Review of Cold Souls (2009)

Hello all! Today I will be reviewing "Cold Souls," starring Paul Giamatti. I know it's supposed to be a horror/action day, but I figured I'd mix things up a bit since I've been reviewing a lot of horror and action films lately.

"Cold Souls" is a film about a company that extracts and stores people's souls. Paul Giamatti plays himself as an actor that can't seem to separate himself from his character, so he decides to use this seemingly unorthodox service. Things get out of hand when Giamatti finds out that there's a black market for souls, and his is stolen and put on the market. It then becomes a wild goose chase to find and return Giamatti's soul to his body.

Pros:

1. If you laughed or giggled while reading the synopsis, don't worry; I did too. I thought it was a little silly sounding at first, but this is not the flat out comedy you might think it is. It's a lot more dramatic and serious than I thought it was going to be, and I loved that about it. Paul Giamatti gives a great performance as a man who is obviously very troubled, and has no where else to go but into the safe and secure words of the soul extractor. Giamatti is an insecure, under-confident person who doesn't know what else can help him, and I honestly believed that he would buy into and try a soul extraction, however unbelievable it might sound. Once his soul is gone, he takes on a whole new persona: he is hollow, empty and devoid of that "spark" of life that is essential to everyone's personality. He is the closest thing I can think of to someone without a soul (if there is such a thing).

2. The story, although farfetched and maybe a little silly, had a lot of heart and weighed heavy on my mind long after I watched the movie. I'm not one to believe in such a thing as a "soul," but after watching this film I began to wonder what would happen if they were real, and what would happen if you decided to get rid of it, sell it, or buy another person's soul. In the film, Giamatti uses a Russian poet's soul in place of his own when his gets stolen, and he becomes almost a different person. Would this happen if you inserted someone else's soul into you? Is your soul connected to your experiences, your brain, and your memories? It is a very introspective film, and really makes you think about what makes up your personality and your physical and emotional being.

3. The fact that Giamatti plays himself in the film is both refreshing and an interesting change from his usual roles. He's basically famous for playing a smarmy business man, or just a plain bad guy. This film shows his true potential to play a multi-layered, complicated character who is really trying to find out who he really is. There was a substance to him, a human-ness to him, that you don't get from every character in every movie. Playing yourself may be seen as a cop out to some, but to me it offers a window into the life of someone real, someone worth watching.

Cons:

1. The actress who plays the soul-carrier, the mule if you will, wasn't all that great. And it could just be because Giamatti out-acted pretty much everyone in the film; but even so, her character was good, but the way she presented it wasn't up to par for how awesome the movie was.

2. As amazing a job as Giamatti did, it seemed very much like a self serving film. No other character had the same level of importance as Giamatti, even though many characters were essential to the story. It would have been nice to see the director (or even Giamatti) care about someone other than himself. I know it's a story about his self discovery, but he shouldn't be the only important character in the story.

This movie really surprised me in more ways than one. Giamatti has confirmed his spot in my top list of favorite actors, and no story will ever be turned down by me, no matter how crazy it might sound. Charm and heart can come from any story, even the silly ones. Four stars for you, "Cold Souls"! Thanks for reading! 

Review of The Motorcycle Diaries (2004)

Hello all! For my last review of the day (and week), I'll be reviewing "The Motorcycle Diaries," starring Gael Garcia Bernal and Rodrigo de la Serna.

"The Motorcycle Diaries" is based on the memoir of the same name, written by Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the forerunner of the Cuban revolution in the 1950's and 1960's. The film follows Guevara's journey with his best friend Alberto Grenado across the whole of South America between January and July of 1952. The journey started in Buenos Aires, Argentina and ended in Caracas, Venezuela. During the trip, they struggle with standard perils of travel, as well as introspective trials that each have to face. They start out as young, innocent and curious boys and end as more mature, hardened adults who are forced to see the injustices that have been going on around them for years, but never knew about. This whole trip eventually leads Guevara to abandon his promising career in medicine to become the political leader that he's become famous for being.

Pros:

1. Gael Garcia Bernal is superb in this film. He went through six months of research to play the role of Che Guevara, and it shows in his performance. He gives an absolutely exciting and enlightening performance as a young man who travels and experiences things that change him from an innocent boy to an educated, knowledgeable and frustrated man. Every actor's dream is to play a role like this; the role of an inspiring figure who fought for the good of his/her country. Whether or not they were successful, getting to play someone going through the journey of enlightenment is a treat for any actor, myself included. I only hope that someday I can pull off a performance that's even half the caliber of Bernal's. I'm looking forward to seeing more work from this amazing actor.

2. The relationship change between Guevara and his friend Grenado is also something to mention. Grenado was older than Guevara by seven years, so the first half of the movie shows Grenado as kind of an older brother figure, vowing to protect and guide Guevara while they're on their journey. However, as Guevara matures and sees what's actually going on in his own world, the audience sees a shift in roles between them. Guevara becomes the older brother figure, convincing Grenado to stray off their planned path and help those in need of their assistance. Guevara was so affected by the things that he saw: leper colonies, poor, indigenous peoples, and other types of underprivileged people that he essentially became the well known political figure we all know him to be because of this journey and his experiences that made him realize that his country needed a change. When an actor can make that much change in a character, but still feel like the same person, it's a great accomplishment, and they both did it superbly.  

3. This film was shot on location, and used real indigenous people, as well as actors. They filmed in Argentina, Venezuela, Machu Pichu and other parts of Peru, they filmed at the Amazon River where the REAL leper colony is (there's even a scene where Bernal swims across the Amazon at night to get to the leper colony to spend his birthday with them on their isolated island, and he ACTUALLY swam in the Amazon River at night). Every location was rich, lush and beautiful, and an astounding place to film. It was a truly beautiful piece of artwork of a film, and you can only really appreciate it by watching it.

Machu Pichu. Awesome.

The Amazon River. Awesome.

This place. Also awesome.

Motorcycle in a field. Awesome.

Let's face it, there are no cons for this movie. There were a couple of times that they used "shaky cam," and I got a little annoyed by it, but not enough to make it worth writing a "cons" section for this movie. This film was stupendous; it's lush, real, passionate, and has more heart of any movie I've probably ever seen. If you haven't seen it, you owe it to yourself to experience this movie. Five stars for you, "The Motorcycle Diaries"! If I could add more stars, I would. Thanks for reading!

Review of Be Cool (2005)

Hello all! Also on today's line up, I'll be reviewing "Be Cool," starring John Travolta, Uma Thurman, Cedric the Entertainer, Vince Vaughn, and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.

"Be Cool" is about an ex-shylock (someone who collects loan money for the mob) named Chili Palmer (played by John Travolta) who is sick of being in the movie business, so he decides to try his hand in the music business with the help of his friend Tommy, who owns an indie record label. But after Tommy is murdered by a group of Russians, Chili realizes that the music industry isn't so cut and dry after all. He has to use his ever popular wit and wiseguy skills to deal with Russian mobsters, gangsta rappers, and sleazy music executives who would like Chili out of the picture.

Pros:

1. Two words: Dwayne Johnson. This is my favorite role of his, besides his portrayal of Paul in "Pain and Gain." Johnson plays Elliot, a gay, amateur singer and bodyguard to a two-bit music promoter/pimp, played by Vince Vaughn. Recognizing that Vaughn's character is keeping Elliot from what he really wants, which is to be a part of Hollywood, Chili offers him an opportunity to break his tie with Vaughn and follow his dreams. Not only does Johnson play a great gay guy, but he plays a perfect passive aggressive, sensitive, and overall innocent character that obviously shouldn't be any of those things. Seeing such a big guy play someone who's more sensitive than I am was really fun to watch, and watching him make fun of his signature eye brow raise was even more fun.

Dwayne Johnson as Elliot, singing "You Ain't Woman Enough (to Take My Man)."

2. Andre Benjamin (Outkast's Andre 3000) is also in it, and he's also hilarious. He plays a successful rap mogul's wife's cousin who tries to hang out with the rappers and act like a tough gangster. What makes it so funny is the fact that he drinks tea (pinky out), he can't handle a gun, and he constantly embarrasses the rap mogul and his crew. He's like the embarrassing little brother you can't get rid of. Also, Cedric the Entertainer plays the rap mogul, and he's a really great character as well. He mentions breaking African American stereotypes, making people realize that African Americans are essential to the growth of a community, but is also into shady dealings and other things that are a part of gang culture.

Cons:

1. Other than those three characters, every other character in the movie either sucked really bad or basically just phoned in their performance. Especially Uma Thurman. She plays Tommy's wife, and co-owner of the record company Chili is trying to save. They could have saved the money in hiring her and just put a cardboard cut-out of her in every scene, because her character was useless. She didn't drive the story at all; she was just there.
Vince Vaughn didn't bother coming up with a character for this one. It might as well have been Vince Vaughn stand-up in a pimp suit. There was nothing wrong with the character, per se; a dorky, white music promoter/pimp that thinks he's black sounds funny, right? His character was supposed to be a white person who identifies more with black culture, but instead he ended up playing it like a caricature of black culture.
Another dishonorable mention would have to be John Travolta. His calm, cool and collected character just came across as bored or confused. He never did anything tough or crazy, he just got himself into weird situations and half-assedly talked himself out of them. After every brush with danger the audience realizes that they escaped just because the script says they do, not because Travolta's character is a badass smooth-talker.

2. The main plot point is what brought the characters together, but after that they just did whatever they wanted. If the plot was a mall, then the story was the mini van that got the characters there; once they got there, they all went their own way with it. The only story line that gets resolved is one no one cares about (it wasn't even worth mentioning in this review, in fact).

I guess that's it. You can't really mess up more than that. I could list more cons, but if the story was terrible and (most of) the characters were terrible, what could possibly save the movie? I'll be nice and give it 2 stars because it is a comedy, and I did find things to laugh at throughout. I just wish it hadn't been at the actors' attempts. Thanks for reading!   
  

Review of Smokin' Aces (2006)

Hello all! Today I'll be reviewing "Smokin' Aces," directed by Joe Carnahan and starring Ryan Reynolds, Alicia Keys, Ben Affleck, Ray Liotta, and Common, among others.

Synopsis: A Las Vegas performer-turned-mobster-turned-snitch decides to testify against the mob, and there are different groups of competing mercenaries that all want to make sure that he stops breathing before that happens.

Pros:

1. I don't know why, but I expected this movie to be a lot more funny than it was. I expected a kind of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" feel, where the story is based around a crime, but it's more funny than dramatic. But, refreshingly, this movie is filled with drama, action and heart; any comedic aspect of it is very dark. These groups of mercenaries (I'll go into those later) are willing to stop at nothing to make sure that the snitch dies before testifying against the mob, and the snitch will do anything - even rat out his own friends - to make sure that he stays alive. It had a very "kill or be killed" feel to it, which I loved.

2. The mercenaries are awesome in this movie. There's the group of redneck punks (which includes Chris Pine, which I thought was hilarious to see), the sassy black women (which consisted of Alicia Keys in her first and only movie role and Taraji P. Henson, who is quickly becoming one of my favorite African American actresses), the group of ex-cops led by Ben Affleck, a scarred up killer who is a master of disguise, and the "mysterious Swede," a man that no one has any information on; he's basically a ghost.

Ben Affleck (without his awesome team - couldn't find a good picture)

The master of disguise (and possibly my favorite mercenary)

Alicia Keys and Taraji Henson as Georgia and Sharice.

The Tremor Brothers (the redneck team)

3. Normally, movies are described as this: ordinary people thrown into extraordinary circumstances. Something happens that makes an ordinary person step up and do something out of his/her norm, and that's what drives the movie. However, with this movie, this idea is flipped: essentially, this story is fairly ordinary: a mob snitch gets a hit put on him after he decides to testify against them. The extraordinary part of the story comes from the larger-than-life characters on screen, which makes the movie so much fun to watch. Not only that, but every character in the film is so different from each other, and in the most extreme way.

4. All of the actors in the movie learned how to use every weapon used in the movie. No one had a body double to use their guns for them, which I thought was awesome.

Cons:

1. There's a really confusing sub-plot in the movie that they tried to pass off as a main plot point, but the movie would still have been awesome without it. It was kind of necessary, since it's part of the awesome twist ending, but even without a twist ending it was still a grade-A movie.

Well, there you have it! This movie is great for everyone, especially if you're a fan of kooky characters and more modern action movies. 4 stars for you, "Smokin' Aces"! Thanks for reading!

  

Review of The Ward (2010)

Hello all! Today I wanted to incorporate my idea for Wednesdays: Wild Card Wednesdays! Sometimes, if I can't find a comedy to review for Wednesdays, I'll just post reviews of, basically, whatever I want. So without further ado, I'll be reviewing "The Ward," directed by John Carpenter!

"The Ward" is about a troubled young woman named Kristen who is admitted to a local mental hospital. During her stay, she is haunted by a mysterious entity, but when she tries to discuss it with the other patients and doctors, she is met with little to no help. Suspecting that the orderlies are not telling her the whole truth, she decides to solve the mystery of the entity on her own, and discovers that it goes deeper than she could have imagined.

Pros:

1.  The ghost, entity, or what have you, was really creepy. John Carpenter really knows how to set up a good scare, and this movie is no exception. There are a little too many jump-out-at-the-audience parts, but they're just too well set up for me to complain too much. What's also scary to me is what you don't see, and this movie leaves a lot to the imagination, and boy can your imagination go to some dark places.

Look out, crazy girl!

2. Okay guys, before I get to the cons, I have to say that the ending is almost worth the hour and a half. I genuinely did not see the twist ending coming, and when it did, I was so glad it went in the direction it did. However, as you will see from the cons, it wasn't the greatest movie up until then, and not the greatest execution of a twist ending.

SO. Here we go with the cons:

1. The only indication you get that she's in a mental hospital is the fact that there are orderlies and doctors present. The other four patients (who are also young women) were dressed in normal clothes and pretty much had the run of the place for the entire movie. That and there aren't any other patients in the whole place. That kind of took me out of the movie a little bit; took a little bit of the vital craziness away.

2. When you get a good look at the ghost, she just looks silly. She's super creepy when you only get a quick glance at her, but toward the end of the movie you get to look at her dead on, and she looks like the make up people just sent her to a Slipknot concert for a few hours and told her not to shower when she got back. She looks like a teenage metal head with really bad acne and sunken eyes, basically. In their defense, they're not all dead-on shots, but still. Once you see it, you cannot unsee it.

3. The twist ending makes the watcher think twice about what's real; it makes the watcher wonder if the mental hospital is real, or just made up in the mind of Kristen. Does Kristen even exist? However, in the case of this movie, the fact that you can't quite figure it out makes the movie more confusing. I wasn't sure what was supposed to be really happening and what was supposed to be a metaphor. 

All in all, there isn't really much to say about this one. It isn't John Carpenter's best, but I wouldn't say that it's a terrible horror film. It had plenty of scares, but it just never came to life. John Carpenter started his career off with a bang, but unfortunately his films have been going downhill ever since. Sorry, Mr. Carpenter, I'd have to give this one two and a half stars. Thanks for reading!

Review of Chained (2012)

Hello all! I hope everyone's ready for this one! Today I'll be reviewing "Chained," a psychological thriller/slasher film directed by Jennifer Lynch.

"Chained" is about a deranged serial killer who wants to rekindle the bond of a father-son relationship with the son of one of his victims. The movie follows the relationship that develops after years of the boy being forcibly kept in the serial killer's house.

Pros:
1. The entire abduction scene was super intense. The serial killer works as a taxi can driver. When the mother and her son get in his cab, you can only imagine where they're headed. He drives them to a rural and desolate area, where you know they can't get help. Then, while the child is still in the car, the killer takes the mother to a separate room and kills her. The entire scene is fairly quick, but will stick with me forever. The authenticity and intensity of the scene was just scary. It's the closest thing I could think of to actually taping a kidnapping and murder.

2. The killer's house is a character of its own. From the blood-stained walls that looked like they haven't been washed, to the creepily bare rooms that make it look abandoned (or condemned), this house was creepy as hell, and made me super uncomfortable.

Cons:

1. Okay guys, here's where things get interesting. I thought that this was going to be a movie demonstrating Stockholm syndrome, where a person is mentally, physically, and emotionally abused by a person (killer or not) and ends up getting attached to them. In a sense, that's what this movie was about. BUT, as intense as that sounds, it was not intense at all. In fact, it was the most mild case of brainwashing I've ever heard of. There is little to no actual abuse, and Rabbit (the victim) talks back to the killer and disobeys him regularly. The film makes the relationship feel more like an actual father-and-son relationship than one between a serial killer and his victim, and that was a huge strike for me.

2. Both main characters, the serial killer Bob (Vincent D'Orofino) and Rabbit (Eamon Farren) were too mild for me to believe they were such dramatic characters. D'Orofino acted too lenient and too nice to be a killer and Farren acted too normal to be the victim of years of abuse. Strike two.

3. At one point in the movie, a teenage Rabbit establishes a relationship with one of Bob's victims. He hides her from Bob and tries to help her escape. The problem is that the relationship was so ridiculous. He was forced into a room with her where Bob expected him to kill and rape her. Instead, they just talked and the girl basically begs him to have sex with her. First she was scared for her life, then she was clinging to the guy who's supposed to kill her for dear life and trying to kiss him. It was a short lived and unnecessary plot point that made the movie even worse for me. That was officially strike three.

4. And last but not least, a bonus con! They went WAY too much into the killer's past and what made him a psycho. I don't want to know what makes psycho killers how they are; I just want to see a psycho killer go crazy on people! You don't ask why Michael Meyers kills babysitters in "Halloween." You just take it for what it is: a creepy psycho who kills people for no reason. Motive equals fewer scares and a serious drop in creepiness. So, strike four.

No offense to anyone involved in the movie, but this one was just bad. I was super disappointed because it had such potential to be so amazing and dramatic, and it fell way, way short. Two stars for you, Jennifer Lynch!

Review of Crash (2004) and Babel (2006)

Hello again, all! For this review, I'm going to be doing things a little differently. I will be comparing and contrasting two similarly themed films: "Crash," directed by Paul Haggis, and "Babel," directed by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu.

Both films follow similar plot lines: each movie is about different sets of people that are affected by each other in an indirect but significant way. Throughout the movie it is revealed that these people, who are are separated by distance, social status, and race, prove to be life changing elements in each other's lives. "Crash" takes place in Los Angeles, California, and "Babel" is more international, with stories taking place in Japan, Mexico, Morocco, and the United States.

The one I liked most is "Babel," even though it came out after "Crash." Here's why:

1. "Babel" takes place on a more global scale, so each intertwining story is way more interesting. It makes you think about the connections with people that you never knew you had. A man from Japan goes on a hunting trip to Morocco, and gives his guide his gun as a thank you. The Moroccan man then sells it to his friend, who gives it to his sons to protect their herd of goats, but they end up accidentally killing a woman from the U.S. This is just one story from the movie that made me think twice about how random people from (literally) thousands of miles away could affect my life in some way.

"Crash" is more locally based. When you have a bunch of people living in the same city, it's way more likely that those people will affect you at some point, because those are the people that live in your world with you. It's essentially a small world story, and "Babel" is way more of a big world story.

2. Whereas "Babel" is focused on basically a series of random and unfortunate events that affect different people, "Crash" is solely based on events based on racism within the city of Los Angeles. And we're not talking about level one racism here; we're talking about hit-you-over-the-head, over the top racism that I just found annoying and unbelievable. I know there are people out there who have a personal vendetta against some people based on their race, but this movie was just ridiculous. It wasn't subtle in the slightest, which makes me think the director was treating the audience like they were idiots. At least the racial discrimination in "Babel" was subtle and only a small part of the film. The fact that "Crash" was solely based on blatant racism really took me out of the drama of the movie.

3. "Babel" was more of an over-arching project that is a commentary of human nature and humility as a whole. It paints a better picture of humans and how they affect each other every day; "Crash" is just a story about terrible racist people who consciously decide to do terrible things to each other, and how those stories link together.

Pros for "Crash":
1. "Crash" wasn't all bad; the acting was intense and really good. Sandra Bullock, Don Cheadle, Terrence Howard, Michael Pena, Matt Dillon and even Ludacris (yeah, the rapper) were super amazing. Heck, even Brendan Fraser was good in it. What sucked was the screenplay.

2. You get to see dramatic and uplifting change from some of these characters. For example, Sandra Bullock's character changes from a very racist politician's wife to a stronger woman who recognizes that all people don't fit their stereotype. These are changes that were believable and really made the movie for me.

Overall, both movies were good in their own way, but in terms of story and overall impact, "Babel" takes this one, hands down. Most people prefer "Crash" to "Babel," so I hope this review offers some insight to the film less investigated.

Review of War of the Worlds (2005)

Hello all! I'm pretty much the worst blogger ever, so far, it seems. Keeping up with 3 posts a week isn't fairing well for me when I have finals coming up at school, I'm participating in a play at the local community theater, and have work most days of the week. Once school and the show ends, though, I'm sure I'll be able to get back on schedule. Once again, I apologize for my lack of posts lately. Anywho! Time for a review! Today I will be reviewing (among other films) "The War of the Worlds," directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise.

I'm sure you all know the story, but in case you don't, here's a quick recap: "The War of the Worlds," based on the novel by H.G. Wells, is about a hostile alien invasion on Earth, and one family's struggle to survive the brutal and merciless attack by the invaders. The film stars Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Justin Chatwin. Oh, and it's narrated by Morgan Freeman. And yes, that is a pro I will mention.

Pros:
1. Okay, the first thing I want to talk about are the aliens and their ships. If you've ever read the book, it stays remarkably true to it in terms of what the aliens and their ships looked like. They were tall, jellyfish like ships with large beams on the tops of them that were able to take down entire cities in seconds. (I'm posting from my phone so I can't include pictures, but I will put in pictures as soon as I can get to a computer). They are truly terrifying, but also paint a picture of classic sci-fi aliens that really brings you back to the old movies of the 1940's and 1950's. They were intelligent, intimidating and very powerful, but also looked very interesting and creative.

2. Along with pro number one, the actors reacted so well to their CGI counterparts. I believed that they were seeing 50-foot alien ships destroying their cities. I was surprised by Tom Cruise's believability as well; he usually disappoints me when he works primarily with CGI, but this movie was spot on. It looked like a super challenging movie that I'd like to work on someday. As an actor, being able to work with CGI nowadays is a must 99% of the time, and that movie is a perfect test of an actor's believability and skill.

3. Even though the plot is about this far fetched idea of an alien invasion, the underlying story about this struggling family is surprisingly human and ordinary. And I don't mean "ordinary" in the sense that it's boring; I mean it in the sense that it's completely relatable. Tom Cruise plays a dad who has become estranged from his two children (Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin) after he and his wife get a divorce. Now, it just so happens that the weekend his kids are supposed to spend with him is the weekend that the attacks start, so they have to work together to survive, even though his kids virtually hate him. It's a true test of a family's strength and loyalty during a time of death and extreme destruction. Even though it was about aliens invading Earth, it had a very human quality of life to it that made it relatable to pretty much everyone.

4. It's narrated by Morgan Freeman. Come on; need I say more?

Cons:
1. About halfway through the movie, the alien ships start to excrete red, slimy vines onto the ground. I'm not sure what they're supposed to be; the remains of humans they've killed, compacted into veiny vines? A network of vines to transport said human remains from ship to ship? Plants that they liked? I wasn't sure, but it was distracting and...just weird, honestly.

2. There's a scene where Tom Cruise (and his kids) run into a friend of his while trying to escape the grasp of the alien ships. He tries to help her and her daughter get onto a ferry that will take them to a safe place away from the invasion, but they get separated and the friend and her daughter end up dying. Now, the problem I have with this is the whole duration of that scene. It was way too short a scene to feel any kind of sympathy toward Tom Cruise's friend. They set it up to be a turning point in the movie, and in my opinion it just ended too soon to justify keeping it in the final reel.

Those are just nitpicky, though. As a whole, the movie was exciting, dramatic, and yet had a very real feel to it; something Spielberg does best. What can I say? It's classic genius filmmaking! Thanks for reading! Remember: pictures to follow!

Review of Drag Me to Hell (2009)

Hello all! For my second review of the day, I'll be talking about the 2009 film "Drag Me to Hell," directed by Sam Raimi and starring Allison Lohman and Justin Long.

I have to admit that at first, I did not want to see this movie. I had seen about 2 minutes of it when it first came out and thought, "this is really dumb. I want nothing to do with this movie."  Then, a couple weeks ago, I was talking to my boyfriend about the movie and he mentioned how funny it was.
Me: Wait, funny? Like bad funny?
Boyfriend: Well yeah, but it's supposed to be funny. It's a horror comedy.
Me: ...Oh dear God...I've made a huge mistake.
And then I found out that it was directed by Sam Raimi, and I decided right then and there to give "Drag Me to Hell" another chance. It was the best decision I ever made.

"Drag Me to Hell" is a horror comedy film about a bank loan officer named Christine Brown (Allison Lohman) who is looking to get promoted at her job. Out to prove she can make tough decisions, Christine denies a third loan to an old woman who is about to lose her house. As punishment for her loan denial, the old woman puts a curse on Christine that ensures that her soul will be dragged to hell by a demon named Lamia. The rest of the movie follows Christine and her boyfriend Clay Dalton (Justin Long) as they try to reverse the curse and get her life back to normal.

Pros:

1. This movie is classic Sam Raimi. It's absolutely hilarious and outrageous. But as outrageous and hilarious as it was, it was still subtle, in classic Raimi style. Only Raimi can make a movie hilarious and pretty terrifying at the same time. For example, Raimi has a running joke where Christine always gets something really gross projected into her mouth. Blood, guts, maggots, and other bodily fluids are always getting thrown into her mouth. He makes a really serious movie that doesn't take itself seriously.

2. Allison Lohman and Justin Long were super good in this movie. I'd only ever seen Allison Lohman in "White Oleander," which is a super serious and dramatic movie, so I wasn't sure how she would do in a comedy. But she didn't disappoint, and Justin Long never disappoints.

3. The actual premise is a really good horror movie story. I like that it's a classic curse story that ends with you being literally dragged to hell. It's not just a clever name!

Cons:

1. Some of the CGI was pretty corny, I must admit. When the ground opens up to hell, it's super silly looking. Small point though, because it didn't take me out of it at all. It was a comedy, after all.

Other than that, this movie was GREAT. It's the kind of movie I've come to expect from Sam Raimi.   

Review of Django (1966)

SPOILER ALERT: PLOT POINTS REVEALED

Hello all! Today I'll be doing two reviews, and first up is "Django"! Not the 2012 remake, oh no...I'm reviewing the original, the one that started it all, starring Franco Nero!

"Django" is an Italian western film about an outlaw named Django who seeks revenge on Major Jackson, the man who murdered his wife. He makes a deal with a Mexican general, who is also in conflict with Jackson, and the two work together to get their revenge. It's an all-out revenge and betrayal story that you would expect from a classic western.

Pros:

1. Django is an awesome character. He's not a hero, not a bad guy, just a drifter. All he wants is revenge for something that's happened to him, and he doesn't have any honorable intentions at all. He's one of the great curiosities of western film. Not to mention is crazy awesome weapon of choice: a giant machine gun inside of a badass looking coffin that he drags around behind him where ever he goes.

You can't deny the badassery that's in this picture.

2. This movie is famous for being ultra-violent. I don't want to give anything away, but trust me; it does not disappoint in the way of gore and violence.

3. The ending was super dramatic and totally badass. Django manages to shoot up about 700 guys - including Major Jackson - in a cemetery with both of his hands completely smashed and broken by biting off the trigger-guard on his pistol, leaning the trigger on the headstone of a girl that Jackson killed, and then slamming down the hammer with his broken hand. It was totally epic.

Cons:

1. The movie just didn't work for me. Besides the pros I mentioned, there wasn't really anything worth mentioning in the film. It was very flat, very cheesy and very boring. There wasn't enough in the film to keep me completely entertained, but it wasn't a terrible movie. It was just...blah. I was disappointed to learn that the movie that was so famous in Italy for being a great, ultra-violent, totally different kind of western was actually pretty much the opposite.

In conclusion, the fact that the over 50 versions of "Django" started with this one was pretty disappointing. Call me new school, but I think I'll stick with Tarantino's version. 2 stars for you, "Django"! Thanks for reading!

Review of Little Big Soldier (2010)

Hello all! I know, it's Thursday. Today's not my normal posting day, but this whole blog thing has thrown me for a loop. I'm super busy, but I'm trying to stay on track, so bear with me while I get my schedule back on track as well! Thanks for being patient and still reading :P

MOVIE RUINER ALERT: This is not a spoiler, this is a MOVIE RUINER alert. If you don't like watching movies in another language, DO NOT watch this movie. It's in Mandarin Chinese and you DO have to read the subtitles. Once again, DO NOT WATCH if you don't like subtitles.

Today I will be reviewing "Little Big Soldier," a 2010 action-comedy film by Chinese director Ding Sheng, and starring Jackie Chan. It's set in early China during a long period of war and oppression. Jackie Chan plays a soldier for the Liang army, simply called "big soldier." The movie opens with the tail end of a great battle between his army and their enemy, the Wei army. Almost every soldier on either side perished, except for Jackie Chan (who survives by playing dead) and the General from the Wei army. Chan captures the General and intends to use him as his ticket to freedom. By giving him up to the Liang warlord, Chan will be honorably discharged and set free to continue his life as a simple farmer. From there it's a film about their journey from the battlefield to the Liang territory, fraught with danger, excitement, and a little humor by way of Jackie Chan.

Pros:

1. What I like most about this movie is that it's a really an awesome war movie with some adult-sized slapstick humor sprinkled in. It doesn't sound like a good mix, but Jackie Chan makes it work so well. The epic battle scenes are amazing, and yet there's still a humor throughout the movie that helps it go from a hum-drum, sad war movie to a more light-hearted, fun action movie.

2. The story is by Jackie Chan, which I think is awesome.

3. The cinematography was amazing, and they used such different and interesting locations to shoot. The battlefield wasn't just a battlefield; it was in the middle of a gorge with enormous, beautiful mountains all around. There's a scene where they hide in a super intense looking and scary cave; the forests they traveled in were super dense and thick, and had a lot to work with. Nothing about the location was ordinary about this film, and it made all the difference.

 Like this bear in the forest

 And this awesome thing

 And who wouldn't love to watch Jackie run through millions of flowers?

4. Speaking of, the costume design was also really awesome. There was a lot of variety, and honestly, Chinese film always has some of the best costumes around.

5. Not only is this movie an awesome war/comedy/action film, but what Jackie Chan movie would be complete without some AWESOME Kung Fu?! And trust me, there is some grade-A Kung Fu in this movie. Not only by the great Mr. Chan, but by everyone else as well.

Cons:

1. Okay, I'm just going to get this con out of the way: Jackie Chan wrote a song for the movie called "Rape Flowers." Yeah. Amazing singing skills, terrible song-titling skills.

2. There's a side character, Prince Wen, and he looks like he jumped straight out of an anime cartoon, which took me out of the movie a little bit every time I saw him. Not only that, but he was just an annoying character altogether. Kind of a spoiled brat/emo teen character. Just rubbed me the wrong way.

3. Like any epic war movie, it's kind of long. It's still exciting and a really good movie all around, but I must admit that the movie itself is quite a long one.

All in all, it was a super epic, funny, awesome, thrilling, great, super, amazing movie. I loved it, and I intend on watching more Chinese film because of this movie. 4 stars for you, Little Big Soldier! Thanks for reading!

Review of The House at the End of the Street (2012)

SPOILER ALERT: PLOT POINTS DISCUSSED

Hello all! Same-day post? Yeah, gonna have multiple. As you can clearly tell, I've been quite behind lately. This blogging business is serious...business? Yeah. It really is though. Anywho, my Monday post (the post that's supposed to be for today) is my review of "The House at the End of the Street," starring Jennifer Lawrence, Elisabeth Shue and Max Thieriot.

"The House at the End of the Street" is a psychological thriller film about a teenage girl named Elissa Cassidy (Jennifer Lawrence) who moves to a new neighborhood with her mother Sarah Cassidy (Elisabeth Shue). As they settle in, locals tell them the story of the brutal double murder that happened in the house across the street from theirs, and how the killer was never seen again. The movie follows her as she meets the only surviving member of the family that was killed, the charismatic Ryan Jacobson (Max Thieriot) and gets pulled into his dark and disturbing past.

Pros:

1. Jennifer Lawrence really proves herself to be a versatile actor in this role. After seeing "The Hunger Games," I wasn't sure how well she would fit into a thriller/horror setting. But she did very well; there was not one moment where she looked out of place. Granted, the movie wasn't exactly a horror movie as much as it was just a psychological drama (I'll get to that later), but there was no doubt that she had a commanding performance in this role.

2. Max Thieriot was a great Ryan Jacobson. He was one of the most interesting antagonists I've seen in a while. You don't usually see a lot of young, handsome, charismatic psychos in film, and when you do, they usually fall flat. Not this time, though; He did a great job gaining our trust throughout three quarters of the film. In fact, I was actually rooting for him and Jennifer Lawrence to get together by the end. And then he totally betrays not only J. Law, but the audience as well when he proves to be the one who's psycho. And I didn't feel betrayed in a bad way; more like in an "I'm never trusting nice people again" kind of way. Makes you think twice about people with a mysterious past.

Nice guy or super creep?

3. The plot twist is awesome. The story of the murder is presented like this: Jacobson's little sister Carrie Anne, who was mentally ill, brutally murdered their father and mother, and ran into the woods, never to be seen again. At the time of the murder, Jacobson was living with an aunt. He came back after the murders to fix up the house and sell it, since he inherited it. In reality, Jacobson's little sister died while she was a child, and his parents couldn't handle it. They abused him, physically and mentally, and called him "Carrie Anne." Jacobson eventually killed his parents, but still felt the need for a little sister, a Carrie Anne. So he kidnaps young women and forces them to stay in his house and become his little sister, which he eventually tries to do with Lawrence's character.

Cons:

1. Every night scene in the movie looked like a scene filmed in the day time with a blue filter over the camera. That is a technique that film makers use to make scenes look like night shots, but they just did a plain awful job at it.

2. It was a little too much on the drama side and not enough on the thriller/horror side. I would be less inclined to mention this if it weren't presented as a horror movie. It didn't feel like a horror or a thriller; in fact, it felt more like a made-for-TV psychological drama film. If it would have been a bit more scary, I would have been a lot more engaged.

I think that's it for me. Other than those two points, it was a pretty solid film. Jennifer Lawrence and Max Thieriot make a great team, and they proved it by making the movie as good as it was. Three stars for you, movie! Thanks for reading! 

Review of The Departed (2006)

 SPOILER ALERT: PLOT POINTS DISCUSSED

Hello all! Today I will be reviewing "The Departed," directed by Martin Scorcese and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack Nicholson, and Matt Damon. This is a fairly big-budget, super popular movie, and I'm sure most of you already have an opinion on the film, but I hadn't seen it at all until the other night, so it's new to me!

"The Departed" is about policeman Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) who's trying desperately to prove himself worthy of being an asset to his Massachusetts state police department. He does this by taking a dangerous undercover assignment to take down the ever-growing and powerful Irish mob and its leader, Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson). Along the way, he finds that his assignment isn't as clear as he thought, and the line between good and evil isn't black and white. The hunter becomes the hunted, and it's up to Costigan to keep his cool and finish the task he was sent out to do.

Pros:

1. The biggest pro is the fact that it's not your typical cop drama. There's an added character in the story that makes the entire movie; his name is Collin Sullivan, played by Matt Damon. Sullivan grew up with Costello as a father figure, and is a part of Costello's inner circle. Now, I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that Sullivan joins the police force to lead police away from Costello's scent, so to speak. That's what makes this movie for me; the fact that the police has an undercover cop in the mob, and the mob has an undercover agent in the police. It makes for a pretty interesting story development.

2. Martin Scorcese is a genius when it comes to casting a movie. Not only are Matt Damon, Leo DiCaprio, and Jack Nicholson perfect in their roles, but there are so many other honorable mentions that it's crazy; Martin Sheen as the local police chief, Mark Wahlberg as the tough-as-nails, no bull cuss cop who doesn't trust anyone but Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin as Matt Damon's boss, another higher up in the police rank. Every character, no matter how small, delivered an Oscar-worthy performance. No one felt like a side character because everyone was doing their best main-character performance on screen.

3. Throughout the whole movie, neither Matt Damon nor Leonardo DiCaprio change their stance or feelings on the side that they're really on. Even though they play both sides of the field, so to speak, they remain loyal to their original cause. However, the one character who was supposed to be on the true blue, law enforcement side, was the one character that commits a crime for his own benefit. Mark Wahlberg's character finds out that Matt Damon is the informant for the mob, and he shoots and kills him at the very end. The fact that the audience is exposed to all of the "twists" from the very beginning makes you think that there couldn't possibly be a twist ending; but they'd be WRONG AS CRAP. Because I did NOT see that coming.

Cons:

1. Now, the only thing I can say that kind of ruined the movie for me was everyone's accent. For people like Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio, I guess I can forgive them because they're not actually from Boston, and Boston accents are pretty hard to get down pat. But I cannot forgive Matt Damon, who is actually FROM Boston and still sounded like he was trying to pull off a poor Boston accent. The only person that sounded genuine was Mark Wahlberg, and he had all but 10 lines in the film.

Other than that, though, I'd say the movie was definitely fantastic. I mean, it won Best Picture at the Academy Awards, so I guess it did at least 3 things right. I give it 4 stars! 4 for you, Martin Scorcese! You've done it again.  

Review of The Innkeepers (2011)

Hello all! You might notice that this review is of a horror movie. "But Sheridan, don't you review horror movies on Mondays?"
Why yes, yes I do. But as you can see, there was no post on Monday. I've been a little off the ball lately; my apologies. I'm getting back on track with this one though! So let's get to it! I reviewed a movie called "The Innkeepers," directed by Ti West.

"The Innkeepers" is about two friends who work in a failing small town hotel that's supposedly haunted. One of the friends, Luke (Pat Healy) claims that he's seen the ghost that haunts the hotel and convinces Claire (Sara Paxton) to help him with his website about paranormal activity by contacting the ghost that haunts the hotel and gathering proof that ghosts are real. Then strange things start to happen and they realize they were in over their heads from the moment they decided to go on the wild ghost chase.

Pros:
1. The cinematography was brilliant. It felt very much like "The Shining." They made good use of long, creepy hallways (a personal phobia of mine), textured walls and carpets, and loud, sudden noises. They knew how to set up a scene in such a way that made you feel uncomfortable right off the bat.

2. In the beginning, they tell you to turn up the volume on the TV for an optimum viewing experience, and I could see why. They relied a lot on the jump-out-and-scare-you stuff, and a lot of it was pretty brilliant and legitimately scary. I jumped at least 3 times while watching. However, I will be coming back to this comment in the cons section.

3. The two main characters are very natural together. It seemed to me like they were friends before this movie was made, because they were able to mess with each other and have fun together in a very natural, friendly way. They almost seemed like siblings, in a way, which made you root for them the whole time. Their enthusiasm about finding ghosts makes the viewer excited as well.

4. They used the actual Yankee-Pedlar Inn, which is supposedly really haunted. Knowing that it wasn't filmed on a set makes a horror movie so much more creepy.

5. There is a creepy guest that checks into the hotel and kills himself while Claire and Luke look for any paranormal activity. He later comes back as a ghost, and he's actually scarier than the ghost they spend the whole movie trying to find.

Cons:

1. Remember when I said that they really knew how to set up a good jump-out-at-you scene? Well, it would help if the thing that jumps out at you was actually scary. Nothing happens for half the movie; lots of stuff jumping out at you, not a lot of stuff scaring you.

2. The ghost that haunts the hotel isn't scary at all. The first time the audience sees her, it's a close up; which could be scary sometimes, but this time it just looked like a cheesy zombie bride with mediocre make up.

3. The social interactions between the main characters and other random side characters was not only unnecessary, but just awkward and weird. The only characters that were necessary to the story were the two main characters and a couple of the guests. For example, there's a scene involving Sara Paxton and a girl at a deli that did not serve the story. They set it up to be a very ominous scene, maybe involving foreshadowing, but instead they have an awkward and brief exchange, and nothing more comes of it. It's like they sold the whole movie short with brief and awkward conversations that don't mean anything to the movie.

4. The creepiness of the old man that kills himself far outweighs the creepiness of the main ghost, so it really makes the main ghost look like a joke. They should have used one ghost or the other.

5. The ghost doesn't show herself for three quarters of the movie. Nothing scary that happens is at the hand of the ghost; it's all completely explainable. But when she does show herself, she kills Claire, and then goes away. The audience has no time to decide if there's even really a ghost in the hotel, and then she randomly kills someone in the end.

6. It's just not scary. There was a lot of good build up, but absolutely no follow through. And trust me, if I don't think it's scary, it's not scary. It was just a disappointment.

There you have it, folks! A scary movie in didn't think was scary. Who'd have thunk it, eh?

Review of Milk (2008)

Hello and Happy Easter, all! This post is late; my apologies! This is technically my Friday post, but I was so busy at work on Thursday, Friday and yesterday that I didn't get the chance to post the review until now. So let's get on with it!

I reviewed the film "Milk," which is the real-life story of gay rights activist Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay man to be elected to California's public office in 1978. The film recounts his life from the time he decided to become a part of the gay rights movement, until his assassination in 1978. The film stars Sean Penn as Harvey Milk, James Franco as his partner Scott Smith, and Josh Brolin as Dan White, a fellow politician who is fiercely conservative and who is basically against everything Harvey Milk stands for.

Pros:
1. Sean Penn was awesome as Harvey Milk. Not just in terms of acting, but he looks just like him, too. The likeness is uncanny, even. In terms of a straight man playing a gay man, it worked out well for him. He was believable, but not over the top.

See?

2. The film includes real footage from gay rights protests, arrests, riots, everything that was going down in San Francisco in the 1960's-1970's. That really made the movie even more emotionally vulnerable than it is by itself.

3. The filmmakers really cared about this project, and it shows in their work. They spent months researching Milk's life, down to what he liked to wear, places he liked to go, and even food he liked to eat. They talked to old friends of Harvey Milk, researched his actual belongings, looked at hours and hours of archival footage, and even bought out the shop that used to be Milk's personal camera shop to use in the film.

4. The cinematography is just lovely. Not only does the film feel like it was made in the 70's, but the lighting of the whole movie adds an ultra-dramatic feel to it. The happy scenes are all very bright, open and vibrant, while the more foreboding scenes are dim and intimate. Seems obvious to film a movie in this way, but they really triumphed in making me feel an entire range of emotions simply with the right lighting.

5. The soundtrack was awesome. Danny Elfman composed the soundtrack, too, which was surprising to me, since he usually doesn't do historical dramas. He's best known for his work with Tim Burton on movies like "The Nightmare Before Christmas," "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and "Alice in Wonderland." His style is usually more childlike and playful, so the fact that he can go so far as to write a score for a serious drama is a huge - and pleasant - surprise, and really shows his diversity.

6. Josh Brolin was a great Dan White. He was perfect as a super conservative politician who isn't sure how to handle having a gay man in public office. He tries to be friendly to him, but when Milk opposes everything he's working towards, things go sour very quickly.

Cons:

1. I don't want to hate on James Franco, but I have to in this one. His performance felt very much like a straight man trying to play a gay man. I'm not saying it's an easy thing to do, but all of the love scenes with Penn looked a little awkward because you can see how uncomfortable Franco is. And he's not the only offender! Emile Hirsch plays Cleve Jones, one of Milk's disciples, and he too looked very fake playing a gay person.

2. After Milk and Scott Smith break up, Milk meets a troubled youth named Jack Lira, who eventually becomes his next partner. Throughout the movie, Milk is seen as a push over character who can't resist helping out a person in need; however, the character of Jack Lira can be compared to an immature child. Not only are his actions over-acted and over the top, It's a sub-plot that is never explained thoroughly. He meets Jack, a relationship develops, he gets SUPER clingy and then all of the sudden he can't stand being second to Milk's political career, so he hangs himself. It happened so fast that I didn't really understand why they included that sub-plot.

3. It's a true story. It sucks to watch the movie and realize that the same issue that was being argued over then is still being argued over now. And it sucks that if you know the story of Harvey Milk, you know the movie is going to end badly.

And that's it! Thanks for reading! Happy Easter!

Review of Closing Escrow (2007)

Hello all! Sorry about the late post. I decided that an exciting way to start out my week was to get into a pretty horrible car accident, so I've been dealing with insurance people and cops and whatnot. It's been super stressful, as you can imagine. So unfortunately this post is late BUT, it's a good one today. I'll be reviewing a little unknown film called "Closing Escrow," starring Wendi McLendon-Covey ("Reno 911!," "Bridesmaids"), Cedric Yarbrough ("Reno 911!"), April Barnett ("Reno 911!") and a bunch of other genius comedy actors and writers.

"Closing Escrow" is a relatively low-budget mockumentary film about three quirky families who decide to move, and hire three different real-estate agents who are just as quirky - if not more - than the families they're helping find a new place. After a series of unsuccessful open house showings (and crazy shenanigans), all three families and agents bid on the same property, making for an unexpected (and hilarious) climax.

Pretty interesting premise, eh? At first I thought trying to make a movie about real-estate was hard enough to make interesting, let alone a comedy about real-estate. But trust me; the people who wrote "Reno 911!" wrote this movie, so it was in good hands from the beginning.

Pros:

1. Each real-estate agent is funnier than the last. Wendi McLendon-Covey plays Hillary, a kind of Michael Scott character, and she is a white real-estate agent that sells homes to minorities without realizing she's super offensive. She tries very hard to be politically correct, but she's so dense that she doesn't realize that that's what makes her even more offensive.
Ryan Smith plays Richard, a real-estate agent who destroys homes for sale to get the selling price down.  And Bruce Thomas plays Peter, the most normal of the real-estate agents with the perfect life. I'd call him the control in the experiment. He over-acts a bit, but in all he's really the only "normal" character in the movie. Each character is different and hilarious in their own way, and you can't help but watch as they embarrass themselves and everyone around them.
Same goes for the families that are assigned to each real-estate agent. There's an African-American couple who are both attorneys and constantly talk to each other as if they're in court, with the wife being the apparent dominant one in the relationship; the most white bread American church family ever, who is overly attached to their house, and whose father constantly tries to one-up Peter's seemingly perfect life; and the crazy couple, complete with the shy, meek Tom and his rabbit-killing, psycho stalker girlfriend Dawn.

2. Each pairing up of real-estate agent to family couldn't have been more genius. Hillary of course gets paired up with the African-American couple and embarrasses them time and time again with her ignorant attitude. For example, when she first meets the couple she'll be working for, she says "I want you to know that I am YOUR slave; I work for you."
Richard gets paired with the shy guy and his psycho girlfriend, and they have to try to stop him from destroying every potential home they see. He even takes them to houses that aren't considered open houses yet, and breaks into them while people are still living there.
Peter gets paired with the all-American white bread family, and when Allen - the family's father - realizes how perfect Peter's life is, this starts a one-upping mission of epic proportions. Their pairing was also funny to me because Peter is a legitimate real-estate agent that is trying to keep his cool with a client that won't make up his mind (and doesn't intend to). It's even better when you keep in mind that it's a neighbor he wants gone, so he is trying desperately to help him find a house.

3. The fact that it's shot documentary style is what makes it so funny! I totally bought that these crazy and quirky characters were entirely real and totally believable.
Along those same lines, the characters were silly and maybe even extreme at times, but still remained totally believable. I totally think that there are people out there like the characters in this film, and they're probably not exaggerating the personalities of real people.

4. It goes back and forth between the different families and agents, so every scene feels so fresh and even more hilarious than the last, even though you're following the same three families.

Cons:

1. I wish more people knew about this film.

That's about it, folks! This review was short and sweet today, but I hope you liked it! If you hadn't seen or heard of this movie before this (I'm guessing most of you haven't), then GO SEE IT. It's definitely worth checking out. 4 stars for you, "Closing Escrow"! You go, "Closing Escrow"!

Review of V/H/S (2012)

Hello all! I hope all of you had a fantastic weekend! Today I will be reviewing "V/H/S," produced by Bloody Disgusting !! I know this is my third "found footage" style horror film I've reviewed...in a row...but fear not! It is but a coincidence. However, not only is the found footage style super popular right now, but now you can compare the same style of film to see which one would be most fun (and terrifying) to watch! Oh, and side note..."V/H/S" is the most terrifying found footage film I've reviewed so far, if that helps.

 V/H/S is about a group of ruffians who video tape their many exploits, ranging from burglarizing houses to violating women in parking lots. Hoping to up the ante of their criminal activity, the group eagerly takes a job offered by a mysterious third party to break into what is believed to be an abandoned house and steal one rare VHS tape. Once there, they find a room full of televisions turned on to white noise, a dead man in a chair in front of the TVs, and hundreds upon hundreds of dated VHS tapes. The rest of the movie is followed by a series of VHS tapes that are played on the TV while the criminals watch. After every tape is done, it cuts back to the efforts of the criminals trying to find the one tape, all the while being terrorized themselves by a mysterious force. 


Pros:
1. Each VHS tape segment is directed by a different modern horror director. You can see the full list of directors here. That makes the movie a hundred times more terrifying, because even though each tape is a found footage style tape, each segment has a different horror type, ranging from creepy little kids to demons to psycho killers. The fact that they are all found footage style but so different helps intensify the scares without seeming like a recycled trick.

2. Once again, the found footage style is an absolutely effective and terrifying way to go when filming a horror movie. I absolutely buy into the found footage style because people document EVERYTHING nowadays. It's completely believable for someone to capture something terrifying on tape - especially in an intimate setting - because it's just human nature these days to document every experience you ever have.

3. Once the guys get into the house, they find hundreds of VHS tapes, about 10 TVs all stacked up in one room that are all turned on, and a random dead guy sitting in a chair in front of the TVs. It's immediately set up to be completely opposite of what they're expecting. And it's set up to automatically make the VHS tapes scary as cuss. Are the VHS tapes there to distract them so something else can get them? Who put them there? Why? It's truly unsettling.

4. Any gore that was in the movie was completely appropriate and served the story well. Not that gratuitous violence and gore isn't fun to watch sometimes, but I'd rather leave that to the horror comedies and teen slashers of the world. When it comes to a legitimate scary movie, the less gore the better. Your imagination is the most terrifying thing in the world, and when a film maker can leave just enough to your imagination, I bet it can come up with something way more horrifying than anything a film maker can put on the screen.
  
5. Most horror stories are most effective when they are short stories, so each mini-movie was stronger than its flaws. Most of the flaws they had were the same kinds of flaws you would see in a full length horror movie, but they didn't have to put in a bunch of filler to stretch things out, so you don't have a lot of down-time to pick apart the story. 
*Special mention: The bad guy in the "Tuesday the 17th" short. One of the most original versions of a "pure evil" character I have seen. He has human characteristics but can not be caught on film (except as a blur of pixels and TV snow) and can not be killed even though he can be touched and trapped.

Cons:
1. The main story was a little confusing. I get that the group of guys went there to search for a tape, but I was confused as to why there were so many VHS tapes in the house, which is never explained. And by the end of the movie, the audience discovers that the dead guy in the chair isn't actually dead. He's basically a zombie that is controlled by a creature living in the basement. He uses the zombified guy to kill the guys that are watching the tapes, and then the creature...eats the remains? I still don't really know. Some important stuff about main story is definitely not clear enough. It would have been a lot more terrifying if they just cleared up those one or two things.

2. Before the group gets hired to find the tape, they film themselves breaking into houses, forcing girls to flash themselves for the camera, and various other things that are just immature and dumb. These guys look like they're in their late 20's, early 30's, and they're filming themselves throwing rocks at houses and smashing windows? Dumb. Just. Dumb.

3. Once they get into the house where the rare tape is supposed to be located, no one - and I mean NO ONE - ever once says "hey, there's a dead guy in this room; we should probably leave." I'm sorry, but if I was hired to go somewhere, and I found a dead body at said location, you'd better believe I'd be out of there quicker than The Flash on crack. Along those same lines, I don't think anyone has any reaction to the tapes that are played. They just keep watching creepy tape after creepy tape without showing any signs of uneasiness or fear. Sorry guys, NO ONE is that fearless.

4. The fourth short is called "The Sick Thing That Happened to Emily When She Was Younger," and it's a series of online chat videos between a woman named Emily and her boyfriend James, who's a medical student that lives a few states away from Emily. It starts off with Emily telling James about a mysterious bump on her arm that she can't get rid of, and it reminds her of a wound she received when she was a young girl. James tells her not to mess with it until he comes to visit her so he can check it out. Then strange things start to happen in Emily's apartment in the middle of the night, like mysterious footsteps outside of her room, and seeing a childlike figure running out of her room and slamming the door. She believes that her house is haunted, but her landlord says that no children had ever lived in her apartment before. Later, she tries to make contact with the childlike ghost thing with the help of James, but it knocks her out. Then James leaves his screen and actually appears in Emily's room. He takes a scalpel, cuts her open, and pulls out what looks like a fetus. Then we find out that James was harvesting human-alien hybrid babies using Emily as its incubator. The bump on her arm? A tracking device for the aliens. The end of the tape is another video chat with James talking to a different girl who is telling him about a strange bump on her arm, so it's assumed that James is at it again.

Okay...what?

First off, the ghost things are never explained to the audience. They're pale faced, black haired, weird little kids (there are multiple) and they don't belong anywhere in the story, at all. But they knock her out and watch as James cuts her open and takes the human-alien baby, so it's assumed that they're helpers of some sort. Or something. I really have no idea; I watched it twice and I still don't know what that whole thing was about. Were they used by the aliens to distract Emily and make her think she was going crazy? Were they really ghosts? Were they human-alien hybrid babies all grown up?! I don't know. Whatever the case, that story was just too confusing for it to be really scary. Don't get me wrong, there are truly scary parts in this short, but the whole time I was closing my eyes and thinking "I'm scared but I don't know what's going on!"

Those things aside, the rest of the movie was absolutely cussing frightening, and so worth watching. When you have multiple directors working on one movie like this (especially when they're making their own mini movie) you're bound to get a story you don't like. I know there are just as many pros as cons, but I'm still going to say that I liked it. If a scarecrow falls out of a closet and makes you jump or gets your heart racing, complaining that it's made of cheap materials doesn't change anything. You can like the whole project without liking the small details that make it up, you know? So for that reason, I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars! There you have it; "V/H/S," one of the most terrifying found footage films I've seen recently. And I hope you think so, too! Thanks for reading!

Review of Insomnia (2002)

Hello all! I hope everyone had a fantastic week. Today's review is my first request review! Yay! I was asked to review the movie "Insomnia," directed by Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight trilogy, "Memento," "Inception," "The Prestige.") I was immediately intrigued because, once again, it's a movie I had never heard of before, AND it was directed by the great Nolan, which I thought was going to be a treat in itself. Not to mention that it stars Al Pacino, Robin Williams and Hilary Swank. That's a pretty stellar cast, if I say so myself!

The synopsis is what really got me excited, though: Will Dormer (played by Al Pacino) and Hap Eckhart (played by Martin Donovan) are 2 hardened detectives from L.A. that have a history of doing whatever it takes to catch a bad guy, legal or otherwise. They are sent to Alaska to assist Officer Ellie Burr (played by Hillary Swank) and the local police in catching the murderer of a local teenage girl (played by Robin Williams - He plays the murderer, not the teenage girl). In the process, Detective Dormer kills his partner. The rest of this movie follows our hero as he deals with a spiraling descent into self-doubt, guilt, and, well, insomnia while trying to clean up the mess and maintain his reputation. Is Detective Dormer any better than the criminals he locks away? By the end of the movie, no one can say for sure.

Cool! An awesome crime drama with Robin Williams as the bad guy, and Al Pacino as the protagonist? What could possibly go wrong?!
...well, apparently, a lot of things.

I have to apologize right now to the person who recommended this movie to me. I'm so sorry, but I did not like it. It's my least favorite Christopher Nolan movie, of all time. And I'll tell you why:

Cons:
1. I'm not a big fan of Al Pacino's character in this movie. Well, mainly how he changes after his partner is killed. He gets sent to Alaska during the summer, when some parts of Alaska experience a phenomena called the midnight Sun (basically, the Sun does not set for a full 24 hours). This, coupled with his extreme guilt, give him a case of insomnia from which he cannot escape. He becomes extremely fatigued, lethargic, weak, and he starts to hallucinate. The problem is, when Al Pacino is playing someone with extreme fatigue, it just comes off as dismissive. He never looks like he's tired; he just looks like he doesn't care about anything that's going on. It's hard to feel any suspense in the movie when you're following this guy around the whole time:

"I'm too tired to care about anything ever."

2. The cinematography was plain bad. They take a long time to set the back story up so that by the time Pacino kills his partner it's supposed to be a shock moment, but it's just not; all of the suspenseful scenes just weren't executed well at all. "When his partner gets shot, the scene cuts before the gunshot and the sound is super low. It cuts to Pacino looking concerned and running over to someone. Someone he shot? Or someone he watched get shot? I'm not sure if the point was to illustrate that no one on the scene could have known where the shot came from, but they show the audience 2 seconds later. So why make the gun shot scene so confusing?" - (my boyfriend said it best).

There's also a scene where Pacino is chasing Williams' character and falls into a body of water and can't get out because a bunch of logs are blocking him from getting to the surface. It's all suspenseful, and the music is swelling and intense, and then...it cuts to Pacino getting out of the water and staring blankly after Williams. Ignoring the whole "how did he get out of the water safely?" thing, Pacino didn't even shiver when he got out of the water! Alaska in the summer is still ALASKA. It's cussing cold! Stop reminding us that you did that scene on a sound stage in 80 degree water.

3. There's a random rivalry between Pacino's character and one of the younger, local Alaskan cops. I mean, I get it; in certain crime movies there's always that rivalry between the wise, older cop and the young, rough and tumble, cocky younger cop. But this Alaskan cop was such a small part of the movie that the rivalry didn't serve the story at all. And IMMEDIATELY after they met, the younger cop hated Pacino's character, and I just couldn't see why. It's like they tried to add in sub-plots that didn't go anywhere, this being one of them.

4. I almost thought Robin Williams' character was a physical manifestation of Pacino's guilt, at first. He magically just knew everything about Pacino, his past and his partner, which was confusing to me.

5. It didn't feel like a Christopher Nolan movie, at all. He is one of the best new directors of suspense movies; how could he have gone so wrong with a crime drama?! Granted, it is a remake of an older film. But still, Nolan did not do a good job with this one. He's the mastermind behind The Dark Knight Trilogy, "Inception," etc. I expected way more from him than a sub-par, boring crime drama.

Okay, I think that's all the bashing I can do to this movie. HOWEVER, there are some pros to this movie that I think made the movie watchable:

1. Robin Williams' character was really good. That should be a given, really; you can't go wrong with Robin Williams. At first I thought he was going to be playing a full-on psycho killer, but that wasn't the case at all. He was basically just a regular Joe, which makes his character even more unsettling than if he'd been a crazy killer out for the young blood of an innocent girl.

NOT a psycho killer. Right?

2. One interesting thing I liked about the movie was the fact that in the beginning, there is an obvious falling out going on between Pacino and his partner, which makes him (and the audience) question the shooting from the beginning. Any time he tries to make a good point about it being an accident, Robin Williams completely agrees, but is clearly talking about something different. So, did he do it on purpose? Was it an honest mistake?

3. While Al Pacino's character is used to breaking the law to enforce it, this is the first case where the criminal he is pursuing has committed a seemingly similar, 'accidental' crime. Not only does this give Robin Williams leverage as the only witness able to blackmail Al Pacino, but it takes a strong psychological toll on a character that has never doubted himself before. The dynamic shifts from Pacino being a good-guy cop to a potentially corrupt cop, trying to rationalize comitting the same crimes he has dedicated his life to stopping. The character of Will Dormer was super complex and awesome; it was just the actor that lacked any gusto.

4. The setting of the film was pretty clever. Having a crime drama take place somewhere that is able to have 24 hours of sunlight gives you a lot to work with, psychologically. Seemingly never seeing the end of the day can be really distressing, and it weighs heavily on your mind and body.

I think that's it, folks! I give "Insomnia" about...2.5 stars. It was okay, but unfortunately the cons outweighed the pros this time. Thanks for reading!