Reviews

11 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Great Script - No Direction
20 June 2007
I loved this movie in spite of itself. Great script, great gags, good characters, but it was like it was directed by a wet sock. I love the Loser Genre and they really nailed that it is a character-based and pain-based genre but it had all the directorial panache of a youtube video web log. It was as though the camera was just set up and the director walked away leaving the actors w/o guidance. It walks a thin line of funny and sad but some things, especially the sound mixing, hew way too far towards sad. Partially giving away the game. Anyway, loved it because I love the writing, characters, story, actors, and genre, but penalty of 3 stars for the dismal directing. Edgar Wright could've made this material into Citizen Kane, as it is it is still much better than Napoleon Dynamite.
7 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
There is nothing cool in this movie.
3 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is the worst non-Boll horror movie I have ever seen. It is stupid, and bad, and pretentious, but most of all irritating. Every cliché you thought was hilarious as a preteen in the early eighties is reproduced remarkably poorly here. God, Zombie is probably the stupidest non-president American right now. He tries so hard to be cool but creates instead the single lamest thing I have ever seen. And I've seen "Sabrina the Teenaged Witch the Animated Series." Astonishingly irritating. Incoherent. Poorly conceived, written, acted, produced, and edited. Savagely insufficient and inept.

The best part is Michael J. Pollard's slumming cameo. That's right, Michael J. Pollard slumming. This is that movie.

No, it is worse than Boll. Boll is just a hack, Zombie's a pretentious idiot. The only thing making this movie better than "Gods and Generals" is its brevity.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Spoilers Ahoy!
24 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Spoiler: The South Loses. But more to the point this thing is so bad it does not deserve to be called a movie. What's with all the happy slaves? What's with the profoundly unambiguous Southern propaganda kitsch? God this was awful. The weak attempts to show the other side, the winning side, the right side, by recourse to Chamberlain is fully swallowed in the waves after wave of sickening Confederate treacle. It reminded me of 'Triumph of the Will' but with more Jesus. On the other hand it is very long so you get a lot of minutes per rental dollar. Of course if you are a rational and feeling human being you will have to fast forward through a lot of the sap so actual minutes viewed will vary. And I say all this as a descendant of a Confederate soldier. They should all have been hanged from Davis to Lee down to the little drummer boys, such treason did they commit. Likewise anyone associated with this "filmed entertainment" should have their union cards, industry awards, and American citizenship revoked.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
B Movie with Great Pleasures
23 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Sure, this is a B Movie but it is moody and creepy and worth a look. Haunting. I haven't seen it since it was on TV nearly 20 years ago and I can't forget it. The Lemurians are really unsettling weirdos. Sure, Timothy Bottoms is always a little suspicious but pretend he's a young George W. Bush and your path to movie fun is free and clear. It'll be great. Plus, Lisa Blount, can't go wrong there. Generally I'm against so-called reviews which say 'for what it is it's whatever' but in this case, when something does manage to be genuinely unsettling, I give it a go. Not much upsets or disturbs me, but this got under my skin and I think that's worth praising. Write your local congressperson or entertainment conglomerate and demand a North American DVD release. Now!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Knightriders (1981)
10/10
Expecting Camp I Find Art
7 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I really thought I was in store for some classic post-Punk mayhem a la Deathrace 2000 or Dead-End Drive-In (which are both fine movies) but instead I saw one of the best movies I've ever seen. Call me a sap but I had tears welling up in my eyes for the entire last forty minutes. Rarely does clarity of direction and story-telling go hand-in-hand with such an unusual movie. Excellent performances are derived from both the actorly and realist schools and even a little over-the-top style but the different kinds don't clash, they combine to make it a fuller, richer film altogether.

I had never really wondered what it would be like if Christopher Lee and Meadowlark Lemon had a son but now I know.

Beautiful camera-work and a truly human sympathy for even minor characters (Julie Dean on her porch, the Troubadour talking to King Billy) make all scenes watchable and invaluable.

This movie is humane and beautiful. A real treat. Odd as hell, to be sure, but remarkable.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Spoilers Ahoy!
21 March 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Funny enough I suppose. Unfortunately it will remind you of how odious and self-important many comedians are. But when writers from 'Yes, dear' aren't talking about 'the craft' it's a fine enough waste of time. When Bob Saget and Paul Reiser make you laugh there's something not quite usual going on. I suppose that's the upswing, hacks redeeming themselves somewhat. And when this movie is funny it is very funny. Fred Willard, Jake Johanssen, Sarah Silverman, Billy the Mime, and Taylor Negron, steal the show as far as I'm concerned. Phyllis Diller is in this movie but unfortunately so are her arms which are possibly the two scariest things I have ever seen. Those wings of hers are a memento mori like none I've ever seen. It's like they are already decaying.
7 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie will blow your mind.
1 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
How could anything, anything, possibly be this bad? People (there were others in the theater!) were talking on cell phones and just to each other -- AND NOBODY MINDED! We were glad for the distraction. Every cliché, no innovations. I've seen a lot of bad movies but I am embarrassed to have seen this. Not a single shred of redeeming material. If they had set it in Vancouver and not just filmed it there it would have improved 114% because then it would at least have the novelty of being about demons running amok in Canada. It is, by the way, the perfect, the ne plus ultra, of Tara Reid vehicles. She mouth-breathes her way through this bullflop like a catfish in a car seat.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I saw National Treasure, and it is one! Spoilers Ho!
22 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Not really, just a little Monheitisme. Wow! This is a bad movie. Really quite stupid but for some reason I have to admit I'm not offended by it. By a movie which actually, truly, and literally desecrated the graves of my ancestors. By a movie which excreted a combination or urine and feces from its unholy cloaca onto my chosen profession (history). By a movie so obviously repeatedly and with malice aforethought script-doctored that it is forced into the corner of commenting on its own poor writing. This is a terrible and stupid movie. Yet somehow not as offensive as most Bruckheimer movies. If you like seeing Nicolas Cage, Christopher Plummer, Harvey Keitel, Jon Voigt, and some hot German chick disgrace themselves, well, this is the movie for you. Let me just say these two specific things, the freezing and thawing of the oceans would rip a ship apart in 200 hours nonetheless 200 years. Why the hell would the Masons try and hide treasure from the British? They're third only to the US and Switzerland in being Masonically entwined.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Eureka (1983)
8/10
Well worth it. Spoilers Ahoy!
25 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
I loved this movie. Often surrealist wackiness doesn't do it for me, especially if blended into more straightforward narrative, but this film did it, did it well, and made it work. The first act (the wackiest) is beautiful and no matter how strange totally fitting with the rest of the movie. A lot of the previous commentors or summarizers seem to have gotten the facts of the movie a bit skewed, the McCanns live in the Bahamas during World War II, the courtroom scene (which I think worked perfectly) switches the focus not to Claude Maillot van Horn but to Jack's daughter. The murder is truly nauseating and I have a pretty decent tolerance. The story is based on a true story, the odd life and unpleasant end of Sir Harry Oakes but Roeg goes with a more personal story than anything I've ever heard about Oakes. In real life he was the victim of a dispute between HRH the Duke of Windsor, governor of the Bahamas, and the Mafia..
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Creep-tastic!
18 October 2004
The story of Yukio Mishima's life frankly disturbs me too much to read his work. I know that's no good but that's the way it is. This movie really makes me seriously consider just soldiering through some, though. If Americans do story, Europeans, character, and the Japanese atmosphere then this movie belongs solidly in the Japanese school (in spite of actual production credits). Hardly a minute passes in which you do not find yourself thinking "Hm, what the hell was that all about? I'm scared. Scared of this movie. Scared of English people, children, kitties, beards, death, and the universe." That's a hell of an accomplishment. The end is handled brilliantly.
5 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Smashing! Boffo!
18 October 2004
No, seriously, I really like this movie. It gives me the creeps and makes me feel uncomfortable. That's hard to do. I think a great double feature to show kids would be this and "The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea." Well, maybe not for kids but for people like me who were so young in the 70s as to have very nearly only sense memories of the time. Compare this to the treacly "Stand by Me" and the infantile "Goonies." I don't mean to suggest those are bad movies, but they don't treat kids or childhood very seriously. "Stand by Me" over-sentimentalizes and "Goonies" shrouds it in childish escapism (which makes it a very fun movie). There was a brief shining moment, now long past, when a significant number of adults gave youth credit for being human. This movie is flawed in many ways but it is a disquieting exemplar of a sadly missed philosophy of the arts of and for adolescence.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed