Review: Jennifer's Body

Synopsis: When a hot and sexy teenaged girl becomes possessed by a flesh eating demon, the boys of her high school end up the target of her new man-eating ways.


Review: "Jennifer's Body" is the kind of film that should remind us all that it takes a lot more to be clever, hip and interesting, then merely spouting a few modern slang terms and a sexy pout. They try to play up a campy teen angst kind of thing here, but it never rings true. It's more like pseudo-angst, thought up by a focus group of Hollywood suits, that tries to play to what they think teenagers would find "cool," only to fail miserably in the attempt.


The premise of this tale, is about how a teenage babe (played by Megan Fox) is sacrificed to Satan, by a loser indie band in the hopes they may be granted fame and fortune, only for her to become a flesh eating demon, because she wasn't a virgin when she was sacrificed. No, really, that is the basic plot outline here.


The film tries to come off as an edgier mix of "Mean Girls" and "Scream," but ends up as merely a putrid pile of trash, that is way too self-absorbed and into itself, and comes across as thinking it is way more clever and hip than it actually is. Most teenage horror-comedies are an extremely superficial affair, but this one is shallow at BEING shallow. There's nothing here beneath the surface at all. No insights, no meaning, no message. Heck, there's no real laughs or scares, either (unless you are of the kind who'd giggle during the make out scene with Fox and Seyfried). Like some vapid teen pretty girl, the film never looks out of it's own self-induced tunnel vision, thinking itself way too smart and cool, and the film loses any chance to be relevant or entertaining. It's not just style over substance, but a self-deluded and half-formed idea of style over substance. Why have a coherent story and plot? Look, Megan Fox is swimming naked in a lake! Isn't that just so awesome?!


It seems little thought was put into the script, direction, or anything else. It is merely a vehicle for Megan Fox to look ultra-sexy (in that slutty way she usually does). No one ever bothers to go beyond this, as everyone else is just some stereotype or cipher character, used for the demands of Fox's character, who looks like she has a totally vacant expression throughout the whole movie (the very same one you'll probably have, after you watch this crap). The only thing it goes to show, is that Fox is truly a horrible actress and is certainly not up to the task of headlining a film. It takes a lot more than a few cute slang terms being thrown around, and some pathetic attempt at controversy (with a little girl-on-girl make out moment), to make a worthwhile story. Honestly, the thing feels like it was written by a couple of 13 year-old boys, who got a look at their father's Playboy collection for the first time, and thought this would be a great idea for a film. It is just a blatant attempt to appeal to the "teeny-bopper" crowd, who love films like "Twlight" and the like, and has absolutely no regards to the intelligence of the target audience (or any other audience, in general). Writer Diablo Cody won an Oscar for her work on "Juno," but her sophomore effort is just a meandering and sophomoric dud! It tries too hard to be too many thing: funny, scary, emotional, dramatic, all while trying to drive home some feminist-minded clap-trap about the relationship between teenage girls and power structures of sex among teens. I'm sure Cody had the best of intentions with this film, but the execution is so bad that it ends up a jumbled and lackluster effort, which should have never been made.


This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I've seen all year. If this doesn't register on many a film critics and film fans "worst of" lists for 2009, I fear for the mental sanity of the industry. "Jennifer's Body" is honest as a title for this travesty of celluloid, though, as the only thing the film ever concerns itself with is how "hawt" the title character looks. Unless you are a hormone-raging teenage boy, with Megan Fox as your ultimate fantasy plaything, avoid this dreck at all costs! Heck, even if you are one, you should avoid it, as even hormone-raging teenage boys deserve to be marketed to better than this.


Rating: 0 Stars (our of 4)

Review: Terminator Salvation

Synopsis: The fourth installment of the classic sci-fi action story takes us into the future, as John Connor and the human resistance battle the forces of Skynet. But when a mysterious strangers enters their fold, will he be the key in destroying Skynet or the end of the human race?

Review: I had high hopes, like many, going into this film. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to that "blown out of my seat" experience the other films of this saga have given me. Besides which, this is the film we've all been waiting for since the beginning, right? The future war! The resistance vs. Skynet! It couldn't possibly be bad, could it? Oh, you couldn't be more wrong!

This film lacked anything in the way of atmosphere or suspense. The mood of the film was extremely flat from almost the start and never really came to life. On top of that, I feel too much time was spent on the machines and not enough on John Connor and the humans (whom you'd think we should be rooting for). Sam Worthington's character, of the man made into a machine, never gained any sympathy or interest from me. The fact they gave away the "secret" to his character in the trailers, certainly didn't help that, either. His character's actions are schizophrenic, at best, half the time making little sense, if any, and almost never ring true. A major flaw, to be sure, with how much time he gets on screen.

Then you have Christian Bale, who plays John Connor as a "Batman-lite" affair. He uses the same kind of voice here, that he did in "The Dark Knight" and it just doesn't work. He portrays none of the charisma and leadership that we know the character is supposed to have. All the emotions we've felt for him in the past are all stripped away here, as he comes off like a whiny and self-absorbed jerk. Hardly one you'd want being the savior of the human race. None of the other resistance members get enough screen time to make any kind of impression on you, so you never develop any bond in what might happen to them. I don't know if the cast just didn't care about the film, or if the script just gave them nothing to work with, but there is no fire in any of the performances.

And even if the script doesn't let the actors down, it has more than a few problems itself. They never really explain why Sam Worthington's character is the one chosen by Skynet. The story never gives you any feelings of dread or panic, despite tons of action on the screen. And while those action sequences are well shot and choreographed, they lack any real excitement. It never gets your pulse pounding. Plus there are tons of little things in the film, like Connor's wife being pregnant, which get no explanation or even a passing mention. I mean, what's the point in doing that, if it doesn't mean anything? And why is Skynet herding people into camps (ala the Nazis)? Shouldn't it simply be destroying all human life, to protect itself and win the war? It is another plot point that makes no sense, nor is given any reasoning for, in a script filled with them. Worst of all, and the one major flaw that ruins the whole film for me, is how, after Skynet has captured Kyle Reese (played by Anton Yelchin, in one of the few decent performances in the film), it doesn't kill him immediately, but uses him as bait to lure John Connor into a rescue mission. This kind of thinking, in terms of revenge and greed, is an emotional human failing Skynet should not have. It is a machine. It should know the simple equation: "Kill Kyle Reese, John Connor is no more!" The only reason for it, is to provide the big end battle, where Connor faces the Terminator 101-model (with CGI used to show Arnold in his prime). It's all just a wasted effort and doesn't deliver any thrills.

Many folks blasted "T3" for some of the inconsistencies it had, but compared to this mess of a film, it was sheer cinematic brilliance! "Terminator Salvation" could truly be considered a franchise killer, on par with the fiasco that "Batman and Robin" was for the Batman one. Old school fans of this saga will not find this enjoyable, and any attempts to bring in new fans will be dashed at the overly-complicated back-story used to get them up to speed on this film. In short, this is a film that will appeal to few people, be they fans of these films or not. It is a complete waste of time, money and talent. And that is the purest definition of the term "whipped up movie," which this effort most assuredly is, that I can think of! It is easily one of the most disappointing films of the year.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: Kingdom of the Spiders

Synopsis: When a small Arizona town finds itself the target of millions of hungry tarantulas, can the local vet and his entomologist lover save the town from being overrun, or are they all doomed to be the spiders newest food supply?

