Change Your Image
SlayerRob
Reviews
Zombi 2 (1979)
Disappointing. Stick to Romero's work.
One thing I always liked about Romero's movies is that while the plots were never very complex, he was able to give depth to the characters, create a fantastic atmosphere, and actually allow the characters to develop (with of course the exception of the caricaturic characters in Day of the Dead). He was able to keep the movies moving forward without slowing down too much.
After I saw the Dead trilogy I wanted something else like it, I wanted more, more "Zombie" films. So when I heard of this one, and we got it in at work, I had to see it.
I don't expect pieces of artwork when I see a zombie film. However, I expect certain standards out of it nonetheless.
The characters are very paper thin. You know very little about each person who appears, and also care very little about them. The acting is worse than normal for the genre, and the pacing is dreadful. After the pretty captivating opening sequence of the movie, another zombie doesn't appear for 20-30 minutes, and after that, it seems like an eternity before the next one appears.
If the plot was thick and motivating and if the characters were doing anything interesting in the hiatuses between zombie appearances, this would not have mattered. But during those long gaps, virtually nothing happens. Plot points are repeated ad nauseam. The doctor who runs the hospital repeatedly brings up voodoo and questions it, in the same manner, over and over again.
The gore is a bit overrated. The eyeball piercing is great, and the circle of dead zombies eating the doctor's wife is fairly interesting, but other than that, you mostly get neck and arm bites, and that's it. No cool dismemberments like in Romero's series, decapitations, or much else. Not good enough to carry the entire film.
Worth a weekend rental if you're drinking alcohol or smoking dope, but not much else.
Fakin' Da Funk (1997)
Doesn't make the grade (some spoilers)
This film started out right, but crashed into the ground by the end.
Julian is an Asian adopted into a black family, due to a mistake. He grows up raised by his black family and basically turns out to adopt the mannerisms and culture despite being Asian. This does make a good point that environment and not race has a lot to do with one's overall makeup. But I digress...
After Julian's father dies, they later move into a new home in a new city, and the other people aren't sure quite how to take Julian (which leads to a quite comical showdown on the basketball court). Julian meets an attractive Black love interest, which is complicated due to his racial dissonance, and also encounters problems with the local ganglord, Froggy, who happens to take Julian's brother under his wing and get him into trouble.
There are quite a few funny parts in this movie. The basketball showdown (the first one) is quite comical, and the scene at dinner with Julian and his soon-to-be-girl is great too.
But what is the deal with Margaret Cho's character? She barely fits into the movie at all, and you could basically remove her from the movie altogether and it would not harm the film at all or even alter it much.
Too much of the film is steeped in an attempt to make a statement, which is fine, but the film doesn't seem to know what statement it's making. And a lot of it seems nonsensical.
Froggy is a believable thug for a while, but let's be realistic--what drug lord would put his rather good idea to have the Asian sell his drugs on the line, along with his money, for a basketball game? If he loses, he is out ten thousand bucks for nothing, no investment. And what would make such a fearsome, angry drug lord keep his promise at the end of the game? I would think him to be angry and perhaps renege on his bet, not just walk off the court innocently and say "let them punks have they fun".
The part where Julian's brother starts to hang out with Froggy seems to come out of nowhere, it isn't explained or developed, just thrust at you, which really lessens the impact a lot.
The description by Julian's mother to his new girl about his last relationship also comes out of nowhere, isn't explained much, and is another element thrust into the story at the last minute which convolutes it a bit.
The movie seems to shift from tackling concepts and beliefs of race and how we are products of our environments and how people should accept each other for who they are into a grafted on piece of the story in which his brother needs a heart operation because he has the same condition as his father, and must decide whether to accept money from a drug lord or not.
Too much of the movie was not believable, and too much of it wasn't funny. Nice attempt.
The Omen (1976)
Fantastic Horror Film
If you were to find out that the reason your child had been acting funny was that because not only was he the epitome of all evil, but also the son of Satan, what would YOU do?
That is the dilemma faced by Gregory Peck's character in this film, in a very suspenseful, eerie tale of diabolical nightmares.
The acting in this film is terrific, and Gregory Peck's performance is impeccable, which really takes the film to another level.
The pacing of the film works very well, with many suspenseful buildups of impending horror, including some of the most classic scenes of all time.
The decapitation, Priest impaling, Damien's famous "tricycle ride", Damien's first signs of trouble at the church at a wedding, and the gravesite dig's revelation that Damien's mother was a jackal are all fantastic scenes, classics.
The film paces itself so well so that up until the very end you can feel the hairs stand on the back of your neck.
The second film was good, but didn't touch this one, and the third suffered from inconsistencies and continuity problems within the series. But this one is almost flawless.
Orange County (2002)
More terrible than "Faking the Funk", and that was bad enough
When it comes to comedies, I like all sorts of movies. I tend to prefer comedies that contain wit, subtle humor, and generally comical situations instead of one-liners that aren't too over the top, sometimes stuff like Royal Tenenbaums, but also Grosse Point Blank type stuff.
I like classic comedies ("Animal House"), slapsticky stage-to-screen stuff ("Noises Off"), and even low brow comedies, such as Wet Hot American Summer, which was over the top, yet did a nice job satirizing the typical 80's comedy and it's absurdity.
But dear God, I have no room for the utter stupidity and lameness that is Orange County.
I like Jack Black, but let's face it--the guy has no middle ground. He's either in great movies and is great in them, or is in horrible movies and is horrible in them. But he didn't have much to work with in this one. His character was one of the most irritating ones I've seen on screen in a long time.
The premise was stupid to begin with--a very dumb 'intelligent' guy (how's that for an oxymoron) is convinced he needs to leave home to start his life anew and make something of himself. Can't say I blame him with all the idiots in his life, either.
The movie was way too absurd to be funny. For those of you who say that was the point, I like absurd comedies. I love Cannibal: The Musical and Wet Hot American Summer because while both went over the top in their goofiness, both movies were clever at times, and satirical or spoofy at others, and when they were mindless, they were so hilarious that you didn't care. And a lot of their jokes were SUBTLE...and when they weren't, they were still funny.
This movie satirizes or spoofs nothing well, isn't clever, and the absurd bits are so over the top and stupid that it ruins the joke. Some people need to know that subtlety can take humor farther in comedic situations than screaming and yelling, and having general chaos explode in every scene. There are limits to how over the top you can go, and movies like these insult the audiences. You can't even sit through this movie knowing it's mere entertainment and enjoy it.
Every joke seemed to rival one that you'd find on the current incarnation of Saturday Night Live (which is not saying much), and it's humor generally resulted in our lead character getting buried in a frustrating situation, and chaos ensuing, whether it be the grandpa banging on the door after not getting his pills, or Jack Black's "pee" being served and him crawling out in his underwear. All tired, cliched attempts at "humor" that fall flat. If this is all it takes to make people laugh, then good lord, standards have fallen.
Avoid this movie like the plague. I only went to see this movie to pass two hours until a new release came out at Virgin Megastore, but I still was p***ed after leaving the theatre that I had to sit through something THIS unfunny.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)
Downright Stupid - Spoilers
Ever seen a running back tear his ACL and return the following season a mere fragment of what he was before?
This movie is like that running back.
It was mentioned in another comment on here how the first movie was a "mindless horror film" and the second one at least had "real people". I must assume this person accidentally switched the DVDs in his/her cases before he/she watched the movie.
The first Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a low-fi, gritty, dark horror film that left a lot up to the imagination and had a generally creepy vibe throughout. The atmosphere was great--a family of murderous cannibals, who even make furniture out of the limbs and skeletons, and Leatherface wears masks made out of skin. The hitchhiker gave a truly great performance with one of the snidest smiles I ever saw, and Marilyn Burns has the best scream I've ever heard. Not a super-intelligent movie, no, but really atmospheric and dark.
This movie is just pure cheese. I am sure some of it was intentional (Chop Top was obviously inserted for comic relief, except I'm not sure what we're being 'relieved' from, since it wasn't scary), but I'm wondering how much wasn't.
The film takes the gore up thirty notches, but most of it is cartoonish and stupid, proving more gore doesn't mean more thrills. Gunnar Hansen is out as Leatherface and his replacement looks like he's trying to do the Funky Chicken while he plays with his chainsaw, and he seriously looks like Quasimodo. Two kids making harassing phone calls to a radio station get sliced to pieces (or at least rubber cutouts of them do) while making the call, and the radio DJ Stretch plays it on the air, prompting a visit from Leathermodo and Chop Top. Leatherface spares her, instead attempting to get her off with his turned-off chainsaw (I am not making this up, I swear). They kill her partner, who they later skin, and leave, and she follows them, where she lands in a body pit.
The remainder of the film is lots of screaming, hollering, and yelling, and Dennis Hopper does his best Barney Phife impersonation, while Drayton Sawyer (the cook) seems to do a complete 180 from his character the previous movie (wasn't he the squeamish one when it came to killings?)
I can't believe what a huge dropoff this is from the first movie. some bits are so bad they're hilarious, but if I want to watch a 'so bad it's good' comedic horror film, I'll watch Evil Dead 2. Actually, that one wasn't 'so bad it's good', the funny bits were cleverly planned.
HORRIBLE movie.
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
Michael Myers is explained...or is he?
"Play to your strengths" is advice all moviemakers should remember.
Let's face it, Halloween isn't art. It's fun. It's a mindless slasher film that's fun.
The first two movies are pretty enjoyable (although they hold up poorly over repeated watches). Didn't see the third.
The fourth and fifth movies were atrociously bad. And they attempted to introduce an element to "explain" Michael Myers.
Good god, people, don't introduce plot twists that you don't plan on expounding on or explaining coherently.
I barely remember much of this movie, which shows you how compelling it was.
They attempt to explain Michael Myers saying he heard 'voices' and try to tie him in with those dumb idiots who wear black, but never really fill in much of the details. Not that it matters, the plot is the same anyway otherwise.
If you're making mindless slasher, do it. Don't attempt to be intelligent if you can't be.
SUCKS.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)
FOR THE LAST TIME
This is NOT BASED ON A TRUE STORY. There WAS no real Leatherface. I don't care what anybody said. This has been established a million times, so all the twits who have said it's based on a real occurrence are wrong.
Leatherface is BASED on a few individuals, namely Ed Gein, but just LOOSELY.
FYI, it's a kickass movie too. The acting's typically dry for a slasher flick, although I think Marilyn Burns does a pretty good job. Leatherface is awesome and those other homicidal rednecks are some of the most demented I've seen.
I think the concept is what is the most disturbing, which one of the above posters (re: THIS is a classic?) missed. A family of homicidal rednecks who live out in the middle of nowhere and collect god knows what, limbs, corpses, skulls (this and the skin masks ae basically what were lifted from Gein)...most slasher films are about boring twits with hockey masks or posers who invade dreams.