DEVIL (2010) (a review)

DEVIL (2010) (a review)

The first movie in a trilogy produced (but not directed) by M Night Shyamalan from an original story by him (but not a script written by him).

The story: a group of strangers are trapped in an elevator and one of them might be the devil.

Was it good?

Almost. The movie actually has a lot of fun elements. It doesn't feel like SIXTH SENSE at all. In fact it feels more like a very contained, non-flashback, supernatural version of USUAL SUSPECTS. The story begins with the story of how the devil walks the earth to cause people to lose faith. He kills someone in front of a person who loves them so that person will lose faith and turn away from God. And these events begin with a suicide, which this movie also begins with. This also allows for detectives to come on scene so you are not actually inside the elevator the whole time. This inside/out helps make the movie move a lot and was a great choice. They also do some cool things building the story. They don't start with a lot of supernatural stuff. It starts normal -- a suicide, an elevator stopping -- and then they build into the supernatural stuff. There also is a nice element to the story within the story -- the idea of the devil walking the earth -- that gave the movie another layer that could have really worked for it.

However, the problem is that nothing quite connects in the movie. There that the devil kills a person in front of a loved one so that loved one will lose faith is interesting, and for a long time the movie seems to be building to that, but then it stops and becomes about the detective, whose wife and child were killed in a hit and run, and him finding forgiveness for his wife/son's killer. It's almost like the movie was driving to a dark ending (much like USUAL SUSPECTS where the devil disappears) and then suddenly wanted to be happy, or at least hopeful and so tacked on an ending that didn't really fit and hadn't be built to properly. Instead, they should have done what U-S did and drive to that last final moment where we see the completition of the idea.

There also the problem of the people in the elevator. None of them had a particlarly interesting story and their backstories come into play much too late. It feels like the writer had a lot of different elements and was struggling to juggle them all and in the end just didn't try. So the first quarter is the normal part. The second quarter is the what the hell is going on part. The third part is the devil part. And the fourth part it the detective part. It makes the movie feel jumbled and disoriented, and especially the switch from the question of the devil to the detective's forgiveness in the last act, makes the whole feel much less than the sum of the pieces.

Still, it had enough I'm not surprised that some people might like it, and I'll certainly watch the sequel. But it also doesn't work enough that I would recommend it.

*** AVOID ***

INSANE (2009) (a review)

INSANE (2009) (a review)

A Swedish horror movie/thriller from the director of EVIL ED.

The story: A woman checks into a hotel and is killed. Then her sister comes looking for her and now will be stalked by the same killer.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't horrible either. It just wasn't good. The movie has a very PSYCHO feel, what with the weird guy running a hotel alone and the girl getting killed (although not in the shower) and then someone coming looking for the dead girl. It's hard to get more PSYCHO than that. This movie, however, is no PSYCHO. That movie had interesting characters -- the girl who steal money and goes on the run, the nice guy with the mother who turns out to have a strange and twisted psychological problem. This movie has none of that. Only the concept remains and everything interesting beneath it is gone. I don't even really know why the movie is called INSANE. Of course the killer is insane, but then aren't all of these serial killers insane? The movie doesn't play with sanity in any interesting way, and even with the two sisters being nearly identical there isn't anything playing with repetition or deja vu.

I guess the more impressive thing is that the movie isn't just garbage. It's watchable and has some interesting parts, but the lack of depth means everything interesting leads nowhere, building up to a climax that feels almost tacked on.

*** AVOID ***

EXAM (2009) (a review)

EXAM (2009) (a review)

An interesting thriller/drama.

The story: six people are put into a room as the last stage of a competition for an ultimate job. They are given a piece of paper that they cannot mark and they cannot talk to the guards or address the cameras before time is up. There is one question and one answer. They need to figure out what the question is and give the answer to get the ultimate job.

Was it good?

A was good. Not great, though. The first half the mystery of what the heck is going on is pretty interesting. At first the people decide to work together. This feeling out process is probably the most interesting for me. There were also hints brought up here about an infection and the type of company they were trying to get a job with that added an interesting element. After that they begin trying different things, all of which seem strange and outlandish (smashing lights, setting off a water sprinkler). The logic that they were using certainly wasn't any sort of logic I was familiar with. And while there had been those earlier hints of the corporation this job was for, nothing really more came out of it. The second half gets more tense as the people turn on each other, but it felt less interesting and more a generic "Only one gets out alive" thriller.

Still, while it wasn't great and it faded in the second half, there was a lot of interesting stuff here, and it was very well acted for a small movie.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND ***

TITANIC II ( a review)

TITANIC II ( a review)

From Asylum, the company that did a straight to dvd version of Sherlock Holmes, War of the Worlds, and Princess of Mars.

The story: a new gigantic, unsinkable boat called Titanic 2 sets sail and has problems with an iceberg, getting hit once by the iceberg and then getting hit by a tidal wave that capsizes the boat and kills everyone in the life rafts. The two main characters are trapped in the sinking boat and have to be rescued by the girl's father.

Was it good?

No.

But like with all the Asylum titles it isn't really as horrible as it should. It's a bad b-movie. It's a shame because these titles could be made a little smarter and a little better and be actually good. For instance, there is no characterization here, no arc, no people that we care about. It would have taken no more money (production-wise) to change the characters so we care about them as this disaster is happening. And like I've said before -- stories are about fascination. So what here was supposed to be fascinating? It's not the global warming aspect of the iceberg -- that's given short shrift. It's not the giant disaster aspect -- they don't really go into any details about what is going on. It's all buzz words and lots of running around. So how hard would it be to find one thing that was especially fascinating and really take the time (writing wise) to bring that out? It could be about the billionaire and the folly of money, or about people vs nature or about self-sacrifice as people tried to save others. But here there's none of that. It's all just flat.

Still, for a bad b-movie it at least movies along. But if you're looking for a movie, you can do better.

*** AVOID ***

DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED (a review)

DISAPPEARANCE OF ALICE CREED (a review)

A Brittish thriller starring Gemma Arterton (Prince of Persia, James Bond: Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans, Men in Black 3).

The story? A contained thriller about two guys who kidnap a young woman and hold her hostage, but things become more complicated when one of the kidnappers knows the girls and plans to backstab his partner...or does he?

Was it good?

No.

This is one of those contained thrillers with plot twists that aren't really that interesting and then a lot of running around when everything starts to fall apart. The biggest problem is that I just didn't like any of the characters and didn't really care if they succeeded or failed. Unlike RESERVOIR DOGS or SHALLOW GRAVE, there was just nothing interesting going on. And while those movies rely on people in difficult circumstances becoming mean and nasty in scary ways, this movie is more about how all these guys are really pussies.

Here's a shocking idea -- if you are making a thriller, then make at least one character be an evil bastard willing to do nasty things. Otherwise your thriller will be as lame as this one.

*** AVOID ***

DESPICABLE ME (a review)

DESPICABLE ME (a review)

An animated superhero movie about a villain and some kids. Stars Steve Carrell as the kind-of super villain.

The story: a super villain is getting shown up by a better super villain who has just stolen an Egyptian pyramid. Worse, the bank now nolonger believes in the villain and has pulled their funding for his latest scheme -- a plot to steal the moon. Now he has to use three innocent girls to try to steal a shrink ray from his villian-nemesis to pull off his plan to steal the moon, but of course being with these girls will change his villain ways.

Was it good?

Yeah, it was good. Not amazing, but it was solid. Carrell was great for the vioce work and it had a nice twist on the super-hero/super-villain roles. Unfortunately, it becomes a little too obvious and pits villian against villain in a very light way -- these guys aren't even really villainous enough to be on CHUCK much less mess with Dr Doom or any real big bads. All this makes the movie drag as the movie moves through the second half with no real stakes -- we don't want the guy to steal the moon (and don't think he'll really do it in a significant way) and if he fails, well so what?

For young kids that won't be a problem as the movie moves along, but for older kids and adults will amuse but won't be at the same level as the best animated films.

*** RECOMMEND (especialyl for young kids) ***

Still, there's a lot to

UNITED STATES OF TARA - SEASON ONE (a review)

UNITED STATES OF TARA - SEASON ONE (a review)

A tv show from Diablo Cody, the stripper turned writer who won an Oscar from Juno. The story is about a wife with multiple personality disorder. Stars Toni Collette, John Corbett, Brie Lawson.

The story: (since this is a series, there isn't a specific storyline but here's the jist...) A housewife with multiple personality disorder tries to go off her meds to learn to deal with her disorder and get to the cause of it, struggles with her family -- her incredibly understanding husband, her annoying sister, her slut daughter and her gay son -- as they struggle with not only the chaos of a mom who is constantly changing, but also with their lives -- the daughter has an abusive boyfriend and then gets a job where the manager tries to sleep with her and the son has a crush on a Christian who may or may not be gay.

Was it good?

It was okay. It's never great. There are times it tries to be shocking or daring, but those are all kind of awkward. The strange thing that makes it watchable is the way that amid all the chaos of what's going on the family still comes off as fairly normal. While most shows with families are completely unrealistic -- and the more normal the family the more unrealistic the show feels (*cough* Cosby Show *cough*), this show with it's completely out-there premise actually helps make the characters and family feel normal.

This normalicy makes the show very watchable. If you are doing something and it's in the background, it's easy and enjoyable to follow. Still, as a show there never is anything compelling enough to allow me to recommend it. It's frustrating because this seems to be the modus operandi with a lot of the cable shows nowadays -- they are interesting but never that compelling.

So why is this mediocre-good while SEX AND THE CITY was so compelling, or SPARTACUS or BURN NOTICE? Well, the problem comes from two questions every writer should think about -- what is it about and how far do you push it?

What it this show about? The multiple personality thing is okay, but for non-multis what does it mean? In other words, what are we, the audience, supposed to take from it? The thing I get out of it is that even with all the choas they are normal...which is fine, but it's not much of a statement. In fact, it's a total non-statement because it's about them. Good statements (in fiction) are statements that affect the viewer. They are statements that the audiences take with them into their own lives. This doesn't have that sort of statement. You'd think they would use the multi as a metaphore for the ways a woman gets pulled in every direction, the way every woman needs to be many different people to be a woman and a mom...but no. It's used mainly just to make her life more chaotic. So what it is about? A normal family. And that's about it.

How far do you push it? This isn't just about being outrageous. This is about knowing whta the series is about and pushing and pushing the story to get deeper to the heart of what it is that you are exploring. Except here the story is just that they are normal. It's hard to push that. You can surround them with more chaos, but tat just feels like more and more stuff. So things like the sister having had a bad boob job...meh. So while the series is enjoyable it never gets to greatness because there just never seems to be anything at the heart of it.

So, no I can't recommend it. But I understand why others would find it enjoyable.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ****

LOVE RANCH (a review)

LOVE RANCH (a review)

A drama-ish movie starring Joe Pesci and Helen Mirren. The movie centers on a brothel, but it isn't sexy. And while it's kind of a comedy it isn't actually funny. Yep, it's an indy movie.

The story: a married couple runs a legal brothel in Nevada, but the husband wants to be more important so he sponsers a boxer thinking the boxer will help him become a big shot, but the wife and the boxer begin an affair and the boxer wants to get out of boxing and the wife is dying and runs away with the boxer, but the husband wants her back and...it goes on and on.

Was it good?

No. The married couple running a brother was okay, and the husband wanting to sponser the boxer was kind of interesting, but then the wife dying of cancer was weird and then her and the boxer running off and everything...it was like the movie started off on solid ground and then kept driving off a cliff again and again. I'm a fan of Mirren, but not for this movie.

*** AVOID ***

MY SUPER PSYCHO SWEET 16 (a review)

MY SUPER PSYCHO SWEET 16 (a review)

A teen slasher movie made by and for MTV.

The story: a guy starts killing people in a roller rink. Years later, the daughter of that guy is a school outcast, but then the hottest guy in school starts to kiles her. Meanwhile the bitchy, pretty, popular girl decides to hold her sweet sixteen party at the roller rink where all those people were killed. The hot guy wants to be with the outcast, but before their first date he has to go the bitchy girl's sweet sixteen party, so the outcast girl decides to crash it. Except, what do you know, her father is back and he starts killing people again.

Was it good?

Kind of. I mean, as a horror movie is sucked. Boring, predictable...almost laughably bad. But as a teen movie it wasn't that bad. It got the feel of the teens right for the most part and the dialog was definitely a step above. I could see where the script might have been a really good read to get the attention of MTV. And it was interesting to see their take on a lot of elements (the outcast girl wanted to fit it, her romance with the popular guy, the bitchy girl wanting to get the popular guy back, etc) that I have been trying to work on in one of my scripts. So it's a mixed bad -- there was enough for me to be willing to check out the sequel, but not enough that I would recommend it in general.

*** AVOID ***

SLYLINE (a review)

SLYLINE (a review)

New sci-fi action flick by a couple visual f/x guys. Made on a micro budget ($500K) that they then throw a ton of money at for the F/X ($10M). So the F/X are probably good, but how's the story?

The story: a group of friends are at a birthday party in a high rise apartment building when aliens attack and begin killing everything in sight and this group and a few others struggle to survive.

Was it good?

No. There are some cool things to it (and as a wanna-be-filmmaker I was impressed they made it for under $11M), but ultimately the story just doesn't have anything to it. The alien attack from the people's POV is fine, but there isn't really anything to the characters (in fact they are pretty annoying), and there isn't any character arc or anything else to really draw you in. It feels like a lot of plot, some neat weird moments, a lot of not-neat action moments and then an ending that is almost laughably bad.

This is one that has enough interesting elements that you might want to see it, but I doubt many people will be glad they did.

***AVOID **

HORSEMEN (a review)

HORSEMEN (a review)

A mystery/thriller starring Dennis Quaid.

The story: a detective who has become distant from his sons following the death of his wife struggle to reconnect to them while getting pulled into a series of murders by a group inspired by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Was it good?

It was okay. If you want a mystery/thrill then this one is good enough to watch. If you just want something really cool, then this doesn't make the cut. The problem ultimately is the interweaving of the two stories -- Quaid trying to reconnect with his sons and the Four Hoursemen, which plays out predictably and doesn't have the depth of feeling that it should have. Still, I'm a big Dennis Quaid fan and this movie is good enough that if you are a fan of Quiad you should check it out.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND (for mystery/thriller fans) ***

THE SWITCH (a review)

THE SWITCH (a review)

A comedy with Jason Bateman and Jennifer Aniston about wrongful insemination. Yes, that's what they are using as a plot device for romantic comedies now. The screenplay is by Allen Loeb whose script, Things We Lost in the Fire topped the black list a couple years ago and has been one of the hottest writers in Hollywood ever since.

The story: Wally is in love with Kassie, his best friend who doesn't love him. Then she decides she wants a child so she gets this random guy to give her sperm, but as the incemination party Wally gets drunk and upset and switch his sperm for the random guy. Cassie moves away, then moves back six years later with her son who is a lot like Wally, but she thinks random guy, whose marriage has fallen apart and is now single, is the father. So Cassie has Wally babysit her neurotic son while she starts seeing random guy until she is ready to marry random guy and Wally has to tell her the truth -- that he is her son's father -- knowing it will ruin their friendship.

Was it good?

No. I'm not a huge fan of romantic comedies anyway (although there are plenty I do like, starting with When Harry Met Sally). Here I just didn't find anything really likable or interesting about the main characters. I can sympathize with Wally, in love with a girl who doesn't love him and not wanting to risk their friendship, but in all other ways he really seems like a jerk. And Cassie is just kind of a flaky girl who comes off a being a flake. It happens all the time of course, but for me the fictional story of the girl who is best friends with a guy and doesn't realize the guy likes her makes the girl look dumb. I mean, girls do realize guys don't just hang out with girls to be friends, right? Guys don't need girls to be friends with -- they have friends...guys are their friends. And there isn't really anything else interesting about her. What does she want? Well, at the beginning she wants a kid, which at least is something, but once she comes back into town she wants...nothing really. She is just the girl in the love triangle. She doesn't even seem to specifically want a relationship or a real father for her child. The romance is just something she gets thrown into. Because of all that I found I didn't really care if they got together or not. In fact, as the story goes on and Wally waits and waits to tell her, all the while spending more and more time with the kid, I thought they should NOT be together.

That isn't to say there aren't some nice moments here and there. Loeb definitely has a style that makes this better than dreck, but the lack of caring and lack of depth (this movie isn't really about anything other than making a romantic comedy -- it ultimately isn't really saying anything about dating or friendship or parenthood, etc) make this movie a pass for me.

*** AVOID ***

MILF

MILF

Once the word was made famous in AMERICAN PIE, it was only a matter of time before a teen sex comedyw ith this title came out.

The story: a couple hopeless college guys realize they can get easy sex by hooking up with older women...usually the divorced moms of the friends.

Was it good?

Not really. It wasn't bad. I mean, it's a teen sex comedy and they throw in plenty of sex, so it works on that level. However, most of these t-s-c's these days pair the sex romps with some outrageous comedy and a nice character arc. Here there's nothing like that. There are some attempts at comedy, but nothing really gets laughs. And if there was a character arc I missed it. So is it good...well, no...but it's a pretty harmless sex comedy. I might have even given it a slight rental, except there are just plenty of other t-s-c's out there.

*** AVOID ***

ROAD TRIP 3: BEER PONG (a review)

ROAD TRIP 3: BEER PONG (a review)

I have to admit I missed ROAD TRIP 2. Luckily this one is it's own story so you don't need to see the first couple. It sticks to the same formula, just as a straight to dvd movie it only captures 70% of the original, but that's still probably enough to fans.

The story: a guy finds out his long distance girlfriend has transfered to be with him which freaks him out, so he goes on a road trip for a beer pong tournament where he hopes to meet with a hot model he knew and almost hooked up with years ago.

Was it good?

Yeah, it was good. It was what you'd expect -- some college humor, some outrageous stuff, some nudity, a little character arc that feels lame but isn't too bad. It's just very light compared to the first. The original has a guy racing to get to his long distance girlfriends campus before a sex tape he made with another girl arrives. In that one there is clear stakes and a ticking clock. This movie didn't have any of that. It does have that same core of a guy struggling with where he is in his relationship and if he's ready to be serious (he thinks he is but he's not). The outrageous humor is more outrageous, but less actual funny because of it (what do you expect about a movie that centers around a beer pong tournament?).

Still, if you are a fan of the first movie or of the American Pie dvd's, this is probably right in your wheelhouse.

*** RENTAL ***

GET HIM TO THE GREEK (a review)

GET HIM TO THE GREEK (a review)

Just a couple quickies today.

The story: a sort-of continuation of FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL. A chump of a music executive employee has to get a drunken, washed out rock star to a gig.

Was it good?

Sort of. This is a movie that kind of has all the pieces -- a (kind of) likable leading guy with a positive goal he wants to accomplish, a (sort of) funny outrageous second character, some other wacky people, lots of sex jokes and some boobs. The problem is that I spent most of the time watching it thinking this should be funny, but not actually laughing. I know that's a vague way to talk about the movie, but this felt like something where everything was set up right and everything was in place...but nothing was actually funny. If anything, it felt like almost all the characters were pushing too hard to make it funny. Comedy is a tricky thing and what works for one person will fall flat for another. This fell flat for me. It just didn't have that bit of charm and sweetness and sillyness and brightness that FSM had. Still, there was enough here that I would tell people who are interested to rent it. Just don't expect it to be as good as FSM.

*** RENTAL (I guess) ****

DC UNIVERSE ANIMATED MOVIES (many reviews)

DC UNIVERSE ANIMATED MOVIES (many reviews)

This is going to be a mass review of a bunch of the DC animated movies from their direct to dvd line, including: Superman/Batman: Apocalypse, Batman: Under the Red Hood, Green Lantern: First Flight, Wonder Woman, Superman/Batman: Public Enemies, Justice League: New Frontier, Superman Doomsday, Batman: Gotham Knight and Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths. Also the shorts: DC Showcase: Green Arrow, DC Showcase: Spectre, DC Showcase: Jonah Hex.

ALSO -- here's the order they were released in. I watched them out of order and it didn't bother me. Except for one article saying Superman/Batman: Apocalypse is a sequel to Superman/Batman: Public Enemies I don't think it matters.

#1 -- Superman: Doomsday
#2 -- Justice League: New Frontier

#3 -- Batman: Gotham Knight

#4 -- Wonder Woman
#5 -- Green Lantern: First Flight
#6 -- Superman/Batman: Public Enemies

#7 -- Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths
#8 -- Batman: Under the Red Hood
#9 -- Superman/Batman: Apocalypse (with DC Showcase: Green Arrow)

Let me first give a quick summary. All the features except Batman: Gotham Knight and Justice League: New Frontier that I've seen have been good. Nothing special, mind you, but just good solid superhero stories. They have some action and an occasional joke or sexual reference (in Wonder Woman there is mention of a god forcing himself upon one of the Amazons) that's not suitable for young children, but I think that's why they are PG-13. For older children (even adult age children :) ) the movies are pretty solid, thought not on the level of the live action Spider-Man 2 or Batman: Dark Knight movies. Certainly I thought they were better than most of the Marvel animated films, such as Ultimate Avengers 1 and 2, Doctor Strange, and Hulk Vs (although I did like Next Avengers).

With that, let's get to the individual reviews:

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse

Movie #9

The story: this movie is the introduction of Supergirl (Kara). The beginning deals with her showing up and trying to learn to control her powers and the rest of the Justice League trying to figure out what to do with her. Superman wants to keep her close to him, in Kansas or Metropolis, but the others think she should go with Wonder Woman to the isle of the Amazons to train. Unfortunately, once she is adjusting there Darkseid decides to kidnap her and the rest of the Justice League, with Big Barta, have to Apokolips to save her.

Was it good?

Yeah, it's a solid story. The intro of Supergirl and the JLA trying to figure out what to do with her and her own struggle of where does she fit in, of wanting a real life where she can have fun and not sure she is ready to accept the responsibility of being a hero like Superman takes quite a bit of time in the movie, but it also makes it a more effective than simply an ninety minutes of fighting would have. It's not perfect and it's not great -- too predictable, and while the emotional arc is okay it's also stuff we've seen before (and better done in Spider-Man 2). Still a solid superhero movie.

Batman: Under the Red Hood

Movie #8

The story: a new villain, the Red Hood, is setting up in Gotham except he is terrorizing the bad guys and taking over Gothams crime. However, Batman will learn that he is actually someone with a personal connection to Batman and that he has a deeper reason for coming back.

Was it good?

So far, it's the best of the DC Animated movies. The animation itself wasn't any better (unfortunately, watching several movies in a row the style is starting to feel a little clunky), but this was the best story. Now usually I hate the reveal that the bad guy is actually someone from the hero's past (like in Hush -- yuck!) but here, after the initial groan, they do some interesting things. This definitely felt like the most violent of the DC movies I've seen and goes to some dark places.

*** SPOILER -- IN INVISO-TEXT (highlight to read) **** Remember the storyline Death in the Family where Joker kills Jason Todd? Well, this is the storyline where they bring Jason Todd back and the second half of the story, after they reveal who Red Hood is, deals with Jason, Batman and the Joker. The ending wasn't satisfying for me, but everything up to then was good. ***

I know not every Batman fan will like it (based a lot of who Red Hood is and how they feel about that), but this was the best of the bunch so far for me.

Justice League: New Frontier

Movie #2. Based on the graphic novel by Darwyn Cook.

The story: set in the 50's, we see the origins of many of the heroes of the Justice League and watch them struggle with government suspicions until an enormous foe -- the villain -- attacks and they have to unite to fight him off.

Was it good?

It was uneven. This is a movie that definitely didn't seemed aimed at kids. The animation is kid-friendly, but there is definitely a darker feel to the movie, such as the opening where a man blows his brains out! The movie itself does some interesting things with the characters and there are moments where you can see why they wanted to make this into a movie. However, there's just not enough of them. Also, the villain...what the heck is that thing supposed to be? It just comes out of nowhere. There are some mentions earlier of "the beast" or whatever, but then all of a sudden this giant mountain-monster is attacking and going to kill everyone in the last twenty minutes. Whoever did the adaptation definitely hadn't cracked the story and found a way to make it build right. Maybe they liked too much of the smaller character stuff and weren't willing to jettison them to make the overall story work.

Either way, this was in parts interesting, but overall one of the weaker stories.

Wonder Woman

The story: The origin of Wonder Woman. Basically, Wonder Woman's mom defeated Ares, the God of War. Later a fighter pilot crashes on WW's island. WW wins the right to take him back to New York. Meanwhile another amazon has fallen in love with Ares and sets him free. Now WW and the fighter pilot has to stop Ares before he incites war, including the destruction of WW's island.

Was it good?

Not so much. It wasn't horrible, but a lot of it was cheesy and over-the-top. The romance between Wonder Woman and the fighter pilot never clicks. There's this constant thread of WW being insulted by the idea of a man hitting on her or opening a door for her, etc. Being strong is fine, but seriously -- opening a door? I don't care if a woman holds the door open for me, why should they care if a guy holds one open for them? The storyline with Ares was also awkward. You have this long prologue/battle where you find out Ares forced himself on WW's mom (great thing to explain to the kids) and then all this "Ah! War!" was just so one dimensional. So the women are amazons and don't want men to do anything and all the guys either are hitting on them or trying to kill them? Um...that's a little extreme even for a comic book movie.

Parts of the movie were okay, but this didn't work for me. It's a shame -- I would have loved a good WW movie. This wasn't it.

Superman/Batman: Public Enemies

Movie #6

The story: Lex Luthor is president and frames Superman and Batman for killing Mentallo and orders a billion dollar bounty, which cuases all the villains to attack them, then has the superheroes that are siding with him (since he is the president) to capture them. Meanwhile there is an asteroid about to hit Earth, but it turns out Luthor doesn't want to stop it -- he wants it to hit and wipe out billions because then he can rebuild it in his image. Superman and Batman must fight off Luthor's people and stop the asteroid.

Was it good?

Not really. It wasn't bad, but it all is just superhero action...fight, fight fight. It felt just like a Justice League cartoon that had a lot of the same stuff (Luthor president, Superman fighting Captain Atom and Power Girl, etc). There's some CGI mixed in with the hand-drawn and it's not a smooth fit either. Kids might be entertained. Adults will most likely be bored.

Batman: Gotham Knight

The story: this is an anthology of six stories by different animators.

Was it good?

No. None of these were interesting. It's been a while since I watched this, but I don't remember any of the shorts being really interesting. Only for Batman fanatics and people interested in the different animation styles.

Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths

Movie #4

The story: The Justice League goes to an alternate earth where the Justice League is evil and Lex Luthor is good and try to bring down the evil versions of themselves.

Was it good?

It was pretty good. There's a lot of fun stuff here and in most ways it was one of the best stories, and one of the most kid friendly. The biggest strike is that I felt like I'd seen a lot of this before. The idea of evil alternate realities has been done to death and there wasn't enough new here to really spark my interest. The final act, where they have to stop one of the bad guys from blowing up the alpha-Earth, which will destroy all the alternate realities, seemed a little out there (and derivative of Roger Zelazny's Amber books). Still, this is one of the ones I think kids could enjoy, although you probably need to be familiar with all the heroes to really get the idea of the evil alternate realities. Still a solid movie.

Green Lantern: First Flight

Movie #5

The story: how Hal Jordan became the Green lantern and joined the intergalactic Green lantern Corps and eventually has to find the traitor who is after the yellow element, the most powerful energy force in the universe.

Was it good?

Okay, I have to admit I've never been into the Green Lantern. He's fine as part of the Justice League, but reading the comics just about him and the GL Corps...not for me. It's all just too random and silly. They have these rings that are fueled by green energy and will, but their weakness is yellow and...I don't know. It all just seems ridiculous, so this movie wasn't for me. For other people -- especially kids -- I can see them having fun with it. Lots of weird intergalactic adventures and strange creatures and the GL theme "In blackest day..." But it wasn't for me.

Superman: Doomsday

Movie #1

The story: a new villain, Doomsday, kills Superman. Then a new Superman appears but it really is...I won't say...but sets up a final confrontation when the real Superman returns (you didn't really think they'd kill off Superman for good, did you?)

Was it good?

It was okay. Silly me, I assumed most of the movie would be aobut Doomsday, but it turns out he was only in it for the first act. The real villain is *** spoiler hidden in inviso-text ** a clone of Superman that Lex Luthor has created. At first this person seems good, but of course that changes and sets up the final battle with Superman. However, none of that really felt strong to me. The story is based on a GN so maybe that's how it works int he book, but I don't see why it doesn't build to a final battle with Doomsday. It's kind of weird. The stuff with the other Superman was okay -- it was interesting figuring out who he was and seeing be good, but changing, but it just didn't have much oomph to it. What did work was the story of Lois Lane and Superman. The scenes between them and their relationship, and the scene after Superman's death when Lois goes to visit Clark's mom, knowing Clark is Superman and yet not saying it and wanting to talk to the one other women who might understand how she feels...well, that was just a cut above all these other animated movies that have come after. I don't know if kids will find it as entertaining (the movie is rated PG-13 so maybe they figure it's not meant for them anyway), but for older kids this is definitely one of the best of the these animated movies.

DC ANIMATED SHORTS

Green Arrow -- a short that has Green Arrow going to the airport where he plans to ask Black Canary to marry him, but he gets involved trying to stop a kidnapping. There are a few nice moments (like the proposal...awww!), but it was mainly a lot of near-random action. Okay, but not worth renting on it's own.

DC Showcase: Jonah Hex -- NOT FOR CHILDREN. I didn't get this at all. I'm not sure I've ever read a JH story and the live action movie was horrible and this short wasn't much better. A prostiture kills a guy, then Jonah Hex comes to town, kills all her people and leaves her in the mine shaft where she left all the other bodies. The end. Um...what? Why? Written by Joe R Lansdale, but this was pretty lame.

DC Showcase: The Spectre -- a cop who is also the Spectre is investigating a murder of a Hollywood producer. Nothing about this was interesting. The Spectre just scares/kills people to get information and the crime has no real mystery to it (follow the money, duh!). Written by Steve Niles. Not worth renting by itself.

Shazam/Superman: Black Adam -- definitely the coolest of the shorts. This shows Billy Batson as a good kid who happens to be friends with Superman. Then Black Adam (an evil kind of Shazam) attacks him, wanting to kill him before the wizard can give him his powers. But Superman interferes, letting Billy get away long enough for the wizard to turn him into Captain Marvel. Now he (and then he and Superman) will fight Black Adam. This was the best of the shorts. Not a perfect story and a few lame beats, but this is the one worth watching.

LAKE PLACID 3 (a review)

LAKE PLACID 3 (a review)

I'm ashamed to admit it, but I didn't see LP2. yes, I saw LP1 with Oliver Platt's hilarious overacting and that great giant croc and Betty White -- definitely a B-movie I could recommend -- but I somehow missed LP2. For LP3, they also made an UNRATED version with nudity so of course that's the version I watched :) The movie stars Colin Furguson (Eureka), Yancy Butler and Michael Ironside.

