I'm very sorry for being so late on my reviews I actually have 4 movies I need to review for you guys and they'll be up shortly. This is the first break I've had for a while. School has gotten pretty crazy and I've been shooting a lot of stuff. So I apologize. The next 4 reviews are:
HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL - 1999
RETURN TO HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL - 2007
13 GHOSTS - 2001
FEMALE TROUBLE - 1974
Give me like 2 days to do them all.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Killer Tomatoes Eat France - Dir. John DeBello - 1991
Aw, the journey has ended for Daniel Schaub. Here is his last review:
As I come upon the final film in the Killer Tomatoes Franchise, I can't help but be overcome with a plethora of emotions: elation, sadness, joy, fickle, and whole bunch of adjectives that I'm too lazy to pull off of Thesaurus.com. It has been an interesting and bumpy ride through two enjoyable flicks, one really bad one and the last which... wait, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
“Killer Tomatoes Eat France” takes place in France of all places, why the hell would they actually shoot in the location mentioned in the title? Who delivers what they promise these days... Jesus. Anyway, Dr. Gangreen, with the help of Igor and some killer tomatoes, escapes from the bastille and plans to fulfill an ancient prophesy from Nicodemus that would make Igor the king of France, and somehow make Gangreen ruler of the world by association. Hey, he's a biologist, not a sociologist. Meanwhile, an American by the name of Michael (Marc Price from “Family Ties”) is backpacking through France when he meets a simple country girl, Marie (Angela Visser), who believes she doesn't fit the French ideal of beauty: homely and obese. Oh, those French people.
So, these two plot-lines intersect and Fuzzy Tomato shows up again... have I mentioned how much I hate Fuzzy Tomato? No? Well, let her rip... Fuzzy Tomato is merely an object for young children to latch onto and buy merchandise (which they make a joke about in “Return”) but he serves no purpose (other than Gangreen needing some of FT's tomato juice apparently). FT merely appears to do stupid physical comedy schtick that even the Three Stooges would say is too low, probably the Farrely Brothers would even say that it's too low. He appears way, way too much in this film and infuriates me every time he appears. Although, there was one scene where he started singing an Elton John-esque ballad which was kind of funny but that's only because of the person the song is representing, not because it is being sung by a tomato with hair. Do you ever watch some movie that you loved when you were a kid and your favorite character turns out to be the most annoying fucking one in the entire film (Shortround, anybody?)? Gah, fuck! Go to hell Fuzzy Tomato! You're ruining my childhood memories of the television show! Fuck you and the seedling you spawned from!
Anyway, much like “Strike Back”, “Eat France” is slow to spit out the jokes and a lot of them are inane. As you first start watching it though, your spirits are lifted because of the text jokes conveyed during the opening credits but it slows down... a lot. Some of the jokes have to build up on one another until they finally actually get a laugh. For instance, the character of Michael is trapped in the Basement of Death and is certain to face his demise, as Gangreen points out that Michael dies on page 43 of the script. Not that funny. Then he tells the “bimbo” playing Marie to actually read it. Oh, getting better. Michael thinks the basement is normal since it looks like any normal persons basement or garage. Back to not funny. Oh, the washing machine goes insane, board games are falling off the shelf, an electrical fire accidentally starts. Kind of amusing. Michael tears page 43 out of his script, burns it and walks off set. Getting funnier. Shit, John De Bello is standing behind the set with a sign around his neck reading “Plot Hole This Way”. Haha, success, guffaws all around. As you can see, this becomes tedious as it is necessary for every joke in the movie apparently.
Also returning from “Strike Back” is the fact that the Killer Tomatoes have faces... well, some of them... only five really, but hey at least the eyes are articulated. The Killer Tomatoes with faces do look a lot better in this film and can speak English meaning that we don't have scenes where characters repeat whatever the tomatoes said... well, sometimes, because FT is mentally handicapped and can't actually form cogent English. There are three villainous killer tomatoes, each with a special personality. You would hope that this leads to some nice interplay humor, kind of like the Three Stooges or the Marx brothers but it never materializes which sucks. It's nice that the tomatoes do look good now that they've been given fully functioning faces but I still miss the normal tomatoes who somehow kill people and you're not really sure how. Not to mention that when the tomatoes fight the French army they use tomatoes that are faceless, so why not have consistency? Well, Gangreen says the only way to make supreme killer tomatoes, the ones with faces, is to get FT's tomato juice but he waits until the last minute to ever use it. Whatever.
More or less, “Eat France” is funnier than “Strike Back” mostly because of the jokes at the expense of the French. Did you know that everyone is France has the nickname Frenchy? Still, it pales in comparison to the first two films. It is quite obvious that De Bello and gang were running out of ideas, they should have just rolled the last two films into one and packaged it that way. Oh well, I can't blame him for trying to have fun, even if it wasn't that much fun for me.
Apparently, there is a remake of the first film slated for 2011 which leaves me in a quandary. Even though I would love to see “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” on the big screen with a bunch of friends, who in Hollywood thought that the built in market would be there? Is a remake necessary? I think I actually now why, just stick around for my article on remakes and why they are so popular, coming up next time.
As I come upon the final film in the Killer Tomatoes Franchise, I can't help but be overcome with a plethora of emotions: elation, sadness, joy, fickle, and whole bunch of adjectives that I'm too lazy to pull off of Thesaurus.com. It has been an interesting and bumpy ride through two enjoyable flicks, one really bad one and the last which... wait, let's not get ahead of ourselves.
“Killer Tomatoes Eat France” takes place in France of all places, why the hell would they actually shoot in the location mentioned in the title? Who delivers what they promise these days... Jesus. Anyway, Dr. Gangreen, with the help of Igor and some killer tomatoes, escapes from the bastille and plans to fulfill an ancient prophesy from Nicodemus that would make Igor the king of France, and somehow make Gangreen ruler of the world by association. Hey, he's a biologist, not a sociologist. Meanwhile, an American by the name of Michael (Marc Price from “Family Ties”) is backpacking through France when he meets a simple country girl, Marie (Angela Visser), who believes she doesn't fit the French ideal of beauty: homely and obese. Oh, those French people.
So, these two plot-lines intersect and Fuzzy Tomato shows up again... have I mentioned how much I hate Fuzzy Tomato? No? Well, let her rip... Fuzzy Tomato is merely an object for young children to latch onto and buy merchandise (which they make a joke about in “Return”) but he serves no purpose (other than Gangreen needing some of FT's tomato juice apparently). FT merely appears to do stupid physical comedy schtick that even the Three Stooges would say is too low, probably the Farrely Brothers would even say that it's too low. He appears way, way too much in this film and infuriates me every time he appears. Although, there was one scene where he started singing an Elton John-esque ballad which was kind of funny but that's only because of the person the song is representing, not because it is being sung by a tomato with hair. Do you ever watch some movie that you loved when you were a kid and your favorite character turns out to be the most annoying fucking one in the entire film (Shortround, anybody?)? Gah, fuck! Go to hell Fuzzy Tomato! You're ruining my childhood memories of the television show! Fuck you and the seedling you spawned from!
Anyway, much like “Strike Back”, “Eat France” is slow to spit out the jokes and a lot of them are inane. As you first start watching it though, your spirits are lifted because of the text jokes conveyed during the opening credits but it slows down... a lot. Some of the jokes have to build up on one another until they finally actually get a laugh. For instance, the character of Michael is trapped in the Basement of Death and is certain to face his demise, as Gangreen points out that Michael dies on page 43 of the script. Not that funny. Then he tells the “bimbo” playing Marie to actually read it. Oh, getting better. Michael thinks the basement is normal since it looks like any normal persons basement or garage. Back to not funny. Oh, the washing machine goes insane, board games are falling off the shelf, an electrical fire accidentally starts. Kind of amusing. Michael tears page 43 out of his script, burns it and walks off set. Getting funnier. Shit, John De Bello is standing behind the set with a sign around his neck reading “Plot Hole This Way”. Haha, success, guffaws all around. As you can see, this becomes tedious as it is necessary for every joke in the movie apparently.
Also returning from “Strike Back” is the fact that the Killer Tomatoes have faces... well, some of them... only five really, but hey at least the eyes are articulated. The Killer Tomatoes with faces do look a lot better in this film and can speak English meaning that we don't have scenes where characters repeat whatever the tomatoes said... well, sometimes, because FT is mentally handicapped and can't actually form cogent English. There are three villainous killer tomatoes, each with a special personality. You would hope that this leads to some nice interplay humor, kind of like the Three Stooges or the Marx brothers but it never materializes which sucks. It's nice that the tomatoes do look good now that they've been given fully functioning faces but I still miss the normal tomatoes who somehow kill people and you're not really sure how. Not to mention that when the tomatoes fight the French army they use tomatoes that are faceless, so why not have consistency? Well, Gangreen says the only way to make supreme killer tomatoes, the ones with faces, is to get FT's tomato juice but he waits until the last minute to ever use it. Whatever.
More or less, “Eat France” is funnier than “Strike Back” mostly because of the jokes at the expense of the French. Did you know that everyone is France has the nickname Frenchy? Still, it pales in comparison to the first two films. It is quite obvious that De Bello and gang were running out of ideas, they should have just rolled the last two films into one and packaged it that way. Oh well, I can't blame him for trying to have fun, even if it wasn't that much fun for me.
Apparently, there is a remake of the first film slated for 2011 which leaves me in a quandary. Even though I would love to see “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” on the big screen with a bunch of friends, who in Hollywood thought that the built in market would be there? Is a remake necessary? I think I actually now why, just stick around for my article on remakes and why they are so popular, coming up next time.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Killer Tomatoes Strike Back - Dir. John DeBello - 1990
Ah yes, I can finally be harsh against a Killer Tomatoes. What a joyous day, this should be a lot of fun. After begrudgingly giving props to the first two films it feels good to be a complete prick again.
“Killer Tomatoes Strike Back” takes place several years after the second film, but I'm not really sure when because Finletter (Rock Peace) mentions that he has fought tomatoes for 13 years. Does that include the events of the first film or since the events of the second film? If its only from the second film that would make his character like 80, he moves pretty good for a senior citizen. Not mention Finletter is now a police captain who spends most of time going on various talk-shows like Oprah. But wasn't Finletter originally a super-secret spy in “Attack” and then owned his own pizza shop in “Return”? This guy has had up-and-down career trajectory to say the least. He probably would have been stuck mopping floors if those nasty tomatoes hadn't come along. Moving on...
Dr. Gangreen has been parading as a talk show host named Jeronahew (a thinly veiled stab at Phil Donahue) and plans to brainwash the people of the world shitty tv. (No, this does not mean a “Big Brother” marathon). We only see one instance of Gangreen hosting the show and it had the hints of becoming funny but never really reached any sort of comedic heights. Several more scenes of him hosting the show would have pushed it into a parody territory, but the only parody present is in the fake moniker he has chosen. There's also a tomato researcher named Kennedi Johnson (Crystal Carson) and a police detective by the name of Lance Boyle (Rick Rockwell) who parades around in parachute pants that look like a rainbow barfed all over them. Boyle is a thin layer of Martin Riggs from “Lethal Weapon” wrapped around a gooey center of raging idiot, but not the funny idiot you laugh at when he passes out in the punch bowl; he's the idiot you hate cause he's always says something jack-assish whenever you go over to the punch bowl. In the end, the genius mad scientist turns out to be a dumb-ass and the heroes win, like usual.
But the tomatoes are back! And they have faces and teeth this time! Actually the tomatoes kind of remind from the Krites from “Critters”, God damnitt! Why do all crappy creature effects look the same: mouthes that open only halfway, lifeless eyes, and inarticulate limbs? Why change the formula now anyway? Even though they have more personality with the eyes and teeth, I miss the faceless tomatoes that made you really wonder how in the hell anyone would be killed by a tomato. The tomatoes are used more or less as a distraction from Gangreen's real plan, which means, in the end, they truly serve no purpose. But a bigger question presses on my mind: if Gangreen had perfected the technology to turn tomatoes into humans, why didn't he just do it again? Because it would be boring? Sure, but Gangreen had to know that giving tomatoes eyes and teeth was a step in the opposite direction. Why did he choose tomatoes for his master plan in the first place? Whatever...
You know how I said the jokes in “Return” were only skin deep, well, the jokes in “Strike Back” are more like a windy day: you might feel a chill once in a while but for the most part you don't even notice. The jokes aren't even flying aren't hurricane force speed, there's whole five minute sections of the film that are jokeless, or they had jokes and I wasn't laughing. Either way, bad move. The first two films filled the time with a joke as often as possible so if you didn't laugh at least there was another one close on it's heels. Also, sadly, one of the best jokes is within the first 45 seconds of the film and it never really gets topped. Lame, really, really lame. There is a pretty funny section at the end of the film, during the credits sequence, but if you turn off your DVD player right away you would never know.
The actors aren't making big enough asses of themselves. Rick Rockwell is really trying, but it doesn't work. Even Steve Lundquist, who was so endearing in the second film, isn't that interesting, mostly because the character so obsessed with becoming a tv news reporter has more or less disappeared. For the most part, the actors aren't really giving it their all to make themselves seem like idiots and it really shows.
Originally “Strike Back” was supposed to be released following “Killer Tomatoes Eat France”, they even made mention of the next film taking place in Paris in “Return”. Somewhere along the line De Bello decided to rearrange the order of the films and it really shows. Even though none of the characters don't mention going to France, it feels like a piece of the story is missing and some separation between the evil Gangreen and Finletter had taken place. It seems bizarre as there is no real foundation for this observation but it can be felt. Like you wandered into a story about halfway through and you're trying to pick up the pieces that came before without directly asking what happened, you spend the rest of the conversation missing on particularly interesting bit that makes the whole thing come together.
All in all, “Strike Back” is just boring. It is a lame addition to the series which doesn't bring enough to the party. It isn't chaotic or enough of parody to be lovable. I can't say that I hated “Strike Back” because I didn't hate it, it was just boring and felt like it dragged on way too long. And that's even after the DVD skipped eight minutes. That's a bad sign too, if the DVD doesn't even want to play itself.
“Killer Tomatoes Strike Back” takes place several years after the second film, but I'm not really sure when because Finletter (Rock Peace) mentions that he has fought tomatoes for 13 years. Does that include the events of the first film or since the events of the second film? If its only from the second film that would make his character like 80, he moves pretty good for a senior citizen. Not mention Finletter is now a police captain who spends most of time going on various talk-shows like Oprah. But wasn't Finletter originally a super-secret spy in “Attack” and then owned his own pizza shop in “Return”? This guy has had up-and-down career trajectory to say the least. He probably would have been stuck mopping floors if those nasty tomatoes hadn't come along. Moving on...
Dr. Gangreen has been parading as a talk show host named Jeronahew (a thinly veiled stab at Phil Donahue) and plans to brainwash the people of the world shitty tv. (No, this does not mean a “Big Brother” marathon). We only see one instance of Gangreen hosting the show and it had the hints of becoming funny but never really reached any sort of comedic heights. Several more scenes of him hosting the show would have pushed it into a parody territory, but the only parody present is in the fake moniker he has chosen. There's also a tomato researcher named Kennedi Johnson (Crystal Carson) and a police detective by the name of Lance Boyle (Rick Rockwell) who parades around in parachute pants that look like a rainbow barfed all over them. Boyle is a thin layer of Martin Riggs from “Lethal Weapon” wrapped around a gooey center of raging idiot, but not the funny idiot you laugh at when he passes out in the punch bowl; he's the idiot you hate cause he's always says something jack-assish whenever you go over to the punch bowl. In the end, the genius mad scientist turns out to be a dumb-ass and the heroes win, like usual.
But the tomatoes are back! And they have faces and teeth this time! Actually the tomatoes kind of remind from the Krites from “Critters”, God damnitt! Why do all crappy creature effects look the same: mouthes that open only halfway, lifeless eyes, and inarticulate limbs? Why change the formula now anyway? Even though they have more personality with the eyes and teeth, I miss the faceless tomatoes that made you really wonder how in the hell anyone would be killed by a tomato. The tomatoes are used more or less as a distraction from Gangreen's real plan, which means, in the end, they truly serve no purpose. But a bigger question presses on my mind: if Gangreen had perfected the technology to turn tomatoes into humans, why didn't he just do it again? Because it would be boring? Sure, but Gangreen had to know that giving tomatoes eyes and teeth was a step in the opposite direction. Why did he choose tomatoes for his master plan in the first place? Whatever...
You know how I said the jokes in “Return” were only skin deep, well, the jokes in “Strike Back” are more like a windy day: you might feel a chill once in a while but for the most part you don't even notice. The jokes aren't even flying aren't hurricane force speed, there's whole five minute sections of the film that are jokeless, or they had jokes and I wasn't laughing. Either way, bad move. The first two films filled the time with a joke as often as possible so if you didn't laugh at least there was another one close on it's heels. Also, sadly, one of the best jokes is within the first 45 seconds of the film and it never really gets topped. Lame, really, really lame. There is a pretty funny section at the end of the film, during the credits sequence, but if you turn off your DVD player right away you would never know.
The actors aren't making big enough asses of themselves. Rick Rockwell is really trying, but it doesn't work. Even Steve Lundquist, who was so endearing in the second film, isn't that interesting, mostly because the character so obsessed with becoming a tv news reporter has more or less disappeared. For the most part, the actors aren't really giving it their all to make themselves seem like idiots and it really shows.
Originally “Strike Back” was supposed to be released following “Killer Tomatoes Eat France”, they even made mention of the next film taking place in Paris in “Return”. Somewhere along the line De Bello decided to rearrange the order of the films and it really shows. Even though none of the characters don't mention going to France, it feels like a piece of the story is missing and some separation between the evil Gangreen and Finletter had taken place. It seems bizarre as there is no real foundation for this observation but it can be felt. Like you wandered into a story about halfway through and you're trying to pick up the pieces that came before without directly asking what happened, you spend the rest of the conversation missing on particularly interesting bit that makes the whole thing come together.
All in all, “Strike Back” is just boring. It is a lame addition to the series which doesn't bring enough to the party. It isn't chaotic or enough of parody to be lovable. I can't say that I hated “Strike Back” because I didn't hate it, it was just boring and felt like it dragged on way too long. And that's even after the DVD skipped eight minutes. That's a bad sign too, if the DVD doesn't even want to play itself.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Return of the Killer Tomatoes - Dir. John DeBello - 1988
Oh hey there Daniel Schaub. You continuing on your epic ass quest to watch the Killer Tomatoes? Well, good for you. What did you think?:
Damn you “Return of The Killer Tomatoes” and John De Bello, damn you to hell for making trash films so much fun to watch again. Wait, isn't that why I started watching trash films in the first place? What? Damn you for not being bad, so my film review can't be scathing and filled with the fiery teenage angst of a thousand emo bands! Damn you! Damn you! Fuck! Also, my friend went to ZombieCon and didn't even get me Joe Pilato's, the guy who screams “Choke on 'um” in “Day of The Dead”, autograph, so screw him!
Alright, I would like to apologize for this needless tirade but I'm not going to. Hey, just because I said I would like to apologize doesn't mean I'm actually going to do it. Truthfully I have to give a lot of props to “Return of the Killer Tomatoes” for it's ability to be too lovable to berate: like a panda, you can't really yell at it for being lazy when that it's primary source of being so damn cute. Conversely, “Return of the Killer Tomatoes” is pretty damn trashy but that is what makes it so funny.
“Return” picks up 25 years after the events of the first film, now referred to as The Great Tomato War, and the world is very different. Tomatoes have been outlawed and pizza companies have had to become very creative with the toppings that they add to their pizza. (I look forward to the day I can order order a peanut butter, marshmallow, and anchovy pizza.) All is not what it seems though, Dr. Gangreen (John Astin, father of Sean “Samwise” Astin) has perfected a technology to transform tomatoes into human clones and his prize creation is Tara (Karen M. Waldron), a tomato/human (or a humato, that isn't in the film, I just made it up) with a penchant for cooking, cleaning, and sex: the 1950's ideal American housewife. Pizza delivery boy Chad (Anthony Starke, no not the Marvel character) has fallen for Tara and it's up to Chad and his roommate Matt (a mulletfied George Clooney!) to rescue Tara from her tyrannical creator.
“Return” is a lot easier to follow than “Attack” which makes a lot of sense (haha, that was a pun, I guess). “Attack” was a parody of the 50's B-monster movies which were always chaotic and hard to follow, watch “The Flying Mantis” and you will agree. “Return”, being set in the 80's, parodies the popular films of the time (“Rambo”, “ET” and slasher films) and these films were always much easier to understand because writers found out that people like stories, or stories that make sense. The thing is “Return” is a combination of too many 80's films while retaining a few 50's throwbacks, like the mad scientist, and none of the other films being parodied are given their due diligence. The whole “ET”/”Gremlins”-esque subplot with a fuzzy tomato, FT, who is endearingly cute isn't funny and only pays off in a minor way. Not to mention that the observations they are making on other films aren't all that scathing, they have plenty of chances to skewer other but they never really delve deep enough to make it that funny. Also there are some random situations thrown in for good measure, like a fight between cowboys and ninjas, and even though it makes you laugh, it is so out of place that it isn't that funny. Being random always isn't that funny, so get your shit together “Family Guy”.
That said, the jokes that are there, even if they are skin-deep, are pretty funny and the movie has the insight to make fun of itself. It is very rare for a movie to make fun of itself and be successful, “Behind The Mask: Rise of Leslie Vernon” is a good example of insightful humor done, but even that makes more insights on the slasher genre than itself. “Return”'s numerous jokes on product placement are all quite funny and some of the best jokes. Also the idea of tomatoes being transformed into humans through the power of music is pretty funny, especially when they need to keep putting quarters into the jukebox.
Another great asset that this film has is also the best asset that the first film had. The actors are willing to make big asses of themselves, even George Clooney. But Mr. Clooney doesn't get the honor of biggest ass, that honor actually goes to Steve Lundquist who plays Gangreen's assistant Igor. Igor has the undying wish to become a news reporter which seems like a lame joke, but Lundquist is so obsessive about his wish, he interviews his teddy bear in his mirror dressed up like television, that it could almost be considered cute. But it is hilarious. It's such a shame that he loses that aspect of his character in further installments of the series... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Also, there are no musical numbers per say in the film but there are number of songs that play in the background and the lyrics are pretty funny. But I would have loved to have seen the humatos do a line dance while they're all dressed as Rambo, oh well.
Oh, and remember how I said that Gangreen turns tomatoes into humans, yeah... That's the biggest failure of the film, the reason I would watch a movie about to killer tomatoes is to see... killer tomatoes. It might have seemed redundant to have the tomatoes reappear and eliminate the sub-plot about humatos, but there isn't even one scene with humans being murdered by vegetables. In fact, the only sentient tomato that remains a tomato for the entire film is FT... snooze.
Whatever, “Return of the Killer Tomatoes” is funny and looks a hell of a lot better than the first film, but it fails to entertain as much. That said, I would highly recommend watching it if you enjoyed the first film like I did, but be warned that you won't see any killer tomatoes.
Damn you “Return of The Killer Tomatoes” and John De Bello, damn you to hell for making trash films so much fun to watch again. Wait, isn't that why I started watching trash films in the first place? What? Damn you for not being bad, so my film review can't be scathing and filled with the fiery teenage angst of a thousand emo bands! Damn you! Damn you! Fuck! Also, my friend went to ZombieCon and didn't even get me Joe Pilato's, the guy who screams “Choke on 'um” in “Day of The Dead”, autograph, so screw him!
Alright, I would like to apologize for this needless tirade but I'm not going to. Hey, just because I said I would like to apologize doesn't mean I'm actually going to do it. Truthfully I have to give a lot of props to “Return of the Killer Tomatoes” for it's ability to be too lovable to berate: like a panda, you can't really yell at it for being lazy when that it's primary source of being so damn cute. Conversely, “Return of the Killer Tomatoes” is pretty damn trashy but that is what makes it so funny.
“Return” picks up 25 years after the events of the first film, now referred to as The Great Tomato War, and the world is very different. Tomatoes have been outlawed and pizza companies have had to become very creative with the toppings that they add to their pizza. (I look forward to the day I can order order a peanut butter, marshmallow, and anchovy pizza.) All is not what it seems though, Dr. Gangreen (John Astin, father of Sean “Samwise” Astin) has perfected a technology to transform tomatoes into human clones and his prize creation is Tara (Karen M. Waldron), a tomato/human (or a humato, that isn't in the film, I just made it up) with a penchant for cooking, cleaning, and sex: the 1950's ideal American housewife. Pizza delivery boy Chad (Anthony Starke, no not the Marvel character) has fallen for Tara and it's up to Chad and his roommate Matt (a mulletfied George Clooney!) to rescue Tara from her tyrannical creator.
“Return” is a lot easier to follow than “Attack” which makes a lot of sense (haha, that was a pun, I guess). “Attack” was a parody of the 50's B-monster movies which were always chaotic and hard to follow, watch “The Flying Mantis” and you will agree. “Return”, being set in the 80's, parodies the popular films of the time (“Rambo”, “ET” and slasher films) and these films were always much easier to understand because writers found out that people like stories, or stories that make sense. The thing is “Return” is a combination of too many 80's films while retaining a few 50's throwbacks, like the mad scientist, and none of the other films being parodied are given their due diligence. The whole “ET”/”Gremlins”-esque subplot with a fuzzy tomato, FT, who is endearingly cute isn't funny and only pays off in a minor way. Not to mention that the observations they are making on other films aren't all that scathing, they have plenty of chances to skewer other but they never really delve deep enough to make it that funny. Also there are some random situations thrown in for good measure, like a fight between cowboys and ninjas, and even though it makes you laugh, it is so out of place that it isn't that funny. Being random always isn't that funny, so get your shit together “Family Guy”.
That said, the jokes that are there, even if they are skin-deep, are pretty funny and the movie has the insight to make fun of itself. It is very rare for a movie to make fun of itself and be successful, “Behind The Mask: Rise of Leslie Vernon” is a good example of insightful humor done, but even that makes more insights on the slasher genre than itself. “Return”'s numerous jokes on product placement are all quite funny and some of the best jokes. Also the idea of tomatoes being transformed into humans through the power of music is pretty funny, especially when they need to keep putting quarters into the jukebox.
Another great asset that this film has is also the best asset that the first film had. The actors are willing to make big asses of themselves, even George Clooney. But Mr. Clooney doesn't get the honor of biggest ass, that honor actually goes to Steve Lundquist who plays Gangreen's assistant Igor. Igor has the undying wish to become a news reporter which seems like a lame joke, but Lundquist is so obsessive about his wish, he interviews his teddy bear in his mirror dressed up like television, that it could almost be considered cute. But it is hilarious. It's such a shame that he loses that aspect of his character in further installments of the series... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
Also, there are no musical numbers per say in the film but there are number of songs that play in the background and the lyrics are pretty funny. But I would have loved to have seen the humatos do a line dance while they're all dressed as Rambo, oh well.
Oh, and remember how I said that Gangreen turns tomatoes into humans, yeah... That's the biggest failure of the film, the reason I would watch a movie about to killer tomatoes is to see... killer tomatoes. It might have seemed redundant to have the tomatoes reappear and eliminate the sub-plot about humatos, but there isn't even one scene with humans being murdered by vegetables. In fact, the only sentient tomato that remains a tomato for the entire film is FT... snooze.
Whatever, “Return of the Killer Tomatoes” is funny and looks a hell of a lot better than the first film, but it fails to entertain as much. That said, I would highly recommend watching it if you enjoyed the first film like I did, but be warned that you won't see any killer tomatoes.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Vixen - Dir. Russ Meyer - 1968
This is Russ Meyer film number two and this gets into, what I understand, is the feeling of most of his... films. I'm not sure film really works for this. Basically it is a soft-core porn with a crazy third act. For that reason, I totally love this film. As it is a porn with really great and well thought out characters.
The film is about Vixen. Her husband is gone a lot of the time as he is a charter pilot and she lives in the middle of nowhere. For this reason, she gets a little promiscuous. Promiscuous is the wrong way to put it. Will screw anything that moves, is the right way to put it. One weekend, her husband brings a couple back on a fishing trip and things get "fun." After the weekend concludes though, is when the movie starts getting really crazy.
Erica Palmer is great as Vixen, as tends to be the case with Russ Meyer's female characters. She is sexy, confident and an outright racist. This last part plays into the film throughout. This aspect of her performance is what really makes her all the more attractive because she is not likable at all. She cheats on her husband who remains completely faithful and never even second guesses her. This is played by Garth Pillsbury and he does a respectable job as the good natured husband who rarely thinks anything bad about people. In fact, he makes Vixen more likable in the fact that he isn't racist and is trying to keep her in line at parts. The person who really shines in this film is Niles, the black friend of Vixen's brother. Played by Harrison Page, he is a very likable actor. However, he does seem to be looking out for himself against all the racism that surrounds him. Even when he does things that are dispicable, after all the the abuse he has heaped on him you still like him a little bit.
It is strange to be talking about the acting in this film because for the first forty to fifty minutes, it is a soft core porn. Straight up. Very little plot. Basically Vixen seduces everyone, including the audience. Her introduction is her having sex with a man in the bushes and he isn't taking her clothes off fast enough, which tells us a lot about the character. Not in a perverted way, but all of it is rather erotic including the very effective lesbian scene. Unlike most porn, it makes sence on a human level why these people are having sex as long as you believe that Vixen is a nympho. There is a hilarious part where she seduces a man with a dead fish that is just to die for for you people looking to laugh at a movie. Really funny shit. However, Meyer shoots this like everything. Very low angles with great music blaring so damn is it kinetic. In fact, Meyer makes porn an artform with everything he does. The man has a definite style and it works so damn well that I can't help but love it.
However, the thing that makes me love the movie is none of this. The third act of this film takes this in a totally different direction and it is strange and jarring. It begins with incest which turns brutal. Almost to a game of Vixen's brother torturing her for her racism against his friend Niles and the fact she has tried to sleep with him for a long time. It is very weird to watch this film shift because it is as sudden as the sex in the first part. After this, it takes an extra turn as a communist shows up and convinces Niles to come with him to South America. They convince Vixen and her husband to fly them there. The scene in the plane is tense and a huge statement of anti-racism, pro-patriotism and anti-communism. It is so stark and strange but I love it. I love every minute of it. Truthfully, when it comes it doesn't feel like the film has led to his but at the same time feels like a perfect fit. The violence and the dialog crackles here and all of the actors get their chance to shine.
All in all, this is a very different beast from "Fast Pussycat Kill! Kill!" At the same time, it is just as satisfying and really fun to watch for all different reasons. Russ Meyer waits the entire film to unviel his newest hand and when it hits it is exciting and wild.
The film is about Vixen. Her husband is gone a lot of the time as he is a charter pilot and she lives in the middle of nowhere. For this reason, she gets a little promiscuous. Promiscuous is the wrong way to put it. Will screw anything that moves, is the right way to put it. One weekend, her husband brings a couple back on a fishing trip and things get "fun." After the weekend concludes though, is when the movie starts getting really crazy.
Erica Palmer is great as Vixen, as tends to be the case with Russ Meyer's female characters. She is sexy, confident and an outright racist. This last part plays into the film throughout. This aspect of her performance is what really makes her all the more attractive because she is not likable at all. She cheats on her husband who remains completely faithful and never even second guesses her. This is played by Garth Pillsbury and he does a respectable job as the good natured husband who rarely thinks anything bad about people. In fact, he makes Vixen more likable in the fact that he isn't racist and is trying to keep her in line at parts. The person who really shines in this film is Niles, the black friend of Vixen's brother. Played by Harrison Page, he is a very likable actor. However, he does seem to be looking out for himself against all the racism that surrounds him. Even when he does things that are dispicable, after all the the abuse he has heaped on him you still like him a little bit.
It is strange to be talking about the acting in this film because for the first forty to fifty minutes, it is a soft core porn. Straight up. Very little plot. Basically Vixen seduces everyone, including the audience. Her introduction is her having sex with a man in the bushes and he isn't taking her clothes off fast enough, which tells us a lot about the character. Not in a perverted way, but all of it is rather erotic including the very effective lesbian scene. Unlike most porn, it makes sence on a human level why these people are having sex as long as you believe that Vixen is a nympho. There is a hilarious part where she seduces a man with a dead fish that is just to die for for you people looking to laugh at a movie. Really funny shit. However, Meyer shoots this like everything. Very low angles with great music blaring so damn is it kinetic. In fact, Meyer makes porn an artform with everything he does. The man has a definite style and it works so damn well that I can't help but love it.
However, the thing that makes me love the movie is none of this. The third act of this film takes this in a totally different direction and it is strange and jarring. It begins with incest which turns brutal. Almost to a game of Vixen's brother torturing her for her racism against his friend Niles and the fact she has tried to sleep with him for a long time. It is very weird to watch this film shift because it is as sudden as the sex in the first part. After this, it takes an extra turn as a communist shows up and convinces Niles to come with him to South America. They convince Vixen and her husband to fly them there. The scene in the plane is tense and a huge statement of anti-racism, pro-patriotism and anti-communism. It is so stark and strange but I love it. I love every minute of it. Truthfully, when it comes it doesn't feel like the film has led to his but at the same time feels like a perfect fit. The violence and the dialog crackles here and all of the actors get their chance to shine.
All in all, this is a very different beast from "Fast Pussycat Kill! Kill!" At the same time, it is just as satisfying and really fun to watch for all different reasons. Russ Meyer waits the entire film to unviel his newest hand and when it hits it is exciting and wild.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes - Dir. Joe DeBello - 1970
Dan seems to be kicking my ass at the review game. So here is another one. This has been a film I really like for a long time. Originally having it on VHS I bought it. Haven't seen the others. Here is Daniel Schaub's review:
Over the next four reviews I have decided to embark on a momentous trash adventure as epic as “Lawrence of Arabia”, as daring as “The Guns of Navarone”, and as bad-ass as “Once Upon a Time in The West”. That's right, I am endeavoring to watch all four of the “Killer Tomato” films. Why? Because I love ya', that's why. Ok, maybe not all you, especially the dick-face in the orange shirt. You know who you are.
The average person would not go out of his/her way to see any of these films, but I hardly qualify as average. (Some would also argue that I also hardly qualify as a person) When I was a child, I remember watching a t.v. show called “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” that was so undeniably goofy that I just had to watch it, there was a certain charm to the overtly bizarre nature of it without falling into anime category. Likewise with the film, upon seeing the trailer, I knew that it was so strange and bizarre that it had to be watched.
The film's story delivers it's title in full, the United States is under attack from killer tomatoes. A lot of other things are going on: the White House press secretary is trying to spin the attack as a good thing, a special agent named Mason Dixon is trying to discover the key to defeating the tomatoes, a reporter named Lois is digging for the truth (and yes, they do a Superman joke) but there is also a Russian female gymnast, a disguise expert who infiltrates the enemy ranks as a tomato, and a bevy of other strange situations and characters. It doesn't make a whole sense and trying to explain it wouldn't help at all because I barely understood it as I watched it. But I do know that I liked it immensely.
How could I like something that is so trashy and hard to understand?
For one, the script is a lot smarter than you would naturally assume. The fault of so many comedy films is that they're one note; they create a character or a situation that is sort of funny but then they overplay that singular element until it is no longer funny, just annoying. “Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom” is even guilty of this, Willie Scott and Short Round are both fairly amusing at first but eventually they become so annoying that you wish Indy would squash them in a industrial rock crusher. “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” is smarter than that; it creates enough situations and characters to keep making jokes. An amateur move would have been making the same jokes about killer tomatoes the entire and even though there are plenty of incidents with the tomatoes each situation is so different than the last you can't help but laugh. But the jokes don't stop at that, being a parody of B-movies John De Bello and company let the jokes fly at an “Airplane”-esque pace. Also, the chaotic nature of the plot and the random assortment of character gives it a charm, just like the show. Since it is a parody of the 50's B-monster movie genre, it only makes sense that the plot is anarchic and hard to follow, watch “The Flying Mantis” and you will agree.
Secondly, the actors are so committed to making complete asses of themselves that its hilarious. Finletter, played by Rock Peace, is the perfect example of this ass-ness. The character is huge, more like a character that Groucho Marx would play, and Peace understands this. He makes himself huge to fit the character and I found myself watching him in the background when he wasn't even part of the scene. Just about every other actor is also of worthy note though, the only one who seems at a loss is Mason Dixon but merely because he's playing the straight man to all this silliness. In a sea of strange characters the simple ones stand out like a sore thumb, but they are necessary for the plot to ever move forward.
And thirdly, what movie wouldn't be made better by musical numbers? Honestly, I would have felt a hell of a lot better tapping my toe through “There Will Be Blood”, maybe I wouldn't have fallen asleep then... But then some musicals just honestly are so shockingly awful that you'd wish you weren't toe-tapping, you'd wish you were watching it all. I'm talking to you “Chicago”, you overblown piece of horseshit, and you “Dream Girls” and you “Moulin Rouge!”... I could go on and on, but the point is that musicals are a wonderful escape from the real life when expertly executed, or in “Attack”'s case poorly executed. The songs are just so strange and oddly placed that you aren't expecting them, they is hardly any dancing but it adds to the fact that the movie is made to make fun of B-movies. No self-respecting B-movie, if there is such a thing, would have a musical number and having one just makes you laugh. It honestly makes me want to add musical numbers to every film I write from now on, just for the laughs.
I did like the film a lot but there are some bad things. It is hard to follow and it slows down in the joke department in the last half-hour, but it is well-made horror comedy and I'm a sucker for horror comedies (“Bubba Ho-Tep” was the best film of 2002, that's right, fuck you “A Beautiful Mind”). If you are into horror-comedies too, then you should watch it.
Over the next four reviews I have decided to embark on a momentous trash adventure as epic as “Lawrence of Arabia”, as daring as “The Guns of Navarone”, and as bad-ass as “Once Upon a Time in The West”. That's right, I am endeavoring to watch all four of the “Killer Tomato” films. Why? Because I love ya', that's why. Ok, maybe not all you, especially the dick-face in the orange shirt. You know who you are.
The average person would not go out of his/her way to see any of these films, but I hardly qualify as average. (Some would also argue that I also hardly qualify as a person) When I was a child, I remember watching a t.v. show called “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” that was so undeniably goofy that I just had to watch it, there was a certain charm to the overtly bizarre nature of it without falling into anime category. Likewise with the film, upon seeing the trailer, I knew that it was so strange and bizarre that it had to be watched.
The film's story delivers it's title in full, the United States is under attack from killer tomatoes. A lot of other things are going on: the White House press secretary is trying to spin the attack as a good thing, a special agent named Mason Dixon is trying to discover the key to defeating the tomatoes, a reporter named Lois is digging for the truth (and yes, they do a Superman joke) but there is also a Russian female gymnast, a disguise expert who infiltrates the enemy ranks as a tomato, and a bevy of other strange situations and characters. It doesn't make a whole sense and trying to explain it wouldn't help at all because I barely understood it as I watched it. But I do know that I liked it immensely.
How could I like something that is so trashy and hard to understand?
For one, the script is a lot smarter than you would naturally assume. The fault of so many comedy films is that they're one note; they create a character or a situation that is sort of funny but then they overplay that singular element until it is no longer funny, just annoying. “Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom” is even guilty of this, Willie Scott and Short Round are both fairly amusing at first but eventually they become so annoying that you wish Indy would squash them in a industrial rock crusher. “Attack of the Killer Tomatoes” is smarter than that; it creates enough situations and characters to keep making jokes. An amateur move would have been making the same jokes about killer tomatoes the entire and even though there are plenty of incidents with the tomatoes each situation is so different than the last you can't help but laugh. But the jokes don't stop at that, being a parody of B-movies John De Bello and company let the jokes fly at an “Airplane”-esque pace. Also, the chaotic nature of the plot and the random assortment of character gives it a charm, just like the show. Since it is a parody of the 50's B-monster movie genre, it only makes sense that the plot is anarchic and hard to follow, watch “The Flying Mantis” and you will agree.
Secondly, the actors are so committed to making complete asses of themselves that its hilarious. Finletter, played by Rock Peace, is the perfect example of this ass-ness. The character is huge, more like a character that Groucho Marx would play, and Peace understands this. He makes himself huge to fit the character and I found myself watching him in the background when he wasn't even part of the scene. Just about every other actor is also of worthy note though, the only one who seems at a loss is Mason Dixon but merely because he's playing the straight man to all this silliness. In a sea of strange characters the simple ones stand out like a sore thumb, but they are necessary for the plot to ever move forward.
And thirdly, what movie wouldn't be made better by musical numbers? Honestly, I would have felt a hell of a lot better tapping my toe through “There Will Be Blood”, maybe I wouldn't have fallen asleep then... But then some musicals just honestly are so shockingly awful that you'd wish you weren't toe-tapping, you'd wish you were watching it all. I'm talking to you “Chicago”, you overblown piece of horseshit, and you “Dream Girls” and you “Moulin Rouge!”... I could go on and on, but the point is that musicals are a wonderful escape from the real life when expertly executed, or in “Attack”'s case poorly executed. The songs are just so strange and oddly placed that you aren't expecting them, they is hardly any dancing but it adds to the fact that the movie is made to make fun of B-movies. No self-respecting B-movie, if there is such a thing, would have a musical number and having one just makes you laugh. It honestly makes me want to add musical numbers to every film I write from now on, just for the laughs.
I did like the film a lot but there are some bad things. It is hard to follow and it slows down in the joke department in the last half-hour, but it is well-made horror comedy and I'm a sucker for horror comedies (“Bubba Ho-Tep” was the best film of 2002, that's right, fuck you “A Beautiful Mind”). If you are into horror-comedies too, then you should watch it.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill! - Dir. Russ Meyer - 1965
Hello there Mr. Russ Meyer. Welcome to the blog, this is your first appearance but it shall not be your last as one of my goals of this blog is to watch every single one of your films. Including "Pandora Peaks." I shall do it because, god damn it Russ Meyer, you make trash art.
Let us begin by saying that anybody who likes Quentin Tarantino just needs to go back to see this film and realize that Tarantino is trying really, really hard to be Russ Meyer. In fact, all of his films could be taken as a Russ Meyer twist on the genre. Simple as that, Tarantino wishes he was Meyer but he just cannot do it and this is the perfect example.
You want sex? You want to laugh? You want fast car chases? You want danger? Baby, they got it all here. Seriously, I cannot whore this movie out enough. Mainly because it is so hard to find that when you do, it is a real jewel.
Basically we got three bad ass hot chicks, Varla (the leader), Rosie (the sidekick) and Billie (the dumb one). The thing that should be known is that they are all dangerous as the challenge a couple to a race that ends deadly for the guy after they beat the shit out of him. They end up taking his girlfriend to kill her and find money at the house of an old crippled man, a slow strong man and the one sane one of the group.
The plot isn't as important as the mood and dialog. It oozes cool. Not calculated cool but real cool. The cool that only comes from having a low enough plot you can do whatever the hell you want and you just don't give a shit. The cool that comes from literally throwing whatever the hell you want onto the page. This is pure creative control and it is so much better for it.
The acting is somewhat stale but that is no worries as this is the kind of dialog that anyone can say the dialog and sound good. Let me add, Billie is freaking hot and while we never get any nudity in this, the girls infuse the film with so much sex appeal it doesn't matter. Tura Santana plays Varla, who is the deadliest and is the most domineering. She is the typical amazonian woman. However, my favorite was Lori Williams as Billie... mainly because she is bubbly and hot. Haji is Rosie and is a lesbian who is in love with Varla. This is really dirty for the time and man, does she play it well. It isn't explicitally stated until near the end, but it is easy to tell throughout and I give her major props.
Out of all the Russ Meyer films I've seen, this is easily my favorite and has turned out to be his most influential. I can't wait to dive into more. This is just a fun cool breezy ride that speeds by quickly but leaves a lasting imprint and a great smell in the trash bin.
Let us begin by saying that anybody who likes Quentin Tarantino just needs to go back to see this film and realize that Tarantino is trying really, really hard to be Russ Meyer. In fact, all of his films could be taken as a Russ Meyer twist on the genre. Simple as that, Tarantino wishes he was Meyer but he just cannot do it and this is the perfect example.
You want sex? You want to laugh? You want fast car chases? You want danger? Baby, they got it all here. Seriously, I cannot whore this movie out enough. Mainly because it is so hard to find that when you do, it is a real jewel.
Basically we got three bad ass hot chicks, Varla (the leader), Rosie (the sidekick) and Billie (the dumb one). The thing that should be known is that they are all dangerous as the challenge a couple to a race that ends deadly for the guy after they beat the shit out of him. They end up taking his girlfriend to kill her and find money at the house of an old crippled man, a slow strong man and the one sane one of the group.
The plot isn't as important as the mood and dialog. It oozes cool. Not calculated cool but real cool. The cool that only comes from having a low enough plot you can do whatever the hell you want and you just don't give a shit. The cool that comes from literally throwing whatever the hell you want onto the page. This is pure creative control and it is so much better for it.
The acting is somewhat stale but that is no worries as this is the kind of dialog that anyone can say the dialog and sound good. Let me add, Billie is freaking hot and while we never get any nudity in this, the girls infuse the film with so much sex appeal it doesn't matter. Tura Santana plays Varla, who is the deadliest and is the most domineering. She is the typical amazonian woman. However, my favorite was Lori Williams as Billie... mainly because she is bubbly and hot. Haji is Rosie and is a lesbian who is in love with Varla. This is really dirty for the time and man, does she play it well. It isn't explicitally stated until near the end, but it is easy to tell throughout and I give her major props.
Out of all the Russ Meyer films I've seen, this is easily my favorite and has turned out to be his most influential. I can't wait to dive into more. This is just a fun cool breezy ride that speeds by quickly but leaves a lasting imprint and a great smell in the trash bin.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Critters - Dir. Stephen Herek - 1986
REVIEWER: Daniel Schaub
If you have fond memories of the first “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” film, like I do, then you'll remember that shortly before the audience is first introduced to Casey Jones, Raphael ditches meditation in favor of going to see a movie. That film was “Critters” and, in angry New Yorker style, he exclaims “Ugh, where do they come up with this stuff?” Keep in mind that “TMNT” is rated PG so his opinion couldn't be expressed in “true” angry New Yorker style, but you get the point.
Where “do” they come up with this stuff? “Critters” is a strange hodge-podge conglomeration of dozens of films made before it: gleaning sci-fi elements from “Star Wars”, the sharp kid who no one pays attention to from “E.T.” and “Gremlins”, unstoppable forces from a distant time/place like “The Terminator” who destroy everything in their path, trying to emulate the suspense of “Nightmare on Elm Street”... Frankly the list could go on and on, but that would be boring. Let's move on shall we?
The film opens deep in space, at an intergalactic prison, which resembles a well-lit set from the 1970's “Doctor Who”. If only the prison warden had been rocking the seven foot scarf.... The mysterious creatures known as Crites are being transported to a new prison when they mastermind their escape. Keep in mind the word mastermind as it will come up again later. The prison warden hires two bounty hunters to track the Crites down and destroy them. These bounty hunters are blessed with the ability to shape-shift but before they do we are blessed with the sight of their natural features, resembling an illuminated lava lamp and you can't distinguish one from the other. How do they pick up women on their planet if there is no identify marks? Anyway...
We then go to Earth; Kansas actually because everyone knows that shit like this only happens in the middle of nowhere, which makes me glad that when the alien invasion does come that I don't live in Iowa anymore. So, we meet the Brown family, Pappa Jay, Momma Helen, Floozie Sister April, and royal pain in the ass son Brad. Honestly, if you wanted the kid to stop being a God-damn nuisance you should just hit him. (Also Brad is played by Scott Grimes has gone on to act “Band of Brothers”, “ER”, and the proof that Russell Crowe knows nothing about hockey “Mystery, Alaska”. To name a few.)
All things seem quiet on the Western front until the Crites arrive and start eating. The first moment we see the Crites is a complete shocker seeing as how the Crites are actually balls of fluff and teeth that appears to be something a mountain lion might cough up after grooming itself. The Crites, and make-up effects, are courtesy of the notorious Chiodos brothers (No, not the band Chiodos) who are responsible for the truly trashy but lovable “Killer Klowns From Outer Space”. The only thing articulated on the Crites are the mouths which barely open, like Kermit the Frog stitched his mouth closed so he wouldn't have to talk to that bitch Miss Piggy anymore. The Crites eyes stare blankly into space, like me after a few cocktails. And the Crites are dumb, really dumb. They have the ability to shoot paralyzing darts out of their backs but they seem much more content to roll away from danger at high speeds, like an ugly version of Sonic the Hedgehog. Also they stand right in the way of shotgun fire all the time, even though the bounty hunters' gun resembles an Earth firearm. Can't they connect the dots?
So, the bounty hunters come to Earth and start tearing apart the town in search of the Crites. If “Midnight Run” taught us anything, its that the only prerequisites for the job of bounty hunter is the ability to kick ass and trade funny, and sometimes, amoral quips with your co-stars. Certainly, our bounty hunters in “Critters” can kick ass but they must have missed a day in bounty hunter class (which is a shame, considering it should only be two days long according to the prerequisites) because they never have anything interesting to say. Once we've heard them say “We're here for the Crites” and blow some shit up once, why repeat it? They seem more content to destroy the town's two major hangouts, a church and a bowling alley (remember, its the Midwest) rather than doing their fucking job.
Rather than spoil the ending I'll just leave it up to you whether or not you actually want to see the film, but I can assure that it is drenched in goofy happy ending cheese (Why not? It was a staple of the 80's.)
The greatest fault of “Critters” is in the script. Like that month after Christmas when you're trying to find a recipe to use up all the leftovers in one meal, “Critters” is a variety of other movies ground up and put together in a casserole. Borrowing (Stealing) ideas from other movies doesn't have to be such a problem; Quentin Tarantino has built his entire career off of borrowing (stealing) ideas from other movies. (If you've seen “Come Drink With Me” then you've seen “Kill Bill”, but an Asian woman instead of Uma Thurman) The borrowed elements just don't fit together, stealing pieces from a second jig-saw puzzle doesn't mean you'll finish the first one. “Gremlins”, the closest equivalent to this film, knew where and how to juxtapose the humor with the horror, but in this film they don't blend together at all. I was confused as to whether or not I was watching a kid's film or a full-blown horror.
There are some good things in “Critters” though. The Chiodos brothers actually manage a chilling special effect for the shape-shifting bounty hunters. The music is 80's-tastic. Billy Zane appears, WITH HAIR! Stephen Herek is a competent director. (He went on to do “The Mighty Ducks” and “Mr. Holland's Opus”. Richard Dreyfuss, you were robbed.) Watching people get attacked by creatures the size of their head is always hilarious, even if not intentionally.
So in the end, if you can suffer through the abortion of a host of other 80's flicks, then you just might enjoy “Critters”. As for me, I'll be watching “TMNT” for like the 50th time.
If you have fond memories of the first “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles” film, like I do, then you'll remember that shortly before the audience is first introduced to Casey Jones, Raphael ditches meditation in favor of going to see a movie. That film was “Critters” and, in angry New Yorker style, he exclaims “Ugh, where do they come up with this stuff?” Keep in mind that “TMNT” is rated PG so his opinion couldn't be expressed in “true” angry New Yorker style, but you get the point.
Where “do” they come up with this stuff? “Critters” is a strange hodge-podge conglomeration of dozens of films made before it: gleaning sci-fi elements from “Star Wars”, the sharp kid who no one pays attention to from “E.T.” and “Gremlins”, unstoppable forces from a distant time/place like “The Terminator” who destroy everything in their path, trying to emulate the suspense of “Nightmare on Elm Street”... Frankly the list could go on and on, but that would be boring. Let's move on shall we?
The film opens deep in space, at an intergalactic prison, which resembles a well-lit set from the 1970's “Doctor Who”. If only the prison warden had been rocking the seven foot scarf.... The mysterious creatures known as Crites are being transported to a new prison when they mastermind their escape. Keep in mind the word mastermind as it will come up again later. The prison warden hires two bounty hunters to track the Crites down and destroy them. These bounty hunters are blessed with the ability to shape-shift but before they do we are blessed with the sight of their natural features, resembling an illuminated lava lamp and you can't distinguish one from the other. How do they pick up women on their planet if there is no identify marks? Anyway...
We then go to Earth; Kansas actually because everyone knows that shit like this only happens in the middle of nowhere, which makes me glad that when the alien invasion does come that I don't live in Iowa anymore. So, we meet the Brown family, Pappa Jay, Momma Helen, Floozie Sister April, and royal pain in the ass son Brad. Honestly, if you wanted the kid to stop being a God-damn nuisance you should just hit him. (Also Brad is played by Scott Grimes has gone on to act “Band of Brothers”, “ER”, and the proof that Russell Crowe knows nothing about hockey “Mystery, Alaska”. To name a few.)
All things seem quiet on the Western front until the Crites arrive and start eating. The first moment we see the Crites is a complete shocker seeing as how the Crites are actually balls of fluff and teeth that appears to be something a mountain lion might cough up after grooming itself. The Crites, and make-up effects, are courtesy of the notorious Chiodos brothers (No, not the band Chiodos) who are responsible for the truly trashy but lovable “Killer Klowns From Outer Space”. The only thing articulated on the Crites are the mouths which barely open, like Kermit the Frog stitched his mouth closed so he wouldn't have to talk to that bitch Miss Piggy anymore. The Crites eyes stare blankly into space, like me after a few cocktails. And the Crites are dumb, really dumb. They have the ability to shoot paralyzing darts out of their backs but they seem much more content to roll away from danger at high speeds, like an ugly version of Sonic the Hedgehog. Also they stand right in the way of shotgun fire all the time, even though the bounty hunters' gun resembles an Earth firearm. Can't they connect the dots?
So, the bounty hunters come to Earth and start tearing apart the town in search of the Crites. If “Midnight Run” taught us anything, its that the only prerequisites for the job of bounty hunter is the ability to kick ass and trade funny, and sometimes, amoral quips with your co-stars. Certainly, our bounty hunters in “Critters” can kick ass but they must have missed a day in bounty hunter class (which is a shame, considering it should only be two days long according to the prerequisites) because they never have anything interesting to say. Once we've heard them say “We're here for the Crites” and blow some shit up once, why repeat it? They seem more content to destroy the town's two major hangouts, a church and a bowling alley (remember, its the Midwest) rather than doing their fucking job.
Rather than spoil the ending I'll just leave it up to you whether or not you actually want to see the film, but I can assure that it is drenched in goofy happy ending cheese (Why not? It was a staple of the 80's.)
The greatest fault of “Critters” is in the script. Like that month after Christmas when you're trying to find a recipe to use up all the leftovers in one meal, “Critters” is a variety of other movies ground up and put together in a casserole. Borrowing (Stealing) ideas from other movies doesn't have to be such a problem; Quentin Tarantino has built his entire career off of borrowing (stealing) ideas from other movies. (If you've seen “Come Drink With Me” then you've seen “Kill Bill”, but an Asian woman instead of Uma Thurman) The borrowed elements just don't fit together, stealing pieces from a second jig-saw puzzle doesn't mean you'll finish the first one. “Gremlins”, the closest equivalent to this film, knew where and how to juxtapose the humor with the horror, but in this film they don't blend together at all. I was confused as to whether or not I was watching a kid's film or a full-blown horror.
There are some good things in “Critters” though. The Chiodos brothers actually manage a chilling special effect for the shape-shifting bounty hunters. The music is 80's-tastic. Billy Zane appears, WITH HAIR! Stephen Herek is a competent director. (He went on to do “The Mighty Ducks” and “Mr. Holland's Opus”. Richard Dreyfuss, you were robbed.) Watching people get attacked by creatures the size of their head is always hilarious, even if not intentionally.
So in the end, if you can suffer through the abortion of a host of other 80's flicks, then you just might enjoy “Critters”. As for me, I'll be watching “TMNT” for like the 50th time.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus - Dir. Ace Hannah - 2009
GUEST REVIEWER: Daniel Schaub: He's a bamf and here's his stuff. Last time he was a chef lets see what is the trash he threw out tonight.
Before I begin, I have to admit that I watched three different films to try and find my new trash film. I will probably be reviewing them all at one point, but I decided upon this film because of its spectacular failure to entertain. Production company The Asylum's single purpose on this Earth seems to be taking films that were already made and change around a few letters or words in the title (Transmorphers, Snakes on A Train, etc.) and release an utter piece of trash, but I'll be damned if they aren't entertaining in an awful way. But this film is by far the worst, and not even enjoyable in a fun way. Let's begin:
In the world of movie titling where gerunds, superlatives, and nouns are thrown around so frequently that they must surely suffer from shaken-baby syndrome, some films sneak up on you and some films, in the case of M.S.VS.G.O., flaunt themselves and slap you in the face with their, presumably, enormous testicles, begging to be watched. Perhaps this is why the film caused quite the internet tizzy, or the image of a shark biting a plane in mid-air was so jaw-droppingly ridiculous that it had to be watched. Maybe my script for Super Llama Vs. Ultra-Alpaca will finally be sold. Either way the production company knew this film was carrying stones so massive that it outweighed the cumulative sum of 30,000 Ethiopians.
Rather than go on and on about the directing or writing, both done by Mark Perez under the mind-blowing moniker Ace Hannah, as if he were a pulp fiction hero coming in to save the damsel in distress at the last second , this would be counter productive. No one is watching this film for the director, the writer, or anything that actually makes a movie a good one. Viewers, like myself, watch this film to see a movie title lived out on celluloid.
So, instead of doing the normal review thingy, I will instead share with you the story that leads to ultimate conflict between said shark and octopus. Warning matey, thar' be spoilers ahead.
The story opens with stock footage of the mountains, beautiful and awe inspiring, covered with deliciously amateur titles that could be created in I-Movie. Where's the lightning effect when you need it? We are then magically transported to the “Alaskan” Sea because the director assumes none of viewers ever took geography in elementary. The government is testing an illegal low-frequency sonar array, and by the government I mean a civilian helicopter with a guy in a green jumpsuit and mirrored sunglasses.
At this point we are introduced to our plucky and attractive, not sexy just attractive, hero, Emma MacNeil (Deborah Gibson). Emma has stolen, or borrowed in her words, a multi-million dollar min-sub to watch the whales moving in the area, not even study. Here we are presented with the most ridiculous image of the entire film. That's right, in a film about a massive shark and enormous octopus, there's something worse. I'm no marine biologist but when I see hammer-head sharks and stingrays swimming in the “Alaskan” Sea my mind has to ask, “Don't these animals like warm water? Like South Africa?” I guess they wandered too far North. Or maybe ate an inebriated swimmer and ended up perpetrating SWI (Swimming While under the Influence). Continuing...
As the sonar array is triggered the whales are thrown into a hissy-fit and try to commit suicide by flinging themselves into the ice shelf. If only whales could cover their ears we would be saved a lot of trouble because this mass suicide causes the ice shelf to break and releases our eponymous villains, the shark and the octopus. Our heroine sees these creatures up close, even sees one of them swim away, but dismisses it as imaginary; you never see new species when you're under the water.
The two creatures instantly begin wreaking havoc upon the seas, destroying oil rigs and... planes?
Our heroine escapes the swarm of lemming-like whales and returns to California where she is called in to inspect the corpse of a washed up whale. Even though she inspects the whale, her opinion, like that of any expert, is ignored by her superiors because experts, as the movies have taught us, are always ignored. She sneaks onto the beach to retrieve a piece of polymer painted and cut to look like a fracture of a tooth and shows it to her old mentor, Lamar Sanders (Sean Lawlor). (Who is actually a decent actor, spouting witty racist Irish stereotypes left and right)
What follows can only be described as a CSI-esque lab sequence without the steroids. Flashes of people staring into test tubes filled with neon colored liquid, flashes of people staring into computer screens, ominous music, and more flashes. In the end, as I guessed, it was in fact a tooth to a megalodon. Now, if you wander over to Wikipedia, like I did, the megalodon has been figured to be somewhere between 42 feet and 52 feet. The average nuclear submarine is over 100 meters long, but our creature dwarfs it. If you're going to pretend to be scientific, read a book or, at least, a damn internet article.
Now, upon finding proof of a megalodon living and breathing, what would your first thought be? Call the newspapers? Call the government? Rejoice because you can finally take care of that pesky whale problem (because whales are basically roaches of the sea)? No, our heroes do not a damn thing, but stare at the tooth some more.
They are joined by a Japanese marine biologist, Seiji, or Seichi (Vic Chou) depending on who says his name. When three brilliants biology minded minds are brought together, surely progress is not too far to follow. No, they stare at the tooth some more.
The government, deciding that a massive shark could be a problem, try to kill the megalodon but, in typical science-fiction fashion, our weapons are no match for the creatures. We can punch holes in six inch thick steel boat plating, destroy entire countries, and kill millions with the flip of switch but we can't pierce shark skin. God forbid that we ever attacked by a giant turtle because we would be fucked. When our government fails at killing this creature, our heroes are brought in to help destroy or capture the shark and the octopus.
Now, this would be called the point of no return, the end of Act One. Typically, now we move into Act Two, the longest section of any film; any film that is except this one. Act Two turns out to be a flurry of events in about ten minutes, because, hell, who has time for character development? Not Ace Hannah, he's got a damsel in distress to save from Nazis! The following ten minutes can only really be described in fragmented sentences, so...
Ten minutes in ten words: attract creatures, how, well..., sex (between Seiji and Emma for the record, not Seiji and Lamar which would have been hilarious), pheromones, try, fail, destroyed bridge.
Now if that seems quick for ten minutes, or so, it is, but as our heroes once again stare into test tubes trying to figure out how to attract the creatures you want to yell “Pheromones? Pheromones! Jesus, stop having sex! People are dying! How the hell did any of you get your degrees?!” Never has ten-minutes of staring into test tubes been more boring, except for the prior ten minutes where they stared at a different set of test tubes. After bringing the shark in San Francisco Bay, because there aren't any more bays along the California coast. Oh, wait, they actually were at Half Moon Bay earlier. And Point Dume, which is actually a bay? Anyways, in the movies Murphy's Law is always in high-gear, otherwise what would be the point of watching? So, after absolutely everything goes wrong, the shark takes a bite out of the Golden Gate Bridge killing hundreds. But we're not treated to any close-ups of these poor people. In fact, now that I think of it, there weren't any close-ups in the entire film...
Now, we move into Act Three. How are our heroes going to kill a giant octopus and a mega shark? Get them to kill each other of course, because sharks love calamari and octopuses love shark fin soup. Using the same pheromones from before our heroes will bring the two together to fight. And they do so, complete with the sinking of eight submarines and the destruction of an airplane.
It's rumble time, right? The match-up of a shark and octopus seems a little one-sided, as one has eight arms and the other has fins. But it turns out that sharks are slippery. The octopus will wrap eight arms around the shark and the shark will slip out. The shark will bite at the octopus and the octopus will wrap it up again. And the shark will slip out again. This delicate tango thankfully only lasts two minutes, tops. In a movie where you've been waiting to see an octopus and shark fight, something is very wrong if you want the fight to end as soon as it started. All vision of scale and scope is lost. When two massive creatures fight under the water, with nothing else around, it might as well be a sea horse and cucumber. Why doesn't the octopus rip off a piece of reef and shiv his opponent? I don't know, but it would have been awesome.
The fight ends, with both creatures dead, and the movie ends with our heroes disregarding the test tube for a sunset. How pretty... Wait, didn't hundreds of people die and these are the people more of less to blame because they didn't blow the fucking whistle when they had the chance? Nope, I think we would all be more content if we blame the fucking whales.
Oh yeah, Lorenzo Lamas, typically a soap opera actor, was also in this. He shared the typically racist remarks with Lamar, but his were mostly about the Japanese. Fun!
The Asylum makes plenty of trash films but most are a joy to watch, this is not. It is just bad, bad, bad.
Before I begin, I have to admit that I watched three different films to try and find my new trash film. I will probably be reviewing them all at one point, but I decided upon this film because of its spectacular failure to entertain. Production company The Asylum's single purpose on this Earth seems to be taking films that were already made and change around a few letters or words in the title (Transmorphers, Snakes on A Train, etc.) and release an utter piece of trash, but I'll be damned if they aren't entertaining in an awful way. But this film is by far the worst, and not even enjoyable in a fun way. Let's begin:
In the world of movie titling where gerunds, superlatives, and nouns are thrown around so frequently that they must surely suffer from shaken-baby syndrome, some films sneak up on you and some films, in the case of M.S.VS.G.O., flaunt themselves and slap you in the face with their, presumably, enormous testicles, begging to be watched. Perhaps this is why the film caused quite the internet tizzy, or the image of a shark biting a plane in mid-air was so jaw-droppingly ridiculous that it had to be watched. Maybe my script for Super Llama Vs. Ultra-Alpaca will finally be sold. Either way the production company knew this film was carrying stones so massive that it outweighed the cumulative sum of 30,000 Ethiopians.
Rather than go on and on about the directing or writing, both done by Mark Perez under the mind-blowing moniker Ace Hannah, as if he were a pulp fiction hero coming in to save the damsel in distress at the last second , this would be counter productive. No one is watching this film for the director, the writer, or anything that actually makes a movie a good one. Viewers, like myself, watch this film to see a movie title lived out on celluloid.
So, instead of doing the normal review thingy, I will instead share with you the story that leads to ultimate conflict between said shark and octopus. Warning matey, thar' be spoilers ahead.
The story opens with stock footage of the mountains, beautiful and awe inspiring, covered with deliciously amateur titles that could be created in I-Movie. Where's the lightning effect when you need it? We are then magically transported to the “Alaskan” Sea because the director assumes none of viewers ever took geography in elementary. The government is testing an illegal low-frequency sonar array, and by the government I mean a civilian helicopter with a guy in a green jumpsuit and mirrored sunglasses.
At this point we are introduced to our plucky and attractive, not sexy just attractive, hero, Emma MacNeil (Deborah Gibson). Emma has stolen, or borrowed in her words, a multi-million dollar min-sub to watch the whales moving in the area, not even study. Here we are presented with the most ridiculous image of the entire film. That's right, in a film about a massive shark and enormous octopus, there's something worse. I'm no marine biologist but when I see hammer-head sharks and stingrays swimming in the “Alaskan” Sea my mind has to ask, “Don't these animals like warm water? Like South Africa?” I guess they wandered too far North. Or maybe ate an inebriated swimmer and ended up perpetrating SWI (Swimming While under the Influence). Continuing...
As the sonar array is triggered the whales are thrown into a hissy-fit and try to commit suicide by flinging themselves into the ice shelf. If only whales could cover their ears we would be saved a lot of trouble because this mass suicide causes the ice shelf to break and releases our eponymous villains, the shark and the octopus. Our heroine sees these creatures up close, even sees one of them swim away, but dismisses it as imaginary; you never see new species when you're under the water.
The two creatures instantly begin wreaking havoc upon the seas, destroying oil rigs and... planes?
Our heroine escapes the swarm of lemming-like whales and returns to California where she is called in to inspect the corpse of a washed up whale. Even though she inspects the whale, her opinion, like that of any expert, is ignored by her superiors because experts, as the movies have taught us, are always ignored. She sneaks onto the beach to retrieve a piece of polymer painted and cut to look like a fracture of a tooth and shows it to her old mentor, Lamar Sanders (Sean Lawlor). (Who is actually a decent actor, spouting witty racist Irish stereotypes left and right)
What follows can only be described as a CSI-esque lab sequence without the steroids. Flashes of people staring into test tubes filled with neon colored liquid, flashes of people staring into computer screens, ominous music, and more flashes. In the end, as I guessed, it was in fact a tooth to a megalodon. Now, if you wander over to Wikipedia, like I did, the megalodon has been figured to be somewhere between 42 feet and 52 feet. The average nuclear submarine is over 100 meters long, but our creature dwarfs it. If you're going to pretend to be scientific, read a book or, at least, a damn internet article.
Now, upon finding proof of a megalodon living and breathing, what would your first thought be? Call the newspapers? Call the government? Rejoice because you can finally take care of that pesky whale problem (because whales are basically roaches of the sea)? No, our heroes do not a damn thing, but stare at the tooth some more.
They are joined by a Japanese marine biologist, Seiji, or Seichi (Vic Chou) depending on who says his name. When three brilliants biology minded minds are brought together, surely progress is not too far to follow. No, they stare at the tooth some more.
The government, deciding that a massive shark could be a problem, try to kill the megalodon but, in typical science-fiction fashion, our weapons are no match for the creatures. We can punch holes in six inch thick steel boat plating, destroy entire countries, and kill millions with the flip of switch but we can't pierce shark skin. God forbid that we ever attacked by a giant turtle because we would be fucked. When our government fails at killing this creature, our heroes are brought in to help destroy or capture the shark and the octopus.
Now, this would be called the point of no return, the end of Act One. Typically, now we move into Act Two, the longest section of any film; any film that is except this one. Act Two turns out to be a flurry of events in about ten minutes, because, hell, who has time for character development? Not Ace Hannah, he's got a damsel in distress to save from Nazis! The following ten minutes can only really be described in fragmented sentences, so...
Ten minutes in ten words: attract creatures, how, well..., sex (between Seiji and Emma for the record, not Seiji and Lamar which would have been hilarious), pheromones, try, fail, destroyed bridge.
Now if that seems quick for ten minutes, or so, it is, but as our heroes once again stare into test tubes trying to figure out how to attract the creatures you want to yell “Pheromones? Pheromones! Jesus, stop having sex! People are dying! How the hell did any of you get your degrees?!” Never has ten-minutes of staring into test tubes been more boring, except for the prior ten minutes where they stared at a different set of test tubes. After bringing the shark in San Francisco Bay, because there aren't any more bays along the California coast. Oh, wait, they actually were at Half Moon Bay earlier. And Point Dume, which is actually a bay? Anyways, in the movies Murphy's Law is always in high-gear, otherwise what would be the point of watching? So, after absolutely everything goes wrong, the shark takes a bite out of the Golden Gate Bridge killing hundreds. But we're not treated to any close-ups of these poor people. In fact, now that I think of it, there weren't any close-ups in the entire film...
Now, we move into Act Three. How are our heroes going to kill a giant octopus and a mega shark? Get them to kill each other of course, because sharks love calamari and octopuses love shark fin soup. Using the same pheromones from before our heroes will bring the two together to fight. And they do so, complete with the sinking of eight submarines and the destruction of an airplane.
It's rumble time, right? The match-up of a shark and octopus seems a little one-sided, as one has eight arms and the other has fins. But it turns out that sharks are slippery. The octopus will wrap eight arms around the shark and the shark will slip out. The shark will bite at the octopus and the octopus will wrap it up again. And the shark will slip out again. This delicate tango thankfully only lasts two minutes, tops. In a movie where you've been waiting to see an octopus and shark fight, something is very wrong if you want the fight to end as soon as it started. All vision of scale and scope is lost. When two massive creatures fight under the water, with nothing else around, it might as well be a sea horse and cucumber. Why doesn't the octopus rip off a piece of reef and shiv his opponent? I don't know, but it would have been awesome.
The fight ends, with both creatures dead, and the movie ends with our heroes disregarding the test tube for a sunset. How pretty... Wait, didn't hundreds of people die and these are the people more of less to blame because they didn't blow the fucking whistle when they had the chance? Nope, I think we would all be more content if we blame the fucking whales.
Oh yeah, Lorenzo Lamas, typically a soap opera actor, was also in this. He shared the typically racist remarks with Lamar, but his were mostly about the Japanese. Fun!
The Asylum makes plenty of trash films but most are a joy to watch, this is not. It is just bad, bad, bad.
Troll - Dir. John Carl Buechler - 1986 (My title: Harry Potter and the Troll King)
There are movies that people latch on to in the realm of trash films. Some become trendy and are considered "The Best Bad Movie Ever." First of all, that will always go to "Plan 9 From Outer Space." Anybody who thinks different, you are wrong. Just saying. A close second, in fact a very close second, is "Troll 2" (Note: I will never review those two movies. Too much has already been said about both). There is a mystery for some of us though, what came before? What crazy movie inspired our first trip to Nilbog*.
It turns out it is another wonderfully brilliantly bad film filled with its own cheesy moments and bad dialog for people to love it all the same. Is it as bad? Nah... But it is a fun movie in its own right.
I will answer everybody's major first question: Is this really connected to "Troll 2"? Sadly, the answer is "No." (At least until I write "Troll 1 1/2: Seth's Quest To Nilbog") The interesting thing is that there are a handful of actual things that could easily be connected. So it isn't hard to see why the distributors wanted to name it Troll 2.
The story of the first one centers around a family, the Potters. The family consists of Wendy Anne (daughter), Anne (mother) and, I shit you not about the names I'm going to say, Harry and Harry Jr. They have just moved in to a new apartment building. In the basement, is a troll who takes over Wendy Anne and makes her a horrible beast who turns each room and resident into a fantasy world and makes Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' clothes disappear, his greatest trick of all. The only person who notices is her brother, Harry Potter. He goes to the landlady who ends up being a witch and basically he has to kick little girl/troll ass.
What ridiculous things may you find? How about a musical number sung by the rejects from the muppet show? No? A little girl yelling "RATBURGERS!" for 5 minutes straight? No? Well, then the strange relationship the small child develops with a mexican midget must do it for you (dude is talented he plays a midget AND a troll king... damn). Throw in some Julia Louis-Dreyfus ass, Harry Potter dancing to the Summertime Blues like my drunk father at his 50th birthday, Sonny Bono playing a playboy who tells the kids to shut the fuck up and you have would could is an extremely fun ride.
It actually comes off as a very poor attempt at an Amblin-esque children's film. There are points that it works too. The initial scene where the Troll lures Wendy Anne down is genuinely creepy and slightly evocative of the scene in "It" where Georgie follows his boat to the gutter.
However, this film just becomes more and more ridiculous as it twists and turns. By the time you get to the witch growing young and finding out that the Troll used to be a king, and not so much a king but her LOVER, you lose it. You have to laugh, there is no other way to deal with it.
Also, let me state, Harry Potter Jr. is a whiney ass bitch like that beloved wizard kid. All he does is bitch bitch bitch and worries. Seriously, it seems unnecessary, until you realize the parents are totally inept. They don't even think twice about the creepiness that their daughter befriened a 40 year old Mexican midget. All they do is offer him some wine and let him in. Now, I know I shouldn't really be commenting on parenting skills but really... THE FUCK?!
This movie is definitely a lot of fun. Luckily for you, the only way Troll 2 comes packaged right now is on a doubledisk with Troll 1. So you get both great movies for the price of 1. Seriously, check this out. If it is just for the funny celebrity cameos... and Julia Louis-Dreyfus' ass... Did I mention that?
* My spell check keeps wanting me to change "Nilbog" into "Goblin." I don't get why... wait a minute. Nilbog... is Goblin... spelled backwards... OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!
It turns out it is another wonderfully brilliantly bad film filled with its own cheesy moments and bad dialog for people to love it all the same. Is it as bad? Nah... But it is a fun movie in its own right.
I will answer everybody's major first question: Is this really connected to "Troll 2"? Sadly, the answer is "No." (At least until I write "Troll 1 1/2: Seth's Quest To Nilbog") The interesting thing is that there are a handful of actual things that could easily be connected. So it isn't hard to see why the distributors wanted to name it Troll 2.
The story of the first one centers around a family, the Potters. The family consists of Wendy Anne (daughter), Anne (mother) and, I shit you not about the names I'm going to say, Harry and Harry Jr. They have just moved in to a new apartment building. In the basement, is a troll who takes over Wendy Anne and makes her a horrible beast who turns each room and resident into a fantasy world and makes Julia Louis-Dreyfuss' clothes disappear, his greatest trick of all. The only person who notices is her brother, Harry Potter. He goes to the landlady who ends up being a witch and basically he has to kick little girl/troll ass.
What ridiculous things may you find? How about a musical number sung by the rejects from the muppet show? No? A little girl yelling "RATBURGERS!" for 5 minutes straight? No? Well, then the strange relationship the small child develops with a mexican midget must do it for you (dude is talented he plays a midget AND a troll king... damn). Throw in some Julia Louis-Dreyfus ass, Harry Potter dancing to the Summertime Blues like my drunk father at his 50th birthday, Sonny Bono playing a playboy who tells the kids to shut the fuck up and you have would could is an extremely fun ride.
It actually comes off as a very poor attempt at an Amblin-esque children's film. There are points that it works too. The initial scene where the Troll lures Wendy Anne down is genuinely creepy and slightly evocative of the scene in "It" where Georgie follows his boat to the gutter.
However, this film just becomes more and more ridiculous as it twists and turns. By the time you get to the witch growing young and finding out that the Troll used to be a king, and not so much a king but her LOVER, you lose it. You have to laugh, there is no other way to deal with it.
Also, let me state, Harry Potter Jr. is a whiney ass bitch like that beloved wizard kid. All he does is bitch bitch bitch and worries. Seriously, it seems unnecessary, until you realize the parents are totally inept. They don't even think twice about the creepiness that their daughter befriened a 40 year old Mexican midget. All they do is offer him some wine and let him in. Now, I know I shouldn't really be commenting on parenting skills but really... THE FUCK?!
This movie is definitely a lot of fun. Luckily for you, the only way Troll 2 comes packaged right now is on a doubledisk with Troll 1. So you get both great movies for the price of 1. Seriously, check this out. If it is just for the funny celebrity cameos... and Julia Louis-Dreyfus' ass... Did I mention that?
* My spell check keeps wanting me to change "Nilbog" into "Goblin." I don't get why... wait a minute. Nilbog... is Goblin... spelled backwards... OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!!
Monday, September 28, 2009
I Know What You Did Last Summer - Dir. Jim Gillespie - 1997
This is by guest reviewer Daniel Schaub. This guy is fuckin' awesome. Trust me, I know. He also loves trash flicks and is one of the founders of a weekly (sort of) festival called "Totally Terrible Tuesdays." He is also part of a comedy sketch group (with me) called "Frozen Peas."
Here is his review:
In 1973 Lois Duncan wrote a young adult suspense novel entitled “I Know What You Did Last Summer”. In 1989 Lois Duncan's daughter was murdered and the case is still to be solved. In 1996, riding the coat-tails of his “Scream” fame, Kevin Williamson sold a script loosely based on this novel. Duncan was barred from the set and disowned the film upon release. So, after wrapping your head around the controversy and contorted horridness of reality, you couldn't believe this film came in singing to the tune of 72 million dollars and two subsequent sequels, one that doesn't even include one member of the original cast. But it did.
How you might ask? (Or you might know the answer already) Is it the cast? Maybe, young hotties at the height of their teen ideology, why not? Is it the direction? Maybe, wait, who the hell is Jim Gillespie? Didn't he direct a Stallone flick a few years back? What about the cinematography, music, sound? All maybes, but there is one and only true answer. Marketing my friend, marketing.
It works out like a recipe, how do you mix the ingredients to make a movie that makes money. So, shedding my critic hat for my poofy chef's hat, I shall share the recipe for good marketing with you. Feel free to whip it up this Thanksgiving; it's delicious with cranberry sauce, canned or made from scratch.
The Crew- Kevin Williamson wrote the seminal horror work of our generation, and future generations to come, with “Scream” which finally taught producers that people who watch horror movies that they are in fact watching horror movies. They were tired of the bullshit viewers were spoon-fed, like they had no idea what was coming next. Williamson became a name overnight and early promotional material bore his name as the creator of “Scream”. And viewers knew immediately that they were in for a treat, where they weren't bored and truly scared. Boy, don't we have egg on our faces now. Is that phrase still in use? Anywhere? No? Oh well. To say the script is formulaic and cliched is saying that Kanye West is retarded. Their producers don't care both the script and West will make money. As far as anybody in the marketing department was concerned, Williamson was the only one on the crew; no director, no cinematography, no best boy, nothing. More or less, in their minds, Williamson typed the script up on his computer, printed it out, subsequently ate the paper the script was printed on, and shat out the completed film on crisp, smelly celluloid. So, you take your crew member and put him a poster (Maybe not even his name) and let simmer for several months. Oh, be sure the poster actually gives no clues about what the film is about. Perhaps a black background with red letters and nothing else, people love this.
The Cast – Young, nubile hotties. Boobs and bronzed pectorals should be in abundance. The second run posters should also include said T-and-A , so if the poster was viewed in 3-d you'd duck under the nearest table to avoid Sarah Michelle Gellar's left nipple. Said film is populated with this spectacular display of human “perfection”.
The Meat - Jennifer Love Hewitt's only... first, let's get this out of the way, Jennifer Love Hewitt is hot; Jennifer Love Hewitt with bangs is not hot... anyway, continuing, Hewitt's biggest movie endeavor prior to this was Sister Act 2: Back In The Habit (but should have been subtitled Whoopi Is Black, Check It Out) which doesn't exactly spell box-office. Hewitt's performance could spell box-office but it doesn't. Acting should be fluid and an actor should be in complete control of their characters mind. What she does qualifies more as rigid and unaware, like she doesn't know if she should be frightened or heroic. The answer is neither. So you need to surround your meat with vegetables, spices, and broth.
The Vegetable – Ryan Phillipe is at least trying to act. He's playing against type, an arrogant asshole, nothing like his character in “Cruel Intentions” or “54” or... So, Phillipe is our life-form which barely qualifies as alive, gliding along feeding from the roots and water spilled out of your glass. It seems second nature for him to play a prick and it wears thin quickly, about 40 seconds in actually. I want to like Ryan Phillipe, I really want to like Phillpe. He's been in some good films “Flags of our Fathers”, “Way of The Gun” and “Breach”. But when he isn't playing an asshole, he's playing confused and skiddish, like a cat in a rocking chair factory. Oh, that saying is out of style too? Damn.
The Spices – Sarah Michelle Gellar is the peppy, pretty type in the film and a peppy, pretty type in real life. What luck, aye? For some, the spices might make a film spicy and bring an entire new palate to the film. In her case, it bring a lot of screams and empty stares. She more like ginger than crushed red pepper. In concentrated portions, it is piercing, and mixed in, you won't even know it was there. Gellar's job is to carry most of the “better” scares but it doesn't work, mainly because she stares blankly until a dead body is found, and then, you guessed it, she screams. And then stares blankly. Another dead body. She screams. But hey, she shows lots of cleavage. There you go. And she was fresh off “All My Children”. Throw it in like Emeril. Bam!
The Broth – The recipe begins and ends here, a headlining, strong element that will give the recipe it's heart. So, we'll cast... Fred from “Scooby-Doo”? Well, truthfully, Freddie Prince Jr. didn't have the box-office power house of “Scooby-Doo” behind, but he did have good looks (really?) and a fan following based solely around the posters apparently, as his biggest endeavor prior to this film was the hilariously named “Detention: The Siege at Johnson High”. But he was listed in the credits second and his face was enormous on the poster so people knew he would be important. Oh, wait, he's actually in the movie about as much as Anne Heche? Wait, Anne Heche was in this movie? Never mind. The importance of a movie about four teenagers being stalked by a killer is to have “FOUR”, count 'um, four teenagers being stalked by a killer. Freddie is relegated to what seems as more of incidental character, like he wandered off a different movie set and was asked to play a cameo part that could be filmed in five days. But we should pray to God, Zeus, or whoever to thank that he doesn't appear more frequently. Its bad, just bad. “Freddie, raise an eyebrow! You're confused!... Thank you!”
The Trailer – Once you have taken the celluloid that Williamson that has shat out, and added the cast from the boiling point of mediocre but beautiful, you need to cut yourself a trailer. Time to get out the big carving knife and chop out the best bits. The trailer needs to make the audience ask questions. Like, what did they do last summer? For most teenagers, in the summer, the killer most likely filmed the day they masturbated seven times in one day. Did I say that out loud? But wait, there's more at stake! Oh, wait. You showed that in the trailer. Well, what does the killer look like? Damn, showed that too. Did you give some nice cleavage shots and screaming? Yes? Huzzah, success!
The Release – Now that you've teased us with the sweet smell of posters and trailers, its time to set the film out on the table to gorge. And just like Thanksgiving, you need to tell everybody, everywhere, to get to the table quick before Uncle Kevin can inform the whole family that the turkey is in fact actually what Williamson shat out. Put these posters, tv spots, trailers, teasers, and the like every-God-damn-where. I was a young, nubile boy in 1997 and I still remember the trailers, thanks to the number of times I dived under the table to avoid mammary glands trying to stab me in the retinas. Keep in mind, I was young and television was foreign to me, just like combustion to the cavemen in “Quest For Fire”. But teenagers, who weren't frightened by cleavage, and who weren't Puritans loved. And you'll love it on your Thanksgiving table, right before Uncle Kevin passes out in the turkey.
Let me get this straight, this movie is awful and is every reason why I dislike the horror genre. But men like John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and Alfred Hitchcock (That's right, the fat guy with the awesomely phallic last name) have shaped more filmmakers of our generation than you can shake a stick at. What? That phrase is archaic too? Damnitt. Jim Gillispie, you are not Hitchcock, Craven, or Carpenter; you're not even Eli Roth, who is the absolute nattier of everything I hate about horror films. Roth will be remembered. Carpenter will be remembered. Hitchcock, Craven; they'll be remembered. You, and this film, won't.
Here is his review:
In 1973 Lois Duncan wrote a young adult suspense novel entitled “I Know What You Did Last Summer”. In 1989 Lois Duncan's daughter was murdered and the case is still to be solved. In 1996, riding the coat-tails of his “Scream” fame, Kevin Williamson sold a script loosely based on this novel. Duncan was barred from the set and disowned the film upon release. So, after wrapping your head around the controversy and contorted horridness of reality, you couldn't believe this film came in singing to the tune of 72 million dollars and two subsequent sequels, one that doesn't even include one member of the original cast. But it did.
How you might ask? (Or you might know the answer already) Is it the cast? Maybe, young hotties at the height of their teen ideology, why not? Is it the direction? Maybe, wait, who the hell is Jim Gillespie? Didn't he direct a Stallone flick a few years back? What about the cinematography, music, sound? All maybes, but there is one and only true answer. Marketing my friend, marketing.
It works out like a recipe, how do you mix the ingredients to make a movie that makes money. So, shedding my critic hat for my poofy chef's hat, I shall share the recipe for good marketing with you. Feel free to whip it up this Thanksgiving; it's delicious with cranberry sauce, canned or made from scratch.
The Crew- Kevin Williamson wrote the seminal horror work of our generation, and future generations to come, with “Scream” which finally taught producers that people who watch horror movies that they are in fact watching horror movies. They were tired of the bullshit viewers were spoon-fed, like they had no idea what was coming next. Williamson became a name overnight and early promotional material bore his name as the creator of “Scream”. And viewers knew immediately that they were in for a treat, where they weren't bored and truly scared. Boy, don't we have egg on our faces now. Is that phrase still in use? Anywhere? No? Oh well. To say the script is formulaic and cliched is saying that Kanye West is retarded. Their producers don't care both the script and West will make money. As far as anybody in the marketing department was concerned, Williamson was the only one on the crew; no director, no cinematography, no best boy, nothing. More or less, in their minds, Williamson typed the script up on his computer, printed it out, subsequently ate the paper the script was printed on, and shat out the completed film on crisp, smelly celluloid. So, you take your crew member and put him a poster (Maybe not even his name) and let simmer for several months. Oh, be sure the poster actually gives no clues about what the film is about. Perhaps a black background with red letters and nothing else, people love this.
The Cast – Young, nubile hotties. Boobs and bronzed pectorals should be in abundance. The second run posters should also include said T-and-A , so if the poster was viewed in 3-d you'd duck under the nearest table to avoid Sarah Michelle Gellar's left nipple. Said film is populated with this spectacular display of human “perfection”.
The Meat - Jennifer Love Hewitt's only... first, let's get this out of the way, Jennifer Love Hewitt is hot; Jennifer Love Hewitt with bangs is not hot... anyway, continuing, Hewitt's biggest movie endeavor prior to this was Sister Act 2: Back In The Habit (but should have been subtitled Whoopi Is Black, Check It Out) which doesn't exactly spell box-office. Hewitt's performance could spell box-office but it doesn't. Acting should be fluid and an actor should be in complete control of their characters mind. What she does qualifies more as rigid and unaware, like she doesn't know if she should be frightened or heroic. The answer is neither. So you need to surround your meat with vegetables, spices, and broth.
The Vegetable – Ryan Phillipe is at least trying to act. He's playing against type, an arrogant asshole, nothing like his character in “Cruel Intentions” or “54” or... So, Phillipe is our life-form which barely qualifies as alive, gliding along feeding from the roots and water spilled out of your glass. It seems second nature for him to play a prick and it wears thin quickly, about 40 seconds in actually. I want to like Ryan Phillipe, I really want to like Phillpe. He's been in some good films “Flags of our Fathers”, “Way of The Gun” and “Breach”. But when he isn't playing an asshole, he's playing confused and skiddish, like a cat in a rocking chair factory. Oh, that saying is out of style too? Damn.
The Spices – Sarah Michelle Gellar is the peppy, pretty type in the film and a peppy, pretty type in real life. What luck, aye? For some, the spices might make a film spicy and bring an entire new palate to the film. In her case, it bring a lot of screams and empty stares. She more like ginger than crushed red pepper. In concentrated portions, it is piercing, and mixed in, you won't even know it was there. Gellar's job is to carry most of the “better” scares but it doesn't work, mainly because she stares blankly until a dead body is found, and then, you guessed it, she screams. And then stares blankly. Another dead body. She screams. But hey, she shows lots of cleavage. There you go. And she was fresh off “All My Children”. Throw it in like Emeril. Bam!
The Broth – The recipe begins and ends here, a headlining, strong element that will give the recipe it's heart. So, we'll cast... Fred from “Scooby-Doo”? Well, truthfully, Freddie Prince Jr. didn't have the box-office power house of “Scooby-Doo” behind, but he did have good looks (really?) and a fan following based solely around the posters apparently, as his biggest endeavor prior to this film was the hilariously named “Detention: The Siege at Johnson High”. But he was listed in the credits second and his face was enormous on the poster so people knew he would be important. Oh, wait, he's actually in the movie about as much as Anne Heche? Wait, Anne Heche was in this movie? Never mind. The importance of a movie about four teenagers being stalked by a killer is to have “FOUR”, count 'um, four teenagers being stalked by a killer. Freddie is relegated to what seems as more of incidental character, like he wandered off a different movie set and was asked to play a cameo part that could be filmed in five days. But we should pray to God, Zeus, or whoever to thank that he doesn't appear more frequently. Its bad, just bad. “Freddie, raise an eyebrow! You're confused!... Thank you!”
The Trailer – Once you have taken the celluloid that Williamson that has shat out, and added the cast from the boiling point of mediocre but beautiful, you need to cut yourself a trailer. Time to get out the big carving knife and chop out the best bits. The trailer needs to make the audience ask questions. Like, what did they do last summer? For most teenagers, in the summer, the killer most likely filmed the day they masturbated seven times in one day. Did I say that out loud? But wait, there's more at stake! Oh, wait. You showed that in the trailer. Well, what does the killer look like? Damn, showed that too. Did you give some nice cleavage shots and screaming? Yes? Huzzah, success!
The Release – Now that you've teased us with the sweet smell of posters and trailers, its time to set the film out on the table to gorge. And just like Thanksgiving, you need to tell everybody, everywhere, to get to the table quick before Uncle Kevin can inform the whole family that the turkey is in fact actually what Williamson shat out. Put these posters, tv spots, trailers, teasers, and the like every-God-damn-where. I was a young, nubile boy in 1997 and I still remember the trailers, thanks to the number of times I dived under the table to avoid mammary glands trying to stab me in the retinas. Keep in mind, I was young and television was foreign to me, just like combustion to the cavemen in “Quest For Fire”. But teenagers, who weren't frightened by cleavage, and who weren't Puritans loved. And you'll love it on your Thanksgiving table, right before Uncle Kevin passes out in the turkey.
Let me get this straight, this movie is awful and is every reason why I dislike the horror genre. But men like John Carpenter, Wes Craven, and Alfred Hitchcock (That's right, the fat guy with the awesomely phallic last name) have shaped more filmmakers of our generation than you can shake a stick at. What? That phrase is archaic too? Damnitt. Jim Gillispie, you are not Hitchcock, Craven, or Carpenter; you're not even Eli Roth, who is the absolute nattier of everything I hate about horror films. Roth will be remembered. Carpenter will be remembered. Hitchcock, Craven; they'll be remembered. You, and this film, won't.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Crimewave - Dir. Sam Raimi - 1985
Let me begin I may be a little bias with this review:
My favorite director is Sam Raimi and two of my favorite writers are the Coen Brothers. I love practically everything these guys have done. So once I heard about this film in 2004, I was all over trying to find it.
Two days ago, I did. Much elation was had on my part.
Disclaimer:
This film really isn't "trash" because of the type of movie it is and how it feels. This movie is "trash" because it has been famously disowned by Sam Raimi because of the shit the studios put him through. It didn't even get a DVD release. So that is why it is my first review.
This is a very strange film as basically all I really want to tell you about the plot (and there isn't much to begin with) is that Vic Ajax, a normal nice employee of a burglar alarm company, gets mixed up in the crazy ass shit of two exterminators who are hired to kill one of the owners of the burglar alarm company by the other owner. Also, Vic Ajax is trying to win a girl from Renaldo the Heel, the man who is trying to buy the company.
This movie is very weird for me to review because there is never a dull moment in true Sam Raimi fashion. However, if you know Sam Raimi, nothing really surprises you in this. I have to say this is the thing that disappoints me the most about the film, in that I wasn't surprised. I had spent 5 years forming in my mind what a Sam Raimi directed Coen Brother's noir comedy script would look like and this is it. That is why this feels so weird because that sentance is a huge compliment, but at the same time my least favorite thing about it.
After the first horrible 10 minutes, there are moments that are really funny. I did laugh a lot. There is a moment with a little kid that is insanely great. It is just, knowing the talent, when the little kid showed up, I knew exactly what would happen. There are really great moments peppered throughout though (and I would be lying if a handful of those great moments aren't thanks to my love of Bruce Campbell).
In fact, this is clearly a pre-cursor to "Evil Dead II" in that once the horrible set up is done, this movie really cooks and flies. It takes thirty minutes for this to happen, but once it does, man is this fun. It takes the idea of "What if we made a looney toons horror film?" but replace horror with crime and you have some idea of what happens. Seriously, the two villians are so over the top and crazy my roommmate kept going "You are fucking lying to me Rob, you are watching cartoons."
The acting in this film though, that is definitely a flaw in the film. Reed Birney as Vic Ajax isn't that bad when he interacts with people, but at points... Damn... throw this guy in "Bride of the Monster" and you got a good fit. Sheree J. Wilson gets by with good looks... barely. She isn't loveable and in fact, seems very very stuck up. Bitch ain't even a femme fatale in this noir film, so what is her point? The highlight of acting is... my friend Kyle will roll his eyes when he reads this... Bruce Campbell. He is just so funny and suave as Renaldo the Heel that damn, I can't resist him. Even though, some of his lines are delivered fairly stiffly but I love Bruce for the attitude, not the talent.
I'm sorry if this review seems a little uneven but it is because my feelings are so uneven. I can't decide of it was great or insipid. What I can tell you is that I had a good time and that it is definitely an interesting experiment of a film. Recommended to anybody who loves Sam Raimi or the Coen Brothers (but mostly Sam Raimi).
My favorite director is Sam Raimi and two of my favorite writers are the Coen Brothers. I love practically everything these guys have done. So once I heard about this film in 2004, I was all over trying to find it.
Two days ago, I did. Much elation was had on my part.
Disclaimer:
This film really isn't "trash" because of the type of movie it is and how it feels. This movie is "trash" because it has been famously disowned by Sam Raimi because of the shit the studios put him through. It didn't even get a DVD release. So that is why it is my first review.
This is a very strange film as basically all I really want to tell you about the plot (and there isn't much to begin with) is that Vic Ajax, a normal nice employee of a burglar alarm company, gets mixed up in the crazy ass shit of two exterminators who are hired to kill one of the owners of the burglar alarm company by the other owner. Also, Vic Ajax is trying to win a girl from Renaldo the Heel, the man who is trying to buy the company.
This movie is very weird for me to review because there is never a dull moment in true Sam Raimi fashion. However, if you know Sam Raimi, nothing really surprises you in this. I have to say this is the thing that disappoints me the most about the film, in that I wasn't surprised. I had spent 5 years forming in my mind what a Sam Raimi directed Coen Brother's noir comedy script would look like and this is it. That is why this feels so weird because that sentance is a huge compliment, but at the same time my least favorite thing about it.
After the first horrible 10 minutes, there are moments that are really funny. I did laugh a lot. There is a moment with a little kid that is insanely great. It is just, knowing the talent, when the little kid showed up, I knew exactly what would happen. There are really great moments peppered throughout though (and I would be lying if a handful of those great moments aren't thanks to my love of Bruce Campbell).
In fact, this is clearly a pre-cursor to "Evil Dead II" in that once the horrible set up is done, this movie really cooks and flies. It takes thirty minutes for this to happen, but once it does, man is this fun. It takes the idea of "What if we made a looney toons horror film?" but replace horror with crime and you have some idea of what happens. Seriously, the two villians are so over the top and crazy my roommmate kept going "You are fucking lying to me Rob, you are watching cartoons."
The acting in this film though, that is definitely a flaw in the film. Reed Birney as Vic Ajax isn't that bad when he interacts with people, but at points... Damn... throw this guy in "Bride of the Monster" and you got a good fit. Sheree J. Wilson gets by with good looks... barely. She isn't loveable and in fact, seems very very stuck up. Bitch ain't even a femme fatale in this noir film, so what is her point? The highlight of acting is... my friend Kyle will roll his eyes when he reads this... Bruce Campbell. He is just so funny and suave as Renaldo the Heel that damn, I can't resist him. Even though, some of his lines are delivered fairly stiffly but I love Bruce for the attitude, not the talent.
I'm sorry if this review seems a little uneven but it is because my feelings are so uneven. I can't decide of it was great or insipid. What I can tell you is that I had a good time and that it is definitely an interesting experiment of a film. Recommended to anybody who loves Sam Raimi or the Coen Brothers (but mostly Sam Raimi).
What the hell is in The Movie Trash Bin?
Well, that is a simple answer: my quest to watch one or more trash film a week and review them for you. Now, this isn't really something new for me. My love of film actually spun off from a night of watching the "Creature from the Black Lagoon" series, and let me guarantee you,"The Creature Walks Among Us" is trash.
However, not every "trash film" is trash. Quite the contrary. Many trash films are pure awesome in their horribleness and some even sneak by being down right genuinely great pieces of cinema.
So if a trash film isn't just bad, what the hell is it? Damn. Well... shit. Hard to explain. A trash film is simply a film made for cheap that a studio didn't believe it. Maybe it went to grindhouse, maybe it was a film that just turned out horribly. Your guess is as good as mine but there is an unidentifiable feeling that you are watching something trashy. You just feel a little more dirty because not everything is in focus or the girls are scantily clad or maybe that bad motha fuck is just too bad for his own good.
So the goal is to watch at least (hopefully more than) 52 trash films in a year. Now, I know this seems like a fairly easy task, and it might turn out that way. Except for the fact that I am currently going to film school. Taking 15 units and at my school (The Academy of Art University in San Francisco) we basically have a film/story/storyboard/essay or some variation on that per class. I don't know if you have ever had to create on demand, but it is damn hard and makes it really easy for me to smypathsize with the creatores of these trash films.
Plus, I also want to watch good movies along the way.
If I miss a deadline I'm sorry and if nobody reads this that is fine, this is also going to function as my own personal record of the trashy films I watch.
So, let the trash begin to pile up!
However, not every "trash film" is trash. Quite the contrary. Many trash films are pure awesome in their horribleness and some even sneak by being down right genuinely great pieces of cinema.
So if a trash film isn't just bad, what the hell is it? Damn. Well... shit. Hard to explain. A trash film is simply a film made for cheap that a studio didn't believe it. Maybe it went to grindhouse, maybe it was a film that just turned out horribly. Your guess is as good as mine but there is an unidentifiable feeling that you are watching something trashy. You just feel a little more dirty because not everything is in focus or the girls are scantily clad or maybe that bad motha fuck is just too bad for his own good.
So the goal is to watch at least (hopefully more than) 52 trash films in a year. Now, I know this seems like a fairly easy task, and it might turn out that way. Except for the fact that I am currently going to film school. Taking 15 units and at my school (The Academy of Art University in San Francisco) we basically have a film/story/storyboard/essay or some variation on that per class. I don't know if you have ever had to create on demand, but it is damn hard and makes it really easy for me to smypathsize with the creatores of these trash films.
Plus, I also want to watch good movies along the way.
If I miss a deadline I'm sorry and if nobody reads this that is fine, this is also going to function as my own personal record of the trashy films I watch.
So, let the trash begin to pile up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
