A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010) - Review

Unlike some people, I don't immediately dismiss remakes. Sure, the lack of originality in Hollywood is kind of lame, but I'm all for seeing a talented filmmaker bringing his or her unique vision to a previous work... if they do it right. I thought A Nightmare On Elm Street was a good candidate for a remake. The original is one of my favorite horror movies of all time, and the series is overall quite entertaining. The movies has their various ups and downs. Probably the most hated move was turning its classic villain, Freddy Krueger into more of a comic killer as opposed to a scary dream demon. So it did kind of run its course. Still, a fresh look at the series that would take it to darker and less comedic territory seemed promising. Finally the movie was released... and the disappointment began.

One big red flag I should have caught was that the movie was made by Platinum Dunes. This is Michael Bay's production company (huge red flag there) that is mainly dedicated to remaking horror movies. Their previous releases include mediocre horror remakes of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th, The Hitcher, and The Amityville Horror. Even though Bay didn't direct this piece of garbage, you can generally bet that anything that comes from his company will turn out poorly.

The storyline mainly follows the same suit as the previous entries. A grossly-scarred bogeyman named Freddy Krueger is haunting the dreams of teenagers in the town of Springwood, OH. In their dreams, he taunts and attacks them while wearing a glove with four knives on the fingertips... and if he kills you in your dreams, you die in real life. This has been the general premise for the last eight movies and it hasn't changed much here, except for a couple minor differences.

In the original series, Freddy was a notorious child killer who is burned alive by the parents of his victims. In this version, Freddy isn't a child killer, but a purported child molester. Like before, he's burned alive by the town's parents, but after being killed, the townsfolk come upon some evidence to suggest he might have been innocent. That could actually sound interesting if they didn't totally cop out on the ending. I won't spoil it, but lets just say its totally predictable. Their first chance to breathe some originality into this new series... and its a no go.

Like I said, I was all for reinventing the series... or at least taking it back to its darker roots. Unfortunately, the film ultimately sucks out any enjoyment by forgetting exactly what made the previous films so endearing... creativity. The original was such an innovative film, including an original concept, great set pieces, and a scary villain. While the following sequels ranged from fun to not-so-good, they were all entertaining on some level, even if only a little. The remake is either too generic, uninspired, and worst of all... BORING!!! Believe me, that's probably the biggest insult you can ever give to a film. Even the worst of the Elm Street series had creative kills and dream sequences, but not this one. I didn't think it would be possible to make a boring Nightmare on Elm Street movie... looks like I was wrong.

Director Samuel Bayer is an accomplished music video director, with his most notable work being the video for Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit." Unfortunately, his first feature film just didn't cut it. While some of the camerawork is admittedly good and every so often he'll show some visual flair. Bayer comes off too uncomfortable to try anything new or different. Most of the movie's most notable kills or dream scenes are shamelessly ripped off from the original. Anything new or different is either bland or generic. Most of Freddy's kills involve him just stabbing someone in the gut. Rule of thumb for a nightmare scene... ANYTHING can happen. Seriously, there is absolutely no limit to anything in a dream. Like I said, every other film in the series delivered on some creative nightmare scenes. These ones are just boring and dull.

The only thing that might be worse than the weak nightmares is the casting... with one notable exception. In spite of all the bad things I've said or will say about this movie, they did find a great actor to be the new Freddy Krueger. Jackie Earle Haley (Rorschach in Watchmen), is enjoying one of Hollywood's most notable actor comebacks of the 21st century. This being the first Elm Street movie to feature a new actor to portray Freddy, Haley really does a bang up job. His voice, intensity, and overall skill is what keeps the movie from being a total dud. Unfortunately, he's given practically nothing to do on such a meager script. I knew they were going to downplay the one liners and humor (which is a good thing). Unfortunately, Freddy has hardly any personality this time around. Even before he became a cackling comedian, he still had a very dark sense of humor, whether he would cut his own fingers off or try to kiss one of his victims over the phone. He was creepy and scary, and had that personality to differentiate himself from the other silent-brute slasher villains like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees. Again, Haley is great but he's just given nothing to do. What a waste!

