eer85 Reviews

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

Hollywood lost the mold

[3/10 · 1 July 2018]

The first "Jurassic World" was a dumb, nostalgia-ridden mess which managed to make a lot of money by rehashing the basic plot of "Jurassic Park". This sequel its the same deal, only it uses the already inferior "The Lost World" as its main source of inspiration. There's not a single plot element that makes sense, everything is jammed down the viewer's throat and the character's are a bunch of one-dimensional stereotypes. It's easier to list its few virtues than dwell in all its shortcomings:

1) Visually speaking, its 100 times more appealing than its predecessor. Kudos to the director, the cinematographer, art department and all the other people involved. The lighting, especially, is more interesting. Despite the fact it is shot with digital cameras (the Alexa 65, which currently is the state-of-the-art, along with a few other machines, when it comes to digital imagery), it feels more like an old-fashion, Technicolor epic than its captured-on-film predecessor.

2) Despite the script's lack of truly suspenseful set-pieces (we're talking about the JP franchise here: who can forget the kitchen sequence in the original? Or the caravan hanging on the edge of the cliff in Lost World?), Bayona does a good job in instilling a quasi-gothic, horror-movie vibe in the last act. Nothing that will prevent you from sleep at night, but you can tell the guy knows what suspense is. I wonder what he could've done with a better screenplay at hand.

3) The opening scene does work: it's a nice way to kickstart the flick. Unfortunately, it all goes downhill from there.

The rest is highly forgettable. The pseudo-science is one of the things that kills me every time I watch current sci-fi blockbusters: these things, of course, have never been actual textbooks you could take seriously, but nowadays it really seems that the writers don't even bother to check wikipedia and just rely on stuff they have seen in other movies. As such, not only we have to swallow a ton of silly technobabble fro Dr. Wu (who, since the last movie, has become a diabolical villain), but we are also supposed to believe you can actually do an on-the-spot, interspecies blood transfusion between animals that originally lived millions of years apart. And that's just the first example that came to mind, but there are many more. Hollywood definitely lost the mold for this kind of movie a long time ago. And the people there probably don't even care.

Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! (2006)

This bunny is a killer!

[7/10 · 7 March 2010]

EASTER BUNNY, KILL! KILL! is a small gem of micro-budget exploitation, a twisted little movie with bite. The premise is the quintessential slasher movie routine: a handful of characters confined in a house at the mercy of a masked killer. But instead of students and cheerleaders, this house is packed with fat pedophiles, hookers and sleazy, cocaine-sniffing criminals. Writer-director Chad Ferrin has a personal angle on the genre: in an age of remakes and fanboy films, his work does own the rare virtue of an individual voice. While most sleaze-abundant movies do sound pretentious, this one in particular feels uncomfortably sincere. As with Jim Van Bebber, Ferrin's movies are not for everybody: if you want a MTV-friendly horror movie, then stay away from this one.

Watchers III (1994)

the sh*t hits the VCR

[13 February 2005]

I finally got to see this movie after about 8 years of research (when I started, Internet was something off-limits for most of the people), just because I've been obsessed with Koontz'novel (and related movies) for quiet a while. I'm pretty disappointed for what I saw, but I also have to admit I enjoyed the experience: this is one of those so-bad-is-so-good cases. The fun begins as the movie starts, when you see WATCHERS 2 footage re-used as new material (a voice-over and a detail of two boxes and you've your prologue - this is the real and pure Corman spirit) and proceeds through the entire movie, with blue-screen as sky for helicopter insides and a gummy suit with toy-eyes for the "monster". As Notz, Stanford decides to show the Outsider pretty early, giving away any chance of suspense: it doesn't matter if you insist with shadows and POV after, since you have spoiled it before. This time, the creature design is really horrible, in a bad way: even its shadow is ridiculous. A furry thing like the Oxcom in WATCHERS would have been better (and scarier). This is the first real sequel to a previous entry in the series: it takes the character of Ferguson from the previous movie, even though the two story lines are a little bit in contrast (again, other WATCHERS 2 footage: doesn't matter if the creatures are totally different). The screenplay adds some other elements from the original novel (the cave, for instance - even if it was switched to the sewers in the previous film) but most importantly completely rips off the PREDATOR storyline and settings, so we get a squad of soldiers (all convicted) against the "evil menace". Actually, the plot wants to be a little bit more dramatic than the previous entries, but you can't take seriously a movie with a bad Halloween costume as the monster. It's a little pity, since Wings Hauser tries to but has the entire feature against himself. On a first sight, this flick looks gorier than the previous, but actually it is not: after a mutilated body, we don't see very much - in fact, another funny element it's the way the characters die. The action sequences are pretty cheesy too (like the end). Again, the real and only impressive thing is the dog's performances. The first WATCHERS remains the best (and we're not talking about a masterpiece!), for now.

