What I'm Watching: Maniac (2012)

Happy Thanksgiving!  Here's something tasty for y'all today; three years ago today I reviewed the original slasher classic, Maniac.  I thought it would be appropriate to finally give a quick look at the remake starring Elijah Wood.

Yeah, Frodo starring in a horror movie.

And y'know what?  It works.  It REALLY works.

This may be the single best remake I have ever seen, and it actually does different things, thus giving it a fair justification for existing.

The story is very much the same, with just a few differences, but the way in which its presented is wholly different.  This movie is done in first person, through the eyes of the killer, through those large, emotion filled eyes of Elijah Wood himself.

And again, and this was surprising to me, it totally works.  Doing an entire movie from the first person perspective, LITERALLY inside their head and looking out, sounds like a trainwreck, but this was SO well done, and manages to put you inside the killer in a way you never have been before.

Alexander Aja directed, and with help from the cameramen and Elijah himself being right there behind the camera for nearly the entire shoot (Save for a handful of shots) they really create a unique vision, and turn the camera into a character.  All of those people needed to be on the same page to create this performance for Frank, and that is a large part of why this works.  Elijah's skill at acting, a skilled cameraman, and a great director all came together as a unit here.

The brilliance of it comes when you find yourself getting into it during the more character driven moments, accepting that you are Frank, feeling his awkward shyness, just believing the role you yourself find yourself in...and then have it violently ripped away when you see your hands brutally murdering someone.  It is off-putting, and done so brilliantly...in some ways this is a must see movie, and in others some people should avoid it at all costs, because it can be very uncomfortable, to downright unpleasant, and yet that's the entire reason it works...

Don't ask me which version of Maniac I enjoyed more, because they're both so similar, yet SO different, and do things differently that both films truly can exist side by side.  I'd say the first one is a little more gory, but the remake has its moments.  The remake is more creative in some ways, but the original set so many other things in motion.

The only thing I didn't like in the remake was how Anna figured out Frank was a killer.  He mentioned other girls being killed and wanted to make sure she was safe (It's been awhile since I saw the movie, so I might not be 100% accurate on that, but it's close), and it freaked her out, because how could he know that girls were being killed??  Well, gee, I dunno.  Maybe because he watches the news?  Reads a paper?  Talks to people?  It just came off as SO false that it came dangerously close to ruining the movie for me, but fortunately the rest of the movie is so strong, that the lone stumbling block there doesn't totally ruin things.

The one other thing that didn't always work was Elijah's voiceover.  It's perfectly moody, it sets the scene, and works for what it is, but it just doesn't SOUND right.  And this is hard to get across until you see it for yourself.  It sounds like it's been recorded elsewhere via ADR, and a lot of it probably was.  The words are good, but you get that awkward distance you sometimes have when the audio isn't 'live'.

Still, I really loved this movie, and it stands on its own, and is a worthy successor to the original.  Casting Elijah as someone the exact opposite type from the original Frank, and because of Wood's normal image, and innocent face, is some of the best casting ever.  The brief appearances of Elijah in mirrors really helps sell things, even when the audio might be faltering.

It's a great slasher flick, with a lot of nods to the original (Watch for an homage to the infamous movie poster when Frank's in the car park!), and is a truly unique experience.

I have a slight fear that this will spawn a whole raft of copycats, like the wave of found footage movies we've had since Blair Witch, and I really think that's a mistake.  This is a trick that can only work once, maybe a handful more times, but the more people try to do this same thing, the less the creators invovled will get what made this work, they'll miss the whole psychological aspect, and just put a camera atop some hands with a knife, or whatever.  This is lightning in a bottle, pure and simple.

What I'm Watching: Thor - The Dark World

HAVE AT THEE!

Yep, it's no surprise that I rushed out to see Thor: The Dark World.  Longtime readers know I'm a comic geek, and know I was more than a little miffed at being unable to see the first one in theatres due to a lack of 2D showings near me.  Fortunately, my local theatres have wised up since then, and I could see The Dark World on opening day.

So, how's the sequel?

Pretty freakin' good.  If you enjoyed the first Thor movie, you should enjoy this one.  If you didn't enjoy the first Thor movie, I think this one has a little better balance of elements and it's worth giving another try, although I understand why you might want to wait on that count.

This movie focuses more on Asgard and the other nine realms than Midgard, which I know was a large complaint people had with the first movie.  A lot of the humour is still there though, and everyone's voice feels spot on.  Every line was exactly what I wanted it to be, for the most part.

Thor 2 picks up pretty much right where Avengers left off, dropping Loki off at his father's throne, to receive his punishment for the events he caused in the first movie and Avengers.  From there, we slowly build to a convergence of the nine realms, and the return of Malekith, his dark elves, and the Aether, an otherworldly force akin to the Tesseract.

"These artifacts may sometimes manifest themselves as stones..."

Jane Foster is pulled back into the story, literally, when she stumbles upon the interdimensional hiding place of the Aether, frees it, and becomes an object of desire for the returned Malekith's plots.

Oh, so much of this movie I enjoyed.  I loved how they slowly brought Malekith's look towards the comics design.  I loved Algrim's disguise echoing that of his comics look as Kurse.  I'm sure it will be divisive amongst fans, but I also enjoyed making the Asgardian weapons a little more scifi, even if that does make them seem a bit lightsabre-ish at times.  It added a bit of magic to their culture, by way of Clark's Law.  And making the Dark Elves even more scifi seemed to make sense to me, although it's hard to explain why.

Hemsworth is great as Thor.  You can really see the growth the character has made over these three movies.  He has grown into someone whom is worthy to wield Mjolnir.

"Meowmeow!"

I am so glad that Darcy returned.  She's great comic relief, she's a great standin for the audience, making a lot of the quips we may want to make ourselves.  I wish there had been more of her, but at the same time, I feared the movie was going to leave her, Eric, and Midgard itself entirely behind once Thor and Jane went to Asgard, and I am so glad to be proven wrong and they were all present in the climax.  That was handled rather well, although at times I think the placement of scenes and the editing didn't quite work.  The storyline on Earth just doesn't flow as well as I would have liked, and the order felt off at times.  I suspect these scenes were bounced all around the story for pacing, and things got a bit jumbled along the way.

The use of every Asgardian in the plot was great.  They each had their role to play.  Except for Hogun.  That was a really weird ommision from the storyline, and almost baffling.  I suspect actor availability, so that's a shame, but the rest of the Warriors Three were used to great effect, Sif had good stuff to do, and even Frigga got a lot to work with, even if her role was cut a bit too short.  What she was there for, she was good in.

Loki is Loki.  His mischievousness was well handled, even toying with audience expectations at times, and I like he was even given a bit of redemption.  While it doesn't excuse his past actions, it is a reminder that he is NOT all evil, and he is a complex, multi-faceted character.  Even if his own agenda does get in the way of that from time to time.  I absolutely loved his little scene of shapeshifting with Thor, and his use of a cameo was brilliant and pitch perfect.

Christopher Eccleston brought more gravitas to Malekith than he would have otherwise had, and in lesser hands, the role would not have been as much, and as it is, there's not much there.  The performance definitely helped elevate it, though.  I hope we get to see some of the deleted scenes that would have fleshed out his otherwise purely villianous character.  Much like Frigga's scenes from the first one got left behind, and they really helped boost her role, which was a shame.

I don't think the movie, the Asgardian portions obviously, felt quite as epic as the first movie, and I can't quite place my finger on why?  I'd wager it has something to do with Kenneth Brannagh and his Shakespearean training really nailing that over the top, amazing, crazy and yet down to Earth familial relations of the Asgardians.  Which isn't to say Alan Taylor did a bad job, I thought he still knocked this out of the park, but the first one just had a different feel to it that worked just that little bit better.

I really can't say if I like this or the first Thor better.  They each have their ups and downs, and I'd probably rank them pretty equally.  I'd say this storyline probably thrilled me more, but I think the first one was handled better, overall.

So, for the most part, Thor: The Dark World is just as enjoyable as the original, and I'd personally rank it higher than Iron Man 3, out of the Phase 2 movies.  It hit all the right notes, for me.  I'm sure there's more flaws, but I was most pleased with what I got.

"One down, five to go."

What I'm Watching: Hallow's Eve

And now it's time to wish all the ghouls and goblins a happy Halloween!

So of course, I have this little treat for you, and what more appropriate movie to take a quick look at than the aptly titled, Hallow's Eve?

This is one of this month's independent movies I've never heard of that I got drawn in by an intriguing trailer, and once again, the presence of Danielle Harris.

Oh, the movies I will sit through for her...but I digress.

Hallow's Eve follows the story of a young girl who gets seriously injured on her farm as a kid, when a bunch of kids tease her and chase her into the path of an oncoming tractor.  She survives, but is horribly scarred by the event, both physically and mentally.

Several years later, the kids are once again coming to the farm, to partake in the yearly Halloween haunted farm event the family throws.  It's not long before bodies start dropping, and you start wondering just what is going on.

Straight up, the best thing about this movie is Harris.  She puts in one HELL of a performance as the girl's mother, and brings much needed emotion and character to the film.  Everyone else never quite clicks for me, and that just makes Danielle's performance stand out all the more.

The haunted house like setting on a farm is also a highlight, as it gives lots of creepy places to kill people off, and it strikes me that there haven't been more Halloween themed movies set in places like this.  You would think a dark farm, with corn fields, and creepy decorations, and eerie characters would be a huge trope, but no.  The fact that the setting is most refreshing is another good reason to watch this movie.

This all leads to a pretty hefty body count, with some really good effects and deaths, so there's that at least.

But it all leads up to an ending that is...at the same time, somehow completely obvious, mind boggling, and satisfying all at the same time?

It manages to give a little bit of a twist of presenting two killers, which I always like.  It allows you to throw suspicion off everyone and keep people guessing, and that actually works really well.  One of the killers is exactly who you think it is, and the other is...somehow logical, but never quite set up well to my satisfaction.

Still, there's enough here to like, and even the parts that are wince worthy are mostly in good fun, and given with a wink and a nod to the audience.  This movie knew it was campy, and it hit the mark pretty well.  I may have thrown my hands in the air in the last few minutes, but the movie wasn't ruined by the ending, so that's always a plus.

Hallow's Eve is a fun little bit of campy Halloween fun, and if you get the chance, I actually reccomend giving it a chance for your late night Halloween watching.

What I'm Watching: Dead in Tombstone

Happy Devil's Night, everyone!  Do try and not start too many fires in honour of it, though.

Since it's Devil's Night, longtime readers know I am off watching my favourite movie, The Crow at some point today, but that also dovetails nicely into today's quickie review; Dead in Tombstone.

Now, why does it work well as a lead in?  Well, let's see...

We have a man, who is murdered by men he considers family and friends, makes a literal deal with the devil, and crawls out of his grave to seek revenge and send their souls to the fiery pits instead of his.  That sounds vaguely familiar.

The twist here, is that its set in the Old West, and they got Danny Trejo to play NotCrow.  Or as he's actually called in this, Guerrero.  When I heard the plot I was immediately intrigued by something being Crow-like, and with the added bonus of Trejo, Anthony Michael Hall, AND Mickey Rourke as the devil, it became a must see.  I waited eagerly to finally see this movie.

And hey!  It did not disappoint!

Now sure, it's no Crow.  But then, like I said, favourite movie.  What IS going to compare to that?  But still, it has a very solid plot that has worked time and again in a number of movies, and they do it well enough, with a capable cast.

The biggest problem is that the members of Guerrero's gang that he's trying to kill are largely ciphers, whom you don't know anything about, and don't really care about.  Now sure, they're murderous brigands and traitors, but still.  That other movie I am trying not to mention painted very colourful characters that intrigued you and were distinct.  They all kinda blur here, except for Guerrero's half brother played by Hall.

(And no, there is no way I buy Trejo and Hall as half-brothers.  But hey, that's a minor point, and the acting from the pair is great.)

Rourke feels a little wasted here as the devil, but the character is little more than a plot device.  But what he does do, he does well.  I just wish there was more to the role than a deus ex machina, but without the deus.

Dina Meyer is another fave of mine, and was just more icing on the already intriguing cake, and sadly also ends up on the wrong side of things storywise, with Rourke.  She ends up being too much of a damsel in distress, but she does have a few good moments here and there.  It's really not her story, however.  That's okay, though, and her presence is more than welcome.  Again, just wish they could have done more with what they had.

Where this movie really shone for me though, was the cinematography.  The lighting, the direction, the camera work, is all REALLY well done.  There are so many amazing introductions, and use of backlighting, that the quality of the craft raises the bar for this movie, and puts it on a level it would not have reached in lesser hands.  It is a western with a supernatural feel, and almost shot in a film noir style at times.  The experience is quite unique, and was a joy to watch for that alone.

The crew may not have been the most developed bunch of characters, but their deaths really shine in the movie.  There's some inventive use of effects, and creative use of storytelling.  They truly died better than they lived.

While the movie ends up being flawed, and could have fleshed out some characters, and used others better, it's still a solid movie, very entertaining, and it's a good sign that my biggest complaint is that I just plain want to see more.  And with the ending of the movie setting this up to easily become a franchise, I would very much relish the opportunity to see more of Guerrero and friends.

What I'm Watching: Bad Reception

Welcome to the new What I'm Watching section!

Which is just the journal section renamed.  I figured just making this the section of the site where I do smaller reviews for things that don't fit the wider theme just made sense.

ANYways, this time out, I've been watching Bad Reception.

This movie is about a guy who finds a tv on the side of the road, takes it home, and discovers it doesn't work.  But it soon unfolds that anyone who sits in front of the tv shall be judged by the spirit of a long dead preacher, and killed if they are found guilty.

Oh sweet potatoes, this movie is like The Video Dead and Redeemer: Son of Satan got together and had a little baby.

Yes, with that plot description, and touching on two of my favourite reviews, I had to check this thing out, and it delivers.

Not a good story, but it delivers plenty of strange.  Granted, not as much strange as Redeemer, but what the hell does?

The cast is pretty meh across the board, but that's unsurprising for this sort of project.  The writing isn't great, which is also par for the course but...

This is one of those movies that just has something.  And at least some of that is identifiable.  The mythology of the movie, of a group of priests who would travel around and judge people with their scribes, until one of them went bad and was burned alive, claiming he would one day return and seek his vengeance...hell, that's a good idea.  I just wish it was more fleshed out and made more sense at the end of the day.

It is never really explained why or how this all revolves around a tv, other than having a hand McGuffin to focus on and try and smash.  The various ways all the kills happen is actually really REALLY good, and almost worth seeing the creativity there, however.

The ending is actually most satisfying, even while leaving open routes to a sequel, as unlikely as those may be.  The story wraps up, and there is arguably a winner, and the movie stays more or less within its own rules, even if it makes them up as it goes along.

The best part of the movie is the detective looking into all the random murders that our main character seems weirdly connected to, but then reveals he knows all about this ancient order, and how to defeat this rogue priest's spectre.  He drives the plot forward, he's a decent actor, and he's probably more important than anyone else in the film.

Sadly, the movie never reaches greatness, but the unique plot, with the low budget, and lower acting actually makes this a great movie for Trisk.  I only wish it was a little more strange, but it's a pretty decent diversion for our usual fare.

But really, how many evil televisions are out there?!

What I'm Watching: Fright Night 2: New Blood

So, I enjoyed the 2011 remake of Fright Night.  Mainly because of the cast, but it was a fun movie.  David Tennant was hilariously over the top as a Vegas magician, and Colin Farrell was deliciously over the top and enjoying his role SO much, he was just having a blast with it.

And that is at least one of the strengths of this sequel, but I'll get to that.

The first thing you need to know is, this is NOT a sequel.  It's a remake.  But it's not even a remake of the original Fright Night 2, which would've been fine, if still annoying, but at least acceptable to go that route.

Nope, this is ANOTHER remake of the original story.  So really is Fright Night, with a new cast.

What person possibly has the decision to go, "Hey, remember that movie that we did two years ago?  Let's do it again!  With the same story!  But an all-new cast of people that don't have anywhere NEAR the same star quality, and make it direct to video!"

How is that a good decision in ANYone's mind?!

They try and justify this in the commentary track by saying, hey!  James Bond changes actors all the time and just keeps going!  Yes, BUT they also don't call it "The Living Daylights 2" and tell the exact same story with everyone who died the first time coming back to life magically because they need to die AGAIN in the *ahem* sequel.

And I'm sorry, but you are no James Bond franchise, Fright Night.

With all that out of the way though, how is the actual movie, taken on its own merits?

Well...

Surprisingly, it's not terrible.  The story is a LITTLE different, with Charlie, Amy, and "Evil" Ed *muttermutterdiedinthelastmoviethisisaSEQUELtomutterdamnitmutter* heading to Romania this time for a school trip, and moving next door to their professor Gerri Dandridge, who, gasp!  Is a vampire!

I like at least mixing it up by having our heroes move next door to the villain, instead of the bad guy coming into town.  I also like making Gerri, who gets turned into a woman with the reboot, is tied to the legends of Elizabeth Bathory, an infamous serial killer, and rightly connected to vampires thanks to her own obsession with blood.  So that's actually a decent addition to their mythology, and a good use of hers.

And just like the previous two Fright Nights, Charlie discovers Gerri's secret, and rushes to famed monster hunter, Peter Vincent.  This time, Peter's the host of an online 'ghost hunter' style show, that actually works really well for the character's archetype and updating it for today.

Sadly, that's the best thing about the character of Peter Vincent.  Ultimately, he does absolutely nothing, adds nothing to the plot, and does very little but doubt Charlie at every turn.  Which isn't surprising, but by the time he believes, he doesn't really impart any great wisdom or actions that impact the plot AT ALL.  A total waste, which is a shame because as I said, the updating is good, and the actor isn't bad with what he's given.

Colin Farrell's Jerry becomes Jaime Murray's Gerri, and I will say straight up, she is HANDS DOWN the best thing in this movie.  Turning the character into a femme fatale, seeking release from her curse, and tying it all in with Bathory actually makes for a compelling, seductive character which Murray excels at playing.  She knocks it out of the park, and the role is practically tailor-made for her, and right in line with the other roles she has played.  She embodies the character, and thrills at her actions in a way very similar to Colin, and you can actually see the two characters coming from the same cloth, and split by this weird multiverse.

Also, they do some genuinely unique things, at least to the best of my (admittedly sometimes spotty) recollection.  The best part is giving their vampires actual echolocation abilities, which was definitely really neat.

The actors for the human kids aren't terrible.  They're actually pretty fun, but "Evil" Ed ends up with the worst of it, but that's mainly due to some really cheesy lines he gets.  But hey, the Fright Night movies have ALL had a little bit of cheese in them, and this movie is no different.  It goes a little far on that account only a few times, so the winces are few, at least.

Where the movie really falls apart is the very end, which always seems to be the case.  But Fright Night goes above and beyond on that charge.  Instead of just having an ending that doesn't work, or doesn't really end, this movie actually makes NO sense with its ending.  And I am going to rant into spoiler territory, so yoy may want to turn back now if you really want to see this movie.

Seriously, this ending is just so baffling I need to go through it all and get it off my chest.

Gerri takes Amy to her lair, so her blood can cure Gerri of her curse.  Charlie dutifully follows and is told that any vampires created by her will turn back to human if Gerri is killed before sunrise.  Okay, still fine, right?

So Amy gets turned, and has to kill or turn Charlie or something, which she does.  Charlie becoming a vampire actually comes in handy, because he kills himself to stop Amy from becoming a vampire, which doesn't make a lick of sense.  And so it begins.

With Charlie dead, Amy starts to whither, taking away Gerri's one chance at freedom.  Except Charlie missed his heart, so he wasn't REALLY dead!  Then...why was there all that trouble and drama and whithering, if he wasn't dead?  Did this suddenly become Princess Bride and he was only mostly dead??

Peter shows up briefly to stab Gerri through the heart, but she pulls the same trick, and HE missed HER heart too.  So the one thing Peter actually does in the movie is an abject, pointless failure.

Okay, okay, things look bleak, but the sun isn't up yet, so there's stil hope!  And THEN the sun comes up.  Well, shit, so much for turning everyone back!

All the clocks go off, it's dawn, no one can be turned back, but Charlie still uses his high pitched bat-like powers to shatter the windows in the bathhouse of blood, causing Gerri to die from exposure, as vampires tend to do.

And with Gerri dead by the rays of dawn's early light, everyone turns back to normal and...wait...IT IS AFTER DAWN!

Yes, people.  Fright Night 2.  Where the rules are made up and the plot points don't matter.

Up until that ending that makes no sense, violates it's OWN damned rules, and is just ten minutes of headscratching, it's a decent enough vampire movie.

But the problem is, it's Fright Night.  It's NOT it's own thing, you can only take it so much on its own merits.  Especially when it's the THIRD remake, telling very much the same story.  The new unique twists to it do shake things up, but it's stil the same story.  You've seen it before.  TWICE!  And each one was better!

I was actually grooving along okay enough in this movie, even WITH that annoyance, and grumbling that Evil Ed should not still be kicking in a SEQUEL, but that ending was just so utterly incomprehensible and dumb that all my good will melted into a pool of blood like Gerri.

If you're a fan of Jaime Murray, this movie is STILL worth watching though, since she does a great job, and there is SOME fun here besides that, but at the end of the day, you ought to go see either of the other original Fright Nights before this.  Both are superior films in every respect.

Meanwhile, the spirits of Charlie, Amy, Jerry or Gerri, Peter Vincent, and Ed, are forever stuck in a karmic repetition of their existence in infinite variations, until they finally get things right, I guess.

What I'm Watching: Cockneys vs. Zombies

Hello horrorheads!

I've been following a zombie comedy movie for awhile now, the titular Cockneys vs. Zombies.  It had that right look of fun and horror, and I'm a fan of Michelle Ryan, so it was on my radar.

I was a little afraid at it trying to be the next Shaun of the Dead though, but the trailers made me smile enough.

It finally came out on DVD, and first thing I'm gonna say is that it is not fair to compare it to Shaun of the Dead.  Even though I'm going to, at times.  The movies are very different, with different goals in mind, and even the creators of CvZ know they can't compare to such a masterpiece.

Shaun is such a well-crafted piece of work, with every single bit of dialogue feeding into the next, building up, and even the littlest detail leads to foreshadowing and the end.  The craftsmanship in Edgar Wright's movies are mindboggling at times.

And CvZ just does not compare, on that level.

But that said, it is still REALLY solid, taken on its own merits.  Even held up against Shaun, it still fares very well, even if it is proudly standing and staring up at its better.

The story centers around an old folks home in London, under threat of being demolished and the residents being located far FAR away from home, and into an area that the local cockneys just will not stand for.  So the grandkids, and their cousin, along with a few friends, team up to pull a bank heist to pay the money needed to keep the home open.

Meanwhile, the same construction company looking to rebuild have uncovered an ancient tomb, and set free a zombie plague upon the city.

I love mixing up the heist genre with a zombie movie, because you would NEVER think of those two going together, and honestly?  They don't.  But it's a good diversion and set up for plot and characters, as the zombie movie crashes the party and stops the heist dead in its tracks.

Which is probably a good thing, because the entire team besides Michelle Ryan's Katy are either inept, bumbling fools, or raging psychopaths, leading to the heist going horribly wrong in literally every way they can think of.

From their, the mission is STILL to save their granddad and his friends, but now the threat has become the zombie hordes.

This movie does some truly, incrediblely inventive things with the genre that I don't think I've ever seen before.  The humour is great, very well balanced with the more serious threat of zombies, and there are a ton of great, gory zombie kills.

Cockneys vs. Zombies had me laughing, yelping, cheering, and it even touched me emotionally a few times.  It never quite reached the heights of Shaun of the Dead, but it made a damned good effort, and if it didn't unthrone the reigning king of British zombie comedies, it should feel no shame in being a very close second.

I definitely recommend checking out CvZ, and just judge it for what it is, not because it's not Shaun of the Dead.  It was definitely surprising just how good it was, since I went into this without middling hopes for a fun time, and was not disappointed.

What I'm Watching: Among Friends

Happy Labor Day, horrorheads!  What better way to spend it than...AMONG FRIENDS??

Okay, seriously.  Among Friends is a movie I watched this past week, directed by horror icon Danielle Harris.  It's about a group of friends getting together to throw an 80s themed murder mystery party as one last big bash before one of them moves away.

During the course of the night the murder mystery becomes all too real, things go horribly wrong, and secrets are revealed, secrets that they've kept even from themselves.  Their friendships are tested in ways they never expected, and nothing will ever be the same amongst the group.

But hey, that's what happens when you allow someone to cut off your friend's fingers for shits and giggles...

The movie ends up being what is termed in the tv biz as a 'bottle episode', where most of the action happens in one room.  You really could do this as a play, almost.  Because of that, and because most of the cast is tied down for 2/3rds of the plot, not a lot actually HAPPENS.

A lot of that gets broken up with flashbacks via video recordings taken by the evil mastermind, everyone's supposed friend Bernadette.  Because of her cameras and (I think?) her trade as a psychologist, she knows everyone's secrets, and sets about revealing them.  Fortunately Bernadette also remains free and pretty violent, so while there's a lot of sitting tied up around a table, her actions keep things lively.

Overall, I enjoyed this movie.  It harkens back nicely to those cheap slashers of the 80s, and if you're a fan of this site, you know what that means.  The story is also pretty solid, and things unfold at a good pace and how everything ties together is well done.  The hints dropped early in the story all come back and most of the questions are answered in a satisfactory way.

The only scene that did NOT work for me at all, was when one of the character, who took mushrooms unexpectedly, has her bad trip kick in, and the movie diverts into tha for longer than was necessary.  It's a fun scene where she trips out and sees the entire cast as part of a movie, with the roles being recast by well known actors, like Michael Biehn.  It's cute, and silly, but really adds nothing much to the overall plot than wackiness and a bit of humour.  Laughs like that CAN be a welcome release, and that is the point where they should have come, but the way they were brought in just ended up feeling more forced than anything.

I really liked what the movie had to say about friendship, how in some cases we may not really know our friends very well, if at all, and in other cases, those friendships may well mean nothing when they need to mean the most.  It's a great commentary on the nature of friendships and shallowness, and whenever a horror movie can slip in some metaphor, it is always good!

Harris's directing is very good, especially for a first time director.  I've always enjoyed her acting, and seeing her take things to the next level was a treat, and I will continue to follow her to directing, if this keeps up.

So, a maybe sometimes cheesy movie that gives lots of nods to 80s style and movies, with some nice metaphor and a decent enough story?  Even with that one scene that I could do with out, I would say anyone who enjoys the movies I already talk about should at least give this one a chance.

What I'm Watching: Rapture-Palooza

On the 'not my usual fare' for Trisk pile, which let's be honest.  That's what the What I'm Watching posts are all about.  Either new horror, or stuff I just wanna talk about, highlight, or warn you the hell away from.

It's good to make that reminder just what these posts are.

...Where was I?

Right, Rapture-Palooza.  It's a horror comedy, with the emphasis clearly on the comedy side of things.  The horror is so very minor.  We have some talking locusts, rains of blood, some undead wraiths, the apocalypse, and Satan.

But really, that's all in service of the jokes.

What we've got is a story that takes place after the Rapture, the (According to some faiths) religious event that calls the faithful up to heaven, leaving behind everyone else to suffer through plagues and the coming of the Beast.

Sadly, they don't mean Hank McCoy, but the earthly avatar of Satan.  Things do not go well.  But, people persevere.

And honestly, that display of the human spirit is one of the best things about this movie.  I honestly think a lot of the attitudes shown by characters is how people would really react if they were left behind in the Rapture and had to deal with meteors shooting down regularly, blood pouring from the sky, and crows telling you to fuck off before they shit on your car.

That very worn down, "Sigh, just another day after the Rapture".  Hell, I know I would get that way.  I'd be one of the people going, "River of blood?  SURE let's go kayak down it!!"  We get used to shit, it becomes everyday, and we persevere.

The Beast, a politician named Earl Gundy, wants a nice girl next door type, since most girls left behind are less honourable and not his type.  So when he runs into Lindsey, he uses his Beastly ways, and outright threats of killing everyone she knows and loves, starting with her boyfriend, to get her to agree to being his queen.  But they formulate a plan to entrap the Beast, since killing him would just release Satan incarnate upon the Earth, and hopefully save everyone.

And yes, this is a comedy.

That resigned attitude, the blase whatever to it all is where a lot of the humour comes from.  Anna Kendrick as Lindsey brings another side of it, as she wears a face of "I am taking no more of your shit than I have to, in order to shoot you dead" in all her interactions with the Beast.  The jokes are...okay.  The humour is nothing that creative, and it's more putting them against such a dark subject matter that makes it creative.  But when you have such a top notch comedic cast of Kendrick, John Francis Daley, Craig Robinson as the Beast/Earl/Satan, Rob Corddry, and so many others, they at least make an enjoyable ride.

There are a few laugh out loud moments, a few more that are just painfully long, but overall it's a decent enough movie to kill 90 minutes with.  The jokes never get in the way of the actual plot, and the plot is never there JUST to make a joke, two things that happens too often in comedies.

If you want a few good laughs, and don't mind a little bit of sacrilege (Seriously, Jesus gets lasered, God has a fouler mouth than most sailors, and Lindsey tells God off in no uncertain terms for what he did to the planet) then hey, check this out.

What I'm Watching: Antiviral

Oh, hello there.

Yeah, I got a few quickie reviews to do.  So let's get to it!

I came across Antiviral by Brandon Cronenberg in my monthly quest to see what-all is coming out each month.  It's how I find a LOT of these weird little gems, and amazing little pieces of coal.

Antiviral caught my eye on a number of levels.  The idea was intriguing, although dangerously close to being off-putting.  But more importantly, first-time director, Brandon Cronenberg.  He may be a first timer, but that last name should be familiar to any fan of the genre, and yes, they're related.

The movie gives us a view of a future world where the culture of celebrity obsession has escalated to insane degrees.  Now, I have trouble wrapping my head around the levels that the movie takes things to.  I find it SO hard to believe that it would be widely acceptable, and normal, to head down to your local clinic to be infected with a disease that your favourite star has.

But hey!  I'm the guy who tries to win the occasional costume auction from movies and tv shows.  And there are *definitely* fetishes out there for things like sneezing and coughing, so I guess maybe it's possible.

In fact, I *can* see it happening, but in a more backdoor, sideways glanced, dark, seemy side of things.  Not as open and clean and accepted as its presented here.

That's a bit of a hurdle for me to jump over, but I can see that side of humanity, so it's not a giant leap for me, just one I really had to work towards to get to accept it and suspend my disbelief that much.  On a scale of things, I found it less believable than In Time, but WAAAY more believable than TiMER.  Do not get me started on THAT movie's ideas.

I think what helped me get into the ideas behind this movie were that it at least did most of the storytelling on that seemier side, that darker side.  Sure, there's the clinics that are big, white, and antiseptic, but most of the plot deals with the back alley deals, and corproate espionage, and thievery that happens in this sort of culture.

We follow Syd March, a top employee at one of the largest clinics, but he makes a little money on the side by smuggling out viruses and using his own body to incubate them before selling them to the nearest street dealer.

Things take a nasty turn when he does his usual thievery on a big client, and she dies.  The story slowly unfolds on the nature of the disease, and who targeted her for death.  Syd races against time before the same virus he put in his own body kills him as well.

So, once you get past the "...ooookay" of the world they set up, you roll with a murder mystery of a man who is racing against the clock before he too dies.  That's a good plot, and it's done well, it's just that setup, man!  If YOU can get by it, then this should be a fun ride.

I still greatly enjoyed myself, but always had that nagging feeling of, "...really??" with this world.  It was just a minor thing, but I can't deny it was always there, and colouring my thoughts.

The strength of this movie is undeniably in its star; Caleb Landry Jones does an amazing job as Syd.  He plays it mostly deadpan, but that's because he's trying to play the cool salesman that can make any pitch, and get any sale.  Once the wheels start coming off his life, or he's out of the office, he's much more open, and the shift between the two modes of Syd are where Caleb shines.  He really sells Syd's cool obsession with this world's biggest star, and the murder victim that sets things rolling.

The other strength is, obviously, Brandon Cronenberg.  He's got a lot to live up to, and he doesn't quite get there, but he clearly has an idea of what he's doing.  This movie is well put together, and it's biggest fault is not quite selling me on its reality, and that's as much my issue as the movie's.  Still, he's a more than capable storyteller, and while the writing and direction are not perfect, you can tell he knows his shit, and he's going places.  And yes, there is some imagery in this movie, especially towards the end that will make you go, "Ah yes, he IS a Cronenberg, isn't he?"  Nice, icky, fleshy stuff.

And lots of needles.  LOOOTS of needles.  They even admit to using needles as sexual metaphors, which actually works really well for the unrequited obsession tale being told.  But that's going to be another problem for people.  I have a fear of needles that I've mostly had under control since Pulp Fiction, but this one was on the verge of making me a quivering mass.  They are NOT shy about showing penetrations, and they get up close and personal, and go into some very uncomfortable places.  Again, this is a personal issue, and if it's one you don't have, rock on.

It's a problematic movie, but a fun mystery, and an interesting look at our own culture through a VERY cracked mirror.  If you can get into the setup, and aren't disturbed by a HOLYCRAPTON of close up needle shots that are very much sexual metaphors, then you may just enjoy this movie.  I definitely recommend it as being worth a look, even more so if you can get past the initial flaws or cringeworthy things.  It's a solid opening movie for Brandon, but not for everyone's tastes.

What I'm Watching: Jack the Reaper

Yes, Jack the REAPER.  You read that correctly.

No, this has nothing to do with what you THOUGHT that said.

Instead, we have a bunch of kids who get rounded up to do some time at a railroad to make up credit for missing an important paper in class, or something.  Whatever, it's our thin excuse to get the plot moving.

On the way home, their bus is in an accident, the kids wake up to find the teacher/chaperone, and the bus driver are missing, and a vacant but lit-up carnival off in the distance.

Most of the kids head to the carnival to try and find some help, and being teenagers decide to play on the abandoned rides, thinking they are completely alone.

Unsurprisingly, since the plot needs it, they are not, and bodies start to drop.

Now, while reading that, you may be able to key in to the big twist of the movie pretty quickly, and I too saw it coming a mile away.  Which is a shame.  If the plot wasn't so overdone, it might have actually been an okay movie.  But with SO many more, better versions of this sort of story, it makes it hard to recommend this one.

The characters are pretty much your stock characters from horror movie casting, and the only thing the movie then has going for it, is the killer/monster.  And he's almost intriguing.  Railroad Jack is a myth in these parts, and they say if he sees you, you're already doomed.  He carries around a pickaxe, which I will say this, that is a GREAT visual nod and twist to the typical grim reaper's scythe.  I like that.

Jack also has a number of fun kills, but they do all kinda devolve into "sticking people with my big pointy weapon.  Which is another shame, but done well.

The only other unquestionably great thing about this movie is Tony Todd.  The Candyman himself is always, ALWAYS worth watching.  Sadly, this movie doesn't use him much, or that well.  He does what he does in the movie, and does a good job, since he's Tony freakin' Todd, but once he's done with his scenes at the start of the movie, he's never really seen again.  Sigh.

I really don't get how you go from having this railroad centric character going around killling people, and then randomly have his killing ground be an abandoned carnival?  How does that work?  The movie's lack of focus on this point is another stumbling point.  It's like they had on the one hand this pretty cool villain, with the psuedo-scythe and the mythology behind it, and on the other hand they had this cool setting they wanted to use, because carnivals can and are creepy places.  Not to mention the dichotomy of them being fun places, but also places with scares, and then have people die in these vacationy fun spots.

But when they smashed the two together, little to no regard was paid to realise, wait, these are two separate ideas that don't quite go together!

The cinematography also left a LOT to be desired.  Much, if not all, of the movie is shot handheld, and it's not shot very well.  I was getting flashbacks to Blair Witch at times, which should not be happening in a movie that is not found footage!  They also had WAY too much love for the DRAMATIC ZOOM whenever someone said an important or poignant line.  Fortunately, once the characters start dying, THAT stops happening, so the overly silly self-importance goes away.

On the plus side, the characters may be your usual tropes, but they do spend QUITE a bit of time developing them, even if they're stuff we've seen before.  You actually manage to care about the ones that aren't total assholes.  And there's a few surprises in store with who survives the plot.

Still, the movie has its problems.  But if you don't mind the usual tropes, and a rehashed plot, and want to see something with an arguably creative antagonist, and at least some good deaths in a creative setting, well...it's not a TOTAL waste, if you can see it.

But with the subpar acting (But on par for this site), and a story you've seen everywhere, and done so much better in those places, this movie is REALLY hard to recommend.  It isn't terrible, but there are other options for you to enjoy.  You just kinda walk out of this with a sigh.

But hey.  Tony Todd, right?

What I'm Watching: Hansel & Gretel Get Baked

Well, it seems like Hansel and Gretel are big these days.

I was torn when I heard about this movie.  The cast sounded fun, the story sounded like an interesting modern take on the classic story, while at the same time making me roll my eyes a little at trying to make this a stoner comedy.

And yeah, that last part there did end up bugging me quite a bit.  I am soooo clearly not the target audience for this sort of thing.  I am not a fan of the stoner movie.  I've never seen a Harold and Kumar movie, and don't have much interest in doing so without some more convincing.

The good news is, the "Heehee, we are sooo high!!" jokes are gotten out of the way quickly in the first ten minutes or so of the movie, and rarely return after that.

Trying to acquire a fresh supply of pot from the person who turns out to be the witch, but its more of a MacGuffin for the plot, than anything else.  I do appreciate calling her blend of pot "Black Forest" and the movie is sprinkled with other great, humourous references to the original Grimm Brothers storyline.

The story follows Gretel for the most part, as she tries to find her missing boyfriend after he tries to get that Black Forest weed to bake into gingerbread cookies.  He gets captured by the witch, Gretel falls prey to her next, and then it falls to Hansel to try and do the rescuing.

Note, the title of the movie is false.  Gretel is the only one in the movie to 'get baked'.  Hansel stays refreshingly not high, nor does he get shoved into an oven.  The latter is a close call, though.  Gretel is played as actually pretty smart, when she's not stoned, and her detective work is protrayed fairly well on the screen by Castle star Molly Quinn.  I'm actually impressed with the level of storytelling the movie went to with that side of things.

The movie ends up telling a pretty solid story within the confines of the fairy tale, with Gretel getting lost in the witch's forest of pot plants in the basement, and trying to leave a trail of breadcrumbs to find her way back out.  And by breadcrumbs, I mean Skittles.  Which leads to one of the single most hilarious moments in the movie.

Oh, and the movie likes to push the fact that Cary Elwes is in it, they even give him pretty high billing in the promotional material.  If you're coming here for Cary Elwes, let this be your warning;  He is in the first few minutes of the movie, and then GONE.  Eaten.  Disappeared.  Never seen again.  And he's in makeup and such, so he's not the most recognisable Cary out there.  This isn't quite false advertising, but it feels SO disingenuous to me, I feel it's necessary to point it out.

But anyways, the movie.  I ended up liking it way more than I first thought.  The cast is solid enough, and play off each other.  It doesn't feel like trying to cash in, and the H&G elements to the story are actually pretty integral to their particular story.  This really would NOT be the same movie if those parts were taken out.  It's actually quite a clever update to the story, in an entirely different way from the original story, and the recent Witch Hunters take on the property.  All three are perfectly valid interpretations.

Sure, this is more of a comedy with a body count, but that's okay, and I like branching out to the fringes of Trisk's remit, which is vague to begin with.  If you can stand a few heavy handed pot jokes to start your movie, and are in the mood for something silly but fun, this is not a bad movie to kill some time with.  It's entertaining, and does what it wants to do, and does it well enough.

What I'm Watching: Pacific Rim

Caught an afternoon showing of what may be my most anticipated movie of the summer, Pacific Rim!

Why was THIS, of all things, highly anticipated?  Well, it's from Del Toro, a favourite of mine, as anyone who frequents Trisk knows, that's right off the bat.  I also have a big amount of respect for Godzilla and friends, even if I'm not super well versed in the lore.  I know the general specifics like everyone, but never got THAT into the kaiju fandom, mostly just on the periphary.  Plus, giant robots.  And a great, headlined by the often-amazing Idris Elba.

But, probably most importantly, the movie is not a remake, it's not a sequel, it's not an adaptation.  It has its roots in the kaiju genre, and the mech genre, and you can see that DNA, so it's hard to call this an ORIGINAL idea, or unique, but it is its own thing, even if it owes a lot to the past.

All that being said, I guess that brings us around to the big question; so how WAS the movie??

The movie was REALLY good.

It's not mind blowing, it's not twisty and turny, and it does owe a lot to the past, but it takes those past bits, and while it's straightforward, it tells its story well, and sets up the characters well.

The story is set in the near future, after a rift to another plane of existence opens up at the bottom of the Pacific Oean, through which giant monsters come through to rampage our coastal cities all along the Pacific Rim.  After a few cities become rubble, the governments band together and create the Jaegers, gigantic robots piloted by humans to deal with the problem.

Admittedly, that's a big leap, but hey, you knew that going in, so you either accept it or went to the wrong movie.  If you can accept that, you are in for quite a ride.  The opening scene setting up the universe and giving you the backstory really does the job of explaining things to the audience, and really draws you in nicely.

I really liked their take on the mechs, needing two pilots to manage everything, the tech required, and even how it ties into the Kaiju themselves and even how its used with the enemy.

The movie has a lot of plot threads, and all of them are given equal time, giving most of the major players a moment.  I really like a movie that has a lot of things going on, and tying them all together to the central plot in the end.  You kinda see where everything is going, but the journey is most enjoyable.

My biggest complaint is their one attempt at a twist, when they reveal that the plan to destroy the breach won't work.  Normally a twist like that goes along the lines of, the bad guys see it coming and will have it work to their benefit or to our detrement, but it's just, "We have intel that it won't work, just like all our other attempts!"

But it DOES give our side intel on HOW to make it work, so it works on that level, at least.

The movie does suffer a bit from the same problem that plagues the Transformers movies that you get a little too close to the action and it becomes hard to follow, but nowhere near as bad as that, since you at least have giant robots that aren't a mass of sharp pointy tiny metal shards, and mixed in with fighting solid, fleshy monsters that glow.  Both of these help manage that issue tremendously.  But a little less downpour would have helped even more.

It's nice that a movie that's all about cities getting holy hell stomped out of them, that this movie still manages to be bright, and not too dour.  A very stark contrast to Man of Steel, which gets to be a bit grey in the cinemtography, and didn't have much humour.  Pacific Rim used a lot of bright (But not Batman and Robin bright) colours to punch things up, both in the robots, the monsters, and the landscapes.  You can't have Hong Kong without neon lights, right?  Also, there's a good sense of humour amongst all the heroes, but not a black comedy sort of thing, as one might expect from anyone REALLY going through a decade or two of these attacks.

Things look bleak for humanity in the story, but the visuals and characters keep it refreshingly and enjoyably light.

The movie has a lot of heart, and the characters play well off one another, letting you get to know most everyone you need to know, and their personalities, before the big robot fighting kicks in.  This was a good balance of action and character, and I never felt like things got too draggy with pacing, since I enjoyed watching the humans as much as the robots.

If you are a fan of Godzilla or giant mechs, you pretty much HAVE to see this movie.  It's not an amazing, life altering movie, but it is good, well writen, and perfectly solid action adventure.  And it's something new and different.  Go see it!

What I'm Watching: American Mary

American Mary is the story of a medical student, played by one of my all-time favourite underrated Canadian actresses, Katharine Isabelle.  Last seen gracing these reviews via 13 Eerie.  I won't ramble on about her any more than I have to for the sake of this review.

Mary's a typical student in debt, trying to stay above water while also trying to keep her grades up, and not doing a great job of it.  At the end of her rope, she goes to try and get a job as a dancer at a club, and while there, a friend of the club owner comes in with some major injuries and an unwillingness to go to the hospital.  So, Mary's medical prowess is called upon, and she does her best to save the guy.

Word spreads of her skills to the most unlikely of places, people in the body modification community.  She does a few surgeries for a woman, which only solidifies her reputation.  After a most horrific event with her teachers and colleagues, Mary drops out of school and devotes her life full time to the body mod circuit.

Things go from bad to worse as she gets revenge on her attackers, all on the backdrop of fulfilling every clients whim to make them look the exact way they want.

Boy, I watch some weird movies with some weird kinks in them, huh?

This movie never quite goes the full-on Human Centipede route, and it treats the body modders with, I think, a fair amount of respect, treating them as people just trying to find themselves, and not as freaks.

The story is pretty damned unique, does not go where you might think it goes sometimes, and is not afraid to get VERY dark at times, with a little bit of black comedy to make you feel all the more uncomfortable.

Mary is played superbly by Isabelle, which is no surprise to me.  She nails the life of this student who has everything taken from her, and yet still finds a way to survive.  Survival really is the word for her character, as most of the darkness surrounds her, and when she is attacked midway through the movie, Katharine does a great job of switching gears from the almost submissive, meek Mary to a more serious, colder, distant person.  I've seen some reviews comment on how they didn't understand the switch in personality, and feel it was too sudden, but uh...after what she went through, it's not surprising she would become withdrawn and go to some pretty dark places.

This movie is NOT for everyone, especially if you're a little squeamish.  Like I said though, it doesn't go all the way like Centipede, but there is still some scenes of intense surgery.  But that's not what the movie is about, and more a backdrop to Mary's life, and to inject some thrills and chills into the movie.

I really enjoyed it though, so if you're in the mood for a dark, sexy, revenge thriller that looks into a lesser-seen corner of society, this movie should hit the spot.

What I'm Watching: Axe Giant

Rewriting myths and folklore for the modern age seems to be all the rage these days, with stuff like the brilliantly awesome and fun Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, to Jack the Giant Killer.  Heck, that's what folklore is, stories being passed down, and retold, and changing with the tellings.

But what happens when you take the well known bit of Americana, like Paul Bunyan, and turn that into a horror movie??

Well.

It is an interesting choice, that's for sure.

First up, let's cut to the chase.  This movie is cheesy.  I mean, how can it NOT be?  But even beyond the expectations of Paul Bunyan as a long-lived axe slaying maniac, we have some seriously low budget effects, and some painful acting.

Which pretty much explains why I'm reviewing it, eh?

You know what you're getting into here, with a title like Axe Giant: The Wrath of Paul Bunyan, and with wha I've already told you, so the best I can say is, this was really quite fun.

I enjoyed it.

The plot revolves around a bunch of first time offenders being dragged off into the woods for their punishment, to let them spend time to vent, center themselves, and basically give them a slap on the wrist while trying to steer them off the path they might end up on if they keep going.  They're accompanied by their therapist, and an utterly crazy correctional officer.  Sgt. Hoke is so gloriously over the top.  He is the crazy drill sergeant who is in charge, and isn't about to take any crap from his charges, or even treat them as much more than his typical cons.  Every line out of his mouth is a hilarious bit of scenery chewing, so you can't wait for his imminent demise, but you miss his quips when he is gone.

Once in the woods, the kids discover the skeletal remains of Babe, the blue ox, and take one of her horns.  The disruption of her remains awakens the rage of Paul, who seeks bloody vengance.  Now, while the effects are cheesy, the effects on the deaths are fucking spectacular.  When someone gets cut in half, it is one of the best looking effects of that sort I've seen, for this level of budget.  I can forgive their giant blue ox looking almost like a rabid cartoon animal, for that level of amazing crazy.

Trisk favourite Joe Estevez puts in an appearance as the old coot in the woods who knows the true story behind Paul, and how the truth became twisted into the fuzzy, family friendly version we all know and love.  His shining moment in this movie is giving that backstory, frankly.  He does it in such a non-linear fashion, and tells it in such...well, such a way an old crazy hermit would, that it feels real, and is brilliant to watch.

The ending manages to be satisfying enough, while still leaving that door open, and they even manage to make you feel sorry for the monster, all good things that are welcome additions to a fun movie.

Seriously, if you like the sort of movies this site specialises in, Axe Giant is a REAL treat.  Cheesy in ALL the right ways, and they know it.  It's just the right kind of thing I love to see.

What I'm Watching: Last Exorcism Part 2

One of my favourite movies from a few years back was the found footage gem, Last Exorcism.  It was a great, twisty tale that really used the found footage format effectively, and literally kept you guessing until the last few minutes, and then made you rethink EVERYTHING you just watched.  That rare movie that truly rewards multiple viewings.

So of course, they had to make a sequel.  How did that go?

Uh...

Not well, sadly.  Everything the first movie was, the sequel isn't.  I mean that QUITE literally.  The movie is not very thrilling, it's actually kinda boring for the first half of the movie, and they ditch the found footage style to do a traditional movie.

I know I complain about found footage overdose, but ditching that for the sequel just seems wrong.  I don't think they could have told THIS specific story in that style, but they still could have done some other story that would fit.  It just does not feel like a movie in the same universe.

The first half of the movie covers Nell's resurfacing and recovering after the events of the first movie.  They do some decent character work, but you always sit there waiting for that moment when things go horribly wrong, and those moments were long in coming, and very small, very mundane even, and very typical of the genre.  Nothing at all noteworthy.

Once the demonic goodness kicks in, we pick up a little bit, but again, it's just very standard fare.  Nell seeks the helpful local mystic juju voodoo woman, who calls in an exorcist, and she gets strappedown once again.

The actual exorcism is such a minor part of the movie, and oh look, they bring up the almost overused namedrop of Croatoa/Croatoan.  There is just so little style to this movie to call its own, so little innovation, and barely a story there in the first place.

Once again, the highlight is Ashley Bell as Nell.  She still does a great job, even though it is lessened this time, as with everything else.  And she still does some creepy movements, which she excelled at in the first movie.  It's hard to buy the innocence routine after the first movie, and I think not being found footage harms that even more.  The verite style brings you right into the movie, into their lives, and you feel closer to them psychologically, and a more standard movie puts up that wall of the theatre screen.

Most frustrating is how often the movie likes to do non scare scares.  Typified by a moment when Abalam returns and possesses someone close to Nell, grabbing someone, and closing themselves up in a room.  You hear a ruckus, someone comes along and opens the door to reveal...NOTHING!

In the words of Bart Simpson, you know what would've been better than nothing?  ANYTHING!!

It's a shame, really, because the basic idea of Nell recovering and finding she has not escaped the clutches of Abalam has some legs for a story.  But it never really clicks, since it's almost the background, and not the story.  Also, they don't really deal at all with the actual birth of the demon at the end of the first movie, or anything in that movie at all.  Did they even watch it?

The best part of the movie is the final few moments, with what barely qualifies as their twist.  It doesn't cause a major paradigm shift in the way this movie works, like the first, which is a shame.  But it is a good "Oooh" moment, and leads to some good stuff.

Some good stuff that would be dealt with more in a third movie if they made one, which I'm not too terribly keen to see, quite frankly.  Of course, since they ditched the ending of the alst movie, while also starting from the exact moment the first movie ended!, I don't expect anything here would be followed up on either, if it continues.

Stick with the original, and gives this sequel a wide berth, unless you just want to watch Ashley Bell do her thing.  Actually, STILL stick to the original, because she does it better there.

What I'm Watching: Warm Bodies

Sticking with the theme of supernatural romances adapted from novels, here's some thoughts on Warm Bodies!

Now, I *know* this movie was hit with backlash because I saw a lot of people saying, "Ugh, no thank you.  it's just Twilight with Zombies."

And that, that is a shame, because Warm Bodies is a genuinely entertaining, if not great, movie.

The story is set in a world with two levels of zombies.  There's your recently dead zombies, who still have a sense of self, ability to think, and sadly, an overwhelming urge to eat human flesh.  Eventually, their humanity fades away, along with their consciousness and memories, and devolve even further into skeletal zombies that  have zero humanity left in them.

We follow the adventures of one such still-humanoid zombie, whom is later named R, as he meets a girl and falls for her.  It's your classic love story of REALLY forbidden love, especially when she starts to fall for him.  Julie can't quite figure out why, but it probably helps that R isn't trying to eat her.

The biggest fault of the movie probably comes from a need here.  They made R too pretty.  You need to make him look dead, look enough like a zombie, but still have him not look like you will lose your lunch by looking at him.  And so R ends up with a look that made people think of Edward's pale sparkliness, and that made people judge the movie before even seeing it.

The relationship between R and Julie somehow works, and the build up is done very well.  They have ups and downs, it isn't really love at first bite...er, sight, and their struggles are believable.  For one of them being a zombie, that is.

Warm Bodies succeeds in actually making you feel for R and the zombies.  The movie is rife with dark humour, which you kinda need, and expect, from the self-aware zombies.  It pokes fun at tropes, and embraces a few others, but runs with them in fun ways.

Rob Corddry as R's friend M brings a lot of humour, as you would expect from the Daily Show alum.  Any scene with him in it, is great, and his performance is worth watching.  And if he's not enough, then you've got John Malkovich as Julie's father and the military leader of the human settlement featured in the movie.

My only problem with the story, is that the zombie plague is turned back by the power of love?  This was just poorly explained and handwaved, more than I would like.  But turning the tide of the undead isn't really the thrust of the story, and save for being important to literally humanising R, it's not that important.  Just more of a, "Oh, come ON!" moment for me.

Warm Bodies is charming, fun, and funny, with a great cast, and good chemistry between the two leads.  It was much more enjoyable than Beautiful Creatures, and I definitely recommend it to fans of zombie movies who want something a little different.

What I'm Watching: Beautiful Creatures

Hopefully this won't be as long as the Man of Steel review!

This is a *little* off the beaten path for Trisk, but there's magic, there's witches...sorry, 'casters' as the movie insists on calling them, and curses.  I can work with that.

Beautiful Creatures suffered a bit from coming out at the same time as Twilight fever.  Which is understandable.  Supernatural love stories are super huge right now, so everyone and their dog wants to make one and cash in on that.  Which there's nothing wrong there, but the movie probably was hit by some backlash from the sparkly vampie abominations.

Which is really a shame, since this movie wasn't bad.

It doesn't blow me away, but it was a fun two hours.  The cast is solid, mostly.  The biggest problem was everyone having to do Southern accents, and not everyone in the cast should be allowed to do that, in this movie.  Some were better than others, and some were just painful, to me, and got on my nerves.

But dialect aside, the performances still come through just fine, especially Jeremy Irons who can be known for chewing scenery with the best of them.  Yeah, I'm looking at YOU, Dungeons & Dragons...

The story resolves around a kid haunted by dreams, until he meets a girl whose family is spoken about in hushed whispers and rumours.  He's intrigued, and finds out everything rumoured about the family is true.  He gets sucked into their crazy world of magic, destiny, and curses, and does his best to help his new girlfriend not turn evil.

I was a little uncomfortable with the movie's mythology that established how every caster reaches a point where they go either to the light or the dark.  The women are forced into the role by their 'true nature' and have to stay that way.  But the males are able to choose at will, being good or evil whenver they want.  Gee, that's not too sexist, is it?  I'm probably being too harsh, but it did make me roll my eyes.

The movie's use of magic was creative, and sexism aside, it have some good mythology to it, that built for a unique view of magic in this world.  And setting it against a Southern backdrop and the Civil War gave it a bit of history and substance to it.  The Vampire Diaries does much the same with its initial mythology, and it works well.

There were a few moments that made me wince though, and it was usually during any sort of magic battle.  Partly because of effects, and partly because of acting.  Magic is a tough thing to sell, magic battles even more so, since actors have to act big to sell whatever they're doing, while having no idea WHAT it is they're doing, and it sometimes comes across as silly.

Still, there's a good story here of trying to find your place in the world at that awkward time in your life known as high school.  It's something we all go through, and a common source of supernatural allegory.  Beautiful Creatures might not be the most unique take on a crowded genre trope, but it does a fair job, and is worth a look.

What I'm Watching: Man of Steel

The summer of superheroes continues!  Or whatever.

Naturally, I've seen all the Superman movies, and was one of the few people that liked Superman Returns.  It wasn't great, but I feel it got treated unfairly.  It was a bit too beholden to the movies that came before, sticking with the continuity, at least of the first two movies.  It was simply too reverent of that material, and never stood on its own, and was still too mired in an older style that just did not suit it.

And with this new movie, they handed the reins over to Zach Snyder, who can be very hit or miss.  300 was big, dumb fun.  Watchmen was a blast, held very close to the source material, but missed the mark in some ways, and Sucker Punch was a bloody mess.

So, I came into Man of Steel with cautious optimism, like I suspect many fans did.  Snyder can be an amazing, visionary filmmaker, he's a comics fan of some note, but Superman has a lot of baggage, good and bad, and they were making questionable changes that did not fill people with trust and joy.

Possibly with that mindset, without expecting much from the movie, I came away with an opinion that may well be seen as blasphemy amongst movie and comic fans alike.

This was the best Superman movie that has ever been made.

Now, don't get me wrong.  We all love those original movies.  But really.  Let's be serious.  They may well be classics, they showed us what could be done with the genre, but let's face it.  They are dated.  They are very much products of their time.  They may have treated the source material with some level of seriousness, they also carried over some of the camp that was rampant in the medium in the late 70s and early 80s.  Superman and Superman II may well be great movies, but they are also kinda goofy at times.

Man of Steel brings a new level of maturity and seriousness to the franchise, and that is both good, and bad.  When you're dealing with a guy who wears his underwear on the outside, you gotta expect things to not be perfectly serious, nor should they be.  Of course, they lost the boxers, so that kinda gives you a hint of the tone they're going for here.

The movie is darker than you might expect, but not as dark or serious as say, the Dark Knight films.  This is about as dark as you could get away with making Superman, and have it still feel like a Superman movie.  It loses a lot of the joy and fun of the property because of that, but it has some moments, and it fits with what they're trying to do here, and drag the big blue boy scout into the 21st Century.  It mostly works, but not having that lighter tone does hurt it, in the long run.  Superman is still Superman, but he's a little too dour.  That thankfully feels changed by the end of the movie, and they might be a bit more open to something closer to what we'd expect in future sequels.

Man of Steel is packed with information, starting over from scratch, and that is probably for the best.  Superman Returns spent too much time honouring the past, and the movie never stood on its own.  It's like they went down the checklist of things every Superman movie had up to that point and ticked each box.  MoS tossed aside all expectations, and forged ahead, and really did become its own thing.  This was the best choice they could have made.  It allows them to exist as their own franchise, and not be beholden to everything Richard Donner did.  There is almost no references to past movies, save for familiar characters, and that is just fine.

It was such a relief that this movie did NOT have a Phantom Zone that was a floating, flat square.  Not once did anyone come close to saying, "Kneel before Zod!"  There was no John Williams score.  Not even a piece of Kryptonite reared its glowing emerald head in this movie.  This made the movie refreshing, and stand as its own movie.

I do wish the movie had been a little tighter.  It spent far too much time on Krypton, with a nearly ten minute long opening scene there.  But this is forgivable, as Russell Crowe is amazing as Superman's father, Jor-El.  Michael Shannon also gives a great performance as Zod, although he does have a few scenes of wince-worthy scenery chewing.  But fortunately, they are very few.  The style set forth by the opening also helps the movie be its own creature.  This is a unique Krypton, with its own design aesthetic, and I loved the design.  There was nothing overly familiar, and it truly felt like an alien world with technology that made sense, while still being so far beyond our abilities.

Being a new first movie in a franchise, we of course get the dreaded origin story, which I've ranted on at length everywhere online.  But this movie only hits the high points, and fortunately spreads them out over the course of the movie.  After the overlong Kryptonian opening, it would have been terrible to spend the next half hour watching young Clark grow and discover his powers.  We don't need that.  We may need the scenes for context, and make us understand this take on Clark and his worldview, but the movie does the smart thing and places these scenes throughout the movie as flashbacks, showing them only when the movie needs them for context and reflection on current events, properly building the narrative and characters with the smartly dropped background information at opportune times.  It is a careful balancing act to try and pull off, and the movie succeeds at it, although they do sometimes slow the movie down a bit too much, as well as covering a lot of the same ground.

Which is the movie's biggest problem; it likes to drop its big ideas on you over and over again.  There's a common idea of the 'rule of threes' in writing, and this movie felt more like 'the rule of sixes' with how often they liked to tell us things.  This didn't bother me so much, but it can get a bit to the point of wanting to shout, "Get on with it!!" for others.

Henry Cavill is perfectly cast as Superman.  He stands right up there with Christopher Reeve.  He has that presence of character, that gravitas, and yet that gentleness a Superman needs.  He somehow embodies being a virtual God, and yet also the everyman all at once.  And he has that look.  Brandon Routh was perfectly cast as Clark, but he never quite embodies Superman as believably, for me.  Cavill does a good job of showing Clark slowly discovering his powers, both with joy and terror and a mix of frustration at times.  At least, when it's not kid Clark discovering his powers.

The depiction of powers was also handled well.  I do indeed believe a man can fly, more than I have in other Superman movies.  The x-ray vision was well done, even if it was never truly used.  It looked great.  Superspeed was handled well, and superhearing is the easiest effect of all, isn't it?  And all of these being used in the action scenes was great to watch.  The use of powers, and finally having a movie where Superman could cut loose was so much fun.  Because someone remembered he has villains outside of Lex Luthor that he can actually punch and not decapitate.

Amy Adams as Lois Lane...she may well be the best Lois ever.  Certainly for the movies.  Adams brings all of her acting chops to the role, and they actually gave her a great version of Lois to play.  She is not passive, she is not meek, she is a real reporter, and they let her be that way.  She spends the early part of the movie actually investigating these urban legends of a mystery saviour that lead her around the world.  They could have easily had Superman arrive at any point and make her stop, never finding out who he is beyond being a strange visitor from another world.  But no, they let her go all the way, they let her use her skills to their ultimate conclusion, and allow her, all on her own and with her own ability, go right up to the Kent farm and discover completely who Superman really is.

Yes, this Lois is no fool that claims to be a reporter, yet is fooled by a simple pair of glasses.  She knows who Superman is, before he even IS Superman.  And she figured it out herself, with no one having to tell her.  She also helps move the plot and action along, and is rarely there as just a damsel in distress.  Very well done.

A lot of talk is going to be made about Superman's dispatching of Zod.  There will be many cries of, "Superman doesn't kill!" and really, that's never been true.  I can even point to an instance in comics where he killed another General Zod.  But, killing should be Superman's last resort.  He should try everything else first.  And then try it again.  That taking of a life should be the absolute last, and most necessary thing he ever has to do, and it should be the worst decision he can make.  The movie ALMOST earns that, mostly thanks to the destruction Zod wreaks upon the planet, and knowing there truly is no other way to deal with him.  If Zod had appeared a few years down the road after Superman appeared, they may have had means to deal with him, or Kryptonite to keep him under control, but it was clear that NO ONE was prepared to do anything about him, save for that final action.  The only thing that was lacking was how quickly they did get to that necessary point, and how it affected Clark, save for his very immediate reaction, which was just about right, but not nearly enough.

It was also nice that they actually gave Zod some proper motivation.  He wasn't just a villain for villainy's sake.  He was a patriot of Krypton, which actually works well with Superman's typical stance of "truth, justice, and the American way".  It's a good counterpoint, and part of why he works so well.  They don't quite make him sympathetic, but they do make him understandable.  He truly believe he was doing the best thing at all times for his lost people, and he just didn't care about the unevolved monkeys Kal had made a home with.

The movie has its share of flaws, though.  It does have a few too many messages it tries to convey, and never quite perfecting one.  The clearest being, where does Clark fit in?  Fortunately, he finds his answer, and that is likely the most satisfying theme in the movie.  And again, it does cover the same ground repeatedly.  There's also, as you will have with ANY movie, its share of plotholes.  But if you're along for the ride, there's nothing too majorly crazy or stupid to ruin things.

The biggest plot failure is a moment of, "Well, why didn't Superman just do that to begin with??" to stop a threat to the planet.  But they were going for the epic overcoming of a great force, and a moment of triumph, and while it IS that moment, they never quite earned it as well as other moments.

So, the movie brings a newfound level of maturity to Superman, while missing the ultimate point of Superman.  But not by a wide margin, and you can almost let it slide as this being the building blocks that will one day give us the Superman we are more familiar with.  The usual comicbookiness of plot logic rears its ugly head, but nothing quite as silly as a giant cellophane S that ensnares the villains.

Man of Steel succeeds in refreshing the Superman franchise, making for a thrilling action movie that is maybe too much of an action movie for its own good.  The drama is good, if overblown at times, but still it all makes for a very enjoyable movie.  If you're a fan of Superman, or comicbook movies, this is definitely a must see movie, and as long as you don't expect Christopher Reeve and something from the 80s, you should have a great time.

What I'm Watching: HP Lovecraft's Cool Air

Always a treat to get a new Lovecraft adaptation in my hands!  Sadly, they tend to be not very good.  Lovecraft always seems to work best in movies that aren't his.  Lovecraftian ideas and themes are much better than ACTUAL Lovecraft adaptations, more often than not.

This is an issue I struggle with, even though I know the answer, I think.  Lovecraft was very atmospheric, a lot of the brilliance comes from the use of language, and that tends to be lost in visual adaptations.  And when he comes up with SUCH unique visuals in his writing that defy description, often literally for the sake of sanity, it's understandable why that stuff is hard to translate.

It's the sort of things almost all book adaptations deal with, but Lovecraft's style makes it 1000 times more difficult.

And Cool Air is no exception.

This version of the story follows struggling screenwriter Charlie Baxter (A reference to Charles Dexter Ward?) finding a place to stay while he tries to get his life together, and having things get very weird, very quickly, when he has a heart attack and a stroke.  He is drawn into a world of mystical forces, a scientist who needs the cold, and a poor autistic girl.

The story unfolds well enough over the next 70 minutes, and the short runtime is a blessing.  The movie is not bloated, and since there is a LOT of narration and sitting around, the pace actually doesn't feel too bad.  Considering.

But when the movie takes long moments of Charlie narrating, as if he's writing his next script, and the movie shows him sitting next to Doctor Shcokner while you see the printed script pages of what he's saying floating behind them...you can't help but go, "...Really?"

The acting is decent, at least from Charlie and Shockner.  He has a bit of a deadpan, but it works, and he gets in the emotion when he needs it while recounting his tale.  And Shockner really sells her tale of her life and the terror she lives through every day, and the dire consequences awaiting Charlie.

Less successful is the autistic daughter of their landlord.  Her lines sound VERY forced and over rehearsed, which becomes increasingly obvious because they're halting and stuttering.  Every pauses feels perfectly planned, like she's remembering exactly how it was written on the page.  Which is a shame, because I can still see the raw talent beneath all that, and if she was just allowed to speak, and be awkward in her mannerisms in a more natural manner, it would be a standout performance here.

So, ultimately, the movie is not great, because of the limitations of Lovecraft's work for source material, and the low budget, sometimes amateurish nature of the production.  But since the movie doesn't overstay it's welcome and gets to the point in a short runtime, I can almost forgive it's flaws, and accept it as a decent short story.  If they had gone for a full 90 minute movie, or more?  This would be interminable.  But 70 minutes is just about right to get in and do its thing, and not feel like I wasted my time on slow, annoying sitting.

If you're a Lovecraft fan, it's worth checking out, if you can do so on the cheap, but definitely not anything you need to rush around and see right this second.