X (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
Upon watching the second entry in the very first V/H/S movie, I forgot how good Ti West actually got as a writer/director. If you ever need a reminder, just circle back to that incoherent, uninteresting mess. We all got to start somewhere, huh?
X is a movie that is difficult to really describe, but I will give it a shot: set in the 70's, six individuals wish to make “elevated pornography” like Behind The Green Door, so they travel out to a barn in rural Texas to film, which the setting is a direct homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre. What ensues is a parable, of types. I say that because there are a lot of religious overtones that continue throughout this trilogy. In fact, you could say it all culminates with that at the end of MaXXXine, but I will get to that one soon enough.
There is a subgenre on full display in this one that is not nearly as popular as it was during the exploitation films of the 70's, dubbed “psycho-biddy”, a polarizing term used to describe the ageism and exploitation of older actresses who were either starlets that had not worked in some time or were never considered to be leading actresses. The film that launched the term was 1962's What Ever Happened To Baby Jane?, but it has also been referred to in less attractive terms, such as “hagsploitation”, “Grand Dame Guignol”, even “the Terrifying Older Actress Filicidal Mummy genre” after 1968's The Anniversary.
The actors in this breakout film has got to be one of the most welcomed surprise that nobody was at all expecting. Jenna Ortega was just breaking into her more adult roles and scream queen playing the director's quiet girlfriend, nicknamed “church mouse” by an always entertaining Martin Henderson. Brittany Snow and Kid Cudi do fantastic jobs apiece, but the true star is the double duty Mia Goth wrangles in as both protagonist and antagonist as both adult actress, Maxine, and the geriatric, psychotic owner of the farm, Pearl. Cinematographer Eliot Rockett even won an award along with his colleagues in front of the camera for getting the absolute most out of every single shot, most notably Goth, Ortega, and the film itself.
The production company, A24, certainly knocked it out of the park again with this unexpected hit scoring $15.1 million against a $1 million budget, but it feels like it should be a lot more than that on both sides of that coin. As soon as X made it's mark, immediately making it's money back in it's first week, Ti West revealed that Goth and he had secretly filmed a prequel, Pearl, back-to-back with X to much fanfare. The sky is the limit for everybody involved in this trilogy, and it all started here with X.
If I was going to be overly critical of the film, the problem would be the characters are not fleshed out enough as far as I would have liked, but that is never truly a problem in movies like this. Usually, the characters are just deep enough to know their background and intentions, which is more than a lot of horror films forget: to make you care about those characters.
Every time I watch this one, I always find something new. That is the sign of a great story, but I am not sure the same sentiment could be said about the other two. Since I just finished the trilogy after MaXXXine just released , it looks like we will need to take a gander at those two next. This one is an instant classic, however, in my humble opinion.
4.5 Out Of 5
Last Stop In Yuma County (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
Do you remember when all of those Quentin Tarantino-esque style flicks were really popular in the mid-nineties, then kind of just disappeared? I admit, I was still in middle school, but I knew what I liked. The video rental walls were adorned with them, sporting such provocative titles as 8 Heads in a Duffel Bag, Truth or Consequences, N.M., 2 Days In The Valley, or Things To Do In Denver When You're Dead. I like that last one the most. It is just so categorically wrong.
I only bring that up because this definitely feels like a call back to those glory days. There is a way Tarantino makes films that almost everyone in Hollywood wanted to copy, at one point or another, but there was a shitload of them 30 years ago. Others say that this film reminds them of a Coen Brothers movie, which I can definitely see. It has to do with the overall tone and obscure juke box music that is why that is, I think. There are actually a bunch of things that are not even movies that brought the story together like real life experiences, doing the same ole bullshit, day after bloodsucking day... It gets monotonous.
This is the first feature-length film that writer/director/producer Francis Galluppi has made (so far), so I had to look up some of the behind-the-scenes action and it was fantastic. It took him 4 ½ years to make it and Galluppi ate, slept, and bled this movie. With passion like that, it is extremely difficult not get a little inspired.
The story follows a knife salesman who finds himself at a gas station in the middle of the Arizona desert on his way to visit his sister that has also ran out of gas. The upside is that there is a diner right next door that is just opening up while they wait for the gas truck that is very late. More and more characters are introduced as the time slowly drifts away, most notably, two bank robbers who are stuck there, a couple of teenagers that recognize the bank robbery escape car, the gas station attendant, the local sheriff's wife who runs the diner, the knife salesman, and some regulars who stop in just about every day.
In front of the camera is an all-star cast, made up of the knife salesman played by Jim Cummings (who made Wolf of Snow Hollow), Faizon Love as the gas station attendant, Jocelin Donahue (House of the Devil) as the waitress, and Richard Brake as one of the bank robbers, just to name a few. I swear, you can put that Richard Brake in anything and that shit will turn to gold. Now that I think about it, my last review of Dylan Dog had Sam Huntington in it too, but he had a much larger part in that one.
I cannot really continue to discuss this movie without giving away it's extremely simple set up until it's inevitable climax that just wins all around for me without giving away the ending. The only thing that disturbs me in how I rate it is how many times I was reminded of other movies, but it never feels like it is ripping anything off in particular.
On the plus side, the tone, the acting, the writing, right down to the setting is perfect for what Galluppi was going for here and it shows. Unfortunately, the audiences did not agree or they just were not to about it because it bombed out of the box office hard making only $94,344 against a $1 million budget.
Y'know, you rarely see it down to the very dollar on how much it made. I guess when the numbers are that low, every cent counts.
4 out of 5
ARENA WARS (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
It's all fun and games when someone gets hurt.
That is the tagline, which I do like. It just has nothing to do with the movie at all.
Low budget movies like this are difficult to criticize because they can be easy to spot problems with it's production, but let me point out the things I did like: the gore (of course), the character designs because you could play like any of them in a video game (except that knife guy), and seeing that Michael Madsen improv talk show during the credits. That knife guy was horrible though.
Q. How come in every movie that someone has to fight a guy with knives, the knife fighter guy always sucks? It's like, “dude... get a gun or something. You suck at this.”
This movie starts off full throttle, but then it dies down to a snail's pace. That is kind of where this whole thing falls apart for me; in popcorn movies, you absolutely have to keep the pedal to the metal and keep the action going. Instead, the pacing suffers and depending on anyone that is not a marquis name to hold the reigns in something like this is tenuous. It was great seeing Robert LaSardo, Eric Roberts, and Michael Madsen again, but they are not in it for very long, so I assume they only had a few hours, grabbed their paycheck, and took it right to the bank. LaSardo kind of went out like a punk, but those fight scenes definitely need some choreography. There were times you could tell nobody worked on anything before the camera was on.
It starts off with gore that disguises a weaker story which wouldn't be a problem if you had a likable or relatable main character because complex plots weigh down movies like this. I love the premise though. Reminds me of a lot of Roger Corman in the 70's, but I could not tell you why. As far as the story goes, there is way too much of it. We do not need to know everyone's back story, especially when sacrificing action and gore for screen time.
What Brandon Slagle and the Mahal Brothers have here is a great idea, but not a great story or screenplay. The practical effects would be forgivable, except that time was sacrificed for getting to know characters that nobody really cares about. Like I said, these kind of movies do not need character development; what they need is more gore and more action. Some of those costumed hunters could have been action figures, yknow, if they were on screen long enough. They were the bestest parts.
With such impressive titles as Bikers Vs Werewolves, Art Of The Dead, Bus Party To Hell, and Attack Of The Unknown already under their belt, Mahal Empire Productions has a very bright future ahead of them and we who love our schlock. In fact, they should get ahold of SyFy Channel with some of those. That would be a great idea. I would hook them up if I knew anybody there.
I am very interested to see what titles they put out next because some of those sound batshit crazy fantastic and you know I am down for that.
2 Out Of 5
Dylan Dog: Dead Of Night (2011)
a review by Evan Landon
If you are not familiar with the character “Dylan Dog”, do not feel bad; neither did I until this movie came out in 2011. It was right after I fell asleep in the theater to Brandon Routh’s outing in Superman Returns with Kevin Spacey. Fun Fact: his zombified sidekick, Sam Huntington, played Jimmy Olsen in that picture, so someone obviously saw something there that I am just oblivious to.
When this movie came out, I remember seeing commercials for it and not having any clue who the fuck “Dylan Dog” was and how he had multiple stories because of the title. I was intrigued, however, but it was in and out of the theaters so quick that I completely forgot about it until years later when I saw Cemetery Man, which I liked very much. That movie from 1994 definitely captured the overall tongue-in-cheek campiness that you can tell this one was shooting for. Maybe I should do a review on that movie instead... Oh well. Maybe next time.
You see, Francesco Dellamorte and Dylan Dog are essentially the same character written by Italian comic book writer, Tiziano Sclavi, as he wrote Francesco Dellamorte in his 1991 novel Dellamorte Dellamore before he wrote the protagonist of his comic series Dylan Dog as a comic book hero in the 80's. The worldwide popularity of that Italian comic serie gave way to many fighting over the rights to make it into a movie, so much so that a cheaper adaptation of Sclavi's Dellamorte Dellamore was chosen to be made into a film instead. It gets more than a little confusing, but it all comes down to the almighty dollar, at the end of the day.
Dylan Dog, the character, is a paranormal investigator for hire who is the only human mediator between vampires, werewolves, and zombies, who all have a difficult time getting along in the supernatural backdrop of New Orleans. On this specific case, a woman hires him to find out who killed her father (as he now only currently only undertakes normal private investigation cases) only to immediately discover that this was no normal case. After initially turning down the case, he is swayed after his sidekick is killed (ultimately turning him into a zombie via werewolf bite) leading him into a world that he had rejected because of his wife's demise some years earlier. The rest is a series of convoluted contrivances that string together a plot that involves all sides of the paranormal spectrum, or at least the ones based in this story.
I did not think the acting or dialogue could be any worse than the last film I covered, Lockout, but here we are. Peter Stormare was also in that one too, now that I think about it. Damn, that dude gets around. The computer generated effects are hardly scary or believable, which kind of sucks because maybe if it was done with good ole practical effects, this could have been watchable.
Dylan Dog: Dead of Night was released to very little fanfare, as it bombed out of the box office hard, only generating $5.8 million against a $20 million budget. It sucked enough for the Italian fans to clap back with their own version the very next year, that even garnered a sequel the year after that, which was much more authentic to the beloved comic books. Plus, those ones are in Italian too, just like the comic.
Since the character teamed up with Batman in the comics earlier this year and a series has been in the works for a little over a year now, we might be seeing this paranormal peacekeeper pop up in some of our entertainment mediums in the near future. That will be kind of interesting, even though this movie was awful. Just add Batman.
2 out of 5
GRABBERS (2012)
a review by Evan Landon
When I jumped on the #MonsterFam discord channel, I was not expecting a wonderful, mystical, Irish story that came from the bowels of whatever the brain behind this was thinking. Now, I have talked at nauseum about movies I really think should have less money pumped into it, but I think this one might have won the pony here.
Question: how much is “too much” when spending it on a film?
Grabbers is an interesting one for a number of reasons. Aside from the full-on “Irish” tropes of sinking further and further into debt, alcoholism, and a dire, unsympathetic community, what else is there to really wonder about? Welp, once the giant Chthulhu-esque monsters show up, things get a bit different. With the help of a local ecologist, two Gardaí Síochána (Irish police and security service) discover that the eponymous “Grabbers” will not ingest people that have a high blood alcohol ratio, so that fundamental trope of inhabiters of the isle is on full display in this science fiction creature feature.
It is difficult to speculate how well this popcorn flick would have done with a more well-known director and cast, but that would have ballooned the $5.3 million higher than expected. The actors they did get did quite well, however:
Richard Coyle portrays “Ciarán O'Shea”, an alcoholic garda who has been on the island for an undisclosed amount of time, much more than his new partner, “Lisa Nolan”, who is played by a brilliant Ruth Bradley, and has had some great success after this one. Her character is new to the island and has never drank alcohol before, so as the plot dictates, she gets super-sloshed and steals the show in a lot of ways. Actually, everyone does a fantastic job, especially director Jon Wright who displays a lot of intuitive camera movements that edit very well with the special effects by Matt Platts-Mills.
What sets Grabbers apart from any of it's contemporaries is this movie's composition with such a simple premise with mostly inane dialogue from characters that you barely know, yet somehow care about, if not for the simple character tropes a movie like this being inherent. It's almost seamless in the places a horror comedy should be; just take a look at Piranha 3D. Point taken, point made.
This is an obvious graduation from any SyFy channel schlock that could be found anywhere. I mean, there are a lot of fucking great ones: Sharktopus, Sharktopus vs. Pteracuda, Sharktopus vs. Whalewolf, Sharknado, Sharknado 4: The Fourth Awakens, Dinocroc, Dinocroc vs. Supergator, Lavalantula, Lavalantua 2: 2 Lava 2 Lantuala!, The Last Sharknado, Piranhaconda, Arachnoquake...
Sorry, I trailed off there. I actually just wanted to see how many of those I could get. Anyways, this one is a lot better than any of those. The Lavalantua ones are actually kind of fun. Maybe I will do one of those next.
Despite premiering at many festivals and garnering a lot of great reviews, Grabbers failed to clean up at the box office in even a minuscule way, making $440k against that $5.3 million budget. It deserves a lot better, in my opinion.
3 out of 5
LOCKOUT (2012)
a review by Evan Landon
After my review on Fortress, I wanted to follow it up with Fortress 2: Re-Entry, but I couldn't find it on VHS (which is still my favorite format. I know, shut up) and it costs like $2.99 to stream, so I picked this little gem off of Tubi instead. I cannot say it is a better movie, in the least bit, however the special effects are light years better. The advertisement breaks actually make it somewhat more watchable, in fact.
It does not matter if Guy Pearce is a great actor or a good leading man for a film because he has proven that he can be. He absolutely can if you give him a good script and good actors to work with, but when most of your actors do their lines from sound stages across continents.
What I truly find hilarious about this movie is how it says at the very beginning that it is from an original story by Luc Besson when John Carpenter sued him and his production company for €450k because it is literally the identical plot for Escape From L.A., which kind of makes you think less of the French director in more ways than one. That being said, he did also get a writing credit on this, so that is even a bigger let down than the story because this movie contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard. Let me run through a few of them for you:
“Don't get me wrong. It's a dream vacation. I mean, I load up. I go into space. I get inside the maximum-security nuthouse. Save the President's daughter, if she's not dead already. Get past all the psychos who've just woken up. I'm thrilled that you would think of me.”
“Are you all mouth, no trousers?”
“You're a big girl, right? Here's an apple and a gun. Don't talk to strangers, shoot them.”
I am just going to stop there before my brain turns into mush. Believe me, it is worse hearing two people who are not even on the same continent much less the same room have such enthralling conversations. If you cannot tell, it lacks all of the subtlety and charm you would usually find in a Luc Besson script. The story is as much to blame too though; there are so many plot holes that I'm surprised the actors did not fall into one and get spit out into orbit and through the screen. As far as the special effects go, they hold up just fine, despite the lack of realism or overall physics, but whatever. I don't care about that shit when everything else is noticeably terrible.
Anyways, Lockout had very little success in the worldwide market making $32 million against one of Besson's more meager $20 million budgets, but I don't think that includes the money he got sued for by one of the greatest directors of all time over the grounds of plagiarism. This is not the worst of his crimes, however, but that is a lawsuit of a completely different kind from a completely different film. You can look that one up, if you feel like it.
2 out of 5
FORTRESS (1992)
a review by Evan Landon
Remember when you could put Christopher Lambert in any wacky movie with a non-sensical plot and it automatically turns into a moderate success? What a great time to be alive. If you weren't there for the VHS era, you truly did miss out, in my humble opinion. Some people disagree with me and they are just WRONG! I have somewhere around 1,300 VHS tapes and that is not because it is a better format; it just holds so much nostalgia for me and a whole slew of others that it just drips with Euphoria, from the grainy picture to the hum of the machine heads inside.
Somewhere, in that hot mess bulky mediums, lies this cherished 1992 sci-fi action gem that caught major speed after a decent stint in the theaters through it's very same VHS release. Director Stuart Gordon (of Re-Animator and From Beyond acclaim) was tapped to helm the project after Miramax and Dimension Films had secured the rights to it, who hired actor Jeffrey Combs in a large supporting role continuing their list of myriad collaborations together. Kurtwood Smith turns in another solid performance as the half-human cyborg, Prison Director Poe, serving as the film's menacing, twisted antagonist who wants Brennick's pregnant wife for himself.
Certainly, science fiction films such as these work on a very basic premise, yet somehow falter in their execution for a multitude of reasons. In this instance, the plot goes something like this: in the dystopian year of 2017, the United States has outlawed having more than one child to avoid overpopulation. With the existence of such laws, the underground prisons ran by the artificial intelligence computers of major corporations are so overcrowded that the prisoners themselves are forced to dig further into the Earth to make room for the massive influx of criminals. After his wife is pregnant with their second child (their firstborn dying during child birth), ex-army officer John Henry Brennick (Lambert) and she are caught at the border of the Canadian Soviet Socialist Republic and sentenced to life in prison. With the help his motley crew of cellmates, Brennick must fight his way back to wife and escape the eponymous fortress to freedom.
What is fantastic is that story does not fall into this often occurring trope, as the story has enough twists and turns with the adequate amount of character development to keep the audience interested through it's ninety-one minute run time. After his work on Star Wars, Robocop, and Altered States, the late Robert Blalack does a fantastic job given the restraints of their budget to edge out special effects that still hold up over thirty years later. Seriously, the practical effects in this movie hold up better than some of the mess we get stuck with today; the computer generated effects leave a lot to be desired, however.
The film was absolutely not a critical darling, as most movies in this genre seem to always get stuck with, but it did make $48 million worldwide against a $15 million budget prompting Tri-Star Pictures to greenlight a franchise-killing sequel that did nothing near the success of the original. Since garnering an ever growing cult fanbase, most of the initial distaste for this movie has died down. If you enjoy a science fiction action adventure (with subtle hints of body horror from a director who is very well versed in the genre), you could do a hell of a lot worse than this cult classic.
3.5 Out Of 5
SPECIES II (1998)
a review by Evan Landon
...might as well, right?
After my review of Species, I happened to catch it's sequel, which has a very special place in my cold, horror-filled heart. Where else can you find a movie even hornier, gorier, and more depraved than the original whilst still having some semblance of a cogent plot stemming from the original? If not, why not? Well, even though it does go more into the origin of the eponymous Species, it is considered one of the worst films of 1998 and the box office totals definitely illustrate that.
In this cinematic offering, we are reconnected with two of the three survivors from the last movie, Michael Madsen and Marg Helgenberger (who fucked in the last movie, but hate each other now for whatevs reason), who are tasked with finding the exact clone of “Sil” from the first movie, “Eve”, after she escapes from the laboratory the latter was operating. As it turns out, “Eve” was written just in case they could not get Henstridge to reprise her role from the original (she did), but they also rewrote the part of Forest Whitaker's empath, Dan Smithson, for Mykelti Williamson. James Cromwell and Richard Belzer play a United States Senator and President, respectfully, which is a sight to behold in itself.
After the events of the first movie, it had left sequel bait with a rat eating another rat with a lizard-ish tongue to snatch it up, but that has nothing to do with this one, even though that would have been a more natural direction to go in. Someone had the idea of having two alien species (Species 2... Get it?) and then another person had an idea that it should be a dude this time because that would mean they could make more little aliens, then another person said it should be a human astronaut getting infected by one on a planet. Then writer Chris Brancato and producer Frank Mancuso Jr. just said “fuck it” and threw all the ideas in a blender for this creation, to which I am all for and definitely support batshit insane ideas such as this. At times, it kind of seems like a hardcore episode of the X-Files, if I'm going to be perfectly honest, which is odd because Brancato was also the writer of the season one episode, “Eve”. How apropos, is it not?
Not everybody thinks the same way I do, so this movie ended up failing as one of the biggest box office bombs of the nineties pulling in only $19.2 million against a $35 million budget. In fact, it was hardly a critical darling either, but that hardly matters in science fiction horror sequels such as this.
There is a lot of great use of practical effects. CGI can only take you so far, yknow, so when they use them much more sparingly in this one to rely on practical ones, it really makes a difference. I do not think this is a terrible follow-up to a classic such as the original, in all honesty. Like I always say, don't just listen to critics or even anyone else (unless you truly value their opinions). Go see it for yourself and formulate your own opinions. Or don't, yknow. Do whatever you want, I guess. It's your life. However, I have a soft spot in my heart for this strange, grotesque, popcorn flick.
The alien death scene via dick suffocation in the finale might be worth the run time alone, but there are a lot of scenes like that.
3 out of 5
SPECIES (1995)
a review by Evan Landon
Y'know, in all honesty, there is not a single year that goes by that I do not watch Species or at least am reminded of it in some way since it came out in 1995. Granted, it does take a lot from other movies before it, so it is not breaking any new ground here; however, it does have a certain flair and passion that pushes it into the upper echelon of most sci-fi horror movies around that time.
Being in middle school when this film came out, I did not see it until it was released on VHS and I was very much into it at my adolescent stage for some very important reasons; the most important ones I am sure you can guess. But I would be remiss not to tell you that the plot is the main reason that I can only describe as this: scientists are given alien DNA to fuck around with and they find out it is an alien embryo that grows at an accelerated rate that's only function is to spawn which will lead to the demise of the human race. A motley crew of savvy, motivated personnel including:
~ Michael Madsen plays mercenary “Preston Lennox”, who coming off his meteoric rise to fame with Free Willy & Reservoir Dogs serves in a rare role as this story's main protagonist. He also gets laid in this one. Is Mr. Blonde hot? I honestly don't know. You tell me in the comments.
~ Sir Ben Kingsley slums it up with us in this grotesque, b-movie style popcorn flick as the scientific creator of “Sil”, obviously not playing a role even resembling Ghandi.
~ Natasha Henstridge makes her film debut as the before mentioned “Sil” who desperately has an allergic reaction to clothes, so she just doesn't wear any.
~ Forest Whitaker does his best “psychic, but not a psychic” impression as an “empath” (is that what an empath does? I think they might have got that part wrong) that still baffles me every time I see it.
~ Alfred Molina and Marg Helgenberger round out the cast as two scientists of whatever I can't remember, but are very much apart of the team, even though I don't know why. Whatever. Molina did win an award for reading the novelization of this flick though, so that's something.
The genius plot behind this sexy, blood soaked masterpiece is one Dennis Feldman who had the idea when he read an article by Arthur C. Clarke about how insurmountable the odds are that any alien craft locating or visiting Earth. Instead, he penned a police procedural that followed scientists that were able to wetwork information sent to build the species themselves, noting that it would be impossible to tell what maleficent beings would answer our space transmissions as to where we are to make contact.
Well, chaos most definitely ensues, from beginning to end, and there is plenty of almost sex scenes that somehow end up with some pretty gnarly kills. I applaud the lead up to the CGI end (that did NOT age well, at all) that used mostly prosthetics based off of more artwork by Swiss artist H.R. Giger (who had designed the Xenomorphs from the Alien). To keep the creature Sil version from blowing up the budget, they just kept former model-turned-actor Henstridge naked for most of the run time and you can't be mad at that.
Like I said, I grew up on this movie, so whenever I catch it, I watch it with no question. I was not the only one who loved it though, as it pulled in $113.3 million against a $35 million budget making it not just a hit, but worthy of not one, not two, but three sequels which I have seen. Maybe I should review those next. Hmmm...
3.5 out of 5
Stupid Games (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
The proverb states: “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” - by y'know, whoever said that.
I will admit that it is very hard not to be overly critical of this flick, but I always give my honest opinion whenever I am asked for it, so let's try and not focus too much on what does not work in this film. Shall we?
The premise goes something like this: after a one night stand, a woman asks her friends over to play a board game with the fella and two of his close friends. Welp, much to their dismay, this magical, mythological board game has some dire consequences to hand out to each participant. Pretty standard horror movie tropes right off the bat, so it is not treading any new ground here. An often used plotline like this does not constitute a bad movie; in fact, sometimes sticking to singular, oft told stories such as this allows for room not usually allowed in more complicated ones.
The issues with such aspiring films like this one are usually some of the more common ones you would think of, such as poor production value, horrendous editing, and horrific sound design. Believe it or not, that is NOT the case here because the camera work, editing, sound, and overall quality are very apparent with how well it was done in this low-budget indie film. This movie looks like a $10 million film even tho it was shot on $10k, which is probably the most impressive part about it, by far. The problems with Stupid Games is everything that happens in front of the camera.
The wooden acting can easily be forgiven because it is painfully obvious to the viewer that these are all newcomers to the format, no matter how hard they may profess that they are veterans. Grant Terzakis is by far the standout in this ensemble with his portrayal of the maintenance man who unluckily accepts an empty slot when one of the characters pulls a no show whose performance reminds me of a young Jeffrey Combs. Unfortunately, they do not do a whole lot with any of it, which is not any of the fault of the actors.
The dialogue in such a simple concept of a horror movie demands it be more colorful than simple “getting to know each other” engagements in conversations that leave the characters with nothing to really build off of. The story could have used a little more meat to it too, but again, there is only so much room with a movie that literally takes place in one room. It becomes more and more apparent as this linear story progresses that nothing incredibly revolutionary or startling is bound to happen, so the viewer is left waiting for a jump scare or even a decent death scene which does not happen. Again, given the budget, gory death scene was probably out of consideration, but with the talent of the ones behind the scenes a couple of good jump scares would definitely give it some gravitas. The problem is that there is absolutely no tension to cash in on.
Where Stupid Games falters has nothing to do with the value of it's production because it is fantastic with such a small budget, even down to it's close-ups and camera pans. For such an ambitious picture, the biggest issue could be easily fixed with more work on it's script, from the dialogue to the characters. That is something that comes with practice, however, and that is a lot more for it than against it.
2 Out Of 5
Independence Daysaster (2013)
a review by Evan Landon
In 1996, Roland Emmerich directed a semi-incredible screenplay (with the help of producer Dean Devlin) that took America and the world by storm. After working together on the motion picture Stargate, the two co-wrote the entire film on the back of a napkin and sold it to 20th Century Fox to behold the magnum opus we all know as Independence Day. I'm just kidding, they did not write it on a napkin, or maybe they did, I don't know. I could probably fit.
Thusly, in 2013, the Syfy Channel released the Canadian science fiction mockbuster, Independence Daysaster. Now, you may be thinking to yourself, “Why would Canada make a movie about an American holiday?” or “Why is anyone in their right minds reviewing this movie?” or “What the fuck is a daysaster?” All of these questions probably have answers, so I will try my bestest to answer them.
