"Bitches man...." haha, great line. Zombies that can barely communicate. Struggling to think. And one of them musters up the line -- "Bitches man....". Funny.
I haven't bought a soundtrack in a while, but I bet this one is pretty good. Lots of music involved for a romantic zombie flick. Even a song off the Pretty Woman soundtrack, or wait, was that Dirty Dancing? You know what else? This love story could have used perhaps Information Society's (c) Pure Energy or maybe The Order of Death by PIL (youtube (c)). Yeah Hardware reference!
I needed to tell you that I am beginning to like Dave Franco. But I'm not sure why he was in this movie. As in, not sarcastic dripping, they could have cast Brendan Sexton III to play his role, or maybe that guy who played Napoleon Dynamite....Jon Heder. I guess Dave Franco is still just a role player and not a featured actor yet. Also, why was John Malkovich in this piece? I thought he was busy filming Red 3 with Bruce. But seriously, the main girl...who is she? She reminds me of a mix between Kristen Stewart and Amanda what's her name from that Stepfather movie.
I guess this movie was fun. But not amazing. More of a slow plodding thinker, that really requires zero thought. I think my favorite part was thinking about what if I were a zombie or perhaps dead and my ashes were sent flying into oblivion, or in this case, a zombie ate my brain; and then said zombie got to live my life for a few minutes - as a rotisserie of still art photos. That is what I hope happens. Either one. If'm I'ma a zombie in the future, I would like to be able to get a quick movie of someone's life when I eat their brains. But moreover, when I'm dead and my ashes are flung all over, I want each worm....hell every member of the detritus world, to get a piece of me in them. And I will be famous!!
Showing posts with label B-rating. Show all posts
Showing posts with label B-rating. Show all posts
09 September 2013
03 September 2013
The Baby 1973 (B-) #193
1973 was a good year for movies, but at first I was not fully sold on this one. The end had me feeling the vibe of Rosemary's Baby (not just because of the titles)....so it got better. But for my first impressions however, I had a few gripes. The actor that plays "Baby" makes this dreadful fake baby noise throughout the film. Some part of me feels any actor could do a better job then this guy. Even Jim Caviezel or Brendan Sexton III. Actually, in a remake effort, Brendan would be a great choice. Anyway, I tried my best to get by the whiney adult baby noise aspect. Now onto the plot. It seemed weak. I'm used to the more elaborate plots of today, even when not always done well. I ended up really rooting for the crazy family. Opposite of what the director probably had in mind. To me, they were more entertaining and had a more robust character build. As the movie droned on, I just found myself hoping for them to win. Perhaps it would make the movie good? With that said, I could have used some more crazy 'Pink-Flamingo-type' events rising out of them - to give it that whacky edge it seemed to be missing throughout the first hour. This was part of the hype I thought would endure in The Baby prior to pushing play. The family was fairly tame compared to today's sick movie portrayals existing on the big screen.
There was some 70's thriller suspense towards the end, with added in awesome music, as the family searched around for Baby in the case workers house. It seemed like a 20 minute scene, with congo drums, and tenor saxophones - perhaps some fancy oboe work. Then they classically cued up the rapid psycho violins and ordered jars of splatter ketchup for the actors to share!!
Then came the ending. Wow, totally awesome demented ending! Great job 70's movie! Pretty typical for a thriller from this era, build slowly, not much happens worth getting excited about....and then WAM. The ending happens and you smile realizing that the people who were the forefathers of horror had it right back then. They knew how to create suspense and capitalize on it. I can't stop smiling right now. Seriously this movie took me for a ride I didn't expect. If only they could put The Baby into a 25 minute short film, I would not have had to waste so much time with the first hour of the film. I suppose it was necessary, but just tedious. Worth a watch.
There was some 70's thriller suspense towards the end, with added in awesome music, as the family searched around for Baby in the case workers house. It seemed like a 20 minute scene, with congo drums, and tenor saxophones - perhaps some fancy oboe work. Then they classically cued up the rapid psycho violins and ordered jars of splatter ketchup for the actors to share!!
Then came the ending. Wow, totally awesome demented ending! Great job 70's movie! Pretty typical for a thriller from this era, build slowly, not much happens worth getting excited about....and then WAM. The ending happens and you smile realizing that the people who were the forefathers of horror had it right back then. They knew how to create suspense and capitalize on it. I can't stop smiling right now. Seriously this movie took me for a ride I didn't expect. If only they could put The Baby into a 25 minute short film, I would not have had to waste so much time with the first hour of the film. I suppose it was necessary, but just tedious. Worth a watch.
11 April 2013
189 Jack Reacher (B+)
I never read the book, or comic, or whatever...I never even heard of Jack Reacher to be honest. Is he a famous super hero type of guy? Like a James Bond type? I think so. The end result is that this movie was good. Like a Bond movie, a bit unbelievable, but still action packed and to me, a great flick to watch. Full of excitement and stories.
My friends said it was just okay, a bit better than okay maybe to me....B+ is my rating...totally on board and loved it. "Was Mesmerized" says HorrorMovieRevierwGuy at Twit.com.
A few notes, I'm anxious to see the end of the newer Batman. So far, he's been a puss and barely fights or leaves his house. And also, Kick Ass 2? Really? Ok, if you say so....this time I might see it in the theatre. If things go well that is.
03 April 2013
The Corridor #188 (B-)
The preview for this movie made it look cool. I think I saw the preview when I rented Kill List. Then I started watching, and immediately I knew...actually that's a lie, it started poorly and I didn't immediately know anything. But I continued to give it a chance and found, this was one of those movies that are a notch above a Cinemax (c) release, yet still no Deathrace 2000, yet the ending becomes one worth watching...so I give it a B-. For a lazy Saturday (sans kids) it's worth a pusha playa. But, it's not the strongest B- ever.
29 March 2013
Zero Dark Thirty #187 (B+)
The explosion at the Marriott (c) scared the shit out of me. I haven't jumped like that since I watched the Corridor the other night. LOL. Two jumps within the same week or so.
I wonder if this is really what occurred, specifically the heli crashing etc. And the way they found the lead to his whereabouts. I'm assuming yes. Then the next question I have is, does creating a movie about this really make sense? Do other countries create movies about stuff they do like this? Is it too soon to have a movie out about this topic?
I love Katherine Bigelow, that is once I realized who she was and looked back on her body of work. Starting from Near Dark (awesome) through Point Break, and Hurt Locker - all very impressive.
Jessica Chastain. She's quickly becoming someone who I respect and want to view on the screen.
That is all. Good flick. See it. Predictable, obviously.
Number 187 on the..........block.
I wonder if this is really what occurred, specifically the heli crashing etc. And the way they found the lead to his whereabouts. I'm assuming yes. Then the next question I have is, does creating a movie about this really make sense? Do other countries create movies about stuff they do like this? Is it too soon to have a movie out about this topic?
I love Katherine Bigelow, that is once I realized who she was and looked back on her body of work. Starting from Near Dark (awesome) through Point Break, and Hurt Locker - all very impressive.
Jessica Chastain. She's quickly becoming someone who I respect and want to view on the screen.
That is all. Good flick. See it. Predictable, obviously.
Number 187 on the..........block.
10 January 2013
Brainscan #183 (B)
I like that this started right off, without hesitation....when he calls the hotline and the guy is right there, and says point blank "it's been decided..."
Do I have this correct? Music by George Clinton? If so, wow...doesn't sound like George Clinton. Ok, I checked with a music friend and he said it is a different George Clinton...George K. Clinton I think. The soundtrack was pretty fun, some Primus among others.
I've heard a lot about this movie over time, well mostly that it is one to watch. So I finally decide to try it out. And I was not disappointed. The main bad guy, aka Trickster, was awesome. I realize it was mostly hair and makeup. So I looked him up a bit on IMDB (c) and he really hasn't done much - a lot of TV and shorts. Too bad. If I was creating a movie and needed a creepy guy I might give this guy a ring. His name was T. Ryder Smith. For the record he's not nearly as strange or good as the crazy guy they got to play in the movie Shadow. Nuot Arquint kicks T. Ryder's ass. Do yourself a favor and do a google (c) search for Nuot. CRAZY!
Ok, back to Brainscan. A boy (Edward Furlong) is so into everything horror that it basically bores him. He then hears from his best friend that there is a new thing out there called Brainscan, which you have to order on-line (actually I guess it's over the phone, did they have the internet in the 80's??). So he gets the first disk and boooooom, Trickster enters his life and his bedroom. What happens then is basically Edward goes into a bunch of seemingly real horror scenarios, all within his own neighborhood, while he's "within" this game. He thinks he's sleeping, but then when the murders become real and his town is rampant with reporters and cops, he starts to question what has happened and wants Trickster and this game to get out of his life. A good love story is also built in.
