Top 10 Worst Movies of 2013

Alright! This is long overdue, but here are (in video form) my choices for the Top 10 Worst Movies of 2013!



Stay tuned for my choices for the Best of 2013 and more video reviews.

Frozen - Review

There's a growing misconception among my circle of friends that I am anti-Disney, or at least I'm opposed to the "Disney Formula" or more particularly, the "Disney Princess Formula" i.e. the basic storytelling outline Disney has been using for most of their movies since... pretty much forever actually. Truth be told, I'm not against Disney as a company (well... not really anyways, but that's a rant for another day) or the Disney formula. I remembered when I reviewed Tangled a few years back, I even mentioned that I was genuinely shocked at how Disney managed to continue using the same formula nearly a century and has still managed to make it work after all these years. That said, while I am well-aware that the formula has led to some genuine classic movies, it hasn't led to too many breakthroughs in storytelling, Disney filmmakers have been a little too in love with it, and too many have been reluctant to break away from it's typical tropes. The last Disney Princess film was 2010's Tangled, and while the movie was good, it's reluctance to deviate from the formula was, among a few other things, what ultimately kept it from greatness, in my opinion anyways. All that aside, I can now say, with great excitement, that Disney has finally figured out an interesting direction in which to take it's beloved (and lucrative) Disney Princess brand with Frozen. Not only is it one of the best animated films to be included in the Disney Animation roster, but the way in which it harks back to the glory days of the Disney Renaissance while critiquing and embracing the formula's tropes is one of the best moves they've made in years. I'm not joking here folks... Frozen is just that good.

The film is a loose adaptation of Hans Christian Anderson's fairy tale, The Snow Queen (though I do mean very very loose). It centers around two sisters, Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell), both royal princesses of the Kingdom of Arendelle. Elsa was inexplicably born with the magical power to create and control ice. After almost inflicting Anna with a mortal injury, Elsa withdraws from the outside world as her ability becomes harder and harder to control the older she gets. Anna, whose memory of Elsa's powers were magically erased from her mind in order to protect her, grows up wondering why her sister (and former BFF) has distanced herself. The years go by, and the King and Queen die in a tragic accident (this is a Disney film after all), leaving the reluctant Elsa to take the throne as the new Queen, despite her fear of being revealed, or worse, losing control of her abilities. Her worst fears are realized on the day of her coronation when she accidentally unleashes a freak ice storm upon hearing of Anna's sporadic engagement to the previously unknown Prince Hans (Santino Fontana). She retreats to the mountains, unbeknownst to her that Arendelle has been covered in an eternal winter. Anna, determined to save both her sister and the Kingdom, takes to the mountain to find Elsa before it's too late.

I'll admit that, for most of Frozen's production, I wasn't exactly looking forward to it. That's mainly because the film was plagued a horrible advertising campaign. Namely every trailer, preview, or poster was centered around either the action beats or Olaf the Snowman (the film's main comic relief). It just seemed like the film was either an Ice Age knockoff or another ill-advised attempt for Disney to compete with Dreamworks more comedic/slapstick inspired animated fare. It wasn't until the film was finally released that I started hearing things like it was a welcome throwback to the Disney Golden Age, one of the best animated films in years, and a progressive step forward for Disney animation. Hell, some even said that it was Disney's best film since Beauty and the Beast (though not quite, imo Beauty and the Beast is still the gold standard of Disney animation). As I said before, despite the awful advertising, Frozen is not only a welcome return to form, but a good sign that Disney has started to figure out not only how to make films worthy of their classics and also how to take both the company, and their respective formula, into interesting new directions. Also, a bit of a side note, but it's kind of weird how Pixar has kind of dropped the ball the last few years while Disney has picked up the slack. Cars 2 was a dud, Brave was decent but flawed, while Monsters University was funny but totally uninspired and forgettable. On the other hand, Tangled was an enjoyable if unremarkable entry into the Disney Princess canon, Wreck-It Ralph was both hilarious and creative, while Frozen might very well become a new classic.

Most of Frozen's success comes from one of Disney's most clever, inventive, and subversive screenplays years. Yes, it has a lot of the typical Disney tropes... the dead parent(s), love at first sight, the characters thrown in as goofy comic relief, etc. Fortunately, it does all of those elements really well, and manages to throw in some good twists, themes, and messages for good measure. Better yet, it feels very balanced, rarely letting any one story element overshadowing another (for instance, a lot of family films end up having the comic relief stealing the show). The main thrust of the narrative, as mentioned before, is the relationship between Elsa and Anna, and how their once-close kinship came to an abrupt end. Despite their royal upbringing, both Elsa and Anna lived mostly sheltered and isolated lives, and after the deaths of their parents, have grown into a state of semi-Arrested Development. Elsa is introverted and world weary while Anna has a mindset of childlike naivety. So in addition to the sisterly love themes, we also get a good dose of coming-of-age metaphors... nothing wrong with that. Frozen also has a good time poking fun at some of the overdone Disney tropes, namely "love at first sight", while never quite descending into full-on parody mode. Instead, the plot embraces it's rich Disney heritage but moves it forward (which is one of the themes of the movie.) Most of the comic relief comes from Olaf the Snowman and Sven the reindeer, and while I initially worried that they're shticks would wear thin quickly, I was won over by them thanks to some hilarious banter that never overstayed it's welcome. Frozen also throws in some nice third act twists, some of which were slightly predictable while others, I'll admit, caught me off guard. Elsa might actually be my favorite character of the year, namely in how her tragic backstory keeps you guessing whether she'll stay a decent person or give into her inner demons against a society that clearly doesn't want her. Ultimately, in the end, the main thrust of the narrative comes from the bond between Elsa and Anna, and that is where the film benefits the most. I won't say that I expected Frozen's story to be "bad" per se, but I'm genuinely shocked at just how much I came out loving it. It's a good sign that Disney is once again on the right path.

The cast is also another victory, with some of the better voice acting I've heard in recent memory. Kristen Bell's performance as Anna can't help but sound a little too Disney conventional at times, but the way in which she portrays Anna's spunky-yet-naive demeanor is quite entertaining. She brings a lot of energy to the role, resulting in a performance that's both cute, funny, and moving when it needs to be. Jonathan Groff does a suitable job as Kristoff, the mountain man who becomes a reluctant companion to Anna on her quest. It might have been nice to have someone with a little more gruff in his voice, but I don't have any major complaints. Santino Fontana, at times, comes off as a little too bland and conventional as Prince Hans... but when when the finale rolls around, it's then given a different context in a way I won't spoil that manages to work to the film's advantage. Josh Gad brings some welcome comedic moments as Olaf the Snowman. I'll admit that I wasn't a fan of the guy initially, but this film, among others, have started to make me appreciate his natural talents more than I had before. The standout, however, is unquestionably Idina Menzel as Elsa. Every line of dialogue and note sung is delivered with aplomb, totally selling her role as an unfortunate victim of circumstance teetering on the edge of keeping her soul or going full-on Carrie White. It's easily one of the best vocal performances in years, only second to Scarlett Johansson's turn of greatness in Her (but that's hardly a bad thing). I can't really sell her enough, and even if the rest of the movie was awful, I'd be tempted to give Frozen a recommendation just based on the strength of Menzel and the character of Elsa.

The technical elements of Frozen are pretty much slam dunks across the board. Disney continues it's long standing tradition of top-notch animation with some of their most memorable visuals in the last decade. The beautiful snowscape mountains couldn't have been rendered any more perfectly, plus I really dug the Norwegian influence in the look of the village and kingdom. Elsa's ice castle also has one of the most vibrant and interesting designs as far as animated locales go. Some of the character models for the extras or background characters come off, once in a while, as a little too Uncanny Valley-ish, but the models used to render Elsa and Anna are some of the most expressive and detailed of the entire Disney canon. They all are reminiscent of the Disney Renaissance-era 2D films, but with spot-on 3D updates appropriate for the modern digital age. Plus, throwing in some exciting and fast-paced action for good measure certainly doesn't hurt. The songs, once again, feel like a nice return to form. One of my main complaints against Tangled a few years back was the lack of truly memorable songs (not saying they were bad, just kind of forgettable). Granted, not all of Frozen's songs are huge hits, but Elsa's big epic musical number, "Let It Go" has recently become one of my favorite movie songs of all time (Disney or otherwise). When I first heard it, I liked it but was a bit put off by it's pop-ish sounding tone. That said, once you hear it set to a full orchestra with Menzel's absolutely incredible vocals, it soon becomes clear that this is a song worthy of not only the Disney Renaissance but the company's Golden Age of animation. Whenever I go see a film musical, there's always the hope that there will be at least one song that will totally knock my socks off, and while that doesn't happen often, "Let It Go" was one of those rare exceptions. In terms of pure visuals and technical achievements, this is one of Disney's best efforts.

Frozen has been in theaters for a while now, so I imagine anyone who wanted to see it probably already has. That said, if you're one of the few who hasn't made it out to the theater to see it yet, this is one that I just can't recommend strongly enough. If you have kids, I can all but guarantee that they'll love it, but the adults will find plenty to enjoy here too. No jokes here folks... Frozen is not only one of Disney's best films, but one of my favorite films of 2013.

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Saving Mr. Banks - Review

Saving Mr. Banks... also known as "Walt Disney Pictures Presents Disney's Tribute to the Magic of Disney." All joking aside, when I heard about the premise behind Saving Mr. Banks, it was hard not to be a little interested. The idea of a film that details the making of one of cinema's greatest musicals, Mary Poppins, was interesting enough, but for a film to explore the cultural influence and mindset perpetuated by the Disney corporation has all kinds of possibilities. I won't say that I didn't have my doubts, as there are few companies as protective of their properties as Disney, and anything that could be considered derogatory to the "Disney Image" generally gets nixed. Still, the Mouse House has been slowly transitioning to more adult fare, and has taken more chances since Bob Iger took over as CEO. Plus, with a cast consisting of Emma Thompson, Colin Farrell, Paul Giamatti, and Tom Hanks as Walt Disney himself (the first time an actor has ever played the guy in a feature film), I knew this was a film I absolutely had to see at least once. So is Saving Mr. Banks the whimsically sanitized self-congratulatory tribute of the Disney image of which we were all afraid or is the film Supercalifragilisticexpealidocious?

The film stars Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers, author of the acclaimed "Mary Poppins" children's books. The year is 1961, and for nearly 20 years, Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) has been attempting to obtain the film rights to the novels so that he can adapt them to the big screen. The curmudgeonly uncompromising Travers, however, has continually refused Disney the rights, as she will not let him turn her beloved Mary Poppins into "one of his silly cartoons." However, once the royalties stop, and Travers finds herself pressed for cash, she reluctantly makes a trip to L.A. to hear Walt Disney's pitch... albeit with a laundry list of conditions: No animation, no musical numbers, no Dick Van Dyke, and the list goes on. Disney clearly has a far different vision of the movie, and makes it his mission to not only obtain the film rights but also see a product that will please Travers but also fit the Disney image. Despite the vigorous efforts of Walt Disney, the dedicated screenwriter Don DaGradi (Bradley Whitford), and the musical talents of the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman and B.J. Novak), Mrs. Travers continuously shoots down their ideas and stubbornly refuses to hand over the rights. It isn't until Walt Disney calls back to his own childhood when starts to make a connection with Travers, digging into her tumultuous upbringing that not only led to the inspiration for Mary Poppins, but ultimately made her the person she would eventually become. Can Disney and Travers find their common ground or will the two push one another to their limits?

So... I'll be first to admit that I didn't exactly go into this film with super high expectations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I expected the movie to be bad per se, and as I mentioned before, the concept was quite intriguing. I just had doubts that Saving Mr. Banks could rise above the supposed Disney-fied schmaltzy and whimsical overtones being projected by the trailers. Now, while I will say that some of my concerns weren't totally unwarranted, Saving Mr. Banks is good... really good actually. I'm not saying the movie is perfect (it's not), but despite it sometimes falling victim to one too many of it's whimsical trappings, it typically manages to overcome most of its schmaltz to deliver a touching, charming, and relatable tale complete with top-notch performances, poignant themes, and beautiful camerawork. It's a charming biopic with interesting moments of character study, illustrating the inspiration behind an artist's work and one's emotional attachment to their creations. It also doesn't hurt when the movie is just plain beautiful to look at. From the detailed production design to the gorgeous cinematography, it's one of those films where almost every shot could be copied, framed, and hung on the wall. Plus, it doesn't hurt to intersperse your movie's musical score with samples from the super catchy songs of Mary Poppins (as Mary Poppins said, "A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down.") . That said, I can't quite call the film a masterpiece, and I don't expect to see it included among Disney's true classics (like Mary Poppins for instance), but it's a solid flick that delivers most of what it promises. If there's any truth to the Oscar buzz surrounding the movie, I can't say that I have any objections.

Saving Mr. Banks is one of those odd films that cuts back and forth between two separate stories, much like The Godfather Part II. The "main" story centers around the aforementioned development of the Mary Poppins film, but occasionally the story breaks away to flashback scenes of Mrs. Travers' childhood in Australia and the events that inspired her to write the Mary Poppins stories. This is an interesting method of storytelling that you don't often see in feature films, as it is often tricky to execute. For starters, by doing this, you're essentially making two completely different movies, with contrasting styles, tones, and vibes. I'm not saying that kind of thing can't work, but it takes a talented filmmaker to make it work without seeming disjointed or imbalanced. In this case, the two stories generally come together... for the most part. I found myself feeling much more invested in the Travers/Disney stand-offs and film development scenes than I did Travers' backstory. Now, don't get me wrong, both segments are quite good... well-acted, beautifully shot, and strongly directed, and maybe it's just because I'm a die-hard film buff that I gravitated toward the Hollywood scenes, but the two drastic differences in style and tone can, at times, be a bit off-putting. The Hollywood/London scenes are played pretty straightforward, basically as a relatively down-to-Earth character drama/biopic that indulges in the occasional schmaltzy scene. The Australia flashback scenes, on the other hand, pile on the whimsy. On top of that, these scenes come off as a bit more derivative, mainly in how they're about Travers' relationship with her troubled, though loving, father (played by Colin Farrell) and the struggles that often plagued her family. Now, once again, I must stress that these scenes are well done, but they can't help but come off as a bit predictable, overly-whimsical, and a touch too far removed stylistically from the "main" plot. Still, in the end the movie does come together despite a few minor speed bumps.

Fortunately, any issues regarding the story, direction, or tone were easily pushed aside due to the film's absolutely stellar cast. Emma Thompson's portrayal of P.L. Travers is easily one of the best performances of 2013. To nobody's surprise, she does a solid job with the strict, no-nonsense, and more-than-a-little abrasive aspects of Travers' persona, but the way in which she conveys the character as one who seemed to have gone through Hell and back is commendable. She may not be the most "likable" character you'll ever see, but in the way Travers is depicted, it's obvious that she has a soul, and despite her innate stubbornness, it becomes obvious that it's only because these characters and stories have a very personal connection to both her past and her family. Thompson conveys every one of these aspects in a performance that's subtle, moving, and all-around brilliant. As for Tom Hanks as Walt Disney... it's Tom Hanks people, do I even have to mention that he's awesome. I'm actually a bit surprised to see that Disney wasn't sanitized nearly as much as I expected. To get this out of the way... there's no mention of the rumored sexist, racist, or anti-Semitic qualities that may or may not have been present in the real Walt Disney (though we'll probably never know for sure), but the movie does portray him as a bit stubborn, somewhat egotistic, and slightly cut-throat (though, to be fair, I think you have to have most of those traits if you're going to succeed in business the way Disney did), though generally genial, friendly, and very passionate about his work. The interactions between Thompson and Hanks were my favorite parts of the film, as their conversations ultimately becomes a battle of the egos, with two very stubborn yet determined individuals attempting to find a middle ground so that they may produce a satisfactory product without ripping each other's heads off. Thrown in a strong supporting cast consisting of Colin Farrell (who really should be getting more praise for his role in this than he has lately), Bradley Whitford, B.J. Novak, Jason Schwartzman, and Paul "I'm Not Capable of Giving a Bad Performance" Giamatti, and you've got yourself a winner.

As mentioned, Saving Mr. Banks isn't perfect. Despite a far more honest and risky tone than I originally had expected, the inevitable Disneyfication of leads to a few too many whimsical oddities and historical inaccuracies that do bring down the film somewhat, but the excellent cast, endearing nature, and charming tone make it hard to resist. There's actually something about this film that I find kind of funny. I remember earlier in 2013, my inner hipster was really excited to see the film "Escape From Tomorrow" (the indie horror/thriller secretly shot in Disney World) because of it's alleged anti-corporate take-down of the Disney image/mindset, only to be disappointed when the final product turned out to be a messy, unfocused, and fairly trivial satire. As for Saving Mr. Banks, the movie I was expecting to be a sanitized, sappy, self-congratulatory schmaltz-fest, ending up winning me over with it's honest, loving, and sentimental nature. Maybe there's something to be said about the infamous Disney formula, sure it might be contrived and manipulative, but it's hard to fault a system that's been so endearing to millions of people for the last 90 years........ or maybe I'm just a sucker. Either way, Saving Mr. Banks is good, check it out!

My Score: 4 out of 5!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Review

Ugh! I really need to post these reviews sooner. This film has been in theaters for over a month now and I've waited too long for this post this thing... oh well. Now it's time for Part II of the super-popular Hunger Games series, based on the equally-popular young adult novels by author Suzanne Collins. Can't say I have personally bought into their hype... mainly because I was one of the few movie-goers who considered the first film an overrated letdown. Back in March of 2012, I wrote what was arguably my most controversial review, giving the first film only 2 out of 5 stars with a relatively scathing send-up. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what this series is at least trying to do, the first film had some ambitious ideas (for a young adult series anyways), a strong female lead helming a generally solid cast, and one or two stand-out moments. Unfortunately it was let down by questionable direction, derivative story elements, hit-and-miss pacing, underdeveloped characters, terrible camerawork, sub-par special effects, and bland action. After two repeat viewings plus reading the first novel (which, by the way, is just okay) to see if there was something I missed, my opinion hasn't changed. I can't quite call the film terrible... but I was not impressed. I knew this would be a controversial opinion, as was soon proven by the abundance of hate mail I received, but I stand by it. So yeah, can't say I've been looking forward to it's sequel, Catching Fire, but I was willing to give it a shot, namely because of some new and more promising story elements plus a new director who actually knows how to direct action. Now after finally seeing the thing, here are my thoughts...

The film takes place one year after the events of it's predecessor. After winning the 74th annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have been touring the twelve lower-class Districts in the upper class Capital's mandatory "Victor's Tour." Both Katniss and Peeta reluctantly continue to stage their "love story relationship" for the masses, despite Katniss having a real love, Peeta genuinely having feelings for Katniss, and that many District residents never bought into the charade in the first place. Fearing an uprising, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) threatens Katniss into continuing the act, meanwhile scheming against her to destroy her influence among the District residents. He plans to do so at the 75th Hunger Games, where instead of kids/teens fighting to the death, instead recruits previous Hunger Games victors and pits them in a sort of Tournament of Champions to the death... Katniss and Peeta included. Now, they all must re-train, make friends, make enemies, and fight for their lives.

So right up front, is the film good or is it another let down? Well, unlike the time I saw the first movie, in which I pretty much disliked from the get-go, I've been feeling more conflicted about Catching Fire. I'll admit that there are some parts of this film I genuinely liked, though there were more than a few bits that left me saying, "Really... that's it?" In the end, it ultimately culminates to be a generally decent film, but I'm still not quite sold on the series as a whole. I will say this much, I actually really liked the basic set-up. The first act gets you hooked, the stakes are higher, the satire is better developed, and the way in which the games were set up this time around had some real promise. Unfortunately, it all culminates to a disappointing finale plus some lingering problems from it's predecessor that still haven't been resolved. Ugh... I hate it when that happens. It's not like I went into this film with high expectations or anything like that, but I was genuinely surprised to see just how, despite an abundance of storytelling issues, I found myself invested in the premise... until we actually got to the games themselves. That almost makes me even more upset than I was about the first flick. Sure I didn't like the first one, but it never did much to get me interested in the first place, so I didn't feel that "let down" per se. Catching Fire actually got my hopes up for a bit and then just shot them down... damn!

Okay, so I mentioned that there were some lingering issues from the predecessor that still plagued this sequel. As I mentioned in my review of the original, I was never a fan of how it chose to frame the "good" and "evil" characters. By this I'm referring to the fact that the "good" characters are portrayed as these working class, traditional, or salt of the Earth-like normal folk while the "evil" Capitol citizens are all portrayed as goofy, campy, foppish, and dressed in these over-the-top outfits. Out of all the hate-mail I received, those bits of criticism were probably thrown back in my face the most. I've tried to wrap my around why this kind of storytelling might work, but I'm sorry, no matter how I look at it, I still think it's an incredibly cheap and lazy way to portray it's characters. Not only does it fail to bring any real depth to the characters, but it's just a cheap way to divide the line between good and evil. Plus, the way it portrays "normal" or "down to earth" characters as good while the those portrayed as flamboyant or goofy as evil (or at least misguided) has some really unfortunate implications on how we as people view society. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's there.

As I did mention before, there are some things in the flick that I really did enjoy. The whole setup and first act are good... damn good actually. Okay, well the political and social aspects of the flick still feel more than a bit flawed, but the way in which it continues the story and attempts to further explore it's themes and messages was commendable. The whole "Tournament of Champions" concept, unfortunately, did basically serve as a means to just re-tread the basic plot of it's predecessor, but Katniss competing with a bunch of seasoned veterans at least served as a logical means to raise the stakes. Plus... I really dug the tributes this time around, and how each of them had some unique personality trait or skill. One of my biggest complains with the previous film was how most of the tributes were basically just personality-deprived victim fodder for the games, with even less character than you're typical slasher flick line-up. Here, that's different... you have a tribute that files her teeth into sharp fangs to bite her target, there are two tech-wizards that kill people with science, there's a mute old lady who rides on the back of her younger male companion, and the list goes on. The film also scores hugely once again thanks to the efforts of it's stellar cast, namely Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence was solid in the previous flick, don't get me wrong, but she totally hit it out of the park here, delivering an even more moving and intense performance as Katniss, capturing the trauma of someone who experienced great pain but with the strength to push through whatever challenges come before her. If nothing else, between a great cast and a stellar first act, I found myself hyped to see what would happen next. Unfortunately, what would come next was not nearly as awesome as I had hoped.

If there was one thing that actually did get me kind of excited about Catching Fire, it was Francis Lawrence directing. While Lawrence is by no means a great director, he's at least shown that he has a good eye for directing stylized action scenes, as evidence by two of his previous films, the underrated Constantine and the overrated I Am Legend (not a good film, but not without it's stylish moments). Once the film actually gets to the Games... I couldn't have felt more let down. Most of the said tributes bite it off screen, and don't really get to show off their special skills/traits. Plus, it ultimately culminates into a predictable pattern consisting of an obstacle followed by a chase. The obstacles range from a poison fog, killer baboons, crazy birds, and a few others, but generally come off as uninspired. I suppose these scenes are a step up from the first, namely how this time there's not as much shaky cam and they at they least came up with obstacles slightly more creative than the poorly rendered Zuul dogs from the first. At the very least, the film ended on a pretty exciting cliffhanger that I have no doubt will get all the fans stoked for the next one. Granted, there was one big character reveal/twist that was hardly a surprise, but that's a minor gripe I suppose. Still, with all the hype and great buildup in the first half, I expected way more than what we got in the finale.

So overall, how was the movie? As I mentioned before, it's a decent film.... not great but not bad. I'm not going to say that I've become a fan of this series, but I will give it credit for at least delivering some strong moments and ambitious satire even if the writing is still flawed and the third act was the very definition of anti-climactic. Still, I'll take what I can get, and what we got here was, at the very least, watchable. I'll take that over the mediocrity of it's predecessor any day.

My Score: 3 out of 5

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

Escape From Tomorrow - Review

I've mentioned in previous reviews that I don't get as hyped about upcoming releases as often as I used to. That's not to say that there aren't films I get excited about or that my passion for the medium has diminished, it's just that in an era of 24/7 media coverage, gossip, rumors, and other behind-the-scenes production news plus a noticeable lack of originality or creativity has made it harder and harder to get hyped. Of course when the film, Escape From Tomorrow, stirred a bit of controversy at Sundance this year, it managed to pique my interest. For starters, the film had a pretty awesome concept, a surreal David Lynch-inspired horror/thriller about a man having violent and freaking hallucinations while vacationing with his family at Disney World. However, it was the manner of which it was filmed that really got me... most of it was secretly filmed guerrilla style at Disney World with neither the consent or permission from Disney... that is freaking insane! I'm not coming at this like I'm anti-Disney or anti-corporation (because I'm not either of those). I've been to both Disney World and Disneyland, and have many fond memories of those trips. It's just the fact that writer/director Randy Moore actually had the audacity to take on one of the biggest and most protective companies on the planet is a pretty incredible feat. Not to mention, the fact that a film like this got made and released is an example of some of the most creative and challenging out-of-the-box filmmaking that has been mostly absent from cinema in recent years. So yeah... this was an awesome idea and ballsy concept, but is the film itself any good?

Walt Disney World, a land built on imagination, has entertained millions of visitors since it opened in 1971... but does the so-called "Happiest Place on Earth" have a dark side? Tourist Jim White (Roy Abramsohn) is about to find out. On the last day of his Disney vacation with his wife, Emily (Elena Schuber), and two kids, Elliot and Sara (Jack Dalton and Katelynn Rodriguez), gets an unfortunate phone call from his employer telling him that his job won't be waiting for him when he returns home. To avoid ruining the trip, he keeps this news from his family. This, however, creates a strain between him and his two rambunctious kids and a wife who clearly doesn't think too fondly of him anymore. While spending the day in the park, Jim starts experiencing violent visions and hallucinations (or are they?) twisting the normally happy-go-lucky image of the park. He also starts oggling the scantily clad women that keep walking by, namely two very underage French teenagers with whom he keeps crossing paths. Things continue to go from bad to worse, and the day's events only become crazier and Jim starts to wonder if the park is as twisted as it seems or if he's just loosing his mind.

So I've mentioned that the concept is intriguing and the production was audacious, but gimmicks can only get you so far. From a completely objective viewpoint, how did the film out? Honestly, it's... pretty mediocre. It's by no means terrible, and I'm still blown away by the fact that a film like this even exists, but if I'm going to be totally honest, it is kind of a letdown. Theoretically, it all sounds pretty fantastic. The film has been compared to the works of many surreal filmmakers, namely David Lynch and his experimental classic, Eraserhead. Both featured similar themes and styles by both being shot in black and white, both dealing with themes of the horrors of parenthood and relationships, and both featuring a main character who is slowly loosing his mind. Whenever Escape From Tomorrow focuses strictly on the surreal horror and trippy visuals, it's pretty damn awesome. The black and white camerawork is a brilliant contrast to the typically hyper-colorized Disney landscapes, and works to the film's tone. Also just try to get some of the images out of your head, from the demonic transformations of the "It's a Small World" dummies or Epcot's Spaceship Earth dismantling and rolling over hundreds of people. Most of the movie was clearly set at Disney World (or Disneyland, they filmed at both locations), but some of it was filmed in a studio, in front of a green screen. Unfortunately, whenever that happened, it was painfully obvious. The screen keying could have been done much better, and some of the cgi throughout the film wasn't always on par. Considering the low budget, it's generally a pretty nice looking movie, but far from perfect.

Story-wise, the movie is a complete mixed bag. I've already mentioned how the premise kicks ass, and the way some of it comes together is kind of interesting. The way it kind of plays with Disney's perception of constant manufactured happiness and turns it on it's head is kind of clever. It has some intriguing insights into both the corporate mindset of Disney as well. I also got a kick out of the allusions to some classic Disney World urban legends. I won't spoil them, but the most memorable, in my opinion, has to be the one involving the Disney princesses (you'll know it when you see it). Unfortunately, the movie suffers from some noticeable pacing issues, even at only 90 minutes. For every interesting scene, there's another dull and lifeless one. It's hard to have any sympathy for these characters too. I'm not sure if we were supposed to relate to anyone, but when you get right down it, Jim is a neglectful father who spends most of his time checking out the nearby girls at the expense of his family. Not to mention, Jim's wife, Emily, is portrayed as cold, nagging, and bitchy... maybe justified given the quality of her husband's supposed character, but considering that none of these characters are particularly deep, interesting, or explored, they just come off as one-note and unlikable. Plus, the quality of the acting leaves A LOT to be desired. It's kind of understandable that the performances wouldn't be totally up to par considering the drastic way in which the movie was filmed, but even in the non-Disney world scenes, the actors are painfully flat. This ends up being Escape From Tomorrow's Achilles's heel, as the sub-par acting really takes you out of the movie and comes dangerously close to ruining it entirely. Basically, it's a film with some really clever ideas but only occasional success with it's execution.

I was initially curious as to why Disney decided to leave this one alone rather than pursue legal action, but now after seeing it, I can see why. The truth is, leaving it alone was the best way to go. Stirring up publicity for a pretty mediocre film (neither really good or really bad) would just draw more attention to the flick instead of letting it fade into obscurity. There's a possibility this one might survive as an underground cult classic, but even that seems like a stretch at this point. It's a creative idea and ballsy production that ultimately culminates into a very so-so final result. I'm kind of tempted to give it a recommendation just to support the low budget filmmaker and his clever methods, but I can't quite do that. If the idea sounds up your alley, maybe you can check it out on VOD (or theaters if it's playing in your area)... and you might appreciate it more than I did. For everyone else... it's a skip.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

Kick Ass 2 - Review

I have to admit, I find it a bit surprising that someone decided to make a sequel to the 2010 comic book film, Kick Ass. While the film made made money at the box office, received mostly positive reviews from critics, and generally struck a chord with it's target audience... it's obscene violence, unique ideas, and mostly stand-alone story seemed more like it would be seen as a cult classic or midnight movie instead of a franchise starter with mainstream appeal. Well... if there's a potential profit to be made, I guess anything is possible. When I reviewed the original film back in 2010, I gave it 3.5 stars out of 5. Looking back, I think I might have been a little tough on it. While I still don't think it's a perfect film, the enjoyable cast, gleefully immature tone, great action and obscenely over-the-top violence made Kick Ass one hell of a, well, "kick ass" movie. A four out of five would have been a more appropriate score. Don't know why I was so critical for that one, since those are usually the kinds of films I tend to be too lenient toward (maybe I was trying to avoid that). But whatever, what's done is done, and repeat viewings have made me appreciate the original more than I did before. So... with all that said, here's Kick Ass 2...

Kick Ass 2 picks up 3 years after it's predecessor. High School senior Dave Lizewski aka Kick Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) has mostly retired from his superhero days and instead focused on his everyday life. Despite this, his previous stint as Kick Ass has inspired dozens of everyday citizens to take up their own superhero mantles and clean up the streets. Because of this, Dave puts back on his Kick Ass costume and allies with a local group of costumed heroes led by Colonel Stars and Stripes (Jim Carrey), all of whom have dedicated their lives to fighting crime and making the city a better place. Meanwhile, Mindy Macready aka Hit Girl (Chloë Grace Moretz), has struggled to adjust to a normal life after the death of her father, Big Daddy. She reluctantly retires her costume in an effort to become a normal teenager, but struggles to deal with the hardships of teen life. Things suddenly get more serious for both Kick Ass and Hit Girl when Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) takes on the mantra of a new super-villain known as "The Motherfucker" and assembles a team of costumed villains to avenge the death of his father (whom Kick Ass killed in the previous film). Now with a team of psychotic villains wrecking havoc on the city, Kick Ass and Hit Girl assemble all the costumed crime fighters they can find in order to put an end to the Motherfucker's reign of terror.

Kick Ass 2 is an interesting case... while watching it, I can honestly say that I was having a good time. That said, the more I think about it, the more I think about it's many flaws. Does that make it a good or a bad movie though? Honestly, I'm not totally sure right now. On one hand, despite the change in directors, it still manages to retain the same style of colorful costumes, gleefully over-the-top violence, and juvenile humor. That said, if you weren't a fan of the original or what I just mentioned, this one probably won't covert you. Plus, the cast is still game, with Chloe Grace Moretz once again stealing the show and adding another strong performance to her small but very impressive filmography. The lack of Nicolas Cage's Big Daddy is an unfortunate absence, but fortunately Jim Carrey's Colonel Stars and Stripes manages to pick up a bit of the slack with some of the movie's funniest scenes. There's also a number of new heroes and villains, most of whom have a neat gimmick and colorful costume, adding to the film's fun factor. One of the standout villains is Mother Russia (played by female bodybuilder Olga Kurkulina), an ex-KGB agent and ex-con, who serves as the Motherfucker's most physically formidable team member. Kurkulina is great the role as a naturally intimidating presence and formidable fighter. She also runs off with what is easily the film's most memorable and exciting action sequence. There's a lot in Kick Ass 2 that works, and if nothing else, the film usually works as a straight-forward action flick.

Unfortunately, with the good comes the bad, and there's plenty to nitpick here. While I will give the film credit for not being a simple retelling of it's predecessor, it does still tread some familiar turf. A couple scenes from this film feel like basic re-stagings of scenes from the previous film, namely one where Dave sets himself up to be attacked by a bunch of thugs and needs to be rescued by Hit Girl again. Only this time, it's not nearly as surprising, shocking, or memorable. There were also a couple of scenes where Dave argues with his father, in what was clearly intended to be a major dramatic point for the film and Dave's character. Unfortunately, they never set up that dynamic very well and those scenes come off as more flat, rushed, and oddly cold-hearted. Moretz's story-line, however, fares a bit better as Mindy attempts to retire her costumed persona and struggles to adjust to a life as a normal teenage girl. Some of her sub-plot's elements come off as more than a bit cliche'd but Moretz is a good enough actress to make them work, plus it does lead to what is easily the film's most effective bits of drama (and a few laughs too). The movie all works toward the expected giant good vs evil final battle, and while generally effective is quite predictable and hardly anything unique. It's definitely a far cry from the first film, which was one crazy twist and insane antic after the other, that it kept you on the edge of your seat wanting to know what would happen next. This one, it's pretty straightforward... not inherently a bad thing, but nothing special either.

If this review feels like it is among my shorter write-ups, it's because there's not much more to say about it. If you enjoyed the first film, I'm reasonably certain you'll find something to enjoy in this one, but it probably won't have the same effect as it's predecessor. I was thinking whether I should give the movie 2.5 or 3 stars, and since I went a little to hard on the first Kick Ass, I'm going to give this one the benefit of the doubt and give it 3 stars. A little generous... maybe, but I can't say that I didn't get some legitimate enjoyment out of the flick. If it sounds good to you, check it out.