The story: the lake is supposed to be clear, but a young boy begins feeding baby crocs which grow to giant crocs and attacking everyone, putting the boy and his family (mom and dad), the local shariff, some teens out for a good time, a boy trying to stop them from having a good time, and some elk poachers, at risk of vicious croco-death.

Was it good?

Um...for a silly B-movie, this was good. While it didn't have as much going for it as the previously reviewed Killer Swarm, it has the pieces it is supposed to have and makes them work well enough for a fun, silly B-movie.

Unfortunately, you have to wade through some muck to get through to the good stuff. There's a lot of the shariff saying everything is now safe, which is lame. There's the early stuff about the boy feeding the crocs which is kind of stupid. I mean, I guess it's meant to be funny, but at a certain point it becomes to obvious that these things are out of control dangerous that there's no believability to it, and yet it's still not as enjoyable as Betty White feeding cows to them in LP1.

There's other stuff -- like the elk hunters who are supposed to be quirky and the boy trying to stop his girlfriend from sleeping with this random guy to get back at him, none of which were horrible, but none of it really helped the movie.

So, no, this isn't a classic and it's not great and it's not anything to write about (unless you have a blog), but it does what B-movies should do -- have a fun monster (or monsters), have some over-the-top action, have some fun loving T&A, and give lots of horror and action while not taking itself too seriously.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND (as a B-horror movie) ***

KILLER SWARM (a review)

KILLER SWARM (a review)

An Italy horror movie that seems inspired by all these mega-shark/giant snake movies.

The story: a woman estranged from her father comes home to some small Mediterranean island, but her father is stung by a bee and is dying all the while a growing swarm dangerous venomized bees is attacking the island. The girl will need to find the queen to find the antidote and stop the swarm before they spray the entire island with pesticide to try to stop the swarm.

Was it good?

Almost. This actually has almost all the elements of a classic B-horror movie, but unfortunately the elements aren't well constructed, so instead of building into a classic, this is mearly a semi-enjoyable B-movie.

So what are these elements that work? Well, first the bees. I should say that I am very scared of bees. I got stung a lot when I was a kid and now it's hard not to flinch even at the mention of bees. So swarms of bees definitely is the making of a good horror movie.

Next, the father getting stung and slowly dying is good. It gives emotion and a bit of a ticking clock. The fact that the doctor disagrees with her forcing her to action is good too. It's also good that the doctor seems to be hiding something, giving us a bit of a conspiracy.

The growing swarm is also good. I mean, really, the title is killer swarm, so the audience isn't there to watch some girl run around trying to collect bees while crying about her dad -- they want to see a massive swarm attacking screaming people. The fact that this is an island, so most of the screaming people are hot half naked people is a big plus too.

Except, even with all these good elements, the story just doesn't work. The problem is that the elements don't build together, so instead of them all weaving together to become more and more intense, they pull against each other, making the movie feel more fractured. And instead of getting a classic, you get a B.

So what doesn't work? Well, the contrast of the girl trying to save her father and the killer swarm. The first half is more focused on the girl and her dad, but once the killer swarm starts really coming out and attacking people, it seems the focus should shift. Except it doesn't. So you get a lot of small scene, where there should be big scenes. You get a slowing down of the action instead of an acceleration. Then you get a contrast of the conspiracy doctor who begins to turn into more of a diabolical, uncaring about humanity super villain. Except this isn't really a super villian kind of movie. Most of the movie is a girl-and-her-dying-dad film, not James Bond. Then you have the problem of the killer swarm -- the last ticking clock is trying to kill the queen before they spray the island with pesticides which will destroy the island ecostructure...except none of the movie has really been about the island ecostructure so who gives a damn? Again, you have all these pieces which aren't bad pieces, but as the movie goes on and on they begin to grind against each other like a poorly build engine.

Still, for all the faults of the story construction this isn't a horrible movie. Sure, the acting is bad and the dialog is cheesy and the romance story is lame and the girl and her dad is lame and gets in the way of the fun, but there's enough here that if you hate bees and feel like a creature feature-style B-horror movie, then it's an okay movie to see. But if you aren't in the mood for that kind of movie, then you should stay far, far away.

*** AVOID (except as a B-movie) ****

BLACK DEATH (a review)

BLACK DEATH (a review)

It's called a horror movie and sounds like a horror movie, but it's not a horror movie. This, in fact, is one of the most fascinating movies I've seen in a long time. It's dark and tense and is getting a RECOMMEND from me! Stars Sean Bean (Lord of the Rings) and is directed by Christopher Smith (Triangle).

The story: takes place during the black plague (1348). A young monk who is in love with a girl goes with a group of mercenaries to find a small village that has been untouched by the plague. The mercenary says it's to show that this pagan village isn't special so people won't turn away from God, but then he tells the young monk that really they are going to find a necromancer -- someone who can bring the dead back to life. At the village, the mercenaries are captured and now the villagers try to convince them to renounce their god and accept their pagan worship.

Was it good?


This movie absolutely fascinated me!

What the writer did so well is to put people on opposite sides. People talk about ideas, about beliefs, about God. And all the characters are complex and interesting. They all have faith, although in a different way. This is a much smarter, more intellectual film than the title or storyline might lead you to believe. Yes, it is dark and it is violent, but that is just the stakes these people are fighting for when they really believe their immortal souls, or the souls of others are on the line. One of the most fascinating twists is when the mercenaries are captures and now the pagan villagers begin torturing them to get them to convert. It's a fascinating reversal.

I loved that it was played realistically (although there is a twist near the end that made it more realistic but less enjoyable for me). I loved that the people weren't belief-cynics, people who think God and religion is garbage for stupid people, but that they were people who believed and cared although in different ways, and not always to the same God. And I loved that they god Sean Bean to play one of the leads. This is an actor's movie and he was fantastic!

If this battle of belief between people who believe but in different things interests you then this is a must see.

*** RECOMMEND ***

SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD (a review)

SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD (a review)

A 2010 comedy directed by Edgar Wright, director of the cult comedies Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. This is based on a comic book and stars Michael Cera. It's a weird mix of teen angst love story with action and other weirdness. Stars Michael Cera, Jason Schwartzman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Anna Kendrick, Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Brie Larson, and Ellen Wong.

The story: Scott Pilgrim falls in love with a beautiful girl who falls for him too, but then he must fight off her ex-boyfriends who have pledged to take Pilgrim down. And by fight I mean literally fight, like over the top kung-fu action fighting.

Was it good?

Almost. I can see why a lot of people would like the movie. There's a lot of comedy and it is a love story, but twists and turns differently than most romantic comedies. In fact, the rom-com aspect is probably the best part. For instance, at the start of the movie Scott is dating a high school student, then he meets the main girl and falls for her, so now he has to break up with the high school girl who wants to get him back. It's a plotline you just don't see that often and it's a nice complication...as opposed to the idea of Scott fighting off the evil ex-es which is kind of amusing, but it's stuff we've seen before (plot-wise). Even MEET THE PARENTS had Stiller competing with the girl's exes who wanted her back, and it's hard to be cool or edgy when you are copying from M-T-P.

So for the first half, even though a lot of the humor didn't hit and a lot of the I'm-so-hip style was annoying instead of endearing, there was enough good stuff with the characters that I was onboard. However, by the second half they veer more toward action with long fight scenes and the relationships became cliche and I got bored.

If you want a guy's version of JUNO that tries even harder to be hip and has over the top action, then this movie might be for you. Otherwise...


*** AVOID ***

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2 (a review)

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2 (a review)

Not a sequel to the Spielberg/Cruise worldwide hit sci-fi action movie. This instead is a sequel of the very cheap straight to dvd War of the Worlds starring C Thomas Howell that tried to piggyback off the other's success.

The story: after the first invasion, the survivors try to fight off a second wave. Some use planes to launch an assault on Mars, while the main character gets captured and brought to Mars to try to save his son who has been captured.

Was it good?

No...and yes. It was good in a Creature Feature sort of way -- very cheesy with lame F/X and bad acting, but it moves quickly and does some cool stuff so it's kind of entertaining if you feel like watching a bad movie. The thing I'm constantly amazed at by these bad movies are the bad acting and dialog. It's the cheapest thing to fix. There are plenty of good actors looking for work, and plenty of cheap writers to do a little dialog polish. C Thomas Howell is especially bad which is weird because I remember liking him in movies like Secret Admirer. Plus he directed it. You'd think he would make sure his acting came off good, right?

So I won't recommend it because it's just too cheesy and the acting is too bad, but if you are in the mood for cheesy/actiony/sci-fi-ish then this isn't bad.

**** AVOID (except if you want cheesy sci-fi) ****

THE DARK LURKING (a review)

THE DARK LURKING (a review)

A sci-fi movie that was obviously done on the cheap and yet looks surprisingly good. However, the story (a rip-off of Resident Evil) just doesn't measure up.

The story: a group of mercenaries become trapped in a futuristic research station deep below of the surface of the earth, surrounded by alien creatures and have to find a way to get to the surface.

Was it good?

No. It was horrible. The story, which feels like a total rip off of Resident Evil, the casting (who are all horrible in this). The one good thing is that the director gave it a great look. I don't know if he does set design for a living, but he should and leave the camera and actors to people who know what to do with them.

There are worse horror/sci-fi movies than this...but there are also a lot better.

*** AVOID ***

WILD CHERRY (2009) (a review)

WILD CHERRY (2009) (a review)

A high school comedy about a group trying to lose their virginity, except it's from the girl's point of view. Some interesting stuff and some not so interesting. Stars Tania Raymonde (Alex on Lost), Rumer Willis and Kristin Cavallari. Also Rob Scheider as a dad.

The story: three high school seniors who are still virgins find out their football boyfriends are only dating them to put them in a bang book and decide to get back at them

Was it good?

Um, kind of yeah. It isn't all good. Some of this movie is horrible. Like the football game which looks like about five guys and no fans and is one of the most Ed Wood things I've ever seen. Also, the idea of these guys and the bang book (you have to have sex with the girls or the football team will be bad) doesn't make sense. Also, if the football team is so bad then why would the girls like these guys anyway. And the whole part with the girls finding the book and trying to get back at the guys, etc, was all pretty dumb.

So how was it still (a little) good? Well, the movie does one interesting thing -- it takes a lot of time to talk about sex and a lot of it is done in a way that actually feels honest. One of the girls is making a doc about sex and interviewing students, so you get clips of people talking about their first time, was it good, how did it happen, etc. The other thing is that it focuses on these three girls and shows them in a way that you don't see that often -- girls who want sex. They might have the wrong idea (that the first time will be the most romantic night ever) or they might go about things wrong, but focusing on young girls' curiousity and yearning and perceptions of sex is something that I'm not sure I've seen before, and certainly never seen in a way that felt quite as honest and matter of fact as this.

It's a shame the movie doesn't do a better job with story -- both in avoiding a lot of the stupid elements of the film and in actually trying to have something to say about girls and sex (or something to say to girls about sex) that isn't empty or cliche. If it had done that it really could have actually been something special. As it is there was enough to recommend it (slightly), but with lots of caviats and only to people who think a version of American Pie from a girl's POV might be interesting.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND (as an American Pie from a girl's POV) ****

The Devil's Playground

The Devil's Playground (a review)

A British zombie movie. It mixes elements of I AM LEGEND and CHILDREN OF MEN. It was directed by Mark McQueen. The story: while trying to find a new energy drink, a corporation accidentally causes everyone to become zombies who run after people and turn the other people into zombies. A small group escape, including one girl who is immune to the concoction and might be the key to the survival of the human race.

Was it good?

No. It wasn't horrible and there were some good things in it, but too much of it was waaayyyy too derivative and it never did anything new that was interesting. No decent character development. Nothing special with the plot. It's not horrible, but by the end you feel like you've seen it all before.
*** AVOID ***

AMERICAN ORGY (a review)

AMERICAN ORGY (a review)

Not an American Pie style comedy. Not a big sex romp. More an indy comedy about relationships. Stars Laura Silverman (sister of Sarah Silverman), Adam Busch (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Ted Beck, Edrick Browne, Aimee-Lynn Chadwick, Yasmine Kittles.


The story: Three couples gather at one couple's rural house to have an orgy.

Was it good?

No...but it wasn't as bad as you might think and there was actually some interesting stuff, but it needed to either go more the indy route (which is where the interesting stuff was) or it needed better comedy because this just wasn't funny enough to recommend.

A lot of the story you can probably guess -- some people are all for the orgy, some people are hesitant, which will create conflict, and, of course, the full blown orgy never happens. (This is true of most movies -- the more the title promises sex the less it delivers.) It's one of the biggest problems of the movie is that nothing really special happens that will grab your attention. And while there are some parts that are amusing, nothing was really laugh out loud funny here. What did work was some of the surprising, more indy-feel, choices that were made. One of the best scenes has the characters talking about what parts of their body they don't like. This could have been played just for laughs, but when the married mom starts listing everything, well, it's actually a pretty powerful moment. Another interesting choice is that at the hour mark, when a proper comedy about an orgy should be getting to the down and dirty stuff, they instead have the characters seperate to talk -- one guy to one girl who are not already in a relationship. They focus on one guy and one girl, a girl he has a crush on, and we just watch them talk about their lives, their relationships and finally he tells her that he loves her. It's pure indy stuff -- it goes on way too long to ever be in a HW film -- but another great moment.

Unfortunately, after those two moments we get more wacky attempts at comedy, the whole collapse of the orgy, and lots of stuff that just doesn't go anywhere.

It's a shame...there might have been a very interesting movie here, and there are a couple moments, but not enough to recommend.

*** AVOID ****

13 HOURS or 13HRS (2010) (a review)

13 HOURS or 13HRS (2010) (a review)

A contained horro movie. A group of kids get trapped in a house while being attacked by a strange creature. Is it a dog or something worse?

The story:

Was it good?

No. There are two problems. One, the main part of the story is peope being trapped in the attic by the this creature..except they almost never show the creature so you have no idea why they are so scared. Seriously, six kids are going to let themselves be trapped by what could just be a dog? I guess by not showing the creature much they thought they could add suspense of what it is, but it just made it stupid for me because it just didn't seem terrifying enough to be scared of. Compare that to THE DESCENT, where once the monsters show up we get some good looks at those creepy dudes and yeah, okay, then yeah, I get it.

The second is that since they are trapped for most of the movie either how they try to get out needs to be interesting (The Plan) or what is going on betwene them. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD has the arguing of two sides -- should they run or stay in the house? Also the difference between being selfish and working as a group. Here, there's just nothing interesting. Even worse, it takes a while before the animal attack and none of that was interesting either.

*** SPOILER ***

So the twist at the end (because now every movie has to have a twist, right?) is that the creature is actually the mom who is a were-creature. What a stupid twist!! And the reason it's stupid is that it would be MUCH more interesting to know that ahead of time! The story of a mom who is cursed and now finds herself attacking her own children adds a layer of drama and tension...why would you hide that!

Just annoying characters, stupid story construction...

*** AVOID ***

BEYOND THE RAVE (2010) (a review)

BEYOND THE RAVE (2010) (a review)

A British horror film by the revival of the Hammer studios. The story was told broken into twenty parts and for the feature they keep those breaks with some added music. You don't need to bother after the first break. AVOID.


The story: a guy is about to ship over to Iraq and is looking for his girlfriend at a rave, but they encounter vampires.

Was it good?

NO!!!!!

It was so lame and boring I couldn't even tell you any more details about it. Now I like the idea of a vampire movie set at a rave, but you know what would be cool? IF IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AT A RAVE!!! There are a few minutes that are at a party (maybe that was supposed to be the rave), but most of the film takes place with people driving around and babbling on and on...it was just so boring. I didn't care about the guy, or the girl, or him going to Iraq. It's like this was the anti-CLOVERFIELD, a movie that made that relationship totally work for me and then elevated it with the monster. Here, none of it worked and then the vampires were also lame, and, like I said, the main action doesn't even take place at a rave.

Way to piss on your own concept.

*** AVOID ***

THE TORTURED (2009) (a review)

THE TORTURED (2009) (a review)

A twisted little revenge story, kind of like Last House on the Left. Stars Erika Christensen and Jesse Metcalfe.

The story: a couple's son is kidnapped and killed. The killer is sent to prison, but that isn't enough for the couple so they break him out so they can capture him and inflict on him the sort of torture that their son felt.

Was it good?

Not really. I, personally, am not a pro-torture sort of guy, so the whole premise didn't really capture me. I understand that if someone killed someone close to me that I would want to torture them, but it's not something I hope I would follow through with. I mean, what's the point? We all know we'd want revenge...but so what? Their revenge is so over-the-top that it isn't cathartic. It's just watching them devolve into torturers themselves. One good thing the movie did (that a not of amatuer scripts I've read don't do), is that they have the characters switch. At first the dad is hesitant about doing this and the wife is pushing him, but then it is the wife who gets squeemish about what they are doing (much like in Macbeth). That was a nice character twist.

The other problem is the plot which relies on a lot of coincidences. They just pile up and up until they become completely unbelievable. And then there is the ridiculous plot twist at the end. I won't give it away (although you can check the IMDB message boards if you want to know it), but it undercuts the whole story. It's like they threw in a plot twist.

So a moment about end twists. These have become popular ever since SIXTH SENSE, but most of the time people screw them up because they think that if they just throw in a bog twist it'll be cool but they don't understand why it worked in 6S. In 6S, Bruce Willis wants to talk to his wife. After a pateint committed suicide, he has spiraled into depression and thinks that's the reason for all the problems between them. He meets Cole, who has the same problems as the patient who committed suicide, and thinks if he can just help this kid he can fix things with his wife. Now you could tell that story straight with no twist and it could be a powerful and moving story. The twist, finding out that Bruce Willis is really dead/a ghost, just elevates everything. Instead of the problems with his wife being about his depression, they are because he isn't there. Instead of his wife being mad at him, she is grieving for him. It's not that it just changes what we thought we knew -- but it amplifies it. And remember, this comes after he has helped the boy -- he thinks he's won, that he's saved the day and everything will be okay. And then it is snatched away. It's powerful and heartbreaking moment when he realizes it, and yet it let's him pass on and so his wife can get on with her life too. It works because it doesn't cancel everything that's happened before -- it elevates it.

This movie...first, I'm not sure what the movie was really dealing with other than the fact that these people wnat to torture the man who killed their son (which is understandable but why make a movie out of it?)...then the twist...yeah, it changes what you thought of the movie but it also ruins anything that had been building.

The movie had some interesing things, but just didn't do enough interesting things, didn't have anything to say, and the final plot twist just undercut what good things there had been.

***AVOID ****

DAMNED BY DAWN (a review)

DAMNED BY DAWN (a review)

It's been almost thirty years since Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell broke into the biz with a little self-made horror movie called EVIL DEAD. Since then, the little movie (and its two sequels) have become classics. However, with the possible exception of Peter Jackson's DEAD ALIVE no horror movie has been able to match E-D. For all the little horror movies, for all the movies about zombies and ghosts and demons, nothing has the sheer invention, the cleverness, the fun of Sam Raimi's first. DAMNED BY DAWN seems to take a lot of cues from E-D. Even the name harks back to E-D 2's catch phrase "Dead by Dawn." And for a while it seems like it might just live up to the classic. It doesn't, but for me it is the closest a movie has come in the last decade of capturing that EVIL DEAD magic.

The story: a young woman returns home on the eve of her grandmother's death. That night she and her family are awakened by a spectral figure's horrible shriek. She pushes the figure off out the window, where it falls and is impaled on the fence below, but the figure was actually a protector and by intervering it allows the dead to rise and attack the family and now they have to find a way to survive until dawn.

Was it good?

Somewhat. It was good, but it had a chance to be awesome and, unfortunately, the second half let's the promising first half down.

The beginning is classic Raimi-style with a slow build as the daughter returns home and sees her dying grandmother. There's some odd things, some tension in the family, but nothing too obvious. Like the first twenty minutes of EVIL DEAD, it's content to let us meet the people and build some tension. After the mother dies, we see the special figure. It isn't attacking anyone. It's just standing on a balcony screaming, but what a scream! A piecing wail that wakes everyone in the house and sends them into a panic. It's a great moment. It's just something you've never seen and watching while this family, who is still dealing with the grandmother's death, now have to deal with this...well, it's set pieces like that that sets this movie apart from all the others. Most movies never have that moment, that something strange and new that even an experienced horror audience hasn't seen before. The fact that it isn't an obvious threat to the family -- makes it more interesting. What is it? What's it doing? How do you stop it? Well, the daughter finds a way to stop it, but unfortunately she learns too late she wasn't supposed to stop it! Now all hell breaks lose as the dead rise and all sorts of supernatural entities begin to attack the family.

This is the stuff great horror movies are made of. Unfortunately, it's also here that this movie fails to live up to it's potential. Now I want to mention a few of the shortcomings and what he does wrong that Raimi did right in E-D 1, but by no means do I want people to think this isn't worth watching -- I am recommending it, but I also think it could have been much, much better.

The first problem is threat. After they mess with the banshee, there needs to be a moment where we feel the threat against these people. It needs to be unsettling and intense. Sure, the dead rise and there are weird ghost things, but that's too familiar. Compare that to E-D when the girl goes out of the house and she is attacked by the trees. And not just attacked, but raped! WTF!!! That was a moment that set E-D apart -- instead of just being ghosts or demons, they were trapped by the very woods themselves. The fact that the trees didn't just attack her, but also violated her showed it was a movie that was going to be extreme and these people were in real trouble. This wasn't a "play nice" sort of horror movie. This was a movie that would F%%% with you. Unfortunately, there's nothing to match that moment here. Yes, the family is attacked by a stead steam of unpleasant things, but there's nothing quite as shocking, nothing as startling, nothing as threatenting at that tree scene.

Second is story. E-D has a nice, simple story. The read from the Necromicon, the demons come at them, then he needs to destroy the book to send the demons back to hell. Here, it isn't clear what they need to do once all the baddies start coming at them. The end happens in this cave nowhere close to the house. It all just starts to feel random. So instead of a movie that builds and builds, it's a movie that builds and falls and has ups and downs. E-D escalates by having Campbell's friends get attacked and then turned into demons as well, so now he has to fight his friends to survive. There's nothing like that here. They deal with zombies, they deal with weird spirits, they deal with other CGI type stuff, but it all feels random.

The third problem is the director. While he does a decent job, he just doesn't have the visual style of a young Sam Raimi and it hurts the film, especially in the second half when things should be getting off the hook and be cool. It needs more visual zazz! That lack of invention hurts the movie a lot.

It's disappointing. I'm even willing to ignore the bad CGI and make-up if the story had been tighter and the director a little more daring.

Still, while it isn't good enough to go with EVIL DEAD, it does have a lot of good stuff. I only hope the director pushes the script and the camera move in his next effort.

**** RECOMMEND ***

THE JONESES (2010) (a review)

THE JONESES (2010) (a review)

A cool concept about a new kind of corporate sales. Stars David Duchovny, Demi Moore, Amber Heard, Ben Hollingsworth and Lauren Hutton,

The story: the Jonses move into an upscale neighborhood and start schmoozing with everyone and showing off all their cool toys -- from cars to clothes to golf clubs to frozen foods -- except they aren't a real family. They are a sales plant, a new way of influencing consumers on a ground floor level. But the fake husband and the fake wife (Duchovny and Moore) start to have real feeling for each other even as their cover unwinds.

Was it good?

It was pretty good. The concept is an interesting one and when the story is focused on these people making sales and trying to drive consumer interest it is pretty cool. The problem is that the story begins to veer away from that -- about the fake husband and fake wife falling for each other, the fake daughter starting an affair with a married man, the fake son and his issues, etc -- and while none of those are horrible, none of them were interesting and it sets up a very boring turn where they reject the consumer/sales life for *yawn* real love. Which, while a nice sentiment, seemed pretty lame and cliche here. You'd think that a movie with a cool concept like this would dig a little deeper, but no. So it doesn't go for biting satire and it doesn't say anything really about the way we influence people or the way corporations influence us...it just devolves into a love is really important story which didn't feel genuine at all.

Again, if the concept is about a fake family moving in to influence people and sell product, then you'd think they would get deeper into those issues. But no, they wuss out. Really they needed to take the external concept and come up with a throughline that was more interesting or more interesting or more effective. It also might have been more interesting if they had shown them struggling to make sales. Really, anything they wanted to sell they sell no problem. On one hand they want to make it sound like there's a lot of pressure on them, but we never see them struggle, so it becomes fairly empty and it undercuts any stakes in terms of their job (which is the core concept).

Still, there was enough interesting stuff that it still almost got a complete recommend.

*** RECOMMEND FOR RENTAL ***

4.3.2.1 (2010) (a review)

4.3.2.1 (2010) (a review)

This is the story of four girls, best friends, who all have their own individual stories that overlap and combine as they become involved in a crime ring that includes stolen diamonds. A girl-centric version of PULP FICTION? A thriller version of SISTERHOOD OF THE TRAVELLING PANTS? Or just a weird sort of jumbled mess? Stars Emma Roberts, apparently trying to break away from her sweet HOTEL FOR DOGS image.

The story: four friend sit in a diner eating before heading off for their own individial adventures -- one is going to an audition (and to lose her virginity), one is dealing with her parents' non-acceptance of her lesbianism, one is being forced to work in a convenience store after her father breaks his leg, and the other is dealing with her mother leaving her father (and her). However, outside the diner, a man running from the police stores stolen diamonds in one of their purses and now through these stories the girls will be pursued by criminals to get the diamonds back.

Was it good?

Not really, but it wasn't horrible. Most movie suffer because they don't try to do anything -- they are just running on plot. This movie tries to do TONS of things. Some work okay, others don't work at all.

The first problem is that none of the individual stories is particularly good. Even the best one -- a girl goes to America to audition for some acting coach and meet with with a guy she wants to lose her virginity to, but then after having sex with her he robs her, so she tracks him down and beats him up some only to have him get out and attack her, so she runs and he catches her, but then a local girl calls her friends to rough the guy up -- doesn't really go anywhere. Maybe the idea is that all these girls learn to stand up for themselves, but it seems like the only way they stand up for themselves is with physical violence and it seems weird to say the way to find empowerment is to commit assault. For instance, with the virginity-and-robbery guy, she doesn't call the police and doesn't get her stuff back (as far as I can remember). So...yeah, the guy will get roughed up, but she's still out all her stuff, her money and her virginity.

The other three stories seem to have even less to them. One has Emma Roberts working in a store where there's the arrogant good looking guy and the nice guy, but it doesn't really go past that. The store gets robbed and you're back to the crooks.

Now I guess the overlapping stories was supposed to be one of the cool elements, and the stories did a good job of interweaving. There are multiple times you see the same event from a different perspective and every time it adds to the story...not an easy thing to do. At the same time, because the individual stories go basically nowhere, the movie as a whole feels repetitious. If the idea was to do female empowerment (something repeated a few times), then they needed to watch more SEX AND THE CITY. In S&tC they will have one key issue -- like, is lying good for a relationship -- and then each of the four women will deal with it in a different way. Here, there isn't any clear theme, no central thematic question. That lack of clarity hurts the movie overall and the writing of the individual stories.

In the end, while there was stuff to like, there wasn't enough good -- and definitely not enough great -- for me to recommend it. But I wouldn't actually tell people to avoid it either as I think a lot of people will find it interesting.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ***

PREDATORS (2010) (a review)

PREDATORS (2010) (a review)

This is the reboot of the classic sci-fi movie that was ruined twice by a lame sequel (Predator 2) and by the lame Aliens vs Predator movies. The movie is based on a script by Robert Rodriguez (Machette, Desperado, Spy Kids) and directed by Nimród Antal (Armored). The movie stars Adrian Brody (yes, that's right, he's in the Schwarzenegger role) and Laurence Fishburne, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, and Danny Trejo.

The story: a group of bad a**es from all different areas -- warriors, soldiers, etc -- are dropped into a strange jungle. They group together and learn that they are being hunted by a group of predators and must fight the aliens and try to get back home.

Was it good?

Sort of. There is some fun here, but not enough for me to recommend the movie. The problem is two-f0ld. First, the plot is weak. The basic idea is that these bad a**es are dropped on an alien planet that is like an animal preserve where they can be hunted by the predators. That's not bad, but then nothing special really happens. It turns out the predators use dog-like creatures, but only once so they aren't that big of a deal. We meet another human who has been surviving who turns on the group (no real surprise). It turns out there are two different types of preds, big and small, who fight each other...but why would they fight each other in the middle of a planet designed to hunt humans? And while the pred apparently hunt humans, I don't remember any other aliens...so there's an entire planet and they only hunt humans?

So there isn't any really interesting about the predators and there isn't really anything interesting about the people. In fact, I really didn't like most of the humans. It hurt the movie since I didn't really care if they lived or died.

The first movie had this great twist where these special forces guys go out to save prisoners, but find out they have been betrayed and they were sent to destroy a camp not save some prisoner. Then on their way back they become hunted by something even more dangerous. Here, there's nothing like that so the movie comes off as being flat, and with the characters all being a*holes, it's a movie that has moments but never draws you in.

*** AVOID ***

Recommend instead: watch the original PREDATOR. It's a classic. Simple, but soooo good!

THE KILLER INSIDE ME (a reivew)

A crime noir movie based on a 1952 novel. Stars Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba, Kate Hudson.

The story: a shariff's deputy begins an affair with a prostitute. She is going to blackmail the son of a local businessman but the deputy makes it look like they have killed each other. He seems to have gotten away with it, but then everything begins to unravel.

Was it good?

No. It's a weird movie. On the surface it sounds like it should be a thriller, but it is so slow moving that it's more of a character piece, but as a character piece it feels kind of...nothing. I mean, they have the deputy into rough sex (which his mom got him involved in...yikes!) so maybe they are trying to do the mind of the sociopath stuff, but they never really get inside this guy's head. They never get inside the heads of the people around him. It's just an oddly empty movie.

For instance, when he kills the prostitute/businessman's son it isn't clear if he is doing it for the money (which he doesn't seem to need) or because he blames the businessman for his brother's death...and the subject never really comes up again. You would think this brutal act -- he beats the prostitute to death -- would be strongly connected to something, but it isn't. At the same time he isn't this guy just going around and randomly killing people, so it's hard to say he just does it for the sake of killing.

A lot of other choices are odd or just disconnected. You would think that if this is more of a character piece then they would try to get inside his mind more, but even as the police close in on him we are always oddly distant. Even at the end, when it turns out **** SPOILER (inviotext -- highlight to read) *** the prostitute is alive, she doesn't tell the police anything even though he tried to beat her to death...and so he kills her anyway and they die in a hail of bullets and fire (he rigs the house to burn) **** END ***

I can see why an actor like Casey Affleck might want to play his role -- a nice guy on the outside who is actually a manipulative killer -- but why the hell would Jessica Alba or Kate Hudson want their roles, which basic just show them in bed with the guy and then getting beaten to death? I know the director has had some acclaim with movies competing in Cannes, but that's enough to get these actresses to take roles like this? Really?

For me, compared to great psychological thrillers like PSYCHO, this movie feels incredibly passive. And considering how much sociopath stuff is out there, with movies and crime tv shows, this movie just didn't add anything.

*** AVOID ****