Freaky Friday - Evil Dead

I don't think I've ever reviewed a movie on here the day it came out partly because it's a rare occasion anymore when I see a movie on day one and I also like to ruminate for a few days before I come to a definite conclusion. Not so today.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"Five friends head to a remote cabin, where the discovery of a Book of the Dead leads them to unwittingly summon up demons living in the nearby woods. The evil presence possesses them until only one is left to fight for survival." 

Evil Dead (2013)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1288558/?ref_=sr_1

Technical (4.5) - After you see the first 10 minutes of this "remake" you'll realize this isn't "The Evil Dead" you remember, but that's a good thing. This one falls somewhere in between the "Psycho" and "Fright Night" remakes as far as what comes along from the source material. It isn't a shot for shot remake and it doesn't throw the whole thing in the garbage and begin again with just character names. In fact, none of the character names are the same, just there will be some similarities that are slightly skewed for a modern audience, but more on that in a minute. Let's talk about the visuals instead. As one of the friends I went to see this pointed out, when special effects are done in-camera and done well they have a much more visceral effect. Horror movies should only use cgi as a last resort because you can always tell and it removes you from the movie. I'm happy to report that this movie uses it so sparingly you might swear it has none at all (we argued a bit over one scene, I still say it was cgi), These actors must have gone through some hell and for a first time director, Fede Alvarez did a wonderful job drawing you in and ratcheting up the tension slowly but surely through the whole film. You can definitely see traces of the original and I even saw several elements of
"The Exorcist" which actually added greatly to the movie. I had to deduct a half point for editing out one scene they're using a bunch in the promos (that I really thought was eerie) and a few continuity errors I noticed. Nothing as glaring as in the original, but still.

Script/Dialogue (4.5) - Anyone heading into this expecting the dark comedy of "Evil Dead II" might be sorely disappointed (two people in front of us left during the movie, guys no less), but I wanted a flat out horror movie and got one. It wasn't necessarily scary per se, so the tag line in the poster above isn't quite accurate, but it was an enjoyable ride none-the-less. They started by changing the main plot device of why they are there from a fun weekend in the woods to helping a friend detox which adds more reality to the proceedings and instead of casting someone as Ash, they kind of chopped his character up and distributed him between a few of the characters. The Necronomicon plays a bigger part too as it not only begins the whole fiasco, it helps drive the whole movie along with several references back to it. The dialogue isn't particularly groundbreaking and a couple of the characters might as well have "deadite fodder" tattooed on their heads from the start since we get no real character development from them, but this is a damn horror movie, not "Gone With the Wind". I don't expect a whole lot there. It serves its purpose: to get us from one dead person to another. There's an odd plot point involving the dog (which always irritates me when they use a pet like that) that actually ends up tying in at the endgame which was a nice touch. There are also just a couple of kinda cheesy lines towards the end that I rolled my eyes at, hence the half point.

Acting (4) - Again, this is a horror movie, so I'm not expecting "King Lear" here. Jane Levy shines as Mia who they've brought to the cabin to kick her heroin habit. She's really good here. I didn't quite think she had it in her from watching "Subugatory" (which I love for being live action "Daria"), but this girl can scream with the best of them and has this wide-eyed look of fear that will give you chills. Easily the best of the bunch. Everyone else is passable. Lou Taylor Pucci is Eric who has the look of the "stoner", but ends up having the "geek" trait too from these types of movies. He stands out to me as the most wooden of the performances. Shiloh Fernandez plays Mia's brother David and to be honest stands out just as too much of a pretty boy for this kind of movie. He's not bad in the role, he just doesn't connect to you emotionally as he should for a couple of the scenes. Would have been a 3 except for how good Levy is. Elevates the whole movie.

Tilt (5) - I loved it. Didn't have much expectations going in and ended up blown away. It was derivative of the original while at the same time being very imaginative and pushing all sorts of buttons where you will squirm and suck in breath. I actually said "OUCH!" out loud several times. Like I said, not really scary in an "Exorcist" kind of way, but not the torture porn that "Saw" movies became either. Don't be surprised if  Alvarez (and maybe Levy too) gets asked to direct an "Exorcist" remake. I hope that never happens, though, it's an untouchable movie for me. Just be sure to stay past the credits if you're an original "Evil Dead" fan. I promise you'll love it. Otherwise, you'll probably be confused.

Total Score - (4.5)

Freaky Friday - The Evil Dead Franchise

With the release of "Evil Dead" just two weeks away, I thought I'd give you guys a quick refresher on the films that began it all. This isn't really going to be a review, just a little bit of film history and a cultural lesson that maybe will get some people to not only see the "remake" (which seems vastly different, but I'll get to that later), but also to either see the originals for the first time or revisit them.

First off, though, if you say you are a "Horror Movie Buff" and have never seen these movies, then immediately stop calling yourself that. You're not. Simple as that. I know they're "old" and "outdated looking", but they are, without question, some of the greatest horror movies ever made (well, I & II are for sure, Army is good just not really Horror per se).

These were the start for a young filmmaker named Sam Raimi who went on to make the Spider-Man Trilogy and "Oz the Great and Powerful". He cut his teeth on these movies and learned from mistakes he made. He also built up his trademarks here (especially with the gallows humor of II) and made Bruce Campbell a "star" (at least an underground one).

For those of you that are casual movie goers and the like, lemme give you a quick run down of the movies:

The Evil Dead

Though not necessarily the first isolated cabin in the woods style horror movie, it is probably the defining film of the sub-genre. Made on the super cheap, it was more inventive and downright creepy than anything before it. No longer was it a slasher, it was actual demons possessing the young 'uns one by one. This meant that there was more of an emotional element to it. These people are having to deal with their friends, relatives, and lovers trying to mutilate and kill them via some unseen force. And tree rape...LOL.

This one is a straight-forward horror flick with very little humor and is done with entirely in-camera effects. If you've never seen it before, it can look a little dated in certain areas, but there's no CGI here. This is old-school makeup and prop effects.

Oh and here's where Joel Coen of Coen brother's fame got his start as an assistant editor. Cool huh!

Evil Dead II

Funny thing is, the film opening April 5th isn't the first remake of "The Evil Dead", "Evil Dead II" is. Not a sequel, but a re-telling of the first film, but with way more humor and gore. It also features a different set of characters except for Bruce Campbell's Ashley (or Ash) who was the central character in the first one. When most people think of Evil Dead, this one is the one that comes to mind. It's more polished and a little more flashy, even though it is WAY gorier. Here's where Bruce Campbell shows why he's the king of the witty one liners (and really amps it up for Army). Raimi had a bigger budget and a better handle on the film-making process and it shows. It still features no CGI, but definitely doesn't feel quite as dated as the first one, save a little Ray Harryhausen moment (look him up).

This began Raimi's most memorable style. Dark, twisted humor interspersed with gross-out gore. I was so glad to see it return in the very under-appreciated "Drag Me to Hell".

Army Of Darkness

This is the one that will often lose people. It picks up directly after the events of II. I don't want to give too much away if you haven't seen it, but it has mostly to do with the effects of a modern man with some modern tools in medieval times dealing with the same forces from the cabin. It becomes more of a slapstick comedy with funny as hell one liners throughout. It's fairly short, but in this case I think that's good because it could have gotten boring with the silliness. It's an intelligent silliness, but silliness none the less. There are a few little CGI moments, but again, it is mostly in-camera effects and a very loving homage to Harryhausen (seriously, look him up if you don't know who he is) in the 3rd act. A good ending to the "trilogy", just not as intriguing culturally and historically.


So what do these mean for current audiences? Well, first off, if you liked "The Cabin In the Woods," then thank these movies. Sure there were loads of elements from other movies, but the most glaring homages and nods were to "The Evil Dead" and there were LOTS of them.

What about the remake? I'll be there day one. From what I see and hear, it isn't a direct remake, so I plan on watching the trilogy once again leading up to seeing the movie on day one. That way I can see all the references and where they changed it. I just hope it is different enough without veering off the tone of the originals. Otherwise, why call it "Evil Dead" in the first place? I don't think that will be the case with Sam Raimi involved as a producer. Besides, look at these two pictures:

...and tell me they didn't nail it for a modern audience? BTW, the top picture is from the original LOL.

So go curl up on the couch and watch the old classics before seeing the new one so you can once again call yourself a "Horror Movie Buff" or "Junkie" or "Geek" or whatever...

Freaky Friday - Rosemary's Baby

WARNING: Minor Spoilers May Occur!

I'm trying to mix it up some, but basically October is going to be Horror Month. What's funny is, you might think, then, that December will be Christmas month, but I like horror way more than any Christmas movie save one. Anyone that knows me will know what that one is.

Having just watched my yearly viewing of "Rosemary's Baby," I thought it appropriate to review that one. Yes I know it's an old one, but dammit, it's a good one. The review will get into this in more detail, but this is subtle horror. You don't really see anything, but it is that claustrophobic atmosphere and impending gloom that hangs over the movie that just makes it so good.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"A young couple move into a new apartment, only to be surrounded by peculiar neighbors and occurrences. When the wife becomes mysteriously pregnant, paranoia over the safety of her unborn child begins controlling her life."

Rosemary's Baby (1968)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063522/

Technical (4.5) - Roman Polanski's pièce de résistance. Although he's done some amazing work since ("Chinatown") this is definitely his defining movie. Its full of subtle nuance that could have easily been over worked and over blown. Michael Bay was working on a remake a few years back that thankfully got cancelled, you can imagine what kind of overblown crap that would have been ("and then we can make the car EXPLODE!!! 'splosions, 'Splosions, 'SPLOSIONS!!!"). He made the right decision to make it character and actor driven more than anything. Most of the movie takes place in the apartment and Rosemary (Mia Farrow) is in every scene. It is her movie and how she's dealing with the conspiracy against her is central. There are some odd things surrounding the "conception" scene that are very avante garde, but given the time this was filmed I think it was very contemporary and it may have been in the novel this is based on, so I have to overlook it somewhat. The half point deduction goes for the camera work that sometimes gets a little shaky. I understand it wasn't shot on a soundstage (it was in an actual apartment so they couldn't make tracks everywhere to do it conventionally) and stedicam hadn't been invented yet, but it gets really distracting at times.

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not going to say much here because I might give too much away, but sufficed to say, it is very well written and the dialogue is pretty realistic. Granted they had a novel to work from, but you can cut too much or not enough and have a choppy and uneven movie. Again, it is terribly subtle and nuanced. Like Rosemary cooking a steak for about 1 second a side and then eating it. Just creepy, eerie stuff. They struck the tone just right and were able to make this whole thing believable.

Acting (4.5) - As I said above, this is Mia Farrow's movie. Her husband at the time, Frank Sinatra, divorced her for doing this role against his wishes. And she's all the more famous for doing it. She plays sweet and innocent so well, but pulls off the blood curdling screams and freakouts with the best of them. The secondary actors are amazing too. Guy (John Cassavettes), her husband, is such a shit (excuse the language) and even in the background of the scenes you can see his struggle and angst over what he has done. The Castevets (Ruth Gordan and Sidney Blackmer) are the neighbors and while Gordan won and Oscar for her role (and you can totally see why, your eyes are drawn to her every scene she's in) it is Blackmer that kinda draws the acting down a bit. You can see he's acting in many scenes. Something that I just can't stand.

Tilt (5) -  If you couldn't tell by previous posts, I love this movie. I watch it every year in preparation for Halloween.

Total Score - (4.75)

Freaky Friday - A Plea

Please, for the love of God, do not go see this movie. It might be good, for all I know (it won't be), but that's not my point. The first two were awful. Sure, if that crap was happening to you, you'd be scared, but after you watched the first video showing some screwed up stuff, wouldn't you GET THE HELL OUT OF THAT HOUSE or LEAVE THAT FREAKY BITCH SOMEWHERE? I understand that you wouldn't have a movie otherwise and the horror genre is full of people doing something illogical for the sake of a plot, but come on.

Besides, they aren't that well made to begin with. The acting is sub-par at best and the security camera thing was played out with the first one. And let me clue you in on a little secret...they aren't SCARY. There's only one decent scene in the first one and the second one had no scares at all. I haven't watched the third one (waiting on Netflix, because I'm not paying for this crap), but I'm sure it isn't much better. You're actually being duped by a mob mentality in a theater. Everyone expects to be scared and as the audio swells, so does the palpable tension in the room. The girls that are dragged there by their boyfriends so they can cop a feel start screaming and you start to buy into the scariness. Watch at home, and you'll go "Meh".

The fact is, they are super cheap to make (3 was $5 Million) and people go see them in droves. That's great for the Studio, but horrible for the horror movie buff. Although it is still one of my favorite horror movies, I blame "The Blair Witch Project" for this. What makes that one work, is that the forest is actively working against the group so that they can't leave. They're stuck. They've gone too far and there is no hope of escape. It's that claustrophobic atmosphere and impending doom that creeps up that makes it effective. There's plenty that can be done to remedy the problems with these "haunted houses" but they just don't. And yes, I know that's the case in movies like "The Amityville Horror" too, but I don't like that one either.

But I digress. I would ask that you stay home and don't go see this one. You're just feeding into the studio engine of churning these and all its copycats (since this is this generation's "slasher" flick) which isn't helping anyone. Go see something like "Sinister" instead (which is produced by the same people that produced "Paranormal" coincidentally). That one uses found footage too...but looks AWESOME. I hope to hell it is.

Freaky Friday - Prometheus

With the home video release just about a week and a half away, I thought it would be good time to do a review of "Prometheus" since you can download the digital copy right now and some stores are giving the digital copy free to download today when you pre-order (hint: one of them is where I work). Anyway, I'll get a little more into this during the review, but yes Virginia, this is a prequel to "Alien" no matter how you look at it.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"A team of explorers discover a clue to the origins of mankind on Earth, leading them on a journey to the darkest corners of the universe. There, they must fight a terrifying battle to save the future of the human race."

Prometheus (2012)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

Technical (5) - All hail Ridley Scott's return to Sci-Fi! Seriously, though, this is the man that made two of the most influential Sci-Fi movies ever ("Alien" and "Blade Runner") and he hasn't returned to the genre in 30 years. And it's too bad, because the man knows how to make the most memorable movies. Go look at a list of the movies he's made and try and tell me you don't vividly remember something from almost every one even if you haven't seen them in a while. Sorry to ramble, but I have to say Scott is one of my all-time favorite directors. This movie is no exception. From the opening scenes, you know that you're watching magic being made. The cinematography is breathtaking, the music is flawless, and the set designs are just awesomely done. I really love the nods to the original "Alien" in almost every design, but then they are updated and changed to be more in-line with where the technology is headed. It also shows the dichotomy between the ship and crew of "Alien" being set for mining and "Prometheus" being a scientific expedition that was greatly financed. Yes CGI was used to great effect, but I love the fact that Ridley (we're on a first name basis now, didn't you know?) used old school prosthetics and animatronics to achieve his vision as well.

Dialogue/Story (4.5) - Here's where it can get a bit sticky. Again, this is a prequel, but not in the traditional sense of this one ends where "Alien" begins. In fact, "Prometheus" is a movie that gives you answers, but then gives you more questions. I think this is why so many people were disappointed in it. They wanted it all wrapped up in a neat little bow and that's just not what happened. We get to see who created the aliens and to what purpose, but the "why" is still a mystery. All the while you have human mistakes and heroism that show us for who we really are and an android that for once, doesn't want to be human. He's perfectly happy in who he is. The dialogue is very natural and flows well. I think because Ridley allowed and encouraged ad-libbing on the set. I have to dock some for a section about 3/4 through the film where it all seems a bit rushed which I blame on the studio. I'm sure the Director's Cut when it inevitably comes out will flow better.

Acting (5) - Superb. Everyone is really great in this. Even not Tom Hardy (Logan Marshall-Green) who I've been dubious about in the past was really good here. To me, the two that out shined everyone else, though, were Michael Fassbender as David the Android and Idris Elba as Janek the pilot. They both embodied their respective roles completely. And again, here was proof that Ms. Theron was not to blame in "Snow White" because she's very understated and not at all over acting in this one. Not much else can be said other than Noomi Rapace is a great successor to Sigourney Weaver's throne as a Sci-Fi queen (sorry though, Noomi, she's not giving it up easily).

Tilt (5) - I really loved it. When I saw it in the theater I had some reservations, but after seeing it again a couple of nights ago, I realized most of them were unfounded. I still think the studio screwed with what could be a complete masterpiece, but time will tell. Ridley's Director's Cuts are always so much better than the original release of the film, so why do they continue to make cuts to his movies? Ugh.

Ta-ta for now meatheads.

Freky Friday-The Cabin In The Woods

Today's review is probably going to be pretty short because I don't want to give anything away about this movie since spoiling anything would take away 1/2 the fun of the movie. I regrettably did not see this movie in the theaters and after seeing it on BluRay, I kick myself.

Summary courtesy of IMDB:

"Five friends go for a break at a remote cabin in the woods, where they get more than they bargained for. Together, they must discover the truth behind the cabin in the woods."

The Cabin In The Woods (2011)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

Technical (4.5) - A little bit of a back story on this movie. It was actually made in 2009 for a measly $30 Million, which is about average for a horror film, but not for one of this caliber. This was the directorial debut of a Joss Whedon prodigy (Drew Goddard) from his "Buffy" days, but you'd never know he'd never directed before (I'm sure Joss helped quite a bit, but he wasn't always there) because it is really masterfully done. Then Lionsgate shelved the project to do a post-convert to 3-D against Whedon and Goddard's wishes. Eventually they saw the error of their ways and put it out, probably in no small part because of Chris Hemsworth's sudden rise to fame. As I said, this is horror film making at it's best. Especially because they didn't use a whole mess of CGI unless they had to. That's where it struggles a bit towards the end is when the CGI parts start happening and hence the .5 deduction, but otherwise it's done very well. There's also something that I should put here, but I'll put it in the next section because there won't be a whole lot to write there lol.

Dialogue/Story (5) - Here's where "Cabin" shines the most. I can't say much, but it really turns your the tropes and stereotypes of a horror movie on its head and is pretty funny to boot. Think of how "Scream" did it and you'll get the idea. Another thing that was really awesome was the myriad of references to other horror movies that just seem to be everywhere. The most obvious and pervasive is that of "Evil Dead", but you'll get "Hellraiser", "Wrong Turn", "Night Of The Living Dead", and even a quick "The Shining" reference. It is obvious that it was written by horror fans for horror fans. "Cabin" always seems to be an homage and never a caricature which is a hell of a feat considering the style, tone, and scope of this film.

Acting (4) - Ok, this is where it gets a little odd. Watching a horror movie for the acting is like watching a porno for the acting. It's just stupid. There's some great names in this one, though, and they all bring their "A" game. Brad Whitford and Richard Jenkins are just superb and really, really funny. Hemsworth is pretty damn good, but the rest of the "kids" are only ok. Nothing to write home about. A surprise cameo towards the end will have Geeks squealing and is done pretty well.

Tilt (5) - I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Especially while playing "Spot the reference"! "Cabin" surely isn't for everyone, but if you like horror movies and enjoy an interesting story instead of just buckets and buckets of blood and torture devices this is a movie you're going to want to see.

Total Score - (4.63)

I think that's the 2nd highest yet!

Freaky Friday: Fringe

Today's Freaky Friday is an extension of Tuesday's Top 10. It is more of a plea than anything and really to no avail since the show won't be continuing past this season anyway. It's about this open letter to the general public that I got:

Dear American Audiences,

Why don't you love me?

Sincerely,
Fringe

Of course I jest, but it really rings true to me. Sure it has a rabid core fan base, but why did it never catch on? This is one of two shows that I cannot let go 24 hours without seeing (the other being Game Of Thrones) and I think if most people gave it a chance instead of dismissing it as "weird" they would love it too. Let's see if we can break it down a little and see what the major complaints can be.

1. Olivia is too cold as a character. No, she's an FBI agent that acts like an FBI agent. You have plenty of emotion in other characters and it's not that she isn't emotional, she just tries not to let her emotions interfere with her work. Why is it that a woman who doesn't let her emotions get the best of her and thinks in a logical manner considered cold when a man does the same thing he's just doing his job? Bah. Double standards.

2. Stuff like this could never happen. Besides this being the most idiotic statement ever about a SCIENCE-FICTION show (and I've really heard this complaint) it just isn't quite true. The best Sci-Fi is based in reality and where science is headed. This show is no different. Every time they come across something wholly unbelievable and then Walter starts to come up with an explanation, it actually makes alot of sense. Sure, this stuff is highly unlikely and sometimes far-fetched, but at least the "why" is grounded in real science.

3. I've never heard of it. Bullshit. I call you on it. Bullshit. Fox did a remarkable job in pumping this show the first season and really every season after that. They even strategically placed an "Observer" (the bald guys in hats) in live events that they aired during the first year. Magazines like "Entertainment Weekly" repeatedly do stories on the show to get you to try and watch. It's been everywhere so if you say you don't know of it, you're either oblivious or you really just don't care.

4. It's too convoluted. This one I will give you, but only so far. It had a rough first season where they overhauled it during the winter break and ditched a bunch of main story lines, shaking up some of the story that had been continuous in favor of a more "procedural" FBI show where each episode really didn't lead into the next much. By the mid-point of season 2, they had started to develop a real mythos (a show's distinct set of rules and terminology that is really important in Sci-Fi) that built on some things that were said and done in the first season and a half. So they didn't really dismiss much (other than Mark Valley's character), they just finally had an endgame they were working towards. Once they had this, the show made much more sense and was much easier to follow. I started watching the show from the beginning again and I'm noticing way more stuff that was said even in the first episode that made it into that over-arching mythos than I first believed.

5. It's too intellectual or "geeky". This is the only complaint that I will grant you depending on who you are. This show requires a level of intelligence because of the way things are explained. Not in a "Big Bang Theory" kind of way either. That show has some standard sitcom tropes that will keep almost anyone entertained, but "Fringe" is just not that way. You have to pay attention to everything. Hell, even those weird glyphs like the ones on the right here are actually representative of letters that spell out a word every episode. In true geek style, the show gives nods and shout-outs to many Sci-Fi staples like Star Trek (William Bell is played by Leonard Nimoy!), Phillip K. Dick (the Observers are basically the Adjustment Bureau), DC Comics' "Crisis On Infinite Earths" (the alternate reality and it's impact on this reality), and "Altered States" (the sensory deprivation tank used numerous times) just to name a few. Still, it's fun, engaging, and most of all never dry like some Sci-Fi can get.

So if you've ever said one of the above about this show, I'm hoping to have at least slightly changed your mind and that you'll seek out this show and try it. I know it is going to be sold into syndication after this season because it will hit the 100 episode mark, so when it does, try it out. I'm kinda hoping this is one of those shows that people will pick up on for years to come so that it becomes cult. Hey, Star Trek was only on for 3 seasons...it could happen...

Late Freaky Friday: Brotherhood Of The Wolf

 

This week is a two-fer! Not only is it a horror movie, but it's a foreign film too! It was made in France with several American actors and fairly well known French Actors. Most you won't know by name, but you'll know their face. It's also one of the very few movies I can watch dubbed into English and not want to shoot myself. They use the original actors for the dub, so it works pretty well. I don't want to give away too much, so I'll just say that it is kind of a "Hound Of The Baskervilles" story with some Martial Arts and Mystical stuff thrown in for good measure.

Here's the gist of it courtesy of IMDB:

"In 18th century France, the Chevalier de Fronsac and his native American friend Mani are sent by the King to the Gevaudan province to investigate the killings of hundreds by a mysterious beast."

Anymore would give it all away.

Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0237534/

Technical (4) - "Brotherhood" is an interesting movie in that it is a period piece, but has elements of horror, odd action sequences (Martial Arts???), and a mystery all rolled into one. The director, Christophe Gans, hasn't really done much of note for American audiences except for the "Silent Hill" movie which actually wasn't too bad for a video game adaptation, but here he shows some real skill in balancing them all. The sets, costumes, and music are all stellar. The special effects aren't too bad until he uses some CGI that hasn't aged very well. I also have to deduct for the excessive use of slow motion (nowhere near Zack Snyder level, but still).

Dialogue/Story (5) - The story here is really amazing and doesn't seem to lose anything in translation like sometimes foreign films do. It is written to where some things you think have no bearing on the larger story end up having some sort of reasoning in the end. There is alot of dialogue that is long conversations where there is no action or excessive drama, so it is not the type of movie someone with ADHD should watch, but these conversations are rich with subtext and ideas that may not come to fruition until much later. My kinda movie.

Acting (4) - This is an all-star French cast that just doesn't have the same star power in the U.S., but that doesn't mean they aren't good. Monica Bellucci ("Matrix Reloaded", "Brothers Grimm")  and Vincent Cassel ("Ocean's 12", "Black Swan"), who are husband and wife btw, turn out great performances as does Mark Dacascos ("Iron Chef: America" lol) even though he doesn't quite fit in, but that's much of the point since he is supposed to be a Native American. My biggest problem is the actual star of the movie, Samuel Le Bihan. He's not bad, but he just gets out shone in ever scene by everyone else. He's supposed to be very low key, which I get, but to me he seems more out of place than Dacascos even though he's an actual Frenchman.

Tilt (4) - As you can tell, I thoroughly enjoy this movie every time I watch it. It's one of those that would be pretty good for people who have never seen a foreign movie to start getting into them. It has some American sensibilities, but still is odd enough to be French. If you've never seen it, watch it.

Total Score: (4.25)

Next time a movie that I don't care for...promise. LOL

Freaky Friday: Donnie Darko

I thought I'd, once again, try and get a rhythm and structure to the week by having some things done weekly. Thus begins the Freaky Friday segment of our show. This will be every Friday and will be a review of a horror, sci-fi, or foreign (let's face it, they're usually freaky to us) film. Usually it will be an older movie because there isn't much in the way of good horror or sci-fi that has come out in the last 10 years as far as I'm concerned and I'm not going to subject myself to some horrendous trash again just to do a review.

So to start things off, I'm going to review a movie that is a bona fide cult "classic". I use classic loosely because it isn't at least 25 years old which is where I draw the "classic" line. A little arbitrary, but I heard it once somewhere and it stuck. Which means, for anyone out there that is my age this will mean something, Nirvana (and most of the grunge era) is about to hit "classic" status. Ugh. I digress. I'm reviewing "Donnie Darko" which I knew nothing about until we got a crapload of them as a new release when it came out on DVD, so I instantly wanted to know what it was. I watched it and...well read on.

And here's the synopsis from IMDB because I will give something away if I try and do it myself: "A troubled teenager is plagued by visions of a large bunny rabbit that manipulates him to commit a series of crimes, after narrowly escaping a bizarre accident." Large bunny rabbit...lol...this isn't "Harvey" let me tell you.

Donnie Darko (2001)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/

Technical (4.5) - This one is fantastically done and even more impressive is that this was Richard Kelly's full-length feature debut made for a paltry $4.5 million. It never feels like it is either of those things. I guess part of the reason he was able to pull it off is setting it in high school in the '80s. I'm sure most of the budget went to the cast and securing the rights to some of the music (Tears for Fears and Duran, Duran mostly) which is absolutely appropriate for the time period. The song at the end is one of the best covers ever. There are a few special effects scenes which are done very well with the exception of one part that has always seemed unnecessary and a bit silly, hence the .5 deduction (it involves a beckoning hand). Otherwise it is edited in a way that adds to the uneasiness and slow unhinging of the tile character, has fantastic pacing, and doesn't ever shy away from the subject at hand. I feel bad for Kelly, though. His Freshmen effort was so good (and the Director's Cut even better) that everything else he's tried has not done so well, despite good casts and stories that aren't badly written. I think with "Southland Tales" he tried something WAY too conceptual for the general public and "The Box" could have tied better to what I assume was the inspiration: "The Monkey's Paw".

Dialogue/Story (5) - I'm not gonna dwell too much here because I will give something away if I do. It is a tight, well-written script that even though you sometimes think it is meandering, it is always moving the story forward. This is one of those movies that can definitely make your head hurt the first time you see it, but on subsequent viewings, you understand it more and more. The Director's Cut is a little easier to understand, but either way, at the end of it you will invariably go "Whaaaaa?" that first time. You're left with more questions than answers, but, unlike "The Hunger Games" you want to find answers and there are clues to give you answers. Nothing is too spelled out and the whole point of the ending is for you to draw your own conclusions. Immediately after the credits start rolling you want to start it over and call a buddy to talk it out with. I LOVE that kind of movie (the "Inception" effect).

Acting (5) - This is an absolutely AMAZING cast. Jake Gyllenhaal as Donnie just embodies the troubled, moody teenager in a way rarely seen. The way he stands, the way he sits, the way he walks, the psychotic smile sometimes, even the way he reaches for the popcorn...all just punctuate the issues he's dealing with. But not to say he outshines all the other cast. I can't imagine how much everyone got paid, but there are lots of people in this movie. Drew Barrymore (who executive produced, so I'm sure some of these were favors she called in), Noah Wyle, Jena Malone, Mary McDonnell ("Battlestar Gallactica"!), Patrick Swayze (awwwww), Maggie Gyllenhaal, and even an appearance by a young Seth Rogan. There are others in the cast that you'll go "Hey! That guy!" or "That lady!". Everyone pulls their own weight here so it never seems out of balance.

Tilt (5) - If you haven't guessed it by now, I LOVE this movie. I've bought at least 4 different versions of it since it's release (VHS, DVD, DVD Director's Cut, & BluRay) and I watch it at least once a year. Every time I watch it, I glean something new which to me is the sign of a great sci-fi movie. If you've never seen it, it's on Netflix (the original theatrical anyway) and if you like it, go out and buy it so you can see the Director's Cut. Don't bother with the sequel "S. Darko" though. It's pure crap. Kelly had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Total Score (4.88)