★★ / ★★★★
James Woods stars as a journalist who went to El Salvador to acquire stories about the political turmoil that was unfolding in the country. Despite having a wife and a child in the United States, he made contact with old connections who all thought he was dead such as his girlfriend (Elpidia Carrillo) and a photographer (John Savage). This film was a mixed bag. What I enjoyed most about it was when it finally focused on the civil war at hand which culminated in the last thirty minutes. There was something so poetic with the way Oliver Stone, the director, dropped Woods and Savage in the middle of raining bullets; the soliders held their guns and shot their bullets and the two leads held their cameras and took photos. Another part of the picture that stood out to me was the scene when Savage and Woods decided to take pictures of mountains of dead bodies. The decaying bodies looked so real especially when the camera loomed over the image in a wide angle. The film performed best when it really honed in on the seriousness of war and the innocents that were caught in the crossfire. However, my main problem with this film was its sense of humor that pervaded the first half. James Belushi’s character did not work for me at all because whenever he was on screen, I felt like I was watching a teenage film from the 80’s–like he was that boisterous uncle in a frat party who never found the time to mature. His character was just so out of place that it was kind of painful to watch. I don’t know what Stone was thinking writing this character into the story but I found it a bit disrespectful. Was the character’s purpose to show the obliviousness of Americans regarding the situation in El Salvador? If so, that was not my initial reaction because his character did not show any range or growth. The romantic angle did not work for me either for the same reasons. In the end, I wanted to know more about Woods and why he loved being a journalist. The way he argued his opinions about the war (even though he sounded preachy) against Americans in power convinced me that he wasn’t just doing it for the fame or the money as other synopses suggested. Even though he was flawed, he cared about what was happening in El Salvador. To me, half of this film borderlined greatness because I could feel the passion in the images on screen while the other half was more blasé and somewhat offensive. It is unfortunate that it was just a mediocre experience for such a powerful subject.
★★★ / ★★★★
This horror-comedy cult classic is about a medical student (Bruce Abbott) and his newfound eccentric roommate (the scene-stealing Jeffrey Combs) who brings people back from the dead. I think this being a low-budget film actually worked in its favor. There are only two locations in the film: Abbott’s apartment and the hospital’s morgue where the two lead characters work. By the end of the film, those places look completely familiar to the point where I felt like I’ve known those places for years. Another thing is that it consistently tried to push its limits–whether it’s the question of what would happen if we brought people back to life or just showing us impressive special effects such as blood, guts and severed body parts. Stuart Gordon, the director, should be commended because he was able to balance images of horror with situational comedy. I thought he did a neat job showing the audiences how far a doctor will go to complete his experiment, completely neglecting the ethics and moral conundrums that should be faced by a man of science. Gordon also had enough time to comment on the dynamics in the scientific community–that it isn’t any different than other jobs. In fact, jealousy is abound because pretty much everyone wants to discover the new best thing and some are willing to kill for the discovery. But one thing did bother me, though. I know it’s not meant to be realistic because it’s a zombie film but I couldn’t get over the fact that the decapitated head could control his own body. If the brain is not connected to the spinal cord, the body will not be able to move because the source of electrical signals that may trigger certain chemical signals that control everything else will not be present (such as muscle contraction). I cannot help but get a bit distracted whenever something is glaringly incorrect even for films that do not exactly scream realism. Still, if one is a fan of horror-comedies with interesting premises, campy and has a plethora of gore, “Re-Animator” is a must-see.
★ / ★★★★
I think the reason why this film gained a cult following is because of the controversy it garnered when it was released in the mid 1970’s. Depiction of homosexuality in films may have been a bigger deal back then but from today’s standards, I think this is a very weak experimental directoral feature by Derek Jarman. Sebastiane (Leonardo Treviglio), a Roman soldier, was exiled by the Emperor to a place where homoeroticism is abound. Since he refuses all sexual advances, especially from a superior officer named Severus (Barney James), most of the men torture and humiliate him in multiple ways to “encourage” him to surrender his Christian ideals and personal preferences. Despite its interesting premise, too bad the execution was lackadaisical. Throughout the entire picture, the audiences are asked to observe the lives of the exiled people as live like pigs. Although aesthetically the men may look beautiful (seductive music, slow motion and all) but I found it difficult to care for any of them. I really despised it when the camera would linger for literally about five minutes just to admire someone’s body. It’s just as bad as objectifying women and I did not like taking any part of it. Moreover, while I do give this film for being entirely in Latin, I couldn’t forgive its bad acting. I couldn’t see any passion in the actors eyes whenever they’re angry, passionate or sad. I also failed to see tension in their bodies whenever they’re supposed to be “fighting” one another. I literally caught myself rolling my eyes and thinking, “Wow, that’s so lame.” I read a review from Netflix that “this film will not appeal to everyone, especially homophobics and conservatives, but [he or she] would recommend it to those that like art house or queer cinema.” Don’t get me wrong, I do enjoy LGBT films and art house pictures once in a while but this is just one of those movies that I will (most likely) never watch again. I expected some sort of a social and cultural thesis with regards to homosexuality or the feeling of alienation where something natural is treated as abnormal but I didn’t get either. With its complete lack of depth, I’m going to say to not even bother with this supposed cult classic.
Rocky Horror Picture Show, The (1975)
★★★ / ★★★★
I can understand why this film bombed in the box office when it was released but later gained a strong cult following. Even in today’s standards, this still has a very strong shock value because it features transsexual aliens, dirty images and songs, bad special and visual effects (it had a low budget), and a story that doesn’t make any sense. But I found this picture to be very difficult not to enjoy because it is aware of its campiness and shortcomings. I loved the fact that this movie made a plethora of references to the story of Frankenstein but it’s not limited to that. There are a lot of jokes in the background for comedic effect (whether it’s a painting, a banner, or an actor not realizing that he is on camera) even though those jokes are never attended to. It’s really up to the audiences to put some of the pieces together to truly enjoy this cult classic. Susan Sarandon and Barry Bostwick are believable as a WASP couple who gets engulfed in Tim Curry’s world of decadence. Peter Hinwood as Rocky Horror was really funny in his own mute way. Richard O’Brien (who also wrote the film) and Patricia Quinn provided an extra level of camp and originality. As for the songs, I found more than half of them to be very catchy especially “Dammit Janet” (which was sung in a church–it was hilarious), “Time Warp,” “Sweet Transvestite” and “Touch-A, Touch-A, Touch Me.” If you’re look for a film that’s kitschy, sarcastic and bold, this is the one too see. I think it has a solid place in cinematic history because I haven’t seen anything remotely like it.
Bad Lieutenant (1992)
★★ / ★★★★
Even though I really wanted to like this film more than I did, I can understand why it gained its cult following. The film features dark alleys and hallways as if to resemble the dark side of humanity. That metaphor is consistent throughout so it’s difficult not to admire Abel Ferrara’s direction. Each scene is so visceral and honest to the point where it was painful to watch; two scenes I can recall right away is the scene that involves a rape and when the lead actor (Harvey Keitel) actually sees Christ. Keitel pushes his acting ability to its limit and it was great to see. His character is extremely difficult to like because he’s on drugs pretty much every hour of every day, he doesn’t really care for his family, he terrorizes unknowing teenage girls and his obsession with gambling ultimately takes a toll on his soul. That latter component, in my opinion, is the one topic that’s fully explored. On the outside, it seems like he gambles for the money but if one were to look closely, it’s more about his desperation to stay in touch with reality. Without living in some kind of risk, it seems as though the lead character doesn’t feel like he exists–at least exist in a meaningful way. As much as I love symbolism and reading between the lines, at the same time, that’s the most frustrating part of this film. It doesn’t really let the audiences know why things are unfolding as they are. It’s open to interpretation so it automatically weeds out those who are unwilling to look past the grimy, nihilistic setting. To me, it needs more focus in terms of exploring its core and why this tortured character ended up the way he is. The pictures gives us a lot of scenes that involve Keitel’s character doing a lot of very bad things but without some sort of background, he becomes the enemy instead of someone we can watch all the way through–not necessarily root for. I admired this film’s many conflicting ideas but I cannot quite recommend it because I feel like it needed more substance instead of just featuring self-destruction for about ninety minutes.
Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995)
★★ / ★★★★
This could’ve been one of the best sequels of the “Halloween” franchise but it doesn’t reach that level because this installment tried to do too much. The magic and effectiveness of the first film starring Jamie Lee Curtis lie in minimalism: there’s not a lot of special effects (smoke, fog, rain, explosions) and the soundtrack is pretty much non-existent except during the stalking and killing scenes. And if the filmmakers do use the soundtrack, they use the theme song, not some rock and roll instrument-bashing snippets that tend to turn the audiences deaf. This one had those negative elements and it made the images unrealistic. Moreover, the writers could’ve completely eliminated the cult storyline. Dabbling with the occult is the worst one can do when it comes to writing a “Halloween” storyline because the franchise thrives on realism. The point is to make a realistic scary movie that can possibly happen on a Halloween night. That’s why the first one became a classic; because what the audiences are seeing is so relatable and real. The best part of this film was Michael Myers’ (George P. Wilbur) return to Haddonfield because that’s where everything started. It’s fun to watch Paul Rudd taking the lead but I have to say that whenever he smiles, I could not help but smile back or even laugh out loud because I’m reminded of how funny he is in his other films (especially in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”). But I think he can carry horror films quite well. Yes, this one is pretty scary because Michael Myers has more brutal ways of killing but those negative elements I mentioned tend to offset the scale from “pretty darn good” to “just mediocre.” If one decides to see this film, see it for Paul Rudd and Donald Pleasence’s final turn as Dr. Sam Loomis, the original psychiatrist who saved the lovable Laurie Strode (Curtis) from the hands of the seemingly invincible psychopath named Michael Myers.