The rest of the cast is just lame. I know I keep saying "boring", but that's the best way to describe these actors. Were they given any direction at all? Or did Bayer just keep telling them, "What ever you do, make sure you don't emote! Seriously, never show any emotion!" Not to keep comparing this to the other movies, but the characters in the previous flicks were generally fun and diverse. Even if the acting was bad or they weren't well written, they were at least engaging on some level. This crew was so bland, I was practically falling asleep.

Overall, the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street is a total bust. Despite any bias I have for the others in the series, its still just a very weak horror movie. Aside from Jackie Earle Haley, there's practically nothing innovative, creative, or clever about it. Just go watch the original instead... its basically the same movie only done much much much better.

My Score: 1 Out of 5!

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - Review

Writing a review for any Harry Potter film, let alone one as monumentally hyped as this one, is about as pointless as it gets. 7 films, 10 years, a legion of fans of both the books and the movies as well as a handful of haters aren't going to be swayed one way or another by a review written by an independent film critic like myself. Honestly, you know whether you're going to see this movie, and if you have even a remote interest in the Harry Potter series, you've probably seen it already... maybe even more than once. Still, I feel compelled to write this review for one reason, to express exactly how AWESOME this movie is.

I've always been interested in Harry Potter, but never a fanboy. They're decent books turned into good movies, but to be honest, they've never really risen above a level much greater than fun. Don't get me wrong, the movies have all been solid. Good actors, fun storylines, quirky characters, great special effects, and commendable filmmaking have all been staples of the series. They've ranged from awesome (Prisoner of Azkaban) to mediocre (Goblet of Fire), but now have hit their stride with Deathly Hallows. I can't really call this one the best quite yet, since the story is only half finished, but director David Yates has started Part I off with a bang.

The characters have matured along with the mood, atmosphere, and themes.. Harry, Ron, and Hermione are now young adults, Dumbledoor is dead, and Voldemort has his sights set on killing Harry and creating a world ruled and controlled by wizards/witches. Aside from The Neverending Story, I can't think of a kids fantasy movie as utterly dark, gloomy, and melancholy as Deathly Hallows. Now, the trio seeks out to destroy the source of Voldemort's power as well as a mythical sword that will defeat him once and for all. The stakes are high and the threat is real, and the clock is ticking until it all comes down.

Okay, the storyline on its own is somewhat generic. Its a fairly standard fantasy adventure that, in some ways, resembles a video game plot. It does, however, have the advantage of a good array of characters, plus six movies worth of development. Little exposition is provided for Deathly Hallows, as the previous six movies have provided all the neccessary plot points and details to set this story in motion. You know who the good guys are, who the bad guys are, the situation, and what is at stake.

Deathy Hallows manages to solve a previous problem that has plagued the stories of the previous HP flicks. Most, if not all, generally carry out the plot in the first 30 minutes or so and wrap it up in the final 30 minutes, with what is largely filler in the middle of the movie. Whether it be scenes set in a classroom, a quittich match, or coverage of a tacked on sub-plot, did leave the storylines feeling somewhat imperfect. A lot of that filler was typically pretty fun, but I can't help but shake the feeling that the stories could have been better had most of the middle act helped develop the plot.

One of the reasons Prisoner of Azkaban was my favorite in the series was because the story felt more complete. The classroom scenes, supporting characters, and suplots all contributed to the central story. Plus it had the best character development in the series. Deathly Hallows continues in the same vain as POA, by primarily focusing only on the three central characters. Seriously, a majority of this movie exclusively features Harry, Ron, and Hermione. The supporting characters are barely on screen this time around, the settings are mostly new, even Hogwartz isn't shown. It develops the characters and has a story working toward something... in this case an ending.

The actors have really outdone themselves this time around. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) have grown into their characters over the last 10 years, and this time delve into deeper and more dramatic territory. Whether the three are turning on each other, facing the seriousness of the situation, or being attacked by one of the villains, they all deliver. Each of the three embodies their respective character flawlessly, without falling into melodramatic territory but rather providing realistic and believable deliveries. The supporting cast was so seldom feature in this one, that it is kind of difficult to critique them. The cast from the previous movies is all mostly present and they continue to do the solid job they started with in the previous six movies.

The look of this movie is arguably the best yet. There are a few returning locales, but for the most part, Deathly Hallows breaks from the previously established places into some new settings. There's some fantastic cinematography, featuring some some somber Bergman-esque shots and a somber color scheme. The action plays a smaller role this time around aside from a couple of exciting sequences in the beginning and the end. I imagine they're saving most of the epic sequences for the final part. This one is taking its time, providing more of a character-driven piece. Some might say that's a bad thing, but personally I enjoyed it. The action that did make it into this one was up to the standard set by the previous movies... complete with great special effects. In short, its a great looking movie.

There's not a whole lot I didn't like about Deathly Hallows Part I. Obviously the story isn't complete, so it ends on a huge cliffhanger. There's still plenty more to see, and the movie as a whole can't be properly critiqued until we know how well Part II turns out. This is easily the darkest and most intense entry in the series. The stakes are higher, the villains are scarier, and characters are hurt, tortured, and a some are even killed. Some might be turned off by such a grim tone, but for me, I enjoyed it.

Probably the worst thing about this movie is the fact that the series is almost over. Its a bittersweet feeling for sure, but all good things must come to an end. It is, however, nice knowing that if the second is part is even half as good as this, this will be a finale to remember.

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!!!

Easy A - Review

When the iconic writer/director John Hughes died, he left behind a legacy of phenomenal teen comedies from the 80s. Most of them have since become classics, and are loved by both teens and adults to this day. Throughout the 90s and 2000s, a slew of teen comedies came and went, and while some were quite good (Clueless, 10 Things I Hate About You, plus a few more), most lacked the charm that made movies like Ferris Bueller's Day Off or The Breakfast Club so endearing. Now, up-and-coming actress Emma Stone brings her comedic chops to Easy A, a teen comedy written by Bert V. Royal and directed by Will Gluck. Is it a new classic or just another forgettable teen flick?

Easy A takes inspiration from The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne. It centers around Olive Penderghast, a clean cut high school student invisible to most of the student body. After Olive's particularly nosy classmate, Marianne, overhears (and misinterprets) a conversation between Olive and her friend Rhiannon, Marianne starts a rumor that Olive lost her virginity to a college student. Soon, the rumor spreads like wildfire, with numerous variations on the story. Soon Olive receives the reputation as the school's most promiscuous student and Olive suddenly becomes the most talked about girl in her school.

Right up front, Emma Stone is a very talented actress. With supporting roles in movies such as the enjoyable Superbad and the awesome Zombieland, Stone has already established herself as one of the industries most talented up-and-coming stars. With Easy A being her first lead role in a feature film, she is well on her way to becoming a highly successful actress. I really do hope Stone becomes a success but I'm crossing my fingers that she doesn't pull a Lindsay Lohan and become a teen star-trainwreck. She's a legitimately skilled actress who carries this movie basically on her own. Don't get me wrong, there's others to enjoy, but Stone is easily the best thing to come out of it.

The supporting cast is a lot of fun, even if most of them don't get used to their full extent. Seriously, with a quirky cast consisting of Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Stanley Tucci, Patricia Clarkson, and Malcolm McDowell, its not unreasonable to expect some seriously hilarious scenes. On one hand, whenever one of the aforementioned cast members is on screen, they're pretty damn funny, but their scenes are typically too short. Thomas Haden Church gets some good laughs in as Olive's eccentric English teacher. Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci portray Olive's bizarre and usually supportive parents. The two have decent chemistry together and have some pretty scenes. Malcolm McDowell as Principal Gibbons is probably the funniest out of the supporting cast, and wouldn't you know it, he has less screen time than anyone. Seriously, this is Alex from A Clockwork Orange, one of the most enjoyable actors in the industry, and Easy A totally blows the opportunity. There should be a rule, whenever you have Malcolm McDowell acting in a movie, make sure you give him a memorable part.

