THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (First Sequence) by jaiskizzy

apercu:: a reclusive german surgeon who was once the best at separating siamese twins has gone cuckoo and has decided that doing the opposite of his former work is more fun. after successfully creating his sweet little three-dog, he moves up the food chain for his next diabolical project: the human centipede. lo and behold, two girls lost in the woods come knocking at his doorstep to be part of his effed-up experiment. ladies and gentlemen, the doctor is in...sane.

reaction: with people all over the intertubes making a collective cringe of disgust for the human centipede, it is only natural for me to have high expectations for this movie. as a film junkie, a large portion of my addiction for movies constitutes gore flicks. i just love gore. i dont know if having viewed so much of them has affected my aversion for the appalling or if i was simply born with a strong stomach, but after watching the human centipede, all i could think of was, "that was it?" roger ebert wouldnt even give it a star rating because according to him it exists where "stars don't shine." no, it doesn't mr. ebert. it exist in "promising but disappointing." the human centipede = not gross at all.

the only part that had any effect on me was when dr. heiter was explaining through an overhead projector what he was going to do to the victims. i had zero knowledge of what the movie title actually meant and when all was revealed, i had slight trepidations with continuing to watch the movie (much like when the 2 girls 1 cup video went meme). but of course curiosity won and i watched dr. heiter perform his peculiar procedure. which was kinda lame. the gore was next to nothing. and then when the human centipede was finished, i felt cheated. the garbage pail kids movie was more revolting. there's a movie with a near similar premise, crazy doctor abducts people and tortures them. it's entitle grotesque and is light years better than this.

the actors were pretty so-so, except for the japanese guy. the guy who played dr. heiter, i thought, overdid it. he was hamming it up like it was a theater play plus there was no evil behind his madness so i found his whole performance off-putting.

anyways, final words: the human centipede is more snore than gore. im sure there are plenty of people out there who'd still barf at this movie but for a better gore film experience, find and watch grotesque instead.


the good: the idea of the human centipede
the bad: dr. heiter, the actual human centipede, plotholes
the ugly: the japanese dude
the verdict: 4 glasses of water with rohypnol

dr. jaiter

Read More

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010) by jaiskizzy

apercu: teenagers dying from wet dreams. and by wet i meant because of blood. the moment they hit snooze mode, they enter nightmare zone and fall prey to freddy krueger, a guy who wears a fedora hat, striped shirt, a bladed glove and a face that looks like he scratched an itch here and there and forgot he was wearing said glove. why he kills them is what our insomniac protagonists must find out before mr. krueger decides to join iron chef with them as the secret ingredient.

remake schremake. why hollywood loves barfing these out, i'll never understand. out-of-work actors? because they are bad actors. with remakes, the cast is usually a who's who of who-are-yous. inclusion of bigtimers either means her/his career is decayed/decaying or will decay after the movie. money? nah. most remakes, especially in the horror genre, flop at the box-office. new audience? if so, then they mst believe that moviegoers of today are complete idiots because nearly every remake is a dumbed down version of the original. such is the case with this year's a nightmare on elm street.

if they wanted to introduce freddy krueger to the new masses who never met him before, then this is the worst way ever to do so. it's like, "hey, i'd like you to meet a friend of mine." and the guys just starts shitting in your face. what made the original film a classic has been replaced by a humongous pile of diarrhea. there is absolutely nothing frightening about this "horror" movie. there are more scares in taking a dump than watching this movie. the script is boring. for a movie about not wanting to fall asleep, this sure makes you want to. none of the nightmare deaths are creative. there are only about four kills and they didnt bother to make it interesting. there's one where a girl is lifted in the air and thrown around the room. it looks stupid, partly because it resembles the tori spelling scene in scary movie 2. and speaking of scene call, there's a part where the new nancy is in a car and she tries to stay awake by imitating mr. bean.

the biggest turd about this movie is the new freddy krueger. jackie earle haley was great as rorschach and creeptastic in little children but he doesnt translate well as freddy. this freddy is not scary or funny like in the original. he's just plain creepy, in a bad way. not just because they messed up his backstory by adding something pedobear would approve of. the whole portrayal didnt gel right. he's creepily twitching his finger blades together and yet with his creepy stalker voice he's giving out ridiculous one-liners. what's up with that? and why the hell did they have to change freddy's face? he looks like an alien. cant blame jackie boy though. with piece of crap script, half-ass direction and cardboard co-stars, you make do with what you have and take the cash.

a nightmare on elm street is a piece of crap through and through. i could imagine wes craven facepalming. also, i apologize for the incessant fecal references but shit is the only thing i could think of when talking about this movie. stick to blowing stuff up, michael bay.

the good: original bathtub scene nod

the bad: script, cast, direction

the ugly: freddy

the verdict: 2 jump ropes

skizobear

Read More