You are viewing ihatemovies

Kibakichi 2   
07:10am 31/03/2006
  Well, I rented a weird Japanese werewolf movie called Kibakichi a little while ago, and I got a kick out of that one, so I was happy to see that there's a sequel.

Some guy is in the process of killing a lot of samurai. I guess this guy is some kind of notorious killer, so the samurai really shouldn't be all that surprised that they're no match for him. When he runs out of samurai to kill, the guy seems genuinely disappointed. Then, a voice-over starts up to explain how the Japanese government killed off all the monsters (yokai) for political reasons, and then the fucker has to explain the Kibakichi character to us for some damn reason, even though we saw the first movie and this movie does a good enough job of introducing the guy on its own. Anyway, it's not long before the wandering werewolf Kibakichi meets up with that guy from the first scene. They fight. Kibakichi is wounded. Then, he meets some blind chick who wants to help him. But there are also strange and shadowy figures who want to destroy him because he's a yokai. Oh yeah, and that Red Riding Hood chick is still trying to chase our man down, and she has some sort of romantic subplot with the guy from the start of the movie.

Unfortunately, this one isn't quite as cool as the first one. The swordfights are alright, and there's some gore, but it isn't as messy or as well-put-together as its predecessor. Now, it's watchable enough, I guess, even enjoyable, but it just doesn't reach the heights.

And the ending's kind of lame. That definitely doesn't help any. At first, it seems like it's going to be like the end of the first Kibakichi, with our hero turning into a werewolf and tearing some motherfuckers up, but that's not the way things go. For one thing, the villains turn out to be some sort of unidentified monsters, maybe makai or something. They look incredibly silly, and they spend a lot of time posing. Now, that much is kind of cool, but it doesn't exactly lend itself to good action.

Then, Kibakichi does his transformation, and I start to get really disappointed. At this point, I think that they've just decided to save a few bucks and scale down the werewolf to just some extra hair and claws. No prosthetic makeup or anything. And he doesn't do much in the way of kicking ass. Now, they do eventually turn him into the same sort of badass-looking furball that they had in the first movie, but then all he does is some interpretive dancing. I'm actually a little confused about that part.

Anyway, it's not really a terrible movie. If they come out with a Kibakichi 3, I'll probably rent that. But if it isn't any better, I'd probably stop there.

** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
**** out of ten for the acting
***** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.25 points out of ten
Bottom Line- REASONABLY OKAY MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"I was happy to see... the Japanese government killed off... for political reasons... motherfuckers... good... movie."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
This is What Democracy Looks Like   
07:25am 30/03/2006
  Here's another one of those documentaries with a subject that's interesting enough to make up for the aggravating style of the thing.

In November of 1999, representatives of labor, the environmental movement, and the human rights movement converged on Seattle to protest the last World Trade Organization summit of the year. Tactics of civil disobedience were met by brutal force on the part of the police. Tear gas and pepper spray were used on a regular basis, and a law was passed making it illegal to buy or own a gas mask in the city. There were many beatings and many arrests. But they still shut down the summit.

This was back in the days before public protest was co-opted by the Democrats' party. It was back when protests were less about parades and more about civil disobedience. Sure, you can see a few people in the early scenes wearing giant butterfly wings or standing on stilts, but that sort of bullshit goes right out the window when the cops break out the rubber bullets.

"I am not struggling! I am peaceful! Remove your knee from my neck!"

As in any reasonable documentary about public protest, you can see police beating the shit out of people, dragging them off to be arrested, and firing various riot-control ammunition. The Party's Over had better footage of beanbag-gun-related injuries, but this one does a good job of showing the effects of tear gas and pepper spray.

There's also some interesting material involving the media coverage of the protests. From what they show in the movie at least, it looks like most of the focus in the news was on how unbelievably fair and pleasant the police were being and how horrible and violent the protesters were. This violence took the form of a few broken windows downtown. I actually have a theory about that, but it might seem a little paranoid. I think that the window breakers, as few of them as there were, were hired specifically to be disruptive and provide an excuse to crack down on the protests. Think about it, are anti-WTO protesters really going to be that pissed off at the local Starbucks? The idea seems a little shaky to me.

Unfortunately, the people behind this documentary, particularly its editing, are not particularly suited for the job. For instance, every once in a while, the movie will turn into a slide show, often composed of images completely unrelated to the protests. There are a number of obnoxious video editing techniques used, and they're almost never there to make a point. Occasionally, titles come up on the screen with various statistics, but they rarely have much to do with the protest itself. How about giving us the number of injuries, of arrests?

Strangely enough, though, I actually like most of the music they use, the exception being when that one chick brings her acoustic guitar up to the stage and starts singing about going to jail for freedom or something. That song pretty much sucks. The rest of it isn't bad, though.

****** out of ten for the visuals
******** out of ten for the subject matter
****** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 6.66 points out of ten
Bottom Line- INTERESTING MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Interesting enough to make... the police... disruptive and... obnoxious... but they rarely have... acoustic guitar..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
King Kong (the Peter Jackson version)   
07:17am 29/03/2006
  I used to be a big fan of Peter Jackson's work, but I have to admit that I don't really like the way he's been heading with his last few pictures. But, he's still Peter Jackson, and that's enough to get me to rent his latest overpriced re-re-make of an old monkey movie.

Times are tough in New York. They're tough for Ann Darrow, a vaudeville actress who finds herself out of work. They're tough for Carl Denham, a film director whose new movie is about to be canceled unless he steals a large boat and finds a brand new actress for the project. And they're tough for Jack Driscoll, a well-known playwright who gets stuck on Carl's boat and ends up going on this journey along with the rest of these sad bastards. They're looking for a relatively-uncharted island where Carl wants to shoot his film. Of course, Skull Island isn't the friendliest of environments, so it's not long before Ann's been carried off by a giant gorilla.

The first King Kong, released in 1933, was made for $670,000 and only ran about 100 minutes. The remake, released in 1976, had a budget of $24 million and a running time two hours and fourteen minutes. This new remake, released in 2005, cost $207 million and runs for three hours and seven minutes. My prediction is that they're going to do another remake in 2024. It'll have a budget of $37 trillion and it'll last for about a week. Seven years after that, they'll do it again. This fifth version of Kong will use up all the currency in the world twelve times over and the first showing will run on until the end of time.

This has to stop.

For the first hour or so, the experience of watching Jackson's Kong is akin to spending an equal amount of time staring at a fucking wall. It's not that I particularly mind watching a movie about a struggling actress in depression-era New York, but a story like that requires a certain amount of tact, a certain amount of subtlety, or at least some dialog that doesn't cut through your ears like a bone saw. So, for that first hour, my hatred for this film festers inside me.

Once they finally get to the island, things pick up, and the story goes from mind-numbingly boring to mind-numbingly stupid. It's a welcome change. The portrayal of Skull Island's native people is somewhat reminiscent of Cannibal Ferox, only not as liberal. This section of the film manages to be kind of creepy but also very silly. There's some pole-vaulting.

Then, there's the stuff with the giant gorilla. This part's okay. I like cartoons as much as the next guy. And the gorilla's fight with the three tyrannosaurs is hilarious.

About two hours in, a strange thing happens. The movie starts to win me over a little. Maybe not a lot, but I start getting into it. So, for about an hour, I can sort of enjoy the movie.

I think part of my enjoyment stems from Jackson's bizarre choice to make this a love story between the actress and the gorilla. It's our generation's Bride of the Gorilla. They stare longingly into each other's eyes. They go ice skating in the park. They sit at the top of the Empire State Building together and watch the sun rise. There's no mistaking it: This is a romance. A strange inter-species romance. It's a nice touch.

Now, I've always had a theory about Kong's fixation on women much shorter than himself. You know how you never see King Kong's johnson? I think he has one, but it's just so small that you can't see it under all that fur. Hence the interest in the small ladies. He must realize that they're more compatible with the size of his package. Then again, maybe I'm just over-thinking it.

On a totally different note, I'm getting kind of tired of the way that almost every CGI shot in these movies has to be some kind of roller coaster rimjob. If there's a scene where some computer-generated thingy is running around, then it has to be flying straight at you and spinning, and the whole shot is spinning like some kind of steadicam gone berserk while everything goes whoosh and laser beams are shooting out of your balls. I mean, I'm all for excess, but how about a little variety? How about an action scene where nothing is flying right at me, just for a change of pace?

Anyway, the movie's about one-third complete shit, one-third sort-of-acceptable, and one-third kind-of-decent. It balances out alright, I guess, but I'm not sure it's worth three hours of your life.

*** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
*** out of ten for the acting
***** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.25 points out of ten
Bottom Line- SO-SO MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"King Kong... is hilarious... I've... gone berserk..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Casshern   
07:25am 28/03/2006
  This is one of those movies where they did their acting in front of a green screen and then added the backgrounds in with a computer later on. Strangely enough, this is the least of the movie's problems.

First, we get a quick history lesson about how society is just getting over a ridiculously large war, and the winner is already starting a new war without even bothering to rebuild anything. Then, like most action movies, Casshern begins with a long presentation on the subject of futuristic genetics research. A really long presentation. Well, the mainstream doesn't really buy the scientist's concept, but a couple of people from the government decide to fund the man's research. They're hoping for a military application for this special technique of growing healthy body parts out of goo. A year later, the scientist's son gets killed in the war, and also a big metal lightning bolt comes out of the sky and sticks itself in the middle of the scientist's special goo. Next thing you know, their collection of body parts is reassembling into a hell of a lot of people. The lab's guards respond immediately with heavy machine gun fire, but a few of them escape, taking the scientist's ailing wife. I guess this is all a little too much for our genetic researcher, so he takes his son's body and dumps it into the goo. And the boy comes back from the dead. Meanwhile, the goo people manage to wander out to the mountains and find a big castle. Inside the castle, they find an army of robots, so they figure that this is a good opportunity to get some quick revenge on mankind. Is that one resurrected guy the only one who can fight them? Probably not, but he does his best.

This is a remake (or adaptation or something) of an old anime series from the seventies, one that's better known in the States as Casshan: Robot Hunter. I don't think I've ever seen the anime version, but the name sure sounds familiar. Anyway, one of the more entertaining elements of the movie is that cheesy old-fashioned anime feel that it has. They even put a whole bunch of motion lines in the background when the hero runs really fast. The villains are constantly giving impassioned speeches. Everybody spends a lot of time posing dramatically. There's a certain corny appeal to all that.

And it's a pretty nice-looking movie. Sure, the actors' feet don't always seem quite level with what they're supposed to be walking on, and there are a few visual tricks (There's glare coming off of everything in the room! Again!) that I could have done without, but the photography's good, and the computer work is prettier than most. The robots have a great retro look, too, but they're a very minor part of the movie. I can see why they decided not to stick "Robot Hunter" on the end of the title this time. I think he has all of two fights with robots, and they're both kind of one-sided.

Of course, the fights are where the movie loses me. No matter how pretty your movie is, and no matter how many digital tricks you use, none of it's worth a damn if the fight scene is shot and edited to the point of being nearly incoherent. All of the fight scenes are like that, a cool set-up and lots of special effects, but absolutely incompetent on the level of action. Now, it's not quite as bad as Batman Begins. It's not like they show the fights entirely in closeups or anything like that. There are some good shots of people doing cartwheels or getting knocked into walls and stuff like that, but they're all sort of out of context. We see someone go flying backwards into a wall, and we just have to assume that he got hit at some point. It's a complete mess.

So, of course, with a plot that's kind of shallow and silly, and with a bunch of opening scenes that are frankly quite boring, this isn't the sort of movie that can get by on anything besides the action. Without any decent action, the movie is just aggravating and dull.

*** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
**** out of ten for the acting
*** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4 points out of ten
Bottom Line- NOT A VERY GOOD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Ridiculously large... and... futuristic... I don't think... I could have... two fights with robots... no matter how pretty... they... are..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Bukowski: Born Into This   
07:23am 28/03/2006
  I've never actually read anything of Bukowski's, but when I reviewed a movie called Crazy Love, somebody suggested this documentary. Well, I've heard a lot about the man, so I figured that a movie on the subject could be pretty interesting.

