The Descent

Even the poster creates suspense...    TheCinemaSource

The Descent, released in July 2005, is a British horror film directed by Neil Marshall that follows six women who go spelunking in an unexplored cave in North Carolina. I suspect I'm giving nothing away when I reveal that things don't go entirely to plan... The film was a critical success, scoring 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, and being placed 7th in Sight & Sound's end-of-year top ten list. Amazon.co.uk is, however, once again a haven for those with no taste whatsoever, nor any kind of reviewing ability.
So. Here. We. Go:

First off everyones entitled to their opinion so I find it bizarre as to why their are so many people obviously like the film trawling negative reviews simply to slate anyone who dislikes it (Maybe it's why they don't like it that people dislike? Or the quality of the review. Or the fact that many, who will be featured later, treat their opinions as fact?). These people are WRONG the one star reviewers are RIGHT (Yeah. What you've certainly not done there is exactly what you just complained about...). This film is ridiculous (No more than most other films. You know that Dumbo? I don't think an elephant could use his ears to fly...). I felt rather embarrassed for the person who decided to comment smarmly by saying to the reviewer: 'My advice is to concentrate when you watch an intelligent adult film or even better stick to films more suited to your age group.' (I suspect he's right. This is an intelligent film for adults.). They've got themselves a wee bit mixed up here and its backfired massively...Its a borderline B-movie, it not supposed to be 'an intelligent adult film' neither was Dog Soilders, thats what made it so good (Dog Soldiers was absolutely not to be taken seriously. But just because they share a director does not mean that this film is equally frivolous. This is a straight-up horror and works as such. [slight SPOILER coming up here] I take it you missed the end bit where the women become as bad as, or worse than, the crawlers? Butchering them horribly, killing their young and sticking thumbs in eye-sockets is pretty nasty. Not many horror films have the guts to turn the heroines against each other and into murderous monsters themselves.). An intelligent adult decision would be to use the DVD as a coaster matt for your pint. (No, that would be a silly thing to do. Surely a specifically designed coaster would do the job far better...)
Jokes aside (Don't become a stand-up.). This is a poor effort (Except it just isn't, though, is it? It does exactly what it intends to do. Scare.). In fairness, the claustrophobic atmosphere created is not bad (Not bad? That goes beyond understatement, and into the realms of stupidity.) and the films grittyness is appealing. Why one star then? (Because you're a fool who wouldn't know a good film if he walked in on one fucking a version himself from a different universe?)
1. The premise has been done to death (What? The only one similar I can think of is the pretty shite Sanctum which came out this year...) so any new attempt has to be very unique and different (Different from what you utter arse? It's not like there's a cave-based horror released every day!). There's just nothing new here (All-female cast? Cave-based terror? Strong acting? Believable monsters?). I was pretty much spot on with the order of who would die before they'd even entered the cave. (You could guess who'd die, but you can do that with any horror.)
2. If you've seen "The Cave" you don't need to watch this. They were more adventurous in their filmaking and did it better, and that's saying something. (Excuse me? First of all, The Cave came out a month after this. And second of all, it was utter bilge. At 13% it is amongst the worst films of 2005. If you think that is better than The Descent, then you are clearly one ball short of an over.) 
3. The plot's ludicrous (It's not that ludicrous. It's a horror film. There is such a thing as 'willing suspension of disbelief'. I'd suggest you'd give it a go.). Without giving too much away, who on earth goes down an uncharted cave system without any map (I believe you rather answered your own question there. The word 'uncharted' means that there is no map for them to take. Fucktard.), back up, safety failsafe and the excuse as to why is crazy (Not really. It was certainly a silly thing to do, but it fitted in well with the character.). Why would you then split up and continue to go deeper after being attacked? (They ran and panicked. One of them fell down a hole. They didn't split up on purpose. Did you even watch the bloody thing?) The ending, a totally unnecessary twist which, which makes zero sense and has no right to be there. (It made sense. [SPOILER] She'd been hallucinating a fair bit, so having cracked her head against the rock floor, it wasn't a surprise she did it again.)
4. Its blatantly obvious its filmed in Scotland not the US. (Actually, it wasn't filmed in Scotland either, so clearly wasn't that obvious... It was filmed in Pinewood Studios, near London with exteriors filmed in a park in Buckinghamshire. So quite far from Scotland really...)
5. Its only really about two people, the other characters are simply their for gore value, which is pretty cheap as you have no empathy for them (This is pretty standard for horror films though. It's very hard to flesh out all the characters without the film becoming bloated and overly long. Besides, this film does somewhat more for its supporting cast than most modern Hollywood horror fare, with the slashers and torture-porn genres particularly badly affected.). The main two main characters relationship is daft and very confusing, I might have caught Juno looking at Sarah's husband at the start for all of about 2 seconds and I think this has something to do with their fractured relationship (It's explained you ignorant prick. You really didn't listen did you? And their relationship seemed realistic and understandable considering the events that shape it.). The problem is for a film like this to work it has to be really character driven and the script's so weak, there's nothing for the actors to flesh out. (The script as as good as it needed to be. There was no exposition-heavy dialogue as far as I can remember, with pretty natural conversations between the characters both prior to the adventure and during.)  

Neil Marshall did so well with Dog Soilders and its a great idea to be different (as mentioned) (This film is original) and have an all women cast, who do the best with the little they've got (They all did very well with the good material they received.). Its a shame its badly let down by a daft script and story and shallow characters. (What was it you said earlier? Ah yes, '[you've] got yourself a wee bit mixed up here and it's backfired massively'. Oh, the glorious irony.)

Here's a somewhat shorter review now:

This film starts off ok for about the first 5 minutes (If the next words aren't 'then gets even better' or somesuch, I'm going to hurt you.), then by the end of the film the starting has practically no relavence at all (Actually, it is massively important. How did you miss that? And now I'm going to have to hurt you. I'm sorry, but I warned you...). Amazingly bad acting (Except the acting was uniformly strong, creating believable characters who could exist in the real world.) and for people that have already seen the film (trying not to give too much away) (You pretty much fail. so major SPOILERS up ahead.) i have to ask you, why does she take her freinds leg out at the end?? it was an accident wasnt it? hmmm... (Several things. Firstly, she didn't see the incident, so she knew only what Beth had told her. Beth believed that it was not an accident, therefore neither did Sarah. Secondly, Beth told Sarah that Juno had been having an affair with Sarah's late husband, so she was pretty mad about that as well. And then there is that it was Juno that led them down the cave in the first place, so there was probably a bit of blame thrown in there too.) but i really wouldnt reccomend this film to any one (Really? I would. I already have in fact.)

 Here, have another!:

Get grip people! This is terrible (I'll get a grip on your neck if you're not careful. If you think this is terrible then you aren't intelligent enough to deserve life...). Dull locations (The cave looked pretty spectacular in places. Especially at the start looking up through the hole.), 50 mins of tedium (The first 50 minutes were superb. The build-up of tension was excellent with some standard cave-based scares, like rock collapses ratcheting up the tension very well.) before the laughable monsters appear (In what way are they laughable? They look realistic and could feasibly exist.) and NO suspense at all! (If by 'suspense' you mean 'clowns', then yes. There weren't any clowns in the first 50 minutes. Or indeed any of the minutes. There was suspense though...) The creatures are feeble and not at all scary (Well the creatures on their own aren't scary, but then neither would pretty much anything else. Alien's Xenomorph wouldn't be scary if it was on its own in the middle of a brightly lit ice-rink. But in combination with the dark location of the cave, the crawlers are pretty scary.) and the location is dull beyond belief (Yeah you said that already, and I already said you were wrong.). This is a really awful film (That'll be why Sight & Sound felt it was the seventh best film of the year then... God, that must have been a shit year eh?). Dog Soldiers was great fun but this is pretentious drivel (It is neither pretentious, nor drivel. This review is drivel. The film really isn't.). I have NEVER been so bored in a film (You clearly have no idea what makes a good horror film then. I suggest you stick to films that give horror cinema a bad name, like Saw and Hostel.). BAD, BAD and bad again (And yet the only thing you can complain about is the 'dull' location and the 'feeble' creatures. Twice. Talking about two things twice, doesn't make a review I'm afraid...). The cast were average (Well, if comparing them against Daniel Day-Lewis I suppose...) and the plot motivation was just completely unbelievable from every angle (What? She wanted to discover a new cave. People actually do that you know. That's how caves are discovered...). Lazy script, lazy film. (And you're a stupid man.)

That's enough for now, I think. Till next time children!

Black Swan

You'd think that bloody great crack would tip
some people off that this would be a little mad...

Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan was released last year to very strong reviews. It even collected Academy, BAFTA and Golden Globe awards for Natalie Portman's excellent central performance, as well nominations in many of the other major categories. The film depicts a young ballerina who has to get in touch with her darker side to succeed as the lead in a production of Tchaikovsky's  Swan Lake. I shan't spoil it, but anyone going to the cinema expecting a modern retelling of Swan Lake or a nice story about ballet performers would be disappointed and surprised...  But the reviewers have no such qualms, so tread carefully. Speaking of the reviewers, here is some from amazon.co.uk:

This film is a travesty and an insult to hard working ballet dancers, ballet teachers and musiscians (How? It doesn't say all people involved in ballet are nuts, just that it can be incredibly tough to reach the top. Which is certainly true. I haven't heard of any ballet performers complain about their depiction in the film.). It traduces (Who the fuck actually uses the word 'traduce'? How pretentious are you?) an honorouble art and profession (It doesn't attack ballet. It comments on the lengths performers [of any dramatic profession] will go to for their roles. That is it.) and will undermine the teaching and practise of ballet for a generation of young hopefuls (Your 'young hopefuls' shouldn't see this film on account of it being handed a 15 certificate by the BBFC for 'strong sex, strong language and bloody injury'. Any ballet hopefuls should not see the film until they are 15. Well after they would have started ballet. Your point is stupid.). I found the film ludicrous (Well it is a bit. It's an homage of sorts to the horror films of Dario Argento [particularly Suspiria] which were also mad. But the madness was pretty clear from the trailers, if you thought you were getting something else then that's your problem.) with childish computer generated effects (They were pretty good. Certainly they were not 'childish' in any way.) and exagerated psychological problems as if audiences are so stupid they need have to have each point underlined, printed in CAPITALS, and hammered into their heads or they wont understand (Actually the psychological angle was exaggerated to make the film exciting, visceral and Argento-ish. In real life, most psychological breakdowns aren't really that exciting though...). The film dwells on sexual deviation (Being a lesbian, or exploring those avenues, is not 'sexual deviation' you homophobic piece of shit cunt. The term 'deviation' is used when talking about paedophilia, voyeurism or sadomasochism, that sort of thing. Not homosexuality.) and gratuitous self harm (The self-harm was pretty important to the plot really, taking it out would have vastly reduced the impact of the picture.) with all the gory details in a way that is more in keeping with third rate pornography (What pornography have you been watching to have gory self harm in it? Maybe it's you who's the sexual deviant...). I would not encourage any child to watch it (Well, once again I will divert your attention to the 15 certificate. In the UK it is illegal to supply a film to anyone under the age of the certificate. So what precisely is your point?) and would rate it lemon of the year (Really? You feel this was worse than drivel like Sex and the City 2 or The Last Airbender?) and possibly the least deserving Acadamy Award winner of all time! (First of all, Portman deserved her award. Second of all, I would like to draw your attention to Braveheart which is by far the least deserving Academy Award winner I can think of. As it's a racist piece of trash.) I hated the film (Really? I hadn't noticed. Thanks for pointing that out...) and would ask for my money back if I could. The film is mis-sold not clearly pointing out the inapropriate nature of the content (IT WAS GIVEN A 15 CERTIFICATE how much clearer could it be? I suggest you either stick to films with U or PG ratings in future, or check the BBFC website where they say precisely why they have handed out the certificate they have.) and relying on the Swan Lake reputation to entice the unwary (Look, don't blame the film because you are an idiot. It merely makes you seem an even bigger idiot.). The acting was ordinary and certainly not worthy of an Acadamy Award (Really? So you know better than pretty much every major critic in the field then do you? And most of the voters for the various academies etc. that gave her awards? Because I doubt that very much. Hell, even my ego isn't that big.). Two big thumbs down from me.

Having taken a minute to calm down, here's the next one:

I have given it one star because I had no choice (I think you have to click at least one). (You had a choice. You could have chosen to not review it at all. That would have saved me from feeling obliged to write this too...)
The ballet scenes should upset real ballet dancers (And yet... They don't. They were generally praised as being pretty good for a film.). Natalie Portman flaps her arms about, I don't really call it dancing. (Well that's ballet for you...)
The story is so pretentious it is laughable (When, precisely, is it pretentious? It's a horror/thriller film. A genre film. Pretension is not a part of it.). I think those who loved the movie perhaps liked a bit of voyeurism (e.g. the gratuitous lesbian sex scene). (I see. So everyone who enjoyed it [an awful lot of people lets not forget] are all peeping toms? It certainly couldn't be because of the exciting story, excellent acting and beautiful cinematography could it...)
Don't waste your money. (It wouldn't be a waste.)

And another:

In contrast to other reviews here, I will give an unpretentious and honest assessment of Black Swan (I think all the reviews on amazon will be honest, misguided or flat-out wrong sometimes, but honest. Well except for the trolls, obviously, but I can't see any for Black Swan. And just because someone likes a film you don't, and can quantify why they like it by citing cinematography etc, that doesn't make them pretentious.). It should have been more accurately entitled 'The Emperor's New Clothes' (How very droll and original. How many times have I seen that sort of phrase since I started doing this blog...), since it is devoid of any meaningful content and has been feted by reviewers who really ought to know better (Maybe, and I know this is a far-out suggestion, but maybe they do know better. And it's you who's wrong?). True, it looks stylish (It is indeed) (though the insistence on using hand-held camera for long periods has a tendency to make the user feel seasick (The user?)), but is essentially meaningless tosh (Not really. As I said earlier, it comments on the search for perfection by the extremely driven.). Worse than that, at key moments it is laughably awful (Name one such moment, and explain precisely why it is laughable, then we can talk.). Portman emotes like her life depends on it (She does a little more than that...), but she can't help the stilted script (When is it stilted? I found it all flowed quite nicely) or the director's clumsy handling of his denouement (Excuse me? How was it clumsy?), which in turn says nothing and was foreseeable through the entire film. (It says plenty, and perhaps it wasn't overly difficult to predict, but what ever happened to just enjoying the ride? Even when the end is a foregone conclusion?)

Ignore the accolades (Or don't. They are well deserved, and awarded by more intelligent and cineliterate people than this chump. Or even me.). This is truly a movie worthy of the Razzies (No. Just... No.). Please, please do not buy it on DVD (Since it would clearly cause you much pain I'm going to buy it as soon as I can afford it.) and if you were thinking of venturing out to the cinema, stay home and watch Polanski's Repulsion (Repulsion is indeed a superb film. But Black Swan has just as much right to exist. It tells a different, though in some ways similar in other ways very different, story in an entirely different way.). Now there was a director who knew how to hit nerve endings and portray a descent into madness credibly and scare the audience witless (Polanski is a very good director. But, despite your inferred accusation, so is Aronofsky. As you would know if you'd seen Requiem For A Dream). So in short, there are no redeeming features (None at all? Really?) - this really is a film that could have been decent in the right hands but which has been sabotaged (It could have been more than decent in the right hands. Fortunately, it was placed in the right hands, so it turned out very well.). Please save your hard-earned cash! (What if your cash isn't hard-earned?)

I think that'll do for now, but I may well tackle some reviews from America at some point in the future so keep your eyes peeled!

Suspiria

This is about as gory as it gets. Which just isn't gory...
image via imago

Dario Argento is regarded as one of the best horror directors of the 70s and 80s, with 1977's Suspiria regarded as perhaps his finest work. Set in a contemporary ballet school in Freiburg, Germany the film concerns a coven of witches. These people on lovefilm seem to be immune to the film's many charms:

Having seen 'Black Swan' and reading in a 'Times' review, that one of the influences for that film could have been 'Suspiria' and foolishly thinking it may also have a little ballet in it! I rented it. (Well, Suspiria almost certainly was an influence on Darren Aronofsky's Black Swan, it has a similar tone and setting as well as a similar aesthetic to Argento's masterpiece. And it does feature a little ballet - it shows the girls practicing on more than one occasion.)

A violent (It's not that violent really. It's only really violent once, much of the rest is implied. It's certainly far less violent than most modern films, let alone modern horror.), low budget (Well it was made in Italy, rather than the cash rich Hollywood), gaudy (If you are referring to the colour in the film, then you are an idiot. The colour is essential to the film's nightmarish otherworldliness. The use of colour is one of the reasons it is so lauded), gory (That's almost the same as 'violence'. And it's still stupid and wrong.), plotless film (It has a plot. Not much of one I'll concede, but more than most horror films of any decade.).

I worry about the minds creating this sort of 'film rouge' and the minds of those who enjoy watching such unadulterated bloody horror (I see. Someone who likes to be scared should be locked away in a psychiatric hospital? Or maybe you're just a pussy who has no idea about horror films or, I'll wager, films in general).

Not for me I'm afraid. (No! I got this far believing you to have thought this was the greatest movie ever made)

Here's another prick from lovefilm:

This really is a marmite film- I've read reviews from film critics who loved this, but I have to confess I absolutely hated it (I see. So critics love it, and you don't. That doesn't make it a 'marmite film'. It just makes you an idiot. Have you thought that perhaps the critics are right and you are wrong? Because that seems the logical answer to me...). Really loud discordant music blares out every time any of the cast have anything seemingly vital to whisper (maybe it's not important at all- maybe the music is just to cover up that there's no real plot here? (It's not loud enough to block what they're saying. It's just to emphasize the point being made. And there is a plot. Watch it again and I'm sure you'll spot it.)), for a horror film nothing particularly scary happens (Well the whole film creates an aura of a nightmarish world. If by 'scary' you mean Saw or Hostel style shock and gore, then no. And go and fuck yourself, because they just aren't horror films. They're torture porn.), and it's impossible to feel anything for the characters as they're so sketchily drawn and behave so oddly you can't relate to them. (Yes you can. They act like people. And the main character in particular is fleshed out. If you can't feel for her then I can only assume you are some kind of psychopath.)

And another...:

Plenty of decent reviews for this, so I hired it. (You rented it. The correct terminology here is 'rented'. I'm sorry to nitpick, but you gave this film half a star. You deserve everything that's coming to you.)

I managed about 20 minutes waiting for it to become ironic or something... nope. (It doesn't become ironic. It becomes brilliant. I hope that you continued after this 20 minutes or else I will not sleep till you have been buried alive in a coffin full of hungry raccoons.)

Anyone considering renting this would do better to spend the evening gnawing off one of their own legs - then at least the blood would be realistic and the actions of the victim might have some believability to them (Now, I've seen plenty of films I've despised [Sex and the City 2 and Pimp jump to mind], but none has driven me to gnaw my own leg off. And the blood is about as realistic as they could have conceivably gotten away with. You forget that back then blood was not as accepted in films as it is today.).

Leave it. (Or don't. I would suggest watching it. It is one of the finest and most important horror films ever put to celluloid. To not watch it because the blood looks a little fake would be ridiculous.)

Well, I think that'll do for today, but rest assured that there is plenty more where that came from...

Nosferatu, Eine Symphonie Des Grauens

One of the most iconic images in horror movies. As Max
Schreck's count is silhouetted on the wall
image via wikipedia

In 1922 the legendary German director F.W. Murnau made one of his most famous films, Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens (Nosferatu, A Symphony of Terror). Regarded as one of the greatest and most important horror movies of all time, the film takes the story of Dracula but changes the names in an attempt to avoid litigation from Bram Stoker's estate (it failed. Many copies of the movie were destroyed at the court's request following Florence Stoker's successful copyright infringement lawsuit). These people, however, seem to be unaware of this film's historical importance. Or perhaps they don't care. Here. We. Go:

I know it was filmed over 80 years ago, but this is pure and utter bore (It is many things, nearly 90 years old for example, but it is not boring. The images of the Count [played wonderfully by Max Schreck] prowling around his castle are beautifully shot and are worth the price of admission alone)! How on earth can people say this is the best scary movie ever made and briliantly filmed and acted i dont know (Because those people have taste? Because those people know what makes a good horror movie?)! 
Firstly, the picture quality is astonishingly bad (It was made in 1922, and most of the original copies were destroyed, with mostly just the copies surviving. What do you expect? Fully HD, IMAX quality film?)! You'd think that with all the new technology available today that someone could make the picture atleast bareable, yet instead it practically hurts to look at (It's not great, but I've certainly seen films in worse condition.). 
The caharcters can NOT ACT (Several things. Point 1, it's spelt characters. Point 2, they are actors. The fictional beings they play are the characters. Point 3, they can act. And they do. It's just acting was different back then. The acting styles were influenced heavily by the stage, so that the audience could grasp the emotions without sound)! its worse then a 5 year olds christmad concert at school, the movements are corny and its all sooooooooooooooooooooooooo terrible! (You know you've got a review when they stick extra letters in to emphasize their point...)
I know you'll read this review and decide to buy it anyway because the overall rating is 5 stars (I certainly hope so. I'd hate to think that someone decided not to watch this film because of your crap review), but trust (Trust what?)....its way over-hyped. (No. You're just a clueless idiot.)

If that wasn't enough, I have more!:

 When I saw all the marketing blurb about this film, I thought it would be pretty good (Then you were shocked to find it excellent?). Modern vampire films are entertaining and exciting (What vampire films? This review is from 2007, so the only ones I can think of are the Blades, of which only the first two are good, and even then they aren't masterpieces. And possibly I Am Legend and 30 Days of Night which are good and okay respectively, but are hardly legendary.), but they very rarely scare me, so when I saw the information claiming that this film "continues to haunt and terrify modern audiences," I thought Nosferatu would definitely be worth a watch (And it definitely is.). 

I was disappointed (Why? Did you forget to watch it?). I'm not going to comment on the quality of filming, special effects or anything because the film is so old and the technology was nothing like today's, so it's not really relevant (Yay. I suppose?). However, I found this film pretty laughable (Less yay. More groan). I thought the fact it was a silent film would add to the creepiness (It does.), but I found that the overacting in place to make up for lack of words just gave me the giggles (You don't want to complain about the effects etc., because they're so old, but you will complain about the acting? Didn't you see my explanation for that? I don't care if you wrote this nearly 4 years ago.). 

The storyline of course, was good because it was based on Bram Stoker's novel, published 24 years earlier than this film (Pretty loosely though). But there seriously was no fear factor for me (and I'm a wimp!) (You do realise that the 'fear factor' isn't the be-all and end-all don't you? Stick to Saw in future please). All of the vampire's skulking around, and appearing in doorways, staring out of windows etc, had me clutching my sides in mirth (Then, sir, you have no appreciation for great cinematography). Maybe that's just me, but I'm pretty sure that's not the reaction they were going for when they made this film. (No. But brainless morons weren't their intended audience either.)

Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I've seen too many other vampire movies and read too many vampire books, but there are certainly much scarier things out there than this (Scarier? Yes. Better made? Almost certainly not.). This is not a patch on Dracula the novel - simply because drawing your own imagery from your imagination can be so much more effective (Never, ever compare the movies to the novels. I used to, but have realised it's a fruitless exercise. The film can never match the detail of the novel.). Unless you're a total film buff, or know someone that is, I'd give this a miss. (I bet non 'total film buffs' could find some enjoyment from this film. My brother, for example.)

Well, there's only one stupid review left, so I might as well use it:

While people who have watched a lot of films from the same era as Nosferatu may find this movie a 'masterpiece', anyone who just wants a horror movie to scare the sh*t out of them need not bother (Again, there is more to this film than its ability to scare. Which, I shall concede, has been lessened by the passing of the decades. However, I feel the need to point out [and not for the first time] that shock and gore are not truly scary. Most modern horror movies play for instant shock, rather than true terror and dread that sticks with you after the credits have rolled. And they are much the poorer for that.).I was expecting to be scared senseless, the reputation of this movie is to be one of the best horror movies of all time, maybe that was the case when it was made, but now I would say the average episode of Eastenders is more scary than this (Best horror movie of all time is meant in a technical, and historical importance sense, rather than purely by its ability to scare. Once more I am forced to advise you to stick to torture porn).
This movie is definately only one to be bought only by people looking for a taste of what early movie attempts were like or want to study early german silent movies (Or those, certainly not you, who can appreciate an excellent film, regardless of its age) (despite the fact that the new score at times doesn't seem to be on the same track as the movie). (What's that? A possibly useful point on this particular version of the movie? Deary be.)

Well, at least I managed to avoid any massive rants this time... 

Anthology of Idiocy V

Yes friends, no long wait this time as I'm back with Anthology of Idiocy Episode V: The Idiots Strike Back (I'm fast running out of film series that go up this high...).

We open up today's account with a review from amazon.com for the classic 1931 version of Frankenstein:

I was delighted to receive the video in the mail today (Haha! You people in the past with your old fashioned technology!). What timing! My class of high school seniors has finished reading Mary Shelley's novel and will be taking their final tomorrow. Afterwards, I thought they would really enjoy the film. Unfortunately, I just finished viewing it and am sick (Was it something you ate?). This adaptation is nothing like the book (Well no. Lots of films aren't like the book. That doesn't stop this film being a stone-cold classic horror film). I am scrambling around looking for one that is! (I understand from someone who's studied English that the book isn't that good anyway to be honest...) I honestly feel I have wasted $... (You haven't. It's an excellent movie)---and on my miserable salary that's painful! The acting, sets, script, camera work, and editing are ridiculously crude (Well it was 1931. What were you expecting? Sleek production on an Avatar scale?). I wish I had saved my money and spent it elsewhere! (Please, stop teaching people...)

Told you it was a poster...
Image via unrealityshout

Next up, following on from my previous post dedicated to House season 1, we have this review for House season 7:

At first glance, House seems like just another banal sitcom (It's not a fucking sitcom! Do you Americans even know what a sitcom is?. This is a bloody drama).  masquerading as something more "smart" and/or "sexy," which is true (Oh, if you say so Your Highness...)--but look a bit deeper and you'll see its success rides on the fact it's a love letter to generation Y detachment and forced irony; bittersweet emotional pornography for those whose lives have failed them. (What the fuck is any of this about? Did you read that other guy's review for season 1 and think 'Wow. That's a good review. I'll do one like that. Using his idiotic opinions'?)

Just look at the DVD cover (Actually that's a poster). "Love sucks." Cue a thousand soul-numbingly boring housewives nodding their heads with a knowing "MMMM-hmmmm." (I hate you.) These producers really know their audience, I'll give them that. (They also know how to make a damn good show.)

And bringing up the rear we have this review for the excellent video game Fallout 3:

Ok,yes,the game was good,but,come on,this has been done...........11 times,i mean,talk about"Copy-Paste"!!! (When? When has this been done before? If you're referring to someone journeying through a post-apocalyptic Earth then yes, I suppose it has been done before. But then, if you only take the setting of something into account then nothing new has been released in centuries...)
Its nothing new,and i just think its one of the copying ones (Just mention something it's copying and then perhaps you'll have a reasonable argument),here is the Good-Bad list 

Good 
1:Its a free roaming game,to do whatever you want to do (Yes that is good)
2:You make up your own mind (About what?)

Bad 
1:Detail:The monsters are 80's crap (No they're not. They're actually pretty sensible, plausible mutations of current animals)
2:Creativity:Its all been done before (And i can't stress that enough) (Yet you haen't mentioned anything that it is similar to...)
3:I could go on for hours :P (And yet you haven't. Let's face it, you can only think of two bad points can't you... And where is a review of the gameplay? Or the graphics? Or anything else game-related?)

That's you're lot for this month. I just know you're looking forward to the next Anthology of Idiocy, but you'll just have to be patient I'm afraid...

Deliverance

Clearly this is the most powerful, evil

film ever to have been made...

Image via moviemobsters

Today friends we travel once more to the Americas in search of bounty! If by 'bounty' I mean stupid reviews of John Boorman's classic horror/thriller Deliverance...:

"Deliverance" is, without question, one of the most appalling films ever made (I would question that to be honest...) and has done more damage to the southern Appalachians than any coal company or other destroying of the natural environment. (I doubt that to be honest, I think you are vastly overestimating the effect films have on people. I bet your one of those morons who think violent films make others perform violent acts...)

At issue here is the flagrant stereotypes that the movies have perpetuated against the people of the region for years (You clearly didn't notice how horrible the city-boys were - thus missing the whole point of the movie. Congratulations). "Deliverance" not only continues these stereotypes, but extends them in such a way that their impact can be felt nearly 30 years later (Again, I think you credit Deliverance with too much power). Today much of the southern Appalachians have been overrun with explosive growth brought on by the areas natural beauty and mountain vistas. This growth, while bringing some benefits to the region have caused the natives of the region to suffer under the crushing burden of an escalating cost of living as the wealthy migrants drive up property values and other factors (Boo hoo. It's the same everywhere. And anyway, people wanting to live somewhere because it's pretty is hardly the film's fault is it? Maybe the Appalachians shouldn't have looked so nice...). But why care about the people who are being displaced when, as portrayed in "Deliverance," they are only sub human (Actually, most of the people they meet down there are friendly enough. Like all those people in the town they come to at the end).

If any minority group were portrayed in the appalling manner that the good people of the southern Appalachians are in this film, the PC police would be out in force in protest, and rightfully so. I guess some stereotypes are more PC friendly than others. (Are you an Appalachian mountain man by any chance? Maybe if you weren't looking so hard to see stereotyping you would have noticed that they weren't the real bad guys)

Here's another in a similar vein:

"Deliverance" is to rural Southerners as "Triumph of the Will" was to Jews (Not really. As far as I'm aware Leni Reifenstahl's film did not mention Jews at all. And to liken this film to Nazi propaganda is, quite frankly, laughable). How surprising that it was made by a limey (Does anyone else find the irony in this reviewer using a pejorative noun for the British whilst simultaneously complaining of racism quite amusing?). If this movie had been made about blacks, it would have been banned. But who cares about Southerners? (Are you aware that the book this film was based on and the film's screenplay were written by [the born in Georgia] James Dickey? I thought not.)

 And lastly, a bit of good old fashioned homophobia:

i got this as one of my free dvds from columbia house a part of my into package and am going to be giving it to the pawn shop (Then you've made a profit, why are you complaining?). movie wasnt too bad actually pretty decent until the great climax of horror that no other man should have to see with his own eyes neither be owned or played on my tv (Right, there are spoilers up ahead, so be warned. I'm guessing you mean the infamous 'piggy' scene here. How homophobic are you that simulated male rape is enough to give an otherwise 'pretty decent' film one star? The way you want to distance yourself from it as far as possible is pretty interesting. Repressing something perhaps? You should see a psychiatrist, I bet he'd have a field day with you). it left me dissappointed and wishing i never saw it (Well it wasn't supposed to be nice you know.). but i wont ruin it for you if you wanna know go ask someone. (Or they could watch the bloody film!)

 Well, that's all I've got for the moment kids. But never fear, I shall return as soon as I have built up the required rage!

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

The problem with Leatherface is that he doesn't kill
enough. He could start with the reviewers here...
 Image via hauntedshop

In 1974 Tobe Hooper made the controversial horror film The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. Today this film is still considered to be one of the most scary movies ever made. These reviewers, then, must have upper lips made of stone:

we all know that the way the movie was made was very poor (What do you mean? It was made cheaply if that's what you mean) but the film in itself is absoultely rubbish (Is it? Thank goodness you're here to pass judgement on all films for everyone).i think that anybody giving this a high mark is going purely on its so called status (First of all, maybe people [like me] just like it. And second of all it isn't a 'so-called status' it is its status. Rightly or wrongly [and its rightly by the way] that is the status it has).through the film the scariest moment is when the lady is put on the hook (No. That is the goriest moment. I'm guessing you are a fan of torture-porn then? The whole film makes the viewer uneasy. That, my simple friend, is true horror) but nothing much ever comes from the chainsaw.he whirls it about a bit running through the woods and never does much killing (For shame!).another stupid bit is that leatherface[the man with the chainsaw] is under the rule of his scrawny little dad (Well yes. The whole point is that Leatherface is not evil per se, just intellectually disabled and controlled by his evil family).to top it all off the end is worse than pathetic with the lady driving off and the chainsaw man left in the middle of the road again waving it around (Thanks for telling everyone who hasn't seen it how the film ends. Moron.).the end is ebrupt (abrupt),the sound is awful (It was a low budget hooror flick from the early 70s. What were you expecting?),the way it is made is awful (Strange then, that Roger Ebert [who did not like the content] admitted that it was well made. Much more so than it needed to be) and overall the film as a whole does not live up to its expectations (Well, not if you're expecting the gore of Saw crossed with the brilliance of The Godfather any way...).see it just so you know that the hype is all wrong. (See it just so you know that this idiot is all wrong)

Well, without any ado, here's another for your sick pleasure:

I'd wanted to see this film for a number of years (Bully for you), and was really excited when I finally got my chance.........Bloody hell was I disapointed! (Why? Did the film explode in your machine?) Loosely based on the horrific real-life crimes of Ed Gein....'loosely' is definatly the right word to use (I'm sorry, are you criticizing the film for only being loosely inspired by Ed Gein? 'Cause that seems a little bit petty to me. This isn't a biopic). When the title sequence rolled I will admit to thinking this was going to be a really atmospheric and scary film (Which most normal people agree it is), the prodution may of have been bad, but if a story is good enough it will shine through. Besides a grainy film and lack of music can be very creepy (It sure as hell is in this case I can assure all of you at home). Unfortuanatly little happened in the first half of the film (It's called suspense! Why do none of you imbeciles know what suspense actually is? I just answered my own question there didn't I...) and the acting was very dodgy. When the action did start it was stupid more that scary (VIOLENCE ISN"T SCARY! It's just shocking. To be really scary, you need an atmosphere and a sense of unease and dread. This film has those films in spades), and scenes of Leatherface with chainsaw reminded me of Benny Hill for some reason (God, you must be fucked up from watching too much Hostel...). Only one scene involing the motel owning relative of Leatherface and one of the young teenagers, came across as slightly disturbing (The whole film is at least slightly disturbing. Ridley Scott once said that the film became disturbing right from the moment they pick up the hitch-hiker, and that it doesn't let up. Texas..., if you didn't know, was incredibly important to the look and feel of Alien). I recommend people see this film, if only to see for themselves how dull this so called cult horror really is. (Was this written by exactly the same guy as the last one? Because that's quite a similar ending, and both are credited to 'A Customer'. If it is, I will attack you with a chainsaw for fixing the film's Amazon rating in favour of your stupid ideas...)

 Now, here's a review written by a comic genius...:

This has to be the scariest film ever. Within ten minutes of the film starting, my legs were already sticky with poo, and when the first of those poor, unfortunate young people died, I turned off the film and called an escort because I was too scared to spend the night alone.

The individual shots are very scary. They add a lot to the atmosphere, and had me hiding behind the sofa before I had even seen the terrifying Leatherface.I was particularly terrified by the shot of the dead armadillo. I will never watch this film again. It has scarred me for life. Never watch this film unless you want to live out the rest of your days in abject terror. I am now seeking counselling to try and overcome the mental trauma caused by such a harrowing experience.

Shame computers don't do sarcasm... (It's a shame your not as funny or knowledgeable as you think you are...)

Well, that's it for Halloween week here at Weeding Out The Idiots, service will resume as normal tomorrow. Watch out for those monsters at your door tonight - keep those shotguns loaded!

Scream

Oh God! It's horrifying! It's not like he's the killer  from a
horror film or anything...   Image starstoreblog

Continuing the week's halloween/horror theme we have Wes Craven's 1997 hit Scream. A parody of slasher films, Scream combined laughs with terror and was a hit with both audiences and critics alike that revived the slasher genre (perhaps a dubious honour, given the quality of most of those). Someone ought to tell these people. I believe that I can be that someone:

"Scream" is nothing more than a teen, stupid, oversexed and horribly overrated version of "Halloween", John Carpenter's classic (It does have its similarities, yes. But. It isn't a 'version' of it. It's a completely separate, original film). More than a homage, it's a copy (No it isn't. Aside from some references made in the film, the film's set-pieces are entirely different.). Remember: "Go to the McKenzie's house, call the police" (Yes, this was a deliberate reference. Remember, this is as much a parody of slashers as it is a horror). Nothing new in this movie, nothing at all (Y'know, except most of the film. For example, I'm pretty sure Halloween didn't have 3 rules of a horror movie...). The characters are just young, very willing fans of horror movies who don't ask for nothing but getting stabbed (This sounds like the old rapist defence of 'she was asking for it'. Anything you'd care to admit to us?), and the killer's suit is grotesque (I believe that may have been the point, you simpleton), making him a mental defective (What does that even mean? Did you wander in from the 50s? We don't do lobotomies anymore by the way) - and ridiculized by the Wayans Brothers in their raving film, "Scary Movie" (Well that's hardly Craven's fault is it?). And what about him, the killer, what about his personality? (What's your complaint here? What about his personality?)

The ending is totally stupid (SPOILER ALERT. Yes, I've done what the reviewer should have done. Thoughtless bastard): all those characters who die but come back- that woman reporter who has a van crash but comes back to save Sidney just in time, that young man who gets shot in the chest, that policeman who gets stabbed in the back (Well they didn't actually die. They were just injured weren't they. It's not like any of them had been pronounced dead by Dr. McCoy. You just presumed they'd died)

 -, and guess why? ('Cause they weren't dead?) Just because they're good... (Of course. You've opened my eyes to the cruelty of Craven)(remember: "I thought you were dead", another dialog  taken from another John Carpenter's classic, "Escape from New York" (Another dialogue? You've never mention Escape From New York before! And anyway, I'm pretty sure other films have had the line 'I thought you were dead', many of them from before EFNY was even thought of) - hey, Kevin, give Big John a break!) I'm sorry, but it doesn't make sense to me. (Well it wouldn't. You do, afterall, have more teeth than brain cells)

The only positive element of this film is an astounding young actor, Skeet Ulrich (I'm sure your praise will make up for his complete lack of major awards). The rest is no new and no good. (And that's not a fucking sentence! It would be 'NOTHING new and NOTHING good'. Idiot)

Now, to be honest, I don't really know what to do with this next one. It barely hangs together as it is. It just goes all over the place:

This movie was very horrible, what a suspense ! With excellent characters and memorable plot, I mean with this fisherman who wants to kill everybody with a fish-hook. Oups ! I made a mistake it was in I will always know what you did last summer for 20 years. But it doesn't matter, this is the same kind of movie with murders of teenagers with a lot of humor (involuntary humor). This movie was perhaps marvellous (for some people) when it was released, but in 2 or 3 years, I don't think that we will know what they did last summer. Don't worry !, you could enjoy at this time Friday the 13th part 20 with a similar plot. Evil never die ! (like money-makers). This movie is very representative of the use of gratuitous violence by Hollywood for targeting people with a commercial product. Wes Craven himself said that cinema was another way for making money. I agree with him, but in that case, does it mean that cinema became useless as a medium of creativity and imagination? Teenagers are in a age where contestation is a way of asserting their personality, this is normal, but Hollywood producers are aware of that fact and insert gratuitous violence in that contestation because they can make a lot of money. This commercial process leads to movie like Scream where there is no plot, no acting, but a lot of gore and violence used as meaning of expression. The characters in that movie are very weak, are they really representative of the young generation of the United-States ? or are they only caricatures of young people trying to convince the real young people that in the USA the life of a student is so delicious and violent ? What. The. Fuck? What does any of this mean? Are you saying that because many of the slashers that came after are very similar to Scream, that Scream is crap? That seems a little unfair to me. Also, Scream is intended to be funny, presuming 'involuntary humour' (yes humour. Not humor, you're on a British site for God's sake) meant 'unintended humour'. And it's I Know What You Did Last Summer, not whatever stupidly long title you though it was. Finally, Amazon has a reviews feature, not so that you can rant about things, but so you can share your opinions on a product in a clear and rational manner to other potential buyers. Save your rants for blogs, like this we do. Oh, and learn to write.

 Well, that's your lot for today. But don't worry, there are plenty more crappy Amazon reviews to come...

Dawn Of The Dead

Clearly drying paint has all of these thrills and more...
Image via filmsquish

Continuing the halloween theme of this week, today I am stepping bravely into the crappy world of Amazon reviews of the legendary film Dawn of the Dead. Released in 1978 Dawn of the Dead revitalised the zombie genre just as its predecessor (Night of the Living Dead) had a decade before. Or is this legacy undeserved? These reviewers certainly believe so:

 I bought this film under the impression that it was great film, how wrong I was (Well, you're certainly wrong now). The acting is wooden (Do you know what wood is?), the people seem like they are enjoying being stuck in a mall full of dead caniballs (Well yes. That was kind of the point. If they wanted something, they just took it. How isn't that fun? Oh, and zombies aren't technically cannibals as they're no longer really human). The zombies make-up is appalling, they look crap (They look like corpses. Because that's all they're supposed to look like. Animated corpses.), and the film is over 2 hours long, making it unbearable to watch (2 hours is just normal length for a film you amoeba). Avoid this trash at all costs and watch the remake as it is 100 times better. (What? You think the remake is better? Whilst Snyder's version doesn't shit all over the original like most modern remakes, it's not a patch on Romero's. It certainly hasn't had the lasting effect of this one.)

I had a witty segue here, but I've forgotten it so you'll have to make do with this picture of a giant squid instead. No I don't know why either...

Anyway, here's the next review:

My friend gave me a loan of this to watch and it was over two hours of dull monotonous drivel (I'm forced to ask if you have a brain, or wether you are in fact operating purely on instinct?). OK the effects were quite good for the time, but they were too few to make up for the main characters just sitting around doing nothing for three quarters of the film inside their shopping mall (Look. Effects are not a replacement for story, they are merely to augment it. Just ignore what that naughty Mr. Bay says.).

They could have decided to fight back, and eliminate some of the zombies (Well they did a bit didn't they. But there were fucking loads, and they felt there wasn't an awful lot of point), and reclaim the country (Excuse me? For all they know they are the last people on Earth, why the hell would they try? And that's before you get to the problem of a handful of people killing hundreds of millions of zombies...), but no they decide to twiddle their thumbs for almost two hours (It's called surviving). I almost cheered when the looters turned up and stormed the mall. (Well aren't you a sourpuss)

Anyway if you have two hours of your life that you don’t want, then go watch some paint dry it will be time better spent than watching this rubbish! (Well, if paint drying is better than one of the best horror films of all time, then I'm there!)

To round off today's post, here's a less-than glowing review from amazon.com:

I gave the remake GLOWING accolades (Well, at least we know your movie tastes are a bit shonky straight from the off I suppose). Someone in a chatroom (I should have known not to listen!) said that the original was much better (It's not just people in chatrooms by the way. Critics agree. Unless all people in chatrooms are professional critics, but that seems slightly unlikely to be honest). So I waltzed over to Circuit City (It must have taken ages to waltz there, you probably would have been better off walking) and purchased this. Sigh. I'll NEVER get that $35.00 back (Well, you'd better just shoot yourself now then, eh?). I feel so bad for having purchased this (It's not a snuff movie. It's nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the opposite in fact). This movie was not scary (At times, it's not meant to be). The zombies were not scary (Why? Because they don't run? They're zombies! They're not supposed to be able to run! They're corpses, with all the rigor mortis that being a corpse entails. Making them run would also have meant doing away with the criticism of consumerism that is at the heart of the movie. But I bet that went right above your head). The characters were completely insipid. Perhaps I wouldn't have felt cheated if I'd watched the original before the remake, but had I watched THIS drivel first I wouldn't have WANTED to see the remake--or anything else remotely connected to the movie (That's a bit petty). However, I thoroughly enjoyed the remake (More fool you), which I had to watch 10 times before it no longer scared me at all (Pussy). But this--I don't get it (No. On this we are in agreement. However, the fact that you're too thick to 'get it' is entirely your fault. Not the film's). It wasn't even REMOTELY close to the remake (Again, we agree. But I suspect we may differ on which one is way out in front). How does it get so many positive reviews? (Because it's a legendary piece of filmmaking that has inspired almost every zombie movie that came after in some way or another. It is also important for its biting criticism of many facets of life in the 1970s, most of which are as relevant today as they ever were. That's before we get onto the merits of the film itself, which include but are not limited to the strong direction, the strong acting, the [for the day] excellent effects, the engaging story and the mixing of fun with the scenes of violence and horror. There that'll do for starters. If you want more, contact Empire magazine who listed it in their The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time, or The New York Times who named it in their Best 1000 Movies Ever Made'.)

I'll see you again next time with more horrifying amazon reviews! (Did you see what I did there? Did you?)