I was amazed how much I enjoyed this one. Maybe not quite as good as Psycho II, but for a set of sequels released 20 years after the fact, they're both pretty well done. Direction is surprisingly good, Perkins probably should have done more.
Some good cinematography, some bad CG, and it's very 90s, but it basically works as one of those "it happened again" kind of sequels.
I do not understand the hype for this one. The things I've read about over the years, I feel like I watched a different movie. It feels like the film is trying everything in its power to be anything but a haunted house film, distracting itself with bad romances, mediocre personal drama, sadistic psychiatrists, and out of place humor. For a while I think I had it confused with A Haunting (1963), a far superior film, much more deserving of its status as a classic.
Some really bizarre dialogue in this one. Wasn't terrible, but I can't say it was all that great either.
Phenomenal eurotrash quasi-remake of Eyes Without a Face. In a sense it's bittersweet because it really shows what Franco could accomplish with a budget, which he almost never had. It's a movie about missed opportunities and 1980s decadence. Highly recommended.
What a ridiculous movie. Made me chuckle a couple times. Not sure how anyone managed to take it seriously.
Surprisingly enjoyable. The Departed of shlock eurotrash slashers.
Every time it almost does something good it takes two steps backwards into bullshit. I hate this fucking movie and I hate the fact that I hate it.
I didn't think it was awful. Just a cheap space horror movie. Had nothing to with Starship Troopers, but if they had just called it "Killer Space Bugs" or whatever nobody would have ever watched it.
Alright premise, but the film itself is mostly annoying. It's one of those movies that people sometimes cite as a "good" Adam Sandler comedy, along with Happy Gilmore and The Waterboy, but I don't see it. Sandler is a superb dramatic actor, but he doesn't have the chops for comedy.
Making a movie based on the skull & bones was a good idea. Turning it into a teen drama was a bad idea. It's not a total disaster, but it's not very good either.
OK crime thriller. Manages to be pretty stressful at times. Everyone has this awful New York accent that helps add to that. Bruce Willis and Harvey Keitel were great, even Demi Moore, whom I normally don't like, was pretty good. Didn't look half bad either. The "twist" was maybe a bit unfulfilling, but overall I thought it was a decent flick.
OK movie but not as good as the first. Most of the main cast has been replaced and none of the new actors are as good. The big problem these movies have is that Buford is spending most of his time fighting whiskey bootleggers. Every once in a while he goes after actual criminals as well, but usually only after they do something to him. And on that note, it's understandable, if not entirely justifiable, why so many people are trying to kill him. You've got this nutcase who's been elected sheriff running around smashing people's cars up for possession of whiskey (???), it makes sense why some people would figure he just needs to be put down. The first one was good enough that you never really thought about any of this, but this one not so much.
I'm kind of in two minds because most of the film is terrible, but that ending has got to be one of the most bonkers finales I've seen in a studio film. Clearly trying to ape 2001, but somehow it's way crazier. 2/10 film but 9/10 ending.
Solid crime thriller. Doesn't do anything that hasn't been seen a million times before, but it does all of it well enough. The techno music and bright neon cinematography makes it feel very mid-2010s. Worth a watch, but don't go out of your way for it.
This was a pretty big disappointment. Not really sure what I was expecting. Maybe something with a bit more grit, maybe more of a human attempt of looking at the kinds of people who did this. Maybe in the early 70s that was too big an ask, and while it does try to humanize, it doesn't do so enough. I suppose that was my issue. It wasn't enough.
I can't quite explain it, but I really loved this film. Flaws aside, you can tell it was made by somebody who cared. That means something.
I thought it was a pretty good, albeit somewhat lateral adaptation right up until the 1 hour 47 minute mark. At that point I wished they had just stuck to the original PKD story.
For a lower budget film the production value is really great. Whether or not you find Kathy Ireland annoying will probably make or break the film for you. I didn't really, but I get why people do.
I'm kinda shocked at the somewhat poor reception this one gets because I really loved it. Obviously it's a bit ridiculous, no old man can really fight like that, but who cares? It's a Jackie Chan style action comedy (starring Jackie Chan's teacher!), so everything is a bit silly, but that's what makes it so fun. Lot's of great LA locations used to superb effect, wonderful fights, a goofy disco scene (it was 1979, after all) come together to form what I think may well be Kuo's best film. Criminally underrated.
Mad doctors, mysterious murders, not-so-discreet lesbians, and a voyeur in full three piece suit & derby hat. This is an intensely typical early 70s grinder, but that probably works to its benefit. It checks all the boxes, but doesn't try to be anything it isn't. If you're at the point where you're considering whether or not to watch a film called "The Jekyll and Hyde Portfolio" you already know whether or not you like these kinds of films and so you already know the answer.
The climax was absolutely superb, but man did it take a long time to get there.
Pretty cool looking movie even though I didn't understand what the fuck was going on throughout most of it.
A decent capstone on a good miniseries, with one major issue. Abigail Adams died in 1818. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson rekindled their friendship and began their storied correspondence in 1812. I understand the dramatic significance of this distortion, but I did not appreciate it in any case.
Pretty kooky documentary ostensibly about the Cathars. Was pretty mediocre overall, but had more than a few (unintentionally) funny moments. I particularly chuckled at the scene with the guy tracing a map which seems to magickally reveal the vesica piscis with every pen stroke, meanwhile a bunch of porno pinups hang in the background.
Surprisingly good production value. Entertaining, but nothing special. The climax was very thrilling, albeit more than a tad ridiculous.
Fairly standard anti-hippie PSA but is bumped up a notch by briefly touching on biker gangs and featuring some of the earliest "hippies go east" coverage I've seen. Being narrated by noted marijuana user Robert Mitchum didn't hurt either.
I hope they make a romance movie about that stupid submarine in 85 years.
I mostly enjoyed everything about it, but the one gripe I had was the excessive use of multiple camera angles and shot/reverse shot in the supposedly "live" haunted house segments. That might seem like a minor complaint, but for a movie that gets pretty much everything else right it seems like a pretty big mistake to make. That's not how they shot man on the street interviews in 1987 and it's not how they shoot man on the street interviews now!
Surface level documentary (really more of a "collective memoir" if there is such a thing) that suffers greatly from a breakneck pace and non-existent structure. It feels like it could have been cobbled together from outtakes from Crystal Lake Memories. It almost sounds absurd to say a movie suffers from being 90 minutes as opposed to 6+ hours, but in this case it's absolutely true. I actually can recommend the DVD because it has a ton of extended interviews included as bonus features, so if you just want "more Crystal Lake Memories" it's worth picking up, but the 90 minute documentary with Tom Savini-hosted interludes (sorry Tom) simply does not work by itself.
