Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[Senser81]

Duel
Directed by Steven Spielberg.
1971. Not Rated, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Dennis Weaver
Carey Loftin
Jacqueline Scott
Eddie Firestone
Lou Frizzell
Lucille Benson

Author Richard Matheson has been living with me lately. Of course I don’t mean this in the literal sense. After all, the man passed away earlier this year. However, his work has taken over my life the last few weeks. This has meant reading I Am Legend for the first time, then watching and re-watching the three official big screen adaptations of that work: The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man, and I Am Legend. That was followed by a return to the text and then picking up my pen to give you the comparative analysis I call 3 Movies, 1 Book: I Am Legend. Why? It sounded like fun at the time. Was it? Yes, up until the time came to create the post. We’ll not go down that path.

We will travel down the road to another Matheson story, “Duel.” This one has its own bit of historical significance. For one, it is the last short story Matheson wrote that makes use of his recurring single man against the odds theme. Second, and most important to the history of American cinema, it is the first movie directed by Steven Spielberg to make it to the big screen. It was first a massively successful made-for-TV movie. A short while after airing, additional footage was shot and it was released in theaters overseas (and also in limited release here in the states). This is the version I am reviewing here.

Like much of Matheson’s work Duel depicts one man trying to survive a dire situation. This time, that situation begins in a way extremely familiar to most of us. While driving on a two-lane highway, on his way to a business meeting, David Mann (Weaver) comes upon a gigantic, slow moving, black smoke spewing, gnarly old tanker truck. When the coast is clear, he zips past the truck and gets back in the proper lane, ahead of the truck. Evidently, this pisses off the truck driver because he returns the favor and then some by refusing to let David get by him. This game of cat-and-mouse escalates rather quickly into the the truck driver trying to kill our hero.

Coming into Duel I knew that it was based on a Matheson story, Spielberg’s first, and that it heavily influenced “so bad it’s awesome” hall-of-famer The Car. Given that last fact, I was prepared for lots of cheesiness and unintentional humor. What surprised me is how effective this movie still is after forty plus years. Things become tense rather quickly and remain that way throughout. As it rolls along, we’re constantly wondering how David is going to shake this guy. More accurately, we wonder if he can shake the truck at all. The scenes of our two vehicles speeding along the highway keep the questions fresh in our minds. It helps tremendously that Spielberg actually shot them racing along a real stretch of road with some interesting topography as opposed to doing it in a studio with moving screens as many movies of the day had done, especially TV movies. This includes shooting the truck in a manner that makes us think it is moving incredibly fast. In fact, all of the film’s best visuals are of the truck including an amazing final shot. Still, like he would employ in Jaws a few years later, it’s what the director doesn't show that rattles us most.

As tense as those chase scenes are, the most nerve-jangling moments happen when our hero is not in his vehicle. The first of these is the diner scene. David knows that one of the other patrons is his assailant, but not which one. Later, David is reluctantly trying to help a stranded school bus while worrying about that tanker. Lastly, there is the scene where he stops at a gas station and tries to call for help. All of these work perfectly as linking scenes between the car chases. They amp up the tension rather than giving us a break.

The years have actually been kind to Duel. It has aged pretty well. Though some of the dialogue, played as thoughts from David’s head, come across as a bit hokey, Dennis Weaver’s performance is still an excellent avenue for our fears (memories?) of such a predicament. As long as there are people who feel invincible behind the wheel of whatever they are driving, this type of experience will always be with us. Aside from the model of David’s car, and how resilient it is, the most dated thing is the lack of cell phones. Having them would change or eliminate some scenes and may weaken the overall product. Not having them adds to the sense of isolation felt by our protagonist. Given the medium it was made for, and its age, this is a surprisingly gripping piece of American horror rooted in our everyday lives, not supernatural entities.

MY SCORE: 8/10

Sometimes the actual event does not live up to the anticipation...this one does. Thanks.

[dell71]

The Wicker Man (1973)
Directed by Robin Hardy.
1973. Rated R, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Edward Woodward
Christopher Lee
Diane Cilento
Britt Ekland
Anthony Shaffer
Ingrid Pitt
Lindsay Kemp
Russell Waters
Aubrey Morris
Irene Sunters
Paul Giovanni

Policeman Sgt. Neil Howie (Woodward) heads out to Summer Isle after receiving an anonymous letter notifying him that a child has gone missing. When he gets there, the locals deny they ever knew this girl existed. However, as he uncovers more and more evidence, their tunes begin to change. In addition, the lifestyle of the natives is offensive to his spirituality. Though they claim to be a devoutly religious group, promiscuity and drunkenness seem to be the two most prevalent behaviors. Often, the locals engage in one and/or the other in public. Sgt. Howie just can’t reconcile this with his own faith. He soon comes to think everyone on the island is stark, raving mad.

The sarge is right. Everyone here is completely bonkers. In fact, the entire movie is nuts. I can honestly say this is one of the most unique viewing experiences I've ever had. For starters, it stops barely shy of being a full-blown musical. Every time I turn around someone breaks into song. These numbers are either plain awful, overtly sexual or both. It doesn't help that the singing leaves a lot to be desired. Then you have to remember this is supposed to be a horror flick. I've seen horror musicals that have worked.Those either skew toward being a comedy or at least are keenly aware of how ridiculous they are and use that to their advantage. The Wicker Man seems strangely oblivious and to take itself more seriously than it should.

Despite it’s odd approach, TWM still delivers an interesting tale. The mystery of the missing girl is a winding path that concludes with a devilish twist. It’s the kind of thing many movies try but can’t get quite right. The reason it works here is two-fold. First, it never tips its hand. When you work back through the movie in your mind, there really are no clues that you missed. However, and this brings us to the second
reason, we don’t feel cheated. In fact, it makes perfect sense given the situation and the people involved. We actually wonder why we didn't see it coming.

In the end, TWM is a goofy movie that succeeds almost in spite of itself. The silliness tests our patience. The rampant debauchery speaks to our basest needs and may either turn us on or off. Regardless, the story keeps dragging us along until we get to the “oh wow” ending.

MY SCORE: 8/10

[dell71]

The Wicker Man (2006)
Directed by Neil LaBute.
2006. Rated PG-13, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Nicolas Cage
Ellen Burstyn
Kate Beahan
Frances Conroy
Molly Parker
Leelee Sobieski
Diane Delano

Police officer Edward Malus (Cage) witnesses a mother and daughter get killed when an out of control eighteen-wheeler smashes into their vehicle during a traffic stop. While on leave following this traumatic event, he receives a letter from his former fiancée Willow (Beahan) letting him know that her daughter is missing somewhere on the Summersisle, where they live. It seems to be a largely self-sufficient and private farming community. Sensing that he may be Willow’s only hope to find her little girl, Edward travels to the island in hopes of saving the day. This is even harder than he imagines because when he gets there no on will admit to having even heard of her. They’re also a really tight-knit cult under the rule of Sister Summersisle (Burstyn). To say Malus is given the run-around is putting it lightly.

The plot’s skeleton is the same as the 1973 original. The flesh surrounding it is something else entirely. In lieu of the wacky approach to story-telling taken by its predecessor, this one favors more conventional methods. It settles into being rather run of the mill with no sense of wonder or fun. Many of the original’s outrageous elements are completely stripped away. The rest is put through a strainer until we’re left with the dried meat of a PG-13 thriller designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

The point of our story is also different. Whereas the original tests our notions of right and wrong, of religion itself, and seems to sling its ending at us from deep left field, the remake narrows its focus and telegraphs its conclusion. By narrowing the focus, I mean things are much more personal for our hero this time around. True, in the older flick his sensibilities are offended by the locals and he searches diligently for answers to his philosophical questions and the whereabouts of the girl. This time, however, he’s connected to the case in such a way that it is simply all about him. This ties into the finale because we can plainly see that all of the goings on are concentrated on his actions and we are occasionally shown women having conversations that spell out their ill will. What happens is that even though the ending plays out similarly in both movies they feel markedly different. As mentioned, the original tackles some rather large and possibly magnanimous themes. This one seems born of a misogyny fueled paranoia about man’s lessening stature in the world, the increasing power of women and the feeling of emasculation it gives to those suffering from its grips.

I’m not one to automatically disparage remakes, but this one really does pale in comparison to the original. That, however, is not its biggest problem. The most pressing issue is that as a standalone film it’s a rather hum-drum experience. It can be easily filed away as yet another picture in which Nicolas Cage is kind of quirky and a bit of a smart-alec. Nothing it does separates it from his rather large pack of terrible movies. You know what? I’m not even blaming him, nor anyone else involved in making this. I’m beyond that, for now. I’m blaming you John or Jane American. That’s right. You. Why? It’s simple. All of the unique qualities of the original were ripped from its predecessor because the powers that be think you can’t handle it and won’t fork over your hard earned bucks to see something that takes the less beaten path. Therefore, instead of something that embraces the oddity that is the first movie, we get this.

MY SCORE: 3/10

[dell71]

Kill List
Directed by Ben Wheatley.
2011. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Neil Maskell
Michael Smiley
MyAnna Buring
Emma Fryer
Ben Crompton
Struan Rodger

Jay (Maskell) hasn't worked in quite a while and doesn't really want to. Like most guys in that situation, he argues with his wife, Shel (Buring), a lot. Indeed, much of the first act consists of the two of them screaming at one another. Finally, at Shel’s urging, Jay decides to return to work with his best friend Gal (Smiley). It turns out they are hit-men. Gal is the laid-back type, but it is obvious that whatever happened in Kiev has shaken Jay to his core. He’s becoming more and more of a loose cannon likely to kill more than just the person they've been assigned to. Eventually, The Wicker Man breaks out.

That last sentence may seem a bit cryptic, but once you see it you’ll understand, provided you've seen The Wicker Man. Then again, the entire movie is cryptic. If I tried to clarify any of this gibberish I wouldn't be able to keep myself from getting into some serious spoilers. I will say it’s a curious experience with an ending that may baffle you.

Adding to the feeling of bewilderment we may get, the movie slowly morphs into what it wants to be. What starts as a drama about a disintegrating marriage becomes a movie about hit-men and eventually reveals itself to actually be a horror flick. Each of the three acts has the tone of whatever genre it is mimicking at the time. Be aware that when we get to the horror section, the movie isn't so much trying to scare us as it is trying to make us uncomfortable, and finally shock us.

All of this isn't to say Kill List is a bad movie. On the contrary it’s actually an intriguing watch because we desperately want to figure it out. It does a pretty good job drawing us in. We’re concerned for Jay’s deteriorating condition. We’re concerned for the safety of his wife and son as his erratic behavior has put them in jeopardy. We wonder what Gal’s girlfriend has to do with all this. However, the final scene is the fulcrum on which our final decision rests. If you get it, you’re likely to think it’s brilliant. If it just makes you say “huh,” it might totally piss you off.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dell71]

The Collection
Directed by Marcus Dunstan.
2012. Rated R, 82 minutes.
Cast:
Emma Fitzpatrick
Josh Stewart
Randall Archer
Christopher McDonald
Lee Tergesen
Shannon Kane
Andre Royo
Erin Way
Tim Griffin
Navi Rawat
Johanna Braddy

The very existence of The Collection is odd to me. It follows The Collector, a 2009 horror flick that I don’t think was seen enough to justify a sequel. It made less than $8 million at the box office. Granted, it’s budget was some number less, so it made money, but still. Nor was it acclaimed enough for me to understand pushing forward with a second chapter. I guess it helps that some of the people behind the first movie, as well as this one, helped make the ever-popular Saw movies. This all adds up to a shinier, glossier installment, presumably thanks to an expansion of that budget. Full disclosure before we go on: I do not like the original. I find it ridiculous in a bad way as opposed to being so bad it’s awesome. Coming into this one I didn't exactly have my hopes up.

We open on a car crash, beautifully framed from the vehicle’s interior as a dad tells his little girl how much he loves her. Cue opening credits and a bunch of news sound bites filling us in on what our collector has been up to. Mind you, none of this seems to have anything to do with the first movie, or this one. for that matter. Aside from the mere presence of our resident psycho, and one other guy, this is as close as you’ll get to any sort of back-story. No, the other kids didn't damn near kill him in a vicious game of hide-and-seek back in the day, or he didn't get abducted by a rock band and come back a cannibal, the townsfolk didn't kill his dad for taking hearts out of live patients. We get nothing. He’s just some jackass in black mask collecting human body parts. I think. Or lethal bugs. Maybe. Or both. What exactly is in the collection is only referenced in the most vague ways. There are human remains scattered all over his boobie-trapped dwelling, but nothing so organized as to definitively mark it a collection, except the bugs. Let’s move on.

Let’s talk some more about boobie-traps. Like the first movie, this one is built on them. The bad guy has turned an abandoned building into a house of horrors with so much elaborate nastiness I’m inclined to believe he spends far more time designing and building them than collecting anything. There are so many it’s hard to understand how he hasn't accidentally killed himself, or at least lost a digit or two.

Our killer’s most fantastic work is reserved for a public place, of sorts. It’s at an underground nightclub that seems no different than any other except you need to know the secret password to get in. The whole place is rigged with all sorts of sharp objects coming out of the walls. Most impressive is the spinning multi-bladed thing that drops from the ceiling and chops people up something good. This scene is our re-introduction to the character and provides a solid ten minutes or so of pure carnage. It’s truly spectacular. Still, I couldn't help but wonder how at least a dozen people didn't know he was setting all this up. If nothing else it looks like he needed a lot of help to do this stuff.

The end of the club scene gives us our final girl, Elena (Fitzpatrick), and what little plot there is. It’s no spoiler that she’s the it girl since all but one of the few hundred other people in the club die horribly. That one person is Arkin (Stewart). He’s that other guy from the original. He was actually taken to the club in a trunk by the collector and escapes during the mayhem. As expected, Elena turns out to be the little girl from the car crash at the beginning. Her rich dad also survived the auto accident and has hired a team of mercenaries to find his daughter after the massacre at the club. They enlist the help of Arkin, who finds his way back to The Collector’s house in the most contrived manner possible, since he made the trip while stuffed in a trunk. How dad or his goons ever had a clue Elena was at the club in the first place, is still alive, or even know who Arkin is, let alone immediately deducing that he is alive and can help them, is all beyond me. But hey, it’s just a movie, right?

At some point during all this, Arkin tells the crew “he (The Collector) always leaves one alive.” Now, I’m thinking ‘how many mass murders has this guy committed and not been caught?’ Seriously, one guy is repeatedly killing dozens of people at a time, in public venues, it’s all over national news and no one can figure it out? Sigh. I did say this is just a movie, right? The mercs trying to rescue Elena while she tries to escape ensues.

There is no other reason to see this other than the gore on display, which is often quite amazing, to be frank. Members of the search party get offed one by one while various folks The Collector left alive around the building, have more heinous things done to them. So many people are still breathing inside this place it’s like a small town. Again, how many times has he done this? Nevermind. There I go thinking again. Just give it a look if you’re a gore-hound. Skip it if you’re not.

MY SCORE: 4.5/10

[dell71]

The Possession
Directed by Ole Bornedal.
2012. Rated PG-13, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Jeffrey Dean Morgan
Kyra Sedgwick
Natasha Calis
Madison Davenport
Matisyahu
Grant Show
Rob LaBelle
Nana Gbewonyo
Anna Hagan
Brenda Crichlow

Clyde (Morgan) is divorced and gets his two daughters Hannah (Davenport) and Em (Calis) on weekends. While out and about with the young ladies, he stops at a yard sale. While there, Em takes a liking to an old box that dad happily buys for her. She quickly becomes obsessed with this and eventually possessed by the evil spirit that lives within it. Moths, lots of moths ensue.

It’s all fairly typical of the other umpteen thousand rip-offs of The Exorcist. Rarely, if ever, does it deviate from the playbook. Instead, we barrel along while the movie performs the same old song and dance we know so well. The only real question is whether or not Em is going to spew pea soup all over someone and/or rotate her head 360 degrees. Neither of these happen. All kidding aside, our hope for this movie rests on its visuals. Throughout the movie they’re fairly ho-hum with nothing to provide a jolt. There are two exceptions. Both have to do with a hand coming out of Em’s throat. Yup, I said coming out of. Otherwise, it’s all conventional horror stuff. The only thing that might even remotely qualify as original are those two shots I’ve alluded to. One other minor twist is that our demon is apparently of the Jewish faith. Therefore our exorcism is performed by a rabbi. However, changing our clergyman’s costume to include a yamika instead of a collar is of little consequence.

Despite all I’ve said, The Possession isn’t actually terrible. Yes, it’s totally paint-by-numbers. However, it hits its marks fairly well. Those easily susceptible to frights will have cause to jump a couple times. The performances of Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Natasha Calis (as Em) are both pretty good. Madison Davenport isn’t bad as the older daughter, either. Honestly though, I’m only mentioning her so that I can tell you that she looks like Lindsay Lohan during the years between The Parent Trap and Mean Girls. All in all, it’s probably a better movie for people who don’t watch much horror. Those of us that do have seen it all before.

MY SCORE: 5/10

[dell71]

Dark Skies
Directed by Scott Stewart.
2013. Rated PG-13, 97 minutes.
Cast:
Keri Russell
Josh Hamilton
Dakota Goyo
Kadan Rockett
J.K. Simmons
L.J. Benet
Myndy Crist
Rich Hutchman
Josh Stamberg

The Barrett family is like many others that dot the landscape of Suburban America in the second decade of the twenty-first century. Once prosperous, Daniel (Hamilton) and Lacy (Russell) are now having financial issues which is causing stress in other areas of life. This includes their relationship with their two boys Jesse (Goyo) and Sam (Rockett). What they don’t realize is they’re about to encounter their biggest problem. A string of strange events occur in their home. They are obviously staged by an outsider, but no evidence is left to let anyone know who the culprit might be. In fact, local police think it’s the couple’s own children behaving mischievously. A little harder to explain is why hundreds of birds come flying into their house all at once. Early in the proceedings, we figure out the family is receiving nightly visits from aliens. It takes the Barretts a little longer to catch on.

Even though we know we’re dealing with visitors from outer space, Dark Skies functions much like a haunted house flick. This serves to amplify any uneasy feelings we might have. We know that these beings have sinister motives. We just don’t know what they are. At keeping us interested, the movie is fairly successful. We see the aliens progressively upping the ante and await the inevitable action-packed fate. Our two leads also help in this regard, especially Keri Russell. We can plainly see her edges fraying because she is believable through all of it. Also helping is the great J.K. Simmons. In every movie such as this, the terrorized family has to seek out a so-called expert on their particular phenomenon. Simmons plays that guy. Here, he’s a bit more subdued than normal. This is fitting because he’s a weary, beaten man. In a review of one of Simmons’ movies (I forget which), Roger Ebert says, and I’m paraphrasing, that when you see Simmons in a supporting role you often wind up wishing the whole movie were about him. It’s true here, as well.

Conversely, Dark Skies struggles mightily in other areas. By other areas, I mean almost anything not directly depicting the aliens’ handiwork. It’s all a mess. Things are introduced and dropped or, worse, proven to be preposterous. The most noticeable thing being the family’s supposed money problems. Such a big deal is made of them, as if the movie is going to somehow angle all of this as a metaphor for the economic state of the nation. Any idealistic notions such as that go out the window when it becomes apparent they’re spending all sorts of money that they shouldn't have merely because the plot requires them to have certain things in order to move forward. We, the audience, would be better off never having heard anything about their financial situation. Another is what the authorities are attempting to do because it looks to everyone like Daniel and Lacy are abusing their kids. It’s built up then practically aborted except for some lip service later on. It just never feels like a real threat. In short, the script could use some tightening up.

What winds up happening is this becomes a less than filling movie experience. The alien stuff works fine, clearly the best part of the film, but isn't breaking any new ground. The human aspects fall short. Early on, this doesn't appear to be an issue as we’re gaining empathy for these people. As things progress, they fall apart. This leaves the more successful parts of the movie to try to carry the weight of both halves. This, it cannot do.

MY SCORE: 5/10

[dell71]

Beautiful Creatures
Directed by Richard LaGravanese.
2013. Rated PG-13, 124 minutes.
Cast:
Alice Englert
Alden Ehrenreich
Jeremy Irons
Viola Davis
Emma Thompson
Emmy Rossum
Thomas Mann
Margo Martindale
Zoey Deutch
Tiffany Boone
Kyle Gallner

With vampire, werewolves, and zombies already taken care of in the inter-mortality relationship category, Beautiful Creatures takes on witches. The movie calls them “casters.” Our caster’s name is Lena (Englert). She’s just moved back to Gatlin, South Carolina, and in with her Uncle Macon (Irons). She’s a rather sullen sort, and a couple months shy of her all-important sixteenth birthday. Despite her best efforts to ward off everyone, Ethan (Ehrenreich) falls for her immediately after laying eyes on her. He manages to break down her defenses, but learns she’s got an awful lot on her mind. You see, on that birthday she has coming, she will discover her true nature and whether she’ll be claimed by the light or the dark. In other words, she’ll find out if she will be a good or wicked witch. Complicating things further, falling in love with a mere mortal is know to be an express ticket to the dark side.

As things roll along, we realize this is a good looking movie that desperately wants to say something, but has no idea what that actually is, let alone how to say it. Early on, it appears to argue for science over faith. Gradually, it floats over to the other position rather unconvincingly. It also wants to establish our two lovebirds as intellectuals, but fails that attempt, too. Both are avid readers. Ethan latches on to any novel he can get his hands on with a particular fondness for the work of Kurt Vonnegut. Lena read poetry, especially that of Charles Bukowski. Unfortunately, what they’re gleaming from these texts is unclear. They appear to be reading only as a means to avoid social interaction rather than an intrinsic passion for the written word. It comes off more as a marker of their being different than their classmates and a way for the filmmakers to pretend this film is somehow more intelligent than its contemporaries.

Other things in the narrative are brought up and unceremoniously dropped. Most noticeably, the conflict between our love birds and the popular kids in school never amounts to anything. Perhaps not so coincidentally, this is a major factor in the movie’s debate on religion. That whole thing, which was potentially more interesting than anything else going on, is similarly abandoned. It makes both things feel like they are there merely to pad out the run time.

Continuing the film’s overall messiness are a bunch of performances that are all over the map. As Lena Englert is okay, but unremarkable. Her leading man, Ehrenreich, is all “golly gee,” and very reminiscent of Lucas Black in Friday Night Lights. He is also more annoying than endearing. Unsurprisingly, the more experienced members of the cast fare better, for the most part. Viola Davis is her usually excellent self, bringing much needed depth and gravity to her walking stereotype of a character (the older black woman with supernatural abilities). The problem is she plays is so dead serious it seems she isn't fully aware what type of movie she’s in. On the other hand, Emma Thompson and Emmy Rossum are perfect, hamming it up as our cackling wicked witches. The one real disappointment is the normally great Jeremy Irons. He seems to be worrying more about whether the studio’s check will clear than the fate of his character’s niece. This is most evident in the way his southern accent comes and goes.

This truly is a post-Twilight world. Movie monsters are being wussified and carrying on full-blown relationships with humans at an unprecedented rate. The Twilight movies themselves are not good, according to most adults, myself included. The films they inspire are generally of equal or lesser quality. Occasionally we get a gem like Warm Bodies, but more often than not, we get something like Beautiful Creatures. It is ambitious, pretty to look at, but overly derivative and utterly contrived. Most of its inspirations are easily visible on the screen. Even less discerning viewers will likely notice where it takes from The Wizard of Oz, Star Wars, Harry Potter, and of course, Twilight. However, it does little more than throw those things out there. Transparently stealing from cinema’s past can work well provided the thief is also a skilled chef mixing the existing ingredients with those of his own creation. Quentin Tarantino has made a whole career of this. Here, all those elements are re-purposed enough to form the type of trite narrative the tween and teen girl viewers into this sort of thing might enjoy, but it fails to differentiate itself from most of the other faux-goth romances out there.

MY SCORE: 4/10

[dell71]

Lovely Molly
Directed by Eduardo Sánchez.
2012. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Gretchen Lodge
Johnny Lewis
Alexandra Holden
Ken Arnold
Lauren Lakis
Field Blauvelt
Daniel Ross
Todd Ryan Jones
Alexis Savage

Molly (Lodge) is a newlywed. With her hubby Tim (Lewis), for reasons never quite clear, she’s moved into the house where she grew up, the house of her deceased parents. Pretty soon, things start going bump in the night. Apparently, something is walking around the house, calling her name, and generally driving her batshit insane. It doesn’t help that Tim is a truck driver often away on long trips for days at a time. While he’s away he sends the local clergy, Pastor Bobby (Blauvelt), over to check on her. Her sister Hannah (Holden) also keeps tabs on her. They’re all worried she’ll go back to using heroin. Molly insists she won’t, and that she’s not crazy, yet she keeps hearing and seeing things. Not surprisingly, she comes apart a little more each day.

This is actually an interesting watch that takes standard haunted house tropes and makes them work. The footsteps, ominous voices, and the like are employed to wonderful effect. Their juxtaposition with the performance of Gretchen Lodge in the lead role is what makes it go. Her mental health is disintegrating in front of our eyes. She really seems to be a woman no longer able to hold it all together. It’s very nice work in a genre not known for attracting the best and brightest stars. She makes all of those regular horror elements spring to life. We really feel that she is in danger. The spiraling story knocks us back on our heels a bit while she draws us into the story.

While watching, we wonder if any of this is “real,” or if Molly is just that far gone. Her actions grow in peculiarity and severity as we roll along. We also desperately want to know what is with her fixation on the mother and daughter who live nearby. Eventually, all hell breaks loose and answers start flying in from every direction. It’s a beautifully twisted final act that doesn’t shy away from depicting what is essentially a breakdown. We think.

Then we get to the final two scenes. Without giving anything away, I’ll just say it all turns into a giant WTF ending. Sure, it’s ambiguous, providing no easy answers so it should be right up my alley. Unfortunately, it’s more confusing than anything and introduces things not previously in the movie. This could work, but it’s a jarring blow to our fundamental understanding of what’s been happening. It’s somehow much more far fetched than anything else that has happened and almost totally undermines what is, up until then, an enjoyable horror experience.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[dell71]

Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned
Directed by Brian Thomson.
2008. Not Rated, 77 minutes.
Cast:
Gregg Aaron Greenberg
Joseph Riker
Zoe Hunter
Trina Analee
Monique Dupree
Kaitlyn Gutkes
Joe Testa
Sean Parker
Lloyd Kaufman

Chuck (Riker) is about to get married to Michelle (Analee), his high school sweetheart. Fittingly, his bestest buddy Sammy (Greenberg) decides to throw him a weekend long bachelor party. With the help of their creepy friend Gordon (Testa), they have the use of a house in The Hamptons for all the debauchery they can handle. When the strippers/hookers show up, all hell breaks loose. I mean that quite literally because it turns out these are ladies of the evening in more ways than one. Yup, they’re vampires.

Low budget gore fests can be fun. This one, not so much. Too many things are botched that money doesn't account for. Mainly, I’m referring to the horrible writing on display. This might seem a strange complaint from someone willingly sitting through what I've already called a low budget gore fest, but hear me out. Forgiving the clichéd plot, the movie fails to give us either a likable protagonist or a detestable antagonist. The one guy we might sort of like, Chuck, is such a wuss we want to smack him and tell him to grow a pair. The person we’re set up to root for, Sammy, is a jerk. I guess he’s supposed to be cool because he’s an arrogant jock type, but it isn't working. The whole crew, four guys in all, seems to be angling for Hangover vibe, but falls woefully short. Instead, they feel like aggressively homophobic frat boys spouting off a never ending string of bad jokes. I won’t go into who their adversary is even though it will be obvious within seconds of that person’s first appearance. This person isn't exactly instilling fear in those watching. This is made even worse by all the ridiculously bad acting on display. Strike that. It is far worse than that. To call it so is offensive to ridiculously bad actors. The result of neither the good guys nor the bad guys being the least bit compelling is an apathetic viewer.

I know what you’re thinking. No one goes into a movie called Bachelor Party in the Bungalow of the Damned looking for an eloquently written script and Oscar worthy performances. What about the girls and the gore? Fair enough. Now, I am of the mindset that there is something beautiful about most women. Such is the case, here. However, I will say these aren't the type of ladies most horn dogs who would pop such a movie into their DVD player will be looking for. That’s aside from the fact there isn't really any stripping going on. Nudity? Yes. Stripping? No. That said, kudos goes to Zoe Hunter who plays the redheaded vampire. Regardless of whether or not you think she’s being exploited, she gives the movie’s best performance by just going for broke. As for the gore, there really isn't that much of it and what’s there is a mixed bag, at best. It’s largely shots of the aftermath of whatever has just happened. If you've seen a few horror movies, this isn't likely to rate very high with you.

The movie obviously wants to be so bad it’s awesome, but its elements of terribleness don’t come together in a manner allowing it to cross that threshold. It’s most unforgivable sin is that it’s far too boring, especially early, for a movie with such a promising title. It never engages us so we’re not likely to remember any of these people ten minutes after it is over. The whole thing feels slapped together without any sort of imagination. Scratch that. There is one bit of imagination: the unexplained ability of the black vampire’s (Dupree) impressively sized and possibly surgically enhanced boobs. Well, it is sort of explained if you check the credits. Her character is listed as “Emerald – the demon boobie vampire.” At least there’s that. Sigh.

MY SCORE: 2/10

[dell71]

Hotel Transylvania
Directed by Genndy Tartakovsky.
2012. Rated PG, 91 minutes.
Cast:
Adam Sandler
Selena Gomez
Kevin James
Steve Buscemi
Fran Drescher
Molly Shannon
David Spade
Cee Lo Green
Adam Samberg

After the passing of his wife, Count Dracula (Sandler) is left all alone with his little girl Mavis (Gomez). To provide a safe haven for them and other monsters, he decides to build a hotel where only they can come while he and Mavis will never have to leave. Every year, all of their monster friends gather to celebrate Mavis’ birthday. This one is special because it is her 118th. Like normal 118 year olds, she wants to leave the castle and explore the world. She gets her wish, but thanks to a nifty setup by her dad, she finds out humans are every bit as rotten as he makes them out to be. When Dracula discovers a not-so-threatening human Jonathan (Samberg) on hotel grounds, he goes to great lengths to get rid of the unwanted visitor before Mavis and his guests find out.

Despite its use of just about every type of movie monster imaginable, Hotel Transylvania is really just a tale about an overprotective father and his daughter becoming an adult. It uses similar humor to what we’ve seen in other such movies, animated or not. It works, at times. It has more success with all the double-entendres it slips in. Most of these work fine as surface jokes for the kids, but also as slyly naughty bits for the parents in the audience.

The movie also works well when it is showcasing all of those monsters and making them as normal as possible. For instance, the werewolf (Buscemi) is a weary dad and husband with a boat-load of unruly kids; Frankenstein (James) is a big and strong but very insecure guy. His fragility epitomized by his literal coming apart at the seams. Our wicked witches provide hotel house cleaning. And on it goes. It puts characters we’ve known for a long time in a different light and has fun with it. Helping further, it effectively spoofs a number of traditional elements of monster lore. We get riffs on the seemingly endless number of secret corridors in movie castles and other such things.

Where parents and kids are likely to be most divergent in their opinions of this movie is when it shifts into manic musical mode. I’m sure the little ones will have a blast when Jonathan rocks out on the guitar, or raps, or when Dracula himself raps. For me, it came across as a reach for cool points with the youngsters that it didn’t need to make, not something organic to the story. It doesn’t help that during these scenes the characters are animated with the goofiest possible looks on their faces.

Musical numbers aside, for me at least, Hotel Transylvania is a fun flick. Even though it includes all the monsters, it never strives for kiddie horror. Still, it’s pretty slick with its inclusion of horror movie tropes. It even includes a moment or two that could almost be described as grisly (a pitchfork through a zombie’s head, for example). Our cast is also game. Adam Sandler does his best Bela Lugosi and even gets mocked for it. Steve Buscemi is perfect in his role, as are a number of others. If you’re looking for a Halloween appropriate movie for the children, this is a solid choice.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

[dell71]

Jack & Diane
Directed by Bradley Rust Gray.
2012. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Juno Temple
Riley Keough
Cara Seymour
Kylie Minogue
Neal Huff
Haviland Morris
Michael Chernus
Jen Ponton

Diane (Temple) finds herself in a part of town who’s unfamiliar with, having lost her cell phone and unable to stop her nose from bleeding. >Looking for a phone to use, she wanders into the store where Jack (Keough) works. The two ladies, yes Jack is a girl, have a love at first sight moment and wind up spending the rest of the day together. This also becomes all night as they, both underage, sneak into a nightclub. They do some talking, some drinking, and eventually, some kissing. Throughout, Diane isn't feeling too well. Her nose keeps bleeding and she vomits. In the morning, she returns home to grounded by Aunt Linda (Seymour). Since love must persist, she continues to see Jack and the girls fall hard for one another. There are two issues at hand, though. First, Diane appears to literally some sort of monster. Second, she’s supposed to be going away to school in a few weeks. Her tumultuous relationship with Jack ensues.

Though this is a romance, the element of horror runs throughout the movie. Every so often, there is a cutaway to what we can only assume is going on inside Diane’s body. It shows hair seemingly growing and moving through her innards. Between these shots, nosebleeds keep happening. However, our concentration is on the issues our troubled teens are having. This includes dealing with the baggage they each brought into the relationship. It is fairly interesting since the two lovebirds appear to be from opposite ends of the universe. Diane is confused about her future, her relationship with Aunt Linda, her twin sister, and which lines she can and cannot cross with Jack. On the other hand, Jack struggles mightily with authority figures, the recent death of her brother, how much she should commit to Diane, and at least in my opinion, personal hygiene.

The problem is that the horror meant to prop up the story actually undermines it. Initially, it’s set up as if sexual arousal brings about the physical change in Diane that gives us our monster, a la Cat People. Later, it appears Jack might suffer the same affliction. Then, it’s abandoned all together as the movie ends. This means that our monster is one hundred percent metaphor with not literal bearing on the plot. This can work. After all, it was done to great effect in Beasts of the Southern Wild. In that movie, the beasts were not only a constant part of the story, their plot line came to a head. Though open to interpretation, they clearly mean something. That doesn't happen here and what exactly this creature is supposed to symbolize is murky, at best. Is it supposed to represent the raging hormones of teenagers? The dangers of teenage love and/or sex? The dangers of lesbian love? All of these? None of these? The questions do more than nag. They leave a void in the narrative. What the movie is trying to say is far too ambiguous, even for me. In the immortal words of the great Roger Ebert (R.I.P.): “If you have to ask what something symbolized, it didn't.”

I am more than willing to say maybe I just don’t get it. Someone else may watch this and instantly form some tangible idea about the monster and how it informs Jack and Diane’s relationship. This is fine. Just understand that whether or not you can do this is key to your enjoyment of the movie. Our two leads are intriguing enough to fly the plane. They need the other aspects of the film to step up and land the thing. For me, that never happens.

MY SCORE: 5/10

[dell71]

Meant to post these last few horror flicks yesterday...yay computer problems...sigh...on with the show...

[dell71]

Piranha 3DD
Directed by John Gulager.
2012. Rated R,83 minutes.
Cast:
Danielle Panabaker
David Hasselhoff
Christopher Lloyd
Gary Busey
Matty Bush
David Koechner
Chris Zylka
Paul Scheer
Clu Gulager
Meagan Tandy

A couple years ago, the remake of the ‘70s cult classic Piranha swam into theaters. It knew exactly what type of movie it wanted to be and executed its plan perfectly. Piranha 3D wanted nothing more than to show drunken, naked female twenty-somethings, give us the goriest death scenes possible, crack a bunch of jokes almost as gross as the co-ed carnage on display and do it all at a blistering pace. It did exactly that from end to end. Every frame of it was so bad it’s awesome! The sequel, with no less titillating a title than Piranha 3DD, promised to be more of the same.

Somehow, the director of this mess got the idea he was making a real movie and not something with double D in the title. Of course, he fails miserably. First, he (and the writers, if there are any) tries to emphasize the incredibly flimsy plot. Final girl Maddy (Panabaker), don’t act like that’s a spoiler, is helping her sleazy uncle re-open a water park which will feature an “adult” section. Second, way too much time is spent with David Hasselhoff who plays himself. This is actually a nice bit of stunt casting, a gag that should've been afforded a few short scenes a la Bill Murray in Zombieland. Instead, it eats up a huge chunk of the movie for no apparent reason other than for Hoff to make fun of himself. Sounds awesome, doesn't work out that way. Third, the detestable things we love about the first movie are just plain detestable, here. This includes manner of death. When the fish finally take over the proceedings, the kills are a good deal less imaginative than in 3D. There are some good ones, but they’re weaker on the whole. Eventually, things turn to setting up another sequel (3DDD?) and they somehow get too ridiculous, even for this franchise.

Like its predecessor, 3DD is complete trash. However, the first movie was trash of an endlessly and enjoyably repugnant variety. It was like gorging yourself on a gigantic bag of your favorite mini candy bars. The sequel is more like eating directly out of a dumpster.

MY SCORE: 0/10

[dell71]

Frankenweenie
Directed by Directed by Tim Burton.
2012. Rated PG, 87 minutes.
Cast:
Charlie Tahan
Catherine O’Hara
Martin Short
Martin Landau
Atticus Shaffer
Winona Ryder
Robert Capron
James Hiroyuki Liao
Conchata Ferrell
Tom Kenny

Victor Frankenstein (Tahan) doesn't have many friends other than Sparky, his dog. Victor’s father notices this and urges his son to get our there with the other kids. Specifically, he gets the boy to participate in a baseball game. Not wanting to be left out, Sparky chases the ball into the street and is killed when hit by a car. Inspired by what he learned in science class, Victor successfully resurrects the dog. Initially, this is unbeknownst to anyone else. When word gets out, all the kids want to bring something back to life in hopes of winning the upcoming science fair. Of course, things don’t go as well for them as they did for Victor.

The journey director Tim Burton takes us on is one steeped in nostalgia, paying homage to horror’s glorious past every step of the way. While Victor himself is a rather typical looking Burton creation, the rest of the kids look like classic monster movie characters. One kid resembles Igor, another Frankenstein’s monster, and so on. The science teacher is a dead ringer for the legendary Vincent Price. There are many instances we’ll note as inspired by those old pictures and the entire thing is shown in a traditional black and white.

Simply incorporating elements from great movies is not enough to make this film any good. Fortunately, Burton tells us a wonderful story. It functions as a tale about a boy and his dog and as a horror flick. In true Burton fashion, the boy is a loner and a bit of an outcast. This is displayed by a brilliant inversion of the way the director usually presents things. In movies such as Edward Scissorhands, Batman, and as recently as Dark Shadows, the protagonist is not only clearly different from those around him, but to us, also. Whether it’s a physical deformity, ghastly colored skin, or just running around in a costume, we saw something strange about them. Here, the hero looks more like us than anyone else in the movie. The other characters are the more gothic creations. Since they are the majority, Victor still comes across as the oddball. However, like other leads in the Burton canon, he’s an oddball by nature, not some stubborn contrarianism. He also has a good heart. Misguided as it may have been, he brought Sparky back to life out of love for the dog. He tries to stop others from doing similar things because he knows there is great potential danger. Victor is easy to root for.

Like the best of Burton, several genres convene seamlessly. Dark comedy and horror blend into a deliciously macabre family flick. Whether we’re laughing, noticing something lifted from an eighty year old movie or staring slack-jawed at all the mayhem of the finale, it doesn’t detract from the overall experience. It’s something the director was unsuccessful doing in the aforementioned Dark Shadows. There, his switches in mode are jarring and leave us wondering what we are supposed to be watching. In Frankenweenie, it all goes down smoothly.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10