My first taste of Ecuadorian horror, 11 March 2017
Ecuadorian horror - I guess I can mark that off my bucket list. Honestly, who knew there was such a thing?
For the most part, Swamp of the Ravens is fairly typical low budget 70s Euro-horror/trash type stuff. The plot goes something like this: Dr. Frosta is working with a serum to bring the recently dead back to life. Beyond that, the plot gets fuzzy. I'm sure he's trying to do something else, but for the life of me I don't know what it is. In fact, most of the rest of the movie doesn't make a bit of sense. When Dr. Frosta's experiments with the deceased go wrong, he hacks off a few limbs (again, not sure why - I suppose so they can turn inconveniently turn up later) and dumps the bodies in the swamp where their heads creepily bob up and down like apples at Halloween. Unfortunately, the police begin noticing people are missing and body parts start appearing. The police turn their attention to Dr. Frosta's shenanigans. Throw in a girlfriend that Dr. Frosta kidnaps and ties up so she won't leave, scenes from a real autopsy, huge buzzards (standing in for the titular ravens) everywhere you look, dubbing as bad as I've seen, a goofy lounge singer with an absurdly humorous song, bottom-of-the barrel acting, special effects that don't deserve to be called "special", and a touch of necrophilia, and you've got Swamp of the Ravens. While there is a certain amount of atmosphere and there are some creepy moments, none of it is very good. It's a cheap movie and it shows. And, as I said at the start, most of it makes absolutely no sense. A 3/10 from me.
3/10
"Justice served C.O.D.", 11 March 2017
The Dallas Police Department's research team is working on a robotic police officer for the future, code-named ROTOR or Robotic Officer Tactical Operation Research (what a stupid name!). An incredibly lame lab accident involving a switchblade comb accelerates the ROTOR's production and it's released on the streets before it's ready. It's designed to not only stop lawbreakers, but to also carry out punishment. The sentence for a routine traffic violation - death!
I watch a lot of bad movies and rate some of them far higher than I should. That's because I'm usually able to revel in their "badness" and have some fun with it. Not the case with ROTOR. It's just plain old bad. I could spend hours detailing all the problems I have with this movie, but as usual, I'll just list them. The special effects are dreadful, the dialogue is silly and nonsensical, the music is beyond annoying, the actors have zero charisma, the acting is painful to watch, the few attempts at comedy are cringeworthy, the ending is totally ridiculous, and the whole thing is a boring mess. The list is endless.
I suppose the thing that bothered me the most was how easy it was to defeat this supposed unstoppable killing machine. All you need is a car horn. Yes, that's right - a car horn renders the ROTOR helpless. I don't know why the characters in the movie go through so much trouble to defeat the robot when all they really needed to do was lay on a car horn and disable it. I referred to ROTOR as a killing machine - well, that's not entirely accurate. Once it's "activated", ROTOR spends most of the movie trying to track down one harmless, helpless woman without much success. I'm not sure how this thing was supposed to deal with real criminals.
1/10
Maybe not the best, but still very enjoyable, 10 March 2017
A murder occurs on a flight from France to England. The murdered woman was hit in the neck by a poisoned dart from a blowgun. While that may be an odd way to die, the more amazing thing about the murder is that it occurred just a few feet from where Hercule Poirot was sitting. How could this happen? Quite naturally, Poirot begins investigating.
For me, Death in the Clouds is a good, solid episode of the Poirot series, marred only by a problematic method of murder that I don't care for. I can't for the life of me remember if the murder is committed in the same manner in the movie as it was the book, but it doesn't work the way it's presented here. The murderer has to rely on way too much luck in not being recognized by any of the passengers or being spotted by the flight crew in order to get away with it. And the plane is too small for that much luck. Regardless, the episode is still a lot of fun. The mystery is interesting and the various red herrings work nicely. Suchet is in fine form. The rest of the cast is top-notch. Sarah Woodward as Jane Grey and Cathryn Harrison as Lady Cecily Horbury stand out to me. And there are those little things that I so enjoy – like Japp's dealings with the French police. Finally, I think that Death in the Clouds is as good an example of period detail as you'll find. I'm not sure whether the plane was 100% accurate, but it fits the period. The airport and airfield are perfect. Costuming, sets, and other details really bring the period to life. It's all masterfully done.
7/10
"I see. Twelve good men and true?", 7 March 2017
I'm not going to bother with a plot summary. Most anyone who cares already knows by heart the plot to what is arguably Agatha Christie's most famous work. I also need to add that I'm a HUGE fan of the 1974 Murder on the Orient Express. I first saw it in the theater when I was 11 years-old and loved it. It remains one of my favorite films of all time. Regardless of how good this new version is, in my mind, it never had a chance of measuring up to the 1974 film.
With all the disclaimers out of the way, I'll begin by saying that I have mixed feelings when it comes to this version of Murder on the Orient Express. That's part of the reason it's taken me so long to write this – I can't decide exactly how I feel about it. I've always said that David Suchet is the best Poirot ever to appear on-screen. But his portrayal here is a Poirot we've not seen before. He's hard and cold and that twinkle in his eye is gone. He's completely humorless. And while I don't care for this Poirot, it fits nicely withing this version of the story. In fact the scene at the end as Poirot walks away with tears in his eyes is gut-wrenching. You can feel his pain. He's gone against everything he believes and has let a murder go unpunished. One of the few things that has always bothered me about the 1974 film is how easily Poirot gives into the idea of an outside murderer when he knows that it's not the case. This version more than adequately deals with this.
But that's one of the few things I prefer about the 2010 version. First, I don't care at all for the screenplay. Agatha Christie was always about the mystery. Characters and character development always played second fiddle to the murder. Here, the murder and mystery and secondary to just about everything else. Second, the cast in this version is good, but they can't compare with the cast from 1974. The only change I would make to the original movie is Albert Finney as Poirot. Suchet would have played the part much, much better. Third, this movie is too dark. Not just in tone, but in an actual lighting sense. I know that it was necessary to tell the story of the loss of power on the train, but it really gets annoying. Finally, I think the writers/director of this version attempt make a statement on moral equivalency that I simply do not agree with. The stoning of a woman accused of adultery by a mob is equated to the murder of a known child-killer by twelve well-reasoned individuals. I refuse to accept this and I am actually offended by the notion. In my mind, the two events are in no way morally equivalent. It's utter nonsense.
There are other areas of the movie I could cite as examples of why the newer version is not as good as the older, but you get the idea. Like I said at the start, I was never going to like this one as much as the 1974 film. Given all that, I see my 4/10 as a generous rating.
4/10
"I am on a journey of a lifetime. I'm traveling across Europe, in the footsteps of Agatha Christie's Poirot, on the Orient Express.", 7 March 2017
David Suchet on the Orient Express was aired in 2010 as an ITV documentary. It really wasn't as much a documentary as it was a promo for the upcoming Agatha Christie's Poirot: Murder on the Orient Express. And while the documentary is not without flaws, it fairs better than show it was designed to promote.
Suchet boards the train in London and sets off for Prague. Along the way, we learn quite a bit about the fascinating history of the Orient Express. The documentary briefly touches on the train's beginnings, its role in WWI, its use by the Nazis in WWII, the snowdrifts that inspired Christie's book, and the restoration to its former glory beginning in the 1970s. I say the documentary briefly touches on these topics because most of the runtime is spent watching Suchet marvel at the many ornate and opulent splendors of the train. Suchet is a real delight. It's a pleasure watching him tour the kitchen, enjoy a drink, prepare for bed, and even drive the train. Suchet seems genuinely impressed and seems to be having a wonderful time. His joy in getting to drive the train is one of the highlights for anyone who is a Suchet fan. And the stories of the train and its little idiosyncrasies are a real treat to anyone who is fan of Christie's work. My only complaint is the number of instances where Suchet repeats himself. I realize that most of this was done because of commercial breaks during the original airing, but it gets annoying real quick. Also, while some history is presented, I wanted more. I'm sure there are other, more detailed documentaries out there. I just need to find them.
Overall, not great, but entertaining enough to rate a 7/10.
7/10
Anyone know the purpose?, 5 March 2017
Welcome Home, Norman tells the story of the troubles one man faces trying to escape an airport parking lot. If something can go wrong, it does in Norman's case. Forgetting where you've parked in a large parking lot, other cars parked so close you can't open your door, and leaving valuables on the roof - it all happens to Norman. Overall, this short is okay for what it is, but that's part of my problem - I don't know what it is. What I mean is, what's the purpose? Usually one of these shorts teaches something. But other than the dangers of a parking lot, I don't see any real lessons to be learned from Norman's ridiculous issues. It's not funny enough to be a comedy short, so that can't be the purpose either. So, Welcome Back, Norman is what it is - a strange short with no apparent purpose. I'm surprised to see that this is the second of four Norman shorts. I'd like to see the others to see if they have any reason for existing.
Like most people who've seen this, I watched it courtesy of Rifftrax. The riffs here are very good. If you're a fan, it's one to seek out. But I'm rating this on the short alone, so I'll give it a 5/10.
5/10
It's a Cardona family reunion, 5 March 2017
Zindy (Rene Cardona III) lives in the swamp with his grandfather (Rene Cardona). They have a great life full of adventures - catching turkey's, fighting crocodiles, swimming in the river, and hunting a puma to name just a few. But it's not the life the grandfather would have chosen for Zindy. But because he's wanted for murder (justified), he's forced to raise his grandson in seclusion On a trip to the nearest village for supplies, grandfather doesn't return and Zindy is left on his own. His only companion is his Chimp, Toribio. Can he survive?
Before I bash Zindy, the Swamp-Boy, let's get one thing clear - I'm as big a fan of Rene Cardona, Jr's work as you'll likely find. Movies like Treasure of the Amazon, Guyana: Cult of the Damned, Cyclone, The Bermuda Triangle, and the trashy Tintorera: Killer Shark all have something I enjoy. None of them are particularly "good" by most standards, but I generally like them. So, I was excited to see a "new" Rene Cardona Jr movie. Was I ever let down.
Zindy, the Swamp-Boy is a disaster. The action is quite often silly and unrealistic, the English-translated dialogue is ridiculous, the plot is illogical, the ending is beyond depressing, and the music is uber-annoying. But the most egregious aspect of Zindy is the padding. The movie would have been about half as long as it is if it weren't for endless scenes of wandering through the jungle or padding down the river. It's one of the most tiresome movies I've seen. I will say that the acting was serviceable enough. Grandfather and grandson Cardona are okay - not great, but they're not horrible. And I think's it's pretty cool that three generations of Cardona's worked together on Zindy. It's just too bad the end result is almost unwatchable.
2/10
