The Universal Horror Films have long been among my favorite films. There's something aesthetically appealing for me to see Dracula, Frankenstein,the Wolfman, etc. on my television. The Mummy was a film I had never seen until 2011 surprisingly. Spoilers will surely follow this review but I doubt many people care about these types of films anymore because they made a remake of it. I'm looking at you friends, and random readers of this review. Pick up these films. They ARE horror.
When the film starts they have discovered this mummy, Imhotep (Karloff). Accompanying Imhotep is the scroll of Thoth. The scroll has the power to bring life to the undead;however, the scroll was placed in a box with warning signs not to open it. One of the archeologists happens to read from the Scroll and brings Imhotep back to life.After seeing this, the archeologist goes insane. The film then picks up 10 years later. Karloff is dressed as a present Egyptian and not in the mummy wrappings we all know.
I knew from other films Karloff was a good actor, but I never knew until this film exactly how good he was. His eyes can covey a multitude of reactions from terror to sadness. His lines when he's talking to Helen (Johann) dressed up as anaksunamun, really hit my feelings button hard. Another trait that goes unnoticed was how good of an actress Zita Johann was. There was something real about those two characters, that even though the Mummy/Mummy returns was featured around, never captured.
The director of the film, Karl Freund, shot it in such a way as to bring realism to Egypt. The more I learn about this film, the more I respect it. Check out the process that it took to apply the makeup to Karloff and how truly painful it must have been. I really enjoyed it to the tune of an A. It wasn't the most enjoyable Universal Monster, but it was a great film. You may think of it as a B, B- or even worse. Honestly, it's a travesty (and I hope I am wrong) that so many people may not enjoy this film. Try it. It's amazing.
Enjoyable Film: A-/A
Great Film: A-
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Midnight in Paris (2011)
Are you are a fan of literature? Are you an English major? If the answer to any of those questions is a yes, then you have found your film. Some ignorant buffoon said on my twitter feed, "is it wrong that I think anyone who hated Midnight in Paris is uneducated?". The answer to that person is yes. I happen to know a decent amount on literature, but certainly not enough to call my self well versed on this topic. I understood everyone that was mentioned in the film. I certainly would not say, "Hey Joe, over there. You don't know who F. Scott Fitzgerald is? You are so uneducated." The truth is people are educated in different fields. I happen to be good at history and film. I wouldn't tell a doctor he's uneducated because he lacks an understanding of history. Make no mistake about it though this is not a historical piece on Hemingway or Fitzgerald. There use can only be described similarly to that of Teddy Roosevelt in "Night at the Museum". The story just adds depth to those who are familiar with the characters, whereas, Roosevelt is just added mainly for comedy. Because of these characters there's a good chance that you may not enjoy this film. Relax, that does not mean you are uneducated. Now that that's off my chest, let's get to the review.
Have you ever wanted to meet your idols? Gil (Wilson) is a screen writer living in Los Angeles with his fiance, Inez (McAdams). They are on some sort of vacation with Inez's parents in Paris. Gil hopes to turn his script writing career into the hopes of becoming a novelist. One day he decides to go for a walk alone when an old automobile picks him up. He happens to meet the Fitzgeralds, F. Scott and Zelda. He's thrown down in the era he loves, the 1920s. Gil is the kind of person that hates the time period that he lives in and would like to live in the 20s, with of course some of his heroes. He eventually would meet Earnest Hemingway and other notable people from that era.
Is this reality or is he imagining it? The film does not say. We are left to come up with our own assumption on what the case may be. One would have to assume that this revelation for him was a reality as a detective gets put into another time period himself. But still, a logical and valid case can be made that it was all in Gil's subconscious.
The performance hinges entirely on Owen Wilson. If Owen Wilson delivered a flat, boring performance than this film would not have reached its objective. Instead, Wilson delivers. His on screen charm and likeness really drive his character home. Rachel McAdams, although not on the screen long enough, plays a good part. What's lost in this film, with the exception of course when she is on the screen, is Kathy Bates. She seems to get lost in a lot of recent films I've seen her in, but yet always turns in the best performance. Many of the actors playing historical pictures are as I would envision them. Woody Allen's imagination in in this film is something refreshing and entertaining.
Great Film: B+
Enjoyable Film: B+
Have you ever wanted to meet your idols? Gil (Wilson) is a screen writer living in Los Angeles with his fiance, Inez (McAdams). They are on some sort of vacation with Inez's parents in Paris. Gil hopes to turn his script writing career into the hopes of becoming a novelist. One day he decides to go for a walk alone when an old automobile picks him up. He happens to meet the Fitzgeralds, F. Scott and Zelda. He's thrown down in the era he loves, the 1920s. Gil is the kind of person that hates the time period that he lives in and would like to live in the 20s, with of course some of his heroes. He eventually would meet Earnest Hemingway and other notable people from that era.
Is this reality or is he imagining it? The film does not say. We are left to come up with our own assumption on what the case may be. One would have to assume that this revelation for him was a reality as a detective gets put into another time period himself. But still, a logical and valid case can be made that it was all in Gil's subconscious.
The performance hinges entirely on Owen Wilson. If Owen Wilson delivered a flat, boring performance than this film would not have reached its objective. Instead, Wilson delivers. His on screen charm and likeness really drive his character home. Rachel McAdams, although not on the screen long enough, plays a good part. What's lost in this film, with the exception of course when she is on the screen, is Kathy Bates. She seems to get lost in a lot of recent films I've seen her in, but yet always turns in the best performance. Many of the actors playing historical pictures are as I would envision them. Woody Allen's imagination in in this film is something refreshing and entertaining.
Great Film: B+
Enjoyable Film: B+
Monday, October 17, 2011
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)
After the way the last one ended, I fully expected it to be the end of the series. I’m on the opposite side as most as I enjoyed all three films. Most times when you make a fourth film in a series, it’s destined to fail. Couldn’t it just end the way we knew it end? Johnny Depp returns to the screen to play Captain Jack Sparrow in his search for the Fountain of Youth. That alone is worth it, I suppose.
The beginning of the movie in the streets of London is the most uneventful, most boring chase scene I can recall in any film. Jack Sparrow in each of the three films as a memorable entrance with the exception of the fourth film. Sure, dressing up as a judge would be eventful if one were actually happy to see Jack Sparrow in England. With such a boring opening turn of scenes, it was a miracle I still held consciousness. The second time I saw the film I arrived at the theater late. To my surprise I skipped the whole London scene and had a favorable opinion on it.
Alas, we get to the plot. Sparrow reunites with an old love, Angelica (Cruz). Cruz herself turns in a very good performance as well. One thing leads to another and Sparrow is set on Blackbeard’s boat. Ian McShane plays Blackbeard is one of the most memorable performances in the series. Quite honestly, the film needed more of him in it. His crew members consist of zombies which obviously are a Disney trait. Keep in mind, you can’t knock the ‘zombie’ attribute if you liked the first couple films. Weren’t Barbosa’s crew in the first film a bunch of skeletons?
Geoffery Rush also plays his role very well with one noticeable change. To those who actually saw the film, you’ll know what I’m talking about. It has to be a tiresome feat playing Jack Sparrow in four films, but Johnny Depp does it well enough. There was something missing with the story though. I’ve maligned the characters of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, but that’s the missing link for me. When you’ve seen the three films, it’s almost as if their story is the main one we should be focusing on. Jack Sparrow is more of a support to their story. It could even be said that all three are main characters.
When you lose two of your three main characters then you know it’s going to be different. Not a good change in my mind. It was missing them both. Now, let’s move to the mermaids. Half the film was about mermaids. Hell, they spend about two-three minutes in the film having mermaids sing a song. On the boat is a guy who potentially falls in love with one of the mermaids. We never do know what happens to the guy as the mermaid carries him to the bottom of the abyss. Overall, it should have ended with the third film, but your kids will love it.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: C
Enjoyable for kids: A
The beginning of the movie in the streets of London is the most uneventful, most boring chase scene I can recall in any film. Jack Sparrow in each of the three films as a memorable entrance with the exception of the fourth film. Sure, dressing up as a judge would be eventful if one were actually happy to see Jack Sparrow in England. With such a boring opening turn of scenes, it was a miracle I still held consciousness. The second time I saw the film I arrived at the theater late. To my surprise I skipped the whole London scene and had a favorable opinion on it.
Alas, we get to the plot. Sparrow reunites with an old love, Angelica (Cruz). Cruz herself turns in a very good performance as well. One thing leads to another and Sparrow is set on Blackbeard’s boat. Ian McShane plays Blackbeard is one of the most memorable performances in the series. Quite honestly, the film needed more of him in it. His crew members consist of zombies which obviously are a Disney trait. Keep in mind, you can’t knock the ‘zombie’ attribute if you liked the first couple films. Weren’t Barbosa’s crew in the first film a bunch of skeletons?
Geoffery Rush also plays his role very well with one noticeable change. To those who actually saw the film, you’ll know what I’m talking about. It has to be a tiresome feat playing Jack Sparrow in four films, but Johnny Depp does it well enough. There was something missing with the story though. I’ve maligned the characters of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann, but that’s the missing link for me. When you’ve seen the three films, it’s almost as if their story is the main one we should be focusing on. Jack Sparrow is more of a support to their story. It could even be said that all three are main characters.
When you lose two of your three main characters then you know it’s going to be different. Not a good change in my mind. It was missing them both. Now, let’s move to the mermaids. Half the film was about mermaids. Hell, they spend about two-three minutes in the film having mermaids sing a song. On the boat is a guy who potentially falls in love with one of the mermaids. We never do know what happens to the guy as the mermaid carries him to the bottom of the abyss. Overall, it should have ended with the third film, but your kids will love it.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: C
Enjoyable for kids: A
Paul (2011)
Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, in my opinion, have the potential to be the next great comedy duo. They're laugh out loud funny in some of their earlier films such as "Shaun of the Dead" and "Hot Fuzz". Naturally, most Pegg/Frost fans were excited for the news of their newest feature, "Paul". Two of the actors I can't stand most were in this film, Seth Rogen and Jane Lynch. The least I can see those two on the screen, the better. Paul is too much like the actual person Seth Rogen in the film. He didn't voice the alien, it's just like him in every other film I've seen him in. That's why the film doesn't work in my opinion.
I was less than enthused with half of the film and when Ruth (Wiig) comes into the film, I lose more interest. But why? Not sure. I love Kristen Wiig and the others in the film such as Bill Hader. Of course, Jason Bateman is a good actor as well. Could it be Edgar Wright? Possibly. Either way there's a gaping whole left from the comedy of "Hot Fuzz" to "Paul". If you like Seth Rogen, you'll probably like this film. If you like depth and the usual of comedy of Frost/Pegg, this film leaves a whole in your chest.
Great Film: C
Enjoyable Film: C
I was less than enthused with half of the film and when Ruth (Wiig) comes into the film, I lose more interest. But why? Not sure. I love Kristen Wiig and the others in the film such as Bill Hader. Of course, Jason Bateman is a good actor as well. Could it be Edgar Wright? Possibly. Either way there's a gaping whole left from the comedy of "Hot Fuzz" to "Paul". If you like Seth Rogen, you'll probably like this film. If you like depth and the usual of comedy of Frost/Pegg, this film leaves a whole in your chest.
Great Film: C
Enjoyable Film: C
The Thing (2011)
When this project was film announced, as with most horror remakes, I shrug first. Following the annoyed shrug that comes out of habit, some obscenities are likely to follow. That was certainly my take as I heard about another remake to "The Thing". Didn't John Carpenter do one in the 80s? Wasn't that good enough? Apparently not. As more came out about this film, I heard it was something of a prequel/Remake. Didn't Rob Zombie try that with one of John Carpenter's films? Didn't that suck? Do we REALLY have to remake this too?
Well, yes and no. It's not a remake at all, it's just a prequel. My best guess on why they marketed the film as a remake is for money purposes. Remakes typically do very well (and this probably would too if it wasn't going against another remake). On the flip side, The Thing is so much of a genre specific entity that not many people would be interested in a marketed prequel. Very smart on the production company but yet it could have turned people off like myself.
The Norwegian base that MacReady and the doctor explore in the remake of The Thing is the topic of this film. Most of the exploration that MacReady does, is connected in this film. The giant whole in the ice, the block of ice missing, the axe in the wall, etc. The Norwegian's have found a startling discovery in the ice and they recruit some Americans to help explore it. One of which is Kate Loyd (Winstead), who is there to help thaw the creature out of the ice. Of course there's others as well but she's the main character. Her performance in the movie, in my opinion as an unbiased movie reviewer, hinges on how the film is perceived. In this reviewer's opinion, she stepped up and delivered a good performance. It's certainly one of the better performances I've seen from a horror remake.
Like many horror films though, they do have their flaws. The scenery of the arctic is beautiful and I would have liked to see more of it. Certain minor things didn't seem to be acknowledged from Carpenter's remake to this. If they were, I was oblivious to them. For example, where was the video camera documenting the events? I certainly didn't like the non suspense in the film. Everything was put straight forward for the viewer. No suspense. At all. I literally guessed everyone who was "The Thing". It was fairly obvious to anyone with a brain. It's easy to see these guys did their homework on Carpenter's horror classic. Unfortunately, it seems to miss some of the defining features on what made that film a great horror film
Even though this film came out almost 30 years after Carpenter's, it's a decent prequel. It certainly could have been better.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: A-
COMPARED TO JOHN CARPENTER'S "The Thing"
Great Film: C+
Enjoyable Film: A
Well, yes and no. It's not a remake at all, it's just a prequel. My best guess on why they marketed the film as a remake is for money purposes. Remakes typically do very well (and this probably would too if it wasn't going against another remake). On the flip side, The Thing is so much of a genre specific entity that not many people would be interested in a marketed prequel. Very smart on the production company but yet it could have turned people off like myself.
The Norwegian base that MacReady and the doctor explore in the remake of The Thing is the topic of this film. Most of the exploration that MacReady does, is connected in this film. The giant whole in the ice, the block of ice missing, the axe in the wall, etc. The Norwegian's have found a startling discovery in the ice and they recruit some Americans to help explore it. One of which is Kate Loyd (Winstead), who is there to help thaw the creature out of the ice. Of course there's others as well but she's the main character. Her performance in the movie, in my opinion as an unbiased movie reviewer, hinges on how the film is perceived. In this reviewer's opinion, she stepped up and delivered a good performance. It's certainly one of the better performances I've seen from a horror remake.
Like many horror films though, they do have their flaws. The scenery of the arctic is beautiful and I would have liked to see more of it. Certain minor things didn't seem to be acknowledged from Carpenter's remake to this. If they were, I was oblivious to them. For example, where was the video camera documenting the events? I certainly didn't like the non suspense in the film. Everything was put straight forward for the viewer. No suspense. At all. I literally guessed everyone who was "The Thing". It was fairly obvious to anyone with a brain. It's easy to see these guys did their homework on Carpenter's horror classic. Unfortunately, it seems to miss some of the defining features on what made that film a great horror film
Even though this film came out almost 30 years after Carpenter's, it's a decent prequel. It certainly could have been better.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: A-
COMPARED TO JOHN CARPENTER'S "The Thing"
Great Film: C+
Enjoyable Film: A
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Thankskilling (2009)
Perhaps, you will think I'm very cruel for even bothering to rate this. As of right now, I've been very harsh in general to many of the films below this post. To be honest, I didn't have high expectations with the plot outline reading like this, "A homicidal turkey axes off college kids during Thanksgiving break.". My first thought was CHEESY FILM! HOORAY! Some people go into films like this with the wrong mindset. Some directors, for whatever reason, would try to approach a killer turkey as a serious film. I can only imagine them on film sets thinking, "No! I want this to be a serious scene!". It's a film about a killer turkey, come on? Sometimes that's the funniest part about a film is knowing that the director was so serious about it. Now some directors can approach a film like this with the mindset of, "Hey, this is a TERRIBLE idea. Let's make it cheesy and funny". THAT'S when a cheesy movie is fun and enjoyable.
Thankskilling is the second of those two options. Jordan Downey is the perfect example of that kind of director as well. Not to say he can't do serious films but this is a review on "Thankskilling". It's a fun film indeed. Every time the turkey was on my LG 1080i television, I was on the floor laughing. No, I am not lying either. PLEASE, do not be turned off by the first F rating I have gave. The films intention was probably to strive to be an F rated film, while hoping to be an A+ in enjoyment.
Great Film: F
Enjoyable Film: A+
Thankskilling is the second of those two options. Jordan Downey is the perfect example of that kind of director as well. Not to say he can't do serious films but this is a review on "Thankskilling". It's a fun film indeed. Every time the turkey was on my LG 1080i television, I was on the floor laughing. No, I am not lying either. PLEASE, do not be turned off by the first F rating I have gave. The films intention was probably to strive to be an F rated film, while hoping to be an A+ in enjoyment.
Great Film: F
Enjoyable Film: A+
Thor (2011)
In my opinion, this is probably the worst super hero. I mean it's just a flat out stupid super hero concept. That's right, I said it. It's a stupid super hero concept. Make no mistake about this film will not be listed in the Best Picture Award as the Oscars. I had very low expectations going into the film and sometimes that's A) a recipe to receive a bad review or B) I can be impressed. The case for Thor seems to be the latter. They took this stupid super hero and actually turned it into a somewhat decent film. It had all the makings of a fun, enjoyable film.
The God of Thunder, Thor (Hemsworth), is vanquished to Earth. He meets 3 scientists while there including one named Jane (Portman). Without giving to much away, the film is very enjoyable. Hemsworth gives a very believable performance to an unbelievable super hero concept.Portman is as she usually is and that's outstanding. I can admit the last few films I've seen with Anthony Hopkins have underwhelmed me at best. His acting was actually really good in this film and I'm back as one of his fans. Tom Hiddleson (Loki) gives another believable and entertaining performance. This could certainly be compared to Iron Man on the surprise scale, but probably on a lesser level.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: A-
The God of Thunder, Thor (Hemsworth), is vanquished to Earth. He meets 3 scientists while there including one named Jane (Portman). Without giving to much away, the film is very enjoyable. Hemsworth gives a very believable performance to an unbelievable super hero concept.Portman is as she usually is and that's outstanding. I can admit the last few films I've seen with Anthony Hopkins have underwhelmed me at best. His acting was actually really good in this film and I'm back as one of his fans. Tom Hiddleson (Loki) gives another believable and entertaining performance. This could certainly be compared to Iron Man on the surprise scale, but probably on a lesser level.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: A-
The Conspirator (2010)
So, the Civil War is my most favorite subject in the world. I honestly can't make up my mind if my favorite thing to do is make films, review films, or study the Civil War. I studied it at an early age so I'm well versed believe me. I know a lot about Abraham Lincoln as well so I was thoroughly excited when I heard Robert Redford was doing a period piece. When I heard it was about Mary Surratt, I became more excited. Unfortunately, I did not get to see this film in theaters and had to wait till the DVD was released.
The film for the most part is VERY accurate and Redford does a great job in direction. The one thing that he excels at in this piece is giving the audience the impression that they're right their with the characters. It's hard to pull off for a film maker, but he mastered it with this as far as I'm concerned. Main plot for the most part is, Frederick Aiken (McAvoy) is a retired officer in the army. At war's end, Lincoln is assassinated and he's chosen to defend Mary Surratt (Wright). The film is as much a history piece to me as it is a current one. What if the rules we know of today were stripped? Surratt didn't have a jury of her peers to convict her, it was a military council. A right that's guaranteed in the United States Constitution.
One must think about the time period as well. The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, was just assassinated. They needed to bring anyone they possibly could to justice. After all, the public demanded it. The thing that makes this film stick out in my mind is the fact they don't take a side. Do they ever really tell you if she is guilty or not? It's a mystery to this day and the film takes no sides. Instead, they let the viewer make up their own mind. Was she one of the conspirators? My personal opinion is no.A very nicely done film
Great Film: B+
Enjoyable Film: B+
The film for the most part is VERY accurate and Redford does a great job in direction. The one thing that he excels at in this piece is giving the audience the impression that they're right their with the characters. It's hard to pull off for a film maker, but he mastered it with this as far as I'm concerned. Main plot for the most part is, Frederick Aiken (McAvoy) is a retired officer in the army. At war's end, Lincoln is assassinated and he's chosen to defend Mary Surratt (Wright). The film is as much a history piece to me as it is a current one. What if the rules we know of today were stripped? Surratt didn't have a jury of her peers to convict her, it was a military council. A right that's guaranteed in the United States Constitution.
One must think about the time period as well. The President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, was just assassinated. They needed to bring anyone they possibly could to justice. After all, the public demanded it. The thing that makes this film stick out in my mind is the fact they don't take a side. Do they ever really tell you if she is guilty or not? It's a mystery to this day and the film takes no sides. Instead, they let the viewer make up their own mind. Was she one of the conspirators? My personal opinion is no.A very nicely done film
Great Film: B+
Enjoyable Film: B+
Monday, October 10, 2011
Rob Zombie's Halloween II (2009)
*You know me too well. Spoilers will ensue*
Alright...so I'm sure this is the review you guys were all waiting for. Maybe that's just my ego talking...who knows. Before I went into this film- my buddy who didn't think the first one was as bad as I did told me to keep an open mind. I don't know how anyone could like Zombie's first, but That being said- I objectively approached "Rob Zombie's Halloween 2", and I tried to keep an open mind. I told anyone that would listen that I thought Rob Zombie's next abomination of an installment into the franchise of "Halloween", had all the makings to beat Bruno for the worst movie of 2009. In all honesty I didn't think it was possible even with my strong dislike for Rob Zombie films. I am happy to say...Rob Zombie proved me wrong. This was above and beyond a worse movie than Bruno in my opinion. I looked at this movie from a film perspective (the way I know I can objectively look at a film without being bias) and a personal love of the Halloween franchise. The film was awful in both categories. I thought maybe it was just me. The two people I went with (the one previously mentioned and another) both thought the same as I did of this film. Coming out of the movie where you hear the chatter from the people gave me my definitive answer. This was not just me. Of all the people in the theater that came out my way only one said it was "decent". I heard "They need a new director", "A new screen writer", "Please kill this series...again", and "this was absolutely awful".
I personally liked the part when Scout was vomiting into the toilet. She must have been looking for the script and the entire film down there. Don't get me wrong, I like Scout Taylor Compton, I really do. She can't do anything with a terrible script. I can sit here and obliterate this film all day. I said the same thing in the first movie but yet I did go on to obliterate it all day. Maybe I will now too...Ohh...it's hurting. The heck with it, so let's do it. 1) Shaky cams. Sorry guys...ROB ZOMBIE CAN NOT FRAME ACTION. If you can get through an entire movie of action scenes with a shaky cam and still like this film- I applaud you. That's not a good film. That's Rob Zombie laughing, "Are you dizzy yet? Are you dizzy yet? What about now?" The "Halloween" theme which many have come to love in these films was not played till the credits. When Rob Zombie did attempt to play the fake chase theme and Laurie's theme at the end...the themes were butchered. The movie might make you go "Eww" but it's not going to make you go "Ahhh!". Halloween films for the most part (minus a couple and most notably these two pieces of @**+ movies) will make you go AHHH!
