Sunday, August 29, 2010

Review: The Fly II


Synopsis: The horror beings again, as a greedy businessman attempts to unlock the secrets to Seth Brundle's teleportation pods, by using the "genetic curse" of Brundle's son as the key, in the sequel to David Cronenberg's classic remake.


Review: If there is one thing I loathe almost more than remakes, it's a hollow and bland sequel film to a remake. "The Fly II" is, unfortunately, just such a beast.


We pick up where Cronenberg's creepy remake of this classic horror film left off, as we now follow the exploits of the son of Seth Brundle (played by Eric Stoltz). After his mother dies giving birth to him, he becomes the personal experiment of a greedy businessman (played by Lee Richardson), who is determined to use him to unlock the secrets of his father teleportation device. You know nothing good can come of that. Right off the bat, almost none of the characters from the original return to this outing, with the exception of John Getz, who reprises his role as the token jerk. Not a very good sign. Then, you have four screenwriters on the script, which doesn't give you much hope of a solid story. The old adage about "too many cooks spoil the broth" is in full effect here, as none of the characters ever really come to life (except, perhaps, a little bit from Richardson's).


Really, I felt like the cast was sleepwalking through their scenes most of the time. There's no passion or spark in any of the performances. To be fair, to follow up on the incredibly frenetic and passionate energy of Jeff Goldblum's character from the first film, would be a very unenviable task for most actors, but Eric Stoltz never even gets close to anything like it. None of the cast do. Maybe they were as bored with the dialog here, as I was, I don't know. But there's really no standout performances here. There's almost no performances of any kind. They are all just cyphers to the need of the plot (such as it is). Just plodding along until the "Brundle-Fly" can come out and play. This is only made worse by the fact that there's no really likable characters in the entire film. Even Stoltz and Zuniga's characters, who are supposed to be the "heroes," never evoked any kind of emotion from me, save apathy.


Director Chris Walas obviously wasn't interested in creating the eerie tension and drama that Cronenberg did in the first film, as he opts more for cornball performances and putting all his effort into the special effects. But even there the film is just lacking. You can tell he was trying hard to top the "gross out" appeal of the first film, but it never comes off that way. Much of the violence is pretty tame, especially compared to the first film. It comes off more like "Cronenberg-lite" and never really satisfies. Even the monster Martin becomes does more to invite laugher, rather than fear and revulsion.


This film is just a clear cut case of how one movie's success was used as just cause to create a pointless sequel. Everyone involved here could only have been looking to get a paycheck. It's b-grade horror at its most dull and boring. It's not even "so bad it's good" b-grade horror. There's no scares to be had here, nor any humor, save the possibility of the unintentional kind. If you seen the first film, you certainly don't need to see this one. And if you haven't seen it, go watch that instead of this. The only thing this poor production has in common with flies, is the fact that any kind of crap will usually attract them.


Rating: 1 Star (out of 4)

Monday, August 23, 2010

Review: Vice Squad


Synopsis: Pimps, hookers, lowlife scum... you'll find them all in the big city, where sex and violence rule the landscape. But that's just another typical night on the mean streets for the Vice Squad!


Review: I'm something of an amateur devotee of low budget, grindhouse films. From flicks of the 60's to the present, I've seen my fair share. However, "Vice Squad" is one that will probably always standout to me, both in good ways and bad.


The basic plot is that a prostitute named "Princess" (played by Season Hubley) helps a seasoned vice cop (played by Gary Swanson) to take down a violent and deranged pimp named "Ramrod" (played by Wings Hauser), after he kills another prostitute friend of her's (played by Nina Blackwood), but soon becomes the target of the pimp's homicidal rage, after he escapes custody. Now the race is on between the vice squad and Ramrod, as to who will get to Princess first! The film is certainly not for the faint of heart, or those who easily offend. No punches are pulled in the violence and degradation that is shown.


It has a sort of gritty realism to it, but it doesn't quite make it over the hump to where you totally buy it. This is due to the stretching of credibility in some key moments. I mean, would an entire vice squad really go all out to find a single prostitute, even if her life were in danger? No, probably not. One cop, maybe two, but not the whole squad. And the violent pimp, who seems to constantly flip from calm to psychopathic at the drop of hat, would he really be able to intimidate all the hard players of this underbelly of civilized society? Again, probably not. So, when such instances happen, it takes you out of the moment and costs the film a lot of the dramatic tension it's trying to build.


Director Gary Sherman certainly does a nice job of portraying the seedier side of the big city (in this case Hollywood), as the grunge and sleaze of society's "forgotten people" is well displayed almost constantly. Sadly, though, there is little shown to us beneath that grimy surface. You never get into the minds of any of the players. You get a brief scene with Princess sending her daughter away, to show she has a softer side, but you never get much context on it. Even worse is Gary Swanson's play at the vice cop who gives a damn. Besides a very wooden performance, you never really get any insight into his reasons for being a vice cop. As he is asked at the film's end, "Why do you do it, Walsh? The streets are never going to change." The question is never answered, either to the character in the film or the audience.


The one solid bit here, is Wings Hauser's turn as the ultra-violent Ramrod. He plays it up for all he's worth here. He is certainly one of the perennial heavies of the 80's, both in film and television, but he steps things up a notch here, going from mean to downright brutal. His use of a coat hanger to whip up on prostitutes, shows a level of darkness that goes beyond ordinary misogyny. While most of the other actors just sort of plod along in their roles, Wings uses his to be a force of nature in the story, which is where most of the drama and action stems from.


The film is certainly not what one would call "classic," either in the award-winning sense or otherwise, but despite it's many flaws, it still manages to hold your attention and stick with you long after you've watched it. Whether that is due to it having that special 80's vibe, that made many less-than-stellar films give you that sensation, or merely the fact you can't look away from the sometimes over-the-top slimy nature of it all, I can't say for sure. All I can say is that, for good or ill, this is one film you won't soon forget.


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

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Review: My Tale Is Hot


Synopsis: Bored with the routine in Hell and looking to prove he's still the prince of evil, Satan attempts to get the man who is the "world's most faithful husband" to cheat, but the outcome ends up as far from what he expects.


Review: I wasn't really sure what to expect from this outing, because you never know what you are going to get when you watch one of these skin-flicks from the 60's, as the quality of them tends to run all over the place. But "My Tale Is Hot" is, if not a solid effort, at least stays on the right side of entertaining.


There's really not much to this film, as it's basically a string of burlesque-type shots of fairly attractive babes, which has a bookended plot about a super-faithful husband (played by Jack Little, under the name "Little Jack Little") being tempted by the devil (played by Max Gardens, under the name "Manny Goodtimes") to stray. That's about it.


Deeply involving this is not, but it is a good bit of fun and never really takes itself very seriously. As noted, the women are remarkably pretty attractive for the most part and have little problem peeling for the camera, while Little and Gardens provide somewhat humorous double entendre commentary during it. There's even a clever "little twist" (no pun intended) in the end, when the devil learns just why he can't tempt this most faithful husband to cheat. The dialogue is totally cornball throughout, with puns-a-plenty, some of it funny and some of it cringe-worthy.


Really, though, the film is pretty much centered on the buxom figures of the ladies, which is only to be expected. There is a nice go-go dancing scene about midway through, featuring the talents of Ms. Candy Barr which is very nice. At just under an hour long, the film doesn't tend to overstay it's welcome, even if a couple of the burlesque scenes do seem to.


In the end, it's just a fun and campy nudie-cutie romp, which is pretty indicative of this brand of film. It is certainly far from the worst effort this kind of film-making has created. If you are a fan of the genre, you might get a few chuckles of mileage out of this one.


Rating: 2 Stars (out of 4)

We interrupt your white silence for this important news...


Hello there! How's that old saying go? Life's what happens, when you are busy making plans. Well, that's certainly true in the case for us here at The Video Drones Reviews. We do apologize to those of you who were stopping by to check out our thoughts on the myriad of films out there (all three of you, that is). Other matters in our lives have taken up much more time than we thought they would. So, we are returning, albeit it tentatively. You may not see the flurry of reviews you saw from us at the end of last year, but you will start seeing reviews here again on a semi-regular basis (God willing).


So, again, sorry for the huge break in the reviews here. Hopefully, we can get things going again for you. After all, there film's aren't going to review themselves (nor should they in most cases).