Change Your Image
Mitch-08583
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Amityville Horror (1979)
Good at creating tension but falls flat with the payoff
What struck me most about The Amityville Horror is how timeless it feels, despite being over four decades old. As one of the early pioneers of the haunted house subgenre, it holds up alongside more modern films like The Conjuring, especially in terms of building tension. This is where the film excels, helped by a strong cast who convincingly portray a family tormented by demonic spirits.
However, despite the solid buildup, the film never quite delivers a satisfying payoff. While movies like The Conjuring or Poltergeist sometimes veer into cliché or spectacle, they still manage to cap off their tension with effective, haunting visuals. The Amityville Horror, on the other hand, never reaches that level. The scares feel dated and often unintentionally cheesy. Like, for example, a poorly superimposed face in a wall or a really poorly done visual effect shot of a pig with glowing eyes in a window. None of the imagery sticks with you, and the most intense moment is a brief nightmare sequence involving an axe to the head. Even the climax is surprisingly underwhelming, lacking any memorable or frightening moments. When compared to the bombastic finales of Poltergeist or The Conjuring, this film falls flat.
Perhaps the director was aiming for a more subdued and thoughtful film, which could have worked if the story had wrapped up meaningfully. Unfortunately, however, many plot threads are left unresolved, and not in a mysterious or ambiguous way, but as if they were simply abandoned. The priest's blindness? Never addressed. The police detective tailing the family? Dropped without resolution. The gateway to hell in the basement? Introduced but never explored. Even the subplot about the daughter befriending an invisible ghost/demon is only a setup for a single scare and is never mentioned again. The main character's eerie resemblance to the previous killer in the house also fizzles out without proper closure.
The Amityville Horror without a doubt has a lot of potential and establishes some genuinely creepy moments early on, but ultimately, it leads nowhere and feels underwhelming. While it deserves recognition as a genre classic for its influence and certain strengths, the lack of payoff prevents it from reaching the status of true horror greatness in my view.
Saturn 3 (1980)
Interesting premise let down by poor execution
Set in a distant future where implied (but never shown) food shortages on Earth have forced humanity to seek out alternative food production methods, Saturn 3 tells the story of a couple (Fawcett, Douglas) working on a space station orbiting the ringed planet. Their exact roles and professions are somewhat unclear, as the characters spend much of the film jogging around the station and engaging in... other types of physical activities, rather than doing any actual work. We do know it has something to do with hydroponics and that they deliver food back to Earth. Why this food is produced around Saturn remains a mystery, though. Maybe the view just makes the veggies grow faster?
Their isolated but peaceful life on the station is soon disrupted by the arrival of a mysterious character named Benson, played by Harvey Keitel in a role unlike any I've seen him in before. He's cold and stoic, almost robotic-a portrayal that could easily have been dull in the hands of a lesser actor. But under Keitel's expert touch, the character is truly chilling, with a sense of something sinister lurking behind his eyes despite his frigid demeanor. And sinister he is, kicking off the movie with a cold-blooded and violent murder before he sneaks aboard a shuttle headed for the titular station.
The crux of the movie revolves around Benson assembling a nine-foot-tall robot, designed to replace human workers. However, being a machine equipped with a blank-slate brain that learns from its host - who happens to be Benson himself - the robot soon turns into a murderous rampage. Benson isn't exactly the most stable individual, as we've already seen when he's first introduced. Once he meets Fawcett's character, he immediately begins obsessing over her, openly expressing his desire to procreate and generally behaving as creepily as possible. These disturbing thoughts, along with Benson's proclivity for murder, unfortunately, bleed into the robot's personality, leading to a dull game of cat-and-mouse around the station as our heroes try to outsmart the unhinged machine and its evil master.
Saturn 3 feels like a movie that aspires to tell a story filled with deep and impactful concepts but ultimately struggles with its somewhat clumsy execution, failing to present a compelling thesis. The three leads deliver good performances, and the story makes an earnest attempt to explore interesting themes such as isolation, sexual desire, jealousy, and the ethics of technology and artificial intelligence. However, the end result is let down by dated special effects (even for the time), dull-looking sets, and poor direction that lacks energy or momentum. Despite a 90-minute runtime, the film drags on so much that it feels at least twice as long. The movie does try to pull you back in with some sleaze and violence, but the attempt comes off as desperate, dragging the whole thing into B-movie schlock territory, which feels too undignified for both the actors and the subject matter.
If you're looking to watch classic science fiction from that era with a similar style and setting, I would definitely recommend going with something more classy, like Silent Running or Outland.
The Equalizer 3 (2023)
Another solid outing for this actor-director duo
While this series was never destined to set the world ablaze, I was always pleased with what I saw on screen with each instalment in the trilogy. Whenever Robert McCall, as portrayed by Denzel Washington, quietly laid out an elaborate and neatly organised plan in his head, and then effortlessly executed on it, I was glued to the screen and actively rooting for everything to go smoothly. Which, of course, not always did, and that's a good thing because otherwise why worry about anything if everything should always go without a hitch and dissolving any tension in the action?
The Equalizer 3 is no different and actually makes a great choice by putting the main character in a bad place at the very beginning of the film, making you believe that he's not untouchable no matter how many goons lose their life at his hands. Another strength of those movies is also their supporting cast, typically consisting of a group of good hearted folk who find themselves in dire straits. They're the kind of people that you want Robert to help out. On the other side you also have a group of baddies, who are equally as effective at being the most wretched band of scum that you love to see get maimed in the most stylish way possible. And with three movies into this series, it shouldn't be a surprise anymore that they ultimately do get their comeuppance. They always do in a movie like this. And it's always a joy to watch.
One thing that bothered me about this movie was its rather simplistic narrative. In it, we see Robert McCall winding up in a quiet, scenic Italian town to recover from his battle wounds, and inevitably getting embroiled in its population's problems with the local gangsters. While this story does hold off on some crucial plot twists to unveil them at the most emotionally-impactful moments, the central conflict isn't very elaborate and you can anticipate pretty much from the get-go how it's all gonna end up. It certainly doesn't feel like a neat bow to tie up the trilogy. Instead, it's more like just another chapter in Robert McCall's life of vigilantism that leaves the door wide open for another sequel. I imagine some viewers could also take an issue with the finale which comes off a bit anticlimactic. Despite the cathartic satisfaction of our main antihero delivering poetic justice, so richly deserved by the film's villain, the quick resolution and simplistic plot left me wanting.
Metro (1997)
Enjoyable action thriller which squanders a unique idea
Metro is a classic cop action thriller that sells itself on the gimmick of a movie about a hostage negotiator of the San Francisco Police Department. The movie initially takes full advantage of such a premise by putting our lead character, Scott Roper (Eddie Murphy), in the middle of a botched bank robbery where he needs to act quickly to save the civilians in danger and bring order to chaos. However, if you expect a movie similar to the following year's The Negotiator and see Murphy show his acting chops by engaging the bad guys in expertly written game of wits, you may be disappointed to learn that Metro doesn't concern itself with clever conflict resolution. Instead, our hero cop goes for a more blunt approach by shooting the bad guy and recklessly putting the hostages at risk. Is that the proper police procedure in a situation like this?
Once the opening negotiation scene is over, the movie quickly transitions into a more traditional action thriller, with Murphy's character chasing the killer maniac around the city. All the while showing the ropes of hostage negotiation work to a newly partnered rookie sidekick (Michael Rapaport). This leads into a handful of amusing scenes between the duo, and it made me wish to see both actors interact more on screen, as they have decent chemistry together. Unfortunately, their relationship isn't as much of a focus in this movie as it usually is in more prominent buddy cop team-ups. Instead, plenty of the film's running time is also dedicated to Roper's relationship with his girlfriend (Carmen Ejogo), as well as character development for the main villain, played by Michael Wincott. His chilling performance being a highlight of the film.
Despite the fact that Metro mostly wastes its potential, it still manages to deliver a handful of exciting set pieces. Director Thomas Carter takes full advantage of the San Francisco location by setting up his action scenes around the city's famous landmarks. This includes an obligatory chase sequence down the San Francisco hills - a home to many iconic Hollywood chases. The filmmakers even seem to have taken a couple of pages from Michael Bay's playbook by wrecking a number of vehicles with a trolley car, only narrowly avoiding a giant explosion at the end of the chase.
What drags all this action down is a somewhat sloppy script. It's the kind of movie that, at first glance, presents itself as a high quality production in the style of Hollywood legend Jerry Bruckheimer, but if you think about the plot too much, a lot of it ceases to make sense. For instance, how does it help for the main villain to commit reckless crime that can be easily pinned down on him when he's still only under a suspicion by the police? It seemed like it would be smarter to keep a low profile and go into hiding instead. Metro is also a movie that was made during a period when Eddie Murphy wanted to transition from comedy into more dramatic roles, and while his natural charisma and wit shine through, there are some jarring moments where he may be trying a little too hard. While it's not entirely convincing, you can at least give him points for the effort.
While the overall package is less than the sum of its parts, Metro does offer a solid enough execution to provide some fun chills and thrills. I would recommend it to movie fans who enjoyed such classics as Speed or Bad Boys.
Point Blank (1998)
Awful, derivative sleaze
I stumbled upon this movie when it randomly flashed into my mind as a vague recollection from my teenage years. It was one of those films my mom would occasionally rent on VHS along with other rental fodder such as 'Metro' with Eddie Murphy and 'Skeletons' with Ron Silver, which I recently watched to revisit those nostalgic memories. While neither of those films were exceptional, they provided decent enough entertainment for a lazy afternoon, so I was looking forward to revisiting yet another one of those rentals with 'Point Blank.'
Unfortunately, this movie turned out to be a completely different experience. While it indeed stands out, it's for all the wrong reasons - its mediocrity, derivative action, and lackluster writing. I can't help but feel sorry for the talented cast, including Mickey Rourke, Kevin Gage (Waingro from Heat), and the always reliable Danny Trejo. Despite their efforts, they're trapped in a film with a dreadful script that borders on nonsensical. The story unfolds in a way that defies logic, making it challenging to suspend disbelief. Characters act without rhyme or reason, seemingly guided only by the director's desire to showcase violent, sleazy, or "cool" scenes-though I'm using that last descriptor loosely, as I find it hard to believe that anyone except the director believed anything that happened in this film to be cool.
Speaking of sleaze, the movie is really mean-spirited, to the point where it's uncomfortable to watch. I'm not a meek person and I do enjoy a good action flick with lots of violence and nudity, but this really isn't the movie that utilizes its gratuitous elements to skillfully deliver visceral entertainment, and instead just makes you feel like taking a shower after watching it. Especially in every scene that involves Trejo. His portrayal of an unhinged maniac, constantly indulging in cocaine, assaulting women, and indiscriminately shooting hostages, will only make you question what kind of a person the director is to think that this would be even remotely entertatining, not to mention confusing to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. Imagine a hostage situation where law enforcement turns a blind eye to such atrocities, opting to send in a John McClane-wannabe to shoot up the place instead. Truly dazzling display of logic right there.
Speaking of John McClane, Point Blank shamelessly borrows ideas from other, more successful action flicks. The premise feels like Con Air in a shopping mall with a sprinkling of Die Hard. And if that wasn't enough, the director even throws in a scene lifted directly from Leon: The Professional, but without the emotional weight or connection to the characters. It comes across as cringeworthy rather than impactful.
The dynamic between Rourke and Gage, portrayed as brothers on opposite sides of the law, only added to my confusion. Their relationship veers from Rourke trying to talk his brother down, to then shooting at him during an action scene, to finally embracing him in his arms as they profess brotherly love. Not only did I feel absolutely no emotion towards any of those characters, but again, the writing and direction are just pure nonsense, and I don't even know what I'm supposed to feel during those scenes.
I'm done. And I haven't even talked about the music, which is eaqual parts hilarious and baffling. You get the idea. It's a horrible movie. I'd only recommend watching it with a bunch of friends just to laugh at how bad it is. The absurdity of the plot could easily rival Samurai Cop, but the difference is that Point Blank was at least shot and acted more competently. Everything else, though, from cheesy music, to tedious plot and nonsensical writing, to poor editing, this was easily one of the worst major studio films I've ever seen.