My name is Tim and I'm here to review movies for you for tacmovies.blogspot.com. I also publish my reviews on flixter, imdb, amazon, myspace, and yahoo! I am primarily writing with the viewer in mind. I understand that there are tons of movies out there that you haven't seen and you only have so much time and money to devote to watching them, so I will attempt to point out some quality obscure films for you to try and find, suggest you steer clear of less than stellar films, and let you know how much money I think you should spend or how much time I think you should devote to locating a particular film.
With regard to review style, I recognize that there are quality movies out there that I don't enjoy and movies that I enjoy that can't really be described as particularly well made, and I try to point out the difference between the two. For instance, the movies Where the Wild Things Are was a masterful work of visual art and perfectly captured the fantasy world of a child... but that didn't mean that I didn't hate it. Conversely, I love old kung fu movies, but most of them are technical disasters on celluloid.
There are two common criticisms of movies that I try not to use:
“That wasn't very realistic!” Movies aren't reality, and one shouldn't expect a movie to conform to the rules of our reality. Movies are escapism, we view them because we wish to escape reality. Maybe the movie broke the laws of physics or vastly oversimplified a psychological syndrome or a character didn't use the precise vocabulary of a rancher, it doesn't matter. Writers have united behind the saying of “don't let the facts get in the way of story!” and I whole-heartedly agree. Instead, I view it as acceptable to point out when a movie fails to be internally consistent. If the movie establishes the rules of their universe and then breaks them or sets up a particular character to behave a certain way and then reverses it without a plausible reason, then this would be grounds to argue that the internal consistency is off. However, nobody is perfect, and sometimes even I can't suspend my disbelief when some completely out of left field happens, but by and large I try not to accuse movies of not being realistic.
“That wasn't very original!” or “They ripped of [insert the name of book, movie, poem, song, and/or historical event here], those plagiarists!” Unless the story comes out word for word, shot for shot, verbatim the same, then I don't accept this criticism. Everything has been done in some form before. The question isn't if the story has been done before, the question is how well the story was told this time. I'm not saying plagiarism doesn't happen, but I think it's more rare than people think.
From time to time you may notice me highly recommending an independent movie that I gave a C rating but recommending against a Hollywood movie of the same rating. Well, to me, a C isn't a bad grade; it's average. Normal. Not bad, but not great. I give out lots of C's. So, why am I highly recommending some C's over others? Because I consider it to be a success when an independent movie comes together in some sort of coherence without the financial backing or resources of a Hollywood movie. I expect a Hollywood movie to be technically sound, but I've seen crappy indy horror films that have no sense of internal continuity or logic, where they never took the camera off the auto settings and used the built in mic to capture the sound. The results aren't pretty or even watchable sometimes, so I feel the need to give special praise to the ones that pull it off kinda okay. This leads to a logical question: Why don't I just lower the scale for independent movies? Give said C movie a B for being independent, or a B level indy an A? Well, the problem comes along when an honest to God A level independent movie comes along and messes up the entire scale, and they do exist.
It is not my goal to give scathing, angry, slamming reviews to movies. Frankly, I think critics that regularly do so are trying to make themselves the focus of attention instead of the movie. Yes, there are movies that genuinely infuriate me that I feel shouldn't exist and may end friendships with people that enjoy those movies (Transformers 2), but that's not typical. In general, I think movies are about going on a journey with the filmmaker. Maybe that filmmaker is going somewhere that you don't wish to go, that doesn't make the journey bad. It's makes the journey not for you. So, instead of saying that a movie is universally bad, I will try to identify which type of audience would enjoy a particular movie and which audience should stay away from it. But, sometimes the movie is simply bad, and they're no pretending it isn't.
In closing, I hope you enjoy my reviews and find some new movies to watch!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Critters – Directed by Stephen Herek – 1986
Cute, cheesy fun!
Story: Cute little furry monsters from outer space are out to eat as many humans. Sounds like a winning combination to me! The movie is fairly light hearted, putting laughs over scares or logical progression. There were times when I saw the window wide open to do some very dark humor, and I was slightly disappointed that they didn't take those opportunities. The main family members do decay as the movie progresses, as I felt the sister and the father were stronger characters before the plot showed up, and I blame the plot for that. C
Acting: I was excited to see Billy Zane's name in the credits considering I'm a big fan of his work. Sadly, he has a somewhat small role as the 80's dumb boyfriend. At least he does it well. The star of this movie is the kid, played by Scott Grimes, who plays a very confident little crazy-prepared pyromaniac. Outside of the horror genre this kid would probably be seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis, but it works here. Don Keith Opper annoyed me, which is probably a bad thing considering he's in all four of these movies and since I've started down this path I'll have to watch them all. Overall, the acting department gets a B.
Direction: This has the feel of a children's movie, a little cheesy but with a punch to it. The direction neither offended me nor impressed me, and I'm searching for things to say about it. That sounds like C level to me.
Visuals: The visuals still work to this day, which I consider to be a high compliment to an 80's special effects movie. The critters have a great combination of cute, yet menacing (I won't say scary, but slightly intimidating). The space ships look cool and the two bounty hunters are a visual highlight of this movie. A
Overall: Critters is a fun entry into the silly horror genre that I think most kids would be all over and most parents would enjoy with the proper mindset. It's fairly safe, its got some dry humping but no nudity or real sex, some blood but not obscene amounts, and I don't recall any major profanity being dropped. The only real setback for parents would be the need to explain to their children that it is not okay to make bombs in the barn, despite the fact that it worked out for the kid in this movie. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: Cute little furry monsters from outer space are out to eat as many humans. Sounds like a winning combination to me! The movie is fairly light hearted, putting laughs over scares or logical progression. There were times when I saw the window wide open to do some very dark humor, and I was slightly disappointed that they didn't take those opportunities. The main family members do decay as the movie progresses, as I felt the sister and the father were stronger characters before the plot showed up, and I blame the plot for that. C
Acting: I was excited to see Billy Zane's name in the credits considering I'm a big fan of his work. Sadly, he has a somewhat small role as the 80's dumb boyfriend. At least he does it well. The star of this movie is the kid, played by Scott Grimes, who plays a very confident little crazy-prepared pyromaniac. Outside of the horror genre this kid would probably be seeing a psychiatrist on a regular basis, but it works here. Don Keith Opper annoyed me, which is probably a bad thing considering he's in all four of these movies and since I've started down this path I'll have to watch them all. Overall, the acting department gets a B.
Direction: This has the feel of a children's movie, a little cheesy but with a punch to it. The direction neither offended me nor impressed me, and I'm searching for things to say about it. That sounds like C level to me.
Visuals: The visuals still work to this day, which I consider to be a high compliment to an 80's special effects movie. The critters have a great combination of cute, yet menacing (I won't say scary, but slightly intimidating). The space ships look cool and the two bounty hunters are a visual highlight of this movie. A
Overall: Critters is a fun entry into the silly horror genre that I think most kids would be all over and most parents would enjoy with the proper mindset. It's fairly safe, its got some dry humping but no nudity or real sex, some blood but not obscene amounts, and I don't recall any major profanity being dropped. The only real setback for parents would be the need to explain to their children that it is not okay to make bombs in the barn, despite the fact that it worked out for the kid in this movie. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
The Stendhal Syndrome (La sindrome di Stendhal) – Directed by Dario Argento - 1996
An Italian Psychotraumatic Thriller
Story: Stendhal Syndrome is defined by good old wikipedia as being, “a psychosomatic illness that causes rapid heartbeat, dizziness, fainting, confusion and even hallucinations when an individual is exposed to art, usually when the art is particularly beautiful or a large amount of art is in a single place,” and that's the very first thing that our main protagonist, played by Asia Argento, experiences in this movie.
[SPOILER HEAVY SYNOPSIS] She goes to an art museum and becomes overwhelmed by the art and forgets that she's a detective trying to track a rapist. This ends with the rapist finding her and doing to her what rapists do best. The rest of the movie is her playing cat and mouse with the rapist, as well as trying to psychologically deal with the combined trauma of being raped and her experience with Stendhal Syndrome. At no point is the audience convinced that Asia's character is sane, because immediately after succumbing to Stendhal Syndrome, prior to being raped, she forgets her name, job, and identity. We see her with the rapist, but we never see any other characters around. Because Asia's character has already shown a lack of sanity, we begin to wonder if there really is a rapist at all. [END SPOILERS]
The storyline is crafted well enough and was decently original. I have to give this a B.
Acting: There were some very strong performances here, and unfortunately I can't quite deduce which actor played which character, so I will have to identify them by their occupations. I was particularly impressed by the art student, the sort of boyfriend, and, well, the rapist himself (if I ever run for political office, I know that quote will come back to haunt me!) and Asia Argento gave a great, if slightly disturbing performance considering that this movie was directed by her FATHER! I mean, she gets beaten up, bloodied, does horrible things, goes crazy, and gets raped not once but twice in a very graphic manner... and her father was behind the camera? Entertaining, but creepy! B
Direction: Dario Argento cast his daughter in this movie, the sick bastard! Besides that, the direction was pretty good overall. The audience felt disoriented with Asia's character and very much empathized with her along the way, even though they should be questioning her sanity throughout. B
Visuals: This movie would not have worked without the art that was selected for the museum and Asia's home later in the movie. They all helped to create a surreal atmosphere. However, this was the first Italian movie to use CG... and it shows. The CG looks very bad and jarringly out of place when it appears. C
Overall: This is a decent little movie, even if it suggests deep rooted issues within the Argento family. It should have been shorter, but it's not in Transformers 2 territory of obscenely long. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: Stendhal Syndrome is defined by good old wikipedia as being, “a psychosomatic illness that causes rapid heartbeat, dizziness, fainting, confusion and even hallucinations when an individual is exposed to art, usually when the art is particularly beautiful or a large amount of art is in a single place,” and that's the very first thing that our main protagonist, played by Asia Argento, experiences in this movie.
[SPOILER HEAVY SYNOPSIS] She goes to an art museum and becomes overwhelmed by the art and forgets that she's a detective trying to track a rapist. This ends with the rapist finding her and doing to her what rapists do best. The rest of the movie is her playing cat and mouse with the rapist, as well as trying to psychologically deal with the combined trauma of being raped and her experience with Stendhal Syndrome. At no point is the audience convinced that Asia's character is sane, because immediately after succumbing to Stendhal Syndrome, prior to being raped, she forgets her name, job, and identity. We see her with the rapist, but we never see any other characters around. Because Asia's character has already shown a lack of sanity, we begin to wonder if there really is a rapist at all. [END SPOILERS]
The storyline is crafted well enough and was decently original. I have to give this a B.
Acting: There were some very strong performances here, and unfortunately I can't quite deduce which actor played which character, so I will have to identify them by their occupations. I was particularly impressed by the art student, the sort of boyfriend, and, well, the rapist himself (if I ever run for political office, I know that quote will come back to haunt me!) and Asia Argento gave a great, if slightly disturbing performance considering that this movie was directed by her FATHER! I mean, she gets beaten up, bloodied, does horrible things, goes crazy, and gets raped not once but twice in a very graphic manner... and her father was behind the camera? Entertaining, but creepy! B
Direction: Dario Argento cast his daughter in this movie, the sick bastard! Besides that, the direction was pretty good overall. The audience felt disoriented with Asia's character and very much empathized with her along the way, even though they should be questioning her sanity throughout. B
Visuals: This movie would not have worked without the art that was selected for the museum and Asia's home later in the movie. They all helped to create a surreal atmosphere. However, this was the first Italian movie to use CG... and it shows. The CG looks very bad and jarringly out of place when it appears. C
Overall: This is a decent little movie, even if it suggests deep rooted issues within the Argento family. It should have been shorter, but it's not in Transformers 2 territory of obscenely long. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
A History of Violence – Directed by David Cronenberg – 2005
Aragorn isn't bad with a gun!
Story: The story is probably the worst part of this movie. Without summarizing the plot and keeping spoilers to a minimum, if the cops in Indiana and the cops in Philadelphia were to compare notebooks, it would be very easy to identify the killer at the end of this movie. Also, Viggo manages to overcome the odds so many times that it wouldn't surprise me if he were to also win the next week's powerball after the end of the movie, and William Hurt's character even points this out when he has the infamous line to his mooks, “How do you f-ck that up?” Some of the characters are written to be supershallow, such as the two killers at the beginning of the movie and the high school bully. That said, there enough story to keep this movie afloat. I wouldn't have minded a little more, but it gets the job done... but, then again, this movie was nominated for an Oscar for best writing of an adapted screenplay in 2006, so what do I know? C
Acting: There are a lot of great actors in this movie, but I'm going to skip to the Sheriff who is played by the great Peter MacNeill. What? You don't know who Peter MacNeill is? Well, I'm not surprised. He played Hawk on Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future, probably my favorite TV show growing up, even if it only went one season. I want more work for Peter! Anyhow, Maria Bello was amazing(ly hot in that cheerleader outfit) in this movie, Ed Harris isn't on screen very long but leaves a major mark, William Hurt got an Oscar nomination and I support that one, and Ashton Holmes has some of the best facials in this movie I've ever seen. The scene where Maria Bello gets out the shotgun and Viggo runs home and bursts through the door was made by Ashton Holmes reaction as their son, sitting eating his cereal, confused beyond reason about what's going on. I loved that scene, and I think Ashton's reaction could make any scene in any movie funny.
Enough about the supporting characters: How does Viggo do? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. [SPOILER ALERT IS OFFICALLY SET TO FUSIA] I didn't find his portrayal of Tom Stall to be all that convincing, but I almost think they did that on purpose because he's not really Tom Stall. I believed him as the action hero, even in the most implausible circumstances (except when William Hurt shot at him at point blank range three times and somehow managed to miss... Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy, it's the only explanation!) and I believed him when he became Joey again. So, him playing Tom a little fake isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may have been a deliberate thing. [SPOILERS ALERT IS NOW LIFTEDED]
All in all, the acting gets an A!
Direction: The first shot in this movie is almost two minutes long... and it's beautiful. The cinematography in this movie is beautiful. The editing is beautiful. It creates such a brooding mood and it completely sucks you into the movie. The action sequences are over very quickly, but they're good and powerful enough that they'll be the strongest memory that you have of this movie. I also love the way that this movie uses the way the characters have sex to show the differences in their personalities. Cronenberg is one of the best directors working today, and this is one of my favorite performances of his. A
Visuals: The line between direction and visuals is always a bit ambiguous, (I only break them up because Yahoo! movies makes me assign each one a letter grade and I can't give a grade with no explanation why it's there or it becomes meaningless) and it's even more difficult to define with Cronenberg because his strong visuals are so rooted in his style, so I'm using visuals to describe the special effects in this movie. Specifically, the blood. There's lots of it. It's disgusting and yet stylized in an oddly beautiful sort of way. I know the fight sequence with the coffee carafe was done using chroma keying and the results are spectacular. The bullet entry and exit wounds are some of the most realistic I've ever seen. Also, the contrast between the simple country house that the Stall's live in and the elegant mansion in Philadelphia really does an effective job of characterizing the inhabitants for us, but also make Philadelphia and Indiana seem like completely different worlds. The visuals also get an A.
Overall: I really liked this movie. It's not for everyone, particularly if excessive amounts of blood or on screen sex of any kind at all offend you. I can't see a broadcast television clean cut of this movie ever being made that doesn't completely neuter the effect of this movie. It needs the violence and the sex to work, so again, if you don't like those things then you shouldn't watch this movie, although if you are into expanding your point of view then I think maybe you should watch this one anyway because this movie makes a great case for why blood and sex should not be taken away from filmmakers on the grounds that it would negatively affect their art. To everyone else out there, see this movie! All around, I have to give this one a B. It would have been an A if the storyline had been stronger, but it's still a damn good movie. It's well worth your money.
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The story is probably the worst part of this movie. Without summarizing the plot and keeping spoilers to a minimum, if the cops in Indiana and the cops in Philadelphia were to compare notebooks, it would be very easy to identify the killer at the end of this movie. Also, Viggo manages to overcome the odds so many times that it wouldn't surprise me if he were to also win the next week's powerball after the end of the movie, and William Hurt's character even points this out when he has the infamous line to his mooks, “How do you f-ck that up?” Some of the characters are written to be supershallow, such as the two killers at the beginning of the movie and the high school bully. That said, there enough story to keep this movie afloat. I wouldn't have minded a little more, but it gets the job done... but, then again, this movie was nominated for an Oscar for best writing of an adapted screenplay in 2006, so what do I know? C
Acting: There are a lot of great actors in this movie, but I'm going to skip to the Sheriff who is played by the great Peter MacNeill. What? You don't know who Peter MacNeill is? Well, I'm not surprised. He played Hawk on Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future, probably my favorite TV show growing up, even if it only went one season. I want more work for Peter! Anyhow, Maria Bello was amazing(ly hot in that cheerleader outfit) in this movie, Ed Harris isn't on screen very long but leaves a major mark, William Hurt got an Oscar nomination and I support that one, and Ashton Holmes has some of the best facials in this movie I've ever seen. The scene where Maria Bello gets out the shotgun and Viggo runs home and bursts through the door was made by Ashton Holmes reaction as their son, sitting eating his cereal, confused beyond reason about what's going on. I loved that scene, and I think Ashton's reaction could make any scene in any movie funny.
Enough about the supporting characters: How does Viggo do? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. [SPOILER ALERT IS OFFICALLY SET TO FUSIA] I didn't find his portrayal of Tom Stall to be all that convincing, but I almost think they did that on purpose because he's not really Tom Stall. I believed him as the action hero, even in the most implausible circumstances (except when William Hurt shot at him at point blank range three times and somehow managed to miss... Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy, it's the only explanation!) and I believed him when he became Joey again. So, him playing Tom a little fake isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may have been a deliberate thing. [SPOILERS ALERT IS NOW LIFTEDED]
All in all, the acting gets an A!
Direction: The first shot in this movie is almost two minutes long... and it's beautiful. The cinematography in this movie is beautiful. The editing is beautiful. It creates such a brooding mood and it completely sucks you into the movie. The action sequences are over very quickly, but they're good and powerful enough that they'll be the strongest memory that you have of this movie. I also love the way that this movie uses the way the characters have sex to show the differences in their personalities. Cronenberg is one of the best directors working today, and this is one of my favorite performances of his. A
Visuals: The line between direction and visuals is always a bit ambiguous, (I only break them up because Yahoo! movies makes me assign each one a letter grade and I can't give a grade with no explanation why it's there or it becomes meaningless) and it's even more difficult to define with Cronenberg because his strong visuals are so rooted in his style, so I'm using visuals to describe the special effects in this movie. Specifically, the blood. There's lots of it. It's disgusting and yet stylized in an oddly beautiful sort of way. I know the fight sequence with the coffee carafe was done using chroma keying and the results are spectacular. The bullet entry and exit wounds are some of the most realistic I've ever seen. Also, the contrast between the simple country house that the Stall's live in and the elegant mansion in Philadelphia really does an effective job of characterizing the inhabitants for us, but also make Philadelphia and Indiana seem like completely different worlds. The visuals also get an A.
Overall: I really liked this movie. It's not for everyone, particularly if excessive amounts of blood or on screen sex of any kind at all offend you. I can't see a broadcast television clean cut of this movie ever being made that doesn't completely neuter the effect of this movie. It needs the violence and the sex to work, so again, if you don't like those things then you shouldn't watch this movie, although if you are into expanding your point of view then I think maybe you should watch this one anyway because this movie makes a great case for why blood and sex should not be taken away from filmmakers on the grounds that it would negatively affect their art. To everyone else out there, see this movie! All around, I have to give this one a B. It would have been an A if the storyline had been stronger, but it's still a damn good movie. It's well worth your money.
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Repo Man – Directed by Alex Cox – 1984
Strange Little Movie...
Story: The plot of this movie is somewhat difficult to describe and it's even more difficult to make sense out of it. What I can say confidently is that this is a dark, absurdist comedy about a punk kid who gets roped into being a repo man and his bizarre adventures along the way. This movie has a small cult following, so I'm preparing to get ripped apart when I say this, but some of the writing is brilliant, like Fox Harris as a mad scientist bragging about getting a lobotomy or Tracey Walter's bit ranting about how humans must have paradoxical origins in the future, but the rest is just plain terrible. This movie tries way too hard to be smart and hip and edgy. The end result is somewhere between self parody and pretentious bullshit. I know that I'm supposed to laugh at the ridiculousness of lines like, “Let's go do some crimes! Yeah, let's get sushi and not pay!” but instead I just groaned in embarrassment for the movie. So, yeah, the story gets a D, as in doggy.
Acting: There are some really good performances here, the best being Harry Dean Stanton as a very dry, crazed repo man who thinks he's the wisest man alive but doesn't really know anything. Emilio Estevez... I'm not sure what to say. He plays the worst kind of scum on the planet, and he does it well. So, if I was supposed to hate my main protagonist, then I guess he did a good job. If not, if he was supposed to a likeable anti-hero, then he failed. Everything he did, everything he said, and just the look on his face made me want to hit him or hope someone in the movie (which, fortunately they do hit him, so wish granted). As already mentioned, Tracey Walter does a good job and Fox Harris makes a great mad scientist. C
Direction: Again, this is a hard one to call, and it's hard to decide whether I'm complaining about the story or the direction. The timeline just doesn't work in this movie. The big offender comes when Emilio gets ticked when Emilio gets ticked with Harry and gets out of his car in a rage. A completely unrelated scene follows. I'm not sure if said scene was supposed to take place five minutes later, a day later, a week later, or what. Emilio runs into Harry later, and they're fine with each other, as if they never had a fight. Later in the movie, I guess they remembered their little spat, and then they're fighting again. Now, maybe the script was written chronologically and then was pieced together in a different order in post, in which case this is the directors fault. Or maybe it was bad writing. I don't know. I didn't see the script. In any case, both categories suffered. D
Visuals: These were actually pretty good and some of the best laughs in the movie came from the sheer ridiculousness of the visuals. I liked the thing in Fox Harris' trunk and I liked the ending sequence. So, I guess I'll give this a B.
Overall: I ended this movie feeling very conflicted. The things that were good were great, the things that were bad were awful. It is a cult classic, so perhaps you should see it to see what all the fuss is about, but I can only really recommend this movie to those who like arty, surrealist style movies. It's kinda funny at times, but not a gut busting comedy, so I can't recommend it on those grounds. Basically, if you're not an art student and are able to watch it for less that five dollars, it might be worth your time, but only if you've seen all the other movies first. D
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The plot of this movie is somewhat difficult to describe and it's even more difficult to make sense out of it. What I can say confidently is that this is a dark, absurdist comedy about a punk kid who gets roped into being a repo man and his bizarre adventures along the way. This movie has a small cult following, so I'm preparing to get ripped apart when I say this, but some of the writing is brilliant, like Fox Harris as a mad scientist bragging about getting a lobotomy or Tracey Walter's bit ranting about how humans must have paradoxical origins in the future, but the rest is just plain terrible. This movie tries way too hard to be smart and hip and edgy. The end result is somewhere between self parody and pretentious bullshit. I know that I'm supposed to laugh at the ridiculousness of lines like, “Let's go do some crimes! Yeah, let's get sushi and not pay!” but instead I just groaned in embarrassment for the movie. So, yeah, the story gets a D, as in doggy.
Acting: There are some really good performances here, the best being Harry Dean Stanton as a very dry, crazed repo man who thinks he's the wisest man alive but doesn't really know anything. Emilio Estevez... I'm not sure what to say. He plays the worst kind of scum on the planet, and he does it well. So, if I was supposed to hate my main protagonist, then I guess he did a good job. If not, if he was supposed to a likeable anti-hero, then he failed. Everything he did, everything he said, and just the look on his face made me want to hit him or hope someone in the movie (which, fortunately they do hit him, so wish granted). As already mentioned, Tracey Walter does a good job and Fox Harris makes a great mad scientist. C
Direction: Again, this is a hard one to call, and it's hard to decide whether I'm complaining about the story or the direction. The timeline just doesn't work in this movie. The big offender comes when Emilio gets ticked when Emilio gets ticked with Harry and gets out of his car in a rage. A completely unrelated scene follows. I'm not sure if said scene was supposed to take place five minutes later, a day later, a week later, or what. Emilio runs into Harry later, and they're fine with each other, as if they never had a fight. Later in the movie, I guess they remembered their little spat, and then they're fighting again. Now, maybe the script was written chronologically and then was pieced together in a different order in post, in which case this is the directors fault. Or maybe it was bad writing. I don't know. I didn't see the script. In any case, both categories suffered. D
Visuals: These were actually pretty good and some of the best laughs in the movie came from the sheer ridiculousness of the visuals. I liked the thing in Fox Harris' trunk and I liked the ending sequence. So, I guess I'll give this a B.
Overall: I ended this movie feeling very conflicted. The things that were good were great, the things that were bad were awful. It is a cult classic, so perhaps you should see it to see what all the fuss is about, but I can only really recommend this movie to those who like arty, surrealist style movies. It's kinda funny at times, but not a gut busting comedy, so I can't recommend it on those grounds. Basically, if you're not an art student and are able to watch it for less that five dollars, it might be worth your time, but only if you've seen all the other movies first. D
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
The Sandman – Directed by JR Bookwalter – 1995
The Sandman, a movie that has nothing to do with the wrestler or the graphic novel of the same name!
Story: A dream demon named the Sandman is killing people in their sleep. It's not a bad concept, it worked for Freddy, so it could work here. There is something inherently scary about sleep, as you are vulnerable and not completely guaranteed to wake again in the morning. The overall narrative isn't bad. The writing, however, is beyond bad. I suspect that the writer came from a background in prose, as everything gets way over explained instead of relying on the visuals to tell the story. D
Acting: The acting is bad, but I think it could have been salvageable in the hands of a better writer/director/editor. I think the actors must be from live theater backgrounds, as they are way, way overacting. It's painful to watch, especially the Viet Nam veteran, the old lady that's obsessed with toys, and the walking 90's stereotype “cool” surfer-ish kid. Basically, all the actors should have been told to turn it down a few degrees and the script should have given them less monologues and more visual stuff to do to advance the story. D
Visuals: Well, the Sandman man looks like a giant Jawa from Star Wars mixed with one of the creatures in John Carpenter's The Fog. The main message is that it looks cheap, but passable as long as it stays in the shadows and the audience never gets a good look at him. Unfortunately, this is not the case as we get to see every glorious inch of him. The end result is not good. D
Direction: This director knows what a wide shot is. That's about it. He also doesn't seem to be aware that he can use takes that are less than ten minutes long. Again, movies are not live theater. The camera can get closer to the actor, and we don't have to hover on one angle for eternity. Also, the director and/or the editor should have trimmed each scene down to the point where the message was delivered and moved on. The direction is the big failure in this movie, because the script and the acting, while they weren't good, they could have been fixed by a competent director. F! F! F!!!
Overall: I can't really recommend this movie to anyone except for those who enjoy watching bad movies simply to poke fun at them. There was potential here, and I hope the writer/director learned the right lessons from his failing here, but skip this movie. If you see it for sale, run, don't walk. F
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: A dream demon named the Sandman is killing people in their sleep. It's not a bad concept, it worked for Freddy, so it could work here. There is something inherently scary about sleep, as you are vulnerable and not completely guaranteed to wake again in the morning. The overall narrative isn't bad. The writing, however, is beyond bad. I suspect that the writer came from a background in prose, as everything gets way over explained instead of relying on the visuals to tell the story. D
Acting: The acting is bad, but I think it could have been salvageable in the hands of a better writer/director/editor. I think the actors must be from live theater backgrounds, as they are way, way overacting. It's painful to watch, especially the Viet Nam veteran, the old lady that's obsessed with toys, and the walking 90's stereotype “cool” surfer-ish kid. Basically, all the actors should have been told to turn it down a few degrees and the script should have given them less monologues and more visual stuff to do to advance the story. D
Visuals: Well, the Sandman man looks like a giant Jawa from Star Wars mixed with one of the creatures in John Carpenter's The Fog. The main message is that it looks cheap, but passable as long as it stays in the shadows and the audience never gets a good look at him. Unfortunately, this is not the case as we get to see every glorious inch of him. The end result is not good. D
Direction: This director knows what a wide shot is. That's about it. He also doesn't seem to be aware that he can use takes that are less than ten minutes long. Again, movies are not live theater. The camera can get closer to the actor, and we don't have to hover on one angle for eternity. Also, the director and/or the editor should have trimmed each scene down to the point where the message was delivered and moved on. The direction is the big failure in this movie, because the script and the acting, while they weren't good, they could have been fixed by a competent director. F! F! F!!!
Overall: I can't really recommend this movie to anyone except for those who enjoy watching bad movies simply to poke fun at them. There was potential here, and I hope the writer/director learned the right lessons from his failing here, but skip this movie. If you see it for sale, run, don't walk. F
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day – Directed by Troy Duffy – 2009
More Fun with Guns and God!
Story: The story is very similar to the first movie. In fact, I'm going to say that this is the Evil Dead 2 of the series in that it borders on being a remake of the first movie with a higher budget, better special effects, larger cast, etc. This isn't a bad thing, we're not in Ghostbusters 2 territory. In many ways, they fixed some problems I had with the first movie, specifically the fact that [SEMI-SPOILER ALERT] the cops in the first movie weren't really penalized for assisting the Saints. Whether I agree with the morality of what they were doing or not, there needed to be a price for breaking the law and this time there was a price. The script doesn't really address the morality of what the Saints are doing. It's very much saying, “These are the good guys, like them or leave them.” It's even more cut and dry than the first movie. In fact, the only character who questions the morality of the Saints is the Roman who, for the record, is the big bad in this movie. C
Acting: Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus are Connor and Murphy. The instant they appeared on camera, they were in character. I applaud. Billy Connolly is one the most versatile actors of our day and plays Il Duce completely different than Fido or Father Joseph Crissman or any of the other characters he's played in his extensive career, and he brings the goods this time too, adding an extra layer to the dark, quiet man of mystery that he played in the first movie. Clifton Collins Jr. has some of the funniest moments in this movie and they all work. Now... about Julie Benz... she's hot, which she was supposed to be, and she has great lines, but I didn't like her accent in this movie. I wish she would have done the lines normally, I think it would have been a stronger performance. I was glad to see David Della Rocco appear in a way that maintained the fact that [SPOILER... IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FIRST ONE YET, IN WHICH CASE I MUST ASK WHY YOU'RE READING THIS?] he's dead, and again his lines are some of the most quotable in the movie. B
Visuals: The visuals are a lot of fun in this movie. Some of the best parts are when we get to see how the Saints imagine one of their raids going down (in a smooth, Matrix style take down where their hairs never gets messed up) versus reality (it hits the fan). Gun aficionados will love the weaponry that gets brought to the table. Did I already mention that Julie Benz was hot? B
Direction: The mood remains fairly light hearted up until the end of the movie, like the first one. I have to say that if Troy Duffy really was the jerk that Overnight made him out to be, I really don't think that as many cast members from the first movie would have returned as they did, because this was never destined to be a huge payday. The only reason they could have possibly come back was because they had fun making the first one and wanted to meet up with those guys again. Now, Troy Duffy won't be completely vindicated in my eyes until he makes a different movie that's not a remake of the first Boondock Saints, which oddly may be the third in this series as the ending of this one teased “sequel” very hard. Hey, Army of Darkness was way different from Evil Deads 1 and 2, but Sam Raimi also made other movies in between those ones, so we'll see what happens. B
Overall: This movie isn't going to win any major awards. The critics have certainly hate it, the kindest review I've seen being A.O. Scott inventing a new category of “see it drunk.” The story is the weakest link in this chain, but fans of the first movie will love this movie. I think you should watch it, but make sure to watch the first one before you see this one. And watch out for the return of the cat. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The story is very similar to the first movie. In fact, I'm going to say that this is the Evil Dead 2 of the series in that it borders on being a remake of the first movie with a higher budget, better special effects, larger cast, etc. This isn't a bad thing, we're not in Ghostbusters 2 territory. In many ways, they fixed some problems I had with the first movie, specifically the fact that [SEMI-SPOILER ALERT] the cops in the first movie weren't really penalized for assisting the Saints. Whether I agree with the morality of what they were doing or not, there needed to be a price for breaking the law and this time there was a price. The script doesn't really address the morality of what the Saints are doing. It's very much saying, “These are the good guys, like them or leave them.” It's even more cut and dry than the first movie. In fact, the only character who questions the morality of the Saints is the Roman who, for the record, is the big bad in this movie. C
Acting: Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus are Connor and Murphy. The instant they appeared on camera, they were in character. I applaud. Billy Connolly is one the most versatile actors of our day and plays Il Duce completely different than Fido or Father Joseph Crissman or any of the other characters he's played in his extensive career, and he brings the goods this time too, adding an extra layer to the dark, quiet man of mystery that he played in the first movie. Clifton Collins Jr. has some of the funniest moments in this movie and they all work. Now... about Julie Benz... she's hot, which she was supposed to be, and she has great lines, but I didn't like her accent in this movie. I wish she would have done the lines normally, I think it would have been a stronger performance. I was glad to see David Della Rocco appear in a way that maintained the fact that [SPOILER... IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FIRST ONE YET, IN WHICH CASE I MUST ASK WHY YOU'RE READING THIS?] he's dead, and again his lines are some of the most quotable in the movie. B
Visuals: The visuals are a lot of fun in this movie. Some of the best parts are when we get to see how the Saints imagine one of their raids going down (in a smooth, Matrix style take down where their hairs never gets messed up) versus reality (it hits the fan). Gun aficionados will love the weaponry that gets brought to the table. Did I already mention that Julie Benz was hot? B
Direction: The mood remains fairly light hearted up until the end of the movie, like the first one. I have to say that if Troy Duffy really was the jerk that Overnight made him out to be, I really don't think that as many cast members from the first movie would have returned as they did, because this was never destined to be a huge payday. The only reason they could have possibly come back was because they had fun making the first one and wanted to meet up with those guys again. Now, Troy Duffy won't be completely vindicated in my eyes until he makes a different movie that's not a remake of the first Boondock Saints, which oddly may be the third in this series as the ending of this one teased “sequel” very hard. Hey, Army of Darkness was way different from Evil Deads 1 and 2, but Sam Raimi also made other movies in between those ones, so we'll see what happens. B
Overall: This movie isn't going to win any major awards. The critics have certainly hate it, the kindest review I've seen being A.O. Scott inventing a new category of “see it drunk.” The story is the weakest link in this chain, but fans of the first movie will love this movie. I think you should watch it, but make sure to watch the first one before you see this one. And watch out for the return of the cat. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Sunshine Cleaning – Directed by Christine Jeffs – 2008
Grizzly Humor Can Be Touching Humor Too!
Story: The storyline follows two sisters who start a business of cleaning up crime scenes, despite having no knowledge of the profession. This sounds like it should be the beginning of a farce or a very, very dark comedy. Sunshine Cleaning is neither... okay there is a significant amount of dark humor, but over all the movie is actually quite touching. It's mostly about not living up to the expectations that others have of you and finding your own way to happiness, even that path means cleaning up disgusting body parts along the way. This movie has a lot of heart to it but I also laughed my ass off, so props to the story department. My only complaint is that the story about the mother of Amy Adams and Emily Blunt's characters wasn't quite as subtle as everything else in this movie and I think that might have helped some. B
Acting: I wanted to see this movie because Amy Adams was in it. So, she sold me on it and completely delivered. Emily Blunt does a great of playing her sister, and she sports a very good American accent in this movie. Alan Arkin always brings the goods. Clifton Collins Jr. plays a very good, very subtle character, quite different from his very loud but equally good performance in Boondock Saints II. Absolutely no complaints from the acting department. A!
Direction: This is movie felt gritty without being too depressing. Like walking into the life or lives of people with the worst luck in the world, and yet they're so optimistic that you firmly believe that they're going to make it out okay. This doesn't really detract from the drama either. Some scenes felt a little heavy handed, but by and large Christine Jeffs got the job done. B
Visuals: This movie was very brown. People wore lots of brown, the buildings were brown, and sky and walls all seemed to be parked somewhere between tan and brown. Even Amy's hair seemed more brown than red, suggesting a filter on the camera. This was obviously deliberate, and I'm going to guess that the symbolism in using lots of earth tones was meant to make the movie seem normal, possibly even bland looking, in order to contrast the quirky, bizarre storyline. I have something of a celebrity crush on Amy Adams and very enjoyed her scenes with Steve Zahn because of it (and yes, I'm tossing this in the visuals category). B
Overall: I really liked this movie and I can't think of anyone who wouldn't, or perhaps that should be 'shouldn't,' because realistically speaking, there's bound to be someone who from the action movie crowd who thinks this is boring and too emotional, and there's bound to be some crusader for clean entertainment who objects to the subject matter, and to all them I say, “Screw you! Give the movie a chance, you'll enjoy it!” I think that you should see this movie. It's well worth at least fifteen bucks. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The storyline follows two sisters who start a business of cleaning up crime scenes, despite having no knowledge of the profession. This sounds like it should be the beginning of a farce or a very, very dark comedy. Sunshine Cleaning is neither... okay there is a significant amount of dark humor, but over all the movie is actually quite touching. It's mostly about not living up to the expectations that others have of you and finding your own way to happiness, even that path means cleaning up disgusting body parts along the way. This movie has a lot of heart to it but I also laughed my ass off, so props to the story department. My only complaint is that the story about the mother of Amy Adams and Emily Blunt's characters wasn't quite as subtle as everything else in this movie and I think that might have helped some. B
Acting: I wanted to see this movie because Amy Adams was in it. So, she sold me on it and completely delivered. Emily Blunt does a great of playing her sister, and she sports a very good American accent in this movie. Alan Arkin always brings the goods. Clifton Collins Jr. plays a very good, very subtle character, quite different from his very loud but equally good performance in Boondock Saints II. Absolutely no complaints from the acting department. A!
Direction: This is movie felt gritty without being too depressing. Like walking into the life or lives of people with the worst luck in the world, and yet they're so optimistic that you firmly believe that they're going to make it out okay. This doesn't really detract from the drama either. Some scenes felt a little heavy handed, but by and large Christine Jeffs got the job done. B
Visuals: This movie was very brown. People wore lots of brown, the buildings were brown, and sky and walls all seemed to be parked somewhere between tan and brown. Even Amy's hair seemed more brown than red, suggesting a filter on the camera. This was obviously deliberate, and I'm going to guess that the symbolism in using lots of earth tones was meant to make the movie seem normal, possibly even bland looking, in order to contrast the quirky, bizarre storyline. I have something of a celebrity crush on Amy Adams and very enjoyed her scenes with Steve Zahn because of it (and yes, I'm tossing this in the visuals category). B
Overall: I really liked this movie and I can't think of anyone who wouldn't, or perhaps that should be 'shouldn't,' because realistically speaking, there's bound to be someone who from the action movie crowd who thinks this is boring and too emotional, and there's bound to be some crusader for clean entertainment who objects to the subject matter, and to all them I say, “Screw you! Give the movie a chance, you'll enjoy it!” I think that you should see this movie. It's well worth at least fifteen bucks. B
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Bad Biology – Directed by Frank Henenlotter – 2008
Intriguing concept, deep metaphors, shocking imagery, but is it a watchable movie?
Story: The story follows Charlee Danielson (that's the allegedly actress' name, not the character's name, fyi) and Anthony Sneed, a guy and girl who are sexually enhanced at the biological level. The story follows their attempts to fit into society with their physical problems and their search for sexually compatible partners that don't die immediately after the experience.
I have to give Henelotter, who wrote and directed this movie, props for coming up with an intriguing story. The statements made through this movie about how sex is treated in society are fairly valid, and the humor is extremely morbid and over the top. This movie is in a similar vein to Teeth, but goes much, much further, which is also its dividing point. I know many people who couldn't sit through Teeth, and they don't have a chance with this movie. B
Acting: The acting isn't bad, as I've certainly seen much, much worse in the B-horror scene. It should be noted that this movie employs several porn actors and actresses, probably because of the sheer quantity of sex in this movie, and none of it is implied: We see everything. But, the two main players get the job done well. Props to both. B
Direction: I understand that Frank Henenlotter has a very close following and that his movies are typically strange, but this is the first movie of his that I've seen. I spent of the movie laughing at the sheer ridiculousness of what I was seeing, and I hope that's what I was supposed to be doing. If so, then he accomplished his job. Additionally, the movie made me feel damn uncomfortable watching it, and I would never, ever watch this with my mother. Again, he was probably going for shock value, and I can't fault him for that, but I do think it will be too much for most mainstream movie fans and probably even most casual horror fans. C
Visuals: I've seen pornographic movies with just about the same quantity of sex and nudity as can be found in this movie. There are nude males and nude females. And, [SPOILER ALERT] there's also a giant monster penis in this movie. It's stop animated. We get to see lots of it. Close ups, wide shots, point of view shots, all different views of of the giant penis monster. If you're not okay with that, then you shouldn't watch this movie. If you're okay with it or intrigued by it, then this movie is for you. [SPOILERS OVER, YOU MAY OPEN YOUR EYES]
B
Overall: Based on the grades I'm giving each segment of this movie, you'd probably think that I liked it, right? Well, not really. It did what it set out to do, and I commend it for that. The sheer audacity of making a movie like this has earned this writer/director my respect, and even though I like the idea of this movie, when viewed. . . it's not what I'd really call enjoyable experience. I definitely like the concept better than the viewable product. So, should you watch it? Maybe. I saw it once. I doubt I'll ever watch it again. If you're at that weird cross section of wanting to see sexual liberation in movies, deep metaphors in movies, and lots and lots of gross out disgusting things in movies, then see it. If the concept intrigues you but you're concerned about how it plays out, I'd say watch it if you can find it for less than three dollars, or if they happened to be playing it at the horror movie convention that you're at, like I was when I saw it. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Story: The story follows Charlee Danielson (that's the allegedly actress' name, not the character's name, fyi) and Anthony Sneed, a guy and girl who are sexually enhanced at the biological level. The story follows their attempts to fit into society with their physical problems and their search for sexually compatible partners that don't die immediately after the experience.
I have to give Henelotter, who wrote and directed this movie, props for coming up with an intriguing story. The statements made through this movie about how sex is treated in society are fairly valid, and the humor is extremely morbid and over the top. This movie is in a similar vein to Teeth, but goes much, much further, which is also its dividing point. I know many people who couldn't sit through Teeth, and they don't have a chance with this movie. B
Acting: The acting isn't bad, as I've certainly seen much, much worse in the B-horror scene. It should be noted that this movie employs several porn actors and actresses, probably because of the sheer quantity of sex in this movie, and none of it is implied: We see everything. But, the two main players get the job done well. Props to both. B
Direction: I understand that Frank Henenlotter has a very close following and that his movies are typically strange, but this is the first movie of his that I've seen. I spent of the movie laughing at the sheer ridiculousness of what I was seeing, and I hope that's what I was supposed to be doing. If so, then he accomplished his job. Additionally, the movie made me feel damn uncomfortable watching it, and I would never, ever watch this with my mother. Again, he was probably going for shock value, and I can't fault him for that, but I do think it will be too much for most mainstream movie fans and probably even most casual horror fans. C
Visuals: I've seen pornographic movies with just about the same quantity of sex and nudity as can be found in this movie. There are nude males and nude females. And, [SPOILER ALERT] there's also a giant monster penis in this movie. It's stop animated. We get to see lots of it. Close ups, wide shots, point of view shots, all different views of of the giant penis monster. If you're not okay with that, then you shouldn't watch this movie. If you're okay with it or intrigued by it, then this movie is for you. [SPOILERS OVER, YOU MAY OPEN YOUR EYES]
B
Overall: Based on the grades I'm giving each segment of this movie, you'd probably think that I liked it, right? Well, not really. It did what it set out to do, and I commend it for that. The sheer audacity of making a movie like this has earned this writer/director my respect, and even though I like the idea of this movie, when viewed. . . it's not what I'd really call enjoyable experience. I definitely like the concept better than the viewable product. So, should you watch it? Maybe. I saw it once. I doubt I'll ever watch it again. If you're at that weird cross section of wanting to see sexual liberation in movies, deep metaphors in movies, and lots and lots of gross out disgusting things in movies, then see it. If the concept intrigues you but you're concerned about how it plays out, I'd say watch it if you can find it for less than three dollars, or if they happened to be playing it at the horror movie convention that you're at, like I was when I saw it. C
Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
