NO ONE LIVES (2012) *** AVOID ***

NO ONE LIVES (2012)

A twist on a classic horror film staple -- the bad guys terrorizing an innocent couple off the in boondocks.  Lots of style, lots of gore and a bit of nudity.  Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura and written by David Cohen.  Stars Luke Evans, Laura Ramsey, Adelaide Clemens, Derek Magyar, America Olivo, Lindsey Shaw, Lee Tergesen, and Brodus Clay.

The story: a group of bad guys kidnap a traveling couple only to find the man is a psychopath who will now terrorize them and kill them all.

Was it good?

No.  No, really, no.  And it's frustrating because there are a lot of good things about the movie.  I like the cast who are much more solid than horror movies usually get.  The directing has lots of style.  And it isn't one of those pg-13 wuss outs -- this is a hard R with lots of violence, gore and some nudity.  The problem is the story just doesn't make any sense, nothing connects, and it becomes as empty as any Z-grade horror schlock made in some guy's backyard.

After some early character stuff, which is fine, we get to the action.  The couple (Evans andRamsey) is hijacked by one of the bad guys.  He plans on torturing them to get their pin number sand bank account, etc.  Instead the girl kills herself on his knife and the guy now sets out to kill them all.  So why did the girl kill herself?  I have no idea.  Clearly the boyfriend is enough of a bad ass he could have taken otu the other guy and probably saved her.  So why do it?  It's these weird lapses that seem to be thrown in just because they are cool but really make no sense at all that make this an AVOID movie.  Which is a shame because it easily could have been a cool little film.

So what other bizarre nonsense is in the film?  The part where the man about to get revenge goes for a skinny dip and starts walking around naked.  (Not a problem since he has clothes a moment later.)  There's the girl who was a hostage who seems to both like and hate the man who took her hostage for some reason, even though it's not explained why he took her hostage or why his girlfriend would be okay with it.  Honestly, I could go on and on, but this is a movie based on what would be cool not what could ever possibly make sense.  So why does the guy have a hostage in his car?  Because it's cool.  Why does the girl take a shower?  Because it's cool. 

And it's a shame a little more thought wasn't put into making this pile of cool-wanna-be actually form a story that makes any sort of sense, because like I said there's a lot of good and this could have been a cool little film.  Instead:

*** AVOID ***

THE COUNSELOR (2013)

This is a thriller (supposedly) directed by  Ridley Scott, from an original screenplay by Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses, ).  It has an all-star cast with Michael Fassbender (lead), Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, Penélope Cruz and Brad Pitt.

The story: A lawyer known only as "The Counselor" (Fessbender)gets involved in a drug deal with aruthless Mexican cartel, but when it goes bad the cartel come after him and everyone he loves.

Was it good?

No.  Why?  Because it was SOOOO BOOORING.  The entire first half of the movie is setting up The Counselor getting involved with the drug deal and it going wrong.  For the most part, it's just people sitting around talking in a strange, clipped way that I think is supposed to make them sound deep.  Maybe there's supposed to be a feeling of suspense, but it isn't there.  Also not there is motive.  No one seems to have a need for the money.  It's like all this is just a thing to do.  Also lacking is any real sense to the way The Counselor gets blamed for the deal going wrong.  It's just a strange coincidence.  Now coincidences happen and it can be okay for movies to turn on them, but you usually want them in the first quarter of the movie, not the second half.  From there, there's a feeling of inevitability as the cartel and other close in on The Counselor.  Now in all fairness, McCarthy's novels are incredibly praised in large part for the sort of "deep" sparceness he used in this film.  It just didn't work for me at all here.  It lacked tension, it lacked depth, it lacked emotion.  And the thing with Cameron Diaz uses the car windshield to masturbate herself was just dumb.

*** AVOID ***

See instead: GONE BABY GONE (Ben Affleck's directoral debut), EL MARIACHI (Robert Rodruigez's first feature length film), or RUN LOLA RUN.

ZOMBIE NIGHT (2013) ** AVOID ***

ZOMBIE NIGHT (2013)

Another zombie movie.  This one directed by John Gulager (Feast 1-3, Piranha 2 - 3DD).  Written by Richard Schenkman (story), Keith Allan (screenplay).  Stars: Anthony Michael Hall (Dead Zone), Daryl Hannah (Splash, Blade Runner), Alan Ruck (Ferris Bueller's Day Off), and Shirley Jones (Patridge Family).

The story: The dead are rising!  Two family try to hide out in their homes until morning, when the effect will wear off.  However, things go bad and the families have to decide to help each other or turn on each other.

Was it good?

No.  There's nothing wrong with the basic idea, and I'm a big fan of Hall and have wtached Gulager's work since FEAST.  However, the story is just uninteresting.  There's nothing new here.  It basically is NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, but instead of strangers in one house, it is two families in separate houses.  It's a shame, because zombies are such a good way to explore humanity.  They easily could have made it a look at modern suburbs -- are neighbor's really friends?  Are they stranger?  And there was a relationship between the teens that could have played a part, but really it could have been taken out.

Watch instead: Warm Body (for a more interesting take on zombies), and classics like Night of the Living Dead (original), Return of the Living Dead

OUT OF THE FURNACE (2013) *** AVOID ***

OUT OF THE FURNACE (2013)

A movie about brothers and revenge.  Directed by Scott Cooper (director of Crazy Heart, which won Jeff Bridges an Oscar) from a script he co-wrote.  Stars: Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Casey Affleck, Forest Whitaker, Willem Dafoe, Zoe Saldana, Sam Shepard.

The story: After getting out of jail, one brother (Bale) tries to look after his younger brother (Affleck) who is in debt and getting involved in an underground fighting ring run by violent drug dealers.  When the younger brother goes missing, the older brother goes to find out what happened...

Was it good?

No.  There's nothing wrong with the concept -- in fact, it sounded pretty cool to me when I first saw the previews for it.  However, this is not an intense thriller.  This is a slow, plodding, disconnected character piece with the trappings of a thriller.  There's never any mystery and there are no interesting twists and turns.  There really aren't any thrills -- what little conflict there is always has a feeling of a result that is inevitable.  Now that alone doesn't mean it is bad.  A slow character piece can still be fascinating, but there just isn't anything fascinating here.  There's no depth, no conflict.  It's a movie that seems to want to say something but ultimately seems to have nothing to say.

Now all this isn't to say the movie is all bad.  The performances by Bale and Harrelson are solid.  They just don't have much to do.  Bale plays the tough but caring big brother.  Harrelson plays the dangerous psycho.  That's it.  No exploration of character.  There's also a bunch of other elements that never really pay off -- Bale going to jail, Bale losing the woman he loves, Bale losing his father.  Maybe all that was supposed to push him to a point of desperation with his brother, but it seems like losing your brother is already enough to make you do anything to find him, so none of that really felt like it added anything.

In the end, while some of the performances were solid, there just wasn't enough here to overcome a sloppy, plodding screenplay and a lack of character depth or theme.

*** AVOID ***

KILLER HOLIDAY (2013) *** AVOID ***

KILLER HOLIDAY (2013)  *** AVOID ***

A horror movie by Marty Thomas.  Stars Michael Copon, Rachel Lara, Julia Beth Stern, Alex Mandel, Rachel Wixom.

The story: a group of friends go on a road trip and visit a closed amusement park where they are stalked by a sadistic killer.

Was it good?

No.  No, no, no, no, no.  It's horror that has absolutely nothing scary about it.  And that could work if it were entertaining in some other way -- if there was an interesting dramatic thru-line or if it was funny...but there's nothing here.  the killer is just this guy who acts like he is auditioning for Beetlejuice (without realizing this isn't a comedy).  Slasher films can work easily in one of two ways: (1) give us characters we like and build the horror as they are killed off or (2) give us characters we don't like and build the enjoyment from watching them die.  Of course that helps if you have a villain who is scary or imposing in some way.  This is just this guy.  Seriously, I don't even I would be scared of him and I'm a wuss.  What would be nice is if directors thought for a few minutes about what is actually scary when constructing their scripts instead of thinking they can just copy the copy of a copy of a movie that made an impact 30 years ago and think it will have any impact.

This isn't a movie to avoid simply because it is bad.  Bad movies can be fun when the filmmakers are trying to explore something they think are interesting.  It's a movie to avoid because it's just a crappy, lazy copy.   Why bother?

**** AVOID ****

MISCHIEF NIGHT (2013) *** AVOID ***

MISCHIEF NIGHT (2013)

A horror movie that takes place on Mischief Night, which might be the night before Halloween but I'm not sure and the movie doesn't care.  They just like to say Mischief Night and talk about people pulling pranks, except this is a horror movie not a prank.  Although the movie would have been better as a prank.  The actors seem good and give a good effort, but they have nothing to work with in this derivative mess that tries to combine THE STRANGERS with hints of SCREAM without really getting why those movies worked.  Written/directed by Richard Schenkman from a story by Jesse Baget.  Stars: Noell Coet, Ian Bamberg, Adam C. Edwards, Stephanie Erb.

The story: Emily (Noell Coet) is a blind asthmatic girl who lost her sight after her mother died in a traffic accident.  Her father is finally going to start dating again, leaving his blind daughter alone on Mischief Night, a night when teens run around playing pranks on people.  Except Emily is visited by a mysterious man in a mask who isn't playing a prank but toying with her while killing everyone who tries to help her.

Was it good?

In parts.  The leads actress is charismatic and the movie uses suspense more than gore so there are parts of the movie when we realize the mysterious man is in the house and stalking her that have a definite creepy feel.  Unfortunately, it's about 5 minutes out of a 90 minute movie.  The rest is hack work and even worse doesn't make any sense.  For instance, her boyfriend comes over and she is panicking so he is going to hep get her to safety, but then they go into a room with her mother's stuff and suddenly they are perfectly okay just standing and talking for a while.  Yeah, there's a killer running around, her aunt might be dead, but this is a good time to go through a yearbook.

The movie might have been more interesting if it played against conventions.  The girl is blind so there's one scene where she walks past a dead body.  Wouldn't she be able to smell the body?  Or at least wouldn't it be more interesting?  What if the attacker was used to hiding in the darkness, but because she is blind she actually can tell he is there even better?  Wouldn't that be more interesting?

Even worse, as much as it rips off THE STRANGERS and SCREAM, it doesn't understand what made those movies work.  SCREAM takes the idea of a girl unsure if she is ready for sex (trust her boyfriend) and externalizes it in horror movie fashion into her not trusting if he is a killer.  THE STRANGERS takes a couple who love each other but are about to break up, then they are attacked and realize they love each other and want to be together.  See -- each of those stories took strong emotional stories and used horror to externalize them.  That's why you can build thrills and scares, because the audience has keyed into the characters from the real emotional stories.  Here there is nothing.  She has a boyfriend, and at a point it seemed like they were playing with is he cheating/is he the killer but that gets dropped and becomes nothing.  There's the stuff with her sight/blindness but that doesn't have any connection to the killers or Mischief Night.

Derivative.  Boring.  Not scary.  It's not the worse movie out there, but it's not good enough to bother watching.

*** AVOID ****

FRIGHT NIGHT 2 (2013) *** AVOID ***

FRIGHT NIGHT 2 (2013) ** AVOID ***

A sort of sequel, sort of remake of the 2011 film that was a remake of the classic 1985 horror comedy.  Directed by Eduardo Rodriguez.  Stars: Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Sacha Parkinson, and Chris Waller.

The story: a college student with his class in Romania realizes his female professor is really a vampire, so he, his best friend, and the girl he likes but who doesn't like him because he cheated on her find a guy who plays a vampire hunter on tv thinking he will be able to help them and of course it goes badly.  The friend is killed, the girl kidnapped and turned and the boy must stop an ancient ritual that will let the vampire continue to walk in sunlight.

Was it good?

No.  I mean, really no.  While is a pitched as a sequel it really has nothing in common with its predecessor (the remake of the original).  All they basically did was do the first movie over while changing the vampire to a female and adding lots of nudity.  Now the nudity I'm fine with, but the change of the vampire messes things up.  You see, part of what made the first (1985) movie work so well was that it was a simple play on a common story -- the boy in love with a girl who loses the girl to another guy, only in that case the other guy is really a vampire.  Changing it to a female vampire really ruins that and it just becomes a story about kids running around and a vampire that can kill people at will and not have the police investigate or anything.  It's disappointing (though not surprising).  Still, I would love to find a good, fun vampire movie.  It's a shame there are so many made and yet so few that are good.

*** AVOID ***

Much ado About Nothing (2012) *** AVOID ***

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING (2012) *** AVOID ***

The modern retelling of the Shakespearean play.  This is the second of the no budget projects Joss WHedon has been doing (second after Dr Horrible's Sing Along Blog, which is fantastic!) where he called up a bunch of actor friends (many of whom have worked with him before in Firefly, Angel or the Avengers) and filmed it in his house for a couple weeks.  Sounds pretty cool, don't it?  (It's good to be Joss!).  Directed by Joss Whedon.  Stars: Amy Acker, Alexis Denisof, Nathan Fillion, Clark Gregg, Reed Diamond, Fran Kranz, Sean Maher, and Jillian Morgese.

The story: Benedick had a one night stand with Beatrice, which went badly and now they hate each other.  So, while another marriage is being arranged, everyone connives to get the two of them together.  Also while that is happening there is a scheme to break up that marriage by making the groom think the girl has been unfaithful.

Was it good?

No.  In many ways this play is the a great early example of almost all of our romantic comedy cliches.  It has the couple that hates then falls in love, the misunderstanding that gets blown out of proportion, the evil scheme to break people up, the scheme to get people together.  Really just all the cliches we are tired of.  Which is the problem.  Even if this is the first story to use those tropes (or some of them), is it still comes off as being all those same ridiculous cliches.  At least TAMING OF THE SHREW dives into the gender wars a bit.  This just flits along consumed with its own silliness.  It would have been interested if Whedon had done a real reinvention, taking some of these cliches and turned them on their heads.  But no.  Nothing like that.

Beyond the faults of the source material, there isn't much great here.  Amy Acker (Angel, Person of Interest) and Alexis Denisof (Angel, Buffy) are very good supporting tv actor, but they just don't commend your attention as romantic leads in a movie.  The only actor who really seems to pull off his role is Nathan Fillion, who as a blustering detective steals his scenes and makes his scenes funnier than the scenes should be.  Most of the other actors do well, but rarely elevate the material.

Oddly enough, this group is much more entertaining when you see them live.  I saw them doing a panel at a comic convention and they -- the whole group, every one of them (except Fillion, he wasn't there) were funny and charming and wonderful.  Maybe it was the Shakespearean  mumble rocks they had to speak around or the contrived plot, but the movie just doesn't live up to what the director and cast showed they could do.  So if you are a fan, try youtubing the panels they did -- they're better than the movie.

***AVOID***

SORORITY PARTY MASSACRE (2013)            *** avoid ***

A low budget horror movies that has a bevy of good looking girls (including Marissa Skell, Eve Mauro, Casey Fitzgerald, Rebecca Grant, Adrian Kirk, Alison Mei Lan and Yvette Yates)  and Kevin Sorbo (Hercules) and Ron Jeremy (porn star).  Why it has them I don't know, but it does.  Written by Chris W. Freeman.  Directed by Chris Freeman and Justin Jones.

The Story: a bunch of girls go to an isolated house to compete for their national sorority until a killer begins killing them off.

Was it good?
No.  In fact, it wasn't even as good as my description.  If they had just made the movie from that description they could have made a fun, sexy, horror movie.  Instead what they made was just horrible.  It begins with a girl getting killed (as many horror movies do), which is fine except it's the whole killer-taunting-on-the-phone in a way that is so stupid and painful it is an embarrassment even without being a rip off of SCREAM.  Then there is a bunch of stuff with Kevin Sorbo.  Why?  Who knows.  It's not like anyone renting a sorority horror movie really is doing it to watch Kevin Sorbo.  Maybe they did it for foreign sales?  Or maybe they are just idiots.  Anyway...after that it means they have used up the first 30 minutes before they even get to the main girls who will be gathering at the house.  And as hard to believe the movie just gets worse.  There's nothing scary.  There's nothing funny.  There's nothing to the whole sorority girl competition.  And they don't even do a good job of showing off the girls!  Serious, how can you screw up that!!!
     I could go on about the painful stupidity of the movie but I won't.  Instead, let's talk about b-horror movies and what can make them great.  Simply, horror movies (especially those silly b-horror movies) are the most pure rebellion against society you can have.  Forget reading Catcher in the Rye, horror movies are the real deal.  Horror movies (b-movies) work when they are filled with and embrace all the things parents try to keep away from the children -- sex, drinking, parties, bad decisions, and of course getting killed.  It's why viewers have a sense of glee as the characters get killed.  The ultimate rebellion, cheering for kids to die!  Horror movies are the perfect balance: rebellion and partying, but then getting caught in your own bad decisions, leading to the ultimate punishment which ironically is the things parents fear even more than the drugs and sex.  It's why you can make an incredibly cheap movie with crappy scripts and bad actors and poor lighting and worse special effects and have it still be incredibly watchable. 
Unfortunately for everyone involved this movie is just beyond lame, beyond stupid, beyond dull.

**** AVOID ***

TRAP FOR CINDERELLA (2013) *** AVOID ***

A British drama/thriller with more drama than thrills.  Stars Tuppence Middleton, Alexandra Roach, Kerry Fox, Aneurin Barnard, Frances de la Tour, Emilia Fox.  Directed by Iain Softley, who also wrote the scrrenplay based on the book by Sébastien Japrisot,

THE STORY: After an explosion at an expensive villa, a woman with svere facial burns and amnesia undergoes reconstructive surgery to her face and finds diaries that help her recover her memory about the explosion and what happened that night.

Was it good?

No.  It was pretty boring.  While the description might make it sound like a thriller, it was so slow it felt more like a character piece.  In many ways the story is similar to the Greta Scacchi/Tom Berenger SHATTERED
 with questions of identity and a murder, but the first half is so slow that it just doesn't have any thrill.  And while the second half does pick up, the twists lack any emotional punch.  In the end I didn't care what her real identity was or is she got away.  Simply there are better thrillers and more interesting character pieces than this one. 

*** AVOID ***

EVIDENCE (2013) ** AVOID ***

EVIDENCE (2013)(a review)

This is a found footage film. I'm a big fan of these when they are done right. CLOVERFIELD and BLAIR WITCH PROJECT were great. EVIDENCE is not. Written by John Swetnam. Directed by Olatunde Osunsanmi. Stars Stephen Moyer (True Blood), Radha Mitchell (Red Widow), Dale Dickey, Torrey DeVitto, Nolan Gerard Funk, Aml Ameen, Harry Lennix, Caitlin Stasey, and Svetlana Metkina.  

THE STORY: Cops find a horrible wreakage filled with dead bodies and have to sift through the camcorders of the victims to find out who was behind it all.

 Was it good?

No. The thing about found footage is that it is supposed to be more like reality tv where you feel like these characters are real people. So the best of them, even ones like CLOVERFIELD that have giant monsters, have a compelling story about the characters. CLOVERFIELD has a guy realizing that he loves a girl the day before he is going to leave for Japan. BLAIR WITCH has a group of kids getting lost and turning on each other. This movie didn't have anything. There's a few minutes of "get to know them" footage of the characters, but there isn't much to get to know. Then the horror starts and there's just a lot of screaming. Even the mystery isn't a big deal. The police have very little to do and since the event is over, there isn't anything really pushing them. Even worse, they don't seem to do much to try to solve it. In the first 70 minutes they come up with one idea. And the final reveal is pretty weak. It is a clever concept that could be interest, but they just don't do anything with it.
*** AVOID ****

I.C.U. (2009) (a review)

I.C.U. (2009) (a review)

A low budget horror movie from Austrailia. Well, not so much a horror movie as a direct rip off of DISTURBIA with all the good stuff taken out and replaced by bad dialog, bad acting and poor story construction.

The story: three teen visit their dad to bond except he gets called out (he's a cop). They sit around and begin spying on the neighbors. The girl goes for a swim. They sit around some more. There are clips of the city and of someone who is committing murders. Then, finally, the teens witness a man attacking a woman and now try to convince their father to help.

Was it good?

No. And even my description doesn't reveal how bad it was. LAME, LAME, LAME.

Look, I understand seeing a cool movie like DISTURBIA and wanting to do something like it. I can even understand seeing it and thinking you could do it better. But either way, you'd think you would either (a) copy all the cool stuff to make sure your movie is cool and/or (b) find cool things the other movie didn't do that would make your movie better.

Fail and fail.

There is one nice moment when the teens try to explain to the father what has happened and it becomes an argument about their relationship -- he has never been there for them and he doesn't believe them now (from the kids pov) vs he is trying to make up for it and so he will go investigate (father's pov). Unfortunately, those ideas come too little, too late and nothing is ever done with them later on. There are a couple lame plot twists and that's it.

I could go on -- there is the whole voyeur thing and they make a big deal of the apartment the kids are in having cameras, but except for allowing them to show PG shots of the girl changing into her swim suit, I don't see what they had to do with the story at all.

Just lame all around.

*** AVOID ***

ARENA (2011) (a review)

ARENA (2011) (a review)

Yikes. Just...yikes. Stars: Kellan Lutz (Twilight: Breaking Dawn, 90210, Immortals), Samuel Jackson, Nina Dobrev (Vampire Diaries) and Daniel Day Kim (Lost). Written by Robert Martinez and Michael Hultquist. Directed by Jonah Loop.

The story: a man's wife and unbron child are killed and he goes on a drinking spree where he gets kidnapped and forced to fight in various to-the-death matches that are being shown over the internet. At first he refuses, but then a man he befriends is killed and he agrees to fight to win his freedom and get the chance to kill the executioner who killed his friend. Additionally, the fights are all different with various computer generated settings.

Was it good?

No. No, no, no, no, no. It wasn't even so-bad-it's-good bad. It was just bad. First, the fight scenes. This is an action movie and the fight scenes need to be cool as hell. And they weren't. They were worse than in the tv show Spartacus. They're not as good as you'd see on Buffy or Alias either.

The rest of the movie isn't any better. If you've ever sat through bad action movies you know they all have a lot in common -- over-the-top acting, bad stories that don't really make sense, 1-dimensional characters, plot twists that don't really make sense but are supposed to be cool. This movie has all of them. It's just that bad.

*** AVOID ***

APOLLO 18 (2011) (a review)

APOLLO 18 (2011) (a review)

This is a found footage movie, kind of like BLAIR WITCH PROJECT in space. It's about a secret mission to the moon where the astronauts encounter deadly aliens.

The story: astronauts on a secret mission to the moon encounter aliens.

Was it good?
No.

First, it was boring. Which is bad. And boring in a found footage movie is even worse. It begins with this secret mission, but why it is a big secret? It's about placing something on the moon in case the Russians launch a missile attack. Why keep that secret? I don't know. Then they get to the moon and they see weird things and assume it's the Russians because of course they assume the Russians have launched a secret mission to the moon.

Now look, maybe in 1969 that stuff would have been kind of cool. Today the Russians are a group that can barely work a can opener much less send secret ships to the moon. So this idea of the super-secret Soviets just has no oomph to it, and even worse, while everyone is talking about the Russians, the Russians, even though it is obvious to the audience that it is NOT the Russians, it just makes the astronauts sound dumb. And dumb is fine for a naked blond in a horror movie -- it's bad for an astronaut.

Then, after a LOOOONG time, the movie shifts to a monster movie. Now the idea that we encountered aliens on the moon and that's why we haven't gone back it kind of cool, but why not just tell the story straight? What does this "found footage" effect give you? Nothing. And to make matters worse, they don't really even try to stick with it. One of the cool things about these found footage movies is the way they limit POV and force you into the space of the protagonist. Here, they switch cameras whenever they need to so you don't even get that effect. And the story itself doesn't have anything where it makes sense to do it as a found footage film either.

The other thing those better FF movies do is that they realized one thing that happens with a FF movie is that since you are stuck with the protagonist, the audience becomes closer to them which means you need a real emotional element. Most of the good FF movies have a kind of parallel built into them. CLOVERFIELD is about a guy who realizes he loves a girl and is about to run out to get her when a monster attacks and now he has to run out to save her. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY has a young couple suffering problems with their house; the wife wants to call a professional but the husband wants to fix it himself -- and what's the problem? They are haunted. BLAIR WITCH has a group that go hiking and get lost and turn on each other, except it is worse because they are under the curse of the witch.

Here there is no story, there is no emotion, there is no parallel. Which is why even when the cool alien stuff kicks in the movie is still boring. We haven't gotten connected to the characters. The aliens isn't an extension of what they are really going through. The movie doesn't feel like a story so much as a much of stuff.

*** AVOID ***

SHARK NIGHT 3D (2011) (a review)

SHARK NIGHT 3D (2011) (a review)

First the was PIRANHA, now another movie about water creatures killing students on spring break. Stars: Sara Paxton, Alyssa Diaz, Dustin Milligan, Katharine McPhee (American Idol runner up), Joel David Moore.

The story: a group of friends go to a girl's house for spring break on a private lake in Louisiana where they are attacked by a shark. They try to go for help but are attacked by more sharks. The girl's ex-boyfriend comes to help them and they are attacked by more shark. Then a big reveal and it ends.

Was it good?

No.

It's all just crap. I don't even know why they bothered with a script for this. The whole plot elements are stupid -- from being on a lake and attacked by sharks, which doesn't make the sharks more scary or anything (Louisiana gives tax breaks to film there...we can assume that's why they did it). There's this whole love interest but it never really seems important and most of the story is focused on the girl and not on the guy trying to get the girl and by the end you really don't care. The whole plan with the bad guys (because of course this isn't just random sharks and there has to be a big reveal even though they really don't try to build a mystery leading up to it so it pretty much is a useless plot twist) is stupid and lame.

Again, it's amazing when you watch something like this to see that much money spent on people who don't know what they are doing. PIRANHA got it. It wasn't a great film, but it knew the audience. They got that horror movies are the anti-Oprah art form. It's about all the stuff that parents want to keep from their kids -- sex and death. Not only is it sex and death, but it's the fact that we LIKE sex and death. Sex and death are fun! It's fun to watch people screw (or get naked at least) and it's fun to watch them get killed!

PIRANHA didn't do much, but it got that. Spring break with strippers and giant monster fish. Get naked. Have fun. And then get ripped apart. Add a story about a nice kid who likes a girl who may or may not like him who he then has to save and the movie basically writes itself.

This movie just missed everything. There's no fun. There's some death, but they are pretty lame. There's no fun sex. There's no humor to it. It takes itself seriously which would be okay if it was genuinely scary or if it had something to say...but it doesn't.

Massive fail.

*** AVOID ***

EVERYTHING MUST GO (2011) (a review)

EVERYTHING MUST GO (2011) (a review)

This is another of Will Ferrell's serious, only slightly comedic roles (ala STRANGER THAN FICTION). The movie was written and directed by Dan Rush.

The story: after losing his job, a man comes home to find he is locked out of the house and all his stuff is on the lawn. He has no money and his credit cards are declined, so he decides to stay there and have a 5-day yard sale to get rid of his stuff and figure out what to do.

Was it good?

No.

The movie was just too slow and if there was supposed to be something deep and powerful in it, it didn't come through at all. LOST IN TRANSLATION is slow, but it has some powerful emotional moments and a great ending. This one didn't.

There are a few weird choices. For instance the lead (Ferrell) is supposed to be an alcoholic who had a relapse and that's why his wife threw him out. Except we never meet his wife. We never see their relationship. He could have been a single guy getting thrown out of an apartment. Why make him married? Why bother if you aren't going to exploit it? I thought the idea of selling his stuff was a metaphore for moving on, but since we don't know the wife we have no idea what he is moving on from or why he would have trouble letting go. I mean, the only thing we know about her (at the beginning) is that she locks him out and tosses his stuff and destroys his credit cards and bank account...so she seems like a real b*tch! He's lucky to be rid of her! He shouldn't be sulking, he should be out celebrating that the witch is gone!

This is just such a fundamental problem and it's something I see all the time -- writers not setting up their stories properly. Often its because they move too fast, which is just as bad as moving too slow. In this case it guts the entire metaphore.

Now that can be fine if the focus of the movie is on something else. However here there really isn't anything else. There's no deep insight. No powerful relationship. And the main character isn't actively working toward anything.

The other angle is that he is an alcoholic. That's why he got fired and why his wife locked him out. And he spends a good amount of time drinking, and yet there really isn't anything in the movie that deals with alcoholism or anything like that. He might as well have just been bouncing a ball, because that's all they did with the alcoholism -- use it as a way to keep time.

Even the supporting characters don't have much. There's a kid who helps him who doesn't really have a story and a pregnant woman he befriends who doesn't really have a story...

I appreciate that this isn't just a typical Hollywood movie and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the script made good use of the metaphore and maybe had some powerful moments, but they just didn't translate onto the screen.

This movie wasn't horrible, but there are plenty of character driven movies out there that are a lot better.

*** AVOID ***

SCREAM 4 (2011) (a review)

SCREAM 4 (2011) (a review)

This is the restart of the SCREAM franchise that re-teams the original writer (Kevin Williamson) and director (Wes Craven). It also brings back Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette and brings in a new group of teens -- Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettierre, Rory Caulkin. This is a movie that was plagued with problems -- apparently they brought in other people to rewrite Williamson and Craven was unhappy about a number of things. The original SCREAM was a big hit. This one wasn't.

The story: Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) comes back to Woodboro to promote a book only to have a new Ghostface killer killing off high school students.

Was it good?

No.

Look, there were a lot of problems but for me it came down to something simple. The first movie worked because it had a brilliant idea -- it has a young girl unsure if she should have sex with her boyfriend and then externalized it in the context of a horror movie to being a story about a young girl not sure if her boyfriend is a killer. Yes, the movie had some scares and a lot of humor and the whole deconstruction thing, but the reason it worked, why we rooted for her and became involved with that simple parallel. It's the Buffy method -- understand the emotion your character is going through and find a cool way to externalize it.

This movie had none of it. Sydney really isn't dealing with anything -- in fact none of the characters seemed to be dealing with anything -- and the eventual reveal was kind of boring. The original is all about trusting the boyfriend so when they reveal that he is the killer...well, that was pretty cool. Here, when it is finally revealed it just comes out of nowhere and feels lame. In fact, it would have been better to reveal the killer from the beginning. That at least would have added some tension that was lacking since every scene with them we would know they were the killer planning the next crime right in front of the people trying to stop them.

But this was just lame.

*** AVOID ***

HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN (2011) (a review)

HOUSE OF THE RISING SUN (2011) (a review)

A crime story. Stars Dave Bautista (WWE champion), Amy Smart, Dominic Purcell and Danny Trejo. Based on the novel by Chuck Hustmyre. Directed by Brian A Miller.

The story: an ex-con has to go on the run to prove his innocence after he is blamed for the death of his boss' son as both the cops and the mob close in on him.

Was it good?

No. There are a lot of things wrong with it -- the acting is pretty bad and the directing isn't what you would call good. But the big problem is there just isn't any cool. The idea is fine, but we've seen stuff like this a thousand times. So what's the thing here that's unique? What's the thing that's new? And I just couldn't tell you. The lack of anything new makes you feel like you are watching something you have seen before. Add to the fact that the writing is flat and the acting flatter, and this is a pass. One thing I did like was Amy Smart. She's an actress I like who never seems to get material that fits her, and while this material wasn't a great fit for her either it was better for her than a lot of movies (like MIRRORS). Unfortuantely, that's not enough to recommend it.

*** AVOID ***

THE HIDDEN 3D (2011) (a review)

THE HIDDEN 3D (2011) (a review)

This is a Canadian/Italian horror film. Don't know much about the people. Didn't feel like looking it up.

The story: A woman finds a way to take people's addictions and make the physical so they can be removed, but once removed they take on a life of their own. Cut to twenty years later and she is dead and her son inherits her mansion (because of course she would never do experiments in something as boring as a lab) and brings his friends there to check it out even though he doesn't want to be there. One of the friends is a girl he likes, I guess. At the mansion they encounter weird insects and mutant children in the basement and have to try to survive.

Was it good?

Huh? Serious? You read the story and thought that it might actually have a chance at being good??? No. No, no, no, no, no, no. Nothing here makes sense. The idea of making addictions physical might be interesting, but they never do anything with it -- the children (or anyone/thing else for that matter) never act like the physical embodiment of any addiction. For that matter there's the whole idea that the addictions can live outside people so why do they become mutant children? And why do they just act like flesh hungry zombies instead of something addiction-like? And what was with the weird insects again, or was that just because they had money to kill on special effects?

It also doesn't work on a character level. Empty, boring, no story, no arc...nada. The characters didn't even need to have names because there is nothing to differentiate them. It's one of those movies where it feels like the filmmakers didn't care. Just throw in some weird children and special effects and people will like it.

Wrong. It sucked.

*** AVOID ***

THE WARD (2010) (a review)

THE WARD (2010) (a review)

The latest horror movie by John Carpenter, the horror master behind HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, THE THING (remake), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and more. The movie stars Amber Heard (Drive Angry, Zombieland, Friday Night Lights (the movie)).

The story: a girl burns down a farmhouse and is taken to an insane asylum. The doctor seems to have another agenda and there is a girl who died and now is a ghost coming back to kill people off. The girl must discover the mystery of the ghost before she is killed off too.

Was it good?

No.

The problem is two-fold. First, the twist is something I've seen before and to be honest didn't like the first time. (I won't say the name of the movie but it stars an actor named John C--).

The second problem is there isn't anything there other than the twist. There isn't a compelling up front, non-hidden, non-twist story. In HALLOWEEN (the original), you have Jamie liking a guy but being too embarrassed to do anything about it or to let her friends do anything about it, while as the same time being envious of them having boyfriends. Here there are girls in a psych ward and...well that's just it. There are just there. There's nothing really relatable, so there's no take-away from the movie.

I'm a Carpenter fan, but this was a miss.

*** AVOID ***