Some people's main fault with this film was that "everything was white trash orientated. My response to this is simple. As opposed to what? The first film? Everything in the first movie was white trash orientated as well. That's what Halloween lovers, like myself of course, butchered his first Halloween for.But don't get me wrong that wasn't the ONLY reason we butchered it. There's many many more. The scene where they're transporting Michael's body near the beginning made me think "Dialogue at its worse". I'm sorry but anytime that I've been in pain (or seen anyone in pain) we weren't just saying the 'F' word. We were screaming in pain, or maybe even crying. The guy said it at least 10 times and didn't even try moving. Going on with some famous notable quotes "I'm not me" is something I would project a two year old to say. And I'm not even joking that's actually a line delivered in this film. The screen writing is awful. Still..I know many chain cursers and still I know no one that talks that bad as they do. And this is supposed to be Haddonfield, a quiet little town. Not a white trash town, but I understand that was a creative decision made by the director/screen writer. Let me say, that decision really does not work. I'd also like to know when Michael became the flash? There were certain scenes that were wide shots that just flew in there. I've seen quite a few people running in films that are shot widely. I've never seen one that I can say someone got to their destination in 2 seconds. Another part is the party. I wasn't aware the party was across the street because he sure as hell got there fast enough.
Alas...my favorite. The cop in front of the Bracket house. When you observe this scene you will realize the cop points the light at the tree and every where in the yard. Michael attacks him from the left of our frame where the tree is. So the cop happened to miss the 7 foot giant (which takes away from the scary element) Michael Myers standing in front of the tree when a second ago the light was pointed directly at it. So either that scene's pure film crap or Michael Myers is the flash...I'm guessing it's the first of the two. The white horse ghost scenes were garbage and the character of Loomis was garbage. Donald must be looking down and wondering "Why? Just why did they do this?" Loomis is the only static character in the film series that never abandons the hope that Myers was alive. Of course this is the original series, you know, the good one. TOTALLY different in this one. The police scene at the end of the movie was terrific. Clearly the cops couldn't make a perimeter around the shack very well if Loomis broke through it pretty well. Hell...if I was Myers I would've took off with the Perimeter they had going. A five year old would've made it through that.
The characters now... As I've said Loomis was awful. There were two TOLERABLE characters. Brackett and Maya (I believe was her name). Again...I mention TOLERABLE as compared to the other characters. As compared to the original, neither hold a candle. Halloween thrives off of two things... Characters and the music. For instance Michael Myers by himself (like Rob does) is not scary. It's the combination of terrifying music (which is non existent in this) that makes the series good, terrifying, and suspenseful. The other is the character. I WANT to feel bad for Laurie Strode..I WANT to feel bad for Jaimie Lloyd. I couldn't care less what happened to Laurie Strode or anyone else in this film for that matter.
And then can we now explore the random shots of Michael walking through corn? Did this turn into the Lord of the Rings? If so, is Michael Myers now Gandalf? There's about four or five of these random scenes.I feel like Michael's trying to audition for a part in "Field of Dreams". Michael is brutal in this one. Michael's pretty brutal in the original "Halloween 2" with some of his kills. It's the manner of the kill in my opinion that makes it brutal. I personally think the hypodermic needle in the eye was more brutal than Michael hacking at corpses for 20 stabs in a row. That wasn't brutal. That was just stupid. Is he Jason? Maybe Leatherface? The stalking element in this film was almost not existant. I'm going to try and remember off the top of my head the people that he killed.
I would advise against buying this film. I would advise against renting this film. Rent the originals.
John Carpenter's "Halloween" was better than Zombie's "Halloween" and Rosenthal's "Halloween II" was better than "Zombie's Halloween 2" in terms of being a great film and an awful one. And don't take this review the wrong way. I think Rob Zombie is a good up and coming director and he does certain things, even in this film, that are visually nice. I loved the Devil's Rejects, but I just don't think "Halloween" and "Rob Zombie" are the right fits.
Great Film: D-
Enjoyable Film: D-
COMPARED TO ROB ZOMBIE'S "HALLOWEEN" (2007)
Great Film: D+
Enjoyable Film: D+
COMPARED TO "HALLOWEEN II" ( 1981)
Great Film: C
Enjoyable Film: A-
Alright...so I'm sure this is the review you guys were all waiting for. Maybe that's just my ego talking...who knows. Before I went into this film- my buddy who didn't think the first one was as bad as I did told me to keep an open mind. I don't know how anyone could like Zombie's first, but That being said- I objectively approached "Rob Zombie's Halloween 2", and I tried to keep an open mind. I told anyone that would listen that I thought Rob Zombie's next abomination of an installment into the franchise of "Halloween", had all the makings to beat Bruno for the worst movie of 2009. In all honesty I didn't think it was possible even with my strong dislike for Rob Zombie films. I am happy to say...Rob Zombie proved me wrong. This was above and beyond a worse movie than Bruno in my opinion. I looked at this movie from a film perspective (the way I know I can objectively look at a film without being bias) and a personal love of the Halloween franchise. The film was awful in both categories. I thought maybe it was just me. The two people I went with (the one previously mentioned and another) both thought the same as I did of this film. Coming out of the movie where you hear the chatter from the people gave me my definitive answer. This was not just me. Of all the people in the theater that came out my way only one said it was "decent". I heard "They need a new director", "A new screen writer", "Please kill this series...again", and "this was absolutely awful".
I personally liked the part when Scout was vomiting into the toilet. She must have been looking for the script and the entire film down there. Don't get me wrong, I like Scout Taylor Compton, I really do. She can't do anything with a terrible script. I can sit here and obliterate this film all day. I said the same thing in the first movie but yet I did go on to obliterate it all day. Maybe I will now too...Ohh...it's hurting. The heck with it, so let's do it. 1) Shaky cams. Sorry guys...ROB ZOMBIE CAN NOT FRAME ACTION. If you can get through an entire movie of action scenes with a shaky cam and still like this film- I applaud you. That's not a good film. That's Rob Zombie laughing, "Are you dizzy yet? Are you dizzy yet? What about now?" The "Halloween" theme which many have come to love in these films was not played till the credits. When Rob Zombie did attempt to play the fake chase theme and Laurie's theme at the end...the themes were butchered. The movie might make you go "Eww" but it's not going to make you go "Ahhh!". Halloween films for the most part (minus a couple and most notably these two pieces of @**+ movies) will make you go AHHH!
Some people's main fault with this film was that "everything was white trash orientated. My response to this is simple. As opposed to what? The first film? Everything in the first movie was white trash orientated as well. That's what Halloween lovers, like myself of course, butchered his first Halloween for.But don't get me wrong that wasn't the ONLY reason we butchered it. There's many many more. The scene where they're transporting Michael's body near the beginning made me think "Dialogue at its worse". I'm sorry but anytime that I've been in pain (or seen anyone in pain) we weren't just saying the 'F' word. We were screaming in pain, or maybe even crying. The guy said it at least 10 times and didn't even try moving. Going on with some famous notable quotes "I'm not me" is something I would project a two year old to say. And I'm not even joking that's actually a line delivered in this film. The screen writing is awful. Still..I know many chain cursers and still I know no one that talks that bad as they do. And this is supposed to be Haddonfield, a quiet little town. Not a white trash town, but I understand that was a creative decision made by the director/screen writer. Let me say, that decision really does not work. I'd also like to know when Michael became the flash? There were certain scenes that were wide shots that just flew in there. I've seen quite a few people running in films that are shot widely. I've never seen one that I can say someone got to their destination in 2 seconds. Another part is the party. I wasn't aware the party was across the street because he sure as hell got there fast enough.
Alas...my favorite. The cop in front of the Bracket house. When you observe this scene you will realize the cop points the light at the tree and every where in the yard. Michael attacks him from the left of our frame where the tree is. So the cop happened to miss the 7 foot giant (which takes away from the scary element) Michael Myers standing in front of the tree when a second ago the light was pointed directly at it. So either that scene's pure film crap or Michael Myers is the flash...I'm guessing it's the first of the two. The white horse ghost scenes were garbage and the character of Loomis was garbage. Donald must be looking down and wondering "Why? Just why did they do this?" Loomis is the only static character in the film series that never abandons the hope that Myers was alive. Of course this is the original series, you know, the good one. TOTALLY different in this one. The police scene at the end of the movie was terrific. Clearly the cops couldn't make a perimeter around the shack very well if Loomis broke through it pretty well. Hell...if I was Myers I would've took off with the Perimeter they had going. A five year old would've made it through that.
