Chicky5150 Reviews

Kill or Be Killed (2015)

A Film for People that Want Something Different

[7/10 · 3 March 2016]

This film won't appeal to everyone, it's more for people that watch a LOT of movies and tired of formulas.

I can't quite tell you what this film is, at best it's a Weird Western and a good one. I did not know what was going to happen next, and the villains were the protagonists so that different as well.

The strong point is the dialogue, Graves and Meeks have created a patois that is completely captivating. I don't know that it's historically accurate, but it felt like it came from another time, and it made a lot of the scenes work.

Someone else can summarize the film, and those reviews are easy to find. I think that it's more important to set the proper expectation for this film. It doesn't fit neatly into any genre and it isn't predictable. If you can live with that, you're going to like this film.

Absentia (I) (2011)

Massive Spoilers!

[10/10 · 28 March 2012]

This is a brilliant film that just not going to be understood or well received because its too subtle for most people and its only designed for a very small audience.

The plot has been described a few times prior to this, but to quickly review,it involves a woman whose husband goes missing for seven years and just when she's ready to move on, he comes back. But what happened? Why did she suddenly have visions of him right before she was to declare him dead in absentia? Why is he so traumatized? And why does he disappear again?

On a character level, this is a powerful film. The acting is incredible, there are some flat out powerful scenes, and the screenplay understands that film is a visual medium and instead of exposition or dialogue on some scenes writer/director Mike Flanagan shows us what we need to see. He also understands that horror doesn't work unless you care about the people in harm's way.

The supernatural aspect has been difficult for some. The key to understanding seems to be the story referenced in the film 'The Billy Goats Gruff.' The basic idea is that a troll-like creature (that looks more like an insect)is kidnapping and tormenting people in a dimension that is right underneath ours. At times when it is sleeping or distracted people are able to leak through, sometimes as corporal beings, sometimes not.

The horror in the film for me was understanding that the character of the sister causes danger for everyone around her by accident. She meets one of the escapees in a tunnel while jogging, and tries to bring him back food, but only succeeds in capturing the attention of the creature, who we are told tends to fixate on things. This creature thinks that it is negotiating with her for her pregnant sister, the juiciest 'Billy Goat' as it were. It brings her back a fistful of jewelry, but she doesn't know why its done that and despite the warning of one of the victim's sons, she returns the jewelry, which the troll interprets as a negotiation.

Later she receives a bed full of jewelry which she returns to the police out of confusions. The negotiations have closed. And the creature will be coming to collect. This movie has to be watched twice, the first time you are merely confused and curious, on the second go round, you'll have twice the anxiety, because now you under what is happening and when exactly this poor family was doomed.

A spectacular film.

The Innkeepers (2011)

Subtle but Worth It

[10/10 · 3 January 2012]

The Innkeepers is not a film for people that can't pay attention. I've heard it described as initially not very gripping, but there is a lot about this movie that's easy to miss.

The plot is rather straight-forward, two employees spend a weekend in a haunted hotel, but this character driven piece features two of the most realistic people I've seen committed to film. It slowly ratchets up the tension to a nearly unbearable ending.

The strongest thing about the Innkeepers is that it understands film, and it knows that you are familiar with various horror film tropes. It doesn't give you what you expect to see when you expect to see it, and scenes never turn out the way you think they will. This film keeps you off balance until the end.

Also, Sara Paxton is great as the lead, but Pat Healy's character actually is the centerpiece of the film and he has a fuller character arc which can be easily missed.

This is the best genre film since Trick R Treat.

Running Scared (2006)

Strains the suspension of disbelief...and then tears it to bits

[4/10 · 29 January 2007]

I view this film as a missed opportunity. Paul Walker is not one of my favorites, but he does his best work here is not a distraction. Vera Farmiga, (the Hollywood wife of choice) shows that she is a rare talent, and even in an underwritten role she shines again. Visually, there are really well thought out scenes that are both cool and help the story. But the writing lets us all down.