Do I have this correct? Music by George Clinton? If so, wow...doesn't sound like George Clinton. Ok, I checked with a music friend and he said it is a different George Clinton...George K. Clinton I think. The soundtrack was pretty fun, some Primus among others.
I've heard a lot about this movie over time, well mostly that it is one to watch. So I finally decide to try it out. And I was not disappointed. The main bad guy, aka Trickster, was awesome. I realize it was mostly hair and makeup. So I looked him up a bit on IMDB (c) and he really hasn't done much - a lot of TV and shorts. Too bad. If I was creating a movie and needed a creepy guy I might give this guy a ring. His name was T. Ryder Smith. For the record he's not nearly as strange or good as the crazy guy they got to play in the movie Shadow. Nuot Arquint kicks T. Ryder's ass. Do yourself a favor and do a google (c) search for Nuot. CRAZY!
Ok, back to Brainscan. A boy (Edward Furlong) is so into everything horror that it basically bores him. He then hears from his best friend that there is a new thing out there called Brainscan, which you have to order on-line (actually I guess it's over the phone, did they have the internet in the 80's??). So he gets the first disk and boooooom, Trickster enters his life and his bedroom. What happens then is basically Edward goes into a bunch of seemingly real horror scenarios, all within his own neighborhood, while he's "within" this game. He thinks he's sleeping, but then when the murders become real and his town is rampant with reporters and cops, he starts to question what has happened and wants Trickster and this game to get out of his life. A good love story is also built in.
Blue Sunshine #182 (B-)
Great line..."Do you remember Rodan?" "The artist?" "ha, no, the monster"... I had to push pause after this and listen to a Rodan album, so that prompted about a 40 minute delay. Luckily I refrained from watching the movie Rodan on instant stream (yes, it's available folks!).
So, I watched 28 minutes thus far and I'm totally confused. I had to start again. I was confused why the guy went nuts at the party...and I also can't tell these 70's actors apart. Is the guy that comes into the kitchen and overhears his wife and another guy making fun of his hair loss the same guy that is singing in the next scene at the party? And are any or all of these guys the senator? Perhaps my 2nd viewing of the first 28 minutes will help me. Ugh. (no, they are all different)
Let me get this straight, so everyone in this town essentially went to Stanford?
Oh and, everyone is losing their hair....??
Ok, I watched all but the last 25 minutes if this movie (it's a game called 'fun movie watching with Q-Slice'...in which you do it in as many fragmented stages as possible and win!!!!!) and was totally engaged and loving it, AND I even understood all of the pending questions above (minus the random Stanford happenstance, like, how would they all just be living near each other?)...but then, the movie left instant stream and I couldn't view the end. So, I needed to rent it! Blue Sunshine became a real challenge all of a sudden!!! Meanwhile.....the movie arrived in the mail and I finished it (starting from the beginning of coarse). It was quirky and odd...fun and exciting. I am happy I watched the beginning three times though because I would have been really confused if not.
The basic plot is people in this town are starting to go crazy, and lose their hair. They are committing murder when they "go crazy" and really not acting like themselves. There is a link back to their college days, to an acid they all took at Stanford called Blue Sunshine. Apparently there is a delayed degenerative and psychogenetic effect if you took Blue Sunshine years prior. How the main guy, who's acting like a detective the entire movie, randomly picks up on this is beyond me. But, it was still good to watch. Most of the reviews on Netflix (c) are negative though - and lots of "waste of my time" talk. Lots of 3 stars. Not very many 4 and 5. Oh well. I liked it. It's only about 90 minutes long, from 1978....I do recommend to those who branch from the mainstream.
So, I watched 28 minutes thus far and I'm totally confused. I had to start again. I was confused why the guy went nuts at the party...and I also can't tell these 70's actors apart. Is the guy that comes into the kitchen and overhears his wife and another guy making fun of his hair loss the same guy that is singing in the next scene at the party? And are any or all of these guys the senator? Perhaps my 2nd viewing of the first 28 minutes will help me. Ugh. (no, they are all different)
Let me get this straight, so everyone in this town essentially went to Stanford?
Oh and, everyone is losing their hair....??
Ok, I watched all but the last 25 minutes if this movie (it's a game called 'fun movie watching with Q-Slice'...in which you do it in as many fragmented stages as possible and win!!!!!) and was totally engaged and loving it, AND I even understood all of the pending questions above (minus the random Stanford happenstance, like, how would they all just be living near each other?)...but then, the movie left instant stream and I couldn't view the end. So, I needed to rent it! Blue Sunshine became a real challenge all of a sudden!!! Meanwhile.....the movie arrived in the mail and I finished it (starting from the beginning of coarse). It was quirky and odd...fun and exciting. I am happy I watched the beginning three times though because I would have been really confused if not.
The basic plot is people in this town are starting to go crazy, and lose their hair. They are committing murder when they "go crazy" and really not acting like themselves. There is a link back to their college days, to an acid they all took at Stanford called Blue Sunshine. Apparently there is a delayed degenerative and psychogenetic effect if you took Blue Sunshine years prior. How the main guy, who's acting like a detective the entire movie, randomly picks up on this is beyond me. But, it was still good to watch. Most of the reviews on Netflix (c) are negative though - and lots of "waste of my time" talk. Lots of 3 stars. Not very many 4 and 5. Oh well. I liked it. It's only about 90 minutes long, from 1978....I do recommend to those who branch from the mainstream.
Argo #181 (B+)
Argo fuck yourself!
Despite knowing the plot - almost in it's entirety prior to arriving at the theatre...due to the promos/trailers - this was a well put together and well played out movie. Good acting, well except for one person. But I sort of blame Mr. Affleck for this, since he was the bearded director. What I'm referencing here was that I saw that Rory Cochrane was in the movie and I got excited. We all know him as Lucas from Empire Records, or as Ron Slater from Dazed and confused....or perhaps most notably as Brad from Right At Your Door. Anyway, the reason I'm mad at Mr. Affleck is because Rory said 3 FULL SENTENCES THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I admit, he's not the greatest actor, but he's good enough that he could have talked more than 3 times! I know for a fact that this was based on real events, but what happened during those real events couldn't have been known, not cleanly anyway. So Rory could have been more...that's what I'm saying.
But, it was a good action movie. Fun to watch and exciting all at the same time. Even with the whole idea already in my head. Which is sort of odd. I'd recommend it...thanks!
ARGO FUCK YOURSELF...
Despite knowing the plot - almost in it's entirety prior to arriving at the theatre...due to the promos/trailers - this was a well put together and well played out movie. Good acting, well except for one person. But I sort of blame Mr. Affleck for this, since he was the bearded director. What I'm referencing here was that I saw that Rory Cochrane was in the movie and I got excited. We all know him as Lucas from Empire Records, or as Ron Slater from Dazed and confused....or perhaps most notably as Brad from Right At Your Door. Anyway, the reason I'm mad at Mr. Affleck is because Rory said 3 FULL SENTENCES THE ENTIRE MOVIE! I admit, he's not the greatest actor, but he's good enough that he could have talked more than 3 times! I know for a fact that this was based on real events, but what happened during those real events couldn't have been known, not cleanly anyway. So Rory could have been more...that's what I'm saying.
But, it was a good action movie. Fun to watch and exciting all at the same time. Even with the whole idea already in my head. Which is sort of odd. I'd recommend it...thanks!
ARGO FUCK YOURSELF...
Django Unchained #179 (B)
I can't help but wonder how this movie is doing among the masses? It was really good acting - that is minus the cameo by Quentin. About Quentin and his acting, it's so apparent that there is an actor on the screen who isn't "really an actor" and who basically sucks. I'm not sure why he insists on being on screen. I guess I would do the same so I can understand, but perhaps I would not have myself talk if I wasn't any good. Be on screen like Peter Jackson is on screen in most of his movies, in the background (minus Bad Taste, one of the best movies in the world). Anyway, Quentin did ensure that he goes out in style - in the form of an over the top explosion death. The theatre (and myself) laughed at that.
The main bounty hunter reminded me of an older Jason Schwartzman. Apparently he was one of the main characters in Inglorious Basterds, but I can't recall exactly. I'm sure if I put it on I would recall very quickly. Anyway, he did a good job. His name is Christopher Waltz. Re: Leonardo, he does swell too...Samuel L. also. It's really good acting, all of it. Jamie Foxx was superb. I just read something where Leo describes his character as rotting from the inside. That's funny.
Along with the acting being grand all around was the story - which was also good. And there was a lot of Quentin's famous blood and guts and explosions. But I guess there was something that just bothered me, hence my question at the top about wondering how this flick did among the masses. What bothered me was the language used. That's why I'm a tiny bit down on this movie. I think I heard that there is some criticism on the movie about this - and that was my qualm as well. It made me uncomfortable. I left the theatre saying to myself that I honestly don't know that I'd want to see the movie again, specifically because of the non-stop language used. I know it was about a time period in history where slavery was the norm...but every sentence and phrase (it felt like) had unnecessary language used to describe the slaves. Maybe unnecessary is the wrong word, just over the top. Too much. For me anyway.
Still, hell of a movie. So I have to give it a B. Pretty typical Tarantino, with the normal quirks and filming. Including one of his famous 'spin-around-the-characters-with-the-camera-while-they-converse' scenes. I just looked on RottenTomatoes.com (c) and they show that the critics give it an 89% and the viewers a 94%.
The main bounty hunter reminded me of an older Jason Schwartzman. Apparently he was one of the main characters in Inglorious Basterds, but I can't recall exactly. I'm sure if I put it on I would recall very quickly. Anyway, he did a good job. His name is Christopher Waltz. Re: Leonardo, he does swell too...Samuel L. also. It's really good acting, all of it. Jamie Foxx was superb. I just read something where Leo describes his character as rotting from the inside. That's funny.
Along with the acting being grand all around was the story - which was also good. And there was a lot of Quentin's famous blood and guts and explosions. But I guess there was something that just bothered me, hence my question at the top about wondering how this flick did among the masses. What bothered me was the language used. That's why I'm a tiny bit down on this movie. I think I heard that there is some criticism on the movie about this - and that was my qualm as well. It made me uncomfortable. I left the theatre saying to myself that I honestly don't know that I'd want to see the movie again, specifically because of the non-stop language used. I know it was about a time period in history where slavery was the norm...but every sentence and phrase (it felt like) had unnecessary language used to describe the slaves. Maybe unnecessary is the wrong word, just over the top. Too much. For me anyway.
Still, hell of a movie. So I have to give it a B. Pretty typical Tarantino, with the normal quirks and filming. Including one of his famous 'spin-around-the-characters-with-the-camera-while-they-converse' scenes. I just looked on RottenTomatoes.com (c) and they show that the critics give it an 89% and the viewers a 94%.
09 December 2012
Warrior #177 (B+)
Pretty sure the plot is known here by the entire world, but for those who are reading this in 17 years I'll do a quick recap. A teacher who can barely pay his bills needs some extra dough or his family will go bankrupt. He used to do some MMA (c) fighting in his younger days, and decides to get back involved. There is a giant tournament coming with a huge purse and he decides to enter the contest. With great fortune for the teacher, the main fighter from his gym gets hurt and cannot compete....thus a spot opens up and he can join the tourney. Also, he has a brother. Okay, you are caught up on the plot now....
Once the tournament starts, I feel like they film the entire rest of the movie as one long day. Is that true? Maybe it was just me who was confused, and/or they didn't film this well? How many days are involved? They can't fight twice within the same day can they? I'm guessing the tournament occurs over many days, but they don't make this very apparent. As in, there aren't any cut scenes with either brother and their family, trainers, or whatever. I would think that they would have a fight and then show the husband with his wife and kid during the week, or prepping with the training for the next scheduled fight. Instead, they do one fight, then it's seemingly immediately followed up by another. Oh well.
I really liked this movie. I am happy I watched it. Once again, Tom Hardy transforms himself into a crazy awesome role. He's ripped again like in Bronson. I don't quite understand how a fairly plain looking guy can look completely different in nearly every movie he's starred in?? He's obviously a favorite of mine...man, I just got excited to see Dark Knight Rises... Last statement, Tom Hardy IS today's Gary Oldman. (Ohhhhh, they are BOTH in the Dark Knight Rises!!)
Once the tournament starts, I feel like they film the entire rest of the movie as one long day. Is that true? Maybe it was just me who was confused, and/or they didn't film this well? How many days are involved? They can't fight twice within the same day can they? I'm guessing the tournament occurs over many days, but they don't make this very apparent. As in, there aren't any cut scenes with either brother and their family, trainers, or whatever. I would think that they would have a fight and then show the husband with his wife and kid during the week, or prepping with the training for the next scheduled fight. Instead, they do one fight, then it's seemingly immediately followed up by another. Oh well.
I really liked this movie. I am happy I watched it. Once again, Tom Hardy transforms himself into a crazy awesome role. He's ripped again like in Bronson. I don't quite understand how a fairly plain looking guy can look completely different in nearly every movie he's starred in?? He's obviously a favorite of mine...man, I just got excited to see Dark Knight Rises... Last statement, Tom Hardy IS today's Gary Oldman. (Ohhhhh, they are BOTH in the Dark Knight Rises!!)
Crawlspace #176 (B-)
This is not to be confused with the Klaus Kinski version (click here for my review on the Klaus Kinski version), but is also a pretty swell movie. They are completely separate movie plots just with the same name. I believe the Crawlspace I'm reviewing here was initially a made for TV film, but you can get it on DVD. I would say it isn't a main streamer and is probably more for someone who is willing to sit and watch an older, slower paced movie without too many gimmicks. The plot is a nice, traditional family (husband and wife only) who could not have children, find a strange squatter in their basement crawlspace. Because they always wanted kids, they decide to befriend this random oddball. They feed him and give him clothes, and invite him for Christmas dinner. For the most part, "Richard" (aka the crawl space hippy troll) declines their invites and chooses to stay where he's most comfortable, wedged between the basement ceiling and a drafty floor/straw. The family finally convinces Richard to go to the store to get them groceries, but the store folk make fun of Richard and he ends up leaving empty handed and even without his $20. Later that night, Richard heads back and trashes the store. The town folk then want Richard's head on a platter, and the nice older couple does their best to defend Richard...despite knowing that he's wrong. One thing leads to another and bad stuff happens, you'll have to watch to find out. I did enjoy this flick though, a pretty fun and strange older movie. I like seeing twisted movies from the 70's.
If this happened in this day, it would be certainly different results. The family was just like, "oh, there's a young man living in the basement, in a hole full of cobwebs and straw....let's give him a suit and some cookies! And pretend like he's our long lost son." Heck....what the hell!?
When I rent a movie, versus watch it on streaming - my picture/screenshot ability is greatly limited. Thus I apologize for the two awful pictures below. Yes, that is my lamp in the reflection and yes, the 2nd shot is blurry:
If this happened in this day, it would be certainly different results. The family was just like, "oh, there's a young man living in the basement, in a hole full of cobwebs and straw....let's give him a suit and some cookies! And pretend like he's our long lost son." Heck....what the hell!?
When I rent a movie, versus watch it on streaming - my picture/screenshot ability is greatly limited. Thus I apologize for the two awful pictures below. Yes, that is my lamp in the reflection and yes, the 2nd shot is blurry:
Long Weekend (1978 version) #175 (B-)
This flick is not to be confused with the awesome (I'm sarcastically guessing that it is awesome) movie from 2005 staring Chris Klein...this version of "Long Weekend" was from 1978 and is placed in Australia. There is no connection here other than the names. Now that we are clear on this....on to the review.
So far I'm 11 minutes in and I had to press pause to state something about what's occurred so far. A couple (at least I think they are an item) met up in the morning to head out on some sort of vacation. Prior to knocking on the woman's door, the man pulled out a rifle and put the scope on her face as she walked around her kitchen on the 2nd floor. Odd. Then on their drive out to holiday, they spent the time screaming at each other...followed by the dude almost crashing into a van, a few minutes/hours later trying to go around a car and almost hitting another car head on, then the guy threw a match or cigarette out the window and caught the side of the road on fire, and finally he nailed a wallaby square on killing it dead. All while not paying attention. This movie is crazy so far. Not sure if that is in a good way however.
I'm finished watching now. It was pretty entertaining. Basically this couple is going on a retreat to the outback/beach, as the have been having troubles with their relationship (and as it turns out the wife had an abortion due to getting knocked up by another guy, which is divulged mid way). Along the way to the beach and also while at the beach, they commit unnecessary acts against nature. For instance they shoot animals, the man chops down a tree just because, they smash an eagle egg and they shoot a sea cow. The remaining plot is nature turns on them until everyone dies. The last 30 minutes are pretty gripping. I rewound the last scene 3 times including some screen by screen slow motion. It was an "ooooooh!" scene for sure.
