Saw (2004)- Carey Elwes (3 ½ )

Director: James Wan

Stars: Cary Elwes, Leigh Whannell and Danny Glover

Genre: Crime | Horror | Mystery

MPAA Rating: R (strong grisly violence and language)

Running Time: 103 Mins

Tagline: "Let the games begin"

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"With a dead body lying between them, two men wake up in the secure lair of a serial killer who's been nicknamed "Jigsaw". The men must follow various rules and objectives if they wish to survive and win the deadly game set for them".

************** WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS************************

                                      

I remember as if it were yesterday, the reaction I had when the final twist to the film came up; it had been a while since a film had shocked me so much. Since the film was so shocking, I will have to say that If you haven’t seen Saw I recommend you stop reading this review and go rent or borrow the movie from someone NOW!. If you have not read the disclaimer, I will mention it again; this review is going to contain plenty of spoilers, so keep in mind that you have been advised.  This review has been written mainly for those who have seen the actual film before and just needs a better understanding of it…or if you just don’t care about twist endings.

Two men wake up in an abandoned bathroom. Both men are strapped with shackles on their ankles. They have no clue how they arrive in the bathroom.  The first character is Adam, a man in his late 20’s, who we later find out is a free-lance photographer contracted to take pictures of the man in front of him.  The man in front of him is Dr. Lawrence Gordon, a surgeon who also has no clue why he is in that room.  In between them is the body of a dead man, who shot himself in the head out desperation...or that is what they want the viewers to think. The clues they have to escape lie in a two audio tapes that they find in their pockets. The objective is for Dr. Gordon to kill Adam before six, if he doesn’t comply, then his wife and daughter will die. The man responsible is John Kramer (the corpse in the middle of the room that is actually not dead.) he finds pleasure in placing victims in his sadistic games of survival. His philosophy is that people don’t appreciate life until they see death up close. What is his motive? He has Cancer, yes, he had nothing better else to do, Monopoly just didn’t do it for him. So, with this we have the beginning of the film Saw…how interesting…no?

THE TRAPS OF SAW

Now that we have the premise (that most people know by now) let’s get into the individual traps of the film, and let’s see how plausible they can be in the real world. I will rate them on a scale of 1-5

1: Not Believable At All

2: Not Very Believable

3: Somewhat Believable

4: Pretty Believable

5: Very Believable

TRAP # 1- REVERSE BEAR TRAP

Amada Young is a drug addict that doesn’t value her life, and for that she is placed in one of jigsaws games. Like the picture, she has a sort of bear trap around her face, and she has limited time to find the key to free herself from it. If she doesn’t find the key on time then the mechanism on the bear trap will trigger, and her mouth will remain permanently open…and thus death will inevitably occur. The key to the trap is inside the other cellmate.  He seems to be dead, but he is just knocked out from an opiate that Jigsaw injected him with. The only way for Amanda to free herself is to stab to death the other man and find the key inside his body. She eventually does find the key and manages to free herself on time.   

Believability:  4.

TRAP # 2- RAZOR WIRE

  A man named Paul is placed naked inside a cage filled with barb wires.  The objective of his game is to find the path along the razor wires to reach the exit of the room. He is being given 3 hours to make it out of the room.  Unfortunately he does not make it out; he bleeds to death from the cuts produced by the razors

 Believability: 5

TRAP # 3- THE FLAMMABLE JELLY

 Meet Mark, a man who had fakes an illness for personal and financial gain, he finds himself in one of Jigsaw’s games. He was placed nude in a dark room with broken glass covering the floor, all he has is   tape telling him that there was a slow acting poison in his blood and the antidote is in a locked safe beside him. He had to find the combination to the lock which was hidden amongst thousands of numbers scrawled on the wall. He was also supplied with a lit candle and a box of matches, so as to be able to see in the pitch black room. Unfortunately, he was also covered in a flammable substance, so if he made once false move, his body would become alight. While searching for the combination, he accidentally moved too close to the flame and was entirely incinerated.

Believability: 5

TRAP # 4- THE DRILL CHAIR

As Detective Tapp became more obsessed with the Jigsaw case, he eventually finds one of the secret lairs of Jigsaw. With him is another Detective.When they arrive they find a man strapped to a chair, and two power drills are aimed close towards his temples. Jigsaw is about to be arrested by Tapp before the drills become activated the only way to deactivate it is to find the key inside a box, in the box is countless keys, and very little time. One of the detectives, Detective Sing, did not know which key was the necessary one needed to unlock the neck brace, and instead shot the drills, deactivating those moments before reaching  the victims head. My problem with this trap is that the detectives make it just on time to witness a game, and Jigsaw manages to somehow know that the detectives are going to be there on time…I don’t buy it, sorry.