The plot, such as it is, is simple. Walker is a low level criminal who is caught in a drug robbery (done by crooked cops) gone wrong. The cops get shot, the guns are dirty, and he is supposed to get rid of them. Instead he keeps them in his house where his son's best friend Oleg, steals the gun and shoots his abusive John Wayne obsessed Russian father. He takes the gun and runs as everyone looks for him.

The problem is this...Oleg has the worst night in human history, and frankly no one is this unlucky. Oleg is basically a young Jack Bauer. He is accosted by a whispery homeless drug addict and caught in a gun battle, threatened by a terrible pimp, rescued by the hooker with the heart of gold, captured by a couple to make a porno flick (!!), trapped in a closet with a bag over his head and duct tape around his neck (and he lives, even though he is asthmatic), chased by his maniacal father and various thugs and nearly killed in a hockey rink. Running down the gun is a comedy of errors for Walker. This film is so over the top that halfway through it impossible to take seriously, and I began to wonder if it was a satire.

The film has an ending so bad I literally winced at it, and the ending twist makes no sense. The film suffered from a great deal of Hollywood clichés as well. Kramer has good visual ideas, but his writing is rather suspect here.

Smokin' Aces (2006)

Good simple fun

[7/10 · 29 January 2007]

Smoking Aces is unashamed entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that. The plot is simple. A magician turns informer, and lots of really interesting hit-man come after him. There's a twist at the end, but it doesn't matter. This is a fun movie.

It comes from the screenplay. There isn't a huge budget for this film, but if the film is well written, it doesn't matter. There is a good ear for dialogue, and although there are a lot of characters, there is a separate rhythm and visual flair for each character so it is easy to keep them separate. Carnahan lets the scene stealers (Piven, Bateman) free to work, which helps the film. Common and Alicia Keys have actual on screen chemistry, which I haven't seen in so long, I was shocked to see it, in fact, Common is a superstar. We'll see if he gets neglected as the years pass. Carnahan also creates actual character arcs for Ryan Reynolds and Alicia Key's partner which is rare for a movie of this sort. Also he does a great job of creating tension and momentum. You can't wait for the ending in this movie.

Its a pity the studio didn't a lot more money for this gem, they may have had an action classic. A real fun night out.

Sanctimony (2000)

Dr. Boll please read this

[1/10 · 27 December 2006]

You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.

I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.

Superman Returns (2006)

One of the Biggest Disappointments I've Ever Seen

[1/10 · 27 December 2006]

Bryan Singer has accomplished something I thought impossible - he made Superman unlikeable. Superman Returns is Singer squandering the last bit of movie goodwill he got from the Usual Suspects. For a man noted for making scripts make sense, something went horribly wrong.

The movie is this...Superman thinks there is life on Krypton and disappears. When he returns, his girl and his child have moved on, Lex Luthor has been paroled and he must find his way into this modern life.

I suspect this script was written by the same kid who wrote Eragon. Let's see, first Superman goes away for five years. Then Clark Kent returns, and Superman returns on the same day...and no one picks up on that? Superman finally has sex with Lois, and leaves almost immediately after that without any explanation for five years, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? Lois has a new family, with James Marsden, who aside from having nothing to do, must also watch Superman try to move in on his girl. Lex Luthor is an oaf again, by the way. His scheme is to create a continent made of Kryptonite which he will own and parcel out. But Kryptonite is radioactive. It would kill everyone who set foot on it over time including Lex. A single shard of Kryptonite nearly kills Superman, but he is able to get underneath of the continent (made of Kryptonite) and fly it into space using sheer might. Oh, and the kid has super powers. I didn't come to the theater to see the Superman family. Why not add the dog with the cape around his neck? This movie does not hold up to the slightest scrutiny. At two and a half hours, it is also intensely boring. Every moment was an eternity, by the time the credits rolled, I felt like I had watched Dances with Wolves twice.

Kiss your loved one. Play with your children. Get out there and exercise. Read a book, or perhaps write one. Whatever you do, do not allow curiosity cause you to succumb to watching this movie, I implore you.

Masters of Horror: The Fair Haired Child (2006) Season 1, Episode 9

The Best Episode of the Season

[8/10 · 27 December 2006]

William Malone's credentials have been questioned because of his inclusion into the Masters of Horror roster. Ironically, he turns out the best episode yet. The story is very focused, a young, misanthropic girl is kidnapped by the owners of a new abandoned school for music. Information is taken from her, and she is unceremoniously (pardon the pun) dumped into the basement with a mute teenager.

She is the victim of a ceremony, a pact made with dark forces to resurrect the deceased young man in the basement if thirteen other young, health, virgin lives are snuffed out. The twist is that the son transforms into a carnivorous creature that must consume the victims. And he remembers every kill.

Malone has bested everyone else so far. His script has mild twists, but is clear (as opposed to Mr. Carpenter's episode), lean and packs a punch. There is a scene towards the end that is pure horror (not comic horror, re: Landis), something sorely lacking from the series so far. There is no reliance on gore effects, which most directors (re: Argento)have chosen to do. There is no letdown at the end, like the one that marred the otherwise brilliant Miike episode.

There are little nuances that are worth watching. The husband (Anton) seems to be a man at the brink of a nervous breakdown, or perhaps recovering from one. His dialogue is abstract in a good way, and he is neither a stock character nor an unrealistic one. The creature played by Walter Phelan, is unique looking, yet still disturbing. He is shot using an under-cranked camera, an Asian horror movie trick that is used nicely, and the sound effects create a very effective chattering for the beast. It is only on screen for a couple of minutes, but that is the pattern of all great horror films.

Malone is improving with each project. Maybe we'll forgive him for FeardotCom eventually.

Snatch (2000)

Classic film

[10/10 · 3 October 2006]

I am an admitted Anglophile, but this film is simply stunning. Ritchie channels the spirit of Damon Runyon, refines the plot twists from the confusing Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and makes a fantastic film.

I won't even describe the plot because I wouldn't dare ruin the surprises. Suffice to say various elements of the criminal underworld are after a large diamond. The characters are unforgettable, no one seems to be acting, they are simply existing, and Alan Ford's low level gangster 'Brick Top Polford' is the single greatest character I've seen in any film in the last couple of years.

Better than Pulp Fiction.

Masters of Horror: Imprint (2006) Season 1, Episode 13

Absolutely riveting

[8/10 · 3 October 2006]

The best entry yet in the Masters of Horror DVD releases. Perhaps a demented version of Memories of a Geisha, this episode is far more original and sophisticated than any episode so far.

I first have to address one thing. The tight shooting schedule and limited budget seemed to be difficult for everyone else, but for Miike it is no obstacle. This looks like an epic movie. Miike then takes a really cool script and adds great jump scenes in the first half. The torture scene is a little long but the violence and sexual content in the film doesn't seem tacked on like the other episodes. (I'm looking at you Argento)It has a relevance to the story, it exists to forward the plot.

The plot is this: A journalist travels to an island to find a prostitute he fell in love with and promised to rescue. He meets a deformed women who tells him what happened to his love, who is now dead, except she isn't telling him the whole truth, and every time he presses her she adds another detail...

There are a few weaknesses of course, the torture scenes are a touch long, a concession to the Masters of Horror expectations. Billy Drago seems to be an actor that needs the firm hand of his director because he is terrible here, and because Miike doesn't know English, he can't help him. This probably should have been subtitled. The ending owes a bit to 'Basket Case' and strains the suspension of belief for the audience. But this was so much more interesting than the other episodes.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

A dumbed-down remake

[7/10 · 14 August 2006]

On its own, this is a very capable and professional movie. But I have to rate it badly because it is a remake of a brilliant film...and most of the things that made the original excellent were omitted from the remake. This is yet another film that banks on recognition of its elder, and does not really respect the source.

The omissions are substantial. Romero's film starts out with media confusion and a look at what the authorities are doing to combat the living dead. Even as hell is breaking out, media talking heads argue with each other. This is left out in the remake, missing the opportunity for satire, and narrowing the scope of the film. The group's presence in the mall is a brilliant testimony to the emptiness of material things, but this was omitted in the remake. This is the whole point of them being in the mall in the first place! The bikers overwhelm the mall at point in the original, showing man to be as savage as the enemy (and perhaps even deserving the plague of the living dead?) this was omitted as well.

Everything that makes Romero's movies more than a bit of splatter was left out. (Oh, and zombie babies are not horrifying, they are comic. Ask Peter Jackson.)So why remake a film classic, if you aren't going to introduce the elements that make it great? This is another attempt to cash in on a name by a studio.

Needful Things (1993)

Sydow carries the movie

[7/10 · 28 April 2006]

Needful Things is an unexpected gem of a movie. I think its subtlety worked against it. Looking at the comments here, I think people missed the point of Max von Sydow's performance.

The plot is simple. Leland Grant (the Devil) moves into a small town and opens up a shop that can get you anything you want, but he'll ask you for a favor. The favors exploit tensions in the town, causing people to turn on each other.

Ed Harris is solid as the town sheriff, but he isn't given a lot to do, neither is his fiancée Bonnie Bedalia. This movie belongs to its the villains, the town politician J.T. Walsh unravels over the course of the movie, and von Sydow is utterly brilliant.

This would be an easy role to overact on. You could be the mustache twirling villain quite easily, but Leland Gaunt is grandfatherly, likable, a complete gentleman. As he manipulates and torments, he never seems sinister which makes it a much more complex and rewarding performance. I think it was quite a choice to play him that way, he really took something on paper, and made more of it.

Some movies are great in their entirety, and some just have great performances. The movie isn't perfect, but has a great performance.

Judge Dredd (1995)

A confused film that deviated from the source

[5/10 · 24 April 2006]

One of the biggest questions I have when watching a film is determining which is more frustrating: a film with no redeemable value which does not entertain, or a film that could have been great with a few alterations. Judge Dredd is the latter. The director claims that Stallone overpowered the movie as it was originally done, and I wonder about that.

One of the things that dooms the movie is its ignorance of the conceit of the comic book: Judge Dredd is not a character. 2000 A.D. was not interested in his background, he had no character arc, in fact, he never took his helmet off, and was never shown off duty. Dredd is an adventure story at its purest, filled with colorful characters, and fantasy/sci-fi locations.

The movie mimics the non-stop mayhem of the comics books, something was always happening. Rob Schneider's character was an attempt to replicate the cheeky perp that always gets stuck with Dredd while he's in the middle of some adventure, except he was used sparingly and never got annoying. The film ignored that as well. Judge Hershey and the reporter character hold this film back as well, as part of a clumsy lecture on totalitarian justice, but that sort of thing has no place in a movie like this.

Sadly, this is a film with really cool ideas, and great movie serial fun, that was hampered by a couple really bad stylistic choices.

Masters of Horror: John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns (2005) Season 1, Episode 8

Before you Die You See the Ring - Major Spoilers

[31 March 2006]

The problem with being a critic is that eventually someone will ask if you can do better. I enjoy Ain't it Cool News, and I enjoy writer Drew McWeeny aka Moriarty, and so I was looking forward to him writing for the legendary John Carpenter.

The plot is as follows. A washed out theater owner is asked to retrieve a lost film, one that inspired its audience to rip each other to shreds. He's haunted by his past drug use, and vision of his druggie girlfriend who committed suicide in his bathtub. Her father is the one that gave him the money for the theater, and he wants his money back now. He sets out to retrieve the film, despite warnings that it was produced by evil. He runs across a snuff filmmaker, and the director's wife before he actually gets the film. Apparently it gets its power because the collector (Udo Kier) tortured an angel and recorded it. Eventually, the film causes everyone to hallucinate and kill each other. The angel escapes and takes the film.

A lot of this plays like a gory version of Ringu. The cigarette burns that appear on screen before something happens, look and are treated like Verbinski's Ring jump cuts. The film causes bad dreams, and eventually becomes real...just like The Ring. At the end, the visions step out of the screen...just like the Ring. Sadly this episode isn't as deliberate as the Ring, since it had various set pieces of gore for gore's sake.

In one scene a woman is beheaded by a snuff filmmaker (she is rather calm about it too-) and our hero is in danger...until he blacks out. When he wakes up, everyone is lying on the ground. Huh? Our hero was given $200,000 to open a theater by his girlfriend's father, and he is fighting to keep it open, but I'm not sure why. In the end, the angel takes the film, and says thank you, to the room full of dead people. Why did he take the film? Where is he going to go? Why wasn't the hero more surprised to see him when he was revealed? I guarantee you, if I see an angel chained in a hidden room, I'm going to have lots of questions.

But the most damning thing, the worst mistake of all, is that Carpenter shows us the film. Its been built for an hour as the most horrible thing ever, and it looks like a student music video. The audience should never have known what the film looked like.

V for Vendetta (2005)

A Preachy Adaptation

[2/10 · 20 March 2006]

This movie is doomed by the quality of its source material. The movie and plot are utterly undermined by the Wachowski brother's preachy style of storytelling. The graphic novel is a flawed but brilliant work, losing some steam and focus in the middle, but combining a revenge story with larger themes about how governments go wrong, and why people let them do it.

But the movie inexplicably adds a subplot about a killer virus, takes away the motivation and screen time of all the "villians," removes a great deal of the action from the book, makes the motivation of the characters inconsistent, and the internal logic of the film shaky. No wonder Moore wants nothing to do with films of his work.

Doom (2005)

Ambitious Failure (Reviewer has not played game)

[6/10 · 9 March 2006]

First of all, I don't know why this movie was called Doom. The game is about people shooting up hell or something, and this is a sci-fi movie where under-written Marines fight mutated scientists and the re-animated dead.

It starts nicely self-referential, and builds nicely. A few Marines are sent to investigate a scientific experiment gone wrong (and how!)and they get picked off one by one by rubbery monsters. There are a few interesting stabs at establishing characters, but you're not going to remember more than two people when this movie is done.

Then the script gets ambitious, and that's when this movie both succeeds and sets itself up to fail. The Rock's character goes bad, and becomes infected. Its a great moment, right when the movie is in overdrive, and suddenly Karl Urban is the lead. Really clever, never saw it coming and totally liked it. Then there is the great first person POV action scenes, including the best monster in the film in a chainsaw battle.

It sets up for an epic hand-to-hand battle with the Rock...that completely lets you down. The combat is bad wire-fu, and the Rock is changing into something - that we never actually see. Are you kidding? In a movie about monsters, the Rock never turns into a end boss monster? You got a horrible fight out of a professional wrestler? And then the movie ends, and you realize that end was anti-climatic, there were only a couple monsters, and you still don't care about Karl Urban or his scientist sister. (Why wasn't she killed by the way? Everyone else in the building was killed? She was knocked out?)

The Descent (2005)

Compare this to "The Cave" to really appreciate it

[8/10 · 8 March 2006]

Great movie with probably one tenth the budget of American film "The Cave", but far more effective.

The movie is simple, a group of friends, including a woman who has lost her family in a car accident, go spelunking and find a culture of cave-dwelling carnivores. Its the execution that makes this exceptional.

The cast is entirely women, yet there is no leering nude/makeout scene. This movie does not insult the viewer. Instead of large, well-lighted sets, and uninteresting character buildup, the movie is lean, and even though the first creature isn't spotted until roughly forty five minute mark, the beginning never drags. Its claustrophobic, well shot and framed, convincingly acted, and I refuse to spoil a really cool horror movie ending. So of course, it hasn't been released here yet, and we may never see, and I suspect if it is released, the studio support will be flaccid.

