Hey everyone!
Geez, it's been forever since I posted last. The day job is practically taking over my life right now as I'm the only full time night shift projectionist we have. Also, trying to do something other than work all the time has meant that I've had very little time to sit down and post. The fact that I've had very little news to post has added to the lack of things to say; however, I now have some great news! A Hammer Fell in Jerusalem: Anathema is now an Official Selection of the Central Florida Film Festival in Ocoee, Florida! The festival runs September 4-6, Labour Day Weekend, and myself and co-worker Chris Cline (who plays the Priest in the flick) have already asked for it off. Bad timing for the theatre, great timing for us!
I've completed a couple of scripts, too. I'm just trying to transcribe them, make them feature length, and keep writing. That's the main thing, just keep writing.
The issue of Morpheus Tales that my story "Warm Body in a Cold World" is in is coming out this Summer in the UK. It's available for pre-order on their website.
That's it for the moment. I've hooked my phone up to the blog so I can blog more, especially from festivals. Thanks for hanging in there!!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
My mommy.
To my mom, who puts up with her baby girl's love of the horror genre with a brave face (if not a strong stomach) and never tried to make me be anyone other than who I am, I say happy birthday (on Friday) and happy mother's day (today.)
I love you, mom!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Red, The Bird People in China, Return to Sleepaway Camp, City on Fire
RED is a film based on Jack Ketchum's book by the same name. It was adapted Stephen Susco (The Grudge, The Grudge 2) and directed by Trygve Allister Diesen and Lucky McKee. It stars Brian Cox as Avery Ludlow, a man who's dog Red is senseless murdered by the town hothead Danny (Noel Fisher.) Avery is thwarted at every pass in his journey to get justice because Danny is the eldest son in a rich family, headed by another hothead (played by Tom Sizemore.) Eventually, things get out of control, as things often do, and blood is spilt from both sides of the argument.
It started out well enough, and had a great trailer, but was severely brought down by too much exposition and a truly terrible performance from Tom Sizemore. He was bad and I mean really, really bad. Thankfully, the leads, Brian Cox and Noel Fisher, were excellent. There were also appearances by Amanda Plummer playing Robert Englund's screen wife and Ashley Lawrence played Tom Sizemore's character's wife. That was distracting, the stunt casting of Englund and Lawrence. Their characters were pointless in the movie. They could have easily been played by anyone at all. Ah well.
The script could have been a lot better. It needed a little bit of work before going before the cameras, i think. Cutting down the exposition would have helped. That's better suited to a novel than a movie.
The direction was okay. I'd love to know why there were two directors. Lucky McKee is big enough to be able to direct by himself and he's pretty good at it. So why the other dude with the really cool name?
Overall, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd recommend watching the trailer. That was some good stuff.
*****
The Bird People in China was directed by Takashi Miike from an adapted screenplay by Masa Nakamura. It's about a business man and a yakuza who are sent to a remote part of China to investigate a vein of jade and are changed forever. A plot description from the IMDb, posted by Danny Leary, says it better:
It's a wonderfully imaginative little flick, very sweet and only slightly strange. Everything about it was wonderful. I did find the colours to be a little muted, a little untrue, but that could just be my teevee getting ready to die. This is nothing like Audition or The Happiness of the Katakuris or Ichi the Killer, Visitor Q, and Sukiyaki Western Django. Miike-san's films are all very unique, even if he's making something to capitalize on a current trend (One Missed Call, for example.)
Everything about it was superb and I highly recommend it.
*****
Return to Sleepaway Camp.
I'm not going to bother with all the cast and crew stuff like I normally do. This was easily among the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen some real stinkers. I liked Sleepaway Camp, but I've never watched any of the sequels, not that you need to in order to see this flick.
Bah...don't bother unless you're really into the Sleepaway Camp movies.
*****
City on Fire.
I'd like to have a review of this for you, I really would. The problem is that Netflix only has the Dimension release. I watched it up until the characters started speaking, then kicked the DVD out of my house. It was dubbed and there was no option to turn off the dubbing.
Dimension ruins Asian films when they release them. I'd purchased The Heroic Trio when Dimension released it unaware of how miserable they were and took it back immediately after watching half of the flick so I could purchase a real copy (I got the Tai Seng release and it was a fantastic purchase.) The Supercop they released here is nothing like the original version, known in China as Police Story 3: Supercop.
So, eventually I'll have a review of this flick for you, which is basically the original version of Reservoir Dogs once I track down a better copy.
It started out well enough, and had a great trailer, but was severely brought down by too much exposition and a truly terrible performance from Tom Sizemore. He was bad and I mean really, really bad. Thankfully, the leads, Brian Cox and Noel Fisher, were excellent. There were also appearances by Amanda Plummer playing Robert Englund's screen wife and Ashley Lawrence played Tom Sizemore's character's wife. That was distracting, the stunt casting of Englund and Lawrence. Their characters were pointless in the movie. They could have easily been played by anyone at all. Ah well.
The script could have been a lot better. It needed a little bit of work before going before the cameras, i think. Cutting down the exposition would have helped. That's better suited to a novel than a movie.
The direction was okay. I'd love to know why there were two directors. Lucky McKee is big enough to be able to direct by himself and he's pretty good at it. So why the other dude with the really cool name?
Overall, I wouldn't recommend it. I'd recommend watching the trailer. That was some good stuff.
*****
The Bird People in China was directed by Takashi Miike from an adapted screenplay by Masa Nakamura. It's about a business man and a yakuza who are sent to a remote part of China to investigate a vein of jade and are changed forever. A plot description from the IMDb, posted by Danny Leary, says it better:
A young Japanese salaryman is sent by his company to a remote Chinese village to evaluate precious Jade that is found there, but before he arrives meets the yakuza who was sent to tail him to protect his bosses interest in the company. When the men finally arrive their mission become sidetracked by their interest in a mysterious young village girl, her haunting English language song and the secret that makes men fly like birds.
It's a wonderfully imaginative little flick, very sweet and only slightly strange. Everything about it was wonderful. I did find the colours to be a little muted, a little untrue, but that could just be my teevee getting ready to die. This is nothing like Audition or The Happiness of the Katakuris or Ichi the Killer, Visitor Q, and Sukiyaki Western Django. Miike-san's films are all very unique, even if he's making something to capitalize on a current trend (One Missed Call, for example.)
Everything about it was superb and I highly recommend it.
*****
Return to Sleepaway Camp.
I'm not going to bother with all the cast and crew stuff like I normally do. This was easily among the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen some real stinkers. I liked Sleepaway Camp, but I've never watched any of the sequels, not that you need to in order to see this flick.
Bah...don't bother unless you're really into the Sleepaway Camp movies.
*****
City on Fire.
I'd like to have a review of this for you, I really would. The problem is that Netflix only has the Dimension release. I watched it up until the characters started speaking, then kicked the DVD out of my house. It was dubbed and there was no option to turn off the dubbing.
Dimension ruins Asian films when they release them. I'd purchased The Heroic Trio when Dimension released it unaware of how miserable they were and took it back immediately after watching half of the flick so I could purchase a real copy (I got the Tai Seng release and it was a fantastic purchase.) The Supercop they released here is nothing like the original version, known in China as Police Story 3: Supercop.
So, eventually I'll have a review of this flick for you, which is basically the original version of Reservoir Dogs once I track down a better copy.
Monday, March 16, 2009
The Stand (book and movie)
My mom made a special request of me: that I also review the books I read. Since I just watched The Stand miniseries after reading the omigod long version of the book, I thought I'd start with that.
The Book:
I love Stephen King. I have not read everything he's written, I don't think I could ever catch up especially with the rate at which he publishes, but I've read a fair number of his books and watched his movies. In fact, I'd just finished the entire Dark Tower series, all seven books, just before I launched myself into the somewhat vague DT tie-in The Stand.
That was a big mistake.
The Dark Tower was massive, but somehow it didn't feel as massive as the 1500 page tome that the expanded Stand is. It's just...large and filled with so many characters that I didn't, or couldn't, really latch onto any of them as favourites (Mother Abagail aside, of course.) Only Larry Underwood and Randall Flagg really have any sort of arc. Most of the characters don't change or evolve or get any deeper. I had a glimmer of hope that Fran Goldsmith would be a good character, but that was pretty quickly dashed. Dayna Jurgins had a wonderfully strong part, but since I hadn't travelled with her for very long, I felt no connection to her. King wanted to show this massive, country-wide scale epic monstrosity of an apocalypse and did so very well. I simply did not connect with most of the characters.
The strongest parts are the journeys and the dreams. And nearly everything without Frannie.
Overall, not my favourite King book. Right now, that would be entire The Dark Tower. However, it is worth a read for the sections that are incredible, like Vegas and the stuff with Trashcan Man. I haven't read the original version so I can only recommend grabbing the expanded edition.
The Movie:
King's imagery is so vibrant and yet so personal feeling that it's often hard to watch a movie adaptation. I think the best adaptation of his work would have to be The Mist. I love, love, love that movie and love, love, love Frank Darabont for making it. I would say that it's among my top favourite movies of all time. That said, the most prolific and literal adapter of King's work is Mick Garris. He's built a career on directing and adapting King's work to the screen. He's done other stuff, sure (Hocus Pocus and the unfortunately short-lived Masters of Horror,) but his main thing is King. Out of 21 IMDb-listed directing credits, seven of them are Stephen King and four of those have been for teevee.
The cast for The Stand, which was made in 1994, is pretty impressive if not entirely accurate. Gary Sinise was a wonderful Stu Redman, Molly Ringwald (not my favourite of the Brat Pack) was the perfect Frannie, and you can't get much better than Ruby Dee as Mother Abagail and Ossie Davis as the underwritten Judge Farris. I just read that Moses Gunn was originally cast as the Judge (oh, that would have been marvelous...), but had to say no because he was battling cancer.
Bill Fagerbakke was wonderful as Tom Cullen, the always great Miguel Ferrer was wonderful, of not underused, as Lloyd Henreid, and Matt Frewer was PERFECT for Trashcan Man. I loved Ray Walston as Glen Batemen, but I did miss the "baldy" stuff between he and Stu. Adam Storke was good as Larry, but I imagined someone different. Jamey Sheridan was a great Randall Flagg, but I couldn't get the image of Charles Dance out of my head (this stems from a painting of Flagg / O'Dim in The Dark Tower) and I think he would have been marvelous. Or Lance Henriksen, but that's casting to type...
On the flip side, Rob Lowe was miscast as Nick Andros and Laura San Giacomo was good as Nadine, but I wouldn't have cast her. Someone mentioned that Diane Lane was going to play Julie Lowry (which eventually went to Shawnee Smith, later of the Saw flicks), but I think I would have cast her as Nadine.
Other notable faces in the show are Ed Harris as General Starkey, Kathy Bates as Ray (the radio host,) Sam Raimi as one of the two ill-fated border guards who encounters the Judge, Howard Sherman as one of the Virginia doctors (BUB!!), and of course Stephen King as one of the Boulderites. Can't honestly tell you which one without looking at the IMDb, he wrote so many of them...
Stephen King tried his hand at adapting his own work, originally aiming for the silver screen with George A. Romero at the helm. The material was then handed over to another writer and ABC offered to make it as a mini-series with Garris directing, fresh off his "triumph?" on King's Sleepwalkers. The constrictions of working with a network aside, the script was clumsy and felt just like the book in that it glossed over everything and focused on nothing. I really, really missed Rita. She's the most important part of Larry's transformation and without her, his arc seems so empty. Combining Rita with Nadine was a good move to save time and money, but Larry starts out as an intensely selfish character and needs the...geez, look at me telling the ether how Stephen King should handle his own characters...but anyway, Larry needs the push of Rita's death to go from the Taker to the Giver and that was missing here. Also missing was his connection to Joe / Leo. Okay, you can't really have a kid running around in his underwear for the majority of his screen time, but there was simply nothing between them.
The problem with Garris as a director is that his work is always very bright; there's always a lot of light. All of his work feels like television instead of a movie that happens to be made for television. He had what could have been an incredibly intense scene when Larry and Nadine go through the Lincoln Tunnel to Jersey and ruined it. His episodes of Masters of Horror aren't much better. Garris's next project is King's Bag of Bones.
Overall, I guess I would recommend the mini-series, but with reservations especially if you're a fan of the book. If you've never read the book and still want to see the movie...that's up to you...
The Book:
I love Stephen King. I have not read everything he's written, I don't think I could ever catch up especially with the rate at which he publishes, but I've read a fair number of his books and watched his movies. In fact, I'd just finished the entire Dark Tower series, all seven books, just before I launched myself into the somewhat vague DT tie-in The Stand.
That was a big mistake.
