Billybob-Shatner Reviews

Strange World (2019– )

My favorite new show on TV

[10/10 · 14 August 2019]

I've seen a lot of shows in this genre. This is the best of it's kind. Slickly produced, compellingly presented. Host Christopher Garetano has a presence like a modern day Rod Serling. A poised, intelligent, storyteller who ropes you in with eloquence and passion for the subject. By far, the best show on Travel channel.

Looking forward to future episodes!

Ghoulish (2018)

A one of a kind flick, not for the faint of heart

[7/10 · 12 January 2019]

Ghoulish is a raw, daring, comedy horror that dares go where mainstream features are afraid to. The lead character is a 300 pound necrophilia living amongst "normals". What follows is a Jon Waters like trip of surreal comedy, twisted characters and imagery. Trust me when I write, you've never seen anything quite like this.

Brutal (2007 Video)

Not bad at all, seriously

[7/10 · 27 August 2007]

Why is it that every released low budget film is labeled the worst film of all time or utter garbage? Every single one gets trashed, and it's a shame, because the better efforts get lumped together with the lesser ones.

Speaking of lesser efforts, this film is more or less a sequel to the BLACKWATER VALLEY EXORSISM. As far as I'm concerned, it was just another straight to video genre movie. Brutal however, every aspect, from writing to directing, to visual look, has greatly improved.

It's an intriguing murder mystery with a "brutal" edge. I found the characters interesting. Rather than a cliché, foaming of the mouth serial killer as the central villain, the film presents a much more human and compelling antagonist. Performance wise, I felt that Combs and the villain were very solid, and the film moved along at just the right pace to keep me with it.

Technically, the film movie was very cinematic looking, despite being shot on what I believe to be High Def. The musical score was very effective. And I enjoyed the twists in the screenplay along the way. However, some of the gore and nudity felt a little excessive to me. It felt a bit obligatory. And one or two of the supporting players weren't up to the level of the lead actors. But all in all, I found it to be one of the very best straight to DVD movies I've ever seen, and worthwhile rental. Ghostwatcher 2 this is not.

Head Trauma (2006)

I loved it

[8/10 · 27 August 2007]

I'm always on the prowl for a great undiscovered indie. So many are made, so few live up to their promise. Open Water and the Blair Witch Project, while marketable and financially successful, did not feel like professional efforts. They were not engrossing, the writing was simplistic at best, and most people I've spoken with were left unsatisfied.

Head Trauma is an example of smooth masterful direction, coupled with logical and clever writing that turns what could've been just another rushed indie effort, into something much more satisfying. I was very pleasantly surprised. On the downside, the lead actor, while satisfactory, clearly isn't a professional. At the same time, he might be just be effective enough to keep the film afloat.

The film moves at a slow deliberate pace, and managed to keep me engrossed the entire running time. Some of the scare moments are very effective, and the ending, is far more logical than any of the resent Hollywood entries to the horror genre.

Highly recommended.

Grim Reaper (2007 Video)

Not all bad...

[5/10 · 18 January 2007]

I took this film out because I've been writing a script that happens to deal with the Grim Reaper (in a sense at least) and I wanted to make sure I wasn't ripping anybody off. Plus I like to check out other low budget indie horrors.

In general, I think the flack it's getting is a bit extreme. It's obviously a low budget movie and by no means a terrible one.

PROS: Great editing/pacing (the film moves very well and has a terrific energy to it)

Good lighting - sets the mood quite well

Good technical direction - camera movies effectively, some scenes are staged quite well

Good sound design - very creepy and ominous

CONS: Mixed acting - at times its all right, at other times, its unacceptably, um, bad.

Plot - it's too familiar and too silly for its own good. And the twist with the doctor, is so ridiculous, it has to be seen to be believed.

Characters - just not unique or fleshed out enough to be satisfying.

Overall, a reasonable B horror movie.

