Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Jan 27, 2014 19:47:48 GMT -5
I've only seen the first Insidious, Terrorific. I've said it before a few other times here in the thread (at least I think I have), but my reaction to it was this - I really enjoyed it until the final 15 minutes, which unfortunately turned it into a really dumb movie. At least for me. Based on the commercials for the second one, though, it looks like they took that ending and actually managed to make that into something satisfying, so maybe I should check it out one of these days. As for bringing people into the horror genre, I'm actually in the midst of doing that right now with a work buddy of mine. It came at his request, not mine (which is something very important when introducing someone to the world of stage blood, LOL), so we've been watching movies at a slow rate - one every couple weeks or so. I started him off light with the Friday flicks, worked up to The Shining, and now we're going through the Japanese Ju-On films. A lot of my favorites represented right there, but I think that's a pretty good representation of what horror is all about: American slashers with Friday, truly artful cinema with Shining and J-horror at its very finest with good ol' croakin' Kayako. We'll eventually be capping it off with a couple Argento flicks to complete the cycle. So far, he's enjoyed everything. FINALLY...earlier than usual, here's this week's new blog review. I only hope that posting this won't attract this movie's unholy production demons my direction. 1982 Directed by Tobe Hooper Starring Craig T. Nelson, "Smokin'" JoBeth Williams, Heather O'Rourke, Dominique Dunne, Oliver Robins and Zelda Rubinstein Here's another one for the "can't believe I've never reviewed before" file. I've had a DVD copy of Poltergeist sitting on my shelf for no less than seven years, dug it out for a few sporadic watches and discarded it without a second thought. Time to exorcise this demon once and for all. Maybe it's because I've just assumed that everyone else has already seen and formed their own opinion of this movie, because this is a flick that as undoubtedly huge in its day. It was released in 1982, being one of many, many, many motion pictures at the time to have some Steven Spielberg connection. Except, in this case, the term "connection" might be a bit too vague, because there is quite the debate to this day about just how large of a role he played in the production of Poltergeist. Technically, he was the producer and cowriter, but according to some film theoreticians (and a few people on the set), he actually directed the movie. Amazingly enough, the guy getting the director credit for this very large budget ghost flick is Tobe Hooper, the guy behind several "so cheap that I'll just film this snuff-style" epics including The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Eaten Alive. Having seen how professional some of his later films without Steven frekin' Spielberg's name attached to it look (including TCM 2 and Lifeforce), I have to call bullshit on this theory. What else is there to share? Well, not much. The basic premise behind Poltergeist is your basic conventional haunted house film, except with a much bigger special effects budget and with some very, very big names attached to the production and screenwriting units. Oh, and JoBeth Williams is all kinds of MILF-tastic. PLOT: Meet the Freelings, family just like yours who have just moved into a new house in suburban America. There's dad and real estate agent Steven (Craig T. "Coach" Nelson), homemaker wife Diane (Williams) who also enjoys pot-smoking in her off time, teenage daughter/skank (seriously, there's like three different not-so-subtle jokes that poke fun at her promiscuity) Dana (Dominique Dunne, who tragically died shortly after filming this movie), Star Wars-obsessed son Robbie (Oliver Robins) and blonde little girl/"They're Here" sayer Carol Anne (Heather O'Rourke, who amazingly enough also met a premature death in 1988, adding to this film's legend as a "cursed movie"). They live in a house that looks just like all of their neighbors' residences, but it doesn't take long before it becomes apparent just how different the new Freeling home is. The first act of this movie concludes with Carol Anne (who has been communicating with mysterious "TV people," who seem to be much more fascinating than my own TV people as a child who consisted of Gilbert Gottfried and Garfield) being abducted by shadowy ghosts living in the house. The Freelings call in a troupe of parapsychology experts to deal with the abduction/weird shit going on, and it all builds to what is admittedly a pretty cool third act where Diane comes face-to-face with the very pissed-off evil ghost that lords over the house and wants to claim Carol Anne as its own. There's nothing fresh here in terms of story, but it's all executed well-enough. And it's got an occasionally daisy duke-wearing and underwear-clad JoBeth Williams to gawk at. PLOT RATING: *** out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: When I was watching this movie as a kid, I really identified with the character of Robbie. Pointless background information: I was a massive scaredy cat as a child, to the point where I interpreted every suspect noise in my bedroom as a single-digit-age-person eating helldemon bent on wrecking my shit up with a vengeance. Looking back on it, I still connect with Robbie the most in this movie, because while the actors give it their damndest...the Freelings are a pretty vanilla bunch, with the exception of the "'60s rebel, dude" cliches that the writers gave the parents. Since Poltergeist is rated PG, we're also not getting any deaths here, but if we were, the group of psychic researchers who almost ransack the movie halfway through might as well have had "CANNON FODDER" written in block letters on their foreheads. One of them, however, does have a pretty neat special effects sequence involving hallucinatory face melting. So there is that. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** out of ****. COOL FACTOR: Amazing information that even the most casual of movie fans already knows - Steven Spielberg is pretty much the man when it comes to making his movies feel like a big deal, and Poltergeist is no different. The budget punched in with a final number of a little over $10 million, which was absolutely ginormous by 1982 horror movie standards, and it's safe to say that you can see every dollar of that money on the screen here. At a time when most horror flicks were decidedly slashery, low-budget and bathed in fake blood (not that there's anything wrong with that), this movie was slick, well-produced and very professional. There's plenty of great camerawork, nifty visuals and Industrial Light & Magic animation to be had here, although (as aforementioned) you won't get any cool deaths. COOL FACTOR: *** out of ****. OVERALL: Over the years, I've come to have a deep appreciation when I see a classic three-act structure in a screenplay. These days, this is practically a lost art, as it seems that almost every drama/thriler film I've seen in the past five years or so is obsessed with throwing in hackneyed twist after hackneyed twist while action movies have been busy Peter Jackson-ing themselves into oblivion (read: false climax after false climax). Poltergeist has none of that. It's an event movie with clear-cut beginning, middle and ending sections, it's got a few classic scenes (particularly Carol Anne's abduction and the ending chase with Diane and the Beast), and it's very well-made. In this day and age of blockbuster movies that outright insult moviegoers' intelligence, this flick is a revelation. It's got its flaws, but for a haunted house that managed to be a big deal fairly quick (much like Alberto Del Rio), there's plenty of entertainment value here. OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****. I wouldn't quite call it a "classic" like many critics have, but it's a fairly good fun time. How's that for vague copout statements? P.S. - I just noticed that Friskey is no longer a member here, and this makes the Lick Ness Monster a very sad panda. Godspeed, Mr. Friskey. You will be very missed here in the FAN horror community.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Jan 30, 2014 9:09:49 GMT -5
I love Poltergeist great movie --------------------- Anyone heard anything about Blood Glacier? As a fan of Thing like creatures and horror in snow based landscapes it looks interesting.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 4, 2014 9:46:14 GMT -5
And now for a review that I can almost guarantee is very different from any other review you've read of this flick... 1973 Directed by William Friedkin Starring Linda Blair, Ellen Burstyn, Max von Sydow and Jason Miller Now here's a review that I've been very dubious about for a long time. You know, there are people on this great planet of ours who have the gall to suggest that THIS GUY (*the douchebaggy thumb gesture returns*) is a contrarian just for contrarian's sake. GALL, I tell ya. My favorite horror movies of all time are Carpenter's Halloween, the Ju-On series, Jaws and Suspiria, and I think it's safe to say that all of those things qualify to being as close to "universally lauded" as you're going to get. I love Steven Spielberg and Alfred Hitchcock just as much as all the snooty film profs do. But when it comes to the movie in question today... In the event that you peruse a couple dozen of the literally thousands of reviews of The Exorcist, the 1973 film based on William Peter Blatty's novel, you're likely to read several phrases over and over. "Scariest movie of all time," "harrowing," "seminal," the list of superlatives, big words and flat-out verbal orgasm that reviewers spew out about this film is staggering. It was the first horror movie to be nominated for Best Picture, it grossed the GDP of a small country and - most impressively - it's one of the very few horror movies out there that seems to be okay for "normal," non-horror-mutant people to like. Now is about the time when you can call me an annoying contrarian, because I've just never seen what the fuss is all about with this flick, hence why I rarely talk about it and why it was never inducted into the Registry here on the blog (a fact that, amazingly enough, a couple people actually noticed). Hopefully, this review gets a few people talking and elicits some Prince-style controversy because, quite frankly (/Stephen A. Smith), it's January in Minnesota and I'm really freakin' bored. But not as bored as this film makes me. *rimshot* PLOT: Little Regan McNeil (Linda Blair) begins showing some very strange behavior. Frequent swearing, abnormal strength, vomiting pea soup...all slightly off. Regan's mother, a famous actress (Ellen Burstyn) living in Washington, D.C., spends a good portion of the opening third of the film getting Regan tested, but as the girl becomes more and more afflicted by whatever is wrong with her, the agnostic actress begins to take heed to the suggestion that her daughter may be possessed by a demon. We also periodically get glimpses into the life of Father Karras (Jason Miller), a Priest who has lost his faith in God after the death of his mother. As fate would have it, it's Father Karras who is called to the case when the time comes for Regan to be exorcised of her demon, leading to a final showdown of epic proportions in the final trimester. This aspect of the film actually works for me. It's a classic setup of skepticism vs. religion on many fronts, as Burstyn's character is an avowed Agnostic who takes all of the "demon" talk with a grain of salt...initially. When your daughter starts masturbating with a Crucifix, it's always time to start taking those words a little more seriously. The film is also a good example of classic three-act structure played out and written very well, and if there's one thing that I mark the hell out for in this day and age of 57 false climaxes, it's three-act structure. See? Little things can impress me. PLOT RATING: *** out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: I've always responded to the story arc of Father Karras the strongest out of any of the threads of this movie. Miller is aces as the troubled Priest who goes back and forth about just what he believes. Of course, Blair is also pretty damn memorable as Regan, and since I've conscientiously avoided the sections of onlne reviews that delve into the backstage happenings of this film, I'm guessing that this could not have been an easy role to play. The remaining characters are played by very talented people. This is doubly true for Father Merrin, another Priest brought onto the case by a local Bishop when it becomes clear that Karras is in over his head. Merrin is played by Max von Sydow, an esteemed and venerable (because vocabulary words are impressive) Swedish actor who has appeared in no less than 11 films directed by Ingmar Bergman in addition to one the slam-bang true-life serial killer film Citizen X - one of my favorite movies ever. Unfortunately (which is rapidly becoming a constant word in this section of my reviews), I'm just not into all of the other characters in this film. Burstyn's Chris comes across, to me, as clueless and not very sympathetic, while Merrin is cold and unrelatable. Or maybe I'm just a moron. I will state, however, that the opinion isn't uneducated, because I have also seen not just one but two crappy prequel films that delve into the epic backstory that is Father Merrin. Since this guy is present for most of the movie's money scenes...it just falls flat for me. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****. COOL FACTOR: Sometimes, life can be funny. After watching Sleepaway Camp for the first time, getting sucked in to its admittedly cheesy story and fun atmosphere only to be shocked into oblivion by THAT ending, I had trouble sleeping. And had nightmares. For whatever reason, I can watch this movie - a movie of infinitely more artful execution and sharp storytelling - and sleep like a baby immediately afterward. The strange thing is I really can't explain why, which is pretty much sign #1 that I'm not an esepcially good reviewer. By all accounts, The Exorcist SHOULD frighten me. A good online friend once told me that the frightening power of this film comes from how religious the viewer is, and that because many of the film's original viewers in 1973 were devoutly religious people, this film was repulsing and disturbing to them. Hopefully saying this in a public forum doesn't piss people off (and I don't think it will), but I am a VERY religious person. Hell, I'm the only person I know in my age bracket who attends an organized Mass every week. As such, I'm extremely wary and scared of demons and demonology, and yet, this film does nothing for me. Maybe it's the fact that the styles of the film are so jarring; the slow pacing of the scenes with Karras followed by such deliberately over-the-top theatricality with Regan's various disturbing incidents (and her voice, no less). That's as good an explanation as I can think of for why I do not find this film particularly frightening. But then again, I'm a devoutly religious guy who loves stage blood. Much like the British Bulldog, I'm BIZARRE! COOL FACTOR: * 1/2 out of ****. OVERALL: I don't know what else to add to this section, other than just sum everything up. The story of The Exorcist is one with a great setup ut one that falls flat with me for several reasons. The acting is great but the characters are one-note; the scare scenes are visually appealing but trite and over-the-top; the ending, while emotional, smacks of "poetic just for poetic's sake." Amazingly enough, one of this very film's SEQUELS manages to do this story infinitely better - the creepy, atmospheric and genuinely scary Exorcist III, directed by William Peter Blatty himself and based on his novel Legion. It should also be noted that this film has the single greatest scare in the history of scares - type "Exorcist III nurse station scene" into Youtube and get ready to jump. This film, however, is instant Nyquil for yours truly. *takes breath* Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking ot it. (/Colin Quinn) OVERALL RATING: ** out of ****. Well-directed and acted, but ultimately a flick that isn't all that effective.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Feb 4, 2014 10:23:12 GMT -5
I'll be honest the Exorcist is not top of my horror lists when thinking of scary movies. I find Omen or Rosemary's Baby much more likely to give me a sleepless night than what this film had to offer. On the other hand the story is fairly solid and the music is excellent.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Feb 4, 2014 10:47:07 GMT -5
the Exorcist is a good movie, but I never really found it scary. it's one of those movies were I think you have to be religious to find it scary. I remember my mom and dad used to talk about how scary it was, so I was pretty disappointed when i finally got around to watching it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2014 14:30:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 4, 2014 15:59:24 GMT -5
THE EXORCIST scared the crap out of me when I was a kid, but I haven't watched it in many years.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 10, 2014 19:12:49 GMT -5
Welcome back, Friskey. I'm going back to the mine of one of my favorite horror series for this week's review... 1960 Directed by Terence Fisher starring Peter Cushing, Martita Hunt, Yvonne Monlaur and David Peel The few people who actually follow my writing likely know about my various obsessive fandoms. Friday the 13th and Ju-On definitely rank at the top of the list. It's hard to argue with watching something over and over for six months and writing goddamn fanfiction and say that you're anything other than a sad-sack obsessed fanboy. But what many don't know is that I hold the Hammer Studios Dracula films in almost as high of a regard. For my money, Christopher Lee is the definitive version of the character. Yes, he's less talkative than Bela Lugosi (at least as much as I remember). Yes, he may not be the Daniel Day-Lewis-annoying level method actor that Gary Oldman was. But when it comes to being sheerly menacing and memorable, this guy has it all covered. And he's badass enough to refuse to say lines that are too cheesy - a true story in several of the later films in this very series. So yeah, I love the Hammer Dracula films. The first movie Horror of Dracula is my personal favorite adaptation of Stoker's original novel and was inducted into the Registry back in the day. The third - Dracula: Prince of Darkness - is an epically gory (for the time) and satisfying sequel that was reviewed on the blog during my Halloween Scare-a-Thon in 2011. What many people don't realize is that the movie that took place between them which did NOT feature Christopher Lee (or even the character of Dracula himself) is also pretty damn good in its own right, and that's the film we're looking at today. PLOT: The movie first introduces us to Marianne Danielle (played by the gorgeous Yvonne Monlaur), a schoolteacher en route to a new position in Transylvania. Which, of course, sounds like a Sunday afternoon in the Park that Van Halen themselves would be damn proud of. After her traveling caravan abandons her, she is taken in for the evening by the mysterious Baroness Meinster (Marita Hunt), and it is in her castle where Marianne runs across the vampire leader for this particular go-round of Hammer Stake-and-Crucifix goodness. It seems that the Baroness' son is a vampire that the mother has kept locked up for years, encouraging the townspeople below to believe the rumors that he is dead while she sneaks a constant supply of nubile wenches for him to feast on. Before you know it, the younger Meinster is free, prompting a very rousing game of cat-and-mouse between the small but expanding cult of vampires and the guy who has made it his life's mission to stamp out vampires. And he's damn better at his job than Hugh Jackman. If you can't tell by now, Brides of Dracula is a simple story with a great three-act structure - the opening where the evil is sprung free, the middle where the evil grows, and the ending where the evil is defeated. Color me a big fan. PLOT RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: One of the hallmarks of Hammer Studios was their ability to craft memorable heroes and villains and find just the right people to play them, and this film is no exception. Hunt is sheer perfection as the Baroness Meinster, finding just the right balance between unnerving presence and friendly host. Monlaur is both scorching hot and infinitely likable as the main heroine Marianne. David Peel takes on the main villain role of the Baron Meinster and enjoys going completely batshit crazy in the final trimester just as much as Christopher Lee. Andree Melly and Marie Devaureux are quite awesome as the two main conquests of the Baron (and the titular "Brides," if you want to get technical). If there is one thing I can complain about, it's Freda Jackson as Greta, the keeper of the Meinster family who serves as the main "human" villain in the film, but it's a minor complaint. You won't find a much better group of 19th century protagoists and antagonists than the one you've got here. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****. COOL FACTOR: Of course, there is one key guy that I haven't even mentioned yet. I am a huge fan of Peter Cushing and his portrayal of Abraham Van Helsing in these films - in fact, I enjoy the role and the actor just as much as Lee himself. Cushing is without hyperole a fantastic actor; when he launches into various soliloquys dealing with the weaknesses of the vampire and tells various disbelieving characters about the spread of this strange cult that any sane person would shake their head at, you completely believe him. When he's required to be a man of action, he is also quite kickass - which is a pretty tall orer considering that his age was already fairly advanced at the time of this flick's 1960 release date. In between the scenes involving Van Helsing tracking down the cult of vampires and cutting his vampire slayer promos, there's plenty of good scary goodness to be had in the form of the Baron Meinster seducing his victims. Fonzie-esque coolness in this movie all around. COOL FACTOR: **** out of ****. OVERALL: This film isn't quite the universal classic that Horror of Dracula is; while Marianne is an excellent heroine, she can't quite compare to the excellent trifecta of Michael Gough, Melissa Stribling and Carol Marsh in that film. That, along with the actress playing Greta, are my only bitching points with this film. That should be enough to satiate all those people who still continue to hurl the "contrarian" complaints at me (the GALL, I tell ya!). Terence Fisher was a master of both atmosphere and getting the most out of his actors, and both of those traits are well on display in this flick. Oh, and it's got a final trimester to die for. OVERALL RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****. Highly recommended for horror fans at large, and an absolute must-own (along with the rest of the "Hammer Horror Series" 8-movie DVD set that my copy came from).
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Feb 10, 2014 23:22:15 GMT -5
Anyone heard anything about Blood Glacier? As a fan of Thing like creatures and horror in snow based landscapes it looks interesting. Are we sure that isn't just a knock-off prequel to "John Carpenter's The Thing"?
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 11, 2014 3:35:03 GMT -5
I need to see the earlier Hammer Dracula flicks. I loved DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS, but most of my exposure to the series is the later films, like DRACULA AD 1972 or THE SATANIC RITES OF DRACULA.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2014 13:32:01 GMT -5
Shout! Factory's new subsidiary Scream Factory, which has been bringing many a horror classic to Blu-ray in the past year or so. The Fog, Prince of Darkness (September 24th), Halloween II & III, Psycho II & III (September 24th), The Howling, They Live, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, The Amityville Horror Trilogy (October 1st, with the third film featured for the first time on home video in its native 3D), The Vincent Price Collection (October 22nd), and so many more in full-blown remastered special editions, chock full of extras. Halloween II even has the heavily sought after TV cut, which no one ever thought would see the light of day on an official release. Not to mention, they just announced a Darkman Blu-ray release for December. While the transfer will probably be the same from the Universal release they did, at least this will have a ton of great extras. Don't know if they can get Neeson for it, but Raimi seems like a possible choice. Well, I was kind of right. The transfer is pretty much the same from the barebones Universal release, but on the other hand they did get Neeson for a new interview and it sounds like he still has some fond memories. Good to know that he's not one of those "I don't want to be remembered for this movie" type of person when it comes to a movie like this. Sadly, no Raimi though. Here's the Blu-Ray.com review. www.blu-ray.com/movies/Darkman-Blu-ray/83056/#Review
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 18, 2014 9:50:12 GMT -5
And now a review for one of the more disappointing horror flicks of the 21st century. Robert DeNiro, Dakota Fanning, Jean Grey and Adventures in Babysitting in the same movie and...it kinda sucks. Oh boy, here we go. I distinctly remember seeing the ads for Hide and Seek and being quite excited about the prospects. A horror/thriller film starring one of the legit three best actors of all time and a very talented rising young star whose sky was the limit? And bonus Famke Janssen and Elisabeth Shue boner fodder? Count me in. Alas, the reality of the movie was far from the holy grail of coolness that I had pictured in my head. What I got was a pretty by-the-numbers mystery flick with a pretty ridiculous slasher movie-style ending. While it might have been far from the first movie to suffer from "M. Night Shyamalan" Syndrome - the much-maligned aftereffect of the dude who was ever-so-fond of Vince Russo-ish swerves, wherein damn near every thriller movie since he hit the scene has to have some wackamaroo twist ending - it might have arguably been the most annoying, as it demolished a movie that boasts some pretty impressive acting and turned it into an eye-rollingly stupid ride. Having said that, the movie was a huge financial success, so huzzah for horror in that regard. On with the show. PLOT: Following the suicide death of his wife, psychologist David Callaway (Robert DeNiro) heads out to the country with his daughter Emily (Dakota Fanning) to start over. Par for the course, said country house is one of those interminably creepy places with nooks and crannies in every crevice (redundancy alert). Even better, it's got a HIDDEN CAVE located on the premises. Man, I would have killed for one of those as a kid. While David gets a little chummy with neighbor lady Elisabeth (Shue), Emily begins playing with an imaginary friend named Charlie. Things escalate quickly, as angry messages written on the wall leads to the death of the family cat - all of which the child blames on the eponymous Charlie. Any fan of horror movies should know where this is going due to all the ominous synthy music that this movie throws at you. Eventually, Charlie's actions escalate to the point of murder, leading to a final act consisting of some of the most baffling and unintentionally hilarious scenes I've ever seen. PLOT RATING: * 1/2 out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: It goes without saying, but DeNiro is an awesome actor. The guy really does throw his all into every movie role, and this is no exception. Even during the third act when the movie flies off the rails, he's 100% invested and convincing. For a brief period of time in the mid-oughts, Dakota Fanning really did seem like she was on the verge of becoming a major star, then summarily dropped off the face of the Earth once her advisers told her that filming the controversial-just-for-the-sake-of-controversial indie film Hound Dog was a good idea. A shame, really, because she has charisma and likability in spades, both of which are well on display in this film. In addition to Shue, we've also got Famke Janssen as a family friend and fellow psychologist who periodically shows up to be an endearing mother figure to Emily. In short, while the characters occasionally veer into laughable territory, the movie is populated by some very talented people who give this very suspect material their all. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: *** 1/2 out of ****. COOL FACTOR: Hide and Seek isn't a body count movie, or a ghost movie. That's all well and good, because some of the coolest horror movies of all time fall in the horror/suspense/thriller subgenre ( Silence of the Lambs, anyone?). Unfortunately, there isn't much to remember in Hide and Seek. The movie's "money" death scene (and I'll leave it up to you, loyal reader, to figure out which character of the ones mentioned above is the most disposable) comes out of nowhere to the point where it prompts laughter instead of sympathy, and the final chase sequence feels like it belongs in another movie. COOL FACTOR: * out of ****. OVERALL RATING: This is a starnge beast of a movie. I will admit...it sucked me in the first time I saw it, and while I was able to call the character that would bite it first, I was very emotionally invested in the two lead characters (especially Fanning as Emily) and very intrigued by the prospect of this "Charlie" character and the various directions that screenwriter Ari Schlossberg could have gone with it. Instead, we get what is BY FAR the least interesting thing that could have come from the concept, and it's because of this decided lack of payoff that the "Plot" and "Cool Factor" ratings took a big hit. Because, you know, my three-point rating system is very scientific. I don't think there is much more to say about this movie, except that shovels are a motherf***er. OVERALL RATING: * 1/2 out of ****. A promising start leading to a trainwreck of Gigli-esque proportions.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Feb 25, 2014 10:42:57 GMT -5
Time for another blog review. I remember Rorschach warning me against buying this movie blindly...and it's safe to say he was right. Giving it my first proper review here. Last week, I reviewed Hide and Seek, the promising-on-paper but disappointing-in-practice 2005 flick that left me dejected after a really, really dumb ending swerve. A frustrating experience, for sure, but the movie in question today makes that film look like Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. A little bit of background first. I'm a huge fan of the original Sleepaway Camp. I've bumped into my fair share of people in online debates who hate it, but that's to be expected. Technically speaking, it's not a "good" movie. The acting is a little...suspect, and the narrative more than occasionally veers into dopey territory. For all its faults, though (and they are quite numerous), I find that the movie has this amazing ability to suck you in to its middle school drama and make you care about its characters. And then it hits you with that unreal finale, as sweet little Angela Baker - the most likable character in the movie - winds up being a freakin' psychopath of Albert Fish proportions. To say nothing of the psychosexual circus that the ending also implied. Admittedly, the fact that the ending comes after such an endearingly stupid movie makes it all the more effective. It's like an episode of The Simpsons that ends with the snuff murder of Lisa. The sequels, for all intents and purposes, are also all kinds of fun, although they are VERY different in tone from the original. All that said, I was pretty excited when I found out about Return to Sleepaway Camp, the movie released direct to DVD in 2008 that served as the first "official" direct sequel to the original and marked the return of original writer-director Robert Hiltzik along with main stars Felissa Rose and Jonathan Tiersten. Such great ingredients on paper. If only I'd known the shit sandwich that I was about to eat. PLOT: Oh, the plot of Return to Sleepaway Camp. If I'm already exasperated, that should be a pretty good clue as to how the rest of this review is going to go. Anyway, we're back in a summer camp some 20 years after the events of the original film. Much of the movie is a long series of incidents involving Alan (Michael Gibney, who both looks and talks like a much more punchable Josh Peck), the resident loser of the camp who is bullied relentlessly by his peers. Much like how the original film had every character who harassed and/or wronged the shy (and that's putting it lightly) Angela meet an untimely end, this movie does the same thing in regards to Alan. At various intervals, camp owner Frank (Vincent Pastore) and counselor Ronnie (Paul DeAngelo, who was also in the original film) do their best to solve the mystery. There's nothing wrong with the plot in principle, but the execution of it fails colosally. More on that, right after this. PLOT RATING: * out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: To be sure, the original film was peppered with dislikable characters, many of whom met an untimely end. At its core, though, it had Angela and her cousin Ricky. Their story was easy to latch onto, an unpopular shy girl and her protective cousin who does his best to deflect the torment inflicted on his relative. This movie, though, has what may be the most collectively assholish group of tools I've ever seen in any horror movie. Even Alan - the guy that we're supposed to (I think - there are some people who think otherwise) connect with, comes off as an annoyingly grating dope who deserves what he gets from his bullies. The only people in the film with redeeming qualities (Ronnie, Frank, a grown-up Ricky during his three-minute cameo) are used sparingly, leaving us with a completely detestable group of people from top to bottom. I've never been a fan of horror movies that leave us ROOTING for mayhem and death, reacting to every murder with elation that another annoying face has been wiped off the screen, but that's what we've got here. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: I award zero points, and may God have mercy on their souls. COOL FACTOR: On paper, this is a movie with some pretty out-there death sequences, and many of them are indeed cringeworthy. I'll give this movie one thing - it's the only flick I've ever seen involving hooking a guy's junk up to a rope and yanking it off with a truck. OUCH. At any rate, it's hard to get invested in any of the mayhem involved for the reasons already stated. Oh, and this movie also has a final twist that tries to shock you just as much as the original did, only the mystery killer in this film can be spotted the second they show up on screen. COOL FACTOR: * 1/2 out of ****. OVERALL: I remember reading the intial series of reviews in the days following the DVD release. They weren't good, but I didn't let it waver my excitement over the movie. I chalked it up to overexuberant nostalgia on the reviwers' parts, going ahead and ordering it off Amazon anyway and popped it in with much anticipation. 90 minutes later, I was able to report that all of the reviews were right. Folks...this is a movie that is just impossible to connect with in any way. It's a bad movie with bad execution, and it's not even bad in the funny kind of way. There's a reason why there haven't been that many jokes in this particular review. This flick borders on unwatchable at times, and it's a shame, because they had a chance here after what the original movie served up to really hit a home run and struck out swinging. OVERALL RATING: * out of ****. Everything you've heard about this one is true.
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Feb 25, 2014 12:40:13 GMT -5
Time for another blog review. I remember Rorschach warning me against buying this movie blindly...and it's safe to say he was right. Giving it my first proper review here. Last week, I reviewed Hide and Seek, the promising-on-paper but disappointing-in-practice 2005 flick that left me dejected after a really, really dumb ending swerve. A frustrating experience, for sure, but the movie in question today makes that film look like Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter. A little bit of background first. I'm a huge fan of the original Sleepaway Camp. I've bumped into my fair share of people in online debates who hate it, but that's to be expected. Technically speaking, it's not a "good" movie. The acting is a little...suspect, and the narrative more than occasionally veers into dopey territory. For all its faults, though (and they are quite numerous), I find that the movie has this amazing ability to suck you in to its middle school drama and make you care about its characters. And then it hits you with that unreal finale, as sweet little Angela Baker - the most likable character in the movie - winds up being a freakin' psychopath of Albert Fish proportions. To say nothing of the psychosexual circus that the ending also implied. Admittedly, the fact that the ending comes after such an endearingly stupid movie makes it all the more effective. It's like an episode of The Simpsons that ends with the snuff murder of Lisa. The sequels, for all intents and purposes, are also all kinds of fun, although they are VERY different in tone from the original. All that said, I was pretty excited when I found out about Return to Sleepaway Camp, the movie released direct to DVD in 2008 that served as the first "official" direct sequel to the original and marked the return of original writer-director Robert Hiltzik along with main stars Felissa Rose and Jonathan Tiersten. Such great ingredients on paper. If only I'd known the shit sandwich that I was about to eat. PLOT: Oh, the plot of Return to Sleepaway Camp. If I'm already exasperated, that should be a pretty good clue as to how the rest of this review is going to go. Anyway, we're back in a summer camp some 20 years after the events of the original film. Much of the movie is a long series of incidents involving Alan (Michael Gibney, who both looks and talks like a much more punchable Josh Peck), the resident loser of the camp who is bullied relentlessly by his peers. Much like how the original film had every character who harassed and/or wronged the shy (and that's putting it lightly) Angela meet an untimely end, this movie does the same thing in regards to Alan. At various intervals, camp owner Frank (Vincent Pastore) and counselor Ronnie (Paul DeAngelo, who was also in the original film) do their best to solve the mystery. There's nothing wrong with the plot in principle, but the execution of it fails colosally. More on that, right after this. PLOT RATING: * out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: To be sure, the original film was peppered with dislikable characters, many of whom met an untimely end. At its core, though, it had Angela and her cousin Ricky. Their story was easy to latch onto, an unpopular shy girl and her protective cousin who does his best to deflect the torment inflicted on his relative. This movie, though, has what may be the most collectively assholish group of tools I've ever seen in any horror movie. Even Alan - the guy that we're supposed to (I think - there are some people who think otherwise) connect with, comes off as an annoyingly grating dope who deserves what he gets from his bullies. The only people in the film with redeeming qualities (Ronnie, Frank, a grown-up Ricky during his three-minute cameo) are used sparingly, leaving us with a completely detestable group of people from top to bottom. I've never been a fan of horror movies that leave us ROOTING for mayhem and death, reacting to every murder with elation that another annoying face has been wiped off the screen, but that's what we've got here. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: I award zero points, and may God have mercy on their souls. COOL FACTOR: On paper, this is a movie with some pretty out-there death sequences, and many of them are indeed cringeworthy. I'll give this movie one thing - it's the only flick I've ever seen involving hooking a guy's junk up to a rope and yanking it off with a truck. OUCH. At any rate, it's hard to get invested in any of the mayhem involved for the reasons already stated. Oh, and this movie also has a final twist that tries to shock you just as much as the original did, only the mystery killer in this film can be spotted the second they show up on screen. COOL FACTOR: * 1/2 out of ****. OVERALL: I remember reading the intial series of reviews in the days following the DVD release. They weren't good, but I didn't let it waver my excitement over the movie. I chalked it up to overexuberant nostalgia on the reviwers' parts, going ahead and ordering it off Amazon anyway and popped it in with much anticipation. 90 minutes later, I was able to report that all of the reviews were right. Folks...this is a movie that is just impossible to connect with in any way. It's a bad movie with bad execution, and it's not even bad in the funny kind of way. There's a reason why there haven't been that many jokes in this particular review. This flick borders on unwatchable at times, and it's a shame, because they had a chance here after what the original movie served up to really hit a home run and struck out swinging. OVERALL RATING: * out of ****. Everything you've heard about this one is true. I'm sorry Lick Ness that you have to sit through it. I'm sorry to anyone who actually bought the film. In my mind I find myself trying to work out the logic on why the director/scriptwriter chose such an incredibly unlikeable lead character. It's fine if you have unlikable characters in a sitcom (Seinfeld or Always Sunny in Philadelphia for example) because they end up getting their comeuppance. But when your investing yourself into a 90 minute film you should have a lead with some redeeming value. Actually I think what my first indication of what a car wreck this will be is when John Klyza they guy who runs the great official Sleepaway Camp Site ( sleepawaycampfilms.com/?cat=7) talked about his experience with the production of the film. John was one of the biggest cheerleaders and for them to treat him rather crappy destroyed it in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by DSR on Feb 26, 2014 0:19:04 GMT -5
I believe RETURN TO SLEEPAWAY CAMP was the first film I ever rented from a Redbox. And I was one of the many voices telling others not to see this piece of crap. It was like there was a concerted effort to make every character either annoying or a non-entity.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Mar 1, 2014 9:11:08 GMT -5
I'll stick with the original Sleepaway camp.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Mar 4, 2014 10:45:16 GMT -5
Time for a new blog review - roughly two months before it's time to hit the water, no less. I'm going to be covering everyone's favorite monster shark franchise (well, the sequels, anyway) for the next three weeks. Read on! 1978 Directed by Jeannot Szwarc Starring Roy Scheider, Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton A long, long time ago, I reviewed the original Jaws back when this here blog was still called the International Horror Registry. The short version for anyone who doesn't feel like browsing the history for it: it's a truly great film, that rare horror movie where the scary stuff is matched by the sheer lovability of its characters. And it's for that reason, kids, why I pray that a remake never comes to fruition. You can make a good scary shark movie; there have been a few of those since the release of Jaws. But what you CAN'T do is replace the people in that flick. More than anybody else, I actually feel sorry for the poor bastard who draws the Robert Shaw role. Good luck with that one, boyo. One thing I have yet to do on the ol' blog is review the sequels. So that's where we're at now. For the uninitiated, Jaws was such a phenomenal success in the summer of 1975 that it actually MADE summer movie season. Before it came along, summer was typically the dumping ground where studios dumped exploitation films that weren't expected to give great returns. The first-ever $100 million box office gross later, and summer movie season now begins in May, arguably April. It didn't take long for the brain trust at Universal to commission a sequel, with a bigger, (supposedly) more impressive shark, the same lead star, and veteran TV director Jeannot Szwarc calling the shots. Hence, Jaws 2. Is it any good? Read on. PLOT: The beauty of this type of film is the simplicity of its setup, and Jaws 2 is no exception. It's four years following the events of the first movie, and another giant, decidedly ill-tempered shark has made its way into Amity Island's coastal waters. Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) is still the man in charge of Amity's police force, and spends a good portion of the first act of the film going through the familiar motions of the original film to convince the still-endearingly-dickish Mayor Vaughan (Murray Hamilton) of the threat and close the beaches. After a series of horrific opening attacks by the shark (one of which leaves it with a somewhat hokey looking burn on its head), the personal stakes are raised when Brody's 17-year-old son, along with his little brother Sean and several of his teenage happy-go-lucker friends, find their sailing caravan trapped at sea by the shark. In this respect, this flick really does kind of turn into Jaws the 13th, in that it is a monster versus a group of kids just interested in having a good time before tragedy strikes. Anyway, the story occasionally becomes a little too familiar when it comes to the first movie, but there are enough new wrinkles (most notably Brody's lead deputy undermining him in order to curry favor with the Mayor) to make it pop fairly well. PLOT RATING: *** out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: Once again, Scheider does a really good job in the average joe with the heart of gold role. He isn't given quite as much to work with in this movie, most notably the absence of Richard Dreyfuss and the aforementioned Shaw to play off of. The other two returnees from the first movie are Hamilton and Lorraine Gary, and both do an admirable job going at it in a slightly different way. Since a good portion of the second half of the film takes place with the teenagers at sea, however, this aspect of the movie takes a slight hit. Other than Mike and Sean Brody, I have problems remembering the names of any of the characters, instead referring to them as Nice Girl, Hot Blonde, etc. I guess this movie is Jaws the 13th in more ways than one, but at least none of the characters are as much of a nonentity as, say, Ethel and Junior. Then again, I remember those losers' names, so it's kind of a Catch-22. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: ** 1/2 out of ****. COOL FACTOR: Of course, the key element in a Jaws movie is the shark itself. In the first movie, it looked fantastic, but the "less is more" approach that Spielberg utilized in that flick was really the kicker. I don't quite know what the ratio is when it comes to how much the fish is onscreen this time around, but the animatronic monstrosity isn't quite as lifelike and fluid. That's not to say that it looks like crap. It's serviceable. When it comes to the kill scenes, this movie definitely has its more visceral moments although nothing approaching the leg slowly falling to the ocena floor in the lagoon or that shocking geyser of blood shooting from Alex Kintner. Still, since the first movie is almost impossible to top in virtually every way, it's hard to fault this flick for failing on a horror level. The scene pictured above (for my money, it's THE scene in this flick) should do a more than commendable job fulfilling this film's scare quotient. COOL FACTOR: *** out of ****. OVERALL: For a brief period of time, this was the highest-grossing sequel of all time. It was definitely worthy of that distinction, because this is a movie that manages to replicate the atmosphere of the original movie without f***ing up too much of what it decided to add in the form of its teenybopper-heavy story. This is both a blessing and a curse. I can appreciate Jaws 2 for its obvious reverence for the original film and its desire to entertain in much of the same ways, but at other times, it feels like a simple retread. What are you going to do? I don't know. All I know is that this is the first Jaws movie I ever saw, so for that reason alone, this film is getting a thumbs up from me. OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****. Get some friends over and pop this one in after watching the original movie for a guaranteed double-shot of fun. As for the next one? Well, we'll be getting to that in due time.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Mar 11, 2014 8:41:01 GMT -5
The Jaws-a-Thon continues! Da-dum, da-dum... 1983 Directed by Joe Alves Starring Dennis Quaid, Bess Armstrong, Lea Thompson, Louis Gossett Jr. and John Putch And now we're getteing deeper and deeper into the abyss of my childhood. Gremlins is the first movie that I actively remember watching, but the second and third Jaws flicks aren't far behind. While they still pop up occasionally on the schedule, I'm fairly sure that these two movies singlehandedly kept TBS afloat. They used to get played CONSTANTLY on the Turner stations, to the point where I could almost count on them getting me through the weekends. Man, I'm a little more nostalgic about this movie than I thought. Jaws 3-D was originally pitched by the producers as a spoof of the first two films in the franchise, with the early working title of Jaws 3, People 0. Having seen this movie approximately 100 times and being well aware of the fact that it holds an 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, it's always been my opinion that they made the right move switching to the campy yet SRS approach. As for some more basic information that pretty much everybody already knows, the flick was released during the height of the early '80s 3D boom (which also included Friday the 13th Part III and Amityville 3D, the latter of which being so incredibly crappy that Uwe Boll would be damn jealous), a gimmick that is utilized to somewhat comedic effect since I've only ever seen this movie on cable television. Oh, and it's got Lea Thompson at the peak of her '80s hotness. PLOT: While the first two movies in the franchise focused on a giant killer shark at large in the great, vast expanse of ocean (/Jacques Cousteau), the theme is switched up in this movie to take place in a more confined area. This time around, the locale is SeaWorld in Florida, where Michael Brody (Dennis Motherf***in' Quaid) and Kay Morgan (Bess Armstrong) ply their trade as marine biologists/dolphin trainers. And yeah, the former is indeed Roy Scheider's son, all growed up. And I think you know where we're going from here. A gigantified shark makes its way inside the SeaWorld gates coinciding with the opening of the park's in-ocean tunnels, meaning that instead of waiting for the sporadic few morons to go swimming and come to the shark, this time there's a bunch of potential snacks trapped with him. Only, in a swerve that Vince Russo himself would be damn proud of, there's not one but two big fish terrorizing the sea(ish) this time around. After two movies, in many respects this film is a bit of a step down in the plot department. Paint-by-numbers is the best cliche that I can come up with to sum it up. PLOT RATING: ** out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: In addition to Michael Brody, this movie also includes little brother Sean in the proceedings. Played by John Putch, he's got all kinds of water-fear issues, understandable considering what he went through in the last film. Most of the other characters in this film are related to SeaWorld in some way - you've got Lou Gossett as park manager Calvin Bouchard, the aforementioned Thompson as a hottie water skier who Sean woos the shit out of...and then FitzRoyce (Simon MacCorkindale), the most hilariously inept big-game fish hunter in the history of cinema. Robert Shaw, this guy ain't. Thompson is loads of fun to look at run around in her panties, and Gossett is aces in pretty much everything he's in. This movie is no different, as Calvin Bouchard takes over the Mayor Vaughan role in this film as the guy who denies every nasty shark rumor that comes up. Since this movie revolves mainly around Michael and Kay, however, the film falls a little flat in this regard, mainly due to the fact that Dennis Quaid was just as charismatic in this film as he would be in his later years (read: not very much). CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: ** 1/2 out of ****. COOL FACTOR: Fortunately for Jaws 3, this is one part of the movie that the screenwriter definitely got right. I'm a huge fan of the locale in this movie. As the movie ticks by, the switch is pulled on us where the shark that we've seen for much of the first act is revealed to be the baby; the mama is much bigger and nastier. In addition to that, it's got some pretty nifty atmosphere-style suspense tricks as the shark causes the tunnels to flood, trapping a whole bunch of SeaWorld patrons inside to fend for themselves. When it comes to the money scenes, this is also a movie that has its fair share of memorable stuff, most notably the dead body that shows up in the Lagoon and the death of FitzRoyce. To say nothing about some of the LOL moments to be had sitting on a couch with buddies watching the 2D version of this very early '80s 3D flick. See above picture for proof. COOL FACTOR: *** 1/2 out of ****. OVERALL: The law of diminishing returns for the franchise had already begun to creep in by the time the flick was released; on a budget of $20 million, Jaws 3-D grossed a hundred million dollars less than Jaws 2. Critical reception was also very lukewarm. But much like the previous movie in the franchise, this is a movie that holds a lot of nostalgic value for this guy. Yeah, I know that Mr. Stuffy Film Critic Guy will be able to tell you all of the reasons why this movie is subpar in pretty much every way, but I don't care. It's a giant killer shark movie that doesn't intentionally shoot for the "so bad it's good" value that all of those downright unwatchable SyFy original films do, and there are precious few of those to go around anymore. OVERALL RATING: *** out of ****. A decent-enough movie to watch by youself, but another horror flick that can lead to a very good time with a small group of riffers to bite back with.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Mar 12, 2014 22:19:06 GMT -5
Oh, I enjoy Jaws 3 so daggone much. Also, hooray Dennis Quaid. ... So, I was on Twitter and realized once again how it can be such an interesting place for random information. Such as this bit where the screenwriter of "The Thing" (The prequel version) vented on some points. I will arrange so you can enjoy the ride (Blocked together so it isn't just a bunch of copy and pasting: Eric Heisserer @highzurrer 1h Just had a long, detailed discussion about the Norwegian footage and the crash site MacReady visits in the '82 THE THING vs the prequel. Long story, but really, we think we've seen a lot more in that footage than we actually do. The prequel doesn't violate it, really. The continuity issue within the '82 version is the size of the ship and its depth within the ice. The footage differs from the actual site. I am being really detail-boring here, sorry. It was just an odd discussion. Okay, so I'll get into one aspect of writing here that may or may not bore you, but it's work that tends to go unseen. We are not the only creatives in this business whose detail-oriented work is largely ignored -- wardrobe designers deal with it too. In the 1982 THE THING, we see documentary footage of the Norwegian crew using thermite to detonate ice at a site where something is buried. I brought in a forensic archaeologist to look at the crash site when MacReady visits it plus that Norwegian footage, for my research. (And yes, there is such a thing as a forensic archaeologist, how cool is that?) When I asked about the thermite detonating over the ship, she stopped me. "No, that's stupid. No science team would do that." Why? Because it risks damaging or destroying the thing you want to excavate. You don't blow a hole right over it, you go in from the side. So now as a writer I had the challenge of making these scientists NOT stupid while adhering to what we see in the 1982 film. Headache. But! Did you know how many viewers in test screenings of SE7EN believed they saw Gwyneth Paltrow's head in that box? There is no such shot. Likewise, we never see the thermite placed directly over the ship. With editing we THINK it's the same place, but the footage isn't clear. So I began to craft a solution that allowed the science team to forge a controlled detonation nearby, to a fissure that offered access. It all sounds super dorky to inject science into the movie like that but that's who most of these characters WERE. Same goes with the block of ice found in the Norwegian camp. The hole carved out of the top, as if something were exhumed. But...Why make it incredibly hard on yourself by digging in from the top like that? You'd need a crane to lift it out. Better: from the side. Another science glitch I wrestled with in the script stage. At any rate, you can do a ton of research, interview specialists, and then build a movie that makes sense while building drama. But..Much of that hard work can be invisible to others downstream, and choices can be made without benefit of that knowledge. Agonizing as it is. What I miss most from the final film isn't the science, but rather all the paranoia of the script, and the characterization. Peder, the meathead of the camp, was a chain smoker. Later someone remarked how Peder hadn't smoked in 8 hours, making him suspect. Lars had more to do. As did Jonas, who had a collection of photos of crowded places in Norway as reminder of people in the world. Later we see Jonas just staring at those photos, and we don't know if he's scared he won't see home again, or as a Thing realizing populace. Anyway, if you find that you, the director, and the studio are fighting over what KIND of movie you're making, you're in trouble. Thanks for letting me vent about that. It was a little like picking at an old wound, but there are lessons there. Source: Tweets from twitter.com/HIGHzurrerA very interesting look from him. Glad he was willing to share.
|
|
Lick Ness Monster
Dennis Stamp
From the eerie, eerie depths of Lake Okabena
Posts: 4,874
|
Post by Lick Ness Monster on Mar 17, 2014 20:28:22 GMT -5
The "Jaws-a-Thon" concludes! I've been looking forward to doing this review for a long time, and hopefully it doesn't disappoint. 1987 Directed by Joseph Sargent Starring Lorraine Gary, Lance Guest, Mario Van Peebles, Karen Young, Judith Barsi and Michael Caine Longtime readers of the blog are aware of my Halloween obsession/borderline psychosis. One thing that I haven't shared, however, is the story of my last Halloween as an active trick-or-treater. In my household, it stopped when you left grade school, which in my mind is the way it SHOULD be, and when it came time for my retirement tour I pulled out all the stops, inviting a bunch of friends over to tag along for my final voyage on the greatest street in the history of Halloweens. The plan was to play videogames after school (check), hit the street at dusk (check), then head back to the home base and catch a horror flick to finish off the night. Since my friends were decidedly less taken with all of this stuff than I was, they left the movie choice up to me. The movie that I picked for public viewing that long ago October 31st of 1995? Jaws: The Revenge. Of course, I'd already seen it. For a lot of my sixth grade year I was an absolute Jaws fanatic, with the original movie getting constant airplay in the ol' VCR. In addition to that, I read the Peter Benchley novel, which for my money was the first fully satisfying adult book that I'd ever read (although I definitely prefer the movie; a 45-minute subplot with Richard Dreyfuss macking it to Chief Brody's wife is just fine left on the cutting room floor, thank you very much). And when TNT trotted this bad boy out, I was all over that shit. At the time, I might not have known any better about the vast expanse of its suckness, and I don't think my friends did either. Now, I'm fully aware of just how ridiculous the whole thing is and can vouch for how crappy it is. That doesn't mean that I still don't have a lot of nostalgic fondness for it, however. Hopefully that spirit comes through here. PLOT: The movie brings back Lorraine Gary as Ellen Brody, wife of Police Chief Martin Brody in the first two films. Early on, her son Sean is killed on his boat by a shark, and since Ellen had spent the film's introductory phase blathering on about how the "fear" of the shark returning is what was responsible for her husband's heart attack, the idea of this flick is indeed that the shark is coming back to stake a personal vendetta against the Brody family. Hilariously preposterous, I know, but that's what we're working with here. Anyway, after burying her son, Ellen heads down to the Bahamas to spend time with her older son Michael (Lance Guest), who works as a Marine Biologist. Even better, one of his partners is played by Mario Van Peebles in full Rastafarian stoner mode. So...yeah, this movie pretty much completely retcons the previous film in the series when it comes to the Brody offspring and their respective careers. Amazingly enough, the shark that killed Sean summarily shows up in the Bahamas, amping up the comedic value when attempting to make out the physics of this feat, all kinds of pissed off and ready to finish off the Brody famly once and for all. There is also a strange romantic subplot as Ellen gets swept off her feet by Hoagie (Michael Caine), dashing pilot extraordinaire. After a very short round of chaos involving the shark (the body count in this movie is criminally low - Sean Brody, a random girl on a beach, and maybe Mario Van Peebles - more on that later), Ellen takes to the sea for one final showdown with the shark. So, in summary, all of this is laughable to the core, and no amount of jokes can quite convey the sheer stupidity of the plot contained above. PLOT RATING: 1/2 * out of ****. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS: This is actually a miniature saving grace of the film. Despite the inane script and plot, almost everyone in this film really does give it their all, particularly Lorraine Gary as Ellen. It takes a pretty committed performance to utter some of the things that she says in this film ("it was the FEAR...the FEAR of it killed him!!") without eliciting laughter, but she manages to pull it off. Lance Guest and Michael Caine are also perfectly respectable in their roles, while Van Peebles is endearingly goofy as Michael Brody's Marione Biology running buddy. Fun fact that's also kinda spoilerish that was hinted at earlier: in the original theatrical cut of this film, Van Peebles' character dies in the film's conclusion, but audiences liked his character to the point that they re-shot the ending for TV and had him survive, despite video evidence clearly showing him being bitten, chewed up, and dragged to the ocean bottom. Nothing a little band-aid can't fix. CHARACTERS AND ACTORS RATING: *** out of ****. It really can't be overstated enough; I have to applaud this bunch. They could have mailed it in, but instead go all-out and by-and-large come across like they actually care about Jaws: The Revenge. COOL FACTOR: It really is quite amazing to look at the evolution of the animatronic/mocked-up shark in the Jaws movies, and how the lifelike quality of the beast actually REGRESSES with time. In the first movie, Spielberg and his wizards made it look fantastic. By the third movie, we had 3D cardboard cutouts coming right at us. And in this movie, we've got what you see above - a sad-sack piece of wood that has the ability to walk upright on its tail on top of the water for seconds at a time. As already mentioned (aforementioned), this is also a movie that seems far more concerned with its maternal middle-aged love story between Ellen and Hoagie than with showing chaos. Body count doesn't matter in a Jaws movie (the original movie had five deaths), but when they come, they have to count. In this movie, they don't. COOL FACTOR: * out of ****. OVERALL: How bad was this movie? Despite turning a profit, despite horror going through a period now where every moderately attractive or even moderately cult-fanned film out there has received the remake bastardization in recent years, there still haven't been any Jaws movies since its release. The flick is packed with inane touches. In addition to the shark's heinous revenge plot and ability to travel at the speed of sound, there's also the incredibly baffling finale sequence where the shark eats its demise by...well, I'll just leave it up to you to seek that one out. Suffice to say, the climax of this film deserves every bit of bad press and infamy that it has gotten. Still, as bad as this movie is, it's one that actually manages to milk good performances out of its actors in bits that can be appreciated in between the truly inane stuff that happens every time the shark gets involved. OVERALL RATING: * out of ****. A pretty bad flick all things considered, but still worth checking out for a fascinating lesson about what truly shitty material actually looks like.
|
|