"The Evil Dead"

There are a lot of bad horror movies from the 80s. There are a lot of bad horror movies in general. So what is it that makes this bad horror movie from the 80s a cult-classic? What sets this movie apart from others in it's same genre? What made me absolutely love this movie? My first thought is that despite his unibrow, young Bruce Campbell is kind of a ridiculously good looking man. But surely that can't be what set this movie apart. Could it be the ridiculous, over-the-top, unbelievable, unexplained nature of the gobs of gore you see? Well, now I think we're on to something. I realize that is not for everyone (in fact, probably only for a select few), but it was incredibly fun and entertaining, often causing me to cover my mouth, and just plain silly. I love that! Now, bad horror can't be the only thing that made this movie stand out, other wise more movies like it would. Could it be that it had genuinely tense and scary moments? Absolutely! What made these tense and scary moments even better was the fact that it didn't use your typical, over-used scare tactics. If someone is standing at an open door and they close it, you're ready to see the "Big-Bad" behind the door as they close it, or as they stand up ("Isolated" anyone?), or as the camera swings around them. This movie didn't do that. It had those moments, but left them empty, which added to the tension that was slowly building to the final scary reveal. I loved how one moment I was tensed up in suspense, the next tensed up in laughter. This movie nearly reaches brilliance. I may even say it enters greatness. But for now we'll say it pinnacles at really good-ness. The type of really good-ness that after you watch you think you and a few friends could make a movie like this and as good as this, and you wouldn't be far off. And that idea just makes me like this movie even more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083907/

"Black Death"

Would it really be a spoiler if I said Sean Bean's character died in this movie? I think the bigger spoiler would be me telling you he lives. Either way, this is a medieval period piece that did almost the exact opposite of "Ironclad." Instead of trying to accomplish a grand scale with a small budget and failing, this is a movie that lived inside it's budget and was nicely rewarded with a nice little medieval movie. Sean Bean (who may have to be added to the list of actors required to be in today's medieval period movies) was great as the Envoy to the Bishop. The young Friar Osmund was a torn and sympathetic character in who's perspective we saw the story through. The sets and production design were fabulous. Nice fight scenes, nice acting, nice cinematography, and one horrendous time period to live in. The first time I watched this movie I thought it was alright. Watching it a second time I really liked it. It's unfortunate that this "really like" is not more, but as is the case too often, a movie's ending can leave you wanting. Such is the case with this movie. I wanted more! What is told in a short epilogue to the film is basically the synopsis for what could have been a great movie in and of itself. Especially given the torn nature of Osmund in this film, it would have transferred well into the story presented in this epilogue sequence. It's hard to knock a film because it's ending left me wanting more of it (which I really want in a sequel), and it really was probably just an example of living within it's budget (which I applaud this movie for), so I can't help but say that I really like this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1181791/

"The Invisible Man" (1933)

This movie absolutely blew my mind! To think that this movie was made in 1933 is incredible. Now, I will admit that I have a soft spot in my heart for Hollywood's classic monster movies, but this is genuinely incredible. The visual effects to create the Invisible Man are spectacular. Sure they do the classic (I guess in this case they'd be the original) invisible effects; doors opening, glasses being thrown, books dropping, and the like, but when you first see the Invisible Man start to unwrap his bandages and he is truly invisible underneath, you cannot help but be amazed at how great it looks. Toss aside the annoying innkeepers wife, what deficiencies the story may have (I'm not necessarily saying it has any), and anything else you may see as a detraction. What negatives this movie may possess are completely overshadowed by the brilliance it definitely contains. I cannot get over how blown away I was; this is why you watch movies, and it is a borderline religious experience to have a movie that is nearly 80 years old do such a thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0024184/

"Ironclad"

The biggest problems you're going to run into with doing a period piece (especially when it's a medieval war movie) has to be budget and, related very much to budget, scale. The biggest problem with "Ironclad" is budget and, related very much to budget, scale. When your large fight sequences have 20 guys on screen when you're supposed to have an entire army with you, it tends to leave much to be desired. I'm pretty sure the same three guys lifted the same ladder 27 times in 88 different shots to create the illusion. Unfortunately it failed. With the small budget that was, they tried to create beyond that a larger scale and was unsuccessful. Another problem with this movie was the story. Toss aside the stereotypical nature, but why is it that this moral and righteous Templar Knight is perfect in every sense until a pair of medieval bosoms attached to a pretty face flash before him and his chain-mail  comes flying off faster than that guy-with-a-wooden-eye-in-"Pirates of the Caribbean"-but-doesn't-have-a-wooden-eye-in-this-movie-because-he's-not-a-pirate's arrow shoots from his bow. It's just ridiculous, more so than the comparison I just made in the last sentence. My third and final complaint was that the dialogue was filled with all these one-liners that were meant to be smart, witty, funny, powerful, riveting, thought provoking, and/or moralistic. Instead they fell painfully flat. You watch this movie and it has a lot of recognizable faces (is it Hollywood law that Brian Cox or Brian Gleeson must be in any and every medieval movie these days?), but they all are over-dramatic, even Paul Giamatti who I think is fantastic. Just not in this. It's always disappointing when you weren't expecting much and even then the film fails to live up to those limited expectations.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1233301/

"Little Shop of Horrors"

For most movies a certain level of suspended reality must be adhered to. For any musical, that level of suspended reality must be increased exponentially. What's great about "Little Shop of Horrors" is that they accept that this is not reality, that singing in life is absurd, a mean green mother from outer space is absurd, and present this movie in an absurd way. This movie being based on a stage play, the story is limited on what you can do on stage. The movie didn't try to change that. This movie was probably shot on the same sized area as a stage play. Now, before I go further let me say that all this that I'm saying is a good thing. A great thing. This is a fantastic little movie. I'm not saying these things as drawbacks to the movie. I'm saying them as praise for the movie. Rick Moranis was surprising as far as singing goes, not that he was extraordinary, but he was good. Ellen Greene may have sounded more irritating than Fran Drescher, but perfectly complimentary to Rick Moranis' Seymour. Cameos by numerous individuals added to the good time that this movie was I'm still humming "Suddenly Seymour" and probably will be for the next week. I think that's a good sign. This movie didn't try to be something that is wasn't, it tried to be exactly what it was and it succeeded. This is a campy, fun musical with good, memorable songs, and exaggerated and silly characters.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091419/

"Best in Show"

The brilliance of "Best in Show" is that these are frighteningly realistic characters that you can imagine actually meeting and genuinely being obsessed with such a, what I perceive as, ridiculous hobby. They aren't over the top to the point of disbelief, but they are crazy enough to incite a mixture of fear, pity, and awkwardness. The deficiency of "Best in Show" has to be the length. The mockumentary style just doesn't seem conducive to a full length feature film. This often leads to somewhat boring and dragging segments of the movie. But between these boring, dragging segments you have a continuous smile from the ridiculousness of these people and some good laugh-out-loud moments. I understand that this is not a movie for everyone and not one I would watch over and over again, maybe not even ever again, but it still has the memorable factor working for it. Not to mention I'm madly in love with Parker Posey.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218839/

"Sleepy Hollow"

Can someone please tell me why I love this movie so much? Even better, can anyone give me a reason why I should not love this movie so much?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162661/

"The Terminator"

The problem with this movie is that it is an 80's action movie, and I'm pretty sure that type of movie ages the worst. Another problem with this movie is that James Cameron is not very good at having great dialogue or original characters, and this movie is no different. The single redeeming quality of this movie is that it lead to the incredible sequel that is "Terminator 2: Judgement Day."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088247/

"Nosferatu"

This is a tricky movie to gauge. I don't want to say all these positive things about this movie only to have you watch it and think I'm ridiculous. Nor do I want to say negative things about it and have you stone me for blaspheming against a horror classic. Now, with that said, I realize if you're reading this blog you are either bored out of your mind or care what I think about the movies I watch, so I should just say what I honestly thought. First off, this movie is said to be based on Bram Stoker's "Dracula." I am immediately throwing out the criteria of adaptation since there is no good adaptation of Bram Stoker's "Dracula" (yes, not even the movie titled "Bram Stoker's Dracula). My biggest complaint is simply a product of it being an old movie that is silent. Being such, the movie has a tendency to be campy, actors having to be over-dramatic because you're relying on their physical performance, not their words, in order to get the correct emotion. That being said, this movie is as fantastic as proclaimed. A true symphony of horror that leaves impressive visions in your mind of the Count. The musical aptitude combined with the contrasting imagery is great at invoking tension and leaving these images in your mind. I wouldn't say this is my favorite Dracula or vampire movie (I mean, how can it even compare with the brilliance of the Twilight Saga*), but it certainly is up there, especially when considering when it was made. This is one I would recommend to any and everyone, just to see what they think.

*I bet you're wondering if I'm serious or not. Well guess what? Keep wondering!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0013442/

"Enter the Dragon"

I don't know if I was expecting more than a kung-fu movie, but all this was was a kung-fu movie. Now that is in no way condemning this movie. In fact, this movie was quite good. The biggest problem is that the story had the potential to be a good story (though not that original), but was instead just barely serviceable as a vehicle to the fight scenes. If your main character is a monk, don't have him know all about crime lords and underworld dealings and espionage, have him be a monk that knows how to fight and that's what you're using him for. Outside of that, the stories of other characters involved were great, and they were actual characters, not just cardboard cut-outs that could fight so you put them in the movie. The next biggest problem is the fighting. Of course it was good, this is Bruce Lee! He's like the Asian Steve McQueen who looks better in a suit and would win in a fight. The potential problem is in which kind of martial arts you want to see. There is the more serious, what I perceive as more realistic, style found in more recent and mainstream martial arts movies. Or there's the cheesy, I-flex-with-each-hit-and-scream-and-sweat-and-make-everything-over-dramtic-whilst-fighting style. This is definitely the latter, which is fine. No one makes that face better than Bruce Lee. The exception to this fighting style is the climatic fight between Bruce Lee and the villain which takes place in a room full of mirrors. This was nothing short of incredible and basically makes up for any cheesiness that existed before. If you like kung-fu movies, well then you've probably already seen this movie. If you like kung-fu movies and you have not seen this movie, then you should probably see this movie. Bruce Lee's abs demand you see it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070034/

"House on Haunted Hill" (1959)

The brilliance of Vincent Price is his voice, obviously. What I didn't realize until watching this movie is that when combined with his voice, this is a big, imposing figure. He's tall, with good looks, but still creepy good looks. This same description applies to Carol Ohmart, who plays his wife and the exchanges between these two fantastic. Now, setting aside that this is an older movie, you have a lot of the same scare tactics that are used today in films, relying on sudden revealing figures from behind and the like, that are quite effective. Setting aside the cheesy ending, the principle of it was great, the story part of it was great. It's just an old movie so the execution of it lacks, especially when compared to today's visual effects standards. This was just a fun, cheesy, old horror movie that I would certainly watch again.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051744/

"The World's Fastest Indian"

This movie might be a quintessential example of your average movie. Not great, but not bad. Parts that are fantastic, parts that are cliche. A feel good movie that makes you feel good. Anthony Hopkins is a very likable character to those watching and those on screen. He is quite memorable whilst no other characters are. His lines and jokes were funny, but did get a little old. The motorcycle scenes were great, but too few.  A fantastic beginning with a lackluster ending. I think for every example of a good thing that was in this movie there was a downside to it. I didn't love it, I didn't hate it, I liked it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412080/

"Creature from the Black Lagoon"

This movie was fantastic! Now, obviously it being made in 1954, film has evolved quite a bit since then. Are the effects old? Yes, but that doesn't mean they still weren't great and display the superiority of practical effects over computer generated ones. Was the story slightly obsurd? Yes, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't fun and engaging. Was the dialogue over-simplified and cheesy? Yes, but that doesn't mean it didn't serve it's purpose and it wasn't certainly Michael Bay dialogue bad. Did the female lead have 27 different times where she was the first person to turn or see the Creature and scream loudly so as to draw the attention of the other characters to said Creature? Yes, but that doesn't mean this wasn't great cinema. This is a classic monster movie that sits up there with best of them.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046876/

"Hobo with a Shotgun"

This was a ridiculous concept presented in a ridiculous manner with ridiculous performances. So, if I had to say anything outside of the fact that this was so unbelievably gory with blood splattering in almost every scene filled with gratuitous violence and language that just makes you feel dirty and gross with absolutely no positive feeling in it whatsoever, I would have to say that this movie was ridiculous.

*I am not a very squeamish person, I have a high tolerance for language, violence, blood, and gore in movies. This movie did not just push my limits, it went beyond them. I guess that's Grindhouse cinema for you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640459/

"Tucker and Dale vs Evil"

The strength of "Tucker and Dale vs Evil" is the strength of all horror-comedy movies; I just love them. This movie was no different. On a somewhat related note, I may be developing a deep connection and strong romantic feelings for one Alan Tudyk. If you're reading this Alan, call or text or Facebook or Tweet or email me. Or just come knock on my door and carry me away to a magical land where our love will grow ever green.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1465522/

"Shutter Island"

I'm a bit torn on this movie. My initial impression is that I really liked this movie. It was tense, which is my favorite emotion to feel whilst watching a movie, and it was just a well crafted film. Martin Scorsese is obviously a very gifted director and he did a superb job in "Shutter Island." I loved the mood of the entire movie that was set through grim, eerie production design; dark, contrasting cinematography; and great acting performances. At times it felt as if you were watching an older thriller or horror movie with overdramatic music telling you the mood. Other times it was a genuine mood of tension incited by the situation and how it was presented. But the real genius in the use of these two types of mood setting is how perfectly balanced they were and appropriate they were to the given situation and point in the movie. I never felt like one took away from the other or was used poorly. Honestly, for the majority of the movie I would dare say I loved this movie. So why is it endings always have to ruin movies? This is one of those endings where it is the ultimate slap in the face, a kick in the junk, a pulling back of the curtain only to find that the great Wizard is nothing but an old man. I suspected such an ending fairly early on in the movie but thought that the great Mr. Scorsese would not, and could not, do such a thing. He did such a thing. Another frustrating thing about the ending, is for how much of a cop-out it was, it was just done so well. It's one of those things that it's just a bad idea, but the film dresses it up so nicely, presents it so well, that you almost forget that you just received a giant bolo punch to your ovaries. With that complaint set aside (and it is kind of a big one) that was all that was really holding me back from loving this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1130884/

"Prometheus"

I'll be honest, I desperately wanted to love this movie. Are you ready for more honesty? I think I only liked it, and even that I'm not sure about. It's difficult for me to gauge this movie based on trying to reconcile my expectations versus how I actually enjoyed the movie. This is especially difficult when it was quite disappointing when set against those expectations. First off, this is Ridley Scott. Second, this is "Alien," or at least set in the same universe and touted as a loose prequel. Those alone made me way excited for this movie. Then take into account the intense emotions of the previews and I was sold. I realize having such expectations is dangerous; it inevitably sets one up for disappointment. I also realize that it is unfair to compare. But I'm sad that I couldn't help but compare and feel this way about "Prometheus." The biggest disappointment was it's relation to "Alien." I'm a huge fan of the first Alien movie and unfortunately this movie was more "Aliens" than "Alien." I missed the tension and suspense that was in the first. It is especially noticeably missing when it was advertised as such too. Sure there were intense parts, but nothing that made me tense up in fear. And whilst this was supposed to be in the same universe (which it was) and not really a strict prequel to "Alien," it felt as if they couldn't make up their mind what to do. So many references to "Alien," yet nothing really to do with it. It's as if they had an original story idea that was in a science fiction setting and decided to try and fit it in with the Alien universe in order to draw in a larger crowd. The silliness of that is that that crowd they are trying to bring it by promoting it's relation to the Alien movies is the crowd that is already going to see it. So this is where I think I like this movie. As a stand alone movie. It was fun. Ridley Scott is a great filmmaker. It was well put together. The cinematography was incredible. Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace, Idris Elba, Guy Pearce, all great performances. The story was a fascinating premise. Repeating all these things that I liked about it lead me to believe that I like this movie. This is where I think I don't like this movie. It's supposed relation to "Alien" was sometimes fun but more contrived than anything. There were certain elements that were cliche. They too often leaned on spoken exposition rather than fear of the unknown or the assumption that the audience has common sense. The lack of tension and suspense, even missing from the action scenes (that one is kind of a big one). Overall, I think I just need to see this movie again. Now that I have a better understanding of what to expect, I feel that I would better be able to make a sound judgement on this movie and not an emotional response to disappointed expectations.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

"Watchmen" Director's Cut

The greatest problem with "Watchmen" is that I feel as if you need to have read the graphic novel in order to truly appreciate it and love it. This is perhaps illustrated best when I expressed my discontent with the movie to a coworker and he asked if I had read the graphic novel. I answered no and he proceeded to tell me that that is why I didn't like it. Now, the greatest problem with that problem is that that is the filmmakers' fault. As popular as a book, television show, graphic novel, comic book, or any other source material that a movie is based on is, you cannot count on that select group of people to give you an adequate, let alone a successful, return. The art of adaptation to screen requires artistic license. You have to ensure that this translates to the general population as well as the specific followers and that requires sacrifice. This was my second viewing of "Watchmen" because the first time, when it was first released in theaters, something was lost on me. Not that the themes were over my head (maybe they were) or the story was too complex (maybe it was), but that it just didn't do it for me, it was missing something. Upon this viewing I watched the director's cut in hopes that a second viewing and added material would fill that void. Unfortunately it didn't. This is a movie filled with great moments, but that don't add up to a great film. We see great individual performances, but are juxtaposed by hollow performances. We hear genuinely smart dialogue and concepts, followed up by poor one-liners, over simplified explanations, or gargantuan leaps in logic. This movie was very much hot and cold for me. I'd like to say that upon further thought afterwards I enjoy this movie, and for the most part I think I do, as long as I don't think about the ending too much. The end certainly begs the question, "who watches the watchmen?" Does the accomplishment of their goal justify the measures they took to get there? Are they the ones who decide what is right, what is permitted? If so, what makes them the moral and lawful authority? My problem isn't necessarily the ending itself, but the acceptance by the characters of such an ending when it seems contrary to all of their nature's throughout the film and they all seem to have an instant shift in their moral paradigm. Up until the ending it is a very character driven story, perhaps to a fault. You have these characters in the overall story, but you also take the time to tell each of their back stories and this often takes away from the main story, which wasn't very strong or original in the first place. The overall story of the movie could probably be told in 27 minutes, the other 153 minutes is filled with character driven scenes and backstory. Generally I think this is a good thing, just not for the format of a feature length film. Miniseries, television show, multiple movies (similar to the "Kill Bill" movies or perhaps the more recent Avengers treatment done by Marvel), something that expands your limitations of a 2 to 3 hour movie. Now, with all that said, I still do like this movie. Upon more viewings I think this is a movie I would appreciate and grow to like more, which is not a bad thing. I will certainly give it another try and even read the graphic novel to see how that enhances or diminishes my movie experience. For now, this is a movie that didn't quite do it for me, flashed brilliance at points, settled for mediocrity in others, and should have, and I think could have, been a lot more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0409459/