Reviews

Dear Warner Brothers, director Hardwicke, and screenwriter David Johnson, What exactly was I just subjected to? I was willing to buy into the potential wrapped within the concept of a dark version of the Little Red Riding Hood story. And when I saw that Gary Oldman was on board as a werewolf hunter I naively thought to myself, "OK, this could work." Then I watched the movie...

Did you blow all the acting budget on Oldman? After rounding up some bigger names who no doubt owed Ms. Hardwicke and/or WB a favor or two, it appears you had to resort to scouting some high school plays with little more than free bologna sandwiches and a credits mention to offer. I'm particularly curious as to what was going on with Billy Burke. Did you agree to give him something stronger than bologna sandwiches? I don't know how else you explain the fact that he spends the entirety of his monotone performance in a complete haze. At least Oldman didn't need the sandwiches as he obviously satiated his appetite with his voracious scene-chewing.

You should be aware that the sub-par acting of the very modern-day looking teenage-ish characters effectively takes the viewer out of the film immediately. It's bad enough that it looks like they shop at The Gap for Medieval Teens and that their hair is perfectly coiffed; was it necessary to give them clunky dialog and awkward "make-out" scenes in addition? It's not all bad though. You might be happy to know that the film did cause a bit of discussion between my wife and me afterward. In the midst of trying to come to an agreement on the most ridiculous scene of the film, we narrowed our choices to the following three:

* The weird 10-15 minute "celebration" scene with the idiotic dancing that obviously served as nothing more than filler.

* The dream sequence featuring all the "my, what big eyes, ears, teeth you have" lines. You did a masterful job at awkwardly forcing this into the film without giving it any real purpose. Kudos.

* The (poorly-rendered CGI) werewolf telepathically speaking to Valerie. If inducing unintentional laughter was your goal then y'all are some goal-achieving sons of guns! I'd be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

In conclusion, I would probably find the film to be quite intense and scary if I were a sheltered 9-year-old girl with no true sense of fear. And the romantic subplot would have hit on all the right angles if... well, if I manage to think of a demographic it would appeal to I'll get back to you.

With the economy as bad as it is, surely you can agree that movie-goers deserve better than this, no? How can you as a business - in good conscious - expect your customers to spend time, gas money, and $10+ a pop on such an inferior product as Red Riding Hood? Have you seen gas prices these days? Come on, the least you can do is offer a "money back guarantee." At one point (correction: it was at about three or four different points), my wife turned to me and said, "This is just stupid." Audience exclamations such as "Well, that was awful!" and "Are you kidding me?" would seem to indicate that you'd be hard-pressed to find many who disagreed with that assessment.

Anyway, back to my original question - what was I subjected to? I said adieu to two hours of my life in order to watch something that doesn't even measure up to a Sy Fy Original! An explanation would be much appreciated.

Sincerely, A frustrated movie-goer

Based on the NY Times best-selling novel by "Pittacus Lore" (an alias for the memoir-fabricating James Frey and Jobie Hughes), I Am Four kicks off the cinematic proceedings with an intense and creepy jungle chase scene and an intriguing - albeit fairly unoriginal - concept.

The planet Lorien (COUGH krypton COUGH) was destroyed, and nine of its alien children were sent to earth. Why earth? Who knows. Perhaps earth's atmosphere is the most similar to Lorien's? A race of 7-foot tall humanoids called the Mogadorians are hunting down the children one at a time. Why? Beats me. Because we wouldn't have a story otherwise, I suppose. All we're really told is "they're a race who chooses to decimate rather than colonize." So be it.

Anyway, due to some sort of spell the Mogadorians are forced to kill the nine remaining Lorien kids in the proper order. Who established the order and how? No idea. Wouldn't you be pretty ticked off if you were Number One and became aware that you were chosen to be killed first? Perhaps the numbering system is completely random. Otherwise, that's a pretty jacked up system. "Hmm, little Billy seems to be a little slow upstairs, and that lisp sure ain't doin' him any favors. Let's make him Number One." Regardless, numbers one to three are now dead, so the story focuses on Number Four.

Number Four's desperate attempts to fit in lead to yet another blown cover, and he and his guardian Henri must once again relocate - this time to the small town of Paradise, OH. Following the film's somewhat promising start, the story takes an ill-advised detour and bogs down in a teenage romance marsh. It's at this point that Number Four (AKA John Smith) falls in love, defends a nerd against bullies, and begins to discover his unique abilities (known as legacies).

This blatant drawing from the well of the Twilight series' formula might giddy up the hearts of teenage girls, but males with an ounce of testosterone will grow increasingly restless as they await the arrival of the action that the film's trailer promised.

That arrival comes in the film's third act in the form of a deus ex machina known as Number Six (Teresa Palmer) who proceeds to kick a satisfying amount of rumpage against the backdrop of CGI and special-effects. The last 20 minutes will most certainly entertain the majority of audiences, but the drive there should've been smoother and more evenly-paced.

Dialogue is weak, character development is practically non-existent, and the underdeveloped backstory creates too many questions that lead to frustration rather than intrigue. Granted, this is an origin story that's specifically designed to kick-start a franchise, but a little more self-containment would have been appreciated.

One of the film's biggest transgressions is the misuse of Timothy Olyphant as Henri. We're told that he's a Lorien warrior, and as such you'd expect him to join in the butt-kickery. Unfortunately, he's only involved in one fight and is inexplicably kidnapped (done off-screen to mask its implausibility) by a couple of out-of-shape alien conspiracy theorists. His role is more of a babysitter for Number Four than a warrior/guardian who dispenses valuable training and wisdom.

The film presents a seed or two of hope that the franchise can improve with each installment, but will its identity crisis allow it to do so? Attempting to be all things to all teenagers could backfire if it fails to create loyalty amongst any one demographic.

Teenage audiences and those who don't consume themselves with the story's many flaws will be more forgiving than I. Perhaps your expectations will be exceeded, but there's a good chance you'll be either underwhelmed or disappointed. Wouldn't you rather risk a dollar at Redbox than $10 a pop at the theater? Don't say I didn't properly inform you.

Are you in the mood for an entertaining, intense supernatural thriller with religious themes featuring an Oscar winner who faces a crisis of faith? Well, good news - Signs is currently on DVD. However, if you're looking for that in The Reaping then you might want to go ahead and lower those expectations and prepare to not be blown away.

Responding in a post-screening interview to the movie's tagline ("What hath God wrought?"), God emphatically declared, "Oh, I wrought the 10 plagues in the Old Testament, all right, but you ain't laying this on me!"

I've decided that "it somewhat kept my interest" is no longer excuse enough for me to give a thriller of this nature a passing grade. Slow-paced, non-scary, and convolutedly confusing to a fault (due to Swank's inexplicable "visions"), The Reaping takes the potential of applying a Biblical story in modern times and wastes it with a pedestrian effort that offers nothing new or original to the genre.

Admittedly, some of the special effects showcasing the plagues are visually interesting, and the atmosphere is appropriately dark, but unfortunately, there is no effort to combine emotional impact with the CGI. Rather than disturb audiences with a little eye-covering, skin-crawling aftermath of the plagues, the movie is content to just check 'em off the list. "Drop some frogs into the bloody river!" "Done." "Good, what's next?" "Flies?" "Bring it! We've got eight to go and only 60 minutes left to do it in!"

Consequently, this inability to dig beneath the surface of its visuals is what detached my interest. In other words, the film just didn't grab me. Some strange dude in the seat behind me did, but that's a whole other level of disturbing. I was never scared, I only felt brief moments of tension, and I felt not a single iota of interest in any of the characters. Come on, guys, give me an incentive to care!

You can't even bother to provide a handful of pandering-yet-effective jump scenes? Where's the excitement? Where's the intrigue? Where's the foreboding fear? I just sat there waiting for something ... ANYTHING ... to happen, and a climax filled with a transparent plot twist and Shyamalan-esquire "hey, here's what was really happening!" flashbacks doesn't count.

Close out the festivities with a groan-inducing "oh great, there's gonna be a sequel" final scene, and I'm totally left without a single compelling reason to recommend this even to the most hardcore fans of the genre. Thanks for flippin' us the bird, filmmakers, we really appreciate it.

The Reaping is very lucky to make it to theaters. It's a Mary Stuart Masterson-for-Hilary Swank substitution away from premiering on Lifetime. If I were you then that's where I'd wait to see it.

THE GIST

The Reaping is a simple story about a woman with lost faith who is forced to confront an age-old cult and all the plot conveniences and contrivances that come along with that. It fails to capitalize on its potential, thus failing to make this anything more worthy than a rainy day rental.

Dark. Moody. Atmospheric. All words to describe a candlelight dinner with Johnny Betts. But these words can also be used to accurately describe David Fincher's latest foray into the serial killer genre.

Zodiac has been on my "most anticipated" list for quite some time, but having watched many documentaries and read several articles on the subject, I couldn't help but wonder how the film could completely keep my interest when I already knew so much about the material. Plus, we're all aware that the case officially remains unresolved, so are we to resign ourselves to accept an unsatisfactory conclusion?

It took no more than the film's chilling opening scene to cast my fears aside and glue me to the seat for 158 minutes. My familiarity with the source material actually heightened my enjoyment because I was surprised at how accurately the film depicted the events. I recognized names and details that I wouldn't have otherwise.

I also feel that not definitively knowing the Zodiac's identity adds more suspense to the story. We're introduced to a number of suspects, and since this is, in part, one man's interpretation of circumstantial evidence, we're allowed to assume that any of the suspects could be the mysterious killer. It's a plot device that effectively keeps the viewer in a constant state of unease.

I know there are multiple theories on the Zodiac's identity, so you can argue that the film ends on an anticlimactic note. But the movie does have focus, and it presents a compelling case against one of the suspects in such a way that it delivers as much closure as you can expect.

The actors are great (especially Downey and his welcome comic relief), the atmosphere is foreboding, and the investigative process is engaging. It may run a little long for some, but I didn't mind the runtime at all. It's a fascinating case, and I wanted all the information the movie was willing to give me.

Zodiac is the kind of film that sticks with you. I was at a friend's house late after the screening, and when I arrived home I saw a lone car's headlights appear from up the street. My heart began to race a little as I hastened to my door. I knew then and there that a new Zodiac killer was in the vicinity, and I had no time to tarry.

It's been a while since a movie instilled that sort of realistic dread, and I don't know if that's a good thing, but it's certainly a sign (no pun intended) of the film's success in heightening our awareness of what kind of real-life monsters might be lurking in the shadows.

THE GIST

Zodiac gives viewers an excellent combination of nerve-racking suspense and desperately obsessed police procedural work. The majority of viewers with even the slightest interest in the case should be riveted. Those of you with a severely small attention span should probably stick to Norbit instead.

Hey! The Grudge 2! What up, man? I have a friend I would like you to meet. The Grudge 2 meet Johnny's Worst of 2006 list. Johnny's Worst of 2006 list meet The Grudge 2.

What's going on here? I was under the impression that this was supposed to be a sequel to The Grudge rather than a remake. If that's the case then why does it do nothing but rehash the original? This floater doesn't even feel like a movie. It's just a 90-minute soundtrack of the weird contortionist chick making that annoying croaking sound.

A sound on which I'd recommend you not get me started. It was kind of creepy the first time I heard it, but I've heard it about 12,367 times since 2004, so it's pretty much run its course. And it's made even more annoying by the 20 people in the audience who thought it'd be funny to imitate the sound whenever there was a quiet spot in the movie. Sigh.

Folks, YOU'RE NOT FUNNY SO JUST SHUT UP! I promise you, EVERY SINGLE TIME that a character was walking slowly through an empty room (which is approximately 97% of the movie), somebody in the audience would start it up, "Uhhhhkkkkkkuuuuuhhhhhkkkkkk." Yes, I know that's a horrible way to replicate the sound with letters, but you get the gist. So then some dude in the audience would giggle, and not to be outdone, deliver his own rendition. I was very close to just walking through the audience and punching random people.

I told you not to get me started.

There's absolutely nothing about The Grudge 2 that I can recommend. There's not a single original scare or idea in the entire film. There's not one memorable acting performance. Are you a Sarah Michelle Gellar fan? Welp, enjoy her two minutes of screen time and one line of dialogue. Are you an Amber Tamblyn fan? I hope you can deal with the fact that she's given nothing more to do than walk around looking like she's suffering from a pinched nerve. Can you believe the story (if you can call it that) is even worse than The Grudge's?

At least the original was fairly creepy and boasted a few effective jump scenes. I didn't jump once during this lametrosity (yeah, I made the word up, deal with it). That's right. Not a single time. The "scares" are so manufactured and they are so blatantly telegraphed that there is absolutely no shock value once the "gotcha" moment arrives. Watching this movie is like playing a good game of chess - you're always four or five scenes ahead.

There are also some weird scenes thrown in that make no sense whatsoever. One that immediately comes to mind is a scene where a girl drinks a gallon of milk and then begins to regurgitate it back into the jug. Huh? I say HUH?!?! The audience laughed. I shook my head and sighed. There was a lot of that during the movie. Laughing. Sighing. Head shaking. Falling asleep (I did twice).

The movie even makes a 1/5th-hearted attempt at a plot "twist." Wow. It's so bad that I don't think we should even dignify it by labeling it a twist. Did they really think anybody would be surprised at the revelation of who was hiding under the hoodie? Please. It was as shocking as Elton John coming out of the closet.

And of course the ending goes the whole non-closure "look, we might have another sequel" route. As soon as the credits rolled the audience booed. My sentiments exactly. Had the audience paid money for this turd burger then things would have most likely gotten violent, and I would've gladly led the charge.

We learned from The Grudge that there's a Japanese belief that when someone dies in a powerful grip of rage, then a curse is left behind. Much like a Ben Affleck movie, it's a "stain" that forever becomes a part of the place where the death occurred. Well, in The Grudge 2 we learn that when a horror movie covers its budget during its opening weekend then its sequel will be rushed out, and more often than not it will be as bad as this and will leave a stain on any theater where the movie shows.

THE GIST

If you're a total wimp and never saw The Grudge then this might provide a few cheap scares. But I strongly recommend saving your money, otherwise, there's a good chance you'll be the one walking out of the theater with a grudge.

The beautiful thing about Snakes on a Plane is that its title automatically and immediately removes all pretense. It intentionally screams, "I'm a bad movie, so criticizing plot and acting is a waste of your time!" Hey, I love the philosophy. If your movie is ridiculous then swing for the fences and embrace the cheesiness that your title will not allow you to avoid.

But here's my problem. For the average movie the following statement would be at least somewhat of a compliment (or less of an insult), but in regard to Snakes on a Plane, it's a disappointment - the movie isn't as bad as I was hoping it would be.

Oh, there's plenty of fun to be had. The movie starts a little slow, but once the snakes get loose on the plane, effectively turning the movie into "snakes on a (choose a body part)," moments of out-loud laughter abound. If you're the type of person who can laugh at snakes attacking people in ridiculous ways, that is. You have to be willing to tap into your juvenile sense of humor, and I was along for the ride.

But once the third act arrived, everybody focused way too much on figuring out how to land the plane, and the snakes took a back seat. Or would that be a window seat? Bwahahahaha! *ahem* My apologies. I wanted more deaths by snakes! I wanted things to get even more and more outlandish!

You see, as the movie rolled along I kept thinking of crazy scenes or actions that would be perfect, but I couldn't help but be disappointed when my ideas were never explored. For example, why have a kickboxer on the plane but not have him deliver at least a single roundhouse kick to a snake? Now THAT is the kind of silliness I wanted more of. Can you imagine how good this could have been if Chuck Norris had co-starred? Man, a snake attacking Chuck's beard only to be repelled by its beard-like powers would have been pure gold.

And where are all the bad, cheesy, pun-laced one-liners? Sure, we got "Make it fast. Time is tissue," but overall this isn't nearly as quotable as I had hoped. Come on, couldn't Samuel L. throw us a little, "It's time to kick some asp," to savor or something? I want cringe-inducing dialogue! Here, let me treat y'all to another example that would have been perfect. Picture the scene...

Everybody is running around the plane, freaking out. Somebody off screen yells, "Snakes! On the plane!" Then the camera focuses on an old man with a cane, wobbling down the plane aisle, doing his best to flee the snakes. Samuel L. Jackson's partner would then turn to Jackson and say, "Looks like he has even bigger problems - he's got shakes on a cane!" Then Jackson would give his partner a turned-up-nose glare the likes of which is usually reserved for horrific smells. The line would rock, but Jackson's silent response would totally sell it. Everybody goes home happy. But alas, the film didn't dare get that campy.

Another problem with Snakes is that "bad cinema" is usually at its best when it isn't intentionally trying to be bad. Take A Sound of Thunder, for example. That movie is one of the biggest $80 million disasters to ever hit the screen. But it's also one of the funniest bad movies I've ever seen at the theater. There's just something magical about people putting a lot of effort and money into trying to make something good only to have it turn out painfully bad. When Hollywood jobs are lost because of how big a failure has been delivered then that's when the real fun begins.

When you're delivering cheesiness with a wink and a nod to the audience then you've gotta go all-out over-the-top. Just inserting a few "f" bombs and some nudity merely to get an R rating isn't gonna do it.

I still don't know if the movie's original intent was to be bad, or if that was just a byproduct of the Internet hype. Did the filmmakers realize that no one was going to take the film seriously so they decided to do a little re-shooting and THEN play it as an intentionally cheesy movie? After all, Snakes on a Plane was only a working title and at one time it was going to be changed to Pacific Air Flight 121.

Movie executives and Jackson's agent were in favor of the title change, and that's what leads me to believe that everybody initially wanted to play this straight until they realized they couldn't turn back.

I have to give Samuel L. Jackson credit though - he refused to let them make the title change. "That's the only reason I took the job: I read the title," he told Collider.com. "You either want to see that, or you don't." That pretty much sums it up.