Latest product :
Recent product
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Cohen. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Cohen. Tampilkan semua postingan

Special Effects (1984)

JUNE 28, 2008

GENRE: CRAP, THRILLER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

Last week, fellow horror movie nut and loyal HMAD reader B-Sol wrote up a list of 10 major missteps from promising horror filmmakers. As with any list, I didn’t agree with some of the choices, but I can only assume that he just never saw Special Effects from Larry Cohen, because in my opinion it deserved the number 1 spot: it’s actually hard to believe that the guy who made It’s Alive and The Stuff could make a movie this dull, badly acted, and just plain lousy.

The plot is almost like something out of Hitchcock – a director kills a woman on film and decides to make a movie around the footage. Pretty awesome in theory, but the way this film is carried out, it almost seems like Cohen (who also wrote) was almost going out of his way to execute the story as badly as possible. The director’s scheme is needlessly complicated (involving framing a guy and then paying for his bail moments later, some nonsense about a rose, bringing in a cop to watch the dailies... all sounds exciting, huh?), which doesn’t help. Maybe at 75 minutes this would merely be disappointing, but 105 for a thriller in which only 2 people are killed (without any sort of suspense leading up to either) and nothing else of note happens until the final 10 minutes (rounding UP) is way too much to ask for, especially when the actors are as bad as they are in this.

Eric Bogosian (the director) is pretty amusing at times, but that is to be expected. But even he fails to keep viewer interest (in fact he himself looks bored at times). But the other two leads have to be the absolute worst I’ve ever seen in a major motion picture. The actress in particular, ZoĆ« Lund (playing two roles), manages to ruin just about every moment that, despite being poorly written to begin with, would have carried at least SOME weight. You know when you’re flipping around the channels and you come across a soap opera and someone is saying “I found out who the father of your baby is!” and you decide to watch and find out, even thought you don’t know who anyone is? THAT is more compelling than any one moment in this entire movie.

I honestly cannot think of a single reason to watch this movie. It’s too dull to be “so bad it’s good” entertainment, and it’s too long to use as a time-killer (if you have THAT much time, you should be watching something good). The only thing I got out of it was an understanding why I had never heard of it before adding it to my queue.

Also, I know I have been offering the trailers lately, but I couldn't find one for this. I assume they couldn't figure out how to take a minute of the film and make it look interesting and thus never bothered to cut one.

What say you?

{[['']]}

It's Alive (1974)

JUNE 15, 2008

GENRE: KILLER KID (BABY!), MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

I can’t recall when I bought It’s Alive. It’s one of those movies that I ‘discover’ when looking at my collection, coming across it and saying to myself (or out loud) “What the hell? When did I get this? Oh well, let’s watch it!”. Evidence points to it being purchased at Best Buy (the Best Buy price tag being the biggest clue), and it was recommended in February by an HMAD reader named Brian, but as for when I actually – HOLY FUCK I TALKED TO JOHN CARPENTER LAST NIGHT!!!

OK, I was going to include my bloggy thoughts about it in this review, but since they are so long I just made an actual blog entry on my Bloody Disgusting page. Check it out HERE and then come back for the usual movie ramble.

Anyone who knows me, and no one does, knows that I love killer kid movies. Bloody Birthday, Cathy’s Curse... hell even Good Son is pretty awesome, even though he doesn’t kill anyone. So a killer BABY is even more enticing, because, well, it’s a baby.

However, despite being made by Larry Cohen, it’s actually a pretty serious movie. I mean, yeah, it’s a silly concept, but it’s played very straight. As my good friend Matt pointed out, it’s a horror movie for adults, not teens (indeed, other than the baby and the main character’s son, no one in the film is younger than 35 or so), and it’s true. It would have been easy to simply have the baby go on a rampage and kill necking teens and the occasional drunk/homeless guy in the woods, a la most monster movies, but instead we actually get a lot of stuff with the parents, who are clearly (and understandably) disturbed about birthing an actual monster. Mom goes a bit nuts and wants to raise the child, Dad wants to get rid of it (some shades of abortion here, but nothing too obtrusive), feeling responsible for the deaths it has caused.

But that’s not to say it’s all frowns and melodrama. I got quite a few laughs out of it, mainly because everyone in the movie is so blunt. At one point, the dad’s boss tells him “Hey you know Ted in accounting? He’s got a retarded kid!” in an attempt to cheer him up. There’s also some nice black humor – a (non monstrous) baby is at one point surrounded by gun-toting cops who are hunting the monster baby. Cohen is brilliant here, as you fully believe that these cops will actually shoot the tyke (aided by a sudden cut to black that lasts 10 seconds – as if we might just hear the shot). Great stuff.

My only real issue was a strangely coincidental one. The baby is making its way back to its family’s home, and thus I assumed the climax would be entirely housebound. It certainly seems that way, but then the thing escapes and a chase ensues. The monster is chased to the sewers, and that is where the final battle really occurs. I had this same problem with the movie Them (Ils) – they leave the house (scary) to the sewers (not). But here’s the weird thing – the sewers in question here are in fact the ones connected to the giant LA river dam thing that you’ve seen in many movies, like Grease, Escape From New York, and... Them!, the giant ant movie from the 50s. Cohen, being a guy who knows his sci-fi/horror, probably did this intentionally as an homage to that film, but the idea that It’s Alive has elements from two entirely different movies with the same title, in a single sequence, is pretty odd. At least to me.

The DVD has a commentary by Cohen. Like The Stuff, it’s not the best track, but there’s some nice info here and there (and a few too many silent gaps), including some funny stories about the film’s composer, Bernard Herrmann. Cohen also manages to take credit for the POV shots in Jaws, which I’d be more inclined to believe if I didn’t know that this film was released in the fall of 1974, after Jaws had finished principal photography. But hey, who’s to know for sure?

Well, probably lots of people. But so what, it’s a good movie. Watch it, you might have it in your collection as well!

What say you?

{[['']]}

The Stuff (1985)

MARCH 10, 2008

GENRE: COMEDIC, MONSTER
SOURCE: DVD (ONLINE RENTAL)

“Everybody has to eat shaving cream once in a while...”

Every now and then I come across a movie that features a performance that really makes me wonder why it hasn’t been ripped off in scores of other films. Such is the case with Michael Moriarty in Larry Cohen’s The Stuff. He’s sort of like a cross between Fletch and a southern businessman, and almost everything he says is hilarious. He’s completely laid back and dry, and it’s definitely a highlight of his career (sadly, the next year he was in Troll, and didn’t get anywhere near as many moments to shine as he does here). It’s seriously worth your time to watch the film just for his scenes.

Luckily, the rest of the movie ain’t too shabby either, however I should note that it’s a bit oddly paced – the stuff is discovered in the film’s very first shot, and our requisite young hero discovers that the stuff is “bad” less than 3 minutes later, but then it’s sort of drawn out for a while. Granted, there isn’t a hell of a lot of story here, and Cohen luckily doesn’t try to explain where it came from or any possibly crippling thing like that, but it still could have used maybe a tiny bit of restructuring.

Otherwise it’s a blast. Moriarty is hilarious, Garrett Morris shows up as a chocolate chip cookie magnate, and Danny Aiello and Paul Sorvino (between this and Repo, this guy needs to make more genre films!) turn in rare non-mobster roles. The whole movie (particularly the radio station scenes) has an improvisational feel which isn’t exactly what you expect in what is essentially a monster movie. There is a wealth of great moments throughout the film; my favorite has to be the stock boy at the grocery store who dives over a pile of The Stuff in order to save it from the hero, who is destroying it all. I also like the rather odd notion that the kid hero just teams up with this total stranger (Moriarty) without any question.

And young Johnny Depp shows up!*

Also the music during the scene where they see The Stuff “swamp” sounds exactly like the Super Mario Bros “dungeon” music (Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnnn, dundundundun dun DUN DUN). And the effects are pretty good for the time – it’s mostly stop motion stuff (by the late, great Dave Allen) matted with live action footage. For a low budget, it’s impressive, though naysayers will probably balk at the poor compositing (which Cohen acknowledges on the commentary).

Speaking of the commentary, Cohen’s an interesting guy, but the track has a lot of gaps; it’s almost like he’s afraid to talk over the dialogue at times. I wish Moriarty or someone had joined him, as the film is ripe for some good natured ribbing that would likely occur with a couple participants. It also seems to have been recorded over a few sessions, that or Cohen is senile; he constantly refers to “a picture I did called Q: The Winged Serpent” as if he hadn’t mentioned it a dozen times already. Sadly, it’s the only extra of note.

Your enjoyment of the film will likely depend on how much you like Moriarty, since he carries the film, and if you don’t enjoy his style of humor he will probably just annoy the shit out of you. Your loss.

What say you?

*No, that’s not him – but the film does have a Depp connection: the room where the Stuff attacks our heroes is the same room where Tina was killed in Nightmare on Elm St.

{[['']]}

Captivity

JULY 15, 2007

GENRE: CRAP, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REGULAR SCREENING)

It’s almost sad that Captivity has finally been released, as it means we will never get another missed release date. Driving around LA, one will see about 900 posters for the film, most of them with the correct release date, but there are a few with the older dates (May 18th, and June 22nd), with the final “Friday the 13th: July 13th”. But as it turns out, there isn’t a date on the calendar that would have been the ‘best’ time to release this god awful piece of shit.

Whereas Saw and Hostel are technically sound films that do indeed have actual stories, Captivity actually IS what a lot of folks mistakenly dismiss those other films as: shallow and pointless. Sure, the other films have extended torture scenes, but there is a genuine story behind the films and some sort of justification for what we are seeing. But at no point in Captivity does it ever make any fucking sense that the killer makes Elisha Cuthbert drink a blended mix of body parts. Or pretend to melt her face. Or, in the film’s worst moment, shoot her poor little dog close range with a shotgun (which caused a couple walkouts in my screening).

Killing a dog is of course, the easy way to make an audience hate the bad guy without remorse, and usually I can deal with it, but here, there are many problems with this scenario. First of all, the dog is killed to spare the life of someone we do not like. Cuthbert, playing a Paris Hilton-type model/actress, isn’t given any character development other than letting us know she doesn’t want to go to a charity event. Charming. Why exactly do we want this woman to live? You’re practically rooting for the villain, let alone the dog. Second, the villain is so one dimensional, we don’t feel anything toward him whether he kills the dog or not. Christ, the dog’s practically the only lifeform in the entire movie that has any sort of character arc.

Halfway through the film or so, we are given a ‘twist’ that you’d have to be dead not to see coming: the guy she’s trapped with is actually the brains behind the whole operation. In addition to rendering more than a couple of his scenes totally pointless (why does he lash out and give his ‘captor’ the FUCK YOU, STOP! speech when she isn’t around to hear it?), this also makes the film as a whole even more worthless than it already was. Like The Village, the twist seemingly justifies the scenario, rather than the other way around. But since it’s so obvious, you spend all the time leading up to it wondering why they even bothered trying to hide it at all. Let us quote Hitchcock on such matters (if for no other reason than to provide perhaps the only review of Captivity that mentions Hitchcock):

Hitchcock: There is a distinct difference between "suspense" and "surprise," and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I'll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let's suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, "Boom!" There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o'clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: "You shouldn't be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!"
Here, they should have shown the bomb first, so to speak. Just flat out say he’s the bad guy, then make the scenes of them bonding and eventually fucking at least somewhat creepy. Or at least more hilarious.

Instead, we get about 40 nonstop minutes of the same 3 scenes repeated over and over: Cuthbert sees something that might help her escape and uses it to get to another room; Cuthbert is caught and gassed or otherwise rendered unconscious; Cuthbert is “tortured” (I put that in quotes because at the end of the film she doesn’t have a scratch on her. She goes through more genuine torture in any season two episode of 24 than she does here). Then the tables are turned and we spend the rest of the movie marveling at what an inept mastermind this guy is (pretending to escape with her, he leaves her alone in a room with a television on that shows him actually going off to clean up after himself).

It’s all the more disappointing when you consider writer Larry Cohen and director Roland Joffe (not to mention cinematographer Daniel Pearl) are actually quite talented filmmakers. Just last week, I watched Cohen’s Uncle Sam, and there was more intelligence and even occasional wit in any 5 minutes of that film than the whole of this piece of shit. He (and co-writer Joseph Tura) couldn’t even be bothered to give the villain any sort of motive or reason for his doings. There’s a flashback that alludes to him being molested by his mom (hey-o!!!) but why that inspired him to drape someone in plaster of paris and then bash their head in with a sledgehammer is beyond me. Christ, I learned more about his back-story watching his interview on Bloody-Disgusting than I did in the film.

Incidentally, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that the original version of the film contained none of the “torture” scenes (or even the poor dog – yes, they added in scenes of a lovable little Bichon being blown apart by a shotgun blast to ‘improve’ the film), and instead was a bit more focused on character, and featured a number of scenes with two cops who are looking for Cuthbert. The twists (and in fact the entire last half hour) are the same, but the first hour is pretty much entirely different. Perhaps this cut will surface on DVD, as it is slightly better. Not GOOD, but better. But they opted to release the “pointless torture scenes” version, and that’s the one I paid for, so that’s the one I’m reviewing. Just because there once was at least SOME validity to it doesn’t make it OK. So fuck this movie.

For once I am glad a horror movie tanked at the box office. It’s shit like this that is precisely why almost every horror movie this year has underperformed. Even gorehounds and teenagers know worthless garbage when they see it. The existence of this movie might prevent a somewhat decent one from being properly released, and that’s the only scary thing about it.

What say you?

{[['']]}
 
Support : Creating Website | Johny Template | Mas Template
Copyright © 2011. blog baru buat - All Rights Reserved
Template Created by Creating Website Published by Mas Template
Proudly powered by Blogger