An American Werewolf in London (1981)

An American Werewolf in London

(1981)

Starring: David Naughton, Jenny Agutter, Griffin Dunne, John Woodvine

Directed By: John Landis

Ok, first things first: FORGET THERE WAS EVER A SEQUEL TO THIS MOVIE!!!!!!

Now, with that said, An American Werewolf in London is probably one of the best horror films ever made about werewolves. Forget The Howling and Wolfen for a moment, because those are always compared when discussing this film. The thing about this film is that you actually give a damn about the main character(s) and want to see them work through their problems, even if it comes at a bloody price. What is the film about you ask? Well, An American Werewolf in London (as the title suggests) is about just that: An American Werewolf in London.

At the beginning of the film, two American buddies, David and Jack (David Naughton and Griffin Dunne), are backpacking across Europe. Late one night they enter into England (apparently the redneck southern equivilant) and stop for a drink at a tavern. They are warned to "Stay off the moors", but do they listen? No, they're american, so of course they're not going to listen. About three minutes of leaving the tavern, they are attacked by a werewolf. Jack is brutally killed and David barely makes it through. When David wakes up, he's in the hospital and being taken care of by Nurse Alex Price (Jenny Agutter).

After making quite the impression on Nurse Alex, David decides to head back to her place after recovering from his hospital stay and stay with her a little while. A series of bad dreams (ie- running naked through the woods chasing a deer with his "Johnson" blowing in the wind) begins to make David think that something could be seriously wrong with him. Come to find out, the bite from the werewolf is causing him a lot of mental anguish. For instance, he now has random visits from his recently departed (dead) friend, Jack, who warns him to just kill himself and get it over with.

People start dying and David awakens one morning naked in the zoo, where one of the best lines in cinematic history is spoken by a little boy: "Mum, a naked American man stole my balloons.". David begins to figure out exactly what's wrong with him, but it's too late. In what I consider the best werewolf transformation put to film, David begins to transform, thus setting up the tragic ending to the film.

As far as acting goes, it's completely believable and top-notch all the way around. Everyone is convincing in their respective roles and sucks you in to their world. You feel David's pain as the film progresses, Alex's confusion about her feelings for David, and Jack's humiliation at being a reanimated corpse sitting in a porno theater trying to convince his best friend to off himself.

The direction from John Landis is great and probably one of his most solid pieces of filmmaking achievements. With tight editing, great story flow, and an excellent script, Landis delivers all around the board on this one. I was actually outraged when I heard about a sequel (or continuation) called An American Werewolf in Paris. I couldn't believe that someone besides John Landis would actually try and tackle this type of film again. This film is a straight up horror, comedy, and drama and to try and emulate it again almost twenty years later is blasphemy to it's good name.

As far as the special fx go, Rick Baker did such a phenominal job that the fx still stand up to today's standards of makeup and gore fx. As I stated above, David's transformation (Baker's fx combined with Landis' direction) is probably the best werewolf transformation put to film. That's a bold statement, but I'm sure fans of the film will totally agree with me. In my opinion, nothing has or will come close to it. At least maybe not for several more years to come anyway, and it will still be hard to top. Jack's corpse and the other reanimated corpses are completely gross and creepy, but done with such a humorous style that you can't help but watch and get some sort of sick and twisted enjoyment from.

Overall, one of the best (if not the best) werewolf films ever. It's great all around the board and has very little, if any, technical flaws or plot-holes. I honestly can't say one bad thing about this film other than when the end credits roll, you don't know whether to cry from depression or cheer in delight from such a magnificent piece of horror history. Definately more of a character piece than a "horror gag" fest (ie- Saw, Hostel), so when something scary happens, it hits you on so many emotional levels, it more than scares you.

My hats off to the cast, John Landis, Rick Baker, and everyone else involved with this film for making probably the best werewolf film ever!

