Pyro's Piss poor review

→ in
Tools    





A system of cells interlinked
Reminds me of the bad early 80s horror flick The Boogeyman, where the soul of a killer is trapped in a mirror. The mirror gets broken, and the killer is released into the shards, and when it's being thrown out, a piece sticks to someone's shoe (yawn) and they inadvertently bring the Killer home. The film apes scenes from Amityville horror and other 70s horror, but the whole thing turns out to be mind numbing and ridiculous. Stay clear of that one!
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Saw 3

Just as the last two Halloweens, this year comes with a new Saw.... for better or worse. I went in watching this after enjoying the first two. Both worked at what they wanted to do and the sequel even managed to be a fresh shade on the first. There are two keys tropes evident in these films, gruesome scenes and a twist. And un-suprisingly the people behind Saw 3 are accutely aware of this leading to a film probably made based on these ideas.

As such the gore and torture scenes are some of the most painful and wince inducing scenes in the series (and it's hard to think of a film that matches it). I'd say i'm quite de-sensitised in films but during the power tool brain surgery i'll admit my toes were curled like a bitch. It's a shame that this was the only aspect they put any thought into and the rest of the film does suffer from this. The characters are a waste of space tumbling along to reach the final twist. The A-B plot point approach with characterisation leaves the film limp leaving only death scenes to meaningless characters holding up what's left. And the deaths do become slightly absurd (drowning in minced pig) and the rush to reach the twist just cuts stupid holes in the plot making lots irrelevant. Considering the obvious build up to the twist it meanders loosing much impact plus it's actually pretty poor, so much so i'd inadvertantly guessed it.

The thing with Saw is it's a clear cut franchise so you'll know going into it whether you're going to like what it offers or not. As a film i did enjoy it despite most of said enjoyment being derived from feeling slightly sickened. This installment doesn't have the ingenuity of the first or the successful franchise affirment in the sequel but a rushed mix upping only the gore. The franchise is capped well though, shame we can expect two more which are in my opinion only going to get worse.

__________________




Originally Posted by Pyro Tramp
Saw 3
The franchise is capped well though, shame we can expect two more which are in my opinion only going to get worse.

Not 2 more
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Hot Fuzz

I've wanted to write something on this for a while so lots of you Americans see it when it finally gets released over there, but had trouble starting the review. To cut it short i thoroughly recommend it, no it's not quite as good as Shaun of the Dead in my opinion but Wright and Pegg have definitely confirmed themselves as talents in Brit cinema.

The film in whole works perfectly, admitedly there's a lull in moving into the third act and some cutting could be employed but the characters give the piece such a strong drive to keep you entertained. A lot of the film is more smirk inducing than full out laughter (though there are more than enough moments that had my rolling) and some of this was just from playing spot the Brit actor, which also gave the film a great start; the Martin Freeman> Steve Coogan > Bill Nighy threesome. Despite the multitude of talent, it's Nick Frost who really shines with his lovable and funny slow-witted Constable, and he's also the one i considered to have improved the most since Shaun. Some of Wrights directorial quirks, the quick cutting worked in the context of Shaun but appeared jarring here. And more than enough jokes were throw backs to Shaun. Though these minor gripes hardly retract.

Despite being a take on the cop genre, the parody aspect is down played considerably in favour of a more character and diverse piece. Heck, some parts made me think i was watching a slasher film thanks to the gruesome deaths in tone of Shaun. The parody aspect works well, though the quaint English country side setting made it a quintessentially British cop parody, though this works well as a juxtaposition to the more Hollywood cop aspects most notably the final shoot out that is actually, considering the budget, amazing, there's a lot of ingenuity involved. One of the elements that i'm not decided on was the way they explicitly made the references to say Point Break by playing the excerpt of the folliwing the later homage. The scene works great as character building but on the flipside it seemed like a lazy set up to a gag made only for films fans.

This is just a slap dash review, since saw it a while a go and am planning to see it again, when i might come back with more to say but it's still gonna be



Thank for the reviews, Pyro. I added some more movies on my must-see list.
__________________
Vice, Virtue. It's best not to be too moral. You cheat yourself out of too much *life*. Aim above morality. If you apply that to life, then you're bound to live life fully.
-Ruth Gordon, Harold and Maude



INLAND EMPIRE (2006, David Lynch)

Now, i start this write up with the question is it even a film in the back of my head; any illusions of narrative quickly dissolve after about 50 minutes of the seemingly epic 3 hours and the much of the film reminded by of Stan Brackhage's Avant Garde work. To make it worse, the main character is actually characterS, all played by Laura Dern, giving no indication to when we're witnessing a different character or even if they actually are different or just characters she playing. See, the basic plot is Laura Dern's character gets a part in a movie, foretold by a freaky Polish woman, and her entanglement with co-star Justin Theroux off the set mirrors the plot of 'cursed' film they're starring in- thus even before the narrative is lost, there's a degree of confusion.

The turning point is when we release that the mysterious intruder on Dern's and Theroux's rehearsal, unable to be found, was actually Dern appearing later in the film. Whether a doppleganger, the same character, a fracture of one character is unknown, instead from here we're lead through repetitions of events, different time frames and seemingly completely unrelated (irrelevant?) events, including Dern as a hooker in America, a Polish housewife; then there's the sitcom with humanoid bunnies and a cursed girl who's been raped? A lot of the film is speculative, if that, the coherency is to the extent that placing a reading on it may be near impossible. Where Mulholland Drive had decypherable markers, and compared to INLAND EMPIRE, coherency, we're left with Dern possibly walking into movies as the actress or as the character in the film.



Dern handles the multiude of roles well, and the supporting cast admittedly don't have a lot to do or near the depth of roles Dern has to perform but they all do well, especially Harry Dean Stanton. I'm not sure whether to place credit in Dern, she does have a hard task and performs well but all her incarnations are distanced, perhaps it's from the digital video shooting, awkward close-ups or because there's rarely any point for empathy. Watching INLAND EMPIRE a Lynch fan can pick out many similarities from Twin Peaks like the red curtains or some alternate dimension and themes of dopplegangers from Lost Highway. There's some brilliant surreal moments, eerily captured on digital which, if you were to begin to doze off, definitely would wake you back up. It's on very few instances i will actually notice the soundtrack employed in a film and in INLAND EMPIRE is rather note-worthy in creating the surreal experience and helps create a LOT of the atmosphere the digital shooting often ends up removing. It's also very important when we have little idea of what's actually happening and what we're meant to be feeling.

With that being said, the film is a test of endurance with very little to no climax or closure. A lot of the scenes are quite bare and with not really anything but unsympathetic characters to follow it could be boring. Personally i was glued to it, perhaps Mulholland Drive had me expecting to have to look for answer to understand the film. Though Lynch, i feel has taken a different approach here, not choosing to challenge how one understand the film but how one understands film as a form. Hence the everchanging perception we have, including the prostitute dying a propchecised death from a screwdriver, continuely marked out in the film, surrounded by homeless who re-assure "you're just dying" then continue to rant unmoved about nothing, concludes with a camera pulling away and it being a movie but then Dern walking into a cinema with what she sees on screen. It's an interesting film, full of complexity someone familiar with film will enjoy otherwise it's hard to see anything particualrly of merit other than the film as artifact. Whether Lynch was trying for something similar to Warhol's Empire is very possible, certainly through the length; and seeming false endings, leaving the viewer learning to not wait for the end but live the experience. Or something. It's hard to say when a film has prostitutes start dancing to do 'Do the Locomotion'.




I've never really understood any of his movies. A friend of mine described them perfectly, "they're just like incoherent dreams that he decided to put on screen". From everything I've read about this film, Mulholland drive makes all the sense in the world compared to it....so I'm a little apprehensive about watching it, despite the 5 star rating you gave it.



It's a completely opposite concept to Mulholland Dr but that said the delivery is very similar. I certainly would not suggest jumping in on the film, i'm extremely grateful i had a lecture on Avant Garde before seeing the film since it gave a great insight and having also a great respect for Lynch making films that aren't spelled out. If you can enjoy Lost Highway and Eraserhead, which INLAND EMPIRE is most similar to then watch it!

And imo, Mulholland Dr is only as incoherent as one is lazy to think about it. There's any amount of answers to it, therein lays its beauty.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Seeing Lost Highway, Blue Velvet and Mulholland Dr. I got a basic idea of what was gonig on...but I've heard nothing good about this one. Only negative...yours is the exception.



but I've heard nothing good about this one. Only negative...yours is the exception.
Where've you read? Most i've read over here have been good
another example of the differing opinions when it comes to Lynch...I'd say the best place for a combination of both stances would be rotten tomatoes
__________________
DVD Collection

Horrorphiliac



The Fabulous Sausage Man
I didn't like Inland Empire; I thought it was the worst film Lynch had ever made. It was far too self-indulgent.



It was his most unique and he certainly had a lot of creative control due to the independence of the production. A self indulgent film, for me is King Kong where Jackson just seemed to want to fellate himself. INLAND EMPIRE was a clear progression from Lynch's other work where he's pooled all he's incorporated before. The only bit i didn't like was where she was talking to the man with glasses. I think Lynch had an interesting concept piece and i didn't feel it was pretentious enough to be self indulgent except for the fact Lynch made the film he wanted.



Hostel 2 (Eli Roth, 2007)

Hostel is a film that's got a strong split of lovers and haters; genre fans seem to hate it for it's false promises of gore and violence and the reason i despised it was for all the lovers of this waste of celluloid. A film that is essentially a one note concept, it promised 'torture porn' yet exploitational shocks were not delivered. Hostel 2 takes this concept of torture porn and the same storyline of backpackers in Eastern Europe swayed to staying in a small village only to be sold off to the highest bidder to be brutally killed. The only new thing the sequel offers is a perspective from the torturers and female victims and a lot more rubbish from start to finish.

The main idea of showing the torturers is unfortunately where it really fell apart for me. Although the actors playing the torturers have both been in good roles (The Weasel in Lost Room and the other a villian from the 24: Season 1) but both have however been in Desperate Housewives removing any opportunity to get into the film or their roles leaving them distanced and verging on comical. That's not to mention they're both very unevenly written characters; i can imagine Roth thinking he's hit the motherload having them swap roles of timid and sadistic but the writing doesn't support this and it just seems out of the blue and random. Equally as focussed on are the prospective victims, who are even less interesting than the predecessor's who just wanted to get laid and stoned, something i can actually relate to. Having women this time round is probably something else Roth thinks was a masterstroke but it just confuses the films mood with lost sexual tension and misplaced motivation.

Anywho, anyone expecting well rounded characters here is looking in the wrong place, we're here for the promised torture porn! Although apparently Roth got to caught up on his over complicated plot to remember this. Characters run around and get taken places for no reasons other than little narrative winks making straight forward kidnappings into over complicated affairs just so we know so and so is bad and he's the head of this Torture Business that we're meant to be given an insight to. The insight that extends to going to a house and seeing people in security rooms. Thats it. Oh, and the conclusion of the first film's Paxton's fate, beginning with a fake dream alluding to the power of the people behind all this which despite being see through would have been better than having this main character killed... OFF SCREEN. It's absurd that Roth could miss the mark so much on this film, we see only one of three main characters killed on screen, one's dangled upside down and slashed with a scythe (off screen) letting a woman below bathe in blood till her neck is slit, though there's more focus on the fetish than the death, which itself is poorly developed, only a whisper in a film that should be shouting about these kind of twisted sadistic fetishes. The pay off scene in the climax, something i will leave unspoiled, is quite gruesome, not that visual mind but still tries to adhere to the premise, shame Grindhouse beat Roth to it.

The whole concept of Hostel is people being tortured and Hostel 2 fails remarkably at capitalising on this principle, the film pushes no buttons what so ever, it can't ellicit any form of emotional response except boredom. I can just imagine Roth smirking at his film admiring how he characterised the two torturers who don't create any sense of fear or intrigue. Admittedly the films put together acceptably, it's watchable but then surely that means it's missed the point. The sad thing is how many people will praise this like they did the first for making them sick to their stomach or unable to watch, something i can't for the life of me understand. Even if people praise it for that, there's still so many plain stupid aspects like the local kids from the Hostel who didn't work then nor do they now. The endings unwise implentation of humour goes to undermine all the dark horror it attempted to achieve. There's nothing in this film to recommend, it's not got the slight originality of the first of the actually intriguing concept and plots of the Saw or Saw 2. Don't waste your time with it.




Halloween 2007 (Rob Zombie)


Starting this review, i'm going to avoid a plot synopsis because if you don't know it already, you havn't seen the original and by golly if you're gonna watch this you should see the original. That out the way can mention the most notable change in this adaptation, that of the characterisation of Micheal Myers; where the original has his first killings and subsequent escape years later, Zombie fills in these gaps with some lengthy characterisation of Myers and his therapist Loomis (Malcolm McDowal replacing Pleasance). McDowal does a good job but adds nothing to the character, luckily Myers slow development does. To start with the film has a shaky start, the dialogue is contrived and obvious as are the characters but once Micheal becomes the focus in the Asylum it's picks up speed. Unfortunately the speed only brings us to the derivative stalk and slash finish. For a film that spends half it's run time making it's own path in through the franchise it's a shame Zombie turns the second half into a direct copy of Carpenter's original, from identical scenes and dialogue- it's cheap and tacky.

That problem aside, Zombie probably was the best person for the job, despite his auteur tendency to put his wife in the movie who's kinda sucks. The dark shots and outbursts of brutal violence, while not graphic as some, do make the film worthwhile. However with Zombie's reliance on this to carry the film also comes the lack of any anticipation of the violence letting the film revel in these outbursts without actually creating any opportunity to engage the viewer, a nice 70s throwback, complimented by a whole host of B-Movie stars. In comparison to the original, there is more blood and more violence which i'd say holds up high against today's standards, Zombie wisely leaves certain scenes untouched and wisely keeps the highly effective original soundtrack. This Micheal is also a lot more ferocious, instead of a slow skulking menace he dispatches victims in, dare i say it, a better fashion than the original. However, unsuprisingly the Laurie character is terrible, given only half the movie to develop empathy with by appearing only as the secondary character to Micheal and having the same dialogue as the original, the victims may as well have been nobodies.

Overall film is worth a watch and is a decent horror, there's a lot of nice brutal violence and avoidance of tacky 'jump' scenes but unfortunately Zombie tries too hard to offend with certain scenes, like the un-necessary rape scene and badly writen Step Dad, only counter balanced by the 70s style hard killings. The additional half was a nice addition but sells the rest the short, that save for Zombie's penchant for cruelty, would be classed as awful with shameful theft and a bland cliche. The ending in the workprint however, i did like, Zombie clearly has a love for the character of Micheal and wraps the film up rather well with a different twist to other installments. I did enjoy what Zombie did but can't help comparing it to the original, which wouldn't be a problem were the copying not so obvious.




Even though I kinda so- so disagree with that review (in a way), some parts won't even be in the theatrical version.

WARNING: "Halloween 2007 (Rob Zombie)" spoilers below
Overall film is worth a watch and is a decent horror, there's a lot of nice brutal violence and avoidance of tacky 'jump' scenes but unfortunately Zombie tries too hard to offend with certain scenes, like the un-necessary rape scene....