As the film's inspiration did over a decade before, Independence Daysaster boasts an all-star ensemble with such industry heavyweights as Supergirl's Andrea Brooks, Stargate: Atlantis & SG-1's Garwin Sanford, Final Destination 3 and The Ring Two's Ryan Merriman, and most notably That Thing You Do's Tom Everett Scott as the President of the United States. Bet you never thought you would ever see that statement in print, yet here we are. However, dude does get a President Whitmore-esque speech like Bill Pullman had in Independence Day to which is maybe worth the run time itself, even though it is to an off-screen military character that maybe has one or two lines total. Just watch that, if you can even find it.
Despite the human factor, which Merriman portrays Scott's fireman brother who saves the day, we never get any funky-looking alien CGI monsters, so I fault it for that more than anything else. The alien craft come off like fidget-spinners that have a difficult time against a green screen in the Canadian wilderness (also known as “Moose Ridge”), but maybe the most egregious atrocity has to be the hacker girl's bangs. I probably could have looked up her name, but my time here on Earth is limited.
The overall budget was around $1.8 million, so to any of you hopeful filmmakers out there think that is not enough to make a film, low and behold this incredible waste of time and money. It was released on DVD after it's Syfy channel debut. No gore, no story, and lame ass special effects will not make this watchable unless you have it on in the background.
You do get some metaphysical questions later on, such as “Why am I writing about this?” or “What am I doing with my life?” They did get an IMDb credit though, so that is a lot more than most of us have. Got me, man.
0.5 Out Of 5
In A Violent Nature (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
It's been a while since Jason Voorhies has shown his hockey mask since the schlock we got with Jason X (or Jason Goes To Space), so I suppose this will have to do for the time being. That being said, I should probably do a review of the Hatchet series because that was spectacular, but I'm getting off topic.
In A Violent Nature is a 2024 horror flick of the slasher variety from the twisted mind of newcomer Chris Nash who wrote and directed this art/grindhouse gore-fest. Everyone in this a newcomer, as a matter of fact. None of the cast had been in anything of relevance either, aside from Lauren-Marie Taylor who had a somewhat forgettable death in Friday The 13th Part 2, but I don't think she really counts because she does not show up until the end to pad the run time with one of the most inane monologue that had nothing to do with anything that happened. Nash went on record to say he did that on purpose to show how awkward it would be to pick up a hitchhiker after everything that person had been through, which I don't understand at all.
Now, I am absolutely certain that I am not the only person who felt like this movie dragged a lot (of bodies), but that was that arthouse vibe Nash was looking for and probably how it was screened first in the notorious “Midnight” program at the prestigious Sundance Festival in Utah earlier this year. I swear, the entire movie felt like a walkthrough of that Friday The 13th video game that came out a few years ago where you play the game from Jason's perspective. The “time jumps” that take place even makes it feel like he is teleporting like he does in the game mimicking the uncanny way Jason could in the movies.
The excruciatingly simple plot matters not in the least here, but I doubt anyone who loves this style of horror gives a shit. It is all about the slayings and there are some pretty memorable ones. There are also a couple of lame ones too, so that kind of evens out. This is also our first introduction to our character through the eavesdropping of the group of partying stoners off in the distance that, again, is reminiscent of hearing the victims off in the distance of the Friday The 13th game I mentioned earlier, so there is nothing invested there. You get maybe a couple of lines of useful exposition; the rest is following your undead killer trudging through the woods to only the sounds of the Canadian wilderness to keep his lumbering view company.
Have I mentioned there is no score? Yeah. There is zero music, aside from the cheesy, generic shit one of them is playing at the campfire in the beginning. That's all you get. The fact there is no score and the tedious monologue that goes nowhere before the film abruptly ends is so reminiscent of No Country For Old Men, so if you were missing some of the kills on camera from that film, you can make up for it all with this one.
In A Violent Nature is hardly an award-winning film and the plot is almost non-existent, so you give absolutely no shits for the victims in the slightest. The kills are pretty gnarly though and the “3rd person shooter”-esque approach to the filmmaking is kind of original, but only if you can differentiate it from any video game of the same style. It made waves at Sundance enough to have a limited release in theaters to the tune of $4.2 million against a fairly modest budget, but IFC lost very little quickly sending it to it's streaming service on Shudder to which both are owned by AMC. It has been divisive to fans of the genre because of it's pacing and stylistic approach, but it is awesome to see unknown filmmakers think outside of the normal banality of conventional storytelling to try something new and I definitely dig that.
3.5 Out Of 5
ATLAS (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
If Ayn Rand were still alive, she would have shrugged with Atlas too.
Let's just get this out of the way: I don't care how others rate movies because usually they have some sort of agenda behind it; be it movie ticks, commissions, clout with publications, or $20 for a 5 star review on certain aggregate websites. I don't get any of that shit, so my opinions are purely unbiased. I stopped listening to what everyone else thinks a long time ago, so I could not tell you who or why anyone liked this film. That being said, this movie sucks.
I went into it the same way I do most movies I know nothing about: I will try to find something I like, no matter what, and that was the special effects were pretty damn good. I think if the director had a better screenplay to work with, it would have been a much more interesting film because the first 5 minutes were pretty damn good! The Rock's favorite director, Brad Peyton, tries his hand here with a script written by a guy nobody has ever heard of, so I don't think this entirely his fault. Then J Lo sticks her head in and the rest of the 120 minute run time is you looking at her tired, resting bitch face with flashing lights of the console reflecting off her frizzled, nappy ass hair and cracked foundation make-up enough to give a blind man epilepsy.
This movie was a chore to get through, needless to say.
The story is basically the same as any “Jenny From Da Block” movie you've ever seen: she is a scorned woman (this time by Artificial Intelligence) who has to overcome her differences to find love (this time with Artificial Intelligence) after fighting an uphill battle and discover more about herself than she thought was possible. This time, it's set in space! This also might be the third or fourth time a movie has straight up ripped off Exo Squad, that I continue to howl at the moon for since my childhood.
In all seriousness, I don't think Artificial Intelligence works that way, nor in the way they try to make it work in this movie. Of course, one could say that it “evolved o'er time” or whatever. Whenever I hear that, it reeks of lazy storytelling.
With all the bullshit hitting the fan with J Lo as of recent, I don't think anyone is asking for her to star in anything, but I'm sure she has mansions to pay for and publicists to ignore, so this must be par for the course with her career on stilts. She has to give away tickets to her own shows, so she definitely should not be resting her laurels on her acting career instead because those have never been all that great.
This $100 million shart went straight to Netflix, so as always, you will never get full disclosure on how much it made. It's easy to assume that it would have bombed if they released it in theaters, but let's steer away from hypotheticals and just call it a shitshow of a washed-up narcissist who liked being in that robot cockpit so she could smell her own farts. There are much better things to watch on Netflix, especially if you have 2 hours to kill.
1.5 out of 5
IF (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
I think Hollywood is still trying to figure out what to do with Ryan Reynolds. Don't get me wrong; I am a huge fan of the actor, but after they tried him out in rom coms and bewildering dramatic roles (Women In Gold, I'm looking at you) it seemed as if they wanted to try him out as a superhero which ended up working out just fine. The little stutter steps of Blade:Trinity and Green Lantern are forgivable, but not a lot of actors make it back from two huge flops like that. Three, if you count X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but he was such a fan of Deadpool that he snagged it before anyone else could. I can't really blame him though because Deadpool has always been my faves since appearing in the Rob Liefeld's X-Force when I was a kid, but I digress.
I bring that up because I don't remember a whole lot of this film, even though I saw it in the theater, but because I keep thinking of scenes from Free Guy instead (it was a much better movie). While I can understand the desire for his kids to see his movies, I can't help in thinking that he has slipped into that watered down version of his schtick to sleepwalk through some very expensive roles. Again, I am not mad at him for that, or anything else really. It just may or may not already be an old trope for him that he can float along to for the rest of his career.
In this one, John Krasinski wrote, produced, and co-starred in this live-action/animation family comedy, so apparently that is his new thing now. The story seems a little contrived, as the script kind of goes in all sorts of directions after establishing young Cailey Fleming as his daughter dealing with the loss of her mother and his upcoming heart surgery. Reynolds plays her neighbor who shows her all of the imaginary friends (IFs) that only certain people can see (played by a cornucopia of celebrity voiceovers). As he is wore out and apathetic at his age after decades of helping find them real life friends, who discarded them once they got older, his plan is to hand the reigns over and her to serve as his apprentice while she deals with the dark sadness looming over her own life. You can kind of see where this is going.
As far as the animation to live-action effects are concerned, it is done well enough to where sometimes you don't even notice it and the characters interact with the live actors seamlessly enough. That is definitely a plus.
I was worried that I was taking my 8 year-old niece to the theater to watch the Blumhouse horror movie Imaginary that came out a few months earlier, but that one wasn't scary anyways, so that's just whatever. That being said, this one felt like a mix of Fantastic Beasts and Big Fish not only in tone, but overall nuances and lessons learned which are perfectly fine and somewhat important for a certain niche of younger viewers who may or may not be going through something similar.
It may be a little early to gauge how this one fared in the box office, but it should be in its last weekend in theaters, so it might be able to call it at $173.6 million against a bloated $110 million budget allowing for Paramount and both Reynolds and Krasinski's production companies to almost break even. It is definitely re-watchable, but you did not miss anything by skipping it in its theater run.
Anyways, you should 100% watch this instead of the Blumhouse one I almost watched a second time. Maybe I will do that one somewhere down the road, as well, or maybe not because that movie kind of sucked. Oh well.
3 out of 5
CIVIL WAR (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
I want to get this straight before I start this review: this movie is not a “war movie”, but there is one going on in the background of the “Civil War” variety. This movie isn't about politics at all, in fact. Come to think of it, I'm not entirely sure what this movie is about…
I guess what this whole eponymous “Civil War” is all about is a break-up of the United States in a dystopian universe where California and Texas have decided to leave the nation because the president has taken a third term in what a lot of political theorists call a “nightmare scenario” for democracy. Yes, you heard that right. Only California and Texas have teamed up, then there's the Florida group, then the Portland territory, ughhh... Have you ever looked at a map of this goddamn movie?!
Pretty fuckin nuts, right? I honestly feel like you have to keep this map on you at all times just watching this movie.
I have always enjoyed Alex Garland's work. He not only wrote 28 Days Later and worked on the sequel, but wrote and directed Ex Machina, Annihilation, and Dredd to which I enjoyed them all. Devs has some decent reviews and Men was kind of weird, so maybe that is where we can start to see some cracks showing. This one truly did throw me off though. I honestly could not pick this out of a line-up of Alex Garland movies, it made that little of an impact on me.
The story goes, as follows: in the near future, America falls into a “Civil War” for whatever reasons that they refuse to get into, so let's just assume it does not really matter. Kirsten Dunst plays a plank of wood subbing as a war journalist that is so desensitized to the whole thing that she reacts to absolutely nothing and looks like she is asleep the whole trip. Wagner Moura plays a poor man's version of Pedro Pascal as her writer/accomplice who is drunk and stoned more than any normal person, but maybe that has to do with character's coping. Cailee Spaeny does an ample job of playing another two-dimensional character who is a novice photojournalist that ends up joining up with them and becoming an apprentice to Dunst's protagonist. Nick Offerman, as a president, is far too hilarious of a thought to even take seriously and Stephen McKinley Henderson has a throw away part as a mentor to the group. Jesse Plemons shows up uncredited as a racist, ultra-national militant because he is married to Dunst in real life and basically steals the show with maybe the scene or two he is even in. It should show you a little bit of the depth these characters have if that can happen.
I think the edgy premise of such a background kind of betrays the basic story here which is hardly even about the politics involved in why this country is war torn. You are just sort of thrown into this so hard that you may think you got whiplash, even after the cold opening of the president addressing the people which even in itself is just surreal because the president scenes are what book end this affair.
If you completely forget about the “Civil War” in Civil War, it will make a lot more sense to you. This is a message about human nature and how we glorify the most depraved parts of humanity in whatever chance there is to gain publicity at the expense of others. It's more about responsibility with journalism itself and how ethos and morality play into it and I can admire that a little bit. It's just that message gets bogged down and diluted when the backdrop is something more interesting that is barely even discussed while they suffer through it. In the end, you are left with the question of “okay... but why?”
A24 continues to make intriguing decisions with the choices of film they decide to go with, but some of them are more questionable than they are legitimate hits. What they do have going for them, in their endeavor to give the non-mainstream, indie films and filmmakers a platform, is that they do not poor more money than is needed into each film which will in turn either make their budget back or blow it out of the water. At $50 million, this was definitely a subtle hit pulling in $114 million world wide.
It has been given some very kind reviews from the usual suspects, but this one left me bewildered and kind of just “meh”. So that's where it sits with me: right in the meh-ddle.
2.5 out of 5
The Last Voyage of the Demeter (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
I remember distinctly the first time I saw the trailer for Last Voyage of the Demeter and just shaking my head as they butchered Bullet With Butterfly Wings with some stupid techno downbeat. Why do they do that shit? They take a song that everybody knows, then shoehorn that shit in so hard that it's comical. “The world is a vampire” with a bunch of reverb and synth drums while a monster stalks his prey is so corny and lazy that I want to punch a kitten. “Oh, it's a movie about vampires? Ohhhh let's put that one Smashing Pumpkins song in it and make it suck.” Talentless, generic hacks are behind that brilliance on every level, I'm telling you.
After seeing the 1931 Tod Browning movie as a kid, I immediately wanted to read the 1897 Bram Stoker novel from where it originated, and I have to say that it was not the kind of read I was expecting. The entire novel is told through letters, journals, and newspaper articles which is not the kind of thing one would expect when it comes to one of the first horror stories, but that also was what gave it its appeal, I think. It was different... Just because something is different does not make it good; however, this one was good enough to be adapted into a stage play in 1924 by Hamilton Dean & John L. Balderston. Hey, that was 100 years ago!
I bring the whole Dracula origin because that is the part in the novel (Chapter 7, to be exact) where it is told through the Captain's Log which I found the most tedious and somewhat boring. When they said that they were doing a film based on that, I was very quick to dismiss it when it finally arrived, but watching it gave me a different feeling altogether. Was it a good feeling? Meh.
What I did enjoy about this movie was how they were able to somewhat build a narrative out of a nothing burger in the novel. The gore is adequate for CGI, so I don't worry too much about that because there are some okay close-ups that make up for it practically. The acting is on point too with Liam Cunningham as The Captain, David Dastmalchian as his first mate, and Corey Hawkins as the ship's doctor. The only problem I have with having a black doctor on the boat in the 19th century is that there were not a lot of black doctors (Cambridge alumni or not) around at that time, so it's shoved in there pretty hard with no real reason. They acknowledge it, but that does not change the conveniency of the writing. Then there is the Transylvanian woman who was placed on the boat for Dracula to snack on, so those boxes got ticked for the suits because everyone needs to have representation in every movie nowadays.
What did not work was mostly the lack of gore or “Dracula” himself. We are used to seeing ol' Drac as a beguiling count who borders on romantic, then crosses that border. Also, the fog and mist coalescing with the lack of lighting and flowing motions of the camera makes this difficult to see, much less watch. Although the acting is great, the characters and dialogue between are not interesting enough to truly value and what would stand as a story is very flimsy; but again, there was not much to work with in one chapter of a novel that is basically just a captain's log. When you have tentpoles so weak to build upon, I guess what you want is something outrageous to gain some weight.
What is the story, you ask? A 19th Century English supply ship named the “Demeter” is coming from Romania to Britain and its contents happen to contain a monster that feasts on human blood. Chaos ensues, as the crew not only try to make it to shore, but also to save their lives. Maybe even their souls!
The Last Voyage of the Demeter is an interesting look at the most overlooked part of the source material, but nobody really has any original ideas anymore, so might as well. Released by DreamWorks Pictures, it pulled in $21.8 million against a $45 million budget, so I would not expect to see a sequel that was teased at the end. This is the end, for this movie, anyways. With all the other “Dracula” movies out there, I'd say go with one of those instead if you are looking for the classic Dracula character. It's literally just a giant CGI man-bat version of it, which works and doesn't at the same time.
2.5 out of 5
ABIGAIL (2024)
a review by Evan Landon
It's astounding how these kind of movies are the ones that get the green light these days from major motion pictures, but hey, I ain't complaining! This nice little romp is just what the world needed to wash the taste of all those reboots and sequels with thousands of pencil pushers changing a fun picture into something it is not. That is EXACTLY why I said it's astounding that it got the green light.
It would not spoil anything to tell you what this movie is about because it basically tells you going into it, even in the trailers, which some people took exception to. In this case, I do not think that is the case.
A team of six mercenaries with their own separate abilities kidnap a 12 year-old ballerina and are tasked with watching her for 24 hours, then they will be paid a $50 million ransom. Sounds simple, right? Well, not if the 12 year-old ballerina is a centuries-old vampire! What ensues is a cat and mouse game covering a mansion that twists and turns more than the plot even attempts to do.
You see, in movies like this, you are always facing an uphill battle because the story and characters are what are deemed paramount. Or universal. I should say “universal” because they are the ones that distributed it. You could say that this movie suffers from that, but I don't think so because once you realize what kind of movie this is, it really does not take anything away from it. The characters are not very rich or deep, but they solve that in the very beginning of the script when it is revealed that the six mercenaries do not know each other, so back stories are not really important. They are all just greedy. Problem solved!
Once this movie gets going about halfway in, it really is held together with a lot of fun in ways the 5 most interesting characters make this whole thing work. The dialogue is drab, but poignant, sometimes hilarious. The acting is sub-par, but that is not why one would sit down and watch this. The special effects and gore are top notch though, so once that kicks in, you won't even know where the time went.
Radio Silence Productions initially started writing the film almost immediately after the SAG-AFTRA strike in April 2023, then casted and started filming almost immediately afterwards. The excellent director duo of Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett were tapped, as well as screenwriter Guy Busick, who had all worked on Ready or Not and the new Scream movies to great acclaim.
With a budget of $28 million against a box office of $35.6 million, it would be a huge stretch to call this one a success, but I have a feeling this one will have some legs in the horror, cult classic circles for a long time.
The final words in the film are a simple “What the fuck?” Yes. What the fuck, indeed, movie. What the fuck, indeed.
3.5 out of 5
Bodies Bodies Bodies (2022)
a review by Evan Landon
I really, truly do try not to destroy movies anymore, or at least, not as much anymore. This one is going to be a bit of an anomaly for me, however, because this movie is built for anyone to just hate right off the bat. That sort of shit actually serves to entice me to watch some of these lesser-known or seen movies, so that is not a turn-off for me. Not at all.
Okay. Let's talk about the good things first. It is an A24 screenplay that was acquired from a spec script written by Kristen Roupenian, then rewritten for the screen by Sarah DeLappe, who both have some very interesting credits as writers. Halina Reijn was then tapped by David Hinojosa to direct the film after her first English-speaking film following her work on the industry-adored Dutch film, Instinct. Not a bad group on paper, if you ask me.
Now, let's talk about what does NOT work for me.
To be as nice as I can be, this movie is not meant for everybody; in fact, I am not sure this movie was even meant for anyone in the very niche was shooting for. The characters are as unlikable as the script itself that teeters on nonsense. If “Oh shit, we're gonna die!”, “Oh, let's stop the tears and wait for the newest song to pop off”, or “Oh wait, you had sex with who?” with some of the worst acting and dialogue you could not even feign, even if you had mediocre actors. By the way, the biggest name on this marquis is Pete Davidson, and thank fucking Christ he dies so early on, that he remains a plot point and not a character in the film afterwards. Did I mention the acting was horrific? Yes. When it is this fragile, you care nothing when a script comes your way, so don't be mad about an actor not being believable or even likable. It's just gone through too many hands at this point and you could possibly even blame the studio for how transparent of an idiotic movie this turned out to be.
This movie garnered waves for how brilliant it was because of it's societal look at how a new generation identifies together, but I don't see any of these characters as relatable at all. We can face facts that it was catering to a certain crowd that may or may not stick up for it.
