Archive for the Remakes Category

« Older Entries

EVIL DEAD (2013)

Posted in 2013, Based on Classic Films, Chainsaws!, Cinema Knife Fights, Cult Movies, Demons, Evil Spirits, Gore!, Possessed By Demons, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , on April 7, 2013 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: EVIL DEAD (2013)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Evil Dead poster #2

(The Scene: A cabin in the woods. L.L. SOARES is sitting at a desk, reading an ancient book. MICHAEL ARRUDA looks over his shoulder)

MA: You know you shouldn’t be doing that. It always ends badly.

LS: I know. But I feel compelled to do it.

MA: Whatever you do, don’t read aloud from it.

LS: ATA HEMPTO KEEPAP

MA: I told you not to read from it.

(The leprechaun from LUCKY CHARMS cereal appears)

LUCKY: You’ll be after me lucky charms!

MA:  I beg your pardon?  I don’t think so!

LS: We summoned you by accident.

LUCKY: Accident? And me in the middle of me breakfast.

LS: Go play with Toucan Sam or something.

(LUCKY turns MA into a monkey and disappears)

LS: Well, that’s an improvement.

(Monkey MA starts screeching and running around the cabin)

LS: I might as well start this week’s review.

(Monkey morphs back into MA)

MA: Nice try.  What?  Is the leprechaun on your payroll?  Don’t answer that. Just get on with the review.

LS:  EVIL DEAD is a remake of Sam Raimi’s 1981 cult classic (the difference in titles is that the original had a “THE” in front of it).  That was the movie that put Raimi on the map—and just look how his career turned out? Now he’s directing stuff like OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL. But back then, Raimi was just some unknown kid trying to make it in the movie biz. Strangely, even though all this time has gone by, THE EVIL DEAD is still my favorite of Raimi’s movies.

MA:  Things work out that way sometimes.  Often the first thing an artist does—or at least the first hit—remains the best.

LS:  So when I heard they were giving it the remake treatment, I wasn’t surprised, but I wasn’t hopeful either. Raimi’s movie was low-budget, but incredibly resourceful. Despite the money limitations, the original EVIL DEAD introduced Raimi’s signature “stalking cam” where the camera shows the point of view of a creature running through the woods. Well, not exactly running. Sweeping through the woods at high speed is more the feel of it. And THE EVIL DEAD made a star of the very cool Bruce Campbell, who was Ash in the original and its sequels.

The trailer for the new version looked hopeful, and it started this ad campaign where it declared this to be “The most terrifying film you will ever experience!” Then the buzz started—a lot of it coming from the South By Southwest Film Festival earlier this year in Austin, Texas, where audiences loved this movie. So I started to get excited about it and really looked forward to seeing it.

Evil-Dead-Poster

But there was always the chance it could be a complete disappointment.

MA:  I don’t believe ad campaigns for one minute.  The most horrifying movie you will ever see? Yeah, right.  Anyway, like any ad, I didn’t give this one much credence, and I put it out of my mind since I didn’t want to have this movie hindered by too high expectations.

LS:  So let’s start off with the obvious question. Is this the most horrifying movie you will ever see? Nope. That’s a pretty big claim, and it’s just about guaranteed to fall short.

MA (laughing):  It sounds like an ad campaigns for a movie back in the 50s.  SEE the most terrifying monster ever to set foot on the earth!  An ungodly horror not meant for human eyes!  Too hideous!  Too horrifying!

Too much!

It’s a dumb add for a decent movie.

LS:  There was a lot of that kind of stuff in the 70s too. I remember MARK OF THE DEVIL (1970) had the ad campaign “Positively the most horrifying film ever made.” And I’m sure there were plenty of ads that copied that one.

But I’ll give the new EVIL DEAD this much credit: it sure tries hard to live up to that tag line.

MA:  It gets an A for effort.

(LS again reads from the ancient book.)

LS: OOGIE TOOFIE LOOFIE

(This time CAPTAIN CRUNCH appears.)

CAPTAIN CRUNCH:  Hey kids, how about helping your captain eat a healthy breakfast by—hey, wait a minute.  You two aren’t kids.

MA:  How observant you are.

CAPTAIN CRUNCH: Are there any kids around?

LS (rubs his stomach):  Not alive, anyway.

CAPTAIN CRUNCH:  In that case, how about helping this captain fill his flask, if you know what I mean?  (Holds out an empty flask).

LS (pointing):  The bar’s that way, in the next room. Fully stocked.

CAPTAIN CRUNCH:  Mrs. Crunch is going to have a good time tonight!  (Exits with a skip in his step.)

MA:  He always seemed so innocent on those TV commercials.

LS:  Maybe, but I never did trust that Crunchberry Beast.

Do you remember back when we were kids and Captain Crunch had an enemy in those cartoon commercials named Jean LaFoot?  There was this whole storyline going on. They just don’t make commercials like that anymore.

evil_dead_2013_by_myrmorko-d5jai2t

Anyway, back to the movie.  This one begins promisingly enough. A bunch of college-age kids meet at a cabin in the woods. In the original, it was more for a fun weekend. Here, it has a more serious motivation. Mia (Jane Levy, also the star of the current ABC comedy SUBURGATORY) is trying to get off drugs for the second time in her life, after a recent overdose that almost killed her (actually, we’re told, she did technically “die” for a moment during it). Her friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), a cynical guy with long hair, and Olivia (the very stunning Jessica Lucas, who was also in CLOVERFIELD, 2008) are there, as well as the older brother Mia hasn’t seen in years, David (Shiloh Fernandez, who was also Peter in 2011’S RED RIDING HOOD) and his girlfriend Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore). They’re all there to give Mia support during her attempt to kick drugs via the “cold turkey” approach. They’re there in that cabin in the middle of nowhere to see her through the rough times, keep her there, and make sure this time the “cure” takes.

MA:  I liked this premise a lot.  It really worked for me and made things more interesting in that these folks actually had a real reason not only for being there, but for staying there, in that they wanted to see things through to the end and truly help Mia kick her habit.

LS: Exactly. In these kinds of movies, there’s always a point where you say “Why the hell do they stay there? Why not leave?” It happens in this movie too—it’s inevitable in these kinds of horror movies—but for a little while there, everyone staying put actually makes sense. And that’s unusual.

Right away, Mia and David have issues. Mia is happy to see him, but also resents him for taking off on her when she was a kid, leaving her alone with their crazy mother, who died in a mental hospital a few years before this reunion. David clearly didn’t come back because he was trying to save his own sanity, but he’s trying to make up for his choices now, by giving Mia the support she needs.

So they go in the cabin, intent on seeing this through to the end. The friends make a pact to stay strong and not give in when Mia wants to leave. They’re going to make sure it works this time.

But the cabin has other plans.

MA:  I’ll say.

LS:  First off, they find a roomful of dead cats hanging from the ceiling in a secret room below the cabin (the reason the cats are there is explained in the creepy opening sequence of the film, which takes place in the past). They also find a book wrapped in barbed wire, which of course ends up upstairs with them, and of course one of them, namely Eric, has to cut the wires and open the book, and even read from it.

MA:  Gee, that sounds familiar.  (points his thumb at LS).

LS: As soon as he does that, he sets the demons in motion.

From here, EVIL DEAD takes on a relentless pace, as each member of the group takes turns being possessed by demonic forces. It begins with Mia, who has the main demon “attached” to her soul in the middle of the woods (with a special appearance by the ghost of the book’s previous victim), after trying to flee the cabin. When she goes back, Mia attacks the others, and then the fireworks begin.

I loved the pacing of this one. It doesn’t let up for a moment after the horror begins, and I really enjoyed that. There’s plenty of violence and gore and self-mutilation which is what you would expect from an EVIL DEAD movie. I am so glad they didn’t go the PG-13 route with this one. In fact, there are a couple of scenes that are downright amazing, including Mia using a razor to cut her tongue in half, the messy results of a shotgun blast, several people cutting off offending limbs in horrible ways, and an amazing “chainsaw to the head” moment that paints the entire screen red. So, if you happen to be a gorehound, this one is definitely for you.

In a lot of ways, this movie is almost perfect. It has a more serious tone than the first one —Raimi was famous for injecting funny moments to relieve tension, but this one is simply grim and vicious—which is in no way a bad thing. It’s also fairly faithful to the original, especially the key horrific/gross-out moments. Director Fede Alvarez (this is his first feature film, his previous movies were all short films) does a stunning job bringing this one to the screen. But there are a couple of minor gripes.

First off, the movie completely pushes its R-rating to the line, and past it, as far as the gore goes. This is not a movie for the squeamish. And yet it seemed to have a puritanical streak a mile long. From a character taking a shower in her clothes early on, to other key moments that would have had a lot more impact if there was some nudity involved. And I’m not talking gratuitous nudity—I’m talking logical stuff (do YOU take a shower with your clothes on?) This odd repression didn’t ruin the movie, but it did feel like it was holding back, and EVIL DEAD should be the kind of movie that is no-holds-barred. It just continues to amaze me that violence and gore is becoming more and more mainstream, but sex and nudity are still taboos that are to be avoided at all costs.

MA:  This didn’t bother me.  The movie’s pacing is so intense I didn’t have time to think about the fact that there wasn’t any nudity.  But something else bothered me about this one.

I agree with you that it pushes the envelope in the gore department, and I’ll even go so far to say that it’s nearly perfect with its handling of these horrific moments, in that in spite of the fact that it was in your face most of the time, it somehow didn’t go overboard.  Now, all this being said, for some reason, and this is the problem I had with it, it wasn’t all that scary.  I’m not sure why, because there were certainly scenes of suspense, and while I was enjoying these scenes, they really weren’t getting to me.  I think it’s because there was just a familiarity about the whole thing, as a reimagining of an old movie, that it somehow lacked freshness.

Also, and I’m not sure I can properly explain this, but it didn’t really hit me in the gut.  I was more entertained by this one than disturbed, which surprised me, because it is such a bloodbath throughout.  Another possibility I have to consider is perhaps the characters weren’t as fleshed out as they could have been, and I didn’t care as much if they had their arms lopped off.  I don’t know.  I enjoyed this one, but it didn’t really have me on the edge of my seat.

LS: I think it’s a mix of two things. First, we’re jaded old guys who have seen this kind of thing a thousand times before. Extreme gore just doesn’t shock us anymore. Secondly, because this is a remake, we’re familiar with the story for the most part, so there aren’t a lot of surprises—although, Alvarez does diverge from the original story a few times. Between these two things, it’s going to be pretty hard to scare us. But for some kid who never saw the original, this might really rock their world.

MA:  I guess that explains why the rest of the theater audience was screaming, while I wasn’t.  At least I wasn’t laughing, which says a lot for how good this one was.

(LS looks down at the Book of the Dead)

I just can’t help myself.  (Again reads from the evil book.  Toucan Sam appears.)

TOUCAN SAM:  I follow my nose.  Wherever it goes.

LS (points):  The bar’s that way.  (TOUCAN SAM exits.)

MA: What’s with all the breakfast cereal characters?  What is that you’re reading from, anyway?  The Book of Dead Breakfast Cereal Icons?

LS (his mouth full of cereal):  That’s a mouthful.

(CAPTAIN CRUNCH sticks his head back into the room.)

CAPTAIN CRUNCH:  That’s what she said!  (He burps).

MA:  He’s bad.

LS:  He’s drunk.

CAPTAIN CRUNCH:  I dare say.  That’s a Peanut Butter Elephant standing by the bar!  (Hiccups and exits).

MA: This is weird.  Let’s get on with the review.

LS:  The acting is mostly good, especially Jane Levy as Mia and Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric.

MA:  I thought Jane Levy was excellent as Mia.  She nailed this role.  She made for a very strong lead, and I liked that she has to fight to overcome her drug addiction, a fight that strangely disappears at one point when she’s fighting the main demon face-to-face.  Could this be a case where she was—scared straight?

LS:  My one acting complaint, however, is Shiloh Fernandez as Mia’s brother David. He’s ostensibly the hero of this movie, and thus the equivalent of Bruce Campbell’s Ash in the original film. But let me tell you, David is no Ash. Not even close. Campbell may have given an over-the-top performance in the original, but it was riveting, and fun as hell. In comparison, Fernandez is kind of a dud. He’s kind of one-dimensional for most of the movie, and isn’t very interesting. He just reacts to everything that is thrown at him, but doesn’t have much of a personality of his own. I just thought his performance was a letdown for such a crucial role, and that someone with more charisma could have knocked this movie out of the park.

MA:  I thought he was okay.

LS: My point exactly. Bruce Campbell wasn’t just okay in the original movie. He kicked ass!

MA: You’re right.  He’s kind of low key, but he didn’t really bother me.  However, I do agree with you that the movie would have been better with someone more charismatic, although I’m not sure if that’s simply Fernandez’ fault or a lack of good writing. The way the story plays out, the character of David doesn’t turn out to be the most effective hero, and I didn’t really like this all that much.  I would have preferred a stronger hero.

LS: I also had a few issues with the ending. There’s a kind of loophole that provided a glimmer of hope toward the end of the film, that didn’t make complete sense to me. I don’t necessarily have a problem with glimmers of hope, but this one seemed forced, and that, again, goes against the whole “no-holds-barred” ethic of an EVIL DEAD movie.

Despite these complaints, I liked this movie a lot, and thought it was pretty amazing. It may not be the scariest movie ever made, but it was one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time, and I completely recommend it to fans of the genre. You’re going to have a lot of fun with this one, even if the basic plot (guy reads book and summons demons) still seems a little silly (and, sadly, cliché, since so many people ripped Raimi off after the first EVIL DEAD).

I give it three and a half knives.

Also, if you stay until the very end (after the end credits), you’ll see a final “surprise” scene that is strictly for fans of the original film (kids with no knowledge of the original film may completely not get it). So stick around, hardcore fans.

MA:  I didn’t stick around to the end, so I missed the final surprise.  I liked this one a lot too, although not as much as you.  And while I thought it was a very good horror movie, I wouldn’t put it above other very good horror movies of recent years. For example, I thought last year’s CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012) was about the same in quality.

LS: CABIN IN THE WOODS had a completely different agenda, and Joss Whedon’s script had a lot of fun with the tropes and clichés of the genre. It was smart and funny. The new EVIL DEAD is trying to do something completely different.

MA: But in terms of quality I thought they were about the same.  Both very good horror movies.

LS: By the way, the script here was by director Fede Alvarez, as well as Diablo Cody (who, you may remember, won an Oscar for her screenplay for 2005’s JUNO, and also wrote JENNIFER’S BODY (2009) and 2011’s YOUNG ADULT, the last one being a movie I liked a lot), and Rado Sayagues.

MA: I liked the acting, the pacing, and the intensity of the in-your-face gore, but something about this one lacked freshness, perhaps because it was a reimagining.  I also didn’t find the characters all that exciting or even likeable, with the exception of Jane Levy as Mia.  Horror fans will love it. Non-horror fans won’t.

I give it three knives.

LS: Just three? You must be smoking wacky tobacky or somethin’.

(MA looks around the cabin) I guess we’re done here.  So, just what is the connection between the book you’re reading and the breakfast cereal characters?

LS:  I dunno.  I just started reading it and the characters showed up.

MA:  Well, what’s the name of the book?

LS (looks at cover and reads):  THE BOOK OF THE DEAD: A REIMAGINING. BROUGHT TO YOU BY KELLOGG’S.

MA:  A reimagining?

(The door bursts open and CAPTAIN CRUNCH, TOUCAN SAM, THE LUCKY CHARMS LEPRECHAUN, TONY THE TIGER and SNAP, CRACKLE AND POP, and a bunch of other cereal characters stand there bloodied and crazed, holding knives, chainsaws, and various other brutal instruments.)

TOUCAN SAM:  We’ll cut off your nose!  Wherever blood flows!

MA:  I think breakfast is over.  Let’s get out of here.

LS:  I’m sticking to corn flakes from now on.

(TONY THE TIGER roars, his face full of blood,”THEEEEY”RE GREAT!”)

(MA & LS flee while the demented cereal characters pursue them through the woods.)

—END—

© Copyright 2013 by Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives EVIL DEAD ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives EVIL DEAD ~three and a half knives.

1 Comment »

TOTAL RECALL (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Conspiracy Theories, Philip K. Dick Stories, Remakes, Science Fiction, What is Reality? with tags , , , , , , , , on August 6, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: TOTAL RECALL (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: A futuristic lab where a SCIENTIST in a white lab coat and his two beautiful female assistants attend to both MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES, both strapped into chairs with strange, bizarre, and downright weird gizmos on their heads.

SCIENTIST:  Here at Rekall, with the flick of a switch, we’ll give you all the memories of experiences you always wanted to have.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Cool!

L.L. SOARES:  Bring it on!

(Babe #1 injects L.L. SOARES, while Babe #2 injects MICHAEL ARRUDA, and both men drift off to sleep.)

SCIENTIST:  Now, to make sure there aren’t any problems, we shall monitor their experiences.

(SCIENTIST presses a button on MA’s monitor:  MA is running with bulls, skydiving, winning at black jack, surrounded by beautiful women.)

VOICE-OVER NARRATOR:  Without doubt, Michael Arruda is the most interesting man alive.

MA:  Stay thirsty, my friends!

SCIENTIST:  Why do I suddenly feel like having a beer?  (Shuts off monitor).  Let’s check on the other one.  (Turns on LS’s monitor.)

(It’s a dark scene in the woods, with the sound of crickets chirping.  Suddenly, screams and shrieks fill the air.)

SCIENTIST:  What the—?

(Two scantily clad women tear through the woods, screaming.  Pursuing them with a crazed look in his eye is LS, wearing clothes covered in blood, and wielding a chainsaw over his head.)

LS:  Come to Papa!

SCIENTIST:  Does anyone have a pair of 3D glasses on them?

(DISSOLVE to later in the experience, as MA & LS wake up.)

MA (opening his eyes):  That was wild!

LS (wearing glasses like a professor and reading from extensive notes):  I dunno.  I thought the severed body parts lacked sufficient detail. Also, the blood wasn’t the right consistency….

SCIENTIST (handing MA a piece of paper): Here you go.

(MA looks at it and shrieks.)

LS:  What is it?

MA:  It’s the bill!  (hands it to LS)

LS (eyes grow to the size of dinner plates):  Whoa! We’ll settle this after our review.

MA:  Good idea.  I’ll start.  Today we’re reviewing TOTAL RECALL (2012), a remake of the 1990 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie.  Both movies are based on the Philip K. Dick story “We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.”

This one stars Colin Farrell in the Arnold Schwarzenegger role, and was directed by Len Wiseman, the guy responsible for the UNDERWORLD movies—he directed two of them and wrote all of them.  To me, this is the story of this movie, Wiseman’s involvement, and is ultimately why I didn’t like it, because in a nutshell, it reminded me of an UNDERWORLD movie.

LS: Well, it must have been an above-average UNDERWORLD movie, because this one is better paced, better acted, and has a better story than any of the UNDERWORLD films I’ve seen. I’m no big fan of Wiseman or UNDERWORLD either, but I thought TOTAL RECALL was definitely a step up for the guy. At least he had superior material to work with than yet another vampire vs. werewolf rehash.

MA: It’s the future, and the world is a rather bleak place, as there are only two spots left on the planet where people live, the area that today is Great Britain, and Australia, which is where all the factory workers toil.

LS: Actually, it’s the United Federation of Britain, which looks to be made up of the continent of Europe, plus a little more, all cobbled together. And at the other end of the world is The Colony, which geographically looks close to where Australia would be (then again, I’m pretty bad at geography), but it could also be a stand-in for the United States back before the Revolutionary War.

MA: Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is one of these factory workers, trying to live the dream with his beautiful wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) but ultimately failing to get ahead.  He’s also been troubled lately by a recurring dream in which he’s on the run with another beautiful woman, Melina (Jessica Biel), trying to elude government soldiers.  The dream makes him feel as if he’s supposed to be doing something important, which of course in real life he doesn’t see as the case since he’s working in a factory.

LS: But not just any factory. He works in the factory that manufactures the synthetic android soldiers that make up the government’s army. This means he knows those things inside and out, and this will be useful as the movie develops.

MA: Dissatisfied with his life, Quaid decides to check out Rekall, a company that implants fake memories into their clients’ minds so that they can experience all the things they would like to do in real life but can’t, sort of the ultimate in virtual reality.  The one catch is that you’re not supposed to choose something you do for real, because that screws up the system.  Quaid chooses “secret agent” but just as he’s about to be inserted into the virtual world of Rekall, the attending scientist discovers that Quaid really is a secret agent, but before he can disconnect Quaid from the system, government soldiers break in.  Quaid reacts by killing all of the soldiers, and suddenly he realizes that, for him to have done that, he’s not who he thought he was.

LS: Or is it all part of the Rekall experience?

MA:  See, that question is exactly the one I wanted the movie to tease us with, but it really doesn’t.  It plays things so straight it leaves little room for us to speculate on these sorts of questions.

LS:  Doesn’t Rekall have a kind of “semi-legal” or borderline illegal feel to it? There’s something fishy about the technology and the place it’s done in. Also, it seems like an incredible violation of privacy. Sure they give you new exciting memories of things you never did, but first they go through an extensive examination of your real memories, and see everything you might want to keep private. I’m not sure if it felt worth the price.

MA: I didn’t care.

Turns out, Quaid really is a spy, and the life he thought he’d been living all these years is a lie.  His wife is not his wife, but an agent out to kill him.  He escapes from her and is reunited with the girl in his dream, Melina.  Together, Quaid and Melina try to complete their mission, which involves helping the resistance stop the evil leader of the world, President Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston) before he wipes all of them off the face of the earth with his evil army of battle droids, all the while trying to stay one step ahead of Lori who his hellbent on killing her “husband.”

LS: Cohaagen? Almost sounds like President Quahog. What is this, an episode of FAMILY GUY?

But seriously, I was going to chastise you for giving away spoilers, but the truth is, this movie doesn’t really have any spoilers. You’d think in a movie about memories and paranoia and things not being what they seem—which is the whole point of why you’d adapt a story by Philip K. Dick, in the first place!—that there would be all kinds of twists and turns and shocking surprises, but there aren’t any in this version of TOTAL RECALL. Once Farrell’s character finds out—via going to Rekall to have his memories toyed with—that he is really a super spy—that is where the surprises end, and that’s about 15 minutes into the movie!

MA:  Yep, and that’s why I really didn’t like this movie all that much, because as you said, for a tale about virtual worlds and false memories, it’s all rather straightforward and mundane, disappointingly so.  I really expected some decent twists and some genuine suspense about what was real and what wasn’t, but the screenplay by Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback never exploits these potential fascinating tidbits.  Instead, the story remains underwhelming and seems like just an excuse to showcase endless chase scenes.

LS: Wiseman does like to beat an action scene to death, doesn’t he? Like those cool floating cars. At first, the scene is really cool, and you’re appreciating the novelty of it, but then the chase scene just goes on and on. It almost wears out its welcome. But it’s still better than the action scenes in the UNDERWORLD movies.

MA: And while the acting performances for the most part are all fine, the characters aren’t really developed either.

Colin Farrell’s best scenes as Douglas Quaid come early on in the movie when he’s talking to his buddy, Harry (Bokeem Woodbine), about being stuck in his life.  He vents his frustrations about working his butt off without anything to show for it.  He’s even passed over for a promotion when the job is given to a less qualified candidate who has more connections.  These scenes ring true, as they connect to real life situations and are much more satisfying than the endless action scenes which permeate the rest of this movie.  Once this happens, Quaid is reduced to a bland hero who is about as interesting as a video game character.

LS: Yeah, that scene at Rekall, where the soldiers rush in and he takes them all out single-handedly (if you saw the movie’s trailer, you saw the scene) looked more like a video game than a movie. It’s hard to care about the people being killed or feel any real tension about whether the main character is in danger, if you can’t even believe the soldiers he’s fighting are real.

And were you confused about the whole synthezoid thing, too? Some of them are synthetic androids. Others are guys in battle suits. But they all look the same, and I’m guessing this is on purpose and the real humans are in charge. But you constantly wonder, whenever Quaid kills a bunch of them, are there any humans in those suits at all? And you’ll never know for sure.

(A group of BATTLE DROIDS surround them.)

DROID #1:  Some of us are droids!

DROID #2:  Some of us are human!

MA:  All of you are irritating!  Don’t you have something else to do?

LS: There’s one way to know for sure who’s human and who’s not.  (lifts axe).  Humans bleed!

DROID #1:  All of us are running! (Droids flee.)

MA: I enjoyed Farrell much more in last year’s FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) remake.  He took the character of vampire Jerry Dandrige, gave him an edge, and made it his own.  Here, he doesn’t give Quaid any edge at all.  I have to admit, I missed Arnold Schwarzenegger and his wise-cracking self.  At least he was good for a few laughs along the way.  Farrell’s Quaid is boring.

LS: Not FRIGHT NIGHT again!

MA (shrugs and shakes his head):  Farrell starred in FRIGHT NIGHT last year.  What do you want me to say?  You want me to compare his performance to last year’s HORRIBLE BOSSES (2011)?  I would, but he wasn’t the lead in that one.

LS:  Arnold Schwarzenegger was so much more fun in the original TOTAL RECALL (1990) movie, that I found myself missing him once in a while, too.  At least he had a personality—even if it was a sometimes goofy one!

But you’re right, Farrell’s Quaid is not that exciting for a lead character. At first he seems like an everyman character, toiling away in the factory (although he’s an everyman with the looks of a movie star), then he seems like just another bland action star. I bet Adrien Brody could have done a better job with this role, like he did in PREDATORS (2010).

MA: Good choice!  Brody would have been terrific, but then again, I expected Farrell to be better.

Kate Beckinsale doesn’t do a whole lot as relentless assassin Lori Quaid other than look hot and angry throughout as she chases Quaid across the world, but you know what?  This is fine by me!  I think I could watch Beckinsale run around in that tight get-up shooting at people all day.  Seriously, she was my favorite part of this movie, which isn’t saying much, because I didn’t find much about this one that I liked, but without having to show much range or much acting ability, Beckinsale succeeded in holding my interest every time she was on screen, and then some!

LS: I love Beckinsale, too, and I think she’s wasted in those UNDERWORLD movies she does with Wiseman. However, here, I actually thought she had a better role, because she was finally playing against type as the bad guy! Beckinsale makes a great villain, and her single-mindedness throughout the movie—all she wants to do is track Quaid down and kill him—makes her a force to be reckoned with. I like her much better as a villain here than I do as the generic action hero she plays in a lot of her movies. And she’s so damn beautiful.

MA: Jessica Biel is fine as Melina, but like Farrell’s Quaid, her character is underdeveloped.

LS: To a degree, because none of the characters in this movie are developed very well, but I liked Biel a lot more than you did. I thought she was the yin to Beckinsale’s yang. It was no coincidence that the two women look kind of similar in some scenes—a more clever director would have had more fun with that in a damn Philip K. Dick movie, which should be all about screwing with your (and the character’s) mind. I thought Beckinsale was the better actress, and a much more forceful screen presence, but Biel has come a long way and I thought she was a great counterpoint. The two women were easily the best things in this movie.

MA:  Bryan Cranston, a fine actor who seems to look different in every movie I see him in, is largely wasted here as your standard movie baddie, Cohaagen.

LS: I like Cranston a lot, mainly from his work on the excellent AMC TV series BREAKING BAD, but yeah, his role here doesn’t amount to much. Just another corrupt authority figure.

I also liked Bokeem Woodbine, who you mentioned before as Farrell’s buddy, Harry. He has a kind of realness to him that a lot of the other characters don’t have, and I liked his character.

There is just one scene, in a bank, where Woodbine’s Harry plays some mind games with Quaid, where this movie even attempts to dig into the paranoia that enveloped the world of Philip K. Dick, and Woodbine handles it well,  even if it isn’t as well written as it could have been. Otherwise, director Len Wiseman doesn’t have a clue what to do with his source material.

MA: Again, this one was directed by Len Wiseman, the guy responsible for the UNDERWORLD series, so if you’ve seen any of those movies, you know how TOTAL RECALL plays out.  I found the films very similar in tone and style.  They’re slick and nice to look at, but in terms of content, they’re pure fluff.

All the action scenes began to look the same after a while too, and in all honesty, this was a movie where I grew bored in the second half, having grown tired of one action scene after another.  I did like the elevator sequence, though, as that one was a little more exciting than most.

I also didn’t like the look of the synthetic police force at all. They looked like they were STAR WARS clone rejects sent over by George Lucas.

LS: I completely agree! And I’ve already given my two cents about how it was hard to care about synthetic police being blown away—even if they don’t always differentiate between the droids and the real human cops.

(YODA enters.)

YODA:  Droids or humans, humans or droids, confusing they are!  The way of the Jedi is clarity we seek.  Confusion, we avoid, harmony and vision, the Force provides.

LS:  Clarity? So, why the hell do you talk like that?  I can’t understand anything you’re saying!

YODA:  Rude you are!  (Exits.)

MA: The lady with the three boobs was an interesting bit, and I liked the scene where Quaid has to slice his wrist open to remove the phone embedded under his skin, but why he didn’t bleed to death I have no idea!

LS: The lady with the three boobs was onscreen for about two seconds. Blink and you’d miss her. But that, combined with the phone removal scene you mentioned, takes up about two minutes of the actual movie. I’m surprised you found them so memorable you had to mention them.

MA:  There wasn’t much else worth mentioning.

LS:  You bring up silly little stuff like that, and yet you completely forget to mention The Fall, which I thought was pretty cool. A gigantic metal capsule that literally falls from one place at the United Federation of Britain, straight through the planet to The Colony, passing through the earth’s core! Scientifically, I’m sure this entire concept is a bunch of hooey, but it looked breathtaking at times. This is the only way to travel between the two parts of the world (the rest of the planet has been blasted by nukes) and thousands of people get onboard every day to commute to jobs in the other country. The Fall plays a pivotal part in the plot of this movie, and using it to travel between the good and bad countries is crucial to the storyline. How could you completely ignore it in your review?

MA:  I ignored it because for the most part, the film ignored it!  It passes through the planet’s core, right?  Now that’s a cool concept, but the film doesn’t go into any kind of detail about it at all.  In the movie, the Fall is about as interesting as one of those droids!  When it’s mentioned in the movie, it’s only in the context of how much the folks who use it hate it.  The filmmakers don’t even try to dazzle us with the science behind it.  They’re more interested in unending action scenes.

And you thought it looked breathtaking?  I didn’t.  I wasn’t impressed at all.

LS: Impressed or not, it was a major plot point, and it had a big part in the final showdown between Farrell and Cranston.

MA:  I seriously doubt people are going to be talking about the Fall after this movie.  They might chat about the three-boobed lady though!

Overall, TOTAL RECALL is about as fun as watching someone play a video game.  Pass the popcorn, please!  Still, I’ve certainly seen worse movies, and this one does look good and does sport a decent cast, even if nobody is going to win any awards here.  It also has Kate Beckinsale.

LS: And Jessica Biel.

MA: I give it two knives.

LS: I actually liked this one more than you did, especially the performance by Kate Beckinsale, which we totally agree on, and to a lesser extent Jessica Biel. Beckinsale is just so terrific in her role here, it almost vindicated all of the awful action movies she’s been in.

It’s funny, I first noticed Beckinsale in little art movies like Whit Stillman’s THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO (1998), and thought, “Wow, this girl has a future as a movie star.” But who knew it would be a future made up mostly of action movies? It wouldn’t bother me if most of them were actually good. I was just so happy to finally see her in something like TOTAL RECALL, where I enjoyed her character so much.

But I’m also a big fan of writer Philip K. Dick, and this movie does not do him justice. You expect a lot more in the way of twists and surprises when you see his name connected to a movie, and Len Wiseman was not up to the task of doing this one right at all.

But, despite this, I thought TOTAL RECALL moved at a fast pace, it kept me riveted throughout, and the cast was pretty solid. It fulfilled what you want to see when you sit down in a movie theater. So for that reason, I give it 3 knives.

But it could have been so much better!

MA:  Yeah, it could have been clever, creative, imaginative, take your pick!  Heck, I would have settled for inspired.

LS: So I guess we’re done.

SCIENTIST: That’s all well and good, but what about my fee?

LS: I think I hear Kate Beckinsale calling me!

MA: No, that’s Jessica Biel calling you!  Kate Beckinsale is calling me!

LS: Who cares who’s calling who?  Let’s skedaddle!

(The guys run out of the place, chased by the SCIENTIST and his assistants in fast-motion)

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives the 2012 version of TOTAL RECALL~ two knives!

LL Soares givesthe 2012 version of TOTAL RECALL~ three knives!

1 Comment »

Me and Lil’ Stevie Are Moved by CARRIE (2002)

Posted in 2012, High School Horrors, Me and Lil' Stevie, Peter Dudar Reviews, Remakes, Telekinesis, TV-Movies with tags , , , , , on May 16, 2012 by knifefighter

Me and Lil’ Stevie

Are Moved By

CARRIE

(2002)

By Peter N. Dudar

(INTERIOR/NIGHT:  Establishing shot of a gymnasium filled streamers and balloons and painted banners and signs. High school students in tuxedos and formal gowns are floating and twirling on a wooden floor with gridded basketball lines and circles. In the background, a slow dance number flows through the mid-spring evening. One couple waltzes past the camera, and as the man’s tuxedoed back turns to face us, we see that it is a man holding a ventriloquist dummy in the form of Master of Horror, Stephen King. We also see that Lil’ Stevie is wearing a prom dress!)

Lil’ Stevie:  What the…What did you do to me?

Peter:  You’re my prom date for the night. You look gorgeous!

(Lil’ Stevie pulls the pin out of his corsage and sticks it right in Peter’s eye.)

Peter:  OUCH!  Why you little…

Lil’ Stevie:  Good evening, Constant Viewer, and welcome to our little column. In this edition, we’ll be reviewing Brian De Palma’s masterpiece adaptation of my very first novel, CARRIE. Now, in case you didn’t know…

(Peter plucks the pin out of his eye and plants it right into Lil’ Stevie’s wooden nose.)

Peter:  Hold that thought!  Today, we’ll be discussing David Carson’s 2002 made-for-TV adaptation of the REAL Stephen King’s novel CARRIE (USA Network). I was going to have us review the original De Palma film, but the truth is that I just don’t have it on DVD and Netflix only had the newer version. So I figured, what the hay and the two of us sat down and watched it.

Lil’ Stevie:  You must have slipped me some Roofies because I don’t remember it. You didn’t molest me or anything, did you?

Peter:  Of course not. I’m waiting till after the dance. Now, can we get on with this?

Lil’ Stevie:  Just a sec…(pulls pin out if his nose and tosses it aside). Alright, get on with it!

Peter:  For the two people out there who have never read the book or watched the movie,  CARRIE (played originally by Sissy Spacek and, in this version, by horror-fan fave Angela Bettis, who also starred in Lucky McKee’s MAY, 2002), is the ultimate high school loser. She is the epitome of tragic figure:  her mother is a fanatical religious nut who has raised her in ritual obedience and punishment, her fellow schoolmates absolutely loathe her because she is incapable of fitting in, and we get the impression that she has absolutely no hope within herself to ever find happiness in any part of her life.

Lil’ Stevie:  Hell, when I was writing the book, even I wanted to slap her!

Peter:  That’s terrible!  But you didn’t write the book, so quit interrupting. This version of the movie begins with Carrie’s mom Margaret White (Patricia Clarkson, SHUTTER ISLAND, 2010) delivering her baby at home, in her own bed, all by herself. Apparently, Carrie’s deadbeat dad was long gone by this point.

Lil’ Stevie:  Would YOU want to stick around with that psycho-head?

Peter:  I suppose not. But this little glimpse of Carrie’s life is missing from the original movie, as was the rain of burning stones directly afterward.

Lil’ Stevie:  At least that follows what I wrote in my book…

Peter:  Jump ahead the seventeen-plus years of her life to her senior year of high school, where the mousy, beaten-down Carrie practically tiptoes through the halls of the school with her head down and her books clutched in a death grip in front of her. We see her in her daily classes, where the other kids carelessly pick on her and laugh at their own delight. We see her in the library, where she sketches in her notebook a picture of a heart, with her and her crush, Tommy Ross (Tobias Mehler, DISTURBING BEHAVIOR, 1998) holding hands and living happily ever after. And we see her in gym class, where she strikes out to end the softball game.

Lil’ Stevie:  She’s on the Loserville Express!

Peter:  It’s no wonder the other kids pick on her. She sucks at life!

Lil’ Stevie:  I shoulda just euthanized her back in chapter 3, so she didn’t have to endure all the punishment I throw at her.

Peter:  Like when all of a sudden, at the end of adolescence, she suddenly has her first menstrual cycle in the girl’s shower?  Only to have all the other girls peering at her over the shower stalls and chanting terrible things at her?  And then they fill her locker with tampons and write “Plug it up!” in magic marker on the locker door for all the world to see?

Lil’ Stevie:  (Chuckling) Yeah, that may have been a little over the top.

Peter:  Actually, no it wasn’t. That’s the kind of cruelty you can only find in teenagers. They suck!  It’s a developmental thing…camouflage your own flaws by pointing out the shortcomings of others. It’s a defense mechanism. Three parts projecting, two parts pack mentality. And with a bunch of high school girls, all riddled with their own self-esteem issues, it becomes very convenient to find a weaker target and throw garbage at her.

Lil’ Stevie:  Only, MY pile of garbage has telekinesis!

Peter:  Teleki-what?

Lil’ Stevie:  Telekinesis!  The ability to move objects with your mind.

Peter:  Oh, like this…

(Peter closes his eyes and concentrates, and suddenly Lil’ Stevie begins smacking himself in the face over and over again.)

Lil’ Stevie:  OUCH!  Hey, knoc…OUCH!  Quit it!

Peter:  (Laughing) Sorry. I got CARRIE’d away. Get it?

Lil’ Stevie:  You’re an imbecile!

Peter:  Anyway, for their stunt in the locker room, gym teacher Rita Desjarden (Rena Sofer, TRAFFIC, 2000) tells the rotten little bitches that if they want to go to the senior prom, they will be spending a week in detention with HER. Which means they will be running laps on the track until they puke.

Lil’ Stevie: …And since most of them want to lose those last few pounds before prom anyway…

Peter:  Of course, the actual perpetrator, Kris Hargenson (Emilie De Ravin, THE HILLS HAVE EYES, 2006) refuses and declines her prom privileges, and she begins hatching a scheme to get even with Carrie. Even though none of it was Carrie’s fault, Kris blames her and simply wants to punish her.

Lil’ Stevie:  God, she is such a bitch!

Peter:  De Ravin plays the role perfectly. You can feel the hate just oozing out of this girl, when the reality is that she’s a spoiled brat who is used to getting everything she wants. Seeing just how well she performed here made me wonder if actresses enjoy playing this kind of role, especially when it is nothing like themselves in real life, and if it somehow impacts their reputation, as some people can’t seem to distinguish characters from their portrayers.

Lil’ Stevie:  You think too much.

Peter:  The other girls commit to doing Ms. Desjarden’s detention so they can go to the prom. But Sue Snell (Kandyse McClure, MOTHER’S DAY, 2010) actually feels guilty about the whole shower incident. Wanting to clear her conscience and actually show poor Carrie some compassion, she decides to also opt out of the prom, and encourages her boyfriend Tommy Ross to take Carrie to the prom as her date. She sets the wheels in motion with no knowledge of what Kris is up to, and the catastrophic results that will later ensue.

Lil’ Stevie:  And while all of this is going on, Carrie is discovering her supernatural powers. Developing them, so to speak. We see her as she begins to spasm and convulse, and then she’s moving hairbrushes off tables and throwing the rude little kid on his bicycle into a tree after he taunts her.

Peter:  You know, I’m glad you mention this. This aspect of the movie reminded me of Harry Potter, and how he reacted to the mean people in his life. I kept waiting for Hagrid to pop out and go, “You’re a wizard, Carrie!”

(Harry Potter suddenly appears on the dance floor.)

Harry:  Did somebody just say my name?  Brilliant!

Lil’ Stevie:  Avada Cadavra!

(A light fixture suddenly falls from the ceiling and crushes the boy wizard to death.)

Peter:  Why did you do that?  I loved Harry Potter. Even the Real Stephen King loves Harry Potter!

Lil’ Stevie:  He was a tool!

Peter:  The rest of the movie is the unavoidable catastrophe that has been set in motion:  The prom, the terrible prank that Kris and her boyfriend Billy Nolan (Jesse Cadotte) play on Carrie, and the vengeful wrath of a girl that has been pushed too far by her mom, by her classmates, and by life in general.

Lil’ Stevie:  Which begs the question, was remaking Brian De Palma’s original masterpiece worth it?

Peter:  Well, there are several things to consider. First is that Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie absolutely nailed the roles of Carrie and her mother in the original version. The photo of Spacek dripping with blood is iconic to us horror fans. Second, De Palma’s version has the “jump out of your seat” popcorn horror moment at the end, when Sue Snell visits her grave. Third, the gymnasium sequence, when the camera goes to split and multiple screens of the chaos that happens after Carrie gets pig blood dumped all over her is some of the best horror ever committed to celluloid. It’s amazing to behold.

Lil’ Stevie:  But in this version, we have a whole different ending…

Peter:  Which we won’t give away to those who still want to see it. Look, this version is not terrible at all. In fact, it’s quite good all the way up to the bogus ending. Bettis is a fantastic actress, and she really does give a great performance here. As do most of her castmates. Where this film succeeds is stripping away all the bad fashion sense of the late 70’s and adding the up-to-date touch of cellphones and technology. Carrie goes to the library and Googles her special powers rather than have to hunt through books to learn about it. It makes the story more accessible to today’s teens.

Angela Bettis has the title role in the 2002 TV-movie version of Stephen King’s CARRIE.

Lil’ Stevie:  But it’s not the original. And it never captures the power of De Palma’s vision.

Peter:  Close, but no cigar!

Lil’ Stevie:  Well, then…Let’s have some fun. I wanna spike the punch and have a few drinks before Carrie gets up on stage.

(Lil’ Stevie suddenly swings his arm up and begins smacking himself in the face over and over again.)

Lil’ Stevie:  OUCH!  I told you to…OUCH!  STOP IT!

Peter:  I’m not doing it!

(Carrie walks over and confronts the two.)

Carrie:  That’s for making my life such a bummer. You didn’t have to be such a creep and write my life to be this way!

Lil’ Stevie:  I’m sorry!  I’m sorry!

Carrie:  (To Peter) How would you feel about ditching this little jerk so you and I can go have some fun?

Peter:  (To Lil’ Stevie) Later, Stevie. See you next time, folks!

(Peter drops the puppet on the floor and takes Carrie by the arm, and the two exit the gym. From out of nowhere, a stream of blood comes gushing out, spilling all over Lil’ Stevie in his prom dress. The doors slam shut just as the flames begin to engulf the school…)

Lil’ Stevie:  You just wait till I write the sequel!  Don’t leave me…NOOOOOOO!

-The End-

© Copyright 2012 by Peter N. Dudar

Leave A Comment »

Quick Cuts: WHO WOULD YOU CAST AS THE THREE STOOGES?

Posted in 2012, Classic Films, Comedies, Quick Cuts, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , , on April 13, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  QUICK CUTS
THE THREE STOOGES Recast
With Michael Arruda, L.L. Soares, Paul McMahon, Mark Onspaugh, and Colleen Wanglund

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Welcome to another edition of QUICK CUTS. 

Today we’re talking about The Three Stooges, because today, April 13, the new movie THE THREE STOOGES opens with a new trio of actors playing the iconic dunderheads.  Based on the trailers, it looks pretty bad.  Who are these guys playing the Stooges anyway?  Well, they’re all TV actors and not exactly household names.

So, the subject of today’s QUICK CUTS is this:  if you were in charge of casting a new movie about THE THREE STOOGES, who would you choose to play Moe, Larry, and Curly?  In other words, who’s your perfect cast to play THE THREE STOOGES?

Take it away Cinema Knife Fighters.  Mark, you’re up first.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  Can we resurrect the dead? Because I think Moe Howard, Larry Fine and Curly Howard are three “perfect” Stooges.

L.L. SOARES: Don’t forget Shemp! He was pretty cool, too.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Hmm, Zombie Stooges.  That might work.

L.L. SOARES:  Yeah, the original Stooges are the best, and I see no need for a modern day remake with new actors in the roles.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I agree, but since the new movie has already been made, let’s get on with our question.

MARK ONSPAUGH (Sighs):  I still say resurrecting the originals is the only “real” way to go – that said, I would go with these:

TOUGH OLD BIRDS
Clint Eastwood as Moe
Clarence Williams III as Larry
Michael Ironside as Curly

Clint Eastwood as Moe?

WOMEN CAN BE STOOGES, TOO
Lisa Lampanelli as Moe
Joan Rivers as Larry
Monique as Curly

WHY NOT HORRIFYING STOOGES?
Bela Lugosi as Moe
Lon Chaney Jr. as Larry
Tor Johnson as Curly

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Fun choices, although we might be seeing your last category, “Horrifying Stooges” for real in the upcoming movie!  Actually, I’m hoping it’ll be better than it looks, because I for one could really be into a goofy funny Three Stooges remake.

L.L. SOARES:  Dream on!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Okay, Paul, what are your choices?

PAUL MCMAHON:  Having always been a huge fan of Dennis Dugan’s BRAIN DONORS (1992), a… remake?… reboot?… “appreciation…” of the Marx Brothers classic A NIGHT AT THE OPERA (1935), where Dugan used John Turturro, Mel Smith and Bob Nelson as Groucho, Chico and Harpo Marx, I would cast a similar “appreciation” for the Three Stooges.

Moe – John Leguizamo
Larry – Colin Mochrie
Curly – Gabriel Iglesias

Gabriel Iglesias as Curly?

To assure the derision I know will come, I would also cast Dwayne Johnson to play their nemesis, and I’d use his “People’s Eyebrow” at least twice.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’ve never seen BRAIN DONORS.  I’m gonna have to check that one out.

PAUL MCMAHON:  Oh, it’s hilarious.  It’s a very underrated movie.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I love the Marx Brothers, so it sounds like fun.

Time for my Stooges picks.

The Deadly “Are you looking at me?” Stooges –   Robert DeNiro as Moe, Al Pacino as Larry, and Joe Pesci as Curly.

Al Pacino as Larry?

The “Night at the Museum” Stooges -   Ben Stiller as Moe, Owen Wilson as Larry, and Robin Williams as Curly.

The “Highbrow/We’d Like to Win an Oscar” Stooges – George Clooney as Moe, Ryan Gosling as Larry, and John Goodman as Curly.

The “Women/We’ll Take that Oscar First, Thank You, ‘Cause We Got Meryl” Stooges –   Sigourney Weaver as Moe, Elisabeth Shue as Larry, and Meryl Streep as Curly.

The “Expendables” Stooges- Sylvester Stallone as Moe, Jason Statham as Larry, and Bruce Willis as Curly.

The “Tim Burton” Stooges- Johnny Depp as Moe, Helena Bonham Carter as Larry, and Sacha Baron Cohen as Curly.

And last but not least, the “Slam Dunk/We Just Hit a Casting Home Run” Stooges -  Adam Sandler as Moe,  Mike Myers  as Larry, and Zach Galifianakis as Curly.

Colleen, you’re frowning.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Yes, I am.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  What’s the matter?  Sitting too close to L.L.?

(L.L. SOARES reaches for table behind him, grabs a cream pie, and flings it at MICHAEL ARRUDA who ducks out of the way.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Hey, it’s too early for that.  We’ve got a panel to run.

L.L. SOARES:  Remind me to murder you later.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’ll make a note of it.  So, Colleen, you were frowning.

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  Well, I’ve been mulling over my answer— Okay here’s my answer…

I wouldn’t cast anyone to play Moe, Larry and Curly because I wouldn’t make this movie.

(A great cheer erupts)

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  For us older folks who grew up on the old movies and shorts, I don’t think this flick has any appeal because it isn’t the original. As for the younger audience, I think the Stooges, unfortunately, have no relevance.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Well, while I can’t argue with your logic that this movie shouldn’t be made, I do know a few middle school students who are interested in seeing this movie, so maybe it will strike a chord with younger audiences.

Okay, L.L., time for you to weigh in.

L.L. SOARES:  Well we kind of already have a new Three Stooges. It’s too bad they’re so lame.

Bella Swan as Moe
Edward Cullen as Curly
Jacob Black as Larry

Edward Cullen as Curly?

At one point, the Farrelly Brothers’ THREE STOOGES movie was going to star some A-list actors: Sean Penn as  Moe, Benicio Del Toro as Larry and Jim Carrey as Curly. I’m sorry that fell through, because even if it was bad, it would have been really interesting to see those guys play the Stooges.

But seriously, I don’t think anyone can replace the original guys. On the one hand, I would love to see a new Three Stooges movies, but since it can’t be the originals, it’s just not “real.”  I have really mixed feelings about this new movie, and I think chances are incredibly slim that it will be any good. But who knows? I’ve been wrong before.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  So, that wraps things up.  Thank you everyone, for joining us on this week’s QUICK CUTS.

(L.L. SOARES throws another cream pie.  MICHAEL ARRUDA again ducks out of the way, and the pie instead hits PAUL MCMAHON in the face.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Here we go.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  It’s show time!

COLLEEN WANGLUND:  I think I’ll pass on this segment.

L.L. SOARES:  Not so fast.  (He takes cream pie and squishes it in her face, while laughing.)

(PAUL MCMAHON hurls pie across panel and plugs L.L. SOARES in the face.  L.L. throws back, but blinded, hits MARK ONSPAUGH instead.  Everyone on the panel is throwing pies now, and strangely, MICHAEL ARRUDA has not been hit.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Well, it looks like I’m the only one to escape this cream pie madness, so once again, thank you all for joining us.  (Suddenly, Michael is hit by a barrage of pies.  He wipes cream off his face and licks his fingers. )  Mmm, this is pretty good!  Did Jenny make this?

—END—-

Will the real THREE STOOGES please stand up!

1 Comment »

SILENT HOUSE (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Disappointments, Family Secrets, Killers, Plot Twists, Remakes, Twist Endings with tags , , , , , on March 20, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SILENT HOUSE (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE:  The interior of a summer home. It hasn’t been lived in for a while, and there are boxes piled everywhere, indicating that people are either moving in or moving out. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES enter the living room.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Okay. Let’s get started. Time to start fixing things up.

L.L. SOARES:  Wait a minute. I thought you said tear things up.

MA:  Why would I say that?

LS:  Because it’s more fun than fixing things up!

MA: Who says that, anyway?

LS: I don’t know. I thought this house might belong to someone you don’t like.

MA:  Gee, I’m not that bad!

LS:  That’s your problem, dude!  One of many, anyway.

MA:  Haha. Anyway, I don’t feel much like fixing the place up either. It doesn’t sound like much fun. How about we review today’s movie instead?

LS:  Good idea. You start. (pulls out cell phone) I have to tell all those people I just called that we won’t need their help trashing the place. It’s too bad; they were really excited about ripping this place to shreds.

MA:  SILENT HOUSE (2012) is a new thriller starring Elizabeth Olsen as a young woman terrorized in her summer home by an unknown intruder. The intruder is unknown because we never seem to get a good look at the guy—or guys.

SILENT HOUSE is based on the 2010 movie THE SILENT HOUSE by Gustavo Hernandez. The gimmick used in that movie was that it was shot in real time in seemingly a single take, and this was supposed to crank up the suspense. The same gimmick is used here in SILENT HOUSE, the American remake by directors Chris Kentis and Laura Lau.

LS: Yeah, the original movie was from Uruguay. I haven’t seen it. And after seeing this remake, I won’t be spending much time looking for it.

MA: I can’t say that I noticed the “real time single take” effect in SILENT HOUSE. It didn’t really work for me, as it didn’t add anything to the suspense, and I hardly noticed it. It was almost an afterthought for me.

LS: I guess the fact that they did this whole movie in one take is impressive. Unfortunately, it’s a completely wasted effort. In a single take, if one thing goes wrong, you have to start all over again. I wonder how many times they had to do that before SILENT HOUSE got made? Not that it really matters. Like you, I barely noticed, and frankly, I didn’t care. Even if they did 100 takes, this movie would still be a disappointment.

(A glowing figure approaches them in the dark room. As it grows closer, they see it is CASPER, THE FRIENDLY GHOST)

CASPER: Will you be my friend?

LS: Haven’t you been in some of our earlier columns? We can’t seem to shake this guy.

MA (rolling eyes): Sure, I’ll be your friend, little ghost.

CASPER (to MA): Gee, thanks, Mister. You’re nice. Do you have any cookies?

MA: Cookies?  What do I look like, a grocery store?  I don’t go around carrying cookies on me.

(CASPER suddenly turns into a giant, ferocious ghost with big teeth and claws)

CASPER: Damn you! Where are my cookies?!!

(LS pushes him out of the room)

LS: Beat it, kid. We’re in the middle of something here.

MA: Thanks for getting rid of him.

LS: No cookies. Next time bring cookies!