The movie tells the story of poet and author Charles Bukowski. It follows his life from an abusive childhood through a depressing life and into a volatile writing career. There are interviews with people who knew him and with people who didn't know him.

This is one of those cases where a documentary can be pretty good even if it isn't all that well-made, just because the subject is interesting enough to outweigh all the fuck-ups that the asshole filmmaker made along the way. Bukowski sometimes comes across like nothing but a pretentious drunken piece of shit, but then sometimes he seems like some kind of warped genius, and he's entertaining more often than not.

Of course, the filmmakers obviously didn't have a lot to work with in the way of material. Bukowski died back in 1994, and this movie was apparently made in 2003. So, they had to use a lot of pre-existing interview footage, nearly all of which looks like hand-spun shit. There's video footage that dates back to the seventies, which I guess was before they taught video cameras how to focus. It's good material in that the man has interesting things to say, but it's almost painful to look at.

Now, if that was all that was wrong with the movie, I wouldn't have any trouble forgiving it, but these fucking guys just had to go and pull the same shit that they always pull with these modern documentaries. I mean, what's the point of these interviews with celebrity fans of Bukowski's work? Okay, I can understand that Sean Penn actually knew the guy, even if he doesn't have anything all that interesting to say about him, and Bono has a Bukowski story to tell, even if it is kind of a dull one. But did Tom Waits ever even meet Bukowski? Seriously, I've got nothing against Tom Waits, but what the fuck is he doing in this movie? And then there's this whole scene which is nothing but Bono reading one of Bukowski's poems. And I have to ask, "Why Bono?" Why is he the one who should be reading this poem. There are plenty of bits in the movie where Bukowski is reading his own poems, so why did we need this little U2 interlude?

And then, we get all of these cheap little computer tricks with the titles. If some type comes up on the screen with a date or the name of a book, it can't just show up. No, it has to slowly fade in or do a little spin or assemble from broken pieces of itself. Somebody needs to take away these fuckers' digital editing system.

But, like I said, the subject is good enough to make up for all that. The man himself has some amusing things to say and some impressive work that he reads for the camera (my favorite being the story about dropping his wallet in the toilet at the race track), and there's some interesting material in the related interviews.

The most bizarre of these interviews would have to be the guy who claims that he was at a party where he saw Bukowski physically shrink to a height of about two and a half feet. At no point in the story does he make any mention of hallucinogenic substances.

There's also a bit near the end which is actually pretty normal, with the man's widow giving a flowery description of how he died, but then she says "and then he left," and I just had to picture Bukowski's corpse getting up and walking out of the room. It made the rest of the story much more entertaining.

** out of ten for the visuals
******** out of ten for the subject matter
****** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 5.33 points out of ten
Bottom Line- DECENT MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Charles Bukowski... was... pretty..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Rajin' Cajun   
08:51am 27/03/2006
  Moving on through the works of David Heavener, I've come across one where he's playing some kind of kickboxer. And it's a musical.

There's a kickboxing match on, and then one of the fighters has a Vietnam flashback and gets his ass kicked as a result. After that, he has to give up kickboxing. Six months later, when Cage Lamante finally gets out of the VA mental hospital, he's scared. He's scared that he won't be able to make it out in the big scary world. He's scared that the gangsters he used to work for will be waiting for him. That second fear is definitely well-founded, and his ex-boss is planning to rope Cage into a death-match with an evil fighter named Dr. Death. That won't happen until the end of the movie, though, so Cage goes back to his dishwashing job and starts writing really bad songs. His girlfriend is a really bad singer, so maybe they can put together some kind of an act.

No, of course it's not a good movie. It's a David Heavener movie. Good isn't an option. Hell, it's not even much of a kickboxing movie. There are all of two kickboxing scenes in this thing, and the rest of it is the story of a broken-down Vietnam vet finding love and building up the courage to become a country singer. As such, it's sort of entertaining in the way that a train wreck is entertaining. It's a chance to see Heavener take a half-assed shot at dramatic acting and a less-than-half-assed shot at a Cajun accent. His own little version of the accent makes an appearance for a total of two vowel sounds in the entire movie. Way to go man, you managed to be less convincing as a Cajun than even Jean-Claude Van Damme. That's a hell of an achievement.

The film just happens to feature songs written by Heavener himself. No matter what kind of hellish sounds you might be imagining as a result of that last sentence, you're nowhere close to the true horror of these songs. I have seen the face of true evil, and I have seen it in the songwriting of David Heavener.

Still, if you fast-forward through the shitty songs, the movie is good for a laugh.

* out of ten for the script
*** out of ten for the visuals
** out of ten for the acting
***** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 2.75 points out of ten
Bottom Line- DAVID HEAVENER MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"A good movie... kickboxing... is entertaining... I have seen the face of true evil... and... it... is good for a laugh."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Awaken Punch   
08:49am 27/03/2006
  Punch has fallen asleep, I guess. Must have been this boring goddamn movie.

Gangsters are going from one shop to the next, collecting protection money. I guess things aren't going so well, though, because most of the shopkeepers can't make their payments. It's amazing that the gangsters can afford to make ends meet. Anyway, they have to beat on some guy who sells wine, but then another guy shows up and fights off the attackers. After this, it gets kind of boring. I start losing interest. So, I try skipping ahead to see if I can find anything interesting. There's some stuff about gravestones, and the hero beats up some small trees. I keep going. And then, I watch the big climactic fight all the way through. Well, the parts that I can see, anyway.

For a large portion of the big final fight, they use a special kind of day-for-night technique which I call day-for-total-darkness. With this technique, they under-expose the film to the point where only very light-colored objects are visible, such as the collar and cuffs of the hero's shirt, the clouds in the sky, and other blurry items that I can't identify. This has the wonderful effect of not only making the action impossible to follow, but also making it impossible to even see. Granted, some of the blame for this probably lies with the distributor and whatever shitty print they used to make this DVD, but it never would have turned out that way if the original filmmakers hadn't tried to do an entire fight scene in bad day-for-night.

Even when you can see the fights, though, they aren't all that impressive. They're very heavily edited and not very well-edited. The fighters aren't particularly quick or acrobatic. Honestly, the fights are almost as dull as the talking scenes. Mind you, I said "almost."