Here is a small conversation between the couple:
Peter: "You preoccupied Marcia?"
Marcia: "Let's go home"
Peter: "We just got here"
Marcia: "I'll make it worth your wild gorgeous"
Peter: "Home is where I leave my dirty socks"
Marcia: "Should have married your mother"
Peter: "You've got better tits"
Marcia: "I'm serious Pete"
Peter: "About marrying my mother?"
Marcia: "About going home.."
Peter: "Why?"
Marcia: "To beat the traffic"
After watching this I was listening to another podcast by the Mondo Movie guys, and they mentioned Long Weekend. Then they mentioned that Jim Caviezal was involved in a remake of this movie. I looked it up and found out that it is true and the remake is called Nature's Grave (also listed as Long Weekend depending on where you look). I noted that the Jim's character was named Peter and the dog was still Cricket, but they renamed the wife to Carla (versus Marcia). I wonder why changes like that occur?
So far I'm 11 minutes in and I had to press pause to state something about what's occurred so far. A couple (at least I think they are an item) met up in the morning to head out on some sort of vacation. Prior to knocking on the woman's door, the man pulled out a rifle and put the scope on her face as she walked around her kitchen on the 2nd floor. Odd. Then on their drive out to holiday, they spent the time screaming at each other...followed by the dude almost crashing into a van, a few minutes/hours later trying to go around a car and almost hitting another car head on, then the guy threw a match or cigarette out the window and caught the side of the road on fire, and finally he nailed a wallaby square on killing it dead. All while not paying attention. This movie is crazy so far. Not sure if that is in a good way however.
I'm finished watching now. It was pretty entertaining. Basically this couple is going on a retreat to the outback/beach, as the have been having troubles with their relationship (and as it turns out the wife had an abortion due to getting knocked up by another guy, which is divulged mid way). Along the way to the beach and also while at the beach, they commit unnecessary acts against nature. For instance they shoot animals, the man chops down a tree just because, they smash an eagle egg and they shoot a sea cow. The remaining plot is nature turns on them until everyone dies. The last 30 minutes are pretty gripping. I rewound the last scene 3 times including some screen by screen slow motion. It was an "ooooooh!" scene for sure.
Here is a small conversation between the couple:
Peter: "You preoccupied Marcia?"
Marcia: "Let's go home"
Peter: "We just got here"
Marcia: "I'll make it worth your wild gorgeous"
Peter: "Home is where I leave my dirty socks"
Marcia: "Should have married your mother"
Peter: "You've got better tits"
Marcia: "I'm serious Pete"
Peter: "About marrying my mother?"
Marcia: "About going home.."
Peter: "Why?"
Marcia: "To beat the traffic"
After watching this I was listening to another podcast by the Mondo Movie guys, and they mentioned Long Weekend. Then they mentioned that Jim Caviezal was involved in a remake of this movie. I looked it up and found out that it is true and the remake is called Nature's Grave (also listed as Long Weekend depending on where you look). I noted that the Jim's character was named Peter and the dog was still Cricket, but they renamed the wife to Carla (versus Marcia). I wonder why changes like that occur?
01 December 2012
#174 The Last House on the Left (1972) (B-)
Can I ask a brain question of you on this fine day? When there is both an original and a remake of a movie - does the viewer generally end up liking the first one they see the best? As in, if I see the remake first, I like it better than the original. And vice versa, if I see the original first I like it better than the remake. For me it seems that this might be the case. I was going to write more about this thought at the end of the post, as well as give examples - but I've decided to write an entire post on this topic instead. So, go here ________ for that write up. I will basically list a bunch of examples and state whether I liked the original or remake better - and then also mention which I saw first. Then we can begin to see if the phenomenon is real.
Now on to the movie. As you can probably tell from the first paragraph, I've seen the remake of The Last House on the Left already, somewhere within my past movie viewing experience. I ended up liking it 4 stars worth in Netflix (c), the same as this movie. And I probably would give both an overall rating of somewhere between a C+ or B- (it's close). And yes, for the record I would rather give them 3.5 stars to be more fitting. Regarding which I liked better, I think I liked the remake a tiny amount better. I feel like it was more modern with better finishing moves. I recall a nice scene involving a sink.
The original was good however and the acting was clutch - but I guess it just lacked based on what it was able to show, which could have hurt the movie. Since it was from the early 70's, they really couldn't show too much of the action. Still they did a pretty good job considering the rules back then. In the last sequence within the house, when the parents caught on and started to booby trap the house (a la Home Alone), it got a bit cheesy. That final fight with the main bad guy and the Dad was pretty ridiculous. I bet in the 70's they could still fight like a normal person, versus having it portrayed almost as if they were snapping their fingers as they spun in a circle, getting ready to battle 50's style. The bad guy would punch the Dad in the gut and they would stand there and talk about it for a 20 seconds, all while his fist is still in his stomach. And then the Dad would offer the same back....just slow and not the best scene for me. Comical almost? I should not be so harsh, because then the Dad gets a chainsaw and chases the rest of the baddies around and it is pretty good overall. And that one guy just forces the other one to blow his brains out, just because he has so much power over him in his posse - that's pretty crazy, because he did what he said all the time, including ending it all.
But, in the end I am thankful for having watched this movie. Wes did a good job in his first directing attempt. I think he will have a successful career. LOL. (Craven for those that think I meant Anderson) I also loved that essentially the entire film took place outside and during the day. That is always the best for me, versus hiding a good portion of the flick in the shadows. Turn on a light and still make it scary...challenge on directors out there.
I also need to ask, why do they make a mockery of the two police officers throughout the movie? They even go as far as playing circus music as they are fumbling around. Just not sure why they added this aspect, but oh well. The music was actually well done throughout. Maybe in the end I liked the original better :)
Now on to the movie. As you can probably tell from the first paragraph, I've seen the remake of The Last House on the Left already, somewhere within my past movie viewing experience. I ended up liking it 4 stars worth in Netflix (c), the same as this movie. And I probably would give both an overall rating of somewhere between a C+ or B- (it's close). And yes, for the record I would rather give them 3.5 stars to be more fitting. Regarding which I liked better, I think I liked the remake a tiny amount better. I feel like it was more modern with better finishing moves. I recall a nice scene involving a sink.
The original was good however and the acting was clutch - but I guess it just lacked based on what it was able to show, which could have hurt the movie. Since it was from the early 70's, they really couldn't show too much of the action. Still they did a pretty good job considering the rules back then. In the last sequence within the house, when the parents caught on and started to booby trap the house (a la Home Alone), it got a bit cheesy. That final fight with the main bad guy and the Dad was pretty ridiculous. I bet in the 70's they could still fight like a normal person, versus having it portrayed almost as if they were snapping their fingers as they spun in a circle, getting ready to battle 50's style. The bad guy would punch the Dad in the gut and they would stand there and talk about it for a 20 seconds, all while his fist is still in his stomach. And then the Dad would offer the same back....just slow and not the best scene for me. Comical almost? I should not be so harsh, because then the Dad gets a chainsaw and chases the rest of the baddies around and it is pretty good overall. And that one guy just forces the other one to blow his brains out, just because he has so much power over him in his posse - that's pretty crazy, because he did what he said all the time, including ending it all.
But, in the end I am thankful for having watched this movie. Wes did a good job in his first directing attempt. I think he will have a successful career. LOL. (Craven for those that think I meant Anderson) I also loved that essentially the entire film took place outside and during the day. That is always the best for me, versus hiding a good portion of the flick in the shadows. Turn on a light and still make it scary...challenge on directors out there.
I also need to ask, why do they make a mockery of the two police officers throughout the movie? They even go as far as playing circus music as they are fumbling around. Just not sure why they added this aspect, but oh well. The music was actually well done throughout. Maybe in the end I liked the original better :)
23 November 2012
Wreck-It Ralph (B+) #171
Good family fun here. I took all my guys to see this one...and after a few bathroom trips, I think I saw 94% of the flick by the end! :) Man, if I was a kid today watching this movie...I would be totally excited at the thought of this make believe world. It was like Toy Story, but for kids that like video games. At night, when the arcade closes, the games "come alive" and the characters from each game can go through their power chords and into the power strip aka the central station. There they can party together all night as long as they get back before the arcade opens in the morning, and as a rule they MUST NOT die outside of their game or they will be gone forever.
