Change Your Image
DrGrood
Reviews
Monsters in the Woods (2012)
Nutty, Bloody, Uneven but Ambitious Oddball Semi-Spoof B-Indie
I don't think all the positive comments here are made by members of the production crew for the movie, as almost all are for a few other new independent cheapo horror-movie disasters such as ALPHA GIRLS, and I AM ZOZO, which are hideous failures in all ways and shill-spammed here like crazy by fiends and family (and yes, my spelling there is intentional).
This movie has some very amusing scenes in it and is a mix of spoof, improv, creature feature and hand-held "reality" horror and the reason why it doesn't entirely work is not that everything about it is bad, it's that not all those elements always fit together.
Unquestionably the best moments in it are the sly little comedy lines and bits that are slipped in and will especially appeal to anyone who has ever shot a film before. This stuff is almost all genuinely funny and includes jabs at bad actors, girlfriends who want to be in movies too, stupid low-budget horror characters (the initial scene portrays an attack on innocent naked campers by a monster turkey-man--yeah, that's right, a turkey-man, and when you realize that you can't help but smile), comments by a black guy about black guys always getting killed first, a script girl being asked to fill in for a role when another actress goes missing but objecting to getting naked, etc. A few are absolutely laugh-out-loud moments and the timing on most of them is excellent -- you don't always catch everything that's going on right away, you have to pay attention, but, yeah, those bits are supposed to be funny and they are, the filmmakers just don't slap you in the face with them, or provide you with a laugh track or cartoon sound effects to telegraph them, and that's a good thing.
The actors here are mostly not bad here either; the director is amusingly frustrated with everything that goes amiss (and plenty does) and the script girl in particular is a very amusing and capable performer.
There is also a sincere effort made here to include NON-CGI practical creature suits for the oddball monsters that dominate the second half of the movie. That's admirable, even if they are a bit odd-looking and not usually very well-photographed.
What doesn't work here is the way-too-absurd plot imposed on the original setup which is there to justify the monsters and murders which eventually abound. It's just way too far-fetched to make any sense or be engaging and honestly the creatures, as one of the actors even says, don't even look anything like the "hell-hounds" which is what, apparently, the script says they are supposed to be. The whole idea is poorly conceived, though if it had been allowed to be more funny too, might have had a chance. It isn't tho, so the monster-stuff pretty much falls flat throughout.
Also, makeup effects are pretty dismal throughout, and involve mostly a lot of chocolate-syrup blood (or is it just plain chocolate syrup?) being poured all over people who are supposed to be getting killed. A lot of the deaths look the same and one appliance worn by a main character who lives through some brutality is actually even loose and separated from her face most of the time is worn. Sloppy stuff there; invest in some spirit gum or pros-aide, guys.
So the whole deal here, yes, is very uneven, but if you look at it as a spoof you will get some entertainment out of it, and me saying that is not some member of the crew saying that is what a movie that actually entirely sucks was "supposed to be all along." As I mentioned before, parts of this thing are really funny IF you don't watch it in serious-mode, which, from the opening scene involving the turkey-man attack, is clearly not something that you're intended to do. But then it looks like you ARE supposed to take it seriously and you don't know if you are doing the right thing when you do so or not. And this is the movie's inherent problem. It shifts in tone too widely throughout for it to be entirely acceptable.
I wonder what might have happened if they had just left out the preposterous "real" horror story in this thing which is just not in any way acceptable and just filmed a comedy about the frustrated director and incompetent, whining, ridiculous actors trying to make their fictional horror movie and just goofing up in every way possible, jumping each others' bones, having to be replaced when someone leaves, etc. Sometimes just doing one thing well is better than trying to do 4 things at once and not being able to pull them all off successfully.
I'm not sorry I saw this and may even go back to it again to see if I can catch more funny stuff I didn't before, because the comedy parts of it are funny; the filmmakers clearly have a sense of humor and that is the best thing about MONSTERS IN THE WOODS. The "horror" business mostly doesn't work tho, because the "idea" is too involved & fantastic for the filmmakers to be able to pull off. Have to hand it to the people who made this for trying, tho.
The Innkeepers (2011)
No redeeming qualities
THE INNKEEPERS is appallingly insipid and worthy of no one's attention at all for any reason. The positive reviews that appear here cannot possibly be sincere and the IMDb staff should look into how they got here. There is no story here, no suspense, no mystery to be solved, no anything, except aimless chit-chat between two uninteresting young people running a hotel which has two guests in it who don't figure into the story at all and a third who might have if we were filled in on who he was supposed to be, but we never are, so, so much for that plot thread. The highlights: 37 minutes into the film a piano plays a note by itself. Over 80 minutes into the film two apparent ghosts appear briefly which are never seen again. Nothing, and I mean nothing, else happens in it which takes the non-story anyplace. How this film even got made is baffling; the script absolutely goes nowhere, and the whole deal comes off as some sort of expanded outtake. There is absolutely no reason anyone could possibly enjoy this film because it doesn't deliver anything to the audience. Nothing. It doesn't even PROMISE something then not deliver, it's just a nonexistent nothing but two people talking at the front desk of a hotel about the possibility of a ghost being in the cellar, which has got to have originated as some sort of vanity project for some rich man's son who thinks he's a filmmaker or some such thing. Amazingly, utterly bad and its only possible use would be to put it on your TV if you want your date to leave you for the evening and go out with someone else. Do not believe any of the positive reviews here; they are outright lies -- there's absolutely nothing here to see, it's such a non-story it leaves you thinking the whole deal is some kind of joke or bluff. Stay clear, way clear.
Jug Face (2013)
Near-perfect Little Horror Gem
JUG FACE is a highly recommended little gem of a horror film, with not a wasted frame, nor any lack of tension throughout, a perfect and extremely involving performance by captivating young lead Lauren Ashley Carter, an effective symbolic undercurrent, and enough of an emotional punch to literally bring tears to your eyes.
The film is exactly what a small-scale horror movie should be -- disturbing without being exploitative, scary without anyone trying to throw hatchets in your face in 3D, and operating in its own consistent yet just-not-right world where things just do not work the same way as they do in the outside world or mean the same things.
The subtext here, whether intentional or not, has to do with the terrors and wrongs of following an "old religion" long past its time and resonates boldly. Similarities to THE LOTTERY exist but there's much more to the story. The analogy works as well here as the fear-of-commie-invaders subtext did in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS in the 1950s. They say horror movies are most effective if they successfully tune in to the audience's fears at the time of its release. This one does an excellent job of that and seems like something that will never get old.
The only negatives here are that the community involved in the tale seems to be awfully small in number (no doubt due to budget constraints), the ineffective attempt at whatever sort of accent Sean Young, who is slightly miscast here, is attempting, and it is possible that by reordering one or two of the scenes and moving it back a bit the impact of the scene in which Ada discovers her "jug face" might have been strengthened, and possibly her attempt to escape her probable fate seems to be somewhat abortive, but if you consider what is supposed to be going on, and the ending they're going for, you understand why this is the case. These are rather minor problems though and do not detract from the film's power.
The actor who plays the potter who makes the jugs is also excellent and his performance moving.
This movie will leave you wanting more, and the terror of it is knowing, after it's over, well, you can't have it.
Excellent film all around, far better than overblown junk like CABIN IN THE WOODS, with an air to it of the simple but sometimes unforgettably scary radio dramas of the 1940s that audiences just couldn't forget and would listen to over and over. (Arch Oboler would love this movie.) I would not hesitate to suggest this is a real classic in the best sense of the word and I hope it gets noticed and does well. It'll certainly be remembered by those who see it, me included. Great job, filmmakers. 9/10
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Did I just watch a movie made out of a Charlton horror comic?
In the 1970s there was a low-budget comic book publisher called Charlton which put out a line of horror comics that borrowed ideas from all over the place and sometimes ran them together. Occasionally instead of 3 stories in an issue, you'd get a book-length story that took a cast of characters through various sorts of trials and catacombs all the way to the dark dimension of the ancient Cthulhu-type gods of the H. P. Lovecraft mythology, and they'd all get sucked into a big pit by something with giant tentacles. The end.
For a 25c comic book in 1975, OK, you can get away with that sort of crap. For a full-length feature film in the 21st century, people expect better.
Actually what you get here is something like the 3 stories in the Charlton comic all run together -- the beginning of the film is a straight kids-in-the-cabin setup, the second part more heavily involves the people behind the scenes apparently manipulating the setup (and that's not a spoiler, it's clear early on that this is going on), and the third part is the supposedly big surprise ending which I won't reveal.
