Pinocchio's Revenge (1996)

Since I've been busy trying to find a job, feeling down on myself, and binging on Jeremy Irons' performance in Brideshead Revisited and Patrick Stewart's in TNG, I haven't really had the time/concentration level to write the reviews promised in my last post. Therefore, I asked my friend Sam (a movie, comic, and pop-culture buff) to write a guest review of a film of his choosing. Fortunately for y'all, he decided to review one of the films that I would never in my life have watched due to my horrific (and utterly unwarranted) fear of dolls, marionettes, wax figures, and some statues.

Enjoy, Renée

               When Renée asked me to contribute to her blog, I immediately said yes.  I have done film reviews on my own blog and I've planned on reviewing many films but due to my own laziness they're haven't been as many as I'd like.  This was a good opportunity to write under someone else's direction and format.

               I chose Pinocchio's Revenge because I had a fun time watching it with some friends who all took the twist ending very seriously and tried to dissect the film.  I don't have a Netflix account but a friend has given me access to his account.  In an effort to embarrass him and mess up his Netflix suggestion generator, I've watched a large number of 80's sex comedies, low budget horror films, and gay themed cinema.

               I came across Pinocchio's Revenge having vague memories of the trailer and decided the premise of a killer puppet was worth watching.  Boy, was I right.

  Note: This film is on Netflix and uploaded onto Youtube

    Premise

               I think all films have some merit whether intentional or not.  For example, Norbit was nominated for an Oscar for make-up.   I have an affinity for horror films for a variety of reasons.  They often have a structure and as with comedies,  points of the film really need to be set up and timed properly.  Pinocchio’s Revenge is a film I’m quite fond of.   The acting, special effects, writing and overall direction are all terrible but that doesn’t stop the film from being absolutely enjoyable.

Note: it seems like the production made their own caution tape.

                Now the premise of the film revolves around Jennifer Garrick (played by Rosalind Allen), a tough as nails DA and single mother of a troubled child named Zoe.  Zoe’s going through rough time in her life, she’s a bit withdrawn, she gets picked on at school, she starts fights, and she won’t speak to her father.

 

                In the opening of the film we see Vincent Gotto being arrested for the murder of his son.  The police uncover his son buried with a Pinocchio puppet that Gotto made.  Jennifer is in charge of prosecuting Gotto and believes the murder of his son doesn’t match his previous murders.  She suspects he’s protecting an accomplice…

                Jennifer faces more bad luck: it’s her daughter’s birthday and the doll she ordered as a gift isn’t ready.  Being the sharp single mother that she is, she quickly improvises and gives Zoe the Pinocchio puppet.  Keep in mind that it’s not just crime scene evidence; it was buried with the corpse of a child.

              Since her birthday, Zoe’s been more and more attached to Pinocchio who begins to talk to her (the doll moves his mouth sometimes… sometimes it doesn’t).  Pinocchio appears to come to life to cause chaos, becoming more brazen with each act of violence.  Soon, Zoe’s bully gets tripped into a moving bus.  Later on, Jennifer’s boyfriend, David is pushed down the stairs, and Jennifer’s sexy Italian housekeeper gets attacked.  It appears that Pinocchio is attacking people who are getting in the way of Jennifer and Zoe.

             But the film has a twist: Zoe’s actually just incredibly disturbed and Pinocchio was never alive.

The film falls under the genre of “killer dolls,” popularized by 1988’s Child’s Play.  Originally in the first film, the killer would only be seen in POV and the audience wouldn’t know if the child or the doll killed people.  However, it was decided that audiences would be too uncomfortable with a child killer (because a serial killer transferring his soul into a doll was much more believable).  And actually the first kill in the movie is ambiguous.  So it’s my belief that Pinocchio’s Revenge was made from the abandoned Child’s Play scenario.  However, Pinocchio’s Revenge lacks the suspense, charm, and budget of Child’s Play.  Child’s Play had a healthy amount of gore and classic horror genre conceits, not to mention high caliber actors such as Chris Sarandon and Oscar nominee Brad Dourif.

The film fails to capture the real suspense and danger that the Child's Play series managed to produce.  The film had a very limited budget so it looked more like a Matlock rerun rather than an atmospheric horror film.  The film is inconsistent in tone, the events are played too seriously and it works too hard to mislead the audience with its twist ending (it tries to make you believe that the real killer is either Gotto's soul transferred into the doll or his son's soul).  A major reasons why the film fails is the voice of Pinocchio, which sounds like an elderly lady rather than a killer.  I felt like Pinocchio at any point was going to break out the peanut brittle and play Canasta.  You never felt like any of the characters were in danger.

Please note, the film's title.  Revenge is not a motive in this film.  Zoe just wanted her mother's attention.  And let's just say Pinocchio was alive.  He wouldn't terrorize Jennifer, since she tried to prolong Vincent Gotto's life.  But again, the plot doesn't make sense to begin with anyways.

Funny Notes

          The gore and violence of this film is very minimal but the film remains hilariously amusing, especially in a viewing party where everyone can trade shots at the film.
           

Pink shirt is not helping buddy

           Here, David (her landscaper boyfriend) sees that Jennifer is exhausted coming home from work and having to organize Zoe's birthday party.  David offers to help and intends to "cash in" in this "favor."  Because if you're dating a single mother who works a difficult job and has to get everything set for her daughter's birthday, you leverage sex with picking up a birthday cake because it's such a burden to you. 

           Now after the party, of course there is a graphic sex scene.  Actors, Rosalind Allen (Jennifer) and Todd Allen (David) were unsurprisingly married during the making of this film.  This is why the sex scene is long and borderline soft core.  You still don't buy why she's dating him but you're glad the film has earned it's R rating.

She just heard her sibling being made.

           Now, the film at this point delves into a real creepy area as we see that Zoe can hear them.  She stares blankly for a while and decides to take Pinocchio and sleep with the puppet in her bed.  Now, aside from the fact that the puppet was buried with a corpse two days ago, the bizarre sexual implications are unsettling.

Less of a "I'm going to use soap to clean myself" moment, and more of a "I'm gonna rub my body randomly" moment

           This is less of a criticism and more me offering helpful advice.  This is Sophia, Jennifer's attractive Italian housekeeper.  She has a long shower scene and it's pretty pointless.  Horror fans will love the healthy dose of nudity but this occurs right after the events of the sex scene.  My advice: space out the nudity.  It feels like the director decided to get his fill of nakedness all in one day.  Now, I know that when filming, scenes are not shot chronologically, but I feel like this was all done on one very lonely day.

           Also this is the character's largest chunk of screen time.  She serves no other purpose than telling the Italian version of the Pinocchio story, getting naked, and easily murdered.  

          The total body count of the film is 2 and they're pretty spectacular but you can see a very funny sequence where Zoe gets her bully hit by a school bus.

Pinocchio finds a rake and realizes that if you jam it into the spokes of this bully's bike, it'll send her into the path of a school bus.   Yes, for some reason, a girl on a bike was riding into the path of a school bus anyways.

Here is a screen cap of two school girls screaming at the accident.  It's funny because the girl on the right has her arms crossed.  Like she's upset but not enough to break her comfort.

Here is the aftermath.  The character is not dead.  She's just badly hurt.  But the posing is funny.  I'd say this was a dummy but I don't think the movie could afford one that was good.  While, I'm not a major advocate for children to be murdered in films (it worked for Jaws), it lessens the suspense and you never feel like Zoe is in danger.

It's like William Hurt and George Costanza had a baby.

                What better way to remind people it's 1996 then to have the sexually ambiguous child psychiatrist  wear the clothes that he does.  Does anyone wear sweater vests like these anymore?  He's also a terrible psychiatrist who isn't actively worried about Zoe's condition and fails at talking to her. Instead, he just video tapes her when he's out of the room.  While he is right that Zoe is crazy, his proof was that she was talking to Pinocchio like he's real.  Also, he seems to be under the belief that she's incurable and says so to her face.

I'm not expert on psychiatric cells, but I'm dead sure that they have to have windows and other amenities.

Lastly, the most famous cast member in the film is Verne Troyer (aka Mini-Me).  He appears in two wide shots as Pinocchio comes to life.  Enjoy that small piece of trivia.

Read more »

Posts to Come

Well, I'm officially done dying on finals, and while I still have quite a bit of non-schoolwork left to do, here are the reviews to expect from the coming weeks:

• Hook (1991)
• Tucker and Dale vs. Evil (2010)
• Any of the three Guy Ritchie movies up on Netflix (Currently: Snatch [2000], Revolver [2005], and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels [1998])
• And probably some Disney or other animation, since I'll be reunited with my VHS collection in two weeks' time.

Read more »

The Cabin in the Woods (2011)

***SPOILER FREE***

Cabin in the woods is a fantastic and insightful commentary on the horror genre as a whole. Full of quite a few good laughs, scares, and one love of my life (out of many): Fran Kranz (Topher of Dollhouse and so much more). Go see it now, before someone ruins it for you. I can say literally no more. Even though I really really want to.

Rating:

My first five heart movie and I can't even give you commentary. But it's absolutely worth every heart.

Read more »

Stay Alive (2006)

So I was sifting through Netflix's horror selection the other day and suddenly remembered a flash of a horror flick I'd seen in the 2000s with my biffle. All that happened was a flash of random details: roses, a road, a carriage, ...and a video game? After some quick googling I found a likely title, watched the trailer and was carried back into the past (the past, the past, the past).

I can't recall exactly what drove me to it, but I definitely saw Stay Alive in theaters back in 2006. And let me just tell you, it's literally the least memorable movie I can actually remember having seen. If it weren't for that flash of memory, I would have gone the rest of my life not knowing that I had actually seen this movie before. (Because what are the chances I'd run across the trailer for this? Come on!) I asked Alyssa, the friend in question, if she remembered seeing it and she had absolutely no recollection. Something tells me that's probably not what they were going for... oops!

Cast Highlights

• Milo Ventimiglia (yes, Peter from Heroes or Jess from Gilmore Girls or Lil' Rocky in Rocky Balboa) amps up the sexy for the first 5 minutes with his surprisingly good-looking proto-hipster beard/glasses combo as gamer/victim/weird-name-holder Loomis Crowley. (Fun fact: 4 years after seeing this movie, Alyssa met and subsequently had her photo taken with Milo at the New York Comic Con).
• Jon Foster (who's good to look at as long as you don't pay attention to his acting) as the pyrophobic protagonist Hutch.
• Frankie Muniz (aka that kid in My Dog Skip, Malcolm of Malcolm in the Middle fame, the protagonist from Big Fat Liar, and Agent Cody Banks) as the geeky gamer kid who's probably the best actor of them all: Swink (because they all have redonculous names).
• Quite possibly my favourite mediocre character actor Jimmi Simpson (I swear to god this guy is in like every movie I've seen with Alyssa completely by accident: Zodiac, this, and Rose Red all credit him) (he was also on House, My Name is Earl, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Psyche, How I Met Your Mother and is going to be in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter this summer... he's seriously in everything... and I kind of love it) as Phineus.
• Adam Goldberg (who was also in Zodiac, btw) as a worse gamer than me aka boss-man aka Miller Banks (great name for a boss, right?).
• Samaire Armstrong as Abigail (the only one whose real name is weirder than her character's).
• and Sophia Bush (aka Beth from John Tucker Must Die and Brooke from One Tree Hill) as the campily-named goth-chick October.

Basic Summary:

Beta-testing gamer/sexpot Loomis Crowley gets his hands on a new game called Stay Alive. After losing the game, he dies in the same manner as his character, along with his two friends whom he let beta-test with him. Stricken with massive amounts of unbelievable survivor's guilt, Hutch feels awful for not being there to beta-test with his sexpot friend. He goes to the randomly spliced in funeral and meets blonde/perfect Abigale who takes pictures of everything on an antique camera that she obviously has no idea how to use (more on that later). Hutch goes home to his favourite internet café (above which I assume he lives) and meets up with his GGF (goth girlfriend) October and BFFP (best friend forever Phineus). They all decide to go over Hutch's to play the last game their dead friend was beta-testing along with Swink and Abi-normal and, via internet-connection, Hutch's boss. Lots of people die. They realize the game is haunted/based on the "ghost story" of the Blood Countess (Elizabeth Bathory). They also realize that the game and real life are one in the same. Also, that this Bathory chick is scared as fuck of roses? Eventually, they (the characters who matter) save the day... or do they?

Notes:

The movie opens with this very silly shot and a scream... as though a cheap scare at the beginning makes the rest of it scarier?

The dialogue in this movie was spectacularly horrible. Not only was the writing poor, but the delivery was even worse. I can't even describe how bad it is. Therefore, kindly watch the first 5 minutes on youtube (includes the above shot):

Also, this movie does this great thing where whenever they want you to feel sympathetic to any character for any reason (or whenever things get "sad") they play this horrific (scarier than the movie itself in how bad it is) piano, one note at a time. The composer's train of thought: "Hmmm... piano. That's sad. No one can't feel sad with piano. I know I can't...!" and then he wrote the music for the sad parts. I crack up whenever anything "sad" or "sentimental" happens because of that cliché attempt at music. Oi!


The treatment of women in this film is pretty problematic... their overall lack of characterization, however, is off-set by the fact that none of the characters are properly developed. YAY BAD WRITING! But the idea that the antagonist is a woman (Countess Elizabeth Bathory) who victimizes women more cruelly than men (she strings them up by their ankles, guts them, and either bathes in or consumes their blood. Exactly what she does after gutting them isn't quite explained, but she is depicted tasting Abi-normal's blood in one scene). She only kills men incidentally with a giant pair of scissors. No gutting, no blood-drinking/bathing. It's pretty simple (albeit kind of scary to the person being murdered).

Now this is probably on account of the fact that it's based on a "true" story (which is, in fact, based on a whole lot of rumours about a popularly despised woman in power [probably with good reason], so obviously people made awful things up about her) ("Let them eat cake" was just a rumour about Marie-Antoinette, but it's still culturally relevant). So overall, I'd say it's more of a symptom of the existing story on which it's based rather than an attempt to actively promoting violence against women. That doesn't mean that it is free of criticism, because it surely perpetuates those ideas (along with ideas that women are vulnerable and need to be saved).

One positive: protagonist Hutch has to be saved at the end of the movie (unfortunately not by a woman, though).

But don't think this movie doesn't have a moral! It absolutely does. The moral is: don't smoke, kids! That's right, October dies while she's "out for a smoke," wandering around the neighborhood by her lonesome with a lit cigarette. Not only does it gives you cancer, but it makes some crazy old woman's ghost slash your throat open. And put that bong down, kiddo! Phineus, who is seen taking a hit (with the bong "classily" obscured with some snazzy camera work no doubt required by the MPAA) is struck with a horse-drawn carriage and dies instantly. Wow, sure sucks to do drugs in this reality!

Other Highlights:

As mentioned above, Abi-normal has no freaking clue how to use her camera. It's a great old-school Polaroid Land Camera (can you spell "hipster?") with one of those accordion-style focuses. At the funeral she runs up to Hutch and takes a close-up of his face... with the focus adjusted to portrait (I would assume, based on how far she was from everyone else) and snaps a picture. I don't know about her, but I can already tell that shot is coming out blurry as hell. The moral of the story: if you buy a vintage camera (or any camera) learn how to use it. But in any case, you'll get the cute guy in the end after Frankie Muniz saves both of your asses.

One weird thing was that the movie characters made gaming characters that were far to similar to themselves in physical appearances. The only one that really changed anything was Frankie Muniz, who made himself blond, tall, and beefy rather than brunet, short, and wimpy. Everyone else pretty much made a replica of her- or himself in the game. Maybe I know too many WOW players, but that just didn't seem realistic to me....

I just need to expound for a moment or so on my love for the research trope in horror, which seems to me to have been extremely prevalent during the 2000s. I know it shows up in other genres, and it certainly happens in TV, in books, in films and movies before and after the 2000s, but I feel like this was used to a point of excess during the last decade. Exemplified by The Ring, but also used in such crappy horror films as The Fog, this trope invovles characters digging into books, internet sources, old newspapers, photographs, diaries: anything they can find. Think Hermione Granger or Mikael Blomkvist in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I love this trope. I do. It always makes me smile. Probably because it tries to make research look intense (which obviously it is, but not in the way that they try to make it look) and extremely easy (which it rarely is).

So as part of their quest for knowledge, they go back to the scene of the first murder: Loomis's house, where character development goes to die (under the guise of happening). So Abigale and Hutch get to Loomis's place and they establish that the police have already been there, but they go in the house and there's still blood wallpapering one room, which makes me wonder why the fuck they hadn't sealed it off until hazmat got there... oh, wait, the writers know nothing about crime scenes so probably shouldn't write them.

Side note: this movie was supposed to take place in New Orleans...post-Katrina, but apparently the writers didn't want to change the script to somewhere less damaged by gale force winds and excessive flooding and at the time of release was still characterized by excessive property damage, homelessness, and joblessness... which would have been insanely easy considering the fact that  NOBODY except the boss even attempts a Mississippi accent. And his is only mediocre.

Rating:

This movie got one heart because... I guess I'm too generous to give it a zero. I probably gave it a heart just for Jimmi Simpson because he's my favourite. And for having scruffy Milo in it... yummm. There's really no other reason. This movie was pretty awful. It wasn't memorable (barely even those little bursts of somethings: roses, a road, a carriage... and a video game?). It had almost no redeeming filmic qualities. I'm honestly surprised it made money at the box office (I know, right?).


Would I recommend this to anyone? Probably not. It's almost even not funny how bad it is. Did I laugh? Yes. Did it maintain my attention? For periods of time (I paused it and peed/checked facebook and tumblr and my 3 e-mail accounts/read articles on NPR fairly frequently). Would I watch it again? Fuck no. This movie was and shall forever remain irrelevant to all.

TLDR:

Awful movie: one heart. Killer video game kills. Elizabeth Bathory. Milo Ventimiglia. Shit acting. Shit casting. Shit script. Shit music. Post-Katrina New Orleans without the damage. Research trope. Anti-tobacco, anti-pot. Completely unspectacular. Don't watch.

P.S.

Sorry for the lack of graphics. It was just that unspectacular.

Read more »

The Children of the Corn (1984)

Believe it or not, I hadn't seen The Children of the Corn until this week. Weird, right? I feel like it's just one of those movies where you sort of wind up watching it (or one of its numerous sequels) on SyFy (or SciFi more likely, since I feel like they played it more frequently before they changed the name in 2009) when nothing else is on. But somehow I missed that mind-vacuum in favour of sleep or homework or taped episodes of The X-Files.

I decided to finally sit down and watch it at the urging of a friend, and I have to say, it's great. And by "great," I mean horrible. And by "horrible," I mean great. It's just one of those movies. While I doubt it's actually contributed too much to the horror genre, I still feel like it has a classic-y vibe (mostly because Stephen King wrote the book it's based on and because it perpetually reminds me of The Shining for no apparent reason).

Cast Highlights:

• Peter Horton (whom I could of sworn was on an episode of Murder, She Wrote, but apparently was not) as Burt
• Linda Hamilton (who was in an episode of Murder, She Wrote) AKA Sarah Motherfucking Connor  as Vicky
• Two cute kids as two cute "nonbeliever" children
• A bunch of creepy-ass children as creepy-ass children
• Some creepy man-child as Isaac
• Courtney Gains as Malachai AKA the most horrifying ginger you've ever seen in your life AKA The Fist.
• Some dog as the ever-adorable Sarge

Basic Summary:

This movie takes place in a very dated "present," when a small, hyper-religious town in Nebraska is overthrown by all but two child-residents, who all follow Isaac (the man-child) and believe in "He Who Walks behind the Corn" (often presumed to be either Satan or a satanic/demonic force, but this is never really explained within the context of the film; I haven't read the book). Somehow the children are able to grow and cook food and have lots of life skills without any adults teaching them how. After a while, a couple (Burt and Vicky) are traveling through town on their way to Burt's new residency or doctor job or something (he's supposed to be a doctor, but only when it's convenient or he's being pretentious) and they get pulled into all the silly nonsense in this town run by children. The children decide to kill the "outlanders" (aka Burt and Vicky), who have to save all of the kids from the evil (but really only end up saving two).

Notes:

For being an adaptation of a short story, this is pretty damn good. It does fine as a stand alone piece, save the seemingly erroneous beginning (which clues us in on the ending and is super-duper awkward). Usually written-media-to-film don't work out so well, but Stephen King seems to have some pretty translatable books and stories, eh? See: Carrie, Salem's Lot, The Shining, Creep Show, Cujo, The Dead Zone, Stand by Me, Pet Sematary, It, Misery, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Storm of the Century, Hearts in Atlantis, and Secret Window, just to name a few. Something about his books just translates well to film. Or maybe it's just that he's written so damn much that some of them have to be decent. Honestly, I haven't read any Stephen King, so maybe that is a topic better explored by someone who has...

Some of the shots in this movie are kind of brilliant. But only kind of. The overall film quality is about average; nothing to write home about. But there are some really stand-out shots in there. It's like handing a five-year-old a camera and telling her to take pictures. Of course some of them are going to turn out okay. I should really give the director a bit more credit, because there's at least a handful of these, but they have this amateurish, clumsy feeling to them. They don't feel clean or polished, the composition just really winds up working. See:

 

The children acting in this movie aren't all that great but the adults can pull their own weight (I RHYMED!). The kid playing Isaac is actually kind of awesome. Only insomuch as he's ridiculous. And his voice is really crazy. 

In terms of the Bechdel Test, I'm not quite sure if this passes. You see, the Bechdel Test stipulates that there be two women in the movie, and that they have a conversation, and that that conversation not be about a man. Well this movie only has about two prominent women. One is killed in the beginning of the film. There are a lot of girls, though—children, that is. And Vicky and little Sarah (the adorable one) have conversations that aren't all about men (not being killed is kind of an important topic for Vicky). So I'm not exactly sure if this passes, but I'm going to go with an infirm "yes." That being said, Vicky is treated as a victim throughout most of the movie.

Other Highlights:

After watching this, I decided that Nebraska's bumper sticker should read, "Nebraska: Where Children Reign Supreme!" I'm starting a petition.

I also realized was that Stephen King really likes his little girl characters to a) be psychic in some capacity, b) draw things psychically, and c) listen to record players. I guess it was more normal for a young girl to listen to a record player in the mid-1980s than it was in his 2002 miniseries Rose Red. (If you haven't seen Rose Red, I'll write a review at some point. I'm not going to say "you should," because it's kind of hard to find).

We all know it wouldn't be an 80s horror movie without bad digital effects!!! This looks like it'd be more at home in a Lysol commercial than a movie about evil chillens.

But my favourite ridiculous part of this was when Burt, a medical student-doctor-thing, is completely unphased by the fact that someone he struck with his car "was already dead when he stumbled out into the road." I know nothing about medicine, but I can deduce that stumbling anywhere when you're already dead is at least a little bit IMPOSSIBLE! But Burt just keeps plugging along, trying to solve problems as though nothing strange or supernatural is going on in the town except that the roads all lead to the same place and everyone's hyper-religious. And the children. But that's totally normal, right, Burt?

Here's what's probably my favourite clip, featuring: Burt hearing voices ("remembering"),  dramatically kicking a door in, and accosting a small child; Isaac and Malachai fighting; Vicky with her Crown of Corns; and parts of cool shots shown above.  

Pay special attention to Isaac (the short, non-ginger one)'s voice, because I swear it sounds eerily similar to that of Nevel from iCarly (yes, I watch that show, but I'll never watch it the same again):

 

And probably the most innocuously disturbing part was when Burt first ran into Sarah, he said, in what I swear was the creepiest way possible (or maybe I just imagined it that way), "Are you here alone, Sarah." A line like that is typical horror fodder for some kind of violence, be it sexual or physical. And then a few scenes later, he accosts her (seen above) and now I'm just convinced he's a child molester.

Lastly, I need to warn all of the animal lovers that the soulless ginger of terror kills the only dog in the movie. It's senseless and horrible and thank god it's an off-screen death (unlike Invasion of the Blood Farmers, review coming eventually). RIP puppy! 

 

 

 

 

Rating:

Three hearts for not actually being that awesome, but being enjoyable enough. Would I watch it again? Maybe. Was it a classic? Kinda-sorta-not-really. Did it remind me of The Shining randomly and make me ache to watch it? Yes. Would anything ever make me ache to watch this? Probably not.

You should watch this movie if you like bad 80s horror, Stephen King, books by Stephen King, movies with creepy kids, or endings you can deduce faster than the characters. Additionally, I am going to suggest that all conservative Christians give this movie a watch, not because they'll like it, but because of some of Bert's sentiments, including, "any religion without love and compassion is false." Right? Still pertinent!

You shouldn't watch this movie if you don't like animals dying, you don't like scary movies (this isn't really scary at all, I only jumped once and that was more startled than scared, but most people who "don't like scary movies" have a low threshold for fright while most people who do enjoy horror are more tolerant), children frighten you to begin with, you have an aversion to the state of Nebraska, corn frightens you, you need visually stunning cinema and/or graphics, or you hate Stephen King (for whatever probably invalid reason).

TLDR:

Stephen King. Horrifying ginger. Children rule Nebraska. Sarah Connor not being hunted by a blood-thirsty, body-building abortionist from the future. Dead dog. Religion ruins everything. May or may not pass Bechdel Test. Bad graphics. Hit-or-miss cinematography. Three hearts.

Read more »

The Phantom (1996)

I watched The Phantom becuase it’s on Netflix Instant and I had been searching for it for ages. I saw it when it came out on VHS in 1996 or ‘97 (I don’t remember when, but it was released in ‘96 and I’m assuming it was a quick-to-video kind of thing because it made exactly negative money). My only drive to watch this movie (I wouldn’t call it a “film”) was a strikingly traumatic childhood memory of a certain scene, which will be detailed below.

I need to preface this review by saying that I really did search high and low for this film for several years due to the traumatic scene detailed below. I have watched the first half hour of every 1990s non-Batman superhero movie (even braving Alec Baldwin’s performance in The Shadow) trying to figure out if it was this one because for whatever reason, I need to masochistically re-live all of the horrifying moments of my childhood.

Cast Highlights

• James Remar AKA Harry Morgan AKA Dexter's Dad from Showtime's Dexter (albeit not in his paternal, non-psychopathic character) as the antagonist's disappointingly in- competent minion (because everyone needs a minion).
• Billy Zane AKA Rose's douchey fiance in Titanic (which would explain why I absolutely loathed him for no apparent reason until I figured out that's where I recognized him from) as Kit Walker AKA The Phantom AKA that guy in purple.
• Kristy Swanson AKA the original Buffy from Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie) as the "strong" love interest (who ultimately needs The Phantom's help at every turn) AKA some chick.
• Catherine Zeta-Jones as a total BAMF babe (her character has a name, but just barely, so she is now dubbed "Catherine Zeta-Jones" OR "CZJ" OR "babe" for the rest of the review).
• Some Dude who should have been Kevin Klein AKA Treat Williams as the antagonist Xander Drax (X-A-N-D-E-R  D-R-A-X. Begins and ends with the letter "X").
• And the real stars: whatever animals played the wolf and the horse. Because they stole the show completely.

Now the part you've all been waiting for, the scene of HORROR:

About a half hour into the film, some dude looks into a microscope and when he tries to focus it, RAZORBLADES COME OUT OF THE EYE HOLES AND BLIND HIM! How could you not be traumatized by that!? Like, while this scene was being set up, I cringed and crawled away from the computer screen. I haven't done that since I watched The Crazies and that was (arguably) actually scary.

How exactly can a film feature a man being blinded WITH RAZOR BLADES and still be rated PG? I really will not understand, especially since "shit" is uttered twice within the first ten minutes and Billy Zane's abs probably qualify as pornography (not to mention the fact that, according to the United Nations, purple spandex suits are a crime against humanity).

Basic Summary:

It's 1930-something. Antagonist tries to accumulate 3 skulls that will magically harness the power of the sun and blow shit up when combined, much to the chagrin of pretty much everyone who's not evil/corrupt, especially The Phantom and Some Chick and her uncle (who is so inconsequential that he doesn't even get a cast write-up). Catherine Zeta-Jones flies planes, kicks ass, and doesn't mind threats of sexual violence as long as the people making them are on her side. Dexter's Dad has a tattoo or something and is basically a bumbling idiot. Also pirates roving the seven seas (but mostly two seas) (where they somehow rule dynasticly) (and kill people, thus initiating the plot). But mostly skulls. Skulls fuckin' e'rr'where. And animals who communicate without speaking.

Notes:

The movie is shot in a really tight letterbox format, which could be cool, but it's kind of awful. Almost ever shot is really crowded or unbalanced. They even used a wide-angle lens (in at least some shots) to cram EVEN MORE into each scene (see screencap below and notice how vertical lines are a little bowed out). That is not how you use letterbox. You use letterbox to communicate something. You use letterbox in Lawrence of Arabia or The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly to communicate a vast, empty landscape and immeasurable solitude. You do not use it because you think it looks cool.

There were a lot of problems with representations of colonialism, but since it takes place in the 1930s, that's kind of to be expected. No one treated colonialism right in the 1930s because it was still happening. But still, not good. The three explicit threats of sexual violence go ahead and undermine the the miraculous fact that this film somehow passed the Bechdel Test. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Some Chick have a conversation about fashion instead of men (until the Phantom shows up and it all becomes catty jealousy)! IT COUNTS!

But on the bright side, the art deco furniture and sculpture was AMAZING! I had a dec-arts-gasm with all that furniture!

The dialogue in this movie made me very uncomfortable. I don't know if it was because I just didn't want to admit to myself that I thought Billy Zane was hot or that it was just really bad (I'm leaning toward "it's really bad," though, since I appear to have no problem calling his abdominals pornographic).

Other Highlights:

When watching this, I remembered that animals non-verbally communicating was a decidedly 1990s phenomenon. Also, animals in general. Remember that one about the panda and the bridge? Or the giant motherfucking gorilla? Or Dances with Wolves or Jurassic Park (hey, dinosaurs are people animals, too!) or really any movie made in the 1990s ever? Yeah, they were all pretty much about animals.

If you decide to watch this movie, you will also be graced with the glorious sight of Dexter's Dad blowing perfect smoke rings (sorry for the lack of screencap), as well as some pretty great fake sharks. That's pretty much all I've got.

Also, Catherine Zeta-Jones's many outfits:

Rating:

I rated this three hearts because the more I think about this movie, the more it grows on me. I'll probably definitely watch it again (if only for Billy Zane's abs and Catherine Zeta-Jones's mere presence), and while I find some of it annoying in a completely beyond-camp kind of way, it was a decent movie. But since I don't think that ratings are a particularly good way to decide whether or not you want to watch a movie (unless you 100% of the time agree with the rater), I am also including suggestions as to whether or not you'd like the movie based on its content. (See: How I Rate Movies for more info).

So basically, you should watch this movie if you are inclined toward: superhero movies, typical '90s movies, Catherine Zeta-Jones, ponies, men in spandex (and latex), skulls, depictions of colonialism, sketchy stalker ex-boyfriends who get the girl, OR if you remember this from when you were a kiddo and want to see if it really lives up to the bad rap I'm giving it. Oh, did I mention Catherine Zeta-Jones?

You shouldn't watch this movie if you highly value cinematography, dialogue, plot development, or films that are overall considered to be "good" in a completely non-ironic way. You should also avoid this film if you have an aversion to people BEING BLINDED BY RAZORBLADES, the fact that Kevin Klein isn't in it, or the color purple (not the play by Alice Walker, but the actual color) (though it is very possible that if you didn't like the play, you won't like this film... but I'm not going to make any definitive statements on that one).

TLDR:

Billy Zane shirtless. Catherine Zeta-Jones being hot. Bad everything. Horrifying razorblade-to-eyeball scene. Horse and wolf. Crowded shots. Poor dialogue. Art Deco. Passes Bechdel test (barely). Three hearts.

But that being said, my only motivation to watch this was to relive my childhood horrors, which was through within the first half hour. Something compelled me to finish. It was probably my love for mediocre cinema.

Read more »