Change Your Image
cthulu48
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againHere's a link to the most recent Coen Bros. film, "Inside Llewyn Davis", released in 2013. The film was nominated for a measly 2 Academy Awards (didn't win either category), which I don't totally understand. Should've been at least NOMINATED for a few more. Anyhow, here's that link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2042568/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
Reviews
Noah (2014)
Beware of polarized reviews....
Lots of people are hating this movie for several reasons.... The majority of the negative reviews claim that the big problem is that the film strays too far away from the original text found in the Bible regarding Noah's Arc. Well, the reason for this is simple...
The story of Noah's Arc in the Bible is a very short story.... I believe the story is roundabout 3-4 pages long, and that's it. Aronofsky had to make a full length movie with a running time clocking in at about two and a half hours. So, naturally, the majority of "Noah" has a lot of creative liscence over the elements necessary to create an entire film. This fact shows what an amazing imagination that Darren Aronofsky has.
Also, from the negative reviews that I have read, for the most part, are written by angry Christians who are just flabbergasted with the artistic embellishments in the film that are definitely not written in the Bible.
Long story short, if you truly love Darren Aronofsky's films, you will probably like the film. If you only want the straight story of Noah's Arc, stick with just reading the Bible.
An average rating of "5.7" stars by the public is INCREDIBLY LOW for how good the film is. I am suggesting that you watch the film, at least one time. Just my two cents. Peace.
The Devil and Father Amorth (2017)
This is just a quick cash-grab for William Freidkin, the director of "The Exorcist".
This idiotic "documentary" is laughably transparent in it's attempt to stage a "real" person who is under demonic possession. The only reason this film even exists is so that William Freidkin can milk as much cash out of his masterpiece, "The Exorcist" as possible. I was very disappointed after watching this movie.
Devil's Knot (2013)
"Devil's Knot" has its flaws, but there are some very important facts contained within the film.
My thoughts on the new West Memphis 3 dramatization film, "Devil's Knot", adapted from Mara Leverrit's book of the same title: Though production values were certainly sub-par, as well as some of the acting, I actually thought it was valuable due to the fact that any folks who are not aware of the West Memphis 3 case can maybe become intrigued to investigate on their own and draw their own conclusions.
Some of the acting was sub-par, but there were several elements of the movie which are only vaguely alluded to in the documentary films, such as the case file being changed from ending with "555" as the case number, then being changed to end the case number with "666". Deplorable. One thing I liked about the film is that they don't squarely point the finger at anyone definitively.... To me, it simply presented all of the possible angles that the police bungled. I was pleased that Mark Byers' role as a "suspect" was only touched on briefly among many, many other possible suspects that could ACTUALLY be guilty, not just conjecture against Damien, Jason and Jessie, but to Byers as well.
I was frustrated that the WM3 support group on wm3.org were not mentioned, nor was Damien's wife, and almost all credit for the doubt in the case is presented as Ron Lax and Ron Lax almost exclusively.
I like that the central theme of the movie is that we can never convict anyone for these murders justly, due to the police and the courts bungling the case in every way possible. The film centrally blames the inept police investigation, which I find unforgivable when it comes to this horrendous crime. It seemed to me that the film wasn't REALLY pointing the finger directly at anyone, but rather presented the police investigation as a recipe for disaster and injustice due to incompetence and corruption.
In my opinion, any extra exposure this case can get is nothing but positive, as the fight is no more than 50% concluded, with justice being served to no one. I've read "Devil's Knot", and I of course was simply looking for answers to questions that no one was asking. When I read the book initially, many years ago, it seemed to really focus on John Mark Byers, as a "primary suspect". Frankly, I didn't believe it for very long, and I'm sorry that I ever did.
The more publicity the case gets, the higher the chances of exoneration for the WM3, and thus, a higher chance that the real killer can be brought to justice. The film could've been better, but it could have been worse, and the film points out lots of key aspects that have only been glossed over by the documentary viewers who haven't done any private studies on their own. The big lesson? You shouldn't point your finger at someone unless you are damn sure, and I thing "Devil's Knot" raises more questions that it answers, but they are questions that NEED to be asked, and hopefully answered in our lifetimes.
One part of the film that I thought was hardly mentioned at all in the documentaries (other than the bonus features) was the kid Aaron Hutchenson's "confession" or "statement" basically being the totally weak link that caused the police to push towards tunnel vision regarding the beginning of the investigation into the WM3. His statements are so painfully inaccurate, yet the police used those statements almost like a fire was lit under their asses. How desperate and incompetent can a police force be, relying on the erroneous statements of a little kid who's obviously been coached and still doesn't make any sense when giving his "statement" to the cops. They took that as the first brick in the wall, and kept building and bending the work they should've been doing....for example, canvassing the Hobbs' neighborhood the way they did to Byers. MAJOR BLUNDER.
I do think the film could have a bit better AS A MOTION PICTURE, but I am glad that attention has not been focused off of the case just because Damien, Jason and Jessie are out of jail now. Maybe, not likely, but maybe, enough of this type of continued exposure to the public may lead to actual justice for the victims.. in a perfect world. What can I say? I'm not naive, but I am a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.
Hansel & Gretel (2013)
I am an avid horror film addict. I am both a gore-hound and lover of "real" horror films, and I'm telling you, this dreck is absolutely awful. One of the worst movies ever.
This "Hansel & Gretel" film has NO positive attributes. It is the worst horror film that I have witnessed in a LONG LONG time. I'm telling you, as an avid fan and (not to toot my own horn here...) and aficionado of sorts when it comes to horror, that this is pure garbage of the highest order
It is very difficult to tell the world, "EVERYONE will enjoy this horror film!" when I love a horror film.People's tastes just differ too much.
However, on this occasion, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that NO ONE will enjoy this film. It is absolutely terrible.
Dee Wallace (bless her for trying) is the only part of this movie that kept me from turning it off 20 minutes into it. And I NEVER do that, certainly not with horror films. I LIKE poorly acted and cheesy horror films to an extent, but they have to have something special for me to enjoy something like that. I mean, "Friday the 13th" sequels have 90% cheese and 10% horror, yet the mystique of those victims, the reality of the violence, the care you (sometimes) incur for a character, not to mention the butch Jason himself, make me ENJOY those films. "Hansel & Gretel" has NOTHING but the lowest budget in the history of horror films (maybe other than "BTK Killer" - still the reigning champ of worst movies of all time) and that low budget combined with a complete lack of any serious plot or scary moments shines through, and makes this film unwatchable. Cringe-worthy. Even the violence sucks, folks. And when even the violence is sub-par in a horror film (WELL BELOW PAR), and there are NO redeeming qualities, it makes for an absolute embarrassment of a film. It's these types of films that give horror a bad name. This madness must stop.
Dee Wallace is worth watching for about 10 minutes, but she's being directed by a director who quite literally could be a rhesus monkey, and certainly is not an "actor's director", so even her performance is greatly flawed in many areas, most likely due to the director and editing of the acting she turned in.
Take an avid horror fan's word for it, and don't waste your time on this dreck. THIS FILM IS NOTHING BUT TERRIBLE!!! You've been warned.
Psycho (1998)
Unquestionably horrible calamity of a remake. Vnce Vaughn is embarrassingly inept.
Let me save you some time. Don't watch this remake if you are a fan of the original Hitchcock masterpiece, "Psycho". In fact, don't watch this movie ever. I had VERY high expectations before viewing this film, and I have never handled my expectations so erroneously in my life.
Words can barely express how horrible I thought this film was. I couldn't wait to see the darkness that could have been added to a modern remake. The sum total of darkness in the remake is no more creative than adding a masturbation scene, which is comical, It's like the entire film crew and the actors didn't take the film seriously at all.
The main reason for my hatred of this remake is because of the INCREDIBLY AWFUL performance of Vince Vaughn's portrayal of Norman Bates. A total debacle and a calamity. At no point did I believe that Vince Vaughn was disturbed or menacing in any way. That's not to say that I compared it side by side to Anthony Perkins in the original. No. Vince Vaughn's performance is totally laughable on its own.
There is one totally moronic change involving a masturbation scene, and the rest of the film's credibility rests on Vaughn's performance. He fails, as does the director.
No vision, no creative direction, INCREDIBLY AWFUL acting and the total lack of a soul, this remake of "Psycho" should be avoided at all costs. ESPECIALLY for fans of the original, but if this were an original film, it would be plenty awful all by itself. Don't waste your time or money. Watch the original only. This remake is a terrible calamity, and Vince Vaughn completely ruins the entire experience with shallow and incredibly wooden acting. The director is completely lacking vision, and the principle photography is extremely disappointing. I really wanted to love this film, but it fell flat on its face. Terrible.
Boardwalk Empire: To the Lost (2011)
VERY MILD SPOILERS ONLY - This finale is unbelievably underrated by upset fans...
THIS REVIEW ONLY CONTAINS VERY MILD SPOILERS. I DO NOT THINK READING MY REVIEW WILL RUIN THE SHOW FOR YOU.
Man, oh man. This season of Boardwalk Empire has been like a roller coaster ride. Wild, fun, and out-of-control. I feel compelled to write a few words here regarding the (current) 4.8 star rating of the finale from fans of this show who were disappointed in the ending (which I will not spoil, but allude to...) The final episode wraps up the trials and tribulations of Nucky Thompson (for this season, at least...). What a grand finale this was! Surprises? You bet. Ballsy? Absolutely. But what do fans of this show expect? This is a show about GANGSTERS. You know what happens to gangsters? They either die or go to jail. It almost always ends the same way. Boardwalk Empire surprised everyone in the finale of Season 2 by killing off a key character. The complaints I've read from certain fans are ridiculously shallow and trite. Comments like, "I will not watch this show anymore because how dare HBO kill off that character." Well, seriously, what did these fans expect? I don't want to spoil anything, b/c the finale is AWESOME, and if you haven't seen it, you need to, right now. Drop what you're doing, and watch it immediately. Anyone who doesn't need their art spoon-fed to them will enjoy how the Season concludes. If you are watching the show for certain characters' looks, you are obviously missing a vast amount of the material contained in this remarkable series. DO NOT LISTEN TO THESE TRITE COMPLAINTS, AND CERTAINLY DON'T BELIEVE THE (CURRENT) 4.8 STAR RATING. It's 10 stars, all the way. This is not up for debate, unless you are a shallow numbskull. I can't wait for Season 3. If you are one of the people who "won't watch this show anymore"... do what you want. It's your loss. This is currently the best show on television, hands down. 10 stars, and bravo to the creators for having the guts to do what was necessary in the finale.
Square Grouper (2011)
Don't expect the excitement factor of "Cocaine Cowboys", but this is a fine Billy Corben documentary. 4.5 stars (9/10).
I've been waiting to see "Square Grouper" since I first heard that Billy Corben (Cocaine Cowboys 1 & 2, Raw Deal) was directing the documentary. I became a Corben fan with "Cocaine Cowboys" and I've enjoyed all of his documentaries so far. What Corben does so well in his documentaries is that he infuses current footage and interviews from the actual people involved in the "crimes" with older archived footage and news broadcasts. These factors give his films such a realistic and edgy feel, not to mention authenticity provided by the first-hand sources including the "criminals", police, lawyers and FBI.
Knowing Corben's style, I went in to this film expecting "Cocaine Cowboys" with marijuana. This film is different though. It presents three separate stories, all set in the state of Florida (naturally, being a Corben film). The main difference in "Square Grouper" is that the pace isn't as fast as "Cocaine Cowboys". Much more mellow, yet still informative and imaginative. I find this fact very befitting the subject matter (or should I say, substance matter?).