Review: Right off the bat, you have to know going in, that "Kingdom of the Spiders" is hardly a tour-de-force effort of film-making. It's a low-budget suspense horror film, filled with 70's cheese-tasticness. That said, however, the film does manage to entertain.

William Shatner, the perennial "cool guy" every nerd-boy wishes they could be, plays Dr. Robert "Rack" Hansen, a vet who's town is soon overrun by the eight-legged fury of millions of tarantulas. It seems the destruction of their usual food supply, by the careless use of pesticides, has caused them to look into a new source of sustenance... humans!

The overall acting in the film is passable, if unremarkable. Even the usually flamboyant stylings of "The Shat" are subdued here. There's the attempt to play up some human drama, through a love triangle between Rack, the beautiful entomologist (played by Tiffany Bolling) and the widow of Rack's dead brother (played by Marcy Lafferty). You get a couple of glimpses of Shatner's typical sexual charisma from it, but little else as far as the story goes. In fact, the whole pacing of the story is quite slow for the first 45-55 minutes of the film. This is surely to help set up the film's final act, when the spiders go on their rampage, but it isn't as effective as they probably were intending.

Really, the story and drama hinges on the spider attacks. Building slowly on the creepy feeling invoked by the spiders, watching them move from killing livestock to humans, it does create a sense of eerie tension. It plays to a fear many of us have of creepy-crawly insects and their ability to overwhelm us with sheer numbers. Director John "Bud" Cardos does effectively make the spiders into not only a credible threat, but a menacing one, as well. The scene of the townsfolk running in chaotic panic when the spiders begin attacking in force, will surely make most anyone's skin crawl. And the downbeat ending of the film is, without question, one of the best parts of the film. No typical Hollywood "happy ending" here, which only helps the movie to retain it's cult status. The film's attempt at a morality tale, by showing that mankind needs to show more respect towards nature, is both heavy-handed and poorly contrived, but that's only to be expected in a b-grade piece of 70's horror.

"Kingdom of the Spiders" is a fine piece of 70's kitsch-cinema, which doesn't try to make itself out as much more than that. And while it may pale in comparison to other movies about man facing "nature's revenge" (like "The Birds" or "Jaws", just to name a couple), it certainly is worthy of it's place of cult horror status. Just make sure to keep a can of bug spray close by, as you watch it.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Plenty to Hyde!

Here's a half film/DVD review for the low budget obscure title (unless you had cable in the early 80's) "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again" from 1982. The film was released by Paramount Pictures in late 1982 to a few select theaters.

"Hyde" is a over-the-top wacky comedy, about a mixture of doctors and 70's drug abuse. Now the plot in a little nutshell, is about a surgeon named Daniel Jekyll (Mark Blankfield), who finds some research program that gets him hooked upon some kinda mumbo-jumbo power to make him into Mr. Hyde. Silly premise, but it involves cocaine. Yes, the white powder drug! And then, he goes mad and acts silly and really reckless, while going on to destroy video arcades/supermarkets and nightclubs, too. He's engaged to a little rich woman (Bess Armstrong from Jaws 3-D), who has no clue what's going on, or is too blind to.

Now enough of the plot, on with it's little cult classic history. At one time, I believe in 1983, late night cable had a field day with this little film. It was often talked about how funny it was. By the 90's, however, it was out of print and never to be seen again. It soon develops a cult status following all over the Internet. Now, on June 3rd of 2008, Legend Films picks up the rights to several of Paramount Pictures obscure titles and this is one of them. Released with different artwork than what your seeing here. It delivers a not too bad transfer, so for $10 I went for it, not having ever seen this on cable (and there wasn't too many I missed back then). It looked as though it could have been funny back then, but not now. It has not aged well and has become extremely dated looking. For a R-rated movie it lacks, with very little nudity and lots of drug haze humor. As far as R-rated film go, I've seen worse in Cheech and Chong movies than this. I really wanted to like this movie and laugh my head off, like everyone else was saying they did, but I just didn't get it. Sorry. And for that, I got nothing to "Hyde!" Well, except maybe the one star out of four I'm gonna give it...

Review: Swamp Thing

Synopsis: A scientist is transformed into a creature of muck and mire, after his experiment is stolen from him by a man bent on world domination. Now, the Swamp Thing stalks the swamps!

Review: "Swamp Thing" isn't what one might call a standard horror picture. It tries to play it a bit lighter than what you would expect, given the mechanics of the story. What you end up with is a fun and campy film, that sometimes lessens it's darker edge by trying too hard for a bit of humor.

Based from the comic series from DC Comics, the tale is about a scientist, Dr. Alec Holland (played by Ray Wise), who is transformed into a marsh-layered creature of immense power, after his experiment to create a way to make a more abundant food supply, causes him to run afoul of a man bent to use it for his own ends... a man named Arcane (played by Louis Jourdan).

I've noted before I am a big time comic reader, so I'm quite well versed with the history of the title character. Wes Craven, who both wrote and directed this film, takes quite a few liberties with the characters and their source material, but still manages to keep it true enough, so that they are easy to relate to and familiar. I liked Ray Wise's approach to the character, as he brought a great deal of altruistic idealism to him, which rang true to the character from the comics. Also well cast is Louis Jourdan as Arcane, as he gave him just the right amount of arrogant egotism and flamboyant self-aggrandizement, like the typical madman who thinks they know how to rule the world would have. Of course, Adrienne Barbeau is the real standout here, not just for the obvious physical attributes (which were obviously one of the reasons she was cast in the role of Holland's/Swamp Thing's love interest), but she manages to elevate herself from being more than just the usual damsel in distress, as watching her fight off attackers and shoot a gun, shows she's no weak-willed school girl. But it was her ability to make you believe that the chemistry she shared with Holland, was strong enough for her to accept him after his change into the Swamp Thing (which was played wonderfully by Dick Durock), that really cinched her performance with me. And let's face it, she don't look bad in soaking wet clothes, either. In fact, almost all of the cast do very good jobs with material that, at times, comes off a bit overly cheesy.

If there were any negatives to the film, I'd have to say that it was in the pacing and dialog. Granted, this isn't Shakespere, but the script sometimes seems to just strive too hard to stay closer to humor than horror. It results in some scenes losing some of the dramatic punch they might have had, if they would have allowed things to go just a touch darker. The pacing of the film is quite quick, though a bit too quick, in some cases. We never really got to see Holland actually transform into Swamp Thing, nor did we get much time spent on him trying to adjust to his new situation. I would have liked to see more of a struggle for him in dealing with what he had become and his loss of his physical humanity, as he just seems to accept it too quickly. The special effects aren't very special here, although the Swamp Thing outfit does pretty closely resemble the character in the comics, so long as you don't focus on the close-ups, when the rubbery look is very obvious. Of course, this is just a limitation of the times and can't really be counted as detriment to the film.

"Swamp Thing" is like a film that bridges the gap between the old 50's-60's horror films, with their poor special effects and unintentional cheesiness, and the more modern horror films that were to come. It does feel a bit like a throwback in a lot of ways, but the film has got a lot of heart and I think its charm ultimately won me over. It's not a very scary horror film, but it is an enjoyably fun film, nonetheless.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Since it's Halloween and all...

Happy Halloween, everyone! Unpleasant dreams!

From your pals at The Video Drones Reviews!

Review: Eaten Alive

Synopsis: Guests who come to stay at the Louisiana motel of a mentally unstable inn keeper, soon find themselves being served up as the main course to his large pet crocodile.

Review: As a bit of a horror film buff, I'm always looking to check out some of the older b-movie horrors of the past, both to learn more about what makes for a good scare, as well as to get interesting insights into exactly how and why those things have changed over the decades. And I can safely say that "Eaten Alive" provided none of that for me.

This is the third film from Director Tobe Hooper (known mainly for his cult classic "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre"). Once again, the film revolves around a mentally disturbed person, living within the southern part of the United States. This time around, the story is about a deranged inn keeper who, for reasons never explained, keeps killing the guests who come to his motel and feeding them to the large crocodile in the swamp next to it.

Those who are familiar with Hooper's style, will see a lot of similarities between this film and his most famous work, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", which was the film he made directly preceding this one. It is filled with the kind of strange and oddball cinematography, with weird neon lighting and close-up focusing shots on weird images throughout. But unlike the previous work, it doesn't really gel here. What once might have been directorial excess, is simply pointless and unintelligible nonsense. It is obvious he's trying to set an eerie and creepy atmosphere, but it is just so poorly crafted and lacking in any sense of commonality, that what is meant to feel bizarre and surreal, feels completely unbelievable instead. The script for this must have been about one page long, as that is how bad the plot and storytelling here is.

The acting is, also, very much below par, even by low budget horror film standards. It is shown that the inn keeper (played by Neville Brand) is out-of-his-mind, but we never come to understand why or what it is the guests do that sets him off. This lack of context makes it almost impossible to be scared by his crazy (re)actions and leaves you more inclined to scratch your head in puzzlement, than to feel any sense of dread or menace. None of the other characters really gets enough development for you to care about them, save that of Buck (played by a then unknown Robert Englund). His performance is the only one to have any real resonance at all and even that isn't very much.

Perhaps Hooper thought he could capture lightning in a bottle for a second time, like he did with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a couple years earlier (even going so far as to bring back Marilyn Burns to play the part of a victim once more). But as this film shows, it isn't something you can force or easily recreate. As a result, "Eaten Alive" never really comes to life or finds it's own voice (a point only belabored, by the fact this film has been renamed many different times). It just stagnates and meanders, providing no real thrills, scares, or even the macabre tone of TCM. If you are a Hooper completist, you might derive some kind of enjoyment or interest from this outing. Otherwise, you are best just to skip on this uninteresting and plotless bomb. The reason this film is highly overlooked, isn't because it was ahead of it's time. It is because efforts this poor are better off being forgotten.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: Motel Hell

Synopsis: A horror-comedy movie about the seemingly nice Smith family, proprietors of both a motel and a smoked meat company. But what is the terrifying secret behind the special flavor of the "Farmer Vincent" pork products?

Review: "Motel Hell" is quite a difficult film to gauge. It is referred to as a horror-comedy, but that description isn't very accurate, as it is more weird than funny and more macabre than scary.

The story revolves around a couple of hoteliers (played by Rory Calhoun and Nancy Parsons), who have a side business selling fine smoked meats. But what makes the meats so good is the terrifying secret ingredient of human flesh.

I have to say, going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. With cannibalism being a factor in the film, you might be expecting a lot of gruesome scenes. Yet, surprisingly, there is very little in the way of graphic gore to be found. The story is also a bit odd, in that there are some scenes that seem to drag on, yet give you little in the way of a pay-off. Also, most of the acting is fairly poor. Whether this is due to the lack of skills of the actors, or a case of a script that gives them little to work with, I can't really say. The side drama about the love triangle involving Terry (played by Nina Axelrod) and the brother of the cannibal farmer, who is also the town's Sheriff (played by Paul Linke), is little more than a strained (and sometimes dull) attempt to set up the final conflict between the brothers. Although, the film can boast of being an early work for actor John Ratzenberger (who would go onto heights of television fame on the series "Cheers"). Unfortunately, he gets very little to do in the film (including not a single piece of dialog) being nothing more than a victim to be killed. Director Kevin Connor never really seems to bring the story to life, until towards the very end. And if you haven't found yourself engaged long before that point, it probably won't much matter to you. The cinematography is fine, but it feels like it would play better on an old drive-in screen, than on your television, which is probably only fitting, as the film was obviously geared for such a venue.

The only things that save this film from the scrap pile, are the last 20 minutes of the film and the solid performance of Rory Calhoun as the cannibalistic farmer. He manages to make you believe both his down-home country manners and his twisted psychotic reasoning in killing people for food. His performance stands high above anyone else in the film. And the final battle at the film's end also brings a spark of life to what, up until this point, has been a very strange and slow-moving tale. When Calhoun's character comes out wearing a pig's head and wielding a chainsaw, it is truly a sight to behold.

As I said at the start, "Motel Hell" is a hard film to figure out. It's not really good and looks extremely dated today, but neither is it total crap and completely uninteresting. Die-hard horror buffs might want to check this one out, but I highly doubt many others would have much interest in this cult film. It really is an enigma in the world of horror cinema.

Rating: 1 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Happy Birthday to Me is remastered and restored!

This October 13th, Anchor Bay is set to re-realese this film on DVD with the original soundtrack that was altered in 2004 when Columbia added some other score. This is great news, as the original soundtrack score is, not only superior in quality, but also more fitting to the times in which the film debuted. Good news, indeed, for every fan of this classic slasher.

Review: Rambo: First Blood Part II

Synopsis: In the hopes of getting a Presidential pardon, Rambo returns to action in Vietnam, on a mission to find missing POWs. But once the truth is revealed, he soon finds out that his real enemies might not be the ones shooting at him.

Review: As the second installment of the "Rambo" saga, this film definitely ups-the-ante in terms of action and body count. "Rambo: First Blood Part II" takes Rambo back to the jungles of Vietnam, where most of the mental traumas that dog him began. His mission is to search for missing POWs, instead he falls right back into a war that, for him, has never really ended.

As I said, the action in this film goes way beyond anything we saw in the first one (but with James Cameron as one of the screenplay writers, that's not exactly a surprise). Less content to let the personal and political dramas propel the action, this film is pretty much the reverse, with the action being cause to create those plot developments. In many way, this film seems to forget the humanity shown in the original and opts to let the excitement of the moment wash over you, like the backwash of an F-16 fighter jet, as the explosive battle sequences blast you against the back wall. Although, while extremely over the top in almost every stunt and fight, to the point ungodly suspension of disbelief is pretty much he order of the day, it is a beautifully choreographed bloodbath to behold. It basically, for good or ill, set the stage for what the 80's action epic would be expected to achieve for the rest of the decade.

While not exactly a deeply emotive character in the first film, Sly gets even less moments here. There is no understanding to what Rambo is feeling being back in the place that has tortured him so. There is almost no attempt to play on those feelings at all, save an all-too-brief scene on a boat, between Rambo and the young Vietnamese woman (played by Julia Nickson) who is helping him in the mission, but that's as far as they go to give you any idea on what Rambo is thinking and feeling, being back in 'Nam after all this time. I would have liked to get into Rambo's thoughts more, as the traumas he'd suffered there could have added even more depth to an emotionally complex character. But that simply isn't what this film was about.

Richard Crenna reprises his role, as Rambo's C.O., but he gets very little to do in this film. Whereas in the first he was a key to understanding Rambo and used to contrast the political themes that were presented, here he is merely a very small cog, used mainly to set up the plot to get Rambo back into action. He does have one very intense scene, where he argues with the slimy Washington bureaucrat (played by Charles Napier), which brought back a momentary flair from the first film, but it is over quickly, as the need to get back to the jungle slaughter is the paramount concern here.

