99¢ Review: The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

I watch a lot of movies (check out my list of movies seen in 2011), but I don’t always have the time to write up a full review for each one. Instead, I thought I would start up a new column where I give you the discount version of the review. The value menu of movie reviews, if you will. What’s good, what’s bad, if it’s worth your time.

The Good: Martin, blood, guts and gore, shot tastefully in black & white

The Bad: The story, the acting

Martin is a sick man. He’s mentally impaired, works an anonymous job as a parking garage attendant, has a weird mother and shrink, and is completely obsessed with The Human Centipede (First Sequence), so much so that he watches the film repeatedly and keeps a scrapbook of his favorite scenes, diagrams of the surgeries, and profiles of the actors. Martin decides that, while writer/director Tom Six’s tale of a mad surgeon creating a human centipede of three people sewn mouth-to-anus was pretty good, he can create an even better centipede. What follows is Martin’s attempts to build a twelve person centipede while using the first film, which claims to be 100% medically accurate, as a template.

The first ‘Human Centipede’ depended heavily on the performance of Dr. Heiter, a specialist at separating conjoined twins who decides that joining people together instead of separating them is more challenging. The sequel depends even more on the role of its mad doctor (Laurence R. Harvey as Martin), since he’s in about 95% of the movie and everything revolves around his unhinged persona. Give Tom Six credit, he’s found another creepy, disgusting, disturbing, vile, and completely memorable lead for his sequel. Everything Martin does is slightly, or sometimes completely, off kilter and unpredictable.

Want to get up close and personal with this guy?

Where the first movie was uncomfortable in part because the good Dr. Heiter used clinical precision in a sterile environment to construct his centipede quite purposefully, the second movie is uncomfortable because it’s the exact opposite. In the sequel, Martin isn’t a doctor and has only a vague sense of what he’s supposed to do. Collect twelve people. Sew mouth to anus. Go. This one is dirty, bloody, disgusting and far more painful than the first, simply because Martin isn’t capable of sorting out all the details of the procedure before he gets going. His idea of anesthesia, for example, is a crowbar to the head. That’ll keep ‘em still long enough to perform his surgery with steak knives and staple gun. All in all, this stuff works effectively to create an uncomfortable viewing experience.

What doesn’t work is the story. This thing plays out like a first draft of a screenplay. There are at least a dozen points in the film where the whole thing should have collapsed on itself and Martin’s experiment ended, yet the movie ignores these plot holes and trudges along gleefully. It’s unfortunate that the really cool, meta approach to the sequel, having Martin be a fan of the original film, is squandered by such a poor story. Tom Six is so focused on making you uncomfortable in every second of the movie that he completely ignores the story. In the end, however, the story doesn’t really matter here; it’s all about the gross factor, which is so high it’s off the charts.

What’s important is that the movie has a unique and mesmerizing lead and that it’s over-the-top violence delivers enough ‘OMG! Ewww!’ moments to keep you entertained. To that point, Tom Six has delivered. You’re going to need a shower after this film to wash the filth away, which is exactly the point of the movie.

1.5 out of 5 stars.  

Roger Ebert has this nice quote about the film: “The film is reprehensible, dismaying, ugly, artless and an affront to any notion, however remote, of human decency.” 

99¢ Review: The Thing

I watch a lot of movies (Check out my list of movies seen in 2011), but I don’t always have the time to write up a full review. Instead, I thought I would start up a new column where I give you the discount version of the review. What’s good, what’s bad, if it’s worth your time.

The Good: Wild creature designs

The Bad: The story, the acting, the lack of any sense of dread

When the 2011 version of The Thing was announced, nobody was sure if it would be a remake or a sequel to the 1982 version. Apparently, the filmmakers themselves weren’t sure either. By the strictest definition of the word, the new version is a prequel, but in truth it comes out as a weird amalgamation of both. The story closely follows the beats of the original giving the remake a very familiar feel.

Set shortly before the events of the original movie, the story has a paleontologist traveling to Antarctica to uncover a specimen buried in the ice. The creature from the ice is, of course, capable of replicating any lifeform. It mimics people and their actions and uses this to hunt its next victim. The Thing can morph into a hideous creature and attack in stunning and horrible fashion. The great concept is that the Thing can be anyone or anything, and nobody knows who it’ll be.

The most amazing thing about the movie is that it squanders this setup completely and has absolutely none of the tension of the original. It’s amazing how the concept that anyone around you can turn into a vicious beast and rip you apart falls so flat. Part of the problem is that virtually none of the characters have any redeeming qualities that make you care if they survive. They are all either completely flat or outright jerks/idiots/worthless people. The film plays out a bit too fast. It doesn't take time to reflect on any particular scene before it races on to the next story point. These types of films need to have slow periods where you feel the dread building in the air, but these are few and far between. The creature designs, however, are pretty cool, and it’s fun when they come out to play. The use of practical effects in most scenes gives the creatures a sense of realness that you just can't replicate with CGI. 

Parts of the film were exciting enough, but, overall, it lacked the tension that you expect from a quality horror film. The 1982 version was a true classic and makes this remake/prequel a bit too redundant. Look to John Carpenter's version for an entertaining movie about body-jacking aliens.

2 out of 5 stars

The Avengers Trailer

This is the big one. The culmination of years of Marvel Studio movies setting up the universe, heroes, and villains. The Avengers brings together a gaggle of characters for what is sure to be an epic throwdown. This trailer is already extremely popular (10 million YouTube views in the first 24 hours) so you've probably seen it already. It does a good job of teasing the movie and saying "The gang's all here!" It still isn't clear what the story will be, except to note that Thor's asshole brother, Loki, is somehow involved. Get excited for May 4, 2012!

99¢ Review: 50/50

The Movie: 50/50

The Good: Jason Gordon-Levitt, a perfect mix of humor and heart given a tough subject.

The Bad: A few minor plot points get short shrift.

50/50 is one of the best films of the year, let alone one of the best comedies. It is a heartfelt look at the harsh realities of life with cancer, yet it manages to be really funny to boot. You’ll laugh and cry all at once.

Adam (Gordon-Levitt) is a 27-year-old kid working in Seattle. He leads a life that most twenty-somethings live: a live-in girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), an early career, friends to pal around with (Seth Rogen), and an overbearing mother who he would rather be free from. Adam also has something that few twenty-somethings have: cancer and a trauma therapist (Anna Kendrick). Cancer sucks at any age, but it seems especially cruel for those so young.

It’s hard to state just how finely crafted this movie is. It never gets too sappy, self-important, or self-pitiable. Instead, it seems like the story of real people dealing with a serious, life-threatening situation. The origins of this film come from a real-life cancer scare by one of the screenwriter’s (Will Reiser) and Seth Rogen’s friend. After watching their buddy deal with his case, they decided to write this movie. As a result, there is a realism and love-of-craft here that is not seen in many other movies. It’s funny, there’s real friendship, real love, real family, and it’s all done beautifully. You could do much worse than to see this one with your friends.

4.5 out of 5 stars

99¢ Review: Dream House

The Movie: Dream House

The Good: Naomi Watts is as cute as ever.

The Bad: Pretty much everything else about this movie.

Dream House is a thriller without the thrills, a suspense film without the suspense. It is tone deaf and bland and goes out of its way to defy logic, reason, or common sense. It wants to be so many things, a horror film, a family film, a discourse on the mentally ill, that it fails to do anything except annoy the audience with its dumbness.

It really is a shame that the people involved have made such a waste of a movie. I adore Naomi Watts and think Daniel Craig is a fine actor (I’m can’t understand why he only has success with the Bond films). Here, they both do fine jobs portraying their characters, but the story fails so completely that their work means little.

To summarize the stupid plot, Will (Craig) retires from his job as an editor to write his novel in the new family home with his wife (Rachel Weisz) and their two kids. We soon learn that the previous family was murdered and that the father is the prime suspect. Will’s daughters notice a weird guy hanging around the house (the only source of scares in the movie, btw) and decides to solve the mystery of the murders. The neighbor, played by an adorable-looking Watts, tries to help Will through the process. Anyone who has seen the trailer has seen the movie. Every twist and turn is summarized in a 90 second tv spot. That’s okay really. Save yourself the trouble and watch the trailer.

1.5 stars out of 5