DrLetoPicard Reviews

Hercules (2005)

Brutal.

[2/10 · 13 May 2007]

This is easily the worst adaptation of Greek mythology I've ever seen. It utterly fails as an adaptation of the original myth, inventing silly plot twists and reducing the 12 labours to... 3 or 4, I think. It makes up utterly needless things to try to integrate other myths in clumsy ways which bring into question the writers' having ever read the myths, like changing birds to harpies, lions to sphinxes, the Oracle of Delphi to Tiresias, and bulls to a pedantic version of Proteus, even integrating aspects, never seen outside of Sam Raimi's entertaining series, concerning his first marriage, to a woman with the co-opted name of one of the Furies so it sounds appropriate to the period.

I could accept much of that, but it also fails completely in pure film standards; most painful is the dialogue, leaden, portentous pseudo-Shakespearean tripe. It is a poor re-interpretation of the myths, making a sad attempt at the kind of post-modern revisionism that Crichton's "The 13th Warrior" attempted in regards to the Beowulf legend, while still including the strictly mythological elements such as clear interference from the gods and magical super-strength. A sad, sad failure of an entertainment experience, who I'm sure many of the quality actors involved regret deeply.

Loser (2000)

Not bad, but...

[6/10 · 27 January 2003]

...it should be pointed out to those fervently defending it as "new" and "fresh" that this is a faithful remake of Billy Wilder's masterful "The Apartment", made back in 1960 and a Best Picture winner. The main difference is that the original was set in a large office building rather than a university. Jack Lemmon plays the lead; three co-workers of his keep pushing him out of his apartment so they can carry on illicit affairs, while he falls in love with the elevator operator who is dating his boss.

Those of you who enjoyed "Loser" will probably enjoy the original even more - fresher, funnier, edgier and darker. If "Loser" stood by itself, it wouldn't be a bad movie, but most critics naturally compared it to its superiour inspiration leading to a lot of negativity.

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

Despite it's bad points, a great horror film.

[8/10 · 30 January 2002]

If you don't know the story behind it getting made - basically, Robert Kurtzman wrote the story, he wanted it turned into a screenplay. He did makeup effects on Pulp Fiction for free in exchange for Tarantino writing the screenplay.

There's basically two problems with the film. One, is that Rodriguez isn't all that good at the horror genre. The other is that the story has a few sour points - especially the ending, which feels artificial to me.

The first hour is great, because Rodriguez is good at that sort of story - gangsters on the run. It's so good, it makes the second half - the vampire story - a little too jarring. I love the concept of getting an extensive background on the characters involved in a horror film, instead of simply thrusting a bunch of people into a situation before we even get to know them. What sours it is how the vampire story is handled. It's very conventional. We get some additional characters to contend with in the second half, and while they're playing stereotypes on purpose, they seem too cartoonish even in the midst of gooey vampires. I will grant that Rodriguez has some fun with the stereotypes, though, such as Fred Williamson's speech.

That's the main problem with Rodriguez's vision. I don't like the vampires in the film. They're gooey and gross and ugly. Now, I'm not into the vampire mania of recent years, but I just found the vampires too uninteresting. They've lost what makes them unique as villains, and could be nothing than a bunch of raptors. The film also delivers just a touch too much gore - I like gore, but it has to be in proportion to the mood of the film, and this was a little heavy - not surprising considering the story came from a great splatter effects artist looking to show off his craft. Still, it detracts, especially after how nicely the scene where Clooney discovers what's happened to the hostage while he was picking up food is handled.

While this seems like I'm on the negative side of the film, I'm not - I love it. The dialogue, Tarantino's domain, is sharp, funny and interesting, just like his previous films. It's delivered very, very well by Clooney and the rest of the cast - moments such as his "Pyschos do not blow up when sunlight touches them!" speech, Juliette Lewis's casual "Thanks" after Clooney knocks out his brother, his dialogue with the hostage at the beginning of the film, and his and Keitel's dialogue on the way to Mexico. Great stuff, and it makes the film more than worth watching if you're a fan of the horror genre.

I also have to say that Salma Hayek's dance is possibly the most erotic thing ever put into a wide-release film. It's worth the price of admission alone.

Threesome (1994)

A very well-scripted and enjoyable film.

[7/10 · 25 September 2001]

This film happened to come on on the late show on one of the local channels, and I ended up watching it. I was expecting a rather cheesy film in which we see all the predictable sexual quandries you might expect out of a comedy like this. I wasn't entirely wrong, but I was rather pleasantly surprised, as well.

Eddy (Josh Charles) is "sexually ambiguous" - ie. homosexual, as he eventually admits, although he is a virgin and not entirely sure. Alex (Lara Flynn Boyle) has a huge crush on him. And his somewhat misogynistic and lustful roommate, Stuart (Stephen Baldwin) lusts after Alex, while Eddy lusts after him. They make a vow to be just friends. Of course, this all backfires.

What pleasantly surprised me was the conclusion to the film, and the tender and delicate nature with which they handled the sexual issues that cropped up. It was also extremely funny at times, especially when the dorm supervisors (Alexis Arquette, Martha Gehman) start spying on the three of them and wondering what the hell is going on.

The directing is standard for a film of this nature - essentially a romantic comedy with a twist. The lead roles were all extremely well played, especially Josh Charles as the narrator and most crucial role of the film. The sex in the film was erotic when it needed to be, tender when it needed to be, and animalistic when it needed to be, and never overwhelming or out of context.

It also was one of the most realistic and intelligent commentaries I've ever seen on the reality of college life - at least, undergraduate life. How I've experienced it, at any rate. The dialogue, so crucial to a film like this, is extremely appropriate and well-done, and the actors deliver it with perfection. It's a film that is almost entirely about dialogue - despite the sexual nature of the film, there's little nudity and certainly never anything that could be considered gratuitous. It's not the greatest film I've seen, but it's among the most well-written films I've seen in the past few years.

A pleasant and amusing film. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed it.

House on Haunted Hill (1999)

You want enjoyable cheese? You got it.

[7/10 · 22 September 2001]

Okay, it's as simple as this. No comparisons, don't know the original. It had some truly disturbing sequences - two in particular, which I'm sure anyone who's seen the film will know. The amusement park ride in the opening is worth the price of admission all on it's own.

Mostly, it was fun, horror cheese. The people in the film are aware they're making horror cheese. They don't aspire to make anything else. The performances are universally appropriate and usually campy as all get out.

The last 10 minutes detract from the film. I did appreciate the CGI effects mimicking ink blots, a nice touch in a film set in a mental institution.

The directing was bang-on. He generated fear. The two sequences mentioned above are, to me, only rivaled by sequences in _Jacob's Ladder_ and _The Exorcist_. He didn't ask too much out of his actors - you could tell he let them run with it and have fun, especially Rush and Kattan. It was gruesome enough for horror fans to appreciate it, without being so gruesome it was unpleasant to watch. I hate unjustified gore, and this film, while quite gory, has an appropriate level.

You're a horror fan, you'll probably enjoy it. You're not, you'll most likely hate it. I really enjoyed it on a late night viewing with a few beers in my belly. Would've got a slightly better rating from me if it weren't for the ending. 7/10.

Memento (2000)

Intriguing but not mind-blowing.

[8/10 · 7 September 2001]

Memento is one of the most intriguing films I've seen in recent years, but it hardly deserves the current ranking it has in the top 250 films of all time.

We begin the film with the murder of the man whom our hero believes raped and killed his wife, and move backwards throughout the entire plot. Each segment moves forward narratively, but comes after the scene which follows it. Meanwhile, in black and white, we follow a short space of time somewhere in past in which Leonard talks about his life as an insurance investigator before his wife's murder.

The main character suffers from a brain injury, acquired at the time of his wife's murder, which has destroyed his short-term memory. He can't remember what has just happened to him, but remembers everything up to the "incident" - his name, his wife, his job. He deals with life in 15-minute snatches, as if he was continually waking up in a strange room. In one especially clever sequence, he is running through a trailer park with the thought, "Okay, what am I doing? Ah. I'm chasing this guy. Wait. He's chasing me!". He tattoos his body with important information relating to his pursuit of the man who killed his wife and destroyed his memory. He writes copious notes and takes Polaroids of people and writes crucial information about them on the back.

All this is simply a device, a device which sometimes transcends the relatively standard plot which accompanies it, but not always. It does make the film worth watching. One of the hallmarks of a great director is being able to take a familiar story and tell it in a way that suprises us. It succeeds. The backwards storytelling puts us in the same predicament as Leonard; we don't know what just happened before this scene. We're confused, working off what he's written on pieces of paper and Polaroid photographs, with no knowledge of what has happened before (which will be displayed to us subsequently).

Good system. The story, unfortunately, isn't entirely worthy of such a cool storytelling method, but it's still quite good, despite falling into some film noir cliches.

The directing is crisp and the innovative editing style is enjoyable. The score is unnotable. The acting from all four of the major roles is outstanding. Leonard's character is incredibly sympathetic, which is crucial to such a film, although nobody is who we think they are by the time we've rewound through time far enough to understand what has come before (after).

The DVD features an ability to watch the story in forward rather than reverse order, a perspective on the film I'm very much looking forward to experiencing.

Totally worth watching, but don't expect the greatest film you've ever seen, despite the state of the votes at the moment (11th of all time). My rating: 8/10.

2010 (1984)

Interesting, but no sequel.

[6/10 · 6 December 2000]

Saw this film for the first time today. I've seen "2001: A Space Odyssey" many times. Never read the books (except for 3001, for some reason).

"2001" was one of the most finely crafted pieces of film in existence. It took film beyond a simple, linear storytelling medium and transcended it into a world of visuals, music, and emotion. Details such as the explanation for HAL's 'malfunction' and the significance of the monolith or the starchild were superfluous and open to viewer's interpretation. It wasn't necessarily a brilliant story - it was a brilliant film. In terms of films to compare it to, it comes a lot closer to "Fantasia" than "Star Wars". You didn't watch it - you experienced it.

Now, for "2010". Sure, the Cold War subplot is dated and over-wrought, but I'll ignore that in light of when the film was made. It was a mistake, though, including something that so easily dates the film, in my opinion. Was the future of the Cold War really looking so bleak in 1984? Maybe, but it still seemed a little too implausible.

As a film, it not only PALES in comparison to Kubrick's masterpiece, it simply isn't very good overall. It's a little long, the acting is a little over the top, everyone seems to be working under the burden of what came before. The only really well-done scene by the actors is the exchange between the Russian astronaut and Floyd during the aerobraking sequence. The Bowman scene labours under attempts to re-capture the magic of the aging sequences at the end of "2001". The plot is sadly predictable (excepting, perhaps, the 'wonderful thing' which I knew about from the final novel in the series). The special effects are unspectacular. The uses of "Thus Spake Zarathustra" seemed to be in simply because it was expected, and the score otherwise is ENTIRELY mundane and un-notable. While it generated some tension at times, none of it even came close to the sound of Bowman's breathing juxtaposed with HAL singing 'Daisy', or being gently and unobtrusively informed that HAL was reading lips.

This movie is for fans of Clarke's books who want to see them realized on-screen, and perhaps conventional sci-fi fans. If you're a fan of the first film for it's sheer uniqueness, avoid it, especially if you're not a sci-fi fan. And if you're a fan of the first film looking for explanations, go rent it again and find them on your own. They'll be much more valid than those offered by this film.

Rana: The Legend of Shadow Lake (1980)

Truly a painful experience...

[1/10 · 31 January 1999]

Rana: The Legend of Shadow Lake is one of the most truly horrible visions ever put on film. The excruciating acting and horribly conceived script take it to a rare level of high comedy.

The plot involves a kid who finds a frog bone. The bone turns out to be from some kind of vague fossil frog or something, so a paleontologist shows up to look around this isolated island. Meanwhile, a bunch of true wizards are trying to swim to the bottom of Shadow Lake to find a buried treasure. There's a fair bit of bad early 70's music, and obscure scenes of the kid fishing and playing with deer. Jerry Gregoris, the film's producer, plays crazy Charlie, who tells the kid of a strange creature who lives in the lake, "half man... half frog... half, I dunno WHAT! They called him Rana...". People get killed by this guy running around in the Creature from the Black Lagoon's suit after someone dumped a gloppy bucket of green paint on it. Eventually Rana gets what's coming to him and the horrible secret at the bottom of Shadow Lake is revealed.

Scenes such as the kid, Kelly, feeding baby deer, fishing and trying to be cool in front of the paleontologist's beautiful (ha!) assistant are ugly. Even uglier is the adult Kelly narrating the tale while he makes out with his somewhat sleazy girlfriend. Watch for the scene when crazy Charlie's goat takes a tumble in the background.

This film is for the truly sadistic. If you somehow manage to find a copy, view at your own risk.