Ok, I have to not quite confess something here, I love "Alien". I love that movie's concept so much that I even mostly love all the shameless rip offs it has had so far. It's just fun to see a movie in space with monsters chasing people. It's fun, can sometimes actually be a bit suspenseful and usually puts me in a happy mood.
Now, I've told you all this so you get an idea about how hard a movie has to actually try to make me say something like this: "I FUCKING HATE THIS MOVIE!!!" I'm dead serious. This has to be one of the most slow paced, idiotic, intelligence insulting pieces of shit that I've seen in a long time.
The plot, or rather what this movie likes to call a plot, is the two members of a flight crew carrying a large amount of people to colonize a new planet wake up from hyper sleep, don't know what's going on, and stuff happens... That's really all I can say. I mean, there are weird looking cannibal things that the crew has to run away from, and there are a few vague references to this form of dementia called, surprise surprise, pandorum, but really that's all I can sum it up as, stuff happens.
I think this movie's biggest problem is mostly that it tries to have you discover things with the characters, but really this is killed by the supporting cast being, and this is not a joke, an Asian guy that never speaks English and a female character that is never named and is pretty much just as in the dark as the main character and the audience. So in other words, the screenwriter and director were trying to have the audience learn what has happened with the main character instead of full on telling us, but then forgot to actually follow through and give us a reason for any of it.
Another thing that annoyed me is that this movie has a twist at the end, but it's so freaking lame it doesn't even deserve me swearing about it. It gets set up early on, but they hint at it so much that I wanted to track down the film makers and say "We get it!" very loud into their ears. Some subtle hints here and there that no one pays attention to during the movie is what makes a good twist. This just feels like the director had brain damage and kept saying, "Duh, I'm being too subtle. no one will ever know, let's add more!"
The performances are also pretty bad. Ben Foster does ok, all his character has to do is look confused so he just needs to look at the script and there you go. The female lead, who's name was Nadia but I never heard mentioned in the movie so I'll just call her female lead, speaks only in cryptic cliches and vague sexual tensions. And rounding it out is Dennis Somehow I Have a Career Still Quaid, and well, he's not terrible, but it's still pretty bad. I have to admit when he first woke up and was looking around like "where the hell am I?" was pretty funny because I imagined he was wondering how he's gotten into something like this.
The cannibal creatures are probably the only saving graces in this, and really they're still pretty lame. The only reason I enjoyed seeing them is that I kept holding out hope they'd catch the protagonists and eat them so this movie could finally be over. They look like if the cave dwellers from "The Descent" knocked up one of the aliens from the "The X Files", so in other words, nothing really original what so ever.
This movie was just such a disappointment. It took one of the few simple, yet proven formulas that still hasn't completely gotten as stale as last week's bread and actually fucked it up. I haven't got much more to say about it. It's stupid, goes too slow and by the end of the movie I was left saying what the fuck just happened. I watched the bonus features on the DVD and found out that this movie started out as two different scripts at the same studio so somehow it was decided that both movies should be turned into one, and in my mind I'm thinking that means one studio head went nuts with the cut and paste tools in Microsoft Word. It's the only way I can explain this movies random nature. I mean, as much as I bitched about "The Final Destination", that movie actually entertained me more than this. Yes, it's true. A sequel that was so creatively bankrupt it may as well have been a remake was better than this. Keep that in mind when you're in the video store and thinking you want to rent this.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Book Of Eli
So 2010 has come and with it comes the out pour of new releases of the new year. I'm going to come out and say this right here and now. I don't buy into hype. I very rarely actually go into a movie going: "This is going to be awesome, the previews say so. Hail the almighty previews!" I know not all people react this way to a movie and it's previews, but I can't help but still notice the many people that still leave the theater saying that the previews made it look better. Of course they did! That's what they're supposed to do!
The point I'm making is that though a movie coming out may look pretty good in the previews, it can still suck when you see it. So I went into this movie with no expectation. I was trying to be as neutral as possible so I that I could actually experience the film.
And you know what? This was pretty damn good. I'm serious, but I also have to say this, I can tell that this movie is going to be a you either love it or hate it kind of movie. Some are going to love it for a lot of the reasons I'll get into in a second, and the others will hate it because I'm sure they were expecting something with a faster pace. That said, I was one of it's admirers. It was a great movie going experience and, dare I say it? A movie that actually made me think a little!
