It's Alive 2008

It’s Alive

the greatest condom commercial of all times, next to Gary Busey.

We've seen it all, haven’t we? Killer robots, giant spiders, giant robot spiders, zombies, psychopaths, clowns from outer space, ghosts, pissed off elves, maniac leprechauns, killer vagina’s, sharkpedo’s and even goddamn Santa clause seems to have gone homicidal, so really it was only a matter of time before we came across a killer baby.

Yes people, a killer baby indeed. Because apparently the only thing you need to make a movie is half a braincell and the ability to point your finger at a random word in the dictionary, two if you’re feeling fancy, and in this case the lucky words of the day were: Shut the hell up and watch this baby rip this guy’s head of for some reason.

Although saying that the writers of this little mess had the idea all by themselves would be putting too much faith in them, it’s actually a remake. A remake of a movie I’ve never seen. Reviewing a remake without having seen the original? This sounds promising.

So what’s this movie about? A rabbit finds a baby kangaroo and together they go on an epic quest to find the letter Q. it’s about a killer baby dammit! I’m pretty sure you can fill in the blanks. Mother has child, child is the spawn of Satan and kills people in all its CGI glory while the mother looks at him in her useless self, whispering ”That’s a good boy, my sweetheart needs a bath, it looks like you've got some Mr Wilkins on you” and the father is too busy doing f8ck all off screen to bother with the fact that his week old son has rounded up the population of the town to compete with the numbers of good books written by Stephenie Meyers…so to zero pretty much for those out there that though ‘the short second life of bland blander’ was ‘barable’.

All right, so is this movie any good? Well it might come as a shocker but no, really not. Although I am completely behind the idea of a homicidal infant, I’ll have to go with the little voice in my head and say this movie is proper crap.

Why? Well for one, the characters make no sense, the dad is never around and when he finally decide to show his face on set he is as useful as tits on a nun, but that’s at least better than the mother character. I get the whole “motherly love”, but when you’re kid start bringing dead animals home and eat them, I say it’s a good moment to call some help, and hopefully a priest…and an AK47 just in case. (And if the priest “kicks ass for the lord”, all the better)

She is utterly unobvious to the fact that her child is the f8ing resurrection of Patrick Bateman mixed with Ed Gain and a safe dose of goddamn crazy, and when she finally start suspecting something, she does nothing except washing the blood from her friends off her baby.

But the biggest of all flaws is the missed opportunities, for one: you have a movie called “It’s alive” and not a single Frankenstein’s reference? I’d even settle for a shot of Boris Karloff walking in the background, just saying.

And two, and probably most important, having a kid in a wheelchair and not getting creative with it. I mean, in an all-white horror movie, a wheelchair bound character is basically a giant rolling neon sign saying: “gonna die horribly in a really twisted way”. And guess what, the kid doesn't die, he doesn't even get a scratch on him. When the movie “DOOM” does something better, it’s time to take your movie on a date and rethink your marriage.

The effects are laughable, and not in a good way. All CGI, not a single practical effect, except for the blood that looks as believable as spilling kool aid over your buddies. The dialogue is silly at best and the movie takes itself way too serious. If it was trying to be funny I’d give the effects a free pass and see it as a silly little mess rather than a complete train wreck. The story is predictable and feels incomplete, why is that kid a monster? Never explained, so here’s the theory I came up after a half bottle of vodka with my friend from ‘a horror diary’, Melanie: this movie is actually child play 4, Chucky sneaked in the hospital at the time of birth, took care of the doctors with witty comebacks and an ax to the face, told the kid his secret for loophole sake, and got the kid’s body, however unable to speak he still goes on murderous rampages. Honestly tough, my drunken theories makes more sense than the whole movie. But anyway, not a great movie overall, maybe alright as white noise at a party, but I hope the original is better, by the looks of the trailer, they at least had the goofy side of things right.

Personal rating: 3.5

Critical rating: 4

Things I’ve learned from “It’s Alive”

- Good to know the baby from “Braindead” is still getting work.

- I’ve never seen so many people with different nationalities work on one movie.

- The best part are the credits, try to find a name that doesn’t end with a V, I swear to god there are more Droshnikov’s and Popov’s than retards at a klan meeting.

