Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Table of Contents (I'll pretty this up later)
Page 1 1). I am Legend Page 2 2). Exorcist III Legion 3). The Last House on the Left 4). Orange County Page 3 5). The Mothman Prophecies 6). Suspect Zero 7). Charles Manson, Superstar 8). Ghost World 9). The Ruins Page 4 10). Halloween 2007 11). Strangers Page 5 12). James Ellroy's Feast of Death |
Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
I Am Legend (2007) IMDB Details I Am Legend Craft (Look & Feel): I Am Legend is definitely one of those films where the backdrop of the locale/setting is as much a character in the film as are the casted roles. The post apocalypse New York setting in IAL is among the best I've seen. My chosen career involves heavy use of blueprints, CAD drawings etc, so I always naturally find myself looking at architectural details (which is a hobby of mine) as I watch a film. The building scapes were very artfully done and I personally couldn't pick apart anything that was fake looking. I especially liked the weeds shooting up through the pavement, the abandoned scaffolding and window washing equipment left scattered about, and the Brooklyn Bridge scenes. I thought that the lighting (and lack thereof), the artful placement of abandoned vehicles, etc all encompassed a flawless backdrop for this story. Characters/Acting: Obviously, the premise of this film and its projected success or failure is dependent upon the performance of a single lead actor. I personally felt that Will Smith was a great choice for this role and I believe that he delivered and then some as Dr. Neville. This role is about far more than a guy surviving by himself in a post apocalypse world filled with monsters (natural and un-natural). I think in this context Smith performed beautifully but was hindered by his supporting cast (CGI boogeymen) and a faltering storyline. Now, about those boogeymen, they were awful to put it in a word. The CGI is actually better in many video games I've seen of late and IMHO NON-CGI beasties are far more frightening than those created in cyberspace. To draw a comparison, I'd face 500 of those horribly executed CGI vampire/zombies in I am Legend over exactly one of the zombies from the 28 Days/Weeks series. The things that inspire fear in human beings are obviously mysterious to whomever marked the checkbox for creatures on the film's to-do list. To me, this was the most serious negative aspect of the film. There's no compassion for the zombies and barely a connection to humanity from them. They don't look like former humans who I would pity in the situation they're in, nor were they scary. Toose's Take: I like the premise of the movie (story/book) quite a lot. There is a lot of juxtaposing going on and examining things in different lights is always interesting. For example, Dr. Neville is in a position where he's always avoiding the dark yet he seems to be in the dark (figuritively speaking) about the gravity of the situation he's in for most of the film. Of course he does comprehend it in the end but you'll get no spoilers from me. I also personally took this story, as filmed, as a lesson in faith. In my faith, we're taught that we're created for a purpose and that the steps along our path are meant to build us up to that. Dr. Neville, conversely, is always taking things into his own hands to fix and much of this ends badly for him. Of course I'm not saying that in a situation like Neville is in that one should just sit back and wait for a divine resolution, but his regrets from start to finish were indicators (to me) of him losing his connection to faith. On the other hand, of course, it's easily understandable why he did lose faith, it's all too human. In the end, I found myself pining for what this film could and should have been. The new Hollywood, in their rush to use CGI, seems to have forgotten that in order for a story to be truly powerful we, as humans, need to connect to both sides of a conflict. If there was any humanity at all exhibited by the creatures, perhaps a flash of recognition of what once was or something of the like, it would have multiplied the power of this film tenfold. Frankenstein was a powerful film because we felt compassion for the creature as well as for the creator. This one had the potential to be great but ultimately fell flat. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Nice name lol and nice review
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Very nicely done Sir Toosie... thanks for sharing and, given the thread title, I'm assuming there will be more... :up: :)
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Caitlyn (Post 403831)
Very nicely done Sir Toosie... thanks for sharing and, given the thread title, I'm assuming there will be more... :up: :)
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
You didn't like the movie because of the CGI monsters . I'll be sure to keep that in mind .
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by meatwadsprite (Post 403865)
You didn't like the movie because of the CGI monsters . I'll be sure to keep that in mind .
Why expend such great effort in getting the sets/background renders/etc to such a state of perfection only to ruin it with cartoonish looking monsters? This film is its own worst enemy. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
So your saying if the monsters looked really good - it would be a good movie ?
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Sure, it would've helped. That and a reason to care about them. There is a definite emotional disconnect with the monsters, they're presented more as animals than as humans. I think the original handled this aspect better, you should watch that one if you haven't yet. I thought that overall it was a better film than this new one even though the new one sure had potential.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Which are you talking about - The Last Man on Earth , Omega Man , or the other one I don't even know what it's called.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
The Last Man on Earth. Here, you can watch it. http://www.movieforums.com/community...9&postcount=16
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
You're spot-on about the creatures being trash, Toose. They look like something out of a videogame. If the filmmakers had spent a little extra time on making them look more menacing and changed a few stupid plot twists near the end, this would've been a really good movie.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
I really did enjoy this film and I think if the "infected" were just extras with some tatty clothes and makeup it would have been a bit better. Some of the scenes would have had to of been CGI, but the scenes I am thinking of really were not needed. Either way I would still recommend it. Nice review.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
I had the same gripe with the monsters, it really took me out of the film.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 403854)
Well, it did take me 7 years to get one up. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you ;D
:D I've actually written two since I've been here... of course it was about two years after I joined when I wrote them... and if anyone has been holding their breath waiting for me to write another one... well, someone move the cobwebs and call the coroner... :p |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Caitlyn (Post 403927)
:D
if anyone has been holding their breath waiting for me to write another one... well, someone move the cobwebs and call the coroner... :p Good thing I got big lungs, and a broom.;) |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
I agree with you Toose about the monsters....their brightest spot was really when you couldn't see them all that much (such as in the warehouse). IAL generated some genuine, albeit, fleeting interest in the monsters for me when..
WARNING: "Legend" spoilers below
...Neville was likewise hoisted and captured in an ankle noose, which not only displayed heightened intellect on behalf of the monsters, but the scene was a major transition for the film.
Beyond that, it was as you said with the monsters from there. Perhaps IAL should have taken a Shyamalan-esque cue and left a bit more to our imagination for the fright. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
I agree with you Sir Toose about the cgi 'monsters' in I Am Legend . These were supposed to be human beings, not some super creatures. The infected were so much better in 28 Days Later. My feelings were that you didn't need to have the infected being superhuman, just that they were out there, gaining intelligence and needing meat was scary enough .
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
I don't usually read reviews about new films I've not seen yet (an ego thang dressed up as trying to enter with as few preconceptions as possible I suppose) but I'm glad you've finally got a review thread up. :D
Never know, if you do enough of them and they're good enough a nice mod might come along and sticky them for posterity. ;) |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Some of you folks just need to watch more movies on the Sci-fi channel :p, you want to see some bad CGI, sheesh! I didn't think it was great CGI either but it wasn't that terrible either. To me what translated really well on the big screen was some of the scares, I actually jumped a little a few times, which is extremely rare. I watch way to many of these types of films to not know what's coming but this movie did a decent job of taking me to a deserted city, a silent city. And at times I was a little jumpy and creeped out. This movie just further proves to me that Will Smith really is a talented actor, I really was pulling for him. Sure I knew how it was going to end. But come on really, it's almost impossible to have a; "Wow, I didn't see that coming", type of ending these days isn't it? Especially for folks like us that have seen one or two movies before. :D
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Woot, Toose has a review thread. :cool:
Anyway, I agree completely. The subpar quality of the monster effects stood out all the more because everything else looked so good. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Exorcist III (Legion) (1990) IMDB Details Exorcist III Mini Plot Summary: Based upon the book Legion by William Peter Blatty, this part of the story takes place after The Exorcist. Upon inviting the demon(s) possessing Regan into his body, father Karras is thrown from Regan’s window and down the infamous flight of stairs next to her room. At the moment of Karras’ departure from his body the ‘soul’ of a serial killer (The Gemini Killer, played by Brad Dourif) is sent into his body by dark forces as a sort of cosmic joke against God. Fifteen years after Karras (Jason is thought to be dead Lieutenant Kinderman (played by George C. Scott) is plagued by the suspicion that the Gemini Killer who is also dead has returned. A great story and some horrifying madness ensues. Craft (Look & Feel): As you’ll see if I do many more of these, I tend to gravitate toward liking films whose creators really paid attention to what’s going on outside of the camera angles and the central focus of each scene. The main setting for this film is an inner city hospital which is appropriately creepy thanks to the 1940’s vintage of the place, the dark corners and recesses, and overall tighter spaces than what’s associated with modern hospital examples. There are many scenes where the close space lends an air of claustrophobia to an already creepy situation. The real star in cinematography for this film, though, is the sound department. In my opinion, the sound in this film is one of the finest examples of using the auditory to greatest advantage. If you watch the film, please do so with headphones (or appropriately loud surround) and no light. Many of the film’s strengths are in subtlety and the brilliant sound work in this might be missed if you aren’t paying attention. By way of example, one scene hinges on the cracking of ice cubes. There is literally two full minutes of sitting on the edge of your seat, listening to ice cubes cracking. To say more will give it away but scenes like this and the on going dimensionality of the sound and what it adds to the film by way of tension make it one of my all time favorites. Characters/Acting: Exorcist III stars George C. Scott as Lieutenant Kinderman who plays a small part in the original (not originally played by Scott). Toose's Take: Exorcist III is a prime example of what a horror film should be. The acting, cinematography and story all combine into a bone chilling tale of demonic possession and the ever fought battle between good and evil. The story line is rich and complex and this film doesn’t treat the horror fan as if he/she is only half brained like many, many films in the genre do. I don’t mean to suggest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this film, there are some overdone parts (one has Fabio in it :D ), particularly in the end, but all in all Exorcist III is a very well crafted example of the horror genre and well worth a watch even to non genre fans. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Great review Toosie... I really need to re-watch this one 'cause it's been so long since I've seen it, 'tis a wee bit fuzzy now... ;)
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
I've been wanting to watch that for so long! Is it necessary to watch the second movie though? Because I've only heard bad things about that one.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
No. Exorcist II has nothing to do with The Exorcist or Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane, (III), however since John Boorman is a visual visionary, The Exorcist II: The Heretic is worth watching as an individual entity for film buffs. All others should steer well clear. It is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made to a good film.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by mark f
No. Exorcist II has nothing to do with The Exorcist or Twinkle, Twinkle, Killer Kane, (III), however since John Boorman is a visual visionary, The Exorcist II: The Heretic is worth watching as an individual entity for film buffs. All others should steer well clear. It is quite possibly the worst sequel ever made to a good film.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Very underrated film. Glad you enjoyed it.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
The Last House on the Left, 1972 IMDB Details The Last House on the Left Firstly, I'm ditching the format that I've used in the above two reviews in favor of something less constrictive. Hope no one minds :) The Last House on the Left is one of those cult horror icon films that everyone (including Roger Ebert) says is great and is a must-see for horror fans. The film was written and directed by Wes Craven who went on to make The Hills have Eyes, Swamp Thing, The Nightmare on Elm Street series, the Scream series and a few other films that I consider to be semi polished jewels of the horror genre. My first inclination is to try to pass this film off as the first effort of an up and coming director and is therefore deserving of consideration of that fact. The problem with that is the cult following out there who extoll the greatness of this film. It's not a great film. The Last House on the Left isn't even a very good film and if you'll hang with me I'll tell you why. One of the first issues I had with the film is the title and the way the film is presented on the whole. I would think that with that cover art, that title, the promise of the tagline "it's only a movie", etc, that it would be reasonable to assume that what you're going to see is some sort of haunted house film or at least a film that has something to do with a house. Not so. There are two houses in the film, neither has to do with the storyline whatsoever other than to serve as backdrop. I was a bit disappointed by this as, hey, I'm a genre fan and I like a haunted/cursed house story as much as the next salivating horror junkie. That somewhat minor point aside, the film centers around two escaped murderers and their tribe of flunkies who are trying to evade recapture. This 'gang' are as silly and stupid as ever portrayed on screen and their ineptitude in inspiring fear almost makes the whole thing laughable. Couple that with some of the hokey-est banjo/folk music going on in the background and you've got an environment not exactly laced with tension and/or fear. All of this leads up to two murder scenes and some collateral damage. Those murder scenes, in and of themselves, are quite well done, and frankly, so much so that they are difficult to watch. I can't help but feel that those two scenes were the inspiration for the film and the rest of it was just window dressing. Dirty, tattered, trashy, junkyard ready window dressing, but still window dressing. There will inevitably be those who say 'for the time, it was a good film'. To them, I would say it's not well planned, schlocky, sloppy trash with a few brief moments of shock. Whenever I see a film like this from the era I can't help but reflect upon The Exorcist and in contrast what a great, time tested film it really is. In fact I can name quite a few good horror films from the late 60's early 70's that are far superior to this one and will do so in upcoming reviews. Final word, Yes, I can see how this film served as a vehicle for Wes Craven to cut his teeth upon. It probably was, in terms of content, groundbreaking in it's portrayal of violence. To me, that doesn't excuse the sloppiness of the story, the bad performances by much of the cast and the overall disappointment in the film on the whole. At it's core, it's exploitation and it's not done well enough to matter. At least I can say I've seen it and can be done with it. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Thank you for watching crappy movies so we don't have to...:D
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 406749)
Thank you for watching crappy movies so we don't have to...:D
Or, you could just buy me a beer for taking one for the team. :D |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
What kind 'a beer?
:D |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 406737)
At it's core, it's exploitation and it's not done well enough to matter. At least I can say I've seen it and can be done with it. Now on to more important things here, you left out what to me is a rather important factor when deciding which really bad movies I'm going to binge on. Boob Factor. I like to call it. The truly horrible movies all have it and I don't see here that you saw any, so if you happen to check back in here and see this please let me know if there are any of note. Otherwise I will take you at your word and just completely skip this puppy. :cool: |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
*gasps* How dare you objectify women like that...
