THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)

After an evening at the opera a group of high society snobs gather at the palatial mansion of Mr. and Mrs. Noble for a lavish dinner party. Later in the evening, when the party should be winding down, nobody leaves the room because nobody can leave the room. There's no mention made of the fact, instead they all make inconsequential pretexts to stay. It's like there's and invisible barrier holding everybody in. The servants have already left and now it's just the rich elitists shipwrecked in their own in private prison. Over time they begin to starve and revert back to almost cavemen.

As far as critical analysis goes I think the guy who paid for the film, producer Gustavo Alatriste, said it best: "I don't understand a thing in it. It's marvelous!" I agree. It's not a perfect film and it's not for everybody, but it is marvelous all the same. If you are into the finer side of Cinema then I recommend it. Or if you're into watching completely mindless garbage then there's always SLIMED.

As far as any symbolism goes this is what Bunuel himself had to say:

"I have not introduced a single symbol into the film, and those who hope for a thesis work from me, a work with a message, may keep on hoping! It is open to doubt whether EL ANGEL EXTERMINADOR is capable of interpretation. Everyone has the right to interpret it as he wishes. There are some who give it an interpretation that is solely erotico-sexual, others political. I would give it rather a historico-social interpretation. But when critics at the Cannes press conference asked Juan Luis why there is a bear in the film, wandering through the smart party, he answered, "Because my father likes bears." It's true. There are those who interpret the bear as the Soviet Union about to devour the bourgeoisie. That is nonsense. Then they asked him what was the meaning of the repetitions of shots in the film. I had anticipated this and told Juan Luis: "Answer that when I finished the film I decided it was still short, so to lengthen it..." People always want an explanation to everything. It is the consequence of centuries of bourgeois education. And for everything for which they cannot find an explanation, they resort in the last instance to God. But what is the use of that to them? Eventually they have to explain God."

FROM HELL (2001)

On a scale of 0 - 10 I'd give FROM HELL a solid 4. The story of Jack the Ripper is one of the greatest in all of serial killer history, but yet the makers of this movie somehow figured out a way to make it dry and boring, even with an talented an actor as Johnny Depp in the main role.

Depp plays a police inspector who is aided by psychic visions (say what?), he also likes to "chase the dragon" with the help of opium and absinthe. Depp is not surprised when the first murder happens because he saw it all in a dream.  Oh brother! The victim is a prostitute and as Depp delves deeper into the mystery he discovers that there is a organized conspiracy afoot! He also discovers that he would like to delve deep into hooker Heather Graham.

That's all well and good (even though I'm not much of a believer in the cult conspiracy theory), but the overall feel of the movie is just wrong. It feels like a movie. Everything looks like a movie set and I wasn't drawn into the story for even a second. Very little blood, zero gore, zero tits, zero tension, not dark or gritty at all, small amount of cleavage, nothing new to add to the Jack the Ripper story and a script so pathetic I'm actually surprised that this film even got made. Out of all of the hundreds of Jack the Ripper scripts that I'm sure are floating around Hollywood this was the best one?!! Bullshit. Skip it with a vengeance.

If you need me I'll be in my room reading Caleb Carr's masterful "The Alienist". Yes, I know it has nothing to do with the Jack the Ripper case, but it's still awesome!

If there was really cheap hookers like this (the one on the left) back in 1888 then I'm gonna go fire up the ol' time machine! BRB.

GOBLIN (2010)

A family goes to visit a small town in the middle of nowhere because the father was invited to discuss a real estate deal. Unfortunately, it's Halloween and the town is cursed due to a baby vs. bonfire incident back in 1831 and now every Halloween, a "goblin" (who incidentally looks nothing like the creature on the DVD cover above) rises from the (still existing) ashes of the bonfire to go on the prowl for yummy baby flesh.

Surprisingly, GOBLIN was better than I expected it to be, then again I expected it to suck.  The acting and production values were better than it really should have been and the story had a nice amount of twists and turns to keep the viewer interested. The main problem is the goblin itself. For the majority of the film he ran around in a oversized black hood and clawed people to death, then at the end when he's finally unveiled in all his CGI glory he looked like crap.

Interesting low-budget horror, but with zero nudity, very little blood/gore, dwindling pace, an unappealing monster and forgettable characters I can't recommend it. It's not horrible, but there just so many other superior horror movies out there that I can't with a clean conscience recommend you spend your time watching GOBLIN.  It's kind of a pointless movie.  Honestly, you'd have a much better time watching an old episode of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.