<a href='index.php?showuser=26' rel='nofollow' alt='profile link' class='user-tagged mgroup-50'>JayTee</a>, you should definitely watch Coherence. Very different than Jacob's Ladder, but turned my brain into mush much the same way.

7/10 - Steve Jobs is a film that has some flaws, but above all, it defiantly strikes home just how brilliant Aaron Sorkin is as a writer. Steve Jobs be damned. Actors be damned. The film is all about Sorkin, which is both a gift and a curse. With every Sorkinism in the book (the film is 94% walking and talking), Steve Jobs is a magnifying, dense, and structural behemoth with writing that steals the showcase and refuses to let anyone else steal the spotlight. No matter how brilliant Michael Fassbender is as Jobs or Kate Winslet as Joanna Hoffman, the writing is the star of this play.

The tragic flaw in this is that it loses sight of its main character. Though the film is about Steve Jobs, it feels oddly formatted. I am fine with them skipping over the reveals and just focusing on the background conversations before the reveals. However, it should have focused more on the aftermath. The failures, the personal turmoil, and Steve Jobs' firing more. It touched on it, but never with any depth. Instead, it demands Steve Jobs to show emotion and show his hand, but he is incapable of doing this. Thus, much of the film falls on deaf ears. It is cool to look at, well shot, well acted, and the dialogue is impeccable. But, it lacks any weight. This is why the best was saved for last with Steve's conversation with his daughter Lisa (Perla Haney-Jardine). With the weight that the rest of the film demanded, the dialogue in the sequence and the emotional power of it all made me want to jump up and celebrate. When Jobs finally opens up and shows his human side to his daughter, the film is a resounding success. The end shot that fades slowly as Jobs walks the stage and looks back lovingly at Lisa is absolutely impeccable. In one scene, Danny Boyle encapsulated everything that makes cinema wonderful. The cinematic strength and power of that final scene is unlike that I have seen in a long, long time. Immaculate is the perfect word for it. Unfortunately, the rest of the film just lacks any of that power. Not even a hint of that heart.

The film is unwilling to vilify Jobs as well for his inadequacies as a father and a person. Bracing the audience for every punch by reminding us just how brilliant he was and what a visionary he was, every time we are shown that he is an asshole, we still come away thinking, "Yeah, but he's innovative". As if that is some accomplishment. That said, it does a good job capturing the two sides of Jobs. While they do not gel together, Sorkin captures Jobs at his most assholish states as well as at his most brilliant. It is hard to place your finger on the man, maybe because he was a diverse human being with two sides. Thus, my complaint may be silly, but all the same, it felt tonally off as a result of not following through with either the vilification or the celebration. Though there was some attempt at the latter in the aforementioned conversation with Lisa, it hardly makes up for the rest of the film when he treats everyone in his life like garbage.

On the positive side, there are a lot of strengths to this film. Fassbender and Winslet are brilliant. Jeff Daniels' turn as Apple CEO John Scully is as impressive as always. Seth Rogen is shockingly good as Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlbag, an always terrific character actor, is phenomenal as Andy Hertzfeld. It is a shame he did not get more recognition. Danny Boyle's direction is assured as always. Though, it feels very different than many of his other films. Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, and 127 Hours, all had a similar Eisensteinian kind of feeling to them. Packed with conflict in the editing with scenes, quick cuts, and I do not really know how to describe it...an authentic feeling maybe? They feel raw, unfiltered, and natural. Steve Jobs is far more Hollywoodized with camera work more along the lines of the typical Aaron Sorkin film. Tracking shots like ones straight out of Goodfellas are the norm here and in his films as the camera struggles to keep up with the characters. Steve Jobs is a mirror image of all of Sorkin's past works in this regard.

The writing is very dense and detailed, but so is the direction. The writing is obviously dense with obscure references and big words to match the brilliance of Jobs. The direction, however, is equally as detailed. One example that I feel brings this to light the best is when Jobs is arguing with Wozniak before the launch of the iMac. As Wozniak storms off after Jobs refused to acknowledge the Apple2 team yet again, the screen behind Jobs changes to the Apple logo and tagline, "Think Different". A small detail in a film with many subtleties, but appreciated nonetheless.

Steve Jobs is a tough film to truly assess. With incredible writing and direction, is undeniably brilliant artistically. The film itself is wildly entertaining. Watching this brilliance, Sorkin's language, and Sorkin's conversations is never boring. Yet, as a biopic, it feels like it never let's you in. It feels too distant. Much like Jobs never let anyone in, the film does not either. Just as it is a bad trait for a person, it is a bad for a film. Though technically proficient and I can see why it is beloved by people who love cinema, it just feels far too emotionless and heartless to be a brilliant work. Other than the ending, the film lacks the emotional touch to make each scene work on another level.



4/10 - We Are What We Are is a film that simply was not up my alley for many different reasons. Aside from being incredibly cliche, the ending is far too much, and the film feels as if it is far more content just trying to shock its audience instead of creating any unique atmosphere. Though there are a few great scenes, the film's atmosphere is slack, the pacing is slow, and the film as a whole suffers from these inadequacies.

From the very beginning, the film opts to start with a quote said by a character later on in the film. With the name Alyce Parker, the name is clearly there to grab your attention due to its similarities to Alice Parker, a woman killed during the Salem Witch Trials. Though our Alyce is deeply religious, she has a limited role. The rest of the film focuses on her family and their deep religious beliefs and their "purity" of being cannibals in the name of the Lord. It feels quite often that director Jim Mickle is trying to make some kind of astute comment about religion and its effects on the mind, but unfortunately, it often falls incredibly short of anything profound. Other than, "extremism is bad" and commentary about misguided notions derived from religion, the film really does nothing too deep, in spite of clear overtures into the arena.

The pacing of the film is pretty bad, but this is in large part due to its cliches. It slacks as you wait to see what cliche will be pulled out next. Here, a "dead" man is left lying only to get up seconds later, a police procedural plays out, and a man takes a shovel to the brain to play out the stereotypical father-daughter relationship cliche. These scenes do not ride on any sort of atmosphere, yet take up a large portion of the film. Instead, any atmosphere Mickle may have tried to create is wiped out in a sea of cliche that turns atmosphere and dread into merely "can we get this over with? I know what's going to happen now."

These cliches are extra disappointing with juxtaposed with the best sequences in the film. The killing of "the monster" and the dinner sequence are absolutely killer. Very non-violent, yet so gross and creepy, it makes it feel as if bugs are crawling on your skin. With the dinner sequence in particular, Mickle expertly elongates the scene for full effect and by the end, you feel as if you need a shower.

With such strong scenes in its arsenal, it makes the cliched ending that much more disappointing. With the confrontation, shootout, faked deaths, and every other horror movie cliche in the book as to how to end a horror movie, We Are What We Are upends itself. The only originality is the very ending, but it is not horrifying. It is merely torture porn. As a non-fan of torture fan, it was way too much. However, the violence and action in the film had a similar kind of feeling throughout, even when it was not as visceral. It just never felt justified. It felt like a step-for-step Horror Movie 101 plot that just pulled out all of the tricks without any of the heart, soul, or justification. As a result, much of We Are What We Are just comes and goes with little-to-no fanfare. With the final sequence in particular, it feels as if Mickle keeps looking at you and saying, "Pretty f****d up, eh?" without any reason for the scene dragging on or even existing.

Overall, We Are What We Are is simply not that good. Jim Mickle pulls the very best of many different horror films into his film with nary an inclination to investigate what made these scenes actually work in the first place. I am fine with cliche films, as long as they can also copy the same feeling the original use of the cliche was able to conjure. With this one, they feel soulless and without justification. That said, there are a few strokes of genius in this largely misguided film that does not have much to say about anything it touches on.



8/10 - Welcome to the wacky world of David Lynch. This man had to have been drop kicked in the head as a child. No way a person with a normally functioning brain comes up with this. That is not to say Lynch is dumb. Quite the opposite in fact. This dense, surreal, and thoroughly batshit insane is honestly an absolute wonder. Creepy, discomforting, and entirely surreal, Eraserhead is ultimately best viewed pretending that all of the humans are actually aliens trying to acclimate to life on Earth. It also explains E.T.'s guest appearance as the baby of Harry (Jack Nance) and Mary (Charlotte Stewart).

Eraserhead is an incredibly challenging film to write about. Clearly focusing in on the fears and nightmares of a man thrust suddenly into marriage and fatherhood, this film feels oddly personal for David Lynch. Though he had a kid at the time, it very well mirror his own nightmares and weird thoughts ahead of the birth of his eldest daughter. Or he could have just tripped on acid once and thought of this idea and the themes came later. Either way, it feels like something he experienced and then put to film.

The acting captures the alien feel I mentioned before and I would be hard pressed to call it any good. That said, it certainly fits the feeling. These are not human beings in the least and their circumstances are other wordly. Lynch's imagery and use of the man in the castle with the power circuit type thing (I do not know, I am trying) solidifies this feeling. Thus, the acting is good for this film. Probably not others, however.

In terms of the score, it is terrific. Matching the creepy direction and atmospheric tension that Lynch creates masterfully, the score leaves you equally unsettled. Just as the on-screen images leave you reaching for vomit bags and completely repulsed, the score matches this tension by creeping under your skin and giving you chills. Honestly, Eraserhead makes me want a shower. The combination of the music with the imagery is a match made in film heaven, but is a bitter pill to swallow as a viewer.

Though not for everyone and decidedly a surrealist horror film, Eraserhead is a deeply confusing, distant, yet oddly personal film that touches on themes that every man encounters at some point in their lives. No matter how much you to be married or want kids, there will be some trepidation that accompanies that desire. For David Lynch, he captures this in his wacky and weird way in Eraserhead with the help of E.T. Sadly for E.T., I do not think he will get to go home after this film. As a whole, this is not a film that will cause your brain you melt. Rather, it is a film that will make your brain stand up, exit your head, and then eat you alive.



7/10 - "What is your favorite Kevin Bacon movie and why is it Tremors?" - Internet user

A noble question that can best be answered by stating: Tremors, though imperfect, is a fun, fact paced take on older science fiction horror films with all of the cheesiness of 1980s/1990s science fiction movies. Though not strictly horror, there are more than a few scenes that play out like horror as the small town tries to expertly evade these giant worms that are terrorizing their town. Though undeniably silly with many, many dumb moments, Tremors is still a thoroughly effective thriller, while also blending it with fun comedy, interesting characters, and some serious suspense.

First off, Tremors is a clear nod to smalltown America, the working class, and American ingenuity. The choice of Valentine (Kevin Bacon) and his heart-shaped belt buckle as the hero, while also being a handyman and using a CAT as part of his master plan, Tremors certainly is a tribute to blue collar Americans.

In terms of the humor of the film, Tremors more than often hits. The humor really lightens the mood and feels entirely late 80s/early 90s in its approach to filmmaking. The constant one-liners being the main staple, having been established as pure Americana thanks to 1980s action movies. Here, the jokes hit and contribute to the fun, fast paced atmosphere. If the jokes were anything more than one-liners, it would have killed any of the suspense and turned it into a comedy. Instead, it never interferes with the thrills.

Director Ron Underwood can largely be credited with this balance, as he never lets the humor take center stage. There is a separation of church and state, so to speak. The thrilling scenes are reserved for thrills. The in-between and build-up can have sprinkles of comedy, but the scenes that imitate Alien are preserved solely for that. And what an imitation it can be (obviously it imitates more than Alien). At times, it left me jumping in my seat trying to get people to run quicker. Underwood creates terrific tension that certainly can place you firmly on the edge of your seat, while also delivering solid action sequences of the town taking on the worms. Though it can be quite silly in this regard, their plans do make sense and could certainly be used if people found themselves in this situation. That said, the plans do feel as if they were taken right out of a 1950s creature feature.

Though the romance is a bit forced, Tremors does have good character development, even if it is the classic "immature man turned into a hero/mature by a woman he loves that forces him to change his outlook on life" trope. The characters, even if cookie cutter, are incredibly likeable and rope you into really enjoying the film as you watch their antics and root for them to escape the clutches of the worm. As for the worm, the approach to the creature is really cool and well done. With reasonable traits that it always stays within, the worms are actually really interesting creatures to watch in the film due to the realistic and borderline scientific approach taken to helping us understand what these beasts are and how they behave.

Overall, Tremors is cheesy and filled with one-liners. However, the cheese is gooey goodness and the one-liners hit. Plus, they are expertly balanced with true moments of suspense, thrills, and horror by director Ron Underwood who capably keeps the atmosphere and balance of the film while juggling many different genres. Taking inspiration from 1950s creature features, as well as well many 1980s and 1990s science fiction, horror, and action films, Tremors still finds ways to feel fresh and entertaining in spite of the consistent feeling that you had seen this film before.



8/10 - A chilling horror film from director John Carpenter, Halloween is not without its age spots (what else did you expect after 38 years?), but remains an effective thriller to this day that has influenced a genre ever since it was released. Though Carpenter heavily riffs off of Alfred Hitchcock's horror masterpiece Psycho, Halloween is scary in its own right, though it often uses the same skills Hitchcock demonstrated in Psycho to make Halloween enter the next level of scariness.

Okay, the acting is bad. I tried to lessen the hurt there, but it honestly was really bad. In saying that, however, I do not expect much in this regard. The point of the film is to scare you, not wow you with the prowess of that actors. That said, it was bad enough to mention.

On the positive column is practically everything else. Brilliantly utilizing sound in a fashion shown off by Hitchcock's Psycho, the film utilizes deeply unsettling sounds that honestly scare you on their own. Forget the visuals. The sound is scary enough on its own thanks to the film's use of sounds that not just alert you that something scary is about to happen, but have no chemistry whatsoever with your ears. When watching a film such as this, the score really sets the mood and boy does it ever accomplish this in Halloween.

As far as the characterization of Michael Myers goes, John Carpenter does a great job establishing the lore of Myers and telling rather than showing. Instead of showing us his time in the mental institution, it merely tells us what happened there, which ups the scariness and impact of the stories. In most films, this is a mortal sin. For horror films, it can be a brilliant tactic and Carpenter uses it perfectly. Thanks to the doctor's descriptions, we get a clear picture in our minds of what Myers is, what he looks like, and how he acts. This mental image is far scarier than anything Carpenter could have shown us.

Additionally, the film never rushes proceedings. It is more than happy to sit back and wait to build anticipation. Rather than having Michael run around killing everybody in sight, he bides his time and significantly ups the tension by building it and building it up. This anticipation completely boils over when things finally hit the fan and the tension is dialed up to 11. While cliched by today's time, the climax of this film was really the first of its kind (if I am not mistaken, Halloween was the first film to kill the antagonist only to bring him to life again). Plus, though it can be a bit silly at times thanks to it being done to death by 2016, Carpenter handles the reveals very well. With over the shoulder shots from Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis) to Michael's "dead" body, the shot of him standing up becomes all the more terrifying. As a result, this is truly a film that defines the horror genre and the way in which we watch the movie, become terrified, and yell at the screen, "BEHIND YOU". Halloween is ripe with these moments and really benefits from it.

Halloween is a tough film to watch nowadays. Though there is an ever present sense of dread, a killer score, and endless tension, the film has truly been copied on a daily basis since its release 38 years ago. As a whole, Halloween is a thoroughly scary and entertaining affair from John Carpenter with unmistakable influence from Psycho and on later films. Interestingly, there is little-to-no gore in Halloween, yet films that will rip it off for years to come bathe everybody in blood. Odd. The foreshadowing of the characters watching The Thing (which Carpenter remade a few years later) is also terrific and a funny little detail in hindsight.



9/10 - Brilliant. My first Mario Bava film and also his first credited film, Black Sunday is a mesmerizingly scary, atmospheric, and thematically tight film that works on multiple levels. Telling the story of a witch who wakes up after two centuries to exact her revenge on the family that killed her for being a witch, she sets her sights on possessing the girl that has her exact likeness. In other words, this film is about Barbara Steele trying to steal Barbara Steele's soul and life.

With a gothic look and extreme melodrama, Black Sunday is from 1960, thus it obviously feels old at times and shows its age spots throughout. However, this never undercuts the tension and atmosphere created by Bava. From beginning to end, Black Sunday is a hypnotic and haunting experience that really makes the air go cold and stiffen around you. This is largely helped by the gothic look of the film that really feels like a classic horror movie setting in which danger can be around any corner. Plus, the lighting in which the light does not touch every corner of the set is a perfect little touch as it hints at the darkness that lives in the home, while also being used to up tension simply by not being able to see everything.

Acting-wise, it is tough to judge. As the version I watched was dubbed (not sure, but I am guessing this is like a Sergio Leone spaghetti western in which the dubbing is the correct version), it is tough to judge the acting. Plus, as it is a gothic horror film, there are obvious roots in romanticism and the silent era, in which the film's overacting is derived. The extreme melodrama and romanticism may be off-putting to some, but for me, I was more than okay with it though it can be quite abrasive at times.

Thematically, Black Sunday touches on ideas of good v. evil and love v. evil. As with many horror films, it resides largely in the pro-God category as it demonstrates the power of God over Satan. Though the evil counterpart is shown as being quite powerful, it is miniscule when compared to the power of God. Bava does a terrific job in this category and really develops this lore, while adding his own unique touches to this well-traversed concept. Additionally, the film uses love very well, as it showcases how love will also triumph over evil. This sequence is oddly touching, while also being a thematically solid way to end the film. In regards to the religion, I am always awestruck how many crosses are in a film. If you watch any film, I promise you there will be a cross of some form (not just literal crosses, also thinking of the shape, as seen in many a window). Some are obviously coincidence, but in this film, it is anything but. The attention to detail by covering a lot of the shots in the film with a cross of some form is a really nice touch from Bava.

A classic with immeasurable influence of directors such as Francis Ford Coppola and Tim Burton (especially Burton), Black Sunday is a brilliant gothic horror film from Mario Bava. Though it has aged in spots, Bava creates a thoroughly unsettling atmosphere with terrific tension, scares, and pay-off.



2/10 - I really did not enjoy Nightmare City too much. It has its moments, but by and large, it is a silly, over-the-top, and oddly sexist film that simply becomes mind-numbingly stupid at the end. Even worse, it punches you in the face with its anti-government themes, as well as its belief that humanity has worsened due to technology. As a whole, Nightmare City does have a few good atmospheric scares, but simply undoes them all with a very bad ending.

Firstly, the film is wildly over-the-top. The acting is awkwardly expressive even though it is a zombie movie. This is not a gothic horror film harkening back to the 1920s. This is no slasher film. This is a mild action horror film about zombies. Yet, everyone screams their lungs up and is a horrifically bad actor. A shame really. On the over-the-top note, the film loves showing way too much when it comes to violence. It is not even that it is violent. It just makes it all look fake is the problem. The make-up is solid and believable, but then somebody gets shot in the head and their head splits in two. Somebody gets their eye lifted out of their head like they are Mr. Potato Head. It just never looks real. Lenzi may showcase some blood spurting, but these scenes are oddly devoid of blood, which almost makes them look less realistic.

In terms of sexism, it seemed like most of the women got killed in one way: a stab to the boob. I get that the heart is behind the boob, so I could write it off if Lenzi did not have a lot of the women have their shirts ripped open (nobody wore bras in 1980 Italy evidently) and then they get stabbed in boob. One zombie even appears to carve off a woman's areola. This is not your average everyday movie sexism. This is truly advanced sexism in which it almost appears as though the film declares war against femininity. Interesting to note as well is that not a single woman survives. Many men die too, but all of the military men and the main protagonist Dean Miller (Hugo Stiglitz) all make it to the "end". Meanwhile, every woman is ravished and stabbed in boob or fails due to being too hysterically scared (compared to the men who valiantly fight off the zombies). Many films are sexist in some way, but very well I encounter are distractingly so. Yet, Nightmare City certainly checks off that box.

Even worse, I could have lived with the sexism. I could have ignored it. Yet, then Lenzi decides to up the dumb and have it all be a dream, only to show the beginning again and put up text stating that dreams became a reality. It is not scarier. It is just dumb and makes the rest of the film make no sense. If Dean had the dream, how did we see things in the beginning that he could have never seen? How did we get, at minimum, five other characters' perspectives and actions if were only in Dean's mind. He does not even interact with most of them, yet he seems to know them intimately. Is he just a psychic or something? This also somewhat ties into the poor character development. The real nightmare here is the horrific writing of the characters. They make no sense and are cardboard cutouts of one another.

All of this said, there is one very good scene when Sheila (Maria Rosaria Omaggia) is under attack at her home. The lighting and the action show that Lenzi clearly knows what he is doing as a director, but the rest of the film showcases just how much he mailed in this one, which is is really too bad.

As a whole, Nightmare City is a wildly disappointing film. For my first Umberto Lenzi film, I certainly hoped for a lot better. As it stands, Nightmare City is a cheesy, nonsensical, poorly plotted, and thoroughly sexist film with only one scene I truly loved. That does not a good film make.



8/10 - I, tragically, had the misfortune of watching [REC] dubbed. It honestly caused me physical pain. Thus, I will undoubtedly try to re-watch it at some point in the future with the subtitled version. That said, [REC] is so good, I barely noticed the terrible dubbing. The film is incredibly atmospheric, filled with dread, terrific scares, and truly leaves you with chills more than a few times. This is what I want from my horror movies. Though it is not the best one I have ever seen, [REC] is a terrifically entertaining and thoroughly scary horror movie.

[REC] uses its found footage element to its advantage, especially when the lights go out. With the lights out, director Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza toy with the audience mercilessly. The duo seem to have fun putting their characters in a position where they cannot see anything and the same goes with the audience. Though the panic of the beginning and the confusion is well-executed, it pales in comparison to the ending when things go black and all we have is, briefly, the light from the camera and then just night vision. If anything, the night vision may make it far worse as you can see what is coming. Horror movie fans may see the ending coming, as well as some predictable scares, but dammit if it did not have me on edge. Balaguero and Plaza created a terrifically scary atmosphere that put me on edge. With just the slightest of nudges or the slightest bump, they could and did send me tumbling over the side.

Prior to everything hitting the fan, the film does a very good capturing the confusion as these people are locked in their apartment building with little-to-no explanation from the police. As you get little bread crumbs along the way, you can see what the film is building towards, yet the authentic confusion of the residents is something that Balaguero and Plaza showcased very well. Then realization on the residents' part that something has gone seriously awry is packed with tension, which is the film's first real foray into pure horror. Until then, it is honestly bordering on science fiction and thriller. The terror showcased, as well as the pain and agony at this realization feels incredibly authentic. Though the dubbing is terrible, the emotional acting is incredible and really hits you quite hard.

Though [REC] executes its horror elements extremely well, there are a few small drawbacks that prevent it from being even better. The shaky cam, for one, is too much. Found footage is fine and all at times, but the camera shook way too much. Hard to avoid in this kind of film, so maybe a silly complaint, but it was honestly nauseating how much Pablo shook that camera. Keep your hands straight, Pablo! Additionally, though just 78 minutes, it felt slow in the middle at certain points as it just went through various scenes of the residents trying to get out, only to meet the same answer from those outside. I would not call these scenes boring, as they do build the tension, but the same scene happened three or four times. The confusion and desperation for answers was clear after the second time, if not after the first.

Overall, [REC] is a terrifically fun and thoroughly terrifying film that uses its found footage element to perfection, largely thanks to directors Jaume Balaguero and Paco Plaza. By using found footage, the film is able to capture the confusion and unexpected nature of all of the happenings, as well as the mystery as to what is actually occurring. Instead of just watching it, the film makes this a truly immersive experience, in large part because of the found footage. Plus, the final scene relies almost exclusively on the camera. Without the camera, it would not have been nearly as scary. As a whole, [REC] delivers the goods, even if my viewing was slightly ruined by the dubbing. I guess it shows just how damn scary this film is that by the time it got around the being a pure horror film, I forgot all about the dubbing.



9/10 - A film with significant political undertones about the whole of society being overtaken by mindless, emotionless aliens, Invasion of the Body Snatchers drives home its point largely through a close-up of Kevin McCarthy warning the viewer of their impending arrival. No matter what he may be warning us of, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a true classic of science fiction and horror. With paranoia bursting out of its pod-like seams, the film may never outright scare you, but it certainly does leave you on edge as the characters begin to piece everything together about what happened in their small California town.

Featuring oddly very good special effects, Invasion of the Body Snatchers functions very solidly as a science fiction mystery film when Dr. Miles Bennell (McCarthy), Becky Driscoll (Dana Wynter), and King Donovan (Jack Belicec) try to get to the bottom of the mysterious body found in Jack's home. Paired up with the confusion and "mass hysteria" of the beginning of the film, director Don Siegel does a terrific job building the mystery and makes it an enjoyable watch as you try to solve the mystery alongside the characters. Though you may know what is coming simply by knowing the film's plot, the paranoia still permeates through the screen. This is not just good storytelling either, as the actors are all on-point. Those taken over have the right level of emotion (or lack thereof) for their roles, while those trying to piece it all together do a great job capturing the pure confusion, hysteria, and skepticism of their characters.

Above all, the film proves to be truly thrilling, especially towards the end. This is the closest the film gets to being modern horror as Dr. Bennell is tracked down and forced to escape those that wish to turn him into a lifeless alien. Siegel brings good tension to the scene and the reveal that he is alone is also handled very well as you can sense the panic, helplessness, and sheer terror that he feels in that moment. Though the entire film is very strong, this may be the strongest tension as it places the viewer firmly on the edge of their seat as you wait and see if he will get away. However, even better is the ending sequence and the realization that these events are far from over. Rather, they are just getting started and will have to be confronted. The scrotal pods will not win - hopefully - now that the rest of humanity is on the case!

Finally, Invasion of the Body Snatchers really does a solid job with its romantic element. It, honestly, makes the film all that much more horrifying when you see the emotional damage caused by the romantic element. Plus, given the state of the aliens, having a romantic element makes sense. It is not just tacked on, rather McCarthy and Wynter have solid chemistry with one another and their relationship adds tension where they may not have otherwise been. This is also tied into the solid characters. Though not much time is spent on developing the characters, Siegel still does a very good to make them likeable to the point that you root for them.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers is undeniably a classic of science fiction and horror. Packed to the brim with tension, and thrills, the film has held up surprisingly well with solid special effects, good acting, and timeless paranoia that envelopes the entire film. With clear political warnings attached to the film and a knack for being a thoroughly fun and entertaining film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers has not missed a beat despite turning 60 this year.



7/10 - Baskin is a film so hellish in design and in feeling that it - clichely enough - feels like something we should not be seeing. It is a film with an atmosphere so frightening, it made me feel as though I needed to confess my sins and repent immediately to God in order to avoid winding up in any place remotely similar to the one presented in Baskin. The atmosphere crafted by director Can Evrenol is simply that good. Now, he achieves largely through torture porn-esque method, but damn are they ever effective here. The film can be over-the-top gory, yet it feels so horrific and horrifying, it is impossible to look away even for a weakling like myself.

Bathed in neon and blessed with a synth score, Baskin often feels like a film by Nicolas Winding Refn if he made is a straight horror film. Thoroughly style over substance, Baskin's plot is all over the place with dream sequences, flashbacks, flash forwards, and a thoroughly mindbending ending. This arthouse horror film from Turkey is one infused with style in large due to the aforementioned score that keeps on edge, but also the camera work. The film, often flush with neon highlights, is lavishly shot and the camera just seems to glide effortlessly and angelically through this hell local, allowing us to soak up every gruesome detail of Hell (located in an abandoned police station).

Often quite hard to watch due to the violence that ensues, the most violent moments still remain ever watchable in large due to the acting performance of Mehmet Cerrahoglu. A mesmerizing sadistic and thoroughly evil performance, his role as "The Father" features some of the most chilling dialogue the film has to offer, along with some of the best delivery. In a film packed with solid performances, Cerrahoglu absolutely steals centerstage as the short, yet towering figure who is worshipped as a God in this hellish landscape. His power and presence is unrivaled in the film and makes the sequences that much scarier.

Incredibly cerebral, Baskin is a true blend of gore and mindbending psychological thrillers. I have no idea what Baskin was trying to say, but it was a thoroughly confusing affair that (obviously) had some religious ticks, but was also completely focused on the ideas of fate and destiny. For those in the film, it was fate that they wound up in Hell and they had a purpose for being there. They had an importance and a purpose, which required them to wind up in this situation. However, even then, they had a fate that could not be avoided, which is showcased at the very end.

A truly hypnotic viewing experience, Baskin is a chilling and horrifying horror film from director Can Evrenol that certainly makes him a man worth keeping an eye on. Mindbending, thought-provoking, and lavishly shot, Baskin is such a pretty looking film, it is often hard to look away even when things get really gory. That said, it does get really gory. Though I am not a fan of gore, it certainly feels entirely secondary to Evrenol's philosophical musings and beautifully gliding camera work.



1/10 - I do not hand out such low ratings like candy. A film must truly earn the rating by being a thoroughly exasperating experience. One so bad that it literally takes the steam out of an evening and makes me never want to watch a movie again. Cujo is that film. It is not just because it is so cliche. It is not because of any level of violence. It is because it is just so dreadfully boring for a little over half the film. Afterwards, when it decides it is time to get into the horror, it instead delivers the most annoying kid in cinematic history.

The most hopeful moments is when the kid cannot breathe because I thought my torture was over. But yet, Cujo persists. Just as the dog keeps trying to break into the car (HOW CAN A DOG BREAK INTO A CAR?), the movie keeps trying to make me feel anything for the kid. Yet, then it decides to just have him squeal, yell, ask to go home, and babble about monsters like that racist aunt we all have babbles about how non-whites are ruining the country. In both scenarios, it is wildly annoying and the opposite of endearing.

Without this kid, the film may just be your run-of-the-mill bad film. Boring and cliche, sure, but nothing hostile. It never actively tries to be one of the worst experiences I have ever had before the kid really gets his spotlight in that car. This is what makes the Netflix description of Cujo as a "Satanic killer" feel even stupider. For me, Cujo is a benevolent killer, out to kill annoying kids and cheating spouses for the betterment of society. On the note of the cheating wife, what was the point? The whole film feels so tedious to watch and is so poorly paced because it had no idea how to get to the car. It is like they had a good idea, but had to find some way to get there. It failed to find any interesting way to get there instead it opts to show people playing tennis, a cheating wife, and a failed ad campaign instead. Terrific cinema, I tell you. Just fabulous.

Fuck this movie. Cujo is terrific. I loved Cujo, especially when he is trying to take people down. The cutest movie monster ever, hands down. That dog has serious skills in attacking people, which he is not afraid to show off. Given that I feel this way, it is clear the film additionally failed to ever make him scary. Sure, he killed people, but he did it in a goofy dog kind of way that made me truly feel cognitive dissonance. Yes, he was a rabid killer, but killing has never been so fluffy.

Overall, Cujo is horrific. Do not watch this movie. It is not a fun bad movie. It is an aggressive, suffocating, and truly joyless viewing experience. If you told me this movie ran for 168 hours, I would have totally believed you. I need a palate cleanser.



4/10 - "Why are you naked?" - Zeke

Because what sexist film would be complete without a completely naked girl being the source of all of this mayhem and chaos at this school? How could a woman not be to blame for all that has occurred in The Faculty? It is really only the natural progression for a film that asks us to identify with Casey (Elijah Wood). A dorky kid who is constantly bullied, Casey is the classic underdog hero in film and despite obvious character flaws such as sniffing Delilah (Jordana Brewster) while hiding in the closet and despite creepily having a shrine dedicated to Delilah (okay, Jordana Brewster is attractive, but Jesus that is not anywhere near a free pass for being a 100% creep). I am not one to sit here and criticize how sexist a film is, but I feel is truly that obvious in The Faculty, which is a shame.

With sexism as its main argument against, The Faculty comes armed to the teeth to appeal to kids who were marginalized (read: boys who were not popular in high school) by having Casey be bullied, pine after the hottest girl in school, have parents who cannot give two shits about him, not be athletic, and be a complete loner who not just saves the school, but also manages to scoop up the girl of his dreams in the process. Written like a wet dream, The Faculty is a creepy film that continues to dehumanize women in its treatment of women throughout. Not just Delilah and Marybeth are marginalized, but girls are all frequently called bitches and shown to be quite bitchy and aggressive ("Fuck You Girl" and Ms. Burke, in particular). Additionally, when Professor Furlong (surprise appearance from Jon Stewart) hits on Nurse Harper (another shock appearance from Salma Hayek) in a creepy manner, we are left to sympathize with him because how could anybody ever turn down such Oh and, lest we forget, the demonization of the unseen wife of Mr. Tate (Daniel van Bargen). In spite of his alcoholism, somehow she is the evil one for leaving him for somebody else. God forbid.

Other than latent and prevalent sexism, The Faculty is faulty in many other ways as well, if you are left unswayed. I can deal with a wildly unoriginal film, but this one is truly revolutionary in this regard. References to prior science fiction films does not get you off the hook for ripping them at every chance you get. It honestly felt as though ever line mentioned a different film and how it is possible that the events of this one were going to follow the same line. I love the Amazon Prime X-Ray feature, which shows you goofs, trivia, continuity errors, cast on screen, and other little tidbits about a film while you are watching it. For The Faculty, I was floored. Practically every shot had some tidbit about how it referenced a film. Some shots had multiple films. Truly impressive level of copying. I get the sense that if Robert Rodriguez had to use Turnitin for this film, it would come up with 0% originality.

Now, there are a few positives. In spite of these concerns, it is quite a fun film. I was certainly entertained by the film and I am sure many who can overlook my aforementioned problems will enjoy The Faculty. Rodriguez's films certainly always have flair to them and this one is no exception. A fast paced thrill ride, The Faculty may be unoriginal, but it does ape many of the better qualities of past films and is filled with camaraderie, high school hijinx/personalities, thrills, and teenage angst classic rock hits that many would request of a science fiction/horror film set in a high school. These overtures on the part of the film are, admittedly, hard to resist. It hits all the right notes with its plot and the return is pure enjoyment.

Additionally, Rodriguez has great attention to detail that clues you into characters or are simply quality jokes. From Zeke (Josh Hartnett) having "USA Sucks Big Time" in his locker to a car supporting the Herrington High School Hornets having "Me So Hornet' written on it, there are some subtle jokes along the way. The film also showcases attention to detail in delivering thrills by having a banner hanging in the gym the reads "Feel the sting" as the monster corners Casey. These details were not lost on me as a viewer and were among the reasons why I was so disheartened that it opted to be so unoriginal and sexist in its plot and characterization, respectively.

A fun and detailed film from director Robert Rodriguez, The Faculty has a solid cast filled with recognizable faces, plus Josh Hartnett with significant bedhead. That said, despite its boyish charms, the film is overtly sexist and as unoriginal as they come, thanks to familiar plotting, characters, and references. The film often feels as if Robert Rodriguez had just caught up with all of John Hughes' 1980s teen comedies, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing, all films by Steven Spielberg, and all of Stephen King's books before opting to just smash them into one film.



7/10 - Having seen him in many film roles over the years, I am thoroughly convinced that Hugh Grant will only accept roles in which he can shag, at minimum, two women. Anything less and Mr. Grant will not even consider taking that role. As it stands, Bridget Jones's Diary (is that gramatically correct?) finds him shagging three women and in typical charismatic, playboy footing as Daniel Cleaver, one of the love interests fighting for the heart of Bridget Jones (Renee Zellweger). The other, far more settled contender is none other than Mark Darcy (Colin Firth). A British woman's fantasy come true, the film is a truly entertaining comedy with a killer script, good characters, and quality adherence to rom-com formula.

With terrific casting, the film is already blessed from the get go as Zellweger is terrific and perfect for the role of the not quite beautiful, yet certainly far from ugly Bridget who is single at age 32. Somehow, she manages to find her way in the middle of a love triangle. If only I could find myself in this position at age 32 with two beautiful British actresses (maybe a little old for me at the moment, but I will certainly accept Keira Knightley squaring off with Carey Mulligan...just saying). As the more stable and clearly better candidate, Firth is his typically classy and stoic self, which is perfect for the character of Darcy. Given the misinformation we are given about Darcy at the beginning, it makes the reveal of his true nature make all the more sense. We all knew that there was no way Darcy could be a jerk because Firth played him. In this way, the film kind of shows its hand with some pretty solid typecasting, though the acting is good I could care less. As the charismatic Daniel Cleaver, Hugh Grant is terrifically devilish. Somehow, you find yourself wanting Bridget to get back with him just because it is Hugh Grant. No shame.

The film may adhere very closely to romantic comedy formula, yet it is a terrific example of a well-written script in this area. I always feel the need to defend the scripts of these romantic comedies since people often write them off without seeing the film. About Time, Crazy, Stupid, Love, The Devil Wears Prada, Easy A, and 10 Things I Hate About You, being certain examples of this. Yes, they are aimed at women. Yes, they are cheesy. However, they also perfectly execute the rom-com formula. With likable characters, likable partners, and strong character development, Bridget Jones may be incredibly cliche and overly romantic for manly men, but it has what many cliche films miss. The only problem with cliche is when the film using it misses the essence of the cliche. Just having two people kiss does not make it effective. Having two people fall in love does not make it effective. Rather, having there be passion, emotion, chemistry, relatability, and heart makes it effective. Many films that use cliches often miss this. Yet, thanks to strong writing, Bridget's anguish and loneliness becomes your own. Thus, when she finds her man, you swoon. It makes you care and want to smile right along with her.

Comedically, Bridget Jones does find some faults due to an over-reliance on cringe comedy. It causes me physical pain and is not my style. Putting the protagonist in such awkward positions it makes me have to look away from the screen is not funny. Though the film can be cute and charming with its comedy for the most part, there are a few too many scenes deeply reliant on making me cringe, which is an absolute shame.

An undeniable piece of pop cinema infused with late 90s/early 00s pop music that makes you want to dance in your seat, Bridget Jones's Diary is a truly enjoyable romantic comedy with likable characters and a romance you care about. Plus, who among us has not indulged in overly enthusiastic singing of our favorite songs behind closed doors? It is certainly worth noting that Renee Zellweger's air guitar skills were on point.



8/10 - Touching on ideas that director David Cronenberg would later bring back again in a different way in eXistenZ such as alternate realities, flesh guns, and being plugged in/controlled through your body. Showcasing significant paranoia about cults, the government, and new technology, Videodrome is a truly unique and thoroughly Cronenberg (read: weird) experience. Packed to the brim with his trademark body horror, this one is quite a ride.

As with his later exercises in eXistenZ, Videodrome showcases oddly solid special effects that seem so real that you could reach out and touch the torso vagina bursting out of Max Renn (James Woods). Many Cronenberg films have these oddly realistic looking body horror sequences that never seem comical, but downright horrifying. The Fly had a lot of these elements as well and it really demonstrates Cronenberg's wheelhouse. He knows body horror better than anybody and he is not afraid to showcase his skill in this arena. In spite of his manipulation of the reality around us and within his typically realistic settings, the films always feel so horrifically real. Though exaggerations of the world around us, films such as Videodrome often mirror seedy elements of our world and bring them to us in a thoroughly visceral manner. While things such as those depicted in this film would not happen, some form of them certainly does (namely cults, non-literal mind control, snuff films, and the "subterrainian market"). Cronenberg has a knack for bringing these elements to the forefront of our mind and is truly horrifying.

The film's usage of alternate realities is also splendid as, once the concept is introduced, you can never truly be sure what is a hallucination. Hell, everything could be. Is there even a show called Videodrome or is Max Renn just psychotic? How much of this happened? Did he ever actually meet Nicki Brand (Debbie Harry) and others? There are so many possibilities and this is a prime example of how Cronenberg can mess with your mind. He not only distorts reality through his realistic settings and people juxtaposed against his body horror and unique special effects, but also through alternate timelines. Things that seem so real to Max appear to have been nothing but another hallucination. However, things can certainly go in the reverse and things that appear to be hallucinations could easily be reality. Things he imagined he hallucinated could have truly happened and the hallucination merely convinces him they did not. Weird, I know.

Cronenberg's toying with killing in the name of some movement or cult is another link one can draw to his later film eXistenZ (and I am sure others, that one just happens to be one I watched). In both films, characters kill people in the name of some movement. Here, Cronenberg makes it all the more horrifying by showing that everybody is playing for the same team and is truly being played, as we will soon all be under the control of "Videodrome". This paranoia runs rampant throughout the film as one must one is Cronenberg keeps himself up at night wondering if he is under the control of some mysterious cult that is just waiting for the right moment to use him to further their goals. Poor guy. As it stands, he certainly has me paranoid after watching Videodrome. This film is dripping with paranoia in every shot, especially due to the acting of James Woods. An incredibly natural, everyman type actor (in spite of his clearly negative characterization, he seems relatively normal), his persona really brings a further level of horror to Videodrome. The paranoia he experiences and the violence he is forced to undergo feels so close to us, which makes it all the creepier.

As a whole, Videodrome is a very good body horror film from the master of the subgenre. Gleefully messing with our mind and our concepts of what can and cannot be real in the world and in film, this one showcases all that Cronenberg does well as a director. With significant paranoia, fear, and confusion in every sequence, you simply never know where everyone stands and what is actually occurring, which truly adds to the horror of it all.



8/10 - In 1954, director Gordon Douglas unleashed upon the world his now science fiction classic, Them! The film depicts the after effects of a nuclear tests that has resulted in huge killer ants. Apparently, after years of being stepped on and killed with ant bait, the species was pissed at humans and were not afraid to show it. 52 years later, the same phenomenon arose in South Korea. Except, it presented the chance for fish to exact their revenge on humanity after millenia of being prey. And exact revenge is certainly the only thing this fish monster is interested in. Created as a result of an American scientist's unwillingness to properly dispose of formaldehyde, this fish is out to wreak havoc on the race that brought it into existence in the name of all of its fish friends. The Host is a truly thrilling, emotionally moving, oddly funny, and expertly executed science fiction film with clear political undertones.

Often times, films such as that offer some emotional moments wind up being far too sentimental. Bong Joon-ho avoids this trap by showcasing real, raw emotion. The pain showcased by all of the characters and the family bonds that are tested through these traumatic events bring an incredible sense of realism. These moments are not overdone or overly emotional. Rather, they are impassioned, low-key, and subtle. What is not subtle, however, is the love held by Park Gang-du (Song Kang-ho) for his daughter Park Hyun-seo (Go Ah-sung). The two's love for one another as father and daughter is terrifically developed and feels authentic to the point that when things go awry for the two, your heart bleeds for them.

The emotional authenticity is just one solid element of this film, as the entirety of the characters are well developed. Though there is not a ton of depth given the type of film this is, what is introduced is always purposeful and used later on in the climax. This is emblematic of how tight this film is with very little filler, both in dialogue and in the general plot. The film shows us what it needs to in order for us to understand what is occurring. There are very few, if any, moments that really feel out of place or do not add to the story. While every scene is obviously not perfect, they all have a purpose and flow together incredibly well. Heck, even the odd moments of comedy tossed in the film, particularly in the refugee camp, work out pretty well and do showcase elements of the characters.

Cinematography-wise, there are a few scenes that stood out to me as being particularly well shot, namely the shot during the protest as agent yellow is released. The shot of the group of people standing with "Free Park Gang-du" shirts and being overtaken by agent yellow is tragic and beautifully executed. The shot itself is incredibly well framed with terrific use of color. Additionally, the final shot of the snack bar set against the ocean as snow falls to the ground was incredibly beautiful.

Politically, the message is clear: Bong Joon-ho does not like American or outside influence in South Korea. The military, American personnel in Korea, the doctors, and even the CDC are all shown negatively for exploiting the Koreans and not caring about what happens to them. Instead, they are shown as being more obsessed with Americans, their needs, and how it will effect the United States should any possible monster or virus appear in North America. The name "agent yellow" especially drives this home as it draws a direct link to Agent Orange in Vietnam and the disastrous effects it had on the Vietnamese and Americans in the country. Though Americans may not be literally killing Koreans at this point, it is clear that Bong Joon-ho is fearful that if their present level of indifference continues, the day in which Koreans die because of Americans is not far off. Thus, the film is not explicitly anti-American to me. Rather, it is a warning of what could happen and something that both sides should be aware of and planned ahead for.

As a whole, The Host provides thrills, emotion, and political overtones in this film about a fish monster killing people and taking them hostage (presumably to eat later). Though imperfect as it does have some iffy pacing at times and the ending feeling a little fortunate, The Host is still an incredibly tight and thrilling experience offered by Bong Joon-ho. Somehow, this is only my second film from him (Snowpiercer being the other). Clearly, I need to see more, even if Snowpiercer was just okay.



8/10 - The age old question to who let the dogs out has been answered. It was Christiane (Edith Scob) the entire time. Somebody should let the Baha Men know that their answer came 40 years before the song.

This haunting French film from director Georges Franju is a classic for good reason. It may be slow, but it feels relatively devoid of classic horror cliches. Rather, Eyes Without a Face is a film truly about guilt, emotional trauma, and depression. Like a black cloud, the atmosphere hangs over this film and it proves to be quite unsettling, even if it never downright scary. Rather, it is a thoroughly and subtly haunting experience that feels wholly unique and original.

With an odd score that often likes annoying carousel music, Eyes Without a Face is a film determined to buck expectations. By the end, the once annoying carousel music turns into a menacing sound due to the implication about what is set to begin when it is heard. The same can be said about the general plot. It honestly sneaks up on you. While I knew what the film is about, the true horror of this film is revealed in the details as you realize that Doctor Genessier (Pierre Brasseur) sincerely believes he must do this for Christiane. He is obviously a sick individual, but also one suffering greatly from grief and trauma over the situation he caused for his beloved daughter. Though one has to be sick to go to these lengths, the emotional trauma and helplessness he feels is intensely relatable.

That said, the scene in which he actually takes off a girl's face is pure horror. While much of the film can be more accurately described as psychological horror, this one sequence puts it over the edge. So calculated, so graphic, and so horrifying to think of the ramifications of this sequence, I am weak so I had to look away, but it was still traumatic. The sequence is that good. This same trauma is shown at the end when Christiane frees her father's last captive and the dogs he experimented upon. Given her great levels of depression, one must assume that Christiane has finally given up all hope and will kill herself at long last. The sheer hopelessness of this element of the film really underscores its balance between true horror and a film that explores the depths one can be driven to from grief.

A classic of the genre, Eyes Without a Face has had clear influence on later films (Halloween, Face/Off for example) and with good reason. It can be a bit slow a times, but is more than rewarding and proves to be a highly haunting experience when it is all said and done.

9/10 - I would like to motion for a critical reappraisal of Brian De Palma's absolutely terrific Snake Eyes. Terrifically thrilling, Snake Eyes features Nicolas Cage as Richard Santoro, a charismatic and corrupt Atlantic City police detective who witnesses an assassination during a boxing match. Supported by a strong supporting performance from Gary Sinise as Commander Kevin Dunne, Snake Eyes is a spellbinding conspiracy thriller that is terrific to the very last drop.

Featuring all of De Palma's major trademarks, Snake Eyes is a showcase for his lovely camera work. The tracking shot at the very beginning of Richard Santoro walking through the arena is terrific, but what makes it all the much better is De Palma's repeated use of split-screen later on in the film that showcases how perception changes everything. For Santoro, he believed he knew what had occurred during the shooting. He thought he knew the players. It was only through speaking to Julia Costello (Carla Gugino) and Lincoln Tyler (Stan Shaw) that his eyes were opened. De Palma does a terrific job of using the split-screen to showcase the different perspectives a situation can have and how that can lead to false conclusions if you do not have both takes on a situation.

The camera work also comes into play when Julia is going up to a man's room and the camera pans through an aerial shot of the rooms on the floor. While it may not add much to the overall film, it was incredibly stylish and highlighted a very important element to the story: it was not about the assassination. In every room, people were either celebrating something completely unrelated or changing the channel from the news. For De Palma, this essentially serves to refocus the audience on what actually matters: the characters. Having read the critical reception, I was particularly struck by a quote from De Palma himself in which he stated, "There's a lot of discussion in Snake Eyes about why do we reveal who did it so soon. Well the problem is that it isn't about who did it. It's a mystery about a relationship, two people, and how finding that out affects their relationship... Those kind of procedural movies are extremely boring..." In essence, for me, many critics wind up missing the point of the film. While I loved it a conspiracy thriller and thought it was thoroughly captivating in this regard, De Palma's aim was to showcase the fracturing of the friendship between Santoro and Dunne when Santoro finds out the truth about his long time friend. Thus, the sequence in which he shows everyone ignoring the news of the assassination, it becomes clear that De Palma is trying to nudge the audience away from the murder mystery aspect and onto the character study.

As a character study, the film is equally riveting. Richard Santoro's reaction to the news, as relayed to him by Julia Costello who was revealing the conspiracy to the assassinated Secretary of Defense when the killing happened, is perfection. Cage brings the emotions to life and wears them on his sleeve in this sequence as you can see Santoro's heartbreak and, at first, deny that this is what occurred. His dedication to his friend is being tested, but he knows that it is true. When he finds video evidence confirming what she had told him was true, his heartbreak over losing his childhood friend is shattering and tremendous cinema. This is truly where the writing from David Koepp excels, as he manages to develop his characters so well, while also subtly keeping them within their characters even if its seems out-of-character, if that makes sense. For Santoro, he is established as being an adulterer and a corrupt cop. Yet, he wants to be mayor, which is why he wants to solve this case. For him, he may put on a facade of being charismatic and magnanimous, but deep down, he wants more than his current lot in life. For Kevin Dunne, he may seem like the "goody two shoes", but instead he is ruthless and manipulative, willing to do anything to get ahead. These characters truly come to life thanks to the writing from Koepp.

Another element captured incredibly well by De Palma is the chaos. This element is really put on display during the assassination, which is a chaotic, thrilling, and hectic sequence that is equally hectically shot. You can hardly tell what is going on and can feel your own heart beating as this sequence unfolds. This feeling is sustained throughout the film, in large part due to the free flowing camera of De Palma. It truly captures the significant amount of moving parts within the film and the chaos, as the long tracking shots emphasize. In particular, the opening tracking shot involves numerous different moments that could be a scene all on their own. Santoro runs into many different people and the camera struggles to keep up with him. The chaos inside is backdropped by the events outside where a hurricane is ravishing Atlantic City. The news teams covering the event and the entire character of Lou Logan (Kevin Dunn) all had to the conflict and adds yet another piece of hecticness to the events faced by Richard Santoro on this night.

Finally, the film's use of color is spectacular on the eye. The blends of the purples, blues, greens, and brownish golds, all work perfectly together. It looks terrific and gives the film a truly eye-catching and truly unique color-palette. There are not many films I can think of that rely on these colors, but it does make a lot of sense, given that the colors are "cold colors". Given the cold nature of Kevin Dunne's demeanor and how cold and calculated this assassination is (even willingly setting up his friend Santoro), the colors really accent the emotion and feeling the film invokes.

I may be one of the few to truly love Snake Eyes. Given the critical and fan reception to this film, there are not many defenders of this brilliant film from Brian De Palma out there. Yet, I will gladly hold the mantle and defend Snake Eyes. A terrific blend of conspiracy thriller and character study, the film features great acting, writing, and typically terrific camera work for De Palma.



6/10 - Family entertainment on steroids, Speed Racer is a frenetically paced visual extravaganza that elicited a strictly mixed response from me. Often times, the film could best be described as an incredibly rich chocolate cake. For some, they enjoy lots of sugar, especially children, but certainly some adults. Other adults, including myself, get nauseous because something is too sweet. Speed Racer is often times this feel. It may be a family film, but it seemed to pour it on a little thick at times. Telling the story of Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) and his quest to clean up racing, a sport he was born into, the film is a thoroughly entertaining effort from the Wachowskis that will certainly wow anime fans, action junkies, and children, but for all others, it will be merely diverting entertainment.

An undeniable visual accomplishment, Speed Racer features absolutely killer special effects. When the humans are set against the backdrop of these special effects, it can look quite fake, though that may be intentional. That said, the Caso Cristo 5000 and Grand Prix races are so pretty and incredibly crafted, it is incredible. These sequences, when focused on the race, are tremendous. Yet, these sequences are even held back by the Wachowskis insistence to frequently have jarring cuts to announcers and the crowd with them just talking about Speed Racer kicking everyone's ass. It really kills the mood and does not entertain, but rather annoys. It is a film that has racing obsessed characters, but yet the directors seem wholly uninterested in actually showing racing during the races.

That said, the frenetic pace of the film during the races really adds to the entertainment. Without the racing, this film would be horrifically bad. Without the special effects, this film would be truly hollow, as beneath the surface, Speed Racer offers absolutely nothing. A paper thin plot that is every family movie cliche rolled into one, Speed Racer utilizes cloying sentimentality, stupid flashback montages (especially the one at the end for Racer X), and cliche parent-son conversations to reinforce the image of it being a film about family. If this were at all true, the parents would not be every parent cliche in the book. For example, Pops Racer (John Goodman) is a hard on the outside, but loves his family deeply. He loves car, working on cars, and can be incredibly hard nosed when his wife, Mom Racer (Susan Sarandon), is not around to stop him. Mom Racer, on the other hand, exclusively cooks, serves her husband and sons, and has heart-to-hearts with her son about her pride over him and to help communicate his father's feelings to him. In other words, the characters are walking, talking cliches.

The characters continue to take nosedives in this one with Spritle (Paulie Litt) being wildly annoying. I get there has to be a kid character for kids to relate to a bit, but he is just so annoying it physically hurt. His chimpanzee companion added nothing. No humor, nothing. I think he is from the source material, but could have certainly been left out. It may be a kids movie, but why add a chimp? Do kids just like real life chimps that much? As a former kid, I can attest that this is not the case.

Speed Racer is that hot girl with no personality whatsoever. She may be fun for a while, but when you realize she has no personality worth sticking around for, you realize it may be time to move on. That said, the experience is not completely unredeemable, because hey, she is still hot and you two did have a good time together. However, for anything long-term to really work out, there has be something underneath the surface. Some kind of inner beauty. Unfortunately, Speed Racer offers none of that. Instead, it accepts being nothing but eye candy while being unwilling to offer anything. At the very least, it is better than Jupiter Ascending which, while equally pretty, was plain dumb. Speed Racer is a kids movie, so most stupid moments I can write off for that reason and give it a pass. Overall, stick around for the visuals because they make this one worth a watch.

I might be the only person on earth who prefers the Kutcher Steve Jobs movie to the Fassbender one, and Quarantine to Rec.

Thank you to My boys @Merica and @Ragnar for the lovely sigs!

Originally posted by Maxy@Oct 3 2016, 09:55 PM
I might be the only person on earth who prefers the Kutcher Steve Jobs movie to the Fassbender one, and Quarantine to Rec.

I am second then who likes Kutcher as Jobs better than Fassbender version

Originally posted by Maxy@Oct 3 2016, 02:55 PM
I might be the only person on earth who prefers the Kutcher Steve Jobs movie to the Fassbender one, and Quarantine to Rec.

Haven't seen Kutcher's Steve Jobs or Quarantine, so can't really compare.

I saw spangs give a 1/10 and a 9/10 rather than the usual 2/10 and 8/10. today was a good day

Originally posted by TheLastOlympian07@Oct 3 2016, 04:10 PM
I saw spangs give a 1/10 and a 9/10 rather than the usual 2/10 and 8/10. today was a good day

Lol, I don't really ever give 2's though. Fair about the 1's and 9's though. Plus, FUCK CUJO THE MOVIE BLOWS ASS CHUNKS.

Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 3 2016, 01:42 PM


Lol, I don't really ever give 2's though. Fair about the 1's and 9's though. Plus, FUCK CUJO THE MOVIE BLOWS ASS CHUNKS.

yea I guess its mnore 3/10 or 7/10 too rarely do we see a good 1/10 or 9/10 :o I don't think I ever saw a 10/10 doe

Originally posted by TheLastOlympian07@Oct 3 2016, 06:41 PM

yea I guess its mnore 3/10 or 7/10 too rarely do we see a good 1/10 or 9/10 :o I don't think I ever saw a 10/10 doe

Makes sense since I've only ever rated 16 films a 10. This year just Casablanca, The Tree of Life, and Battleship Potemkin made the cut. Other 13 being:

Silence of the Lambs
The Fountain
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Synecdoche, New York
The Shining
Psycho
Good Will Hunting
LA Confidential
LOTR: Return of the King
The Dark Knight
Finding Nemo
It Follows

Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 3 2016, 03:40 PM


Makes sense since I've only ever rated 16 films a 10. This year just Casablanca, The Tree of Life, and Battleship Potemkin made the cut. Other 13 being:

Silence of the Lambs
The Fountain
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Synecdoche, New York
The Shining
Psycho
Good Will Hunting
LA Confidential
LOTR: Return of the King
The Dark Knight
Finding Nemo
It Follows

I've only watched 4 of these movies so I will have to check out the rest

Originally posted by TheLastOlympian07@Oct 3 2016, 07:42 PM

I've only watched 4 of these movies so I will have to check out the rest

Definitely do. They're all terrific though you could probably skip Battleship Potemkin unless you plan on taking film classes. Otherwise, it's not really the same type or level of entertainment as the rest.

Out of curiosity, which ones have you seen and what did you think?

Also, I do have this list on Letterboxd. Heavily skewed towards more recent releases but still. It does attempt to be ranked.

http://letterboxd.com/kjones77/list/top-100-films/

Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 3 2016, 03:46 PM


Definitely do. They're all terrific though you could probably skip Battleship Potemkin unless you plan on taking film classes. Otherwise, it's not really the same type or level of entertainment as the rest.

Out of curiosity, which ones have you seen and what did you think?

The Silence of the Lambs, LOTR RotK, The Dark knight and Finding Nemo

silence of the lambs was a great movie and I was surprised at how much I liked it considering its an older movie. oddly enough, I liked return but Idk liked Two towers more than the other 2. dark Knight is the Dark Knight Heath Ledger GOAT and Nemo makes me happy

Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 3 2016, 06:40 PM


Makes sense since I've only ever rated 16 films a 10. This year just Casablanca, The Tree of Life, and Battleship Potemkin made the cut. Other 13 being:

Silence of the Lambs
The Fountain
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Synecdoche, New York
The Shining
Psycho
Good Will Hunting
LA Confidential
LOTR: Return of the King
The Dark Knight
Finding Nemo
It Follows

Love all those except it follows