Reviews

Neurosisnine Reviews Last House on the Left (1972), or Irreversible has Forever Tainted my Sensitivity Towards Movie Violence or, Holy Crap neurosisnine Just did a New Movie Review

2009-03-28T17:23:54Z

I watched Irreversible once, because no one should ever watch it more than that. Actually, I take that back; nobody should ever watch Irreversible. It starts bad, becomes terrible, then comes out from left field to make sure you feel even worse about the whole thing. And, it's an amazing movie.

But this review is not about Irreversible. It's just that anytime I see a movie that touts itself as being disturbing due to physical violence, I can't help but compare it to the end all, be all. The unfortunate Czar of the genre.

The remake of The Last House on the Left recently hit theaters, so at the urging of my father, I decided to watch the original. Wes Craven's first film, at least according to IMDB, from 1972.

This movie was originally rated X and banned in several places up until recently. To Wes Craven's credit he tried re-editing it to get the coveted 'R' rating but eventually said to hell with the MPAA, stole an 'R' rating sticker and slapped it on the original cut.

This is not a modern day horror movie in any definition of the term. I wouldn't even classify it as a slasher movie. It deals with horrific subject matter, and there's certainly some 'slashing' going on, but it all seems dated. There is some pretty gruesome rape scenes, and some stabbings, but all I could think to myself is, "this isn't even on par with Irreversible."

I don't want to be too critical. In general, I honestly don't care for horror movies. And, as I said before, I've been desensitized to this sort of extreme violence from watching Irreversible. My enjoyment of the movie was purely academic, a sort of study on the evolution of horror movies. Frankly, I thought the ending was funny, in that bad movie sort of way.

I do think that people should watch this movie, especially if they happen to be horror fans. If for no other reason but to see the roots of modern horror. And, if you're fortunate enough to have never seen Irreversible, you will probably find it disturbing, and enjoyable as well.

How I lost faith in IMDB User Ratings or Neurosisnine reviews Wanted.

2008-08-02T22:51:03Z

On IMDB, Wanted has a 7.3 rating. Let me put this into perspective, Dogma has a 7.3 rating, Love Liza only has a 6.8, Hard Eight shares a 7.2 with Hard Candy. Hell, Inland Empire only has a 7.3. These are all amazing movies.

If Daywatch (6.7), Mr and Mrs. Smith (6.4), and Lucky Number Sleven (7.8) had a wild threesome in a fertility lab, and then Michael Bay (6.4 [average of all the movies he's directed since Bad Boys in 1995]) came along, mixed up all the splooge and then impregnated Arnold Schwarzenegger in the movie Junior (4.4) then, there's a pretty good chance that the screaming baby Arnold wrapped in paper towels and hid in the girl's bathroom so his parents wouldn't find out, would then grow up to be Wanted. And, now that I've made every english teacher in the world cry themselves to sleep with a ridiculous run on sentence, we can move on.

So, we've determined the origins, now we can do a little math to get the proper IMDB rating and clear this whole thing up. Don't worry, I took High School Biology, so this whole thing is completely scientific.

We multiply all the illegitimate fathers of this bastard child, then divide that by the mad scientist who made this whole thing possible by continually perpetrating crimes against film and we get 52.26. Then we take the square root of this chocolate rain of shit and get about 7.2. See this is where IMDB went wrong. They forgot to include the mother in this equation of fail-istics. Now, subtract the square root of the mother which comes out to be 2.1, and gives you a proper IMDB rating of 5.1. Here's the math below, because my teacher always said to show your work.
    _________________
   / 6.7 x 6.4 x 7.8             ___
/ --------------- = 7.2 - \/4.4 = 5.1   Are you happy now Bud?
\/         6.4

Now I know this might seem harsh, but that's the way the math works out.

Alright, now that I've disgusted the whole Neurosisnine fanbase with dirty, filthy numbers, let me turn on my trademark charm and win you all back. Thank you Mr. Daniels, I will have another.

Wanted is a really shitty shoot 'em up with completely over the top Russian special effects. I was really disappointed because Timur Bekmambetov directed it, and I love the Night Watch series. It seems he might have made an american movie and caught a mild case of Wachowski. Mr. Bekmambetov, I advise you to go back to Russia and have some good vodka. The Wachowski Strain seems to thrive best in sunny Hollywood, and we can hope, for your sake, that the harsh Russian cold will kill it off before it gets any worse.

Everyone Else Has, Now Let Me Have My Fun!!!!!

2008-07-23T02:50:21Z

Ok. So I know, everyone else has probably already seen this, and most likely on opening night, but I have to review it because . . . well, I demand attention! Here goes nothing: The Dark Knight

I have a few problems with this movie. Let me take you from the moment that I entered the Cinema. First off, medium popcorn and medium Diet Coke: $9.00 The fact that you can get people to pay this much: Priceless.

Now I am entering the theater itself. The previews just started, so I am safe there. We, my friend Doug, and I sit in like the third row or something. REALLY CLOSE! Normally I sit way back, but in all honesty? This is freakin' Batman! I want to be in the movie. But my problem is, that after we have sat down, in comes like 10 little kids. One of them trips at some point and spills his soda, so he goes out and gets more. That was funny. But then he comes back, that wasn't so funny. And they proceeded to laugh through the movie, even its very serious scenes. They had to scream every chance they got. Yelling out, "OH BATMAN," when he appears as if they didn't know that this was a Batman movie, but rather just a documentary on how their father used to dress up as a giant bat, down a fifth of scotch, and then go shoot the neighbors dog, yelling something about the british are coming. They also made sure to laugh obnoxiously when everyone else laughed at funny scenes, because well, these kids are stupid. They honestly didn't know why the joke was funny, but they decided to act as if they are the judges of comedy. It was like sitting behind the ten grandkids of the Judges from the Muppet Show. And then, at some point, the thirty-something guy behind me yells, "Heheh . . . Shut the f*ck up!" That actually did do a good job of shutting the kids up for awhile, but of course they came back. Oh well. Say 'la vie.'

So, you ask, what about reviewing the movie? What about The Dark Knight? Is it good? Does Christian Bale take off his shirt? Does Morgan Freeman? It is good, Bale does take off his shirt, and no, thank heaven's the one and only, Great Morgan Freeman does not remove his shirt. Though, Michael Caine does! (I jest.)

Anyway, I can't really review this movie. What can I say? This movie was practically flawless! I can't say there weren't some parts that were bad, but in all honesty, I can't remember any. Bale's voice, as with the first one, has to sink on you before you accept the smokey sounding vocals. Maggie Gyllenhaal is amazing! Gary Oldman is always amazing! Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Eric Roberts, Aaron Eckhart, etc, etc. were amazing! Hell, Party Staff (uncredited) was freaking amazing!! (I don't know this for an absolute fact, but I don't doubt it.) This movie seriously is the film of the summer! I know X-Files is coming out, etc, but still, this movie is most likely, the best thats going to be all summer. And you know what? Save the best for last: Heath Ledger was top notch brilliance!

I am not saying that his unfortunate death didn't alter my perception going into this film. Of course I thought about the fact that he has past on, but in all honesty. Starting with his first appearance, you can barely even realize it is him. The movie sucks you in so much that you can't even think about what events have surrounded this film. Heath Ledger saved his best performance to play the Joker. Rest In Peace.

As for Christopher Nolan? Mr. Director? I have a bone to pick with you? This is your vision, how you wanted to see it, and that is great and all, but seriously? Isn't there something you can do to quiet all those kids that were sitting infront of me? I mean don't get me wrong, sure, sure, it was stunning, and beautiful, and a well directed film, sure, but seriously man? The kids? Just smack them please? (I love you Mr. Nolan! Thank you so much for snatching up this series.)

Final thoughts? Go see this movie if you haven't yet. And if you have? Well . . . then . . . go see it again or something. I'm not your life coach, so don't ask!

Damnit Mark Wahlberg, I Know You Can Act, I've Seen You Do It Before.

2008-07-10T05:43:34Z

It seems everybody hated The Happening and I think that's Shyamalan's fault. Not because he made a bad movie, but because he made an iconic movie back in '99. He has achieved the directorial equivalent of being type cast.

Everybody loved the Sixth Sense, everybody, and the only reason anybody says differently is that they don't want to admit to liking something that everybody else likes. It's been a long time since I saw Sixth Sense, but I don't remember the story being that great. A troubled kid goes to see a troubled therapist, right?

But you know why everybody likes it, it's that trademark M. Night Shyamalan twist at the end. And, then if you go back and watch it again, there's all these clues that you never noticed before. That's Shyamalan's greatest downfall, with the Sixth Sense he invited people to scrutinize his movies, to try and find clues to the twist ending.

So you have people watching the movie not for entertainment, but instead examining every line, every action by every character the way you would a security camera. But here's the problem with that. I don't think there's really been a twist ending since Unbreakable. So what happens is, that all these people closely examine the movie and when there turns out to be no surprise twist they are left with nothing more than a long list of plot holes. That's it, look up any Shyamalan movie on the internets and that's all you find, long lists of "mistakes."

It's not that Shyamalan makes anymore mistakes than any other writer/director, it's just that no one else is stupid enough to purposely invite people to search for them.

So anyway, I found The Happening to be entertaining. The only reason it wasn't a "good" movie in my mind is Mark Wahlberg's terrible acting. You learn enough about his character to know that he's good and honest, but everything he says sounds like a lie, in several cases a malicious lie. The best description I can come up with is, in this movie Wahlberg can't tell the truth with a straight face, every line he says sounds like he's trying to be obviously sarcastic. Honestly he sounds exactly like he did in The Big Hit.

One thing that I've failed to mention is how brutal the movie is. It's essentially a disaster movie about something that is causing crowds of people to simultaneously commit suicide. And, they show the majority of the suicides in full graphic detail. I've seen Irreversible, and I was still taken aback by some of the scenes.

So, to sum things up here. Marky Mark forgot how to act, suicide is not painless to watch, and if you forget that M. Night Shyamalan did this movie and just watch the damn thing then you just might enjoy it.

I Know I'm Awake, But It Feels Like A Dream

2008-06-13T16:15:06Z

In Bruge

In Bruge is an absolutely brilliant movie. There, that's it, go watch it... NOW.

First Person and Zombies

2008-06-02T19:47:30Z

I am not a huge fan of the first person point of view when it comes to movies. I don't like the idea that you are seeing it just from the one guy's POV (Point of View) because it feels to me like you are going to miss the big picture. But I feel like I have been proven wrong three times now, but only three.

First off, there is the classic Blair Witch Project. This film has such a bad rap now for being a terrible movie, etc. The only reason I think that people consider this movie bland and boring is because when it first came out, it tricked them into thinking it was real. And then once revealing to people that this film is just a movie, people were let down because humans are sick and want to see people die apparently.

Secondly there is the J.J. Abrams mystery project that turned into Cloverfield which is an amazingly well done film about something big attacking New York. It is beautifully done and brilliantly executed, as long as you can withstand the shaky movements of hand-held.

And for the main part of this review:

George A. Romero's Diary of the Dead. This film is not an amazing movie, but it is entertaining. Filled with moments that are a tad cheesy, and a couple points that I think are really pointed out way too much, George A. Romero achieved to make his fifth zombie film with style, and still a significant touch that no other than Romero himself could achieve. Changing out a lot of his typical gore for CGI effects, I still found myself cringing at a few of the kills. Over all, this movie is not an amazing addition to Romero's Dead series, but it is better than most zombie films. Taking place roughly now, Romero brings you back to a time when Zombies first make an appearance on the world of the living. The footage is being brought to you by a student filmmaker who was currently making a horror film at the time of the attack. It is not a bad idea overall. And when have we ever known Romero to really piss us off? Hell, even Knightriders, a film about mid evil knights on motorcycles was an enjoyable movie. I personally recommend Diary of the Dead. Maybe not as a go out and buy it sort of deal, but definitely check it out. If you like it, buy it. There is no shame in enjoying a film for it's cheesiness and for scenes that you really wouldn't mind watching again.

As far as first person goes? Stay away from it unless you have a good story to tell. There were some very noticeable points in all three of the films that I almost wish it had gone back to being a normal POV movie. But if you do first person, play around with it, and understand what you are working with, and for god's sake, make sure your actors know what they are doing.

No One Can Play Keanu Better Than Keanu

2008-05-30T00:06:54Z

Street Kings and Other Dirty Cop Movies

Why is it that directors insist on putting mediocre actors in movies with amazing ones? I like Keanu Reeves but, in every movie he's ever been in he plays Keanu Reeves. It's more like, what would happen if Keanu was a dirty cop with a stereotypical checkered past who suddenly realizes the error of his ways, or wouldn't it be cool if Keanu were a goth kid who knew kung-fu and could fly? And, as we all know, the answer to the latter is no, not really.

Then on the opposite end of the spectrum you have Forest Whitiker. Any overweight black man with a lazy eye that can successfully pull off a samurai must be amazing, right? The problem is that when confronted with an intense scene between Forest Whitiker, and Hugh Laurie, Keanu just looks like a bumbling idiot. He kind of just stands in the background shuffling his feet like a polite child, waiting for the grown-ups to finish their conversation.

The same think happened in The Departed, I like Anthony Anderson, but he looked like an idiot on screen with Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Jack Nicholson.

But really, Street Kings is a good movie. It's nothing you haven't seen before in 50 other dirty cop movies made in the last 10 years. But it's fun to watch, and seriously Forest Whitker is an amazing actor. That's really all you can do to make a movie like this stand out, is cast someone awesome like that.

It's like 16 Blocks. No one liked that movie because the story was generic and predictable, but the acting was amazing. Mos Def played that role beautifully, probably too well. I think a lot of people didn't even realize he was acting, they just thought it was some idiot who couldn't speak on screen and it turned them off to the movie. But Bruce Willis, David Morse, and Mos Def, how could you go wrong with a cast like that?

So, anyway. Forest Whitiker is amazing, Keanu is the king of mediocrity and Street Kings is a relatively good movie, worth watching.

Wristcutters: Not Just an Emo Fad

2008-05-26T06:37:58Z

O.K. I hate the whole wrist cutting thing, perhaps because doing it with a pair of scissors in seventh grade didn't work out, perhaps because a lot of whiney little people do it for attention and it makes me not have empathy for those who did it for a reason, who knows. But, to give fair credit to Goran Dukic's film, "Wristcutters: A Love Story" I have to clearly admit that it may be a work of genius.

After seeing such films that strike me so deeply, such as "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," and even a film such as "The Tracey Fragments" I have to admit that I thought this film would just flop, despite giving me the optimistic out pour of co-starring Tom Waits. It failed to deliver on barely any thing.

There are a few moments when I knew where it was going, where I understood what was going to happen, where I knew a twist was going to straighten itself out, but overall this film was great.

Being dark, and at times fairly twisted, I feel that this film told me all I need to know, and delivered a story that is very much redeemable.

Starring Patrick Fugit, Shannon Sossamon, Tom Waits, this film may just be in my top five for films since the turn of the century.

Dark, sadistic at times, humor. No more than necessary on disturbing themes. Wonderfully portrayed characters. And a great song. This is what more films should expect if they want to lead you down the road for a Love Story.

Aptly titled, Wristcutters: "A LOVE STORY" , it delivers on just that. A love story. Need I say more? Just buy it already.

Speed Racer

2008-05-12T23:30:28Z

image borrowed without permission,

please don't sue me

Let me start by saying that, unlike some other people I know, I am really very positive on the Wachowski Brothers. I understand, the Matrix trilogy was one of the greatest disappointments in cinematic history that is better left forgotten. But if you can forget that the second two abominations were ever made, then the first Matrix was actually a good movie, and reinvigorated a genre that was getting old and tired. Plus, I don't care what anyone says, V for Vendetta was a good movie. For me it's become one of those go to movies that I turn on every time I get bored, and I love it.

Okay, so the whole point of the above, is to re-iterate that I went into this movie without any reservations about the people behind it.

That being said, the movie comes in at about two hours and 15 minutes, and I really think that it was about an hour too long. I took my little ADHD brother to see it, and after about an hour, when he started to get bored and restless, I couldn't even be mad at him, because I felt the same way.

Visually the movie is stunning. It's beautifully done. The effects were flawless, and seamlessly integrated into the film. And, their over-the-top extravagance perfectly suited the film.

However, something the Wachowski Brothers really should've learned by now is that no matter how good the special effects are, they can't make up for bad story telling. To me, that's the main purpose of a movie, to portray an interesting, compelling, or just entertaining story. And Speed Racer fails on all accounts. The story telling was just terrible. Don't get me wrong the acting was great, you can never go wrong with John Goodman, and Christina Ricci as Trixie was hot as hell. But by the end of the movie, I just didn't care what happened to their characters. If the audience doesn't care about the outcome, then you've lost them.

So basically, until the Wachowski Brothers realize you can't "bullet time" a movie into being good then I just can't recommend one of their movies. All forms of art tell a story. Artists, the Wachowski Brothers are not.

If I Find You've Released An Album Entitled "A Touch of Atmosphere," It Would Greatly Diminish My Opinion of You

2008-05-04T11:36:30Z

Atmosphere
When Life Gives You Lemons, You Paint That Shit Gold
on Rhymesayers Entertainment

When I began to listen to rap music 10 years ago, I started, like most with the main stream. Since then I have strayed, far, far away from any main stream rap music, mainly because it is repetitive, corporate, fake, and just overall bad. But still, because of my background in rap I find some song topics to be somewhat odd or taboo.

Most rap music has a happy demeanor. That is to say that rappers don't often make songs about being depressed, committing suicide, and such. So, when I hear these kind of topics in rap music, I'm taken aback.

This is the first of Atmosphere's albums that I have listened to, and it is incredibly depressing. It's amazing in it's execution, because normally I wouldn't want to listen to an album that touches on such depressing subjects. I find my self wanting to change tracks, but not being able to because the song is just that good. The lyrics are almost poetic, and the beats perfectly compliment their tone.

The album is so good, that I am at a loss for words to truly describe it. So you should listen to it. Now.