Sorry To Bother You (2018) SPOILERS!

Sorry To Bother You is one of those movies that really caught me by surprise. I had first learned about it because someone had given me a sticker of it at SXSW that I put on my water bottle. I decided to check out the trailer because I might as well. The trailer didn't seem out of the ordinary. It mainly looked like a comedy about being a telemarketer. I could relate because at one point in my life I did work at a call center and I know how much it sucks. But, when I sat down to watch it I received a completely different film.

The plot is about Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) in an alternate present day Oakland trying to make a difference in the world. But what is really making a difference in the world? His girlfriend Detroit (Tessa Thompson), who wears really ornate earrings, just tells him to get a job. After his friend Salvador convinces him to take a job at a telemarketing company, he starts to climb the corporate ladder. His trade secret is by putting on his "white" voice (David Cross) when selling. But, the company that he works for has more up its sleeve than he was led to believe.

Now the movie started off really funny. The obvious jabs at corporate America and the financial crisis are very apparent throughout the whole film. The selling your soul and turning on your friends for success is a huge theme. Everyone who has ever worked a job before knows of the possibility of this. Cassius gives up his values to achieve success because that is what he most strives for. He wants to make a difference in the world, even if it is for the negative. This includes selling weaponry, slaves etcetera etcetera. But the money he also receives is too good to pass up as well.

I AM GOING TO SPOIL THE FILM RIGHT NOW SO STOP READING THIS IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE FILM AND BE SURPRISED.

But the last thirty minutes are where it goes completely off the rails. One of the companies that is shown throughout the film has secret plans to take all of it's workers and turn them into half horse/ half human to create a more efficient workforce. After creating so many of them the owner of the company Steve Lift (Armie Hammer) needs someone to keep and eye on them to make sure there isn't a uprising against the company. As he says he wants Cassius to become there "Martin Luther King Jr." to stop the uprising because he knows that eventually a social collapse will occur. Weird right? Also you get to see a lot of horse penis.

The rest of the film is Cassius and his friends trying to take down the corporation that are creating half-horse/ half people. Now the ending of the film did come quite quickly and I was really at a loss at the end. The film went from 15 miles per hour to 200 in 12 seconds. Now I understand what the film was trying to say and the dry humor behind the whole thing but the ending just was too out there for me. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool idea, it just belongs in a much different movie.

Rating: C+

Genre: Comedy, Fantasy, Sci-fi

Cast: Lakeith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Jermaine Fowler

Rated: R for pervasive language, some strong sexual content, graphic nudity, and drug use.

Director: Boots Riley

Dr Seuss' Cat In The Hat (2003)

Sometimes it's nice to sit down, shut off your brain and watch a movie. But sometimes that is not always the case. There are seldom times that I have to turn off a movie because it's so bad. Dr. Seuss' Cat In the Hat (2003) hurts your brain to watch. This took me three separate times to try and get through. This movie was the final nail in the coffin for Audrey Geisel (Dr. Seuss's wife) to not allow any more Dr. Seuss material to be made in live action. Ron Howard's How The Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) helped with that decision. But what really made this movie so horrific to watch?

The film does contain some of the same elements of the book but is very difficult to turn a 50 page book into a 88 minute film. The viewer follows siblings Sally (Dakota Fanning) and Conrad (Spencer Breslin) and the day they encountered a certain Cat in a Hat. The Cat is played by Mike Myers (Austin Powers, So I Married an Axe Murderer) who is really hamming it up in this film. But where the film took a few liberties is all of the subplots. The kids are supposed to keep the house clean while their Mom (Kelly Preston) gets called in for work. Yes, her characters name is just Mom. She is also having a work party and since her boss Mr. Humberfloob (Sean Hayes) is a germaphobe the kids have to keep the house clean. Just to add in even more story there is also Quinn (Alec Baldwin) who is courting  Mom. He wants to send Conrad to military school so he then can finally marry Mom or something...I don't know. So take all of that and combine in with a cat making a huge mess of the place and you get the convoluted story of The Cat in the Hat.

The biggest problem that I have with this movie is that none of the jokes land. All the characters throughout the film are annoying and there is no direction. I like Mike Myers. I think he is a really funny comedian and his characters he creates are amazing. Wayne's World (1992) is a hilarious movie. But, you can just tell that he does not want to be in this movie. The breaking of the fourth wall and the "Oh Yeahs!" just get old after awhile. Also, the adult jokes in this movie are just plain gross. You can only roll your eyes at how any of these made its way into a PG movie and didn't qualify it for a PG-13. The other biggest problem that I have with this film is the costumes. Thing 1 and Thing 2 are terrifying. It is difficult to look at them because they are literally something you have seen in your nightmares. The Cat also is weird to look at especially when you know that the suit was made with human hair.

The film ends with everyone realizing that they were terrible and now, through the torture that the Cat made them endure, they are better people. Alec Baldwin also spits up purple goop. What a cathartic ending.

But I know it is a film for children. Maybe the kids might take something from that but my money is that they won't. They won't think it's funny, they won't learn anything and they won't know what's going on.

I keep trying to find some sort of redeeming factor in this film but I just can't. All I can think about is the disgusting imagery and the Cat threatening to beat a child with a baseball bat after he was hit in the balls. I'm serious. That is actually in this film. Feel free to skip this movie. You aren't missing anything here.

Rating: F

Genre: Adventure, Comedy, Family

Cast: Mike Myers, Dakota Fanning, Spencer Breslin

Rated: PG for mild crude humor and some double entendres

Director: Bo Welch

The House That Jack Built (2018)

Lars Von Trier's latest film The House That Jack Built has been creating quite the stir amongst critics and audiences. Audiences at Cannes had left the theater after some of the more brutal scenes. Now the MPAA is upset over the unrated directors cut of the film that was shown. It has been five years since his latest film Nymphomaniac Volume 1 and 2 (2013) was released and The House That Jack Built was supposed to be his true retrospective on his life as a person and a director. Luckily I was able to see the unrated version in theaters and it is unlike any film I have ever seen. Both in creative style and sheer brutality.

The House That Jack Built is about a serial killer named Jack (Matt Dillon) and five different incidents that he has gone through in his twelve years of killing. As he goes through the different incidents, he is talking to a man named Verge (Bruno Ganz). Jack is telling him his personal thoughts on these different incidents and why he did these things. They bring up subjects of art in violence, wine making, the holocaust, and hunting, just to name a few. Each of the five incidents focus on a different crime that he has done and then builds on his personal thoughts of how that incident happened. In other words it is a two hour and thirty two minute dive into the mind of a killer and the senseless acts of violence he has committed against society. But where this movie stands out is that the whole movie is a metaphor for Von Trier.

The cinematography and art style are amazing. It is told in the same format as Nymphomaniac where there are voiceovers as Jack and Verge discuss what is going on in the scene. It feels as if someone was actually telling this story to a stranger which Von Trier does really well in his films. I find that the use of quick cuts to show examples of what they are talking about make the film very interesting to watch. It always keeps it new and helps you understand the characters and their thinking. I guess it is almost like a "dumbing down" for the viewer but it never feels that way. There is always a point to the images shown on the screen to help move the story along.

I can't speak for how violent the rated version is but the unrated version that I saw is really violent. I can understand why many wouldn't want to see this film. Just explaining some of the scenes make people cringe. The worst scene that got to me was the murder of a woman and her two children. It only makes it worse that when he is trying to kill them, he is having a conversation with Verge, comparing killing them to a hunter hunting deer. Basically you want to save the mother for last and should kill the young first. The way that Dillon's voice is when talking about this is very monotone, because he has no empathy which also makes the actions that much worse. Let's not forget that all the violence is shown and even after the killing, it gets a lot worse. I don't want to explain too much but be prepared to cover your eyes.

This is where is starts to get tricky. Von Trier is comparing himself to Jack throughout the film and is using the killings throughout the film as a metaphor for his films. Jack believes that murder is a version of art and although violent, destructive and sick should be viewed under a respectful manner. Von Trier has been under fire multiple times for his violence in movies especially against women. By comparing Jack to himself with this metaphor he is explaining that his films should still be considered art even if they are depraved.  Now this probably makes the film more interesting for someone who is familiar with Von Trier's works. For a newcomer, this would be lost on them unless they have done some research. Also within the film he makes notions towards one of his biggest fiascos that almost destroyed his entire reputation so that was intriguing to see his feelings towards that.

What it comes down to though is was it any good? I thought the movie was very well done. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. Does it give an insight into Von Trier's mind? Absolutely. Do we really need that? No. I will mostly likely watch it again because there were certain parts of their talks that I couldn't quite make out over the packed theater. Also, I walked out of the theater curious and confused as to what I had just watched. The ending also needs a rewatch because it really comes from left field. So if you are okay with extreme violence in the name of art then you will enjoy this. If violence is not your thing then stay as far away as you can. Some scenes in this will give you nightmares.

Grade: A-

Genre: Drama, Horror

Cast: Matt Dillon, Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman

Rated: Unrated

Director: Lars Von Trier

Dead Ringers (1988)

What does it mean to watch a Cronenberg film? When his name is said to most cinefiles they think of body horror. He was the master at creating creatures stemming out of people or awesome practical effects. The Fly (1986) and Scanners (1981) both dealt with type of changes within a body to create something more than just a human body. But in the late 80's he made a film that surprisingly doesn't have that many practical effects. Dead Ringers (1988) delves into something that we don't view as anything different. He decided to tackle the subject of twins and the possible effects that one could affect the other.

The plot of the film centers around a pair of identical twin brothers, Beverly and Elliot Mantel (both portrayed by Jeremy Irons) and their involvement with one of their patients Claire Niveau (Genevieve Bujold). They are brilliant gynecologists and have won awards based on their research and contribution to the field. Beverly is the more studious and lonely type while Elliot is the confident, outgoing type. Both brothers although identical in looks could not be more different in personality, which Irons brings his all to the table to show.  Elliot becomes entranced with Claire when she comes in for a check up, not only because she is a famous television star but also because she has three uteri. For the brothers this is something that is extremely unheard of and almost never seen. After Elliot has a one night stand with Claire he passes her off to his brother. Beverly pretends to be his brother throughout their relationship but when their rouge comes to an end, she breaks up with him. This is only the beginning of a downward spiral that envelops both brothers into a true Shakespearean type ending. 

Now as I said before this film has almost zero body horror compared to typical Cronenberg fashion. As for a few parts within the film, the characteristics of what we have come to expect aren't there. The film solely relies on the characters that he creates.  It's no question that Irons carries the film by his amazing work. But something about their interaction with both the outside world and their inner struggle makes the movie quite mesmerizing. But the only problem with that is that sometimes Cronenberg because so obsessed with explaining and fleshing out his characters that it feels to run on.

Although the movie is only 116 minutes, around the middle of the film it felt as nothing was happening. It wasn't until Beverly started to truly drift into madness that the film picked up again. Just wait until he makes the "mutant" gynecology  equipment and then you will understand. But I feel like the ending also abruptly happened as well. While the film felt like it was building up to this huge climactic ending, it was really only a murmur instead of an earthquake. The ending was quite predictable as well, but what came was not as extravagant as his earlier movies. It basically finished in a whisper compared to The Fly which ended with a shotgun blast to the head.

It was nice to see the versatility of what Cronenberg can do, but it felt like the film just ran on for a bit too long. Still Irons held the movie together and made it interesting enough that you won't be bored out of your mind. Still a entertaining watch but don't expect a happy ending while watching this.

Grade: B

Genre: Drama

Cast: Jeremy Irons, Genevieve Bujold

Rated R: Strong sexuality/ nudity, disturbing content, language and drug use

Directed by: David Cronenberg

I'm Your Friend Till' The Very End: 30 Years of CHILD'S PLAY

The earliest dolls were made of clay, stone, wood, ivory, leather or wax. Wooden dolls have been discovered in ancient Egyptian tombs dating back to the early 21st century B.C. Dolls are used in certain rituals like voodoo and have even been 'possessed', like the doll inspiring the Annabelle films. One thing they all have in common - is how creepy they are. The way that their lifeless black eyes look at you, never blinking, boring a hole straight into your soul, all with a terrifying grin. They have scared children and adults for many years - but it was in 1988 when a cultural icon in the form of a doll was built. His name was Chucky and we are, of course, talking about the 1988 classic: Child's Play.

In Child's Play, single mother Karen (Catherine Hicks) is looking to buy a very popular doll for her son Andy (Alex Vincent). Unable to locate one in any toy store, she buys one from a homeless man in a dark alley. Unbeknownst to her, the doll has been possessed by the soul of recently deceased serial killer Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif), also known as Chucky. Now, Chucky wants to get back into a human body before he's stuck in the doll's body forever. Since Andy was the first person he revealed his true identity to, his is the only body he can inhabit.

The Birth of Chucky

Child's Play started out as an entirely different film in the original drafts by writer Don Mancini. In the original draft, Andy Barclay was the antagonist. The film more resembled David Cronenberg's The Brood (1979). Andy was going to make a blood pact with "Buddy" the doll, and while Andy was asleep, the doll was going to come to life and take revenge on the people Andy's subconscious despised. Ultimately, If Andy was responsible for everyone's death, audiences would have had a different response to the film. People would have protested (more than they already did). Even though the finished product of Child's Play turned out different, it still maintains some of the original qualities of that idea. 

Mancini also wanted to delve further into the effects of advertising on children with Child's Play. Andy is shown in the beginning of the film watching a "Good Guys" television show filled with Good Guy marketing. Andy also wears "Good Guy" clothing in every scene. Before Karen buys the doll from the homeless man, she buys accessories for the doll, even though he doesn't even own the doll yet. Everyone in this universe is addicted to the consumerism of the eighties. Even though the film wasn't centered on this fact, like Mancini originally wanted, it is still heavily implied.

THEMES

Now, it's no surprise that one of the major themes throughout this film surrounds motherhood and family. Andy's father is hardly spoken about in the film, except for the fact that he has died. This is one of the main reasons why everyone believes that Andy has such an attachment to the doll. Just like in The Exorcist (1973), when the doctors blame Regan's behavior on a lack of a father figure in her life. Both films feature very strong mothers, who eventually start to believe their children. Child's Play shows how even a single parent still has the power to save and raise a child. She was willing to blow off the head, leg and arm of a killer doll for her son. That's love.

Throughout the rest of the film, Andy starts to mimic Chucky. Best example would be after Chucky kills Maggie. Karen asks what has Chucky been saying to Andy. His response is "Maggie was a real bitch and got what she deserved." Karen's horrified by his casual use of curse words but also by the lack of empathy for Maggie just being killed. In reality this young child is being corrupted by a
murderer.

RECEPTION

Child's Play started terrifying everyone on November 9th, 1988, just in times for the holidays. It made $44 million dollars worldwide at the box office off of a budget of only $9 million dollars. The film had good reviews with a total of 57 metascore and a 67% on rottentomatoes.com. Roger Ebert gave it three stars saying "A cheerfully energetic horror film of the slam-bang school, but slicker and more clever than most, about an evil doll named Charles Lee Ray, or Chucky." Of course a sequel was greenlit and came out two years later to the day. Since then there has been five more sequels for a total of seven in the total series.

ICON

Chucky's presence of being an actual animated doll doesn't even come to fruition until about the forty minute mark of a eighty-seven minute movie. But with a cultural icon such as Chucky, most people know who he is. He has now made appearances at many occasions over the years included the first annual Horror Hall of Fame, Saturday Night Live, USA Today, the Superbowl and his latest was in the Spielberg film Ready Player One (2018). With a reboot in the works, it seems that Chucky is really going to be our friend till' the end.

How old were you when you first saw Childs Play? Does it still scare you? Will Chucky forever haunt you? Let us know in the comments below!

Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

There is no disputing that the original Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) is a classic. Wes Craven did a spectacular job at taking what we hold sacred, which is of course our sleep, and made us terrified of it. He made us afraid to sleep or the burned man will take his revenge.

In 2010 though, Hollywood thought that we were due for Freddy Kruger to hit the big screen again. His last time on the big screen was in 2004 with Freddy VS. Jason and his last solo movie was in 1994 with Wes Craven's New Nightmare. 

If you have never seen or heard of the plot of A Nightmare film, it is about a bunch of kids who whenever they go to sleep start to see a burned man, in a green and red sweater and a glove with knives on it. Eventually the character, known as Freddy, starts to kill them in their dreams which then kills them in real life.

The remake keeps some of the same themes and elements but also expands on a lot of them. For instance, and this will be a SPOILER ALERT. They decided to make him a full blown pedofile. In the original he was a a child murderer pedofile who was let free on a technicality but in this one they went all out with the sick factor, including some of the dialogue as well as showing some pictures he took of the kids (out of focus). This turn for the character was okay but I do not think that it was necessarily needed. It was better to leave the viewer with an imagination of what he did instead of putting the social commentary on justice against pedofiles up front.

Jackie Earle Hayley (Watchman, Shutter Island) does a decent job at playing Freddy but Robert Englund ruined the roll. The rest of the actors in it are just there, not necessarily bringing anything to the story. The audience is just waiting for the next person to die, you just don't care about any of the characters. But that is what these new remakes were trying to accomplish. A high body count with no substance.

There isn't really much to this movie. If I were to choose whether to watch this or the original it is really no contest. But if you are looking to have something on that includes gory deaths as you are making dinner, then feel free to watch this. I only wish that if they are going to try and reboot the franchise again, that they try an add a little more back into the story, make the characters actual characters and create a film that is not only fun but has substance as well.

Grade: D

Genre: Horror

Cast: Jackie Earle Hayley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner

Rated: R for strong bloody horror violence, disturbing images, terror and language

Director: Samuel Bayer

Dead By Dawn: Looking Back at The Evil Dead

The Evil Dead. Even just by saying the film's name: gore and giggles come flooding back. If you're even a mild fan of horror genre, seeing this film is almost a right of passage. An initiation is a better word for it. The fact that this low-budget horror film - made by a group of high school friends - became such a commercial and cultural success just proves that when it comes to the horror genre, The Evil Dead is a pioneer.

37 years after its initial release, On October 15th 1981 at the Redford Theatre, The Evil Dead has spawned two sequels, a reboot, comics, video games, merchandise, a television series and a stage musical. The film shows no signs of succumbing anytime soon.

CONCEPT

A group of friends travel to Tennessee to stay at a cabin in the woods. The previous tenant had conjured up demons by reading from the 'Book of the Dead' (in the sequels it becomes known as the Necronomicon). When a tape's played with the incantation on it, the demons come back to terrorize the friends. Violence, gore and brutality ensue. Especially when the only way to kill your possessed friends is by bodily dismemberment  - and they do not shy away from losing limbs. Sounds pretty amazing right?

"I believe I have made a significant find in the Kandarian ruins, a volume of ancient Sumarian burial practices and funerary incantations. It is entitled "Naturum De Montum", roughly translated: Book of the Dead. The book is bound in human flesh and inked in human blood. It deals with demons and demon resurrection and those forces which roam the forest and dark bowers of Man's domain. The first few pages warn that these enduring creatures may lie dormant but are never truly dead. They may be recalled to active life through the incantations presented in this book. It is through the recitation of these passages that the demons are given license to possess the living."

THE MEN WHO STARTED THE CURSE

Now two names come to mind when thinking about The Evil Dead, and those are of course Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell. Sam Raimi went on to have a huge career - with directing films like the original Spider-man Trilogy (2002-2007), Drag Me To Hell (2009) and Oz the Great and Powerful (2013).  Bruce Campbell went to star in films like Maniac Cop (1988) and Bubba Ho-Tep (2002). But what these two did was amazing especially since they were both in their 20's. They were able to create a film that has withstood time and was so terrifying that people still remember the first time they watched it.

FILMING

Although made on a shoestring budget of only $350,000, The Evil Dead is spectacular. Especially during the tough filming conditions, which included freezing nights and multiple injuries. Many of the actors were stabbed or thrown into objects during principal photography. Campbell recalls it as "12 weeks of mirthless exercise in agony". While nearing the ending of shooting, the cast and crew started burning the furniture in the house to stay warm. Raimi is known to have abused his actors on set especially Campbell. He said "if everyone was in extreme pain and misery, that would translate into a horror." Many times they would bring in Raimi's brother, Ted Raimi to be a stand in for the actors when they were busy doing something else, mainly because of the tight budget and who better to get free labor from than your brother.

RECEPTION

Raimi had his premiere showing at Detroit's Redford theater because that is where Campbell watched movies as a kid. Audiences were excited and loved the film but they still needed to get a distributor. Raimi was willing to show it to anyone who would watch it. Eventually he was able to show it to Irvin Shapiro, who distributed George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead among other films. Shapiro loved it and saw the possible of commercial success. Because Shapiro was one of the founders of Cannes film festival he showed it in the 1982 lineup. But, when it received a recommendation from the legendary writer Stephen King, the film's popularity exploded overnight. Because of his approval, as well as many other respected critics, New Line Cinema decided to pick up the film and distribute it.

New Line took a different approach when it came to a domestic release and decided to release the film in theaters and on VHS at the same time. This made it accessible to anyone who wanted to watch it.

RELEASE

When it was first released it received an X rating for substantial graphic horror violence and gore. The MPAA rating helped with its notoriety and it became the highest selling VHS the year it came out. I think that the tree scene helped cement its place in history let alone the rest of the violence. In the UK it was placed on the "Video Nasties" list.  It maintains a 95% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com and earned $29.4 million dollars at the box office. Everything within the universe of The Evil Dead is iconic from the outfits to the quotes. Even years later it is held in such high esteem as being one of the greats of the horror genre.

Bug (2006)

William Friedkin's psychological thriller Bug is something. I believe that is the best way to describe it. I have seen this movie about 3 or 4 times before and every time I watch it, I keep wanting to find something that I like about it. I mean, this comes from the director of The French Connection, The Exorcist and Killer Joe. There has to be some redeeming factor to this movie. But no matter how hard I search I still cannot find it.

Bug is about a single bartender Agnes (Ashley Judd) who eventually invites a military veteran Peter (Michael Shannon) to stay with her in her hotel apartment. But little does she know that it turns out that Peter believes that he has been put through military experiments, and now is on the run from the government. He also is infected with some sort of parasite (or as he calls them, aphids). I just don't know what to think with this movie. When I had initially saw this on the shelf of Blockbuster I was hoping for maybe a Starship Troopers type of bug movie but instead I got this. I was quite disappointed.

Do not get me wrong. This film is really well done. The acting is top notch. Judd and Shannon work really well together and the chemistry they have just works. Friedkin does a great job here. The problem with this movie is that it just doesn't know what it is. Is it a horror film? Body horror? Psychological thriller? There are so many unanswered questions left at the end that they fail to deliver on. I am all for the audience making up their own minds about a movie but this one is so bizarre and just contradictory of itself, it is hard to see anything beyond what's on the screen. This includes the random cuts of insects that flash on the screen like I am watching the cursed tape from The Ring.

Now I do not know how this movie actually ends up at the climax, but it is so far off the original context of this movie that it is almost like I am watching a something different. I doubt that anyone who is reading this cares about the ending of a 12 year old movie but long story short they commit suicide. By burning themselves. Then cut to black. Roll credits. This movie was a bug movie without any actually bugs in it. Quite boring and anti climatic if you ask me. Just more of a "WTF did I just watch" feeling.

This movie does come in at only 1 hour and 42 minutes which is a godsend because I don't know how I keep making my way back to it. I just see it on a streaming platform and I just decide to re-watch it. Maybe I'm the one who just isn't understanding what this film is trying to bring. Maybe it has to deal with the insecurities that follow our American Veterans when they try to acclimate back into society or eventually coming to terms with your life and realizing what your true purpose is. Either way it's very farfetched. This movie at the end of the day is just about paranoia and manipulation. I can honestly say that I wouldn't recommend this to anyone.

Grade: D

Genre: Horror, Drama

Cast: Ashley Judd, Michael Shannon, Harry Connick Jr.

Rated: R for some strong violence, sexuality, nudity, language and drug use.

Director: William Friedkin

Veronica (2017)

I had recently heard that the new horror film on Netflix Veronica was supposed to be so scary that the majority of people who watched it, had to turn it off half way through. Now it did have it's scary moments but it was not as bad as all that. It was a very put together and thought out film that delivered on both scares and competency. Paco Plaza's based on true events film was a very welcome surprise that I was not that well aware of. It was not covered in cliches which always is a nice touch in modern day horror.

At it's roots Veronica is a Ouija board experiment gone wrong. This has come up multiple times in movies, including Paranormal Activity as well as it's own two movies based just on the Hasbro game. But what Veronica does different is it involves different elements into it. Veronica (played by Sandra Escacena) and her friends decide to try to contact her dead father and a deceased boyfriend on the solar eclipse back in Madrid, Spain 1991. After the seance, it seems that Veronica has brought something back from the nether-realm and it has attached itself to her.  Now it is up to her to try to save herself and her siblings from certain death and damnation. Not a bad little story right? Especially when at the beginning it gives the "Based on a True Story" disclaimer.

What makes this movie work so well is the use of atmosphere. It really does not do a whole lot of explaining what has followed her or why it is doing these things. It seems like Plaza knew that everyone is already aware of this type of movie so why waste time on things we already know. The use of shadows and music really helps this film. It's almost as if you start to search for things to jump out but when nothing does you still feel that satisfaction of your body tensing up. Sure this movie had its fair amounts of jump scares in it but I feel that it was able to maintain a level of uneasiness all throughout.

What Veronica also does well is as the movie is setting up the story with exposition, it still maintains a really good pace and keeps you intrigued throughout the whole thing. You are already shown the situation the house becomes at the very beginning but it is almost as if, even though you know the end, you are interested in the journey. I did not see the the ending coming though. They changed it up and only showed enough at the beginning to where you wanted to know what happened.

Does this film have a deeper meaning to it though? What was Plaza trying to tell the audience? I personally believe he just wanted to make a scary movie loosely based on a true story. I looked up the original story and the only thing that this is based on is names and a few pictures basically. Although that was a little disappointing, I was still really thrilled by how much I enjoyed this movie. Especially after most of the moronic horror movies that have come out of late. Definitely a recommend but don't expect for this to be unwatchable because it's so scary. Just a fun delight in its 1 hour and 45 minute runtime.

Grade: B+

Genre: Horror

Cast: Sandra Escacena, Bruna Gonzales, Claudia Placer

Rated: MA

Director: Paco Plaza

Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom

Jurassic Park is one of my all time favorite movies. I could honestly not wait to see it's return to the big screen with Jurassic World. Sadly my cravings for dinosaurs was not fulfilled. Now when Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom was announced I couldn't help but hold onto hope. Could this be the return? Sadly and frustratingly I can say that this was nowhere close. The series has now hit an all time low. I can honestly say this has been one of the worst movies I have seen in awhile and it hurts my heart to say that.

Fallen Kingdom starts some time after the ending of Jurassic World with the park being shut down. Both Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen ( Chris Pratt) have gone their separate ways. Suddenly nature decides to take matters into it's own hands and have a volcano become active on Isla Nublar. Now it is up to our two heroes to go and save some of the dinosaurs from the island to bring to a sanctuary that the unknown partner of John Hammond, Mr. Lockwood ( James Cromwell) has created for them. It just turns out that their are other nefarious motives at work.

Now not only is this movie just a cut and paste of the others in the series, it lacks everything that you want in a Jurassic Park movie. First the characters aren't really that enjoyable. I remember back in the original when you were concerned for all of them. This one features new characters with names I didn't even bother to remember because they were so insignificant. For example the character Franklin Webb (Justice Smith) was only put into this movie for comedic relief and if thats what they want to call it, thats a huge stretch. Everything that he says or does is so eye rollingly bad that its difficult to watch. It was almost as everyone else in the movie knew it was a joke as well. Nobody seems to really be trying.

What this movie does have is incredible CGI. Everything on that front is really well done. The actions are fluid and everyone does okay acting against a blank screen. But that is where the magic falls flat. Being a huge fan of practical effects and Stan Winston's work, it still holds up so well. This just feels extremely stylized and almost video game like. I realize that with a lot of what they wanted to do with this movie could only be done with CGI but the entire movie and every dinosaur was done that way. But lets get on to the most ridiculous part of this movie. The Indo-Raptor. I still do not understand the reason why in these series reboots they have to create new dinosaurs? There are plenty of other ones that they could have chosen but instead they want to just ignore real dinosaurs or throw their name in just for exposition. Finally they decided to have carnosaurus and a baryonx thrown in but for basic cameos. Plus now the movie has taken the villains of the first movie, the raptors and have turned them into man's best friend. It just doesn't make sense.

The first act of this movie is a repeat of The Lost World: Jurassic Park. Go back onto the island to "save" the dinosaurs but they get taken but the big bad corporation and brought to the main land. Act two changes into exposition of the true reason why this is happening and the bad guy emerges out of the shadows twirling his mustache like a Bond villain. We find out there is no sanctuary and the advisor wants to hold an auction and sell the dinosaurs to private bidders. Third act is just boring nonsense. Lets just say that the "Jurassic Park" has now been replaced by a surprisingly huge mansion. It's almost like playing Clue and finding out how someone got murdered in the study. I don't want to tell the ending but let me just say that I could not have been more disappointed with the twist. The whole thing just has no heart.

Now before everyone accuses me of being too hard on this movie, I am aware that it was just a cash cow going to set up a sixth movie in the franchise. I know that. I really tried hard to like this movie. Who doesn't like to see dinosaurs brought to the big screen? Who doesn't love to hear the roar of the king of the dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus Rex? Now the snippets where they just had the dinosaurs eating people were fun. The cold open was pretty awesome and a few moments throughout were very exciting. There was too much drama from the people here and not enough of the dinosaurs. The cinematography was boring. Just pointing and clicking the record button and when substance was brought in, it just felt like a John Woo slow motion fight without the pigeons. It really hurts my heart but if the series continues on this path I am afraid of how much further it will sink.

Grade: F

Genre: Action

Cast: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Rafe Spall

Rated: PG-13 for intense sequences of science fiction violence and peril.

Director: J.A. Bayona

City Of God (2002)

2002's City of God is a movie that isn't so much a film, but a story that has to be experienced and then digested. An experience full of heartbreak, murder, corruption, greed, and poverty. Fernando Meirelles with co-director Katia Lund, bring the real life trauma of living in the City of God to the big screen in fantastic form. Now, is this approach of showing the depravity of their living conditions over the top or explicit? I would disagree. It gets into the nitty and gritty of life.

The film's plot follows a group of impoverished children who grew up in the City of God, Brazil, during the 60's and 70's and all of the trials and tribulations that come with it. The two characters we follow are Rocket (Alexandre Rodrigues) and Lil Ze (Leandro Firmino) who started out their lives in the very beginning of the City of God. Rocket follows the more honest, stay out of trouble lifestyle, which includes hanging out with friends, doing photography and occasionally smoking a joint. Lil Ze on the other hand has embraced the violence and drug lifestyle. I don't want to give too much away but Lil Ze's introduction to his future endeavors is pretty intense. Lil Ze's story is almost like a Brazilian version of Michael Corleone's rise to power in Godfather Part II. He starts off small until he gets a huge gang of thugs and eventually takes over all the other businesses besides one section whom he leaves Carrot (Matheus Nachtergaele) in charge.

This movie, first and foremost, is about the characters. There are so many different stories being told within the grand scheme but Meirelles carefully makes sure that you understand each character's motivations, who they are, and why they are pertinent. It is so easy to tell if you are watching a movie and you cannot remember any of the characters names, that is because you don't care what happens to them. This movie is very different. Watching it I was concerned with each character's life and what they were doing to stay alive, watching how everyone adjusted to this lifestyle, and why they wanted to stay in it or leave it.

The movie eventually takes a different turn (following some very unfortunate events) and becomes an all out war between the two factions of Lil Ze and Carrot for control of the City of God. This is where the brutality of the characters starts to shine. A very powerful scene is where a group of kids, known as The Runts, have been thieving and doing hold ups to the different stores in Lil Ze's territory. Eventually he becomes fed up with it and decides to take matters into his own hands. Lil Ze, Steak and Fries (a young kid who hangs out with Lil Ze sometimes) and some thugs go to the Runts hang out. The older thugs catch two of the Runts and Lil Ze gives them a choice. Choose to either be shot in the hand or in the foot. Considering these kids are around the age of 6-10 it is very traumatic for them. Both of the runts agree to be shot in the hands after deliberation and coming to terms with their decisions. Of course Lil Ze shoots them both in the foot instead. As the younger one is crying and screaming out for help Lil Ze brings over "Steak and Fries" (approximately 12 years old) and tells him in order to become one of them he has to shoot and kill one of the Runts. This scene is so incredibly deep and telling because it shows how these kids get trapped into this lifestyle and decide to accept it. Eventually Steak makes his decision and a little boy is dead while the other is crying and bleeding his way home.

But in the end what is this movie trying to tell us? That this life exists? To count our lucky stars that not all of us are in these conditions? Or trying to show what true human nature can turn into with poverty, neglect and a dash of drugs? The most insane part is at the very end when those five words jump up onto the screen "Based On A True Story". Personally I think it was trying to show how depending on the decisions that are placed in front of you, your life can go one of two ways. This is one of those stories that reflects the Boys In The Hood afternoon specials, the "if you stay on the right path" you can escape hell story. But sadly both show that no matter how much you try and stay on the straight and narrow your surroundings do have an impact on you and majority of the time it does not work out in your favor. Overall a very deep, emotional and impactful story that has stayed with me.

Grade: A-

Genre: Drama

Cast: Alexandre Rodrigues, Leandro Firmino, Matheus Nachtergaele

Rated: R for strong brutal violence, sexuality, drug content and language

Directed by: Fernando Meirelles, Katia Lund

Wish Upon

Wish Upon is your typical PG-13 horror movie with typical ideas, tropes and cliches. While watching it, it does enough to keep you interested in it but not enough for you to actually care about anything. There aren't really any scares that come along with this movie so the most it can become is a immature thriller with thoughts of grandeur and excitement.

John R. Leonetti creates the tone for the movie right at the very beginning showing a mother hanging herself in the attic and then having her young daughter find her. Now I will say this movie does have all the right elements, even though most of them have already been played out. It follows a high school girl Clare (Joey King) who after the fallout of her mothers suicide is having a difficult time in school and life. She is one of the "nerds" with her two friends and gets picked on by the popular group whom she has a crush on one the jocks. Sounds pretty familiar? Thats because you already saw this movie back in 1996 with The Craft. Her father played by Ryan Phillippe (who is always fun to watch) is a dumpster diver and eventually comes across this mystic sound box. Well it just so happens that this cursed sound box will deliver you seven wishes but upon each wish that you ask for, someone in your life is going to die.

Now I will not fault this movie completely for all of its cliches. It is adequately done. The acting isn't really there yet but what can you ultimately expect. The deaths are pretty interesting and well done but the real problem with this movie is the character development. The main character just becomes so detestable that the viewer does not even care what happens to them. She becomes so selfish that she is willing to put everyone she knows and loves at risk. It is ridiculous. Let alone the totally predictable ending but if you choose to watch this movie you will know whats going to happen before it gets there.

This movie at the end of the day is trying to say "enjoy what you have because when its gone you will miss it. Just enjoy life. Do not take your life for granted." Now there are plenty of other movies that are competent enough to get this point across but I guess for the young generation now, this is the way. You have to throw stereotypes at them and shove it in their faces. I may be getting preachy but this film brings nothing to the table and all I was waiting was for the next death during its 90 minute runtime. I can honestly say that is one of the positives of this movie. Overall it's just a boring movie that the viewer has seen before. I know I had.

Grade: D

Genre: Horror

Cast: Joey King, Ryan Phillippe, Ki Hong Lee

Rated: PG-13 for violent and disturbing images, thematic elements and language.

Director: John R. Leonetti

Samurai Cop Review

"I may stop by, so keep it warm." OH MY GOD. This movie is something else. I don't even know where to start with this movie. If you like movies like Troll 2, The Room, or even the Amazing Bulk then you will love this. I know that I did and I loved it for how bad this movie actually is.

The plot is about Detective Joe Marshall (Matt Hannon) and his partner Frank (Mark Frazer) helping the L.A.P.D take down the terrible Katana gang and the ruthless Yamashita (Robert Z'dar). It's so dumb.

The whole thing is awful. The color between shots are terrible. Transitions between shots are nonexistent. It's on the verge of being a porno at times. This is what an 70's exploitation is like in the 90's. It has no place. It is in limbo. The majority of the script was read with ADR so the audio doesn't quit match with everybody's voices. And before I finish the rant of how awful it is I need to address the worst wig in modern day cinema. Hannon cut his hair before reshoots so they bought a woman's wig and put it on him but it turned out over 50% of the film had to be reshot. Wow.

But this is also where the amazingness of this film comes from. Every scene is laughable because it is so bad. The strange sexual quotes that occur out of nowhere. The hornyness of everyone on this police force is unbelievable. How many mistakes were made is unbelievable. How this is even a movie is unbelievable.

Now why they cast Hannon and Z'dar as samurai is a huge question. Why not just get Japanese people to play the samurai? And the fight scenes are so bad they are excellent. Everyone who starts to watch this just becomes entranced. It is so bad but there is something that is solid gold about this movie. I would in no way condone this movie for kids to watch because one scene is a fun chase scene and the next is borderline porn but it would be a great drinking movie.

So overall this movie is bad. The only redeeming quality that this film has is that it is so bad. And unintentionally. So if you love bad movies and have some time to waste I would totally suggest this film. It is still available on Amazon prime. Hurry.

Grade: F (but A for my love of bad movies)

Genre: Action

Cast: Matt Hannon, Robert Z'dar, Mark Frazer

Rated: Unrated for language, violence, nudity

Director: Amir Shervan

Audition (1999) Review

"Words create lies. Pain can be trusted." Now if you are interested in horror movies and have no problem watching films with subtitles then no doubt you have heard of this movie before. Based on the book by Ryu Murakami and directed by Takshi Miike, who is very well known for his shock treatment in movies, this is at the top of the list of many disturbing films lists. But, after watching this its a hard film to forget.

The plot is about a lonely widower Shigeharu Aoyama (portrayed by Ryo Ishibashi) who decides that he will hold a fake audition in order to find himself a new bride. He eventually stumbles upon Asami Yamazaki (Eihi Shiina) during the audition and falls head over heels for her. But there seems to be more to her story than what is in her resume...

Lets get the technicals out of the way. The acting is top notch. The directing is top notch. Everything is unforgettable. I think that Miike is at the top of his game in this compared to some of his films like Visitor Q and Ichi the Killer. Everything just sort of forms together to both confuse you as well make a cohesive story. 

This film is insane. I think that is about the only word to describe it. It is infamous for its last fifteen minutes which to no surprise of a Miike film ends up with bloodshed. Many people have walked out during screenings of this film as soon as needles and piano wire came out. But really what kept me coming back to this movie is not the violence or gore but the fact that there is no catharsis by the time the credits role. What really did happen? What was real? What was a dream? This film can be interpreted so many different ways and brings up so many social questions that are still being addressed.

I think that one of the topics this film covers but does not do it gratuitously is the changing in culture and how the older generations have to start to come and accept that times are changing. Even though the film takes place in Japan I believe that this is a universal concept. During the film they make many nods to how there are no decent women in Japan and that obedience is not that common anymore. They both agree that should be a huge trait that should be apparent in any partner. There is also a scene where when I believe Aoyama is having a dream that he is being pleased by three different women. One is the woman who he wants to marry, another is a one time fling who is going to get married and become unavailable and the last is his son's date. All of these women have very different roles throughout the film and evoke different feelings for Aoyama as well as the culture of obedience that he controls through the film.

What I believe really that the root of this movie is that marriage is not something to be taken lightly. Even though Aoyama thought that he was in love with Asami, was it really just lust that he was going after? I believe that majority of this film is a dream where Aoyama is stressing about getting back into a marriage without thinking it through and his subconscious is taking control and cutting off his feet. Asami makes mention to this as she says "You cannot run away without your feet." My interpretation of that is as soon as we are married you will never escape and I will be in control now.

If you haven't seen this movie by now and want to go through more of a mind trip than Inception and can handle some gore and torture than I suggest at least checking out this movie. Although the one thing that works against this film is the slow burn, theres more to it than meets the eye. It may disturb a lot of viewers and I made sure to think things through before potentially starting a relationship.

Grade: A-

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Mystery

Cast: Ryo Ishibashi, Eihi Shiina

Rated R for violence/torture and sexuality

Director: Takashi Miike