Change Your Image
thoughtfox
Reviews
Lone Star (1996)
Lone Star: Filmed In My Hometown
Lone Star was filmed in my hometown of Eagle Pass, Texas. It's a small, dusty, little town sitting on the border between the US and Mexico. I wasn't in town when the film was being made, but my family still lives there, and they saw a lot of the scenes being filmed, as well as a lot of the bloopers and outtakes. My brother is an extra in the film. He's in the classroom scene, and he's sitting behind the Army officer's kid. My brother is wearing a blue, button-down shirt....he borrowed it from my dad. What's funny about this is that the entire classroom is filled with people from Eagle Pass, people I know personally. Anyway, the girls who are sitting at the front of the classroom sat there because they thought, if they took a place at the front of the classroom, they'd get maximum exposure. Well, they didn't. My brother, Derek, who really didn't care about exposure time, sat wherever there was an empty seat, and that spot is where the camera was focused. Also, the "police station," was filmed at the Eagle Pass City Hall building. The "lake" scenes were actually filmed in Del Rio, Texas, which is Eagle Pass's sister sister located less than an hour away. There is one scene where Chris Cooper goes into Mexico, and we follow his car going into Mexico, then another shot follows his car going in the opposite direction. The scene is supposed to relay Cooper's travels into Mexico, but these two shots are actually just two shots of the same car going one way, then the same car going down the same street IN THE WRONG DIRECTION. Pierdras Negras, Mexico is infamous for having only one-way streets, and if you watch carefully, you will see the same motel sign coming and going. The movie was filmed during the early spring....I know because Eagle Pass is HOTTER THAN HELL any other time of the year.Big O's place was actually a building that already existed. It was a dive bar, a hole in the wall, a place where even if you were so Jone's'n for a drink, you'd have to think twice about stepping foot in that place because it was so stank. After the film closed, the sign out front remained, but soon it was changed to something else....a strip bar. It remained open for a while, but then closed, and I'm not sure why. Anyway, if there is anything else you'd like to know about this movie, just email me at thought-fox@excite.com. Until then, enjoy the film.
Alien (1979)
Vagina Dentata
This film preys on mankind's fears of the omnipotent female presence. There are queens, vaginal alien devices,the central computer is called "Mother," and the thought of involuntary impregnation (face huggers), are all metaphorical vehicles on which the notion of power and death rely. This film is poetic, powerful and cinematic. Some feminists may disagree with me and say that my assessment is wrong, but what Scott is doing with all the female metaphors is simply re-instating the ultimate power of the life-giving (the queen laying eggs), life-sustaining (the drones impregnating their human hosts with their own alien species), and equally life-taking (they kill the host body they have used in order to lay their eggs), presence of the mother figure. Women are powerful. We have the capacity to give life or kill it, and this movie is an over simplification of this fact. Is this good? That depends on your point of view.
Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)
Satire in One of Its Finest Cinematic Moments: In Short, FUNNY!
I'd been waiting to see this movie for a long time, and I was not disappointed. From the very beginning, to the very end, the movie will make you laugh. Cohen (Borat) is brilliant, as is the material. The key lies in a hilarious blend of Borat's innocence, naiveté, preoccupation with everything sexual, and Borat's fear of Jewish people. In addition to the material, the film is also hilarious because of Cohen's ability to play the straight man with such conviction, in the presence of complete strangers (usually). Cohen's character pushes the boundaries of nearly every politically incorrect subject, and while this in itself is not funny, the fact that Cohen is making fun of people who are really racist or sexist or bigots in real life IS what's funny. This is what people don't understand. In fact, 5 minutes into the movie, a couple sitting next to me in the theater actually got up and left the theater. This movie, this actor, the character he created (Ali G is equally funny), and the material IS NOT being insensitive or racist or xenophobic or politically incorrect. What this movie is doing is actually making fun of people who are really like this; that's why it's called satire. Cohen is turning the mirror unto the face of the real enemy, ignorance, while simultaneously advertising the scary reality: that there are people in this world who hate others because the color of their skin, or their sexual orientation, or the higher power they worship differs from what they are used to. These people are everywhere; maybe it's your next door neighbor, maybe it's you. So, if you see Borat and find it disturbing, it's either because 1) you don't appreciate the satirical quality of this film; and/or, 2) you are one of these people that the film is making fun of, and don't appreciate the kind of inequality or unfair treatment with which your perspective is being dealt.
The Village (2004)
Major Tease
M. Night Shylayman breaks a very important rule in the realm of storytelling: never film-flam your audience. This is not to say that a director should not invite twists in the plot; but, the way he attempted to make you believe the setting was back in the 1800's, when it was really present day, but he didn't tell you this til the end was wrong. I felt insulted and cheated and let down. It was a cheap and dirty trick in the name of retaining audience attention and awe. Instead of thrilling us, all he managed to do was scam a good paying audience.
Other than the end, the film is actually decent, the premise is scary and disturbing, and the acting is very good. In fact, Bryce Dallas Howard, is the movie's one bright spot.
This movie has gotten mixed reviews, so the best thing to do is to watch the movie yourself.
Christine (1983)
Testosterone, Possession, and Freud
Carpenter's film about a classic muscle car lends itself to notions of the size of a young man's ego, equaled by the size and value of the car he owns. Although this story has been done before, John Carpenter's tale takes on a new twist that challenges the old song and dance of: the bigger my car, the bigger my genitalia, and the longer the list of women made available to me. Christine is a movie adapted from Stephen King's novel of the same name. King has a way of discovering the innermost vulnerabilities of the human psyche, and then splashing them in public for everyone, including the popular kids, to see and revile in; this is the strong point of Carpenter's movie, Christine.
The film takes a young, odd, effeminate high schooler, one who is domineered by a harpy of a mother, and becomes empowered via the mechanical, sexual prowess of a classic muscle car of the 50s. This power equation is soon tipped in favor of the inanimate object, a fetish, if you will, of the muscle car, and young Arnie Cunnigham finds himself at the mercy of Christine.
Once Christine realizes she has him in her grasp, a ploy she has had all along, since her power comes alive when an insecure young chap like Arnie comes around, Christine turns on her newfound "lover," and evolves into the quintessential bitch. Christine replaces Arnie's mother as the domineering female figure in his life, but instead of being satisfied by simply dominating him, Christine completely takes over Arnie'a life, and eventually, she is the cause of his total demise.
Although I disagree with the way women are projected in this film (as harpies, bitches, and control freaks), I can appreciate what Carpenter is doing in regard to a young, insecure, outsider high-schooler, and the need for validation in such a crazy world. The credence that Arnie finally discovers in order to make his existence valid, happens to be a car named Christine, and that's as far as gender should be taken into account...arterial, it is just fiction.
Dirty Jobs (2005)
Gives Credence to Jobs Most People Won't Take
Dirty Jobs is an interesting and entertaining show on The Discovery Channel that focuses on plain folks who toil at hard and often less-than-easy-or-clean manual labor. The host, Mike Rowe, is primarily responsible for the show's success for many reasons. First, Mike Rowe is funny and personable with people with whom he visits on the job; so, his humor is never at the expense of others. In fact, there is mutual jib-jabbing going back and forth between Mike and the various employees he visits. Mike has the ability to allow others to be relaxed and more themselves in front of the camera, which is another reason why this series is so successful and enjoyable to watch. The ordinary, everyday and hard-working people Dirty Jobs showcases are the real gems of the show. It gives a real sense of humanity and value to the people who might sometimes be disregarded by the majority of society. When was the last time you ever thought about the person who goes around your neighborhood in the wee hours of the morning to pick up your trash twice a week? Or what about the person who cleans animal feces at the fancy, multimillion dollar city zoo? Or the construction worker who works in 100+ degree heat for hours doing backbreaking work fixing a broken railroad tie? If you've ever wondered about the people who keep the dirty, but essential cogs of our society running smoothly, check out Dirty Jobs hosted by Mike Rowe, and experience a slice of life that few have ever witnessed, and even fewer dare to experience themselves.
Feast (2005)
Instant Cult Classic
We took a chance and bought Feast on DVD, but from the positive talk surrounding this movie, we decided to give it a try. We were not disappointed. Feast is filled with blood, gore, action, scares, and laughs. It is a great blend of horror and comedy, where the dialogue is witty, and the actors are perfectly suited to the characters they play. There are some very funny quips from Balthazar Getty, which have become new catch phrases in our home; and Henry Rollins is very funny as a less than motivating, and somewhat dim-witted motivational speaker. Clu Gulager is great as the bartender. He has not lost his charm, and is as great in Feast, as he is in The Return of the Living Dead.
The women in this flick kick some serious monster butt despite suffering some very serious setbacks. The fact that there are strong, beautiful women in this film who take care of business is made more prominent because of all the characters in the bar, it's the women (well, 2 of them anyway) who take charge when the monsters come knocking. The movie dispels lots of horror film clichés, which is refreshing, and a credit to John Gulager's fine instincts as a first time director. Gulager certainly has an eye for cinematic, visual storytelling, although there are no real "fancy" shots. For example, we don't see panoramic shots; rather our perspective is kept at a very controlled, tight perspective, which heightens your sense of being trapped.
There are no computer generated special effects; rather, the special F/X are good ol' fashioned puppets, and gallons of fake blood. The lack of CGI is a definite plus as is the fast shutter speed, which makes the action and gory sequences eve more crisp and vivid.
We didn't really watch Project Greenlight, just a few episodes now and then, so that is not what was really behind our initial interest in Feast: it was our curiosity regarding all of the talk surrounding this movie. The verdict? The positive talk is definitely well deserved.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)
Visceral Overload, But Short on Plot
Although the producers and directors claimed that this 'nother go-round with chainsaws and blood was intended to be original and fresh; it really isn't. The movie does, however, fill in gaps regarding why certain characters do what they eventually do when we see them in Tobe Hooper's cult masterpiece, the original TCM. For example, we see why Leatherface dons masks, and it has a lot more to do than an disfigured face. The 2006 prequel explains that Leatherface, or "Tommy," as he is called here, was born horribly disfigured, and deemed retarded by various physicians. In Hooper's film, Leatherface is nothing more than a mindless, sadistic killer sans conscience; but, in the 2006 prequel, "Tommy" is more savvy, more responsive to what's around him, which includes knowing his face is repugnant, which is why he "masks"the face he was born with, with human skin.
This movie is gory and filled with graphic killing; body parts are cut off and tossed into a soup for the family's dinner, and one character gets chainsawed in half. Blood and gore and mutilation is not suggested, as it is in Hooper's original movie. In the prequel, you see and hear it all, which makes for a horror fan's dream of what this genre should be all about, and this is what makes the movie tolerable despite the lack of originality in the story.
If you enjoy these kinds of movies, then the lack of an original plot might not deter you, just don't go to the theater expecting something radically new.
What I did find fascinating are the allusions to S&M and bondage, where pain results in pleasure. We see Dean, the draft-card-burning younger brother of the gung ho Marine, Eric (played by Matthew Bomer) being tied to a hotel bed as his girlfriend tries to seduce him. The image of wrists being tied is one that is repeated throughout the film, except that we don't just see wrists being tied, we also see ankles and necks being restrained.
So, for the horror fans who revel in visceral theater experiences, TCM: The Beginning, is a good, safe bet.
The Best of the Electric Company (2006)
Not Really The "Best Of..."
I pursued an advanced degree I'm English for the following reasons:
1) my mom and dad supported my desires;
2) I grew up with a love for reading and writing; 3) this love was perpetuated by my folks AND by their wanting me to watch The Electric Company (and other cool kiddie shows like 3-2-1 Contact, Blue Marble, and Seasame Street....just to name a few).
So, when I bought the "Best of The Electric Company" DVD set, I was a little disappointed. Why? Well, for one reason, the DVD collection repeats more than one "skit," plus it neglects more than one classic skits like: "There's A Hole In The Bottom of My Boat," with Morgan Freeman.
Overall, I am glad I own this DVD collection, because I grew and blossomed in large part to this wonderful children's show. I only wish the DVD collection would have been more definitive and prudent to the thousands of die-hard fans that are out there in fine force today.
5 out of 10.
Grease 2 (1982)
Hard to Beat an Original But...
OK, so it is not the greatest lead up from a great original musical (and classic)like the first movie was; however, it is not entirely that bad in that it is what it is: a good, comfortable, Saturda or Sunda afternoon flick to watch in your PJs.
Grease 2 had a lot of the original "feel good-ness" of the first, but the some of the musical numbers were reall not that good. As an example, the number where Stephanie sings with the "dead" nerd-turned-lover and newl heart throb, Michael Carrington, plaed by Max Caulfield. In addition, the actor taking over Travolta's part (sort of), Zmed, is not the handsome Travolta Danny Zucco is in the original.
All in all, this movie had some pretty big shoes to fill, but it's not a bad little film to help you spend a laz weekend afternoon. So for that kind of entertainment value alone, I give it 5 out 10 stars.
Grease is still the word.
Dot and the Kangaroo (1977)
Fascination
I can't remember the last time I saw this film, but I must've been 8 or 9. I saw it at a friend's house; they had HBO, but we didn't yet just yet. I remember freaking during the Bunyip scenes. It was weird, scary, and creepy. The song was cool though; I always liked the song...the singer had a low, soothing voice, which only made the Bunyip seem even scarier. I also like the mix of live action and animation; it was the first time I'd seen anything like that. Since I haven't seen the movie in more than...well, let's just say I'm not 20 anymore :o), I don't want to make a judgment as far as which animation is better done: Roger Rabbit or Dot and The Kangaroo. I think Dot... was a little less detailed when compared to Roger...so I'm going to say that Dot...is a better animated/live action film. I'm glad to know that there are others who feel the same way do about a a great film.
Mama's Family (1983)
It's Just Simple Fun; No Harm Done
Mama's Family is a sitcom that is simple fun; it's not meant to be serious theatre or promises sublime, complex storylines. It's something to watch on television that is meant to take you out from the daily grind. Mama's Family is akin to The Brady Bunch; they exist to please those who don't expect to have eloquent resolutions to a storyline that's already far from eloquent.
X2 (2003)
Plot Problems
WARNING: SPOILER!
My review of X Men 2 is that it was OK. 7 stars out of 10. I was anxious to see the film, even waited in line for it, but as the credits began to roll, I was filled with more questions than with a satisfied feeling. There are lots of holes in the plot, too many questions left unanswered. If this were intentional because XMen fans would "know", it's unfair and sloppy to the rest of us who are not pros.
Though the film does pick up where it left off, and highlights from the first film, like Logan's sense of humor (though it is not as apparent in X2 because he doesn't have Cyclops to play off of) are present,there are too many problems with the flow of the film in regardso logic.
Here are the findings I could list; I'm only allowed 1,000 words:
1) early on, we are introduced to a cool, silvery fellow whose body richoets bullets. We see him briefly, he offers to help Wolverine, then he disappea rs into a chamber in the school with the other students. And that's it. We never see him again. X3?
2)the secret serum Stiker uses is not explained at all. Where did it come from? How does it work? Why does it work? Singer may have given the rest of us who are not XMen pros too much credit to figure it out on our own.
3) Night Crawler opens the film. Great action sequence, but if he is such a noble and humble and spirtual creature, why would he antagonize the President? Was he given Striker's serum? We assume so. In the church scene, Storm finds the tell-tale sign Striker's serum leaves on the nape of his victim's neck: a mark like that of a burn. But this is never reaized on film.
4)It does not make sense for the XMen to trust Magneto and Mystique so quickly.
5) Jason 134's presence should be more clear; his relationship to Striker and to the movie's central plot to those of us who are not XMen2 pro's. This shadiness skews the film somewhat if you do not follow the film closely because it is the film's pivotal angle. You have to understand Jason's role clearly, otherwise, the film loses clarity.
6)Cyclops' being under the influence of Striker's serum should also be explained. We hardly see him at all in the film, then when we do in the middle, he attacks Jean. We don't see him being given the serum, but apparently he is.
7) Jean Gray dying in the flood is not necessary and avoidable. After she can't hold the water anymore, Night Crawler could have transported to her, retrieved her, then she could have been revived. But they leave her there! The explanation? "She made a choice".
8)Singer teases the audience with the truth about Logan's past. Logan has a few flashbacks in the tank chamber, but maybe there could be more to appease us?
9)I wanted to see more of the other XMen; Wolverine, Storm, Mystique, Magento, Jean Gray, and Striker were the majority of the film.
10) And for those of you who like flubs............When they are at Bobby's house (Iceman), Logan goes outside on the backyard patio, look for about 1/4 of a camera, and a wire, in the upper right hand side of the screen. It's reflected in the sliding glass door behind him.
11)Pyro's desire to team up with Magento is simplistically realized. His roguish nature and refusal to follow the rules are obligatory and obviously leading up to a departure from the "those who follow the rules" (ie the Xmen).
12) Why don't the Xmen show more emotion when they realize Magento turns on them after they foolishly trust him in the first place?
All in all, it is a okay movie, but problems with logic prevent it from being any better
The Ring (2002)
Sophisticated horror
The PG-13 rating got me thinking the film was going to be another awful teen slasher flick, and for the first 30 mins. that's what I though I was in for. However, after the first time the audience sees what "The Ring" (i.e.video) can do, my expectations were raised, as was my attention. The editing is wonderful; fast-paced, cutting, almost violent. The film relies on this among other excellent methods of filmmaking. The film's use of dak color allows for a macabre, creepy, morose, and unsettling feel. The fluidity of motion sustains the high level suspense. What you think is just another ferry ride turns into a first rate chase scene featuring a horse gone mad from an unknown, but malevolent force. This is why the filmmakers could get away with a PG-13 rating. The film is sophistcated; a cut above the rest of other low-grade horror movies because it doesn't need obligatory, bloody, body gashing scenes to provide the audience with a scare factor. The "video tape" is itself a wonderful example of filmmaking. It has an edgy, artsy feel to it. In fact, some of the images in the video aren't fully explained. Some of the images are simply weird and disturbing, but because the images are so striking, they deny need for full explantion. There are a few aspects of The Ring that aren't explained at all, but because they are so visually appealing and shocking, the need for detailed explanation is often not necessary. What I thought was most powerful about the film was the antagonist. It is truly evil, and evil for so many reasons including the fact that the evil is almost omnipotent in nature. It knows where to get you. Victims are killed mercilessly not because they are torn apart or cut in half by some hockey mask wearing man, but because death is the only thing that's certain when the onslaught of The Ring's power is unleashed. The victim is faced with a raw, merciless, and ugly death. And because the origin of the evil is not explained, this adds to the omnious enviroment the film is saturated with. This film is disturbing, and that is where the film's power comes from. Watch The Ring for the adrenalin rush; don't try to make sense out of it. Let it take you where it will, and you will enjoy it much more. The Ring stirs the senses, making us supremely aware of all the things in our world we can't explain. And what we have no explantion for, we are often at the mercy of.
Return of the Living Dead: Part II (1988)
Campy horror that's hard to beat.
The first time I saw this film, the sense of being trapped in a world where zombies were trying to eat my brains overwhelmed me. The film gave me a feel for what it might feel like to be dead ("Why do you eat brains?"---"Because it hurts to be dead!").
I think the primary element that infuses a sense of desperation and futility are the nuclear bombs that the "President" can use in just such an emergency. I mean, what else could you use to rid the world of voracious, unstoppable, brain-eating zombies?
This movie has many unique elements that sets this film apart from others out there. It takes the viewer into a plane of existence many are curious about; the macabre, and all that we as members of the living don't understand...the world of the dead.
Check this movie out and be prepared...Return of the Living Dead probes deep into places we don't like to talk about. And the special effects? They just make for better visuals for the virtual tour into the dark hole some call death. This movie is slick and creepy and, best of all, it's disturbing.