 Believability: 3

 

TRAP # 4 -THE QUADRUPLE SHOTGUN HALLWAY TRAP

In case of emergency, jigsaw placed four double-barreled shotguns suspended from a ceiling in a hallway, each connected by a tripwire strung across the floor of the hallway. If someone were to cross the string, then the wire would pull the triggers and thus the four shotguns would go off simultaneously, blowing the victim to pieces. In this case, the victim was Detective Sing, who was chasing Jigsaw through his warehouse in an attempt to capture him.  While chasing him he passes through the tripwire, and sets of the shotguns and his head is blow up. While is still don’t buy the whole thing of the detectives arriving in the lair and finding a jigsaw game taking place, I can buy jigsaw being cautious…but even so, if a victim where to pass the wire and activate the guns, he would have to do it forcefully…and Detective Sing does it slightly. The only possible theory is that the wire is securely tight to the trigger of the gun…so even a slight move can trigger it.

Believability: 4

THE FINAL TWIST

After trying to find a way out of the bathroom, Dr. Gordon sees that there is no time left, and that the saws won’t cut of the chains, he ultimately decides to saw off his own foot. After doing so, he reaches for the gun in the middle of the room and shoots Adam in the shoulder.  The man who was thought to be Jigsaw was in fact part of the game as well; his name was Zep, and orderly at Dr. Gordon’s hospital. Adam survives the gunshot and kills Zep. Adam tries to find the key inside the jacket of Zep, instead he finds another recording explaining that Zep had a slow acting poison in his system and only jigsaw had the antidote, so his options were “limited”. I emphasize limited because even if he was poisoned, I would have tried finding someone specialized In poison…that just me.

Final Thoughts

The movie may in fact have a list of flaws, but compared to the subsequent sequels, this one stands out as the best in the franchise. The biggest complain the film has is the acting. The acting in the first saw is pretty laughable, I will admit that, but keep in mind that this film wasn’t intended for theatrical release. Shot on a mere 1 million dollar budget, the crew did the impossible to shoot the entire film in just 15 days. So in all, I give the creators and crew kudos for being dedicated to their work.

                             

I have owned Saw so many times on DVD that I have honestly lost count. I had the theatrical cut released in 04, the special unrated edition released in 05, and I even re-bought the unrated edition just because it was released in a nice box set.  So let’s just say that I have bought Saw various times only because of cover art or special features.

Video

Since saw was a low budget film, I don’t hold too much against the film’s picture quality.  The Blu-ray presents the movie in a remastered 1080p. Personally, I see no difference from the DVD to the Blu-ray.  Even if some scenes do look a bit sharper I still wouldn’t consider it better than an up converted DVD. 

Audio

On the other hand, the audio is very impressive, boasting a 6.1 DTS ES surround sound. All the sounds in the movie sound amazing in this Blu- ray, everything from droplets of blood, sounds of machines, gun shots, etc.   

ENDING OF SAW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OHFXOByYRM&feature=related

The Auteur Theory (1999)-Alan Cox (5)* { Top 250 # 11}

Director: Evan Oppenheimer

Stars:Alan Cox, Sean Gunn and Daniel Cantor

 Genre:  Comedy

MPAA Rating: Not Rated

Running Time: 77 Mins

Tagline: "They all wanted final cut -- until they got it  "

Trailer provided by Video Detective 

I have said time and time again that I am extremely picky when it comes to comedies. I like my comedies to be smart and witty, to have something fresh on the table, and overall- to entertain me. Now, that is not to say that I don’t like goofy comedies. I actually have seen and liked some really bad comedies (Kung Pow: Enter the Fist, Freddy Got Fingered) But most of the time I like intelligent comedies. The Auteur Theory is a rare delight, that actually when beyond my expectations; I didn’t expect this independent film to be so remarkable.

The Auteur Theory is about George Sand: a documentary filmmaker that is hoping to make it big in the American film industry. But he needs a budget to make his dream in film a reality. For that he goes to BBC to get approval from a group of judges, who will hear his story, and decide whether to grant him the money he needs for his project. The film he has in mind is about a filmmaker making a film in a film festival, where other contestants are competing for the award of “best filmmaker of the year”.  So in essence it’s a film within a film.  The mystery thickens when each of the contestants gets killed one by one after their film is screened.  Sand narrates and stars in his own film, investigating the murders, emphasizing that only he knows the mind of a true filmmaker, that it takes a filmmaker to trap another filmmaker...Ok you get the picture.

