Cherry Falls (2000)

Directed by: Geoffrey Wright

Starring: Brittany Murphy, Jay Mohr, Michael Beihn, Joe Inscoe, Gabriel Mann and Natalie Ramsey

Genre: Horror / Slasher / horror-comedy

Rated: R

Someone is killing the teenage virgins in Cherry Falls, Virginia. As the killer inches dangerously closer to his daughter, Jody, Sherriff Marken realizes he must face the past in order to protect her.

Originally, this film was supposed to be a major studio release, but it was dropped due to the content of the plot. Instead it was picked up by the USA television network and reworked to fit its specifications. That is a shame because so much had to be cut from the original script, elements that would have made the film much better in my opinion.

Being turned into a made-for-TV movie, much of the violence had to be cut – so the viewer doesn’t see what happens to most of the victims. I know I’ve said that violence doesn’t necessarily have to be shown in order for a film to be scary, and that is true – however, when you’re working with a modern teenage slasher, it comes to be expected. If there is no creepy atmosphere and very little suspense, there had better be some exciting kill sequences. This film lacked all three.

Having read the original script, I feel the film butchered it – going for a far more comedic route and higher body count. In the script, we really get to know the characters a lot better, while in the movie only Jody and her father are really depicted as multi-dimensional. Her best friend, Sandy is barely more than a background character and her boyfriend Kenny is a dimwit – however, in defense of the final product, he was just as big of an idiot in the script.

As I said before, the violence was heavily cut. The audience mostly sees quick glimpses of the aftermath, but nothing of the actual kill itself. The scripted kills were very brutal and spliced in such a way that there actually could have been some suspense, but alas the first scene was entirely altered and the other scene depicted like that was cut altogether.

Instead of depicting the scarier aspects of the script, the filmmakers decided to focus more on the humorous aspects of it. It was already a Scream knock-off, but the funny bits are amplified. Some parts were truly, darkly funny, like the killer getting knocked over by a giant swinging plastic shark and pretty much anything that came out of Jay Mohr’s mouth – but a lot of it could have been taken down a notch.  

At least we were treated to some decent acting from leading lady, Brittany Murphy, Jay Mohr as her teacher and Michael Beihn as the Sherriff. Gabriel Mann was decent as Kenny the dimwit boyfriend, but his character annoyed me. The rest of the characters, as mentioned above, faded, unmemorable, into the background.

Overall: It’s not a terrible flick – it’s amusing in places, and the original script held a lot of promise. It’s too bad the producers decided to take it the route they did. In the end, it wound up being a fairly average horror comedy.

5/10

Link to original script: http://scifiscripts.name2host.com/msol/cherryfalls.txt

Black Christmas 1974 vs Black Christmas 2006

Black Christmas (1974)

Directed by: Bob Clark

Starring: Olivia Hussey, Margot Kidder, Andrea Martin, Keir Dullea and John Saxon

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

Its Christmas time and the girls of Pi Kappa Sig are getting ready to head home for the holidays. They begin receiving obscene phone calls, but think of them as nothing more than a demented prank. As they go about their celebrations an intruder goes unnoticed creeping into the house. As the girls are killed off one by one, our heroine, Jess, alerts the police and together they try and catch the killer.

                Noted as the First American Slasher, Black Christmas (1974) has become a cult classic for genre fans, and it is easy to see why. This film has all of the elements that make up a great horror film - the most prominent of these being the atmosphere. Despite the fact that inside the house appears to be cozy and cheery, the viewer can’t help having a sense of dread. After all, the audience knows what the characters do not – that there is someone else in the house. The exterior of the home is only showed in shadow and at night, making it appear a lot more ominous than the real house actually was. We also get a few point of view shots from the killer as he breaks into the house, spies on the girls and prepares for a kill.

                The kill scenes are modest, but ultimately more effective. Only three of the deaths are shown onscreen, yet only one of them really shows the death. The audience gets the idea of how the character is being murdered, but doesn’t actually see it happening. As most horror films post early 1970s delved into the use of special effects and gore, this film is a nice change of pace. The amount of blood is minimal and many of the deaths go unseen, playing into the suspense factor.

                This film does keep up the suspense throughout the entire story, both dealing with the killer hiding in the attic, the creepy phone calls, and the subplots that interconnect. The audience is always wondering if that phone ringing is the killer calling the girls (and if it is, what he is going to say – as each call gets progressively more disturbing) who is going to die or what Jess is going to do about her own problems. It helps that the characters are likable and fleshed out well enough for the actors to give them each a presence.

                The acting and characterization in this film is very well done. The characters are believable as college students and friends and also very memorable. Olivia Hussey was already a seasoned actress before she took the leading role as Jess and she was great as usual. However, it’s Margot Kidder’s Barb that steals the show as the sarcastic alcoholic of the group. Barb is not afraid to fire back at anyone, from the obscene phone caller to the police sergeant, and creates a bit of comic relief in an otherwise dark film. It’s also nice to see that these girls are more than just two-dimensional knife fodder, as both Jess and Barb clearly have other things going on in their lives. After them, Ms. Mac, the housemother, is the most memorable, with her sarcastic remarks and hidden collection of booze – quite possibly a future Barb. Keir Dullea is convincing as Jess’s neurotic and somewhat intimidating boyfriend, Peter. The other girls, Phyl (Andrea Martin) and Claire, stand out much less, but fit into the mold just fine.

                I really liked how this film tackled issues that many films today are still afraid to tackle: abortion and alcoholism. Many films show a character who drinks constantly, but not many bother to look into why. Its clear that Barb’s alcoholism stems from a bad relationship with her mother. Abortion was a fairly new thing in the 1970s, legally speaking, so to have a character in a film contemplating the idea is a brave move on the part of the writers and director. These two elements really stand out, marking this as one of the first intelligent slasher films bold enough to try something a bit different.

Overall: Great acting, camera work, characterization and atmosphere make this film the classic it has become. It is suspenseful and claustrophobic, but also intelligent. It deals with real issues that affect college students making the characters more believable and likable. Tie into that a little taste of humor and you’ve got quite the amazing film.

8.5/10

Black Christmas (2006)

Directed by: Glen Morgan

Starring: Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Lacey Chabert, Kristen Cloke, and Andrea Martin

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 If anyone has been following my blog, they know that I’m very tough on remakes. This one is no exception, especially considering how unnecessary this remake was. In my opinion, the original holds up very well as far as relatable characters, suspense, atmosphere and chills, but apparently Hollywood begs to differ. Enter Black Christmas (2006), a modern retelling that adds little to the story and takes quite a bit away.

The plot is very similar to the original film. Once again we have a house full of sorority sisters preparing for the holidays and receiving creepy phone calls. One by one, over the course of an evening, the girls start to be picked off by an escaped mental patient who once called their house his home.

                In this version, we learn a lot more about “Billy and Agnes” – the two names used frequently in the disturbing calls the girls received in the original film. While the killer’s back story was kept a secret in 1974, the 2006 version brings the audience yet another tale of twisted abuse and neglect that made the killer do the things he does. The 1974 phone calls hinted at something sinister that had happened, this film held nothing back. Severe child abuse and cannibalism? Sure, why not?

                Along with the mystery surrounding the killer, the creepy atmosphere is gone too. There aren’t any point of view shots and the house doesn’t seem ominous in the least. The film was supposed to take place during a snow storm (how original) but I didn’t even realize that until halfway through the film. The phone calls aren’t really that scary either – they try to capture the essence of the original calls but lack the intensity. Plus, these calls are clearly scripted while the originals were improvised by director Bob Clark.

                Not only did this remake remove all mystery surrounding the killer and the eerie atmosphere of the 1974 classic, it sucked the personalities out of the sorority girls as well. That was really disappointing considering the cast of well-known actresses like Katie Cassidy, Michelle Trachtenberg, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Lacey Chabert – all of which have promising careers ahead of them. The only girl that stood out was Cassidy as the heroine, Kelli. All of the others blended together in a rather monotonous stream of victims. Winstead’s character is supposed to be from the south, but we only hear a bit of a southern accent in one portion of dialogue from her. Trachtenberg’s Melissa is supposed to be the more caring sister, but even that is barely shown. There was also an attempt to revive Margot Kidder’s Barb in the character of Lauren, but while Barb had a sharp wit, Lauren comes off as angry at the world and rather unlikable.

                In addition to what was removed from the original story, unnecessary clichés were also brought to it. As aforementioned, I didn’t really like having the back story provided for “Billy and Agnes.” I personally find it creepier not knowing anything about past events and the killer him or herself. The fact that the audience never learns anything about the killer in the original makes it stand out. Instead, the viewer receives another version of the current horror cliché – the extremely abusive childhood that made the killer snap. We also have a nude shower scene and a sex tape that are utterly pointless and add nothing to the story. We also get the classic “power failure in the middle of the storm” scare and the death while checking the fuse box, as well as the old “severed head falling out of the car” gag. It feels like the people behind this wanted to make this as unoriginal as possible.

                The kills tried to pay homage to the deaths in the original film – but didn’t work as well. They happened too fast for my liking, focusing more on the gruesome aspects than on the suspense and helpless atmosphere. Instead of deaths barely seen, we have characters choked and stabbed in rapid succession, and many shots of eyes being gouged out and then eaten by the killer. That’s not so much scary as it is gross.

                There were a few things I liked about the film, however. I really liked that Andrea Martin (Phyl from the 1974 version) was brought back as the house mother. I thought that was a very nice touch and fun little homage. Also, the use of the crystal unicorn (a very memorable prop from the original) as a murder weapon was another nice nod to the film’s predecessor. The gore effects weren’t bad either, though slightly redundant.

Overall: This film had the potential to be quite good with the talented cast, bigger budget, and modern special effects. Instead, writer/director Glen Morgan decided to use gross-out gore and every cliché he could think of to turn a classic film into typical modern teenybopper slasher drivel.

4.5/10

StageFright (1987)

Directed by: Michele Saovi

Starring: David Brandon, Barbara Cupisti, Robert Gliqorov, Giovanni Lambardo Radice, Loredana Perrella, Martin Phillips, Mary Sellers, Jo Ann Smith and Clain Parker

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Foreign, Giallo

Language: English

Rating: Unrated

I’d been looking for this film for a long time since I’d heard it was great from a number of fellow horror fans. I found it in parts on Youtube last night and I was not disappointed. The story follows a small group of stage actors rehearsing for the impending opening of their play. They soon find themselves locked inside the theater with a masked madman intent on killing them off one by one.

I feel this slasher is a step above many others because it actually lets you get to know the characters and feel for them. They each have unique personalities and there were many that I wanted to survive. Also the characters actually exhibited some intelligence and stuck together in groups; rarely was someone left alone. That was a nice change of pace.

The direction of this film switches from gritty and gory to beautiful. The onstage death is graceful and tense as the rest of the cast begins to realize that the actress is being killed for real. The music is so light and beautiful contrasting with the terror of the group as they watch her being stabbed to death. The tension only mounts when they realize they are locked inside the building with the killer. The rest are far more brutal and even upsetting as many happen when there are other people around who are unable to save the victims.

I only have a few gripes for this film. First, I felt there were some instances where the music felt out of place. The rock-like score during the chase scenes ruined the tension for me. I much preferred the music during the onstage death and during the climax of the film. The ending wasn’t that great either, I felt it could have been done a little differently. Lastly, the production values are a little off as at times you can’t hear the dialogue over the music, or one character is harder to hear than another. This could just be the version I watched, though.

Overall, this is a fun slasher flick with intelligent, likable characters, decent directing and brutal deaths. I will be adding this to my collection and I recommend it for any horror fan.

7/10

Hounddog (2007)

Directed by: Deborah Kampmeier 

Starring: Dakota Fanning, David Morse, Robin Wright-Penn, and Piper Laurie

Genre: Drama

Rated: R

Set in the 1950s south, the story follows Lewellen (Fanning), a precocious preteen with a love for Elvis. She lives a troubled life with her overly religious grandmother (Laurie) and abusive father (Morse). The only way to cope is to lose herself in singing and dancing along with Elvis’s music. When tragedy strikes her family, Lewellen is forced to deal with situations beyond her years.

While this film is by no means great, I found it to be a decent effort as a drama. Dakota Fanning’s performance was amazing considering the issues her character faced. She also is a fairly talented singer, especially toward the end of the film. David Morse’s turn has the abusive alcoholic turned mentally handicapped is also well done. He was able to bring humor and sympathy to what was at first a detestable character. However, I felt that Piper Laurie was playing an older, slightly less crazy version of her character in Carrie and the character of Charles as the all-knowing, wise and kindly black man, was a bit of a Hollywood cliché.

This movie stirred up quite a bit of controversy due to a particular scene involving Fanning. The scene depicts the rape of her character, and many people were up in arms about this. Whether it is because it was America’s sweetheart being victimized (there are plenty of other films involving scenes far more graphic that have earned less controversy or have been completely overlooked) or just the fact that it was shown at all, the reasons for the outrage differ. Some say the scene was unnecessary to the film and found it brutal. I disagree. This is the climax to the film – when the one thing she has left in the world is ripped away from her, and necessary for the story arc. Also, brutal, it is not. The scene was tastefully shot and heartbreaking, based more on the emotions involved than the actual actions.

The film is rife with symbolism – mostly religious or folkloric in nature. There are snakes in abundance and mention of the Native American belief in snake medicine (if one gets bitten enough times by a snake and survives, that person gains great wisdom).  After enduring trauma, Lewellen crushes apples beneath her feet. There is also plenty of foreshadowing, and the director makes sure that everything foreshadowed comes to light. The cinematography is also beautifully shot. Filmed in North Carolina, the setting is authentically southern, and feels right out of the 1950s.

Overall: Kampmeier clearly has a grasp on the makings of a good film and script. If she had only relied less on the stereotypes and focused a bit more of flushing out the characters, I would have liked the film a lot better. As it stands, it provides great performances, lovely cinematography, and a proper use of symbolism and foreshadowing.

6.5/10

Get Over It (2001)

Directed by: Tommy O’Haver

Starring: Ben Foster, Kirsten Dunst, Sisqo, Colin Hanks, Martin Short, Ed Begley Jr., Shane West, Mila Kunis, and Swoozie Kurtz

Genre: Comedy, Teen Comedy

Rated: R

Burke Landers (Foster) has just been dumped by Allison, the girl he believes is perfect for him, and he is determined to get her back. This determination only increases when she begins dating the new guy at school, Striker (West), who is a member of a boy band and uses a terrible British accent to impress women. When his ex and Striker decide to try out for the school play, a horribly butchered musical version of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer’s Night Dream, Burke decides to try out as well. Kelly (Dunst) offers to help him – in hopes that he will notice her. What follows is a play on the original Shakespearean story, set in a modern high school.

I’ve heard this film compared to 10 Things I Hate About You, as both films are updated adaptations of Shakespeare’s works. However, this film isn’t nearly as good. I found it fairly lacking in the comedic area. It felt like it was going for cheap laughs at times. Martin Short’s performance as the overly dramatic and narcissistic theater director felt very over the top (which was probably the idea), and though he was funny at times, he became annoying quite easily. The plot itself felt very watered down. What was once a beautiful play becomes a fairly clichéd storyline when all the magic and fairies are removed. The ending is predictable.

Kelly and Burke are the only likable characters in the entire film. The others are either annoying or not memorable. The acting was okay, but I really didn’t feel like a lot of the actors were invested in their characters. Kirsten Dunst did a good job and she actually has a really nice singing voice. I love Ben Foster’s work, and he is great with comedy, but only when the dialogue is well-written. 

Overall, this isn’t a bad film, but it’s not a great one either. I simply didn’t find it funny. It’s a lack-luster effort that feels like it’s trying to cash in on the trend of updated film adaptations of Shakespeare for the teen audience.

5/10

May (2002)

Directed by Lucky McKee

Starring: Angela Bettis, Jeremy Sisto, and Anna Faris

Genre: Horror, Psychological Thriller

Rated: R

May (Bettis) never had many friends growing up. As a child she had a lazy eye and was forced to wear an eye patch, leading the other children to ridicule her. On her birthday, her mother gives her a doll named Suzy that must be kept in her glass case at all times. She tells May, “If you can’t find a friend, make one.” Years later, May is a very pretty, but shy and lonely young woman working at a veterinary office and living alone. She longs to be seen as who she is and loved for it, but as the people she befriends reject her, she descends slowly into madness.

I will forewarn you now, if you are looking for an action-packed gore-fest, you will be disappointed. Nothing violent happens until the final third of the film. For the majority of the movie, we actually get to know May and her acquaintances. We see how socially awkward she is, and how her new friends accept that, but start to pull away as more of her weirdness reveals itself. The audience really gets a feel for May, Adam and Polly as the movie progresses – which is a rarity in a lot of recent horror. 

Adam (Sisto) is a handsome film student who works as a laborer during the day. He’s a horror movie fanatic and has even created a few of his own. After conversing in a Laundromat, he and May begin dating. Polly (Faris) is the secretary at the veterinary clinic where May works. The two also have a blossoming relationship.

All three characters are played very well. Jeremy Sisto made Adam a man I’d love to be with (handsome, sweet, and a horror fanatic? Yes, please!) and Anna Faris definitely brought out the seductive free spirit in Polly. Angela Bettis’s performance seals the film together, though. She does little things (like smiling while telling a disturbing story) that show her character is just a little out-there. I also loved how her voice is meek and quiet in the beginning of the film, and then becomes much stronger and more confident as she becomes more unhinged.

I also liked how the film was littered with metaphor. For instance, after every negative experience May has, the glass on Suzy’s case begins to crack. Also, the motif of sight is used heavily throughout the film (her lazy eye, the blind children, etc.) It showed that a modern horror movie can be both violent and intelligent.

I did wonder, however, what made May the way she was. That is never really explained. Though, I guess, in a way, it’s better to use the imagination, than to be force-fed the clichéd back-story of abuse that they put in most recent horror films.

I enjoyed this film. It was nice to sit down and watch a slow-paced, intelligent film from my favorite genre. I thought the director and the cast did a great job and I liked how it focused more on the character development than the blood and guts (though there definitely is some of that!).  I recommend this for those who enjoy a good story with their horror.

7/10

Bridesmaids (2011)

Directed by: Paul Feig

Starring: Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Chris O’Dowd, Wendi McLendon-Covey, Ellie Kemper, and Rebel Wilson

Genre: Comedy

Rated: R

Annie (Wiig) has hit a rough spot in her life. She’s sleeping with a man that doesn’t care about her, sharing an apartment with people who expect too much from her and don’t respect her privacy, and working in a jewelry store, trying to recover from her own business tanking. Her only comfort is her best friend, Lillian (Rudolph). Then, Lillian reveals she is getting married, and Annie is introduced to Lillian’s other life that didn’t include her. This life does, however, include Helen, a beautiful, manipulative woman who makes all of her gatherings over the top and sees Annie as a threat to her friendship with Lillian. As the film rolls on, the two battle for Lillian’s affections, hilarity ensues, and at the same time, Annie has to become reacquainted with herself.

I loved the characters in this film – not one of the three main ladies were perfect. They all had something to learn and a journey to make throughout the film. I identified a lot with Annie and a lot of what she was going through. I sympathized with her and understood why she did some of the things she did because she had so little self-worth and didn’t know what it was like to be treated right. I also know the feeling of having that one friend you lean on and feeling like they’re being ripped away from you. She reaches her breaking point at the climax of the film, hitting the peak of her underlying, dramatic character arc. Megan (McCarthy) was my second favorite character, because as hilarious as she was, she was also the voice of reason among the six members of the bridal party.

The performances were top-notch. Kristen Wiig did an excellent job switching from comedic to dramatic when the scene called for it. She brought Annie to life and carried the film with ease. Maya Rudolph was lovely as Lillian, though I was a little disappointed that her character had so little comedic moments (aside from the bridal gown scene) because she is so funny on Saturday Night Live. Rose Byrne was perfectly bitchy as Helen, and Melissa McCarthy almost had me in tears from laughing so hard.

The scenes that stand out from the film are both comedic and dramatic. Some are flat-out comedic (The bridal shop, the airplane), others strictly dramatic (the scene where she bakes the one cupcake with Fiona Apple playing over it) and some a combination (the breakdown at the film’s climax). The fact that the film can go from raunchy bathroom humor to internal self-examination with ease is commendable.

This film is a great mix of a friendship triangle, raunchy comedy, and insightful drama. That is something I enjoy seeing and would like to see more often. A lot of comedies focus more on getting laughs with raunchy humor and forget to develop the characters at all. This film is very well-done and I recommend it.

8/10

Bad Teacher (2011)

Directed by: Jake Kasdan

Starring: Cameron Diaz, Justin Timberlake, Jason Segal, Lucy Punch

Genre: Comedy

Rated: R

Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz), recently dumped by her sugar daddy fiancée, reluctantly returns to teaching at John Adams Middle School (lovingly called JAMS throughout the film). She has no real interest in teaching the students, showing up to class hung over and showing films all day. Then she spies the new substitute teacher, Scott Delacorte (Timberlake), who is attractive and, conveniently, an heir to a million dollar watch-making franchise. She sets out to win him over, taking on anyone in her path and completely disregarding the efforts of gym teacher, Russell (Segal), to win her affections.

Despite Diaz’s best efforts, the character of Elizabeth is simply not likable. She may have some witty moments, but for the most part, she is simply a ruthless bitch. Her goals are ridiculous and she’s mean to almost everyone. She is only slightly redeemed in the end. Scott at first comes off as sweet, nerdy and adorable, but later has a scene with Diaz that seems entirely out of character. Amy Squirrel (Punch), Elizabeth’s fellow teacher and competitor for Scott’s affections, appears caring and fun – but later shows an ugly side that makes the audience wonder which woman is the character to root for. The only character I found truly likable is Russell, the gym teacher. He was determined to have Elizabeth (though God only knows why – her looks seemed to be the only thing going for her) and he respects her.  He seems to see something in her that the audience doesn't.

The performances were all on par and done fairly well. Diaz was believable as the gold-digging, overtly sexual Elizabeth. Lucy Punch personified Ms. Squirrel, and Segal seemed to naturally fit in as the gym teacher. The only one that was out of place was Justin Timberlake as Scott – but that may just be because the character was kind of poorly written anyway. I know Timberlake can do comedy – he’s hilarious on Saturday Night Live – so this portrayal was a bit of a disappointment.  

I also felt the story was a bit scattered, and a little pointless. Not only could I not get behind the motivations of the lead character, I felt she was going nowhere. In truth, I really didn’t care what happened to her, whether she got the man she wanted or got the boob job she was saving up for.

The film did have a few laughs, which pushes it up to a higher rating. There are some great one-liners and a couple scenes where I did laugh out loud. Worth a viewing for some funny parts, but this is nothing special.

5.5/10

Faithful (1996)

Directed by: Paul Mazursky

Starring: Cher, Chazz Palminteri, and Ryan O’Neal

Genre: Romance, Comedy, Crime

Rated: R

Maggie (Cher) is a rich housewife suffering from depression. She knows her husband, Jack (O’Neal) is being unfaithful, and on their twentieth wedding anniversary, decides to kill herself. Enter Tony (Palminteri), the professional hit man that Jack has hired to kill her. The film follows the blossoming relationship between captor and captive as they await the phone call signaling Tony to do the deed.

This is a slight twist on the cliché plotline of “spouse-hires-hit man-to kill-spouse.” For one thing, the hit man has issues that need to be explored and has various conversations with his therapist throughout the film. For another, he’s not supposed to be tempted to switch sides. Will he or won’t he?

They really tried to make the character of Tony likable, but I just found him quirky and clichéd. Palminteri overacts a little in places as well, making him a weaker character. I didn’t feel much chemistry between him and Cher either – which could have greatly helped the film. Maggie is a believable character, who becomes more likable as the story progresses and she becomes stronger. Cher gives her a strong presence, which takes talent as the character spends half of the movie tied to a chair. Jack – the husband – has no redeeming qualities, and it feels as though O’Neil didn’t even like the character enough to really portray him. His performance was very wooden – and the appearance of his character in the last third of the film took away from what little the film had going for it.

I really liked how Maggie becomes more empowered and recognizes it as the movie rolls on. She learns that she can be strong and Jack is just a waste of skin. The last third of the film is fairly predictable, but I liked the very ending – it didn’t end like I figured it would, with the typical sappy Hollywood conclusion. That made me happy.

This was an okay film, but some of the performances could have been better. The only character I really cared for was Maggie. Both the scenes between Maggie and Tony and the ending were done well, but the parts with the husband disrupted the flow of what could have been a higher rated film.

5.5/10

The Edge (1997)

Directed by: Lee Tamahori

Starring: Alec Baldwin, Anthony Hopkins, Elle McPherson, Harold Perrineau, and Bart the Bear

Genre: Action, Drama, Survival, Thriller

Rated: R

Billionaire, Charles Morse (Hopkins) and his two companions, Bob (Baldwin) and Stephen (Perrineau) find themselves stranded in the Alaskan wilderness after their plane crashes. With little food or supplies and being chased by a man-eating Kodiak bear (Bart), they soon find they have to lean on each other in order to survive.

Normally, I’m not one for movies that involve rogue animals. However I love Anthony Hopkins and a friend recommended this movie, so I decided to give it a shot. I liked it.

The storyline isn’t the most original, but it manages to work for this film. I think this is because the acting is top-notch from Baldwin, Hopkins and Bart the Bear. There is a nice tension between Charles and Bob due to the underlying conflict that both men are in love with the same woman (McPherson), yet they have to support one another in order to get out alive. Hopkins and Baldwin make this tension very believable. Also, the scenes with the bear chasing the men feel very realistic – and some of the things the bear does makes it seem like an intelligent, calculating predator. (For example: shaking the log Charles is balancing on while attempting to cross the river.) It’s hard to believe that in real life, Bart the Bear interacted with people daily when he appears so vicious in the film. He was truly a magnificent animal. (He died in May of 2000.)

I did see the twist in the plot coming a mile away, however. Whenever a love triangle is involved, the story is always a little predictable. The dialogue was also annoying in places, with Bob using Charles’s name every time he talks to him. It was a little irritating because the audience knows the hero’s name is Charles – we don’t need to be told a hundred times. (Someone on imdb actually counted the number of times his name was spoken – it is literally over one hundred.) Lastly, Bob and Stephen were frustratingly dumb in places. I’m really not sure how you hack your leg open while carving a spear or why you would hang a blood soaked rag in the trees when a highly intelligent person told you to bury it. (Blood attracts bears.) Those were the two most irritating things in the movie that could have been avoided if Charles’s companions were smarter.

Overall: It was a good movie because of the beautiful scenery and the believable performances. The writing could have used a little work, however. There was no need for the level of stupidity exhibited by two of the men stranded in the wilderness.

6.5/10

The Virgin Suicides (1999)

Directed By: Sofia Coppola

Starring: James Woods, Kathleen Turner, Kirsten Dunst, A.J. Cook, Josh Hartnett, Hanna Hall, Chelse Swain, Leslie Hayman, Danny DeVito and Jonathan Tucker

Genre: Drama

Rated: R

Based on the novel by Jeffrey Eugenides

The peaceful air of a 1970s suburb is shaken when, over the span of one year, five teenage sisters commit suicide. Thirteen-year-old Cecilia is the first to take her life, and the story follows the family through the eyes of the neighborhood boys as they deal with the aftermath.

I will be straight with you – when you’re done watching this film, you may say to yourself “What was the point?” The one thing many people dislike about this movie is the fact that it doesn’t give the viewers answers to the questions they have throughout the film. You’re left wondering what the film is trying to say. Some think its anti-religious fanaticism, some think its speaking out against intensely overprotective parents, and some see something much deeper. What you take away from it is entirely up to you.

The movie itself is a faithful adaptation of the novel. The characters are believable and all, in a way, are tragic. The girls and their parents, obviously due to the suicide – but also the boys who tell the story. They put these girls up on a pedestal and idolized them. To these boys, the Lisbon sisters – who seemed like normal girls to everyone else – were mysterious and goddess-like. They believe they love the Lisbon sisters and, when the girls kill themselves, the boys experience a loss of innocence the rest of the neighborhood cannot comprehend.

The film is very artfully done, told from the bystander’s perspective – we only get to know the Lisbon family, especially the girls, from what these boys experienced. The girls only stand out when they are with their peers and away from their parents – which is a rarity. Otherwise they almost fall into the background, as scenes with the parents are dominated – as with their lives – by the parents. Symbolism, like the tree infection and the suffocation motif, is littered throughout.

The cast did a great job with this. James Woods and Kathleen Turner are both easy to dislike and to pity as the overprotective parents of the girls. Kirsten Dunst is the main attraction as Lux Lisbon – the rebellious daughter who fights the rules and clearly embraces her sexuality. Aside from Cecilia, the other sisters pale in comparison because they are quiet and obedient. I believe this was intended. All performances by the girls were done well. Josh Hartnett plays the slightly rebellious football player who becomes infatuated with Lux. He’s the only one who gets close to the Lisbon girls, and he’s the one filled with regret after all is said and done.

Overall: An interesting film that leaves you with a few unanswered questions. It examines the way a tragic event affects a suburban town and the ripple effect touching those around the girls. Not recommended for those who like narrative closure – but both the film and the novel are worth looking into.

7.5/10

Killers (2010)

Directed by: Robert Luketic

Starring: Katherine Heigl, Ashton Kutcher, Tom Selleck, Catherine O’Hara, Kathryn Winnick, and Kevin Sussman

Genre: Action / Adventure, Romantic Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Jen (Heigl), recently single, is on vacation in Nice, France with her parents when she meets handsome Spencer (Kutcher) in the elevator. The two swiftly strike up a romance and marry. Three years later, the two are on the run from a seemingly never-ending number of assassins intent on ending Spencer’s life.

The exact timeline of Jen and Spencer’s premarital relationship is fairly vague. The vacation apparently lasted three weeks, though we only see them together in France twice. Then suddenly he’s home with Jen and her family telling her father he wants to marry her. I also wondered if he just decided to move across the Atlantic to live with her when her vacation ended, or if they had carried on a long distance relationship before he dropped everything and moved to the United States to be with her. I was thinking, “Wow, everything is happening so quickly…” We never see the wedding, and then the plot skips ahead three years (thankfully it lets the audience know this with lower third text) to the happily married couple preparing to celebrate Spencer’s birthday. The relationship felt very rushed to me, and I could not find it believable.

I really thought the writing could have been a lot better than it was. The story was not well-thought out. The person who sent the assassins was pretty predictable, especially since they pretty much tell the audience who it is maybe fifteen minutes before the climax. The characters were fairly stupid in places, and some felt entirely useless. For example – Jen’s mother was nothing but a comedic device, redundantly shown drinking lots of alcohol (multiple glasses of wine, Bloody Marys with the pitcher as a glass, etc.) It made me wonder how Jen could possibly have the “amazing relationship” with her mother that the film claimed she had when her mother was clearly an alcoholic. The ending leaves the biggest question of all: how do you explain away all the dead bodies?

The acting left something to be desired. I never considered Kutcher as an action star, and after this I don’t think he should pursue another job within the genre. He was fairly wooden and hard to believe as a spy. Heigl really didn’t seem to care for her character at all – she’s played in so many romantic comedies, this is old hat for her, and she really didn’t seem to put forth the effort. Both she and Kutcher are talented comedic actors but it really felt like neither one was invested in this project whole-heartedly. Also, the two didn’t have any chemistry together – and that alone can make or break a film. Selleck and his trademark mustache had the best acting as Jen’s overprotective, seemingly paranoid father. As stated above, O’Hara (most notably known for her role as the mother in the first two Home Alone films) was underutilized as her character was little more than a lush.

After all that running around, being shot at, crashing cars, physically fighting with other people, the clothing and actors look pristine. There are no rips, stains, stray threads or lint on these clothes and not a scratch on either of our title characters – highly unlikely. Also, did they really expect us to believe that a woman on the run from assassins would remain in high heels the entire time? Especially when the two stopped off at a K-mart and she could have easily grabbed a pair of cheap flip flops at the very least. At that point, I doubt she was thinking how dorky comfortable shoes would look with her outfit, and probably would have thought that it would not be logical to remain wearing shoes that high. If they didn’t want her to buy shoes, at least have her kick off the heels and run barefoot. So ridiculous.

There are a few things I did like about the movie, however. The scenery in the beginning of the film was beautiful. The fight scene between Kutcher and Kathryn Winnick (“Hannah” from Season 6 of Bones) was fun and it was nice to see her kicking some butt. I also liked the fact that the film seems to be pushing the message that you should always be yourself in a relationship – if you’re meant to be with that person, they will love you for who you are, past actions included. They also push the message that honesty is key. It’s just too bad the film was so poorly written and acted.

Overall: This could have been a fun film, but it was dragged down by a script that wasn’t thought out well and actors that really didn’t seem to care. There are some positive elements that keep it from getting a much lower rating, but overall, I was not impressed.

5/10

The Virgin Spring (1960)

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman

Starring: Max Von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg, Gunnel Lindblom, Birgetta Pettersson

Genre: Drama, Suspense, Crime

Language: Swedish (Subtitled)

Rating: Not rated

I had been very curious about this film for a long time before I finally got to watch it. Knowing that it was the inspiration for Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left, my interest was piqued. So, the other night, after I discovered it on Netflix Instant Watch, I settled in with this well-noted classic. (*Note: I know I would normally lump this in a post with Last House and its remake, but this was never directly remade. Last House is not an official remake of The Virgin Spring.)

The story is set in Medieval Sweden following a small farming family. Karin (Pettersson) and her servant Ingeri (Lindblom) are sent off to deliver candles to the church to celebrate the Virgin Mary. On the way there, the girls have a falling out, and Ingeri stays behind while Karin goes off on her own.  A ways up the road, she comes across a small group of shepherds, and kindly invites them to share her lunch with her. During the meal, the two men attack Karin, raping her and eventually killing her. Later in the day, the men unknowingly take shelter at the home of Karin’s parents – a mistake they will soon regret.

The plot is very similar to that of the film it inspired – though this one focuses more on the characters and less on the horror aspects of the incident. This film focuses heavily on guilt – many characters feel it for different reasons throughout the film. For example, the small boy with the two older shepherds witnesses the crime and wants to tell someone – he can’t eat or sleep and becomes physically ill at the thought of what was done to this lovely girl. He even tries to cover her corpse. Several other characters are also physically and even violently affected by their guilt over the incident and what occurs afterward. The emotion is tangible in many scenes.

The film also deals heavily with religion – specifically Catholicism. Guilt is a factor often associated with Catholics (ex: the saying “Catholic Guilt.”) There is also an emphasis on virginity. There’s the celebration of the Virgin Mary. The family berates Ingeri for being pregnant out of wedlock, calling her a “disgrace” and telling her they never should have taken her in. Karin is celebrated for her purity – she is the favorite among her family. Her virginity and honor are stolen from her.

I also saw a theme of the Seven Deadly Sins within the film – most notably vanity, envy and wrath – and each person possessing this sin is punished. Karin is wearing her best clothes on her journey – wanting to look her best, and she falls victim to men who rob her of her riches, her maidenhood and her life. Ingeri’s envy of Karin is what leads to their fight and Karin going off by herself. Lastly, Karin’s father’s actions toward the end of the film are the epitome of “wrath.” 

The cinematography is beautiful, which gives the film a twisted element. The viewer is sitting there wondering how these horrible things can be done to this young woman in such a beautiful place. It reminds people that something like this could happen to anyone at any time, anywhere. The rape, while not incredibly graphic, is fairly hard to watch – it’s also more brutal than many films of that era. The sets seemed authentic and the costumes believable.

Lastly, the acting was decent. The characters of Karin, her father, and the small boy were played perfectly – you could really feel their emotions. The other actors offered decent performances, but they fell to the background in comparison.

Overall: Though it is not my typical taste in film, it is very good and lives up to its reputation as a classic. Well-shot and acted, with a lot of religious themes laced within, this is worth at least one watch for all film buffs out there.

7.5/10

The Haunting (1963) Vs. The Haunting (1999)

The Haunting (1963)

Directed by: Robert Wise

Starring: Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, Russ Tamblyn, Rosalie Crutchley, Lois Maxwell, and Valentine Dyall

Genre: Horror / Psychological Thriller

Based on the Novel “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson

"Hill House ... had stood there for eighty years and might stand there for eighty more ... and whatever walked there, walked alone."

Following the plot of the 1959 novel, three people are invited to take part in a paranormal study with Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson) at a secluded mansion with a reputation called Hill House. Along for the adventure are Eleanor “Nell” Lance (Julie Harris), a woman with deep rooted insecurities who longs for acceptance; Theodora (Claire Bloom), an eccentric, sexually ambiguous, confident woman; and Luke Sanderson, a playboy who stands to inherit the house in the future. Theo and Nell were selected by Dr. Markway because they exhibited a history with the paranormal. Nell has had “poltergeist phenomenon” occur around her, or possibly because of her – it is hinted she has telekinetic powers. Theo is thought to have ESP, or at the very least to be incredibly perceptive. Luke is just along to make sure no harm comes to the property, and he seems fairly skeptical about any paranormal phenomenon that has occurred within the house. They soon discover that they are not alone in Hill House as strange and horrifying (for them) things begin to happen. It becomes clear that the house wants Nell, and is determined to have her. But is the house really haunted, or is Nell unknowingly making these things happen?

What I loved most about this movie was how true it stayed to the classic novel. The film opens with the same lines as the novel does, and ends with the same poetic lines. They kept most of the major unsettling moments from the novel and they translated well onto the screen. The pounding and writing on the walls, ghostly touching, etc. was all made believable. I also liked that they kept the lesbian subplot between Theo and Nell in the film, as well as keeping it as subtle as it was in the novel. (In the 1950s and ‘60s, homosexuality was still a very taboo topic, so anything dealing with it had to be subtle.) There are hints throughout the film that Theo has a thing for Nell, and she is very ambiguous about her personal love life. (Ex: she lives with a ‘partner’ whose gender is never specified in both the novel and the film)

However, the name changes seem unnecessary – in the novel Eleanor’s last name was Vance and the doctor’s last name was Montegue. This is more of a nitpicky detail than anything, though. Also, they changed the character of the doctor’s wife from a woman who thought she could communicate with the spirits of Hill House to a woman who was highly skeptical and even challenged the house’s ghostly phenomenon. Granted, the movie character was far less annoying than her novelized counterpart, but I would have preferred that they remained true to the story. She was a great antagonist to everyone involved in the study, including the doctor himself.

As far as the components of the film go – it was very well-done. The atmosphere was perfect – it gave off that creepy, claustrophobic vibe necessary for ghost stories to take root in the viewer. Yet at the same time, the sets were beautiful. The suspense element was a major factor in the success of this movie – we never actually see the ghosts that haunt Hill House, just hear them and see the aftermath of their antics. The viewer is always wondering what will happen next, if everything is really happening or if Nell is just crazy.

 The acting was pitch-perfect, each character brought to life as if they’d walked right out of the book. (Minus the changes in Mrs. Markway of course) Nell is hard to take in places. Her character can be very annoying. However, she isn’t meant to be likable. I felt sorry for her because she was so socially awkward and had never really had a mature, mutually respectful relationship with anyone. She was incredibly needy in her longing for a connection – trying to find one with Theo and with Dr. Markway. Julie Harris did a wonderful job depicting Nell’s socially awkward ways as well as her decent into madness without coming off as campy or cheesy. Claire Bloom was graceful and lovely as Theodora, but she could also be nasty when the scene called for it. Richard Johnson gave off a very Vincent Price-like air as Dr. Markway and Russ Tamblyn’s Luke was charming and playful, if a little greedy and self-involved. Each character was on screen as they were written in the novel, which is something hard to come by in book-to-film adaptations.

Overall: A definite classic film with great atmosphere, a few scares, and great acting. It is true to its source material and does the novel justice, bringing it to life on screen. Both this film and the novel are highly recommended.

8/10

The Haunting (1999)

Directed by: Jan de Bont

Starring: Liam Neeson, Catherine Zeta Jones, Owen Wilson, Lili Taylor

Genre: Horror / Supernatural

Rated: PG-13

Loosely Based on the Novel “The Haunting of Hill House” by Shirley Jackson.

The plot is similar to that of this film’s [superior] predecessor: three people, Eleanor or “Nell” (Lili Taylor), Theo (Catherine Zeta Jones) and Luke (Owen Wilson) are invited to Hill House to participate in a study on insomnia conducted by Dr. Marrow (Liam Neeson). What they don’t know is that Dr. Marrow is employing the old “bait-and-switch” method – the patients think he’s studying their insomnia, but he’s really doing a study on fear – and Hill House definitely provides them with plenty of that. Upon the first night there, the banging noises begin, and events progressively intensify. Once again, it becomes clear that the house wants Nell, but for a reason far different from the original film. As Nell descends into madness, she believes that she must protect the ghosts of the house as she begins to unravel the mystery of why Hill House is haunted.

I remember seeing this film at about thirteen or fourteen, and thinking it was rather bland. Now, having a lot more movie knowledge and knowing that it was spawned from two far superior works, I’ve come to truly dislike it. The back-story of Hill House was completely changed from that of the novel and original film – the only similar element is the name of the man who built it. While in the novel and original film it was proposed that the house was just “born bad,” in this version there is a rather clichéd and ridiculous explanation for the haunting that trivialized the original ideas behind the story. The idea that it may also be in Nell’s mind or of her own creation is also dropped entirely, losing another aspect of depth that the original story had.

The dialogue was uninspired and barely varied from character to character. The only dialogue that remained the same in all three versions was Mrs. Dudley’s (housekeeper) speech about when she sets the meals on the table and how she will not stay after it begins to get dark – consequently the only decent lines in the film. Also, the characters have changed. Theo is now a blatant bisexual, who not only states this fact, but also flirts with both Nell and Luke. (The lesbian subplot raises its head, but is swept over and nearly forgotten by the end of the film.) Luke is no longer the handsome, charming, playboy heir, but just another hapless insomniac with a goofy demeanor. And what is with the constant changing of the doctor’s last name?

The doctor’s wife is no longer a character at all. She doesn’t exist in this reality. Instead she is replaced by two pointless characters - Mary and another assistant to the doctor – both of whom have maybe two to five minutes of wasted screen time. They were completely unnecessary to the plot and could have been left out altogether. Mary’s injury and the death of one of the main four characters seem to have been added for shock value, but were also unnecessary.

The acting in this is rather wooden considering the all-star cast. Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta Jones have both been up for Oscars and have clearly proven themselves as incredibly talented. Owen Wilson has a great sense of humor and comedic timing – his is probably the most natural performance out of all of them as his character is similar to many others in his career. Lili Taylor’s performance is solid at first, but becomes a little campy as she gets more involved in the mystery behind Hill House. Catherine Zeta Jones exudes sex appeal and glamour, but she doesn’t really seem to care about her character, and there were times when it felt like Liam Neeson was wondering what the hell he was doing there.

The sets were nice, though a little over the top. Considering this was supposed to be a manor built in the 1800s, I find it hard to believe there would be a carousel-like ballroom floor and a hallway comprised of water, requiring stepping stones to cross. While these elements were beautiful, they were unrealistic to me and took away from the rest of the house, which was actually a very realistic portrayal of an 1800’s manor-style home.

This film is praised for its use of special effects, but I can only wonder why. Some of them were decent, but for the most part, they were made up of really bad CGI. Projected faces in pillows, obviously fake moving wooden carvings, and clearly computer generated smoky ghosts do not scare me – they are rather annoying. The effects were overdone and used way too frequently. I guess de Bont didn’t get the memo that sometimes less is more. Apparently, if you have a great sound system hooked up to your home television, the sound effects are amazing, but I haven’t had the pleasure of experiencing them, nor to I believe they could save this lack-luster, effects ridden effort.

Overall: This could have been a decent film. With today’s technology and the star-studded cast this should have been a lot better than what was delivered in the final product. Too much CGI and terrible writing downgrade this film from what it could have been.

4.5/10

Knock Knock (2007)

Directed by: Joseph Ariola

Starring: Nicole Abisinio, Chris Bashinelli, Kat Castaneda, Antonio Mastrantonio, Kim Taggart, Sal Sirchia, Joli Julianna, Lou Savarese, Stephanie Finochio

Genre: Horror/Slasher

Rated: Unrated

It was a boring night at home for me, so I cuddled in with some popcorn and the laptop, deciding to watch something off of the Netflix Instant Queue. I read the premise for this flick and though I figured it was probably low-budget cheese, I gave it a shot anyway.

The story follows a group of teenagers being killed off one by one in ways that are similar to their father’s professions. Sounds interesting, right? Sure, but the execution of the film made it barely watchable.

The acting was absolutely atrocious. I know bad acting is to be expected from low-budget, but damn. All of the actors were either incredibly wooden or over-acting. The kids were all blitz attacked so they didn’t have to try and act scared. Also there were some people with awkwardly noticeable accents varying from New York, to Boston, to sounding like rejects from The Sopranos. Awful.

Still, Oscar Winners couldn’t even save this drivel. The dialogue was terrible – it wouldn’t be believable no matter who said it or how it was said. The entire film was poorly written – it feels like this was a first draft that Ariola wrote up in one weekend and then ran with. The killer is supposed to be human, yet some of the kills are just ridiculous. The opening kill – which is supposed to catch the attention of the audience – was incredibly dull, with the killer just knocking on the door and disappearing whenever the victim answered it. This goes on for about six minutes before he punches through a solid door and grabs her by the throat. He kills another victim by stabbing the blunt end of a mop or broom handle through his stomach. Both seemed very far-fetched and ridiculous. This guy is not Jason Voorhees – he’s human, therefore he should not be able to do such things. It’s not scary, it’s just dumb.

The characters are unlikable – all of them. We have the cliché macho jock male, his head cheerleader “I think I’m all that” blonde girlfriend, the stoner, and then a bunch of bland forgettable characters ripe for the killing. I didn’t care about the “final girl” – they never gave me any reason to. Normally I’m always rooting for the girl in the final battle, but she wasn’t given a chance to fight back, and she had no personality to begin with. The whole long-lost grandfather storyline irritated me as well – even though he was the best character in the film. It was like the Ariola was thinking, “Well, they’re all on the chopping block anyway, who cares what they’re like?”

An example of bad writing is when the “Rico” story enters the plotline. All of a sudden, Grandpa Mike is asking around about a guy named Rico, who had been caught in a fire in his father’s funeral home, and then committed soon after. However, we never learn where he got this information, so the audience is left asking “Where the hell did this come from?” There are two characters named “Billy” – one male and the other female – as well as a completely unnecessary character in Cindy’s skanky older sister. Also, for the record, if your grown male son is sitting in his room playing with dolls that have pictures of the victims plastered to their faces, it is not touching, it’s creepy and a sign your son might be involved in the murders. Just a hint.

The wardrobe is pretty absurd too. The female cop is always wearing short skirts, high heels, and tops that either bare cleavage or are see-through. Somehow, I don’t really think a female detective who probably has to spend her days chasing perps and doing legwork would wear something as impractical as stilettos. Plus, police work is still considered very much a man’s world – a woman in that field would be trying to be taken seriously, not objectifying herself in the workplace. Also, in the flashback sequence, the guys in it are supposed to be from the late ‘70s to mid ‘80s, yet their clothes look like what high school kids wear today. One guy in the back had a giant afro, but that’s about the only thing to signify it was a different era.

The camera work on this film was very shoddy in places. There were shaky zoom-ins and zoom-outs, and there were places you can tell a hand-held was used because the camera shakes so much. It was a bit dizzying. I also felt like a pervert during Cindy’s shower sequence because of how the camera just lingered on her naked body as she lathers soap all over it. I don’t know if they were trying to create suspense here, but I felt like a creeper staring at her breasts for three minutes because the camera man couldn’t stop focusing on them. It was an obvious attempt at luring the young adolescent male audience and it was annoying.

You can tell the production values are low because of how poorly edited and retouched it was. Some of the dialogue was hard to hear from one person but completely fine from another – things like that can be touched up after filming has wrapped. They sell programs for it that can be installed on your home computer. Same with edits – there were a lot of cut-to-black spaces. I know college students who could put together a better film than this.

The one thing this film does have going for it – aside from the interesting premise – is the actual death sequences. I think most of the budget must have gone to the special effects because they were awesome. The deaths themselves were way too quick to have me scared at all, but the killer mutilated a few of the bodies afterward – some of which was cringe-worthy, even though the victim is dead. The intestines looked real and there was a lot of gore. I was pissed some of the more deserving characters were killed off-screen. I really wanted to see the cliché jock bite it.

Overall:

This film had no suspense whatsoever and very bland and unlikable characters. It’s very poorly written and acted. The only good thing about it is the special effects, but they do not make this worth watching. I’d recommend you skip this one.

3.5/10