Unseen Terror 2014: Day 3

One day after her husband returns from work, expectant mother Mia Gordon receives a surprise gift from her companion John: a rare antique doll, adjourned in a white dress with rosy cheeks and a distinguished-looking smile to boot. Their happiness is short-lived, however, when one random night, they are attacked in their home by a crazed woman and her partner. Though the couple is shot dead by the police, and the police begin to investigate the background and motives of this now-deceased maniacal duo, the Gordons feel the instinct to move from their neighborhood. Shortly after the birth of their daughter, and through police revelations, Mia begins to suspect that her new treasured possession could have served as a conduit for something far more sinister than anyone could have ever expected.


Do you remember last year's surprise hit (and surprisingly good) The Conjuring? Do you remember that doll that got about two minutes worth of screen time, receiving only a brief mention of its own horrendously frightening background? Well, director James Wan (Saw, Insidious) must have felt compelled to give you a full breakdown into said background, and thusly….wait, James Wan didn't direct this? He only produces it? Well, who did direct Annabelle?


*checks wikipedia*


Who the hell is John R. Leonetti?

Well, now that that….horrifying discovery is out of the way, how does Annabelle stack up to its companion piece/sequel of sorts?


For starters, I'll give cinematographer James Kniest, who has previously worked on Child's Play 3 (can't make that up), credit for setting up a good, mostly uneasy atmosphere, and making the audience feel fairly nervous once the shenanigans involving the occult begin to take effect on our poor, tortured, if not slightly white-bread family. There are also excellent scares in the form of an elevator sequence, and a couple of random jump scares, which are set up and work rather well considering that someone like myself doesn't care much for them anymore. And despite my intense dislike for this director, he does manage to stir up some competent performances from star Annabelle Wallis and her magical negro companion, played by veteran actress Alfre Woodard. Yes the main actress' real name is also Annabelle. I don't even know what to tell you there. Maybe it was pure coincidence. That or the casting director has a very sick sense of humor.


The decision to show essentially no movement of the doll herself is an interesting choice as well. As much as I love the Chucky doll from Child's Play (from which this borrows far too much), there are times when your suspension of disbelief wakes back up and you can't help but chuckle when you see him run or do anything active. I always wonder why most couples would ever think of keeping a doll that looks like Annabelle in the first place though. True, she starts off looking relatively normal, but the facial features start to droop over time, and it really isn't until the end of the picture when she starts to resemble the eerie-looking toy that we glanced at in The Conjuring. Take for example The Cabbage Patch Kids. They have rotund faces, and not an ounce of malice in their features. Keep one of them around, and I guarantee you that not a single evil spirit shall rear its horrific face. But I think I'm just entering rambling, nitpicker mode now, especially since the film establishes the fact that the doll isn't so easily discarded.


Alas, I think the main problem which does befall Annabelle was one that I was afraid of from the get-go: it just isn't very original. As I stated above, the main cast is more than capable of delivering the goods, but there is so little in the way of originality in the flick itself. Even the film's admittedly intense final act borrows heavily from certain pictures like Hellraiser and The Exorcist. Actually, now that I've mentioned it, there is a LOT borrowed from the latter, as well as Child's Play, The Changeling, Rosemary's Baby, and even its cousins in The Conjuring and Insidious. Yes, I stated in my reviews of the Mimic sequels that it's fine if you want to pay homage or rip off a classic, but there is a certain line you shouldn't cross, especially if it ends up coming from multiple, varied sources and it finds its way into something that is distributed to quite a good amount of theaters. Motion picture comparisons aside, I can give Leonetti, James Wan, and their associated crew credit for one other thing as well: they sure know how to create some incredibly lame-looking monsters. If you thought that the Darth Maul demon from Insidious looked outrageously silly, then you clearly aren't ready for their interpretation of Annabelle's "master."


In terms of theatrically-released horror films during the fall period, Annabelle is one of several out there to choose from. I can't say for certain that I'll be paying money to watch Kevin Smith's Tusk (I don't know if I can trust the man after his previous two duds), the upcoming remake of The Town That Dreaded Sundown (I have been hunting down the original for some time now), or the Michael Bay-produced Ouija (which was the only horror movie trailer attached to my screening), but I had no problem paying a little under eight dollars to see this fun, but very flawed companion piece to The Conjuring. Would I ever expect it to be held in the same breath as that surprisingly good ghost story? Absolutely not.



But it certainly beats being stalked by that much scarier Zuni doll from Trilogy of Terror.



Tomorrow, it's back to the bugs with the ever-so-gross The Nest!

Unseen Terror 2014: Day 2

Three years have passed since the "Judas Breed," a newer scientifically-designed brand of insect created to combat rare diseases, grew to an immense size and began to hunt down humankind, their only true threat. While initially thought to have been completely eradicated in an underground explosion, entomologist Remi Panos, comrade to Judas Breed creator Susan Tyler, theorizes that some of these bugs may have survived after all. Worse yet, the strand may have begun to evolve and take on new characteristics, including the ability to physically resemble human beings.


No, that tagline listed on the home video is far from being accurate. At all. There are numerous ways to get rid of what essentially is a giant cockroach with sharpened legs and the ability to use them as weapons. Fire and guns do wonders.


Now that I've gotten that little bit of misleading garbage out of the way, I'm quite certain that Mimic 2: Hardshell (a subtitle that I'm convinced was only inserted to attract Netflix viewers since I can't seem to find it on many other releases of the film) is hardly the type of end result that Guillermo Del Toro, director of the previous installment, would have ever imagined would occur after his noted box office disappointment was released in 1998. If they chosen to subtitle it "Halfshell," and the movie had been about the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles contracting rabies, then maybe the end result would have made for a better experience.


Alix Koromzy reprises her role as Remi Panos, the best friend to Mira Sorvino from the first film. It was nice to see a familiar face return, but to be honest, she was barely familiar to someone like myself. The lady is nearly unrecognizable, and it wasn't until the very end that I recalled her being in Mimic at all, especially since she only had about ten or fifteen minutes worth of screen time in Del Toro's picture. It's the equivalent of if Danny Cooksey's character from Terminator 2: Judgement Day was cast as the lead in a future sequel. By no means is she an unsympathetic character, but the problem with Remi taking center stage is that she is almost too weird for her own good. While complaining about being an "oddball magnet" earlier on, she proceeds to go on a date wherein she does absolutely nothing but talk about the reproductive cycle of assorted insects. Look, I'm the furthest thing from a casanova, but just because you're passionate about something out of the ordinary, doesn't mean you should bring it up during dinner conversation. There's a reason that I won't gush about Godzilla films to most women that I meet. Koromzy could have gushed more in scenes outside of this one though, since she seems to resemble and channel a zombified Cynthia Nixon whenever she has to act or read important lines.


She's joined by a kid who loves to do hoodrat stuff with his friends, and a horny ex-student who seems like he took all of his cues from the cast of The Outsiders, but forgot to add any interesting traits outside of those to help him stand out. They find themselves holed up inside of a school (which at one point contains an all-too-brief appearance from character actor Jon Polito), and the film turns into a copy of the previous installment, with the trio to survive until help arrives or the school if fumigated. Which itself was a ripoff of certain events from Alien & Aliens. This comparison isn't necessarily a bad thing, because hey, if you're going to steal from another franchise, it might as well be from a good one, but it doesn't establish an identity for itself (tell me that the final twenty minutes isn't similar to Ridley Scott's picture and I will argue with you for approximately sixty seconds).


I feel like I haven't taken any time to discuss the Judas Breed bugs themselves though. They're certainly more bloodthirsty this time around, and they product a higher body count than GDT's previous film did. The special and visual effects behind some of the creatures do look admirable, at least when you consider that this went straight-to-DVD. It almost makes you forget that there's an abundance of that dreaded early-2000s CGI scattered throughout as well. Up close, they look fairly impressive, and you can see that there was some level of respect retained from the original. But then, the new plot twist takes effect, with the breed learning how to wear human faces (seriously) and the movie just kind of takes a sharp nosedive because of it. Mimic 2's conclusion also inspires way too many unintentional laughs, with the final prop and act committed to said prop make it look like something out of a Gwar show.


Without spoiling too many other plot elements, I can sum up Mimic 2 in one "Simpsons" quote: "Aww,  so that's what's wrong with the little fella: he misses casual sex." You do the thinking yourself there. Despite a few bright spots here and there, you can pretty much hit this one with a can of raid and stick with the first film, which while being far from perfect (shameless review link here), was infinitely more enjoyable and at least had the message of not trying to play god or misuse science.

Young adult Marvin, one of several survivors of the infamous disease that spread throughout Manhattan children in 1998, spends his day holed up in his room due to an intense sensitivity to chemicals in the environment. In order to help fight the threat of boredom, he takes numerous photos of his surrounding neighbors from his apartment window. Over the course of several days, Marvin and younger sister Rosy take heed of several disappearances around the surrounding area, including those of whom Marvin has photographed before. Through investigation, the siblings discover that the culprits may have a truly frightening connection to the young man's past.


From the opening scene of a child being brutally murdered by a cloaked, killer bug, I was under the assumption that Mimic 3: Sentinel was trying to go for more cheap thrills and be another generic nature-gone-amok motion picture. But then I glanced at the cast list, and saw far more familiar faces than I ever thought I would. My confidence that perhaps quality could be delivered from this second, and most likely unneeded sequel, had risen ever so slightly.


Mimic 3: Sentinel should truthfully be called Rear Window: Now With Bugs! It's far from an original concept, and is even more blatant with paying tribute to superior directors and pictures. But like I said above, if you're going to rip somebody off, you might as well take it from someone with talent. It does actually boast some Hitchcockian themes, including the idea of toying with the audience during pivotal segments, and choosing to build to a shock rather than rush things. But that's the last time you'll ever hear me bring up that legend's name in a review about a flick which features a man getting stabbed in the face who still manages to fire off a shotgun several seconds later, and yet does no damage despite landing a clear headshot himself.


The slower pacing of the third film is both its greatest asset and its biggest downfall. Writer and director J.T. Petty, who would go on to direct the pretty darn great The Burrowers (shameless review link number two here) has no doubt that he wants the audience to care, and root for, its heroes and protagonists. He accomplishes it better than I expected him to, but outside of Marvin and his sister Rosy (who you may identify from Broken Flowers), there are far too many expendable secondary ones who serve as nothing but food for the bugs. Even Amanda Plummer, playing Marvin's mother, and Lance Henriksen, playing a withdrawn and mysterious neighbor only nicknamed "The Garbageman," don't serve much of a point, as they're both in the movie for about ten to twelve minutes apiece. Because of this, the final act feels like an afterthought, speeding to a conclusion that felt like it was written on the day of shooting. Mimic 3: Sentinel also boasts a running time of seventy seven minutes, which is criminal for a movie such as this. Even the bugs themselves, which are hidden by terrible lighting (or lack thereof), don't get much screen time until the final act. How this film cost ten million dollars to make is flabbergasting to me, especially since the terrible CGI from Mimic 2 seems to have been carried over to this installment as well.


I would have been more than happy to give J.T. Petty's sequel a recommendation had the wrap-up not been so rushed (plus the film doesn't conclude as much as it just…stops), and the film had added a good twenty minutes or more to its running time. As it stands, Mimic 3: Sentinel is only decent enough to warrant an afternoon viewing out of sheer boredom and desperation to kill time.



Or if you have a secret desire to see Honey Pie from Pulp Fiction get stabbed by a giant bug and then set aflame.



Tomorrow, we're taking a break from the bugs and picking up some hot, new toys with Annabelle!

Unseen Terror 2014: Day 1

And lo, it arrived. A day unlike any other. A day which would begin a marathon of nearly forty motion pictures associated with the genre that perturbs and bothers most of humanity: horror. It is a journey that very few would ever choose to partake in.

Except for a pretty darn good amount of people on the internet. Such as James Rolfe. And Chuck Dowling.

Eh, screw it.

I'm in my fourth year of doing this. Yes, I'm as surprised (and slightly disappointed) as you are. Over the years, I've felt that this has become slim pickings for me, at least in terms of providing quality entertainment for which to write about. Still, the advent of streaming sites, assorted video hosting services, and good books will always help keep my interest piqued and my passion fiery. So let's dive in, shall we? And for those of you who are new to my yearly tradition, I say welcome! I always welcome feedback, comments, and your own thoughts.

In the small town of Santa Mira, California, doctor Miles Bennell has been receiving an unusual amount of strange complaints and calls from patients, all based around the same peculiar observation: the claim that their loved ones aren't themselves. Though they may still physically resemble the same individuals, the emotions of these people are seemingly stagnant. Some initially dismiss it as "mass hysteria," but the good doctor has his reservations. Soon, he slowly unravels a horrifying extraterrestrial-based plot that aims to replicate and replace every human being in the world.

My first exposure to this now-classic science fiction/horror piece came from two different, although eerily similar sources. First, there was the Looney Tunes short "Invasion of the Bunny Snatchers," which you can still watch at this link. The second was a short from the comic books based on "The Simpsons" entitled "Immigration of the Body Snatchers," which you can read at your local comic book shop…hey, I was a weird kid, okay? Either way you slice it, I was very familiar with the original source material, although I had never actually sat down to watch it in its entirety.

Which is a damn shame, especially considering how well and still effective a movie like Invasion of the Body Snatchers really is. For starters, it is brilliant in its simplicity. The idea of all living creatures, be they bipedal homo sapiens or other specimens, being replaced by soulless, emotionless, and "blank" aliens, is a concept that could truly worry any rational-thinking person on the planet. If you were absolutely convinced that such an act were occurring, but felt that nobody would listen to you and that there was no easy way out from this madness, wouldn't you too go a little mad? Invasion plays exactly like an old serial, or even an old short from a comic book. Oddly, neither of those provides the source material for this particular film (that belongs to the novel The Body Snatchers by Jack Finney), but head honcho Don Siegel, later of Dirty Harry fame, directs this script (adapted by Daniel Mainwaring) with an honest-to-god seriousness and overwhelming sense of paranoia, and it isn't hard to see why it is held in such high regard all of these years later. Oddly enough, the movie was primarily shunned upon its release, which I can only assume was due to the abundance of "heebie jeebies" films being released throughout the decade.

While Siegel is certainly a good director, and composer Carmen Dragon (yes, that's really his name) weaves together a pretty outstanding score (keep an ear open when watching the Looney Tunes homage I discussed above), I feel like one of my main gripes lies in something that has just always been a pet peeve of mine. Invasion of the Body Snatchers' acting can be quite hokey at times, even if a large portion of it is mostly confined to parts of the first act. Don't get me wrong, Kevin McCarthy is FANTASTIC as Dr. Miles Bennell, and Larry Gates and King Donovan (how badass of a name is that?) are enjoyable as two of his confidants who discover this horrible breach in their mostly-secluded community. The others? Well, Dana Wynter is a classic 1950s beauty, but I thought she could have expressed a little more emotion here and there (I'm not enough of a scumbag to make a joke in relation to the title), primarily because of her decision to take on the pivotal role of Bennell's ex-girlfriend who is stuck in the middle of this horrible conspiracy after returning home to discover her cousin's uncle acting rather odd himself. I'm sorry if it sounds blasphemous, but while I certainly respect an immense amount of actors and actresses from this time period, most of their methods and performances just don't seem to click with me the way that some of the more prominent roles from the mid-60s and onward do. Besides, Wynter's American accent begins to slip towards the end. And I'm a real nitpicking jerk when that type of stuff happens.

My assholery aside, the original Invasion of the Body Snatchers is one of those stories that can stand the test of time and be told, updated, or reinterpreted while still never losing its primary themes or failing to creep out the audience. Its message on the fear of conformity, especially in a post-war period or tragic timeline, or even the grievances of disgusting tactics began by McCarthyism (which in short, is a form of witch hunting through defamation) can resonate with most cinephiles. There's also the metaphor of sleeper agents lying in wait to get us when we are at our most vulnerable (perhaps the fear of falling asleep played one of several influences on a young Wes Craven), which can still be felt today with such shows as The Americans and movies like Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Most importantly, you could also choose to just view it as a good science fiction story, and enjoy it all the more (though I personally could have done without the seemingly forced prologue and epilogue). After all, they've only remade this THREE FRIGGIN' TIMES since its release, though you can probably skip the last of the three mentioned.

And heck, I don't think that the title "The Capgras Delusion" would have helped garner as much attention anyway.

Tomorrow, we're going to make things slimy, as I begin a brief foray into the realm of bugs (and sequels!) with Mimic 2!

Heaven Is For Real (2014) & God's Not Dead (2014) Movie Reviews

Oh boy, a double dose of Christian-based motion pictures that clearly aren't marketed towards someone of my background and (lack of) beliefs? This could make for a rather interesting experience. Mind you, "interesting" could turn into "infuriating" within a shockingly short amount of time, but I tend to approach any film, no matter the genre, with an open mind. I'd also like to mention that I'm not an atheist (I lean towards agnosticism), so I will try my absolute best to refrain from bringing up anything in the realm of arguments based around organized religion. Hell, I'm willing to think that if parts of the tables were turned in these films, it would still mean that my opinions stay largely the same. Instead, I will try to judge these solely as movies, nothing more, and nothing less.

Keep in mind, I did say "try."

Nebraska native and pastor Todd Burpo lives a relatively good and calm life. In between time spent preaching at Sunday services, he plays softball with his friends and other churchgoers, takes his family for fun trips in and out of town, and is generally loved by all around him. One evening, his youngest son, Colton Burpo, goes in for sudden and unexpected emergency surgery. Once out, Colton begins to describe events of seeing Jesus Christ himself, and even brings up knowledge from Todd's own past that was never disclosed to his son. Perturbed and amazed, the pastor attempts to understand and share his son's unbelievable, yet possibly true story with the rest of the world.

If you aren't familiar with the concept and reportedly "true" story behind the rather oddly-titled Heaven Is For Real, you'd assume that it's actually a hilariously-titled Christian Hip-Hop record. Sadly, I think that idea would have made for a more compelling result than what I ended up watching recently. True, Heaven isn't necessarily a terrible film, but it drowns under its own layers of schmaltz, topped with a heaping dose of utter boredom.

Of the two pictures I'm choosing to talk about today, I feel like this one contained the more relevant of casts. For starters, Academy Award nominee Greg Kinnear plays Pastor Burpo (try saying that character's name and refrain from laughing. Trust me, it isn't particularly easy), and while he certainly seems to be trying his best for a motion picture with a very niche fanbase, he speaks like he was kicked out of a TED Talks taping because he was constantly spouting gibberish and nonsensical jargon. When he isn't busy acting like an odd fellow, he acts like an ignorant asshole, even going so far as to flat out say to a gathering of people that his son was most likely seeing things, and thusly could not have caught even a slight peek of the afterlife. This wouldn't be such a big issue had his son not been in the same room and it wasn't in HIS OWN CHURCH while these statements were uttered. Furthermore, it doesn't help that most of his supporting cast seems to have learned how to act by pulling their lessons out of a Cracker Jack box. And oh boy, if you'd like to talk about acting, I was absolutely perplexed by Thomas Haden Church's presence in a film like this. Perhaps this was karma and/or payback for 2007's Spider-Man 3? Again, Church is a fine actor (and also a fellow Academy Award nominee), and is also attempting to salvage what he can, but he doesn't have much time to show that his character, a man who has been Burpo's close friend for many years, has any layers, or even evolves or devolves with certain events going on around him. Kelly Reilly of Sherlock Holmes and Above Suspicion fame plays Kinnear's wife, and what the English actress lacks in screen time, she more than makes up for by emoting far too much or too little, and the woman loses her American accent towards the final act. All of this negativity and mediocrity seems to affect son Colton as well, and there are times when the young man looks legitimately embarrassed to be in a movie that even the Lifetime Network would have hesitations with airing. 

Let's move on to the main gist of Heaven Is For Real. I felt like it just doesn't do much in the way of interesting plot elements and even moves at a rather sluggish pace. The most amount of excitement we receive is during the act when young Colton goes in for surgery, and one glance at the poster or plot synopsis from any site on the world wide web gives away anything that could have been truly rousing. Even the brief glimpses of Jesus himself remind you too much of the constantly disguised and hidden body of villainous Dr. Claw from the television series Inspector Gadget, though according to writer and director Randall Wallace, who previously helped write the infamous Pearl Harbor, the lord and savior looks like the absolutely sadistic and demented Kruger from Elysium (post-upgrade). Instead, the most intriguing element of this flick comes from the blatant shilling of another popular franchise. Throughout the entirety of this "true" story, an absurd amount of Spider-Man references can be found. This includes a closeup on an action figure during the aforementioned surgery and hospital sequence, numerous utterances of the character's name from Kinnear himself, and even a poster of his debut comic, "Amazing Fantasy #15," in Colton's room. You might be asking why this is a big deal to someone like me. Normally, the geek in me wouldn't have felt so besmirched by such a thing, but this Christian drama piece is distributed by Sony Pictures, the company who helped release The Amazing Spider-Man & The Amazing Spider-Man 2. I get that you have to help appease your masters, and I understand the need for advertisement in dire times, but considering that a trailer for the latter prefaced the DVD that I rented from the Redbox, it came across as incredibly juvenile and just plain annoying. It borders on Transformers-levels of douchebaggery and shamelessness.

So yes, I wasn't exactly fanatical about Heaven Is For Real, but save for my complaints about the shilling of ol' webhead and his own movie franchise, it did very little to anger me or register itself on the infamous "worst of" list. It mostly just drags on and on, and unless you're incredibly devout, I could see you getting just as frustrated for its lack of pacing and constant "maybe he did, maybe he didn't, maybe it was DMT" exchanges. Okay, the latter part of that quote isn't directly discussed, but it would make for a more logical explanation than anything else out there. I'm honestly shocked that this didn't go straight-to-ABC Family or even just the bargain bin and walls of giant corporate chains such as Walmart. I'll give credit where credit is due though: if you have friends, be they religious or not, it could make for a rather fun "riffing."

Ten points to whoever spouts this Heathers quote first.

And now, I feel I must take on a different, although only slightly brighter font, in order to put focus on part two of these reviews.

Josh Wheaton, a new college student and outspoken devout Christian, signs up for a philosophy class taught by the notoriously staunch and hardened Professor Jeffrey Radisson, an outspoken atheist. During the first day of class, Radisson requires that his students sign a paper which proclaims that "God Is Dead." Not surprisingly, Josh refuses, stating that he believes this is wrong and radically inaccurate. With his insistency that he is right and the new, young man is incorrect, the professor schedules a series of debates, in which the students will decide on whether the popular deity is real, or just a figment of our imagination.

Remember when I said that I was going to try and keep discussion of religion out of these two reviews? I am afraid that my promise from so long ago shall not last. It's a shame too, because I believe it is nearly impossible to judge God's Not Dead as a film by itself, solely because distributor Pure Flix (one has to wonder what they specialize in) are subliminally telling you that it isn't a movie at all. While Heaven Is For Real wasn't completely trying to force its own beliefs down the viewer's throat, director Harold Cronk's product which insists that the viewer should "never stop believing" is one of the most utterly disgusting and awful motion pictures that I have laid eyes upon since I became a legal adult. And I'm going to be twenty-nine within a month and a half.

Within the first ten minutes of God's Not Dead, you can count the cliches of Right-Wing Evangelical thinking, even if your own eyesight is faulty. First, there's the anti-Muslim rhetoric, based around a young woman attending college who is afraid that her father, and even her own family, will disown and possibly physically abuse her (which does occur) should they discover that she secretly yearns to become a Christian. This utterly stupid and naive ideology is made out to be even more ridiculous by her brother catching her reading scriptures on her tablet. She reacts in the same manner as you would when a parent catches you masturbating…..not that such a thing has happened to me of course. There are several occurrences of bashing liberals and animal rights activists, which includes an appearance by one of the cast members of Duck Dynasty (who have made it nearly impossible to live in the south if you're of the bearded variety), nontheism, and even cultures who aren't exposed to religion whatsoever (a young college student from China who has never heard of any of this balderdash). How incredibly classy!

I won't waste much time talking about the acting, because clearly they weren't making any of the performances the main focal point. If I can summarize it in two separate sentences, it would be these: if you ever dreamed of watching Superman (Dean Cain) and Hercules (Kevin Sorbo) play a pair of smug atheists with ill will and awful consciences, then dive right in. I personally didn't think it was possible for these two to sink lower than Meet The Spartans and The Dog Who Saved Christmas, but they surpassed my expectations with flying, vibrant colors. In terms of the actual characters themselves, there is not a single likable or realistic human being to be found, and more subplots that leave the viewer either confused or irritated, since all it essentially ends up being used as a giant advertisement for concert by the somehow popular christian rock band called "The Newsboys," who all resemble graduates of a camp that "prays the gay away." Even Josh, your so-called student "hero" of the picture, comes across just as smug as his atheist rival (Sorbo) once the debating begins. Thusly, I'd like to tell him to go stick his opinions, they of the "same old, same old" variety and repetitious apologist nonsense, so far up his ass that it comes out of his mouth. And ending your final debate with the question of "Why do you hate God?" is the ultimate middle finger to an audience with a remote amount of intelligence on either side of the argument.

Speaking of intelligence, I would love to hear about what inspired these writers (it took THREE MEN to write a script that any single individual could have written just by sitting down and reading one book in a public library or watching a video from apologist John Lennox) to come up with lines and exchanges that unintentionally captures the same aura and awkwardness of cult classics like Tommy Wiseau's The Room. Then again, two of these men also helped co-write the 2001 television remake of Earth Vs. The Spider, so expecting quality from this collection of human beings may have been like expecting gourmet pizza from Little Caesar's. Upon further thinking, there is a possibility that most of the dialogue was ghostwritten by Billy and Franklin Graham, with supervision by the thankfully rotting Jerry Falwell. Its blatant "Christians good, Atheists bad!" message is less subtle than being beaten over the head with a bible by a sweater-clad man with Christopher Hitchens' and Richard Dawkins' faces X'd out on the front. Afterwards, this same man proceeds to throw holy water into your eyes until you've gone blind. By the time you have recovered from your injuries, you're dealt a larger blow in the form of the main character's ostensibly offensive statement of "evil is the main weapon to be used by atheists against Christians." Oh dear lord. You're down again, but not before you shout this at the top of your lungs.

The only positive thing that one person such as myself can say about God's Not Dead is that in a very warped way, it did actually inspire me. I craved motivation to write more reviews, be they good or bad, as focus on work and my own personal issues had been delaying me more often than not. Thankfully, God's' own sheer idiocy and arrogance could be the cure for anyone suffering from writer's block, no matter your field. It is the first film that I've ever seen that made me wonder out loud "Gee, maybe those two movies I watched all of those years ago with the Insane Clown Posse as the leads weren't so bad after all!" My goodness, I really do loathe this film and every single human being involved in it.

Well, except for the two guys who hit Kevin Sorbo with their car in the final ten minutes. That was kind of awesome.

Under The Skin (2014) Review

During the evening hours in Scotland, a young, attractive, and all-around mysterious English woman peruses the streets in her van. She is browsing for innocent and handsome young men, whom she will take back to her apartment after much conversation and seduction. While there, the men are lead into a darkened abyss, leaving nothing behind but husks. Over time, the woman begins to develop a conscience, with many observations and assorted future encounters shaping her into something that she wasn't fully aware that she could become.


Throughout all of my years as a film fan, and even more so from doing this blog that you're kind enough to take your time and read, I've never developed an interest in "art" films. While I can wholly respect them and their intent to try and push the boundaries of cinema, very few, if any, click with me on a personal level. Even so, that isn't to say that I don't admire some directors. For one, I think Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, Punch-Drunk Love) could arguably be defined as an "art" director of motion pictures, and nearly all of the movies he has directed are just phenomenal. There are also assorted pictures from the past fifteen years, such as Oldboy, Memento, and even Drive which could be classified as variations of "art" films. However, if you had told me that music video director Jonathan Glazer, whose filmography is rather minuscule (go see the criminally underrated Sexy Beast and thank me later), would be a prime candidate for a future art film master, I wouldn't have necessarily called your bluff.


Mind you, this is far from anything that I'd call masterful, or any synonym for the word, but it is a really damn interesting piece of cinema. If your only knowledge about Under The Skin comes from the reports of Ms. Johansson baring all for the very first time, then you're only looking at the icing on the cake and ignoring the body of the cake itself. What Under The Skin the motion picture actually is, in essence, is a peculiar science fiction concept whose pace (slightly) harkens back to a myriad of European-based pictures like Don't Look Now. It ends up encompassing a mixture of thoughts, ideas, and observations of what it ultimately is that makes humanity so unique and diverse, and perhaps that maybe, despite all of our strengths and fallacies, we're nothing significant whatsoever. Or maybe it's just a slow, bizarre nonsensical piece about one woman that can't quite figure out her place in our messed up little world. I could see and hear out either opinion and not argue against either.


One thing I admired about the choices for Skin's (microscopically small) cast of characters was the decision of director Glazer and casting head Kahleen Crawford to largely utilize real people on the streets of Scotland instead of "trained" performers. Yes, that does mean these men were legitimately picked up in a van by Scarlett Johansson and were only informed of their actual roles in the movie afterwards. It's a concept that I have to admire, and it works to fairly good effect. What wasn't entirely believable was our lead actress' British accent, and while I think Scarlett is a tremendously talented woman, this just seemed like she studied how to do one within less than a day. Not necessarily bad, but just a bit on the disappointing side. The minimalistic score provided by musician Mica Levi is used only for the most crucial of moments (save for a surprising inclusion of PRIDE FC standout song "Sandstorm"). Cinematographer Daniel Landin, himself a veteran in the realm of working with music videos (the guy collaborated with legendary experimental group Throbbing Gristle) does an exceptional job as well, especially when you consider what Scotland used to be buried underneath so many years ago.


Though wavering at times towards the pretentious side of things, especially in its latter half when Johansson mostly falls silent and it does move at a snail's pace, Under the Skin will either leave you fascinated or frustrated, and more than likely, it will be a combination of both. Though a revisit is necessary for someone like myself, I still haven't completely made up my mind on the overall final product. At the time of this writing, I'm leaning towards a recommendation solely because you haven't seen anything like this so far in 2014, or perhaps may not see anything like it next year either. I myself will probably seek out the book that it is based on, unless I can find it in audio form. And besides, it's nice to see the wonderful Scarlett Johansson choosing more interesting projects these days.



Then again, I still have to type up a review for Lucy within the next few days. *sigh*

Sex Tape (2014) Review

After a relationship of ten years, which has produced two children and nearly erased their previously promiscuous lifestyle, nubile and lively couple Jay and Annie have settled into a life of complacency. When Annie sells off her increasingly popular blog for a good sum of money, the two decide to celebrate that evening by leaving the children to be babysat, and, hoping to spice up their otherwise droll life, decide to film a video of the two having sexual intercourse. Within no time, via the cloud sharing option on their iPads, the three-hour-long session travels around their close circle of friends and family. Panicked, they set about to stop the circulating tape before it becomes seen by every possible individual.


Before you read any more of my review for Sex Tape, I have to get this out of the way for my male friends: if you want to see Cameron Diaz bare her body, you do get very brief glimpses from behind (though I'd be willing to believe that computers and/or a body double were involved in a good portion of these), and even some shots of her breasts from the side. Notice that I said "brief," not lengthy. Don't buy into her touts on late-night talk shows of proclaiming that she goes full frontal or displays her entire figure.

Now that I've disclosed that little bit of banal information, let us proceed.


Even with trailers that didn't exactly wow me and a rather horrifying-looking score on the usually reliable Rotten Tomatoes, I really wanted to enjoy Sex Tape. I generally enjoy the work of most of the cast and crew, and its main on-screen couple seemed like they were enjoying each other's presence. At the end of the day though, this just isn't that good of a movie, and there are multiple reasons why it will most likely fade into obscurity in less than two months. First off, the picture's entire premise is oddly derivative of the 2000 sex comedy Road Trip, except lacking in the camaraderie department. As dumb as that picture was, it didn't have to rely solely upon two performers to carry a rather silly script, and fared well with having every actor and actress who was cast to do their best with the material given. Even worse, it feels like a less competent take on an older episode of The Simpsons titled "Natural Born Kissers," wherein Homer and Marge long to liven up their own private life behind closed doors. This also borrows small parts from Kevin Smith's hit-or-miss sex comedy Zack And Miri Make A Porno. True, Diaz and co-star Jason Segel are attempting to salvage something prudent from the weak script provided and turn it into something watchable, but one can't make chicken salad from chicken shit in every case.


Secondly, the characters just flounder about like idiots once this home video makes its way around the assorted iPads they are trying to confiscate. There are repeated incidents of when secondary characters (including CHILDREN) tell them how this could have been avoided or remedied, such as calling a number or sending an e-mail. Naturally, they have forsaken the route of common sense and just choose to get into wacky predicaments while driving around from home to home. During this tenure, and once the plot described above kicks into gear, you begin to dislike Cameron Diaz's character. She's erratic, overreacting, and just kind of bland when she isn't yelling about the absurdity of the situation. Her husband Jason Segel is…..well, he's playing Jason Segel. He yells at the top of his lungs quite a bit, gets hurt numerous times, shows off his naughty bits when he can, and tries to display a softer, kinder side that feels incredibly phoned in. This wouldn't be such a problem if they didn't set up the two to be such a likable, and at times realistic couple. It just descends into standard fare mediocrity, and by the end (no spoilers), you just kind of wonder what the point of the whole scenario was. Speaking of having no point, Rob Lowe might be the only memorable character or object in the entire flick, even if his side plot has no resolution whatsoever. Yes, it is ironic that he appears in a picture about a sex "scandal," but he seems like he's having a good laugh playing a closet cocaine addict who happens to share an affinity for thrash metal giants Slayer and deceased gangster rapper Eazy E. He does lift the film off of the ground, even if just a tad. But good lord, the sequence at his house just goes on for what feels like an eternity, dragging its feet at a sluggish pace, and is bolstered by some wonderfully stupid comedy based around animal cruelty that makes the Farrelly Brothers' ideas look subtle. Oh joy.

Finally, I thought it to be impossible, but Sex Tape somehow manages to shill Apple products more than Apple themselves could ever do. Even after several weeks have gone by, I still can't get the bad taste of Transformers: Age of Extinction out of my mouth. To Michael Bay's credit, however, his pushing of products wasn't this in-your-face as it is here. The insistence of pushing a product down your throat is bolstered by the perseverance that you absolutely must own this electronic device, and you should know how to use every bonus that comes with it. All that was missing was an actor or actress looking directly at the camera, smiling, and saying "Hey folks, I love my iPad, and so should you." Wretched and shameless.


Sex Tape just can't seem to get it up or keep it up (I was trying to refrain from using sex-related puns, but they're just too easy to make), nor does it really pack enough to secure a spot in your long-term memory. It just simply exists, and that might be its biggest crime. There was an abundance of potential to make something wholly impressive, especially given the records of director Jake Kasdan (Walk Hard), writer Nicholas Stoller (Get Him To The Greek), and its main cast themselves, but it just kind of flops on the floor like a fish out of water. I can't say that I laughed as much as the three people several rows in front of me did (I'm still bewildered that one of them brought a small baby into a movie such as this), but then again, I think I only emitted a mere one or two genuine chuckles. Unfortunately, that just isn't enough for me to recommend a film like this to anybody.



That is, unless you have a desire to see Jason Segel's posterior numerous times. And if you're that eager for such a thing, go rent, buy, or download Forgetting Sarah Marshall instead.

22 Jump Street (2014) Review

Fresh off of an undercover mission, wherein they disguised themselves as high school scholars in order to bring down a burgeoning drug ring, oddly-paired police officers Greg Jenko and Morton Schmidt have received a new assignment from their superiors. In what is shockingly similar to their last job, the two are ordered to mask themselves as students, infiltrate a popular college, locate the supplier of a new drug nicknamed "WHYPHY," and bring them to justice. When the two arrive, they discover that the new, more vibrant, and drastically different environment surrounding them could slowly dissolve their partnership, should old aspirations and longings get in their way.


When the inaugural 21 Jump Street was released to theaters two years ago, I tried my absolute best to avoid it, fearing that it was, as I've previous stated about other motion pictures in this vein, an unnecessary reboot and/or re-imagining of something that should have stayed buried and should have stayed as a relic or gem of the 1980s. However, thanks to a rather peculiar mixture of boredom and possible masochism, I begrudgingly took the plunge when it arrived at one of my local Redboxes, and I was joined by an equally skeptical friend. We were prepared for the worst. Of course, this is where I would insert the usual spiel about "it surprised me." Well, I'm not nearly clever enough to hide that fact now, am I?. My friend and I came out of our screening rather happy, and admittedly had a lot more fun than someone of our mindsets were expecting. But a sequel? That just screams desperation to the highest degree. Or does it?


The film definitely doesn't take itself too seriously, and even dives into the realm of "meta" pictures like Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and the 90s projects of Wes Craven. It's littered with numerous utterances of lines that indicate the sheer absurdity of doing a sequel which essentially encompasses the same exact premise and plot from the duo's previous frenetic task (the first film's Deputy, played by Parks and Recreation's Nick Offerman, seems to only serve this purpose and does it rather amusingly). Unlike something along the lines of, say, the infamous followups to Austin Powers, this self-referential humor, fourth wall-breaking, and sporadic nod to the original film's memorable moments doesn't grate on you, nor does it feel like, to quote Monty Python, "wink wink nudge nudge." The screenwriters and editors involved with 22 Jump Street mercifully know how to properly manage this, and should be given a pat on the back for mostly preventing the chance of running these aforementioned jokes into the ground. Speaking of jokes, for such a silly, mostly crude and lewd comedy aimed primarily at the young, college-bound crowds and audiences, there are a surprising amount of gags, nuances, and references that could fly right over their heads should they not be too well-versed in the pop culture of yesteryear. Not to sound arrogant or demeaning of today's generation, but most of the folks I know who read this should pick up on a large portion of these once they're in plain view.


Something else that isn't run into the ground is Ice Cube, once again playing the Captain of the "Jump Street" division. He's given a rather sizable amount of more screen time compared to 21 Jump Street, and his vulgar-laced tirades, while pretty damn great, make me wonder if that supposed fourth entry of the Friday film series is ever going to leave developmental hell. As if it wasn't apparent in the previous installment, leads Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill have an eerily good chemistry between them. While I'm an unapologetic fan of Jonah Hill, and have been since his very brief appearance in The 40-Year-Old Virgin, I've never quite seen the appeal of his costar Channing Tatum. With the plethora of pictures that the 34-year-old ends up choosing (how the man is already that old I'm not quite sure), he more often than not comes across as a more boorish version of Keanu Reeves, albeit with better looks. And yet, Hill manages to get something out of the Magic Mike actor that nobody else possibly can: a personality. Perhaps the Keanu comparison isn't too damning after all, especially since Reeves finally started emitting legitimate charisma when paired alongside performers such as Al Pacino and Laurence Fishburne. If those comparisons don't make sense to the non-cinema attending crowds, then let me try this one for you: Hill and Tatum are the movie equivalent of wrestling superstars Hulk Hogan and Randy Savage. Not in terms of pop culture importance per se, but at least in terms of being able to play off of one another extremely well, be it in times of conflict or in times of unity. The new supporting characters are fine additions too (most projects involving Peter Stormare are worth at least one viewing), though one of my primary fears was realized when one rather important revelation in the movie involving a new cast member was disclosed in its own trailers shown throughout nationwide cinemas. It does detract from the potential surprise, but doesn't necessarily hurt any of its acts. The surprise cameos from Rob Riggle and Dave Franco, who were both involved with the former flick, are also charming, but not entirely needed.


While the script does feel lacking and leaves particular problems or subplots unresolved, especially after its rather bloated third act, the sequelitis bug doesn't end up infecting 22 Jump Street with anything poisonous whatsoever (especially with the excellent end credits sequence that I won't spoil for any single person reading this). It isn't perfect, but given that most features based on television shows these days usually end up wallowing in the muck of mediocrity (Demon Knight, Get Smart) or are just plain insufferable to sit through (you're welcome to insert whatever you feel like in this category), it ends up as an entertaining experience, especially if you can make the trek it to a relatively early screening and can manage to wrangle in an open-minded and humorous comrade to go with you.




Besides, you don't want to spend your hard-earned cash on that OTHER film based off of a television franchise, do you?




…..Please tell me that you don't…..