Playing House (2010)

AKA: Homewrecker

Directed by: Tom Vaughan

Starring: Mayra Leal, Matt Lusk, Sarah Prikryl, and Craig Welzbacher

Genre: Thriller, Suspense

Rated: Unrated (R equivalent)

Newlyweds Mitch and Jen McKenzie have just bought their first house. Danny, Mitch’s best friend, moves in to help out with the mortgage payments. All is well until Danny meets Blair, a beautiful young woman who is soon over at the house all the time. Blair claims to be in love with Danny, but she is after more than she is letting on, and that puts everyone in the house in danger.

This film is very predictable. It is yet another “crazy girl wants man and will destroy whatever gets in her way” flick, and poorly done at that. Blair is so obvious about her intentions; I don’t understand how the other characters are so fooled by her. She blatantly flirts with Mitch the minute she meets him, right in front of Jen. She sashays around the house in her underwear or a button-down revealing her cleavage, and nothing else; swims naked in the pool; uses every opportunity to create chaos within the household, and uses her looks and silver tongue to manipulate everyone. Jen is the only one who sees through the act to some degree, and that is because she feels her relationship with her husband is threatened by Blair’s presence. I assume she doesn’t speak out because she’s afraid she’ll seem jealous and paranoid, but she should have because she had every right to feel those things. It’s obvious from the beginning who Blair is REALLY after, and it’s not Danny.

The men in this film are incredibly stupid – Mitch more so than Danny. With Danny, it’s understandable. He has a gorgeous girlfriend who loves to cook for him, play video games, and have lots of sex. He’s smitten. Mitch is just fooled by a pretty face and a “please take care of me” pout. Jen is intelligent and independent. She is a successful chef who has recently been offered her own restaurant. This upsets Mitch because he wants to spend more time with her, and Blair is there whispering in his ear that a good wife is home when her husband arrives and makes an effort to enjoy everything he does. How Blair is able to talk him into doing some things is beyond me - and somehow this man is a doctor.

There are just too many moments of idiocy to make this a decent film. If you suspect a person of murder and have let them on to that suspicion, why would you allow yourself to be alone with them? How did Blair clean up gallons of blood with one large kitchen sponge? It’s pretty clear she has no idea how to clean up a crime scene, yet the tile is spotless. Why would you allow a woman you know nothing about to move into your home? A woman who seems to have no job or means of paying rent? At least Jen was in her right mind about not wanting Blair to move in, but once again, Mitch makes her feel like an ass and she backs down.

The acting was okay at best, with Prikryl and Lusk being the most believable. Leal does well with the seduction scenes, but she’s rather laughable when committing murders. I’m sorry, I’m not buying her as a sociopathic killer. Welzbacher is probably the worst of the lot, being rather stiff in his portrayals of most emotions. Unless he’s conveying anger in some capacity, it’s hard to tell what his character is supposed to be feeling. Is he stressed? Is he happy? Who knows?

All of the kill scenes are done out-of-frame or off screen, so the viewer skips out on most of the violence. There’s also little to rate the special effects by, but the pool of blood was done well. There is plenty of nudity from Mayra Leal, for all of you hoping for some T & A. Otherwise, the film has very little to offer.

Overall, another weak, direct-to-DVD/Blu-ray entry into the thriller genre. It has quite a bit of nudity, which might appeal to some, but otherwise it is predictable, full of stupid characters and off-screen kills. Skip it.

3/10

Call Back (2009)

Directed by: Ben Ross

Starring: Chantelle Barry, Rob Benedict and Monica Gambee

Genre: Horror/Thriller/Torture Porn

Rated: Unrated

Cocky young director, Levi is auditioning young women for his latest horror venture when he meets the breathtaking yet naïve Meadow (Gambee). He invites her over to his place that evening for a screen test in an attempt to seduce the wannabe actress. However, he’s in for a rude surprise when she turns on him. She, along with her girlfriend Sonja (Barry), restrains Levi, and settles in for the long night of torture she has planned for her victim.

I’m not quite sure how I feel about this film. It’s like a combination of Audition (1999), Hard Candy (2005), and Extremities (1986). A man is being punished for his bad deeds, but the punishment may not fit the crime – it may be a little overboard. The women are angry, as they should be, but for most of the film we have no reason for why, and even when we find out, I’m not quite sure the crime warranted the excruciating torture they put Levi through. In the end, they are just as monstrous as he is, possibly even more so.

The truth about Levi’s character is that he is a sexual predator – like many sleazy Hollywood types, he has no problem taking advantage of the young women who yearn for the spotlight. He can get them to do whatever he wants if he promises them a job in his film. There are instances where he pushes them further than they want to go, getting off on the power rush, and of course, filming the entire thing. He’s a control freak. Yet, by the end of the film, I was feeling sorry for him – like in Extremities, I felt the torture was taking things much farther than they needed to go. Did he deserve to be humiliated? Yes, an eye for an eye – he humiliated and took advantage of hundreds of young women. However, what they did do was far too extreme, and I ended up sympathizing with the man they have every right to hate.

This sympathy could also be generated by the fact that Rob Benedict is such a sweetheart in real life (seriously, watch his Supernatural Convention Panels) and always plays a clumsy, but charming, slightly wimpy character you can’t help but care about. He did a great job in this role as well, I’d never seen him play an all-out domineering jerk before, so that was interesting, and he made the torture scenes seem believable. I couldn’t help it, I wanted to climb in the screen and rescue him, but more because after a while, I didn’t see controlling, sexual deviant Levi anymore, but Chuck from Supernatural or even Rob himself being tortured instead. Or maybe I just tell myself this so I don’t get disgusted that I am sympathizing with such a nasty character.

The girls on the other hand, I didn’t feel any real sympathy for. They got off on the torture they inflicted on Levi. For instance, they are seen gleefully cutting into him with scalpels and then making out over his bloodied body. The man has his hands trapped in vices, is bludgeoned repeatedly, forced to taste his own blood, and sexually humiliated, among other things. All the while, Meadow and Sonja are giggling, making out, and making love to one another right next to him. These women are twisted and I was intrigued by their characters. I wanted to know more about them than the film revealed to me.

Some viewers have argued that this is a feminist film, but I disagree. While it does pass the Bechdel Test (contains two women who talk to each other about things other than men), I still wouldn’t argue that it has a feminist intent. For one thing, these women really seem to hate men and get off on degrading and torturing them. They’ve made it clear that Levi isn’t the first and he won’t be the last. These women are vigilantes, dolling out punishment that far exceeds the crime. Most viewers, feminist or not, would agree that Levi deserved a junk punch and a taste of his own medicine, but these women take it to the extreme.

It doesn’t really focus on any social issues. Sure it touches on the epidemic of sleazy Hollywood directors taking advantage of young women who want to be famous, and slightly touches upon rape, but never really says much about these things – just that they’re wrong. The women are just as despicable as the man, if not more so, and feminists rarely like violence in their films. This is more of a revenge film a la I Spit on Your Grave – a film that has been discussed, debated upon and often dismissed as trash by many feminist critics.

The acting was very good. I really believed the characters and I loved how they were able to pull off the plot twists with ease. As I mentioned before, up until this film, I’d never seen Rob Benedict portray a character like this, so it was interesting to see him throw his weight around and be very controlling of everyone around him. Also, the fact that he could make such a despicable man a sympathetic character is a bonus for me. Monica Gambee is gorgeous and she is able to portray both an innocent, naïve young actress and a sultry femme fatale very well. She has a lot of anger pent up inside at many men, but Levi in particular, and she aims to punish every man who has wronged her. Chantalle Barry pushes a little more innocence into her character – she is, after all, supposed to be submissive to Meadow, doing everything she is told, but there is definite evidence that Sonja enjoys the mayhem just as much as Meadow does.

The special effects are cringe-worthy. The cuts inflicted upon Levi’s body looked very real, as did the chafe marks on his wrists from the vices. The film made great use of practical effects, which is a rarity in these days of CGI, and that’s always better than what a computer can add in later.

Overall, it’s an average film with decent acting and practical gore-effects. If you can’t watch extensive torture scenes, it’s probably best to skip this one.

6/10

Speak (2004)

Directed by: Jessica Sharzer

Starring: Kristen Stewart, Eric Lively, Michael Angarano, Hallee Hirsh, and Steve Zahn

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Teen, Drama

Based on the novel byLaurie Halse Anderson

It’s Melinda Sordino’s (Stewart) first year of high school and nothing is what she thought it would be. She enters the year with no friends and faces the wrath of her peers for an incident that happened over the summer. She called the cops at a party, everyone in attendance was busted, and only she knows the reason why she did it. Labeled a “squealer,” Melinda shrinks away from her peers and slowly stops talking altogether, losing herself in her art. As the end of the year rolls around, she realizes that she must tell her secret, she has to open her mouth and Speak.

I think this film did a very good job of capturing the essence of the novel. It stays mostly true to the story, only changing a few things here and there. I found it amusing that her history teacher’s name actually was “Mr. Neck” and not just what she called him. I didn’t like that they changed Andy Evans’s (Lively) character, or the final confrontation between him and Melinda at the climax of the novel, turning a highly suspenseful scene into a blink-and-it’s-over moment.

The acting was decent, with Stewart stealing the show as Melinda. She may get a lot of criticism from detractors over her lack of expression – but that worked for her in this film. Melinda is a depressed character, holding back a dark secret that she feels she can’t tell anyone. Stewart also has a knack for delivering witty lines with a deadpan face, which worked for the character as well. She can, however, express emotion, and does so very well.

Right behind Stewart’s performance is Steve Zahn’s as her art teacher, Mr. Freeman. It was nice to see Zahn in a serious role where he’s not getting naked or acting like an idiot. (Although those roles are usually rather hilarious.) He really takes an interest in her and her work, encouraging her at every turn, and being one of the main reasons she begins to have confidence again. His energy is contagious, and I couldn’t help but smile when he was onscreen.

I was surprised to see Eric Lively playing the main antagonist, Andy Evans. I grew up watching him as the kindly older brother figure on Disney’s So Weird, so it was a little strange seeing him as the bad guy. I was especially surprised at how good he was in the role. He and Kristen Stewart also had a great chemistry, and the scenes they share in the party flashbacks border on adorable in some cases. This chemistry is another reason why I didn’t like how anti-climactic the final confrontation between the two of them actually was.

The bullying was also amped up in the film. In the book, Melinda did face it a little, but not nearly as badly as in the film. Here the kids yell “Squealer” at her, making pig noises whenever she walks by, and throw things at her. She is ridiculed, her books slapped out of her hands, and signs taped to her back. Her teachers aren’t much better, with Mr. Neck deciding she’s a trouble maker from day one, yelling in her face and being an overall bigot. Lastly, her parents don’t even try to understand her, until after the final confrontation between her and Andy, when everyone finds out the truth. As with the novel, I was left wondering how no one seemed to realize that Melinda had gone through something very traumatic – something that changed her entire personality.

Overall, it’s a fairly compelling film with good performances from the leads. There are some deviations from the novel, and I didn’t like how rushed the final confrontation was, but it is still a solid film and worth a watch.

7/10

Karla (2006)

Directed by: Joel Bender

Starring: Laura Prepon, Misha Collins, Tess Harper and Patrick Bauchau

Rated: R

Genre: Thriller, Drama, True Crime

Based on the TrueCase of the Ken and Barbie Killers

In the early 1990s, Karla Homolka and her husband Paul Bernardo abducted, raped and killed two young women. Now, it’s 2000 and Karla Homolka is up for parole. She is being psychologically evaluated to determine whether she is eligible. Through this evaluation the viewer is told the story of her and her husband’s crimes, what they did and how they were stopped. However, it is told through Homolka’s perspective, so it’s not entirely accurate, something that has caused much anger and discontent among the viewers.

This film has garnered a lot of controversy. The crimes of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka are still fresh in the minds of most Canadians, and the Canadian government refused to help the filmmakers in any way during production. This may also explain the inaccuracies in the story, such as the mistakes in the timeline – Leslie (Tina in the film) was killed after Paul and Karla got married, not before. There is no mention of the victim called “Jane Doe” – the only one to have survived her time with the couple – who Karla “gave” to her fiancée as a wedding present. (This could be for legal reasons.)

The people behind the film didn’t treat the material responsibly. The actors were not informed that the film was based on true events, and were then unprepared for the public outrage at their involvement. Misha Collins, who plays Paul Bernardo, has publically renounced the film, and asks people not to watch it. I have heard rumors that Laura Prepon has done the same, but found no evidence.

Below are clips of Misha discussing the film: 

The film also doesn’t do a good job of letting the public know that it is not arguing for Karla’s innocence. Since it is told from her perspective, we see the Battered Wives’ Syndrome defense working in her favor. She was so in love with Paul, she couldn’t bear the thought of losing him, and she was terrified of what he would do to her if she left. While she does some awful things in the film, if the audience hasn’t researched the real story, they might actually find themselves feeling a little sorry for her. The film makes no mention of the video tapes the couple made documenting the atrocities they committed, and especially the fact that in those tapes, Karla seems to be a very willing participant. The only reason she escaped a life-sentence is that she plea-bargained before the tapes were admitted into evidence, and since she met every letter of that agreement, she only had to serve twelve years in prison. The new evidence could not legally be held against her.  The only things the film states are whether Karla earned parole, her release date, and that she made no effort to make amends to the families of her victims. There are subtle touches within the plot itself that may point to her more active involvement, but nothing that points out the entire truth.

As for the actual film itself, it is well-made, despite the inaccuracies. The opening sequence is very artful and moving. Prepon and Collins have a natural chemistry and really do appear to be a young couple in love. The sequence reveals that there’s a darkness to this couple through a change in music from sweet and happy to more ominous, and a strong focus on the shadows.

What makes this film work are the performances. Prepon does a great job in this version of Homolka. She is honest and raw, and, I feel, tries to add more dimensions to the character. Karla does seem a little jealous of the girls Paul chases and brings home. She’s jealous that he wants her little sister, and is willing to ruin Tammy’s life in order to please him. Again – the subtle hints that she is more involved than she lets on. She is also capable of making Karla pitiable, which is no easy task.

Collins’s performance wavers a bit. Despite the fact that this film introduced me to his acting and made me a fan, I find him inconsistent in areas. There are times when I think he should be a bit more panicked – such as when they realize Tammy’s choked into unconsciousness, or when he realizes Tina has seen both of their faces. Other times, his performance is spot on. He can convincingly move from sweet and charming to scarily cold and violent within seconds. He seems to become more psychotic as the film rolls on, which could be linked to Paul’s unraveling due to fear of being caught.

The young victims did a great job too. While the names were changed to protect the deceased (or for legal reasons), the girls were sympathetic and it was heartbreaking to watch them go through such trauma. They were legitimately scared and attempted to protect themselves anyway they could. I especially liked Katelyn (Kristen French in real life) because she stood her ground until the very end.

As far as brutality goes, most of it is not shown. The viewer sees Paul slap, taunt, and pull the victims' hair, but everything else is shown through close-ups of his face and sound effects. Enough is set up so the audience has an idea of what he's doing, but nothing is shown with the underage girls. The scenes where Karla is the subject of his anger, things are a lot more intense. The final beatings leave her so badly hurt she has to be hospitalized, and there is a disturbing scene where he "punishes" her for trying to leave him. This film is not for the faint of heart. 

There are some questions I developed over the course of the film. The first is related to wardrobe: in the scene where they are celebrating Christmas, Tammy, Karla, and Paul are all dressed like it’s summer. Why?  The film took place in Canada where the weather around Christmas is usually snowy with temperatures below freezing. It made no sense to me. Also, why was Paul so upset that Tina had seen his face in the house, when she had clearly seen it when he abducted her? My guess is the filmmakers were playing on the fact that he’d taken her at night, so the shadows obscured his face, but that is hard to buy when the viewer can clearly see it. If we can see it, so can Tina.

Overall, as a fictional film, it would be a decent, disturbing, little watch, but I have to deduct points for the lack of accuracy, as well as the way the filmmakers handled this material. The video tapes should have been mentioned as well as Karla’s true involvement – which could have calmed some of the controversy. The acting is done well and makes the film compelling, despite its flaws and inaccuracies.

5.5/10

Fat Kid Rules the World (2012)

Directed by: Matthew Lillard

Starring: Jacob Wysocki, Matt O’Leary, Lili Simmons, Dylan Arnold, and Billy Campbell

Rated: R

Genre: Independent, Drama, Comedy, Coming-of-Age

Based on the Novel by K.L. Going

Troy is a depressed, overweight teenager, with no friends and no passion outside of video games. Marcus is a free-spirited punk-rock musician with no home and a drug problem. Their paths happen to cross one day when, feeling like he can’t take it anymore, Troy steps out in front of an oncoming bus. Marcus tackles him to the ground, saving his life, and beginning an unlikely friendship. The two bond over the idea of creating a band together, and each helps the other in a way he never expects.

This is the directorial debut of Matthew Lillard, and I am quite impressed with this effort. His passion for the film is visible all over his Twitter account, but it is also obvious in the film itself. It truly feels like he cares for these characters, and thus the viewer does as well.

The characters are well-fleshed out. None fit into a cliché mold. At first Troy seems like the typical nerdy, overweight outcast who wants to get a girlfriend and enjoys video games. As the film progresses, he becomes more likable as he airs his issues with his weight and father. He develops a passion for music and a backbone, and he proves what a big heart he truly has. Marcus is a homeless, drug-addled sleazebag who has never known true friendship until he meets Troy. Despite their differences, these boys save each other from themselves. I also really liked how Troy’s father, Mr. Billings (Campbell), was portrayed as a real person and not just a stick-in-the-mud Marine – which is how many teen films would have played it. He is never really the enemy; he just wants his son to be happy, healthy and successful. He may be strict, but he cares very much for his sons and for Marcus.

I found Troy and Marcus to be believable, people I could meet in everyday life. I’ve known guys like both of them, and feel that Wysocki and O’Leary really brought them to life. Campbell was strong as the former-Marine-turned-cop father figure, portraying strict-yet-caring very well. Lili Simmons was cute as Isabel, and Dylan Arnold was annoying, yet believable, as Troy’s younger brother.

What I really liked about this film is that the kids acted like real kids and the adults were also realistic. The boys talked a lot about music and finding gigs, but they also bond over conflicts with parents and being different in general. As aforementioned, Mr. Billings may be a hardass, but he also has a big heart, and he cares about the well-being of all three boys. He gave up the Marine Corps for Troy’s mother, even though he enjoyed it. There is a scene where he is showing Marcus a box of family photos, and he looks longingly at a picture of his late-wife. He’s trying the best he can, and it’s obvious he still struggles without her around.

I thought Marcus’s drug addiction was handled very well too. As someone who has grown up around addiction – especially one to opiates, I found the portrayal accurate. His shaky hands, his lack of personal hygiene, his willingness to use anyone and everyone he can to get his next high. It doesn’t surprise me that his mother gave up on him – that happens sometimes, because the parent needs to distance him/herself from the pain of losing a loved one down such a dark path. Still, the kid is only eighteen, you would think they would have tried a little harder to get him help. My loved one has been in and out of recovery for nearly twelve years, it’s a never-ending battle. I do wish that could have been addressed by the film, but you can only fit so much into an hour and a half, and the important thing is that it left off sending Marcus in a positive direction.

The ending was a little farfetched, but enjoyable. I did feel like it ended abruptly, without us getting to see Troy do what he’s worked so hard for. He begins to play the drums and the credits roll. I wanted to see him rock out and show what he’s really made of. That was the one major drawback to the film; I wanted him to flaunt what he’s accomplished.

Overall, it’s a good little flick. The characters are realistic and well-rounded. The music is cool, and the dramatic elements are handled well. Recommended.

7/10

LOL (2012)

Directed by: Lisa Azuelos

Starring: Miley Cyrus, Demi Moore, Ashley Greene, Jay Hernandez, Douglas Booth, Thomas Jane, and Marlo Thomas

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Teen, Teen Comedy, Drama, Coming of Age

A remake of the French film: LOL: Laughing Out Loud

Lola (Cyrus) begins a new school year thinking everything in her life is perfect. She has two great best friends, a cute boyfriend she adores, and a brand new year ahead of her. Things get slightly derailed when Chad (Mr. Perfect) breaks up with her, and she realizes she may have feelings for her long-time best friend, Kyle (Booth). As the year wears on she experiments with pot, alcohol, and the idea of sex. Her relationship with her mother, Anne (Moore) becomes strained, and all relationships are tested. Lola and her mother are forced to face the changes in their lives in order to move forward.

This movie is brought to you by your friends at Apple/Mac, Coca-Cola, Facebook, MSN, Mentos, and Trojan Condoms. (Sorry, the blatant product placement was annoying.)

Fair warning: Parents, if you are thinking about letting your pre-pubescent daughters watch this because they adore Miley – don’t. This film has its fair share of sex scenes and a strange scene with a chicken you will find hard to explain. This is not for anyone under thirteen, and is rated as such for good reason.

Now, onto the review: I didn’t care much for this film. It is supposed to be a coming-of-age drama/comedy focusing on the life of a sixteen-year-old girl. I didn’t see what anything in this movie did to attribute to “coming-of-age.” All this film displays is a slightly strained mother/daughter relationship and Lola’s transition from one romantic relationship to another. She doesn’t really have to deal with any big upheavals in her life, she doesn’t take an educational journey, and she doesn’t change much at all throughout the entire film.

There is practically no character development whatsoever. All we know about Lola is that she likes indie rock music (and the guys who play it), writes in her journal a lot, and loves her friends. She starts out the film gossiping with her friends – they talk about underwear, boys, the “skanky post-it,” and more boys. They don’t have any real conversation, everything is superficial. When she writes in her diary it is only a sentence, and she often shuts her laptop in mid-chat with someone – these things I didn’t really understand. Also, why would you paste a condom wrapper in your journal? Ew.

All the teen girls are one-dimensional: Ashley is the attention-seeker known as “the post-it;” Emily is very curious about exploring her sexuality (and hoping to do so with her Trig teacher); and Janice has no personality at all, and maybe two lines of dialogue in the entire film.

The parents aren’t much better. We never find out what Anne does for work, although it looks like she might be some kind of interior designer. She likes wine, pot, and sex, and also has two best girlfriends with whom she only discusses men and sex. She tries to relate to her daughters but doesn’t know how, and doesn’t seem to really learn throughout the film. I did appreciate the fact that she was interested in feminism and her inner conflict of the sexually liberated woman being her daughter. I thought that was an interesting point and could have been explored further – such as maybe a discussion with Lola – but of course not. Mother and daughter actually having a real conversation could never fit in this film. Instead they communicate through texts and Facebook messages. Yes, because that’s healthy.

Emily’s mother is ridiculously overly controlling, flipping out over her daughter owning thong underwear and being irrationally rude to pretty much everyone. She has incredibly high standards for her daughter and no redeeming qualities. Janice’s mother tells her that her poor grades won’t matter because she’s pretty and can find a rich husband. (Because that’s all life’s really about.) Kyle’s father needs to seek professional help and some anger management classes.

All of the characters are boring and irritating. The romance between Lola and Kyle is cute when it’s going well, and very frustrating when it’s hitting rough patches. Anne and James (Hernandez) are also pretty cute together. Still, while they are out bonding romantically, the relationship between mother and daughter doesn’t properly heal. The film makes romantic relationships seem more important than the one between Anne and Lola. The majority of the final half of the movie is based around Lola and Kyle making up, while maybe three minutes focuses on repairing damages between mother and daughter. As someone who has always been close with her mother – I feel that relationship is far more important than any guy. Men come and go, but your mother is a permanent fixture in your life, and I feel the relationship deserves more respect than this flick gives it.

The acting was okay at best. I’ve never really been a fan of Miley’s and she didn’t impress me much with this endeavor. Her southern accent was a little anachronistic considering the film was based in Chicago, where she had lived all her life and neither parent had one. Granted, she wasn’t given much to work with, so I will have to see her in more before I can say whether I think she’s talented or not. It’s hard to make a character likable when there’s really nothing to her. Even a seasoned, talented actress like Demi Moore couldn’t keep my interest. She didn’t seem like she even really wanted to be there. The two did act like mother and daughter, to the best of their abilities, but it is hard when the script is so vague. Marlo Thomas is actually the only actor that stood out to me. Her performance as the young-at-heart Gran was amusing and I enjoyed her presence in the film.

The plot as a whole felt kind of pointless. To me this was just another run-of-the-mill teen flick with nothing new to offer. We have shallow teen girls who have poor relationships with their parents and who lust after cute boys. I didn’t feel like anything was accomplished in this film. It was clichéd and predictable.

I also didn't understand why these girls treated their virginity like a disease. They couldn't wait to rid themselves of the pesky thing, apparently to seem "experienced" when they had sex with someone they really wanted to be with. I guess the days of wanting your first time to be special and with someone you love are gone. They also don't seem to realize that having sex one time doesn't make you that experienced - it often takes a lot of experimentation to find what works for you and your partner, and each partner likes different things. I feel like this didn't promote a positive message about sex to the younger viewers. Sex is not something you rush into with just anyone, especially when you've never done it before. Yet, that is just what these girls do: Emily gives it up to prepare her for someone she feels is superior to her current partner. (Also, she gives it up in the boy's bathroom, because that's classy.) 

Lola loses it to someone she does truly love, but not for lack of trying with others. Why is there such a stigma against virgins? Why promote such stigma to young viewers? I think it's irresponsible and doesn't teach young women to have any self-respect. Ugh, at least they promoted safe sex. 

One thing I did like was the band’s music. I thought the song, “Heart on Fire,” was sweet and catchy.

Overall: the movie wasn’t exactly terrible, but it wasn’t good either. It was very bland, cliché and predictable, with no developed characters. The acting could have been better if the performers had more to work with. It also doesn't do a good job promoting a positive relationship between mother and daughter, and the way the subject of sex is treated really bothers me. Skip it.

3.5/10

She's All That (1999)

Directed by: Robert Iscove

Starring: Freddie Prinze Jr., Rachael Leigh Cook, Matthew Lillard, Paul Walker, Kevin Pollack, Kieran Culkin, Jodi Lyn O’Keefe, Dule Hill, Gabrielle Union, Usher Raymond and Anna Paquin

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Teen Comedy, Romantic Comedy

Zack Siler (Prinze Jr.) thinks he has it made. He’s a soccer star, the most popular guy in school, has his choice of Ivy League colleges, and the hottest girlfriend. When Taylor (O’Keefe) dumps him for reality TV star Brock Hudson (Lillard), Zack is shocked and hurt. This doesn’t stop him from making a bet with his friend Dean (Walker) that he could take any girl in school and turn her into the prom queen. Enter Laney Boggs (Cook), the solitary art freak who is more interested in the world’s problems than prom. Will Zack stick to the bet, or will he realize there’s more to Laney than meets the eye?

While this movie is cute, it has always struck a negative chord with me. It’s never been a personal favorite of mine, even when I was a young teen. I don’t know why, exactly. Maybe it’s because Zack doesn’t really seem to fall for Laney until after she’s made over to fit society’s idea of beautiful. Maybe it’s because Laney can’t seem to stand up for herself when she needs to most. I can’t put my finger on it, but for some reason this movie never charmed me.

For one thing, the characters are all rather clichéd, not seeming to have any true personality. The only character who is the least bit different from the usual is Laney. She’s an artist, a feminist, someone who cares about world issues. These are the reasons kids her age avoid her – because she focuses on things that they don’t want to think about. They just want to kick back and have fun, not worry about real world issues (unless it is the latest episode of the MTV reality series). Zack could easily be interchanged with half the other romantic lead male characters of the 90s teen comedies. Then, of course, there’s his jerkwad best friend (Dean), his nice guy friend (Preston), the bitchy, self-involved popular girl (Taylor), her lackeys, and the comic relief (Brock). None have distinct personalities; they all kind of blend together.

The acting is decent. Normally, I rag on Freddie Prinze Jr.’s acting, but the male lead in romantic comedies is all he seems to know how to do. In these films he’s cute and charming; it’s when he tries to be serious that I feel he falls flat. Rachael Leigh Cook is adorable and she brings the right amount of attitude to Laney Boggs – well as much as the script allowed, anyway. I could see Laney punching Taylor in the face or shoving her into the pool at Preston’s party, but apparently the screenwriters didn’t see that fitting her character. Matthew Lillard was hilarious as Brock Hudson, and honestly his dance scene is the only reason I’ve watched this film more than once. The other characters are really too minor to note.

I think the plot itself may be what bothers me the most about this film. The audience finds itself rooting for Zack and Laney to get together, even though it’s known that Zack is spending time with her to win a bet. Yes, we are aware that he’s falling for her, of course he is, that’s the formula of the genre. Still, he doesn’t really see her for her until she changes to fit his ideal. After her make over, she may still wear her paint spattered clothes, but her style is more tuned in to popular fashion. She also fixes her hair every day, wears make up when she never did before, and stops wearing her glasses. Worst of all, he gets her to open up to him, when there’s still a good chance he’s using her to win the bet. As someone who is a lot like Laney, opening up to new people terrifies me, especially since I’ve been hurt so many times. I feel for her, and understand why she doesn’t trust easily, so when she opens up to him, I fear for her.

The ending is fairly predictable, but if you’ve seen one teen romantic comedy, you’ve seen them all. Also, am I the only one who finds the choreographed Senior Class Dance a little awkward and unrealistic?

There are a few things I noticed in the film that, as a Buffy fan, made me geek out a little. Sarah Michelle Gellar can easily be spotted in the cafeteria scene. The prom photographer was a villain in the episode “Anne.” Also, the high school where this film was shot is the same high school that was used as Sunnydale High.

Overall, it’s not a bad flick, but it is clichéd and predictable. Laney is the only character I really like, and even she could use some work. The film is cute, but nothing special.

6/10

Rocktober Blood (1984)

Directed by: Beverly Sebastian

Starring: Tray Loren, Donna Scoggins, Renee Hubbard, and Nigel Benjamin

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Slasher

It’s been two years since rock star Billy Eye killed twenty five people, including his friends and staff. Now, the only surviving witness to his crimes, Lynn Starling, has taken his place at the head of the band. However, despite the years of therapy, she still can’t get over the trauma of nearly dying at the hands of Billy Eye. She thinks she sees him in the concert hall, in the woods by her home, and in her house, but her friends insist she’s imagining things. Is she really just going crazy, or is Billy Eye back from the dead?

The first thing I liked about this movie was the heroine. She may be weaker than many in her genre, but she sticks to her beliefs even when everyone else thinks she’s crazy¸ and she stands her ground against  men like Billy Eye (prior to death, of course). She is also one of the few female horror characters to have a nude scene (two in fact) and survive the film. I found that refreshing. I didn’t like how she dissolved into a useless mess whenever she was confronted by Billy, hardly ever fighting back. Girl, it’s a life or death situation, get your head in the game.

The acting is pretty awful. Donna Scoggins is okay as Lynn, but occasionally falters and becomes weak. Yet, her performance was the strongest in the film. Tray Loren wasn’t very convincing at all as the insane Billy Eye. His constant maniacal laughter made me want to punch him in the throat. Honestly, cut that out. It’s not scary, it’s irritating.

The plot is fun, but I would have liked the film to focus more on the entire band, not just on Billy stalking Lynn and playing with her head. I think they were trying to go for more of a suspense theme than a full blown slasher, but it didn’t work out so well. Also, that ending is rather ridiculous. The reveal of “Billy” is soap operatic, and the motivation for the killings is lame. The movie also ends abruptly without the audience learning what happens to either Billy or Lynn. Since I’ve been following her throughout the movie and caring about her character, I’d like to know that she remains okay. Apparently, the filmmakers don’t agree with that.

The special effects/gore were pretty tame. There’s a little blood, but not too much. Many of the deaths are bloodless, although fairly creative. For instance, this is the first time I’ve seen someone taken out with a clothing iron.  Still, the death scenes weren’t very scary or entertaining.

Overall, this is another cheesy entry in the 80s slasher craze. This one combines 80s hairband rock music with a generic slasher flick. Aside from a couple likable characters, the film is rather dull.

4/10

The Switch (2010)

Directed by: Josh Gordon and Will Speck

Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Jason Bateman, Jeff Goldblum, Juliette Lewis, Thomas Robinson and Patrick Wilson

Rated: PG-13

Genre: Romantic Comedy, Drama

Wally Mars is shocked by the news that his best friend, Kassie, has decided to have a baby on her own. Having had little luck in relationships, she has realized her biological clock is ticking and has decided to take matters into her own hands. Unable to admit his true feelings for Kassie, Wally gets blackout drunk at the party she has to celebrate her insemination. Kassie moves back home to have help raising her child, leaving Wally in New York. Seven years later, she returns, and Wally comes to the realization that he very well could be the father of Kassie’s son, Sebastian.

The plot is fairly original, even if, in places, it is gross. It mixes the best friend’s unrealized love, a drunken mistake, and a love triangle into something a little fresher than we’re used to. It is still a formulaic romantic comedy, following the same path they all do – everything going great, big bump that breaks up the couple, and climactic ending – but at least the story is good enough that it doesn’t really matter.

The cast is great. If there’s one thing that Jennifer Aniston knows how to do, it’s comedy – even if she’s often the straight woman to everyone else’s quirks. She’s believable as a woman unlucky in love and she plays a great mother. Jason Bateman is hilarious, bringing all of Wally’s neuroses to life and making him sympathetic despite what the audience knows he has done. Jeff Goldblum and Juliette Lewis are fun as the best friends of Wally and Kassie respectively. Patrick Wilson probably had the least to work with, and his character was boring, but I think that was the point. He’s bland, he talks too much, and he’s in the way of Wally and Kassie’s potential love.

The story managed to combine comedy and drama very well. I could laugh along with the silly things like sperm shaped confetti, pretty much anything coming out of Jeff Goldblum or Juliette Lewis’s mouths, and the neurotic tendencies of both Wally and Sebastian. There are also very touching moments, such as Wally and Sebastian’s bonding time, Sebastian’s explanation for his picture frame collection, and the moment he and Wally are ripped apart. It could have just been my hormones, but I was almost crying in a couple of these scenes. Bateman and Thomas Robinson (Sebastian) have a great chemistry.

Overall, I thought it was a cute flick with a nice balance of comedy, romance, and drama. The plot is something we haven’t seen before and the cast really brings it to life.

7/10

Meatcleaver Massacre (1977)

AKA: "Hollywood Meatcleaver Massacre" and "Morak"

Directed by: Evan Lee

Starring: Christopher Lee, Larry Justin, J. Arthur Craig, James Habif, Robert Clark, Bob Mead, and Doug Senior

Rated: R

Genre: Horror, Slasher, Supernatural

There has been an attack on the Cantrell home. Home invaders have severely injured Professor Cantrell and murdered the rest of his family. Now, the professor and acclaimed occult researcher lies unconscious in a hospital bed, his soul summoning an ancient demon, Morak the Avenger, to bring justice down upon the perpetrators. He knows who they are, and they will pay with their lives.

The title of this film is very misleading. There are no deaths related to a meat cleaver. In fact, there aren’t really any interesting deaths at all. There is no gore to speak of, and the violence happens so quickly, the viewer isn’t even sure what is happening. When we are dealing with characters as despicable as the guys in this film, the deaths should be long, drawn out, creative, and gory, not blink-and-you-miss-it or leaving you wondering what just happened.

The editing is very choppy, jumping around sporadically throughout a scene, and often splicing two different scenes together, confusing the viewer. For example: we see Dirk slam against a mirror, bleeding (orangey colored blood!), then we see him sitting in a chair lost in thought, then we’re back to him and the bloody mirror, then the chair again. Then there’s the whole scene where Dirk is contemplating suicide, about to slit his wrist, then realizes he’s late for work, so he decides against it. Really? Couldn’t we have left that ridiculous scene out? Did it do anything for the story?

The lighting in the film is terrible. There are many scenes, especially when a death is about to occur, and the entire climax, where it is hard to see anything at all. It was difficult to discern what actually happened in the final moments of the climax, I’m still not entirely sure about the events that unfolded.

It is really hard to get into a film when you don’t like the characters. The only decent one is the Professor, everyone else is either annoying, disgusting or boring. I can’t feel scared for characters I do not care about. I felt the home invasion could have been a very suspenseful, intense scene, but the film plows on through it, leaving the viewer thinking, “Well, that happened.” Those were characters the audience could have gotten behind and rooted for, but instead we don’t even know their names. Meanwhile, the audience is subjected to the annoying repartee of Sean, Dirk, Phil and Mason, the morons behind the Cantrell murders – and don’t even get the satisfaction of seeing them die brutally.

The only thing this film has going for it is the appearance of horror legend, Christopher Lee, bookending the crappy schlock. Lee discusses interesting supernatural occurrences that slightly relate to what the professor was teaching in class. These anecdotes are more interesting than anything else the flick has to offer. I’m not sure why such a legend would appear in such bland dreck, but even he could not save it.

Overall, this is a boring supernatural slasher with unlikable characters and terrible lighting and editing. It’s not worth your time.

3/10

Silent Madness (1984)

Directed by: Simon Nuchtern

Starring: Belinda Montgomery, David Greenan, Tori Hartman, Katie Bull, Katherine Kamhi, Sydney Lassick and Viveca Lindfors, cameo by Paul DeAngelo

Genre: Horror, Slasher

Rated: R

Due to a computer error, dangerous mental patient, Howard Johns, is released from the hospital. Doctor Joan Gilmore discovers this error, and upon bringing it to the attention of her senior staff members, realizes they’re trying to cover it up. Gilmore takes it upon herself to find Johns, hoping to stop him before he returns to the scene of his crimes and begins to recreate them.

I really liked that the “survivor girl” role was filled not by a teenager, but by a professional woman with a good head on her shoulders. Joan Gilmore is a great heroine for this film – she’s tough, stands her ground, and is willing to fight for what she believes is right, even if no one else believes her. She’s a licensed psychiatrist and cares deeply about all of her patients, even the violent ones that have to be chemically restrained. She is also willing to risk her own life to help the girls she believes Johns will be targeting. She may meet a love interest on the way, but she is her own being and she continues to prove herself despite the misogyny she faces in the work place and on her quest to stop Johns from returning to where it all began.

The other characters are pretty unmemorable – some simply introduced only a split second before getting killed off. (Ex: Barbara, the skateboarding girl). Joan focuses her time on the three girls still home for spring break – Pam, Cheryl and Jane (Sleepaway Camp’s Katherine Kamhi). These girls really don’t have much personality, and I honestly didn’t care whether she was able to save them or not. Joan’s love interest, Mark, is the only other character I found myself rooting for. He also happened to be the only male in the film’s population that could respect a woman and work alongside her without treating her like she was inferior or a sex object.

I did like how the film explored the territory of the working woman. In the 1980s, more women were leaving the home and entering the workplace, becoming career women rather than housewives. It was really nice to see the heroine of this film being a professional, better yet, a doctor, and having her boss also be a woman. Joan also proves to be motherly as well as career driven, so the film drives out the idea that women can’t be both. We also see her deal with the blatant misogyny from her male peers and the males that work beneath her. She proves herself to these sleazebags every day, and won’t allow them to tell her she’s wrong when her gut tells her she’s not.

Of course, if the film’s protagonist can almost be seen as a feminist character, it has to be balanced out with a little T&A from the sorority sisters. At least three pairs of breasts are shown, as to be expected from a cheesy ‘80s slasher. It’s just a bummer that the film falls back on lame clichés when they have such a progressive heroine. Breasts are shown, “slutty” girls killed, virginal girls survive. I guess I can’t ask for too much.

The kills were a disappointment. They are all pretty bloodless and most of them happen off screen. The viewer gets the basic gist of what’s happening to the victim, but no real thrill in the suspense or the gore. Most of the kills happen very quickly, giving the viewer little to no time to worry for the intended victim, and even less for the victim to fight back. The only suspenseful scenes involve the final chase between Joan and Johns. She is likable and she is a fighter. I didn’t want anything to happen to her.

The plot itself has been done – mental patient gets out of the hospital and returns home to kill again. It was done in Halloween, and I’m sure even before that. It is also fairly predictable. I did, however, really like the hospital cover-up angle the film took, proving that those Joan works for may be just as dangerous as the man she is trying to bring back into custody.

Overall, this is a pretty tame slasher. The kills are rather boring and bloodless, the plot predictable, but the heroine is great. I’d like to see more characters like her in horror.

5/10

Beautiful Creatures (2013)

Directed by: Richard LaGravenese

Starring: Alden Ehrenreich, Alice Englert, Jeremy Irons, Viola Davis, Emmy Rossum, Thomas Mann, Emma Thompson and Kyle Gallner

Genre: Teen, Drama, Romance, Supernatural

Rated: PG-13

Based on the novel by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl

Ethan Wate thinks it’s just going to be another boring school year in Gatlin, South Carolina, dealing with the same old people and same dull events as always. Then he meets Lena Duchannes, the new girl in school, and can’t keep himself away from her. As the two grow closer, secrets are revealed, and Ethan learns more about his family, Gatlin, and the world than he ever thought possible.

I have mixed feelings about this film. In my attempt to decide my final verdict, I will lay down a list of what I did and didn’t like about it.

What I did like:
The Acting: When I first watched the trailer, I wasn’t sure how I felt about Alden Ehrenreich as the leading man, but I ended up falling in love with him. He was sweet and charming, determined as well as vulnerable, all wrapped up in an adorably awkward package. He brought Ethan to life. Englert wasn’t bad as Lena either, giving her a strength that she didn’t have in the novel. She and Ehrenreich also seemed to share a natural chemistry, which helped me care about them as a couple. Jeremy Irons was everything I expected Macon Ravenwood to be – tall, well-spoken, and sophisticated. Emmy Rossum was another actor I wasn’t sure of – especially since she’s radically different from the Ridley in the novel, but for the film’s version she does her job well. Emma Thompson stands out the most, jumping from crazy bigoted church lady to the delightfully evil Sarafine with such ease. She seemed to have a lot of fun with the character and it showed in her performance.
The Cinematography: The backdrop for this film was beautiful. It really felt like the South, with the old plantation houses, ancient trees covered in Spanish Moss, and small town charm. The Castor sets were beautiful, with Ravenwood Manor being elegant and stylish and the Castor Library having an antique feel.
The Special Effects: While they are CGI, they are done well and very imaginative. I loved the spinning dining table, the appearance of writing in The Book of Moons, and the spell casting. The snow scene did look a little fake, though, and could have been done better with practical effects.

What I Didn’t Like:
The Omission of Characters: In the novel, Amma is Ethan’s housekeeper. She has helped raise him, she takes pride in her cooking, and she is big on the practice of voodoo. She does not run the Gatlin County Library – that job belongs to Marian, the long-time friend of Ethan’s deceased mother. The film puts too much responsibility on Amma, combining her character with Marian’s, and doesn’t give Amma the ability to shine on her own. Both of these women play significant but different roles in Ethan’s life. I felt that forcibly combining the two watered down Amma’s character, and left nothing for a talented actress like Viola Davis to work with. Also missing are Ethan’s father (no big loss, he doesn’t play a huge role in the first novel), and the Sisters – Ethan’s three great aunts, who are hilarious in the novel and also provide a lot of the back story to the locket visions.
Larkin: While this character doesn’t play a super big role in the books, he is still relevant. In the film he is only in two scenes and we don’t even know what his powers are until the very end. His character isn’t really anything like he is in the novel and could have been left out entirely. This saddens me because a very talented young actor, Kyle Gallner, was cast in this role and was sorely underutilized.
The Flashbacks: These are supposed to play a pivotal role in the story, but Ethan and Lena don’t seem to care about them. We only see two, one of which is just a collection of random images that doesn’t seem to mean anything. The other tells a story that connects Ethan and Lena, yet the film gives it a brief discussion and skirts away from it. The flashback scenes were some of the most interesting in the first novel, and they explain the curse on Lena’s family and why Ethan is so drawn to her.
The Inclusion of Aspects from Beautiful Darkness: The film revealed a large plot point from the second book, involving Macon and Ethan’s mother – which I didn’t like. Also, Lena’s actions at the end of this film are very similar to those in the end of the second novel. I would have preferred to keep the two separate, especially if they want to continue the series.
No School Dance: This scene was my favorite in the book, and I really wanted to see it acted out. Who wouldn’t want to see Ridley give those popular brats a taste of their own medicine?
The Climax: While it was similar, I felt it lacked the action that it had in the book. It was missing a couple significant characters, fire, and violence. It feels the like climaxes of the first two novels in the series were mashed together poorly, screwing up the continuity of the rest of the series, should they continue to be made into films.
The Lack of Incubi: Macon Ravenwood is an incubus from a long line of them. In the film, he is nothing more than a dark castor turned light, but in the novel he is much stronger, both literally and in casting. The incubi play a significant role in the books, and I don’t see how the next two can be made into films without the inclusion of these creatures.

What I’m on the Fence About:
The Change in the Love Story: If this ends up being a stand-alone film, I can adjust to the differences in the love story. I understand Lena’s decision in the movie, and it works for the film version of the story, but it won’t if the series continues to get the film treatment. It doesn’t make sense with the story flow, and the next entries will have to be changed to follow this story arc, thus continuing to scramble the rest of the series.

Overall, it’s not a bad film, but it is severely lacking if you have read the books. I hope it remains a standalone film, because I don’t want the rest of the series to be butchered due to the changes made to the first story. Actors were underused and characters disregarded. What saves this is that aside from the deviations from the novel, the love story is still gripping to me and the acting, cinematography, and special effects were all very well done.

6.5/10 

Valentine (2001)

Directed by: Jamie Blanks

Starring: Marley Shelton, Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Jessica Capshaw, Jessica Cauffiel and Katherine Heigl

Genre: Horror, Slasher

Rated: R

After Shelley, a pretty young medical student, is brutally murdered, her friends from Junior High begin receiving perverse Valentine’s Day cards. As the girls try to figure out who may be behind the creepy cards and Shelley’s murder, the killer continues to stalk, and any of them could be next.

This film is just one of the many “hip,” self-aware slasher clones that spawned from Scream, yet I have a soft spot for such flicks. These clones were my introduction to horror culture, coming out just around the time I was old enough to start watching my soon-to-be favorite genre. No matter how poorly they were received, or made, I can still find some good qualities in them.

For instance, Valentine isn’t a great movie by any means, but I find it entertaining. The story is a generic slasher plot and the characters aren’t really that likable, but it does have its good points. The cherub mask that the killer wears is creepy and some of the death scenes are pretty inventive – my favorite involving the hot tub. I also liked that the deaths were linked to things the girls said or did in the beginning of the film, for example, “I’d rather be boiled alive.” It is a clever use of foreshadowing that I find fun.

The acting has its ups and downs. I don’t really find Marley Shelton to be a strong enough actress to carry the film. She plays sweet and innocent well, but lacks the strength to be believable as the film’s heroine. Denise Richards didn’t really have to stretch too much to play Paige, either, as Paige is all about being sexy and sultry, and that’s what Denise is. I wish Katherine Heigl could have been utilized more, as I generally enjoy her work. Out of all the girls, Jessica Capshaw was the only one who really seemed to bring her character to life. Dorothy is the least likable and most developed female character, with her self-esteem issues, jealousy, and anger at the world. David Boreanaz is as charming as ever as Adam, making girls swoon with his adoration for Kate. (Although why he loves her so much is a mystery, she’s sweet, but she’s bland.)

I did like that the girls all seemed to be very confident women and didn’t let guys treat them like garbage. Well, all except for Dorothy, anyway. Kate keeps Adam at a distance due to his drinking, Lily bails on her man when he proves unfaithful, and Paige “takes care of” a guy who disrespects her, in a rather unpleasant manner. These girls may be one- dimensional, but they have self-respect, which is nice to see.

What this film tried to do, and failed at, was create a twist ending the viewer cannot see coming. It’s obvious very early on who the killer really is. While the reveal is a crafty construction by the actual killer, the audience isn’t going to fall for it. I do, however, like how subtle the twist is, happening right before the credits. If you blink, you may miss it.

There are also little bothersome things that leave me with questions. How did the killer drop the rose by the hot tub without being noticed? How many people have access to Kate’s apartment? It seems like everyone and their brother is always creeping about in there. What was the relevance of Kate’s water not working? What happened to Brian?

Overall, it’s not a well-made film, or well-written, but it is entertaining, and it does have its moments.

5.5/10

Mean Girls 1 & 2 (2004 - 2011)

Mean Girls (2004)

Directed by: Mark Waters

Starring: Lindsay Lohan, Tina Fey, Rachel McAdams, Lacey Chabert, Amanda Seyfried, Lizzy Caplan, Daniel Franzese, Jonathan Bennett, Amy Poehler, Neil Flynn, Ana Gasteyer and Tim Meadows

Genre: Comedy, Teen Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Based on the book, Queen Bees and Wannabes by Rosalind Wiseman

Sixteen-year-old Cady Heron (Lohan) is going to public school for the first time, and is immediately overwhelmed by current teen culture. At first her only friends are Janis (Caplan) and Damien (Franzese), but soon she catches the eye of The Plastics – the most popular girls in school. At Janis’s insistence, she continues to hang out with these girls to get the inside scoop. However, it becomes war when Regina (McAdams) knowingly steals Cady’s crush, and Cady joins forces with Janis to take down Regina once and for all.

I’m actually surprised how this movie had to grow on me. I first saw it when it hit DVD I wasn’t that impressed. It took me a few years to really enjoy the humor and understand the message of the film. Also I wasn’t as big of a fan of Tina Fey as I am today, and it sometimes takes a bit to understand her brand of funny.

The characters in this film are fabulous. Cady is great as the center focus of the film, but she is pretty much the straight character to everyone else’s quirks. Her character develops while little changes in the rest of them – but we wouldn’t have it any other way. I have to say Janis and Regina steal the show as the true mean girls. Janis has held a grudge against Regina since junior high, when Regina made her an outcast, and she has to use her own defensive humor to get her through the days at school. She jumps at the chance to destroy Regina’s life. Meanwhile, Regina is the typical spoiled little rich girl who gets everything she could possibly want and isn’t grateful for any of it. She’s the girl you love to hate. As Damien says, “She’s fabulous, but she’s evil.”

The rest of the characters are great as well. Damien is the hilarious “gay best friend” and only true friend Janis has until Cady enters the picture. Gretchen (Chabert) and Karen (Seyfried) are giggle-inducing as Regina’s lackeys, and of course the quirky doesn’t end with the students. Ms. Norbury (Fey) has Tina’s dry, self-deprecating wit, Mr. Duval (Meadows) tries too hard to relate to the students, and Mrs. George (Poehler) is the overly exaggerated “cool mom” that tries to be friends with the teenage girls.

The performances are all pitch perfect. I don’t have a single complaint with the casting. In fact, this movie often makes me a little sad because it reminds me of what Lohan could have been if she had just kept her act together. Instead, the film’s breakout stars are actually Rachel McAdams and Amanda Seyfried, who have gone on to make many popular films.

I really enjoy the message of this movie – which is, ultimately, be yourself and you’ll find true happiness. The people who deserve to be in your life will be there anyway. I loved Cady’s character arc as she discovers the awful things girls do to each other, gets caught up in it, and finally finds her way back to herself. The movie lectures against being mean to one another and learning to respect everyone no matter their differences. It’s a humorous look at the evil things girls do to one another in order to be more popular, get a guy, win a crown, etc, and examines if it is all really worth it in the end.

I think this is a great film that should be watched by all preteen to teenage girls and their mothers. It explores the evil of girlhood and explains how it’s best to avoid such behavior, all the while being funny and entertaining.

8/10

 

Mean Girls 2 (2011)

Directed by: Melanie Mayron

Starring: Meaghan Martin, Claire Holt, Maiara Walsh, Nicole Gale Anderson, Jennifer Stone, Bethany Anne Lind and Tim Meadows

Genre: TV Movie, Comedy, Teen Comedy

Rated: PG-13

Jo Mitchell (Martin) is new to North Shore High, having landed at her fifth school in three years. Since her father moves around a lot for his job fixing NASCAR race cars, Jo never stays at the same school very long, thus she has some ground rules: she doesn’t make friends or date because she will just have to move and leave it all behind. But all that changes when she begins her senior year at North Shore and meets Abby Hanover (Stone), the richest outcast ever. Abby’s father offers to pay Jo to be Abby’s friend and Jo agrees, only to find that being Abby’s friend really angers Mandi (Walsh) leader of The Plastics – who makes it her personal mission to ruin Jo’s life.

Aside from being an unnecessary made-for-TV sequel, the first part of this film really isn’t bad. I really liked Jo’s character – she was a badass with confidence and didn’t let the typical rules of social hierarchy dictate her life. She takes shop, loves junk food, drives a Vespa and has no problem telling the bitchy popular chicks where to stick it. Abby is also adorable as the shy outcast, secret artist, and frequent victim of Mandi’s torment.

However, aside from Tyler, Jo’s love interest, Jo and Abby are really the only decent characters in the film. While in the first movie The Plastics were mean but still likable, here they are just evil with no redeeming characteristics. They are cliché cardboard cutouts of typical popular girls – I was surprised none of them were on the cheerleading squad. Then, of course, there’s the brown-nosing Quinn (Lind) who longs to be popular and will hang with whoever seems to hold the crown in that department. I wanted to smack her in every scene that she was in.

I didn’t really like the story of this flick. It starts off great with Jo strutting into school with her kickass attitude and the first thirty minutes or so are great. I really liked that Jo held her head high through most of Mandi’s attacks, and didn’t stoop to her level until Mandi sabotaged the car Jo’s father was working on. Jo does not take attacks on her family easily, nor should she. It is only then that she begins to lose herself in “Girl World” and taking down Mandi.

After that thirty minute mark, this film stepped out of the realm of realistic. I don’t believe for a second that Mandi and her dimwit friends would have the first clue how to sabotage a car – they don’t have a techie brain cell amongst the three of them. Nor that these girls wouldn't be charged with crimes such as trespassing and destruction of private property. No need to fight like a girl, just have the brat arrested. Also, as a once-victim of mean girl attacks, they don’t usually go after your family – they just make your life a living hell. This action proves psychotic and out of bounds, even for a “mean girl.” Especially when Jo’s only crime was being nice, confident, and attractive – basically being more appealing than Mandi. In fact, all of the “Crimes Against Mandi” are ridiculous – Abby feeding Mandi’s dog, having a better purse, or getting a better parking spot – is that REALLY stuff that teenage girls attack each other over? Has my five years outside of high school put me THAT out of the loop?

I also don’t understand why Jo challenges Mandi to a football game. What is that supposed to prove? Jo says, “We’re going to settle this like men,” well, then punch her in the face! That is how guys resolve issues, they beat the crap out of each other and then go get a beer. They don’t challenge each other to a game of football  - especially one that gives the players a week or so to prepare for. Jo had nothing to lose at that point, why not just tackle the snob and have it out physically? Oh, because that would promote violence and that’s something we need to avoid teaching kids. I’m not promoting it, but sometimes it is the only way to get a bully off your back. Also, it's a far more realistic reaction to Mandi's attacks than what actually happened. 

There are also some inconsistencies between this one and the first, namely that in the original, North Shore High was located in Illinois, not Ohio. Also, the original Plastics didn’t call themselves The Plastics, that was a snide name for them made up by their classmates. In this version, Mandi and her friends hold the title proudly, and they don’t even come close to being the originals. The writing was mediocre at best, and the three writers on this flick couldn’t match the single talent of Tina Fey.

The acting was amateur, but Martin and Stone stood out among the kids, and Meadows was funny in his revival of Principal Duval. The Plastics were sup-par in my opinion, but that could also be because their characters were so weak they really had nothing to work with. The actors can only do so much with what they are given, and when they are only given one-dimensional characters with few personality traits, there’s not much they can do.

I also found the wardrobe in this movie laughable. The Plastics boast about owning Prada, Versace and Jimmy Choo, yet their wardrobe looks like it came from the junior’s department of JC Penney. (No slam to the company, I shop there frequently.) While The Plastics in the first film looked sleek and put together, these girls look childish. Also, I’ve never seen knee high nylons with skirts being revered as fashionable. Who wears heels when breaking and entering, especially to sabotage a racecar? Lastly, I would think Mandi would have a little more class than to have a giant tramp stamp, but I guess not.

Overall, this is quite the forgettable, unnecessary sequel. The story is weak, the mean girls over the top, and the acting mediocre. It’s okay for a watch if you’re bored on a rainy afternoon or are curious about the Mean Girls sequel, but honestly, I’ll stick with the original.

5.5/10

Extemeties (1986)

Directed by: Robert M. Young

Starring: Farrah Fawcett, James Russo, Alfre Woodard and Diana Scarwid

Genre: Psychological Thriller, Drama

Rated: R

Based on the Off Broadway Play by William Mastrosimone

After Marjorie escapes an attempted rape and sexual assault, she turns to the police for help. When she learns there is nothing the police can do for her, she reluctantly returns home and lives in fear. Her assailant has her wallet and knows where she lives; he may come back and try again. Sure enough, he does, one day while she’s alone at home. Marjorie is able to turn the tables on her attacker, but then finds herself in a tight situation. Does she call the cops and risk him being allowed back on the streets or does she kill him and rid the world of a sexual predator?

It’s been a couple days since I watched this film and I’m still not quite sure how I feel about it. It had me pulled in different directions. On the one hand, I wanted her to take him out, when he was attacking her and dangerous. After he was restrained, I didn’t think killing him was necessary, but I was also afraid that the police wouldn’t do squat after she turned him over to them. Still, some of Marjorie’s actions rubbed me the wrong way.

I get that it was the point of the film – animalistic behavior begets animalistic behavior – but that didn’t mean I had to like her actions. I was rooting for her when she managed to flip the situation and incapacitate Joe (her attacker), but she progressively becomes more and more crazy. She refuses to go to the police because Joe has her convinced that it would be his word against hers and she wouldn’t have a case. She forces her roommates to go along with her psychotic ideas and threatens to kill Joe if they don’t help her. It’s one thing if you’re willing to go down with a possible murder charge, it’s quite another to drag your friends into it.

The acting in this film is solid. Farrah does a great job with the role, ranging from terrified to certifiably insane throughout the movie. Russo brings Joe to life as a believable sleazebag who can be both intimidating and vulnerable. The roommates were okay, but not outstanding.

The film definitely carries a lot of suspense, as the viewer is always wondering just what is going to happen between Marjorie and Joe. It feels claustrophobic in places, despite the fact that it takes place in a relatively large house for the majority of the runtime.

I thought the film was well-written with each character filling a specific role. Marjorie and Joe both display animalistic traits while her roommates Pat and Terry represent different view points on handling the situation. Terry just wants to stay out of it, while Pat wants to call the police and sort everything out the lawful way. Still, I don’t really understand what Terry’s revelation towards the end of the film has to do with anything. It was kind of jarring and could have been left out – I don’t think it did anything for her character.

Overall, this is a well-acted, well-written psychological thriller dealing with sexual assault and revenge. It’s tense, claustrophobic, and holds up well today. It’s not exactly a pleasant watch, and probably not a film to view multiple times, but it is worth it.

7/10