Two Evil Eyes 1990 Review

Two Evil Eyes

Two heads, one movie, half the effort,  and a shi8tton of apologies to poor ‘ol Eddie Poe

Ah yes, Edgar Allen Poe, once a tragic writer ahead of its time, now but a mere throwaway joke whenever a movie director can’t come up with some original idea.

Yes it seems there are more Poe based movies around than high-schools in anime, well I don’t care if the idea’s been dryer than Conrad Hilton’s tit after a Night In Paris, believe it or not, I was actually looking forward to watch this little mess that we call “Two evil eyes”.

Why? Four words: George A f8king Romero. Now what heresy is this, you might ask, a campy movie critic who’s repertoire seems to exists solely on Evil dead 2 jokes, admiring the zombie master himself known as Goerge A Romero? Most unorthodox!...wait not really, it actually goes as well hand in hand as a creepy dog owner and peanut butter.

Yes of course I adore anything with the man’s name on it, hell, I’ve even given “The Crazies” remake a free pass for having his name in the credits. So when I heard he made a movie that flew under everyone’s radar I went nuts and watched the damn thing, and I must say, after having seeing it, I start to see why everyone disregarded it like road kill.

Because there is another half to this otherwise awesome coin, Dario Argento.

Most people seem to actually like the guy, hell, he’s even seen as one of the better horror movie directors out there, personally though? I really don’t like him. Sure I haven’t seen every single one of his movies, but the ones I saw didn’t really catch my eyes or anything, and the guy himself is a complete creep. But then again, I’m just one guy and obviously not someone who was asked if it was a good idea to put these two directors in the same room with an Edgar Allan Poe novel.

So two movies for the price of one, what could go wrong?

The first story, directed by Romero, is a recreation of “the facts in the case of Mr. Valdemar”, a story an unlikable wife who cheats of her unlikable dying husband Valdemar with an unlikable doctor. Gees, talk about screwing you’re affair on your husband’s dying bed.

Well, it might come as no surprise that the characters aren’t the main driving point here seeing as they could easily been rewritten with top hats and monochromes and make a guest appearance in Captain Planet. What really gets this story going is that the unlikable wife has to keep her husband alive long enough to get the green the old geezer is sleeping on , unfortunately said task prove to be difficult as he trades his wardrobe for a red shirt and bites the dust faster than you can say ‘gold digger’. Fortunately the doctor had Valdemar under hypnosis at the time of dead, and it seems to have created a mortal loophole leaving the old man in-between worlds. It’s only when the spirits from the other side get tired of this cast of assh8les and decide to take control of the dead body and go on a rampage that the story really picks up it's pace.

The second story, by Dario Argento, is no other than “The Black Cat”, a great story and a really sick and twisted look into the human creativity.

The movie however? Weird as hell, we follow Harvey Keitel playing a freelance photographer who’s girlfriend’s cat is driving insane. That’s about it without going into spoiler territory, however, if you read the story, you know it doesn’t end well for anyone.

All right, my thought on the first movie, The facts in the case of Mr Valdemar? All right at best.

One of the many problems is the fact that the story is amazingly slow, and the good part doesn’t come till the last five minutes or so, and of course Romero found a way to work some zombies in there somewhere. But yeah, as a standalone movie, it’s good, the characters are unlikable, sure, but their motives are clear and the situation they find themselves in is enjoyable to watch. And the ending is actually rewarding.

However, then we come to the point where I find myself obligated to talk about the Argento part.

The only way I can describe it, is as a putrid aftertaste to an already bland cake with some little chocolate bits here and there.

I’m really not a fan of it, it might be the confusing plot, the cruel and strange tone, or the throwaway characters.

The vibe is very weird, I guess that the story of a man going slowly insane should feel uneasy and weird, but I’m getting an overall feel of “Overtrying artsy-ness”.

The plot is all over the place, and a medieval dream sequence didn’t help my confusion, and you have to sink pretty low too make Hervey Keitel act like he’s got a stick up his ass (Watch the movie, you’ll get the joke).

But yeah, this part has some pretty big names, mainly Harvey Keitel who’s an amazing actor, and even…wait, is that Darla, Julie Benz? And he gave her the role of an extra? Damn you Argento, and you wonder why we can’t get along?

But even with the best actor, this part just seems to fall flat. And here’s another thing, I said in my top 10 favorite movies that the theme of the slow decent into madness is one of my favorite subject, the decadence of the soul is something I am very well accustom to, and it never seems to amaze me nonetheless, so this should be a feast for my eyes, but I the story is just too confusing, letting you hope for a higher meaning, a touch of symbolism, but the movie just never delivers and never goes the extra mile to draw you in and keep you invested in either the characters or the setting. Cruel, confusing and never deeper than the bottom of my shoe, that’s it in a nutshell if you can take my word for it.

So if you decide to watch this movie, take your time with the first one, the effects and story are rewarding in the end, but go ahead and skip the second one.

Personal rating: 5

Critical rating: 5.5

Things I’ve learned from “Two Evil Eyes”:

- The ‘Ripley’ hairdo made you irresistible in the 80s.

- This movie has the worse opening theme ever.

- Zombies don’t need lip sinc

- When the door open and a bunch of elves call you out to follow them, it’s probably best to lay off the liquor for a while.

- Nearly murdering an entire room of cops by acting like a dumbass to get some good pictures of half a naked chick is shrugged off by the officers like a minor inconvenience.

- In hindsight, going out with a guy who takes daily pictures of mutilated corpses wasn’t such a fresh idea to start with.

Sinister 2012 Review

Sinister

The killing ‘meh’

Well, about time I review a recent horror movie, last one I did turned out to be about musical chairs, so let’s hope that this one has something resembling a storyline.

It might be easy to notice that I’m not that big of a fan of Hollywood and it’s money-whoring habits at the moment, sure there is some gold to be found while searching trough  pop artists who’s balls haven’t dropped yet and shitty teen drama romance that makes my gag reflexes strongly react to its sheer stupidity every time someone chooses for the sparkling twat.

But the gold is there, horror movies like Mama and even the Evil Dead remake (didn’t hate it, I’ll probably explain further my opinion someday, hold your pitchforks at bay people) give me hope that there is yet a chance that this storm that surrounds our movie theaters  will soon come to pass.

But where was I? Oh yeah, the highly praised “Sinister”, Scariest movie of 2012 and all other great talk, bout time I give that bad boy a watch.

“Totally not Jack Nicholson from the Shining” obsessed horror writer Ellison Oswalt decides that it would be a kick-ass idea for his children to grow up in a murder house, why? So he can write a book about the horrible murder of an entire family that happened not that long ago. A troubled probably alcoholic writer obsessed with getting his story no matter what? You sure Stephen King didn’t write this one? Unfortunately not, but moving on, a strange box keeps appearing in the house bearing a strange collection of 8mm films, our dear buddy Oswalt decides to give it a watch and ends up strung along in a conspiracy about a demonic psychopath’s picnic and pool party with a very dark twist.

First thoughts about this movie? The atmosphere was okay, the characters two dimensional and the acting was bearable, and given there are some kid actors in this one, it’s quite the compliment.

But did it make me soil my panties and run in fear screaming like a little b8tch? Seeing as that my neighbors haven’t yet called the cops complaining about a maniac running down the street screaming something about the lead guitarist of Slipknot being out to get him, I’ll have to say ‘oh sweet mamma with a cherry on top hells no with a capital N.

Predictable cheap jump scares, running annoying little ghost brats and a (even more) psychotic  Mick Thompson, come on guys, gotta try harder than that.

The story was okay I guess, the only real scare factor in this movie were the tapes, that sometimes are just plain disturbing, and that was great, it’s just a shame that the idea bucket ran out around halfway through the movie and they decided to go down in cliché avenue with a quick stop at Boreville.

I’m perhaps being a little too rough with Sinister, also seeing as it was partially written by another internet critic C. Robert Cargill from Spill.com it should be at least able to avoid the common horror clichés, but for a movie as praised as this one, it’s unforgiving, it didn’t really bring anything new to the table, and even though the video viewing parts were great and the twist at the end waspretty obvious but still enjoyable, it didn’t raise the bar or even tried to.

Overall not really a bad movie, but the constant praise were highly exaggerated and left me with only one word in my mouth, Mhe…

Personal rating: 6

Critical rating: 6.5

Things I’ve learned from “Sinister”:

- Possibly the best missed opportunity for a “I heard the pool party kinda died after I went home” joke

- Painting on the wall is cute and all, until the axe comes into play.

- How to mow your lawn like a OH GOD WTF WAS THAT??

- Always watch the last parts of a video