Sunday, October 31, 2010

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)


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)


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 ****

Thursday, October 28, 2010

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 ***

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

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 ***

Monday, October 25, 2010

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)


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!

Sunday, October 24, 2010





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 ****

THE A-TEAM (2010) (a review)



This is the feature film reboot of the classic 80's action/comedy tv series. I say classic because that's what other people call it. I've never seen the original. This reboot stars Liam Neeson, Patrick Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel.

The story: a group of elite combat troops are framed after they try to recover some plates to make fake us currency from the Iraqi's, which they do but then everything goes screwy and because it was an off the books mission they are held accountable and sent to prison. In prison the leader (Hannibal, Liam Neeson) makes a deal to catch the real criminal and recover the plates if they clear their names. He breaks out, then breaks the others out and they go after the bad guy.

Was it good?

No.

This was a huge mess for me. It takes a while to get going since we see each of them individually and then coming together to form a group, all of which was pretty dumb to me. None of their little backstories really added anything and the whole forming the group seemed haphazard since there didn't seem to be any reason to form the group. It was just a very long intro. Yawn. Then they go on the first mission (that we see -- they apparently went on like 80 that we don't see), which is to recover these forgery plates...which I didn't really get. I mean, if they know how to forge US currency then sure you can take the plate but why wouldn't they just make more plates? So it's a mission and if you don't think about it it's fine, but it seemed pretty lame. Still, this is when it gets interesting. It's fun, silly action time and this part has the feel of what you'd expect. Then it goes haywire and they are sent to prison for...I'm still not sure. Not for stealing the plates or killing some guy, I think it's because they recovered the plates but no one told them too? Or because they can't prove that someone told them too? I don't know. It all seemed silly. Then we have them breaking out of prisons (they are each sent to a seperate prison) and reforming the group, which is repetitious since we have already seen the group form once. And then there's a lot of silly action stuff. By then I was bored and didn't really pay attention. Also, there's a romance angle between Bradley Cooper and Jessica Biel where she hates him but then comes to love him...which didn't fit in the movie and was totally lame.

I guess if you want stupid action with some lame one liners thrown in this is okay, but otherwise it's pretty bad.

*** AVOID ***

KNIGHT AND DAY (a review)



A weird, crazy action comedy starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz. I think a lot of people remember this movie as being a bomb, but it's grossed over $250M worldwide.

The story: Diaz gets on a plane to go to her sister's wedding and meets a handsome man (Cruise) who it turns out is a super spy wanted by the government for stealing this device and now the government is after them to get it back.

Was it good?

Yes. Kind of. Maybe. In a weird way, but yeah, I guess I'd say yes. Maybe.

First I want to say I watches this movie right after watching the comedy The Other Guys (recommended, see review). That's an over-the-top action comedy with emphasis on the comedy. This movie made a nice second feature to that. If I hadn't seen that movie first, I don't know that I would have liked this one. It's a weird combination of over-the-top action and comedy with some quiet character work thrown in there too. Now, for me it worked as this over-the-top comedy. But I can see some people not getting it. Tom Cruise isn't a comedy guy and the way the story is written it seems to want to be a lot more grounded than it is. It's like it wanted to be SALT, and then got twisted into THE OTHER GUYS, so there are some problems all around. The comedy is uneven, and Tom Cruise doesn't feels awkward as an action/comedy star, and Diaz has great energy for comedy, but her character is supposed to be more grounded so that doesn't really work either. During the first half I thought they should have reversed them -- get a comedic star for the action hero role (which is so o-t-t it's hard to imagine anyone taking it seriously) and then a more dramatic actress for the female lead so that the role can be grounded and have some emotion. However, after thinking about it I'm not sure. Maybe this is what's needed to even out the two sides, much like THE OTHER GUYS has a comedic actor paired with a dramatic actor.

It's a tough call. This is a movie that had a lot of cool, neat things, but also a lot of problems. Like I said, watching it right after T-O-GUYS made it work for me, but I can understand the people that had problems with it. Still since it worked for me, I'm going to give it a slight recommend.

*** SLIGHT RECOMMEND (especially as the second in a double feature with THE OTHER GUYS) ***

THE OTHER GUYS (a review)


A comedy starring Will Farrell and Mark Wahlberg about two cops who try to take over for a pair of daring hero cops who get killed. Also stars Dwayne Johnson (the Rock), Samuel Jackson, Eva Mendes and Michael Keaton.

The story: two hero cops get killed chasing bad guys and two other cops (Farrell and Wahlberg), one of whom wants to be a hero cop and the other who is happy doing paperwork, try to step up and stop a major crime. Sort of.

Was it good?

YES.

I know I'm not explaining it well, but this movie is a little more odd, then a similar movie COP OUT(Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, directed by Kevin Smith) and between the two this is a much better movie -- it's bigger and weirder and funnier. At the same time it's harder to explain because because the crime they are foiling is a little weird and they come at it in a very strange way. You see there's this guy who lost a lot of money -- like a couple hundred Billion -- and so he's going to pull this scam to try to get it back. Except the cops don't know anything about it. In fact, Farrell's character arrests him for some permit violations, except then these guys steal him back right out of police custody which leads them to think something is up, but they don't figure it out until the end.

So it's a police movie where it isn't clear who the bad guy is or what's going on or even if there is really a crime for most of the movie. But it still works. And the reason it works is because it's funny. It's funny the way COP OUT wanted to be, with all the weird antics of the cops and all the strange and funny dialog. Plus this movie has this nice twist that it starts out with two other hero cops who pull the kind of ridiculous over the top stunts you only see in movies, and then when they are killed our two protagonists struggle to become the next hero cops. It's better because one of them wants to be a hero and the other doesn't, but then of course learns to embrace his crazy hero side too.

I liked COP OUT. But I liked THE OTHER GUYS a lot more. A LOT MORE.

**** RECOMMEND ****

ALTITUDE (2010) (a review)



A tight little thriller with a supernatural twist. These are some of my favorite types of movies if they are done well, but that means the supernatural element should be cool and the explanation for it all needs to be really cool. So how did this one do?

The story: a girl who has just gotten her pilots liscence takes her friends up in a plane when something goes wrong and the plane won't stop climbing and become lost in a large cloud formation where they are attacked by a strange creature.

Was it good?

Almost. I mean, for the first hour it was good...almost really good...but then it fell apart.

So what worked? The basic idea of these kids being caught on this plane that has this malfunction forcing it to keep climbing was cool and then they start piling on the problems -- the instruments are malfunctioning, they can't reach anyone on the radio, they fly into a giant storm cloud...and then they start heaing/seeing a strange creature.

Hell yes! All that worked and I thought this was going to be my sleeper movie of the year. And then...

Well, first, things started to get TOO outrageous. The supernatural creature is this giant monster that just felt impossible. It isn't like that Twilight Zone episode where it's this gremlin -- this is a giant monster. In some ways it was cool, but it was definitely too much. But ti still might have been okay...until they explained it all.

*** SPOILERS ***
So apparently, all this is because this kid is reading a comic book and he gets scared on planes and has this supernaturla power that whatever he sees when he gets scared manifests in real life. Not only that, but it turns out it has happened before on the plane crash that killed the girl's mother. But I guess he only gets scared while flying because it apparently has never happened any other time. Oh, and then it turns out he can control it sort of and even cause them to travel in time somehow.

Yeah, it just doesn't make any sense. It's one of those WTF endings that I assume was inspired by bad episodes of LOST or something, because it just becomes a giant steaming pile. If they had come up with something better than psychic comic book scaredy cat guy (like just making them real monsters or aliens or something) then it could have been really cool. It could have been this year's DESCENT (the first one, not the sequel). But no, they flubbed the ending and the whole movie fell apart. I went from ready to e-mail my friends and family to, well, writing this review.

It's a shame because it was close to being good. Really good. The other thing they needed to fix was the characters. Compare this story to THE DESCENT -- there they have likable characters and some real emotional stakes (one girl lost her husband and is trying to become sane, the others lost their group and are trying to get back together), and here there are no emotional stakes. It almost forces the filmmakers to come up with that BS ending because there's no other way to get any sort of emotion to the ending at all. Which isn't an excuse for the ending -- there's NO excuse for that ending -- but it shows what happens when you write yourself into a corner.

**** AVOID ***

THE DESCENT 2 (2009) (a review)


A sequel to the surprise hit horror movie of 2007. The original was a tight thriller that focused on a group of adventuring women who get trapped while spellunking only to then have to fight off cannibal underground dwellers (aka Crawlers).