Part 1, or I should say Story 1, is the most formulaic bit but also the most interesting. An old diary and some acceptably scary creatures in the woods start picking people off, in typical horror movie fashion. Which works well enough. Too bad we'll never see this story resolved. Story 2 is not very believable but would have been acceptable had it not been revealed so early on and turned out to be all a show arranged for evil filthy rich people who liked seeing people get killed, which is what appears to be going on, or at any rate would be the only thing that would make sense. But that is not the case here. Unfortunately. The big secret, Story 3, comes way out someplace beyond left field, and doesn't make a whit of sense, and neither does the scene of its revelation, and that makes the concluding portion of this movie stink to high heaven. This 2nd "big surprise" is too much; it just wasn't necessary and just plain doesn't work, which is probably why most people who say they do hate the movie.
AVENGERS and other Whedon projects have also attempted to try and let over-the-topness replace coherence but that just doesn't work. AVENGERS didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense and neither does this. Its just random and all over the place; the product of a writer who does not write from life but reworks content he's already seen in other movies. Ugh.
I will say this for the film, tho. There is one fantastic crowd-pleasing scene after Story 1 has been dumped and just before Story 2 is turned into Story 3 which in its over-the-topness will wow anyone watching. It's a wonderful "hooooly s--t!" moment But it only lasts a minute or so before you think, OK, enough already. I get it. Move on.
Honestly tho I'd rather have done without the whole LOGAN'S RUN-type "Story 2" as well as the lousy ending, which negates any meaning that Story 1 might have had, and just seen Story 1 worked out more creatively. I got the feeling that the "watchers" were simply the writers/director of the film injecting themselves into this so they could mess with the story. Which is exactly what those writers/director(s) did with this movie. It's so heavily messed with that it ends in a complete train wreck, not in any sort of satisfying way. And it is not a spoof; it's fairly nasty sometimes and absolutely never funny -- I don't know where that idea is supposed to come from.
CABIN IN THE WOODS is not really creative, it's inbred and backwards. And therefore is not really recommended unless you just want to see that one amazing over-the-top scene, or really really loved book-length issues of Charlton horror comics a lot, even when they were really derivative, random, incoherent, and just plain bad.
Mortuary (2005)
Bud Bundy vs. the Zombies?
This movie isn't the worst horror film you'll ever see. It comes across as a cinematic version of a middling fill-in story from an old issue of CREEPY or EERIE magazine from the 1960s -- one that isn't too original but would be memorable if it were to be drawn by Bernie Wrightson.
Unfortunately despite an acceptable buildup and a pace that goes from decent to over-the-top berserk, this film suffers from not having had the sort of attention given to it that would have made it the equivalent of the Wrightson-drawn CREEPY story. It comes off as having been drawn by one of those artists whose names you don't remember and know they hired because he would work cheap.
Actually it looks very much as if cheap was the word for some reason and at some point during the production, for some reason it was decided that no one gave a crap any more about quality and that they needed to finish the thing ASAP which is why the conclusion, and choices and effects used in it, get noticeably further off track as the finale approaches, which consists of 15 seconds of footage that never should have been included at all because it doesn't follow at all logically from what we've just seen happen before it.
The film suffers also from some serious "isn't"s: It appears from the opening, which shows a mother of 2 kids apparently delighted to be moving into a filthy windowless house with a lawn full of black septic tank overflow and a back yard full of tombstones, that the film is intended as at least a semi-comedy. But there's nothing really present that makes you laugh, so funny it isn't. Stike one.
The actress cast as the mother, familiar to most from her appearances on STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, should be scary. -- SLIGHT SPOILER -- Her function in the story is to menace her own children when she is turned zombie by the evil forces in the mortuary-house, and she has a prime opportunity to show off some delightful dark creepy humor in a scene in which she, as the perfect zombie-mom, is to serve the rest of the cast dinner. The actress unfortunately entirely throws the scene away and does nothing with it. It's as if she can't be bothered to affect a scary countenance or give anything to the part at all. Either she doesn't actually know how to act or didn't care to do so in this film. Either way, she was the wrong choice for the part and is chiefly responsible for the feeling that the film jumps too abruptly into high gear all at once about 2/3 of the way through -- she should have been the middle gear and gotten things warmed up for the grand finale but, honestly, her community-theatre level uninvolved performance really sinks the whole central section of the picture -- we don't really accept her transformation because it's performed so poorly which strongly affects our perception that the other zombies yet to come are anything but other people who don't care about their parts. So scary -- she isn't. Actually she is a complete drag and therefore a liability which heavily damages the picture. Martha Stewart could have played the part better, and as far as I know, she can't act at all. And that's strike two.
