Change Your Image
jenkins-stewart
Reviews
Slayer (2006)
Not bad sci-fi originals! Not bad!
Slayer is a Science Fiction Original movie. You will recognize various actors from other, more expensive films, but the fact remains. However, it is not a bad T.V. movie
there are much worse out there. In fact, Slayer is actually much better than most "A" list vampire movies
notably Underworld, Underworld 2, Dracula 2000, Blade 3 to name a few. The reasons for this are simple
solid production yields better film-making.
Slayer uses sets that appear real: jungles appear to be jungles, caves appear to be caves
you are never transported away instead to the magical realm of "studio lot 57 smothered in cgi" as would be in "A" list film these days. Also, Slayer's actors do their own stunts, and you can actually enjoy the stunts as they are performed because they are not 1. filmed over in cgi or 2. cut up into a million tiny cuts that the obfuscate the actual action. Standards being what they are, these facts will probably count to the movie's discredit
but that would be a sad and foolish thing.
Trite, cliché, and tired
the story is nevertheless coherent, and well structured. The formula of "guy rescues ex wife with the help of plucky sidekick in order to defeat the evil villain who has corrupted his best friend" is something we've all seen before
but here there's less of an effort done to package the formula in complete seriousness than is invested in simply executing it well. It is enough that actors deliver their lines and appear to enjoy being part of the cast
there's an energy that comes from such performances, "pride," if you will. I would rather watch a thousand such camp performances than say, Edward Norton in the remake of The Italian Job, whose passive-aggressive role as villain is only as apt as it reflects his disrespect for the studio and his coworkers. Given that
the dialogue in this film does however border on complete stupidity throughout.
Don't expect anything particular remarkable out of this film. The cgi that is used is VERY dated, the camera-work, while sharp, is noticeably perfunctory, the story is predictable, the gore-effects are see-through
but you know what? Who cares! This film at least, is honest about itself. Most "A" films are this stupid, but there's no love involved in the making, just cold, computed box office estimates and rehashes. The result is crap like Underworld, and Underworld 2, completely "square" films with edges so hard you could cut your teeth on them. Slayer is a good old fashioned, well rounded, action-adventure-horror movie that's a little short on the brains (though it has its moments, including one ode to Apocalypse Now) but big on heart. It is not a creatively bankrupt marketing venture smeared in cgi honey and shoveled down the throats of teenage America
if you're looking for that, go far far away from this one! ((Slayer is a standard action/adventure/horror TV movie. 50% completion plus 20% for above average execution. Not the finest amateur work out there, but better than most
including many (if not all) of the "A" list vampire films of the past few years. 70%))
Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)
"Untrue Romance," or, "Without a Woman's Touch"
All you need to know about this version of the Frankenstein story is that it too is not Mary Shelley's story Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. It is a cinematic adaptation which only loosely follows the bone-dry skeleton of the Romantic novel
that is, its only claim to being "Mary Shelley's" Frankenstein is the inclusion of various details which other treatments ignored entirely. This however, does not mean that it does the neglected material any justice.
The most unfair damage which this treatment does to the original is to remove all the romance and replace it with a lot of Hollywood bluster. For any of you who have read the novel, the way in which various characters in this movie grab each other by the cuffs and go about rudely thrusting one another against hard surfaces will seem quite alien. Gone are the lonely, wistful men of Shelley's novel. In their place are savage, violent, and intemperate movie machos.
The second most criminal offense which this film does to the novel on which it was based is to digress into lengthy, fictitious elaborations upon the story. Frankenstein's education bares no resemblance to his own account in the novel
it is a movie in and of itself
a regular "young Frankenstein." What this movie lacks in intellectual and creative honesty it attempts to make up for with "period authenticity," occasionally dwelling upon the studio's research into the day's scientific foibles rather than furthering the plot. Every time the "cholera epidemic" or "quarantine" is mentioned, you'll know that the film is striving desperately at a historical correlation with more vigor than it attempts to translate Shelley's novel. The actors and actresses want you to believe that they have assumed a character from a different time
but really they sound completely and utterly like themselves. Branagh should be ashamed of himself for his work here
there isn't a romantic bone in his performance throughout. Such work belongs on the stage floor of a shoddy, incestuous English playhouse where actors rapidly spout their lines like barking dogs who never once heard of meter, or the use of a "light touch." Branagh, and his studio, who have brought us many filmic (though schlock) productions of Shakespeare, have woefully underestimated the average horror fan. This film is suitable only as light entertainment, and will enthuse only children who hated the novel. As much a crime to written literature as Peter Jackson's Lord of The Rings films
an "extreme makeover" envisioned by corrupt marketing executives in attempt to keep the public consciousness stunted and easily manipulated. De Niro has been transformed, but little else is remarkable about this entire work.
