Return to Home Page

Men in Black 2 (aka "MIB2", "MIB II" and "MIIB")
Released 3 July, 2002

I saw MiB2 on opening day. I was really hoping it would be much better than the first one. I ambivalent about the first film. I liked it enough to get the DVD, but it just seemed as if it was missing "something". Unfortunately I don't think MiB 2 as good.

First of all, I was put off by Will Smith's portrayal of Agent J at the beginning of the film. I understand why Sonnenfeld chose to direct it the way he did -- Agent J has become Agent K -- but I don't think it really worked.  Will Smith just can't play the "J-as-K" as well as Tommy Lee Jones can play "K".

I also didn't really like the two lines of dialog to describe where Linda Fiorentino's character went. And I didn't like J's partner at the beginning of the film. Totally unbelievable as a Man in Black. (But he did have one funny line, which I won't spoil, at the pie shop.)

Tony Shalhoub? Get a razor, man. The character looked much better clean-shaven.

Basically, the pre-Tommy Lee Jones stuff was weak. The "backstory", such as it was (i.e., nearly non-existent) was glossed over much too quickly.

The film started to pick up after Tommy Lee Jones entered the story. I liked the Post Office scene. I liked the scene where he blows Jeebs's head off. (J: "How did you know his head would grow back?" K: "It grows back?") I liked the "follow the clues" bit. But the role-reversal just didn't quite work for me. I like K as K and J as J. As I said, J as K left me flat.

Of course, I loved the last shot.

The Exorcist
Released 1973, rereleased 2000

IMHO, the new edit (adding footage that was not used originally) adds to the story. I have the "anniversary edition" on VHS, and it has a documentary and the deleted scenes. It was explained that the scenes were not used because they didn't contribute to the story (or  indeed, detracted from it). Well, I've seen The Exorcist many times (the first time when it came out, as a little kid) and I thought the "new" footage worked well. I'm glad I didn't get the DVD yet, because I like the new edit. The "spider walk" was really creepy, and I'm  glad I saw it on the big screen. I also liked the digitally-added demons that appeared from time to time. (At least, I don't remember  seeing them in the original version.) They were generally subtle and added to the "feel" of the film in most cases; and I think they were mostly not overdone. The editors left in the split-second "demon faces" that were originally used, and they worked well with the more subtle effects.

 There was one segment of the film that had reddish blotches in it. Colour film can degrade over time (gaining a reddish tint), but you'd think they'd be able to find footage that was not blemished, or would have digitally corrected it. Also, the print did not seem as clear as other films. There was a lot of grain, leading me to assume it was a poor-quality print. On the other hand, it could have just been the  stock they originally used. The new audio was, in places, overpowering. I was a little distracted by the "surround sound" in some of the  crowd scenes.

 I was surprised to see so many kids in the audience. One would think that this is not a film parents would take their kids to. There were also two or three babies in the audience who cried periodically. Some members of the audience were not adverse to telling the parents  to remove them from the auditorium. Mostly, the parents complied; but one in particular was slow to do it. The film would have been much more enjoyable without the crying babies.

(I know I'll probably get flamed by parents who say they have to put up with it all the time, and that the couple-hundred other people in the audience should be able to put up with their infants for a couple of hours; but I must respectfully disagree with them.)

This is a worthwhile film to see on the big screen. If you're 30-something (or older), there is the nostalgia aspect. If you're 20-something,  you can see how films could be effective without modern techniques that "Hollywood" seem to use as crutches nowadays.

Magnolia
Released 2000

Could a movie be any more boring?  The characters were established in the first 45 minutes.  The next 2 1/4 hours were utterly predictable step after utterly predictable step to its uninspired and inevitable ending.  Oh!  The little boy pisses his pants?  Gee, I never would have seen THAT coming after his repeated pleas to relieve himself!  The estranged son visits his dying father at the last minute?  Who would have expected THAT to happen?  The trophy-wife admits that she married Jason Robards only for his money and never loved him, until he lay dying?  Saw that coming the first time she appeared on the screen.  The three hours of unadulterated torture was relieved by a little interlude of zillions of two-pound frogs raining from the heavens.  The acting was actually pretty good.  But I enjoyed
this movie only slightly more than I think I'd enjoy being slowly eviscerated with an exceptionally dull spoon.  I've never walked out on a movie, but it took every milligram of my self-control to stay in the auditorium.  "Magnolia"?  They should have named it "Corpse Flower" after the plant that takes seven years to bloom, and when it does smells like rotting flesh.

Pecker
In video stores

Pecker is the latest film by the infamous John Waters (Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, Hairspray, to name a few). In it, "Pecker" is a young Baltimore (where else?) resident with a passion for photography. He snaps pictures of his somewhat depressing neighbourhood: His best friend the shoplifter, his sister who works in a gay bar, the homeless couple who shop in his monther's thrift store. When he displays his photos in the greasy-spoon where he works, he is discovered by a New York art dealer. Her attention rockets him to fame as the fresh new artist on the block... and alienates him from the people who surround him at home.

This may be Water's best film to-date. The acting is intentionally stiff, but that's all right. It's the trademark of his films! Sort of a knowing wink that lets everyone in on the joke. Definately over-the-top. There are also many references to his earlier work; for example, the fascination with the gay lifestyle that shows them as just people, Pecker's sugar-obsessed little sister who reminded me of Edith Massey's "Egg Lady" in Pink Flamingos, and the general affection for the social classes most people avoid. My favourite bit was "Memama", Pecker's grandmother through whom the Virgin Mary spoke. Actually, Memama would move Mary's mouth and say, "Full of grace!" in a high falsetto. Cracked me up every time.

If you like off-beat movies (and really, would you be at THIS site if you don't?) see Pecker!

back to top

Zombie! vs. Mardi Gras
release date: 05/99
Salt City Home Video

Here's the story:

"A child grows up studying the occult and  plotting vengeance after being brutalized and crippled by drunken Mardi Gras revellers. One stormy Lundi Gras night he performs a Sumerian ritual which unearths Zombie! from his ancient slumber. Zombie! prowls the streets of New Orleans on Mardi Gras day,   leaving a trail of terror, breasts and black comedy  in his wake. "

The style is an homage to Godard's Breathless.  Many scenes seem unrelated, and there are numberous jump-cuts.  There are also other "in-references" to Alphaville and Contempt. To heighten the "foreign film" feel the dialog is intentionally out of synch, which gives the impression that it was originally recorded in another language and then dubbed in English.  The grainy black and white footage also adds to the nouvelle vague (new wave) aspect.

With "Zombie!" in the title, one may think this is a horror film.  But the title should let the viewer know that this is a comedy.  Loads of laughs are provided by a pudgy ninja, "Big-Hair Elvis", aliens, and a special appearance by Galileo who rises from Purgatory to battle Zombie! only to find himself adrift in the Crescent City.  There is a lot of gratuitous nudity, too.

This film has been voted "THE WORST PIECE OF GARBAGE OF ALL TIME!" and it "MAKES ED WOOD LOOK GOOD!" by many on-line reviewers.  Come on!  With reviews like that you HAVE to see it!  Seriously, conservatives will not understand Zombie! vs. Mardi Gras.  Most reviews on the 'net  point out the "out-of synch" dialog (intentional), and the "laughable" make-up of Zombie! (the actor really DOES look like that!  I've seen him!).  They also say it's "incoherent".  Face it.  You either "get it", or you don't.  It's is aimed squarely at the piercing-and-tattoo crowd, and among it's intended audience it has received rave reviews.  If you are a fan of the outré then this film is a "must see"!  Oh.  Did I mention there are a lot of naked women in it?

back to top
 

The Blair Witch Project
release date: 06/99
In theatres.
 

"In October of 1994, three student filmmakers disappeared in the woods near Burkittsville, Maryland while shooting a documentary.
A year later their footage was found."

I liked this film.  Really.  I did.  I did get a couple of chills, and there is a lot of humour for those who know how personalities clash on a film set or location.  But it only "works" if you see it under the impression that everything you are seeing is real.  Since I knew it was fiction going in, it wasn't very scary.  The filmmakers (the real ones) should have realized that many audiences would know that Blair Witch is not a documentary, but a film done in a documentary style.  Had they proceeded with that in mind, they could have made it scarier, and added the spookiness earlier.  I felt that the inevitable ending came much too quickly without enough build-up.

A very simple technique could have been used to raise the horror factor. Why not have a glimpse of "something" out in the darkness? A slight reflection of a pair of staring eyes just outside the range of the lights, than disappear into the woods before the crew can make out what they're attached to? The makers of Blair Witch had a good idea. But they needed to realize that with the type of film they were making, things half-seen would be more terrifying than mere sounds in the night.

Having said that, the technique and concept were refreshing.  It's not a narrative movie, but a home movie documenting three young people as they face their fears in the wilderness.  The acting was quite realistic and had I not known that this was dramatized I would have bought the "found footage" completely.  (As a filmmaker though, I thought they were using an awful lot of expensive 16mm to shoot non-project footage.)

So a mixed review from me.  I liked the technique and concept, but it needed to be scarier for those of us who knew it was fiction.

back to top

The Last Broadcast
release date: 10/97
Video release date November 30, 1999
In video stores

The hosts of a cable television show on the paranormal disappear in New Jersey's Pine Barrens while shooting a documentary on The Jersey Devil.

I'm not saying Blair Witch ripped this film off, and then made a killing off of of someone else's idea. The two crews may have come up with similar ideas at the same time. Hey, it happens. But in this business, who knows?

In any case, The Last Broadcast plays like a documentary you'd see on A&E's Investigative Reports, albeit a bargain basement version of it. I found the whole thing much more believable and better-done than Blair Witch. AND it was made for something like 900 bucks!

Be forewarned though: As good as this film is, the last 10 minutes -- THE PAYOFF, forchrissakes -- REALLY BLOW!!! I can't tell you how cheated I felt.

This is a good film to watch for comparison with Blair Witch. It really feels like a documetary. I just wish they hadn't screwed up the ending.

back to top

Cube
release date: 1997
In video stores

"The basic idea is simple enough: six individuals are dropped in a maze of infinite rooms without any idea of how they got there or why. They must find a way out before they die of thirst and starvation... or the myriad booby-traps kill them all."

The acting is generally good and the pacing leads solidly to a very good resolution. Did we say there were six individuals caught in this deadly trap? Make that seven. Unlike many films, where the characters seem compelled to explain everything about themselves and their situation, Cube puts the viewer on a par with the hapless souls cast into this mechanical Purgatory. In effect, the viewer becomes part of the action.

Aside from the occasional bit of bad dialog, Cube is one of the best films I've seen all year. Low-budget or big-budget.

back to top

Cut Up
release date: 1997
Phoenix Home Video

"Carl is a police photographer who left his job as a detective after he accidentally killed an eight year old girl while investigating a murder case. Now, four years later, a series of bizarre murders have surfaced in New Orleans, and Carl's friend and former partner convinces him to join in as a detective on the case. As Carl gets closer to cracking the case, the trauma of the earlier accidental murder weighs heavy on his shoulders. Vivid dreams distort his concept of reality, putting the case in jeopardy. When all signs point to the killer's identity, Carl must confront the demons which hang his life in the balance."

The cinematography and locations are exceptional. Kudos go to Rosie Rosato, who portrays Carl's (Jeff Hollins, the maker of Bang) former partner. This guy is really intense! Also worthy of note is the Argento-esque lighting by Phil Beard.

While some of the acting is uneven this is a sharp, intelligent film with a very polished look. One would think it cost 10 times the actual budget! Lyddon and Turick put together a stellar team to provide such high production values in this 1996 Louisiana Filmmaker Award-winning film. Indeed Shot in LA, Louisiana's film monthly called Cut Up "The best indie film ever made in LA."

back to top

The Haunting (1963)
release date: 1963
in video stores

"An expert in paranormal studies accompanied by two psychically gifted women and one cynic investigates "disturbances" in a house where a murder occurred years before. Sensing their presence, the house comes alive and tries to repeat history."

I can't resist comparing The Haunting to The Blair Witch Project. Both use the idea of the "unseen menace" to frighten the audience. But The Haunting doesn't need to show you anything. The camera angles, the sounds, the lighting and the acting are all that is needed to scare the pants off of most people. The Blair Witch Project attempts to do the same thing but fails because it was not directed; rather, the actors are sent into the woods and frightened by the real film crew. It only really became scary in the last ten minutes.

If you want to see a classic ghost story that's still scary after all these years, go rent The Haunting.

back to top