Finally, as others have noted, the "legendary" unseen boogeyman character doesn't get much to do and when he finally joins in the action he does very little, and "the chase" is then rapidly cut to. So, interesting, he isn't, particularly, either, and that's strike three.
If this film had had more of a budget or anyone had actually cared about it, it could have been good. The kid & teen actors are fine (even if the young hero does have a sort of Bud Bundy from "Married With Children" quality about him, which isn't really a negative). But there's no time put into the crucial elements here -- it all comes off as very cheap and rushed and "done the quickest, easiest way," which undoubtedly it was. But even with all its flaws it does have at least one good scary moment, which is when we discover the little girl character has disappeared from the hiding place she was placed in and is likely in big trouble. You do genuinely fear for her and what's going to happen next and the atmosphere instantly jacks up 5 notches and becomes briefly scary, for perhaps the only time in the film.
MORTUARY is not a bad "Tales from the Crypt" style story, and it's certainly not boring, it's just not what it should have been. It's not what you do in the case of a low-budget horror movie, it's how you do it that matters, and though this movie is never really dull, it's done with so little attention to detail it ends up blowing up in its own face rather than being the "creepy" Wrightson-style fun it could have been.
La plus longue nuit du diable (1971)
Dreadful misfire on all levels
This film, its original title translating as "The Extra-Long Night of the Devil," is an absolute misfire of a film on every level and isn't recommended for anyone except for possible use in film/script writing classes on how NOT to make a horror film.
And boy, is it extra-long all right. Maybe the Devil had something to do with that, and that's what the title means?
It is entirely free of the elements which make up a good horror movie.
1. Characters you care about -- None are present. There isn't even any attempt to make any of them sympathetic. We are apparently supposed to believe they represent the seven deadly sins. Well, who can name all of them and who cares to, and anyway they don't do anything to demonstrate that they are bad people. And the malevolent presence doesn't seem particularly mad at anyone either. Score: 0
2. Suspense -- None is present. After a brief opening sequence which sets up the resident family curse, we are treated to an hour of people talking about there being a family curse in the castle. Why, yes, yes, in fact, as it turns out, there is a family curse, which is thoroughly explained to us so we don't have to have any fun figuring it out ourselves. What do you know about that. Thrilling.
3. An interesting or original "monster" or malevolent entity. Nope. It does have a lady in what looks like strange semi-skimpy 70s party-wear in it, whose face turns gray sometimes. Does that frighten you? She is in plain sight most of the time, doesn't lurk in shadows nor even seem to have sharp fingernails, and apparently, despite telling us at length that she is a succubus, seems to have no clue as to what one actually is. She does not kill people by taking them sexually in their sleep. She doesn't even actually end up having hardly any contact with her victims at all -- somehow instead she seems to possess magic powers which can create snakes in people's beds, or cause doors on iron maidens which just happen to be in the attic ready to open and close on people who step backward into them for no reason like actors in high school plays. When she runs out of similar ideas she just pushes people out of windows. Umm--
4. An apparent motivation for killings of victims. There is none present here unless eating a chicken leg while driving makes you a fiendish glutton or engaging in lesbian sex because you are so bored nothing has happened for an hour in the movie you are in should be considered an offense punishable by death. The victims are not tied into the original business of the curse in any way. They're just random boring nobodies who do nothing of consequence. What could be less interesting?
If this had been a Dracula movie it would have included long discussions with a tour bus group visiting castle Dracula about how vampire legends are present in the area, Dracula then telling them all he is a vampire, then instead of biting anyone in the neck to suck their blood, using his magic powers to make quicksand appear in their rooms or punching them in the nose till they all die.
Honestly this is one of the worst movies I have ever seen; it is thoroughly off base in all areas and terrible directorial choices abound because both the writer and director are afraid to actually do anything which would create suspense or make any kind of commitment to doing anything except spelling everything out for you before it occurs. The cast looks bored throughout, and you will be also if you try watching this mess.
Ondine (2009)
Wonderful premise dunked by incongruous, poorly-scripted ending
ONDINE is a well-photographed, simple, well-cast, engaging film with a dreadful ending which robs it from being all it could have been.
At the film's opening an Irish fisherman finds a living woman in his net who acts in mysterious ways and seems ignorant of the local language and culture. She also seems magical and the fisherman wonders whether her singing helps attracts lobsters which fill his traps when she does.
The fisherman's young daughter is disabled and ill but with a sharp mind, and investigates the mysterious woman, believing her to be a legendary sea creature-turned-human called a selkie, one of the Seal People of the Orkney Islands.
Can the mysterious Ondine really be such a creature and has she appeared to rescue the fisherman and his family from their unlucky life -- or is such a suspicion nothing but fantasy?
A great premise, and appealing actors perfect for their roles have shown up to enact it and set up what promises to be a great story wonderfully. Through the first half of the film, we can't wait to find out what happens next.
Unfortunately -- and this is a big unfortunately -- just as the viewer is completely hooked on the whole business and liking all 3 main characters while eagerly awaiting what may happen next, an ending is tacked onto this film which comes in out of nowhere and simultaneously removes all the fantasy and mystery from the proceedings.
One would think the story might have ended with Ondine performing some sort of rescue of the child when she is in peril which might cure her but at the same time cause the woman never to be seen again and the man to wonder from then on whether she was human and sacrificed her life for the girl or was indeed a selkie but was forced then to return to the sea. But no such thing happens. An incongruous, unbelievable, unrealistic plot twist is dropped in the audience's lap instead which though it apparently exists to provide for what looks like a "happy ending," instead sucks the life out of everything which was so well set up beforehand.
There's magic all through the first 3/4 of the film. But at the end, when the mystery and wonder should be at its highest, it's suddenly all gone.
I really enjoyed the whole setup of this film but the payoff of it all couldn't be more ineffective. The result of watching this film is to want to chop off the ending and add another re-scripted and reshot one that plays out properly from the character interaction that has preceded it and preserves the magic it should have had all the way through.
If you're reading this, filmmakers, you're not finished yet. Go back and fix this potentially wonderful movie. The ending as is is just bad. The whole "exposed backstory" thing was just the wrong choice, and for whatever reason it was imposed it was the wrong one. Cut it. Throw it out. Instead of what is there, let Ondine do something to prove her love for Syracuse and his daughter despite his doubts which causes her to return to the sea, knowing and accepting the risks of doing so, and let us see that final shot of the seal on the rock, just watching them as the two stand together holding hands at the water's edge at sunset. This is what selkies do. (Once they turn human if they go back into the sea they'll turn back into a seal and never be able to regain human form.) The rest of the film is so good it's a crime NOT to let the whole thing be all it could have been, and end with the same magic intact that it begins with.
4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
An OK start, but where's the ending?
There are several good reasons why this movie gets such mixed reviews and that both the positive and negative ones make sense; RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER gets started just fine, apart from an awkward recurring bit in which the four magically exchange powers, and then -- appallingly -- two-thirds of the way through the story, apparently the production staff got tired of working on it and decided "let's just not bother filming a third act." What people are really saying when they say they are disappointed Galactus appears as a cloud here is that they have paid their money to see a whole story and been deprived of that. The feeling you are left with after watching this film, since its main villain, Galactus, never makes it to Earth, so there is never a meeting between the principal villain of the piece and the heroes, is that the filmmakers were actually too afraid of the character themselves to actually include the big sequences the story builds up to.
We SHOULD have seen giant purple boots squashing buildings -- the ominous helmet with distinctive side ornaments blocking the sun -- Reed Richards scrambling to try and make the ultimate nullifier work in time -- rebellion by the Surfer against his master, and lots of terrific special effects as a city is destroyed as Galactus ALMOST eats earth, but they just skipped the idea of letting us see what SHOULD be there. The climax of the film just ISN'T THERE. It's built up to, but when you think it's about to start, an abrupt and not-very-believable character reversal and event takes place which tidies things up like magic, and our heroes don't have to lift a finger.
This is seriously cowardly, lazy film-making. We could have had one of the best superhero movies ever made here if the original story had just been filmed as it was envisioned and written by Jack Kirby in the 1960s. What we get instead is something that plays like a Sunday Matinée musical that had to be called off early and an abrupt ending fudged because the actor playing the villain forgot he had one more entrance to make and left the building to go get an early dinner.