The Dark Tower was massive, but somehow it didn't feel as massive as the 1500 page tome that the expanded Stand is. It's just...large and filled with so many characters that I didn't, or couldn't, really latch onto any of them as favourites (Mother Abagail aside, of course.) Only Larry Underwood and Randall Flagg really have any sort of arc. Most of the characters don't change or evolve or get any deeper. I had a glimmer of hope that Fran Goldsmith would be a good character, but that was pretty quickly dashed. Dayna Jurgins had a wonderfully strong part, but since I hadn't travelled with her for very long, I felt no connection to her. King wanted to show this massive, country-wide scale epic monstrosity of an apocalypse and did so very well. I simply did not connect with most of the characters.
The strongest parts are the journeys and the dreams. And nearly everything without Frannie.
Overall, not my favourite King book. Right now, that would be entire The Dark Tower. However, it is worth a read for the sections that are incredible, like Vegas and the stuff with Trashcan Man. I haven't read the original version so I can only recommend grabbing the expanded edition.
The Movie:
King's imagery is so vibrant and yet so personal feeling that it's often hard to watch a movie adaptation. I think the best adaptation of his work would have to be The Mist. I love, love, love that movie and love, love, love Frank Darabont for making it. I would say that it's among my top favourite movies of all time. That said, the most prolific and literal adapter of King's work is Mick Garris. He's built a career on directing and adapting King's work to the screen. He's done other stuff, sure (Hocus Pocus and the unfortunately short-lived Masters of Horror,) but his main thing is King. Out of 21 IMDb-listed directing credits, seven of them are Stephen King and four of those have been for teevee.
The cast for The Stand, which was made in 1994, is pretty impressive if not entirely accurate. Gary Sinise was a wonderful Stu Redman, Molly Ringwald (not my favourite of the Brat Pack) was the perfect Frannie, and you can't get much better than Ruby Dee as Mother Abagail and Ossie Davis as the underwritten Judge Farris. I just read that Moses Gunn was originally cast as the Judge (oh, that would have been marvelous...), but had to say no because he was battling cancer.
Bill Fagerbakke was wonderful as Tom Cullen, the always great Miguel Ferrer was wonderful, of not underused, as Lloyd Henreid, and Matt Frewer was PERFECT for Trashcan Man. I loved Ray Walston as Glen Batemen, but I did miss the "baldy" stuff between he and Stu. Adam Storke was good as Larry, but I imagined someone different. Jamey Sheridan was a great Randall Flagg, but I couldn't get the image of Charles Dance out of my head (this stems from a painting of Flagg / O'Dim in The Dark Tower) and I think he would have been marvelous. Or Lance Henriksen, but that's casting to type...
On the flip side, Rob Lowe was miscast as Nick Andros and Laura San Giacomo was good as Nadine, but I wouldn't have cast her. Someone mentioned that Diane Lane was going to play Julie Lowry (which eventually went to Shawnee Smith, later of the Saw flicks), but I think I would have cast her as Nadine.
Other notable faces in the show are Ed Harris as General Starkey, Kathy Bates as Ray (the radio host,) Sam Raimi as one of the two ill-fated border guards who encounters the Judge, Howard Sherman as one of the Virginia doctors (BUB!!), and of course Stephen King as one of the Boulderites. Can't honestly tell you which one without looking at the IMDb, he wrote so many of them...
Stephen King tried his hand at adapting his own work, originally aiming for the silver screen with George A. Romero at the helm. The material was then handed over to another writer and ABC offered to make it as a mini-series with Garris directing, fresh off his "triumph?" on King's Sleepwalkers. The constrictions of working with a network aside, the script was clumsy and felt just like the book in that it glossed over everything and focused on nothing. I really, really missed Rita. She's the most important part of Larry's transformation and without her, his arc seems so empty. Combining Rita with Nadine was a good move to save time and money, but Larry starts out as an intensely selfish character and needs the...geez, look at me telling the ether how Stephen King should handle his own characters...but anyway, Larry needs the push of Rita's death to go from the Taker to the Giver and that was missing here. Also missing was his connection to Joe / Leo. Okay, you can't really have a kid running around in his underwear for the majority of his screen time, but there was simply nothing between them.
The problem with Garris as a director is that his work is always very bright; there's always a lot of light. All of his work feels like television instead of a movie that happens to be made for television. He had what could have been an incredibly intense scene when Larry and Nadine go through the Lincoln Tunnel to Jersey and ruined it. His episodes of Masters of Horror aren't much better. Garris's next project is King's Bag of Bones.
Overall, I guess I would recommend the mini-series, but with reservations especially if you're a fan of the book. If you've never read the book and still want to see the movie...that's up to you...
Angel of Death round-up
Alright, Ed Brubaker's Angel of Death has finished its initial run on Crackle dot com, but you can still watch all ten episodes at that link. Chad (@crackledotcom) said that the DVD will be released in June. For those of you just joining us, Angel of Death is about a hitwoman named Eve who gets a conscience when she gets a knife to the brain and stars Kiwi stuntie and all-around kickass chick Zoe Bell (you've seen her all over and didn't even know it, but to actually see her do her thing, rent Double Dare and, of course, Death Proof.)
I've been talking up this show since it started and would have had this review up ages ago if I hadn't gotten all "ooh, shiny!" with work, writing, and Resident Evil 5.
I have really only one big complaint: the final three episodes felt severely chopped and rushed in order to make the short running time for each episode. I hope that's something that will be fixed when the DVD is released and the whole thing is stitched together into one cohesive unit. My other complaint is that there needs to be more and it needs to be longer! This 5 minutes of awesome at a time thing was kind of annoying...are all internet shows like that? I honestly don't know; I've only watched this and Dr. Horrible (Joss is awesome.)
My personal questions aside, I loved this show. Zoe Bell was awesome and it was great to see Monica Staggs (she's an American stuntie who was also in Death Proof as Leena Frank) and Lucy Lawless even if Lucy's character really didn't go anywhere...this is also something I'd like to see in an expanded version of the show on DVD or a second season (yes, please!) Some of the characters were a little too flat, but maybe that's part of the problem inherent in making something for such a short running time.
Technically, the show is great and the performances are ace. I highly recommend it!
I've been talking up this show since it started and would have had this review up ages ago if I hadn't gotten all "ooh, shiny!" with work, writing, and Resident Evil 5.
I have really only one big complaint: the final three episodes felt severely chopped and rushed in order to make the short running time for each episode. I hope that's something that will be fixed when the DVD is released and the whole thing is stitched together into one cohesive unit. My other complaint is that there needs to be more and it needs to be longer! This 5 minutes of awesome at a time thing was kind of annoying...are all internet shows like that? I honestly don't know; I've only watched this and Dr. Horrible (Joss is awesome.)
My personal questions aside, I loved this show. Zoe Bell was awesome and it was great to see Monica Staggs (she's an American stuntie who was also in Death Proof as Leena Frank) and Lucy Lawless even if Lucy's character really didn't go anywhere...this is also something I'd like to see in an expanded version of the show on DVD or a second season (yes, please!) Some of the characters were a little too flat, but maybe that's part of the problem inherent in making something for such a short running time.
Technically, the show is great and the performances are ace. I highly recommend it!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
The Last House on the Left remake
The Last House on the Left is yet another remake of a classic horror flick, this one produced (and therefore sanctioned) by the original's creator, the Professor of Horror himself, Wes Craven. It was directed by Dennis Iliadis, making his American feature debut, from a script by Adam Alleca (first produced feature script) and Carl Ellsworth (Craven's Red Eye and Disturbia as well as a couple of okay Xena episodes.) This one, like the original, is about a family seeking revenge on the people who raped and beat their daughter.
Before I start, I should say that The Last House on the Left is not my favourite Craven flick. To be honest, it's been so long since I saw it that I don't remember much other than that it was very intense and shocking.
The biggest problem with remakes, in my opinion, is that the people who write the scripts now aren't the people who wrote the scripts then. Sometimes, the people writing the scripts now (like Adam Alleca) weren't even born when the original came out. We as a world are not in the same frame of mind we were 37 years ago when Last House first hit the screens. As such, these new scripts keep missing the mark in little, and in not so little, ways. I know of no one who says that the remake of anything is better than the original. I've not heard anyone tout the newest Friday the 13th as the mostest awesomest Jason flick evar!1! Remakes are, by their very nature, inferiour products because its a world created by one person filtered through someone else's perspective and personal memories. It's like the game Telephone and how the first person says "Butterflies are pretty" and by the time it gets to the last person the message has transformed into "Butt-licker fancy trees." The newest Last House is no different.
On the technical side, everything was good. The cinematography was too slick and processed, and they focused so much on Francis's broken nose that I thought Lucio Fulci (whose ocular obsession was legendary) had possessed the creative team. The score was good in and of itself, but it missed a few marks, or perhaps the movie missed them, so that was kind of distracting.
I saw nothing wrong with the performances. I thought everyone in the film did a magnificent job.
While it was brutal in certain respects, as it should be given its pedigree, it felt really reserved in others. Pretty frustrating, actually. And the finale felt like something out of the sequel to a slasher flick.
Overall: I wouldn't recommend it. Go watch the original instead, if you have to, or just watch something original.
Before I start, I should say that The Last House on the Left is not my favourite Craven flick. To be honest, it's been so long since I saw it that I don't remember much other than that it was very intense and shocking.
The biggest problem with remakes, in my opinion, is that the people who write the scripts now aren't the people who wrote the scripts then. Sometimes, the people writing the scripts now (like Adam Alleca) weren't even born when the original came out. We as a world are not in the same frame of mind we were 37 years ago when Last House first hit the screens. As such, these new scripts keep missing the mark in little, and in not so little, ways. I know of no one who says that the remake of anything is better than the original. I've not heard anyone tout the newest Friday the 13th as the mostest awesomest Jason flick evar!1! Remakes are, by their very nature, inferiour products because its a world created by one person filtered through someone else's perspective and personal memories. It's like the game Telephone and how the first person says "Butterflies are pretty" and by the time it gets to the last person the message has transformed into "Butt-licker fancy trees." The newest Last House is no different.
On the technical side, everything was good. The cinematography was too slick and processed, and they focused so much on Francis's broken nose that I thought Lucio Fulci (whose ocular obsession was legendary) had possessed the creative team. The score was good in and of itself, but it missed a few marks, or perhaps the movie missed them, so that was kind of distracting.
I saw nothing wrong with the performances. I thought everyone in the film did a magnificent job.
While it was brutal in certain respects, as it should be given its pedigree, it felt really reserved in others. Pretty frustrating, actually. And the finale felt like something out of the sequel to a slasher flick.
Overall: I wouldn't recommend it. Go watch the original instead, if you have to, or just watch something original.
Burnt Offerings, The Sentinel (1977), Mulberry Street
Burnt Offerings was directed by Dan Curtis from an adaptation of the Robert Murasco novel by William F. Nolan. It's about a family who rents a house for the summer and the price the house exacts on its tenants. It stars Oliver Reed and Karen Black with appearances by Burgess Meredith and Bette Davis.
I put this on my queue because one of my favourite actresses, Heather Langenkamp, lists it as one of her favourite horror flicks. I've not read the novel so I can't say how book accurate it is, but it felt like the beginning and the end were very strong while the middle sagged as they struggled to add things to pad out the runtime.
The performances were good enough. I don't really feel either way about Oliver Reed and I'm not a big fan of Karen Black, but I thought they were good. The son was annoying. I would have LOVED to see more of Meredith and Eileen Heckart, who played his sister. The chauffeur was creepy. They score was okay, the editing was okay, and there wasn't a lot in the way of effects.
Overall: pretty good.
~~~~~
The Sentinel is a supernatural horror flick from 1977 directed by Michael Winner and adapted by Jeffrey Konvitz from his own novel about a suicidal fashion model who finds a strikingly nice NYC apartment for amazingly cheap and soon finds out that the building is a gateway to hell being guarded by an ancient, blind priest. Right up my alley.
This is one of those 70s flicks where the filmmakers jammed in as many names as they could of both at the time up-and-comers (Chris Sarandon, who seems to be really underrated, and Christopher Walken) and those who have been around a while (Burgess Meredith, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Jose Ferrer, etc., etc.) and was seen by Universal as their answer to Warner Brothers' The Exorcist from four years previous. They even got the master, Dick Smith, to come in and do the effects. Sorry Universal, you lost this round...
If I hadn't already seen Lucio Fulci's masterful The Beyond, or even his own less masterful original version Gates of Hell, I would be all over this flick. It has everything I'm fascinated by and can't stop myself from writing about, but there's a lot of pointless, useless, stupid stuff that drags it down. Combine that with a script that really isn't very mysterious or scary and you have a recipe for yawn.
The performances were pretty good from everyone involved. Walken wasn't given much to do other than stand there looking like a made man chewing gum and Sarandon was just the supportive boyfriend and part time sleazy lawyer. Not a lot of depth was given to them. Cristina Raines (geez, there are a lot of Chrises in this flick...) was...okay. A little uneven in her performance, but she was trying.
Overall: A good try, but not quite there.
~~~~~
Mulberry Street was one of the line-up in After Dark's first 8 Films to Die For film festival. It was directed by Jim Mickle from a script by Mickle and the film's star Nick Damici and is about a strange infection that turns people into rats.
I originally wasn't going to watch any of After Dark's 8 Films to Die For. I thought their handling of Captivity's marketing campaign was kind of shady and the flicks in the fest didn't look that good (please keep in mind that I am, surprisingly enough, very picky). I caught a section of this film on the Sci-Fi channel and thought, "Hey, this looks pretty good, but I thought it was about rats." It is, I just didn't watch enough of it on Sci-Fi.
99.9 percent of this film rocked my socks. The cinematography, the performances, the score...nearly everything about it was freakin' awesome. The one problem I had with it is the one thing it was built on: the freakin' rat people. Oh Lord, I hated that not because they were rats, but because they were turning into rats. And I get it, I get the symbolism, I just thought it was goofy. Everything else was absolutely spectacular, so much so that it was hard to reconcile the two.
Overall: I recommend it, but with reservations because of the rat thing...
I put this on my queue because one of my favourite actresses, Heather Langenkamp, lists it as one of her favourite horror flicks. I've not read the novel so I can't say how book accurate it is, but it felt like the beginning and the end were very strong while the middle sagged as they struggled to add things to pad out the runtime.
The performances were good enough. I don't really feel either way about Oliver Reed and I'm not a big fan of Karen Black, but I thought they were good. The son was annoying. I would have LOVED to see more of Meredith and Eileen Heckart, who played his sister. The chauffeur was creepy. They score was okay, the editing was okay, and there wasn't a lot in the way of effects.
Overall: pretty good.
~~~~~
The Sentinel is a supernatural horror flick from 1977 directed by Michael Winner and adapted by Jeffrey Konvitz from his own novel about a suicidal fashion model who finds a strikingly nice NYC apartment for amazingly cheap and soon finds out that the building is a gateway to hell being guarded by an ancient, blind priest. Right up my alley.
This is one of those 70s flicks where the filmmakers jammed in as many names as they could of both at the time up-and-comers (Chris Sarandon, who seems to be really underrated, and Christopher Walken) and those who have been around a while (Burgess Meredith, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Jose Ferrer, etc., etc.) and was seen by Universal as their answer to Warner Brothers' The Exorcist from four years previous. They even got the master, Dick Smith, to come in and do the effects. Sorry Universal, you lost this round...
If I hadn't already seen Lucio Fulci's masterful The Beyond, or even his own less masterful original version Gates of Hell, I would be all over this flick. It has everything I'm fascinated by and can't stop myself from writing about, but there's a lot of pointless, useless, stupid stuff that drags it down. Combine that with a script that really isn't very mysterious or scary and you have a recipe for yawn.
The performances were pretty good from everyone involved. Walken wasn't given much to do other than stand there looking like a made man chewing gum and Sarandon was just the supportive boyfriend and part time sleazy lawyer. Not a lot of depth was given to them. Cristina Raines (geez, there are a lot of Chrises in this flick...) was...okay. A little uneven in her performance, but she was trying.
Overall: A good try, but not quite there.
~~~~~
Mulberry Street was one of the line-up in After Dark's first 8 Films to Die For film festival. It was directed by Jim Mickle from a script by Mickle and the film's star Nick Damici and is about a strange infection that turns people into rats.
I originally wasn't going to watch any of After Dark's 8 Films to Die For. I thought their handling of Captivity's marketing campaign was kind of shady and the flicks in the fest didn't look that good (please keep in mind that I am, surprisingly enough, very picky). I caught a section of this film on the Sci-Fi channel and thought, "Hey, this looks pretty good, but I thought it was about rats." It is, I just didn't watch enough of it on Sci-Fi.
99.9 percent of this film rocked my socks. The cinematography, the performances, the score...nearly everything about it was freakin' awesome. The one problem I had with it is the one thing it was built on: the freakin' rat people. Oh Lord, I hated that not because they were rats, but because they were turning into rats. And I get it, I get the symbolism, I just thought it was goofy. Everything else was absolutely spectacular, so much so that it was hard to reconcile the two.
Overall: I recommend it, but with reservations because of the rat thing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)