movie review: Scream (Franchise)

      
       Confession time, I have been crazy busy this month, which is why I haven't been posting much for Halloween month.  So to make up for that I'm doing an entire franchise, the slasher series from the 90s that was revived recently for a fourth installment.  Another confession, these movies are a bit of a guilty pleasure for me.  That all being said, lets get on with this.

       Scream is a slasher series that sets itself apart from others in a few different ways; the killer is not a supernatural being bent on murdering everyone in sight, but a killer usually with ties to the heroine Sydney Prescott.  But what really sets the series apart from others is that their is a character in each of them that explains what will happen because the killer plays by the same rules as other slasher movies.  Thus the audience can choose to listen and nothing is a surprise (well almost nothing), or pass it off as false and everything is a mystery.

Scream

       In the original Scream we get a few fairly well known actors including Drew Berrymore, Henry Winkler, Matt Lillard, Courtney Cox, David Arquette, and Neve Campbell to name a few.  The movie  did something few movies had the nerve to do, killed off the only A list actress in the first 10 minutes.  This meant everyone was now free game and nobody was safe.  This movie also began the downfall of Winkler's career as a "cool"guy.  The first movie is your standard high school slasher film; most of the characters are in high school, their is a party, their is a virgin, and all the adults are completely useless.

Spoiler Section

       As the movie goes on we learn that Sydney's mother was murdered and at the time her lover, Cotton, was falsely accused by Sydney.  At the time of the murder the only one who felt Cotton was innocent was a tabloid journalist named Gale Weathers.  Gale feels the new murders are related and opens the possibility that Sydney's own father is the killer since nobody can find him.  The movie did a decent job of keeping you guessing who the killer was, until the end when it's revealed there are two killers; the guy everyone assumes is the killer but he has an alibi, and his best friend that is clearly being manipulated.  It turns out the killings are connected, but not as expected.  Turns out Sydney's mom had a reputation for sleeping around, one of the men she had an affair with was the father of Sydney's boyfriend Billy Loomis, which destroyed their marriage and his father left them.  So Billy killed her for it and a year later he started the Ghostface killings just because.

Scream 2

       Scream 2 is in my opinion is the weakest of the series.  Two years later Sydney is in college now and the original killings were made into a movie called "Stab".  Cotton Weary has been released from prison after it was revealed he was innocent, and a copycat killer is now on the loose.  All of the survivors of the previous series return, the rules of a sequel are established, and the movie gets underway.  Like the previous film we are given multiple suspects each with their own motives including Sydney's new boyfriend Derek, the newly released Cotton, her best friend Hallie, and Mickey a classmate.

Spoiler Section

       The reason I felt this was the weakest of the series is because the killer ends up being someone totally different than the list of suspects.  The film sets up Derek, much like the previous one did, but out of left field we are given Mickey the random classmate who is the lackey.  The actual mastermind is a bit more interesting, the main killer is Mrs. Loomis, the mother of Billy Loomis the original killer.  She is after all the survivors to get revenge for her sons death.  Of course she is insanely incompetent and only manages to kill one of the original survivors, the only guy who knows the rules, Randy.  Meaning her revenge plot failed miserably.

Scream 3

       Rotten Tomatoes claims that Scream 3 is bad, and while I do agree that by this point it has all been done before, by comparing them all side by side this one isn't all that bad.  In this film Sydney is in self-imposed isolation after the last few films.  However in Hollywood Cotton is murdered by a new Ghostface, and actors in the new Stab movie are being offed by this new killer as well.  Thus Sydney is forced to rejoin society to help find the killer.  What's left of the survivors from the previous films are reunited again and Randy's sister delivers a video of her brother explaining the rules of a trilogy...there are no rules.  And with that our movie truly begins.  In this film our suspects are everyone, and since the previous films use multiple killers it's a safe assumption that this one does as well.

Spoiler Section

       The film has some flaws, the biggest being it breaks it's own rules.  It is established that nobody is safe, not even Sydney, but when the killer is revealed we learn it is all about hurting Sydney before killing her, rather than what we are told will happen.  The killer in this one also comes out of left field, there is only one this time and until we learn his past he is the only guy who has no motive.  The killer is Sydney's half-brother who orchestrated the original killing of Sydney's mother, grooming Billy Loomis into a killer, even teaching him to take an accomplice who will be the fall guy.  His motives for killing his mother is that she left him and disowned him, his reason for killing Sydney is that she became famous for her part in the Ghostface killings.  So he became the director of the newest Stab film and started killing the cast to throw off suspicion and draw out Sydney.  I find this to be a way better motive for murder than Mrs. Lommis' revenge for her psycho son, or Billy's just for the hell of it.  And the ending also had a more satisfying feel to it than the previous films; Sydney finally rejoined society after years of being untrusting of the world around her.

Scream 4

       Scream 4 is my personal favorite of the series.  It manages to be a reboot without actually rebooting the series, and even pokes fun at horror movie reboots in general.  It is 15 years after the original Ghostface killings and the town has made the date into a holiday (like what often happens), however this year is different, because there is a new Ghostface on the loose.  Sydney has returned home (which actually sparks the new killings) and Gale and Officer Dewey are going through a rough patch in there relationship.  But as with the rest of these movies the survivors all band together with the new characters to solve the killings.  The new characters this time is Sydney's younger cousin Jill and her friends, returning the films to high school.  The Randy replacement is Kirby, a horror junkie played by Hayden Panettiere, honestly a vast improvement (Kirby almost instantly became my favorite character in the franchise).  She and the rest of the AV club explain the rules of a reboot to Gale, and informs her of a party where all the high schoolers watch the entire Stab franchise during the weekend of the anniversary.  There are more killings, more satire, until the inevitable conclusion.

Spoiler Section

       The killer this time is an interesting twist, unlike the other three movies where it is someone connected to Sydney's mother, the new killer is motivated by Sydney herself.  it turns out that all of these years of Sydney being almost a celebrity for her knack of survival, Sydney's cousin was driven mad with jealousy.  She uses the disguise of Ghostface to kill and get away with it.  Originally she planned to pin it all on her ex boyfriend, but with Sydney's return she chose a different route.  Like the original she had an accomplice, and the try to make themselves look like victims but Jill ends up killing him.  She then pins the killings on Sydney herself who "went crazy after years of survivor's guilt."  Of course in the end she is found out after she divulges too much information to Dewey.  This movie also got some unwarranted hate from critics.  Personally I feel as far as horror films go this one isn't bad, especially compared to other reboots.  With all of the in-jokes and references to other movies this film is more fun than scary, which is probably why I like it.

Other notes

       These movies despite being fun to watch, the movies do in fact still have flaws.   Chief among them is the fact the killers motives are rather flimsy.  Also the rules established are often broken simply to allow Sydney to survive.  After the first movie it became difficult to finger the killer, usually because their motives are not revealed until after the killer is already revealed.  Either that or we never see the killer until the mask is taken off.

Final Verdict

       As the series progressed it lost the originality that it started with, but it remained a great slasher film none the less.  And even the series became a parody of other series by recycling things it did before, and even rebooting itself.  In short Scream is the ultimate horror film parody.  And for that I give the franchise a B, with a slightly higher rating to Scream 4, and slightly lower one to Scream 2.

Review: Carrie (Original/2002 remake)

       Well it's October again, and that means more horror movie reviews.  This particular review deserves a little backstory.  A year ago I wanted to do a reboot vs remake of this movie, but Netflix only had the reboot so I had to change the plan.  This year they had the original, but not the reboot.  So this review will be primarily on the original, but with some notes about the reboot as well.  So with that all out of the way here is my review of Carrie.

Plot (Spoiler Section) 

        For the few of you on the planet who don't know the plot, a poor high school girl finds out she has telekinesis, and really wants to fit in with her peers.  But her mother believes that society is evil, and enforces strict control over her daughter, often locking her in a closet until she apologizes for her sins.  She has a very traumatic scene towards the beginning where all of the girls in the locker room torment her.  One of the girls ends up feeling sorry for her and another blames Carrie for not being allowed to go to the prom.  At the prom the girl pulls a prank on her that results with her going into shock and her powers going wild, killing many students/faculty, and destroying a large part of the town.

       I can see how this is considered a classic, but if I'm being honest there are parts I think worked better in the 2002 version.  For example the relationship between Sue Snell and Carrie; in the original Sue felt bad for tormenting Carrie and asked her boyfriend, whom Carrie has a crush on, to take her to prom...that's it.  In the 2002 version Sue actually befriended Carrie and hung out with her.  Another part is the ending, while both were good, I think I preferred the remake, Carrie killed her mother in self defense, and then Sue arrives and resuscitates Carrie, they both run away to find others like her and prevent this tragedy from happening again.  In the original Carrie dies and is made into a cautionary tale, still a great ending, but their is ark for the characters.

End Spoiler section

The Characters

       Carrie has a small handful of major players, their is the titular Carrie, her zealot mother, mean girl Chis, Chris' boyfriend Billy, Repentant tormentor Sue, and Sue's boyfriend/Carrie's love interest Tommy.  In the original most of these characters can be summed up like I just did.  This gives the film a rather simplistic feel that keeps it easy to follow.  The 2002 remake did pretty much the same thing, but the character of Sue Snell is expanded upon.  But the original made a fatal mistake, they got John Travolta, but reduced him to about 2 lines.  The remake had Billy as a future serial killer who was hilariously fun to watch.

       To be honest The characters are the weakest part of the movie.  Followed very closely by it can all be summed up in 2-3 sentences.

Other Observations and Notes

       The first thing I want to point out is that Steven King has a very distinct way of storytelling.  He loves to be over descriptive and make every character summed up in one sentence, often bordering on the ridiculous.  This results in a lot of exposition with a short payoff, with Carrie it works but some of his other work this becomes painfully obvious.  I thoroughly enjoyed the original, but I personally don't understand why the remake gets so much crap when it's basically the same move, just updated.  But hey, following the trend perhaps next year I'll review the New new version.

Final verdict

       As I said before I really liked this version, though it isn't all that scary, and to be honest isn't much of a horror movie.  But it is a great movie that deserves your viewership.  And it is for that reason that I am giving this movie a B+.  The review would have been longer if not for as I said before, the 2002 version is basically the same movie.  feel free to leave a comment below.

Movie Review: Man of Steel

       Normally I don't review new movies, but I felt that this movie in particular needed a review from someone who wouldn't knock it simply because it wasn't like the original movies.  As a fan of Superman since I was a child, it always bothered me that the whole time I was growing up we never got a decent movie...until now.  Man of Steel is is a darker, more realistic take on Superman similar to Nolan's Batman trilogy.  This movie also had the only director I felt could handle the visual style needed for a proper Superman film; Zack Snyder.  Because there is so much history for the character, and DC's recent reboot destroying all of that; I approached this movie as an Elseworld story (DC's Alternate Realities), as I urge all others to do as well.

The Plot

       As a reboot the plot is a retelling of Superman's origin story.  However the movie takes enough liberties with the story that even I was surprised when certain events happened.  Basically the movie starts with the destruction of Krypton, like every Superman origin should, but as soon as the rocket lands on Earth the movie fast forwards to an adult Clark, something I was OK with, but I did want some interactions with his parents.  Eventually we did, in the form of flashbacks, that were out of order.  The flashbacks were good, but I would have preferred if they were simply together as his childhood, then jumped to him as an adult.  The villain in this was General Zod and his army of Kryptonians, who in this movie had an actual reason behind their actions.  While the movie had a strong focus on Kal-El, Clark Kent took a backseat in this story.  The entire movie was about Clark trying to find a place in the world, and stumbling upon his heritage, eventually deciding to become Earth's protector.  Meanwhile reporter Lois Lane is hot on his trail investigating miracles that have been happening since Clark's childhood, and an alien ship discovered in Canada's frozen tundra.  Eventually She finds him and becomes the sort of middleman between the humans and Kryptonians.  The movie's climax is an all out battle between Earth and Zod's armies.  There is incredible collateral damage and quite possibly the greatest superhero battle seen on screen.  The ending sees Clark adopt his duel personality and step up as the public defender of Earth.

       Honestly I can't find much wrong with the story.  I felt it was a great Sci-Fi story and a very unique take on the most iconic hero ever.  The only problem I could say is that Nolan's hand is far too noticeable and Goyer's writing can be hit and miss, creating plot holes bad characters, and bad dialogue.  But this can be overlooked for the most part, however in some spots it becomes unforgivable.

The Characters

       The weakest part of this movie in my opinion were the characters, two in particular were unforgivable in how they were done.  The first was Lois Lane portrayed by the fantastic Amy Adams, however when it comes to Superman Amy Adams is more suited to another character, Lana Lang, Her Lois however was a little too sweet.  Lois is meant to be a bull headed, sarcastic, and almost masculine in her personality.  Amy Adams is simply playing the same part she usually does here, making Lois more of a damsel in distress than she should be.

       Next is Kevin Costner's Pa Kent, I'm all for making changes, but Pa Kent is the one that convinces Clark to use his gift to help people in every iteration of the character, and in some stories it is his death that gives him the push to become Superman.  Here Kevin Costner gives a boring performance and spends Clark's whole childhood convincing him to hide his powers, even at the cost of human lives...even his own.  That's right, Pa Kent dies in order to teach Clark a lesson to not show his powers.

       On the opposite end of the spectrum is Faora.  I was skeptical at first when I heard Faora would be replacing Ursa, and that she was to be played by a scream queen (female horror movie actor), but I was blown away by her in the film, she was Zod's number 2, and even got a rival in the army Colonel  in charge of the attack on the Kryptonians.

       Another character done really well was Perry White.  In the movie he is played by Lawrence Fishburne.  I never really got Perry, he was Clark and Lois' boss, but he never really did much for the story.  In Man of Steel however he proves that he is capable of much more than I imagined, he protects Lois when she is getting to close to a government cover-up, and even risks his own life attempting to save one of his employees, making peace with the fact he will die with her until Superman saves them both at the last second.

       Then there was Jor-El played by Russel Crowe.  I didn't expect much here because Jor-El is dead for most of the movie, and Russel Crowe is known for giving unenthusiastic performances, but here it really worked.  He was playing an emotionless alien in the beginning, who returned later as an artificial intelligence.

       The other characters were nothing really special in wither direction, they were simply what you would expect from a Nolan movie, so I'll leave it at that.

What I'd Change

       Like with every movie, there are things that I would prefer were different.  In Man of Steel many of my changes are already addressed in my review, rather than Amy Adams as Lois, I'd save her for Lana in a later movie, and instead use an actress known for being more sarcastic and headstrong; like Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter, in fact, she's perfect for it, I'd go with her.  Next I would move all the flashbacks to the beginning, in order, to make a more linear story and distance the comparisons with Batman Begins.  While on the topic of the flashbacks, Kevin Costner's Pa Kent shouldn't have happened, it was just wrong.  I know this isn't the comic version of Superman, but the Kent's shouldn't hold Clark back, they should be pushing him to be the man he is destined to be.  The last thing I would  change is the inconsistency with Zod.  In the movie the Kryptonians are all genetically engineered to fill a specific role.  Zod is to be the ultimate warrior who will to anything for the good of Krypton, even start a revolution to remove the incompetent leaders from power.  The problem is that Zod is beaten up...a lot, first by a scientist (Let that sink in), and later by the first naturally born Kryptonian in centuries who never got in a fight in his life.

Sequel Ideas

       If I was to make the sequel I would give Superman a little more personality.  the movie makes him the Boy Scout that everyone says he is, but I feel superman should be more confident, and even borderline arrogant.  In the first movie I'm okay with a more broody Clark, but now that he is more comfortable in his role he needs to be more confident as well.  This is alluded to at the end of the movie, but I want them to do more with it.

       As for the villain, I want Lex, I know all the Superman movies have only had 2 villains, and Lex was in all 5 of them, but Lex is Superman's arch enemy.  They can add another villain as well, but Lex is even set up perfectly; an army of unstoppable aliens almost destroyed his planet, now one is left and we are all supposed to accept him?  Honestly I want to see Lex working with the military to create a protector that can take down Superman if needed, but the superhuman they make turns on them.  They could use someone like say Metallo, or Parasite, then we get a big Snyder style battle, and end it with Lex in his exo suit fighting Superman in a massive showdown.  Lex can be played by someone with a commanding presence like say Jon Hamm, or Michael Fassbender, and for Metallo use Mark Pelligrino.

       Another character I want to see, that was alluded to in the movie, as well as the prequel comic, is Supergirl.  In the prequel it is revealed Supergirl crash landed on Earth years ago, and in Man of Steel her there is an empty pod on the ship that was meant to be her.  The movie could use her to fuel Lex's paranoia because she doesn't understand how the Earth works, or her own strength so she is bound to cause some problems.  Find a competent younger actress, like Chloë Grace Moretz, to play her and there you go, I just came up with an outline that would work really well.

       The biggest thing for a sequel however is not to follow in Marvel's mistake with Iron Man 2, and don't simply make a build up for the future Justice League movie, make it self contained, but with references to the other characters.  Though honestly I feel a Justice League movie that recasts everyone except Superman is a bad idea, especially since Green Lantern and Dark Knight Rises are still so fresh in our memories.

Final Verdict

       All in all Man of Steel is my favorite Superman movie to date, but it still isn't the one I've been waiting for, maybe the next one could be however.  Comparing it to other Superhero movies I have to say, it was better than Batman Begins, so a solid origin story that has the potential to be one of the best superhero franchises of our time if handled right, and definitely not deserving of all the hate the critics are giving it.  A grade this movie at an A-.

Rapidfire Reviews: Scott Does The Oscars pt 2

       In this installment I will be reviewing all the movies up for best animated film this year.  Unfortunately I never saw Frankenweenie, so I won't review it, but I saw the rest so I can probably make a decision as to which was the actual best movie based on that.

Brave

       Brave is the actual winner of the award, and though it was good I don't think it was the best.  The movie follows princess Merida who is being forced to choose a suitor, but she doesn't want this finds a witch who turns her mother into a bear.  When she goes back to the witch she is out of town and Merida and her mom must find a way to reverse the spell.  The movie isn't as humorous as I was expecting for a Pixar movie, and it was clearly aimed at an older audience, however the biggest problem with this movie is that it was originally an entirely different movie that was obviously edited together with the new script.  It was a great movie to be sure, but I felt it was a little lacking for Pixar, especially after Toy Story 3.  I give the movie an A-.

Paranorman

       If I did this entry yesterday like I planned to, this movie wouldn't be here, but I found it on Netflix last night and watched it.  The plot is a boy named Norman can see ghosts, and his "crazy" uncle who has the same gift dies.  His ghost tells Norman that he was the one keeping the Witch's curse at bay and now that responsibility falls on Norman.  However Norman is unable to prevent the curse and the bodies of those who persecuted the Witch rise from the dead.  The movie has some interesting plot twists I don't want to spoil so you'll just have to watch it.  It also has a first in a children's movie, again a twist.  I really enjoyed this movie, the characters were likable, the plot was original, and all the twists kept the movie a surprise.  However the animation was a bit jerky, even for a claymation film and the character designs were a bit uninspired.  I give Paranorman a B+.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

       Possibly the funniest movie on this list.  Pirates is about a pirate captain named Pirate Captain who wants to win pirate of the year.  While plundering he runs into Charles Darwin who informs him his parrot is actually a Dodo bird and they go to England to enter a science contest.  I was laughing the entire movie and even forgave how predictable the film was.  With character names like Pirate Captain, Suspiciously Curvacious Pirate, and Pirate Who Loves Rainbows and Unicorns, this movie has to be funny.  Sadly however as I mentioned before the film was extremely predictable, to the point where I knew what would happen before it did.  And it is this predictability that forces me to give the film a B+.

Wreck-It Ralph

       Wreck-It Ralph is about a video game villain living in an arcade who gets tired of being the bad guy and decides to game jump.  This leads to Fix-It Felix, the games hero having to find Ralph before their game is unplugged because Ralph is missing.  All the games shown are parodies, so don't expect Mushroom Kingdom or Green Hill Zone to appear, and the video game characters that are in the movie are only in to for only a few minutes as cameos.  Disney is great at taking ideas nobody thinks of, and making them into amazing movies, this is no exception.  The movie did an amazing job of developing all of the plot points and characters, as well as tell a fantastic story with some great jokes.  This is my personal favorite movie on this list, and I give it an A.

       Well there are the reviews of the best animated movies of the year.  If you have anything to say about my opinions, feel free to leave a comment below.

Rapidfire Reviews: Scott Does The Oscars pt 1

       Its been a while since I did a movie review, so I decided to go big and tear the Oscars a new one.  I'm not going to review any of the movies I haven't seen, which sadly is a couple of the Oscar-Bait movies, but honestly these are usually overrated.  These are in my rapidfire format so about 1-2 paragraphs each, starting with best picture nominees.

Argo

       Argo is about a fake film crew in Iraq sneaking American diplomats out of the country.  Its based on a true story and is the winner of the Best Picture award.  The movie itself is full of historical inaccuracies, though to be honest it is understandable because the original event was quite frankly, a little boring.  The Acting is great, the plot is great, and Ben Affleck is an incredible director.  If you haven't seen it, I can't recommend it for everyone but it is a great movie.  However if I personally was in charge of selecting the winner, this one would be the runner up, because their is another on this list that I enjoyed even more.  I rate this movie a solid A.

Django Unchained

       Django Unchained is about a former slave who teams up with Dr. King Schultz to track down the Brittle brothers, in return Schultz helps Django track down his wife who was sold to another plantation and tries to free her.  I took my father to this one for his birthday because his favorite movies are Spaghetti Westerns, and one done by my favorite director had to be awesome.  And it was, the movie manages to balance humor, action, and drama far better than any other movie on today's list.  The only issue here is the outrageous use of profanity, which is standard for a Tarantino movie, but can turn a lot of viewers away from it.  This is my favorite movie from the list, because of my father I grew up as a huge fan of cowboys, and this one has many historical accuracies you don't usually see.  On top of that it also makes some changes that are so obvious there is no question that they never really happened.  I give this movie an A.

Life of Pi

       In Life of Pi a man is telling a writer the story of when he was lost at sea as a boy with a tiger.  That's about it, nothing really happens in it.  Honestly I didn't like it.  There was a few twists at the end that actually made the movie even more ridiculous.  It was also praised for how visually amazing it was, which I personally didn't see, the reflective water was cool, but all other effects were painfully obvious.  The Tiger for example was far more fake looking than television animals.  Though I'm the only person I know who didn't think this movie was amazing.  But because this review is based on personal opinion, and mine is this movie is mediocre, so I rate it a C+.

Lincoln

       Lincoln is about the 13th amendment becoming a reality.  The movie is oddly compelling considering how boring the premiss is and the fact nothing happened.  There is also one major historical inaccuracy that as a history major kinda pissed me off.  Overall however I really enjoyed the movie, but if I was the one who made it there are a few changes I'd make, the first would be to fix the inaccuracy I mentioned earlier.  Next I would add more footage of the civil war, considering the whole plot centered around the civil war I found it a bit odd that it was only shown for roughly 30 seconds.  Lastly I would fix the ending, for those who don't know their history; Lincoln was murdered while at the theater, in the movie they show the wrong theater.  I would have ended it the scene before when he is walking away to dramatic music, or showed Lincoln at the theater and have Boothe walk up behind him, fade to black or raise the camera so they're out of view, then gunshot.  However I still loved the movie and I give it an A-.

Zero Dark Thirty

       This movie is about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, from September 11th, to a little after his execution.  The main character is fictional and meant to simply give us a face to follow over the 10 year timespan.  The movie can be hard to follow at times, but it's mostly because of the timespan.  The movie had some controversy because it depicts realistic torture, which honestly I enjoyed seeing because it added realism...not because I'm a psycho, it was actually hard to watch.  This movie also doesn't have much action, but the suspense more than makes up for it.  The ending also has a bittersweet feel to it, the main character, after spending her entire career, and a large amount of her life hunting down the same man is done, and has no idea what to do next.  All things considered I give this movie an A-.

       I realize I didn't have all the movies here, but I haven't seen a few of them, though I'm going to see Silver Lining Playbook soon.  If you have anything to say about my reviews today, feel free to leave a comment below.

Rapid Fire Movie Recomendations: 2012 sleepers

Originally I was planning to do a top 10 list, but I had not seen a couple of the movies that I was told I had to see, then I realized that my top 10 list may not be universal for all the tens of readers I have.  So instead I'm just going to throw out a lot of mini reviews, try not to spoil good new movies, and pass on my opinion of some movies.  All of these movies are ones that I liked, and would pay money to see.

DREDD

       This movie was awesome, and easily in my top 5 favorites of the year, Dredd is based on the comic book and is about a gruff veteran judge, the police force of this universe, taking a rookie to a crime scene to evaluate her.  At the crime scene the judges discover crime is connected to the biggest new drug on the street.  The judges are then locked in the building they are in and the drug kingpin, Ma-Ma places a bounty on them.  So the Judges must fight their way to the penthouse and stop Ma-Ma to win their freedom.  Sounds pretty basic, but it does everything so well and takes risks putting twists on old concepts.  Needless to say this movie is violent, in fact that's where the R rating comes from, but there isn't too much language, and the only sex scene in it is from angles where you don't see anything.  This movie is for those who enjoy action, but are tired of all the cliches that usually go with them.

Cabin In The Woods

 

       Cabin In The Woods was another surprise, sort of, I'm a huge Joss Whedan fan, but not much of a horror freak, but this one was different.  Basically all the cliches are there, but exaggerated and poked fun at.  So this is a horror movie for those who like to make fun of horror movies.  This one also has a huge twist either makes or breaks the movie for everyone.  This is for those who can see the movie for what it is, a parody that also stays true to the genre.  If you liked Buffy or Angel, this is in the same spirit, but for a far more adult audience.  

Red Dawn

       To be honest this is a guilty pleasure.  Chances are most people will hate this one.  Honestly I felt this was a fun popcorn flick that stayed true to the original while still managing to modernize in most aspects.  But if you read my review of this one earlier this year you'll remember I found many small flaws with it.  But again it doesn't take itself seriously, and neither should the viewers.  I don't have much here because I already did this one.  I recommend it for those who want a popcorn movie, either to kill some time, or you plan to grab a drink with the guys, its an action movie filled with actors that most watch grow up.

       A drastically different movie than the others on this list.  This was another one that surprised me.  I was home from college for the summer and my mother bought it.  Then on vacation with some young relatives I needed something to watch that was OK for them, so we watched this one.  This is a feel good movie for the whole family that is based on a true story.  there is a small twist at the end I sort of saw coming, but it was a little predictable.  That being said I found it good and recommend it for anyone who has kids and wants a slightly more grown-up movie to watch with them, or if you want a feel good movie that isn't totally contrived and predictable.

       Well there are 4  movies that 2012 gave us that seemed to slip past the more casual movie-goer, I'm sure there were more, but this was only a fast entry.  Feel free to post your own or comment on my choices.  Until next time.

Movie Review: Carrie (2002)

       As my October Horror fest continues I fund this movie on Netflix.  I had originally intended to do this one as an Original vs Remake, but alas, Netflix doesn't have the original, and with a new remake coming out in March I felt it would be better to wait and do all three films at once.

       This is a movie that was made for television 10 years ago, and because my reviews tend to have a lot of spoilers, I prefer to do movies that are a few years old, or everyone has seen such as The Hunger Games.

       The movie is about a girl named Carrie, who's mother is a fundamentalist Christian, meaning Carrie is sheltered and abused her entire life.  So when she goes too school she is treated as an outcast.  When she is 16 she is showering after gym when she has her first period, because of her sheltered life she freaks out and believes that she is bleeding to death.  This leads the other girls to make fun of her.  At this time she begins to  exhibit mild telekinesis by causing a light bulb to explode.  Later that day she becomes frustrated by the principle's inability to remember her name and moves his desk a few inches with her mind.  When she returns home her mother tells her the reason for what happened to her is because she wasn't pure enough and God was punishing her, she then drags Carrie into a closet and locks her in until she finishes praying for forgiveness.

       The next day the other girls prank her for what happened yesterday by filling her locker with tampons.  When the gym teacher finds out about this she is furious and gives them all detention.  When the ringleader of the prank skips detention, she is suspended for three days and her prom tickets are taken from her.

       As time passes one of the girls feels remorse for what they did to Carrie and decides to befriend her, even going so far as to ask her boyfriend to take her to prom instead to make her feel better.  Needless to say her fundamentalist mother is not a fan and constantly tries to talk her out of it.  However Carrie has been honing her telekinesis as well and is now able to control her mother, or at least stopped the physical abuse.

       While this is going on the main bully, Chris, is plotting a way to get back at Carrie for taking away her chance to be prom queen.  This involves her and her EXTREMELY creepy boyfriend breaking into a pig farm, killing one of the pigs, and draining its blood into a bucket.

       At the prom Carrie begins to have a good time, and everyone else begins to treat her like a normal person as well.  In fact at the end of the night she is voted prom queen.  This is where the actual horror of this movie begins.  While Carrie is accepting her crown Chris dumps the bucket of pig blood on top of her, this causes Carrie to go into shock.  The bucket then falls and lands on her date's head, killing him.  This is when all hell breaks loose. In her state of shock Carrie loses control of her power and burns down the gym after locking everyone in.  She then leaves the prom and causes more destruction as she walks home, killing many people and destroying a good portion of the city.  Chris and her boyfriend decide to see what's going on, see Carrie, and because Chris' boyfriend is a fledgling serial killer, he tries to run her down, resulting in his and Chris' death.  When Carrie finally gets home she calms down and has no memory of what she has done.  Her mother then comes to the conclusion that God wants Carrie dead, so she tries to drown her in the bathtub, but Carrie defends herself by causing her mother's heart to stop, killing her.

       This is where the movie's main divergence with the book starts, Carrie's friend finds her in the tub and is able to resuscitate her.  She is also surprisingly understanding of Carrie's actions and offers to drive her to Florida to help her escape.  Carrie then vows to help others like her so that the horror she caused doesn't happened again.

       Because this movie was intended to be a pilot for a failed television series, it earns a few points of forgiveness.   For example the special effects.  They were not great, even by 2002 standards.  Another thing is the fact she lives at the end, again this was because the story was meant to continue on.  The next issue is the actors, some of them were pretty good, for example Carrie and her mother.  However others, like Chris' psycho boyfriend, were horrible, and even had me laughing at times I wasn't supposed to.

       A lot of the suspense the movie built up was destroyed as the movie went on because of the way it was done, the police were interviewing survivors, thus showing all the main characters actually survive.  Carrie's friend can live because she missed prom, but the others that we later see trying to escape the gym, but see talking to police at the beginning, kill the suspense. 

       My final  verdict is this, the movie follows the book fairly well for a made for TV movie, many of the main actors are pretty good, and the suspense, though diminished, still kept me watching.  Since I'm not comparing it to the original, which I hear is much better, because I'm grading it solely on based on its own merit.  And I found it to be entertaining, very watchable, and the creepy boyfriend adds unintentional humor.  Thus I give it a B-, which is good for a horror movie.

       Anything you agree with, disagree with?  feel free to post comments below.

Movie Review: Land of The Dead

       In the spirit of Halloween I have been watching horror movie.  So I was on Netflix last night when I came across this gem.  A zombie movie made by the godfather of Zombie movies, George A. Romero, so obviously my hopes were high on this one.

       The plot is...interesting, this is the forth installment of Romero's Living Dead franchise, and as is expected by this point humanity has gotten a system down.  There is a walled off community that is protected by  a river on two sides, and a two mile fence on the other.  There is a hierarchy, and because of the limited space and the large survivor population, some people get to live in luxury condos, and many end up homeless.  Our hero in this movie is named Riley, played by Simon Baker.  Riley is one of the people who's job is to leave the comfort of the city and gather supplies.  Another one of these runners is named Cholo who is played by John Leguizamo.  Riley has been saving up his money so that he could one day buy his way into the wealthy building.  When he finally accomplishes this he is rejected by his boss who does not want his kind in the building.  So angered Cholo decides to steal the armored assault Vehicle "Dead Reckoning" and hold the city hostage for $5 million.  Because of this our hero is then tasked with stopping Cholo and in return he will be given a car and the chance to leave the city to live on his own.  Did I forget something?...Oh right, THE ZOMBIES, in this film the zombies are starting to regain their basic brain functions...that's right, smart zombies.  And are trying to find a way into the city.  Strangely they take a back seat and don't really do anything until the end of the movie when they do find a way into the city and begin eating the survivors who have pinned themselves inside the fortress city they built to protect them...irony thy name is safety.  In the end our hero and a small group survive the attack and take Dead Reckoning North to Canada.

       The problems starts in the beginning.  There is an opening bring viewers up to speed on what happened since the first movie in 1968, which is creepy and pretty cool.  The we are introduced to the zombies for this film, the camera pans through a park full of them as a tuba plays, originally I though it was part of the soundtrack.  However as the camera pans zombies can be seen holding objects, and then you see a ZOMBIE playing the tuba...WTF?  We then meet the hero who is observing the zombies.  He points out that the zombies are evolving and are now able to use tools and communicate.  Throughout the movie we see zombies wield cleavers, jackhammers, axes, IEDs, and even machine guns...again...WTF?

       Then there are the characters, the only likable one we are told is a villain.  The hero has redeemable qualities, but he doesn't seem to care about anyone else most of the time, so when he decides to save people it is out of character.  His sidekick is a mentally handicapped sharp shooter who everyone makes fun of, yet he is one of the most useful members of their society.  Then there is the love interest, who was raised to become a soldier, but later on the powers that be thought she would make a better prostitute.  She is constantly proving herself to the group, and is the only person in the movie willing to kill someone who's been bitten, rather than wait for them to turn.  Next is Cholo, my favorite character, he worked hard and risked his life to scrape together enough money to join the high society, then he is denied because he doesn't fit the image of the socialites.  His motives make sense and I often found myself rooting for him.  The man in charge of everything is kind of a dick, and his only personality trait is that he's a dick.  He has no redeeming qualities and kills off his own board members so he doesn't have to worry about them messing with his escape.  Then there is the zombie leader, that's right the zombies have a leader in this movie.  He commands them like an army, teaches them how to use weapons, and even makes a bomb out of a propane tank.  He makes no sense and is the downfall of this movie.

       For a large part of this movie I was laughing and asking myself "Why" to many aspects.  The humans bet on zombie fights, use them as roadside attractions, and really the zombies seem to just be in the background of this movie.  In fact at the end of the movie after the zombies kill most of the inhabitants of the city, the hero has the chance to kill them all, but refuses because they simply are "Looking for a place to belong"...Seriously movie?And don't get me started on the zombie tuba player, this movie simply fails at zombies, which is odd considering who directed it.

       In an age where zombies are becoming more and more popular, it is just weird to see a movie from the man who started it all, as part of his zombie franchise that simply has the feel of a second rate horror film.  Sure its a fun movie, but all the expectations I had were destroyed in the opening scene with a tuba playing zombie.

       My final verdict is if you want to see the traditional zombie horror type film, watch the original.  If you want an action movie that happens to have zombies in it, then watch this one.  If your looking for a more contemporary classic zombie  film, I recommend Zombieland, and if you have multiple hours to kill, I'm a huge fan of AMC's The Walking Dead.  But in this case the movie is getting a C-.

If you disagree with me, or simply have a comment, feel free to post it below.

Movie Review: The Hunger Games

       Confession time, I did not read the book, but this review is not about the book, it's about the movie.  When I first saw the trailer I instantly became excited, A battle to the death in the woods starring Mystique from First Class, sounds awesome.  Then came the day I went to see it, the show I originally wanted to see was sold out, raising my hopes even more. 

       Then the previews started playing, this is where my worrying started.  I you haven't figured it out yet, movie previews are carefully selected to match the movie you are watching so they can raise awareness of a movie you'll eventually want to see anyway.  The previews for this movie were another Stephanie Myer movie, a Twilight, and Titanic anniversary, strange choices for what I thought was going to be an action movie.

       The movie starts off a bit slow, but sets up this world of poverty where the people are oppressed, so far so good.  We meet our heroine Katniss, who  is a skilled archer living with her mother and sister.  So far so good.  However as the movie drags on Katniss becomes more and more boring.  This is a major problem with the movie, the characters for the most part are not fleshed out, and the ones they do flesh out are boring.

       Enter the plot, in the movie world each of the 12 districts of this dystopian future must offer up one male and one female as tribute to compete in the "Hunger Games" a fight to the death used as punishment for a rebellion years ago.  First off, this is stupid, when I saw the trailer I thought it was just the progression of society, kinda like the movie Gamer, instead the government is punishing the masses, who can simply refuse, rise up again, or any number of things that make more sense.

       Next is the character designs, for a good half hour of the movie everyone looks normal, enter Elizabeth Banks...First off if your gonna get a beautiful woman like Elizabeth Banks, don't dress her up like Krusty the Clown.  Second, why does everyone in the future dress like Lady Gaga?  This is probably my biggest issue with the movie, I can't take it serious when I'm trying not to laugh at everything.  The plot is fairly dark, or at least grey, that is to say it isn't light, do you understand?  it's hard to put that into words.  It deserves a dark tone, dress everyone in muted colors not glitter.  Whats more is thanks to this they took Stanley Tucci, an amazing actor who I think deserves more praise, known for his dramatic and the occational comedic roles, and turned him in to Seacrest, a celebrity who doesn't deserve fame.  Then you have the names, Katniss and Peeta seem somewhat normal, but then you get white Kato and Foxface, seriously Foxface?  It's like the movie doesn't fully understand its target audience.

             Next up is the second hero, Peeta played by Josh Hutcherson.  First off, if by some random chance Josh Hutcherson actually reads this I would like to apologize.  Hutcherson seems to be trying to become an action star as of late, with this, Red Dawn, and that counterfieting movie, but sadly since I'm only a few years older than him I'm only able to see him as a child star, which is what he was when I was growing up.  Sure like Joeseph Gordon-Levitt this will fade in time (I'm hoping before I see Red Dawn), but when I saw this movie the first time he was still the kid from Zathura.  To his credit he seemed to try and it was more the writers' and the director's fault he was such a dumb character.  In the movie he is portrayed as a sort of stalker who has a thing for Katniss, who he betrays almost instantly once the contest starts.  He also has almost no on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Lawrence which kinda ruins the whole love interest things.  His character also has some of the dumbest plot points associated with him.  Such as; "He's really strong, he once lifted an entire bag of flour over his head.", or his retarded frosting camouflage, seriously his district is too poor to afford electricity, but they can have cakes that look like the woods, that they live in.  

       Now for some minor critiques, starting with Foxface.  This character was stupid, useless, and whenever she was on screen I couldn't help but say WTF?!?  For those of you who still haven't seen the movie, Foxface is a girl who shows up randomly throughout the movie, grabs something, then leaves.  In fact her death is because she grabs something she thought was food, but turns out to be poisonous, so she dies off camera.

       Next is the violence, this seems to be the biggest complaint from parents, and personally was the highest selling point for me, however there were times that I didn't know how to feel about it.  For example there is this scene at the beginning of the contest where the older kids who were trained since birth for this contest are killing almost everyone else.  The camera was really shaky during this scene so it was hard to follow what was happening, but what I did see was a guy who clearly wasn't 18 killing a bunch of kids, and at one point it is implied he decapitates a kid who is hiding behind some supplies.  Then at the end this same guy starts to cry when his alliance is dead, and for some reason the poor baker's son who is too weak to run manages to overpower the kid who was TRAINED SINCE BIRTH for this competition.  Kinda lame.

       Next is the dog/bear/wolf/whatever, my problem here isn't the creatures themselves since it is established they were created specifically for the contest, but rather in their execution.  The contest was taking too long so they released the hounds, this is a Simpsons gag, not something you expect in a movie about kids killing each other.

       Next is what I though should have been a controversy, but apparently isn't.  There is a scene in the movie, after the little black girl dies (Not trying to be racist here, just don't remember her name).  We then see her district, which is entirely made up of black people (again not trying to be racist).  A man who I assume was her father then starts a riot in the city, and soon everyone else begins to riot.  Eventually the military steps in and turns fire hoses on them, this to me was a bit racist, and here is why.  My brother read the book and said no such district exists, furthermore in The Dark Knight Rises there was a controversy over the villains name and plan, some believed it was a nod to Mitt Romney's company.  If one of Batman's villains, who was created in the 90s can cause contraversy with his name, why didn't a street full of black people being beaten and shot with a fire hose?

       Lastly is the love triangle.  What love triangle?  Good question, I didn't even know there was one, but my brother is a fan of the series and told me about it, apparently the guy they kept showing sitting in a field the whole time was in fact important.  First off, why does every movie aimed towards young adults need a love triangle? isn't one forced romantic interest enough?  I guess not.  However it you feel the need to do one, at least make it so the audience who didn't read the book actually know it is there.

       This movie did have a redeeming factor though, no not Jennifer Lawrence in tight clothes, which I'll admit was good, but it was a character.  A character who had a normal name, was well cast, was cynical in a cynical world, and ultimately didn't seem to belong in this movie.  I'm of course referring to Woody Harleson's character Haymitch.  Haymitch is the guy who train's Katniss and Peeta because he won the Hunger Games once, and it turned him into an angry alcoholic.  My love of this character is mirrored by the strange irony that he is the one character that doesn't belong in this movie, but rather the movie this was meant to be.

       My final thoughts, this movie had so much potential, yet fell flat on many levels.  Obviously I'm not s fan of this movie, then again I don't think I was the target audience either.  My brother is a fan of the series and pointed out the differences between the book and movie, and explained things to me, however I'm here to judge the movie, not the franchise.  My brother said a lot of the problems stemmed from the fact the book did an inner narration, and the movie was seen through Katniss' eyes and that because it was a movie, an inner voice wouldn't work, and to be honest would have fixed a lot.  In fact, movies can use inner voice and do it well (Shawshank anyone).  So blaming all the faults on the medium is just lazy.  I give this movie a C+, nothing special, but not awful.

Avatar Review

       Avatar is a movie that came out a few years ago, why review it now? because my opinion is different than most, I thought it was a bad movie.  Before my few readers decide to quit and write me off as a mad man, please allow me to make my case.

                                                                   The Plot
       The plot of this movie is that a disabled war vet is given a second chance to walk because the government spent millions of dollars creating an avatar (alien body that is controlled mentally) for is identical twin, who dies.  Because in this future for some reason the government doesn't believe in wasting they decide to enlist our untrained hero for the mission, sounds plausible right?  The Avatars themselves are used to interact with the locals of a planet called Pandora, as well as provide a safe way for the scientists to survive because of the harsh environment.  However our hero begins to question his mission as he falls for on of the natives and is invited into the tribe.  The government mining company wants the natives to move so they can mine for a rock called Unobtainium (stupid name) under their home.

       The problem here is that the plot has been done before, a lot.  James Cameron is the mind behind such works as Dark Angel, Terminator 1 & 2, & Aliens.  So I know he can be original, not to mention the stupid plot device that is Unobtainium.  He expects us to believe that in the future not only did we forget how to make synthetic elements, but we decided to name the rarest element Unobtainium.  For those of you who still haven't figured it out it is a play on words, the element is unobtainable, meaning not able to obtain.  The plot also was very predictable.  As said before the story has been done, and this movie used HEAVY foreshadowing as well in its narrative, something that needs to be subtle so when it comes up later the audience goes "Oh right they did mention that".  Then their is the ending, I don't want to spoil it, but it is ridiculous cop-out ending that if done in any other movie would be considered stupid.

                                                                  The Characters
       Perhaps the most important part of any narrative in my opinion is the characters, without good characters the best plot in the world is boring.  In this movie our main character is Jake, played by then Hollywood go-to guy Sam Worthington.  This guy is a paralyzed war vet who takes his dead twin brother's spot on a science mission.  He then becomes an honorary member of the native tribe and eventually betrays his own people.  The science portion of the expedition is led by Sigourney Weaver, basically her character is Ellen Ripley if she never encounters the Aliens.  The love intrest is a 9 foot tall blue cat lady played by Zoe Saldana, and the villain is another war vet played by Steven Lang.

       You may have notice I didn't say much about most of the characters, this is because you never get to know them very well.  There are some other side characters who are completely forgettable, and that's about it.  The problems start when our hero is a war vet, but as anyone can tell you the war they survived is what distinguishes them.  For example Vietnam vets are more tragic than WWII vets because they fought a war many believed at the time was unnecessary.  So when they returned many resented them.  On top of that fighting a Guerrilla war in the jungle is way different than an urban war.  The most entertaining characters were Weaver as the chain smoking scientist who didn't take anyone's crap, and Michelle Rodriguez who played the same character she always does.  Thus making this movie 0-2 in my book, not good so far.

                                                                        Visuals
       I don't like to judge this because this is often restricted by budget and the technology at the time.  However Avatar was a game changer when it came to visual effects.  Cameron had a special camera system made up that allowed him to see all the digital effects while he was filming.  True this was inevitable, but I'm giving him credit because this is the movie that actually did it.  The world Cameron imagined for this movie is also pretty spectacular as well.  He used his fascination with the ocean as a basis for a world that during the day was simply a jungle, but at night many of the creatures were bio-luminescent, meaning they glowed in the dark.  Personally I believe the whole planet should have been the night version, but having it the way it was helped with the themes of the film.  Besides, the floating mountains made the day time way cooler.  I saw this movie in IMax 3D, as well as 2D in Theaters, and I have to say, the difference was noticeable.

                                                                          Other
        This is where all the small things are analyzed that don't really fit into the rest of the film.  First up the life tree, home of the natives, and a major plot device.  Also one of many giant trees on a planet with no breathable oxygen.  This is a small thing but if the planet has so many trees, and clean drinkable water, than why was the air so toxic?

       Next up the braid, another huge plot device that I have issue with.  The Avatars are created and grown in test tubes, yet they have perfectly braided ponytails and unique hairstyles that match the one controlling them.  The braid also acts as an organic USB drive for other creatures to form bonds, or in a scene cut from the movie, how the natives have intercourse...making it really awkward when they use the same method to ride horses/dragons/etc.  This is something that always annoyed me, but nobody else seems to mind.

       Another problem with this movie is that the entire plot could have been solved if the hero simply did his job and asked the locals if they could mine at the base of their tree.  This is never even brought up.  All we know is that there is a huge deposit under the tree, but the tree is massive and easily could remain standing while the humans mined at the base, heck they could even ask the locals for help.  Instead the hero never brings it up and the humans attack the locals.

       Last the expedition itself.  Why is there a coordinated mining operation/science expedition?  Why does the mining company have military support?  Why does a colonel listen to a CEO when he decides to declare war on the scientists and the natives?  all valid questions that are never answered in this movie.

                                                                           Verdict
       After reading this I hope some of you will reevaluate this movie.  The plot is tired, the characters are forgettable, the only thing this movie has going for it is visuals.  Now I haven't seen the extended version, and maybe some of my problems with this movie are addressed in it, but because this review is for the original version I don't really care.  Leave a comments as to whether or not I'm wrong below.