'The Dark Knight' sequel rumors - Wes' craptastic thoughts

The Dark Knight was just as spectacular as everyone thought, breaking records at every turn and becoming the most groundbreaking superhero film ever.

Now what?

Am I the only one who isn't really looking forward to a sequel to the biggest blockbuster of the decade? Sure, I was hyped as hell for The Dark Knight immediately after seeing Batman Begins in the theater. The ending to Batman Begins was incredibly intriguing, mostly due to Joker being introduced.

The Dark Knight obviously blew Batman Begins away, but at the end the story felt... complete. We got the perfect Joker, Dent's arc was incredible and everything else was absolutely groundbreaking.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get a sequel, it will happen no matter what, but why all the speculation so soon and why is everyone buying into it? I guess it's true that us Americans have incredibly short attention spans and cannot appreciate a film for what it is after it's released rather we want to see if and how they will top it (which it isn't even certain that Nolan(s) will return.)

Another reason I don't see why everyone is so excited is because if these reports are true then producers are obviously pushing for the sequel far too soon. "Sources" say that producers are screaming "PENGUIN, RIDDLER, CATWOMAN - HOFFMAN, DEPP, JOLIE!" although Nolan has stated publicly that he has no interest in Penguin and Goyer has denied Catwoman, but teases at Riddler. If this is true it's terrible news because this will just keep Nolan from returning rather than encourage him. One of the reasons The Dark Knight was so hyped (atleast for myself) was the "unique" casting of Ledger, never before have we seen him play a role like this. The new casting rumors are just boring.

Now, here is my opinion on what a sequel should or most likely consist of.

The most obvious and likely choice for a villain for the next film will be Riddler. When a lot of people think of Riddler they think of Frank Gorshin or Jim Carrey and people would mistake Riddler for being too much like Joker. The truth is Riddler isn't really anything like Joker. Joker is obviously sociopathic but Riddler is just damaged. Also, Nolan bases his Batman characters from the works of Joseph Loeb and Loeb is known to portray Riddler as a small, intelligent yet cowardly crook (Batman: Hush is the only exception.) I would suspect Riddler being a Zodiac-type serial killer on the loose in Gotham, but there has been other ideas floating around as an investigator who is hired to capture Batman since he is on the run as a fugitive at the end of The Dark Knight. Both of very worthy ideas.

My personal pick to play Riddler is...

Jeremy Davies!

Jeremy Davies is an incredibly talented yet under-rated actor. He was recently seen in Rescue Dawn (which starred Christian Bale.) I also like Nolan's taste in actors and feel that Davies would fit very well into the Nolan world of Batman. Davies just seems like the best choice.

My personal secondary villian would be Black Mask. He is much like Bruce Wayne... only if Wayne would a messed up evil gangster. He was supposedly in the first draft of The Dark Knight so I would bet that he will make an appearance in the next film.

My personal pick for Black Mask would be...

Guy Pearce!

I like this pick most because Pearce isn't in nearly enough films (one of his latest, The Proposition is phenomenal,) he's worked with Nolan in the past (Memento,) and he's a great actor to take on Bale. It may be a long shot but it's just a dream pick. And he's got a skull-like face to fit into that Black Mask...

What about those Penguin rumors... pretty ridiculous in my opinion. Hoffman as the Penguin is a bit dumb as Nolan has stated he'd be more excited having Hoffman in the film rather than having Penguin as a character. But I'll give my opinion who should play one of the most uninteresting Batman villains...

Toby Jones!

I think this is the most interesting take on a boring character. I could see him being a character much like Bruce Wayne only very jealous of him because of his deformity. I don't see this happening... not as long as Nolan is writing and directing.

Catwoman would be a very difficult character to portray on screen. She's a woman in a cat costume that steals stuff. Since she and Black Mask have had a past in the comic books I could see it maybe happening, but not likely. Angelina Jolie is probably the lamest most boring pick. I don't get Jolie in action films because her arms are as thin as some of those Ethiopian kids.

My picks for Catwoman are...

Rhona Mitra!

Best known for her roles in Nip/Tuck and Doomsday I feel she is a great choice as the woman in the leather outfit. Not only does she look extremely physiqually fit (not anorexic) and she has an incredible amount of sex appeal. So far she is my favorite choice, but plenty of women could fit the role such as my other favorite picks...

Emily Blunt!

and...

Carla Gugino!

There are also other villains such as Mr. Freeze, Clayface and Poison Ivy that won't see the light-of-day in Nolan's Batman films, but I won't waste my time with anymore of my comic book/movie geekery. Again, just my opinion for some perfect casting choices in the upcoming films even though The Dark Knight will keep me satisfied for however long the sequel takes.

'Lost Boys: The Tribe' is a suck-monkey!

Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008)

Director
P.J. Pesce

Writer
Hans Rodionoff

Cast
Tad Hilgenbrink, Angus Sutherland and Corey Feldman

I hold Lost Boys in very high regard even though it was helm by the same man who ruined the Batman franchise back in the late 90's, Joel Schumacher. It's one of those films I loved as a kid and it still holds up very well today. The performances were great, the cheesy 80's style gives it a fantastic nostalgic feel, the comedic elements worked well and the characters were compelling (c'mon, tweeners fighting vampires is awesome!)

I'll get this out of the way right now: my hopes weren't very high before watching this, but my hope raised a bit after during the opening scene. It was shot decent enough, the dialogue wasn't bad and the gore was adequate in amount and look. It just had the typical yet expected generic score and editing, but if a story is presented well enough it just doesn't matter.

After about 10-minutes after the opening scene it occurred to me that the film-makers gave up after that. The dialogue was so bad I was kind of squirming in my seat, not only that but the acting is atrocious! Did they just hire a bunch of young CW-rejects?

It's obvious that they are catering to the unmotivated and douchebagginess of The Real World audience. You know, the people who hump each other in hot tubs and have no other interest in discussing anything but their social lives? Yea, those people will probably love this shit. The vampire leader can't hold Keifer Sutherland's huge vampire mullet. He stumbles around with shades like a Jim Morrison wanna-be and mumbles in the same tone throughout. He's unmotivated... and that's like... cool 'n stuff. Instead of having a vampire group that look a little creepy or even intimidating, we have a bunch of douches who "punk'd" each other by impaling or disemboweling one another. Lame.

There are a few good things that are winks to fans of the original film. We get treated to a shirtless overweight guy with chains on his neck playing a saxophone. (Yea, some of you know who I'm talking about.) I also rather enjoyed Corey Feldman who seems to not have aged that much since the first film. He has a few good lines and is probably the only entertaining aspect of the dreck. It's too bad that they couldn't revolve story around him rather than some boring, cliched brother and sister.

On a similar not they are releasing a prequel to his film in the form of a comic book which will easily surpass the quality of this garbage.

Oh, and the main characters? Who cares? We get some sort of lame backstory and is pretty much the same set-up from the first film only not good. You have to love it when the brother is banging some vampire slut in a shower whom he met only minutes earlier before scolding his sister for going on a motorcycle ride with a guy he knew. I wonder if The Real World teaches that same lesson in double-standards to our current generation of bright young people.

Lost Boys: The Tribe is a rushed, shit-stained mess. It's mind-blowing to learn that Schumacher has been wanting to do a sequel for two decades, was turned down and WB decides to release this turd. As I said at the beginning, I wasn't looking for it to be great but maybe entertaining. This was an utter snore-fest. Unless you are a hardcore (I mean hardcore as in a having a tattoo of the "Two Coreys" on each ass cheek) Lost Boys fan, skip this. Now I need to watch Lost Boys again to hopefully swipe my memory clean from this childhood rape-age.

I'll add after the first part of the credits rolled a scene takes place that shows how they could've done a potentially cool sequel, but it feels like being flipped the bird by the creators. Thanks, jerk-offs.

2.0/10

'The Dark Knight' - Finally... My Most Anticipated Movie of the Decade Reviewed!

The Dark Knight (2008)

Director
Christopher Nolan

Writer
Christopher and Jonathon Nolan

Cast
Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Michael Cane and Morgan Freeman

Alright. Right now it's 5:15 A.M. and I'm tired as hell and I would love nothing else but to go to bed. But no, here I am sitting on my computer typing my review of my most anticipated movie of the decade because that's how damn loyal I am to it. I didn't update everyone on every little piece of news on 'The Dark Knight' just to blow-off this review. I'm sticking to my guns and staying up as late as it takes to publish this review.

"...and here we... GO!"

I drove an hour-and-a-half to another state just for 'The Dark Knight' IMAX experience. Not only that but I arrived there two-and-a-half hours early. Already seeing a line of people form made me a little nervous about getting a decent seat, but my wife and I decided to get a bite to eat. The line grew three-times as long by the time we were done, but luckily they opened the doors to the room and we got seats right in the middle!

Before I went into the room though there were of course people dressed up as The Joker, Batman, Joker's thugs and Poison Ivy. Only one costume really impressed me and it was one of Batman. When asked where they got the costume he replied that he bought it piece-by-piece and it added up to almost $2000! Someone asked "Wow! Are you rich?" and they answered "No... not at all."

We sat in the theater seats for a couple of hours just to secure our spots so obviously everyone was pretty bored. That's when a guy in a junky Batman outfit with electrical-tape wrapped around his neck was sending paper notes to various people dressed at the Joker trying to instigate a "fight." The Joker-clad guy looked at the note and laughed as the junky Batman stood there straight-faced.

Alright... I'm getting to the review now. Just a warning. I'm revealing MASSIVE SPOILERS so if you haven't seen the movie and don't want to know what happens then don't read any further. The only reason I'm doing this is because I think most of everyone has watched it by now that has any interest in reading this.

One thing I love about this series is the continuity. At the beginning we see Scarecrow causing trouble with a army of fake Batmen (taken from the graphic novel The Dark Knight Strikes Again.) Also, rather than having a new love interest in the sequel like the older series, Batman is still infatuated with his childhood sweetheart who happens to be seeing another man since Wayne seems he'll never give up his mantel as Batman.

The first part of the film was impressive even though I've already watched it about 20-times on my Batman Begins blu-ray disc. All I have to say, from the years of reading various Batman comics and stories... this is the definitive Joker. Everything you remember about Jack Nicholson should be washed away from your memory after sitting through five-minutes of Ledger's performance. He dances a fine line between prankster and homicidal maniac with superb balance. Every scene that he is in will entertain and creep-out which is exactly his purpose!

He is phenomenal.

He spins different stories of how he received his scars on his mouth. One was from an abusive father, the other was from himself trying to help his wife's depression. Of course we're not supposed to know his origin as he prefers his past to be "multiple choice" as he states in The Killing Joke.

He described himself perfectly. He's like a "dog chasing a car; once he catches it he doesn't know what else to do." Joker has no motivation and is only there to entertain himself. This is the essance of Joker and Batman's relationship. Neither one can kill the other or it'd just be like killing themselves. When Joker quotes Jerry Maguire's "You complete me." to Batman, it's not just for laughs; it's the truth!

That's why I love the fact that Joker lives through Batman saving him. In Batman Begins he leaves Ra's Al Ghul to his death which is very uncharacteristic of him and he has learned from it. Joker almost met the same demise as Nicholson from Batman '89 but this movie actually captures the true Batman.

This movie also deals with another major character and a much more sympathetic one: Harvey "Two-Face" Dent. Batman see's Dent as the man who will take over his job and he can live the rest of his life as Bruce Wayne in peace, but Joker proves everyone is able to be corrupted. He's a very charasmatic District Attorney who is dedicated to bringing down crime in Gotham and through Eckhart's performance you feel his drive and desire to change things which makes things all the more tragic.

This is one of my only problems with the film; his turn as Two-Face didn't flow very well for me. After an interesting speech from Joker he decides to go on a kill-crazy revenge plot, but this is a simple squabble on my part. His make-up/CGI burn effects were astonishing yet supremely grotesque especially for a PG-13 film. Hell, that leaked concept art I posted a while back was tame compared to the actual face.

Batman, yes Batman... it is his movie after all (although I think Oldman and Eckhart had as much screentime as Bale, if not more!) He shows his persistance while also showing that he is still human, like when he stitching up his wound after a dog bit him. Wayne's desire to give up the Batman-gig is a profound concept that was never explored in the original series and it makes a lot of sense. His thought process while becoming Batman was probably not intended to be long-term and he's learned in The Dark Knight that will may be never-ending.

As the final scene of Batman Begins hints of escalation, it now seems out of control. Once Batman takes up his mantal as The Dark Knight then he gives birth to his rogue villian such as Joker and Two-Face. They are willing to take equal extremes in un-doing everything Batman as ever done. This is a recurring theme that's in the comic series which adds a certain depth to it. In the end nobody wins.

Oldman as James Gordon is like it was in Batman Begins... he IS Gordon! I was shocked to see that Gordon "died" in the assassination attempt, but once he came back, held a shotgun to the back of Joker's head and arrested him, everyone in the theater errupted in APPLAUSE! Once of the coolest theater experiences in my life.

If Nolan returns for a third film, which I pray to God that he will, it'll be interesting to see where he goes from here. Last I read was that both Joker and Two-Face were going to live and Two-Face would be the central villian in the third film. Now since Ledger has passed and the Two-Face character has died the next film will be unpredictable. Although I feel Ledger is the definitive Joker, the character will need to be recurring since it's already established that he will be in The Dark Knight. I have nothing but the upmost respect for Ledger's performance and would love nothing more than to see him take the role again, but from a realistic stand-point I would like to see Joseph Gordon-Levitt be cast in the film. First off he's a very talented young actor, he looks a lot like Ledger and he's actually worked with Ledger before. I feel it would be a seamless, yet respectful casting.

That last action piece was spectacular! Batman taking out henchmen AND S.W.A.T. team members! Holy shit! I also loved the touch with the Sonar technology on this particular scene; Batman with his trademark white-eyes? Hellz yeah!

Most of the action is real... yeah hard to believe a real building blowing up and real helicopters exploding, isn't it? Nolan is a film-maker with great taste and he knows subtle CGI is what works best. Everyone in Hollywood needs to take notice.

Everywhere heroes they are looked upon as protectors of evil, but once they make a mistake they are cast out quickly. As much good as people try to do it will never be satisfactory. But that's what heroes are, as Alfred Pennyworth said: "They endure."

This is such a great film and is definitely groundbreaking in the superhero genre. The Dark Knight is without a doubt the most faithful and best comic book adaption ever. Nothing feels better as a fan of Batman seeing the source material depicted on screen in a respectful and serious manner and it actually living up to the massive hype.

10/10

In Bruges (2008)

Director
Martin McDonagh

Writer
Martin McDonagh

Cast
Colin Farrell, Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes

If you have ever seen the hokey trailer to this, trust me, it doesn't do this film justice. Sure, it's a pretty funny flick... well, actually it's pretty damn hilarious most of the time but I would label it as a "dramedy."

What's a "dramedy?" It's a comedy-drama, Sherlock.

The film centers around two hitmen, one is a newcomer (Farrell) and the other is a veteran (Gleeson) and they are sent to Bruges, Belgium for unknown reasons by their boss Frank (Fiennes.)

As I said before this is a dramedy. Along with it's humorously quirky dialogue it also has a very serious, and sometimes tragic side to it. Farell's character makes a tragic mistake on his first hit and is seriously depressed, even on the verge of suicide. His partner, Gleeson, tries to pull him out of his misery as he awaits instructions from his boss Frank.

Although that is a very serious tone to the film there are comedy elements to it. Gleeson's character, who can appreciate the fine culture in the city of Bruges yet his young partner feels that only if you "lived on a farm and was retarded" you might appreciate the city.

Gleeson, who has starred in 28 Days Later and Troy. is great as always and this might be Farrell's best performance yet aside from Tigerland. But the highlight of the film for me was Fiennes peformance as Frank. Anything that comes from his mouth is histerical. This is a man who calls his wife a "inanimate fucking object" yet later tells her that she's not an inanimate object. I actually think his performance should be seriously considered for nomination.

This film is as politically incorrect as they get. They pull no punches, especially though dialogue. Take a look at this:

Ken: "We shall strike a balance between culture and fun."

Ray: "Somehow I believe, Ken, that the balance shall tip in the favor of culture, like a big fat fucking retarded fucking black girl on a see-saw opposite...a dwarf."

I just decided to write this review to tell everyone how great of a film this is. Probably the best of the year so far and unfortunately it might be overlooked once Oscar-time rolls around. It's a well-written and beautifully shot film that should be watched. If you like crime-dramas, comedies or anything in the same vain as Pulp Fiction then definintely check it out.

10/10

Wall-E - Best Science-Fiction Film of the Decade... So Far...

Wall-E (2008)

Director
Andrew Stanton

Writer
Andrew Stanton & Jim Capobianco

Cast
Voices of Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Jeff Garlin and Sigourney Weaver

Wall-E as been hyped for some time and I've been hyping it in my own head. After a string of some-what less-than-stellar films from Pixar, which I mean not totally flawless, I was really wanting something that captured me like The Incredibles and Toy Story. Yea, I guess Ratatouille, Cars and Finding Nemo just didn't go that far for me although I find the among the best animated features from their respective years.

I won't waste time with a synopsis as everyone and their dogs alread knows what it's about. A fish-out-of-water tales of a lonely robot in the ruins of what used to be Earth and in the mean time shows humans how to live again.

The only complain I've been hearing from the movie is that the "message" was overbearing. Sure, it doesn't hide it but I would never call it overbearing. First off, it's a family film so they are not going to hide meaningful messages for people to discover on multiple veiwings. This is what irks me about movie-buffs; sure it's nice to have those films in which you discover meanings yourself, but not every film has that nor should it. Secondly, compared to some family films the message in Wall-E is much more subtle which isn't saying much.

Wall-E's execution is fantastic. Pixar really captures the vastness of space and the animation is obviously superb but you really notice it in a film with very little dialogue. Good portions of the film play-out like a silent film which seems extremely ironic with the most advanced animation technology. Much of the film relies on physical comedy which made me chuckle quite a bit which rarely happens during animated family films.

I haven't seen Kung-Fu Panda, but it looks like a good animated film. One thing that bothers me though is that every voice actor is already a well-known and established star with a cast like Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman and Seth Rogan (enough with Seth Rogen already!) when in an animated film... it just doesn't matter. It can become distracting as you recognize their voices and just see the actor, not the character. Also, they dominate the world of film, do they really need to do the same in the world of animation?

Thankfully this isn't the case for Wall-E. Sure there isn't a whole lot of dialogue but atleast the main characters aren't voiced by hot property actors such as Jonah Hill but by uknowns. I didn't even know who the voices were before I checked for this review. I noticed Jeff Garlin from Curb Your Enthusiasm and a nice little nod to sci-fi fans casting Sigourney Weaver who's well-known for her work in the original Alien franchise.

Not only is this a great family film this may be the greatest science-fiction film of the decade. There haven't been many released this decade that can compete with Wall-E. The Matrix sequel? Give me a break. Minority Report? Not even close. Star Wars? As much as I love them, hell nah. A.I.? Although I like it, still not even close. Maybe James Cameron's Avatar, which comes out in 2009 also starring Sigourney Weaver, will give Wall-E a run for it's money.

As of now, I feel this is Pixar's most amitious, intriguing and heart-felt effort and is destined to become a classic.

10/10

[Rec] - "Scariest film I've ever seen... seriously."

[REC] (2007)

Directors
Jaume Balagueró
Paco Plaza

Writers
Jaume Balagueró
Luis Berdejo

Cast
Manuela Velasco, Javier Botet, Ferran Terraza and Pep Sais


I had this little Spanish horror indy film sitting on my computer for a few months now. There has been a lot of buzz surrounding it especially among the movie buff internet community. A movie so great that it's American remake, Quarantine, will be released only a year after the original making it possibly the fastest turn-around of any remake. This movie is simply called [REC].

It may seem like we're becoming bombarded with the POV-type films nowadays with Cloverfield, Diary of the Dead and now [REC]/Quarantine being released within one year but that's movie business. In no way should someone shun a certain type of film just for it's style because you never know if you'll miss out on greatness. That's why I'm glad I saw Cloverfield and why I'm really glad I saw [REC].

[REC] starts out like any segment on a news station. A woman, Angela, is doing a story about firefighters that work the night shift. She's chatting with all of the employees and everything's fine. There has been a report of a elderly woman acting aggressive and she rides along with them. Once they arrive, they find out the old woman likes the taste of firefighters and is really pissed off. Before they can escape the government seals and quarantines the building leaving the residents the fend for themselves.

Here is the trailer:





Now I've seen many, many movies. I've seen many horror films dating back to when I was a child. Never have I had a single film experience frighten me since the Tales from the Darkside episode of Inside the Closet when I was a little tyke.

There are many things that will seem cliche, especially if you're a zombie movie veteran, but you'll be so tense it won't even matter. The intensity level only escalates to the finale credits leaving it's viewer in unrelenting terror. Keep in mind that watched this on my little LCD monitor and two tiny speakers on my computer and it still almost made me disperse liquid in my pants.

Wow...

...that ending...

Without spoiling a whole lot someone must have found Goddess Bunny the Tap Dancer as down-right-fucking-creepy as I did. The entire ending is the exact spike of visceral, sheeringly disturbing horror that the film needed to lead up to. I'm not exaggerating one bit that this is the single most terrifying film I've EVER seen.

This film was just now released on DVD and Blu-ray in Spain. Unfortunately, they are different region codes from most DVD and Blu-ray players in the United States. This film is available on most torrent sites, but I can see this being on our video rental and store shelves around October in which the remake, Quarantine, will be released in theaters which is an instant buy for me.

Watch this film if you love to be terrified or think you've seen everything. Forget about the remake and watch the original beforehand.

9.0/10

Diary of the Dead - "Just.Stay.DEAD.Already!!!"

Diary of the Dead (2008)

Director
George A. Romero

Writer
George A.Romero

Cast
Joshua Close, Scott Wentworth, Michelle Morgan and Joel Dinicol

George Romero, the godfather of zombie films. Director of Night of the Living Dead a film that revolutionized horror films and introduced the flesh eating undead. Director of Dawn of the Dead (1978) a film many consider the greatest zombie movie ever made. Director of Day of the Dead (1985) which I consider an under-rated classic, just not on par with the previous films due to budget constraints.

Recently he directed and released Land of the Dead which is a severly mediocre entry to the Dead series. After the release there have been rumblings of Romero making yet another entry into the Dead series but without anyone screwing it up for him. No studios or producers, this new film will come straight from the man himself much like his original indy film Night of the Living Dead.

To say the least many of his fans, including me were excited. What I didn't know was that once I saw it, it turned out the be one of the biggest let-downs I've ever witnessed. Like a kid opening a present and hoping for the complete Voltron action figure only to get a knitted reindeer sweater two sizes too big.

But.... but this is George A. Romero.... what... happened?!

It's obvious from the start, the performances are atrocious. Just downright awful. So bad I was getting distracted. This wasn't the only thing I noticed right-off-the-bat, it's completely ham-fisted. It pours on the social commentary thick, so thick I thought I was drowning in it! *garble garble*

Do you like being treated like you're stupid? If so, you'll love this flick!

I get it, most relevant horror films do have social commentary. Hell, that's part of the reason Dawn is considered his best film because of the commentary on consumerism. That may or may not be obvious to people who watch Dawn, it was very subtle compared to Diary. Throughout the film there is commentary by the female protagonist, even without this narrative the message is still way too obvious, so obvious that the movie really doesn't have a plot at all.

Thoughts on digital media... zombie attack... thoughts on human nature... zombie attack (w/ cool kill)... televised media lying to us (!)... shameless MySpace ad... zombie attack... are we worth saving?... THE END!

There you go, that's the whole movie which include stupid character choices and stupid zombie choices (gotta love when a zombie walks right by the camera just to bite a chunk out of the dude directly in front of the camera!) I guess one positive thing came from this: there were some pretty unique ways they dispatched of zombies... but I was watching a friggin' Romero zombie film! I demand more!

I love the ongoing themes as well, the evil rednecks bust a nut over shooting zombies as the angelic women and no-nonsense black man caught in the middle just trying to survive. I'm in no way trying to be sexist or racist, I just found it funny that they're practically the same type of characters in everyone of his films. Just how Michael Bay portrays women as nothing but uber-hot and black men as loud and obnoxious.

Night of the Living Dead is probably my second favorite horror film of all-time. I love the hell out of it and because of this I look up to Romero although most of his films after the 80's have been shite. Much like Wes Craven and John Carpenter, they drag a string of poo behind them for a long time until they reveal that gem that might just mean they still have that talent they were known for back in the day For Craven it was New Nightmare and for Carpenter it was the Masters of Horror episode Cigarette Burns... but I'm still waiting on Romero. Yes, I thought Bruiser sucked.

Diary of the Dead is a bad movie. No plot, bad acting and even worse dialogue. The movie tries to be a whole hell of a lot deeper than what it actually is... "At first it was us vs. us now it's us vs. them. Little did we know them are us." Wh-wh-wh-WHAT?! If that ain't faux-intellect I don't know what is. That sentence doesn't even make any friggin' sense!

Although I consider it a pretty awful film especially for Romero it's still a zombie movie, and who doesn't love zombie movies? I wouldn't recommend it to anyone to watch, it's definitely something everyone can live without seeing. It makes me sort of sad seeing Romero supposedly putting his heart into this yet remakes to his older films are far superior to this (except for the Day of the Dead remake which might beat the living hell out of Diary for shittiest zombie movie of the year.) There is a Spanish zombie film that is available online called [REC] which is done in the same style as Diary and being considered one of the scariest films of the decade. A remake is in the works starring Deb from Dexter. Perhaps it might be a fun watch on cable just to watch some cool zombie kills, but this is one of the biggest disappointments of the decade.

2.0/10

Teeth - "Bites off a little more than it can chew..."

Teeth (2007)

Director
Mitchell Lichtenstein

Writer
Mitchell Lichtenstein

Cast
Jess Weixler, John Hensley, John Pais and Hale Appleman

Vagina dentata is Latin for toothed vagina. Various cultures have folk tales about women with toothed vaginas, frequently told as cautionary tales warning of the dangers of sex with strange women.
--Source: Wikipedia
(The source for everything in the Universe.)

Sounds pretty intriguing as a film, doesn't it? When I saw the trailer about six months ago it was so strange, creepy and disturbing that I knew I had to see it. The story of a young girl in High School advocating monogamy with extreme christian values who deals with temptations like every girl her age with a little twist. Here is the trailer I watched.



The trailer seemed like a concept spawned from the mind of David Cronenberg, a director not afraid of mixing sexuality with horror. What I got was something completely different from the trailer as the trailer made it seem much more subtle and set a completely different tone from what the actual movie.

Instead of creepy and disturbing I got Looney Tunes with severed penis props. The film itself seemed to have some sort of personality disorder, it wanted to be taken seriously the pacing was meant for an atmosphere of impending horror but the cartoonish gore and horrible acting made it seem like it wanted to be part funny B-movie just not very funny at all. The Mist took a B-movie concept and amped up the production and talent value and turned out to be a great horror film. Teeth attempted the exact opposite and it was an "epic fail." Interesting idea, terrible execution.

Much of the story didn't make any sense to me either. We're following a group of Dawn's friends through much of the begining of the film. They're all uptight christians who don't watch R-rated films, don't believe in evolution and are totally against any sort of sexual contact... yet all they talk about is sex. Much of the story and dialogue is so forced, much of these drawn out scenes are just boring since there is not much depth to anything as if it's trying to set an atmosphere but just comes off as sophmoric. Yes, it's an independant film but atleast put a little more work into the script. Not all of the problems come from the script, the music doesn't fit the tone of the movie from bass drums to generic score you would hear from Wild Hogs.

Teeth received mostly positive reviews to my surprise but I cannot recommend it. There are many other great movies that fit the tone the trailer set up such as Cronenberg's Videodrome and Shivers which would be considered "body horror" or "venereal horror." Check those out instead.

3.5/10

'Stephen King's The Mist' - B-movie art at it's finest!

The Mist (2007)

Director
Frank Darabont

Writer
Frank Darabont (screenplay)
Stephen King (novel)

Cast
Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden, Laurie Holden, Andre Braugher and William Sadler

When I first heard of The Mist I didn’t think much of it. Most of Stephen King’s adaptions haven’t been great with the exception of 1408 which I think was an adequate ghost story. Also, seeing Thomas Jane in it gave me worries since he also starred in the lame Stephen King adaption Dreamcatcher, but one thing that did catch my attention was that Frank Darabont was directing. Darabont is mostly known for directing some of the best movies based off of King’s work; The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile (The Shawshank Redemption being one of my favorite films.) When I finally saw the trailer in theaters I didn’t feel compelled to see it because, well, the trailer gave almost the entire movie away! Or so I thought...

I should mention that I just saw this movie since it’s release on DVD. I wanted to see it in theaters on Black Friday but I was turned down since the projector screening it broke yet they had several "family films" playing. I tried a couple of weeks later and I was only about five or ten-minutes late was turned down again! Since they didn’t start the movie since nobody showed up and they were afraid it would run-over into the next showing. Probably not if I wouldn’t have to sit through a half-hour long Army commercial.

Fuck you, RMC Cinema’s at the Village Square Mall in Effingham, Illinois!

David Drayton takes his son on what seems to be a simple trip to the grocery store. Suddenly an ominous mist cover the entire town and anyone who ventures out into it is never heard from again. As people are trapped in the store over time they becoming increasingly paranoid and Drayton must make drastic decisions to keep his son out of harms way from both the creatures outside and the people inside.

Like I said before I wasn’t expecting much from this movie but the more I watched the more it grabbed me. Most of the characters on here seem like real people. Thomas Jane, surprisingly, came off really well as an "every-man," his performance seemed very genuine, not something I see in many popular actors nowadays. Marcia Gay Harden hams it up as a religious nut who creates a panic through the townspeople, but hamming it up is great. She’s a character you love to hate and her performance seems to fit in what could be defined as an inpired B-movie. William Sadler (The Shawshank Redemption, Tales from the Crypt presents Demon Knight) helped portray how someone would be able to change their way of thinking through a series of dramatic events.

The DVD includes a feature that enables you to watch it in black and white. I’m sure many wondering why such a feature exists. Simply because the movie plays out like a long episode of The Twilight Zone. Many of the episodes are about a destruction of society under fear, an age-old story that always keeps me fascinated.

Some may worry that their may be anti-religious undertones because of the depiction of Harden’s character but after watching it I felt it was much more about faith and that no matter how bad the situation gets or seems like it gets you should never give up. Which brings me to the movie’s controversial ending. I found nothing wrong with it and if anyone wants to argue about it I’m up for it! It’s very fitting.

Although some of the relationships seem a little weak, the CGI a bit too obvious and some of the aggression from the citizens seems a little force this is a great horror film. Darabont is a great director and you can definitely tell in The Mist. What may be intended as a B-movie is told to us in the highest quality. Just like the title says; this is B-movie art! This movie is probably the closest in atmosphere and frights as my favorite horror film, The Thing and it don’t get much better than that.

8.5/10

'Rambo' - Still hatin' on Asians!

Rambo (2008)

Director
Sylvester Stallone

Writer
Art Monterastelli & Sylvester Stallone
David Morrell (character)

Cast
Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden and Graham McTavish

I wasn't sure if I wanted to go to the theater to see Rambo. Sure, it's been 20 years since the last movie came out, which I would've been 6 at the time, and it'd be kind of cool to get my first Rambo theatrical experience. But I have to travel nearly 30 miles for a decent theater that shows decent movies. Add the mostly negative reviews I was thinking this was rental-worthy. Today, I said "the heck with it" and decided to give it a chance.

John Rambo now lives in Thailand but missionaries convince him to take them to what is considered hell-on-earth, Burma. After returning from the trip he finds out that the missionaries have gone missing and escorts a group of hardened mercanaries to locate and rescue the group.

I had an idea what was happening when I was going into this. I've posted the rough trailer Stallone was using to sell the movie and there was a good idea of the extreme amount of realistic violence that was going to take place and I didn't expect it to pass by the MPAA... but it did. Not that I mind, it's quite the spectacle on the big screen.

I can see a lot of people having trouble sitting through this. Sure, it's a big dumb action movie that you can turn your brain off for and toss some popcorn in your mouth but it doesn't really work that way for me. The First Blood sequels were parodied quite often for scenes such as choppers and hundreds of soldier shooting at him and not hitting him but he's able to hit them with pin-point accuracy... but this isn't your Papa's Rambo. Much of the violence is extremely disturbing especially watching people explode like water-balloons, children getting thrown into fire and entire villages being raped. The violence so realistic that it makes everything else I've seen in a movie look like an old wild west show... on the radio!

So with all of that said the movie exceeded my expectations. Gone is the polished style of Rambo: First Blood Part 2 and Rambo 3, it's now gritty and down-and-dirty film-making. This is a hardcore guerilla warfare film that you'll either hate or love... and I loved it. The plot may be simple, the acting may not be top-notch and has much more action than any sort of character development but it works. I was really getting into this movie. The protagonists are such ruthless, despicable piles of dog-shit that you'll get all giddy when Rambo shows them what's up. Also, Rambo isn't running around like the shirtless, oiled-up young lad that he used to be, he's an old man and plays it as that.

Rambo isn't a Stallone one-man show. He works with a group of mercenaries bad-asses that have individual personalities which reminded me of the Colonial Marines from Aliens... which is alway a great thing. I have to hand it to Stallone, he's come a long way since Staying Alive as a director. I'm not sure if he is a puppeteer with my emotions or just simply exploiting them... but at least he made me feel something. It's the type of movie you want to erupt in an applause as the credits role, not because it's fine art, but it's movie that lives up to First Blood and surpasses the sequels.

Rambo is a movie that critics, in my opinion, were wrong about. I'm not sure why... I guess since they feel obligated to hate it? Maybe it was too ugly and violent which I can get and why I've hated movies in the past. Maybe they took offense because shallow action movie was trying to bring attention to the atrocities taking place in Burma but instead felt exploitive. I can see that as well but it's a hardcore action flick that takes no prisoners and still has heart and I felt so immersed with this film I couldn't possibly give it a negative review. It's one-of-a-kind type of movie in this day-in-age and will satisfy your nostalgia fix until a certain archaeologist makes his way back into theaters this summer.

8.0/10

'Cloverfield' - My first film of 2008!

Cloverfield (2008)

Director
Matt Reeves

Writer
Drew Goddard

Cast
Michael-Stahl David, T.J. Miller, Lizzy Caplan and Jessica Lucas

Just like everyone else who were unfortunate enough to watch Transformers when I saw this trailer I didn't know what the hell was going on. That's just part of their genius marketing strategy much like they are doing with The Dark Knight. I didn't really fall for the hype though. Everyone goes gah-gah over everything J.J. Abrams will do. I never watched a single second of Alias and I don't even care to get started on Lost. Maybe I am losing out on something special by not watching any of these shows but maybe not because I always thought Heroes was an awful, horrible show and people seem to love that. The marketing worked on me though and I felt that I had to see this opening weekend before I heard everyone talking about it.

There's a going to way party with a bunch of young, attractive and rich boys and girls for a guy who is leaving for Japan (JAPAN?! I wonder why... oh, I know... don't I feel special for "getting it.") Stuff starts to 'splode everywhere and a monster, who apparently strongly dislikes people, starts terrorizing Manhattan. The main yuppie who was leaving for Japan decides to brave it through the carnage to save the girl he is oh-so in love with.

The movie starts out with a lot of developing the people involved in the main storyline. We get to know them for a little while and you will either like it or get annoyed with it. Me, I didn't mind as long as the acting was decent but after about fifteen minutes my attention started to drift until "BAM!" something happens and people start threatening to shit their pants.

"This film is a rollercoaster ride." That may sound very familiar and maybe a little cliche but nothing rings closer to the truth than this film. This is probably one of the most tense theater experiences I've ever had. This film plays like a demented 75-minute ride at Universal Studios. If you don't have a huge television or state-of-the-art surround sound... go out to the theater and watch this movie now. You're experience can not be duplicated on your rinky-dink TV and two speaker mono sound.

There are several memorable scenes through this movie which some of them you've seen during television or theater ads. The one that stick out in my mind is the subway chase sequence but if I go into too much detail it would spoil it. I was worried about not connecting with any of these character as they seem like the young, attractive and rich kids that American audiences love so much but it hits you once you see them get knocked off out of nowhere. There was a nice balance to them and their relationships that evolves through their ordeal.

On the otherhand, this movie may not be for everyone. There are some people who are so used to steadicam shots that anything else will frustrate them or even make them nauseous. Not everything is wrapped in a nice, neat little package, some aspects of the monster and the fate of some characters are not revealed and that may also frustrate viewers but it's a film that will challenge you and I love it. I'm not a huge fan of The Blair Witch Project but this is proof you can still make an excellent film using the guerilla method. The movie is roughly 73 minutes long excluding credits. That may sound like a disappointing length for a feature film but it never felt rushed and actually seemed a little longer than that. In 2007 after many over-bloated craptastic summer cinema it's refreshing seeing a shorter length film that doesn't suffer at all from the run time.

I'm not sure if the film would be as good the second time around. Sure, I'll probably buy it but after seeing it once already I'm not sure if it'll hold up. The unpredictability is one of the many great aspects of this movie and that will obviously be lost on a second viewing.

Also, I'm a little irritated with comments I've read spouting such things as J.J. Abrams is a genius. This guy is probably talented as hell but from what I've read he pretty much came up with this concept. Basically the scene in which the head of the Statue of Liberty is rolling down a street (an idea derived from the Escape from New York poster,) a Godzilla-type monster for Americans and being shot on a camcorder. It seems like the guy with the cool name seems to be getting much more credit than the no-name writer and director losers. That loser director directed Felicity episodes... what does he know?! He doesn't have initials for a first-fucking-name! In defense of Abrams I saw him on Dinner for Five on IFC a couple of years ago and seems to be a very modest person and even saying himself that people give him far too much credit for Alias and Lost.

Great way to start 2008! Just when I felt like giving up on the "theater experience" this comes along and slaps me across the face with it's awesome-ness. In case people are wondering: yes, you see the monster... I'm not just talking about a glimpse but full-on, in-your-face monster. It's exciting, scary, sad, tense, mysterious and so action packed that it would give Michael Bay an aneurysm so severe he would bleed out of his eyes and die on the spot. Go see it before it's theater run is over... go, NOW!

8.5/10

'I Am Legend' - This ain't no Legend...

I Am Legend (2007)

Director
Francis Lawrence

Writer
Mark Protosevich (screenplay)
Akiva Goldsman (screenplay)
Richard Matheson (novel)

Cast
Will Smith, Alice Braga, Charlie Tahan and Emma Thompson

I read Richard Matheson's I Am Legend dear to me. I read it several years ago and it was fantastic. It was scary, exciting, disturbing and really made you think with the fantastic ending. For years there have been talks about adapting the novel into a movie but when I heard the film was actually going to be made starring Will Smth and directed by Francis Lawrence my reaction was "...Oh, Lord." After watching the first official trailer I was surprised that it didn't look bad at all.

A human-made virus spreads throughout earth turning people into "Darkseekers" (they're vampires.) Will Smith is the last man alive and stays in New York City until he can come up with a cure for what he helped create. He has to deal with the blood thirsty Darkseekers and his own mental health by living in an isolated world.

I have to say, the first half of this movie captured the feel of the novel but it breaks down to the "Will Smith: One Man Act." Smith is a good actor and, at times, showcases it here but there are way too many times in which he was either over-doing it or channeling the Fresh Prince. "Eat your vegetables... I ain't playin'." Only the Fresh Prince would say something like that.

Another thing that really bothered me, the effects look fucking terrible. Bad as in Van Helsing bad. The Darkseekers or, what I'll call them for now on, vampires looked really fake and it's really hard to be frightened of something that looks so hilariously bad at times. I was wondering if this was a take on I Am Legend or if Smith is taking on Emilio Estevez's role in the remake of Nightmares segment Bishop of Battle starring the original Playstation's Resident Evil zombies.

Most of the things I loved about the book were changed in the movie. Now I understand that novels and movies are competely different mediums and, at times, things need to be changed up but in the case of I Am Legend it didn't need to changed all that much if at all. I Am Legend is a great title for the novel after you read the ending, but after watching the ending of the 2007 film they tack on a terrible voice-over making sure you know what it means. Everything after the first half is unrecognizable to the book which is a real shame. I don't care what the voice-over says, the title of this film has no meaning whatsoever.

I hate bashing this movie so much, it's far from being the worst film of the year but it had so much potential that it wasted. Another major problem for me was Neville's character. He's a damn super-man. He's a genius scientist rolled into a bad-ass military man. From what I've read in the book Neville is a middle-age average joe who doesn't have any special abilities which makes him much more relatable, the movie just makes him unbelievable.

There are some intense scenes for the first half if you're able to squint your eyes enough for the vampires to not look so fake. Will Smiths dog steals the show as Sam which, in my book, gives it a few more points.

For anyone who is interested in seeing this or have already seen it please, for the love of God, read the book. It's written by Richard Matheson who is known for his short stories that have been adapted by many Twilight Zone episodes. There were so many great scenes in the book that weren't shown in the movie, such as vampiric females trying to seduce Neville out of his house and Neville finding humor out of shooting his frumpy infected neighbor.

It's by far not the worst film of the year, hell, this is a joy to sit through than compared to a film such as Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem. It's worth checking out for your own take on it but there hasn't been one person I have corresponded with who liked the film more than the book. Instead you may want to watch better interpretations of the book such as The Last Man on Earth, The Omega Man and 28 Days Later.

4.0/10

'Death Sentence' ... with a side of Bacon!

Death Sentence (2007)

Director
James Wan

Writer
Ian Jeffers (screenplay)
Brian Garfield (novel)

Cast
Kevin Bacon, Garrett Hedlund, Kelly Preston and John Goodman

It's a revenge movie with lots of action and violence with Kevin Bacon... who wouldn't want to see this? James Wan isn't that bad of a director and at least he's had the integrity to try and break away from the Saw series where he got his start (although his other film, Dead Silence, was weak.) That's another thing that bugs me; they should really hire someone to come up with the titles of their films. Dead Silence and Death Sentence... two of the most generic titles for any film I've ever heard. So forgettable that on both occasions when I mentioned to someone that I rented it they reply "What's that?" I proceed to explain and mid-way through they go "Oooooohhhh..."

Kevin Bacon is a straight-laced family man whose life changes after witnessing the execution of his son in a seedy gas station by a gang member. When he seeks his own justice he ignites a chain of events that will create utter chaos... and people shoot stuff up real good.

After watching the first fifteen minutes of this movie I wasn't sure if I would be able to keep watching it. I was worried that the amount of cheese would send my eye balls into a permanent rolling motion. The choice of music was laughably bad, the dialogue was unconvincing, extremely cliche'd reactions and the relationships seemed way too forced and artificial. Kevin Bacon takes a knife with him to confront a gang member and when all is said and done the gang member is stabbed with the knife and is dead as shit but Bacon reacts like he didn't mean for it to happen.

The visual are pretty nice though as well as some of the cinemaphotography. There is an amazing continuous tracking shot during a chase sequence in a parking garage as well as some pretty intense scenes involving gunplay and more chasing.

I assume the gang members are ninjas since they quietly dispose of some cops guarding Bacon's house... only to leave one of them leaning on the car horn ('DOH!) and apparently suck at execution style murders since Bacon gets one last chance to fuck'em up for the third act. Then we go back to the sympathetic scenes in which they slap on all the sap as thick as they can. I don't really care anymore at this point as the action scenes can be pretty bad-ass.

After a few preposterous twists we get homage after homage of the far, far, far superior Taxi Driver this includes head shaving, hand exploding and gun shot to the side of the neck. If that's not enough they believe we, the audience, are too dumb to figure out "he's become one of them" as if I weren't bashed over the head with that enough.

If you don't mind some extra cheese with you run-of-the-mill revenge flick, by all means, give it a rent or download. On the other hand it's definitely not required viewing as there are better choices out there unless you're a Baconite, Baconohilic or have a case of Bacon-fever...

4.0/10

'No Country for Old Men' - Let's pray for 'Blood Meridian' in the near future!

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Director
Joel & Ethan Coen

Writer
Joel & Ethan Coen (Screenplay)
Cormac McCarthy (Novel)

Cast
Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin and Woody Harrelson

After almost two months of being unable to find playing at a theater anywhere near me I finally got a chance to see it in Olney, Illinois. So kudos to the Arcadia Theater. I've been extremely excited to see this movie since I first heard it announced and there was no way I would be disappointed especially after seeing crap like AVP:R.

Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) is minding his hunting in the desert near his home in Texas when he comes across the scene of a drug deal gone wrong and a case full of money. On his tale is the creepy and unsympathetic Anton Chigurh (Bardem) who will stop a nothing to get the money he was hired to collect and kill the man who has inconvenienced him and anyone he is associated with. And the man in the middle of all is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell who is desperately trying to save Moss and his wife.

No Country for Old Men is nothing short of excellence. Having already read the novel a year or so ago and seeing the Coen brothers taking the helm I was anticipating the best and that's what I got.

Chigurh is absolutely the scariest character I've seen put on film. Whoever he confronts you immediately feel sorry for them. Maybe he's the angel of death or maybe he's a lunatic with a strict homicidal code. He is a very complex character as are the other characters but in such a subtle way that you want to learn more about them. Most of the characters are veterans of war, be it Vietnam or WWII, but even in a time of peace they're still fighting.

Some people will think the point of the story is that "greed destroys everything" but that's not the point. Actually the money becomes irrelevant quickly as it really doesn't matter who ends up with it. It's more about chance and fate as Moss exhaustingly tries to change his fate, Chigurh encounters victims entirely by chance and even let's a coin decide their fate in some cases and Bell knowing that you can't stop what's coming.

The first half of the film will definitely appeal to mainstream audiences as it's fast-pace, exciting, gory and very conventional. The second half will take you in a path that you won't see coming at all. It's very satisfying even to mainstream audiences until the very end in which it may piss some people off. To me the ending was fantastic and very, very emotional, the film may not end conventionally but it ends logically.

The movie is pretty faithful to the book other than changing some scenes (hotel shootout,) moving scenes around (mostly Bell's scenes,) and a few things cut out of it. One change that didn't set well with me was Bell's conversation with the old man in the wheelchair. The conversation is changed quite a bit in the book from what I remember but the conversation in the film made it come off as "the world's always been this fucked up" which goes against the title of the movie. Nothing huge as most of the changes worked really well.

This is an extremely tense and emotional ride that will jar you to the core and will make you think long after you left the theater. Although I haven't seen many of the great films of 2007 I'd say No Country for Old Men is, without a doubt, the best film I've seen in 2007.

10/10

'Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem' - The perfect holiday family film!

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem (2007)

Director
Colin & Greg Strause

Writer
Shane Salerno

Cast
Steven Pasquale, Reiko Aylesworth and John Ortiz

Fox really dropped the ball on the first AVP. Sure, I wasn't expecting much but I was atleast expecting to have some fun with it... and I didn't. They pretty much crapped on both of the series and had so many inconsistencies it boggled my mind and the minds of the Alien/Predators fans from around the world. The Predators looked like a the stiff-ass Batman costume from '89, facehuggers impregnated their victims and chestbursters were born within minutes, one single Alien killing multiple Predators and it was rated PG-13! How could you make a film about one alien life-form that skins people and hangs them from trees and another that bursts out of peoples chest PG-13... it makes me wonder if they even researched the source material.

I caught the redband trailer a couple of months ago and it looked like a huge leap from the first film. More "costumed" Aliens, Predators looked like they should and gore... glorious, glorious gore. Could this be the time they get it right? Right as in I may actually have fun watching it?!

If you've seen the first film, a Predator "gives birth" to a "Predalien" (yep, that's what it's called.) The Predalien attacks everyone in the ship and crash lands in the woods of a nearby small town in Colorado. Meanwhile, a Predator is sent to clean up the mess.

The film started out well enough if not a bit rushed (not sure why since the runtime is only 86 minutes.) We get some nice scenes of acid melting a guys arm off and some little kid getting facehugged. Now I'm thinking "this is leaps and bounds better than AVP" but now we jump to scenes of a Rescue Me guy who break into places and steals stuff (?) returning to town with his sheriff friend who obviously loves his Soul Glo - "Feelin' oh-so silky smooth!" We learn about his brother who delivers pizzas and likes some really easy girl and breaks up with her asshole boyfriend and some 3rd rate Ripley wanna-be receiving an emotional reception with her husband and her 2nd rate Newt daughter. Wow... exciting.

If these scenes weren't intercut with scenes of Aliens and Predators I would've thought I was watching an entirely different film. Why am I spending so much time with these characters if they do the most cliched things, their relationships never pay off and they are still two-dimensional. I don't care for these people... actually I fucking despise them. If this is supposed to be some sort of homage to Aliens they're kidding themselves. Most of the characters in Aliens are extremely likeable despite their flaws, the people I'm watching are just annoying me with their terrible acting and awful dialogue.

There is some good though. As I stated before the Aliens and Predator look like their counterparts from their original films and the effects are pretty good (they should be since the Strause brothers are mostly effects artists.) It's good seeing the Predalien although it looks a little cheesy and it being able to produce it's own eggs in it's victims is ridiculous. A lot of the deaths scenes are really well done but if you've seen the redband trailer you've seen them all. It also includes little stuff for the fans of the originals films such as the motion radar beeping from Aliens at the begining, the infamous "Get to tha Choppa!" quote from Predator and an appearance from Ms. Yutani.

Overall a major disappointment despite the fact that the film had balls. It's worth a look for fans of both series on DVD but it's a rather disappointing theater experience. I just hope that the next AVP film will get the hell out of present day Earth and include the Colonial Marines. Bring the Colonial Marines back now! Hell, I'd be satisfied with a movie with just Aliens and Predators with no dialogue at all over this.

3.5/10

'Hatchet' - Old School American Horror? No Wai!

Hatchet (2006)

Director
Adam Green

Writer
Adam Green

Cast
Joel Moore, Tamara Feldman, Deon Richmond and Kane Hodder

The first time I heard of this film was the preview before Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. It was a shot of a bayou while a young girl told a creepy tale of Victor Crowley followed by some bloody, hatchet slashing goodness. Not showing much at all it really caught my interest especially dubbing itself as "Old School American Horror."

A couple of friends go to Mardi Gras and decide to go on a haunted boat ride. The boat crashes and now they are stranded next to the house of the hideously deformed legend Victor Crowley who kills on sight.

I'm not exactly sure what they mean by "old school" since this just seems like the same old thing. Perhaps it's the effects and the non-usage of CGI. The effects are very impressive and it leaves nothing to the imagination. As a gore-fest effects showcase it works very well. Everything else... not so much.

The story... what story? We get a boring orgin of Victor Crowley who's supposed to be the new Jason, Freddy or Michael but fails on about every level that those three succeeded. He pops out of nowhere, screams and destroys people with either his tools or his bare hands. All of the characters are pretty annoying so you're usually hoping they meet some sort of brutal fate which may have been intentional.

The film gets very redundant with Crowley killing someone, group of survivors scream and flee, they stop and think the situation over, Crowley pops up and takes out a couple more, group of survivors scream and flee, they stop and think the situation over again, Crowley pops up and... you get the idea.

The idea of calling it old school just because they are too cool for CGI bothers me. This, to me, proves that the film-makers know nothing of old school horror. Old school horror is atmosphere and frights not mindless gore-fests. It also feels pretty desperate that their tagline is "It's not a remake. It's not a sequel. And it's not based off of a Japanese one."

There may be some fun to be had from this type of film and it's pretty cheap for a new release at Wal-Mart (I blind-bought it for $9.96.) But just don't fall for the makers promises that this is the next great American horror classic.

4.0/10