Movie Review: SLITHER

SLITHER

2006

R

"Don't let them in your mouth!"

-- Bill Pardy

Slither is a 2006 horror-comedy written and directed by James Gunn that serves as a well-made, contemporary B-movie. When a meteorite containing an alien parasite crash lands in the woods outside Wheelsy, South Carolina, it may have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for the drunken shenanigans of Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) and Brenda Gutierrez (Brenda James). Grant stumbles upon the creeping crawling creature which shoots a dart into his stomach that maneuvers its way into his brain. Over the next few days, Grant develops a number of rashes, and his personality begins to change, much to the concern of his wife Starla (Elizabeth Banks). As more time passes, Grant's condition worsens, and it's apparent that something truly alien has started to take control of his body. He goes on a rampage, killing a number of pets and livestock around the community, and he attacks and kidnaps Brenda. In an effort to catch Grant, Starla and the local police chief Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) lead a group of deputies and townspeople in an effort to find him. Little do they know that Grant has laid a trap for them that will unleash an entirely new terror on the town of Wheelsy, and possibly, the entire world.

I remember seeing the trailer for this film back when it was set to be released, and I thought it was an interesting idea for a revamped B-movie. At the time, I wasn't necessarily gung-ho about seeing it, but as time went by and it managed to scare up some relatively positive reviews, I got it in my mind to give it a view. It never really dropped off my radar, but I wasn't as into the horror genre back then as I am now, so I just never took the time to give it a chance. But now, with it much more accessible to me than it has been in the past, I figured now was the best time to take this horror-comedy in.

Like many B-movies, Slither takes a look at what might happen if there were some sort of alien attack on humankind. This time, we're delving into the backwoods of South Carolina, taking a look at how one small town responded to a vicious parasitic attack on its populace. Needless to say, the film ends like so many others have before: with a very large body count and enough gleeful gore to satisfy the gore-hounds. The screenplay offers a good send-up of your classic horror B-movies, and once you can settle into that frame of mind, you can let the mindless entertainment ensue.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't expect too much in terms of storyline. It's a humdrum tale of people reacting to a given situation, and that's exactly how it should be. Because of this, however, three other facets need to step up in order to make this a successful film. First, we have to have believable characters with whom we can mildly relate. Banks and Fillion fill those shoes well enough, and although I wouldn't go as far as to say I cared for their characters, I did find myself rooting for them to make it through. Second, the dialogue needs to be catchy and fresh. Slither also succeeds here. The dialogue felt realistic, and it did enough to keep me smiling from start to finish.

Finally, a successful horror-comedy has to deliver the scares as well as the laughs. While it's not as side-splittingly funny as, say, Shaun of the Dead, there's still plenty to laugh about here and there, and most of it comes from dialogue. Kudos to the screenwriter, as well as the actors, for having the comedic timing and sensibilities to pull this one off. In terms of scares, there aren't really any moments of suspense or times where you'll jump out of your seat. In true B-movie fashion, Slither instead goes for the jugular, almost literally. It attempts to shock you by its level of gore, and I do have to say that the filmmakers created a rather disgusting creature for all of us to "enjoy."

Because Slither manages to succeed on its three most important facets, it has to be considered a successful film. Each of these facets help make it an entertaining and mindless romp, and it should never be taken as more than such. Just know going in that you're going to be in for some slightly sickening images here and there, so those of you with an easily upset stomach might want to beware. Aside from that, throw Slither into your "movies to watch" list because it's a hell of a good time.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: PSYCHO

PSYCHO

1960

R

"She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

-- Norman Bates

Psycho is a 1960 horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock that many consider to be one of the director's greatest achievements. The story begins in Phoenix, Arizona, where a young secretary named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) embezzles forty-thousand dollars from her employer then skips town in the hopes of running away with her long-distance boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin), who lives in the small town of Fairvale, California. As Marion makes her way north, she stumbles upon the Bates Motel, a small establishment off the main highway, and decides to stay the night before pushing on to her destination. She meets the young Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), the caretaker of the motel, and after exchanging some pleasantries, Marion elects to turn in for the night. Before bed, however, she opts to take a shower...

I think you'd be a bit hard-pressed to find many a film fan who doesn't know the next sequence of events, as Psycho's shower scene has reached a certain stature of fame, or infamy, over the years. From that scene, the rest of the film serves more as a mystery than as a horror film, but none of that really takes away from the fact that Psycho manages to be one of the greatest films ever made. 

For me, Psycho has been a recognizable film for as long as I can remember. To be honest, my first interaction with it was a rather negative one. When I was about four years old, my family decided to take a trip to Universal Studios Hollywood. The park had a "special effects stage" attraction, where one of the rooms focused on the cinematography of Hitchcock's films. At such a young age, I was introduced to the shower scene, and I was absolutely horrified. I instantly became terrified of bathrooms and showers, and it took me quite a while to get past that fear. In addition, it took me another sixteen years before I could sit down and watch Psycho in its entirety, but boy am I glad that I did. 

The history of the film itself is a rather incredible one itself. The making of the film is chronicled well in David Thomson's book The Moment of Psycho, and Thomson offers some interesting insight on the film as well, if you have a chance to read it. One of my favorite little tidbits about the film's release is the fact that Hitchcock essentially forbade anyone from entering theaters after the film had begun to play (a tactic that is alluded to in the trailer at the end of this review). His reasoning? Hitchcock thought that a viewer needed to see Psycho from the very start lest they miss an important piece of information. It was a truly groundbreaking idea for the time, and audiences ate it up. 

Over the years, Psycho has become considered one of the most groundbreaking and important films to appear in cinematic history. Arguably Hitchcock's finest film, it does manage to live up to all the hype. The screenplay itself is a wonderfully-written mystery that almost plays as two separate stories. In the first half, we have a tale of love, crime and extortion, but as soon as the shower scene occurs and we as the audience lose our main focal point in Janet Leigh, we're left a little bit adrift. That's when storyline two kicks in, and we're thrown into the midst of a murder mystery in which we think we know the answer. The kicker? Well, I'll leave that to the film and to Hitchcock. What's truly great about the screenplay, however, is that in the midst of all this horror, confusion and mystery, we still get an ample supply of comedy. If you pay close attention, there's a number of bits of dialogue that are meant to be played out for comedic effect, and they're so perfectly-placed that they might even manage to draw a bit of out-loud laughter. Essentially, this screenplay has it all: horror, mystery, comedy, drama and romance. It brings it all together in such an effective manner that there just might be something for everyone.

While the storyline tends to ebb and flow throughout the film, one thing that does remain consistent is the high level of acting performances we receive. Leigh starts out as the apparent lead, and she does an incredible job with the role. At times, she manages to seem both vulnerable and invincible at once, and it's this duality that makes her both appealing and fascinating until her untimely and sudden demise. From there, the disillusioned audience has no choice but to pick up on the film's seeming sub-lead: Perkins's Norman Bates. And let me tell you, Perkins steals the show. The more I watch the film, the more I become mesmerized by just how strong a performance Perkins manages to bring forth. It's a subtle but profound type of brilliance, and I think it's often under-appreciated. Perkins slips through so many emotions even in the course of only one scene that it might be difficult for the casual viewer to keep up with it all, but I would argue that he brought forth one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. 

The rest of the cast fills out rather well mostly because each person plays their part to a tee. Vera Miles comes in for a supporting role as Marion's distraught sister. She teams up with Gavin's Loomis hoping to find answers. Gavin is probably the weakest link in the film (a thought that Hitchcock shared), but even he isn't all that terrible. It's just that, in comparison to the talent around him, there just wasn't any way for him to keep up. Of all the supporting characters, however, I have to tip my hat most to Martin Balsam, who plays the private detective Milton Arbogast. He's a wonderfully-consistent addition to the cast, and he and Perkins combine for one of the film's best scenes. It's just a well-rounded cast all around, and I think the acting in the film has taken a bit of a back seat to the screenplay and the direction itself. Someone needs to herald it, so why shouldn't I?

One of the most effective components of Psycho, however, is its cinematic score. Composed by Bernard Herrmann, I can't quite say it's the most instantly recognizable pieces of music, but it definitely has to be high on the list. Though not quite as iconic as, say, John Williams's score for Jaws, I think Herrmann still managed to create something truly brilliant with his score. The bit from the shower sequence might be the most recognizable from the film, but the rest of the score is so splendidly-crafted that it's hard no to enjoy it from start to finish.

At the end of the day, Psycho proves to rank near, if not at, the top of the list of horror films, and it also manages to be ranked very highly on the list of greatest films of all time. I myself would have to place it within the top five greatest films I've ever seen, and that's saying quite a bit considering the amount of films I've seen. If you haven't had a chance to take in this iconic film, then maybe this Halloween season should be the time to do so. It's not as terrifying as it may have used to be, but it's still so profound that it's easy to understand why it's reached such an idolized place in cinematic history. Congratulations, Mr. Hitchcock. You created a masterpiece.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: AMERICAN PSYCHO

AMERICAN PSYCHO

2000

NC-17

"I like to dissect girls. Did you know I'm utterly insane?"

-- Patrick Bateman

American Psycho is a 2000 satirical thriller directed by Mary Harron that serves as a film adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis's novel of the same name. It tells the story of a young Wall Street executive named Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale) living the yuppie culture of the 1980s. Believing himself to be better than his peers, he delves into materialism and greed so that he can stay ahead of the curve, all while trying to "fit in." He admits that his emotionless lifestyle leaves him very bored, and that has led to a sort of nighttime blood-lust that's slowly creeping into his everyday activities. His homicidal desires reach a peak when a colleague named Paul Allen (Jared Leto) proves himself to be better-off than Bateman is, and in retaliation, Patrick crafts a plot to murder him. This experience only goes to further Bateman's string of psychotic episodes, leaving him in a state where he can't quite determine what's really and what's imagined.

My first interaction with American Psycho came with Bravo's television special "30 Even Scarier Movie Moments," which aired in October 2006 and served as a sequel to their original mini-series, "The 100 Scariest Movie Moments." The 2006 special included the scene where Bale's Bateman murders Leto's Paul Allen, and that little snippet of a scene managed to hook my interest. I soon hunted down the film and gave it a view, and I was instantly confused about what it all meant. It was quite a bit to take in, and over the years, I've managed to see the film on a few other occasions. And yet, even after this particular viewing, I don't quite know what's going on during American Psycho.

At its core, the film is truly a satire about the materialistic and greedy culture of the 1980s. We see a number of Wall Street businessmen doing their best to stay ahead of the curve their colleagues set, all the while delving into basic carnal needs to satisfy their lives' emptiness. Bateman does the same, but takes his methods of satisfaction to an entirely different level with his need for violence. For the first half of the film, all that seems fine and dandy. However, as soon as Bateman goes through with his plot against Allen, we see the strings of his sanity start to come a little bit loose. He's not sure exactly what's real in his life anymore, and by association, we as the audience aren't quite sure either. It all leads up to a very vague finale that's probably leaving the interpretation open and on the table. I can honestly say that three-quarters of the way through the film, I'm sure I know what's going on, but as soon as the final scene fades to the credits, my ideas have changed, and I'm not sure at all.

What is grounded in reliable fact is the strength of the central performance from Christian Bale. While the film offers strong, albeit small, roles from familiar faces like Justin Theroux, Josh Lucas, Reese Witherspoon, Chloë Sevigny and Willem Dafoe, this is really Bale's vehicle, and he's the one who demands all the attention. Even in the more mundane scenes, where we see Patrick going through his every morning routine, you can't help but be encapsulated by Bale's character. At times, he manages to show absolutely no emotion on his face, and given that's the character's biggest identifier, I have to say I'm always thoroughly impressed. As Bateman spirals into insanity, however, Bale becomes a little more over-the-top, but never so much that he becomes unbelievable. As strange as the character may seem today to today's audiences in 2012, Bale always makes Patrick Bateman believable.

At the end of the day, I'm not quite sure what the real drawing power of American Psycho proves to be. Bale's performance is enough to keep me watching, but I think it's the open-endedness of the ending that will keep bringing most viewers back. I've heard many a fan argue both sides of the spectrum, and I have my own ideas as well, but I'll refrain from going into detail about them here. From the outset, American Psycho was toted as a big deal: at its debut at Sundance in 2000, it was hailed as the "next Fight Club." And while I don't think it quite measures up to that 1999 masterpiece, I do think that, given enough time, American Psycho will be held with the same such clout and respect.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: PROMETHEUS

PROMETHEUS

2012

R

"Big things have small beginnings."
-- David

Prometheus is a 2012 sci-fi horror film directed by Ridley Scott that serves as a quasi-prequel to Scott's 1979 film, Alien. After archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a string of clues to the origin of human life on Earth, they enlist the help of the Weyland Corporation to make their way to a distant planet where they believe they will find the alien species that created humanity. Once there, they find the remains of what looks to be an old colony, but as they continue to explore the caves, they start to realize that there may be a menace amongst them that's more powerful and more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.

Those of you who follow my blog will know just how excited I have been for the release of Prometheus. As a huge fan of Scott's original Alien, I waited (im)patiently for his return to the franchise after thirty-three years. And for most of the film, I have to say that I was filled with an awkward giddiness that kept me engaged from start to finish. It's only in the time after the movie ended that I've started to realize that Prometheus wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

The first major issue with the film is its place as a "quasi-prequel" to 1979's Alien. In recent months, Scott had claimed that while the film would not directly precede the events of Alien, it would take place within the same cinematic universe and would explore the mythologies behind the creatures and events he created within that universe. And so, I was prepared for a film similar to Alien but not necessarily connected to it in any way, shape or form. Where the film goes wrong is in its execution of this idea. Rather than steering clear of the Alien storyline, Prometheus acts as though it's going to answer all the questions left resonating by its predecessor. It has all the pieces to do so, but it's only in the final act that it becomes clear that the situations aren't exactly the same. In a way, the film hypes up the story as a direct prequel but then ungraciously reminds the viewer that it isn't by taking the story in a different direction right at the end. Perhaps I was just put off by this idea, but it took me out of the film and made for a bit of a disappointment.

The second issue is the screenplay itself. While the story proves to be inventive, and it does manage to channel some familiar plot pieces from previous Alien films, it doesn't seem as though the situations are interconnected or plausible. We go from one scene to the next, but we're never quite sure why anyone is doing any particular thing at any given time. I suppose the real issue is that we're never given a clear sense of any character motivation. In past Alien films - especially in the original flick - we always had a great sense of character development. We knew who was doing what, and why they wanted to do it. In Prometheus, however, these things prove to be a bit clouded. Our two archaeologists seem straight-forward enough: they want to learn the origins of human life. But it's some of the ancillary characters who act in strange and peculiar ways, and there really isn't a reason given for some of their actions. And aside from Michael Fassbender's David (an android), we never really get to know any of the characters on an intimate level. Maybe that was the idea, and the joke. Let's make the audience know the most about the only non-human character on board the ship. My biggest issue with the screenplay, however, is that it tried to force emotion onto the audience in blatant and over-the-top ways. Because we couldn't establish any real connection to the characters, it seemed as though tiny plot pieces were added here and there to make us feel some sort of emotion to a given character from time to time. Unfortunately, these moments just seemed gimmicky and proved annoying after a while.

What's sad about all this is that the screenplay actually spoils some rather fine attributes about the film. For starters, I thought the special effects were incredibly well-done, and although they're nothing ground-breaking, it definitely looks realistic, and for that, Prometheus should be applauded. We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Rapace is good as our apparent lead, although I know she's capable of stronger work (see: 2010's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). Fassbender offers the best performance in the film, bringing forth an android that is both the most and least human-like in the franchise. That's quite a feat considering we've gotten some great android performances in past films in the franchise from the likes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen. I also thought that Charlize Theron and Idris Elba played their parts well, but both were a tad bit under-utilized, in my opinion. Also be on the watch for a fine supporting performance from Guy Pearce, who you may not recognize under all his makeup.

Still, despite everything I've just said, I have a strong desire to return to the theaters to give this one another chance. Part of me thinks that the only reason I'm so put-off by the film is because it hyped itself up to be a direct prequel then left even more questions unanswered. It's almost as though Scott wanted to leave this film open-ended for a potential sequel, and I can see where they might have the possibility. I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that, but I very well may give this one another view, and should I do so, my thoughts and opinions could very well change drastically. But as it currently stands, I'd go into this one a little wary because, despite all the issues I have with its "quasi-prequel" status, there are still a few negative aspects that simply cannot be overlooked.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You See It? Maybe

Movie Review: DARK SHADOWS

DARK SHADOWS

2012

PG-13

"They tried stoning me, my dear. It did not work."

-- Barnabas Collins

Dark Shadows is a 2012 comedic horror film directed by Tim Burton that serves as an adaptation of the 1960s and 1970s soap opera of the same name. We meet our hero Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) in the late-1700s as he grows into a young man in Collinsport, Maine, where his family has established a fishing community. Barnabas entertains himself with physical relations with a servant named Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), but is real affection lies with a young woman named Josette (Bella Heathcote). Driven by jealousy, Angelique - who happens to be a witch - casts a spell over the young lovers, sending Josette to her death whilst turning Barnabas into a vampire. After informing the townspeople of his true identity, Barnabas is locked in a coffin and buried alive for over two hundred years until he is unearthed in 1972. He makes his way back to his home and finds his descendants alive but struggling to survive with their failing business. He informs Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer), the family matriarch, that he shall return the Collins name to its rightful glory. Little does he know that Angelique has survived as well and has turned the town of Collinsport into her own personal gold mine.

To start, I would like to say that I had not heard of the soap opera that inspired this film until I first learned details about the film itself. By all accounts, the soap is a bit of a cult classic, and considering the ideas and concepts behind it, I'm not surprised to see Burton attempting the adaptation. It's right up his alley, really. It's a dark, gothic tale of a vampire looking to seek revenge and restore his family's name, so what shouldn't there be to like, right? Add the fact that this film has all the makings of a typical Burton venture: Johnny Depp in the lead, an appearance by Helena Bonham Carter and music by Danny Elfman. It sounds like your typical fare.

All that being said, I was not entirely impressed with Dark Shadows. Although I was easily drawn into the story and remained engaged until the very end, there seemed something a tad bit off about this picture. Our story and screenplay aren't quite as strong as past Burton ventures, and I think that's part of the problem. While he kinda manages to blend the comedy and fantasy decently, Burton couldn't find the right amount of balance between the two. At one moment, we're locked in the drama between Johnny Depp and Eva Green, and the next, they're both doing their best to make us laugh. It just seemd as though it was very stop-and-go. We had the right amount of each genre, but rarely did it ever blend together in the proper proportions. One moment we're laughing, the next we're wondering whether the horrific deaths should be funny. Another one of the major problems is that there seems to be too many different story-lines trying to intersect one another. Now, having grown up watching my mother watch "The Young and the Restless," I can tell you that I know just how many stories can be occurring all at once on such a show, and I'm sure "Dark Shadows" was no different. Where the film fails is in its attempt to bring all those story-lines into one two-hour engagement. It proves to be too much to handle, and the entire story proves to be muddled. At the end of the day, it's just a strange tale that could've been fleshed out a little bit better, in my opinion.

Fortunately, we're getting some decent performances to augment the film where the screenplay is lacking. Depp is his usual self, bringing forth yet another memorable character for his ever-growing filmography. He might have been able to mail in this performance, and he still would have managed to be the star. That's not knocking the rest of the cast, but no one quite reaches his level. This is Depp's film, and it should be treated as such. Aside from him, I thought we were getting some good performances from the likes of Jackie Earle Haley and Bonham Carter. I thought Pfeiffer and Green weren't used in the proper way, and both of their performances seemed a tad bit strange. I also thought that Chloë Grace Moretz was vastly underutilized. As one of the stronger actresses making her way up the Hollywood ranks, she definitely has a lot more to offer than what she shows here. Perhaps we can chalk this one up to the screenplay rather than her acting talents. And a quick note: be on the watch for cameos from the likes of Christopher Lee and musician Alice Cooper, the latter of which proves to be both hilarious and entertaining.

If anything is holding this film together, it's Elfman's fancifully dark score. He always seems to have a knack for creating a pitch-perfect musical accompaniment, and Dark Shadows proves to be no different. It's not quite his best score, but it definitely ranks as one of the better ones, if I do say so myself. Here's a little snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, Dark Shadows is an entertaining film that's not really going to stay with you for very long. Although it's better than most films released nowadays, it doesn't quite measure up to some of the past Depp-Burton collaborations. You're probably better off watching a film like 2007's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, or even 1999's Sleepy Hollow. They're both just a bit better than this particular venture.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3DD

PIRANHA 3DD

2012

R

"Welcome to rock bottom."

-- David Hasselhoff

Piranha 3DD is a 2012 horror-comedy directed by John Gulager that serves as a sequel to the 2010 film, Piranha 3D. The film opens with a news story telling us that the Lake Victoria massacre has left the town abandoned, and the reporter questions whether another such incident could possibly happen again. Fast forward one year, and we're now in the confines of a small Arizona town, where Chet (David Koechner) is preparing to re-open his late wife's water park as a not-so-family-friendly play-place, much to the chagrin of his step-daughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker). After a close friend goes missing, Maddy discovers that the now-infamous piranha have migrated to the lake just outside the water park. Fearing for a spree similar to the spring break massacre, Maddy, her friend Barry (Matt Bush) and deputy Kyle (Chris Zylka) make their way to Lake Victoria to seek the aid of Carl Goodman (Christopher Lloyd). What they learn from him incites a new level of terror, and Maddy rushes back to the water park to plead with Chet to postpone the grand re-opening.

As I've said on so many different occasions, I couldn't begin to express my excitement for this sequel to the smash 2010 hit. I became an instant fan of Piranha 3D, and after I heard that a sequel had been greenlit, I waited (im)patiently for its ultimate release. There were to be a lot of changes: Alexandre Aja would not be returning to direct, and we were losing the basic setting of Lake Victoria. At the same time, we would see some familiar faces with returns from Lloyd, Ving Rhames and Paul Scheer. And, ultimately, we were going to have piranhas wreaking havoc. What's not to like, right? It took nearly two years, but I finally had the opportunity to sit down and watch Piranha 3DD.

What I'm about to say is a little bit discouraging: I don't know how I feel about the film. On the one hand, I thought that there was enough to make this an entertaining film, but at the same time, I honestly think that I've been gypped of so many months of waiting for something that's even a shell of what it predecessor achieved. Sadly, that can't necessarily be said about Piranha 3DD.

While the first film didn't necessarily have a plot, there was still a series of events that the audience was able to follow. This time around, however, nothing truly seems to be interconnected. We have one scene where something happens, then another where something else happens, then another and another. And yet, there's no flow to the narrative. It's simply one attack to another, with a little bit of exposition here and there. But there's nothing really to which the audience can cling, and that's going to leave a few people dazed and bored. 

One of the other reasons that Piranha 3D proved so entertaining is that we could actually care about the characters on-screen. Sure, the film didn't offer the greatest acting, but the characters were fleshed out just enough to make them redeemable and endearing. We knew who to love and who to hate, and that worked quite well in swaying us towards cheering for or against certain characters. In Piranha 3DD, we never get that. We know who we're supposed to like and who we're supposed to hate, but we just can't muster enough energy to have those emotions towards any of the characters. Some of the cameos prove to be rather entertaining, but even those are a little bit fleeting. Still, Lloyd gets to have a little more screen-time this time around, and even David Hasselhoff manages to evoke a few chuckles here and there. And yes, Gary Busey is in this movie, but his scene is over so quickly that you'll forget about it a few minutes later.

At the end of the day, Piranha 3DD is, at best, a shell of its predecessor, and a hollow shell at that. While there are a few redeemable moments, there just isn't enough to keep the film moving along as well as it should. Perhaps Piranha 3D was meant to be a novelty success, and although I can't completely hate this new piranha-centric film, I can't say that I love it either. I'm just on the fence, and sometimes, that's the last place a film wants a viewer to be. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3D

PIRANHA 3D

2010

R

"The first bite draws blood. The blood draws the pack."
-- Mr. Goodman

Piranha 3D is a 2010 horror-comedy directed by Alexandre Aja that serves as a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. When an underwater earthquake causes a rift to open on the floor of Lake Victoria, another subterranean lake is exposed to the surface. Within those depths lie thousands of allegedly extinct piranha who come up to feast right around the time of the annual Lake Victoria spring break festivities. Saddened by the fact that he's stuck babysitting his younger siblings, Jake Forester (Steven R. McQueen) willingly accepts an invitation to be a "location scout" for Derrick Jones (Jerry O'Connell) and his Wild Wild Girls film crew. The son of local sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue), Jake knows that what he's doing goes against everything she probably wants; what he doesn't know, however, is that there is a very fishy menace lurking just beneath the water's surface. And with the throngs of college co-eds partying out on the lake, it's only a matter of time until the massacre can ensue.

I wanted to re-watch Piranha 3D in anticipation of the sequel, Piranha 3DD, which is set for release tomorrow. As many of you may have seen in my 2012 Summer Movie Preview, I'm rather excited for the sequel, and all of that excitement stems from the fact that I loved its predecessor oh so much. Now, I'm sure there are a lot of you scratching your heads, wondering why anyone could ever love a movie like Piranha 3D, but if you'll allow it, I shall explain.

Now, I could start off by talking about the screenplay or the acting or any of those typical facets of film that I usually like to talk about, but the point would be a bit moot. The acting is decent considering the genre - although, I was then and still am impressed with O'Connell's superbly comedic performance - and we're getting a slew of fantastic cameo appearances from the likes of Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd and Eli Roth, as well as a pitch-perfect over-the-top bit by Ving Rhames. There are a few other actors who play more important plot roles - namely, Adam Scott and Jessica Szohr - but it's really the bit appearances and the leads who steal the show. And the screenplay is your run-of-the-mill horror creature tale: creature escapes, creature kills people, heroes fight back. That's really all it boils down to. However, there's something about this film that makes it just a little bit better.

At its very base, the film industry relies on one standard: to entertain the audience. When we go to the movies, we can have a slew of emotions. Sometimes we laugh, sometimes we cry, sometimes we scream in terror. But a good film will deliver whatever emotion it hopes to convey, and in that moment, we as the audience can be entertained. This is where Piranha 3D excels. Yes, the story and the concept are ridiculous. Yes, the special effects are shoddy and over-the-top. And yes, there's nothing terribly profound about anything that happens. But it still proves to be one of the more entertaining films in recent years. It goes all out and never lets off the gas, and although it's ridiculous, I still can't help but smile and laugh and cringe along with it all.

To be fair, I should probably say that my biggest love for this film is the fact that it directly references Jaws - admittedly my favorite film of all time - on many an occasion. From the very get-go, we're getting a steady stream. In the opening scene, we see an elderly Richard Dreyfuss essentially reprising his role from Jaws (although it isn't credited as such, most likely for copyright reasons and all that jazz). He's singing along to "Show Me the Way to Go Home" on the radio whilst attempting to catch a "fast fish." Fast-forward a little bit, and we see Ving Rhames' deputy talking about how the spring break season is a "big financial week for our town." Any fans of Jaws will be squealing with glee at these references. Or maybe it's just me being a fanatic. I'll admit that's definitely a possibility.

When it was released in 2010, Piranha 3D actually became one of the surprise critical and commercial successes of the summer. After spending a modest budget of $24 million to make the film, it returned over $83 million worldwide, and a lot of that success had to do with positive word of mouth. As of today, the film holds a seventy-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Playing exactly to expectations for a movie about killer fish run amok, Piranha 3D dishes out gore, guffaws and gratuitous nudity with equal glee.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

2012

R

"An army of nightmares, huh? Let's get this party started."

-- Dana

The Cabin in the Woods is a 2012 horror-thriller directed by Drew Goddard and written by Goddard and Joss Whedon. The film tells the story of five college co-eds on their way for a weekend trip to a rustic cabin in the middle of the wilderness. The five friends - innocent Dana (Kristen Connolly), jock Curt (Chris Hemsworth), girlfriend Jules (Anna Hutchison), intellectual Holden (Jesse Williams) and stoner Marty (Fran Kranz) - immediately start to notice that there's something very nefarious about the cabin. They make their way into the cellar, where Dana finds the diary of a young girl who used to live in the cabin. After reading some of the text, the zombified corpses of the family rise from the grave and start to haunt and attack the group of friends. At the same time, however, the audience learns that there is a group of people manipulating the situation from a secret station. In order to appease the powers that be, the team, led by men named Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford), must ensure that the group of friends is killed.

For those of you who have been reading my posts for the better part of this year, you may already know that I had listed The Cabin in the Woods as my seventh-most anticipated film of 2012. After initially seeing the trailer, I could hardly contain my excitement for the film, which looked to be one of the more original horror-thrillers to grace the silver screen in a while. Having finally had the opportunity to give the film a view, I have to say that I am thoroughly impressed with the final product.

Going into the film, I had forgotten that Joss Whedon had helped pen the screenplay, but after re-discovering this little tidbit only moments before showtime, I have to say that my excitement level grew exponentially. From the outset, the film just feels like a Whedon project, and that was enough to help draw me into the storyline. In the beginning, it's a little confusing because we're getting both the story of the college co-eds as well as the technicians running this very sadistic "game," but as the story progresses, the audience gets to see how it all intersects with one another. The story itself is inventive and adds a bit of a sci-fi twist to your typical horror story. The Cabin in the Woods could have easily fallen into genre convention, but instead, it managed to turn genre convention on its ear. At the same time, Whedon and Goddard found ample situations in which to throw a number of references to past horror flicks. The most obvious is probably the references to The Evil Dead, but there's just so many to see that it's hard to keep track of them all. And on top of all this, Whedon and Goddard have managed to create a story that's original, and that's a rarity in the horror genre of today. The film manages to be scary, funny and contemplative all at the same time, and it all blends so well that the movie proves to be incredibly engaging and entertaining.

Another strong facet of the screenplay is the characters, who prove to be well-written and well-developed. Fortunately, the cast is able to step up to the challenge and offer strong performances that bring the characters to life. Connolly does well as the film's lead, but it's some of the supporting characters that bring out the best of the acting. Fran Kranz works well as the movie's best comic relief, and some of his one-liners are so bitingly hilarious that I'm still thinking about the quotes today. I also have to give a shout-out to Jenkins and Whitford, who bring quite a bit of comedy as well. Overall, the cast just manages to fire on all cylinders and bring together quite the collective performance. Also be on the lookout for a very spectacular cameo toward the end of the film. I don't want to give it away, but it's a pretty big-time name.

Thus far, The Cabin in the Woods has managed to score some fantastic reviews from the critical community, but the review from Christopher Orr, who writes for The Atlantic, stated it best in his positive review for the film:

A horror movie embedded in a conspiracy flick embedded in another horror movie - the most inventive cabin-in-the-woods picture The Evil Dead and the canniest genre deconstruction since Scream.

I honestly don't think I could've stated it any better, and Whedon and Goddard deserve most of the credit for this film's success. If you're a horror fan, then this one's probably a must-see, if only because you're going to love the send-up of past horror flicks and the deconstruction of typical conventions. However, I think this film could even appeal to film fans not entirely familiar with horror flick history. There's just so much to love about The Cabin in the Woods. I just hope I have the chance to get back and see it again sometime soon.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: THE DEVIL INSIDE

THE DEVIL INSIDE

2012
R


"Three people are dead. I... killed... them."
-- Maria Rossi

The Devil Inside is a 2012 horror film directed by William Brent Bell that deals with the topic of exorcism. In 1989, Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) committed a multiple murder on three members of the clergy as they attempted to perform an exorcism on her. After being committed as criminally insane, she was sent to a Catholic psychiatric hospital in Rome, Italy. Nearly twenty years later, Maria's daughter Isabella (Fernanda Andrade), having only recently learned the details of her mother's arrest, travels to Rome in order to determine whether her mother is mentally ill or is actually possessed. She enlists the help of independent documentary filmmaker Michael Schaefer (Ionut Grama) to capture her entire trek. After meeting with her mother, Isabella receives help and guidance from two young exorcists, Father David Keane (Evan Helmuth) and Father Ben Rawlings (Simon Quarterman). Together, the four try to piece together the issues behind Maria's alleged possession and work towards ridding her of her longtime pain and suffering once and for all.

The exorcism theme in cinema has been prevalent throughout my entire lifetime, but it's only in the past decade or so that it has managed to become a box office staple. As anyone would argue, the 1973 film The Exorcist is the grandfather of the modern-day exorcism films, and it set the standard for what films in the genre should hope to achieve. While The Exorcist spawned a few sequels of its own, other filmmakers have since attempted to take the genre above and beyond what that 1973 movie hoped to reach. It wasn't until the 2000s, however, that audiences became bombarded by a seemingly endless stream of movies in this genre. It has almost reached the point where expecting an film about exorcism has become an annual event (I cite 2010's The Last Exorcism and 2011's The Rite as my evidence). Each subsequent film tries to outdo its predecessor, and The Devil Inside is no different.

Like the aforementioned The Last Exorcism, this film was crafted in the faux documentary format. It proposes itself to be a story of actual events, and the audience is merely watching the found footage that is only now being released to the public. While some films have made this format work in the past - the 1999 film The Blair Witch Project stands out most prominently - I feel as though this particular subgenre has started to wear a little bit thin. For example, online encyclopedia Wikipedia.org tentatively lists that fifteen "found footage" films were released in 2011 alone, whereas only eight were released before the year 2000. Sure, it was once a great way to suck the audiences into a story, but personally, I'm getting a tad bit tired of it all.

To step aside for a moment, I'd like to talk about the acting in The Devil Inside. I personally believe that "found footage" films generally tend to succeed on one particular level, and that's in creating believable characters that seem genuinely real. If you're going to purport that you just happened to land your hands on some juicy old videotapes or allegedly true and real events, you better make sure that your actors don't act like cardboard cut-outs and mannequins. Fortunately, this film does well with its cast, and although there were a couple issues here and there, everyone generally plays their part to a tee. Fernanda Andrade is decent as our lead, but I thought she was a little overshadowed by our two central priests. Helmuth and Quarterman play off one another well and add an interesting interpretation of two young exorcists trying to change the game. The real acting award, however, has to go to Crowley, who manages to steal the show with her portrait of the possessed. This is usually the case in films like this: the actors who play the possessed characters are given the chance to let it all hang out and have no reservations, ultimately crafting the most realistic fits of insanity within a respective film. So I tip my hat to Suzan Crowley for doing just that.

The Devil Inside does offer a slightly interesting plot-line, even if it doesn't offer anything all that different. Like last year's The Rite, this film takes its epicenter to the Vatican, bringing us into the lion's den of exorcism, so to speak. Also somewhat like that film, we're following a couple of young hotshot priests who want to shake up the establishment and perform exorcisms on their own time, no matter how the Church is going to react. There are a few moments where the screenplay seems like its working well, but then you actually get into the thick of the exorcisms themselves, and you see where the filmmakers true intentions lie. Rather than offering a clever or original story, the real appeal of exorcism films in the twenty-first century is their ability to out-shock their predecessors. In the horror genre today, it's all about making your audience gasp and cover their eyes rather than have them settled into a suspense-filled story. It's about making them cringe and jump out of their seats rather than have a movie gnaw at them for days and weeks afterward. In that sense, The Devil Inside does relatively well, offering a couple of cringe-worthy moments, but it's still relatively tame compared to some other exorcism films from the past. I just wish we could've gotten a little more in terms of story to aid the rest of the film.

As a result of the shoddy screenplay, The Devil Inside manages to fail just a bit solely based on the fact that it proved to be just a little too boring. The humdrum nature doesn't allow the audience to remain engaged with the story, and although there are a few moments where you'll want to be hooked, you're ultimately going to forget about this one relatively quickly after the end credits roll. One of the reasons The Exorcist has become such an iconic film is the lasting power of some of the images from the film. The Devil Inside doesn't begin to come close.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: D-
1 Thumb Down

Movie Review: BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON

BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON

2007
R


"It is going to get wet in here tonight. Lace your boots up, kiddies."
-- Leslie Vernon

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon is a 2007 mockumentary directed by Scott Glosserman that gives a different point-of-view concerning the concept of cinematic serial killers. The film takes an alternate reality in which such iconic horror villains as Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers and Freddy Krueger actually exist and have already made names for themselves as legends in their respective local haunts. Now we're seeing the start of a new masked menace: Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel). Leslie has hired a documentary crew to chronicle the planning and preparation for his masterpiece in which he hopes to make a name for himself and become the next great serial killer. With reporter Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals) and her cameramen in tow, Leslie starts to show his crew how he plans on stalking and ultimately empowering a young virgin named Kelly (Kate Lang Johnson).

Seeing this film was a result of a lazy day spent searching NetFlix's slew of Instant Watch options for something that might be moderately appealing and entertaining. When I saw the film listed, I was immediately drawn to the fact that NetFlix believed I would rate it rather favorably. After doing a little bit of research, I came across this plot synopsis on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb):

The next great psycho horror slasher has given a documentary crew exclusive access to his life as he plans his reign of terror over the sleepy town of Glen Echo, all the while deconstructing the conventions and archetypes of the horror genre for them.

That was enough to put me over the edge, and I immediately started watching the film.

Let's start with the screenplay. The film is a mockumentary, which means it's filmed like a documentary, but it's still telling a fictitious story (other recent examples of mockumentaries are 1984's This Is Spinal Tap, 2006's Borat and 2007's Surf's Up). We head straight into the thick of it all, meeting our camera crew from the opening scene as they approach Leslie's house to start the interviewing process. Who we meet isn't exactly the terrifying figure we might have been expecting; rather, we're greeted by a fun-loving guy who seems a little bit dorky and a little bit socially awkward. As he starts to talk about his plans for Glen Echo, however, we start to see the seemingly warped sense of reality he actually has. However, his "sense of reality" has to be taken in context with the alternate reality we've already created by crafting a world where cinematic serial killers actually exist. In that sense, perhaps Leslie isn't all that insane. He takes the crew through all of his preparations, explaining each horror convention - from the need for a virgin to the attention to detail he will need - and its place in the overall scheme of his plan. What's so great about the screenplay is that it leaves absolutely no stone unturned. While I was watching the film, I kept telling myself, "Oh, he's missing that little bit. How can he explain that?" And almost immediately, I would find myself listening to Leslie explain just what I was wondering. Everything you think you know about the horror genre is about to be turned on its ear, and it does so with hilarious consequences. At the same time, however, we're still getting a fantastic dose of horror, and the last thirty minutes of the film still play out to be moderately scary considering the film's overall mood. My only issue with the screenplay was that the ending was a tad bit predictable, but considering it was the only logical conclusion, I suppose I can forgive it's predictability.

Part of the reason the film feels so believable is that, when Leslie goes into his explanation of the acts he will commit, the camera cuts away from the documentary and starts to show the audience a very cinematic portrayal of what's going to happen. The cuts between these shots are flawless, and it hearkens back to the slasher films of the late 1970s and 1980s. As soon as Leslie starts to off his victims, we go into this cinematic portrayal, leaving the clunky news camera behind, and I think it keeps things fresh and crisp throughout the film.

The acting is also relatively top-notch, considering the type of film we're receiving. Nathan Baesel is fantastic as our central lead, bringing a manic energy and a witty charm to the character that we should probably start to fear. He's so convincing in his role that you want to fall in love with him but push him away at the same time. Angela Goethals is good for her role, but she may be the weak link throughout the story. I just couldn't really get into her character, and although she makes up for it in the last fifteen minutes or so, they might have been able to find someone a little bit better for the part. The rest of the cast fills out nicely, fitting their stereotypes to perfection. Be on the lookout for some bigger names like Zelda Rubinstein (of Poltergeist fame) and Robert Englund (of A Nightmare on Elm Street fame) to make small, but important, appearances.

Overall, this is a film that I think any fan of the horror genre can ultimately appreciate. It mixes comedy with the horror well, and the attack on horror conventions is bitingly satiric, to say the least. Whoever thought of this idea should be applauded, and the fact that it works out as well as its premise suggests is cinematic beauty at its finest. I only wish this gem of a film had received more publicity upon its release because it truly is a fine film of the first order and should be seen by more people than will ultimately ever have the chance to watch it. I've fallen in love with this film, and you just might as well.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A-
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: THE INVISIBLE MAN

THE INVISIBLE MAN

1933
Unrated


"The fools wouldn't let me work in peace. I had to teach them a lesson."
-- The Invisible Man

The Invisible Man is a 1933 dramatic horror film directed by James Whale that's based off the 1897 H.G. Wells novel of the same name. It tells the story of Dr. Jack Griffin (Claude Rains) who, through an experiment gone wrong, has found himself completely invisible to the world around him. Wrapped in a slew of bandages, he stumbles upon an old inn one night and barters for a room to stay so that he can work on an experiment to alter the effects and return him to his normal state. After a few weeks, however, the inn's owners decide to throw Griffin out for not paying the money he owes. Enraged, Griffin hurts the inn's owner and unveils himself to the townspeople, running away as quickly as he can, leaving his things behind. He turns to his old friend Dr. Arthur Kemp (William Harrigan), with whom he worked under Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers), for help and partnership. Griffin tells Kemp of his plans to use his invisibility to create a new world order in which he will lead the people through fear. Terrified for his life and for those around him, Kemp notifies Cranley as well as the authorities of Griffin's proximity before he can start his reign of terror.

I've always been quite a fan of the classic films, and although I haven't seen as many of them as I'd like, I think I have a pretty decent grasp on what makes a good classic film in comparison to what makes a bad one. When it comes to the old-time horror flicks, however, I have yet to come across a truly bad one (well, except maybe for 1943's Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man). The fact that I had yet to see The Invisible Man was a bit of a bother for me, considering I've tried to see most of all the old Universal monster movies. I think I still have a couple left, but that list is definitely dwindling down towards its end.

Let's start with the screenplay for this film. While we're not getting anything terribly impressive, there's enough here to like considering the film's relatively short run-time (it goes on for just over an hour). There's a lot of classic horror cliché playing here: a leading character who isn't truly defined as neither protagonist nor antagonist suffers some sort of medical debacle or mystical enchantment that turns him into a beast that the countryside quickly learns to fear. We have our seeming damsel-in-distress who thinks that love will be enough to cure the beast. We have a strong supporting male who plays foil to our undefined lead, and we have an older man who plays a scientist-type who seems to have all the answers. So in that, our characters are created. However, I especially thought that our Invisible Man was rather well-written, with his maniacal ideas about world domination penetrating quite clearly. The storyline itself is basic: man is changed by failed experiment; man wreaks havoc; man is chased by authorities. You can imagine how it's going to end.

I do want to touch on the acting a little bit because I found it to be a level above what we normally see out of classic horror films like this. Rains is spectacular despite the fact that you only see his face for a few seconds towards the end of the film. Most of his time on-screen is spent covered in bandages, and the rest of his performance is purely vocal, but he still manages to bring a strong presence to the screen even when he isn't physically visible. Had the filmmakers chosen to make the character of the Invisible Man completely invisible, rather than have him put on clothes to make a physical appearance, Rains's voice alone would have been able to make the character believable and still rather terrifying. We also get some good performances from Harrigan and Gloria Stuart, who plans Griffin's love interest in the film.

The real icing on the cake, however, is the special effects used to make the Invisible Man come to life, so to speak. After doing some research, I learned that the special effects wizards who created the effect for the film used a primitive version of "green-screen" technology. Rains would wear an all-black, form-fitting suit then be filmed in front of a completely black screen. When the filmmakers went back to substitute the background, they used matte paintings of the sets behind Rains to fill in the spaces. It's so well-done that you'll almost forget that this movie is now seventy-eight years old. It's hard to believe that special effects this fantastic were made all the way back in 1933, but even today, they should be applauded.

Overall, The Invisible Man is a stunning movie that left me wanting more. While I know that a slew of sequels were made, I'm sure none of them could possibly come close to the greatness that this film exhibited. Is it the greatest classic horror film I've yet to see? Not quite - it'd be rather tough to beat out 1935's Bride of Frankenstein. However, it's still one of the better ones you're likely to come across, so if you're into the classic movie fare, definitely give this one a go.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: SANTA'S SLAY

SANTA'S SLAY

2005
R


"We're trapped in a closet on Christmas with Santa trying to murder us."
-- Nicholas Yuleson

Santa's Slay is a 2005 horror-comedy directed by David Steiman that centers around a world where Santa Claus (Bill Goldberg) spreads fear instead of joy. When Nicholas Yuleson (Douglas Smith) learns the true story of Santa from his grandfather (Robert Culp), he's taken aback by what he hears: one thousand years before, Santa had lost a bet to an angel who forced him to bring tidings of joy and happiness to the world on Christmas Day. Once the millennium had ended, however, he could return to his favorite pastime: murder and mayhem. This particular Christmas marked the end of the bet, and Santa comes to the Yuleson's hometown to wreak havoc. Armed with his new-found knowledge, Nicholas and his friend Mary 'Mac' Mackenzie (Emilie de Ravin) try to survive the consistent attacks from the formerly jolly old Saint Nick while attempting to find a way to stop his murderous path.

After the success I had with watching ThanksKilling last year, I figured giving another holiday-themed horror flick a chance would be a worthwhile endeavor. I mean, who could pass up a flick about a Santa Claus that's coming to town to cause as much destruction as he possibly can? It sounds like surefire "so bad, it's good" gold, right? Well, Santa's Slay delivers... sort of.

We're given a rather interesting - albeit entirely far-fetched - premise to set up this particular tale. An angel in human form challenged the bloodthirsty Santa to a game and set the aforementioned stakes. While it's a tad bit cliché to have this particular Christmas be the one where Santa can break his string of benevolence, we wouldn't have a movie had they not taken that leap. However, the film moves from cliché to cliché when it comes to both horror and comedies, so it doesn't necessarily deliver on the laughs or the scares all that much. I do have to say the opening scene (with familiar faces like James Caan, Fran Drescher and Chris Kattan) set the mood very well, but it all spiraled downward from there. Still, there are quite a few Christmas movie-related references to be heard throughout the flick, so if you're able to pay attention, you'll be in for quite a treat.

The acting isn't necessarily great, but it's not all that terrible either. Goldberg "steals" the show with his turn as the evil Santa, and some of his one-liners are definitely worth a chuckle here and there. Culp and de Ravin are solid and give consistent performances. Unfortunately, the weakest link here is our lead in Douglas Smith. He never really seems to know exactly what he should be doing or what's going on, and that lost look on his face throws out any real appeal as a character.

Still, Santa's Slay could have been a lot worse. It's definitely not a movie anyone would expect to be brilliant, and for what it's worth, it was even entertaining at times. Can I honestly recommend you take the time to watch it? Not quite; however, I think you'd be surprised with how much you might actually like it if you do give it a try.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: D-
1 Thumb Down

Movie Review: THE WARD

THE WARD

2011
R


"If I were you, I'd watch out, new girl."
-- Sarah

The Ward is a 2011 horror film directed by John Carpenter that serves as his first directorial effort in nearly a decade. The story follows a young girl named Kristen (Amber Heard) who is placed in a psychiatric hospital after burning down a farmhouse; however, she has no recollection of any events prior to her arrival at the hospital. As she tries to settle into her new environment, she meets the other girls in her ward: Iris (Lyndsy Fonseca), Sarah (Danielle Panabaker), Emily (Mamie Gummer) and Zoey (Laura-Leigh). She also meets Dr. Stringer (Jared Harris), who the girls say is trying an experimental method of therapy in their treatment. Although everything seems normal in the hospital, things start to go awry when Kristen starts to see an apparition haunting the halls. Fearful for her life and for the lives of the other girls, she attempts to break away from the ward.

While I'm not terribly well-versed on Carpenters directorial resumé, I have seen a handful of his films, and I have to say that he's been a tad hit-and-miss for me. I loved Halloween (1978), but I hated Assault on Precinct 13 (1976). I raved about 1982's The Thing, but I merely liked 1988's They Live. Because he's been so back-and-forth for me personally, I wasn't quite sure what to expect from The Ward. I thought it had the potential to be a great return to the horror genre for him, but sadly, the film just didn't really deliver.

I could probably break down the screenplay quite a bit and give you reasons as to why it isn't that good, but it would be too harsh to trash it all completely. There's a good story hidden somewhere inside this film, and were it not so painfully dull, I might have been captivated by the plot's twists and turns. To be honest, it all just felt a tad too predictable. I saw Carpenter's every move from a mile away, and I just thought he fell into horror convention a bit too much. For a man who broke ground in the horror genre so many years ago, it's sad to see him fall into conformity this way.

It's a shame he doesn't really get much help from his cast, either. While it's not the worst bit of acting you'll see, there's not really much good to say about our actors here. Amber Heard plays her character a tad bit over-the-top, and she turns into a whiny, broken record pretty quickly. We do get some okay performances from the likes of Harris and the other girls, but seeing as Heard is the star of the show, we have to suffer through her piece for the film's entirety. She may not bring down the film on her own, but she could have done a lot more to lift it from its current state.

Despite everything I've just said, the real issue with The Ward is that it just isn't scary. Whereas Carpenter has made a career on leaving his audiences in suspense, he instead chose the foray of cheap thrills for this particular film. Those of you who have been reading me for a while will know that I don't consider "cheap thrills" to be true horror. Sure, you might jump out of your seat, but you're not going to remember the scares a day or two later. Suspense will keep you awake at night, but cheap thrills will pass. Because of this, I just couldn't find the film all that terrifying, and considering the "jump" moments couldn't even cause a stir, I'd have to say that this was a rather failed experiment in the horror genre.

At the end of the day, The Ward is an interesting effort from a horror icon, but sadly, it fails on nearly every level. It breaks the first rule of the horror genre by not being scary in the slightest, and the rest of the issues with the film fall into place after that. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, but I can't in my right mind begin to recommend you watch it.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: D-
1.5 Thumbs Down

Movie Review: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

http://thismovieguy.blogspot.com/search/label/Lauren%20BittnerPARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

2011
R

Paranormal Activity 3 is a 2011 horror film directed by Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost that serves as a prequel to 2010's Paranormal Activity 2 despite being the franchise's third installment. The home video footage takes us back to 1988 where we see a young Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) dealing with the arrival of our favorite demonic presence. Kristi starts to talk about her imaginary friend "Toby," but her mother Julie (Lauren Bittner) starts to think she's letting her imagination go a little too far. Julie's boyfriend Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith), however, has his curiosity piqued when unexplainable events start to occur around the house. He sets up a number of his video cameras in order to record and document the phenomena, but as time goes by, the demon becomes more and more violent with its presence, and Dennis starts to realize that there may be more to the story than meets the eye.

I think I have to start by saying that if you weren't a fan of the first two films, there's really no need for you to see this third one. I've run into a lot of people who hated these movies, but I've found just as many who've loved them as much as I do. I should probably tell you that as well - I instantly fell in love with the original 2009 film when I saw it in theaters, and as you can see in my review of the second installment (linked in the first paragraph), you'll know that I was rather fond of that one as well (although my views have changed slightly). Still, when the third film was announced, I had mixed feelings about whether it could succeed. I was hoping they would continue where the second film had left off, but instead, they chose to take us back in time and show the start of the girls' issues with this demon. The prequel idea was an interesting one to me (those of you who read my trailer breakdown for the film will already know this), but it still wasn't a guaranteed success. However, this film did garner more positive reviews than its immediate predecessor, so the filmmakers must have done something right.

Speaking of the filmmakers, this film was brought to us by the two directors who brought us the faux (?) documentary Catfish last year. While I found that to be a rather effective film, even if I don't think it's a true documentary, I thought they were an interesting choice to carry on the Paranormal Activity franchise. However, their direction is definitely noticeable, and they did a very good job with the hand-held camerawork once again. The deftness of their cinematography as well as their direction helped create a very spooky atmosphere, and while there were a few more "jump-out-of-your-seat" moments than the original film, I thought there was a lot more suspense than the second film. Those of my readers who have been following me for a while know that I'm a strong proponent of suspense over cheap thrills, so the fact that Joost and Schulman went in that direction is a huge plus for this film. I was definitely left on the edge of my seat, so kudos to them.

There isn't a ton to say about the acting in the film. Everyone plays their parts very well, but it's not as though we were expecting anything truly brilliant in terms of acting performances. We get our obligatory Katie Featherston appearance, but aside from that, we're not really seeing anybody I've ever seen in a movie before. Still, the cast rounds out nicely and performs exactly what you'd expect to see in a film like this.

While it's not quite as good as the original film, I'd have to say it's just about on par with the second film save for a strange ending that will hopefully be explained in subsequent sequels. After making a massive amount of money over its opening weekend, I think it's only a matter of time until a fourth installment is announced. Seeing as there are some holes left to fill, I'll be eagerly expecting next October.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
2 Thumbs Up