So, it's easy to see why they didn't bother to get ahold of a decent print of the movie or to even give it a title that makes any kind of sense. However, it's not all that easy to see why they bothered to release it at all.

* out of ten for the script
** out of ten for the visuals
* out of ten for the acting
** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 1.5 points out of ten
Bottom Line- BAD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"It's amazing... wonderful... I... didn't bother to... see... it at all."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Red Wolf   
08:44am 27/03/2006
  This is a pretty decent piece of work from earlier in Yuen Woo Ping's career.

Terrorists hijack a cruise ship in order to steal the uranium that the ship's Captain is trying to smuggle. Unfortunately for the hijackers, there's one man on board who has the skills to stop them. And he has some pickpocket chick as a sidekick.

There are actually a lot of parallels between this movie and Steven Seagal's later Under Siege. Both stories involve terrorists taking over a boat. Both involve a conspiracy between the second-in-command and someone who comes onboard as an entertainer. The Captain gets killed early on in both movies. In both movies, the hero is assisted by a well-meaning bimbo. Okay, so it's not a battleship, and the hero isn't a cook, but it's still pretty close.

Of course, there might be more differences that I just missed out on because I couldn't read the subtitles. See, the subtitles are those old-fashioned white ones that disappear whenever there's something white in the scene, and the print that they made this DVD from must have been over-exposed or something, because the colors always look washed-out. That means that there's far more of the color white in this movie than there ever should be. That, in turn, means that almost half of the subtitles are unreadable. This movie would scare the living shit out of that Dolph Lundgren character in Blackjack.

And then, when some of the characters speak to each other in English, the subtitled translation (usually readable for some reason) bears almost no resemblance to what's actually being said. Here's a typical exchange, with the subtitled translation in brackets:

"You really sing so wonderfully, my dearest." [Miss Elaine, you sing nice.]
"I only sing wonderful? What about me?" [How about my body?]
"You sing well, so... you love well." [You are so pretty.]
"Love well? I can really love well." [If you want it, i can make love with you.]

Luckily, the film speaks the international language of ass-kicking. The fight scenes are impressive, the shoot-outs are cool, and the stuntwork is incredible. You can tell that a couple of the stuntmen probably hurt themselves some. Even if they didn't, it still looks painful.

Of course, it's not really up on the same level as classic Yuen work like Tai Chi Master, but it's a very entertaining piece of nonsense. And the violence is cool.

*** out of ten for the script
******* out of ten for the visuals
**** out of ten for the acting
****** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 5 points out of ten
Bottom Line- DECENT MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"I couldn't read... English... here's... my body... make love with... it... violence is cool."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
A Blade in the Dark   
08:42am 27/03/2006
  Another giallo. This one is from Lamberto Bava, son of the famous Mario Bava. Lamberto's approach in this one is obviously influenced by Dario Argento, who he worked for as an assistant director. And, of course, Argento's work was heavily influenced by Mario Bava. It all goes full circle, I guess.

Two little boys pressure a third little boy to chase a ball down the cellar stairs of an old abandoned house. A few seconds later, the ball comes flying back up, leaving bloody marks where it bounces off the walls. Elsewhere, a guy named Bruno is renting a villa while he works on the music for a horror movie. This is his first time scoring a horror film, but the director seems to have confidence in him. There's something weird about the villa, though. While Bruno is recording his score, the tape recorder picks up whispering from somewhere else in the villa. Then, he finds a young woman in one of the closets. She's rather friendly, but then she just runs off. Not that she gets far. An unseen killer gets to her with a utility knife. She left behind her diary, but somebody rips out the pages and burns them. The recording picked up words like "Linda" and "secret," but that gets mysteriously destroyed, too. Bruno's girlfriend just thinks he's paranoid about all this. Still, a girl has disappeared, and the water in the swimming pool is starting to smell funny.

Well, this isn't exactly a great movie. The mystery is ridiculously predictable. By the time they get to the second killing, it's already obvious who the killer is. Even then, there are elements of the story that just don't make sense. Why did the girlfriend ditch that play and lie about where she'd been? Was she just there to spy on her boyfriend out of some kind of insane jealous paranoia? And how was that "Linda" chick supposed to pass as normal for anybody? Or were they all just too polite to mention that anything was wrong? It's not a particularly clever film.

And there's this really weird bit where they find a hidden trunk that turns out to be filled with... tennis balls. All I could think of was that scene in Henry V, "this mock of his hath turned his balls to gun-stones." Of course, I don't think it was meant as a Shakespearean reference, but you never know.

But, due at least in part to the influence of Argento's films, the movie has a decent amount of gore, something that's often missing from your average giallo. There's also a little nudity, and the movie keeps up a decent pace.

Considering Lamberto Bava's body of work, it could have been a lot worse.

*** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
*** out of ten for the acting
****** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.5 points out of ten
Bottom Line- DECENT MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Funny... particularly clever... Shakespearean... the movie has... something..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Cecil B. Demented (second viewing)   
08:37am 27/03/2006
  Call it a bad habit. I saw this around the time it first came out on video, and my feelings for it tended mostly towards apathy. Now that I've taken a second look at the movie, I've found that I still don't particularly care for it. So, why the hell did I need to watch it again to figure that out? Well, after Cecil B. Demented came out, an actress named Maggie Gyllenhaal gained a certain amount of notoriety for a very good performance in a rather lousy movie about sadomasochism. It was around then that I found out that she'd had a role in Cecil B. Demented, but I couldn't remember her in it at all. So, the curiosity started to build, eventually causing me to add this to my Netflix list.

A movie star named Honey Whitlock is attending the debut of her new film in Baltimore when she's kidnapped by an independent movie director who calls himself Cecil B. Demented. Cecil and his crew are tired of the kind of crap that Hollywood puts out, so they've decided to turn to cinematic terrorism. This mostly means minor vandalism and the occasional shoot-out.

Yeah, it's still not much of a movie. Like a number of the films of John Waters, Cecil B. Demented has its funny moments. There are a few very amusing lines. And there's a lot of crap that's about six miles from funny and twelve blocks short of interesting.

The whole anti-Hollywood theme is certainly something that I sympathize with, and there are a few decent jabs in that direction. Patch Adams: The Director's Cut. Forrest Gump 2: Gump Again. A studio executive takes a bullet in the chest for greenlighting another movie based on a video game.

But then, a lot of it just falls flat. For instance, why do they keep talking about seafood? Seriously, what the fuck is up with that? You're doing a joke about somebody making a sequel to Forrest Gump, and the best you can come up with is to have the fucker talk about crab cakes? And what's with all that shit where he just gives up on comedy all together and has his character start shouting slogans?

Well, at least there's some violence. They don't shoot as many people as they should, but they do take down a few. Every little bit helps.

It's not really a terrible movie, but it's a movie without any balls, and it's a movie without much of a plot.

*** out of ten for the script
***** out of ten for the visuals
***** out of ten for the acting
**** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.25 points out of ten
Bottom Line- NOT A GREAT MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"I... care for... Cecil B. Demented... it's... funny and... interesting... I sympathize with... seafood... and... little... balls..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Japanese Hell   
07:05am 24/03/2006
  This is a very weird movie.

The queen of Hell approaches some random woman and tells her that she needs to go to Hell and take a look at the tortures of the damned. First, there's a child molester/serial killer who gets cut into pieces with a saw and then magically put back together, just so he can get cut up again. Then, the woman watches her own life story. More accurately, she watches the story of the cult that she used to belong to. Then, she watches the crazy cult people being tortured. Good times.

I wouldn't exactly call this one "good," but it is more than a little entertaining. Sure, the lighting isn't always that great, and there are a couple of slow spots (like the seemingly endless scenes of that one guy offering rides to a series of small children), but the movie makes up for all that in simple weird.

I mean, the gate into Hell takes the form of an enormous vagina. The punishment by burning involves making people stand near something red. The gore is all amazingly silly. And they actually had the balls to make almost half of their movie about that cult that released toxic gas in the subway system.

One bit that's especially weird for me is when the cultists are releasing the gas and the music on the soundtrack just happens to be the opening theme from a TV show called Forever Knight. I'm not exactly proud to admit that I can recognize it, but there's no mistaking that tune. I kept expecting Nigel Bennett to start giving his "He was brought across in 1228," speech. How fucking dorky am I?

The weirdest part in the whole movie, though, is near the end. Our heroine just went back across the river Sanzu, and she's about to go back to the land of the living, and then some long-haired old guy shows up. He kills some demons, decides he's not ready to go to Hell yet, and walks away. What the fuck was the point of that?

The best part would have to be the way that they play it off at the end like this is a serious religious message. It's sort of like Hell House, only with more naked breasts. I kind of have to wonder if this movie has ever converted anybody to Buddhism. Or maybe it's sun-worship. The ending isn't really all that clear on that particular point.

*** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
*** out of ten for the acting
****** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.5 points out of ten
Bottom Line- ODD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"I wouldn't exactly call this... an enormous vagina... amazingly... the best... I... converted to Buddhism."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Satan's Blood   
09:48am 23/03/2006
  Old Spanish exploitation movies seem to hold at a level of quality that could best be described as dependable, but not necessarily all that great. Sure, some are better than others, but I haven't really found one that I could call a classic, and I don't think I've seen any that came right out and sucked.

A bearded Satanist has a woman on his sacrificial altar, so he feels her up and then stabs her. Elsewhere, Ana and Andres are trying to figure out what to do for the weekend. The best they can come up with is taking the dog for a walk and going to see Star Wars. As they're driving home, they meet up with an old friend from Andres' college days. Well, Andres doesn't really remember the guy, but he and his wife seem friendly enough, and he insists that he knew Andres really well in school. So, they go to hang out with this mysterious couple, and the ouija board comes out in a flash. Before too long, there's a Satanist orgy going down. But, this other couple really is kind of weird. Why is it that their phones have suddenly stopped working? Why won't Andres' car start? Why is their dog hanging from the kitchen ceiling?

Satan's Blood is a watchable exploitation flick, I guess. There's plenty of nudity, and there's a little gore near the end. The plot keeps up a reasonable pace. It's just not one of the most intelligent films ever made.

To start with, the opening scene doesn't seem to have anything to do with the rest of the movie. It's like it's only there because they wanted to start this picture out with some sex and Satanism. I like the ending, though. Even if it doesn't make much in the way of sense, it's really kind of interesting that this whole ordeal has been nothing but an elaborate scheme to steal furniture for Satan. Or at least, that's what I got out of it.

** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
*** out of ten for the acting
***** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4 points out of ten
Bottom Line- OKAY MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"A level of quality that could best be described as... great... better than... Star Wars... an old friend... hanging from the... furniture..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Joshua   
09:46am 23/03/2006
  Another crappy low-budget horror movie.

A door opens, and a young woman promptly falls through it and lands on the floor. She's very drunk, and she just went home with some guy she doesn't even know. So, you can probably guess that the future doesn't exactly hold much in the way of happiness and good times for her. To be honest, I'm not sure why the guy even bothered to pick her up off the floor in the first place. Anyway, some other guy wakes up in a closet. He was planning to surprise his girlfriend with an engagement ring, but she just found him asleep in the closet instead. Great plan. Anyway, this is Kelby. He gets a phone call telling him that his father is dead. Apparently, his father was some sort of crazy-ass killer. So, going home for the funeral is kind of awkward, but Kelby goes anyway. He meets a couple of old friends. These guys used to be into some weird shit when they were kids.

This one actually shows some potential. There are some decent ideas and some pretty amusing moments. There's this great bit where the psychotic cop is getting ready to cut off his own hand with a small stick, and he stops and just says, "Man, I'm really fucked up." Then, he goes ahead and does it anyway.

There's also some creepy material in there about the idea of making a monster, even if they don't really deliver on it. Hell, there are all sorts of creepy thoughts mixed into this movie.

And it's funny as hell when that guy slits his wrists and shuts himself up in the coffin.

But, there's just too much shit wrong with this movie. The actors are all horrible. The dialog is obnoxious. The plot is predictable, and it gets kind of dull in spots. The cinematography is distractingly bad.