The plot of this post apocalyptic story involves a lone man, Denzel Washington, walking across the desolate wasteland that was once America carrying the last remaining Bible on earth. A corrupt leader of a shanty little town community, Gary Oldman, finds out that he has it and realizes that with it he can gain even more power and control over the people.
What really made this movie for me, is the pacing and scope. It's slow, but steady. It never really drags and it gives you the feeling of the wide, barren land scape. The opening is a perfect example because the way it's shot and edited gives you a feeling of isolation and that it's a world of kill or be killed. The sweeping visual moments remind me a little of "Lawrence of Arabia" and give the impression that this movie is nothing short of an epic. Some of the best moments are the fighting and action sequences, which actually go away from the popular trend of rapid cuts and extreme camera angles for simple camera movements that actually add a lot of excitement to them, like a shoot out that's filmed to look like the whole thing is taking place in one, long shot.
The performances are all stellar, with Gary Oldman giving another great villain portrayal, and Washington for the first time in awhile actually gives a performance that makes me feel like he's actually playing someone other than Denzel Washington playing Denzel Washington. But the performances that really impressed me were Jennifer Beals and Mila Kunis as a mother and daughter living with Oldman. Beals has a tragic determination of a mother who'll do anything to protect her daughter and Kunis gives a very surprising performance with a nice vulnerability, but still has a fighting side.
It's so refreshing actually for once see a movie that's not really one specific genre. It has elements of a social commentary, but it also has kick ass action and a nice overall sci-fi story with a bit of a twist that's not super surprising, but I found it to be quite unexpected. I highly recommend this film. It is well worth the price of an admission ticket and even if you don't want to spend the $10 to see it on the big screen, well I foresee a satisfying rental in your future.
The point I'm making is that though a movie coming out may look pretty good in the previews, it can still suck when you see it. So I went into this movie with no expectation. I was trying to be as neutral as possible so I that I could actually experience the film.
And you know what? This was pretty damn good. I'm serious, but I also have to say this, I can tell that this movie is going to be a you either love it or hate it kind of movie. Some are going to love it for a lot of the reasons I'll get into in a second, and the others will hate it because I'm sure they were expecting something with a faster pace. That said, I was one of it's admirers. It was a great movie going experience and, dare I say it? A movie that actually made me think a little!
The plot of this post apocalyptic story involves a lone man, Denzel Washington, walking across the desolate wasteland that was once America carrying the last remaining Bible on earth. A corrupt leader of a shanty little town community, Gary Oldman, finds out that he has it and realizes that with it he can gain even more power and control over the people.
What really made this movie for me, is the pacing and scope. It's slow, but steady. It never really drags and it gives you the feeling of the wide, barren land scape. The opening is a perfect example because the way it's shot and edited gives you a feeling of isolation and that it's a world of kill or be killed. The sweeping visual moments remind me a little of "Lawrence of Arabia" and give the impression that this movie is nothing short of an epic. Some of the best moments are the fighting and action sequences, which actually go away from the popular trend of rapid cuts and extreme camera angles for simple camera movements that actually add a lot of excitement to them, like a shoot out that's filmed to look like the whole thing is taking place in one, long shot.
The performances are all stellar, with Gary Oldman giving another great villain portrayal, and Washington for the first time in awhile actually gives a performance that makes me feel like he's actually playing someone other than Denzel Washington playing Denzel Washington. But the performances that really impressed me were Jennifer Beals and Mila Kunis as a mother and daughter living with Oldman. Beals has a tragic determination of a mother who'll do anything to protect her daughter and Kunis gives a very surprising performance with a nice vulnerability, but still has a fighting side.
It's so refreshing actually for once see a movie that's not really one specific genre. It has elements of a social commentary, but it also has kick ass action and a nice overall sci-fi story with a bit of a twist that's not super surprising, but I found it to be quite unexpected. I highly recommend this film. It is well worth the price of an admission ticket and even if you don't want to spend the $10 to see it on the big screen, well I foresee a satisfying rental in your future.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Final Destination 4 (AKA) THE Final Destination
Ah, New Line. I knew it wouldn't be long before I ended up taking a look at New Line Cinema. A studio known mostly for making films that become huge franchises, like "Nightmare On Elm Street", but that's perhaps for another time. Today I examine one of it's more recent, and probably it's dumbest, franchise installment, "The Final Destination."
