Change Your Image
brainfood-1
Reviews
The Whisperers (1967)
Leonard Rossiter fans will enjoy his cameo : )
There are many goo reasons to watch this gritty, incredibly depressing and yet rewarding film, but the biggest thrill for me was the unexpected cameo by Leonard Rossiter. As someone who watched "The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin" as a young teen (which had a huge impact on me) and who thinks Leonard was a one-of-a-kind actor, one of those rare performers who is so unique he cannot be imitated or duplicated, any glimpse of him performing different kinds of roles is always a treat to come across. It's great to see him playing a bit part here, completely convincing (as always) and without a hint of humor, again showing he was just an incredible actor first, who later became known for being a truly exceptional comedic performer with such characters as Rigsby the landlord in Rising Damp. If you are a fan, it's great to get a glimpse of him from 1967.
Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)
The only Halloween film yet that I like besides the original - NO SPOILERS
I'm not going to read other people's reviews or give a detailed summary. Honestly, horror films with an interesting and original story are rare, very rare. I put this script right up there with "The Wicker Man." I'm a lifelong fan of horror, but if there is one thing I have to acknowledge it is that the typical horror film seems to be severely lacking in the imagination department, which to me is unbelievably sad. I can't tell you how many times I've seen "OMG worst movie ever where is michael meyers!" type comments on clips from youtube etc. I cannot think of anything more boring that seeing that same stalk and slash crap over and over, and I am absolutely amazed by critics who slammed this movie when it was released, virtually all of whom have since written endless reviews for horror movies decrying a lack of originality or a story. To me, this is the only one in the whole franchise including Zombie's wholly unnecessary remakes that is worth anything at all, besides Carpernter's original. I like this movie so much I made an animated homage on goanimate. And of course, nobody seems to recognize what movie it is.
Cyber Seduction: His Secret Life (2005)
A cybersex "Reefer Madness" - Hilarious
Hilarious. This is better thought of as something akin to a particularly bad "ABC After School Special" than an actual film. It also does for internet porn what the original "Reefer Madness" did for marijuana, meaning it is completely laughable, has a one sided, religious moral agenda, and appears to have been written by people with no first hand understanding of the subject matter. And if you have no sense of humor about this because addiction can be such serious business, then I suggest you should be angry instead at the makers of this film for producing something so unrealistic, preachy and silly.
One part that had me laughing was when our hero is berated by his fellow MALE TEENAGE teammates for being into "freaky porn" stuff on the internet. But is this film set at Liberty Baptist University and or some such puritanical environment? Nope. It's a regular school, a school where completely unrealistic male teenage boys live, apparently. Oh, and despite this aversion to porn, one of these same teammates has a psycho nymphomaniac exhibitionist girlfriend who features in the plot. Confused? Well, how about a teenage boy addicted to porn on the internet, who knows "a lot about computers" (according to his little brother) and how to get around parental lock programs and spy ware on a computer, but apparently doesn't know how to find porn on the internet WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT? And he also can't pay for it without using his Mom's credit card. But my favorite unintentionally funny scene shows Mom and Dad desperately trying to close incessant porno pop up ads on the family computer, treating it with such drama as to make you think this incident will scar them both irrevocably.
In a sickeningly transparent scene near the end, our swimmer hero porn addict tries to apologize to his girlfriend (who happens to have a prominently displayed Jesus poster in her bedroom) and says he wants to go to church. Note the ridiculous use of the word "radical," and how it is suggested that going to church is tied in with redeeming oneself (in particular how the girlfriend offers hope they will have a future, but only AFTER he says he'll go to church). And in the end when our swimmer hero plunges into the water and has his moment where he decides he "wants to live," the baptism/born again metaphor is rather thick, as is the cheesy music. And I've never seen anyone smile so soon after attempting suicide. He must be thinking of going to church. I also find it interesting that this film has so much sympathy for a boy addicted to cyber porn (maybe because he grows a conscience when faced with actual sex?) but seems to have nothing but contempt for the girl he's drawn to in his mania, even though she is apparently the same age and has not only a addiction to sex but also a mental illness. We're only supposed to like our spineless hero and the girl with the Jesus poster, I guess.
In Between Days (2006)
Quite astonishing and haunting - One of the best films I've seen this year.
This film is unfortunately destined to only be truly appreciated by a smaller audience, due to it's subject matter, which is a crying shame. I thought of the Italian neo-realists as I watched this film, and how this was a wonderful example of how film can illuminate the sometimes hidden sides of ordinary life. The acting was almost imperceptible, which I mean as a high compliment. The performances are so natural and relaxed in the sense that everything is allowed to be very low key and real, you never have a sense that you are watching actors. They seem to be real people whose lives you are gaining a temporary window in to, which combined with the lingering, atmospheric cinematography which often clings closely to the characters, creates a stunning (and very difficult to achieve) sense of reality. It's funny, and only partly relevant, but I have to give a personal example of how this film affected me. I have been the only non-Japanese member in 4 bands, and spent a few years surrounded by mostly Japanese people and culture. While Japanese culture was always a personal fascination for me, and it was an incredible experience to play with bands whose music I loved, to my dismay and discredit, I eventually found myself feeling alienated. Much of my joy seemed to, against my wishes, turn to a slight bitterness and a loneliness that to this day I find difficult to explain, and which I mostly kept inside and never shared with my Japanese friends. What was once a feeling of elation had somehow turned into a feeling that I was always going to be an outsider, and I'm not so sure that I have anyone to blame for this feeling except for myself. This film, while dealing entirely with a different culture, made me examine these feelings, and it gave me, I think, a better understanding of how many of my band mates (several of which I lived with for a few years) may have felt living here in NYC. Again, not that any of it specifically applied, but it is that rare kind of movie that causes you to examine your own life and think about other people, many of which you may only meet peripherally, and how they struggle with happiness in day to day life. On a unrelated note, here in Manhattan I have often seen Asian women who perhaps did not fit the mold of the cute, perky westernized or "Hello Kitty" anime gal that men seem to prefer, and noted in some an almost palpable unhappiness, a sense that this person is lonely and kind of lost in this busy city and culture. Certainly this can be applied to anyone we pass on the street and happen to notice wears some quality of sadness, but what was truly haunting about this film is I suddenly felt like I understood one of these small lost stories, so to speak. It made me examine my own feelings of alienation and how I arrived at them, and it made me think about how my Japanese friends felt, living in NYC and so far away from the country and culture of their birth, and also why, perhaps, they seemed to cling to their own cultures and remain with other Japanese, despite having chosen to move to NY. If all this seems rambling and unclear, it's my own fault for not being able to put how this film made me feel in to words. It's one of the rare films I have ever seen that made me think about the real people we know in our lives and pass on the street every day, and I cannot help but think if everyone were to have this experience cinematically, we might all begin to understand one another better, and also know how much we are all alike.
The Last Winter (2006)
H. P. Lovecraft might have liked a lot about this movie...
I HAVE TRIED TO REMAIN AS VAGUE AS POSSIBLE TO NOT SPOIL ANYTHING FOR ANYONE WHO HASN'T SEEN THIS FILM. Howard Phillips Lovecraft was not a fan of movies. I think he found it a crass and far too literal medium, and once can argue it's not ideally suited to capture his "unnameable" cosmic horror. But I think "The Last Winter" comes damn close to telling a story that Lovecraft himself would like and in a manner he might have approved of (I back this assertion up by referring to both Lovecraft's "Supernatural Horror in Literature" and books like "Lovecraft at Last" which detail his correspondence with aspiring writers). I did not like everything about this movie, but I think it comes about the closest, of any film I've seen to date, to capturing the spirit of Lovecraft on screen. (here's hoping Del Torro makes the "At the Mountains of Madness" that he's talked about). I really enjoy Stuart Gordon's films (and some other HPL adaptations like Dan O Bannon's "The Resurrected" ) but his films have always had a comic sensibility that is ONLY present in Lovecraft's original story "Herbert West, Reanimator." Otherwise, Lovecraft's writing is deadly serious and virtually devoid of humor. And Gordon's literal blood and guts approach (and inclusion of sex, much as I enjoy both in many films) would have absolutely "horrified" Lovecraft had he lived to see them. And it's truly sad to me that 95% of all the film "adaptations" of his stories seem to only be seeking free publicity by using his name and a few of his terms. (anyone who refers to his "mythos" often forgets that this was more of a construction by August Derleth and other writers who loved Lovecraft and sought to emulate him, but it's not HPL himself who created it - he would have especially been displeased with the way his "mythos" was reduced to simple warring between good and evil gods - it's not the cosmic horror he describes at all) There are some wonderful (though I may only be seeing them or associating them because of my own study of horror films over my life time) similarities to some of my favorite classic horror films which suggest Fessenden may have found some inspiration there, and shares the love for them that I do. To avoid spoilers, I will try to remain as vague as I can. ex. The "footsteps" sound and approaching entity reminded me immediately of "Curse of the Demon." The bits about oil reminded me of "X The Unknown." The setting and paranoia reminded me of Carpenter's version of "The Thing." I could go on, but I will leave it there to avoid sounding like I am stating the film is unoriginal, because I don't feel it is. I did not like everything about this film, to be clear. I think in some patches of dialog, it becomes a bit too preachy and telegraphs it's message about the environment in some almost cringe-worthy moments (not that I do not share the sentiment entirely, I just think it loses some credibility by wearing it so clearly on it's sleeve, and some of the audience whom I believe this message is designed for will just tune out because they will spot the preaching so easily - some of those knucklenobs will just dismiss it as an "Al Gore Horror Movie," which would be horribly unfair). I think some of the camera moves, mostly in the first part of the film, are awkward and draw far too much attention to themselves, doing a disservice to the story because they pull you out of it. (examples are a long sequence which moves from outside window to outside window to look in, and another bit when they are playing football) As for the limited use of special effects, which I truly appreciated, I know they will be laughed at by some people who expect photo realistic entities. The only effect I found irritating and artificial was the repeated use of unconvincing digital snow flakes. As for what visions appear clearly to the characters, I thought they were inspired, if you remember that what they are seeing may only be a kind of "fever dream" or hallucination. As with Larry's other films, the acting is top notch, all around. Ron Pearlman especially surprised me, by playing what could have otherwise been a stock "evil protagonist" both convincingly and with great dimension. And Legros is excellent. I did not care for "Wendigo," an earlier film of Fessenden's (though I enjoyed some of the echoes of it that surface in "The Last Winter" such as with the native woman in the camp and with the early glimpses that inspire the "Do you see it" reaction) because I have a personal distaste for films that appear to be supernatural horror but boil literally down to simple "moral tales" a la "An American Haunting" (which I despised and liken to an "ABC After School Special). However, I though "Habit" was excellent and one of the more original "vampire" films ever made, though the reality in the story remains unclear. This film falls quite satisfyingly into that category. With "The Last Winter," he has made a modern horror tale that is absolutely relevant and engrossing, and is deserving of a far wider audience than his earlier films have enjoyed. Hope this review was somehow useful to you, and cheers to Larry for making a horror film with genuine value and telling a tale that Lovecraft himself might have enjoyed.
Parco P.I. (2005)
It's all reenactments and that just doesn't work
I totally agree that the reenactments kill what could otherwise be a great show. I'll admit that I'd seen 1 or 2 episodes last season and was not clear at all that it was all reenacted. But when I caught one episode recently it suddenly jumped out at me BIG TIME and I lost interest immediately. Then I noticed the disclaimer at the start before an episode that followed. Has anyone followed the show closely enough to tell me, did they actually make the "acting" and reenacting parts more artificial on purpose, or did I just not notice before. I'm usually pretty good at sensing this stuff, but the recent episode was so obviously artificial I practically tripped over it. Now I have no interest whatsoever in watching and have given up entirely on it. It just doesn't have any real value if it's all scripted and acted. And at least lately, it seems VERY poorly scripted and acted. The comment above that says who cares if it's all reenactments, I do. Without visual truth, this is just a bunch of "you know what happened, one time this guy" heresay. It's info better read in a book.
An American Haunting (2005)
Would have been poor even as a Lifetime TV movie
Seriously, this film should have been on the Lifetime Network. I kid you not. First of all is the wholly artificial and unnecessary "flashback" structure with a Mom straight out of a television commercial. Second is the fact that, despite setting the majority of this film in another time period it falls victim to the very current trend of believing that nothing is scary unless it is accompanied by a deafening sound effect. Even worse is when it wouldn't have been the least bit frightening without the extreme jump in volume. Try this... put on any CD and randomly twist the volume dial up in short bursts. You'll be just as shocked. If all a filmmaker can offer you (in what is supposed to be a horror film) is audio jolts, you could save a lot of money by providing them yourself. In fact, why not bring your I-pod along with you into the theater, put in those earbuds and add a few of your own "scares?" Third is the undeniable truth that anytime you have to end a film with explanatory titles saying that what you just sat through was merely one single "plausible" interpretation of the documented events, you know you're in serious trouble. I am amazed this film was ever made. And how on earth did they get Adrian Biddle, one of the world's greatest cinematographers (look him up)? Here is one irrefutable example of a poor director at work. When he or she actually makes the cinematographer look bad. There are endless swooping POV sequences representing the unseen entity (think weak imitation Evil Dead) which might have worked, perhaps, if used sparingly. I mean, it's not like we haven't seen this many times before. Here, it is treated as if it were some revolutionary technique. It becomes repetitive, boring and sad. This is one of those films that as I left the theater, conversation turned to questions like "Didn't anyone read the script?" There is just nothing here except a simple minded and very pedestrian (and very fictional) "explanation" of what might have happened. I can only imagine that it sailed into production because the producers used these two points; that horror films are enjoying a strong opening weekend trend at the box office, and that making the story hinge on incest somehow imbues the film with some value or social responsibility. On every possible level, this film fails.