HankyP Reviews

Punisher: War Zone (2008)

I have not laughed so hard for so long in ages!

[4/10 · 11 December 2008]

It is hard to rate a movie like this. I did not even know there had been previous Punisher movies.

I was told it was horrible before I went to see it with a movie buddy.

There was only 1 other couple in the theater.

We all laughed the entire time.

It was so gratuitously violent that it was surreal. It caused it to cease being horrifying about 10 seconds into the first bloodbath. There were many bloodbaths.

** Spoiler Alert? ** The scenes that weren't violent seemed to be about character development, but they even had a surreal quality. A hard-nosed FBI agent, who admits to being an ex-coke junkie, the hero trying to get the heroine (?) to kill him ... they seemed like they were supposed to have a purpose, but they failed so badly they were hysterically funny. I think one of the characters forgot his lines at one point and they just left it in.

I plan to buy it on DVD. The only way it could be funnier to to release an Elvira, Mistress of the Dark edition!

Casino Royale (2006)

Bringing 007 back to life - The best Bond in years

[10/10 · 17 November 2006]

The first James Bond movie I remember seeing was a double billing of The Man with the Golden Gun with Live and Let Die at a drive-in theater in the back of my parent's car. I remember asking my father about the gadgets but being way too young to realize how violent or sexy the movie was. I have been a fan of the series until the Timothy Dalton ones. I hated the way the stunts went so far over the top and the total loathing M seemed to have for 007.

I gave up on 007 until this one, and I expected to be disappointed, but today it was all I could talk about at work.

The stunts have been pulled back to something you can suspend disbelief and imagine. M has a disdain for 007, yet a soft spot does exist. I was disappointed that neither Q or Moneypenny made an appearance, but that did not hurt.

*** Here be spoilers ***

I don't know whether to thank the Director, the scriptwriters or both, but they took a very 1 dimensional character and have really given him substance. Daniel Craig did an amazing job of bringing that out. Eva Green had me fooled as much as 007. She was completely believable and one could not help fall in love with her. I would put her up against Dame Diana Rigg any day as the best Bond Girl to date. Judi Dench got the best laughs, she seems to have chemistry with Craig whereas she seemed completely wasted in her previous 007 roles.

*** End spoilers ***

Thank you, thank you. This was the best movie I have seen since The Incredibles.

Stigmata (1999)

Bad bad bad bad bad

[2/10 · 31 October 2006]

Oh great .. another Evil Catholic Church movie. I am not Catholic, but can't they come up with a better plot than this? And if you are going to do an "Evil Catholic Church" movie, perhaps, just maybe you could have someone on your writing staff who has a clue what goes on in the Catholic Church? I have studied Aramaic and the writing was NOT Aramaic or even close. There was more Thebian script (a ceremonial magic script) than Aramaic, which has no vowels, and therefore no one knows what it sounded like when spoken! There is one small group in the Middle East who does speak a modern derivation, but it is even more different than the Aramaic of Paul's time than Old English would be to us today (Chaucer is Middle English and many of us had to suffer through trying to read it in school).

The Eucharist always involve the Host, and the drinking of the wine (blood) is generally optional, yet here they showed people taking the wine without the Host. I know they were trying to make a point, but to anyone with a clue they shot themselves in the foot.

The acting was terrible, the writing was awful (maybe it was not the acting ... perhaps they did the best with what they were given) and the plot is tired. The sets were nice, but that isn't enough to hold my attention.

I cannot believe people think this is a classic ... I would prefer the original Omen if I am going to see an Evil Church movie. This was better than The Convent, at least, the parts without Adrienne Barbeau, but only because they had a budget and didn't try to have special effects.

Burial of the Rats (1995 TV Movie)

Don't bother

[3/10 · 30 October 2006]

My first hint should have been that the movie was capitalizing on the fact it was written by Bran Stoker. I was hooping for something better than Bram Stoker's Lair of the White Worm (it would not be difficult) or "Bram Stoker's The Mummy" (the short story was Jewel of the Seven Stars) and was disappointed. This was far worse than the other two. Adrienne Barbeau herself said she only made the movie because she needed a new roof on her house and she had hoped it would never be released.

Shot with no budget (except what was used to pay Barbeau) in an Eastern European country that was under civil war at the time, Burial of the Rats tells the story of Bram Stoker being kidnapped by a cult known as The Rat Women. So right off, we know he will survive or the story will never get written. I have tried to get my hands on a copy of the novella, so I cannot say how this compares to the book, but we have a lot of preaching about how evil civilization and men are, Stoker pretends to follow the Rat Women and promises to champion their cause, the Rat Women pretend to believe him, Barbeau breaks her flute that controls the rats and is eaten alive and if we have not clawed our eyes out yet we go out and get drunk so we can forget the movie.

An American Haunting (2005)

So good, so bad

[4/10 · 23 October 2006]

I was previously familiar with the story of the Bell Witch (I already had 2 books about the "ghost" in my private library before I heard about the movie) and I was so excited that I went to see it on opening night. I figured with Sissy Spacek and Donald Sutherland it actually had a chance at being a good movie.

What I liked: The acting in the non-special effects sequences, the sets, costumes, photography. It had a great "feel" to it.

What I disliked: The special effects. Its just sad that the special effects had to be so over the top that there could be no doubt "This did not happen". Less would have been more.

And the ending ... the horrible, horrible, horrible ending. It would have been satisfying if they had just left out all the modern era portions. John Bell's name would have been permanently tainted, but an apology for this historical inaccuracy could almost be forgiven because it would provided a satisfying conclusion.

A Rose for Emily (1983)

I'm a big fan of the story and Anjelica Houston but...

[3/10 · 15 October 2006]

... but not this movie The story is of a Southern Spinster who has been clearly ostracized by her town, but not to the point where she has to leave in order to live. This means she has done something wrong, but there must be enough curiosity to make the people want to keep her around. Why?? In the short story it is a mystery up until the very end when suddenly everything makes sense.

*** Here there be spoilers, although not if you have read the short story *** The beauty of the short story is that it was told out of chronological order and it is not until the end that you realize it is a SOuthern Gothic horror story! This adaptation told the story in pure chronological order which destroyed the ending. The sets, costumes, acting were wonderful, but what were they thinking??? The surprise is lost, the feeling that something is terribly wrong, and you feel you should know what it is, is itself lost. And, everything makes sense.

The Covenant (2006)

There was eye candy here?

[6/10 · 11 September 2006]

I love the genre and I was not expecting any ground-breaking fun here, but I have to say the one thing I was actually looking forward to from the posts I had read was the eye candy. Where was it?? The boys (they may be men in a few years, but they are still trying to pass themselves off as adolescents. Pity. Some of us were shaving 2-3 times a day at age 15.) were mediocre to ugly and the women were, although nicely top-heavy, hardly breathtaking, Jessica Lucas being the only feast for the eyes in the entire movie.

The drug addiction theme was laid on a bit thick, but perhaps that is more realistic than some people give it credit (have you ever talked to druggies? They only want to talk about 1 thing most of the time) so I will pass.

What really got me was trying to figure out where this was filmed? Obviously not New England, but since this is a "Hollywood" movie ... must be .. CANADA! I love teasing my Canadian friends about how the worst "Hollywood" movies are always filmed in their backyard.

I was glad I saw it at the theater, I needed the brain vacation. Just a pity they could not have found at least one decent looking male.

Gypsy (1993 TV Movie)

Bette is NOT Rosalind Russell...

[9/10 · 20 June 2006]

and I for one think that is a good thing. I've just never been a Rosalind Russell fan although the original was my favorite RR movie. But I love Bette and was thrilled to hear she was making this.

As for the rest of the production, I think it was slightly less than the original movie. One of my favorite minor characters in the original was Mazeppa with her scratchy fingernails-on-the-blackboard voice belting out "HEY! It takes a lot more than no talent to be a strippah!" and although I missed it, I was glad to see the producers had the guts not to do a carbon copy.

I also liked the fact there are large portions of this movie which were filmed as if you are looking at a stage, it gives a feeling that you are in the theatre, not just at the movies.

I think the other thing I liked about this production was that there seemed to be slightly less repetition of the song "Let me entertain you", which becomes completely annoying after about the 5th time you hear it.

The Fog (2005)

I liked it!

[9/10 · 18 October 2005]

OK ... I have always been a fan of the original version and until recently I thought I was the only one. However it was hardly one of the scariest of all time and I felt the back-story was a bit neglected (we would have hardly gotten any of it at all had it not been for the opener that only got shot because the film was too short).

I suppose the people who hated this one were expecting more from the present day story? No. Been there, done that, this film was all about going back and correcting the neglected back story and bringing it up-to-date so that a younger crowd could appreciate the actors and actresses they want to see.

The original was just not that great... it had a fantastic cast, but it was not quite done right. This time the story was done right, but with a lesser cast.

I rate BOTH of them with a 9 out of 10 and I will be adding this one to my DVD collection right next to my DVD of the original.

Hercules (1983)

Not intended to portray real mythology

[1/10 · 9 March 2000]

One of the greatest stories of ancient times totally ruined. I don't know where the screenwriter learned mythology, but he must have flunked. The most obvious is Hercules' (if he is Roman, Heracules if he's Greek) love affair with his own Great-grandmother - Cassiopeia and it goes downhill from there. The monsters do not even remotely match up - nor do they even parallel the story of Perseus, our hero's grandfather who comes closer to the title character than any other figure. As far as any other problems, I couldn't get past how horribly the story was being massacred. I haven't seen this one in years and I intend to keep it that way.

Copycat (1995)

A highly underrated suspense film.

[10/10 · 18 November 1998]

I thought this was better than Silence of the Lambs. The information on serial killers and small details of this movie are what make it great. Hunter and Weaver are two of the sexiest actresses I know of, yet they don't have to rely on this to make a movie good. There is little gore -- or even slight glimpses of it, yet I don't think even Hitchcock could have done it better.

House IV (1992 Video)

Hokey, but fits in well

[6/10 · 18 November 1998]

I really like this series. This House movie contains less action &/or horror than the previous two (whatever happened to House III?), but is still fun. I love the fact that the daughter is paralysed and in a wheelchair -- yet Mom manages to not only get her into the Victorian house (not ground level by any means), but also into her upstairs bedroom without any visible lifts or elevators. Still, this movie does manage to have a good (not great, but good) storyline and fits well into the series. BTW - William Katt's character shouldn't be the same as in the first House. It takes place way too soon for this to be his second wife and second child and the first son to be gone.

Nice Girls Don't Explode (1987)

Anyone who has a mother will love this movie.

[9/10 · 16 November 1998]

Mothers and their daughters always have special relationships. Well, this one is a bit more special than most. Although Mrs. Flowers seems a bit nicer than Margaret White (Carrie's mom), she is actually more cruel. Margaret just traumatized her daughter about sex in the home and had the guts to be straightforward about it. Mrs. Flowers has brainwashed her daughter into thinking that not only will she explode if she ever "goes all the way", but has taken steps to ensure that her daughter *knows* that just becoming sexually excited will cause fires. April Showers obviously manages to thwart her mom in the end, because when one fails to completely traumatize a daughter, you still have your grandaughter's head to mess with

Vampires (1998)

I was soooo disappointed

[3/10 · 8 November 1998]

I went to a midnight showing of "Vampires" Halloween night. What a waste!! I should have seen Practical Magic instead. We had a chance to have a plot, but we didn't. We had a chance to find out what the difference between goons, vampires and Master Vampires was, but we didn't. We could have had character development, but we didn't. What we did get was James Woods acting like a complete a**hole and beating people up a lot. We got vampires being shot with bullets that didn't kill them and some gore. We got two extremely under-developed villains and a couple of under-developed heroes. It was almost like they shot a 5 hour movie and then started cutting pieces out of it until there was nothing intelligible left. I usually like John Carpenter movies -- but this was a real stinkeroo -- I gave it a three. **Edit** Since I wrote this I have been told that it was a "wonderful" movie, faithful to the novel which explained everything the movie didn't. I maintain then it was a good book, but the movie still sucked.