Ok first of all, what the fuck is up with that title? Seriously! Everybody knows that this is the forth movie, so why not just call it Final Destination 4? Are they just so ashamed they made 4 sequels that they wanted to trick people into thinking this is the first one? This is a problem that a lot of movie sequels have these days and I'm not the only one that's pointed it out. "Rambo", "Rocky Balboa", "Fast and Furious", all examples of this.
But really I didn't rent this because I thought it was the first one, I knew it was number 4, I just wanted to see why in the hell this movie franchise can exist after one movie! For those not in the know, the plot of "Final Destination" (The real first one, not the 4th one, we'll get to it in a minute.) is a bunch of people are on a plane, one person has a vision about the plane crashing, gets everyone to get off... and the plane actually crashes. However since they weren't supposed to get off the plane, there is a rift in Death's plan, yes THAT Death, and they now must all die in sudden and horrible accidents. I must admit, prior to renting this, I'd only seen the first one cut up on basic cable. But as a horror movie, I have to give the first film credit, it's at least trying something new and can actually sort of, kind of make an entertaining movie out of it. The problem is, the way the movie works means that there really can only be the one movie. Then it made money and the studio started with the sequels. And with each sequel, they basically just remade the first movie with different situations and different people at the start.
Thus we come to the latest, and supposedly final installment. It starts at a NASCAR derby... Let that sink in. One character, Nick for those who really care, has a vision of a terrible crash that kills all of his friends, some other people there, and of course himself. But he has the time to save them and this is starting to sound familiar.
The acting in the movie is, well, terrible would be nice to these people. One is the whiny girl that always just mopes and goes "why us?" through out the whole thing and I seriously could not wait for her to die. There's the asshole, who just likes to go out of his way to be the most unlikable douche in the entire world. Then there is Nick and a security guard that he also rescued from dying. They are both wooden and unbearably annoying. Since the guy playing the security guard is better known as Bubba from "Forrest Gump", that's really tragic. Probably The only character I kind of liked was Nick's girl friend Lori, and I'll admit that at least 100% of why I liked her was that she was really cute looking and didn't whine as much as the other girl. The rest of the cast you just basically want to see die, and the movie is more than happy to give you that.
It's another problem with this series though, the deaths in these movies get more and more elaborate each time and just become flat out silly. In this entry one character is killed by a pool drain, yes a pool drain, that sucks their vital organs out of their ass... I'm not kidding. You have to be pretty creatively bankrupt to try and make an audience buy that, or for that matter try and make them believe you can drown in a car on dry land.
On top of that, it's verbatim the same plot of each of the other movies. Dead serious. If you've seen any of the other films in this franchise, you've seen this one. Which really shows that this was never intended to be a franchise. Actually, I did some snooping and found out it started off as an idea for an "X Files" episode that was then rejected. Considering what actually made it in some of those episodes, that takes some doing. The only thing that sets "Final Destination 4" apart from the other movies is that it was filmed in 3D, the gimmick that won't die.
Originally started in the 50's, 3D was among several gimmicks that Hollywood came up with to compete with the rising popularity of television, which they were fearing would keep people from going to cinemas. Now, history seems to be repeating itself with pirated copies and DVD being the opponent. For this kind of movie though, 3D is good in theory, but on DVD, it's a rental at best and the one I rented was 2D, so the shots of stuff flying at the screen just suck and have no impact other than being corny. It's the same fate that's fallen on films like "Jaws 3D" or "Friday the 13th 3D". It's maybe, possibly fun in theaters, but on video or DVD it's just stupid.
Overall I just watched this for entertainment value, and found none. It's actually really short finishing in at just a little over an hour, I guess I should be thankful. There's no actually plot other than "We're all gonna die!" to pad out the run time so it seems like it isn't just death scenes, which it is. so if you're hoping to find at least enough to make the rental fee worth it, trust me when I say it isn't going to be here.
More from New Line still to come!!!
Ok first of all, what the fuck is up with that title? Seriously! Everybody knows that this is the forth movie, so why not just call it Final Destination 4? Are they just so ashamed they made 4 sequels that they wanted to trick people into thinking this is the first one? This is a problem that a lot of movie sequels have these days and I'm not the only one that's pointed it out. "Rambo", "Rocky Balboa", "Fast and Furious", all examples of this.
But really I didn't rent this because I thought it was the first one, I knew it was number 4, I just wanted to see why in the hell this movie franchise can exist after one movie! For those not in the know, the plot of "Final Destination" (The real first one, not the 4th one, we'll get to it in a minute.) is a bunch of people are on a plane, one person has a vision about the plane crashing, gets everyone to get off... and the plane actually crashes. However since they weren't supposed to get off the plane, there is a rift in Death's plan, yes THAT Death, and they now must all die in sudden and horrible accidents. I must admit, prior to renting this, I'd only seen the first one cut up on basic cable. But as a horror movie, I have to give the first film credit, it's at least trying something new and can actually sort of, kind of make an entertaining movie out of it. The problem is, the way the movie works means that there really can only be the one movie. Then it made money and the studio started with the sequels. And with each sequel, they basically just remade the first movie with different situations and different people at the start.
Thus we come to the latest, and supposedly final installment. It starts at a NASCAR derby... Let that sink in. One character, Nick for those who really care, has a vision of a terrible crash that kills all of his friends, some other people there, and of course himself. But he has the time to save them and this is starting to sound familiar.
The acting in the movie is, well, terrible would be nice to these people. One is the whiny girl that always just mopes and goes "why us?" through out the whole thing and I seriously could not wait for her to die. There's the asshole, who just likes to go out of his way to be the most unlikable douche in the entire world. Then there is Nick and a security guard that he also rescued from dying. They are both wooden and unbearably annoying. Since the guy playing the security guard is better known as Bubba from "Forrest Gump", that's really tragic. Probably The only character I kind of liked was Nick's girl friend Lori, and I'll admit that at least 100% of why I liked her was that she was really cute looking and didn't whine as much as the other girl. The rest of the cast you just basically want to see die, and the movie is more than happy to give you that.
It's another problem with this series though, the deaths in these movies get more and more elaborate each time and just become flat out silly. In this entry one character is killed by a pool drain, yes a pool drain, that sucks their vital organs out of their ass... I'm not kidding. You have to be pretty creatively bankrupt to try and make an audience buy that, or for that matter try and make them believe you can drown in a car on dry land.
On top of that, it's verbatim the same plot of each of the other movies. Dead serious. If you've seen any of the other films in this franchise, you've seen this one. Which really shows that this was never intended to be a franchise. Actually, I did some snooping and found out it started off as an idea for an "X Files" episode that was then rejected. Considering what actually made it in some of those episodes, that takes some doing. The only thing that sets "Final Destination 4" apart from the other movies is that it was filmed in 3D, the gimmick that won't die.
Originally started in the 50's, 3D was among several gimmicks that Hollywood came up with to compete with the rising popularity of television, which they were fearing would keep people from going to cinemas. Now, history seems to be repeating itself with pirated copies and DVD being the opponent. For this kind of movie though, 3D is good in theory, but on DVD, it's a rental at best and the one I rented was 2D, so the shots of stuff flying at the screen just suck and have no impact other than being corny. It's the same fate that's fallen on films like "Jaws 3D" or "Friday the 13th 3D". It's maybe, possibly fun in theaters, but on video or DVD it's just stupid.
Overall I just watched this for entertainment value, and found none. It's actually really short finishing in at just a little over an hour, I guess I should be thankful. There's no actually plot other than "We're all gonna die!" to pad out the run time so it seems like it isn't just death scenes, which it is. so if you're hoping to find at least enough to make the rental fee worth it, trust me when I say it isn't going to be here.
More from New Line still to come!!!
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Inglorious Basterds
World War 2. It's a rare topic in that it's something in recent history that has affected the whole planet so significantly that nearly every country looks back on it. It is a reflection of a violent and turbulent time for humanity, and it is also the most popular period to set a war movie.