4.5/10

Satan's Playground (2006)

A strong step in the right direction

[5/10 · 3 September 2006]

As of late, I notice a lot of people are jumping on the bash Dante Tomaselli bandwagon. As someone who despised his preceding feature "Horror", I think some are being too harsh on him. His latest feature, "Satans Playground", is a very large step up in terms of storytelling. For me, Horror felt too fragmented, too random and frankly, sloppy in his visualization. I realize it was supposed to be a nightmare put on film, but it felt more like unfinished work. Here, Dante manages to create a very unique world that's interesting to visit. The story makes enough sense to follow, much of it staged with effective camera angles, the score is eerie and unique. It very much reminds me of say, Evil Dead. If you're a fan of films of that nature, there's no reason you shouldn't appreciate this film.

On the downside, I was disappointed in the acting. I think it would've helped if the characters were better drawn and the dialog was less "B" movie material. The actors rarely sounded like living, breathing people. OK, yes, the villains weren't meant to be something you see every day, but I'm referring to the leads. Danny Lopez, however, really went the distance in portraying a mentally challenged character. If it wasn't for his nearly incessant drooling I think more people would appreciate just how much Lopez threw himself into role.

Also, the story is never fully developed enough to be satisfying, there's too many loose threads, but all in all, if you're into quirky horror, its worth a rental.

Bigfoot (2006 Video)

Best Bigfoot film of the recent bunch

[7/10 · 10 August 2006]

I had a chance to attend a midnight screening of Bigfoot at local film festival here in New York. What impressed me most is that writer-director-co-star Bob Gray delivered a product far superior to the likes of, lets say "Sasquatch Hunters", on what I understand was a far smaller budget. Bigfoot is fun, effectively written and directed. OK, yes, it never fully escapes feeling like a B movie, but I think that's the idea. This movie knows what it is, a fun, at times campy, but always entertaining horror film about Bigfoot on the loose. The camera work is inventive, and some of the characters are far better performed written and performed than you'd imagine. In a supporting role, Bob Gray is terrifically cast as a county sheriff and friend of the lead. Peppered with some very funny moments, and effective suspense, Bigfoot is very much worth the watch.

The Garage (2006)

A remarkably solid debut

[8/10 · 1 August 2006]

I caught this film this past week at a film festival, and was very happy I did. The film is both well directed, and well acted. It's not edge of your seat entertainment, nor do I imagine it was intended to be. But what it is, is a very effective, believable and absorbing character study that's both technically superb and believable in its execution.

Though he might not look like a conventionally leading man, Gabriel Marantz more than carries the film. He portrayal of the lead character is both believable, and rife with pathos. Solid film and I highly recommend it.

The Netherbeast of Berm-Tech Industries, Inc. (2004)

Hilarious!!

[9/10 · 15 July 2006]

I just caught this at the Long Island International Film Expo tonight, and laughed out loud nearly the entire run time.

The plot basically deals with a meeting between a boss (who sounds like he's right out of an infomercial) and employee. The movie is such a prime example of why comedy is so much better when it's played straight.

In my years of attending film festivals, this is one of the best short films I've come across, along with Dave Coyne's "Dr. Deniro and Mr. X". Both films are amazing examples of what was great work can be accomplished using prosumer equipment.

Highly recommended.

Malevolence (2003)

well directed, not so well written

[5/10 · 17 June 2006]

I first saw Malevolence when its hype was in its prime. And frankly, it left me very disappointed. But now that the hype's leveled off, I realize I was being a little harsh on it.

Despite its low budget, first time director Stephen Mena does solid job in choreographing his story. It's effectively staged and cut. Sound design is slick, and it basically plays off professionally. His suspense sequences work well, aren't excessive, and exhibit a Hitchcock vibe. What a compliment! Only a few scenes stick out for being weak, notably an early scene in a hotel where we're introduced to our two leads. It felt a little more at home in a soap opera... not so much in its writing in that instance, but its execution. But I'm sure that had much to do with the limitations of low budget film-making. Which brings me to some of my issues.

The acting is less than stellar, nor is it terrible. Virtually all the leading players are simply, well, adequate. The only bit of casting that bothered me was the female bank robber. Yeah, she's photogenic, but she just doesn't ring true in the given role. The actor portraying Kurt is effective in his small role, and seemed believable. Overall, the actors are better than average for a production of this size.

The music at times is effective, but in a handful of times is overdone. One chord that gets repeated a few times actually made me laugh. I'm supposing that WASN'T the intention.

The script contains a couple of reasonably written characters, but I still their personalities were more vivid. A large problem I had with the writing is just how familiar everything felt. Now, this isn't just a carbon copy of Halloween, nor is it different enough from all the other generic horror movies to stand out. And the revelation of the killer at the end, and his motives, just wasn't interesteing enough to me. Like the story itself, it just wasn't grabbing. Often the pacing began to drag, as it became too simple and repetitive for its own good.

In general, movies of the horror/stalker/slasher rarely do it for me. Looking back at Halloween, I find it just an okay film (for many reasons), and I wouldn't place Malevolence any lower than it. Recommended for genre fans.

Overall, this is a good first feature for Mena, who did a solid job with his resources. I look forward to his future work.

Hallowed (2005)

a review from a regular reviewer

[4/10 · 1 June 2006]

I'm not a slasher fan, and I wasn't involved in the production... I rented it from Netflix out of simple curiosity. Well... I have seen worse.

I think the director does a reasonable job at creating an eerie tone, and the concept is kind of interesting, but there's just to much to overlook to recommend this to any casual viewer.

To say the story is simple is an understatement. Too little character development, no surprises, and its just too generic for my tastes. NOW, I'm judging this against much bigger budgeted movies (in general). And I know its quite hard to make a low budget film work, and in general there are very few films of this budgetary range I'd recommend. Now compared to other films in the budgetary range? Which I'm assuming is about 50K or more (estimated 300K my butt), it's not bad. You can do a lot worse. It moves at a good pace.

The acting is pretty iffy, and the music gets really over done in a lot of places. But I will say, there is one solidly acted, solidly directed, solidly written scene toward the climax where the killer and his priest come face to face. If the filmmakers had more scenes at the level of that scene, I think they would've had something for a wider audience.

as is... for slasher fans only!

Funny Ha Ha (2002)

Fair so so

[4/10 · 30 May 2006]

After months of hearing how terrible this movie was, I was pleasantly surprised I didn't hate it. At all. Can't say I liked it, but I can see the director having a future in the industry if he plays his cards right.

The library that I work at purchased a copy of the movie based on a couple of positive reviews it received. Well, the movie might have played well for some very open minded critics, but the mainstream Americans I talked to purely hated it. And I can see why. It's amateurishly photographed (everything's easy to see and in focus so I'm not going to knock it much in that department), it's not laugh out loud funny, the plot is nominal, the dialog borders on being inarticulate, the characters aren't particularly likable, and it lacks conclusion.

But, having seen it, what it does have going for it, is that a fair deal of it does feel very real and down to earth. I was happy to see that most of the characters weren't the typical simplistic sex obsessed of comedies geared to this age range... It had a certain charm for all its subtly and I thought many of the performances worked well enough. That being said, this really isn't for everybody.

I'd dare say it's for a very small crowd. If you're a fan of Jarmush, then I'd take a chance on this. If not, know what you're getting into.

Broken Flowers (2005)

Didn't love it, didn't hate it

[6/10 · 7 April 2006]

Jim Jarmusch is one strange cat. The man couldn't make a traditional story if there was a gun pointed to his head. And I think it works for his advantage and disadvantage frankly. I thought Broken Flowers was a very... shall we say, odd little movie. A lot of it seems to play out like a rough cut of a movie... shots last too long (compared to the standard)... there's 5 minute on the road sequences through-out the movie... nothing other than Murray behind the wheel of his car. I think all that does is bog down the pace, though I'm sure to Jim Jarmusch that's "setting a tone". nonsense. What exactly did the ladies like about this guy. There's no indication. And it's such a relevant part of the story.

Murray made a very unusual choice to play a "Don Juan" character as though he was on valium. Devoid of wit, charm, or any attractive characteristics in the traditional sense. Why were the women in his life so drawn to him? Just doesn't seem logical at all. Even if he's depressed, at least give the guy a modicum of charm.

Nonetheless, the film is interesting, has some color and entertaining supporting characters, and certainly is unique. I'd imagine most people would find it boring, and in fairness it kind of is, but at the same time... it's strangely relaxing But I truly dislike vague endings without closure. To me, it's just lazy writing. And Broken Flowers certainly fits into that category.

5.75/10

Get on the Bus (1996)

Unique and enjoyable

[7/10 · 19 March 2006]

The more Spike Lee movies I see, the more I realize what a purely distinct style he has. Like him, love him or hate him, he's among the ranks of Tim Burton, John Woo, Martin Scorecesse, Oliver Stone, the Coen brothers. Quality aside, each director has an indelibly specific style.

With Get on the Bus, Spike brings life to what could've been a monotonous journey. It's complete with vivid characters, near perfect acting, and a terrific pace. It's only downfall is occasional peachiness. Sometimes the dialog doesn't ring true and ends up sounding more like a lecture than the spoken word. (But I believe Spike even admitted to that) Not to mention a certain supporting character (the Republican) seemed too over the top to be convincing. But those are fairly minor quibbles.

All in all, a very engaging, unique film. Special mention to Blanchard's effective score and Roger Smith's stellar performance. Recommended. 7/10

Winter's End (2005)

a solid effort, but not for everyone

[5/10 · 7 January 2006]

I really have to give the filmmakers behind Winter's End kudos for making such a professional piece of movie-making on such a modest budget. From the acting to the photography to the score, the product is miles beyond the average movie of it's budget. However after a compelling introduction, I found my interest in the storyline all but disappearing. For me, the story simply was not interesting or engaging enough to hold me. It's fairly low key and uneventful, which would be more than all right with me if the characters were more vivid. Yes, they sure did talk a lot, but I didn't find them interesting. As is, it's a drama lacking strong drama, and a suspense film lacking strong suspense. The antagonist of the story, while well performed, came off a bit cartoony, nor did I find his motives compelling. I don't have a short attention span, and I have nothing against slower characters based movies, but I found the movie quite difficult to get through.

Unfortunately after a very dry first hour, the last act degenerates into a standard escape sequence complete with a few over the top musical stings. That being said, there is much to applaud about the film. The director should be happy with the accomplishment. And whereas I wouldn't recommend it to a mainstream audience member, there very well may be people in the film festival crowd who could really take to it.

The Honeymooners (2005)

Come on... it's a cute little movie...

[6/10 · 20 December 2005]

The original Honeymooners TV show was a classic. Top to bottom great casting (in the leads), clever writing, and timeless comedy.

This past weekend I saw the remake on home video. What's with the hate, people? Its a reasonably funny, reasonably cute little movie. It doesn't touch the original program, but its harmless in and of itself. I liked the casting of Norton and of Alice, and especially John Legazamo as the dog trainer. The comedy isn't particularly inspired, and the first half is fairly droll, but overall I enjoyed it. I particularly liked how Ed's sewer job tied into the climax.

For some reason, just the idea of the remake alone is setting people ablaze. It's not like these people are pulling up the old Honeymooners TV series masterprints and burning them. Jeeze. They just took a shot at the material themselves a did an okay job. A well deserved 6 out of 10.

GhostWatcher 2 (2005 Video)

Underwhelming

[4/10 · 25 October 2005]

Who's behind the hype machine? Some of the comments on the IMDb message board led me to believe this was superior to the original Ghost Watcher. While not an embarrassment for anyone involved, the movie is only a marginal improvement over it's predecessor.

After an effective opening sequence, the movie rapidly degenerates into a rather un-engaging horror/melodrama. Despite being led to believe otherwise, the acting ranges from reasonable, to... well quite bad. And where-as there are moments of solid and effective film-making, the movie as a whole, just isn't exciting, nor compelling. Technically, the production values and production design look pretty professional. If I were to guess, it looks like a $250,000 16MM production. I'm presuming it isn't, so I've got to give the film credit in that department. Unfortunately, the movie couldn't help feeling like a strange hybrid of a Lifetime drama and a generic straight to video horror movie. A very strange combination. Not an incompetent movie, nor a good one.

I find the make-up to be quite good for its budget. Unfortunately, the special FX don't quite measure up. They're never believable, and often they're distractingly... shall we say, underfunded. For it's budget, I'm sure they did what they can, but why bother if you the resources aren't there? Why even write it into the screenplay? Which bring me to… The screenplay itself. Some movies make you sit at the edge of your seat, some movies don't. This, did not. I actually started thinking of other things as I was watching it. Nothing drove the story in a way I wanted to keep watching. And whereas some of the elements of the story were quite interesting, it just wasn't executed in a way that I found compelling. As far as why that is? Well, the villain is basically lifted from the recent Mummy movies. Sucking souls to become alive again. The writers also never make you believe what's happening is real, there's too much verbal exposition, scenes outstay their welcome, very few turns in the plot, and the characters... The characters are very by the numbers, are terribly generic. There's nothing really inspired about them. You've got your stock troubled teen, her overprotective father, a once skeptical GhostWatcher. They never quite came off as living, breathing human beings. Perhaps it's the direction, but it never really seemed like they were even emotionally involved in what was going on. And when they were, it once again degenerated into characterization worthy of a below average soap opera. Simply yelling banalities back and forth, whether it be sibling rivalries or otherwise. I think the acting in the "scare" moments, worked well enough, but the simple one on one character moments were really DOA. Quite often the actors looked and sounded bored, somewhat unsure of what they themselves were even saying. Yes, I have seen worse, but the acting is no better than other ambitious low budget indies such as "THE WIND" or "ADAM & EVIL".

The score ranges from quite good in moments, to generically low budget. Obvious, over the top, and terribly synthetic sounding. I did laugh out loud in certain moments where I later realized I wasn't supposed to.

Overall, whereas I can't recommend Ghostwatcher 2, it's would be terribly unfair to call it "one of the worst films of all time" (a term used WAY too frequently on these review boards). It's not bad for its budget at all. And if the director was quite a bit harder on himself he might just end up with something special.

Overall rating 2/5

Artie Saves the Hood (2005)

Off the wall indy gem!

[8/10 · 24 October 2005]

From it's compelling opening titles sequence, until the final scene, Artie Saves the Hood is a lot of fun. Yes, it's obviously very low budget, but quite good considering its limitations. The story involves a go no where loser who finds himself battling aliens from another dimension. A little like Shaun of the Dead meets Aliens meets Clerks? Absolutely. While some of the acting is rough around the edges, it's no more so than Kevin Smith's early work, and the movie proves to be laugh out loud funny.

For the most part, Artie Saves the Hood has got a great pace, soundtrack, effective off the wall special effects, and some strong laughs. A terrific party film.

Lucky (I) (2004)

Twisted, repulsive yet strangely compelling

[6/10 · 21 October 2005]

I think it's safe to say Lucky is a dark comedy. A pitch black comedy. Shot on a shoestring budget, it boasts reasonable production values, and some pretty damned good acting. Particularly from its lead. The abundant voice over narration is often clever, unique, and disturbing. After an engaging first act, the movie lost me a little when it became about its namesake. A dog named LUCKY. The limitations of the budget show here, and a potentially stronger film is squelched. The filmmakers are never able to effectively pull off, in my opinion, a believable talking dog (even if its obviously intended to be a hallucination of the protagonist). Frankly, it comes off continually silly, and without a hint of menace. The last act also is a major cheat, the equivalent of the narrative poison "It was all a dream". For what it was, I enjoyed Lucky. A superior super low budget straight to video movie. If you're not offended by much, it might just be worth a rental.