The first story is about The Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, who believe that marijuana is a sacrament, and the ensuing smuggling charges dropped on them. This part of the film examines the government's stand against a church centered around ganja. The media labeled them as a cult, they saw themselves as nothing but a church. Inevitably, the police become involved. The film begins with a verse from the Bible: "Behold I have given you every green herb bearing seed..." (Genesis 1:29) and I think this is a very important thing to consider for people who are against legalization (if you are a religious person).
The second story is about The Black Tuna Gang, who smuggled marijuana in massive amounts into Florida, or so the courts and FBI want you to believe. The film features the principle smugglers and FBI agents giving conflicting stories about alleged jury tampering, the Black Tuna gang's plans to flee, and even a phony plot to assassinate the judge in the trial. The Black Tuna Gang were dealt extremely harsh prison sentences, and this portion of the film tells the story from all viewpoints.
The third story is about the small town of Everglade City and the process of the citizens being practically forced to get into the marijuana business for much needed money. The tales tell of how easy it was to smuggle and hide drugs into the town, due to being able to evade the small police force in the swamps of the Everglades. To me, this is the most interesting part of the movie.
The film is accompanied by Country-type music, which I found to be a little off-putting, but otherwise, this is a fine documentary if you are interested in the topic, and I know that lots of people are. Billy Corben said himself that "hip-hop fans MADE 'Cocaine Cowboys'." I feel it should be noted that the music in the film will not grab the "hip-hop crowd" like "Cocaine Cowboys 2". Myself, I like all kinds of music, with the exception of popular country, and the country type music in this film didn't ruin the film for me, so don't let the music become the focal point of your viewing of this film. I'm not saying hip-hop music would be appropriate for this documentary (at all), I'm just saying that the music won't appeal to hip-hop heads, many of whom are big fans of "Cocaine Cowboys 1 & 2". But like I said, I didn't find that it detracted from the film. It was just... off-putting.
The special features on the DVD include a short "Touring Ten Thousand Islands" featurette, deleted scenes, songs and scoring of Square Grouper (and music videos), along with feature-length commentary from Billy Corben and a trailer for the film.
So, while it may not be as exciting and fast paced as "Cocaine Cowboys", Billy Corben continues his successful streak of gripping and interesting documentaries. Highly recommended for heads, and I would also recommend this film to folks who are adamantly against legalization. It may open your eyes, or you could just be entertained by people getting busted if you're that kind of person. Either way, I think you can't go wrong with "Square Grouper". An important documentary. 4.5 stars.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
Christian overtones spoiled the film for me. I'm only writing minor spoilers in this review.
NOT MANY SPOILERS HERE.
Whenever a film delves 3 sequels deep and adds a new director and shuffles the cast around with key players missing, things just aren't going to be the same. The film tries its best, but there are a couple elements of the plot that pretty much spoiled the film for me upon my first viewing.
I guess I'm going to ruffle some feathers with my main beef with this film: The perfect, can-do-no-wrong, always forgiving and merciful hero character of Philip the Clergyman. I realize this is a Disney movie, and morals play a big part in all of the company's films. However, I found the Christian character Philip the Clergyman to be over the top in his perfection as a moral crusader. Without going into too much detail, every character in the film is a complete scoundrel with the exception of Philip. Every statement or action taken from this character blatantly rubs your face in Christianity as infallible and the saving grace of every aspect of the ugliness of the pirates. It got to the point of being sickening when the mermaid was captured in order to use her tears to obtain use of the Fountain Of Youth. The ONLY character who has any problem with the way the mermaid slave is treated is Philip. He is her savior, so to speak (and literally), throughout the film, even though she tried to take him out earlier in the film (the forgiveness factor, of course.) He takes mercy on her and defies ALL the surrounding pirates in their quest to use the mermaid. I agree with the morals of Christianity for the most part, while I don't believe in the supernatural aspects of the faith. What I don't like is that the Christian element of the film is not handled subtly AT ALL. It's in-your-face, every time the character crosses the screen or speaks. We are introduced to the character as he is hoisted and tied up on the boat against his will (hmm... sounds familiar to a certain crucifixion to me), and then proceeds to defy and challenge all the pirates, including Blackbeard (who's supposed to be the most ruthless pirate on the sea), with no reprisals. The overall message: If you aren't Christian in this film, you're a scoundrel. Personally, I found it poorly executed and unnecessary. No need for religious overtones in this film.
Another small problem I had with the plot: When the crew meets with Captain Jack Sparrow to discuss Blackbeard (before we are introduced to him in the film), every crew member says that they've never seen him (or have hardly ever seen him) because he never comes out of his room. Shortly thereafter, Blackbeard emerges as chaos envelopes the ship (which is fine, since there was a "mutiny" going on at the time), but then he spends the rest of the film out of his room and alongside all the other pirates, quite contrary to the discussion that is being held by Jack Sparrow and the crew of Blackbeard's ship when we are told that Blackbeard is hardly ever seen. I think if we saw less of Blackbeard in this film, the character would've been more powerful and it would've made the pirate meeting make sense. I just kept thinking throughout the film, "I thought he never comes out, what gives? He's everywhere!"
If you are a "Pirates" fan, give the film a chance. The action is ever-present and well executed. Johnny Depp is on point again (although he is becoming a bit of a stunt-actor in these films as more and more sequels emerge), and although I personally cannot stand Penelope Cruz, I will give credit where credit is due. She has a good performance and has great chemistry with Depp. Blackbeard isn't as dastardly as I was hoping. This is a bit of a disappointment since he's supposed to be the most feared pirate on the sea. Geoffrey Rush is good in his role-reversal this time around, although I enjoyed his character much more when he was a straight-up pirate. And a small appearance by Keith Richards is great. My main problem with the film is a personal beef (the overt Christian message), which may not have any effect on your enjoyment of the film. For fans, it's worth a view for sure, but there are some disappointing elements. I'd call it the "worst" installment in the series, but that doesn't make it unbearable. In fact, it's a fun movie going experience. That's about as deep as it goes for me though, since I'm not digging the Christian stuff. Judge for yourself, but if you're Christian, it would be better not to judge the people who made the film if you don't like it. I here tell that there are severe punishments in your religion if you are judgmental towards people.
5 out of 10.
I Spit on Your Grave (2010)
I'm not a big horror-remake fan, but this was better than I expected. Absolutely gruesome and vicious. 7 out of 10.
I watched this movie very reluctantly, as I usually do not like horror-remakes. The form has become incredibly trendy, and the remakes rarely hold a candle to the originals. However, I was pleasantly surprised by the remake of "I Spit On Your Grave". First of all, as the viewer, you need to know what you are getting into here when you are watching this film. If you aren't familiar with the original 1978 film, it was an absolutely brutal exploration of rape and revenge. The remake actually stays fairly close to the original, except the remake was filmed 32 years later, which means that the violence and the sexual assaults have been elevated to an absolutely extreme level. As far as I'm concerned, AWESOME! Yet, I know that lots of people are going to call this film "trash" or "porn" simply because it deals with the topic of brutal rape. There are plenty of ghastly and grisly images in modern horror films, yet everyone seems to think that rape is absolutely the most offensive and the worst violence you can commit to film. To me, it's not much different from the type of violence you would find in films like "Saw" (series), "Hostel" (series), "Martyrs", "Frontier(s)" "Inside" or "The Human Centipede". But, I know some people just can't handle something about rape scenes. If you are one of these people, you need to search elsewhere for entertainment. Even though the sexual assault scenes really don't take up that much screen time, they are pretty degrading and nasty (nothing like you'd see in "Irreversible", but this film's sexual assaults can keep up with about any other rape you've ever seen on film). DO YOU THINK I'M SICK YET?? Hahaha, OK, maybe you have a point. However, I'm not especially thrilled watching rape scenes in horror. To me, it's not very creative, although it has an incredible power to shock people. Yet, I was actually way more uncomfortable watching the rest of the violence in the film. I'm trying not to write any spoilers, but let's just say there are some "traps" that the "Saw" franchise would be jealous of. Absolutely vicious. This was the most satisfying element of the film for me. If you like your horror tough and brutal, you very well may like this film. You must remember a few other things going into this film. This is not the kind of film that's going to get critical praise. The plot is virtually non-existent. Or at least, it's very, very simple. I didn't find this to be a huge problem, because the sequence of events in the film form the story. The dialogue is INCREDIBLY cheesy, to the point of making your skin crawl as much as the violence in the film. Also, the acting is somewhat sub-par (with the exception of Sarah Butler's performance in the lead role). It's the only element of the film that doesn't seem real, which I think detracts from the overall value of a serious horror film. There's also a loose end that isn't tied up at the end of the film, which left me scratching my head wondering why they didn't address what happened to this particular character. These problems are very common in horror films (as most people know), so if you know what you're about to watch and you allow yourself to be entertained, these little problems don't seriously detract from the overall experience of the film. These few negative elements led me to give this film 3.5 stars instead of 4.5, which it would have earned simply for the level of violence and intensity. Overall, as far as horror-remakes go, this one is one the better ones, IMO. I probably still like the original better, due to the novelty of 70's horror films, but I'd actually say it's a fairly close race, and I never say that about these remakes. If you are a fan of this type of cinema, I'd say it's definitely worth a view. 3.5 stars.
Saw 3D (2010)
Saw 3D - for Saw fans, it's pretty good... 3D NOT NECESSARY!
***SPOILER ALERT!*** I've been a big fan of the "Saw" series since the first one. I got to see "Saw 3D" the day it came out. It was pretty good. As these "Saw" sequels go, it was one of the better ones. However, why did they shoot this film in 3D? The story and the visual effects really have no benefit from the 3D, as there are really only a couple of scenes (namely trap-scenes) that are fun in 3D. This film would've been equally as good without the 3D. THE POSITIVES: (1.) The traps are awesome, disgusting and gory. Just the way they should be! If all you've seen is the preview, it doesn't give away much about the traps in the movie, of which there are plenty. (2.) The story, or "puzzle", all comes together, finally. (3.) Acting is better than previous sequels and better than some reviewers are saying. All characters are believable, considering the premise of the film. THE NEGATIVES: (1.) Not enough Jigsaw! Tobin Bell's character is easily the most captivating element of these films, and even with flashbacks, it seems like Tobin Bell is almost completely left out! (2.) Carey Elwes' short performance leads to a predictable plot. You can tell how the movie is going to end after you see Elwes' speak for the first time. (3.) New characters and trap-victims are not very well explained or felt. While the traps themselves are really cool, the victims are not involved in the plot as much as they are in the previous films. (4.) The main victim is someone who hasn't appeared in any Saw films. I found myself not caring at all about the character's demise. This did not seem like a fitting "end" to the Saw saga. (5.) As I previously mentioned, the film would have been just as good without the 3D. Most of the movie is character acting, so other than the traps, the 3D is disappointing.
So, I guess I listed more negatives than positives, but this film is gory as hell, and I love the Saw films, so I give this final Saw film 6 out of 10. Maybe wait until video if you aren't as into the Saw films as I am, 'cuz the 3D really isn't worth extra charges at the movies. If you are a fan, go check it out! If you like the other sequels, this one doesn't fall short in comparison. Oh, and just so everyone knows, there IS room for a sequel, with the way the movie ends. So don't be surprised if we do in fact see a future Saw film. I think the film puts a solid ending to the series though, so I hope they stick to their word about this being the final Saw. We'll see next Halloween. 6/10.