Sir Toose's Maggot Pie Reviews

→ in
Tools    





Woot, Toose has a review thread.

Anyway, I agree completely. The subpar quality of the monster effects stood out all the more because everything else looked so good.



ExorcistIII

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).
ExorcistIII
The antagonist, The Gemini Killer/demon, is played by Brad Dourif. Scott lends his usual brilliant and compelling performance but in this film it’s Brad Dourif who steals the show. Dourif performs a series of absolutely chilling monologues in this film where he discusses and details the pride he takes in his work as a serial killer. The exact how and why will give away too much but suffice it to say that I believe this role to be the best performance ever in a horror film.




Toose's Take:
ExorcistIII

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 ), 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.




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...
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
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.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Aye boy don't spit in my drink!
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.
Hah, you reeeeally piqued my interest with that last bit. I'll be sure to watch it along with Legion sometime within the next couple weeks.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Very underrated film. Glad you enjoyed it.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



LastHouse

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.




Thank you for watching crappy movies so we don't have to...
Here is where I come in and say that crappy movies are foundationally important to watch so that you can appreciate the good ones when you see them.

Or, you could just buy me a beer for taking one for the team.




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.

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.

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.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



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.
Me too! Check my DVD list in my sig to see how many I actually own.

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.
Boob factor = 0

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.



Me too! 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.
I'll do that, and thanks for the Boob Factor... I'll most likely skip this bad boy.




Nice review, need to watch this again now.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



OC

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)
OC2
, a hilariously alcoholic and disconnected mother (played by Catherine O'Hara), an absent father who's 'traded-up' to a trophy wife and greener pastures (so he thought), two surfer buds ala Jeff Spicoli from Fast Times at Ridgemont High and a very sensible and beautiful girlfriend (played by Schuyler Fisk)
OC3
who he should be listening to for the entire movie but doesn't realize it. All of these people, along with some other colorful characters peppered throughout the story basically combine to form a recipe for madness (and it's a pretty damn funny one) and Shaun's way of dealing with it all is to write the story of his life. In doing so, he discovers that he has an ability for writing and that writing is something that he wants to pursue as a career. Shaun's ultimate goal then becomes acceptance to Stanford University which is world reknowned for its writing paths/degrees. All manner of madness ensues in a seeming conspiracy to keep Shaun at home and away from realizing his dream including an absolutely gut wrackingly hilarious scene with Garry Marshall, Catherine O'Hara and Jack Black that you won't want to miss.

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.



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..."