Godzilla Raids Again (1955)

     "Killing Godzilla is hopeless."

Godzilla Raids Again (1955) (ゴジラの逆襲) [literally: Counterattack of Godzilla], also known as Gigantis, The Fire Monster, is the sequel to the original Gojira (1954), released the year before. This is the first film to feature two kaiju and the introduction of Anguirus, Godzilla's rival in this film. This is film was directed by Motoyoshi Oda, and was the only Godzilla film he directed.

Godzilla returns! Well... kinda. While on a rescue mission two pilots accidentally discover ANOTHER Godzilla who is locked in a huge struggle with another giant kaiju that resembles another long-extinct prehistoric dinosaur. Can the humans do anything to stop not one, but two giant kaiju as they make their way toward Osaka?

[Note: this review is referencing the original Japanese version.]

Unlike most sequels you can actually tell that this film's makers actually looked at what worked in the original and tried to play up the things they thought worked in it. For example, not only does this film have twice the amount of action and monster destruction the original had it also has far more of a story involving the protagonist (human) characters. Unfortunately, both of these things managed to be pulled off in a far less interesting way than the original did them!

It was nice to see Takashi Shimura return in this film reprising his role from Gojira (1954) although unfortunately they basically just use him for a cameo and a method for delivering exposition and also to set up the movie for anyone who didn't see the first one, which I actually appreciated because it helps this film stand on its own... though if you did skip Gojira and started this one, do yourself a favor and go back and catch up with the original!

First off, the costumes (for the monsters) look far worse than the original. It's possible the original had the same quality, but the lighting was far better, and the camera never seemed to hold on them for too long, which helped the illusion incredibly. Here the crazy long takes of monsters battling just look awful.

Speaking of which, our kaiju are wrestling the whole movie. Without much explanation, it's just what they do. I'm not saying I need a real good reason for two monsters to fight, I'm just saying the wrestled for so long I began to wonder why they were fighting; there was so little going on in the movie that I began to wonder what the monsters were thinking about. Not to mention Godzilla hardly uses his his flame breath at all, for some reason he just wants to wrestle the entire movie? Which is just silly.

Also the third act of this movie seems really unnecessary. Godzilla finally defeats Anguirus and starts to leave Japan (he really didn't come to destroy any cities in this one) when our human characters decide to attack and stop him for good. Completely opposite of the moral debate that I loved so much in the original Gojira about weather or not to kill him because he is in fact a living creature. This time there's none of that. I actually felt sorry for Godzilla in the end of this one!

Hmm well one thing I can say is I do think this film has some creative action sequences, and it does have some really good effects shots which utilized and made good use of the models they were using, which when two monsters are endlessly brawling for no apparent reason, really did help the movie on a whole.

Godzilla Raids Again (1955) probably isn't a horrible film on it's own, it's just far less good (in pretty much every way) than the original Gojira.

2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!



I'm tackling all or most of the early Toho Studios' Godzilla and Kaiju films in anticipation of the newest Godzilla (2014) movie. Check back next time for my review of the original Gojira's American cut: Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956).


Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film (and 5 other classic kaiju films) through these links:

From Beyond (1986)

NIGHT 9

     "It... ate... him!"

From Beyond (1986) is a science-fiction, horror film based on H.P. Lovecraft's short story of the same name. This is Stuart Gordon's follow up to Re-Animator (1985), this film also stars Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton as Gordon wanted to do something similar to Roger Corman's Poe cycle with a series of films based on one author's work with a re-occurring cast.

From Beyond is about a couple of scientists who build a machine to stimulate the pineal gland in humans in order to interact with and see creatures from another dimension. What could go wrong?

Stuart Gordon is a great director. His direction in Re-Animator wasn't bad at all, but the direction in From Beyond is a lot better (and in only a year too!). Unlike Re-Animator, every camera move in From Beyond has a purpose and it's just a lot tighter camera work all around.

It's great to see Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton again, and thankfully they're playing significantly different roles than in the previous film. The addition of horror veteran Ken Foree is an excellent treat also, I just wish they had some better material to work off of!

The dialogue in this film is pretty god-awful. It wasn't much better in Re-Animator but this film doesn't have as much of the comedic element (or at least it's not as purposefully present here) which is what helps with a lot of Re-Animator's shortcomings.

The effects in From Beyond are pretty bad. It's really a hard line to walk because much of the actual horror in this film stems from the physical (and gross) transformations you see right before your eyes. But unfortunately a lot of the practical effects and slimy rubber suits don't look great when you focus the camera on them for too long in a well lit room!