The the teenage cast is kind of a mixed bag. The only one featured prominently is Amanda Bynes as Mariann, a judgmental religious-freak who leads a campaign of other devout Christians against Olive. I'll get to my thoughts regarding Easy A's portrayal of religion in a bit, but strictly based on Bynes' performance... she's just okay. The girl is trying, I don't doubt that for a second, and she does have some enjoyable scenes. Still, I can't help but get this notion out of my head that she's still stuck doing the same shtick from her days on Nickelodeon, and hasn't really grown as an actress. Its kind of unfortunate, since she is definitely talented.

The storyline is clever and usually enjoyable, but all too often it feels like a by-the-numbers teen movie. Its like the screenwriter, Bert V. Royal, had a generic checklist for "How to write a teen comedy." Step 1, base it off a piece of classic literature. Step 2, include references to John Hughes movies. Step 3, include quirky and fun supporting characters but don't let them overshadow the main character. Step 4... ah you get the point. I only mention this because I felt like Easy A had potential to be a truly memorable teen comedy had Royal added a little more flair to his script. Instead it comes off as a formulaic teen comedy albeit with a clever concept overshadowed by previous (and better) teen comedies.

There's one more thing I have to address. The closest thing Easy A has to a true antagonist is Amanda Bynes' hyper-religious character, Mariann. I know in The Scarlett Letter, the main character was chastised by religious fundamentalists, hence where Easy A's inspiration derives. Still, Hollywood's portrayal of Christianity has typically been flawed, and Easy A is no exception. Listen, I'm not dumb, nor do I deny that hypocrisy is prevalent among religious institutions. Its just when I see Christian characters reduced to a stereotypical persona of predictable, judgmental, and shallow figures, it makes me wonder why. I wasn't offended by anything I saw in Easy A, nor does it lower my opinion of the movie, its just one more thing to comes off to me as another missed opportunity for this flick.

Overall, despite its flaws, Easy A is an enjoyable flick. I meant to post this review earlier, as its probably not in theatres anymore. If it is still playing in your area, check it out. Otherwise, it'll make a good rental when it comes out on DVD.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

Paranormal Activity 2 - Review

Nothing like a fun scary flick to get you in the mood for the Halloween season. I really enjoyed the first Paranormal Activity. It was gimmicky yes, but it had a suspenseful concept, chilling performances, some great jumps and scares, and is one of the few films to use the "found-footage" concept well. It was the surprise hit of the season, striking a chord with audiences and critics, therefore making a sequel inevitable (A horror sequel??? wow... how original)

Most of Paranormal Activity 2 takes place before the events of the first movie. While the first followed the hauntings of a young dating couple, Micah and Katie, PA2 centers around the family of Katie's sister. The family includes Katie's sister Kristi, her husband Dan, their teenage daughter Ali, and their newborn son Hunter. After a mysterious break-in that left their home trashed, the family installs some security cameras throughout the house. Once the cameras go in, unexplained and seemingly paranormal activity (hey that's the name of the movie) begins to happen with a strange entity pursuing the innocent family.

I could make this the easiest review ever by summing it up like this... Did you like the first one? If you did, then you'll probably enjoy this one too. If not, then I doubt this one will fair any better. And there is where Paranormal Activity 2's biggest fault lies... its more of the same. Aside from having a moderately bigger budget and more camera's at its disposal, there are no major differences. Then again, I suppose if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The story may not be any special and a number of plot holes are pretty distracting but it certainly works in most of the same ways the first one did as well, and it some ways does it a little better.

If there's one thing PA2 does as well as the first, its in building suspense. It does follow a certain pattern and it takes a little while for anything interesting to start happening, but once things get moving, its a fun ride. About halfway through, things really start getting weird, making it easy to forgive the so-so opening. Also like the first, it boasts an eerily effective sound design, utilizing creative sound effects to amazingly creepy and suspenseful results. The visuals and "ghostly effects" are once again used in a minimalistic manner, using little to no cgi but upping the ante from the first. Its definitely best watched in a full theatre, so everyone in the audience will collectively scream at the numerous jump moments. You never know whats around the corner and what's coming next... and that's what makes these movies so fun.

The new characters work well for the most part. The teenage Ali was a welcome addition as an intelligent young individual whose performance was believable and convincing. The mother, Kristi, was somewhat hit and miss. She was the most frequent victim of the entity, and you do have a bit of a connection to her, even if she's not always the smartest. Her husband, Dan, is easily the most unlikeable character in this movie. At first, I didn't have much against the guy, but his actions in the 3rd act are so incredibly stupid, that I couldn't stand him anymore. I won't spoil anything, but when you see the movie, you'll know what I mean. Maybe that was an intentional choice by the filmmakers, but it didn't work for me.

Overall, director Tod Williams gives us a surprisingly enjoyable and suspenseful followup. Its not as good as the first, is quite gimmicky, and it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining without a theatre full of rowdy people. But if you're looking for a fun scary flick to watch with a group of friends this Halloween, this is definitely a good choice.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!


Happy Halloween Everyone!!!

Red - Review

Seriously??? Its another team-up action movie trying to recapture the campy fun thrills of 80s action! Well, I guess they don't really bother me that much, I just think its kind of funny how 2010 has been the year of action teams, from The Losers, The A-Team, The Expendables, and now Red.

This action/comedy is very loosely based on a DC Comic about a group of former government agents who are forced out of retirement to complete a new mission. Leading the team is retired Black Ops CIA agent Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), living a quiet and lonely life. His only real enjoyment comes from his friendship with Sarah Ross, a young customer service representative from the pension office who craves adventure. After Moses is attacked by a hit squad, he and Sarah take off to get his old Black Ops back together and find out who is behind the attack. He is then joined by aging ladies man Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), the mentally unstable Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), Russian agent Ivan Simanov (Brian Cox), and bad-ass M16 agent Victoria (Helen Mirren).

That cast is enough to catch anyone's attention. Unlike The Expendables, which consisted of veteran action stars, Red features a cast of versatile and mostly Oscar-nominated actors (though Bruce Willis is, of course, the film's main action star). With such seasoned acting veterans, you would expect nothing short of greatness, and for the most part that's true. Bruce Willis has been doing his shtick for almost 30 years now, and it's still really entertaining. Morgan Freeman is great as always too, pulling off the suave old man routine like one would expect. John Malkovich was great as well, doing the insane H.M. Murdock-type role, and looking like he was having a blast while doing it. The show stealer has to been Helen Mirren! Its not often that you see Oscar winning dames using a minigun in a comic book action movie... I think she probably had more fun than anyone. You also get good performances from Brian Cox as a Russian spy, Karl Urban as the CIA agent pursuing the team, and a decent cameo from Richard Dreyfus.

The action scenes are more or less what would expect, but there were a few stand out moments. I already mentioned Helen Mirren's chain gun scene, so I won't talk any more about that. There's also a memorable moment in a shootout with John Malkovich involving a pistol and a rocket launcher, but I won't say any more than. The action is entertaining, the cinematography is very well done, and the editing is quite slick. Not a whole lot to complain about on the action front... it should satisfy.

Of course, with the good does come the bad. As I mentioned, most of the cast pretty much rocks, but Sarah, the only younger member of the team, played by Mary Louise-Parker is easily the weakest actor in the movie. Her performance is awkward, predictable, and painfully unfunny. On top of that, her character contributed so little to the story, that you could have easily taken her out and the main plot would have suffered no loss whatsoever. I guess they felt the need to add in the obligatory action movie love interest... bummer.

The rest of the story is a bit of a mixed bag. The concept is clever and most of Red is able to stay interesting. Some of the jokes are pretty funny and the characters all contribute some good humor to the action-filled plot. Its hard not to love these characters, and you can see why actors of such caliber chose to take these parts. However, aside from a few moments for Karl Urban's CIA agent questioning where his loyalties should like, there's hardly any character development. The plot itself takes way too many predictable turns and a few holes prevent the story from being something truly special. Its not a horrible script, but without the great cast adding their own flair, I would have probably forgotten about it by now.

Overall, a (mostly) good cast and some fun action scenes make Red worth a watch. Its at least worth a matinee price... go check it out.

My Score: 3 out of 5!

The Social Network - Review

You know how you know that a director is talented? Its when he or she can take a movie that consists mainly of a bunch of people doing nothing but talking and typing, yet still making it entertaining. Granted the quality of the dialogue plays a huge role too, but its the director who has to bring it all together. Of course its not like David Fincher had to prove himself for The Social Network. With a resume of quality flicks including Fight Club, Se7en, Zodiac, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fincher has certainly made a name for himself (so much so that one can easily overlook Alien 3). So with Fincher tackling a movie about the creation of one of the biggest pop culture icons of all time, how does it turn out?

The movie is based on the true story of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, played by Jesse Eisenberg, who would go on to become the world's youngest billionaire. The story starts in 2004, when Zuckerberg was a student at Harvard. Along with his good friend Eduardo Severin (Andrew Garfield) and a few others, Zuckerberg begins development of a Harvard-exclusive social networking site known as TheFacebook. The sites becomes a hit and prompts the team to expand the site to other schools. As the site continues to develop, the team begins to face a number of problems including strained friendships, unstable business partners, and numerous lawsuits.

First off, The Social Network boasts one of the most entertaining scripts of 2010. That's quite a compliment when you consider that the movie is mainly comprised of a bunch of nerds talking to each other and writing computer code. When that said formula consists of interesting and dynamic characters, a flashback story-arc, and some of the best dialogue I've heard in a movie, its easy to see why The Social Network is so entertaining. The way in which the story develops can be a bit predictable at times and there are no huge plot twists, but there were enough surprises along the way to hold my attention. It is an interesting story that happens to be based on fact. With a true story this intriguing, its easy to see why such a seemingly thin premise works so well. Its not so much a movie about Facebook, or even its founder, but rather a character study of greed, power, and betrayal among passionate and intelligent individuals.

Jesse Eisenberg leads in a pool of very talented actors. I was first introduced to Eisenberg in 2009's surprisingly excellent Zombieland. Here, he once again shows some serious acting chops as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, bringing what will likely become his trademark eccentricity. He can be hard to read sometimes, but that works to his advantage. Zuckerberg is reported to be a gifted computer whiz and a very peculiar person, something Eisenberg has down to a tee. Andrew Garfield also delivers an excellent performance as Facebook co-founder and Zuckerberg's best friend, Eduardo Severin. He shows some talent as well, which is good to know considering that in two years we'll be seeing him don the red tights of Spider-Man in the 2012 reboot of the series.

The rest of the actors brings their own charms to an enjoyable and entertaining cast, but there's one more actor I need to address. Justin Timberlake... he really surprised me. I remember watching Black Snake Moan a few years back expecting him to be a terrible actor, but I was wrong. Now, with his role as Napster founder, Sean Parker, he's really shown that he has some extremely impressive acting abilities. His charisma, delivery, and overall demeanor made him the perfect choice for the role. Timberlake is a damn-good actor, I would have never guessed that a few years back.

A great script and great talent just isn't enough for a movie like this. The Social Network also boasts some of the most impressive camerawork and editing I've seen in quite some time. In order to make a movie that is essentially nerds writing code, some stellar technical work is crucial. The editing is quick, every shot is perfectly placed, and the great musical score only adds to the enjoyment. It kind of reminded me of the the 90s techno thriller movie Hackers, only not as over-the-top, colorful, forced or silly (despite the fact that Hackers is one of my all time guilty pleasures).

Unfortunately, the movie isn't perfect. As I said, the script is great, but the ending comes off as a bit abrupt. It only barely wraps up the few story without providing all the necessary closure. Not to mention it came off quite over-dramatic, which is a huge red flag that the movie wasn't 100% truthful. A few parts could have been explained a bit better too. For instance, they barely mention exactly how Facebook differed from other social networking sites. Yes, it was the first one made specifically for schools (or rather just Harvard at the beginning) but in a time where Friendster and Myspace were huge, they never really explained why Facebook was so revolutionary.

Most of the complaints I have about The Social Network are very minor. This is easily one of the most entertaining, intelligent, and dynamic movies of the year. If you're on the fence about seeing this, I seriously recommend checking it out. Its definitely worth the price of a movie ticket, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see this one get some Oscar nominations.

I give The Social Network 4.5 out of 5!

Devil - Review

One of the biggest mysteries in all of Hollywood has to be how such a talented and (seemingly) versatile filmmaker such as M. Night Shyamalan can go from one of the industry's most revered directors to the butt of numerous jokes. He's kind of like to directors what Ben Affleck is to actors, an individual who has shown some great talent on more than one occasion, but a line of stinkers say otherwise (Although Ben Affleck is starting to show some serious skill behind the camera). So now, with M. Night's popularity at an all time low, it seems quite odd that his new film, Devil, is marketed as "From the Mind of M. Night Shyamalan," especially since M. Night didn't even write or direct, but rather produced and came up with the story. So all the hate and jokes aside, does Devil deliver the goods?

Taking influence from Alfred Hitchcock thrillers such Rear Window or Lifeboat, most of Devil takes place in one location, in this case an elevator. 5 strangers enter the elevator when it suddenly comes to an abrupt stop. Maintenance staff struggles to get the doors open, but nothing they do has any effect. Soon, it becomes apparent that one of those people is not who they seem, and that the evil deeds taking place in the elevator may be supernatural.

Well... that plot either sounds interesting or really really stupid. A lot of the times, keeping a story simple is generally the best way to go, especially since Shyamalan's last few big-budget outings have been so lame. Also, the plot sounds less like a Hitchcockian thriller and more like a glorified episode of the Twilight Zone, again not necessarily a bad thing. I personally love The Twilight Zone, it was a show that was way ahead of its time, and the creativity that was employed in its storylines is, in my opinion, something that has been by-in-large lost in modern TV and cinema.

So... what is the problem with the storyline? The problem is how it is executed. The film's so-called "level headed character" is a religious security guard (Jacob Vargas), providing all the exposition in both dialogue and narration. He explains EVERYTHING!!! He feels the need to remind the audience every two seconds that the Devil is afoot, that bad things are about to happen, or give us the details of every single little development. You know why The Twilight Zone usually worked, because it didn't treat the audience like idiots. It showed without telling, kept some plot elements ambiguous, and let the scene speak for itself, rather than uninspired characters.

Granted, Devil had its moments. There were a few points that did keep me on the edge of my seat, it had a few decent scares, and even I will admit there were a couple parts that I didn't entirely see coming. Of course, by the time you realize that bad things only happen when the lights go out and the whodunnit mystery becomes apparent just a tad too soon, it leaves one a bit disappointed. The runtime, however, is quite short, only about 75 minutes. This works to its advantage, as it did not try to stretch out its fairly thin premise any longer than it needed to be.

One really good thing about Devil was the cinematography. The opening credits feature some good city shots from an upside down perspective, creating a unsettling feeling that sets the mood for the film. Once we get into the elevator, we get some nice close ups that help set the claustrophobic tone. Some decent editing and mostly passable performances do give Devil a slight edge.

I went into Devil expecting the movie to suck, but its actually not horrible. Its not very good either, but I didn't feel too ripped off after it ended. You can't put too much blame on M. Night for this one, since his involvement was limited. The movie was directed by John Erick Dowdle and written by Brian Nelson, so they're to blame too. Its just that the whole movie screams Shyamalan, from its Hitchcock rip offs, Shyamalan-esque plot twists, and messages of fate, destiny, and how everything happen for a reason... blah blah blah. The technical filmmaking is decent, but the writing is seriously lacking. Devil is probably worth a rental, but you can probably skip it in theatres.

I give Devil 2.5 out 5!