"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/