Second Glance could accurately be summarized as "It's a Wonderful Life" for uppity Christian kids. It's best known for the semi-infamous "Hey Scotty! Jesus, man." scene, but there's more to it than that. It's not much, but it's still something.
I watched this movie with the expectation of it being very preachy, but Second Glance manages to get its message across without shoving it down the viewer's throat. However, its message is not entirely effective. I found the "do good stuff in life and you'll go to heaven" moral to be a bit silly. Anyone who's ever gone to church has heard that message, and the movie offers little more than that message.
That being said, it's still a good moral, and it certainly doesn't make the film any less enjoyable. Although it's not enjoyable in the sense that the writers intended. This is a very campy movie, and most of the entertainment derives from the cheesy dialog and ridiculous plot devices. In its defense, the movie is from 1992, and is therefore a bit outdated. That doesn't make it any less humorous, however. The characters are all really thin, even the main character Dan is nothing more than the goody two-shoes type. The script also acts like we're supposed to care about a character named Scotty, but he's barely given any screen time, let alone character development.
There's not much else to say about this film; it barely clocks in at a 50 minute run time. And I get the feeling this was probably an after-school TV special, because the overall production quality is about the same as one. All this aside, this is a fairly entertaining movie, with plenty of unintentional laughs and hammy acting around. It's worth a watch if you're into campy movies, even if it's just for the "Jesus, man" scene.
Enjoyment: 3/5
Quality: 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0220029/
March 12, 2012
March 2, 2012
Movie Review- My Bloody Valentine (1981)
My Bloody Valentine is nothing more than a Friday the 13th ripoff. Yet in some ways, it manages to outdo the film it was trying to cash in on the success of. But for the most part it falls short, making for an uneven, but mostly enjoyable slasher flick.
Characters and character development have never been the strong suit of the horror genre. This is particularly noticeable in My Bloody Valentine. I honestly had trouble keeping track of who was who throughout the film, because every single one of the main characters are the "I like parties and beer" stereotype. There's nothing memorable about them, and this makes it very difficult to even remotely care for the characters, let alone remember which one they are. The only noteworthy character is Hollis, the comic relief fat guy. But even then, he still lacks any defining traits other than being the comic relief.
The plot, while hokey, is still pretty well-executed. The dialog is a bit exposition-riddled at times, and plays up a few cliches, but overall manages to have some genuinely creepy moments. The setting of a Midwest mining town is pretty eerie, particularly the scenes within the mine itself. And on the subject of creepiness- the killer,a guy in a miner's suit, is one of the creepiest movie villains I've seen in a horror movie. Just his appearance alone is enough to send shivers up one's spine. The killer's identity didn't make much sense, though, playing back to the lack of memorable character traits.
The main attraction of this film, however, are the deaths. This has a pretty high body count for a slasher movie; most of the main characters die before the end of the movie. It's hard to keep track of who died, though, because the characters are all alike. There's also a rather pointless and nonsensical opening kill (which is preceded by a far creepier miner/miner-lady love scene); it's never explained who the characters are, or even if the murderer in the opening is the same murderer from the rest of the film. The deaths themselves, however, are all really inventive. (Mostly via pickax)
Apparently the original version of the film was cut for its theatrical release, and it was my misfortune to only see the theatrical cut. I did some searching around and found the unedited death scenes, however, and the makeup effects are really top-notch. There's also a "Director's Cut" release of the film on DVD, but the unedited scenes are purportedly put back together poorly and seem to be lacking in a digital transfer. If you're going to watch the movie, it's probably best to watch the director's cut, and just ignore the poor reassembly of the footage.
Overall, this is a decent movie that had a lot of promise; and it hit the mark on several occasions. But the general camp-factor (the town is strangely obsessed with Valentine's Day, etc.) and poorly-written characters really bring down the overall quality of the movie. This movie would have done well with a remake, one that improved on the characters and fixed the campy moments. In fact, there was a remake recently; but from what I've heard, it failed to improve on anything. All that aside, this is still a fun movie, and worth a watch if you're in to the slasher genre.
Enjoyment: 3/5
Quality: 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082782/
Characters and character development have never been the strong suit of the horror genre. This is particularly noticeable in My Bloody Valentine. I honestly had trouble keeping track of who was who throughout the film, because every single one of the main characters are the "I like parties and beer" stereotype. There's nothing memorable about them, and this makes it very difficult to even remotely care for the characters, let alone remember which one they are. The only noteworthy character is Hollis, the comic relief fat guy. But even then, he still lacks any defining traits other than being the comic relief.
The plot, while hokey, is still pretty well-executed. The dialog is a bit exposition-riddled at times, and plays up a few cliches, but overall manages to have some genuinely creepy moments. The setting of a Midwest mining town is pretty eerie, particularly the scenes within the mine itself. And on the subject of creepiness- the killer,a guy in a miner's suit, is one of the creepiest movie villains I've seen in a horror movie. Just his appearance alone is enough to send shivers up one's spine. The killer's identity didn't make much sense, though, playing back to the lack of memorable character traits.
The main attraction of this film, however, are the deaths. This has a pretty high body count for a slasher movie; most of the main characters die before the end of the movie. It's hard to keep track of who died, though, because the characters are all alike. There's also a rather pointless and nonsensical opening kill (which is preceded by a far creepier miner/miner-lady love scene); it's never explained who the characters are, or even if the murderer in the opening is the same murderer from the rest of the film. The deaths themselves, however, are all really inventive. (Mostly via pickax)
Apparently the original version of the film was cut for its theatrical release, and it was my misfortune to only see the theatrical cut. I did some searching around and found the unedited death scenes, however, and the makeup effects are really top-notch. There's also a "Director's Cut" release of the film on DVD, but the unedited scenes are purportedly put back together poorly and seem to be lacking in a digital transfer. If you're going to watch the movie, it's probably best to watch the director's cut, and just ignore the poor reassembly of the footage.
Overall, this is a decent movie that had a lot of promise; and it hit the mark on several occasions. But the general camp-factor (the town is strangely obsessed with Valentine's Day, etc.) and poorly-written characters really bring down the overall quality of the movie. This movie would have done well with a remake, one that improved on the characters and fixed the campy moments. In fact, there was a remake recently; but from what I've heard, it failed to improve on anything. All that aside, this is still a fun movie, and worth a watch if you're in to the slasher genre.
Enjoyment: 3/5
Quality: 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082782/
February 29, 2012
Movie Review- Ghoulies III: Ghoulies go to College
Ghoulies III is so unfathomably bad that I'm finding it difficult to describe it. This is not "so-bad-it's-good" bad, this is straight-up horrible. Everything that could possibly go wrong with this movie went wrong. And it doesn't help that this was direct to video, which just adds to the crap-factor of this film.
Once again, there is a surprising lack of Ghoulies in this film. But that's for the best. I say this because the Ghoulies talk in this installment. Yes, ladies and gentleman; talking Ghoulies. This could have been an interesting plot point, but instead this is ruined with terrible audio dubbing and even poorer voice acting. The trio of Ghoulies seems more like a wannabe Three Stooges homage, and it fails miserably. Very, very, miserably. The "slapstick" humor is nothing more than the green Ghoulie beaning the other two in the head. And the rest of their screen time is spent incoherently squabbling with one another. They weren't even really necessary to the plot; they could have been changed out with less annoying characters, or better yet left out of the story.
The plot for Ghoulies III doesn't even resemble that of a horror-comedy; which is what it was going for in terms of story. The plot is more reminiscent of an Animal House ripoff, with most of the story revolving around a college student named Skip. In fact, he and the Ghoulies aren't even aware of each other's existence until the last 15 minutes of the movie. Had the Ghoulies been written out, and the story modified slightly, this could have made for a mildly entertaining college-based comedy. But instead we get nothing of the sort
As for the acting, it's standard B-movie fare; really campy without being painful to sit through. There's a rather humorously over-the-top performance from Kevin McCarthy (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but it wears thin after a while, to the point of it being irritating by the end of the film. The dialog, while hammy, actually has a few grin-inducing moments, but they're all (not surprisingly) from the human characters, and not from the "comic relief" of the Ghoulies.
Overall, this is a horrible film with almost no redeeming qualities. While this is a B-Movie, there are far better and far more enjoyable ones out there. This should be avoided at all costs, just like the rest of the franchise.
Enjoyment: 1/5
Quality: 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097429/
Once again, there is a surprising lack of Ghoulies in this film. But that's for the best. I say this because the Ghoulies talk in this installment. Yes, ladies and gentleman; talking Ghoulies. This could have been an interesting plot point, but instead this is ruined with terrible audio dubbing and even poorer voice acting. The trio of Ghoulies seems more like a wannabe Three Stooges homage, and it fails miserably. Very, very, miserably. The "slapstick" humor is nothing more than the green Ghoulie beaning the other two in the head. And the rest of their screen time is spent incoherently squabbling with one another. They weren't even really necessary to the plot; they could have been changed out with less annoying characters, or better yet left out of the story.
The plot for Ghoulies III doesn't even resemble that of a horror-comedy; which is what it was going for in terms of story. The plot is more reminiscent of an Animal House ripoff, with most of the story revolving around a college student named Skip. In fact, he and the Ghoulies aren't even aware of each other's existence until the last 15 minutes of the movie. Had the Ghoulies been written out, and the story modified slightly, this could have made for a mildly entertaining college-based comedy. But instead we get nothing of the sort
As for the acting, it's standard B-movie fare; really campy without being painful to sit through. There's a rather humorously over-the-top performance from Kevin McCarthy (Invasion of the Body Snatchers), but it wears thin after a while, to the point of it being irritating by the end of the film. The dialog, while hammy, actually has a few grin-inducing moments, but they're all (not surprisingly) from the human characters, and not from the "comic relief" of the Ghoulies.
Overall, this is a horrible film with almost no redeeming qualities. While this is a B-Movie, there are far better and far more enjoyable ones out there. This should be avoided at all costs, just like the rest of the franchise.
Enjoyment: 1/5
Quality: 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097429/
February 28, 2012
Movie Review- Ghoulies II
Ghoulies II is an unnecessary sequel to an already terrible movie. The original Ghoulies was a shameless "Gremlins" ripoff that was strangely lacking in the titular monsters. In a way, this is somewhat of an improvement over the first film, but not by much.
The main problem with the first movie was the lack of Ghoulies, who barely appeared at all during the film. The sequel, however, gives us a lot more Ghoulie-action, but they're still not given enough screen-time to warrant the film being named "Ghoulies". There are several problems with the monsters during their short appearances, though. While there seems to be a little more effort put into the puppets themselves, the special effects and puppetry are severely lacking and stupid. There's even a few instances of visible support wires on the flying Ghoulie. And they aren't very menacing monsters, either. Their design is more comical than anything, which I doubt was the intent. What was intended, though, was the comic relief involving the Ghoulies. In what I feel is an attempt to recreate the monster mayhem of "Gremlins", there is an extended sequence in the 3rd act of the Ghoulies and their inexplicable and pointless shenanigans.
The Ghoulies barely take up any screen time however, and the remaining portion of the film is filled with bland human characters and boring filler that exists solely to get to the 3rd act, and the pointless action that occurs during it. The plot is mostly centered around a group of carnies who are at risk of being shut down by some evil corporation (Although it's never explained why that particular carnival group is so important). The carnival denizens consist of the usual circus-act stereotypes, which could have made for a mildly interesting protagonist, but instead the main character is an average Joe who happens to work at a traveling circus.
The main characters are all overacted and hackneyed, which is to be expected from a B-Movie, but everyone in the cast is lacking the campy charm that makes movies like this so much fun to watch. Instead we get a bunch of pointless dialog that leads nowhere and serves nothing to forward the plot, and various minor characters who seem to exist solely to be annoying. The script doesn't help much, though. A few of the actors have been in other movies (Royal Dano and Phil Fondacaro) and gave fairly decent performances. The script really dumbed down the already mediocre acting skills they had.
Overall, this is a very bland and poorly paced movie with almost no plot. It's a really boring movie, and a waste of time. Not recommended.
Enjoyment: 1/5
Quality: 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093091/
The main problem with the first movie was the lack of Ghoulies, who barely appeared at all during the film. The sequel, however, gives us a lot more Ghoulie-action, but they're still not given enough screen-time to warrant the film being named "Ghoulies". There are several problems with the monsters during their short appearances, though. While there seems to be a little more effort put into the puppets themselves, the special effects and puppetry are severely lacking and stupid. There's even a few instances of visible support wires on the flying Ghoulie. And they aren't very menacing monsters, either. Their design is more comical than anything, which I doubt was the intent. What was intended, though, was the comic relief involving the Ghoulies. In what I feel is an attempt to recreate the monster mayhem of "Gremlins", there is an extended sequence in the 3rd act of the Ghoulies and their inexplicable and pointless shenanigans.
The Ghoulies barely take up any screen time however, and the remaining portion of the film is filled with bland human characters and boring filler that exists solely to get to the 3rd act, and the pointless action that occurs during it. The plot is mostly centered around a group of carnies who are at risk of being shut down by some evil corporation (Although it's never explained why that particular carnival group is so important). The carnival denizens consist of the usual circus-act stereotypes, which could have made for a mildly interesting protagonist, but instead the main character is an average Joe who happens to work at a traveling circus.
The main characters are all overacted and hackneyed, which is to be expected from a B-Movie, but everyone in the cast is lacking the campy charm that makes movies like this so much fun to watch. Instead we get a bunch of pointless dialog that leads nowhere and serves nothing to forward the plot, and various minor characters who seem to exist solely to be annoying. The script doesn't help much, though. A few of the actors have been in other movies (Royal Dano and Phil Fondacaro) and gave fairly decent performances. The script really dumbed down the already mediocre acting skills they had.
Overall, this is a very bland and poorly paced movie with almost no plot. It's a really boring movie, and a waste of time. Not recommended.
Enjoyment: 1/5
Quality: 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093091/
February 5, 2012
Movie Review- Bubba Ho-tep
I watched this movie in the hopes of seeing Bruce Campbell do a cheesy Elvis impersonation and fight mummies for an hour-and-a-half. Gee, was I let down. Expectations aside, this is still a crummy movie.
First things first, this is not a goofy, over-the-top horror/comedy. Bubba Ho-tep is more of a boring dramedy that happens to have a mummy in it. The first forty minutes of the film are surprisingly serious, but the attempts at being serious and meaningful are lost amongst poorly written dialog. There's a lot of blatant exposition that relies heavily on the audience's preexisting knowledge of Elvis's life, and it comes across as really clunky and awkward.
The humor here is a big problem, too. It relies heavily on swearing and toilet humor to stir up laughs, and it fails miserably. There's a lot of unnecessarily gross scenes involving bedpans, ointments, etc, that I guess are supposed to be funny, but they certainly aren't. A lot of the plot points are really ridiculous, too, and given the semi-serious tone of the first half of the film, it's very hard to suspend your disbelief at that point. And to make matters worse, a lot of the ludicrousness ties in with stupid and crude humor, making for a very unpleasant combo. (e.g. The mummy removes people's souls from their butts, and so forth). There's a somewhat funny element in Elvis's friend Jack, an elderly African-American man who thinks he's JFK. But the joke starts to wear thin extremely fast, as do most of the running gags.
There's very few positive things about this movie, but they're worth noting; the movie's main cast are all elderly characters, which is rarely seen in films. The other being that the ending is pessimistic, another thing that's rarely found in movies in general. But even then, the positive elements have their flaws. Old people being the heroes could have been an interesting plot point, but it's ruined with relentless and unfunny jokes at the expense the elderly. Even the pessimistic ending felt somewhat sicky-sweet in its delivery.
There's a lot of annoying and unexplained things in this movies universe, too. It's never explained why the mummy is dressed like a cowboy during the whole movie, nor why hieroglyphs appear every time he speaks. (The symbols are portrayed as three-dimensional objects, not subtitles). Elvis is also somehow able to see into the mummy's mind merely by looking at him, and it's never explained how that worked. I could go on, but there's far too many things to nitpick. A lot of these little things add up, though, making for a very confusing viewing experience.
Overall, this is a very disappointing movie. It had a promising storyline, but it was ruined by a poorly written script. Even Bruce Campbell's performance was lacking, and he was one of the main reasons I watched this movie. It could have been a lot better, but at least the production quality was good. But nonetheless, it's a boring and bland film that slowly degenerates into a bland and confusing mess. I wouldn't recommend it at all, it's a waste of time.
Enjoyment: 2/5
Quality: 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/
First things first, this is not a goofy, over-the-top horror/comedy. Bubba Ho-tep is more of a boring dramedy that happens to have a mummy in it. The first forty minutes of the film are surprisingly serious, but the attempts at being serious and meaningful are lost amongst poorly written dialog. There's a lot of blatant exposition that relies heavily on the audience's preexisting knowledge of Elvis's life, and it comes across as really clunky and awkward.
The humor here is a big problem, too. It relies heavily on swearing and toilet humor to stir up laughs, and it fails miserably. There's a lot of unnecessarily gross scenes involving bedpans, ointments, etc, that I guess are supposed to be funny, but they certainly aren't. A lot of the plot points are really ridiculous, too, and given the semi-serious tone of the first half of the film, it's very hard to suspend your disbelief at that point. And to make matters worse, a lot of the ludicrousness ties in with stupid and crude humor, making for a very unpleasant combo. (e.g. The mummy removes people's souls from their butts, and so forth). There's a somewhat funny element in Elvis's friend Jack, an elderly African-American man who thinks he's JFK. But the joke starts to wear thin extremely fast, as do most of the running gags.
There's very few positive things about this movie, but they're worth noting; the movie's main cast are all elderly characters, which is rarely seen in films. The other being that the ending is pessimistic, another thing that's rarely found in movies in general. But even then, the positive elements have their flaws. Old people being the heroes could have been an interesting plot point, but it's ruined with relentless and unfunny jokes at the expense the elderly. Even the pessimistic ending felt somewhat sicky-sweet in its delivery.
There's a lot of annoying and unexplained things in this movies universe, too. It's never explained why the mummy is dressed like a cowboy during the whole movie, nor why hieroglyphs appear every time he speaks. (The symbols are portrayed as three-dimensional objects, not subtitles). Elvis is also somehow able to see into the mummy's mind merely by looking at him, and it's never explained how that worked. I could go on, but there's far too many things to nitpick. A lot of these little things add up, though, making for a very confusing viewing experience.
Overall, this is a very disappointing movie. It had a promising storyline, but it was ruined by a poorly written script. Even Bruce Campbell's performance was lacking, and he was one of the main reasons I watched this movie. It could have been a lot better, but at least the production quality was good. But nonetheless, it's a boring and bland film that slowly degenerates into a bland and confusing mess. I wouldn't recommend it at all, it's a waste of time.
Enjoyment: 2/5
Quality: 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)