Watchers II (1990)

Too much shown cheesy creature

[16 January 2005]

I still remember how I was curious to know how they could do a sequel to WATCHERS when I saw this movie on a shelf of the video-store. The curiosity grown when I looked at the back of the cover and saw a gore scene not included in the cassette (which has no real bloody shots). Plus, the movie was forbidden for people under 18 - where the first one (here in Italy) was for all audiences. But what I saw wasn't that good I thought. This is not a remake of the original directed by Hess, but a second adaptation of the novel by Koontz (a quiet good horror novel, btw), more close to it (except for the character's names) than the previous. But it's still very far from the book. Besides some changes (this time there's only a scientist who tracks the beast), the main problem is that the monster's look is very far from being scary and the director had the bad idea to show it completely and very early in the story. In Hess' version, instead, we don't clearly see it and even if this is obtained through simple methods (POVs. shaky camera works, long shots in the fog), it works quiet well. Here Notz tries a little bit to create suspense (the creature's shadow on a wall wasn't that bad), but stops quiet early, preferring to show a guy in a cheesy suit who moves like an idiot. As the previous, the most incredible performance is delivered by the dog - and I mean it in a good way.

I still wonder where that gore shot was supposed to be inserted in..

Black Past (1989 Video)

80s homemade at it's best

[9 January 2005]

Among the other German homemade-splatter videos, Ittenbach's BLACK PAST is one of the best: very well done, especially if you consider all the limits of the video technology at that time. The same can be said about the special effects, entirely done by Ittenbach himself: they're quiet impressive and realistic, not like the red paint and cardboard used by Schnaas in his debut video (of the same year) VIOLENT SH*T. The cinematography and the acting are on a amateur level, but this is obvious and we can't blame it. The story is maybe a little bit slow at the beginning, but its short running time (something like 45 minutes) gives it a good rhythm and keeps it away from becoming boring.

Fear Runs Silent (2000 Video)

Joked by the cover

[9 January 2005]

I approached to this movie because I was intrigued by the tape cover and the summary of the plot on the back of it: this elements made me believing this movie was something like SCREAM with a killer bigfoot - so it couldn't be a masterpiece, but maybe an entertaining Friday night movie. Instead it's a boring film about the dreams and fears of a "disturbed" girl who sees all the people around her like monsters! That's the core of the plot, but we discover it at the end, while for the the rest of the running time the story tries (and I stress on it) to be a monster movie, showing us some clichés and a large amount of bad directed scenes. A waste of time and money.

Night of the Living Dead (1968)

The first masterpiece in a trilogy of masterpieces

[10/10 · 16 November 2004]

What else can be said on the first example of modern horror movie (with PSYCHO)? The idea is simple but powerful: a group of people find themselves trapped in a farmhouse as prey for living dead that rise from the grave with no apparent reason. They should cooperate, but they don't and this will be their condemn. I don't know why I haven't read yet a review or an article on this movie where somebody talk about the three units of the tragedy by Aristotele, since they are well respected. The same, actually, can be said about THE EVIL DEAD and some others, since every low- budget genre movie revolves about the same place and time. I think this is a consideration that they can do only with totally respected auteur as Kubrick: no matter if SHINING is also a horror movie or that NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is a work of art (yes: art). Romero's first movie, in some people's opinion, is still a dirty drive-in low budget flick which has become a classic only for dumbs. Instead is a great horror movie and even contains a germ (since Romero was young at that time) of social commentary and satire, which is not bad for a so - called drive-in flick. I don't actually need a social metaphor or similar to enjoy and love a movie, but if this element is present, I must mention it among the virtues of the flick. I could go on for ages, but it would be useless: the movie doesn't need to be defended. It can do everything on its own. You just have to watch it.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)

Don't mess with titles

[6/10 · 16 November 2004]

I don't really like remakes: I usually prefer movies that steps from others but have something of their own. The title, for instance. NID DE GUEPES, for example, has a great debt to ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 but is not an official remake. Now the new trend in Hollywood is doing remakes of genre movies which have in common with the original only the title - a very important thing for feature, since it's their name. Changing the storyline and the concepts can be quiet dangerous, let's take this movie for example: it's very well directed and photographed, it's stylish, has blood, good looking girls and dolby sound...BUT IS NOT THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE. They removed one of the basilar elements of the original: the cannibalism, which is the engine of the story. Leatherface was scary since, for him, there was no difference between a girl and a cow: everything was food for him, life an object. He was like a machine: the only thing he could do was killing without caring. Now that's really scary. In the remake, instead, there's no cannibalism (so no motivation behind what the entire family - since the masked guy was just one of leads - behaviour) and Leatherface has been transformed in the latest Jason-like bogeyman. Oh yes, they added a quiet a lot of splatter (exploding heads, mutilated limbs and so on) but is all weak compared to the dinner sequence of the original (as you know the origin of the meat they're eating). Now don't misunderstood me: I liked the remake and I'm very happy with my special edition DVD of it, but comparing it to the original is an insult.

Dawn of the Dead (2004)

A good zombi movie

[16 November 2004]

This is the second coming in the new trend of remaking great genre movies of the past: the first is THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE by Nispel. The changements here were more extreme than what happened in the remake of the movie by Tobe Hooper, since no- one of the original character appears and even the zombies are different: as the infected in 28 DAYS LATER, this new version of living dead are hypercinetics. The same happens with the atmosphere: in the '78 version by Romero, the survivors see the mall as a refuge where they could hide for a long time (basically, a somekind of home), in this remake they look at it as a temporary solution and not a very safe one. So the entire movie is dominated by the idea of escaping. As many remakes, it's obvious that it can't be compared to the original, especially if this one is a masterpiece as DAWN OF THE DEAD by Romero, one of the greatest horror movies of all time. But I've to say that this one works quiet well and has some good ideas, like the zombies that decompose as time passes. There is splatter, but is what I call "wet but clean", since what you see is basically a lot of coloured blood and even if some heads do explode, you don't see all the gray matter and the guts you were seeing in the original: I think this was a compulsory sacrifice to get the movie made. But they didn't sacrifice the elements of the zombi myth (as RESIDENT EVIL does instead): the ghouls eat the living, and you can see it quiet clearly. I like Snyder style but I can't say the same for the cinematography, with those colours out of a videoclip or a Nike- spot: their marriage with the dirty zombies just doesn't work. At the end, this DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 is a good zombi- movie that don't even try to surpass the original (which is THE zombi - movie).

Violent Shit III: Infantry of Doom (1999)

Cheap but fun

[16 November 2004]

Compared to the previous videos by Schnaas, this one is a some sort of a kolossal. There is also some film footage: unfortunately, it's just Super8 and the results are quiet poor, especially in dark scenes. I think this is the only feature where I prefer video than film stock! Schnaas's style has grown a little and, thanks to digital equipment, the editing is much better than his previous movies, even though still far from perfect. The storyline is weak and quiet messed up: you simply follow different characters, while never understanding who is the main one, in different gory situations. The special effects have improved too, even though many of them are still quiet cheesy (the backbone out of the anus for example) especially because of the way they're directed and cut. This time a major inspiration are Hong-Kong films: the action sequences ain't that bad despite their poor nature. If you don't get it seriously, it can be funny to watch.

Demonium (2001)

A real movie: crap!

[16 November 2004]

Schnaas makes his debut on film with this (shot on Super16 then blown to 35mm) DEMONIUM and tries to do a mystery story without leaving the gore: the result is a mess. They took Italian actors (since it was shot in Italy) but to act in English: you can imagine what comes out. The story is filled with holes and the style hasn't improved: again, the director uses a lot of hand-held camera. The gore is still there: this time the effects are very good (totally professional manifacture), but some scenes (like the murder of the old doctor, who gets the chest pierced with his own leg) are too much exaggerated. Since this is a real movie, we can say it sucks.

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974)

A masterpiece! What can I say more?