The characters now... As I've said Loomis was awful. There were two TOLERABLE characters. Brackett and Maya (I believe was her name). Again...I mention TOLERABLE as compared to the other characters. As compared to the original, neither hold a candle. Halloween thrives off of two things... Characters and the music. For instance Michael Myers by himself (like Rob does) is not scary. It's the combination of terrifying music (which is non existent in this) that makes the series good, terrifying, and suspenseful. The other is the character. I WANT to feel bad for Laurie Strode..I WANT to feel bad for Jaimie Lloyd. I couldn't care less what happened to Laurie Strode or anyone else in this film for that matter.
And then can we now explore the random shots of Michael walking through corn? Did this turn into the Lord of the Rings? If so, is Michael Myers now Gandalf? There's about four or five of these random scenes.I feel like Michael's trying to audition for a part in "Field of Dreams". Michael is brutal in this one. Michael's pretty brutal in the original "Halloween 2" with some of his kills. It's the manner of the kill in my opinion that makes it brutal. I personally think the hypodermic needle in the eye was more brutal than Michael hacking at corpses for 20 stabs in a row. That wasn't brutal. That was just stupid. Is he Jason? Maybe Leatherface? The stalking element in this film was almost not existant. I'm going to try and remember off the top of my head the people that he killed.
I would advise against buying this film. I would advise against renting this film. Rent the originals.
John Carpenter's "Halloween" was better than Zombie's "Halloween" and Rosenthal's "Halloween II" was better than "Zombie's Halloween 2" in terms of being a great film and an awful one. And don't take this review the wrong way. I think Rob Zombie is a good up and coming director and he does certain things, even in this film, that are visually nice. I loved the Devil's Rejects, but I just don't think "Halloween" and "Rob Zombie" are the right fits.
Great Film: D-
Enjoyable Film: D-
COMPARED TO ROB ZOMBIE'S "HALLOWEEN" (2007)
Great Film: D+
Enjoyable Film: D+
COMPARED TO "HALLOWEEN II" ( 1981)
Great Film: C
Enjoyable Film: A-
Fright Night (2011)
As a huge fan of the original, I can admit I was not willing to give this much of a chance. First off, Fright Night was one of my favorite horror movies growing up. The movie itself just seemed like an 80s movie and that's where it should stay. I don't like modernizing films that are there for the period. I never do. The first trailer was released and it looked like crap. I shamelessly entered a competition Fright Night was holding to go to Comic Con (I should have won it but I was robbed). Anyway, I saw the film...for free. I refused to pay for it. What happens after I left the theater seems to be of heated debate. I recollect saying 'It was a little bit better than I expected but that doesn't say much'. My one friend flat out said I liked it. Trust me folks, "I liked it" and "Fright Night remake" will never come out of my mouth. I will say that I thought I was going to hate Colin Farrell, who plays Jerry, and have a indifferent view on Charlie (Yelchin). I was surprised to not really mind Farrell's version of Jerry, although nothing in comparison to the original, and despised Yelchin as Charlie. Charlie and Amy are supposed to be the boy/girl next door. I never got that feeling especially when Charlie feels no remorse breaking into someone's house. It doesn't seem to me something the original character would do. Likewise, Amy doesn't look like the girl next door, but instead looks like she should be a character in the Friday the 13th films. There's absolutely no emotional attachment to that character whatsoever.
So Jerry hits the town of Las Vegas to prey on humans. It's up to a few of our characters to stop him including Ed (Mintz-Plasse). His name is not evil ed like in the original (a change for the worst). You have certain lines that Evil Ed would never say. Without giving anything away, I disliked the character 110%. In the original when Evil Ed is bit there is a certain emotional attachment that goes with that scene, and well, suffice it say, you're not going to find anything like that in this film. There's one decent thing about this movie and that's Jerry chasing a car.
And then there's Peter Vincent. I don't even care if I spoil this film anymore because this aggravated me unlike any movie I've seen this year. My one friend made a night comment to me when giving me his critique. How many people that liked this movie do you think actually know how the name Peter Vincent came to be? I'm assuming not very many. I agree with him. What makes it work in the first is Peter Vincent was a horror host that hunted vampires. Peter Vincent was not Criss Angel as this film would have you believe. " I'm a great date. Get me drunk, and I'll try anything.". Come on, really? I was going to go D+ as a good movie, but for Roddy McDowell and respect for his character, I'm purposely lowering it to a D
Good Film: D
Enjoyable Film: C-
IN COMPARISON TO FRIGHT NIGHT (1985)
Good Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: B+
So Jerry hits the town of Las Vegas to prey on humans. It's up to a few of our characters to stop him including Ed (Mintz-Plasse). His name is not evil ed like in the original (a change for the worst). You have certain lines that Evil Ed would never say. Without giving anything away, I disliked the character 110%. In the original when Evil Ed is bit there is a certain emotional attachment that goes with that scene, and well, suffice it say, you're not going to find anything like that in this film. There's one decent thing about this movie and that's Jerry chasing a car.
And then there's Peter Vincent. I don't even care if I spoil this film anymore because this aggravated me unlike any movie I've seen this year. My one friend made a night comment to me when giving me his critique. How many people that liked this movie do you think actually know how the name Peter Vincent came to be? I'm assuming not very many. I agree with him. What makes it work in the first is Peter Vincent was a horror host that hunted vampires. Peter Vincent was not Criss Angel as this film would have you believe. " I'm a great date. Get me drunk, and I'll try anything.". Come on, really? I was going to go D+ as a good movie, but for Roddy McDowell and respect for his character, I'm purposely lowering it to a D
Good Film: D
Enjoyable Film: C-
IN COMPARISON TO FRIGHT NIGHT (1985)
Good Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: B+
Drive (2011)
Should I be like 99% of movie reviewers out there and think of a corny line to start with? Hmmm...What can I say? Okay, I've got it! I wish I could drive again and again to see this film. When my friend hypes up a film there's a good chance that I'm not going to like it. Expectation combined with a friend over hyping a film are recipes for disaster. My one friend could not shut up about this film. All I heard out of his mouth for about a week was how good this film was to the point where he was trying to find the sound track to buy it. As an added bonus to this story, he bought it. My other friend and I decided to check out this film and see what all the fuss what about from him.
So the first scene in the movie with the driver (Ryan Gosling) already had me on the edge of my seat. Come to think about it, I don't think they really gave Gosling's character a name. Maybe someone can correct me if there was? I saw it a couple weeks back so I forget, but I don't believe he had one. Anyway, Ryan Gosling plays a stunt double in the movies with this film. To find a fault with this film you really have to be over analyzing it. I mean it's really tough to knock it and that's the truth. I've heard a few people complain about the pace and music in the film but my opinion is it worked. The pace is what really worked for me. It was a slow and Gosling didn't say too much, but yet, why is it so good? Because Ryan Gosling doesn't need to talk. He's an underrated actor that can let his actions do the talking for him. I was surprised to read Roger Ebert's article comparing his character to Alain Delon's in "Le Samourai" because that's what I instantly thought of as well. Carey Mulligan, regardless of what some people say, is the next big actress as far as I'm concerned. I have not seen a bad film she has been in it yet. She's got the talent. Honestly, I can't knock any of the performances in this film. They were all good! Nicolas Winding Refn did an excellent job making the film.
The plot for the most part is the Driver has a connection (I guess you can say that) with Irene (Mulligan). It's probably more appropriate to say he cares about her and her son, Benicio. On one of his heists that goes wrong, suddenly people want him dead. I'm trying really hard not to spoil anything about this film right now, and it's very hard not too with my eagerness to get you to see it. There are a few really graphic scenes out there though.
Great Film: B
Enjoyable Film: A+
So the first scene in the movie with the driver (Ryan Gosling) already had me on the edge of my seat. Come to think about it, I don't think they really gave Gosling's character a name. Maybe someone can correct me if there was? I saw it a couple weeks back so I forget, but I don't believe he had one. Anyway, Ryan Gosling plays a stunt double in the movies with this film. To find a fault with this film you really have to be over analyzing it. I mean it's really tough to knock it and that's the truth. I've heard a few people complain about the pace and music in the film but my opinion is it worked. The pace is what really worked for me. It was a slow and Gosling didn't say too much, but yet, why is it so good? Because Ryan Gosling doesn't need to talk. He's an underrated actor that can let his actions do the talking for him. I was surprised to read Roger Ebert's article comparing his character to Alain Delon's in "Le Samourai" because that's what I instantly thought of as well. Carey Mulligan, regardless of what some people say, is the next big actress as far as I'm concerned. I have not seen a bad film she has been in it yet. She's got the talent. Honestly, I can't knock any of the performances in this film. They were all good! Nicolas Winding Refn did an excellent job making the film.
The plot for the most part is the Driver has a connection (I guess you can say that) with Irene (Mulligan). It's probably more appropriate to say he cares about her and her son, Benicio. On one of his heists that goes wrong, suddenly people want him dead. I'm trying really hard not to spoil anything about this film right now, and it's very hard not too with my eagerness to get you to see it. There are a few really graphic scenes out there though.
Great Film: B
Enjoyable Film: A+
Green Lantern (2011)
I’ve never been a huge reader of comic books, I can certainly admit that. I started to read comic books when I was 17 and my first graphic comic was….you guessed it. Ghost Rider. You probably didn’t guess it, did you? *wink*. Well, that’s okay because you can probably guess my second comic book I bought? The Punisher. Okay, enough with that. Suffice it to say that I didn’t really get into the Green Lantern story until I picked up Geoff Johns “Rebirth” graphic novel. I was never really into DC until I picked up that graphic novel. I suppose nothing has really changed because I still don’t buy comics but I do favor DC to Marvel now.
When I first started reading the Green Lantern, my thought switched to “Wow, this would be a pretty good film”. My first choice was immediately Bradley Cooper and this was before he was the big actor we know him to be. Anyone of my friends can verify that. News of this movie hit and Bradley was rumored to play the lead role. I logged onto IMDB one day and ….Ryan Reynolds was confirmed to play him? Really? Really? Really? Ryan Reynolds is the same guy that was in Blade and X-Men orgins already. Give it a rest, I’m sick of seeing him in comic book movies. Immediately, I was pretty disappointed.
And then there was the first movie trailer released. Of the whole trailer, about 3 seconds interested me. Those 3 seconds were just a small sample of Sinestro (Mark Strong). The rest left me thinking, “This…is…going…to…suck”. And then another movie trailer was released and that sucked too. About a month before the movie was released, a much more flattering trailer was released that pumped up my interest in the film a lot. Okay, so what was my opinion on the film?
It’s tough to say. With a budget of 200 million (that many people believe is closer to 300 with all the added marketing) was the cheapest looking 200/300 million dollar film I’ve ever seen. It’s tough to imagine that Avatar cost a reportedly 200 million dollars more. Visually, it looked okay. I certainly would have expected a better looking film than that but maybe that’s my fault. How much awesome CGI could they have done with flying, different planets, different alien creatures? A lot. And it probably could have looked a tad better and if it didn’t, the budget should have been lower in my opinion.
Much to my disdain, Ryan Reynolds did a very good job playing Hal in my opinion. I wish I could sit here and say how right I was about him not playing the role very well, and he’s cast in too many comic book films, but I can’t. The next comic book film he’s in I probably can. Mark Strong’s performance was excellent too when the guy was on the screen. Blake Lively delivered a very stale and poor performance. I couldn’t care less about Carol Ferris (who she plays obviously). In addition, Hector Hammond (the main human antagonist) is under developed. He has “daddy issues” which is a neat way to make you feel something for the character, except he’s only in it for about 2 scenes maybe? Whatever the count it wasn’t very much to progress the character.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: B-
Enjoyable for kids: B+
When I first started reading the Green Lantern, my thought switched to “Wow, this would be a pretty good film”. My first choice was immediately Bradley Cooper and this was before he was the big actor we know him to be. Anyone of my friends can verify that. News of this movie hit and Bradley was rumored to play the lead role. I logged onto IMDB one day and ….Ryan Reynolds was confirmed to play him? Really? Really? Really? Ryan Reynolds is the same guy that was in Blade and X-Men orgins already. Give it a rest, I’m sick of seeing him in comic book movies. Immediately, I was pretty disappointed.
And then there was the first movie trailer released. Of the whole trailer, about 3 seconds interested me. Those 3 seconds were just a small sample of Sinestro (Mark Strong). The rest left me thinking, “This…is…going…to…suck”. And then another movie trailer was released and that sucked too. About a month before the movie was released, a much more flattering trailer was released that pumped up my interest in the film a lot. Okay, so what was my opinion on the film?
It’s tough to say. With a budget of 200 million (that many people believe is closer to 300 with all the added marketing) was the cheapest looking 200/300 million dollar film I’ve ever seen. It’s tough to imagine that Avatar cost a reportedly 200 million dollars more. Visually, it looked okay. I certainly would have expected a better looking film than that but maybe that’s my fault. How much awesome CGI could they have done with flying, different planets, different alien creatures? A lot. And it probably could have looked a tad better and if it didn’t, the budget should have been lower in my opinion.
Much to my disdain, Ryan Reynolds did a very good job playing Hal in my opinion. I wish I could sit here and say how right I was about him not playing the role very well, and he’s cast in too many comic book films, but I can’t. The next comic book film he’s in I probably can. Mark Strong’s performance was excellent too when the guy was on the screen. Blake Lively delivered a very stale and poor performance. I couldn’t care less about Carol Ferris (who she plays obviously). In addition, Hector Hammond (the main human antagonist) is under developed. He has “daddy issues” which is a neat way to make you feel something for the character, except he’s only in it for about 2 scenes maybe? Whatever the count it wasn’t very much to progress the character.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: B-
Enjoyable for kids: B+
My Soul to Take (2010)
I was hoping for someone to take my soul and just stomp on it a couple times for choosing to watch this film. I'm not really being over dramatic either, it was just that bad. Well, okay, I am being over dramatic, I'm sorry. I don't know what the hell Wes Craven is doing anymore. If I had watched this when it originally came out, I wouldn't have even bothered to see Scream 4. Wes Craven is more hit or miss than Tony Romo as a QB. There's good Wes (Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream, Last House on the Left) and then there's bad Wes (Cursed, Vampire in Brooklyn, and this abomination of a film).
The film starts when a serial killer dies. He swears that he will kill the seven kids that are born that night. DOOM AND GLOOM. I'm not even joking, that's the storyline. And then there's the chance that the serial killer's soul gets transported for lack of a better word into one of these seven kids as well. So we go through the film and people are dying (a staple in any horror film). We're left to assume it's this serial killer known as "The Riverton Ripper" doing it all. You can just tell the script was horrible and in turn the film was horrible. Don't judge Wes on this film alone because he did redeem himself with Scream 4 as far as I'm concerned.
Great Film: D
Enjoyable Film: C-
The film starts when a serial killer dies. He swears that he will kill the seven kids that are born that night. DOOM AND GLOOM. I'm not even joking, that's the storyline. And then there's the chance that the serial killer's soul gets transported for lack of a better word into one of these seven kids as well. So we go through the film and people are dying (a staple in any horror film). We're left to assume it's this serial killer known as "The Riverton Ripper" doing it all. You can just tell the script was horrible and in turn the film was horrible. Don't judge Wes on this film alone because he did redeem himself with Scream 4 as far as I'm concerned.
Great Film: D
Enjoyable Film: C-
Hobo with a shotgun (2011)
I know, I know. I'm not supposed to take this film seriously. I really do get that and I love a good cheesy film. Most of my friends can tell you that fact. I love cheesy movies so it was to no surprise I was excited to check this one out. Even I was stunned on how over the top and outrageous this film was. When some of your lines are (and I’m paraphrasing but the lines are VERY similar. Ah ahem (takes deep acting voice) “Can’t you just let it slip?”, a stripper says. An antagonist says “The only thing I’m going to let slip is my d*ck in…you get the rest”. I don’t even want to say it. The film was certainly over the top but I wasn’t a fan of it. It dragged on. And dragged. And dragged. I wasn’t laughing like I should be in this kind of film (whether intentional or not). I was actually struggling to keep watching it.
Good Film: D-
Enjoyable Film: D
Good Film: D-
Enjoyable Film: D
The Chaperone (2011)
HHH stars in the greatest film of all time. Ha ha ha. Anyone else laughing? ….no? Okay. Well, HHH’s real name is Paul Levesque, but I'm just calling him HHH for two reasons. 1) I'm way too lazy to keep tying his actual name. B) More people probably know him by his character name, HHH. So Hunter gets out of prison recently and he decides that he needs to make up for lost time. So he decides to sneak on to the bus and be a chaperone on their field trip. I’m not going to in detail into this movie because frankly, it sucked. It was HHH playing HHH with a bunch of kids and stupid jokes. Instead, I will talk about Thor. Why, Thor? Many people were bewildered to find that HHH was not cast to play Thor in the full length film. Maybe he used “The Chaperone” as a screen test? This movie is the reason he did not play Thor.
Great Film: D
Enjoyable Film: D
Enjoyable to kids: B?
Great Film: D
Enjoyable Film: D
Enjoyable to kids: B?
Transformers 3 (2011)
I've always been a huge fan of the Transformers films since they started coming out though I've admittedly never been interested in the cartoon or comics. So the first one came out and I respected it for what it was. The story did the best it possibly could with a movie about robots. The character development was eh but the special effects were amazing. Also, that was my first introduction to Megan Fox. We will revisit that in a little bit. She seems to be a topic of debate. So then the second one came out. If you were looking for a great film that wasn't going to be it, but neither was the first Transformers. If you can say it was than you're crazy. Visually, there are very few films better. That is the case with the second and third Transformers films. The second in my opinion was a very enjoyable film. It went by so smoothly that I didn't realize how long it actually was. I have heard for some people that the time dragged by, but this my review, site.. The story was a good addition. Although the characters weren't really developed much more from the first film, I still felt an emotional attachment with Sam and Mikaela. Of course there were dumb aspects of that film. (See: The cover up the government did of the events in the first film and robot heaven). I recently caught up with the Scream franchise. There's an OBVIOUS drop off from the first two films to the third. Why? One man's name: Ehren Krueger. The guy adds these zingers to his stories that are poorly done and his 'creativity' flies in the face of reality. It's no surprise that anymore it's easy to pick out some of his lines. I loved Scream 4 but you could tell Ehren Krueger lines. Yesterday, I rewatched Transformers 2 and picked out some of his re-writes. It was pretty easy. After watching Scream 3, it was no wonder my enthusiasm dropped when I re watched it.
As we're all aware of, Megan Fox was pretty much dismissed from her role and they brought in Carly (some no named actress I'm too lazy to research). Let me get this straight: Everyone's problem with Megan Fox was she couldn't act. THIS ONE IS WORSE. The only difference is the character development for Mikaela (as crappy as it was) still had me feeling something towards her character. It might not have been a lot but it was SOMETHING. I was hoping Carly was killed by a decepticon every time she was on the screen! In fact, I was hoping the majority of the characters were killed off in this film including Sam. They did absolutely NO character development in this film.
Visually the film still is amazing. If you're going to see a visually stunning film by Michael Bay, this is it. I don't know how anyone can take that away from the guy. He's a visionary with these sorts of films. But that's all. The story is horrible and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So let me do this without spoilers. The third film contradicts the first film. The third film contradicts the second film. The third film's main antagonist's motives make no sense at all. It could be gathered that Batman (yes, Batman) could beat one of the Decepticon's. I can keep going and going with it. Throughout all of this there's Frances McDormand (amazing on the screen), John Malkovich (underutilized),John Turturro (underutilized), and Ken Jeong. I'm not saying anything about Ken Jeong because quite frankly I'm getting tired of him. I mean, hell even the ending makes no sense at all.
So the film is missing a writer, a certain Fox, and a story. By far, the worst Transformers film to date;however, what I was to expect? It was wrote by the man who gave us the extravagant film known as Scream 3.
Great Film: D+
Enjoyable Film: C-
As we're all aware of, Megan Fox was pretty much dismissed from her role and they brought in Carly (some no named actress I'm too lazy to research). Let me get this straight: Everyone's problem with Megan Fox was she couldn't act. THIS ONE IS WORSE. The only difference is the character development for Mikaela (as crappy as it was) still had me feeling something towards her character. It might not have been a lot but it was SOMETHING. I was hoping Carly was killed by a decepticon every time she was on the screen! In fact, I was hoping the majority of the characters were killed off in this film including Sam. They did absolutely NO character development in this film.
Visually the film still is amazing. If you're going to see a visually stunning film by Michael Bay, this is it. I don't know how anyone can take that away from the guy. He's a visionary with these sorts of films. But that's all. The story is horrible and makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So let me do this without spoilers. The third film contradicts the first film. The third film contradicts the second film. The third film's main antagonist's motives make no sense at all. It could be gathered that Batman (yes, Batman) could beat one of the Decepticon's. I can keep going and going with it. Throughout all of this there's Frances McDormand (amazing on the screen), John Malkovich (underutilized),John Turturro (underutilized), and Ken Jeong. I'm not saying anything about Ken Jeong because quite frankly I'm getting tired of him. I mean, hell even the ending makes no sense at all.
So the film is missing a writer, a certain Fox, and a story. By far, the worst Transformers film to date;however, what I was to expect? It was wrote by the man who gave us the extravagant film known as Scream 3.
Great Film: D+
Enjoyable Film: C-
Scream 4 (2011)
So, another installment of the Scream franchise finally has come to work. A couple of my friends were really excited about this as they were fans of the original series. I've heard from a couple of them the Scream films are "the last true slasher films". Without getting into the others (as they will have their own reviews) I didn't have high expectations for this film. I mean it couldn't possibly be worse than the third film, right? Kevin Williamson writes this installment (also wrote the first 2) and Wes Craven returns at the director spot. Also returning are the following Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette.
I think people (including myself) tend to like sequels just because it's a way that we can see the characters back on the screen. Many of the times the sequels leave little to be desired for. Eleven years later and here we are. The opening of the film (again no spoilers) is one of the most clever openings to a film I have seen in some time. Anyway, Sidney has come back to Woodsboro to sell a book about the Woodsboro Murders, and when she does, the murders start to happen again. At this point, Gale is an irrelevant writer who can't figure out what to type and Dewey is the sheriff of the Woodsboro police. Without giving out any spoilers, Scream 4 really redeems itself from Scream 3. Of course you can pick out the occasional Ehren Krueger line in it, which sticks out like a sore thumb. Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts deliver decent performances. It could be worse, but they actually ended up surprising me. Rory Culkin delivers another good performance. Overall, this is a very good film to see if you're a fan of the Scream series, or just a fan of horror.
Great Film: C
Enjoyable Film: A+
I think people (including myself) tend to like sequels just because it's a way that we can see the characters back on the screen. Many of the times the sequels leave little to be desired for. Eleven years later and here we are. The opening of the film (again no spoilers) is one of the most clever openings to a film I have seen in some time. Anyway, Sidney has come back to Woodsboro to sell a book about the Woodsboro Murders, and when she does, the murders start to happen again. At this point, Gale is an irrelevant writer who can't figure out what to type and Dewey is the sheriff of the Woodsboro police. Without giving out any spoilers, Scream 4 really redeems itself from Scream 3. Of course you can pick out the occasional Ehren Krueger line in it, which sticks out like a sore thumb. Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts deliver decent performances. It could be worse, but they actually ended up surprising me. Rory Culkin delivers another good performance. Overall, this is a very good film to see if you're a fan of the Scream series, or just a fan of horror.
