Halloween Reviews 2017

Been a while since I posted on this thing. Do people even visit blogs anymore? Anywho, here's a playlist of my 2017 Halloween reviews.

A Cure For Wellness Review

If only this movie had a cure for mediocrity.

Get Out Review

Its basically The Stepford Wives meets Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.

Split - Review

I wonder if M. Night Shyamalan has split personalities. One is a good filmmaker, the other isn't.

Horror According to Chris Wyatt - Halloween Reviews

Here are all the reviews from my Halloween marathon.

Frozen (2010) - Review

Brings new meaning to Let It Go.

The Witch - Review

It's quite good... but don't blame me for any sleep you lose after watching it.

Goosebumps - Review

Moviegoers Beware! You're in for a scare! Well... kinda... okay not really.

The Visit - Review

After watching The Visit, I get the feeling that M. Night Shyamalan doesn't care much for old people... or his audience for that matter.

Carrie - Review

I'll be first to admit that I've had it out for the remake of Carrie since I first heard about it's development. In this remake-laden era of Hollywood and filmmaking, it's becoming harder and harder to get even remotely excited about the variety of remakes, reboots, or re-whatevers. However, I've been particularly cynical about this one, since the original is not only one of the few horror films to receive widespread acclaim from both audiences, critics, and film snobs, but also because it happens to be one of my all-time favorite movies. Yes, the original 1976 film is awesome... it scores across the board as a compelling character drama, a thrilling suspense/thriller, a poignant examination of teen bullying, and (of course) a genuinely frightening horror film. I often credit the film as being the first horror film to truly make me a fan of the genre. With so many half-assed or shallow remakes of classic horror films that have recently plagued theaters, I was worried that Carrie would end up being another forgettable cash-in. Not to mention, the original was already followed by other disappointing reiterations of the story. There was a belated sequel (sucked), a made-for-TV remake (also not very good), and a Broadway musical (never seen it, but it's reputation as one of Broadway's most infamous bombs kind of speaks for itself). Part of me, however, became almost somewhat optimistic (though not enough to come around) when I heard of the talent the film was attracting. Actors like Chloë Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, and director Kimberly Peirce are all among some of the better talents working today, and could, in theory, assemble a respectable remake. After finally seeing the damn thing... here are my thoughts.

Based on the novel by Stephen King, Carrie tells the story of the teenage outcast, Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz). The painfully shy and awkward Carrie lives a troubled life, being tormented by her high school peers and abused by her psychotic religious zealot mother, Margaret White (Julianne Moore). When Carrie has a panic attack after receiving her first period during gym class, her classmates pull a particularly cruel prank on her and post in online. Shortly after the incident, Carrie discovers that she now possesses telekinetic powers, and over time learns to develop and control them. Once Carrie's classmates are punished for their prank, they decide to enact a revenge scheme by pulling an even more vile prank on poor Carrie at the upcoming prom. With that said prom right around the corner, it's going to be a night to remember... for everyone.

So it pretty much goes without saying, but yeah... the movie ins't good. While I can't say that this surprises me, at all really, I have to admit that there were a few times while watching it where it seemed like the film started to do something kind of interesting... only to be disappointed when that was not the case. While it was initially believed that this remake was going to be a more faithful adaptation of Stephen King's novel, that turned out not be true. With the exception of one or two minor deviations, the film is basically a note-for-note retelling of the 1976 Brian De Palma film, albeit with some modern updates. It's not as egregious as the infamous shot-for-shot remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, but it's close. I don't want to spend this whole review comparing the remake to it's far superior original (since that's not fair), but it's almost impossible to ignore how much it fails in comparison. While the original was a legitimately shocking, moving, and tragic adaptation of it's (good but not great) source material, this new version feels like a dull, soulless, and generally flat re-creation coasting mainly off the memories of it's predecessor despite lacking it's style, flair, and poignancy. I'm not saying the original was totally without ANY flaws, but it's raw emotional drive made it one hell of an experience, while the remake almost put me to sleep.

The film's opening scene actually started with a fairly decent hook. If there's one flaw I could levy against the 1976 film, it's that the character of Margaret White (previously played by Piper Laurie) is kind of one-note. While Laurie was unforgettable in the role, her character was never really explored beyond being just a fairly straightforward religious nutjob (this was an issue in the book as well), despite featuring a few scenes that hinted at something more interesting happening in her that was never really explored. In this version, the film opens with Margaret White giving birth Carrie alone in her bedroom right before contemplating whether she should kill her newborn daughter or not. At first I thought that the film might actually shift the focus more to Margaret herself instead of Carrie. Plus, it also attempts to portray her as more a sympathetic villain, driven to insanity by either her religious values or tragic events in her past. Unfortunately, the film never really follows through on it's attempts and instead once again portrays Margaret as another straightforward antagonist that only hints at something more interesting going on. Damn you movie for actually teasing us with something potentially intriguing!

Cast-wise, the film is a mixed bag that is admittedly slightly elevated by it's two leads. It couldn't have been easy for Chloë Grace Moretz to follow in the footsteps of Sissy Spacek's Oscar-nominated role, and while I won't say she's perfect, she generally does a serviceable job. Moretz is one of cinema's most talented and charismatic young actors working today, and I could tell that she was putting her all into this role. While she does overplay what should have been some of the more subdued scenes, she nonetheless demonstrates some real emotional heft in a few standout moments. That said, I typically had a hard time buying that someone who doesn't look all that different from the supposedly "prettier" teens would be considered an outcast. While I admit that the original's Sissy Spacek was an attractive person, she had a slightly more off-kilter or country-ish appearance that helped sell her image as an outcast yet could pull off her prom scene transformation as well. Putting Moretz in a unfashionable outfit and hairstyle does little to sell her image as a "freak" and kind of ruins the effect. It's hard to levy that against Moretz herself, so I'll give her a pass in this case. Julianne Moore is the standout as Margaret White. I've already gone into detail about her character, so I won't say much more than I already have. Moore is definitely more subdued compared to Piper Laurie's screen-chewing performance in the original, but she does a generally good job with the role, showcasing some real emotional range and typically running off with the film's few effective scenes. The teenage actors this time around don't leave much of an impression. Granted they do look more like actual teenagers (unlike the 20 somethings in the original), but do little to elevate the film in any way. I also will say that I did enjoy the underrated Judy Greer as Carrie's supportive gym teacher, Miss Desjardin. Hopefully, Greer will get a part real soon that will really let her show off her talent (fingers crossed).

Considering that this is a horror film, you might be wondering why I haven't said anything about it's actual scariness. Unfortunately, that's because it's really not all that scary. It has a adequately slick look with appropriately modern filmmaking sensibilities, but it's basically as flat and empty as anything else. I will admit that there are a couple scenes between Carrie and her mother that actually do have a somewhat creepy vibe to them and were some of the few times I was genuinely intrigued. That said, aside for those few exceptions, the movie pretty much breezes through the first two acts so it can get to the infamous prom climax. The prom scene itself, however, is even kind of a letdown. While there are a few adequately gut-wrenching moments, it felt once again felt like a paltry restating of the original scene. There's a little more gore this time around, a couple decent money shots, plus the updated effects, but the obvious use of cgi and some questionable direction destroyed any chance of the scene feeling any more than just plain adequate. None of this is helped by the mostly lifeless cinematography and questionable editing. That's another thing, the film was chalk full of continuity errors, questionable stylistic choices, and odd cuts... don't really know what they were going for. In the long run, this version of Carrie feels less like a character-driven horror film but more like an uninspired by-the-numbers revenge flick. To some, that might be enough, but I was hoping for more.

So that's Carrie... and it's not worth your time. I asked myself if I was being too hard on it due to my love for the original. My response... somewhat maybe, but that still wouldn't change the fact that remake is at best, a mediocre horror film. Despite a few decent performances, it's a flat, uninspired, and often boring film that only hints at being something better. Saying a film is boring is probably the worst label you could ever put on a film, as Carrie isn't really terrible, because then it might have been somewhat memorable, but instead is just plain forgettable. Whether you're a fan of the original or not... this is one you can skip.

My Score: 2 out of 5

Paranormal Activity 4 - Review

Well... it's October, and that means another entry in the popular Paranormal Activity horror series has made it's way to theaters. As a self proclaimed movie geek and horror buff, I have to admit that I feel a tiny bit ashamed that I've liked this series as much as I have. I know the franchise has been fairly popular and that the movies have all been big hits, but there's no escaping that this is a franchise based on a ridiculously gimmicky premise (but let's face it, most found footage movies are) that never lent itself to sequels or an expanding universe. With that said, there was something about this series that kept me coming back. Namely, while none of the films have risen above their inherent gimmick per se, the first three movies at least managed to create some legitimate suspense, shocks, and jump scares resulting in fun and enjoyable horror flicks well-suited for the Halloween season. Does the fourth entry live up to it's predecessors? Let's find out...

***Here's my little disclaimer, while I won't spoil any important plot details for this movie, I will discuss the endings of the previous three films. Don't say I didn't warn you.***

Paranormal Activity 4 takes place approximately five years after the epilogue of the second entry (can you believe that this is the first, honest-to-God, sequel to a PA movie). This film focuses primarily on the Nelson family, namely the 14-year-daughter of the household, Alex Nelson (Kathryn Newton), and her goofy, though good-natured, boyfriend Ben (Matt Shively). The Nelsons live next door to none-other than Katie Featherston who, when we last saw her, was left possessed by a vicious demon that forced her to kidnap her then-infant nephew to presumably fulfill a decades old pact made by her grandmother (a member of a witch coven). When Katie is inexplicably rushed off to a hospital, the Nelsons take in her six-year-old son, Robbie, a socially awkward boy with odd and often creepy idiosyncrasies. While Robbie makes quick friends with Alex's six-year-old brother Wyatt, strange and unsettling seemingly paranormal disturbances begin to occur. Alex, unnerved by what's happening, rigs the families' computers to record any unusual activity. What she discovers may end up being more than she can handle, as the disturbances continue to escalate.

Before I get into my thoughts on this particular film, I'll quickly run down what I thought of it's predecessors. The first film, I really enjoyed. While it was held back somewhat by a low budget and less-than-spectacular acting, it nevertheless scored thanks to it's great suspense, memorable shocks, interesting twists, and surprisingly effective special effects. Part 2 improved on some fronts, namely that the bigger budget allowed for some more dynamic scares plus an improvement on the acting front. On the downside, in revealing more of the story, it left less to the imagination and removed some of the previous flick's suspense and mystery. Part 3 had many of the same problems of the second all while falling victim to an increasingly more predictable formula. Not to mention, it answered few of the unanswered questions from it's predecessor and had a frustratingly abrupt ending. That said, it still managed to deliver on the requisite scares, namely in the better-than-expected finale... so it met the bare minimum of what I wanted to see. Part 4 on the other hand... that's another story. It's really nothing short of a miracle that such a thin premise had been able to remain effective for three movies, so for one to finally fall short of expectations shouldn't be that much of a surprise. Unfortunately, this is a series for which I think most don't exactly have "high expectations," so when it's unable to live up to such low standards, that's pretty disappointing.

One of my biggest gripes about the third entry was that, despite the lingering questions left unanswered after Part 2, it basically sidestepped it's cliffhangers and instead left many of it's questions to be answered in the following sequels. I was actually looking forward to this film for this reason, as I was genuinely curious to see how events would unfold. Unfortunately, it appears that the producers are planning to milk a few more sequels out of the franchise. Few, if any, of the previous films' plot points are addressed, and instead Paranormal Activity 4 answers it's predecessor's lingering answers with... more questions. I get that these films are popular, and the low budget makes them usually safe bets for the studio, as the profit margins on the ticket sales have fared pretty well so far. That said, given the increasing diminishing returns these sequels keep producing, I can't help but think that by the time they do eventually pull the plug on the franchise, they will have alienated their fanbase to a point that everyone will have just stopped caring. Hopefully that won't happen, but I'm not counting on it.

I remember stating in my review of Part 3 that the filmmakers were going to need to think of a really creative way to keep this series interesting if it was going to stay fresh. Unfortunately this film is, as predicted, weighed down by the increasingly duller and more predictable formula. By now, it's all become routine. The series has always had the typical flaws of most found footage movies, namely the questionable logic of it's characters, cheap look, and hit-and-miss decisions on camera movement. In the past, I was generally willing to overlook most of those problems so long as the movie delivered the expected scares and jumps. In this film, that's the main problem, it's just not that scary. For every decent jump or jolt, there's about ten failed attempts, plus numerous set ups for some potentially awesome payoffs that end in the most anti-climactic way possible. The filmmakers did try to change up the formula a bit by adding a creepy kid subplot a la The Omen, but that just did more harm than good. It's a routine formula that doesn't add much suspense and only leads to a fairly predictable plot twist that, as expected, simply raises more questions than it answers. If the studio wants to keep this series going, they're really going to have to deliver with the next sequel (wait, doesn't this sound familiar).

So... was there anything I liked in this movie? I'm having a hard time thinking of anything "good" about the flick but rather simply thinking of things about it that are simply okay. The cast, namely Kathryn Newton and Matt Shively, were clearly giving the film their best shot and manage to bring forth some passable performances, just nothing particularly special. As for the special effects... they're not bad either, but nothing that we haven't seen already. In fact, I'm having a hard time thinking of any particularly memorable effects sequences from the film. It's odd thinking that the original film (with a mere budget of 15,000 compared to Part 4's budget of 5,000,000) was more memorable on the effects front. I suppose there were a few decent scares, as I mentioned earlier, including one particularly suspenseful scene that I won't spoil but will say that it takes place close to the end. If there had been more of that, this would have been a much more effective movie. It's too bad, lots of potentially decent setup ruined by mediocre execution.

So that's Paranormal Activity 4... and it kind of sucks. If you were a fan of the series, this will probably be a huge disappointment. If you weren't a fan of the series, this won't change anything. For those looking for a decent scary flick to see this Halloween, don't see this one. Instead, check out the movie Sinister, which came out a few weeks ago. Though I haven't written a full review yet, Sinister is a much better made film with more effective scares, performances, and direction. In other words, basically what this film should have been. Let's hope when Paranormal Activity 5 comes out (it's unavoidable) that the filmmakers will try to breathe some new life into this series.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

Jennifer's Body - Review

Wow! I've been reviewing a lot of horror films lately. To be honest, it's bit a little overwhelming. Sure, I'm a fan of the genre, but I typically like to add some variety to my movie viewing and blog entries. I was going to take a small break from the scary flicks after reviewing the Scream movies, but after seeing Jennifer's Body a few days ago, I thought of a few things to say about it. So consider this my last horror review for a while until I feel refreshed.

Jennifer's Body is a 2009 high school horror/comedy directed by Karyn Kusama and written by Diablo Cody. It stars Megan Fox as the sexy and self-obsessed Jennifer and Amanda Seyfried as her nerdy BFF Needy. After Jennifer and Needy go to a concert at a local bar, Jennifer makes friends with the band, only to find out that the band is a group of Satan worshipers. In order to be successful, the said band makes a deal with the Devil and offers Jennifer to him as a sacrifice. Only problem, since Jennifer wasn't a virgin, the sacrifice backfires. Instead of dying, she returns as a vengeful demon-possessed man-eater. Now, with Jennifer and her new-found demonic powers wrecking havoc on the town, Needy is forced to find a way to put an end to her rampage.

Jennifer's Body is one of those movies that was hard to judge simply based on its premise. It's main attraction (at least by the marketing standards) was Megan Fox. After hitting it big as the hot chick from Transformers, Fox saw a sudden rise to popularity. The commercials and trailers made Jennifer's Body look like a sexy horror flick with Fox's beauty as the main attraction. However, those who watch this with the hopes of seeing Megan Fox naked or some shameless T & A will probably leave disappointed. Oh sure, Megan Fox is hot, and it's not like the movie doesn't use that to its advantage, but there is definitely more going on. The movie actually has underlying themes of female empowerment, as Jennifer uses her sexuality to entice and prey on her misogynistic classmates on the lookout for tail. So what was marketed as a skin-fest is actually closer to a feminist statement. It all sounds good in theory, but unfortunately Jennifer's Body suffers thanks to sub-par execution.

Unfortunately, this was a movie that put a lot of faith in its actors, and there in lies the first mistake. Megan Fox, quite simply, is an awful actress. Her lack of talent was first apparent from her less-than-stellar performances in the Transformers movies, and not much has changed here. For starters, she still has little to no emotional range. With the exception of her aforementioned sacrifice scene (she actually displayed some decent emotion then), Fox is little more than a series of forced deliveries and blank faces. She can't blame this on a lousy character or bad dialogue this time either, there's plenty here for her to work with (more on the script later).

On the other hand, we do get a much better performance from Amanda Seyfried. Seyfried holds her own decently, with more range than Fox and better control of her character. That being said, I had a hard time buying that somebody as gorgeous as Seyfried (considerably more than Fox imo) would be perceived as a geeky outcast. This is a pet peeve of mine I see all to often in movies, when directors think that simply putting a pair of glasses on a beautiful actress suddenly makes them look unconventional. Overall, the performances in this fail to impress. Fox is awful, Seyfried is better but not great, and the rest are just kind of there. Although, I did get a few chuckles as J.K. Simmons as a one-handed English teacher.

What mainly attracted me to this film was the screenwriter, Diablo Cody. Cody suddenly found herself in the spotlight in 2008 as the former stripper turned Oscar winning screenwriter of 2007's Juno. Her skill for creating quirky characters and writing clever blog-lingo inspired dialogue has had her likened to a female Kevin Smith. I personally loved Juno, and even though I wasn't particularly stoked for Jennifer's Body, I found myself interested enough to check it out. Most of the dialogue in Jennifer's Body is appropriately quirky and witty, but the sheer stupidity of the plot kind of ruined what worked. The concept about the Satan-worshiping indie rockers is incredibly asinine, the ending is too predictable, and the script boasts a number of plot holes that really detract from any potential enjoyability. I wasn't sure if the stupidity of the Devil-worshiping bad was intentional or not. It almost look like it was going for that self-aware, too hip for the room, parody style that Scream made so popular. And of course, if you have read my reviews for the Scream series, you'll know that I never cared for it then either. No matter how you look at it, the movie just isn't that well executed.

Jennifer's Body is one of those movies that had potential but just didn't deliver. The concept had some promise, Seyfried wasn't bad, and I got a few chuckles out of the dialogue. Unfortunately, a lot of the potential success came down to Fox, and she just doesn't deliver. It's not an awful movie, but I can't really recommend it. If the premise sounds interesting to you, it might make for a decent rental, but you'll probably forget about it five minutes after the credits roll.

In short, it's neither scary, sexy, or funny enough to live up to its potential.

My Score: 2.5 Stars out of 5!