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

Style over substance and pretty much anything else.

[7/10 · 9 January 2006]

This is a well shot movie by a visually gifted director. Its filled with genre actors I like, and they're getting a chance to stretch their acting ranges in most cases. The special effects looked real, and the soundtrack was great. On a technical level, this was a triumph. On every other level, this was disturbing, and not in the way the director intended.

The story - such as it is - is simple. The brother of Sheriff Wadell, killed in the first family, hunts the murderous Firefly clan down to kill them as revenge. They flee pursuit, killing and humiliating along the way until they reach a brothel, where there is a final conflict with a couple bounty hunters and the sheriff.

The thing is - there is no one to root for. Zombie seems to want us to root for the killers, but that is impossible, these people are monstrous. The very fact that he wants to care about them is disturbing. The sheriff eventually becomes as bad as they are, and the victims are simply used and discarded. There is no emotional attachment to this film, I'm watching people I don't like hurt each other. Watching Zombie create this movie is sort of like going over Niagara falls in a barrel. Its hard to do, and if you survive its an accomplishment, but I fail to see the purpose in doing it.

Dolls (1986)

Execution over substance - Spoilers Galore

[6/10 · 3 January 2006]

Acting, editing, and great direction overcome a questionable script in this fun little movie. The plot is simple, six people caught in a storm break into a quaint old house, with two friendly elderly people. The husband is a dollmaker, whose dolls come to life at night, and kill the the unpleasant people. Gordon creates a a nice movie with only eight cast members, one house, a low budget, and probably not much time to shoot. The elderly couple provide class to the movie, the other actors are more comic in nature, and for a living doll movie its gorier than you would think. The dolls are creepy, especially when they are not being stop motion animated. But the script-

Well, nothing about the movie holds up in the writing department. The elderly couple are revealed to be turning people into dolls to reform them. But how does that work? Why are the people under their control once they're dolls? How does she do it? Why are the boxes with the dancing skeletons throughout the film? If people are transformed into dolls by magic, why are there workshops full of doll parts? Why were the other people killed and not turned into dolls? When Carolyn Purdy-Gordon is tossed out of a window to her death, why do they go outside and put her back in bed?

This is a fun movie, but too badly written to fulfill its visual delight.

Hulk (2003)

An Unjustly Maligned Movie - Mild Spoilers I Suppose

[9/10 · 28 December 2005]

Ang Lee takes a simple idea and tries to reinvent it and mostly succeeds. Sadly, most people are familiar with the seventies television show where a scientist turned into a hulking bodybuilder with a green wig whenever he got mad, something that would have been laughed off of the screen.

Instead this is about a driven scientist who experiments on his own son, a son with a repressed memory. After an accident with radiation, whenever he starts to remember this incident he turns into a massive computer generated giant. He'll need his new abilities to fight the return of his father - and the entire military.

The attacks against this movie are laughable, mostly because people haven't considered the other options. The Hulk doesn't appear for a while. In most great movies, the pivotal character doesn't appear early, Jaws being the best example of that. The character is computer generated. A man in a wig would have been laughed out of theaters, so it was computer generated. Yeah, it looked fake, since there are no fifteen foot tall green men around. Let it go. Yeah, every time he gets mad, he doesn't turn into the Hulk. That was cool for the television show, but for a two + plus hour movie, that would have been stupid. Basically, every time he was in a traffic jam, out of decaf coffee, or dropped his pen, he would turn into the Hulk. This is a cool movie that requires some patience. Yeah, its a little overwrought, but an ambitious film that misses excellence is still pretty good.

King Kong (2005)

Mild Spoilers I suppose- Modern Classic

[8/10 · 28 December 2005]

This movie is better than the original. It is dismaying to see the criticism that this fantastic movie has had to endure from an ungrateful audience. This is the adventure film at its finest. Its Indiana Jones good.

It is roughly an hour before our motley crew reaches Monster Island. As far as hours go, this is as interesting as character development and mood get in an adventure movie. There are people we like or chuckle at, and a place we can't wait to see.

Monster Island is one of the great locations in modern film history, filled with a hierarchy of creatures, where Kong proves that in his natural environment, he is indisputeably the king. Once he takes Ann, they establish a incredible relationship, one that makes more sense and is a lot less suggestive than the original movie. Of course, he is taken off of the island, and you know the rest.

It is a great movie. The bad guys do not die. The good people do not do well. And the most interesting character in the movie is the ape in a wordless performance from Andy Serkis. I don't know how it could have been better.

The Brothers Grimm (2005)

Terrible Film- Mild spoilers? Can you spoil a bad film?

[3/10 · 28 December 2005]

Its debatable whether the worst films are utterly hopeless, or films with great moments that form a terrible whole. This is one of the latter. There are really interesting scenes, and good lines and laughs in this film, but in the end, it is so uneven that the effect is lost.

The (spoilerless?) story is this - bickering one-dimensional brothers Grimm fake the existence of fairy tale monsters (using technology from our day apparently, they might as well have worn wristwatches) until a French General (a wasted Jonathan Pryce) sends them to investigate children disappearing in a forest until the watchful eye of a bumbling Italian (a wasted Peter Stormare) who can barely be understood. The children disappear in wildly varying ways, using a great deal of unconvincing computer graphics. This all relates to a mysterious woman (a wasted Monica Bellucci) in a tower in the forest. This was directed by an obviously frustrated (dare I say wasted?) Terry Gilliam, and written by Ehren Krueger. I reserve my contempt for his script since I know it was altered with, but his last few movies have shown diminished returns. (Except for Skeleton Key, which was clearly the only movie he really wanted to write.)

Please avoid this film.

Van Helsing (2004)

***SPOILERS*********** (not that it matters)

[1/10 · 19 April 2005]

I cannot urge viewers strongly enough to avoid this movie. I just wanted summer fun and classic Universal monsters, and I didn't even get that. This is a terrible movie at every level a movie can be bad. The plot is inexplicable. Dracula needs Frankenstein's body to reproduce his hybrid miniature vampire spawn which makes you wonder how vampires survived until Frankenstein was made. Jackman goes through every scene with his eyebrow cocked like this is a James Bond audition, managing to fight a variety of creatures without mussing his carefully maintained haircut. Richard Roxborough conjures up the spirit of Count Chocula in the worst Dracula performance I've ever seen, and I include the Andy Warhols, and the Spanish versions in the 70's. Frankenstein's monster spends the whole movie as the damsel in distress. The Wolf man has no characterization whatsoever. The CGI is so bad, they would have been off simply using animation. This movie is so bad, one begins to wonder if this film's financing should have simply been used to feed the hungry in some developing country instead of this forgettable waste of celluloid. Loathsome.

Titus (1999)

Strong lead performances, not much else

[5/10 · 30 April 2004]

Inexplicably, the director tries to spice up Shakespeare's bloodiest play. The film jumps from one time period to another, often confusing or distracting from the narrative. Anthony Hopkins is restrained but rather good as the wronged general (with serious echoes of his role in Hannibal around the end), Alan Cumming is scene stealing in his role (very similiar to the J. Phoenix role in Gladiator), Lange is miscast, but excellent as Queen of the Goths. But Taymor's eye for spectacle undermines the story. Chronological distractions aside, there are badly done dream sequences, Lange's overacting simian twins, a child that keeps popping up although he's five hundred years in the future.

SPOILER !!!!

A Knight and Two Oscar winners are performing a play where a murderess eats her two rapist/murderer sons in a pie in front of a newly mutilated general and his maimed daughter. It doesn't need to be 'jazzed up.'