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by adidasss (Post 406946)
*gasps* How dare you objectify women like that...
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Powderedwater (Post 406814)
Sadly the exploitation and the just plain crap films are a bit of a passion of mine, (Ok, it's a sickness!) but I'm sorry I can stop any time I want, I just don't want to.
Originally Posted by Powderedwater (Post 406814)
Now on to more important things here, you left out what to me is a rather important factor when deciding which really bad movies I'm going to binge on. Boob Factor.
There was literally 3-5 minutes of real connection (of any kind) to this film for me. The brief semi nudity offered is in the middle of a scene where a guy is carving on a girls chest. Seriously, do yourself a favor and skip it. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 407040)
Me too! :D Check my DVD list in my sig to see how many I actually own.
Boob factor = 0 Seriously, do yourself a favor and skip it. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 405181)
Nice review, need to watch this again now.:) |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Caitlyn (Post 406767)
What kind 'a beer?
:D http://www.movieforums.com/community...4bc5de47ef.jpg |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Orange County, 2002 IMDB Details Orange County I'd like to preface this review for those who have not seen this film by saying that it's probably not what you think it is. Orange County is not a teen movie (yet it is), it's not a Cali stoner comedy (but it is) and it's not your typical coming of age introspective drama (but it is) but rather, it's an introspective dramedy that's surprisingly applicable to modern life whatever the age of the viewer/audience happens to be. Orange County is the story of Shaun Brumder (played by Colin Hanks), a somewhat typified California high school senior who realizes that it's time to start making some decisions that will effect his life. His immediate surroundings and influences include a hilariously paranoid drug addicted brother (played by Jack Black) Okay, enough of the synopsis stuff. To me, the central idea of the film echoes the sentiment found in The Wizard of Oz, i.e. you have to figure out how to be happy in your own skin because nothing external will do it for you. Shaun is convinced that his crazy surroundings and hectic environment are the root cause of his inability to move forward with his dream. As such he works very hard at trying to extricate himself from who he really is. Along his path he discovers a writer (played by Kevin Kline) who essentially depicts what Shaun visualizes himself as being. Shaun spends the balance of the film seeking validation from this writer (and Standford) and attempting to assure himself that he is worthy of the task and worthy of the life that he wants for himself. Along the way he discovers that the only path to validation lies within himself and that the people he tries to escape from are the ones who have formed the values within him. I said in the beginning that this film has lessons applicable to all ages and the above is what I mean by that statement. Our true callings are self divined and self discovered and no slip of paper from a particular college or external validation from a professional in the field we might be interested in, a friend, colleague or whomever is going to provide us with answers that are only available internally. We are unique, we are individual, and each of us only really knows what is right for us. We should seek to celebrate our own unique qualities and work from them instead of seeking to be or do as someone else has done. This film does a surprisingly beautiful job of underscoring those ideas and a few I haven't even mentioned. Watch the film for its comedic value and then think about why it was funny. I bet you'll learn something about yourself. I certainly did. Edit: Thanks for the suggestion powderedwater, it did me some good to revist the ideas in this film. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Great review. I feel exactly the same way. I figured Orange County would be simply amusing, but it was surprisingly intelligent and very perceptive. I think a lot of people have probably passed this over as another mindless comedy.
"Now, when I say 'Romeo and Juliet,' who comes to mind?" "Claire Danes?" "That's right, Claire Danes. Who else?" "Leonardo DiCaprio." "Right. Who else? Well, you know someone else was involved in that movie who in some ways is as famous as Leonardo DiCaprio. And his name is William Shakespeare. And some great movies have been made based on his plays: Hamlet... West Side Story... The Talented Mr. Ripley... Waterworld... Gladiator... Chocolat..." |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
LMAO! /\ Is that from the movie Yoda? Anyway I didn't think you could do it but you pulled it off, I think I may go check this out. How would you compare this to say, Napolean Dynamite? I almost made the mistake of passing on that one because I thought it was just another stupid teen comedy and I was very happily surprised buy it. Would you put Orange County in a similar category?
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
That interchange Yoda posted is from the movie, very funny bit.
I think Napoleon Dynamite is a bit more overt in making its point and I don't think the point is nearly as strong or serious as what Orange County attempts to convey. In fact I think a lot of Napoleon dynamite's success is relative to its ability to be funny in showing stupid for stupid's sake. Both films are funny, just not really in a similar way. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Alright sounds good, I'll definitely check it out someday. Very good review.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
The Mothman Prophecies, 2002 IMDB Details The Mothman Prophecies Between the months of November 1966 and December 1967 the town of Point Pleasant West Virginia was likely a very surreal place to be. Investigators dubbed the town a ‘window area’ which is a term that refers to a place and time where all manner of phenomena may be observed and may possibly overlap each other. During this time there were literally hundreds of calls to the police reporting strange objects in the sky, ghostly activity, strange men in black clothing, exsanguinated and mutilated farm animals and one very large and frightening winged apparition who would be forever dubbed ‘Mothman’. Mothman was reported to be a creature who was 6-7 feet tall, gray skinned with red glowing eyes and of superhuman intelligence. He was seen by no less than twenty people and was actively pursued as a suspect by the police force. One investigator, John Keel, wrote a first hand account of the experiences in Point Pleasant which eventually became the basis of the film The Mothman Prophecies. After reading John Keel’s book as well as doing exhaustive research on the case prior to the film release, I wasn’t sure what to expect from the film. The subject matter is very wide and if not handled correctly could have been botched to the point that the casual observer would be tempted to discount the story as hogwash without looking further into the details. The screenplay, written by Richard Hatem, was in my opinion very well done as it took a few core parts of Keel’s story and focused in on those versus trying to tell the whole tale in a few hours time. Central to Keel’s story and certainly central to the screenplay are several incidents of a misalignment of time. To me, the confusion that this would cause is truly the stuff of nightmares. John Keel’s character, called John Klein in the film, is played artfully by Richard Gere. Klein’s introduction to Point Pleasant comes by way of going somewhere else. As for the Mothman himself, I believe that he was handled very tastefully in the film. There are several places in where you can see the Mothman but only a few are obvious. It took me several viewings to pick them all up but I felt compelled enough by the tale to view it several times. There isn’t really a scene where the Mothman is seen in full and I think this is a better treatment as the story and the entity are truly mysterious. Richard Gere, Will Patton and Laura Linney all do a superb job in this film of driving the story and playing their characters well. I am, and always will be a huge Laura Linney fan as I think she brings an element of truth to every character that plays on screen and her portrayal of the small town sheriff in this role was brilliant. All of that said, I’m quite certain that The Mothman Prophecies isn’t a film for everyone. I’ve personally had two experiences that I cannot explain which have more or less driven me to educate myself on all manner of things that remain outside the periphery of ‘known’ data. I am, by default, very interested in cases like Mothman and in cryptozoology as well as in hauntings and most other things that sensible people ignore. I’ve read many a review where folks have said that the performances were credible enough but that the material is laughable. I can see that, frankly, the whole case is a hard pill to swallow but then there are those hundreds of witnesses, right? If you love a good spooky story that just might be true, try The Mothman Prophecies. If watched with an open mind I think it’s a great way to introduce yourself to the events of Point Pleasant in the late 1960’s. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Another good one, Toose. I remember not having paid much attention to the film when it was in release for some reason, because I usually am drawn to these types of projects.
Then in the fall of 2002, I was on a business trip to Charleston which was taking me through Ohio into WV on Hwy. 35. When I saw the Point Pleasant road signs, I suddenly remembered the movie and made it a point to rent it. I, for one, enjoy being stretched to the laughable, if that's the knock. Even after suspending what we need to experientially, there's a decent-enough story here that finally ties in the whole body of the mysterious goings-on. What made it work for me was the unshakable sense of loss of control. This feeling of isolation permeated throughout and was quite palpable. Very apt description of Linney, who I like as well (even in the goofy Exorcism of Emily Rose). With Mothman, leaving the namesake to the periphery of our imagination by not fully depicting it visually, ad infinitum, magnified the whole collection of mysterious incidents as a whole. As it is, more often than not, less is usually more. The story invited me into questions surrounding the intentions behind the events (i.e., are there going to be redeemable outcomes) and just how much free-will input the principals will have in light of events that seemed to initially happen randomly beyond their control, but are woven together over time. And to that end, I think MP addresses that somewhat in its conclusion. How do you think your perspective of it would have been different had you not done the research prior to the film? |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Toose...I'm not really into horror movies, but it's really good to see you spending the time sharing a bit of yourself like this. Nice reviews. Keep it up. :)
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Tatanka (Post 408044)
The story invited me into questions surrounding the intentions behind the events (i.e., are there going to be redeemable outcomes) and just how much free-will input the principals will have in light of events that seemed to initially happen randomly beyond their control, but are woven together over time. And to that end, I think MP addresses that somewhat in its conclusion.
Originally Posted by Tatanka (Post 408044)
How do you think your perspective of it would have been different had you not done the research prior to the film?
Tangentially, I have a suspicion that time really isn't what we understand it to be. I'm not at all certain that it's linear in nature but may appear so to us because our collective 'time' has been short. Think of it like the earth appearing flat to those without perspective. It was a reasonable enough conclusion given the data available at the time. Ah well, again, another conversation. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Great review. I saw The Mothman Prophecies years ago but only remember parts of it. I remember the whole "watch in the shoe" thing scaring the living daylights out of me, though. That kind of thing is creepy on a very deep level.
Also, it was filmed in Pittsburgh, where I live. There's one shot where someone (Gere, I think) is walking across the street with his back to a Cathedral that I've worshipped in many times. That probably added to the creep factor a little. I'll have to give this one another look. From what I remember, it was a much more serious, higher-minded look at the supernatural than most such films, which devolve into gimmicky horror. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Originally Posted by Yoda (Post 408157)
I'll have to give this one another look. From what I remember, it was a much more serious, higher-minded look at the supernatural than most such films, which devolve into gimmicky horror.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Suspect Zero, 2004 IMDB Details Suspect Zero Since the dawn of remembered history man has been curious about the intricacies of the mind and body and about how truly imprisoned (or not) we really are within the flesh and bone confines of our collective existence. In the US in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s there was a strong surge in public interest in all things mystical and many attempts to scientifically document what is collectively referred to as ‘The Paranormal’. One such study, classified as a PSI-Ops experiment, was able to garner military interest in that it was able to bear fruition in the form of startlingly accurate displays of ESP (Extra Sensory Perception). The project, officially titled RV (Remote Viewing), in 1974, was adopted by the US government as a means to use then thought psychic abilities to locate enemy personnel, locations, bases etc by the process of psychically fixing on these items from a remote location and then using that data to plan operations. All of this sets the stage for what, to me, was to become one of the most interesting portrayals of a serial killer ever to grace the screen via the unmatched thespian skills of one Sir Ben Kingsley. In the film, Suspect Zero, the FBI has a problem. Agents Mackelway and Kulok, played by Aaron Eckhart and Carrie-Anne Moss respectively, are beginning to see what seems to be a disturbing lack of pattern in a string of cross country murders which No, I’m not comparing Suspect Zero to Silence of the Lambs but rather underscoring the ‘wow’ factor that both films evoked in me. It’s always been my belief that we humans know far less than we think we know. We have made huge strides in science, huge strides in general knowledge and with that we can explain away much that our ancestors held as miraculous. With each ounce of knowledge though comes a pound of questions generated by that very grain of wisdom and its purpose and place in the whole of reality. I love films that deal all aspects of the unknown, though for some reason good quality examples are sometimes difficult to find. Many adhere to old stereotypes or safe interpretations that give the impression that we know all there is know about these subjects. Suspect Zero is definitely not safe. The film is dark, dramatic and Kingsley’s power and presence center stage underscore the frighteningly plausible idea that there possibly really are people out there who can know things that they aren’t supposed to know by natural definition. The director, E. Elias Merhige (of Shadow of the Vampire fame) did a masterful job of orchestrating all of the runaway trains in the story into an unforgettable crescendo of a train wreck at the end. Fair warning, the ending does have its detractors but to me if felt as if my guts were being yanked out sans anesthesia, which is a good thing IMHO. If you like serial killer thrillers and wouldn’t cringe at the idea of some paranormal events thrown into the mix, watch this one. It was definitely my kind of recipe. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Sounds pretty darn good there Toose.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Hmmm...I've heard this movie sucks....
If it's a rainy day and there is nothing else at the video store....maybe I'll pick it up. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Define sucks... It's all relative innit?
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
It is.
That and the fact that my tastes don't really reflect the norm should probably serve as a warning that my reviews aren't going to be valid for the broader audience. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Charles Manson, Superstar 1989 IMDB Details Charles Manson, Superstar Welcome to my first documentary review. I’m not sure if I should proceed any differently so I’ve decided to just follow the same non-format I’ve been using. The first thing that I should make clear is that I am addicted to this case. I’ll never forget seeing television coverage of the case and the trials with my mom. When I would ask who the man was she would just say that he’s a bad man. She was fascinated and horrified by the whole thing and it scared her enough to make my dad put additional locks on the doors. All of that industry just made me more curious and ever since then I think I’ve read everything available on the case, including the trial transcripts, and have watched all available media. To this day the case still fascinates me because there is a definite undercurrent of causation that was completely ignored in making a public case against Manson. For those who are unfamiliar with the basics, I’ll state the brief facts of the case. On August 9, 1969 five people were brutally murdered in the Hollywood hills. One of the victims was a rising star in the movie industry, Sharon Tate. Tate was married to director Roman Polanski and the couple was expecting their first child. Tate, in fact, was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. Tate was at home with three friends who shared her fate that evening. The final victim that night was a friend of the groundskeeper who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. The next night, August 10, 1969, there were two more murders, grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary. All 7 murders were similar in that they were brutal, they involved multiple stabbings and both scenes had messages written in the victim’s blood. Okay enough of that, for more details on the crime itself read this page flawed as it is in assigning motive to the murders. The point and the premise of Charles Manson, Superstar is to allow the public to see the man behind the legend. In the trial the prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi, painted a picture of a man who was insane and who used drugs and sex to brainwash the people living communally with him in a group known as “The Family.” The above facts of the case were always disputed by Manson in particular and the members of the Family who were not simply interested in obtaining their own releases from prison. Manson himself thinks that he has yet to have a fair trial as mid stream into it President Nixon declared to the national news that Manson was guilty. The documentary itself is very well done. It is shot at San Quentin state prison and the interviewer, Nikolas Shreck, does an excellent job in getting Manson to speak about things that are not really existent in the world of the Helter Skelter myth. The video instead focuses on Manson’s early connections to Haight Ashbury in San Francisco, Susan Atkins and her then boss Anton LaVey who was the founder of the Satanic church, The Process Church, Manson’s devotion to Scientology and Manson’s mafia connections which may have lead him into picking LaBianca as a victim as LaBianca was an avid gambler who was heavily in debt. The conversations in this video in particular really turned me on to how tumultuous a time the late 1960’s were in America. Manson mentions a wide array of folks including members of The Weather Underground who set off bombs in public buildings in an attempt to overthrow the government, the SLA, the Black Panthers, Abi Hoffman and many, many others. The material is great fodder for research into all kinds of things that history books try to suppress. In my years of research on this subject I don’t think I’ve found a better depiction of who Charles Manson is and how he became America’s nightmare. 1969. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
2 reviews in 2 days, look whose choosing quanity AND quality....
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Sometimes I go months in between though :)
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Ghost World, 2001 IMDB Details Ghost World Ghost World is the story, or a brief section of the story of two recent high school graduates, Enid and Rebecca played by Thora Birch and Scarlett Johannsen respectively. In a nutshell, the film is about the awkward stage between childhood and adulthood and about the time when one realizes that he/she is largely responsible for how things will turn out. Faced with that realization, the two take tentative steps toward becoming independent but not without falling backwards as well. As I was watching this film, I found myself almost constantly returning to the question in my mind "why is it called Ghost World?" It did finally hit me that the film for the most part is about finding oneself, the loneliness that doing so can lead to, and about the way that people, despite physical proximity to one another, basically live in disconnected realities. In that context, I suppose other people can seem ghost like in the way that they haunt the periphery of our lives. I can honestly say that I've never seen this idea depicted as truthfully as it is depicted in Ghost World. The main character, Enid, is desperate for some sort real connection that is so obviously missing from her life. One of my favorite characters in the film is Norman who is an old man who's waiting for a bus. Don't miss it. The acting is superb, Thora Birch seemed made for the part as her particular blend of attitude and wry humor perfectly suits the character of Enid. Also, Steve Buscemi as Seymour was the perfect fit for the sort of mentor/love interest/friend to Enid. I'm quite certain that his name (see more) is not an accident as he has a habit of nailing things down throughout the film. |
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
The Ruins, 2008 IMDB Details The Ruins I read Scott B. Smith’s second novel as a tome of hope for the horror genre which, as of late, seems to be filled with throwbacks, wannabes and shortcomings. Smith, as you may remember, thrilled audiences back in ’98 with his runaway hit A Simple Plan. When I heard that The Ruins had been optioned and that a film project had been committed to, I couldn’t have been happier as the novel version of the story was definitely one of the creepier and more unique works that I had read within recent years. At its heart, The Ruins is a cautionary tale of what happens to young vacationers who partake in a bit too much frivolity and choose to strike down paths not oft trodden. The warning signs against such a course of action are, of course, ignored and the wisdom (guffaw) and immortality of youth forges on. Spurred on by the appearance of a mysterious map coupled with the disappearance of the brother of one of the group members already gone in search of the ruins, a group of six young vacationers decide to go and see the ruins and help their friend find his missing brother. The tale progresses as one would expect, fraught with warning signs that fairly scream ‘turn back, go no further!”. The thick of the plot, as it were, finds our young adventurers atop an ancient ruin of a stepped pyramid, surrounded by gunmen who are preventing their escape and facing an ancient enemy who only gradually becomes apparent and understood. Having read the novel first I already knew what was to become of the adventurers and the premise that the book is generally better than the film holds true in this case. Also, in the positive category, is the film’s attempt to widen the character arc to allow us a somewhat broader insight into the motivations of each one. Again, this aspect of the film is not common to the genre and it did lead to some ‘boring talky scenes’ that a large balance of horror fans don’t seem to enjoy. In my case, it added to the overall effect of the film and I thought that it was particularly well done. In a nutshell, this film began with a really good story which it ultimately did a serviceable though not spectacular job of telling. I got the sneaking suspicion that the film was a rush job and given a bit more proper care it really could have been a shining example of the thinking man’s horror film. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Top professional reviews there. I've not seen that Manson doc in yonks. Oh how I laughed when Bono pompously farted "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles. We're stealing it back!" before lurching into a truly terrible version of Helter Skelter.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed Review Thread
Thank you for the kind words sir!
That whole Manson drama is much more complex than people realize I think. He co wrote songs with Dennis Wilson (Beach Boys) and a few of those ended up on Beach Boys albums (In My Room, I believe, is one of them). I'm just hoping that Manson Girls isn't as stupid as the script appears to be. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
I was figuring that Manson Girls would be of the same standard as those John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy and Hillside Stranglers straight-to-DVD releases (and yes, I have seen them :blush:) which pollute the bottom shelf of many a video store. Lo and behold, the director is also the director of Bundy! :D
Dennis Wilson was the most zonked-out Beach Boy, wasn't he? Wonder why? ;) Imagine if, today, a talentless ex-musician who used to hang around on the periphery of successful bands suddenly found that he had too much time on his hands? Hmmmmmm, which director has the best looking wife? :furiousdevil: |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Yes it would appear that Matthew Bright, well, isn't. The truth is that the real story is scarier than Bugliosi's concoction that he sold to the public. It's great raw material for a film if someone would just execute (pardon the almost pun) it correctly.
By the by I ordered that Nick Cave CD you alluded to a few moons ago (Murder Ballads). I didn't love it at first but it's grown on me... unpleasantly. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Did you know that he's just released an album under the Creative Commons license (so it can be legally downloaded for free via p2p)? Link
I heard about it on the radio literally minutes ago. Maybe they should have let him join The Monkees when they had the chance. ;)
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 427036)
By the by I ordered that Nick Cave CD you alluded to a few moons ago (Murder Ballads). I didn't love it at first but it's grown on me... unpleasantly.
:D You've just gotta remember that he's a family man who writes songs like that from a literary standpoint rather than from personal experiences/feelings. Sure, he's done a lot of confessional stuff over the years but, like Bonnie Prince Billy, I doubt if he's a real murderer... He's also a fully-fledged screenwriter these days (The Proposition). ;) |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
I'm confused, (Shocker!) what happened to Sir Toose's Scarcely Scribed review thread? Are there 2 Sir Toose's? If not what have you done with "the real" Sir Toose? These are questions that need answering dammit!
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
There are two reasons for the name change, sir.
1). The original title of the thread was too long and it caused a bug in this section which our fearless leader was going to have to spend time fixing. Of course he made no qualms about doing so but I felt bad that it was my title that was causing him undue work. Simple solution, shorten the title. 2). My original intent was to write a review or two and be done with it, hence the 'scarcely scribed' moniker. Turns out I rather enjoy putting the proverbial pen to the proverbial paper on the subject of film so 'scarcely' scribed has become 'oft' scribed and therefore has become a misnomer. As for the concept of duplicitous Tooses, you can never be certain can you? And Tacitus, I think I gave the the impression that I didn't like the Nick Cave CD. Quite to the contrary it's grown on me specifically because of its rather twisted brilliance. I do have the Manson release as Golgot linked me to it somewhere a few days ago. I've listened to it a few times and feel like if the guy hadn't gone completely buggy he'd have had a real shot at a career in music. There are quite a few of his songs that I literally can't forget whether it's because they're effective or just simply good. Okay, so I'm knee deep in my next review. I'll try to polish it up and post it later today. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 427068)
There are two reasons for the name change, sir.
1). The original title of the thread was too long and it caused a bug in this section which our fearless leader was going to have to spend time fixing. Of course he made no qualms about doing so but I felt bad that it was my title that was causing him undue work. Simple solution, shorten the title.
2). My original intent was to write a review or two and be done with it, hence the 'scarcely scribed' moniker. Turns out I rather enjoy putting the proverbial pen to the proverbial paper on the subject of film so 'scarcely' scribed has become 'oft' scribed and therefore has become a misnomer.
"Party on Wayne!"
As for the concept of duplicitous Tooses, you can never be certain can you?
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 427082)
I guess you're not The Devil after all eh? Some might even say that's just down right considerate. :)
Originally Posted by Powdered Water (Post 427082)
Indeed, and as I've used up my quota of somewhat interesting dialog for this post I'll bid you Adieu! :p
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 427092)
I'm certain, Garth, that you were copied on the memo.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Halloween, 2007 IMDB Details Halloween (Rob Zombie) Having been a child of the 70’s and a hopeless fan of horror films of the age, I was actually finally angry at Hollywood’s insistence on raiding their stock of old films to ‘update’, ‘modernize’ etc when I heard that John Carpenter’s brilliantly frightening Halloween was next on the chopping block. To add insult to that particular injury was the announcement that Rob Zombie would be taking the helm to steer the story of Michael Myers into whatever direction he thought it should take. I had immediate visions of his schlocky music videos and the general presentation of his work and felt my stomach sinking. To be fair, I like schlock and I like Zombie, but the pairing of Zombie and Halloween left me feeling a bit hesitant. Don’t get me wrong, Zombie is a capable director, in my opinion, for the right kind of film. In particular, The Devil’s Rejects, I felt, worked on a variety of levels and parts of it were so raw that even I found them difficult to watch (which is a good thing). The question at hand was whether or not this all out assault style of Zombie’s would really work on a subtler and more atmospheric film such as the original Halloween. Up until Halloween 9 (Zombie’s film) the canon of the Michael Myers story line had followed a crooked path from his simply being evil for no reason to his being evil because of early involvement in the cult of Thorn which was an ancient druidic cult that gave him superhuman powers. Zombie, thankfully, chose to ignore canon beyond the first original film and shift the focus to Michael as the main character versus Laurie Strode as the main character. The biggest gap in the story line for fans of the original Halloween involved the character of Michael and what exactly caused him to become evil. American audiences in particular like to have resolution surrounding plot and outcome so I fear that many people dismissed the cinematic magic of the first film because it felt ‘silly’ that Michael was able to recover so quickly and continue with no explanation as to how he could do that. Zombie’s choices, then, in remaking the film were multitude. He could have followed canon and gone off in any one of fifty directions but he chose to humanize Michael and to give him some human weaknesses that are common to us all. I particularly liked this approach though I did have a few issues with specifics which I’ll discuss later. Halloween 2007 starts out by giving us some insight into the daily life of young Michael Myers who is played beautifully by Daeg Faerch. In sum, it’s a representative laundry list of things that are widely known to cause the onset of psychologically troubled behavior in pre-pubescent boys. To start, Michael is the product of a broken home. His father is dead and in place of him he has a physically and mentally abusive step father, played by William Forsythe, who seems to seize every available opportunity to belittle every member of the family (including the baby). In the opening scenes we see that there is very little peace in the home as family members argue, shout and generally cause mayhem as they get ready for their days. We learn that Michael Myers’ mother, Deborah, is a stripper and that his older sister, Judith is the town slut. All of this sexual energy, coupled with the violence of the step father makes for a potent cocktail for young Michael to imbibe on a daily basis. His anger shows very early on as he dismantles his pet rat with a pocket knife while suggesting to his mother that it had simply died on its own. As the story progresses we learn that Michael’s issues are already known to the staff of his school that readily make matters worse by constantly summoning his mother to the office to discuss disciplinary problems. We also learn that Michael has trouble with bullies and resolves that trouble in what I feel is the most powerful scene in the film. In fact, I think that the beating of the bully is one of the most powerful scenes I’ve ever seen in a horror film. The shot was brilliantly orchestrated and we get to witness first hand Michael changing from monster to little boy and back to monster in the span of a few minutes. I was stunned for quite some after watching that scene in the theater and when I purchased the DVD I re-watched the scene several times. The orange hues, the falling leaves and the overall lighting are truly beautiful. In the beginning of the scene we see Michael symbolically emerge from the shadows to deliver his first blow. At about the midpoint of his attack he pauses and the camera frames him with the sun behind him. He removes the mask he’s wearing and he looks almost angelic and thoughtful under the blue sky with the sun serving as a halo just above his head. I have no doubt that Daeg Faerch will one day be critically acclaimed as I believe that even at his age he understands the subtleties of facial expressions and their importance in the credibility of a performance. From angelic to frightening a shadow passes over Michael’s face whereupon he replaces the mask and resumes his dark deed. The resultant effect is that the viewer is left in a state of empathic horror because we can understand the desire to punish those who hurt us but what Michael does in this scene is the stuff that true horror fans dream of. Moving forward into the story, we see more evidence of debauchery that only serves to twist Michael’s already fragile state of mind. We begin to see a pattern in how Michael behaves with the mask on and with it off and in my opinion this was also a brilliant treatment of the material on Zombie’s part. Michael becomes increasingly aggressive to the point that he loses himself while wearing his mask. Seemingly, the only immune parties are Michael’s mother who is good to him and his little sister, Laurie, who is an infant in the beginning of the film and becomes a major At this point, Michael is briefly back to angelic, endures some more punishment at the hands of his malcontented step father and slips the mask on for yet another truly chilling sequence. At one point, Michael is eating candy and playing innocently in the kitchen. With almost no warning or indication he suddenly dons the mask, retrieves a butcher knife and sets out to dispatch his family. I won’t spoil the details but I do have to say that the combination of the weird disjointed noises in the soundtrack (which were masterfully done), the sheer violence and the strange high pitched grunting noises from the strain of effort that young Michael puts forth in his tasks are absolutely blood curdling. I can’t praise Daeg Faerch enough for his portrayal of young Michael Myers in this film. Some of the material that he had to work with was cumbersome and over the top but this kid was masterful in his own right. He was absolutely the best choice for the role. In one other mask scene Michael has just committed yet another heinous deed while wearing a mask. At this point he is in custody and serving a life sentence in a sanitarium, though still a child. The result of this deed leaves a nurse dead and his mother who was exiting the building bounding back to see what the commotion was about. As she arrives and sees the carnage she turns to Michael and in a mass of noise and confusion pulls off his mask. As soon as she does this a snarling and feral Michael launches himself at her, From this point, about midway through the film, things begin to take a sharp downturn. Time passes, Michael grows up, and skipping by his teen years we find Michael as an adult. An absolutely ridiculous turn of events frees Michael from his bonds and sets him back on the path to Haddonfield with no clear motive in mind. It’s Halloween, Michael returns home, many, many people find themselves at the wrong end of a butcher knife and the result is basically a non cohesive mess. The only redeeming factor of the second half of the film is Tyler Mane’s performance as Michael. I know you’re thinking, as I was, how hard can the part be? The guy is in a mask and he stalks around killing people. I think Tyler was actually pretty excited to play the part and his actions on camera reflected that in a somewhat different Michael Myers than we’re used to. Mane is an actor and has had some real time in front of the camera versus the guys who played Michael in the originals who were all stuntmen between jobs. Tyler Mane’s Michael was very menacing in body language and in the way that he moved while in pursuit of a victim. His sheer size, all 6’-9” of him exploding violently For all of his effort to explain the story of Michael Myers I think Zombie fell short in a few aspects. For me, personally, the trite pre-packaged serial killer upbringing complete with 24 ‘F’ bombs per sentence failed to explain away evil of this magnitude which I think it really was trying to do. If I had my way, I’d have had Michael hail from a Leave it to Beaver idyllic upbringing because it’s much scarier for us humans to believe that evil can stem from within us even when there’s absolutely nothing external to blame. Also, Zombie never explains in his script precisely how Michael finds out who his sister is. When he returns to Haddonfield he goes back to his old house and is soon visited by his sister (unbeknownst to her) who slides some mail into the mail slot. Michael picks up the mail and smells the envelope and I think Zombie’s intent was to suggest that he recognized her scent from the envelope. If this is the case, it’s dumb. That’s all I have to say about it, it’s just dumb. Also, on the never explained list is precisely why Michael wants to contact his sister. In the film it’s hinted at that he wants a reunion but to what end we never know. All of that said I did like the ending which basically left the viewer wondering whether Michael’s little sister was as crazy as he was. Quite the wordy review, yes? I apologize for that. I am a hopelessly enamored horror fan and have always loved a good scare. All in all Halloween Rob Zombie style was pretty decent fare considering the current state of the genre. As I said, there were some brilliant performances particularly by Daeg Faerch, Sherri Moon Zombie, Tyler Mane and so far I’ve neglected to mention Malcolm McDowell’s portrayal of Dr. Sam Loomis. The role did nothing to showcase McDowell’s talents but he did turn in a solid performance as one would expect. If you’re a horror fan you’ve probably seen the film and can relate to what I’ve said here. If you haven’t seen it I think you should consider it as it’s probably better than you think it is and serves as a tame but better introduction to Zombie’s style than his own films which are decidedly and intentionally over the top. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Longest. Review. Ever...http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/c...er/hailxin.gif
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
The Basics: The Strangers, in a nutshell, is the story of a troubled couple who spend the night in the remote family home of the male protagonist, James, played by Scott Speedman. Through some unseen chain of events, the female lead, Kristen, played by Liv Tyler, has denied the marraige proposal of James and the two settle in for a long evening of sadness and melancholy over the event. At 4am in the morning someone knocks on the door and the real trouble of the evening ensues, leaving some dead folks in its wake. Heh, dead and wake, not a bad play on words there if I do say so myself. Anyway, its billed as a horror movie and it did have some of that in it to be sure. My Take: As I watched the first 30 minutes or so of this flick, I was pleasantly surprised by the complexity of the surroundings, the beautiful lighting, and most of all the music choices that accompanied the opening vignettes. I’m not sure what I was listening to but it sounded like some old jazz records that I have as well as some vintage country that I’ve run across before. I’ll have to research that but the point is that it was decidedly a break from the cheap metal riffs that usually accompany a horror flick today. Out of all of the actors involved, nary a one of them did a bad job in delivering their characters. I think it’s fair to assume at this point that when Miss Liv (the gorgeous) graces the screen a quality performance will follow. I hadn’t seen Speedman in anything else that I remembered but he’s certainly a capable and believable actor. The three antagonists also did a swell job in not under or over playing their respective roles and I really dug Kip Week’s creepy labored breathing under the baghead mask. So, at this point, I’ve been kind to the film. I complimented the cinematography, I’ve nodded with appreciation toward the soundtrack and I’ve even specifically singled out a few performances that I particularly enjoyed (Liv, if you read this, send me an email ;^) ). No doubt you’re reading with anticipation and trepidation and wondering to yourself ‘okay, so what’s the problem’? Okay then, I’ll tell you. Nothing really except that about 3/4 of the way through the story begins to crumble. The antagonists, in the beginning, have a seemingly uncanny ability to pinpoint the precise locations of Kristen and James. They knock on walls right above the head of poor frightened Kristin, they set up a murder (really quite a good scene), they even know when James is going to attempt an escape and they foil his effort handily. Toward the end though, folk are just running around and there seems to be a distinct lack of purpose (and point). It was all pretty good in the way that horror films can be good, it was just non-cohesive for a while and it killed the momentum for me. Now, on to the antagonists, shall we? Sometimes, to my disadvantage, I read up on weird stuff rather voraciously. I even have a site I’m working on (just starting really) to chronicle all of that but it’s best left there I think. I say ‘disadvantage’ There is a really good film out there called The Town that Dreaded Sundown that gets specific about this case with the main point being that a masked killer seemingly randomly killed people in isolated places in a small-ish community. I must admit that I had a little trouble in being horrified by these villians due to their obvious nods toward past events. In fact, it made me feel a little like someone was trying to pull the wool over my eyes in the hopes that these bizarre folks, rooted in reality, had slipped my mind. So, in summary, I thought it was a decent example of modern horror. That said, I’m generally NOT a fan of modern horror because I think most of it is cheap and unimaginitive (in contrast to horror masterpieces in years past). The Strangers at least tries to invoke some terror with crafty camera angles, great sound effects and the occasional ‘boo’ moments and it really does make a solid effort in setting the scene in a normal place and making the unfolding events feel like they could be happening to anyone. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
thanks for the review. i had no intentions of seeing this, i've heard nothing but bad things!
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Welcome :)
As a whole I can't really say I recommend it. Picked apart though there's 30 minutes or so of good movie in there. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Thanks for the review, I'll still catch it though.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by TheUsualSuspect (Post 476668)
Thanks for the review, I'll still catch it though.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
It is deserved...and late.
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
For some reason I hadn't yet found my way to your thread either. Great stuff there... I have a lot of catching up to do!
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Thanks for the review Toosey :) will give this a miss :yup:
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Welcome back Sir T. :kiss:
It's good to see you here and posting again. I think I'll skip your movie also. Looks like it's too much for me. :p |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by Aniko (Post 476766)
Welcome back Sir T. :kiss:
It's good to see you here and posting again. I think I'll skip your movie also. Looks like it's too much for me. :p As for the movie, where's your sense of adventure? :D |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
hey toose, it seemed to me like it would be a lot like the film with Luke Wilson and Kate (Beckinsdale?) called Vacancy, just with a dif location, and dif storyline (slightly). have you seen Vacancy, and if you did, is this one good enough to see as well?
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Ugh, I hate to barge in on this thread with a quick "I sure do hate that Vacancy movie" post, but, man, I sure do hate that Vacancy movie. It had maybe a few tense moments early on, but later and especially after "the big reveal", the whole movie just fell apart. I don't usually call bad flicks wastes of my time because A) my time isn't really worth all that much to begin with and B) I usually get something out of even the most awful movies. But Vacancy was just a complete and total waste of my time.
Ugh. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
well, we ARE talking about Luke Wilson, here. :D
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
mack... :laugh:
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 477251)
Thank you maam!
As for the movie, where's your sense of adventure? :D
So what's in your review cap next? |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by mack (Post 477322)
hey toose, it seemed to me like it would be a lot like the film with Luke Wilson and Kate (Beckinsdale?) called Vacancy, just with a dif location, and dif storyline (slightly). have you seen Vacancy, and if you did, is this one good enough to see as well?
|
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Originally Posted by Aniko (Post 477721)
It's in other cups of tea.~ :D
Originally Posted by Aniko (Post 477721)
So what's in your review cap next?
|
Jeez, 6 months since I've reviewed anything.
I'll put some thoughts up tomorrow. Too brain dead right now. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
No pressure. Have you caught Drag Me to Hell? I'd love to see what you think of that one.
|
I haven't... though I want to see it.
Any other requests? :D |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
How about the new Friday the 13th flick?
Oh, and I forgot to check in here and mention that I caught The Strangers a month or two ago. I think I would rate it a little lower than you but I agree with a lot of what you wrote about it. Have you seen Eden Lake? |
Haven't seen those either... been going backwards instead of forwards. How about i list what I was thinking of and you pick?
Angel Heart One of Polanski's trilogy: Rosemary's Baby or The Tenant or Repulsion Fearless Vampire Killers Dark Water Maybe something else that's a few years old... I'm woefully behind on new ones. |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Angel Heart. Gotta love that flick. Lisa Boner... er, Bonet. She was so naughty. Remember when Cosby kicked her off his show after she had the audacity to get nekkid in that flick?
I need to see Fearless Vampire Killers so if you want to do a write up for that it would be much appreciated. :yup: |
Will do.
Of all the folks on this site I think you may be the one who would most appreciate that flick. |
Great reviews, Toose. I will only read the reviews to films I've seen. So far, that would only be I Am Legend. It saddened me that you rated Halloween 2007 a tad higher than I Am Legend. Sure, I Am Legend isn't as good as The Last Man on Earth, but still . . . We're talking Halloween 2007. I also hate that Rob Zombie used my nick-name on his poster . . .
http://www.movieforums.com/community...ddfb8ad555.jpg I wonder if I can sue for that. It was very hard hitting the plus rep button on that post. I had to remind myself that it was for your hard work on the review. Not his . . . trashing of a classic! :p Well, I'll need some time to reply to I Am Legend, but I do intend to. Until then, keep them coming. These are very nice. Again, great work! :yup: |
Hey Des,
I don't have a particular soft spot for Zombie as a director. I think he's generally lacking in the creative spirit and rips off the shock factor of past events while trying to fob them off as his own take on the world. It's almost pitiful at times. To me, his Halloween remake was formulaic and predictable save for a few things. There are several scenes (3) involving young Michael and the masks that I found to be quite brilliant. Knowing Zombie these were probably accidental but I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. The parts of the film that are uniquely Zombie-esque such as the portrayal of the early family life, the over the top sexual scenes and the garbage language did absolutely nothing for the film but serve to drag it through the gutter. But there were those few moments... In contrast, I am Legend did a brilliant job of setting the story up and then destroyed it with amateurish CGI that was inferior to stuff done 10 years ago. The fact that they made so much of an effort to bring post apocalypse NY to life, and did it very well, just made those second rate monsters look all the worse. I'll defend my rating because I think those moments in Halloween, where things are going right, emotionally outweigh those moments in I am Legend where things are good as most of the scenes in the latter are backdrop and the ones in the former are pivotal to the story. Thanks for the kind words too, much appreciated! :) |
Originally Posted by Sir Toose (Post 539984)
I haven't... though I want to see it.
Any other requests? :D |
Some of the things that really interest me, other than movies, tend to run along the darker sides of life. My mother says I have a gutter interest in things to which I usually reply, "it takes one to know one". I have always been hugely fascinated with true crime, criminals, murder, mayhem and mystery because they run so contrary to something else that I also love which is the idyllic pastiche of middle America. Feast of Death deals with a very broad subject, homicide, and whittles it down to its effect on one specific person, James Ellroy. Many of you probably already know who Ellroy is, particularly if you're a fan of L.A. Confidential or Black Dahlia, which are based on Ellroy's novels of the same names. What you may not know is that L.A. Confidential is one of four novels set in L.A. in the late 1950's and is born of the same fascination with darkness that I spoke previously of. The difference is that Ellroy is actually a surviving victim of homicide as his mother was murdered in Los Angeles when he was ten years old. The experience of this, coupled with a story in Jack Webb's book The Badge (Dragnet) about the Black Dahlia murder sent him on a life long quest to make peace with his past, at first using the Dahlia as a stand in for his mother's case and then eventually dealing with his mother's death directly. Feast of Death is a fascinating look into the mind of James Ellroy. In the film, Ellroy travels into the places that shaped him as a person. Along with some LAPD friends of his, they go into a detailed investigation of his mother's death as well as a detailed investigation of the events surrounding the Black Dahlia case. Ellroy melds the two together and explains how they relate in his mind and how this was the impetus that caused him to start writing. As a bonus, Larry Harnisch, an expert on the Dahlia case makes an appearance and outlines his theory (which is really very sound) on who he thinks perpetrated the Dahlia murder and why. Also included is a vignette trip to Dealy Plaza in Dallas and some commentary about that. Because of his experiences and how he was able to deal with them, I find James Ellroy to be an incredibly interesting individual. He is crude at times, fair warning to anyone offended by profanity, don't watch this, but he is also down to earth, flawed and knows it. I've probably watched this documentary at least five times and could gas on for pages about it but i don't want to spoil it for those who might be interested. My rating is due to interest in the subject matter. The general viewing public would probably rate it something like . |
Re: Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews
Thanks Toose may watch this :yup: I am a big fan of crime etc :)
|
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 10:19 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums