Easy A (2010)

Directed by: Will Gluck

Starring: Emma Stone, Penn Badgley, Amanda Bynes, Dan Byrd, Patricia Clarkson, Stanley Tucci, Lisa Kudrow, and Malcolm McDowell

Genre: Comedy / Teen Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) has a big problem. What started as a lie to her best friend about losing her virginity to a fictional college guy, quickly turned into something potentially life-ruining. Her lie is overheard by the school’s resident Christian extremist, Marianne (Bynes) in the ladies room, and quickly spread around the school like wildfire. Olive begins getting a lot more attention, and she likes it.  When her friend Brandon asks her to pretend to have sex with him to save his social life, she agrees, but it soon backfires and she becomes known as the school slut. Now she has to figure out a way to let the entire school know the truth in order to save herself.

I thought this was a decent teen comedy. I’m not usually a fan of this genre, but this was a refreshing look into the teen world. For one thing, the protagonist is intelligent and witty. She is able to hold her own, despite the fact that her world is crumbling around her. She has strength and  a great sense of humor. I loved how some of the jokes were based on classic literature such as Huckleberry Finn and the writer, Sylvia Plath. It went along nicely with the fact that this is sort of a modern version of The Scarlett Letter. It was great to see a film that knows its subject matter and goes about displaying it intelligently. I also love how she references the classic John Hughes movies of the 80s, and then the film later pays homage to them. It recognizes the original teen comedies and then makes the formula its own.

The acting was good. Emma Stone lead the film with ease as our heroine, Olive. This is her story and she nails the role. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson are absolutely hilarious as Olive’s permissive, “cool” parents. Amanda Bynes’ religious zealot character was believable, but still incredibly annoying. The rest of the actors fit their roles well, but the performances don’t really stand out. They all fit cohesively into the mix.

The dialogue was well-written and very  witty. The story, while not original, was well-put together and felt realistic. (Whether or not this would actually happen, has been subject for debate on many a message board.)

The movie is still flawed, however. Some of the characters were incredibly unlikable with no redeeming qualities, although, at the end of the film, I think we’re supposed to forgive them for their actions. Also, I didn’t feel a lot of narrative closure at the end of the film.

Overall: It was a decent entry into the teen comedy genre. It was witty, the jokes were intelligent – not all based on sex and bathroom humor as so many teen films are. Worth a watch, but I’m glad I waited for it to hit DVD/Netflix Instant Watch. It was fun, but it didn’t “wow” me.  Still, it will probably find its way into my collection at some point.

6.5 / 10

Scream 4 (2011)

Directed by: Wes Craven

Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts, Rory Culkin, Erik Knudson, Marley Shelton, with Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

It’s been a long time coming, but Scream 4 has finally hit theaters. For fans of the originals, there hadn’t even been a thought that there would be a fourth installment until it was announced last year. With the three original cast members (Campbell, Cox, and Arquette) returning to their roles, the original writer and Wes Craven holding his spot as the director of the franchise, I had high hopes for this film. It did not disappoint.

The story follows Sidney Prescott (Campbell) as she returns to Woodsboro, California. It’s her last stop on her tour for the self-help book she has written. The day she returns to Woodsboro, two girls are found brutally murdered in their home, and it’s clear that the murders have started again. The new killers are trying to “remake” the original events/ Stab (the fictionalized movie based on Sidney’s real life experiences in horror).  Now it’s up to Sidney to protect her loved ones from the killer.

I was pleasantly surprised by this film. I went into it expecting something of Scream 2 caliber (the last sequel writer Kevin Williamson and Craven collaborated on) but I think it surpassed both of the previous sequels. It still takes on genre clichés and lists new rules, but more commentary is added to this one. They poke fun at the Iphone/smartphone craze for applications by having an app for talking like Ghostface, which I thought was pretty clever. They also had characters pointing out their bad situations and saying, “If this were a movie, I’d be dead,” making the film even more self-referential than the first.  Lastly, they tackled the fact that the news media is always the last to know important updates – it will be all over the web before a journalist can print the story. This is referenced a couple times throughout the movie – and is completely relevant to today’s society, where newspapers and cable news are falling behind blogs and internet updates.

The acting was very well done. The original cast was as good as ever, fitting back into their canonized roles with ease. I was most worried about the new cast of up-and-comers. I’d only ever seen Panettiere and Culkin’s work before so I really didn’t know what to expect. The young cast did very well, which made me happy. The characters were also likable, and I actually cared what happened to them, which is something I haven’t felt since the first film. Hayden Panettiere plays Kirby, a cross between Tatum and Randy from the first film, and probably my favorite of the new girls. She’s a loyal friend and a movie nerd, mixed with a bit of a party girl. Emma Roberts was pretty good as Sidney’s cousin Jill, but sometimes her voice got a little too high pitched when she was yelling towards the end and that got a little irritating. Culkin was another Randy-like figure, a self-proclaimed geek who runs the Cinema Club at Woodsboro High with his friend Robbie (Knudson). Robbie, another self-proclaimed nerd, walks around school filming everything for his live blog posts on the internet. Lastly we have Trevor and Olivia – the least likable characters in the film, but still well-acted for the little screen-time they had.  They probably could have been developed a little more, but they were fairly secondary characters to the rest.

The writing is great – on par with the original film. The dialogue was fitting to each of the characters. Ghostface’s dialogue during the phone sequences was a bit more brutal than any of the previous films, but it worked. Also, there were a lot of nice twists within the film, which I really cannot discuss without spoiling the viewing experience. I didn’t see many of them coming which was a nice change as normally I can predict what is going to happen quite easily in horror films. The humor is more pronounced than the first two films, but much less obvious than in part three, which was also nice. The audience was given a decent mix of horror and humor without either one overtaking the other.

The gore is good old-fashioned 90s-style gore. There was no CGI, just prosthetic work and lots of fake blood. It is a little more intense than any of the previous films – there is a scene were a victim’s intestines are lying on the floor next to the body. Graphic, but awesome. Still, after what that victim went through, it really wasn’t surprising. All the gore matched the severity of the deaths. That was a great change of pace since most modern horror flicks go overboard with it.  

I will say that I should not have read the Entertainment Weekly article on this before watching it. It got my hopes up for the beginning, saying it’s the scariest first kill sequence since the first film. It wasn’t. I didn’t know these characters enough to care what happened to them. There was a lot of build up, and while the kill was still good, it in no way matches up to the iconic opening scene in the original. If I hadn’t read that, I probably would be less disappointed in this scene, so that bothers me a bit.

Two other things I liked about this movie: 1.Kristen Bell and Anna Paquin’s cameo scene and 2. The cop being named Anthony Perkins (the actor who played Norman Bates in the original Psycho.) I found Anna and Kristen’s sequence shocking and funny. I also just love little references made in the script to previous horror classics. It shows the writer is still first and foremost a horror fan.

Overall: A worthy sequel to a long dormant series. Horror and comedy were blended successfully without either one being more prominent than the other. The new characters were likable, the acting good, and the gore CGI free. Definitely worth a check if you’re a fan of the original trilogy.

7/10

Last Word: “You’re forgetting one rule about remakes … Don’t FUCK with the original!” – Sydney Prescott

The Original Scream Trilogy (1996 - 2000)

In honor of Scream 4 coming out this Friday, I figured I’d review the original three Scream films.

Scream (1996)

Directed by: Wes Craven

Starring: Neve Campbell, Drew Barrymore, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Rose McGowen, Jamie Kennedy, Matthew Lillard and Skeet Ulrich

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

The small town of Woodsboro California has been rocked by the shocking double murder of a teenage couple. Seventeen-year-old Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) finds herself caught up in this who-done-it slasher/mystery when the killer makes it clear he/she has her in their sights. As the body count continues to rise, Sydney and her friends must rely on their knowledge of slasher films if they want to get out alive.

I have to say, I do not understand all the flack this film receives from horror fans. I understand that it spawned a bunch of imitators and started the trend of placing well-known actors into horror films, but neither of these things actually have to do with the film itself. I personally don’t like many of the clones or the addition of well-known actors into the horror genre either, but it worked for Scream.

The cast did a great job in this. Yes, many of them were popular at the time, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are talented. Drew Barrymore’s performance in the opening scene is incredibly believable. She appears truly terrified and the audience feels for her. Neve Campbell’s heroine, Sydney, is likable and strong, despite the chaos surrounding her. Rose McGowen plays Tatum, Sydney’s best friend, who is loyal, sharp, and witty. David Arquette is Tatum’s brother, Dewey, the Deputy Sheriff investigating the murders. He’s crushing on Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), a reporter who has come to town to get the story. Jamie Kennedy brings Randy, the horror movie geek, to life, and Matthew Lillard gives a fun, slightly over-the-top performance as Stu, Tatum’s frat-boyish boyfriend. Skeet Ulrich wraps it up with his turn as Billy, the dark and brooding bad boy dating Sydney. All the characters are likable and relatable, making the story entertaining and the viewers actually feel for the victims.

The plot of the film is well thought out and fun. It pays homage to several classic horror films such as Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street, and Prom Night. Several films are mentioned throughout and it’s clear from one viewing that writer, Kevin Williamson, really knows his horror movies. It brings something new to the table with the use of cell phones – newer technology that hadn’t been used in previous slasher films. Also the teens in this film knew the horror clichés to watch out for and the rules that “one must abide by in order to survive a horror movie.” 

The film was well shot and directed. The sets were beautiful and fairly realistic for depicting an upper-middle class California town. The special effects were also done very well. The film has a nice amount of gore (not too much, but probably a little more than necessary), and fake blood and prosthetics were used, rather than the CGI that is so popular today. These types of effects feel more real to me than those that are computer generated.  There was also a good amount of suspense within the film with great tension building moments.

Overall: I really enjoy this film. It is one of the first that really inspired me to get into the horror genre. (I’m a youngin’ – I saw this and worked backwards.) The performances are great, the dialogue witty, the film suspenseful, and we have characters we actually care about. There are also creative kills and just the right amount of gore for my liking. I thoroughly enjoy this film and can watch it over and over again.

8/10

Scream 2 (1997)

Directed by: Wes Craven

Starring: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Jamie Kennedy, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jada Pinkett –Smith, Liev Schreiber, Timothy Olyphant, Jerry O’Connell and Laurie Metcalf

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

Two years have passed since the murders in Woodsboro. Sydney (Campbell) and Randy (Kennedy) are off at Windsor College trying to get on with their lives. However, a new movie, Stab – based on the book Gale Weathers (Cox) wrote about their ordeal in Woodsboro, seems to have inspired a copycat killer. When two students are killed at a viewing of this film, Sydney is sure it’s starting again, and begins to wonder who she can trust.

I didn’t like this film as well as the first. It doesn’t seem as well organized and thought out as the original film. Some of the things the characters do just seem stupid and out of place when murders are being committed. Also, I really couldn’t get into the new characters added to the story. It was almost as if the writer was just writing them to be killed off. They were fairly flat and boring. The only new character I enjoyed was CiCi, played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, but I think that is more because I’m a huge Buffy the Vampire Slayer nerd than her character actually being that memorable. It was nice that she didn’t come off as the typical airhead sorority girl, though. The rest of the characters were bland to me. I really didn’t care what happened to them. Our four surviving characters from the original are the only ones I care about, and they are still played to perfection by Campbell, Cox, Arquette, and Kennedy respectively.

The suspense and tension wasn’t there to me as much as it was in the first, but I think that relates back to the characters not being very likable. If you don’t like the characters that much then you aren’t going to worry about what is going to happen to them. The first half hour to forty-five minutes of the movie are strong, and midway through it begins to fizzle out. The first kill in the movie theater is intense, and they slowly go downhill from there. There was also an idea that the killer(s) is taking out people with the same names as the victims in Woodsboro, in the order that they died, but that storyline gets dropped fairly quickly, so it seems rather pointless. Also, while the big reveal was shocking, I was kind of disappointed with who the killer(s) turned out to be.

Overall: a decent sequel but doesn’t stand on par with the original. The new characters were bland and it felt like the script and story weren’t as well thought out as the previous film. It does have its great moments, but never really impressed me.

6/10

Scream 3 (2000)

Directed by: Wes Craven

Starring: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Liev Schreiber, Scott Foley, Lance Henrikson, Parker Posey, Jenny McCarthy and Patrick Dempsey

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

Three years have passed since the events at Windsor College. Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) has gone into hiding and only her father and Dewey (David Arquette) know where she is. She works for a women’s crisis line from home. Hollywood has begun production on Stab 3, the final film about the murders in Woodsboro. Once again, the murders are starting up. It appears someone doesn’t want Stab 3 to be produced, but wants to create their own, real-life version instead. One by one, cast members begin to die as the killer tries to lure Sydney out of hiding for their final showdown.

This film is the lesser liked of the Scream sequels, but I actually like it better than part two. It introduces a lot more comedy into the mix, which makes up for the cast of barely likable newbies. Still, the beginning sequence is reminiscent of the first film with the suspense aspect. It’s drawn out and the viewer actually cares about what happens to these characters. After that, humor is what keeps the audience watching the Stab 3 cast members as they are dispatched one by one.

The sets were nifty. I really liked the scene where Sydney was being chased through the Hollywood version of her old house. Just being in a building that resembled her old home brings back a flood of memories for her, and to be chased again through this building only adds to her anxiety. The mansion where the last quarter of the movie takes place is also a great set because it has so many secret passage ways for the killer to use to sneak around. You never know where he/she is going to pop up.

Sydney’s character is probably the strongest and the smartest she’s ever been. In the first film she was just figuring out what she needed to do to survive, the second she was trying to prove she was a fighter, by part three she proves she’s a fighter with a good head on her shoulders.

Overall: this film relies more on the humor aspect than the previous films did. It seems to acknowledge that the audience isn’t going to really care much about the new characters so it amps up the humor factor. The original characters are better developed and still enjoyable to watch on screen.  The sets were cool and the ending has a twist most will not see coming. 

6.5 / 10

21 Grams (2003)

Directed by: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Starring: Sean Penn, Naomi Watts, Benicio Del Toro

Genre: Drama

Rated: R

“How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death. Everyone. And how much fits into 21 grams? How much is lost? When do we lose 21 grams? How much goes with them? How much is gained? How much is gained? Twenty-one grams. The weight of a stack of five nickels. The weight of a hummingbird. A chocolate bar. How much did 21 grams weigh?”
- Paul Rivers (Sean Penn), “21 Grams”

A tragic hit-and-run accident brings together a critically ill mathematician (Sean Penn), a grieving mother that was once a drug addict (Naomi Watts) and an ex-con, now born-again Christian (Benicio Del Toro). A non-linear plot sequence shows glimpses into the lives of these characters as they are slowly brought together.

First and foremost, I have to mention that this film is not for everyone. The editing/sequence of events is non-linear. One scene will show you something, and the next could be from earlier in the story or far at the end – the scenes are completely out of order. I know there are a few people that don’t like this type of editing and would prefer to watch a movie straight through. Normally, I would agree with that, but I feel that this semi-unique style of editing really worked for this film. In linear form, I think the film would have lost a lot of its impact and it would have become a run-of-the-mill tragedy/revenge plot. It also kept the attention of the audience – they’re actively involved with the movie, trying to piece things together and understand what is going on. I, for one, enjoyed that. I love being forced to think, rather than have it all laid out in front of me.

The performances in this film were wonderful. Naomi Watts stole the show as the grieving mother. Her actions and emotions were spot-on and believable. I was truly moved by her performance – she truly was Cristina Peck, a woman struggling with her grief and willing to do anything to make it stop (like drinking and doing drugs). Del Toro also brought Jack Jordan to life. An ex-con who had mended his ways, found Jesus, and begun mentoring troubled teens, Jack begins to question his faith after the accident. This crisis of faith is huge for a man who has spent the previous two years devoted to Christ in penance for his sins, and Del Toro really nails it. Penn’s portrayal of the critically ill Paul Rivers isn’t quite as moving as the rest, but he is the glue that pulls the movie together, between the characters and the plot in general. His quote at the beginning of this review is what the movie ends on.

The movie isn’t perfect, however. While the music used was good for the most part, I found it too loud compared to the dialogue. I constantly had to adjust the volume on my television set so I could hear the dialogue but wouldn’t blow out my eardrums with the music. That could have just been the version I was watching – so don’t hold me on this. I really didn’t understand the use of Italian sounding music in the scene where Cristina is questioning the teenage gardener, however. Also, both Jack and Paul’s wives could be annoying at times. Neither one really understood what their husbands were going through, and would often fight about it, rather than sitting down and discussing it rationally. Lastly, the phrase “life goes on” was thrown out so much, it was hard to miss what the central theme of the film was.

Overall, this is a film about a person’s place in the interlocking web of life, and how it effects the lives that go on even when you’ve died. It was a moving film, made so by amazing performances (Del Toro was nominated for an Oscar) and an intriguing editing style. The underlying story and message just wouldn’t have worked as well without these two elements. I went into this film not knowing what to expect, and found something that aroused my emotions, kept me on my toes and made me think - a combination I do not find very often.

7.5/10

Red Riding Hood (2011)

Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke

Starring: Amanda Seyfried, Billy Burke, Virginia Madsen, Julie Christie, Shiloh Fernandez, Max Irons,  and Gary Oldman

Based on the Novel by: Sarah Blakely - Cartwright

Rated: PG-13

A medieval village is being terrorized by a werewolf. The villagers have kept the creature at bay for twenty years, but now it has decided it wants something more – pretty, blonde Valerie (Amanda Seyfried). Valerie, unaware of the wolf’s lust for her, has meanwhile found herself caught up in a love triangle between lifelong friend and true love Peter (Shiloh Fernandez) and Henry (Max Irons), the kindhearted son of the town’s blacksmith. She wants Peter, but Henry wants her – and she finds herself being pushed to marry Henry. When her sister is killed by the werewolf, it becomes clear to Valerie that their village is in jeopardy.  Things become more complicated when famed werewolf hunter, Father Soloman, (Gary Oldman) comes to town, taking over and creating paranoia throughout the village.

A lot of people have expressed hatred toward this film, but I honestly don’t find it that bad. I went to see it in theaters and I didn’t feel ripped off once the credits rolled. This movie may not be the greatest work of cinema (as I will explain below), but it is certainly not the worst film I’ve seen – not by a long shot.

I really liked the cinematography. The atmosphere of the film felt very fantastical and the scenes were beautifully depicted. The werewolf was a little too computer generated for me. I’m kind of old-school about my special effects, I prefer those of the ‘70s through the ‘90s when prosthetics and fake blood were used. CGI has always looked goofy to me. I find it jarring and out of place – especially when it is done poorly like it was in this film.

The story is okay. I haven’t read the book, though I’ve heard it is better. I’ve also heard the original script based on the book was much better than the final product that hit the big screen. I wouldn’t be surprised, and I’d love to get my hands on a copy of the script to find out for myself. As for what did hit the big screen – it came off a little Twilighty for my tastes. People who have read the novel and the original script say that the romance aspect didn’t play nearly as big of a role in-text as it does on film. It feels like the whole supernatural romance aspect was played up to attract Twilight fans and cash in on what is currently popular. However, I think that backfired, as the story – which is supposed to be focused on discovering the identity of the werewolf – was hindered by this aspect. The actual mystery aspect of the film was what held my interest, as well as Gary Oldman’s inquisition of the town. His character was so invested in his hunt for werewolves, he’d practically become a beast himself. The film did well in throwing in red herrings to keep the audience guessing. Some may say it was predictable, but I didn’t see it coming when the big reveal was made.

Foreshadowing was used quite well throughout the film. If something was focused upon in the beginning of the film, it was touched on by the end – something that doesn’t always happen in films. I really didn’t like the actual ending, however. The events after the big reveal somewhat contradict what the movie was saying all along, and that didn’t sit well with me. People who have read the original script have said the original ending was much better, and from the details they’ve given, I believe them.

The acting was so-so. Gary Oldman was great as the evil inquisitor/werewolf hunter. He brought the character to life and made him one the audience loved to hate. Amanda Seyfried did very well in her role, but has given much stronger performances in her career. Her character is strong-willed and sympathetic at times, but the audience barely gets to know her. Julie Christie is lovely and very believable as the grandmother – it’s easy to see where Valerie gets her strong will from. Peter and Henry both seemed pretty flat considering they were supposed to be vying for Valerie’s affections. I honestly didn’t really care for either one of them, though of the two, Henry was the most likable. He was selfless and was still willing to help Valerie even though she'd rejected him. Peter came off as a jerk at times, and I couldn’t really see why Valerie was so infatuated with him.

Overall, the film is rather bland, but hardly the worst film ever made as some reviewers on imdb.com have stated. I think that the cast did well with what they had to work with, but from what I hear, the original script was butchered. That leaves me wondering what could have been.

I found it entertaining, and would most likely watch it again, but it definitely didn’t “wow” me. I could have easily waited for it to hit the shelves on DVD/Blu-ray.

Rating: 6/10  

Blog Introduction

Hi,
Welcome to what is soon to be my movie review blog. I am mostly a horror movie fan, so I can predict that will be the genre that is represented most often. However, I do branch out and watch films from every genre. I will be posting about whatever I watch and I'm not shy about sharing my opinions. I will rate all films on a scale from 1 - 10: 1 being abysmal/awful, and 10 being a masterpiece. (Obviously, 10s are rare - even my favorite films don't earn them.) I will probably include all films in a series in a single post - all that are currently available, anyway. Any sequels that come out after the post is published will have their very own post. Comparison blogs between original films and remakes will be fairly common as well.

Also, I have no problem including TV series in this blog - those posts will be similar to the movie series posts - with individual reviews of each season under one heading.

A head's up on my personal tastes and preferences:
- I prefer horror/sci-fi/thrillers to about anything.
- I'm not a big fan of sappy romances / tearjerkers.
- I'm very picky about my comedies.
- I prefer older films to modern in most cases. Especially when it comes to horror.
- I'm really tough on remakes, especially ones I deemed unnecessary. (aka: most of them.)
- I'm also pretty tough on movies aimed at the teen audience.

I love intelligent, constructive feedback. Comments are more than welcome.