|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 26, 2009 8:48:50 GMT -5
MOTEL HELL (1980)
Kindly Farmer Vincent runs a hotel and is famous locally for his fantastic tasting smoked meats. Unfortunately, Vincent is not exactly what he seems. He attacks unsuspecting travelers, incapacitates them, takes them back to his farm behind the hotel he runs, and buries them neck-deep in the garden. There he prepares them to be turned into his delicious tasty treats, whose motto is: "It takes all kinds of critters...to make Farmer Vincents fritters."
This is some crazy shit, but definitely a bit of a pleasant surprise as it's not a straight-up horror movie and I didn't expect it to have as much of a sense of humor as it did. In fact I'd say, it's almost a parody of 70's horror flicks like TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE and LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT.
Entertaining, funny stuff. Gory in that low-budget late 70's/early 80's way.
7/10
ZOMBIELAND (2009)
Horror comedy about a world that, thanks to Mad Cow disease, has been overrun by zombies. Two men, nerdy Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) and ass-kicking Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), join forces to help each other survive the zombie onslaught. They meet a pair of sisters who have also managed to use their wits to stay alive and the four of them hit the road with different agendas.
While this is not quite in the same league as SHAUN OF THE DEAD, which was more clever, this is still a really funny flick. There's a decent amount of zombie-gore to earn it's horror cred, but it's definitely more about the comedy: Lots of physical humor, Columbus' rules for surviving zombies, and Tallahassee's obsession with Twinkies.
And hey, any movie that features Metallica's "For Whom The Bell Tolls" (accompanying a slow-motion zombie attack montage) as it's opening number, and later throws in Van Halen's "Everybody Wants Some", is okay in my book.
8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 26, 2009 10:15:58 GMT -5
I liked it a lot, much more than the first which pretty much rested on just that, a 'sense of wonder' and not a whole lot else. Are you kidding? How can you say, "not a whole lot else"? That brilliant attack on the jeep by the T-Rex, The Raptors stalking the kids in the kitchen, the attack on Dennis Nedry in the jungle, Muldoon realizing he's been set up just before the raptors attack him, the main characters running through that stampede, and on and on. The sense of wonder came not only from how good the effects were in all those scenes, but just that we were seeing all this stuff for the first time. By the time the third movie came along, we were already used to how cool the dinosaurs looked so we, well, at least some of us, needed the story to be a little more different then what had already come before. The second one at least had some of the dinosaurs reach America, which was a lot of fun in a Godzilla kind of way. The third one is kind of a "greatest hits" of the first two flicks. The only really new and unique thing was the attack from the flying Pterosaurs. And like I said, while the third one is entertaining for what it is, it's kind of a throw away movie. The T-Rex attack and the kitchen sequence are just about the rest of the things I like about it. The rest wasn't that great. The raptor attack on Muldoon was telegraphed the second he mentioned it upon meeting Grant in front of their quarry, Nedry's is pretty much undone by the fact that the Dilophosaurus in the scene didn't exist at all except for it's overall body image and shape and the Gallimimus scene is horribly-detaching from it's apparent CGI. It was patently obvious about it's use of it and not models since the creatures don't have any depth at all (they look heavy and fleshy, but don't have that sense about them where they look real) which the T-Rex scene was so great about doing. That one looked great because it's still hard for me to tell what's the model and what's CGI, which is why I respect it so much. The kitchen scene is right up there except for the brief snippets of the claw tapping on the ground (that puppet looks really bad) but beyond that, it's also got the moments of them outsmarting the dinos, which is really good and rewarding. But combine the other flaws, along with the fact that there's a lot of boredom in the beginning half (I remember an episode of Siskell and Ebert talking about part 2 having off pacing when they mention the first attack coming almost an hour into the film: that should go here since the pen sequence is almost an hour and a half into it, which is way too long for a 9-year old kid to have to sit through to get to an action scene featuring the reason he's watching it, Dinosaurs) and then the fact that the basic premise is completely impossible and it really takes a lot away from the film, at least for me. Stephen King's Desperation-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread. Day of the Dead-The remake of the original, which is hundreds of times better than Romero's due to one rather important change in the plot-line: the characters aren't stuck underground bickering at each other for ninety minutes, but rather stuck above-ground during the outbreak. That allows for a never-ending series of encounters and scenes with them, including fantastic scenes in a hospital, a radio station and out among the town during a zombie outbreak. The gore is top-notch, the zombies look great, there's tons of action and even a fantastic idea generated with the zombies to give it a little identity out among the crowd. Sure, the fast-zombies idea is bullshit and completely unneeded and irritating along with a slow beginning, but it overcomes them and is an awesome amount of fun. |
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Oct 26, 2009 19:42:59 GMT -5
Hard Gun (1996) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 6/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 6/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 29, 2009 9:15:00 GMT -5
The T-Rex attack and the kitchen sequence are just about the rest of the things I like about it. The rest wasn't that great. The raptor attack on Muldoon was telegraphed the second he mentioned it upon meeting Grant in front of their quarry, Nedry's is pretty much undone by the fact that the Dilophosaurus in the scene didn't exist at all except for it's overall body image and shape and the Gallimimus scene is horribly-detaching from it's apparent CGI. It was patently obvious about it's use of it and not models since the creatures don't have any depth at all (they look heavy and fleshy, but don't have that sense about them where they look real) which the T-Rex scene was so great about doing. That one looked great because it's still hard for me to tell what's the model and what's CGI, which is why I respect it so much. The kitchen scene is right up there except for the brief snippets of the claw tapping on the ground (that puppet looks really bad) but beyond that, it's also got the moments of them outsmarting the dinos, which is really good and rewarding. But combine the other flaws, along with the fact that there's a lot of boredom in the beginning half (I remember an episode of Siskell and Ebert talking about part 2 having off pacing when they mention the first attack coming almost an hour into the film: that should go here since the pen sequence is almost an hour and a half into it, which is way too long for a 9-year old kid to have to sit through to get to an action scene featuring the reason he's watching it, Dinosaurs) and then the fact that the basic premise is completely impossible and it really takes a lot away from the film, at least for me. I've noticed a pattern with you. You tend to nitpick movies a lot more if they were popular or had huge box office, but if they're small movies that only you saw, direct-to-video or on the Sci-Fi Channel for instance, you let pretty much everything slide. Bad special effects, awful acting, which you don't care about anyway, plot points that are telegraphed a mile away, all kinds of lame clichés, it doesn't matter, it all gets a pass. But the minute a name director is behind the camera, and more than 10 people saw it, forget it, you will rake them over the coals for every little thing. What 9 year old kid are you talking about? Was that how old you were when you first saw this movie? Shouldn't what entertains you in a movie, or what you look for, have progressed a bit since you were nine? As for "the basic premise is completely impossible and it really takes a lot away from the film". Are you talking about the premise of genetically-engineered dinosaurs run amok? That premise? The one you seemed to have no problem with in the sequels? That just makes no sense. |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 29, 2009 10:15:13 GMT -5
I have no problem at all throwing praise onto a film that went to theaters, it just so happens I don't watch a lot of them at the time due to my current financial situation. I have to wait for them to appear on cable, and while I'm there, I have to pass the time with the fare that's on there right now, but I've actually taken a lot of those kinds of films to the fires as you say just as much as the big-name films.
Yes, I was nine when I first saw it, and frankly, it shouldn't matter what my tastes should have evolved into since then, it should only matter what I find interesting in films to allow me to enjoy them. It shouldn't matter what age I am at all.
Genetic engineering is not what I have the problem with, it's the method of it that's used in the film. Utilizing fossilized amber to acquire DNA is a total fallacy, in that DNA molecules break down and completely disintegrate after about 5-10 million years. There would not be anything for them to take from when you start talking about taking DNA for the T-Rex, Raptors, Triceratops or the Gallimimus, let alone being utterly impossible for much older specimens like the Brachiosaurus or Dilophosaurus, as if it wouldn't be around for the late Cretaceous species, why would there be any for the Jurassic specimens which are geologically older? That factor is what I have the problem with, and why I don't care about it so much in the sequels is because that's not needed to enjoy the film. There's no importance placed upon the science, which is a heavy part of the first one. They're out and around, so while it's indeed a flaw, it's inconsequential to the sequels due to there not being anything in the films that states the importance of the genetic engineering. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak.
My Super Psycho Sweet Sixteen-An MTV slasher, in the sense that it was filmed for the channel as an original production, which in term manages to effectively merge the two together, appealing to the crowd with so much "Hills"-esque BS in the beginning to set-up the backstory while letting loose in the second half with full-on slasher abandon, including the use of so many of our favorite cliches and scenes. Those slasher scenes are where it really lets loose, including an abbreviated-if-still-fun chase scene at the end, a wonderfully appropriate finale that resolves everything quite satisfactorily, some pretty good kill set-ups and a decent amount of bloodletting for this kind of film. Sure, the drama-like beginning is somewhat tiresome and irritating, most of the cliches come at the expense of rational thought and the killer really doesn't look that imposing, it's still a pretty good watch for the MTV crowd who are interested in horror at this time of the year. A stepping-stone film, if you want to call it that.
The Running Man-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 30, 2009 9:17:05 GMT -5
I have no problem at all throwing praise onto a film that went to theaters, it just so happens I don't watch a lot of them at the time due to my current financial situation. I have to wait for them to appear on cable, and while I'm there, I have to pass the time with the fare that's on there right now, but I've actually taken a lot of those kinds of films to the fires as you say just as much as the big-name films. I'm not talking about whether you see them in a theater or on tv. All one has to do is look back at a lot of your reviews, comments and criticisms of mainstream flicks that people actually enjoyed, compared to the praise heaped on the most obscure no-budget movies, to see where your opinions are skewed. The same things that get a pass in the low-budget flicks don't always get a pass in the more mainstream fare. Yes, I was nine when I first saw it, and frankly, it shouldn't matter what my tastes should have evolved into since then, it should only matter what I find interesting in films to allow me to enjoy them. It shouldn't matter what age I am at all. It shouldn't matter, but I found it odd that you brought it up. Most people don't look for, or enjoy, the exact same things in movies when they're in their mid-twenties that they did when they were nine. I enjoyed Scooby-Doo cartoons when I was nine, doesn't mean I can sit through more than 5 minutes of an episode now. Talking about how when you were nine, how boring it was for you to sit through most of JURASSIC PARK until the actual dinosaurs started attacking, as part of your criticisms now, when you're in your mid-twenties, just didn't make sense to me, unless that was the last time you saw the movie, when you were nine. Genetic engineering is not what I have the problem with, it's the method of it that's used in the film. Utilizing fossilized amber to acquire DNA is a total fallacy, in that DNA molecules break down and completely disintegrate after about 5-10 million years. There would not be anything for them to take from when you start talking about taking DNA for the T-Rex, Raptors, Triceratops or the Gallimimus, let alone being utterly impossible for much older specimens like the Brachiosaurus or Dilophosaurus, as if it wouldn't be around for the late Cretaceous species, why would there be any for the Jurassic specimens which are geologically older? That factor is what I have the problem with, and why I don't care about it so much in the sequels is because that's not needed to enjoy the film. There's no importance placed upon the science, which is a heavy part of the first one. They're out and around, so while it's indeed a flaw, it's inconsequential to the sequels due to there not being anything in the films that states the importance of the genetic engineering. Out of sight, out of mind, so to speak. That's just about one of the most hair-brained things I've read on here. It's a science-fiction movie! Genetic engineering of dinosaurs is not possible, no matter which way they choose to explain it. You're supposed to just suspend disbelief and go along for the ride. Can you enjoy BACK TO THE FUTURE or does time-traveling ruin it for you cause it's not science fact? And you know what, if a radioactive spider actually bit someone they would probably just die from radioactive poisoning, not become a superhero, but you have to kind of go with it, or there's no movie. What about all those zombie movies you love? I don't care how they choose to explain it, it's not possible, but you just go along with it, right? Hell, they don't even try to explain why King Kong is the size he is, we either accept it or we don't. This is the kind of nit-picking I'm talking about. For someone who claims to just want to enjoy a movie and not have to think too much about the plot, story, etc., you sure are giving genetic engineering, of all things, a LOT of thought. I appreciate the fact that the writers went as in-depth as they did in trying to make the concept sound somewhat plausible, but don't really care if it is or isn't. And it being a flaw in the first movie, but not in the sequels because it's not mentioned as much, is ridiculous too. Of course they're not going to talk about it as much in the sequels. They had to go in-depth about it in the first movie to explain to us why there are big friggin' dinosaurs walking around this island, but why rehash it over and over again in part 2 and 3? The filmmakers are going to assume if you're watching part 2 and 3, that you've already seen part 1 and therefore don't have to have it all explained to you again. Seriously, I feel like I'm being "punked" here. This is up there with Q's diatribe over FARGO because the accents didn't sound authentic to him, or Pulp trying to make the argument that people in marching bands train as hard as football players and therefore it should be considered a sport. WTF?? |
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 30, 2009 9:36:53 GMT -5
THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL (2009)
A college student answers an ad for a babysitting job from a strange couple. When she gets there it's explained to her that it's actually the woman's elderly mother, not a baby, that she'll be watching. She's hesitant at first, but the payment being offered is too good, so she accepts.
Most of the rest of the movie is spent with the girl thinking she's hearing strange noises, and creeping around the house with a kitchen knife until the last fifteen minutes or so when she finds out the terrible secret that the couple is keeping and things finally get moving.
Low budget flick set in the early eighties and definitely has the feel of a horror movie from then. A pretty good, if not that original, set-up, and good acting, but unfortunately only a couple of really interesting things happen until that last fifteen minutes. The bulk of the movie is just the girl sitting on the couch or wandering around the house. It's a slow burn until the climax, which I don't mind, but there should be a really good pay-off. And here, it was pretty anti-climactic.
Watched this on HDNET Movies last night as part of their "free movie previews" program, but I guess it's opening in theaters in limited release today.
5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Oct 30, 2009 10:17:43 GMT -5
Frankly, if you're going to take the time to put something on the screen, there has to be a sense of believability to what's happening. If the entire film is built around a concept that is inherently flawed to begin with, it's almost impossible to get into it due to not buying into what's going on. Now, while a lot of those low-budget obscure films I watch feature even more hair-brained and far-fetched plots, there's still a sense that, in some way, shape or form, they could happen. Here, it can't because the central idea is proven to be false. There's no way on Earth scientists can ever pick up a fossilized piece of tree sap from the Jurassic period and extract Dinosaur DNA from that, whereas it's not yet proven false that ghosts, monsters and goblins don't exist. They're fairy tales and other such instances, but there's still sightings and reports of them to this day coming from really reliable people, and while we can't prove they do exist, we can't prove they don't either. This one is proven to be inaccurate, therefore it fails.
Now, while I haven't seen the others you mentioned, I do know enough to make an educated guess on whether or not they will or won't be accurate, and I have a feeling I won't be bothered too much my Back to the Future. Time travel is simply a subject that is unavailable in our current time, it might very well prove to be true. Maybe not in the exact manner in the film, but very possible, and since I haven't seen it I can't comment on the specifics of the machine. Spider-Man might be idiotic, but it's no worse than any of the 50s giant monster movies I love and enjoy, so it could work for me, it might not. I'll have to settle down with it and get really into it this time. And before you get on me, I did mention in the past that it was on while I was in school but I never paid attention, so I don't know for sure what it was about.
Furnace-A truly solid and highly enjoyably ghost movie that manages to get a lot going for it. With a great prison set that looks really creepy, a truly engrossing mystery that must be solved that manages to contain enough twists and turns that it doesn't seem like one that would be solved easily like so many other mysteries in these ghost movies, but it also allows for a lot of great confrontations, both of the haunting and the killing variety, and along with a large body of kills that produce enough blood to satisfy and a couple of really good hauntings, it's really enjoyable. It moves along at a quick pace as well, so it's hardly ever boring, leaving this one highly entertaining.
Ghost Town-Yet another really good ghost movie, this one though is only slightly below the other one due to the rather irritating habit of completely forgetting to name just about everyone in here. We don't know the name of the lead for crying out loud, a severe detriment which hurts the film more so than the fact that, all told, the ghosts appear in all of maybe ten minutes of time. Sure, it's all good stuff during that time since they're out and about haunting during that time and delivering some decent if uninspired kills, but that's still a big handicap. With a more frenetic pace and better action, this one easily could've been great had a few small problems been fixed here and there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Heineken Skywalker on Oct 31, 2009 12:15:01 GMT -5
Frankly, if you're going to take the time to put something on the screen, there has to be a sense of believability to what's happening. If the entire film is built around a concept that is inherently flawed to begin with, it's almost impossible to get into it due to not buying into what's going on. Now, while a lot of those low-budget obscure films I watch feature even more hair-brained and far-fetched plots, there's still a sense that, in some way, shape or form, they could happen. Here, it can't because the central idea is proven to be false. There's no way on Earth scientists can ever pick up a fossilized piece of tree sap from the Jurassic period and extract Dinosaur DNA from that, whereas it's not yet proven false that ghosts, monsters and goblins don't exist. They're fairy tales and other such instances, but there's still sightings and reports of them to this day coming from really reliable people, and while we can't prove they do exist, we can't prove they don't either. This one is proven to be inaccurate, therefore it fails. Now, while I haven't seen the others you mentioned, I do know enough to make an educated guess on whether or not they will or won't be accurate, and I have a feeling I won't be bothered too much my Back to the Future. Time travel is simply a subject that is unavailable in our current time, it might very well prove to be true. Maybe not in the exact manner in the film, but very possible, and since I haven't seen it I can't comment on the specifics of the machine. Spider-Man might be idiotic, but it's no worse than any of the 50s giant monster movies I love and enjoy, so it could work for me, it might not. I'll have to settle down with it and get really into it this time. And before you get on me, I did mention in the past that it was on while I was in school but I never paid attention, so I don't know for sure what it was about. Riiiigghhht..... |
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 2, 2009 11:02:43 GMT -5
Halloween fare over the weekend, along with quick, lightning-fast notes-
Hide-Utterly terrible, no need to see it.
The Haunting of Molly Hartley-Got better as it goes along, just needed a better rating.
Homecoming-No review, not a horror film, as it's Misery with the sex inverted.
Bram Stoker's Dracula's Guest-Barely-horror vampire entry that forms the basis for the novel, which means it's quite dull and boring.
Zombie Town-Fantastically cheesy and entertaining low-budget zombie fun.
Imaginary Playmate-Engrossing mystery, fun finale, excruciating build-up.
The Ape-This was a lot of fun, just haunted by the fact that it's barely an hour long.
Murders in the Zoo-Decent enough, not a whole lot to say here.
Circus of Horrors-Just a shade above Hide in terms of entertainment value.
Plus two films that would qualify for the October Genre of the Month, but considering that it's already closed and no one will like what I say anyway, they're best left to my own personal vices.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 3, 2009 11:03:18 GMT -5
Chill Factor-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 4, 2009 11:00:01 GMT -5
Zaat-Really, really, really bad low-budget 70s creature feature, so the costume, which looks just beyond ludicrous and unintimidating, is given center stage for the majority of the running time just makes it look that much cheaper, the on-set locations don't help and the fact that the film plays more like an advertisement for your local aquarium doesn't do many favors, and when coupled with some lazy, uninspired attacks, very few to boot, a ridiculous premise that really seems even stupider when you really think about it, and a collection of stupidity not witnessed since a great white followed a woman to the Bahamas, this one was headed for disaster, if only that it got so bad toward the end it oddly became watchable only to see what else would come up. Only for those that are extremely loose with their preference for utter crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 6, 2009 11:02:54 GMT -5
Air Force One-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
Executive Decision-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Termination on Nov 7, 2009 14:38:05 GMT -5
Appaloosa (2008) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 7/10
HD Audio Dolby TrueHD - 8/10
The Constant Gardener (2005) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 8/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 9/10
Freddy Vs. Jason (2003) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 8/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 9/10
Hostage (2005) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 8/10
HD Audio Dolby Digital - 8/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 8/10
Year One (2009) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 10/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 9/10
Fighting (2009) (Blu-Ray)
HD Video - 9/10
HD Audio dts-HDMA - 10/10
|
|
|
|
Post by slayrrr666 on Nov 9, 2009 11:08:45 GMT -5
Passenger 57-See thoughts in Movie Genre thread.
Forbidden Secrets-Another Lifetime horror flick, one of many I've seen in recent weeks, but this was one of the weakest. Starts off promisingly enough, with a young woman attempting to overcome her traumatic childhood by moving into her old home, but finds something still there that has been affecting everyone that moves in. Sounded very promising and very intriguing, but the fact that hardly anything in here is really explored at all, the pace is so languid and slow that its hard to stay interested especially since there's hardly any ghost action, which in the end it turns out to be since it goes for such a predictable route that it doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to guess where it's going five minutes in. There's also very little atmosphere here with the house not being creepy enough and a lot of the scares based around that aspect, so it fails quite badly. A major disappointment.
|
|
