barrydwriter Reviews

The Unbinding (2023)

Terrifying, Profound, Mind-Opening

[10/10 · 11 September 2023]

What starts as a scary tale ends becomes something significantly more by the time the credits roll. A dramatic excursion into powers beyond full comprehension, this film showcases a mesmerizing experience by-among others-Dana and Greg Newkirk, the most sincere and reverent paranormal investigators in recent history.

The Newkirks are always so open-minded and very transparent in their work and what they explore and exhibit, and this film, which centers around a particularly uncanny situation surrounding a strange wooden statue and the phenomena and events surrounding its discovery, is a grand yet personal journey for the audience to take along with them.

There are many significant revelations throughout this strange tale, much as was featured in their limited docuseries HELLIER, but the correlations and glimpses of the larger tapestry at play are of a very different nature, ultimately settling upon the interplay of belief in, and the powers of, forces beyond full comprehension.

Make no mistake about the tone of this film, however-although it ends on a more positive and profound note, the first half of this tale is downright terrifying. There are some excellent reenactments, some with the Newkirks, some with other actors, but never over-the-top or hammy. However, far more significant are the very REAL video captures of the uncanny mysteries surrounding the statue, including a certain live-streamed event in a hotel room...

**A SIDE NOTE** If you've read this far, I have an unusual addendum to this review. While my wife and I were watching it, in its first 38 minutes, I became very suddenly nauseous and had to stop for a few minutes to recover, and just before we resumed playing it, my wife spotted a cat-like entity standing directly beside and behind me, even though our cats were closed out of the room at the time. I won't say these events are necessarily connected to the film itself, but why would I not mention them?

Disturbing and magical, eerie and grounded, skin-crawling and mind-opening, THE UNBINDING is a remarkable documentary unlike any other, and a perfect showcase for the incomparable Dana and Greg Newkirk.

Shine a Light (2008)

A (s)nag here or there, but a triumph nonetheless

[9/10 · 14 June 2008]

The Rolling Stones: the most powerful and influential rock and roll band since the Beatles, and still going strong over forty years after they hit the scene.

Martin Scorsese: a very insecure and flashy director who doesn't ever seem to know how to keep a camera in one place for more than five seconds.

Mash the two together, and what do you have? A really good Stones concert and a very nicely-arranged film.

There were a few things I didn't like. For starters, Christina Aguilera had NO place in this, or any other, Rolling Stones concert - she represents everything that is fake about mainstream music to me, whereas the Stones represent everything that is real about music, period. Jack White was serviceable, but really, the only welcome guest they should have had (and did have) was Buddy Guy, who made for a great, saucy, warm rendition with the boys of Muddy Water's "Champaigne and Reefer." I loved the special attention being thrown on "the quiet guy," i.e. Charlie Every-Bit-As-Important Watts, and the two (well, one and a half) songs sung by Keith were terrific. Who says the man is incomprehensible? Ron Wood was just phenomenal, and then that other fellow was pretty...memorable, as well. I especially enjoyed the work of the *other* members of the band, who nicely backed everything up. The songs were all great (what a breathtaking performance on "As Tears Go By"...oh wow!), and the occasional in-between interviews new and old were hilarious and charming. I really applauded at the end of the show(ing).

Good one, Marty, and great one, Stones!

Strange Wilderness (2008)

Funny? Yes. Good? Well...

[4/10 · 27 May 2008]

I was really wanting this to be a great movie. I loved GRANDMA'S BOY, and was confident for the year-long wait I endured that this movie would be equally great - or better, if Steve Zahn was going to be one of the stars. Add in Justin Long, fresh off of my high (no, NO pun intended, I swear) from ACCEPTED, and the hidden gem of Peter Dante, and you got one hell of a movie I was looking forward to seeing.

...and now that I've seen it, I must say I'm pretty disappointed. It started off so funny, its dialogue-driven humor being the strongest point, but lots of other elements worked as well. Then things started to get ugly--literally, and seriously. Point in question: the turkey. I'm sorry, but did we really have to see everything that happened after Steve Zahn was running around with it attached to his...person? Especially the, er, "removal?" But then, that was just a little over-the-top, and I took it gladly to see how the rest of it went.

But just as the characters get lost in the jungle, so did the script, written by the producer and the director. Seriously, what happened? They could have continued all the (increasingly bad) crude jokes, but where did the PLOT go? Did they seriously just sit around, writing, acting, shooting, and editing the film in increasing states of being stoned? Ugh, it just got lame by the end, and it really could have--no, SHOULD have--been a lot better than even that. It quickly became more of a SCARY/DATE/EPIC/SUPERHERO/NEW GIMMICK MOVIE than something one would expect from the Happy Madison crew.

I'll give them more chances, be sure, but if this is a sign of where things are going for them, I would be very skeptical.

I, for one, was pretty disappointed.

Crocodile Dundee II (1988)

Oh god, just give him the Oscar already!

[9/10 · 17 October 2007]

No matter how much I dislike his main co-star (a box of cereal has more acting abilities than Ms. Kozlowski), this movie is just so good...and it's almost all because of Paul Hogan's amazing screen presence. He's charming, he's funny, he can act...and above all, he has "IT"! Couple that with a great, fun movie (that one star is missing because of said cereal box fill-in), and you get something special.

Oh, if only these movies had had another, actually talented actress...they would have been downright amazing.

Even "Hhhhhhhhhrico," as lame a character as he was, couldn't tarnish this movie's shimmer. This movie was so good, who cares?!

At least the first two Crocodile Dundee movies (not to knock 'Las Vegas'; I just haven't seen it enough, but my memories of it were positive) will always a winner in my book, as far as I'm concerned.

The Dead Girl (2006)

One film ends. Six others...don't quite.

[8/10 · 7 October 2007]

Ever since mid-2006, when I first heard that Toni Collette was going to be starring in a movie called 'The Dead Girl,' I've been very curious about this flick. Naturally as these things go nowadays, the film came and went without even a hint of which two theaters played it during its week-long appearance to the public...and then it was $19.99 as the starting price at Target, and then it sat there in my home for months because nobody wanted to see a movie called 'The Dead Girl' that we knew nothing about. And so I watched it today. And my verdict is: "Well..."

What we have here is half of a good movie. Not to say that the other half was bad...but rather that there WAS no other half. I'm not part of the perverse crowd that wanted to see the actual..."events" leading to the titular girl's death, but rather, I wanted to see what happened with the rest of the characters in the WAKE of her death.

We have Toni Collette's character Arden, now in the hands of the mysterious Ray (played with amazing creepiness by the ever-talented Giovanni Ribisi). It is later mentioned by Ruth (Mary Beth Hurt) that Ray knows the killer, Carl (Ray Searcy), and so Ray may or may not have something to do with "the dead girl" (his sinister behavior and statements aside) - and that's it. What's going to happen to Arden? And DID Ray have anything to do with the murder?

And speaking of Ruth: she's burned all the clothes of her husband's nocturnal activities...right after turning down her chance (that she made for herself) to turn him in. We never get any more of an illustration into her motives for her actions, and although it may fall into the very real cliché of women protecting their abusive husbands, the lack of explanation is somewhat painful.

Finally, we have a whole introduction to the life of Leah (Rose Byrne) and her family and friends, including a dramatic back story of her missing sister, all of which revolve around her examination of the dead girl's body...who turns out to not be her sister after all. I would have liked to have seen more of an outcome for her, rather than a deep introduction to a character who has a minimal connection to the rest of the story.

Closure: that is what was missing from this movie.

However, this is not to say that the movie was BAD. You'll notice that I gave it an 8 out of 10-star rating; I thought the acting was fabulous, the script well-written (as far as character interaction and scene layout were concerned), and the film beautifully shot and directed. It could have been a solid film of a dark but fascinating story about life and death and people, and while it was all of these things, the story was snipped neatly in half. All in all, it was an original, touching, dark, beautiful half of what could have been a masterpiece.

The slogan to the movie is "One life ends. Six others begin." Ultimately it felt that this was one film that ended...and within it, six films that didn't.

Flyboys (2006)

A number of steps above the average war/drama movie

[10/10 · 2 February 2007]

I liked it. Good acting, great special effects, some crazy sequences (loved the dirigible scene), and good characterizations. I'm warming up to James Franco more (I never had any bad thoughts on him; I'd only previously seen him in the Spider-Man films and thought he did alright). I'm just learning to accept him more as an actor with each movie I see him in, and he's getting better, getting more in tune with the actor he really is. I thought that the racial conflicts surrounding Skinner (Abdul Salis) were perfectly illustrated, and thankfully not skirted around like so many Hollywood period pieces seem to do.

My only problems (and they were really meager, to the point that I think the word "problem" is too harsh - I liked the movie!) were the "Wait, which guy was that?" kinds of moments which frequently occurred during the dogfights, as well as a few disappointing ANIMAL HOUSE-like "so-in-so went on to..." character epilogues at the end. All in all, however, FLYBOYS was an all-around good film.

Saw II (2005)

Twists and turns - expect the unexpected!

[9/10 · 24 October 2006]

I can't make a decent review of the movie, so I'll just share some of my thoughts on it. Here goes nothing: First of all, this was NOT a ripoff of CUBE. True enough, both movies involve a theme of strangers being trapped in a mystery house full of traps and dangers; however, the similarities end there. Okay? Now shut up about it, if that's what has been holding you back from seeing it.

By far and wide, there were definitely some scenes in this movie which were hard to watch, but they worked in the aspect of the movie. It's a perfect example of gore being used to further the horror of a situation, rather than exploiting it for that purpose. Needless (now I shudder at how similar that word is to another one...) to say, this movie was less a splatter film and more of a psychological mystery - JUST like the original SAW.

One slight problem I had with the movie was a fault entirely of my own. For quite some time now, I knew something about how this movie was going to end. No-no, don't worry, I'm not going to give anything away; but basically I'll use this analogy: Let's say someone in 1983 who never saw the original two STAR WARS movies hears about RETURN OF THE JEDI coming, and that there's something about Han Solo having to get rescued. They get curious, and they watch the first movie. Then, shortly before RETURN comes out, they see EMPIRE, but already they know that Han Solo gets into some kind of trouble. Carbonite, et al, happens, and it's just not as effective, but it was still a good movie.

That's what my situation was with the SAW movies; I watched the first one, loved it, and as I waited and waited for II to come out on DVD in its uncut edition (I'm a dork, I know), I keep hearing things about the third movie which began to make me think. I prettymuch had the end to SAW II figured out for a while, and the whole time I was watching it, I was hoping to be corrected. Unfortunately, I was right...but you see, there are TWO twists to this movie, which both happen back-to-back and within one another. I wasn't sure what the *other* twist was, at first, but reading some of the spoiler-heavy posts on the message board after watching the movie, I suddenly got slapped in the face with that other twist...and needless to say, I spent a good few minutes laughing at the shock of it. So, I got my awesome twist ending after all...even if I knew one aspect of it already.

I did give this movie a 9 out of 10 star rating, and that was because of a few problems I had with it. One of them was my above "spoiled foreshadowing," but that hardly is a reason to dislike the movie. My problems were mostly in a couple of the characters. Here you have such complicated and profound characters like Jigsaw, and this movie does a really good job at exploring them; and then there's Xavier and Detective Eric Matthews. Some of the decisions they make in the movie work only to further the plot, and are either very unprecedented or disagreeable. Something Xavier does at one point is so left-field and horrendous, and it really bugs me that he did it; but then again, it helped the plot along, and I guess that makes up for it. On a further note about him, I liked Franky G in THE Italian JOB, and I thought he was a very talented actor there; seeing him in this role made me feel like it was a bit of a waste for him. Oh well, he's getting more famous now, anyway.

Oh, speaking of actors, I really enjoyed Shawnee Smith. She was basically the star of the movie, to me; her character of Amanda, from her reaction to waking up in the house and screaming her horror, to...other, later points (gah, I swear that pun was unintended!), was executed with real conviction and talent. I, for one, am a fan of this actress now. And Tobin Bell...he has set the high bar on what a villain is like, and I, for one, thought he did splendidly as the awesomely complicated Jigsaw.

So in retrospect, this movie was full of thrills, twists, and tons of scares. It was every bit as good as the original, and even a bit better at times. All in all, SAW II was a perfect example of a psychological horror movie done right, and an excellent follow-up to its groundbreaking predecessor.

A-

Masters of Horror: Dreams in the Witch-House (2005) Season 1, Episode 2

GARBAGE! Lovecraft fans will hate this, and probably non-fans, too.

[1/10 · 16 June 2006]

This had to be one of the singularly worst adaptations of any work of fiction that I've ever seen. Seriously. Let me elaborate.

The majority of similarities between the story and the movie are mostly in the title: there is a house, there are dreams, and there is a witch. There are a few scenes that were transferred (Walter Gilman throwing flour on the floor to trace his somnambulism, purplish light appearing whenever the witch appears, and the very last event in the final scene). There were even several attempts at making signs of a genuine adaptation of an H.P. Lovecraft story – including a seal for Miskatonic University, laughably (and poorly) edited from Brown University's own shield and cross. Several characters retain the same names and general roles, but the similarities end here.

There are random characters that were seemingly included just for the hell of it (namely Francis "Frankie" Elwood, atrociously portrayed by Chelah Horsdal). Not once in the movie are the witch or her "rat with a human face" familiar referred to by name, and yet somehow, they earn their respective names Keziah Mason and Brown Jenkin in the credits! There were many other huge departures from the story – HUGE – including a complete absence of any inter-dimensional jaunts by Gilman, which was THE main theme. And there are mentions of Satan in here – no, no, NO!! Lovecraft NEVER incorporated Satan into his works, because beings like Satan (and the Other Guy) are just mankind's attempts at feeling there's some kind of reason and order to the world, when in fact we know NOTHING about the universe we live in! Lovecraft understood this concept, and he used it in EVERY one of his works. And even while this movie makes a focus on Gilman's studies on time and space, entering other dimensions, etc., his only "trips" are from one room of the house to another. Cheap? I'd say so! Oh, and to any fans of this flick might defend that it would be too costly or take too long to show alien worlds: if it was going to be such trouble, then why even TRY to make this into a movie, let alone a 55-minute made-for-TV one?!? H.P. Lovecraft had a knack for describing things that were so horrible, so alien, so inconceivable to people that he purposely left descriptions vague, simply because to comprehend some of his worlds and beings would be to go insane. It's next to impossible to describe HOW an alien could reduce a person into a gibbering, drooling maniac simply because of its size, let alone show it in a visual medium. If it was too much for Mr. Gordon to show, then why'd he even bother? There were also some pretty spotty production values, too, including a rat that looked like a rat, except close-ups showed a laughable amount of fake fur and two very fake-looking teeth pasted onto Yevgen Voronin's face. Add a smile and his Beavis laugh and you get a very pathetic excuse for a villain.

This installment of Masters of Horror is a film to be banished into oblivion along with two other terrible adaptations: "Bram Stoker's" Dracula and "Mary Shelly's" Frankenstein – movies that claim to have faithful ties to their original works by including the author's name, but most likely as a cover for the huge liberties taken in the adaptation. Having "H.P. Lovecraft" in the moniker is an insult to the man, not only because he never wrote garbage like this, but never would.

Dear god, this movie was terrible. Just terrible. I don't even see how someone who ISN'T a fan of the original story could like it – bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad everything. My review includes one star simply because I can't rate with a zero – which is what I honestly feel it deserves. Mr. Gordon? Shame on you.

Poseidon (2006)

Action? Great. Kurt? Great. Movie? Ehhh...

[7/10 · 13 May 2006]

It was...pretty good. I'd give it 4 out of 5 stars. Kurt Russell was good (as usual), and the action sequences were dazzling (and pretty intense). Some very hopeless situations. I had a few problems with it, though; mostly the "main" character, Josh McConaughey-- oh, sorry, Lucas. He's a pretty dull actor, and I've thought so since seeing him in Sweet Home Alabama. Luckily, however, he wasn't too distracting, and did quite well in a few parts. Richard Dreyfuss was actually a welcome surprise; I mean, I knew he was going to be in this movie, and he looks more haggard than ever (he's younger than my dad and he looks like he could be 80!!), but he did fine, and his character was not the jerk I was suspecting he would portray. A few other kinks and bunks here and there, but otherwise it was a pretty decent disaster movie.

Saw (2004)

Fresh, Unique, and Original...with just a few flaws

[9/10 · 1 April 2006]

First, a spoiler warning: ! ! ! S P O I L E R S ! ! ! I've seen this movie three times now, and I can safely say that what we have here is a fresh, unique spin on the serial killer genre, and although it's marginally flawed, the good outweighs the bad, and it ultimately leaves me applauding every time.

I could spend days writing about the better parts of this movie and not even come close to finishing - so, instead I'll focus on the minimal problems I had with it. There are only three of them, so it's easy to explain.

First off, I just don't like Cary Elwes, at least not in this movie. His character is one thing, but his delivery leaves me feeling that Dr. Gordon is an unlikeable jerk. Maybe that's exactly what we're supposed to feel, but maybe it also says something about Mr. Elwes' personality - either way, I am definitely bored (even annoyed) with his melodramatic reactions in the second half of the flick. Oh, and he has infinitely better chemistry with Jigsaw's secret notes than he does with his family - the whole bit with playing "This Little Piggy" with his daughter was laughable. But enough about Mr. Elwes, and onto the more concrete problems that could - and should - have been so much better.

My next problem is actually in two separate scenes, both of which involve completely different characters...and yet both result same in the same annoying turnout for the same annoying reason. When the two detectives (played by Tony Leung and Danny Glover) break into Jigsaw's hideout, they get him at gunpoint...but they don't shoot. Not even when they're demanding to know how to turn off one of his machines that is about to add to his victim count. Ultimately, Danny Glover's character gets a slashed throat (but he survives), and Tony Leung's character gets killed. Then, fast forward towards the end of the movie. Monica Potter's character manages to squirm out of her ropes, then pretends she's still tied up. She manages to surprise and overpower her captor (the "fake" Jigsaw), trains her gun on him...and she doesn't shoot him. Instead, she talks...and naturally, gives him the complete advantage of knocking her feet out from under her and almost killing her. Granted, in both cases, the main characters survive their respective "surprise" assaults, but why, oh why was there even a "surprise"? They both should have just fired at the antagonists when they had the chance, even as accidentally bad shots through the leg or shoulder, or something. It really annoys me that almost no movie is safe from this cliché, not even something as innovative and original as SAW.

Finally, I have a major problem with a fight sequence between Danny Glover's detective and "the Fake Jigsaw Twerp." Wait, a fight sequence? How could there have even been a fight? It's almost as embarrassing as Mel Gibson fighting Ned Ryerson in BIRD ON A WIRE: there should have been a couple of swings, then game over. But no...apparently, someone felt bad for the (very) little man in both instances, and gave them a chance to kick the arse of a well-known action star. Here is a man in his early-to-mid 60's, and without even knowing what kinds of big, strong, and tough personalities Mr. Glover usually brings to his roles, we know that this detective would not be an easy fight. So what happens? He gets his arse handed to him by a little twerp, the very same pseudo-"Jigsaw" who got lucky because Monica Potter's character was an idiot, resulting in his death...I'm sorry, but if that was supposed to happen, they should have gotten a smaller, older, and/or weaker actor to take the role - especially considering that an amazing actor like Mr. Glover shouldn't have been taking on such a small role to begin with - or at the very least, made the fight more believably rough on his part.

For such a cutting-edge movie (pardon the pun), these things added up to major annoyances that took me out of the movie, and really took away from a full star rating. Again: the good outweighed the bad, and I still value this movie as something so fresh, unique, and original...which is more than I can say about most horror movies nowadays.

The Pink Panther (2006)

I, for one, LOVED it.

[10/10 · 17 February 2006]

I was holding this movie in a great consideration that I would probably like it, but not *as* a Clouseau flick. Like, it would be a fine comedy in its own respects, but it would not hold up as a new installment in the series.

Boy, was I wrong.

Maybe it's not the best Clouseau I've seen (by far, A SHOT IN THE DARK holds that title), but it's definitely good enough to transcend surface values only. It has the same spirit, the same spunk, as the Peter Sellers movies.

As well, Steve Martin has really done it again.

My one REAL complaint about the movie: Beyonce. Why, why, why??? Oh well, she's just a Brussels' sprout amidst the otherwise DELICIOUS main course - even if her presence was annoying in and of itself, she was easy enough to flick away and forget.

Well-done!!

The Island (2005)

Surprisingly awesome!

[10/10 · 23 July 2005]

Well, first off, let me say that I had many apprehensions about The Island and its potential for sucketude. However, it pleases me to say that those apprehensions are now laid firmly to rest. It totally ROCKED! Very fun, very exciting, smart, funny, thrilling...it did everything it set out to. Sure, the lighting was odd here and there, and there were lots of shaky camera/fast-cut scenes (and other sub-par trademark qualities of a typical Michael Bay film), but damn...this was just fine. Ewan McGregor, whom I've always liked, acted better than ever, and Scarlett Johansen was just wonderful (but of course!). Djimon Hounsou once again proves to be one of the leading most underrated actors - he's simply amazing. Sean Bean was great, too, but he really needs to have a starring role sometime. Oh, it was just great. Very well-done. Michael Bay...not bad. Not bad at all.

Troy (2004)

Worst. Movie. Ever.

[1/10 · 17 May 2004]

I have seen some pretty bad cinematic adaptations before. However, I doubt there could never be a worse adaptation (oh, excuse me, "inspiration") of such a perfect piece of literary art than the atrocity known as TROY.

Just about everything in this movie was bad. No, I take that back: EVERYTHING was simply HORRENDOUS. It was simply GARBAGE. Let me explain only a little of what I think...

The characters were mutated to a point that strayed beyond any kind of cliché or stereotype; they became simply dreadful. Achilles became a pompous, over-self-glorifying jerk that seemed to show no emotion other than arrogance. Paris became a little schoolgirl--er, boy--who would rather sit and watch the battle. Agamemnon became an insane, over-the-top, bloodthirsty maniac with the same motivations as our current "President" (and not to mention just as annoying). Helen suddenly had a whole blooming romance with Paris the equivalent of yet another attempt at cashing in on poor Shakespeare's famous romance (which will remain anonymous, because what else would I be talking about?). Ajax became a huge muscle-man...and not much more. Odysseus even fell to a similar fate; he became more of a sword-ready fiend rather than the innocent thrust into a war he did not wish to be in. And where was Diomedes? And more importantly, WHERE WERE THE GODS?!

All the armor, ships, and costumes were identical, as if they were manufactured, rather than hand-crafted (which is how it would have been). All of the rooms and houses had such gaudy, Martha Stewart-esque deco and tapestries.

Finally, the movie dragged on forever (I actually checked my watch at one point, only to be sorely disappointed that less than half the movie had elapsed). There was no humor in it whatsoever, and the plot structure was a monotonous pattern of battle-dialogue-battle-dialogue.

How could Wolfgang Petersen and such a fine group of actors and actresses (well...never mind the actresses, actually) create such garbage? David Benioff should be SHOT for his adaptation of the beautiful poem that is recognized everywhere as one of the best and most wonderful pieces of literature ever.

There are so many other things I could rant about with this atrocious movie. Troy was, quite simply, THE worst movie I have EVER had the misfortune of actually spending money on, only to have my visual nerves stimulated (more like raped) from. If you don't believe me, go ahead and see it; perhaps those of us who had the pleasure of reading THE ILLIAD are more biased towards this piece of cinematic garbage, but I will be honestly surprised if anyone other than a little girl of the age of 13 finds this movie to be even remotely entertaining.

Simply put, Troy sucked.

Hellboy (2004)

Not bad, but...could have been so much better.

[6/10 · 3 April 2004]

This movie really could have been something fantastic, but it turned out to be just "okay." Nothing bad, surely nowhere near as bad as DAREDEVIL or JEEPERS CREEPERS (two of the most atrocious movies I have ever had the misfortune of even knowing of the existance of), but it could have been much, much better.

A lot of the fight scenes were very anti-climatic...like at the end,

SPOILERS-SPOILERS-SPOILERS-SPOILERS-SPOILERS

when Hellboy was swallowed by the beast that emerged from Rasputin's body, and then blew up the grenades...it was just too rushed. In fact, I'd say that there wasn't too much trying to be crammed into the movie; I'd say there was too little. There could have been so many more examples of the kinds of things Hellboy runs into (I mean, he's run into ghosts, aliens, goblins, vampires, gods from various religions/parts of the world, etc. Here it is mostly just self-contained mythos being referred to/used as plot devices.

Then again, X-MEN had its flaws, yet was still good. X2 was better...maybe another HELLBOY would be good.

If there could only be a way to adapt WAKE THE DEVIL. Now THERE's an episode that would make a KICKASS movie.