Rating:

House of Wax (2005)

House of Wax

2005

Starring: Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, Paris Hilton

Directed By: Jaume Collet-Serra

Ok, this came on HBO recently and I decided to watch it for one reason and one reason only: To see Paris Hilton DIE! Yes, that's correct. I suffered almost two hours to see one person, whom I cannot stand to even look at, die a horrible death. Am I sick and twisted? Maybe, but I literally hate Paris Hilton and would suffer even the worst of movies just to watch her die a horrible death. Was I taking a gamble and thinking that maybe she wouldn't die? Of course, but even the slightest chance of her death would be totally worth it in my book. With that said, on to the movie.

This, like 90f all horror movies in the last five years, is a remake. If you haven't seen either movie, save yourself the trouble (unless you have a Paris Hilton death fetish like me) and just go watch the original. This movie is a mess. The "plot" or if you could call it that, involves a group of kids who are traveling (hmmm... Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Tourist Trap anyone?) and they get stuck in some bumfucked redneck hillbilly town. The thing is, there are only a few actual people who come in contact with the kids. The rest of the people are wax dummies. Yes, that's what I said, wax dummies.

The kids soon learn that nothing is as it seems and start dropping faster than Paris Hilton's cell phone hackers. They end up in the "House of Wax" museum, which is actually made completely of wax itself. They eventually figure out that two brothers, one of whom is retarded and disfigured, are actually killing people and dipping them in wax to later put on display. That's about it. Same old we're trapped in redneckville and it's time to run for our lives routine that's been done so many times, I'm not sure it's even entertaining anymore.

Now, on to the acting. Horrible. Bad. Repulsive. Need I say more? There isn't one good thing I can say about anyone in the cast, especially Paris Hilton, who apparently felt that her porno debut wasn't enough, so she does some striptease in the woods while her boyfriend gets stabbed in the throat. Seems to me they made up for the shitty story and acting and replaced it with gratuitous nudity..sex and gore.

Speaking of the gore, it's actually not bad and the only good thing I can say about this movie. The special fx makeup people probably got another script and were lied to because it's just too good for this movie. And now, my favorite part: PARIS HILTON'S DEATH. First she gets trapped in some car garage, running around for her life. Then, she gets her heels sliced open and hides in a car for like five minutes. Does she live? Hell no, she's got the best death in the whole movie. The killer (whom I believe was the deformed retard) throws a pipe straight through the car window and impales the bitch between the eyes. YES!!!!!!! She then falls forward, further pushing the pipe through her head and just hangs there on her knees. Sounds like her porno, I know, but the whole movie was worth watching just to see her die. Now, if someone in real life could make that happen.........

As far as the script, directing, or anything else (besides the gore fx)... I honestly didn't care. I watched it for one reason and like I said, seeing Ms. Hilton bite the big one (hahahaha) was worth the time spent. Was the movie any good Stephen? No, it was complete trash and a blasphemy to the original's good name. To be honest, there was nothing good about House of Wax, and unless you just want to see Paris Hilton die, skip this one all together.

I commend the special fx team for actually seeing this through until the end and not going off to work on something else. I'm sure the paycheck was worth it, but principals alone would have driven me away. I wouldn't have even wanted to be the set's doughnut guy after seeing House of Wax.

To me, this falls under the "trendy horror" remake syndrome and is aimed at mindless morons who have no respect and understanding for the horror genre. After watching the film, I felt completely empty inside, which is probably the same feeling everyone who worked on this (except Paris Hilton) felt.

Skip this film like you would a crack house on the corner of a bad neighborhood.

Rating:

The Frighteners (1996)

The Frighteners

1996

Starring: Michael J. Fox, Trini Alvarado, Jeffrey Combs, Jake Busey, John Astin

Directed By: Peter Jackson

Ok, it's unfair that I'm reviewing this movie because it's probably in my top five favorite horror movies of all time, but screw it.... you all need to know just how awesome and wonderful this film is. I'm a HUGE Peter Jackson fan and have been a member of the official Peter Jackson fanclub since it's conception. In fact, I carry the membership card in my wallet and I'm member number 005. Beat that! With that said, I'll try my best to be unbiased, but it's probably not going to happen.

Frank Bannister (Michael J. Fox) can see dead people. No, he's not that creepy little bastard from The Sixth Sense, he's Frank Fucking Bannister and he has ghosts working for him. After a brutal car accident that left his wife dead, Frank has been able to see ghosts and now, years later, employs them to "...put the frighteners on people!". He sends in the ghosts for a little spooking and then comes in and pretends to "bust" them and catch them, thus ridding the spooks from unsuspecting families. Yes, he's a con man that uses ghosts as a way to make money.

After spooking the Lynsky household, compiled of Lucy and Ray, in comes Frank Bannister to save the day. However, upon "ridding" the ghosts from the Lynsky house, he notices a burning number carved into Ray's head that only he can see. The next day, Ray, who is in picture perfect health, drops dead from a mysterious heart failure.

Having people die left and right and being in the wrong place at the wrong time, Frank Bannister is eventually seen as a threat and FBI Agent Dammers (Jeffrey Combs) is brought in to track him down and bring him to justice. The only problem is that Frank sees what appears to be death itself killing people and sets out to stop it and clear his name.

The acting in this film is top-notch and is a straight up character piece with an excellent story. This is probably Michael J. Fox's best work to date and he plays Frank Bannister up to twisted perfection. Jeffrey Combs as Agent Dammers is a beautifully psychotic zealot with a hard on for nailing Bannister to the wall. The rest of the ensemble cast fills in the gaps and all come together with what I feel is one of the best casts in any horror movie. Each role has a purpose and isn't overshadowed by the next role. Everyone takes the script seriously and appreciates the story and it shows in each and every character on screen.

Peter Jackson's directing is nothing short of brilliant, and since he wrote the script and produced it as well, it would be hard for him to dick up his own idea. Each camera shot, line of dialogue, and set piece have their own mark on the story and when pieced together as a whole it comes across beautifully. The film has comedy in it, but relies on horror spread throughout to fully accentuate the excellent story. It's a good mix of comedy and horror that I've never seen elsewhere. And no, this isn't that garbage in the ranks of Scary Movie.

The special fx and gore are great and not over the top. Like I said, each shot has it's own purpose in the story, and clocking in at almost two hours, there's a lot to take in. The gore and blood is at the right level and isn't in your face like Jackson's previous films. In fact, he toned down his splatter here and it worked well within the story. I'm not saying it's tame by no means, but those who've seen his previous splatter films will get what I mean.

Overall, an excellent movie for the whole family. Peter Jackson lets the actors envoke the written script and carry us through a twisted tale of ghosts and murder. Some parts comedy, some parts horror, and when Peter Jackson hits the blend button, he pours out perfection. Plain and simple, The Frighteners is a damn good movie all the way around the board and those who disagree can go watch Scream!

Rating:

Tourist Trap (1979)

Tourist Trap

1979

Starring: Chuck Connors, Jocelyn Jones, Robin Sherwood, Tanya Roberts

Directed By: David Schmoeller

This film is probably one of the greatest unknown cult classics of all time. Coming several years after The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Tourist Trap essentially has the same format. Teens on vacation run into a secluded madman and are picked off one by one. Does this mean it's a rip off or copycat? Hell no! Tourist Trap takes that Texas Chainsaw basic formula and runs in a completely different direction.

If you haven't seen this film, go find yourself a copy and watch it. Though now it's dated and may seem cheesey or campy, Tourist Trap in my book still holds on to that old school charm that made horror films in the seventies great.

When their car breaks down outside of an out of business Texas mannequin tourist locale , a group of teens run into the mysterious Mr. Slausen (Chuck Connors) and ask him for assistance. The mannequins are life-like and hold a very deep and personal connection for Mr. Slausen, who seems to have a love for odd conversation concerning his "dummies".

One by one, people start to drop like the US economy and Mr. Slausen seems to be the last person they suspect. Mr. Slausen seems to possess telekenetic powers (or psychic abilities for the retarded people who don't know what telekenetic means) and can control the mannequins at will. Though this power is never explained, it brings about a level of creepiness to the film and leaves you wondering just what in the Hell is up with Slausen.

The acting isn't bad and Chuck Connors really shines as the reclusive and odd Mr. Slausen. The rest of the cast is alright with their respective characters, but none really stand out to equal the level that Connors brings to the table.

As far as the death sequences, I'm sure that they were wonderful for 1979, but have that dated look and feel now. The gore and blood actually looks pretty good, and the special fx with the mannequins is still pretty good by today's standards. The best thing about the special fx is that it isn't overdone or underdone, but it has the right amount of gore and blood mixed into the story to allow it to be more of a character piece. The sets and locations work with the story and are creepy in their own way. Everything mixed together works really good and comes across as a genuine and solid horror film.

The direction and other technical aspects are good too, but could be a little better. I mentioned the similarity between this and Texas Chainsaw and this is probably my biggest hangup with Tourist Trap. With a little more direction and a tighter script at the beginning, this could have stood the test of time and would probably be getting a remake right about now. Though, it's probably good it's the way it is so that it doesn't get remade and stays the little known cult classic that it is. I can see that movies from the eighties until now have borrowed from this film (ie- Waxwork, Friday the 13th, House of Wax, etc...), which in my book makes it a highly influential film on the horror filmmaker.

All in all, I love this movie. It's got it's good and bad, but more good and not so much bad. Like I said, with a little more tightening near the beginning, it could have came off different, but then again, I didn't make it so who am I to say what it needed? This definately goes down as one of my favorite cult picks and I encourage everyone to check it out.

Rating:

Hostel (2005)

Hostel

2005

Starring: Jay Hernandez, Derek Richardson, Eythor Gudjonsson

Directed By: Eli Roth

Having seen Eli Roth's first film, Cabin Fever, I wasn't too sure how to prepare myself for Hostel. I didn't think Cabin Fever was that good of a movie, but found some things about it redeeming. When I heard that Quentin Tarantino and Scott Spiegel were listed as "Executive Producers" I felt a tiny bit of comfort. Then I read that Tarantino had just read the script, liked it, and gave Eli Roth some connections to make his second film, Hostel.

Before I get to the "meat and potatoes" of the review, I must first get something off my chest. It seems of late than any horror movie rated "R" nowadays must contain several things: naked women and sex, lots of drug use, and shocking gore. Hostel is filled with these things, which is what I think appeals to most moviegoers today. Take out the sex, nudity, and drugs and you've got SAW and SAW 2, which also rely on shocking gore to rattle the audience. To me, all these films seem to be is a series of "gags" with no real substance or validity.

With that said, Hostel isn't a bad movie, but instead it's just kind of... OK. The first half of the film literally has no gore, but instead relies on sex, drugs, and nudity to keep the audience interested. What happened to the days of horror cinema where you didn't need to see all the gore to feel scared? Hell, even the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Halloween weren't all that gorey. They had nudity or sex with some mild drug usage, but then it seemed that these issues only helped add to the characters. In Hostel however, it doesn't.

The first half of the film does nothing to really set up the characters and really does nothing to set up for the second half, which is where the blood and gore lies. After about an hour of watching three young men walk around with gigantic hard-ons, the second half of the film doesn't really pay off like it should. Granted, we're not supposed to really care about these characters, but then Eli Roth spends about an hour with them doing nothing but smoking pot and getting laid. It's kind of like a frat house movie for the first hour. Then, when the gore and blood finally comes around (which is what the audience was waiting an hour to see), the pay off really isn't that good. It's not bad... but it's simply not that good.

The acting in the film isn't the greatest and to be honest, I had never seen any of the cast before in my life. There was no one for me to identify with and I felt that everyone that "got it" in this film totally deserved it. It seems that Mr. Roth wanted us to not care about the main cast, but then feel sorry for them at the same time. This shows through with mediocre acting. Honestly, once everyone started dying off, I just wanted it to end. I'd go into more details here and give specifics on each actor, but there wasn't one single actor in the whole film that impressed me.

The blood and gore really isn't all that great except for one scene that kind of unnerved me where a guy gets his heels sliced open. There is a scene where a girl gets a blowtorch to the eye that is just plain ridiculous. It's like watching good fx/bad fx play out on screen. Some of them are really good and stomach turning, and then some are just plain laughable. In fact, I found the whole eyeball scene hilarious. Yes, I'm a sick, sick man.

The blood and gore really isn't all that great except for one scene that kind of unnerved me where a guy gets his heels sliced open. There is a scene where a girl gets a blowtorch to the eye that is just plain ridiculous. It's like watching good fx/bad fx play out on screen. Some of them are really good and stomach turning, and then some are just plain laughable. In fact, I found the whole eyeball scene hilarious. Yes, I'm a sick, sick man.

The whole "shock horror" genre is really getting old and Hostel is just another addition to the SAW family of filmmaking. I'm not saying these are bad movies, because they're really not horrible at all, but they simply are just not that good. The only redeemable qualities to this film for me were this: One character whom you think will be the one to "live through it all" doesn't and I found that somewhat refreshing.... and that the main guy who does "live through it all" goes back for revenge. To me, those were the only saving graces this film had to offer.

With horror films today the mentality seems to be: "Hey, let's see how bad we can gross out the audience." and to be honest, that's not a good attitude to have. What happened to the old fashioned tension leading up to the scare? What happened to the feeling of panic you get when you know a character shouldn't do something but they do anyway? None of the horror movies today evoke those emotions. In Hostel, I was counting down the minutes until the bloodbath, and then felt ripped off when it came.

I'll at least give Hostel the credit of trying to stay as original as possible in the mass-produced shock horror films being released today, but that's about all I can say, because when you look at the evolution of horror films, it's not that original after all.

Rating:

Fright Night (1985)

Fright Night

1985

Starring: Roddy McDowall, William Ragsdale, Chris Sarandon, Amanda Bearse, Stephen Geoffreys

Directed By: Tom Holland

This has to be my favorite vampire film of all time, so I thought I'd give it a review. Having literally seen this film over 500 times, I can almost quote the entire film from beginning to end. It's kind of sad really, but sad in a dorky-this film kicks ass sort of way. I saw this film probably when I was about eight or nine years old (shortly after it came out) and I was completely hooked. Shortly after that, I met Chris Sarandon and completely went nuts on him telling him that I loved Fright Night and what it meant to me. His reply: "Aren't you a little young to be watching these kind of movies." I was about 10 at the time.

Having grown up on vampire cult cinema, Fright Night stands out to me as the best because of it's genre crossing efforts. Not only is it scary, but it's also funny and character driven, which is unlike any vampire movies since then.

The story is basic in theory, but enough to really get going within five minutes or so, and from that point on, it doesn't let go. Charlie Brewster (William Ragsdale) sees a new neighbor moving in late one night and it appears as if he's carrying a coffin into his house. This disturbs Charlie, but he dismisses it until he sees a beautiful girl going into the house the next day. The day after that, he sees on the news that she has been found decapitated and he starts to freak out a little. No one believes him when he tells them what he saw, not even his girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse) or best friend "Evil" Ed (Stephen Geoffreys).

After a while, Charlie begins to play detective himself and figures out that his new neighbor just might be a vampire. Trying to convince him otherwise, Amy and Ed hire local shock theater tv host Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) to take Charlie to his neighbors house to perform a series of tests to prove that the neighbor, Jerry Dandridge (Chris Sarandon), isn't a vampire.

I'm not going to go into more of the story, but that's the basic setup for probably one of the most intimate vampire stories ever. Because of the small, tight-knit cast, the film is character driven and focuses more on the characters than gore or action. I'm not saying it's lacking in gore or action, because it's got plenty of it for a 1985 film. To me though, the characters are the greatest selling point of the movie.

Roddy McDowall is nothing short of brilliant in this film, and his character of Peter Vincent "The great vampire killer" is a throwback to Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, hence the name: Peter Vincent. His cowardly portrayal does wonders for the character and totally gives credibility to the cast. Chris Sarandon is creepy as all Hell as the vampire, Jerry Dandridge, for what is probably one of the best vampiric performances in the last twenty years. William Ragsdale does great as Charlie and makes the audience sympathize with him as we believe him and everyone else doesn't. The rest of the supporting cast is excellent and the acting in this film is top notch for a horror film. In fact, I've seen non-horror films that blew up the box office with worse acting, so my hat's off to the casting director here.

The direction in Fright Night is excellent. With the right combination of small-town USA locations and tight editing, Tom Holland brings a true and "realistic" level of horror to the audience. I remember seeing this movie and wondering if my neighbors might be vampires. The fright level is off the hook for a 1985 film and the special fx and makeup, though dated now, were innovative and original for the time it was released. In fact, I can't think of another horror film in that timeframe that came close to meeting Fright Night's level of fright.

Overall, this is one damn good film. It does have it's noticable flaws, but they are forgiven because of the excellent acting and direction. The script is top-notch and the dialogue isn't hokey or stupid, unlike most vampire movies. After seeing Fright Night, I've compared every other vampire film since to it and none have matched the "movie magic" that this one produced for me.

Having mentioned the flaws briefly, I'll give a little more insight into what I was talking about. There are several plot holes that weren't filled in, but nothing to hurt the overall flow of the film. This is a smart vampire film that is steeped in vampire lore, so anyone who isn't familiar with vampire lore may get briefly lost in places, but that isn't a bad thing is it? To me it just means that the filmmakers knew what they were talking about, but they just didn't know how to translate their ideas 100o the screen.

All in all, like I said, this to me is the best vampire film I've ever seen. People constantly argue with me that the Gary Oldman Dracula or The Lost Boys were better movies, but I usually win every argument with this end all comment: "Did those films have Roddy McDowall?" That normally shuts people up and once you see this film, you'll know what I mean by that. Gary Oldman doesn't have shit on Chris Sarandon as a vampire. 'Nuff said.

Rating:

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

The Devil's Rejects

2005

Starring: Sid Haig, Sheri Moon Zombie, Bill Moseley, William Forsythe, Leslie Easterbrook, Ken Foree

Directed By: Rob Zombie

Well, I'm going to have to admit to being a little partial to this film, but I'll try and be as unbiased as possible without the usual fanboy rants. Having met most of the cast from this film (and House of 1,000 Corpses), I see this film a little different now. A lot of my friends know my love for this movie, so to go ahead and get it out of the way, here are my thoughts on The Devil's Rejects.

Being the sequel to House of 1,000 Corpses, The Devil's Rejects takes off several months after the first film and takes us (the viewers) further into the lives of the Firefly family. Consisting of Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig), Baby (Sheri Moon Zombie), and Otis (Bill Mosely); these remaining members of the Firefly family take off across Texas on a bloody whirlwind of realistic terror that culmintates in probably one of the most prolific and emotional endings to a film of this genre ever filmed.

The acting is basically the same from the first film (as far as the three main characters go), but this time around you see another side to these brutal killers. Rob Zombie shows through these characters that it's not only fun to root for the bad guys, it's also fun to see what makes them tick. This is probably my favorite aspect of both films, but more so in Rejects. Sid Haig's character is expanded and is shown to be a father figure to Otis and Baby, which as psychotic as it sounds, it really fits within the boundaries of a tight-knit family. That's the driving aspect of this film, minus all the blood and gore. Family. We're all familiar with the "stereotypical" family, so Zombie shows us what a family of bloodthirsty killers is like. Come to find out, they're not too different than a "normal" family... well, except for the senseless killing. But to the Firefly family, killing people isn't senseless. It's their way of life, and when Sheriff John Wydell seeks revenge on them for killing his brother (see House of 1,000 Corpses), we the audience start to hate the man of justice and root for the outlaws.


Having mentioned outlaws, that word seems to fit here. This film takes place in 1978, which as we know is far from the "old west" era, but that feeling is evoked through the dusty and drab atmosphere of a 1978 Texas. The locations used only add to the desolation of everything and everyone and add an intimate setting to the film. Each and every location seems to add to the brooding sense that all will not end well for everyone.


As for the acting, I mentioned above that it's basically the same from the first film, but only taken farther. Each returning actor is given more chance to explore their character and the driving force behind them. All the new actors on board really help to sell the feelings of hopelessness and despair while giving their own spin to the acting tour de force. If I had to pick who shown through in this film, I'd have to settle on three people: Sid Haig, Bill Moseley, and William Forsythe. These three totally steal each scene their in, and when all three are together on screen, it's a series of intense moments that fuel the darker side of your psyche.


Now, on to the directing. Being the sophmore effort of Rob Zombie, I have to give him credit for learning from his mistakes the first time and not repeating them. I'm not saying his first film was bad, but this is a vast improvement over his first. Each camera shot has a purpose and style to it that brings the acting and locations together beautifully. The editing and writing are top notch for such a genre film that sometimes you feel like you're watching something that really happened. Most directors spend a lifetime trying to achieve such realism and Zombie got it his second try. My hat's off to the guy for really putting thought into making each second of this film count.

Probably one of my favorite parts to this film is the soundtrack. Seventies rock (mostly southern rock) really brings out the mood here and paces the film in such a way that it's almost nostalgic. In fact, after the ending, every time I hear the song Free Bird, I think about The Devil's Rejects. So, the soundtrack in conjunction with the film only enhances the emotional contrast going on here and leaves you with such vivid imagery that you'll never hear these songs the same way again. As we all know, Rob Zombie hails from the annals of shock rock, so he could have easily added his own songs to the mix, but ultimately chose not to. This choice was probably what sold me on the whole film. Taking classic rock and putting it to this film was a ballsy move and Zombie pulled it off with such a psychotic genious that you have to respect him for it.


Overall, this isn't a perfect film by any means, but it's a damn good film. An emotional ride that leaves you wanting to see the bad guys win (for once) and the good guy get a hefty dose of pain. From start to finish, the film is gripping, brutal, and definately emotional in some sick sadistic way. So, if you're up for Rob Zombie's ultimate tribute to seventies grindhouse cinema, check this baby out. But be warned: it's disturbing... but in a beautiful and epic way that not everyone will appreciate.


Rating:

House of the Dead (2003)

This review was originally published on Wednesday, June 21, 2006.

House of the Dead

2003

Starring: Clint Howard, Jurgen Prochnow, Jonathan Cherry

Directed By: Uwe Boll

Ok, I'm going to be honest here. This movie was on the Sci Fi Channel tonight and I decided to give it a chance since I've never seen it before. I'd also like to state that I'm aware of the reputation of director Uwe Boll, but I decided to give it a chance anyway. With that said, I'll get on to the review....

I watched five minutes of this garbage and decided to change the channel and never to give Uwe Boll or any of his films a chance ever again. Where do I start? God this movie was horrible (or what I saw anyway) that I can't give it a fair shake. Why can't I? Because I can't find one damn thing that's good to say about it.

Let me see.... hmmmm.... nope. Nothing good or redeeming comes to mind. Therefore, on with the bashing of House of the Dead.

I'm a HUGE fan of zombie films. In fact, I've got a great collection of zombie movies spanning VHS, Laserdisc, and DVD. All of the zombie movies I've seen span both big budget as well as independent cinema, and I will say that out of all of them, House of the Dead is below the bottom of the heap. What does that mean, Stephen? It means that even though this film had a decent sized budget, is based on a great video game, and is "labeled" a zombie film... it's the worst piece of zombie cinema I've ever laid eyes on.

The zombies were so god awful that I could honestly tell that the makeup fx guys could give a shit less about their zombies. I've seen better makeup from the TV show Friends. How freakin' sad is that? Not only did they look like garbage, they were unoriginal in motion and actions. I've seen real corpses at funeral homes that were more intimidating. Damn, it was brutal, and not in a good way.

The acting: ok, I'm going to say this... when Clint Howard is the only redeeming quality of this shitfest you call a film... walk away. Walk away slowly. For those who don't know, Clint Howard is Ron Howard's brother who is known for obscure and nutball characters in cult films. His more promising role was in Austin Powers when a giant penis crossed his computer screen and he said: "Johnson". That's it. Other than that, I've never seen any of these people before in my life except for Jurgen Pronchnow, and I wish I'd never seen them now.

The movie's "BIG" action sequence at the end was chocked so full of Matrix rip-off shots that I'm sure Larry Wachowski almost considered not having his sex change in order to be a man about whipping Uwe Boll's ass. Ok Uwe, I saw more "bullet time" Matrix shots in three minutes than I saw in 6 hours of Matrix movies. Leave those to the Wachowski's because you absolutely suck at it.

Now for the director, Uwe Boll. What in God's name possessed this man to think that House of the Dead should be this film, and who in the Hell gave him the money to bring this crack-pipe vision to the screen? No wonder it made $18 at the box office. I've seen better direction from Kindergarten plays with the Special Ed kids. Come on dude! What in the Hell where you thinking? I know, I know... like Mr. Boll will ever read this or answer my questions... but still, it feels good to vent.

To sum this up... yes I only watched about 5 to 8 minutes of this garbage and even though it was on cable TV, I wanted to track down Uwe Boll and DEMAND that he pay my cable bill for this crap-o-rama shitfest. After turning the channel I came to the realization that any monkey with a camera can make a movie, but it takes a monkey that smokes crack to make something this awful. Never in my life have I seen such a complete waste of film. Somewhere a guy at Kodak lost his job for comissioning out the filmstock on this piece of work.

Avoid this movie like a crab infested hooker and if you watch it, please do yourself the favor and punch yourself in the face repeatedly until you see stars. Trust me when I say that it will be less painful.

I was going to rate this film, but then out of principle, I decided that it was not even worth a film reel here. The 5 minutes Mr. Boll wasted of my life, I can never get back, so therefore I urge everyone not to watch another movie he makes ever again. You'll never get that valuable time back.

Rating: None

The Omen (2006)

This review was originally published on: Tuesday June 20th, 2006.


The Omen

2006

Starring: Liev Schreiber, Julia Stiles, Mia Farrow, David Thewlis, Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick


Directed by: John Moore



If you've seen the original version of The Omen, you basically know what to expect going in, but something that actually suprised me was that this was almost a shot for shot remake of the original. In fact, the script is almost verbatim to the original film. The differences between the two (other than it's updated and includes some references to current events) lies soley in the directing and portrayal of the central characters. Let me explain:


In the original version, it took the audience a while to realize that Damien was actually the antichrist. In the remake, you basically find out within a few minutes. Does this hurt the new version? Not really. The remake takes it's source material and the original Richard Donner film so seriously that I felt at times I was watching the Donner version remade by Donner himself. The directing in this film is actually really good and at times leaves you questioning your own faith.


Now on to the acting: I've never been a fan of Julia Stiles, but can actually say that after The Omen, I see her in another light other than some actress from those foo-foo-fluffy-crap chick flicks. Liev Schrieber is actually very convincing and cold in the role of Damien's father and does a good job at playing a straight-laced politician with a family secret to keep hidden. David Thewlis does a phenominal job at keeping all the pieces of non-believers together while coming to his own self-realization that something beyond human control could be there pulling strings. My only real problem with the film is Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick (Damien himself). The kid, although creepy looking as all Hell, didn't really do much but stare at the camera and look pissed at the world. Wouldn't the antichrist be a little more decietful and trick people into thinking he's normal? In this, Damien basically looks evil, thus giving away his master plan of death and destruction. By the acting this kid gives away, you'd think his parents would catch on, but they never did. Like I said, this was really my only gripe with the film.



All in all this was a great film that almost lived up to the original, but once again proves what remakes prove: they're not quite as good as the original and never will be. Don't get me wrong, this was one of the best remakes I've seen, but when it boils down to it, I prefer the original over any remake. Though that doesn't mean I like the remakes any less.



Rating: