cchires Reviews

Splice (2009)

Warning: This Film has Been Mis-Marketed!

[6/10 · 5 June 2010]

Judging by the commercials for 'Splice' you would think that this is a monster movie with genetic cloning as a gimmick. In actuality, it's a dramatization of Freud's Electra Complex with genetic cloning as a gimmick. Unfortunately, the film didn't pull all of its elements together for a coherent entertainment, but for at least two-thirds of it, my interest was held.

The product of the genetic 'splice' in this movie is called Dren (nerd spelled backwards) and she is an effective combination of real actors and special effects. She is a cross of too many animals to be named and is a real curiosity. After a rough first impression, Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley become her parental figures and main section of the movie is the dynamics of this offbeat family unit. Although their are a lot of plausibility issues with Dren's creation (you would hope their would be better monitoring of this type of science), the film draws you into the developing relationships between her and her parents. You get the feeling that had this story been played out honestly, some intriguing themes on the nature of life/family would have developed, but I guess commercial considerations required the thriller elements to take over.

Some of the problems with the movie have to do with the fact that many of the characters change their nature in absence of any apparent motivation. Dren goes from precocious to hostile without any real cause and effect logic. Furthermore, my friend and I had to fill in the gaps of her behavior after the movie was over to try to make sense of it. Dren is not alone, the two human leads act in ways late in the movie that do not fit anything their characters did up until that point. Sarah Polley performs a gruesome surgery on Dren which, although it serves a plot point, is out of character and Adrian Brody does something that is just plain abominable (the audience laughed really loud at that part, by the way, which I don't think was the intended reaction).

In the end all the curiosity of Dren is abandoned and she functions as a monster to scare the audience. It's too bad because this movie was entertaining from a psychological as well as a fantasy perspective until it sold out. A near miss.

Cut (I) (2000)

A 'Cut' Below Terrible

[3/10 · 31 May 2010]

I saw this movie last night on Fearnet.com and although it was made with more style than your run-of-the-mill, low-budget horror movie, it was still pretty awful. You know its not a good sign when the first five minutes, which highlight the cheesy movie being made within this movie, are actually better than the rest of the film. It's like once the real film started the fun died.

The aesthetics of the opening scene work well and the result is a terrific parody of mad slasher movies. The framing of the opening shots are so overwhelmingly yellow and Molly Ringwald's acting is so over-the-top that the whole sequence is very funny on par with the "Scream" movies. Unfortunately, the reminder of the movie did not have a fraction of inspiration or style.

My big complaint about this movie is that the premise of the murders are set up to make you think that one of the young cast members is the killer. So as the movie progresses, you're trying to deduce who it is (which can be fun). Not that I would dream of revealing the outcome, but suffice it to say that the explanation of who the killer is - in a word - sucks! And what should be an exciting climax, is quite dull.

I only have two requests of a movie in order to be entertained and that is that they (a) keep my attention and (b) arouse some emotion. Aside from boredom, the only emotion I felt while watching this movie was sympathy for Molly Ringwald. Her talents are just plain wasted here. Hopefully being in this movie hasn't discouraged her from ever going back to Austraila:(

Shrek Forever After (2010)

Shrek goes out on a low note:(

[4/10 · 23 May 2010]

It's sad to watch a fall from greatness and that's what can best be described for the 'Shrek' films. The series started out strong with the first two movies and began to stumble into routine with the third. Now all the novelty and energy is gone and with 'Shrek Ever After' the audience gets a predictable, by-the-numbers, formula movie.

I think the main problem has to do with the fact that Shrek, Donkey, Fiona and Puss have lost all of the chemistry that made the earlier movies fun. The comfort in their interactions drains all of the opening scenes of life. The main crisis in this film is also a little weak: Shrek has grown tired of his life as a celebrity ogre (this plot point is handled awkwardly in the opening scenes) and makes a deal with Rumplestilskin to go back to when he was feared by others. You know the movie's in trouble when this "It's a Wonderful Life" scenario is inserted to try to breathe some novelty into Shrek's story.

This wouldn't be a problem if the movie had fun with this situation. Sadly, it focuses more on action scenes to show off the 3-D effects rather than focusing on the alternate realities of the characters. There is an extended scene of Shrek flying a witches broom to escape from Rumplestilskin's castle, which is cool, but really exist for no other purpose than to give the audience a roller-coaster simulation. The same can be said for a drawn out flying dragon scene in the beginning of the film as well.

This movie also has less of the pop culture references that made the other films in the series enjoyable for adults as well as kids. The first film, in particular, seemed to be taking a lot of jabs at Disney, now it seems like Dreamworks is less hostile towards their competitors. Ultimately, The film wastes opportunities to have fun not just with the series regulars but also with the new characters: the Pied Piper, Rumplestilskin, the witches and all the other ogres. This was disappointing way to say goodbye to Shrek:(

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Without Freddy Elm Street Would be a Pretty Boring Place

[5/10 · 15 May 2010]

One of the consequences of living in the internet age is the apparent destruction of our imagination. The most obvious example of this is the flood of movie remakes that have hit us in the past decade. I am not opposed to remakes in principle, sometimes they really improve on the qualities of the original and a good director can offer a unique interpretation of the material (e.g. Peter Jackson's King Kong). Most of the time though remakes fail by comparison with the original: i.e. this movie.

Since we know pretty much all the elements of a Nightmare on Elm Street movie beforehand, the best way to evaluate the remake is to see how it holds up against the others in the series. The most obvious contrast in this film is that this is the first Nightmare without Robert Englund as Freddy Kruger. So how is the New Freddy? While I cannot complain about Jackie Earl Haley as an actor, I found his Freddy to be a disappointment for a couple of reasons. One is the makeup; because he is obviously meant to look like a true burn victim, his facial movements are limited and ends up looking like a mask of melted cheese. Another complaint is his voice which is over-synthesized to the point he sounds like a relative of Peter Frampton. Ultimately, this Freddy is just not scary or funny enough to add any weight to this installment of the series.

Of the teenagers let it be said that it seems like their lives would be pretty boring if Freddy didn't start haunting their dreams. Every young person in this movie talks in a monotone voice and has a flat affect. I know they're supposed to be sleep deprived, but they could be at least be a little interesting rather than just lambs waiting for the slaughter. I also felt that showing Freddy's past crimes as a child molester hurt the tone of the movie.

There are some good things in the movie. The lighting and set designs were creepy, especially during the nightmare sequences. I also should be fair and say that there were at least 4 good moments where I jumped (no suspense was held for any significant period of time however). Perhaps when the inevitable sequel comes out the producers will have learned from the mistakes they made with this movie.

Into the Wild (2007)

Lessons from 'the Bus'

[10/10 · 20 March 2010]

I had been familiar with this story for awhile, but had never set time aside to read the book or see the movie. This week, however, the library was promoting novels about nature and I took the opportunity to pick up the book. I read it in one sitting. It was that type of book; one that touches you on an emotional level and makes you forget all of your surroundings. Tonight I watched the movie.

I've read some of the criticisms of Chris and I agree with many of them: yes, he did not know nearly enough about the wilderness to go on his endeavor and he would not have met his end had he heeded any of the advice of people more knowledgeable about Alaska. But what intrigued me about his story was not the 'how' of the adventure, but the 'why'.

The motive to escape his synthetic family is more apparent in the movie than in the book, but I think he would have still gone on this odyssey regardless of his damaged home life. He just could not handle the responsibility that went with the attachment to other human beings. You see that in all of the people he meets while on the road. He packs up and leaves whenever it gets too emotionally intimate. The saddest example of this is when Ron asks to 'adopt' him and Chris dodges his request. His reaction inevitably seals his fate.

His story would not have been possible to tell if it weren't for the people that he met on the road putting the pieces of his two year sabbatical together. For all these people to remember him so vividly and embrace him, he must have had some special qualities. It's tragic, however, that he denied all of these people from relating to him. He would only have his outlook on life shaped by authors such as Tolstoy and London. I think the lesson to take from his story is that although we may all want to shun the world we live in, we cannot prevent ourselves from connecting to other people. If we do we all end up trapped on some form of the same bus that was Chris' coffin.