What makes this movie funny is how it borrows and makes homage’s to other filmmakers. Such filmmakers like: Quentin Tarrantino, Spike Lee, and even BATMAN (I know he’s not a filmmaker, but they make references to the bat). Each of the contestants films are actually funny and cheesy, but are made so on purpose, to demonstrate how much of an amateur the filmmakers really are. For someone like me (who loves filmmaking) I was pleased with this film from start to finish.  The only complaint is that I wish it wasn’t so short (running at 77 min)  

I literally recommend this movie to anyone who is getting into filmmaking. While it isn’t a serious movie, nor it isn’t a film that teaches about filmmaking per se…it does however show a comedic side to the struggles of beginners in the film industry. Now, if you want to see the movie I would suggest buying it off Amazon or EBay. I had a hard time finding this in stores, for many years I only owned a copy I recorded of Showtime (The channel where I first saw the movie)  I don’t think Showtime airs this movie anymore, I am not even sure the channel still exist, I wouldn’t know I don’t have cable.  But anyhow, buy the movie, you will not be disappointed, I promise, if I am wrong you can leave a comment below with all the love.

The Original Faces of Death Part II (1981)- Michael Carr

Director: John Alan Schwartz

Stars: Michael Carr

Genre:  Documentary | Horror


MPAA Rating:  X


Running Time: 85 Mins

Tagline: "When Make Believe Is Just Not Enough"

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

This movie continues in the same vein as F.O.D. 1 with short scenes of death related material. Mortuarys, accidents, police work are filmed by TV crews and home video cameras. Some of the material are most likely fake, some not as likely

This sequel is practically the same thing as the first film; showcasing scenes of murder, accidents, shootings and executions. The film has the return of Dr. Francis B. Gross: the crazy doctor who is mostly narrating and giving his philosophy on the taboo subject of death and afterlife.   I must say that II actually find it humorous hearing this guy narrate the film. The way he actually tries being  ”serious “and “educational”  is quite laughable. But I still give credit to the creators of this franchise. I give them credit for making this hoax look authentic. I said it in my previous review that I really don’t blame the director for presenting this as a real documentary. People tend to be way to curious on  how accidents and murders took place…keep in mind that one way or another this will eventually happen to everyone…and that is: Death.

This time around Dr. Gross (curious name no?) clarifies to the audience, that his views on death have long since changed.  For a short period he talks about how different cultures view the matter of death, like in India where they burn the body of the deceased. This custom is very common in India. The reason for burning the body is due to the belief that the soul is trapped in the brain and the only way to release it is through burning the cadaver. Some of the relatives will shave their head and bathe in a river as a form of condolence for the passing of the relative. That scene in particularly made me take this film a bit more serious than the previous film.   

The rest of the picture involves random death scenes, most of which (in difference to the 1^st film) is mostly all real.  The only scene I noticed that was fake was a shootout scene at a drugstore. The various angles in that scene made me question the authenticity of it. All the other deaths, to my knowledge, are real and taken mostly from stock footage.  The most brutal of them all is the scene involving the clubbing of seals; I was shocked at how inhumane these individuals were at doing such atrocity.  There is also footage (which was shown live) of a boxing match, where Johnny Owens gets defeated (and killed) in the ring. That whole footage is real because it was televised when it occurred. Aside these scenes, there are a few stunt driving gone awry , footage of napalming in Vietnam, more WWII footage, and  a repeated  scene of an execution  from the first film. 

 If you are into death scenes, gore, and the taboo, then perhaps this is for you. I really don’t find these films enjoyable. Besides most of the time you have to be pondering on whether it’s real or fake. Personally I could care a less if they are fake or real, sometimes they do a good job at making the scenes authentic. But anyway, I will leave at the bottom of the review a free link to the full movie.  Enjoy…I guess.

