Spread (2009)

 

Directed by: David Mackenzie

Starring: Ashton Kutcher, Anne Heche, Margarita Levieva, Sebastian Stan and Ashley Johnson

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Rated: R

Nikki is a womanizing playboy sleeping his way through LA. An attractive man in his late twenties to early thirties, he lives out of a backpack, seducing older, successful women in order to find a place to stay. The film follows him and his current conquest, Samantha, a beautiful, wealthy attorney with a mansion and a Mercedes. He quickly wins her over at a club and worms his way into being her kept boy, living in her house, spending her money, and cheating on her whenever she’s not around. It isn’t until he meets Heather, a waitress that rebuffs his attempts to woo her, that he decides he might want something more. Can he change his womanizing ways and get the girl or is there more to Heather than he expected?

Ugh, the shit I will subject myself to when I really like an actor – I will literally watch anything that person is in. 

Damn it, Sebastian!

I was bored, it was late at night, and this was free on Tubi, so I figured ‘what the hell? Could be okay.’ It wasn’t.

Ashton Kutcher leads the film as Nikki and I honestly didn’t find him that believable. He is objectively attractive but his charms and the voice he chose to use for Nikki don’t work for me. (Someone on IMDb described his voice as a Lifetime movie drug addict, and yeah, that’s accurate.) However, I’m not sure another actor could do much better considering how Nikki is written. The actors can only do so much with the script and direction they’re given.

It doesn’t help Nikki’s likeability factor that he narrates the film so the audience is in his head hearing whatever insipid thought and Pick Up Artist bullshit he comes up with. He’s such an arrogant asshole throughout 75 – 80% of the movie. He treats women as disposable sex toys and his one true friend like his personal assistant. I don’t see how he has so many women falling all over themselves to be with him or how he’s gotten away with literally treating everyone so poorly, when almost everyone he encounters is a better, more successful person than him.

Nikki is a hobosexual in designer clothes with a supposedly silver tongue and he's annoying as hell. By the time his world begins crashing around him, I was giddy at the thought of him finally getting his comeuppance. The attempt at a redemption arc is weak because it feels forced – the first half of the film gives no indications that Nikki would ever want to give up his lifestyle. He does because he runs out of options.

Anne Heche’s Samantha seems way too smart to fall for Nikki’s advances. She tries to get away from him more than once, but I guess she finds his persistence charming and endearing rather than irritating and creepy. He wins her over in a matter of minutes and she takes him home where they have lots of sex and he explains in a voiceover how he works his way into staying with these women long term. I don’t find it realistic that a woman like Samantha would be so easily duped. The story leans heavily on the idea that Samantha is very insecure and Nikki definitely takes advantage of that, using her feelings for him and her insecurities against her whenever he gets caught doing something shitty. After she catches him cheating, they fight then have make up sex, and she continues to let him stay. At that point I stated out loud to my empty living room, “The dick can’t be that fucking good! Kick his ass out!” She even gets vaginal reconstruction surgery to “tighten her up” down there – I guess she thinks he prefers the younger women he cheats with because they are tighter? 

He cheats because he’s an asshole using you for your money. He doesn’t respect you and definitely doesn’t love you.

The somewhat pathetic actions of this character contrast with the way Heche plays her. Heche gives her a strong, confident air that gives the impression she doesn’t put up with anyone’s shit. Nothing in what she says or the way she carries herself as the character would indicate any weakness or self doubt. She made Samantha feel like an actual person when the script didn’t call for her to do something ridiculous like jump the bones of the man she just caught cheating or get vaginal reconstruction surgery out of nowhere. Samantha deserves better.

Eating lunch in a diner, Nikki’s wandering eye lands on Heather, his waitress who is very unimpressed with his efforts to flirt with her. She continues to impress him by thwarting all of his usual techniques. At first I thought she was messing with him, giving him a taste of his own medicine since he wouldn’t take no for an answer and leave her the hell alone. Sadly, that is not the case. The two do engage in a whirlwind romance, despite him being creepily pushy and, on the night it seems like he’s getting what he wanted, calling her a whore because he thinks she has a boyfriend and kicking her out of Samantha’s house. Hypocrite, much?

The Only Appropriate Response to Nikki ... Ever

Margarita Levieva brings charm and sass to the role of Heather. She gives Heather an assertive exterior, one that isn’t easily ruffled by weak pick up lines and cheap tactics. She’s fun at first, but she has her share of secrets too, secrets that push her and Nikki closer together. Levieva also breaks this façade to show vulnerability when the occasion calls for it. The issue is there isn’t much chemistry between her and Ashton Kutcher. That on top of his character being an absolute dickhead really makes it hard to root for them as a couple.

The character that gets screwed over the most is Harry, Nikki’s best friend, loyal to a fault and treated like shit. Anything Nikki wants, Harry will do. You need me to drive this drunk ex fling home so she won’t talk to the other girls you’re trying to hook up with? Fine. You need me to be your wingman while you try to hook up with the waitress at the diner? Sure. You need to store your belongings at my apartment while you live as some rich lady’s boy toy? Okay. Time after time he does what Nikki asks and Nikki is a dick to him, teasing him about his shyness with women and his pet frogs, whining about how his things smell after being stored in Harry’s apartment, bossing him around. I was so happy when Harry began to stand up for himself. I feel like nothing good really happens for Harry, but I want to believe the last scene with him and Eva awkwardly staring at each other led to them getting together.

The hardest thing to believe about Harry is that women never approach him. He’s played by Sebastian Stan and this film wants us to believe he can’t catch a single woman’s attention? 

You mean to tell me THIS GUY can't attract a woman?!
Whatever you say, movie. (Source)

Yeah, okay. I get that he’s shy and quiet, but I guarantee there would still be a line of women hoping to break him out of his shell.

I know who I'd choose. However, I too am very shy. 
On the odd chance there was a mutual attraction
we'd probably stare awkwardly at each other forever.

While Harry is a stalwart and true friend to Nikki, Sebastian Stan gives him an undercurrent of being sick of Nikki’s shit. Its exhausting being Nikki’s best friend and Harry begins to let his irritation with Nikki show more and more with each scene they share. When Harry finally blows up at Nikki, the only one surprised is Nikki. 

Gif Source

------------------------------------

I was so proud of him here.
(Gif Set Source)

Harry could have been a one note character, and with another actor portraying him he might have been, but Sebastian Stan has such an attention grabbing presence even a rather boring and flat character on paper can feel like a real person.

Ashley Johnson shows up in the last act as Heather’s stoner roommate Eva who agrees to help Nikki in the cliché rom-com trope of chasing Heather down to prove his love for her. She’s bubbly and cute, providing a little bit of comic relief, but Ashley Johnson is what makes the character memorable.

While this is marketed as a sex comedy, I was absolutely not prepared for just how much sex there would be. The first half of the movie is mostly sex scenes with Nikki banging various women in Samantha’s house. There are a lot of naked women, with a very unexpected and graphic close up of Anne Heche full frontal being pleasured, and a few shots of Ashton Kutcher’s bare ass. It’s basically a soft-core porno with a minor amount of plot for the first forty minutes or so. How this managed an R rating is beyond me. 

At about the halfway mark the film switches gears and becomes more of a drama as Nikki’s reality begins to crumble. There is little to no comedy to be found.

The film seems to be trying to comment on the shallow, vapid lives of the wealthy and those who long for it, but the attempts fall flat. It focuses too much on Nikki and his conquests, spending so much time depicting him as an obnoxious douche bag the viewer can’t stand him and doesn’t care if he finds a way to win the girl and redeem himself. Women are all portrayed as gold diggers willing to give it up to any rich man or as lonely middle-aged women, who despite all their successes rely on young men to silence their insecurities by treating them as sexual objects. We’re nothing if men don’t want to have sex with us, don’t ya know?

The cinematography is nice with pretty shots of the LA skyline and the set for Samantha’s house, while too modern for my tastes, was still very beautiful. Aside from that and the few decent performances listed above, there’s nothing good about this movie. The plot is weak, the main character unlikable at best, and the rest only elevated by the aforementioned performances. Unless you’re a huge fan of one of the actors involved and insist on seeing everything they’ve ever been in, skip this one.

4/10

Open Water (2003) & Open Water 2: Adrift (2006)

Open Water (2003)

Directed by: Chris Kentis

Starring: Blanchard Ryan and Daniel Travis

Genre: Adventure/Survival, Drama, Horror/Thriller

Rated: R

Based on a True Story

Based on true events, the story follows Susan Watkins and Daniel Kintner on their much needed vacation to the Caribbean. While on a scuba diving trip, the couple is accidentally left behind due to an error in the passenger headcount and stranded in the middle of the ocean. What follows is the hypothesized scenario of what  happened to the couple in real life as we watch Susan and Daniel struggle to survive.

I watched this film for the first time when I was in high school and found it dreadfully boring. I recently gave it a second shot, thinking I may have been too young to appreciate it. I was right the first time.

I truly feel that if you have the film rights to a tragic story like this, you should attempt to do the real people it’s based on justice. While the characters have different names than the couple the film is based on, they could have at least been likable and well rounded. Instead, all we know about them is that they’re bland, middle class workaholics that need this vacation to fix the strain in their relationship. We do not even learn their names until 30 to 40 minutes into the film – yet we know the names of their coworkers within the first five, coworkers that we never hear or see whatsoever. It felt like 80% of the film was the two leads bickering. There was no effort to make them seem like real people and that makes it hard for the viewer to relate to or sympathize with.

The acting itself left something to be desired, with neither actor giving a believable performance. I did not feel their fear or their helplessness as much as I felt I should. Both were fairly wooden, with Blanchard Ryan being fairly expressionless with the exception of confusion or frustration. (However, apparently she won a Saturn award for best actress beating out Nicole Kidman, Kate Winslet, Julianne Moore, Ziyi Zhang and Uma Thurman that year, so what do I know?) The few scenes where the two leads showed any affection toward each other felt very forced, and there was no chemistry between them. The acting really pulled me out of the film and I found it hard to feel the tension I should have been feeling given the situation these two were in.

Aside from the acting, the production was okay. There are some beautiful shots of the water due to the film being shot on location and the danger felt a bit more authentic as real sharks were used in the latter half of the film. However, I didn’t latch onto the attempt at cashing in on the Found Footage craze that other reviewers did. I’ve never been big on that subgenre, but I do like a few films in it and acting like this film is the second coming of The Blair Witch Project is a bit much. Again, this is supposed to be based on true events so the found footage aspect feels like a gimmick rather than respectful of the actual couple and their families.

Lastly, there was some unnecessary full frontal female nudity. I get that the scene was supposed to depict the intimacy issues between the couple, but I feel it could have been done without Blanchard Ryan getting naked. Also, I found it awkward that we see her breasts and pubic region before we learn the character’s name.

Overall I found this film just as hard to get through at the age of 32 as I did when I was 15 years old. The characters were flat, the acting wooden, the nudity unnecessary, and the found footage gimmick annoying and disrespectful. It is a short film at an hour and 19 minute runtime but feels easily double that due to the lack of characterization or anything much happening at all. Some people love this film and it has garnered some critical acclaim, but it is absolutely not for me.

4/10

Open Water 2: Adrift (2006)

Directed by: Hans Horn

Starring: Susan May Pratt, Richard Speight, Jr., Niklaus Lange, Ali Hillis, Cameron Richardson, and Eric Dane

Genre: Adventure/Survival, Drama, Horror/Thriller

Rated: R

This is not an official sequel, but attached to the original film to ride on its popularity. The story follows six friends and one baby on a day trip to celebrate one of their thirtieth birthdays. The group sets out on a yacht for a day of swimming, drinking and fun. However, things take an unexpected turn when the group finds themselves stranded in the ocean after a swim with no way to get back on the boat. Panic ensues as the group struggles to survive long enough to get back to safety.

As aforementioned, this film has little to do with the original Open Water, and far less intelligent as well. Where the first scenario is entirely plausible, and did, in fact happen, this one is only made possible by what can only be described as idiocy – mostly from one character in particular.

The film begins with footage of the main group from a decade or so earlier, that instantly made them incredibly irritating to me. When we meet them again in the present, it takes a bit to warm up to them. Amy is our protagonist with a paralyzing fear of the water due to a traumatic incident involving her father when she was a child. She hesitantly agrees to face this fear and go on this boating trip to celebrate her friend’s birthday, and is accompanied by her supportive, sweet husband, James, and their baby daughter, Sara. The rest of the characters include birthday boy Zack, EMT (or lifeguard?) Lauren, douche bag Dan and his current fling, Michelle. As we get to know the group, I did find most of them likable, with the exceptions of Dan and Michelle – she’s written as the traditional “blonde bimbo” and the victim of a bad cliché while he is human garbage.

One thing this film has over its predecessor besides a bigger budget and a decent cast is characters with actual personalities. While they may not be fully well rounded, they do feel a lot more real than the cardboard cutouts from the original that were supposed to be depicting real people. I love the relationship between James and Amy. They feel like a couple in love with each other and their baby girl. Moreover, their relationship is healthy and supportive, taking care of each other through panic attacks and injury – as well as being a team when parenting. Why is this such a rarity in these films?

James Helping Amy Through a Panic Attack

Amy Supporting James

Lauren is a strong female character. We don’t know much about her except that she has some sort of medical training, but she seems like a great friend to Amy and seems to be the only one who cares about Michelle. Zack is pretty bland, and other than it being his birthday, we really learn nothing about him. As mentioned above, Michelle is little more than a stereotype and her panic seems to be written to purposely annoy the viewer rather than gain her sympathy. There is really nothing positive to say about Dan, aside from his last minute change of heart towards the end of the movie. He’s a playboy and Amy’s ex (obviously for good reason), who has no respect for others or their property. I hated this character more and more with every scene, and wanted to climb through the screen and drown him myself.

Me to Dan

Dan is literally the entire reason these characters are in this predicament in the first place. If he had respected Amy’s boundaries about her fear of the water and left her onboard while he and the rest of the group enjoyed a swim, she would have been there to help them out. Instead, he grabs her and jumps overboard, sending her into a panic attack and forgetting to let down the ladder in the process. He also thwarts an attempt to climb back onboard using the diving knife as a foot hold as the knife would damage the yacht. In stopping this attempt, he fatally wounds one of the group members – so, I hope your friggin’ yacht was worth it.

Dan does have one smart idea – using their clothing as a rope to get someone back on board to let down the ladder. However, they have the biggest, heaviest guy in the group climb it instead of, say, Lauren, who is much smaller and has the upper body muscle to pull herself up. Naturally, the makeshift rope rips, and they’re back at square one.

Check out those arms! She easily could have made it!

                               

The majority of the film caused me rage due to the inept characters – from Dan causing this problem in the first place to the ambiguous ending and who possibly survives.

I will say the acting is another improvement over the previous film. I could feel Susan May Pratt’s panic when she was carried into the water, her heartbreak as those around her begin to die, and her terror at realizing her baby is all alone on the boat and she has no way of reaching her. Richard Speight Jr., the only reason I watched this film in the first place, warmed my heart with his portrayal of James and the love he has for his family, only to rip it out toward the end of the film. Seriously, a movie this bad has no right making me tear up, and it’s all Richard Speight Jr.’s fault. 

*sigh* Of course ... 

The rest of the actors were believable and competent, though I wish Cameron Richardson was given more to work with – I saw her on Harper’s Island and I know she is capable of more than this. The fear is tangible with these characters and kept my interest.

Aside from two random girls on a party boat that passes the stranded friends in a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it scene, there is no female nudity – just an annoyingly long close up shot of Susan May Pratt’s wet underwear clad butt toward the end. The nudity is mostly from Richard Speight Jr. 

Hellooo Trickster!

Couldn't Resist Adding a Little Gabriel Sass

 and Eric Dane – which is a nice change of pace when it comes to horror films.

The cinematography was much better, not taking the found footage route was definitely the way to go. While the ocean water shots were not on location, they are effective in portraying the characters stranded in the open ocean, and still beautiful.

Overall, this is an unrelated sequel with the Open Water brand attached to get more viewers. It is a competent film with decent acting and cinematography, but the writing, the stupidity of some of the characters, and the ambiguous ending bring down what could have been a slightly above average flick. Still it had more of an emotional impact on me and kept my attention, so for that it gets a slightly better rating than the original.

4.5/10

My Bloody Valentine (1981) vs My Bloody Valentine (2009)

 

My Bloody Valentine (1981)

Directed by: George Mihalka

Starring: Paul Kelman, Lori Hallier, Neil Affleck, Keith Knight, Cynthia Dale, Alf Humphreys and Don Francks

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 On Valentine’s Day twenty years ago the small mining town of Valentine’s Bluff was rocked when a tragic cave-in trapped five miners. When search and rescue finally uncovers the men, there is only one survivor, Harry Warden. Deeming the mine collapse to be the fault of his supervisors who had left early that evening to attend the Valentine’s Day Dance, Harry murders them both the following year. Harry was committed to Eastfield Mental Hospital and the town did not have another Valentine’s celebration for two decades. Now, in 1981, Harry has become little more than a legend and the town has decided to have a Valentine’s Day Dance once again. However, someone isn’t happy about this and will do anything to keep it from happening. Is Harry Warden back in town or is someone else following in his footsteps?

               Despite the praise this slasher gets in the horror community, this has never been one that I’ve loved. That’s not to say it isn’t entertaining – it is, but I find it lacking somehow. The basic storyline is fine and the premise held a lot of potential, but for me it didn’t quite get there.

               I feel one of the biggest drawbacks of this movie is the characters. They’re not unlikable, but they don’t really have much personality or development either. Many characters fall to the killer’s pick axe without the viewer even knowing their names. The plot centers on the love triangle between Sarah, Axel and TJ, with both of the boys vying for the role of her love interest. They’re so caught up in fighting each other for that spot that they do not seem to care what Sarah wants at all. Frankly, neither guy deserves her; she’d be better off alone. Sarah herself is fairly bland, only starting to get a personality in the third act when she needs to support her friend and get them both to safety. The sheriff is so worried about causing a panic in town that he doesn’t mention the trail of murders to anyone, allowing the main group of twenty-somethings the ignorance of thinking it would be safe to throw a party after the Mayor cancels the dance. 

               The kills are creative and brutal. The special effects are well done – the standout definitely being the corpse in the dryer. The setting of the mine in the final act provides the perfect creepy atmosphere for a stalk-and-slash with the dim lighting and claustrophobic tunnels. The viewer is just as lost as the characters in the maze of unlit underground passages, unable to determine the best mode of escape. Unfortunately, the tension isn’t really there as we follow the dwindling group, because, as mentioned above, there is nothing interesting or compelling about any of them.

               There is little to no nudity – just a close up of a girl’s breasts clad in a lacy bra and a bunch of dudes showering. I did like that the movie promoted safe sex by having a male character pull out a condom as he and his girlfriend prepare to make love. Aside from the nameless girl in the opening sequence, the women aren’t obviously objectified, and actually work together and support each other. Toward the end of the film, Sarah takes charge and guides her distraught friend through the mines in hopes of leading her to safety. We don’t see enough of girls helping girls in these flicks and we should change that.

               This is not a bad little slasher film by any means, but it’s not one of the most entertaining either. It has the slower pace of Halloween or BlackChristmas and the gore of Friday the 13^th, but ultimately does not have the likeable characters or quality writing that made those films the classics they are. It is a solid entry into the slasher subgenre, and many in the horror fandom love it, but for me it is simply average.

6/10

My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009)

Directed by: Patrick Lussier

Starring: Jensen Ackles, Jaime King, Kerr Smith, Tom Atkins, Kevin Tighe

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

 In 1999 there was a collapse in the Hanniger Mine trapping six men. The only survivor found by Search and Rescue was Harry Warden, who had snapped and killed the other five men so he wouldn’t run out of air. Found in a coma, Harry is transported to the local hospital, where he wakes up and begins a killing spree ending in his death. Ten years later, someone has taken up Harry’s pick axe and the murders have started again. Is Harry Warden truly dead and buried? Has he come back or is it someone else entirely?

               If you know me you know I’m not typically into remakes – mostly because they’re usually done on films that are perfect as is and still hold up to this day. However, in this case I felt that the original held promise that it didn’t live up to and a remake could change that. This movie had a chance to make something great – it had a good cast, a solid storyline to work off of and a decent budget – but they blew it.

               The characters were something I’d really hoped would be improved upon. As stated above, the original characters were very bland and lifeless, not really inspiring the viewer to care for them. This flick took these characters and turned them into assholes. TJ is now Tom, who, after nearly being murdered during Harry’s massacre, left town for a few years to get away from this experience. He returns after his father dies to take care of the estate and determine what to do with the mine. Once there he learns Sarah, his girlfriend from ten years prior, is now married to the Sheriff, Axel. The love triangle is still very much part of the story, and this time I care even less about it.

               Tom is the only character I give a damn about, and, no, it’s not just because he’s played by Jensen Ackles. The minute he returns to town he’s treated like a pariah. Everyone in town believes his mistake in the mine ten years ago caused the cave-in and thus the murder spree of Harry Warden. Also, he’s deliberating on selling off the mine which is the town’s livelihood. It’s obvious he’s carried the events of the past around with him and that he doesn’t want to be back at all. With the way the townspeople treat him, why should he care at all about them? Sell off the mine and take the money to live a nice life far away from there.

               Tom is still hung up on Sarah, and I cannot understand why. They had no chemistry in the scenes where they were supposed to be a couple. Also Sarah blames him for her walking into the mine during Harry’s murders (even though he was getting something out of his truck) and states she got with Axel because “he was there for me” during that horrific incident – the one that nearly led to Tom’s death, but whatever. 

He only stared death in the face while she ran, no big deal. 

She is resentful of Tom leaving, and I do understand her hurt, but at the same time, if she was acting like he didn’t do enough to protect her I don’t blame him at all for leaving. The entire town hates him and his girlfriend is now hero worshiping Axel. I would have left too.

               Axel is an absolute piece of garbage. Not only was he trying to get with Sarah while she was with Tom, he also treats her like crap now that she’s his wife. He’s jealous and possessive when Sarah has one conversation with Tom. He screams in Tom’s face that she’s “my wife, the one I have sex with!” in the middle of a hospital. Yet he’s cheating on Sarah with Megan, her employee at the grocery store that barely looks over eighteen while he’s in his late twenties to early thirties. Gross Axel, not only are you cheating scum, you’re predatory trash as well.

Apparently the actress was about 26, but she looks barely out of high school. 

               Other than the main three, the side characters are all equally unlikable. Megan is proudly sleeping with her boss’s husband, Ben and the retired Sheriff Burke have some shady secrets, the deputies are rather useless, and everyone else is just knife fodder. Also, what was the point of Sarah and Axel’s child? He is in literally two scenes and has no lines. He and his nanny could have been scrapped in exchange for a plot that made any damn sense.

               While this version does hold on to the basic premise of the original film, it veers off into a mess. Yes, it is Valentine’s Day (or close to it), it’s the anniversary of a prior murder spree, and there’s the love triangle, but that and the original character names are all that remains. There is a party scene at the mine but it is very brief and just serves as exposition for the later events. Many people are killed at random that have nothing to do with the original party massacre or Harry Warden. These deaths were pointless and could easily have been cut without the film losing anything.

               Another area that was decent in the original but could have easily been improved upon is the gore effects. The original did well with what they had, but their budget was limited and modern effects could have brought an upgrade. Instead, the effects were far worse in many respects due to terrible CGI. I get that a lot had to be done that way due to the 3D gimmick, but it looked awful – the girl’s head that was split in half by a shovel was obviously computer generated, and laughably bad. 

Seriously, what is this?

The kills in general were okay, the best ones being ripped from the original (i.e. corpse in the dryer). The brutality is still there but the CGI blood ruins it for me.

               Where the original lacked nudity this version has it in abundance. Both male and female characters appear in the nude. We get middle aged man butt (Trust me, there is only one man in this film who the female viewers want to see naked, and it sure wasn’t that guy!) 

My apologies, Jensen. 

and  full frontal from the character of Irene – who is naked for at least ten minutes, from the sex scene to chasing her dickhead partner into the parking lot with a gun, to being chased and cornered by the killer. Not only do we get all that, but there are multiple scenes were the police are watching the video tapes made by her creepy old-man lover and many pictures of her naked corpse. There is also a very pervy close up of the character Megan in her panties, and a crotch shot of her underwear again as she climbs through a window in a mini skirt. Again, this girl looked barely legal to me, and the exploitative shots of her are very uncomfortable.

               The women in this film are treated like trash. The men see them as objects to possess, use and cast aside as they please. The only “friends” Sarah has are Irene, who she seems to have grown very distant from over the past decade, and Megan, her employee that is banging her husband. While the original had girls supporting girls, there is barely any female interaction, and when there is it is catty and awful (Sarah and Megan) or an employer / employee relationship (Sarah and the Nanny). Irene is the stereotypical “slut” of the film and she is, of course, punished for her promiscuity. Even the female motel owner, a little person, was extremely sexualized (did we need to focus on her breasts? Really?),

 and, I feel, also exploited for her size, having her be flung up and tacked to the ceiling like a rag doll. She has a total of maybe two minutes of screen time and all it consists of is her boobs, her flirting with Tom, and her demise. She seemed like she could have been a fun character, but ultimately added nothing to the story except to pad the body count.

               This film tried to take the elements from the original that worked and ride on those successes, but couldn’t make them work within the context of this story. The tense, claustrophobic atmosphere of the mine is not utilized to its full potential. The original was actually shot in real mines and had to use the lighting already installed, making the scenes darker and creepier. This version has well lit tunnels and tries desperately to recreate the creepiest scenes from the original, such as the mining outfits dropping from the ceiling, the dryer corpse, etc. The mining uniforms dropping from the ceiling surrounding someone was built up in the original, in this film it was completely random. I find it hard to believe a grown woman can fit inside a normal household dryer, never mind the corpse cooking so thoroughly in the maybe ten minutes between the character’s death and the discovery of her body. (The body in the original was in a much larger dryer overnight.) The killer smashing a few lights in the mine during the final confrontation was intimidating. That action being extended to around ten lights – and the lighting still being bright as ever in the scene – could not recapture the tension of its predecessor. The final showdown even taking place in the mine at all seemed forced because that was where the original ended, not because it made sense.

               I have so many questions. How did the killer get from the office door to the back alley in two minutes then carve out the victim’s heart, display it in a chocolate box, write on the wall in the victim’s blood and get the hell out of dodge in the next five that it took Sarah and Axel to arrive? For that matter, how did the killer know which vehicle in the motel parking lot belonged to the naked bald jackass or when he would be coming out to drive away? How did the retired Sheriff know there was a killer in Sarah’s house? Why would you waste time calling the police on the landline when a killer is after you and you could just hit the store’s alarm button? Why did the Valentine box only start dripping blood once it was in Axel’s hands? Does this director have a cage fetish? (There’s A LOT of cage imagery – the bed springs, the mining cage and the security grates on the grocery store’s office window.) 

Why did I subject myself to this? Who knows!

               This poor attempt at a reboot, squandered any potential it could have had by taking the, rather tame by comparison, source material and turning it into an exploitative piece of garbage. They had the cast, they had the budget, they could have made something great. Instead they took a quaint little early ‘80s slasher that managed to avoid a lot of the typical tropes, and add everything this subgenre is criticized for. It’s like they took a look at the original and said, “You know what this needs? More naked chicks, awful characters, crappy CGI effects and some blatant misogyny! Also cages because they get me hot!”

               I know I am in the minority for disliking this remake, but I honestly cannot understand why anyone would enjoy it. I was excited to watch this because I heard so many in the horror community raving about how great it is. Did we watch the same movie? This remake did not do justice to the original, in fact it stamped out everything that worked in its predecessor, replacing it with bad CGI, soft-core porn, and characters that all deserved to bite it. There are plenty of movies that share these elements and don’t bastardize prior, superior films, nor take themselves as seriously as this flick does. Stick with the flawed original. Maybe someone will get this story right someday.

Next time, please listen to Sidney ^^

4/10

Phantom of the Mall: Eric’s Revenge (1989)

 

Directed by: Richard Friedman

Starring: Derek Rydall, Jonathan Goldsmith, Rob Estes, Pauly Shore, Kimber Sissons, Tom Fridley, Kari Whitman and Morgan Fairchild.

Genre: Horror / Slasher

Rated: R

This 1989 re-imagining of the classic Phantom of the Opera, brings the story to the mall culture of the 1980s. Rather than a man living beneath the opera house obsessed with a young opera singer, there is a man living under the new mall, obsessed with Melody Austin, a young waitress working in one of the restaurants. This mysterious man appoints himself as her guardian angel and will do anything to protect her (and other young women) from any harm.  Melody is working to move on after losing her boyfriend, Eric in a housefire one year prior, and begins to find clues to her admirer's identity, making her wonder if Eric really died after all. She teams up with new potential love interest, Peter, to find out what really caused the fire at Eric’s home and if he actually survived.

I went into this movie looking for a cheesy good time and I was pleasantly surprised. Is the plot a silly rehashing of a far superior classic? Yes. Are the deaths ridiculous? Yes.  Are the special effects shoddy? Definitely. Yet there were so many things that charmed me about this film and made me enjoy it.

The plot is silly, yet I couldn’t help wanting to find out the truth behind the house fire that may or may not have taken Eric’s life. Was it a tragic accident or was there something more sinister behind it? The mall currently stands where Eric’s house used to be. Was the mall developer responsible for the fire? It’s honestly a bit predictable, but fun to follow along none the less.

The kills are over the top but so entertaining. The deaths involve arrows, fan blades, electrocution, escalators, and even a cobra (where in the hell did the killer get one of those?!). Approximately 90% of the kills were terrible people that were harming others in some way. For most of the movie I was rooting for the killer as he continued to take out the garbage in his own special way.

In relation to the kills, we must consider the special effects and gore. Both left something to be desired, but they were able to entertain all the same – even if it wasn’t the kind of entertainment the movie was going for. For instance, when one character’s eyes pop out while they’re being electrocuted, it looks like sausage links shoot out of the sockets. The burned skin effects aren’t the greatest, there is minimal blood and the decapitated head looks like a stuffed Halloween mask. 

I liked the main group of teens the film focuses on. Melody is a very sweet, albeit traumatized girl, who witnessed Eric's assumed death. Peter is a reporter that is obviously in love with her, willing to do whatever he can to help her find out what happened to Eric. Suzie is Melody’s fun, laid back best friend who tries to break Melody out of her shell. Even Pauly Shore’s character, Buzz, seems like a decent guy, aside from his desperate attempts to win Suzie’s affections. These are friends that truly care about each other and band together to help one another if one of them is in trouble. I actually worried for these characters a bit, which is unusual in the B-movie slasher fare I often review.

The acting was fairly solid for the most part. Kari Whitman carries the film well and Rob Estes gives a decent performance as Peter. I found Morgan Fairchild’s appearance in a film like this surprising, but enjoyable. The only performance that I found truly lacking was Derek Rydall’s as the phantom. This character is overly dramatic – especially his rage fist pounding when he witnesses something that angers him. This gesture is done at least three times throughout the film and it is quite laughable every time.

Another thing I was not expecting in this film is that it did veer away from some of the classic slasher tropes. Melody is not a virgin, there’s no “slutty” girl in the group, the comedic relief character is also a very caring friend, and, perhaps most surprising of all, the nudity is tasteful and the sex scenes are sensual. Kari’s breasts are only shown from the side view, and the sex scenes are Melody's memories where Eric is worshiping her body. They definitely feel shot more through a female gaze – perhaps to indicate Melody’s perspective. We get far more nudity from Buzz dropping his pants and mooning a security guard. If you’re going into this looking for gratuitous T&A, there really isn’t much to be found – just some side boob and Pauly Shore butt.

This is not a film that takes itself seriously. It knows exactly what it is – campy, cheesy, slasher fun – and does not try to be anything else. It knows what the audience wants – pure, mindless entertainment – and it delivers. Halloween this is not, but it is still a good time if you just want to shut off your mind for a while.

6/10

Intruder (2016)

Directed by: Travis Zariwny

Starring: Louise Linton, John Robinson, Moby, and Zach Myers

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Suspense

Rated: Not Rated

A violent Oregon storm is blowing in for the weekend and young cellist, Elizabeth, is home enjoying some time alone. Unbeknownst to her, someone has entered her home and joined her in her weekend of solitude.

Meet Elizabeth, an orchestra cellist who has the strength to manhandle such a large instrument, but cannot manage to carry two trash bags to the can outside. Elizabeth only listens to cello music, is unique because she has an old-school answering machine, and often does security sweeps in her home that just happen to miss the intruder's very obvious clues and hiding places. Meet the Intruder who is obsessed with Elizabeth, hides in her closet, leaves finger prints and DNA EVERYWHERE, and acts more like an angsty teenage boy than a grown man. Also there's a creepy music instructor, an overly at-home boyfriend, and a cute cat named Ozzy that will be the only character you like in this entire film.

The movie literally opens on a cliché - a 'dark, stormy night' with a young woman alone in her big house realizing she's not alone. We know, since it's the beginning of a horror film, that she's going to die, but her death is sudden as she is grabbed from behind in a jump scare complete with orchestra swelling music. A thin white plastic trash bag is pulled over her face and she makes no attempt with her free hands to remove or rip a breathing hole in the material. Instead she dies (within a minute of being grabbed) with her hands reaching out for nothing in front of her.

Seriously? Poke a hole in that flimsy plastic! Use your fingers, your teeth, anything! Where's your will to live?!

Apparently stalker boy gets off on dark stormy nights, because when he decides to become Elizabeth's uninvited new roommate, it is once again, a dark stormy night. He sneaks into her apartment when she's taking her second trip to the outside trashcan (why the director thought showing her make two trips to the trashcan was necessary is beyond me) and hides in her closet for most of the movie. Aside from the creep factor of him being there without her knowledge, lurking near her towels when she takes a shower, and touching her face while she sleeps - the intruder isn't very scary, with the exception of his manners. The first night, he raids her fridge (eating cottage cheese from the container with his fingers!), takes a bite out of an apple and leaves it in her fruit bowl, and urinates in her dirty dishes. All of this goes completely unnoticed by Elizabeth the following morning. (Girl, you can't smell the URINE in your sink?!)

The movie basically just follows Elizabeth through her boring, mundane life. The viewer watches her go to cello practice, fight with her boyfriend, baby sit her friend's cat, shower numerous times, change clothes numerous times, have sex with her boyfriend, video chat with her Mom, fix a light bulb, do her laundry, and sleep. The viewer also watches the intruder watch her do these mundane tasks. Eventually he just becomes part of the scenery. When he finally makes his move, the screen cuts to black and the credits roll - just long enough for the viewer to scream, "I WASTED AN HOUR AND A HALF FOR THAT?! NOTHING HAPPENED!!" Never fear, friends, the credits break to reveal the real ending, which is only a little less unsatisfying than the fake one. There's no big showdown between Elizabeth and stalker boy, and, quite honestly, the real ending doesn't make much sense based on stalker boy's previous modus operandi.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I cannot be scared for characters that I dislike - and this movie does absolutely nothing to make them likable. Elizabeth only seemed concerned with her own needs and couldn't understand why her boyfriend wouldn't give up his tenured position as a university researcher or professor to follow her to England for a few months while she plays with the Philharmonic Orchestra. (That Bastard!) I was hoping she'd make a journey of self-discovery through this horrific experience, maybe come into her own as a badass and overtake the intruder - but sadly, no such luck. The only character I was anxious for was the cat, and thankfully, the film did avoid the cliché of killing the pet for shock or to torment the victim. (Only because the intruder did NOTHING to her throughout 95% of the film.)

The acting was mediocre. Louise Linton's natural Scottish accent can be heard sporadically throughout her dialogue, confusing the viewer as to whether she is supposed to be an American or someone from abroad studying music in Oregon. Moby only had two scenes and not much of a character to work with, so this film probably isn't the best specimen from which to judge his acting prowess. John Robinson and Zach Myers gave decent performances as her neighbor, John, and her boyfriend, Justin, respectively.

I did like the setting. I loved Elizabeth's apartment, it had personality (unlike her), and seemed like a cozy place to relax for a weekend. Her  neighborhood was cute and quaint. It felt inviting. A perfect contrast to a suspense / horror themed plot - if the horror actually decided to show itself.

There were a number of things I hated about this movie. I hated that every man Elizabeth encountered came off as a threatening creep in some way. I hated the unnecessary shots such as the aforementioned trash sequence, the pervy downward pan of Elizabeth's naked body while she washes herself in the shower (nothing against her, she has a beautiful figure), the unnecessary male nudity, and the cinematic montage at the fake end of the film where Elizabeth sees the intruder's face and immediately attaches it to all the actions he did without her knowledge. How is she having a realization flashback montage when she had no idea he did ANY of those things?! I hated how every time Elizabeth is close to discovering the intruder or something that would reveal she is not alone in her apartment, she just happens to be distracted and pulled away from what she was doing. I hated how sloppy the intruder was and how blind Elizabeth was to this sloppiness. The guy relied on sheer luck to not be found out. Lastly, I hated the scene where the intruder kills someone in Elizabeth's apartment with a knife - not a single drop of blood hit her pristine cream colored carpet. How is that possible?

Overall, this is one of the lamest entries in the 'Home Invasion' subgenre of horror/thriller films I've ever seen. The characters are dull and uninteresting, even anger inducing. Clichés abound. Nothing happens for the majority of the film, and when it does happen, it's not very satisfying. I would only recommend this film if you like spending 90 minutes watching some creep watch some girl do mundane things and enjoy a really slow build up to practically nothing in the end.

3.5/10

Trailer:

Peace, Love, & Misunderstanding (2011)

Directed by: Bruce Beresford

Starring: Jane Fonda, Catherine Keener, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Elizabeth Olsen, Chase Crawford, Nat Wolff, Marissa O'Donnell, Rosanna Arquette and Kyle McLachlan

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Rated: R

When her husband announces he wants a divorce, uptight New York City attorney, Diane Hudson, packs her young adult children in the car and takes them on a vacation to stay with her eccentric, hippie mother in Woodstock. Having been estranged from her mother, Grace, for twenty years, Diane has a hard time coming home and an even more difficult time understanding what brought her back. Slowly, but surely, the charms of her hometown start to loosen her up, as she and her children begin to explore themselves and find out who they really are.

Fair warning, this film contains male nudity, alcohol consumption, marijuana consumption, pagan spirituality and a lot of liberal politics. If any of that bothers you, you may want to avoid this one. The rest of you, please follow me as we continue with the review. 

I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film, but I'm glad I decided to watch it. I was in need of a relaxing, feel-good film with relatable, likable characters and a decent plot and this film delivered. I enjoy films that take me on a journey of self-discovery and letting go of the past with the characters, and Diane is reluctantly leading the way, with her daughter, Zoe, and son, Jake, not far behind.

Diane is the exact opposite of her mother, Grace, and has spent forty years resenting Grace for her free spirit, obsession with art, sexual nature, marijuana use, and liberal politics. Despite staying with Grace, she doesn't want Grace rubbing off on Zoe and Jake, not seeming to realize her kids may have minds of their own. It takes a few days, good company with free spirited ladies, and a budding relationship with Jude, a man very much her opposite, to get Diane to unwind and begin to let go. Once she starts, she can never really stop, even when she returns to her stuffy New York City life.

Zoe reluctantly begins to fall for Cole, an educated, organic food pushing, peace loving young man who works at the local butcher shop - a career choice Zoe has a hard time supporting as she appears to be either vegetarian or vegan. (The film isn't clear on which, but Zoe is very upset about the thought of killing animals.) She's conflicted despite Cole's explanation for why he does what he does and has a hard time determining if she wants to be with him or not.

The ladies of the Hudson family aren't the only ones to find relationships in Woodstock, as shy, nerdy teenager Jake meets his equally shy and nerdy muse, Tara, at an anti-war protest. Tara, in turn, inspires him to create his first short film with the footage he's constantly collecting with his video camera while vacationing in Woodstock. 

This film made me want to move to this fictionalized version of Woodstock. While I'm not much for smoking pot, I do enjoy enlightened, liberal minded, free spirits who prefer to promote peace and love and supporting one another, rather than fighting, hating and judging one another. The background characters, Grace, Jude, Cole and Tara are all relaxed, happy people who just go about their lives living as they want and enjoying life's natural beauty. These folks are what the Hudson family needs to help them shake off their negative energy and find relaxing positivity and happiness. Jude explains it best when he tells Diane, "you are so caught up in fighting everyone that you can't let in those who love you the most ... Let it go. ... The fight is like a sandbag you need to release in order for the balloon to float into the sky." (This is a bit paraphrased, not an exact quote.) 

The acting was done well, and all actors were perfectly cast. Jane Fonda embodies all that is lively, fun and free within Grace, and really brings the character to life. Catherine Keener does well as the uptight Diane, knowing how to show Diane's slow evolution into a freer spirit as it gradually happens. In the beginning of the film, her face is tight, wan and stressed, but as the film progresses her face becomes less severe, brighter though still serious, until she is finally able to smile. Elizabeth Olsen's performance is similar, though she's more light-hearted, she is still closed off when it comes to love, and again, appears to become happier as her character opens herself up to new ideas and experiences. Nat Wolff is adorably awkward, making Jake a relatable film geek that doesn't have the first clue how to approach a girl. Lastly, Jeffrey Dean Morgan is ridiculously charming as hippie musician and carpenter, Jude, bringing a gentle softness to the character that is refreshing for me as I am used to his gruff portrayal of John Winchester on Supernatural. 

I really liked that while everyone still paired off with their perfect mate, the sole purpose was not about finding romantic love. It was about finding oneself through a community of peers, some of whom think differently than you do, but can teach you a lot about yourself if you're willing to open yourself up and listen. Yes, Zoe and Diane find this through romantic partners, but it is their relationship with Grace that loosens them up enough to accept these men who are far different from who they believe themselves to be. I felt the message of the film was more, "In order to have a successful relationship, you need to embrace yourself, open yourself up to new experiences and ideas, find someone who builds you up and embraces you for you, and embrace them for who they are in turn." Which is a much better message than the typical, "Romantic love is all you need." This is a film that promotes all kinds of love, whether it is the love of a family, the love of a community, or romantic love. We all need a variety of love and support in our lives, and it is nice that this film doesn't negate any form in which love and peace can be found. 

Overall, this was an enjoyable watch film that promotes self discovery, inner peace, and a variety of love ranging from that of your community, your friends, a romantic partner and your family. I found this movie heart-warming and inspiring. I will likely be making another visit to this version of Woodstock someday. 

7/10