Apparently, the reviews are in, and the fans say this one was a triumph, which makes absolutely no sense to me. The music is even lauded for how progressive it is, but it just sounded like mushmouth garbage done on Frooty Loops. Maybe, perhaps, I have no idea what is entertaining anymore or maybe watching a bunch of narcissistic, insufferable Gen Z nepo babies play narcissistic, insufferable Gen Z nepo babies just isn't my cup of tea. I'll look into that one day. In the meantime, fuck this movie.
1 out of 5
INFESTED/(vermines) (2023)
a review by Evan Landon
This one has flew so far under the radar, that I didn't even know it existed until a few days ago when we watched it together in our Monster Fam group. Gone are the days in the early 2000's where French horror stretched the boundaries of what is “acceptable” on screen. While this 2023 creature feature by Shudder does not quite do that, the atmosphere is so palpable that you feel like you are right there with the characters of the film.
Speaking of the characters, none of them are all that fleshed out, or even likable, but that is par for the course in movies like this. The main character is explicitly despicable, as from the very start he is trying to switch from selling drugs to the people in his apartment complex to selling them faux designer shoes. I won't go into how his hair gives away how big of a douchebag he is, but he really is the only one with anything resembling a character arc. I guess maybe his best friend does too because he is scared for most of the film, then does something heroic at the end, but I don't think that spoils anything. The cute French Palestinian girl is a bit of a weird one because she is supposedly a cop, but that part of her character is lost very quickly and never explored. Her boyfriend also has an interesting introduction, as he is against killing any animals, but when he shifts his values in the matter of a minute, we discover more about the spiders themselves.
Oh... I'm sorry, this movie is about mutated spiders from the desert that the protagonist gets from buying his cheap knock off shoes from. I honestly thought the movie was going to be about shoes for the first half hour because of how much they talked about them. When the spiders start taking over the building though, all that nonsense is out the window. Think Arachnophobia meets Rec. That's a pretty good description.
On a side note, I found this peculiar: the name of the movie in French is “Vermines” to which I had to posit a thought. Most likely, we associate “vermin” to be rodents that inhabit such apartment complexes, and even though it could be said the same for the spiders as an invasive species, perhaps it meant more of the humans inhabiting the domicile itself. I only preclude this from the measure to which the police force sent to control the outbreak only wanted to keep them from leaving as to not spread, which could be a metaphor for how society views the lower class... Just a thought.
Being all en francais, it may be a bit difficult for anyone that hates subtitles in their movies, but even then, I think it is enjoyably enough to where you don't even really pay attention to it. Speaking to the atmosphere of the film, director Sébastien Vaniček does an incredible job of bringing you into the very space that these venomous arachnids take up in. He is going on to head up the next “Evil Dead” spin-off, so that will be a treat! I know, I know... But I will definitely watch it.
It's difficult to say how well this movie did financially because it was sent straight to Shudder (which, by the way, is the only streaming platform I feel okay paying for), nor how much was spent on it, but given the release and production, it was definitely on an indie-scale budget. If you enjoy a good currently-made creature feature with arachnids, and you don't mind the subtitles, this one is definitely for you.
3 out of 5
THE CROW (1994)
a review by Evan Landon
I suppose, since we are discussing a classic film that should not be remade, repurposed, reimagined (yet is), we should start here. Why the fuck do we keep doing this? I honestly haven't seen any of the actors in this movie speak to it because we, as they do, know it will fail. Put Post Malone tattoos all over Bill Skarsgard's face and it's still the dumbest way to beat up a dead body (no pun intended) that we have been watching for the past few decades. Y’know what was fucking cool? The first movie. But Hollyweird is so bereft and bankrupt for ideas, that we are getting a new one that absolutely nobody asked for. So, you ask...?
Let's talk about the good parts of my pick for one of the movies that defined my generation, shall we?
Before anything else, let's examine one of the Greatest parts of this movie: this movie broke the mold as far as graphic novels go, especially when it comes to translating to the silver screen. Written, painted, and drawn by James O'Barr back in the early nineties to bring peace to his mind after paintings and illustrations of his time in the U.S. Marines. He made certain illustrations to accompany the music for the band through comic books that was soon bought up by Caliber Press, then packaged by the band Trust Obey signed to Trent Reznor's label. After being passed through many hands, the treatment for a screenplay went to splatterpunk writer, David J. Schow, and John Shirley (of Blue Oyster Cult fame), and Miramax Studios.
The premise, as simple as I can make it, is that a crow will be sent to ferry those wayward souls into the afterlife. Sometimes, the crimes against them are so far gone that they have to atone for all of the wrongdoings that besmirched them in order to make it to the other side. Basically, like a revenant. What ensues is not hard to figure out, but I don't think it needs anymore of an explanation than that.
I think when the hats at Miramax had this cross their desks, it was not something they were looking for. You could say, at the time, that Paramount Studios were not too keen on such an unsecured property. There was no guaranteed money. That was part of the Miramax appeal though: small endeavors through major distribution never gets anything accept for awards and large ticket sales. Not too bad of an idea, if you ask me.
If'n we all want to get blurry-eyed, we can discuss the mishap onset that left us with only questions as to how great Bruce Lee's son could have become, but I will not do that. It has been talked about at nauseum for the past quarter of a century and I had a close friend of mine that used to dress just like him and repeat his lines, word-for-word. Even pro-wrestler Sting took up the persona as a gimmick that seemed to work in WCW, until it didn't, just because it was so popular. Shit, he even dawned the Joker vibe when that wore off.
Director Alex Proyas did an amazing job with what he had here. He went on to make a lot of other movies, most notably Dark City, but I should save that review for another time. Of course, the acting is also way better than expected; we get, not only, Brandon Lee (in his final performance), but Ernie Hudson, Michael Wincott, and the dude from The Warriors pulling off some magnetic dissonance.
The soundtrack was definitely some of the greatest songs ever, at the time when soundtracks meant as much as the movie itself, with not only Trent Reznor’s Nine Inch Nails, but also original music such heavy-hitters of the time as The Cure, Helmet, Stone Temple Pilots, and Rage Against The Machine. It truly did revolutionize music.
The truth is that we will never have a movie such as this. The way we go about trying to make something out of something out of something that happened before... it does not matter when shit is this fucking good. Instead of bottom-feeding off of intellectual property that came from an amazing space, why steal from nostalgia, aside from destroying it? Isn't that the real gamble? Trading memories for monetary gain?
I have no answers for that.
The Crow cleaned up $94 million on a $23 million tab worldwide and is considered to be one of the greatest films of a generation. It has gone on to do more than anyone involved in its creation could have ever thought possible. This is the definition of what anybody who creates could possibly comprehend being around to see it come to fruition.
R.I.P. Brandon Lee (1965-1993)
4.5 out of 5