THE RETURNED (2013) *** WATCH ***

THE RETURNED (2013)

Less a horror movie than a drama/thriller that uses the idea of zombies to nice effect.  Written by Hatem Khraiche.  Directed by Manuel Carballo.  Starring Kris Holden-Ried, Emily Hampshire, Claudia Bassols, Shawn Doyle, and Melina Matthews.

The story: in a world where a zombie outbreak has happened, humans have developed a drug that if given to an infected person soon enough will keep the zombie virus dormant.  However, the supplies are running low and people are beginning to panic.  This is the story of a doctor (Hampshire) whose husband (Holden-Reid) has become infected and is trying to keep the virus dormant long enough for a synthetic solution to be developed.

Was it good?

Yeah.  It wasn't great, but it was solid with a lot of stuff worth watching.  The concept is a great twist on the classic zombie concept that focuses more on the characters than on gore.  The acting is all very good, the directing solid and they do a lot with the concept, having a black market and the shortages and groups of people who are violently anti-zombie.  It's definitely worth watching especially if you are looking for something a bit different than other zombie movies.

So why only a rental?  Well, partially because there is some clumsy plotting toward the end and honestly, while the movie isn't really about zombies the concept is about zombies and there definitely should have been more with them.  This movie took the easy way out in many ways dealing with the zombie infection and could have been much, much more interesting.  The main reason, however, is the story's lack of depth.  While it is more character oriented, there isn't a lot of emotion and while there are some interesting plot-elements with the lack of the antidote, none of them really investigate the characters.  Compare that to, say, CLOVERFIELD, where there is a story about a man trying to save his relationship with the girl he loves and then the monster arrives and now he has to save her from a bigger, external threat.  Or SCREAM which has a teen girl unsure she trusts her boyfriend enough to have sex and then he is accused of being a serial killer and she has to decide to trust him or not.  See these stories set up a parallel that allows them to use the external concept to explore an internal concept.  That's how they are able to get emotion out of their stories.  Here, there just isn't anything.  So while the story is interesting, it also starts to feel a bit flat.

Still, for the strong concept, good acting and clever plotting, I think it's worth a RENTAL.

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 ***

BIG ASS SPIDER (2013) *** WATCH ***

BIG ASS SPIDER (2013) 

A fun sci-fi horror movie, a throw back to those classic giant animal movies of the 60's.  directed by Mike Mendez.  Written by Gregory Gieras.  Stars: Greg Grunberg, Lin Shaye, Patrick Bauchau, Ray Wise, Clare Kramer, Lombardo Boyar.

The story: A man fights a giant spider.

Was it good?

YES.  Don't get me wrong, this isn't going to win Oscars and won't defeat KING KONG or ALIEN, but for a goofy throw-back sci-fi movie it was the one thing you want most -- FUN.  With a solid screenplay that does what you'd expect and has fun with it, and game performances from some solid actors this movie manages to stay entertaining throughout.  This would be a fun movie to show my niece and nephews if not for some unneeded language.  It's a shame, because as a movie for adults it isn't edgy enough, but as more of a family film it would be great.

Still, for fans of those early 60's sci-fi movies and movies like ARACHNOPHOBIA and EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS, this one is a good one to check out.

*** WATCH ***

Also to watch: TREMORS, DESTROY ALL MONSTERS, ANACONDA, PACIFIC RIM.

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

HATCHET 3 (2013) *** RENTAL ***

HATCHET 3 *** RENTAL ***

This is the third (and last?) in the series for HATCHET, the horror series by Adam Green.  Green doesn't direct this one, but he wrote and produces it.  Directed by BJ McDonnell.  Starring Danielle Harris, Kane Hodder, Zach Galligan, Caroline Williams, Robert Diago DoQui, Derek Mears.

The story: Picking up where HATCHET 2 left off, Marybeth Dunston(Danielle Harris) kills Victor Crowley (Kane Holder), then goes to a police station where she is immediately made the prime suspect in the murder of all the people from HATCHET 2.  First the police, then FBI go to  Honey Island Swamp to investigate.  Meanwhile, Amanda Fowler (Caroline Williams), who wants to write a book about Crowley, tries to interview Marybeth, telling her that Crowley can't be killed because he is already dead.  Now the police are attacked by a rejuvenated Crowley and Marybeth with Amanda will try to find a way to stop Crowley once and for all.

