Change Your Image
Piper-10
Reviews
Eyes Wide Shut (1999)
STANLEY KUBRICK IS MY HERO!
This movie rocks. That Kubrick has died makes me very, very sad. Now, I'm only left with David Lynch and possibly Terry Gilliam. Like Kubrick, Lynch and Gilliam (and there are a few others, I know, but I'm trying to keep this rant short) seem to understand one thing:
If you're really into making a great movie, you're usually going to run the risk of offending your Titanic-loving, Backstreet-boys-obsessed mainstream audience. The simple problem is that people too often equate entertainment with easy feelings. I'm sorry, but I absolutely hate the fact that every single blockbuster dictates my feelings to me. Listen, hey--James Horner has that fake chorus singing so happily; it sure is great that Old Rose is going to see Bill Paxton. yippee-yay! What a load of crap.
here it is, folks, plain and simple:
Titanic: three-hour love story that shows you how two young punks had a little fling before a ship sank (and THAT's the epic here?) Verdict: Loved by billions everywhere.
Eyes Wide Shut: three-hour love story that shows you how two married people came to terms with each others lust, and leaves you the space to interpret different sexual situations on your own. Verdict: Hated and despised by billions everywhere.
Well, fine. If all you people really want is to chew bubble-gum and watch stupid, cheesy relationships that have no substance, no character, and no depth, then go right ahead and bash Eyes Wide Shut.
Me? I'm building a shrine to Kubrick. Like it or not, the man never catered to the groundlings in the theater. He just made breathtaking films.
Ahead of his time, miles ahead of most audiences.
Anyone remember what happened when they first screened 2001: A Space Odyssey?
How do you spell deja vu?
The Howling (1981)
It's good? What a shock.
I didn't expect to really be scared by a werewolf movie, but, nevertheless, this one got me.
Why? I don't know. I'm so immune to horror movies these days, but when I went out and rented The Howling, I was delightfully surprised to actually be...afraid? Weird.
I've seen it several times now, and it gets me every time I watch it. Dante and Sayles did something right, because this movie is one of the most frightening, well-honed werewolf movies out there.
In fact, it's one of the only really scary werewolf movies.
How'd they do that? How did they make me so afraid of eating hamburger?
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Clever cinematography; very clever marketing
Okay, okay, so it's low-budget. Think about why (just for a second, though--the movie really isn't worth that much thought). Were these two cinema dilettantes millionaires? did they have slick access to millions? No. They had, what? Thirty grand. So they made a movie with what they had. To consider it a stroke of genius that they made something low-budget is to give the filmmakers too much respect; they did what they could with what they had. It was not a choice, but rather a necessity.
That aside, I would like to mention that although easily the most enticing part of the whole show, the pedestrian cinematography and is-it-real-or-is-it-not debate works as much against the movie as it does for it. I found myself picking the movie apart as it progressed, determining for myself the parts that showed it to be just a thirty-thousand pet project. Oh? Piles of stones? Hmmm...verdict? Cheesy! Of course this isn't real! But hey, she looks kinda scared...verdict? Cheesy! Who really swears that much when they really know what they want to say? Of course this movie's a fake! They're searching for their lines amidst massive quantities of vulgar expletives!
Final verdict: This is one for the marketing execs' books, but overall it's a gimmicky piece of crap, and I live in fear of what it may spawn. The Children of the Blair Witch? I guess it's time to start bringing Dramamine to the local multiplex.
Twin Peaks (1990)
best ever? oh my yes indeed!
This show gets me. It focuses in on all things human and all things frightful. I can't say enough good things about this show. When I hear that opening music and see that bird and the mill and the Twin Peaks sign--well, I know I'm home. If you haven't seen this show, you haven't been watching anything worthwhile.
The Exorcist (1973)
Seen it twice, missed the boat both times
I do apologize. I think this movie stinks to high heaven, and that depresses me because I really like to be scared.
Problems: Linda Blair, spewing obscenities and foul liquids, is a heinous creature. But she's all that's good about this movie. The external characters barely hold my interest. And the whole debate/discussion about good and evil barely scratches the surface of anything called true discussion. Of course no one wants to believe in the existence of evil. Is that supposed to be a shock? The filmmakers seemed to think so, but I felt insulted.
