People in New York City are suddenly disappearing. Some are linking it to the sewers, where something strange is happening. Could just be some psycho, or perhaps something more sinister is responsible. With many horror films, the objective is to simply scare the audience. It's a fun way to spend an hour and half, by yourself or with some friends. But there are some horror films that also try to convey some message.
With They Live, John Carpenter wanted to comment on current politics. The film is very entertaining, but also frightening and thought-provoking. Several of George Romero's early films also did this, particularly the first three Dead films. But what about a film that takes a very real crisis and turns it into a "monsters run amok" kind of story? Enter C.H.U.D., a monster movie about the dangers of exposure to radiation. What this does to it's victims isn't based in reality, but the way it's handled is.
Surprisingly, this was the only feature film that Douglas Cheek ever directed. This is a shame because he handles it like a pro. The film is very well shot and he does a fine job of creating suspense and tension. He also gets good performances out of his actors, particularly Christopher Curry and Daniel Stern. Everyone in the film plays it straight rather than go over-the-top and boy does it work. You really feel like these people and the rest of New York are in danger.
The writing, much of which was done by Curry and Stern, is pretty solid. We have a b movie concept here, but the script is filled with good dialogue and commentary. In this case, we see how local politics sometimes tries to sweep things under the rug that should be in the open. The film is also strong from a technical standpoint, like the score for instance. It's incredibly eerie and unlike some 80s horror movies score, it's not overbearing. The cinematography is also quite good, really capturing the grimy side of New York.
One of the smartest things the filmmakers did here was to keep the monsters hidden. When we do finally see them, they look pretty damn cool and scary. The effects, which also include some nasty looking wounds, are great and still look nice today. Things sure had come a long way since the days of men in rubbery suits, films this one obviously was inspired by. Now even though this isn't exactly a camp fest like other genre films of the time, the film is still a lot of fun. During it's 93 minutes, the pace moves right along and never gets bogged down.
One flaw that really stands out here is how dated the film looks at times. From the perms to some of the clothing, you can tell this was made in the 80s. The more damaging problem however is some decisions by some of the characters. For example, who in their right mind would follow a stranger down into the sewers? With that out of the way, C.H.U.D. is a real gem like they don't make anymore. It's so much better than it should be and a must see for genre buffs.
8/10
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Friday, May 17, 2013
Star Trek (2009)
Trouble arises on the planet Vulcan, threatening to wipe out it's people. The USS Enterprise is crewed with rising cadets to save them. Aboard ship there are strong personalities, but they'll have to work together if they hope to succeed.When things stop being fun, it's probably a good idea to step away for a while. If more people in Hollywood had this good sense, we the audience wouldn't have suffered through so many sequels. This leaves out the people at Paramount Pictures, who finally gave the Star Trek franchise a rest.
For decades, the Star Trek shows and films entertained audiences the world over. They were a great way to escape everyday problems and be whisked away to other worlds. But like all things that go on a long time, at some point things start becoming stale. Both the last feature film and television series incarnation paled in comparison to what went before. Though the franchise would remain popular, no new projects appeared to be in the works. Just four years later, it would get the revitalizing it so surely needed.
It was natural to think that the next film would be another sequel. However, with two other series after The Next Generation there were many possibilities. But instead of Star Trek XI, what we would get was more like 0. There had been talk of doing a prequel before, but this time it was really going to happen. J.J. Abrams wowed critics and moviegoers alike with his Super 8, a love letter to great Science Fiction films. Paramount believed he was the man for the job and boy did he not dissapoint.
Since all the characters from the original series would return, casting them right was crucial. The good news is that each and every part was filled with a great talent. Each actor captures the essence of the original character, while bringing themselves to the part. Of course they had a great director to help guide them on this journey. Abrams does a masterful job, creating a great balance of action, drama and humor. He also has a great sense of pace, which zips right along for the film's almost two hours.
The script is another thing that was in really good hands. Writers Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci infused it with great lines, wit and cool nods to the franchise. For a film like this, one hopes that the music will enhance the experience. That is certainly the case here with a score that is really exciting, which includes a nice rendition of the original theme. From a visual standpoint, the film excels in terms of the effects as well. Both the practical and digital effects are fabulously done and are likely to hold up.
Things have really come a long way since the original TV series. The sets looked very cool then, but they've improved as the series progressed. In this film, the production design is nothing short of amazing and succeeds in taking us there. The interiors of the ships are some of the best, if not the best in recent memory. It's nice that the look of the bridge for example is quite different from the original.
All the previous films have their flaws and this one is no exception. Fortunately, it's not nearly as faulty as the first feature film. However, there is one issue they share and that's an emphasis on spectacle over plot. Not that there isn't one, it's just secondary to the visual splendor. The other big problem is that there's little here we haven't already seen. However, there is a lot we haven't seen in a Star Trek film before.
Thank goodness for J.J. Abrams and Paramount's decision to give the series a rest. The result is not the best in the series, but is well above average. You can tell that everyone in front of and behind the camera had their hearts in it. The series needed new life breathed into it and thanks to these talents it got it. With this restored interest, let's hope that the films to come have new and exciting things to show us.
8/10
For decades, the Star Trek shows and films entertained audiences the world over. They were a great way to escape everyday problems and be whisked away to other worlds. But like all things that go on a long time, at some point things start becoming stale. Both the last feature film and television series incarnation paled in comparison to what went before. Though the franchise would remain popular, no new projects appeared to be in the works. Just four years later, it would get the revitalizing it so surely needed.
It was natural to think that the next film would be another sequel. However, with two other series after The Next Generation there were many possibilities. But instead of Star Trek XI, what we would get was more like 0. There had been talk of doing a prequel before, but this time it was really going to happen. J.J. Abrams wowed critics and moviegoers alike with his Super 8, a love letter to great Science Fiction films. Paramount believed he was the man for the job and boy did he not dissapoint.
Since all the characters from the original series would return, casting them right was crucial. The good news is that each and every part was filled with a great talent. Each actor captures the essence of the original character, while bringing themselves to the part. Of course they had a great director to help guide them on this journey. Abrams does a masterful job, creating a great balance of action, drama and humor. He also has a great sense of pace, which zips right along for the film's almost two hours.
The script is another thing that was in really good hands. Writers Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci infused it with great lines, wit and cool nods to the franchise. For a film like this, one hopes that the music will enhance the experience. That is certainly the case here with a score that is really exciting, which includes a nice rendition of the original theme. From a visual standpoint, the film excels in terms of the effects as well. Both the practical and digital effects are fabulously done and are likely to hold up.
Things have really come a long way since the original TV series. The sets looked very cool then, but they've improved as the series progressed. In this film, the production design is nothing short of amazing and succeeds in taking us there. The interiors of the ships are some of the best, if not the best in recent memory. It's nice that the look of the bridge for example is quite different from the original.
All the previous films have their flaws and this one is no exception. Fortunately, it's not nearly as faulty as the first feature film. However, there is one issue they share and that's an emphasis on spectacle over plot. Not that there isn't one, it's just secondary to the visual splendor. The other big problem is that there's little here we haven't already seen. However, there is a lot we haven't seen in a Star Trek film before.
Thank goodness for J.J. Abrams and Paramount's decision to give the series a rest. The result is not the best in the series, but is well above average. You can tell that everyone in front of and behind the camera had their hearts in it. The series needed new life breathed into it and thanks to these talents it got it. With this restored interest, let's hope that the films to come have new and exciting things to show us.
8/10
Nightmare City (1980)
An unmarked plane lands, surrounded by military and press. In seconds, the passengers start attacking and killing these bystanders. Turns out they've been exposed to radiation, turning them into mutant killers. In 2002, the British horror film 28 Days Later was unleashed upon the world. It was a hit that led to a sequel and a slew of imitators. It's a film that features zombie-like monsters that run and jump, but it wasn't the first.
Since the release of Danny Boyle's film, the zombie sub-genre has enjoyed a resurgence. However, these are not the same undead that we grew up on. They're faster, stronger and in some cases smarter than the average zombie. Speaking of which, in some of these films the monsters are not zombies at all. Instead, they're people infected with a virus or contaminated by some chemical. As good as 28 Days Later and similar films are, they're not the first to do this.
As they were here in the States, zombie films were a hit in Italy during the 1980s. In fact, many of them borrowed from films made over here. Let's face it, without George Romero's Dead films we wouldn't have most of the zombie flicks we do. Some filmmakers though wanted to try something a little different with the concept. Instead of cadavers coming back to life to kill, it was living people who became bloodthirsty monsters. One film that is an obvious inspiration for Boyle's film and others is Nightmare City.
The cast is made up mostly of veterans of Italian cinema. Aside from a couple, most of the actors do an alright job. The standout is Laura Trotter, playing the wife of the lead, who gives the most expressive performance. Of course, people don't watch films like this for great acting and characterization. The highlights of course are the gore and effects. There's plenty of the former and the overall effects are pretty good.
Another highlight is the score, which is an 80s horror film lover's dream. From the tribal sounding opening theme to the use of a synthesizer, it's a fun listen. Also strong on the technical front is the production design. My favorite is the deliciously tacky set used for the dance video shoot. This leads me to another pro, which is the film's camp factor. This is such a ridiculous exercise in mindless, gory mutant mayhem that you'll be rolling on the floor.
The film is peppered with several scenes that'll probably stay with you. The operating room sequence in particular is batshit crazy. Also hard to top is the ending, which takes place in an amusement park. The good news is that at 90 minutes, the film moves at a fast pace. The first 8 and half minutes are a bit of a chore, but once things gets going it's never dull. That however is the last really good thing I can say about the film.
Look, I never expected the script to be perfect or award winning. That being said, the one for this film is such an awful mess. There's basically no plot to hold this together and there are holes galore. For example, what is with the scene involving a blood knife in a statue? And not only is some of the dubbing awful, but some of the performances are stiff. Hugo Stiglitz plays the lead, but is about as interesting in the role as watching golf on TV.
The biggest sin committed in this film without a doubt is the twist. The filmmakers probably thought they were being clever, but instead what happens is infuriating. Had they made a sequel it may have lessened the pain some, but no dice. Some of the make-up is pretty lame too, but that's small potatoes compared to where the film leaves us. The good news though is that none of the flaws change the fact that this is a fun flick. It's dumb, but actually very enjoyable and a must for fans of Italian zombie shlock like Burial Ground.
6/10
Since the release of Danny Boyle's film, the zombie sub-genre has enjoyed a resurgence. However, these are not the same undead that we grew up on. They're faster, stronger and in some cases smarter than the average zombie. Speaking of which, in some of these films the monsters are not zombies at all. Instead, they're people infected with a virus or contaminated by some chemical. As good as 28 Days Later and similar films are, they're not the first to do this.
As they were here in the States, zombie films were a hit in Italy during the 1980s. In fact, many of them borrowed from films made over here. Let's face it, without George Romero's Dead films we wouldn't have most of the zombie flicks we do. Some filmmakers though wanted to try something a little different with the concept. Instead of cadavers coming back to life to kill, it was living people who became bloodthirsty monsters. One film that is an obvious inspiration for Boyle's film and others is Nightmare City.
The cast is made up mostly of veterans of Italian cinema. Aside from a couple, most of the actors do an alright job. The standout is Laura Trotter, playing the wife of the lead, who gives the most expressive performance. Of course, people don't watch films like this for great acting and characterization. The highlights of course are the gore and effects. There's plenty of the former and the overall effects are pretty good.
Another highlight is the score, which is an 80s horror film lover's dream. From the tribal sounding opening theme to the use of a synthesizer, it's a fun listen. Also strong on the technical front is the production design. My favorite is the deliciously tacky set used for the dance video shoot. This leads me to another pro, which is the film's camp factor. This is such a ridiculous exercise in mindless, gory mutant mayhem that you'll be rolling on the floor.
The film is peppered with several scenes that'll probably stay with you. The operating room sequence in particular is batshit crazy. Also hard to top is the ending, which takes place in an amusement park. The good news is that at 90 minutes, the film moves at a fast pace. The first 8 and half minutes are a bit of a chore, but once things gets going it's never dull. That however is the last really good thing I can say about the film.
Look, I never expected the script to be perfect or award winning. That being said, the one for this film is such an awful mess. There's basically no plot to hold this together and there are holes galore. For example, what is with the scene involving a blood knife in a statue? And not only is some of the dubbing awful, but some of the performances are stiff. Hugo Stiglitz plays the lead, but is about as interesting in the role as watching golf on TV.
The biggest sin committed in this film without a doubt is the twist. The filmmakers probably thought they were being clever, but instead what happens is infuriating. Had they made a sequel it may have lessened the pain some, but no dice. Some of the make-up is pretty lame too, but that's small potatoes compared to where the film leaves us. The good news though is that none of the flaws change the fact that this is a fun flick. It's dumb, but actually very enjoyable and a must for fans of Italian zombie shlock like Burial Ground.
6/10
Friday, May 10, 2013
Stepfather III (1992)
After escaping once more and getting plastic surgery, the "Family Killer" strikes again. He sets his sights on a peaceful, secluded community and a single mother. His new stepson tries to find who he really is, but not before a few innocents are done in. Sequels are inevitable when a film brings in big bucks at the Box Office. Then when the second part also does well, you can bet it won't stop there. But what if the sequel only does moderately well?
One thing that is often the kiss of death for a franchise is made for TV sequels. It's happened to both the Amityville and Omen series for example, the latter being a real embarrassment. I don't think anyone anticipated there to be any more sequels to The Stepfather. The killer appeared to be most certainly dead at the end of the previous film. However, the people at ITC thought there was enough life in the series for one more. The result is a silly and totally unnecessary, but still quite entertaining slice of cheese.
The fact that Terry O'Quinn opted out of this one should have killed the project right away. Or at the very least, they could have introduced a new stepfather/copycat. The other actors surrounding the new lead all do alright with the material. The standouts are David Tom as young Andy and Season Hubley as a new woman in town. The score, though not as good as the previous ones, is good and a return to classic themes of the original. In fact, there are a number of nice little homages to the other two films.
Though the script overall is problematic, there are some good ideas here. The kid's use of his computer to find info on his new dad for example is nice new angle. There are also a few creative and very bloody kills, the kind you see in any slasher sequel. Probably the most memorable sequence however is the finale at the nursery. I don't want to give it away, but let's just say it's no surprise no more sequels have been made. Guess the owners of the series knew they could only milk so much out of this idea.
There's humor in the first two films and this installment is no exception. However, some of it is intentional while some was certainly not. The scenes where the father is "blowing off steam" in particular come off humorous rather than frightening. Also, some of the side characters like his boss are more like cartoon characters than real people. Though it adds to the fun, it also makes the film a real come down from it's predecessors. The last good thing I can really say is that the location used for Deer View is gorgeous.
There are a number of flaws in the film, but most of the problems lie in two things. One, the performance by Robert Wightman as the stepfather is lacking. He isn't bad, but he lacks the nuance that O'Quinn brought to the role. The other is the script, which is riddled with issues from some silly dialogue to clumsy plotting. There's just too much going on that after a while you may get a headache. Even worse is that there is no real suspense and most of the film is predictable.
The other two films didn't make the mistake of overstaying their welcome. At around 107 minutes, this one goes on far too long and could have used a trim. The good news is that the pace just zips on by and the film never becomes dull. It's a shame this sequel didn't turn out better because the first two are so good. With a polish on the script and a more seasoned actor in the title role, it could have been a better sendoff. As it is, the film is entertaining in a cheesy slasher movie kind of way.
6/10
One thing that is often the kiss of death for a franchise is made for TV sequels. It's happened to both the Amityville and Omen series for example, the latter being a real embarrassment. I don't think anyone anticipated there to be any more sequels to The Stepfather. The killer appeared to be most certainly dead at the end of the previous film. However, the people at ITC thought there was enough life in the series for one more. The result is a silly and totally unnecessary, but still quite entertaining slice of cheese.
The fact that Terry O'Quinn opted out of this one should have killed the project right away. Or at the very least, they could have introduced a new stepfather/copycat. The other actors surrounding the new lead all do alright with the material. The standouts are David Tom as young Andy and Season Hubley as a new woman in town. The score, though not as good as the previous ones, is good and a return to classic themes of the original. In fact, there are a number of nice little homages to the other two films.
Though the script overall is problematic, there are some good ideas here. The kid's use of his computer to find info on his new dad for example is nice new angle. There are also a few creative and very bloody kills, the kind you see in any slasher sequel. Probably the most memorable sequence however is the finale at the nursery. I don't want to give it away, but let's just say it's no surprise no more sequels have been made. Guess the owners of the series knew they could only milk so much out of this idea.
There's humor in the first two films and this installment is no exception. However, some of it is intentional while some was certainly not. The scenes where the father is "blowing off steam" in particular come off humorous rather than frightening. Also, some of the side characters like his boss are more like cartoon characters than real people. Though it adds to the fun, it also makes the film a real come down from it's predecessors. The last good thing I can really say is that the location used for Deer View is gorgeous.
There are a number of flaws in the film, but most of the problems lie in two things. One, the performance by Robert Wightman as the stepfather is lacking. He isn't bad, but he lacks the nuance that O'Quinn brought to the role. The other is the script, which is riddled with issues from some silly dialogue to clumsy plotting. There's just too much going on that after a while you may get a headache. Even worse is that there is no real suspense and most of the film is predictable.
The other two films didn't make the mistake of overstaying their welcome. At around 107 minutes, this one goes on far too long and could have used a trim. The good news is that the pace just zips on by and the film never becomes dull. It's a shame this sequel didn't turn out better because the first two are so good. With a polish on the script and a more seasoned actor in the title role, it could have been a better sendoff. As it is, the film is entertaining in a cheesy slasher movie kind of way.
6/10
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Boogeyman (1982)
A distraught man sees a therapist after the deaths of his children. He claims the Boogeyman was responsible, but no one believes him. As he recounts what happened, he seems to go deeper into insanity. Classic horror feature films like Halloween have been heaped with praise for decades. This is deservedly so, but a film doesn't have to be feature length to be worthwhile. In fact, a lot of horror directors of today got their start in short films.
The majority of Stephen King's novels have been adapted for the big and small screen. Some of his short stories have as well, but not too many. The first to ever be made into a film was The Boogeyman, a story first published in 1973. Less than a decade later, young filmmaker Jeffrey C. Schiro brought it to life for the screen. The budget was low, the cast unknown and to this day it has yet to be released on DVD. None of this matters however, because what we have here is a gem that's pretty frightening.
Unlike most short films, this one has a decent sized cast. Everyone gives a solid performance, especially Michael Earl Reid as the father. His performance is nuanced, making us feel for him at times and loathe him at others. Schiro made both his directorial and writing debut with this film and does well at both. It flows well and he has a great handle on his actors. As for the script, he does a great job of adapting the story while adding an interesting new angle with the cop.
A key ingredient to making a successful horror film is a good score. Though at first a bit dramatic, the music in this film is eerie to the max. Speaking of sound, there are also some creepy sound effects throughout the film. The film is also pretty atmospheric at times, particularly during the dream sequence. It's also perfectly lit and has an eerie aura about it all the way through. The scenes where slow motion is used are also a nice touch.
During the film's 27 minutes, there are a number of memorable scare scenes. Thankfully, none of them are over-the-top and loaded with rubber monster effects. Some of these moments are small, such as the opening one and others big, like the father running from the beast. The best part of the film however has got to be the ending. If you've read the story, you pretty much know how it ends, but it's not exactly like that. You're still left with images that probably won't leave you for a while.
Since this was so low budget and made by first timers, naturally there are some issues. The biggest one in this film is some of the editing choices. The worst one is when they cut to the therapist's office for the first time. Another standout flaw, which is not the fault of the filmmakers, is that the film is pretty dated. From the song, to some of the furniture and appliances, this screams the early 80s. None of this however keeps the film from being worth seeing.
8/10
The majority of Stephen King's novels have been adapted for the big and small screen. Some of his short stories have as well, but not too many. The first to ever be made into a film was The Boogeyman, a story first published in 1973. Less than a decade later, young filmmaker Jeffrey C. Schiro brought it to life for the screen. The budget was low, the cast unknown and to this day it has yet to be released on DVD. None of this matters however, because what we have here is a gem that's pretty frightening.
Unlike most short films, this one has a decent sized cast. Everyone gives a solid performance, especially Michael Earl Reid as the father. His performance is nuanced, making us feel for him at times and loathe him at others. Schiro made both his directorial and writing debut with this film and does well at both. It flows well and he has a great handle on his actors. As for the script, he does a great job of adapting the story while adding an interesting new angle with the cop.
A key ingredient to making a successful horror film is a good score. Though at first a bit dramatic, the music in this film is eerie to the max. Speaking of sound, there are also some creepy sound effects throughout the film. The film is also pretty atmospheric at times, particularly during the dream sequence. It's also perfectly lit and has an eerie aura about it all the way through. The scenes where slow motion is used are also a nice touch.
During the film's 27 minutes, there are a number of memorable scare scenes. Thankfully, none of them are over-the-top and loaded with rubber monster effects. Some of these moments are small, such as the opening one and others big, like the father running from the beast. The best part of the film however has got to be the ending. If you've read the story, you pretty much know how it ends, but it's not exactly like that. You're still left with images that probably won't leave you for a while.
Since this was so low budget and made by first timers, naturally there are some issues. The biggest one in this film is some of the editing choices. The worst one is when they cut to the therapist's office for the first time. Another standout flaw, which is not the fault of the filmmakers, is that the film is pretty dated. From the song, to some of the furniture and appliances, this screams the early 80s. None of this however keeps the film from being worth seeing.
8/10
Monday, April 29, 2013
Stepfather II (1989)
After escaping from an institution, the "Family Killer" moves into a new neighborhood. He soon sets his sights on a recent divorcee and her son. Things go well for a while, but he can't fight the urge to kill for too long. There are many horror films that were never meant to have a sequel. If at the end of the first film the monster is dead, then where else could you go? Then the saying "Evil never dies," comes to mind and it starts to make sense.
In Hollywood, the primary reason to do a sequel is to make more money. They did it back in the days of the Universal monsters and they do it now. The monster may have been slain at the end of the previous film, but they always find ways to bring them back. Sometimes, as in some of the Friday 13th films, the monster is resurrected by supernatural means. Other times however, no explanation is given and so we have to wonder. Such is the case with Stepfather II, an unneeded sequel that's better than it should be.
The only cast member to return, and thank goodness, is Terry O'Quinn in the title role. Without him, the film would not have worked so well. Once again he gives a chilling, multi-dimensional performance as good as the one before. He's surrounded by another talented group of actors who do well at making us want them to survive. There's even more humor added to the mix, some of it thanks to the lovely Caroline Williams.
Jeff Burr is very a different director than Joseph Ruben in the first film. That's not to say he doesn't do a great job, because he does. He gets some amazing shots and gives the film a strange, but cool visual style. The cinematography is also gorgeous and has great range. Just compare the early scenes in the institution with daytime scenes in the housing development. Another plus on the technical side is the score, which holds it's own compared to the original's.
Like most sequels, this one has a bigger and bloodier body count. Most of the kills are creative and the sequences themselves effective. The last one, involving a scarf or some such garment, is particularly chilling. The most exciting sequence in the film however is undoubtedly the wedding fight. Both O'Quinn and co-star Meg Foster really go at it and it's both well shot and fun to shot. In fact, the whole film is enjoyable and moves at a pretty tight pace.
One of the original's strengths is how suspenseful it is. Unfortunately, that is lacking here for the most part. Scenes that should be filled with tension, instead go by too fast for any to build. Also disappointing is that some of this, like the kills, is predictable. The makers of the original were so careful and kept us guessing until the end. Had the script gone through rewrites to iron these issues out, this could have been a more effective film.
Let's face it, most of the horror sequels made in the 80s weren't necessary. Doesn't change the fact that they are lots of fun to watch again and again. There was no need for a second Stepfather film, but here it is and it's not bad. The people in front of and behind the camera cared enough to make a quality film. It may not be nearly as memorable or effective as it's predecessor, but it's a nice addition to the genre none-the-less.
7/10
In Hollywood, the primary reason to do a sequel is to make more money. They did it back in the days of the Universal monsters and they do it now. The monster may have been slain at the end of the previous film, but they always find ways to bring them back. Sometimes, as in some of the Friday 13th films, the monster is resurrected by supernatural means. Other times however, no explanation is given and so we have to wonder. Such is the case with Stepfather II, an unneeded sequel that's better than it should be.
The only cast member to return, and thank goodness, is Terry O'Quinn in the title role. Without him, the film would not have worked so well. Once again he gives a chilling, multi-dimensional performance as good as the one before. He's surrounded by another talented group of actors who do well at making us want them to survive. There's even more humor added to the mix, some of it thanks to the lovely Caroline Williams.
Jeff Burr is very a different director than Joseph Ruben in the first film. That's not to say he doesn't do a great job, because he does. He gets some amazing shots and gives the film a strange, but cool visual style. The cinematography is also gorgeous and has great range. Just compare the early scenes in the institution with daytime scenes in the housing development. Another plus on the technical side is the score, which holds it's own compared to the original's.
Like most sequels, this one has a bigger and bloodier body count. Most of the kills are creative and the sequences themselves effective. The last one, involving a scarf or some such garment, is particularly chilling. The most exciting sequence in the film however is undoubtedly the wedding fight. Both O'Quinn and co-star Meg Foster really go at it and it's both well shot and fun to shot. In fact, the whole film is enjoyable and moves at a pretty tight pace.
One of the original's strengths is how suspenseful it is. Unfortunately, that is lacking here for the most part. Scenes that should be filled with tension, instead go by too fast for any to build. Also disappointing is that some of this, like the kills, is predictable. The makers of the original were so careful and kept us guessing until the end. Had the script gone through rewrites to iron these issues out, this could have been a more effective film.
Let's face it, most of the horror sequels made in the 80s weren't necessary. Doesn't change the fact that they are lots of fun to watch again and again. There was no need for a second Stepfather film, but here it is and it's not bad. The people in front of and behind the camera cared enough to make a quality film. It may not be nearly as memorable or effective as it's predecessor, but it's a nice addition to the genre none-the-less.
7/10
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Dungeons & Dragons (2000)
A young empress fights to keep control of her kingdom against an evil sorcerer. The only way she has a chance is to gain possession of hidden scepter. Her only hope seems to be a band of misfits, led by two young thieves. Many have tried to adapt popular games into feature films, usually with weak results. One can only imagine the pressure the cast and crew must feel to deliver something good. It's not possible to please everyone, but few have pleased a majority.
After disasters like the Super Mario Brothers film, you'd think films based on games would improve. Of course, making a film about a video game sounds easier than one about a board game. To this day there is a loyal following for Dungeons & Dragons, an RPG board game near 40 years old. With the fantasy genre being hot right now, it seemed the right time to make a film about it. Effects had come a long way and some strong actors were cast. So why is it that the end result turned out to be such a flop?
Some great talents were brought together to round out the film's cast. No one was going to win an award, but everyone turns in a lively performance. It's really fun to watch pros like Jeremy Irons and Richard O'Brien ham it up. Another real strong point is just about every visual aspect of the film. The sets and costumes are gorgeous, particularly Thora Birch's many dresses. And the special effects, at least for the most part, are nicely done.
Though it overdoes it at times, the score is really exciting. At times it's whimsical, and others dark and intense. There are a few memorable sequences throughout the film, mostly in the middle. One of, or perhaps the most compelling is the obstacle course scene. One thing that's kind of surprising is the fact the film moves at a quick pace from beginning to end. It being so messy, one would expect the pace to be uneven.
Word has it that the script was forced upon the director, who wanted to use another one. One really can't blame him after realizing what a mess this one is. The film just lurches from one sequence to the next and there are a number of plot holes. The characterizations are also less than satisfying, with some actors having little else to do beyond sitting or standing. There also is little, if anything, that we haven't seen in other fantasy films. Fans of the genre will probably find many cliches and plot devices from other, better films.
More than 10 years have passed since this film's release and things have come a long way. The following year, New Line released the first of the Lord of the Rings films. Barely a year passed, and somehow the effects in D&D are less convincing, especially the energy coming out of people's hands. What we have here is a visually pleasing piece of fluff that's never dull. No one expected anything on par with Shakespeare, but fans deserved better. Watch if you're bored or a fantasy junkie, otherwise watch one of the many superior efforts like Willow again.
5/10
After disasters like the Super Mario Brothers film, you'd think films based on games would improve. Of course, making a film about a video game sounds easier than one about a board game. To this day there is a loyal following for Dungeons & Dragons, an RPG board game near 40 years old. With the fantasy genre being hot right now, it seemed the right time to make a film about it. Effects had come a long way and some strong actors were cast. So why is it that the end result turned out to be such a flop?
Some great talents were brought together to round out the film's cast. No one was going to win an award, but everyone turns in a lively performance. It's really fun to watch pros like Jeremy Irons and Richard O'Brien ham it up. Another real strong point is just about every visual aspect of the film. The sets and costumes are gorgeous, particularly Thora Birch's many dresses. And the special effects, at least for the most part, are nicely done.
Though it overdoes it at times, the score is really exciting. At times it's whimsical, and others dark and intense. There are a few memorable sequences throughout the film, mostly in the middle. One of, or perhaps the most compelling is the obstacle course scene. One thing that's kind of surprising is the fact the film moves at a quick pace from beginning to end. It being so messy, one would expect the pace to be uneven.
Word has it that the script was forced upon the director, who wanted to use another one. One really can't blame him after realizing what a mess this one is. The film just lurches from one sequence to the next and there are a number of plot holes. The characterizations are also less than satisfying, with some actors having little else to do beyond sitting or standing. There also is little, if anything, that we haven't seen in other fantasy films. Fans of the genre will probably find many cliches and plot devices from other, better films.
More than 10 years have passed since this film's release and things have come a long way. The following year, New Line released the first of the Lord of the Rings films. Barely a year passed, and somehow the effects in D&D are less convincing, especially the energy coming out of people's hands. What we have here is a visually pleasing piece of fluff that's never dull. No one expected anything on par with Shakespeare, but fans deserved better. Watch if you're bored or a fantasy junkie, otherwise watch one of the many superior efforts like Willow again.
5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