((50%. An expensive and overwrought production which betrays its original in about every sense possible. Branagh should stick to the stage, instead of chopping up the romantic novel and bringing it back to life as this lumpy, shapeless monster.))
The Descent (2005)
"Love each day"
The most intelligent, well-structured, and poetic horror movie to be made in first decade of the new century. It will likely be the only one for a good while longer.
Disclaimer: If you want to get the full effect, watch the uncut version. If just want to see a good movie, watch the American theatrical release and do not read the following.
The Descent is about the descent into madness. As such it begins with reality, linearity, and rationality, but de-evolves into parable, circularity, and emotion. There are several markers which will help you through the darkness of this complex and intimidating plot. One is the "Birthday Candles." There is one candle for each of the friends. This plot device is not a cheap-trick, that is, don't expect one candle after another to be snuffed out as each friend is killed! It is merely a structural marker to tell you where you are in the plot! They don't spell out a code or anything as absurd or gimmicky as all that, they are like the axe-heads from Homer's Odysseya sort of thematic placeholder to lend the story structure and cause it to reverberate with its own resonance. If the break-down so far has scared you, fear not, it will become clearer.
There are several places the "birthday candles" show up. The first is as the friends are enjoying drinks in their cabin. A strange shot shows a row of beer-bottles, out of focus, with the light of the fire-place glowing in-between. The beer-bottles are not important! He's drawing your attention to the negative space in-between them. This is your first glimpse of "the candles." Later, as the friends drive to the cave, there is a deer-crossing sign which is riddled with bullet holes. Again, the light shining through the holes is your "birthday candles" marker.
Then, as the friends are approaching the cave on foot, they find a slain elk
its antlers are another reverberation of the theme.
Now, I'm not going to say anymore about "the birthday candles" because this isn't an essay and I want you to figure out for yourself where the other instances are, and what they ultimately lead up to. Also keep in mind that I've only listed a few "easy to miss" shots
what I've pointed out is not all that has gone on so far
I purposely left stuff out so that you can fully enjoy the effect without my giving it all away.
Here's your second clue. The plot of this movie is not linear. It comes full circle. Remember that. Pay VERY close attention to the beginning or "prologue" of the film. Don't look for petty little details, because you'll just waste your time. Just try to remember it, and keep it in mind. In particular, think about the abstract structure of the film, and compare the beginning to the end and see if you can't figure out why the ending isn't just a random twist.
Your third clue is the screams. Notice how the girls scream in the beginning. Towards the end of the film, are they still screaming? What other sounds do you hear? How do the sounds change? What do the sounds remind you of? Are there any sounds that seem out of place?
Your fourth clue is the crawlers themselves. The director of this film said, in an interview "the crawlers are the cavemen who never left the cave." Some of you may be quick to point out that there were no cave-men in that part of north-America. You're right, but the director's not stupid! The crawlers are men who have "de-evolved," what else is de-evolving? Why are there old mining helmets and other signs of human life among the crawlers? Are there any female crawlers? And child crawlers? If so, is there a meaningful reaction between these special crawlers and any of the girls? Does this interaction come at a critical point in the plot? When the crawlers first appear, who sees them? Who doesn't see them? What about the camera that was brought along, what does it see? Is there a significance as to when the camera is lost? When the others finally see a crawler, how is it that they see him?
Finally, I leave you with this question. Who's fault is it that everything goes so horribly wrong? The answer may surprise you
And this is my final hint. It isn't Juno. It isn't Sarah. But it is someone! You'll have to wait to the end of the uncut version to find out! Hope that helps! I know this film ain't easy!
