PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3 (2011)

Read more...

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...

FRIGHT NIGHT (2011)

At the beginning of this year I found out that 2011 would break the record for most remakes and sequels in one year. I was aware of most of the sequels, but it's the remakes that have been taking me by surprise - both in quality and the fact that I didn't even know they were remakes. It was only slightly before watching Fright Night that I found out it had been done once before. In 1985 William Ragsdale teamed up with Roddy McDowall (known most for his Planet of the Apes roles) to conquer Jerry - a vampire. Once I knew about it, in preparation for this review, I found the original on Netflix and watched away. I wasn't disappointed by the film, nor was I profoundly entertained. I got a kick out of seeing McDowell perform sans ape and liked the storyline enough, but I felt it dragged and I was left underwhelmed.

Remakes as they go, always go in one of two directions. The first is that you end up with a shot-for-shot modernization of the classic that shouldn't have been touched in the first place. Horror films always seem to get revamped (small pun intended) and more often than not, in this style. I cite 1998's Pyshco remake and 2006's The Omen as prime examples. The other option is a reimagining, where you have a similar beginning and end but a different middle. Obviously there's variations and blends of this rule, but it's more or less the same. A reimagining though, isn't always good either (ie: Rob Zombie's Halloween). Fright Night, for the record, is a prime example of a reimagining.

Colin Farrell plays Jerry the vampire, a stranger who's just moved in next door to Charley (played well by Star Trek's Anton Yelcin). In the original, Charley is a sci-fi/horror geek who stalks Jerry until he finds out the truth. In this version, Charley is working very hard at being more socially acceptable in school and is later warned of Jerry's antics by his friend, Ed (played by McLovin himself, Christoper Mintz-Plasse). It seems a mutual friend has gone missing and Ed begs Charley to help him find their vanished comrade. After some investigation, more truths about Jerry come to surface and soon Charley finds himself in a head to head battle with Jerry to save his mom (Toni Collette) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots).

I remember a time when I used to really hate Colin Farrell. I don't really remember why, or where I saw something to make me feel this way. I know I've seen him be an Irish prick on some talk show, where his real self shone through and I instantly put him in a class with Russell Crowe -douchebags who roam Hollywood thinking they're all that. Oddly enough, that changed for me after seeing Farrell in Horrible Bosses - when he was at his douchebagiest. But it showed a lighter side of Farrell to me and allowed me to experience just how good he could be. Fright Night is no exception. While some will argue this film belongs to Yelchin, there's a subtly in Farrell's performance that seals the deal for me. There's no ego attached to the fact that Jerry's a super cool vampire who knows he's probably going to bone your girlfriend. He just simply knows he's been around 375 years longer than you and has the experience to prove it. Nothing like respecting your elders, right? Or you know, wanting to plunge a stake into their heart.

Fright Night gets an open door. Despite some parts that seemed to move too fast (in definite contrast to the original), Marti Noxon (known for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series) delivers a solid script and some really witty moments (I couldn't place some of the dialogue patterns until after when I found out who wrote this adaptation). Even though it shares the same title as the original, this take on Fright Night feels like a different movie completely. It's fun and scary enough that if it's still kickin' around come Halloween, I recommend checking it out to get into the mood of things. Even before then, it's still worth your time.

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks SKG

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...

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...

SCREAM 4 (2011)

Something to scream for...

Scream was the first R-rated movie I had ever seen. It was 1997, I was twelve years old and I (along with some friends) watched it on VHS. As an R-rated film, I have to say I didn't get what the big deal was. Yes, there was blood (plenty of it); yes there was sex (not so plentiful) - but maybe twelve was the perfect age to see a film like this because it didn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, Scream was responsible for me having an insatiable hunger from that point forward for the horror genre in general. Scream led to Halloween, which led to Psycho, which led to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, etc. By the time I saw Scream 2 I was rarin' to go to film school so I absolutely loved the self-referential sequel. Scream 3 came along and while I was excited to see it, it was definitely my least favorite of the series (despite it taking place in Hollywood - a place I idolized at the time). Now here we are, eleven years later and Scream is back - either to start a new trilogy for a new decade or is more of a bonus film for the Scream fan in all of us.

Scream 4 begins with the return of Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) to the now famous Woodsboro. Well, actually, Scream 4 begins with several false beginnings that makes you want to stab yourself. But once you're past a supposed 'intelligent' commentary on horror movies today, Scream picks up where it should and you begin to feel like you're spending some time with old friends, again. Sydney is now a published author (with her very own self help book) and Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) is now a big ol'nothing as she lives ambitionless in small town America with her hubby, Dewey Riley (David Arquette).

All is fine in Woodsboro on the anniversary of the original killings, until two bodies are found and it seems Sydney's return to her old homestead may be the exact cause. Two films geeks (Erik Knudsen and Rory Culkin - the Randy's in this latest addition) theorize that the new killer is trying to reboot the franchise and rewrite the rules. So is nobody truly safe? Can Sydney actually be killed now? The answer is supposedly 'Yes'. 'New decade, new rules' as the poster says. From this point, you can guess what happens. Murder after murder after murder, followed by several false endings. However, Scream 4 ends up being a pretty good addition, one which I really enjoyed.

As I said earlier, I was and still am a fan of the original trilogy (for the most part). So my opinions are slightly bias (as are most critics, really), but I would still like to believe that if Scream 4 really disappointed me I would be able to tell you. In fact, as a fan of the original three - I believe there's actually put more pressure on the studio and director Wes Craven to get it right. Not only that, but it had to be emphasized that there were two alternative ways this film revitalization could have gone. Scream 4 could have gone the popular route and been a complete remake (ie: Halloween) and then to top it off be in 3-D; or even worse yet, it could have tried to continue the story without the main cast and moved on with a character that never appeared in the original. A title for movie like that would have been something along the lines of Scream: The New Cut - or some crap like that. Thankfully though, we get a bonified sequel.

However, considering how Scream 4 played out and ended (as well as Campbell's reluctance to be part of this sequel), I question whether this is an actual attempt to continue on with the series and start a new franchise (as has been reported) - because I just simply don't see how they could. Actually, I don't know whether or not they should (or if two more are even necessary). I personally, liked Scream 4 enough to consider it more of an encore to the original trilogy. Fans of the original wanted another - so they got it. To stop now feels right because Scream 4 was a nice nod to the original and had some nice commentary on the use of newer technology to 'stalk' or 'scare' somebody. I get a kick out of seeing somebody get just as scared by a text, tweet or Facebook message as they did by a phone call back in '96. Even the use of webcams to record the murders was all well incorporated by original Scream writer Kevin Williamson.

Despite a few flaws like the beginning (or beginnings, rather), I didn't feel like Scream 4 was a tired or used-up idea and actually had quite a good time revisiting Woodsboro - which is why I'm giving it an open door. Could it be better? I dunno - maybe. Will it knock your socks off with groundbreaking ideas and philosophies? No. Will you enjoy seeing Sydney kick the shit out of Ghostface? Hell yes! While you may get tired or the film being so self-referential, it's clear from the action on screen that the cast had a lot of fun making this one, and while I am reluctant - if Scream 5 and 6 comes out soon, I'll be seeing them as well. Let's just hope they have a plan...

*Stills courtesy of Dimension Films

Read more...

INSIDIOUS (2011)

While better than most, Insidious could still be better...

Insidious is insidious. Insidious is insidious. Insideous is insideous... That's the phrase wrapped around and littered throughout the trailer - and indeed, Insidious (the movie that is) is more or less, insidious. For those of you that don't know, the definition for 'insidious' goes something like this:

1. Proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects: "the insidious effects of stress".
2. Treacherous; crafty: "an insidious alliance".

This definition fits perfectly with the film - but not in the way that you may think (or want). So why is Insidious insidious? I'll tell you shortly. "It's not your house that's haunted, it's your son..." These are the words as laid out by Insidious' obligatory ghost whisperer, Elise Ranier (Lin Shaye). That tagline itself makes one believe Insidous may be a film like The Omen (1976), Children of the Damned (1964), or even the king of all creepy children-based films, The Exorcist (1973) - and that's not completely wrong either. Insidious does borrow from these classics. The rest of the story, however, revolves around a plot line I'm not keen on talking about due to the 'no spoilers' policy I have. Not that's its amazing (despite a hint of originality), but it does explain things quite well. So, score one for the cohesion of Insidious.

The story begins when Dalton Lambert (Ty Simpkins) falls off the ladder in his family's rickety attic - another obligatory horror movie staple. It's only days after the accident happens (where Dalton appears to be in an 'unexplained', permanent coma) that strange things start to happen in the house. First Dalton's mom, Renai (Rose Byrne), starts hearing strange voices through the baby monitor (a la Signs), then her other son, Foster (Andrew Astor), tells her he's afraid at night because he doesn't like it when Dalton walks around (yes, the one in the coma). It isn't much longer, either, until the real freaky stuff starts to happen.

It's this first part of the movie that I really enjoyed. It played out a lot like Paranormal Activity where the cinematography revealed little things at first that turned out to be big things (and those super-scared you). Then I got to what felt like the climax and that's when the movie reached it's high and I was left thinking "I think I love this movie - awesome." But that's the end of what I liked about Insidious. Again, I won't say why, but at this point the movie became less Paranormal Activity meets The Exorcism (two fantastic movies), and more 13 Ghosts (a movie not so fantastic). Like the trailer says, Insidious is insidious. Why? Because it's a bad movie in disguise.

Regardless of the negatives I've listed, though, I'm giving Insidious an open door. It's still a scary effen movie and most of people's reactions outside of the theatre were "Why did you take me to this?" and "I'm not sleeping tonight". In fact you may be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't think Insidious is effective in doing what it's supposed to - and when it comes to horror movies, what more can you ask for?

*Stills courtesy of Alliance Films

Read more...

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN (2011)

This is what happens when you tell them to get a job - they do.

There was once upon a time when you could tell the decade a movie was made during because of the qualities that particular film possessed. It doesn't take much more than hearing a tidbit of the score or a second or two of screen time for most people to recognize a non-classic from the 1930's, the 40's or the 70's and 80's. Even the movies from the last ten to twenty years have started to date themselves - and this is all due to quality of the film, the effects present and the titles.

Obviously when I mention these things, I'm not talking about films like Grease - which was shot in the 70's but took place in the 50's. I'm talking more about the types of films that have made it big as a result of the Grindhouse (2007) films, Planet Terror and Death Proof - resulting offspring also included last year's Machete. I'm not going to say I disliked these films though, I down right enjoyed them and that brings me to the film I'm here to talk about today - Hobo with a Shotgun.

The title itself is titillating and walking in I only knew the info I had gathered from the poster at my local Galaxy and a snippet or two from TV commercials. It's been a while since I walked into a cinema blind - and I'm glad I did. If the title didn't get me (I am partial to hobos as I have my own web series centered around one), the poster did. It screamed 70's style with a good taste for gore. What I was surprised with as Hobo began to roll, was that this was a movie more centered around the 90's. Wow, was I getting that old already that cheesy 90's films were now the new thing to spoof and create a camp out of?! Then I remembered, it was now 2011 which means the twenty-year rule had come to pass, and the early 90's were now a novelty (and fashion faux pas) and something to be ridiculed by the new generation. Not only that, but to top the 'cheese' cake off - Hobo was more or less Canadian-made (the presence of Trailer Park Boys star Robb Wells was the tip off for that nugget of info.).

So there I was, watching a Canadian-made flick (last one was the awful Score: A Hockey Musical) about a homeless man with an attitude problem that took place in the 90's and looked like something from the Dick Tracy cutting room floor. To be honest, I (at first) wasn't very happy. The acting was subpar, the cinematography cheesy, the actors unrecognizable and the film un'bear'able (an inside joke for those of you who've seen the film) - I was almost ready to walk out (a feeling I last got in Sucker Punch). Then something magical happened - I got through the first act and and that dang hobo (played amazingly well by Rutger Hauer) finally got his hands on a shotgun. Turns out all I needed was a little more action. Perhaps you won't understand until you see Hobo, but that's the moment that turned the film around for me and I felt writer and director Jason Eisener finally started to embrace just how perfect his hobo creation could be. Whether it be the witty lines or quirky sense of humour (or yes, the shotgun), Hauer's unnamed hobo finally came to life and breathed some perfection into Hobo with a Shotgun. While it's a stretch, I would like to see Hauer nominated for an Oscar for his roll in this film - that's how pitch perfect he hits his mark.

It wasn't any sooner that I hated the film than I was in love with it. The annoying characters were on screen just long enough, and the story was finally coming together. The story included a hooker (Molly Dunsworth) that befriends the hobo, by the way - and it pays off relatively well. He wants her to be a school teacher, and she wants him to mow lawns. In any other film that wouldn't work as a storyline - here it glows. The rest of the characters were whatever for me, although I did enjoy seeing Canadian 'treasure' George Stroumboulopoulos get a skate through his chest.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty (and believe me, it does) Hobo with a Shotgun may be a film that will have to grow on most (and be hated by others), but for now it gets an open door. I enjoyed the film and if you liked the Grindhouse treasures, you'll probably like this one too. If you want a typical action Michael Bay film, this won't work for you. Even most commercial horror fans wont dig Hobo the way some will. I wont ever go as far as attending a Hobo with a Shotgun fan-cult party, but I can see it eventually gaining that kind of appeal. For a movie that's somewhat flawed AND Canadian - in my books that kind of potential for a cult-following ain't a bad way to be remembered.

*Stills courtesy of Alliance Films

Read more...

THE RITE (2011)

The rite stuff.

Sir Anthony Hopkins is back to being as creepy as he possibly can in the year's first excorcism movie. Either the churches are pushing for more of these (it was only last September we were treated to The Last Exorcism) or Hollywood is thinking this is the new 'hot thing' - as it was thirty years ago. Either way, I'm happy to say that while The Rite has some moments of weakness, it's far better than Last Exorcism in style, acting and consistency.

Hopkins plays Father Lucas Trevant, an exorcist in Italy who has done more than 2, 000 exorcisms in his lifetime. We first meet up with Father Lucas when the lead character in the film, Michael Kovak (Colin O' Donoghue) is sent to him by a colleague. Kovak is there to acquire the proof he needs to make sure that the line of work he plans on entering (a Priest) isn't a big ol' sham. In a sense, Kovak represents us, the viewers.

What Kovak experiences in his first exorcism at the hands of Lucas, is enough to convince most people that this ritual isn't all smoke and mirrors. But not Kovak. He's a doubter and it'll take more than a few bloody nails being coughed up before he'll believe in the Devil. So what happens next? Well the Devil says "Fair enough, Michael. You want proof? You got it." The rest, as they say, is history.

At least that's what the filmmakers would like to you believe - that The Rite is not only inspired by true events (as it blatently states in the credits), but that it's an actual true story. This is where my only real issue with the film lies. While it's one thing to state this film is inspired by true events, it's another to state it's all fact using a couple of 'Here's where they are now' paragraphs randomly thrown in at the end of the movie. Now, I don't mind it when fictional movies try and seem real to add to their overall effect (Blair Witch, Paranormal Activity, etc). What I do mind, however, is when a perfectly fine narrative soils itself at the last minute by trying to throw in little factoids to make the whole thing seem 'scarier'. A movie going audience isn't naive and if you're not going to market The Rite as a true story from the get-go then don't try and squeeze it in last minute. Especially when your 'true story' facts go something like "Michael Kovak now runs a parish just outside of Chicago" - upon looking I found over 100 parishes in that area. In this case, the devil really is in the details.

Despite my peeve within relation to this feeble attempt at building a larger audience, I'm giving The Rite an open door. Hopkins was fantastic in it (as was most of the cast) and regardless of the female lead AliceBraga's two-dimensional character (not important enough to mention, really), the film and story are relatively fleshed out enough that you'll have a good enough time. The scary moments are scary, the creepy moments are creepy and the epic moments are - well, epic. Hannibal is back, baby!

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Read more...

SAW 3D (2010)

At the risk of sounding like I enjoy hanging out at a playground, I recommend you see Saw.

I first watched Saw (2004) when it came out on DVD. I liked it enough and was intrigued by the idea of fighting for your life, like, really fighting for your life in an effort to appreciate it more and live it to its fullest. It was amusing enough but only semi-stuck with me until Saw II was released the following year - at which point I was more or less hooked.

What I've always enjoyed about the Saw movies was similar to the enjoyment I got from watching serialized TV shows like Lost and Heroes. It was neat to see a question (introduced early on) become a mystery that was unanswered until much later. It was even better when there was evidence the filmmakers knew what they were doing from the beginning. I didn't hear of this being the case until Saw III hit theatres in 2006 - that apparently there were going to be "about seven" and they were already written out. I also really relished in the fact that being a horror fan, as a cohesive series, Saw never required the usual (and quite tedious) explanation of how the bad guy came back in the next one. Although I will never have fond memories for a horror series as much as I do Halloween (1978), I will say Halloween's sequels had become quite tedious and unorganized after the second in the series, Halloween II (1981).

So you can imagine my excitement when I was on the brink of seeing the last of the Saw series, Saw 3D. How would it end? What secrets lie within the chambers of this gorefest? Will the 3D be somewhat visually interactive? Also, will is suck? Alas, I found out the answers to all these questions.

Saw 3D starts out with an interesting premise. There are two guys stuck in a glass (and seemingly unbreakable) box in the middle of a very public center. It seems a girl is also in the box, but she is just as helpless. I won't get into the details of the trap itself as although it's not complicated, it's hard to explain without a visual - but the basic idea is that only two of the people in this trap can survive. What happens is pretty entertaining, if not gruesome. This is a Saw movie though, so you don't expect much less. Why I say it's interesting though, is because although this public thing is one time dillio in the movie, it seems they were onto something that could have made a much more interesting film. Normally in a Saw film you have these people who have gotten themselves into a sticky situation, but it's always in some old warehouse or abandoned building. The idea that an entire Saw film might take place in the public eye where other people are present and the victims are still helpless, though - now that's something that I would have liked to have seen.

However, after this little public fiasco, we find ourselves directly following the end of Saw 6, where Jigsaw's protege, Mark (Costas Mandylor) is on the hunt for Jigsaw's widowed wife, Jill (Betsy Russell) - who decided to turn Mark in once her feeble attempt to kill him failed. Mark won't give up easily, either and sets up Jigsaw traps one last time - for more than just the group of people directly involved.

Now, there was a lot of talk prior to the release of Saw 3D that maybe there would be some visually interactive shots it was in 3D. The tagline for the film afterall, was "The traps will come alive". Save for a few kind of neat shots, I'm saddened to report this was not the case. The closest I felt this film got to the level I wanted it to (as far as the 3D was concerned), was when a woman's face was getting closer and closer to spikes that would impale her eyes and mouth, and we got to experience her looming point of view. I also embarrassingly enough ducked a couple of times when guts where flying at the screen. Beyond that, although the 3D was okay, it certainly didn't make or break this movie - at least not to the point where they couldn't have simply titled it Saw VII.

Now, if I were to rate Saw 3D by itself, I would give it a closed door. Frankly, the gore was a little over the top - in the sense that it was awfully fake and although it did it's job and made you cringe, it also made you roll your eyes. The plot was just okay but was disappointingly familiar, and by the end of it all it was ultimately forgettable.

However, I am giving Saw 3D an almost honorary open door. The reason for this (as contradictory as it is) is because I've thoroughly enjoyed the series as a whole, and as aforementioned have appreciated the formulated and serialized storyline. Saw 3D is not just another part of this series, it is apparently the end (even if I doubt that fact very much). Since I have not reviewed any of the movies prior to this one, I feel as a send off and part of the saga it works and deserves to be in our good graces. Everybody knows what Saw is, and as an indie film that turned into the biggest horror franchise of the decade, I respect it. This may not be a film (or a film series, for that matter) for everybody. So I'm not saying this film is a must see. But for me, and for any other horror fans out there, I would recommend checking out the Saw series if you can. Despite it's commercial appearance, it's actually quite a creative and enjoyable series.

*Stills courtesy of Twisted Pictures

Read more...

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 (2010)

A lot more paranormal activity.

I don't think a person can begin to talk about Paranormal Activity 2 without speaking about the first film, Paranormal Activity. In my review for the first film I concluded it was a patient man's movie. If you gave it enough of your time and had the right atmosphere, the movie's quietness and eeriness would serve you well when the big moments came. I also mentioned that Paranormal Activity was also lacking a lot of those big moments. I later found out the film was made for only $11, 000 and this made those mistakes more forgivable. A sequel however, that has a budget roughly 200 times higher than that of the original, has no excuse for failing. Thankfully, it doesn't.

The movie opens with another couple, living in the suburbs. This couple has a fourteen year old daughter, and a baby boy named Hunter. At this point a person is not sure who these people are and how or if they connect to the previous film's stars, Katie and Micah. That guessing game doesn't continue for long as it is soon revealed that Katie (Katie Featherston)is the mother's sister. I would like to also apologize for the lack of character and actor names in this review, as IMDb and Paramount seem to want to uphold the illusion that this film is real - even if we all know otherwise.

It isn't long before unexplained things start to happen. It starts off small (the pool lights going out) and eventually gets bigger (shadows appearing and doors slamming). The good news here is that PA2 moves at a much quicker pace than it's predecessor, having things happen almost immediately - even if they aren't related to the actual 'paranormal activity'. The movie is told this time through a handheld camera accompanied by an in-home security camera system, which was installed shortly after a break-in during the first few minutes. It works effectively as this time we don't have to buy into the unlikely fact that someone will have a camera on them at all times. It also allows us to see events (no matter how big) unfold to individuals while alone at home.

I don't want to go much further into the plot. What I will comment on is that if you take a look at the poster for the film, you may notice that the baby in the crib is not in the reflection in the mirror - even though everything else is. This is not necessarily important to PA2, nor does it give anything away, it's just an interesting thing to take notice of.

I am giving Paranormal Activity 2 a wide open door. It was not only entertaining and vastly superior to the first, but its story also tied in very well in a way that sheds some unexpected light on the overall story. This is either a sequel ploy or it was planned all along. ;-) Not only does it move at a nice pace but it effectively scares and even shocks you at just the right moments , all without seeming cheesy. This is definitely a movie to see in the theatres not only this Halloween, but beyond the season as well. It's by far the scariest movie of the year and will not disappoint.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

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...

THE LAST EXORCISM (2010)

The power of Christ compels you! (to see this film)

"If you believe in God, you must believe in the Devil." That's the tagline for The Last Exorcism, a film about every aspect of religion from those that believe they don't believe, and those that can't believe that they actually believe. If that sounds confusing then your in the same boat as Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) - the subject of a documentary film that focuses on the hoax that is exorcism.

Marcus wasn't always a non-believer, in fact he was a child preacher born and raised by his father (also a man of God). Marcus used to perform exorcisms with his father and took over the family business as his father retired. Shortly thereafter, Marcus read an article about some rednecks somewhere that killed their child attempting an exorcism, all in the name of "Gettin' dat blasted demon outta 'er!" That's when he quit exorcisms all together - a job he was quite good at. Early in the film he shows all his tricks like a proud magician who's retiring - from the demon sounds someone will hear, to a shaking bed and the smoking cross he uses to place the proverbial cherry atop his glimmering exorcism sundae.

Marcus continued preaching though, as it was a "job (he) was doing so long and was good at" that there was no reason to quit. Plus he liked to perform even though he ceased to believe in the Almighty. At one sermon he even quotes his mother's banana bread recipe verbatim and simply spouts "Amen!" after and the "congregation goes wild!" - as they say. On top of all this he continues to receive exorcism requests via email, phone and snail mail - all saying the same thing - "possessed, livestock dead, strange sounds at night, please help, etc". Marcus takes one of those letters from the top of the pile and decides it will be his last exorcism, which (as aforementioned) he will use as an example of why its all a magic act used to scare people into wanting and needing religion.

Marcus follows the letter to the Sweetzer farm, where he meets Nell (Ashley Bell), a girl so sweet and naive that a demon could easily enter her soul and never leave. Well, just so happens... (insert non spoiler here). After an all out bells and whistles exorcism on Nell, Marcus deems her healed, collects his cash and is about to leave the Sweetzer farm forever - when some strange things start to happen. This is where the movie really starts.

The most prominent thing your likely to notice about the way Ashley Bell performs as Nell, is the fact that no CG or special effects were used to enhance her 'demonic possession'. In fact, its simply Bell bending in ways no normal human should. It works and boy howdy, it's damn freaky. Bell sells her performance well here and I liked it almost more than I liked Linda Blair's performance in The Exorcist (1973). Now, don't get me wrong, I LOVE The Exorcist. To say this is better is mere apples and oranges - they're of the same kind and only compliment each other. But Linda Blair's performance became scarier because of makeup and special effects, etc. Ashley Bell however, relies on nothing more than an empty look in her eyes and some double joints. It's a more organic performance and that's what I really liked about it.

What I also found interesting about The Last Exorcism was the way the story was told. The film had amazing foreshadowing and subtle hints about upcoming events. What was nice about it was they were subtle enough that you didn't know what they amounted to until the end. There may even be more little things I missed that will only be discovered upon a second watching. The other thing I found titillating was the idea that The Last Exorcism may not be as one dimensional as it appears to be. Throughout the film Marcus keeps on mentioning that his work (preaching, exorcising) is all based one key factor - illusion. Yet people blindly believe whatever he has to say. This film completely centers itself around the idea of illusion and uses it to its advantage. Is everything Marcus is seeing real or is it he who has fallen subject to smoke and mirrors? What is really happening with Nell? The other question surrounds the ending, which I'll leave you to see and debate.

Speaking of the ending - the only note I do want to make on it is that at the point the film ended, I could have easily stood watching another twenty minutes of The Last Exorcism without thinking it was too long. Instead, it sort of just ended in a way I wasn't really happy with. Other than this though, I had absolutely no problems with everything leading up to it. If you can recognize everything that came before and sort of push the early ending out of your head, this film will make you giddy.

I give The Last Exorcism an open door, and if you enjoyed The Exorcist or, more recently, 2005's The Exorcism of Emily Rose - you'll definitely have fun with this. I got jolted a few times and at the very least, I unexpectedly laughed more than once at the moments the filmmakers actually wanted you to. Its an all around enjoyable scare-fest. Praise the Lord and alleluia!

*Stills courtesy of Strike Entertainment

Read more...

PIRANHA 3D (2010)

Piranha bites – in a good way.

Elisabeth Shu stars as Julie Forester, a small town sheriff who’s busiest time of year is spring break - when all the youngins come to town to drink, skinny dip and give the middle finger to the Man. Her son, Jake (Steven R. Mcqueen) gets stuck in his usual good son role of babysitting his younger sister and brother, rather than going out and doing what kids his age should be doing. That is until Jake gets offered a job by the eccentirc producer of WildWildGirls.com, Derrick Jones (Jerry O’Connell). You see, Derrick needs a local to show him the hot spots in order to shoot his new spring break vid, and before Jake can even accept the job, he is on Derrick’s party yacht and they’re heading out to their first location. What they don’t know is something lurks below and around the town, unearthed by tremors that until now, have kept an underwater, prehistoric lake out of reach of the hands of time.

So what is it that lurks? Well, it’s not the tranny from Sleepaway Camp (1983) – although how fun would that be?! No, it’s the vicious, cannibalistic, 2 million year old ‘thought to be extinct’ original boss of the water – the piranha! And boy, do they know how to throw an ass-munching party. With all the naked and scantilly clad partiers in the water due to spring break, this is nothing short of an all you can eat for them – and the piranha are hungry!

Now, I liked this movie. I actually really enjoyed it. I compare it to Snakes on a Plane (2006) in the sense that Snakes on a Plane knew it was a bad movie, and it did it right. That’s what you get with Piranha, a really well done B movie that takes a note from the original – which is even represented in it’s posters. We even get a cameo from Richard Dreyfus who isn’t in it long, but (according to IMDB) is playing the same character he played in the basis for this and all ‘don’t go into the water’ movies – Jaws (1975). But he doesn’t steal the thunder here. By far the highlight of the movie is seeing ol’ Doc Brown himself, Christopher Lloyd, as the movie’s fish expert, Mr. Goodman. It took me straight back to the Back to the Future trilogy (which conincidentally also stars Elisabeth Shu). I would like to see this guy in movies more. It’s like seeing a favorite uncle you haven’t seen forever. Nothing but fond memories and grinning. I should mention Jerry O’Connell also takes over every scene he’s in. He knows the ridiculousness of this film, and O’Connell plays it to a tee. The rest of characters seem to fall into the shadows and when something does happen to them eventually, you just don’t care.

The only real problem I had with Piranha was its ending. Now, the ending itself isn’t the worst finish in the history of cinema, it just feels...unsatisfying. Throughout the movie you are building up to the climax where the piranha attack the folks visiting on spring break. Once you get to that scene (where the majority of budget was certainly spent), you unsurprisgingly have a huge smile on your face for the whole time its on screen (roughly 5-10 minutes). After that, it cuts to the end scene (which I won’t mention here), for a good 15-20 minutes. In the end, you have this huge buildup over the first hour and some and then it’s sorta like...nothing happens (or nothing you really care about anyways). So boourns to that.

Now, in the theatre I went too I was shocked and entertained when a set of parents walked in with their son and daughter who couldn’t have been more than ten. I assume they didn’t know what Piranha was exactly, but wanted to treat their kids to a 3-D movie. Which is cool, and I don’t blame them - Step Up 3D was the only other 3-D movie playing, and no matter what Piranha wasn’t going to be as damaging as that. However, this movie is still not for kids – at all. Not only is there your usual course language, but there’s also extreme gratuitous nudity and (because this film is produced by Hostel (2005) director Eli Roth) extremely shocking (and awesome) violence. Needless to say, I wasn’t shocked to see those same kids were missing from their seats immediately after the nude underwater ballet scene (which I’ll admit - as pointless as it is, is actually kinda pretty). So note to parents, go see something a little less damaging to your kids that they’ll like more – like Scott Pilgrim.

What I also want to share with all ye who look upon this review is that I too have experienced the wrath of the vicious, terrifying piranha. That is, I have three of my own red-bellied piranhas and although they have never attacked me personally, the feeder golddish I put into their tank every day or so certainly know how truly frightening these creatures can be. This may have been the initial thing that perked my interest in this film the first time I saw the trailer. At the time I thought nothing more of it than another peice of trash heading our way, courtesy of the Hollywood fat cats in order to capitalize on the popularity of 3-D.

Then I started to hear things. Be it in person or on the interweb, this film picked up some speed and it seemed more likeley we’d see another Snakes on a Plane rather than another bad Jaws ripoff. That’s when I knew I’d be seeing this movie before the drone of Oscar-driven movies werre released and pushed this thing into the cheap theatres, never to be seen again in 3-D or on the big screen.

I give Piranha 3D an open door, because it’s rare that you go see a bad movie that was supposed to be awful on purpose. It’s fun, and the actors have fun, and the violence is epic. The nudity is whatever, but exxxpected. This movie is a direct and accurate shoutback to the 70’s and 80’s cheesy horror movies that made me love the genre in the first place. I recomend you go see this before it leaves theatres, because it definitely won’t be as good at home.

*Stills courtesy of Atmosphere Entertainment MM

Read more...

SPLICE (2009)

Splice is not the film I thought it would be, or could be…

.

I think the most interesting thing about Splice is just how great it sounded before going in – and I wasn’t listening to people’s opinions from work, or friends or nuttin’. I’m talking about the hardcore, movie critiquing professionals out there that litter the web these days. To put that into further perspective, Splice has a rating of 74% on Rotten Tomatoes. Now I must make clear, I NEVER read a review for a movie until I see it. It’s the number one thing to avoid as a film critic because believe it or not, your view can and most likely would be swayed in one way or another. Somehow though, word of mouth got around and the general vibe I was feeling said that Splice was refreshing. I think the people that gave this type of vibe to this movie were looking for something deeper in Splice than was actually there.

Perhaps it was actress Sarah Polley that gave a credible aura to Splice. Maybe it was Oscar winning actor Adrien Brody that made people say “These two wouldn’t be involved in this project if this movie didn’t mean something”. But realistically, I’m not going to know until I complete this review and finish putting my own thoughts out there.

Simply put, Splice is either the smartest horror movie ever made, or it’s the worst. The first half of the movie plays out like an original, thought-provoking thriller influenced by Pan’s Labyrinth - while the last half plays out like the director of Snakes on a Plane walked in and said “I make the best worst movies ever, and I know exactly what your movie’s missing!”.

I have no doubt upon writing this monstrosity (no pun intended – no, seriously) that writer and director Vincenzo Natali had his idea, was on the right track and then his drunk-ass buddy walked in and said “Dude, you know what would be sick? Have Adrien Brody and the monster do it! That would be awesome!” To which Natali replied “Well, that is psychological and plays into Freud. Since the rest of the movie plays with morals, why not take it further?” Too far dude, too – damn - far.

This however comes into play when I say Splice may actually be a brilliant movie. The people I went to the movie with left saying things along the lines of “I will never forget what I just saw in there.” or “I’ve never seen anything so disturbing in my life.” I can imagine people saying the same things after leaving the first screening for Salvador Dali’s Un Chien Andalou. But does the fact a piece of art (yes, movies are still art) can have that affect on someone mean it’s good art? That’s just something to think about.

Regardless of whether Natali was trying to accomplish anything more than shock is to be debated. Splice however will undoubtedly become a cult classic for a lot of horror lovers because its juts plain creepy. But for this self-proclaimed horror lover, I am giving it a closed door. It must be noted that although I have talked the now infamous sex scene to death, I am not giving it a closed door simply because of that scene. What bothered me about Splice was the fact that the tone of the film changed in the theatre the second that scene happened. I also want to point out there are bad movies out there like The Squeakquel that are bad simply because they are bad. This movie fails because it’s disappointing and turns a good movie with big promise bad for no apparent reason. Splice went from respect for a smaller movie with some revered actors in it to a non-stop LOL fest simply because it got kind of ridiculous. For me, that’s unforgivable.

*Stills courtesy of Gaumont

Read more...

THE WOLFMAN (2010)

'The Wolfman' misses by a hair.

Oscar winning actors Anthony Hopkins and Benicio Del Toro take the male leads in The Wolfman as father and son, Lawrence and Sir John Talbot. After the death of his brother, Ben, Lawrence reunites with his father and Ben's bride-to-be, Gwen, played by Emily Blunt. Taken aback by how distraught the beautiful Gwen is by Ben's death, Lawrence agrees to not rest until he finds Ben's killer. After seeing Ben's body, Lawrence comes to realize this isn't your typical "Ripper case".

Lawrence finds himself at a gypsy camp after coming across a talisman he found with his brother's belongings. While at the camp, a blur of hair and blood take over the scene as a growling, barking monster tears up the camp and everyone in it. Lawrence decides to run after the beast but soon finds himself with a chunk taken out of his neck, but luckily alive. The gypsy woman who helps to repair him though, assures him in one month's time during the next full moon, he may not be so fortunate.

After a time lapse and a montage of Lawrence tossing and turning, the worst seems to be true come the first full moon. It appears he is after all, a wolfman. You can guess what starts to happen from here.

The Wolf Man was released in 1941 and is considered to be one of the great monster movie classics of all time. At the time the effects were astounding, and story spellbinding. And for over 70 years, it has remained untainted despite older movies like Teen Wolf and newer ones like Underworld and Twilight bringing werewolves back into the spotlight. That is, it has remained untainted until now.

I believe when it comes to classic movie remakes (especially ones that are this old) its important to make sure you pay a certain homage to the original for which your film is based, as well as making newer decisions that help to make the story stronger. So it is beyond me that with two Oscar winning actors, a large budget and an established fan base why a unique movie such as this can turn out to be such a disappointment.

Before I go into that, its important to point out the good - the look of the wolfman is wonderful. Lawrence in his beast form is not a pure werewolf, he is exactly as the title describes - part wolf, part man. The transformation scenes are exceptional, although I don't know if bad CG is acceptable anymore, especially after Avatar. The transformations make sense in the way the bones under the skin move and the way the sharp wolf teeth break through his gums. Hugo Weaving's Abberline is also an entertaining character in this film as well, but perhaps only because of his fellow actors' performances - which brings me to the bad.

Shame on you both Mr. Del Toro and Mr. Hopkins. It's pretty clear neither of you cared much about this film. Both of your performances were phoned in and uninspiring. In films and theatre there's something called the suspension of disbelief. In most cases a viewer is able to sink into this suspension within the first 10 minutes of any movie. I was not able to get into it until over an hour into Wolfman - and I was out of it just as quickly. For this I will not only blame these two actors, but the writer Andrew Kevin Walker who also worked on Sleepy Hollow and Se7en. Its seems like the makers of this film had an idea for a bunch of really cool scenes, that they threw them together into a movie and decided it was good enough. And there was definitely more that could have been done here, and one of those might have been to slow things down a little and really let the viewer feel what Lawrence is going through. Instead your left feeling like you could care less what happens to either him or those he cares about. You're more likely to think "wow, that wolfman looks cool howling at the moon" vs "wow, that sucks what Lawrence is going through". This is all outside of probably the worst death scene to grace silver screens since . . . you know, I don't actually know. But I did find what most people call the worst death scene of all time on YouTube, from a low-budget film called Hard Ticket to Hawaii.


The fact here is that in most films (either good or bad) a strong ending can save the entire movie. This movie's ending is disappointing and uneventful and (along with the acting and the story) that is why I am saying leave this a closed door and see something else instead. There's enough Oscar nominated films playing right now and unless you've seen them all first, skip The Wolfman and save yourself from disappointment.
*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...