Great Film: C
Enjoyable Film: A+
The Hangover II (2011)
*SPOILERS*
I say this is the most controversial movie review I have done yet because it almost seems like the mere mention of the "Hangover",in a negative light that is, evokes many a fan boy to attack. Like many people when the first film was released, I went to see it with an open mind. It turned out to be one of the funniest movies I had seen in a long time despite many jokes being ripped from "Wild Hogs". Anyways, I loved the first film. I loved the Mike Tyson cameo and I thought Ken Jeong was hysterical. Bradley Cooper was amazing in the first hangover and Las Vegas was the perfect setting for such a comedy film. The high key lighting added something unique to the film in the daytime scenes and really added comedy to it. I will get to my general point shortly with high key lighting as opposed to the new one. Stu's song was great in the original and actually inspired me to teach myself it on the keyboard. Needless to say, I loved it. Hell, I loved it so much I still attribute this to our impromptu trip to Las Vegas.
And then, news of the second film broke. It was such a hit, how could it not have a follow up? The trailer left little to be desired for and the movie was none better. That's right, I'm prepared to be attacked by the Hangover fans. Take yourself back for one second to the original Hangover film and tell me what made it successful? It was a comedic story that revolved around comedy of the acts and the OCCASIONAL Allen one liner. Was there any increment in the film of five minutes or so when you did not laugh? Not for me. All the jokes are recycled from the first film. The Hangover II is filled with zingers that make you just go "HA" and then shut up. It's not the hysterical laugh fest the first one is ; however, it is fair to say sequels are hard to live up to their predecessor. The Dark Knight proved recently though that sequels could do it though. This is the problem with many audiences these days. From those that see remakes, all the way to the people who push at these movies like the Hangover II. Again, the comedy in this movie is Allen's one liners as opposed to situational comedy.
When the "Hangover" scene starts you see that someone had lost their finger. I'm immediately thinking "YES! This is going to be awesome"...not so much. I am a HIGH proponent of cameos in sequels. I love when some characters return from previous films because I almost feel it's an homage to its predecessor. Anyone of my friends can tell you that. I'm a sucker for cameos....when done right. With that being said, Ken Jeong and Mike Tyson should not have been in this film. They were REACHES. Ken Jeong should have been in the first film and that's all. His character did nothing for this film (and quite frankly was annoying in most of his scenes with the exception of the hotel one). Mike Tyson, another REACH. They couldn't figure out how to incorporate Tyson so they just figured 'screw it...we'll bring him in as a singer!'. I love cameos when they are not reaches.
Now, we'll get to the cities comparison between Vegas and Bangkok. Film people will understand this reference and it might go unnoticed to many common film watchers. Light= Comedy. Most of the comedy you will see in the daytime is filled in sunny days or with some form of high key lighting. It adds to the comedy element. You might not be aware of that but it does, and film makers play the lighting beautifully. That's why Vegas was the perfect place for that. Trust me, I've been there. EVEN the inside shots, re watch it. A lot of lighting. Now, the Hangover II. It's very dreary and quite frankly I'm not even sure situational comedy could have saved the morbid setting of the film. It is possible as many dark low light films are dark humor as expected. And I have nothing against low key lighting in comedy films, but not this one. The setting left me just drained. By the time I saw the setting, I was already bored and wanted to jump from the top part of Cinemark, down to the floor, effectively hoping to break something. They tried to do something unique because they felt they could with the success of the first part.
No mention of the tooth being cut out either? Allen makes a zinger about it, but I know for a fact it was reported Ed Helms really does not have a tooth there. Make a reference about it. Stu's song in general in this film sucked too. This brings me to Bradley Cooper, one of the lone bright spots of the movie. I don't feel he took a step back in this film. He was right on par. They make a reference to them burning down a building but don't really explain it. They show a riot on a cell phone so maybe that has something to do with it, but again..nothing to be desired of in my eyes.
I would advise against seeing the film and remember the original for what it was. A brilliantly done comedy film even if it borrowed some of its jokes from a few other films.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: C
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL
Great Film: B-
Enjoyable Film: A
I say this is the most controversial movie review I have done yet because it almost seems like the mere mention of the "Hangover",in a negative light that is, evokes many a fan boy to attack. Like many people when the first film was released, I went to see it with an open mind. It turned out to be one of the funniest movies I had seen in a long time despite many jokes being ripped from "Wild Hogs". Anyways, I loved the first film. I loved the Mike Tyson cameo and I thought Ken Jeong was hysterical. Bradley Cooper was amazing in the first hangover and Las Vegas was the perfect setting for such a comedy film. The high key lighting added something unique to the film in the daytime scenes and really added comedy to it. I will get to my general point shortly with high key lighting as opposed to the new one. Stu's song was great in the original and actually inspired me to teach myself it on the keyboard. Needless to say, I loved it. Hell, I loved it so much I still attribute this to our impromptu trip to Las Vegas.
And then, news of the second film broke. It was such a hit, how could it not have a follow up? The trailer left little to be desired for and the movie was none better. That's right, I'm prepared to be attacked by the Hangover fans. Take yourself back for one second to the original Hangover film and tell me what made it successful? It was a comedic story that revolved around comedy of the acts and the OCCASIONAL Allen one liner. Was there any increment in the film of five minutes or so when you did not laugh? Not for me. All the jokes are recycled from the first film. The Hangover II is filled with zingers that make you just go "HA" and then shut up. It's not the hysterical laugh fest the first one is ; however, it is fair to say sequels are hard to live up to their predecessor. The Dark Knight proved recently though that sequels could do it though. This is the problem with many audiences these days. From those that see remakes, all the way to the people who push at these movies like the Hangover II. Again, the comedy in this movie is Allen's one liners as opposed to situational comedy.
When the "Hangover" scene starts you see that someone had lost their finger. I'm immediately thinking "YES! This is going to be awesome"...not so much. I am a HIGH proponent of cameos in sequels. I love when some characters return from previous films because I almost feel it's an homage to its predecessor. Anyone of my friends can tell you that. I'm a sucker for cameos....when done right. With that being said, Ken Jeong and Mike Tyson should not have been in this film. They were REACHES. Ken Jeong should have been in the first film and that's all. His character did nothing for this film (and quite frankly was annoying in most of his scenes with the exception of the hotel one). Mike Tyson, another REACH. They couldn't figure out how to incorporate Tyson so they just figured 'screw it...we'll bring him in as a singer!'. I love cameos when they are not reaches.
Now, we'll get to the cities comparison between Vegas and Bangkok. Film people will understand this reference and it might go unnoticed to many common film watchers. Light= Comedy. Most of the comedy you will see in the daytime is filled in sunny days or with some form of high key lighting. It adds to the comedy element. You might not be aware of that but it does, and film makers play the lighting beautifully. That's why Vegas was the perfect place for that. Trust me, I've been there. EVEN the inside shots, re watch it. A lot of lighting. Now, the Hangover II. It's very dreary and quite frankly I'm not even sure situational comedy could have saved the morbid setting of the film. It is possible as many dark low light films are dark humor as expected. And I have nothing against low key lighting in comedy films, but not this one. The setting left me just drained. By the time I saw the setting, I was already bored and wanted to jump from the top part of Cinemark, down to the floor, effectively hoping to break something. They tried to do something unique because they felt they could with the success of the first part.
No mention of the tooth being cut out either? Allen makes a zinger about it, but I know for a fact it was reported Ed Helms really does not have a tooth there. Make a reference about it. Stu's song in general in this film sucked too. This brings me to Bradley Cooper, one of the lone bright spots of the movie. I don't feel he took a step back in this film. He was right on par. They make a reference to them burning down a building but don't really explain it. They show a riot on a cell phone so maybe that has something to do with it, but again..nothing to be desired of in my eyes.
I would advise against seeing the film and remember the original for what it was. A brilliantly done comedy film even if it borrowed some of its jokes from a few other films.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: C
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL
Great Film: B-
Enjoyable Film: A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)