Author: Puppy

Ok, so this is just as easily laughed at and dismissed by modern horror fans for its obvious deficiencies as it is lauded by rabid Romero fans for its obvious strengths.

The reality, for me, is somewhere in the middle.  Or perhaps both at once.

The “action” is cheezy B-grade, the “exciting” music and “shocking” FX are terribly dated, and the acting, for the most part, isn’t any better than the original.

In fact, it’s actually WORSE at times…which is difficult to comprehend given the time and budget Romero had to make this with compared to ‘Night’.

So what’s good about it?  Well, while it’s not particularly “scary” anymore, it’s certainly creepy.  There’s lots of little ironic/dark/witty touches and ideas that you won’t find in most of the admittedly more “realistic” alterations that have been done to death since.

But messages are best received in watchable formats.  Otherwise, just write an op-ed piece.  So the idea that this film is “important” because of what Romero may have been trying to say is absurd, as is the idea that it’s “important” because of the obvious influence it had on later zombie flicks.  ‘The Last Man On Earth’ was influential, but there’s no way I’d ever sit through that mess again.

The sad thing is…with ALL the problems with this film, with all the areas that could easily be improved upon, with all the bare ideas that could be made so much better…most zombie flicks STILL aren’t as good.  I don’t know of any other genre of film that fails to produce works 25-30 years after a dated archetype that aren’t BETTER than that archetype.

Grade: C+

The best Trek movie ever. 

Why?  Because it doesn’t try to get too cerebral and make science “fiction” sense…it tries to entertain.  And how do we do that, without a great script?  By producing characters of extremes that we all know and love (or hate) and a great conflict and having lots of really dramatic/emotional/adrenalized scenes.

Besides Nimoy and Montalban, the actors here are very limited in scope.  But they’ve had their characters for the most part already defined…all they have to do is fall in step with what is expected, not break any new ground.  And that’s exactly what they do.

Kirstie Alley, unfortunately, shows only slightly less emotion as a Vulcan than she does several years later as a human on ‘Cheers’.

Recommendation: If you hated the original Trek you won’t like this.  This is very First-Generational, NOT Second-Generational…not cerebral enough.  If you liked the original Trek, watch the episode ‘Space Seed’ right before this. You might also want to read a little ‘Moby Dick’. If you couldn’t care less and think all the fuss is really dumb, you’ll like this as much as you’ll like any other good sci-fi action flick.

Hey, James Horner on music.  I love that guy.

It’s not ‘Aliens’, but, like gasoline since Prohibition, “it ain’t bad”.

The ultimate explosive sci-fi soap opera.

Inspirational Quote: “You’ve managed to kill just about everyone else but like a poor marksman you KEEP MISSING the TARGET…”

Grade: B+

5/26/13: It’s not ‘Aliens’.  But maybe I should rate ‘Aliens’ a little higher.  Grade: A-

Well, I had to watch it a second time (part of it) because I apparently fell asleep near the end.  So, I guess what I’m saying with that comment is that all of it is dated.

This wouldn’t necessarily be that much of a problem, but most of it is very recent and as such is intended to be cutting-edge and relevant.

So there’s lots of good Tina Fey as Palin, but most of the best parts are quick flashbacks to no-longer-relevant parodies, which by this point aren’t much more irrelevant that the rest, but are funnier before they’re quickly cut off.

Amy Poehler’s Palin-rap ending is still cool, though.

Grade: C

It’s a zombie flick.

The setting is fairly interesting as zombie flicks go, the zombie make-up is decent, and there’s halfway-decent acting from a no-name cast.

But there’s nothing “believable” about it, you don’t really care about any of the characters, and nothing especially exciting happens aside from the usual.  After about halfway through it gets really stupid as “internal conflict” is introduced for no apparent reason other than…well, you have to have that in a zombie flick!

They’re a cross between en”rage”d and zombified…seem to drift back and forth for no adequately explored reason.

So there’s really nothing here that’s not better…blah blah blah…but if you love zombie movies it’s tolerable.

Grade: D

“part mockumentary” – Yes, really dry and fairly dull for the most part.

“part unabashed gore-fest” – Very, very little of that.

Gets a bit Blair-Witchy in the second half.

Grade: D-

‘Glory’ is the story of the forming, training, and performance of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment during the American Civil War.

Based upon letters written from newly-commissioned Colonel Robert Gould Shaw to his mother during the period of events chronicled, it is as interesting for its character development and interaction as it is for its (obvious) social and historical message.

Matthew Broderick is excellent in an (appropriately) understated performance (rare thing to say for a lead, I know…) as young Colonel Shaw, convincingly portraying both the naivete and conviction of a young man thrown in quite over his head into something he believes in but can’t quite fathom, at least in the beginning.

Morgan Freeman is brilliant (as usual) and Denzel Washington fully deserves the Academy Award he won for playing the passionate and defiant runaway slave Trip. One of the most powerful scenes in the movie occurs when these two actors, whose characters could barely be more different while still respecting each other, bring their conflicting philosophies to a logical argumentative conclusion.

I only have two complaints about the movie.

First, the battle scenes are a bit hokey and dated (not to the period of the movie, which is a GOOD thing, but to the limits of the battle “choreography” and the acting talents of the very extra extras), and second (and most annoying) the comparatively embarrassingly mediocre performance by Cary Elwes, who hit his professional pinnacle with ‘The Princess Bride’ and seems to be unsure if he’s a dramatic actor or a satirist, which, in a movie of this caliber and type, is a bit of a problem.

One last thing…

Roger Ebert, in his long-ago review, complained about the movie focusing on Robert Gould Shaw, saying it was racist and merely playing up to a “white” audience to focus on his contributions.

This is nonsense.

Shaw was the driving force behind the 54th, and is no less a hero than the brave men that fought alongside him. Saying that the movie focuses unnecessarily on his role is ignorant and just plain false, the sort of nonsense that gives Liberals (of which I am, to a certain extent, one) a bad name.

I mean, Shaw WAS their leader…the actions of the 54th are displayed exactly as they should – a brave leader and his brave men, together, each no better and no worse.

Grade: A

11/16/23: Just a little cleanup.

Hey, Jason Mewes.  At first I was like “Hey, that guy looks and sounds kinda like Jason Mewes”…then I realized it was.

It’s a dark comedy, the tasteless but (in this case only kinda) funny sort you’d expect from Jay. And he basically plays Jay here, not quite as constantly-jabbering and with shorter hair, but pretty much Jay.

There’s really nothing more to it than that.  So, in the category it squarely falls into, it’s not nearly as good as ‘The Return Of The Living Dead’, or even ‘Idle Hands’.  But if you liked both of those, you could probably sit through this tolerably if you had nothing better to do.

Inspirational Quote: “Is she dead…er?”

Grade: D

It’s a zombie movie set right after the Civil War.

So I guess that’s how it’s “different” from other zombie movies.  That’s the hook.

Otherwise it’s the same old sh1t, nothing special.  Kinda pointless, really.  Unless you want a historical fictional account of how the whole zombie thing started.  Very dull, though.

The great thing about making this movie is that it must have been REALLY cheap.  I mean, a few uniforms, some old pistols, lots of make-up, and rent a national park or forest.  There you go!

Inspirational Quote: “She was very different from me.  She was…younger.”

Grade: F

*SHUDDER*  Comedy For Dummies.

Dated, dated, dated.  Before he departed on his really mediocre film career he made a lot of mediocre sketches, only occasionally saved by the people he worked with and/or who wrote for him.

This sh1t was barely worth watching when it was new, never mind seeing a whole stinking pile of it many years later.  Recommended only for the very young and the very stupid.

Grade: F

11/23/12: “occasionally saved by the people he worked with and/or who wrote for him.” Grade: D-

Extremely simplistic “modern” re-telling of ‘Inferno’, the first part of Dante Alighieri’s ‘Divine Comedy’.

The “animation” is truly wretched, and the “modern” references just make it seem absurd/silly, not more relevant.  So it’s pointless. 

I only really watched it because I saw James Cromwell’s name in the credits.

Not for kiddies…the little jokes and quips aren’t really funny, so only watch this if you want to know the story (sort of) without having to read it.  But I can’t imagine this would possibly scare anyone, and unlike the original poem, it’s completely without majesty.

Grade: F

Featuring:
The McLaughlin Group
Massive Headwound Harry
Gerald Ford (and wolves)
Carsenio
Grumpy Old Man
Swayze fantasy
affectionate Italian restaurant
psychic game show contestant
“Choppin’ Broccoli” and other hits
George F. Will’s Sports Machine
‘It’s A Wonderful Life’ lost ending (You won’t find it on the Netflix Shatner episode)

Little bits:
Jimmy Stewart
porn hearing
McCartney and Sinead
Dylan translation
Dennis Miller/Dennis Miller
Bush V. Dukakis
Bush impressions

And of course some really dated stuff that ISN’T funny.  But not too much.

Grade: A-

2/25/13: Ehhh…let me amend: some REALLY dated stuff that ISN’T funny AT ALL and is borderline painful.  And too much.  This could use a little trimming.  Grade: B+

The cover and the description make it seem like it’s about a woman who seduces men and then eats them.  It’s not.

She doesn’t have an “insatiable appetite”.  Her vagina does.  It’s insatiable.  And very talkative.

So if you’re looking for shock/horror/controversy/gore/drama, this is akin to ‘How To Get Ahead In Advertising’.  But it’s not even good for a burlesque laugh because almost all the scenes involving her vagina also involve her being raped.

She does try to limit it to only the sleaziest of men, so there’s the “tragic hero” part. I guess.

It’s also very badly made…half of the extras apparently either don’t know they’re extras or forgot NOT to look at the camera.

Unlike ‘Lo’ (I did it again), this is not something to watch again.  In fact, having read this, the only reason to watch it at all is if you like rape scenes, plain and simple.

Inspirational Quote: “They can’t find him, they found his car down by the har-bar!”

Grade: F-