Review: Insidious (2011)

Insidious is scary-ass fun. Your goose-pimples will have goose-pimples. James Wan, the director of Saw, has crafted a new horror film with old-time sensibilities that will likely redefine ghost movies for a whole new generation. Wan, together with Saw partner Leigh Whannell and producer Oren (Paranormal Activity) Peli, have succeeded in making a chilling haunted house film - full of all the expected constructs, jumps and thrills - that is as scary as classics like Poltergeist (1982), The Haunting (1963) and The Amityville Horror (1979). With a smart script, tastefully atmospheric direction and a solid cast (including character actor favorite Lin Shaye), this movie will make you scream, jump out of your seat and gasp for air - all the while having a great time.

Leigh Whannell, who also wrote the first three Saw films and Dead Silence, has penned a story that uses every trick and cliche available to both support the expectation and pull the rug out from under the audience weaving it all around a solid set of characters. In the story, the Lambert family move into a new house where they begin to experience unexplainable noises and shadows. When the oldest son slips into a coma after hitting his head, the activity escalates and the family moves to a new home. However this does little to stop the hauntings and they are forced to bring in outside help. The story is focused on the Lambert family, particularly father Josh (Patrick Wilson), mother Renai (Rose Byrne) and son Dalton (Ty Simpkins), which goes a long way in keeping the film grounded, especially during the concluding scenes. Whannell makes their relationships real, flawed and believable. He also is able to throw every trick from the haunted house manual into the script without loosing focus, mainly due to a deliberate pacing and a controlled escalation of events.

Wan’s direction is full of atmosphere, an important ingredient is setting up a ghostly tale. The homes are full of shadows and dread. The film is rarely lit with bright colors or sunshine, even the daytime is imposing. When the lights do go out, forget it - you’re toast. When in the houses, Wan’s camera masterfully and purposely scans each room, each setting, keeping the audience keenly aware of the surroundings, always looking for a sign, a shadow or movement. This keeps the audience on edge; anything can happen and generally does. He also has a close rein on the tempo of Insidious as well. Everything is perfectly timed, the increasing scares, the lighter moments, the spacing between jumps. He knows how to set the audience up never providing more than a brief false sense of security. Just when he allows a chance to breathe, he ramps up the chills. Nowhere is safe, no one is safe. He makes the  most out of Whannell’s script, the creepy sound design, a terrific cast and subtle, yet highly effective, special effects. Contrary to Wan’s Saw film, Insidious does not have gore or hideous traps, the fear is high on suspense, mood and the unknown. It’s Wan’s best work to date.

Insidious is perfectly cast with everyone hitting the mark, but the stand out performance is Lin Shaye as the paranormal investigator, Elise Rainier. Shaye is talented character actor with a long and varied career. She’s that face you recognize: “Oh, it’s her.” With well over a 100 films behind her, this may become her most accomplished role. This works to the film’s advantage as she provides a sense of familiarity, as sense of trust to the explanations she is about to drop in the family’s lap. She energizes the film as well when she makes her entrance and the film was already electric by the time she does so. Her face is so expressive, she doesn’t have to say anything to convey the horrors that lie in the dark, just out of sight. She sees them and that is scary as hell. As Josh and Renai, the parents dealing with both the uncertainty of their son’s condition and the fears of an entity that haunts their home, Patrick Wilson (Watchmen) and Rose Byrne (Knowing, Damages) are instantly likable and believable as a couple, comfortable in their relationship complete with joys, fears and conflicts,  much like Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams were in Poltergeist in the early Eighties. Barbara (The Entity, Black Swan) Hershey is the Josh’s mother, Lorraine and she adds a great deal of weight to the film. She compliments Shaye’s Elise. Between the two of them, they are instantly convincing that the Lambert family is in dire straights. Leigh Whannell and Angus Sampson are Specs and Tucker, a pair of paranormal investigators that work with Elise. They provide both comedy relief and validation to the hauntings. They’re both marvelous in their roles. Even the child actors and supporting actors playing nurses and doctors and such are convincing; but in the end, the film belongs to Lin Shaye.

Being a haunted house picture, Insidious is dependent on the effectiveness of the ghosts. The phantasms are eerie, shocking and frightening. They’re everywhere and numerous. Except for one major exception, they are all similar in their appearance, different in many other ways, but recognizably human in origin: an old hag; a shadowed face; a tall, dark, imposing apparition; a murderous, insane woman; a creepy, dancing man-child. They all work and they are all scary. They keep the audience guessing and on edge. Then there’s the exception, the king of creepy, the man with the “face of fire.” More demonic than ghostly, there’s one force much more sinister than the rest, the one you don’t want to run into. While he boarders on the absurd with his outrageous design, he also succeeds due to the stark contrasts to the other horrific elements in the film - he stands out. His face is full of red color; and, when he appear, the shift from the washed out colors and gray to his intensely hued features is visually startling. In addition, his character is so different that the others that, while they are terrifying, it makes him absolutely bloodcurdling. Together, they all come at you like the ghosts and goblins that jump at you during a horror-themed amusement ride. When it comes to “boo,” Insidious has it.

A terrific, entertaining, scary thrill ride, Insidious is what every horror fan dreams of. It delivers on its promises and makes the hair stand on your arms and the back of your neck. And it uses what many other films fail to use properly, cliches. Yes, Insidious is full of cliches; but, here, they work. Here, they are used to the director’s advantage mostly because he either builds on them or exposes them, using them to misdirect the audience, to provide a false sense of familiarity. The ghosts are exactly where you expect them: under the bed, in the closet, in the mirror, behind the door, at the window. It’s when there where you don’t expect them, they do their most to get you. It’s all glorious set up. Wan and Whannell also handle their horror film like a comedian would a comedy, throwing scare after scare at you like the comic would jokes. They don’t all succeed on every person, but they are many and most do so tremendously well. You never know what is coming next. It’s unnerving. It will have you seeing things in the shadows for days. Expertly paced with chilling sound design and full of atmosphere, Insidious will make you scream…out loud.

41/2 out of 5

Review: Sucker Punch (2011)

 
When watching Zack Snyder’s Sucker Punch, about midway through, you’ll realize something is missing. There’s a vacuum, devoid of meaning and purpose. What is it? What can it be? It’s heart, emotion - Sucker Punch has no soul. Without that, there’s no connection to the characters, no investment in the plot, no payoff to the story. Snyder plays to his strengths, the visuals, the style, but forgets to add an appropriate amount of substance. It’s a shame - there’s brilliance in there somewhere, struggling to bubble to the surface. Buried in the excess is a magnificent concept of a fantasy in a fantasy in a fantasy with bold narrative choices and a clever visual style, but it is all squandered by losing focus on the characters themselves. It’s all flash, fancy and fury and no depth.

Set in the 50’s, Sucker Punch quickly follows a young woman named Baby Doll (Emily Browning) who is sent to a mental hospital by her sleazy step-father after the death of her mother and the accidental shooting of her younger sister. Locked inside the Lennox House, Baby Doll must find a way to escape before she is lobotomized in five days. She teams up with four other inmates, Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens) and Amber (Jamie Chung), to gather four items needed to execute their escape. Baby Doll learns of these four items when she falls into a fantasy world as she dances for Dr. Gorski (Carla Gugino) - itself, a fantasy world set up to escape the horrors of living in the institution. However, the evil orderly, Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac), discovers their plot and confronts them exposing and jeopardizing their escape.

Sucker Punch is visually stunning with exciting vignettes set in Feudal Japan, a steam-punk version World War I, a blend of World War II and Lord of the Rings and a futuristic, sci-fi mission impossible on a train. This is where the magic happens, in the hyper-stylised, anime-influenced action sequences set to trippie rock classic remakes on the soundtrack where the girls are little more than costumed superheroes. Baby Doll fights a trio of giant Samurais or the girls battle an army of zombified steam-punk German soldiers or a vicious pissed-off mother dragon. The scenes are spectacular and stunning. They’re visual eye-candy of the highest order. They’re meant to be heightened reflections of the tasks at hand, mirroring the capture of each item in Baby Doll’s fantasy world within her fantasy world. Unfortunately, they mean very little to the story and, despite their visual appeal, the scenes detract from the impact of the story itself.

Oddly, the fantasy sequences occur as Baby Doll dances - and are shown instead of the dance itself. We’re told Baby Doll’s dancing is mesmerizing, beautiful, hypnotic. No one can look away - except Zack Snyder it seems. The director never shows Baby Doll dancing and the audience never witnesses the dance - instead we get the fantasy sequences. This a crucial mistake. While it may have been intended that the spectacular set pieces would represent her seductive performances, they complete remove the audience from the effect. Instead that draw, the fascination, is never effectively established and the scenes are left hollow and incomplete. It just happens. It’s as if right when Baby Doll gets ready to perform her spectacular dance number Dug from Disney’s Up jumps onto screen announcing “squirrel” and then we follow that damn squirrel on it’s adventure instead. It’s a wondrous and fascinating misstep of glorious proportions.

In the past ten years, Zack Snyder has proven he has a keen visual eye for producing stunning and satisfying cinematographic mini-masterpieces. He first wowed with the opening scenes in the remake of Dawn of the Dead with Ana’s harrowing escape from the zombies invading her suburban life. Then he transformed action scenes for all action movies with his adaptation of Frank Miller’s 300 with his jerky-mixed-speed motion fight sequences. He followed that up with filming the unfilmable graphic novel Watchmen giving the whole world a sample of Alan Moore’s genius. With each film, he matured as a filmmaker. Somehow that maturity didn’t translate to Sucker Punch. The style and the pizazz did, but not the attention to detail, plot and character. There’s no tie to Baby Doll, there’ no emotional bond or investment to her character or her plight. Worse, in the end, her entire story is rendered pointless. With no cause to care for the characters, the action scenes lose their sizzle - they lose their punch! Sucker Punch is a dazzling epic disaster.

2.5 out of 5

Review: Drive Angry 3D (2011)

All hell breaks loose when John Milton (Nicolas Cage) escapes his supernatural prison to chase down the Satanic cult that murdered his daughter and kidnapped his granddaughter. With only a young southern firecracker named Piper (Amber Heard) at this side, Milton must fight his way through a variety of obstacles to get to the man responsible: Piper’s cheating boyfriend, the cultist killers and a corrupted police force. The man Milton is after is Jonah King (Billy Burke) who has devilish plans for Milton’s granddaughter. To complicate matters, Milton must also continually avoid The Accountant (William Fichtner) whose mission is to recapture Milton and return him to his prison cell.

Writer-director Patrick Lussier has crafted a love letter to car chase movies from the Seventies, to 3D movies, and to b-movies in general, constructing a heaping serving of movie madness that would make Roger Corman grin from ear to ear. Drive Angry 3D is as over-the-top in its fast paced, high-octane action as Pirahna 3D (2010) was in its outrageous sensibilities last year. Ever character, every set piece and every line of dialog is taken to the extreme, full of hyper-realized stereotypes that are elevated to art. When there’s an abusive, cheating boyfriend or a hot but weathered waitress ready to jump in the sack with the lead character or curmudgeon, old police officer well past retirement age, take that cliche and crank it up to eleven and that’s what is found in this exercise in excess. The language is raunchy, the nudity is prevalent, the gore is plentiful and plot is simple and too the point. Drive Angry 3D is B-movie gold. On top of that, Lussier, who directed My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009), knows the 3D angle and displays it with childlike glee.

Drive Angry 3D is far from a perfect film but it wears its flaws as proudly as its strengths. One such flaw is the film’s star, Nicolas Cage. In many ways, it’s difficult to see anyone else play John Milton; the role feels like it was written for just the type of exaggerated actor Cage has become. There are times when his performance fires on all cylinders, full of swagger and attitude; but, there other times that it feels tired and lifeless. The role requires an actor that fully embraces and embodies the larger than life persona, much like Kurt Russell’s Snake Plissken. John Milton is a cross between Jim Kowalski and John McClane. Cage comes very close to reaching that with Milton and this is one of his better performances in the past few years, but it still falls just a bit shy. Too old, maybe. Too restrained, maybe. Still, even so, when imagining someone else in the role, it’s difficult to do so with Nicolas Cage remaining a good fit.

Along with Cage, Drive Angry 3D has an excellent cast of supporting characters: Amber Heard, William Fichtner and Billy Burke. Amber Heard is insanely hot in this film with her foul mouth, sizzling good looks, affection for daisy dukes and a great right hook. She has all the best lines and nails their delivery - she’s a natural action star. The dialog is a cheesy as it comes and she just owns it. When her life is threatened and there’s no way to get out, she still gets up the villain’s grill and shouts “between now and then, I’m gonna [mess] you up!” Brilliant! Arnold, Sylvester and Bruce could not have delivered it better and have never - never, ever - looked as good. Billy Burke is Jonah King and he is slimy, corrupt and ruthless in the role. He’s confident and cocky and he rises above the confines of the cliched character. However, it’s William Fichtner as The Accountant that steals the show. His performance embodies the sense of humor found in the entire show. He’s sarcastic, charismatic and delightful. Then dropped right into the middle of this hot mess is Tom Atkins, a favorite cult character actor from films like The Fog (1980), Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) and Night of the Creeps (1986). Atkins, looking very spry for his age, chews on the scenery like a modern day Vincent Price.

The advertising campaign made a big point in communicating that Drive Angry 3D was filmed in 3D and well they should. No post-converted mess is this - this is 3D with purpose. Surprisingly (or perhaps professionally), Lussier rarely goes for the “coming at you” type gags that might be expected. They are there, for sure: guns pointing out of the screen, bullets and debris flying past your head, body parts striking dangerously close to your noggin’. But there’s also a great sense of depth and location enveloping the screen, drawing the viewer in. In one scene, Cage reaches into the twisted metal of an overturned car giving a full range of foreground, middle ground and background: wreckage in the front, fire raging in the back with Cage slinking through the middle toward his trapped prey. In another scene, the audience can see Cage at the steering wheel with a Johas King flashback unfolding in front of him, dangling just over the heads of the audience in the first few rows. The 3D is rich, exciting and expertly done, enriching and balancing the characters, dialog and story.

Drive Angry 3D is the perfect film for b-movie fans. Patrick Lussier fills the film with a distinct personality and flavor, similar to that found in his other 3D film, My Bloody Valentine. It’s that presence of b-movie passion onscreen that truly characterizes Drive Angry 3D. It results in a fun time at the theater. Lussier is one great script away from defining 3D horror and creating a masterpiece of modern b-movie cinema. He’s certainly not afraid to make the film he wants to, not to be confined to PG-13 doldrums. He lives in the chances he takes - the more outrageous the idea, the better; the more brazen the dialog, the more appropriate it becomes. With Drive Angry 3D, Lussier takes campy, cult chase classics like Vanishing Point (1971), Dirty Mary Crazy Larry (1974) and Race with the Devil (1975) and modernizes it with a hint of Supernatural and creates an exciting, indulgent, glorious, action-packed thrill-ride.

4 out of 5 (b-movie fans)
2 out of 5 (serious movie fans)

Review: Rubber (2011)

SYNOPSIS:
Rising from a sandy grave, lost in the desert, an inanimate tire comes to life and learns to roll on his own. Making his way toward a nearby, sparsely populated town, the tire gains telepathic powers enabling him to blow up anything, or anyone, that stands in his path. Soon he falls for a mysterious brunette in a passing car and must face the town’s sheriff. Alone and desperate, he searches for companionship and the means to quench his lust for destruction.

REVIEW:
Of all the films shown at the 13th annual Nevermore Film Festival in Durham, NC in February, Rubber is the most irreverent and controversial. Horror movies in the past have never shied away from bringing inanimate objects to life, setting them on a murder spree: cars (Duel, The Car, Christine), toys (Trilogy of Terror, Child’s Play) or even tomatoes (Attack of the Killer Tomatoes). But in Rubber, writer-director Quentin Dupieux takes it to the extreme and animates a common rubber car tire: a brilliant concept that occasionally shuffles about too long but still promises ample amounts of pathos and humor. He also provides the tire with a surprising amount of personality as it rolls across the desert scenery. The tire, given the name Robert in the credits, slowly learns how to roll without falling over: he gains a passion in destroying things, falls for a sexy young lady, takes revenge on a trucker the drives him off the road and even tries to learn to swim.

Rubber benefits from having an outrageously original opening that immediately sets the tone for the movie and shatters the fourth wall. When Lieutenant Chad steps out of his patrol car to address a gathering of movies goers and proceeds to give an inspired monologue about the events in movies happening for “no reason,” the result is at once baffling and hilarious setting up for the introduction of the Robert the tire and his antagonistic adventures. Suddenly, the idea of a tire “waking up” and strolling merrily down the road on its own is perfectly reasonable and the audience is primed to witness whatever the writer-director dreams up. Dupieux masterfully weaves together the narrative, the forces driving the narrative, the onscreen audience thrust into the narrative and the audience watching Rubber safely in their theater seats. When it works, Rubber is a real treat to witness...and be a part of. It’s funny, amazing, crazy, simple and complex all at once.

Somehow, however, Dupieux also manages to become trapped in the world he is trying to deconstruct and ends up bound back behind the fourth wall he works so hard to knock down in the opening sequence. Strangely, after succeeding in establishing that anything can happen for “no reason,” he rarely builds on that concept other than to allow Robert to come to life and gain special powers. The door that allows “anything can happen” is open and nothing else manages to creep through. There are a number of interesting, captivating nuggets of whimsy and genius that make to the screen but nothing really captures the pure imagination that launches the film. This makes the second act a bit longer and repetitive than expected. After the first 3 or 4 exploding animals or heads, the sense of wonder has faded and the lack of a real story begin to be exposed. Occasionally, another flash of awe will zip across the screen - usually featuring Wings Hauser - and the film restores what made it so fascinating early on, especially the event (not to spoil) that transitions the film to its final act where Robert, done with the small town life, casts aside his obsessions, finds others like him and heads west to discover larger dreams. With that, the film ends on a high note.

Largely consisting of unknown, but at times recognizable, character actors, Rubber contains some equally inspired performances. Stephen Spinella, as Lieutenant Chad, leads the cast and provides the all-important speech with passion and conviction. His role, his presence, is the heartbeat of the story; he may not always be on screen, but his character’s impact is always felt. Equally important and equally impressive is Jack Plotnick as the accountant. His character, sometimes more so than Lieutenant Chad, is the strand of reason that binds the imaginary fourth wall back to the onscreen world. Roxanne Mesquida plays Sheila, the mysterious brunette to whom Robert is drawn so passionately. While, at first, she’s mostly there to “be pretty” and to attract the rubber rim of death, she is alter given a scene where she provides the voice to a dummy set to lure Robert out into the open; here she displays a delightful sense of comedic timing helped immensely by sounding off co-star Stephen Spinella. Then there’s Wing Hauser, who manages to upstage all the rest (except maybe Robert) and steal the show. He’s wonderfully funny, in control and four steps ahead of everyone: at least until he mistakenly comes face to face with Robert. The success of the film hinges on how successfully these actors brings the concepts and nonsensical dialog to the screen and everyone delivers. Bravo.

Rubber examines the mechanics of movie making, movie watching and the reasoning behind each. Not really a horror film at all, it is a parody of not only horror films but all films choosing a killer animated tire as its draw. Laugh out loud funny at times, the movie takes unexpected turns shocking, surprising and delighting the audience. Great performances keep the pace from coming to a stand still during the second act. The film never really manages to top the brilliance of its opening act, but still holds together long enough for a satisfying conclusion. It’s a great time at the movies, poking fun at movies and examining movies all at once. Silly, stupid, funny and inspired - just go see it.

8 out of 10

Unaware (2011)

Synopsis:
A young couple, Joe and Lisa, travel to Texas to visit Joe’s grandfather Roy; however, when they arrive unannounced, they find Roy is not home and will not be returning for a few days. Instead of leaving to stay elsewhere, Joe has other plans convincing Lisa to stay at the home for the weekend. When the visit should take a romantic turn, Joe, allowing his curiosity to get the best of him, begins to investigate the mysterious shed his grandfather keeps shrouded in secrecy. As Joe continues to unravel the secrets hidden in the shed, he draws Lisa into the adventure as well. Things take a shocking turn when they uncover Roy’s astonishing military past and discover the horrors hidden in the crates Roy keeps locked away. Once they uncover the truth, there is no escaping it.

Review:
With the success of Paranormal Activity and other recent Cinema Verite (Found Footage) films (Cloverfield, Quarantine and Last Exorcism - not to forget Blair Witch Project from over a decade ago), independent film makers have discovered a accessible horror sub-genre to tackle in executing their low budgeted features with a number of such films searching or preparing for release. For one such film, producer Sean Bardin was on hand at the Nevermore Film Festival in Durham, NC on February 18, 2011 for the premiere of their sci-fi twist on the sub-genre, UNAWARE. With a packed theater, the film revealed itself to be cut from the same cloth as Orin Peli’s wildly successful debut film keeping the plot of UNAWARE focused on a single couple and the location restricted to a single dwelling. The film parallels its inspiration from beginning to end perhaps even succeeding in trumping the thrills and chills toward the end; however, getting to the end is not as cohesive. When the time comes, the theater is full of screams and faces hidden behind trembling hands with the unintentional laughter (which could destroy a film like this) kept to the very minimum.

The lead actors playing Joe and Lisa, whose identities have have been kept secret, do an admirable job in keeping their portrayals honest, engaging and identifiable. They are a believable couple and that keeps the film together for the beginning of the film. Only once, when arguing over returning to the mysterious shed, do they fail to maintain the authenticity behind their their characters the film requires. The obstacles the actors encounter are more due to the drool dialog and the questionable motivations they must relate from time to time. Joe is obsessed with breaking into the shed but his obsession is never clearly depicted. For those in audience who share Joe’s unquenchable desire to rifle through all of his grandfather’s hidden stash, the journey will be more enjoyable than those who begin tear away at his actions. Joe and Lisa also bear a considerable resemblance to Micah and Katie from Paranormal Activity with Joe being more likable than Micah while Katie is more bearable than the less developed Lisa. However, the characters and the filmmakers successfully make the grandfather, Roy (a character only referred to and never revealed onscreen), a reasonably intriguing part of the story. It’s his fascinating back-story and legacy that permeates the progression of Joe and Lisa’s journey and threads the story together.

UNAWARE has minimal special effects which are remarkably effective in portraying the entities Joe and Lisa encounter, especially given the low budget the film is rumored to have. They are also enhanced by well placed lighting, camera angles and audio. When Lisa begins to scream, the intensity level shoots to eleven. It is still amazing what emotions a loud scream and a moving shaky cam can produce and UNAWARE capitalizes on that wonderfully. There are a number of times that the combination of effects, lighting and sound are widely successful at eliciting screams and terror. The filmmakers are blessed with a remote location (Roy’s house, shed and nearby farmland) this is slightly foreign yet still familiar enough to enable the unknown (the shed and its contents) to creep slowing into the known (the house and surrounding yard).

Unfortunately, UNAWARE takes a while getting to what the audience is on board to see and the wait may be too long and uneventful for many viewers. On the one hand, it is commendable that the producers take their time developing their lead characters and are not afraid to create the slow burn. But the development of the characters is too ordinary and mundane. They are afforded at least one cute, emotional moment early on which is effective, but even that event isn’t supported properly by further actions the characters take. When they are in the home, there isn’t much extraordinary to contradict or elevate the ordinary above resembling a home movie about family members you don’t even know. It’s too safe. Only when the story moves to the secluded shed do the events begin to display the sense of dread toward the characters.When back in the home between the visits to the shed, without that sense of dread, the time and story slows to a crawl. The film also suffers from some poor sound choices. Some noises that should be more subtle (wind or chirping crickets) are too loud and distracting while other sounds that should be more ominous (distant hums) are not prominent enough to make a strong chilling impact. Missing are the inexplicable sounds you don’t expect to find in this environment but should find in a movie whose goal is to scare.

For the patient and the curious, UNAWARE provides intense thrills and chills leaving the film with an exciting, frightening conclusion. If only getting there had more chills and intrigue dispersed along the way. The more familiar or scared the viewer is with UFOs, Aliens and Roswell, the more enjoyment will be had. The film is hindered by a slow burn that explodes at the end instead of ignites along the way. For some this will make the cinematic journey less eventful as the intended onscreen adventure the characters experience. Joe, Lisa and the overarching mystery, while interesting, have trouble filling up the quiet spaces; however, once the final act kicks in, the film roars into a scream-inducing afterlife. More so than many of its ilk, UNAWARE is for those who favor the sub-genre that inspires it. For those who seek out found-footage films, UNAWARE follows the successful formula to the letter - for better or for worse.

6.5 out of 10

Review: Season of the Witch (2011)

Directed by Dominic Sena (Gone in Sixty Seconds, Swordfish, Whiteout)
Screenplay by Bragi F. Schut (Threshold)

Starring Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman, Claire Foy (Being Human), Stephen Campbell Moore (The Children), Robert Sheehan, Ulrich Thomsen  (The Thing 2011), Stephen Graham (Al Capone in Boardwalk Empire) and Christopher Lee

Season of the Witch tells the story of a pair of knights, Behmen (Nicolas Cage) and Felson (Ron Perlman), who return from the Crusades to find their homeland consumed by the Black Plague. Captured as deserters, Behmen and Felson, are ordered to escort a young girl named Anna - who has confessed to being a witch and causing the plague - to a far away monastery in order to rid the countryside of disease and fear. They are joined by Debelzaq a priest,  Eckhardt a knight, Hagamar a swindler and Kay an alter boy. At first believing the young girl to be innocent and insisting she get a fair trial, the small band begins to suspect the worst of Anna as their numbers dwindle along their journey.

There are some movies that you know what you’re going to get when you walk into the theater - good or bad. Season of the Witch is one of those films. The advertising, trailers and casting reveal more than they should about this period piece horror adventure. Contrary to the wise proverb, this book can be judged by its cover and it just isn’t very good. Not that it doesn’t try. However, Season of the Witch doesn’t seem to know exactly what it wants to be, a period piece on the Crusades, a action feature, a horror film or a satire.

Most of the problem lies in the script by Bragi F. Schut who created the TV series Threshold in 2005. The characters are so stereotypical and so shallow there is very little to involve the audience. The catalyst behind Behmen’s (Cage) defection from the church and the crusades is contrived and disingenuous. An understandable decision, for sure (the slaughter of innocent women and children), but why is it only he and his trusted ally and friend Felson (Perlman) are the only ones who realize the horrors they’ve just committed and decide to leave the church. It’s an unnecessary and misused motivation. It would have been just as useful to start off with the two of them as war-worn wanderers; it would have been more mysterious. It only serves to cause confusion and create a weak, inspired lead character. The mystery of Anna suspected of being a witch is thinly veiled undermining any suspense that may have been present otherwise. A good portion of the story is given to the journey to the far away monastery - a dull adventure full of silly challenges and weak character development. The one thing the script got right is the relationship between Behmen and Felson and Cage and Perlman make the most of it when they are able. It’s their friendship, their bond that keeps the movie aloft and enjoyable.

As Behmen, Nicolas Cage makes for a rugged Crusader, but has a hard time coming across as seasoned and imposing as the script would like him to be. While he has the courage and the intelligence the character needs, he’s a bit too soft and emotional to support the cunning and strength character should have. However, it’s a fine Cage performance that could have used a bit more of the actor’s trademark quirky traits. Ron Perlman however is at home as Felson. He provides the character with an imposing charm, a fierce wit and a strength and weight that defines the role. Perlmen is so good as Felson that if the filmmakers were to have switched the roles of Behmen and Felson, the movie would have been better for it. Behmen’s and Felson’s friendship is believable and engaging. What little fun this movie does have is due to these two characters and these two actors as a team.

The rest of the cast are either serviceable or fair poorly at best. Clair Foy plays Anna, the girl who has admitted to being a witch. For most of the film, she is either chained to a dungeon floor or in the cart during the voyage. She is able to play the innocent young girl fair enough, but when the script calls for her to appear the slightest bit devious or mischievous, she falls flat. There are only a few brief moments where she conveys any mystery behind her character - such as when she saves young Kay (the alter boy) from falling off a bridge where she appears simultaneously saintly and sinister. The rest of the cast are little more than chess pieces, serving only a specific purpose for the story and the actors brings very little to propel the characters beyond the script and direction.  Stephen Graham who plays Al Capone in HBO’s Boardwalk Empire portrays Hagamar the jailed swindler who ends up as their guide. Even though Graham is English by birth, there are times the New York accent he uses in the HBO show rises to surface here. In a cameo role, horror legend Christopher Lee appears as Cardinal D’Ambroise who sends the group on their journey.

The special effects are somewhere between The Mummy and Van Helsing, heavy on the CGI and light on the imagination. The plagued victims are particularly gruesome, but the CGI wolves and supernatural creatures are clearly CGI. The greenscreen work is very well done however with scenes of vast landscapes and war worn cities and monasteries. Director Dominc Sena makes the most of the effects and, while far better than SyFy features but below par for theatrical films, they suit the films well enough. He also lifts too much from other films. In particular, the Crusades scenes have a heavy 300 influence with slow-motion cuts in the action and with familiar staging of vast armies opposing each other in battle. Later in the film, he brings in a little tinge of Army of Darkness without any of the flair Sam Raimi is known for.

Season of the Witch is a waste of time in the theater, a complete misfire. The script is too confused on what other movie it wants to be - 300, The Mummy, Van Helsing and Army of Darkness. It has no identity of its own and no original story to tell. The direction provides no suspense or frights and the few emotional arcs fail to connect with the characters or the audience. While there are a few fun moments and the final battle is enjoyable, the single shining gem Season of the Witch can claim is the casting of Cage and Perlmen as best buds. They are fun to watch together and make a great pair with most of this due to Perlman’s wit and charm. Recommended only to fans of either Cage or Perlman at best, for most it would be better to wait for cable or Red Box.

2 out of 5

Review: Rare Exports (2010)

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is a delightful surprise. Set in the mountains of Finland during the Christmas holidays (December 23 and 24 to be exact), the story is about a group of archaeologists excavating a mountain and the locals from the surrounding village. The narrative focuses on young Pietari (Tommi Korpela), a pre-teen boy who is keenly aware of what the archaeologists have unearthed and the danger the village is in. When Pietari’s father, Rauno (Jorma Tommila), and his fellow slaughterhouse butchers discover their reindeer prey have been mysteriously mutilated near a fenced in entrance to the mountain, they begin to investigate and soon come face to face with a creature resembling the Santa Claus of local legend - a much different version than the current commercialized iconic character. After a few twists and turns, the full threat of the monster is revealed, and it is up to Pietari to save his family and village from “Santa’s elves” and possibly the demonic Krampus from Northern European legends.

From the description, one may think this is a holiday film for the entire family and in many ways it could be; however, it is a fantasy for adults who are children at heart. The film may not be appropriate for most kids; it is full of f-bombs and full-monty Santas. Not exactly material for U.S. families. But the story is a fascinating coming-of-age tale of a young boy discovering his worth while exploring the legend of Santa and his elves. This isn’t the dime-store jolly Santa in a red coat and black boots, this is the age-old European Santa legend and, boy, is he creepy and frightening - and he’s ready to punish the local children. At a brisk 80 minutes running time (a perfect length), Rare Exports keeps things moving along and smiles on the audience's faces. Except for Pietari, the script is light on character work; instead, it focuses on telling the story, running over conceived notions of Santa, and allowing its lead character to win the hearts of the audience.

Rare Exports also has two extraordinary accomplishments going for it: the cinematography by Mika Orasmaa and the original sound track by Juri Seppä and Miska Seppä. The shots of the Finland mountaintops are breathtaking. When Riley, the financier of the archaeological dig, is giving his opening speech with the snow-covered Korvatunturi mountains behind him, it’s jaw dropping and beautiful. The village homes and slaughterhouse are lit and photographed in a realistic manner making their lifestyle all the more authentic. The small village feels very isolated from the modern world. When the mysterious mountain creatures begin to reveal themselves from within the forest, it’s haunting and foreboding. In another scene the falling snow dances around young Pietari as he stands his ground. For the sound design, as the camera pans the locales, the accompanying original music is lush and rousing - as well done as any Hollywood film. Rare Exports contains one of the more memorable efforts in some time. The orchestrated score pulls you into the story, the landscape and adventure that lies upon the screen.

While all the actors do a tremendous job at presenting a convincing world for Rare Exports, Per Christian Ellefsen as Riley the financier and Onni Tommila as Pietari the young boy are stand-outs in the cast. Ironically they both have the same innocence and youthful imaginative performances even though they differ in age by fifty years. Riley is chasing the Santa legend from his youth, but is corrupted by his adult experiences. He understands what he has excavated from the Finnish mountain and the revelation of the discovery enlivens the character. He is both giddy and apprehensive about his discovery. Likewise for Pietari, he also knows what is happening in the dark countryside and the revelation of the creature's origin brings his character a similar life and purpose. Riley stands atop the mountain claiming “We have a grave to rob” while Pietari sits at the mountain's base fighting to save his family and friends. Pietari’s character arc reveals the man inside the young boy and the intelligence and courage that his fellow villagers fail to recognize, including his own father. “Tell my father what I did” he requests as he prepares to sacrifice himself to the creatures in order to save his village and the children.

Also of note is Peeter Jakobi who plays the Santa-like creature that Riley releases from the mountain prison. His slender, sharp features and quiet stillness are chilling and fascinating, likely to produce some goose-pimples. He has no lines but his gaze alone is as memorable as a well-written soliloquy. The trio of men that portray the slaughterhouse family are a winning bunch as well, drawing the audience’s sympathy to their plight - their struggling business and their deadly encounter. They are so disarmingly entertaining, it is not difficult to root for them throughout the conclusion. Oddly, there are no women in the cast (aside from a few extras), Pietari has no mother and there are no women in the hunting party nor the excavation team.

Directed by Jalmari Helander, Rare Exports is a darkly comedic holiday treat with a chilling twist on the Santa legend. The film is an expanded version of his award winning shorts from 2003 and 2005. While the direction is still horrific in tone, Helander holds back from being too graphic, enabling the narrative to maintain a warm, childlike innocence. A little too free with its language and nudity for U.S. audiences, Rare Exports is still a perfect winter treat for the young at heart and can easily warrant annual viewing. Already being rightfully compared to Joe (Gremlins) Dante and Tim (Sweeny Todd, Alice in Wonderland) Burton, Jalmari Helander is a promising new talent and his Rare Exports should not be missed. Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale is being released in the U.S. this December by Oscilloscope Laboratories beginning in New York and L.A., then expanding throughout the States with limited screenings.

Review: Monsters (2010)

Monsters (2010)

Gareth Edwards’ Monsters is set six years after a space probe returning to Earth with alien samples crash lands in Mexico creating an infected zone where alien creatures roam free. Scoot McNairy plays a photojournalist named Andrew, who has been asked by a wealthy boss to escort his daughter Samantha, played by Whitney Able, back the States from Mexico, just south of the zone. Through a series of events the Andrew and Samantha find they are unable to leave Mexico without crossing through the infected zone. Together they brave the alien monsters in the night as they make their way home and develop a blossoming relationship along the way.

It has been widely publicized that director Gareth Edwards filmed Monsters for a minuscule budget, approximately $500,000, and executed the special effects on his own laptop using Adobe off-the-shelf software. What he has created is an engaging character study with elements of both science fiction and horror. Focusing on Andrew and Samantha, Edwards’ script succeeds in keeping the plot simple and tight – the dilemma is simple; survive long enough to get home. Where it fails is that the script never challenges the actors or audience to experience a wide range of emotions. For the most part, Andrew and Samantha end up being little more than guides through the Mexican landscape, who happen to have fleeting encounters with alien creatures. However, from time to time, there are brief glimpses of character development when they're allowed to swap stories or call home. It’s a flawed balance but for the most part it’s enough to support the story – but, sadly, only that. If the reward had been greater, the movie may have become a true classic instead of an imaginative curio piece.

The film centers around two characters, Andrew and Samantha. The actors that bring these characters to life, Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able, do an admirable job of it. Scoot presents Andrew as a self-centered and somewhat smarmy individual, but reveals a softer, more personable underbelly along his journey. In one scene, he admits to getting paid a hefty amount for photos of a dead child yet receiving nothing for a shot of a smiling, happy kid. It is quite clear that he’d rather be capturing the more cheery of the two, but is intelligent enough (or perhaps realistic enough) to realize the boundaries of his profession. In other scenes, like when he phones his six year old son, he is allowed to let his guard down. Whitney Able’s Samantha has less to do and her arc is more about her escaping her life at home as much as escaping the extraterrestrial threats along the way. She has no trouble exchanging her engagement ring for transportation and struggles to say “I love you” when she finally phones her fiancé about her whereabouts. Both McNairy and Able are charming and, after a few awkward moments at the beginning, carry the film solely on their own. The relationship they foster along the way makes for more of a strong friendship than a budding romance but still feels genuine. In the end, their performances, much like the script, suffer from being just a little more than adequate.

For being executed in the manner Gareth Edwards created them, the special effects in Monsters are spectacular and far exceed those found in a typical SyFy feature – a tremendous accomplishment for software run on a single laptop. For the most part Edwards keeps the creatures in the shadows: a tentacle here, a leg there. They are also made more convincing by excellent sound work. For a movie titled Monsters there are surprisingly little of the title monsters on the screen; however, when they do appear they work by keeping the perspective from the characters’ point of view. This keeps the whole ordeal grounded and realistic. In one key scene their full size and scope are unveiled when lightning, illuminating the dark night sky in the distance, reveals an approaching nearby monster.

Even with its flaws and sometimes obvious shortcomings due to budget, Monsters is an engrossing drama set in a world where aliens have already invaded Earth. The leads are interesting and just charismatic enough to keep the story lively. The special effects are astonishing and are supported by excellent sound design and real-life set designs and locations. While the script could have benefited from a stronger emotional bond, the entire world in which Monsters is set feels authentic and threatening. For those looking for the next Independence Day, Predator or Cloverfield movie, Monsters may not live up to expectations; however, for those looking for a smaller, more intimate look at what life may be like years after initial invasion has occurred, Monsters should provide a few hours of satisfying drama and science fiction delight.

3.5 out of 5

Review: Skyline (2010)

Take equal parts The Matrix and Independence Day, add in a sprinkling of Cloverfield and a dash of Fiend without a Face, and mix well. Top off with a healthy batch of above average special effects and digital artistry. Cook at 375 degrees for 1 hour a 40 minutes and cover with an original idea or two and you have the Strause Brothers alien invasion feature Skyline. The film weaves together aliens, monsters, high concept spectacle and soap opera melodrama as a small group of humans struggle to survive as the film-makers follow the cookbook on how to make a science-fiction action flick. Skyline is directed by Colin Strause and Greg Strause and written by Joshua Cordes and Liam O’Donnell. Eric Balfour and Scottie Thompson headline with Donald Faison, David Zayas, Britney Daniel and Crystal Reed rounding out the supporting cast.

Jarrod (Eric Balfour) and Elaine (Scottie Thompson) arrive in Los Angeles to visit Jarrod’s longtime best friend and successful special effects producer, Terry (Donald Faison) who lives in the rooftop suite of a 20 story high rise. Together with Terry’s girlfriend Candice (Brittany Daniel) and Secretary Denise (Crystal Reed) and employee Ray (Neil Hopkins), they awake to find a series of bright lights beaming down from the sky. Jarrod barely escapes being drawn into the light that is abducting most of the city’s vast population. Soon after large alien spaceships lower from the skyline bringing with them smaller squid-like spacecrafts and large monstrous creatures that begin to comb the city for survivors. Realizing the aliens are not above the water, Jarrod and Terry decide to make a run for the marina only blocks away. Meeting up with Oliver (David Zayas) the Apartment's security guard, the group struggles to survive the alien’s advances and avoid their blue light.

The directors, Colin and Greg Strause (Aliens vs Predator: Requiem), and the writers, Joshua Cordes and Liam O’Donnell, make a great pairing. But this is not a compliment since both the writers and the directors are borrowing so heavily upon genre cliches and overused action film tropes. The writers seem to be following the Action Film Screenwriting for Dummies manual of film-making, adding in every formulaic element possible: the hero, the martyr, the pregnant girlfriend. All the character work is by the numbers. The hero is charming but struggles with the idea of becoming a family man. The best friend is likable, loyal to the hero but is cheating on his girlfriend. And the best friend’s girlfriend is Hollywood-pretty, shallow and mean. The big burly tough guy must sacrifice himself to save his new found friends. Meanwhile, the directors lift scene after scene from many of the recent successful action flicks. One scene is filmed with a shaky cam and awkward jump cuts, another is filmed in slow motion, another looks like it came out of a Michael Bey film, and yet another appears to have been shot for 3D in a "coming-at-you" sort of way. Technique after technique is used, but very inconsistently and rarely more than once. Thankfully though the Brothers Strause understand their special effects and they handle them masterfully. When the aliens are attacking in full force, the film manages to become very entertaining – even at its most preposterous moments. During the alien scenes, the movie looks astounding. Cordes and O’Donnell likewise provide the directors with ample opportunity to display their strengths with large scale battles, a variety of aliens and space craft, chase scenes – on foot, in the air and behind the wheel – and the film’s signature blue light.

The leads, Eric Balfour and Scottie Thompson, handle their characters well enough but have very little chemistry. Balfour’s distinctive, chiseled facial features provide a memorable canvas for the makeup work when he is under the influence of the aliens blue light making his eyes go white and his flesh turn dark and spidery. It’s quite striking and memorable. Scottie Thompson’s character is reduced to whimpering and worrying about her unborn child, standing a few steps behind the others until the clichéd moment where she needs to save the day. Their characters never seem to agree on what to do and, unfortunately, it undermines their situation, making them more distracting than compelling. This also cause their characters to never connect in a way the script wants them to, especially during the final act. Their final scenes together lack the emotional punch desired. Donald Faison manages to bring a fair amount of sympathy to his character. He works surprisingly better alone when investigating the other suites and confronting the aliens than he does when with the other cast. He is also supposed to be best friends with Eric Balfour, but they too don’t have the chemistry to pull it off. David Zayas (Angel Batista – Dexter) enters the films midway and bullies his way through the role. He never connects with any of the remaining characters nor the audience. He’s also given the film’s one-liner that could have easily been given to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis. However, where in the Eighties it would produce a rousing cheer, in Skyline, it renders a dull groan.

But this is a Science Fiction feature, full of aliens and spaceships and special effects. That’s the draw and the film can easily succeed or fail on the strength of the effects alone. The CGI work in Skyline is amazing, visually exciting and professionally handled even if most of it feels borrowed. The alien spacecraft drop out of the sky like Independence Day. Some of the aliens look as if they just escaped the warehouse owned by the Wachowski Brothers and the alien creatures could have jumped off a screen playing Cloverfield. Regrettably all the masterful effects work ends up too familiar and therefore too distracting, diminishing the impact they should hold. And, add to that, as amazing as Skyline’s effects are, they end up paling in comparison to those movies they so resemble. The tentacle covered drones are slick, but the ones in The Matrix were better. The car-crushing, slobbering monsters are excellent, but the creature from Cloverfield was much more frightening. There’s a lot to behold in Skyline, borrowed and new, and it’s all woven together to an entertaining and spectacular blend, benefiting from the sum of its parts. And, buried in all the familiarity, lie a handful of scenes that are original and striking, such as the scene where one alien reveals the reason for the mass abductions, the battle between Jarrod and a drone, and final moments with Jarrod and Elaine trapped in the mother-ship.

Along the way, the filmmakers make some bizarre cinematic choices. For the most part the film is confined to the top floors of Terry’s high rise. While it provides the means to view the city and allow closer access to the events unfolding in the sky above, it is an unintelligent place to hold up – c’mon, the aliens are flying around, planes are firing missiles, escape is twenty stories down. Sure, the enormous creatures are on the ground, but that doesn’t stop them climbing up the side of the building like King Kong after Fay Wray. It also keeps the momentum a bit stagnant and repetitive. From the very beginning, there is no contact to anyone outside the small group. With the exception of the air battle seen from the telescope, the armed forces that land on an adjacent rooftop and a couple in the garage, no other humans are present. The television news stations are shown empty or off the air and the characters are unable to reach anyone by phone. They’re isolated and the situation never feels authentic. Ironically, the climax to the movie, the very final few minutes, is where the narrative finally kicks into high gear the begins to expose an engaging and thrilling premise, only to conclude just when it’s getting good.

Skyline is full of amazing shots with thrilling special effects work. However, once you get past the promising and exciting visuals, Skyline is a lackluster, uneven affair with boring characters and borrowed ideas. When the aliens attack, it proves to be kinetic, tense and enjoyable; however, the character moments are underwhelming and shallow. It’s just entertaining enough to kill an afternoon, but drags whenever the aliens are not present. In the end, the movie suffers from being too dependent on established sci-fi movie ideas of the past decade or so, too buried in its stereotypical character structures and too marred by overly familiar visuals to be as enjoyable as the stunning visuals themselves would promise.

2 out of 5

Cross-published on Widescreen Warrior

Review: Saw 3D (2010)

SAW 3D REVIEW

Directed by Kevin (Saw VI) Greutert

Written by Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the writing team behind Feast, The Collector and the upcoming Piranha 3DD.

Starring Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, Betsy Russell, Cary Elwes, Sean Patrick Flanery, Chad Donella, Gina Holden and Laurence Anthony and featuring Chester Bennington

Minor spoilers follow as discussing this film must come with some understanding of the events seen in the first six films.

For the past seven years, each Halloween, the theaters have been terrorized by Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) in the Saw series. It all started in 2004 when Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam Stanheight (Leigh Whannell) awaken to find themselves chained by the ankles to pipes on opposite sides of the same room. The trap was set.  Series creators James Wan and Leigh Whannell began the journey while others continued their work in the sequels: Darren Lynn Bousman (II, III and IV), David Hackl (V) and Kevin Gruetert (VI). Kevin Gruetert returns for Saw 3D, which is marketed as the final chapter; and so does Cary Elwes, bringing an appropriate bookend chapter to the series.

For part seven, the film centers around a former Jigsaw survivor and now successful author, Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flanery), who finds himself once again stuck in one of Jigsaws traps (much like the other six films – why break the mold). Meanwhile a Detective, this time Matt Gibson (Chad Donella), is hot on Jigsaw’s trail following planted leads that should reveal to both the game in progress and the killer’s location. Add to the mix feuding Jigsaw apprentices Detective Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) and Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell as Mrs. John Kramer). As Dagen makes his way from trap to trap, trying desperately to save a friend caught in each one, Hoffman continues to mislead and evade Detective Gibson as he plots revenge on Jill who is under police protection for turning over Jigsaw’s secrets.

Saw 3D is a mess. The plot and traps are predictable, the acting is wooden and the film is nowhere near imaginative enough to stand up to the preceding films. For those who are coming to the Saw series to see gore and the outlandish, grotesque traps, you’ll find some of that in Saw 3D; but, more times than not, you’ll find a rather dull and trite exercise in boredom. Most of the traps that Dagen must endure, while still providing some suspense, are unimaginative and tired, especially the deeper he winds through them to free his wife trapped in the final puzzle. The more successful entries are outside of the main plot lines and don’t support the story in the least; they serve little more than to titillate. Even the final trap is literally a trap from a previous picture.

Costas Mandylor is given very little to do with his recurring character Mark Hoffman; it is very one-note and degenerates from a calculated killer (in previous pictures) to a madman with a knife. It’s a big disappointment that he can’t come up with something a little more creative on the fly. The writers don’t know what to do with the Jill Tuck character and Betsy Russell is forced to sit around waiting for the final battle: she sits in the interrogation room, she sits at the safe house, and she sits in a guarded jail cell. Apparently, she’s very good at sitting. Detective Matt Gibson is never given any emotion or motivation to successfully draw the audience in and Chad Donella does nothing to add to the character except storm around like a child in a few scenes. Worse of all is Sean Patrick Flanery as author and Jigsaw survivor, Bobby Dagen - a wooden actor given a wooden character. The audience is never afforded any reason to care for him and never feels enough to hope for redemption for him or the friends he cares about.

Saw 3D could have used a lot more of Tobin Bell. Other than a “taped” flashback here and a “filmed” flashback there, Bell’s character of John Kramer, is given one new, key scene when he encounters Dagen  at a book signing. It’s the film’s best scene. His dialogue is sharp like a scalpel and his presence looms over Dagen, foreshadowing the dangers that will come. Cary Elwes, too, is a welcomed return to the franchise and his scenes are highlights as well. He shambles into one of Dagen’s support groups, leaning on his cane, and his quick speech drips with sarcasm and distaste. “Do I need worry about the crazy man with the cane?” asks Dagen’s friend and “handler.” Dagen responds “No,” but the audience suspects the real answer is “Yeah, yeah you do.”

The addition of 3D is more a sign of the times than a needed addition to the series. For the most part it works really well, thankfully using the 3D camera instead of post converting. Surprisingly, the 3D was used to express depth (or lack of depth in many cases) more than to throw splatter into the audience. Whether it be Linkin Park’s Chester Bennington reaching desperately through a broken windshield for a lever that will free him and his friends or a set of blades inching dangerously close to the eyes and mouth of a trapped victim, the 3D enhances the tension nicely. From time to time the 3D is used to throw gore at the audience, which is to be expected from a blood-soaked fright film. This never really works for the movie and comes across more silly than sick or scary.

While not a good film, Saw 3D isn’t entirely unsatisfying. This entry knows what it is and remains within the established "Saw" laws and sandbox. It’s just tired, out of steam. The film benefits from a fast pace and sharp editing, never lingering on any one character or trap too long. If nothing else, Saw 3D’s filmmakers understand the beats and rhythms necessary to carry the carnage from one set piece to another. But be careful, if unwary, you still may find yourselves as confined in your theater seat as the characters are fixed in Jigsaw’s traps.

4 out of 10

Also published on Widescreen Warrior.

Review: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

Paranormal Activity 2 Review

Directed by Tod Williams
Written by Oren Peli and Michael R. Perry
Starring Katie Featherston, Brian Boland, Sprague Grayden

Last summer, a low-budget horror film took the nation by surprise and grossed an astounding $107,917,293 domestic, on a budget that is reportedly under $20,000.  The movie, Paranormal Activity (2009), was written and directed by Oren Peli and told the tale of a young couple, Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micha (Micha Sloat), who begin experiencing unexplainable phenomenon, filming it on a home camera. The film was shot cinéma vérité style, giving it a documentary feel and an illusion of authenticity which elevated the scares and thrills. Oren Peli is back this year with Paranormal Activity 2. Can he trap lightning in a bottle once again? The answer is simple: yes, yes he can.

For those who enjoyed the first film, the sequel (which is more of a prequel, really – but, more than that) has everything that the first film did right and added more to it in a smart and natural manner. For those who didn’t find the original to their liking, the cast additions and subtle changes to the camera positioning may be enough to convert you. For the sequel, Oren Peli takes a producing role and co-writes the script with Michael R. Perry. A relative unknown director, Tod Williams, steps in to direct. The small cast is replaced by only a slightly larger one with the addition of a family of four. The fresh blood serves the film well, adding just the right amount of change to the formula to make the sequel a rousing success without steering too far off the source material.

Paranormal Activity 2 opens with a family returning home with a newborn child. Hunter is his name and his new home is complete with his mother and father, a half-sister, a dog and a nanny. It’s the fairly normal, modern American family. Not long after the family returns home a few weeks later, they find their house a wreck, apparently the victim of a break in, except nothing has been stolen. In short order, the father installs a home security set up with multiple cameras throughout the house: living room, kitchen, the front door, baby’s room and back yard. These cameras, along with a hand held camera, begin to document the strange phenomenon that begins to plague the family; starting with Night 1, a year after Hunter first entered the home. As they begin to suspect what is happening to them, the father is a skeptic, the mother is in denial and the daughter begins to tie the pieces together. The family struggles to find a way to deal with the unknown entities in their house and fear for the safety of young Hunter.

The cinéma vérité style of film making employed by the original, and made famous by The Blair Witch Project (1999) and other films like Cloverfield (2008) and Quarantine (2008), brought a sense of realism to the original with the use of Micha’s hand held camera which he staged on his dresser while they slept. It’s like an episode of Ghost Hunters; except, in Paranormal Activity, they actually encounter something. In the sequel, the addition of the security cameras frees up the director to expand on the events as they take place throughout the house. He is able to show one room peaceful, tranquil while another has a door shutting on its own or kitchenware inexplicably falling to the floor. Later, he is able to show the action move from one room and camera to another, intensifying the chills. His use of these cameras allows the viewer to become familiar with the surroundings as the movie progresses, learning where to look, where one exit leads to another’s entrance. Where the first film had the bedroom doorway and hall, the sequel adds the kitchen, living room, the front door and Hunter’s room. It’s a smart and rewarding addition.

The filmmakers make other brave decisions as well with the additions of children and pets; a difficult proposition for most films, but especially for horror films. Putting an infant child at risk can be a touchy subject, but it is handled well in Paranormal Activity 2. For the most part, the danger to young Hunter is implied and is just strong enough for the audience to fear for his safety. This applies to the pet dog as well, who also has a frightening encounter of her own. The director overcomes the challenges and delivers with both serving to amplify the fear and dread. He also has the fortune of having a strong teenage actress as well. Her role as the believer is pivotal to the film and much of the narrative and exposition belong to her. She does a convincing job and brings a rare realistic teenager to the screen.

In fact, all around the acting is excellent, Brian Boland and Sprague Grayden as the parents are a believable couple and portray a likable, loving family. They feel married, they feel like parents. The nanny is warm, friendly, and justifiably superstitious. They are all given light moments as well and are naturally funny. Even the daughter’s boyfriend doesn’t strike a foul cord. It’s a strong cast that never becomes annoying. If this isn’t your family, you know this family. They live on your block, or down the street. They might not have as nice a house, or a nanny, but you wave at them and smile when you pass them on your way to work.

The film takes its time getting to the scares. Much like the original, they start small; a few sounds, something moves, lights flicker on and off or a child’s toy that moves on its own. The filmmakers give the audience ample time to get to know the family, to like the family, to feel comfortable in their home, before they start filling the screen with horror. It pays off when the activity is scaled up making the scares all the more genuine. The audience knows which room is the hot spot, which door is “the” door. Knowing it is coming is suddenly as scary as the event when it finally arrives. The suspense is killer. One scene in particular, set in the kitchen, may become the most startling scene in a horror movie this year.

Paranormal Activity 2 is a surprising success. For fans of the last years hit, it’s a sequel that is as good as or, perhaps, even better than the original; a rarity either way. It ties directly to the original in an unexpected and fascinating way. It should be very interesting to see the two pictures back to back; they end up being two parts of a whole. The director is able to expand on the style and themes of the first film without corrupting the original’s tone, creating a broader blueprint for the next director that will inevitably come along to pick up the reins for Paranormal Activity 3. It has a warm, friendly cast and is full of chills, scares and screams of terror. A telling sign, the idea of another sequel is a promising one.

4.5 out of 5

Review: Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D (2010)

Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D (2010)

Written and directed by Paul W.S. Anderson.
Starring Milla Jovovich, Ali Larter, Kim Coates, Shawn Roberts, Sergio Peris-Mencheta, Spencer Locke, Boris Kodjoe, Wentworth Miller and Sienna Guillory.

“She’s back…And she’s bringing a few of her friends”

As Resident Evil begins, the series heroine, Alice (Milla Jovovich), strikes at the Umbrella Corporation hidden Japanese underground headquarters. She encounters Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts), the ruthless and superhuman base leader. Alice walks away from the attack thinking she’s finished off the Umbrella Corporation once and for all. She then sets out to regroup with her friends who are racing to find a group of survivors at a secret location called Arcadia. When she catches up with the group in Alaska, she finds only Claire Redfield who has lost her memory. The pair set out to search the Western United States seaboard for any survivors and find a small band hiding out in a prison in Los Angeles. They too have heard of Arcadia. Banding together, they attempt to escape the zombie infested city and find safety with Arcadia.

What a glorious piece of cinema dreck! For a movie about the zombie apocalypse, there sure aren’t a whole lot of zombies in Resident Evil: Afterlife 3D from writer director Paul W.S. Anderson (although some have said there are more zombies in this edition than each of the previous three). There’s a whole lot of Matrix (1999) style rip-off slow motion goodness abound however. Even “bullet-time” makes an appearance or two and the antagonist sounds and dresses like Hugo Weaving’s Agent Smith. When the vampires do make an appearance, they look suspiciously like the vampires from Guillermo Del Toro’s Blade II (2002). And there’s the addition of Axeman who more than resembles the Pyramid Head character from Christophe Gans’ Silent Hill (2006). And the heroes spend a significant amount of time hiding out in a prison fortress much like the graphic novel The Walking Dead. The fourth installment of the Resident Evil franchise is guilty of a lot of things; however, originality is not one of them.

 One thing Paul W.S. Anderson did add to the series is 3D, and he did it right. Using the same cameras as used in James Cameron’s Avatar (2009), Anderson brings Alice, Claire and the rest to life in amazing 3D cinematography. He spends a fair amount of time exploring how the newest 3D technology works. There are beautiful, lush scenes of Alice’s plan flying over Alaskan terrain that are a wonder to behold. The film has rich depth to it and the sets snap and sizzle. There’s a scene where the heroes are escaping the prison stronghold through tunnels dug beneath the foundation that provide both depth and claustrophobia. When the action begins, guns stick out of the screen, glass, bullets and debris fly in the audience’s face and water drips and rains across the screen. Much of the action is in slow motion, which some may find more annoying than appealing; however, the slow motion allows him to bring the depth and foreground into the fray and, generally, it works in the narrative’s favor. In the case of Resident Evil: Afterlife, the 3D helps the film snap, it draws the audience into the scenery and it thrills the audience with 3D spectacle.

While the 3D technique helps the script, the script itself is thin, weak and uninvolving. Much of the plot doesn’t make much sense. Details are introduced and never expanded on, explained or properly utilized in any way. Early on, Wesker removes much of Alice’s “powers” however that doesn’t stop her from surviving a head-on airplane collision with the side of a mountain, jumping fearlessly off the top of a multi-storied building and surviving the mighty blows of the towering Axeman. When Alice discovers Clair in Alaska, she is being controlled by a mysterious spider-shaped trinket. It gets removed and that’s it. Out of nowhere, the Axeman shows up dragging his axe across the city streets heading toward Alice and the gang.  While he is a visually awesome character and provides the middle act with a much needed antagonist, his purpose is just that and he is given no explanation. Character constantly act and react to move the plot forward and never in character or with realistic motive. Really, it’s all about Alice.

Thankfully, there’s enough action, creative set pieces, interesting creatures and 3D goodness to keep the film afloat and lively. It’s a fun film regardless of it many faults. Resident Evil: Afterlife is a difficult film to rate. When looked at with critical eyes, it’s a bad film with sharp window dressing; however, that window dressing proves to be engaging and exciting enabling a more relaxed sensibility to have a great time at the theater.

6 out of 10

Review: Machete (2010)

Machete (2010)

Written by Robert Rodriguez and Alvaro Rodriguez. Directed by Ethen Maniquis and Robert Rodriguez. Starring Danny Trejo, Robert De Niro, Jessica Alba, Steven Seagal, Michelle Rodriguez, Jeff Fahey, Cheech Marin, Don Johnson, Tom Savini and Lindsay Lohan.

Three years after the drug kingpin, Torrez (Seagal), murders his wife and child, the one-time Federale, Machete (Trejo), is now a day-laborer, illegal immigrant in small Texas town near the Mexican border. He is tricked to be part of a set-up by Booth (Fahey), being hired to assassinate extremist Senator McLaughlin (De Niro). On the run and seeking revenge, Machete finds help in the guise of a resistance fighter Luz (Rodriguez), a troubled I.C.E. agent named Sartana (Alba) and his brother who is now a Padre (Marin).

After a brutal, action-packed prologue, Machete opens to a geek-filled credit animation sequence featuring photo-centric illustrations on the cast, starting with Trejo and Seagal. When Tom Savini’s name is splattered over the screen, the target audience knows what they’re in for; those not in the know are quickly caught up with the credits “And Introducing Don Johnson.”  This is a very specific type of movie, it’s more than an over-the-top, gore-filled action flick – it’s a grindhouse picture, and proud of it. In the first ten minutes the audience has already seen multi decapitations, blood splatter and nudity for many modern R-rated Hollywood features. The movie screen practically winks and smiles as the credits end and the movie begins. It’s time to strap in and enjoy the ride.

Ethen Maniquis and Robert Rodrigues have mastered the “grindhouse” techniques employed with Rodriques’ previous effort, Planet Terror. Machete comes with the scratched print (however, much more subtle than present in the Grindhouse double feature in 2007), choppy quick-cuts and distinct retro camera angles. The dialogue is near perfect, even if it wanders into Eighties action clichés from time to time. While the action is modern, the pacing and character arcs are lifted purposely from grindhouse classics and stereotypes. Somehow, Machete is comfortable in its predictable script, like riding a favorite amusement park ride for the hundredth time. While it is never surprising, the film is thrilling and awe-inspiring with garish effects and outlandish spectacles.

Another quality that serves Machete well is character and this film is full of character. Trejo’s Federale is silent, honorable and confident. When he’s coaxed into joining a street-fight ring, he takes out his opponent without even throwing a single punch. Later he hands over the money he’s paid to take out the Senator to the Luz, leader of the resistance, so she can continue to help smuggle immigrants across the border. He also refuses to take advantage of Sartana when she comes on to him “under the influence.” However, when crossed, he’s one mean S.O.B. and will destroy anyone in his way. He chops, shoots, slices, dices, and decapitates mobster after gangster after hood.

Machete is also surrounded by a fantastic supporting cast.  Cheech Marin plays his brother who also crossed the border into the same town; however, he somehow took up the cloth, becoming a Padre. Machete turns to him when things get their worse. Marin is given the best lines in the film and provides the film some of its most laugh-out-loud moments. He also gets to step up with a tense set of action sequences as he faces a band of vigilantes and, later, Booth himself. Jessica Alba portrays Sartana, the conflicted I.C.E. agent who believes the law is right, but doesn’t like sending her brothers and sisters back to the horrors they’ve worked so hard to escape. She sees much of herself in the Federale Machete. She also relates to Michele Rodriquez’ character Luz, who may or may not be the mythical She who protects the day laborers. Rodriquez may have been born to play Luz and is given one of the best character reveal scenes when she reappears into the storyline during the conclusion. They’re a strong group of appealing characters to root for.

Opposing Machete is an equally well designed batch of villians rarely seen on the big screen this year. Steven Seagal is the best he’s been in years as Torrez the drug kingpin. He’s sleezy, mean and bad to the bone: quick to judge, quick to act and quick to kill. Seagal wears the role like an old coat, sits back and becomes the role. He is also given one of the more outrageous death scenes ever. Don Johnson turns in a fun, rewarding performance as Lt. Von Jackson, a crazed vigilante leading a small army who hunt down and execute those trespassing across the border. Robert De Niro is fantastic as Senator John McLaughlin, the extremist Senator up for re-election. He really shines during the scattered re-election commercials seen throughout the flick: pure parody. Tom Savini has a minor, but memorable role as hitman Osiris Amanpour, hired by Booth to hunt down Machete and his brother, the Padre. But the film belongs to Jeff Fahey as Michael Booth, McLaughlin’s right hand man who is in cohorts with Torrez to control trafficking across the border. He even holds his own against the legendary De Niro in a performance that may become the most memorable role of his career.

In true grindhouse fashion, the violence is cartoony and absurd. The bloodshed is rapid-fire and kenetic - quick, gory and crazy. The effects are not as gruesome, however, as Rodriquez’ Planet Terror, or even the more recent splatter-fest, Piranha 3D. They server the film in an amusing way and provide a rhythm for the story to bounce along.  If Tom Savini had made Tom and Jerry cartoons in the Eighties, this is what it would look like: flying body parts, bullet-ridden bloodshed and the hero swinging from intestines.

While the film remains larger than the sum of its parts, it struggles to become more than what it sets out to be, a grindhouse picture. At times it promises to become a bit more than that and uncharacteristically raises expectation above the exploitation. In the end it may disappoint slightly in that is never takes itself beyond what it could be. It may be a bit too comfortable in its own trappings, trappings it excels in no doubt. The film is fun, exciting, memorable and surprisingly charming; however, it could have used a bigger punch in its conclusion – at least as big a punch as it provided in the fantastic intro.

7 out of 10

Review: The Last Exorcism (2010)

Review: The Last Exorcism (2010)

Directed by Daniel Stamm. Written by Huck Botko and Andrew Gurland. Produced by Eli Roth. Starring Patrick Fabian, Iris Bahr, Louis Herthum, Ashley Bell, Jamie Alyson Caudle, Tony Bentley, Shanna Forrestall, Allen Boudreaux and Caleb Landry Jones.

This review contains minor spoilers.

More than a simple exorcism movie, The Last Exorcism is the story of Reverend Cotton Marcus, a flawed and surprisingly human character (and perhaps more importantly a devout family man) who is more showman than faith healer. He has also lost his way and is now more interested in exposing exorcism than continuing his religious practice. Gathering a film crew to document the elaborate charade he has been involved in since he was a bible belting child, Cotton heads out to perform his final rite of exorcism. They travel to a nearby poverty ridden Parrish in Louisiana and meet the Sweetzer family: widower Louis, his son Caleb and his possibly possessed daughter Nell. The camera records Cotton expertly and meticulously setting up the rite and deceiving the Sweetzers in believing he is actually performing a real exorcism. Paid in full and ready to return to Baton Rouge after a nights rest, Cotton is confronted by Nell who appears in his hotel room, catatonic and vomiting. After a brief trip the hospital, Cotton and his film crew return to the Sweetzer family farm and things begin to unravel, challenging Cotton’s beliefs, faith and morality.

The film belongs to Patrick Fabian who stars as Reverend Cotton Marcus. It is his natural and charismatic performance that draws the viewer in and invests them in the story, both Cotton’s humanity and the Sweetzers’ safety. He brings the character a richly nuanced, believable quality that causes the viewer to look past his flaws and believe his motives. It’s a rare achievement in the genre. He’s as three-dimensional as it gets. The crew isn’t as effective, but they are here to represent the viewer and the person sitting next to the viewer and in that they succeed.

The Sweetzers are also very well rounded. Louis is an emotionally defeated father, living in despair and poverty leaning heavily on the bottle. He is also deeply rooted in his religious belief as science has horribly failed him. “Eight doctors couldn’t save her” he reveals about his recently deceased wife and he proclaims that psychiatry is a sham. Caleb, the son, is seen as rebellious and disbelieving in his father and his beliefs. He is also shown to be keenly aware of Cotton’s deception and is oddly supportive of it. Nell is the innocent sixteen year-old troubled daughter who has been all but hidden away from the world by her over protective father. She is suspect of having killed the farm animals and supports her father’s notions that something evil is inside her. All the actors portraying the Sweetzers, Louis Herthum, Ashley Bell and Caleb Landry Jones, are excellent in their roles and each are wholly believable in their respective characters.

The film is elusive in revealing what is actually happening to Nell. At one point, she is clearly brainwashed by her troubled father. Not too long after, it is unclear and she might be mentally disturbed, perhaps schizophrenic. Then after the film crew hears a short message on the answering machine, she may be a victim of incest or rape. Then she might just be possessed after all. The answer may never clearly be given. Shot in Cinema Verite, documentary style, the narrative is presented solely in the perspective of Cotton and the film crew. What they hear, what they think, what they experience is all the viewer is provided to decide for themselves what is really happening.

Then, however, the story reaches its end and in a few quick moments all is thrown up in the air. It is either one of the most destructive counter-productive conclusions to be filmed or, perhaps, one of the most brilliant. It gives you answers quickly. It doesn’t allow the viewer to digest what they’re seeing and then, suddenly, the end. It’s over. The filmmakers make a bold decision to end in such a manner. For many it will be satisfying, for just as many it will be frustrating. But it does make the viewer think.

For this reviewer, the ending did not sit well and I left the theater almost angry; however, I thoroughly enjoyed Cotton’s story up to that point. If I didn’t enjoy the end itself, I did enjoy getting there. Later, as I discussed the movie with friends (an act that comes highly recommended after seeing this film), I began to realize how much of the film, especially the story of Reverend Marcus, I found satisfying and rewarding. The ending is still a bitter pill to swallow – it’s not as succinctly put together as the first hour and thirty five minutes; however, I applaud the film for making me think and recollect the movie leading up to its controversial conclusion.

6.5 out of 10