Downfall (2004)

Bringing depth and humanity to monsters

[10/10 · 20 October 2005]

What can I say. I loved this film. Any filmmaker can show us the bad that people do, but it takes a depth and honest to dimensional-ize its villains. That's what I find so powerful about this film. Fully accurate or not, it feels like we're looking at real people. On a certain level, you almost feel bad for them. Its by no means an apology piece for the Nazi party, but it gives us a perspective I haven't yet seen in a movie. The performance from Bruno Ganz as Hitler was terrific. As a whole, the movie exceeds on so many levels.

If you enjoy richly drawn characters and history, you can probably do no better. 5/5

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Certainly better than the original, not bad in and of itself

[6/10 · 20 October 2005]

It's hard to write off a movie thats so technically impressive... From sound to production design, editing, the new Amityville Horror is quite compelling... And until its final act, the writing isn't half bad either. The director packs the film with atmosphere, and for what it is, a fairly cheesy horror movie, it works well. The last act degenerates into the standard fare from many other movies, and loses even more credibility, but even then, its not bad. The performances are reasonable, the pacing is tight, the visualization is inspired. The story, while not bad, can't help feeling like what it is, a stretched truth, and... a bit dopey. The visuals of torture from the 1600's look more at home in a nine inch nails music video, than something from the actual time period. If your in the mood for a cheesy, relatively well written, and well made horror movie, look no further.

And to be honest, it's still more plausible than the Ring. :)

3/5

The Realm of Never: Moratorium (2002)

Smart, poetic, well produced

[8/10 · 8 August 2005]

While some may consider it an acquired taste, Realm of Never: Moratorium is deserving of a following. The whole episode feels like a unique hybrid of Dark Shadows, the Outer Limits while being as verbally poetic as Judy Berlin. Now if you're not a fan of those kinds of productions, the show "may" not be for you. But I found it complex, challenging and atmospheric. From its score, to the terrific black and white photography, to the unique minimalist sets made up largely of shadow. It looks like a $100,000 production. Amazing I'm told it was shot on a shoestring. If you're looking for something different on your dial, it's absolutely worth a look!

Batman Begins (2005)

Everything I hoped for

[9/10 · 15 June 2005]

I said it before, I'll say it again. Nolan is an amazing talent. Not prone to repetitive, flashy, gimmicky directorial style (see Darren Aronofsky, not dependent on pop culture references in the dialog to keep it "hip" (see Quentin Tarantino and Kevin Smith), and he's not prone to the same IL' tricks every time he tells a story, like telling the plot out of sequence (see Aronofsky, Tarantino & Smith). He did that twice (Following and Momento), he moved on. He's a storyteller with class, creativity, and diversity. Now, onto Batman Begins. Wow. What a visceral powerhouse. Loved it. I thought Revenge of the Sith was good, but this is very good. Nolan actually makes the concept of a "Batman" seem remotely plausible. The performances are solid across the board, even if the dialog veers into the realm of the hokey at times. Caine is stellar. Freeman is great as usual. Bale is solid, despite his weird-ass Batman "voice". His performance as Bruce Wayne is what shines.

The screenplay, I've got to say, returns to the wonderful creativity of a young Lucas. Well, not THX-1138 young, but Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark young :D The pieces of the plot all fit. Nothing's left to spare. Everything happens for a reason and needs to be there. And it's not rampaging formulaic as were all previous Batman films.

The story is told well, and the simple, primal underscore really hightlights it. The Scarecrow makes for a damned interesting villain, and Liam Neeson brings a lot of conviction to the role.

The action is sometimes shot too closely, making it hard to see exactly what's going on, but for the most part, it's pulled off quite well.

In terms of visual ambition, the award for best of 2005 probably goes to Revenge of the Sith, but in terms of top to bottom quality, I give it to Batman Begins.

Nolan's terrific. My favorite Batman film of the lot.