Then, there's some stuff that's just plain weird. I mean, why the hell is the end of the one guy's arm stump noticeably thicker than the rest of his arm? It's bad enough that his stump is longer than his arm was to begin with, but at least we're used to seeing crap like that. This sort of swelling is new, though.

And what's up with the man-made monster's bottom teeth? For a while there, I thought it was a tongue.

So, it's not a good movie, but I think somebody on this production has the potential to do something better. It just isn't the effects guy. Or the director of photography. Or any of the actors.

*** out of ten for the script
*** out of ten for the visuals
** out of ten for the acting
*** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 2.75 points out of ten
Bottom Line- BAD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"I'm not... crazy... this movie... is... a good movie... I think somebody... has... something..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
House of the Dead 2: All Guts, No Glory   
07:15am 22/03/2006
  I'm one of the few people in this country who actually enjoyed the first House of the Dead movie. It wasn't a particularly good film, but it was fairly entertaining. So, I was kind of curious to see what a bad straight-to-DVD sequel might bring.

Some fraternity guys raid a nearby sorority and starts spraying beer around. One girl gets really upset about being photographed mid-coitus, so she storms out and gets run over by a car. Then some guy stuffs her in the trunk and takes her to his secret lab to cut off all her clothes and inject her with something. Of course, she turns into a zombie, and the chaos spreads across the campus. Or at least that's what we have to assume from the few short zombie-attack scenes that they give us. Anyway, the mad scientist attacks a chef at some fancy restaurant, so some chick has to interrupt her date to go and shoot the new zombie in the head. See, she's part of a top-secret anti-zombie group. Her next assignment is to go to that college campus from the beginning of the movie and look for a special kind of zombie that can be used to make a cure.

Obviously, this isn't a good movie. Unfortunately, it's not a terribly entertaining movie, either.

Now, the zombie makeup is pretty decent, and there's a little gore in there. But, it looks like they probably cut some out to get an R rating. I mean, they have a nice zombie head explosion, but they cut it so quick that you have to freeze frame to get a good look at it.

There's also some nudity at the start of the movie, but then the first couple of scenes are the end of it, one corpse aside. They even have a couple of scenes of the military girls getting undressed and not showing anything. Seriously, why even have these scenes if there's not going to be any nudity? It's not like they add anything to the story.

Since there's only a small amount of sex and violence, they try to make up for it by filling the movie with as much aggravatingly stupid bullshit as possible. This is one of those zombie movies where they heroes are supposedly experts on the subject of the living dead, but they still act like they've never seen a goddamn zombie before once the action's on.

And then there's this scene where one of the soldiers grabs a digital camera in somebody's dorm room and starts taking pictures of himself with a dead naked zombie. Okay, I guess that's a reasonable character scene. But then, he starts talking about how much money the pictures will make on eBay. In what parallel universe can you sell digital pictures on eBay, much less photos of a naked corpse? Does the writer even know what eBay is, or did he just have a list of modern references that he had to make and he was in too much of a hurry to get any of them to make sense?

And the dialog is just plain bizarre. Some of it just comes from Mars or something. Why the hell would a soldier hunting zombies on a college campus start yelling about "crummy teenagers?" What the hell kind of battle-hardened warrior uses the word "crummy?" There's also a bit where the hero turns to the two remaining survivors of the operation and says, "Alright, boys and girls," but there's just the two women there. I mean, there are the girls, but where the fuck are these boys he's talking to? Is he seeing things?

And for some reason, they call the zombies "Hyper Sapiens." How does that even make sense? Really, Hyper Sapiens sounds more like the result of a cup of coffee achieving higher brain functions.

Anyway, this isn't anywhere near as bad as Day of the Dead Contagium, but it still sucks ass.

* out of ten for the script
***** out of ten for the visuals
** out of ten for the acting
*** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 2.75 points out of ten
Bottom Line- BAD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"A particularly good film... entertaining... cut off... the head... of the... naked... writer..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Carandiru   
07:11am 22/03/2006
  As you know, I'm a big fan of Brazilian movies about prison massacres. Or maybe I'm not. No, I guess I'm not.

Sao Paulo Detention Center. Carandiru. Brazil. This is the largest and most overcrowded prison in the country. They have 7,500 inmates. A doctor is there on a special AIDS-fighting mission, and he hears some stories about how various people ended up in prison. Then, a riot starts over a pair of underwear, and the police storm the prison and kill 111 convicts.

This is based on a true case, but I'm not sure how accurate it is. After all, they seem to spend a lot of time being wacky for the sake of wackiness. There's all sorts of weird stuff like the assassin's snot-dripping conversion to Christianity and the scene where some chick comes to the prison to distribute condoms and let the convicts kiss her on the tuckus.

Even with all the wackiness, though, the movie doesn't really do much for me. I mean, I like the violence, but the rest of it is kind of bland. I'm not sure how they managed to make it silly and bland at the same time, but that's just how it turns out.

Still, there are some funny bits. I like the scene during the big massacre where a cop bursts into a room and shoots everybody for no reason, but he leaves one guy alive and he tells him that he's going to let him live to tell the tale. Then, we walks back in a few seconds later and says he's changed his mind. Funny stuff.

On the whole, though, it just isn't my sort of thing.

*** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
***** out of ten for the acting
*** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.25 points out of ten
Bottom Line- SO-SO MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"I'm a big fan of... Carandiru... underwear... on the tuckus... doesn't really do much for me."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
War of the Worlds (Spielberg version)   
07:17am 21/03/2006
  I'm not really a big Steven Spielberg fan. In general, I tend to think that his movies are shit. This one looked kind of interesting, though, and I liked what the screenwriter said in his Fangoria interview about making an alien invasion movie that would be the exact opposite of Independence Day. So, I decided to give it a shot.

A voice-over tells us that there are aliens watching us from outer space. These aliens want what we have, all this water and plant life, I guess. How this voice-over guy knows all this, I have no idea. Anyway, a dock worker named Ray gets off work and heads home for his usual weekend with the kids. Ray's kind of a lousy father. Otherwise, there's nothing too terrible going on, aside from some ominous news reports about something that might be happening in the Ukraine. Then, the lightning starts, twenty-six bolts of lightning hitting the same spot. And then, something pulls itself out of the ground, something big, something that walks on three legs. It's a machine, a machine that has a death ray that can turn people into clouds of dust and flying clothes. Ray takes his kids and tries to run, but the machines are everywhere.

Well, I don't hate the movie, which I guess is a pretty big accomplishment as far as Spielberg flicks go. I don't especially like the movie, either, but at least it didn't really piss me off or anything. Good job, Spielberg. You made a movie that didn't piss me off.

It's not actually the first time that a Spielberg film didn't entirely rub me the wrong way. Empire of the Sun is a surprisingly good movie. End of list.

Anyway, like I said, it's not that I exactly like the movie all that much. The characters aren't exactly well-developed. The drama falls flat more often than not. The plot sometimes wanders into who-gives-a-shit territory.

And have you noticed that these big movies sometimes seem a little too impressed with their own special effects. I mean, I understand that it's just a sign of the times that something like this is going to be done with a lot of CGI. No big deal. But then we end up staring at their giant cartoon colonoscopy probe for about five minutes for no obvious reason other than the director must have thought it looked cool.

Still, there are some saving graces. I like the general sense of horror that they manage to attach to the invaders. I like that scene where the little girl sees the dead bodies floating down the river. I like how they try to keep it to the story of one guy trying to get his family to safety, at least until the end when they make up for lost time by stuffing in a shitload of sci-fi action clichés. I think the scene where their car gets stolen is pretty fucking cool.

It's a decent piece of work, especially for something that cost this much. Of course, I don't really grade on a curve, so I'm still going to say that it should have been better.

*** out of ten for the script
****** out of ten for the visuals
***** out of ten for the acting
***** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 4.75 points out of ten
Bottom Line- A REASONABLY OKAY MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Spielberg... looked kind of interesting... I liked... the... movie... aliens... piss me off."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
The 40-Year-Old Virgin   
08:50am 20/03/2006
  There are few things on this earth less funny than the modern American sex comedy. And yet, for some reason, I just watched another one. I don't know, the idea sounded kind of funny. I saw the end of the drunk driving bit on TV and that was kind of funny. I'd like to say that I won't be fooled again, but I'm afraid that it probably wouldn't be true.

Andy is a sort of dorky guy who works at an electronics store. Nobody much likes him, but some other guys at the store need a fifth man for their poker game, so they invite Andy to come along. After the game, conversation turns to sex, with the guys telling their wacky sex adventure stories. Andy tries to fake his way through one, but they can all tell that he's definitely never had sex with a woman. So, they make it their mission to get him laid. Wacky adventures ensue. I hate everything, and I want to die.

Aside from the basically amusing concept at the center of it, the movie is really just the same sex comedy formula all over again. They throw in bunch of sex jokes that are supposedly raunchy but never really go all that far, and then they tack on a sappy love story to tie it up at the end. That way, they can get the romantic comedy crowd, but they still get a bunch of mainstream press reviews with words like "tasteless" and "gross" in between all the other flowery adjectives. Of course, it's not like there's any fisting or anal rape or drunken gay incest or necrophiliac double-penetration or, you know, anything that actually is kind of tasteless. So, they try to be tasteful with their tastelessness, and the result is pretty goddamn boring.

Now, I'm not saying that every comedy should have abortion jokes and an exploding penis, but if you're going for gross-out humor, you shouldn't go into it half-assed.

Of course, not all of the humor is that kind of faux-raunchy thing, but the rest of it is even worse. I guess the point is that, deep down, the characters are just as boring as real people, so we should laugh because... Wait, I'm sure there's a reason in there somewhere. I don't know, maybe I'm just missing it.

There are some jokes that work, though. I'd say that there are about six.

And then, there's the bottom-feeding sentimentality of it, the side story where the hero finds true love and acceptance. Not only does it feel like it's been shoehorned into a movie about bleeding nipples (one of those six jokes that work) and premature ejaculation (not used to its full comic potential), but the warm and fuzzy material just isn't well-written enough for me to give a damn about any of it. It certainly doesn't help that all the lame comedy has me kind of angry at these characters to start with.

At least there's a little nudity.

So, I didn't particularly like this movie, and I'd like to avoid seeing anything else even remotely like it, thank you very much.

*** out of ten for the script
***** out of ten for the visuals
***** out of ten for the acting
** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 3.75 points out of ten
Bottom Line- NOT A PARTICULARLY GOOD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Funny... wacky... I want to die."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Night of the Seagulls   
08:48am 20/03/2006
  Here's the fourth and final film in the Spanish series of Blind Dead films. Obviously, it's not exactly the best of the series.

In olden times, a man and woman are traveling at night, and they have a run-in with the still-living Knights Templar. If you remember the first couple of Blind Dead movies, you know that the Knights Templar are a group of warriors who came back from the Crusades with some odd new religious beliefs and a fondness for drinking the blood of attractive young women. Anyway, in modern times, a man and his wife drive into the same setting that claimed the lives of that first couple. The man is the new doctor for this small town, and the old doctor doesn't waste any time getting the fuck out of there. See, the locals have this habit of taking attractive young women out to the beach and tying them to some rocks at night. Even centuries after they've died, the Knights Templar are still up to their old tricks.

So, what ever happened to violence? The first Blind Dead movie, Tombs of the, had some pretty sick gore. In this one, all the violence happens offscreen. It's really annoying. There is one bit that's kind of interesting, though. When the Blind Dead are defeated, one of them starts spewing blood out its eye sockets. That's pretty cool, I guess.

There's also some nudity in the movie, so it's not a total loss.

It's still not a very good movie, though. As nice as it is to watch the silly-looking skeletal knights wander around slowly and menacingly, it would be even nicer if there was something else to keep my attention. The story, what there is of it, is particularly dull. Even when the Blind Dead finally get pissed off and start looking for action, they don't have much to do because the town's already been evacuated. What a rip-off.

** out of ten for the script
***** out of ten for the visuals
** out of ten for the acting
*** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 3 points out of ten
Bottom Line- SORT OF A DULL MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"The best of the series... fuck... the Knights Templar... in... the... eye sockets..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
Manderlay   
08:41am 20/03/2006
  I was down in Philly to pick up my badge for the upcoming film festival, so I figured I'd take the time to check out the second film in Lars Von Trier's proposed America trilogy.

