Change Your Image
The_Moose
1) I am an avid horror fan and film critic and yes, I realize the general irony in that.
2) I appreciate great film and awesomely bad film; I cannot stand mediocre movies and utterly terrible films.
3) Turistas is one of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure to review.
4) My favorite movies include:
01. Mulholland Drive (2001)
02. Brazil (1985)
03. Chinatown (1974)
04. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
05. The Maltese Falcon (1941)
06. Trainspotting (1996)
07. Blue Velvet (1986)
08. City Of Lost Children (1995)
09. Psycho (1960)
10. One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
11. Pink Floyd's The Wall (1984)
12. Videodrome (1983)
13. Ghostbusters (1984)
14. Eraserhead (1976)
15. The Evil Dead (1983)
Mystic River (2003), Ed Wood (1994), Full Metal Jacket (1987), Vertigo (1958), Suspiria (1977), Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986), Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988), Being John Malcovich (1999), Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1974), Closer (2004), Fog Of War (2003), Barton Fink (1991), The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou (2004), Match Point (2005), Robocop (1987) Cinema Paradiso (1989), High Anxiety (1977), The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), Art School Confidential (2006), Broken Flowers (2005), Children Of Men (2006)
Reviews
The Black Dahlia (2006)
Stylish, but trite
The Black Dahlia -- three stars The Black Dahlia is the latest film from director Brian DePalma ("The Untouchables"). Unfortunately, it's also the latest film by screenwriter Josh Friedman ("War Of The Worlds"), who couldn't adapt a great story if it was dropped into his lap
which it was.
The Black Dahlia is a great example of how you can have almost all of the elements of a great film -- the cinematography, acting, slick plot, etc -- and still fail to make a great movie. Why? The film lacks a simple, key element to the noir/neo-noir construct: the mystery. The movie moves along as though it's building up to some big, lurking mystery behind Tinsel town (think "Blue Velvet"), only there isn't. Well, not really. In the last 30 minutes, the whodunit portion of the film rears its head like a stick of lubricious gum; a burst of 40's flavor. The mystery comes and goes in a flash. He has a realization, starts to "properly" investigate the murder of Elizabeth Short, and before you even realize that any of this is happening, the murder is revealed. The killer's identity nothing shocking, fancy or jaw dropping; just like the movie. It's silly and pointless, more or less. So on and so forth, the movie rolls on in a slick, enrapturing style that just never amounts to anything. It's quite disappointing.
"L.A. Confidential" set a bar for James Elroy movies that "The Black Dahlia" fails to clear. We know he has the talent, so who is to blame? I place it squarely on Friedman. "War Of The Worlds" was the worst film of 2005 and it reflects here; maybe if "The Black Dahlia" was played off as a summer release teen-noir instead of the first "serious" good film of the year, then maybe my interpretation of the quality of this film may have been different. However, it wasn't and it isn't.
But let's cut the crap. The movie is amusing at many points and Hilary Swank is surprisingly not annoying. However, these fun, catchy scenes are trumped by longer, more trite scenes that make you wish you'd gone to see something else. The 2 hour runtime is way too long (it feels like 3) and the last scene has one of DePalma's stupid trademark endings with the random, pointless re-appearance of the Elizabeth Short's mutilated corpse on Harnett's lawn, set to loud, piercing "music." Why, I ask.
Oh yeah
I almost forgot to mention the plot: It's about two 1940s L.A. cops (Josh Hartnett and Aaron Eckhart) who head up the hunt for the killer of aspiring "starlet" Elizabeth Short. That's about as complex as the movie gets. If you're looking for a good neo-noir, don't waste your time. Rent "L.A. Confidential," "Chinatown," and "Blue Velvet" instead.
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
SOAP: Three stars, but an enjoyability rating of 8/10
In the 70's, there was "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Now, for a new decade of cult moviegoers, there is "Snakes On A Plane." On the heels of a massive internet buzz, which mostly consisted of parodies, faux-sequel titles, and SOAP-inspired re-titling of phrases (for instance, the Great Lakes become "Lakes On A Plain"), "Snakes On A Plane" finally opens this week for the legions of fans who have patiently waited over a year to see it. Who'd have expected a film with such a ridiculously simple and all-telling title as "Snakes On A Plane," to actually turn out so well? Self-aware films tend to be more stupid than campy. Alas, "Snakes On A Plane" delivers what it promises and much much more. On top of classic Samuel L. Jackson (and his oh so famous line) and a plane full of snakes, the film is riddled with some great kill scenes. As Jackson himself would say, these mothaf**kin' snakes are mothaf**kin' vicious. They slither, leap and bite in the worse places.
The audience at the premiere I attended participated along with film - with people cheering, quoting lines from the trailer and hissing along with the film - much like a Rocky Horror screening (minus the drag). In Arizona, someone went so far as to release live snakes into the theater. This movie is a cult phenomenon that is not to be missed out on. If you haven't seen it on the silver screen yet, do yourself a favor a go buy a ticket; go see what all the buzz is about.
8/10 for enjoyability. A solid 3 star film
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
Predictable, Trite, and Uninteresting: Your Standard Ron Howard Film
The Davinci Chode Wow, once again Ron Howard proves that he's one of the least talented people working in Hollywood. His latest flick, THE DAVINCI CODE (2006, one and a half stars), is no different than his other work: trite, uninteresting, and visually boring. Even in a film such as THE DAVINCI CODE, one that you'd think have sleek, catchy images, the cinematography and composition is bland. It's not "bad," but it's not anything above mediocre. It's pathetically simple. Like most of Howard's body of work, the dialog is HORRIBLE (almost as the romance dialog in STAR WARS EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES (2002, three stars)) and the characters (and the acting of the actors playing those characters) are two-dimensional. How can such a talented actress such as Audrey Tautou disappoint me? The answer: Ron Howard. The religious controversy behind the film is bogus. The plot is too "fantastic," absurd and over-the-top to cause anyone to question their Christian beliefs and renounce their faith. Additionally, the execution of the plot is predictable and cliché; I've never read the book, nor did I know much about the plot and yet I still guessed the twists. But hey, I hear the source material was poorly written too. Apparently, Dan Brown has a knack for intriguing, controversial plots but he can't write for crap. Nonetheless, its no excuse. Avoid this film at all costs. It's the first highly overrated film of the year. Go see a movie you KNOW will be crappy instead. At least then you won't be disappointed. Final word: at least NATIONAL TREASURE (2003, three stars) was a comedy...
QUESTION OF THE DAY: Which is worse: "The Davinci Code" or Tom Hank's haircut for the movie?
Slither (2006)
A surprisingly solid B-film
SLITHER (2006, three stars) is a solid B-film filled with plenty of gross-outs and laughs. From director James Gunn, who has brought us such classics as DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004, two stars) and SCOOBY DOO: MONSTERS UNLEASHED (2004, one star) (note the sarcasm) comes a surprisingly great entry into the horror genre. When an alien lands on earth and takes over the body of Grant Grant (Michael Rooker), he starts to impregnate other humans with his alien seed, turning them into deranged, flesh eating zombies. Its funny, it's gory and they sure as hell don't make them like this anymore. Go see it while you still have the chance!
Killer Tomatoes Strike Back! (1991)
Cmon! It's solid B fun!
Sure, it's not AS funny as Return Of The Killer Tomatoes (1988), but it's still pretty damn hilarious in its own right. Cmon, a tomato robs a bank. Thats on par with zombies renting Day Of The Dead in "The Dead Next Door." Seriously though. If you like B films, enjoyed Return or Attack of the killer tomatoes and want some good old fashion fun, RENT this movie! Seriously, it's almost as good as "robot monster." Anyways, you have Gomez Adams (John Astin) returning as Prof. Gangreen in this sequel in which the tomatoes have faces! Seriously, go see this film - it took forever to get it on DVD. Maybe, one day, if we are lucky, they will add a 5th film to the series. And when will the TV show be released on DVD?!
V for Vendetta (2005)
P for Pathetic
Watching "V for Vendetta," the story "The birds, the beats, and the bat" from Aesop's fables comes to mind. That story is of a war between the birds and the beast, in which a bat attempts to ally himself with both sides, only in the end, to be friendless when peace is achieved. The moral of the story was that if you try to appease everyone, you will satisfy no one. This is the main flaw of "V for Vendetta." The movie often changes pace, attempting to be a action film, a serious drama, a comedy, and an "intelligent" commentary on the dependence on government ("science fiction," in the sense of remarking on societal flaws). It achieves no success in any genre. The film is too mellow and the action is too spread out to be a gripping action movie. The dialogue is too cheesy and the characters not developed properly for this movie to achieve the level of a serious and meaningful drama. Additionally, the story is executed in a manner that is too cliché and in-your-face to be an intelligent science fiction flick. The movie is funny at points, but it rarely strives to be witty enough to make you laugh for long.
In penning the screenplay to "V for Vendetta," the Wachowski Brothers have hit a new low. They have once again proved that, like me, they have no writing skills. If you've seen their previous work - such as "The Specialist" or even parts two and three of the grossly overrated "Matrix trilogy" - then you understand what I am referring to. They take a good idea and kill it. I don't know how they do it, but they do. Despite it's promising commercial, I assure you that "V for Vendetta" has none of the soul or flair of the graphic novel (which I highly recommend).
Another thing that bugs me about this film is that it feels the need to make Matrix references, as if they were 1) still funny and 2) hilarious because the joke is being made by the writers of "The Matrix." Bullet time has been replaced by knife time and if you pay close enough attention to specific shots in the action sequences of this movie, you may recall them from "The Matrix."
This movie is far from an entertaining popcorn flick, with a plot that drags at numerous instances and dialogue that makes "Matrix Revolutions" looks like Shakespeare. If you want to see something entertaining, I implore that you to heed my warning and avoid this flick at all costs. Go to Blockbuster instead.
The Hills Have Eyes (2006)
Gritty, gruesome and graphic - better than the original
Unlike the 2003 remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," this update of Wes Craven's cult horror classic "The Hills Have Eyes" is a visceral, stylized, and disturbing tour de force. This effective remake has a lot of soul and bares large fangs that bite the jugular. It's a film made by a grind house horror fan for grind house horror fans - he knows what the audience wants and how to deliver it. Director Alexandre Aja (Haute Tension) is a student of the 70's/80's horror era.
The story is about an all American family who gets lost in the New Mexico desert and is attacked by cannibal freaks, who are the byproduct of nuclear testing. You might laugh at this idea, saying to yourself "freaks attacking a family, that's so lame." To be honest, several people in the theater were chuckling in the beginning, but by the second act, no one was laughing. In fact, by the end of this movie several people fled the theater in terror.
As a horror buff myself, I thoroughly enjoyed this piece and highly recommend it to those who are fond of other grind house works such as "The Evil Dead" and "Zombie 2." It's a superior work of terror that's a delightful departure from the recent PG-13 horror junk (such as "When A Stranger Calls") that's plagued theaters.
However, a word of warning. "The Hills Have Eyes" is very violent and gory. If you've seen Aja's last film, Haute Tension (which I highly recommend), you know what kind of blood and guts you're in for. Don't be fooled by the rating. Despite the fact that this film was re-edited for an R, there still remains a lot of graphic and gruesome gore and violence, which includes, but is not limited to head explosions, graphic gun shot wounds, stabbings, and a scene of rape.
All this mind, I conclude with a simple, and meaningful statement that I rarely plan to utter again. "The remake was better than the original." 8/10