And, for the record, Stan Lee had NOTHING to do with "creating" the Silver Surfer, or the X-Men or Spider-man either, for that matter; he has made a lifelong career out of exploiting brilliant original work developed and done for hire by writer/artist Jack Kirby and others and been able to get away with his claims because he knows the public assumes that Marvel comics of the 1960s were WRITTEN before they were DRAWN. In fact, the complete opposite was the case where the seminal Marvel stories were concerned. Stan Lee is not now and never was a good storyteller, nor was he an avid reader of classic science fiction and mythology as Jack Kirby was. What he is is a brilliant publicist who added "groovy" dialogue to illustrated stories which were handed to him completely plotted and drawn by artists such as Kirby and Steve Ditko AFTER they were complete, sometimes even including summaries of dialogue to be added to the page written in the margins. The credits for those old comic book stories should have said "Written and Drawn by Jack Kirby, Dialogue by Stan Lee." But, with Lee having the final word on what words got printed on the page, we got deliberately misleading inflations of the truth instead. Since the artists that developed the early Marvel stories did so work-for-hire, and Lee worked for the company, it was in his power to credit whoever he wanted, including himself, however he wanted, so first he promoted himself from dialogue writer to story author, then moved right along to "creator." Baloney. I know who really had the creative imagination on the team and put in the time at the drawing board. (Show me one Stan Lee dialogue script ever actually written for a Marvel comic and I'll eat this review!) At least Kirby's name appears in the credits of this movie -- it should, since he envisioned the amazing story -- one of the best ever told in comics -- and all its characters.
It remains a shame to this day that Lee, in the late 1960s and early 70s, took Kirby's Surfer out of his hands and transformed a character that the writer/artist had envisioned as the very personification of pure, unfettered cosmic adventurousness into yet another whiner; Kirby's Surfer had no name, no missing girlfriend to cry about -- he was a blank slate, eager to be free of his servitude and fly through the stars at top speed and explore the universe and learn about anything, everything, with great enthusiasm. He was ignorant but learned compassion from his visit to Earth, which is why he rebelled against Galactus. Not because he missed his girlfriend! The original Surfer never whined, he battled, he quested, he flew, he dreamed. The Lee influence unfortunately affects the Surfer character in this film too; he's taken captive at one point which unfortunately for no apparent reason emotionally paralyzes him and by the end of the film, as happened in the comics as well, all life ends up sucked out of the character, as he sinks apparently into what is essentially a suicidal sort of depression, so this movie ends not with a fight but with a cop-out. Ugh.
This is not to say that what DOES make it to the screen in this movie is "bad." It's generally not. The film just needs to be sent back into production and finished appropriately.
They should have made this film years ago and let Jack Kirby direct it; he would never in a million years let this truly "fantastic" cosmic battle have been filmed without an ending.
Mr. Kirby, and your spirit of adventure, you are missed.
The Green Hornet (1940)
Kato's Heritage
Mr. Watson is correct. Green Hornet radio programs aired up to at least 1938 and earlier which still exist describe Britt Reid's chauffeur as his "Japanese valet." When international tensions subsequently increased, in 1939 or 40, the announcer's line was changed so the phrase became "trusted valet," which Kato remained throughout the majority of the the war years. In wartime programs his nationality was simply not mentioned in the show's opening or anywhere else during the program. After the war, in 1945, the opening was changed again, and announcers begin to refer to Kato as Britt Reid's "Filipino valet," and that is how openings were recorded till the end of the series. So the change didn't happen overnight, but in fact took at least five years, and the "Pearl Harbor" comment is an oversimplification, but the general idea is correct. The idea that this is all an urban legend arises mainly from the posting on urban legend website snopes.com, which is wrong about a lot of other things too and apparently more interested in perpetuating legends than publishing facts. Also, later syndications of Green Hornet radio programs consisted primarily of later broadcasts which would have for the most part included the description of Kato as Filipino. It is also correct that in the movie serials Kato, played by Keye Luke, is identified as Korean, and in the first serial Britt Reid and Kato discuss how they first met -- Britt saved Kato's life in Shanghai. In comic books published by NOW in the 1980s and authorized by the Green Hornet Inc., the situation is rectified and Kato's Japanese heritage fully acknowledged. Perhaps the truth of it all is that Mr. Reid told people his friend was something other than Japanese during the war to protect him from being taken to an interment camp.
