I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010) (a review)

I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (2010) (a review)

This is a remake of the cult classic 1978 film of the same name. Hard to believe anyone would want to remake that movie, but these are strange times I guess.

The story? A woman off in a cabin by herself is raped again and again by locals, including the shariff, and left for dead. But she comes back and takes horrible revenge on her attackers.

Was it good?

Wow. Um, I'm not sure "good" should ever be used on a movie like this. The original is one of the most over-the-top brutal films I've ever seen. It doesn't ever hold back -- not in the prolonged and brutal rape sequence or in the horrible ways she takes her revenge one by one on her attackers.

This film is less brutal...but it's also less effective. Let's be honest, this story isn't about depth, it's about revenge. The movie (and the original) made both her attack and revenge at brutal as yet realistic as possible. Here, while the attack is still somewhat real, her revenge is very over-the-top with her body going missing and then leaving clues because she's become a mystery...oooohhh. It just makes the second half, which should the the "hell yeah" part, just seem silly. There are also elments in thsi version that push it toward a psychological thriller -- once her body isn't found after the rape (she falls off a bridge), the guys start getting notes that make them think she is still alive and they begin to turn on each other. Also, during the attack there are elemnts of psychologic torture as well as the physical. However, those don't make the movie better. They just make it less primal. And ultimately that's the problem with the film -- for the brutal nature of the movie, it actually holds back. for it to be effective it would have to be willing to push beyond what people have seen before, not pull back into "psychological thriller" territory.

One other odd note -- one of the attackers in the film is Daniel Franzese, who played Damian in MEAN GIRLS ("too gay to function"). It's definitely weird once you recognize him here.

I wouldn't say either version is good, but the original is definitely more effective and more disturbing.

***AVOID ***

THE PENTHOUSE (a review)

THE PENTHOUSE (a review)

A comedy. Sort of. Stars: Rider Strong (Boy Meets World, Cabin Fever), Corey Large, April Scott (Dukes of Hazzard: The Beginning), Kaley Cuoco (Big Bang Theory), Mya

The story: the winner of a reality show moves into a penthouse apartment and invites his two best friends to live with him. However, while one loves the constant partying, the other struggles with whether to move in with his annoying girlfriend or start a relationship with his best friend's incredibly hot younger sister.

Was it good?

No. I mean, read the story -- was the hell was this thing supposed to be about??? There's no story, no drama. And yes, it's a comedy, but good comedy still has drama at the heart of it. This is just one guy trying to decide...and what is he trying to decide? Whether or not to stay in a penthouse or move in with his girlfriend? WHO CARES?!?!? Or his other option is to start dating some other really hot girl. Oh, no...what a bunch of horrible choices...how will he ever deal with all the pressure!

Stories at their simplest are a person has a problem and we watch them try to solve the problem. If the problem isn't interesting...well, then why do we care what happens? It's at that basic level that the movie fails.

I will give them props for hiring April Scott. I'd never seen her before but she is gorgeous. Unfortunately, not enough to make this worth watching.

*** AVOID ****

MY SOUL TO TAKE (a review)

MY SOUL TO TAKE (a review)

The latest horror movie by Wes Craven (NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, HILLS HAVE EYES, SCREAM).

The story: a serial killer is killed and on the same night eight children are born, the "Riverton Seven." Sixteen years later they perform a ritual every year to keep the Ripper at bay, but this time at interrupted by the police. Then the Ripper comes back and begins killing them all...

Was it good?

No. This is the first movie since NEW NIGHTMARE (1994) that Wes Craven both wrote and directed and it's a bit of a mess. There are some thing's that are pretty good here -- the idea of the ritual being interrupted and then the ripper coming back is okay, but honestly the writing just isn't that strong. There's nothing interesting about the kids and the whole beginning with the husband (who has a weird dissassociative personality so he doesn't know he is the killer) doesn't really add anything. And the rest of the movie is just plot. Who is the ripper (I never thought it was the actual ripper coming back from the dead)? In fact, a lot of it feel cribbed from the SCREAM movies.

However, in SCREAM, what that movie did right was have this parallel story between the girl and her boyfriend and her not being ready to have sex with him. Then this is elevated when she thinks he might be the killer. Do you trust your boyfriend enough to sleep with him? Do you trust him enough to think he isn't the killer? There's a nice parallel there and it hits at something almost every girl goes through, especially in high school. It also nicely plays with the horror movie cliche of the girl-virgin surviving being the only one to survive at the end. Once she loses her virginity, then what does that mean for her character?

Unfortunately, MY SOUL TO TAKE doesn't have any of this. It is a striaght forward horror-slasher-mystery with nothing interesting behind it.

I'm a Wes Craven fan, but this isn't his strongest work.

*** AVOID ***

LET ME IN (a review)

LET ME IN (a review)

This is the America remake of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, the fantastic Swedish film about a young boy who is bullied at school and befriends a young female vampire. The Swedish film was dark and disturbing, but also oddly beautiful as the relationship between the boy and the girl is both sweet and sad. Will the American version, directed by Matthew Sturges (CLOVERFIELD) measure up? (The answer is no.)

The story: set in early 80's New Mexico, this is the story of a young 12-year old boy, the only child of a single mom, who is bullied at school. Then one night he meets a young girl who says she cannot be his friend. However, the next night he has a Rubick's cube and since she likes puzzles they become friends. at the same time, her handler -- the human who assists in hiding her and getting her blood -- is killed and she turns to the boy for help in hiding her from the policeman chasing her.

Was it good?

Yes. It was good. It's a solid, interesting take on vampire films. As silly as MY BODYGUARD with a vampire might sound, it is the relationship between the boy and the girl, at once once as sweet as any friendship between two lonely people can be, and also horrifying as we know only bad things can come of it.

So why doesn't it measure up to the original?

There are a few reasons. The strongest is the relationship between the boy and the girl. In the original Swedish film, there is a much stronger bleakness to the world they present. It is winter and dark and cold and there is little happiness. There are several scenes of old men drinking in a tavern who seem to have no life at all, just these pathetic men. It's a stark vision that makes the small moments of connection between the boy and the girl that much sweeter. The New Mexico landscape just doesn't give Matt Reeves anything as strong to work with.

Next is the bullying. In the original there was something horrifyingly real to it. The vampire element wasn't scary -- in fact it is usually played for laughs -- but the scenes with the bullying really got under my skin. Here, while they are well presented they never seem to cut as deep.

Last is the ending. In the original it is somehow both sweet and horrible as these two children connect and yet we know what is in store for the boy. There is also a greater ambiguity in the original -- did the girl set the boy up, manipulating him into this? Does she feel for him at all? In the American version, it never reaches that moment, never seems to have that ambiguity.

So the American version is good, but it feels like a watered down version of the original, never quite reaching the horrifying or tenderness of the original.

The original is fantastic. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN gets my highest recommendation *** MUST SEE ***

The American version, LET ME IN...

**** RENTAL ****

THE WOLFMAN (2010) (a review)

THE WOLFMAN (2010) (a review)

This is the new reboot of the Universal monster classic. This movie actually feels like a cross between the original and AMERICAN WEREWOLF IN LONDON (with a big side dish of THE HULK for some reason). Stars enecio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins and Emily Blunt.

The story? A renowned Shakespearean actor (del Toro) is told his brother is missing. He reutrns home for the first time in decades to be told his brother is dead. Locals believe it was the work of a werewolf. While investigating among the local gypsies he is attack and bitten by the werewolf. He then find out his father is the original werewolf and that he killed his mother and brother and has the actor locked in an insane asylum for years to keep him safe. The moon rises. The father is locked in a special cage, but the actor isn't and he turned into a werewolf and rampages around killing innocent people. In the morning his father leads police to him and he is taken back to the insane asylum where they are going to perform experiments on him in front of an audience. Except the moon rises and he turns again and rampages around. Back as a human he goes back to his house to confront his father. They both turn into werewolves and he kills his father and then is shot by his brother's ex-fiance whom he has fallen in love with.

Was it good?

No.

I mean, just read the synopsis. How the hell does any of that make sense? And where does all the father vs son stuff come in? I've never seen the original Lon Cheney version, but it felt more like THE HULK than a Wolfman story to me and why anyone would want to crib from The Hulk is beyond me!

There are other bad things about it. Like the acting. They feel like they are sleepwalking. Hopkins especially seems to just toy with his lines, like he knows they aren't worth bothering with. Of course, it's impossible to know if it's him tanking it or if the director was telling him to do it or if he knew that the whole thing was a mess and was trying to find some way of making it interesting.

The saddest part about all this -- aside from just the collossal waste of talent and money and time -- is that this director is the guy who is going to direct CAPTAIN AMERICA, the movie I was most looking forward to from all the Marvel movies. And this movie, along with the fact that they cast Chris Evans, just makes me want to hurl.

Now I probably shouldn't rag on the movie completely. Maybe it works if you are just looking for stupid, goofy fun. But the movie doesn't really have the feel of a goofy, stupid fun movie so that's not how I watched it. Anyway...

*** AVOID ***

ADELE BLANC-SEC (2010) (a review)

ADELE BLANC-SEC (2010) (a review)

A feature film adaptation of the comic book character by Jacques Tardi. Movie is written/directed by Luc Besson (The Professional, Transporter, Taken)

The story: a female adventurer must steal a and ressurect a mummy, the doctor to an ancient pharoah, to try to save her sister's life, but in doing so will unleash other dark forces.

Was it good?

Kind of. It's a slightly odd sort of film. There are things that I loved about the film -- the protagonist, a smart young female adventurer ala Indiana Jones. And there with all the adventuring there is a strange whimsy to it that I liked a lot too. They throw a lot of weird stuff in here, but it all fits together.

However there were things that didn't help the film. The first is the sister's injury, which maybe in the comic came off as lighter (it's a strange tennis related injury with a hat pin) but on film, when you are actually watching it happen, it was a bit more gruesome than fit in the film.

Also, there is no actual antagonist. The basic story has Adele trying to ressurect a mummy to help her sister and to do that she needs a certain mesmerist who is sentenced to death so she has to save him. Except I'm not exactly sure why he is sentenced to die. It's hard to believe it's because he is using his mind to bring to life a prehistoric monster. So why? So the story becomes about her trying to rescue this man, but even that doesn't seem to be a big deal. She tries to break him out of prison several times and when the guards discover her they simply throw her out of jail to allow her to return the next day and try again. So again there's no real antagonistic force, so instead of the movie getting more thrilling, it instead is oddly thrill-less.

Also the pterodactyl is strange. Everyone knows it is flying around but they also seem oddly unable to see it. It will fly down amid a crowd and grab someone (or some pet) and yet no one will see it. Maybe it's being played for laughs and it just didn't translate for me. I don't know.

But even with all of that there was a lot that I liked. I just wish they had found a way to make it work so the second half didn't seem to fall oddly flat. Still, I'm glad I watched it and might even rewatch it sometime soon.

*** RENTAL ***

DEATH RACE 2 (a review)

DEATH RACE 2 (a review)

The straight to dvd sequel to the reboot of the Death Race franchise. This is a prequel that goes into the origins of the first Frankenstein.

The story: in the year 2012, a man is caught while robbing a bank and sent to prison where they telecast prisoners fighting to the death. The man fights and wins but gets enemies who put a bounty on his head. Then rating for the show are falling, so they come up with something different -- a car race with all sorts of traps to help the prisoners kill each other -- and everyone tries to kill the main guy. Eventually his car burns and everyone thinks he is dead but he isn't and he becomes the first Frankenstein.

Was it good?

No. Actually it was all kind of boring. There wasn't anything especially cool here. The violence was fairly tame. The girls looked hot, but skin-wise it was pg-13 which makes no sense since this is going to be marketed as an ultra-violent straight to dvd movie which means you don't have to worry about the MPAA.

And here's the thing I don't get about this movie or the other reboot Death Race (or for that matter a lot of the remakes/reboots). The original DEATH RACE 2000 was great because it satirized America's love of violence by making everything completely over-the-top. It at once embraced with plenty of violence and nudity, and had something to say, AND it managed to do it while being pretty funny. Those might seem contradictory (feeding people's desire for sex and death while commenting on people's desire for sex and death) and yet the movie worked. But here in the reboots they have stripped away all that worked -- this doesn't have any insight/anything to say, it doesn't do a good job of feeding people's desire for sex and violence, and it doesn't have any humor. WHY BOTHER? I mean, sure you get some extra cash by using the name but is it really that much extra money? Both these films were different enough from the original that they could have been called something totally different and been fine. I just don't get it. But whatever....

*** AVOID ***

THE DOOR (2009) (a review)

THE DOOR (DIE TUR) (2009) (a review)

A GREAT MOVIE!!! How is this not getting more attention? A Dutch/German film, a very cool little twisted thriller...one of the best movies twisted thrillers I've seen in a long time. With time time loop movies all the rage (ala SOURCE CODE with Jake Gyllenhaul which is coming out next year) this is a movie that does something a little different and does it in a very cool way

The story: DAVID is cheating on his wife, and while out getting some nookie his daughter falls into the pool and drowns. David is devestated. His wife leaves him. His life is in shambles. Then one night while wandering he finds a strange door. He walks through it and it is daylight. More thna that he has been transported to an alternate universe where it is five years earlier. Now he is able to save his daughter, but afterwards he is surprised by this world's version and David and he accidentally kills him. Now he has to cover up what he has done so he can stay in this world where his daughter is still alive and he is still with his wife. Except of course covering it up isn't easy, especially when his daughter is the one person to recognize that he is not in fact her actual father.

Was it good?

GREAT MOVIE! Not only is this a nice little twisted thriller, but this movie has what most thriller don't -- EMOTION. The scenes of the man losing his daughter are painful. Then when he is able to save her, and then that gets flipped around when he accidentally kills himself and then when his daughter knows he's not the real father and he has to explain what happened (without wanting to tell her the truth). AMAZING STUFF!

There are some other great twists that come about later. Not only does he have to cover up his crime and try to win over his daughter, but he has to break things off with his mistress without his wife realizing what is happening and then it turns out he isn't the only one able to use the door, which adds complication onto complication.

If I have any problems it's with the third act which gets a little too plot-y and goesa bit over the top and doesn't deliver the emotional punch that it should. Otherwise, this was a knick out film for me.

*** RECOMMEND (and then some!!!) ****

THE HOLE (2009) (a review)

THE HOLE (2009) (a review)

An interesting horror movie whose concept reminded me of Kathe Koja's first novel, The Cipher. It stars Teri Polo (Meet the Parents)

The story: a family moves into a new home and the boys find a mysterious hole in the basement that causes their worst fears to come to life.

Was it good?

Not really. There is a nice idea to it, but the movie doesn't do anything particularly interesting. The relationships, with the two brothers teasing each other and the older brother liking the girl next door, had some possibilities and one or two nice moments, but they didn't extend it. It's like I've said before -- movies like this work best when you have a clear emotional element and then use the external force as expand the metaphore. In ET, Eliot is alone and then meets ET, so it is like the story of a boy and his dog, only here it is an alien. In CLOVERFIELD, a guy wants to run out to find the girl he is in love with but then a monster attacks and now he has to run out and save her from the monster.

So while there are some nice moments, it ends up feeling more like a cheesy B-movie instead of a classic family film, ala ET or GOONIES.

For youngers kids, it's probably worth a rental, although they might actually get a little bored since nothing struck me as really, really cool. For older kids (which are called adults, right?) there isn't enough here to watch.

*** AVOID (except maybe for kids) ***

OXFORD MURDERS (a review)

OXFORD MURDERS (a review)

A detective/thriller starring Elijah Wood and John Hurt, based on the novel of the same name.

The story: a man goes to Oxford to study under a famed mathmatician. The mathmetician humiliates him, but as the boy is getting ready to leave he and the mathmatician come across the body of a murdered woman with a note, a mathematical symbol. She is the first in a series of murders and the pair must try to find the murderer before his final murder.

Was it good?

No. The problem isn't that the movie is especially bad, it's just there isn't anything great in it. The characters aren't particularly interesting, there isn't a great emotional componant to it (like SILENCE OF THE LAMBS) did, the actual mystery doesn't have any cool aspect (like SEVEN did), and the ending and reveal just wasn't anything special. There are SOOOOO many detective shows on tv, and this really didn't have anything to separate it from any of them. In fact, a lot of tv shows are better put together and more interesting. Maybe there could have been something interesting here, but they just didn't find it.

*** AVOID ***

MEGAMIND (a review)

MEGAMIND (a review)

This is the second of two recent animated super-villain movies. The first was DESPICABLE ME (reviewed HERE) which featured Steve Carrell as the main villain. This one features the voice work of Will Ferrell, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, and Brad Pitt.

The story: Megamind, the arch-villain of Metro Man, is in jail but he breaks out and is able to finally defeat Metro Man and take over the city. Except then he becomes bored. He realizes he needs a hero to fight, so he decides to create a superhero, Tighten, except that superhero becomes an even worse supervillain than Megamind. Also, Megamind in disguise begins to date Roxanne, a woman who hates the villainous Megamind. Then to svae the girl he loves Megamind has to become the cities hero and defeat Tighten.

Was it good?

Not really. it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't especially good either. The problem is the core of the story just isn't that compelling. It basically is a guy who gets what he wants and then becomes bored. That's not much of a story. And him falling in love and deciding to become a hero, while okay, isn't real compelling either. Compare that to the much better DESPICABLE ME where a super villain has lost his funding and must try to steal the moon to regain his line of credit, but is thwarted by a more successful supervillain and now must use three orphans to try to defeat this other supervillain. That's a heck of a lot more interesting than just someone trying not to be bored.

As a result just about everything works better in Desp-Me than in Megamind -- the jokes are funnier, the action scenes are more interesting, the characters are more interesting. It all comes from concept and story. The stronger the motivation, the more interesting the heart of the story, the easier it is to get everything else to work around it.

The two things MEGAMIND does have is some first rate animation and great voice work. The animation is fantastic and I'm a big fan of Will Farrell and Tina Fey, even if this isn't their most interesting work.

For adults, there isn't enough here to recommend. For kids, there is probably enough to keep them entertained even if it won't rank as a classic.

*** KIDS -- RECOMMEND, ADULTS -- RENTAL ****

Still the animation is first rate and I'm a fan of

AND SOON THE DARKNESS (2010) (a review)

AND SOON THE DARKNESS (2010) (a review)

A remake of a British thriller. Stars Amber Heard and Odette Yusman.

The story: two girls traveling in Mexico by themselves, one a party girl and one the responsible one, have a fight and split up. When the party girl doesn't show up at the rondesvou spot, the party girl tries to find her. The police won't help. A man who is looking for his missing sister helps her, but when they are able to finally find the girl it only makes all three of them targets by the kidnappers.

Was it good?

No. God, no. It was horrible. In fact it was worse than horrible -- IT WAS BORING. I mean, seriously, shouldn't the one basic rule of filmmaking be, especially when you are making a thriller, that you can't make it BORING???

The story has all the elements of a fun thriller -- two beautiful girls (and yes, Heart and Yustman are gorgeous), an exotic locale, the conflict between the nice girl and the party girl, then the drama of the one girl going missing, etc. All the beats are there...but it's just so BORING. It would be easy to blame the director (and yes, the directing is lame), but the bigger problem is the story itself. Stories need to give the audience the feeling like they are going for something, that they are pushing the edge at least a little bit. It doesn't matter if you are making a comedy, a horror movie, or a thriller -- you need to know what is it that you are pushing. Maybe it's something abou the characters, maybe it's something about the threat, maybe it's something else, but you always need that "go for it" feeling. Usually you can tell what it is because it shows that that's what the filmmaker was most fascinated by. This movie, however, has nothing. It doesn't seem to be interested in these two girls, not for their relationship, not for any internal drama, not even as eye candy. It doesn't seem fascinated with the locale. it doesn't seem fascinated by the drama of the girl going missing and the one girl being left alone with no help to find her friend. It doesn't feel fascinated by the bad guys. It doesn't seem fascinated by any moral or thematic statement.

It's just all kind of there. Which makes it all boring.

And all of that is ignoring all the ridiculous elements in the movie. Like the fact that she just seems to randomly walk around and stumble on her missing friend with no detective work at all. Just walk around in a strange country, look through some rubble, and you'll find a kidnapper within 24 hours. I can't express how stupid that was.

So a message to all filmmakers -- find something in your project that fascinates you and GO FOR IT. Maybe then you won't make soething as boring as this movie.

*** AVOID ***

MEGA PIRHANA (a review)

MEGA PIRHANA (a review)

From the people at Asylum. Was this a genuine horror movie, or just a no-budget attempt to cash in on the Hollywood feature PIRHANA (and by cash in I mean take advantage of their advertising to get people interested in this other movie as well).

The story: set in Venezula, a genetically altered strain of pirhana has escaped. Not only are they extra-vicious, but they are also growing -- yes, growing! -- as they feast on everything they can find. Of course, the government at first doesn't believe the scientists and try to stop them, but then the pirhana grow big enough to destroy boats and helicoptors and aircraft carriers. Conventional weapons no longer work on them (not even missiles) and the only way to kill them is to hurt one pirhana under water so the animals will turn on each other and in a feeding frenzy destroy themselves.

Was it good?

No, not really. But this movie is so over-the-top stupid it is an oddly fascinating watch. It reminded me of the old horror movies I'd watch on Saturday afternoon that were so cheesey they were enjoyable. I mean, watching a bunch of giant pirhana take down a battleship and destroy a hotel! That's awesome.

So I guess the real question is was this better than the Hollywood version, Pirhana 3-D? Well, no, not really. That movie didn't have some of the over-the-top chees-fest elements, but it had something this movie didn't have -- characters and story. The HW version has the good son wanting to rebel to get the attention of the girl he likes who seems to like another girl, and her later attmpts to get his attention when other girls are flirting with him. It has the story of the mom trying to protect both the town and her family, and it gives a good dose not only of good people in a bad situation, mixed with the wild sex and party debauchery of spring break.

Still, Megapirhana was an entertaining watch. I little more work and it could have been actually good, but it was still entertaining.

** RENT ***

BLACK SWAN (a review)

BLACK SWAN (a review)

A psychological thriller by Darron Aronofsky (PI, Requiem of a Dream) starring Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis.

The story: a dancer (Portman) gets her first starring role in a new production of Black Swan where one dancer is going to play both the White Swan and the Black Swan. Unfortunately, while she is perfect for the White Swan, she needs to let go to become the Black Swan. Another dancer (Kunis) is perfect for the Black Swan and they form a friendship and rivalry that plunges the first dancer into fear, passion, and paranoia.

Was it good?

Kind of. This is at lest the third movie by Aronofsky about people plunging into insanity (Pi, Requiem of a Dream and this) and he is good at pulling the audience into the eyes of madness. However, where those movies worked this one falls apart. PI is about pure obsession and madness. R-o-a-Dream is about peopel spiraling into addiction. BLACK SWAN though is about creativity and art. It's about a girl who wants to be perfect, but to be perfect as the black swan she will need to let go of her concept of perfection. She needs to be spontaneous and sexual and wild. This is Portman's story -- trying to get in touch with that sexual side of herself. And for most of the movie it is at least an interesting ride.

*** SPOILERS ***

However, it's in the final act that things fall apart. In the end Portman feels threatened by Kunis and kills her and then becomes the Black Swan. But what the hell does that mean? So in a movie about embracing sexuality it is an act of violence that allows her to become the black swan? What does that say about women's sexuality, that women are threatened by it? That wimen need to kill it? That women are rivals and need to kill each other? And then it's revealed that Portman didn't really kill Kunis, but in fact she killed herself, allowing her to become the Black Swan...so what does that say about creativity, about passion, about sexuality?

It's in that final phase, when the movie should be reaching the height of its theme, it's most powerful statement of what the movie is about that it falls apart and all the threads seem to contradict itself and it becomes a jumbled mesh.

So at the end when Portman says it was "perfect" it feels less like a powerful statement of creativity or sexuality or passion, but simply the final meaningless word of a delusional girl. And for a movie that seems to want to say something more about art and passion, that's a pretty big failure.

Still, there is enough interesting things that it can still be worth seeing. But unfortunately it's more of the hot mess catagory than the great film catagory.

*** RENTAL ***