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.

BOUNTY KILLER (2013) ** RENTAL ***

BOUNTY KILLER (2013)

A post-apocalyptic action comedy with sexy bounty hunters.  Directed by Henry Saine.  Stars Matthew Marsden and Christian Pitre with appearances by Kristanna Loken, Beverly D'Angelo, Eve,  Alexa Vega and Gary Busey.

The story: After corporate greed has left the world a giant wasteland, white collar crimes get a death penalty.  Bounty Killers are the people who go after them and are celebrities with fans.  The story follows Drifter (Matthew Marsden) and Mary Death (Christian Pitre) as a bounty is placed on Drifter and they team up (after she goes after him for the bounty) have to evade killers and gypsies to track down the council to find out what is going on.

Was it good?

It was entertaining for a bit.   The strange mix of desolation and celebrity was interesting, and this is certainly a movie that tries to do a lot more than most low budget films.  The co-star Christian Pitre is beautiful and energetic.  This is a movie that just wants to be a B-movie, almost more homage than
real film.  Where as other movies like DEATH RACE 2000 and MAD MAX used the concept to delve into something more, this is just all superficial fun.  Unfortunately, like most movies that are 70% recycling, the humor isn't funny, the characters are cardboard, the plot doesn't make sense and ultimately the movie feels like a pretty empty thing.

Still, Considering the title and cover, you get the feeling the renters will know what they are getting, and while it doesn't have enough to it to make it a cult classic, it has enough for people who like action, sexy women, and ridiculous sci-fi a watch.

***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 ***

IRON INVADER (aka SPACE TRANSFORMERS) (a review)

IRON INVADER (aka SPACE TRANSFORMERS) (2011) (a review)

This is basically low budget rip-off of Transformers. Giant mechanical monster...people running around...B-actors...bad script with lame dialog... I'll give the movie one thing -- it makes you appreciate Michael Bay, that's for sure!

The story: a metorite crashes with a bacteria that animates a metal statue and raves the iron in human blood. This guy who is deep in debt while he fixes up an inn and his brother and the girl he loved as a teen and the shariff and some other people try to figure out how to stop it.

Was it good?

No. It wasn't the worst movie ever, but it's such a lame Transformers-lite that it's hard to enjoy any of it. The characters a lame -- you have two brothers fixing up an inn and deep in debt...which has nothing to do with anything. Then you have the guy in love with the girl who comes back into town after getting a divorce and their story which is boring with so much bad dialog that it is more painful for the audience than it is for the woman's daughter who has to listen to the two of them. Now of course no one is renting the movie for that, but it takes up a good chunk of the film (probably because filming people is a lot cheaper than the special effects to animate the iron golumn) and it's all basically worthless. Might as well just fast forward through all of it.

The one thing they add that is unique is that the space-iron-thng kills by infecting people's blood, except I'm not sure how that makes sense. It seems to want iron and is attracted to the iron in people's blood, but it doesn't eat the iron or use it...it just goes after the people and then infects them and they die.

Huh?

Anyway, ignoring that there are some decent shots of the iron golumn, but the action-y scenes just don't have anything special about them -- no sense of humor, no real tension -- and because none of the character clicked at all.

There are two basic ways to construct screenplays (and by no means do all movies have to conform to this, but it's what most will do). Either (A) you have a character whose inner goal is parallel to his outer goal (such as in DIE HARD where McClane wants to save his marriage, but then he has to save his wife from the terrorists) or they are in opposition to each other (as in MINORITY REPORT where the main guy wants the future cops program to work, but then he is accused of a crime and now he will have to prove it doesn't work to prove his innocence). This movie doesn't have anything like that. No real goals, no real character work...just random people with a lame and very forced love story.

They would have been better off cutting all of it and just filling in that time with something cool. Like jokes that didn't make it into the Hangover.

Still...for younger kids on a Saturday afternoon the movie is probably fine. It'll be slow, but harmless and they might like the iron golumn aspect. For adults it doesn't nearly have any of the spark or creativity it takes to make a low budget rip-off really work. (A sense of humor would have especially been a good idea.)

*** AVOID ***

KNOWING (a review)

KNOWING (2009) (a review)

An action sci-fi movie starring Nicholas Cage.

The story: Jonathan Koestler (Nick Cage) is a single father. When his son's school opens a time capsule, his son gets a piece of paper with weird numbers on it. His father realizes it is a code and that the numbers refer to disasters that happened AFTER the time capsule was buried. There are also three numbers unaccounted for -- three disasters yet to come. He tries to warn them, but only becomes a suspect himself. There are other strange people gathering children as well. And John needs to reconcile with his father. The disasters get worse as John realizes the final one will mean the end of the world...

Was it good?

Kind of. A lot of the movie worked. And I liked Nick Cage in this role. He makes a lot of bad films, but in the right role he can still be a superb actor. However, the movie does have the problems. First is that it's a downer. I mean, yeah, it's an end of the world movie but 2012 (for all it's hokum) at least got right that the movie should end with hope. This movie felt like a downer.

Also, the people kidnapping children and stuff...I mean it just felt so off. It was like a different movie entirely. This movie kept feeling like it was getting pulled in different directions -- it's about stopping the disasters, it's about his father (which was okay), then it's about this girl he meets, then it's about these kidnapping... It meant that what started out as a pretty cool first half just unraveled into a lot of unfocused hokum in the second half. My guess (and it's purely a guess) is that the writer didn't know what to do once he realized he had set out an end of the world scenario where it would be impossible to save people. Now what do you do? Well you intro new elements and try to throw in some weirdness. In all fairness, they did manage to avoid that "Hollywood" cliche ending, but unfortunately they didn't replace it with a better ending.

The funny thing is that it is all made up, so if you've come up with a scenario that is giving you problems...just change the scenario! It's fiction -- you can change whatever you want! If they had kept this movie on concept -- a message in a time capsule that fortells three disasters and a man's attempt to stop them -- it could have been pretty cool. Once they abandon that (basically once he realizes that it is impossible to do anything) is when most of the unraveling happens.

It's a shame because the first half I liked a lot. Enough to...

*** RECOMMEND FOR RENTAL ***

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) (a review)

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) (a review)

Movie loosely based on a short story by Philip K Dick, which pits a man against his destiny. Stars Matt Damon and Emily Blunt.

The story: David (Damon) fails to win a seat in congress. While practicing his concession speech he meets a beautiful girl Elise, (Emily Blunt) and is instantly attracted to her. Three years later he is preparing another run for Congress, this one sure to win when he runs into her again. The problem is now she might ruin his chance for Congress and later the Presidency because with her in his life he wn't feel that desperate need that is driving him toward public office. Now fate (or God or angels or whatever) has decided that they want his to be president so they attempt to break the couple up and David and Elise will have to go on the run to try to escape their fates to be together.

Was it good?

Almost. Parts of it were good, but it has a few problems.

First, the whole fate thing is pretty far-fetched. I mean, it's just really hard to by into, and then they have all these guys wearing hats like if fate were such an important thing then they would really let it be decided by whether or not someone is wearing a hat! So the concept itself is pretty weak.

Also, the whole driving force is that fate wants Damon to be president, but there is never any sense of why he needs to be president. So there isn't really a strong struggle here -- he could be with the woman he loves and be happy, or be president which would fulfill someone else's desire which is supposed to be important for some reason.

Now for all the hokeiness to it there are some things that work. The whole idea of fighting fate, of feeling like you are supposed to do something and struggling against it for your own happiness...well, it has a certain Romeo and Juliet quality that works.

And they did a decent job with the romance. It was easy to get a feel for why these two people, who really only spend a couple days together spread out over several years, would fight to be together. However, ultimately the problem is that the story wanders. If they had avoided the beat at the end of the second act when David breaks up with Elise so she can achieve her dream (without even talking to her about it!) and kept it about fate trying to seperate them, it would have worked better. The problem is that there's a difference in a story that is about two people who want to be together but fate is keeping them apart and a story about a man struggling with two choice on where his life should go, and this movie seems to confuse the two.

Still, even for all the hokeiness and story problems, if you are specificlly looking for an actiony-romance this will probably fill your need. And because I can be a sucker too...

*** RENTAL ***

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) ***

SLYLINE (a review)

SLYLINE (a review)

New sci-fi action flick by a couple visual f/x guys. Made on a micro budget ($500K) that they then throw a ton of money at for the F/X ($10M). So the F/X are probably good, but how's the story?

The story: a group of friends are at a birthday party in a high rise apartment building when aliens attack and begin killing everything in sight and this group and a few others struggle to survive.

Was it good?

No. There are some cool things to it (and as a wanna-be-filmmaker I was impressed they made it for under $11M), but ultimately the story just doesn't have anything to it. The alien attack from the people's POV is fine, but there isn't really anything to the characters (in fact they are pretty annoying), and there isn't any character arc or anything else to really draw you in. It feels like a lot of plot, some neat weird moments, a lot of not-neat action moments and then an ending that is almost laughably bad.

This is one that has enough interesting elements that you might want to see it, but I doubt many people will be glad they did.

***AVOID **

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2 (a review)

WAR OF THE WORLDS 2 (a review)

Not a sequel to the Spielberg/Cruise worldwide hit sci-fi action movie. This instead is a sequel of the very cheap straight to dvd War of the Worlds starring C Thomas Howell that tried to piggyback off the other's success.

The story: after the first invasion, the survivors try to fight off a second wave. Some use planes to launch an assault on Mars, while the main character gets captured and brought to Mars to try to save his son who has been captured.

Was it good?

No...and yes. It was good in a Creature Feature sort of way -- very cheesy with lame F/X and bad acting, but it moves quickly and does some cool stuff so it's kind of entertaining if you feel like watching a bad movie. The thing I'm constantly amazed at by these bad movies are the bad acting and dialog. It's the cheapest thing to fix. There are plenty of good actors looking for work, and plenty of cheap writers to do a little dialog polish. C Thomas Howell is especially bad which is weird because I remember liking him in movies like Secret Admirer. Plus he directed it. You'd think he would make sure his acting came off good, right?

So I won't recommend it because it's just too cheesy and the acting is too bad, but if you are in the mood for cheesy/actiony/sci-fi-ish then this isn't bad.

**** AVOID (except if you want cheesy sci-fi) ****

THE DARK LURKING (a review)

THE DARK LURKING (a review)

A sci-fi movie that was obviously done on the cheap and yet looks surprisingly good. However, the story (a rip-off of Resident Evil) just doesn't measure up.

The story: a group of mercenaries become trapped in a futuristic research station deep below of the surface of the earth, surrounded by alien creatures and have to find a way to get to the surface.

Was it good?

No. It was horrible. The story, which feels like a total rip off of Resident Evil, the casting (who are all horrible in this). The one good thing is that the director gave it a great look. I don't know if he does set design for a living, but he should and leave the camera and actors to people who know what to do with them.

There are worse horror/sci-fi movies than this...but there are also a lot better.

*** AVOID ***