You know it's true, nearly every war movie to come out since the 40's has taken place during WWII. John Wayne, Gregory Peck, all the cinema greats have gone to battle during this great conflict on the silver screen. Which brings up the point that it is probably one of the most cliched kinds of movies ever made.
Really, it is. I love films like "Patton" and "Saving Private Ryan", don't think I"m bashing on them. They are great war films and do honor to the brave men that fought and died for what they believed was right, but they are also a bit overly pretentious and try way to hard to be realistic in "Ryan's" case. As movies, they kind of down play the importance OF the action for the cold hard HOW about what happened.
So what does this have to do with "Inglorious Basterds"? EVERYTHING! What sets this flick apart from "Saving Private Ryan" or "Patton" is that it doesn't try to be an homage to the actual event, it just tries to be an interesting "what if..." movie, and for that this is hand down my favorite.
The plot involves a group of American Jewish soldiers that are dropped into Nazi occupied France and each have a mission to turn in 100 Nazi scalps as part of a deal they have with their Commanding Officer played by Brad Pitt. The main conflict is they are presented with an opportunity to take out the big four players of the Third Reich at a theater premiere, but nothing really goes as planned.
It's a very well crafted film and shows all the love and effort that Tarantino put into it for the better part of 10 years. All the characters are fleshed out and interesting. The story flows with a varying and gripping pace, which is gracefully kept up with by Sally Menke I might add, and I must admit the ending is just sooo damn good but I dare not spoil for those that haven't seen it.
What I love most is that watching this movie feels less to me like seeing a war film as it is like reading a gripping historical fiction novel. Like before, this movie doesn't ignore what actually happened in real life, it more suggests an alternative. And I have to admit, I actually like the result. It's not a "Dirty Dozen" clone like I'd originally thought from the previews. It's a lot more subtle and leaves room for a surprising amount of suspense. The scene in the tavern is a particularly good example of this. This movie just starts and never stops until the end credits and even then you can't get the images out your mind, mostly thanks to the well crafted photography by the always impressive Robert Richardson. It's definitely my pick for best picture of 2009 and I'd give particular attention to the performance of the film's villain Col. Landa, played by Christoph Waltz.
This man is fucking creepy! I mean he shows up in the first scene and instantly has the sense of being an evil son of a bitch and you just love hating him. Every scene he's in I would say could put Hannibal Lector to shame any day, yes I went there! Seriously he's like if Sherlock Holmes was a Nazi. But what I found most interesting about him is that he does all this a with an almost child-like glee. He's proud of all he does and doesn't seem to think he'll ever get killed or pay consequences for his actions, and Waltz captures him so brilliantly that the line between actor and character is almost nonexistent.
All in all if you haven't seen this all ready, you should. It's a very good film, and with the films coming out today that's asking a lot. At least here you get to see Nazis get the living shit beat out of them with a baseball bat.
You know it's true, nearly every war movie to come out since the 40's has taken place during WWII. John Wayne, Gregory Peck, all the cinema greats have gone to battle during this great conflict on the silver screen. Which brings up the point that it is probably one of the most cliched kinds of movies ever made.
Really, it is. I love films like "Patton" and "Saving Private Ryan", don't think I"m bashing on them. They are great war films and do honor to the brave men that fought and died for what they believed was right, but they are also a bit overly pretentious and try way to hard to be realistic in "Ryan's" case. As movies, they kind of down play the importance OF the action for the cold hard HOW about what happened.
So what does this have to do with "Inglorious Basterds"? EVERYTHING! What sets this flick apart from "Saving Private Ryan" or "Patton" is that it doesn't try to be an homage to the actual event, it just tries to be an interesting "what if..." movie, and for that this is hand down my favorite.
The plot involves a group of American Jewish soldiers that are dropped into Nazi occupied France and each have a mission to turn in 100 Nazi scalps as part of a deal they have with their Commanding Officer played by Brad Pitt. The main conflict is they are presented with an opportunity to take out the big four players of the Third Reich at a theater premiere, but nothing really goes as planned.
It's a very well crafted film and shows all the love and effort that Tarantino put into it for the better part of 10 years. All the characters are fleshed out and interesting. The story flows with a varying and gripping pace, which is gracefully kept up with by Sally Menke I might add, and I must admit the ending is just sooo damn good but I dare not spoil for those that haven't seen it.
What I love most is that watching this movie feels less to me like seeing a war film as it is like reading a gripping historical fiction novel. Like before, this movie doesn't ignore what actually happened in real life, it more suggests an alternative. And I have to admit, I actually like the result. It's not a "Dirty Dozen" clone like I'd originally thought from the previews. It's a lot more subtle and leaves room for a surprising amount of suspense. The scene in the tavern is a particularly good example of this. This movie just starts and never stops until the end credits and even then you can't get the images out your mind, mostly thanks to the well crafted photography by the always impressive Robert Richardson. It's definitely my pick for best picture of 2009 and I'd give particular attention to the performance of the film's villain Col. Landa, played by Christoph Waltz.
This man is fucking creepy! I mean he shows up in the first scene and instantly has the sense of being an evil son of a bitch and you just love hating him. Every scene he's in I would say could put Hannibal Lector to shame any day, yes I went there! Seriously he's like if Sherlock Holmes was a Nazi. But what I found most interesting about him is that he does all this a with an almost child-like glee. He's proud of all he does and doesn't seem to think he'll ever get killed or pay consequences for his actions, and Waltz captures him so brilliantly that the line between actor and character is almost nonexistent.
All in all if you haven't seen this all ready, you should. It's a very good film, and with the films coming out today that's asking a lot. At least here you get to see Nazis get the living shit beat out of them with a baseball bat.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Critters & Critters 2: The Main Course
Before I start the review proper, a little more about New Line Cinema. New Line was a company that originally just bought and distributed films in the early '80s. They'd handle mostly cheapo college type movies and had some success with that. After a few years of that, studio head Bob Shaye decided to actually try and get the studio off the ground at making it's own films. After a shaky start, they hit gold with "A Nightmare On Elm Street", the slasher that put New Line on the map. They later went on to make more films in that franchise, as well many others. Several of which I actually grew up with.
One of these was "Critters", otherwise to be known as New Line's shameless effort to cash in on the popularity of "Gremlins". This 1986 release was the studio's next big effort after they had big success with that one movie that introduced a certain Freddy Kruger to the world. And it was a bit of a success, but does it hold up all these years later? Short answer, no.
But to be fair it isn't because it's a bad movie. Far from it, to people like me anyway. What I like most about "Critters" is that it's just a lot of fun. It's dark sure, but it's also insanely funny at times and it's kind of going back to what made those old alien invader movies from the '50s a lot of fun to watch. Actually, this movie is basically a big homage to those kinds of movies.
The plot involves a bunch of, well, critters escaping from a maximum security space prison and crashing on Earth. Yeah, they had to be aliens, not weird creatures found in a Chinese pawn shop, who would buy that? They have a ravenous hunger and decide to eat whatever they come across. They happen upon a typically farming family and most of the rest of the movie is the family trying to fight off the critters while intergalactic bounty hunters are trying to find them.
It's got it's low points and it's high points. Some of the performances are pretty damn good, like the mother played by Dee Wallace Stone, otherwise known as the mom from "E.T.", and the father played by Billy Green Bush, a common player of horror making appearances in films such as "The Hitcher" and "Jason Goes To Hell". They seem like a believable couple, and have the whole mother/father dynamic with the kids down pretty well. Also, credit needs to go to cast members like M. Emmett Walsh as the sheriff, who's very likable and really funny. The bounty hunters have their own quirks to them too, the scene where they try to figure out how to drive a car is particularly well done.
But the movie is also not without it's flaws. The kids are really kind of on the annoying side, the daughter in particular since for the second half of the movie she basically only talks in shrieks. The son isn't really bad, but it's still one of those performances that stand out as being fairly not good. The effects can range from pretty cool, like when the bounty hunters transform into humans, to the rather sad, like how a good chuck of the critter effects look like demented hand puppets. Although the thing that I hated the most, was this written for the movie bad '80s power ballad that I guess the producers thought would take off because they play the fucking thing about 3 or 4 times in the course of about 15 minutes!
At the same time these elements, bad '80s music aside, combine to be an overall fun movie watching experience. I mean where else will you get to see the asshole fiancee from "Titanic" get his fingers bitten off by a sock puppet from hell? Or see another one yell out "fuck" as a punch line to seeing one of his buddies getting blown away? I mean this is one of my biggest guilty pleasures as far as movies go.
And since it did reasonably well, naturally a sequel was made. To be honest, for the longest time I avoided the "Critters" sequels. Every single human I've met has said that 3 and 4 are utter crap and so I saw no need to see them, but I did get a few positive comments on "Critters 2: The Main Course". And several times I almost did in fact watch it, but looking on the back of the box at the credits always stopped me. I was not going to spend my time watching a sequel written by David Twohy, the same guy that gave us "Chronicles of Riddick" and directed by Mick Garris, a guy who I'd only ever seen two movies from, and hated both of them. So needless to say I was not optimistic when I put this in the DVD player.
However, once it started I have to admit that I was just as satisfied with this movie as I was with the first. It's a rare horror sequel in which they continue the original rather go the "Final Destination" route and remake the first one with different people.
To be fair, the first film set itself up for a sequel, so it wasn't all the hard to make one. The critters from the first film apparently got busy and laid a bunch of eggs during the course of the first film, and surprise, they hatch in this one. The bounty hunters have to return to get rid of them, again. Only this time, there are more of them, A LOT more.
This one is a much more obvious rip off of "Gremlins". The critters do things like take out the power lines and destroy a fast food place that has the annoying kid from the Ferris Wheel in "1941" working behind the counter. The gags are much more cartoony and while the critter effects have improved, they still look like demented sock puppets, can't fault them for consistency I guess. That is until the end of the film where the little buggers all fuse together into a giant ball and instantly turn everybody the roll over in to nothing but bones, which is a pretty cool effect for being basically a giant fur ball.
The only returning cast is the son, played by Scott Grimes, and the town drunkard turned space bounty hunter played by Don Keith Opper. It seems that Grimes got acting lessons between the two films because his performance here is a little less whiny and more believable. The rest of the cast, the love interest, the town's folk, the child in danger, bounty hunters and so on, all do fine, but nothing special.
The thing that makes this one of the better sequels I've seen in awhile, is the fact that while the first film was the family fighting to survive, this one starts as a boy who cried wolf type tale until the critters hatch, and then the town must team up together to fight them. It's a bit of an homage to the other kind of story that was popular in the '50s mainly with movies like "Invaders From Mars" and "The Blob".
Both of these "Critters" films are decent flicks, well worth renting, I would even recommend buying if you find them in a bargain bin. Just don't expect high class cinema, these are something you put on when you want to have some fun watching movies with your friends, and they are lot of fun.
One of these was "Critters", otherwise to be known as New Line's shameless effort to cash in on the popularity of "Gremlins". This 1986 release was the studio's next big effort after they had big success with that one movie that introduced a certain Freddy Kruger to the world. And it was a bit of a success, but does it hold up all these years later? Short answer, no.
But to be fair it isn't because it's a bad movie. Far from it, to people like me anyway. What I like most about "Critters" is that it's just a lot of fun. It's dark sure, but it's also insanely funny at times and it's kind of going back to what made those old alien invader movies from the '50s a lot of fun to watch. Actually, this movie is basically a big homage to those kinds of movies.
The plot involves a bunch of, well, critters escaping from a maximum security space prison and crashing on Earth. Yeah, they had to be aliens, not weird creatures found in a Chinese pawn shop, who would buy that? They have a ravenous hunger and decide to eat whatever they come across. They happen upon a typically farming family and most of the rest of the movie is the family trying to fight off the critters while intergalactic bounty hunters are trying to find them.
It's got it's low points and it's high points. Some of the performances are pretty damn good, like the mother played by Dee Wallace Stone, otherwise known as the mom from "E.T.", and the father played by Billy Green Bush, a common player of horror making appearances in films such as "The Hitcher" and "Jason Goes To Hell". They seem like a believable couple, and have the whole mother/father dynamic with the kids down pretty well. Also, credit needs to go to cast members like M. Emmett Walsh as the sheriff, who's very likable and really funny. The bounty hunters have their own quirks to them too, the scene where they try to figure out how to drive a car is particularly well done.
But the movie is also not without it's flaws. The kids are really kind of on the annoying side, the daughter in particular since for the second half of the movie she basically only talks in shrieks. The son isn't really bad, but it's still one of those performances that stand out as being fairly not good. The effects can range from pretty cool, like when the bounty hunters transform into humans, to the rather sad, like how a good chuck of the critter effects look like demented hand puppets. Although the thing that I hated the most, was this written for the movie bad '80s power ballad that I guess the producers thought would take off because they play the fucking thing about 3 or 4 times in the course of about 15 minutes!
At the same time these elements, bad '80s music aside, combine to be an overall fun movie watching experience. I mean where else will you get to see the asshole fiancee from "Titanic" get his fingers bitten off by a sock puppet from hell? Or see another one yell out "fuck" as a punch line to seeing one of his buddies getting blown away? I mean this is one of my biggest guilty pleasures as far as movies go.
And since it did reasonably well, naturally a sequel was made. To be honest, for the longest time I avoided the "Critters" sequels. Every single human I've met has said that 3 and 4 are utter crap and so I saw no need to see them, but I did get a few positive comments on "Critters 2: The Main Course". And several times I almost did in fact watch it, but looking on the back of the box at the credits always stopped me. I was not going to spend my time watching a sequel written by David Twohy, the same guy that gave us "Chronicles of Riddick" and directed by Mick Garris, a guy who I'd only ever seen two movies from, and hated both of them. So needless to say I was not optimistic when I put this in the DVD player.
However, once it started I have to admit that I was just as satisfied with this movie as I was with the first. It's a rare horror sequel in which they continue the original rather go the "Final Destination" route and remake the first one with different people.
To be fair, the first film set itself up for a sequel, so it wasn't all the hard to make one. The critters from the first film apparently got busy and laid a bunch of eggs during the course of the first film, and surprise, they hatch in this one. The bounty hunters have to return to get rid of them, again. Only this time, there are more of them, A LOT more.
This one is a much more obvious rip off of "Gremlins". The critters do things like take out the power lines and destroy a fast food place that has the annoying kid from the Ferris Wheel in "1941" working behind the counter. The gags are much more cartoony and while the critter effects have improved, they still look like demented sock puppets, can't fault them for consistency I guess. That is until the end of the film where the little buggers all fuse together into a giant ball and instantly turn everybody the roll over in to nothing but bones, which is a pretty cool effect for being basically a giant fur ball.
The only returning cast is the son, played by Scott Grimes, and the town drunkard turned space bounty hunter played by Don Keith Opper. It seems that Grimes got acting lessons between the two films because his performance here is a little less whiny and more believable. The rest of the cast, the love interest, the town's folk, the child in danger, bounty hunters and so on, all do fine, but nothing special.
The thing that makes this one of the better sequels I've seen in awhile, is the fact that while the first film was the family fighting to survive, this one starts as a boy who cried wolf type tale until the critters hatch, and then the town must team up together to fight them. It's a bit of an homage to the other kind of story that was popular in the '50s mainly with movies like "Invaders From Mars" and "The Blob".
Both of these "Critters" films are decent flicks, well worth renting, I would even recommend buying if you find them in a bargain bin. Just don't expect high class cinema, these are something you put on when you want to have some fun watching movies with your friends, and they are lot of fun.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
What I do here.
Well, it is probably pretty obvious what I'm planning on doing here. It's nothing new, but I'm doing it anyway for one simple reason. I love movies, and I love talking about them. Think of this as kind of an outlet. I'm going to review all different kinds of movies. New, old, good, bad and all genres. I'll admit a lot are probably going to be films that are older or just recent to DVD, but with the hectic-ness of my life, I rarely get the chance to go to the actual theater anymore, that said I'm going to try my best to keep up with the new releases. Otherwise, I can't think of much to say. Perhaps I should describe the kinds of films I like and dislike? That is a very tough question. I can say that I have a fondness for genre pictures. You know, horror, sci fi, action and the like. Really, I'll watch anything unless it's over done drama that has no substance but thinks it's so deep, and of course chick flicks. That's really all I can say, if you feel like reading some reviews, this is the blog for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)