SOMEONE'S KNOCKING ON THE DOOR (a review)

SOMEONE'S KNOCKING ON THE DOOR (a review)

Weird trippy, trippy movie. Horror, comedy, satire, 70's vibe...

The story: when a med student is murdered, his friends fall under suspicion from the local cops. It all started when the kids were poking around (illegally) in the records and found tapes of psych sessions with a notorious murder/rapist couple who now seem to be coming back in people's dreams to kill and rape them.

Was it good?

Wow, this was weird. At times it felt so low budget and so cheey I hated it. Other times it was oddly cool. The strange comic vibe I think hurt it making it hard to take any of it seriously, so it never really gets scary or creepy and makes the acting annoying as hell in places. Still, there was a lot that was interesting. The story of the murder/rapist couple and the idea that these people listened to the tapes and now are being haunted (or hunted) by the couple was cool. And there was just enough that was weirdly interesting to keep me watching. Still the ending while it gives the movie it's first emotional moment, it's also the sort of cop out that I hate (no, I won't give it away).

Not sure what to put. It didn't work enough as a horror movie to recommend it. It didn't work as a comedy. And yet, it was oddly interesting...

*** AVOID and RECOMMEND (recommend as a weird/trippy movie...avoid if you want a regular horror and/or comedy movie)

ALONE IN THE DARK (a review)

ALONE IN THE DARK (a review)

This movie is directed by Uwe Boll. Now for most people -- or at least anyone who has ever heard of Uwe Boll -- that says enough. Uwe Boll is widely considered to be the worst director working/breathing/existing today. His movies regularly make the 100 Worst of lists and he is a virtual lock for a razzie nomination every time he gets behind the camera. He has had petitions formed with the idea of getting him to retire. He is best (worst?) known for his movie adaptations of video games. But I have to be honest here...for all the low budget schlock this guy has made, and for all the low budget schlock I watch, I had actually never seen a Uwe Boll movie and this one starred Christian Slater so I figured I'd give it a try. Of course, it also starred Tara Reid...

The story: As a child Edward Carnby (played by Christian Slater) escaped from a government paranormal agency that was experimenting on children and now he is a detective of the paranormal. When he recieves an ancient Abkani artifact that can open the gateway between the worlds of light and dark and unleash creatures that thrive on darkness, he and a young anthropologist who is also his ex- (played by Tara Reid) have to stop the demons from reopening the portal and destroying the world.

Was it good?

No. But I have to say it wasn't as bad as a lot of people make Boll films out to be. I mean, this is a film that had a 1% ranking on Rotten Tomatoes. Yeah, it's bad and a bit of a mess, but no more so than most low budget films.

First, my synopsis isn't that accurate. I mean, it leaves out a lot of stuff. That's one of the problems with the movie -- there are so many weird things going on and most of them aren't really explained and don't really make sense. It's like LOST, but without the good characters and emotion that made people forget all the questions and stupid crap that that tv show had.

I mean, first you have the ancient culture opening a doorway and unleashing demons. Then you have a government paranormal program. Then this guy escaped, but he's a paranormal detective and he had somethign done to him and the other kids in the program are involved. And he has an ex- and she is involved. Then there are creatures, but sometimes they take over people except they can't go in the light except as people they can and there's this mine shaft thing and...yikes. I don't know. By the 1 our point I had stopped really paying attention because none of it was working for me. Maybe for someone paying more attention all of this would have made more sense.

I will say that I like Christian Slater. Was this his best role? No, but it wasn't horrible. Tara Reid isn't good, but she isn't ridiculously horrible either. And Uwe Boll as a director? He's mediocre, which when paired with a story that's a mess makes him look really bad. I mean, there's no real visual style to the film, there are no good character moments, there's just nothing good to point to and say -- that's what this director can do well. If this movie had been directed with a stronger visual style (like PITCH BLACK) it would have fans. If the story had been better/more coherent it would have fans. If there had just been those 2-3 moments were people go "Cool!" it would have fans. But alas, the mediocre directing really killed it. And I do mean mediocre and not bad. If this guy had a tight, compelling script he probably could make a good movie. The problem is that he oversees the writing as well, so he gets the lame-script blame as well.

Still for kids looking for a creature/action film they could do worse. But of course they could also do much, much better.

*** AVOID ***

SEVENTH MOON (a review)

SEVENTH MOON (a review)

A horror movie starring Amy Smart? Sign me up. Unfortunately this is one of those at night movies where no one bothered to turn on a f****ing light while they were filming it. Between that and the shaky cam/always in close up this was basically a friggin' radio play!

The story: a couple about to get married go to China to meet the guys parents, but instead get lost in this rural area where people put animal outside their doors because there are these weird creatures that will kill you if you don't give them an animal. Of course they don't have an animal, so they run around trying to escape and then get caught and, uh, stuff.

Was it good?

You mean was the sound good, because for 80% of it you couldn't see a f***ing thing!!!! Jeez, how hard is it to figure out -- IT'S A MOVIE, WHEN FILMING TURN ON A LIGHT!!! I get that it's at night and rural and the woods, but there's no point it FILMING it if the audience can't SEE anything. And it's not like BLAIR WITCH where they could make the fake-documentary excuse. This was just horrible. Now, keeping it dark so we don't get a good look at the creatures...well, that makes sense. Creatures in the dark might be scarier. But so dark that we can't see the protagonists???? And to always film in close up and keep the camera skaing so much that you spend 90% of the time not being able to see a f***Ing thing?!?!?!? I mean, you hired Amy Smart for a reason -- was it because she sounds good during voice overs, because for 90% of the time you couldn't see enough to figure out what the F was happening!

Here's a radical idea for horror directors: when you make a film and are getting a shot, understand what the audience needs to see to make the shot work and then tun on enough lights that we can see the Fing thing!!!

It's a shame because the film might have been good. Any Smart. Weird Chinese myth. That can have potential. But this was just an epic, epic FAIL. And let's be clear -- all the blame should go to the director. Anyone so stupid that they don't know that to get an image on film you have to turn on a light should be making a movie. Dear director: YOU FAILED.

***AVOID ****

HIGHWAY (a review)

HIGHWAY (a review)

Isn't it fun to see movies with stars before they become super famous? This movie (made in 2002) has Jake Gyllenhaaaaaaaal, Jared Leto, Salma Blair and John C Reilly (from Scrubs).

The story: when a guy is caught screwing a man's wife he takes off before the husband can have his feet broken. They head off to Seatlle so his friend can find a girl he once made out with that he has been holding a torch for and along the way pick up a woman and meet a drug user/dealer/something and meet an alligator boy and, uh, other stuff.

Was it good?

This is so not my thing. Maybe it's the drug stuff that I don't see as wow cool or the endless wandering which to me feels more like a drug thing than storytelling, but I just didn't get into it. It's one of those movie filled with weird and wacky which can work, but you have to be just in perfect sync. Usually it means getting the mindset of the main character. For instance, in INTO THE NIGHT, Jeff Goldblum is a man who sees his girlfriend screwing another man and leaves her and develops insomnia and then one night he encounters a woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) on the run and helps her as she tries to get some money together to pay off some mean guys. It has weird, strange, wandering all through it but it works for me because I get the whole insomnia/do anything to help Michelle Pfeiffer thing. In this movie, the whole running away to Seattle and then hooking up with Salma Blair and everything didn't connect for me.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ****

my art...Kim Possible sketch cards

A FEW THINGS I'VE DRAWN...

Inspired by Elena's Kim Possible birthday party I decided to try some Kim Possible sketch cards. They were fun, but I have a lot to learn. First, with coloring. Yikes. Some of the, uh, interesting coloring is because I didn't have the right color and didn't want to leave that are white, but others were just that I didn't guage the color from the markers right. The colors change a lot as the marker dries and I didn't know that. Also, with body positioning. As simple as animation makes it look, I still had a lot of trouble getting body position to be both interesting and expressive. Most of these were made while looking at screen caps. Overall, I feel okay about them. For many of the characters this was my first time ever drawing them ever at all. I need a lot more practice, but it's fun so I'll probably be doing more.

KILLER PAD (a review)

KILLER PAD (a review)

A horror-comedy directed by Robert Englund. Yes, the original Freddy Krueger directing a horror-comedy! That's all I needed to know to put this on my must see list!

The story: four guys move into an apartment in Hollywood and throw a giant party hoping to hook up, but when the hot girls turn out to be killing people because one of them is the devil or something then they have to stop him, or her, or else...um...something.

Was it good?

No. But was it so bad it was good? No. There's some American Pie style jokes, but none of them really generate a laugh and the whole trying to get laid but the girls are killing people is okay, but not great. There is one nice beat where an old friend comes to the party but he's now a priest (not it yet), then of course he gets corrupted (not it yet) BUT then the boys realize that the girls are demons/the devil/whatever and the one person who could fight is the priest, but he's been corrupted so they are screwed. That was good.

And it's not that the movie is absolutely horrible, but there just isn't anything really good here either. Englund's directing doesn't really add anything and the choice to play it more as a comedy than a horror movie robs it of any real tension. There is a bunch of easy jokes, but for a movie that tries to be more comedy than horror, the comedy is easy jokes and never digs deeper to get to the good jokes. See even silly comedies like AMERICAN PIE or DATE NIGHT actually are about something. That gives the comedy more oomph. Here, for all the sex-based jokes, the comedy is pretty bland. And of course the other draw in b-movie horror (after beasts and blood, according to Joe Bob Brigs) is breasts and again for a movie with a lot of sex jokes there isn't any skin. So it isn't that it is horrible...just flat.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ****

So what went wrong? Well, first, while parodies can be fun you have to have a clear sense of what you are parodying and here it isn't clear. Sex comedies? Haunted house? Demon movies? Something else? And if it isn't a parody then you are much better having the movie be ABOUT something. DATE NIGHT has married couple trying to reconnect so they won't get divorced. AMERICAN PIE has four guys trying to get laid, but learning that the girls are actually much more mature about relationships and sex. Here...well, there's just nothing there. The other way to do it would be to make it a horror movie with a lot of comedy, ala SCREAM, but again that wasn't the way they chose to go. Without any dramatic spine, without any point of view, without a sense of what the movie is about, without any jokes that really pop...the whole thing is just kind of empty. You need a point of view. You need something for the movie to be about, even if it's something simple. Even comedies are better when they aren't empty.

HOLY WATER (a review)

HOLY WATER (a review)

Okay, I was excited to see this film. See when I first moved out to LA one of the first writer events I went to had this woman (producer, manager? I can't remember) talking about this one script she recently sold about these guys who stole viagra thinking it was a bunch of pills, but then it was really this giant block worth millions, so they store it in the town's water supply while they figure out what to do. Funny, right? And the guy was a nobody writer and BOOM! his first sale for six digits. So when I saw the loglien for this film I had to see it.

The story: Four guys in a small, dying town in Great Britian steal viagra thinking it is a bunch of pills, but then it was really this giant block worth millions, so they store it in the town's water supply while they figure out what to do.

Was it good?

Not good. Not horrible, but it just wasn't much of anything. Maybe the humor is just too British (humour?) and isn't translating, but there wasn't much here I found funny. The biginning is how bad their lives are -- which is fine as set up for the robbery, but I didn't find any of it interesting or funny, and then with the actual stealing it was okay, but the part where things should kick into high gear -- dumping the viagra in the town well -- actually doesn't come into play until late and aside from quick round of wild monkey love, it doesn't really play into anything more. They easily could have removed that element from the movie, which is a shame because it's one of the funniest concepts and it was totally underutilized.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED (but not horrible) ***