Change Your Image
coastin_on_a_dream
Reviews
The Fourth Kind (2009)
Has its moments, but forgettable overall; suffers from "style over substance"
I just watched the movie on Netflix and I was expecting much worse. It was decent, and pretty entertaining at times. Having said that, there were definitely some flaws in this movie.
To begin with, the first 10-15 minutes were awful. A terrible start to the movie. I nearly turned it off. It tries to establish that the movie will be blending a dramatic, Hollywood re-enactment of the supposed true events with the actual archive footage. Okay. We get it. But the first 10-15 minutes insists on beating us over the head with it. Also, the movie starts out pretty boring and it took a good 30 minutes before the story picked up and I finally got into it.
Which leads me to my next point, is that for a movie about alien abduction, which is an exciting premise, in my opinion, there is a major lack of setting here. Milla Jovovich's is a therapist, and so much of the movie takes place in her office, hypnotizing her previously alien-abducted patients. There are basically four of these scenes and they're all the same. It was disappointing that the setting was so plain and limited. The premise suggests a setting a lot more exciting. But alas, much of the movie takes place indoors, in an office.
Another thing that had me scratching my head was why they wanted to try and trick the audience into thinking the story actually happened and that the archive footage featured in the movie is real. It clearly isn't. That obviously rubbed people the wrong way and that's why there is such a hate for this movie. Everything is this movie is made up. None of it is true. Typically, I'm willing to accept that in found footage movies by just looking at it as entertainment. The problem with "The Fourth Kind" though, is that it desperately tries to convince the viewers that the story is real. The movie opens with Milla Jovovich personally telling the audience that everything in this movie really happened and the archive footage is real, and then closes with her doing the same thing again. The closing credits, instead of music, have "actual 911 recordings" of people who claim to have seen UFOs or aliens. Why? what is the purpose of this? None of the archive footage or tapes are real, and if they wanted to do a found footage approach to this movie, then okay, I get that. But this movie tries SO HARD to trick its viewers into thinking it's real. I just don't understand. The whole "gimmick" of this movie is VERY off putting and made me WANT to hate this movie.
Now, onto the positives.
The acting was, for the most part, really good. Everybody was convincing. Milla Jovovich, who I normally do not care for, did a good job in this movie. Her character's "archive footage" counterpart, played by Charlotte Milchard, however, did a terrible job. They should have cast someone else in her role. Wow she was bad.
The movie did not scare me very much, but I was creeped out hearing the tapes where they had the intruders speaking in a language that was unknown. I think the movie would have benefited a lot more if it had focused on the whole mythology of this and brought in some indigenous characters to create an atmosphere, rather than focus on Milla Jovovich's character's soap opera.
It's an okay movie. They had an exciting premise, but they focused on all the wrong parts and they made the movie into a gimmick. If they had just focused on the story and had not tried to add all this extravagant gimmick crap to it, it would have been so much better. This movie definitely suffers from "style over substance".
It's an entertaining movie about alien abduction, but the subject matter calls for a better movie I think. Not bad though.
Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones (2014)
If you like the previous "Paranormal Activity" installments and other "found footage" movies, you'll like this.
I've been following the Paranormal Activity movies since the first one came out in 2009. While they aren't amazing works of art, I do find them very entertaining. I'm a horror fan as well. Anyways, the series has built itself into an established horror franchise at this point, and now we have the spin off film "Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones".
I think moviegoers have started to feel "Paranormal Activity" fatigue, since this is now the fifth film to be released in the franchise. As someone who has followed this series from the start, I too began to feel this fatigue starting with the third movie in 2011. The first two movies were solid, but the third and fourth installments felt a little redundant. The fourth one released in 2012 was particularly underwhelming and disappointing. It seemed like the series was quickly losing steam, and was going stale.
I just saw this spin off movie "The Marked Ones" out of boredom. Initially, I wasn't going to see this movie in theaters. I've heard and read scathing reviews, and the trailer I saw for this movie awhile ago didn't help sway me. It looked like a horror movie and I was under the impression this might be the final nail in the coffin for the series.
I'm happy to say that after seeing this movie and giving it a chance, I was wrong. This installment was a breath of fresh air and gave the franchise new life that it desperately needed.
First off, there was character development. The three main characters, named Jesse, Hector, and Marisol, were fleshed out pretty well, and the movie spent time at the beginning developing these characters and letting the audience get to know them. It made the movie feel more real, as if we as the audience were along for the ride.
Another positive change was that this movie takes place in a new setting. The first four films featured a white family living in an upper middle class suburban home. After four movies, this was getting a little tiresome. Each movie featured a different set of white people living in a nearly identical looking home. The characters were very similar as well. The frightened mother, the stubborn father who insists there must be a logical explanation to everything, the smart teenager who acts as the voice of reason, and the little kid/baby that is constantly in danger.
"The Marked Ones" instead takes place in a lower middle class apartment complex in a neighborhood that one might feel a bit uncomfortable to walk around freely in. The characters are predominantly Latino in this film, and there is less emphasis on a family dynamic. The two main characters are best friends, as a matter of fact.
Another departure from the routine formula of the previous films was the chaos that would ensure on every night. In the other PA movies, a title card would read "Night 1", "Night 5", "Night 11", and so on, with each night getting scarier and more chaotic. There is less focus on that, and crazy things happen during the daytime as well as the evening.
I also found this movie to have a stronger plot than most of the previous installments. There is a stronger focus on witchcraft and a focus on this crazy Satanic cult. It kept me genuinely interested in what was going on.
So, was this movie scary? Yes and no. Some of the scares fell a little flat, but there were some genuine moments of suspense and surprise in this one. This movie was more so in the "creepy and disturbing" category. The ending (the last 15 minutes of so) really did have me on the edge of my seat. I would say I spent much of it with my hands covering my eyes haha.
So overall, this was a worthy entry to the PA series. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It breathed some fresh air into a franchise that was going stale. It gave some great new plot elements and added to the PA mythology. Makes me wonder where the series is headed, story wise. It gave me a new interest in the PA films, just when I was about ready to give up on it. I'll definitely be in the theaters late this year when the next one is released.
I would recommend this movie if you're still a fan of the "Paranormal Activity" movies, you enjoyed found footage movies, or if you're a horror fan in general. It's worth checking out, for sure! My score: 7/10
Chronicle (2012)
Surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie
I am usually not a fan of these "found footage" movies. Some are good, but most seem to be cheap gimmicks. They aren't expensive to make, but they make a lot of money, so studios churn these out hoping to make a quick buck, and they put in very little effort, so the end result is a bad movie.
Chronicle is different though. The found footage concept is obviously nothing new, but the movie has a great screenwriter and actually has a good cast of main actors. The dialogue is believable, the characters are likable, and the actors have great chemistry with each other. You actually care about the journey they go on. The story is basically a superhero villain's origin story. His name is Andrew. He's very troubled; he's bullied, his mother is chronically ill, his father is an abusive alcoholic, and he's lonely. It's easy to see how he goes off the rails later in the movie and abuses his new found superpowers. He's so tragically misguided and sad, and as an audience, we feel sympathy for him.
Although we see everything from Andrew's POV, the audience also identifies with Matt, his cousin and the closest person he has to a best friend. Matt is the most normal one, and as Andrew begins to lose his grip on reality, we identify with Matt because he sees things objectively and wants to take a step back and figure out what is going on.
What really helps the movie is that the main characters are so well developed and likable. I went into this movie expecting a movie about stupid teenagers destroying things were their telekinetic powers, but it gave the audience much more than that.
Overall, this movie was well worth the money. I do wish they had fleshed out a few things, story-wise, but I think the idea was to leave it open for a sequel. They created a nice story and there's much to be explored. I would highly recommend this movie because the entertainment value is so high.
I give this a solid 8/10.
Carrie (2013)
An adequate, fun horror film
I've heard some very mixed things about this movie. Some people have said this is a great remake, and others have said that it is terrible. I just saw it and here's my 2 cents.
I've seen the original Carrie 1976 movie twice, although I have never read the Stephen King book.
If you compare this movie to the 1976 movie, it's a good remake. Probably not as good, but they did a great job at modernizing the movie. I've seen a few interviews by the filmmakers for this version, and they said that it is not a remake but rather a re-imagining. This is incorrect. This is a straight up remake and it follows the original film very closely. Not much story is added to the original premise. But like I said, it's a good update.
Now, if you look at this movie as a stand alone film, it's quite good. It's not particularly scary, but it is a little creepy/disturbing at times. But it's more so fun and entertaining.
I also liked how this movie emphasized the bullying a lot more than the original. Teen suicide and bullying is still a very prominent thing happening, and social media is often used to take that bullying to new heights. I'm glad this movie addressed this and featured it. The bullying in this movie is aggressive and vicious, and it's easy to see how anybody would completely lose it if they were in Carrie's shoes.
I thought that Chloe Grace Moretz, despite the criticism she is receiving, did a great job playing Carrie. In the 1976 version, Carrie was someone that you pitied, But Ms. Moretz gave the character more layers, so you not only pitied her, but you actually empathized with her.
Julianne Moore did well playing Carrie's mother, delivering a creepy performance. A really surprise was Ansel Elgort, who played Tommy. He had a lot of great chemistry with Moretz, and the scenes with Tommy and Carrie were actually very sweet and nice.
Portia Doubleday plays the malicious Chris Hargensen and she did a great job. This girl was truly evil in this movie and she played the part well. And her character gets what's coming to her in an epic showdown at the end with Carrie.
The prom massacre had a good impact on me, because the buildup was strong. This was really the final straw and Carrie just finally snaps and looses all control. It's a fun scene, but probably not as spellbinding or disturbing as in the original film.
Overall, it's fun and entertaining, and manages to be a good remake. The actors are game. I give it a solid 7/10. Could have been better if they didn't follow the original movie as closely and tried to make it more original. But still a good movie.
The Purge (2013)
Interesting idea, awful execution
Oh man. This was a really bad movie. Where do I even begin? On paper, this seemed like a really interesting and unique idea. The concept is unlike anything I've seen. Potentially, there could be a lot of loopholes. I mean, supposedly because of this thing known as the annual purge, where people can commit any crime they want to during one evening, crime is supposedly down to 1% or some other ridiculous number? Kind of an eyebrow-raising premise, which would pose a million "what if" questions. The damage done on this evening would be enough to destroy the entire country. The death toll would be high in the millions. Billions of dollars in damage. I don't see how this would be a good idea.
But I was curious to see what they would do with this idea, nonetheless.
The result? An extremely below average, horribly acted, predictable, not scary home invasion movie.
This stupid family has an excellent security system and they literally barricade themselves inside of their fancy suburban home during this year's purge. Fair enough. It wouldn't exactly keep someone from drenching your property in gasoline outside and setting things ablaze, but whatever makes you feel safe, right? So the stupid kid in the family looks on the security cameras and some homeless man is running through the neighborhoods begging to be let in. The kid, of course, opens the gates, and let's the man in. Turns out the man isn't much of a nice guy. Runs around the house and hides. And he attracts a huge pack of people wearing masks, trying to get inside the house.
So what starts with an interesting concept just turns into a boring home invasion movie. We've seen this all before.
The characters in this movie are extremely stupid. They are just so unlikable, not relatable, and extremely annoying that you're secretly hoping the bad guys will just get in there and kill them off so the movie can be over already.
The acting in this movie is extremely bad, as well. No much more is needed to be said about that.
The script was obviously awful. It seems as if it were written overnight, in a single draft. The character development is poor, and many characters in this movie are just filler characters, and no explanation for their existence is given. They are just simply "there".
Also, this movie is very predictable. There are a few so-called "plot twists" thrown in this movie, but they were predictable. I totally saw them coming. In fact, I knew where this movie was going and who the culprits would end up being pretty quickly, shortly after it started.
Overall, this movie was just awful. Sounded like an interesting premise when I first heard about it, but don't let that fool you. This movie is very bad and if you do happen to see it, you'll question why you decided to and plead temporary insanity. I literally felt like my IQ was dropping every second I was watching this movie. It really is an insult to your intelligence.
My score: I give it a mere 2/10. A 2 because as the premise may suggest, during production this film may have started out as a film of substance, but it was terribly executed. I can't believe I got through the entire thing.
The horror genre deserves better than this.
Looking (2014)
Not good.
This review is based on the pilot episode only.
I didn't have any expectations of this show before I watched it. My friend recommended it to me, and I was slightly intrigued because I lived in San Francisco for 5 years (2008-2013) and I would say I know the culture and city pretty well. I am gay myself, so this show seemed like it could potentially remind me of my life in San Francisco.
Unfortunately, the show missed the mark for me.
The pros:
1. I enjoyed the San Francisco setting, seeing as how I lived there for 5 years. It made me yearn to go back and visit. But this might be something only an SF resident will appreciate.
2. Some relatable situations. The characters have normal jobs, and are a bit adrift in life. The episode features a bad OkCupid date, which I found to be realistic and somewhat funny.
That was me being nice.
And now on to the many cons:
This show gave me absolutely no incentive to watch it further. The characters all sound the same. They only talk about relationships. Their lives REVOLVE around sex, hookups and relationships. I do not get a feel of who they are as people. They seem to be pretty shallow and uninteresting. The dialogue is cliché and redundant.
The show is basically about nothing. There is no plot and the characters don't really seem to have any goals or aspirations, other than getting laid. Because of this, the episode goes nowhere.
There is no actual ending to the episode. The episode just, simply, ends. It is as if the writers just ran out of ideas and stopped writing. However, this makes sense and isn't surprising because, how can you have a conclusion if there isn't a story to begin with?
I think that while they did get some aspects San Francisco life correct, I did not like this representation of gay men. The characters on this show are shallow and only care about getting laid. We get no real insight into their jobs (other than the fact that they hate them), their families, their backgrounds, nothing. It's all sex, hookups and relationships. Also, for a show taking place in a diverse city such as San Francisco, they didn't show a whole lot of diversity on here! Everybody is white and gay. Hmm...
I feel like the fact that every character is gay is just kind of a gimmick to attract viewers, giving people the impression that this show is edgy. But it isn't. It's actually quite shallow, lazy, and has no story. As I said before, there is no incentive for me to watch it past this first episode. There is no story. There is no goal the main characters wish to attain. There are no major challenges to be faced. Nothing is really at stake for these characters. It's not dramatic and it's not funny. It' just...boring.
I'm all for a show about gay men in San Francisco but they went about this all wrong. They need to flesh out the characters a lot more. Nobody has a distinct personality. I don't really understand what the purpose of this show is or who the target audience would be. I don't know who would watch this show.
Also, the show looks really cheap. It kind of reminded me of a web series by amateur student filmmakers you might find on YouTube.
It's pretty lackluster and offers nothing compelling. I can't see this show lasting longer than a single season. Skip this show.
Bates Motel (2013)
A solid, addictive series
I've been watching this show since the very first episode aired, and it has not let me down! I've always found the backstory and mythology of Psycho to be very interesting, and I've always found Norman Bates to be a compelling character. This series elaborates on troubled Norman's teenage years, what pushed him over the edge, and what made him psycho! I like the fact that there is a grey line with every character. It's difficult to pick who to root for, because every character is kind of screwed up or damaged. However, they all have redeeming qualities so it makes for an interesting watch. They are likable characters, and you'll find yourself facepalming and cringing when they do something irrational or scandalous. These characters are good people doing terrible things so it's always entertaining! They are just crazy! The acting is very good as well. Freddie Highmore has a lot of shoes to fill since Norman Bates is such an iconic character and we've never really seen anybody else play him except for the late Anthony Perkins. However, Freddie Highmore does an excellent job playing a sensitive, confused, well-intentioned boy who raised in a damaged world. Vera Farmiga plays Norma Bates, his crazy mother. Norma's got her work cut out for her, and she's such a crazy woman. No wonder Norman went psycho! Wow. Great acting though. And Max Thieriot plays Dylan Bates, Norman's 21 year old half brother. Dylan is a strong, compelling character and easily the most sane of the family. He realizes his family is screwed up, but he refuses to be the victim of it and really steps up to try and save Norman from the horrible world he is growing up in. Dylan is my favorite character! It's also really interesting to watch because we KNOW the outcome, based on the film series. We know that no matter what, Norman is going to eventually kill his own mother, Norman is going to go psycho and become a perverted, sexually confused, insane adult. So it's interesting to see the slow journey he has. It's a slow descent into madness, and it's also tragic because Norman has a really good heart. So every time things are going well for him, you know it's not going to last.
This show is incredibly addictive. I was hooked right after seeing the first episode. The only downside is that the seasons are so short! 10 episodes for season 1, and only 10 episodes for the upcoming second season? Ah, come on! Give us more! Season 2 starts in two months and I can't wait for it! Watch this show if you want to watch something deep, suspenseful, and addictive!
The Descent (2005)
Most overlooked horror film of the last 10 years!
I can't believe this movie is never mentioned as one of the scariest movies of the early 2000s! Despite glowing reviews upon is release, it did not make very good money at the US box office. I guess it has gained a sort of cult status since then, but it's still very underrated and overlooked.
One thing I appreciate it that there is actual CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT! For once! Finally! We have characters in a horror film that we care about! These characters aren't just filler characters who are lining up to be killed. They have actual purpose and real personalities. Sure, the first hour might have been a little boring because it slowly took time to build things up and develop its characters a little bit, but it pays off later because the death scenes are much more tragic and the chaos that ensues was worth the wait.
This movie does not hold back on gore and violence, but it is as much as a psychological thriller as it is a bloodfest! The movie really plays with your mind since the setting is so creepy and claustrophobic. The fact that they are lost hundreds of feet below the ground in a cave they can't get out of is creepy by itself, regardless of the monsters that are chasing them. Also, you can't help but wonder- has the main character merely just lost her mind? Is she imagining all of this? This is a highly effective horror film. Very few movies scare the living crap out of me, and this is the closest horror film in a very long time that has come even close to doing that. I would highly recommend this movie to anybody who wants to see a good horror movie!
Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
Brought a smile to my face
I went into this movie not expecting a whole lot. I only vaguely remember watching the Mary Poppins movie a single time when I was a little kid (I'm 23 now) and I've never read the book. I enjoy Disney as much as the next person, but I'm not a super fan or anything.
I was under the impression that this movie would be boring when my parents and I were getting tickets to the movie. My parents paid for me, which was the only reason why I agreed to go. The concept for the movie didn't exactly jump out at me.
Well, I just saw it and I can happily say that this movie proved me wrong! It was absolutely bedazzling. The acting was top notch and the story was passionate, heavy, emotional, and heartfelt. It definitely was NOT boring. I caught myself tearing up a few times throughout the movie. It tells an emotional, heavy, and, at times, dark story that I was not expecting. That doesn't mean to say that I didn't leave feeling good, because I definitely did! This movie has a lot of charisma and it is just a joy to watch.
As I said before, the acting is top notch. Emma Thompson does a great job at making a very layered and complicated character. There's a lot more to this character than meets the eye.
Tom Hanks does great at Walt Disney, and I enjoyed B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the Sherman brothers. Colin Farrell also has an important role and he does very well.
I especially enjoyed all the old Mary Poppins songs they used in the movie.
This movie reminded me a lot of Finding Neverland. Overall, this wasn't the greatest movie I've ever seen or anything, but it was a nice little movie and I would highly recommend it if you're looking for something that will bring a smile to your face.
My Soul to Take (2010)
A fun movie if you don't take it too seriously
I was reading through the reviews on here and was a little surprised at how much hate there is for this movie. It's really not a bad movie.
In my opinion, it had a creative plot and mythology to it. I've never heard of a premise like the one this film presented, so it was refreshing to see that it wasn't a typical run-of-the-mill slasher film, or some found footage movie, or some haunted house movie. This movie was had a unique, creative premise that pulled me in right away.
A big criticism is that this movie is kind of confusing, but that's because it has a complicated backstory/mythology. You actually have to listen because there are some very important plot points that might take you a few seconds to process in your head. The "schizophrenic" elements to the plot made things very interesting, in my opinion! Other things I liked about the movie: -It had a cool setting, although I wish there were more scenes that take place on the bridge they feature during one of the first kills.
-It spent some time actually developing some of the characters, which is something you don't see in every horror film. Adam aka "Bug" was a likable protagonist to this movie. I liked the relationship dynamic he had with his best friend, Alex, too. A few other characters did fall victim to the "I'm only in this movie to add to the body count" but there will always be those filler characters in horror films, I guess.
-The acting was on point, for the most part. Many horror films feature cringe-worthy acting, where many actors sleepwalk through their scenes and deliver their dialogue in a wooden manner. This usually takes me out of the movie a bit and makes me focus on the awful acting. It's distracting. From what I saw, though, the kids they picked to star in this movie were pretty good. Nothing Oscar-worthy, obviously, but they're adequate. Especially Max Thieriot, who plays the main character, Bug. I think he has a lot of potential.
Now, there are some major flaws about this movie though. Let's start: -The Riverton Ripper...to be honest, he wasn't that scary. I think it was a bad decision to have him speak. His dialogue was awful and sounded like it was written in 5 seconds. Very generic dialogue. Also, the way he looked was just a little too generic.
-The kills weren't very memorable. There's a lot of kills, but most of them are just a quick stab and there's not a ton of build up. I wish the movie had more elaborate murder scenes.
-Some of the characters were just bad, specifically Penelope and Fang. They were both annoying and Fang was extremely unlikable.
-The finale to the movie was not very exciting. I felt like they could have tried harder and made it more extravagant and exciting.
Overall, I thought this was a decent movie. It's not scary, but it is a fun movie to watch and it is entertaining. This movie has some good pros and some serious cons, but if you don't take it too seriously, you might appreciate the creativity it has to offer. It's an okay movie to pass the time if you're a horror fan.
My rating: 6/10
You're Next (2011)
Could have been much better
While not a very original premise, this movie had some good things going for it:
- it had a cool set - the masks of the killers were actually pretty creepy - a large cast that could have played off of each other well, since they were all supposed to be family - the soundtrack, at times, was very good and creepy - The title, while cheesy, is actually quite fun and catchy
Unfortunately, a weak script and some very bad acting squandered any sort of potential this movie had.
I get this is a horror movie, and most horror movies are pretty light on character development, but that shouldn't excuse it. The character development was really bad. I didn't even know the names of over half of the cast because I couldn't tell them apart. Seriously, many cast members were just glorified extras, especially the first few people to die. The filmmakers couldn't have devoted like 5 more minutes of screen time to flesh out some of these characters? Guess not.
Also...the acting in this movie was pretty bad. Some of them were decent, I guess, and obviously horror films don't really require academy-award winning performances, but I felt during the normal scenes at the beginning, many of the actors were sleepwalking through their lines. Their line deliveries were wooden and emotionless. They can scream and act scared, but they couldn't pull off simple small talk. There are so many actors out there in Hollywood looking for work, SURELY they could have found some better actors than the ones they picked?
Another flaw of this movie was that it tried to balance horror and comedy. Some horror movies do this well, such as the Scream movies. This one did not. It wanted to be funny, but not too funny, because it wanted to be scary. And it wanted to be scary, but not too scary, because it wanted to be funny. The end result? Not really scary and not really funny.
This movie was fairly entertaining because it did have some fun, brutal death scenes. It did not hold back on gore and was actually somewhat creative.
Unfortunately, the plot twist wasn't much of a plot twist because I saw it coming. It was really predictable.
When I saw the trailer for this movie, I thought it looked promising. The masks were really creepy.
But this just ended up being an average, run-of-the-mill, forgettable home invasion flick.
I wouldn't recommend seeing this movie really. It's not completely terrible, but it's not something you should really go out of your way to see. It's an okay movie to watch to pass the time if you're really bored, but that's about it.
My rating: 4/10.
The horror genre deserves better.
Teen Wolf (2011)
A surprisingly brilliant, addictive show!
When I first heard they were turning Teen Wolf into a TV show that would be aired on MTV, I rolled my eyes. I figured it would be some other stupid Twilight copycat and be canceled after a single season. I pretty much ignored it and never watched during the first two seasons.
Finally, one day I was extremely bored on Netflix and decided to give this show a shot. "I'll just watch one episode and it will probably be stupid", I thought. Well, one episode turned into two episodes, and then I ended up watching the entire first season over the course of the next three or four days. Then I watched the second season immediately after, and I've been a loyal viewer ever since.
This show is just too good to be on MTV. It is very well produced, the cinematography is great, and the show really builds an atmosphere. The cast is great- for the most part, they are really likable and relate to the audience well. They're good at acting, especially the scene stealing Dylan O'Brien, who plays Stiles, the main character's best friend. That kid is going to be a huge star one day, I can already tell. Holland Roden, who plays the sassy Lydia Martin, is also a great addition to the cast. Tyler Posey, who plays the main character Scott McCall, carries the show well.
I especially love the chemistry that the cast has with one another. The play off each other quite well. One of the themes of the show is friendship, and the cast does an excellent job of portraying this. The relationships and friendships on this show seem authentic and genuine, and never seems forced. In an emotional, dramatic scene in the third season where Stiles tells Scott that he's a brother to him, you actually believe it. I think that's one of the reasons that this show works so well. Excellent casting all around.
The premise of the show starts off starts off with the recycled idea from the original 80s movie (teenage boy gets bitten by a werewolf, then he turns into one every full moon), but they only use it as a jumping off point. The show is VERY different from the cheesy 80s movie it is based on. The amount of mythology the writers have thought of is very interesting and it's what keeps me coming back. This show is less like Twilight, and more like Buffy. Overall, the show is fun, dramatic, suspenseful, and fantastic! It'll make you laugh and it will make you cry!
Of course, it is MTV, so you can expect the entire cast to be very attractive, and there's a shirtless guy in pretty much every episode. The target audience happens to be teenagers. BUT, if you look past it, it's easy to see that this show is amazing.
If you've dismissed this show as a stupid Twilight wannabe without ever giving it a chance, you're definitely missing out. Give this show a chance, you won't regret it. This show is great and I'm looking forward to seeing how it progresses in future seasons.
Can't wait for January when the second half of season 3 premieres!
The Canyons (2013)
Has the makings of a great movie, but ultimately doesn't reach its potential
"The Canyons" is probably one of the most talked about low budget indie films ever made thanks to Lindsay Lohan. People aren't talking about her acting work in the film, but her on set antics instead. Since 2004 or so, Lohan has been a tabloid fixture as a Hollywood party girl, and her tabloid profile has only escalated thanks to her brushes with the law, rehab stints, and fame hungry parents. Her personal life eclipsed her acting career and sometimes it's hard to remember that Lohan started out as an actress...a promising one at that! I am a fan of low budget, indie films. Sure, they aren't the best quality, but I find most of them to have interesting concepts and passionate ideas. I love the idea of saying "fuck the Hollywood studios, let's go film this the way we want to". That's why I've always enjoyed low budget independent films. They're made out of love, and not made for money. So when I heard about "The Canyons", I was of course immediately drawn to it.
I just finished watching it, and I'd saying it had a lot going for it, but ultimately fell short of my expectations. For what it was though, I'd say it was a fairly decent film.
"The Canyons" is a skeleton of a great film, but doesn't have the goods to back it up. It has a neo-noir style/tone but it doesn't stay consistent with it. It's visible in some scenes, but not so much in others. It has a lot of interesting themes about Hollywood, fame, power, and the film industry. It sets-up these interesting themes in the first half hour of the film, but they are never really incorporated into the plot. The script was good, but the story got lost in the relationships/dynamics of the characters. I felt it sort of lost focus halfway through and never found it again. It was enough to keep me interested, but ultimately the film wasn't deep enough to get much of an emotional reaction out of me.
Now, onto the acting...obviously having Lindsay Lohan in this brought a great deal of press for the film. Without her, this movie would have been released and nobody would have known about it...it would have faded into indie film oblivion. But what's really interesting is that Lohan not only gave the film publicity, but she actually carries the entire movie! I wouldn't say her acting was astounding, but she did successfully create a great character out of Tara, who otherwise might have come across as underwritten if another actress had played the part. Lohan gives her character a lot of depth and emotion that probably didn't even appear on the page. It is clear that despite all the intense drama that surrounds her on a day to day basis, she still has talent. What sets her apart from other actors, though, is her amazing screen presence. She is no longer the teen beauty queen she used to be back in 2004-2008, but something about her makes you focus all of your attention on her whenever she is on screen. She has a rare gift of commanding a scene no matter what role or what movie. Lohan is clearly a star. She has a horribly notorious and infamous reputation in Hollywood, but she can still act pretty damn well. If she just got her personal life sorted out, she could have a chance at a major comeback.
James Deen, on the other hand, has the looks of a movie star, but not the acting chops. In some scenes, he is fine. In others, he is very wooden and, unlike Lohan, fails to give his character depth or layers. Not that he had much to work with, anyways, because his character, Christian, is VERY unlikable. And not in a fun or epic villain kind of way, but in more of a forgettable and wimpy sort of way. Christian has no redeeming qualities at all. The script has Christian written as a fairly one dimensional character, and Deen unfortunately doesn't have the acting chops to bring the character to life or do much with him. Deen was such a bore to watch other than the scenes where he was naked. Deen does not have any charisma or screen presence (again, unless he is naked). He might want to take some acting classes if he wants to continue getting roles outside of porn.
Nolan Funk, the other lead who plays Ryan in the film's love triangle, does an adequate job in the film. I think he has a lot of potential and I'd like to see where his career goes from here. I think he has a lot of natural talent.
Overall, "The Canyons" was not a complete waste of time. I think people are being very hard on it because Lindsay Lohan is in it, but she is honestly the best thing about it. Its biggest flaw was that it was not consistent. Also, casting James Deen in the role of Christian was a mistake because he is simply not talented enough to give a character like that any sort of depth.
I think with a better script and a bigger budget, the film could have been great. But there just wasn't any "umph" to it.
It is worth checking out if you are interested in and can appreciate low budget indie films...otherwise I doubt you'd enjoy it.
I give this movie a 5.5 or a 6 out of 10.
The Girlfriend Experience (2009)
Dull, dull, dull
I was drawn to this film because of the casting of Sasha Grey and Steven Soderbergh directing. I was actually sort of baffled by it....Steven Soderbergh directed an indie starring Sasha Grey?! What?! I just had to check it out.
They had an interesting concept. Drawing parallels between politics and the world of the prostitution. This movie potentially could have been really interesting and insightful. Instead it was extremely bland, awkward, and pointless.
The core of the issues I feel that the script is very, very weak. The filmmakers had a good concept and it is beautifully shot, but the script is honestly terrible. The dialogue is awkward and it has very strange pacing. There is no character development at all and none of the characters are written to make a lasting impression. All of them are boring. Sasha Grey's character, Chelsea, is poorly written, which is a shame considering she is the main character. Chelsea doesn't seem to have any motivation. There is no explanation for any of her actions that are hurting the people around her.
The next big issue is the acting. I mean, with a script with such awkward dialogue and zero character development, it would be hard for ANY actor to put on a good performance. There wasn't much to work with. However, one can tell when an actor is actually trying. Sasha Grey's acting is honestly horrifying. Ms. Grey looked bored the entire movie. She delivered her dialogue in a very wooden manner. She is very robotic and awkward. It was as if she didn't even try. Even in the more dramatic scenes, her voice stayed the same, as if she was just reading her lines off the script. If she is trying to pursue acting after this movie, I would highly suggest that she get an acting coach or take some lessons, because she has some major work to do. As a matter of fact, I would advise her to not even try because she is just atrocious. When she says her dialogue, there is no feeling behind it. Sure, the script was bad, but it's pretty obvious that even with the greatest script in the world, Ms. Grey would still be awful. She looks like a movie star, she really does. She is beautiful. However, she comes across as very emotionally vacant when she is "acting" and she has no charisma or charm.
Her costar, Chris Santos, who plays her boyfriend, never had a chance. He probably is a good actor, and I could tell he really tried to put on a good performance. But it's a lost cause because of the terrible script and a terrible costar.
There isn't much a plot and the story went nowhere. No explanations to anything. It was overall quite a boring movie. It could have been good with a better script and a better actress to play Chelsea other than Sasha Grey, but it totally missed the mark.
It's not worth seeing. I was drawn in because such a high profile director (Soderbergh) was directing Sasha Grey in what looked like an indie drama about prostitution. However, it's just an indie snoozefest and the casting of Sasha Grey is just a gimmick. Sasha Grey just can't act, plain and simple.
2/10 only because it is beautifully shot and has good cinematography. Other than that it was a waste of time.
The Invasion (2007)
An underrated movie
First of all, I have not seen the previous two, and I'm not going to say anything about them from here on. I'm judging "The Invasion" as a stand alone movie.
I liked this movie for many reasons. The characters were extremely convincing and identifiable that I actually cared about their fates. Secondly, although it wasn't too scary, it was pretty suspenseful at times and there were a few times when I jumped. And lastly, it had a very deep and thought provoking message that really had me thinking for awhile after I saw this movie, about the world and today's society. I don't want to spoil it, but it was interesting.
Okay, now on to why I didn't like it. There were times when the movie sort of dragged although it didn't happen too much. Also, there is a visible boom Mic in the shots which was a little funny, but not too distracting, but definitely noticeable. They also could have ended it a bit better.
Overall, the movie was pretty good and it does succeed in being entertaining and it leaves you with something after you're done seeing it. It's not a movie that you'll want to rush to the theaters to see, but if you ever get the opportunity, don't be so quick to pass it up. This movie is really good.
And if you happen to not see it in theaters, it's definitely worth a rent when it comes out on DVD.
Jeepers Creepers (2001)
The first half hour is superb, but after that, it's all downhill
Overall, this movie was just okay, but it could have potentially been an amazing movie instead of turning into a cheesy monster movie 30 minutes into it.
The first 30 minutes of the movie are amazing. It's suspenseful, scary, and literally had me on the edge of my seat.
But then the movie switches gear from a suspenseful, mysterious movie, to a bland average monster type of thing, which was disappointing.
The first 30 minutes are amazing, but after that it's just sort of "blah". It's just disappointing because this movie had so much potential, but it fell apart towards the middle and end, and it just sort of became an average horror flick. It's still worth a watch though. It's a nice, campy, atmospheric movie (the first 30 minutes though were amazing).
When a Stranger Calls (2006)
Horrible
Wow. This movie was bad, bad, bad. Where do I begin? Well the plot is a good premise, it's based off "The Babysitter" urban legend which I was very much interested in. But everything went wrong with this movie.
The characters are pretty underdeveloped. We don't know very much about them other than they're just fighting about boys. The dialogue was just horrible. But where the movie really sucks is it fails to stimulate fear. I wasn't scared at all in this movie. I was more laughing at the fact at how stupid the lead girl was. Actually, I was even a little bored during the movie. It totally failed to keep my attention.
Even the camera shots were cheesy. And the buildup was just horrible. Why do we need to see the girl putting on a necklace for 3 minutes? And the phone calls should have been done better and scarier. The phone ringing and then you hear a mysterious breathing on the other line is pretty scary, but not when it's done 10 times in a row! It was so repetitive and she just kept answering the phone was extremely stupid.
How about the acting? Bad, as you can imagine. The lead girl, Camilla Belle, is a cute girl, maybe could go into modeling or even some type of makeup or skin commercial, but lets face it, acting isn't her thing. The other characters don't do much for the mopier, but from what little we saw of them, they were pretty bad.
The movie was also extremely predictable. I could point out who was going to live and who was going to die from the start and what was going to happen. The ending was just horrible. It made absolutely no sense.
All in all, this movie had so much potential, but everything that could go wrong in a movie....went wrong. Skip this turkey unless you're looking for a third rate, straight to DVD, poor's mans Halloween. Yes. This movie was bad. And then some.
Final Destination 3 (2006)
Fun, but lazy and nothing new
"Final Destination 3" is a very fun, atmospheric movie but doesn't really add anything new to the series.
The movie is basically about Wendy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and her friends who get on a roller coaster. Then, the ride turns terrifying when it loses control and Wendy and all of her friends die. Suddenly, Wendy realizes it was just a premonition, and she's sitting on the roller coaster before it's started. Wendy demands she gets off the ride, and as a result, the manager kicks her and her friends off. But low and behold, on the roller coaster's next ride, Wendy and her friend's witness the terrible roller coaster crash, the ride they would have been on. A few days later, Wendy realizes that they were meant to die on the roller coaster, but survived and that death is coming back at them, killing them off one by one.
That's basically the plot in a nutshell, same with the first 2 movies. The main problem is that the movie is too sloppy, too rushed. It seems that they were just throwing in random death scenes to please the audience, and that was it. Not much of a plot. Sure it was fun, you'll jump a few times, but when I left the theater I was like, "...okay? that was it?" The movie provides nothing new to the series, and for the most part, it was predictable, despite somewhat of a twist ending. Really? Were the filmmakers that lazy that they couldn't think of anything new? The roller coaster scene was well done, as were the deaths, but why didn't I care about the characters? The character development was nonexistent, and as a result, they were just a bunch of random, stereotypical, one dimensional characters that the audience didn't care about at all. However, it did provide somewhat of a creepy atmosphere, but nothing we haven't seen before. It was a fun movie, but honestly, it was just a rehash of the first 2 movies.
What Lies Beneath (2000)
An almost first class thriller, but not quite there
"What Lies Beneath" has an excellent premise, and starts off as a rather spooky ghost story that will guarantee the viewer bone chilling scares within the first hour. But the story, the scares, everything seems to fall apart midway through.
A-list celebrity Michelle Pfeiffer (one of my favorite actresses, I might add) plays Claire Spencer, a house wife married to Norman Spencer (the legendary Harrison Ford). Their daughter has just gone away to college, and with Norman gone at work all day long, Claire is pretty much left all alone at her home until night. Claire is a little depressed, but keeps herself busy gardening. One day, however, she encounters a wildly sobbing neighbor. She's hysterical, and Claire, being her nosy, middle-aged self, attempts to comfort her and asks what's wrong. She ignores her, of course, crying hysterically in her own little world. Claire, worried, tells her husband Norman later that night, but he tells her to mind her own business. Claire ignores him, and she and her friends spy on their neighbors house throughout the day. When they see the husband carrying an implied life bag with her body in in, putting it the back seat of his car, she is convinces that her husband murdered his wife.
But the story doesn't end there. Her lights sometimes randomly go out. The door swings open every now and then. And then a frightening message appears on the mirror. Claire is convinced that her house is haunted by the spirit of her murdered neighbor. What will she do? How will she put the spirit to rest? The first hour of the movie is extremely scary, suspenseful, and has a genuinely creep atmosphere. But then there comes a twist about midway through. A bad twist, and the whole hour of the movie goes to waste, and doesn't seem to relate at all to the movie's original plot. The first hour just seemed like a scapegoat. I'm not going to give it away, but it was a disappointing turn in the movie.
The movie runs 130 minutes long, where it could have been cut down to a mere 100 minutes. The twist is where it started going downhill. There are still a few more scares throughout and a few more "Oh get out of there! Wait! Don't do that! Get your butt out of there!!" moments, but the first hour easily swallows the second hour and eats it for supper. After the twist, the movie seems to drag on. Suddenly, we don't seem to care about the story, what happens next, and it becomes somewhat boring.
The first half of the movie is thrilling, while the second half has it's moments, but the movie as a whole fails to live up to expectations thanks to the ending.
However, the movie has gotten some great reviews so maybe it's ll down to taste. The acting is top notch (what else would you expect from Michelle Pfeiffer and Harrison Ford?) and it's overall a good, ghost story to watch on a Saturday night. Definitely recommended.
Grease 2 (1982)
Second-rate rehash
"Grease 2" isn't a sequel to "Grease", but rather a less-than-stellar rehash set two years later with different characters.
Michael Carrington (played by Maxwell Caulfield, who has struggled in his big screen career since this bullet) is new to Rydell, transferring from England (one of the only ways this movie is related to the first film is that he's Sandy's cousin). Within the first week of school, he's fallen for the head of the Pink Ladies, Stephanie Zinone (played by then newbie, Michelle Pfeiffer. Wow, I guess when they say you have to start from the bottom and work your way up, they really meant it, eh Michelle?) But Stephanie isn't looking for a nerd like Michael, she's looking for a cool rider! One that rides motorcycles in skin tight leather! So basically, the movie is a simple gender-switch of the first movie, following Michael's quest to change his image and win over Stephanie.
One thing that is disappointing is that this movie had so much potential, but never lived up to it. They could have given us a bit of history about the T-Birds and Pink Ladies. But do we get it? No. They could have given us some exciting new types of music that could have made this installment just as good as the last. Did we get it? No. There are plot holes throughout, and lacks a lot of originality. Did we need another mushy love story? No, we already saw that in the first movie. The original stars didn't come back, so I think the last thing they should have done was repeat the story! They could have shown us how one becomes a member of the T-Birds or The Pink Ladies, other than looking hot. But did they tell us? No. Their was just suddenly a new batch of Pink Ladies and T-Birds, and I suppose there's a new batch every year, but leave it to "Grease 2" to never explain it to us.How are the new T-Birds and Pink Ladies selected? We'll never know now. This movie had so much potential, could have had new clothes, new music, new everything, but no. We basically get a gender switch of the original "Grease", with the same music, same clothes, just different people, proving the producers and director were lazy and just looking for money, like they threw this whole movie together in 6 months.
The acting is nothing great. The only people who shine in this movie are Adrian Zmed as the corky Johnny Nogorelli, Michelle Pfeiffer (who would obviously go on to do bigger and better things), and the famous Lorna Luft (Judy Garland's daughter), who plays Johnny's desperate stalker. However, leading man Maxwell Caulfield looks like he's trying to hard and comes off as annoying, unlike Olivia Newton-John was in the original version. Even Adrian Zmed looks like he's trying to copy John Travolta, but fails. As for the other T-Birds and Pink Ladies, they weren't memorable at all.
The characters themselves aren't that great. They aren't very likable, and act like they just got out of juvee. The script is definitely lacking, and much of the dialogue is pretty bad and annoying.
The songs? Well, some of them are somewhat catchy, but for the most part, fail at keeping your attention. The singing is also extremely;y second rate as well. Maxwell Caulfield sounds like he's struggling to hold a tune (wow how the hell did this kid get cast in this movie?!?) and the more professional singers such as Lorna Luft maybe get one solo throughout the movie, which brings me to another huge mistake in the movie. Who the hell decided to cast a bunch of unknowns in a big movie musical?!? And in a sequel to the highest grossing movies musical of all time?!? Bad move, very bad move.
The film opens with "Back To School Again", which is the best song on the soundtrack, mainly because none of the kids from the cast sing it. 15 minutes later, the gang bursts into a song about bowling called "Score Tonight", which I guess was meant to be a big dance number/group ensemble, like "Summer Nights" was in the original. The song is catchy, except how does bowling relate to the movie's plot? It was a pointless song, and it was obviously just thrown into the movie for the sake of it. Were the filmmakers that lazy? Then Michelle Pfeiffer bursts into a song called "Cool Rider". It's a good song, actually, except the dance she does is pretty goofy and distracting in a bad way. Also, the song doesn't sound very 60s, it screams 1982. Time warp, anyone? Then there's a song about "Reproduction". See what I said about "Score Tonight". Same thing applies here. And then there's a string of unmemorable songs in the movie as well.
The movie lacks the magic the original movie had. It has no energy, and in the original the songs just exploded into your face, but in "Grease 2", it doesn't lift off the screen. The characters aren't likable for the most part and it doesn't have any energy, motivation, and most of all, it doesn't have any effort. This movie claims to take place in 1961 when most of it screams 1982. Everyone who made this movie seemed to just be looking for money and not even caring about the movie itself. Hence, the laziness. I'm glad this movie flopped at the box office, because it proves you can't make it in Hollywood if you're lazy. So why did I give it a 4 out of 10? Because, even amidst all of it's terribleness, there are a few (and when I mean "few", I mean "few") good songs, a few exceptional performances (Adrian, Lorna, and Michelle), and there's a little bit of chemistry between the two leads, Michelle and Michael, most noticeable in the diner scene. Skip this turkey, only for the die-hard "Grease" fans.