The Original Faces of Death (1980) -Michael Carr (2)

Director: John Alan Schwartz

Stars:Michael Carr, Samuel Berkowitz and Mary Ellen Brighton

Genre:   Documentary | Horror


MPAA Rating: X


Running Time: 105 Mins


Tagline: "Banned In 46 Countries"

Synopsis:

{According to IMDB}

"A collection of death scenes, ranging from TV-material to home-made super-8 movies The common factor is death by some means."

discussion

I can’t believe that this is the documentary that was at one point banned in 46 countries; I really have a hard time believing it. Faces of Death, for one reason or another has become an infamous classic documentary (actually mockumentary) on the subject of death and afterlife. Most people who buy this movie are expecting: real, extreme, and gruesome footage of violence, carnage and ultimately…death. But when you actually sit down and watch this crap, you will notice that a vast majority of the footage is simulated. Roughly only 40% of the film is actually real “death” footage, the rest is a combination of footage that was simulated and inspired real events. In this review I will go over the plot and closely examine each scene presented in Faces of Death.

 

The footage for Faces of Death varies. I will try with my best judgment to explain which scenes are real and which are fake.  The director has said that only 40% is real, he will not elaborate which of those scenes are real. Since the director won’t elaborate, I will have to do so for the sake of argument. The movie is narrated by Dr Gross, a fake Doctor who has traveled the world, and is the one who collected the footage from the journeys he has done (so he claims) and explains with each scene what he witnessed and how little we have control over life, and that death is just around the corner.  The first shot is a surgery room where a patient is undergoing open heart surgery, this scene is in fact real, and it’s more than likely taken from operations done previously. The shot then transcends into the title credits and into more random shots of corpses in morgues; those scenes are also real. The opening credits conclude with an autopsy, I am positive that it is most likely real, I could be wrong.  The scenes followed involving dogs fighting, spiders attacking prey, snakes eating fish and indigenous people attacking animals is also real, but no different to what you would see in National Geographic The more gruesome scenes involving beheading of chickens, clubbing of seals, and cows at a slaughterhouse are the most difficult to watch, they are in fact real, they are all stock footage. Now there is a scene I would like to address that is entirely staged. The scene that I want to bring up is the infamous monkey brain scene, for some reason people think it is real, it is not, and it is actually staged.  The director himself admits that he could not get the actual footage on screen due to the fact that it is a common practice in Asian countries. To not face any issues with sues; he claims he decided to only film a simulated sequence.  The remaining footage involving a man on the beach dead after drinking too much and people committing suicide…I  have to say I am not sure, I think those could be real.  The one’s that are entirely fake are the alligator attack, the assignation of a politician, all the scenes involving the assassin Francois Jordan, and the ridiculous organ orgy scene.  The final scenes showing cadavers from World War 2 and the attacks on Vietnam are actual footage from that time, again stock footage neatly edited into Faces of Death. The remaining scenes involving the man parasailing some other cranial autopsy and an electric chair execution…I must say I am not sure. I leave that up to the audience to decide. I still think though, that the electric chair one has to be fake, it is illegal to shoot an execution here in the states. Anyways, let me know what you think, I would like to hear your insight on Faces of Death and it's sequels.

Faces of death was released during a time when internet was nonexistent. Websites like rotten.com and other macabre web pages weren’t available. This film broke the barrier at the time to show gruesome footage. The issue is that they marketed the film as an actual documentary, when by now the director himself has said that only some scenes are in fact real. The question is why go through the trouble of lying to the public? Why lie about it? Why not just release it as a fake death compilation? All good questions, but at the end of the day…Death is something that we are all curious about. Not just that, I think everyone, deep down inside, is sick enough to want to see what happened to someone during a brutal car accident, or a shark attack. In many ways, I don’t blame the director for releasing it as a real documentary. It serves people’s right to not tamper nor explores what will eventually happen to everyone inevitably.

Satan’s Baby Doll (1982)- Jacqueline Dupré (0)

Director: Mario Bianchi

Stars: Jacqueline Dupré, Mariangela Giordano and Aldo Sambrell

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: Unrated

Running Time: 75 Mins

Tagline: "Tender Young Flesh Seduced By The Ultimate Evil"

I was at a friend’s house and saw this movie in his collection, I was immediately mesmerized and hypnotized b y the cover. He told me not to bother, that it’s not worth the 30 dollars he paid for it. Regardless of his warnings…I ended up borrowing it…Now I wish I had actually listened to him.

 

The cover (which looks devilish at the least) is the only thing that is not in the movie. There is no Satan and no baby doll in sight.  The cover is just a misleading marketing tactic to get you to watch the movie. The real story is about a family feud and weird rituals. The best thing about this movie is the nudity, there is plenty of it. The score is also very unique and haunting, I actually want to find the soundtrack if its available. But anyway, the movie is excruciating to watch, I think this is a movie for someone who wants to get high and just see random scenes of rituals and nude babes. Sure the nudity is great, but after a while, it gets boring and repetitive.

For an Italian horror film this is really bad. I am actually glad I didn’t pay the 30 dollars for it. I will leave a trailer for the movie, so you can see there is no sign of Satan. I was actually hoping he would pop out, that’s the only reason I saw it until the end. Avoid it by all means.

Man Beast (1956)- Rock Madison (0)

Director: Jerry Warren

Stars: Rock Madison, Asa Maynor and George Skaff

Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: Unrated

Running Time: 65 Mins

Tagline: "Sub-Human Monsters Go on A Rampaging Blood-Binge"

“Take me away Steve! Take me away from this place!” These are the last lines spoken by the female protagonist, who by the way has the most masculine voice I have ever heard in a woman.  How this movie got made is something I am still pondering on. I can imagine the writers sitting down and thinking about what other creature they can bring to the screen that hasn’t been experimented with before. I guess the only one they could come up was the yeti. Don’t get me wrong, the yeti can be a threatening character, he even looks half decent in this movie, and the issue is not so much the yeti, but the acting and pacing of the film.

The movie is extremely, extremely, extremely boooooooring. I mean I cannot emphasize how slow and uninteresting the movie was. I really wanted to like it, I tend to like crap like this…but for God sake they could have made the movie more interesting. The other issue is the acting. These “actors” have no clue how to express the correct emotions in a film; many are actually trying to hold their laughter due to the implausible script they had to deal with, and of course lousy plot and script.

The plot, which is laughable, is about a group of people in search of the missing brother of the leading protagonist (the female with the man voice) after they find their brother, they discover they are on the trail for the yeti (a big giant snow version of big foot) TWIST AND TURNS GO ABOUT IN THIS FILM!! not really, actually its downright silly and ultimately boring. You only see the yeti 3 times at most in the entire picture, and he doesn’t do that much harm. Honestly, I do love these old 50’s sci-fi cheese, but this was was a big sleeper…like a freaking night quill.

The American (2010) George Clooney (5) [Top 250]

Director:Anton Corbijn

Stars: George Clooney, Paolo Bonacelli and Violante Placido

Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

Running Time: 110 Mins



 

I can understand why most people didn’t like The American. The biggest problem this film faced upon release was the advertisement; presented as the next Bourne or Bond film. After viewing the film, it’s very obvious that it has a completely different tone to most recent action/espionage films. So if you’re thinking of obtaining or renting the film expecting an action/adventure extravaganza, then you will be gravely disappointed.  The film’s tone is more of a European Spy Thriller, with an independent filmmaking approach. Had the film been advertised differently, then perhaps the box office gross wouldn’t have been affected as much.

 

The American tells the story of a private man named Jack (also goes by the name of Edward) the audience never really gets to see the true nature of the character, all we know is he is dedicated to building weapons for high paying assassins. Aside building them, he at times even has to pull the trigger for his assignments.  Residing in Rome, he takes the assignment to build a long distance Rugger Mini-14 Custom.  While constructing the weapon for his client, we see Jack/Edward walk around Rome, mostly paranoid, worried that his past will come back to haunt him. The only “friend” he makes in his stay is a nosey priest named Father Benedetto; who is interested in the private life of Jack.  The scenes with the priest and Jack are perhaps the most entertaining. You get to see two different aspects of life, one from the prospective of a man dedicated to God, the other dedicated to abandonment, isolation, and murder. 

Aside the priest, he meets Clara; a prostitute who falls in love with Jack/Edward. They both begin a troubling relationship, that as the film progresses, you hope it will last. By troubling I refer to the fact that Jack doesn’t trust anyone, he even believes at one point that Clara might be the one who is hired to take him out. Evidently, she isn’t involved; she is actually genuinely interested in him. So thorough the film we explore the mind of an assassin who is trying to abandon his past, and start anew…but as mentioned, with part debts, and mistrust makes it all that more difficult for him. Lastly, I will like to mention, that I highly recommend this movie to anyone interested in a well-developed plot driven film. Yes, the film may have a slow pace and perhaps even predictable plot, but thanks to the director’s style and magnificent European landscapes, the film succeeds where others fail.

                                              

 VIDEO

I dont care what you say about the movie, the video presentation is impecable. this is defeinetly a movie to show off to your friends in an HDTV. All the landscapes, the flesh tones, and scenery is impressive. I couldnt get my eyes of the screem, lieterally I was just astonished at how the movie looked. Not one scene looks out of focus, or in poor shape. 