"Rambo: First Blood Part II" was less the ending of an iconic character's saga (not the least of which is due to the fact two more sequels were made) and more the start of replacing character-driven action, with action-driven drama. It created a new standard for what action films could be (and in many cases, would be) from that point on. It set up a game of constant oneupmanship with the other action stars of the day, as they all attempted to outdo what this film began. In some ways, this film is almost a whole new entity, completely separate from the original film in every thing but the characters names, yet it is also strangely completely bound to it. As a sequel to a film that had some very deep philosophical and political themes, this film fails to recapture almost any of that same spirit, but in terms of spinning the action film genre into an ever growing and testosterone-fueled behemoth, determined to make the impossible seem probable, as well as solidifying Rambo's status as an 80's icon for all-time, the film succeeds on a level no other film could ever hope to manage. This is truly the film that epitomizes the phrase, "check your brain at the door and enjoy!" Which I am more than able to do.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: First Blood

Synopsis: When a mentally traumatized Vietnam war vet is abused by a small town's police force, he begins a one man war with it.

Review: A lot of people would likely classify this film as an "action movie." While there is certainly some great action sequences to be found here, it is really so much more than that. "First Blood" is something more than the typical shoot 'em up action epic, as it has the undertones of some very definite political themes and societal messages that most mere "action movies" never do.

Aside from Rocky Balboa, John J. Rambo is without question the most iconic character in Sylvester Stallone's long career. And of the two, he is certainly the more emotionally complex. A man of deep loyalties and convictions, he is also easily able to shun aside the moralities of the supposed civilized world and, when provoked, become little more than a killing machine. It is this duality of a man who simply wants a quiet place for himself in the world, yet who is capable of committing some of the most outrageous acts of violence ever seen, that is what make the character so compelling.

But it isn't simply Sly's performance as Rambo that gives the film such resonance. Equally adding the this potent dramatic brew are veteran actors Brian Dennehy and Richard Crenna. While Sly spends most of the film running through forests and slogging through tunnels, the interaction between Dennehy and Crenna's characters brilliantly encapsulate the clash of political views at the story's core.

As noted the action scenes are very well done here. They almost make you believe that Rambo could single-handedly take down an entire town. They never go too far, or become too outlandish, with things. They keep it feeling just realistic enough to add the much needed tension for the inevitable showdown at the film's end. Adding to this is the stellar musical score by Jerry Goldsmith, which is just the perfect compliment to the story unfolding. It never distracts you from what's occurring on screen and, in fact, enhances the emotions of the situations even more. Just what any good score should do.

What more can be said about this film, that hasn't already been said a thousand times before? The film would create a cultural icon that would embody the decade of the 80's, as well as inspire sequel films for over 20 years. But while those sequels would easily up the ante in terms of non-stop action, they would never attain the same level of emotional drama that this film does. "First Blood" was a film that asked a lot of hard questions about a war, and it's aftermath, that had no easy answers. And that, above all else, is what makes it more than merely "another 80's action movie." It makes it a classic!

Rating: 4 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Madman

Synopsis: A group of camp counselors find themselves the victims of a legendary killer in the woods, known only as... Madman Marz!

Review: From the late 70's through the early 80's, it was the golden era of the slasher horror film. During this period, many played on the old standby of a killer in the woods theme ("The Prowler", "Don't Go In The Woods", "The Burning" and, of course, "Friday the 13th"). By 1982, this had become "old hat." Yet, late in the game, here comes "Madman"! The basic plot is what you would expect: Some camp counselors wind up as the targets of a legendary kill-crazy farmer, appropriately named, Madman Marz. It is a completely predictable and by-the-numbers slasher formula.

The acting is, as is usually the case in most low-budget slashers, almost non-existent. Save for the character of Betsy (played by Gaylen Ross, under the name "Alexis Dubin," as I guess she didn't want it to be known she was in a cheesy slasher flick), none of the characters gets developed enough to the point you know or care about any of them. The killer isn't really developed any, either, as he is portrayed as the typical "super-human" maniac, showing incredible physical strength and speed, beyond any mere mortal. It's said he murdered his family, but you never really learn why, as the script is more interested in setting up hokey hot-tub scenes, in an effort to provide the prerequisite nudity in such films. Everything just plods along in a very predictable manner.

So, what you are left with is the special effects and atmosphere to provide you any real entertainment. Fortunately, it actually does. One of the things I really liked about the setting, is how well they played up how easy it is to get lost in the woods at night. The sameness of the surroundings actually helped convey a sense of tension in not knowing exactly where you are. And since this is a time before the advent of cell phones, it comes off somewhat realistically. Of course, some of that is undone by a soundtrack which, at times, sounds like someone who got their hands on a Kasio keyboard and suddenly thought they were John Carpenter.

As for the killings themselves, it's a mixed bag that ranges from the extremely gruesome to the extremely phony! Although, some of the kills are pretty inventive, like the one where the girl is beheaded by the hood of the car she is trying to get working. I also like that they tried to keep the killer more to the shadows for most of the film. Something that might have been more out of necessity, than to illicit a sense of mystery, as when you get a good look at the killer the cheapness of the effects shows how much they lacked a budget here.

In the end, the film is merely a typical example of the schlocky early 80's slasher formula. It could be entertaining for those who are fans of the genre, or those who love to mock it. Otherwise, you can probably pass on it. It's simply another unoriginal slasher film, that looks extremely cheap and has not aged very well. Might make for a good Halloween party film, though, as it comes off as the technological equivalent of telling a ghost story around a campfire.

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Spirit

Synopsis: The masked hero, called the Spirit, must stop his arch-enemy, the Octopus, from fulfilling his evil mission: wipe out Spirit's beloved Central City, as he pursues his own version of immortality.

Review: First off, I have to say that I am a comic book reader and a superhero fan. I really like how the characters from some of my favorite comics, have been able to explode off the pages and on to the silver screen. Most times, I usually get a bit of a thrill seeing these characters brought to life. Then, however, there are times like when I watched "The Spirit" and wish they never would have left those four-color magazines.

Everything about this film is just wrong. The acting, the directing, the script, even the casting. It is flawed on almost every possible level a film can be. Gabriel Macht's performance in the title role is flat and completely uninspired. You can tell he was just phoning it in. Scarlett Johansson is totally wasted in her role, which was so superfluous, that she'd have been better off just not showing up on the set. Sam Jackson plays Sam Jackson, even though they call him "the Octopus." It's the same character he's been playing ever since "Pulp Fiction," and it's no longer entertaining (especially in a script this poor). Eva Mendes brings a little bit of sizzle and sexual intensity to things, but she's spends very little time on screen and simply cannot save this heaping pile of garbage.

The script is utter nonsense. I can't even really tell you what the story here is. Something about Sam Jackson out to get the blood of a Greek hero, so he can become immortal, or something. Even by the standards of a comic book script, this thing lacks anything to remotely make it understandable. The action is very cartoony, in that bad kind of way. The dramatic moments (or what passes for them) are so overwrought with cliches and hamfisted in the delivery, that it seems more like a comedic farce. And while I have enjoyed much of Frank Miller's comic work over the years, he simply is abysmal as a film director. Where is the direction in this movie? Where is the talent we know he possesses? Directors are supposed to help their cast pull forth great performances from within them. There is none of that here. It seems everyone was just there to collect their check, the director included.

