Paranormal Activity 3

Paranormal Activity 3

Starring Jessica Tyler, Brian Boland, Chloe Csengery, Christoper Nhcolas, Lauren Blittner, Hallie Foote
Written by Christopher B. Landon
Directed by Ariel Schulman & Henry Joost
Release: 21 October 2011
Paramount, 85 mins., Rated R

Plot: Sequel sequel to prequel prequel.

For years, every Halloween the Saw franchise was the reigning victor in the box office, presenting a tightly woven narrative with gory death traps, making it a cash cow for the studio. In 2009, Paranormal Activity, an independent production made for a reported $15,000, dethroned Saw VI, rounding out its theatrical run with $107.9 million.

Despite no original plans to continue the series, Paranormal Activity 2 hit theaters the following October, surpassing its predecessor in box office and delivering more effective chills.

And now, a third installment enters theaters with a record breaking $54 million opening weekend. Suffice it to say, Halloween now belongs to Paranormal Activity.

Going back in time even further, before Paranormal 2, the third film (and second prequel) is set in 1988, shown through old, discarded VHS tapes, chronicling exactly what shenanigans young Katie and Kristi are up to with that pesky demon that will inevitably cause them trouble later in life.

Video recorded by Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith), boyfriend of the sisters’ mother Julie (Lauren Bittner), he sets up three cameras: one in their room, one in the children’s bedroom, and one downstairs covering the kitchen and living room (humorously duct taped to a fan). As the nights roll on, the cameras pick up unusual images and weird exchanges between Kristi and an invisible entity.

Paranormal Activity 3 is highly effective in its ability to build tension. The moving camera attached to the fan may be the single most brilliant invention of the entire trilogy, making audiences cling to every inch of the frame to see what may be coming and when.

This device is brilliantly used during a scene involving a ‘ghost’ and a babysitter. Although the film has a bit of a slow burn until the unusual phenomena begins, it does allow viewers to get to know Dennis and Julie, and even become fans of both of them, especially Dennis (whose reactions to everything are comedic gold). In fact, it’s with a long, intimate scene with them that delivered the most effective spine-chilling freak out of them all.

Another runaway success is the utterly natural, realistic performances of the child actors playing Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) and Katie (Chloe Csengery). Not one bit of their performance feels phoned in, and because of the level of realism with these two, when the demon becomes aggressive it’s absolutely horrifying. And not just because it’s a bit scary, but because we come to care for the kids and don’t want bad things to happen to them.

That’s quite the accomplishment when typically, audiences are or more or less rooting for the demon. The casting here is nothing short of exquisite, boasting the most likable and personable cast of the trilogy.

The film is one long tense production that culminates in a chaotic crescendo. It’s the scares and the characters that make Paranormal 3 a success, but that doesn’t mean it’s entirely perfect.

As opposed to the previous two, this one doesn’t feel quite as complete, and when the end credits roll, the theater was collective in their reaction of, “That’s it?” There should have been, and could have been, more to the story, or more scares. It just seems to end awfully sudden.

Following in the footsteps of Paranormal 2, a few more layers of its mythology is unraveled, this time involving a strange symbol that may be connected to the demon. The last film was very mythology heavy, but all its twists and turns made sense in the context of the narrative and added up to the original film’s framework really well. What’s brought to the table in the closing minutes of Paranormal 3 doesn’t nearly jive as well, coming out of left field more than making sense in the context of what has come before.

Paranormal Activity 3 isn’t perfect, but it’s highly effective in its scares, it’s tense from beginning to end, and offers the most likable cast of actors in the whole trilogy. Where the series will go from here is uncertain, but judging from phenomenal box office receipts, a fourth helping is all but certain.

Red State

Red State

Starring Michael Parks, John Goodman, Melissa Leo, Kyle Gallner, Michael Angarano, Nicholas Braun
Written & Directed by Kevin Smith
Release: 01 September 2011
SModcast Pictures, 88 mins., Rated R

Plot: Three teens are held captive by religious fundamentalist Abin Cooper and members of his Five Points Church, and are meant to die for their sinning nature.

Right around the time Kevin Smith was prepping Clerks II, info starting popping up about a script he wrote that was unlike anything he had ever written. Called Red State, he called it a "different kind of horror movie." Here we are, two films later, and we finally have the film in our hands. All the hype surrounding it, all the anticipation, and it's finally here. And because of that anticipation and expectation, Red State unfortunately fails to be as good as it probably is.

The movie is good. Unlike many reviews suggest, the film knows exactly what it is. The pacing and clear story divide is very deliberate, and, I feel, actually quite effective. The story evolved from its thriller/horror roots and instead became an all-out bullet melee. Enjoyment aside - and I did, enjoy - the film just didn't seem to push the boundaries enough, for me. It's one of those instances where the film, good as it is, failed to deliver on its own premise. Three horny teenage boys caged by Abin Cooper and his ministry to pay for their sins in front of the congregation is a horrifying scenario, and Smith could have easily milked it to make everything more intense, more cruel, more effective. In fact, with the exception of a number of unexpected deaths, Red State seems to play it safe, weirdly enough.

To the films detriment, and it pains me to say this, but Abin Cooper and his flock don't come across as actual, dimensional characters/people. They feel like caricatures, the result of some sort of Looney Tunes sketch mixing some swearing and blood into the equation. I knew this was a possibility, but I assumed that Smith, being an intelligent writer and possessing a keen knack for writing exquisite dialogue and very real characters, would overcome such a hurdle. Unfortunately, because of the caricature feeling that comes from the people of Five Points Church, they don't come across nearly as threatening as they should, especially Cooper. I will say that all reports about Michael Parks being splendid in the role are indeed true, but that doesn't stop him from not coming across as a legitimate threat. It sucks Smith's script failed to give these characters dimension, but in the grand scheme of the whole movie, it could be argued it wasn't entirely necessary. By the fifty minute mark Red State becomes an all-out blood war, where every life is expendable. The characterization of Cooper's clan is secondary to the bullets and the plot points.

In the category of dialogue, Smith once again doesn't disappoint. Especially when the ATF come into the scene, the dialogue is classic Smith. One of my favorite exchanges of the year occurs around the 50 minute mark when Goodman and his right-hand man are trying to communicate with Cooper and his clan.

But all in all, despite my affection for Parks, my love for Kevin Smith, and my general good feeling towards Red State, it just doesn't feel like enough. Incomplete, would be a good word for it. And I don't mean to say that Smith should have lingered at the war zone instead of cutting to a dialogue heavy scene; I think the last act is fine. Just the whole movie doesn't reach the heights of greatness, of horror, of tension, that it should. All this being said, Red State is a movie that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend to fans of Kevin Smith. However, I wager it has a very specific audience, and a large portion of people will have no inclination to check out a film that has fowl-mouthed horny teens, crazy religious nuts, blood splatter, and really no message in the end. But hell, it's still worth seeing.

Rating: 7.5/10 - Not Smith's best outing, but there enough done right to make Red State worth checking out, from script to screen, it's a labor of love, and feels like it.

Shark Night 3D

Shark Night 3D

Plot: Over-age stereotypes vaca in digital shark infested waters.

I’ve come up with a half dozen different ways to start off this review, but they all seemed to be a way too wordy and failed to really hit home what I wanted to say. So here it is: Shark Night 3D sucks. It really, completely, 100%, honestly does. If anyone watches the Syfy Channel anymore (now that’s a rant for another day), I guarantee you’ll find more enjoyment from their Original Movie crapfests. They excel at bringing Z-grade storytelling, ‘acting’, special effects, music, the whole bit. Yet despite the fact they make really, really bad movies, I’d rather give ‘em a go before watching Shark Night again.

What did I expect? I expected sharks on a human-chomping frenzy. I expected a movie to live up to its title. I didn’t pay for the ticket with the hope I’d be met with dimensional characters or a halfway solid plot. Hell, I’d be plenty satisfied if the plot was paper thin, so as long as we got the sharks. The title says it all right there: Shark Night. The poster promises shark bites. We did not get this. The creative team behind Shark Night couldn’t even follow through with the premise.

I want shark attacks, and what’s here instead are quick five second shots of some of the most painful big budget digital effects in recent years. Oh, and a dozen or so dorsal fin shots that never hold the same menace as that 1975 film. Point is, the sharks are hardly in this movie. Instead we’re treated to human beings that I reluctantly attribute the concept of ‘characters’ to, personifying the very definition of stereotypes.

Again, if the creative team gave us sharks – and lots of ‘em – I could care less about the ‘nerdy’ guy who we recognize as a nerd because he has glasses but has abs of steel that would make Captain America jealous, or the black guy who is using the nerd just so he could pass class while concentrating his efforts in sports. Or the redneck hillbilly stereotypes. Or the gorgeous blond girl with a fuzzy past and intimacy issues. Or the super, super, super senior college student played by an actor I’m pretty sure is in his 40’s. I could overlook a number of these ‘elements’ if they just gave us some bloody sharks!

Alas, the cumulative runtime of them onscreen is probably no more than 5 minutes. I think there’s one genuinely decent scene with the sharks, but that’s about it (if you really have to see it, I’ll leave this nondescript so you can enjoy it). So very little in the way of sharks, cardboard cutouts of individuals often referred as ‘characters’ in good movies, crappy digital effects, a ridiculous script, it all comes down to this: is it at least fun?

Honestly, no. Not even in a ‘this-is-so-so-bad, it’s-sorta-good’ kinda way. Piranha 3D somehow achieved that; My Bloody Valentine 3D accomplished just that in spades. The final judgment of this reviewer is to skip Shark Night 3D at all costs. [And yes, I did see this in 3D, and boy was it not worth it; sorta makes me want to go back and time and see Jaws 3D just to compare] If at some point you are forced into going or decide to sacrifice yourself by seeing it, just do yourself a favor and stay ‘till after the credits: there’s a music video that is far more entertaining than the feature itself.

Rating: 2/10 - Watch anything else. Syfy Channel Original junk, SHARK ATTACK 3, what have you; just not this. Unless you're doing your own Rifftrax commentary! Upload that. Should be neat.

Fright Night

Fright Night

Starring Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Imogen Poots, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Tori Collette
Written by Marti Noxon
Story by Tom Holland
Directed by Craig Gillepsie
Release: 19 August 2011
DreamWorks, 106 mins., Rated R

Plot: Charley Brewster investigates his next door neighbor, Jerry, who happens to be an vampire intent on getting his killing a goin.

Take DISTURBIA but instead of a serial killer, the neighbor is a VAMPIRE serial killer. That's the basic premise. But once the premise is settled in, and it's up to Charley and his hot girlfriend to save the town from Jerry and his cunning nefariousness, they ain't so similar anymore. For one, FRIGHT NIGHT boasts this odd charm about it. Sometimes, it seems as though the scripts winking at the audience, acknowledging the vampire genre and its current marketable state (e.g., TWILIGHT, which even gets a mention!), and other times, it's as if FRIGHT NIGHT is going full on satire/overboard by spewing CG blood all over the place, a la KILL BILL. And somehow, the film balances a comedic, not-so-serious tone, with a dead serious, shit is going down vibe without one or the other contradicting or really pulling a person out of the experience.

I attribute all this to the brilliant Marti Noxon, screenwriter of this 2011 reboot, and veteran of Joss Whedon's masterpiece BUFFY, THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and mastermind of the short lived FOX series POINT PLEASANT (review here). Thanks to the very clever script and some great performances which clearly say, 'this script is fun, I wanna have fun, let's have some fun', FRIGHT NIGHT is lots and lots of fun.

Frankly, I didn't quite know what to expect going in. After all, never saw the original, and dunno if I want to now after seeing this (although I gather they are two entirely separate experiences). But what we have here is a horror film worth watching. There's Colin Farrell as vampire Jerry, and he can play sinister. Granted, if I was in the directors chair, there are some changes I would make to his performance, but overall, Farrel brings on the creepy and the sinister, making Jerry a frightening presence despite the name. Definitely near the end, where Jerry's patience is running thin and he just wants to rip some throats, Farrel definitely delivers the "GRRRRR!" During the scenes where he's actually trying to be charming...well, damnit, he's charming. The awesome Anton Yelchin who wowed me in CHARLIE BARTLETT, ALPHA DOG, STAR TREK, and TERMINATOR SALVATION continues to "wow." I love this guy, and you should love this guy. Perfect comic timing, and a perfect understanding of drama. Any casting director can't go wrong with this guy. And David Tennant. The Doctor in DOCTOR WHO himself, walking around in eye liner, a robe, a wig, and swearing frequently in his signature Scottish accent. Loved him. Brilliant. Hilarious. Owned the film right out of Colin Farrel's grasp.

I'll say it right now, with all the biasesies of the universe, David Tennant owns this movie. He doesn't pop up until quite a ways in, but when his Peter Vincent persona does make his debut, it's great fun. He's a drunk, he's a fake, and when he's actually confronted with real vampire shit, he pussies out and allows others to fall victim so he can live. Luckily, David Tennant being David Tennant, he didn't take the role just so he can wear eye liner and a wig: he gets his badassery on, and it's glorious when it happens.

Not like I'm over selling that, by any means. Another surprising element was there being a strong female lead present. Imogen Poots plays Charley's girlfriend but-maybe-not-really-a-girlfriend Amy,

Worth mentioning before I sign off this review, but I elected not to indulge in the 3D prices. Sorry folks, but I just ain't into that anymore. Unless something ginormous and game changing comes around. But as my 2D picture played, there were multiple instances that might benefit from 3D, and the director happily throws items at the camera to create that "Woah!" effect. So what I'm saying is that if you wanna take the 3D plunge, it just might be worth it. Not a guarantee, but at the very least, it appears as though they're trying. If you decide the 2D route, I promise you aren't missing much, and the flick works just fine as is.

In review: David Tennant was awesome as Peter Vincent. The movie is a brilliant balance of serious vampire mayhem and comedy "ha-haness". Loads of cartoony bloodshed. Faithful to vamp mythology with the exception of one 'ittle thing. TWILIGHT riff. Farrell freakiness. Yelchin greatness. Imogen hotness. Fast paced and clever. Well worth your time.

Rating: 9/10 = FRIGHT NIGHT is all about having fun at the movies. It can be genuinely creepy at times, but it relies more on jokes, cartoonish blood, and a quick pace and that's just fine with me.

Scream 4

Scream 4

Starring Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette, Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Rory Culkin, Anthony Anderson, Adam Brody, Mary McDonnell, Marley Shelton, Nico Tortorella, Marielle Jaffe, Kristen Bell, Anna Paquin, Lucy Hale, Shanae Grimes, Aimee Teegarden, Brittany Robertson
Written by Kevin Williamson
Directed by Wes Craven
Release: 15 April 2011
Dimension Films, 110 mins., Rated R

Plot: Sidney returns to Woodsboro and is met by Ghostface, intent on creating its own horror movie.

As a fan of the franchise, I may be a little biased in this review. Also as a fan of the franchise, I really, really wanted this movie to succeed, to be something great and compliment the trilogy in a really spectacular way. So earlier today I walked into the theater for a SCREAM movie (at a age where I could actually comprehend the story; saw SCREAM 3 at 10 in the theater), giddy as can possibly be, and had to restrain myself from going super crazy fanboy when the Dimension logo came up. I was in a theater, watching SCREAM, with an audience, and a gorgeous digital screen. Nothing could be awesomer.

Unless Karen Gillan was my date. [Look her up]

So, now, two hours after I experienced the fourth film of the SCREAM franchise, what do I think? Director Wes Craven and writer/producer Kevin Williamson have crafted one hell of a fantastic movie that appeals to all generations of horror fans, is both clever and scary, and most awesomely, is a story damn well worth telling. This isn’t a sequel to make more money, this isn’t a mindless, zombie-like, HALLOWEEN 5-type sequel. Nah, Williamson has something to say about the horror genre of today, the reboot vs. original debate and the countless unnecessary sequels, and makes a thrilling story to compliment it. I was also very happy that the principle cast become entangled with the killer narrative without feeling forced, a real worry of mine.

SCREAM 4 opens with huge amounts of meta. Hell, this entire movie is like a horror movie version of COMMUNITY. There’s meta all over the place, but none more so than the opening ten minute metaverse. Initially, I wasn’t a huge fan of the double psych out, feeling more akin to one of those dream-within-a-dream cheap tricks of horror films (see any NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET sequel), but upon retrospect, I’m digging it (OhmygodKristenBellisAwesome!). In addition to the meta, we have the new rules of this generation: basically, all the roles of before are subject to change and pretty much anything can happen (a la SCREAM 3, where in the end of a trilogy all bets are off). The movie and characters make a case that SCREAM 4 can be considered both a sequel and reboot, and thus the ‘rules’ or lack thereof reflect so [virgins can die! Sidney could die! Bloodbath needs to happen at the anti-party! Noooo!]. But I’m not going to go into the rules and so forth of SCREAM 4, instead I’m gonna concentrate on the thread that keeps me interested in this series:

Sidney Presscott.

This is a character that has gone through Hell through three movies and five psychos intent on killing her. She has grown up from the reserved and sad virginal teenager to a woman who has confidance, who battles her demons and is one hell of an woman. So with SCREAM 3 ending on a beautiful note of Sidney not afraid anymore, where could SCREAM 4 go? Well, Sidney doesn’t have too much of a character progression in this installment, instead it’s a display of what she learned through her experiences, of facing that which hides behind a mask.

I think my favorite thing about this movie is actually something quite small (in the context of the movie), but quite big for fans of the series. When Sidney has her first encounter with the killer here, she doesn’t run from it like she has done before. In the first movie, it was her first experience, she was scared. In the second film, she initially ran for it, all in survival mode, but then fought back. And in the third she had enough of the running and she fought back against the killer in the climax. Here, we have the fruition of her character arc. Sidney jumps right into action – punching, kicking, slamming the killer. Of course she still feels fear, but she’s stronger than that now. She overcomes it and confronts her assailant. Another example, later on in the end Sidney formulates a rather clever plan even under pressure. Her plan eventually makes her fall out of the house, but instead of running, instead of waiting for backup or having the slightest bit of hesitancy, Sidney runs back into that house and straight for the killer. Like I said, in the context of the movie this is a small thing, but to see all four films and become deeply invested in Sidney Prescott, her actions here are monumental and entirely worthy of cheering and applauding. Sidney is done being the victim, and she faces danger head on, doesn’t run from it.

She is the ultimate Final Girl, someone all others should aspire to and/or be compared to.

What’s more, I was stunned by how much Sidney gets her ass handed to her, especially in the climax. Sure, she dishes out some kickass herself, but this is the first time in the franchise Sidney is getting truly battered and bruised. It is a brutal last twenty minutes, and at several points I entertained the notion that Kevin Williamson will pull the ultimate twist and have this be Sidney’s final hour. She is definitely put through the ringer here. Riveting, outstanding material.

As for the actors, there are all unbelievably on their A game. I only say ‘unbelievably’ because I was dreading the casting of Hayden Panettiere and Emma Roberts. In the TV show HEROES, Hayden was unbearably obnoxious, and I wasn’t at all impressed by her work, and Roberts just didn’t seem to fit in this world. But lo and behold, every single one of these actors were fantastic. I would love to say more about Roberts in particular, but that would be spoiling some really juicy material she gets to work with. Let’s just say she impresses, and Hayden was just as good. The newbies were all fantastic, and nicely fit into the SCREAM universe despite the diverse styles of the 90’s and now [you wouldn’t commonly see Rory Culkin’s frightening hair in 96, I wager]. The original actors, Campbell, Cox and Arquette are all great. Campbell is marvelous as the hero, Cox gets some decent material to work with, and Arquette for the first time in the series isn’t entirely annoying and cartoony – he was almost like a real person! All around stellar performances from everyone involved, and that added to the mystery of who the killer was – which honestly befuddled me until the reveal.

And the killings, what horror fans are most interested in. I will say for the first time I felt like Ghostface was a true, unstoppable force. Maybe it was the actor, or maybe it was the freakin' huge knife and the brutality of the knifing, but Ghostface was terrifying. I'd be scared shitless if I saw this guy around me. And the deaths are rather straightforward, as they normally are in SCREAM movies, with a whole bunch of knife use, but they are gruesome and definitely will make horror fans happy. By gruesome, do take note I'm not saying Craven went SAW on us - I think it's the mixture of sound effects and pretty decent makeup work with the wounds that made 'em gruesome. Also worth mentioning, and I doubt this is much of a spoiler, but Anthony Anderson rocks his death scene. I love you, man.

Looking toward the future of the franchise, I confess I am puzzled as to what ground Williamson and Craven can cover. According to multiple interviews, most notably FANGORIA, Craven admits Williamson approached the Weinsteins and he with the idea of a new trilogy, with the general concept of parts five and six mapped out. Personally, four just feels right; I love the number four. But if Williamson can conceive of two more stories that tie to Sidney without feeling far too forced, than I say full steam ahead, guys! Obviously I love these movies, and this installment proves that Williamson and Craven are still on their game, so if a five and six are greenlit and move forward, these two have earned my trust, and you better believe I’ll be there opening day.

SCREAM 4 is an success through and through. It pokes fun at its own art, it’s very meta, it’s clever, intelligently written and has great bouts of humor, it’s intense, it’s brutal, it’s bloody, the original cast and the newbies mesh well together never disrupting the equilibrium, and most importantly, it’s a good movie. I can’t applaud Kevin Williamson enough for coming up with a great script and a story worth telling, and for Wes Craven for proving that horror movies can still be suspenseful without obnoxious quick cuts and loads of gore. SCREAM 4 is exactly what the horror climate needs right now…but let’s hope it doesn’t inspire a few dozen similar flicks (a la this generation’s URBAN LEGENDS, I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, etc.).

Ever your fan.

Notes

* STAB 5 has time travel!
* Is it just me or did the principal cast look better now than they did fifteen years ago?
* Did I miss something, or is this scene not in the finished product?
* Seeing as how the videotaping-the-kills thing was rather prominent in the trailers, I was expecting it to be more important in the overall narrative.
* As the reveal of the killer is happening, I realized my geektastic experience was almost coming to an end, and it saddened me. A part of me really didn't want this movie to end...
* I really, really, really want a STAB poster now.
* Speaking of STAB, I loved that footage from the original STAB, shown in SCREAM 2, is present and accounted for here, too. Although, it would be cool to see Ghostface time traveling in STAB 5.
* There's so much more to say about SCREAM 4, but I'll leave it at this. However, happy to discuss material, what with me being in love with this flick and all...
* Screw it, bring on SCREAM 5 and 6 nowish!

Rating: 9/10 = One hell of a ride from start to finish, a sequel that should not be missed by fans or newbies alike

Dipshit Endings Double Whammy: Skyline, Last Exorcism

Here's two 2010 releases that are relatively decent flicks that just become rather rubbish with their WTF?! and LAME! endings. Read on for more!

Skyline

Starring Eric Balfour, Scottie Thompson, Donald Faison, Brittany Daniel, David Zayas. Written by Alex Babinsky & Dennis Clausen. Directed by The Brothers Strause. Release: 12 November 2010. Universal, 94 mins., Rated R

Plot: Six or so friends wake up in a expensive hotel suite to aliens that want to basically destroy the world.

Man, Eric Balfour just can't catch a break.

Them pesky aliens are at it again, demolishing and enslaving the world, harvesting human brains, and all around being a nuisance. This time, though, we the viewers have to deal with about seven incredibly stupid people stuck in a hotel room doing incredibly stupid things and being incredibly rubbish acting-wise. SKYLINE is all visual. Beautiful shots of the, ahem, skyline, as well as the star aliens, but as for the humans - from what's written down on paper to the delivery - each line of dialogue and attempted performance is akin to nails on a chalkboard. Nah, scratch that. It's not ungodly horrible, or intolerable. It's just simply bad. A perfect vehicle for people to sit back and enjoy riffing on the script and actors.

There is honestly not one line of dialogue in the ENTIRE script that isn't just asinine, cliched, or completely redundant. By that, I mean a teenager with no interest in screenwriting or movies for that matter could write this script, pretty much maintaining the same lines spoken here. There's no creativity, originality, or even enthusiasm in the script, and that's shared by the equally rubbish actors. Sure, poor 'ol Balfour is trying to emote his heart out, being full of angst at hearing his impending fatherhood and his thick-headed resolution that he's always right with What to Do When Aliens Attack. Not even seasoned David Zayas of DEXTER fame is any good, doing his best bit in his last scene which is mostly dialog-free. It's a tad disheartening to experience the overall badness of the human front, but at the same time, I can't say I didn't expect it.

After all, I'm watching a movie directed by the two people who made Paul W.S. Anderson's ALIEN VS. PREDATOR look Oscar worthy when compared to their horrendous sequel.

As expected from a directorial team who specialized in SPFX most of their career, the visual effects are amazing, from the cinematography to stellar rendering of aliens, their spacecrafts, and composting digital works in a live action shot. Amazing, amazing, amazing. Hell, and I'm sure I might get some flake for saying this, but it was on par with the aliens in Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS (and yes, that's a compliment, haters). With the Brothers Strause forcing the camera always in some sort of movement, even in the talking/exposition sequences, there is a sense of realism that makes even the dodgy effects nearly believable. From a technical, visually pleasing standpoint, SKYLINE more than delivers.

Even the score, provided by "additional music arranger" (IMDB's credit) Matthew Margeson, isn't that bad. Hits all the right notes, but never reaching anything amazing.

So, the ending, half of the whole reason for the blog post title. Well, if I were to comment positively first, I can say that I give kudos to the writers for nicely portraying how friggin' futile trying to survive a alien invasion force is. For awhile there, it's one hell of a downbeat ending, with our 'protagonists' (SPOILERS) being sucked up in a space craft. Balfour's character Jarrod gets his brain taken out and implanted into a alien while Elaine, being scanned as pregnant, is thrown into another facet of the factory with some other pregnant gals. As some sort of alien device thingy is making it's way towards her, she screams loud enough that the newly infused alien with Jarrod's brain stops what it's doing as Jarrod takes over the creature's body and charges forth to save his beloved. Post saving her, Jarrod and Elaine face the rest of the alien craft as they close in on 'em. Points for originality, sure, but it is sorta stupid. First, yes, Jarrod and Elaine are a couple expecting a baby, but you don't really get a sense of a strong bond between the two, making this grand act of love and compassion rather hollow. Additionally, JARROD'S BRAIN IS 'STRONG' ENOUGH TO OVERCOME THE ALIEN PROTOCOLS (or whatever)? This coming from the guy making the second most dumb decisions next to SCRUBS alumni Donald Faison? Nah, I don't think so. And thirdly, it's just not satisfying. I would have much preferred the single narrative of CLOVERFIELD, where the ending was very conclusive instead of this rather crazy and blatantly obvious attempt at building some sort of franchise.

If the series is to continue, and the theatrical gross and home video revenue just might make it a real possibility, than the best thing for this franchise is for a new creative team to be in charge of the material. Find someone who can blend CGI with the human side of the story well enough, because we don't deserve to suffer through the badness that is SKYLINE.

In the end, SKYLINE is simply a bigger budgeted B-movie that excels in pretty alien ships and blowy-uppiness, but epically fails in the human department.

The Last Exorcism

Starring Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell, Louis Herthum, Iris Bahr. Written by Hucko Botko & Andrew Gurland. Directed by Daniel Stamm. Release: 27 August 2010. Lionsgate, 87 mins., Rated R

Plot: Pastor Cotton's last exorcism is filmed documentary-style, and it goes batshit crazy.

The demon-possession field of horror films hasn't had a lot of good luck lately, minus, of course, the success of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies. After THE EXORCIST, universally considered the quintessential demon-possessed film ever made, there just didn't seem much a filmmaker could do with the 'genre.' There needed to be a clever gimmick, and with THE LAST EXORCISM, director Daniel Stramm and writers Botko and Gurland found a nifty device: film it documentary-style, a highly popular craze the last two years (e.g., DIARY OF THE DEAD, CLOVERFIELD, and the abovementioned PARANORMAL ACTIVITY), as the camera captures the action as if it were happening right then and there.

For the most part, LAST EXORCISM succeeds in its premise. Pastor Cotton Marcus is a entirely likable man who has lost his faith and is making this documentary to exploit the sham that is 'exorcisms'. With this rather interesting and unexpected viewpoint - of a man setting out to dismiss exorcisms in general - the film immediately peaked my interest, that plus actor Patrick Fabian's instant charisma. Even Ashley Bell as the possessed-or-not-possessed Nell succeeded in the creepy factor, especially near the hour mark when the cover-worthy body twisting takes place. Nicely filmed and full of tension and utter creepiness, THE LAST EXORCISM features several such well done scenes, such as the scene from the above screencap where the lights of the hour are extinguished and darkness falls. Overall, it works, I dug it. Good script, creepy girl, and a overall interesting angle with a pastor wishing to show off the fraud that exorcism is.

However, in the final closing moments, it all turns to shambles. THE LAST EXORCISM is a testament to how a bad ending can pretty much spoil a relatively decently made film. Those disappointed, even remotely, with the conclusion of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT will be met with something similar, especially the final seconds. (SPOILERS) Pastor Cotton, seeing that most of the townsfolk are in on this demon possession thing to bring the demon Abalam into the world, goes out to confront the evil cross in hand. Meanwhile, the camera crew run for their lives, only for one to be separated and murdered, and the cameraman himself getting his throat sliced by Nell's brother (who was absent for the last thirty minutes).

Alright, alright. I get what the writers were going for. One big, incomplete, epic finale that would in most cases make a viewer exit the theater with their mind blown (complete with a vocal "woah!") and hope and hope for a cash-demanded sequel. But perhaps what the writers weren't banking on was Patrick Fabian's performance of Pastor Cotton. Maybe it's my fault, really. Cotton comes off as a interesting enough character and his attitude is infectious as is, what is for me, the Question of the Movie: will facing this true demon possession reinstall Cotton's faith in God? In the end, we don't get a conclusion to that burning question (which I guess can be talked out of by saying "that's life"), nor do we really get a 'moment' where Cotton fully realizes that everything around him is real and turns to God for guidance and (expectantly) forgiveness. We get resolution and understanding to Nell and how her whole possession and arc came about, but with Cotton, the main character of the story, we don't get enough. The entire film was about him exploiting a fraud, and we didn't get the far more interesting character beat of him realizing his wrongness and the realness of the situation.

Or it could just be me and the ending is totally epic, revolutionary, creative, and flat out A-W-E-S-O-M-E!

That being said, I'd still recommend a watch. As I mentioned above, the field of creative or even relatively spooky horror movies is quickly diminishing, so this quasi-inventive and fresh take makes it something worth watching.

Piranha

Piranha

Starring Elisabeth Shue, Steven R. McQueen, Kelly Brooke, Adam Scott, Ving Rhames, Jerry O'Connell, Jessica Szohr, Christopher Lloyd, Richard Dreyfuss. Written by Peter Goldfinger, Josh Stolberg, Alexandre Aja, Gregory Levasseur. Directed by Alexandre Aja. Release date: 20 August 2010. Dimension Films, 88 mins., Rated R

Plot: A swarm of prehistoric piranhas threaten to devour all the swimsuit wearing teenagers during Spring Break, which will be bad for business.

PIRANHA doesn’t try to mask what it sets out do to: deliver blood and gore, and tits and ass, and it throws all four things at the camera shamelessly. And in 3D, I have no doubt the male populace helped drive the box office receipts on those things alone. Acknowledging that PIRANHA doesn’t set out to accomplish much other than providing deliberately bad CGI piranhas, bikini clad babes, and lots of blood, it’s nonetheless not a particularly good movie. And above all, PIRANHA relishes in being over-the-top. Over-the-top in the gallons of blood that pollutes the screen and waters, in the amount of breasts flowing freely, in the amount of deliberate clichéd lines of dialogue and ‘jump scares’ and blatant embracement of just pure badness.

Before pursuing, I will say that I enjoyed myself immensely with the movie, and it entirely accomplishes what it set out to do. That being said, one reviewer I hold in high regard, The Foywonder, did bring up a interesting point: with the exception of a considerably higher budget and the three dimensional gimmick, PIRANHA is, in many, many ways, no better than your average SyFy Original Movie production. And I would have to agree with him on several points. What we have here is a movie that doesn’t take itself remotely seriously, and takes great pains to just be wild and as out-there as possible, attempting to rekindle and pay homage not only to the original Joe Dante production but also creature features of the water films, whilst providing crazy entertainment for the hormonal young adults masking their satisfaction of the films content. But PIRANHA fails in the respect that it doesn’t feel like that. Even with all these outlandish elements and ‘who gives a frak?’ mentality, PIRANHA feels like a loveless production.

The best aspect of PIRANHA is, arguably, the cinematography. The underwater camerawork is very nice, from the piranha POV shots to the tense feet-walking-through-shallow-water scene, it is exquisite and quite gorgeous. It’s not like director Alexandre Aja pulled out all the stops with Spielbergean shots, but for a considerably big budgeted B-movie creature feature, it exceeds expectations. Performances aren’t anything to write home about, but you know you’re in trouble when Playboy model Kelly Brook shows more range than, say, Jessica Szohr who has three seasons of GOSSIP GIRL under her belt or Jerry O’Connell who’s been around for awhile. But as expected, the limited screentime-given Ving Rhames nonetheless owns his scenes, and is wickedly cool taking a few hundred piranhas down with him.

Random note: hilariously awesomely bad scenes involving a chewed up severed penis. I can only imagine how it would have looked in 3-D.

Another random note: Main character Jake took his dear time rescuing his love interest Kelly from certain death. A good 10 minutes or more of screentime passed before he got back to rescuing her, and really, she woulda been a goner in three minutes or less. It’s only a movie, it’s only a movie…

Third and final random note: Christopher Lloyd, I dunno whether to love or despise your exposition heavy cameo. I think I’ll fall under the category of lovin’ it. Now please pick a more substantial role…

The final word: PIRANHA isn’t as good as it could be, but it’s still fun mindless entertainment for 88 minutes. Breasts, blood, piranhas – a good movie for a laid-back night. The film abruptly concludes with a promise for a sequel, which is already in development under the working title PIRANHA 3 DD, but I frankly felt a little cheated, wanting more out of the expenses given for so little received. One of the few ‘horror’ films that could have benefited from a longer running time. Truth is, I’m putting more thought into critiquing the film than the producers put into making it, so I’ll just leave at this: rent it, turn the brain power off, sit back, and enjoy.

And peoples of the blogosphere who saw this movie: correct me if I'm wrong, did that shot above actually happen in the movie? I remember looking out for it specifically after seeing it a few thousand times in the trailer, and frak if I actually saw the frame grace the screen. Best I can think, it happens near the end when non-boyfriend guy is rescuing her, but I don't believe Aja used this specific angle...Please leave comments below.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 07

Here concludith the 2010 edition of The Rambling of a Minnesota Geek's Week of Horror. Hope you enjoyed! And if you missed 'em, previous reviews of this feature include Monster Island, Killer Condom, Paranormal Activity 2, Troll 2, Night of the Demons (2010), and Suspiria. Happy Halloween, folks!

Salem's Lot

Starring David Soul, James Mason, Julie Cobb, Fred Ward, Bonnie Bedelia, Lance Kerwin. Written for the screen by Paul Monash. Directed by Tobe Hooper. Airdate: 17/24 November 1979. CBS, 189 mins., Not Rated

Plot: There's a writer, a 'haunted' house, vampires, and they somehow all interconnect.

It's unfortunate to be ending on a sour note. After nearly all the movies viewed this year being good, I guess it was inevitably the final one would be a bummer. Long, drawn out, unnecessarily long, cliched, unoriginal, not matching the hype – pretty much my feelings towards this adaptation of Stephen King’s famous vampire novel SALEM’S LOT. I’m trying not to be biased here, as I’m not particularly a fan of King’s work, but this movie is sure as hell crappy, and I am not too pleased with my three hours of watching being rewarded with an wrap-up I’ve seen in countless other vampire movies. I understand that this movie was made in the 1970s, when vampire cliches weren’t done to a deathly redundant extent, but even then, audiences must have got the part that there’s nothing new or interesting to be had.

The best part of the movie is the photo right there. Barlow, the enigmatic new owner of the Marsten house, the so-called building where evil is supposedly inherent there. Beautiful make-up, and beautifully frightning, nicely conjuring up images of the 1920s Nosferatu. Unfortunately, Barlow is only on screen for a limited amount of time, but when it is, it’s bloody freaky, let me tell you. It’s yellow eyes that seem to captivate not only the characters, but the viewer watching. If given more screentime and thrown in a superior movie, this Barlow character could very well have been one of the most frightning and successful vampires on celluloid.

As it stands, we have a rubbish movie. There’s Ben, the main character who just needs to be a novelist researching the Marsten house, and spouts off dramatic dialogue akin to Donald Pleasance talking about Michael Myers in the HALLOWEEN films. The cheating wife, the angry husband, the romantic interest, the nosey Sheriff, the religious men, and the vampire handeler. I do give kudos to the production for spending the first two hours establishing characters and making an valiant attempt at making them dimensional human beings and not simply screen fodder, but seeing as how hardly any of these townsfolk are integral to the ending, it does come off as a nice time waster.

I frankly don’t have much more to say. What I have left to discuss is nothing but negative feelings about the movie, but I don’t feel like getting into that. The point is, I don’t recommend SALEM’S LOT at the least, and I felt terribly robbed of three hours where this movie could have worked perfectly fine, if not better, shortened into 90 minutes. If you’re itching for a vampire movie, even DRACULA 2000 is a better choice.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 06

The week of horror is closing up fast - I know, sadness - and tonight I present to thee a old horror classic. Well, classic to most horror fans. This was my first time watching it, in a double feature with David Fincher's SEVEN (also first time seeing that, and I was glad it didn't end as I expected it to). Previous entries in the Ramblings of a Minnesota Geek Week of Horror 2010 include Monster Island, Killer Condom, Paranormal Activity 2, Troll 2, and Night of the Demons (2010).

Suspiria

Starring Jessica Harper, Udo Kier, Joan Bennett, Alida Valii. Written by Dario Argento and Daria Nicolodi. Directed by Dario Argento. Release: 1 February 1977. Nouveaux Pictures, 98 mins., Rated R

Plot: American gal Suzy transfers to a German ballet school, and weird happenings get goin' relatively quickly, what with disappearances and odd sounds, the normal stuff.

Well that was...interesting. This is going to be a short review because I don't have much to say. One thing is absolutely certain, and a aspect that is already widely acknowledged with this movie, is that director Dario Argento has one hell of a eye for gorgeous cinematography. I understand horror movies in general don't get too much credit when it comes to that particular technical shindig, but flicks like HALLOWEEN and SUSPIRIA most definitely deserve kudos. Since Carpenter's original, I haven't seen such striking shots in a horror film, let alone the various colors Argento uses: the green, the red, the blue. All utterly amazing.

(Taking a quick detour from SUSPIRIA discussion, with each and every new horror remake, I've become increasingly disappointed with the lack of creativity in the cinematography. There are only two examples I can think of, and I doubt many others will agree with me: Rob Zombie's HALLOWEEN [2007] made great use of hand held and emphasis on close-ups, but I can honestly say the cinematography was impressive, nonetheless, nicely reflecting the chaos of the story onto screen. The other one, Bayer's NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET [2010], is a mostly bad movie, but one can tell the music video director is at least trying to instill some mood/atmosphere with his wide and creepy shots. Not entirely successful, but kudos nonetheless. As far as Jason Vorhees is concerned, Ronny Yu's FREDDY VS. JASON just might be the most visually pleasing film we get with him. Alright, detour over.)

OK, now that the rich and creepy cinematography and vibrant colors have been established, I regret to be one of those folks who just aren't impressed by the story. Frankly, it's confusing from time to time, and it does seem Argento values the visual aesthetic over a solid story. As far as the final revelation of who and what is behind all these murders - well, it's cool, and the moment where Suzy gets to go all Final Girl on the old-as-dirt grandma is bloody awesome (as is the house ripping itself apart: COOL!). But I don't know if I fully buy it. Sure, it brings some logic to the first death, as well as the sudden attacks made by the blind guy's dog, but it all just sorta comes out of nowhere, and even though there is some backstory established, it all just feels kind of random and hokey.

This is the part where horror bloggers shun me forever...

However, in addition to the awesomeness of the cinematography and colors, SUSPIRIA also boasts two other marvelous aspects. Jessica Harper is amazing and grabs your attention instantly, her eyes and expressions just as captivating as the all-hell-breaks-loose finale. The other complimentary part of the movie that adds to the creep factor is the score, provided by a band called 'Goblin', with extra music added by Argento. Frakkin' creepy, and a little bit addicting. It's not like I haven't found the score on YouTube and listened to it the past hour or anything, not at all...

Beautiful, eerie, expertly acted, SUSPIRIA is a interesting movie. It reminds me of German expressionism of the early, um, 20s or 30s, what with specific lighting to create a deliberate atmosphere and crazy mind-frak sets [oh, yes, art direction is expert, mind you, expert. Mesmerizing to look at]. No matter my semi-reservations about the movie, enough that I did like it, it is a horror movie that hits many a 'best of' list, and its creep factor should not be missed, so I recommend.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 05

Five days in The Rambling of a Minnesota Geek's Week of Horror, we got yet another new-ish release. Thanks to the positive review from Freddy in Space, I felt inclined to see this flick, and it did not disappoint. In review, the Week of Horror has consisted of Monster Island, Killer Condom, Paranormal Activity 2, and Troll 2. Only two more days!

Night of the Demons

Starring Shannon Elizabeth, Edward Furlong, Monica Keena, Diora Baird, Michael Copon, Bobbi Sue Luther. Written by Jace Anderson & Adam Gierasch, based off the 1988 screenplay "Night of the Demons" by Joe Augustyn. Directed by Adam Gierasch. Release: 19 October 2010 (DVD). Seven Arts International, 93 mins., Rated R

Plot: It's Halloween night, and a parties ragging at a house full of demons who want to be set free.

Now isn't that photo just sexy?

So glad I found it.

In the special features, director Adam Gierasch made a comment about just making it a fun rock 'n roll sexy horror movie, and that's exactly what NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is. The entire soundtrack is made up of rock 'n roll songs, though to the movies credit, they all pertain to Halloween or the theme someway, somehow. You got girls dancing to the songs, either dressed in their slutty outfit (nearly every female is a slut in the picture) or in the process of taking it off. And the funness - well, there is that, but it mostly originates from the script and actress Monica Keena, which is funny that I liked her in this one but wasn't particularly a fan of her in FREDDY VS. JASON. Take the finale for example, a very nicely done sequence that appeared to provide a full-circle sort of ending, but then it defied my expectations and delivered a great 'bazinga'. NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is a truly modern horror movie, embracing and joking around with the genre. It mostly works, and it sometimes doesn't.

I never saw the original NIGHT OF THE DEMONS, so those hoping for a compare/contrast review might be disappointed. But I can say that I was expecting a more eerie, moody atmosphere, an art house-type of flick that would freak me out. Eh, I did not get that. However, the demon make-up was freaky and cool. Again, I reference the above picture. I don't know why, but I am so bloody impressed by that demon job. I love the eyes, I love the demon skeleton face - it just rocks. Shannon Elizabeth's demon face was pretty stellar, too, but I can't seem to find a decent picture of it. Now, as far as the male demon faces - they're just freakin' ugly, as in, they're grotesque demon-wise, but they're also not very impressive looking from a design standpoint. Guess I'm just a little nitpicky.

Speaking of Ms. Elizabeth, it was great to see her after what seems like a long absence from the screen, and she gets a slutty role to boot. Although, male readers, you'll be sorely disappointed she doesn't actually do any flesh flashing, she nonetheless has a nice make-out scene with another gal. Being as how she's quite the promiscuous character and first to be demonfied, it's her duty to seduce and turn her fellow friendos.

And about the demons, story-wise, I dug it. Demons so cruel and evil that Hell itself cast them out. Now there's a whole movie right there. Frak, taking time to think about it, NIGHT OF THE DEMONS is a wasted opportunity. The demons possess human bodies, thus have the ability of speech, so it would have been astronomically fantastic to delve a little bit into the psychology of these beasts, get their point-of-view on the world or Lucifer, even. It also would have been nice to have a scene where a demon tortures one of the survivors, to get a sense of how cruel and evil incarnate they really are. As it is, they just gruesomely kill or maim people.

Wow, this review is making me sound like I need therapy. Very much not the case, folks. Just wishing DEMONS (2010) explored a few more avenues than it did. But what we, the audience, do get is a pretty good usage of 93 minutes, full of demons, gore, pretty ladies, slutty outfits, F-bombs (nearly all said by Mr. Furlong), and rock 'n roll.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 04

The Ramblings of a Minnesota Geek's Week of Horror is celebrating its fourth day, and to truly make it a momentous day, the movie selected is most definitely considered one of the worst films ever and thus a tad more special than the others. In review, the Week of Horror has consisted of Monster Island, Killer Condom, and Paranormal Activity 2.

Troll 2

Starring Michael Stephenson, Connie McFarland, Jason Wright, George Hardy, Margo Prey, Robert Ormsby. Written by Claudio Fragasso (aka 'Drake Floyd') & Rossella Drudi, Directed by Claudio Fragasso. Release: 12 October 1990. Epic Pictures, PG-13

TROLL 2, universally regarded as the "best worst movie" ever made - seriously, there's even a documentary by that title that came out last year glorifying the flicks awfulness. I know, I know, you’re probably wondering, ‘but isn’t PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE widely considered the worst movie ever made?’ Yes, it is. There are also documentaries about that film, too, and the life and hard times of its director, Ed Wood, Jr. But PLAN 9 and TROLL 2 are entirely separate type of bad movies. With TROLL 2, there’s an infectious fun about the whole shabang, where every absurdity heightens the enjoyment of the movie, and there’s a possible inkling that everyone involved in the production sorta knew what they were doing when they were making it. PLAN 9, well, to be frank, and this might piss off many a reader, is a very long, fairly boring film that fails to ignite any interest without a MST3K commentary track. Sorry, PLAN 9 lovers.

Anyway, how does one review a movie so universally known and loved? Ahem, loved in the being mocked sense. Here’s my short answer: don’t review it. Because, and I mean this in the best possible way, TROLL 2 isn’t a movie that should be spoken about, it’s the type of movie that needs to be seen, and then that viewer passing on their remarks to their friends, and their friends do that to their friends, and so on and so forth. TROLL 2 should become an annual Halloween even, or hell, just an annual event all in itself. Seriously, pick up a copy of the movie, DVD or Blu-Ray, your choice, grab your friends, make some popcorn, comfortably sit back, and enjoy the show.

TROLL 2 is a fun bad movie. In fact, if it wasn’t for the stinking feeling that the filmmakers made the flick deliberately bad, it could have been a rather decent production. A family lured to Nilbog only to be the desert for a bunch of goblins! I mean, c’mon, how astronomically wickedly cool is that? The answer is ‘very’, ladies and gentlemen. There’s two specific sequences that probably elicited the ‘worst movie’ title: the first was a super strange ‘love’ scene that involves corn, and lots and lots of popcorn. The other is a scene involving a scary woman decked in full Helena Bonham Carter make-up (think SWEENEY TODD) as she turns a young hormonal boy into food for her precious goblins. Two giganto WTF? moments that no doubt contributed greatly to the films, um, success.

Ha, I said I wasn’t going to review the movie, and here I am. Alrighty, here’s the skinny: TROLL 2’s badness comes from the dialogue and the people delivering the dialogue. Everything is said with such, er, gusto, like a really bad American Idol contestant trying their hand with acting and just landed their first gig exactly because of how bad they are. No matter ones dislike for the crop of direct-to-DVD releases these last few years, the actors in those productions are far and beyond superior to what is on display here. But paradoxically, and I can’t believe I’m gonna say this, but I’d rather re-experience these folks over and over again. Guess I’m just a sucker for bad acting, on occasion.

Oh! Last but not least, the actual design of the goblins. In a word, marvelous! Possibly the best evidence for the deliberate badness of the production, these goblins look like the by-product of a going-out-of-business Good Will store. Hire some short people, use whatever outfits, paper, and markers that were around, and voilia! A goblin was born. And before I forget – let’s take a second to talk about the title. If or when you roam around your local video store and decide to buy the movie, you may notice it double featured with a flick called TROLL, and the customer assumption is that TROLL 2 is, in fact, a sequel to TROLL. Not so the case here. TROLL 2 was originally called GOBLINS, all throughout its production, but the company, for some strange reason, decided to rename it TROLL 2 to capitalize on the, uh…successful (?) market name. So, this movie is by no means whatsoever connected to any movies before it. This is an entirely new creature of awesomeness. Got that? Coolio.

TROLL 2 is a bad movie, but it is 100% second-by-second fun. I highly, highly recommend any and all to experience it. On Demand? Watch it now! Got Netflix? Stream this second.

Final note: anyone surprised there’s not a TROLL 2 AND PHILOSOPHY book out there? Think about the chapters: ‘The Homoerotic Subtext of the Boyfriend and his friends’, ‘Religious Symbolism in Green’, ‘History Repeats Itself: Ritual Sacrifices, Adopted by Goblins’, ‘The Power of Innocence: The Young See What Adults Cannot’, and so forth. I think it’d be brilliant. And, a final, final note: the above screencap came from the recently released Blu-Ray, as taken by the brilliant review Adam at DVDTalk.com. The review can be read here.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 03

It's the third day of The Ramblings of a Minnesota Geek's Week of Horror 2010, and I present to you a review of a newly released to cinemas flickaroo! By now I wager all those who wanted to see this movie has done so, but if you're still making your mind, read ahead kind folks. Or if you just wanna read another review. Anywhoo, without further ado, I present PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2.

Paranormal Activity 2

Starring Sprague Grayden, Molly Ephraim, Tim Clemens, Katie Featherson, Micah Sloat. Written by Michael. R. Perry, Christopher Landon, Tom Pabst. Directed by Todd Williams. Release: 22 October 2010. Paramount Pictures, 91 mins., Rated R

Plot: A prequel/sequel to PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, with that pesky demon causin' some mayhem once again, but lo and behold, it ain't random.

Those things you heard about PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 actually being good, and even better than the first one? Turns out, those rumblings are 100% true. Somehow, someway, the folks behind this rushed production created a movie that matches the first one in scares - ah hell, exceeds the first one - and even have likable characters to boot. Plus, the script ain't that bad. Although, I wager it's plenty of improv and a bit of script thrown in, but no matter...point is, everything works. Sure, there are some downsides, and that'll be mentioned, but this Halloween, I can't stress enough how super fantastic PA2 would be for your viewing pleasure.

Where does it excel? For one, the scares are much scarier, the script is quite wider, and the cast is a bit more likable. In the realm of technical reviewing, I can’t really judge either of these movies on camerawork, since the whole point of these productions is that they’re ‘found amateur footage’. And there’s no music to speak of, relying entirely on the creepiness of silence and loud bangs. But, that aside, PA2 rocks in nearly every way.

Before this becomes a ginormous love fest for all things PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2, I will quickly make an address to a particular fault. The first half of the movie, which I fully understand is necessary in the effect to get the audience to relate to these characters and get to know ‘em, does drag a bit. Although, I’m not entirely sure what to cut, is the problem. Moreso than the character moments, I would probably cut or condense considerably the night cam house shots, as we switch between about four or five different cameras that don’t really offer much, especially the first night. Anyone else feel this way or am I barking up a dumb path?

Anyway, by the halfway point, things are heating up considerably. The freaky happenings aren't just occurring at night - nay, there's some freaky shit going down during the daylight. There's a sequence with the mom in the kitchen that successfully made ninety percent of my audience jump, yell, or scream. Me? I was just impressed with how they pulled it off. Damn that was nice. And finally night falls, and the demon is too pissed off to continue the spooking thing. It attacks, it rears its ugly head (not literally; similar to the first, we actually see the beast, we just hear that familiar deep escalating sound when its onscreen) and causes turmoil for everyone in that house for a few more days until the climax, which, mind you, was frakkin' terrifying. And then the ingeniousness of the movie is revealed: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 is not only a sequel to a mega successful indie production, but it's a frakkin' prequel, too! Everything that happened through ninety-five percent of the flick was prequel, and then we get closure to the original. Say it with me, folks:

OMG! OMG! OMG!

Yes, I resorted to a OMG to get emphasize how freakin' awesome that idea was. It makes both of these movies one big epic storyline with a beginning, middle, and semi-ending. If and when there's a PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3, I sincerely hope the creators don't go down the path that's intimated in these closing moments, but instead concentrates on an entirely new family and fresh happenings. They created their two masterpieces, now it's time to move on, I think.

So, bottom line, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2: I enjoyed the second film more, and the scares were utterly terrifying and freakier than the first. To reiterate the beginning of this review: you wanna get scared this Halloween? Here's your film.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 02

It's nearly Halloween time - only the best holiday of the year - and I am dutifully fulfilling my Halloween-loving charge. I've got my AMC FearFest on in the background [whilst studying Oceanography], I'm watching me some new horror flicks I've never seen before [hence this feature], while of course watching the classics (HALLOWEEN, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, FRIDAY THE 13TH). Be in the Halloween spirit, watch some scary movies this season! Without any further ado, I present the second day of The Ramblings of a Minnesota Geek's Week of Horror, 2010.

Killer Condom

Starring Udo Samel, Peter Lohmeyer, Marc Richter, Leonard Lansink, Iris Berben. Written by Martin Walz and Ralf Konig. Directed by Martin Walz. Release: 29 August 1996. Troma Entertainment, 107 mins., Rated R

Plot: Detective Mackeroni (Samel) is on the prowl to destroy a condom that bites off penises', but they're multiplying, and Mackeroni and the New York City police force may not be able to stop it in time!


Firstly and most importantly, I’d like to start with a sincere thank you to everyone involved in the production of KILLER CONDOM. This film’s very existence makes me a happy individual, and it will be a favorite ‘must see’ to all of my friends for years to come. Secondly, if by the end of this review, my words interest you enough, I would implore you to watch it right now, free, as provided by Hulu instant streaming. There doesn’t appear to be a expiration day, so you’re set for awhile. Now, onto the review.

"I bet the condom on the bedside table is about to show us its teeth!"

I’d like to take a moment to mention that despite the title, it’s rather misleading, in that the condom(s) don’t actually kill any of its victims, it simply maims them. I mean, it most definitely would hurt, and there’s plenty of blood to make a gore hound satisfied, but none of these folks die as a result of the sadistic genetic anomaly of a condom. Alright, now that is clarified…

"It was the condom, Sam, the condom!"

Now, I recognize the title may make it sound like a sleazy, no-good, not-worth-you-time, Z-grade production, but on the contrary, KILLER CONDOM is quite possibly the most fun I’ve had watching a flick since SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD. The movie is loaded with some of the most magnificent dialogue and one-liners this side of the moon [stupid phrase], the effects work on the penis-chewing condoms is absolutely gorgeous [hell, I’d buy a action figure of it, though I wager mom and the girlfriend would disapprove], and even with its running time, the flick breezes through to the finish all too quickly. In fact, I recommend either a sequel or a big-budgeted Hollywood remake to happen imminently.

"What's with these whores biting dicks off? They live off those dicks."

Oh, and any males thinking that they’ll be flashed some flesh during the sex sequences will be sorely disappointed. Yes, there’s flesh, but it’s of the male ass variety, so unless that’s your appetite, it’s a tad unfortunate. But also a bit on the humorous side, seeing how director Martin Walz moves the camera and puts objects in front of the genitalia is unintentionally funny, yet impressive.

"Nobody bites off Macaroni's jewels and gets away with it!"

We follow Detective Luigi Macaroni (or Mackaroni, although the subtitled version online spells it as “Macaroni”), a chain smoker, trench-coat wearing homosexual man who walks the street of New York sunglasses on, and in a very film noir kind of way, provides a good batch of ‘insightful’ and humorous contemplations. As Luigi comes face to face with the condom in question, he becomes obsessed with locating it, and taking the object of evil down. His manhunt throughout the hotel, dubbed ‘Hotel Quickie’, is marvelous. Gun blazing, swears blastin’, hose ready – western stand offs are hardly as full of tension.

"My God, it was after your prick! And it was in my handbag!"

In addition to his quest to destroy the killer condom(s) once and for all, Luigi also needs to deal with his love life. There’s the transvestite ex-policeman Barbette (formally Bob) who is quite sure that he and Luigi are destined to be together, as well as the young man Billy, who immediately vexes our protagonist. Side characters with plenty of screentime, they deliver some great moments, as well.

"Do you think that the people will elect a man without reproductive organs as the President of the United States?"

By the finale, the creator of the killer condoms, Professor Smirnoff (Ralf Wolter in a hilarious role), is revealed, and the individual pulling the strings gets the cliché monologue moment as well as giving Luigi a Spider-Man moment, where he must choose between A or B. Basically, the last twenty minutes are gold. I’m nearly compelled to post Luigi’s declaration to the villain, which is outstanding, but I’ll simply post a snippet:

"There aren't any condoms in heaven, Dr. Riffleson."

Despite how I make it sound, KILLER CONDOM is not a satire in the vein of AIRPLANE! or SCARY MOVIE, it plays completely straight and serious, the outlandish concept of a penis-chewing condom gets the expected disbelief from everyone at the prescient (until a hilarious scene with a politician), but also takes the opportunity to cross taboos like engaging in full on homosexual lovin’ (probably not a scene all too common in the late nineties), delves into political reflections, and satires religious zealots. In the end, it’s loads of fun, and I almost feel bad for labeling this a horror movie. Although, there’s plenty of ‘serious’ horror flicks out there these last few years that end up being funnier than all the SCARY MOVIEs combined [I’m thinking the WHEN A STRANGER CALLS remake, specifically].

"Has anyone ever told you how sexy you look hanging over a condom-filled pool?"

For 107 minutes, KILLER CONDOM entertains, makes with the laughter, and impresses with its visual effects. Oh! Before I forget, the sound effect of the condoms – akin to a squeaky Looney Tunes character – is just so much fun to listen to, and is the perfect opposite to the deep growl of the condom when it glares its teeth, ready to pounce. And the finale includes loads of killer condoms, including a big whopper of a one, and it’s menacing. Actually, it reminded me of a miniature graboid from TREMORS. The movie’s free online with limited commercial interruption, so there’s no reason to not give it a try. Enjoy the script, enjoy the killer condoms, enjoy the butt cheeks, enjoy the insanity, enjoy the film noir feel, and really, just enjoy.

And one last note: it's waaaaaay better than TEETH.

Week of Horror 2010: Day 01

Monster Island

Starring Carmen Electra, Daniel Letterl, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Adam West, Nick Carter. Written and directed by Jack Perez. Transmission Date: 2004. MTV Studios, 92 mins. Unrated

"Bad day to be famous."

"Due to unforeseen ingenious animal attack, Carmen Electra won't be performing tonight."

MTV's MONSTER ISLAND is a multi-layered film, going far beyond the conventions of a 'homage' or teen comedy and becoming something that delves into great themes of our times: fighting the good fight, facing fear head on and conquering it, the hero origin story, plus subplots of destiny and (possibly) reincarnation. It's a truly amazing display of masterpiece writing and directing, with a ensemble cast that appears unlikely to head on a movie of this magnitude. But alas, here we are.

...

Anyone believe that? If you did, shame on you. Sure, MONSTER ISLAND is - well, endurable, but it isn't a good or enjoyable movie by any means. There are some chuckling parts, to be sure, but the majority of the time, MONSTER ISLAND is just bad. Sadly, despite the potential for a fun teen-oriented sci-fi movie, MONSTER ISLAND doesn't really fall under the category of 'homage' or 'good', but instead is simply a bad movie that utilizes old tools to accomplish visual effects (and that, apparently, passes as 'homage' enough). The script is poor, the acting unbelievably bad, although Emmy worthy when compared to productions chummed out by the Asylum.

When Carmen Electra and Adam West provide the best performances in your movie, as a filmmaker, you should sorta guess you're in trouble. I do get that the movie's target audience is teenagers who'll chuckle at some of the dumb dialogue (look above), cameos (Nick Carter arriving in the film's closing moments to save the day), and humorous sequences, such as praying mantis sex. Regrettably, those moments just didn't clink with me. Although, kudos to the writers for naming West's character Doctor Harryhausen. Anyone who respects the master of visual effects gets a nod from me - and please, let's not engage in a Harryhausen vs. O'Brien debate.

Here we got a movie that climaxes with cave people fighting giant ants, which, y'know, on paper sounds alright, and quite right what with the whole homage thing going on. But execution wise - super poor, and super embarrassing. There's a big difference between lovingly paying homage to your genre and making a shitty movie for the hell of it and calling it a homage. Take 2009's SyFy Original Picture LOCH NESS TERROR for a good example of a loving homage. By no means is it a great film, but it's true beauty lies in how it respects its genre, embraces it, and simultaneously not only enjoys it but attempts to even stretch its legs. Y'know, add some fresh elements. 2004's THE LOST SKELETON OF CADAVRA is another good example of this type of homage. This is one of 'em badder flicks, purposefully making things 'eck' for the hell of it.

On a brighter side, a starring role worth noting is Mary Elizabeth Winstead. Why? Well, I love her and her work, from GRINDHOUSE to SCOTT PILGRIM. But not even Ms. Winstead can get away with this ridiculous dialogue, and her character comes off barley any more likable than a JERSEY SHORE mate.

I can't in good conscious recommend MONSTER ISLAND. A while ago, when a Hollywood Video was closing up, they were selling the DVD of it for a buck. It was in its last days, and everything was a buck. But I skipped on it, unsure if it was even worth a buck. Dunno how wise of a decision maker I am, granted, taking into account I deemed KVC: KOMODO VS. COBRA worthy of purchase, but whatev. Point is: I'm glad I waited for a free stream. Is it worth that? Nah, not to the casual viewer, nor to any hardcore B-movie fans, or any fan of Harryhausen, O'Brien, Cooper, or the rest of 'em. It's just bad. Teens - well, to clarify - high teens, will quite enjoy this flick, no doubt. Otherwise, just skip it.

Let Me In

Let Me In

Starring Chloe-Mortez, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins, Elias Koteas, Sasha Barrese.
Release: 01 October 2010. Written for the Screen & directed by Matt Reeves. Hammer Films, 115 mins., Rated R

Plot: Boy meets girl - girl is vampire - boy is like, cool!

Perhaps the most impressive accomplishment of director Matt Reeves' LET ME IN is how it stays tonally and stylistically true to the highly acclaimed Swedish original, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. And that he kept the swimming pool finale, which was primarily the object of my biggest excitement. However, that being said, there is a unfortunate flatness to the remake, even though it adheres to the original so greatly.

The central story remains the same. a young boy (McPhee) bullied at school meets a vampire (Mortez) in the form of a twelve-year old at his apartment, and they form a close bond. There are, of course, some differences. The location shifts from Sweden to New Mexico, but that's not remotely jarring or even distracting at the leastest. Abby, the vampire of the story and who is very much female as opposed to the sorta ambiguous nature of the original's Eli, gets a little bit more growl-y with her "father"/"caretaker"/whatever and even gets a demonic voice to boot! Owen's homicidal tendencies are toned down a bit, so instead of wishing to kill the bullies in nearly all his scenes and dialogue, his aggression gets distracted by Abby, more or less. Lighting is a bit darker here and there, especially in the swimming pool sequence. The bullies get one new scene that adds a bit of depth to 'em, prompting me to remember BATTLESTAR GALACTICA, where one action forces a boy to do that to another, and that harmed boy does that to another, etc. Er, that makes sense when you see it.

So, basically, the movie's faithful. It's LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, but with American actors and cinematography. Oh, and Michael Giacchino's magnificent score - yeah, it's not up to his usual standards of 'magnificent' [but then again, horror movies don't typically allow composers to go all out with their work], but still pretty damn haunting and frakkin' freaky.

A negative aspect I have about the movie, though, is that it is rather boring, which is odd to say for a film that boasts multiple elements and plots. Perhaps sticking to the original may not have been the best course, perhaps taking a few more liberties with the story and scenes might have helped improve the film and make it a little bit more...something. Anyone else feel like the flick dragged here and there? Oh, and before I forget, the film opens with one of those sequences that happens in the middle of the movie, and it then backtracks. I would appreciate it if the clinching sequence was something of a 'woah, what the frak is going on?', but it's rather lackluster and could entirely have been exercised from the opening.

So now that we established its faithfulness to its source material, what else is there to say about LET ME IN? It's odd, really, because I've gone back and forth these past few days wondering if I would recommend it or not. On one hand, sure, it's a good movie, but on the other hand, if you want to experience the story to its full extent, I would of course recommend the original.

Resident Evil: Afterlife

Resident Evil: Afterlife [2D]

Starring Milla Jovovich, Wentworth Miller, Ali Larter, Kim Coates, Kacey Barnfield, Shawn Roberts, Spencer Locke, Boris Kodjoe, Norman Yeung, Sergio Peris-Mencheta. Written & Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson. Release: 10 September 2010, Screen Gems, 98 mins., Rated R

Plot: Zombies. Alice. Slow motion. Guns. Swords. Blood. BOOM!

There's few cinematic guilty pleasures of mine as the RESIDENT EVIL franchise. After blindly entering APOCALYPSE so many years ago, fearing that I would be chilled by the sight of zombies [never been a fan of zombies in general as a story point, but when done effectively, they do give me the willies], but instead ended up leaving the theater with a wide smile on my face, effectively in love with the video game-like nature of the series. And then EXTINCTION came out, and my love grew even more. A seemingly SuperGirl of the future in the form of Alice (Jovovich), the movies protagonist, who walks the earth killing the "infected" with her superhuman powers, all the while trying to bring down this ginormous evil company, called the Umbrella Corporation. AWESOME. And now a fourth one is released, and a (hopefully) fifth one on the way, I'm basking in RESIDENT EVIL heaven. So how does this one compare to the other three?

[BTW, ladies and gentlemen, I implore you not to buy the RESIDENT EVIL TRILOGY DVD set, or even a forthcoming set with all four of 'em packaged together. No matter what you do, there's not going to be consistency unless you wait a good until the last one's released. I'm a stickler for making everything look even and consistent-like, so buying a TRILOGY set and then having another DVD or two of the same franchise next to it...ugh, nightmares]

Basically, I loved it. From the super awesome beginning with a legion of Alice clones descending into a Umbrella building located under Tokyo to the jaw-droppin' worthy cliffhanger, AFTERLIFE delivers all the goods and more. As noted above, I saw the 2-D version, figuring that the 3-D probably wouldn't add too much more to my viewing pleasure [despite the multiple adds saying as such, as they are for the impending SAW 3D], but it turns out that it may just be worth checkin' out. Director Paul W.S. Anderson gleefully indulges in throwing objects at the camera - as seen in the promos, there are two really beautiful shots of sunglasses being tossed towards us as well as another scene in a raining bathroom where this giant scythe narrowly misses Alice and Claire. Um, awesome! And here I was thinking that we were in for another shameful FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3-D, which wasn't even good bad.

For the zombie lovers, AFTERLIFE offers the usual braindead zombies who just want to feast on human skin. Oh, yummyness. But it also brings in two other creatures. There's this hulking ten foot tall beastie that is just freakin' imposing, and causes quite a problem for Alice in the bathroom. Just when our heroes are about to get out of the breached fortress, this troll walks in intent on killing our dear Alice. Boasting that giant seven foot long (at least) blade, I'd go so far as to say this thing was just as strong as Nemesis from APOCALYPSE. Not as indestructible, but powerful indeed. So that fight scene is most definitely one of the films highlights. There's also these creatures that open their mouth wide in four or six different suckling spots, like Dracula in BLADE: TRINITY, and starts feasting on yousa. Fugly, but cool all at the same time.

I hit up RESIDENT EVIL flicks for the action, and this fourth installment does not disappoint. It was a tough act to follow. I mean, how utterly awesome was it to see Alice use her mind to harness fire and scorch all those birds in EXTINCTION? Um, really awesome. Ginormous doozy. But here we have the zillion Alice clones blowing up the Tokyo-based Umbrella Corp, which was nicely edited together with all the CG elements. And then Alice leaving a deserted Alaska to check out Los Angeles, with one hell of a cool and tense landing on the top of a crumbing building. Double awesomeness. The fight in the bathroom with the ten foot giant - super mega awesomeness. Alice on the rooftop running away from a good 400 or more zombies and then jumping for her life - cool. Overall, AFTERLIFE delivered. My only dislike is the overuse of slow mo. Granted, it wasn't over-indulged WATCHMEN-style, spread out through three hours, but there was enough of it that it go to a point where it was a little much. However, it's a small complaint for a otherwise solid action film.

Evaluation time for the performances. Yes, even for a RESIDENT EVIL movie. By now, Milla Jovovich totally owns Alice. She can kick your ass just by looking atcha, she has a bazillion clones at her disposal [speaking of which, I forget, was that subplot introduced in EXTINCTION?], and she's able to show the soft, vulnerable side as well. Really, my ticket's bought when Milla officially joins on for each RESIDENT EVIL movie. Ali Larter continues to not do much for her career by reprising her role as Claire established in the previous movie, except this time she has the ridiculous plot point of having amnesia! Woah! But at least she's still able to kick ass, so good for you. Oh, and turns out she has a brother Chris, played by Wentworth Miller of PRISON BREAK fame. 'Course she doesn't remember him, but he can kick ass just like his sis, so they must be related, no? Miller channels his Michael Schofield so marvelously, showing off his mischievous yet deadly side. If another TERMINATOR flick is in the pipeline, I nominate Miller as a good best friend to John Connor. The real performance ownage of AFTERLIFE? Shawn Roberts as Albert Wesker, the Agent Smith-like superhuman [after injecting himself with Alice's blood] who has no expression of any sort other than a snide smirk at his utter evilness and indestructibility. Shawn Roberts is awesome, and I mean that entirely from a so-bad-it's-FANTASTIC way. His performance must be seen to believed and experienced to understand. Hell, I want me a Albert Wesker spin-off, like, yesterday!

RESIDENT EVIL -AFTERLIFE delivers the goods. A completely enjoyable action movie with a bunch of zombies and zombified new creatures, a hilariously bad-yet awesome antagonist who can fight two people at once, Alice shooting zombies with coins, tonally appropriate score that gets yah in the mood, and a cliffhanger ending that made me wet my pants with desire. Not serious with the wet pants part, but it's enough of a 'Holy shit! How the frak are they gonna get out of that one?' ending, I want that fifth flick pronto. My only hope: the writer doesn't do that evil 'four months/weeks later...' thing. RESIDENT EVIL 5 better start approximately when AFTERLIFE concludes, or I will not be a happy camper. Anyway, back to AFTERLIFE - if yah digged the prior RESIDENT EVIL movies, I see no reason to not continue the viewing pleasure. If you're a newbie looking for a good action film, well here yah good. Is AFTERLIFE worth the 3-D? Can't say with 100% certainty, but at the very least, the movies shots were designed for the gimmick, so it just might be worth it.