At its heart, The Descent is a parable for and meditation on destructive jealously... not a true horror film, action film, nor is it a vindictive tirade against the treacherousness of women or some other form of limited satire. I challenge you to figure out what (or perhaps whom) is central object of this jealously. Your last hints are as follows: It isn't the necklace. It isn't Sarah's husband. Holly is part of the answer, who is makes up the other?
((The Descent is a blisteringly intelligent film and beautifully made, but too cerebral to be widely understood
100% for a tremendous concept and execution, but -20% for its extreme difficulty and the fact that even fans of the movie fail to understand it. Final grade 80%. B grade work only limited by its own refusal to be less cryptic in its message))
Dawn of the Dead (1978)
Zombie Shakespeare, quite!
Simply put, the greatest horror film ever made, and one of the greatest films ever made period! A class act all around, even at its goriest. I don't wish to spoil anything for you by dodging around the plot or any of the wonderful things you can get out of this film, and will continue to get from repeated viewings. It is an aesthetic triumph which has no equal: one of the most filmic, and delightful productions ever made. Like all great works of art, it is the apex of its genre as well as transcendent of its genre. Do not read the back-of-the-case blurb, do not read semi-critical reviews
you must watch this film and decide for yourself. A short premise is all you need: The dead roam the earth, killing those they find. Those they kill get up and kill. It is the end of the world. We're down to the line. 4 people try to survive by fighting with the ghouls for control of large mall which could perhaps sustain them indefinitely and protect them from the hungry, but mindless hordes of flesh eating zombies shambling in the parking lot
if they can contend with those already inside! Will humanity survive though death reigns? Are the greater threats outside, or inside? There are 3 great horror and sci-fi trilogies in film. One is Star-Wars, one is Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, and the greatest is Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead. Dawn of the Dead is the most well rounded and exceptional of the trilogy.
Dawn of The Dead is about race. Dawn of The Dead is about class. Dawn of The Dead is about America. Dawn of The Dead is about death. Dawn of The Dead is about life. Dawn of The Dead is about consumerism. Dawn of The Dead is about humanity. Dawn of The Dead is about violence. Dawn of The Dead is about domesticity. Dawn of The Dead is about individuals. Dawn of The Dead is about society. Dawn of The Dead is funny. Dawn of The Dead is brutally serious. Dawn of The Dead is about great film making, made by the combined effort of a dedicated and revolutionary team with the power to take the taboo and make it golden. Even on a purely superficial level, these effects are brilliant, filmic, and artisticmuch more so than anything cgi (though still light years behind the effects used in Day of The Dead.) Like a Shakespearean play, Dawn of the Dead has something for the aristocrats, middle-class, and groundlings, and in that, it proves that we all share a common experience. It is just that magnificent. Some people will call this "satire," and others "camp," but really there's so much more to it! I encourage you to watch this movie repeatedly, because I know you'll get something different from it each time!
Warning: Do not watch this film if you 1. have strong predispositions against gore, 2. strongly dislike parables or satires 3. cannot abide movies from the 70's.
Warning: If you do not meet any of the qualifications above, then you cannot afford to miss this film!
((A perfect 100%. One of those rare and precious jewels. A unique and fitting work of art, both perfect for its time and timeless. When this film premiered the audience was chanting in the street. If you have even one romantic bone if your body, you will LOVE Dawn of The Dead.))
An American Haunting (2005)
"Possession knows no bounds."
Film consists entirely of the same effects repeated over and over again ad nauseum, peppered with deepening, yet meaningless revelations. Things go from bad to worse, but remain more-or-less constant. Sources of fire explode, people levitate: mostly a girl thrashes unconvincingly in her bed and screams in such as a way that one sympathizes more with the maleficent spirit pulling her hair and slapping her than the innocent victim herself. The pacing is wildly circular, like being spun violently on a piece of playground equipment: the same scenes keep repeating themselves, but the point of view becomes increasingly palid and queasy. The camera work is vapid, and uninspired, often falling back on the tired, cliché "chase cam." No one over 50 will be able to handle the nauseating cuts and turns of the camera which the director thought so necessary to the story. The special effects are only marginally interesting as they are repeated over and over again to the detriment of whatever novelty they have at the film's onset. The editor this film should be fired from his place of work, and the director himself should be given a set of building blocks just so that it can be confirmed that he has no sense of structure, plot structure or otherwise. There are free-form poetic films, and there are more rigid, classical films, and there are surreal films. This is just an excuse to eat popcorn and snuggle with a sweet somebody: it's a conversation piece for when its still to awkward to lean in for a kiss. It could be anything, but it wants you to think that its something smart
well maybe it did achieve something then. Do not watch this movie by yourself and expect to get something out of it unless you are in desperate need of a distraction.