After the events of Dogville, Grace and her father learned that his chasing her around the mountains had resulted in a change in the mob hierarchy back home. So, the gangsters set off across America to find a new place to set up shop. Along the way, they run across a small Louisiana plantation, Manderlay, where slavery is still practiced illegally seventy years after the practice was banned. Grace is horrified and sets about trying to fix the situation. It's a little more complicated than she thought, though, and she ends up staying there for the next year. She talks her father into leaving a few of his best men with her to keep the peace, and she also takes his lawyer and has him draw up binding contracts under which the former slaves are now the owners of the plantation. From there, she tries to turn this small and isolated community into a democracy. It isn't easy. A lot of the varied personalities on the plantation tend to clash, and there's a great deal of hesitation to abandon a lot of the old ways. Motivation starts to pick up a little when Grace suggests cutting down the trees in the Old Lady's Garden to fix up some of the homes, but she didn't realize that those trees were the only thing protecting them from the yearly dust storm. There are hard times ahead.

Now, Manderlay isn't bad, but I don't think it's really on the same level as Dogville. It doesn't really have the same impact or quite the same sadism. As interesting as the story is, there doesn't seem to be much weight to it.

Also, replacing Nicole Kidman with Bryce Dallas Howard doesn't really work out all that well. Howard does alright, I guess, but a lot of the stilted dialog that characterizes these movies seems to trip her up. They also replaced her father with Willem Dafoe, which isn't too bad, and a couple of the actors from Dogville return in different roles. The only actors to reprise their roles from the original film (as far as I can tell) are John Hurt as the narrator and Udo Kier as a gangster. Both of them are, as usual, great.

Before the show started, a middle-aged woman seated behind me took the time to explain the title of the film to her husband. Her knowledge of Daphne Du Maurier's novel (which I could never get through, myself) was a little suspect, however. She was somewhat confused about the characters, thinking that the narrator was a servant and that Mrs. Danvers (who she didn't mention by name) was the new bride. Sort of a strange mistake to make, I thought.

At any rate, it's something to consider, I guess. Since Dogville seemed to have a little of Our Town in it, maybe Manderlay is somehow Von Trier's take on Rebecca. Of course, that would put Grace in the role of the young bride, and I guess that Lauren Bacall's character would be Rebecca. That would make Danny Glover Mrs. Danvers, I think, and... No, forget it. Forget I even mentioned it. Dumb idea.

The film's approach to the issue of race is probably what's going to catch people's attention the most. It could in some ways be taken as an analogy for modern black American culture, although I have no idea whether that was intended or not. There's a chance that a few people might see the movie as somewhat racist, but I don't particularly think that it is. Some of the points are a bit clumsy, but it's still more or less the same indictment of basic human nature that we've come to expect from Von Trier.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering, they use the same sort of set that they used in Dogville, a big white rectangle with some partial elements of buildings and the rest drawn and labeled on the floor. There's also an interesting way of showing the characters' travel across America, with a big white map of the country that they walk or drive across.

Anyway, this is a decent movie. It's worth watching. It's just not great or anything.

****** out of ten for the script
******** out of ten for the visuals
******* out of ten for the acting
******* out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 7 points out of ten
Bottom Line- PRETTY GOOD MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Complicated... on the same level as Dogville... interesting... I... was somewhat confused... I... seemed a little... dumb..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies
 
     
 
KatieBird *Certifiable Crazy Person   
08:39am 20/03/2006
  I like it when horror movies play around with experimental techniques. I don't even mind when they're pretentious about it. When they're boring and poorly-written, though, it doesn't make me happy.

KatieBird's psychiatrist is hitting on her, which is kind of awkward when you consider that they've just left her father's funeral. Well, she screws him anyway, and then she hits him over the head and chains him to the bed. And then, she tells him about her dark past. She tells him about when she was only a little girl and her father drove her around to stare at hookers. She tells him about when she was only a young woman in her mid-to-late twenties (but with her hair in pigtails for some reason) and her father taught her how to torture people to death. Back in the frame story, the middle-aged KatieBird is using the same sort of torture on the shrink, and she's also occasionally having sex with him. She wants him to hurt her, but she doesn't want to unchain him, so that makes it kind of awkward.

The editor does this thing where the screen keeps getting chopped up into various split screen combinations. Maybe the same thing will be happening from three slightly different angles at the same time, or maybe an image will be slowly shrinking over a black background, or maybe there'll be shots of three people walking separately, or whatever. Something like that is always going on, and it's always changing. I guess that it's supposed to be like that to give you the sense of the fragmented way that the main character views the world or something like that. At first, it's pretty damned annoying, but I got used to it.

And the movie is mostly pretty well-shot. The lighting isn't bad at all. The best moments in the movie all come down to an interesting shot or two. And the violence comes across fairly well, even if it's not all that graphic. There are a couple of spots where you might even call this movie disturbing.

Unfortunately, there's this script that they're using to make the movie. It's not a very good script. In fact, it's an incredibly boring script, filled with repetition and bad dialog and long stretches of absolutely nothing of any particular interest. The sex scenes are bland and seem to drag on forever. The torture scenes are bland and seem to drag on forever. Everything in this movie is bland and seems to drag on forever.

At certain moments during the movie, there's this noise on the soundtrack, sort of like snoring. I'm telling you, I can sympathize.

And the acting's no prize, either. I don't think there's a single decent actor in the whole picture.

It's a bland, lifeless, forgettable movie. Watch as torture and self-mutilation suddenly become the most boring subjects ever. You'll be amazed. Unless, of course, you're wise enough to steer clear of this piece of shit, which I obviously am not.

* out of ten for the script
***** out of ten for the visuals
** out of ten for the acting
** out of ten for entertainment value

Average Score- 2.5 points out of ten
Bottom Line- CRAPPY MOVIE

For the DVD Cover:
"Interesting... violence... a very good script... it's... filled with... drag... scenes... and... snoring..."
        -Steve Clark, I Hate Movies