Tag Archives: review

Uncategorized

My review of “The Walking Dead” Season 3 premiere.

Leave a comment

I am blogging some old reviews from Facebook; this was my take on the premiere of “The Walking Dead’s” third season.  Here’s where I finally diss on Season 2.  (Or … is “throwing shade” the modern parlance?  I keep hearing that expression and don’t know what it means.)

**********

“The Walking Dead” returned to form tonight with a third season premiere that resurrected the magic of the first season, and even added more. I’d give this a 10 out of 10, and I was a guy who complained about Season 2. It’s better than ever.

With this opening episode, all the second season’s problems seemed to disappear. Our friends ARE OFF THE DAMNED FARM, and on the run, in a fast-paced horror story instead of a weird postapocalyptic milieu-type drama starring Old MacDonald, Good Cop and Bad Cop. There’s action, tension, scares, mood, setting, atmosphere and decent characters – not another episode of “The Waltons,” in which zombies occasionally visited.

Every major character is imperiled and has to fight. Even young Carl wields a gun and racks up a few kills. And it’s a smart script, with just enough expository dialogue to explain what they’re trying to do.

Seriously, for a horror fan, there’s damned good fun here. The makeup and special effects are f***ing incredible. (Greg Nicotero is a genius.) There’s also a few very nice creepy touches connected with the setting – including one group of zombies that are a little harder to kill. (I’m not sure if the writers knew this, but that device was also used by Dave Wellington in his “Monster Island” zombie novel.) And there are a couple of nice touches lifted straight out of the comic.

Rick used to be a boring boy scout and generic good guy who only seemed interesting as a foil for Shane. He’s much more interesting here as a fallible, darker character. Carl, previously an annoying and redundant plot device (“Where’s Carl?”), is damned cool this time out. Michonne, maybe a more difficult character to write and play, is just perfect.

Hell, this was better than one or two of the George A. Romero movies. Seriously, nice work, AMC!

walking-dead-season-3-2013-midseason-premiere-teaser-poster-andrew-lincoln-david-morrissey-amc

Uncategorized

My review of “The Walking Dead” Season 2.

3 Comments

I am blogging my past TV reviews from Facebook; this was my (probably too kind) assessment of “The Walking Dead’s” problematic second season.  (I have since actually suggested to newcomers to the show that they skip this season entirely.)

*********

I want to love “The Walking Dead’.” I really do. It actually IS a very good show, and it brings one of my favorite horror subgenres into the mainstream. When I was in high school and college, fans of post-apocalyptic zombie horror were a relatively small group. Even if you liked horror films, most people leaned toward different kinds of movies. And the books and films that zombie fans enjoyed sort of petered out after the 1980’s. It just wasn’t a big thing.

And “The Walking Dead” has a lot going for it. (Through Netflix streaming, I was just able to catch up on the second season.) Can anyone name a show on cable television today that has more pathos? This show pushes the boundaries. I’ve often been surprised at what gets past the censors.

It’s got an expansive scope, a great basic story, and one extremely interesting character. (I don’t even need to say who it is – he started out as a supporting character and a plot device for creating tension within the group, and his popularity has soared past any other character.) This show probably also has the greatest makeup special effects of any television show I’ve ever seen. Yes, “The X-Files” occasionally gave us great monsters like “Flukeman,” but that was only for a single episode. “The Walking Dead” gives us visually terrifying adversaries every time we tune in.

But this show is also problematic. The pacing problems are enormous. Let’s look at the structure of every episode. It begins with an enjoyable pre-credit “hook” – something to reel us in. It usually ends with a bit of a cliffhanger – a brief action segment or dramatic event that’s a hell of a lot of fun. But between those two things … ugh. Sometimes the show seems like a boring soap opera that is bookended by brief zombie horror sequences. Really. What does it say about a show if you sometimes just fast-forward through all the conversations just to get to “the good parts?”

Oh well. I still like it a hell of a lot. This show always keeps me coming back, and I’m eagerly awaiting Season 3 on October 14. I’d give the second season an 8 out of 10.

013132524796b_{2d03b046-65ab-e111-8724-5296b839ed91}

Uncategorized

My review of “V/H/S” (2012).

Leave a comment

I am blogging my past movie reviews from Facebook; this was my take on “V/H/S.”  The tongue-in-cheek reference to Roger Ebert at the end was written before his passing.

**********

Finally – a horror anthology that’s worth its salt! “V/H/S” (2012) got mixed reviews from both fans and critics, but I personally loved it. I haven’t had this much fun with a collection since “Creepshow” (1982); I’d give “V/H/S” a 9 out of 10.

It definitely isn’t for everybody. This is a collection of five violent, found-footage vignettes, all shot in low-quality shaky cam that even got on my nerves, and I usually don’t mind it too much. It’s gimmicky and low-budget, with brief “urban legend” –type stories that offer little characterization or detail. The quality of the acting was also wildly uneven, and in one segment was so bad that it was distracting.

But, damn it, it worked. This was overall a hell of a lot of fun, with shorts that were raw and inventive. And all of this film’s various flaws were more than made up for by its incredible first segment, “Amateur Night,” which might be the scariest horror film of its kind that I’ve ever seen. (I don’t want to name its sub-genre because I think that even that would be a spoiler. Regrettably, though, I think the film’s advertising sort of does let the cat out of the bag.) Seriously, “V/H/S’” first segment was goddam terrifying, and ought to be ranked right up there with “The Exorcist” (1973). This makes it worth the price of a rental alone. And I think this part was so scary largely because of Hannah Fierman, a talented physical actress who is also unusual looking.

Seriously, if you’re a hardcore horror fan, you owe it to yourself to at least give this a try. Ignore Roger Ebert’s review. He was having a bad morning when he wrote it.

VHS-DVD-694x1024

Uncategorized

A very short review of “Trespass” (2011).

Leave a comment

I am blogging my past movie reviews from Facebook; this was my quick take on “Trespass.”

**********

“Trespass” (2011) isn’t a bad movie – it’s competently made. There’s good acting all around, especially from the incomparable Nicole Kidman.

It’s just too goddam sad and depressing at times (with little emotional payoff afterward) to be extremely enjoyable. The pacing also seems way off. There are several times you think the movie is over, and then more emotionally draining violence against unarmed victims ensues. That’s kinda not a good thing here. The film also suffers a little in comparison with the terrifying recent horror film, “The Strangers” (2008).

I’d give “Trespass” a 6 out of 10.

MV5BMTM4NTc0Mzk5N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNDA4NDUyNg@@._V1_SX640_SY720_

Uncategorized

Can a zombie movie be an Oscar contender? (A review of “Maggie.”)

3 Comments

I’m not even sure how to describe what I just saw.

It was a zombie movie.  It starred Arnold Schwarzenegger as a gentle, mild mannered father.  There is virtually no action.  It’s actually slow.  We see precisely three zombies, by my count, and one of those appears only in quick flashbacks.  Schwarzenegger doesn’t even raise his voice, much less raise hell.  Where I come from, that’s what we call “ALL OF THE INGREDIENTS FOR A BAD MOVIE.”

But “Maggie” (2015) was simply FANTASTIC.  It’s expertly made, and is like no other “zombie movie” I’ve ever seen before.  I’d give it a 9 out of 10.  It … actually isn’t really a horror movie, but rather a very, very dark family drama, cleverly housed inside a horror sub-genre. The movie is about terminal illness, and not monsters.

Schwarzenegger hands in a nuanced, understated but still quite touching performance.  He was perfect — I never knew he had it in him.  I KNOW he is the actor here; I recognize his face and read his name in the credits.  But I still have a hard time believing that this is the same man that starred in “The Running Man” (1987).  (Okay, cheap shot.)  Abigail Breslin was also perfect as the afflicted daughter.  And Bryce Romero was terrific in a supporting role.  They’re great young actors; Hollywood seems to be producing more of them these days.

Wait … is that kid’s last name actually “Romero?”  That’s SO meta.

The actor portraying Maggie’s primary care physician (is it Wayne Pere?) gave a great performance — he’s right on par with Schwarzenegger here.

And John Scott’s script is superb.  I love the way he crafts characters against stereotype — we have doctors who are neither omnipotent saints nor detached jerks.  The popular kids at school sweetly welcome their infected friends along on a night out, instead of ostracizing them.  An overzealous Jerk Cop character wants to round up all the infected without prejudice and quarantine them right away.  But, by the end of the movie, moral ambiguity suggests that he’s … probably right.

This movie falls just short of perfection with a few forgivable flaws:

1)  Its plot setup is ridiculous.  The government institutes quarantines for infected people, yet … politely allows people to return home for a few weeks until they are definitely dangerous?  And they then return voluntarily to quarantine after a phone call, even after it becomes well known that the quarantines are hellish places to die?  I’m … pretty sure no quarantine in history has ever worked like that.  Consider the recent Ebola outbreak, and how the quite healthy and asymptomatic Doctors Without Borders’ volunteers were sequestered immediately.  Maggie’s release to her home was quite obviously an overly convenient plot device.

2)  Whoever performed the radio voiceover in the opening scene really dropped the ball.  They needed a reshoot or a better actor.

3)  I honestly think a lot of horror fans will be disappointed with this.  Was it really necessary to include almost no action?  I personally feel that “28 Days Later” (2002) was a moving, touching, richly thematic film.  (It’s a favorite.)  Yet it still served up some racing, screaming hordes of “infected” that were goddam terrifying.  If “Maggie” had just one action set piece, it would have broader appeal.  And it would break up the movie’s slow pace.  A movie like this doesn’t have to be ABOUT exploding zombie heads, but … it wouldn’t hurt to include just one, just for fun.

4)  By the end, it is possible that the film pushes the drama just a little too far, depending on your taste.  By the time the “Mama’s garden” scene occurs toward the end, you might begin to wish the movie just reaches its conclusion.

Still, this is a great flick.  See it.  Tonight.

pdc_maggieposter1

Uncategorized

A quick review of “Total Recall” (2012)

2 Comments

I am blogging some of my past movie reviews from Facebook; this was my take on the “Total Recall” remake.

**********

“Total Recall” (2012) was a fun, slick update of the 1990 classic; I’d give it an 8 out of 10. It can’t match the magic of the original (especially with the abandonment of one particular twist near the end), but it was still fun enough. Plus, any fast-paced, CGI-heavy, sci-fi action movie with both Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale really is just pure nerd fun.

Beckinsale grows on me. She’s a great actress, especially in roles that require her to be powerful or angry, and she does physical stunt-work superbly. She deserves to carry her own franchise, and I mean something better and more mainstream than the “Underworld” films.

Anyway … I’m pretty sure I have a good answer to this movie’s central mystery (as well as that of its predecessor). This is the question of whether or not everything Quaid witnesses is real. (Is he a secret agent, or is this all a fantasy generated by “Rekall?”)

It is real, and here’s why. In both movies, the viewer witnesses events that are outside of Quaid’s experience. For example, we see the police plotting to capture him and interviewing witnesses. Quaid is nowhere near these events when they occur, and does not see or hear them; therefore they cannot be part of his virtual reality fantasy. Yet you and I see them up on the screen. So they are real, within the story, and not imagined by Quaid. To me, it all seems pretty straightforward.

All in all, this was a fun ride. I recommend it.

Total-Recall-HD-Wallpapers

Uncategorized

“It Follows.” (It’s great!!)

1 Comment

[WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS FOR “IT FOLLOWS” (2014).]

A smaller budget doesn’t hurt this great indie horror film; I’d give “It Follows” a 9 out of 10.

It’s smart, surreal, creepy and atmospheric, and it’s beautifully shot.  Maybe it has some similarities with “The Ring” series, and also the little known excellent horror film, “From Within” (2008), but it’s still darkly creative and original.

It’s damn scary too — it’s terrific what this film accomplished with what looks like minimal CGI.  For some reason, a certain shot of a rooftop really got under my skin.  So, too, did a sequence depicting friends unable to warn a major character, because they’re unable to see “It” approach.

I have always had a weird thing about dopplegangers.  Other people hate clowns; I get creeped out by shapeshifters.  I’m frightened by any monster that can masquerade as allies or loved ones.  It’s part of the reason that the Alien Bounty Hunter worked so well for me as an antagonist on “The X Files” (1993), and why the T-1000 scared me in “Terminator 2: Judgement Day” (1991).  Even Mystique, “The X-Men” franchise’s anti-hero, could be a little unsettling every once in a while.  (An attack on Wolverine BY Wolverine?  Leaving his confused teammates unable to help?  That’s a little creepy.)

There are a bunch of themes served up by “It Follows” that you could walk away discussing with your friends; online critics are quick to point out sexually transmitted disease.  (A little on the nose, don’t you think?)  They also pointed out mortality — this was something that I actually missed, despite the fact that it was helpfully hinted at by one character who periodically reads Dostoyevsky aloud.

I personally thought the film tapped into a bunch of sexual taboos and anxieties — especially incest.  Consider the conversation about one character kissing a sibling, a face we see in a framed photograph toward the end, and the way “It” attacks another major character.  I also saw victimization — as with “The Ring,” the victims of the monster here are presented  with a tremendous moral quandary about how they might save themselves or at least forestall an attack.

Is water a motif?  Much screen time is devoted to characters entering pools or the ocean; one person also begs for water during an attack.

And what about wealth?  Much seems to be suggested by characters traveling from an affluent neighborhood to a poor one.  And all those sweeping shots (and excellent long tracking shots) of the protagonists’ beautiful neighborhood really stayed with me.  I kept thinking about how much I’d like to live there.

I’d love to know more about the origin and modus operandi of “It.”  There is a sequel planned, according to Wikipedia; that’s one of its possible plots.

This is a terrific scary movie!  Watch it tonight!

it-follows-main

Uncategorized

A short review of “Insidious: Chapter 2” (2013).

1 Comment

It’s garish, it’s over the top, and it’s muddled — the kind of film that begs to be lampooned by “South Park” or “Family Guy.”  For much of its running length, it’s largely a retread of its predecessor.  Yet “Insidious: Chapter 2” (2013) still manages to be a good horror movie.  I’d give it an 8 out of 10.

It’s pretty damn scary.  Its saving graces, I think, are slick directing, a fast pace, and an effective horde of screaming, shrieking ghosties.  (White-faced Screaming Abusive Mama Ghost needs to CHILLAX.)  If a fright flick makes you jump a bunch of times (and during the daytime!), then you know it’s a decent fright flick, right?

Patrick Wilson shines.  But the talented Rose Byrne does little in this film beyond running around with a terrified expression on her face.  (It’s the screenwriter’s fault, not hers.)  You see that face she’s making in the movie poster?  That’s her performance throughout almost the whole movie.

Did anyone notice that “Specs” is Leigh Whannell, one of the initial two unfortunates in “SAW” (2004)?  (He’s also the screenwriter for both films.)

This was a good horror movie.  If you want a scare before bedtime, see it.

MV5BMTg0OTA5ODIxNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNTUzNDg4OQ@@._V1_

Uncategorized

A review of “Tomorrow When the War Began” (2012)

3 Comments

Sigh. “Tomorrow When the War Began” (2012) looked SO promising – like an Australian version of “Red Dawn” (1984). Is there any movie more badass than “Red Dawn?” Is there any nation more badass than Australia?

Instead, this was like “Red Dawn Lite.” Should we call it “Pink Dawn?” No … that sounds like Gay rights activists invading the Bible Belt. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  They’d get their First and Ninth Amendment Rights, along with the equal protection under the law that they deserve under the 14th Amendment.

Okay, I’m meandering. That’s because this film was so lackluster, it’s not even terribly fun to write about. Don’t get me wrong – this wasn’t a poorly made film. It was well written and directed, with promising young actors. It had great characters too – particularly the goofy guy who becomes a responsible leader. Parts of it were quite funny and it usually held my interest.

But this just wasn’t what I was hoping for – a visceral foreign invasion thriller. It’s obviously a tween movie – like “Red Dawn” given “The Hunger Games” treatment. Most of this film’s screen time is devoted to character development, including (of course) at least one unlikely teen romance. The nameless invaders seem to get less screen time (or attention from the characters) than a fun overnight camping trip that the teen heroes undertake.

Seriously. More script and plotting are devoted to their camping trip than to the armies invading their country. The (presumably North Korean) invaders must be the shyest opposing force ever – for much of the movie, we hardly see them. Are they embarrassed because their helmets make them look like those guys who fire the Death Star superweapon?

I’d give this movie a 6 out of 10.

p8605167_p_v7_aa

Uncategorized

Avengers Assemble … Again!!! (SPOILERS!)

3 Comments

[WARNING: THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR “THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON.”]  Fun, fun, fun!  Earth’s Mightiest Heroes roar back onto the screen with nearly all of the action, humor and spectacle of the wonderful original — I would give “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015) a 9 out of 10.

It’s got everything that you could ask for in a superhero movie, including another great villain in the form of James Spader’s “Ultron,” beautifully animated by CGI.  A surprise standout was Elizabeth Olsen as the Scarlet Witch.  She’s a great young actress whose work I really liked in 2011’s terribly under-appreciated horror-thriller, “Silent House.”  She’s got perfect line delivery.  I’d love to see future Avengers films include her in the lineup, so that she can trade quips with Tony Stark.

There’s some great writing — the backstory for the twins was suitably dark, and was a perfect motive for a hatred of Stark.  The banter might not be as funny as the first film, but was still quite good.  And there’s some nice thematic continuity with Marvel’s planned “Civil War” storyline.

The movie falls short of perfection with the occasional misstep.  For example, the flashbacks/hallucinations that various characters suffer were clumsy, overdone, and sometimes befuddling.  Compare them with similar scenes in movies like “12 Monkeys” (1995) or “Donnie Darko” (2001), or well made television shows like “LOST.”  Captain America’s worst fear is some lame “The war is over” existential bullshit?  No.  Cap is supposed to be the personification of freedom and democracy — his worst nightmare would be a totalitarian state.  Or an undead Bucky.  Or better yet, being a man out of time, it would be the loss of his friends, his family and his true love.

A key conversation between two key characters at the end about mankind’s future is just a little too depressing for an Avengers movie.  Also a little sad?  The suggestion that the team’s lineup would change.  Our existing roster is terrific — the fan’s love ’em and I believe all the actors are under contract.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

Postscript: this movie is interesting because it shows the same superhero starring in competing film franchises.  Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s “Quicksilver” is the very same Marvel Comics’ speedster we saw played (and scripted with much more fun) last year by Evan Peters in “X-Men: Days of Future Past.”  (There, he’s simply referred to as “a guy” or “Maximoff,” for copyright considerations, I guess.)

10869325_591589580977275_2778898650041679518_o