Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Cujo
Directed by Lewis Teague.
1983. Rated R, 93 minutes.
Cast:
Dee Wallace
Daniel Hugh Kelly
Danny Pintauro
Christopher Stone
Ed Lauter
Kaiulani Lee
Billy Jayne

A rabid St. Bernard terrorizes a woman (Wallace) and her son (Pintauro).

What?

That’s all I’ve got.

Oh alright, there is a little more to it than that. Namely, the woman is an adulterer who finds herself alone with the boy on the property where the crazed dog runs things because her hubby has just a little pimp in his blood. He drives a shiny new Jag while she putts around in a beatup Pinto that’s badly in need of repair. By the way, is there any other kind of Pinto? Anyhoo, after finding out about his wife’s indiscretions, hubby takes off in the Jag on a business trip and pretty much tells her to suck an egg when she asks about getting the Pinto fixed…ahem…worked on. I don’t think it’s actually possible to fix one. Though he doesn’t use the term “suck an egg”, he makes it clear she needs to cross her fingers and pray she makes it all the way to Joe Camber’s (Lauter) place for him to fix…er…work on it. Joe’s not only the local repairman, he’s also Cujo’s owner. Early on, we see that Cujo’s caught rabies. Unfortunately, Joe is neither terribly bright nor perceptive so the dog is far too gone by the time Joe picks up on it. Poor Joe.

This whole setup takes up half the movie. Basically, that means we watch a not-so-thrilling soap opera play out before the dog starts killing people. By that time, we’re kind of rooting for the dog because we don’t like the people. In particular, we don’t like the wife. That’s a bit of a problem when Cujo has her and the boy trapped in the rust-bucket. Do we really want her to live? I guess so, for the kid’s sake. Like most dads, self included, you just never really know if he can actually raise a child by himself. I mean, what the hell do you do after playing catch and going for ice cream?

The latter half is mostly Cujo slobbering, barking and doing further damage to the Pinto in an effort to make a Scooby-Snack out of mom and son. To give us breaks in the action, hubby gets all pissed because she’s not answering the phone and has to come all the way home to check up on her. That’s the house phone she’s not answering, for you young’uns. Before every teenager had a cell phone in their pocket, or purse, that’s used for everything up to and maybe including brushing your teeth (isn’t there an app for that?), the only phones 99.9% of the population had was this giant block of plastic either on an end table or screwed to the wall in their house. No silly, you couldn’t watch Cujo on it. It only made and received calls. You know what else? If you left home, no one could reach until you reached some other place that had a phone. Honestly though, a cell phone would’ve solved a lot of problems, here.

Alas, this is 1983 and there are no cell phones. This means we’re stuck with watching mom play hide and seek with this behemoth of a dog who’s coat grows more matted by the second. If you held a gun to my head and asked me which one were smarter I’d have to say the dog. He’s so smart, he doesn’t even ram the back of the Pinto. That would’ve blown up the car and him along with it. I swear. Google “exploding Ford Pinto”. Anyhoo, he seems to be a step or two ahead of her the whole time. He’s like Alonzo in Training Day. He’s playing chess while she’s struggling with checkers. Are we still sure we want her to live? I guess so. Again, for the kid’s sake. If Cujo manages to take her out, this little whiny brat ain’t gonna be much problem.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, the movie isn’t that great. The first part makes us dislike everyone except the dad, who isn’t in any danger. The second half provides the occasional thrill but mostly drones on and on and on. Woof woof woof drool drool growl growl woof woof. Of course, being based on a Stephen King novel has made this an overrated movie. Some see it as a classic of the genre. It’s okay. I suppose it’s the best picture ever made about a killer dog, but that’s not really saying much.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

[dell71]

Red Riding Hood
Directed by Catherine Hardwicke.
2011. Rated PG-13, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Amanda Seyfried
Gary Oldman
Shiloh Fernandez
Virginia Madsen
Billy Burke
Max Irons
Julie Christie
Lukas Haas
Shauna Kain
Adrian Holmes
Michael Hogan

The gang’s all here. We have a not-so-little Red Riding Hood (Seyfried), Grandma (Christie) and the woodcutter (Fernandez). It should go without saying that we have a big bad wolf. In this case we don’t just follow Red, er, Valerie on her trip to Grandma’s. The wolf is not quite the same as we’ve been reading all these years. It’s a werewolf and it is terrorizing the entire village. Understandably, the villagers are on edge because it has decided to attack for the first time in twenty years. Apparently, the animal sacrifices they’ve continuously given over that period are no longer enough. Even more disconcerting, no one know its human identity. Any one of them could be the big bad wolf. Reluctantly, they hire Solomon (Oldman), who specializes in this sort of thing, and his band of unmerry men to find and kill this evil creature.

It’s an interesting premise. Though its know the world over as a children’s story, the original tale is actually violent and dark. Therefore, reimagining it as a horror flick is not quite the leap many believe it is. In that story, the wolf eats Grandma and would do the same to Little Red Riding Hood if not for the Woodcutter taking an axe to him. See? And I haven’t even mentioned the pedophilic and cross-dressing aspects. Honestly, this removes those particular subtexts and adds some of its own. Freedom of religion, adultery and uncomfortably implied incest all figure into the proceedings. Add in some werewolf attacks and bouts of mob mentality and you get a wild ride through an ancient village.

With all of these things swirling about, Red Riding Hood should be an infinitely more enjoyable watch. Sadly, it botches the one thing at which it tries hardest: the love story. We all knew there would be one. It seems you can hardly make a movie without that element. Our Red…Valerie...is sort of engaged in a love triangle. She’s been in love with the Woodcutter, er Peter, her entire life. However, due to her family’s lack of funds it’s been arranged without her consent for her to marry Henry (Irons). The whole thing is way too reminiscent of Twilight. That should be no surprise since director Catherine Hardwicke helmed the first film in that franchise. Even if you don’t like those movies (or books) you have to admit the Edward vs. Jacob dynamic provides some sparks. Here, there is no such excitement because both guys seem to have Edward’s demeanor and personality. Not to mention that I’m not so sure either guy can give Robert Pattinson a run for his money in the acting department, as bad as that is. The portions of RRH that focus on this are tedious work to sift through.

Fortunately, what’s going on with Red’s family is far more intriguing and keeps the movie somewhat afloat. The same can be said for Solomon, his hunting of the werewolf and his interactions with the villagers. Gary Oldman plays it to the hilt, as always. Though his character is here to do a good thing, we’re not sure whether we like him or not. That’s a good thing. On the other hand, it never scares us and judging by the less than thrilling werewolf attacks, it doesn’t really try to. Still, combine this with a lame love story and RRH has a very uneven feel. It vacillates between intriguing and boring without ever settling on either.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

[dell71]

My Soul to Take
Directed by Wes Craven.
2010. Rated R, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Max Thierot
John Magero
Denzel Whitaker
Zena Grey
Nick Lashaway
Paulina Olszynski
Emily Meade
Jeremy Chu

Sixteen years ago the local serial killer turned his attention on his own family. He’s rather lazily dubbed “The Ripper” and had been terrorizing the town by cutting up people with a rather large knife that has the word “VENGEANCE” scrawled across the blade. Don’t worry, that’s never actually explained. He seems to suffer from multiple personalities which we’re informed are really multiple souls. One of these kills his wife, while another calls his shrink. A battle with the police ensues which includes The Ripper being shot, presumed dead, waking up a few times to stab some more, get shot again, being rushed to the hospital, causing the ambulance to crash and disappearing.

Fast forward to the present and all the local kids born on that fateful night gather at the lake near the ambulance crash site every year on their birthday to ceremoniously drive The Ripper back into the water for another year. To do this , one of them has to push over a giant puppet representing the killer. This year it’s Bug’s turn. He’s so scared he botches the job. Yup, you guessed it. The kids start getting knocked off…one…by…one.

As slasher flicks go, this premise is okay even though its not terribly original. It reminds me of The Shocker. Not so coincidentally both movies were penned and directed by horror legend Wes Craven. While The Shocker is a gleeful dark comedy and revels in its own ridiculousness, My Soul to Take is an unfocused poser. It desperately wants to be something, it just can’t decide what. It’s attempts at cleverness are anything but. As a result, we get a lot of eye-rollingly bad jokes. It’s efforts at scaring us fail miserably. This is due in part to us trying to figure out if we’re watching comedy or horror and part because there is almost zero tension created. The best of Craven makes us both laugh and cower in fear because humor and horror blend seamlessly to form a potent mixture. Here, the two keep bouncing off one another after awkwardly smashing together. A couple plot twists here and there keep us very mildly interested but aren’t enough to save the film from itself.

What may have helped is better money shots. In slasher fare, money shots are the kill scenes. Even if a movie is awful as a whole, fans of this particular genre will still enjoy it if the grisly murders staged for our morbid pleasure are creative and memorable. In MStT they are neither. They are an incredibly boring succession of stabbings. While they would be undeniably heinous in real life, they’re unbelievably tame for its target audience. We never get what we came for. Imagine watching an action flick in which every fight consistent of just one punch and every shootout a single shot. We get the equivalent of those things.

Wes Craven deserves his lofty spot as a master of horror. He’s earned it through decades of scaring the crap out of us. Occasionally, he’s scared us while simultaneously making fun of how he does it. However, in a career longer than my life has been he’s made some missteps. This is one of them.

MY SCORE: 2.5/10

[Buzzman]

The acting in My Soul to Take almost was so bad its awesome, but then you just realzie it was just bad. Nothing awesome about it.

[dell71]

The acting in My Soul to Take almost was so bad its awesome, but then you just realzie it was just bad. Nothing awesome about it.

Truth.

[dell71]

The Batman vs. Dracula
Directed by Michael Goguen.
2005 . Not Rated, 84 minutes.
Cast:
Rino Romano
Peter Stormore
Tara Strong
Tom Kenny

While trying to beat the Joker (Kevin Michael Richardson) to a treasure buried in Gotham Cemetery, the Penguin (Kenny) accidentally awakens the legendary Dracula (Stormore). The Prince of Darkness then tries to take over Gotham by creating an army of undead. Of course, none of this sits well with the Batman. It’s a little strange seeing the Dark Knight battle a supernatural villain but it’s well done like most of the animated fare concerning Batman. However, I will admit the reason Dracula came to be buried in Gotham City is completely contrived. Other than that, the action comes fast, Batsy does some serious detective work and even whips out the garlic-tipped weaponry. It’s a little more graphic than I was expecting but it fits the plot since we are dealing with vampires here. All in all, good stuff but I may be a bit biased being a big Batman fan.

MY SCORE: 7/10

[dell71]

Saw: The Final Chapter
Directed by Kevin Greutert.
2010. Rated R, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Tobin Bell
Costas Mandylor
Besty Russell
Cary Elwes
Sean Patrick Flanery
Gina Holden
Laurence Anthony
Chad Donella

Jigsaw (Bell) is back! Well, sorta. He’s actually been dead for several movies now. To be sure, this is America’s favorite torture-porn franchise and it’s back for a seventh installment. We still get to see our twisted game master through flashbacks and hear his voice on all those ominous tapes that explain those games. I swear, this guy has left behind more recordings than Tupac. As has been the case for the last couple movies, Jigsaw’s work is carried on by Det. Hoffman (Mandylor) who finds himself in a war with Jigsaw’s widow Jill Tuck (Russell). You may remember she ended Saw VI by trying to kill him. She enlists the help of Det. Gibson (Donella) who apparently knows and has a beef with Hoffman. Finally, there’s Bobby (Flanery of Boondock Saints fame). He’s a Jigsaw survivor who’s written a best-seller about his ordeal.

As you can see there are a lot of pieces to this jigsaw puzzle. Unfortunately, when they’re put together they still don’t make any sense. The biggest problem is we have two different movies going on at the same time. On one hand, we have the Hoffman/Jill fued. This tries to advance the plot from the better than expected part VI, but it hardly feels like a Saw flick. On the other hand, the story of Bobby, along with brief but gruesome asides involving a love triangle and a group of racists, seems to fit the franchise motif. Sadly, neither storyline seems to have anything to do with the other. Helping to fog things up even more, the movie itself appears to have no idea who’s doing what. Rhyme and reason are this chapter’s real casualties. They are left for dead as we rush along to see how the next person will die.

Many a horror flick has been guilty of that same exact sin. For various reasons, I’ve enjoyed lots of them. One of those reasons is the morbid sense of humor on display. The Final Chapter has no sense of humor whatsoever. Like the rest of the franchise, it takes itself dreadfully serious. Our dueling plots joylessly lurch forward dragging our butchered carcass through the murderous traps until we rach perhaps the most eye-rollingly bad climax of the series.

There are plenty of disgusting moments for gore-hounds. The human body is cut, impaled, squashed and ripped apart. More accurately, a number of painfully obvious dummies and rubber body parts are mutilated. This is a sad step down from the rest of the series which got the gore part right in even the worst of the series. Still, these scenes are what people come for and are easily the highlight of the film. The rest of it lacks both cohesion and a funny bone, making us feel like the ones in an inescapable trap. The makers have claimed this will be the last of the Saw movies. If this is the best they could muster for then I hope it truly is “game over.”

MY SCORE: 2/10

[dell71]

Silent Hill
Directed by Christophe Gans.
2006. Rated R, 125 minutes.
Cast:
Radha Mitchell
Laurie Holden
Sean Bean
Deborah Kara Unger
Kim Coates
Tanya Allen
Alice Krige
Jodelle Ferland

Little Sharon (Ferland) often has nightmares and sleepwalks. One night, she’s just about to jump off a cliff when mommy Rose (Mitchell) grabs her in a nick of time. All the while, she keeps screaming “Silent Hill!” over and over. Rose does a little research and finds out that Silent Hill is a town not too far from them right there in West Virginia. Forget about all that therapy crap. This mom is a bit more proactive. She quickly deduces that the only way to solve her daughter’s problems is by taking a drive to this place of which the little girl unconsciously howls at the moon. You see that? I wrote howl to suggest this is a werewolf movie when it’s not. My sleight of hand is spectacularly lame. I’m like a magician that says “Look over there” and then tries to peek at the card you picked. Let’s move on. With Sharon in tow, Rose gets in her SUV and heads for the apparently deserted town. On the way, she avoids a ticket by speeding away from a motorcycle cop, nearly runs over an ominous pedestrian, crashes and gets knocked out. When she comes to, she discovers she’s reached her destination, which is definitely the strangest place she’s ever been. More importantly, Sharon is missing. Rose and eventually Officer Bennett (Holden), the cop that chased her donw, running all over Silent Hill trying not to be killed by the town’s very weird creatures while looking for Sharon ensues. Based on a true…oh, wait…it’s based on a video game.

Like any movie based on a video game probably should be, Silent Hill relies heavily on its visuals. Once in this God forsaken place, we get scene after scene of amazing imagery. All sorts of creatures of the damned parade themselves across the screen. Those are just the ones that are moving. There are also a number of gross looking corpses lying or hanging around. Not to be deterred, our heroine’s press on through all the ghosts and goblins in their path facing death at every turn. Periodically, the screen goes completely black. Things get really hairy whenever we’re able to see again. As interesting as it is to look at, SH never really frightens us. The tension simply isn’t there. We’re fascinated by what we see, but not afraid of other. What we have is a movie that’s not scary, but grotesque enough for us to be unable to avert our eyes. This is its sleight of hand. Like mine, it is far too obvious. It screams “Look over there!” at the top of its lungs.

For a long stretch, the movie seems to meander along a general path without developing its tale. When it finally decides to saw the woman in half, so to speak, we can see through the box and see her feet tucked safely beneath her. In other words, instead of a revelation, we get an explanation. In what amounts to a cut scene from the game, one of the characters simply tells us everything we need to know. It feels like its source material was merely regurgitated rather than built upon. For fans of the franchise and of horror it’s an entertaining watch filled with visual treats. It’s in the argument for best movie ever made based on a video game. I know that’s not saying much, but it is what it is. That said, it still feels like not only could it be better, it should be.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

[j.hen]

Have you seen Solaris dell? with Clooney.

[dell71]

Have you seen Solaris dell? with Clooney.

Only part of it, and that was years ago.

[j.hen]

Only part of it, and that was years ago.

It's worth a look/review imo. Just saw it again this week.

[dell71]

It's worth a look/review imo. Just saw it again this week.

Mental note made.

[dell71]

Scream 4
Directed by Wes Craven.
2011. Rated R, 111 minutes.
Cast:
Neve Campbell
Courteney Cox
David Arquette
Emma Roberts
Hayden Panettiere
Britt Robertson
Marielle Jaffe
Marley Shelton
Rory Culkin
Mary McDonnell
Anna Paquin
Kristen Bell

After so many years and so many of her friends being butchered around her, Sidney Prescott (Campbell) returns to Woodsboro. It’s the last stop on her book tour promoting the best-seller she’s penned about overcoming her ordeals. For those of you not in the know, she’s the ultimate “last girl” having survived the first three movies despite being the target of various killers. This grand event coincides with the anniversary of the first set of murders that she lived through along with Dewey (Arquette) and Gail (Cox) who were also fortunate enough to survive the massacres. With no teenage friends of her own, attentions turn to Sid’s young cousin Jill (Roberts) and her pals. In true slasher fashion, they start getting hacked up one by one.

This set of killings mirrors that original set. This is a fact not lost on any of our potential victims and killers. Like all of the previous movies in the series everyone is fully aware they are living through a horror movie. True to the Scream formula, they even understand that not only are they in a sequel, but a franchise reboot. Between slayings there’s lots of talk about horror movies and their rules. There’s also a jab at the Saw franchise and a narcissistic nod to director Wes Craven’s own greatness as a number of the films in his catalog are lovingly referenced. From all of this, enough humor is derived to help keep things moving at a pretty rapid rate. I have two gripes with it, though. First, any dialogue not about horror movies is wooden, perfunctory at best. Second, its saturated with gripes about the current state of the genre. Horror flicks aren’t as good as they used to be, we get it. Move on.

The ace-in-the-hole of the Scream series is actually not the scares, but the suspense. I’m usually quick to point out that for slasher fare creative kills are a must to satisfy the sadism of its audience. This group of films refutes this idea. Throughout the first three movies, and now a fourth, the vast majority of murders depicted are very bloody, but not particularly memorable, other than the opening scenes. Part 4, and the franchise as a whole understands that the boogeyman is much more powerful when you don’t know who it is. Instinctively, we begin trying to solve the mystery. This locks us in. We’re trapped, unable to wane because we must know who it is that dons the mask of the ghostface killer (Wu-Tang fans, that was for you). We keep guessing even if we think we have it right. That’s because enough things happen to make us question our own judgement. Besides that, if you’re familiar with the franchise then you know we have two identities to guess. For the record, I was slightly off on one and completely wrong on the other. By the way, that one I was way off on is a wonderful twist with some logic behind that’s somehow simultaneously brilliant and stupid. That’s a compliment.

Before returning to Woodsboro himself, Wes Craven dropped the dreadful My Soul to Take on us. It was his first directorial effort in a few years. It now feels like he used that to get in a few practice swings before really coming back. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much with regards to the genre that made him famous. His latest might even be a little too self-aware, evidenced by no less than three opening scenes, one featuring Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell. However, he can still spin a tale that intrigues us and makes us laugh without either feeling forced. It doesn’t come near the magic of the original, which it even acknowledges. It doesn’t quite measure up to the excellent Scream 2, either. Still, it’s a huge step up from part 3 and is a very good slasher flick.

MY SCORE: 7/10

[Houston]

The last time I saw Scream I was about 8 and, I haven't seen 2 or 3. I wanna watch 4 though, just because of the cast.

Nice to see it didn't get a bad review.

[dell71]

The last time I saw Scream I was about 8 and, I haven't seen 2 or 3. I wanna watch 4 though, just because of the cast.

Nice to see it didn't get a bad review.

Fair warning, people seem torn on this one. Obviously, I fall on the positive side of the aisle.