"Yeah. I killed my mama.", 15 November 2008
Movies like Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer really test my assertion that I base my ratings and opinions more on entertainment value than anything else. Was I entertained by Henry? Well, not if you're using the traditional definition of the word. I can't imagine that anyone would find the all too realistic handling of the subject matter "entertaining". There's a sense of real menace and violence just under the surface of every scene. Henry doesn't come across like a normal Hollywood horror movie where everything feels like fantasy and you know as soon as the lights come on it's over. The horror in Henry goes on long after the movie ends. I generally watch movies for escapist entertainment – and you won't find that here. Watching Henry and Otis go about there daily life, including the butchering of innocent, unknown victims, is like peeking into the mind of an actual serial killer. I'm not sure that's a place any of us want to be. So I can't really use the word "entertained" to describe the experience of watching Henry. But I was certainly mesmerized. It's almost cliché to say, but watching Henry is akin to watching a car wreck – it's impossible to look away.
Director John McNaughton crafted an incredible film given its almost repugnant content and miniscule budget. The low budget look, the pacing, and the almost documentary style of the film really go a long way to making Henry effective. Another plus for the film is the acting of the three main characters. Michael Rooker gets most of the acclaim, but I think Tracy Arnold and especially Tom Towles give equally strong performances. It's a nice job by three unknowns (at least unknown to many people).
So in the end, I've got to give Henry a rating of 8/10. It's a powerful, shocking, raw, brutal movie that, while often difficult to watch, is impossible to ignore or forget.
8/10
"It's cool, we just killed somebody. No big deal.", 9 November 2007
After writing back-to-back negative reviews for Werewolf (1996) and Track of the Moon Beast (1976), I almost hate to make it three in a row with Zombie Nightmare. I've thought about raising one of the ratings because I really hate to seem so negative. But if you've seen this trifecta of cinematic crap, you'll understand that I really have no choice. Zombie Nightmare deserves the 1/10 – just like Werewolf and Track of the Moon Beast. It's pretty much bad in every way a movie can be. It's got it all – bad acting, poor special effects, ridiculous plot, weak technical aspects, and unlikable characters. I've used this expression several times recently, but Gawd awful also applies to Zombie Nightmare.
Actually, I do have one positive thing to write about the movie. Somehow, the makers of this garbage were able to secure the rights to (or possibly just had the good sense to use) Motörhead's "Ace of Spades" for the opening credits. Lemmy rocks!
1/10
"Comfortable" Television, 16 August 2007
I am so excited that Lovejoy has finally come to DVD. I used to love the show, but hadn't seen an episode since the A&E network stopped running it some years ago. So as I put the first DVD in the player, I was ready for a huge letdown. But to my surprise and delight, the show is just as good as I remember – a good mix of mystery, action, and comedy with some interesting, fun characters and just a dash of history. Lovejoy is old-world British charm meets modern day realities and cynicism. Watching Lovejoy is akin to wearing an old pair of shoes or a favorite sweater – it's comfortable. It's always been the kind of television that works best when I curl up on the couch late at night. And making the show so special and enjoyable is Ian McShane. I've yet to see him in Deadwood, so I am most familiar with McShane in this role. And what a pleasure to watch he is. He makes Lovejoy a carefree, smart, sly, resourceful character not above doing something underhanded especially if it will help out a friend. He's the kind of guy you want on your side. He is ably assisted by a terrific supporting cast that includes Dudley Sutton as Tinker Dill, Chris Jury as Eric Catchpole, and Phyllis Logan as Lady Jane Felsham. Together, they're wonderful. While the easygoing style and subject matter of Lovejoy may not appeal to those wanting a thrill-a-minute and MTV style editing, it suits me perfectly.
I can't wait for Season 2!
8/10
"You're all useless and crazy.", 3 July 2007
Robot Holocaust is about the lamest, most pathetic attempt at making a post-apocalyptic movie that I've seen. And I thought the Italians were the masters of wretched Mad Max wannabes. Some of those movies like Escape 2000 are positively brilliant in comparison with this piece of poo. The plot is nonsensical – even with a narrator setting up every scene. And boy does it drag. Scene after scene with nothing of any interest happening. The special effects (and I use the word "special" loosely) consist of sock puppets. Yes, that's right – sock puppets! The acting is abysmal. Angelika Jager is in the running for worst performance I've ever seen. Sure, she's French or German or whatever – but man is she bad. I cannot think of a single positive thing to say about the movie. So I'll stop there because ten sentences on this junk is about ten too many.
However, and fortunately for me, I saw the MST3K version of Robot Holocaust. Some of the things that made the movie so bad helped make this MST3K episode a winner. For a season one episode, the riffs come fast and furious and hit their mark just about every time. On my MST3K rating scale, I give this episode a 4/5 – seek it out.
1/10
"I've seen some amazing things in my life, but never anything to compare with this." - How true., 12 January 2006
What a mess! Almost everything about Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a complete and total disaster. In the movie, Quatermain puts a group together to search for his brother in the wilds of Africa. After facing several dangerous and near-death obstacles, Quatermain finds his brother living in the seemingly idyllic and Utopian Lost City of Gold. But appearances can be deceiving as the city is really under the control of a ruthless warlord intent on making the citizens his slaves to mine the gold he is taking out. Can Quatermain and his band of adventurers save these people?
If I were to just make a list of everything that doesn't work in Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold, my list would go on for pages. I'll begin with the acting. To put it bluntly, it's terrible. I've never thought much of Richard Chamberlain as an actor and this movie does nothing to change that. As for Sharon Stone, I'm sure she would like to see this thing buried. I doubt she considers it a highlight on her resume. James Earl Jones is an actor you can usually count on to give a quality performance regardless of the material. Here, he just comes across as embarrassed to be associated with this drivel.
Technically, the movie is train wreck. Direction, editing, and everything else you can come up with are as bad as I've seen. But the special effects take Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold to a new low. The blue screen effects are as bad as I've ever seen. The rear projection used in the 1930s is 10X more realistic than the blue haloed actors on a bad looking backgrounds seen in this movie. The puppet snakes make Kermit look like a real frog. And, wires, harnesses, and the like are readily evident. Like I said when I started, it's a mess.
I haven't even gotten to the plot, but why bother? It's as poorly written as you can imagine.
The only thing that keeps me from rating this movie a 1/10 are the groovy outfits worn by Cassandra Peterson. It's too bad she's only got 10 or so minutes of screen time because I dig some of those costumes.
2/10
"I've seen enough horror movies to know any weirdo wearing a mask is never friendly.", 25 June 2005
What an original idea for a movie! A group of kids goes into the woods near Crystal Lake. One by one, they're butchered by an undead madman named Jason. Roll credits. That's pretty much the entire movie. Wake me when it's over.
Actually, this Friday sequel is a little better than most. While the plot ideas are nothing new, Director/Screenwriter Tom McLoughlin attempts to bring a level of intelligence to the proceedings. Some of the dialogue is at least witty. It might have been interesting to see what he would have done with the series had he been brought on earlier before the concept became so tired.
The acting is nothing spectacular. In fact, I can't remember anyone who stood out. The special effects are the highlight of the movie. The opening scene in the graveyard with the maggot covered Jason is quite good. The film suffers tremendously from MPAA cuts. Most of the effects are shown only in very brief glances.
In short, Part VI is far from worst of the series, but it certainly isn't the best.
EDIT 10/30/17 - I just rewatched Part VI and realize I missed the mark the first time through. I originally watched it as a serious episode - like all the rest. I had never considered looking at this installment as a comedy. If you look at it like that, Part Vi really works. I said it was intelligent, but it's also very cleverly written. Some of the scenes are a real hoot. One I especially enjoyed is the scene where Jason is outside the cabin mimicking or tracking the girl's movements through the cabin. Very nice stuff. I also failed to recognize just how good Thom Mathews and the rest of the cast really is. It might be one of the better acted films in the series. After my rewatch, I also think it might be one of the better entries in the series. I'm changing the rating to a 7/10.
7/10
Another in a long line of bad Sword and Sorcerer movies, 18 June 2005
I don't know who Alejandro Sessa is, but the Executive Producer on this piece of trash was Roger Corman. Amazons is just another example of the garbage that Corman allowed his name to be attached to in the 80s. Why Roger? Why?
Amazons is almost devoid of any real entertainment. It's boring, dull, and lifeless. The dialogue and action are ridiculous. The "acting" (and I put that word in quotes because I'm not sure it's appropriate to call what these people are doing "acting") is abysmal. And the plot is pointless. The real plot is about having scantily clad women run around with swords - end of story.
So, why do I rate this a 3/10 and not lower? Regardless of how bad it is, I have a soft spot for these 1980s Sword and Sorcerer movies. No matter how bad they are, every four or five years, I rewatch 'em. Sick, huh?
3/10
One of the best of the 80s teen/slasher films, 6 February 2005
The basic plot of April Fool's Day is similar to many of the teen horror/slasher movies of the 1980s. For the most part, the story of the first three quarters of the movie isn't really anything special. A group of eight friends travel to the island estate of Muffy St. John (Deborah Foreman) to spend the weekend. Soon, the inevitable happens - people start disappearing and bodies start piling up. Of course, there's no way off the island, the phone isn't working, and Muffy is acting very weird. But, just when you think you've got things figured out, the big ending comes out of nowhere.
About the ending (and I'm not going to give it away) - from what I've read, it seems to be a love it or hate it proposition. There's not much middle ground. You will either feel cheated and want to throw your remote at the television or you will love it and appreciate it as something different. Put me in the love it category. I think it is a nice change of pace from the normal horror movie from the period. There are a few (very few) clues as to what's coming up, but it takes a repeat viewing to pick them up.
Most of the 80s teen horror movies have interchangeable characters - there is a nerd, a jock, a slut, a good girl, etc. And even though the characters in April Fool's Day can be put in these categories, they are not as exaggerated as you find in most similar movies. The writers should be given credit for at least attempting to write somewhat "real" characters. By no means do we get in depth characterizations, but these characters are more like people I actually knew in the 80s.
As usual, I do have a couple problems with the movie. The biggest complaint I have is the idea that the whole scheme could be pulled off without anyone knowing or discovering what was going on. That notion requires an extra large leap in any sort of known logic. And, I have a problem making a jump that large.
By the way, what ever happened to Deborah Foreman? After the 80s, she seems to have dropped off the planet.
7/10
