Nail Gun Massacre (1985)

Directors:  Bill Leslie, Terry Lofton

 Stars:  Rocky Patterson, Ron Queen, Beau Leland

 Genre:  Horror | Thriller  

 MPAA Rating: Not Rated

 Running Time: 85 Mins

 Format: VHS

Tagline: "Cheaper than a Chainsaw"

(ZERO STARS!)

THE MOVIE ITSELF:

Those who know me are aware that I love B-movies; they have a certain charm to them. But, that's not the case with Nail Gun Massacre. This trash flick is the worst of the worst. I have seen quite a few 80's slashers, and I usually don't expect much out them; being that they all follow the same formula. But, this one has no style or formula, it just is-and that's shit. I wont lie, the title caught my eye, I was curious as to how absurd can a movie be that  goes by the title of Nail Gun Massacre...I found out the hard way.

The film starts of literally with a pretty disturbing rape scene, which I had to fast forward, It went on for a little too long.  After that scene, we are transported to the house of one of the rapist, who is brutally assassinated by an individual with a nail gun (hence the title of the film) he wears a taped up motorcycle mask and a one piece camouflage jump suit.  As the film progresses all you see is people randomly killed by the psychotic murderer;even killing people who weren't involved in the rape.

Now, spoilers ahead, we find out that the killer is the husband of the woman who was raped at the beginning of the film (as if that was a surprise) he is killed of and end of story. That is literally the whole movie, which is short, but drags on for a strange reason. Also, let me mention that the killer would spurt out the cheesiest lines after killing the victims...to be honest, it wasn't even funny, just plain corny!


Do yourself a favor, skip this movie, even if you are a fan of horror movies pass on this one. I thought too that this flick would be a fun horror movie, instead it dragged on forever, the gore scenes were more bizarre than scary and the acting was awful! It is a surprise this movie made it to DVD, and they have plans for releasing it on Blu-Ray...some people have poor taste in movies. Like I mentioned, I enjoy B-movies, but when they are done in a fashion that can be enjoyed. This movie wasn't an enjoyable experience, avoid at all costs.

PICTURE QUALITY:
 The quality of this 20+ year old tape has seen better days, and it is quite evident that the copy I own was an ex-rental at some point in time. The colors are pale and out of contrast, there are blurry lines from being over played, especially in the gory scenes, just show's that some sicko rewound and re-played the scene several times. Now, the issue I had with this tape is only a problem I had with the copy I own, the case may be very different for other tapes still available. Anyhow, the picture quality as a whole without the previous mentioned is of very poor quality.

SOUND QUALITY:
Sound quality is just as negative as the picture, it may be in Hi-Fi sound, but the volume had to be raised several times due the misuse of the tape. I had to actually clean my VCR after playing this tape. So, quality on sound is also very poor.

BOTTOM LINE:
Like previously mentioned, this movie is not worth the time, even for aficionados of slashers. The movie's title is more interesting than the actual film, and that's sad. The creators could have done alot more with the story and pace of the film, fixing those issues would have improved the overall experience of this turd. But, the movie is what it is: a piece of melon shit! Don't rent it, don't download it, just move on! Life will be just fine without having to see Nail Gun Massacre 

The Protector (1985) - American Theatrical Version

Director:  James Glickenhaus

 Stars: Jackie Chan, Danny Aiello, Sandy Alexander

 Genre:  Action | Crime | Drama 

 MPAA Rating: R (Strong Graphic Violence, Sexual Content, Nudity, Drug Use and Profanity)

 Running Time: 91 Mins

Format: DVD ( Keep-Case Edition)

 Tagline: "Now, New York has a new weapon - A cop with his own way of fighting crime"

                                                     
                                                                                                         

The Movie Itself: 

Not many know this, but Jackie Chan had a tough time breaking into the North American market. Sure, back home in Asia- Chan was considered the greatest star known to man; down in America it was a very different story. Jackie's first early attempt was in 1980 with "The Burly Brawl" a film directed by Robert Clouse, who is best known as the director of Enter The Dragon. Clouse, at the time, wanted to turn Jackie into the next Bruce Lee. As we all know, the style between both Martial Artists is very different to say the least. Bruce Lee's style was an authentic mix of the traditional art infused with his own techniques of Jeet Kune Doe. Whereas Jackie Chan is more known for frenetic and erratic style of fighting and moving; so much so that Jackie has made his name for his wild stunts. Ofcourse, his recognition here in the states wouldn't be recognized until much later. 

So, after the failure of " The Burly Brawl" Jackie Chan continued to work home back in Asia. His first attempt, while forgotten in America, would be a hit back home. However, Jackie wasn't about to give up breaking in to the good old USA.  Four years after, Chan was offered the part of Billy Wong- a no nonsense cop with a bit of an attitude. The part would have him play a cop who is out to find a kidnapped wealthy young girl named Laura Shapiro; Along with his partner (Danny Ailleo) they will search for the missing girl and bring down  the biggest chain of narcotics that extends from Hong Kong to America. 

The film on it's own is a great action martial art mash up, I don't exaggerate when I say that I view this movie several times a year. Sure, it's corny at times, and yes there is very little realism in terms of police procedure and politics..but, so what? this movie is not meant to be taken that seriously. It's just an action packed buddy cop movie. Now, I do agree this movie has a little to much drug content, and some unexpected swearing from Jackie Chan. These two main complaints were some of the concerns Jackie Chan had with the film when planning to releasing it back home in Asia.  His concerns were so high, that he fought to have the film re-edited and re- shot for the Asian market. Thus, resulting in a very different alternate cut of the film. The Jackie Chan cut of the film, while interesting, feels very out of place with the tone of the actual film. He inserts more humor, two other characters, changes alot of the fight scenes and minimizes the drug content. While I am glad the drug use was lowered, the fight scenes just don't work in his cut. 

The final edits made by Jackie helped made the film a success in the Asian market. But, back here in North America, the results were not so well. The film was considered a failure upon release, making this film the second failed attempt for Jackie Chan. He would not get another opportunity until 1995's Rumble in The Bronx and 1998's Rush Hour (both of which were great hits) 

As a fan of Jackie, I can understand why alot of people don't like this film. It heavily deviates from his style..so much so that even the director admitted that he didn't want a Jackie Chan film, he wanted a crime action film. Usually, I wouldn't agree, but I have to give credit to the director who gave a great fun action film that never bores you. Again, sure, it's a silly movie, but the style of hard hitting action with cheesy one liners worked quite well for this film. 

Exit Wounds (2001) -Steven Seagal

Director: Andrzej Bartkowiak

 Stars: Steven Seagal, DMX, Isaiah Washington

 Genre:   Action | Comedy | Crime

 MPAA Rating: R (Strong Violence, Language, Drug Content, Nudity, and Some Sexuality)

 Running Time:  101 Mins

Format: DVD (Keep-Case Edition)

 Tagline: "This is Gona Hurt"

THE MOVIE ITSELF:

Yes, there was a time when Steven Seagal made good movies...sadly, that time has long since passed. I am surprised how many hail Exit Wounds as the last good Seagal movie, when in fact it's far from it. I wish I could feel the same way about the movie, but I really don't.Exit Wounds can be defined as a failed attempt at a crossover between rap music and aikido martial arts.

What makes Exit Wounds such a failure? Let's start with the plot of the film; The inept sub-plot of the film centers on the story of Orin Boyd (Steven Seagal) a no-nonsense cop who is decommissioned after saving the vice president's life (throwing him over a bridge) from unknown terrorists. This segment in the film only serves the plot in explaining that Boyd is uncontrollable, and will not follow regulation, that is all. Furthermore, we see Boyd attending an Anger Management class, where we get a few chuckles here and there. All of this doesn't really help towards the development of the film.

The real plot, however, could have been turned into a good film had they dismissed the earlier story of Boyd's mishaps and conduct issues. The real plot of the film is Boyd attempting the capture of a drug dealer (DMX) who is working with corrupt cops. As the plot unfolds,we find out that the drug dealer isn't a drug dealer at all, but a self made millionaire trying to bring down a chain of crooked cops dealing drugs and laundering money.

The plot on it's own could serve for a decent enough picture; the execution taken however ruined what could have been. The main problem the movie faces is the cross over between Seagal and DMX. Unlike "Romeo Must Die" and "Cradle To The Grave" the combination of a martial artist with a rapper doesn't work. Seagal may not be the most charismatic guy, but the chemistry on screen between both leads was terrible...it just didn't work. This is not to say that the other film I mentioned are masterpieces, they maybe in comparison to this film though.

However, the film does have it's positives, it was actually nice to see Seagal back in shape for once. We actually get to see alot of his own stunt work, with and without the assistance of a harness, but in essence it is Seagal doing the fighting. Also, Anthony Anderson was hilarious in this movie...so much so that his presence along Tom Arnold where better than the rest of the film.  Lastly, the martial art sequence between Michael Jai White and Steven Seagal was pretty darn good and well choreographed. Aside that, the movie isn't worth the time. As a Seagal fan, I will admit I have seen this movie more than twice, but only because I am a Steven Seagal fanatic. For anyone else, this film will constitute as a pure stinker. So, if you didn't get to see this movie back in 2001, keep looking forward because there's not much to see here.


HOME THEATER QUALITY:

I first owned Exit Wounds on VHS back in 2001, and even then I noticed something very odd about the picture quality. At the time, I didn't know much about Pan & Scan and Widescreen presentation, so I really didn't know what was the matter with the picture. What was wrong? the pan and scanning on the VHS (from what I remember) was pretty terrible. I recall the scene where he Boyd is talking to his chief in the restaurant, you can barely see her , they made no effort in Panning to where she was sitting. The DVD I own as of now corrects that problem. Presented in 1:85:1 widescreen- the picture quality is pretty decent. A Blu-Ray will be made available sometime in the summer I believe, probably already released by the time I publish this review. But, all in all, I wouldn't recommend getting the Blu-Ray, the DVD is good just as is.


BOTTOM LINE:

The movie isn't worth it to those who aren't Seagal fans, and to those who are-they might be disappointed in the execution of the plot. I know for a fact that Seagal's glory days are over, but it would have been nice if they actually gave him a better script with more realism. Sadly, this movie lacks all the things to make a good Steven Seagal movie.

Teenager (1974)

Director:  Gerald Seth Sindell

 Stars:  Andrea Cagan, Joe Warfield, Sue Bernard

 Genre: Drama | Action

 MPAA Rating:  

 Format: VHS

 Running Time: 85 Mins

 Tagline: "She is Ready To Try Anything"






THE MOVIE ITSELF:
It amazes me how many exploitation movies exist, the list is immense believe me. I had no plans to see an exploitation movie when I picked this movie up, in fact this was part of my 80's movie hunt. I came across "Teenager" on a VHS site solely dedicated to covers of different studios from the 80's.

The cover on my left has nothing to do with the actual film, neither does the tagline. In fact, the movie is not really about a teenager. There is a Teenager in the movie, and her character is somewhat important to the film, but it has little impact on the rest of the flick.The real story centers on a lunatic filmmaker who will do anything to get his crazy little film project completed. His film, which seems to be about a motorcycle gang, is going over-budget and he  needs funding to complete the picture. We find out that the director is getting funding from a producer he is having an affair with; her contribution is the only means by which he can get the film released.

With the funding, the frenetic director chooses a location that results problematic. His intentions are to have all the actors portray their parts as they please, and to stay in character no matter what. This results in conflict and confusion with the townspeople; they believe the actors are in fact criminals coming in to sack the town clean. The director tries to convince and explain to them that it is all an act, and that if any damages are to occur the films production budget will cover all expenses and damages. Yet, all futile, one of the actors end up committing a heinous crime. Being left with little choice, the actor flees town before the authorities seek him out. However, the director will not stop until he gets his film completed, even if he has to track down a soon to be convict, his film will see the light of day...or will it?

So, with all the above mentioned, where does the "Teenager" aspect fit in to the whole mess? Well, the only teenager in the film is young girl named Carey, who is very much interested in the production of the film. She falls madly for the guy who ends up escaping the authorities. In all, her scenes sum up to about 20-30 min of the film. In fact, if her character was removed from the film, it wouldn't have made much of a difference, being that the real story of the movie is the film within the film. The real title of this movie should have been "Director" or "Going Over Budget"

The movie as a whole is kind of a mess, it tries being slick and fresh by presenting some of the problems that amateur directors face when in production for a picture; but the execution is rather poor and unsatisfying. The main issue with the movie, aside the false advertisement, is the actual story of the movie the director wants to film-we never get a sense of what type of picture he is dealing with other than being a bike gang related picture. At times the actual movie feels just as bizarre and  pointless as the movie he is filming. And let me not get talking about the abrupt and idiotic ending...Lets just say that I have never seen such stupidity on screen. The ending tried to be moralistic, but all it did was show how not to complete or make a movie for that matter.






PICTURE QUALITY:
The copy I own of this movie is on VHS and it so happens that it is out of print. I paid about $ 5 just last year for it. Now, it goes for as high as $30. Listen, don't bother, the movie isn't worth it. The story is pathetic, the only credit I give the filmmakers is for trying to make a film within a film, but their final product is just a plain stinker. And speaking of stinker, the picture quality on this turd is god awful. I have seen plenty bad VHS tapes in my day, but this one really bites the dust. The colors are pale, their is grain, blemishes, scratches all over the screen. The quality looks like it was recorded in SLP Mode, even though it was recorded in SP Mode.


SOUND QUALITY:
The sound is just as trashy as the actual picture. Even though the VCR recognized Hi-Fi sound out of the tape, most of the dialogue was muddled and many times I had to raise the volume to get a clear understanding of what was going on. The issues with the sound and picture are more than likely problems coming from the actual source they used rather than the actual tape. Regardless, the sound was pure shit.


BOTTOM LINE:
I wouldn't recommend this flick to anyone, even to those who aspire to be filmmakers. You really won't get much out of this movie other than a jumbled mess that could have been avoided. If you really want to watch a better movie about film-making, take a look at The Auteur Theory which I reviewed some time back. Other than what I mentioned, I have nothing else to say about this tripe of a film. Avoid it, and since it's unknown and hard to find, it won't be that difficult to do so.

Godzilla (2014)- Aaron Taylor Johnson

Director:  Gareth Edwards

 Stars:  Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston

 Genre:  Action | Adventure | Sci-Fi  

 MPAA Rating: PG-13 (intense sequences of destruction, mayhem and creature violence)

 Running Time: 123 Mins

 Tagline: "A king's arrival is never silent"

THE MOVIE ITSELF: 

It's been almost sixteen years since the disastrous american adaptation of Godzilla...and believe me I don't want to remember that movie. It was only a matter of time for someone to come along and bring life again to our favorite fire breathing monster. So, do we get that in this new remake from Gareth Edwards? Well, to be quite honest, Hell yeah!  

Before I get into the review, let me advise that there are plenty of spoilers up ahead, so if you haven't viewed the movie yet, please do so.  Now, that we have that cleared up, lets talk about the movie. This time around we have Gareth Edwards helming directorial duties instead of Roland Emmerich, who is a far better choice. Roland is known for making epic destruction movies with paper thing plots; sometimes they work (Independence Day) and sometimes it doesn't (all of his other movies)  Gareth on the other hand is known primarily for his work on the low budget movie "Monsters" which he wrote and directed. I will admit, I wasn't very pleased with his film Monsters, he did the best he could with the budget he had, I just was not that interested in the human characters in that particular film. So, in many ways, I was skeptical of his work in the new adaptation of Godzilla...but at the same time I was positive it would surpass the mediocre 98 flick. 

Suffice it to say, this new version does not disappoint, it is a relentless movie with greats amount of action...in the last 20 minutes. Yes, that was a little bit of sarcasm there. Godzilla's presence is very minuscule in comparison to all the other films.  The director did a similar approach here as he did in Monsters- hide the creature as much as possible until the third act of the film. While I enjoy films that hide the main monster for a great length of their film (ex: Jaws) the way it was done in this film was a bit of a two edged sword. At times it just felt frustrating, and other times it got you pumped- wanting  to see more, it was a big tease for a great deal of the movie. However, the last fight scene between Godzilla and the two other MUTOS was amazing, if they had used that just a little more instead of just showing us news footage, I would have rated the movie higher. 

Now aside the negatives mentioned, the movie has more positive notes to mention. One of the best things the movie offers is the human story element; unlike "Monsters" I was actually invested and cared for the human characters in this movie. We get to see all of this cataclysm through the eyes of a young lieutenant ( Aaron Taylor Johnson) who for the most part of the film presents a likable character trying to cope with the loss of his mother. We also have Bryan Cranston playing the role of a distraught scientist who is sure that the government is hiding potential important information from the public. While Cranston's appearance in the film can be summed up to a little more than a cameo, it is perhaps some of the best acting in the film. Had they used Cranston more in the movie, I felt it would have elevated the film more, his acting performance and sheer of emotion presented in the mere first 10 minutes is nothing short of spectacular.


So, is Godzilla worth the price of admission? Yes, but keep in mind that you are viewing a movie centered more on human story rather than mindless monster fighting. Initially, I was very upset at the approach, but come to think of it, it's nice to see a movie where there isn't something blowing up every 5 seconds (ex: Transformers)  and instead center more on character development. Yes, the movie might center a little to much on the human side of the story, but regardless, it works very well for the film. I am tired of this ADHD nation that can't stay still unless something is blowing up or a scene is not crazily edited or quickly paced. Come to think of it, those who complain about the pacing of the film have a problem with their attention span; have some patience and you might just enjoy the film.