LARVA (a review)

LARVA (a review)

This is another made-for-tv (ScyFy?) horror/sci-fi movie.

The story: a company uses a new experimental feed on cattle to increase their meat/money but it changes the larva in the cattle to become monsters that then start taking over the town.

Was it good?

Almost. First, I like these kinds of bug movies (see my ARACHNOPHOBIA review), so I'm a good audience. Then they don't rush too much. They start with problems with the cattle, then introduce the new vet into the area and he begins to suspect something is wrong as the larva begin to infest more and more. Of course, no one believes him until it is too late. All good stuff. The problem? Well, first the cattle company who causes this and then is trying to cover it up by kidnapping the doctor and the two people that believe him. Really? This feels like something that could be covered up? Then the problem is with the larva themselves. At first they are smallish creepy, crawly things (which looked pretty good, FX-wise), but later they become these giant things that fly around like bats attacking people. So is this a movie about larva or about mutant bats? By then everything had just spiral out of the suspension of disbelief zone. It's the idea that the audience will buy any one thing you ask them to -- time travel? fine. Androids? Fine. Monsters? Fine -- but you only get that one thing an the rest of the time you have to play within the rules. Here, there are no rules. They just keep changing. Add that to the fact that everything in the second half feels disjointed, becoming just a series of random attacks instead of a clear, building threat...it lost me.

Which is a shame. If the second half had been solid I would have given it a slight recommend. But the way the second half goes...

*** DON'T RECOMMEND ***

DEADLY END (a review)

DEADLY END (a review)

Part of a good idea. Too bad the movie sucked.

The story: a couple movie into a happy home with the husband about to start a dream job. Unfortunately, after meeting a crazy neighbor they start to become sick and realize the neighbor is trying to poison them but can't get anyone to help stop him.

Was it good?

No, it sucked. But the thing is that it really is a good idea for a movie. What if you moved into a house and the neighbor had it in for you? That's a lot creepier to me than DISTURBIA, where the neighbor is a killer but really isn't going to mess with you until you mess with them. Here, they come in and BAM! crazy neighbor messing up their lives.

So the first problem is the why of it all. Now it might seem like you don't need that -- the guy is crazy, isn't that enough? No. And the reason is that it's not interesting. Remeber: stories are vehicles for fascination. So what is fascinating about the reply, "Well, he's crazy." Now there are times when you can make something like this work. THE STRANGERS did a good job with it. There was no reason for the attack. The killers were just doing it to be sadistic, but that played into the whole random, pointlessness of it. There they also had the flashback/subplot of the couple -- two people who loved each other and were on the verge of breaking up because he had asked her to marry him and she had refused. And I don't think a reason for her refusal was given either, but it is now during the attack that they will realize how important and precious their love is...even if it's too late. Now that's a story. But here there isn't anything like that. He's crazy. They try to do things to stop him, but nothing works and he amps up his attacks again and again, getting to the point where the guy is blind and the women is abducted so he can operate on her, ripping out her organs, but then she survives and they are together (although the husband seemed catatonic...not sure what was going on with him). So what's the point? Is he supposed to be some force of nature...he's just a guy who poisons? Because he had other neighbors who liked him, so that doesn't fit. And this is important because having an interesting antagonist is one of the most powerful things a writer can bring to his story. Here, because he's just a wacko, while is can be amusing, in terms of this clash between the two sides it isn't that interesting.

Next is the antagonist's plan. This isn't the why of the plan, but the how. He seems to just have tons of random chemicals that will have whatever effect he wants. Now maybe these are based on real things -- something to make them vomit or have diarrhea is plausabl, but to make them freeze? To make the husband go blind? And to have all these chemicals untracable by the doctors? That needs a little more explaining, especially since this guy isn't portrayed as a genius but as a wacko. So there isn't anything interesting in the HOW of what he's doing since it all seems made up.

Next is the protagonist. Now the contrast of the happy couple moving into a new house and then encountering a neighbor who wants to poison them is good, but the problem is what the husband/wife do after things go wrong. Namely, not much. The husband does try things -- call the cops, talk to doctors, buy a gun, but can't get one -- but none of them go anywhere. Part of the fun of thrillers is the back and forth and here there isn't any back and forth because the husband is never able to do anything effective, he never puts pressure on the antagonist. It's like a basketball game where one team is always ahead by 10 points or more. Sure the other team might go on a run, but if they never get closer then 10 points who cares? So there's no tension.

It's a shame because it is a nifty idea, but this lousy execution and lack of understanding of how to make a thriller or horror movie work dooms it.

*** AVOID ***

TIMELINE (a review)

TIMELINE (a review)

A film based on a Michael Crichton book whose audience apparantly is so dumb that the advertisers said "based on a film by the writer of Jurassic Park" because they didn't think people would know who Michael Crichton was. Stars Paul Walker, Billy Connelly, Francis O'Conner, Gerard Butler, and Anna Friel.

The story: a guy's achiologist father goes missing and he and others end up going time traveling to medeival ages to find them, but then their way back is compromised and they get caught in the this big battle with the French.

Was it good?

No. It was oddly boring. A lot depends on them losing their "markers" which are the BS time travel device to get them back to the future. But all that is just normal time travel fiction that's been done a thousand times. Yawn. And the rest just felt like a lot of running around. If you have a particular interest in this specific historical battle -- La Roque Castle. But if you aren't already into the Hundred Years War, then there just isn't much here to grab your interest.

*** PASS ***

(coming soon)

WILD COUNTRY (a review)

WILD COUNTRY (a review)

An Irish horror film with a Little Red Riding Hood theme.

The story: after a young girl gives up her baby, she and some friends go out into the country where she finds a baby that she wants to care for, but which leads to them being hunted down by a giant wolf.

Was it good?

No. The whole thing was kind of weird. I mean, she loses a baby and then finds a baby out in the woods (which *Holy Crap!* is close to something I have in one of my scripts!), but then they are pursued by this giant -- and I mean giant -- wolf. Um...why? I never got the connection really between the wolf and baby. Eventually the other kids are killed off and she gets to a house where the priest who took her baby is meeting them and I think it's supposed to be something about him taking her baby (he talked her into it or he made her or something? Or maybe he was father? Was that it?) Anyway, it ends with the wolf devouring the pirest from inside the house somehow (so she was a wolf?) and then a family of wolves leaving (so she was one of them? This was a werewolf story?)

Yeah, clearly I didn't get it, and I'm usually pretty good with the fairy tale-as-metaphore stuff. But to be honest that was just the end and if the rest had been really solid it wouldn't have mattered, but nothing really worked for me. The girl losing a baby and then finding one was neat (so neat I wrote a story about it...) but none of the characters or relationships really did anything and the wolf was kind of comical. And I feel bad for saying that because they actually did some cool things and it looked practical instead of just CGI and they didn't do the whole keep it dark so no one really sees it and they had some nice shots...and yet...it just wasn't convincing.

It's too bad. A smarter story (with less annoying kids) and a little better directing (not that the directing was horrible but it needed to be a little better to pull this off) and this might have been neat. But it wasn't.

*** AVOID ***

FRAGMENTS - WINGED CREATURES (a review)

FRAGMENTS - WINGED CREATURES (a review)

Stars: Kate Beckinsale, Forest Witaker, Guy Pierce, Dakota Fanning, Jackie Earle Haley, Jennifer Hudson. A big, ensemble story.

The story: a gunman walks into a diner and begins shooting people and finally himself. This is a story of the survivors and how their lives are changed, all in different ways, by the incident.

Was it good?

No. It's a big ensemble story and those are incredibly difficult to pull off and even though it was a great cast almost all of them (except Fanning) are horribly underutilized. The problem with ensembles, especially ones like this where isn't a central goal or anything, is that everything depends on character and theme. And especially with theme, this movie fails. In a movie like this theme has to be very clear and very focused because each character is going to examine a different aspect of that theme. BIG CHILL is about dealing with death and their lives. BREAKFAST CLUB is about acceptance/outcase. This movie is about...I honestly couldn't tell you. All the characters are affected, but there isn't really any unity to how it affects them to what they are dealing with or even if they are dealing with anything. And without any thing external to work against and without any clear thematic push, the movie amounts to just watching people walk around. Only Dakota Fanning's character, a girl who suddenly becomes a devoute believer after her father is killed in the diner, really has anything interesting to say.

It's a shame because there are a lot of very interesting actors, but even great actors are boring when they don't have anything to do.

**** AVOID *****

JONAH HEX (a review)

JONAH HEX (a review)

crap.

(more coming)

WOLF MOON (formerly DARK MOON RISING) (a review)

WOLF MOON (formerly DARK MOON RISING) (a review)

A werewolf movie starring Maria Conchita Alonso, Max Ryan (DEATH RACE, THE BOX), Sid Haig, Chris Mulkey (DREAMSCAPE and about 100 others), Ginny Weirick.

The story: farmer's daughter falls for a troubled drifter who it turns out is a werewolf. Lots of talking. The sheriff likes the girl's father. Lots of standing around. Troubled werewolf guy has to kill his father (who he doesn't know) to break the curse. The shariff starts hunting for the werewolf. More talking. Eventually the dad shows up, walking, taking his time. He and the son face off...and talk.

Was it good?

No. It was worse than bad...it was BORING. Maybe they were trying to make it more of a character piece because there isn't much plot here, but even as a character piece there isn't anything going on. Let's compare:

In AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON a guy is attacked and sees his bf killed in front of him, he has nightmares where his friend tells him he has to kill himself or he will turn into a werewolf, meanwhile he falls in love with the nurse, but then he actually doesn't turn into a werewolf and now he realizes that he has to kill himself or (1) be haunted by the people he has killed and (2) he will continue to change and kill again and again. Tragic ending.

In WOLF MOON drifter and girl fall in love (for some reason...they both are good looking but there's nothing else between them), except the guy is a werewolf. He already knows this. He isn't really trying to do anything about it. He just mopes. And changes and kills things, including attacking the girl who doesn't freak out (I guess because she has seen TWILIGHT?) and then they try to get help. By then he's killed lots of livestock and stuff, but still not really doing anything different or trying to stay away from the girl or anything.

I mean, even just from a one P synopsis you can see how boring it is. Maybe they were trying to do a werewolf version of TWILIGHT with the supernatural romance, but the romance is handled so poorly...they meet, they fall in love...no tension, no nothing. In T- they struggle to connect and then when they do he reveals he is a vampire and then they explore the good side of being a vampire (they are really good at baseball) but just when everything looks great other vampires come to kill her (oh no!). Here's there's just nothing.

That's all I have to say: BORING.

*** AVOID ****

2:13 (a review)

2:13 (a review)

Don't know why I watched this. Very, very lame. Then I noticed it had Teri Polo (MEET THE PARENTS), Kevin Pollack (USUAL SUSPECTS) and the guy who played Jacob on LOST.

The story? A criminal profiler comes back from psych leaves and gets caught up in a case with a man in a mask that brings back old childhood trauma.

Was it good?

No. I got so bored I couldn't really even tell you what that childhood trauma was. Everything seemed very generic. The killer/killing with the mask didn't interest me, none of the other stuff did. The relationship with the female office (Teri Polo) was boring (including one of those cliche PG shower scenes because when a woman is in danger she has to take a PG shower). Cliches, lack of anything not a cliche... if you are looking for a detective story, there are better on tv.