Barbie as Rapunzel (2002)
Engaging, tasteful story encourages creativity, tops Disney
The worst thing about this video is its cover, which looks stiff, commercial and artificial. What's inside, however, is a very well done original take on a little-dramatized but familiar fairy tale that entertains without overdoing or offending and has an extremely positive subtext. You can tell it's got its heart in the right place, when at the very beginning in an introductory sequence Barbie, at an easel, encourages her little sister to paint what she wants and express herself rather than telling her what to do. Rapunzel, not immature in this version of the story, though sheltered, also paints when she can to pass the time between chores, and unlike Disney's Little Mermaid, doesn't feel the need to forego developing her talent and creativity to chase handsome princes. She discovers and explores her world while always trying, though not usually successfully, to keep peace with her unreasonably demanding and jealous stepmother, whose voice is effectively performed by Angelica Huston, and with feuding royalty in two neighboring kingdoms. The impossible-to-dramatize plot elements of the original fairy tale have been replaced by effective new characters and story ideas, which keep the presentation from being all decoration without substance, and though Rapunzel's baby dragon friend may be somewhat distractingly big and purple, her own sub-plot does work into the main story well and add interest when we are introduced to her grown up dragon father, the guardian of the tower. Choices made in good taste are all over this DVD, which is refreshingly free of Disney-style smartass humor and sell-out scripting. The original music is nice and very underplayed--Barbie could easily have been made to burst into song at any time here, but wisely the producers just let the perfectly decent story stand on its own instead of trying to make it into a Broadway musical. The whole package here is pretty, original, pleasantly presented, and encourages self-expression without pandering or being heavy handed about its message at all. From start to finish it is refreshing, interesting and positive. Only the packaging is corny, but even the doll it cross-promotes is as pleasant-looking as the movie. Highly recommended for the little girl in the family.
From Hell (2001)
This film isn't good
FROM HELL is an elaboration on film based on the graphic novel elaboration by Alan Moore on a very silly book by Stephen Knight entitled Jack the Ripper, the Final Solution, in which the author fantasizes a ridiculously elaborate explanation for the Ripper killings of 1888 based on no evidence whatsoever.
This is not a story, it's a point by point "explanation" of Knight's foolish theory which is historically impossible, logically nonsensical, and possesses no dramatic value at all apart from ONE shot at the very end of the film which is absolutely heartbreaking. That's it, though. That's all you get. After seeing this shot, which is the only free, improvised moment in a completely expositional film, you get the idea that the film has just (finally) begun, then, surprise!, the end credits roll. Shots of the soapy unbelievable backstory (concerning those who were responsible for making the baby which figures into the solution of the case) aren't even given to us. You watch 2 hours and get nothing of genuine historical value and only one moment that makes any kind of dramatic sense. This is not a drama, it's a pseudo-documentary in which we are TOLD what to think, and that information makes no sense. Grapes are rare in Whitechapel, one victim had a grape stalk in her hand, therefore the killer must be a recognized high society gentleman? Jack the Ripper removed some of his victims' organs therefore he "must" be a medical doctor? (These are not spoilers, they are actual conclusions drawn by our hero early on in the film) Give me a break. We have as much reason to conclude positively from this information that he "must" be a cannibalistic fruit stand owner. It would be very nice to see someone try to make a film about the Ripper murders that was free of Royal Conspiracy horse-hockey and truly did try to portray a realistic picture of the place and time which would help explain why these murders really happened. I suppose since so many have embraced Knight's ridiculous fanciful glop as truth we will never see such a thing. Pity.
Beings (1998)
Amazingly bad script will delight no one
This absolutely dreadful film is released on videotape as THE FAIRY KING OF AR. A textbook example of how not to tell a story, the script suffers from a complete lack of direction or central conflict, and was obviously written by people who believe a "film for children" should not be damaged by the inclusion of a plot. There is absolutely no problem in this story to be solved, so the characters wander about as directed by the scriptwriters, occasionally expressing concern over the immediate situation they're in, then relief when whatever they're supposed to be worried about has quickly removed itself from the scene, so as not to perpetuate any sort of problem which might result in interest by the viewer.
Malcolm McDowell is a relative of Dad, Mom, and their two kids who have inherited a gold mine in Ireland. McDowell is supposed to be scary, because the scriptwriter says so, but since his character doesn't do anything, he isn't. The family immediately and without any effort finds the lost gold mine, which is supposed to contain fairies, who have been introduced in a coompletely unintelligible introductory story told by Grandma, and indeed a young girl with funny hair painted blue does fly onto the scene to represent one of these magical creatures. She, however, doesn't do anything either, after she arrives, so the result of her appearance is that we don't give a flying fig about fairies at all. At this point, since no one else is doing anything, Dad decides to come down with an fatal illness which apparently has no name or symptoms. We don't care about this either, despite histrionics by the children, as encouraged by the director ("Why?? Why??"). After the family digs in the mine for a while, the fairies, big guys with blue latex faces and plastic eyes (?) are released, and one of them, apparently the story's title character, cures Dad's mystery illness, then promptly walks away without interacting with anyone else at all. And at this point, anyone who is still watching this will want to throw something at the TV because they've paid whatever they've paid for this video and gotten absolutely nothing in return.
At no time is this film's amazing deadness intruded upon by anything even remotely interesting. It is an amazing exercise in missing or even deliberately ducking away from any sort of point, a true dirty trick on anyone who has the ill luck to watch it. It is beyond bad; it's nonexistent, and so is not recommended for adults, children, or elves.
All Quiet on the Western Front (1979)
"Soft" remake no comparison to the original
I do not agree with any of the reviews posted here. This remake of a classic and important film attempts repeatedly to try to correct, justify, apologize for or otherwise soften scenes it lifts from the original and in doing so deprives them all of most of their meaning.
The original film is almost not a narrative; it's a collection of scenes which we want to see resolved positively which go horribly awry; lifelong and new-made friends die miserably and meaninglessly, the young men pumped up by their teacher who expect heroism and romance in battle are greeted with meaningless horror and degradation of the most intense kind in no-man's land. The meaning of the original book and film is found in their desperate senselessness, and the main character's inability to find meaning in anything that is going on around him.
In this film, however, we don't see a raw shot of rats in a trench interacting with unsuspecting soldiers and react in horror or surprise, we see isolated rats carefully set up by the production crew who do not bother anyone in particular, and hear the voice of John-boy Walton as he calmly writes what he thinks about them. In the original film we are devastated as a boy who has lost his leg hears his friend asking if he can have his boots. In this version a scene is added in which the friend and Richard Thomas discuss how it probably would be better for the friend to have the boots than a stranger, so all impact of the scene is lost. Again, to soften impact, the original line, "they've cut off my leg" is also replaced with "they've amputated my leg," something no one would ever say. A young soldier who is gassed doesn't vomit, he just sort of coughs a little, soldiers who are stabbed or hit by shells don't bleed, and we are generally spared seeing the violent realities of trench warfare which the original book was primarily written to describe.
Only two or three scenes provoke any particular emotional impact for which they do not attempt to apologize, and they don't all primarily involve our hero. One is a night-time battlefield scene in which a soldier loses it when he sees and hears the screaming of wounded horses (the scene is weakened, however, when the character exclaims, "it's wrong to shoot horses." Well, no kidding.) Another is one in which a friend who has turned bitter over his injuries asks for a gun with which to kill himself. A third involves Thomas having to lie to the mother of a boy who died about the manner of his death. None of these scenes are worth the price of the movie, though. And at no time do we really feel that the former John-boy is truly upset with what is going on.
In fact, the apparently unfalingly positive Richard Thomas is entirely wrong for the leading role; he does not look shocked at any time by what he is experiencing. He looks and sounds not vulnerable or unsuspecting, but instead like the confident and thoughtful John-boy Walton, who is always able to transcend difficult experiences and find meaning in them, and carry on. The whole point of the story should be that this war had no meaning whatsoever to the soldiers involved. We do not need a poet as our main character here; it should be just an average guy who does not know HOW to overcome what he is faced with. At no time does Thomas seem unable to cope with what happens to him, and at one point he even shows his resourcefulness and intelligence as he decks his crabby superior officer, taking command of the scene and situation and once again reducing the feeling of helplessness all around.
The lack of punch in battle scenes also damages the film; the very restrained TV-movie violence and casual acting level never has an "edge" or reaches the hysterical pitch achieved often in the original. A shell-shocked soldier driven crazy by claustrophobia in a dugout being blasted from above for days in the original here seems only mildly annoyed by the whole business.
All in all, there seems to be a distinct effort in this film not to really disturb anyone too much with anything put onscreen, and to try to make a story out of something that is not a story, to give meaning to an experience which had none to the author.
And by trying to make the original "meaningless" ending meaningful also--once again, we do not see simply a man and a natural symbol of life and beauty desperately trying to connect, we see a man trying to DRAW something that acts as such a symbol -- it doesn't seem like a desperate act, simply a casual pastime, a pleasant thought that he has always been able to keep in the back of his mind, and since he has a few minutes he decides to doodle up.
This movie includes scenes which will be of visual interest to WWI buffs, only because there are so few WWI films in color in existence. But, in its casualness and trying to make sense of senselessness, dramatically it possesses absolutely none of the raw power and ironic, devastating quality of the original film.