I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

I Know Who Killed Me (2007)

If you saw this movie, odds are you saw it to see Lindsay Lohan stripping. I won’t lie, that’s why I saw it. This movie was panned by almost every critic out there, and I know people who are vehemently against it. But oh good Lord do I love this movie. I do! I love it because it just might be the absolute worst movie I’ve ever seen. So let’s go.

(Warning: this will contain spoilers because if you haven’t seen it yet, I doubt you care that much)

I’m going to start with the positives of this movie. There are only three so it shouldn’t take too long. First off, there’s pretty decent gore in this movie. The torture scenes are pretty good, they’re certainly unsettling. At one point Lindsay loses a finger while she’s stripping. It’s hilarious.

Secondly, there’s a sex scene between Lindsay version 2 (the skanky one who goes by the name of Dakota) and Lindsay version 1’s boyfriend. It’s super hot because she’s rocking two stumps! Oh god I just about died when I saw it. I’m fairly certain she’s not wearing her prosthetics during the scene and she leans back on her missing leg. Oh it’s so funny. It’s both hot AND hilarious.

Third, and this is the best part of the entire movie. Lindsay does something absolutely hilarious with a cigarette during her little strip tease. For this 30 seconds it’s worth seeing the whole movie. No lie, it’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

Okay so those are the only positives I can say about this movie. Oh my god, this movie is so terrible. There are huge plot holes and the ending is so painfully stupid you might want to stab something. So basically what you have here is Dakota who is being mistaken as Aubrey because they’re twins who don’t know each other. Dakota is the hard knock stripper who didn’t really have a family, while Aubrey is the all American “A” student piano playing princess. Aubrey is kidnapped and tortured but Dakota has some stupid “twin stigmata” bullshit which means she carries the same wounds that are being inflicted on her sister.

Throughout a lot of the movie everybody thinks they’re the same girl and that Dakota is faking, or at least doesn’t remember. There’s a scene where the police are searching Aubrey’s laptop and come across a story she’s written for school that is basically Dakota’s life, and of course, the name of the girl in the written story is Dakota. What the fuck? This ends up going nowhere. You find out they’re not the same girl and they don’t explain this. Anyway, what really pisses me off about this is that the cops think they’ve come across some huge break in the story, when LATER you find out that the password to Aubrey’s laptop is, in fact, Dakota. So why don’t the cops figure THAT out?

Moving on, it’s clear the director Chris Sivertson was trying for something really artsy but it just fails and comes off as contrived and ridiculous. For example, all the blue. What the hell? Blue turns out to be a significant color to the killer because of his fondness for blue ribbons and always being the best, but it ends up falling flat. How the hell did he have all those blue glass weapons made? Another thing, Dakota ends up meeting some guy on the bus who she has sex with, and his tattoo sprouts wings and suddenly you feel like you’re hallucinating. It comes out of nowhere and makes no sense with the rest of the movie. And another thing, why does the killer have so many prosthetic limbs hanging from the ceiling? AND ANOTHER THING, when Dakota finally reaches her sister (who has been mutilated and buried alive in a glass coffin), why does she pull her out and lay on the ground with her? Don’t you think your sister needs some help? She’s lost her arm and leg! No, just lay on the ground for a while, it’ll be fine.

The only things this movie is good at, is being the best worst movie I’ve ever seen and making me laugh when I’m probably not supposed to. Lindsay never gets naked, although you almost get to see boob during the amputee sex scene. Hey, it’s important to me, okay? I actually do recommend this movie because it’s the worst thing you’ll ever see. If you go in expecting not to be shaking your head and asking yourself “HAHA WHAT THE FUCK?!” the whole time, you’re going to hate it. It’s terrible, it really is. I think Lindsay was going for something sexy and sinister, like along the lines of Showgirls, but this movie isn’t even as good as Showgirls (which is one of my favorite movies). I’m sure Lindsay, as well as Julia Ormond and anybody else trying to have a career is totally mortified that this movie was ever made. Not me though. I’ll watch it every damn time I can, just to laugh.

I give it 2/10 if I’m taking it seriously, but an 8/10 on pure atrocity.


And, as always, I want to hear your opinions. Let's hear it, MogulArmy, I know you're going to rip this movie to shreds. <3

Orphan - Review

Orphan (2009)

When I was younger and first starting out in my lifetime of horror fanaticism, I used to go to the video store with my parents and stare at the horror movie covers. I picked which horror movies I’d rent based on their covers. Okay, I totally understand this isn’t the best method, but I still do it today. So, one day I was cruising around Wal-Mart (don’t judge me) with my boyfriend and I saw the cover for the movie Orphan. I immediately knew this was one of those movies I had to see. Didn’t buy it, but thankfully it was on one of the movie channels, like, the next day so I didn’t have to wait long. And since then I’ve literally watched it hundreds of times. I watch it almost every time it’s on TV – and Jesus is it on a lot.

So let’s get to it. The movie opens with a miscarriage that doesn’t really make sense. There’s blood and we can hear the baby’s cry, even though we learn the baby didn’t make it. Of course, later we find out this was just a dream and that the mother, Kate, lost the baby before birth. It’s not really an important part of the movie, but I won’t go into it further. It does, however, prompt her desire to adopt an orphan with her husband. She has two other children: a pre-teen boy and a young girl who suffers from hearing loss. I appreciated how they dealt with the hearing loss – there were times when the sound goes completely out and one is left with signing and subtitles. It’s touching.

In any case, they end up adopting Esther, a young girl from Russia (cough cough) who dresses like a perfect little doll. I have to say Isabelle Fuhrman’s performance as Esther is freaking perfect. She was born in Washington DC for Christ’s sake, but I never once doubted her performance as a young Russian (cough cough) girl. There’s something so precious and devilish, so mature in her performance. In any case, it becomes abundantly clear that little orphan Esther has some issues. And as good of a movie as it is, I have to point out it rips off The Bad Seed (1956) quite a bit.

Anyway, there’s a pretty big secret in this movie, and the end goes places you probably won’t expect. The performances are all pretty extraordinary, but I feel like the awkward sex scenes between the two parents are completely unnecessary. I don’t know, it cheapens it. God knows I love sex scenes in my horror movies. I’m a true child of 80’s slasher flix in that way. But this? God, it was like watching your own parents do it doggystyle in the kitchen. You’re just waiting for one of their kids to walk in. You know it’s going to happen. I understand the point of it is to have Esther see it, so the audience can get a good grasp of how mature she is (Esther remarks to her mother later that she understands what two adults in love do: “they fuck.”), but I feel like it was unnecessary to the plot and could have been achieved in other ways. It’s not even hot. Sex scenes in horror movies should be super hot or people should get murdered while doing it or right after.

I definitely recommend this movie, and I have quite a few times. Watch it just for Isabelle Fuhrman’s performance. Watch it to be surprised, even if you don’t buy it. I know a lot of people don’t buy it. And on a last note – the dad totally should have gone for it. Just saying.

My rating: 8/10

Don't forget to leave your opinions in the comments - I want to hear what you think!

Survival of the Dead

I would like to subtitle this post “That’s enough, George Romero.”
I don’t even really need to worry about spoilers, do I? Same shit happens in every single Romero movie. Zombies kill almost everybody. The story-line is so insignificant and extraneous. Basically two families are a-fussin’ and a-feudin’ over how to deal with the zombie population inhabiting/invading their island. Okay now you’re up to speed. That’s all you need to know.

I had such low expectations for this movie. Romero peaked with Dawn of the Dead – I don’t think anybody will argue that. Day of the Dead was good, but couldn’t capture what made Dawn so fantastic (I still say Dawn of the Dead is the best zombie movie ever made). Then Land of the Dead. I thought that sucked pretty hard…until Diary of the Dead came out, and I realized that it COULD get worse. Infinitely worse. Surprisingly, Survival of the Dead was not nearly as bad as Diary of the Dead.

One thing I want to say is that Romero should be embarrassed by the shameless Apple plug, as the kid calls a laptop a “stupid PC” then whips out his iPod Touch (it could have been an iPhone, but it looked too thin) and says something ridiculous like “now THIS is cool.” Seriously, George? I’m not even going to call you Mr. Romero anymore because you’ve shattered any respect for you I once had. I’ll get more into that in a moment.

Aside from that, there were things I definitely appreciated about this movie. It didn’t beat you over the head with the social commentary like Diary of the Dead did (“If you don’t film it, it didn’t happen!” Seriously, if you missed that, you need to hit yourself in the face with a brick because you are retarded), and thus I appreciated the message much more. It isn’t even all that clear until the last 30 seconds of the movie, and it’s easy to ignore it and just focus on the superficial violence and splatter.

However, the “superficial violence and splatter” was just gratuitous garbage. The movie is far too serious (not campy like Dawn of the Dead) in its examination of “the bad guy” to then see a zombie’s head ablaze from taking a flare to the chest. The special effects were on par with one of those terrible SyFy movies that I love for being so terrible and low budget, but it didn’t fit at all in Survival of the Dead. It was terrible. It was embarrassing. Don’t even get me started on the horse riding zombie. And what, zombies don’t eat people anymore? Seriously? No, this is best forgotten by everyone.

George, you are no longer the master of the zombie movie, and as far as I’m concerned nobody has taken your crown yet. You just abandoned it. There’s a reason you aren’t getting a decent budget for these movies – you just don’t have it anymore. And that’s a shame, because you obviously didn’t have a huge budget for Dawn of the Dead and you managed to turn that into cinematic gold. With every single new “…of the Dead” movie you put out, you trample and kill whatever respect I had left for you. I suppose I have to give you some kind of credit, seeing as how this was better than Diary of the Dead, but I honestly feel like you’d have to try pretty damn hard to make it worse. Diary of the Dead was MAYBE a 3/10, and I’d give Survival of the Dead 5/10. Just stop now, okay? Just stop while you’re KIND OF ahead. Just stop.

Cape Fear (1991) Review

Cape Fear (1991)

Cape Fear was recommended to me recently by a friend. When I said I was going to watch it, many rejoiced in my decision and touted it as an excellent movie. I was excited, but also a little concerned with how I’d explain to everyone that I thought it sucked, if I indeed thought it sucked. Luckily, that was a fantastic movie and I don’t have to worry about that.

My father was right. #1: Never trust a man who puts bumper stickers on his 1965 Mustang Convertible. #2: Too much ground clearance can be a bad, bad thing.

This movie kept me going with so many twists, turns, and jumps it was almost unbelievable. I can’t even pick a stand-out performance because each performance was flawless. De Niro was spot-on, as usual, as well as extremely charismatic, and both terrifying and likeable. It was the perfect balance. I read that the high school auditorium scene with De Niro and Juliette Lewis was complete improv and shot in one take. I just…wow. This is the best performance I’ve ever seen of Juliette Lewis.

This is the worst review I’ve ever done because I’m not used to liking a movie this much. The whole time I kept trying to think of what I would say, and all I can say is that it was fantastic. I’d love to say something deep here, about Nolte’s dishonesty toward his client begetting this kind of evil, and I can’t. Maybe something about how we’ve all felt the desperate need for revenge? Eh. I mean, you can’t help but sympathize with De Niro’s character, when he’s talking about being sodomized for 14 years and Nolte is trying to pay him off with $10,000. But I can think of nothing witty nor thoughtful to say. I know, I’m such a let-down. Sigh.
In any case, definitely see this movie. I can’t imagine why I’ve avoided it for so long. Man’s unrelenting desire for revenge, the fear of consequence, an absolutely crazy Robert De Niro burned, soaked, and speaking in tongues – it’s all in there. I have to give this 10 out of 10. I can’t find anything wrong with it.

Tell me what you think!

Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Review

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Nightmare on Elm Street has always been my favorite horror series. I hear this fairly often, and so I went in with a great deal of caution when I saw the 2010 remake. My main concern was Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy. I’ve always loved all things Freddy, even the poorly received television series Freddy’s Nightmares. Robert Englund…oh how I love him. Let me say that again. I love him. I’ve always a creepy little crush on Robert Englund’s Freddy Krueger. So Jackie Earle Haley? Rorschach? The kid from Bad News Bears?

Ugh, I just don’t know.

My first obstacle: having to overlook the crowd of 18 year olds I was surrounded by. The girl in front of me screamed constantly, even though the guy next to me, who was chugging cough syrup (at one point he dropped the bottle and it shattered) kept telling her to shut up every time.

In any case, let’s get to my review. It stands up solid as a horror movie. It’s much darker than the originals, mainly because Haley plays Krueger in a much different fashion than Englund. Englund pulled off that sarcastic, maniacal nightmare killer, but Haley’s was much more sadistic. They did his make-up in a way I found looking sort of inhuman, which I suppose makes sense. But the main difference was that they pulled no punches about Freddy Krueger being a pedophile. The original 1984 version doesn’t even touch that. In fact, I hardly remember anything in the originals until 5, in which they lightly touch on the fact that he MAY have been a pedophile. But again, there was still an element of fun in the originals, and this one lacked that entirely. This remake fools the audience for quite some time into feeling bad for Freddy, and I felt like I was betraying my horror roots. Freddy Krueger is not a sympathetic character. Not in any way, shape, or form, although Englund’s Freddy certainly had a likable quality to him. The 2010 remake unfortunately might be forgettable. Englund’s Krueger had such charm that made him memorable.

I didn’t enjoy other small plot changes, like micronaps. Micronaps are, essentially, when the body is starved of sleep, so the brain forces sleep and the person doesn’t realize they’re asleep. Remember A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child? So in that one, the main character is pregnant, and Freddy is able to come in through the fetus’s dreams. Yeah, the 2010 basically rips this idea off. It felt cheap, and forced. Same effect, less imagination.

From this fan’s perspective it was worth seeing. I give it a B- rating. While it loses points for micronaps, it maintains a decent rating for its perspective on the story. It is what it is. It lacked the charisma of the originals, it lacked what made them GOOD. That’s the risk you take when you remake a movie that earned 6 sequels – 7 if you count Freddy v. Jason. It’s impossible not to compare the two. I feel that if you weren’t a fan of the originals, like if you’d never seen them (more to the crowd of 18 year olds I saw this with), then you’d like this one just fine.

The Human Centipede

Whorticulture.com movie review of The Human Centipede: The First Sequence

The Human Centipede: The First Sequence

I first encountered Human Centipede when I randomly came across the trailer on YouTube. It made me totally squeamish, which OF COURSE made me want to watch it. I had to know. I had to know what the three people sewn together looked like. I had to satisfy my curiosity. I tried my damndest to make it to Midnite Movie Mamacita’s showing of it over the weekend and I couldn’t do it. It became available to me a few days later and I was prompted by my boyfriend to watch it. However by this point I’d developed a deep fear of watching it. What if it made me puke? What if it was truly terrifying and I cried or something? I’d never be able to call myself a bad ass again. The last thing I want to be is a pussy. So my boyfriend bugged me, and bugged me, until finally I sat back and started the movie.

Okay seriously? That “Mein Lieber 3-Hund” thing is HILARIOUS. I wanted to see the three dogs, damn it. I really did. That picture just didn’t do it for me. And throughout the whole movie I just felt bad for Herr Doktor because he missed his dogs.

I was totally disappointed with the movie, but…well, let me explain. I came in with SERIOUSLY high hopes. I wanted it to make me freak out. I wanted it to be so disgusting, so intrusive to my mental state. I wanted to be SCARRED by this! And I totally wasn’t. However I’d still say it was a good movie. Don’t get me wrong. I read a review that said “love it or hate it, THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE is a visceral ride that will leave nobody indifferent.” (wearemoviegeeks.com) That’s the damn truth. You’re going to have an opinion on it, and I want to hear it. But let me say this: there was no gore, very little blood. The surgery was like, Nip/Tuck level. I gagged once, when the Japanese guy had to take a shit. Other than that, it was tame. Really, surprisingly tame for what I’d heard. And really, for a movie that’s pretty much all about ass-to-mouth, I expected more scenes that would make me puke.

Dieter Laser, or Herr Doktor as I’ve taken to calling him, is really the stand-out performance in this movie. He’s a creepy looking dude. His bone structure is almost over-exaggerated. Not to the point where he looks like a freak or anything, but he pulls off creepy in this impeccably. Everything about his performance was impeccable. From the first minute he was on the screen. Out-fucking-standing.

With that said, I have to say I was completely disappointed with the ending. I was screaming at the TV. “What the fuck, you can’t just END this way!!” Oh, but it did. And I guess it’s to leave it open for the sequel coming out in 2011, but COME THE FUCK ON. I want to say how it ends so badly but I won’t. I’ll be nice, just this once. Jerk asses. But how in the hell are they going to get a sequel from it? No idea. It was the most anticlimactic ending of a movie I think I’ve ever seen. But it worked, I’m totally going to see the sequel. Damn you, Tom Six.

This movie seems to have seriously affected some of its viewers. I guess I’m just a sick, jaded motherfucker.

I give it 8 out of 10. Drink this pretty poison…if you dare.