The Conqueror (1956)

Director: Dick Powell

Starring: John Wayne, Susan Hayward, Pedro Armendariz, Agnes Moorehead, William Conrad, Lee Van Cleef

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Surpasses anything ever filmed before!

Plot: Mongol chief Temujin battles against Tartar armies and for the love of the Tartar princess Bortai. Temujin becomes the emperor Genghis Khan.

My rating: 3/10

Will I watch it again? Nooooooooooo!


It's a sub-standard adventure film of the period that should have been at least a standard one. The rumors are true - this is probably the worst incidence of mis-casting in a major motion picture. John Wayne looks the part but acts like...John Wayne. Take the mustache off, put him and everyone else in cowboy clothes and you've got yourself a typical Western. Hell, they even filmed it in Utah, not too far from where Wayne did a bunch of pictures with John Ford.


What makes this film bad isn't necessarily Wayne, although he's fun to laugh at (and even that gets old quick), it's the sluggish pace and the overall blandness that hurts. There's just not much life in it. It's great to see Armendariz, Cleef, Moorehead and Conrad, but there's only so much you can take when there's a lot to snooze on. It was a chore to get through the nearly two hours. Woof.


There's an urban legend that most of the people associated with this film (who were on the set) developed cancer, many dying from it. It was filmed more than a hundred miles downwind of a nuclear test site. Read the trivia for this film on imdb to get the gist of it. However, this could be somewhat blown out of proportion and just not true at all. Michael D. Shaw wrote a piece about the details of the claims and the facts surrounding it. If what he says is true (as long as the facts are there to back up his research, then it is) there's nothing to the claim that THE CONQUEROR killed The Duke. CLICK HERE for the entire post.

Hubble (2010)

Director: Toni Myers

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio (narrator), astronauts

More info: IMDb

Plot: An IMAX 3D camera chronicles the effort of 7 astronauts aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis to repair the Hubble Space Telescope.

My rating: 7/10

Will I watch it again? No.

The local IMAX theater here is at a museum and it's not one of the stupid-huge IMAX theaters that shows theatrical releases. That said, they also aren't equipped to show 3D. THAT would have been nice. The doc's good but I wanted more spacescapes and images FROM the Hubble telescope as opposed to the missions to repair it. For a 40 minute film you get maybe 5 minutes of images toward the very end and they were breathtaking to say the least. That segment gave me chills. It'd be kind of like paying to see The Beatles perform and you get a 35 minute film about them followed by the four of them showing up and performing A Day In the Life, taking their bows and leaving. It's just not nearly enough. Must. Have. More!

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Director: Samuel Bayer

Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, whiney actors in their 20s pretending to be in their teens

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Never Sleep Again.

Plot: A re-imagining of the horror icon Freddy Krueger, a serial-killer who wields a glove with four blades embedded in the fingers and kills people in their dreams, resulting in their real death in reality.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? Uh-uh.

Was this a joke? All of the actors playing high school kids are between the ages of 23 & 26. Really? It seemed pretty obvious with most of them. Was this supposed to be camp? I don't think so but the casting and bland storytelling leaves room for doubt. It was only in the past few years that I saw the original for the first time and I really liked it. It was interesting and Kruger hadn't become the wise cracking funny man that he later became.


Haley was spot-on for Kruger. I loved the more gruesome makeup than the original. Haley's performance was fantastic and that's where any fun or anything interesting ends. It's produced by Michael Bay's company so there's a SHIT TON of jump scares. Too many things seemed convenient for the sake of the story and there were far too many silly one-liners from Kruger to give him the impact this actor and character deserve. When it came to his dialogue it felt like they were operating with the assumption this is their one and only chance at making a Freddy Kruger movie so they'd better throw it all in or lost their chance forever. It's a real pisser, too, because some of his lines were fantastic and creepy.

In a movie that relies on the dream world to sell the story, there's very little imagination at play. I was let down but not surprised by it.

Dorm (2006)

Director: Songyos Sugmakanan

Starring: Charlie Trairat, Chintara Sukapatana, Sirachuch Chienthaworm

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Every dorm has a tale. But this tale, you will never forget.

Plot: When 12-year-old Ton (Trairat) transfers to an all-boys boarding school, he's taunted by his peers and terrified by their tales about the ghosts that inhabit the school. Ton is utterly miserable -- until he befriends a mysterious fellow pupil.

My rating: 8/10

Will I watch it again? It could happen

Excellent ghost story out of Thailand! It's less on horror than most would like but it's a very well-told story that has charm, humor and tenderness...and a ghost who dies every evening at 6pm. It starts out like a lot of typical Asian horror films but before you know it, you're going somewhere unexpected and poignant. The performances by the children, particularly Trairat, are first rate. Highly recommended.

The Dark Side of Porn: Does Snuff Exist? (2006)

Director: Evy Barry

Starring: Ian Michie (narrator), Eli Roth, Ruggero Deodato, Ken Lanning, Bernard Rose

More info: IMDb

Plot: BBC look at whether or not Snuff films really exist. Snuff as defined by the FBI and the film is a film that shows some one being killed which was produced for gratification of the viewer who pays to see the film. The film takes a look at the start of the rumors of snuff films, the latching on by exploitation producers and how the ability of anyone to shoot video with things such as mobile phones and put them up on the Internet have made the existence of a such a film likely.

My rating: 8/10

Will I watch it again? Nah. Once was fine but I'm not exactly opposed to it.

So last night the roomie and I watched SNUFF: A DOCUMENTARY ABOUT KILLING ON CAMERA (2008). I felt like there was probably something out there on this subject that was better than what they presented. There is and it's this one. Part of a UK TV documentary series, THE DARK SIDE OF PORN, this episode dealt with the history of the snuff film, or better yet, the history of the belief in snuff films. It's a much better film than the one above. It's not sensational but rather a straight forward examination of the history and evidence or the lack of. It covers some of the same ground as the other pic but it's less on theatrical/video films and anecdotes and more on facts. That matters and the difference is night and day. It's also more digestible at 48 minutes. Part 1 is on YouTube above. It's very informative.

Snuff: A Documentary About Killing on Camera (2008)

Director: Paul von Stoetzel

Starring: Mark L. Rosen, Larry C. Brubaker, Raymond P. Whalen, people with initials for their middle name

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Ever seen a Snuff Film?

Plot: Feature film examining the existence of films in which people are murdered on camera and the culture surrounding them. Through interviews with former FBI Profilers, Cultural Academics, and Film Historians the documentary delves into the disturbing history and myth of Snuff Films. The FBI claims there is no evidence to prove the existence of Snuff and, therefore, Snuff Films are a myth. This documentary analyzes the relationships between war, cult films, serial killers and pornography to prove whether or not this pervasive myth is, in fact, reality.

My rating: 5/10

Will I watch it again? No

Their definition of a snuff film is one where someone is killed on film for the sole purpose of selling it for profit. Fair enough. That definition may be too narrow for most but whatever. If that's where they're going to start, they'd better have a strong finish, right? The talking heads are all over the place whether they exist or not ending with one of the producers, Rosen, telling the story of how he was approached by someone from the Philippines in the 70s to market his actual snuff film. Rosen sounds convincing but I'm not sold. It's too sensational and manipulative for me to believe. It's almost too well told. Reading the comments on imdb afterward, many point out the inaccuracies and outright lies found in the film. That's a cause for suspicion as well.


I couldn't help but be skeptical when watching it. It's short enough (76 minutes) to kill some time but there's too much footage from movies like SNUFF (1976), HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1986), CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST (1980) that pads the film. There's also a great deal of time spent on filmed beheadings by al-qaeda that will turn most people off, including me. There's no need to actually show the beheadings but they do, only to be sensational. That's where my big issue lies is that this 'documentary' crosses the line from wanting to inform to almost wanting to become the subject itself. I'm all about sensationalism - but not here, not this time. It's available on Netlix instant viewing if you still care.

Stigmata (1999)

Director: Rupert Wainwright

Staring: Patricia Arquette, Gabriel Byrne, Jonathan Pryce

More info: IMDb

Tagline: The Messenger is Here

Plot: An ordinary young woman is affected by mysterious wounds called Stigmata. When a Catholic Priest comes to investigate the so called "miracle", he discovers this woman may be possessed by someone...or something...and a message originating from the time of Jesus Christ.

My rating: 6/10

Will I watch it again? Noop.

Here's a flick that doesn't go where you think it's going to...but it should. Too bad, too, 'cause I would've probably preferred it. It's not total shit but I found my interest waining often. Whenever Arquette experienced a stage of the stigmata, we're treated to loud sounds, screams, hyper-stylized film making. That's all fine and good but it's over the top and forced. And she doesn't get to experience the fifth and final stage that would kill her. They sure did talk about that stage enough. Show it, damn you! That this is a thriller/horror with the obligatory boss fight at the end just makes it even more typical. I liked the idea behind it but the execution fell short of being compelling.