Tuesday, February 15, 2011

CHOOSE (2009) (a review)


A horror movie about starring Kevin Pollack (Money Drop, USUAL SUSPECTS) and Katheryn Winnick (that episode of HOUSE MD where he talks to the girl who was raped)

The story: a serial killer is running around forcing people to choose between two horrible decisions (like losing their face or their looks, killing their mom or their dad, etc). A journalism student and her police office father race to catch the killer.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't bad. It was just so by-the-numbers. From the concept, which felt like SEVEN-lite, to the murders (which were kinda gross but not really twisted enough like in 7), to the characters, to the dialog, to the reveals at the end (oh my -- a personal connection -- I never would have expected that!) There isn't one single beat in the movie that feels new or original or interesting. You watch it and ask "What did the writer find fascinating? What was it that drew him to want to write this?" And honestly I have no idea. It's like a movie dreamed up by a producer slapping together elements form other hit movies he didn't personally like but that were successful so what the hell.

Also there are two completely useless scenes in the movie. One has the lead actress take a shower for no reason and the second has her taking a bath for no reason. Now, I'm not one to wet blanket some old fashioned gratuitous fun, but there isn't even any gratuity in the scenes, so why have the scenes there are all? I'm not sure I've ever heard of gratuitous non-nudity before but this film has it. If you aren't going to make the scenes useful (i.e. help the story) and if you aren't going to make the fun (whoo-hoo nakedness!) then just cut them entirely. It's called editing. When you use it, it can actually help your film.

And what was Kevin Pollack doing in this? Maybe it was before he got the gig for MONEY DROP, or he owed someone a favor? It's hard to imagine the guy in USUAL SUSPECTS making this because he loved the script.

Now, that's the bad, but there is good here. Namely, the actress Katheryn Winnick. How crap is she hot. I mean, just beautiful. I'd watch her in anything. In fact, I checked IMDB and she's been in a bunch so by next week this blog might be full of her movies. Unfortunately, the story an dialog don't let her do anything that really would qualify as "good acting" but there is something about that girl that is interesting on screen. I'd be nice to see her in a better role.

Also, while the story is very by-the-numbers, for the first half it's also doing the job and pretty entertaining. You have a killer running around and people trying to stop him. If it can work for every procedural on tv it can work here too.

It's in the second half, where they start to figure out who the killer is why he is doing it and the personal connection, etc, that the movie starts to feel move like a spoof and less like a thriller. I've never understood why people who make crime movies also want this personal connection. SEVEN didn't have one. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS didn't have one. It's like they need to have every single aspect of the movie tie together, but what they forget is that it just becomes too much.

Now this could have been saved if they started the movie more from the killer's point of view, so that you plant the idea that he was building this giant trap for the protags. Of course, this would lessen (negate) some of the mystery of who he is, but it would also make the ending not be cheesey and suck.

It's not all bad, but you can do better. Personally, I'd just watch eps of CRIMINAL MINDS or even NUMBERS again over this.

*** AVOID ***


A made for SyFy Channel movie...which is the same as all the other made for s-f movies. Stars Sarah Butler (of the I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE remake, also reviewed on this blog).

The story: a group of kids are out in the woods when they are attacked by giant mutant birds. The kids flee to a local town/military base and the birds follow killing and infecting the town.

Was it good?

Not really. But like most of the made-for-SyFy movies it is oddly watchable. It reminds me of the old Creature Feature saturday afternoon horror movies I used to watch. They were these cheesy B&W things, but were still more interesting than most of the generically good stuff on the other channels.

The giant mutant birds are fun, and there's a nice twist in that the kids are at a truancy camp and when the birds kill their chaperone and they run off into the woods they become horribly lost, which adds a nice element. However, the rest is lame. From the dialog to the acting to the nonesense plot...it's a mess best for MST3King than for actual viewing pleasure.

It's one of the things I've never understood. The cheapest thing in the world is to get a writer to punch up the dialog a little. Grab some guy who made the Q's of some comp like Nichols and pay him a grand or two to do a dialog polish. They don't need to spend more production money, but a little more on the script would go a long, long way.

Oh well. While this wasn't horribly painful (if you are fond of Saturday afternoon monster movies) it's also not good enough for me to recommend.

**** AVOID ***

Sunday, February 13, 2011

THE TOWN (a review)



The crime movie directed and co-starring and co-written by BEN AFFLECK. Also stars: Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Pete Postlethwaite and Chris Cooper

The story: Four lifelong friend from a bad neighborhood of Boston, MA, rob a bank and terrorize the female manager. One of the group meets her later and begins to fall in love with her. Meanwhile, the cops are after the friends and while the robber-in-love wants to quit the others want to pull off one last big score -- to rob Fenway Park.

Was it good?

Yes. Although with all the buzz about it being an Oscar winner I thought it was going to be something different and really there's nothing here we haven't seen before. The friends who won't turn on each other. The guy who falls for the girl he wronged and will she betray him when she finds out or will she stand by him. It's basically an American crime version of MANON OF THE SPRING. It's good, but I wish they had taken a few unusual or unexpected turns. It's very by-the-numbers. As such, while I liked this it wasn't nearly as powerful as JEAN DE FLORETTE/MANON OF THE SPRING.

*** RECOMMEND ***

But also recommend JEAN DE FLORETTE and MANON OF THE SPRING


This is the pseudo-action/thriller movie starring GEORGE CLOONEY with a funny haircut and an insanely hot Italian girl.

The story: Clooney is a hit man who hooks up with a super hot Italian girl and then decides he doesn't want to be a hitman, but someone else is after him so he has to kill them and then everything is okay.

Was it good?

No. But it wasn't bad...it was worse. It was BORING. I mean, I wrote a story in high school about an assassin who wants to quit and has anot't her assassin trying to kill him and I was 16. This version threw in more sex, but really the rest was actually dumber than what I had. At least I put something about the power future corporations would have as they grew bigger than most nations. This movie had nothing. Lots of quiet shots. Lots of thinking about something I don't know. I mean, this guy doesn't have that bad of a life. Sure he might not want to kill anymore but he doesn't really seem haunted by it and on the flip side he has money and no problem meeting really hot women to have sex with. He isn't really fighting for anything (certainly not to make up for the people he has killed in the past), so why do I care?

And the answer: I didn't.

Most boring movie I've seen in months.

*** AVOID ***

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

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)


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)

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 ***