The visual styling is nice and noir-ish. It is the one area the film produced anything of value. But after having seen it in "Sin City," "300" and other films of late, it's not really special anymore and can't prop up the fact that everything else about this movie stinks on ice. So, it's attempts to distract you from a lack of plot, strong performances and any real thrills, ultimately fails, like everything else in this turkey.

"The Spirit" is the kind of travesty that sets back comic related films 40 years. It is an amateurish production all the way through. It isn't faithful to the source material, nor is it entertaining in its own right. It doesn't even have the benefit of being "so bad it is good" in that cheesy way. Comic fans won't like this. Non-comic fans won't like this. It is truly a film without a valid audience. Everyone involved in this steaming pile of manure should be ashamed of themselves. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this trash and see a GOOD comic book related movie, like "Iron Man" or "The Dark Knight," because the screams of the city are all coming from those who have watched this egregiously insulting piece of celluloid! It is easily one of the worst films I've seen in quite some time.

Rating: 1/2 Star (out of 4)

Chopping Mall, aka Killbots...

Sometime in 1985, a little film called "KILLBOTS" was made at the famous 80's shopping mall called the Sherman Oaks Galleria. It was a three storey mall that was built in 1980. It was also the filming grounds for "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," as well.

The film's tittle was changed to "Chopping Mall" due to poor sales at the box office. This somehow is connected to Roger Corman, in some fashion. Now, a quick recap of the story, it is about a new brand of security system that uses these 3 robots (Killbots) to protect the mall after hours. But, you guessed it, it goes bad when a lightning storm strikes and destroys its memory, therefore making the robots run amok. Six people, 3 females and 3 males, decide to have a party after hours in the furniture store and are stuck by being chased, hunted and killed by these crazy out of control Killbots.

There's a scene in the beginning when the two main girls are working at the mall restaurant, in the background we see posters for other Corman films. One is "Sorceress", another "Galaxy of Terror" and other of "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Forbidden World." Why these movie posters are in a restaurant is beyond me, but it must be some nod to Corman. I liked this cheesy film, because it displays a lot of the interior of the Sherman Oaks Galleria, which were destroyed by a earthquake in 1994. So, if you wanna see how an 80's mall looked, check this film out.

I give "Chopping Mall" 2 and half stars out of four, as it never wears out it's welcome in only 77 minutes.

Review: Shoot 'Em Up

Synopsis: A man named Mr. Smith delivers a woman's baby during a shootout, and is then called upon to protect the newborn from the army of gunmen.

Review: To say that this film is over the top at being over the top, would be as intellectually insightful as saying water is wet. There's not a single thing in this movie that can be taken seriously, despite the fact it's loaded with violence and adult themes, and therein lies the true charm of the spectacle. Clive Owens plays the mystery man known only as "Smith." After he helps a women birth her child during a gunfight, he finds himself caught up in a web of outrageous political intrigue, with the baby's life, as well as his own, as the stakes. This is basically a parody send up of every gun-blazing, ass-kicking, tough guy action film you've ever even heard about. Owens character never misses a shot (or the chance to chomp on some carrots), in shootouts that are not just overly exaggerated, but completely impossible, in many cases. You have Paul Giamatti as the sleazy hitman out to get him and the baby, with Monica Bellucci simply providing eye-candy, as the milk-giving whore helping Smith to save the child. There isn't a single moment that you can really take any of this seriously, but the filmmakers know this and don't just fail to apologize for it, but actually revel in it. The choreography in the gunfights is superb. If you could actually pull off some of the stunts shown here, I fully believe the real would be as mindlessly violent as this film is. My favorite has to be the skydiving shootout, where physics and several universal laws of kinetic energy and gravity simply don't exist. This is to say nothing of the many machismo one-liners that are constantly thrown around throughout the film, which provide the perfect black humor to the massive amounts of killing going on. Of course, one can't forget the rocking soundtrack, complete with trashy metal sounds, from groups like Motley Crue and Motorhead, that only intensifies the sensation. Is "Shoot 'Em Up" sexist? Yep. Is it somewhat homophobic? You betcha. Is it overly violent? Oh, hell yes! The film is all of that, as well as not having a single redeeming value within the whole product. Yet, despite all of this, it is still a rip-roaring, testosterone-fueled, slam-banging, out-of-control good time, that will charm it's way into your heart and have you quoting lines from it for days afterwards! If you are someone who's easily offended, or has delicate sensibilities, then this movie is one you probably should avoid. For everyone else, just sit back and watch the mindless carnage unfold. This is truly a guy's movie, for guys who like movies. And it is probably the guiltiest pleasure experience I've had in some time.

Rating: 3 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Spaceballs

Synopsis: A farcical parody of many sci-fi classics, in which Planet Spaceball's President Skroob sends Lord Dark Helmet to steal Planet Druidia's abundant supply of air to replenish their own, and only Lone Starr can stop them.

Review: By the time of this film's release, Mel Brooks had already established himself as the master of the genre spoof film. But "Spaceballs" is, if not his finest hour, one of the top three efforts in his long list of satirizing comedies. And geek culture would never be the same.

Basically parodying the original Star Wars saga, but mixing in elements of other sci-fi mainstays, like "Star Trek," "Alien" and others, Brooks employs his twisted skills to skewer one of the most beloved and well-known franchises in movie history and does so masterfully. There are plenty of sight-gags and word play moments, as is expected in a Mel Brooks comedy. I especially liked all the "Spaceballs" merchandise that constantly shows up in the film. From bed sheets to toilet paper, it's one of several running gags that I never get tired of.

It features some early work by Bill Pullman and Daphne Zuniga, who would both move on to bigger things in the future. Here, they have a perfect chemistry, as the snobby-but-yielding Princess and the rugged-but-tender hero. I like that, even before they fall for each other, they already argue like an old married couple.

The main stars here, though, are (the late) John Candy and Rick Moranis, both of whom are staples in the world of the 80's comedy film. John Candy has some nice scenes and gets some yuks going, but it is Rick Moranis, as the evil-but-inept Lord Dark Helmet, who basically steals the show. Most of the funniest moment and lines belong to him. From playing with his "Spaceballs" dolls, to having his men (literally) combing the desert for our heroes, he proves that, even in a total farce, evil is always the more interesting and fun to watch.

Many others have tried to imitate Brooks style of comedic humor, most notably Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, but try as others might, they simply cannot compete with the master. Because the one thing that Mel Brooks comedy spoofs do, that others do not, is know when to "not go there." His humor is tactless, without ever being tasteless. "Spaceballs" remains one of Brooks best works and is certainly my personal favorite. If you love sci-fi, or if you hate it, you'll find plenty to enjoy in this film!

Rating: 3 Stars (out of 4)

It's not human... and it's got an ax? Just once, though!

The famous tagline for this little known horror in the woods slasher is, "It's not human and it's got an axe." Yet, it only uses an axe in the beginning on a middle aged couple camping in the woods at nighttime. Not too smart, from a marketing standpoint.

"The Prey" opens up with a forest fire in the 1940's. Where's smokey bear when you need him?? Now on to present day 1980, where a survivor of the 1940's forest fire is older and looking for some prey (hence the film's name). He finds it with a group of 6 camper/hikers (probably college students), looking for some good ol fashion nature trails. They get more than they bargain for. They get picked off and stalked by this unseen monster until the very end, when his looks are revealed.

"The Prey" was apparently filmed in 1978, and it shows. There are a lot of nature shots, like bugs, animals, critters, etc. I thought I was watching an episode of National Geographic. "The Prey" looks 70's, too. Bell bottoms, hair styles, the works. The monster (fire victim) looks cool. Now, I'm sure "The Prey" didn't receive big box office success. I don't know if it saw any release in 1980, but I do know the first time I heard of this film was when I saw it in the local paper, with this ad that is shown above. I thought it looked cool enough. This was in June of 1984. It played at a local drive-in. I wonder how many people actually remember seeing this on a drive-in screen. It didn't last long. I think it was only shown for one weekend only. That drive-in however is closed since 1987, and is now a business park.

I think "Prey" could have been better, and had potential to be a good little horror film, but fails on a few levels. It could have had some more character development, as well as more backstory about the Gypsies that were burned. And how is it that this child that was burned in the 1940's lived in the woods for 40 some years?? Hey, just watch playing with matches next time your in the woods. I don't want another "Prey"!!!

"Prey" gets 1 and a half stars, for a somewhat cool looking monster, some creepy woods shots and a cool poster. If only the movie could have been as cool! [Side note: The monster ended up playing lurch in the "Addams Family" films.]

Review: The Agony of Love

Synopsis: A neglected housewife searches for love, by pimping herself out as a high-priced call girl. She rents an apartment where she indulges in all of her sexual fantasies, but gets an unexpected surprise while on the job.

Review: Made in the time when the drive-ins ruled entertainment, during the golden age of sexploitation smut, "The Agony of Love" is a real standout among many of its competitors of the era, not the least of which is due to that luscious 60's silicone siren, Pat Barrington.

The basics of the plot are pretty much typical of what you can expect to get from a film of this kind and from this period. But while lacking in anything resembling originality, it still manages to give you the goods. Pat Barrington plays a neglected housewife, who hooks on the side, not for the money or the thrills, but to feel loved and desired. While the subject matter might have been consider almost taboo in the 60's, by today's standards it's not really all that shocking. Still, this is certainly no film meant for children.

Pat's obvious physical "talents" are one of the things that separates her from many women in this genre. More than ample, she has probably some of the the nicest body curves of the times. Unlike her physical form, though, her acting abilities are negligible, at best, since her emoting and delivery of dialogue is very flat. Yet, in this film, which is one of the few times she ever got a starring role, that seems to work to her (and the film's) benefit. Her monotoned vocal range, when she speaks, as well as the vacant look behind her eyes, is very befitting to the tormented "damaged goods" kind of character she is playing here. Whether more by accident than design, or the director simply playing to her weaknesses and making them a strength, this is most likely the best performance of her career, bar none.

This is William Rotsler's first time out as both writer and director of a film, as well as the first of several times he'd work with Pat Barrington over the course of the decade, but it is easily his best work. The use of some nice camera shots, puts this a step up from other like films of the era. And one scene, where Pat's character discusses a dream with a psychiatrist, is shot with an almost psychedelic flair. It was very much in keeping with the "trippy" 60's vibe, but gave this film something a little extra against its compatriots. Also, the twist ending is one you might not see coming. Rotsler does drag a bit on some of the sexual scenes (which showcase several kinds of fetishes), even though Pat's form is very nice to look at, which feels more like a directorial excess than anything else, but over all it is certainly one of the best shot sexploitation films I've ever seen (and I've watch quite a few).

This would be the last starring role of Pat's career (in which she only had two or three in total). And when the 60's came to a close, she disappeared from the world of film and never returned. Still, she certainly made her mark as one of the most voluptuous vixen of the decade and shown that even a drive-in "skin-flick" could actually be entertaining, for more than just the obvious reasons. It is actually difficult to rate films of this kind, as the standards of them are usually extremely low, but this one has a little something special to it, beyond what you might come to expect of this brand of film. It is on DVD and can be obtained from the Something Weird Video catalog. If you are a fan of this film genre, you'd do well to check it out.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: The Wraith

Synopsis: When a young teen is killed by gang of car racing thugs, he returns as a mystical figure to gain revenge upon them.

Review: This film is the epitome of 80's cheesiness. You've got fast cars, hot chicks, a revenge-fueled plot and Clint Howard (with one of the funniest hairdos ever). Yet, the film has a certain charm that makes you kind of enjoy the spectacle of it all.

Charlie Sheen plays the lead hero, bent on getting back at the gang who murdered him. That's pretty much as far as the script goes, as far as advancing any kind of plot. This of course, leaves many unanswered questions, as a result. Why is Sheen's character given this second chance for revenge? Why race each gang member separately, when he could kill them all at once? Where are all the adults (save the sheriff, played by Randy Quaid)? Why are the police so inept at stopping things, when they know who the street-racing punks are? It seems providing such answers was never a big priority, as most of the film is spent with cars racing (and blowing up), or Sheen's character reconnecting with his old girlfriend. It is obvious that this film is trying to appeal to the 16-20 year old crowd (and adults who still think like them).

Sherilyn Fenn, who plays said girlfriend, provides the prerequisite nudity and damsel in distress required for the story, while Nick Cassavetes is equally adequate as the slimy and somewhat unstable gang leader. Most of the performances are very stiff and wooden, with little in the way of any realistic dialogue or emotion. Very typical of an 80's schlock affair, such as this.

The two areas the film does excel in, however, are the car races and the soundtrack. The cinematography of the cars battling for the dominance of speed are very well done. It is about the only part of the film that will inspire any thrills, which shouldn't be surprising, as some of the crew were killed during the making of some of those scenes. Then, of course, the soundtrack is simply rocking, with some of the biggest metal bands and artists providing that trashy 80's sound. The races and music help the film to keep the pace moving fast, which is probably for the best, as it helps make it more enjoyable and keeps you from focusing on the lack of plot and acting ability.

In the final analysis, "The Wraith" is simply a blend of the average revenge-fantasy and the superficial coolness of youth. Think "Death Race 2000" meets "Death Wish," only with an 80's vibe. It's actually pretty harmless fun, if you allow yourself to simply give in to the sheer inanity of the premise and don't expect everything to make sense. It's a decent way to kill some time, with the empty kind of thrills the 80's usually provided.

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

Would you want to go to this school???

"Night School," also know as "Terror Eyes." It stars Rachael Ward who was kinda big around early 80's. She would go on to star in the Burt Reynolds film "Sharkey's Machine." Here she plays a college student (looking a little older than the usual), where a killer is on the loose wearing motorcycle gear and brandishing a large silver blade.

Now, beheadings are the way to go here. Who's killing these college women? There's one scene that stands out, for me. A young college girl goes over a college teacher's (older female) place, and does the nasty! Yes, you heard it right... they get it on. This is a little ahead of its time. Then, later you find the younger girl's head in the toilet! No, I'm not making this up. This is the third horror film between 1980-1981 to have a head in a fish tank.

So, the killer seems to be stalking Rachael Ward for some unknown reason. "Night School" was shot in Boston. It was released in theaters around spring of 1981. I saw it on cable in 1983 on the Movie Channel, as I did most horror films back then. Okay, wow for a little spoiler: This is a 28 year old movie, so if you haven't seen it by now you probably won't, since it hasn't been released on DVD. I doubt this will replay again either. Alright, for the spoiler, here we go----------Don't look down any further!!!! You have been warned...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

....................................Spoiler..................................

.

.

.

.

.

Rachael Ward turns out to be the killer at the end!!!!! The reason being, that she wanted to pass some stupid test, so she decided that by killing off her competition, it would get her the highest grade.

Now, this one doesn't get high grade. Only 1 and a half stars... Although it does have some decent nudity and a lot of blood shed. Oh, those early 80's cable days are so missed...

Lions really do fly!

After seeing "Sorceress" on the movie channel back in '85, it's been a real trip. "Sorceress" was released to a few theaters back in March of 1982. I'm assuming it was shot sometime in '81.

I won't get into the cheesy plot about two twin sisters who are naked all the time. But I will say they go around Mexico (the filming location) beating men up that look like "Planet of the Apes" gone bad. There is a villain that's after them that looks like a low-rent Darth Vader! There is a wise man who looks a lot like a poor man's Ben Kenobi! There is a non-workout looking Conan gone bad dude, who's trying to get in the girls pants and a sub-plot about a lion with wings.

I can't imagine "Sorceress" having a big box office opening weekend, like say "The Dark Knight," can you? I doubt that many even seen this film anywhere. But New World Pictures picked it up and Roger Corman produced this mess of a Conan rip-off. One thing is, its got plenty of nudity and some real cheap special effects. I don't think it's a great movie, but it is fun to watch with a pizza and some cold beer..

I give it 2 boobs... er, I mean, stars!

Too fast for the times!

Summer of 1982 changed the way high school was forever. "Fast Times" is a great little comedy about sex, drugs, and rock n' roll. It has got a cast that mostly went on the big careers. The biggest being Sean Penn playing a stoned-out surfer dude named Jeff Spocoli. He's funny, but a little unbelievable in spots. The real story is about young teens who struggle with having to make adult choices. You have teens dealing with sex, money and drugs. Also you have teens with jobs at the local mall, that seem like a place everyone would wanna work at. We all know what "Fast Times" is about, but it might not hold up as well today as it did 27 years ago. The film was shot between November and December of 1981. It was mostly shot in California, at the Sherman Oaks Galleria (which has totally changed). The real mall was destroyed by an earthquake in 1994. The mall has since never been the same. "Fast Times" also boosted the careers of Nic Cage and Forest Whitaker. It was a very talked about film when it came out in August of '82 and was a big hit on cable and home video. However, the original video version that MCA out out in early 1983 was ruined by the changed soundtrack. The rights of certain artists were switched. This, however, was corrected in 1996 when MCA restored the rights to the soundtrack. Now, of course, it is on DVD with a decent transfer and cool little documentary, to boot. Hey, where have all the good times gone???? I give this 4 stars!

Can you walk the walk??

Okay, it's 1982 and alien movies are among us.

"Time Walker" is a little unknown, low budget film, about a 3,000 year old mummy unveiled at a college campus by a professor. Then its up to the professor to stop this time walking mummy from terrorizing the campus. It was made on a budget of only $75,000. It was released in limited amount to drive-in's (remember them?) and a few small indoor theaters.

I liked the artwork. The film kinda moves slower than usual. I use to have this film on tape from the Movie Channel back in 1983. It's a rare find, but looking at it today it would probably look very dated. At least it is more natural looking than the CGI stuff out there these days. I liked "Time Walker," though. It was an interesting little unknown forgotten gem. It also has never been put out on DVD... I give it 2 and a half stars. Yah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Review: The Boys Next Door

Synopsis: A couple of high school outsiders take a trip to Los Angeles, after their graduation, only to go on a murderous and rage-fueled crime spree, which has the cops on alert and the citizens in their sights.

Review: Sometimes a film comes along, that will truly stick with you long after you've seen it. It will gnaw at your mind and make you look at life and people in a very different way, which you never did before. "The Boys Next Door" is just such a film for me.

Director Penelope Spheeris is probably most well-known for her work on perennial comedic fare, such as "Wayne's World" and "Black Sheep," but long before that she was a very edgy and somewhat visionary filmmaker. Some of her earliest works have a very deep social commentary to them, of which this film is one of her best (and most overlooked). This tale of two high school outcasts, who go to the big city and raise some murderous hell, almost has a modern ring to it. In the wake of real life events, like the massacres at Columbine and Virgina Tech, this film seems less the low-rent crime drama it probably was seen as when it first debuted and more like a prophecy of things to come.

It is absolutely chilling in how it shows the casual use of violence by two supposed teenagers. Their lack of conscience and concern for anything or anyone, save themselves, feels like a mirror being held up to our so-called modern world. What really stuck out for me, though, was the moments of seemingly uncontainable rage expressed by the character of Roy (incredibly performed by Maxwell Caulfield). One scene that truly made my blood run cold, was after his first act of violence on a gas-station attendant, when he and his friend Bo (played by a very young Charlie Sheen, in one of his earliest leading roles) are talking about it in their hotel room, and Roy expresses that the beating wasn't good enough. That he should have killed him. The look of satisfaction on his face as he expresses these thoughts, brought out a dark symmetry to the character, which would dominate everything he does afterwards. It actually comes off like a blueprint to the mindset of such thrill-killers that we see in our real world today. I really enjoyed how the film almost plays like a docudrama in some instances, like this one.

While some of the language and settings might be a bit dated, the emotion and societal insights into the mind of teenage rage are as powerful now as they ever were back in 1985 (when the film debuted). At the time, this film had a bit of controversy about it, due to the amounts of violence shown on screen, but I think that today, in our much more politically-correct minded worldview, it is the thoughts behind the violence which should be more disturbing. It is a film that has truly become MORE relevant as time has gone by, not less. If there is anything lacking in the film, it would be not enough information given on the characters life at home. We see the torment they have with not fitting in with their peers at school, as well as their fears of living out the rest of their lives at dead-end jobs, but there is little info on the role played by the family in helping these boys to be filled with such murderous contempt. There is one scene with Roy's father being shown as a neglectful parent, more interested in getting his next beer than the welfare of his son, but I felt this brief glimpse should have been expand on more. Still, even lacking in this one area, the film is still a very potent brew to behold.

Make no mistake, this is not a "feel good" or party film. It is a shocking, and sometimes twisted, look into how society can mold a teenager into a raging killer and how easily the that rage can be let loose on an unprepared society. And the fact these two characters are attractive looking, as well, only deepens the scary similarities of our current times. Despite that, however, it is certainly a very worthwhile film and is deserving of much more attention. If you are looking for a film that isn't just out to entertain you, but also make you think, this is one movie you need to seek out! But be warned... prepare to be unnerved by much of what you will see. I doubt many will walk away from this film totally unaffected, nor should they.

Rating: 3 1/2 Stars (out of 4)

Is Horror Planet another Alien rip off??

Could "Inseminoid," also known as "Horror Planet," a sci-fi horror thriller, be another clone of alien rip off? And if so, is that a bad thing? Whilst exploring a series of caves beneath the surface of Jupiter's moon Xeno, a scientific research team unleashes a long-buried alien (this sucker is big too). Which impregnates one of the female members of the crew (Judy Geeson). With the pregnancy developing at an alarming rate, Geeson (known as Sandy) is compelled to protect her unborn 'children' from scrutiny and begins to massacre her team members one by one, by one... "Inseminoid" was filmed in London in 1980, at a location called Chislehurst caves. Theres been some debate whether or not "Inseminoid" was ripped off of Ridley Scott's "Alien" film. This one has got gore, though, and plenty of it. It has some cool location shots . The acting isn't at the level of the "Godfather," but it tries to work with what it has got. Once the rampage and violence takes off, it's on. The score is cool, too. Not sure how well this movie did in America? It's known over here as "Horror Planet." But it does keep you watching and is never dull. "Inseminoid" is an intense, gruesome affair that shocks and rises to heights that "Alien" never could! Aspect ratio (2.35). I rate this one 3 stars... well, a low 3.

YOR, the hunter from the furture??

"YOR" was put out in the summer of 1983. Now, I've always wondered, how many people actually saw this in a theater? I'm sure someone did. "Yor, the hunter from the future" seems more prehistoric, than anything futuristic. It's mainly a silly concept of a man with long blond hair killing dinosaurs and getting chased by a Spock-gone-bad looking dude. There's also robots looking like Darth Vader gone bad, too. He's a hit with Kala, a hot looking prehistoric chick, whom he must rescue from anything silly that comes their way. And some old guy. The funny thing about "YOR" is that it has got this strange soundtrack sounding like "Queen" on crack. Everything in "YOR" is copied from something else, only in a poorly done and low-budget kind of way. It's a funny movie, although it's not meant to be. So get a six pack and a pizza, invite some friends over and crack up all night. The theme song alone will crack you up. I have read on IMDB, that someone actually saw this in a drive-in. What's not to like about "YOR"? You decide.. I give "YOR" 3 stars for being an entertainingly cheesy good time and giving me much laughter.

Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Synopsis: Learning the origins of the cannibalistic killer called Leatherface, we watch a group of young adults who, after suffering a horrible accident, are taken to a house of horrors and used as fodder to nurture a soon-to-be-legend.

Review: This films suffers from what most "prequel" films do, in that you already know that the most important players are not going to have any real danger or harm brought to them. And in a horror film, that is simply downright destructive. But even without this handicap, this film is lacking in many other ways.

Trying to give us origins of the legend of Leatherface and his brood, the film comes up short in actually giving you any of the insights it supposedly is to provide. The story is very incoherent, at times, giving you little understanding or interest in seeing what is happening on the screen. Sure, we get to learn who's face was used to make the famous mask and some interesting, if underdeveloped, tidbits about how the family became cannibals, but none of it ever gels into a film that creates a story that sucks you in. So, when the killings start, you really have little in the way of fear or interest in what you are seeing. None of the actors here provided any depth or intrigue to their roles, so you never come to feel anything for them, whether they are a killer or a victim.

The one thing the film does provided is plenty of graphic gore. Gore-fiends will no doubt get what they want. But there is no psychological edge to it, as was done in the original film. It just ends up as splatter for the sake of shock alone, like many of the "torture porn" movies that are passed off for modern horror films today.

This is what modern slasher films have come to, in the wake of films like "Hostel" and "Saw." But those, at least, were done from original concepts, unlike this one, which uses the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" name to draw fans of it to this pitiful display. This is easily one of the worst films of this franchise and an insult to true horror films of every kind. Unless you are simply a fan of watching blood splatter, this is a film you need to simply steer clear from.

Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Review: The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Synopsis: Five friends on a road trip in Texas are hunted down and terrorized by a chainsaw wielding killer and his family of grave-robbing cannibals.

Review: This film is often touted as one of the progenitors of the slasher sub-genre of horror films, as well as the magnum opus of writer/director Tobe Hooper. While I certainly can't dispute either of those things, those points also do not mean that this film is everything it is hyped up to be. Nor does it seem worthy of the many sequels that would follow in it's wake.

I found many spots in the film, especially within the first half, that simply drag on way too long. Scenes where nothing really happens. By the time we reach the first kill of the film, you are already about 40 minutes into the film (which has a total run time of about 90 minutes). This glacial pacing in the early part of the film, while perhaps trying to build a mood, simply inspired boredom for me.

Also, while this film is steeped in much controversy, including being banned in other countries for it's "graphic content," and being known as one of the earliest slasher films, it is extremely light on blood and gore. Many later films of this sub-genre would be much more noted for their bloodiness and "graphic content." What Hooper looks to strive for is creating horror through a macabre atmosphere, as the eerie score and odd camera angles and settings would seem to bear out. But these are only effective to a point and some of the strange camera shots quickly become repetitive and owe more to directorial excesses, than to any attempts at psychological horror.

Since none of the actors create any characters you really come to care about, nor does the script often give you any clarity on just what is happening and why, the film hampers itself in making you truly care about anything that happens to these people. And when you are trying to scare someone, if you don't make them feel for either the characters or the situation, that is extremely hard, if not impossible, to do. The only scene that was even remotely scary was the chase scene, at just over halfway through the film. The terror of that scene (which was quite long) is visceral, but it alone cannot make up for so much wasted time earlier in the film, nor for the over-use of specialized camera shots, which make the film seem to drag on way too often.

Is "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a macabre film? Yes. Is it a bizarre film? Certainly. Is it even a little bit creepy in some spots? Sure enough. But it is not one of the scariest films ever made, as it often gets billed as. It may be one of the original slashers of cinema history, but later films would do a much better job of defining that sub-genre, which this film may have helped to originate. If you are a fan of this franchise, or a die-hard slasher fanatic, then this is a film you probably should see, if only for the historical significance alone. Everyone else can give it a pass, as there are much better slasher films, which are truly much scarier than this one could ever hope to be. In short, "don't believe the hype!"

Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

Review: Death Race

Synopsis: Framed for a crime he didn't commit, an ex-con and former race car driver is forced by the warden of a notorious prison to compete in our post-industrial world's most popular sport: a car race in which inmates must brutalize and kill one another on the road to victory... and freedom!

Review: Summertime is well-known for trotting out the big action films and "Death Race" was certainly no different, in the summer of 2008. The basics of the plot are a pretty well-travelled affair and none of the actors does any real stretching beyond their character's needs. From Joan Allen's "ballbuster" warden, to Jason Statham's "hard-ass" hero, to Ian McShane's "Yoda-like" veteran inmate, nothing new, innovative or different is brought out.

Of course, no one really sees films like this for deep and meaningful performances. It's all about the action and this one gives you plenty of it. The car battles are done exceedingly well. You actually feel like you are in the vehicle, as the action unfolds. The stunts on the track are pretty much what you expect. If you like to watch fast cars and big explosions, this film will not fail you.

One of the things that's interesting about this film, is exactly how it is connected to Roger Corman's cult classic "Death Race 2000." Originally, this was to be a sequel, with futuristic floating cars, like out of "Back to the Future Part II," but the expense forced that to be changed. The film's writer/director, Paul W.S. Anderson, has said that this is meant as a prequel to Corman's film, but since this takes place AFTER the time period of it, I find that hard to swallow. So, for myself, I see it as an updated remake, which I normally find very putrid, since most remakes are of films that are already good on their own. But "Death Race" is of that rare breed, where the remake can be taken on it's own and enjoyed, without it being disrespectful to the previous version. Something made much easier, by the guest voicing of (the late) David Carradine as "Frankenstein" (the same character he played in Corman's classic original).

So, while "Death Race" isn't a film that will leave you pondering deep philosophical questions about life and humanity, it manages to pack in plenty of thrills and action that one comes to expect of the typical summer flick. It's simply big, dumb fun and very re-watchable! What every action blockbuster aspires to be. It is sure to appeal to the 14-year old in every guy.

Rating: 2 1/2 Stars (out of 4)