| Movie | Rating | Review | Date | Your Rating | Match | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summer '04 (Sommer '04) - Unrated |
"Sommer '04 an der Schlei" is pretty much a vehicle to showcase a lot more of German actress Martina Gedeck than you'd normally see. It has at least three close-up sex scenes which are pretty much the only reason why most people want to watch it in the first place. However, if you get past that aspect of it (and it's really hard to since Martina Gedeck is gorgeous for an over 40 year old woman), the movie is a lot like the French "slice of life" genre (if there is such a thing) mixed with a bit of Mike Leigh. It's a drama without a real beginning or end but with a lot of characterisation and interplay between the characters. If you watch the trailer for "Summer 'O4", you'd be forgiven for thinking this was some kind of story about paedophilia. Although there is more than a suspicion of that in the plot, it's a lot more about love and relationships breaking down. If you are expecting another "Lolita" this isn't it at all. I really don't know how I feel about this movie. On the one hand, I really liked Martina Gedeck and thought that Robert Seeliger was excellent in his role too but, on the other, I didn't like Svea Lohde (who played Livia) or Lucas Kotaranin (her 15 year old boyfriend Nils). The teenagers really were just ciphers to the main story of Miriam and Bill's more than telegraphed affair and they didn't really act so much as just exist in the film to create a few red herrings. "Summer '04" is just one of those films that is really well done but leaves you with more questions than answers probably due to the script and incongruous ending. In words of less syllables, it just makes you wonder, "What the hell did I just watch? And why?" It's all shot beautifully though and makes you think that it really is Summer on the River Schlei (to quote the German title). The features on the DVD reveal that the title was originally "Sommer '01" and it was filmed during bad weather in 2006 but I don't think the date has any significance whatsoever. It's a strange film, easy to follow but ultimately pointless. I'd give it 4 out of 10 since it intrigued me a lot more than it eventually delivered. Plus I could watch Martina Gedeck all day. |
November 22, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Twilight Saga: New Moon - PG-13 |
I've read a lot of reviews of New Moon since I watched it myself and one thing I've noticed is that the Twihards are divided over whether or not New Moon is better than the first Twilight movie. There are some that say it is close to the book and those that say not but, since I haven't read any of the saga novels myself, I have no opinion about that whatsoever. Is New Moon better than the Twilight movie though? That's the problem because some of it is and some of it isn't. The romance, action and hotness of everybody involved has certainly improved this time round and it's starting to move right into "Interview with the Vampire" territory so that's no bad thing. But (and there's always a "but") the story still moves too slowly and there are too many characters to keep track of even if they only have minor roles compared to the big triumvirate of Bella, Edward and Jacob. The story is much as before, i.e. Bella loves Edward and wants to be a vampire so that they can be together forever, Edward doesn't want to take Bella's humanity away, and so it goes on. This time though Edward leaves Bella because he wants her to be safe and so she drifts into the world of werewolves as Red Injun Jacob reveals his feelings for her during Edward's absence. To tell you any more would spoil it for you but I have to say that the CGI werewolves weren't too bad considering that they are still CGI and fake as hell and that both Edward and Jacob spend a lot of time with their shirts off (which I'm sure will please a lot of little girls). Unfortunately Bella doesn't spend any time with her shirt off which would have certainly made New Moon 100 times more enjoyable for me. Aesthetically the film looks really good and ithe camerawork is consistently better than in Twilight. There wasn't too much of a distracting soundtrack to this either with the music being quite minimal and unobtrusive. That works in New Moon's favour but perhaps not for future CD movie soundtrack sales. I only noticed two songs in the whole thing so where the rest of the album would come from I have no idea. I only mention that because I went to Burger King and got the little burgers with the free New Moon coupons with them and I know one of them was for money off the soundtrack CD. I won't be buying one anyway. (BTW the "Burger Shots" suck!) I'll add more to my review later once you've all had chance to see New Moon for yourselves. The bottom line is that I enjoyed it. I'd rate it as about 6 out of 10 (and half of that again if seen as a horror movie which it really isn't). I still think of the Twilight series as being the Dark Shadows of the 21st century. |
November 22, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Chi sei? (Beyond the Door) (The Devil Within Her) (Who Are You?) (Beyond Obsession) - R | This was so much of a blatant ripoff of "The Exorcist" that Warner Bros. took legal action against it. It has the same pea-soup, spinning heads and creepy voices. It even has the audacity to use big chunks of "Rosemary's Baby" for the plot as well. Minor amusement can be gained from the fact that Satan is the narrator but this isn't a very good film. | September 23, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Dracula cerca sangue di vergine... e morì di sete!!!, (Andy Warhol's Dracula) - R | September 10, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Inglourious Basterds - R |
A lot of people are raving about Quentin Tarantino's latest movie and I'm sure you'll all end up watching it eventually whether you really want to or not. I watched it just to find out what all the fuss is about and I wish I now had those 2 and a half precious hours of my life back. It sucked! Here are my ten reasons why. 1. They can't even spell the name of the film correctly. It should be "Inglorious Bastards". Even with the differences between British and American English neither word in the title is spelled properly. Not that I expect much more from the land of "Dunkin' Donuts", "Kwik Fill" and "Toys'R'Us" anyway. 2. Apart from the first 30 minutes or so, the rest of the movie is just a load of talky nonsense with no action at all. If people aren't being scalped, beaten to death with baseball bats or shot then I have no interest in watching a movie like this anyway. I couldn't care less about the second World War. 3. Yes, it's a war film. I have no interest in war films whatsoever. It's not even a good or realistic war film such as "Saving Private Ryan", "Das Boot" or even "The Great Escape". It's also far too much like "The Dirty Dozen" and so it sucks on all levels that pertain to originality or historical accuracy. 4. Did I mention that it's 153 minutes long? That's actually over 2 and a half hours (by three minutes). WTF? Who has the patience to watch anything that long unless it's porn? Not me. And how are you expected to watch something like this in a movie theatre with a Coke the size of a bucket without needing the toilet at least 8 times? I probably missed any good bits (if there were any good bits) after the first bit of brutality because I was too busy draining my little Quentin in the bathroom. 5. There just weren't enough subtitles. I don't need them for the French and German but I do for anything Brad Pitt says in any of his movies. How the hell did he become a Hollywood star when he can't even speak properly? I can't even blame it on his fake teeth this time like I did when he was slurring his way through "Interview with the Vampire". Having also just watched "Benjamin Button" with the subtitles on all the way through (because I couldn't understand anybody in it), I think it's down to his ludicrous attempt at a hillbilly accent. I think it's time for him to get some elocution lessons and then use his own voice in future. Some acting lessons wouldn't hurt either. 6. I've got nothing against Eli Roth as a director except that all his horror movies suck but now he thinks that he's an actor. Based on his whiny performance in "Inglourious Basterds", he can think again. Oh yeah, and he looks fat too. It's time to drop a couple of hundred pounds there, tubby. 7. I've never seen a single Quentin Tarantino movie that I liked. This was a chance for him to redeem himself but yet again he failed. Too much dialogue, too little action, and it looked as if it was knocked together in a week. Finding out later that Quentin Tarantino spent ten years on the story doesn't do much to help his case. Ten years to come up with this crap? I've written better blogs than his screenplays and they only take me about 5 minutes. If he'd come clean and admitted that it took him all of an hour then I'd have more respect for him. But then again, maybe not. 8. The only thing that would have made "Inglourious Basterds" memorable would have been if the characters played by Diane Kruger and Melanie Laurent had got nakedly gangbanged in all directions several times throughout or whenever the story lagged. Actually if it had just been 2 hours of Diane Kruger and Melanie Laurent naked then it would have been worth $10 of anybody's money even if they just stood there and did absolutely nothing at all. As it was, both actresses were wasted and this dismal failure of a movie has raped their careers no matter what the box office returns are. 9. There are no characters to care about in "Inglourious Basterds" because all they do is yap meaningless drivel rather than give any insights into themselves for the audience to empathize with. You actually get more characterisation in 3 minutes of a Bugs Bunny cartoon than in the whole of the this movie. So anyone who tells you how brilliant Tarantino is at creating caricatures is just insulting real artists (even animators) the whole world over. Even a blank piece of paper has more emotional depth than a Quentin Tarantino script. 10. Everything you want to know about this movie is shown in the trailer. How long is the trailer? About 3 minutes. That means that the rest of "Inglourious Basterds" is entirely padding. 2 and a half hours of padding!!! My verdict: 0 out of 10. If you have $10 and a bored afternoon then I do NOT suggest that you watch this movie at all. Just buy a can of paint, find a room in need of decoration, get out your brush and do a wall. Yeah, watching paint dry will be far more beneficial. |
August 25, 2009 | N/A | |||
| District 9 - R | August 19, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Shutter Island - Unrated | August 19, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra - PG-13 | August 10, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| A Perfect Getaway - R | August 7, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Mum & Dad - Unrated |
Jesus wept! I just watched this movie after getting it from Netflix and it was brutal!!!!! Now I've seen a lot of horror movies in my time but nothing prepared me for what was probably the closest thing we'll ever get to a movie version of mass murderers Fred and Rosemary West. I'm not ashamed to admit that my heart was pounding all the way through because of the tension. I was totally empathizing with the Polish Girl (Lena/Angel). In fact, it got so bad I thought I was going to have a heart attack! I couldn't wait for the tables to be turned and the most satisfying ending that I've seen for a long time. Admittedly I would have liked to have seen a bit more and watch Lena get some really good cosmetic surgery to repair all her scars but, as it was, it was satisfying enough. I expect a lot of people might be put off by the British accents and be on titter alert at the "commonness" of the "family" but it all worked for me in a completely serious way. It's no "dark comedy" and it's a lot more than a Brit "torture porn" version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". It's realistic and believable. I have to give it 10 out of 10. I recommend you rent or buy this right now. If you are at all squeamish then just rent it because you will never want to watch this again afterwards. I'm still buzzing from the shock of seeing more evil on screen than there even was in "Martyrs". This is the best British horror film ever! |
August 5, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Messengers 2: The Scarecrow - R |
"Messengers 2" is no better and no worse than 'The Messengers" although it is a prequel and a completely different story. The farm setting is the same and the camerawork and way it looks is identical as well. For almost the first hour , it feels like a really good Stephen King adaptation even though it's nothing to do with Stephen King of course. Having watched "Thinner" again recently, it has the same pacing and atmosphere. Nothing too much wrong with it at all and there are even some sexy moments just when you think it is going to start to lag. One of the scenes was very similar to Dario Argento's "Jenifer" from the "Masters of Horror" series (which in turn has similarity to part of "Basic Instinct") so it's a bit of a cliche rather than anything else. I'm not going to spoil it for you. The fun of these movies is seeing where plot devices have been borrowed from others anyway. Actually adding the sexy bits, including some great boobage on display at one point, was a stroke of genius. As I said, there are moments where you think the story is going to lag and then "Bam!' (to coin a phrase) there's some eyecandy again. That's either a piece of severely well thought out editing to make it commercial or just a fortunate accident. I think it was intentional. It'll probably be mentioned a lot by other people but the big draw here is that there are lots of echoes of the current recession. Although farmers are notoriously always getting in financial trouble and it could be set at any time, it just has the right amount of "hooks" for people to identify with and it gives a bit more empathy to the characters. There's a lot of subtext to what's going on with the family rather than an actual subplot but I thought it was well done given the constraints of the rest of the movie. There's no Oscar winning stuff here and a couple of the characters should have been fleshed out a bit more but you have to take things for what they are. After the first hour though things start to get a little bit confusing and silly for a few minutes. There are a couple of twists, a bit of an homage to "The Shining", and the ending feels a bit rushed. It flips between being about a cursed object (a la "Friday the 13th: The Series"), to a bit of a ghost story and then back to witchcraft and black magic again. There's even a moment where you think that it's going to turn into "The Uninvited" and be all about madness too but it doesn't eventually go that way. Things that really stood out for me was how Norman Reedus (as John Rollins) carried most of the movie on his own. He's no Jack Nicholson and is very "TV" (if you know what I mean) but he was quite credible for the most part. It could always have been a lot worse. I think the script had a lot to do with the annoyances I was feeling towards his character at times. The other character roles are all quite small apart from Mary Rollins (played by Heather Stephens). She's very nice to look at but there were times when her character really needed a slap in the mouth. I suppose that was the point too as if I noticed it, so would the scarecrow... and that wish-fulfilment is pretty much the basis of the plot. Unfortunately, the scarecrow doesn't really do a lot onscreen except in the last 20 minutes or so. It's a well designed thing but, as ever, it's just a guy in a costume. There isn't really a lot of gore in this either but when there is some blood, it's realistic and not stupidly over the top. It feels like a TV movie a lot so it probably explains why it's so toned down. Again, I think this is a very commercial thing that has been done so that it will get a lot of airplay on Sci-Fi (Syfy) and Chiller without too many cuts. The phrase "art is best when hidden" really springs to mind when such obvious manipulation shows up. It doesn't make it a bad movie though and it is sort of like watching a masterclass in how to interfere with a movie enough to make it appeal to the largest common denominator. I actually liked it and liked it enough to buy it later. I think it could be watched more than once not for entertainment but just fascination with how it was made. I doubt that the extras on the DVD will be as enlightening as any insider gossip which we will probably pick up from the internet but you never know. I can also see this having at least one more sequel one day mainly because of the totally unnecessary final couple of minutes. I'd rate it as 5 out of 10. An entry level/average score for direct to video sequels. If there had only been a little bit more polishing done then it could have got maybe a 6 out of 10. I feel the same way about it as the recent "Last House on the Left" remake as it was a very good try given what they had to work with. |
August 5, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Messengers - PG-13 | August 3, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Twilight - PG-13 |
Although hardcore fans of Stephanie Meyer were a bit nonplussed, to say the least, over this movie adaptation of her bestselling vampire novel, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can imagine that I'm going to take a lot of flak for my opinion, especially as "Twilight" is a movie meant primarily for teenage girls, but I'm willing to take that risk since the story and chemistry between the leading actors is so beautifully done that, if you are willing to overlook some minor flaws, you can't help but fall in love with this film too. Yes, this film has flaws. Some of the camerawork early on is a bit amateur and some of the stunts are a bit cheesy but, even if this was to be judged by bad movie standards, it was still very entertaining. I really didn't notice any major goofs though as the relationship between the incredibly strong leads of Kristen Stewart (as Bella) and Robert Pattinson (as Edward) really drew me into the fantasy in ways that only fans of something like "Buffy" or "Angel" could truly appreciate. Yes, this is all very much like a more serious and romantic version of the relationship between Buffy and Angel in the TV series but with a bit more of a "Romeo and Juliet" feel to it. "Star-crossed lovers" is, I believe, the correct expression for this situation. Underlying the dominant love story though is also a subplot of good vampires against bad vampires and even the hint of werewolves on the horizon. With at least one sequel about to occur pretty soon, it's obvious that as much was being packed into this film as possible to create hooks. It all worked too. There wasn't too much given away but just enough to leave this as a stand alone movie while making the viewer wish there was more. A delicate balance has been achieved and this makes it such a commercial masterpiece that it has the potential to outsell "Harry Potter" now that the original audience of those books and films has grown up and moved on. I'll mention again that what really drew me in was the acting. The vampire actors are all beautiful rather than just attractive while the humans are shown to be a lot more unkempt and immature even though everyone looks about the same age. Kristen Stewart is the middle ground between these two polarities as she is beautiful yet not quite fully formed as a woman. Her performance was exceptional albeit with some moments of unrealistic dialogue. The character of Bella was just such a paradox that she had to stand out as an attraction for Edward the vampire. She was a lot more controlled and mature than any of her peers yet still awkward enough to be one of them at times too so her reactions were realistic even if her words were not. At 122 minutes, "Twilight" is a long film which, due to slow pacing, feels even longer. For once though this isn't a bad thing as if it had been trimmed then it could have ended up as just another MTV style teen flick. The added length adds some substance to things and allows the greater character development which will undoubtedly continue into the sequels. Cinematically it is a beautiful film to watch. Only one rough piece of camerawork on the beach distracted me for a moment but everything else was framed perfectly and all the aerial shots, zooms and pans were done effectively. A baseball game used to show the speed and strength of the vampires was a moment of almost comic relief which didn't really work out too well but at least it is possible to see what was intended. The director, Catherine Hardwicke (of "Lords of Dogtown" fame), still seems to be learning about what works and what doesn't but, since no movie is ever perfect, the pros outweigh the cons especially considering the length. The biggest problem with this film for horror fans, of course, is not the technical achievements or production values but that, like every other vampire film in recent years, it just isn't scary. I can't honestly remember a vampire film apart from certain scenes in "Salem's Lot" ever being scary though. When a lot of Edward Cullen's lines consist of the question, "Are you scared?", it does tend to provoke the audience, in this case me, to say "No" instead of waiting for Bella's equal response. Really though, "Twilight" is more of a romantic drama with some action rather a real horror genre movie. The potential was never even there in the books, it seems, to make this into anything other than a kind of "Dark Shadows" for the 21st Century so you can't honestly go into this expecting another "30 Days of Night" because it's not going to happen. There isn't a lot of blood in this considering it is a vampire movie and any death scenes are pretty much off-camera. I imagine that this was done intentionally to keep it within the PG-13 rating more than anything else. For my tastes, it could have used some harder and more gritty bloodletting but the target audience should be more than satisfied with what is there. I've rated "Twilight" as 8 out of 10 based mainly on its value as an entertaining movie. As a horror movie, it is only worth half that score. I still recommend that you watch it though. |
August 3, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Orphan - R | July 15, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Fritt vilt (Cold Prey) - Unrated |
I thoroughly enjoyed it. No big review as it's just another slasher but it was very well done. The star of it all is Ingrid Bolsø Berdal who plays Jannicke. She looks a bit like a mixture of Sigourney Weaver from Alien and Milla Jovich from the Resident Evil films depending on the camera angle. She's definitely hot whatever the case though. If you want to see how the Europeans are doing horror now then this is for you. Do not watch the dubbed version though, use the subtitles! Sympathetic characters and brutal deaths in snowy Norway. Just what you need during the unbearable heat of summer. |
July 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Fritt vilt II (Cold Prey 2) - Unrated |
I enjoyed this almost as much as the first one. Some of it was a bit ludicrous as it started to become like another Halloween or Friday the 13th sequel but Jannicke was a kick-ass hottie again and that's all that I really cared about. Good gory death scenes and characters you care about. You can't go wrong really. |
July 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| End of the Line - Unrated |
This was completely different to what I expected. I thought it might be a cross between Deathline and Midnight Meat Train but it ended up being all about a load of religious nutters believing that demons are going to take anybody who they leave alive. There was a kind of twist where the demons could actually be real (as shown on the DVD sleeve which ruins it for everybody) but it's still one of those films where you are left to wonder a bit at the end. Performances were very good and it had some nice gore too. I wasn't completely happy with the ending but it all entertained me. It's Canadian so it has that "feel" about it if you know what I mean but it could just as easily be European because it's a lot better than any of the American films that I've seen this year or last year. The heroine of the film, Ilona Elkin, reminded me a lot of Shannen Doherty which is no bad thing. In fact it's just down to her performance alone that I liked this a lot more. Some of the other characters were a bit "two-dimensional" but that's just the way of horror films anyway. "End of the Line" is a solid 6 out of 10. There's some good use of tension and atmosphere. I recommend it. |
July 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Blindness - R |
It was very reminiscent of the first episodes of the BBC's Day of the Triffids but even more like the "Blind Alleys" segment of Amicus' Tales from the Crypt (1972). I enjoyed it for the most part but it was overlong and it didn't have a lot of horrific action or anything really sexy in it. There were a couple of brief sex scenes but they weren't very graphic. It's tempting to think of it as being like a really long apocalyptic Twilight Zone episode such as "The Shelter" since it's all about what happens to people and how they change for the worse during a crisis. There's no real moral here though. Julianne Moore looks really old and is a lot more freckly than I thought she was. I'm glad she didn't get naked or anything because I think it would have made me throw up. She does a reasonably good job in her role though the script makes her more annoying than she should be. I've given it 5 out of 10. It's pretty average with a couple of inspired moments but, as I said, it's nothing that you haven't seen before. |
July 1, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Thriller - Unrated | June 26, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| The Grudge 3 - R |
While not the biggest fan of The Grudge remakes or even the originals, after re-watching the first 2, I got quite interested in seeing how the story was going to end. Unfortunately, with Takashi Shimizu no longer directing the third installment, things didn't so much progress as stagnate in the Chicago apartment building that was already seen in Grudge 2. While not a totally awful movie, the atmosphere just wasn't the same and the characters were a lot more irritating. Everything looked a lot brighter too (presumably to show off all the pretty young faces) which meant that there just weren't enough shadows for the vengeful ghosts to jump out of. Instead of jump scares, The Grudge 3 went for a lot more gore and is the first one in the franchise to be R-rated. I will admit that the gory bits were nicely done but there was nothing overly inventive about them. The biggest problem I had, other than none of it being at all scary, was that this one brought in the Takeo character with a possession storyline that was far too reminiscent of The Shining. Gil McKinney is just not enough of a Jack Nicholson to make it work and it all seems not only forced but very incongruous. I didn't actually find any of the acting performances all that credible though anyway but that has been the problem with all the Grudge films. They've all just relied on the gimmick of the little white boy who screeches like a cat and his long haired mother with bulging eyes. There have never really been any attempts at anything other than routine performances and the stories have been so all over the place that it's been hard to feel anything for any of the characters anyway, To its credit, The Grudge 3 is more linear and not filled with dozens of flashbacks and changes of location. It's easier to follow and, despite Emi Ikehata's horrible almost French pronunciations of every "the" word as "ze", it's a lot easier to listen to without Sarah Michelle Gellar's whininess. As much as I liked how Sarah Michelle Gellar looked as Buffy, I've never liked her voice. But that's a moot point since she isn't in The Grudge 3 at all and Emi Ikehata is a lot better looking anyway. Without giving too much away, The Grudge 3 doesn't make enough use of Toshio and Kayako. One scene with Toshio was so ludicrous that it threw me right out of the film but all the scenes with Kayako do that because I'm warped and think that she's hot! As I said, this one is all about bringing Takeo into the story before setting things up for a whole new "Grudge" or "Curse" (I still don't know why they translated Ju-on as "Grudge" which seems a silly word to use in the context of what these movies are about). By the end of it all, you can almost feel the producers champing at the bit to make The Grudge 4. Personally, I hope The Grudge movies stop here before they end up going the same way as the Saw franchise. There's only so much that you can wring out of the same characters (especially if the only interesting ones are already dead) before it ends up as silly as yet another parody by the Scary Movie gang. Oops, too late... Anyway, to sum things up, The Grudge 3 was an entertaining film but was by far the weakest of the American versions. Fans of The Grudge will probably still enjoy it but it could have and should have been a lot better. It wasn't boring but it was very miscast, had a lot of plot holes, and wasn't very effective as a horror movie at all. It went straight to DVD and that in itself says all you really need to know. |
June 23, 2009 | N/A | |||
| The Grudge 2 - PG-13 | June 23, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Drag Me to Hell - PG-13 |
I've just watched "Drag Me to Hell" and couldn't get into it at all. So much for Sam Raimi's triumphant return to the horror genre. Some of it was like "Evil Dead 2" (camerawork, demons, makeup etc.) but it was all so boring that I kept falling asleep. Yeah, there were severe pacing problems. It's aptly named because it really does "drag". In the moments when I did wake up it was only because of loud noises in the soundtrack and not because I cared about anything that was happening to the main character (whose name I can't even be bothered to type since you'll never hear of her again anyway). It all just felt cheap like "Army of Darkness" (for obvious reasons) but without a Bruce Campbell to carry it off. I didn't like the actors (especially the blonde girl with her eyes too close together like a Wallace and Gromit character), didn't care about the story (such as it was), and, well, it was just bland. There's some really crappy CGI just to make me (and everyone else) even more disappointed too. It's obviously also just a lame PG-13 so it isn't realistically gory or scary. As a fully grown man, I need my horror to be a lot more adult. The only thing I did like was that the cat in the film looked a lot like my own mackerel tabby - Willow. This film just failed on all levels to entertain me. "Masterpiece of horror cinema", my arse! I'd rather watch "Thinner" or "Curse of the Demon" instead. I've given it 2 out of 10 and that's being generous. |
June 7, 2009 | N/A | |||
| Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - PG-13 | June 7, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven) - PG | May 19, 2009 | N/A | ||||
| Trasharella - Unrated |
When I first saw the name of this movie, I feared the worst. "Trasharella" initially sounded like the kind of low-budget dreck that a studio like Troma would release as a bad, sexed-up parody version of "Cinderella" but with even less chance at cult status than any of the other "-ellas" already out there ("Barbarella", "Cadaverella", "Vampirella", "Stripperella"... the list goes on). But, when I saw that Rena Riffel was not just the star of this but also the first time director and producer, I was intrigued enough to give it a chance. I'm glad I did too. In case you've never heard of Rena Riffel, she was Lena in "Candyman: Day of the Dead" (1999) but is best known for playing Penny/Hope in Paul Verhoeven's "Showgirls" (1995). She's also hot, uber hot, and there's a damn good reason why she has often been referred to as having the best body in Hollywood. Rena has done a lot of topless roles over the years and I always find that a good thing when it comes to actresses. Really if you are going to watch a bad movie then it's pretty much a necessity to have a lot of eyecandy to keep your interest and with Rena Riffel in a movie you can be sure that all your hopes there will be taken care of even if she keeps her clothes on. She's also one of the sweetest people you could ever hope to meet and that part of her personality shows through in every character she plays. To watch her is to love her in ways that you'd probably only experience from watching old Audrey Hepburn movies. Rena is perhaps more of a Marilyn Monroe than an Audrey but I'm sure you'll agree with my point once you go back and familiarise yourselves again with her previous roles. So when I put the "Trasharella" screener into my DVD player, I have to admit that an element of bias crept into the equation. For that reason, I didn't even read the synopsis and certainly no other reviews. I knew that I was going to like watching the beautiful Rena but I had to clear the playing field of anything else that would influence my viewing pleasure. With a pie in one hand and the remote control in the other, I was free of all distractions and ready to devour not only the pie but every frame before me. The movie begins in black and white with occasional added digital effects including some faux film scratches and a grainy look to make everything look more "grindhouse". Cinematography is generally very good thanks to Dave Edwards. It's not done perfectly but you can see what was intended and it isn't too distracting. Some useful "Zombie Walk" extras show off their make-up briefly just to make sure that everyone knows that this is going to be a horror fairy tale. It's during these scenes that we learn the origin of a vampire curse on Hollywood starlets which began 75 years ago during one of Helena's past lives in France. Everything turns into a silent movie for a while and it's a clever idea. My only real criticism of this section, taking into account the low-budget (and avoiding mentioning the sparseness of the sets), is that technically it needed to be a bit blurrier and darker to make it look more authentic. Everything was a bit too sharp which undermined the other effects used to make it look like old footage. Rena looks great though as an aspiring silent movie actress and hams it up nicely. Then we're back to the present day and things switch to colour. Rena's red wig and green dress really stand out. Everything stays grainy though and saturation levels are changed from time to time to slightly posterise the look of what now turns into a live-action comicbook adventure. It's hardly going to be another "Blade" since Trasharella's enemy is none other than the comedic Count Smokula. In spite of the presence of this stereotypically Jewish vampire Count, there's nothing too horrific in any of this apart from a lot of the obviously improvised dialogue. Some aspects of this work better than others and there are some good lines but they are few and far between. What set this out of the ordinary though was when Rena suddenly burst into song. I really wasn't expecting that at all. The songs in "Trasharella" wouldn't be out of place in a bigger budget Hollywood musical though they are equally camp enough for fans of Rocky Horror too. Rena Riffel has a beautiful voice which sent shudders down my spine during the very catchy "Perfectly Imperfect". There's another catchy yet not quite so memorable song by Count Smokula in the middle but the final number, which I think is called "Beauty is Pain", performed again by Rena Riffel, reminded me a lot of Blondie. Yes, the musical numbers really are that good! The full 2-DVD set also contains a couple more music videos it seems but I was suitable impressed by the ones contained within the movie itself. "Trasharella" has a lot of hidden gems and not just the ones inside her magic lipstick (but more about that later). While not being entirely a "girl power" movie, there's a definite female empowerment message at the heart of "Trasharella" and some not too thinly veiled satire/social commentary about Hollywood in general. Count Smokula comes across as representing male oppression through the ages while the starlets themselves are forced to become sleazier and trashier to succeed. It's not giving too much away to say that, when Helena transforms into Trasharella with the aid of a Betty Page wig, magic lipstick, and magic pumps to conquer the vampire's curse, it's not without severe consequences to her own psyche. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but the whole film could be considered a warning that if a girl wants to succeed in showbusiness then the necessity of becoming trashy will be detrimental to her mental health. It's a good job that Rena only does these wholesome G-rated movies then, isn't it? Yes, I probably read too much into it. It is supposed to be a comedy after all. Tom Challice has the most memorable comic performance for me as Helena's psychiatrist, Dr. Simon Fieldsgoodman, when he turns himself into a Red Injun brave while taking notes of her problems. I know I should find Count Smokula more amusing than I do but I also found him to be a bit too sinister to carry the comedy off. Maybe I'm just jealous that he got to have Rena as his slave even if it is only acting. Other notable things about "Trasharella" include some fine naked boobage on display from Mary Carey (as Lucy Les Rue) and Rena herself. An amusing laundry room tease had me thinking that Rena was going to keep her goodies covered up for the whole film but thankfully she didn't. There's some almost erotic lesbian sexual tension between Helena and Lucy but it doesn't really come to anything. A tiny girl to girl kiss much later (involving sharing the magic lipstick with Jade Paris as Becky Bardot) is also over far too quickly. There are no sex scenes as such though because, quite simply, they wouldn't add anything to the plot one way or another. It's all just a bit of a burlesque tease which again is a clever way of tying "Trasharella" back into "Showgirls" and "Striptease" for Rena Riffel worshippers everywhere. I also have to mention the TV Batman-style fight scenes with onscreen "Kapows". I wish that they had gone on longer mainly because I could watch catfights like this all day especially if they involve Jade Paris. I know from Rena herself that a lot was unfortunately edited out because the movie was getting too long. The whole thing now runs for 102 minutes. With all its flaws, "Trasharella" is firmly entrenched in the "so bad it's good" genre and only falls short slightly from having a guaranteed cult status. I can still see a cult following of convention girls wearing nothing but dresses made of black plastic bags, maple-heeled pumps and buying "magic lipstick" replicas complete with Austrian crystals inside the cap. Actually even if it never happens that little excursion into the realm of my imagination was a special moment. If you are into Ed Wood then you'll love "Trasharella". Comparisons to the British "Razor Blade Smile" (from 1998) can also be drawn as Trasharella is an equally iconic character to Eileen Daly's Lilith Silver but without the vampiric elements. Perhaps if Trasharella had become a leather-clad vampire rather than a trashbag-wearing vampire slayer then she would have been even sexier. Maybe there's an idea for a sequel... "Pleatherella" perhaps? "Trasharella" definitely needs a sequel as the ending really didn't go the way I expected it to. Count Smokula seems to be indestructable in spite of being "killed" twice in this movie (once with a Barbie doll "crucifix" of all things) and would certainly benefit from a repeat performance as Trasharella's nemesis. Anything that gets Rena Riffel to cover her chest in fake blood again has to be a good thing, right? There are no big special effects other than some blood spatter but boobs and blood are usually the only elements needed to please me even if a movie lacks in most of the qualities that normal people (and I use that term very loosely) need to justify the amount of entertainment they derive from it all. The fact that one of the pairs of boobs here belongs to Rena Riffel is the most special effect of all. Did I mention how Rena looks so beautiful in every scene that it makes you want to lick the TV screen? Well, I have now. Apart from her physical charms though, Rena shows that she has a considerable amount of talent. In truth, she's a Jill-of-all-trades and most of her creativity is yet to be tapped but "Trasharella" is very much a step in the right direction. It not only makes me wonder what Rena would do with a bigger budget but also how much success she could achieve if she were to pull things up a couple of notches and continue to direct other, less Rena-centric, projects. It's no secret that, in spite of watching a lot of bad movies, I'm hardly the biggest fan of this genre but, to be fair, "Trasharella" is simply the most refreshing low-budget, independent movie that I've seen for a long time. I recommend it and I'm quite pleased to have it in my collection. It's not much of a horror movie and is certainly not going to win any mainstream awards but you won't be disappointed if you like bad movies which are intentionally made to be that way. |
May 14, 2009 | N/A |
5651 ratings
458 reviews
