APOLLO 18 (2011)

I can't quite remember when I heard about Apollo 18. What I do remember is immediately being drawn to it simply because of the tag line - 'There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon'. Like most, I've often wondered why Apollo 17 was the last mission and, more poignantly, why we haven't been back since. So regardless of the fact that this was undoubtedly a fictional piece of work - I was intrigued by the premise, the story and the method of cinematography. Plus, being a fan of the Paranormal Activity films made me that much more interested.

Occasionally I would look to see when Apollo 18 would be released and honestly, I didn't even notice it was pushed back several times. My summer has been filled to the brim with films to anticipate, so this was just another one on the list. However, the fact it was pushed back to one of the least busy movie weekends of the year should have been a healthy indication that it wasn't testing well. Fool me once...

The basic idea behind the film (or found footage, I should say) is that the Apollo 18 crew were sent to the Moon on a secret mission by the Department of Defense. The goal was to set up some receivers and basic monitoring equipment for an unknown reason. After discovering a Russian lander a couple of clicks from their base, the two astronauts on the surface (and one in an orbiter up above) believe they've found the real reason they were sent. However, it turns out a Russian conspiracy wasn't the only mystery lying in wait - the other mystery is the premise for the film. I'm strictly against spoilers so let me say that the antagonist in Apollo 18 is so ridiculous that it seems to be the afterthought of a really bored 8 year-old. Unfortunately, this only sealed the fate with Apollo 18 for me. There were far more problems before anything decent even started happening.

I had bigger issues with the pacing of the film. I often found myself bored and it didn't take long for me to get tired of the shaky camera gag. Even then, when it did work, it was only when scarier moments happened - and they were too few and far in between. This is where you can tell the difference between Apollo 18 a film like Paranormal Activity. Apollo 18 did it's best to slowly build the suspense and create 'edge of your seat' moments, but it failed at even that. We can't forget this is a scary movie that people are expecting to see. When it's anything but, you're left wondering if maybe you should have seen Don't Be Afraid of the Dark instead. For the record, no. In fact, at this point I'm not sure anything lately has come close to as good a horror movie as I would like. Maybe Fright Night?

Apollo 18 sadly gets an closed door. Despite my love for outer space, the moon and horror films I can't really say you'd have the best of times at this one. Maybe it was the mood I was in, or maybe it was the fact I saw the film at 1PM vs 10PM. It really shouldn't matter anyway. For now I'll stick with zombies and ghosts to get my horror ya-yas out. What I will respect about Apollo 18 is that it did only have a budget of $5 million. Than again, Paranormal Activity was made for just $11,000. Ya, never mind. Shark Night 3D anyone?

*Stills courtesy of The Weinstein Company

Read more...

FINAL DESTINATION 5 (2011)

I will say despite the Final Destination series' many faults - one thing it never fails at is it's countless ways to build up suspense and make you cringe. Even when it comes down to something as simple as the potential to step on a screw - you may find yourself on the edge of your seat. That is, until you witness the most ridiculous death you've ever seen. Then you find yourself asking 'Really?!' - that and 'Why did I come to Final Destination 5?'.

The biggest error in the Final Desination films is unfortunately also it's biggest gimmick and plot point. The fact that right before this big event happens the main character gets a disturbing vision of the future. Be it a plane crash, a highway pile-up or a bridge collapsing, for some reason a vision always precedes the actual events. By the time I found myself watching the fifth one I began to wonder less about who was going to die and more about where the hell these visions were coming from. This idea has increasingly become more of plot hole that just doesn't make any sense. This is forgivable enough if you have characters and story you care about - but when the film even lacks that, all bets are off when death comes knocking at the door.

The expert in this film (every horror movie usually has one) states in inexplicable detail how to beat death. Previous ways include using new life to rewrite your 'contact' and beating your near-death experience to earn a place amongst the living. In Final 5, the coroner explains you have to kill somebody else to take their life force. Once again - really?! Not only that, but he says it in passing and the kids eat it up like crack. At no point do they question it - they simply go along with it.

But these are all things consistent throughout the entire series. Something that's not is the one piece of originality Final 5 had going for it - it's a surprise prequel. Now, knowing this information won't ruin the film for you, I promise. However, that's the biggest problem in this film. If you didn't like the last three films, you'll generally still admit the first one was original in it's attitude and execution. So, the idea that this film could potentially bring back the original feel was an intriguing idea when I thought back upon it. As a prequel there's potential to answer a lot of questions and introduce a new way of thinking about this whole 'death as an antagonist' thing. However, in Final 5 it seemed more like an afterthought for the filmmakers rather than a springboard for a reason this film needed to exist. Also, the fact this film is called Final Destination 5 and not The Final Destination like it's predecessor speaks volumes about the lack of thought and foreplanning that went into this series.

Final Destination 5 gets a big ol' closed door. As I said with the last one, I truly hope this is the final destination. Unlike a horror franchise like Saw, Final Destination is sloppy gore that doesn't connect well. It's unimaginative and predictable at this point and it might be time to put this series to rest - especially with it coming full circle as it now has. Besides, when it comes to using common deaths such as falling as a 'freak' accident - you're clearly running out of ideas.

*Stills courtesy of Newline Cinema

Read more...

THE SMURFS (2011)

So, what do you get when you mix modern CGI with a classics children tail and the theory that if you can, maybe you should? You get a hunk of good intentions called The Smurfs. You also get somebody like Neil Patrick Harris to try and make it better. News flash folks, it's not NPH that does the writing - nor can his scrawny frame carry the weight of twenty years of childhood nostalgia and expectations. But then again - I'm not sure who could.

As more movies like The Smurfs continue to come out, a better idea comes to mind. Why not just leave well enough alone? Not only have the Smurfs told their numerous stories through the original show, but it's highly unlikely we need another 'wacky character caught in New York' story. Frankly, if you are going to make a Smurfs movie, why not keep it in the same environment that made the original so successful? Was there really no other story you could have told? Could there not have been more drug references? Did this have to be a kids movie when the generation it belongs to is now aged thirty or higher? I think if the studios wanted a film people would be raving about, they should have upped the ante here and made it more mature.

The basic story here is that The Smurfs are chased by Gargamel into a vortex that transports them to New York City. There the Smurfs meet Patrick (Harris) and Grace (Jayma Mays) who help them out by giving them a place to live until they can find their way back to the Smurf Village. Meanwhile, Gargamel is out to find them because, well, that's what he does. Also, he needs them so he can start up his own cosmetics company and take over the world - nope, I didn't make that up. But thankfully, the Smurfs will lend their helping hand to assist Patrick in coming up with a new ad campaign. One that'll undoubtedly represent his best wishes and intent - and not the interest of the people who are paying him (because his bosses are evil you see). Essentially, it's all a bunch of believe in yourself bullsmurf.

If there was any redeeming quality in this movie it was Hank Azaria who plays Gargamel. You could tell both him and Harris knew this movie was shit, so they decided to ad lib whatever they could get away with and have fun with The Smurfs. Yes, this movie is also kid friendly and colorful so I'm sure anybody under five may have a smurf of a time watching the film. Anybody with the brain of somebody a little more mature might giggle at some of the quips but will be bored by the unoriginal storyline.

I am giving The Smurfs a big BLUE closed door, because feeling blue can be a bad thing - despite the film's opening message. But let's be honest - there were very few people who knew this would make a good movie, even with the blue buzz around this thing. Although I've yet to see it, if you want a movie your child will cherish (especially if it's their first movie-going experience) I'd recommend Winnie the Pooh. From what I've heard, that's a movie to be proud of. New T-shirt idea: Go Pooh, Not Blue.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

COWBOYS & ALIENS (2011)

I heard about Cowboys & Aliens via a friend after last year's Comic-Con. Then I slowly heard about it through the various media outlets. One of the coolest things I heard was that director Jon Favreau had refused to do it in 3-D. Finally, a director (a good director, too) had found his creative voice and stood up to the man. When I finally did see the trailer I was more or less intrigued. That was about six months ago. Somewhere between that point and now I lost the fond feelings I had for Cowboys & Aliens. I don't know what it was, but by the time I eventually saw the flick, I was more or less displeased by the lackluster story flashing before my eyes.

There's been a lot of talk about the mixing of two previously un-mixed genres - science fiction and western. Of course, fans of the Joss Whedon TV series Firefly will promptly (and justly) disagree. The mixing of those two genres was the basis for the 'space western' as Whedon called it. Only difference here is that it happens closer to home. What made me want to see it the most was the nice mystery element the trailers set up. It was less about 'Why are the aliens (or demons as they're called) here?' and more about 'Why does Daniel Craig have that cool little thingy attached to his wrist?'. Unfortunately, neither answer is as satisfying as you might like.

Aside from Daniel Craig's presence (Robert Downey Jr. was originally slated to be the lead), we also get appearences by Harrison Ford, Sam Rockwell and hottie Olivia Wilde (Tron Legacy). All of them do fine enough but I felt even their performances or roles were nothing to get excited about it. I felt very similarly when I was watching True Grit, a film this far too closely resembles. I kept on thinking 'So what?'. So what if this person dies, so what if that person gets hurt... and why the hell is that chick resurrecting out of the fire?! Yeah, that last one isn't True Grit, but whatever.

What I'm left wondering with Cowboys & Aliens is if the western genre is still alive and kicking? Is this a typical western movie? No, but western it still is. I always hope no genre is too dead to be brought back with a good movie, but the most recent good western I've seen is the animated Rango. At the very least it had the essence of the older western movies we all used to appreciate. Meanwhile, True Grit and Cowboys & Aliens exist for the wrong reasons in the wrong ways.

Cowboys & Aliens sadly gets a closed door. While I can appreciate the slight originality to it, I felt a lack of adventure and wonder. It's all very cool and ten years ago I would have loved this movie. Now though, it'll slip through the cracks and end up as a 'meh' movie when all is said and done. If you ask anybody about this film, you'll get a 'It's neat, but...' - and that's never a good response.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

KUNG FU PANDA 2 (2011)

Kung Fu Panda Boo...

Kung Fu Panda (the first one) was at the very least an interesting enough concept. While I'm not the biggest fan of Jack Black as he seems to repeat the same shtick, the first movie entertained me enough that I would have at least recommended it when asked. Kung Fu Panda 2 on the other hand, is a movie that I feel didn't need to exist. In a year with a record-breaking amount of sequels, I can't help but feel that Dreamworks was only looking to cash in on the franchise cow that all movies seem to be on board for. It's no longer about just making one movie - but rather as many as possible. Chances are, when a studio is offered a film these days they'll ask themselves if a sequel is a possibility, even before the film is released. Later on this year we'll see Hugh Jackman in Real Steel, a film about robot counterparts who box. The studio that's produced Real Steel likes enough of what it's seen to already start talks about a sequel - that studio by the way also happens to be Dreamworks.

Panda 2 is a half origin story about Po (Black), a panda who in the first film learned he was the coveted Dragon Warrior. This story focuses on where he came from and the bad guy responsible for Po's separation from his parents - Shen (Gary Oldman). Shen wants to take over the world and was told once upon a time via a fortune teller that a panda would be responsible for his demise. Shen then had all the pandas killed off forcing Po's mother to abandon him in a box of radishes.

While Panda 2 does a nice job tying itself to the first one (as well as setting up a third film), as aforementioned it seems unnecessary. There's less of a journey for Po and Panda 2 seems to try less hard to please the viewer, as if implicating that because there was a first movie already there's no need to try anything new here or build upon Panda 1. We also get far less time with any characters other than Po than we did in the first movie. Call me asinine, but I wanted to learn a little bit more about the other members of the Furious Five - who include animals voiced by wasted talents such as Angelina Jolie, David Cross and Jackie Chan, to name a few.

Kung Fu Panda 2 gets a closed door. I wasn't out to hate the movie from the beginning and I'm still not. It just didn't do it for me as I was hoping to be a bit more surprised and just simply didn't feel anything. This time around if an individual came up to me to ask if I would recommend this film, I'm afraid the answer would have to be a plain and simple "no".

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

PRIEST (2011)

Paul Bettany - the new poster child for the Vatican.

Being that today is Friday the 13th doesn't help a movie like Priest, which definitely could have used any help it could get. Priest however, is the first movie that I've seen this year where I'm unsure how to rate it. While Priest undoubtedly has some cool moments, I'm not sure what exactly it's trying to do. If anything, one could predict that the film is nothing more than a prologue for what Screen Gems is hoping will be a successful franchise. However, after seeing the first installment, I'm more than doubtful we're going to be seeing Priest 2 anytime soon.

Paul Bettany (Legion) plays Priest, an unnamed man who's set out to save his daughter from the vampires - who since the dawn of time have been terrorizing man and forced them into barridcaded cities run by the church. Previously, Priest was a warrior for the church who used him as a means of forcing all the vampires onto reservations. Once Priest was finished the job, the church then returned him to the status of a normal man - forced back into a regular, drab life (and feared by many).

In order to save his daughter, Priest teams up with law man Hicks (Cam Gigandet) and former fellow vampire hunter, Priestess (Maggie Q). The three of them head off across the post-apocalyptic desert in search of the man who's responsible for the kidnapping - Black Hat (Star Trek's Karl Urban). One can argue that with the names these characters carry (Priest, Black Hat) this whole plot may be lacking imagination, and you wouldn't be wrong. The names are actually a perfect indication of just what to expect in Priest.

When The Matrix was released in 1999 (followed by the sequels in 2003), it was clear the films had a religious undertone. In Priest, the religion is under-toned by The Matrix. There's actually very few action sequences in the film that won't remind you of a Wachowski way of things. There's even a scene that takes place on top of a moving train that's incredibly similar to the semi-trailer fight that took place in The Matrix Reloaded. It's not just The Matrix either, you'll find bits and pieces of almost every movie that relates to post-apocalyptic futures, religion, vampires, etc. within this film. Maybe that's the problem with Priest, just as the character names are unoriginal - so is the plot within reference to any original devices. Also, if the barricaded church city isn't a blatant rip-off of 1984, than there's a huge coincidence at hand.

When it comes down to it, Priest gets a closed door. Most people I spoke to after the movie really only had one thing to say about it - "It was alright...". Is something that's just alright worth the $10-14 you'll pay to see it in 3D? Not at all, really. In fact, when it comes to the 3D in Priest, it's a decision that should have been rethought (as is the case with many recent 3D flicks). There's far too many badly lit scenes in the film that being forced to use a pair of 3D glasses only makes it harder to see whats on the screen. Then again, in a film like Priest - maybe it doesn't matter as you ain't missing much anyway.

* Stills courtesy of Screen Gems

Read more...

THOR (2011)

Don't be Thor-ry, just don't let it happen again.

Although Fast Five claims to be the beginning of summer, I think this weekend counts way more - which is probably why it's starting off with one of the summer's biggest movies, Thor. However, much like Fast Five, I'm sad to say I'm pretty disappointed in this addition to the Marvel line-up, most recently preceded by the similarly disappointing Iron Man 2. The main difference between the two? I ultimately recommended Iron Man 2. Thor, however, does not get my recommendation - but you already know that from the big red door to the left. I know some people will like Thor and this decision was not the easiest for me to make - because I really wanted to like this film. In the end though, it fell short.

Thor (played well by Chris Hemsworth) is a cocky, arrogant God who only wants to fight, beat and destroy anybody and everybody who's willing to take on the challenge. He's kinda like the one guy outside the bar who wants to start a fight over nothing. After egging on his kingdom's (or realm, or planet - or whatever) number one enemy, his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) banishes him to Earth to teach him a lesson in humanity. There he meets Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster and develops a crush. It doesn't take long for Thor to start feeling that warmness inside and it takes even less time for his heart to grow three sizes - as well as you know, kick the shit out of a big, metal robot. Well done Thor, you attempted to not be such a dick. This all leads to another reason why I didn't like Thor, or why I've heard people mention Thor as their least favorite of the Marvel hero line-up.

If you look at nearly every other Marvel movie out there - the characters/superheroes all have one thing in common. They start off as a being a completely different person than that of their alter ego come the end of the movie. Thor on the other hand, is already a superhero - he just has an attitude problem. You can't make a movie out of someone learning to be less of a douchebag - well you can, but it has the same amount of impact as a 'no drugs' episode of Saved by the Bell. This causes there to be no character arc for Thor, so unlike Tony Stark let's say - you don't become interested in character and hence you care less about the story. Thor literally has less to fight for.

With a mystical being such as Thor, I would have preferred there to have been some mystery left to the guy and his story rather than spell it out as clear as day from the get go. If we could have perhaps left Thor's history more of a mystery - there may have been a bit more magic here. But now, the mystery is history and your left with something about as fun as a Wikipedia article on the subject. On that topic as well, I also enjoyed the scenes on Earth a lot more than on Thor's home planet (or whatever it is...) - so the more time on Earth the better.

Is Thor pretty at least? Hell yeah. Is the acting decent - sure. Does Thor fit all the criteria necessary to be a summer blockbuster? Definitely. But I feel my job as a film critic is to use my criticism in a way that will hopefully move the world of movies forward a little. In Thor's case, I'm attempting to make a statement about films and special effects. At which point do we stop admiring the pretty pictures on screen and focus on the story more? While Hollywood is slowly getting the point more and more as of late - sometimes you get a movie like Thor where it's drab, it's uninspiring, has no heart and is relentless in its effort to have you say 'that looks cool'.

On top of it all, with Avengers coming out next year - it's painfully obvious that Thor exists purely for the sake of lining up a few plot points necessary to further set up The Avengers. Overall, it may as well be considered a two hour long commercial for it. Even after the credits the movie proclaims 'Thor will return in The Avengers' (or something to that effect). So, if the story didn't lose interest for me, the fact it's a blatant marketing scheme and overall plot filler would have. For those of you wondering - you do get the fun stuff you'll be wanting to see and an inside joke here and there you'll enjoy. This includes an appearance by Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, a mention or two of Tony Stark and Bruce Banner - and of course the obligatory bonus scene after the credits.

I'm giving Thor the closed door it deserves. Personally, I'm looking way more forward to Captain America and Green Lantern. Thor feels like a prequel that should have been released perhaps after The Avengers - once we've gotten a chance to become attached to the character for a bit. For those of you out there who will tell me 'Well, Thor was fun - couldn't you just enjoy it for what it was?' The answer is yes - and I don't think it's completely unenjoyable. But realistically, if you want to see the movie - you will. It's the same for any movie, really, but if you're reading this before you're going to the movie - you've probably already made up your mind about whether you'll be standing in line later today or not. All I'm trying to do is point out why it didn't really need to exist in the first place - or at the very least, exist in the fashion that it does.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

FAST FIVE (2011)

Vin Diesel? More like Vin Regular... Paul Walker? More like shoot me in the f**king face...

What do you get when you mix The Italian Job with Ocean's Eleven and throw in a little bit of Fast and the Furious? You get Fast Five, a movie that has almost nothing original to offer. Does that mean you won't have a good time? I guess it all depends on what you're looking for in film. If you're a fan of the first four films in the series, than yeah - you'll probably enjoy this fifth installment. Don't expect any racing though. The one time Fast Five even hints at an old school race akin to any previous films, it cuts it out completely - which is kinda bullshit. I think including a simple race for pinks in this film would have shown just how far the series and characters had come. Instead, Fast Five ignores that point as if to comment on how it's past all that juvenile shit and is now focusing on what the series has become - a heist thriller that we've seen a million times.

But I digress and for a brief second will focus on the plot of Fast Five so you know a little more about what I'm speaking of. Brian O' Conner (Paul Walker) and his now-preggo girlfriend Mia (Jordana Brewster) have ended up in Rio de Janeiro looking to lay low after their previous adventure. To be honest, while I saw Fast and Furious (the fourth one), I couldn't tell you what happened just because it was that forgettable. In Rio, the couple meet up with Vince (Matt Schulze) and the hero and brother of Mia, Dominic (Vin Diesel). Vince says he has a job for them and it's easy money - but when it's at the beginning of the film, you know it's anything but. Of course, it is and they end up getting into some big shit with the drug lord that runs Rio - Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida). Reyes isn't the only one trying to bust their nut either, enter Federal Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) who isn't taking his sweet time tracking down the fugitives.

In order to make it out of Rio alive and have enough cash to disappear from the Feds forever, Dominic, Brian and Mia must do one final job to land them enough cash to make sure they're never found again. But it won't be easy - they have to rob a ginormous state-of-the-art vault. How will they do it? With the help of all of their Facebook friends, played by several gust stars that have appeared throughout all four of the films. Just when you think it's getting exciting - they hatch a plan that's more lame and less enjoyable than both The Italian Job and Ocean's Eleven - and I do mean less enjoyable. Cue the exit of interest, and commence the remaining 100 minutes of running time.

Now, am I being hard on a movie that I did have had some fun in? No. As aforementioned, I think fans of the whole series may have a good time. My problems lie in the unoriginality, style and beats of the film that seem to be shameless when it comes to ripping off other movies - especially when none of the material seems to come from any of the previous four films in the franchise. Like, come on! You have fans there already - expecting nothing short of an equivalent to what you've already set up and they don't get one damn decent race? This is all outside of the fact that Paul Walker still can't act himself out of a cardboard box and The Rock's lines sound as if they were written by someone with ADD and an affinity for bad, cheesy movie lines. I don't know if The Rock knew they were bad and played them up, or if he thought his lines were a serious thing - all I know is that I've never rolled my eyes so much at a character. Talk about a movie that never ends - and I do mean that. Just when you think Fast Five is over, be prepared to spend another ten minutes in the theatre - this includes the additional 'bonus' scene that appears about five minutes into the credits. So fans of the franchise - stick around.

Obviously, Fast Five is getting its fingers slammed in a closed car door. I think when it comes down to it, while I had a semi-good time in this film, I'm disappointed it didn't end up better. The beginning gave me hope, the cumulative cast showed promise and it was a great opportunity to restart the franchise anew and give us confidence in the upcoming sequels. But it did none of those things. Instead you end up with cheesy lines, a ripoff premise and vault scene (which is partially in the trailer) that defies the laws of physics. Fast Five may be fast, but it didn't pull a fast one on me - I know a bad movie when I see one.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

RIO (2011)

Rio is brought to you by the number 420 - because it's about the only thing that will make this film less of a 'bird'en.

Jesse Eisenberg (correction - Academy Award nominee Jesse Eisenberg) makes a bad damn decision to be part of Rio - as does Academy Award winner Jamie Foxx, and Academy Award nominee Anne Hathaway. Rio proves to be another classic example of how a film can have the talent to back it up, but no originality to move it forward. Clearly these three actors were just too polite to walk away from this project after reading the this script, or they had their iPod on while reading the parts and couldn't hear the lines as come out of their talented mouths (Did that sound gay? Yeah, that probably sounded gay...).

Because you haven't heard the same story before (sarcasm abounds), I'll tell you a little but about Rio. Once upon a time there was a bird named Blu (Eisenberg) who fell off an exotic animal truck in Moose Lake, Minnisota. He was picked up by Linda (Leslie Mann) who raised him to be a cocky bird who never learned to fly. One day (out of the 'blue' perhaps?) Tulio (Rodrigo Santoro), a bird mater from South America, comes knocking telling Linda that Blu is the last male of his species. If there are to be any other birds of his feather, he'll have to mate with the last remaining female of his species - Jewl (Anne Hathaway).

So the trio heads down to Rio where after a failed Thanksgiving (you know, where Blu stuffs the bird?), Blu and Jewel escape only to be apprehended by a group of thugs looking to sell the rare birds on the black market. When the two escape from the cunning bad guy (and two cliché idiot sidekicks), they end up on the run and get into all sorts of wacky adventures while on the search for Blu's owner, Linda. Those adventures include two stereotypical (and racially-profiled) birds, voiced by Foxx and Geporge Lopez - as well as a decently entertaining bulldog named Luiz (Tracy Morgan). To top it all off, take a guess as to how in love Blu and Jewl fall... it just goes on and on, people.

I guess with Rio, I'd hoped that Hathaway had left alone Hoodwinked Too to avoid another animated disaster (this just in - I was wrong). Am I saying Rio would or could have never worked? No, I'm just saying it might have worked better under the supervision of Disney/Pixar director Brad Bird (seriously, no pun intended - he's just really good). At least Bird knows that physical humour every three seconds doesn't necessarily dictate good humour.

I am giving this clichéd mess of a film a big, fat closed door. For kids, sure - they may giggle a time or two. For adults - Rio will please you about as much as writer/director Carlos Saldanha's previous works did, such as Robots and Ice Age (both relatively unamazing, as well) - which also had big names be part of them as well. Come to think of it - are Saldanha films where big name actors (who have just won Oscars, especially) and their careers go to die? Maybe. Coming up next year - Jeremy Renner in Asparagus - a film about a young asparagus plant who's self-conscious about the way his pee smells (yes, that's based on a quote from Elf).

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox Animation

Read more...

SUCKER PUNCH (2011)

Is it pronounced 'sucker' or 'chump'?

Before Sucker Punch started I was fairly interested in the movie. I didn't really care for 300 but the style set a new standard for cinematography. As Sucker Punch started to roll, I was interested. As the film continued on I began to wonder why it existed and sooner than later I just didn't care anymore - and I really, really wanted to care because what I was seeing looked so incredibly cool. Sigh... it was 300 all over again...

I don't know for sure if I can tell you exactly what Sucker Punch was about - that may be damn near impossible (and not in an Adjustment Bureau kind of way). If I were to try though (which I won't), the basics would go something like this synopsis from IMDb:

A young girl named Baby Doll (played by Emily Browning) is institutionalized by her abusive stepfather. Retreating to an alternative reality as a coping strategy, she envisions a plan which will help her escape from the mental facility.

Now, that synopsis tells a lot about just what's wrong with this film. For one, this 'alternate reality' that is spoken of is not the fire-breathing dragon, sword-wielding, cool as hell reality so much of Sucker Punch seems to be centered around in its trailers and advertisements. In fact, the alternate reality is one akin to the film Burlesque, where the girls (including Baby Doll) dance for high rollers in order to please the owner of the brothel, a man named Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac). The visuals everybody is hoping for only populate when Baby Doll does one of her astounding dances for the high rollers. It's a sort of 'interpretive' dance, I guess - and those moments end up playing out more as short films with a loose tie to 'reality' than anything else. So that aspect by itself was disappointing enough let alone the rest of the film.

The other thing that bothered me is that the film may have been a lot stronger had they gotten rid of the bookends of the film, and proposed it as what the film is - a stylized fantasy. Keep in mind, we're already watching a movie here. We've (supposedly) accepted the reality of the images placed in front of us and would easily accept Sucker Punch as a film about a group of girls who escape from a brothel - without the need for the nonsensical mental institution plot line. It wouldn't have hurt to also avoid the attempt to try and make this sisterhood film all about feelings and girl power - especially when it's painfully obvious someone like Vanessa Hudgens is only present in this film to shed her 'good girl' image she's gained with films like High School Musical.

As for the escape plan the girls hatch up, I'm left a little underwhelmed by what purpose the items they needed to gather actually served. Even then, the items themselves never seemed to lead to a full plan that didn't seem last minute and therefore raises the question of how they knew to get the items in the first place. The more I watched the film and noticed these things, the more I thought of the people who wrote the final draft of Sucker Punch. Like if they actually sat together and read it all in one shot to see if any of it was cohesive and relevant. It seemed they wrote every tenth page or so and came up with some good stuff, then hired someone else to come in and write the rest. The best way to describe this film is that its an utter mess of tangled ideas.

I regret to give Sucker Punch a closed door. I ultimately had higher hopes for a film that looked so visually interesting and seemed to have great promise. It leaves you confused, sometimes bored and wondering why you spent the money to see it in the first place. Sucker Punch just doesn't seem to deliver the 'punch' presented in it's title as much as it leaves you hanging with the word 'sucker...'.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Read more...

BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (2011)

I'm goin' to LA! Maybe not...

It's been said that in 2013 we'll be getting a sequel to 1996's awesome-tastic Independence Day. Until then, we're going to have to sit through movies like last year's dreadful Skyline, the anxiously awaited Paul (in theatres next weekend), and of course - Battle: LA. That stated, is Battle: LA really on par with the great alien-invasion movies of all time? Unfortunately (but not unexpectedly), no. While Battle: LA tries it's hardest to meet all the criteria of a good invasion flick, it falls short on a couple notes, and relies on a few too many clichés.

SSgt. Michael Nantz (played by the always decent Aaron Eckhart) is about to retire from the US Marine Corps as he feels like he's getting too old - which can be deduced from the fact that he runs like a little girl, apparently. But wouldn't you know it - he's called away from his retirement plans as LA gets hit with the a bad case of the ET-Invadies. What do these aliens want? One scientist assumes it must be our liquid water as the earth is covered with so much of it - a welcome change from the aquaphobic entities that attacked in Signs (2002).

In an effort to clear out the large area of Santa Monica in which the aliens are invading (not the first time in United States history, I've heard), the US decides to go and Hiroshima the place to eliminate the enemy threat. Before that can happen, though, they send in Nantz and his men to search for any remaining survivors in the area and get them back to FOB (Forward Operating Base). The clincher: they only have three hours to do it before they and any remaining survivors are vaporized. The big questions fill out the remainder of the plot: Do they make it? What do the aliens really want? Can mankind stop a technologically advanced species? What are the ramifications of such an interaction? Why the hell aren't people more in awe of the fact they aren't alone in the universe? Unfortunately, a lot of those questions aren't answered. As for the ones that are - you kinda don't really care by the end.

When it comes to alien movies (especially those that try and be realistic), I've always preferred the kind that try and involve some form of politics and a deeper lesson aside from the one that states "Let's kick some alien ass!". Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) did it, as did Contact (1997), Mission to Mars (2000) and District 9 (2009). With Battle: LA, you get less 'wonder' and more 'Who cares? What about the American peoples' right to fight?!'. I mean, it's good to be patriotic and all, but you know you've gone too far when it starts to feel like you're watching a recruitment video for the US Marine Corps.

Battle: Los Angeles gets a closed door. While the action is promising and the effects are extremely well done, the plot is grossly underdeveloped and director Johnathan Liebesman relies far too much on cheesy emotional cues to get us through the dragging story. It doesn't take more than the first half hour to know whats going on, and I feel the film is trying to be more about the journey of the human spirit than the destination. In the case of Battle: LA, the only destination I began to care about was one involving the end credits.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

SANCTUM (2011)

Sank-dumb...

First off, this isn't a James Cameron film. That needs to be made clear to those of you saying "Oh, I'm on my way to see James Cameron's Sanctum" or "the new James Cameron flick". This needs to be stressed in a way most things don't, because if Sanctum were a real James Cameron picture you would undoubtedly see a nice Open Door logo to your left. No, this is indeed an Aliston Grierson film, who in the past has also directed... - well, nothing (that is to say nothing that's ever mattered).

Sanctum is about a group of people who get stuck in a cave underground somewhere in Papua New Guinea, just as a cyclone starts flooding that same cave. Think The Descent (2005) mixed with Hard Rain (1998) mixed with a bus load of bullshit. By the end of this thing I had seen more unoriginal and satirical material than one can find in all the nineteen Scary Movies combined.

Breaking it down, the film is about a father-son relationship that needs some work. The father, Frank, is played by Richard Roxburgh and the son, Josh, is played by Rhys Wakefield. There are other characters involved, of course, (including Fantastic Four's Ioan Gruffudd) but they don't really matter because in the end all you have is a group of flat, two-dimensional characters fighting their way through a predictable storyline that ends in just as a predictable fashion.

I am (obviously) giving Sanctum a closed door. While the 3D was fine and the cinematography pretty well done, there's nothing here we haven't seen before. It's the usual fight-for-your-life survival story with one character who panics, one guy who's the hero, one character who's a selfish butthole and another who knows everything. While parts of this film are enjoyable and some people may find this 'adventure' amusing, enjoyable or maybe even inspiring, for me it just came off as ... meh. No-name filmmaker? Yes. James Cameron? HELLZ NO!

*Stills courtesy of Relativity Media

Read more...

LITTLE FOCKERS (2010)

Go fock yourself... seriously.

Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller star as grumpy father-in-law and the subject of his ridicule (respectively) in the third installment of this fockin' silly series, Little Fockers. This time around Jack is having heart problems, Greg is getting boners over Jessica Alba (due to a new Viagra-like drug they're promoting together), and the Focker kids are having a birthday party (enough to name a movie after, apparently). Now, when it came to Meet the Parents (2000), I didn't mind the flick. It was funny enough and one could make light of poor Gaylord Focker's name, as well as the series of unfortunate incidents he got himself into.

Little Fockers, however, is something else entirely. Not only does it not center itself around the Focker children enough to make that the title, but simply and purely, it's not funny. It's insulting to anybody that's made a good comedy movie (or enjoys them), and when one of your scenes relies on a five minute back-and-forth using the term GodFocker continually like it's actually funny, you know your in trouble. We get it, Focker sounds like a swear word. You want to make the movie funnier? Rename it and don't mention the last name unless applicable - it was worn to death after the sequel.

Relying on the wholly un-clever wordplay shouldn't have been a factor anyways. Little Fockers has three (count 'em - THREE) two-time Academy Award winners - Dustin Hoffman, De Niro and Barbara Streisand. Between those three (and their awful managers), perhaps somebody could have thrown out some better ideas to make this movie a little more likable - or maybe they did, at which point I shudder to imagine how bad it was before. Also, Owen Wilson is back again? He adds nothing to the story besides the presence of a rich idiot who's still in love with Pam (Teri Polo). Don't get me wrong, I like Wilson - just not here.

Simply put, Little Fockers doesn't measure up to something that's worth seeing, so it gets a closed door. I get the likability of it's 'just okay' predecessor, Meet the Fockers (2004) but this one just isn't worth your time. The storyline is weak, the characters typical and predictable and the humour is absent. If this isn't the last one, trust me, I won't be going to see the sequel - which will probably be titled Look Who's Focking.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

BURLESQUE (2010)

Chicago? No. Moulin Rouge? No. Good movie? Well....

If you don't already know, I'm a fan of musicals. I watch Glee every week and two movies that play in my DVD player on a regular basis are Moulin Rouge (2001) and Hairspray (2007). I think what I've always enjoyed most about them is that it's clear from the first number how much work has been put into them, to get them to flow correctly so the songs don't seem out of place or forced. A song's introduction should be just as organic as the film's dialogue and so should its exit. As I mentioned in my review for the poorly done Score: A Hockey Musical, when it comes to songs in a musical, it's my belief they should exist only when the message or emotion cannot be easily or efficiently conveyed in another fashion, such as through dialogue or visuals. This is the first and most obvious key to a successful tune-filled film and while the act may be made more difficult when characters in real life need to belt out a number, it's still a feat to successfully blend songs into a film - even one such as Burlesque.

In her first leading role (perhaps movie role, at all), Christina Aguilera plays Ali, a small town girl with big town dreams. As she states to a colleague when asked why she left her hometown, Ali responds by saying that when she looked around, nobody had a life she wanted. Fair enough. So what do all young girls do who are down on their luck? They pack up their shit and they move to LA. Not the best of lessons to impose on the younger generation, but nonetheless, suspension of disbelief, right? Turns out Ali was lucky enough to snag an apartment immediately, and on her first day out on the town she floats into a seedy little whorehouse called Burlesque. Well, whorehouse may be a little extreme (especially with a PG rating), think more along the lines of a slightly riské set for American Idol.

Finally, Ali sees a life she wants. Glitz, glam and Cher as a teacher. Knowing only how to waitress (and sing and dance and show up the local snobby girl), Ali grabs a tray and gets to work until she can get the chance to audition. At this point you're aware that no matter how little she gets paid, she just wants to be closer to her dream. Now I know that we're supposed to believe that she came to LA to find just something different, hell - anything, but even I was surprised that this was the first job Ali said "I want that" to. I mean, look around, see what's out there. Unless of course Ali was thinking what I was the entire time - "The girl in Coyote Ugly did it, so why can't I?"

Low and behold persistence pays off, and Ali snags a stage job, much to the chagrin of fellow problematic dancer Nikki (Kristen Bell), who decides to screw Ali by pulling the plug on the pre-recorded vocals right in the middle of a performance. Thankfully for Ali, despite Nikki's Milli Vanilli outing attempt, Ali finally gets the chance to let her vocals shine - and goes for it! Good for her, she needed it. The rest falls into place, no doubt, and soon she's the talk of the town - all in the nick in time to save the club from closing down and going bankrupt. Ali does of course get help from her trusty sidekick Sean, played very well by Stanley Tucci - even if he does play the exact same character he played in The Devil Wears Prada (2006). Whatever, he has a thing for young girls in need - that's decent of him. Oh wait, didn't he play the pervert in The Lovely Bones (2010)? Never mind.

Interestingly enough, I started out this review thinking Burlesque deserved an open door. Then as I actually started writing my review I realized there wasn't a lot of originality here. I mean, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it. I liked the musical numbers and despite its unoriginal premise I still fell for the "Oh my God, what's she gonna do now?" moments as much as one can. I actually had a decent time watching it, but in the end I had to let my musical-loving bias go and see Burlesque for what it was - an impressive array of music videos strung together by a stingy storyline. I'm giving it a closed door. It doesn't do anything wrong per say, but it's far from special. For the record, Christina Aguilera does a fine job acting here, and movie lighting is definitely her friend. Just a thought.

*Stills courtesy of De Line Pictures

Read more...

SKYLINE (2010)

Has anybody ever told you that your eyes light up a room?

The thing that got me excited to see Skyline was the relatively original imagery I'd seen in the trailer. It had a distinct and original look to it. More specifically the image of thousands of people flying through the air, being sucked up into a giant alien spacecraft seemed wholly entertaining. Now, that's what got me to see the movie, it's not what made me dislike it.

Skyline focuses on a group of people in Los Angeles who wake up early one morning to discover that aliens have invaded their fair city - and yes, I'm aware I could insert an immigrant joke here, but I won't because I have tact, even if Skyline doesn't. Glowing blue lights that shoot out from the ships have the hypnotic power of drawing people towards the light, making them oblivious to the fact they're about to get Hoovered. Thousands fall victim to this ploy, minus a few who realize what's going on and look the other way.

If there's one thing to be said about Skyline's alien species, it's that they're quick and efficient. If you succeed in hiding from them the first time around, another one will be back later on to find you. Whether or not it's the giant kind that stands five stories tall or the smaller ones that fly, it seems you're doomed. Of the few that realize something is going on as events unfold, is a small group of friends (which includes The Texas Chainsaw Massacre's (2003) Eric Balfour) who are stuck on the top floor of an LA high rise apartment building. That apartment building, by the way, is the biggest problem Skyline has. Well, one of the biggest problems.

Now, I don't hate the idea that an entire movie may take place in an apartment building. Quarantine (2008) did well with a similar premise, and I really liked it. What I don't like with Skyline (aside from the shotty acting and poorly written scenes) is the fact that this movie spends far too much time sitting around trying to avoid spending it's $10 million budget in five minutes. To do that, it gives us lame arguments between Balfour's character, Jared, and his girl, Elaine (Scottie Thompson). We also get another weak back story for Jared - this time with his best friend Terry (Scrubs' Donald Faison). In fact, the only redeeming quality about Skyline is the last five minutes. It's the only part of the film I actually enjoyed as it introduced an intriguing and relatively original idea. I won't say how it ends here as even though the movie was bad, I hate spoilers.

I'm giving Skyline a closed door. If it's lucky enough to get a sequel (which I highly doubt) then maybe check it out. Even on DVD though this won't be a very good watch. The first hour and half should have been five minutes long and the last five minutes should have been an hour and a half long. While I'll recognize the fact that the special effects are actually pretty good, a movie comprised of a few cool shots that doesn't have a good story to back it up - is still a bad movie.

*Stills courtesy of Black Monday Film Services

Read more...

SCORE: A HOCKEY MUSICAL (2010)

I'm not mad, I'm just disappointed.

As I headed to the theatre last night to see Score: A Hockey Musical, I did what I normally do. I get to the theatre forty-five minutes to an hour early, I grab any food I want and I head into the theatre to get the best seat possible. This normally results in me getting my favorite seat - back row center. Walking into Score produced no different result. Not only was I treated to the best viewing spot in the house, I was also privy to a view I can honestly say I didn't expect nor have every experienced - that of a completely empty theatre. Not just for the half hour before the movie started, but through the entirety of Score as well. Through all my years of seeing movies on every day of the week, during every time of the day and no matter at which point in the films theatrical run - that I've never had the whole theatre to myself, especially not during the film's opening week.

In some movies, I would be thrilled by this. It's certainly something I've wished once or twice I could experience in some cheaper theatres, but it's nothing I've ever expected to happen at a bigger multiplex. Yet there I was. Alone, confused and kind of upset. Being a filmmaker with aspirations of my own films being shown at this exact theatre one day, I was disappointed to see nobody supporting this film. It's an all Canadian film which now seems doomed to the fate of its predecessors (Gunless [2010], Pontypool [2008]) - recognized, unpopular and seen by few. This may be due to the Canadian film curse, that drives our stars and our talents down south for "actual" success - all of which will continue to happen if we don't start going to our own goddamn movies. That's just a small piece of my mind and I could easily write a much bigger post on it, but this is a review for Score, and that's what I will continue with.

I'll get this out there right now, I don't really watch Hockey, but recognize and embrace it as Canada's sport. I do however have a soft spot in my heart for musicals. They are tough to pull off correctly, but when done right, they are absolute magic and can make you feel just fantastic. One of my favorite movies is Hairspray (2007), and I'm not ashamed to say it. But I also like the classics such as Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) and Mary Poppins (1964) - simply because I can appreciate them. The fact that Score is Canadian and a musical is what drove me to see this film.

Score tells the tale of home schooled Farley Gordon (Michael Cera wannabe Noah Reid). Farley's neighbour is his best friend (Allie MacDonald) who has had a crush on Farley ever since they have known each other. 'Problem' is, he doesn't know. Fareley rarely leaves the house except for one thing - to play hockey, and he's damn good at it. He could never play in a team though. Not because he doesn't want to, but his parents are kind of prudes when it comes to organized sports. Farley's mother Hope, by the way, is played by Olivia Newton-John - who us terribly underused considering this is her first return to a musical since Grease [1978].

One fine day, Farley gets discovered by the owner (Stephen McHattie) of the Blades, a local hockey team. He is reluctant but soon finds himself trying out for the team, to the chagrin of Coach Donker (John Pyper-Ferguson) who is understandably hesitant about the home schooled kid who's never played an organized game of hockey in his life. Predictably, Farley blows the socks off of everybody and is soon the biggest star in town - appearing on billboards, magazine covers and cereal boxes. But is the fame too much for him to handle. His best friend and parents seem to think so. They say he's 'changed' and is 'different' - this is the point where you confirm what you've been thinking for the last forty-five minutes, that Score is predictable and unoriginal in its characters and plot. Oh, and Farley refuses to fight when another player challenges him. This is apparently what makes a hockey game and there's no room for his 'why can't everybody just get along' mentality.

In support of Canadian films I wanted to really like Score. In fact, before I went to the film I believed I would most likely give it an open door. However, I'm sad to report this is not the case. The reason Score failed as much as I think it did is for more than just one reason, so don't think I'm being picky here.

The first and biggest problem I should bring up is the songs themselves. It was as if the songs were trying to be bigger than they could be, and for some reason most seemed to be no longer than a minute. The audio was badly mixed which was incredibly distracting. I often found it difficult to hear the lyrics over the rest of the music, which made any meaning the songs had to begin with...well, meaningless. It wasn't until the last twenty minutes or so that I felt the songs finally improving. Every song up until that point seemed weak, awkward and out of place. I then realized that it was because there was an orchestra behind the songs, rather than the piano and guitar combination every other song had (causing them to all sound the same). In my opinion (obviously), Score's composers should have spent more time developing a good nine or ten songs rather than spending less time on twenty. Classic debate: quality or quantity?

When it comes to songs in a musical, it's my belief they should exist only when the message or emotion cannot be easily or efficiently conveyed in another fashion, such as dialogue or visuals. A good musical has no songs out of place - they are there for a reason and flow with the entirety of the film. Score felt like it was broken down into music, movie, music, movie, music, movie, etc. Each one interrupted the next which became very distracting and, well, annoying - especially when the songs have no imagination. It's one thing to have characters just stand on the street and sing to each other lacking any actual visual stimuli, but its another when the lyrics appear to be as complex as something written by a sixth grader. I think at one point they actually rhymed 'cat' with 'hat'.

As for the characters, I didn't really like any of them, especially the main cast. There is one character on Fareley's hockey team named Maurice (Chris Ratz) that I enjoyed whenever he was on screen, as did I enjoy the very few shots of the overly rambunctious character played by Nelly Furtado. She seemed fun, obnoxious and for some reason she was hanging off the arm of a big, fat, shirtless guy. Where's the rest of her part? Hell, where's her own movie?

I'm giving Score: A Hockey Musical a closed door. Its a better film when it's not constantly being interrupted by its out of place and awkward musical numbers. Even then, the dialogue and storyline are okay at best. This grade isn't because I don't follow hockey, nor is it because this is a small Canadian film. This grade is because Score felt lazy. It's writer was also its director - Michael McGowan, who also directed Joshua Jackson in the also 'only okay' One Week (2009). I feel if McGowan had spent more time on the script or brought in another writer we may have had something main stream enough yet uniquely Canadian. His gross underuse of bigger names like Olivia Newton-John and Nelly Furtado are big mistakes that should have been corrected upon confirmation of their involvement. Also, I couldn't figure out for the life of me if the movie itself was trying to be cheesy and silly, or if it was taking itself seriously. All the actors seemed to play it as if it was a serious drama, which is maybe why none of Score actually worked. Do me a favor, McGowan. Next time you make a movie please make it decent enough so I don't look like an ass for supporting Canadian cinema. Thanks.

*Stills courtesy of Mulmer Feed Co.

Read more...

DEVIL (2010)

You get to die! You get to die! You all get to DIE!

There are ideas called 'napkin ideas'. These ideas usually form when you're sitting at a coffee shop or a restaurant and doing nothing but enjoying the afternoon sun or people watching (for all you stalkers out there). All of sudden and for no apparent reason a great idea pops into your head. Instead of letting it fly off into Neverland ceasing to be heard of again, you grab a napkin, steal the waitress's pen and write madly. That random idea right there, soon turns into an amazing idea that will lead to people asking you "how the hell you ever thought of it". To which you reply - I dunno, guess I'm a friggin' genius.

Then there are ideas you get in other places - like in the bathtub (Archimedes), in your car and maybe, just maybe... in a friggin' elevator. This is undoubtedly where M. Night Shyamalan got his 'brilliant' idea for Devil. I'm guessing he threw this idea together when he was 'going down' (laugh out loud if you must, those around you won't judge - I promise).

I want to quote what is probably one of the funniest movies truths I've heard of recently. This statement comes from Quint over at Ain't It Cool News when describing the trailer for Devil:

"The 'Shyamalan Groan' is well documented as the trailer for the first Night Chronicles flick, Devil, continues to screen. If you're not familiar with the term, it's when that trailer plays and Shyamalan's name comes up ("From the mind of M. Night Shyamalan") inducing groans and/or laughter from the audience."

After such Shyamalan bombs as Lady in the Water (2006) and The Last Airbender (2010) it's no wonder why people think Devil is another one of M. Night Shyamalan's attempts to relive his glory days of The Sixth Sense (1999) - and don't get me wrong, it most definitely is. Now I understand this movie was not directed or fully penned out by Captain Twist, but from this point forward (and since it is M. Night's idea) I will be referring to it as a movie belonging to him. Mainly because Shyamalan should be the one to blame for this and probably (although hopefully not) the second and third installments of the upcoming Night Chronicles. Also, I just don't feel like I should blame director John Erick Dowdle, who also directed 2008's Quarantine (which I really liked); nor should it be the fault of the other writer, Brian Nelson, who wrote the awesomely dark Hard Candy (2005). My guess is that even if either of those two wanted to change anything about Shyamalan's 'idea', he probably would've stopped them. There's no reason those two couldn't have come up with something better put together than what they did. The only bad move Dowdle and Nelson really made with Devil was getting involved with The Night Chronicles to begin with.

Devil begins one dark and stormy day when five strangers enter an elevator in a New York City high rise. Much to their chagrin, the elevator gets stuck and no matter what anybody does it seems to be good and jammed (I blame gremlins). Thankfully the building's security and eventually the police are informed, and the passengers are relived to hear they'll be out in no time. There's no real hurry, anyways, as the biggest threat seems to be the annoying mattress salesman's (Geoffrey Arend) badly timed humour. That is, there's no hurry until the lights go out and somebody dies... (dum, dum, DUM!!!). Bad murder mystery anyone? As expected, that's when everybody goes into panic mode including the security personnel and Detective Bowden (Chris Messina), who have been keeping a keen eye on the situation via a security camera that's wedged into the corner of the elevator car.

As a rule of thumb (and common sense, really) I tend to dislike a movie more when it gets lazy and uses a character to tie up all the loose ends and/or explain the rules of the movie. In Devil that role is filled by the security guard Ramirez (Jacob Vargas), who is assigned to watch over the building's video surveillance. Turns out his religious grandma (or some other wise entity in his life) warned him about the Devil, and told him stories of how it would occasionally come to Earth in human form to torture the poor souls it was about to drag to Hell. Worse yet, when the Devil has it's fun - that's when everything around you starts going wrong. The security guard then (and I'm not shitting you here) drops his jam-draped toast onto the ground showing that it lands "jam side down". Goosebumps abound! Detective Bowden scoffs at security guard for mentioning this idea (even with such compelling proof) and continues on his merry little detective way - collecting crazy things like 'clues' and 'evidence'. It's only later on when things get really crazy that the detective (who has a dark, alcoholic past by the way [shocking, I know]) looks Ramirez in the eye and says "Alright, hypothetically speaking, lets say your right...". (the nerve of some people, hey?). If that wasn't bad enough we have an unknown voice narrating Devil that makes what the security guard says a retread anyways (actually, maybe they're one and the same). Fail.

As for the ending, well I won't 'spoil' it for you - but this is an M. Night vehicle so you know it's gonna be a twist. For the record, it's lamer than the end 0f The Village (2004) - I know, I didn't think it was possible, either. The other thing that drove me crazy in this movie was the score. Some horror movies get it right (Halloween [1978], The Exorcist [1973] and Jaws [1975] - just to name a few), but here what you get is like a bad version of the music from Inception (2010). It seems to come at the wrong times and far too often and overbearing and once again drives home the idea that the filmmakers were being lazy and hoping the music would make Devil scarier. That, or they simply didn't know any better - which is even worse. Same goes for M. Night's tired idea that not seeing your villain is much scarier than seeing it (like he had used with Signs (2002) and The Village) - hence half the action in this film being in the dark (and the irony is not lost on me that the same could be said for M. Night and his story-telling skills).

I am giving Devil a closed door. It shouldn't be a surprise that I nor anybody with memories of the Final Destination or Saw series, would find this first installment of Shyamalan's 'Night Chronicles' a wholly unoriginal piece. You'll feel that comparison more if you see the film when Devil begins to reference its tag line - `Bad things happen for a reason`. Even at 75 minutes it drags on long enough to make it hard to believe that by the end there's not a single character you care about. This may have made a better short film in the end - hell, we may find that to be true with the two remaining pictures. And I want to be clear here. I don't think this was that terrible an idea. I like horror movies and at some point we have to admit every movie has something they seemed to have ripped off from something else - but there's an original a refreshing way to go about it. As aforementioned, Devil felt like a lazy mess that in the end will be nothing more than a discount DVD, sitting in a bin at your local pharmacy with the likes of Marmaduke and Vampires Suck. Oh, M. Night, what happened to you? You used to be so cool...

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...