The story in From Beyond isn't inherently bad, in fact the premise is actually very interesting and unique. But to me it's very obvious that this was adapted from a short story because the actual core of the film is really smart and interesting but then the film has long stretches where nothing is happening on an intellectual level and instead we get lots of gory monsters and weird things that don't really make sense at all.

Unlike Re-Animator, the soundtrack of this film is completely fresh and original! Richard Band's soundtrack to this film is really quite great there was a lot of times where I found myself realizing the soundtrack was doing more for me than what was on the screen!

From Beyond (1986) is definitely the ugly, less-loved sibling of Re-Animator (1985) but you can learn a lot about what works in a horror film and what doesn't by watching them back to back!

2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




The H.P. Lovecraft films continue tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies as we finally get into the 90s' with John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1994).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

The Dunwich Horror (1970)

NIGHT 7

     "I never heard anything like that!"

 

The Dunwich Horror (1970) is a low-budget horror film directed by Daniel Haller, produced by Roger Corman, and loosely based on the short story of the same name by H.P. Lovecraft. After his last horrible attempt at directing a film, someone let him do another... and to surprising result! Also one interesting note: this film was at least partially written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Curtis Hanson who would go on to write L.A. Confidential (1997) and 8 Mile (2002).

The Dunwich Horror follows Nancy Wagner as she falls for the strange and mysterious Wilbur Whitley and fails to see he's got much more horrific plans in store for her.

The acting is this movie is either decently good or terrible. There's a huge divide. Ed Begley is great in his final preformance (wish they did more with him though...) and there's something I really dug about Dean Stockwell's version of Wilbur and even Sandra Dee as stranger bait Nancy was not bad either.

The Direction most of the time isn't bad at all. I liked how Haller interpreted the Monster's attack scenes and with nothing more than pure directorial skill, pulls off the effect he wants with next to no budget on the monster. It's pretty effective (in a 1970 kinda way). This is leaps and bounds better than his direction in his previous attempt at a Lovecraft film.

And over all most of this film is quite watchable. It's nothing profound, but it's actually successfully a very similar feeling to the Roger Corman-Poe epics. (I wonder if he studied them better this time, or just got more advice from Roger?)

Most of the dialogue is laughably bad (which as you know can be enjoyable in itself.)

And the rest of the acting is pretty freaking horrible, it actually seems like they picked non-actors right off the street for how bad some of these guys are. I must admit though, I did get kinda bummed when the grandfather dies because he's one of those actors that's so bad it's actually worthwhile every time he's on screen and after he died I knew the movie would be less funny after that!

As for the source material, once again this is pretty much very loosely based on the H.P. Lovecraft story. They took specific elements from the work and then basically made up their own story with those pieces.  Unfortunately they removed a lot of my favorite scenes from the original story and in it's place they added a whole lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. (Yay!) And riddle me this, why would you put this story in a contemporary setting? This is a story about spells and demons what part of that makes you go, "oh hey this would work better in today's world..."? I'm torn between thinking it was a lost drunken bet of some kind or because they had no money for sets and costumes and just shot with stuff they had. All in all the stakes just aren't that high throughout the entire film. And looking back it's just another mixed up (and less good) Satanic horror (just summoning a slightly different dark evil entity!)

I also think this story could have been more interesting if Nancy didn't just blindly follow Wilbur... she initially asks questions about his intentions and stuff and he just literally replies with random answers and whatever he wants (most of it's B.S.) and she just like... okay! Stranger danger lady! Jeez! Stranger danger!

Oh and lastly I have to mention the godawful ending that doesn't make sense at all! This movie just races toward such an abrupt ending in the end, like they were running out of film to use or something!

The magnificent thing about this one is how much better it is than Die, Monster, Die! (1965) and in only 5 years too, that's one hell of an improvement!

The Dunwich Horror (1970) isn't great but it is interesting and watchable, and probably far better if you MS3K it, or have a couple of beers first (...or do both!) ;)

2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




My H.P. Lovecraft streak continues tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies as we jump a decade and move on to the 80s' classic, Re-Animator (1985).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Coffy (1973)

Intro
While pouring back through all the Tarantino films recently I realized a couple things:
1) There's not that many of them. I mean he's only one guy and he pretty much only works off of his own material that he wrote... which takes time, and thus this is very understandable.
2) His films make reference other movies constantly. Now call it what you want homage, reference or just plain theft but I'm thinking that a lot of people don't catch the majority of these references to other films because frankly, we don't have the film same exposure as a young Tarantino did going to the grindhouse theater constantly in his youth or working in a video rental store. However, hypothetically with the vastness of the internet and Amazon, Netflix etc. these films should be easier to get a hold of today, if you know what you're looking for that is.

So I figured there's probably more people out there, like me, who crave more Tarantino constantly and I could showcase some films that I'd consider essential viewing for Tarantino fans. And thus the 10 must-see films for Tarantino fans was born. Now let me warn you this is in no way a comprehensive list. There's probably hundreds of films that Tarantino references in his own films, and I found enough films I could write about to probably do this series again but that will have to wait until next time there's another big Tarantino release.

DAY 1: Coffy (1973)

Coffy is just one of probably a handful of blaxploitation films I could have chose for this list, so why did I choose this one? First off this film stars Pam Grier who Tarantino would much later cast in his film Jackie Brown (1997), reintroduce her to new audiences and essentially restart her career! He would also lift about half of the soundtrack from this film for Jackie Brown. This film is also an early and yet well defined example of, what is blaxploitation. Jack Hill, the director of this film, today is considered one of the greatest exploitation directors and Tarantino himself said that Hill was “The Howard Hawks of exploitation filmmaking." Working with the genres horror, monster movies, sexploitaton and blaxploitation this guy seemed to do it all. And storywise this is a very Tarantino-esque stylishly violent revenge film and much like Django Unchained (2012), this film states that the ultimate evil might not actually be the evil white dudes, but the black dudes who are traitors to their own race.

"Shiiit, come on now!"

Coffy (1973) is a revenge flick written and directed by Jack Hill who is now considered the king of the exploitation genre. Coffy revolves around a black woman who is personally wronged, and sees her friends and loved ones around her constantly wronged by society (and white folks) and one day snaps and goes on a killing revenge trip.

The Music is pretty good in this film, I found it overall pretty hit or miss. But the hits are very good, there's a reason Tarantino used a bunch of it in Jackie Brown! (1997).

Also, (SPOILERS) I enjoyed how her boyfriend ends up being one of Coffy's biggest betrayers.

The acting in this film across the board, is just plain horrible. I wasn’t at all surprised to look up the film afterwards and find that it was a white writer, and with better acting this might've seemed less obvious but, as it is, it sticks out like a sore thumb. The dialogue seems just plain wrong in this film. This is how a white man imitates black people.

Also I'm very disappointed to say that I think Pam Grier was among those bad actors in this film. This is disappointing because I found her acting to be one of the highlights in Jackie Brown and even though that was 20+ years later I hoped to see at least some hint of her great acting in this film. I must admit, she was likable but she has some down-right horrible acting in this film and probably the worse Jamaican accent I've heard in a long time. I also don't think her character was as successful as it could have been. The “it's like I'm dreaming” part of the role hardly even comes across. And I wouldn’t have thought I missed anything because it works as it is, except for the fact that she keeps repeating that she doesn’t really remember doing these acts of violence. This is something I that could have been played WAY up, because it's actually a pretty interesting twist for a character... if it was done right.

This film is basically sexploitation. I think every female actress in this film has her breasts exposed at one time or another, and in the most humorous ways too! There's this fight between a bunch of whores, about halfway into the movie, where boobs are flying, tearing, and popping out left and right! It's actually quite distracting and I found this actually detracts from Coffy, our strong female lead character!

This film is very, very dated, hell it was probably very dated by the 80s! It's downright humorous, which actually pretty much ruins a lot of the moral themes and messages of this film.

The best part of this film is that it follows a strong black female in the lead role. This is something that even today is unfortunately very rare, so I can imagine that back in 1973 this was pretty well unheard of. I also appreciate the fact that she acts (for the most part) like a real person, because it would have been very tempting to make her this macho revenge killer like many other exploitation or even action films.

Coffy (1973) is a stylish (and pretty dated) action film that really wasn’t my cup of tea, but of course I’m not really the target audience at all so I’m not sure if my opinion really has any weight at all on this type of thing. However I would recommend this film if you're looking for an introduction to the blaxploitation genre. 2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!





This film is part of my month-long Tribute to Tarantino in honor of his latest film Django Unchained (2012) and his 20-year career. If you've missed any of my reviews so far, be sure to check out his filmography and click on any film you've missed.

The 10 must-see films for Tarantino fans countdown continues tomorrow, so be sure to check back!



Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Death Proof (2007)

"You redneck, lunatic bastard!"

Death Proof is yet another tribute to grindhouse cinema from Quentin Tarantino this one however, also is a tribute to the car movies and TV shows from the 70s (you know, the kind that are pretty much completely non-existent these days). This film was released as part of Grindhouse (2007) in US theaters following Robert Rodriguez's zombie film Planet Terror.

Let me start this review by stating right off that there's going to be spoilers with this one, I can't really talk about the film without revealing things that happen that are supposed to be somewhat of a surprise so once again if you want the full first time experience of Death Proof stop reading now, and go rent the film. Death Proof is about Stuntman Mike a sadistic former stuntman who gets his jollies by killing women in cars at fast speeds.

[This review will focus on the 114 minute, theatrical cut of the film]

Turns out Eli Roth makes a very convincing creeper. Hmmm.

One major thing that doesn't work in this film for me is the structure. I applaud Tarantino for trying to make different films and always push the boundaries on how a story or a film can be told, but there's a good reason why everyone uses the three-act structure... because it works. This film is a two-act story (you know like a play?) and I don't think this is inherently the only problem with the film, I think that this may have worked if we didn't spend so much time trying to get to know these characters and then kill them all off at the halfway point. Yes the only character who carries over in the two parts is Stuntman Mike, the antagonist. While this is interesting and a nice thing to try, I just don't think it's successful. I really think he's trying to do too much with it: not only is he trying to split the film right down the middle between a "successful kill" for Stuntman Mike and an {everything goes wrong kill" for Stuntman Mike, but he's also trying to surprise you with the fact that he kills the protagonists at the halfway point. While yes, this worked in Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), I'm sorry you did not emulate it well.

The other major problem with this film is the transparency of the writing. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Tarantino films, and an even bigger fan of his writing and dialogue. This film however, did not do it for me. This film found the line of how much "Tarantino talk" I can really take, because frankly the first half is actually just pretty damn boring. The majority of the first half is four girls talking about (as far as the story is concerned) pointless stuff. AND they all sound like Tarantino [something I had had a problem with the way Alabama spoke in True Romance (1993)]. I just don't think that Tarantino must have many female friends because I don't know any females who talk like the girls in this film. The part where they're talking about how far one of them has gone with her boyfriend is especially cringe worthy, and awkwardly written and there's this extra long take of this film is circling a table with them all talking, that honestly I could have completely done without. It drags on for WAY too long, and there is next to nothing important gained from this conversation but yet it stayed in the film for the director's flair. This is a classic example of a director not knowing how to cut his own fat.

Oh and atrocious Quentin Tarantino cameo alert! Dude seriously, stop giving yourself speaking roles.

One good thing about this film is the Stuntman Mike character played by Kurt Russell. I had no idea that Kurt Russell could be SO creepy. His character is very well reasoned, he's interesting and also somewhat strangely funny. My only problem with Stuntman Mike is that Kurt Russell plays it almost exactly like Bill from Kill Bill (2004). I don't know if this is just the way it's written or if this was Tarantino's direction, but I can't listen to Stuntman Mike and not hear Bill, I'm gonna chalk this one up to the transparency of the writing again.

And basically the only reason I'd recommend people see this film is the car chase at the end. This is without a doubt the greatest car chase in the last 30 years, if not, one of the greatest ever filmed! This was filmed at full speed, without constantly cutting between different cameras, with real stunts and it really feels like a breath of fresh air compared to how action and car chases are filmed these days.

Death Proof (2007) is easily the low point of Quentin Tarantino's career, so much that I'd say it's pretty much completely un-noteworthy with the exception of the amazing car chase hiding out at the end of the film. 2/5 Stars.

Happy watching!





Want more Tarantino goodness? Check back all month for my Tribute to Tarantino in honor of his latest film Django Unchained (2012).

Go back to Tarantino's first film with Reservoir Dogs (1992), check out the first script he wrote (but didn't direct) True Romance (1993), The smash hit that really put him on the map Pulp Fiction (1994), another film written by him but in the hands of another director From Dusk till Dawn (1996), his blaxploitation-influenced crime film Jackie Brown (1997) or the revenge epic split between two volumes Kill Bill: Volume 1 (2003)and Kill Bill: Volume 2 (2004). I got films planned all month, so be sure to check back!



Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film (and 8 other Tarantino hits from his 20 year career) in this new set (now on Blu-ray) through these links:

Apollo 18 (2011)

DAY 20

"Tracks... they aren't ours."

No Apollo 18 (2011) thankfully is not a sequel to Ron Howard's Apollo 13 (1995). Apollo 18 is a found footage, sci-fi horror film telling the "true" events of why we do not return to the moon.

I actually liked the story and idea behind this movie, but it's a good idea with not enough real content to back it up.

Biggest problem with this film is how hollow and undeveloped the characters are. The film is like watching cardboard cutouts of characters for the first half and in a film like this with not a whole lot going on in the first half... this makes it REALLY freaking boring! This films writer and director could have learned a lesson from Alien (1979), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or even Moon (2009) on this.

This is a 90 minute film that felt like 3 hours because of the lack of character and content. Things would happen that weren't interesting at all and the characters would react like it was... and I had to fight the urge to turn it off a couple times in the first half.

Also this film really felt too current. Things kept happening where I'd be like, "OH yeah! This is supposed to be 1974!" I feel like the writer wasn't conscious for most of the seventies and didn't do the proper research as how people in the seventies talked because this kept taking me out of the film.

Fortunately there's very few CG effects in this film because they're pretty bad when they do appear. They overdo the "aging" of this film... to the point where it gets very distracting in some parts.

After all that this film had some really great moments that I really enjoyed. SPOILERS: When they find the tracks, cosmonaut ship and when NASA refuses to rescue them. These are all cool moments but they're so few and far between, it takes a long time to get there.

Oh and the sets were really convincing, shows how easy it is to fake a moon video I guess haha.

Apollo 18 (2011) is a good idea with out much substance to back it up. But if you enjoy sci-fi horror, I felt this movie was satisfying enough to warrant a watch. 2.5/5 stars.

Happy watching!







Like this blog? You can support by buying this film through these links:

Teen Wolf (1985)

DAY 14

"With certain exceptions, werewolves are people just like like anybody else."

I was going to stop with the last one but for some reason decided to continue my werewolf streak that I had going. Teen Wolf (1985) was one of my favorite movies as a kid, let's see how it holds up. Teen Wolf is a coming of age story with a hairy twist. Michael J. Fox plays Scott Howard an average kid in everyday who wishes he could be a superstar. When it turns out he has a hereditary curse, he makes the best of it and suddenly his life is spectacular.

I liked how this movie turned the werewolf infliction into a hereditary "gift." I thought this was a pretty original idea. There's a lot of good parts and small ideas going on in this movie I just feel like they're not executed in the best ways.

Oh and Michael J. Fox is Michael J. Fox. So that's good.

My biggest qualm with this movie is about halfway through I felt like this movie lacked a whole lot of substance. There's long scenes that really don't do much and honestly I've seen 20 minute TV show episodes that had more content than this 90 minute movie!

One of the biggest problems with this movie is it was released mid eighties, which means it's very dated by now. It's not the worst I've seen, but most of this movies jokes weren't funny and I'm not sure if it's because they just weren't funny or if it's because I'm not currently in the eighties?

The movie's story is just plain bad. The best way to sum it up is this movie feels very soft. Nothing really is ever that difficult for Scott, honestly nothing feels like it's really at stake for the kid. He has a 3rd string friend that won't talk to him but he doesn't apparently care, his misbehavior doesn't apparently affect his home life, and the bully doesn't even come close to beating him up or really seem that threatening at all. Which makes the movie pretty boring. I'm not sure if this is the writer(s) trying to say that high school problems don't matter anyway or if their just plain bad writers who can't even develop a decent conflict for the kid.

I feel like the big point of the movie is missed. The way the movie set it up is that he has this long time girl friend who likes him but Scott doesn't realize it because he's too busy looking at the pretty blonde popular girl. He goes through wolf-puberty and suddenly the popular girl takes a liking to him along with most other people at his school. But there's a part where after the popular girl uses him he asks the friend out to the school dance (his second choice) and she says yes on one condition: that he goes as himself and not the wolf. He refuses, and she laughs it off (?) and says she'll dance with him anyway!? Then later that night the reason he realizes he doesn't need to use the wolf and he needs to be himself is that the poplar girl wont dance with him? HE ALREADY GOT USED BY HER. You missed the point you stupid writer! The friend should have left pissed when he says he won't go as himself then later that night he should have realized he had the perfect girl right under his nose the whole time! Instead for no apparent reason he decides after being blown off again by the popular girl to play the basketball game as a regular Joe. We show waaaay too much of the basketball game and they somehow win without the power of the wolf (yay) and he blows off the popular girl (revenge?) It's like the same ending without a satisfying middle to make you feel good when get you there!

I'm sorry to say I can't find anything magnificent about this movie, maybe that the movie was popular enough to spawn a sequel, an animated TV show and a current TV show on MTV. That's pretty amazing, considering the source material...

Teen Wolf (1985) is a dated product of the eighties. If you want to see if for nostalgia, let me warn you... it unfortunately doesn't hold up. It's basically a good idea that they didn't know what to do with. 2.5/5 stars.

Happy watching!







Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links: