Archive for Sequels

THE COLLECTION (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Disturbing Cinema, Elaborate Murders, Extreme Movies, Gore!, Killers, LL Soares Reviews, Madness, Medical Experiments!, Mutilation, Psychos, Sequels, Torture with tags , , , , , , , , , on December 10, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT Presents:
THE COLLECTION (2012)
Review by L.L. Soares

The Collection (2012) Movie Poster

(THE SCENE: an abandoned hotel full of cobwebs. L.L. SOARES is climbing the stairs using a flashlight)

LS: I’m starting to think MICHAEL ARRUDA isn’t here at all. I’m sure this is all a prank.

(His cell phone rings, playing Bernard Herrmann’s music from the shower scene of PSYCHO)

LS: Hello?

MA: LL, is that you? I’ve been waiting for an hour now.

LS: What are you talking about? I’m here now, at the Argento Hotel, just like you told me. I can’t find you anywhere.

MA: Oops, I meant the Argento Steak House. My bad.

LS: That explains a lot.

MA: Well, while I have you on the phone, how was that new movie, THE COLLECTION?

LS: I was just going to start the review. I guess I have to do this one solo.

(SWITCH to Michael Arruda in a restaurant. A waiter brings a delicious meal to his table)

MA (making noises with his mouth): Oh no, I’m having phone problems. LL are you there? I can’t hear you?

LS: Yes, I’m still here.

MA (makes more noises): Oh no, you’re breaking up. I’m going to lose you. (MA shuts off his phone)

LS: Dammit! I hate bad connections. And it always happens when I’m in spooky places like this.

So where was I? Oh yes, I was going to review the new movie THE COLLECTION. I guess I’ve got nothing better to do.

(LS sits down on a comfy chair in the hallway of the old hotel. He brings the flashlight up to his face, turning it on, making himself look spooky)

LS: Gather round the fire, kiddies, and I’ll tell you the spooky story of THE COLLECTION. First off, it’s the sequel to the 2009 movie THE COLLECTOR, which was also directed by Marcus Dunstan.  He also co-wrote the screenplays for SAW IV (2007), SAW V (2008) , SAW VI (2009) and SAW 3D: THE FINAL CHAPTER (2010) as well as FEAST (2005) and its sequels, with his writing partner, Patrick Melton. This is a busy guy.

Anyway, in case you didn’t see the first one, it was a about a thief named Arkin (Josh Stewart) who breaks into a house to steal some money and valuables, and instead finds a house of horrors. Someone else has gotten there first, and has turned it into a booby-trapped filled torture chamber, and the family (who was supposed to be on vacation) suffers horribly at the hands of a masked murderer known only as The Collector. They call him that because, whenever he attacks someplace, he kills everyone except one person, who he kidnaps for his “collection.”

The first movie ended on a suspenseful note, as Arkin was captured by the Collector, and then the end credits rolled.

The new movie, THE COLLECTION, continues where the last one left off. Sort of. This time around, we find out that the Collector has been up to lots of mischief since the last time we saw him. Not only is he making random home invasions, now the number of people he’s killed is off the charts, and the police have no clue how to stop him. The city is in a panic. So what does teenager Elena  (Emma Fitzpatrick) do? She goes to a rave of course, in an abandoned building that no adults know about. When she finds out that her boyfriend is cheating on her, she runs away from the dance floor to an empty room, with a trunk in the middle of it.  She’s crying when suddenly the trunk moves and starts to make noise! There’s someone inside it. As we know from the previous movie, this is the Collector’s calling card, and if you open a trunk, it puts all kinds of horrible things in motion. So of course, she opens it, letting out Arkin (Josh Stewart again), our hero from the first movie. Only this time he is bloody from having been tortured for weeks.

His being set free sets all kinds of weird traps and pullies in motion, and a giant wheat shredding blade descends on the partiers, chopping them all to mulch. Another group of people, including Elena’s friend, Missy (Johanna Braddy) get locked up in a cage where the ceiling is crushing down on them.

Somehow Arkin escapes, and Elena gets nabbed by the Collector before he can save her. She is the only survivor of the massacre, and, as we know, the Collector always takes one victim away from the crime scene alive.

(LS gets up from the chair, just as a huge metal spike drops down from the ceiling and stabs where he was just sitting)

LS: Arkin wakes up in the hospital, where he is interrogated by a guy named Lucello (Lee Tergesen), who appears to be a cop, but isn’t. He works for Elena’s rich father (Christopher McDonald) and will stop at nothing to find Elena and bring her back to her father. Even if that means forcing Arkin to retrace his steps to find where Elena is being held (he has marks carved in his arm to determine where he was taken to last time).

Lucello and his team of Black Ops agents then invade the Hotel Argento (get the funny homage to horror director Dario Argento?) where the Collector rules over victims driven insane by their horrible treatment and who have been turned into crazed zombie-like creatures. Oh, and there are tons of booby traps and mazes and bear traps and time bombs. Let’s just say that Lucello has no idea what he’s in for, and poor Arkin is forced to go along for the ride, even though he’s endured these particular horrors before.

There are also lots of “collections” throughout the hotel. From the usual butterflies and insects in frames, to giant tanks full of bizarre sculptures made from human body parts.

There are bizarre sculptures made from human body parts throughout the hotel, like this one.

There are bizarre sculptures made from human body parts throughout the hotel, like this one.

(LS continues walking down the hallway. Hatchets are hurled at him and keep missing him.)

LS: THE COLLECTION is in limited release and its official release date was December 1st, except that week it was only playing in obscure movie theaters out in the ‘burbs, so I couldn’t see it. This weekend, it got a slightly wider release and made its way into the city. Because I enjoyed the first movie, I was looking forward to seeing this one, so I made sure to check it out before it disappeared.

Let me state something for the record. I like “torture porn.” That might be the first time you have ever seen a critic say this out loud in public, but the truth is, when the genre is done right, it can be pretty compelling. I think the first two HOSTEL movies, for example, are terrific. I was less-than-enthusiastic about all the SAW movies, because I had a problem with the Jigsaw character.

You see, our old friend Jigsaw had this agenda where his elaborate murder scenarios were meant to give the  bad people who survived them a second chance. He was  trying to change their lives. He was trying to redeem them, by making them thankful to be alive. This was all a bit hard to swallow, and I’m sure you found this all to be as much bullshit as I did. Also, Jigsaw didn’t like to get his hands dirty and watched the violence from a control room. His “victims” had to make decisions about which door to open, or which lever to pull, while he watched from safety.

The Collector isn’t afraid to get his hands dirty. He is more than happy to resort to hand-to-hand combat when his more elaborate methods don’t finish everyone off. He’s a skilled fighter, knows his way around a knife fight, and is lethal as hell. And there’s no pontificating about changing people’s lives. The Collector simply thirsts for blood and uses his weird,  elaborate killing methods to quench that thirst. Plus, he wears a cool, black Mexican wrestler’s mask to keep his identity a secret. Let’s just say that the Collector would kick Jigsaw’s ass in a fight.

THE COLLECTION is gory as hell. It pushes its R-rating to the limit. And it’s very suspenseful. You never know what is going to happen next, and who will die. Which is just the way a good horror movie should  be. Sure, not all of it makes sense, and you really start to wonder how anyone can set up as many crazy booby traps as this guy does throughout  the hotel—it just doesn’t seem possible—and then you realize, “hell, it’s just a movie.” And there are lots of blockbuster action movies that make even less sense.

And the cast is top-rate for this kind of thing. Josh Stewart, who was so good in the first movie, does an equally good job here, reprising his role as petty thief  and “Collector expert” Arkin. Emma Fitzpatrick is tough and unflinching as Elena (she reminded me a bit of Natalie Portman). Lee Tergeson (who you might remember as Beecher from the HBO series OZ) is solid here as Lucello, and his team of mercenaries includes Andre Royo, who was so great as the homeless guy Bubbles on another excellent HBO series, THE WIRE (it seems like more great actors have come out of OZ and THE WIRE than any other TV shows put together). Believe me, the actors involved are above-average for this kind of thing.

And the ending is actually pretty satisfying this time around. So make sure you stay in your seat until those end credits roll, because there’s a kick-ass epilogue to the story.

(LS stops in front of a doorway, and a pie hurtles at him, hitting him in the face)

Beware! The Collector wants to add you to his COLLECTION.

Beware! The Collector just might want to add you to his COLLECTION.

LS (wipes cream off his face and licks): Mmmm, banana cream!

Sure there’s horrible violence. Sure, people get tortured. There’s blood and body parts galore. But it works. There’s this incredibly sadistic bastard trying to kill as many people as possible, and a group of people trying their best to stop him. If it’s “torture porn,” and it certainly fits the bill,  then it’s one of the better examples of the genre. Unfortunately, the genre itself is in decline, no doubt thanks to all of those SAW movies that amounted to a great big example of overkill. They milked that cash cow as long as they could. So there’s a good chance THE COLLECTION might be the end of this particular franchise.

I am not expecting THE COLLECTION to be a big hit. In fact, I’m sure it won’t do very well at all, especially since it’s in such limited release. But I’m telling you, if you’re not squeamish about this kind of stuff, you might just enjoy the hell out of it. I know I did.

I give THE COLLECTION ~ four bloody knives.

(LS dials his cell phone, and Michael Arruda picks up on the other end, enjoying his steak dinner)

MA: Hello?

LS: I know you gave me the wrong info on purpose. I hope you’re enjoying your dinner.

MA: Er…I am.

LS: And I hope you enjoyed the ground up glass in the mashed potatoes.

MA (touches his mouth and coughs up blood): NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

LS: What? I can’t hear you. We have a bad connection.

(FADE TO BLACK)

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

LL Soares gives THE COLLECTION ~ four knives!

Leave A Comment »

AMERICAN REUNION (2012)

Posted in 2012, Comedies, LL Soares Reviews, R-Rated Comedy, Sequels, Sex Comedies with tags , , , , , , , , on April 10, 2012 by knifefighter

AMERICAN REUNION (2012)
Movie Review by L.L. Soares

There were times when I was sitting in the audience, watching AMERICAN REUNION, and wondering, “What’s the point?” Is there really a need for a new sequel to AMERICAN PIE? Are these characters even relevant anymore?

If I have to be honest, the answer is no. I really don’t know why AMERICAN REUNION was made. But I did laugh a few times, and there were moments when I felt a twinge of nostalgia. And hell, there’s a lot worse stuff out there getting made every year. So why not?

This time around, the gang from the original AMERICAN PIE (1999)  are either in or approaching their early 30s, and things just aren’t the same. The series’ hero, Jim Levenstein (Jason Biggs) has married his high school sweetheart, Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) and they have a new baby. But they haven’t been intimate in months and are starting to worry that their marriage might be falling apart. So what will rejuvenate them? A trip back home for their high school reunion!

The rest of the gang is here, too. Including Chris Klein as Oz, now a celebrity anchor on a sports channel (and a competitor on a “Dancing with the Stars” type show), and he’s got a hot but promiscuous bimbo wife, Mia (Katrina Bowden); Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is married with a baby of his own; Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) has traveled the world on his motorcycle; and Stifler (Seann William Scott) lives with his mother and is still the same moronic prankster he always was. Except now he works as a temp at a big corporation, where he acts as if he’s one of the bosses.

And of course there’s Eugene Levy as Jim’s Dad, and Jennifer Coolidge as Stifler’s mom.

There are a lot of regrets in this movie. Coming back to their hometown, Oz immediately bumps into his high school girlfriend, Heather (Mena Suvari), and realizes he’s made a big mistake by not marrying the girl he really loved. And Kevin has similar feelings when he’s reunited with old girlfriend, Vicky (Tara Reid). Jim also meets up with old next-door neighbor, Ellie (Charlene Amoia), who he used to babysit. She’s now a sexy 18 year old, who wants to lose her virginity to him. Jim is tempted, but he also wants to save his marriage. Having sex with a high school girl probably isn’t going to help that much.

There are lots of bittersweet subplots here, and it’s funny how, despite the laughs, there is a fair share of sadness in AMERICAN REUNION, as these characters grow up and find that they’re not always happy with the way their lives turned out.

Jason Biggs is still very likable as everyman Jim. I’ve always liked him, and he’s the heart of the series, and isn’t afraid to completely embarrass himself when the script calls for it. I always wished he would have had more of a movie career after AMERICAN PIE made him a star.

Chris Klein as Oz is actually kind of interesting now that his character is a semi-celebrity and people recognize him everywhere he goes. Klein is the kind of actor who looks like a leading man, but just hasn’t made the transition to anything big, for some reason. (Maybe because he’s just not that good an actor? Although that hasn’t stopped some other people from becoming stars).

I still have no clue what Thomas Ian Nicholas and Eddie Kaye Thomas are doing here (and what’s with all the three word names?). Nicholas is kind of a nice, earnest guy, but that role is already covered by Jim, so his existence in these movies seems redundant. His character Kevin just adds nothing to the proceedings and I didn’t care about him or his love issues at all. He’s like a generic buddy who has no depth and is easily forgettable.

As for Eddie Kaye Thomas as Finch, the guy hasn’t changed since the first movie, and still has the personality of a block of wood. What do these other guys see in Finch? He’s a blank slate who comes off as a robotic dork, yet everyone else acts like he’s the coolest guy on the planet. I just don’t get it. And I don’t understand why Kevin and Finch couldn’t be replaced by two more interesting, dynamic characters. But I guess it’s too late for that.

Seann William Scott is just as annoying as ever as Stifler, but I have to admit that, aside from Jim, he’s the best character here. Stifler fluctuates from being funny to being borderline psychotic, to being just plain irritating, all in the course of the same movie. When he ties some kids’ jet skis to his truck and destroys them, or takes a dump in their beer cooler, he really seems to be a complete sociopath, and is kind of creepy. Other times he just seems like a case of arrested development and you almost feel sorry for his child-like antics. And other times he is laugh-out-loud funny. But the fact that he’s the main one here who makes any effort to be funny at all makes him stand out from the pack. And no matter what the script gives him to work with, you can tell Scott gives it his all, even when it sucks.

Speaking of creepy, I still have no idea what to make of SCTV alumni Eugene Levy again reprising his role as Jim’s dad. There are times when he’s likable enough, and others when he is talking explicitly about sex to his son in such a skin-crawling way that I felt like I needed a shower afterwards. I know it’s supposed to be funny, but Levy’s character now, after all this time, just seems like a weird old guy who’s obsessed with sex, even though he pretends to treat it clinically. I found this shtick kind of funny in the first movie, but most of the time here, it kind of weirded me out. But it is funny when Stifler takes Jim’s Dad under his wing and gets him drunk at a party – and tries to get him laid as well (Jim’s mother has been dead for a few years when AMERICAN REUNION opens), and the relationship that develops between Jim’s Dad and Stifler’s slutty mother is actually pretty funny.

The women in these movies always seem to have less developed roles, and this time is no exception. Mena Suvari spends most of the movie just looking sad, even though she’s on the arm of a new boyfriend (Jay Harrington), who’s a cardiologist. Tara Reid stands around looking pretty (she still looks great), but really has nothing to do. Alyson Hannigan – who, along with Seann William Scott, are the only two cast members who have had any kind of real career after the AMERICAN PIE movies – is okay here, but spends most of the time looking flustered over Jim’s bad behavior. And Dania Ramirez is a welcome addition as Selena, and old high school friend of Michelle’s who has bloomed from an ugly duckling to a hot bartender, who takes a liking to Finch.

There are a few good moments, most of them revolving around that 18-year-old girl who wants to have sex with Jim – leading to lots of funny, awkward moments as he tries to resist temptation, despite her coming on strong. A scene where Jim tries to sneak the drunk (and naked) Ellie back into her parents’ house after a party is especially funny. And some of Stifler’s antics, including a scene where he finally stands up to his abusive boss, are pretty hilarious. Oh, and Stifler finally gets revenge on Finch for sleeping with his mother, in a very cool scene involving Rebecca De Mornay from another R-rated sex comedy classic, RISKY BUSINESS (1983).

AMERICAN REUNION  took two people to direct it! Jon Hurtwitz and Hayden Schlossberg (who helped write all of the HAROLD AND KUMAR movies and who also directed 2008’s HAROLD AND KUMAR ESCAPE FROM GUANTANTAMO BAY together). Seriously, did it really need two directors?

But as the closing credits rolled, I still found myself wondering who this movie was made for. Most of the people who were fans of the first movie probably are in similar situations as the characters in AMERICAN REUNION, but they also probably don’t go to the theater to see movies very often. I know that me and one other older guy in the audience were the only ones laughing at some of the references characters made to the first movie.

Younger kids who like R-rated sex comedies might find this one a bit too sentimental and nostalgic at times (and they probably won’t have any idea who these characters are!).

AMERICAN REUNION is being promoted as the “last piece of pie” in the AMERICAN PIE franchise. I think that might be a good thing, because this series really feels like it might have run its course. It might be time to try a different dessert.

I give AMERICAN REUNION ~ two and a half knives.

© Copyright 2012 by L.L. Soares

L.L. Soares gives AMERICAN REUNION ~ two and a half knives!

Leave A Comment »

PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES

Posted in 2011, 3-D, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Johnny Depp Movies, Pirates, Sequels with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on May 23, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011)
By Michael Arruda and John Harvey

 

(The Scene: The pirate port of Tortuga. Pirates are everywhere. Some are singing, others are drinking, while still others are battling each other with swords and knives. MICHAEL ARRUDA walks into a tavern just as pirate is stabbed in the gut beside him.)

MA: Well, we don’t call this column CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT for nothing! Today we’re reviewing the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES, the fourth film in the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN franchise. L.L. Soares is off tonight, so I’ll be reviewing this one with John Harvey, as soon as I find out where he is.

PIRATE: Did ye say ye were looking for John Harvey?

MA: Yeah. Do you know where he is?

PIRATE: Aye-yi, I do. He be in shackles downstairs. Ye see, we don’t take too kindly to yer kind around here. Ye movie critics might give our movie a bad review. If I were ye, I wouldn’t stay in this town too long, if ye know what I mean.

MA: Well, you’re not me. (Suddenly, a sword is plunged into the pirate’s chest, and he falls to the ground with a groan.) And that’s a good thing. Anyway, I’d better rescue John.

(MA walks further into the tavern, looking for the stairs to the cellar. Instead, JOHN HARVEY is seated by the bar leading all the pirates in songs about dead men and bottles of rum.)

MA (to JH): They told me you were in shackles.

JH: Like that was going to happen. I just had to introduce these fellas to the joys of dark ale, and the rest was easy. Watch. (shouts) ANOTHER ROUND! (the pirates cheer).

MA: And who’s paying for all this?

JH: Nobody. It’s a pirate town. There’s no actual economy.

MA: But then, how—-? Never mind. Ready for our review?

JH: Never been readier, matey!

MA: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES (2011) is the fourth film in the Disney PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN franchise, and I have to say at the outset, it felt like a fourth film in a series.

It opens with Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) rescuing his old friend Gibbs (Kevin McNally) from the hangman’s noose. Their escape is short-lived, as they are quickly apprehended by the king’s men, but rather than sentenced to death, they are hired to help the king find the elusive Fountain of Youth (à la Ponce de Leon). Sparrow’s not interested in working for the king, and so he promptly escapes again and sets off to find the Fountain of Youth on his own.

His search reconnects him with a former love, Angelica (Penelope Cruz), and her father, Blackbeard the Pirate (Ian McShane). Also searching for the fountain of youth is Sparrow’s former rival, Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush.)

So, that’s the plot in a nutshell. Everyone is looking for the fountain of youth, which is all just an excuse to have Jack Sparrow up to his usual shenanigans, and for a bunch of pirates to strut their pirate stuff.

JH: That’s actually the plot of the first three films as well. Everybody’s after a MacGuffin … pirate wackiness ensues. The difference is that in the first movie this material was refreshingly new. I mean, certainly not groundbreaking, but truly fun. With this installment, it definitely feels like the Disney ride on which it’s based. We’re just seeing the same thing over and over again. And at a two-hour and seventeen minute run time, that’s a freakin’ long amusement park ride.

MA: I thought I would like this one, but frankly, it put me to sleep. There are lots of reasons why this film didn’t grab me.

(A huge, ZOMBIFIED PIRATE grabs Michael and throws him over his shoulder.)

ZOMBIE PIRATE: I’ll grab ye, matey! And take ye back to Blackbeard’s ship to swab the decks.

MA: I don’t think so.

(The ZOMBIE PIRATE runs out the door with Michael bouncing on his back.)

JH: I’m really unhappy that this review is going to take me away from the grog.

(JH grabs a cutlass and runs out the door. He chases the ZOMBIE PIRATE and MA through Tortuga, which basically looks like a cross between a frat party and a low-level riot.)

MA: This review is taking me places I didn’t expect. (shouting at a pursuing JH) Let’s look at the number one reason why I thought I would like this movie: Jack Sparrow. I love Johnny Depp’s performances as this character, and honestly, Depp’s great here again. The problem is, in spite of the many scenes Sparrow’s involved in, he doesn’t really have a whole lot to do. There are not a lot of scenes of clever humorous dialogue, and the action scenes involving Sparrow are nothing we haven’t seen before.

JH: Good point. Sparrow really isn’t driving the action here. Barbossa and Blackbeard do most of the heavy lifting in terms of plot, while Jack Sparrow capers around like a rodeo clown wearing guy-liner. He’s always been the class clown of pirates, but in the first movie (and perhaps the second) his buffoonery seemed to be more of a cover for a truly cunning and mercenary brigand. But in this movie? Not so much.

(The ZOMBIE PIRATE trips on a loose cobblestone and both he and MA tumble to the ground. The ZOMBIE PIRATE rises and draws his sword. JH draws his own sword and throws another cutlass to MA)

MA: Hey, where did you get another cutlass?

JH: Dude … pirate movie.

(MA nods and the swashbuckling sword fight begins.)

MA: One of the fun things about Sparrow in the first two movies was how he would get himself out of trouble, and how he was always playing both sides of the fence, and you never quite knew what he was up to or whose side he was actually on. You don’t have that in this movie. The character just isn’t as intriguing here. This is not Depp’s fault. He IS Jack Sparrow at this point, but it’s the writers fault for failing to put Sparrow in clever situations.

(John and Michael fight off several crushing blows, but get knocked into a nearby crowd of malingering pirates. That’s all they need to draw their cutlasses and join the fight.)

MA: PIRATES IV also falls into the “cookie cutter video game” type of movie, you know, that film where the movie almost plays like a video game. It’s high on action, low on story, and after a while, battle scenes one after another begin to grow tired and repetitive, which is the case here.

JH: You can also tell that the franchise is running out of steam because they’re tossing in trendy new accessories that do nothing for the film. Like zombie pirates. Blackbeard having zombie pirates on his ship felt like something that had been tossed into the script as the result of a producer’s note and nothing more. They’re not interesting, they don’t bring anything to the movie, and they don’t do anything we didn’t already see in PIRATES I from the original “undead” crew of the Black Pearl.

(The ZOMBIE PIRATE stops fighting, drops his sword, and a single tear weaves its way down his sore-crusted cheek. He hangs his head and shuffles away.)

JH: Sensitive zombie pirates? Who knew?

MA: I would have to agree with you. The zombie pirates were so ineffective I almost forgot they were even in the movie! They provided such little impact.

(The crowd of sword fighting pirates rush MA and JH and back them in to … a brothel.)

JH: That’s more like it.

(From a swinging chandelier, MA fights off ten pirates.)

MA: It’d be another story entirely if these action scenes were terrific. They’re not. They’re standard and ordinary, and so, we’re inundated with ho-hum average action scenes. You need something more, and director Rob Marshall doesn’t give anything more. For all the action scenes in this movie, I can’t think of one that I really liked. Marshall also directed the well-received CHICAGO (2002). I guess he should stick to musicals.

(MA looks down to check on JH and sees him standing in a desperate sword battle with ten … hookers.)

JH:…. Oh come on! Everybody hated SHOWGIRLS! (They scream in rage and charge at the bar. John grabs a rope, swings across the room, and lands on a staircase … to fight more pirates.) Anyway, it should be noted that director Gore Verbinski bailed on PIRATES IV. So did Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom. The producers should perhaps note that the smarter rats are abandoning the ship.

(Somehow, Michael has found himself in a sword fight with JACK SPARROW himself.)

JH: Through the heart, Michael! It’s the only way we can stop PIRATES V!

JACK SPARROW: Listen mates, it’s not my fault PIRATES IV feels so worn out. I can only be as good as my writers. Savvy?

MA: Good point. Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio wrote the screenplay, and they also wrote the screenplays for the previous PIRATES movies. Going in, I thought this would be a good thing, but I didn’t find the writing in this one anywhere near as sharp as the first two movies (the third film was already growing tired), and the situations the characters found themselves in here just weren’t as interesting. Perhaps it’s time new writers took over?

JACK SPARROW: Every ship needs a new crew member every so often, my good man.

(JACK SPARROW takes three steps back, and drops through a trap door into the ocean.)

JH: I thought we were over dry land?

MA: Dude … pirate movie.

Anyhow, I can’t really fault the acting here, but then again, people don’t see PIRATES for the acting. In other words, the film is not going to be saved on the merits of its actors alone. That being said, Johnny Depp is terrific once again as Jack Sparrow. I really like this character. It’s just too bad he’s not in a better movie.

But the best performance in this one belongs to Ian McShane as Blackbeard. McShane is quite dark and evil as Blackbeard, and as movie villains go, he’s pretty effective. I wish this film had been more about Jack Sparrow vs. Blackbeard as opposed to some silly search for the Fountain of Youth.

JH: I’m in total agreement. McShane makes a fantastic pirate. I hope he gets to play one in a good pirate movie someday.

(The pirates force John and Michael through a set of doors and they find themselves in a room filled with huge barrels of gunpowder.)

JH: Okay, I know it’s a pirate movie. But a brothel with its own powder keg room? Really?

MA (spying receipt attached to keg): Here’s your answer. Someone sent the wrong order. (Hands JH receipt which reads “Blow Up Job Supplies.”)

Penelope Cruz is OK as Angelica, and she was sufficiently feisty, sexy, and tough, but strangely, I didn’t find much chemistry between her and Depp’s Sparrow. Geoffrey Rush is back once again as the pirate Barbossa, but I was disappointed with his character this time around. He wasn’t much of a threat to Jack Sparrow in this one.

JH: I agree with you completely about Rush. The reason that he wasn’t a threat was because both he and Sparrow had a common enemy, Blackbeard. They really weren’t at odds, but they also weren’t really allies. So, there’s no real tension between them. Penelope Cruz? … meh. For most of this film she did nothing and looked like a stripper that had fallen into a ditch. She was the perfunctory love interest and not much else.

MA: Astrid Berges-Frisbey made for a stunningly beautiful young mermaid Syrena, but aside from her beauty, the Syrena character didn’t do much for me.

The film once again boasted a lively music score by Hans Zimmer, but the best music here were all the same themes we heard in the previous films. Nothing new on the music front.

And that really is the main problem I had with the entire movie. It wasn’t anything new, and it seemed really, really tired to me. For me, the experience of watching PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES was like sitting down to watch the first Pirates movie, loving it, and then moving on to the second, enjoying that one too, and now it’s on to the third movie, and at this point things are starting to get repetitive and as a result less fun, and now here comes the fourth movie, and yep things are still repetitive, and now I’m getting flat out bored because I’ve seen all this before and it was much better the first time around. Get the idea? It just was tired.

Sure, one scene that was new and that I did enjoy was the mermaid scene, but even this wasn’t a complete success. The scene begins, and it’s full of atmosphere and some sensuality, as the mermaids are beautiful, but then, when they turn vicious and nasty, CGI takes over and the scene goes down the toilet.

And yes, PIRATES was in 3D, yet ANOTHER 3D movie! I thought the 3D looked terrific in scenes where we could see some depth, like the early scenes of the crowd assembling for the hanging, but other than this, I wasn’t impressed. For the majority of the movie I simply stopped noticing and forgot I was even watching the film in 3D until I threw my ticket stub away and was reminded that I had paid more money for the 3D ticket!

(Michael and a pirate clash swords and a spark arcs across the room. They both watch it land in a small pile of gunpowder on top of the largest keg.)

MA: Uh oh.

(The massive explosion sends Michael, John, and dozens of sooty pirates flying high into the air. As luck would have it, John and Michael share a similar trajectory.)

JH: I totally agree about the 3D! Like THOR, there was no really good reason for this movie to be in 3D, except that it soaked me for an extra $5.

MA: And even though PIRATES IV was rated PG-13, it really seemed aimed at younger audiences, more so than the first couple of movies.

(Michael and John land in a crowd of people. Though the impact should have killed them, some unfortunate soul cushioned their fall. As they roll off, we see L.L. SOARES lying on the ground with two cutlasses in his chest.

LS: You scalawags! Is it really going to be like this every time you two review a movie?

JH: (helping LS up) It’s alright. Didn’t you hear the man? It’s a PG-13 film. You’ve been stabbed twice in the chest, but you won’t die, or even bleed.

LS: No blood? What a rip-off!

JH: But there’s booze, and lots of it. Let’s get some grog!

MA: Hold on. We need to finish up this review.

So, all in all, while the entire package for PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES isn’t bad, in that it’s technically well-made and anchored by some pretty strong actors, I just couldn’t get all that into it, as I found it tired, repetitive, and not at all captivating. I could have fallen asleep.

I give it two knives.

JH: This franchise has fallen so far from the first movie, that I think I liked it a little less than you. I give it 1.5 knives. There, now we can get that grog.

(Michael, John, and L.L, with two swords still protruding from his chest, walk back into the pirate town.)

– END –

© Copyright 2011 by Michael Arruda and John D., Harvey

Michael Arruda gives PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES – 2 knives

John Harvey gives PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES – one and a half knives

3 Comments »

SCREAM 4

Posted in 2011, Cinema Knife Fights, Horror, Psycho killer, Sequels, Slasher Movies with tags , , , , , , , , , on April 18, 2011 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: SCREAM 4 (2011)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

 

(The scene: a BIG living room. MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are each sitting on separate couches in front of big-screen TVs, watching horror movies and eating popcorn. They are each watching separate movies. MA is watching THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), and LS is watching ANDY WARHOL’S DRACULA (1974). The phone sitting on a table between them rings. LS answers.)

LS: Hello?

SINISTER VOICE ON PHONE: Hello, Sidney.

LS: Sidney? You have the wrong number, moron. Learn how to dial a phone.

VOICE: Do you like scary movies?

LS: Yeah, so? (turns to MA) I think it’s someone trying to send us a screener.

MA: Cool.

VOICE: What’s your favorite scary movie?

LS (To MA): I take that back. This idiot thinks he’s the SCREAM guy – that Ghostface jerk. (to VOICE on phone) Get a real job, loser! Your scary voice sucks!

VOICE: I asked you a question! What’s your favorite scary movie?

LS: Well, it’s not friggin SCREAM 4, I can tell you that much!

VOICE: I’m going to rip out your guts and use them for wind chimes!

LS (yawns): Whatever. Is that all you’ve got?

VOICE: Are you scared?

LS: Not particularly. Should I be?

VOICE: Yes, you should be. I’m right outside your front door.

LS: (lights up) Really? You’re not lying to me, are you? That’s the best news I’ve heard all night!

(LS grabs an aluminum baseball bat from the closet and hands MA a golf club. They run to the front door, open it, and find the SCREAM Killer standing there holding a knife. LS whacks him hard across the head making a large THUNK! sound as he stumbles backwards, knocked senseless. MA and LS chase him onto the front lawn and pummel him with their weapons until he is bloody and no longer moving. They don’t even bother to look beneath the mask.)

(MA & LS return to living room, gasping for breath.)

MA: That was— violent.

LS: And that folks, (points to lifeless SCREAM Killer on ground) says it all. We can all go home now.

MA: Actually, we should give SCREAM 4 a proper review.

LS: Do we have to? Does it even deserve one?

MA: Yep. I’ll start it, if that makes things any better.

LS: Better you than me.

MA: SCREAM 4 (2011) is the latest installment in the SCREAM franchise, coming to us after a long lull in the series, 11 years to be exact—.

LS: Not long enough, if you ask me.

MA: —as SCREAM 3 was released back in 2000. Now, I liked the original SCREAM (1996) a lot. The sequels? Not so much. SCREAM 4 is no different.

The story takes place 10 years after the events of the previous SCREAM movie (which would be SCREAM 3 for those of you mathematically challenged!).

Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) the heroine of all four SCREAM movies, is on a book tour with her new book, a true life tale about the steps she’s taken to get her life back. Gee, that sounds like a bestseller!

On this book tour, she returns to her home town to promote the book on the eve of the anniversary of the original murders. You’d think a person who’d suffered like she had would want to be as far away from this stuff as humanly possible, but then again, realism isn’t part of the SCREAM formula.

LS: God, you can say that again!

MA: Dewey Riley (David Arquette), the likeable small town police officer from all three previous movies, is now the sheriff, and he’s now married to Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) who’s traded her big city TV news journalist life for small town life, something she hasn’t quite adjusted to. So, the Big 3 from the SCREAM series are all back and primed for the newest installment. I actually like these characters. Too bad they couldn’t appear in a better movie.

LS: You like these characters? I think I’m going to have to give you an IQ test. These characters actually kind of suck.

MA: You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, as misguided as it is!

LS: I guess I kind of like Neve Campbell, but I’m not sure why. I never felt she was a good actress. And you’d think after all this time, she would have gotten better. No such luck. In SCREAM 4, she really seems to be going through the motions. Sidney has hardly any personality and there’s nothing about her that really stands out. Let’s face it, Sidney Prescott might just be the most bland “heroine” in the history of horror movies. And that’s saying a lot, when a lot of her competition are one-dimensional bimbos.

MA: She’s not a bimbo, so that’s something! Seriously, though, she’s as good as Jamie Lee Curtis in the HALLOWEEN movies. I’d put Sigourney Weaver in the ALIEN franchise above them both.

LS: Dewey Riley is a complete idiot. If there’s something likable about him, it’s the same way a fawning dog is likable.

MA: Hey, people like dogs.

LS: Not for sheriff. (taps forehead) There’s nothing upstairs. Courtney Cox as Gale Weathers is actually the best of the bunch – at least she actually has a personality, even if it’s an annoying, bad one.

MA (laughing): Of course! She’s my least my favorite of the three!

LS: It doesn’t bother me that she’s unlikable – what bothers me is that she is a one-note character. All she cares about is “me me me” and getting the spotlight. While there are lots of people just like her in real life, it doesn’t mean I want to root for her.

I actually want to root for the killers in this one (and you can tell, early on, that there’s more than one). Except for one thing. The killers are even more unlikable, stupid, and annoying. Just hearing that stupid Ghostface voice on the phone (in the movie- there’s even an iPhone app the characters can use to make their voice sound that way) makes me cringe. I hate that stupid voice so much that I almost want to drive to Roger Jackson’s house (the guy who is “The Voice”) and egg it.

MA: So, anyway, back to the plot: as you would expect, just as Sidney is beginning her book tour, a new series of copycat murders takes place, and suddenly the town is in panic mode all over again. The victims are local teens, and so there’s a whole new set of teen characters involved who get to exchange humorous and “hip” references to modern horror movies. One of the teens is Sidney’s cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and like Sidney, she becomes a prime target of the killer.

LS: You’d think Sidney would stay away from Woodsboro like the plague.

MA: The rest of the movie plays out as you would expect. Dewey and his deputies try to catch the killer, and of course, they’re always two steps behind and way too late to arrive at a scene to make any real difference, while Sidney and the teen characters continually receive spooky phone calls just before getting attacked by the knife-wielding maniac wearing the signature SCREAM mask.

LS: Poor Edvard Munch!

MA: And, of course, there’s the usual mystery of wondering, just who the killer is. To me, this has always been a glaring weakness of the SCREAM movies, and that is, the killer is someone different in each film, so the SCREAM movies lack a central villain. There’s no main bad guy who we love to hate. It’s just the same costume, which just doesn’t have the same effect.

LS: At least that keeps you guessing. Anyone can be the killer! Isn’t that suspenseful? (Yawns) Wait, who am I kidding? The story is so lame that it doesn’t add any suspense at all. Who cares who the killer is?

Do we really have to keep reviewing this stupid movie?

MA: Gotta finish what we started, yes!

As I was saying, SCREAM 4 is just more of the same. Sure, it tries to “one up” the previous movies by being hip and creative, but really, it doesn’t give us anything we haven’t seen before. It tries to do this with a supposedly creative opening, but it didn’t work for me.

LS: Yeah, the “creative opening.” That’s a laugh. I’ll tell you what it is, because I don’t care about spoilers for this crap. You sit there, an opening scene begins. Then it turns out to be a fake (it’s the opening to a movie). Then another opening begins. Same thing. We get this “fake beginning” crap until it reaches number four. Because this is SCREAM 4, get it? The thing is, these fake beginnings are better than all of the rest of the movie, especially the one with Anna Paquin and Kristen Bell – two blonde hotties from better movies and TV shows – and that one even ends with a great line about talking during movies. That was the best line in THE WHOLE DAMN MOVIE.

But the multiple beginnings only worked for me in that they delayed the actual movie from starting – which was a good thing. But you’re right, it’s an irritating idea.

MA: The worst part of the SCREAM movies—and this one, too—is the “hip” dialogue about horror movies. In the original SCREAM, I liked this. It was fresh and new, and it made me laugh. I liked having characters in a horror movie who knew a lot about horror movies. However, as the series went on, this kind of banter became less realistic. The first time it worked because the characters didn’t really know or fully understand what was happening to them. It made sense that they’d talk in a lighthearted way. But after all these killings, you’d think they’d start to take things a little more seriously.

LS: That’s an easy mystery to solve. Why is the dialogue so self-aware and pretentious? Because Kevin Williamson wrote the script. This is the same guy who gave us the first two SCREAM movies, as well as maybe the worst werewolf film ever made, CURSED (2005, also directed by Wes Craven) and the TV show DAWSON’S CREEK (which surprisingly launched the careers of such famous people as Katie “Mrs. Tom Cruise” Holmes and Michelle “Legitimate Actress” Williams). One thing about Williamson’s scripts is that THEY NEVER SOUND LIKE REAL KIDS. Even kids who are film geeks don’t sound this affected and snooty. And in these movies, every damn kid who goes to the high school is some kind of super-knowledgeable film nerd. YEAH RIGHT! Even in the supposedly “clever” first movie (mistakenly perceived as “clever” only because it was something different at the time), the dialogue came off as pretentious and irritating. Over the years, Williamson’s style has only gotten worse, which means that he hasn’t grown at all as a writer. Pretty sad. This dude should listen to real people talk once in a while and LEARN HOW TO WRITE REALISTIC DIALOGUE. Because his writing is friggin lame. Does Williamson even know any real teenagers? Because they all seem to talk in one voice – HIS.

MA: Really, would people in these deadly situations, knowing there’s a REAL killer after them, continue to talk about horror movies? I don’t think so. Would two police officers, watching the home of a teen girl who is a target, following several extremely gruesome murders, be making jokes about horror movies and discussing what happens to cops in horror movies? Maybe, but I’d like these guys much better if they were truly focused on protecting the teen girls they’re supposed to be protecting.

The dialogue simply loses realism, and as a result the movie does too.

LS: LOSES realism? Never had any.

And you just know that Craven and Williamson have some axes to grind. There are plenty of diatribes that come out of characters’ mouths about how bad remakes and reboots and sequels are. Except that this is another lame sequel!

I think it’s funny that early on a character complains about the SAW movies and “torture porn.” Like this movie is so superior to stuff like that. The truth is, I’d rather watch SAW 92 than another SCREAM movie. Sure, the SAW films are lame too, but at least I don’t have to listen to dumb-ass dialogue from self-aware teens.

MA: Now, I actually like the three central SCREAM characters, and they were just as likeable in SCREAM 4, if not more so. I’ve always enjoyed Neve Campbell’s performances as Sidney Prescott, going back to the original SCREAM, where she was more than just a “scream queen.” She fought back against the killer, and she was quite good at it. It was fun to see her here as an adult trying to move on with her life. Unfortunately for her and for us, she’s stuck in these SCREAM movies.

LS: Maybe she deserves to be stuck in movies like this. I’ve never really seen a strong performance by her. She always seems half-asleep. And as for “scream queens” – I can name a bunch of supposedly “B-Movie” actresses who could act circles around Campbell.

MA: I disagree. I think she’s pretty good.

David Arquette’s performances as the somewhat slow and offbeat Dewey Riley have always been enjoyable, as at the very least, Dewey is a likeable guy. I found him less goofy in this one, and that was a good thing.

LS: He’s the comic relief in these movies, and not even particularly good comic relief. I think he’s pretty insignificant in these films.

MA: Believe it or not, when he made his first appearance in SCREAM 4, some folks in the audience started chanting “Dewey, Dewey!” So, he’s got his fans.

The least likeable of the original three, Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) is actually much less annoying here in SCREAM 4. In the past, her “professional” journalistic antics were irritating, but here, as she’s trying to adjust to small town life, she’s softened somewhat.

LS: As I said before, Cox is the only one of the three with acting chops, and she’s given nothing to work with in these movies. The fact that she’s any good at all is a testament to her talent. Because the SCREAM movies are not a showcase for great acting.

MA: All three- Campbell, Arquette, and Cox— give very good performances.

(LS laughs hysterically)

MA: The rest of the cast are OK. Emma Roberts as Sidney’s cousin Jill turns in a decent enough performance, but isn’t allowed to turn it up a notch until the end of the movie, when she’s actually even better.

LS: I actually liked Roberts a lot. I thought she was much better than the three “star” actors you mentioned. I was actually impressed by her performance, even if it does get laughable by the end.

MA: Marley Shelton was fun as the quirky Deputy Hicks, as was Rory Culkin— yet another Culkin brother— as one of the teens, Charlie, who runs “Cinema Club,” a high school organization devoted to horror movies. I also liked Alison Brie in a small role as publicist Rebecca Walters.

LS: I liked these supporting characters, too. But how could you leave out the number one best performance in the whole movie?? Hayden Pannettiere as Kirby Reed. She’s a friend of Jill’s, and she’s a teenage film nerd’s wet dream. She’s hot, she’s a rabid horror movie fan, and she’s smart. Way too smart for this movie. She spews the same kind of bad movie buff dialogue, but in her case, she makes it work somehow.

MA: I didn’t mention her because I found her annoying, as in the type of “hot” that gets you burned.

LS: Your loss. Of course, Williamson has to make her dumb later on because the tough girl can’t actually survive to the end – even if she’s the only character who could believably get out of this mess. I was shocked that Pannettiere, who played the cheerleader in the lame TV show HEROES (okay, the first season was good, but after that, it was all downhill) was the absolute best thing here, but she is. I’ve become a fan. Unfortunately, she’s completely wasted in this movie. Give Hayden her own starring role in something better!

MA: The knife/stabbing scenes are as violent as expected, with some bordering on poor taste – do I really need to see guts on the floor?…

LS: Yeah, you do. But it doesn’t improve the movie one iota.

MA: No, I don’t, and I would have preferred effort spent on making the movie scary, because as it is now, it’s not.

Director Wes Craven, who’s supposed to be a major horror guy, doesn’t really do anything creative with the horror scenes here. SCREAM 4 is better than Craven’s last two horror efforts, MY SOUL TO TAKE (2010) and CURSED (2005), but that’s not saying much.

LS: I’ll add something to that. After CURSED and MY SOUL TO TAKE, and now this movie, it is official, folks. Let’s say it all together – Wes Craven is a HACK! And I don’t mean what a knife does in a horror movie context either. So much for the glory days when he made movies like LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) and THE HILLS HAVE EYES (1977). He was a film pioneer once. But that Wes Craven doesn’t exist anymore. Now it’s “let’s throw my poop on the screen and see what sticks so I can earn a paycheck” time! It’s not a question of whether or not he’s lost his mojo anymore. He hasn’t seen it in decades.

MA: Another drawback of not having the same killer in each movie, is we never get to fully understand why the killer is being so violent. These are violent, vicious knife attacks, usually indicative of people with a personal agenda, but we never find out the “who” and the “why” until the end of these flicks, and so the killer’s actions always make little sense because we don’t understand where he is coming from.

Moreover, the revelation is usually disappointing, a forced solution, usually the last person we’re supposed to expect. This worked in the first movie because it was different, but again, as this series goes on, it’s simply more of the same.

LS: The revelation of the killer’s identity actually isn’t too bad in this one compared to the previous two sequels. But, yeah, the motives for killing in these movies is pretty weak. It’s complete by-the-numbers junk.

MA: Actually, SCREAM 4 had a chance to redeem itself. After the revelation of the killer’s identity, had this new killer been allowed to get away with the crimes, this character would have had the opportunity to go on and take this franchise in a brand new direction. It would have been a bold and unique turn of events, but since this movie is the fourth film in a franchise, it’s not looking to be bold and unique. Too bad.

LS: If that had happened, and the killer had finally won in this one, I would have given it a much better review. But no such luck. Gotta stick with the rules, you know. Can’t do anything too risky with a HORROR MOVIE, which by definition should push the friggin boundaries!!

MA: SCREAM 4 is not the movie that’s going to break Wes Craven out of his slump. It’s not awful, but it never rises above sequel status, as Craven doesn’t do anything creative or memorable to make this one rise above the rest.

LS: Slump? It’s too long for it to be a slump anymore. The man just used up any talent he has, and has none left.

MA: Kevin Williamson’ screenplay is simply a retread of the rest of the series.

LS: Another guy only interested in a paycheck. But it’s only sad in Craven’s case – because there was a time when he was a major player in the genre. Williamson is a “never was.”

MA: If you like SCREAM 1, 2, and 3, chances are you’ll like this one too. It’s more of the same. It’s just getting tiring, and with each subsequent movie, it gets less and less effective.

I give it two knives.

LS: You know, I didn’t want to see this movie at all, but now I’m glad I did. I finally got to release all my anger about this franchise, and it feels good. The original SCREAM was a pretentious movie that thought it was way more clever than it was – simply by having characters say things people in the audience were saying for years and feeding it back to them – and, of course, Williamson’s script did it in the most self-aware and annoying way possible. It should have stopped at one movie. The sequels have been abysmal.

But the thing is, I liked SCREAM 4 better than I thought I would.
First off, compared to MY SOUL TO TAKE, this new movie is a work of genius. MY SOUL TO TAKE was easily one of the worst movies of Craven’s career, and he was smart to release it before this one, to take some of the heat off and make this one look better.

Secondly, there were two performances I really liked in SCREAM 4. One was Emma Roberts, who is pretty good when they let her wild side out. The other is the even better Hayden Pennettiere, who is great in this movie, even though the role gives her almost nothing to work with. Neither actress has to give credit to the script or the direction – because they transcend the lame-ass limitations they have to work with.

I gave MY SOUL TO TAKE no knives. Because it didn’t deserve any. In comparison, I have to give SCREAM 4 something to differentiate the level of quality. And for Roberts and Pennettiere only, I give SCREAM 4 – one little tiny knife.

Otherwise, this movie is a complete waste of time, money, and effort.

MA: Hey, did you notice we didn’t have any jokes in this one, after the beginning of the column?

LS: That’s because the whole fact that we had to review this one was a joke.

Now let’s get back to watching some REAL movies.

(They go back to their couches. We hear snippets of dialogue from the movies on the TV screens and it almost sounds as if the two movies are talking to each other)

PETER CUSHING as BARON FRANKENSTEIN: My creature will be born with a lifetime of knowledge!

UDO KIER as DRACULA: You mean, you’re not a wirgin?

LS: Now this is more like it!

-END-

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

Michael Arruda gives SCREAM 4 – 2 knives


L.L. Soares gives SCREAM 4 – 1 teeny tiny knife


2 Comments »

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Demons, Haunted Houses, Paranormal, Prequels, Sequels with tags , , , , on October 25, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


(SCENE 1: We see the outside of a house. The words “NIGHT # 1, October 23, 2010, 2:45am” appear on the screen)

(SCENE 2: Inside that same suburban house. All the lights are out, and MICHAEL ARRUDA and L.L. SOARES are sitting at the kitchen table, in the dark)

MA: Did I tell you the one about the priest, the rabbi, the minister, and the talking baby sitting at a bar?
LS: Shh! You’ll scare the ghosts away.

MA: I thought you said we were waiting for demons?

LS: Ghosts, demons. Same difference.

MA: Aah, not according to the movie we’re reviewing tonight, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2. It makes a distinction between ghosts and demons that I found interesting, that ghosts are the spirits of people, but demons are evil entities.

LS: The folks who made this film have obviously never met Hellboy!

(There is a huge BELCH, and both LS and MA jump. The light goes on and HELLBOY enters.)

HELLBOY: Pay no attention to me, boys. I’ll be out of here in a jiffy. (opens refrigerator and pulls out a couple of beers). Abe Sapien’s having a bad night. I’m cheering him up. And for the record, (addresses camera), I’m a demon, but I’m not evil. (Burps, and house shakes again.) Exits and shuts off light.

MA: I can’t see a damn thing. Ow! Who just hit me?

LS: I’ll give you three guesses, and the first two don’t count.

This week we’re reviewing the movie PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2, the sequel to the 2008 hit, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, which I reviewed on this very site not long after we launched it. PARANORMAL ACTIVITY was one of these small horror flicks that became a big success mostly due to word of mouth.

The first PARANORMAL ACTIVITY was about a couple, Katie (Katie Featherstone) and Micah (Micah Sloat), who move in together in a new home that appears to be haunted. Lots of very bizarre things start happening, so Micah gets a video camera to tape the goings-on. And things just get continually weirder and more dangerous from there. At one point, a medium comes to their house to communicate with the ghosts, but he leaves soon afterwards. He tells them what is haunting the place is not a ghost. It’s a demon.

MA: Which would be bad, since demons are evil.

(HELLBOY’S voice off-camera): I heard that!

LS: As the camera films them, especially in their bedroom while they think they’re sleeping, the scares get spookier and spookier, culminating in an effective shock ending.

PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 confused me at first, because I thought it was a sequel. It really isn’t. It’s a prequel. It takes place 60 days before the first movie and focuses on Katie’s sister, Kristi Rey (Sprague Grayden), and her family. When Kristi and her husband Dan (Brian Boland) bring home their new baby boy, Hunter, things start getting very strange in the house. There are weird noises, frying pans move and crash to the floor, cabinets open by themselves. Unlike Katie in the first movie, Kristi doesn’t get an expert to diagnose the house, but Dan does have motion-sensitive cameras put in every room after they come home one day to find the house trashed (and assume there was a break-in), so we can observe what is going on.

Like the first movie, PA2 is totally told from the point of view of cameras, just like the movie that obviously inspired both of the PARANORMAL ACTIVITY films – THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999).

(SCENE 3: We see the outside of a house. The words “NIGHT # 2, October 23, 2010, 10:12pm” appear on the screen)

(SCENE 4: Inside the house and back in the kitchen)

LS: What the hell happened? I was right in the middle of talking and it suddenly skipped like 17 hours, according to my watch!

MA: It’s the way things work in this movie. Might as well go on with the review.

LS: Freaky….

Anyway, the way you know PA2 is a prequel is that early on, Katie and Micah from the first movie come over for a visit, and, as people who saw the first movie know, Micah is no longer among the living.

At first, Dan thinks Kristi is a little loopy when she starts telling him about weird happenings. And she’s not the only one. Their nanny, Martine, is constantly praying to herself and lighting incense to spread around the house (to ward off evil spirits), so Dan gets fed up and fires her.

It’s teenage Ali (Molly Efraim), Dan’s daughter from a previous marriage, who starts putting things together, by doing research on the Internet. Once Ali starts to believe her, Kristi doesn’t feel so nuts, but Dan still refuses to believe either of them, even when confronted with evidence (mostly filmed by the cameras in the house). He just continues to state that he doesn’t believe in this stuff, like that is going to protect him from the wrath of household demons.

Whatever the demon is, it seems to be very interested in young Hunter.

The interesting thing about the movie is that it actually does explain how the demons got from their house to Katie and Michah’s. The last part of the new movie also gives us a legitimate sequel to the first film – as it suddenly jumps to the day after the end of Part 1.

I really liked the first PARANORMAL ACTIVITY. Somehow, despite having no budget, no name stars, and just doing tricks with sounds and simple effects, the first film was very effective, and actually had some good scares. PA2 carries on in this tradition. Even though it’s a sequel, it’s a satisfying return to the territory of the first film, giving us some interesting answers along the way—before and after the events of the first one.

MA: I liked this one too, but not as much as you. I enjoyed the story, and I liked the characters. I thought the family members were likeable enough, especially the dad, as his sense of humor was pretty funny. He gets a little annoying later on in the movie, as he continues to refuse to believe in what’s going on, at one point making the ridiculous decision to leave his teenage daughter alone in the house with his infant son and “comatose” wife, (she won’t get out of bed)—the night after they’re all shaken up by the weird occurrence of their family dog being injured—because he has a meeting he can’t miss. Thanks, Dad!

I also enjoyed the teenage daughter a lot. She acted liked a teenager without being too angst-ridden, a trait we’ve seen a lot in recent years in characterizations of teenage daughters. She’s also in one of the funnier moments of the film, when she and her boyfriend play with a Ouija board. Even better, this very funny moment is quickly followed by a very creepy moment.

LS: The teenager daughter, Ali, is my favorite character in the film. She also seemed to be the smartest one (no surprise there). I liked her scenes the best. Plus she had great taste in music, with posters of The Misfits and The Ramones on her wall.

MA: Most of all I enjoyed being scared by this movie. The film does a good job making you feel uncomfortable. I was uncomfortable throughout most of this movie, and the audience I saw it with also seemed to enjoy being scared. There was lots of nervous laughter, and even a couple of screams. So, if you like being scared, for this reason alone, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 is worth your while.

LS: Considering how many recent horror films don’t have scares at all (MY SOUL TO TAKE comes instantly to mind), the fact that PA2 is so good at generating scares and thrills is a big deal. Especially since it had a fraction of the big Hollywood movies’ budgets.

MA: The problem I have with PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 is that its scares work because they prey on our universal fear of being alone at night in a house. As anyone who has spent time in a house (which means pretty much all of us, folks!) knows, being alone at night can be daunting. Houses make noise, lots of noise. Floors creak, furnaces and hot water heaters go on and off, windows rattle, wood beams shift, you name it. It’s very easy to let your imagination run wild. Throw in a family dog, which has far better hearing than you do, and which may start barking or whining in the middle of the night, and that’s creepy, too. And having to walk through your dark house at 3:00 in the morning to attend to your crying baby, which those of us who have kids have all had to do, that’s scary, too.

(Tiny footsteps are heard padding through the kitchen. The refrigerator door opens, and the light of the fridge reveals a BABY standing there in pajamas looking inside. He turns to MA and LS.)

BABY: Don’t mind me, guys. I can help myself. I can’t sleep. My laptop’s charging up, so I figured I’d come down here for a cold one. (Pulls out a baby bottle.)

MA: What the hell are you?

BABY: What does it look like? I’m a friggin baby! Can’t you see that?

LS: We know that, but—you’re talking!

MA: And walking!

BABY: So? In my family we walk and talk right out of the womb. Haven’t you ever seen those E-trade commercials? That’s my big brother.

Sheesh! What a couple of dopes. (EXITS).

MA: That was weird.

Anyway, my point is that PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 takes full advantage of these fears, and so its scares are based on these common experiences, rather than simply by what’s going on in the movie. These things are scary in and of themselves. They don’t need a supernatural element to make them frightening. So, I’m not sure the film succeeds in scaring me at that level. Sure, it was scary because a demon might be involved, but for the majority of this movie, we don’t see any demon, and we’re frightened because we’re in the silent dark with these characters waiting for that unexpected loud noise to scare us, which it does.

And for a movie that had lots of slight scares throughout, it really is lacking that one major jolt to put it over the top.

I also thought that early on, a lot of the nighttime shots labeled “Night #2,” “Night #3,” etc. grew repetitive, as not much happens during these scenes. Frankly, I was sick of seeing the same shots of the swimming pool and the front door over and over again.

(SCENE 5: Outside of the house. The words “NIGHT # 3, October 24, 2010, 11:22pm” appear on the screen)

(SCENE 6: Back in the kitchen)

LS: What the ….

MA: Time jump again. This is getting tiresome.

LS: You’re telling me. I want to finish this review before I get too old. Get back to what you were saying.

MA: I wasn’t entirely satisfied by the film’s resolution, either, because I didn’t necessarily buy the supernatural explanation. Without giving the story away, a person doesn’t have to be possessed to do crazy things. I wasn’t convinced by the events in this movie that a demon was responsible.

I also wanted some outside perspective. For instance, did anyone else ever watch the video footage of the mother being dragged through the house by an invisible person? If so, this would go a long way in convincing me that bad old Mr. Demon was responsible

LS: Would it be “outside perspective” if someone else in the family saw it? And anyone outside the family wouldn’t have access – except for us. And WE SAW THE FOOTAGE.

MA: The police would have access. I just wanted a scene where someone else saw that scene, to verify what we saw.

The fact that we saw the “footage” means nothing to me. What are we supposed to be watching anyway? Discovered footage of the family’s security tapes? A documentary of these events made by a filmmaker? I don’t think so, because any filmmaker is conspicuously absent. The film doesn’t do a good job giving us perspective outside the family’s cameras, and as a result, doesn’t really deliver a well-rounded story.

LS: I don’t know.  It worked just fine for me.

MA: Another problem I had is when bad scary stuff starts happening—would you grab a camera and start filming? That would be the last thing on my mind. I buy using the night vision so you could see in the pitch black darkness, but in one scene the daughter hears a noise in the house at night, and she grabs her camera to record it. I wouldn’t want to be walking through darkened hallways after hearing loud noises in my house holding a camera in front of my face.

LS: Most of the movie is captured on cameras installed in the house that have motion sensors. So that makes sense (I guess). As for Ali going through the house with a video camera in that scene—hell, I just thought she was a brave kid.

MA: I guess. She’s braver than I would have been!

LS: One thing I was wondering is why was this movie rated R? There’s no gore, no nudity, and what violence there is doesn’t seem that excessive. The first movie got a PG-13. Why didn’t this one? And the theater I went to was actually enforcing it for once – making sure no one under 17 got in. And there was no reason to. We’re not talking CALIGULA here.

MA: I agree. It wasn’t excessive at all.

LS: In some scenes, very simple things happen, like pots and pans suddenly moving, cabinet doors opening, doors opening and closing, and yet they generate real scares and had the audience on edge (every once in awhile, you’d hear someone scream).

MA: Yep. And I liked this, as it was creepy, scary, and fun, but again, I thought the next step was clearly missing, that being the jump from simple scares to a big-time, memorable fright.

LS: I suppose I agree. Some people in the audience reacted to the ending pretty strongly, but I didn’t find it all that scary. There was no big, powerful “GOTCHA” scene here. But there were enough smaller ones that really worked—and a consistent sense of tension throughout —so I think people felt satisfied.

MA: I think a really big fright would have made this a better movie, especially towards the end. I mean, there’s a lot of build up, but no major pay-off.

LS: There is a scene in the commercial for PA2 that takes place in Hunter’s room. Their dog, Abbie, is barking at the bathroom door, and suddenly we see a woman standing there. It’s an effective scene, but it is not in the final film.

MA: I would have to say, this was my biggest disappointment with this film, because I liked that scene, and I was looking forward to it in the movie. Shame on you, moviemakers! I hate it when scenes appear in trailers and then they’re nowhere to be found in the final film. Rip-off!

But taken as a whole, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 is not a rip-off. It’s actually a very scary way to spend 90 minutes. Just don’t expect anything classic or riveting to the point where you’ll be telling all your friends about it. It might make you leave a light on before you go to bed the night after seeing it, but don’t expect any lifelong nightmares.

LS: Oh, I totally disagree about the “telling your friends” part. The first movie became a hit because of word of mouth – and a very effective viral marketing campaign. I think the second movie is just as strong, and works on the same level. You and I might not have found it as scary as it could have been – but most of the people in the audience seemed genuinely scared by the goings on. And believe me, they’ll tell their friends. This one will be as big a hit as the first one.

MA: Perhaps. And if people want to tell their friends to go see this movie because it’s scary, all the power to them, but I don’t think there’s that much to talk about.

LS: And yeah, I don’t see any nightmares in my future. And I won’t be leaving any lights on. It was effective while I was watching it, but I don’t think it will really stay with me on any level.

But I have to admit, I really liked this one for what it was. I give it three knives. How about you, Michael?

MA: I liked it, too, but just a little less than you. I give it two and a half knives.

(The lights suddenly come on, to show an attractive woman standing in the doorway of the kitchen. She’s dressed only in a sheer nightgown and appears to be in a trance, and is growling)

LS: Sweet! Talk about hospitality!

MA: I don’t think she’s here to make us feel at home. She looks possessed.

LS: Sorry we drank all your beer, lady.

(The woman lunges at them and the lights go out, followed by screaming)

-END-

© Copyright 2010 by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares


Micheal Arruda gives PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 - Two and a half knives!

L.L. Soares gives PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2 – Three knives!

3 Comments »

September Monstrous Question – Response # 3

Posted in 2010, Horror DVDs, Monstrous Question of the Month, Remakes, Sequels with tags , , , , on September 24, 2010 by knifefighter

THE MONSTROUS QUESTION OF THE MONTH – SEPTEMBER 2010
(Monstrous Questions provided by Michael Arruda)

If you could remake one sequel, what would it be?  Why?  And lastly, for some added fun, what are some of the changes/improvements you’d make?

***

RESPONSE # 3

MICHAEL ARRUDA:

I’m going to turn back the clock a bit and go with DRACULA- PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966), Hammer Films’ first sequel to their mega hit HORROR OF DRACULA (1958).

Now, even though Hammer Films made a living out of making sequels, even though they made some of my favorite horror movies of all time, and even though I actually like DRACULA–PRINCE OF DARKNESS, I’m still choosing this movie as the sequel that I’d remake, and here’s why:

First off, I’d keep the entire first half of this movie pretty much the same.  Everything that occurs in this movie in its first 45 minutes, before Dracula actually makes his appearance, is dead-on (or would that be undead on?), from its strong sense of evil during the scenes at Castle Dracula, which play off the audience’s memory of Christopher Lee’s powerful performance as Dracula in HORROR OF DRACULA—you can almost sense Dracula’s spirit within the castle walls as he waits to be resurrected, to its most gruesome scene.  In fact, the resurrection scene is probably the most gruesome scene in the entire Hammer Dracula series, as Dracula’s servant Klove (Philip Latham) hangs a man upside down over Dracula’s coffin, and then slits his throat as gallons of blood pour into the coffin, mixing with Dracula’s ashes.  It’s a great scene.

But once Dracula enters the movie, things need to change.  I have three changes in mind.

Number one, I would give Dracula dialogue.  Even though Lee rarely spoke in any of the Hammer Dracula movies, DRACULA–PRINCE OF DARKNESS is the only film in the series where he speaks no dialogue at all.  Lee’s deep, resonating voice is sorely missed in this movie.  Of course, for those of you who don’t know, the reason Dracula had so few lines in the Hammer Dracula movies was that Lee cut the lines, claiming they were awful.  I’ve read copies of scripts with Lee’s notations, and for the most part, he was right.  The lines were terrible.

Anyway, in my remake, Dracula would speak dialogue, and he’d speak lots of it.

Second, I’d also give Dracula a reason for being.  It’d be nice to know his motives for doing things.  Since he doesn’t speak at all in the movie, it’s not exactly easy for the audience to know why he’s doing what.  He just follows the girl that got away and chases her across the country.   Well, my Dracula would spell out his intentions clearly:  yes, he would go all out to retrieve the beautiful girl that got away, that fled from his castle with her husband, but my Dracula would be more ambitious.  After re-capturing the girl, Dracula would plan to leave his castle and travel to London a la Stoker’s novel, and so there would be added scenes where Dracula would make preparations to travel to London.

Dracula is such an evil character.  He should be extremely difficult to destroy.  This was one of the flaws of the later Hammer Dracula films, that everyone and his grandmother could destroy Dracula.  That didn’t make for much of a scary villain if any old idiot could simply hold a cross at the king of the vampires and then drive a stake into his heart.  That was one of the best parts of HORROR OF DRACULA, that it pitted two extremely powerful characters against each other, Christopher Lee’s Dracula vs. Peter Cushing’s Dr. Van Helsing.  Either one could have come out the victor.

Since Van Helsing doesn’t appear in DRACULA–PRINCE OF DARKNESS, my third and final significant change to the sequel would be that Dracula would survive.  Yes, he’d succeed in re-capturing the girl, and he’d elude the woman’s husband and the knowledgeable priest who had made it their mission to destroy Dracula.

So my DRACULA–PRINCE OF DARKNESS would have a very dark ending.  Dracula would emerge victorious, which would set the stage for future sequels and send the following message:  the average guy doesn’t stand a chance against Dracula.  There would have to be some powerful, clever characters written in future movies to pit their abilities against Dracula, and perhaps even Van Helsing would return.  So, my DRACULA–PRINCE OF DARKNESS would have a certain EMPIRE STRIKES BACK feel to it, as the main villain would walk away unscathed, and the heroes and heroines would be left in a shambles.

My Dracula would be a Prince of Darkness indeed, and he’d make sure audiences knew it.

—END—

(That’s it for this month’s “Monstrous Question” – more in October).

2 Comments »

September Monstrous Question – Response # 2

Posted in 2010, Horror DVDs, Monstrous Question of the Month, Remakes, Sequels with tags , , , , , on September 23, 2010 by knifefighter

SEPTEMBER MONSTROUS QUESTION OF THE MONTH
(Questions provided by Michael Arruda)

THIS MONTH’S QUESTION:
If you could remake one sequel, what would it be?  Why?  And lastly, for some added fun, what are some of the changes/improvements you’d make?

***

RESPONSE # 2

L.L. SOARES:

This is a tough one, because there are so many lame sequels. Almost all of them could be improved upon.

I can think of a handful of sequels that were as good or better than the original. BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935) comes to mind, as does DRACULA’S DAUGHTER (1936), DEVIL’S REJECTS (2005) and HOSTEL PART 2 (2007).  I didn’t think James Cameron’s ALIENS (1986) was as good as the first one (Ridley Scott’s original was a horror movie, but Cameron’s sequel was more of an action movie), but it was certainly a respectable sequel.

The British studio Hammer made a business out of making worthwhile sequels.

The problem is, most bad sequels are bad throughout and should have been junked completely. In a lot of cases, they just weren’t fixable.

But if I had to choose one, I think I’d go with JAWS 2 (1978), mainly because the first JAWS (1975) was so great, and the sequel was such a letdown. And it was so not scary. With today’s special effects, I’m thinking a killer shark movie could be made that really scares the hell out of people. But you wouldn’t need to mess with remaking the original. Despite its flaws, the first JAWS doesn’t need reworking. But the sequel could have taken the basic concept and made it even scarier, and it didn’t. If I had a chance to remake JAWS 2, I’d ratchet up the scares considerably, and have a field day with the gore. Hell, it might even get the 3D treatment, if I could figure out how to give people heart attacks by having monster sharks jump out at them (I remember seeing JAWS 3 (1983) in 3D and being completely disappointed that there wasn’t a scene where a hungry shark swims right at you and off the screen). Unlike the recent PIRANHA 3D (2010), I’d play a JAWS sequel totally straight, no laughs and no winks, and build the suspense until it got excruciating.

Another sequel I’d be tempted to fiddle with would be THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (1986). While there are things I like about Tobe Hooper’s sequel, I remember seeing it in the theater and realizing it wasn’t scary. Not like the first one was. Despite the Sawyers’ winning a chili cook-off (my favorite scene) and Dennis Hopper doing the “dueling chainsaws” thing, it could have been something so much more visceral. You should have left the theater shaking a little. But it was a letdown.

The thing is, sequels, if they have to be made, should be a chance to take the good stuff from the first one and intensify those aspects even more. Not step back and let the whole thing fall on the floor.

—END—

5 Comments »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers