Do you like well made movies with good acting and cinematography? Do you like trashy exploitation? If you answered yes to both of these questions then this is the movie for you. Some people are frustrated that someone would dare bring a story that belongs in a lurid paperback to screen with the former qualities, calling it cheap erotica with art-house pretensions. This is not true. "Secret Things" never overplays its hand and never asks to be taken as anything but what it is. It does not achieve things that a film like "Last Tango in Paris" does, but it doesn't try to (a good thing, given that it lacks Marlon Brando...). Instead, it tells a lurid story of manipulation and social climbing that is both quiet and operatic, sexy and repulsive. There's naked bodies present and food for thought if one is interested. A very well-made movie.
Reviews
14 Reviews
Stick It
(2006)
Too much 'tude, man!
2 December 2006
Some good visual effects. Great athletes. Mike Simpson. Jeff Bridges is alright. Some muddled stuff about being good without being a conformist. That's the good stuff about this movie. The rest is awful. If you enjoyed Bring It On - either genuinely or as a guilty pleasure - you'll still probably hate this movie. There is so much forced "attitude" in here you just want to hit somebody. They spent more money on spray paint graphics yanked from a Target ad and vintage metal tees for the rebellious main character to wear than they did on script or acting coaches.
Plus, in the last scene you can clearly see Jeff Bridges' penis moving in his pants. Thanks.
Plus, in the last scene you can clearly see Jeff Bridges' penis moving in his pants. Thanks.
Jesus Camp
(2006)
Scarier than anything you'll see this year
9 November 2006
In "Jesus Camp," the viewer is plunged immediately in the middle of Evangelical Christians and that's where they stay for most of the movie with a few merciful counterpoints delivered by a liberal, Christian radio host. We see pure, unadulterated indoctrination of the very, very young. The leaders of the camp in question, the children's parents, and every other adult we see, admits that they are intent on creating an army of conservative zealots. Fundamental Christian tenants like "thou shalt not kill" fall by the wayside when the Iraq war is in question but are suddenly important again when, abortion, for example, is brought up. Global warming and evolution are disregarded by name in lieu of Creationism and rhetoric. Science is claimed to have proved nothing but then cited when proving that a fetus develops human features early in the womb.
And the worst part is that all of the information is being fed to children, some under five years old.
Bonus points for Ted Haggerts cameo (telling young Levi to use his "cute kid angle" to win converts until Levi can develop his preaching style), coming right before he is nationally exposed for the hypocrite he is.
An excellent, eye-opening documentary.
And the worst part is that all of the information is being fed to children, some under five years old.
Bonus points for Ted Haggerts cameo (telling young Levi to use his "cute kid angle" to win converts until Levi can develop his preaching style), coming right before he is nationally exposed for the hypocrite he is.
An excellent, eye-opening documentary.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
(2003)
eh...
9 October 2006
First I should say that I wasn't impressed by the original TCM. I thought it was way overrated. That said, I'll make this short and sweet. The only reason to see this movie is the awesome set design and cinematography. However, these aspects were traded for the gritty "realism" of the original, which completely kills the film's momentum. Like Jessica Biel in this movie, the film is overall pretty to look at but there's not much there. R. Lee Emery is here and he's pretty good, but he's just playing a more homicidal version of every other character he's ever played.
If you're looking for a better remake, the updated "Hills Have Eyes" was pretty good. It at brought some originality to the table.
If you're looking for a better remake, the updated "Hills Have Eyes" was pretty good. It at brought some originality to the table.
Torque
(2004)
Don't hate
23 August 2006
Watching Torque is like watching a two-year old try and play cards, where they end up chewing on the cards and throwing them all over the room. Now, you could be a stickler and, quite rightly, talk about how the kid really isn't playing the game well or you could just relax and enjoy how much funnier and more awesome that is than the actual card game.
The nice thing about Torque is that it's awful but it really doesn't matter at all. It's truly a movie where the badness either doesn't slow the picture down or, in many cases, makes it even better. Every scene is played like a showdown. Every line is a one-liner. It's fantastic! Ice Cube turns in the performance of a lifetime (watch how his mouth never stops sneering). And what about that scene where two bikes dual in an ally with huge Pepsi and Mountain Dew scenes on each end? And how 'bout that irritating, irritating actor who plays the cop who dresses like a blind hipster.
I went into this movie with the lowest expectations and was rewarded by a movie that not only affirmed them, but trumped them in such a spectacular way. I'll defend this movie forever.
The nice thing about Torque is that it's awful but it really doesn't matter at all. It's truly a movie where the badness either doesn't slow the picture down or, in many cases, makes it even better. Every scene is played like a showdown. Every line is a one-liner. It's fantastic! Ice Cube turns in the performance of a lifetime (watch how his mouth never stops sneering). And what about that scene where two bikes dual in an ally with huge Pepsi and Mountain Dew scenes on each end? And how 'bout that irritating, irritating actor who plays the cop who dresses like a blind hipster.
I went into this movie with the lowest expectations and was rewarded by a movie that not only affirmed them, but trumped them in such a spectacular way. I'll defend this movie forever.
Citizen X
(1995 TV Movie)
One of the best serial killer movies ever made
17 August 2006
I was very hesitant about watching this movie. First of all it was, technically, made-for-TV (though it was HBO, so that's something). Second of all, movies about serial killers - especially based on fact - are almost always laughably bad (from what I hear, the recent "Evilenko," based on the same crimes, is proof of this). Often, films will focus purely on the killer or purely on the policemen, neglecting any reason for empathy or understanding with the other side and, therefore, seriously weakening the movie's effect. This movie focuses on both and plays out like a great true-crime novel (it's based on a book, actually, which is apparently quite good). It does not play anything for shock value yet it pulls no punches, exposing the horror of the crimes. Mostly, we see the police work get caught up in the impossible hurdles of the Soviet Union's bureaucracy, effectively letting the tension build as Burakov's attempts at catching the killer get hobbled again and again.
All the major players are great, Rea, Sutherland, Von Sydow (for the small parts he is in), DeMunn and Ackland. DeMunn gives a pitch-perfect performance as Chikatilo. We see Chikatilo as what most serial killers are: a tortured, awkward and ultimately empathetic character - the antithesis of Hannibal Lector. Despite this, the audience never pities Chikatilo, merely understands him, thus making him a much scarier and much more human villain.
All in all, a superb film.
All the major players are great, Rea, Sutherland, Von Sydow (for the small parts he is in), DeMunn and Ackland. DeMunn gives a pitch-perfect performance as Chikatilo. We see Chikatilo as what most serial killers are: a tortured, awkward and ultimately empathetic character - the antithesis of Hannibal Lector. Despite this, the audience never pities Chikatilo, merely understands him, thus making him a much scarier and much more human villain.
All in all, a superb film.
Firecracker
(2005)
Hard to believe how disappointing this movie is
29 July 2006
Like most people who've seen this movie, I watched it because of Patton. I'm sure a lot of people were as excited as I was, at beginning least two years ago, when they read what the movie was about, saw production stills and, eventually, read what the critics and lucky few who saw it had to say. It sounded great.
But, man, this movie is baaaaaaaaaaaaad. Lots of people are quick to jump on the actors but, with the exception of Jak Kendall who looks like he's never acted a day in his life, I don't blame them. Both Karen Black and Mike Patton are only given cliché'd lines and stick-thin characters. Patton's never given enough to give either of his characters the weight they deserve and Black's characters, on the other hand, are given too many pointless scenes without enough meat to them. It's hard to act well through bad dialogue AND directing, but Black comes out still respectable (very respectable if you take the former problems into account). Patton also does well. He seems a little unsure at times, (moreso with the character of Frank), as if he's trying to get a grip on what he's supposed to be portraying. Whose fault deserves the blame for that is up for discussion, and, though I'm a huge fan, I'm by no means a Patton apologetic. That said, I couldn't help but picturing both Patton and Black possibly starring in a really great movie while it's almost impossible for me to picture anyone delivering this movie's lines any better than the shot they gave it.
But enough rambling about who's to blame. Above all, this movie is incredibly self-aware and pretentious. So much so that it fails to see it's own faults for what they are. One gets the sense that Balderson was happy just to have his ideas on the screen, no matter how well they all gelled. Where the color/ black and white shifts should be subtle they are brazen and over-the-top (it's not cool, it's distracting and show-offy). The music is alright although, sometimes the contrast between the melodramatic score and the ridiculousness of what's on screen is unintentionally funny.
BOTTOM LINE: Bad reviews or good reviews, I would've seen this film just to watch Patton act, so I know there are a lot of people out there who are going to see this film no matter what it says on IMDb. That said, both Patton and movie fans, prepare to be really disappointed.
But, man, this movie is baaaaaaaaaaaaad. Lots of people are quick to jump on the actors but, with the exception of Jak Kendall who looks like he's never acted a day in his life, I don't blame them. Both Karen Black and Mike Patton are only given cliché'd lines and stick-thin characters. Patton's never given enough to give either of his characters the weight they deserve and Black's characters, on the other hand, are given too many pointless scenes without enough meat to them. It's hard to act well through bad dialogue AND directing, but Black comes out still respectable (very respectable if you take the former problems into account). Patton also does well. He seems a little unsure at times, (moreso with the character of Frank), as if he's trying to get a grip on what he's supposed to be portraying. Whose fault deserves the blame for that is up for discussion, and, though I'm a huge fan, I'm by no means a Patton apologetic. That said, I couldn't help but picturing both Patton and Black possibly starring in a really great movie while it's almost impossible for me to picture anyone delivering this movie's lines any better than the shot they gave it.
But enough rambling about who's to blame. Above all, this movie is incredibly self-aware and pretentious. So much so that it fails to see it's own faults for what they are. One gets the sense that Balderson was happy just to have his ideas on the screen, no matter how well they all gelled. Where the color/ black and white shifts should be subtle they are brazen and over-the-top (it's not cool, it's distracting and show-offy). The music is alright although, sometimes the contrast between the melodramatic score and the ridiculousness of what's on screen is unintentionally funny.
BOTTOM LINE: Bad reviews or good reviews, I would've seen this film just to watch Patton act, so I know there are a lot of people out there who are going to see this film no matter what it says on IMDb. That said, both Patton and movie fans, prepare to be really disappointed.
The Mangler
(1995)
bad but fun
7 January 2006
This is a B-movie through and through. Terminally flawed, but, if you let yourself, you can have a lot of fun watching it. Levine and Englund are both over-the-top and captivating, the plot, script and score are simple and stupid, but in a way that renders them unimportant. Just invite some buds over, get some beer and laugh as Robert Englund hobbles around cursing, Ted Levine pops pills and the machine folds people like sheets. Don't get me wrong, it's really bad and, at times confusing. But, while Tobe Hooper may have dropped the ball on this, he never kicks it out of the court. If you're looking for stupid fun, this is pretty solid.
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
(2005)
This movie sucks
17 September 2005
What is wrong with you people? How does this movie have such a good rating here? I mean, I appreciate the subjectivity of it all, but honestly! This movie fails as a courtroom drama and a horror movie. It even fails at doing justice to the extremely interesting true story that it's based on.
The trailers made this movie look great. Oh my God, were they misleading. Laura Linney is absolutely awful and the script is pap. The best aspects of this movie are the visual and audio effects, which can be quite good at times. There is one scene in a barn that almost grabbed my attention again. Otherwise, I just wanted it all to end.
The trailers made this movie look great. Oh my God, were they misleading. Laura Linney is absolutely awful and the script is pap. The best aspects of this movie are the visual and audio effects, which can be quite good at times. There is one scene in a barn that almost grabbed my attention again. Otherwise, I just wanted it all to end.
Four Brothers
(2005)
a damn fine revenge movie
22 August 2005
Critics are already dogging this movie because they didn't appreciate it for what it was. "I hope this movie was meant to be funny." I'm not exactly sure what they were looking for or what they thought they were sitting down to watch. This is a movie about revenge and vigilante justice, plain and simple; it doesn't flaunt itself as anything more or less. The characters are well laid out, and each of them very well acted (Marky Mark gives the performance of his life. Even if he were the only good actor here, he could carry it. And Andre 3000 deserves a round of applause for a damn decent job himself).
Are you looking for deep discussions on morality? Do you want a grave statement about poverty and the downfall of society? Why are you watching this movie? There are millions of movies that focus very well on those topics. But sitting down to "Four Brothers" with these things in mind is like sitting down to "Scarface" in search of a romantic comedy. You're missing the point. This is a very good movie about revenge, vigilante justice and Mark Wahlberg dressed like Mike Patton and kicking ass.
Are you looking for deep discussions on morality? Do you want a grave statement about poverty and the downfall of society? Why are you watching this movie? There are millions of movies that focus very well on those topics. But sitting down to "Four Brothers" with these things in mind is like sitting down to "Scarface" in search of a romantic comedy. You're missing the point. This is a very good movie about revenge, vigilante justice and Mark Wahlberg dressed like Mike Patton and kicking ass.
The Dukes of Hazzard
(2005)
A movie that made me want to die
9 August 2005
Ben Jones, who played Cooter in the original TV series is boycotting this movie. Join him.
Written by one of the original "Dukes" writers and directed by the guy who directed "Super Troopers," this should have worked. It doesn't at all. Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott are bad, completely lacking any of the likability of the original Dukes. Poor Willie Nelson looks scared and confused. Burt Reynolds, understandably, looks like he wishes he could be somewhere else. And then there's Jessica Simpson. I don't bandy this phrase about a lot, but she has got to be one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. Her Daisy Duke interpretation is just Jessica Simpson with less charisma and less clothes. Her body seems to be an actress of it's own, as her entire role in this movie is to flash T&A around so the Duke boys can save the county.
My favorite scene had to be when the Dukes roll up to a group of black men in General Lee, wearing what appears to be black-face. This comes off like a weak attempt to try and juxtapose the Dukes of Hazzard against modern times which ultimately just gives the movie the ring of the politically incorrect 60s comedies that didn't know better. The black men stop advancing on the Dukes when the cops roll up. But when the cops come out they're black too! How crazy! Watch out, Dukes, those Negroes are touchy! They'll send you to jail for having the Confederate flag on your car! Which they do. How 2005.
Written by one of the original "Dukes" writers and directed by the guy who directed "Super Troopers," this should have worked. It doesn't at all. Johnny Knoxville and Sean William Scott are bad, completely lacking any of the likability of the original Dukes. Poor Willie Nelson looks scared and confused. Burt Reynolds, understandably, looks like he wishes he could be somewhere else. And then there's Jessica Simpson. I don't bandy this phrase about a lot, but she has got to be one of the worst actresses I have ever seen. Her Daisy Duke interpretation is just Jessica Simpson with less charisma and less clothes. Her body seems to be an actress of it's own, as her entire role in this movie is to flash T&A around so the Duke boys can save the county.
My favorite scene had to be when the Dukes roll up to a group of black men in General Lee, wearing what appears to be black-face. This comes off like a weak attempt to try and juxtapose the Dukes of Hazzard against modern times which ultimately just gives the movie the ring of the politically incorrect 60s comedies that didn't know better. The black men stop advancing on the Dukes when the cops roll up. But when the cops come out they're black too! How crazy! Watch out, Dukes, those Negroes are touchy! They'll send you to jail for having the Confederate flag on your car! Which they do. How 2005.
The Devil's Advocate
(1997)
Behold! I send you out as sheep amongst the wolves!
6 August 2005
Ultimately it will be up to you which wins out in this film: Al Pacino's attempt to elevate it or Keanu Reeves' attempt to sink it. Pacino does a splendid job as Satan himself and is aided by the best writing in the movie. We are treated to Satan's own views on good and evil and it is fascinating. Reeves appears to be - as he did in "Bram Stoker's Dracula" - foregoing all of the complexities in acting and portraying a single feeling at a time. Angry Keanu! Sad Keanu! Confuuuused Keanu! It's frustrating to see Al Pacino attempting to play off of him and being forced to carry the scenes by himself.
The overall writing is fairly standard with moments of brilliance. The supporting acting is pretty good, especially Charlize Theron. The cinematography and special effects work quite well.
This is a good one to catch on HBO and even rent if you like Pacino.
The overall writing is fairly standard with moments of brilliance. The supporting acting is pretty good, especially Charlize Theron. The cinematography and special effects work quite well.
This is a good one to catch on HBO and even rent if you like Pacino.
Junior
(1994)
weird
25 July 2005
This is a very Clinton-era movie. Which is to say, if many conservatives believe that homosexuality is destroying the family unit or whatever I don't know what they'd think about this.
As many people have said, overall this movie is just kind of creepy. I was expecting a stupid comedy where Arnold accidentally gets knocked-up and wacky hi-jinx ensue. Instead, I got a very touchy-feely movie about the ultimate way for a man to embrace his feminine side. With a smarter script and different casting, this could have actually worked, but instead the filmmakers try to make this subject standard box-office fare, which it's not. The result is the most unintentionally creepy romantic comedy ever. The scene where Arnold dreams of a baby with his face stands out in my mind as spectacularly nightmare-inducing. If that all sounds appealing to you, have fun!
As many people have said, overall this movie is just kind of creepy. I was expecting a stupid comedy where Arnold accidentally gets knocked-up and wacky hi-jinx ensue. Instead, I got a very touchy-feely movie about the ultimate way for a man to embrace his feminine side. With a smarter script and different casting, this could have actually worked, but instead the filmmakers try to make this subject standard box-office fare, which it's not. The result is the most unintentionally creepy romantic comedy ever. The scene where Arnold dreams of a baby with his face stands out in my mind as spectacularly nightmare-inducing. If that all sounds appealing to you, have fun!
My Little Eye
(2002)
I saw this on HBO and I want my time back
16 July 2005
The sad part about "My Little Eye" is that the most intriguing aspect of it is revealed at the end - not that that's saying much considering what comes before it, but it still gave me some insight into what made this premise interesting enough to make a movie about it. Unfortunately, the ending is not worth five minutes of sitting through the rest of the movie. For the most part this is a played-out movie full of terrible dialogue, cliché-upon-cliché and poorly drawn-out, unlikable characters (the only one who will hold your attention is Rex since he is given the most depth, and the best dialogue and he uses it better than the other actors. Once again, none of this is saying much).
This movie basically suffers from the classic slasher-movie symptom of trying to build suspense in a movie where you don't really care who dies and the threadbare mystery just barely keeps you in your seat ("Well I've watched this much, I guess I should see how it ends...") Don't waste your time.
This movie basically suffers from the classic slasher-movie symptom of trying to build suspense in a movie where you don't really care who dies and the threadbare mystery just barely keeps you in your seat ("Well I've watched this much, I guess I should see how it ends...") Don't waste your time.
Tell Your Friends