Change Your Image
mortradio
Usually embalm during the late night and early morning hours, which is nice since there is really no traffic to deal with. Been a mortician for over 30 years, and have embalmed enough people to fill a small city.
If I'm not embalming or hosting a show, I usually get on the Tubi website and watch films until I fall asleep. I never turn off a film, no matter how bad it is. It is the only way to fairly critique a film.
It's a pretty mundane life, but I'm still alive.
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Gabby Petito Story (2022)
Telling a Pretty Girl Syndrome, Trope-Filled Fairy Tale....ad nauseam
If you walked up to most 40-year-olds (or older) and asked them who Laci Peterson was, their response will probably be something like, "Isn't that the pregnant woman whose husband killed her?"
If you walked up to most 40-year-olds (or older) and asked them who Evelyn Hernandez was, their response will probably be something like, "Who?"
That's Pretty Girl Syndrome - True Crime Edition.
Both women (Laci and Evelyn) went missing in 2002. Both women were later discovered (or, actually, parts of them were discovered) months later. Both women had their child murdered as well, with Laci's child being in the womb while Evelyn's child was a toddler. Yet, whereas the Laci Peterson double murder made headlines, the Evelyn Hernandez double murder receive pretty much nothing more than a burp from media outlets.
Yeah, even true crime has elements of show business in it.
Now, to be perfectly honest, I have nothing but disdain for people who continually ready themselves to spit out the word, "privileged", at a moment notice. They are fools who should be treated as such. Yet, because I try to be honest when jotting down my thoughts and opinions, I will say that "privileged" does pop up whenever someone goes missing, or worse, is murdered. There is no better example of this than the bloated case of the Gabby Petito murder.
If one takes away all the media glamour of the Petito murder (yes, I said glamour) they will find a very simple case of a mutually toxic relationship that took it a step too far. It has happened a thousand times before and will happen a thousand more times. Yet, even though there is nothing strange, unusual, or interesting that occurred in the Petito murder case, Lifetime and Thora Birch decided to make their film, "The Gabby Petito Story".
Why?
Because Petito fits the criteria for Pretty Girl Syndrome.
For the Pretty Girl Syndrome to work, certain requirements must be met. The girl must be white. That is nonnegotiable. Also a nonnegotiable trait is attractiveness. The girl has to be considered pretty by the general populace. Additionally, even though some think overweight women are attractive, with Pretty Girl Syndrome, the girl has to be 125lbs or less. Finally, the girl has to be at least from a middle-class background. She can be from a more affluent background, but then she has to have a more "down to earth" quality about her. For a female victim to be nationally noticed by the media, Pretty Girl Syndrome must be adhered to.
Obviously, Gabby Petito met the requirements for Pretty Girl Syndrome, and thus, her story and face were plastered all over news outlets and social media, and a few movies/documentaries were made about her. And Thora Birch's film, "The Gabby Petito Story" is the most obscene result of the media circus from the Petito Murder Case.
The film reeks with falsehoods and tropes. In the film, Petito is an independent free-spirit, sweet and kind, who is attempting to make a name for herself. Because Petito is a free-spirit, sweet and kind, that makes her naïve about how evil her boyfriend, Brian Laundrie, really is. She must be blind as well, since Petito never notices how here boyfriend is always huffing and puffing in anger, growling and yelling, or flinging tortilla chips across the room. Yeah, he tossed my dinner across the room, but I love him. And Laundrie is such an oppressive force that Petito always ignores all of her friends' advice to "leave him". Of course, Laundrie tries to get Petito to give up on her "Van Life" blog, mainly because he is jealous and controlling. It's not at all because the whole "Van Life" idea was just a flop and would never make any money.
Obviously, Birch's "The Gabby Petito Story" is trope heaven. The film wasn't made to explain the events of the Petito Murder, or to bring awareness to abusive relationships (on both sides). Petito is an angel and Laundrie is a demon. That is basically the plot of this worthless film. This film was made for sensationalism, and its cash-grab, and nothing more. What makes this film all the more distasteful is that it isn't even any good, which is the ultimate sin that any film can make. But then again, Birch's "The Gabby Petito Story" wasn't made for the sake to tell an actual story.
To believe that Gabby Petito's life needed to be etched into cinematic stone is comical to say the least. Her "importance" is rooted in Pretty Girl Syndrome. Be it for the fact that she was pretty, murdered, and had a villainous boyfriend, no one would be interested in a film about her, for her life was average (like the rest of us). Lifetime, Birch, her fellow producers, and the leading actors and actresses did nothing more that suckle off the Petito Crime Teet. The film was hastily put together and given a spit-shine before the cash-cow was taken to the rendering farm, and it shows in the final product. It is painfully obvious to anyone viewing the trope-filled film that is was made because the requirements for Pretty Girl Syndrome were met and the audience (money) was there.
But hey, that's why it's called "show business".
Strangely enough, there is a story to be told with the Petito Murder, and it is the story of the fragility of social media. Much like when the Seirenes would lure sailors to sail their boats towards them, only to have to boat smash against the rocks and drown the sailors, the Petito Murder shows how utterly ignorant a person(s) can be when chasing the illusion of becoming "viral". The film could have portrayed how a mutually toxic and immature couple (Petito and Laundrie) come up with the ill-fated idea of becoming popular "YouTubers" and set off to find their viral fame, only to discover later that the whole YouTube lifestyle is a pipe dream. Yes, a rare few make a name for themselves, but most (like Petito and Laundrie) fall to the waist-side and are forgotten. And because they are hit with this cold reality, along with an already mutually toxic and abusive relationship, the Petito murder occurs.
But Lifetime and Birch didn't tell that story. Why? Because it is true.
So sit through the 90 minute trope tofu-fest of Birch's "The Gabby Petito Story", but if you think you are being told the story (as boring as it is), you are woefully wrong. You are being lied to.
The Forgotten (1973)
The IMDb rating is wrong....This film is a drive-in grindhouse masterpiece!!!
"Don't Look in the Basement" can be hailed as a drive-in grindhouse masterpiece of cinema. S. F. Brownrigg's film is the equivalent of a carnival ride that was built by the publishers of the Tales from the Crypt comic books.
The film has the same grainy and humid atmosphere that is found in other famous 1970s films like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Last House on the Left". The cinematography alone is horrifically wonderful, from stagnant shots that have the haze of a laundromat, to obscene close-up shots of crazed individuals, all of which make up a continual flow of horror comic book images.
And do not make the mistake that the acting will be 2nd rate, because it isn't. From axe-wielding judges, to beautiful nymphomaniacs, to frantic wannabe mothers with toy dolls, and to other wonderfully deranged characters, all of the actors in this cinema masterpiece give it every thing they got to please and entertain their view audience. Each and every one of the actors and actresses in the classic horror film deserve a standing ovation.
The ending credits alone should have brought the Oscar for Best Picture to this classic piece of cinema.
Honestly, this is a fun film. You will forget your troubles for a couple of hours while you laugh at moments and scream at other moments.
S. F. Brownrigg's "Don't Look in the Basement" is a film that should be on every film connoisseur's list.
The Devil Comes to Kansas City (2023)
A film that can only be described as....Lame-brain
I like the Tubi film/television website.
Yes, there are commercials, but then again, nothing is for free. And yes, not all the films and television shows that they offer for viewing are 10 out of 10. Many of them are around 2 or 3 out of 10. Still, there are some good films that appear on the Tubi selection board, and there are enough 5's to keep you coming back to the website.
So, as I said, I like the Tubi website, and I enjoy many of the films that they offer, but no matter how careful you are, once in a while a film slips under the radar and you end up watching it, realizing that you have wasted two hours of your life watching high-school level actors/actresses performing in a mentally-challenged rendition of a poorly written, badly filmed, haphazardly edited pile of rancid celluloid. And then when you notice that the film is a "Tubi Original", you simply feel like tossing yourself out the nearest window as punishment.
This happened to me last night when I watched the film, "The Devil Comes To Kansas City".
Actually, I was tricked into seeing this piece of garbage. It was the premise of the film that led me astray. A man, Paul Wilson, happens to be a former mercenary who now owns a farm. He sees his wife being murdered and his diabetic daughter kidnapped by a child-sex ring. Obviously, he decides (with the help of his two friends) to go after the kidnappers to get his diabetic daughter back and avenge his wife's murder. In the process, he meets an old friend who happens to be the great-grandson of Robert Johnson, the famous blues guitarist who supposedly sold his soul to the devil. This friend puts him in touch with Satan, who makes a deal with Paul Wilson so he can get his daughter back.
Okay, fairly wild story. Usual revenge story with a little demonic horror put into the mix. A little weird, but I thought it would be entertaining.
I was wrong. I was so wrong. Good Lord, I was wrong and I was punished for it.
Right off from the beginning, the acting fell into two categories. It was either noticeably stiff or over-the-top. It is one of the two. There is no middle-ground here. As an example, one of the actors who portrays a friend of the lead character simply stands around in the background and recites his lines. He emotes his emotional distress over the whole kidnapping situation by shouting about going fishing. In another example, the actor who plays the lead villain is so over-the-top with his acting style that he almost starts chewing the scenery that surrounds him. In another fine example, an actor who plays another friend of the lead character portrays the action of snorting cocaine to allow the drug to release his inner rage against the kidnappers, and the actor shows this by hooping and shouting after taking the drug. Probably the only person on screen that I didn't have a problem with was the actress who plays the diabetic daughter of the mercenary, and that's because she is asleep for 90% OF THE FILM.
Of course, the lead actor of the film, Ben Gavin, takes his role of a former mercenary to new heights of absurdity. Just seeing how he handles a handgun and sub-machine gun will tell you that this man has never held a gun before, and never even attempted to learn how to hold a gun properly. Also, one of the more comical scenes in the film is when Mr. Gavin portrays himself watching his daughter being kidnapped and wife murdered. When seeing the crime, Mr. Gavin simple whines and then rolls around on the grass, taking moments to pause and look at the crime being committed before whining and rolling again. This scene is followed up by the cringe-filled moment when the father of the mercenary (over-the-top played by Jim O'Heir) slobbers on his son to remind him that "there is a time to take action and a time to grieve". You expect the two to roll around in the grass some more, but they don't. But they still do cringe, and cringe a lot.
The film, overall, is absurd and doesn't make sense for a lot of the time. Characters appear in the film, like the father of the mercenary, and they are presented as though they are important to the story, but after five minutes, they are off the screen and never heard from again. As stated earlier, the mercenary has a friend (the one who likes fishing) who says he is going to help him get his daughter back. They drive to Kansas City, and after yelling about going fishing again, the friend leaves the film and never is heard of again. Why was he in the film in the first place? He did nothing. He added nothing. He just drove the truck, yelled about fishing, and left.
Another moment of stupidity regarding the film is the character of Robert Johnson's great-grandson. Why is the character just absurdly silly? Well, for starters, Satan has given him a special power, which is the ability to know where someone is located within a 50 mile radius.
Yes, you read that right. His special power is knowing where someone is located within 50 miles. Frankly, when it comes to "special powers", this one ranks as pretty low and worthless. It's really only good for finding lost dogs and cats, which is nice, but it isn't too interesting. Also, why does Satan give him this power in the first place? Isn't Satan supposed to take things from people? You know, like take their lives or souls. He's not supposed to hand things like to people. Why Satan is giving out special powers I couldn't tell you, and you won't know either since it is really never explained in this stupid film.
Another thing is that Satan has given the great-grandson a chance to save his soul (even though the great-grandson never sold his soul). I don't know why Satan is allowing people a chance to retain their souls? Again, isn't Satan supposed to take souls. Doesn't he fill Hell with the souls of the lost? Anyway, Satan tells the great-grandson of Robert Johnson that he can save his soul. All he has to do is do a good deed.
So what does the great-grandson do?
He hands out pancakes to the homeless.
Are.... You.... Serious?
Anyway, because he is the great-grandson of Robert Johnson, he can also play blues guitar. Yet, the guitar he carries isn't just for playing blues tunes. Like the guitar was taken out of a pile of failed James Bond secret weapons, this guitar can also shoot deadly arrows. That's right. He can shoot 3, 4, 5 arrows and take out a whole squad of bad guys before going back to playing the blues (and yes, he does this in the film....kills a bad guy and then plays a blues tune.... I guess it's suppose to be cool or something, but it just looks stupid).
Other insignificant, but stupid-enough-to-mention moment, deals with our lead character, Mercenary Paul Wilson. When entering the warehouse where is daughter is being kept, our CIA and Marine trained mercenary meets a Mexican street thug who is the right-hand man of the main villain.
Remember those descriptions. CIA/Marine trained mercenary and street thug.
They begin to fight (of course), and even though the mercenary is trained in hand-to-hand combat and knows how to kill someone with his bare hands, the street thug goes toe-to-toe with him. The street thug starts pulling off multiple martial art moves to counteract the moves by the government-trained assassin mercenary. Karate chops, high-flying kicks, spinning sweeps, blocks, and attacks. The street thug knows it all. How does he know it all? Well, that's never explained. Perhaps ghetto street thugs can take special courses in martial arts at the local community college.
Another moment of nonsense is the mercenary's preparation for the final battle to save his daughter (which happens after he talks to Satan....huh?....why don't you just get your daughter). To prepare for the battle, the mercenary begins to camouflage his face with greasepaint. Obviously, seeing him smear this crap on his face, one wants to ask the question, "Why?". I understand that the greasepaint is to camouflage his face during combat, but the mercenary is GOING TO A WAREHOUSE. There is no foliage at the warehouse. There are no plants at the warehouse. There are not even blades of grass or weeds at the warehouse. The warehouse has walls and floors, and the walls and floors are drywall and concrete, and the place is filled with bright, overhead florescence lamps. So again, I ask you, why is the mercenary covering his face with camouflage greasepaint? I guess because it just looks cool. Either that, or the director watch one too many Rambo and Rambo-type films and thought that all mercenaries wear camouflage greasepaint regardless of their environment.
Whatever. It's pointless to even try to find a reasonable explanation.
By the end of this rotten film, the bad guys lose, the good guys win, Satan gives a speech, and people in Heaven wear all white clothes. Most of all, the audience wakes up.
As I said in the beginning, when I read the synopsis of this film, I thought it was weird or unusual enough to possibly be entertaining. Maybe with the right director and the right cast, this film might have ended up being successful because of the story's "mondo-ness", a low-budget crazy film that ends up being a Midnight Show wonder. Unfortunately, director Michael Blevins is not the right director and Ben Gavins and the rest of the cast are not the right actors and actresses. Because of this, what the viewer gets is two hours of unfunny and uninteresting boredom.
"The Devil Comes To Kansas City" should have never been made because it commits the ultimate sin, which is not entertaining its audience. A film's main goal, regardless of it subject matter or story, it to make you forget your problems for a couple of hours. This film fails at this task. This film should be given to Satan so he can take it to Hell and shelve it.
Super Size Me (2004)
A Mockumentary the passes itself off as a documentary that's really a docu-vism that states the obvious but hides some truths
At the time of its release, Morgan Spurlock's documentary, "Super Size Me", was hailed by the media as a film that pulled back the curtain on the fast-food industry (mainly McDonalds) as the major cause of obesity and an unhealthy lifestyle. What the media did not cover was how many people questioned Spurlock's so-called findings, or that stating the obvious can still rake in a lot of money if you point your arrows at the right subject, which in this case is McDonalds.
Here's the premise of Spurlock's documentary. If you eat 5000 calories a day in fast food (or again, McDonalds) for 30 days and do not exercise (or do as little exercise as possible) you will gain weight. Of course, using common sense, one can deduce that if you eat 5000 calories a day of fast food and do not exercise, you'll end up gaining some weight. What Spurlock fails to tell his audience is that if you eat 5000 calories of any food (health food or otherwise) and do not exercise, you will gain weight. The audience, though, wanting to pass of personal responsibility for their decisions, gladly gobble up Spurlock's so-called finding of "if you eat fast food, you'll get fat".
When Spurlock's documentary had gained its notoriety, nutritionalists recreated Spurlock's "test conditions" and found that they could not achieve the same results as Spurlock. These nutritionalists found that although some did gain a small amount of weight, the majority of them simply went about life as normal with no physical change to their health. These nutritionalists also found that there was no "addiction" to fast food as Spurlock claimed happened to him after 30 days of eating fast food. Whereas Spurlock claimed to have some withdrawals when he stopped eating fast food, the nutritionalists simply stopped eating fast food and had no side effects. Unlike Spurlock's doctor claims that Spurlock's fast food diet was "pickling" his liver, the nutritionalist (and others) found no unhealthy reactions to their diet other than slight fatigue from eating too much.
Also, the nutritionalist (and others) who wanted to recreate Spurlock's so-called experiment requested copies of his "food logs" that he stated he kept during his fast food dietary test. They wanted to see how he was able to achieve the 5000 calorie mark. Spurlock refused to release is "food logs" to anyone (including the media), which raised the question of if he was even consuming 5000 calories a day, or what he was actually consuming. This difficulty of obtaining Spurlock's "food logs" is even documented in Tom Naughton's "Fat Head", a documentary which pretty much debunks Spurlock's findings, as well as calls into question Spurlock's motives.
Another important note of information that Spurlock fails to include in his documentary (and fails to tell his doctor) is that during the time of filming "Super Size Me", Spurlock, by his own admission, was a full blown alcoholic. It is safe to assume that his sickness from eating fast food was conditional to the fact that he was slugging booze during the day and night as well (according to Spurlock, he had been drinking since the age of 13). The infamous scene of Spurlock vomiting in the parking lot only after being on his fast food diet for two days wasn't from the fast food, it was from the hangover from the alcohol he guzzled (as well as not prepping for the fast food diet.... Spurlock was a strict vegan prior to the diet).
Is Spurlock's "Super Size Me" a good film. Technically, yes. It is filmed well, and keeps you entertained. But is Spurlock's "Super Size Me" a good documentary. Absolutely not. Not only was Spurlock not forthcoming about what he was actually eating (not releasing food logs), and was not open about his alcoholism, which obviously had an adverse affect on his general health (which skewered his physical exam results), but Spurlock's documentary is condescending to its audience. The message that the film conveys is that people, in general (and especially poor minorities), pretty much have no common sense, cannot make proper decisions or smart life choices, and are to the point in their lives that they need a higher power (the government) to make their choices for them so they can lead healthier lives. In other words, when you watch "Super Size Me", you are being told that you are unable to control yourself, so someone should be monitoring you.
"Super Size Me" fails as a documentary simply because it negates personal responsibility in favor of creating a villain to blame (and profit from). It purposely ignores the importance of taking responsibility for oneself, that individuals are allowed to make choices in determining their health. The film simply blames the fast food industry for everything, and advocates for the government to oversee the industry. Instead of the film honing in on the importance of education, critical thinking, discipline, and taking responsibility to lead a good life, it simply says "You're fat because McDonalds made you fat".
Although "Super Size Me" fails as a documentary, it does succeed as a propaganda film. At the time of the film's popularity, "Super Size Me" was having impressive box office receipts, and the critics praised Spurlock's efforts in "exposing" the fast food industry. Spurlock, realistically unknown prior to the release of his film, was now a celebrity, appearing on talk shows, giving interviews on radio shows, and smiling for photo-ops at film premiers. In response to the film, the fast food industry went through a phase of offering "healthier" options on their menus (which were eventually phased out because no one ever ordered the "healthier" options). Frankly, Spurlock wanted to do a "hit piece" on McDonalds and was successful as doing so, even if he had to distort the facts to do so.
"Super Size Me" is not a noble documentary. Although it did momentarily make the fast-food industry jump through hoops to give an image that they were producing more healthier fast-food (which, in itself, it a contradiction in terms), the documentary is a farce. It is an MTV moment to make Spurlock more popular. People were looking for a demon to point at and blame for their fatness, and Spurlock delivered, even if he had to distort the truth to do so.
In the end, "Super Size Me" fails at standing the test of time, and it is now looked upon more for entertainment and embarrassment. Spurlock for the most part has step out of the spotlight, and that's for the best.
The Langoliers (1995)
The usual tripe from Stephen King....cringeworthy in 1995, and two decades later, it is still cringeworthy.
"The Langoliers", a mini-series that was plastered on the ABC network back in 1995, is a car accident that makes one rubber-neck because the scene is so bad. From cardboard cutouts, to scene-chewing, to an uninteresting story, "The Langoliers" is nothing more than a laughable bore.
A viewer may be able to sit through the three-hour length (mini-series, remember), but only through laughter and making comments about how absolutely ludicrous the movie is. Frankly, I believe that most of the positive reviews of this film are from "King Fanboys" who are afraid to face the reality that not everything that has the name of Stephen King on it is a work of supreme art from the so-called Master of the Macabre. In fact, a lot of King's work (along with the movies based on his work) are simply tripe. That's not to say that Mr. King hasn't written classic modern horror (Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Stand, Pet Semetery), but he has mostly produced word-processing nonsense that liberally borrows from Richard Matheson.
"The Langoliers" novella is pretty much a garbage story, and to follow, the film based on the written work is just hot garbage as well.
The cast of this horrible film are divided into two classes, 2nd rate actors/actresses and talented individuals who are here for the paycheck and do the bare minimum.
Obviously, David Morse, Dean Stockwell, and Bronson Pinchot are talented actors, but are really given nothing to work with. Morse simply flies the plane and tries to keep people calm. I mean, his character really does nothing else. Stockwell's job is to explain to everyone (in other words, the audience) what is going on in the story since most people aren't really paying attention after the first hour of the film. Pinchot does his moments of scene-chewing (which is entertaining in a cringe-way), but I believe he had these moments because he realized that the film was flat and uninterested, and therefore, he overcompensated with his character.
Having said this, the "Mr. Toomy" moments are the best times of the dreary, boring film, and you do somewhat feel sorry for the "Mr. Toomy" character, considering his backstory is one of physical and emotional abuse, whereas with all the other characters in the story, you couldn't care less about what happens to them.
Also, while Kate Maberly' character, "Dinah", can be considered one of the most annoying child performances is the history of cinema (her "radar-ears" routine is enough to make you want to punch a wall), it is Mark Lindsay Chapman's portrayal of U. K. assassin, Nick Hopewell, that takes the award for most annoying acting in a mini-series or major film. In between dropping the words "bloody", "mates", "bloke", and "pub" about five hundred times, and his "I'm scrunching my face to make me look tough because I'm an assassin", his two-hour romance with the school teacher is simply laughable, eye-rolling nonsense that is made worse by Chapman's performance.
If you want to watch "The Langoliers" for a dose of cringe-laughter, then be my guest. When seeing the mini-series in 1995, I realized that it was simply garbage. And it is still garbage today. "The Langoliers" was made because the studio knew that as long as they could plaster Stephen King's name on the title screen, the mini-series would make money no matter how much of a dumpster fire it was (and if you don't think my theory holds water, then explain "The Tommyknockers").
The positive reviews of this three-hour snoozefest are just tributes by King Fanboys. If you want to believe in those reviews, that is your choice, but you are fooling yourself. "The Langoliers" is a bad film. It was bad back in 1995, and it is bad now.
World's Greatest Dad (2009)
It isn't a comedy....It is, however, an extremely good film
Bobcat Goldthwait's film, "World's Greatest Dad" is not a comedy.
I can understand why people would think the film is a comedy, though. For one thing, the marketing for the film heavily suggests the film is a comedy. Also, the film was written and directed by Goldthwait, who is a comedian. Lastly, the film stars the late Robin Williams, who is known as a legendary comedian.
But, again, the film is not a comedy. It is, however, an extremely good film.
"World's Greatest Dad" is a story about Lance Clayton, an unimportant, unassuming, and unnoticed schoolteacher who dreams of being a published writer someday. The people in his life, be it his son, his girlfriend, or the people he works with, are unattached to him. There is nothing wrong with Lance. It just that people really are not interested in him. It is only after a horrific and demeaning death scene that people start to take notice of Lance. The problem arises when Lance starts taking advantage of his new-found notoriety.
Now, even though this film is not a comedy, there are moments in the film where we, the audience, do laugh. What kind of laughter is it, though. It is the same laughter that we have all done when we see someone trip and fall, or when someone has embarrassed themselves. It's a nervous laughter. It's a chuckle that we shamefully try to hide because we have found humor is someone else's misfortune. One example of this is during one scene in the film where a character surreptitiously takes "upskirt" pictures of a woman sitting next to him. Yes, the scene does make you chuckle until you realize how disturbing the scenario is. You not only have disdain for the character, but have a little of that feeling for yourself.
And you do find yourself having a certain amount of disdain for all the characters in "World's Greatest Dad", even for the characters that you can sympathize with to some degree. That's why some viewers are uncomfortable when watching this film, because you realize that even people you like can have a darker side, and furthermore, you just have to accept that.
Goldthwait's "World's Greatest Dad" is an exceptional celluloid lesson in the frailty of hero worshiping. Furthermore, the film shows the darker aspects of some individuals in the course of daily life, as well as outcome that can be predicted when dealing with parental failure. Lastly, not only does the film show that low points can very much look like high points, but that redemption can be found at the lowest point of someone's life.
Goldthwait is an remarkable director and writer. He joins the ranks of John Waters and Werner Herzog in presenting material to the viewing audience that other directors would not know how to handled, or would avoid all together. It is unfortunate that he does not receive the credit that he deserves, especially considering the senseless tripe that is pushed out by Hollywood today. Instead of going for another carbon copy superhero movie, Tinsel Town would do well in backing Goldthwait's next film project.
The cast of "World's Greatest Dad" all do their jobs very well. Everyone is believable in their roles, even to the point that you find yourself not liking many of the characters. There are no exceptional lines of dialogue or emotional monologues, but continuous moments of real dialogue between real characters, even down to the awkward moments, and the actors/actresses pull it off each and every time.
The casting of Robin Williams in the role of father/teacher Lance Clayton is a double-edge blade for the film. Williams is noteworthy in the film. His characterization of Clayton is probably the most subdued he has ever been on film. He obviously can do "drama", given his roles in films like "Insomnia", "One Hour Photo", "Seize the Day", and others. Yet, since this film was marketed as a dark comedy, people expect Williams to be like....well.... Robin Williams. This is unfortunate, not only for the film, but for Williams himself, since he does do an unique portrayal of a man with many flaws but who also is endearing.
Overall, "World's Greatest Dad" is a extremely good film that deals with a very dark subject. It shows what happens when our society and its media turns someone into a hero, when in all reality, the person does not deserve such praise. It is something that we see in our world today, and perhaps, it is a lesson that we should heed.
Twister (1996)
15 minutes Of tornadoes....and 105 minutes in the "Suck Zone"
I never do good in summer.
The heat and humidity wasn't letting me sleep. Even though it was late night, and I laid on the bed in darkness, sleep wasn't coming to me. It was going to be one of those nights where I only get a couple hours of sleep.
Yeah, I hate summer.
Setting off in a pair of wrinkled boxer shorts, I got out of bed and headed for the bathroom. I thought that I might as well do something productive. While emptying my bladder, I decided that I might as well watch a movie on the Tubi website. Why not? The films were free, and I was having a bout of summer insomnia, so it seemed to be a perfect combination.
After my restroom break, I went to my office, sitting at my computer and calling up the Tubi website. I scrolled through the list of choices, finally settling on Jan de Bont's film, "Twister". I hadn't seen the film since its release in 1996, and although I remembered it was a film about tornadoes, I didn't remember much else about the film. What I also didn't remember was how bad of a film "Twister" was (and still is). Unlike fine wines, bad films don't age very well after a quarter of a century.
The film, "Twister", is nothing more than a Lifetime/Hallmark movie with a big budget. The stars of the film, which are the CGI effects, are only in the film for about a collective of 15 minutes. The effects (in other words, the tornadoes) are impressive enough. It just the other 105 minutes that makes you wonder why anyone would praise this tripe.
Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt play divorcing couple, Bill and Jo Harding. Bill drives to Jo in Oklahoma so she can sign the divorce papers. He brings with him his girlfriend, Melissa (played by Jami Gertz). They drive out to the site were Jo is working on an untested and revolutionary tornado measuring device, which of course, always seems to be breaking down.
We are only a few minutes into the film, and the absurdity is already creeping in. Why would you bring your girlfriend to meet your soon-to-be ex-wife so you can have your ex-wife sign the divorce papers? I guess that's how they do it in Lifetime/Hallmark movies, which are known for having cardboard cutout versions of "love triangles". Maybe Bill was hoping that the two women would start a catfight. Now, catfights are cool if you're drinking in a dive bar, but two women slapping and pulling hair in the middle of an Oklahoma field?
Anyway....
While Bill tries to get Jo to sign the divorce papers, we are introduced to the cliche motley crew of "stormchasers", all who are disheveled and disorganized (right down to unwashed junk-filled cars and RVs that they drive). Yet, even though this group looks like they should be working in a second-hand shop or pumping gas, they are highly educated "stormchasers" who always seem to pull it together because they work as a team.
Can you taste the cardboard yet?
Jo, in an attempt to avoid signing the divorce papers (because she still loves Bill....remember, Lifetime/Hallmark), shows him the untested and revolutionary tornado measuring device, which the motley crew of "stormchasers" have named "Dorothy" (and if you didn't get the pun, there is a picture of Judy Garland right next to the name).
Bill is only distracted for a few minutes and gets back to asking Jo to sign the divorce papers, but Jo doesn't have to worry, because....wait for it.... THERE IS A TORNADO COMING!
Bill and his girlfriend join the "stormchasers" in going after the tornado, and while they are all driving to the tornado, we are introduced to the villains of the film, which are the corporate-sponsored "stormchasers". You know that they are the bad guys of the film because they all wear uniforms and drive brand new black SUVs. The good guys and the bad guys race each other to the tornado, and we can tell who is in it for the "money" and who is in it for the "science".
Is the cardboard tasting good yet?
The rest of the film is pretty much what you would expect. A tornado comes and goes, and in the downtime, we watch the characters of the film prattle on in an attempt to say something funny or interesting (which rarely happens, if at all). The only entertaining thing (in a sadistic way) about this film is seeing the amount of cliches and Hollywood moments that are forced down the audience's throat (like Jo's aunt, who builds wind chimes and lives on a farm that is surrounded by hundreds of wind chimes....because, you know....tornadoes). And seeing the screaming, yelling, cheering, and general chaos the motley crew does every single time a tornado comes down makes you wonder how they ever get anything done.
The ending of the film is not only predictable, but also unbelievable. I don't need to describe the ending because you already know how it ends even if you have never seen the film.
Bill Paxton was a good actor and director, and many of his films show this. Yet, I can't say the same for long-winded film (pun intended). I can only believe that Paxton joined the film in hopes that it would bring him into "leading man" status. Either that, or he did the film to fulfill a contract so he was given the green-light to direct his film, "Frailty". Maybe the paycheck being offered was just too good to pass up (hey, we all got bills to pay). Whatever the reason, Paxton brings nothing to the character. It seems as though he practically reads his lines off of cue cards and nothing more. And the chemistry between his leading lady and he is as electrifying as a wet towel. "Twister" is not one of Bill Paxton's shining moments.
Helen Hunt, for whatever reason, achieved stardom in the 1990's. Why she was given this level of fame completely baffles me. Every role she was given, Hunt had the unique ability to use the same blank expressions and characterizations to each role she was given, and "Twister" is no exception. As Jo Harding, she was nothing more than a piece of tofu with arms and legs. One of the more laughable moments of this film is when Hunt goes into a hypnotic trance when she sees a tornado, which is tantamount to her staring blankly into the air. Maybe we don't see Hunt anymore in major films because she feared that people would begin to realize that she really doesn't have much talent, and she got out while the getting was good.
The rest of the cast do one of three methods of acting.
One, they overact, much like Philip Seymour Hoffman with his annoying "pot smoking, beachcomber" dude routine and his overused "Suck Zone" line.
Two, they simply recite their lines, much like Cary Elwes, who (like Paxton) probably did the film because the paycheck was to good (and who had most of his role cut out of the film during final editing, probably because he looked bored on film).
Three, they say nothing interesting at all and are background props that hoot, holler, and yell (like all the rest of the "stormchasers").
By the time the ending credits rolled, I understood why I didn't remember much about the film, and it is because it is an unremarkable film. In fact, it is actually a bad film that reeks with the scent of cardboard and carbon copies. It shows that no matter how much money you put into a film, if the story is bad, the film will remain in the "Suck Zone".
If you want to watch the film, "Twister", be my guest. There are about 15 minutes of decent CGI effects, and it is showing on Tubi for free, so I guess that is a bargain.
But then again, you get what you pay for.
The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021)
When inflating an already bloated lie can still net you millions of dollars....
As far as the actual film is concerned, Director Michael Chaves give the audience the average run-of-the-mill spooky demonic possession film. Although it is not a bad film as far as technique is concerned, the film overall is simply silly and poorly acted. Furthermore, the film is based on a complete lie that was constructed by the real Ed and Lorraine Warren.
Both Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga both phone in their performances for the film (actually, Patrick Wilson always phones in his performances). Perhaps these two actors lost interest in the film franchise after learning about the more shadier sides of their real-life counterparts. Yet, the paycheck was too tempting for these two actors, so they went about starring in this film.
As already stated, the film is based on a lie created by the Warrens. To hear the Warrens tell it, they were involved with the exorcism of
a child (you know, like in "The Exorcist"), and it wasn't working and the child was in danger of dying (you know, like in "The Exorcist"), and while Ed Warren was performing the exorcism, he has a heart-attack (you know, like in "The Exorcist"), and thus, unable to help the possessed kid. Suddenly, 19 year old family friend, Arne Cheyenne Johnson, jumps on the possessed kid and demands that the demon "take him" (you know, like in "The Exorcist"). Miraculously, the demon leaves the kid's body and possessed Johnson. The kid lives, and Johnson starts seeing demons.
That's the Warrens' story, and that is pretty much what this average film shows.
What actually happened is that the Warrens told the Glatzel family that their son, 11-year-old David Glatzel, was possessed by a demon and not experiencing episodes of mental illness. They told the Glatzel family that an exorcism was needed, and even though being refused by the Catholic church after numerous petitions for exorcism, still went about performing an exorcism, at which time the Warrens stated that the demon had left the body of David Glatzel and entered the body of Arne Cheyenne Johnson, who was just idlily just standing by. There was no heart-attack. There was no demand the demon to "come into me" moment. There was no violent room shaking or tables turning or items flying about. All of that was made up by the Warrens for the book "A Devil in Connecticut" and for this film.
Also, the film portrays the murder of Alan Bono as being caused by the demon that possesses Johnson. It shows Bono as being a drugged-out drunk who is a problem to society as a whole, and shows Johnson as a good, church-going individual who because a demon is sucking on his soul ends up stabbing Bono to death. Again, this is all a fabrication for the sake of the book and the film.
Actually, Bono and Johnson (with their girlfriends) went to a bar to get drunk in the middle of the day. After getting drunk and kick out of the bar, they all went back to Bono's house to continue to drink. Bono started playing grabass with Johnson's girlfriend, which made Johnson mad, and he ended up stabbing Bono to death in a drunken rage. The murder occurred because of alcohol, not because of demonic possession.
There are other moments in the film that are done to show Lorraine Warren's "power", but much like all other moments in the film, they either didn't happen, or are exaggerated lies.
All in all, the film is mediocre at best. It is pretty much a "cookie cutter" type of film, completely predictable in every aspect. Furthermore, as already stated, the film is based on a complete lie. Being based on a complete lie isn't really a problem unless you advertise the film as being based on "true events".
Much like with all the "Conjuring" films, this film should be avoided at all cost. It is entertaining for a few moments because of its silliness, but eventually becomes a burden to watch.
As a side note, if you want entertainment, you should read the articles that describe the studio's effort in containing the shadier aspects of the Warrens' lifestyle so their profitable franchise would not be damaged (such as Ed Warren's sexual escapades with an underage girl that lived with the Warrens). Those articles are much more entertaining and enlightening than any of the "Conjuring" films.
The Strangers (2008)
Long-winded Torment Porn film that isn't horror, or suspense, or thrilling
"The Strangers" is not a horror film. Some may disagree, but it isn't a horror film (and yes, I will debate you on that point). You can't label it as a thriller either, since there isn't much that is thrilling that goes on through the film's hour and a half length. You could say that it is a light suspense film, but then the plot holes start popping up, and the suspense drains through those holes.
No, "The Strangers" is not in the genre of horror, thriller, or suspense. If anything, it is Splatter-porn, or maybe even Torment-porn. It is a film that has no rhyme or reason as to why the events are occurring. The viewer simply has to accept that bad things happen to good people. This kind of story format has been done before, notably with films like "Funny Games" and "Hostel", but whereas these films (and others like them) seem to connect with the viewing audience (for whatever reason), this does not happen while viewing "The Strangers". After sitting with the film for its 90 minutes, you seem to regret watching it, not because of the blood, violence, and R-rated torment/torture, but because you find yourself not really caring about what is going on in the first place.
The story is simple enough (without giving spoilers). A young couple is having a bad night. They are in love, but aren't happy with each other at the moment. While discussing their problems, three people appearing out of the night, and for no reason given, start to torment the young couple, and do so without saying a word.
That's the story, minus the plot holes (which there are many).
They say that "The Strangers" is loosely based on true events, mainly the director's own weird late night experience as a teenager, as well as the 1981 Keddie Cabin murders, which goes unsolved to this day. Perhaps the director, Bryan Bertino, would have fared better if he has done a film regarding the Keddie Cabin murders.
"The Strangers" isn't a bad film, it is just a film that leaves you feeling nothing, not even entertained. After seeing the film, you will simply say, "Okay", and go about your day or head off to bed, wondering how the film was even given the green-light to move into production.
If you want to see "The Strangers", then by all means do so. As I said, it isn't a bad film, it just is not a very good one either.
The Conjuring (2013)
Average spooky house story based on the writings of two demonologist who many believe were frauds
"The Conjouring" is a run-of-the-mill ghost story that pretty much follows the same story format that Stuart Rosenburg's 1979 film, "The Amityville Horror" did. A happy family buys a house to start a new life and quickly find out that the house is not haunted, but possessed by demons. Things in the house start moving (or falling), everyone hears noises, doors slam, framed pictures break, and the children (all five of them) start seeing shadowy figures and are sometimes attacked by these figures. Even the youngest little girl befriends one of the demons. As I said, much like the 1979 film, "The Amityville Horror".
Without going into too much more detail (spoilers), eventually the infamous demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren, are brought onto the scene after a 30 second discussion with the mother of the tormented family (yes, it really is about 30 seconds long, equating to "My house is haunted" and "Okay, we'll stop by").
Obviously, when the infamous Ed and Lorraine Warren get to the house, we discover that things are more serious than we imagined. In essence, Lorraine Warren (with her special ESP-Psychic-Paranormal-Religious-Ghost Hunting abilities) announces that the house is not haunted....but POSSESSED! Everywhere she looks, there is a demon. Even the trees have demons and dead people. And now Lorraine Warren discovers that the demons really want to possess the family. YIKES! After that proclamation, we are treated to (as mentioned above) the run-of-the-mill scary house trying to torment (or kill) the people inside the house. There is no tension, no buildup, no horror, just jump-scare after jump-scare. Quite frankly, if you have seen "The Amityville Horror", then you have seen "The Conjouring".
Even though the film is largely forgettable (at least in this reviewer's opinion), the film was a hit when it was released, and judging by most of the opinions of IMBD, the film is still favored to this day. Although I am not trying to be critical of my fellow reviewers and their opinions, I am somewhat baffled by the praise of this film and its success. Yes, director James Wan put out a successful film, and he should be credited with making the studio a lot of money, but although it is shot well, the film is pretty much unoriginal. Throughout the film, you can almost predict what will happen in every scene, down to the point of knowing when the "jump-scare" will occur. Nevertheless, critique aside, the film was a financial success, so therefore, it was a successful film (which doesn't necessarily mean it was a good film).
On an aside, another point of the film is that one of the main advertising selling points is that it is based on "true events" or "a true story", taken from the documented writings of Ed and Lorraine Warren (Mrs. Warren was a technical adviser on the film.... Mr. Warren died in 2006). In reality, the chance of "The Conjouring" being a true story is non-existent. For people who ended up researching (or will research) the work of the demonologists, Ed and Lorraine Warren, they found that almost all of their cases were debunked (including "The Conjouring" case). In fact, the one case that the Warrens are most famous for, the Amityville case, was eventually exposed as being completely made up by Ronnie Defoe's lawyer, Mr. And Mrs. Lutz, and Jan Anson. Obviously, the Warrens are considered by many (and I mean MANY) to be nothing more than frauds who exploited frighten people for financial gain. This is the reason why in the film the Warrens are shown lecturing at a number of colleges, as well as showing one family why there house isn't haunted. It was to give the Warrens credibility, the appearance of being sincere, since in real life, their credibility was shaky at best. In fact, to release the rights of the Warrens' story regarding "The Conjouring", Lorraine Warren insisted that the contract stipulated that no discussion of the Warrens being continuously debunked, as well as the charges of Ed Warren's domestic abuse and sexual "activities", would be presented or allowed in the film. Now, I am not saying that the Warrens' personal lives, or possible fraud, should make the film any less successful. But the film should only be looked upon as pure entertainment, and nothing more.
Again, regardless of its success, and the abundance of positive reviews, I believe "The Conjouring" is a well-shot, but extremely mundane and predictable, haunted house movie. Probably for most people, it is the kind of film that you would watch and forget about it by the next day. James Wan should be applauded for making a successful film, but for financial reasons only.
If people are wanting to see haunted scary stories, I would suggest films like "The Haunting" from 1963, "The Changling" from 1980, or "The Blair Witch Project" from 1999 (the film did advertise itself as being a true event documentary until the directors came forward to admit the film was a "mockumentary"). As far as "The Conjouring" is concern, you will find nothing but routine jump-scares, the same scares that you would find in any Halloween Haunting House that you see pop up around your area in the month of October each and every year.
Insidious (2010)
Let's take the film "Poltergeist" franchise, chew it up and regurgitated the plot it in a water-downed version of a ghost story.
The malevolent spirits of the dead and one demon (who is painted red, of course) all want to inhabit a small boy's body (just like Carol Ann in "Poltergeist"), and the parents turn to a scientific psychic (just like Tangina in "Poltergeist") and her comedy-relief group to help them break into the spirit world and save their little boy (just like everyone in "Poltergeist", but a little switch in genders).
That is the general story. It is a general take of the "Poltergeist" theme, but extremely bland, and far less frightening in all matters. As far as the "scares" of the film, the filmgoer is treated to the usual jump-scares, but without the tension or build-up. What does the film present as unusual, frighten, and scary? In one scene, a ghost/spirit/demon/whatever is seen dancing in the front room to the song "Tiptoe Through the Tulips" by Tiny Tim, and then when seen, runs off giggling. Sorry, not scary. Not entertaining. It doesn't even make much sense. The ghost is dressed in 1930s pageboy attire, but is listening to a song from the late 1960s.
Huh?
In another silly-in-a-dumb-way moment, when the husband/father sees his son in the spirit world, he sees the boy chained to the floor. He explains to his son that nothing is real, but then has difficulty unlocking the chains. If nothing is real in the spirit world, why is unlocking the chains difficult?
Also, as I have already said, the main "demon" is painted red, just like the little devil logo that you find on the side of Underwood's ham spread (he even has blade-like weapons on his fingers like Freddy Kruger, and sharpens his fingers just like Freddy Kruger). The main "demon" isn't scary. He is, though, predictable, to the point of being ridiculous.
There are moments in the film that simply are unrealistic. In one scene, the wife/mother finds a bloody claw print on her son's bedsheet. Later, she has a five minute discussion with her husband, saying that she thinks the house is haunted, and requesting that they move out of the house into a new house. Finally (again, after five minutes), when the husband/father tries to reason with the wife/mother, she tosses the bedsheet at him, showing him the bloody claw print. And what is the husband's reaction to the bloody claw print? He says nothing, and ends up sleeping on the couch.
Again, huh?
Overall, the film is bland and predictable (yes, even the ending). Patrick Wilson, who plays the husband/father, pretty much just phones in his performance. Rose Byrne, who plays the wife/mother, actually get annoying by the time you hit midway through the film Barbara Hershey, who plays the grandmother, is there because she is Barbara Hershey. The rest of the cast are simple cardboard cutouts, and none of them add anything to the story.
Actually, at the risk of typecasting him, Ruben Pla (who plays a doctor, just like he did in the film "Contracted") actually looks and sounds like a doctor. He should have had way more screen time. Much like Strother Martin, this guy is obviously a working actor, and has the talent to portray many characters. I hope he will see bigger and better roles in the future.
If you are looking for a scary ghost story, then you should bypass this boring film called, "Insidious". What you should watch instead is "The Changeling" with George C. Scott, or "The Haunting" with Julie Harris. While these two film will keep you up at night, "Insidious" will put you to sleep.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)
Long-winded and absurd, even for a "zombie" movie.
Borrowing from Jane Austen's novel, this film simply plods along at a slow and mediocre pace that makes you look at clock and ask, "Is this almost over yet?"
Yes, "zombies" are in the film, so to speak, but the viewer is treated more to the slow and subtle dialogue that you would expect from a British period piece. The viewer is also treated to pretty girls doing martial arts. Yes, it's cute at first, but does get old very quickly (Kill Bill did the female protagonist doing martial arts thing much better). When it comes to the actual "zombies", well, those moments are few and far between, to the point that you really don't have much of an opinion about them or their outcome (yes, the zombies are thinking creatures, and the film touches on the possibility of co-existence).
Some have praised the film, believing that it is extremely funny while remaining loyal to Jane Austen's novel. The film does stay with the plot of the novel somewhat, but it far from being funny. Frankly, after viewing this film, I immediately wondered why they even made it in the first place. Then I realized that it was for a cash grab. Take a famous novel, and rework it with a light touch of "zombies". Yes, a complete cash grab for the studio, and a complete waste of time for viewers.
The Sacrament (2013)
Found Footage meets Jonestown, and they have a boring, plagiarized baby
Let's get one thing out of the way right now. Technically, "The Sacrament" is a decent film. The story is told in a timely manner, the camera work is sufficient, and the acting is decent. Yet, having said that, "The Sacrament" is a complete waste of time.
The film is nothing more than a water-down Xerox copy of the Jonestown tragedy. Perhaps this film was made in hopes that our current generation would not have that much knowledge of the Jonestown tragedy, and thus, would see this film and be shocked. But if you have seen any news footage (or documentary) of the Jonestown tragedy, you will find that this film has the shock and intensity of a TV Movie-of-the-Week. A perfect example of this is when the film shows the the bodies of the members of the community lying about in the grass after poisoning themselves. There are about 50 people. In the photos of the real Jonestown, there were over 900 people. As I said, "The Sacrament" is a extremely water-down version of Jonestown.
And don't get me wrong. "The Sacrament" was not inspired by the events of Jonestown. It blatantly plagiarizes the events of Jonestown, and in doing so, Ti West (writer/director) manages to turn these horrific events into a complete bore. Even when he deviates from the Jonestown story, Ti West does so only to vainly attempt to shock the viewer (which he fails at, such as the case when Amy Seimetz sets herself on fire).
"The Sacrament" adds nothing to the Jonestown saga, and it plagiarized retelling of the tale is nothing more than a waste of time and money. Again, I can only theorize that this film was made in the hopes that the youth of today would not have much knowledge about Jonestown.
Again, if you have the urge to view "The Sacrament", do yourself a favor and watch any of the number of Jonestown documentaries that are out there. Not only will you be horrified over the mass suicide, but you will learn a little about Jim Jones and the people of Jonestown.
The only thing you will learn by watching "The Sacrament" is that you wasted your time, and that every film that has Eli Roth's name attached to it doesn't mean it will a shocking, though-provoking film. Roth has had his fifteen minutes of fame. Time for the next one.
Eat (2014)
Hollywood Dreams meets Body Horror
"Eat" is far from a bad film. It is not. But it is far from what one is use to seeing in Body Horror films.
Although there are moments of the grotesque, "Eat" falls a bit short while diving into the body mutilation. Some may believe that this is a good thing, but it is not if your film theme is body horror. There are other elements in body horror films, but the main theme is still body mutilation, and again, as already stated, "Eat" sometimes falls short in presenting that.
Nonetheless, this film is still worth a viewing, and perhaps some viewers will find the film more disturbing that I did. If they do, that is a good thing, since "Eat" is a body horror film.
Bite (2015)
Low Budget Body Horror without CGI, relying on old fashion special makeup EFX
Much like the film "Contracted", the horror of "Bite" is watching the transformation of a pretty, young lady after being infected. It seems that most of the negative reviews for this film stem from the fact that the reviewer(s) are expecting jump scares and violence, which most body horror films do not have. Most body horror films are low-key, simmering, and grotesque. That is where the "horror" comes from.
"Bite" takes the body horror format and does it well. Elma Begovic as Casey does a good job and conveying the stress and fear as she watches herself changing and not being able to do anything about it. Probably one of the drawback of the film is that none of the characters are that likeable, and therefore when bad things happen to them, you somewhat don't care. This doesn't mean that it isn't a good film, it is just one of the drawback (at least to me).
Also, it should be noted that this film does not rely on any CGI. It is all special makeup EFX, which is refreshing to see.
Will "Bite" be given any awards, or hailed as a great film? No. But it is entertaining, as well as uncomfortable to watch. It is worth a viewing.
Riding the Bullet (2004)
Riding the Bullet....to Boredom Town
Let's make this simple and sweet.
There is nothing at all that is interesting in this film. It is nothing more than a 90 minute, deflated Twilight Zone episode. There is no need to discuss the topic of the film, its premise, or the message it may try to convey. It is just a drawn out jumbled mess. And don't be fooled, the producers and Mick Garris must have realized what an absolute mess they had, but put the film out anyway since they knew they could slap the name of the word processor god, Stephen King, on it.
And one finally thing. Jonathan Jackson is pretty much a yawn in this film, but the real question is, why is David Arquette even working? He has never been that entertaining, let alone talented, but his acting in this film is laughable (and I don't mean in a humorous way). Any time he is on screen, you almost half expect him to turn to the camera and wink at the audience. It's that tongue-and-cheek. Arquette has the depth of a puddle on a sidewalk. Maybe he would be good at being a grand marshal of a parade, or being host at a grand opening of a supermarket, but as a character actor, he is way out of his league.
If you get the chance to see "Riding the Bullet", do yourself a favor and walk down another road.
Hardcore Henry (2015)
An underrated film that is just plain fun to watch
Within a couple of minutes of the opening credits, "Hardcore Henry" takes off on its wild ride, and doesn't stop until the ending credits. It is just a good old fashion action film, with gunfights, explosions, crazy stunts, good guys, bad guys, weird people, twists, turns, and most of all, non-stop action.
The film has no message. There is no propaganda that it tries to push. The films entire purpose is to make its audience forget their problems and just enjoy themselves for a couple of hours (and the filmmakers succeed in that goal).
"Hardcore Henry" is a film to watch.
Fake Blood (2017)
Honestly, this film was a complete waste of time
The premise of the story was interesting, which is why I decided to watch this film. This "mockumentary" attempts to tell the tale of two horror filmmakers who examine real world violence (and its consequences) as they reevaluate their own film genre, and as a result, have violence brought upon them.
As I said, interesting story line.
Yet, the film (mockumentary) is complete garbage.
Without belaboring through the scenes of the film, it is not an exaggeration to say that absolutely nothing happens in the film. It is just footage of the two filmmakers talking to each other and occasionally interviewing someone. There are some "reenactments" of crimes, but the level of violence equates to something you would see on Lifetime (MPAA rating of PG-13 level). You may ask, "What violence happens to the two filmmakers"? Well, one of the filmmakers has his apartment broken into, and one of the people they interview is murdered. Absolutely nothing happens to them other than the inconvenience of having to stay in a hotel for two weeks. It is one of those films that when it ends, you actually say to yourself, "That's it?".
"Fake Blood" is a perfect example of a clickbait film. You see the cover art, and you read the description, and you expect to see tension, violence, and bloodletting (and perhaps a message regarding real violence/movie violence). Instead, what you get are multiple moments of yawning (by you).
Bypass this boring blemish of film. It offers nothing.
A Good Marriage (2014)
Could have been interesting, but cast and direction fail miserably
What would you do if you found out that the person that you are in love with and are married to is a serial killer?
Interesting premise. Might be a good story. Then you realize it comes from the word processor of Stephen King, and you start to worry. Then you find out that a film has been made based on the Stephen King novella. You think to yourself, "Well, maybe it will be a good film despite the fact that it was written by Stephen King. It's happened before."
And so, you watch the film, and very soon afterwards, you regret the choice you made in watching the film. You are bored, and realize that this film is nothing more than a quick cash-grab, slapping the over-hyped Stephen King name on the title to bring in the audience.
"A Good Marriage" is pretty much a Lifetime movie that has a little more blood and some cuss words. Whatever tension and/or suspense you hoped would be in a film like that (a wife discovering her husband is a serial killer) isn't in this film. There is absolutely no tension when Joan Allen (miscast as the wife) discovers the truth about her husband. She simply gasps and trembles, then has a drink, and goes to bed. When Anthony LaPaglia (miscast as the husband) discovers that his wife knows about his fetish for murdering women, he decides to try to explain to his wife why he has been killing women (somewhat in the same vein as a husband trying to explain why he cheated on his wife). Now, this particular scene could have been interesting to watch, but Allen and LaPaglia are so mundane in the scene, it is as though they are reading directly off the script while they hold it. While watching this scene, I remember shaking my head, saying "Are you kidding me?". I closed my eyes and shook my head in disappointment again when I listen to LaPaglia (again, as the husband) rambling on about how he and his high school friend wanted to pull a "Columbine" at their high school, but never did, but how he still had the fetish to kill someone, so he decided to start feeding that fetish. As I have said, this particular scene could have been interesting, and could have had some memorable lines, but Allen and LaPaglia were simply earning their paychecks and nothing more.
After the confession, and the promise by the husband of never murdering again, you already know that the wife punish the husband, either by getting him arrested or killing him. There is no suspense in wondering if the wife will actually try to live with this dark secret. Allen doesn't have the talent to do that. I already knew that she was going to kill LaPaglia. I just wondered how she would do it. When the husband and wife decide to have a romantic dinner, I knew then she was going to kill him after dinner (she does). Again, no suspense, no thrills, just predictability.
The ending of the film is as predictable as the rest of the film, and it definitely puts the movie in the "Lifetime Movie Channel" category. There is no need to describe the ending other than the wife is somewhat a hero at the end.
On a side note, Stephen Lang (who plays a detective that is close to possibly catching the murderous husband) is totally wasted in this film. He is a good actor, and is the only interesting character in the whole film.
"A Good Marriage" wasn't that good of a read. Being something that Stephen King pushed out in a matter of weeks, it was a novella that you would breeze through while waiting at the airport. Just another story from the Master of Word Processing, largely forgettable.
And the film adaptation is no different.
Watch the film if you want, but you have been warned, it is a Lifetime movie (but hey, maybe you like Lifetime movies).
The Signal (2007)
Everything that that the dumpster-fire film "Cell" wanted to be
Simply put, this is an excellent independent apocalyptic horror film.
The film tells the story of a "signal" that is transmitted through all media and communication devices (phones, radios, televisions, etc.), and anyone who is watching or listening to the "signal" become crazed psychopath, with their minds playing illusions, and making them act out violently (usually killing a number of people). Told in three perspectives (by three different directors), the viewer is taken through the beginning of the outbreak, into a moment of dark, grotesque comedy, and finally to the moment when we realize that there has been no escape, that the world we once knew has ended.
Great acting, great direction, intriguing story, and plenty of gore and violence (which is a staple in any independent horror film).
Don't waste your time with the film "Cell". Focus your attention on this film. It is a true independent horror film, and deserves respect.
Cell (2016)
Stephen King meets Zombies and they have a boring baby
In this waste-of-time film, it is actually incorrect to label hordes of crazy people as zombies. They aren't dead, and they don't crave human flesh. They just become crazed psychopaths that try to kill others who are not crazed psychopaths.
Anyway, John Cusack and Samuel Jackson team up after millions of people become crazed psychopaths after they hear a sound coming from their cell phone (get it....that why it's called "Cell"). Samuel Jackson phones in his performance throughout the film. You can tell he is doing this film only for the paycheck (which probably was a couple of million). John Cusack add nothing to the film, mainly because he never add anything to any film. He may have been a teenage heart-throb in the late eighties, but he is nothing more than a washed-up has-been. I would have preferred Nicholas Cage in the lead role. At least that he would have been more entertaining in this boring dumpster fire.
I know Stephen King is a successful writer, but only 30% of his work is actually good ("Cell" is not part of the 30%). If you don't believe me, hack your way through "Insomnia" or "Firestarter" (there are other examples). Once, Truman Capote was asked about the writings of Stephen King. His answer: "That isn't writing. That's word processing". "Cell" was a bad story to begin with, and the movie doesn't make things better.
Again, "Cell" is a completely forgettable film, and Cusack should find work doing something else (or at least if you are considering hiring Cusack for your film, hire Nicholas Cage instead).
Video X: The Dwayne and Darla-Jean Story (2007)
Positive Reviews Are Probably From Friends and Cast/Crew
This is, without a doubt, one of the worst films I have ever seen. This isn't even laughable tripe. The film is amateurish, stereotypical, and an utter bore.
Two naïve rednecks runaway (because the girl is underage) so they can live by a river in blissful happiness. Unfortunately, their entire savings is stolen, and thus they enter a life of crime, and end up dead after finding out that their blissful haven no longer exists.
Filmed in mockumentary style (more of an excuse for the director not to properly frame a scene), the camera work, along with the acting, seems to have come out of a high school project. The Hillbilly Trailerpark dialogue is not even laughable because it is the bad.
Don't bother watching this "film" (if you can even call it that). It is a complete waste of time. If Dwayne and Darla-Jean committed any crime, it was the crime of making anyone sit through this 90 minutes of garbage.
We All Fall Down (2016)
Zombies meets Lord of the Flies meets the Manson Family meets bored film-goer
It's a world where all adults have turned to crazed, fast-running zombies (who craved human flesh, obviously), and where anyone approaching the age of 18 turns into a zombie as well. This leaves, of course, a world that is populated by the 17 and under crowd. Okay, not the most plausible story, but there have been worse.
We meet Todd, who is an "almost 18-year-old" teenager that is walking around with his 5-year-old brother, Benny. Their purpose in the film is to get to "the farm". It is assumed that "the farm" is the place where Todd and Benny used to live prior to the zombie apocalypse.
Moments after meeting Todd and Benny, we then meet Eve, another teenager who is a "runner". She warns Todd and Benny of zombies nearby, and soon afterward, we are treated to a zombie attack. Four zombies (that's right, four) try to bite the teenagers, but are killed off. Eve invites Todd and Benny to come live with her in some community, but Todd tells her to take a hike.
It is interesting to note at this time that the four zombies that are seen during the zombie attack are the only zombies you will see in the entire movie. You never again see zombies, or see the victims of zombies, or even hear talk of zombies. There is a moment later in the film when some teenager must be turning 18 years old, because she starts convulsing about before being killed, as we are told that she was "turning". For a film that labels itself as a zombie film, it fails miserably mainly because it only presents 4 zombies (5 zombies if you count the twitchy teenager).
Anyway, Todd and Benny enter the "Lord of the Flies" stage of the film when they meet the lustful and seductive Matra and four of her followers (all male). After some over-acted grunts and seductive talk about joining the "family", Matra and her followers kidnap Benny. Of course, Todd sets out and looks for Benny, and eventually is overtaken by Matra's followers. While being held captive, Todd see that Matra's "family" is teaching a number of young children to be warriors.
I won't bother describing the rest of the film because it is pretty well pointless. There is a moment of weak human sacrifice (a battle to the death) and a hint of cannibalism, but none of it is even noteworthy. Strangely enough, even though the zombies are attracted to noise, Matra and her family are never attacked, even though they yelp, chant, grunt, and shout loudly every night during dance rituals by their bonfire. By the end of the film, Matra is killed, and Todd and Benny set off again, presumably to the "farm".
Why all the teenagers and children wear warpaint and dead animal fur is never explained. It can't be because of the zombie apocalypse because it has supposedly been only a few years since it began. Why are they wearing warpaint? Even Eve (a good guy) wears warpaint on her face. Why? One would think that there still would be plenty of clothing around for the under 18 crowd to wear, so why are most of the characters dressed in animal fur. Also, other than Todd, no one has any guns. Obviously, this is unbelievable since one would think that there would be plenty of firepower available after the downfall of mankind. Additionally, in regards to the how the apocalypse, even that seems unbelievable since the few buildings that are seen in the film seem to be desolated for decades, whereas the apocalypse could only have happened in the past 3 to 5 years.
The film's premise (the under 18 crowd against the apocalyptic world) may have worked if it had been done differently, such as various street gangs vying for control of an area (ala "The Warriors"), using guns instead of pointed sticks, battling zombies and each other. But the director/writer(s) didn't go that route. Instead, they went with this "Lord of the Flies" nonsense, grabbed up some young, inexperienced actors and actress, and ended up making an unintentional comedy that starts to be un-funny after about 20 minutes.
Frankly, I believe that the director started the film resembling John Hillcoat's "The Road", saw that it wasn't marketable, and decided to add one zombie scene to the film so it could then be advertised as a "zombie" film and maybe draw in a few more bucks.
If you do watch this film, enjoy it for laughs for the first 10 to 20 minutes, and then turn it off and move on to something else.
Dark Mountain (2013)
Probably one of the worst films in the genre of "Found Footage".
This is a blatant rip-off of "The Blair Witch Project", with the ending being ripped-off from "Rec/Quarantine".
Instead of looking for the Blair Witch, our three characters (2 guys and a girl....just like the "Blair Witch Project") are looking for the lost Dutchman mine. They talk to the locals (just like "B. W. P.), then park their car and head out into the desert (just like "B. W. P. Headed out into the woods). First night is calm, second night is crazy, third night is crazier (again, just like....you know).
I'll make this short. Pretty much everything that happens in B. W. P. Happens in this film, so there really is nothing original. The three characters end up running around and panicking, getting lost and yelling at one another. One of the characters end up succumbing the whatever evil lies in the desert terrain, and that makes the other two characters freak out and look for their friend (I almost expected them to start calling out "Josh!?!").
As far as the actors go, imagine a high school drama class getting their hands on some camcorders and saying, "Hey, let's make a found footage movie!". Yeah, that is the level of talent. One highlight of the talent hired to be in this crappy film is that one of the actors does take a picture of his "junk", which didn't really surprise me.
Lastly, one of the most annoying aspects of this failure film is that one of the cameras uses a 8mm filter effect, so a good forth of the film is seen through that effect. It adds nothing, it means nothing, it looks stupid, and it gives you a headache after a while. I have no idea what possessed the director to make the choice of using a 8mm filter effect, other than immaturity and lack of talent.
Every film goer and "Found Footage" aficionado should avoid this film. It not only plagiarizes, but fails as well.
Be My Cat: A Film for Anne (2015)
Promising for the first 20 minutes, but then becomes a babbling monologue until the end.
Before anything else, allow me to say that Adrian Tofei is able to convey the creepiness of an unhinged stalker drowning in his own fantasies of delusional fandom. He definitely has the look, with bald head, skinny body, teeth that are yellowed and stained slightly, and a mouth that seems to have a little bit too much saliva flowing inside it. After about 10 minutes of on-screen time, you know that Adrian Tofei is a creepy character.
So by the time his first "victim" comes into the film, you are waiting for what you think will be a pretty disturbing film.
But it's not.
For the next hour and fifteen minutes, you watch Adrian Tofei ramble on about wanting to turn Anne Hathaway into a cat (which will then metamorphize him as well), and other lunatic ramblings. There is another "victim" that dies, but the violence of her death is hidden by a white sheet. The violence of her death is only conveyed by her screaming at the camera (It should be mention that at one point of her killing, two men appear to investigate the screaming, and Adrian Tofei simply explains that he is making a horror film, which the two men accept as reasonable and leave....huh?).
In the end, Adrian Tofei realizes that he is ready to "direct" Anne Hathaway in his film, and corner's he third and final "victim". Holding a steak knife (yes, it really is a steak knife), he explains to his "victim" about his devotion to Anne Hathaway, and that he really doesn't want to kill his "victim", but he will if he has to (he does explain that he will have to kill his mother, though). The film ends with Adrian Tofei's third "victim" walking into a closet and promising that she will not call the police until 10 minutes have passed. Adrian Tofei giggles and gives his thanks.
And that's it.
The film fails mainly because nothing happens. Yes, it is obviously documenting the descent of a man into madness (ala Richardo Lopez), but as creepy as Adrian Tofei is, you really see no descent. As I said earlier, you already know he is a bit off-balanced within the first 10 minutes of the film. Actually, the film would have worked better if it had been more loosely based on the Richardo Lopez case. Alas, it did not do this, though, and fails miserably at telling the tale of fandom that leads to madness.
The film is not a good "found footage" film.
The film is not a good "horror" film.
The film is not a good film.