Re93animator's Review Thread

Awesome bro. I am doing the same thing. So now we can link each other in the links section!! Just kidding. Well, maybe, we'll see how it goes. Seriously though, I'm on my way over there now to check it out.

The universe is ruled by metrosexual Fu Manchu, and a football player must overcome an army of plastic ketchup people. After using his finesse to save the galaxy here, it’s no surprise that Josh Barnett went on to become a successful heavyweight in MMA.

Mr. Gordon may have a bland personality, but he fortunately isn’t played too histrionic. It would’ve been so easy to overact the satirical square-jawed ‘HERO’ part, but Josh Barnett-lite tones it down enough to be funny and likeable. Also, picking a favorite voice in this movie is like picking a favorite child. I personally gravitate towards the bellowing husky-viking-angel guy, with the booming and dynamic cadence. He speaks in caps lock. “STTAAUNND BUUUAY… “

There’s a majestic glow highlighted by a tinge shinier than Roy Scheider smeared with Vaseline. If Albert Pyun directed 2001 with sunglasses on, it wouldn’t be as shiny as this. This is a nice complement to the sets, in all of their hot dog saturated grandeur. The sets themselves occasionally look like vast, symmetrical Peter Greenaway-esque stages constructed by an LSD-stimulated Hulkamaniac.

Star Wars may have light sabers, but it lacks floppy blunt plastic swords. This came out around the height of Star Wars-fever, and seems like a borderline satire of big budgeted sci-fi fantasy epics. There’s an involving story and fun characters in addition to its ‘spoof-ier’ aspects though. It embraces the source material, I suppose. It’s not like Spaceballs where the entertainment value lies purely in the farce. Even though the humor is silly and self-aware, I don’t think it goes too overboard on comedy. It’s hammier than a Canadian deli, but I could see somebody who didn’t know any better thinking that it was actually trying to be badass… which makes it even more hilarious.

__________________

An alien apparatus that looks like balled-up tree bark starts to contaminate the minds of the community around it. People affected show little emotion as a result. The non-affected humans also show little emotion though, because they’re in a wannabe Tarkovsky ogle-fest.

This an art film with a b-movie narrative, assisted by cheesy sci-fi guns, ‘splosions, and large military instruments. It may be as close as we’re ever gonna get to a snail-paced, po-faced, philosophical arthouse action extravaganza. Some of the deadpan art film clichés mixed with weirdly OTT action can be hilarious and lack self-awareness, but I find that pretty enjoyable. It can be fun to simultaneously appreciate and laugh at self-indulgent artsy stuff.

Politically, the movie seems critical of the Soviet ‘collective’ state philosophy. Being so close to the demise of the USSR, I suppose more dissonant views were starting to leak into domestic pop culture. The story’s ‘contaminated’ ones are a mindless collective, fighting for their own greater good while trying to convert the individually driven humans. The only ones not susceptible to the alien brain programming are youths, free-spirits (crazies), elders, and intellectuals; those that have either yet eluded their society’s influence, or are too firmly set in their own ways to be manipulated.

Overflowing with more reverb-y percussion than an 80’s hair metal concert, the sound design can get a tad annoying. The atmosphere is so f*cking good though. The cinematography shifts from drab color to eerie sepia, the setting is damp, foggy, and perpetually photogenic, and the odd ambient/jazz score is outstanding. This makes the movie. Bleak atmosphere devotees should take heed. One of the best.

Even as a fan of Lopushanskiy and early von Trier, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such blatant Tarkovsky worship. It almost passes for the real thing. The sepia is beautiful, the foggy grain is beautiful, and each shot is given enough breathing room to save a drowning U-boat. It’s not the type of rip-off that should annoy fans of Tark and the like, but further indulge their tastes. I know I picked some gripes. It's a pretty easy target, but it’s so under the radar, and based on my own enjoyment… I can’t not give it 5/5.

I liked it, though not quite as much as you did. Your interpretation did help put certain things in better perspective, though. You definitely got a lot more out of the story than I did. I do agree that the soundtrack was a big turn off and 3 hours was just too much for me. But it did look absolutely stunning and those pictures are perfect in capturing that. Fantastic review.

I'm intrigued.

Distinguishing neon, body mods, subversive leads, mean Japanese people, super-globalized environment, attractive hacker chick in tank top, self-loathing haircuts, and virtual reality. Kool.

Our uncharacteristic cyberspace comes in the form of an eponymous virtual reality game, wherein the main playable character is consciously attempting to erase his existence. Despite the outside world being so fleshed out and pretty, the game world is underwhelming. There’s inverted-Sin City-esque splotchy B&W and color juxtaposition, and a disappointingly pedestrian environment. The real world looks more cyber-y; the virtual world looks phoned in.

After scrounging and suffering through awful English dubbing, I finally tracked down an original Italian copy. Unfortunately, someone thought it’d be wise to cast two French stars, so you’re gonna endure dubbing either way. Being long-familiarized with Christopher Lambert’s signature nasaly murmur, it’s difficult to look past his Italian deep vocal surrogate.

So, this isn’t great, but it’s one of better subgenre forays. Apart from some budget limitations and dubbing, it isn’t too cheesy or overly-bombastic. I can’t think of much to write about here. It does the job.

Folks go to the moon. Our anticipation is generated by racking up as many minutes as possible before takeoff. Unfortunately, in the epic-centric silent era, that can be a lot of minutes. The tacky subplots building up to the real focus of the movie are pretty cheesy and monotonous. Notable sci-fi paraphernalia doesn’t really show up until about halfway either. After an hour and a half of development, chasing this with A Trip to the Moon might cause a short-circuit.

The brunt of the movie’s accolades seems to fall on the takeoff sequence itself. The egg boiler rocketship’s technical qualities are afforded more attention than any narrative ones. The storyline and art direction might be pretty simplistic/minimal, but there is a nice emphasis on the science (outdated as it is).

Everything post-takeoff is cool though. 1929 didn’t seem to have anti-gravity effects figured out yet, but they found some nifty workarounds. It’s fun to see one of the earliest incarnations of a theme that’s been commonplace since. The expressionistic space-y sets are somewhat photogenic too.

It has some classic sci-fi charm, though the backdrops don’t hold a potato powered flashlight to something like Metropolis. Minimalism can be apt for sci-fi, but it can also be pretty disappointing here.

The movie opens with a prologue explaining that pretty much every major city in the world harbors its share of poverty. Despite outward appearances, major cities attempt to keep less desirable areas veiled from the public eye, and many children are consequently doomed to suffer from poverty and crime.

Our characters are introduced amidst ramshackle buildings, cracked glass, and underdeveloped industrialization. The playful enthusiasm of the children still glimmers, while the older kids pass around cigarettes, coercing non-smoking kids with peer-pressure. Already, the movie is pointing out a corrupting influence. One leading character, fresh out of jail, takes on a sort of leadership role. In addition to being older, the other kids see reverence in his delinquency. He barks criminal orders that the other children see as mandatory. The kids mention their parents and seem to know right from wrong, but their primary moral guidance comes from their peers. So, the corruptible influences feed off the corruptible influences. I think the movie’s also trying to stress that anything with an air of danger or subversion is thrilling, and therefore desirable to those who don’t strictly know better (or haven’t yet experienced the consequences).

The culture itself, both good and bad, is fleshed out. With characteristic music, clothing, and architecture, there’s really no mistaking where this takes place. Despite the central poverty, it doesn’t immediately give off a negative vibe. Kids are still having fun and people are talkative, laborious, and partaking in activities. The streets are busy and lively, and the criminality seems to be a hidden aspect seeping its way in. We’re given an exclusive look at it, so to us, it’s at the forefront. There is a stark beauty on display, highlighting the joy in lesser means. None of the pedestrians are extravagant, but they seem to find enjoyment in simple humor, art, socialization, and commerce.

The worst happens when the characters find themselves away from the populous areas, and all inhibition is revoked. The kids grow more violent and needlessly cruel, enjoying the thrill of wrongdoing. As the wrongdoing grows more severe, however, the youths’ fear, misery, anger, and desperation is exacerbated, and their stimulation dissipates. One child is shown often away from the undesirable peers, and under the influence of his parent and siblings. Therein we get a slight peek at the child’s innate innocence, despite strict reprimands and a neglectful attitude from his mother. The id comes out with the peers, a more innocent superego with the parent. The movie’s surrealist nightmare sequence also highlights the child’s guilty conscience.

At night, the streets are even grittier, smothered with fog and the silhouettes of nightly riff-raff. One child is shown taking care of his drunken father. The movie may be trying the show the commonality of alcohol being used as means to drown out the stress of poverty and broken kinships. All the while, alcohol abusers tend to neglect responsibilities and negatively influence future generations.

Backbreaking labor is also shown. People in extreme poverty often work hard to desperately support a menial way of life. Here, both youth and adults are shown cement mixing, blacksmithing, and constructing shabby roofs in the sun with lesser technological means. Overall, there’s a glimpse of positivity, but the movie seems to take pride in showing an unabashedly harsh outlook that was less than common for cinema of the time.
​
Of course, the main story is set in Mexico, but the morale spans to any similar setting. Like it explains in the prologue, major cities wished to give the appearance that they were always aiming to treat these problems, but the film presents a very alternative view. The grit and despondency is important. If it weren’t for rare statements like this, an important view of Mexican cultural history could’ve been swept under the rug. I think the main point isn’t the kids’ criminality, but what drives them to it. They don’t know any better, so they feed off their environment.

Fresh off the heels of the revolution, Soy Cuba recounts pre-revolutionary Cuba. It was also directed by Mikhail Kalatozov, an acclaimed Soviet filmmaker at the time known for beautiful cinematographic achievements in movies such as Letter Never Sent and The Cranes are Flying. Unsurprisingly, Soy Cuba is both marred by its affiliations and upheld as a classic of arthouse cinema. It’d no doubt garner polarizing views from international viewers.

There are some beautiful sweeping shots of scarcely-populated rural Cuba in the beginning. These are accommodated by minimal culture-savvy folk music and a soothing voiceover. This tranquility is unceremoniously interrupted by a noisy, populated scene showcasing the lively pizazz of urban life. There’s prevalent joy all around; swimming, dancing, singing, cheering, and drinking. The movie goes out of its way to juxtapose the two sides of Cuba: urban and rural, or rich and poor. The movie also refers to the path of the star (sacrificial unity) and the path of slavery (forgoing freedom). They are often at a crossroads with each other. They show life out of balance; the major catalyst for the revolution. The rural parts are my favorite. It’s so interesting to look at a modest way of life that’s seldom presented as considerately as it is here. It shows both backbreaking labor and untainted friendliness.

The Americans are made out to be unkind stereotypical caricatures of sleazy rich folk feeding off the land’s luxuries and terrorizing the locals. The revolutionaries are made out to be extremely passionate subversives sacrificing themselves for the greater good. They’re also the only ones that show any remorse for violence. Their impetus is, ironically, propagandized news and violent tyranny. The most over the top instance has the be the authorities mercilessly gunning down a little birdie that the revolutionaries then hold up as a bastion of innocence. It’s the event that somehow finally unites a crowd against the police state. So, if gunning down people wasn’t enough, I guess a line was crossed at bird.

The narrator is the voice of Cuba, or the vicarious sentiment of the oppressed. The whole movie is an ardent attempt to make the viewer understand why one would be driven to fight. An almost overdramatically sympathetic farmer is forced off his land by bigwig capitalists that the movie wants us to disdain. The movie ends with beautiful rural Cuba being bombarded, while men are driven out of their serenity to take up arms. “Do not fear a glorious death. To die for your motherland is to live.” This finalizing message inevitably calls attention to the movie’s Soviet influence (co-produced by Mosfilm in the credits; the USSR’s film industry).

This movie attempts to capture the essence of Cuba’s cultural zeitgeist through its music, settings, and passionate characters. It’s a testament to the natural and popular splendor of Cuba. There’s a notably odd and ambitious use of cinematography. There are many experimental tracking shots, tilted shots, and shots positioned at unusual angles. Maybe some could see this as a way of capturing an underlying tone, but I think they’re just artsy flourishes that give the movie a unique panache (this is also suggested by some of Kalatazov’s other movies). There’s also an occasional dreamlike, surreal blur given to some of the more distressing bits. I do think that this is intended to make the tumult more unnerving (and it does).

The characterizations of Americans are what you can expect from a narrative driven by political zeal of the time. The movie was made as rallying cry for socialism. It’s a result of the then recently fought revolution, when the fervor was still at its height. Thus, it bastardizes any perceived philosophical opponents of its rose-colored idealism. It’s an easy target for criticism, though some heralded Western Bloc movies of the cold war are guilty of propagandized history too (such as I Married a Communist, Red Dawn, Rocky IV, etc.). Regardless, Soy Cuba carries historical significance for its adept depiction of alternative views, much like the Soviets’ Battleship Potemkin. Being only several decades old, the commentary is still relevant too. Especially considering Fidel Castro’s recent death and the US’s recently mitigated trade embargo on Cuba. The Cuban revolution piggy-backed off a string of Latin American socialist insurgencies opposing the Western Bloc, and is a polarizing topic to this day. Even if you hate the message, it’s fascinating to see a key example of socialism (at the height of the cold war) in such an artistic format. Typically, propaganda films are of a lesser ilk, but the merit of this lends credence to the content. It’s a marvel. Such a gorgeous presentation of Cuba.

Yup, smack dab between Hell Yeah st. and Cup'o'tea blvd.

Consider it queued.

This movie looks like it was lit by an irradiated purple Christmas tree. The radical, kaleidoscopic cinematography is the easiest thing to admire here. It can be gorgeous, though the beauty doesn’t come without occasional soreness. The flashing lights could turn Ray Charles’ corpse epileptic.

​The camera is directly behind the lead for the better part of the first half, and the second half is shot sluggishly overhead. Imagine being a voyeuristic floating snail. Beyond the remarkable air-cam peeking over people, the color-splotchy psychedelic effects are the most standout technical feats. They frequently carry the movie. Thus, the visual effects department deserves a giant slab of credit for this.

As a fan of early industrial music and dark ambiance, a flash of Throbbing Gristle and Coil gave me an immediate bias. They even picked a searing ANS excerpt from one of the more obscure nooks of Coil’s catalogue. Respect.

Despite constant negative dealings with drug fiends, it doesn’t really come across as an anti-drug movie. Just… look at it. Maybe it’s more about the cavalier youth, and self-harming decadence. A lead getting irrevocably sucked into a seedy underworld isn’t an original idea, but the execution here is. The ambition is also revved up in the end with a trance-y exploitative creation of life. I’ve never seen spermatozoa with such vibrant attention to detail. :/ I’ll tell ya what though… the movie’s got balls! ………. I’ll be here for the remainder of the week.

This is a different sort of exploit. Much of it is sad or nerve-wracking in lieu of pure exploitative disturbance or nihilism. Many seem repelled by pornographic content in features, but the more exploitative bits are fitting here, at least insofar as portraying a sexually warped vision from a weaselly, sleep-deprived-looking mofo (I really like Noé though ). Freudian themes presented with this sort of odd psychedelic anxiety can be even more discomforting than overt twistedness.

Damn... not many movies I've seen in here!

I've always wanted to see Enter the Void though... even if it's too weird or whatever, at least it'll be a visual acid trip to remember!

edit: Oh, that Happy End movie sounds very interesting. And that Ga, Ga-something movie... threads/movie watching habits like yours really makes my eyes open up about how many films are really out there... how many possibly GREAT ones. But we never really hear about them. Glad that you are one of those who shines a little light on such movies!

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

If you check out ETV, just come prepared for some pornographic, highly distressing, and violent content. The visuals are the easy part.

Thank you! I appreciate it.

Just caught up on the last couple of reviews. I didn't realize you reviewed "Los Olvidados". That's one of my favourites from Bunuel's mexican period (though I still have a lot to see) so I was really glad to see it here. I also added Soy Cuba to my watchlist.

Great reviews like always !

Haven't seen you do a review in a while. I've even checked your site. Hope I'll get a few more!

A pillar of expressionism! A fantastical projection of the future through the lens of a 1920s epic melodrama! An expressionistic base gives science fiction sets a unique quality that still stands apart from other passé examples made through a span of decades afterwards. Unlike much sci-fi, the backgrounds here are often minimal, king-sized, and even integrate some Gothic imagery. Much of the stuff accommodating the labor-intensive lower class has a nuts & bolts industrial look as well. Of course, science fiction still bears Metropolis’ hefty boot prints. The ubiquitous sprawling cityscapes are stuff of legend.

Metropolis follows a now common theme of technology gone awry, and underlines the unscrupulous fellows abusing its power. The subordinate side of society sees strict uniformity among workers driven by mindless duty, while the dissenting humanist morale of the lead attracts the laborers search for solace. It’s either that or his dashing 1920s German balloon pants and six pounds of makeup.

The melodrama here seems taken right off the stage, and exaggerated even for the 20s. Lang even later relegated the stories message a ‘fairy tale.’ For modern audiences, that may make it a tough first foray into silent cine, but the wild gesticulations and histrionics stress the grandiose subject matter in a fun way.

The editing and cinematographic techniques can also be wonderfully disorienting (perspective shots, a quaking cam, multiple exposures, surreal montages). Moreover, metaphorical death is seen unleashed upon the city, men become a salacious hivemind driven to lunacy, synced up machine-like workers are seen encompassed by the steam of industry and labor, and there’s more than enough climactic bombast to satisfy the epic label. The flexible imagination accommodates the exalted rep.

So, it’s been considered historically significant for a long time, and then a sizable chunk of new footage was uncovered a decade ago. Timeworn footage normally appeals to me, but when juxtaposed to a clean, remastered transfer, the damage of the tacked on extra footage can take you out of the moment. I’m grateful that it’s at least there now though.

Sorry I missed this. I feel like my writing is getting worse and more taxing. Metropolis will probably be the last for the foreseeable future.

I feel like that all of the time.

I just read your Metropolis review. It was tight and humorous, as usual. I totally understand the feeling of exhaustion trying to piece together thoughts, though. Hope you recoup and return to entertain with your insights. Plenty of great movies that need some lovin'!

Hoping to gain some independence from her omnipresent boyfriend, a successful model seeks new residence. She lands in a gorgeous old apartment building occupied by a curious lot of tenants. The tone is pretty far from camp, but it’s not too long before she has an abrupt flashback of walking in on her elderly father having an out-of-shape orgy. Freud might’ve called this Kubrick envy.

Once our protagonist begins to settle into her new quarters, she encounters a blind old priest who stares out of a window all day, and some fun eccentrics who love animals and communal masturbation, respectively. Her ceiling also creaks at night. Along the way, there are some clever, sometimes subtle red herrings ranging from paranormal gaslighting to prescription drug delusions. I intentionally left out some twisty detail, and I'll arrogantly recommend not reading too much more if you plan to see it. Even most of the posters contain a potential spoiler.

This is a good watch, and the mystery only gets stronger in the second half. It’s well shot, scored, acted, written, and recorded. Meaning, nothing really distracts from the plot. It’s surprisingly light on atmosphere, but the scares are really strong, if not scarce. The innocent-mannered lead is great too. We’re also treated to Christopher Walken chewing gum for a few seconds, detective Eli Wallach, and Jeff Goldblum with a phony dub. It’s very accessible and ‘of the time,’ but still not afraid to get a little weird.

First saw The Sentinel at the movies when I was 6 and it scared the crap out of me. It's a nice little forgotten gem.