"Sucker Punch" Review

"Sucker Punch"

Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens, Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish, Carla Gugino

RATING
5/10

As a last resort for sucking audiences into theatres to steal their hard-earned money, Hollywood at some point decided putting insanely hot women in the midst of a visually breahtaking fantasy world where 50-foot samurai warriors and dragons roam free. And figuring that they needed a director who would be able to have the credential power to draw in the hardcore film fanatics too, Zack Snyder stepped up to the plate to give Hollywood what it wanted. And "Sucker Punch" was the result. Now I'm not gonna be entirely objective because I understand that the film, on the surface, is a story (I use that term lightly) of hot girls in short skirts with insane kung-fu and gunplay abilities fighting off every known fantasy antagonist under the sun. There's really not much else below the surface. It really is a sucker punch.

 

"Sucker Punch" is about a girl who witnesses her fathers abusive behaviour and decides to take a stand against him for fear of her little sister being harmed. This only angers the father and sends her to a mental asylum, where showgirls are groomed to dance for creepy and rich older men. In between finding a way to liberate herself and all the go-go girls around her, she fantasizes about grand situations that somehow tie into them finding an escape from the hellhole of an asylum.

 

I'm gonna keep this review short and sweet. "Sucker Punch" is a very mixed bag of cinema, mainly because it has no aim, and even when it does, it quickly jumbles itself around and loses the audience. The lead girl, Babydoll (played by the beautiful Emily Browning), is easy on the eyes, a badass in her head, and an overall decent performance. However, what is quickly built up around character and plot is quickly undone by the most random sequences of fantasy events to occure. They serve no real purpose or objective other than to showcase some pretty stunning visual effects and well-choreographed fight scenes, but when linking it to the main plot of the film, it really doesn't make sense. The surrounding actors aren't exactly solid back-up for the story either. The likes of Carla Gugino, Oscar Isaac, and Jon Hamm are extremely underused. Even though Isaac comes close to being a perfectly molded villain type, his placement in the film is just off-key and unusual. He never feels as threatening as he should be, and it doesn't help elevate any stakes for the go-go girls either when they're somewhere off in their own telepathically linked imaginations fighting off Nazi zombies with mech-suits... because, you know, that's cool. I will give the film credit for two things that blew me away: the visuals and music. Zack Snyder is a very visual director and knows his way around making something pop on screen. These fantasy sequences, as pointless and redundant as they are, showcase the filmmakers keen eye for visceral thrills. Adding to that effect is a brilliant soundtrack, which constantly shifts between haunting, melodic covers and upbeat techno to set quite an awesome mood and atmosphere.

 

By the time the climax rolls around, you'll have no choice but to re-evaluate the film as a whole, and see that "Sucker Punch", while a visual juggernaut filled with beautiful women and dominating music, is nothing more than an aimless excercise in visual storytelling. And even then, when the flames from the dragon have died and the Nazi zombies saluting hands have been sliced clean off by a katana, does the film ultimately amount to nothing but a sucker punch, indeed.

"The Hills Have Eyes" Review

"The Hills Have Eyes"

Directed by Alexandre Aja
Starring Aaron Stanford, Ted Levine, Emilie de Ravin, Vinessa Shaw, Dan Byrd

RATING
8/10

Sorry for my late entries for these past few weeks. I have been quite busy with university and getting back into the swing of things. But now that I am reasonably comfortable, I bring you a few gifts. I'll have two reviews up by today,  including this one, and later tonight a preview of one of the most anticipated films of the year. But for now, here's 2006's "The Hills Have Eyes". In 1977, horror meistro Wes Craven crafted a shocking and graphic cinematic work known as "The Hills Have Eyes", which was filmed to somewhat resemble a snuff film. This, and his other much debated original "The Last House on The Left", was the cause of much controversy. So rightfully, about 30 years down the line, a remake would seem inevitable. And I had very low expectations about seeing this. People who have seen it either outright hated it or didn't bother to give it a chance because it "stunk of generic". After seeing it, well I have to say that it's scent was more of a surprisingly solid modern horror remake.

 

"The Hills Have Eyes" is about a family travelling through the desert on their way to San Diego. They pass a creepy gas station where the attendent is a creepy old man. Immediately, I may have lost you because "The Cabin In The Woods" would be racing through your mind and making you laugh throughout the scene. But wait, there's more. The creepy man, having found out that one of the family members spotted a seemingly stolen bag full of items, sends the family on a "shortcut" through a desert road where they are quickly derailed by spikes and left for dead. Or perhaps, hunted down by strange, deformed people who live in the hills due to massive nuclear tests in the past.

 

Like I said, had very low expectations seeing it, but I was pleasantly surprised at the outcome. What we have here is a horror film that manages to walk the fine line of being both physically shocking and psychologically terrifying. It outdoes the original in so many ways, that it becomes its own work. The performances were pretty good, crafting out a believable family with good chemistry that's easily relatable in some way. At first, it may seem like the emotional connection isn't made, but once the bat-shit crazy events hit the fan, you'll find yourself squealing over their lives. The film is able to go places where few modern horror films dare not, and without spoiling anything, I will say that there is a section in the middle that triggers a sequence of horrifying events in a short span of ten minutes, you'll be left glued to your seat and absolutely dumbfounded that it manages to get away with it. It's a very unconventional and shocking downward spiral very rarely achieved. Once the spiral subdues, you're left with a strong sense of sympathy and vengeance which leads you to make that long-desired emotional connection. Let's just say, there's literally a little element that elevates the tension of the plot to insane heights.

Apart from that, the film is expertly paced and structured, especially in the second half. It's clever editing techniques help build the scares mentally, that it's shock factor actually begins to scare you. Alexandre Aja does a fantastic job of creating atmospheric tension and delivering a pleasing amount of gore and great kills most die-hard horror junkies will yearn for. The make-up and design is a thing of beauty in this, and looks very naturalistic. I do only have one gripe for the film, which may make or break audiences, is that the first 15 minutes are pretty much standard fare for a modern horror film that it feels recycled to death. If it doesn't catch your attention then, it may later in the film, but unfortunately most casual horror audiences have the attention spans of goldfish.

 

"The Hills Have Eyes" is an exceptionally well-made and well-paced horror feature with plenty of gore and atmospheric tension to rival and better the original Wes Craven classic. It plays with its shock factor to great effect, and while it may seem odd at first for the horror noobs, the film does manage to transcend itself and become not just an eye-opening experience, but an entertaining tale of vengeance, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... kinda.

"Cujo" Review

"Cujo"

Directed by Lewis Teague
Starring Dee Wallace, Danny Pintauro, Daniel Hugh Kelly, Christopher Stone, Ed Lauter

RATING
5/10

So, I just watched a movie about a rabid zombie St. Bernard dog that tears people to shreds. Sure as hell blows "Beethoven" out of the water. As a gigantic horror fan, one can only come across the film "Cujo" on film boards once every... ten minutes. Some regard it as a classic, others are lukewarm to it, and then there are those who consider it a shameful mess. It was a long while before I finally decided to give this odd tale a watch. Unlike the second group who were lukewarm, I didn't think there would be any middle ground. Either this would be terrible or great, no exceptions. Well, my deepest apologies to the second group... this was every bit as middling as they warned me. Is it terrible? Well, not really. A masterpiece? Very far from it.

 

"Cujo" is about a happy little family living in the generic suburbs who run into a bump in their marriage when the wife, Donna, becomes a cheating whore and sleeps around with the local, uninspired jock despite her loving husband and her wonderful son building solid relationships (see? Immediately we don't give a shit about her... She's a terrible person). Then, when the husband discovers her sleeping around, he decides to head out to a business conference for two weeks. Meanwhile, the wife and kid decide to pay visit to a relatives farmhouse, only to discover that they have run out of petrol... and are being hunted by a huge rabid St. Bernard dog who was bitten by a radioactive bat. So essentially what you have here is "127 Hours", only James Franco is being patronized by a zombie mutt.

 

Now I'll start with a few things I was impressed with. "Cujo" is able to capture that feeling of complete helplessness and puts you in the crisis the mother and child are facing quite well.

It knows how to walk the line between keeping you on edge and giving you imagery that will provide endless nightmares for a kid. Since this is based on a Stephen King novel, you can expect plenty of vivid and strange occurences, especially the odd mindset most of the characters seem to have. It actually makes it feel so unreal, that you simply take it as a dose of reality and what could possibly happen when these characters make decisions. But that's where the flimsy side of it starts to show too. The character of the mother, Donna, is unlikable and cold. She separates herself frequently from her family in the beginning to fool around with the scruffy jock. She acts like a confused high school teen, and not a responsible mother. So when the time comes when she is locked in the car with her son... you only really care about the son's safety. I was rooting for Cujo to rip her to shreds, honestly. As the lead protagonist, you just don't care about her. Even her attempts to show "affection" for her child while on the verge of death seems like a forced plea. Apart from the films characters, the whole aesthetic felt cheap. I'm still amazed at how they got the dog to go through some of those tricks, but it it doesn't help that the film has the production quality of a TV soap opera in the early 80's. And once the ending rolls around, you can't help but frown at its not-so-subtle and abrupt climax.

 

"Cujo" is a mixed bag for me. As an oldie in the horror genre, I can respect its style and ambition to a certain extent, but keep in mind that 1983 was a year after John Carpenter's "The Thing" shook the genre to its core. There's no excuse for a lesser direction to go in, and unfortunately "Cujo" is aimless for the most part. What could've been a brilliantly executed tale of terror and claustrophobia was undone by poorly concieved characters and weak production value. All in all, it's a mediocre film that doesn't break new ground, but certainly gives a new spin to the meaning "rabid zombie dog"... uh, that's never been said before, actually...

"Drag Me To Hell" Review

"Drag Me To Hell"

Directed by Sam Raimi
Starring Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Dileep Rao, Lorna Raver, David Paymer

RATING
9/10

In 1981, an indie director named Sam Raimi accidentally created a new offspring of the horror genre, in which it incorporated slapstick humor. The result was oddly very appealing, and thus the "Evil Dead" series was born. Despite his newfound ambitious drive, Raimi opted for more broader genres, and put away his horror directing card for how to head into drama and comedy, and a little superhero franchise some people are familiar with... However, he still remained a keen observer of the scare, producing several horror films in his later years. Then came the time when he decided to revisit the glory days, when slapstick horror/gore was hugely influential to directors such as Peter Jackson. He figured, maybe a dosage of Evil Dead for the modern era would be... pretty damn interesting. 2009 rolled around, and thus "Drag Me To Hell" was born.

 

"Drag Me To Hell" is the story of Christine Brown, a farm-girl who moves into the city, loses a few pounds, and inexplicably becomes attractive. Between having a relationship with her boyfriend, Clay, and working for the assistant manager position at her bank, Christine is confronted by Mrs. Ganush, who visits the bank hoping to get an extension on her home payments. When she is refused, the elderly gipsy puts a curse on Christine in which an ancient and powerful demon taunts and patronizes her for three days before finally collecting her to be literally dragged into hell. She then seeks the help of a spiritual psychic.

 

This was an incredible rollercoaster of a horror film. The best way I can honestly describe Raimi's style is "Dawn Of The Dead" meets "Looney Tunes". There's so much slapstick going on, that is often branches into more comedic territory, but at the same never forgets to scare the audience in the most bizarre ways imaginable. For example, a demon possesses a goat which causes it to speak English in a demonic voice, before telekinetically slamming a character into a wall. Bare with me, there's much stranger and horrifying things at work here. No other director could've pulled it off like Raimi, and where his strengths succeed in having a masterful grip on suspense and knockout delivery on scares, he also excels in writing believable characters and absorbing dialogue. Everyone in the film is likable (to an extent for some), but Alison Lohman as a troubled and desperate young woman is great. She carries the film when everything begins to get crazy, and even though the cast of colourful characters emerge in the spotlight, attention is still fixed on this innocent blonde-haired girl who fends off a mythical demon of the underworld like a mosquito.

The soundtrack is phenomenal, and one of the stars of the film. It pays homage to equally sinister demonic films of the past such as "The Exorcist" and "Demons". It blends in well with the outrageous amounts of gratuitous gore and scares conjured up, and strikes the perfect chords to send shivers down your spine, but also surprisingly make you laugh. The merging of these two emotions is something Raimi toys with like a little kid playing chess. It may seem like he has no idea what direction to take the film in, but that was the magic of the "Evil Dead" trilogy, and it's sprinkled well all over "Drag Me To Hell". It's a formula that most mainstream audiences who aren't familiar with Raimi's prolific past as a horror director won't entirely grasp, but for fans of the genre who are, this is Christmas: bubble-wrapped, signed, sealed, and delivered with a kiss of 'awesome'.

 

"Drag Me To Hell" was Raimi's triumphant return to horror, roaring into the dying coliseum of the genre on a blazing chariot of fire. With its whacky, over-the-top style and macabre plot elements, there's enough explicit scares and imagery to give horror junkies like myself wet nightmares for years to come. While the mainstream audiences will be largely divided over the slapstick sub-elements, for the rest of us down here starving for another bite of greatness that rarely happens in this day and age, we've finally got something delicious to sink our teeth into. "Drag Me To Hell" is one of the best horror films of the last decade.

"Celeste And Jesse Forever" Review

"Celeste And Jesse Forever"

Directed by Lee Toland Krieger
Starring Andy Samberg, Rashida Jones, Elijah Wood, Emma Roberts, Ari Graynor

RATING
7/10

No one could've put it better than Joseph Gordon-Levitt in "(500) Days of Summer", in which he has a complete mental breakdown after Summer breaks up with him. "People should be able to say how they really feel, and not words some stranger put into their mouths. Words like 'love', that don't mean anything. It's these cards, and the movies and the pop songs, they're to blame for all the lies and the heartache, everything." Then this film came along to put a nail on that speech in the form of "Celeste and Jesse Forever". Now I'm a sucker for a good romantic comedy, and from the trailers, this looked like another really fun indie-rom com I could sink my teeth into. But I was very unprepared and shocked at the levels of maturity I experienced.

 

"Celeste and Jesse Forever" is about a couple (I'll give you twenty bucks if you guess what their names are) who have just recently suffered a major blow in their relationship, and are signing up for divorce. However, they still remain very close friends, which other couples are confused about. Then Jesse runs into an acquaintance at a book store, which causes a spark of jealousy in Celeste. Eventually, the pieces fall into place when Jesse announces some big news that sends Celeste's romantic life into a long downward spiral.

 

It's not like right off the bat, you can tell the film is going to be anything other than the usual quirky romantic comedy, but only when things get heated does the film succeed on going in different directions not seen much in these love stories. It manages to more or less maintain its comedic appeal, but for the most part, it's a tragic romance that tugs at your heartstrings. Andy Samberg and Rashida Jones have fantastic chemistry together, and feel like a genuine couple who are too attached to let go. But Jesse's big revelation causes some interesting character development, and that's where Jones dominates when the attention fixes on her. She's a stunning actress, both in talent and looks. But she was well suited to this type of role, and ends up stealing the show. The fact that the film is aware of how unconventional it is can be arguably seen as both a good and bad thing, however.

 

When it hits the right emotional chords, it hits very hard, and in that specific scene knows how to manipulate the viewer. It's a great balance of directing and complete faith in the actors. However, there are a few misses that the film suffers from, mainly within it's unconventional rom com premise sometimes being a bit forced and hasty, and at other times really undermines the potential of how clever it could've been. There's an uneven throughline that unfortunately won't sit well with normal filmgoers and I assume some film nerds who are in the extremely rare situation of having a girlfriend. Also, the characters are either underused or downright unlikable, like Elijah Wood, who's brief moments in the film are funny, but never feels needed in the bulk of things. Please excuse my lack of knowledge, but the detective from 'Devil' who connects with Celeste is an unlikable schlup who doesn't make any effort to prove he's worth our time.

 

"Celeste and Jesse Forever" is a good indie-flick that's well worth your time if you're looking for something different, but with less humble style than, say, "(500) Days of Summer". Rashida Jones is fantastic, and the comedic elements add when necessary, but it's mostly a romantic drama that bares witness to the falling out of a relationship and the harsh repurcussions that follow. It's not always an easy watch, but it demands your attention.

"Movie 43" Review

 

"Movie 43"

 

Directed by James Gunn, Elizabeth Banks, Peter Farrelly, Bob Odenkirk, Steve Carr

Starring Richard Gere, Hugh Jackman, Kate Winslet, Emma Stone, Christopher-Mintz Plasse

RATING

4/10

Please excuse my lack of posts on this blog over the week. It's been a rough start to university, so I took a leave of absence. So after my preview for the much anticipated 2013 superhero juggernaut "Man of Steel" comes a review of a film... that starts the year off on a bad note. You know those big ensemble pieces that feature a bunch of actors that you may have heard of and got a string of very random occurences that have no meaning or purpose other than to showcase a ridiculous attempt at being a "big" movie? Yeah, this is one of those. And of course, hats off to "Valentine's Day" and "New Year's Eve" that fall in the same bracket. But "Movie 43" did something quite unexpected... it made me chuckle quite a bit. After seeing these endless reviews crucifying it, I was hoping it wouldn't be as bad as I imagined. This was a killer waste of talent, sure, but it did bring out the best and worst in comedy that plays out like a bunch of SNL skits just amplifying the profanity and crude humor.

 

"Movie 43" starts out with two loser-ish teenagers who want to get back at a cyber-geek for pranking them, so they invite him over to search for a seemingly impossible movie to find, titled "Movie 43", with the intention of intelligently uploading a virus onto his computer (I use the term 'intelligently' very loosely). Things don't go as planned, and they stumble upon a bunch of random viral videos. Kinda like "V/H/S", but without the integrity, sense of identity, or fun factor.

 

I will say that "Movie 43" is a lot of fun, despite it being a dump on the legacy of the names attached. You have some really big hitters here, featuring the likes of Hugh Jackman, Richard Gere, Naomi Watts, Kate Winslet, etc. That already seems like the ingredients for one hell of an Oscar film, but it's unfortunately a movie where Wolverine has testicles attached to his chin. And I think it was intended to be viewed as nothing more than a piece of woven comedy that misses a few loops most of the time. However, when the jokes do hit, they're quite cynical and sadistic, and at this point I can't really say if its actually a good job walking that tight rope between the two. There is an advertisement placed in there about child slavery, but with a really odd twist that I admittedly laughed at and I'm going straight to hell for it. Another placed advertisement was for a tampon, and I'm surprised this ain't an official commercial. It's pretty funny. However, the only sketch I genuinely found humorous was the "Homeschooled" segment in which real-life couple Naomi Watts and Liev Shrieber try to raise their homeschooled son and give him the 'ultimate high school experience', which means verbally and mentally abusing him, a lesson about sex (a rather umcomfortable scene to watch), and being excluded at college parties where his father sees it as an excuse to motorboat a young girl's breasts. It's not the slice of comedy everybody will appreciate, but it got me going. That's not to say the film maintains that level of comedy. Everything from there is downhill. The skits begin to feel more and more random, and less useful to actually making sense in the bulk of it all. Halfway through I started to realise that the film pretty much descended into gag and fart jokes to keep the steam rolling, and it doesn't pay off at all. The jokes become tired and you feel the actors do too. It's never a good sign when you start out on a good foot then end up gradually disliking a film. The directors attached don't matter when all you're seeing is what could've been, and not what is being shown right now. There was plenty of opportunity for clever comedic gold, but somewhere along the line got lazy, bloated, and so unwitty it resorted to antique poop jokes and star-power to keep audiences engaged.

"Movie 43" is wasted opportunity in the comedy genre, and doesn't go anywhere nor present a cohesive narrative. It's a muddled mess of SNL skits with increased toilet humor, and while at times it delivers some surprisingly funny and unexpected laughs with its offensive content, it ultimately never lives up to its potential of being an extreme comedy fest. See "Movie 43" while high for a great time, but if you're bored on a Saturday night, catch some cartoons instead.

Preview: "Man of Steel" (2013)

"Man of Steel"

Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Henry Cavill, Michael Shannon, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe

It's no secret that the line of Superman movies have been mostly terrible. With the last decent one being the first Christopher Reeves film, it has taken quite a downward spiral since then. In 2006, X-Men director Bryan Singer attempted to revive this dead franchise with "Superman Returns", but sadly his efforts were absymal. The film just didn't live up to expectations, and it seemed not even Singer could give the superhero the spark he deserved. Then, a few years later, a director by the name of Christopher Nolan picked up the Man of Steel whilst concluding his epic Batman trilogy, and hired visionary director Zack Snyder to helm the director's seat, while Nolan produced from the sidelines. This is the product of that collaboration, fittingly titled "Man of Steel", and I'm shocked to say this, but it seems Superman may be finally getting the movie he needed, and the one he deserved (I know, overused Nolan pun, but that doesn't make it less awesome).

 

 "Man of Steel" will be an origins story akin to Nolan's "Batman Begins", and will employ a lot of realistic and gritty elements too. From the trailers alone, we can tell the filmmakers did their homework in crafting the perfect superhero who is not only a symbol of justice, but one of internal conflict. We see Clark Kent wrestle with his past, and attempt to make sense of himself in society, coming to grips with the fact that he is an alien (to be it bluntly). Oddly, it looks and feels like a Christopher Nolan film, with the themes and tones already a trademark of the British director. There's not much hints of Zack Snyder's eye-popping visual flare, which has led me to believe that Nolan perhaps had his hand into the project more than we anticipated. Of course, this is a good thing, but ultimately this is Zack Snyder's baby by the end of the day, and whether or not David S. Goyer's script is solid enough to deliver a classic superhero experience. Goyer did write "Batman Begins", so I have no doubt he will be able to craft a struggling man within a shell of the corrupt  and crime-infested society, and not just America's hoorah poster child.

 

 

There's quite an impressive cast at work here too. Firstly, Henry Cavill is the new Superman, and he seems to fit the profile quite well. He's toned up and ready to brawl, but his acting talents have yet to be judged because "Immortals" was a trainwreck. Michael Shannon will play General Zod, a much anticipated villain. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane will play the sweet old Kents, who take in Clark after his crash landing. Amy Adams is also a part of this team as Louis Lane, and she seems to be a very fitting choice, matching the profile and curious journalistic nature of the redheaded reporter who falls in love with Superman. As not to spoil anything further, I'll keep the rest of the cast a secret, but Russell Crowe, Laurence Fisburne and Ayelet Zurer are all in the mix too.

 

So, the final verdict for this? It's something that you have to see, even if you hate superheroes (in which case, you live a sad and unimaginative life). "Man of Steel" looks to be the Superman movie without the cheese and patriotism. It's a dark, gritty movie grounded in a place where superheroes are given the "Nolan" treatment: heavy emphasis on character psychology, a stunning awareness of its expansive universe, and distinctive visual flare. If you aren't remotely interested in those... "G.I. Joe: Retaliation" is just down the road. (lol)

 

 

"Man of Steel" opens on the 28 June, 2013