Was it good? 

It was, especially the first half.  Starting with a bang, we get right into the action.  Then having Dunston locked up while the police investigate was a nice twist to the standard horror plot and keeps everything interesting.  The writing and acting aren't anything special here, but Danielle Harris does a nice job and it's good to see Zach Galligan (who starred in one of my favorite movies of all time -- GREMLINS!) here as well.  The story really bogs down when the rejuvenated Crowley begins attacking the police, where everything starts to feel very by the numbers.  By the end I didn't really care which side won.  Crowley kills people.  They kill him, but he isn't really dead and he kills a bunch more and they kill him again, but he isn't really dead, etc, etc.  Just crazy repetitious.  Some of the beats were entertaining, but you never like or hate the characters enough to root for or against them. 

Still for all the predictable parts and not-funny dialog, there is still enough here that I liked to recommend it to horror fans.  This isn't horror that will thrill, but for a slightly twisted group looking for a group looking for a fun Friday night splatter-fest, this will fit the bill.

*** RENTAL ***

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 ****

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013)  *** RECOMMEND***

A twisted revisionist update to the classic fairy tale.  Stars Jeremy Renner (The Avengers, Bourne Ultimatum), Gemma Arterton, and Famke Janssen.  Written and directed by Tommy Wirkola.

The story:  Hansel and Gretel, after escaping from a witch when they were children, have grown up to become kick a** witch hunteres!  They come to a town where children have gone missing and learn a powerful witch is taking them for a ritual that will make her immune to fire.  Hansel and Gretel try to save the children and defeat the witch, while learning things about their past.

Was it good?

Yes!  Which surprised me.  It is such a silly, goofy idea, but here's the thing -- the filmmaker seemed to understand that and embraced it.  Instead of doing something grounded and dark, he made something vibrant and fun.  Hansel and Gretel aren't just witch hunters, they are witch hunters with a bunch of cool a** steam-punk inspired weapons.  The plot, while not inspired, does a good enough job to keep things interesting.  This isn't a deep, brain teaser of a movie -- it's popcorn for action/horror buffs.  My biggest complaint is that the movies seems divided whether it wants to be rated R or PG-13 (it's rated R).  Some times it would embrace the R-rated sexy/violence and other times it seemed to pull back from it.  Hopefully in the sequel (it was a big hit so I assume there will be one) they will embrace the R-nature and really give us a sexy, crazy action movie for adults who like to be giddy kids!

*** RECOMMEND ****

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 ***

SEASONING HOUSE (2012) *** RECOMMEND ***

 

A British horror movie.  The directorial debut of Paul Hyett, who mainly had worked in the make-up/fx department.  Stars Rosie Day, Kevin Howarth, and Sean Pertwee.

The story: Set in the Balkans,  it follows a young girl whose mother has been killed by soldiers and if forced to work in a prostitution house for soldiers.  The soldiers like to brutalize the girls, so her job is to keep them drugged up and to clean them up after the men beat them.  However, after befriending one girl who is savagely attacked, she attacks her attacker, setting the soldiers after her.

Was it good?

Half of it was good.  First, let me say it is a powerful concept for a movie.  This isn't your typical kids-in-the-woods stuff.  Seeing this prostitution house (based on a true story) makes for a powerful (disturbing) experience.  In addition to the drama of this girl working in the house is the story that the operator of the house is in love with her, setting up another powerful dynamic.  And for the first half of the movie, it is a powerful movie experience.  The acting is also excellent.  The whole cast is good and Rosie Day especially was fantastic.  The set design and the directing (for the most part) were very good too.  Part of what makes the first half work so well is the mood and atmosphere they have build for the place and the way the director follows the main character as she goes about her duties tending to the girls and slipping in and out of the vents as her only way of having any sense of freedom and control.  However, after she attacks the first soldier and the soldiers go after her, the movie quickly slips away.  The story devolves into little more than chase after chase.  Instead of going for emotional depth, the script goes for action.  Even worse, by the end of act two they have her leave the house.  What was a tense, contained thriller for the first 2/3rds, now becomes little more than a generic chase movie.  What hurts the movie even more is that the chase elements as usually pretty stupid.  For a thriller to work, you want the characters (hero and villains) to be smart, to think ahead and plan.  Here the villains just chase her, pretty much one by one, and even when they grab her or could shoot her they don't (or they miss).   

However, while the movie definitely doesn't live up to the potential of its concept or it's cast, there is still a lot here worth recommending.  It's not a fun horror movie, and not an easy movie to watch, but for people looking for a powerful movie experience and able to deal with the violence/sexual brutality, the movie has more impact than 99% of what is out there.  Hopefully the director will learn from this and next tiem get a better script.

*** RECOMMEND ***

EVIL DEAD (2013) ** RENTAL***

EVIL DEAD (2013)

This is the remark/reboot of the classic 1980's horror series Evil Dead by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man 1 2 and 3, Darkman, Great and Powerful Oz).  Produced by Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell (Burn Notice and star of the original Evil Dead movies).  Directed by Fede Alvarez, after directing a short film that got Sam Raimi's attention.  Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez,  Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, and Elizabeth Blackmore.

THE STORY:  A group of friends bring a girl (Jane Levy) to a remote cabin to detox her from drug addiction.  She has recently OD'ed and they feel extreme measures are needed.  However, they find bodies in the basement and one of them reads from a strange book and soon they are being possessed by a horrible demon who tries to kill them and collect their souls.  

WAS IS GOOD?

Sort of.  If you are a fan of the original then, well, this doesn't measure up.  At all.  And I'll talk about why in a minute.  If you haven't seen the original twenty times and used the phrase "Groovy" as your ringtone then there is a lot to like.  The basic idea of a group of friends trying to detox a girl who becomes possessed is interesting, and there are some nice twists and turns.  The action is pretty much non-stop.  The problem is that you don't care.  There are no relationships and there's no real build up to anything.  It's the girl gets possessed and then messes up he friends, pretty much one-by-one, killing them off.  the movies makes an interesting turn when the girl is cured by her brother and now she becomes the target of the demons, but while it has a cool "what will happen now" effect, there's no real emotion or sense to it.  And it builds to a big dramatic ending that is simply solved with a chainsaw. 

Now compare that to the original, which slowly builds for the first ten minutes, allowing you to meet the characters and see them interact.  Next the demons are invoked.  Now one girl becomes possessed, but instead of just inflicting violence, the demon wants to possess the people and terrorize them, turning their friends against them and taunting them.  In this movie there is some of that, but it just never lands.  The demon isn't trying to terrorize, but simply to kill and it isn't nearly as interesting.  Seeing people get picked off one-by-one (let me go visit the demon girl and hey, look, I got attacked) isn't as interesting as a group in a room together trying to protect each other.  There is also the odd switch of the girl at first being the antagonist (once she is possessed) and then becoming the hero at the end.  It was an interesting choice, but I can't say I was really hoping for her to win.  It goes back to the original concept of a group of friends trying to get a girl to detox.  It is he friends that are the protagonists and they are the ones we bond with.  Switching to the girl as the protagonist at the end breaks the concept.  If the idea had been a girl trying to detox is attacked by demons and has to save herself, then it would have been fine, but in general when you switch concepts in the 3rd act, you are going to lose a lot of mojo.  And this movie felt over with 15 minutes to go.

Another thing to mention is that there is a lot of gore in this movie.  The idea of people cutting off their own limbs is a recurring thing.  (And you thought that was the sort of thing you only needed to see once?  Ha!)  It got to the point where it felt like most of the brainstorming was about what gruesome effects they could do, because they go for the gross out a lot!

All in all, while this was an interesting movie, it didn't have that "Evil Dead" feel.  Worth a rental though.  Hopefully next time they will concentrate on story and character more and less on gore.

** RENTAL **

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 ***

ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) (a review) *** RENTAL ***

ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) (a review)

A Brittish horror-comedy from the studio behind SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD.

The story: after robbing a young nurse new to their neighborhood, a group of street thugs on the verge of becoming drug dealers realize their block is being attacked by space aliens and struggle to defeat the monsters and save their neighborhood.

Was it good?

Kind of.

Honestly there was a lot I liked. The space aliens as monsters were pretty cool (kind of like the Iz in THE MAXX). There was a lot of comedy and once they start having to deal with the aliens it was all really good. There was just one big problem -- the kids.

The basic arc is that these kids start out as street hoods and then become heroes, but for me nothing they did later made up for who they showed themselves to be early on. These weren't good kids in a bad gang or kids who needed money to pay some bills -- these were kids that were taking pleasure in terrifying other people. Especially with the nurse, not only robbing her but trying to frighten her and enjoying it. And the whole "redeem" arc just didn't work for me. I didn't believe they had changed, I didn't think they deserved to be forgiven, and honestly I was hoping the monsters would kill them all.

Another weird thing, when the nurse was attacked it was the cops who came to her aid and tried to help her. But later (as we're supposed to side with the kids) the cops are portrayed as bad guys and I just never felt that.

Now if the movie had just let the kids be real anti-heroes instead of trying to turn them into "good" kids/redeem them, then it might have been more interesting. The aliens attack but the kids fight them off not because they are really good kids, but because they are more vicious and sadistic than the aliens...that might have been interesting.

So this is a tough call for me. There's a lot to like and if I just cut off a bit from the beginning and the end, it would have been a great film and a strong recommend...but as it was once I could feel the filmmakers pushing me to be sympathetic to the kids, I just couldn't accept it. However, there's enough here that it might be worth a look for some...

*** RENTAL ***

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 ***

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

This is the new movie by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob, Dogma, Cop Out). Unlike many of his movies that fall in the View Askew universe this is more of an action/horror movie. The movie stars John Goodman, Kevin Pollack, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, and Stephen Root.

The story: a couple kids drive out into the woods to meet a woman for quick sex, but are taken hostage by religious cult who plan to kill them. The cops arrive and leads to a stand off between the FBI and the fundamentalists.

Was it good?

Kind of. It was interesting, but I'm not sure I would call it good.

The first half is a pretty standard horror movie. There's some humor and some odd little moments, but it's played much more grounded than, say, a Friday the 13th. The kids are taken hostage and one of them is killed and the others struggle to survive. The religious people are a cult full of wackos and the kids are kind of a-holes, but they don't deserve to die.

Then, around midpoint is when the FBI arrive and that's when the movie gets odd. Up until them it's pretty clear we root for the kids and are against the religious/anti-gay/people killers. However, the FBI isn't actually good. And even more oddly, the kids that we have been following virtually disappear from the story. It becomes a stand off between two sides that no one would really root for.

Now this might work if the story was told in a realistic way and wanted to really explore both sides of a difficult situation, but that's not the case. Both sides are so exaggerated they become parodies at times. And the loss of any character or storyline where there is anything really to root for, it leave you (or me or whoever the audience is) feeling adrift. It's like the story was designed not just to end badly (which a lot of horror movies do...people tend to die at the end of them) but it's meant to end in a way that make you feel useless.

Still it was an interesting movie. For cinephiles and fans of indy movies maybe this will work too. It's just not a movie I could recommend for most. Still, there's enough good here that if you are looking for a rental it might be worth your time.

*** RENTAL ***

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 ***

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 ***

8213: GACY HOUSE (2010) (a review)

8213: GACY HOUSE (2010) (a review)

STAKE LAND (2011) (a review)

STAKE LAND (2011) (a review)

This movie might sound like a rip off of ZOMBIELAND, but that movie had humor. This is more like THE ROAD with vampires. Stars Conner Paolo (Gossip Girl), Danielle Harris, Kelly McGillis, Nick Damici and Michael Cerveris.

The story: America is over. A plague of vampirism has caused the collapse of the nation. Now a man who hunters vampires befriends an orphaned boy and teaches him to fend off the vampires. They meet various people -- some good, some bad -- while killing vamps and trying to find a plae they can live (Canada).

Was it good?

Kind of. There's some nice stuff in here and some good moments, but it is all so dreary and monotone. For minimalist stories like this to work they need to be full of theme. I mean absolutely dripping with it. LOST IN TRANSLATION is the best example of this -- a movie that just got into you how lost and lonely those two people were and how important that connection they made was. The book THE ROAD worked because it focused on that father/son relationship, which was in the movie, but the nuance didn't come through.

Here, I just didn't feel it. I honestly don't know what the theme is. Maybe it's about connection or hope or something, but I just didn't feel it. Eventually, even though there were a lot of good moments, the quiets and the monotones just grew tiresome.

I'm sure the movie will have fans -- and it does enough good things that I think it deserves to have fans -- but there weren't enough to make a fan out of me.

*** AVOID ***