Look--I know what horror is, and I'm the first one to jump on the bandwagon of chastizing people who equate scary with jumpy. I detest so-called horror films that teach the maxim of scariness being how often someone can really get you by jumping out from the closet and saying, "Boo!" Horror is a reaction, it's a mood, it's a feeling. Horror is looking at Raegan and saying, "That's Evil!" Horror is watching Rosemary of "Rosemary's Baby" realize what really has been going on with her neighbors, and just what it is they want of her. But to bring all this back to "The Exorcist", the truly horrific parts of the show are only two seconds long! For the most part, the viewer is stuck watching boring characters who have no flair, no substance, and no interesting qualities. And what of the scenes that end with poor exorcists dodging flying furniture and then never bother to tell you how the priest got out of such a situation? I do apologize, but this film is heinous. It's heinous, dull, and I really am mystified by all the attention people have given it.
Best horror film of all time? Gimme a break. Watch "Rosemary's Baby", "Alien", or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" circa 1978 and tell me you feel the same way. "The Exorcist" is no more a classic horror film than "Street Trash". Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.
Trainspotting (1996)
So Incredibly Courageous
Watching this film is like watching water pour. It has everything I love in a film: a great, flawed protangonist who lacks obnoxious self-pity and who is so easy to like it's eerie; a crackling script that refuses to get weighed down as films such as "Clockers" do; and the movie has incredible guts (consider baby Dawn and such things like dirty sheets at breakfast--where have you ever seen anything like that? Nowhere! No one else dares!). Everything about this film is fresh, original, and fun. Yes, I said fun. Sure, it's disturbing--but have you ever had such a great time being disturbed?
Scream (1996)
A wicked and helacious ride
A good deal of horror fails in the reactions of the critical characters in the plot. "Scream" suceeds, from the start, with reaction. It isn't enough to scream--you have to MEAN it. Drew Barrymore looks truly shaken as the beginning of the movie hammers her poor psyche. From that moment, one thing was clear:
This movie was coming from a place that it knew to be in dire need of reform. That there was any thought given by Kevin Williamson to how atrocious horror movies had become gave me a charge. I realized that the movie was going to play with my expectations, and as a die-hard, horror-movie addict who can't give up on the genre despite myself, I realized I was in for a ride and a half. Perhaps I was lucky to see "Scream" at its East Coast debut. The crowd was wonderful, and the feelings were all celebratory, because not one of us had seen a trailer or knew anything about what was to follow. Such a thing complemented the film's attitude of taking you by surprise to dish out something fresh, something new, something that was aware of all the standard pit-falls.
The writing was good, yes. Sure. The direction was precise, yes. Sure (save for that one boom shadow and a few quick cuts that don't seem to fit), but what hooked me most were the characters, acted wonderfully by Campbell, Arquette, Kennedy, Lilliard, Ulrich, and Cox. What a group of great people, no? Such memorable characters are a pleasant surprise in light of the usual, cardboard actors a horror movie dishes out. "Scream" makes you care about the people dying, even if they're not around very long.
Though despite it all, it's the seedy core of the movie that gets me the most: the rape and promiscuity of Sydney's mother as well as the absolutely vicious attack scenes show guts, so to speak. It eliminates a great deal (not all, however), of what I consider the Hollywood Barrier. You know the feeling--that feeling of restraint on the part of the killer. That feeling that the evil It, or evil He, or evil She would LOVE to go further, would LOVE to kill as it is created to do, but can't, because, well, who would want to see that? "Scream"'s opening sequence goes further than most films would dare, and I greatly admire that.
Killing Zoe (1993)
A Good, Honest Job
Cute, original, and funny, but lacking in a coherent structure. Avary's film has a lot of spontaneity, character, and wit--traits that made Tarantino such a big success--but he lacks Tarantino's most off-putting characteristic: Avary doesn't seem to want to be better than he is, nor hipper than he is. The flaw of his style is that "Killing Zoe" lacks enough serious development. After getting into the bank, the movie flattens out. It's still a romp, but I wouldn't say it's a fully-realized picture.
Scent of a Woman (1992)
Al Pacino goes nuts, and I love it!
I've heard this criticized for weak structure (culminating with a very-contrived courtroom ending), and I've even heard people criticize Al Pacio's acting, but I really don't care. I love this movie. I love Pacino going nuts on Headmaster Trask. I love Pacino going nuts on his family. I love Pacino going nuts on his idiotic costar (really, Chris O'Donnell is the biggest flaw in this flim--couldn't we have had Matt Damon or someone else for this part? O'Donnell is weak in his performance, lacking the necessary resolve to face off with someone like Lt. Col. Frank Slade).
There's joy in this movie, if you want it. There's a wonderful glee that can be obtained from lines such as, "Outta order? I SHOW you outta order! You don't know what outta order IS, Mister Trask. I'd show ya, but I'm too old, I'm too tired, I'm too f------ blind. If I were the man I was five years ago, I'd take a FLAMETHROWER to this place!"
And there is case in point of way Pacino deserves the hype he gets. That flamethrower thing--that's a bad line. But Pacino, God that he is, makes it convincing and severely threatening. He has the intensity to turn bad lines like that into good lines. That is genius, and it makes for enjoyable films.
"How's that for corn ball?"
Communion (1989)
Freaking me out with those big, black eyes!
This movie remains one of Walken's best performances to date. Forget "Deer Hunter", he is one of two things that carry this film. It's him and the aliens, and that's it, but what a great film, anyway. The X-Files, though a good show, never quite reaches the level of freakiness that "Communion" has in moments like those in which Walken confronts the aliens. At one point, he states upon waking up to a suspected abduction that, "I don't want to think about that so, I go back to bed." There are so many classic lines of dialogue between Walken and the aliens that the movie reaches a point where it seems almost like a bizarre, personal delusion--portrait of a madman rather than alien abductions.
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Children's Horror Fable
Admire this movie first for its effective chills. In ways that Stephen King movies have yet to truly master, Craven creates a demon through the use of children's singsong. Admire the movie further for its creativity. Freddy Kruger has power. It seems at times that he can do almost anything that pops into his burnt, child-molesting head. The concept is truly ingenious (who can fight sleep forever?), and Craven's images are definitely worthwhile (consider a bed spewing a fountain of blood that hangs on the ceiling, as well as a girl who, in the grip of a vicious nightmare, bounces around the ceiling herself). Creative and technically adequate, this movie is a true classic of the genre.
Citizen Kane (1941)
One of the Best
Ease the tension. Give it a 10-rating. I'm not sure if I could pick any movie and claim it was the Best Movie of All Time. That's a great deal of pressure. So I ignore such a label, and I watch the film.
"Citizen Kane" is powerful, but it's so well constructed as to give you multiple impressions of Kane that it's hard to realize how emotionally charged this movie is. I love it for lines such as Kane's explanation of what he would've been if he hadn't have been rich: "Everything you hate," he says. And I love the movie because of Welles's voice. You could look at this movie a hundred different ways, and the details would still remain to support you.
It's perhaps one of the most intricately-constructed films I've ever seen, and the honesty in the film is magnificent. This movie does make me sad, because among other questions, it asks this: "If you're remembered after you die for what you did, what you will it be?" And, to me, that's a very sad question to want to ask. A feeling that there is no absolute understanding between people. That it's all skewed by our own personalities. That who you are depends on the paper you chose to read.
How could anyone not think this movie is great? Best film of all time, whatever. The movie is brilliant, one way or another.
Mars Attacks! (1996)
Another Bright Day
So the director of the great and well-respected "Ed Wood" went on to do...what? Oh, he made a flop. The critics hated it. The people hated it. The American President hated it (well, I'm just guessing there, but it sure sounded good).
I loved it.
I loved it because it was "Independence Day" done by a smarter, more whimsical person. Maybe it wasn't funny how everyone thought it would be. Maybe it wasn't suspenseful. Surely, there aren't too many belly-laughs in this movie. So what is it, then? I'll tell you. It's Tim Burton with a phaser, nuking every other major disaster movie around. Y'see, what is the universal factor in disaster movies these days? Why, it's a big cast of great names. Mmm-hmm. And the cast in Mars Attacks!? Well, some characters are only around to get killed right off. Danny DeVito, Michael J. Fox, Christina Applegate--how many lines to they have all combined? Burton turns the genre on its head, celebrating life in the end of the movie with--say, WHAT?--Tom Jones, breaking into song. Could this get any better? I laugh every time I even think about that shot. And the audience? What about the audience? they wanted "ID4"? Yeah. Well. Here's a death ray in your face. Whaddaya think about THAT?!!
Lost Highway (1997)
David Lynch's Confusing Compulsion
Folks, I think I've got an answer. Who was it up there that said something about this being a lesson of sorts in male insecurities? I think there's something to that. Consider: Fred Maddison is obviously bad in bed--the one scene with Renee is in extreme slow motion. Seeing's how I'm short on time, we'll leave that alone.
I just want to tell everyone out there that this film is entirely decipherable. It's a puzzle box, but a deeply rewarding one. Because once you see it, you realize this truly is a wonderful mood piece. It goes not for explanation, which would detract a great deal from the emotional core of the movie, but for expression. The music is an A+ effort, and so is the character of the Mystery Man. Lost Highway is a nice blend of hateful spices, and if you ever do figure out everything about it...forget it. Unlearn it. Look at it as a possibly routine, drab, everyday subject turned magnificent. Because what are we left with? We're left with angst. We're left exposed to our aggressions. We're left feeling the urge to find our own Dick Laurent, who spoiled our innocent women.
Nightbreed (1990)
Breeds what, exactly?
Clive Barker, who can be visionary and horrifying (see Hellraiser and the novel IMAJICA), has dished out a lame, quasi-philosophical, cheesy movie about a man finding, befriending, and helping to save a race of night monsters from the wicked human race. A neat concept, made dull by the fact that any fan of Barker knows just how much he repeats this theme. Though not even too awfully interesting, Barker uses it as though it were the best theme in the world. Nothing is less scary in a horror movie than the presence of demons that LIKE YOU. Do we really need to watch stupid hicks with guns again, Clive? I think we got your message THE FIRST THOUSAND TIMES!
Vampire's Kiss (1988)
Oh, dear
Can you say, "Tastes like cardboard?" There are only two reasons to see a movie like this: one, to see Nicolas Cage eat a live cockroach; and two, do you enjoy watching people with fake vampire teeth bite people?
Is this movie original? Maybe. Or maybe it's part of an idea, woefully undeveloped. What's more--is it even an interesting idea? Could be, it we could only understand the character involved. As things stand, we have no understanding of the main character, no real idea who or what he's killing (if he's killing at all), and no real sense of reality. Watching Cage go nuts is interesting only for true Cage fans. For those who don't know him or don't like him, this film offers nothing, nothing, nothing.
Near Dark (1987)
To blow it all at the ending! Oh, what shamelessness!
Maybe it's supposed to be fun to watch Bill Paxton overact his way into ridiculous realms. Maybe it's joyous to see foolish, idiotic events in the plot such as a blood transfusion used to turn someone back from being a vampire. Maybe it's fun to then see that would-be-vamp-turned-back-human have a final, macho showdown. Yeah, maybe. Or maybe it would be fun if Bigelow decided the ending of the movie really left a lot to desire and reversed it. Then MAYBE we'd have half a movie. Maybe then, someone would have done something differently. As it is, watch this movie if you want to see what's wrong with horror movies today. Call it, "Good Potential, Drained of Blood."
Hellraiser (1987)
If not for the end...
On my self-created chilli-pepper scale of horror, this movie is definitive habanero. Clive gives us a truly shocking and revolting picture of love beyond the tortures of Hell. The only problems with the movie are its too long, too drawn-out endgame wherein Barker defeats the power of his demons unnecessarily (why DOES Kirstie have to send them back to Hell? why CAN'T we end the movie at Frank's hooked-to-the-hilt line of "Jesus wept" and cut to black? or at max show Kirstie close the door and run out of the house?), and barely-decent characters like Kirstie, her boyfriend, and her father to some extent. Higgins and Bradley make up the difference, and the special effects and a sight to be seen. A horror movie anyone who cares about horror SHOULD NOT MISS, but I would suggest stopping it before Kirstie gets her hands on that stupid box.
LEAVE PINHEAD ALONE! Let him be powerful, Clive. Please, I'm begging you here. And tell the half-wit who wrote the second movie not to kill him off. That completely stinks, Clive. I can't believe you went for that.