The story: two days after the first movie, the survivor Susan is found wandering and covered in blood. Unable to explain what has happened, she is forced to go back into the caves to find her missing companions only to have the rescuers encounter the Crawlers.

Was it good?

No.

And that's a shame because while I didn't *love* the first one the way some people did (I know people who put it on their 10 best of the year lists), I thought it did a lot of really good things. Unfortunately this one did wrong everything the first movie did right.

The original starts with a group of adventuring women. Then one of them gets into a car accident where her husband is killed and she, well, goes nuts. A year later the girls are trying to reform their gang and so they go on this special cave exploring (off the map so it will be more special) and then they get trapped after a cave in, forcing them to push deeper into the caves. Then they encounter the Crawlers and have to fight for their lives.

Now one thing this does well is that it spends a good amount of time with the women. In fact we don't even get to the Crawlers until the middle of the film. Now I know a lot of people think you have to get to your story fast fast fast, but spending the first part of the story on characters, getting to know the girls, makes the audience want to root for them to survive, as opposed to most movies where the people are basically chum. It also did a great job giving us the claustrophobia of being trapped in the caves. Then the monsters were cool and they did a great job only giving us these glimpses -- enough where we knew what they were, but not so much that they started to feel familiar.

The sequel, however, did none of that. They dive into the story with a new group of explorers, but none of them had any emotion to them, and even the main girl, Susan, was basically just trauma girl. Then one in the caves, there was no claustrophobia. In fact, it was the largest, best lit cave formation I have ever seen. And lastly, they showed the Crawlers a lot and they just stopped being scary. Where as the first movie worked because everything had an emotional element -- the girl going nuts, the group breaking apart, wanting to get back together, getting trapped and turning on each other and then the attacks -- and just kept building and building, this movie felt almost random. Or if not random, then paint by numbers, like each kill was happening at regular intervals just because that's the way you're supposed to do it not because it made any sense for the story or emotion.

In other words, they took a cool original movie and made the sequel feel generic.

*** AVOID ***

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

THE RIG (2010) (a review)



A horror movie set on an oil rig. Okay, really it's ALIEN set on an oil rig. Except without all the good stuff...

The story: while trying to prepare an oil rig to face a coming hurricane, the crew is attacked by a strange underwater creature.

Was it good?

No.

And by "strange underwater creature" I mean a guy in a cheap Creature from the Black Lagoon outfit.

The idea itself is okay. An oil rig could be a cool, creepy location. But the first problem is the complete lack of cool, creepy atmosphere. The second is the monster, which is never really explained and never really shown and what we do see is pretty lame. I get the idea that what you don't see is more scary, but you need to see something. You need that one good shot of the monster, you need that one good explanation of what/why this is going on. In other words, you need some context.

See, it's all about questions and answers. The basic form of any story is to ask questions (or more precisely to get the audience to ask questions) and then to answer them. So in a movie like PIRAHNA, they ask "Who will they get next? How will they stop them?" And the movie then spends the next hour answering those questions. If the audience doesn't know what the monster is then they will ask "What is it? Why is it doing this?" and you then have to explain that, like in THE GRUDGE where SMG spends the movie trying to learn about the curse and how to lift it. But if you don't give the audience anything they just sit there wondering "What the hell is going on?" And that is a very bad question. That means that instead of being engaged with the story, they are distancing themselves from it. It's a question people ask when they are beginning to not care. And that is a very bad thing for a movie. Now some movies can make it work. CLOVERFIELD, for instance never answers any questions about the monster, but it does it by focusing even more on the characters -- setting up the story of these two people who love each other but are apart and the guy is leaving and getting us to ask "Will they be together? Will be tell her he loves her?"

Here there's just nothing. I just you could be asking if they will stop the thing that we don't know anything about, but it's tough to get too invested in something like that. And there's nothing going on with the people that's especially interesting. And we never learn anything about the creature so there's no real exploring of that mystery either.

Again, it doesn't matter what questions the audience is asking as long as you get them asking them and then answer them in compelling ways.

Which this movie fundamentally doesn't do in a massive, massive fail.

**** AVOID ****

KILL SPEED (2010) (a review)


This is one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies I have ever seen. And I know it's unintentional because there are plenty of times it tries to be funny that don't work. Or it could be that it's just one of the worst movies made with professional actors ever.

The story: a group of guys make money by flying drugs into the US in super fast planes. They get caught (sort of) and used to help free a fed who is captured by the drug cartels. Basically, they tried to do FAST AND THE FURIOUS with planes.

Was is good?

NNNNNooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This movie is so bad it should exist only as a drinking game.

In fact I can't really describe how bad it was. The concept (as I describe it) gives the movie WAY too much credit. Everything here is stupid. The scenes of these guys flying (and getting chased) are horrible. The dialog is lame. The plot twists (he falls for a girl who turns out to be a cop!) is stupid. If this were a film school project it would be bad, but since is has real actors (actors I like!) like Greg Gunwald, Shawnee Smith, and Robert Patrick, it makes this just plain painful.

The thing is that most of the stuff didn't have to be this bad. That idea of these kids smuggling drugs and then having to save a gov't agent isn't that horrible. They should have been able to get something decent out of it. But this is just bad on top of bad on top of bad.

Easily the worst film I've seen this year.

**** AVOID ****

Saturday, October 16, 2010

MONSTERS (a review)



This is the monster movie by Gareth Edwards that he shot for $15K that showed at Cannes. I believe it is available for Pay-per-View/Video on Demand and it's supposed to have a theatrical release as well. And it's worth watching!

The story: Six years after a NASA probe crashed in Mexico, Mexico and the US are struggling to contain strange, monsterous lifeforms that have begun to appear and have quarantined half of Mexico to try to contain them. Now a photo journalist is forced to escort his bosses daughter through the quarantine zone back to the US while avoiding these strange new monsters.

So how was it?

Awesome...and not so awesome.

This is a movie that definitely helps if you go in knowing it was shot for $15K. For that money, this thing is amazing. This is not a movie that looks cheap at all. The F/X and locations and monsters and cinematography are all fantastic. The actors, too are all solid. The visuals are constantly engaging and the mosters have a cool octopus/Lovecraftian feel to them different from anything I've really seen before. Unfortunately, where the movie is lacking is story.

In terms of story, this thing feels like CLOVERFIELD-lite. That's because while both movies feature big scary monsters, they really spend more time focused on the people than on the monsters. C- however, had a much stronger story for the characters -- a guy loves a girl, but things have gotten screwed up between them and right before he is going to rush out to tell her he loves her a Godzilla-like monster attacks the city, and now this guy has to rush threw a war zone-like Manhatten to try to save her before the army firebombs the entire city to destroy this monster.

Holy crap! Now that's a movie!

MONSTERS doesn't have a story anywhere close to that powerful. Here you have two people, a guy who is kind of a horn-dog and has a kid he doesn't see and a girl who is about to get married but doesn't really seem that into it. She is in Mexico near or in the infected zone (for some reason, i don't think they ever say), and now the guy has to get her to the US. Things go wrong, so instead of taking the ferry (safe) they have to venture through the infected zone. During this they seem to bond a bit, but there just isn't anything particularly powerful going on with them on an emotional level. He wants to take a great photo, but never really does anything about it and she doesn't seem that into her impending marriage, but again she isn't really against it either. I've heard a comparison to LOST IN TRANSLATION, where you have these two people who are lost in their own lives and lost in a strange city come together...except L-i-T really explored how isolated and alone those people felt and I just didn't get anywhere near that depth of feeling here.

It's a shame because this lack of character depth/emotion is the only thing keeping this movie from being a tour-de-force, just an out of the park home run. And, ironically considering how much is made for the cost of making the movie, that's a part that would have been free. It just meant coming up with a stronger, more emotion-packed story for the characters.

And it makes it interesting to compare this movie to PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE, another low budget, made out of HWood movie that became a sensation. The difference is that MONSTERS had to be made by someone with a strong background in visual F/X and that is the strength of the movie. P-E lacked that (on a technical side it could have been made by anyone), but it has a much stronger story in dealing with the characters and because of it, for me, it's a stronger film.


There are a lot of other things that didn't make sense to me, although honestly while I was watching the film it kept my interest enough that I didn't think about them.

The movie itself is an interesting contrast to PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE. That was a movie that anyone could make. There wasn't any special technical skill to the shots or F/X -- the story, concept and characters are what made it compelling. MONSTERS is visually fantastic and will definitely find a certain audience, but you'd need advanced skill behind the camera and with visual F/X to pull it off and ultimately the weakness of the story and character arc's make it hard to imagine it would find the mass appeal that either CLOVERFIELD or PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE did.


But my hat's off to the guy for getting the film made. And while for me it's not on the same level as C- or PE, it is definitely a movie worth watching.



The site Slashfilm also has a video on the making of the movie, which I haven't watched but will after I type this up. LINK

*** RECOMMEND ***

Friday, October 15, 2010

RED (a review)


A silly action movie about retired CIA-types who become targeted for termination and then have to find out who is behind it (hint -- its a political figure). The main twist -- they are old. Stars: Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovitch, Helen Mirren and . Based on a graphic novel by Warren Ellis.

The story: Moses (Willis) is a retured CIA-type who finds the current CIA has targeted him and others he knew for termination. He flirts with a girl on the phone about his pension checks (Parker), so of course he assumes they are after her too, and then he checks in with some other retired people so they can figure out what is going on and stop it.

Was it good?

Well...it was stupid. Kind of fun stupid, but still stupid. It's fun just seeing a lot of these people on the screen even if nothing that interesting is going on. The story is very by-the-numbers. There's nothing that is especially different or cool, except seeing Helen Mirren fire an automatic.

Honestly, while I don't mind these sorts of movies, they feel so empty that I wonder why the people bothered. I mean, sure for the actors it was probably fun, but for all the work that goes into making a movie, wouldn't you want something different, something cool, something memorable in it? None of the set pieces are memorable, none of the humor is anything special...to be honest by the end of the movie I had already forgotten most of the first half.

Still, it has a lot of comedy and doesn't do anything horribly wrong. I just can't see spending real money on it.

*** RENT (for a silly action popcorn flick) ***

Thursday, October 14, 2010

NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (2010) (a review)



This is a remake. Seriously. What, you never heard of the original movie, made in the 80's that went straight to dvd? Yes, they are now making remakes of straight to dvd horror films. (* correction it did have a small theatrical release that even I, who loe horror films, had never heard of.)

I have to ask why? I know it's wiki page says the original is now a "cult classic" but who the hell are those people. I know a lot of horror fans and, sure, the original is liked as a fun little movie with scream queen Linnea Quigley, but you could point to any of her (or Michelle Bauer or Brinke Stevens) movies and call them "classics" just as easily. What's next, a remake of EVIL TOONS? BLOOD DINER? Because really if you are going to remake this movie you might as well just walk down the aisle at the local video store (wait, do video stores still exists?) and remake them all.

And I'm not against remakes. I understand pre-branding and better audience recognition and I'm fine with it. But usually there is a clear reason to do the remake -- either the original was cool and you have a way to do an interesting update of it (THE FLY) or you just want to cash in on the original (anything by Lionsgate). But a remake of a barely-more-than-straight to dvd horror film? Really?

The story: kids to a party Halloween night at a creepy house where a bunch of people died thrown by this girl Angela. The police bust the party but some kids become trapped and then Angela becomes a demon and starts infecting people and they have to try to survive until sunrise when the demons will vanish.

Was it good?

No. and it's a shame because the original was a fun-but-cheesey little horror film.

(poster for the original movie)

However, this movie just doesn't get it right. The original was made in the hey-day of fun sex-and-death horror movies. That's what the 80's scream queen films were all about. It was silly, it was sexy, it was let's get drunk and screw our brains out and --whoops!-- there are demons and now we're going to die in a very over-the-top way. This movie has a lot of the elements -- good looking girls, spin-the-bottle, demons who do weird things to people...but it never really finds the fun. It's kind of a downer to be honest. I'm not sure I can explain it. There are beautiful girls in the movie, but it's like the filmmakers didn't enjoy having beautiful women in the film, the camera doesn't linger the way it should to enjoy and show off how beautiful they are. There's making out and a sex scene, but again there isn't quite that voyeuristic enjoyment of those scenes. And there's some kinky violence, but the film makers never seem to quite embrace it. It's like they want to minimize all the things that made the original a fun horror film and they put them there because they had too...but then what is it that they wanted, what was that cool, fun things they wanted to make instead? I couldn't tell you. There's nothing really with the characters or the camera or demons or anything to really get a sense of what it was the filmmakers thought would be fun instead of the stuff that was fun in the original.

It makes the whole film feel...soulless.

It's a shame. The girls are beautiful. Some of the effects are good. The house looked good. There's no reason why they couldn't make a fun little screamer...

...but they didn't.

*** AVOID ***

Sunday, October 10, 2010

MIRRORS 2 (a review)



This is the straight-to-dvd sequel to the horror movie MIRRORS that starred Kiefer Sutherland and Amy Smart. This one stars Nick Stahl, William Katt, Christy Carlson Romano (Even Stevens, Kim Possible) and Emmanuelle Vaugier (Two and a Half Men, CSI:NY)

The story: a man's wife is killed in a car accident, then to get him out of his depression his father hires him as a night watchman at his new store that is opening soon. However, one person has died and more begin to die and this man much find out what is happening -- why people are seeing visions in the mirrors and why it kills them.

Was it good?

Not especially, but it wasn't especially bad either.

But it wasn't horrible. It's almost an identicle movie to the first one just with a lamer plot, worse actors, and a lamers reveal at the end. People still see these twisted reflections that hurt themselves in the mirrors and it kills them in real life. There is a random scene with an actress who gets naked and then is killed where you wonder why she was in the movie at all (Amy Smart in the original, Christy Carlson Romano in this one, who apparently bought brand new boobs for it too). There is a lot of running around that feels pointless and random since the visions could come at any time, so why didn't they just kill everyone all at once?

Still, it isn't horrible. The basic idea of these twisted reflections that cause people to be killed it pretty cool and the rest of the movie doesn't do anything so bad that it would ruin it. It's kind of like the FINAL DESTINATION films -- the sequels aren't good, but the concept is good and they don't do anything that screws it up.

For a horror rental, but there are a lot of better horror movies out there.

*** RENTAL (but you could do better) ****

MACHETE (2010) (a review)



The latest movie by Robert Rodriguez, one of the indy directors who inspired me to go into film. This movie has a weird origin. It started as a mock trailer in the middle of GRINDHOUSE, an experiment to hark back to the drive-in double feature days with one film by Quintan Tarantino (Death Proof) and one movie by Rodriguez (Planet Terror). Between the two were a couple trailers for movies that didn't exist, but RR had so much fun with his that he decided to make it a feature length film starring Danny Trejo, Jessica Alba, Michelle Rodriguez, Cheech Marin, Robert Deniro, Lindsay Lohan, Don Johnson, Jeff Fahey and a bunch more.

The story: Machete is an ex-Mexican policeman who was betrayed and now lives in Texas. Then a man enlists him to kill a senator who is vowing to crackdown on illegal immigrants, however just before he is supposed to kill the senator Machete finds an assassin ready to kill him. The senator is shot, but not killed, and now Machete is on the run trying to untangle the conspiracy while being pursued by the police and FBI.

Was it good? Not really. The story is okay and Rodriguez intentionally made it over-the-top with a lot of the excesses of classic exploitation films (ie violence and nudity). But the story feels very disjointed. On one hand, you have some classic action movie elements (the man betrayed, a backdrop of political conspiracies), but then you have a lot of ridiculous moments. Part of this might be what RR is going for -- he has said that the film is meant to be a fun, exploitation film and not a serious political story. The thing is that in those classic exploitation movies those filmmakers were trying to make the best film they could. Sure, a lot of them were bad for various reasons (like they didn't spend a huge amount of time on the script), but you always got the sense that whatever their flaws the people were trying to do their best. Here, a lot of the movie feels half-a**ed, like RR is just on set to have fun and not give a damn. The reason that classic 70's movies had the political messages though was because those filmmakers were hired to make cheap action/horror, but they wanted to say something and then worked their a## off to say it in the context of those movies. Here, the political stuff could have been pulled because RR just doesn't seem to care about it, which makes that whole part of the film feel fake.

It's disappointing. I'm a huge Rodriguez fan, and I think for his 10-minute film school segments on his dvd's alone he deserves awards, but more and more he seems less interested in actually being a storyteller than in just goofing around. It's what you would expect of a director who was just in it to get laid. And I could respect that. But Rodriguez is capable of doing more. Spielberg took his love of sci-fi and used it to tell powerful stories. There's no reason to think RR couldn't do the same with the exploitation movies. After all, that's what Tarantino has done.

*** SLIGHT WATCH (if you want a silly exploitation flick, otherwise AVOID)