AUDIO

Just like the video presentation, the audio is amazingly powerful, boating a 5.1 DTS HD Master Audio. The movie doesnt have any explosions or much firing throught, however, the atmospheric sounds and the minimal action make this audio impressive. 

BOTTOM LINE

In all, I have to say that due to poor advertising the movie did not recieve the recognition it deserved. But, dont dismiss this movie due to that. I would give it a chance, I loved the films slw and atmospheric pacing. If you are into slow, plot driven film, then look no further this film is for you. Gauranteed.

Navajo Joe (1966)- Burt Reynolds (3 ½ )

Director: Sergio Corbucci

Stars: Burt Reynolds, Aldo Sambrell and Nicoletta Machiavelli

Genre: Western

MPAA Rating:  R

Running Time: 92 Mins

Tagline:" Relentless in his vengeance! Deadly in his violence"

I stumbled upon this movie because I found out that Quentin Tarrantino had used the score of this movie on Kill Bill. I had already seen a case of this when he used a piece of the score of another Spaghetti Western (Death Rides A Horse) and I will admit I was initially very upset at this notion. I don’t like when directors or writers steal material from other films. But when I come to think of it, it is part of Tarantino’s style to use scores and even actors from these older films. I see it as a form of homage, paying tribute to the films that will never be again.

The movie begins with the massacre of a small tribe of Indians. From the tribe, a survivor seeks out revenge on the men who brutally murdered the innocent people of the tribe. Navajo Joe is peculiar in that it stars Burt Reynolds as a Native American Indian. Initially I didn’t buy the whole thing of a white man playing the character of an Indian; Reynolds however pulls it off, unlike William Shatner who did a horrible job in White Comanche. Anyway, the plot isn’t too complex; the only complexity they add is story about these criminals seeking a safe of money. Even if simple and formulaic, it works wonders, thanks to the cinematography and wonderful score by Ennio Morricone.

Navajo Joe is one of countless spaghetti westerns that were released during the golden time of the era. It actually came out the same year as The Good, the Bad & the Ugly. It wasn’t as popular, even if it was directed by Sergio Corbucci. I wouldn’t miss this forgotten and underrated western. Like I said don’t expect any form of originality out of this western; it is quite generic and predictable. I will leave a link down below so you can hear the score that plays in this movie, which was later used in Kill Bill.  Let me know what you guys thought, I always appreciate comments.

Night of The Living Dead (1998 New Footage) {30th Anniversary Edition} (0)

Director: George A. Romero(Original Footage) / John A. Russo (New Footage)

Stars :Duane Jones, Judith O'Dea and Karl Hardman

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: Not Rated 

Running Time: 96Mins

Tagline: "They Are Coming To Get You....Again! "

Before Romero fans begin to bash and insult me. Let me clear out that this review is for the 30^th Anniversary Edition, and not the original timeless classic from George A. Romero.  This review will center only on the new version that was released in 1998. I will talk briefly about the plot, but only to point out the differences between the original and this new version.

Why fix something if it’s not broken? (so the saying says) it couldn’t be more evident here.  Producers and writers of the original film went back to Pittsburgh (where NOFTLD was originally shot) and decided to shoot new footage, that supposedly wasn’t added at the time due to time restraints and limited budget. Excuse my French, but that is just one pile of horseshit! These Assholes just thought it was a good idea to shoot more footage to gain an extra buck.  They did it pretty easily thanks to the fact that NOFTLD has been in public domain for ages; literally anyone can add any footage they like, or release as many versions of it as possible. You would not believe how many versions of this film exist, aside the colorized version, there is also an atrocious 3-D edition (which I will do a review of eventually)

The producers released this new edition to celebrate the release of its original film. What they did was insert 15 min of footage. This footage is entirely new, not shot in 68, and perhaps the worst and most unnecessary footage ever filmed for a film. Such scenes include: a prelude which explains how the first zombie (which attacks Johnny and Barbara) came to life. While it may seem a nice tribute, it looks out of place and overall unneeded. Also, it is very obvious that the actor has aged and gained weight, unless zombies lose a lot of weight, from one scene to the next, taking place the same day, then perhaps it would be acceptalbe, but in this case it isnt.

To make matters worse they add two segments with a priest. The actor who plays the priest looks like he has never stepped into a studio in his life, plus his teeth look like Chiclets.  If you don’t want me to spoil you any further than this is my cue for you to stop reading, but if you are interested do keep reading.  The priest gets bitten by one of the zombies and miraculously he doesn’t die nor turn to a Zombie. My guess is that they wanted to make the film tie up with the tagline of Dawn of The Dead “When there is no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the earth”. So my theory is this: the priest did not turn because he is protected by God…then again we can do the right thing, ignore this idiotic attempt at reconstructing a movie that didn’t need to be reconstructed.  Stick to the original folks. I will leave a video of the priest explaining how he is blessed and protected by God, horrible scene, just horrible!

Killshot (2009)-Mickey Rourke (1)

Director: John Madden

Stars: Thomas Jane, Diane Lane and Mickey Rourke

Genre:   Crime | Drama | Thriller   

MPAA Rating: R ( violence, language and brief nudity )

Running Time: 95 Mins

Tagline: "He never met a target he couldn't take. Until today "

Goddamn the Weinstein Company!  Because of their sorry asses this movie ended up being the atrocity it is. For those who are not following why I am so upset, don’t worry, I will clarify it all in a minute.  I remember seeing a trailer for this movie back in 2006. While watching it, in my mind, the presence of Mickey Rourke and Thomas Jane, made this a must see movie. Both actors hadn’t had a big break in awhile, and they deserved it. Unfortunately the studio postponed the release of the film, not once, but numerous times…I even lost count how many trailers I saw for this movie, each one different from the last.

Eventually the movie was released in 2009 (3 years later) and straight to DVD, with a very limited theatrical release. Right there I knew that wasn’t a good thing. When I went to blockbuster, to my surprise they had a previously viewed copy of the film. After viewing it…I was lost for words…of how horrible this movie was. To begin, you can tell the movie was heavily edited and truncated in length; the use of fast cuts, minimal important dialogue, and overall lack of explanation. At times I felt as if something was missing. That could not be farther from the truth; the Weinstein Company re-edited and removed a pivotal character in the film (Johnny Knockville). The reason for this was due to poor receptions during its screening. The result from all this is a very uneven, confusing, and disjointed film.

Well, even with all the editing that was applied to the film, there still exists a plot. Mickey Rourke plays a Hitman named Blackbird (at least that is how they refer to him) who works for the mafia. After eliminating a mafia leader, he meets up with an amateur, obnoxious, annoying crook (Joseph Gordon Levitt) he lures him in to working for him. More than anything the kid is only interested in what he can learn and get out from Blackbird.  On the other end of the film we have Thomas Jane and Diane Lane. They are both separated, but, they help each other out in their problems.  Problems, such as those were Jane gets fired from his job, and ends up finding a job where his wife works at.  While on his way to his where his wife works, he gets mistaken for the boss, that blackbird is looking to kill. From here Blackbird begins to take it personally. All due to the fact that both Jane and his wife saw Blackbird’s (what an annoying name) face, and that for him is a big no-no.

I think if they ever do release the original intended film, then perhaps this movie will get better recognition…until then, this movie would be looked upon, at least for me, as a confusing and mindless film.  The only redeeming value this movie has is Mickey Rourke. He always shines up the screen, the guy is menacing in any role he takes, even the mediocre ones. However, I cannot say the same thing for Gordon-Levitt, the dude extremely annoying, from the beginning until the last scene where he eventually gets shot by blackbird. I cheered when he pulled the trigger on him, perhaps one of the few memorable scenes in the entire picture.  Anyway, I wouldn’t bother buying nor renting this movie, at least not until they release the director’s cut. By the way, dont be fooled by the trailer, the movie is nothing like it.

Black Devil Doll (2007)- Heather Murphy (1 ½ )

Director: Jonathan Lewis

Stars: Heather Murphy, Natasha Talonz and Christine Svendsen

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: X

Running Time: 73Mins

Tagline: "Who will survive? What will be left of them? Will their virginity be intact? "

Oh man how do I begin explaining this hilarious crap? You know me; I like to tell the story of how I ended up obtaining the movies I watch. So here goes the story: I was with the same friend that let me borrow Satan’s Baby Doll. We went to go to one of the F.Y.E stores that was, to our surprise, closing. So everything had to go. Me as a fanatic of horror and science fiction, I began picking every obscure title that came my way. One of those titles was ofcourse “Black Devil Doll” the cover called my attention, with its neat art cover that had some reminiscence to exploitation films. So without thinking twice I bought it.  I even think this was the first movie out of the whole lot that I ended up watching that night.

Unfortunately this movie was sort of a disappointment. The main problem is that this movie is really just a porno with a puppet. For some that might mean good news, but trust me this it really isn’t. It would take me a whole research paper to put down all the nasty shit that occurs in this movie. But being that this is a review, I will list the most memorable moments. But before that, let’s talk about what Mr. Black Devil Doll wants.

The doll comes to life after a girl plays with an Ouija board. Summoning the spirit of a convicted murder. The spirit ends up trapped in the doll. The girl becomes the dolls girlfriend (man how ridiculous) but the doll wants to get it on with other gals (or as he says: bitches) luckily for the doll, his girlfriend invites some girls over. The puppet ends up banging each one, and killing them brutally one by one. Now, the death scenes, while gory, are very cheap looking and ultimately funny. Even if this movie is funny I cant give it a higher rating; I was expecting more out of the character. Then again that is just me, I know it's just a horror/comedy, not to be taken so seriously. I will leave you the trailer below so you can see how the movie is. The trailer is uncensored.

Godzilla 1985: The Legend Is Reborn (1984) {American Version} (2)

Director: Koji Hashimoto, R.J. Kizer

Stars:Raymond Burr, Ken Tanaka and Yasuko Sawaguchi

 Genre:  Action | Drama | Horror

MPAA Rating: PG

Running Time: 82 Mins

Tagline: "Your favorite fire-breathing monster... Like you've never seen him before"

Siskel and Ebert review

OH NO ITS GODZILLLA!!!!!

GODZILLA IS BACK!!!

Yes folks, that’s right our beloved green dude is back to destroy Tokyo one more time. I actually feel bad for Tokyo, they are always been attacked by monsters, cataclysms and shit. If I lived in Tokyo, and Godzilla made and attack, I would move my ass out of there quickly...Like Chop Chop!

For its 29^th anniversary TOHO decided it was time to re-start the Godzilla franchise. This installment ignores all previous Godzilla movies, except the original Gojira film (King of the Monsters). I was actually excited to see this movie, I had never gotten the opportunity because it wasn’t available on DVD (it actually still isn’t available) I was able to watch this film due to the fact that they had it for sale at a Supercon Convention here in Miami. The version I obtained included both the American Version (which I am reviewing) and the original unaltered Japanese Cut. I still need to see the Japanese version, but I can say that the American cut is pretty lame. The U.S. version, which I know of, was edited and shortened in length. New World Pictures (the distributors of the film) also contracted Raymond Burr to reprise his roles as Steve Martin; funny how in the film they only refer to him by Martin. The reason for them doing that was the fact that Steve Martin, the actor, had become popular and they didn’t want to cause confusion.

As for the film itself, Godzilla has been dormant for too long, he needs to crush some Godamn buildings! Taking place some 29-30 years after the first Godzilla film, Tokyo has recovered after what Godzilla did before. But guess what? They will have to start rebuilding again! Godzilla is in for the kill!  Man I am full of one liners here today, aren’t I? Well keep in mind that Godzilla movies are never to be taken seriously; they are pure entertainment.

So after Godzilla raids again into town, the Japanese and the Americans unite forces to stop the eminent attack.  Even though I am content that they brought back Raymond Burr, I wish he had taken his role more seriously. Most of his lines are just lifeless, and pretty bland. I really think that they didn’t do any second takes, at all. Even Ebert mentioned this back in 1985. He said that it felt as if Raymond Burr did all his scenes in one day. Keep in mind though that Godzilla was shot in Japan, all the other scenes with English dialogue was shot here in the states much later. 

Aside the fact that Godzilla returns and destroys half of Tokyo (as he always does, has nothing better else to do) there really isn’t much else to say about the flick. They do have a scene where a special flying device is used to attack Godzilla and kill him (momentarily at least) the rest is very familiar. I prefer usually the Godzilla flicks that involve him fighting other monsters…it’s more badass, at least for me that is.  A great thing about this Godzilla film is the effects, they improve over the other installments effects. Ofcourse with the advent of CGI they could make it a lot more lavish and lucrative…right? Well take a good look how they fucked up the the character in Roland Emmerich’s 1998 Godzilla.  To wrap up I am positive that the Japanese version is far superior than the American re-cut. I am sure you can find the DVD either online or through a vendor at a convention. Anyhow, hope you enjoyed the review. I will leave some trailers from the film, a review from Roger Ebert and another review from the angry video game nerd.