"Waitress, more butter!", 2 November 2017
With a name like Chopping Mall and the poster and box-art I'd seen for years, I've always assumed that the film was a cheap slasher. I'm shocked to discover that, instead, it's a cheap killer-robot movie. In Chopping Mall, the owners of the titular mall have decided to install robot security guards to patrol the building overnight. A freak lightning storm, however, fries the robots' main computer. The robots that were originally designed to protect and defend have been turned into unstoppable killing machines. As luck would have it, a group of teens is having an unauthorized after-hours party in the mall. The party comes to an abrupt end, however, when the teens are interrupted by the trio of killer robots. Can the teens make it through the night and escape?
Chopping Mall is a tough one for me to rate. In all honesty, it's a pretty bad movie. It's got all the problems I've come to associate with a low-budget 80s horror film. And while I could go on and on about the issues I have with the film (acting, dialogue, stupid characters, etc), it's too much fun not to enjoy. Chopping Mall is fast-paced, filled with plenty of action, and includes a couple of fantastic special effect shots - including an amazing head explosion. I got a real kick out of seeing the cameos from Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov in the opening scene. And the whole 80s-vibe to the film is really appealed to me. The opening montage is like a documentary look at 80s mall culture. All of this leads to a fairly entertaining experience.
The film, however, is far from perfect. I've listed a couple of issues I have with Chopping Mall, but my biggest complaint is the logic behind these robots. Unfortunately, I couldn't get this logic issue out of my mind the entire time I was watching the movie. This mall appears to be a fairly typical 1980s-era suburban mall. I can't imagine that a mall like this had very much overnight crime. At least not enough to warrant the cost of putting in this incredibly elaborate security system. A system like this one - complete with three combat-ready robots, a giant supercomputer, locking steel doors, and a couple of full-time computer programmers - would most likely cost more to install and maintain than it did to build the mall in the first place. It's completely ridiculous.
5/10
"Why don't we blow it up?", 1 November 2017
In the second sequel to Jaws, Sea World's new multi-million dollar underwater attraction is terrorized by a 35 foot great white shark, putting both staff and the public in danger. It's up to Mike Brody (Dennis Quaid) to uphold the family's legacy as shark fighters and save the day.
I was "fortunate" enough to see Jaws 3-D in the theater back when it was originally released in 1983. I didn't care for it back then and, if anything, I found it even worse as I re-watched it last night. There are so many problems I have with the film I really don't know where to begin. I guess I'll start with the 3D. As best as I can remember, the 3D effects weren't overly impressive back in the day. But watching in 2D, they're even more annoying. The floating arm near the beginning of the film, for example, looks just plain old stupid. The rest of the effects are equally bad. The shark is laughable. The shark from the original Jaws, made years earlier, is so much better.
As bad as the effects are, the rest of the film is even worse. The film's logic is pretty much non-existent, the characters are pretty much unlikable, and the script is pretty much a dull mess. There's not much here to like. Watching last night, I'm shocked that Sea World actually let the makers of Jaws 3 not only use their facilities for filming, but allowed them to use the Sea World name. Sea World must have believed in the old adage that there's no such thing as bad publicity. The film makes the staff and ownership of Sea World look like a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't be bothered to give two shakes about customer safety.
Speaking of "can't be bothered", I can't be bothered to go into any more detail on Jaws 3-D. I'll end this by saying that, for me, this is the worst of the Jaws series. I know most people rate Part 4 the worst. While I agree that it's one stinker of a film, at least Part 4 is entertaining. Jaws 3-D is just bad.
3/10
"Jason Voorhees is dead! His body was cremated. He's nothing but a handful of ash.", 30 October 2017
In the five or so years since his run-in with Jason Vorhees, Tommy Jarvis (played by John Shepherd in this film) returns to Crystal Lake to enter a mental facility. Tommy is still haunted by visions of Jason. Tommy has also developed something of an anger management problem. Not long after Tommy's arrival, Crystal Lake is the scene of a series of gruesome murders. Who could be behind the killings? Is it Jason back from the dead? Is it Tommy? Or is it some other, unknown party?
I don't apologize for being a Friday the 13th fan. I've been a fan since 1980. But I'm not blind. Not all Friday the 13th movies are created equal. Some are good and some are not so good. If I made a list of favorites, Friday the 13th: A New Beginning would fall toward the bottom of that list. It's not the worst, but it's close. My issues with the film are many, including:
- Character development – Never a strength in the series, character development is thrown out the window in Part 5. Unknown characters are introduced just so they can be killed five minutes later. A perfect example are the two greasers killed near the beginning of the movie. Who are these guys? It's hard to care whether a character lives or dies when fodder is all they are.
- Overacting – Junior and Ethel have to be two of the worst characters ever to appear in a Friday the 13th movie. I know a lot of people list Shelly from Part 3 as the most annoying character in the series, but for me, these two take the prize. They are just so over-the-top and unbelievable. I don't necessarily mind a little humor mixed into a film as heavy as Part 5, but his is way too much. Their actions completely take me out of the film every time they pop-up on screen. They're cringe-inducing.
- The mental facility – What kind of place is this? You gather together a bunch of troubled youths, but still you have more dangerous and sharp implements than you'll find at a knife show. There seem to be knives, hatchets, and machetes lying around everywhere.
- Roy Burns – Who? I remember seeing Part 5 in the theater and when the killer was unmasked (Scooby Doo style no less), I wasn't sure who I was looking at. Re-watching last night, I see all the hints and clues to the killer's identity, but Roy Burns is such a nothing character that I still didn't recognize him when he was unmasked. In the list of great slasher villains from the 80s and 90s, I've never seen Roy Burns' name listed alongside Freddy, Jason, and Michael. I don't care that the movie included a copycat killer, but make it someone we'd at least recognize.
- Outhouse serenade – Has there ever been a more ridiculous scene in a movie? It's another low point in a movie filled with low points. This is another of those lists that I could go on and on with, but, as I often say, what's the point?
Friday the 13th: A New Beginning is a bad movie with a lazy script, an instantly forgettable killer, and characters we can't care about because we don't know them. Overall, it's a low point in the series for me. I can't bring myself to rate it any higher than a 3/10.
3/10
Informative but not as deep as I would have liked, 28 October 2017
Overall, Return to Crystal Lake: Making 'Friday the 13th' is good, but I was left wanting more. The stories that are presented are interesting enough, but with a series that I've enjoyed since 1980, it's difficult to find new ground that hasn't already been covered. I've seen interviews in the past with Sean Cunningham and Tom Savini, so I didn't learn much new from them. I always enjoy seeing Adrianne King interviewed regardless of whether she's got anything new to say or not. She has a real infectious way about her that I find appealing. Finally, I'm not sure I've ever seen Betsy Palmer discuss her remembrances with Friday the 13th, so this part was a highlight for me. I appreciate her honesty in answering why she took the role - to pay for a new car. Good stuff!
As I always do, I'm rating this as I would any other documentary - using my two pronged approach. First, was it informative? Second, was it entertaining? Informative - like I said, I didn't learn a ton that I wasn't already aware of. Because of that, I can't give it more than 2/5 points for this part of the rating. Entertaining - a big yes. Ms Palmer's contribution was a treat. A 4/5 for entertainment.
6/10
"Listen to me. I don't want to have any trouble.", 27 October 2017
Here's my simple and short plot summary – A group of dorky Taekwondo practitioners, who also happen to be college roommates and bandmates, find themselves doing battle with a group of motorcycle riding drug dealers, who also just happen to be expert martial artists.
Miami Connection (not sure why it's called Miami Connection – most of it is set in Orlando) is a real stinker. Just look at that plot. The story is beyond ridiculous. It's actually more stupid than it sounds – singing college-going ninjas battling drug lords – yeah, right. Words fail me when trying to describe the ineptitude on display. The acting and direction are abysmal. Why am I not surprised to discover that almost no one involved with Miami Connection has any other credits on their resume? The music will annoy you long after the film ends. The song about friendship reminded me of something straight out of an ABC After School Special. It's an earworm that keeps on giving. Finally, the fight choreography is surprisingly bad. I say "surprisingly" because it's obvious that Y.K. Kim is actually a solid martial artist. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate well to the screen.
So, if Miami Connection is as bad as I say, why the 5/10 rating? Well, despite the plethora of problems, this movie is still entertaining. It may be entertaining for all the wrong reasons, but it's still entertaining. I honestly laughed out loud several times. I watch movies for entertainment and I got a fair amount of entertainment out of Miami Connection. If you "enjoy" bad movies, this one should not be missed.
5/10
"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.", 27 October 2017
I'll keep this brief as there are a million articles/reviews on Jurassic Park spread across the internet that are better written and more intelligent than anything I could ever hope to come up with. And forget about a plot summary. If you're not familiar with the plot of Jurassic Park, stop reading my drivel and go check it out right now. As my rating clearly indicates, I love this film. The word "classic" gets thrown around too easily when describing movies. But here it's deserved. Jurassic Park truly is a modern classic. It's family/action/popcorn filmmaking at its finest. It's hard to believe that Jurassic Park is almost 25 years old. I remember seeing it in the theaters and being completely blown away by the special effects. They were simply stunning. More amazingly, however, is how well the effects hold-up. I hadn't seen it in several years, but I watched it the other night with my 5 year-old. This was a first time viewing for him and I'm happy to say he's now a fan. When the first dinosaurs came on screen, I could see he was filled with the same excitement and amazement that I was in 1993. The CGI here is as good as any movie I've ever seen. While CGI may have become more common, I think filmmakers have gotten lazy. In too many modern movies, the CGI is obviously CGI. Here, everything looks "real". They took the time and spent the money to get it right. And the mix of computer effects with puppetry is pretty much seamless. I may not care for everything he's made, but I'll give Steven Spielberg credit here. He took an unbelievable premise and turned it into a very believable world. Jurassic Park is pure movie magic.
9/10
"Mayday! billy, send backup! all units report to the old blues bar, over!", 20 October 2017
I first saw Silent Rage while in college in the mid-80s. I think it ran on HBO/Cinemax every month. I must have seen it at least 6 times. It mixed two of my favorite movie genres – slashers and action. To me, the movie played like Michael Myers meets Chuck Norris. And I'm pretty sure that's what the filmmakers were going for. At the time, Chuck Norris had a pretty big following and slashers were all the rage. Why not mix the two?
Having not seen Silent Rage in about three decades, there's a lot I had forgotten. I was surprised at how many of the (now) predictable slasher clichés there are in this movie – a killer who can't be killed, a killer who seems capable of quietly materializing near his next victim, false scares followed almost immediately by the real thing, a good jump scare right before the final credits, conveniently placed weapons, and a good guy who acts as if all this is completely normal. Silent Rage has 'em all.
So, how does Silent Rage hold up? On the positive side of things there are some pretty decent fight scenes (the bar fight is especially enjoyable), a creepy killer, and Chuck Norris playing the whole thing as straight-faced as you can imagine. On the negative side, you've got copious amounts so filler (including the previously mentioned bar fight which has nothing to do with the rest of the film), a complete lack of logic, and Stephen Furst's off-putting comic relief. Overall, though, I still found Silent Rage entertaining. I think a bulk of the credit has to go to Brian Libby. His creepy John Kirby is as good and effective a killer as you'll find in any of the 80s slasher movies. It's a nice performance.
6/10