You will notice that I haven't said anything about the aesthetics of the film. For me to focus solely on the emotions that the movie produced and filter out all its technical qualities should give you a clue as to how well this film is made.

The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror XX (2009) Season 21, Episode 4

20 Years of fun

[7/10 · 19 October 2009]

Here is the breakdown of last nights episode: Segment 1: Good; but could have had more fun with the Hitchcock references - although not many people would probably have understood them. Segment 2: Great! The best of the night: a zombie parody with a vindication for vegetarians. The best line was delivered by Bart when he asked "what kind of people eat the body and drink the blood of their savior?" Segment 3: OK: I couldn't really understand what they were going for, was is supposed to be a spoof on Sweeney Todd? It was entertaining, but the weakest of segment of the night:( Ultimately, after twenty years, the fact that this show can still execute quality work is some sort of miracle and we should all acknowledge The Simpsons as an American institution!

Trick 'r Treat (2007)

Aesthetically pleasing, but not engrossing

[4/10 · 4 October 2009]

Trick 'r' Treat is a case of movie having more style than substance. The chronology of the movie reminded me of 'Pulp Fiction' in the way it was told in non-sequential order. In fact the first scene and the last scene are one in the same, which is an exact duplicate of Pulp Fiction's structure. This is an inspired way to intertwine the four stories, but the draw back is that I didn't develop much interest in the stories that were being told.

None of the stories really produced any suspense or chills (although the story of the children returning to the site of the school bus crash is at least atmospheric) and none the characters were interesting either. And my biggest complaint is with the last story which totally wastes the talents of Brian Cox.

Ultimately, it seems that the film-makers should have focused more on fine tuning the quality of the four stories rather than trying to tell them stylistically.

All About Steve (2009)

90 Minutes of My Life I Will Never Get Back!

[1/10 · 4 September 2009]

First let preface that this movie was not my first choice to see tonight, but after The Hangover and The Proposal, I was cautiously optimistic Sandra Bullock and Bradley Coooper would carry this movie even if it was a lightweight premise. How wrong I was!

The movie goes wrong the second these two meet for their blind date and never looks back. The main reason I think I had such a disconnect with this movie is because the characters do not act like any living person on this planet. Furthermore, Sandra Bullock does not have a clear role to play: she's vacillates between being sophisticated and clueless, at all times when it's convenient for the plot. I don't know if I was supposed to sympathize with her or not, but the eventual effect was annoyance! It's not a good sign when you're hoping that they just leave her at the bottom of that well. Bradley Cooper basically just smiles throughout the movie.

The movie also can't decide what genre it wants to belong to. It tries to be a comedy, a drama of self discovery, a satire of cable news, and a natural disaster movie (whether it be tornado or abandoned well) and fails at all attempts. Let it be said that the tornado looks good and that's about the best thing I can say about this movie.

I think I laughed twice during the film, but I can't remember if it was related to what was on screen or my on disbelief that I was in this theater. Sadly, I would be willing to bet that a conversation with a real crossword puzzle designer for ninety minutes would be more fun than sitting through this mess!

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009)

To Sum it Up in One Word: Fun!

[7/10 · 3 September 2009]

To think analytically about 'G.I. Joe' is like looking for the meaning of life in a fortune cookie: Sure you could do it, but it's a waste of time. The film appears to have one goal which is to be the equivalent of a two hour roller-coaster ride and for the most part it succeeds.

My expectations for this film were not high due to the fact that it wasn't previewed for critics (this usually is the sign of desperate marketing) and when the reviews starting pouring in, they were not pretty. But think for a minute, the source material for this movie are the Hasbro action figures which were fun because of the novelty of their different accessories. Not the character nuances or intriguing story lines. The movie version knows this and provides the audience with an inexhaustible series of extravagant sets, special weaponry and soldier enhancing technology. There are a number of good action scenes but my favorite was a well-edited multifaceted chase through Paris that looked authentic and very expensive.

I agree with most of the criticisms of this movie: the characters are cardboard thin, the logic of Destro's plot to take over the world is weak and the flow of the movie consistently comes to a halt whenever character's back-story is provided. Yet none of these things bothered me while watching the movie. Conversely I sat back and let my senses enjoy the spectacle on the screen.

The Hangover (2009)

My Favorite Movie of the Summer

[10/10 · 2 September 2009]

The Hangover is summer's best film! I won't go into details about the funny parts because if you are one of the few people who still haven't seen it, words just won't do this film justice. I will, however, give kudos to those involved in making this movie.

Primarily, the film works as a result of a brilliant narrative device: we are just as clueless as the characters are about what happened the night before. As the film progresses, we are given one shocking revelation after another, each building to high comedy. The momentum is almost non-stop!

A lot of the humor is also generated from the corky characters and how they react to each shocking development. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis all turn in brilliant performances and stay in character rather than just acting goofy. The fact that they all seem so believable makes the chaos that they face all the more hysterical.

Laughter is valuable to your health and it is hard to produce an effective comedy these days. Anyone who needs to laugh is well served by seeing this movie; even if you don't need a laugh: see this movie!!

Orphan (2009)

The Best Horror Movie I've Seen in a Long Time

[10/10 · 1 September 2009]

'Orphan' is a great horror movie! It is made all the more effective in the fact that the characters are three dimensional and complex. This is one of the few recent movies where I was more interested in the characters than the action on screen.

It would have been easy to have had the evil orphan, Esther, move into the perfect family and disrupt their harmony, but the family in this film has such dysfunction that the destruction caused by her is more dramatic. The horror of the situation is made all the more palpable because you care about the family members, especially the mother, who has lost a great deal of reliability as a result of her alcoholism. This also makes the scenes where she can't get anyone to believe her about Esther's true nature more authentic as opposed to being a plot device.

The movie also has a plot twist that would seem implausible, but, because the film-makers have kept you sold on the reality of the situation, you buy it. In light of what I call the 'Sixth Sense' phenomenon, I usually roll my eyes when a film does a plot twist that changes the entire context of the story. This time, however, it's like a kick in the gut!

The final 20 minutes of this movie are so intense that audience I saw it with got very vocal in response to what they were seeing on the screen. In addition to that, Esther is such a malevolent force of nature that the entire audience clapped when she finally got her comeuppance. My advice: see this movie with someone you can grab onto during the many moments of suspense!

Friday the 13th (2009)

High Production Quality without a Soul

[5/10 · 31 August 2009]

The producers obviously put money into the new Friday the 13th as it looks sharper and more technically proficient than any other outing in the series. The drawback is that based upon what's on screen, it's hard to justify any reason to see it. I couldn't get interested enough in the story or the characters to feel any suspense for how the story unfolded.

There were also plausbility issues with the story that were distracting. I know that there is a certain suspension of disbelief that has to be applied to every f13, but even within this films world there has to be some bounds to realism. For instance, the movie begins with an expedition to search for some cannabis plants in Jason's woods. Considering how fast Jason dispatches all intruders in his area, it is highly doubtful that anyone could plant cannabis much less take care of it in these woods. Furthermore, when the woman who has been held captive by Jason is discovered, not only does she still look flawless, but she is able to get on her feet and run which is a surprise since she has been held down by chains for six weeks.

The production design is also a disappointment. Where the woods in the first movie looked creepy and foreboding, in this movie they look more like a travel brochure. I never felt any sense of mystery or intrigue from the abandoned Camp Crystal Lake either.

There are some good things in the movie. Some of the dialogue of the teenagers is funny. The look for this Jason is interesting. The editing of the water ski scene was well done. And this movie has the one scene that I have been waiting for a long time to see in slasher movie: Finally a man gets to scream hysterically as the killer chases him.

The Fan (1981)

Good Premise, Bad Execution!

[5/10 · 30 August 2009]

The Fan begins as if it is going to be a study of an obsessed fan in contrast to the human fallibility of a celebrity, but it ends up being a routine thriller. The film gives the fan in question some background information to display his isolation and the value he gives the Lauren Becall character. Lauren Becall is also shown as having difficulty with middle age and divorce. The two character's stories are given equal time as the movie develops, but once the fan starts acting out violently, the standard thriller clichés kick in.

I get frustrated in movies where the conflict can be resolved if the characters would just act sensibly, but to string the movie along they have to be stupid. The epitome of that in this movie is in the fact that Lauren Becall's secretary - who knows that the fan is disturbed by the content of his letters - never thinks to write down the man's name in the event his obsession becomes a criminal matter.

There are some good things in the movie. Maureen Stapleton, in particular, gives an interesting performance and there is some interesting camera work in the theater rehearsals. In addition, Lauren Becall displays the qualities that have made her a Hollywood icon (even though based upon what is seen, it is doubtful that anyone would want to see this musical she is in). But the movie is brought down by a script that abandoned the character study aspects in favor of focusing on the cheap thriller qualities.

Halloween II (2009)

An improvement...but still not a good movie:(

[5/10 · 30 August 2009]

Halloween II was a better chance for Rob Zombie to make his movie as opposed to having to remake John Carpenter's movie and credit should be given to him for breathing life into the 10th film in the series. It's fair to say that Zombie can be classified as an auteur as opposed to a hired gun and his style is the best thing about the new Halloween. He knows how to make a shot interesting: with gloomy lighting, askew angles, shaky camera movement and he gets a lot out of his use of art direction for creepiness. It's narrative that's his weak point.

In the last movie Zombie had to condense a lot of his story (michael's childhood, the time in the sanitarium and the night he came home) to appease the requirements of the remake. Here he's given much more freedom, but unfortunately he is not able to follow it through with a strong narrative force. My biggest complaint along these lines is that the movie begins with a cheat - the 'it's only a dream' sequence - so for the first half hour, you're trying to figure out what actually happened in the opening scenes and what was part of Laurie's dream. Furthermore, when they pull the same 'dream' trick later in the movie it gets a bad laugh. The other problem is that the stories of the main characters are not well intertwined, so we see scenes of Michael, Dr. Loomis and Laurie that have little to no payoff later on. The best example of this is the massacre at the strip club where Michael kills all the inhabitants which apparently goes unnoticed by the rest of the community as it's never referred to again.

Zombie clearly is not interested in normal behavior and all of his characters in this movie have issues, but, because of the constant changes of perspective, it's hard to develop much interest in any of them. There is a feeling that Laurie needed more screen time and Dr. Loomis less. To their credit, the actors are able to keep plausibility throughout the course of film, however; the only one who seems to put together a complete performance is Brad Dourif.

Because of it's artistic qualities, Halloween II is fun to watch, but it's was hard to care about the events of the movie because I didn't feel like there was any meaningful linkage from one scene to the next. In relation to that, the hallucination and dream sequences made it difficult to know what was based in reality an what was in the character's head. Rob Zombie has a style that is well suited for horror movies, but he would be better served in the future if he could collaborate with a screen writer that would help him with story structure.

Halloween (2007)

Another tragedy on the Anniversary of Princess Diana's Death

[2/10 · 1 September 2007]

I had the unfortunate experience of seeing "Halloween" last night after weeks of anticipation for the 'new version of a classic story'and for me the excitement died within the first 5 minutes of the movie. The opening scenes are a disaster as the early years of Michael Myers show his family in a manner that reminded me of the Jerry Springer show. The big mistake I think is that the back story is drawn out for an hour when it was trimmed to 10 minutes in the original; this kills pace and mood. Furthermore, the whole introduction provides no insight into why young Michael kills anyway(he had a thing for masks?).

Finally when the story catches up to present day Halloween, the movie has to rush through the scary parts to get to the final meeting between Michael and his surviving sister (by the way, how did he know Laurie was his sister?). The tone of the film kept switching from black comedy to suspense to gore fest so many times that I didn't know what the target response was supposed to be and many of the people around me began to mock what they saw on screen. There were many laughs of disbelief from the audience, some of my favorites were: the scene where Laurie, in hiding, had to cry just loud enough for the killer to find her, when she runs back into the house after she tried so hard to escape, all the dialog of the teenage girls (my female companion last night assured me that this was not how women speak at any age), the Mean Joe Grisly scene, and the part when Dr. Loomis tries to get Michael to stop killing by saying "It's me, Samuel". What school of psychiatry did he go to anyway? As for the ending, all I can say is that it is so vague ans infuriating, that even though I couldn't wait for this trash to be over, I still couldn't believe that is was.