Mr. Nanny (1993)

Mr. Nanny

1993

Starring: Hulk Hogan, Sherman Hemsley, James Coffey, Ed Leslie, Arthur Anaoi

Directed By: Michael Gottlieb

Well, you guys picked the review, and Mr. Nanny was the lucky one to feel my wrath this time. So, without further ado, this review is about to get the "big boot and leg drop" combo...

A friend persuades the former wrestling star Sean Armstrong (Hulk Hogan) to do a job as bodyguard for the two kids of top manager Frank Mason - someone is threatening him to get the plans for a secret micro chip. But when Sean arrives at his house it turns out that he'll not only have to bodyguard the spoiled brats, but also be their nanny, since they again scared away their former one. From then on he's occupied more protecting himself from the kids than them from the villain.

Ok, with the synopsis out of the way, this movie is absolute garbage. There is no mistaking the bad acting and seeing as the Hulkster portrays a "washed up wrestler", it's obvious to me that he chooses roles close to his own heart. Everyone absolutely loved Hulk as a wrestler, but the only thing this guy had going for him was two moves that wouldn't even hurt an infant. So Hulk Hogan decides to start doing movies. When he first made this choice, that my friends was the beginning of the apocolypse. The sad thing about Mr. Nanny isn't the fact that Hulk Hogan is in it, it's the fact that Sherman Hemsley is. Mr. Hemsley was best known for his role as George Jefferson and has struggled since to break the Jefferson mold. The saddest part of all of this: Sherman agreed to do this movie.

On top of the over the top and bad acting, the plot is absolutely horrible. What believable concept is there in this whole fucking shit-fest you may ask? Not one. In fact, I've found handicapped people struggling in their wheelchairs more humorous. Remember that show Life Goes On with that kid with down syndrome? Well, Corky was a better actor than Hulk Hogan and delivered better performances than the entire cast of Mr. Nanny. So, what does that say about Mr. Nanny? It says that a fucking retard can act circles around the Hulkster and be more entertaining.

Now I don't have anything against retarded people, but it seems to me that one actually wrote and directed Mr. Nanny. Where is Michael Gottlieb now after Mr. Nanny? Well, it's no longer directing movies, that's for sure. This guy is responsible for some of the worst fucking movies of all time. Don't believe me, check out his resume': Mannequin (1987), The Shrimp on the Barbie (1990), Mr. Nanny (1993), and A Kid in King Arthur's Court (1995). Ok, this guy hasn't done shit in 11 years, and I know the royalties from Mr. Nanny aren't putting food on his table, so what's he been up to? Producing shitty video games. This guy needs his ass whipped on principle alone, but being the man responsible for also writing Mannequin 2, this guy needs the "big boot and leg drop" combo.

Needless to say, Mr. Nanny is filled with cliche after cliche and is so god awful that I'm sure some small rift in the space time continuum opened up and swallowed some careers on this one. In fact, I'm suprised Hulk Hogan even worked again after this one. It's bad enough he did Suburban Commando, but followed up by Mr. Nanny? Somone should have put the Hulkster down like a horse with a broken leg.

There isn't much more I can really say because this movie is so bad, I don't really feel like wasting much more of my precious time clubbing it in the head like a baby seal. There is not one good thing I can say about this movie except that when it's over, you're the happiest you've been in an hour and a half. I'd honestly rather watch the Hulkster get his ass beat by his family on his own tv show than by anyone else. At least on his tv show he's somewhat believable as someone who's playing a washed up wrestler.

All in all, I give this movie one giant leg drop from the top rope in hopes that I never have to subject myself to it again. As for the career of Sherman Hemsley: Rest In Peace.

Rating:

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny (2006)

Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny

2006

Starring: Jack Black, Kyle Gass, Jason Reed, Ronnie James Dio, Meatloaf, Tim Robbins, Ben Stiller

Directed By: Liam Lynch

For those not in the know, Tenacious D is a band that goes back to the late 90's. Started in Tim Robbins' comedy troupe, Jack Black and Kyle Gass decided they had more in common that just music... they also wanted to form the greatest band on the earth. It's quite possible they achieved their goal. After launching their efforts on HBO as a short-lived series featuring short films and skits combined with original music, Tenacious D then went on to make a platinum selling debut album.

The Pick of Destiny (or POD as listed on the soundtrack album to save space) tells the ficticious origin of Tenacious D and their quest to become the greatest band in the world. Before we go any further, this movie is done in the way of "rock opera" mixed with "dick & fart" jokes. In other words, it's kind of like an explicit Blues Brothers. If you don't like Tenacious D or that type of film, don't even bother, because you won't get that type of humor and enjoy yourself. If you do "get it", then by all means, watch this fucking movie.

The movie opens with a young JB (short for Jack Black) rocking out an explicit song in front of his overly religious parents (dad played by Meatloaf). His dad tears down all of his rock posters and tells him that rock 'n roll is of the devil. So, young JB prays to Ronnie James Dio (of Black Sabbath fame-- post Ozzie) to give him the answer. Dio informs JB that he must go to Hollywood to persue his dreams, so JB sets off, thus putting the film in motion. He leaves as a young boy and finally arrives in Hollywood as an adult.

Strolling down Venice Beach, JB runs into KG (Kyle Gass for short), who is rocking the acoustic guitar like nobody's business. JB convinces KG to teach him the ways of ROCK, and thus sets the events of the film in motion. After a mediocre response to their first gig, JB and KG try and figure out what the key to "rock" is, thus bringing to light that there is a "pick of destiny". The pick is part of Satan's tooth and has been passed down for ages so that one may "rock" in an unholy and supernatural fashion.

So, the two set off to find the Pick of Destiny, which happens to be locked up tight and heavily secured at a museum for Rock 'n Roll. The film finally culminates with a showdown between The D and Satan in an epic "Rock Off", showcasing who is the better at rocking.

The movie isn't without it's flaws, but they are only minor. My biggest gripe is that the movie was a tad bit short, and at 97 minutes, it feels that some parts are rushed and not fleshed out enough. However, like I said above, if you like "rock opera" and Tenacious D, you're going to blow a load in your pants at the sheer awesomeness of this movie.

The acting is absolutely hilarious. With an excellent soundtrack by The D, Jack and Kyle rock out the whole movie while interweaving comedic bits throughout. The music tells the story for the most part, but it's the performances that bring about how passionate these two are about their music. It doesn't matter if the lyrics are filled with profanity and humor, it's the spirit of the music that brings about the essence of what's trying to be portrayed. I would have to say that this is Tenacious D at their comedic best.

The rest of the film is filled with virtual no-names in supporting roles, but they do their job of basically portraying nobody's, so it's all good. The cameos on the other hand are brilliant. Ronnie James Dio, Meatloaf, Ben Stiller, Collin Hanks, Tim Robbins, and Dave Grohl fill the movie with off beat cameo performances that don't overshadow any other actor and only elevate how influential The D has become in Hollywood. The Tim Robbins cameo is probably the best, and it will suprise you at just how "straight" but funny his performance is.

The script, as I touched on above, feels rushed in a few spots, but nothing too bad. It's very, very funny, and filled with comedic gags that are completely original and gags that touch on some of The D's older skits. It's a good mixture of old and new and only true fans of The D will catch everything.

The direction is simply... mediocre. Nothing out of the ordinary, but nothing bad. Liam Lynch has been friends with JB and KG for years, so he basically just turned the camera on and let them do their thing. This is good, because it's The D's movie, but he also brings nothing really new or original to the table. It's shot like a typical comedy that's mixed with the style of a rock opera. I feel he just studied The Who's Tommy and The Blues Brothers, and just turned the camera on for The D. I'm not bashing, but instead just trying to make a point that he brought nothing new or fresh to the table. He didn't do bad, just average.

The editing is really good, but it's a comedy, so there's no flashy cuts or anything like that. It's all simple cuts and it works.

The special fx are great, and this is mainly because it's a comedy, so what special fx there are, they aren't cheap or cheesy looking. They fit, and that's that. It works. I will say this, there is a part where JB uses his "member" to turn off a security system, and it's probably the most realistic looking fake "member" I've seen used in a comedy. Yes, I said his "member". I could only imagine what the fx artist was thinking after he read the script. "You want me to create what??"

Overall, Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny is a classic. Though Hollywood and most film critics will bash this movie because of their own ignorance, I had a blast watching it. I felt that it did The D justice without watching them "sell out" in the process. It was a hilarious ride of a movie, and though I wish it would have been a tad bit longer, it was great. I really have no complaints and would only have to nit-pick it to death to even begin being mean. This movie had serious balls, and I'm not just talking about JB's "member".

Rating:

Saw 3 (2006)

Saw 3

2006

Starring: Tobin Bell, Shawnee Smith, Angus Macfayden, Bahar Soomekh

Directed By: Darren Lynn Bousman

Well, well, well. We're at number three, sequel number two, just two years after the release of the first Saw movie. Now, I'll admit, I liked the first movie and thought it's mind-fuck ending was very refreshing in today's horror films. Then came number two. I loved the movie and found it more entertaining than the first, although the ending wasn't as messed up, it brought the two films full-circle. And along came number three...

Basically, if you haven't seen any of the movies and don't want to be spoiled about anything, stop reading right here or skip to the bottom of the review for the rating. If you don't care or are just morbidly curious, continue on with me. I rarely hate to give spoilers away, but seeing as it's vital to the understanding of the first two films as well as the third, I'll explain what I can without giving too much away. I'll say this though, YOU HAVE TO SEE THE FIRST TWO MOVIES TO KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON!!!! If you haven't seen them, well then you're about as lost as President Bush in the White House.

Saw 3 opens with a murder..torture scene. What relevence this scene has with the rest of the movie is beyond me, but seeing a guy get ripped apart by chains is pretty cool. Then, the lady cop from the second movie (name escapes me) investigates the murder and figures out that it can't be Jigsaw, because he didn't give the option for escape. Then, with complete randomness, the cop is kidnapped, dunks her hand in acid to get out of a trap, and then has her ribcage torn from her body. Thus ending any type of police action or investigation. From there we find out that Jigsaw, having escaped the clutches of the law in part 2, is dying from some type of blood clot on the brain. So he and his assistant Amanda kidnap a female doctor and hold her hostage so that she can keep Jigsaw alive while he does one final test.

Here is where I stop giving out spoilers and just go with the review. This is the basic plot, you know keeping Jigsaw alive so he can pull one final number on someone, but the movie is filled with so many flashbacks that you'll soon question what the hell you're watching. Is this a Saw movie or something directed by Penny Marshall? While the flashbacks serve a point (which is to show what happened "behind the scenes" in the first two movies and set up an emotional and unusual plot device for this film), they become a little much and you just find yourself waiting for someone to get mutilated. Which, by the way, isn't that why people go see the Saw movies? To see someone get hacked to pieces?

While the movie has gore in it, there isn't a whole lot compared to part 2. In fact, it seems as if someone turned down the gore dial for this one. Then once the gore dial was turned down, the emotional and sappy dial was turned up several notches. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but considering the overall arc of the first two films, this one seems somewhat out of place. While I won't get into the emotional aspects, I will say that they feel forced and should have been toned down for such a movie.

The acting in the film wasn't bad, but I've seen better. It seems the acting from the first film was probably the best of the series, but here it could have been a lot worse when I think back on it. The overall acting was decent at best, but what sticks out in my mind is Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his performance. He did a great job in part 2 and just continues his twisted performance here. Nothing that is knocked out of the ballpark or stands out as phenominal acting, but decent all around the board.

The script is a little weak, especially considering how rough part 2 was on the old stomach. The dialogue in some scenes comes across as sappy and watered down, but overall, it's a fairly solid script. My only real problem was the added emotional sub-plot mixed with the 2 million flashback sequences. The "twist" ending isn't really here, and if it was, I missed the twist. The only real twist involves how the characters are all related, so if you pay attention, you'll see it coming from about ten minutes in. So here, the setup is alright, but the payoff is kind of lame and convoluted. I will say that I've seen worse from the first sequel in other franchises, so I can't be too harsh from the second sequel in the Saw franchise.

The directing is ok, but I felt that Darren Bousman had it together a little better on the second film. As you may or may not know, this is his second Saw film, so maybe he got a little bored. Anyway, it's a stylish looking movie, but nothing spectacular or anything we haven't seen already from Hollywood in the last five years. Plenty of smash-cuts, fast-cuts, and fuzzy ass dissolves make Saw 3 have the appearance of every other trendy horror..Hollywood film in the last several years. I can't really put all the blame here on Bousman, but ultimately it was his picture, so who else takes the bullet besides the director? Certainly not the Best Boy or Key Grip (watch the end credits of any movie if you're fucking clueless as to what these are). All in all, I feel that he did a better job with Saw 2, but did a decent job here.

The special fx..gore wasn't really anything to write home to momma about either. While it was cool in some sequences, other sequences didn't feel as well thought out as they probably should have been. Ok, let's put someone in a trap and pull out their chest. How can we do this? Ok, how about this.... Sounds good, we'll do it. That's probably the extent of the conversation just before filming the chest ripping scene. Anyway, the gore fx and makeup weren't bad. They were actually pretty good fx, however some of the circumstances..situations surrounding them made it come across as poorly planned.

All in all, Saw 3 is a good finale to the series, but could have been better. A lot better. The only thing puzzling me is the way this one ended, there shouldn't be anymore Saw movies. Then I read today that Tobin Bell (Jigsaw) was signed on for a 4th and 5th movie. This saddens me because I feel that they might start getting progressively worse as they go along. So, next Halloween I guess we'll get to see, SAW 4: THE RETURN OF JIGSAW!!! Why, God, WHY CAN'T THEY JUST END IT AND LET IT BE???

Rating:

Slither (2006)

Slither

2006

Starring: Nathan Fillion, Michael Rooker, Elizabeth Banks, Gregg Henry

Directed By: James Gunn

Slither was one of those movies where you saw the trailer once, then never heard of it again until they started forcing the DVD down your throat by commercials. My brother kept telling me "Stephen, you HAVE to see this movie!! It's freakin' hilarious!". So, the DVD came out today, so I figured I'd just buy it and check it out.

My brother and I rarely agree on movies except for horror movies. I must say, he was right. Slither is one of those flicks that keeps you interested and doesn't insult you in the process. It's straight up gore, scares, and comedy. In fact, movies don't get much better. Seeing as Slither was a Universal release, I was suprised that it wasn't pushed as much at the theater. Then I realized who was behind it, and then it hit me. I'll get to this later.

Slither is a combination of Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, but it really can't be compared to those. If it had to be compared to something else, I guess that would have to be it. The movie starts out with a meteorite hurling itself toward Earth. It lands in a remote area of (believe it or not) South Carolina, where the local citizens celebrate deer hunting season like Christmas. The citizens of Wheelsey, SC are soon thrust into one of the most bizarre and entertaining events I've seen in a long while.

I don't want to spoil too much, but after a while, slugs begin to take over the locals and form a collective similar to The Borg in Star Trek. It's up to the local bumkin sheriff, mayor, and a small band of others to rid their peaceful town of this new menace.

The reason I mentioned Universal NOT pushing this movie is because of the writer..director James Gunn. He's written a few movies as of late like Scooby Doo 1&2 as well as the remake of Dawn of the Dead. He also wrote a little known B-movie for Troma called Tromeo & Juliet. It seems to me that anyone associated with Troma (or still supports them I should say) is basically shunned within the ranks of Hollywood. This sucks because Troma is responsible for some of the best indie movies of all time. There's even a scene in Slither where a chick is watching The Toxic Avenger, so Gunn hasn't forgotten his roots. Anyway, I digress. The writing and directing in this movie is actually really, really good. I was suprised that an unknown B-movie in this genre could be this damn good. James Gunn is impressive here and has created a fan out of me with this impressive piece of work. Though is starts out a tad bit slow, it builds to a really nice pace and doesn't hold back for the last hour.

The acting is another thing that suprised me about Slither. It too is actually really, really good. From Michael Rooker to Nathan Fillion to the mad-ball and insane mayor, Gregg Henry. The characters are really down to earth and have apparently spent time in South Carolina researching backwoods podunk citizens. The acting in combination with the excellent writing makes for a good mix of characters with great development. There is even a cameo from Troma head, Lloyd Kaufman as a "Sad Drunk" and Rob Zombie lends his voice as a doctor via a phonecall, so Gunn pays tribute to those who apparently have inspired him.

The special fx..makeup are top-notch, especially (like I said above) for a B-movie. There are times where I found myself questioning whether CGI or traditional makeup and monster fx were used, which is a good thing. The gore level in the film is quite high, but not as bad as you would think it would or should be. It's a good mix of gore and blood with zany characters and monsters, so it all equals out to a good time. There are some really cool death sequences that are both gory and original.

The DVD is really cool with a ton of extra features. One of my favorites is a Lloyd Kaufman set visit which chronicles what goes into his cameo in the film. Although it's a short little documentary, it was fun seeing Lloyd sporting the same little camera my son and I were in front of while hanging out with him at Screamfest '06. There are several deleted and extended scenes as well as a commentary and several other little documentaries, so there's enough Slither material to keep you busy for a while.

All in all, Slither was a fun ride for me and reminded me of the classic 70's & 80's B-movies that I love so dear. It was a guilty pleasure enjoying this movie and something I want to watch several times over and enjoy for years to come. Slither has become an instant classic with me, so expect to hear me recommending it for a very long time. If I can say one final thing for Slither, it had balls. Something I wish most movies nowadays had.

Rating:

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006)

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

2006

Starring: R. Lee Ermy, Jordana Brewster, Taylor Handley, Andrew Bryniarski

Directed By: Jonathan Liebesman

First let me say that this is a prequel to the 2003 remake of the 1974 original film. Leaving the original one be for now, I liked the remake and felt that the Marcus Nispel direction took the remake into the right feel, though nothing will ever beat the original Tobe Hooper 1974 classic.

With that said, The Beginning starts before the remake and takes place in 1969. Holden and his brother Dean are being led across Texas by their girlfriends so that they can be carted off to Vietnam. It's Holden's second tour and Dean is a little apprehensive about joining up for war. In the meantime, we find out that Lee's Meat Plant is closing and hundreds are going to be without jobs, so basically the whole town is packing up and leaving. Well, everyone but the Hewitt family.

The two brothers and their girls stop in this bumpkin town on their way to war for the girls to use the bathroom. After leaving a store, a biker chick tries to basically run them off the road to rob them blind. In what is probably one of the coolest horror movie car crashes, the boys crash their jeep into a cow. That's right, a cow. It's either tragic or hilarious... depends on how you see life I guess. Personally, I found it funny as all Hell. After this, things only go downhill for the main four cast members.

Now, on to why it's called The Beginning. We get to see why the Hewitt family started their little killing spree, but here instead of Leatherface standing as the foremost psychopath, Sheriff Hoyt stands tall as the ringleader of them all. We get a partial origin of Leatherface, but ultimately, we the audience are left with most of his life to our imaginations. This is good as far as trusting your audience, but there's something missing in seeing a young Thomas Hewitt (Leatherface) get picked on on the playground. The rest of the "family" sort of fill in the gaps with their own eccentricities, but Hoyt stands alone as the "mastermind" of the killings.

In what is probably his best role since Full Metal Jacket, and maybe a role that rivals that role, R. Lee Ermy knocks the character of Sheriff Hoyt out of the park. He's totally creepy, funny, and psychotic all in one grizzled and rough package. With more insight into his character than the previous film, we begin to understand "why" and then just go with it. Basically, this IS R. Lee Ermy's movie and Leatherface is just a minor role. We do get to see Leatherface's "first human mask", so that's a BIG plus in my book.

As far as the rest of the acting is concerned, I didn't see anything that I hadn't in any other Chainsaw movie before. Nothing special, but nothing bad. Everyone serves their purpose for the film, which is basically to make Sheriff Hoyt be as evil and demented as possible. The main teen cast is disposable, which is what we've come to expect from horror movies as of late. To be honest, I always root for the badguy and was hoping it wouldn't be long before the first teen got what they had coming.

The direction is decent, but not as good as the first film (or 2003 remake). A lot felt borrowed from the remake, but I guess the new director wanted to keep continuity up, so there wasn't anything out of place. Though I can't say there was anything really dynamic about the direction. Camera shots were good and the pacing was decent, but nothing to write home to momma about.

The gore and makeup fx were great though. I'd say more gore and better fx than the remake had. But isn't that ultimately why we go see horror movies? Gore, blood, death, and scares. If you like gore and blood in movies, this one doesn't hold back. Though some of the shots were cut short of the "money shot" so to speak, I expect that was the decision of the MPAA and not the filmmakers.

The script was decent too, but kind of lacked some of the elements that made the remake great. I think the story was propelled forward better in the remake, but isn't done too bad here. Just a couple of slow places make you wonder why they chose to do some things, but nothing that will make you hate the film.

Ultimately, The Beginning was a solid film and a good installment to the Chainsaw franchise. I would have done a few things a little different, but I won't complain and gripe because I feel I got my money's worth. The ending comes a little short with the setup they give, but if you think about it, the 2003 remake is set up perfectly if you watch this one first. With that said, I recommend this movie to anyone who just loves the Chainsaw movies or to anyone who loves a decent horror flick. Though some of the audience jumped in places, I found nothing scary about it. In fact, I found myself laughing when others were gasping in terror and disgust, so I walked out of the theater satisfied and realizing that I'm a sick, sick man.

Rating:

Jeepers Creepers (2001)

Jeepers Creepers

2001

Starring: Justin Long, Gina Phillips, Jonathan Breck, Patricia Belcher

Directed By: Victor Salva

Ok, someone requested I do this review, so feeling bored and the need to go off on a bad movie, I decided to give it a go. So, Mike, this one's for you man.

Trish (Gina Phillips) and Darry Jenner (Justin Long) are brother and sister coming back home via the back roads for the holiday break. Their journey is uneventful until they are terrorised by 'some jerk' in a beat up old truck – an event they get over until they later see the driver unloading what looks like bodies into a hole as they drive past. Escaping the ensuing chase, Darry insists they go back to see what he was doing – something he deeply regrets doing when he finds mutilated and preserved bodies all over the inside of the pit. They escape the truck again but their attempts to get help lead to nothing and they find themselves battling much more than the psycho driver that they first feared.

From here, it only gets worse. In a clever attempt to first be a horror movie, then a creature feature, Jeepers Creepers loses any hope of being a good movie about fifteen to twenty minutes in. The rest of the time is spent wanting someone to die. Anyone. The cast, the monster, yourself... someone has to pay for this movie. As many "monster" movies as I've seen over the years, this is one that actually had balls... at first. Then, like I said, after the first act, the movie gets quickly neutered and sends you on a depression fit for the next hour.

Trying to decide between monster movie and horror movie (and yes, they're two different genre), Jeepers Creepers never decides on anything except... "Hey! We need a sequel!" No, you don't need a fucking sequel... but we got one anyway. But I'll save that review for another day when I need to vent some anger. The ending is supposed to be some kind of shocker where the audience is supposed to shit themselves, but instead the ending leaves you wanting to puch someone. Namely, the director and writer of this piece of garbage.

Trying to decide between monster movie and horror movie (and yes, they're two different genre), Jeepers Creepers never decides on anything except... "Hey! We need a sequel!" No, you don't need a fucking sequel... but we got one anyway. But I'll save that review for another day when I need to vent some anger. The ending is supposed to be some kind of shocker where the audience is supposed to shit themselves, but instead the ending leaves you wanting to puch someone. Namely, the director and writer of this piece of garbage.

The directing in this movie, like I said above, can't make up it's mind. Is it horror? Is it a monster movie? Is this a teen movie? What the fuck is it? It's not good, that's for sure. Victor Salva didn't use one original shot, idea, or anything else for that matter that didn't already come from something else. Remember the movies Hitchhiker or The Hitcher? Same premise but with a demonic twist.

The monster fx and makeup were decent at best, but nothing to brag about. I found it actually cool when we got to see the things wings, but two good seconds of a movie does not make one great. The gore fx were standard and nothing you really could create with $15 and a trip to Wal Mart at Halloween time.

As low budget as this film was, there was no excuse for the piss poor acting, directing, or writing. I don't care if people think this movie is scary or not, because those people are the one's who get scared when they see their own shadow. You fucking groundhogs you!

Anyway, I can only find one good thing to say about this movie: I only saw it once.

Rating:

Queen of the Damned (2002)

Queen of the Damned

2002

Starring: Aaliyah, Stuart Townsend, Vincent Perez, Paul McGann, Marguerite Moreau

Directed By: Michael Rymer

I don't know really how to tackle this review since I'm not a fan of the Anne Rice books, but I'll give it my best shot and try not to be too mean.

After many years of sleeping in his coffin, the vampire Lestat (Stuart Townsend) awakens only to find that the world has changed and he wants to be a part of it. He gathers a following and becomes a rock star (yes, rock star) only to find that his music awakens the ancient Queen Akasha (Aaliyah) and she wants him to become her king.

Aaliyah comes into this shitfest about halfway through the movie, so technically it should be called The Vampire Lestat vs. The Queen of the Damned. Sounds like a better movie doesn't it? Well, I wish that were the case. Other than having vampire rockstars, the movie is quite dull and boring, which I guess is a good translation of the Anne Rice novels.

I don't like the Anne Rice books. I liked the Interview with a Vampire movie, but honestly I think that was because it was directed very well and had a good script. I read the book and found it dull and boring. I read The Vampire Lestat and started Queen of the Damned before I quit reading for fear of dying prematurely of boredom. I decided to watch Queen of the Damned in hopes it would be like Interview, but was I ever mistaken and disappointed.

First off, the music. The score is by Jonathan Davis of Korn and the soundtrack is probably the worst excuse for marketing a soundtrack I've ever seen. The music in places is good, but overall has too much of an industrial sound that takes away from it being a vampire movie. Second, the script... it's just plain awful. I can't think of one good thing to say about the story. In fact, it's so bad that after watching this movie, Queen of the Damned makes Elton John look straight.

The acting in the movie actually sucks (pardon the pun). I can't say one nice thing about the acting or the actors. Aaliyah was trying to act, but I'm sure it was hard seeing as the novels are so fucking boring. I'm willing to bet that after reading the script and attempting to read the novels, the cast just gave up and starting improvising on how their characters should be. At least, that's my theory.

The directing in this movie is all over the place. Is this a rock opera? Is this a horror movie? Is it a drama or romance? Is it all of the above? Michael Rymer the director seemed to not have been able to make up his mind, so he put every genre he could think of into his creative blender and hit the puree button. I mean he's best known for doing work in television, which isn't a good resume to have going into a literary translation is it? How many episodes of Battlestar Galactica can you write and direct before you're ready for a feature film? My guess is one or two.

Everything else about this movie is complete crap except for maybe one or two fx shots, which are mediocre cgi shots at best. It must have been complete humiliation for the cast and crew at the world premiere of this movie. I'm thinking that Anne Rice may have had someone killed over this movie if she didn't kill herself first.

Rock star vampires, bad dialogue and story, bad acting and directing all culminate in what's probably one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, it's no wonder Aaliyah died prematurely. She probably sold her soul to get into films in the first place and after making this movie, someone came to collect. It's just not fair that this was her last movie. That's like being on death row and asking for steak as your last meal, then getting cheap imitation beef and having the bad after taste in your mouth all the way to the electric chair. To be honest, her family should have sued some people for leaving her fans with such a horrible last image of her. I'm not a fan of hers, but I can understand how her fans must feel.

All in all, this movie and everything about it is complete garbage. I'd rather watch a good vampire movie like Fright Night (which was made almost eight years prior) than this crap fest. Anyone who actually likes this movie must either be (a) completely oblivious to good vampire movies or (b) completely up Anne Rice's ass. This movie made me literally want to hurt people for blaspheming against the good name of vampires.

In closing and one final thought, Blacula and Vampire in Brooklyn are better movies.

Rating:

Silent Hill (2006)

Silent Hill

2006

Starring: Radha Mitchell, Sean Bean, Deborah Kara Unger, Laurie Holden, Kim Coates

Directed By: Christophe Gans

I heard a lot of good things about this movie and decided to give it a chance. First off, let me say that I'm of above average intelligence and consider myself very knowledgable when it comes to films and filmmaking. Second, let me say that I've never once played any Silent Hill video game, which this movie was based on.

Silent Hill is very confusing if you haven't played the games, so I did my own research (which I'll get to later) after watching this movie. I'll do my best to sum up what it's about without giving away any spoilers.

When Sharon starts having bad dreams about a place called Silent Hill, her parents start to freak. Her mother, Rose (Radha Mitchell), decides (against her husband's better wishes) to take their adopted daughter to Silent Hill to try and figure out why her daughter is creeping them the Hell out. On the way to Silent Hill West Virginia, the two are pulled over by a female motorcycle cop who looks like she was trying desperately to be in Terminator 2. Anyway, they crash and when Rose comes to, her daughter is missing, thus she begins the descent into Silent Hill to find her with the cop in tow. The Silent Hill they see is completely atmospheric and rains grey ash constantly.

Now, after realizing that his wife took his daughter on a road trip to Hell, Christopher (Sean Bean) sets off after them. Now, once he gets there a detective goes with him to Silent Hill to look for his family. However, the Silent Hill that he goes to is abandoned, but looks fairly normal. After searching and coming up with nothing, he's escorted out of the town and told not to come back. Meanwhile, Rose and her cop buddy search all of Silent Hill to find Sharon and find out what the fuck is going on.

To be honest, after watching the movie, I had no clue what the fuck was going on or happened and I felt that the characters didn't either. So, I did my own research. Apparently, there are three different dimensions that they are all in once they get to Silent Hill. Ok, not that hard to explain, right? So... WHY THE FUCK COULDN'T THE FILMMAKERS HAVE TAKEN TEN SECONDS TO EXPLAIN THIS? Instead, they leave you with a shitty ending to a movie that just falls flat. Oh, did I mention that the movie is just over two hours long? It is. By the time they start explaining stuff, you just want to see people die. I had to research this and find out what the fuck is going on in the games to understand what I had just watched. However, as good a job as they did making Silent Hill creepy, they could have done just as good a job explaining stuff, but it seems they made this film just for the kids who geek out to the Silent Hill games. It's sad really, because this film had the potential to be a good horror movie. It started out ok, but the more you get into it, the more confusing it gets, and the less the filmmakers explain.

As far as the acting goes, it's really good. However I doubt that anyone really understood the script or what was happening. The script however is flat. Completely devoid of any personality or emotion and it's very monotone. It's like watching Larry King for two fucking hours. The dialogue is good and isn't cheesy, but that's because they got decent actors to be in it. Sean Bean really stands out as the father here, and the rest of the cast is good, but you can tell the script didn't make sense to them. It's like they all got hired to act out a physics manual.

The script: horrible. In fact, it's so convoluted and bland that I was begging for someone to die or actually do something stupid that would cause death. If they had trimmed down about fifteen minutes and actually had the damn thing make sense and took the time to explain what's happening instead of watching the mother walk all over a grey town covered in ashes, it might have been worth watching.

The editing and special fx are about all I can say nice things about besides the acting. They are ok at best and nice to watch, but the script is so terrible that you wished you were watching something else. In Silent Hill, the script hurts the good points so bad that it's almost enough to make you want to decapitate yourself. I can't believe Roger Avary wrote this garbage. Now I know why he just got a "story by" credit on Pulp Fiction.

The directing was actually shitty. Coming from the guy who directed The Brotherhood of the Wolf, I would expect more. In fact, I would expect more from a third grader who has actually played the Silent Hill games. I guess we'll see him directing the next direct-to-DVD Look Who's Talking or Stewart Little movie.

When it's all said and done, Silent Hill is like going to the fridge and seeing an ice-cold refreshing 2-liter of Pepsi, pouring yourself a tall glass, and then finding out that your Pepsi is flatter than fucking roadkill.

Rating:

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

Snakes on a Plane

2006

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Julianna Margulies, Kenan Thompson, Rachel Blanchard, Elsa Pataky

Directed By: David Ellis

You know, had I directed this movie personally, I would have done one thing differently: I would have done a little bit better at setting up the deaths. Some of the deaths in this film just seemed put in there for "filler" time and just to show more snakes. Not that death in a movie called Snakes on a Plane is a bad thing, but I like justified deaths or deaths with reason. Some people got it while they slept and it just felt forced on the audience. With that said, on to the review.....

You may say: "But did you like the movie?" Hell yes I did. I loved it, but that's not to say it didn't have it's flaws. The best thing about this movie is that it doesn't take itself serious even when it's trying to be serious; thus issuing it a stamp of Roger Corman approval and giving it that B-Movie Drive In flair it deserves. With the title alone, this movie suggests the filmmakers had balls the size of watermelons. I mean, the title Snakes on a Plane is to the point and is just what it is.... Snakes on a Plane. The good thing is, it delivers the goods. A lot can be said in a movie's title, so imagine if you will some other movies that could have used the same imagination of the Snakes on a Plane titling:

Innerspace- "Dennis Quaid in Martin Short's ass"

Big Top Pee Wee- "Pee Wee pitches a tent" (I couldn't resist that one)

Brokeback Mountain- "Gay Cowboys on a ranch"

Napoleon Dynamite- "Retard with tater tots"

Star Wars- "Stormtroopers on a Starcruiser"

.... and the list goes on and on.

With that said, I'm trying to make a point here. I've read so much negative hype on this movie that I can't understand it. The movie is called Snakes on a Plane and people are expecting fucking Jaws or The Exorcist. The thing is, Snakes on a Plane does it's job and that's put motherfucking snakes on a motherfucking plane and then they give you a cool ride for an hour and a half. They don't expect you to see the movie and expect a year later to see Sam Jackson accept an Oscar for best actor. They expect you to go see the movie, eat your fucking popcorn, and have a good time. It's that simple. Sorry, but critics really piss me off, and what REALLY pisses me off are people who enjoy movies like Napoleon Dynamite and Brokebutt Mountain but then won't even give Snakes a chance and blast it without seeing it. See it and then decide. Only then do you have a right to blast it.

Now, on to the actual movie. Besides the obvious, Snakes on a Plane is about a guy in Hawaii that witnesses an Asian crime lord bash some guys head in with a baseball bat. This guy, Eddie Kim, is above the law and Samuel L. Jackson is just the man to take him down. After securing the witness and convincing him to fly to Los Angeles to testify, they board the plane. In order to get himself clear and make sure there are no witnesses, Eddie Kim hires a guy to fill the plane with over 500 poisonous snakes to ensure there is no way in Hell that anyone survives. The only thing he didn't count on was that Sam Jackson was on the flight. I guess Eddie Kim didn't get to see Pulp Fiction, because Jackson gets medievil on some snake ass.

The script (which I read about a year or more ago) is very simple but somewhat character driven. Most of the cast is disposable, but then again, the movie centers around Sam Jackson's character, Neville Flynn. The script does have it's cheesey lines of dialogue and cliche' elements, but that's what makes the movie fun. You know Sam Jackson is going to whip ass from moment one and so you don't invest too much in anything else.

The direction is decent, but not bad. David Ellis' previous films leave much to be desired (Homeward Bound 2), but he does a good job here and I'd personally like to see him really sink his teeth into a good horror script. I'd say that his average direction on an over-the-top script meshes well, but overall could have been done a little better. Had I directed, I would have focused more on the characters and when someone died, it would have had more an emotional impact on the audience.

The acting is ok, but nothing to write home to mom about. Like I said above, the movie centers around Sam Jackson's character, so he's the focus (other than the snakes). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average at best. There's a really cool moment at the end in the cockpit between Kenan Thompson and Sam Jackson, but other than that, the acting could have been a lot better from everyone else.

Now, on to the snakes, which are the showpiece in the movie. The mixture of real snakes with CGI blends fairly well, and there was really only one little shot where I could tell it was computer animated. The snakes all move and react realistically, which makes for some intense moments on screen. The special fx and makeup are really done well for the budget and like I said, other than one little shot, it all came off nicely.

All in all, don't take the movie serious and you'll have a blast. If you expect the next big horror flick, you're in for a disappointment. If you go in with an open mind and expect a fun time, you'll really enjoy yourself and have a blast. Also, one final note, don't listen to critics... if you think you want to see something, go see it. If not, then don't. It's that simple. Just don't believe all the negative hype because you might just miss out on something good.

Overall, I recommend this movie and think that most people will enjoy it if they just don't take it too seriously. It's good fun and meant to be enjoyed as it stands. It's not Oscar worthy, but it's also better than any trendy horror film out today, so I'll leave everyone with that.

Rating:

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Pulp Fiction

1994

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Eric Stoltz, Tim Roth, Harvey Keitel, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames

Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

It's about time I get around to reviewing Pulp Fiction for several reasons. Number one, it's probably in my top three favorite films ever made, and number two, I owe it to this film to give it a great review.

If you haven't seen Pulp Fiction, you should be shot in the face. The reason I say this is because either you love this movie or hate it. In fact, I've only met like two people in my life who didn't like this movie. Their reasoning: "It was too violent and had too much bad language." To that, I say FUCK YOU because you wouldn't know a good film if it fucked you in your face.

Pulp Fiction is essentially a story revolving around two hitmen (Travolta & Jackson), their boss (Ving Rhames) and his wife (Uma Thurman), and a middle-aged and over the hill boxer (Bruce Willis). However, the film is told completely out of order and for a reason: SO YOU DON'T GET TO KNOW ALL THE CHARACTERS UNTIL THE VERY END. Some people who have liked it have even complained that it being out of order and synchronization left them confused. Only a complete moron would be confused at Pulp Fiction. In fact, the way that each little portion of the film unfolds is nothing short of genious and filmmakers since have done nothing but rip Tarantino off for his punchy and witty dialogue and his ecclectic manner of filmmaking. In fact, I've seen more knock-off Tarantino films than I have seen actual Tarantino films. This goes to show you that one man CAN make a difference in filmmaking.

I can't even begin to explain this film because if I do, I will ruin the experience for those who haven't seen it. Yes, I said experience because that's what this film is. It's an experience in filmmaking that you just have to see and experience for yourself. There's not a lot of action and it's basically a two and a half hour dialogue driven movie, but that's the beauty of it. It's so long that when something happens, it's so rewarding because you care about each and every character on screen. You even care about the horrible and disgusting people because they are so well defined and acted. I mean, the story essentially focuses on two hit men and every time they are onscreen, you stare in disbelief at what they are saying or how they believe about a certain thing. It's sheer genious.

There is nothing bad I can say about Pulp Fiction. Nothing at all. When I first saw the movie, I had seen the movie poster and couldn't believe all of the famous people it had in it. So, when it finally came out on video, I rented it and sat for 2 1/2 hours in my room in disbelief. I couldn't believe that someone could make a movie so fucking good that I would want to spend another 2 1/2 hours watching it again. In fact, in the two days I rented it, I watched it almost five times. That's something I can't say about any other movie I've seen. I was so in love with each and every character that it was like a good book that you read over and over because you feel as if you know the characters so well. Now each time I watch it, it's like a family reunion where I get to visit old friends and family. Even when I watch it now I still pick up on things I haven't seen before. You know, the little things you don't catch unless you repeatedly watch something. Now I can say I've seen this movie probably around 100 times and I'm damn proud of that fact.

The directing from Tarantino is superb. In fact, it's probably one of the best (if not the best) directed films ever made. I mean, come on, this is the movie that brought John Travolta back to a career. He had become nothing and his role as Vincent Vega made him something again. This film also propelled people like Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman into the top level of the acting community. The direction couldn't have been any better.

The script is even better than the directing, which is only enhanced by the ensemble cast of characters chosen to bring them to life. Tarantino's dialogue and story is nothing short of brilliance and the sheer originality of Pulp Fiction makes it all that much better. A friend of Tarantino's, Roger Avary, gave him some ideas for a few of the characters (which gives him a "story by" credit), but other than that, Tarantino reigns supreme on this film. He's not afraid to offend you and then make you laugh all within a five second span, which makes me think that Tarantino has the biggest set of balls in filmmaking.

The editing and special fx (what little fx there are) are top-notch. The film is edited in such a manner that by the end of the film, you understand everything and by the last frame before the credits, you feel like you understand each and every character. I give credit to the script for this, but only a great editor could have understood how to cut a movie like this and not distract from the story. There's no fancy bullet-time or speed clips, no fancy dissolves or smash cuts... it's all cut in a traditional way that it feels classic.

With all that said, I have to mention the music. Pulp Fiction has such an odd but great soundtrack that everything feels so perfectly aligned. With every musical note or song that you hear, there is a reasoning for it, and everything feels like it was hand-picked by God himself to be in this movie to make it perfect. If you took one song out, the movie would suffer. It's so good that the soundtrack and film go hand in hand, and I can't rave enough about how well every musical piece is placed. It's almost like having the perfect soundtrack to life.

All in all, I HIGHLY recommend Pulp Fiction. Sure it's full of profanity, violence, and will make you shake your head in disbelief, but isn't that what makes films good? I mean, if it can't touch you in any way, it's an empty and shallow film. Here, Pulp Fiction will touch you in such a way that you will feel sad when it's over, feel happy when someone gets what they deserve, and feel pitty for those you shouldn't. Pulp Fiction will forever go down in my book as one of the best films ever made.

Rating:

Waterworld (1995)

Waterworld

1995

Starring: Kevin Costner, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Dennis Hopper, Jack Black, Michael Jeter, Tina Majorino

Directed By: Kevin Reynolds

Well, it's been a while since my last review and I decided to catch back up with the Readers Choice Review that my loyal readers voted upon. You guys spoke and Waterworld was the winner, or loser in this case. Without further ado, on to the review....

This movie opens up with The Mariner (Kevin Costner) floating his little boat around and drinking his own urine. Why would he do such a thing? Because the polar ice caps have melted and flooded the earth and he can't exactly drink salt water. However, urine contains salt, so the filmmakers decided to have some sort of filtration system rigged up to his boat. Yeah, like Costner's really that smart. It only gets worse from here and this is how the movie opens.

With the world covered in water, everyone in this film has hopes of one day finding dry land. The only problem is that this film takes place in the future and basically all technology has been wiped out, so any chance of using technology is null and void. However, once The Mariner comes across a woman and small girl, he finds a map tatooed on the back of the small girl which could lead to dry land.

Kevin Costner's acting in this film is kind of mysterious. At one moment you think he just might be some heroic figure of importance, but then through a series of events it turns out he's just some fucked up mutant with gills and no real importance at all. It's kind of like buying a new car and finding a secret compartment only to open it and realize that the compartment is a fuse box. Not that a fuse box is bad, because it's vital to running a car, but here the fuse box (Kevin Costner) has a short circuit and the film seems to fall upon his weakened shoulders.

One of the more redeeming qualities Waterworld has is Dennis Hopper. Ok, you can put Dennis Hopper in a freaking ballerina outfit and have him take a dump for an hour and a half and it would be entertaining. So, for the sake of Dennis Hopper, this film is worth watching ONCE just for him. He plays the villainous Deacon, and to be honest, I was rooting for him to kill Costner the whole damn movie. Another redeeming quality of Waterworld would be the small (and I mean small) role of Jack Black, who plays a pilot. It's such a small role that if you blink you'll miss him, but since Jack Black is in it with Dennis Hopper, that's really all I can say that's good about Waterworld. Oh yeah, did I mention Hopper wears an eyepatch?

With that said, Waterworld is an absolute mess of a movie. With one of the most expensive budgets ever (and it didn't even make all the money back), you would think that they would have hired someone to polish the bad script and get someone better than Costner to star. This movie tries to be Mad Max at times and at other times it tries to get the audience to take it serious. We can't because Costner sucks in anything he does and the script is horrible. There isn't one memorable line of dialogue in the whole movie and if there was anything worth quoting, my guess is that it came from Dennis Hopper.

The special fx (for their time) are decent at best, but are cheap compared to today's standards. That's sad considering how much money they spent on them. My guess is that someone who was in charge of special fx was a HUGE coke addict and 70 percent of the budget went up their nose. 20 percent went to Kevin Costner and the final 10 percent went for the actual movie. While blowing (no pun intended) the budget through the roof, Waterworld was the center of critic's angst as it failed to produce a movie that was of the quality that the filmmakers promised. In fact, other than Jack Black and Dennis Hopper, it was a bad movie. It was so bad that Costner didn't work again for a year. Considering that at that time he was doing two to four movies a year, Waterworld cut him down for a bit.

The directing in the movie is horrible and all the actors seem to be held at knife-point to deliver bad dialogue. The editing is all over the place and the film is actually about 30 minutes too long. This is sad because the actual premise of Waterworld isn't a bad one, in fact it's actually kind of original, but it falls flat the moment we see Costner drink his own piss. Unfortunately that's about three minutes into the movie. Any movie that starts out with a man drinking his own piss cannot get any better. In fact, drinking my own piss might have been more enjoyable than sitting through Waterworld.

Full of bad dialogue, bad editing and direction, mediocre special fx, and Kevin Costner, steer clear of Waterworld like you would the Bermuda Triangle. This is a bad movie and though it's like a car wreck in that you can't turn away, it's better not to have looked at it in the first place. Had Kevin Costner been replaced by someone who could act, the script been polished by someone who could write in something besides crayon, and the editor cut about 30 minutes out of it, Waterworld might actually be worth watching. Since none of that happened, we get a movie about a mutant Costner looking for land in a world of piss drinking waterdogs.

Rating:

Nacho Libre (2006)

Nacho Libre

2006

Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Darius Rose, Moises Arias

Directed By: Jared Hess

Ok, first things first, I didn't pick this movie, my son did. So, seeing as I was forced to go see this, I'll be as nice as possible without sounding ungrateful to spending time with my son.

I like Jack Black. A lot. Not in a gay/homosexual way, but I think he's freakin' hilarious and I'm a HUGE Tenacious D fan. "D ciple" to the lesser beings. Jack Black is a rare breed that could be considered a "Jack of all entertainment trades". He's a musician, singer, comedian, actor... you name it, he's it. However, a wrestler he is not. Put him in a movie where he plays a mexican friar at a monestary, throw the jackass who directed Napoleon Dynamite into the mix and you have yourself something that I can only describe as seeing a monkey throw poop.

Now, what I mean by that is that it's funny, but not shit your pants funny like the trailers make it out to be. By the way, I never go by the trailer... only stating the obvious. Anyway, having Jared Hess direct Jack Black was like putting a cock ring on a midget. It was pointless. It seemed that no matter how funny Jack tried to be, the director tightened his unfunny grip and said "hold it back". It was like watching Nascar with a British Announce Team. Funny but boring as all Hell.

Jack Black plays a friar who wants to be a wrestler. Though he lives in Mexico and they are called Luchadores. Now, Jack Black is such a good actor that half way through it, you forget he's doing an accent and start to believe he's this dirty mexican cook at a Catholic orphanage. The movie does have a moral, but what I took from it was don't write a check your ass can't cash. Jack Black did just that and begged for the spotlight only to have his dreams crushed by an uptight nun and little fat orphan kids. Now, if you'd have seen the shit he was feeding the kids, you'd wonder how there was a fat one. Genetics I guess.

Filled with storylines that really don't go anywhere but fit into what Jared Hess considers a comedic plot outline, Nacho Libre leaves you empty inside. No matter how hard Jack Black tries to be funny, he can't break the context of the role he's supplied, therefore rendering him useless like Superman wearing a Kryptonite Condom. It's amusing to watch, but don't go to the theater to see it. After three tickets, drinks, popcorn, and candy, I felt like Jared Hess sank even further into debt with me. After Napoleon Dynamite and now crippling Black's ability to turn the character on full force, I feel that bastard of a filmmaker Jared Hess owes me money.

All in all, it's worth seeing and MUCH better than Napoleon Dynamite, but just rent it or watch it on HBO once. Don't give Jared Hess anymore money people! I beg of you. It felt like Jack Black was directing himself at times, but doing it under some sort of mind control.

If you like Jack Black, rent it. If not, then may I suggest Napoleon Dynamite or Malibu's Most Wanted.

Rating:

From Dusk Til Dawn (1996)

From Dusk Till Dawn

1996

Starring: George Clooney, Harvey Keitel, Quentin Tarantino, Juliette Lewis, Cheech Marin, Ernest Liu

Directed By: Robert Rodriguez

Add one half action thriller and one half horror film, then blend together with excellent dialogue and you get From Dusk Till Dawn. What happened here is good friends Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino decided to make a vampire lovers wet dream and succeeded.

Two brothers, Seth (George Clooney) and Richard (Tarantino) Gecko, go on the run from robbing banks and end up in a small Texas town. They're on their way to Mexico to live the good life, but they've got one small problem: They can't cross the border because they're wanted men and the law is looking for them. So they do what any two men in their situation would do... they hijack and kidnap a family (Harvey Keitel, Juliette Lewis, & Ernest Liu) and their motor home to get across the border. The family happens to be somewhat disfunctional and down on their luck, which seems to get worse as the minutes clock by.

After barely crossing the border, the Geckos take the family to The Titty Twister, a Mexican strip club, where they're to wait until dawn on their contact which will show them to the good life. They keep the family with them to ensure that everything goes according to plan. What they don't know is that once the light goes down outside, the vampires who run the club come out to feed on the patrons.

In what is one of the best dialogue driven horror films ever, Robert Rodriguez sets up the first half of the film with a great action/thriller set up. Then, once all is calm and it looks as if the Gecko's are scott-free, all Hell breaks loose within the Titty Twister and everyone is scrambling to stay alive. The second half of this film keeps you on the edge of your seat as you see each great character come to terms with the supernatural beasts they're dealing with while trying to stay alive.

Here the acting is top-notch. George Clooney and Harvey Keitel carry this film with great support from their co-stars. The film even boasts three different roles from Cheech Marin, which are each different and hilarious in their own rights. With cameos from Tom Savini and Mexican regular, Danny Trejo, From Dusk Till Dawn's characters are all unique and well acted.

The direction from Robert Rodriguez is on par with his previous and future films, and he even ran most of the cameras here, which shows that he's probably one of the most diverse directors alive today. With excellent camera shots, perfect locations, and a top notch script (co-written by Tarantino), From Dusk Till Dawn goes beyond what a vampire action flick should be.

The special fx and makeup are excellent and KNB FX should recieve special commondation here. Not only is the vampire makeup great, the gore fx are off the charts. The editing and lighting are great and really enhance the mood. Overall, the production cost considerably less than most films nowadays cost, and you can't tell it one single bit.

I can honestly say that I've seen this movie over 150 times and I own 2 copies on DVD, 1 copy on VHS, and 1 copy (signed by Tom Savini) on Laserdisc. Needless to say, I love this movie and think very highly of it and the story surrounding it. If you ever pick up the 2 disc special edition DVD, check out the movie made about this movie called Full Tilt Boogie. It's basically a documentary on the making of From Dusk Till Dawn and gives you insight on virtually every aspect of how this movie was made.

In closing, this movie is absolutely brilliant. With very quotable dialogue and memorable lines, great scares and action, and superb character development, From Dusk Till Dawn is a film that will leave you satisfied but wanting more.

Rating:

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch (1982)

Halloween 3: Season of the Witch

1982

Starring: Tom Atkins, Stacey Nelkin, Michael Currie, Ralph Strait, Dan O'Herlihy

Directed By: Tommy Lee Wallace

From what I've looked up and read about on the lovely Internet about Halloween 3, it appears that producer John Carpenter wanted to steer the Halloween series away from slasher Michael Myers and onto more of a Twilight Zone themed film franchise. Yes after Halloween 3, Carpenter went to rehab for crack because he knew then that it wasn't fuel for his creative fire.

Halloween 3 is basically about a psychotic toymaker who plans to kill millions of innocent children worldwide on Halloween night through the use of scary masks. No this isn't an original version of Scream, it's Halloween 3: Season of the Witch. This has absolutely nothing to do with the first two Halloween movies, nor does it have anything to do with Michael Myers or anything else sensible. After setting out to figure out what's going on with these masks, Daniel Challis (Tom Atkins) traces all evidence to a Conal Cochran (Dan O'Herlihy), who owns a toy company and uses some kind of retarded black magic in conjunciton with a transmitter embedded within the masks. Yes, he's got a transmitter in the masks and using black magic that will kill a bunch of children.

Now, I'm all for the mass slaughter of children in horror movies, but only if it's justified. You know, like Village of the Damned or something. Here it seems pointless and stupid. The simple titling of this movie with a Halloween moniker suggests that it will be good and right up there with the first two films. However, with the subtitle Season of the Witch, we get the feeling that someone is on crack and trying to make a quick buck at the sake of a worthy franchise. Why? To buy more crack. Had this simply been called Season of the Witch and didn't have the Halloween 3 title, it might be somewhat better of a movie. Wait, did I just say that? Ok, it wouldn't have made it better, but it at least wouldn't have besmirched the good name of the Halloween franchise.

Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace and produced by John Carpenter, Halloween 3 lacks in every aspect that made the first two movies good. In fact, I can't say anything good about this movie. The plot device in using Halloween masks to kill a bunch of kids is basically ripped from a lost episode of Scooby Doo. I was just waiting at the end for "Old Man Smithers" to blame something on some meddling kids somewhere. This movie is just bad and I can't believe that Carpenter actually put his name on it. I'm thinking it was done at gunpoint or he owed someone a favor.

Director Tommy Lee Wallace has had a career of near hits but mostly misses. Almost all but two films have been made for TV movies or shows. Let's evaluate his directing resume for a moment: The New Adventures of Flipper, Baywatch, Max Headroom, Born Free, and Stephen King's IT. Ok, besides IT, he also directed the not-so-good-but-seemingly-OK Fright Night part 2. He had two decent flicks, one of which was made for TV, out of his entire career. Needless to say, he's been sort of the Chicago Cubs of directing. You know, he's came close twice, but his career is filled with disappointment after disappointment.

With that said about the directing in this film, the acting is actually worse. The casting director on this film must have had a personal vendetta to resolve with Tommy Lee Wallace and John Carpenter, because the actors in this film absolutely suck. I'd go into more detail, but no one from the cast has ever done anything worth a shit, so I'm not going to even bother. Let's just say that I've seen better acting from ABC AfterSchool Specials.

As far as the rest of the movie: ie- special fx, editing, writing, etc... it's all CRAP. Yes, that's right... crap. No redeeming quality here would make you want to watch this movie once let alone, more than once. However, I watched it once more just to do this review. Being drunk or under the influence of some mind altering substance may have helped, but I'm sure 90 percent of the audience in 1982 was sober, so that's how I viewed this monstrocity car wreck of a film. Looking back, I should have got a complimentary bottle of Tequila with my rental to help numb the pain.

Rating:

Napoleon Dynamite (2003)

Napoleon Dynamite

2003

Starring: Jon Heder, Jon Gries, Efren Ramirez, Diedrich Bader, Aaron Ruell

Directed By: Jared Hess

Do you like watching losers make complete idiots of themselves? Do you smile and laugh at others' misfortunes? Do you like retarded ass movies with no plot? If so, then Napoleon Dynamite is for you. If Napoleon Dynamite happens to be your kind of movie... quickly load the closest gun, put that gun in your mouth, and then pull the trigger. If you like Napoleon Dynamite, you have no sense of what a good movie is or can be.

Napoleon Dynamite is about the world's largest nerd played by Jon Heder. He plays Napoleon so well that I actually thought they got some mentally retarded reject from The Ringer auditions to play him. Written and Directed by Jared Hess (Nacho Libre), Napoleon Dynamite has absolutely no plot and is a complete waste of 89 minutes of your life. I can't believe I actually sat and watched this movie. I think I was waiting for something funny to happen and it never came. This movie is like having bad sex and then not reaching climax. Actually, this movie is like having bad sex, never reaching climax, and then catching the herpes. Yes, this bad movie will stay with you for life... just like herpes.

I'd go into detail on the plot, but it doesn't have one. The closest thing to a plot is Napoleon learning to dance (very badly I might add) in his own free time and then displaying his retarded jive in front of his high school class. That's about all the plot I could get out of it. In fact, I can't see what in the hell people see in this movie. It's not funny, it has no plot, it's horribly acted and directed, and I wanted to kick Jon Heder's ass the whole 89 minutes he was onscreen.

You know, I was actually going to be nice at one point during this review, but I'm so mad that I had to endure the shitfest that this movie was, I'm not going to hold back. So, if you liked this movie, PLEASE STOP READING HERE, because I don't want to upset you as readers and have you unsubscribe to my blog. In fact, unsubscribing to my blog over this film might just cause me to do something really, really bad to the creators of Napoleon Dynamite. You know, like send them free acting, writing, and directing lessons.

Apparently, Jared Hess and the rest of the fucking morons who made this movie thought it was funny enough to unleash on the world. Well, guess what? They were fucking wrong. Then, what's worse, this movie spawns God awful catchphrases like: "Friggin' sweet!" and "Vote for Pedro!". You know what I say? Fuck Pedro! That's what! Pedro happens to be Napoleons greasy little latino friend (I'll be nice) and to be honest, when I seen him onscreen, I thought that he should spend about 10 minutes in a carwash getting all the slime out of his hair.

This movie was beyond bad. In fact, it was so bad that about twenty or so real mentally retarded people actually spontaneously combusted from the magnitude of it's lameness. I can't believe that thirteen year old girls would cream their panties over this garbage. Oh wait, this is the era of N-Sync, Brittney Spears, and American Idol... so yeah, I believe it. I can't believe that anyone actually liked this movie. I put it there BELOW crap. This movie is like a foul smelling hooker vagina. Once you get a whiff, that's it. You can't get the stain off you no matter how hard you try. And that's what this movie did to me... it stained me. Stained me bad.

I mentioned earlier that I watched it in anticipation of something to happen, something funny, something terrible and bad, just something. I was let down and wasted 89 minutes of my life, and when the end credits rolled, I cursed the name of Jared Hess and vowed that I would never watch this crap again. I guess thinking back, I wanted Napoleon to die. I wanted him to be a martyr for all the nerds out there and take one for the team. I wanted to see someone come in and say: "Hey, Napoleon, we're going to crucify you today so that nerds around the world can live in peace." Guess what, it never happened. I wanted Napoleon to die for something, anything... just die. He deserved it, needed it, and death called his name. But death seen this movie and figured that some things are worse than death, so death let this movie be released and then killed himself.

I consider myself a geek or nerd. Hell, I like Transformers, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, GI Joe, He Man, and 80's music, but Napoleon made me feel bad for calling myself a geek. I'm a cool geek because I understand the principles to being such. I like my laserdisc collection and my Harry Potter books, but Napoleon Dynamite takes being a geek too far. It's kind of like calling Keanu Reeves an actor. It's just not true, and therefore this film is a lie. Napoleon isn't a nerd or geek, he's a complete fuck and there's a difference. He's a complete tool to society, a giant penis of a man who's only use is to stimulate the ego's of those around him. Unfortunately, there wasn't any stimulation going on for me while watching it.

There is not enough Paxil or Xanax in the world to make me watch this again. It's depressing enough and should not be shown to suicidal people. If I've offended anyone who actually likes this movie, then I have a suggestion... go fucking kill yourself, because liking this movie is just begging for the sweet embrace of death. Oh wait, death killed himself after watching this... so... um... oh fuck it, I'm tired of writing about this crap.

Rating: Yeah, like I'd even give this piece of shit a rating. I wouldn't wipe my ass with this movie if it were the last piece of toilet paper on earth. I'd use my hand instead.