Change Your Image
agent_squirrel
Reviews
Beyond Justice (1991)
This movie is about as exciting as watching sand shift
I recently had the pleasure of watching this movie at a friend's house and let me tell you, it sucks major cock. Rutger Hauer's filmography is like an avalanche. Start out with something decent like "BladeRunner" and then roughly ten years later star in a cut and paste mess known as "Beyond Justice". Of course the movie should be called "Beyond Saving" because let's face it, if you sit through this crap you're brain dead. Me and my buddy managed to get through about 57 minutes, and then once we realized we didn't have the damnedest idea what was going on, we fast-forwarded to the last 11 minutes where in the aftermath of a huge shootout the previous hunter/hunted characters had come together in an effort to fight a larger enemy. I was able to extrapolate the entire plot from the last hour without having watched it. And just a quick aside on the box art for the DVD: Putting the heads of all the characters and adding swirlies all around them makes it look like a collection of Twilight Zone episodes.
Anyhow, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say anyone who picks up the box and looks at the DVD case is probably going to leave with about as much understanding of the film as I did, and I actually watched most of it. So do yourself and track down every copy and burn it in a pyre that we can all dance around like magic wood nymphs.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
It ain't your daddy's Die Hard...
If you are going into this film expecting the same outing as the last three, do yourself a favor and at least keep an open mind. I have loved Die Hard my entire life, it's my favorite action series. I own them all, I grew up with them, I can nigh repeat every line. So of course, I go see this as early as I can on opening day. To put it short: I am not disappointed. The film does what it does extremely well. It preserves the character of McClane albeit watered down for the rating. This 52 year old McClane is a lot more far gone from being a rather clichéd alcoholic on the edge. He is a lonely old man. The one scene that really stuck with me is when Farrell (Justin Long) and McClane are driving to West Virginia and Farrell talks about how he can't handle what's going on, that he's not brave like McClane. McClane says no one throws you a parade for being heroic, you get divorced, your kids hate you and you get to eat a lot of meals alone. He basically boils his life down to a series of incredible moments that put him on the front cover of Time, but never gave him his family. A lot of critics of the series have reacted poorly to this new found drama, but if you really go back and watch the others you'll see it there too. McClane is not Rambo, he is a very normal person caught up in extraordinary situations. And like a normal person, if you get shot at for 20 years, you might not be the happiest camper either. Long was cast well as this character Farrell. He brings obvious comic relief but at the same time gives McClane a pseudo-son figure, which we can only assume that McClane's real son wants nothing to do with him. Lucy McClane was cast well also. And finally the cornerstone of every Die Hard flick is the villain. Olyphant does a very good job as Gabriel who is basically another super-idealist who still has very monetary motives, which McClane points out they're always in it for the money.
Bottom Line: I've seen a lot of crap action movies and this is not one of them. As a film, it is good. As Die Hard, it's worthy of the mantle.
Haunted House (2004)
climbing up the stairs!
I just want to say something real quick before we begin. This movie shouldn't exist. If I could go back in time I would go back to the beginning of Conrad John's lineage and smite his ancestors so that he may never make a movie such that is this. I cannot even begin to describe how this movie fails on all accounts. The director makes a comment about how most of the dialogue is ad-libbed. I think most of his career is ad-libbed. And by ad-libbed I mean suck. Conrad feels the need to emphasize various aspects of the movie by showing his characters doing the same damn thing over and over again in long drawn out shots. One thing I do have to give him credit for though is that he doesn't pussyfoot around showing boobs. He just comes right out and says "lol it pretty much has to be done so we're gonna do it." Aside from that, and the awesome soundtrack, this movie has absolutely nothing going for it. It's not even cheesy, it's just over an hour of mindless whatever that will make you cry and say "What did I just watch? What is this? Where am I and why am I typing a review for it?"
Alone in the Dark (2005)
Uwe Boll, more like You Fail.
How to adapt a video game to a movie by Uwe Boll
First, you have to take everything that makes the game good (plot, atmosphere, and quality) and throw it completely out the window. Scrape up what's left (the title of said game and the name of at least one character) and mold it into some sort of weird, action/thriller that misses the source's mark on so many levels. The only thing this movie did well was be a piece of crap. And in that respect it succeeded exponentially. Christian Slater is definitely showing his age and lack of talent and hair in this one. Tara Reid, God bless her crack addled brain, she looks so confused. Half the budget for this film went straight to supplying her with enough rock to last her for the shooting schedule. This movie is filled with enough testosterone-fueled stereotypes to give Spike TV executives a hard-on for the next few weeks. It's amazing how Boll also managed to miss the point of the game all but completely. Uwe, you do realize you were making a movie based on a game, right? Do you even realize you were making a movie based on anything? Where's the reference to the source material? Oh yea that's right you used the lead character's name and the title for the film. You've obviously done a great service to all Alone in the Dark fans. So basically, where House of the Dead utilized the game's material in such a crappy way and still did not remain faithful to the game, this film manages to not utilize ANY aspect of the game and not even tell a good enough story to stand on its own two legs. Let's be real, you could call this movie anything other than Alone in the Dark and it still wouldn't make any sense. Uwe Boll, how doth ye spin such magnificent yarns? Plz make mor Vid gam m0vie.
Did i mention this movie sucked.
Demons at the Door (2004)
Uriel, bring the gas mask!
OK let's get something straight. We all know that this is not a "comedy" in the sense that it actually means to be funny. It's the lame C-Style horror flick kinda funny. And any stab at actually trying to be funny is usually executed in some way that is juvenile. Like a giant fat lady running at someone and farting in their face. OK, so it was pretty funny. The fact that Satan was actually a dog the whole time was funny. The crappy special effects were funny. The demon molesting a naked woman, that was funny. The movie is a joke. A brilliant waste of time. Any humor actually present was obviously concocted by a bunch of 10 year olds. However, this movie does present some moments that were unintentionally hilarious. Basically, if you go through the entire movie pretending that the director really wanted this to be the best movie ever you will laugh your ass off. The special effects alone will make you keel over and cry. I strongly recommend this to anyone looking for some eye-gouging laughter. p.s. the script writer is a racist bastard.
Scarecrow Slayer (2003)
If you enjoyed this movie there may be something wrong with you.
Let me just start of by saying that the original Scarecrow may indeed be considered a gem in harsh comparison to this movie. How they managed to get a hold of a semi-well known actor like Tony Todd is beyond me. Basically, this movie manages to lose any magic that the first one had. And believe me, some how making a movie WORSE than the first one is a feat. A great and marvelous feat. For those who have watched the first movie, remember lovable Lester Dwervick? OK well he's dead, but for some reason the same exact scarecrow is in this movie. With the death of Lester also went all those crazy one-liners and kung fu flips. That was the only redeeming factor of the first movie. Now, we come to Slayer which is just a half-assed attempt at trying to blah blah...rocket launcher to the face. God this movie sucks.
Scarecrow (2002)
Basically this movie licks some kind of balls
The director states in the Behind-the-Scenes feature that he loves horror movies. He loves them so much that he dedicated the movie to Dario Argento, as well as other notable directors such as George A. Romero and Tobe Hooper. Basically dedicating this movie to those great directors is like giving your mother a piece of sh*t for Mother's Day. The first thing they did wrong was the casting. CAST PEOPLE THAT CAN ACT. Also, don't cast a person that is 40 years old for the role of a misunderstood, 18 year old recluse. That's right, he's been in high school for 22 years. The reactions made by people as they watch their boyfriends get their hearts ripped out is amusing. Or like one part when a guy gets stabbed in the ear with an ear of corn (haha get it), and his girlfriend just goes, "Oh..my.. God?" The scarecrow himself is quite a character. Doing flips off cars and calling people losers.
The movie does have one redeeming factor... oh wait, no it doesn't.
If you absolutely MUST see this movie, than just watch the Rock and Roll trailer on the DVD. It covers about everything and has a really gnarly song dude.
Zombie Night (2003)
Oh no here comes zombies. Run..or whatever.
This was the worst movie ever created. I hate everyone involved in the production of this motion picture. I don't even want to call it a motion picture. I want to call it slow, mind-numbing pain pulsating through my cerebral cortex. I've never seen a movie that actually made me want to hurt something. It's so bad, I can't even describe it.
Watching this movie is like choking on stale bread. And even less enjoyable than that. It's the most uninspired pile of crap I've ever witnessed. The director makes a cameo in the movie as the guy pissing on the side of a wall. And there are boobs in it. That's it.
p.s. A guy gets his leg blown off too.
This was all that stood out. AVOID AT ALL COSTS.
Evil's City (2005)
Abandon all hope indeed!
Me and a friend were sitting in the local movie store and decided to just go to the horror section, spin around in a circle, and point at the first movie we saw and then rent said movie. Luckily, or unluckily, we ended up renting "Evil's City". Now, it was completely our intention to rent a terrible movie, so you could say that we were more than satisfied with our choice.
There's really only one phrase that can accurately describe what a pile of crap this is: a HUGE pile of crap. The DVD alone reeks of bland, uninspired filth. No special features or "making-of" that would most likely just show the writer pooping out his script. The scene selection offers 4, yes FOUR scenes to choose from. I guess the editor couldn't figure out how to slice this steamer of a movie into eighths or sixteenths. Anyway, DVD features aside, the film itself sucks. The only remotely significant character, who I assume is some kind of angel that wears black, is an Aussie who has about 8 minutes of screen time and then disappears for the rest of the film. You later see his face poorly pasted on a stained-glass window which causes a female character to scream rather inappropriately.
The only way you can like this movie is if you love clip-art special effects, shoe string budgets (and when I say shoe string I mean the director literally sold his shoe strings to fund the movie when he should've just wrapped them around his neck and hung himself), and putting emphasis on the wrong syllables. This movie needs to be filed under comedy for the unintentional hilarity that ensues on this whacky adventure all the way from the random beginning, over the mountain of plot less and disconnected exposition and then ultimately to the regret of even wasting your time on this.
I give Evil's City a -20 out of 10.
Die Another Day (2002)
The name's fetched, far-fetched.
In the tradition of most Bond films, this movie has plenty of what we're expecting from a Bond film. The storyline is a bit out there in terms of technology, even more so than most Bondians are used to (That is if you forget about Moonraker). While the beginning of the movie was gritty and realistic during the torture scene, I found the rest of the movie to be far-fetched. That's not to say it isn't good. But they could've toned it down a bit. I think they fooled most of the viewers and made it convincing by saying words like "polymer", "DNA reconstruction technology" and "television". Oh and Halle Berry is about as entertaining to watch as shredding paper.