Naked Lunch (1991)

Found in my "Videohound's Cult Flicks & Trash Picks". The thinking man's drug movie. Why isn't this requested more than "Requiem for a Dream", "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" or even "Kids", or "Blow". That will never make sense to me. A very big green mark with blue stars. I will watch this, trying to solve the puzzle of this drug ridden universe. Thank you David Cronenberg for messing with my mind.

The Naked Flame (1964)

Found in my "Videohound Cult Flicks & Trash Picks" book. A surprising pink mark. The ending, despite the hilarity to get there, surprised me ... and that is a great reason why I would still suggest this to those eager to explore in Cinema Underground. A lost 60s hit? Doubtful. Worthy of a view.

Naked Killer (1992)

Found in my "Videohound's Cult Flicks & Trash Picks", this is the beginning of a whole new chapter of "N", and it started off really rocky. Took three views to watch this, and the pseudo-lesbian assassins just didn't do it for me. Horrible. Yellow highlight with black mark. Never to be watched again - NEVER! (re: until "Naked Killer 2")

Quackser Fortune Has a Cousin in the Bronx (1970)

Found in my "Videohound 2009" book, it is getting a yellow highlight with black line. Not to be watched ever again.

Quake (1992)

Found in my "Videohound 2009" book, this is getting a pink rating.

QB VII (1974)

This is an odd film/miniseries to discuss. In one hand, I don't want our small readership to believe that I harbor any ill will towards the Jewish people OR what tragically happened during the Holocaust, but in the same sense, I do want to express my feelings against this very strange miniseries. Let's begin with a bit of history, QB VII was/is considered one of the original pioneers of the miniseries. With lush landscapes, elongated story, and big named stars - this film ushered in what we now consider everyday television on stations like HBO, Cinemax, or even the Sci-fi network. Basically, there would be no "Battlestar Galactica", no "Angels in America", no "Temple Grandin" to merely name a few. The television world opened anew with this one title, and for that - applause happens. BUT, this isn't the greatest cinematic wonder. Anthony Hopkins and Ben Gazzara play well against each other, but the ultimate question becomes ... WHY? The answer to that comes in the form of another question. Why didn't it? With two great powerhouses leading us down a very poignant road, but the story becomes too muddied, to jumbled with length that by the end, the sympathy has shifted in the wrong direction. Who are we, as audience members, supposed to be rooting for by the end? Now don't be surprised, but by the end, I was rooting for Hopkins.

Was it better editing? Did Hopkins garner more sympathy because we focused on him longer? Was Gazzara just portrayed as this bitter man? At the end of this movie, I hated Gazzara. I hated what he had done to Hopkins' character. While it was obvious that Hopkins was this evil Holocaust doctor who performed horrid experiments onto innocent people, but by the end of this movie, I felt Hopkins felt remorse for what he had done, the actual story had become so blurred that there was a part of me that just felt that Gazzara was just hateful instead of striding for justice. Is that the purpose of this film? Were we to see the human side of evil? Were we to see that two guys who never knew each other suddenly clashed in the courthouse over the word? Was I bamboozled by the entire film and was it supposed to be merely an anagram for getting your comeuppance? Why do I have a million questions with this film? As this film rattles around in my mind, I need to be more subjective in my reasoning for questioning the validity of this film. I think the actual story itself is amazing. This doctor, who obviously did extremely wrong things under Nazi control, must now 50 years later, pay for his crimes. Brought down by a snot-nosed writer who seemingly hates everyone (and I hated him). The production of QB VII was beautiful. The places that this film took you was amazing. While we traveled to this lush locations, keep in mind, we followed Hopkins' character of Kelno. We watch his family grow, we see them overcome hurdles, meanwhile Gazzara is throwing his life in the garbage, yet he is the victor?

I will stop with the questions. I now realize I am not going to get anywhere of value with this review, the questions that I have with this movie are just going to overtake anything of value that I say. I notice this film also has quite a bit of positive comments. Was I the only one that saw this huge problem? Again, I realize the power of the story behind the story, but our filmmakers lost the focus. I mean, completely lost the focus. I think we should have focused more on the courtroom drama, the tension between Hopkins and Gazzara should have been stronger. The defined bad/good guy should have been there. I should have been angry at Hopkins instead of Gazzara, but it just wasn't that way. Again, this was a strong idea - the courtroom drama scenes were tense, Hopkins grabbed you with his idioms, but the rest, the filler - the points A to B - were just mediocre at best. Overall, what turned out to be nearly three hours should have merely been two and the same result would have profited.

Found in my "Videohound 2009" book, QB VII took too long to watch, but the end result was decent. I liked Hopkins (if you couldn't tell), but maybe it is just the acting style of Gazzara, but I couldn't see him as our anti-hero. His life was in shambles, he was an uncontrollable wild card, and that forced "love" between he and his son at the end felt more schmaltzy than true. I liked the premise of this film, but the final execution really faltered. In the end, I think I could slightly suggest this film merely to show the raw power of Anthony Hopkins, but the rest just felt dated and boring. this was no Conspiracy (see made-for-TV movie with Branagh//Tucci). It is getting a pink mark. Good, not great - definitely not re-watchable.

Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (1991)

Who loves spending Wednesdays in the 90s? If you raised your hand, quietly put it down. In shame. Yes, there were some great films released in the early 90s, the big studios had decided they were going to churn them out faster than sticks of butter, but these past two films were not on that list. After watching Pale Blood, I was ready for another horror film that would attempt to scratch the surface of being spooky. I stumbled, literally, upon this - again - VHS only film entitled Curse III: Blood Sacrifice. Reading that it didn't quite follow the rest of the Curse series, I eagerly jumped into it. Hey, Christopher Lee headlines this film - could it really be THAT bad? Let me answer that with an unexciting, "meh". Curse III took the lackluster elements of Pale Blood and actually worked with a bit of a budget and a stronger story. Albeit, not the greatest, it still had more substance and consistency than the latter viewed motion picture. Standing back up, let me say this again, it wasn't the greatest horror movie I have seen, the scares were precursory, the characters were exquisitely one-dimensional, and the monster - well, the monster was probably the best thing about Curse III, proving that if you cannot must a decent cast, the story seems to be dwelling in the sub-standard region, have a good monster and it at least ranks along the "better" of horror movies.

I was reading a review about this film just now and the guy who commented on this film in the late 2000s mentioned that it was one of the best purchases he made, guaranteeing that if you like it, you won't hate it. Bold words. Yet, I somehow seem myself agreeing with him. This is not my best purchase of the year, but if someone dedicates a full two hours to this film, they will not be too disappointed. The great scenes of Africa actually add a nice flavor to this B-monster movie, but actually being on location works nicely. The pre-story, about the medicine man's family could have been fleshed out a bit more, and the family dynamic of our heroine should have been a bit more structured (who was who, and why were they always making out), but as for the idea of Voodoo within the culture, it played well. Christopher Lee was, well, himself. If you have seen one Lee performance, you have seen his rendition of "Doctor Pearson". Another great element that makes this an interesting monster movie is, unlike others of this nature, the monster from the sea doesn't really have any defense mechanisms. He doesn't have long claws or sharp teeth to kill his victims, he (sorry ladies, I can only assume it is a he) uses a machete. Pretty impressive as well as neat to show his mental intellect. Am I thinking too much into this film? Probably, but when was the last time that you saw a fish wield a machete? NEVER!

A family in Africa disrupts the day-to-day life of a witch doctor (see goat vs. witch doctor) and he sends trouble their way in the form of a machete wielding sea creature (sorry, I cannot stop saying that enough). Feeling like it came from the mind of Roger Corman (see Humanoids from the Deep), but with a budget a bit more appreciative of more modern horror films, Curse III made me feel better today. Again, I liked the destination and the visuals, the rest flopped like dead fish, but this film could stand on its own two fish. Interestingly enough, if you chose to watch this film, 1) listen to the score. It is odd, I can't describe it, but it sticks in your mind for a couple of hours after. It is impressive, nay, should I say catchy. 2) There is no humor in this film. This is a pre-goofiness horror movie and while you may find yourself laughing at the 1991 factor, overall it is a straight-forward horror tale, which is great to see especially today where horror seems to stand right next to comedy.

Found in my "Essential Monster Movie Guide", this is the last "P" (originally titled Panga - don't shoot me), and I must say that I was a bit impressed. There were parts of this movie that kept my attention, and there were other parts that failed. But again, at least it tried. I am not eager to run out and purchase the other Curse films, but wouldn't mind giving them a try. I hear the first one with Will Whaeton is a doozy. I just read someone liken this series to the "Beyond the Door" series. I can't wait. I think I am going to give this one a pink mark in my book. Not great, not bad - can I suggest it to friends. Maybe. I think I could watch this with a few drinks one night and would not turn away if I happen to stumble upon it during a late night TNT or TBS binge. Pink it is. It is going in the collection.

Pale Blood (1990)

One could say a New Year provides a plethora of new films, but this cozy reviewer doesn't mind taking a page from the early, early 90s. Out feeling ill today, there was a moment of nostalgia when I placed this movie into my VHS player. It felt like when I was young, I would go to the video store when I was sick, returning with a stack of new/old films, and cover myself for the day. It was joyous, now, with DVD, dying video stores, and streaming, what is the need? I still miss the golden days of rentals, and the joys of placing a VHS into the player when you are sick (aka the cure to the common cold). Today, was no different. The film of choice, Pale Blood was one of those feature films that went straight to video, had a thirty-minute plot, but with ample background footage and the occasional breast scene, this suddenly transformed into an erotic thriller. Mind you, there was nothing erotic nor thrilling about this obscure twist on the vampire genre. For those unaware of this film (which would probably be most), Pale Blood centers around killings in Los Angeles that look like they are happening by a vampire. Nobody believes this to be true, until a dark and shadowy figure gets off the airplane looking for another of his kind. Classic late 80s music ensues coupled with a lot, and I am going to stress this, a lot of B-roll background footage. People walking around, typical 80s, early 90s looking punks, all transitioning into a love-making scene. See, even in Pale Blood music can transform the lives of just about anyone - even if you are a vampire!

What about this film worked? Despite me arguing about the lackluster plot, there was a moment of ingenuity with it. I liked the concept that when vampires hear of other vampires making news, they hunt them down. I liked the idea that vampires were a dying breed, that they weren't just a normal occurance in this society. Nobody believed that they existed, but oddly, when they showed up, there were no skeptics. The thrills come from the filmmakers trying to lead us to the person actually doing the killings, and inevitably leading us to the big "GASP" of an ending. Strangely, you can see that coming before you can blink. In fact, by the half hour mark you know there is something strange happening between the vampire (an Italian man whose name escapes me for the moment) and this semi-hot detective (one should say private eye) who has a vampire fetish. When a mind meld occurs between the two of them, one who has seen movies like this in the past, should realize that they are joined together for the duration of this film. What just failed in Pale Blood was the simplistic nature of the overall plot of this film. We are only introduced to five characters, knowing that, we can logically figure out who the bad guy is going to be merely because he was the only other male in this film. They tried to make it creative by giving us this "mock" opening which revealed later, but again, it just seems forced and less exciting. I also need to applaud the filmmakers for not sticking with Hollywood standard with these women. Our leading ladies were not amazingly beautiful, they were - average - and it made this direct-to-home video seem, well, more direct-to-home.

With no budget, what seemed like a four day shooting schedule, and a sinister bad guy and diabolical good guy that had nothing more in common then being in the wrong place at the wrong time, Pale Blood did ultimately fail. It had a higher standard than the rest, but when it came down to the nuts and bolts, the excitement to watch this again just wasn't there. It reminded me of a less independent version of The Addiction (a misguided vampire film as well). While I appreciate the twist, or new idea on the vampire story, it is the story itself that fails. The foundation is merely supported with songs by Agent Orange and freakish close ups of the band leaders eyes. This is no Lost Boys, which I am happy about, but it should have been something. Money was no matter, the idea of plausible was thrown out the door, and again, this should have been a mere thirty minute long pilot episode. The ending is just comical, absolutely not filling in the remainder of the film. It, like everything else, just feels disjointed from the rest.

Found in my "Essential Monster Movie Guide", this is nearly the end of a string that has included both The Pagemaster, Paris When it Sizzles, and now onto another VHS called Curse III: Blood Sacrifice (apparently I don't need to see the other ones first). Wish me luck on that. Sadly, due to the misplaced feel of this film, it is getting a yellow mark with black line. I would not watch it again. If I would have seen this in a video store, I probably would have rented it, so it goes in my store. Alas, I don't think I could watch it again. I am sorry Agent Orange, your music did not pull me in the right direction!