Reviews

I read somewhere that this movie had nothing to do with H.P. Lovecraft, but was given its title solely in the hopes of attracting viewers. Because there's nothing about the movie itself that would attract viewers. I'm not a fan of the "so bad it's good" idea, it's just a mask for people who can't admit to liking lowbrow or low-budget movies. But this movie isn't "lowbrow", it's just bad. It's got no acting and no thrills, and possibly may be the only movie I've seen about which I didn't like anything at all. One of the very worst I've seen, and far worse than any of the films I've seen that turn up on the IMDb "Bottom 100" list. This is not even one you'd watch for curiosity's sake.

I've seen movies I really hated, and this is not one of them. But I couldn't find anything to like in this movie. I watched it because Cheryl Smith was in it, but she wasn't very good. I read somewhere that she said there was barely even a script to work with, and blamed it for damaging her career. Terrible camera work and editing don't do anybody any favors, either. So, bad writing, bad acting, bad editing, bad camera work? What's left? I wouldn't call it the worst movie ever, or even the worst movie from producer Charles Band ("The Dead Hate the Living" stands out as a really bad effort), but I can't think of a single thing this movie does well. I guess Roddy McDowell does kind of an OK job, for the two minutes he's on screen. That's the closest to a positive I can point out. Maybe "lame" is a better description than "bad", because it's just completely lacking.

It angers me that this movie is out there in a lot of stores, where many people can make the same mistake I did and rent the damn thing. To its credit, it shows promise from the 20- to the 45-minute mark, but then just falls into an incoherent mess. I've read that this was written between takes, which would explain the ridiculous plot twists that appear out of thin air. The only thing that would explain this movie's existence at all is that some rich kid wanted to see himself in a movie, and hired all his friends to be in it. That would also explain why this utter lack of anything of quality has such good distribution. Don't even rent it to see how bad a movie can be: many of you can make better movies than this.

While similar in plot to a revenge movie, this is actually a survival movie. I liked it for its intensity: it doesn't take long to get going, and keeps nonstop tension for the next hour or so. Although it reaches its emotional climax a full half-hour before the end, there's enough tension built up by then to carry it through. It concerns a young lady who's confronted by a gang of men who had raped her five years before. The second meeting is no accident, they've sought after her to victimize her some more. Rape is not a crime of sexual gratification, it's a crime of humiliating domination over another person. That said, Chihiro is just the kind of timid soul who can easily be dominated: she doesn't have the courage to do the sensible thing, instead simply hoping the whole thing will go away. It doesn't, of course, and she's forced into action out of self-preservation. It often reminds me of Miike's earlier film, "Audition". That is said to have a strong message about the treatment of women in Japanese society, and I see this as another side of the same coin: a woman who has had a disabling stigma of shame placed on her, and has to struggle to overcome it. While the ensuing violence is certainly justified, it is not glorified. There is no real victory in this movie. While the things she is subjected to are revolting, the camera is thankfully restrained. Most of the violence against her is offscreen, and even the original attack is shown only in fragments, as a series of flashbacks. There is a lot of nudity here, but I don't see it as exploitational. First of all, it's very much a sex-themed movie, so nudity is pretty much a given. Most of it occurs in the shower: she spends an awful lot of time trying to wash herself clean. The movie does offer plenty of messages, but they're not uplifting or inspiring ones at all: more indictments of double standards in the treatment of women. I thought this was a terrific movie, and one that sticks with you, marred only by some truly awful English-language dubbing (at least, in the version I saw). A movie like this depends on a strong lead actress to carry it, and the voice actress in the U.S. version is just really not any good at all.

If my 3-year old could review this movie, she'd probably give it high marks. She can watch it over and over. Of all her movies, this is one that I really don't enjoy. I like its idea of a war between cats and dogs who are secretly more technologically advanced than we are, and a lot of cleverness went into the situations, but the dialog is corny. There's a load of great acting talent, but their main instruction seems to have been to ham it up for the kids. I'm not particularly fond of the animations in this, either. When a movie like this comes out and does something that hasn't been done before (in this case, mixing live-action and animation to tell a story with talking and ninja-fighting animals), it makes a big splash. Then, a few years later, when technology's improved and many other movies can do the same thing but make it look more realistic, that first movie will be forgotten if there isn't a great movie behind all the effects. And in this case, there isn't. It's a fun movie for kids, up to a certain age. If you have kids and want to leave them alone with this and feel safe that they're watching something wholesome, OK. But if you're looking for something to watch with them, there's not much here for an adult to enjoy. Even "Sesame Street" will drop a line, like a movie reference, that's clearly there to make the adults laugh. Some better comedy would really have gone a long way with this movie. Once the novelty wears off, it's a waste of time.

H.P. Lovecraft's stories as a rule don't film well, and this is no exception. Considering that the original was really more of a short little episode than a story, that shouldn't be a surprise. It winds up being a pretty standard/mediocre monster story. It's a lot like "In the Woods", in that it looks like it's made by first-time filmmakers who don't know what they're doing, but unlike that abortion, this one actually has some things going for it. It's fairly gory, so if that's your thing, you won't be disappointed. The filmmakers wisely keep the monster off-camera for most of the film, and then when they finally reveal it, it's actually not bad. There's not a ton of suspense, though: it's the kind of movie where you know exactly who's going to die and who isn't, and all the characters are so hateful that you'd like to see all of them killed slowly. The dialog is insipid, even by horror standards, and seems to have been written by a confused person with lots of issues. Given how bad the script is, it might not be fair to point out the lousy acting. If you can get past the embarrassing script, it's got some entertaining qualities, but it's best recommended for teenagers.

I rented this because I expected it to be intense, having seen Matthew Bright's work in "Freeway". It's definitely that. It's hard not to compare it to "The Deliberate Stranger": each focuses on a different aspect of Bundy's story. "Stranger" focused more on the investigation and the actual facts, and Mark Harmon's performance captured the smoothness and charm which enabled Bundy to gain his victims' trust. This movie is all about the animal beneath. In reality, Bundy's ability to keep that beast hidden was part of what enabled him to carry on as long as he did. This film lays bare that monster, and shows it in all its ugliness. I'm seeing a lot of criticism of this movie for being good at what it set out to do: to make you share in the revulsion of what Ted Bundy was. Complaining that it's in bad taste? What does 'taste' have to do with a sadistic animal who snuffed out dozens of young womens' lives, just to fulfill his need to feel powerful? In this respect, this movie is superior to "Stranger": that one is much too tame and sanitized. What kind of hypocrite watches a movie about a serial killer, and complains that it's too lurid? While "Stranger" is more successful as a factual and interesting telling of Bundy's story, this is a much more impactful movie that makes you feel as though you're actually in the room with that demon. Only 15 minutes into the movie, I felt filthy just from watching his odious behavior. Bright's purpose here was not so much to make a biography as it was to use Bundy's story to point out something fundamental about human nature: the desire for control, and how it drives us to harm each other. While not as good as Bright's earlier "Freeway", it's still a good, disturbing movie, much in the brutal vein of "Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer". It's actually much more violent - especially sexually - than the latter, though not as gruesome.

Ditto that comment about non-horror fans reviewing horror movies. If you want to play Ebert and Roeper, go watch "21 Grams". If you're watching a horror film, you're looking more for a thrill than for anything else. This is not one of the best horror films of recent years, there have actually been quite a few very good ones recently, but it's fun entertainment in the style of the comedy/horror films that you might have seen at a drive-in in the '80s. It's the kind of movie I wanted to hate: as I watched it, I couldn't help but be constantly reminded of better films (particularly "28 Days Later"), but it never loses its sense of fun. There's something really good about cheese that knows that it's cheese, and doesn't take itself too seriously. It's not all that scary, not hilariously funny, not really great at any one thing (except maybe shock- the gore gets pretty nasty)...but it's just good enough at a lot of things to make a pretty entertaining movie. I wouldn't rush out to see it, but it's by no means a waste of an evening.

This is one of the best werewolf films ever made, and one of the best horror films to come out recently. The only real knock against it is its predictability- you pretty well always know what's coming next. But that's more than made up for by its intensity. This is a very intense movie. People from the '40s talk about how much Lon Chaney's "Wolf Man" scared them: well, if this movie had come out in the '40s, people wouldn't have been able to deal with it. They would have just dropped dead in the theaters, and the film would have been banned. The werewolves in this movie are much more swift, powerful, and savage than anything seen previously, and partially-consumed victims mean a very high gore level. Plot? Not much to speak of: just survive the night, and no twists that you won't see coming. When you consider how much this movie telegraphs all its punches, it's amazing how scary and suspenseful it still winds up being. The quality of the dialogue and character development are more in line with a good war movie than with most horror movies. The characters feel real and speak very naturally. If you've got the guts for this movie (and you'll see plenty of guts in it), you'll love it. Just don't make my mistake, and watch it at midnight and have to walk the dog afterwards, if you live next to the woods.

Lovecraft's stories don't translate well to film. Much of their effect comes from the personal horror the characters feel at what they're seeing, and it would take a true filmmaking genius to bring something like that across; if such a person has existed they have not taken aim at Lovecraft's works. The other problem is that it's hard to stretch his short stories out into movie length. Those who try, usually introduce elements that distract from the true flavor and atmosphere of the stories. "Necronomicon" falls into that trap, despite preserving the short stories as separate segments. The first story, which combines elements of "The Strange High House in the Mist" and "The Shadow over Innsmouth", among others, is the most successful at preserving the evil and terrifying atmosphere of Lovecraft's works. The second is a direct adaptation of "Cool Air", a story whose one cool concept doesn't adapt well to a segment of this length. The third segment (actually based on "The Nameless City" and not "The Whisperer in Darkness" as some here have said) winds up being a hamhanded gorefest with no finesse and only a casual relationship to Lovecraft's work. It's not as though gore wasn't an element in Lovecraft's stories, with characters being "torn to ribbons" and all; but it always takes the form of horrifying and unspeakable things that happen and is never present for cheap thrills' sake as it is here. If you're a fan of Lovecraft's stories, you'll probably want to see it. You might not like it very much, but you'll want to see it anyway. If you really like cheesy horror films, it'll entertain you. But if you want a good horror film or a good adaptation of H.P.Lovecraft's works, keep moving.

Everyone knows that the classic Christmastime movies are "Miracle on 34th St" and "It's a Wonderful Life", right? Well, some of us aren't so full of holiday cheer. Some of us have to work on Christmas. Some of us don't have anybody because the family is out of town. Maybe the house was broken into. Maybe your girlfriend/boyfriend left. This movie is for us: the anti-Christmas movie, a hilarious cup of bitterness. There could be no better vehicle for Denis Leary than this dark and twisted comedy of a thief who is forced to take a bickering couple hostage, and is forced to referee their constant disputes. The acting is superb all around and the writing is wickedly clever. Kevin Spacey and Judy Davis as the couple have chemistry the way ammonia and Clorox do. Some of the lines in this movie are so outrageous, I don't know how the cast kept from cracking up all the way through. You owe it to yourself to check this movie out. It's on TV a lot, but some of the best parts will be censored out, like when the Chausseurs unload on their hapless marriage counselor. Just rent it.

This movie is much better than the average rating it's getting here. After a lifetime of seeing movies, few seem scary. This one goes from creepy to terrifying. Sure, it has a low-budget look at times: Fred Gwynne is a great acting talent, but the rest of the cast tend to get upstaged by the kids and the cat. But we don't watch horror films for the acting, and what drives this movie is a really disturbing plot. Don't expect a happy ending; and understand that, particularly at the end, this movie pulls no punches with its violence. It's not gruesome just to be gruesome, but it's very graphic. There are no feel-good Hollywood touches to this movie, which gives it a very honest impact but makes it a bad choice for a party. Rent it for Halloween, turn out the lights, and take your blood pressure medicine.