Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

It still hurts.

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:41 (A review of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace)

"A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion."

The overwhelming sense of anticipation and excitement towards 1999's Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace was omnipresent leading up to the movie's release, with the world finally welcoming a new Star Wars movie for the first time since Return of the Jedi in 1983. But with a far more out-of-touch George Lucas presiding over the prequel with a team of powerless Yes Men, The Phantom Menace remains one of cinema's biggest disappointments, a flaccid science fiction space opera which neglects everything that made its predecessors so successful in the first place. Admittedly, from a visual perspective, The Phantom Menace does have its upsides, with state-of-the-art CGI, eye-catching production design, and a few thrills. However, the film has nothing going for it below the surface, lacking three-dimensional characters and even a real protagonist. Even if the critics were surprisingly positive towards The Phantom Menace back in 1999, time has not been kind to this entry in the Star Wars franchise, and the general perception among movie-goers and critics has become overwhelmingly negative for good reason.


The Trade Federation, headed by Viceroy Nute Gunray (Silas Carson), has blocked trade paths to the planet of Naboo with a fleet of battleships. Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) are dispatched to negotiate with the Trade Federation leadership, but Darth Sidious (Ian McDiarmid) - who is secretly pulling the strings - wants no part of the negotiations. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan uncover a plan to invade Naboo, and return to the planet to warn the senate, whereupon they meet Gungan outcast Jar Jar Binks (Ahmed Best). Naboo's young ruler, Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), is in danger, prompting the pair of Jedi Knights to serve as her protectors. En route to Coruscant, the Queen's ship is forced to land on the desert planet of Tatooine for repairs. On the planet, Qui-Gon meets young slave Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), and immediately senses that the Force is with him. Feeling that Anakin is destined to become a powerful Jedi, Qui-Gon whisks the 9-year-old boy away from his slave life, though the Jedi Counsel feels that something about Anakin is a bit off.

The fundamental story and screenplay issues at the core of The Phantom Menace have already been emphatically highlighted by the infamous 70-minute video review courtesy of Red Letter Media, making this review borderline pointless. Suffice it to say, though, it's difficult to defend Lucas' detrimentally elementary writing - The Phantom Menace plays out like the first draft of a script in need of a big overhaul. Looking back at the original Star Wars trilogy, it was by no means complex, adhering to a standard Joseph Campbell Hero's Journey template, while Lucas also took inspiration from Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress. But for whatever reason, The Phantom Menace wastes far too much time on political nonsense which never generates as much traction or momentum as it should. The attempt at introducing a degree of complexity is appreciated in theory, but it's disastrous in practise, leading to severe pacing issues that Lucas simply is not talented enough to overcome. Ultimately, the mix of humdrum political machinations and juvenile toilet humour creates a jarring dissonance that's overwhelming.


Filmmaking should be a collaborative process. After all, the original trilogy was not all Lucas, as other creative individuals were involved that helped shape the movies in a considerable way. Hell, Lucas didn't even write or direct The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi. But The Phantom Menace sees Lucas working with a blank cheque to fulfil his vision, writing and directing despite not being overly talented in either department, not allowing any potentially valuable third party input. There's no other way to cut it: The Phantom Menace is littered with dismal dialogue, forgettable characters, vague plot machinations, illogical character actions and absurd contrivances, with Lucas shoving as many references and connections to the original trilogy as possible, logic be damned. The rules and laws governing the movie perpetually change at Lucas' convenience, too. Moreover, the idea that "midi-chlorians" in the blood give Jedi Knights their power contradicts the original trilogy. And that's to say nothing of the often idiotic characters, with the circumstances of a late villain death sure to provoke unintentional laughter. Also, who else is disturbed that the future Darth Vader - one of the most badass screen villains in history - is nicknamed "Annie"?

Action sequences are The Phantom Menace's bread and butter, and the film does contain a few exciting, colourful set-pieces, as to be expected. At times, the movie does come to life, and less finicky viewers will probably enjoy the lightsaber duels and spaceship battles, especially with the competent sound and production design. Whereas the subsequent prequels progressively relied more and more on CGI, The Phantom Menace does contain a fair amount of practical effects, with location filming and miniature cities, while the 35mm cinematography does give the movie a more agreeable look than Attack of the Clones or Revenge of the Sith. Even better is John Williams' reliably majestic score, which sounds very much in line with his contributions to the original trilogy. However, the movie's cinematic illusion never quite gets there, with the visuals looking too artificial rather than tangible. The heavy use of CGI characters as opposed to elaborate make-up doesn't help, while Lucas is content to clutter shots with digital creatures and vehicles. With shots often too busy, it proves to be a distraction. Even the space battles look less impressive than those in the original trilogy, with the digital ships lacking the tangibility of practical models.


At the end of the day, the excessive visual pizzazz simply cannot compensate for the dire shortage of tension, and, most critically, heart. The original Star Wars trilogy did not feature fast, heavily-choreographed lightsaber battles, compensating for the lack of impressive acrobatics by ensuring each duel meant something. Ultimately, the emotionally-charged conflicts from The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi make far more of an impact than the hollow fights in The Phantom Menace. Lucas does try to inject some emotion late into the proceedings with a (predictable) character death, but it's hard to feel anything, especially with movie cutting between so many other battles, creating a narrative discord which perpetually keeps us at arm's length.

Another major drawback is the cast, with none of the actors able to enliven Lucas' often terrible dialogue. This is the role that prompted young Jake Lloyd to give up acting, and though it does seem mean-spirited to keep criticising him, he really is a liability as Anakin. Although a cute kid, his performance is forced, and it always seems like he's acting, which takes us out of the action. Especially with Lloyd forced to act in front of green screen and CGI characters, a tough call even for a veteran actor, he just comes off stiff and unconvincing. Equally slipshod are the more better-known members of the cast, with Neeson a thoroughly uninvolving Qui-Gon, while McGregor is a blank slate, showing none of the gravitas or passion he displayed in Trainspotting just a few years prior. We do not learn much about their thinly-written characters, and they recite lines without any feeling. Meanwhile, the likes of Portman and even a misused Samuel L. Jackson fail to make a positive impression, though this is likely Lucas' fault. I mean, Portman was sensational in Leon: The Professional and has proven acting chops, making her wooden performance here a real head-scratcher.


As with all the Star Wars movies, changes were made to the movie for its Blu-ray release, with Lucas most noticeably choosing to replace puppet Yoda with a CGI model. It's an unnecessary change that's not even done well - the practical puppet looks far more real.

Divorced from the heightened expectations of 1999, The Phantom Menace looks worse than ever, and it's hard to find much merit in Lucas' tremendous misfire. The first Star Wars movie was a massive gamble back in the 1970s, therefore everybody had something to prove and strived to deliver the best possible product. But with The Phantom Menace, the core audience was in place and the movie was always going to be insanely profitable, taking away any incentive for Lucas to put any effort into the screenplay. The target audience of children will be bored by the tedious politics, while adults will be alienated by the irritating antics of Jar Jar Binks, and the fundamental story problems which make the picture impossible to fully embrace despite some impressive visuals. It's an undeniable and frankly sad fact that Star Wars fandom was far purer prior to the release of The Phantom Menace, and the prequel trilogy in general, which forever divided the Jedi Nation.

Even in 2015, The Phantom Menace still hurts.

4.0/10


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Pathetically entertaining.

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:36 (A review of Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot)

"It was so cute, when he was 6 years old he walked into the kitchen and said "Mommy! My peepee's stuck in my zipper!""

It completely pains me to say this, but Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot is nowhere near as horrible as some people made it out to be. I saw it for Stallone's presence in the cast and didn't expect much from the tame PG rating and...well...the title as well as the sickening poster.

Stallone plays a police sergeant named Joe Bromowski; he's tough, cool and enjoys his insignificant existence. But his mother Tutti (Getty) arrives in town to visit her only son Joe. For Joe, this is a true nightmare; he unknowingly embarrasses him at every opportunity, interferes with his life as a bachelor, starts tidying up his house and doing the laundry.

When Tutti witnesses a murder she wants to use all her knowledge to the advantage of her son, hoping to get him promoted.

Stallone's performance (which earned a Razzie award for 'Worst Actor') contains more lines of dialogue than you're ever likely to hear in one sitting. And here's the weird part: he's actually understandable to an extent. Comedy isn't his thing, nor will it ever be, but his performance isn't too bad. As for Estelle Getty...well, she's just playing an overprotective mother. Do you expect this to be Oscar material? Her facial expressions at times are enough to warrant a Razzie.

The violence is tame throughout, which is a real shame because with some 'tough guy' scenes mixed in there it could've made an okay action flick. Instead we're stuck with this.

There are a few scenes that are very funny, but other scenes are embarrassing and could make one cringe (especially when the mother blows the smoke from the barrel of a gun after firing). Stallone's mum should've shot...the screenwriter, that is.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Van Damme's career low point.

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:32 (A review of Street Fighter)

"If good men do nothing, that is evil enough."


Street Fighter is a woeful film adaptation of the popular Capcom arcade game. I'm sure there are many fans (or nerds, more precisely) who expected very good results...but what was released was far from good.

I don't think words can describe what a complete and spectacular disaster this film turned out to be.

First and foremost...the plot was utterly useless. It was an even worse excuse for Van Damme to execute fight moves that look incredibly fake and downright stupid!

And why was the film so tame?! Whose idea was it to water down all the violence?! As a result the film feels tremendously bad, tame, childish and corny beyond belief! And then of course the script...was dismal. Attempts at humour made the already painful experience exceedingly worse. And I didn't know it was possible for this film to be any worse.

The one-liners made me gasp in embarrassment. And of course the wooden Belgian made the lines sound even worse. But what made Van Damme worse than ever is the tame violence and the horrible script. Some of his movies were pathetically entertaining because they showcased awesome action...but the fight scenes didn't even look impressive. Instead they're underwhelming and childish.

And you just need to see Kylie Minogue in the cast to further cement our every fear. Her lines sounded so contrived and unnatural. There is not enough room to criticise all things that are wrong with this movie.

The poor excuse for a plot basically follows Colonel William F. Guile (Van Damme) who is in the middle of a war against some evil dictator who couldn't look sinister even if he's pitted against Kermit the Frog! Guile and his team of soldiers (including many who are scaringly good at martial arts for grunts) must go and free some hostages who are being held for ransom.

Many have looked upon Street Fighter as the worst movie ever made. This title sounds rather accurate. The entire film is childish, embarrassingly corny and even extremely boring. Why couldn't the character kill the screenwriters instead?!?!



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Great entertainment!

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:28 (A review of Swordfish)

"You know what the problem with Hollywood is? They make shit."


Swordfish opens with a bang. John Travolta delivers a high energy monologue about his annoyance with Hollywood movies that begins the movie perfectly. It sets the tone, and is well delivered.

This high level of intelligence and slick filmmaking is well maintained throughout the running time. Although many critics disliked Swordfish, I found this to be an absolutely superb movie; it's well written, very slick and highly entertaining.

The plot is a complex system of plot twists, with many of the scenes told in flashback. A highly skilled computer hacker named Stanley (Jackman) has just been released from gaol and is forbidden to see his daughter (Grimes). The world's most dangerous criminal, Gabriel Shear (Travolta), hires Stanley to assist in the theft of almost 6 billion dollars in unused government funds. In return Gabriel promises to get Stanley's daughter back to him.

There are several sub-plots (some unneeded) but the film is still mighty entertaining from start to finish. It was also never boring with the great performances from everyone.

Hugh Jackman is especially brilliant here. His role was vital for the advancement of the plot, and he pulled it off extremely well. Travolta was amazing. Although I've never been a real fan of his, I thought his performance was top-notch and unbelievably effective. Berry's role is minor, but played very well. Don Cheadle displays this high level of quality acting as well.

For me, Swordfish was an absolutely superb movie. It was entertaining, had its fair share of action, and has a great script. It was only marred by getting stupid towards the end, and a bit of shoddy CGI. Aside from some minor flaws, I recommend this movie to all!



0 comments, Reply to this entry

Loads of fun!

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 06:17 (A review of School of Rock)

"Stick it to the man!"

Jack Black is always talented when a quality comedy role drops into his lap. In the case of The School of Rock it seems that he threw everything he had at this role - and the results are outstanding.

Truth be told I didn't have much of an interest in seeing this one because of the tame-sounding PG rating. I figured that the gags wouldn't be as funny. I completely regret avoiding this film for so long.

The School of Rock is one of the best comedies I've ever seen, and also one of the best films I've ever seen. So what's the appeal? Jack Black is awesome in this role. He has heart, he's hilarious and he's an absolute delight to watch. Each of the kids in the cast are also great. Each character is unique and all of them are highly appealing! Throw in a fantastic script, a quality supporting cast and a lot of splendid rock music and the results are hard to beat.

Dewey Finn (Black) is a rock god screw up who is desperate for a job. He was thrown out of his own band because the other members got sick of his immature antics. To make matters worse he was dismissed from the band in the lead-up to the Battle of the Bands competition.

Dewey is poor, has little money and needs to make a living. He takes the name of his roommate Ned (White) and accepts a job as a substitute teacher at a local school. Dewey's spirits are lifted when he discovers that the kids he's teaching are actually the band of his dreams; a room of musically talented kids who would be capable of helping him win the upcoming Battle of the Bands competition. And so he starts putting rehearsals in motion but tells them that it's a secret school project.

Jack Black steals the spotlight during every scene he features in. He is a fantastic actor who displays brilliant skills in this film. He's also a very skilful singer in addition to his acting talent. Mike White (who also co-wrote the script) is wonderful. Joan Cusack was another extraordinary addition to the cast as the school's principal. Like I stated before, the kids who starred in the movie are just fantastic. They're child actors but they're excellent; each has their own distinguished character who exhibits traits that are present in real life schools.

The cherry on top was the music. The songs that were written for the film are creative and catchy. In addition we have songs from Led Zeppelin and AC/DC played constantly throughout the movie. The songs from the aforementioned artists are some of my favourite rock songs as well.

The School of Rock is a film that I never expected would turn out so well. This is a terrific film to watch with the whole family because you will all have a great time. The appeal stretches from the younger audiences to the adult audience.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A classic!

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 04:15 (A review of All the King's Men)

"I don't need money. People gives me things because they believe in me."

The Academy Awards favoured All the King's Men with Best Picture, Best Actor and Best Actress as well as many other well-earnt nominations.

The film is a classic story that takes an uncompromising look at how power can corrupt a man. Many timeless movie gems have explored such ground (my personal favourite being Mr. Smith Goes to Washington) and all have become much loved films many decades after their original release.

Unfortunately the years haven't been too kind to All the King's Men; it delivers a poignant message but has dated quite a bit. In this day and age it will be difficult to find movie-goers with a strong compulsion to watch a classic like this. It seems that the modern-day cinema generation don't enjoy the old films anymore.

All the King's Men is based on a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel by Robert Penn Warren. The film concerns the politically corrupt rise of a "little guy" to his destiny in securing the Governorship of the State. Broderick Crawford plays Willie Stark in a performance that earned him an Oscar. Stark eventually retains a position of power as the governor. But along the way he loses his innocence and becomes equally as corrupt as those who tried to destroy him during his ascension to governor of the state.

All the King's Men doesn't examine the corruption of a politician in Washington. Instead the film examines the corruption of your typical guy with an ambition to reach governorship. In that respect it's a human-interest story with no political agenda; a tale that shows what politics can do to an ordinary bloke.

The motivated performances are what power this dialogue-driven drama. This statement is reflected in the decision to present the film with Best Actor and Best Actress. Broderick Crawford delivers a bravura performance as Willie Stark. At the beginning he seems like just your average guy wanting to make a mark on the country in the aspect of politics. Throughout the film he seems very focused and concentrated on his powerful portrayal. It's easy to get engaged in the actions of his character. His performance is engrossing and intriguing. The supporting cast absolutely excelled themselves; presenting some truly magnificent characters that are relatable and fascinating. There's a host of fantastic characters thrown into the mix.

All the King's Men may not be as good as Capra's classic Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (that addresses the same kind of issues), but it stands strongly on its own intrinsic worth. It's a gutsy move to tackle such subject matter and I believe the filmmakers handled it with great style and sophistication. It has dated but most of its original impact remains. Winner of 3 Oscars.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Not too bad...

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 27 April 2008 01:33 (A review of Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles)

"Your body's dying. Pay no attention, It happens to us all."

Vampire horror movies have fascinated me since I first viewed the mother of the genre: that is, F.W. Murnau's Nosferatu. Many have tried but never gotten close to the originality and brilliance of the 1922 German silent picture based on Bram Stoker's Dracula.

With this film, Interview with the Vampire is based on a series of novels by Anne Rice (who also wrote the screenplay for the film). The novels and film alike were widely acclaimed by critics and audience. Unfortunately for me, when I at long last saw this movie I couldn't understand all the ruckus.

The film opens as we are introduced to two characters; one is a radio show host named Daniel (Slater) and the other is a mysterious figure named Louis (Pitt). Louis claims that he is an actual vampire and chooses to share his life story with Daniel.

Naturally, at first Daniel is reluctant to believe Louis' declaration of being a member of the undead. But after a quick demonstration Louis then proceeds to tell his epic tale of love, betrayal, loneliness and hunger; his life of living death that never ends.

A bulk of the story takes place during the 18th Century. Louis is bitten by a vampire named Lestat (Cruise) who becomes his mentor. Initially Louis' attitude towards vampiric activities is negative; but his life is never the same when Lestat brings young Claudia (Dunst) into the equation.

At the outset I thought this film had massive potential to be the next great vampire movie. The acting can't be faulted and the attention to detail is unbelievably meticulous; featuring some gorgeous production design and authentic costumes. But the film is very hard to get into. We're just thrown into a world without knowing anything about the characters. The opening introduction just wasn't enough character development before launching into the story. And throughout the film the filmmakers failed to frequently remind us that it's just a character telling a story. Very rarely do we cut back to the hotel, and too infrequently do we hear voice-over narration.

After the first 50 minutes the film becomes unnecessarily relentless. Things begin getting dull and bleak. And then the film keeps dragging on; becoming increasingly boring. Maybe people who are besotted with vampires could overlook the shallow screenplay.

Like I stated previously, the performances are almost impossible to fault. Tom Cruise sparked controversy when he was cast in the role of Lestat. It took a little while for vampiric Cruise to sink in. He gives it everything he can, but I don't feel that he was right for the role. In fact I find Cruise completely miscast. He has his moments, though.

Brad Pitt shows great versatility in his performance. When his character is an experienced member of the vampire race he is wooden but chilling. His make-up really assisted in this aspect. Back in the 18th Century he seems very reluctant to carry out the duties of a vampire. He expresses emotion quite well while playing this side of his character.

Kirsten Dunst beguiled audiences with a performance that belies her years. The film needed a young actress who could display a range of emotions for different situations. Dunst nailed the role of tragic young Claudia.

The director failed to an extent because the film couldn't engage me. The acting was great but the images were quite dull throughout the movie. The gore is inexorable when the occasion calls for it. Apart from the gory scenes the film had nothing going for it. The drama seemed shallow and is staged appallingly. Maybe if the dialogue was a bit more fascinating (looking at the screenwriter for this flaw) then the film could have been a lot better.

Interview with the Vampire had potential that was spoilt in its execution. Apart from some creative ideas, intriguing imagery and stellar performances the film has little else to offer. Followed by Queen of the Damned.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A wasted opportunity.

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 26 April 2008 01:50 (A review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)

"Everything in this room is eatable, even I'm eatable! But that is called "cannibalism," my dear children, and is in fact frowned upon in most societies."

This new version of the classic children's fantasy book had everything going for it: Tim Burton was helming the project, Johnny Depp is in the lead role, special effects were updated and improved, a great cast and impressive production values. What could go wrong, right?

A lot, apparently.

Sure, visually the film is stunning, but did anyone take a moment to consider a better script? Burton has paid more attention on the production design and visual effects as opposed to the script, character development and doing justice to the source material.

For starters the film is unnecessarily lengthy and corny at times, with new things being added and classic things from the book being removed. They actually didn't include Charlie's sin with the fizzy drinks! That was what made the original so innovative and exciting, but above all made Charlie a lot more human. It was a great part and a great concept as well. Instead they add a scene of what happens to the children + parents after leaving the factory. This doesn't do anything for the plot and is completely unnecessary.

What's more - there are pointless flashbacks of Willy Wonka's early days that make the film even longer than it already should be. The flashbacks were nothing more than an excuse for Burton to bring Christopher Lee into the picture. These flashbacks also kill all the mystery surrounding Willy Wonka that made me love the original book and movie in the first place! The flashbacks slow down the pacing as well. On the subject of pacing, the film's ending was an unnecessary detour into clichéd territory. Work needed to be done in that aspect.

Anyway, the film is a retelling of the classic Roald Dahl children's tale. Willy Wonka (Depp), the mysterious chocolate maker, had closed his factory for 20 years but decides to reopen it temporarily for 5 lucky children who find a golden ticket inside a Wonka chocolate bar.

That's pretty much the spoiler-free synopsis. Johnny Depp is an amazing actor (and, for the sake of the Depp lovers who may be reading this, attractive) and his version of the character is adorable. I will admit that he seems a little out of place in relation to the timeline. (He doesn't look a day over 35, but yet the factory was closed for 20 years...was he a teenager when he opened it?!) Depp gives the film its moments of comedic genius. I loved the hilarious dialogue he delivers throughout the movie. His lines are continually quotable, albeit childish. He continues to remind us all why he is the greatest actor of all time.

Freddie Highmore just isn't a very good Charlie Bucket, unfortunately. His lines sounded horrendously contrived. He's cute, but can't act.

Danny Elfman's score is one of the film's redeeming features. His score is evocative and exciting. Maybe a little bit too pleonastic but still enough to trigger one's imagination.

Tim Burton is one of my favourite directors of all time. The production design was lavish and attractive, with special effects that look extraordinary. Is there anything else to expect from a Burton movie? The man is a visionary and when I heard he was helming this project I felt relieved as he was talking about "how faithful to the source material" it would be. So why did he lie?

I'm sorry, Tim, but you missed the mark completely here. Only watch this one for the impressive, updated special effects and Depp as a better Willy Wonka.

In a nutshell: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is a wasted opportunity. From a technical standpoint the film is flawless. There are a few actors that look out of place; however the film boasts production design that is delightful to exhibit.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

So bad it's hilarious!

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 26 April 2008 01:24 (A review of Plan 9 from Outer Space (1969))

"Perhaps, on your way home, someone will pass you in the dark, and you will never know it... for they will be from outer space."

Hailed as the worst film of all time, I generally tend to agree.

Wood has been famous for the way he makes films; be it the obvious fake props, the horrible screenplays or the hideous special effects used,

Wood put his mark on Hollywood as the worst film director in the history of mankind. Now I would agree with that statement, however it seems Uwe Boll has taken that place from Wood. Wood is better than Boll in ever way; Wood was a respectable person (Just watch Ed Wood, the Tim Burton film) whereas Boll needs his head checked and needs to be shot.

Plan 9 From Outer Space is one of the fakest films ever seen, and basically every scene looks so fake it's distracting! Cardboard tombstones, obvious painted backgrounds, etc.

So, anyway, in the film a bunch of aliens (Who look like humans, sound like humans and speak perfect English) instigate a plan where they will resurrect dead humans as vampires and zombies, controlling them with electronic doohickies, to prevent mankind from creating a Solaranite (A type of bomb).

The plot, the script, the direction, the special effects and everything else in this mess are laughably appalling. The film is so bad it's good and turns itself into a comedy. It really seems like a comedy, and nothing looks realistic! What's more - Bela Lugosi died a few days into filming and was replaced with a non-actor chiropractor who bears no resemblance to Bela, is taller than him and wears a mask across his face that makes the film even more laughable!

Yet despite all the horrendous ingredients in this mess; Plan 9 From Outer Space can be incredibly entertaining and essential viewing.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Trademark terrible movie.

Posted : 17 years, 1 month ago on 26 April 2008 01:20 (A review of Bride of the Monster (1955))

"A race of atomic supermen that will conquer the world!" as quoted by Bela Lugosi's character in another of Ed Wood's famously appalling films.

That quote pretty much sums up the plot...and the absolutely appalling screenplay.

Bride of the Monster is about a crazed doctor named Eric Vornoff who is experimenting with people to create his own "master race" of atomic people to rule the world.

Premise is weak, and executed appallingly! Performances are just woeful, with Lugosi visibly past his prime, Tor Johnson doing nothing more than zombie sleep-walking and a bit of roaring, and there's a few others that do nothing more than winge and moan, and add nothing to the story.

Script is horrible...I mean how did the actors ever agree to say such lines?! And the octopus...well it's so rubber and fake I believe even a novelty store would be fiercely ashmed to so much as glance at it. The attacking scenes...laughable. The opening attack scene was just dismal, with bad editing, bad acting and above all no believability at all.

The octopus never so much as touches the guy. All other attacks throughout the film are even worse...with an actor happily sitting amongst the tenticles and pulling the lifeless tenticles onto themself.

And don't get me started on the alligator...that scene was even worse. It was different in every shot, and is never seen in the same frame as the actor.

And what's more - a snake that looks out of place and suddenly turns all stiff and rubber a second before it's killed.

Regular on set goofs are visible, with shaking sets, and fake looking props. Heck, even when things get shot there's not so much as a bullet mark on them.

Those who've seen Tim Burton's biopic of Ed Wood will be familiar with the offscreen misadventures the crew faced.

The film is another trademark bad movie from Ed Wood...so bad it's very watchable and extremely funny at times. I watched it for its comedic entertainment value, and that's the only reason anyone should watch it.


0 comments, Reply to this entry