Rodent's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





I'm probably one of the few people who still likes Poltergeist 2 better, even after those last two posts.
__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!



Review #71: The Passion Of The Christ.

Showing the last days of Christ's life, we see his fears and doubts and eventually his enlightenment while enduring a brutal and savage crucifixion at the hands of Roman Soldiers.

That's really all there is to say on the plot.
However, what the film really revels in is showing what the Bible and other Christian documents says happened.
The movie has turned away from the usual 'Christ film' where everything is lovely and he's put on his cross and everything is lovely with Technicolour Dreamcoats etc etc. In a nut-shell: The movie is loyal.

The film is brutal and hard and the second act is is extremely gory.

Watching a man stripped of his clothing and having bare skin whipped with razor-wire may not sound like the best way to spend a night in with a DVD but what makes the movie watchable is the way the movie is put together.
The shooting and screenplay are fantastic.

There are a few flashback scenes that show a lead up to the current torture Christ is undergoing and show the other side to Christ, the side most people are familiar with, in which he is teaching his Disciples and eating with them.
The connection between Jesus and Mary is also very prominent. A few flashbacks show him as a child and Mary being exceptionally protective of him, which shows through in the third act while he is carrying his cross.

The acting is what lifts the movie though. Amongst the tough-to-watch scenes is some of the most wonderful acting you'll see in this type of movie.
Maia Morgenstern as Jesus' Mother Mary and Monica Bellucci as the Disciple Mary Magdalene are wonderfully horrified by the scenes they are witnessing and at times actually can't believe Jesus' sheer will to carry his own cross. Their acting is also extremely realistic.

Jim Caviezel as Jesus Christ himself though, is brilliantly real and very believable. He portrays Christ fantasically during the peaceful flashbacks with a confidence I've yet to see from any actor in this role and when the more horrific scenes take place, he's able to show an other worldly strength that again, hasn't been seen before in this type of film.

There are the occassional CG shots involved, especially with Judas Iscariot being tormented by Demons but they're very well rendered and quite spooky too.

All in all, Mel Gibson caused controversy at the time of releasing this film, many Christians calling it blasphemous and against the pretty and lovely vision of Christ's crucifixion.
I call it an exception piece of filmmaking and extremely brave with what it has done with the vision of Christianity's beginnings. A very heart-wrenching film and though it's hard to watch at times, it's still worth watching, even if you're like me and not a Christian.
My rating 100%


Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	215px-Thepassionposterface-1-.jpeg
Views:	120
Size:	110.9 KB
ID:	8841  



All in all, Mel Gibson caused controversy at the time of releasing this film, many Christians calling it blasphemous and against the pretty and lovely vision of Christ's crucifixion.
Really? I remember churches making block bookings and organising trips for their entire congregations to attend the film. I remember this being the film which Christians boasted about how many times they'd seen it.

Strange, as this is (possibly) the biggest exploitation flick of all time.



I'm probably one of the few people who still likes Poltergeist 2 better, even after those last two posts.
I liked it more to. No it wasn't as well made, but hell it was scary.
__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



If you don't have it up already, I'd like to hear your opinion of Pulp Fiction, Rodent.

Haven't done it yet matey. Will ping a review up soon for you.



Reviews 72 and 73 now, I haven't seen the third film to this franchise yet, but rest assured, I'll get it done and do a rerun of these two when I do.


Review #72: Paranormal Activity.

The premise is about a young middle-America couple who decide to start filming their bedroom at night with a camera after strange things start going bumb in the night.
The woman is extremely upset by the things they're watching on the recordings but the guy is rather playful with the whole thing and thinks it's a bit of a laugh.
Eventually, it spirals out of control and has terrible consequences for the couple when they refuse to leave things alone and prefer to provoke the spirit.

It's an interesting concept to use Blair Witch style filming in a haunted house story but sadly, the bad writing and screenplay, mixed with even worse acting make for a very mediocre horror film.

At one point, a psychic is brought into the mix, but the dialogue that was written for the character was obviously written by someone who knows very little about Spiritualists and Mediums. The acting from the psychic is another wooden point.

The film relies mainly on shock tactics and not very good ones either as the scares are predictable.
For what is supposed to be 'found footage' of the haunting, I can't understand why the filmmakers decided to put a low tone rumbly sound before every single scare. It makes the scare predictable and, basically, non-scary.
There is the odd scare that works, but not many, in all I think there's maybe one that works.
Honestly though, I can't remember as the movie is that forgettable.

The acting is obviously scripted. For a home-video-footage style film, I haven't seen acting as bad as this since Troll Hunter.

All in all, after all the hype and media coverage saying it's the best horror in decades, I have to say it's by far the most predictable and worst made horror I've seen, even worse than the Elm Street remake.
My rating 5%, solely for the one jumpy bit that the movie contains



Review #73: Paranormal Activity 2.

A young family this time are subjected to a haunting in their house. Mum, Dad, teenage Daughter and newborn baby boy (who grows up to about a year old during the film).
They return home one day to find their home has been broken into and everything has been trashed yet nothing has been stolen so they decide to fit CCTV cameras as piece of mind. After that, the disturbances begin and get bigger as the movie goes on.

This time round the movie mixes CCTV and hand held camera. The shooting style is certainly much better than the first movie. It's clearer and makes more sense in reality.
The movie is more of a lead up to the first film as it's based before and contains a few plot continuity points that make the first film seem a little more coherant.
Sadly though, it doesn't make the first film any better.

Another bad point is that the 'found footage' is still draped in the low tone grumbly noise that happens just before a scary bit happens.
What almost saves the scary bits though, is that this film revels in doing something you weren't expecting. You know it's going to go 'Boo!', you just don't expect the 'Boo!' that happens.

The good points?:

The added plot expansions make the film feel a little deeper than its predecessor and makes for a more entertaining movie.

The acting is also better than the first film with exception to the Father of the family.

All in all it's far better than the first but still nowhere as good as all the media hype reckoned it was.
My rating 15%, mainly for plot expansion and having slightly better scares





Just for mastermetal777

Review #74: Pulp Fiction.

The plot revolves around a large group of disparate characters, a gangster and his wife, a boxer and two hitmen, and many more supporting roles, all going through their respective journeys over the period of a day or so.
All have seperate stories that intertwine with one another at some point, eventually leading up to a full circle, among what appears to be a chaotic series of strange, surreal and yet believably real circumstances.

The movie plays out almost like Tarantino's other masterpiece, Reservoir Dogs, it starts out bluntly, in the thick of the action, and moves onto the next scene without so much as a blink of the eye. Like with Reservoir Dogs there's no real coherant timing with the scenes, one minute it's the morning, the next it's the afternoon, then suddenly it's morning again.
It can seem a little lost at first to a first time viewer, but when the audience realises where the series of events is going, it makes brilliant and perfect sense.

Think of it as a flashback movie, that's piecing together a complex series of strange situations.

As for the overall screenplay, the movie is an absolute gem. It's shot fantastically and is extremely funny at times.
There are some quite brutal scenes of drug taking, violence and sex involved too but each situation no matter how hard and harsh, still has the subtle undertone of real life humour that Tarantino is a master of encapsulating.

The dialogue for the characters is also brilliantly real and very well realised. The acting in the film is what makes all the difference though, they all hit their marks and seem to just know where and what they're characters are supposed to be.
You can tell the actors had a lot of fun while filming too.
By far, out of all the top-drawer acting involved, Harvey Keitel steals the show for his part as Mr Wolf. Only on screen for about 10 minutes, his character is memorable beyond belief.

There's no action as such, only the occassional pacey scenes containing small chases and smaller gunplay but it's still well put together.

The one and only thing that lets the movie down is that first time viewers can feel a little lost for the first 15-20 minutes, but stick with it if you want a brilliantly executed circle of storytelling.

All in all, it's one of the most original movies of the past 20 years and has some of the most memorable characters too. Tarantino really hits the nail on the head with this one.
My rating 98%





Review #75: Critters Franchise (with a re-run of my earlier Review# 31: Critters).


Critters

Low budget horror flick that was part of the 1980s Puppet Creature Feature market. Other favourites include Troll, Ghoulies, Gremlins and Munchies.

A handful of tennis ball sized aliens known as ‘Crites’, who have escaped from their space prison, crash land on earth just outside a small town called Grover’s Bend.
They then make their way to the nearest farm (owned by the ‘Brown’ family) and cause them a whole night of havoc and terror. Hot on their trail though are two Intergalactic Bounty Hunters.
Upon eating various farm animals and the occasional person too, the Critters start growing in size and become a more formidable foe.

It’s a brilliantly made movie that uses the ‘people trapped in house’ plot as it’s basis.
The movie also heads out into the town too when the Bounty Hunters arrive and the ‘fish out of water’ premise is utilised when they can’t seem to find the Crites and the town’s folk don’t take them seriously.

There are elements of all sorts of genres too. Many regard the movie as either sci-fi or horror.
It’s actually a modge of all sorts: Tongue in cheek comedy, gory horror, shocker, claustrophobic haunted house style and sci-fi.
It mixes all the elements really well too.

I wouldn’t say the shooting style is any better than any other movie of it’s type but it’s very well put together in terms of action, shocks and acting.

Scream-Queen Dee Wallace Stone and Billy Green Bush as the wife and husband Heads of the Brown family are very well played by both. They have an on-screen chemistry and a homely comfortableness about them.
Nadine Van Der Velde as the daughter is spot on as the teenage daughter and beautiful Damsel in distress (sort of).
Billy Zane makes his second ever movie appearance as Nadine Van Der Velde’s new squeeze. Being that he’s on screen for a short time, he’s actually a memorable character.
Scott Grimes plays the main part of the cast as the youngest of the family. Even at such a young age Grimes really shines in the role as the mischievous scamp who’s got an old soul about him. You knew even back then that Grimes has a long career ahead of him.

The effects of the movie are a touch dated by today’s standard but they work with the low budget shooting style of the film really well.

The characters too are well realised, especially the Crites (who are also ''puppeted' brilliantly too) and the Bounty Hunters are brilliantly original.

The only thing that lets the movie down is the pretty weak writing for the ending, but for budget constraints and the feel of the movie, it does kind of work.

All in all it’s a funny, shocking, mildly gory but relatively standard sci-fi-comedy-horror and is a very close runner up to Gremlins in the Creature Feature genre.
My rating 89%



Critters 2: The Main Course

Once again Grover's Bend is attacked by the vicious, hungry little creatures. This time, some eggs left behind from the first movie have hatched just as Brad Brown returns to his home town, 2 years after the events of the first movie.
This time round, the Bounty Hunters have also returned and have brought Charlie back with them too.

The movie is definitely a product of bad writing and production.
It tries to be bigger than the first film in the action stakes and expands the overall event to the entire town, rather than the 'trapped in house' horror that the first film made so well.

You might think it would be a good thing to do this, if it were simply a re-run of the first film's plot it would simply be a cash in sequel.
Sadly though, the wooden acting, childlike writing and the dropping of the horror genre for a more comedy orientated basis make for a very poor night in with a DVD.

Many of the original ideas from the first film have also been dropped. There's no continuity in the sequel.
There are also massive plot holes in regard to the town's folk when they refer to the events of the original movie.

The puppetry is one good point. They're brilliantly modelled yet feel different to the first movie in the way they 'act'.
The overall effects though aren't improved from the first. If anything, they're worse.

All in all, a terrible sequel to a cracking little build up.
My rating 15%



Critters 3

After hitching a ride on the underside of a family's truck, the malicious little monsters find themselves inside the family's crummy apartment block in the city, surrounded by various disparate residents of the apartments.
It's up to the residents to find a way to hide and fight and find a way to save themselves.
Charlie once again shows up to aid the hapless victims.

It's a better film than the second movie. The writing feels as though more time has been taken and the plot is a little closer to the first film with the claustrophobic 'haunted house' genre.
The acting is another plus point. Though cheesy at times and wooden on occasion, it's far better than the second film.

There is a nice subplot with the main family though. It's a broken home storyline with Dad, Daughter and Son having to reconcile their differences.

Bit part actress Frances Bay makes a nice appearance as an elderly lady in the block.
Leonardo Di Caprio makes his feature film debut too. He's certainly at his usual. His acting is exactly the same as modern day.

The creatures look has been altered for this film too. They're more cartoony and feel more viewer friendly, almost as if the filmmakers were trying to appeal to a younger audience, though with the plot and writing being the way it is, I'm not sure it's right for kids.
Bit of a miss affair really to do that.

Another bad point though is the constant background music, like the kind you find in a TV movie. It's badly written and even in the quieter scenes, it's still very prominent.

All in all it's a vast improvment on the awful second movie but nowhere near the original.
My rating 55%



Critters 4

Charlie has found himself frozen in suspended animation with a bunch of Crite eggs by his side. When he is awakened from his slumber, many years have passed and he finds himself in space, on a salvage ship with a small crew.
The eggs of course have hatched and it's up to Charlie to explain to the crew what's going on and help find a way to survive.

This is the final nail in the Critters coffin. After the third film's improvement over the second film, this one for some reason decided to go for full on comedy mixed with bad humour, cliche plotlines, gimmicky ideas and terrible acting.

The movie as a whole feels very much like Jason X with the hammy/wooden/talentless acting and the plot setting. The writing and effects feel like an extremely low budgetted TV movie too.

What makes the movie almost watchable though is that it knows it's terrible.
The filmmakers excel in utilising the fact that their movie is a complete pile and it actually makes for an entertaining, tongue in cheek, knowingly bad sci-fi.

Brad Douriff is about the best part of it all though. He's cheesy and at his usual self.

All in all, it's knowingly bad but still relatively entertaining because of this. Nowhere near as good as the third or the original, but still better than the second film.
My rating 30%





Review #76: Unforgiven.

Another western from me.

After a prostitiute is attacked by a bunch of cowboys and slashed with a knife, the fellow prostitutes put out a bounty on the men responsible.
Much to the town's disapproval, various people come calling but are dealt with swiftly by a brutal and unbending Sheriff.
Eventually, word of the $1000 bounty comes to William Munny through a young wannabe assassin called The Schofield Kid. Munny was a brutal and murderous drunkard in his past and The Kid thinks that Munny can help him in killing the cowboys.
Now though, Munny is an aging failing farmer, a failing father of two and a widower. The invite of money catches his attention and he calls upon his past mentality and an old friend from the past too called Ned Logan, to get his hands on some cash to save his farm and make a better life for his children.

The story itself of 'one last job' has been used many a time before but what makes Unforgiven so special is the character writing, the acting, the shooting style and, by far the screenplay.
It's incredibly well made.

There's also mild touches of 'time orientated' humour which gives the film an authenticity as a western.
The dialogue too is extremely real and authentic. Munny is always wrestling with his thoughts and his conversations with Ned over what they're about to do is wonderfully realistic.

Clint Eastwood and Morgan Freeman have collaberated more than once on screen but Unforgiven is by far their best work together. They just feel like old mates, doing something they used to do but have become rusty at it. They're very real and occasionally funny too.
Jaimz Woolvett as The Kid is brilliantly annoying to Munny and Ned and seriously full of sh*t when he starts telling stories about his past. Woolvett really nails the role.
Gene Hackman as the brutal Sheriff is another plus point. Many regard him as an antagonist because he's against Munny and his friends, others say he's the protagonist as he's simply doing his job.

They're a brilliantly executed bunch of characters by the writers, being that you care some much about the assassins, you never really know how to feel about the Sheriff.
You also know what the Sheriff is doing and why, so you never know how to feel about the assassins.

The action is relatively held back, even at the climactic shootout but when it gets going it's exciting and gives the viewer a thrill.

To be honest, there's very little wrong with the film.

All in all, it's by far one of the best westerns, and most importantly one of the best overall films to have ever been made. Top drawer in every respect.
My rating 100%





Good whiskey make jackrabbit slap de bear.
Easily Clint Eastwood's best work as a director (or at least a tie with A Perfect World) and one of the best films of the Western genre, up there with The Searchers and The Good, The Bad & The Ugly.

Nice review.
__________________
"George, this is a little too much for me. Escaped convicts, fugitive sex... I've got a cockfight to focus on."



Review #77: Black Hawk Down.

What I described as 'boring' a few weeks back, has eventually made it's mark on me. Like with The Thin Red Line, I think I was too young when I first watched back in 2001.

The movie revolves around The Battle Of Mogadishu and the American attempt at catching Somali Warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
After a successful beginning to the mission, a Black Hawk helicopter is shot down by the enemy and surrounded.
After that, the entire mission becomes one giant cluster-f**k and another Black Hawk helicopter is downed by the enemy forces. The American and allied troops who are stranded deep behind enemy lines are either injured, captured or killed in what is quickly becoming a futile attempt to survive and escape.

It really is one gritty and hard hitting movie. What makes it more gritty is the shooting style, it's incredibly realistic. There's no massive Hollywood silliness with the action scenes.
The effects though are hugely impressive.
Though relatively held back to the eye, they're very real looking and, because of this, they're very effective.

The ensemble cast are another exceptional piece of filmmaking.
Josh Hartnett, Ewen MacGregor, Tom Sizemore, Ewen Bremner, Ioan Gruffudd, Jason Isaacs, Brian Van Holt, Ian Virgo, Tom Hardy, Orlando Bloom, Eric Bana, William Fichtner, Kim Coates, Ron Eldard and Sam Shepard are just a small part of the brilliant acting involved throughout.

The other thing that makes the film stand out, is the movie flits between the warzone and the troops at the base who haven't gone out on the mission.

The reaction of the soldiers at the base when they realise what’s happened to their friends is brilliantly executed and the camaraderie between all of the soldiers is very, very real.

All in all it's up there with the best of the modern war movies and was deservedly nominated for 18 awards, winning 3 of them.
My rating 95%





Review #78: The Fly.

A brilliant but nerdy and eccentric scientist meets a beautiful female journalist at a science convention. Explaining to her that he has an invention that will change the world, she reluctantly agrees to go back to his home/laboratory to see his 'amazing' invention.
Upon discovering that he has built a teleportation device, the pair decide to get into a partnership where she will use her journalistic reporting skills to record his work on his invention to make it more practical and more powerful.
Upon a moment of eureka, he tests his machine on himself, with disastrous results.

This is a rare event of a remake being better than the original. The Fly revels in the mystery, creativeness, atmosphere and horror.
It wonderfully playful with the icky side of life and doesn't hold back with the gore and slime either.

What makes The Fly stand out from other horror sci-fi movies is the extremely small scale of the overall film. It has a feeling of low budget yet the effects are, even after 30 years, still awe inspiring and to a point, 'gross out' too.

The acting is marvellously real too.
Jeff Goldblum made his mark in Hollywood as scientist Seth Brundle. He had been in a few things before but his role in this film really projected him to stardom. He's brilliantly nerdy and really comes out of his shell (ahem) as the movie progresses.
Geena Davis (mmmm) is wonderfully beautiful in the role of journalist Veronica Quaife. She's cheeky, playful and serious all at the same time.

By far the thing that stands out in the film is the special effects and make-up work. After all this time they still feel and look real.
There are the odd seams showing with some of the camera work but it doesn't take a lot away from the film.

All in all, with Cronenberg as director and produced in part by Mel Brooks, The Fly is a modern (ish) sci-fi horror classic and definitely one for the history books.
My rating 94%





Review #79: Lake Placid

After a local Sheriff witnesses the gruesome death of a diver in a Maine Lake, a hunt for the killer is launched. According to the Sheriff, an underwater creature is responsible for the attack, but what awaits the team of scientists and Animal Rangers is something much more deadly, and definitely bigger, than they imagined.

Seen as a low percentage scorer at the time of release (39% by Rotton Tomatoes), Lake Placid actually has a very clever script and contains many sub-genres, horror, comedy and romance.
It utilises the humour brilliantly with the mildly horrific scenes of mutilation and the dialogue of the characters is also laugh out loud at times, particularly with Oliver Platt and Brendan Gleeson.

The scares aren't exactly scary as such, but many of them are unexpected, giving the viewer the sense of 'comic book' danger.
Many of the gruesome death scenes that appear (after the initial, first death of the movie) are toned down to a point though.

The acting is about 50/50 though, sadly.
Forgettable actor Bill Pullman as Fish and Game officer Jack Wells, is at his usual forgettable best.
As too is Bridget Fonda as Kelly Scott, an archeologist and Pullman's love interest.

Brendan Gleeson as Sheriff Keough is brilliantly grumpy and moody in the series of events, his on screen chemistry with Oliver Platt is also brilliant.
Oliver Platt as Hector Cyr is also on top form. He's funny and eccentric and plays off Gleeson fantastically.

Niether Fonda nor Pullman do much for the comedy, horror or story for that matter, and to be honest, the whole thing would have worked without them. If anything, the film may actually have been better if Platt and Gleeson were left alone to do their thing.

The effects are about standard though. The puppetry work is good but the CGI is a little cartoony and shows that the budget wasn't massively used on the computers. It works though.

All in all, for a comedy horror it works, in the same vein as Eight Legged Freaks with more of a 'roll your eyes' kind of humour, but not quite as sharp with the overall screenplay, still though it's an enjoyable movie.
My rating 65%





Good whiskey make jackrabbit slap de bear.
I liked Lake Placid when I saw it a couple of years back. Haven't seen it since, but it's a film I frequently remind my mum about.

"Hey, remember that giant crocodile movie?"