MA:  Well, the last time I brought cookies, someone ate them all!

LS:  What can I say? I like cookies.

Why don’t you tell the nice people reading this column more about the movie. I am sure they are quite interested in finding out more about SILENT HOUSE.

MA: Sarah (Elizabeth Olsen) and her dad John (Adam Trese) arrive at their summer home to pack things up, because they plan to sell the house. Sarah hears a noise upstairs that she thinks sounds like a person moving around, and so her dad goes up to investigate. Sarah hears a thud, and suddenly her dad isn’t answering her anymore.

LS: Spooky!

MA: She discovers her dad upstairs, unconscious, on the floor, and his face is mutilated and he’s bleeding badly. She vows to get help and come back for him.
Sarah hears someone moving around the house. Terrified, she tries to sneak her way out of the house without being discovered by the deadly intruder. This process is easier said than done, because every door in the house seems to be locked from the inside, and without a key, she can’t escape. The windows are also boarded up, in order to protect the house against vagrants.

LS: Yeah, some kids have been throwing rocks at the windows, so they boarded them up. How convenient. Also, you forgot to mention that the power is all turned off and everyone has to use flashlights when they move around the house. This makes for a really scary setting—not. It just seemed lazy to me. Oh yeah, and, as usual with these movies, nobody’s cell phone works. They just can’t seem to get a signal around the summer house. More laziness!

MA: Sarah eventually eludes the intruder and escapes from the house, only to run into her uncle Peter (Eric Sheffer Stevens), who grabs his gun and takes them back to the house in order to rescue his brother, Sarah’s dad. Back inside the house, Sarah and her uncle search for her dad, hoping that whoever was inside the house is now gone. But of course, that’s not the case.

Will anyone make it out of the house alive?  Does anyone care?

(LS is snoring)

MA: Wake up! We’re not done with the review yet?

LS: I’m sorry. I wasn’t sleeping. I was just resting my eyes.

MA: Did you care about this movie? I know I certainly didn’t. As I sat in the theater, I kept thinking that the title of the movie SILENT HOUSE referred to the audience I was sitting with in the theater. Not a scream or anxious sound to be heard.

SILENT HOUSE is one of the dullest movies I’ve seen this year. For long periods of time, nothing happens. We have to endure scene after scene of Sarah slowly making her way around the dark, silent house. Yawn!

And it’s a house she just can’t seem to get out of. The doors all seem to be locked from the inside, and her dad seems to have the only key. I’ve never seen a house with so many doors that have locks on the inside that require keys to open them. Outside, sure, but inside?  And she can’t escape through the windows because they’ve been boarded up to keep out squatters. But every window?  Even the ones on the second floor?  I’m supposed to believe that there’s not a single window in the house she can escape through?  I didn’t find this very believable at all.

LS: And there is an entire sequence where she goes downstairs to the basement. Why? Her injured father is upstairs. If you hear a noise in the basement, and you’re sure it’s not someone you know, why would you go down there? This is so stupid, little kids who just started watching horror movies would have more sense than Sarah.

MA: And once all the bad stuff starts happening, after her dad is injured, Sarah moves around slowly through the house without a sense of urgency. These scenes lack pacing and intensity. Why isn’t Sarah fighting for her life to get the hell out of that house?
LS: She’s too busy crying and whimpering and biting her sleeve to keep from making noise. It’s just damn annoying!

MA: And speaking of slow moving, the attacker is slower than Michael Myers. Sarah has time to hide and wait while the intruder slowly walks around the room. Just what the hell is he doing, anyway?  Remodeling the place?  He’s not trying too hard to locate Sarah, that’s for sure!  The poor pacing really detracts from the suspense and scares during these scenes.

Uncle Peter also wins the “Stupidest Character of the Year” Award for his bone-headed move in this movie. Sarah escapes from the house, finds her uncle, tells him everything that’s happened, and what does he decide to do?  Go back to the house!  Sure, he wants to save his brother, but excuse me, what about your niece?  You’re bringing her back to the house where she was almost killed?  Stupid!  So, Sarah, after escaping from the brutality of the house, returns to it and goes back inside. Yep. That makes a lot of sense.

LS: Well, at first she stays in the car and locks the doors. Until she realizes the back door has been left open. It’s then that she sees something, freaks out, and goes back into the house. Of course, we never see what scared her so much, but you assume the killers are all over the place.

MA: By the way, SILENT HOUSE is rated R, and I still don’t understand why. It’s not graphic, it’s not violent, it’s not intense, and it’s certainly not scary.

LS: It was rated R? Wow. I would never have guessed, if I hadn’t seen the poster outside. You’re right. There is nothing that earns this movie a rating above a PG-13. Sometimes I think movies try to get an R-rating just to look cool. But man, I want to see why on the screen if it’s R-rated.

MA: Worst of all , SILENT HOUSE has a ridiculous plot twist at the end that completely ruins the movie, which I guess isn’t saying much because it’s not much of a movie to begin with, but a strong ending certainly would have helped. Instead, the ending is even worse than all that came before it.

LS: We get a few clues along the way, mostly involving some odd photographs that keep popping up. But seriously, the ending  of this movie was a complete cheat. I won’t explicitly say what’s going on, but I will say two words. FIGHT CLUB. If you saw that movie, then you know what this movie’s rip-off ending is all about. That trick worked exactly ONCE. And this is no FIGHT CLUB. It’s just incredibly lame.

Normally I wouldn’t give that much away, except this movie is SO AWFUL I would be glad if no one wasted their money to see it.

MA: Elizabeth Olsen does “terrified” very well, and we get treated to lots of scenes of her looking scared out of her wits and trembling, but these close-ups get tiring after a while. Olsen doesn’t do much else beyond looking scared in this movie.

LS: You think she did “terrified” very well?

MA:  Well, it’s what she does in this movie. I’m being generous here.

LS:  Okay. To get ready for this one, I watched Elizabeth Olsen’s big breakthrough movie from last year, MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE. It was a small, indie flick where Olsen played a girl who escapes from a cult and tries to go back to a normal life with her sister. Some people said  MARTHA MARCY was so good, Olsen should have gotten an Oscar nomination for it. I certainly thought it was an impressive debut. And frankly, because of that movie, I was looking forward to SILENT HOUSE. But the two movies are as different as dollars and dinosaurs. MARTHA was a riveting, wonderfully acted little film. SILENT HOUSE is a complete piece of crap. I felt bad for Olsen as I watched it, and I hope she makes better movie choices in the future. After MARTHA, she should be getting better scripts. But man, this one was heartbreakingly bad.

MA: I did like Eric Sheffer Stevens as Uncle Peter, even if his character makes that bone-headed decision to bring Sarah back to the house.

LS: You liked that idiot? Why?

MA:  Well, the character was an idiot, but I thought Stevens had a likeable quality about him.

LS:  I didn’t like anyone in this movie. Olsen just cries and whimpers and bites her hand the whole time. I like her as an actress, but I hated her character here. The other characters, specifically her father and uncle, are just morons. I never once feel any connection with them, and I couldn’t care less what happens to them. The father, especially, is a complete jerk. And by the end of this movie, I hated the characters even more.

MA:  Yeah, the father is a jerk.

LS:  The movie tries to justify its twist and everything that has come before it by suddenly introducing a traumatic event and trying to make us sympathize with a certain character. But the thing is, it was too little too late. It doesn’t earn our sympathy, and I just didn’t care. Damn, I hated this movie.

The only character I liked even a little bit was Julia Taylor Ross as Sophia, an old friend of Sarah’s who stops by early on for a visit when she sees there are people in the house again after being abandoned for so long. Sophia is okay, but when she appears a second time, later on, she’s just as stupid as everyone else.

(LS shouts in frustration)

(A closet opens and the TALL MAN from the PHANTASM movies jumps out)

TALL MAN (pointing at LS): Boy!

LS: I’m not a boy, Simple Simon. I’m a man.

TALL MAN (pointing at MA): BOY!

MA: I’m not a boy, either.

LS: Yeah, get your glasses checked. You need a stronger prescription.

TALL MAN: Oh well (shrugs and leaves the room)

MA: SILENT HOUSE was directed by Chris Kentis and Laura Lau, the same husband and wife team that gave us the much-hyped OPEN WATER (2003), a movie that I was never crazy about. Lau also wrote the screenplay.

LS: I actually didn’t mind OPEN WATER that much. It was pretty simple, but it worked. This one doesn’t work for one minute.

MA: Yeah, that’s my memory of OPEN WATER. Pretty simple and okay, but I remember people loving it, and I just didn’t find it all that special myself.

I heard that SILENT HOUSE was a stylish thriller, but I didn’t find too much about it that was stylish. It also wasn’t scary or all that suspenseful. I was actually quite bored. There were way too many scenes of Sarah walking through her house without anything significant happening.

LS: This movie has as much style as an outhouse.

MA: Also, for a movie called SILENT HOUSE, I thought it did a poor job of establishing place. I never felt that I knew the house, and I found that this got in the way of the scares. At one point, Sarah’s running around the dark basement in tight close-ups, and I didn’t find these scenes all that scary because I couldn’t really see where the heck she was. I knew she was in the basement, but without really seeing it, it wasn’t that scary.

SILENT HOUSE should have bucked its title and made some noise. As it stands, it’s probably the least impressive movie I’ve seen so far this year. I give it zero knives.

LS: We will definitely be bringing this one up again when we do our WORST OF THE YEAR list months from now. You know, I was actually going to give this half a knife, or maybe one knife, because I like Elizabeth Olsen. But seriously, if she hadn’t been in MARTHA MARCY MAE MARLENE, and this was the only movie I had to judge her acting abilities by, I wouldn’t think much of her. So, judging this movie entirely based on what’s on the screen, not who is in it, I have to go with you. Zero knives.

I hope nobody who is reading this goes to see it. Rents it. Or even thinks “I wonder if I should see this on cable?” Just forget this movie exists. It’s lousy.

MA: I guess that means we didn’t like this one.

LS: You think?

MA:  Well, now that we’re done, are you ready to unpack these boxes?

LS:  Dude, I’m not unpacking anything, unless it’s cardboard and there are six beer bottles in it.

MA:  I can’t say that I feel like unpacking either. The hell with it. We’ll just let Casper and the Tall Man do it.

LS: Let’s blow this joint.

MA: See you next time, folks!

-END-

© Copyright 2012 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

2 Comments »

TOP TEN REMAKES I’M GLAD WEREN’T MADE IN 2011

Posted in 2011, Best Of Lists, Jenny Orosel Columns, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , on January 7, 2012 by knifefighter

TOP TEN REMAKES I’M GLAD WEREN’T MADE IN 2011
By Jenny Orosel

10-BIRTH OF A NATION, directed by Mel Gibson.  As appropriate as that pairing is, that would be wrong on so many levels.

9-GOODBYE UNCLE TOM directed by Steven Spielberg.  He would have to tack on a happy ending.  Sexploitation about slavery in the US shouldn’t have a happy ending.  Just saying.

8-EL TOPO directed by Michael Bay.  Somehow there would be an exploding midget if these two were combined.

Could Michael Bay do justice to a remake of Jodorowsky's 1970 surreal classic, EL TOPO?

7-SALO: 120 DAYS OF SODOM directed by Tim Burton.  Sadism at its worst, but with bright colors and a Danny Elfman soundtrack.  That seems wrong.

6-UROTSUKIDOJI from Pixar.  The only good thing about this would be seeing the merchandising of tentacles in the Disney stores.

5-MY DINNER WITH ANDRE directed by Eli Roth.  Instead of discussing philosophy and life, Wallace and Andre would spend two hours trying to rip the flesh from each others’ faces.

4-FACES OF DEATH directed by Gus Van Sant.  Do we really need a shot-for-shot remake the way he did with PSYCHO?

3-THE WHALES OF AUGUST directed by Alejandro Jodorowsky.  Those who know me would be shocked—Jen opposed to a Jodorowsky movie?  THE WHALES OF AUGUST is a beautiful, sensitive movie starring Vincent Price in the twilight of his life.  Jodorowsky would make the star Marilyn Manson, and somewhere there would be sex with the whales.  But because it was a Jodorowsky flick, I would have to see it.  Then I would be traumatized.

What would happen if Alejandro Jodorowsky remade 1987's THE WHALES OF AUGUST?

2-CAT PEOPLE directed by the guy who makes the Maru videos for YouTube.  You know those videos of a large cat jumping into boxes?  That’s Maru.  Now imagine him in a movie about repressed sexuality.  Yeah, I don’t want to, either.

1-ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOOS NEST directed by Charlie Sheen.  You know what?  Scratch that—I would totally go see this!

© Copyright 2011 by Jenny Orosel

7 Comments »

Cinema Knife Fight Presents: THE BEST MOVIES OF 2011

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Best Of Lists, Cinema Knife Fights, LL Soares Reviews, Michael Arruda Reviews, Mutants!, Remakes with tags , , , , , , , , , on January 2, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT:  THE BEST OF 2011
By MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES

(THE SCENE:  A majestic movie theater, elegantly decorated, with an audience decked out in black tie tuxes and top designer gowns, a group fit for the Academy Awards. The camera pans through the audience to reveal select guests, and we see a large contingent of superheroes, including Captain America, Thor, Green Lantern, young Charles Xavier, Magneto, and other X-Men, all chatting with Samuel L. Jackson; a group of raucous apes led by a super intelligent chimpanzee who keeps throwing bananas at everyone; cowboys and aliens; medieval witch hunters, assassins and hired killers, one in particular who keeps racing a car up and down the aisles; Caribbean pirates led by a drunken Jack Sparrow; a group of kids filming everything with a Super 8 camera; vampires, lots of vampires, including two who can’t keep their hands off each other, even with a shirtless buff werewolf sitting behind them tossing popcorn at them; Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, and Daniel Craig, sitting with a young Goth girl covered in tattoos to his right, and  fending off cowboys and aliens to his left, all the while trying to ignore his ghostly wife and kids sitting behind him.)

(On a stage in front of the movie screen, sit MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Welcome, everybody, to our CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT “BEST OF 2011” column, where we reveal our Top 5 Best Movies from 2011. As you can see, we’ve invited a lot of folks from these movies, and they’re all here anxiously waiting to see if their movie makes the final cut.

L.L. SOARES:  I wonder if they’ll still be here when we do our WORST OF 2011 column?  They won’t be so excited then!

MA:  No, they won’t. They’re certainly all invited back for that WORST OF column, which we’ll be bringing to you right after this one. Speaking of which, why don’t you start us off this year?  Here’s the envelope with your #5 pick. (Hands LS an envelope.)

LS:  What do I need this for?  I know what my picks are already!

MA:  I know, but it’s for dramatic purposes, for the audience here and at home.

LS:  Dramatic purposes?  How about this for some drama? (raises arms dramatically)  To be, or not to be?  Hmm. Not to be. (Hits MA over the head with a large mallet, knocking him to the ground.)  Okie-dokie, now that we’ve gotten the drama out of the way, here’s my #5 pick. (drum roll begins as LS tears open envelope).

And it’s THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO! Even though I had already seen the Swedish movie version of Stieg Larsson’s bestselling book, David Fincher did an excellent job with his remake. It’s rare that a remake gets raves from me, and even rarer that I would include one in my Top 5 list. But this one really worked for me, especially the fantastic performance by Rooney Mara as punk rock hacker Lisbeth Salander. Even though I pretty much knew the story going in (Fincher takes a few liberties with the ending), DRAGON TATTOO somehow seemed fresh and vibrantly alive, mostly when Mara is onscreen. The Swedish original was a really good movie. Fincher’s remake is just as good.

MA (getting back up and shaking off dizziness):  Give me a minute. I think I need to spit some teeth out.

I liked THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO also, but not quite as much as you did. It just missed my Top 10 List, and that’s because there were a lot of movies I liked this year. Had this been another year, THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO most likely would have made my BEST OF list, too.

Okay, before I reveal my pick for the 5th best movie of the year, a special announcement:  this just in!  (A colossal envelope swings from a wire across stage and crashes into LS, propelling him off stage and out of sight.)  Thank you, Godzilla, for that timely telegram.

My pick for the 5th Best Film of 2011 is one that, in all honesty, I’m embarrassed to admit I liked so much.

LS (from offstage):  It wouldn’t be the first time!

MA:  No, it wouldn’t, but you gotta be honest in this business, and however a film strikes you while watching it, you have to report on that, not what other people think. So, my #5 pick is the Amanda Seyfried movie, RED RIDING HOOD.

(The audience gasps).

I know, it’s not a popular choice. Most critics panned this one.

All I want to say about this one is that, in spite of how stupid some of the plot points were, this movie mesmerized me and really pulled me into its fantasy world of a village terrorized by a werewolf. Forget that it’s about Red Riding Hood, and you’ll find it’s a surprisingly entertaining werewolf tale. Sure, it’s directed by Catherine Hardwicke, who directed the first TWILIGHT movie (2008), but RED RIDING HOOD is much better than the TWILIGHT movies. It’s written by David Johnson, who also wrote ORPHAN (2009), another movie I really liked, and it also features Gary Oldman as an insanely driven werewolf hunter who  is so intent on killing werewolves, he wears silver fingernails.

But the best part of RED RIDING HOOD is the lead performance by Amanda Seyfried. I’ve seen Seyfried in several movies now, and she’s mesmerized me in all of them. By that I mean, I can’t stop looking at her, and I don’t mean that in a creepy way. I mean she has a presence that really rivets you to the screen.

(LS returns to the stage with a cannon.)

MA:  Errr, maybe we ought to call a truce until we finish this column. We might not survive to our #1 Picks.

LS:  Sure. Whatever. (Cannon goes off and propels a giant fireball across the stage.)

MA:  What the—?

LS:  Oops. It went off by accident. (Winks slyly at camera.)  Anyway, I have to admit, I haven’t seen RED RIDING HOOD, so I really can’t comment on it. The idea of a horror version of “Little Red Riding Hood” sounds kind of lame and cliché to me, but, like you, I’m a fan of Amanda Seyfried and Gary Oldman, so who knows? Maybe it’s as good as you claim it is. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one.

MA:  My pick for the 4th best movie of 2011 is the assassin thriller KILLER ELITE starring Jason Statham, Clive Owen, and Robert DeNiro. This was a hard hitting action spy drama, full of espionage and exciting action sequences. I especially liked that you had two strong leads pitted against one another, Jason Statham vs. Clive Owen. It was like having two Jason Bournes going head to head in the same movie, and even though Statham got top billing, I actually enjoyed Owen’s performance more. Having DeNiro in the mix only added to the fun, and, combined with some really well done and intense fight scenes, KILLER ELITE thrilled me from start to finish. I loved it.

LS:  Zzzzzzzzzzz

MA: Wake up!

LS  (jumps up from his seat): Oh yeah, yeah. I’m awake. I’m awake!

It’s just that I found KILLER ELITE so boring that even your mentioning it right now put me to sleep. And I like Stratham, Owen and DeNiro—just not in this movie. I found the whole thing pretty tedious. There is no way it would make my Top 20, much less my Top 5.

MA:  I guess you’re just not that into espionage movies. I was really into the cloak and dagger stuff in this one, the secret organizations, and the multiple assassins all trying to kill each other, never sure who they can trust, even members of their own organizations.

LS:  Which brings me to my Number 4 pick for the Best of 2011 (pulls out envelope). By the way, you’re the one who insisted on these stupid envelopes. So why aren’t you using them for your picks?

MA: Last time I tried using one you hit me over the head with a mallet. I changed my mind, thank you very much!

LS: Good thinking. So after this one, I can forget about the envelopes.(Tears open envelope). My Number 4 choice is a tie: MELANCHOLIA and DRIVE.

In Lars von Trier’s MELANCHOLIA, Kirsten Dunst, in a terrific performance, plays a manic depressive who has an elaborate wedding day, only to fall into deep melancholia at the reception. Meanwhile, a new planet, called Melancholia, has suddenly appeared in our galaxy and is on a collision course with earth!! Charlotte Gainsbourg, as Dunst’s more grounded sister, suddenly finds she is just as helpless as her sister in the face of this new threat. With a great classical music score and beautiful – almost painterly – imagery.

In DRIVE, I thought Ryan Gosling was able to do an amazing acting job with as few words as possible, as a stoic getaway driver who wants to be a race car driver. Carey Mulligan is his love interest, whose husband has been doing some prison time. Great performances all around, in a kind of stark, existential film full of unspoken dread. Comedian Albert Brooks plays it straight here and turns in a spooky performance as a gangster who seems like a nice guy until he suddenly erupts with violence. Ron Perlman is his partner in crime.

Two movies that I really enjoyed this year. They both deserve to be seen by a wider audience.

MA:  I didn’t see MELANCHOLIA, so I can’t comment on it, but I did see DRIVE, and it made my list as well, so I’ll reserve comment on it until later.

Coming in at #3 on my list is COWBOYS AND ALIENS. Again, I think I liked this one more than a lot of other people did, but I really enjoyed the mix of a western movie adventure with the alien invasion story. It was all rather cool to me.

This one featured two superstars, Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford, but it was definitely Craig’s movie, as he’s the main character and delivers the more memorable performance. Ford is somewhat cast against type, as a grizzled old ranch owner who has little regard for the law, but who does soften eventually in time for audiences to like him a little bit more. Strangely, I liked him more at the beginning when he was a pain in the backside.

Directed by Jon Favreau, who directed the IRON MAN movies so far, COWBOYS AND ALIENS was nicely paced and featured fine special effects that included some neat aliens, alien ships and weaponry. While the look of all this alien stuff actually ran hot and cold throughout the movie, the end result was entertaining and satisfying. The film also featured a fine supporting cast, which included the likes of Sam Rockwell, Clancy Brown, and Keith Carradine, to name just a few.

LS: Don’t forget Olivia Wilde as Ella Swenson! WOWEE!

MA: While not perfect, COWBOYS AND ALIENS was one of my favorite summer movies, in a season where there were lots of good movies.

LS:  I liked COWBOYS AND ALIENS, and thought it should have been a bigger hit than it was. It was a clever idea, and you’re right about Craig being the best thing in this one. While I enjoyed it, it wasn’t a movie that I was gaga over. But I can see why you liked it so much. At least it tried to be original.

Now on to my Number 3 pick is Pedro Almodovar’s excellent plastic surgery horror film THE SKIN I LIVE IN. As the elaborate back story unravels, we learn the secrets of Dr. Robert Ledgard, played by Antonio Banderas, and his mysterious patient/prisoner Vera Cruz (Elena Anaya). I don’t want to go into too much detail about this one, since it’s chock-full of surprises that will astound you. But I thought this was one of Almodovar’s best films in years, and a great reunion of him and star Antonio Banderas (they last worked together on 1990’s TIE ME UP! TIE ME DOWN!).

MA: Now for my #2 pick. It’s DRIVE, the ultra-stylish thriller starring Ryan Gosling. Everything about this movie was efficient and slick, like a well-oiled engine. It was also extremely refreshing, as it didn’t play like a traditional action thriller at all. Kudos to director Nicolas Winding Refn, who turned in one of the more stylish mainstream movies of the year.

I liked Gosling’s quiet, understated performance, playing a character known only as The Driver, a man who makes his living driving getaway cars. I loved the chemistry he shared with Carey Mulligan, who plays his cute neighbor, a woman he falls in love with, and as a result tries to save when her ex-con husband returns home and lands the lot of them in deep trouble.

Albert Brooks also delivers a deliciously evil performance, cast against type as a cutthroat loan shark. His scenes are GOODFELLAS scary!

DRIVE was an action thriller that worked not because it had the most car crashes or the loudest explosions, but because it showed us the people involved in these situations up close. We were inside the cars with them, and we were taken for a ride that cut through all the action nonsense seen in too many action movies these days and went full throttle for the jugular, often-times spilling lots of blood along the way.

DRIVE is an intense thriller, not to be missed, certainly one of the best movies of the year.

LS:  I can’t disagree with you here, since it was Number 4 on my list. It was definitely one of the movies I enjoyed the most in 2011.

On to Number 2, I suppose. And my choice for the second best movie of 2011 is….(drum roll)….THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE)!

When Tom Six set out to make a sequel to his notorious midnight movie THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (FIRST SEQUENCE) from 2009, he easily could have just started where the last one left off, as most directors would have done. But Six has a more sinister agenda this time around. Part 2 focuses on Martin (Lawrence R. Harvey), a grotesque little man who is also obsessed with the first movie, and desperately wants to create his own version of the Human Centipede. The problem is, unlike the first movie’s Dr. Heiter, Martin has absolutely no medical training and has to improvise when creating his own 12-person atrocity. With one of the bleakest endings of the year – which absolutely works – I thought this was one of the darkest and most original movies of 2011.

MA:  I didn’t see this one, and I have no intention of seeing it.

LS: Your loss.

MA: Okay. It’s the moment we’ve been waiting for. Time for us to make our picks for the Best Movie of 2011.

My pick for the Best Movie of 2011 was one I really had zero expectations for. It certainly wasn’t  one of the superhero movies I was looking forward to the most, but it turned out, not only to be the best superhero movie of the year, but my favorite among all the movies I saw in 2011. Yep, my pick for the Best Movie of 2011 is X-MEN:  FIRST CLASS.

This tale of how young Charles Xavier and Magneto first met and got the X-Men together entertained me from start to finish, and as far as how much fun I had watching a movie this year, nothing else came close.

I was impressed by the two leads, James McAvoy as Xavier and Michael Fassbender as Magneto. These guys easily made me forget about Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen from the previous X-MEN movies. They also shared an onscreen chemistry that really drove this movie along. Additionally, Kevin Bacon lent his talents as a very effective villain, Sebastian Shaw.

Director Matthew Vaughn , who also directed KICK-ASS (2010), once again pushed all the right buttons and made yet another movie that basically kicks ass!  It also features a smart screenplay by Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, and director Vaughn, and a hilarious cameo by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.

X-MEN:  FIRST CLASS had the fewest flaws of all the superhero movies this year. I thought both CAPTAIN AMERICA and THOR had higher ambitions, but both fell short, while X-MEN: FIRST CLASS seemed to excel at everything it tried to do.

It also had a memorable music score by Henry Jackman, by far my favorite superhero score this year, and one of my favorite film scores of the year, period.

I even saw this one more than once on the big screen and it held up each time, proof that for me, no other movie comes close this year. Numero uno belongs to X-MEN : FIRST CLASS.

LS:  I went into this one with low expectations as well. After the disappointing third X-Men movie, X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006), I figured the franchise had run out of steam. But FIRST CLASS breathed new life into the X-movies. It made my Top 10, but not my Top 5.

And finally, my choice for the Number 1 movie of 2011 is a movie I saw at the Boston Underground Film Festival back in August. I didn’t even review it – John Harvey did. It’s called THE WOMAN, and it was directed by Lucky McKee from a script by McKee and horror fiction legend Jack Ketchum. Not only is this my favorite movie of the year, it’s my favorite Jack Ketchum movie so far, and there have been several. It’s kind of a sequel to Ketchum’s novels OFF SEASON and OFFSPRING (only the second one has been made into a movie previously), concerning a family of savage, barely human feral people. In THE WOMAN, there is just one survivor left from the killer clan (simply called “The Woman” in the film, she’s played by Pollyanna McIntosh, who gives an amazing performance here), and while living in the woods of Maine, she’s spotted by Chris Cleek (played by Sean Bridgers, who has been in everything from the HBO series DEADWOOD to the new FX series JUSTIFIED). He captures her and brings her back home for his family to see, and keeps her tied up in a root cellar, where he does awful things to her. The big question here is, who is the bigger monster? The feral woman who has no concept of what it is like to be civilized, or the sadist who puts on a normal face to the outside world, and terrorizes his family and THE WOMAN relentlessly? With an ending that contained a few big shocks – something you rarely see anymore in current horror films–this one was a controversial pick at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, and when I saw it, it definitely lived up to its reputation as a powerful, disturbing little film.

MA:  Yeah, I’d say that it sounds a wee bitdisturbing, and since it’s written by Jack Ketchum, what else would you expect?

LS: I just hope it gets a normal theatrical release, so everyone else can enjoy this harrowing gem as much as I did.

MA: So, that wraps things up for us here. We’ll see you next time for our WORST OF 2011 column.

LS (points to movie celebrities in the audience):  Don’t you folks go away!  We’re not finished with you yet!

MA:  That’s right. The WORST is yet to come!

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2011)

Posted in 2011, Cinema Knife Fights, Murder!, Mystery, Remakes with tags , , , , , , on December 26, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2011)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: The interior of a cabin on a tiny island in Sweden. It has recently snowed outside. L.L. SOARES is sitting in front of a roaring fire when MICHAEL ARRUDA comes in from outside)

MA:  Finally!

LS: You made it!

MA:  Barely!  What a friggin drive I just had!  There was a turned-over gasoline truck on the bridge back there, and the roads were icy.  Jeesh!

LS:  Now that you’re here, we can review THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO.

MA: And the heat in the car wasn’t working.  I’m freezing!

LS: Take a seat, pal. I’ve got a steaming hot mug of cocoa waiting for you, with four marshmallows on top, just the way you like it.

MA: Errr… thanks.

LS: So shall I begin this one?

MA: If you don’t mind, I sure would like to warm up— you’re being awfully nice.  Too nice.  But since I need to thaw out, I’ll have to deal with that later.  Sure, start the review.

LS: For the three people out there who have never heard of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, it began as the first book of a trilogy by Swedish author Stieg Larsson. The books became a huge sensation throughout Europe and bestsellers in America as well.  There is a trilogy of films based on the books as well—all made in Sweden in 2009.

When I walked in to the new version of GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, I have to admit, I wasn’t completely sold on the idea. The original Swedish film is really good, and I couldn’t see the point of remaking it. Much like the remake of another Swedish film, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008—it was the remade in English as 2010’s LET ME IN), it seemed unnecessary to me. Could that many Americans be so averse to foreign films and subtitles that they would avoid the Swedish films? The answer, it seems, is yes. Which is why an American version was rushed into production.

MA:  I don’t think it’s just a matter of Americans being averse to foreign films.  I think it’s also because American theaters choose not to show foreign movies, and so those of us who don’t live in big cities don’t get the opportunities to see these movies on the big screen.

LS:  In another director’s hands, DRAGON TATTOO could have been a big letdown, or at most a by-the-numbers copy of the Swedish version (directed by Niels Arden Oplev). But the new version is directed by David Fincher. This is the same guy who burst onto the scene back in 1995 with SEVEN, after a career directing music videos, and who gave us such great flicks as FIGHT CLUB (1999 – and still my favorite of his films), ZODIAC (2007) and the Oscar-nominated THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010). Fincher is a filmmaker at the top of his game, and he isn’t afraid to take on risky material.

And that’s the part that intrigues me. DRAGON TATTOO is some very dark stuff. It’s not breezy, light mainstream storytelling. There is a lot of nudity and violence in this story. And Fincher doesn’t shy away from that in his version, thankfully. But it’s so dark, I’m still puzzled why it became such a big hit with readers and filmgoers.

MA:  Strangely, in spite of the dark subject matter and a couple of disturbing scenes, as a whole, I didn’t find this movie as dark as I expected.

(There is a knock at the door, and LS answers it. It’s FROSTY THE SNOWMAN)

FROSTY : Happy Birthday!

LS: It’s not my birthday. What do you want?

FROSTY: Um…sorry….I don’t have a clue. I’m a complete moron.

(LS closes the door)

LS:  As DRAGON TATTOO begins, we are introduced to the two main characters via separate storylines. Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is a journalist and the co-editor of the magazine Millenium, and he has just been convicted of libel against the corrupt head of a corporation named Wennerstrom. One of his sources turned out to be unreliable (maybe it was even a set-up) and, without proper proof of his claims, Blomkvist is found guilty and given an exorbitant fine to pay (that eats up most of his life savings). Humiliated and with a damaged journalistic reputation, Blumquist takes a leave of absence from Millenium (which is in bad shape financially), to take on an unexpected job for another rich businessman, Henrick Vanger (Christopher Plummer), who wants him to use his exceptional research skills to solve the decades-old mystery of what happened to his niece, Harriett Vanger, who disappeared many years before and is believed to have been murdered. Vanger thinks the killer is someone in his family. He gives Blomkvist access to documents and photographs and asks him to crack the case. This involves staying in a cabin on the island the Vangers own in Sweden, on the grounds of their vast estate, within walking distance of the houses of several other family members, including Martin (Stellan Skarsgard), the new head of the Vanger Corporation now that family patricarch Henrik has retired, and Vanger’s brother Harald, a reclusive,  avowed Nazi, to name just two.

In fact, there are several Nazis in the Vanger family history. Vanger gives Blomkvist the cover that he is writing the old man’s memoirs, in case the family members get too suspicious, while he is really trying to determine what happened to Harriett.

Meanwhile, Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara) is a tattooed and pierced goth girl who happens to be an expert hacker and investigator. She’s the one who did an extensive (and somewhat illegal) background check on Blomkvist before Vanger decided to hire him. Lisbeth is also a ward of the state, due to a history of violence and arrests dating back to her childhood, and has to deal with state-appointed guardians to get access to the money she inherited from her family. Her most recent guardian has had a stroke, and her new one, Bjurman (Yorick van Wageninen, in a great performance) is a vile and brutal bully who is not above rape to get what he wants. Of course, since he controls the purse strings to Lisbeth’s finances, he assumes she has to do whatever he demands. He’s wrong.

Lisbeth gets her revenge on him in quite an elaborate way, letting us know early on that this skinny, quiet punk rock chick is someone you don’t want to cross. She’s as tough as nails and has a strong desire to put the monsters of the world in their place.

Blomkvist finds out about Lisbeth when he decides he needs a research assistant to help investigate the Vangers, and he finds out about the file she originally collected on him. She found out things no one else knew, and Blomkvist is both impressed and horrified by Lisbeth’s investigative abilities. But he realizes this is exactly the person he needs on the case.

The two storylines intersect as Lisbeth and Blumquist team-up to find out who is the sadistic murderer of several women throughout the years—this goes far beyond Harriett—and put an end to the mystery of the Vanger family. In fact that’s how Blomkvist gets Lisbeth to work with him, telling her they are tracking down “a killer of women.” As soon as she hears that, Lisbeth is on board.

The rest of the movie involves a lot of interviews with family members and other possible witnesses (conducted by Blomkvist) and lots of digging through files and photographs (mostly done by Lisbeth). This doesn’t sound exciting—a big chunk of the film is about these two people researching the crimes—and yet, if anyone can make such things exciting, it’s Fincher. Don’t forget, this is the same man who made the story of Facebook—a seemingly unfilmable task—dynamic, in THE SOCIAL NETWORK.

MA:  This is part of what I was talking about, regarding the movie not being as dark as I expected.  I didn’t find these scenes of research and investigation all that exciting.  I thought they detracted from the dark tone of the movie.  I would have rather the film spent more time on Henrik Vanger’s despised family.

LS:  By the time we get to the last half hour, and the discovery of the killer, the movie has built up quite a head of steam and we’ll follow Fincher anywhere at that point.

MA: I guess.  I thought it went on too long.  I was ready to follow Fincher to the exits.

(There’s another knock at the door. MA gets up this time and finds SANTA CLAUS standing in the doorway)

SANTA: HoHoHo. Have you been a good little boy?

MA: It’s the day after Christmas. Aren’t you supposed to be home? And I’m not a little boy, I ‘m a grown man.

SANTA: Oh yeah! I guess I had a little too much egg nog last night after my rounds.

(ELVES appear and pull SANTA away)

ELF: Come with us, Santa. Time to go sober up.

SANTA: I don’t want to! You little boys are going to get coal in your stockings!

ELF: We’re not little boys, we’re elves.

(MA closes the door)

LS:  The writing (Steven Zaillian wrote the screenplay) and direction are terrific here. Since it covers most of the same events as the Swedish film, I was concerned I’d find the remake boring, but, for the most part, it wasn’t. Fincher is able to take material already portrayed by another director and other actors, and make it his own.

MA:  Here, I agree with you.  THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO isn’t boring.  It’s just slow in parts, and a movie with as many interesting characters as this one has, shouldn’t be slow at all.

LS:  The acting is top-notch as well.  Daniel Craig is believable and determined as Blomkvist, Rooney Mara is intense and cobra-like (and at times, vulnerable) as Lisbeth, and even actors in smaller roles like Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgard, Joely Richardson (as Anita Vanger—who lives in London) and Robin Wright as Blomkvist’s co-editor of Millenium (and lover), are exceptionally good here.

But my biggest praise has to go to Rooney Mara. As Lisbeth, she is a force of nature here, just as good in her way as Noomi Rapace was in the Swedish film versions. This is a difficult role, involving lots of nudity, some humiliation, and violence, and Mara doesn’t flinch once. She’s more than up to the task at hand and becomes Lisbeth Salander. In fact, she’s almost too good.

MA:  I agree.  It’s a courageous performance by Mara, by far the best one in the movie.  And you’re right about her becoming Lisbeth Salander. Not once did I think “here’s an actress really acting.”  I believed Lisbeth was a real person.  It’s an extremely convincing performance.

As a fan of Daniel Craig, he does his job well, and so yes, he delivers another good performance.  He’s easy to watch.  It’s been a busy year for Craig, as we’ve seen him in COWBOYS AND ALIENS and DREAM HOUSE, and while I might have enjoyed his role better in COWBOYS, I think his best performance of the three was right here in this movie.

I also enjoyed Christopher Plummer, as I thought he delivered a strong performance, much more enjoyable than his forgettable turn earlier this year in the dreadful PRIEST.  And of course you can always count on Stellan Skarsgard, and he doesn’t disappoint here.

LS:  I was saying Mara’s almost too good as Lisbeth because, you see, one problem I had with the original film, as well as this version, is that Blomkvist is a much less interesting character than Lisbeth.

MA:  I definitely agree with that.

LS:  In the Swedish films, Blomkvist is played by Michael Nyqvist, and while his character is crucial to the storyline, and more or less the main character of the trilogy, his story is pretty much second-rate compared to Lisbeth’s. Here, it’s not much different. Daniel Craig is fine as Blomkvist, and makes him as interesting as he can be. But I thought some of his scenes were a little slow.

MA:  Yeah, they were a bit slow.  I wasn’t at all interested in his relationship with his publisher or with his daughter, and I’m not sure why, except that juxtaposed with scenes of Lisbeth’s life, they didn’t compare.  His scenes were ordinary.  Hers were adrenaline-charged.

LS:  Right.  Every time Rooney Mara is onscreen, she’s electric. In both versions of the story, I wanted the movies to be more about Lisbeth Salander and less about Blomkvist. Her character is the reason to see these movies, and Mara is excellent.

MA:  Again, I agree.

LS:  The score is very effective as well. By Trent Reznor (Mr. Nine Inch Nails himself) and Atticus Finch (the two also did the score for THE SOCIAL NETWORK), the music accentuates the darkness of it all and sets the tone. The opening credits, featuring their music and nightmarish imagery, felt like a Nine Inch Nails music video, but it also grabbed me from the get-go. I was hooked before Fincher’s name even came onscreen.

So, for a remake, DRAGON TATTOO is above-average. The direction, writing, music and acting are all high quality, and if you’re a fan of the books or even the Swedish films, you’ll enjoy this version a lot.

I give it three and a half knives.

What did you think, Michael?

MA:  I liked it, but not quite as much as you.

Unlike you, I didn’t see the Swedish version, but I did see the trailer for this one, and so I felt like I’d seen an entire movie.  Yep, it’s another example of a trailer giving too much away.  Thankfully, it didn’t include any spoilers, but it did tell me an awful lot about where this story was going, plot points I would have enjoyed discovering on my own as I watched the movie.  Long before Blomkvist and Lisbeth partner up and work together, I knew this would happen.  So, when it happens in the movie, it’s “Ho hum, I knew this already.”  The initial trailer, which gave absolutely nothing away in terms of story but piqued my interest anyway, is the way I wish all trailers were.

But back to the movie.  I liked all of Rooney Mara’s scenes as Lisbeth, and these scenes were as dark and edgy as I expected.  The trouble is, a bulk of this movie isn’t about Lisbeth, and those parts just aren’t anywhere near as interesting.

LS: Agreed.

MA: Still, I did enjoy Daniel Craig as Blomkvist.  His scenes aren’t boring or awful by any means.  They’re just not as compelling as Mara’s scenes, and it’s noticeable.  Also, the family that Blomkvist is investigating is full of dark and disturbing characters, yet we don’t get to know them enough.  I would have preferred the story spend more time on them and less on scenes of Blomkvist researching files and pictures.

You can tell this is based on a novel, because the story is full of interesting characters, but unfortunately, with the exception of Lisbeth, these characters aren’t fleshed out as well as they would be in a novel.  We never really get inside the heads of these characters, and for me, this was a flaw in this movie.

I liked that this was a very adult thriller, with dark adult themes that weren’t watered down in the least.  The film goes to some very dark places, both with Lisbeth’s personal story and the main mystery.  However, that being said, the film stops short of really traversing into the demonic depths of human depravity.  I thought it could have gone further.  Most of Vanger’s pain over the disappearance of his niece, and his family’s feelings about this event is left unexamined, and the climactic confrontation at the end I thought fell short and didn’t quite hit the mark.  I expected to be extremely disturbed by this ending but was not.

Short of a couple of scenes, I never felt truly uncomfortable.

I also thought it went on a bit too long, clocking in at almost 2 hours and 40 minutes.  Still, it held my interest and I certainly wasn’t bored, but in all honesty, it never truly blew me out of the water.

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO is a stylish adult thriller, a movie that does have a disturbing story to tell, but is never as completely edgy as it needs to be.  I still liked it though, and I give it three knives.

(Yawns)  I feel kind of sleepy. I think I figured out why you were being so nice.  You put something in my cocoa, didn’t y–?

(LS laughs as MA loses consciousness)

(MA wakes up to find himself handcuffed to the bathroom sink. LS is using a tattoo gun on him)

MA: What are you doing?

LS: Hold still. I’ve never done this before.

(The tattoo reads: I AM A BAD CRITIC)

MA:  Excuse me, but you left out a word.

LS:  Huh?

(MA whispers.)

LS (frowns):  This will cost you extra.  (LS returns to work with the tattoo gun.)

(The tattoo now reads I AM A BAD-ASS CRITIC.)

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Michael Arruda gives THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2011) ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATOOO (2011)~three and a half knives.

2 Comments »

Quick Cuts Presents: THE BIGGEST DISAPPOINTMENTS OF 2011

Posted in 2011, Disappointments, Guillermo Del Toro, Indie Horror, JJ Abrams, Quick Cuts, Remakes with tags , , , , , , on December 24, 2011 by knifefighter

QUICK CUTS – Most Disappointing Movies – 2011
Brought to You by the Staff of CinemaKnifeFight.com

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Today, as a companion piece to our previous QUICK CUTS column on our picks for the most pleasant surprises of the year, we ask our panel, what’s the most disappointing movie— or movies— of the year for you?  Not necessarily the worst movie of the year, but that flick you were really looking forward to, you thought would be great, but turns out it sucked.

MARK ONSPAUGH:  For me it was GREEN LANTERN.

L.L.SOARES: Yep, that was certainly disappointing.

MARK ONSPAUGH: I have been waiting for a live-action GREEN LANTERN movie since the 60s.  I think Ryan Reynolds was a good choice, but the script was horrible, so full of holes and just plain illogical.  And the movie shows that sometimes you can have too much CGI.

MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES (in unison):  Sometimes?  (They exchange annoyed and suspicious frowns).

MARK ONSPAUGH O:  Arrgh! – just thinking about it pisses me off!

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  I’d go with THE THING (2011).  I really expected this one to be better.  I was hoping for a creative, thought-provoking prequel to the Carpenter version, something very special.   Instead, it turned out very mediocre.

Two other movies that were letdowns for me were GREEN LANTERN and APOLLO 18, but I enjoyed both of these a bit more than THE THING.

DANIEL KEOHANE:  The most disappointing—  compared to my expectations—  though it wasn’t a bad movie, I just felt a bit empty when it was over, was SUPER 8.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Wow.  I really liked SUPER 8.

L.L. SOARES:  I liked that one, too.  (MA & LS again exchange confused glances)

DANIEL KEOHANE:  Steven and JJ together, I was into that, but it felt too… I don’t know, too much like an homage of Abrams to Spielberg, and I was kind of on the outside looking in. There were really good parts to it, but it is a good example of how a weak ending can ruin a movie for everyone.

JENNY OROSEL:  I’m going to shake things up a bit and talk about a DVD release.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  A little Shake ‘N Bake from our MEALS FOR MONSTERS columnist!

(DANIEL KEOHANE groans and laughs.)

JENNY OROSEL: The most disappointing DVD release of 2011—RUBBER.

It should have been a fantastically fun movie. After all, it’s about a homicidal tire! But no, they had to try and make it ART with capital letters. Every scene screamed self-importance. The whole concept of a homicidal tire lost all its joy, and it was just a sad little movie.

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  A homicidal tire?  Is that anything like a homicidal bore?

L.L. SOARES (to MICHAEL ARRUDA):  Why are you looking at me when you say that?  Are you looking at me?  ARE YOU LOOKING AT ME?? (Lifts a huge axe over his head).

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  Yeah, because it’s your turn to answer.

L.L. SOARES:  Well, in that case— (tosses axe aside.  There is a blood-curdling scream off-camera.)

MARK ONSPAUGH:  That was awkward.

L.L. SOARES:  There were actually several disappointments for me this year. First off, there’s APOLLO 18.  After months of seeing the trailer for this one, I had high hopes. It looked like a very clever idea. But the movie itself was kind of so-so, and the big twist toward the end was actually kind of silly.

An even bigger disappointment was the remake of DON’T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK. The original from 1973 was one of my favorite TV-movies of all time, and the new one was produced by Guillermo Del Toro. So what could go wrong? EVERYTHING! The remake stunk to high heaven. What a bummer!

Another big disappointment at the movie theater was YOUR HIGHNESS, starring Danny McBride in his first big-budget leading role. Considering the talented people involved, from director David Gordon Green, to  actors like James Franco and Natalie Portman, I had high hopes for this one. A mix of a stoner comedy and a fantasy spoof, YOUR HIGHNESS ended up being very low on laughs. Considering that I’m a big fan of McBride’s (especially his HBO series EASTBOUND AND DOWN) and I know what he’s capable of, I was really let down by this one.

And the most disappointing DVD release of the year was THE UH OH SHOW – As a huge fan of Herschell Gordon Lewis, I’ve wanted to see this one for a long time. Finally a new movie by the Godfather of Gore! When it finally came out on DVD, though, it was a big letdown. To quote Mark, “AARGH!“

MICHAEL ARRUDA:  And there you have it! Thanks for joining us!

—END—

1 Comment »

CKF COMING ATTRACTIONS FOR DECEMBER 2011

Posted in 2011, Aliens, Coming Attractions, Mystery, Period Pieces, Psycho killer, Remakes, Sherlock Holmes, Spy Films, Vampire Movies with tags , , , , , , on December 2, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT – COMING ATTRACTIONS
DECEMBER 2011
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(The Scene: The Circus. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES walk by cages of lions, tigers, gorillas, and other wild animals.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA: So here we are— attending your family reunion.

L.L. SOARES: Very funny. Nah. It’s feeding time, and I’ve signed on to feed the animals.

MA: Really? What are you feeding them?

LS (takes out salt and pepper shakers and shakes them over MA’s head): You.

MA: Ha ha. Good one!

LS: I’m dead serious.

MA: Well, lucky for me, we’re not at a normal circus. This here is a vampire circus! (Caged animals suddenly sprout fangs and start sipping blood from liquid dispensers mounted on the sides of their cages.)

LS: Who knew!

MA: And we’re here at this bloodsucker’s circus because the first weekend of December, there isn’t anything of note opening at the theaters, so we’ll be treating our readers to a DVD review, of the weird Hammer Films movie, VAMPIRE CIRCUS (1972).

VAMPIRE CIRCUS is one of the stranger Hammer vampire movies, made at a time when it seemed Hammer was releasing multiple vampire movies each year. It’s also one of Hammer’s more erotic vampire films, if I remember correctly. I’ll be looking forward to taking another look at it.

There’s not a lot of star power involved with this one. No Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee on hand, but the director, Robert Young, is still actively making movies today.

LS: I remember seeing stills of this one as a kid in old issues of FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND magazine, and really wanting to see it. I eventually did, but it’s been awhile. And Synapse Films put out a very nice Blu-Ray/DVD combo pack a year or so ago. This will be a good one to revisit, for old time’s sakes.

MA: Yes, VAMPIRE CIRCUS is now available on DVD and Blu-Ray—as well as streaming video—so there are plenty of opportunities to catch this one.

LS: On December 9, we’ll be back at the theater, as we’ll be reviewing TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY (2011). Ahh, a British espionage thriller, with the talented Gary Oldman as George Smiley. I’m not a big fan of spy movies, but this one sounds interesting.

MA: Yeah, this one looks like a neat Cold War spy thriller, and I’m really looking forward to it, even though I have to admit, I don’t like the title at all. Sounds like a bad nursery rhyme.

LS: You don’t like the title? It’s based on the classic novel by John le Carre!

MA: Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy, stuck his thumb inside a pie.  Awful.

But I almost always enjoy Gary Oldman. Plus the stellar cast also includes John Hurt, Colin Firth (THE KING’S SPEECH, 2010), Toby Jones, and Mark Strong (KICK-ASS, 2010). With a cast like this, I’m expecting a lot.

It’s directed by Tomas Alfredson, who directed LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008), with a screenplay by Peter Straughan and Bridget O’Connor, based on the le Carre novel of the same name.

All in all, I have some high expectations for this one.

On the other hand, on December 16, I’ll be reviewing the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes sequel, SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS (2011). While I really enjoyed SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009) and bought into the Downey Jr. interpretation of an action- oriented Holmes, I can’t say that I have high hopes for the sequel.

LS: Me neither, which is why I’m not reviewing this one. You’re on your own buddy!

MA: Gee, thanks.

LS: Actually, I didn’t see the first one so I’m not all that interested in this one. Although it was cool to see in the trailer that Noomi Rapace will have a major role in it. Noomi played Lisbeth Salander in the original Swedish film version of THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2009).

MA: Again, I liked the first one. I thought Robert Downey Jr. made for a fun Sherlock Holmes, as he brought along his Tony Stark/Iron Man pizzazz to the role, and he shared good camaraderie with Jude Law’s Dr. Watson. The two actors generated some neat chemistry together.

But SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS is a sequel, and most sequels just don’t compare to the original. I’ve seen the trailer for this about a million times and feel I’ve seen the entire movie already, so that hasn’t helped, and since it’s a sequel, it probably means there will be more action, more subplots, and fewer things that make sense. While I’m not dreading this one, I don’t expect it to be all that good.

Guy Ritchie’s directing it, and he directed the first one, and it’s written by Michele Mulroney and Kieran Mulroney, two newcomers who did not write the first one.

LS: On December 21, we’ll be reviewing THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (2011). What a funny coincidence, since the star of the original film is in the new Sherlock Holmes movie. I have seen all three of the Swedish films based on the books by Stieg Larsson, and enjoyed them a lot, but I guess an American version of the series was inevitable. Since David Fincher is directing this one, I am very curious to see how it turns out. Fincher has given us everything from SEVEN (1995), to FIGHT CLUB (1999), to THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010). My first reaction is to say that since the Swedish films are so good, there’s no need for an American remake, but if anyone can bring something new and interesting to this movie, it’s Fincher.

MA: I’m looking forward to this one. I’ve enjoyed all the trailers I’ve seen for it, as it looks like it’s going to be a very stylish mystery thriller. I haven’t seen the Swedish version, so this one will be fresh for me.

Steven Zaillian wrote the screenplay, and he has a bunch of screenwriting credits, including the Steven Spielberg classic SCHINDLER’S LIST (1993). It also has a great cast, led by Daniel Craig, and also features Stellan Skaarsgard and Christopher Plummer.

LS: And don’t forget Rooney Mara, who will be taking over the role of Lisbeth Salander!

And just in time for Christmas, I’ll be reviewing the new horror sci-fi movie THE DARKEST HOUR (2011). This is the closest thing to a horror movie that’s coming out in December, so I’m looking forward to it. Invisible aliens attack the Earth for our energy and are able to smash humans to atoms if they get too close. How do you fight such an adversary? I guess we’ll find out.

MA: Since this one is opening at Christmas, I won’t be available to see it, and I can’t say that I’m feeling too bad about it. It looks like yet another alien invasion story. Frankly, I’m tired of this plot, as there have been a lot of these tales on the big screen the past couple of years.

So, that wraps up December. Also, as the year winds down, look for our annual BEST OF and WORST OF columns on our picks for the best and worst movies of 2011.

LS: Have a good weekend everyone, and we’ll see you soon with our review of VAMPIRE CIRCUS. Speaking of which (turns to MA). What blood type are you?

MA: Why?

LS: Just wondering. Just in case someone I know is a picky eater.

(Behind MA a giant gorilla with massive fangs sticking out of its mouth looms in the shadows).

—END—

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

Leave A Comment »

« Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers