ihatespike Reviews

Morganville: The Series (2014)

Limited, but enjoyable

[7/10 · 25 February 2024]

What you've got on your hands is basically a fan-funded webisode series that has just enough time to touch on the major characters and setup from a 15 book series called The Morganville Vampires (incidentally the best vampire series I've ever read, and you may take me at my word I've read a lot of them).

It's a little campy feeling, covers the first book in the series, and is quite brief and condensed. It helps to consider it more of an amuse-bouche than full entree; one the author herself was able to curate in line with her own vision, and with the resources she had.

I'm very glad she did, as she passed away only a few years after it debuted. Knowing her world came to life in a way she approved of, and that she got to see it, makes me happy.

The characters felt accurate, as did the locations, I loved the casting, and I love the passion that brought it all to life.

I'm more than a little baffled at the hostile comments I've seen posted about it though, as if this series personally offended them yet none of them genuinely sound like fans of the series, the genre, or any indie projects at all.

But then, I've seen the same petulant insults towards similar small productions that were most certainly doing the utmost with their resources, so I just consider the source.

If you give it a shot and you like it, I recommend the books.

If you give it a shot and you wished it were longer, more detailed, etc., I recommend the books.

If you didn't like it, perhaps it's just not for you.

If you didn't like it so hard you feel it ruined your life, be honest with yourself: you never cared in the first place. Go watch Marvel (Insert hero name here) number 900, and leave the projects that don't have king's ransom budgets alone.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets (2017)

Flawed, but likable

[7/10 · 29 July 2017]

I could tell from the trailer that this movie would be a big colorfully beautiful mess. I gave it a chance because I have enjoyed Luc Besson and Dane Dehaan in other projects, and I did honestly enjoy myself when I saw this. It's a lot to unpack, so to put it as succinctly as possible, the script needed a serious polishing but the extra energy for that was instead clearly invested in the cgi, which is damn-near perfect. It reminds me a little of Buckaroo Banzai, in the sense that the story is kinda all over the place but the characters take it in stride and so you do too. Because of said script needs, the acting was off, but THAT resembled a foreign film where the actors speak the stiffly translated lines...which is kinda of what it actually is, so I took that in stride too. All in all a very VERY beautiful tornado of a movie; don't panic, open the windows, enjoy.

Final Girl (2015)

Refreshingly basic and fun

[8/10 · 15 August 2016]

I found this film on Netflix and gave it a shot without really knowing what to expect. What I got was a very minimalistic indie film that is every bit as straightforward and fun as it needs to be. Veronica is a trained killer, ordered by her teacher to complete a mission alone: kill four boys who hunt and kill girls.

And it delivers exactly that. The locations are plain, but lit up and filmed very picturesquely; the characters were plain on the surface, but enjoyably layered as the film progressed; the outfits were plain, but stylish and as striking as they needed to be; the fights were mostly plain hand-to-hand, and it added to the sense of struggle and urgency; the music was barely there, and it was perfect.

I keep seeing people say Hanna is better, but honestly now, I felt more for the heroes, victims, and even villains in this movie than I did with ANY character in Hanna, which by the way had the advantage of being 20 minutes longer, 22 million dollars more expensive, and sported a more well-known cast. This is to say nothing of the obvious difference in plot and pacing. Aside from its superior fight sequences, Hanna didn't make the most of what it had, while this movie used every penny to its advantage in my opinion.

If you don't like indie films, or photographic cinematography, or non- blockbuster budgets, you'll probably dislike this movie. Everyone else: enjoy.

Wolfen (1981)

Absolutely stands the test of time

[7/10 · 16 July 2015]

After years of reading and watching all the werewolf stuff I can get my hands on, I finally got around to reading and then watching Wolfen, and I was blown away by the gorgeous, chilling cinematography. You may take me at my word that I have seldom seen a film that was able to build the tension of what you don't see, and reward you when you finally do see it: I have never seen real wolves used so well, or shot so beautifully. As in the book, the Wolfen are both terrifying and yet somehow noble, and you respect the antagonism between them and the human characters (played very well by Albert Finney and co.), and while the ending is somewhat anticlimactic as opposed to its book counterpart, I was still quite pleased with the film as a whole. The introduction of the Native American element into the movie's version of the story made sense and was enjoyable (though E.J. Olmos's nudity was a little much), and I should also mention that the shots of New York were atmospheric and gorgeous as well, and when combined with the werewolf element, make a truly one-of-a-kind horror film. A must for werewolf fans, though they're not werewolves in the strictest sense, but a creatures as unique as their film: The Wolfen.

Murdoch Mysteries (2008– )

A likable premise, sagging under the weight of insufferable writing

[3/10 · 5 June 2015]

I love detective mysteries, and in particular I enjoy ones set in the Victorian era, so I admit with reluctance that Murdoch Mysteries almost makes me want to swear off both era and genre altogether. Almost. The main character is inarguably the smartest, most effective policeman in his station (regardless of how utterly cliché and guessable a great deal of the "mysteries" are), and yet he simply allows himself to be berated by his hot-headed, moronic boss and every other plot-device naysayer the writers can't seem to do without. This makes every episode's story flow painfully stuttered for no good reason, and also introduces a lot of aggravating, stereotypical suspects. The "idiot-driven plot" is par for the course with this show, sometimes getting so bad it becomes not so much a mystery as a game of monkey-in-the-middle, wherein the detective struggles to wrap up the case simply because everyone around him is obtusely and purposelessly unhelpful. CSI Miami's Horatio Caine would never stand for such hem-hawing idiocy, and Sherlock Holmes would deftly manipulate his way past them. John Murdoch simply looks politely perplexed and does nothing, which means we can only suffer in silence as it happens again and again. In addition to the clichés, generic plots, meek main character, and moronic background characters, we are also subject to never- ending soapboxing, and by insultingly anachronistic philosophies of the progressive persuasion. A good writer MAY be able to weave modern social issues into historical fiction in an intelligent, thoughtful way. The writers of this show approach such touchy material with the grace, talent and intelligence of a lobotomized democratic hippo on rollerskates in a China shop. Each subject is dealt with in such a crass, illogical, ham-fisted way, it makes me sincerely embarrassed for progressives. People back then simply did not speak or think the way they do in this show. Hell, I hardly see it now! It's insultingly dishonest, and I sincerely doubt it will change anyone's mindset. On top of that it makes for annoying, patronizing television. So there you have it: a nice premise, some nice characters, some nice costumes, some fun plots, idiotic writing, adequate-at-best acting, clichés galore, insufferable preachiness, often poor pacing, and a deficient level of suspense. Watch if you're bored.

Reign (2013–2017)

Bring your salt shaker; this needs taken with a grain or two

[6/10 · 3 May 2014]

I will be honest, historical dramas aren't my thing, but there are a few actors in this that I decided to give this a shot for, and it is actually a lot of fun. With that in mind, I should warn you that I think that's the reason I enjoy this show; because I refused to take it seriously. I don't mean that in a sneering way, because I don't think the intention of the creators was for a grittily realistic period piece, but rather a show that appeals to younger audiences and fans of fantasy. The accents (while almost totally unrelated to the portrayed nationality) all sound fine, the costumes have a modern flavor but aren't eyesores, and while the plots of relationship drama are unrelenting, it also gives you a very fun helping of murder, war and political scheming. The cat and mouse games played throughout involve just about everyone and are quite clever a lot of the time. If historical accuracy is important to you run far away. If you hate teen dramas you may want to back away slowly. If you'd like to just have fun and watch something with a decent balance of light and dark then dig in.

Endgame (2011)

Quickly grows on you

[7/10 · 27 April 2014]

I came across this little gem of a series on Hulu (after it advertised it about a million times) and I'm certainly glad I did; it's one of a handful of shows you watch with bittersweet enjoyment since you know right away it has already been cut before its prime. The detective setup is reminiscent of a chess game in that it starts the same. There's the quirky, somewhat impaired detective and the patient supporting cast who put up with his antics. Give it a little time and your fear of triteness will vanish; the cast is pretty easy to like, the detection/thought process of the main character is quite enjoyable and fresh, the accents do not chafe (bravo, Mr. Doyle), the mysteries are actually mysteries (there's room to guess, but it isn't dumped in your lap), and the stories got better and better. Here and there the dialogue doesn't seem to strike the right chord, but that isn't the actors so much as the scripts. All in all this bit of television is well worth your time if you like detective shows.

Teen Wolf (2011–2017)

Keeps getting better

[7/10 · 4 April 2014]

I really didn't know what to make of this show when I first started watching; on the whole the way the story lines are paced are a little choppy and unusual, and at the beginning you feel the urge to groan out loud as you notice the familiar stereotypes take the stage: The mean, popular girl, the new girl love interest, the awkward geeky kid turned courageous hero, and his comic-relief friend. And then...everything evolves. Not a single character plays to their expected stereotype, and more than once I have been deeply impressed by the talent of the cast (notably Dylan O'Brian) as they face off against the badguys, the misunderstood good guys, the antiheroes, and the wolves in sheep's clothing. The cgi, the prosthetics, and the camera work rivals any supernatural movie I've seen in a long while. I think there is too much canoodling (people makeout and get it on without much hesitation--it's quite silly), and here and there the plot can get a little convoluted. All in all though it is fun to watch, packed with great folklore and mythology, and characters you can and will root for. A+

Beautiful Creatures (2013)

A little muddled, a lot lovely

[7/10 · 15 March 2014]

Coming from someone who tries to read the books before watching the movie versions of stories, I know the feeling of preferring one medium over the other (usually the book), but Beautiful Creatures is actually pretty balanced: the strengths and weaknesses of the book and movie are basically the same.

The weaknesses are that there's a little too much going on, and the world set up is not quite as defined as one would hope. I realize its a gamble between being overly simple thus inane, or overly complex and thus losing the audience's interest, but just be aware it can be convoluted.

The strengths are the characters, and the relationships. I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but the chemistry between the two main actors/characters is breathtaking; I genuinely and easily felt more for them than I did for any other YA book- turned- movie couple, maybe even more than Katniss and Peeta. The casting is superb, the sets and scenery were lovely, and like its book counterpart, it gave me a few laughs too.

I'm sure it's easy to write off anything that even remotely resembles "that teen vampire movie", but I find that blacklisting an entire genre would cut me off from some of the sweetest, most optimistic love stories I've ever watched/read. I never tire of love stories.

The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones (2013)

Emptier than a rain barrel in the desert.

[1/10 · 17 February 2014]

Oh dear-where to start?

This is an adaptation from a pretty lame book series, but I honestly didn't expect the movie to be that bad. I gave it a clean slate before I watched it and even I was astounded at how awful it was. I actually feel bad for the fans of the books!

The characters are flat, lifeless and uninteresting, the bad guys don't have any discernible motivation (except that they're "evil". Wow. Deep.) The protagonist (when she stops mimicking a plank of wood and manages to invoke ANY emotional response) is a catty Mary-Sue with inexplicable powers, and her love interest is a huffy little man-child who looks like he just got over three weeks of the flu and a heroin addiction. The dialogue is unforgivably wooden and laughably bad (if you can overcome the pain of its total lack of verisimilitude), the magical world we're introduced to is poorly defined and filled with more holes than a pin-cushion, the secondary characters feel like props set up to highlight the story's romance which falls egregiously flat, the bad guy pops out of nowhere, monologues wretchedly about his in-no-way-clear evil plan, the heroes run around having hot-topic fashion disaster fights, and the movie lumbers to a halt and vomits the credits at you.

I know it's trendy to hurry up and turn a popular YA story into a movie, but this movie may actually have been assembled while the cast and crew rode a waterslide, it felt that rushed.

Simple movies are fun, adventure movies are fun, romance and action and magic are just plain fun. This movie is a trainwreck, and trainwrecks are never fun.

Vampire Academy (2014)

An absolute pleasure!

[10/10 · 17 February 2014]

I went to see this film unsure of what to expect, and I came out very happily surprised.

This movie was a blast from start to finish, and a faithful adaptation of its source material. The actors were fresh and lively, the dialogue was witty and the plot moved along fluidly. Never once did I have to cringe at corny one- liners, awkward choreography, maudlin leading ladies or wooden love interests. The CGI wasn't overused, the kissing scenes didn't drag on, the fighting was thoroughly enjoyable and I easily grew to love the protagonist and supporting cast.

If you have some trendy hatred towards vampire movies then you may not like this, if you don't like the books you won't, if you don't like teen movies you may not, but I myself loved it. It's the clean sensation of a whole other world opening up to me that draws me in to stories like this-often Young Adult fiction is reduced to the lowest common denominator and marketed that way, but when the formula is done right it's worth weeding through the ones that suck to find it. 10 stars!

The Following (2013–2015)

Good Vs. Evil becomes Incompetent anti-hero Vs. Relentless, "sexy" killers.

[2/10 · 8 February 2014]

This show is truly the poster child for wasted potential.

A host of good actors, a great setup and an intriguing plot get utterly decimated in only a matter of episodes, and I promise you it is all downhill from there. The good guys are always a step behind, portrayed as either broken, unlikable husks of humanity, idealists who fail nonstop in their efforts or weak idiots, trampled like chaff under the bloody paws of any victimizer that comes their way.

The ruthless, God-awful murderers (no matter what pittance of denouncing they receive in-word-only), are glorified: the show wastes no time in painting them as cultured, sexy, sensitive, alternative, boisterous and even loving.

Flawed heroes are not the same as broken heroes-there is no one worth rooting for in this show (as awesome as Kevin Bacon and Shawn Ashmore are, in this they are painfully incompetent and depressingly scarred) Sympathetic villains are not the same as glorified villains-if your story is not a tale of redemption then do NOT glitz up your killers, it's repulsive and desensitizes you if you keep watching.

This show is offensive and exhausting when it comes to the portrayal of the battle between good and evil-it reminds me of Dark Helmet's line in Spaceballs; " So, Lonestar, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."

I give this show two points because most of the acting is good and it has no issues with visual style. On the whole though, watching it will make you feel dirty, like you're complicit in murder, and unsafe, like the authorities are all one banana peel away from slipping up and letting hordes of murderers loose.

The Lone Ranger (2013)

An ugly, poorly sewn quilt, made with stolen material.

[1/10 · 24 January 2014]

This film is living proof that imitation is not necessarily flattering, as it is nothing but a lumbering Frankenstein's Monster composed of things that worked for other movies. The music is Hans Zimmer ripping off his score from Sherlock Holmes, but with an irritating western twang. The plot is ripped from both Zorro movies, Sherlock Holmes, Shanghai Noon, and maybe even Wild Wild West. Johnny Depp plays a Lady Gaga-ified Tonto/Captain Jack Sparrow with strep throat. Helena Bonham Carter rips off the girl from Planet Terror of all things. The only thing this movie DIDN'T rip off was the original Lone Ranger! The tone of the movie was MIND-NUMBINGLY BI-polar as it was both disturbingly violent at times and then childishly stupid, the camaraderie between Tonto and the Lone Ranger was nonexistent and replaced with a lackluster antagonistic partnership (a sad attempt at the Holmes/Watson dynamic), Armie Hammer was a passable Lone Ranger, but the character was so indecisive, absurdly and counterproductively principled and bumbling it created an agitating atmosphere of incompetence, the love interest was dull, and as she was the Lone Ranger's recently dead (REALLY RECENTLY) brother's wife, even if there HAD been chemistry, rooting for them would have felt weird and dirty. The action felt Acme level silly, the CGI was overused and tiresome, and the obvious refusal to decide on gritty realism or campy action left bizarre unexplained plot threads scattered across the film, and last but not least, the intro to the story by an aged Tonto made the tale feel like the depressing reminiscence of a dying, delusional old has-been. Normally I give a few points for style, but considering how they only go to highlight how much money was wasted on this disappointment, my rating is 1. Avoid.

Now You See Me (I) (2013)

A very fun, slightly flawed movie

[31 May 2013]

First of all, let me say that this film does not break your trust by tossing out some deus ex machina explanation at the end or plot-twist you so hard your head falls off. The threads of story, while somewhat outlandish, are well-woven and resolved almost totally satisfactorily. That's basically my fancy way of saying I didn't guess the ending, it did make sense, and the journey there was fun.

I wouldn't say that this is a highly intellectual movie with layers and layers of philosophical questions to ponder over after it's over, but it isn't stupid either. You're not bored by over-complexity or insulted by the inanely simple. I appreciate that balance.

The cast is solid but the characters could (and should have) been explored more without any worry over the plot getting spoiled. Because of this missed opportunity you may question the overall motivation of the antiheroes, especially since your first impression of the four magicians is that they are selfish and have no grandiose plans for their lives. This doesn't mean they aren't easy to like, but I feel it does clash with the story later on.

The visuals/camarawork are nice (although occasionally too spinney and maybe just a little too glossy), the humor and the romance are felt and enjoyed- no baggage, no complication, no melodrama, and the magic is explained. In real life, we know that commercial slight of hand needs to be left unexplained otherwise it loses its worth, but the makers of this movie know that film must tie the loose ends because the satisfaction is the conclusion, NOT the mystery in and of itself.

That being said, I will admit the overall conclusion was left just a tiny bit blurry, which may be due to the hope for a sequel. I'd honestly be okay with that as I feel this film earned it. Moviegoers may begrudge it that open-ended feeling though, if they felt that the explanation was not a justifiable payoff. My advice is to go see it, have fun, and let your belief be suspended. At worst the hypnotism will leave you disoriented and grumpy, at best you'll have a blast and come back down as soft as a feather.

The Hunger Games (2012)

A timid but firm first step towards a powerful trilogy.

[8/10 · 24 March 2012]

I am already a fan, but I will try to make this review as fair and as clear as possible.

The Hunger Games is about a great deal of things, but on the surface is this: survival. Those who enjoy dystopian stories may find the Hunger Games to be similar, and yet the style and voice are fresh enough to appeal to the youth. So where does this film fit in? Somewhere in the middle; you don't have label yourself a critic or a fan or a casual viewer to enjoy this movie-it stands on its own.

Our protagonist is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence). She is neither acidic nor saccharine in behavior; she is simply naturally reserved, and perhaps a little sullen (with good reason). Her character is well-played and strikes to the core as realistic; for that alone the audience is able to cheer for her. If she's is genuine, so too are her dire circumstances, and so too is the weight of her success. The supporting (and talented) cast fall into place comfortably; not once did I cringe at an ill-spoken line or a poorly-cast character. Certainly there were changes made from book-to-movie, most if not all were to aid the audience's comprehension, as we no longer have Katniss' first-person narration to explain plot points to us. The art direction was in most areas commendable, and in others simply adequate, the music score was unique and subtly haunting, and the camera work to be honest flipped between lousy and decent. I recommend you sit a fair deal away from the screen since most of the intro scenes are choppy. I assume this was done to hurry things along and add to tension but I felt that swift, steady shots would have sufficed. The violence in this movie is sensitized at just the right level (which is refreshing, since most film-violence is usually melodramatic or mindless), and is a unique blend of toned-down bloodshed with an intense feeling of moral disgust. As for my complaints, there is the aforementioned shaky-camera in some scenes, the too-rushed character interaction/development (at least on behalf of characters who won't return for the sequels), the omission of a few bits of back-story and artistic design that I felt would have enriched the story more for those who haven't read the books (and a few times their omission made the film seem a little too edited), and there were a handful of scenes that could have used dramatic embellishment and yet went without.

All in all I give it an 8 out of 10; it stands the test of translating from one form of media to another, it gives us a taste of both the love and the humanity within such bleak settings, and it wets our appetite for the chaos to come. Let the games begin.

Hancock (2008)

Flawed Hero? Try unlikable walking-disaster.

[1/10 · 21 December 2011]

I'd like to think that Hollywood's greed is tempered with genuine talent a fair deal of the time, as well as some messages that people were passionate about enough to present to us cinematically.

And then there are movies like Hancock, wherein there is no message worth telling, and all the talent involved is beaten into submission by an oppressively useless script and the greedy leeches who produced it.

Hancock is about a guy with superpowers (Will Smith) who essentially walks around looking like he's got a mouthful of rat poison and sour patch kids, being so inept at helping people that it feels like a Jerry Lewis movie if Jerry Lewis had superpowers and was utterly unlikable and unsympathetic. Jason Bateman plays Jason Bateman, a man who becomes Hancock's agent of sorts after Hancock manages to save his life in the most destructive way possible (because apparently seeing terroristic levels of destruction perpetrated almost nonstop by Mr. Sourface is uproarious). We also see Charlize Theron as she stands there having no chemistry with her fiancé (Bateman), and even less with Hancock, who she has a past with (and by past I mean a few incoherent sentences of wooden dialogue tossed out with no explanation). Long story short: Hancock manages to reign in his awfulness somewhat with the help of Bateman and his 2-dimensional nice-guy personality. Eddie Marsan stains his otherwise likable filmography by playing a bad guy who is bad (wow, what depth) in this sorry excuse for a film, tasteless attempts at humor are made in the form of bully children being tossed hundreds of feet in the air, a bad guy's hand getting chopped off with a metal disk, buildings getting smashed in half (by the 'good' guys, no less) and countless other wastes of cgi destruction that happen under the pretense of humor.

Nothing was proved. Nobody cared.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

An engaging game

[8/10 · 20 December 2011]

The original cast and director (and a few newcomers) have banded together to bring us yet another visually delightful, humorous and action-packed sequel to Sherlock Holmes' newest incarnation.

A game of shadows takes place shortly after the events of the first film as Holmes interferes with Prof. Moriarty's plans one time too many and the two agree that it is indeed war between them, or if you prefer, the beginning movements in a good vs. evil game of chess.

Many of the same elements remain in the series, from Holmes' energetically manic and inconsiderate behavior to the slow-motion action sequences which are used a bit more, and artistically tinkered with. This is both a critique and a compliment, because it can be rather jarring and repetitive, but also very stylish and fun. I would highly recommend you choose a seat that is a decent distance from the screen so that these elements can be properly enjoyed without being a distraction. Admittedly, the second half of the film is where things really start to speed along nicely, but in most ways the moderate and somewhat bleak start is justified by the film's conclusion. I haven't watched many of the older Holmes films but I have read all the stories and I can say that it is a wonderful and satisfying retelling of the battle between Doyle's fictional geniuses. Yet again the sets and locations are appropriate and well made, the humor is goofy and offbeat (a bit more risqué than the last, but not enough to really offend I don't think), the cast shines in their roles, including the talented Jared Harris, who forgoes overplaying the role of antagonist in favor of a soft-spoken and covertly cruel narcissist, Noomie Rapace as the gypsy Sim does not torture us with stereotypically maudlin, lascivious or catty dialogue, and instead is a sturdy and calming presence added to the brotherly bond of Holmes and Watson, and Stephen Fry plays Sherlock's older brother Mycroft exactly as I pictured him; lazy, smart and endearingly snobbish.

The only real complaint I have with this film (and this is where the spoilers are, beware!) Is the supposed death of Irene Adler, which falls short of being a twist since it takes place at the beginning of the film, and is neither helpful in securing our dislike of Moriarty (since we do not see Irene's dead body or even prolonged suffering), nor our empathy for Sherlock (since he literally makes no comment or reaction to hearing of her death). The entire thing is less convincing than Blackwood's death at the beginning of the first film, pointless for the aforementioned fact that it was dealt with in a totally underwhelming way, and undermining of Irene's character in intelligence and the fact that she repeatedly escaped brushes with death in the first film. This write-off is disappointing not only because Adler was a useful and likable character, but also because if it was intended to be absolute then that means that the writers were sloppy and indifferent in that respect.

All this being said, I did enjoy the film, and perhaps if you take my recommendation, you will too.

Fright Night (2011)

A genuinely decent remake

[25 August 2011]

We've all been there before; a movie starts getting remade and the hairs on our neck stand up, and not just because it's a horror flick. But then comes the release and no matter our past experiences we give it a go.

Fright Night is one of those remakes that justifies our hope in Hollywood's ability to revitalize a story, and frankly the only 3D film I've seen so far that made good use of...well the 3D. As others have said it really doesn't start out as anything that would blow your mind, but as soon as the groundwork is set in terms of characters the plot takes off with a shot, which is not only refreshing in any movie at all, but a fluid pace is something I feel the original was sorely lacking. The characters are allowed to become well-rounded, and that in a horror film with an R rating is rare and commendable- you truly care about what's happening and who it's happening to. Then of course there's the vampire, and for someone who often plays over the top villains, Colin Ferrell rides the black wave of languid evil through and through. The entire film he resembles a ravenous shark, and every time the camera got close to him I felt my skin crawl. An intelligent monster is so much scarier and more interesting than a goofy bad-guy stereotype. Speaking of goofy though, this film does not abandon it's comedic roots because there's plenty of humor slipped in at just the right times so as to not offset the darker tones. The use of gore wasn't under or overplayed in my opinion, but my only real complaint is the handful of crudities in dialog that I felt were unnecessarily crass and out of place. That being said the rest is purely enjoyable; even if you've seen the original this one will still shock and scare you, the 3D ups the price but I think it's worth experiencing at least once, and unlike a handful of remade horror films thrown our way recently, this one proves you can improve on an old formula and make it new and fresh again.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

The good, the bad, and let's face it; the ugly.

[5/10 · 26 November 2010]

No one is going to watch this without some sort of bias, so let's cut to the basics;

The good: The art direction and special effects were visually satisfying, the plot was more clean cut and linear than your usual horror film, the two main characters took a while to warm up to but were likable and felt believable, and while it's not going to win any Oscars, it is a fun watch that might give a new generation the chance to dream of nightmares.

The bad: while I adore Jackie Earle Haley on a psychologically disturbing level, I really can't say I felt scared of his portrayal. The most I got was uncomfortable. I think this had more to do with the sub par script writing and Mr. Haley's lack of physical menace than any lack of acting talent, and I'm not easily scared to begin with. I felt like the film moved a little too fast and while the graphics were messy, the gore could have used a little more of an organic feel.

The ugly: Freddy's laugh felt practiced, the end (while somewhat an homage to the original) felt Goosebump-bookish, and the movie on a whole won't change anyone's mind about remakes being the Hollywood Antichrist.

The verdict; 5/5. It'll entertain you, that I can almost guarantee.

Let Me In (I) (2010)

I'm not a snob, but I'm also not impressed.

[5/10 · 3 October 2010]

With the rising tide of vampire-mania these days it's easy to cash in, and easier to become irritated by those doing the cashing, but if you're like most people you just want to see a good and interesting movie and don't really care about whose vampire lore is more accurate. Let Me In is an American version of a Swedish movie, based on a book, and in some strange way it is an original story. It's about love, death and life and stands unique among other vampire stories of the same ilk. However, the problem I had with this is not the story, but the fact that the story has already been told. Remaking movies is no sin to me, but when I've seen and enjoyed the original made only two years ago, I'm helpless but to feel that I've read the same book twice, paraphrased on different paper and there is no new revelations to behold. Regardless of the intentions of those who remade this, it really wasn't necessary, and while I give it a 5/10 on its own merits, I can't help but realize that the original film highlights why I'm not especially into this one. There were a few unnecessary vulgarities in this version that made Owen seem far more warped and thus harder to sympathize with, Chloe Moretz is a competent actress but Abby's lapses between sickly and bored little girl to demon-possessed orangutan simply cannot compare to Lina Leandersson's versatility playing both a sweet girl and a desperate creature in the original. The special effects were very good, but while the Swedish version tempered the violence and gore with a cold atmosphere of sterility, the American version embraces it's penchant for slasher tones and it becomes even harder to feel anything for any of the characters. Whether or not you will enjoy this movie is really all about your bias, since everyone has one. If you like the original, there's a 50/50 chance you'll like this one too since there isn't too much different about it. If you're a fan of the horror genre you'll like it, if you're a Twilight fan you probably won't, and if you like anything vampire then you already know the answer. Give it a shot; it couldn't hurt.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

An enveloping movie (don't let the trailer turn you off)

[10/10 · 2 January 2010]

With films such as this I feel stuck in the middle of targeted audiences; I love it when a series gets restarted but I'm always on my guard and at my most cynical.

If you've ever had the hours of your life stolen from you with films like Wild wild west or The League of extraordinary gentlemen, then you know exactly what I mean when I say that it is rare indeed to see a movie set in the 1800's that isn't a load of historically inaccurate, technologically ridiculous, propriety insulting garbage.

Sherlock Holmes (much to my great relief) has forgone that pitfall by a giant leap; the technology in the movie fits the time period very well- we are allowed the pleasure of seeing 'the future' of that time, but nothing absurd like a giant mechanical spider or a machine gun crossbow. The settings are wonderful. I'm not a British historian, but I know quality sets when I see them, and for once it's not Tim Burton that's responsible (meaning that they're good Gothic settings, but not unnecessarily bleak.)

The fact that Robert Downey Jr. stars as Holmes made me even more on edge; he's just isn't who would come to mind at all. But the humor and intelligence he brings to the role is refreshing and wholly natural. We're not subjected to the unbearable smugness of your average super-protagonist, but rather an almost childishly humorous grown man, weary but curious of the world around him. Downey's English accent flows comfortably, so well in fact that I would risk getting a beat-down from his bodyguards to hug him for not putting me through another Nicholas Cage type accent abomination. I was never really in to Jude Law or Rachel McAdams but both of them also fell into their characters with winning performances, Law being the sidekick that keeps the hero in line without being annoyingly mean, and McAdams the love interest/femme fetale without being over the top, clingy or trashy.

The story itself will wind your brain around a bit until the end, but isn't that why people have been in love with Sherlock Holmes for so many years in the first place? It will not bore you for a second, and it wraps up very nicely at the end (although you'll probably want to go over it your head again after you've left, which is a good thing)

And last but not least, anyone who's ever read Sherlock Holmes will notice a plethora of accuracy, hints and homages, from Watson's limp thanks to the Jezail bullet that passed through his leg in the Afghan war, to the photo of Irene Adler that Holmes kept as a reminder of the only woman who ever outsmarted him.

So take my advice and don't miss out on something this rare in concept; a quality revamp that pushes boundaries instead of ignoring them.

The Vampire Diaries (2009–2017)

Vampires never get old (pun intended)

[9/10 · 22 December 2009]

Okay, I know what you're thinking; "How long is this vampire fad going to go on?"

My answer would be "As long as vampires remain entrenched in history, folklore, superpowers and of course the ever-popular sexual metaphors.

The Vampire diaries was doing it's conflicted-immortal-vampire-boy meets cute-understanding-human-girl fourteen years before Stephenie Meyer's series hit the shelf (as if anyone could go without bringing up THAT series for comparison) but unlike Meyer's unexplained discounting of vampire mythology (which I can't get enough of) Lisa Jane Smith integrates vampire myths into hers while keeping it perfectly safe for young adults to read, and doesn't deprive people of the main ideas that make vampires vampires.

This show takes a few liberties, makes a few changes, but that can be a good thing. You can tell the people making this are trying to snatch up the Twilight fan's attention to sell the show with a few similarities (Elena is now a brunette, and they of course can't go without mentioning Wuthering Heights *roll eyes), but I don't hold it against them; it's only reasonable that someone talented make money from this vampire obsession, because unlike the wretchedly wooden acting and suicidal messages of New Moon, in The Vampire Diaries Elena Gilbert comes off as a very normal girl dealing with real life as it comes, even if that begins to involve some very odd boys. Considering how Bella can't even deal with being dumped by her boyfriend of less than a year without jumping off a cliff, the lack of histrionics from Elena is a breath of fresh air. Speaking of breaths of fresh air, might I also add that I adore the casting of the Salvatore brothers; that's right people- men CAN in fact be dark and brooding without looking like someone's removing their spleen with a fork *cough*Pattinson*cough*, and oh yeah, THEY HAVE FANGS AND DON'T SPARKLE IN THE SUNLIGHT. That alone is enough to peak my interest. Maybe the rest of the world has found their own series to be in love with but since I am uncomfortable with the nudity of TruBlood (not that it's a bad show) and have had quite enough of the Twilight sexist, suicidal nonsense, perhaps this show will fill the niche, I am after all still a huge fan of fantasy/horror, and although I favor werewolves, vampires will always have a place in my heart because there's so much that can be done with them. Good, evil, ambiguous, young, old, gorgeous, ugly-they're still as interesting as ever.

Give it a shot- I'm liking it so far.

Ghost Story (1981)

What do Peter Straub and Stephen King have in common besides a talent for the macabre? Bad adaptations.

[1/10 · 21 October 2009]

I love a good scary story, and in spite of the large selection in both the film and book industry, good ones are very rare indeed.

This is not one of them. Like the adaptation of The Shining, Ghost story takes every bit of intrigue and plot that the book was overflowing with and tosses it out the window. Unlike The Shining however, Ghost story doesn't even manage to be a good scary movie on its own.

Whoever composed the musical score should be shot. It's overbearing and loud in scenes that call for a low key to enhance suspense, making all the "tense" scenes appear comical or inappropriate, like playing polka at a funeral. The acting is competent but since I'm not made to care about any of them the movie plays like a trailer instead of an actual film. The makeup and special effects were definitely the work of talent, but a lousy substitute for what it should have been. The only thing about it I really liked was Fred Astaire because I couldn't have picked a better Ricky Hawthorne myself.

Basically this movie replaced one of the most intriguing villains I've ever read about with a sloppy ghost woman, sacrificed suspense for an incoherent slap-together plot and some nudity. The scariest thing about this movie was Craig Wasson's full frontal nude scene less than ten minutes in, and Alice Krige's soggy boobies for the remainder of the film. The book isn't the greatest thing you'll ever read, but it is still a good book and didn't deserve this canker sore of a film. Why can't they remake stuff like this instead of the karate kid?

Casino Royale (2006)

*in shock*

[10/10 · 17 August 2008]

To start off let me say I was not a fan. James Bond has always been an interesting watch when I'm bored but I never liked the character; I thought he was a pompous womanizer and the corny lines and gadgets annoyed me greatly. Bravo to the restarting of this series and I really mean it; this kind of movie helps you get to care about the character in a whole new way. No he's no saint but at the same time I'm finally allowed the courtesy of caring about James Bond instead of the usual Hollywood assumption that I will care just because he's on the front cover and is clearly the protagonist. The first good sign is that I don't recall seeing a single dancing woman in the credits...instead we see the Bond figure and playing cards. I don't know about anyone else but the half naked women in the previous crediting irked me and I'm not even a feminist so my hat's off for breaking that repulsively juvenile tradition. There is a love interest but here's the kicker; I was interested! No quick introduction only to be bedded and double-crossed before the credits, in fact the entire movie I was waiting in growing fear that this so-far good film would be dashed to pieces by the usual cheap plot twists and such; I don't want to spoil anything but it wasn't what I'd seen before and it didn't leave me feeling cheated but rather set things up for the next movie which I'm sorry to say I've been ignoring until now under the assumption it was...well the jaded English snob I'd come to hate. The sexuality was tasteful and modest, the acting was very compelling, the story shocked my shoes off for the simple fact that it finally got an ounce of self-respect which is all I ask of any action movie (or any movie for that matter but action flicks seem to struggle with this one the most), there were corny lines but they were executed with a wry sense of humor as if to say "we're only being goofy, who would actually talk like this? *nudge nudge*" and although I'm already a fan of Daniel Craig I'm very happy to see his work in this didn't disgust me (take for example Jason Statham playing in garbage like crank and Clive Owen in shoot em up) And there you have it; before I was someone who would watch Bond films only in an environment of open ridicule and boredom and suddenly I'm intrigued....I guess now I can call myself a fan.

The Dark Knight (2008)

A-maz-ing

[10/10 · 18 July 2008]

I have enjoyed batman for a long time and despite my rabid fanaticism this movie took me to a whole new level. This is barely a superhero movie; it's utterly devoted from start to finish as an action-drama and could stand alone by all means. I admit I was skeptical of what it would be like, what with the list of villains potentially bogging down the story, the change of actress for the character Rachel Dawes and of course Heath Ledger's death which I feared might make the movie a target for his fans to run wild. However I have never been so overjoyed to be so wrong; Maggie Gylennhal is a wonderful actress as Katie Holmes' replacement; her character was good enough to avoid the melodramatic angle and was rather sublime about any of the relationships, none of the villains took away from the movie or cluttered it in the least, and Heath Ledger was absolutely fantastic as the clown prince of crime; he deserves all the praise he gets for his performance which was scary and funny at the same time. Not once did it seem that the actor was tooting his own thespian horn (as I think jack Nicholson did when he played the joker) in fact I got the feeling Ledger was determined to have fun with it and I hope he did because he made a wonderful last impression with this skeptic. You don't have to be a fan to recognize what a thrill ride this movie is; my only warning to you is that you are not in for a mindless bubble-gum superhero flick that is short and simple; this is quality cinema and batman has never had so much solid footing in this area. My hats off to all who were involved. Go watch this movie now!