|
|
|
REVIEWSPREVIEWS: House of 1000 Corpses
House of 1000 Corpses is a chaotic, cluttered ride till the very last frame. There is enough gushing and spurting blood in the movie to fill a tanker.
Two young couples are driving cross-country on Halloween to do research for a book on roadside attractions when they come across a horror museum. Their curiosity runs riot when they hear the tales of carnage committed by a local Dr Satan from the owner, Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig). Naturally, the gang want to explore the legend and taking advantage of their gullibility, the eccentric owner deliberately misguides them. On their way, they pick up a hitchhiker, Baby (Sheri Moon) and eventually end up at her house due to a flat tire. The unsuspecting thrill-seekers find themselves ensnared between the devil and the deep blue sea. The eerie family living at the house is trouble with a capital T, and seem to be possessed by a lust for satanic rites and other gory rituals. The rest of the movie is fairly predictable. The masquerade is conveniently blown while bloody scenes come in succession one after the other.
House of 1000 Corpses is a violence-packed, hackneyed slasher film. The story doesn’t move much and atrocious acting makes you wonder half way through what the picture is all about! Techno-metal artist Rob Zombie (former lead singer of metal band White Zombie) makes his directorial and screen-writing debut with the movie. It’s not a very ceremonious one. Zombie should just stick to singing and directing music videos. Less people get hurt that way. Inspired by revolutionary horror flick The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, House of 1000 Corpses is a forgettable film. Filled with laughter (evil of course), disfigured clowns (downright silly) and plenty of ketchup (definitely not yummy!), it is one movie you can afford to miss.—Taimur Saleem
Bulletproof Monk
.jpg)
Bulletproof Monk is a futile attempt at bringing together two racially different stars to cash in the trend that the duo of Eddie Murphy and Nick Nolte (48 Hours) or Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson (Shanghai Noon) started. But this formula worked in those flicks because at least one of the stars was an established actor. In this case, both Chow Yun-Fat and Sean William Scott are relatively unknown. But what’s more striking is the utter lack of chemistry between the two. There are attempts to create situations to squeeze a few laughs, but it all looks forced. Action-wise, it has the usual gravity defying stunts one would expect from such a movie, but nothing spectacular.A monk (Chow Yun-Fat) is given the responsibility of protecting a sacred scroll which, if it gets into the wrong hands, would mean curtains for the whole of humanity. Enter the villain — an old, haggard Nazi who has been after the monk for 60 years. While he looks ready to fall into his grave anytime, our monk is as young and healthy as he was back then. Did we tell you that the scripture has the powers of making its protector invincible?
Now, imagine fitting another character into this tale. The makers have managed to fit in not one but two. Sean William Scott is a petty thief and the unlikely partner of the monk and Jaime King plans an elusive woman aptly named Bad Girl who also happens to be Scott’s love interest. The print is decent but the sound is awful. The verdict: watch at your own peril.—Saqib Khan
Spider
.jpg)
No, Spider is not the tale of the infamous radioactive arachnid that bit Peter Parker, nor is it the sequel to last year’s runaway smash Spiderman. Instead, it’s a psychological thriller about a man (Ralph Fiennes) trying to put his life back together after his premature release from a mental institution. He keeps a diary, attempting to uncover the truth about his past and the death of his mother (Miranda Richardson), who used to call him “spider.” As the tale creeps and crawls, you’ll be ensnarled in a sticky web of intrigue and suspense.Director David Cronenberg disgusted and dazzled (and proved that both feelings can be simultaneous) in Dead Ringers and Dead Zone. Here, he is “dead-on” as he unravels the psychological threads holding Spider’s fragile sanity. As the protagonist’s stability falters, so does the viewer’s. Cronenberg once again manages to tease your mind and make you question your own perceptions. As Spider relives scenes from his youth (whether real, imagined, or a combination is not clear), his tenuous grip on reality weakens. Fact and fantasy are unstable ions as the director traps you in his web of murder, method and madness.—T.U. Dawood
|
|
|
|