*** AVOID ***

OVER HER DEAD BODY (a review)

OVER HER DEAD BODY (a review)

Eva Longoria, Paul Rudd, Jason Biggs and Lake Bell. Written and directed by Jeff Lowell

The story? A rom-com about a psychic who falls in love with a man whose fiance has died except now the ghost-ex-fiance haunts the psychic to get her to break up with the guy.

Was it good?

So first a confession -- I had a concept almost identical to this. I first thought of the idea as a thought experiment -- what would be the craziest combination of movies I could ever imagine? Something so outrageous no one else would ever think of it? I came up with..."What if you remade SIXTH SENSE as a romantic comedy?" I loved it. It was so out there no one else would think of it. So I had an idea about a guy who falls in love with a girl but it haunted by all her ex-boyfriends. And then I heard about this movie. F*%&%&!!!!!!

Okay, so I have some issues here, but was the movie good anyway?

Not really. But it wasn't entirely horrirble. And I was ready for it to be horrible, and yes, the first ten minutes do suck, but it does pick up after that. What makes it work is Paul Rudd. For once he isn't just an obnoxious smart ass. Here he's a hurt obnoxious smart ass and it makes him much more likable then I've seen before. The fact that there is so much going on that he is completely unaware -- his ex-as a ghost, the girl he likes lying to him, etc -- makes his smart ass routine seem okay. Maybe it turns out he just needs a dose of being clueless to be likable? The other nice thing is that the main story is about these two women...and how often are two women the focus of a movie? Unfortunately, there isn't much to the actual story and everything plays out the way you would expect -- ghost haunts psychic, taunting and teasing and making her miserable until she's ready to give up, the guy discovers the lie and is hurt and dumps her, the ghost realizes she wants the guy to be happy...yada yada yada.

So no surprises. No depth. Nothing unexpected, which is nice because you can probably tell right away if you want to see it or not. If you want too then you will find it at least okay. If not, you probably won't like it. For me, it was kind of okay and kind of blah...

*** NOT RECOMMENDED (but it wasn't horrible) ****

MAREBITO (a review)

MAREBITO (a review)

Another weird Japanese horror movie. This time a strange take on a vampire story.

The story: when he sees a frightened man stab himself in the eye, Masuoka becomes obsessed with seeing what could have frightened the man and finds himself wandering in a giant underground city built by something that existed before man. Be learns of the Deros, strange humanoid creatures, and he finds a young naked girl who he brings back to his apartment. Except this girl he learns will only feed in blood. He begins to notice strange people following him. Lots of other weirdness: the girl goes missing but returns, strange phones calls, the ghost of the man who stabbed himself, a woman who says the girl is actually his daughter and...

Was it good?

Okay, I admit I didn't really finish the synopsis because I don't get the ending at all. Like a lot of Asian horror films, this one starts out with some cool stuff and then seems to decend into weird for the sake of weird with an ending that I don't understand at all. Maybe it's the fact that the Asian films don't seem to follow any rules (or at least not the ones us westerners are used to) that make them so fascinating, but it also makes them hard to love for a lot of us. Eventually weirdness for the sake of weirdness doesn't work and we need a little more explaination than these movies give us (and yes, there were people who liked the end to Lost, but there were a lot who hated it and the entire BS last season!).

There are hints that the girl/vampire is actually his daughter and that he killed his wife, which would make all this a hallucination. But is it? At the end he descends into the underground city and seems to experience terror, but I didn't really understand the what/why/meaning of it.

For me what worked was this descent into the underground city and the city itself, which was all fantastic. For that alone the movie is worth watching. And there are a lot of other things that make this worth watching -- the girl, the deros, the paranoia -- but as the movie moves from story into weird-for-weirds-sake it becomes less interesting and less meaningful and it feels less like the filmmakers are trying to communicate something powerful as they are floundering with a story that they don't understand/know what to do with.

Still, there's a lot of good here and for fans of Asian horror this is worth checking out.

*** RECOMMEND (mainly for first half) ****

YOGA (a review)

YOGA (a review)

Thsi is a South Korean horror movie and like all Japanese horror movies it has a good set up and then a bunch of weird things happen that don't really make sense and then it has a weird ending that leaves you feeling confused. Even with subtitles 90% of these movies don't make sense, but they do such a great job with the set up and atmosphere that they are still better than 99% of American horror films.

The story: a woman loses her tv sales job to a younger, sexier woman and so goes to a secret advance yoga training course that promises youth and beauty to the one person who can complete the course. But there are rules: no eating after dark, no phones, no showers within 1 hour of training, etc. All the girls become tempted to break the rules and they begin to realize something strange (horrible) is going on...

Was it good? It was pretty good. The acting was good and the story interesting. The fact that it isn't a slasher and plays into the themes of vanity and beauty and youth help keep it about the average fare. I admit I have no idea what was going on toward the end. The second half of the movie is extremely dark, so it was hard for me to follow, and then there's tons of weird stuff happening which would be hard to follow even if it was bright as day. Something with a snake? And living forever? And the girl, but a different girl, and...I don't know. One thing that was useless was a storyline with her boyfriend trying to find her that never really paid off for me (or did I miss something). All of that just distracted from the real story that was happening inside the yoga studio.

But for an atmosphere horror movie it was a notch above most -- weird and cool and had a solid set up and solid acting.

*** RECOMMEND (as weird horror) ***

SPLICE (a review)

SPLICE (a review)

The new horror movie from the director of CUBE (Vincenzo Natali), producer by Guillermo Del Toro (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) and starring Adrian Brody and Sarah Polly. This is supposed to be a horror movie, but honestly I haven't laughed that much or that hard in a long, long time. FUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!

The story: a husband and wife scientistfic research team is about to have their funding cut so they take a radical step of injecting human DNA into a genetic hybrid project. What grows out of it is something not human, but kind of human, and they have to hide it (it's illegal) and care for it as if it were their daughter. Except it isn't human and begins exhibiting weird and dangerous behavior.

How was it?

THIS IS THE FUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!

Now, I don't think it was supposed to be, but with a little tweaking to the editing and a different soundtrack this movie would be a cult hit on par with Rocky Horror and Showgirls.

*** VERY SPOILER HEAVY *** WARNING ** VERY SPOILER HEAVY ***

The movie starts out okay. They are trying to find some antidote thing. He wants kids, she doesn't. Then it gets funny. They need to have a great presentation to get more funding, but instead it goes horribly wrong and the two weird creatures begin fighting and kill each other and then knock the glass cage over causing it to shatter and spray the audience with glass and blood. And I mean, spray! It's the kind of over the top thing you'd expect from Sam Raimi. Hilarious! Then a bunch of weird stuff -- they put in their DNA (why?) and then this things grows. And of course it becomes a kid in about a day and the woman starts treating it like a child even though it's way to creepy to be a kid. Still, it has some of her DNA so maybe there's a bonding thing. And the funny thing is they keep trying to make the movie scary, but nothing ever happens! Like there's a scene where this thing faces off with a cat and you think it's going to eat the cat, but no it just gives the cat a hug...which is werid because later it does eat a cat. Anyway, they eventually have to take it to an abandoned barn the woman has (conveniently) and she and the creature get close until they don't. Suddenly the experiment/child is acting up so the woman/mom starts acting weird and wants to mutilate it and meanwhile the male scientist/dad who didn't even seem to like it before is suddenly dancing with it and then one night...yeah, the dad does the experiment. Right there on the barn floor. I mean, this thing is bald and has a tail and even opens WINGS and the guy is still nailing her. WINGS!!! Dude, I don't know...I've been beer goggling before but even as my most drunken state I couldn't do it with something with wings and a tail! And if that wasn't funny enough the woman catches them and he tries to explain it to her. There they after, right after she has caught his screwing their experiment/child/wing-tail genetic freak creature, and they are talking about it??? How is she not flipping out and screaming and crying. She even says "You crossed the line." Really? When did he cross the line? When he had sex with not-his wife or when he started screwing things with tails and wings that are genetic freak mutants?? To be that is so beyond "the line, so beyond the line that is past the line and past that line and the next line too, that I was howling during that scene. I mean, I was on the floor! I think I pissed myself it was so funny. In fact, I think I might have pooed a little. And then the guys says something like "We changed the rules." He's trying to explain it!!!! Like what rule change makes it okay to screw a weird wing-tail mutant???

FUNNIEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!

But as a drama/horror it was a complete fail. There is a good idea in there and actually the parenting metaphore was interesting at first, but by the time the wife is mutilating the thign and the dad is screwing it...what the hell parallel for parenting is THAT??? And the science is all BS. It isn't science fiction it's gobbledy-gook. Apparently no one on the set had ever passed a high school bio course because everything was just stupid. As science fiction it fail, as horror it failed, as metaphore is failed. But it was funny as hell.

*** RECOMMEND (but only if you understand it is a comedy) ***

I WITNESS (a review)

I WITNESS (a review)

Stars Jeff Daniels, James Spader and Portia de Rossi.

The story: a disillusioned human rights worker goes down to Mexico to help workers as they try to unionize in a factory that is trying to fight unionization. While there he becomes involved in two mysteries -- first 22 deaths in a collapsed tunnel that appears to be drug-related and then the killings of two kids on the exact same day -- two mysteries which are very intertwined.

Was it good?

Almost. The first half was VERY slow. The initial stuff of Daniels' character coming down and dealing with workers, etc, was pretty boring to me. It didn't help that Daniels is playing a depressed character so his energy is in the negatives. It feels like he is sucking energy out of you. Yes, it's what the character calls for, but it doesn't make for a great watch. There's also a bunch of stuff with James Spader and Portia de Rossi all of which could be cut out. I guess they are there to talk about unionization and stuff, but they have nothing to do with the central mysteries and so they just make the first half feel very unfocused.

It's at midpoint that the two mysteries become intertwined and that's where the story gets interested. The next half hour is good investigation storytelling. Unfortunately the movie ends on a lame note, needing a death bed confession from a character I'm not sure I had seen before (yes, I commited the sin of double tasking).

*** SPOILER *** There is one scene I still don't understand and it seems like a weird giant plot hole to me, but maybe it is explained and I missed it. At one point Daniels and Rossi are kidnapped and forced to dig their own graves, except they actually uncover the bodies of the two boys that were killed. And then the bad guys have disappeared. So...were those bad guys who had them at gunpoint or were they good guys showing them where the bodies were or was there something else that I missed?

For me, although the second half got better, ultimately the uninteresting first half and the deus ex machina confession at the end made the movie weak. The actual story/mystery wasn't that interesting either and to get all the pieces to connect -- the kids, the people in the tunnel, the factory -- actually takes a lot of things to have happened, so instead of it being something that seems complicated but is actually clever and simple, this is something that seems simple and is actually long and complicated...which is never as satisfying in a mystery. And there isn't any other big insight -- companies are greedy. Gotcha. It was okay, but I need more for a recommend.

**** NOT RECOMMENDED (but not horrible) ****

WHALE WATCHING MASSACRE (a review)

WHALE WATCHING MASSACRE (a review)

(coming soon)

THE COOK (a review)

THE COOK (a review)

Another straight to dvd horror movie, but this has a twist...the director actually is pretty good.

The story: at a sorority house a replacement cook comes in over a holiday weekend where he goes crazy and begins killing all the girls.

Was it good?

No.

It was as ridiculously stupid as you would think, but the difference here is that if you watch the movie you get the feeling that the director is actually good. This is a case where you really, really can blame the script. So why is it that the director seems good and the script seems bad? Well, let's start with how obviously the script is bad. You can hear it in the set up -- a sorority that has it's own cook? And a replacement cook just happens to come in on a holiday weekend? So clearly this isn't going to be a scary horror movie. And yet it's not really a comedy since none of that is actually funny, just stupid/ridiculous. So right away you have a movie that you can bet isn't going to be scary and probably isn't going to really be funny. This is the kind of movie you write when you think horror movies are stupid so just make it as ridiculous as possible because since you think horror movies are stupid clearly the only reason to watch is to see how stupid it is going to be. In other words: it's written by a smart ass who looks down on the audience. And by smart ass, I mean the guy is a dick.

The rest of the movie is what you expect. The girls are all stupid except the boring ones who just want to study all the time. The cook is weird and over the top, but none of the girls notice. Throw in a couple random showers and some lesbian stuff. The killing isn't scary and there's nothing actual funny because the movie isn't about anything other than people playing outrageous stereotypes.

In short: it's crap.

Now that actually might be harsh. After all, I'll admit this would be a fun movie to work on -- some hot girls, lots of blood and is stupid enough that you wouldn't have to worry about anything other than hitting on/eye humping the girls. Some people think these low budget movies are made by socially retarded nerds as a way to meet hot girls and try to get laid. I think this movie proves those people right.* In other words: a pretty fun gig. But if you are actually looking at the script it would be a piece of *%*&#

* I don't actually know that making this movie got anyone laid. But it really is the only explanation.

The director: so if the story is so bad, why do I say the director have talent? Well, it's tough to say. It often is hard to seperate the director from the material. But it's a matter of getting good shots (instead of going to shots you want that you can't pull off), of getting shots that will edit together right and of giving a certain consistant feel to the work. Knowing when to play with the camera angle, when to keep it simple to keep attention on what's happening in the frame. What hampers him the most is the material is just so ridiculous that there isn't much for him to do story and character-wise except embrace it and let the actors go for it. If there were any semblance of a story -- if any of the characters were dealing with anything other than whether or not they should experiment with lesbianism, if any of the characters weren't written as an over the top stereotype -- then you could see how he can handle actual story and charaters. But aside from that it's a question of the shots and how they look (which is also the cinematography) and do the shots build...and in this case they do. From the first aerial shot that gives this very enclosed movie a nice big, open feel, to the character introductions with have a light, comedic feel -- the beginning plays better than the material should...a sign of a good director. Unfortunately even a good director can't overcome bad material and by the 30 minute mark when there hasn't been anything more than the typical B-crapfest that the movie becomes doomed.

Too bad.

*** AVOID ***

VAMPIRES: OUT FOR BLOOD (a review)

VAMPIRES: OUT FOR BLOOD (a review)

A horror movie with Kevin Dillon (Entourage), Lance Hendricksen (Aliens), Vanessa Angel (Weird Science) and Jodi Lyn O'Keefe? It must be good right? Or horrible since no one has heard of it. You always got to wonder when name actors are in horror movies you've never heard of...

The story: a cop who can't get over his ex- and has a drinking problem encounters a weird vampire orgy where he is bitten and begins to turn into a vampire. Except no one belives him. They think he's crazy because there's no evidence and he's talking like a crazy person. But his ex-, who writes books about vampires, believes him and together they try to kill the head vampire, except the ex- doesn't really want to kill the head vampire, she wants to become a vampire herself and so things go bad and then the cops come and they still think he's crazy and his ex- comes back when he's in the mental ward but no one else can see her so he kills her but there's still no evidence and he still seems crazy and then she isn't dead.

Was it good?

No. I mean, seriously, did you read what I just wrote? The amazing thing is that this was good enough to get a bunch of name actors involved. Of course, it could be that the actors needed a job and this was paying. Yikes. Bad script, bad f/x, bad directing, bad camera work, bad edits... If this had been a no budget outsider movie it would have been bad. To have had pros on set and turn out this, yikes!

*** AVOID ***

A BIT OF TOM JONES (a review)

A BIT OF TOM JONES (a review)

A British film with one of the most brilliant concepts for a comedy I've ever heard...

The story: a man in a bar buys the penis of legendary singer Tom Jones from a woman in a bar thinking he will sell it and make some much needed money. Yes, he buys Tom Jones's penis. Of course, selling it is harder than he would have imagined and between finding a seller and failing to find a buyer and getting rid of the thing and then finding a buyer and having to get it back from the police who he thinks has it...well, yeah, it's pretty out there.

Was it good?

No. And it's hard to explain why. Everything about the movie should have been amazing. I love -- LOVE -- the premise, easily the funniest idea for a comedy I have ever heard. And the story, with him trying to sell it and trying to find buyers and then trying to steal it back from the police and getting caught between the various unsavory collectors who want it...all of that should have been gold.

And yet...

It just wasn't funny. I mean, I don't think I luaghed once and I should have been on the floor rolling with this stuff. It just felt like something was off. They say comedy is timing and maybe the timing was wrong or something. Maybe it was the lack of surprises -- for as crazy of a concept as it has the humor was actually pretty tame -- that made it feel too predictable to be funny. Even the old people in fetish gear really wasn't surprising.

I don't know. It's shame because I thought it had amazing potential and I kept watching it thinking this should be funny...but it wasn't.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED (although I wish I could) ***

BUNNY BULL (a review)

BUNNY AND THE BULL (a review)

A strange British comedy about a man who goes on a road trip without leaving his apartment. It is from a writer and star of the British tv show THE MIGHTY BOSH which I've never seen but will not have to check out.

The story: a man who has been a shut in for a year has his routine ruined when mice eat all of his food. Having now to venture out he finds himself reconstructing a road trip he took with an outrageous sex crazed, fun loving pal who was trying to help him get over a woman he loved but who didn't love him.

Was it good?

Yeah, it's a strange, surreal, silly and interesting. It isn't the big laugh out loud, but it's constantly interesting and it does a great job with the characters. Unfortunately, the biggest problem is the main character who is a shut in and whining over a girl for most of the movie, making him incredibly annoying. It's basic to the character, but still these sorts of characters make it hard to embrace a movie and it would have been much better to find some way to let the audience like him more.

Also worth mentioning is the visual style of the film. The transitions from his apartment to the road trip and his recreations of the road trip are all wonderfully inventive and yet don't overwhelm the character or the story. This visual whimsy adds a wonderful touch.

*** RECOMMEND ***

POPCORN (2007) (a reivew)

POPCORN (2007) (a reivew)

No, this isn't the 1991 horror movie with Jill Schoelen (whom we all remember from the original STEPFATHER with Terry O'Quinn). This is a 2007 British teen comedy.

The story: awkward guy falls for total hottie who doesn't notice him and so he does lots and lots of outrageous stuff trying to win her love. In this case, he takes a job where she works (local movie theater) and then after several failed attempts starts using schemes from movies to win her over, including as a final scheme pretending he is in love with another girl and getting her help so that they can be together and she will get to know him and want to jump his bones. Along the way there's also stuff with the manager and others stealing and someone from corporate undercover at the theater trying to figure out who it is.

Was it good?

Kind of. Maybe it's because it's British so some of the humor didn't come across. There's a lot to like here (even though my synopsis doesn't really capture it). The idea of the hopeless geek using movie advice to win a girl while working in the movie theater is pretty good and the girl he falls for is interesting -- pretty but not the empty headed girl most of these movies are about where sure they look hot, but after five minutes of her yammering you don't care if he gets the girl, you just hope you get to watch him bone the girl.

The problem with the movie is that it is just all over the place. It isn't focused enough and there isn't any feeling of stakes. For instance, the guy gets a job at the movie theater but it turns out it's the hot girl's last day...except there isn't much made of the fact that this is his last chance. Then there's a party but why have it at all? Why not make him connect with her on that last day instead of having this extra chance for him? And then the love triangle -- when he is pursuing one girl while pretending to be in love with another -- is good, but more could have been done with it. In fact the concept that he is falling movie advice could have been used a lot stronger too. That really is the problem with the movie -- there is a lot of good stuff and the cast is pretty nice, but it just always feels like it's at half speed. Of course, then, because it isn't Hollywood it has to avoid the kind of happy ending you really want after following these characters, so even there it's a bit of a let down. Maybe they thought they were being clever, but I would have liked a more fulfilling ending instead.

Still...there's a lot to like here, especially if you go into it knowing it feels more like an indy comedy than a Hollywood comedy (although I would have liked the HW version more).

*** RECOMMEND ****

SOMEONE'S KNOCKING ON THE DOOR (a review)

SOMEONE'S KNOCKING ON THE DOOR (a review)

Weird trippy, trippy movie. Horror, comedy, satire, 70's vibe...

The story: when a med student is murdered, his friends fall under suspicion from the local cops. It all started when the kids were poking around (illegally) in the records and found tapes of psych sessions with a notorious murder/rapist couple who now seem to be coming back in people's dreams to kill and rape them.

Was it good?

Wow, this was weird. At times it felt so low budget and so cheey I hated it. Other times it was oddly cool. The strange comic vibe I think hurt it making it hard to take any of it seriously, so it never really gets scary or creepy and makes the acting annoying as hell in places. Still, there was a lot that was interesting. The story of the murder/rapist couple and the idea that these people listened to the tapes and now are being haunted (or hunted) by the couple was cool. And there was just enough that was weirdly interesting to keep me watching. Still the ending while it gives the movie it's first emotional moment, it's also the sort of cop out that I hate (no, I won't give it away).

Not sure what to put. It didn't work enough as a horror movie to recommend it. It didn't work as a comedy. And yet, it was oddly interesting...

*** AVOID and RECOMMEND (recommend as a weird/trippy movie...avoid if you want a regular horror and/or comedy movie)

ALONE IN THE DARK (a review)

ALONE IN THE DARK (a review)

This movie is directed by Uwe Boll. Now for most people -- or at least anyone who has ever heard of Uwe Boll -- that says enough. Uwe Boll is widely considered to be the worst director working/breathing/existing today. His movies regularly make the 100 Worst of lists and he is a virtual lock for a razzie nomination every time he gets behind the camera. He has had petitions formed with the idea of getting him to retire. He is best (worst?) known for his movie adaptations of video games. But I have to be honest here...for all the low budget schlock this guy has made, and for all the low budget schlock I watch, I had actually never seen a Uwe Boll movie and this one starred Christian Slater so I figured I'd give it a try. Of course, it also starred Tara Reid...

The story: As a child Edward Carnby (played by Christian Slater) escaped from a government paranormal agency that was experimenting on children and now he is a detective of the paranormal. When he recieves an ancient Abkani artifact that can open the gateway between the worlds of light and dark and unleash creatures that thrive on darkness, he and a young anthropologist who is also his ex- (played by Tara Reid) have to stop the demons from reopening the portal and destroying the world.

Was it good?

No. But I have to say it wasn't as bad as a lot of people make Boll films out to be. I mean, this is a film that had a 1% ranking on Rotten Tomatoes. Yeah, it's bad and a bit of a mess, but no more so than most low budget films.

First, my synopsis isn't that accurate. I mean, it leaves out a lot of stuff. That's one of the problems with the movie -- there are so many weird things going on and most of them aren't really explained and don't really make sense. It's like LOST, but without the good characters and emotion that made people forget all the questions and stupid crap that that tv show had.

I mean, first you have the ancient culture opening a doorway and unleashing demons. Then you have a government paranormal program. Then this guy escaped, but he's a paranormal detective and he had somethign done to him and the other kids in the program are involved. And he has an ex- and she is involved. Then there are creatures, but sometimes they take over people except they can't go in the light except as people they can and there's this mine shaft thing and...yikes. I don't know. By the 1 our point I had stopped really paying attention because none of it was working for me. Maybe for someone paying more attention all of this would have made more sense.

I will say that I like Christian Slater. Was this his best role? No, but it wasn't horrible. Tara Reid isn't good, but she isn't ridiculously horrible either. And Uwe Boll as a director? He's mediocre, which when paired with a story that's a mess makes him look really bad. I mean, there's no real visual style to the film, there are no good character moments, there's just nothing good to point to and say -- that's what this director can do well. If this movie had been directed with a stronger visual style (like PITCH BLACK) it would have fans. If the story had been better/more coherent it would have fans. If there had just been those 2-3 moments were people go "Cool!" it would have fans. But alas, the mediocre directing really killed it. And I do mean mediocre and not bad. If this guy had a tight, compelling script he probably could make a good movie. The problem is that he oversees the writing as well, so he gets the lame-script blame as well.

Still for kids looking for a creature/action film they could do worse. But of course they could also do much, much better.

*** AVOID ***

SEVENTH MOON (a review)

SEVENTH MOON (a review)

A horror movie starring Amy Smart? Sign me up. Unfortunately this is one of those at night movies where no one bothered to turn on a f****ing light while they were filming it. Between that and the shaky cam/always in close up this was basically a friggin' radio play!

The story: a couple about to get married go to China to meet the guys parents, but instead get lost in this rural area where people put animal outside their doors because there are these weird creatures that will kill you if you don't give them an animal. Of course they don't have an animal, so they run around trying to escape and then get caught and, uh, stuff.

Was it good?

You mean was the sound good, because for 80% of it you couldn't see a f***ing thing!!!! Jeez, how hard is it to figure out -- IT'S A MOVIE, WHEN FILMING TURN ON A LIGHT!!! I get that it's at night and rural and the woods, but there's no point it FILMING it if the audience can't SEE anything. And it's not like BLAIR WITCH where they could make the fake-documentary excuse. This was just horrible. Now, keeping it dark so we don't get a good look at the creatures...well, that makes sense. Creatures in the dark might be scarier. But so dark that we can't see the protagonists???? And to always film in close up and keep the camera skaing so much that you spend 90% of the time not being able to see a f***Ing thing?!?!?!? I mean, you hired Amy Smart for a reason -- was it because she sounds good during voice overs, because for 90% of the time you couldn't see enough to figure out what the F was happening!

Here's a radical idea for horror directors: when you make a film and are getting a shot, understand what the audience needs to see to make the shot work and then tun on enough lights that we can see the Fing thing!!!

It's a shame because the film might have been good. Any Smart. Weird Chinese myth. That can have potential. But this was just an epic, epic FAIL. And let's be clear -- all the blame should go to the director. Anyone so stupid that they don't know that to get an image on film you have to turn on a light should be making a movie. Dear director: YOU FAILED.

***AVOID ****

HIGHWAY (a review)

HIGHWAY (a review)

Isn't it fun to see movies with stars before they become super famous? This movie (made in 2002) has Jake Gyllenhaaaaaaaal, Jared Leto, Salma Blair and John C Reilly (from Scrubs).

The story: when a guy is caught screwing a man's wife he takes off before the husband can have his feet broken. They head off to Seatlle so his friend can find a girl he once made out with that he has been holding a torch for and along the way pick up a woman and meet a drug user/dealer/something and meet an alligator boy and, uh, other stuff.

Was it good?

This is so not my thing. Maybe it's the drug stuff that I don't see as wow cool or the endless wandering which to me feels more like a drug thing than storytelling, but I just didn't get into it. It's one of those movie filled with weird and wacky which can work, but you have to be just in perfect sync. Usually it means getting the mindset of the main character. For instance, in INTO THE NIGHT, Jeff Goldblum is a man who sees his girlfriend screwing another man and leaves her and develops insomnia and then one night he encounters a woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) on the run and helps her as she tries to get some money together to pay off some mean guys. It has weird, strange, wandering all through it but it works for me because I get the whole insomnia/do anything to help Michelle Pfeiffer thing. In this movie, the whole running away to Seattle and then hooking up with Salma Blair and everything didn't connect for me.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ****

my art...Kim Possible sketch cards

A FEW THINGS I'VE DRAWN...

Inspired by Elena's Kim Possible birthday party I decided to try some Kim Possible sketch cards. They were fun, but I have a lot to learn. First, with coloring. Yikes. Some of the, uh, interesting coloring is because I didn't have the right color and didn't want to leave that are white, but others were just that I didn't guage the color from the markers right. The colors change a lot as the marker dries and I didn't know that. Also, with body positioning. As simple as animation makes it look, I still had a lot of trouble getting body position to be both interesting and expressive. Most of these were made while looking at screen caps. Overall, I feel okay about them. For many of the characters this was my first time ever drawing them ever at all. I need a lot more practice, but it's fun so I'll probably be doing more.

KILLER PAD (a review)

KILLER PAD (a review)

A horror-comedy directed by Robert Englund. Yes, the original Freddy Krueger directing a horror-comedy! That's all I needed to know to put this on my must see list!

The story: four guys move into an apartment in Hollywood and throw a giant party hoping to hook up, but when the hot girls turn out to be killing people because one of them is the devil or something then they have to stop him, or her, or else...um...something.

Was it good?

No. But was it so bad it was good? No. There's some American Pie style jokes, but none of them really generate a laugh and the whole trying to get laid but the girls are killing people is okay, but not great. There is one nice beat where an old friend comes to the party but he's now a priest (not it yet), then of course he gets corrupted (not it yet) BUT then the boys realize that the girls are demons/the devil/whatever and the one person who could fight is the priest, but he's been corrupted so they are screwed. That was good.

And it's not that the movie is absolutely horrible, but there just isn't anything really good here either. Englund's directing doesn't really add anything and the choice to play it more as a comedy than a horror movie robs it of any real tension. There is a bunch of easy jokes, but for a movie that tries to be more comedy than horror, the comedy is easy jokes and never digs deeper to get to the good jokes. See even silly comedies like AMERICAN PIE or DATE NIGHT actually are about something. That gives the comedy more oomph. Here, for all the sex-based jokes, the comedy is pretty bland. And of course the other draw in b-movie horror (after beasts and blood, according to Joe Bob Brigs) is breasts and again for a movie with a lot of sex jokes there isn't any skin. So it isn't that it is horrible...just flat.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ****

So what went wrong? Well, first, while parodies can be fun you have to have a clear sense of what you are parodying and here it isn't clear. Sex comedies? Haunted house? Demon movies? Something else? And if it isn't a parody then you are much better having the movie be ABOUT something. DATE NIGHT has married couple trying to reconnect so they won't get divorced. AMERICAN PIE has four guys trying to get laid, but learning that the girls are actually much more mature about relationships and sex. Here...well, there's just nothing there. The other way to do it would be to make it a horror movie with a lot of comedy, ala SCREAM, but again that wasn't the way they chose to go. Without any dramatic spine, without any point of view, without a sense of what the movie is about, without any jokes that really pop...the whole thing is just kind of empty. You need a point of view. You need something for the movie to be about, even if it's something simple. Even comedies are better when they aren't empty.

HOLY WATER (a review)

HOLY WATER (a review)

Okay, I was excited to see this film. See when I first moved out to LA one of the first writer events I went to had this woman (producer, manager? I can't remember) talking about this one script she recently sold about these guys who stole viagra thinking it was a bunch of pills, but then it was really this giant block worth millions, so they store it in the town's water supply while they figure out what to do. Funny, right? And the guy was a nobody writer and BOOM! his first sale for six digits. So when I saw the loglien for this film I had to see it.

The story: Four guys in a small, dying town in Great Britian steal viagra thinking it is a bunch of pills, but then it was really this giant block worth millions, so they store it in the town's water supply while they figure out what to do.

Was it good?

Not good. Not horrible, but it just wasn't much of anything. Maybe the humor is just too British (humour?) and isn't translating, but there wasn't much here I found funny. The biginning is how bad their lives are -- which is fine as set up for the robbery, but I didn't find any of it interesting or funny, and then with the actual stealing it was okay, but the part where things should kick into high gear -- dumping the viagra in the town well -- actually doesn't come into play until late and aside from quick round of wild monkey love, it doesn't really play into anything more. They easily could have removed that element from the movie, which is a shame because it's one of the funniest concepts and it was totally underutilized.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED (but not horrible) ***

GEISHA ASSASSIN (a review)

GEISHA ASSASSIN (a review)

Another Asian b-movie review! Two in a row! Weekend double feature! Woohoo!

The story: a geisha seeks out the man who killed her father and has to kill a lot of people to get to him.

Was it good?

Um, not really. The first half was just fight scene after fight scene. All the fights were like B-movie monsters -- they were passable, but nothing great. No great moves, no great wire stunts. Lots of hitting and swords and spinning, but it was all kind of meh. In the second half I think they got into the story more -- there are flashbacks of her as a young girl and her father, but by then I'd checked out and was multitasking so I missed a lot (foreign films with subtitles are hard to watch while multitasking). Maybe it came together, but for me it was too little too late.

*** PASS (but it wasn't horrible) ***

Recommend instead: there are so many good kung fu movies -- CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON and HERO and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA and RUMBLE IN THE BRONX and...well, there are a lot of better kung fu movies.

TOKYO GORE POLICE (a review)

TOKYO GORE POLICE (a review)

WTF??? If you are looking for weird, bloody, over the top violence in a strange silly way and tons of strange, bizarre, strange...uh...weirdness, then this is the movie for you.


The story: (with help from Wiki) set in the future in Japan where the police force is privatized, a young girl, Ruka, helps the police hunt down engineered people -- people who have been DNA-altered so that whenever they get hurt they grow a weapon and go on a rampage. The person changing them is the "Key Man" and to kill these people you have to cut out a key shaped tumor that is inside each of them. Eventually Ruka meets the Key Man and kills him after learning that his father was also killed unjustly and in fact they are both looking for the same man because the same man ordered both kills -- he ordered the Key Man's father to kill Ruka's father and then had the Key Man's father killed. So now Ruka goes after the man who started all this.

Was it good?

Wow. Words like "good" and "bad" just don't seem to apply. This movie is so over the top strange...and I'm usually good for a big dose of strange, but this was even weird for me. From the over the top violence to people growing weapons to fetish clubs to flashbacks to suicide commercials to everything else. It was an overload of strange. But I'm a multitasker and a subtitled movie with lots of weird can lose me and this one definitely did. Usually when I get lost in a movie I ask myself if it was good enough to make me want to go back and watch it more closely. Here, the answer is no. All the weirdness and violence might be cool if I were in the right mood but I still want more of a story -- something with some emotion. And here, beside the revenge thing, which I'm not into -- I just got the feeling that nothing was there. And for all the satire (commecials with smiling school girls selling suicide instruments), I'm not exactly sure what is being satirized. Again and again, I just didn't connect.

*** NOT RECOMMENDED ***

R.I.P. John Wooden, age 99

John Wooden passed away today at the age of 99. Known most for being the coach at UCLA who won 10 national titles, he was also an all american and national champion as a player and a leader and educator for years after he retired. He was considered not only the great college basketball coaches, but one of the greatest coaches in all of sports. Rest in peace.