King Kung Fu (1976)

King Kung Fu
1976
Starring: Lance D. Hayes, Allan Baker, Dan Campbell, Tim McGill

Directed By: Lance D. Hayes

A friend of mine gave me a copy of this a few years ago and I promised I'd do a review. The thing is, I've literally spent like two years trying to forget this movie, so in a demented way to cleanse myself of this "movie", I'm returning with what might be the worst (or best) review ever. Warning, this won't be for the faint of heart.

According to IMDB, the plot is this:

A remote monastery in China has trained a talking gorilla, King Kung Fu, in the ancient art of kung fu. Having mastered his fighting skills, King Kung Fu is sent to America to demonstrate the power of Chinese martial arts to the West. As he is travelling through Kansas, a pair of bumbling reports see King Kung Fu and decide he can be their ticket to fame and wealth. Of course, the gorilla gets away from them, and soon everyone is chasing the Shaolin simian.

Now, I'm not even going to summarize my own plot because wasting my breath on that while I could use it to give my thoughts just isn't worth it. Before I get to my own review, apparently this movie got it's share of "bad press", so I'm going to give you all a treat. Actual words from the Director complaining about "why" this movie sucked so hard.

"I've lived with this movie, King Kung Fu for over 30 years now, and have heard every kind of remark known to mankind about it. When we started this movie in 1974, we were the first to use the new 16mm negative film. Had we finished it on time, we would have been out before "Airplane". This film allowed us to "Blow it up" to 35mm for theatrical release. Naturally it played to big crowds in Wichita, and was actually held over for another week, and did well then too. We played it at the Wichita Orpheum as a fund raiser for restoring the theater. A week before the Wizard of Oz played there. KKF drew 5 people less than OZ, which says something. I don't know what. Anyway, when the movie played there two years ago, the audience laughed throughout the movie, and then bought a lot of VHS tapes, T-shirts and posters, all of which contributed to the fund raising. I had several comments following the movie, like "If people can laugh at your movie 30 years later, you must have done something right". Thus, I am truly puzzled by nasty reviews claiming this to be the worst movie ever. I can assure you I have seen a lot of movies worse than mine. We stuck by our guns in 1974 to make a "G" rated movie, and had to fight the MPAA to get it. If you really watch this movie closely, you will see it is not a backyard production. We busted our buns to make it work. Enjoy"

First off, WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!?!? Why defend this movie? It's like defending OJ Simpson. You may win the argument, but you know he's guilty of murder. Same case here. You know you made a bad movie and committed film murder, so why bother to defend yourself? WHY? You say you stuck to your guns to get that "G" rating? Why not stick that same gun in your mouth, pull the trigger, and spare society the embarassment of watching you take a shit on us for 85 minutes. I don't like to be shit on, and by watching this movie, that's exactly what I got: A giant fucking turd smacked across my face. You say your film drew 5 less people than the Wizard of Oz and you don't know what that means? People like trainwrecks and will crawl out of the bowels of society to see one. That's why pal.

For one, you can't call the acting in this movie acting. It's caricature. It's overdone and overplayed and exaggerated beyond belief. A "modern day" sheriff that acts just like John Wayne? Is that supposed to be funny? Seriously? That guy couldn't even wash John Wayne's taint, much less have the audacity to act like him. What gives you the right to fuck with "The Duke" in such a way? The rest of the acting will literally make you want to impale yourself on plastic cutlery over and over until death comes for you. It's simply that bad. There is not one redeeming thing to say about the acting or the people cast in this movie.

The script. Shit. Plain and simple. How dare this man compare this movie to Airplane? How dare he? Airplane was funny. This is funny in one of those awkward "I just shit my pants on the escalator and I hope the guy behind me with his nose in my ass doesn't notice" situations. You feel dirty watching this movie and hope to God that there is enough bleach manufactured to scrub your eyes with. It's written as if a team of four year olds threw darts at random ideas and recycled movie plots taped to a dartboard and they put them down in no apparent order.

The direction: Well, I wipe my ass with the direction. I see now where Dreamworks got their idea for Kung Fu Panda. Seriously. The only difference is that they animated it, got good people to write it, got a director that didn't seem to ride an unnatural short bus, and got good actors to voice the characters. Oh yeah, they animated theirs because MOVIES LIKE THIS SHOULD BE ANIMATED and not disguised thinly as a "quality movie". How dare this asshole compare his movie to Airplane? The only truth he spoke was that it wasn't a backyard production. No, it was a third grade production.

Believe it or not, it was shot on film and I understand where the money went. It didn't go into polishing that script or getting good actors. It went for the bragging rights of "Hey, we shot this turd on film" argument that most BAD filmmakers use. I don't care if this movie was filmed on construction paper. It would still suck the life out of you and leave you looking like those souless slave muppets in The Dark Crystal.

The best (or worst) part of the whole movie: The special effects. A jackass in a gorilla suit (like we're supposed to believe that shit) and the epic King Kong-esque climax on top of a building complete with stop-motion GI JOE action figures and a play-doh gorilla. I shit you not. I've dropped prettier pieces of shit in the toilet. First off, the gorilla suit guy as "King Kung Fu". WHAT THE FUCK? Ok, I get it. You didn't have enough money for a real gorilla and CGI wouldn't be invented for another couple of years, so I'll give you that one for comedic purposes. The stop-motion, play-doh, GI JOE doll climax? Fuck you! Don't even say that this was supposed to even remotely look cool. It looked like playtime after lunch in the retard classroom.

According to the filmmakers it took years to get this movie finished because the blind assholes givng them money kept dropping the funds out from under them. NO FUCKING WAY!!! Stevie Wonder can see that this movie is fucking awful. In fact, this movie blinded Stevie Wonder and caused Ray Charles to do heroin. The reason money kept getting taken away is because the filmmakers kept taking shits on their financial backers. I wouldn't throw them 20 bucks either.

All in all, if I had my choice of eating undigested corn and peanuts out of a dead mans ass or watching King Kung Fu again, I'd grab a spoon and say what's for dinner. I'd rather wake up with morning wood, piss straight up into my own mouth, and then drink it than to watch this again. I hope that somewhere, someone has beaten someone severely for allowing this movie to get made, let alone released to the public. There are movies that are so bad they're good. This isn't one of them. I'd say that this is worse than shit. This movie is the equivalent of taking a huge liquid shit after a two day bender of drinking and eating Mexican food, then taking that shit and mixing it in a blender with rotten animal parts, then blending you a nice protein shake. Actually, this movie is the 2 girls 1 cup of traditional cinema without the nice lesbian chicks to make the shit and vomit easier to swallow.

I'd rate this movie, but I can't bring myself to do it.

Rating: None

A Haunting in Connecticut (2009)

The Haunting in Connecticut

2009

Starring: Virginia Madson, Kyle Gallner, Elias Koteas, Amanda Crew, and Martin Donovan

Directed By: Peter Cornwell

The year is 1987 and a young mid-teenage boy, Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner) is slowly dying from cancer. His mother Sara (Virginia Madson), has to make frequent trips from New York to Connecticut for him to seek cancer treatment. With the frequent cancer treatments and trips to New York, the Campbell family is put under a severe financial strain, so Matt's parents suggest they get a "rental" home near the doctor. Sara finds a cheap enough house and the dad, Peter (Martin Donovan) says he can't afford to take another job, so they put out a third mortgage on the house and he stays at their New York home and visits on weekends.

From the first night staying in the house, Matt starts seeing crazy things: people cutting on corpses and pulling their eyelids off, a mortician carving crazy words onto corpses, and other creepy things. After what seems like weeks of the visions and strange occurrances, Matt starts talking to an older guy who's having the same cancer treatments. The guy turns out to be Reverend Popescu (Elias Koteas), and it seems his philosophy is that the closer to death you are, the more likely you'll be able to see the dead. Since he and Matt are dying from cancer, they appear to be able to see spirits. From that point on, the good Reverend seems to be the only one sympathetic to Matt's visions, so he decides to help him through the ordeal and aid the Campbell family.

Now, in all honesty, The Haunting in Connecticut isn't a bad movie, but suffers from some of the same Hollywood horror gags that plague every horror flick nowadays. For instance, when you see something scary, the music "pops" in that scary tone, which after about the third time in the same movie can be quite distracting. But, that's not to say the movie is bad, it's just suffers from the average Hollywood input. It seems that the best horror flicks are the ones made outside the "system".

The story is actually quite entertaining and not overly contrived or trite. For the PG-13 rating, the film actually pushes what I would consider the limit for that MPAA rating. It's not gorey, but instead more macabre and eerie and I believe that it actually might terrify a 13 year old kid. If not the frightening imagery, the whole cancer plotline might be a bit much for someone that age. But, back to the story...

The script is solid and isn't weighted down with typical Hollywood ignorance. It's paced well overall but seems to stutter and stall out in a few minor scenes, but nothing enough to ruin the film for you. Pretty much from minute one it's a well paced film that will definately keep you watching. The last 30 minutes are hit and miss until about the final 15, where everything finally falls into place and the puzzle pieces fit. Overall, not a bad script considering both screenwriter's shadey film career. About the best from either one was Fright Night Part 2, and that's not an award winner in itself but simply... OK.

The acting is where this movie actually shines. Kyle Gallner, Virginia Madsen, and Elias Koteas (best recognized as "Hey! It's Casey Jones from the Ninja Turtles movies!") really steal the show. Kyle Gallner really makes you believe he's truly dying from cancer and sometimes he doesn't even speak, but instead lets his eyes tell the story. This kid WILL go places if he plays his cards right. Virginia Madsen does good as the mom, but she really doesn't bring anything new to the table, but instead delivers a solid performance. The scene stealer though is Elias Koteas, who is probably one of the most underrated actors alive today besides Crispin Glover and a handful of others.

The direction seems to suffer from typical horror film syndrome that's plaguing Hollywood flicks nowadays. Flash cuts, slow-mo's, and quick pops seem to dominate the second half of the movie, but did a decent job setting it up in the first half. When you get to the second half, you wonder if Peter Cornwell has anymore tricks up his sleeve because you can almost call what the next shot will look like. If I were directing this flick, I would have went back to the original Amittyville, The Shining, and Exorcist for editing and directing ideas. The simpler the better in horror movies, and it seems to me that directors now seem to underestimate the audience and feel that flashier is better. Truly, that's not the case as I'd take The Thing or one of the 3 "old-school" horror flicks I just mentioned over about anything coming out now.

The editing and special fx are good, but the editing suffers from to much flash and style to be taken serious at times. The fx are great, but again, sometimes less can be more. Instead of flashy CGI and computer fx, building suspense with more payoff would have worked better. The buildup at the beginning was great, but moneyshot after moneyshot, the film leaves you wondering why they just didn't go for scares instead of showing you everything. However, what you see is really great, it just seems to get somewhat old about half-way through the film.

Overall, the movie was good. A solid PG-13 horror flick amidst the cornball shitfest we get constantly every other month now at the theaters. I'd really like to check out the Blu-Ray for additional content (ie-deleted scenes, fact from fiction vignettes, etc...) and see the film and what the filmmakers can bring to the home theater. It's definately worth a watch, but I feel the horror enthusiasts will think it's decent and should give it a chance.

Rating: