Tuesday, July 22, 2008
I should probably lose a few points on my K2K for this, but I can't help myself. I was too intrigued by the awfulness of the trailer to resist. This one looked like it was venturing into Uwe Boll territory.
Sadly, it's not nearly as funny as House of the Dead (although maybe more watchable than Alone in the Dark), which is still the gold standard for modern, so-bad-it's-hilarious movies. But it does have its moments, especially some really poorly conceived, awkwardly executed special effects that can't really be described. Although actually, the FX, while never really good or convincing looking, were for the most part enthusiastically and competently done.
The biggest problem is that the most glaring flaws aren't ones that make you laugh out loud. It's more like weird structural things. In the beginning of the movie, a character has an extended flashback to a time when someone else told him a story, and that story turns into an extended flashback of something that happened 500 years ago, and then within that story/flashback there is a brief flashback. That's more funny in retrospect than it is watching the movie. Oh well.
Showing posts with label Ironic Enjoyment?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ironic Enjoyment?. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Zombie Holocaust
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Another one of those awful Italian horror movies where it seems like they didn't decide whether or not it was a zombie flick or a cannibal flick until they were halfway done shooting it. Actually, this one is like a 3-way collision between a bad zombie flick, a bad cannibal flick, and a bad mad scientist flick.
But you know, it's corny and it's Italian and it has tits and gore, so I can't resist. Sadly, this one is pretty much completely unmemorable... for all it's problems, Hell of the Living Dead at least provided some classic bad movie moments. This one has a few chuckles, but not much else.
Another one of those awful Italian horror movies where it seems like they didn't decide whether or not it was a zombie flick or a cannibal flick until they were halfway done shooting it. Actually, this one is like a 3-way collision between a bad zombie flick, a bad cannibal flick, and a bad mad scientist flick.
But you know, it's corny and it's Italian and it has tits and gore, so I can't resist. Sadly, this one is pretty much completely unmemorable... for all it's problems, Hell of the Living Dead at least provided some classic bad movie moments. This one has a few chuckles, but not much else.
Monday, June 30, 2008
I Know Who Killed Me
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Watching The Lost the other week got me to thinking about I Know Who Killed Me and how even though it was kinda terrible, I also kinda really liked it a lot. So Shenan ended up picking us up a copy, and I figure it will get repeat viewings in the future.
I mean, I understand logically that this is a poorly written movie with a ludicrous story, filled with bad acting and an overbearing visual style. But the combination of these elements creates some weird, fascinating new beast. It's like if Brian DePalma tried to make an episode of Unsolved Mysteries crossed with a slasher movie, while on shrooms. It's a failure at being a serious movie, it's a fiasco, but it's not exactly a camp classic either, it's something new. All the things that don't work about it help create this weirdass, anti-logical fever dream. it's just so peculiar at times, but not in some surreal David Lynch way, more like it doesn't realize just how bizarre it is.
I think I said this before, but count me in if this Chris Sivertson fellow ever makes another movie. I'm not sure what it is, but he's got something. You have to have real talent and vision to make a movie like The Lost, which is a well made and ambitious horror movie/character study that suffers from being a little overstuffed with characters and style, and real talent and vision to make a movie like I Know Who Killed Me, which is a unique, incredibly watchable half-disaster. One day he'll hopefully make a movie that I will enjoy with no reservations, but if not I'm pretty confident that he'll continue to make movies that are worth seeing.
Watching The Lost the other week got me to thinking about I Know Who Killed Me and how even though it was kinda terrible, I also kinda really liked it a lot. So Shenan ended up picking us up a copy, and I figure it will get repeat viewings in the future.
I mean, I understand logically that this is a poorly written movie with a ludicrous story, filled with bad acting and an overbearing visual style. But the combination of these elements creates some weird, fascinating new beast. It's like if Brian DePalma tried to make an episode of Unsolved Mysteries crossed with a slasher movie, while on shrooms. It's a failure at being a serious movie, it's a fiasco, but it's not exactly a camp classic either, it's something new. All the things that don't work about it help create this weirdass, anti-logical fever dream. it's just so peculiar at times, but not in some surreal David Lynch way, more like it doesn't realize just how bizarre it is.
I think I said this before, but count me in if this Chris Sivertson fellow ever makes another movie. I'm not sure what it is, but he's got something. You have to have real talent and vision to make a movie like The Lost, which is a well made and ambitious horror movie/character study that suffers from being a little overstuffed with characters and style, and real talent and vision to make a movie like I Know Who Killed Me, which is a unique, incredibly watchable half-disaster. One day he'll hopefully make a movie that I will enjoy with no reservations, but if not I'm pretty confident that he'll continue to make movies that are worth seeing.
Monday, May 19, 2008
All the Colors of the Dark
Sunday, May 18, 2008
I can't resist a good giallo. Or a bad giallo, for that matter, but this was a good one. Like the way some people can always watch a western even if it sucks, I can pretty much always watch a giallo.
This one is good for the same reasons a lot of giallos are good, which is to say there is a lot of sex and violence, juiced up with ridiculous visual bombast. And it's got Edwige Fenech, my favorite/the sexiest of all the ladies that showed up in a lot of these movies. She displays an acceptable amount of nudity, although perhaps not as gratuitously as I would have liked.
The director has done 2 other giallos I saw, the great titled but only OK Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh and the awesome-ly, top 10 best titled Giallo, but pretty lame as a movie Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key. (Which, believe it or not is one of the many Italian/giallo versions of Poe's The Black Cat). This one doesn't have a title nearly that awesome, but it's definitely the best one of his that I've seen. It's not as insanely violent as I would have liked, but it is entertainingly lurid and has an over-the-top visual style (this is definitely one of those slightly psychedlic, hippie giallos) and a silly-ass satanic cult plot filled with dreams within dreams within hallucinations, etc.
The acting in your typical giallo is usually pretty bad and the shitty dubbing doesn't help, and it tends to add a lot of accidental laughs to these movies. But, still, I have to say that my enjoyment is mostly genuine. All the Colors of the Dark isn't a good movie in many senses, but it's fun and stylish and kinda well-made for what it is. I think it's like that saying (Pauline Kael's, maybe?) about great art being so rare that it's important we learn to appreciate great trash. This is at least good trash, maybe a little more emphasis on trash than on good. With giallos, you occassionally get some great trash from the king himself Dario Argento like Opera, and maybe even trash so great that it trascends trash and becomes art, like Deep Red. But mostly you get average to good trash, and I find that immanently watchable.
I can't resist a good giallo. Or a bad giallo, for that matter, but this was a good one. Like the way some people can always watch a western even if it sucks, I can pretty much always watch a giallo.
This one is good for the same reasons a lot of giallos are good, which is to say there is a lot of sex and violence, juiced up with ridiculous visual bombast. And it's got Edwige Fenech, my favorite/the sexiest of all the ladies that showed up in a lot of these movies. She displays an acceptable amount of nudity, although perhaps not as gratuitously as I would have liked.
The director has done 2 other giallos I saw, the great titled but only OK Strange Vice of Mrs. Wardh and the awesome-ly, top 10 best titled Giallo, but pretty lame as a movie Your Vice is a Locked Room and Only I Have the Key. (Which, believe it or not is one of the many Italian/giallo versions of Poe's The Black Cat). This one doesn't have a title nearly that awesome, but it's definitely the best one of his that I've seen. It's not as insanely violent as I would have liked, but it is entertainingly lurid and has an over-the-top visual style (this is definitely one of those slightly psychedlic, hippie giallos) and a silly-ass satanic cult plot filled with dreams within dreams within hallucinations, etc.
The acting in your typical giallo is usually pretty bad and the shitty dubbing doesn't help, and it tends to add a lot of accidental laughs to these movies. But, still, I have to say that my enjoyment is mostly genuine. All the Colors of the Dark isn't a good movie in many senses, but it's fun and stylish and kinda well-made for what it is. I think it's like that saying (Pauline Kael's, maybe?) about great art being so rare that it's important we learn to appreciate great trash. This is at least good trash, maybe a little more emphasis on trash than on good. With giallos, you occassionally get some great trash from the king himself Dario Argento like Opera, and maybe even trash so great that it trascends trash and becomes art, like Deep Red. But mostly you get average to good trash, and I find that immanently watchable.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Showgirls
Friday, May 9, 2008
I have trouble reconciling the fact that this movie was directed by Paul Verhoeven. I mean, how did the guy who made some of the smartest, funniest genre films of the 80's and 90's direct what is often referred to as one of the worst films ever made. I don't get it. The nicest thing anyone ever said about Showgirls is that it might be a really funny camp classic. How do you go from making movies like Turkish Delight, The Fourth Man, Robocop and Total Recall to this? Even when he made total trash like Basic Instinct, he made pretty good trash.
I'd like to believe that he knew what he was doing, and he had some sort of satirical slant on the material a la Robocop, otherwise how do you explain moments like the sex scene in the swimming pool where Elizabeth Berkeley flops around on her back like a fish. Or when she expresses an emotional outburst by angrily squeezing ketchup on her fries, then knocks the fries all over the table. Or when the two female leads bond by discussing how they enjoyed eating the same brand of dog food? That has to be, like, ironically misogynist and not actually misogynist, right?
After this it was a string of Verhoeven disappointments. Starship Troopers has a very amusing satirical edge to it, but the movie itself isn't much fun to watch. And then Hollow Man just sucked. Finally, he seems like he got his bearings back with the excellent Black Book, so I'm hoping this ushers in a new era of Verhoeven. Someone call up the studios, we could use another subversive sci-fi action picture right about now.
I have trouble reconciling the fact that this movie was directed by Paul Verhoeven. I mean, how did the guy who made some of the smartest, funniest genre films of the 80's and 90's direct what is often referred to as one of the worst films ever made. I don't get it. The nicest thing anyone ever said about Showgirls is that it might be a really funny camp classic. How do you go from making movies like Turkish Delight, The Fourth Man, Robocop and Total Recall to this? Even when he made total trash like Basic Instinct, he made pretty good trash.
I'd like to believe that he knew what he was doing, and he had some sort of satirical slant on the material a la Robocop, otherwise how do you explain moments like the sex scene in the swimming pool where Elizabeth Berkeley flops around on her back like a fish. Or when she expresses an emotional outburst by angrily squeezing ketchup on her fries, then knocks the fries all over the table. Or when the two female leads bond by discussing how they enjoyed eating the same brand of dog food? That has to be, like, ironically misogynist and not actually misogynist, right?
After this it was a string of Verhoeven disappointments. Starship Troopers has a very amusing satirical edge to it, but the movie itself isn't much fun to watch. And then Hollow Man just sucked. Finally, he seems like he got his bearings back with the excellent Black Book, so I'm hoping this ushers in a new era of Verhoeven. Someone call up the studios, we could use another subversive sci-fi action picture right about now.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Stone Cold
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Getting this movie turned out to be a pain in the ass. I heard it favorably compared to Roadhouse as a ridiculous, over the top action movie that maybe delves into some self-parody. I put it to the top of my Netflix queue long ago. Netflix indicated that it would be available immediately. Only, instead of being shipped it would sit atop my queue and not go anywhere, delaying the shipments of the movies below it. After a few days, it would suddenly say "Long Wait" or "Very Long Wait." So I would move it down my queue until the wait went away, at which point I would move it back to the top, and the same thing would happen. Finally, after I don't know how many months of this, it actually shipped. I eagerly ripped open the Netflix envelope and pulled out the DVD... only to find that they had accidentally sent some movie with Tom Selleck that was also called Stone Cold.
So for a few months, I gave up. Finally, I decided to risk it again, and this time Netflix actually sent it.
Was it worth the wait? Yeah, but it's no classic. It actually reminded me a bit of Stallone's Cobra (dangerous gang of lunatics trying to assassinate people, rebel cop who is introduced foiling a grocery store robbery), only it succeeds in every way that movie fails. It's good fun, but more along the lines of Commando where there's a lot of great stuff, but it slows down too much in the middle and you get impatient waiting for the awesome shit to start up again. It just doesn't reach the transcendent brilliance of Roadhouse.
Still, I'd totally pick up a cheap copy of it and proudly display it on my shelf next to Knock Off and Commando and hypothetically Double Team if I ever find a copy.
Getting this movie turned out to be a pain in the ass. I heard it favorably compared to Roadhouse as a ridiculous, over the top action movie that maybe delves into some self-parody. I put it to the top of my Netflix queue long ago. Netflix indicated that it would be available immediately. Only, instead of being shipped it would sit atop my queue and not go anywhere, delaying the shipments of the movies below it. After a few days, it would suddenly say "Long Wait" or "Very Long Wait." So I would move it down my queue until the wait went away, at which point I would move it back to the top, and the same thing would happen. Finally, after I don't know how many months of this, it actually shipped. I eagerly ripped open the Netflix envelope and pulled out the DVD... only to find that they had accidentally sent some movie with Tom Selleck that was also called Stone Cold.
So for a few months, I gave up. Finally, I decided to risk it again, and this time Netflix actually sent it.
Was it worth the wait? Yeah, but it's no classic. It actually reminded me a bit of Stallone's Cobra (dangerous gang of lunatics trying to assassinate people, rebel cop who is introduced foiling a grocery store robbery), only it succeeds in every way that movie fails. It's good fun, but more along the lines of Commando where there's a lot of great stuff, but it slows down too much in the middle and you get impatient waiting for the awesome shit to start up again. It just doesn't reach the transcendent brilliance of Roadhouse.
Still, I'd totally pick up a cheap copy of it and proudly display it on my shelf next to Knock Off and Commando and hypothetically Double Team if I ever find a copy.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Double Team
Saturday, April 19, 2008
In this movie, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dennis Rodman jump out of a plane and skydive inside some sort of giant basketball that slows their fall, then later they karate fight Mickey Rourke and a tiger in a coliseum covered in mines to save the life of Van Damme's baby son, while Rodman makes repeated basketball references despite his character being an arms dealer, not an athlete. This is after Van Damme escapes from a top secret, high security prison by cutting off his own thumb print and developing a complex series of weights and levers that place his severed thumb-skin on a sensor at the exact moment it is required to confirm his presence in a different location.
What I'm saying is that this movie is kind of incredible. It's by the same director as Van Damme's abstract, Salvidor Dali-esque masterpiece Knock Off. It's less surreal than that picture, but just as absurd and also a lot more fun. I am definitely picking this one up if I ever find a cheap copy.
Who knew Van Damme was so fucking avant-garde?
In this movie, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Dennis Rodman jump out of a plane and skydive inside some sort of giant basketball that slows their fall, then later they karate fight Mickey Rourke and a tiger in a coliseum covered in mines to save the life of Van Damme's baby son, while Rodman makes repeated basketball references despite his character being an arms dealer, not an athlete. This is after Van Damme escapes from a top secret, high security prison by cutting off his own thumb print and developing a complex series of weights and levers that place his severed thumb-skin on a sensor at the exact moment it is required to confirm his presence in a different location.
What I'm saying is that this movie is kind of incredible. It's by the same director as Van Damme's abstract, Salvidor Dali-esque masterpiece Knock Off. It's less surreal than that picture, but just as absurd and also a lot more fun. I am definitely picking this one up if I ever find a cheap copy.
Who knew Van Damme was so fucking avant-garde?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
The Gravedancers
Saturday, April 19, 2008
With some notable exceptions, I'm not too fond of haunting-themed horror movies. Too often, it's just a bunch of arbitrary "spooky" shit happening with no logic and no rules, and I just can't bring myself to give a shit what happens.
This is one of the worst ghost films I've ever seen, and we only really watched it as a joke. Shenan and I saw this is the video store long ago, and couldn't get over the description on the back of the box, which contains the phrase "after a drunken night of dancing on graves." As if that's an every day, normal activity that doesn't require any further explanation.
This went to theaters, but it feels direct-to-video. It's especially flat and bland looking, with wooden acting and mostly uninteresting special effects. We got a few laughs out of it, but it's no Tree Dogs.
With some notable exceptions, I'm not too fond of haunting-themed horror movies. Too often, it's just a bunch of arbitrary "spooky" shit happening with no logic and no rules, and I just can't bring myself to give a shit what happens.
This is one of the worst ghost films I've ever seen, and we only really watched it as a joke. Shenan and I saw this is the video store long ago, and couldn't get over the description on the back of the box, which contains the phrase "after a drunken night of dancing on graves." As if that's an every day, normal activity that doesn't require any further explanation.
This went to theaters, but it feels direct-to-video. It's especially flat and bland looking, with wooden acting and mostly uninteresting special effects. We got a few laughs out of it, but it's no Tree Dogs.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Street Kings
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Despite the bad reviews it was getting, I was still excited for Street Kings. I mean, look at the talent behind this one: we have an original story by crime fiction master James Ellroy (whose superb The Big Nowhere I recently read and loved), and it was directed and re-written by the writer of Training Day and Dark Blue, both of which are above average police procedurals. Then in the cast we have the awesome Forest Whittaker, charismatic up-and-comer Chris Evans, best man alive Hugh Laurie, small roles for Common and The Game, Jay Mohr not in a comedic role, and, most importantly, America's Most Underrated Actor Keanu Reeves in the lead role. I mean, come on, that's a pretty good combo.
Yeah, yeah, I know a lot of you don't think much of Keanu, and I wouldn't call him a great actor myself. But I would call him a good one, with a lot of good movies under his belt, and I think his low-key style of underplaying works well for the kind of cold, direct, stoic badass he plays here.
Anyway, fuck everyone else because I did like this flick quite a bit. I suppose I am sort of predisposed to this kind of crime drama/corrupt police procedural movie. The same way other folks have some intrinsic love of westerns and something stirs in side of them... that's how I feel seeing a couple of sleazy, tough-guy cops rolling up on some gang members in East L.A.
Now, there are problems, don't get me wrong. It's far from perfect. There's one part that got a big, unintentional laugh from the audience I saw it with, and that always hurts the overall product. The ending isn't very satisfying, and although I like its cynicism, it's a little too much to take.
Surprisingly, though, the worst part of the movie is Forest Whittaker. Now, I think Whittaker is normally a great actor; his work in Ghost Dog reaches the pinnacle of film acting as far as I'm concerned. But here, he starts out amusingly broad before overacting so hard that he actually becomes uncomfortable to watch and ruins some of the climactic scenes of the movie. I mean, damn, didn't anybody think to tell him to tone it down a little? (Maybe they were encouraging him to go bigger?) After Street Kings and Vantage Point, Whittaker is not having a good year.
So fine, it's not perfect, but what it does right it does great, especially if you're into this kind of macho, violent, corrupt LAPD type of story. The characters are well drawn (for tough guy stereotypes) and pull the requisite badass antics. The plot is entertainingly convoluted, there's some pretty snappy dialogue, and a handful of top notch, genuinely exciting action scenes. I especially dig the shootout in a very tiny apartment, and the fight Keanu has while he's handcuffed. That's good shit, and further proof of my theory that we are entering a new action movie renaissance. Oh, and even though it's an urban action movie, Ayer doesn't go overboard on the MTV editing, which should be a given but is becoming something of a special feat these days.
I found so much of this movie to be fun, badass, compelling and well-done that it's probably just a case of my own personal biases. Or that's what everyone else would say. But you're all assholes. I'm right, you're wrong, this is a pretty good movie.
Despite the bad reviews it was getting, I was still excited for Street Kings. I mean, look at the talent behind this one: we have an original story by crime fiction master James Ellroy (whose superb The Big Nowhere I recently read and loved), and it was directed and re-written by the writer of Training Day and Dark Blue, both of which are above average police procedurals. Then in the cast we have the awesome Forest Whittaker, charismatic up-and-comer Chris Evans, best man alive Hugh Laurie, small roles for Common and The Game, Jay Mohr not in a comedic role, and, most importantly, America's Most Underrated Actor Keanu Reeves in the lead role. I mean, come on, that's a pretty good combo.
Yeah, yeah, I know a lot of you don't think much of Keanu, and I wouldn't call him a great actor myself. But I would call him a good one, with a lot of good movies under his belt, and I think his low-key style of underplaying works well for the kind of cold, direct, stoic badass he plays here.
Anyway, fuck everyone else because I did like this flick quite a bit. I suppose I am sort of predisposed to this kind of crime drama/corrupt police procedural movie. The same way other folks have some intrinsic love of westerns and something stirs in side of them... that's how I feel seeing a couple of sleazy, tough-guy cops rolling up on some gang members in East L.A.
Now, there are problems, don't get me wrong. It's far from perfect. There's one part that got a big, unintentional laugh from the audience I saw it with, and that always hurts the overall product. The ending isn't very satisfying, and although I like its cynicism, it's a little too much to take.
Surprisingly, though, the worst part of the movie is Forest Whittaker. Now, I think Whittaker is normally a great actor; his work in Ghost Dog reaches the pinnacle of film acting as far as I'm concerned. But here, he starts out amusingly broad before overacting so hard that he actually becomes uncomfortable to watch and ruins some of the climactic scenes of the movie. I mean, damn, didn't anybody think to tell him to tone it down a little? (Maybe they were encouraging him to go bigger?) After Street Kings and Vantage Point, Whittaker is not having a good year.
So fine, it's not perfect, but what it does right it does great, especially if you're into this kind of macho, violent, corrupt LAPD type of story. The characters are well drawn (for tough guy stereotypes) and pull the requisite badass antics. The plot is entertainingly convoluted, there's some pretty snappy dialogue, and a handful of top notch, genuinely exciting action scenes. I especially dig the shootout in a very tiny apartment, and the fight Keanu has while he's handcuffed. That's good shit, and further proof of my theory that we are entering a new action movie renaissance. Oh, and even though it's an urban action movie, Ayer doesn't go overboard on the MTV editing, which should be a given but is becoming something of a special feat these days.
I found so much of this movie to be fun, badass, compelling and well-done that it's probably just a case of my own personal biases. Or that's what everyone else would say. But you're all assholes. I'm right, you're wrong, this is a pretty good movie.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Batman: the Movie
Saturday, March 22, 2008
The 60's Batman, not the Tim Burton Batman. This made me laugh pretty hard, but I was also pretty trashed at the time, so I'm not sure how much I trust my opinion.
The 60's Batman, not the Tim Burton Batman. This made me laugh pretty hard, but I was also pretty trashed at the time, so I'm not sure how much I trust my opinion.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Dreamcatcher
Monday, March 18, 2008
OK, so there's a group of guys with psychic powers who meet out in the woods for a hunting trip every year, and they run into some sort of weird alien invasion where the aliens impregnate you with a virus and the new alien shoots out of your ass (after making you fart a lot) and it turns out that they got their psychic powers from a retarded kid when they were teenagers and there are extended flashbacks of this and then about 1/3 of the way into the movie a bunch of military guys lead by Morgan Freeman show up to fight the aliens which leads to a bunch of action scenes that don't have much to do with anything, and then one of the psychic guys' body is taken over by an alien with a british accent so he hides in a warehouse that exists only in his own mind and...
...This movie is a work of lunacy, and this is maybe my 3rd or 4th time seeing it and I still can't believe this much money was spent on a movie this strange. Definitely worth your time if you like this sort of stuff.
OK, so there's a group of guys with psychic powers who meet out in the woods for a hunting trip every year, and they run into some sort of weird alien invasion where the aliens impregnate you with a virus and the new alien shoots out of your ass (after making you fart a lot) and it turns out that they got their psychic powers from a retarded kid when they were teenagers and there are extended flashbacks of this and then about 1/3 of the way into the movie a bunch of military guys lead by Morgan Freeman show up to fight the aliens which leads to a bunch of action scenes that don't have much to do with anything, and then one of the psychic guys' body is taken over by an alien with a british accent so he hides in a warehouse that exists only in his own mind and...
...This movie is a work of lunacy, and this is maybe my 3rd or 4th time seeing it and I still can't believe this much money was spent on a movie this strange. Definitely worth your time if you like this sort of stuff.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Knock Off
Friday, March 14, 2008
"Holy Shit, Did That Really Happen?!" Sober Re-Watching: Saturday, March 15, 2008
I still am having a little trouble believing that this movie exists. Patrick and I watched this while rather intoxicated on Friday night, and I actually had to re-watch it on Saturday morning to convince myself that it was for real.
This is either one of the worst action films ever, or it's a brilliant, subversive work of absurdist humor masked as an action movie. I'm not sure which. All I know is that it was described by renowned internet film critic Vern as surrealism, and he wasn't kidding.
It's about knockoff designer clothing that has been fitted with tiny, button sized bombs to kill the wearer. It stars Jean Claude Van Damme as a fashion designer caught up in the intrigue, and Rob Schneider plays his sidekick/undercover CIA agent. Paul Sorvino is the villain. There is a scene where the camera travels through the wall an into a secret chamber of surveillence people, into the back of their monitor, close up into the circuity to the image (which we see in reverse) and out the screen and right up to the eyes of the man watching. There is another scene where we see a foot going into a shoe shot from the POV of the foot.
This is maybe the strangest, silliest action movie ever made, and holy shit am I glad I paid $3 for it because I will definitely watch it again. And now I want to see Van Damme's Double Team, made by the same director as this.
OK, this movie is pretty crazy, but it never tops the opening action scene. Van Damme runs around Hong Kong carrying Rob Schneider in a rickshaw in some sort of charity race. One of their opponents is some weird, deformed little person who likes to talk shit in Chinese. At one point, a car almost hits JCVD, but he jumps in the air (still holding the rickshaw) and runs across the side of the car. Later, he runs so fast that his knockoff sneakers explode, which is shown to the audience in extreme closeup of the tearing rubber. Also, Rob Schneider steals an eel from a market and begins whipping Van Damme in the ass with it to make him go faster. An eel. I swear, this could be a Salvador Dali painting.
The movie doesn't maintain this level of ludicrousness for its entire running time, but it still has a lot of moments. If you have any interests in weird, cult movies, this one gets a high recommendation.
"Holy Shit, Did That Really Happen?!" Sober Re-Watching: Saturday, March 15, 2008
I still am having a little trouble believing that this movie exists. Patrick and I watched this while rather intoxicated on Friday night, and I actually had to re-watch it on Saturday morning to convince myself that it was for real.
This is either one of the worst action films ever, or it's a brilliant, subversive work of absurdist humor masked as an action movie. I'm not sure which. All I know is that it was described by renowned internet film critic Vern as surrealism, and he wasn't kidding.
It's about knockoff designer clothing that has been fitted with tiny, button sized bombs to kill the wearer. It stars Jean Claude Van Damme as a fashion designer caught up in the intrigue, and Rob Schneider plays his sidekick/undercover CIA agent. Paul Sorvino is the villain. There is a scene where the camera travels through the wall an into a secret chamber of surveillence people, into the back of their monitor, close up into the circuity to the image (which we see in reverse) and out the screen and right up to the eyes of the man watching. There is another scene where we see a foot going into a shoe shot from the POV of the foot.
This is maybe the strangest, silliest action movie ever made, and holy shit am I glad I paid $3 for it because I will definitely watch it again. And now I want to see Van Damme's Double Team, made by the same director as this.
OK, this movie is pretty crazy, but it never tops the opening action scene. Van Damme runs around Hong Kong carrying Rob Schneider in a rickshaw in some sort of charity race. One of their opponents is some weird, deformed little person who likes to talk shit in Chinese. At one point, a car almost hits JCVD, but he jumps in the air (still holding the rickshaw) and runs across the side of the car. Later, he runs so fast that his knockoff sneakers explode, which is shown to the audience in extreme closeup of the tearing rubber. Also, Rob Schneider steals an eel from a market and begins whipping Van Damme in the ass with it to make him go faster. An eel. I swear, this could be a Salvador Dali painting.
The movie doesn't maintain this level of ludicrousness for its entire running time, but it still has a lot of moments. If you have any interests in weird, cult movies, this one gets a high recommendation.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Hell of the Living Dead
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Kommitted to Klassiks indeed, Dan. Yeesh.
Anyways, this is a cheap-o Italian zombie flick by Bruno Mattei, the fellow that did Rats: Night of Terror, which Andy and I watched during our big marathon day back in December. I said then that I suspected Mattei had "the touch" for making hilariously, entertainly bad horror films, and that Rats only fell a few inches short of being a good example of a fun/bad movie. I was hoping Hell of the Living Dead would be his classic.
Well, sorry to say that even though there were some classic moments, it actually wasn't as good/bad (or do I mean bad/good? I'm confusing myself) as Rats was. It starts as an obvious Dawn of the Dead ripoff (even flat out stealing large chunks of that film's score) but then for whatever reason the locale changes to the jungle. My guess is that these movies are set in the jungle so often because the filmmakers can't decide if they want it to be a cannibal movie or a zombie and decide if they go to the jungle, they can figure it out halfway through shooting. Anyways, this locale leads for some choice racism where the all white heroes mow down hordes of black zombies.
There's some other good stuff here; bad dialogue, phony looking but still kinda cool gore, awkwardly long shots, etc. I especially loved the part where the cutie heroine has to go speak with a local tribe, so she goes topless and covers herself in weird paints. That is an A+ for effort in the catagory of gratuitous female nudity. High five Mattei. Then, we see a series of shots of her standing alone in the woods, staring off screen, cut with stock footage of African tribesman to make it look like she's looking at them. Priceless.
Still, though, far from a classic, and I regret watching it by myself and not with others. I'm not sure if I will check out another Mattei film again, but I do appreciate that so far he seems like Umberto Lenzi without the rampant misogyny. So, we'll see.
Kommitted to Klassiks indeed, Dan. Yeesh.
Anyways, this is a cheap-o Italian zombie flick by Bruno Mattei, the fellow that did Rats: Night of Terror, which Andy and I watched during our big marathon day back in December. I said then that I suspected Mattei had "the touch" for making hilariously, entertainly bad horror films, and that Rats only fell a few inches short of being a good example of a fun/bad movie. I was hoping Hell of the Living Dead would be his classic.
Well, sorry to say that even though there were some classic moments, it actually wasn't as good/bad (or do I mean bad/good? I'm confusing myself) as Rats was. It starts as an obvious Dawn of the Dead ripoff (even flat out stealing large chunks of that film's score) but then for whatever reason the locale changes to the jungle. My guess is that these movies are set in the jungle so often because the filmmakers can't decide if they want it to be a cannibal movie or a zombie and decide if they go to the jungle, they can figure it out halfway through shooting. Anyways, this locale leads for some choice racism where the all white heroes mow down hordes of black zombies.
There's some other good stuff here; bad dialogue, phony looking but still kinda cool gore, awkwardly long shots, etc. I especially loved the part where the cutie heroine has to go speak with a local tribe, so she goes topless and covers herself in weird paints. That is an A+ for effort in the catagory of gratuitous female nudity. High five Mattei. Then, we see a series of shots of her standing alone in the woods, staring off screen, cut with stock footage of African tribesman to make it look like she's looking at them. Priceless.
Still, though, far from a classic, and I regret watching it by myself and not with others. I'm not sure if I will check out another Mattei film again, but I do appreciate that so far he seems like Umberto Lenzi without the rampant misogyny. So, we'll see.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Dean Koontz's Tree Dogs
Friday, February 15, 2008
You may insist that this film does not exist. You may say that you looked it up, and it's actually called The Breed and that Dean Koontz had absolutely nothing to do with the production. You may claim that the title Tree Dogs has little to nothing to do with the film itself.
Well, friend-o, all I can tell you is that I own this film, I have watched this film, and I know in my heart of hearts that it was written by Dean Koontz, and that it's about evil dogs that can somehow climb trees.
Patrick and I caught the 2nd half of this a few weeks back on TV at like 4:30 in the morning, and it kept us up laughing. Then we spent the next day trying and failing to explain to Shenan why it was the funniest movie we had seen in a long time.
By coincidence, Shenan and I found the movie at CD Cellar the following week, and in her infinite wisdom and graciousness, she bought it for me as a gift.
It was just as funny this time around, and I was happy to catch some details I had missed the first time, like the girl who gets bit by a dog and then inexplicably takes on some vaguely dog-like personality traits for some later scenes. This better explains the scene where she stares a dog down and screams to her friend "Don't you understand? If I break eye contact, we're dead!" Still doesn't explain why two people can't fight off one fucking dog. And it doesn't make the scene any less funny.
I won't be surprised if this one, K2K be damned, ends up being watched a few more times in the near-ish future. It's the best of its kind since House of the Dead.
You may insist that this film does not exist. You may say that you looked it up, and it's actually called The Breed and that Dean Koontz had absolutely nothing to do with the production. You may claim that the title Tree Dogs has little to nothing to do with the film itself.
Well, friend-o, all I can tell you is that I own this film, I have watched this film, and I know in my heart of hearts that it was written by Dean Koontz, and that it's about evil dogs that can somehow climb trees.
Patrick and I caught the 2nd half of this a few weeks back on TV at like 4:30 in the morning, and it kept us up laughing. Then we spent the next day trying and failing to explain to Shenan why it was the funniest movie we had seen in a long time.
By coincidence, Shenan and I found the movie at CD Cellar the following week, and in her infinite wisdom and graciousness, she bought it for me as a gift.
It was just as funny this time around, and I was happy to catch some details I had missed the first time, like the girl who gets bit by a dog and then inexplicably takes on some vaguely dog-like personality traits for some later scenes. This better explains the scene where she stares a dog down and screams to her friend "Don't you understand? If I break eye contact, we're dead!" Still doesn't explain why two people can't fight off one fucking dog. And it doesn't make the scene any less funny.
I won't be surprised if this one, K2K be damned, ends up being watched a few more times in the near-ish future. It's the best of its kind since House of the Dead.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Silver Bullet
Monday, January 14, 2008
I hadn't seen this one in years. Roger Ebert has a pretty good review where he says he's not sure if it's a terrible movie, or just really funny.
I know what he means, but I do think at least half of the comedy is intentional. And there are some cool werewolf scenes, even if the wolf costume looks bad. And a lot of good over the top performances, especially from Gary Busey, Everett McGill and whoever the hell plays the guy whose kid gets murdered.
This is gonna be a good one to put on drunk with friends late at night.
I hadn't seen this one in years. Roger Ebert has a pretty good review where he says he's not sure if it's a terrible movie, or just really funny.
I know what he means, but I do think at least half of the comedy is intentional. And there are some cool werewolf scenes, even if the wolf costume looks bad. And a lot of good over the top performances, especially from Gary Busey, Everett McGill and whoever the hell plays the guy whose kid gets murdered.
This is gonna be a good one to put on drunk with friends late at night.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Jade
Tueaday, January 8, 2008
Well, shit. I kind of guessed this would happen, but it turns out I legitimately liked part 2 of Krapfest a little bit. Whoops.
Jade seemed to me to be universally derided, and I expected it to be a bad thriller, but maybe fun in a trashy way. And I guess it is that, but maybe more fun that I suspected. And not really that bad either. It's written by Joe Eszterhas, and is basically a reworking of his trashy, bad thriller Basic Instinct, which, shit, I also like. This time, it's William Friedkin directing, and with David Caruso and Linda Fiorentino replacing Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone.
(Netflix must not like Linda Fiorentino films, because this is the 2nd one I've gotten from them that they only had in fullscreen. Arrrrgggg!)
Friedkin has a spotty reputation with me, but this was a decent effort. It's an entertaining thriller, not as weird or fascinating as Cruising but I still like the way the guy throws in some unconventional shit. Fucks with the audience a bit. I especially liked where he starts off a flashy, high speed car chase, only to have them drive into some chinese new year parade, and sloooooooowly try to make their way through. It's almost virtuoso in the way it delays the action.
He also throws in a lot of unnecessary flash, and I like that in movies like this.
So like I said, good trashy fun. Not a bad movie at all.
Well, shit. I kind of guessed this would happen, but it turns out I legitimately liked part 2 of Krapfest a little bit. Whoops.
Jade seemed to me to be universally derided, and I expected it to be a bad thriller, but maybe fun in a trashy way. And I guess it is that, but maybe more fun that I suspected. And not really that bad either. It's written by Joe Eszterhas, and is basically a reworking of his trashy, bad thriller Basic Instinct, which, shit, I also like. This time, it's William Friedkin directing, and with David Caruso and Linda Fiorentino replacing Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone.
(Netflix must not like Linda Fiorentino films, because this is the 2nd one I've gotten from them that they only had in fullscreen. Arrrrgggg!)
Friedkin has a spotty reputation with me, but this was a decent effort. It's an entertaining thriller, not as weird or fascinating as Cruising but I still like the way the guy throws in some unconventional shit. Fucks with the audience a bit. I especially liked where he starts off a flashy, high speed car chase, only to have them drive into some chinese new year parade, and sloooooooowly try to make their way through. It's almost virtuoso in the way it delays the action.
He also throws in a lot of unnecessary flash, and I like that in movies like this.
So like I said, good trashy fun. Not a bad movie at all.
Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
As mentioned before, I wanted to throw a little Krapfest before officially kicking off my Kommitment to Klassiks. You know, see a couple of lousy movies I've been meaning to see before I get all high minded and whatnot.
Ballistic is a pretty legendary bad movie, always showing up on peoples' all time worst lists. I remember talking with my friend John about it when it came out... it looked like one of those silly, ludicrous action movies that is so misguided in its style that it becomes some kind of work of genius. Unintentionally funny, awful genius.
Well, on the accidentally funny scale (where Uwe Boll is the gold standard), this is not as amazing as House of the Dead, but it might be a little more hilarious than Alone in the Dark. It didn't disappoint, and I would watch it again if some friends were involved, but it's probably not quite a classic.
Shit, I should have been taking notes during this one, because there were a lot of ludicrous moments and details. So much that I'd almost suspect that this movie was maybe actually a good silly action movie... almost, except the actual action is so poorly done that I can't believe this to be the case.
You know, I expected a movie that was highly stylized and over-the-top, but in a completely misguided way that comes off as stupid instead of fun or cool. And I was right, but I did not expect it to be staged this shittily. There is no sense of energy or excitement in this movie. Even during all the explosions, and gun fights, and buses sliding on their sides down the road with a machinegun firing Antonio Banderas on top, everything seems to be moving too slow. And I don't just mean because of the frequently (and poorly) employed slo-mo shots. I know people gave Paul Greengrass a lot of shit for shaking the camera a lot in his Bourne movies, but damn if his flicks don't seem urgent. Someone needed to give the director and cameraman some caffeine on this one, get things moving.
There is one kinda actually awesome over-the-top moment where a dude falls off a building, and the camera falls all the way down with him until he smashes into a car.
Banality. That's the problem with this movie. None of the actors seem to give a shit. The dialogue is shockingly bland and arbitrary, to the point where characters start exchanging one-liners during the action scenes that aren't only unfunny, but don't even seem to make much sense. (Which, paradoxically, ends up being some of the funniest stuff in the movie). Even Gregg Henry, in the asshole bad guy Gregg Henry-role, doesn't seem like enough of an asshole. Early on in the movie, he gets mad at some underling for some failure, and demands that the underling shoot himself. The underling holds the gun to his head, and seems ready to shoot himself. Then, he suddenly points the gun at Henry and fires, and (get this) a bullet instead shoots out of the back of the gun, hitting the underling in the head and killing him.
This is just too perplexing to establish Henry as a bad guy. Where did he get this gun? Does he pull this trick a lot? Wouldn't people catch on? Why did the guy even consider shooting himself in the first place? If I fucked up at work, and my boss asked me to shoot myself, I'd just quit.
Any ways, I suspect that this would be a good one to watch with a group of loudmouthed friends, possibly while drunk. Which is probably what I should have done, but oh well.
As mentioned before, I wanted to throw a little Krapfest before officially kicking off my Kommitment to Klassiks. You know, see a couple of lousy movies I've been meaning to see before I get all high minded and whatnot.
Ballistic is a pretty legendary bad movie, always showing up on peoples' all time worst lists. I remember talking with my friend John about it when it came out... it looked like one of those silly, ludicrous action movies that is so misguided in its style that it becomes some kind of work of genius. Unintentionally funny, awful genius.
Well, on the accidentally funny scale (where Uwe Boll is the gold standard), this is not as amazing as House of the Dead, but it might be a little more hilarious than Alone in the Dark. It didn't disappoint, and I would watch it again if some friends were involved, but it's probably not quite a classic.
Shit, I should have been taking notes during this one, because there were a lot of ludicrous moments and details. So much that I'd almost suspect that this movie was maybe actually a good silly action movie... almost, except the actual action is so poorly done that I can't believe this to be the case.
You know, I expected a movie that was highly stylized and over-the-top, but in a completely misguided way that comes off as stupid instead of fun or cool. And I was right, but I did not expect it to be staged this shittily. There is no sense of energy or excitement in this movie. Even during all the explosions, and gun fights, and buses sliding on their sides down the road with a machinegun firing Antonio Banderas on top, everything seems to be moving too slow. And I don't just mean because of the frequently (and poorly) employed slo-mo shots. I know people gave Paul Greengrass a lot of shit for shaking the camera a lot in his Bourne movies, but damn if his flicks don't seem urgent. Someone needed to give the director and cameraman some caffeine on this one, get things moving.
There is one kinda actually awesome over-the-top moment where a dude falls off a building, and the camera falls all the way down with him until he smashes into a car.
Banality. That's the problem with this movie. None of the actors seem to give a shit. The dialogue is shockingly bland and arbitrary, to the point where characters start exchanging one-liners during the action scenes that aren't only unfunny, but don't even seem to make much sense. (Which, paradoxically, ends up being some of the funniest stuff in the movie). Even Gregg Henry, in the asshole bad guy Gregg Henry-role, doesn't seem like enough of an asshole. Early on in the movie, he gets mad at some underling for some failure, and demands that the underling shoot himself. The underling holds the gun to his head, and seems ready to shoot himself. Then, he suddenly points the gun at Henry and fires, and (get this) a bullet instead shoots out of the back of the gun, hitting the underling in the head and killing him.
This is just too perplexing to establish Henry as a bad guy. Where did he get this gun? Does he pull this trick a lot? Wouldn't people catch on? Why did the guy even consider shooting himself in the first place? If I fucked up at work, and my boss asked me to shoot myself, I'd just quit.
Any ways, I suspect that this would be a good one to watch with a group of loudmouthed friends, possibly while drunk. Which is probably what I should have done, but oh well.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Pet Sematary
Monday, December 31, 2007
I picked up a cheap set of 4 Stephen King movies. Shenan and I watched this one New Year's Eve to kill time before the party.
Hadn't seen this one since I was a kid, and I vaguely remembered liking it. Turns out that it's pretty lame, even if it does have Tasha Yar and the guy from Time Trax.
A pretty mediocre effort, but with a few choice moments of gore. Also, there's a really (I think unintentionally) funny scene where two guys get into a fistfight at a funeral and knock the casket over.
This did bring up a childhood memory. When I was young, an older kid I knew made with his parents video camera some stupid Pet Sematary knockoff called, if I remember correctly, Sixth Cemetery. Don't ask me why one would want to imitate Pet Sematary, or whyone would think Sixth Cemetery was a good title. The best part, though, was that at the end, he just spliced in the end credits from Pet Sematary, complete with the Ramones' theme song. Except every time Joey sang the word "pet," this kid dubbed in himself saying "sixth."
That shit still makes me smile, like 15 years later.
I picked up a cheap set of 4 Stephen King movies. Shenan and I watched this one New Year's Eve to kill time before the party.
Hadn't seen this one since I was a kid, and I vaguely remembered liking it. Turns out that it's pretty lame, even if it does have Tasha Yar and the guy from Time Trax.
A pretty mediocre effort, but with a few choice moments of gore. Also, there's a really (I think unintentionally) funny scene where two guys get into a fistfight at a funeral and knock the casket over.
This did bring up a childhood memory. When I was young, an older kid I knew made with his parents video camera some stupid Pet Sematary knockoff called, if I remember correctly, Sixth Cemetery. Don't ask me why one would want to imitate Pet Sematary, or whyone would think Sixth Cemetery was a good title. The best part, though, was that at the end, he just spliced in the end credits from Pet Sematary, complete with the Ramones' theme song. Except every time Joey sang the word "pet," this kid dubbed in himself saying "sixth."
That shit still makes me smile, like 15 years later.
Demons 2
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Andy and I finished up the pre-New Year's Eve Movie Marathon with the enjoyable sequel to the classic Demons. I've been pushing this a lot on here, but Demons is fucking great. Such a rare, perfect combination of intentional entertaining horror movie lunacy, and unintentional comedy.
Part Deux is not up to snuff with the first film, but it has it's merits. It's basically a rehash of the first movie, but with less amusingly awful dialogue (certainly it's less quotable) and also less violence (which I find confusing). Still, it has the same entertaining visual style, manic energy, fun special effects and the same kind of lunatic, nonsensical, fever dream of a plot.
Instead of an outbreak of demons at a movie theater, this time it happens in an apartment complex. Not quite as memorable, but still a good setting, opens up some new gimmicks, etc. I like the way the infected demon blood drips down from floor to floor and nails the unsuspecting inhabitants below.
One of my favorite parts of the original is what Andy and I refer to as the "Punks in a Car" motif. About halfway into Demons, the movie randomly cuts to a stolen car full of coke-snorting punks, miles away from the action. They all do some amazing overacting, with plenty of great-awful dialogue, and what's great is it's a total non-sequitor to cut from demons attacking people in a theater to a car full of punks doing jack shit. Ok, so you figure this is going somewhere. The punks do eventually show up at the theater, so maybe they will help fight off the demons, etc. But instead, once they end up at the theater, there is a scene of them being attacked and then they vanish from the film. Later, if you watch really closely and have seen the movie 4 or 5 times, you will notice that some of them are now in the background as demons.
I guess the point of the subplot is to explain how the demons get out into the real world, after one of the punks opens the door to the theater. I guess. It's still all completely asinine, and completely genius. And I bring this up, because part 2 out-asinines it in a way that makes me suspect that director Lamberto Bava is asinine like a fox. Because in Demons 2, we get another random car full of punks, who are on their way to the apartment building. It occasionally randomly cuts to them driving around, just like in part 1. Only this time, they get into a fender bender, and that's the last you see of them. They never actually make it to the apartment. They have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.
Bravo, Bava. Check and mate.
This was my 2nd time seeing Demons 2, it probably won't be my last, but I'm not going to watch it a million times like the original. Still, a good way to end our movie marathon. Good times.
Andy and I finished up the pre-New Year's Eve Movie Marathon with the enjoyable sequel to the classic Demons. I've been pushing this a lot on here, but Demons is fucking great. Such a rare, perfect combination of intentional entertaining horror movie lunacy, and unintentional comedy.
Part Deux is not up to snuff with the first film, but it has it's merits. It's basically a rehash of the first movie, but with less amusingly awful dialogue (certainly it's less quotable) and also less violence (which I find confusing). Still, it has the same entertaining visual style, manic energy, fun special effects and the same kind of lunatic, nonsensical, fever dream of a plot.
Instead of an outbreak of demons at a movie theater, this time it happens in an apartment complex. Not quite as memorable, but still a good setting, opens up some new gimmicks, etc. I like the way the infected demon blood drips down from floor to floor and nails the unsuspecting inhabitants below.
One of my favorite parts of the original is what Andy and I refer to as the "Punks in a Car" motif. About halfway into Demons, the movie randomly cuts to a stolen car full of coke-snorting punks, miles away from the action. They all do some amazing overacting, with plenty of great-awful dialogue, and what's great is it's a total non-sequitor to cut from demons attacking people in a theater to a car full of punks doing jack shit. Ok, so you figure this is going somewhere. The punks do eventually show up at the theater, so maybe they will help fight off the demons, etc. But instead, once they end up at the theater, there is a scene of them being attacked and then they vanish from the film. Later, if you watch really closely and have seen the movie 4 or 5 times, you will notice that some of them are now in the background as demons.
I guess the point of the subplot is to explain how the demons get out into the real world, after one of the punks opens the door to the theater. I guess. It's still all completely asinine, and completely genius. And I bring this up, because part 2 out-asinines it in a way that makes me suspect that director Lamberto Bava is asinine like a fox. Because in Demons 2, we get another random car full of punks, who are on their way to the apartment building. It occasionally randomly cuts to them driving around, just like in part 1. Only this time, they get into a fender bender, and that's the last you see of them. They never actually make it to the apartment. They have nothing to do with the rest of the movie.
Bravo, Bava. Check and mate.
This was my 2nd time seeing Demons 2, it probably won't be my last, but I'm not going to watch it a million times like the original. Still, a good way to end our movie marathon. Good times.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Rats: Night of Terror
Sunday, December 30, 2007
OK, this is a little more what I think I had in mind for our movie festival. This is one of them low budget, late 70s/early 80s italian horror/exploitation films I am so damn fond of, complete with graphic violence, bad writing, worse dubbing, and full frontal female nudity.
Well, this isn't a great one by any means. It's no Demons, that's for sure. Hell, it ain't even a Nightmare City in terms of quality. It's too fucking slow in the middle, not quite violent enough, and it lacks the requisite amount of accidental comedy.
Still, I'm gonna need to check out something else by this Bruno Mattei fellow, because I can sense that he has "the touch." There are enough moments here in Rats: Night of Terror that I suspect this guy makes good-bad sleazoid horror films, and hopefully not the boring or pervy kind.
I think Andy and I knew this wasn't going to a complete waste of time when the movie started with a text crawl. See, we figured this one was going to be a pretty simple horny teens running afoul of evil rats scenrio. Not content with that simple bullshit, Mattei and co. open by letting us know that this takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, 225 years A.B. (after the bomb). And instead of horny teens, it's a horny, post-apocalyptic roving motorcycle gang. Running afoul of evil rats. Nice.
So, like I said, no classic, but there are moments. Like when one unfortunate girl gets a rat up the pussy. Youch! And not only that, but then it comes out her mouth... that's the kind of extra effort I'm looking for in these kinds of shitty movies.
Then there is a completely ridiculous, hilarious twist ending that is so fucking silly that I think it reaches some kind of level of genius. You see, the opening text explains that most of earth's inhabitants live underground, and that they hate the ones that live above and consider them savages. So at the end, the 2 survivoring bikers are saved by a bunch of dudes in gas masks who gas all the rats to death. These obviously must be the people who live under the earth. Only when they take off the masks... OMG they are giant people sized rats!!!!!!
This sounds reatrded, and it is. But but but... I started wondering why the giant rats were killing the other rats instead of the humans. Then I remembered the opening text. These giant rats are the underground dwellers mentioned in the beginning, and it's the above ground rats that they hate and think are savages, not the humans.
That they actually set this ridiculous twist up in the opening I think earns some kind of special B-movie medal for Best Worst Thinking Outside the Box-type Extra Effort in a Horror Film award. Go for the gold!
In conclusion, this is not one I will likely watch again. But I'm thinking of checking out more by Bruno Mattei, maybe Hell of the Living Dead. I get the feeling he's got a classic awesome shitty movie somewhere in his filmography.
OK, this is a little more what I think I had in mind for our movie festival. This is one of them low budget, late 70s/early 80s italian horror/exploitation films I am so damn fond of, complete with graphic violence, bad writing, worse dubbing, and full frontal female nudity.
Well, this isn't a great one by any means. It's no Demons, that's for sure. Hell, it ain't even a Nightmare City in terms of quality. It's too fucking slow in the middle, not quite violent enough, and it lacks the requisite amount of accidental comedy.
Still, I'm gonna need to check out something else by this Bruno Mattei fellow, because I can sense that he has "the touch." There are enough moments here in Rats: Night of Terror that I suspect this guy makes good-bad sleazoid horror films, and hopefully not the boring or pervy kind.
I think Andy and I knew this wasn't going to a complete waste of time when the movie started with a text crawl. See, we figured this one was going to be a pretty simple horny teens running afoul of evil rats scenrio. Not content with that simple bullshit, Mattei and co. open by letting us know that this takes place in a post-apocalyptic world, 225 years A.B. (after the bomb). And instead of horny teens, it's a horny, post-apocalyptic roving motorcycle gang. Running afoul of evil rats. Nice.
So, like I said, no classic, but there are moments. Like when one unfortunate girl gets a rat up the pussy. Youch! And not only that, but then it comes out her mouth... that's the kind of extra effort I'm looking for in these kinds of shitty movies.
Then there is a completely ridiculous, hilarious twist ending that is so fucking silly that I think it reaches some kind of level of genius. You see, the opening text explains that most of earth's inhabitants live underground, and that they hate the ones that live above and consider them savages. So at the end, the 2 survivoring bikers are saved by a bunch of dudes in gas masks who gas all the rats to death. These obviously must be the people who live under the earth. Only when they take off the masks... OMG they are giant people sized rats!!!!!!
This sounds reatrded, and it is. But but but... I started wondering why the giant rats were killing the other rats instead of the humans. Then I remembered the opening text. These giant rats are the underground dwellers mentioned in the beginning, and it's the above ground rats that they hate and think are savages, not the humans.
That they actually set this ridiculous twist up in the opening I think earns some kind of special B-movie medal for Best Worst Thinking Outside the Box-type Extra Effort in a Horror Film award. Go for the gold!
In conclusion, this is not one I will likely watch again. But I'm thinking of checking out more by Bruno Mattei, maybe Hell of the Living Dead. I get the feeling he's got a classic awesome shitty movie somewhere in his filmography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)