[10/10 · 16 November 2004]

THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE is one of those masterpieces in the horror history: smartly directed and disturbing. It's pure 70s style: 16mm, a lot of zoom and a morbid atmosphere. What I like most is the lack of splatter effects: everything is done thanks to a great use of the camera and the editing. The first double-murder scene is a proof. That's one of my favourite horror sequences of all time. The story is linear, as a real horror movie should be: the most important thing is the style used. The idea of not using music, but just sound effects is great! It's very sad that Hooper has not done a movie like this again!

Violent Shit (1989)

Expect the worst - really!

[16 November 2004]

Andreas Schnaas' first feature could be the worst movie ever made if it would be a "real film". In fact, it's actually a homemade feature shot on video. The editing is terrible. Since it was quiet hard to add sound effects, all the splatter sequences are soundless with only a (boring) music playing. The gore scenes are rather bloody, but the special effects are utterly amateurish (as the entire flick), so absolutely unable to shock and\or disgust. The cinematography is less than poor, like a birthday video shot at night with a horrible sound and the story doesn't exists: it's basically an anthology of unconvincing splatter scenes, The only right thing is the title.

Madman (1981)

A little gem

[5/10 · 15 November 2004]

I think that a complete guide of the slasher subgenre it's almost impossible to write: because of its very simple&cheap formula, a lot of movie have been produced since the beginning of the 80s.

Among these, one of the earliest and most appreciable is MADMAN by Giannone, which is a very honest low-budget flick with some variations from the original (Cunningham's) model and a more fairy-tale oriented atmosphere (the nominal villain really looks like an ogre). Of course, as many other similar features, it has its flaws - acting, for example - but that's not what you seek from such kind of movies. The special effects are pretty well done and they're obtained with very simple solutions. Giannone's style is good, especially in the use of deep focus and the cinematography is genuinely inventive (the green painted leaves!). Eventually, it's better than many others.

Hardware (1990)

Low budget isn't a limit

[10/10 · 14 November 2004]

I read that many people around hate this (to me fantastic) movie: of course, I pass on those who say this sucks because of the gore and violence (it's rated R - and originally even X- : what you think you're going to see, SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS?). I think this movie is a little masterpiece: Stanley later will reach the excellence with DUST DEVIL, but this low-budget sci-fi\horror flick can show his great skills too. Also, there are a lot of little good ideas (for example the tripping toxin or the peeping fat neighbour) that makes it original.

The story is very simple, as it should be for a movie of this kind: the first half of it is really focused in the description of a messed-up future and while it continues we're introduced to the main characters and how they relate with each other and the new environment.

Then comes the second part and the action begins: you know who is Jill, you were informed about the droid...what else do you want? This is a (great) B-Movie, not ANNA KARENINA. Of course, there are a lot of clichés (Stanley himself calls it a "design movie", written after he got a lot of projects rejected) taken from many other horror and sci-fi flicks - such as SUSPIRIA, THE SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE, PSYCHO, PREDATOR, HALLOWEEN and so on -, but they're quiet smartly used: all the world loves Tarantino referential- movies (as I do), says that SCREAM was genius (as I don't) but at the end of the day they don't see the same in movies like this.

Another pointed- at flaw are the Special Effects: first, I'd like to say that I love the design of the droid, since it's quiet far from all those Terminator or Robocop-like cyborgs that were filling b-movies at that time. Of course, because it was basically a guy in a suit, it wasn't showed clearly (Stanley scores again: somebody else wouldn't care of the limits of it and show it with less touch - just think about WATCHERS 2!) - but you can't say it isn't menacing or scary. Also, it was shot between 1989 and 1990 (TERMINATOR 2 and it's CG were far away): the only other way to get the droid moving would had been the stop-motion animation (which is btw used a little bit in the rebuilding sequence). Yes, if you watch carefully in the letter boxed video edition, you would see the legs of the stunt guy coming out of the suit: pretty embarrassing, but isn't something you can blame Stanley for (the same happens, for example, in the video edition of PREDATOR - and disappears in the DVD widescreen version-: you can see Carl Weather's real arm behind his back when the creature is supposed to blow it off and the diving-board when the monster lifts him). I don't remember any movie from that period where a creature or similar is widely and clearly showed. Oh, yes: I'm not talking about STAR WARS or similar movies with colossal budgets.

The tight editing is another smart trick: it covers most of the flaws of the special effects and locations, but also it generates a very claustrophobic atmosphere that helps the suspense.

The cinematography is great - it can remember a video clip but I don't care: besides, nowadays many movies have a video clip or spot-oriented photography, with lower results (at least to me: I don't like, for example, the one in the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD by Snyder).

As for the soundtrack, I love Lydon's THE ORDER OF DEATH and the score by Simon Boswell (who also worked on DUST DEVIL and many Italian horror movies) - also the idea of putting STABAT MATER during the deadly-trip scene is great!

Eventually, maybe this flick isn't a (total) masterpiece in the A- series films, but is a god among b-movies.

Watchers (1988)

Spoiled chance

[4/10 · 14 November 2004]

This was one of the cult movies of my childhood. No, I wasn't a Corey Haim fan. At that time (try to understand me: I was 7 or something) this movie used to scare me: maybe because of all the howls of the creature or the fact that you see it very little. Nowadays I think it's just a spoil of a quiet good horror novel: they basically transformed it into an almost pre-teen TV movie directed with a very poor style. Basically, in the should-be-horror sequences, the camera shakes furiously trying to not shoot too much the stunt in the furry bigfoot-like costume. No really scary things around but I still find the eye-gouged deputy a nice gore shot. The only really good reason to see this is the great Michael Ironside, evil as ever.

High Tension (2003)

Lace your belts for the horror- ride!

[6/10 · 14 November 2004]

There's nothing better than a old-school, insane and violent horror movie. And that's what Aja's HAUTE TENSION is. It also has another rare virtue: the simplicity. There's nothing too much complicated here: you'vetwo girls, a farmhouse and a freaky psycho who is going to slay anybody on his path. That's what we want. And that's what we get...almost, because of a (to me, futile) end twist you would probably be very disappointed by. What a real pity because the previous 80 minutes of this flick are excellent! They are packed with both suspense and violence (special effects by Giannetto De Rossi, who worked on Lucio Fulci's best horror movies) and during this time you can't declare yourself bored or say that you've already seen this thousand times. Because it has really been a while since I saw something like this. Absolutely, the best horror movie I've seen in years. Only one flaw: the ending.

Resident Evil: Apocalypse (2004)

Turn the brain to stand-by and enjoy

[4/10 · 14 November 2004]

I have to admit it: I enjoyed this movie. Being a huge fan of the original video game saga (and a major horror fan) I was pretty disappointed by the previous first chapter: Anderson's approach was too much aseptic, more of a sci-fi thriller than a Gothic horror (with splatter, of course) as it should be. Besides, the fact that no-one of the original characters was in didn't help. Instead with the sequel everything was clear even before it reached the theaters: they don't want to do - with this particular franchise- horror movies with action twists, but action flick with a little (but very little indeed) horror taste. It makes me angry, but what I can do? This is what we get. Dreaming about what George A. Romero could have done is futile. Luckily, this second installment is really like a video game: you just have to sit down, turn your brain to stand-by and enjoy it. This is a real pop-corn movie with comic-like character, impossible action scenes (some could say "cool"...) and stylish direction. BTW, Witt's style isn't bad: he abuses of the strobo effect and stays too close to the characters in the fighting scenes (so you don't understand quiet anything), but besides this flaws it works. Very good the cinematography: it really gives the idea of wet, cold and dirty. The story has some holes, but who cares? Like I said, it's really a video game. Again, very funny. But if you're looking for a real horror picture you've chosen the wrong door.

Dust Devil (1992)

A Masterpiece

[10/10 · 14 November 2004]

Only this: check the Final Cut version and you'll discover that most of the flaws for which this movie is criticized are gone. With it's 30 minutes of footage previously cut and no re-dubbing,the story makes sense (of course, because of all the references to art-movies such as Jodorowsky's EL TOPO, some things are still left only to symbolic images)and it doesn't seems to switch to one register to another. Also this version isn't regraded, so the (very fine)cinematography by Steve Chivers (who also did HARDWARE) can really give the taste of a mix between western (Sergio Leone) and horror (I'd say Mario Bava: in a dream sequence, Zakes Mokae even moves as he's on a dolly!). Unfortunately this version isn't the original 2 hours-long cut that Stanly delivered, so some things are missing: for example, in the first murder scene (where, btw, the director has a cameo reflected in a mirror), the Dust Devil was supposed to cut the back of his victim, now instead he just reveals the knife. And some optical effects weren't added since poor Stanley's pocket (he largely produced this new version by himself!) wasn't so large to afford them. But, bypassing this details, the entire movie it's showed to you as the masterpiece it is.