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

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

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

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

Was it good?

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

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

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

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

***AVOID ***

THE PENTHOUSE (a review)

THE PENTHOUSE (a review)

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

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

Was it good?

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

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

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

*** AVOID ****

MY SOUL TO TAKE (a review)

MY SOUL TO TAKE (a review)

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

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

Was it good?

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

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

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

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

*** AVOID ***

LET ME IN (a review)

LET ME IN (a review)

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

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

Was it good?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The American version, LET ME IN...

**** RENTAL ****

THE WOLFMAN (2010) (a review)

THE WOLFMAN (2010) (a review)

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

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

Was it good?

No.

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

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

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

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

*** AVOID ***

ADELE BLANC-SEC (2010) (a review)

ADELE BLANC-SEC (2010) (a review)

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

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

Was it good?

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

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

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

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

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

*** RENTAL ***

DEATH RACE 2 (a review)

DEATH RACE 2 (a review)

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

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

Was it good?

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

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

*** AVOID ***