All in all a stupid, meaningless film. It will appeal only very young people, and even then, only if the film is viewed with an impressive enough of a sound system to provide that "big base, high treble" aural boo factor which films of this sort use to supplement their scarcely placed, ineffective visual scares. While possessing no intelligence itself, the film is pretentious enough to leave it's target audience with a smug sense of satisfaction upon having watched it. There is no actual history, nor any actual research put into this production... it is pure charlatanism. Whatever sufficient acting is done on the part of insularly characters is overwhelmed by this film's oppressive repetitiveness. Every time the girl screams, you'll care less about the story, until you turn it off to get some peace and quiet. Simply put, I've had more fun shampooing my hair, or perhaps even listening to drip coffee machines percolate.
(( 30% for academic and intellectual dishonesty. Despicable and shallow fakery glossed in cgi and surround sound effects. Its only redeeming quality is that in its pretension, it is not trashy
though it is still charmless. A date movie if there ever was one. Beneath grade F, an imcomplete and unacceptable film))
Village of the Damned (1995)
"Beware the Children"
Village of the Damned is one of the weakest entries in long line of troubled mid 90's horror films made (or inspired by) King, Carpenter, and Barker. Unlike the cult classics, or camp classics of this era, such as King's television mini-series The Stand, or Carpenter's own Vampires, this film was, and is, a tremendously underwhelming bomb of a movie.
Like many other "hurried" films of the late 80's and early 90's, the premise of the film and the way in which the premise unfolds in the first few scenes are really the only parts which received any solid production. Watching this reminds me of Cronenberg's "Scanners," not stylistically, but in terms of its quality of "going flat" within the first 20 minutes, and then limping along with emptied enthusiasm for the duration. The ending of the film thus requires some sort of explosion
if for no other reason than to wake the sleeping audience and inform them that the movie is over.
Kirstie Alley gives perhaps the absolute worst performance of her career. Her work here is indescribably bad. I could use a colorful metaphor or clever turn of phrase to poke fun at her performance, but such colorful animosity is undeserved
it is simply horrible acting. The work of her fellow actors and actresses, while significantly better, is none the less bland and passionless. It is evident that none of the cast were happy working on this film, especially Reeve. The acting becomes increasingly forced as the plot reaches its climax, with the cast desperately (or perhaps unwillingly) attempting to remain in step with the film's direction. The only thing which propels the plot forward is the formulaic method by which each of the characters is mind-controlled and compelled to commit suicide by the unholy children. This too is not only predictable but also acted very poorly. It is not the psychic children forcing the adults to kill themselves, it is the script, and the director: there is simply no illusion cast.
The special effects in this movie are a joke. They are neither so laughably bad as to provide a twisted form of entertainment nor are they filmic in any way. They are rather the quality of those from a 90's made-for-television movie, if not worse. The sets in particular are a grave disappointment
warehouses draped with white curtains are used extensively as stand ins for shady government facilities. There is no real gore in this film either, save one brief shot, making it one of the most "soft-core" horror films of all time. All the deaths are decidedly un-graphic and un-horrific: violence occurs in-between shots of the death-about-to-happen and the death-having-happened. This film simply cannot scare you
it cannot chill you
it can barely even hold your attention past the initial stirrings which set the plot in motion. Like the film's cliché score of a child's lullaby (used to great effect in films like Rosemary's Baby, and utterly meaningless here) this movie will put you to sleep.
The original Village was a landmark horror film notable for its concept, execution, and camp value. This film serves only as an embarrassing page in a dismal chapter of Carpenter's career: an unmitigated, but ultimately forgettable disaster. The fact that it has received DVD treatment is something of a miracle. You should not buy this film. I hardly suggest that you even watch it, since it is barely even worth your time. I recommend it only to insomniacs or those in need of a mindless distraction. In order to be worth watching a film must be either significantly worse, or better than this. This is mediocrity: there is just nothing remarkable about it.
((50% completion grade: nothing more. Grade F work))