Is there some sort of psychology behind making the characters look just like John C. Reilly, Jane Lynch, and Sarah Silverman? I just wonder why they do this? I guess it helps them to do the voice? But, do they do the voice first or drawing first? I'm going to ask SA to explain it to me. Good thing there wasn't a Mario or Luigi main character because they'd have to John Leguizamo to read the lines. But really, I ask again why do they make the characters look like the actors doing the voice? Ralph even had John C's gap in his tooth. Craziness.
Last note to remark on before I do some interviews - does anyone think that they had to pay royalties to use the video game characters in the movie? For those that have seen this, you know that most of the games were made up and most of the characters were nobodies. That is except for the few real characters that they used - namely Sonic, Pac-man and Blinky, Q-Bert and Bowser. I just wish they were able to have free reign and put guys like Karnov, or the Contra twins, or Dig Dug, and maybe the dude from Frostbite in the movie.
I decided to interview 4 random kids who saw the movie, and their interview reaction/answers are below:
Kid #1: It was a good movie, I liked it a lot. I really enjoyed the part when Ralph licked the little green sour guy. I also liked when um Ralph, don't write um....hahahahaha. Dad, erase that! I knew who Q-Bert was because we watched him on YouTube (c). I laughed during the Hero's Duty jokes. Is that enough?
Kid#2: I barely liked it, but most of it was funny. Like, um, I think it was like, it was like um, a....like, um...may I please have a drink? My favorite game in there was like, um, when he was in Sugar Rush when he went through and then he punched the thing of the doom pit, and all of the bugs went to the light, even King Candy. Can you get rid of the may I please have a drink part?
Kid #3: I like it. Wreck it Ralph destroyed the little girl's car. Um, he wrecks stuff. My favorite part was when the little girl showed Wreck it Ralph her home and when Wreck it Ralph helped her make her car. I like the whole thing. We saw the Wreck it Ralph whole movie. I want to watch the movie again. Dad, why are you writing that?
Kid #4: I like Wreck it Ralph breaking the little girl's car. And I like all of it. (What else? What was your favorite parts?) All of them!
Ok this is me again...that worked pretty well. My interview skills are lacking I suppose. I also noted a glitch in the movie, it happened a few times actually. When you watch you will likely see what I'm talking about. It's pretty obvious.
(c)
Is there some sort of psychology behind making the characters look just like John C. Reilly, Jane Lynch, and Sarah Silverman? I just wonder why they do this? I guess it helps them to do the voice? But, do they do the voice first or drawing first? I'm going to ask SA to explain it to me. Good thing there wasn't a Mario or Luigi main character because they'd have to John Leguizamo to read the lines. But really, I ask again why do they make the characters look like the actors doing the voice? Ralph even had John C's gap in his tooth. Craziness.
Last note to remark on before I do some interviews - does anyone think that they had to pay royalties to use the video game characters in the movie? For those that have seen this, you know that most of the games were made up and most of the characters were nobodies. That is except for the few real characters that they used - namely Sonic, Pac-man and Blinky, Q-Bert and Bowser. I just wish they were able to have free reign and put guys like Karnov, or the Contra twins, or Dig Dug, and maybe the dude from Frostbite in the movie.
I decided to interview 4 random kids who saw the movie, and their interview reaction/answers are below:
Kid #1: It was a good movie, I liked it a lot. I really enjoyed the part when Ralph licked the little green sour guy. I also liked when um Ralph, don't write um....hahahahaha. Dad, erase that! I knew who Q-Bert was because we watched him on YouTube (c). I laughed during the Hero's Duty jokes. Is that enough?
Kid#2: I barely liked it, but most of it was funny. Like, um, I think it was like, it was like um, a....like, um...may I please have a drink? My favorite game in there was like, um, when he was in Sugar Rush when he went through and then he punched the thing of the doom pit, and all of the bugs went to the light, even King Candy. Can you get rid of the may I please have a drink part?
Kid #3: I like it. Wreck it Ralph destroyed the little girl's car. Um, he wrecks stuff. My favorite part was when the little girl showed Wreck it Ralph her home and when Wreck it Ralph helped her make her car. I like the whole thing. We saw the Wreck it Ralph whole movie. I want to watch the movie again. Dad, why are you writing that?
Kid #4: I like Wreck it Ralph breaking the little girl's car. And I like all of it. (What else? What was your favorite parts?) All of them!
Ok this is me again...that worked pretty well. My interview skills are lacking I suppose. I also noted a glitch in the movie, it happened a few times actually. When you watch you will likely see what I'm talking about. It's pretty obvious.
(c)13 November 2012
The Grey #169 (B-)
My movie reviews have contained a lot of "I don't know who recommended this to me" and "someone once told me that this movie stunk so....". The Grey is no exception. Someone once told me that this wasn't the best....so for a long time I avoided it altogether and thought I didn't want to waste my time watching. Well, I pushed play the other day and made it through 42 minutes and enjoyed what I saw. Last night I finished the rest of the flick, and overall had a very fun ride.
I went in thinking this was going to be all about bad cgi wolves...specifically I thought to myself, how in the world could a 2 hour movie be all about wolf attacks? Well a few scenes were like that, but none too badly done...much to my surprise considering the previews showing 17 sets of glowing eyes staring at Liam and crew. I don't pretend to understand wolves and their territory, but as Liam tried to tell the crew - apparently they attack if you are in their "zone". I guess they were in their "zone" for the entire journey, because they had non-stop howling and glowing eyes engaged on them in the nearby forest. But again it wasn't the worst as I did think it would be more overbearing.
I absolutely loved how they painted the start of the movie, beginning with the plane crash which set the scene - great cinema, just fantastic. I was really on the edge of my seat. Well done, good suspense, good viewpoint...then they were stranded in the middle of ice and snow nowhere...again, great shots and perfect set-up/feel. The director built a suspense that had me totally hooked.
It would have been slightly cool if they developed the characters of the 8 or so guys that were left after the crash. I guess they had them so bundled up, that you really could barely see them to get to know each of them. Even the guy who was bitching and moaning about Liam being wrong, and wanting to take their personal belongings wasn't recognizable enough to me for me to know if he was the guy who just got eaten. Never mind, I realized later that he was still there. And over time, the character building was better...but done more once there were only a few left (spoiler, people die).
The ending actually was perfect for me. Someone once mentioned I would hate the ending. I was totally okay with it. Not many movies end like this. It was sad, but also makes a bit of sense given the position and situation.
I went in thinking this was going to be all about bad cgi wolves...specifically I thought to myself, how in the world could a 2 hour movie be all about wolf attacks? Well a few scenes were like that, but none too badly done...much to my surprise considering the previews showing 17 sets of glowing eyes staring at Liam and crew. I don't pretend to understand wolves and their territory, but as Liam tried to tell the crew - apparently they attack if you are in their "zone". I guess they were in their "zone" for the entire journey, because they had non-stop howling and glowing eyes engaged on them in the nearby forest. But again it wasn't the worst as I did think it would be more overbearing.
I absolutely loved how they painted the start of the movie, beginning with the plane crash which set the scene - great cinema, just fantastic. I was really on the edge of my seat. Well done, good suspense, good viewpoint...then they were stranded in the middle of ice and snow nowhere...again, great shots and perfect set-up/feel. The director built a suspense that had me totally hooked.
It would have been slightly cool if they developed the characters of the 8 or so guys that were left after the crash. I guess they had them so bundled up, that you really could barely see them to get to know each of them. Even the guy who was bitching and moaning about Liam being wrong, and wanting to take their personal belongings wasn't recognizable enough to me for me to know if he was the guy who just got eaten. Never mind, I realized later that he was still there. And over time, the character building was better...but done more once there were only a few left (spoiler, people die).
The ending actually was perfect for me. Someone once mentioned I would hate the ending. I was totally okay with it. Not many movies end like this. It was sad, but also makes a bit of sense given the position and situation.
20 October 2012
The Abominable Dr. Phibes #167 (B)
Poetic plot recap, spoken in 70's verse:
'The incredible legends of the abominable Dr. Phibes began a few short years ago. All of them unfortunately true. It was here, in London's fashionable Malden Square, whence Phibes ventured out to work his diabolical revenge against those responsible for the death of his beloved wife Victoria, and the destruction of his own face - making it necessary to talk though an ingenius mechanism in his neck. Phibes says, "my wife existed only 6 minutes on the operating table...you murdered her...when the acid reaches him, he will have a face....like....mine!"
The most brilliant minds of Scotland Yard were baffled, as the amazing murders continued each more feandish than the last. And in his soundproof basement of his mansion....none could hear his flamboiant songs of triumph and revenge, played on his organ and by his ingenius clockwork musicians.
"We have got to find Phibes!" Only by a stroke of amazing luck did the police seek out Malden Square. But the feendish Dr. Phibes was prepared for such an emergency, and building his face anew, he entered the cript where he had enshrined his beloved wife, incredibly maintained, neither alive nor completely dead. And there Phibes placed himself in suspended life, like her....until it would be time for Phibes to rise again!'
Cue sequel music!! I can smell it! (and because its currently 2012 - I know for a fact that there is indeed a sequel)
'The incredible legends of the abominable Dr. Phibes began a few short years ago. All of them unfortunately true. It was here, in London's fashionable Malden Square, whence Phibes ventured out to work his diabolical revenge against those responsible for the death of his beloved wife Victoria, and the destruction of his own face - making it necessary to talk though an ingenius mechanism in his neck. Phibes says, "my wife existed only 6 minutes on the operating table...you murdered her...when the acid reaches him, he will have a face....like....mine!"
The most brilliant minds of Scotland Yard were baffled, as the amazing murders continued each more feandish than the last. And in his soundproof basement of his mansion....none could hear his flamboiant songs of triumph and revenge, played on his organ and by his ingenius clockwork musicians.
"We have got to find Phibes!" Only by a stroke of amazing luck did the police seek out Malden Square. But the feendish Dr. Phibes was prepared for such an emergency, and building his face anew, he entered the cript where he had enshrined his beloved wife, incredibly maintained, neither alive nor completely dead. And there Phibes placed himself in suspended life, like her....until it would be time for Phibes to rise again!'
Cue sequel music!! I can smell it! (and because its currently 2012 - I know for a fact that there is indeed a sequel)
I applaud two of the killings by Dr. Phibes, as they happen right under the nose of the inspectors. Phibes is specifically creative with all 8-9 of his killings, however the brass head of a unicorn catapulted across the street and through the chest of an unsuspecting victim is one of the best. He also loves death by creature. Lets see - there was death by bat, locust, rat...and in a way there was death by frog. Totally rad. I have a feeling that this movie inspired the creator of the "Saw" series, especially that last death scene. Each death was elaborate and disgusting...all while the killer was nowhere to be found. Excellent.
Like the Gore Gore Girls, this movie fit the mold of those taboo horror movies from its time. I learned of this movie from a tip from someone stating this was a brilliant horror classic from the 70's - containing crazy, purposefully calculated offings. Whoever suggested this was right. This is my first Vincent Price movie. However hopefully not my last.
Like the Gore Gore Girls, this movie fit the mold of those taboo horror movies from its time. I learned of this movie from a tip from someone stating this was a brilliant horror classic from the 70's - containing crazy, purposefully calculated offings. Whoever suggested this was right. This is my first Vincent Price movie. However hopefully not my last.
Also one quick statement about Phibes band, which was named Dr. Phibes' Clockwork Wizards. They were found within an elaborate organ room in Phibes' mansion, and were composed of moving dummies who played various instruments while Phibes played along on the organ.
07 October 2012
MOVIE 165 End of Watch (B)
Hi there....I watched End of Watch a few days ago. And did so actually in the theatre as you might expect. With popcorn and a soda the size of my ass head. It's been a while since I've gone to the theatre, since perhaps Snow White's Huntsman or maybe Ted (it took me a while to post this, I've since seen Looper). It felt good to get out there again, knock off the rust a bit. Speaking of the theatre - I still haven't seen the new Batman, Total Recall, Premium Rush (LOL), Dredd (again, LOL), Bourne Legacy, Expendables 2, or the Possession (note to self, don't see the Possession aka the Dibbuk Box movie - too dangerous).
Now moving on to discussing End of Watch. It was a good movie for sure. Per a commercial I saw just a day or so ago, it's the #1 movie right now....a bit hard to believe, but okay. I will say that I recommend going out and seeing it. It wasn't the best ever and I have at least one pretty major gripe (see below), but it's still real good and totally worth a view. In the theatre? Maybe not. You could wait and watch this on your home system. They did a superb job building the characters...in fact, it is basically all they did throughout the movie. Jake and Michael Pena are best buds, and they joke with each other, share excitement in the field of duty together, and would even die together. Does it feel a bit like Harsh Times? By that I mean have a feel of two homeboys riding around in a car for most of the movie all while within the "harsh" inner city streets? Yes.
Here's my gripe. They all had cameras. Jake had more than one. Apparently he was filming everything for a "project" he was doing for some sort of schooling he is in. So in every scene, he's walking around filming, most times while also holding his gun and peaking around corners. Typically cop move right? In a bad situation, yet it's important to ensure that you have your handheld camera. Then, even the bad guys had a camera. They would carry it around and film their "bad" stuff, and then one of the bad leaders would say, "turn that stuff off and get serious" and push it with his hand. Speaking of that, there were 4 major bad guys, and 2 of the 4 were girls. Nothing against girls, but seriously? The main bad guys are going to roll in a posse like this? Just doesn't seem hardcore enough. Again, sorry....as I know there are a lot of real tough girls out there that are offended right now. I just would think that Jake and Michael Pena would have had a harder time going against 4 really tough dudes, not 2 and 2.
Note to self....See Higanjima! Currently Netflizzz (c) doesn't have it available, so I have to put it on the save portion of the list, along with exactly 51 others. Seriously? Hey Netflix (c)....I love ya, but you gotta go and get these DVDs. I've had some in my save section since I joined a few years ago. Why can you not see that I (and others) would like to rent certain movies? Ok, bye bye.
Now moving on to discussing End of Watch. It was a good movie for sure. Per a commercial I saw just a day or so ago, it's the #1 movie right now....a bit hard to believe, but okay. I will say that I recommend going out and seeing it. It wasn't the best ever and I have at least one pretty major gripe (see below), but it's still real good and totally worth a view. In the theatre? Maybe not. You could wait and watch this on your home system. They did a superb job building the characters...in fact, it is basically all they did throughout the movie. Jake and Michael Pena are best buds, and they joke with each other, share excitement in the field of duty together, and would even die together. Does it feel a bit like Harsh Times? By that I mean have a feel of two homeboys riding around in a car for most of the movie all while within the "harsh" inner city streets? Yes.
Here's my gripe. They all had cameras. Jake had more than one. Apparently he was filming everything for a "project" he was doing for some sort of schooling he is in. So in every scene, he's walking around filming, most times while also holding his gun and peaking around corners. Typically cop move right? In a bad situation, yet it's important to ensure that you have your handheld camera. Then, even the bad guys had a camera. They would carry it around and film their "bad" stuff, and then one of the bad leaders would say, "turn that stuff off and get serious" and push it with his hand. Speaking of that, there were 4 major bad guys, and 2 of the 4 were girls. Nothing against girls, but seriously? The main bad guys are going to roll in a posse like this? Just doesn't seem hardcore enough. Again, sorry....as I know there are a lot of real tough girls out there that are offended right now. I just would think that Jake and Michael Pena would have had a harder time going against 4 really tough dudes, not 2 and 2.
Note to self....See Higanjima! Currently Netflizzz (c) doesn't have it available, so I have to put it on the save portion of the list, along with exactly 51 others. Seriously? Hey Netflix (c)....I love ya, but you gotta go and get these DVDs. I've had some in my save section since I joined a few years ago. Why can you not see that I (and others) would like to rent certain movies? Ok, bye bye.
Altered #164 (B)
So tell me, how long can you go with your intestines yanked out of you and stretched onto the other side of the room? This one dude lasted for over an hour with his out - bet that's longer than you could last. For most of the hour he held his intestines in his hands, compiled in a messy, knotty pile.
Basic plot summary of Altered: a few dozen years ago (although they show none of it, but it would make a great prequel) 5 guys have some sort of abduction experience. Four of them make it back. Three of them are still friends while one has been sort of shunned by the community because of what allegedly happened to the 5th guy that didn't come back. Also the 4th guy stayed up on the ship longer than the others.....so, another reason the town blames him.
Hellbent on gaining revenge, the now adult friends trek out into the woods with home-made harpoon guns and shottys with taped on spot-lights...only to come home with a captured creature - same species that abducted them years prior. They have no where to go but to the 4th friends house/warehouse. From there they get into a world of trouble, as of course the creature escapes. There is also a girlfriend involved, not sure why but they tie her up and put her in the bedroom with her mouth taped shut. I guess so that the thing doesn't overtake her mind? But then couldn't the alien also do that to the 4 friends? A bit confused about that part.
When the cop shows up, there are some pretty good scenes and dialog. I like when he's dying, all he wants is to get a final Yeungling (c). LOL. I also liked watching the guy who got infected turn into a ball of mess. That was good special effects. He was falling apart at the end. Literally. That guy was a good actor. He remained mean and mad despite having his insides coming outside and his other body parts, like his face, falling off. I also dug the friend with the crazy mullet hair - he was also a good actor. I'd see more with him in it. Hell, they all do a good job considering.
When the "altered" friend was in the field, why do the other creature/aliens not see him? That was odd. Maybe with a second viewing I'll understand better. Unfortunately at this point I don't have time to make for a second viewing of this low-budget "masterpiece". But, I recommend it for sure and give it a solid B.
Basic plot summary of Altered: a few dozen years ago (although they show none of it, but it would make a great prequel) 5 guys have some sort of abduction experience. Four of them make it back. Three of them are still friends while one has been sort of shunned by the community because of what allegedly happened to the 5th guy that didn't come back. Also the 4th guy stayed up on the ship longer than the others.....so, another reason the town blames him.
Hellbent on gaining revenge, the now adult friends trek out into the woods with home-made harpoon guns and shottys with taped on spot-lights...only to come home with a captured creature - same species that abducted them years prior. They have no where to go but to the 4th friends house/warehouse. From there they get into a world of trouble, as of course the creature escapes. There is also a girlfriend involved, not sure why but they tie her up and put her in the bedroom with her mouth taped shut. I guess so that the thing doesn't overtake her mind? But then couldn't the alien also do that to the 4 friends? A bit confused about that part.
When the cop shows up, there are some pretty good scenes and dialog. I like when he's dying, all he wants is to get a final Yeungling (c). LOL. I also liked watching the guy who got infected turn into a ball of mess. That was good special effects. He was falling apart at the end. Literally. That guy was a good actor. He remained mean and mad despite having his insides coming outside and his other body parts, like his face, falling off. I also dug the friend with the crazy mullet hair - he was also a good actor. I'd see more with him in it. Hell, they all do a good job considering.
When the "altered" friend was in the field, why do the other creature/aliens not see him? That was odd. Maybe with a second viewing I'll understand better. Unfortunately at this point I don't have time to make for a second viewing of this low-budget "masterpiece". But, I recommend it for sure and give it a solid B.
17 August 2012
director's cut 'Mimic' (B+) / #158
"Piece of shit, on the ceiling....figure that one out" - Josh Brolin, Mimic
This movie and I have a bit of history. History that existed even before me seeing it. I listened to a podcast (again....the Mondo Movie guys, who I love and now sometimes tweet with) where they discussed how epic the movie was, but most specifically the director's cut - if you were to watch any version of Mimic this was the version per them. So I saw that Netflix (c) had Mimic available and I started to watch it. Without knowing if it was the director's cut, I ended up pushing stop and didn't view the entire movie. I did however watch the beginning and enjoyed it. I then fast-forwarded to the end to see if I could tell if it was the director's cut. I blogged that mini-viewing, albeit only about 20 minutes worth of viewing pleasure to go on....perhaps someday I'll post that mess (unedited, it's a real mess, but it's funny to read back). So that takes us to present day....heard a podcast, peaked my interest, watched about 20 minutes including the ending....and then I set out on my quest to find the director's cut. This was no small feat. I tried a few used DVD-type stores and struck out. Then I opted to just order it once I realized that it was eating away at me and I needed to see it. So finally it came in the mail. And below, is what ensued (I also forgot to add the part about me talking up the director's cut to a handful of friends before seeing it....so there's that too).
Ahhh Mimic, finally.....the director's cut is in my hand! I like that for the majority of the movie there were three things going on at once. Basically the plot was affecting more than one person and they showed all of the people involved, doing their thing in different scenes concurrently, as the plot unfolded beneath the town. A very endearing quality, and done subtly in the background if you will. Meaning, people probably don't notice how good the flow of the movie was, which created a constant dark mini-action feel created nicely by del Toro. This is a hats-off statement to a good director in my mind, when a movie can make you feel this way without even trying (to the viewer, I'm sure del Toro tried). Hands together again for del Toro who does a really good job at creating this atmosphere.
I have nothing against children, much less handicapped children - but damn I wish that Chuy kid would have died. Sorry if I'm ruining any plot here by saying he lives. But you likely will wish him to die too. I guess I really shouldn't say this, and thinking back on the movie I suppose parts of his character weren't the worst and added to the plot, but honestly the "Mr. Funny Shoes" thing was annoying to me. But for now I'll take it back sarcastically and change my tune to the following - I actually loved this Chuy (pronounced Chewy) character and was happy that he didn't get hit by a train at the end, and I was also happy that the Mimic creatures didn't devour him once he walked into their lair about mid-way through the flick, and lastly I was super happy that he lived when the male Mimic creature didn't pierce his skull with his sharp arm talon thinger. Which by the way, am I the only one that noted that these talons made sword noises? I'll say that again. Did you notice that the Mimic creatures had sharp piercing appendages??.....And those appendages made freaking sword noises?!? What the hell was up with that?
Lastly a note about Mira Sorvino: I think this was the first movie I've seen with her in it?? I could be wrong. But she was sexy and she liked bugs, a lot. What else do you need? Not much. She should have done more action films in her prime. Since this was made in 1997, she is probably not making many more films, much less action films.
Sorry if I could bitch just one more time....when I went to Netflix (c) to watch the non-director's cut ending....I found that I needed to download Silverlight (c) AGAIN! I think this is the 30th time officially within the last year. I guess it's good they get it right and fix the bugs, but holy bloody hell.
After watching the non-director's cut ending, I was confused because I saw the exact same thing in each version. So I did some reading on-line. Apparently del Toro only added about 7 total minutes of "fixes" and these are barely noticeable in the director's cut, but they must add what is needed to make the movie hold it's own to this day. He says roughly in the below clip from MTV.com (c), that when you watch a movie when you are 9 (and love it) and then again when you are 25 (and wonder what the hell was I thinking for loving it?), that the added 7 minutes to the film make the movie remain a "love" for fans that still watch it today. I guess the director's cut didn't come out for many years after the release of the original.
www.mtv.com del Toro explains "change" in you and Mimic
Sorry this is getting long, but I also read prior to watching this that del Toro initially wanted the movie struck from his resume. This is half because he didn't get his vision in the ending. Apparently his way would have been much darker and I suppose that means that the good guys wouldn't have walked away. That would have been awesome except I would miss Mira. But also apparently he had a hell of a time with this movie and fought with the producers and had issues with the studio, or something like that. So for me where do I stand when it comes to Guillermo del Toro? I didn't love Don't Be Afraid of the Dark at all, and I didn't love Devil's Backbone (although I'm thinking I need to see it again???)....but I did really like Cronos, Pan's Labyrinth, and Mimic in that order. I tried to start watching Hellboy and got immediately annoyed.....that leaves Blade II and the Hellboy series and I've seen them all so far.
This movie and I have a bit of history. History that existed even before me seeing it. I listened to a podcast (again....the Mondo Movie guys, who I love and now sometimes tweet with) where they discussed how epic the movie was, but most specifically the director's cut - if you were to watch any version of Mimic this was the version per them. So I saw that Netflix (c) had Mimic available and I started to watch it. Without knowing if it was the director's cut, I ended up pushing stop and didn't view the entire movie. I did however watch the beginning and enjoyed it. I then fast-forwarded to the end to see if I could tell if it was the director's cut. I blogged that mini-viewing, albeit only about 20 minutes worth of viewing pleasure to go on....perhaps someday I'll post that mess (unedited, it's a real mess, but it's funny to read back). So that takes us to present day....heard a podcast, peaked my interest, watched about 20 minutes including the ending....and then I set out on my quest to find the director's cut. This was no small feat. I tried a few used DVD-type stores and struck out. Then I opted to just order it once I realized that it was eating away at me and I needed to see it. So finally it came in the mail. And below, is what ensued (I also forgot to add the part about me talking up the director's cut to a handful of friends before seeing it....so there's that too).
Ahhh Mimic, finally.....the director's cut is in my hand! I like that for the majority of the movie there were three things going on at once. Basically the plot was affecting more than one person and they showed all of the people involved, doing their thing in different scenes concurrently, as the plot unfolded beneath the town. A very endearing quality, and done subtly in the background if you will. Meaning, people probably don't notice how good the flow of the movie was, which created a constant dark mini-action feel created nicely by del Toro. This is a hats-off statement to a good director in my mind, when a movie can make you feel this way without even trying (to the viewer, I'm sure del Toro tried). Hands together again for del Toro who does a really good job at creating this atmosphere.
I have nothing against children, much less handicapped children - but damn I wish that Chuy kid would have died. Sorry if I'm ruining any plot here by saying he lives. But you likely will wish him to die too. I guess I really shouldn't say this, and thinking back on the movie I suppose parts of his character weren't the worst and added to the plot, but honestly the "Mr. Funny Shoes" thing was annoying to me. But for now I'll take it back sarcastically and change my tune to the following - I actually loved this Chuy (pronounced Chewy) character and was happy that he didn't get hit by a train at the end, and I was also happy that the Mimic creatures didn't devour him once he walked into their lair about mid-way through the flick, and lastly I was super happy that he lived when the male Mimic creature didn't pierce his skull with his sharp arm talon thinger. Which by the way, am I the only one that noted that these talons made sword noises? I'll say that again. Did you notice that the Mimic creatures had sharp piercing appendages??.....And those appendages made freaking sword noises?!? What the hell was up with that?
Lastly a note about Mira Sorvino: I think this was the first movie I've seen with her in it?? I could be wrong. But she was sexy and she liked bugs, a lot. What else do you need? Not much. She should have done more action films in her prime. Since this was made in 1997, she is probably not making many more films, much less action films.
Sorry if I could bitch just one more time....when I went to Netflix (c) to watch the non-director's cut ending....I found that I needed to download Silverlight (c) AGAIN! I think this is the 30th time officially within the last year. I guess it's good they get it right and fix the bugs, but holy bloody hell.
After watching the non-director's cut ending, I was confused because I saw the exact same thing in each version. So I did some reading on-line. Apparently del Toro only added about 7 total minutes of "fixes" and these are barely noticeable in the director's cut, but they must add what is needed to make the movie hold it's own to this day. He says roughly in the below clip from MTV.com (c), that when you watch a movie when you are 9 (and love it) and then again when you are 25 (and wonder what the hell was I thinking for loving it?), that the added 7 minutes to the film make the movie remain a "love" for fans that still watch it today. I guess the director's cut didn't come out for many years after the release of the original.
www.mtv.com del Toro explains "change" in you and Mimic
Sorry this is getting long, but I also read prior to watching this that del Toro initially wanted the movie struck from his resume. This is half because he didn't get his vision in the ending. Apparently his way would have been much darker and I suppose that means that the good guys wouldn't have walked away. That would have been awesome except I would miss Mira. But also apparently he had a hell of a time with this movie and fought with the producers and had issues with the studio, or something like that. So for me where do I stand when it comes to Guillermo del Toro? I didn't love Don't Be Afraid of the Dark at all, and I didn't love Devil's Backbone (although I'm thinking I need to see it again???)....but I did really like Cronos, Pan's Labyrinth, and Mimic in that order. I tried to start watching Hellboy and got immediately annoyed.....that leaves Blade II and the Hellboy series and I've seen them all so far.
Chopper (B) #157
My buddy liked this piece. And for about a year and a half, perhaps longer, he asked me to check it out. I stumbled upon the flick this week and texted him a picture of Mark Chopper Read to give him a heads up I was finally watching it....and once I told him, he under-whelmingly said it was just okay and could have been better. I repeat, he recommended it to me for about a year and a half!! What the hell? I assumed that meant it was going to be straight awesome, at least per him. If I could guess, I would say he wanted more action and craziness in the movie and that is why this was dubbed "it could have been better". Come to think of it, I think it's been like 3 years.
Well guess what? I thought it was superb. It's not some crazy CGI adventure and was lacking super quality as a whole (read, it was grittily filmed and for a seemingly low budget). Rather I feel they actually did a great job portraying Mark Read and his "way", slowly developing his character throughout the entire film. I especially liked the ending and the way they wrapped it up clean and nice. They showed him sitting with the prison guards and watching his 5 minutes of fame (although they allude to the fact that he might actually be famous, I need to look that up for confirmation. Is he even a real guy?), and then the guards start to leave and say, "eh yo Chop, we're going to have to lock this door...okay?" To which Chop acknowledges....and then they close and lock the cell door. At that time the camera shot fades back....while Mark just sits by himself, in his glory, yet all alone and in an empty cell with little to no allies left.
Throughout the entire film, both in and out of prison and when he was free in the real world, everyone "seemed" to love him. Well sort of. It was like he was loved to his face, but hated behind his back. Perhaps because people were scared of him. Who could blame them, he was a total bad ass and could probably kill a predator in a 1:1 battle. It was a strange mix though, because he was also constantly a really nice guy. For instance, after each time he killed someone or drastically injured someone, he would start apologizing and offering comfort in the form of a cigarette or a trip to the hospital. Definitely some sort of bipolar craziness going down with Chop. But to me, it was portrayed perfectly which made this gritty movie well worth watching. The scenes with his ex-prison buddy Jimmy were hilarious as well.
What else is Eric Bana famous for? I need to see these other items of his resume. He was superb. 150% awesome. Great casting by the guy who casted the movie and great character representing by Bana. Honestly, if the budget was bigger and the filming was a better quality, this could have been a huge hit. The initial scenes in the prison yard when his buddies were turning on him to get the handsome ransom were totally epic. This scene specifically is why I kept watching. Mark Chopper Read is just so gentle and nice, offering hugs to his backstabbing buddy while nearly bleeding to death. What a great scene. Haha, I'm laughing just thinking about it. Hell, even the way Bana just made this character act in normal everyday scenes - like when talking to the cops in the bar or talking to his Dad - was straight awesome. With those metal teeth and the way he explained what his brain was thinking - or rather what his brain was flip-flopping - was just hella good time. The scene with the interviewer was really fun to watch as well. I'm curious what the rest of the world thought of this, so I'm going to go check out some reviews by others. Good day homey.
Well guess what? I thought it was superb. It's not some crazy CGI adventure and was lacking super quality as a whole (read, it was grittily filmed and for a seemingly low budget). Rather I feel they actually did a great job portraying Mark Read and his "way", slowly developing his character throughout the entire film. I especially liked the ending and the way they wrapped it up clean and nice. They showed him sitting with the prison guards and watching his 5 minutes of fame (although they allude to the fact that he might actually be famous, I need to look that up for confirmation. Is he even a real guy?), and then the guards start to leave and say, "eh yo Chop, we're going to have to lock this door...okay?" To which Chop acknowledges....and then they close and lock the cell door. At that time the camera shot fades back....while Mark just sits by himself, in his glory, yet all alone and in an empty cell with little to no allies left.
Throughout the entire film, both in and out of prison and when he was free in the real world, everyone "seemed" to love him. Well sort of. It was like he was loved to his face, but hated behind his back. Perhaps because people were scared of him. Who could blame them, he was a total bad ass and could probably kill a predator in a 1:1 battle. It was a strange mix though, because he was also constantly a really nice guy. For instance, after each time he killed someone or drastically injured someone, he would start apologizing and offering comfort in the form of a cigarette or a trip to the hospital. Definitely some sort of bipolar craziness going down with Chop. But to me, it was portrayed perfectly which made this gritty movie well worth watching. The scenes with his ex-prison buddy Jimmy were hilarious as well.
What else is Eric Bana famous for? I need to see these other items of his resume. He was superb. 150% awesome. Great casting by the guy who casted the movie and great character representing by Bana. Honestly, if the budget was bigger and the filming was a better quality, this could have been a huge hit. The initial scenes in the prison yard when his buddies were turning on him to get the handsome ransom were totally epic. This scene specifically is why I kept watching. Mark Chopper Read is just so gentle and nice, offering hugs to his backstabbing buddy while nearly bleeding to death. What a great scene. Haha, I'm laughing just thinking about it. Hell, even the way Bana just made this character act in normal everyday scenes - like when talking to the cops in the bar or talking to his Dad - was straight awesome. With those metal teeth and the way he explained what his brain was thinking - or rather what his brain was flip-flopping - was just hella good time. The scene with the interviewer was really fun to watch as well. I'm curious what the rest of the world thought of this, so I'm going to go check out some reviews by others. Good day homey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)