Kevbo1985
Joined Nov 2009
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings267
Kevbo1985's rating
Reviews22
Kevbo1985's rating
Being a fan of his music and his theatricality, it was easier than I expected to go into Rob Zombie's re-imagining of the horror classic "Halloween' with an open mind. Considering the original film (and its sequel) rank amongst my highest horror flicks, this was no easy feat from the onset. Balancing my fear of disappointment, as well, were Zombie's first two films, "House of 1,000 Corpses" and the sequel "The Devil's Rejects", which I found to be very entertaining.
I can quickly summarize my thoughts on this film by saying that, in a side-by-side comparison, looking at Zombie's "Halloween" is like looking through a different window to catch a glimpse at the same sight. While the object itself is the same, the perspective is slightly different. Instead of simply thrusting the iconic Michael Myers on us, as Carpenter did, Zombie attempts to introduce us via polarizing back story and a slower build to the final product. In this way, Zombie not only offers a unique perspective on a classic villain, he does so with a modern flair for emotional introspection. Also modernized is the audio, which is something I cannot give Zombie and everyone else responsible enough credit for. The sheer weight of Michael Myers' attacks is felt audibly more so than visually, and Zombie was clever enough to underscore the original "Halloween" theme by using it sparingly, instead introducing an industrial/symphonic score that does wonders for impact and atmosphere.
No doubt about it, Rob Zombie's "Halloween" is easily one of the better horror movies I've ever seen. He does the original justice and never veers far enough from the beaten path, leaving a familiar and uniquely visceral, but more human and tragic, Michael Myers to terrorize us.
I can quickly summarize my thoughts on this film by saying that, in a side-by-side comparison, looking at Zombie's "Halloween" is like looking through a different window to catch a glimpse at the same sight. While the object itself is the same, the perspective is slightly different. Instead of simply thrusting the iconic Michael Myers on us, as Carpenter did, Zombie attempts to introduce us via polarizing back story and a slower build to the final product. In this way, Zombie not only offers a unique perspective on a classic villain, he does so with a modern flair for emotional introspection. Also modernized is the audio, which is something I cannot give Zombie and everyone else responsible enough credit for. The sheer weight of Michael Myers' attacks is felt audibly more so than visually, and Zombie was clever enough to underscore the original "Halloween" theme by using it sparingly, instead introducing an industrial/symphonic score that does wonders for impact and atmosphere.
No doubt about it, Rob Zombie's "Halloween" is easily one of the better horror movies I've ever seen. He does the original justice and never veers far enough from the beaten path, leaving a familiar and uniquely visceral, but more human and tragic, Michael Myers to terrorize us.
To preface my review, I'll say that I am still amazed that I didn't see this film sooner than today. How it escaped even an accidental viewing is, especially considering my thoughts on it in retrospect and my love of war-based cinema, is baffling.
What might color the modern viewer who has yet to experience Born, as it did me, was the idea of Tom Cruise portraying a role more down to earth and realistic than we're used to seeing from the actor. Consider also that in 1989 he was just hitting his stride as a cinematic centerpiece along with the blunt force trauma he had to portray as real-life Vietnam veteran Ron Kovac, and the modern viewer is almost assured of having reservations. Watching some of the special features of my copy of the DVD makes me realize that even then, there were reservations about Cruise. At least outside of Oliver Stone and Ron Kovac, who were sold early on.
It takes maybe half the film until you start to understand it, but Cruise does sell it, and he sells with more honest integrity than I think he's put into any role in his career. It doesn't surprise me as much considering the room and avenues of expression Oliver Stone has traditionally given to his actors, but it does further cement Cruise as an actor of quality more so than quantity.
The film itself, and all of its particulars, offer sharp contrasts, bare humanity and the horrors we're capable of, and the eventual redemption of a man who I do believe, regardless of our own lives, anyone can relate to on some level. It is a story told many times, but this perspective, unique as all perspectives inherently are, is as vital to the entire story of the Vietnam War and ultimately of defining ourselves as any I've ever considered.
Whether or not Stone embellishes is not for me to say; I have yet (and I stress 'yet', as I do believe this film will lead me to reading the book Kovac wrote) to explore the particulars. But, in the end, it doesn't matter; the overall message is as clear as can be by the end. This is the story of a young man who believed and who was deceived, only to once again believe. Each step is fittingly littered with personal conflicts and triumphs, intimate encounters with people from various walks of life. It emphasizes the point that our own beliefs, our own deceptions, our own lives are the product of influence. What we perceive from our families, our friends, our media, inevitably colors our choices in life. For Kovac, these choices led to a swirling chaos of negative consequences. These negative consequences ultimately lead to the redeeming aspects of his later life, but the truth is always there, and it's an ugly truth. A haunting truth, brought to life by haunting moments.
What keeps me from considering this film as more than very good is an inherent disconnect of generations. While my generation will perhaps look back on our current conflicts in the Middle East the same way the Vietnam generation looks at their own conflicts and struggles, Oliver Stone was and, with Born, is a part of a generation that I am not. His perspective is not hard to relate to, but it is hard to understand.
Beyond that, the film has a handful of small issues that feel more like nitpicking but can't be avoided. The cinematography, while advanced for its time, doesn't lend itself as much to intimacy as it does to the swirl of conflict surrounding Kovac and America. The viewer often feels so swept up in the background that it can be difficult to spot and hone in on the essential point of specific scenes. Also, while I applaud Cruise's efforts in his role, he and several other actors are still either miscast or underutilized in my estimation. The storytelling of Oliver Stone, while easy to digest once the film is finished, is choppy and inconsistent, and I felt that certain moments were not given the emphasis they deserved in the overall story of Ron Kovac.
Despite the small flaws, I can't imagine nor have I witnessed a better overall portrayal of a war-torn life and the dirt, grime, pain and suffering that must be carried throughout such a life than this film offers. The gritty realism holds up even today, a time where we can often find more harrowing images on our local news than in this film. There is no individual scene or moment that defines Born On The Fourth Of July; it is a journey that resonates most strongly at its bittersweet conclusion.
What might color the modern viewer who has yet to experience Born, as it did me, was the idea of Tom Cruise portraying a role more down to earth and realistic than we're used to seeing from the actor. Consider also that in 1989 he was just hitting his stride as a cinematic centerpiece along with the blunt force trauma he had to portray as real-life Vietnam veteran Ron Kovac, and the modern viewer is almost assured of having reservations. Watching some of the special features of my copy of the DVD makes me realize that even then, there were reservations about Cruise. At least outside of Oliver Stone and Ron Kovac, who were sold early on.
It takes maybe half the film until you start to understand it, but Cruise does sell it, and he sells with more honest integrity than I think he's put into any role in his career. It doesn't surprise me as much considering the room and avenues of expression Oliver Stone has traditionally given to his actors, but it does further cement Cruise as an actor of quality more so than quantity.
The film itself, and all of its particulars, offer sharp contrasts, bare humanity and the horrors we're capable of, and the eventual redemption of a man who I do believe, regardless of our own lives, anyone can relate to on some level. It is a story told many times, but this perspective, unique as all perspectives inherently are, is as vital to the entire story of the Vietnam War and ultimately of defining ourselves as any I've ever considered.
Whether or not Stone embellishes is not for me to say; I have yet (and I stress 'yet', as I do believe this film will lead me to reading the book Kovac wrote) to explore the particulars. But, in the end, it doesn't matter; the overall message is as clear as can be by the end. This is the story of a young man who believed and who was deceived, only to once again believe. Each step is fittingly littered with personal conflicts and triumphs, intimate encounters with people from various walks of life. It emphasizes the point that our own beliefs, our own deceptions, our own lives are the product of influence. What we perceive from our families, our friends, our media, inevitably colors our choices in life. For Kovac, these choices led to a swirling chaos of negative consequences. These negative consequences ultimately lead to the redeeming aspects of his later life, but the truth is always there, and it's an ugly truth. A haunting truth, brought to life by haunting moments.
What keeps me from considering this film as more than very good is an inherent disconnect of generations. While my generation will perhaps look back on our current conflicts in the Middle East the same way the Vietnam generation looks at their own conflicts and struggles, Oliver Stone was and, with Born, is a part of a generation that I am not. His perspective is not hard to relate to, but it is hard to understand.
Beyond that, the film has a handful of small issues that feel more like nitpicking but can't be avoided. The cinematography, while advanced for its time, doesn't lend itself as much to intimacy as it does to the swirl of conflict surrounding Kovac and America. The viewer often feels so swept up in the background that it can be difficult to spot and hone in on the essential point of specific scenes. Also, while I applaud Cruise's efforts in his role, he and several other actors are still either miscast or underutilized in my estimation. The storytelling of Oliver Stone, while easy to digest once the film is finished, is choppy and inconsistent, and I felt that certain moments were not given the emphasis they deserved in the overall story of Ron Kovac.
Despite the small flaws, I can't imagine nor have I witnessed a better overall portrayal of a war-torn life and the dirt, grime, pain and suffering that must be carried throughout such a life than this film offers. The gritty realism holds up even today, a time where we can often find more harrowing images on our local news than in this film. There is no individual scene or moment that defines Born On The Fourth Of July; it is a journey that resonates most strongly at its bittersweet conclusion.
You will invariably come across films where the only plausible response is, "why?". As in, why bother making it at all? You can rarely pin it on one person, and those who do are missing the bigger picture. Regardless, Alone In The Dark did not need to be made. This film should never have been released.
You watch it. Things happen, with only the most tenuous connection making a plot out of the story. This aspect of the film is so bad that, without the introductory dialog, there would be zero hope of the viewer understanding why these things were happening. So, the core of any successful film is, in my opinion, the story and the plot; there is a story here, but it's ridiculous. There is a plot, but it's too loose to do its job.
You watch it. You see Christian Slater overacting, stiff and lifeless. You see Brad Doriff, miscast and unnecessary. You see Tara Reid. And seeing Tara Reid is fine in my book, but when she starts talking, the magic is lost. You see bad acting everywhere, bad casting and ridiculous dialog, poor execution and performance all around.
You watch it. The actual fear from a horror movie is nonexistent; I challenge anyone to describe what truly scared them about this film. The entities that are meant to scare you are nearly void of purpose, poorly designed, digitally executed in a shoddy, video game-esque manner that detracts from the live action film you're watching, and, more than anything, are not scary in and of themselves.
Nothing about this film is scary. Nothing about this film is redeemable. For their budget, they could have filmed somebody playing the classic PC game it is "based on" (in quotes because, beyond the lead character's name, there is nothing in this movie that relates to that game) for two hours and made a more enjoyable film. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Another smudge on Uwe Boll's credibility, but not even close to being completely his fault.
You watch it. Things happen, with only the most tenuous connection making a plot out of the story. This aspect of the film is so bad that, without the introductory dialog, there would be zero hope of the viewer understanding why these things were happening. So, the core of any successful film is, in my opinion, the story and the plot; there is a story here, but it's ridiculous. There is a plot, but it's too loose to do its job.
You watch it. You see Christian Slater overacting, stiff and lifeless. You see Brad Doriff, miscast and unnecessary. You see Tara Reid. And seeing Tara Reid is fine in my book, but when she starts talking, the magic is lost. You see bad acting everywhere, bad casting and ridiculous dialog, poor execution and performance all around.
You watch it. The actual fear from a horror movie is nonexistent; I challenge anyone to describe what truly scared them about this film. The entities that are meant to scare you are nearly void of purpose, poorly designed, digitally executed in a shoddy, video game-esque manner that detracts from the live action film you're watching, and, more than anything, are not scary in and of themselves.
Nothing about this film is scary. Nothing about this film is redeemable. For their budget, they could have filmed somebody playing the classic PC game it is "based on" (in quotes because, beyond the lead character's name, there is nothing in this movie that relates to that game) for two hours and made a more enjoyable film. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Another smudge on Uwe Boll's credibility, but not even close to being completely his fault.