Well, this was disappointing. Make no mistake about it – “Chernobyl Diaries” (2012) was nowhere near as good as its trailer made it look. I’d give it a 4 out of 10, and that’s primarily for a great shooting location. (This was filmed in Serbia and Hungary, but it sure as hell looked like something filmed near the titular doomed Russian nuclear reactors.)
You want a truly frightening new found-footage horror movie? Skip this and check out the Australian gem, “The Tunnel” (2011).
… but I’m disagreeing with those lauding “The Simpsons Guy,” the crossover between “Family Guy” and “The Simpsons.” This was an average episode, and not a great one. There was just too much self-referential humor and the running gag about the former copying the latter ran too long.
The “chicken fight” joke has always been lost on me. I never got it the first time, and usually grab a snack whenever it pops up. (Doesn’t it usually last like five minutes or more?) A genuine team-up between Bart and Stewie would have been funnier than the character contrast, and there were too many weirdly dark moments (including the final chalkboard joke).
All I’m saying is that both shows are brilliant, and this landmark episode didn’t really reflect that.
Still, there were some nice moments — including the Emmy gag and the cameo(s) by James Wood.
I’m blogging my past film and tv reviews from Facebook. It’s too bad this promising BSG prequel never made it past the pilot phase.
*****
I was happy with the prequel web-miniseries “Battlestar Galactica: Blood and Chrome” (2012) – it really seemed like a return to form to the immensely popular first two seasons of the tv show. I’d give it an 8 out of 10. Gone are the weird and confusing plotlines involving divine intervention and … (sigh) angels. Instead we’re treated to a decent, escapist and gratifying sci-fi war-adventure story, with a few gritty horror elements thrown in to remind us that this is still Ron Moore’s unique Battlestar Galactica universe. It seemed to consciously emulate “Aliens” (1986), which is a direction I think a lot of BSG fans would have been thrilled with. (I’m a little confused about whether the SyFy Channel intended this as a possible pilot for a regular tv series … it seems that way, from how it’s written.)
There are also nice nods to the series, its followup prequel series, “Caprica,” and even the original 1970’s tv show. I loved how one key actor/actress appeared to lend his/her voice to really nail a nice surprise in the finale. That’s some damn fun continuity right there, and awesome fan service.
It’s a shaky pilot (?) in some ways. Young William Adama is a two-dimensional clone of “Starship Troopers’” Johnny Rico, though he does grow a bit by the end of the story. There are also other clichés – at one point a commander states something along the lines of “the fate of the entire war hinging on this battle!!” Ugh. Another flaw was its inclusion of actors from the series – in different roles. It was probably cool for Moore to keep it in the family and give these talented people additional high-profile work. (My personal favorite is the great, underused character actor Ty Olsson.) But it’s jarring, and takes you right out of the story – sometimes you’re too busy saying, “Hey! It’s THAT guy!” to get immersed in the show.
Still, this was cool and exciting and fun. What a shame it’s (apparently) not turning into a regular series.
Okay … “The Awakening” (2011) had a certain surprise plot development that didn’t work. But other than that, it was a darn good movie. Rebecca Hall is terrific (and alluring), and this might be the most beautifully shot ghost story I’ve ever seen. It was also nice and scary. I’d give this an 8 out of 10.
I’m blogging some of my past film reviews on Facebook — here is my review two years ago of “American History X.”
*****
It was a weird coincidence for me watching “American History X” (1998) last night. I’d borrowed it from the library over a week ago on my friend Lisa Bennett Chesser’s recommendation; well before Wade Michael Page went on a shooting spree in a Wisconsin Sikh temple. (The Neo-nazis in this film even rally to white power music, as Page is said to have done.)
I’m glad I watched this. It’s a good, smart, enjoyable film. I learned from it.
I’d really rather not discuss its social or political messages on my wall. One glance at an online discussion of this movie shows that they’re divisive and often ugly. (There are even ongoing debates about which gangs or groups should rightly be called “Skinheads,” and which are racist.) I’m just not in the mood for controversy this morning. I’d rather just tell you what I thought about AHX as a film.
This movie had a lot of great things going for it, but two things stood out in particular. The first was Edward Norton’s tour de force performance. I’ve liked Norton elsewhere, like “Red Dragon,” where he was good. Here, he’s phenomenal. He’s goddam frightening as Neo-nazi Derek. (He reminded me of Bill Moseley’s turn as “Otis Driftwood” in “House of 1,000 Corpses.”) Then we see him as a redeemed man. Then, through flashbacks, he’s made even more human and three-dimensional, as we see a sensitive young teenager traumatized by the death of his father. Norton was so damned good that I still seem to have trouble believing that the same actor played all three roles. I don’t pretend to be a film expert; reviews like this are just a hobby. But I think I know great acting when I see it, and this was great acting.
The second was a really smart script. Again, I learned from this. I always assumed that Neo-nazis were poorly educated nuts from the fringes of society. As it turns out, they actually do have an ideology, albeit a horrible and misguided one. This movie makes a very smart move in scripting Derek and his younger brother as “brilliant” students, who articulate facts and motivations for doing odious things. Listening to Derek’s tirades (including one cringe-inducing scene at a dinner-table) actually sheds light on what motivates the characters’ real-life counterparts.
Only two small things occurred to me that made this film a little less perfect than so many others have claimed it to be. First, this movie doesn’t even know the meaning of subtlety. Its message and delivery were so heavy handed that it was almost an ABC afterschool special. We even have an overly convenient framing device – Derek’s adulating brother, Danny (played wonderfully by Edward Furlong), is asked by an African American history teacher to write a report on Derek’s life. The superior film, “Crash” (2004,) for example, handled racism with a hell of a lot more finesse and surprises.
Second, one character arc was way too quick and implausible. After one conversation with his redeemed older brother, Danny also disavows the Neo-nazi movement? After years of propaganda and socialization by the group? I’m not so sure a disturbed, fascist teenager can be deprogrammed so easily. Did anyone else who saw this movie wonder about this as well?
Still, this was a great film. I’d give it a 9 out of 10. One final note – the ending quote by Abraham Lincoln was just beautiful. I’d actually heard only snippets of it sampled by films before – once in “Apocalypse Now” and once in “X2: X-Men United.” It’s better in its entirety.
I’m blogging some of the film reviews I’ve done on Facebook:
*****
Did we really need a reboot of the Spider-Man films after Sam Raimi’s great run? Probably not. “Spider-Man 2” (2004) was one of the greatest comic book movies of all time, and even the problematic “Spider-Man 3” (2007) wasn’t nearly as bad as its many detractors said. Besides, superhero stories are serial by nature, there’s no need to stick to a trilogy. Why not just let Raimi, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst continue to do their thing? (I never realized how much I liked Dunst as Mary Jane until she was absent.)
Because of the Christopher Nolan “Batman” films, that’s why. “The Amazing Spider-Man” (2012) is an obvious (and unnecessary) attempt by Columbia Pictures to give Marvel Comics’ flagship character the Nolan treatment. IMDB.com even states that the filmmakers credit “Batman Begins” (2005) as an influence.
With all of that said, though, “The Amazing Spider-Man” is actually a pretty good movie – I’d give it an 8 out of 10. It doesn’t match the charm, humor and sense of fun that Raimi and co, brought us; Peter Parker and Aunt May here and not as likable or relatable. (But Martin Sheen is awesome as ever as Uncle Ben.)
But Andrew Garfield is funny and talented, and he does a great job. This movie actually IS truer to the comics that I remember. Garfield’s great line delivery finally gives us the wise-cracking Peter Parker Maguire couldn’t pull off. And the Spider-Man I remember from my school days wasn’t quite the vulnerable wallflower that we’ve seen in the Raimi films – especially when thrown into the mix with characters like Wolverine or The Punisher.
This is definitely an edgier, grittier Spider-Man story. He gets hurt. He bleeds. The script is slick, smart, understated and obviously aimed at a more adult audience. There’s good sci-fi villain who is rendered wonderfully by CGI; he makes the Green Goblin seem silly by comparison. And the action sequences were damned good – we get some great, wicked-cool fight choreography that seems true to the character and even reminded me a little of great comic book fight movies like “Blade” (1998).
This reboot does suffer a bit from the superfluous and laborious re-telling of Spider-Man’s origin story. How many people are unaware that Peter Parker was bitten by a radioactive and/or genetically modified spider? How much more exciting would it be to see Spidey fight, oh, say, Carnage?
All in all, this was a decent movie. To enjoy it, you just sort of have to take it on its own terms instead of comparing it to Raimi’s flicks.
I’m blogging some of the movie reviews I’ve done in the past on Facebook.
Please don’t let this somewhat negative review dissuade you from watching the first two films in the [REC]” franchise — they were fantastic. And, in retrospect, maybe my rundown here was a little too critical. This could be a fun and campy throwaway horror film.
*****
“[REC]: 3: Genesis” was a disappointingly average entry into an otherwise fantastic series of Spanish horror films. The first two “[REC]” movies were among the scariest I’ve ever seen, and maybe even more frightening than “The Exorcist.” But the third simply has little in common with its predecessors, and deserves a 4 out of 10 at best.
Gone is the deadly serious story, the found-footage style, the kinetic action and shadowy setting. This movie inexplicably abandons everything that put Spain on the map for modern zombie cinema.
This is a campy horror-comedy with more than a little slapstick and goofy setups – almost like an entry into “The Evil Dead” franchise. Even the infected “zombies” seem like very different monsters here and, compared with the first two films, we actually see less of them. The supernatural nature of the virus – a minor story annoyance “[REC]” and “[REC] 2” – was more prominent here, to the movie’s detriment. Who the hell made all these creative decisions?!
Parts were even disjointed and confusing. (And I’m not alone here – one glance at the imdb.com message boards shows that there were many, many people disappointed with this movie – which looked incredible it its trailers.)
The movie was partially redeemed by a new and creative setting, and an intense and unexpected ending. (Wow.)
But let’s hope the planned “[REC] 4: Apocalypse” sees fruition and is a return to form.
“WTF did I just watch? YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE.”
Reflection does suggest a few more things for me to say for this challenging sci-fi thriller, even if I did need a little subsequent help from Wikipedia to understand it.
It is beautifully shot and scored, and has strong performances from all of its actors. It does just great at establishing mood, and setting up an unsettling mystery. And it is good, old fashioned, hard-core science fiction.
I DO think it runs a bit long, and has big pacing problems. Simply put, this film is too slow to be scary. So it fails as a horror movie or thriller. There is insufficient exposition about what is going on, even for an intentional “mind-bending” movie in the tradition of films like “12 Monkeys” (1995). Can we really be scared or affected if we have so little understanding of what is actually happening onscreen?
I STILL have questions. Why does the facility appear to have technology only from the 1970’s or 1980’s? Why is one character homicidal? Why are alarms going off?!
Still, it was interesting, challenging, and lovely to look at. It’s worth a look, if you want a darker, demanding film that makes you think.
Anyway, there actually is another recent science-fiction thriller entitled “The Signal.” It was made in 2007, and should please fans of well made formula films like “The Crazies” or “Dawn of the Dead.” I actually enjoyed that low-budget genre film more than I enjoyed this.
So asks reviewer 4-LAN in his review of Martin Murphy’s “The Carnarvon Creeper” over at The Book Marketing Network. It looks like a hell of a fun ride — a damned interesting horror tale in which a lone, grieving man must face an unknown threat along a remote Australian highway.
Check out the wonderfully written review of this new novel right here:
http://thebookmarketingnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/what-i-am-reading-19
It isn’t “The Exorcist” but it isn’t exactly “Sharknado” either; “The Purge: Anarchy” is a competent horror thriller. Frank Grillo is great in the lead, and there are some terrific twists that I didn’t see coming. The entire film is a not-so-subtle stab at the one percent; I’d rate this film as NSFW — not suitable for the wealthy.
The movie descends into camp here and there with the oppressed rising up a bit too cartoonishly to seem like a real life coup.
The ending — involving life-and-death choices made by two characters — was great. I wish they had expanded on that.
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 