Gulf War had people everywhere politically exhausted. Then came musicians like NWA, where Tipper and Al Gore realized they were screwed, and everything was seemingly out the window. Riots occurred in LA, and so did a truce amongst gangs. An odd time indeed. Suburban white angst exploded with the grunge music scene and everyone was just plain angry. With the Clinton Administration came a bit of a cooling period, where censorship was just forgotten about it seems. But where does the little old Jerry Springer Show stand amongst all of this?

First of all, it was just a normal talk show, maybe a bit racier than Oprah, but it was pretty typical to begin with. Once they started pushing the boundaries and booking odder guests, they realized they had something. People wanted to see how far they could push it. In this, Springer found his niche. Hey, why not book the weirdest guests and see what they can do? This opened the possiblities for anything, and in the end we got EVERYTHING. Transsexuals cheating with animals, morbidly obese families having food fights, fist fighting, racists...you name it, Springer had it. Was it staged? I believe it was quite a few times in this period. Does it matter? No, no one cared. Springer was the new trash drug of choice, nobody admitted to watching it, but millions were. They went as far as you can go, but eventually the novelty wore off.

I haven't heard anything about the show in years, people got to the tip of the mountain, got bored, and came back down. Was it just another fad?(as reality TV is now) Yes and no. It was a fad, but a groundbreaking one in TV as people always wanted to go as far as they could, but once they did, they wished they hadn't. Hopefully this will save us from further instances such as these, but with the FCC once again trying to flex their censorship power, something like this may come along in the future to again see how far television can actually go. But for now, we can only look back and laugh.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not the best, but an improvement
15 January 2004
Leprechaun Back 2 Tha Hood Written and Directed by: Steven Ayromlodi

Yep, everyone's favorite evil elf is back in the 6th installment in this classic horror series.

Parts 4 and 5 are universally viewed as two of the worst movies of all time (Despite them being two films I love, they are admittedly terrible) Steven Ayromlodi was still able to convince someone to give him the money to make a 6th movie.

This time the Lep comes back to the hood in search of his gold once again. This time it is discovered by some down and out friends in the ghetto. They spend their fortunes and have fun...until the little Irish monster shows up and starts killing off the people that took his gold.

Yeah, pretty cookie-cutter..but that's how the whole series is and you can't expect much more. But you gotta give director Ayromlodi credit for pulling out a couple of new turns, and making a solid entry into the series.

I still think 3 is my favorite of the series, but this is definitely an improvement on 4 and 5 in all aspects. Sure, the acting is a bit cheesy at times, and it lacks in the gore department and the kills are less creative, but overall I was satisfied with this movie, and can only hope for a 7th.

Definitely only for fans of the series though.

**/4
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Know your history
5 December 2003
Many people seem to ignore the fact that this film is a mirror of America. D.W. Griffith was George Washington.

President Washington forced slaves to build the White House...yet I see no one running to tear it down. (Yes, I do realize it's not the same one, I'm sparing technicalities here) Despite his personal views D.W. Griffith created modern film with Birth of a Nation, just as our first president created America. It's not the content of the film that's important, it's the execution of it, and what has become from the foundation it laid. Just as America was built on hate and racism, and has now become a free, racially equal nation (Once again sparing the fact that racism does still exist in large numbers, we have, for the most part, come leaps and bounds in equality since the late 1700's).

So before you get on your political horse and tear the content of this film apart, shouldn't you first be burning $1, $5, and $20 bills that depict racist presidents as the heroes of our nation? No, you pass your money along gladly, because you see the triumph of a free nation, not the slavery that built it.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Awesome for what it was
3 December 2003
Sandy Collora's Batman orgasm resulted in the $30,000 "Dead End" which was a great fan film, and should definitely get him bigger opportunities when he shows it off as his reel.

Sure, it's only 10 minutes long, and Clark Bartram is a fitness model, but there's bound to be someone with the same build that can act. No, not Christian Bale. Sure, he can act, but they're doing some weird younger Bats crap and it will probably be told out of order because Christopher Nolan spends too much time trying to confuse himself. But that's beside this movie.

The Joker was fantastic, mixing menace with complete insanity, even if he was only on screen for 2 minutes.

I know for a fact that Hollywood could never handle an Aliens or Predator story arc on the same screen as Bats (Hell, they gave A vs P to someone that managed to screw up Resident Evil), but this movie is just more of a wet-dream for Bats fans, and it accomplishes its directive in making you blurt out a couple of "COOL!"'s and "ALIENS! RAD!" or a few reassuring head nods if you don't use mid-80's California dialect.

So, as I said, it's a neat little triumph, and gained Sandy Collora some recognition which seems to be the goal he had in mind.

***/****
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Unfairly bashed.
11 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
***Minor Spoilers***

Sure, it makes no sense in relation to the series, is totally unrealistic, and has nothing to do with the rest of the series (aside from Tommy and the Jason legend), but it's in no way the worst movie of the series.

In it's own context (ie within the movie) it all makes sense, and is all rather plausible. Well, as plausible as Jason being struck back to life by lightning.

If it were a stand alone film, not involving Jason or Friday the 13th in any way, it would be a popular 80's slasher. Essentially, that's what it is. There are some good deaths and a sensical ending, but of course it's littered with bad acting and cringe-worthy dialogue as any movie from the series is.

At least this has it's redeeming points ("Hey Vic. Can I help Vic? Want some of my candy bar Vic? *splat!*) and makes more sense than "Jason in Manhattan" where they spend 10 minutes in Manhattan (which was shot in Toronto nonetheless) and has dream sequences that are never really explained.

Overall, an enjoyable slasher, if you can get past the fact that this is an entry to the Friday the 13th series, albeit an irrelevant one.

**1/2 out of *****
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Family Guy (1999– )
Thank you Fox...
5 July 2003
...for cancelling easily the funniest cartoon of all time.

I watched ever single episode of Family Guy, hard as it was, and it was easily the best cartoon ever produced.

But thanks to Fox and their programming brilliance (No cartoons, let's make MORE annoying shows about kids that sing! Genius!) it has to survive on Adult Swim's ever-growing fan base. Really, how hard is it to see that Family Guy would've killed at the 8:30pm Sunday night slot right after the Simpsons? Most people are too lazy to change the channel anyway, and if they knew another cartoon was on, you think the Simpsons crowd would change it to see what's happening on 'The Practice' or whatever the hell is on Sunday nights? Of course not.

That makes too much sense though. Instead, they put it on directly against wrestling (aka the highest rated show for 18-34 year old males aka their biggest target audience) or you had to play the guessing game to guess which night and time it would be on next. Then they cancel it due to poor ratings. Right....

Now Cartoon Network is profiting from Fox's stupidity, and the DVD's are selling like hotcakes. Hopefully that will inspire someone to order new episodes or get Seth to make another show after he finishes some of his latest ventures (like the animated movie he's making with the Farrelly Brothers).

Anyway, Seth MacFarlane (Series creator, voice of Peter, Brian, and Stewie, among others) has a great knowledge of the obscure, and has an overall great sense of humor.

EG:

*Bull is looking at a wine glass inside a glass store*

*ball bursts through the window, breaking everything in the store*

*Manager bursts out the door*

Bull: I know what you're thinking....



It's the type of stuff that will make you laugh just for the sheer obscurity or suprise of it, and will only get funnier the more you think about it.

Now that Family Guy has found it's place on DVD (I'd like to see "Bob Patterson" or some other short-run show sell 400,000 copies at $40 a pop) and on Adult Swim we can only hope for more from the creators.

So buy the DVD, and watch the reruns on Cartoon Network at 11:30 after another great Fox blunder, Futurama.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jackie Brown (1997)
10/10
Quick, sharp, and well thought-out.
8 May 2003
Of all the Tarantino fans I've encountered, none have praised Jackie Brown as highly as I do. "It's alright" is the common answer.

In my opinion, it's one of the most underrated movies of all time. Just because it wasn't ultra-violent and didn't have the snappy dialogue of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction doesn't make it bad.

The characters are smart, like-able, and the type of people you normally wouldn't hang out with. Robert DeNiro put on one of the best performances of his career as the quiet but visually bored Louis Gara who is like the friend that would always rather be somewhere else. Cool and collected, you wonder how long it takes for him to snap.

Sam Jackson is Ordell Robbie, the gun runner who thinks he's cooler than he actually is. Sure, he has the money, the guns, the girls, but it's all just to stroke his own ego as he's not much more than a bumbling cool guy-wannabe.

Then there's Max Cherry, the bail-bondsman who has seen and done it all, and now just wants to sit back and enjoy life, but can never let himself do so.

Jackie Brown is a little bit of everyone. She's been there, done that, and she puts up with stuff she doesn't want to just to get by. One of Pam Grier's best performances.

Character study aside, it's a very well thought out crime caper that comes together very well.

Great direction, good pacing, fantastic characters, and a slick plot, Jackie Brown is not to be overlooked.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed