Same shit, different decade!

The H-Bomb: The original “Scream” came seemingly from out of nowhere back in ’96, my Freshman year of high school, and almost overnight became all the rage. I remember it like it was yesterday. “Scream” was the movie everyone was talking about, and for good reason. Yeah, it was another slasher with teens getting sliced and diced, but it was different. It was intelligently written, with memorable, likable characters, an involving whodunit plot, and it was not only a slasher movie but a dissection of the slasher genre. Most importantly, it pulled the entire horror genre out of Hollywood’s leper colony and made it respectable again. Respectable, and popular.

Exactly a year later “Scream 2” was bestowed upon us. With the ghost face mask and the “killer phone voice” already cultural icons, the sequel wasn’t quite as fresh as the original, and had its moments of pure silliness, but it was still entertaining and people still went to see it in droves and talk about it ad nauseam. Then, they decided to wait a couple of years before making a third one, and in that time we were treated to the likes of “I Know What You Did Last Summer”, “Urban Legend”, “The Faculty”, “Halloween: H20”, and a whole host of other Scream-spired flicks. So when “Scream 3” finally hit the theaters in early 2000… no one cared. In fact, people were sick of “Scream” and all things “Scream” related. It was obvious that it was time to close the book on the ironic, self-referencing horror sub-genre that screenwriter Kevin Williamson created.

Now we arrive at 2011, eleven years after this series was deemed irrelevant, and we now have “Scre4m”. This time, Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to her hometown of Woodsboro as part of a book tour to promote a memoir she has written about her experiences from the first three films. She barely has time to get reacquainted with old friends Sheriff Dewey Riley (David Arquette) and Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), who are now married, when news hits that more teens are being murdered by a killer in a ghost face costume. What a shocker.

As someone in the movie actually says, Sydney should be in the “Final Destination” movies, because death seems to follow her everywhere she goes. But this time the killer seems not only focused on Sydney, but also on Sydney’s young cousin, Jill (Emma Roberts), and all of her dopey high school friends. Can anyone see where this is going? Yep, for better AND worse, “Scre4m” is more of the same. More bloody kills, more cat-and-mouse plotting, and a twist reveal towards the end that I had figured out long before the movie got to it.

I liked that this is a throwback to the “self-aware” horror movies of the mid/late 90’s. The movie even addresses in the opening reel that it’s a style of horror flick that has long since passed in favor of torture porn and the stream of remakes and reboots that seems to have no end. In fact, that is the angle that the killer in “Scre4m” is taking, that they are “remaking” the murders of the original Woodsboro massacre, except, like a true remake, they are doing it bigger and bloodier. Why just stab somebody, when you can stab them, then throw them off a roof onto a news van? Why only hear about the murders, when you can actually see them on the Internet?

Yes, one of Williamson’s ways of trying to keep his idea relevant for today’s audience (picky lot that they are) is to work streaming video into the story. Streaming video, and texting, and Facebook, and Twitter… these things are mentioned often throughout the story, but they just serve to remind us that “Scream” is something from a bygone era. The original was a product of its time, this one is a trip down memory lane. It was a game attempt to make it fresh, Mr. Williamson, but it just didn’t fly.

Another area where Williamson faltered was in the character department. In the first two films, the characters were interesting, unique, and to an extent, real. Here, the exact opposite is true. Hayden Panettiere’s annoying BFF made me yearn for Rose McGowan, Nico Tortorella’s asshole boyfriend character can’t hold a closed fist to Skeet Ulrich, and the two movie geek characters are just dull when compared to Jamie Kennedy from the first film and Timothy Olyphant from the second. As for the two doltish deputies (Adam Brody and Anthony Anderson), they were just there to pad out the running time, get a few chuckles with their banter, and then die bloody deaths.

Just to give an example of the dip in writing quality when it comes to the characters; the film opens with a . . . “twist” (eye roll). The thing was, I couldn’t see a difference between the “fake” characters and the “real” ones, writing wise. They ALL sounded like artificial movie people. Sad but true, Williamson’s writing just lacks that kind of sharpness that made the earlier films so good.

Director Wes Craven is back, surely hoping to rebound from that epic shit storm that was “My Soul to Take”, and… yeah, this is a better film, but… one can hardly call that a rave. He keeps things moving, never letting the movie drag, and his action scenes are well staged (loved that forehead stabbing) and would’ve been exciting except it’s all just so familiar by now. The idea of somebody trying to “remake” the events of the first movie is clever, but it’s not enough to spice up this rather stale dish. The blood caked final act actually is pretty entertaining, but… much like the film itself, it’s too little, too late. Too bad.

All that stated, I did not dislike “Scre4m”. I actually did enjoy it in a retro kind of way. I partially grew up with “Scream” (it was my 90’s) and I enjoyed seeing Dewey and Gale and Sydney again. It was like visiting old friends. But, to do that all I would have to do is pop the original movie into my DVD player. I really don’t see why a fourth film was needed, especially a decade later. It’s watchable, but it gives us nothing new, and despite references to “Saw” and “Shaun of the Dead”, it’s all just so 90’s.

For those who fight for it, life has a flavor that those who don’t will never know.

Pretty girls scantily outfitted in leather with lots of big weapons fighting samurai, Nazi’s, zombies, ghouls, dragons, and robots. For some that is enough. But I’m no longer 15. I need a bit more.

In Sucker Punch, Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300, Dawn of the Dead) has created a film that vacillates between reality and fantasy, fantasy and reality, and fantasy and fantasy. But it isn’t as confusing as it sounds. It’s all about “girl power” sticking it to the man (literally) in the thick of fantastical battlegrounds.

Textured with impressive special effects and 80’s songs remade (which I really liked), it clearly strives to be trendy. My favorite background song was the remake of “Asleep” by The Smiths. There is hardly a more ethereal and moody song. It was the perfect selection for the main character, Babydoll, lamenting her new demise in an insane asylum waiting for an unnecessary lobotomy. It was also the perfect fit and set-up for the film overall—perhaps even the most powerful moment in the film. It was also great to hear Björk make an appearance on the soundtrack as well.

Seeking release for her and her newfound—and also abused—sanitarium female companions (Rocket, Blondie, Amber, and Sweet Pea), Babydoll devises a plan of escape for her insane girl posse. Creating existential battles for her band of sisters in the recesses of her fragmented mind, Babydoll fights to get free in order to cope with the fears of her true reality. With every victory she steps closer to liberation, both mental and actual. Sounds neat, right? And it sort of was.

Realizing that I was simply watching someone’s overactive imagination (according to the storyline) left me feeling a bit empty at times. I frequently wondered, “So what?” In my imagination I am rich, famous, ripped with muscles, a genius, have a full head of black hair, am 6’4”, 200 lbs., and forever 25. Isn’t that interesting to you? Even with the best special effects, not really. And that’s my point. I do need a sense of realism to keep me interested, even with all those fancy special effects.

This movie was also lacking a sense of humor. There was only one resounding laugh in the packed theater I was in throughout the whole film. That’s a problem. Every action movie, especially one with such a grim underlying storyline, needs a few moments of tension release. A one-liner or two doesn’t necessarily take away from stories with serious undertones. Done well, they can actually enhance the mythology by creating a sense of irony (which life is certainly peppered with and people identify with), while giving the viewer a needed moment to breathe. Sucker Punch was all tension, tension, and more tension. Unfortunately, this leaves the viewer looking for the end and not enjoying the moment.

Sucker Punch had some solid jabs, but was not a TKO.

Parents: Sucker Punch really fought to keep a PG-13 rating, while pushing that envelope the whole time. Lots of violence, plenty of mature themes, but the language was pretty mild. I can recall an “ass” or two, and one s-bomb. This is one of those movies that would have been R rated 20 years ago. This is definitely not for anyone under 13.

Limacher Low Down: Drive Angry 3D is a pull no punches, thrill ride that apparently was SHOT in 3D! The film starts off full throttle and though there were some down parts in the movie, for the most part it delivers quite the bang for the buck. It’s easy to enjoy this movie, but at the same time it’s easy to sit back and critique the shit out of it as well. The characters each develop in their own unique way, and apart from the fact that Nic Cage delivered a line that was his attempt at being serious, everyone in the audience laughed their asses off.  I went in expecting the so bad its good aspect of B Movies, and I left thinking it was so bad it was decent.

Drive Angry starts off with a man named Milton (Nic Cage) on a mission to save his kidnapped granddaughter from the clutches of Satanic Cult Leader, Jonah King (Billy Burke). Milton takes no prisoners on his search and along his way meets the hottest bad-ass chick since Foxy Brown, Piper (Amber Heard). Piper is the type of girl where if you fuck with her she’ll rip your balls off with the flick of her wrist. We see how much ass she can kick when she finds her recent fiancée fucking a neighbor girl. Milton comes to save the day and quickly Piper and Milton are joined on the journey to seek retribution on Jonah King.

On the road someone is hunting down Milton as he hunts down Jonah; his name is simply the Accountant (William Fichtner) who has a cool, calm, don’t fuck with me and you’ll live attitude. (On a side note here, was it an inside joke that Cage actually works with an Accountant at SOME POINT in his life?) On the road Milton seems to be well known, and thought to be dead, but alas there he is. Milton doesn’t seem to look for trouble, but it seems that no matter where he goes trouble seems to find him. Milton believes that he’s on the lookout for Jonah, but Jonah is also searching for him as well. Multiple gun fights between the cult members and Milton keep the attention of the viewer and keep the audience clamoring for more. The Accountant is also seemingly recruiting people to help his effort of stopping Milton in a unique way as well. This is around the point where the movie tends to drag a bit. The action could’ve kept going full throttle, but apparently the need to build the plot line was more important than keeping the audience entertained.

Milton hits a few bumps along his way, but keeps getting up and continuing his goal of retrieving his granddaughter and stopping Jonah King from achieving his goal. Along the way Milton has pissed off every law enforcement agency in his travels and now has to deal with them as well. After a few miles of driving angry Milton needs a new ride to continue his search, and decides to visit his old running buddy Webster (David Morse). Webster explains the back story of how he and Milton know each other, and just who Milton is as well. Webster is serious and straight to the point and Morse in this role brings some drama to the project; this is where Cage tries to do the same thing and gets a laugh from the audience! This is all set up for a scene that would’ve been great involving a shit load of law enforcement and a surprise appearance from the Accountant; unfortunately some of the worse CGI I can recently remember just pissed me off and instead of exciting me, it left me groaning.

We come to the meat and potatoes part of the movie where everything comes to fruition and we find out who the better man is. Some great driving and explosions really pick the action back up and pulled me back into my enjoyment of the movie. I really wanted to enjoy this movie more than I did, but unfortunately the negatives kept adding up for me and really let me down in a way. I knew what to expect when I went into the theater to watch this, but in the end I thought Nic Cage did a better job of acting in Ghost Rider (yeah that epic piece of shit) than he did in this. I say if you’re into ass kicking, bad acting, escape from reality at the movies then go ahead and throw down the extra couple bucks for the 3D glasses and see how it differs from post production 3D.

Day of the woman indeed…

The H-Bomb: Young, attractive city girl author Jennifer Hills (Sarah Butler) heads out to a remote cabin with her laptop and a ton of booze to work on her book. Unfortunately for her, the quaint countryside is not as serene as it seems, as her arrival has attracted the attention of some local horny hooligans. They sit around and contemplate having their way with her, then one night they decide to do exactly that, bringing along their “pet retard” friend in tow, so he can lose his cherry.

Like a pack of slobbering, hungry animals, they beat, torture, and rape Jennifer over and over (and over) until she is little more than a naked, quivering, bloodied shell of a woman. They even have the audacity (or stupidity) to videotape the whole thing. Then they watch as she jumps off a bridge, plunging into the river below, presumably to her death. They burn all of her things, and eliminate any trace of her ever being at the cabin, but they don’t find her body. More than a month goes by, and the good ole’ boy gang rapists assume it’s all behind them. But then, they find themselves being stalked by someone… stalked in the same way they stalked Jennifer.

The original “I Spit on Your Grave” (aka “Day of the Woman”) was a quintessential trashy, sleazy exploitation flick from the 70’s. As part of a sub-genre dubbed “rape and revenge,” it featured copious amounts of nudity, sex (rape), violence and little else, aside from some half-assed and very skewed theme of female empowerment. It was considerably more explicit than other movies of its ilk, resulting in mucho controversy, angry condemnations from people like Roger Ebert, and ultimately, a cult following. Saying the film is infamous is something of an understatement.

When I first heard that a remake was coming, I figured that Hollywood, the unimaginative fuckheads that they can be, must be truly desperate for material. I mean, this seemed like they were truly scraping the bottom of the scum ridden barrel. Then I wondered if the filmmakers would actually have the big, hairy testes to make it as brutal and hardcore as the original, or if it would pussy out and go all PG-13 on our asses.

Well, as it turns out, these people, from the director to the actors, had the testes, big ones, and they went for it. For better or worse, they went for it, and shied away from nothing. As grueling as the original got, it was super low budget, with some shoddy gore effects, and some amateurish performances that always kind of softened the impact it would’ve had on me. This remake, on the other hand, has a larger budget, with a gritty look, and actors who are totally believable 100 % of the time, causing the violence on screen to have a much stronger effect.

Make no mistake, people, this is totally and completely a “watch at your own risk” affair, and many of you who do watch it will no doubt feel the urge to run straight into the shower as soon as it’s over. “I Spit on Your Grave” is pure, depraved torture porn at its absolute ugliest. The sexual violence contained within this nasty bit of work is so graphic, and so drawn out in places, that for most it will simply be unwatchable. The assault that this woman is forced to endure makes Monica Bellucci’s ten minute long rape scene from “Irreversible” look tame and tasteful by comparison. This sick little bitch pulls absolutely no punches, and I’m sure there are even horror fans out there, ones who dig the gory shit, who won’t be able to stomach this.

Because the content is so potent, many reactions to both the remake and the original have been of absolute disgust and downright anger, causing many to dismiss it as being vile, misogynistic garbage. But I don’t agree, at least not entirely. While I don’t certainly love this remake, and I think it does cross that line from being merely violent entertainment into something worse, I found the way the lead character takes her methodical revenge on her attackers to be oddly fascinating. I know I should feel troubled by what she does, but after seeing what those heinous fucks did to her, I think they deserve nothing less.

It helps that Butler, as Jennifer, is absolutely believable. She is a real discovery. Her character goes from being a normal young woman to being a frightened victim, to being a broken victim, to being her own avenging angel, and she is convincing in all aspects. Also, going through all the things the script put her through in such an uninhibited way really took guts on her part, and my hat’s off.

As far as the cretins go, they’re a bit more stock. We have the ring leader, Johnny (Jeff Branson), his two lackeys (Daniel Franzese and Rodney Eastman), as well as their simpleton tag-along, Matthew (Chad Lindberg). The first three are appropriately boorish and detestable, while Matthew is simply pitiful. There is a fifth member of this rape party who comes along later, but I don’t want to say too much about him.

Director Steven R. Monroe does a nice job of giving the film a grimy look when the story gets to the ugly stuff, and he manages to avoid the lagging pace issues that the original film had, despite working from more or less the exact same plot. I’ll also compliment him for not wimping out on anything, and making us feel the violence. It wasn’t necessarily enjoyable, but he accomplished what he set out to.

One aspect where I think Monroe dropped the ball was in the transition of Jennifer’s character. In the original, we see her recovering from her attack, then struggling internally on how, or if she even should, take revenge. In the remake, we don’t see any of this. The first time we see her after the rape, she’s already transformed into a female terminator looking to jam a shotgun up someone’s ass. Also, it didn’t fix a problem the original had, in that her revenge schemes are carried off perfectly, without a single hiccup. So much for adding suspense.

At the end of the day, I do think this is a better film than the original, but I don’t quite like it, and I can’t quite recommend it. This is a movie that pulls zero punches and leaves very little to the imagination. Is it provocative? Some will say it is, others will say it isn‘t. Is it entertainment? Most will answer that question with a resounding “Fuck no!” I’m sure some of you will now be curious to see it, and you’ll go and do just that, just please don’t send any hate mail my way afterwards.

Gnomeo, Gnomeo, wherefore art thou Gnomeo?

The H-Bomb: Oh my, what would the Bard make of this? You see, this is normally the part of the review where I explain the set up of the plot, but in this case, the title says it all. This is “Romeo & Juliet”, except with garden gnomes as the star crossed lovers. Well, more or less. There are other differences, such as; very little of Shakespeare’s wordplay is featured, there’s a lot more humor in the story, it’s geared to a much younger crowd, it’s animated, the tragic ending has been… tweaked, and… oh yeah, Romeo (oh so cleverly re-named Gnomeo) and Juliet are a couple of freakin’ garden gnomes!

Throughout the whole movie, I couldn’t stop wondering what the thinking behind it was. A children’s film based on (what I guess is) Shakespeare’s most famous play? Was this some kind of attempt to introduce younglings to his work, so maybe they can develop an appreciation for it before grad school? I highly doubteth it. Could it instead be a shameless plundering of source material for an industry bereft of new ideas? Maybe. Some struggling screenwriters with severe insomnia watching the Leonardo DiCaprio “Romeo + Juliet” as the second half of a double bill with “Amelie“? Most likely.

I must admit though, given that I had less than low expectations going in, there is a quirkiness to Gnomeo & Juliet that kept me amused and interested early on. The Montagues and Capulets (or in this case, the Blues and the Reds) holding lawnmower races to prove who was the best and sneaking into each others yards to destroy various prized plants, much the way that typical feuding suburban neighbors do, made the film more clever than the desperately dumb kiddie flick I was anticipating. But, as the pic wore on, the cleverness wore off (around the time the plastic pink flamingo with the Latino accent showed up), my interest began to wane, and eventually I was just waiting for the dang thing to end. (Dang? Freakin’? Since this is a children’s film; I decided to soften my own language so Swift doesn’t do it for me.)

As far as my likes, the animation is nice and vibrant, though the 3-D is a big, fat nothing. James McAvoy and Emily Blunt lend their voices to Gnomeo and Juliet, and they are both decent, though their best work . . . this ain’t. However, there are some gems in the supporting vocal cast. Jason Statham, who I was just talking about in my previous review (The Mechanic), has a fun turn as the villainous Tybalt, as does Ozzy Osbourne (!!!) as his sidekick, a plastic deer. Michael Caine, Maggie Smith, and Patrick Stewart as the voice of Bill Shakespeare’s statue (actually listed in the frackin‘ credits as Bill Shakespeare) can also be heard, but the highlight for me was none other than the vocal cameo of Hulk Hogan, who voices over a commercial for a lawnmower on steroids. Listening to him, I thought to myself, “Is that who I think it is?” When I checked IMDb after the movie, lo and behold, it was!

At the end, “Gnomeo & Juliet”, while hardly a great Shakespeare adaptation, is cute entertainment for kids, and I think most adults will find it bearable, as well. Also, if you happen to be an Elton John fan (and honestly, who isn‘t?), you might want to check it out for that alone, because his songs are featured prominently on the soundtrack. As to what “Bill” Shakespeare would think, I imagine him sighing and saying something to the effect of, “Well, at least it was better than the DiCraprio version.”

Review by Alyn Darnay

Directed by: Alister Grierson

Starring: Rhys Wakefield, Allison Cratchley, Christopher Baker, Alice Parkinson.

Merriam-Webster defines a “Sanctum” as 1) a sacred place, and 2) a place where one is free from intrusion, and that certainly applies to Papua New Guinea’s Esa-ala Caves. It is the unexplored and least accessible cave system in the world, and it serves as the location of this new 3D film from executive producer James Cameron and Australian director Alister Grierson.

If you’re claustrophobic or queasy about small places, this film is not going to sit well with you, but if you’re up for a minor underground/underwater 3D adventure, you’ve found your “el dorado”. The cinematography is so beautifully executed and the 3D envisioned so skillfully, you’ll actually get the feeling of being there with the actors, in the caves, in the water, disoriented and desperate. It makes you forget that there’s only a sliver of a story here and enough melodrama to knit a sweater with.

Inspired by a true story, “Sanctum” relates the tale of a daring underwater cave diving team whose expedition to map the world’s last remaining frontier, inner earth, is jeopardized when a fast moving weather front closes in unexpectedly and their way out is blocked. To save themselves the team is forced deeper into the cave system in an attempt to find another way out before the cave totally floods and they all drown.

The film itself is just above average, without the 3D, I doubt the story would stand up as much. I never felt connected to the characters, the dialog was clichéd and at times insipid, the twists and turns were all predictable, and eventually it didn’t matter who lived or died. The cast of Australian actors, however, did the very best they could with the embarrassingly poor writing presented to them.

“Sanctum” is the kind of film you have to get lost in. If you just lay back, take it in for the beauty of it, and lose yourself in the experience you’ll enjoy it. If you want a great action/adventure film, this ain’t it.

Cheri, bombed

Swift shot:  Rock and Roll reveille!  Sadly devoid of poignant dramatic relevance.  Worthy of a cult-following, Fanning loyalists may find chagrin with her portrayal of Cheri Currie.  This was my least favorite performance out of the young actor to date.

Two fists pumped way the hell up in the air for Michael Shannon (World Trade Center, Boardwalk Empire) who sprayed maleness into every scene as Kim Fowley, like a Tom Cat marking his turf with a scent few will forget.  This flick was more about sticking it to the man, whilst whoring for the man, but it offers a nice behind the beef curtains glance at The Runaways, the in-your-face piss on your guitar all girl rock band that jump started the world of feminine rock and roll with arrogance and grimy glam.

The Runaways are, in no particular order, Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart), Cheri Currie (Dakota Fanning), Lita Ford (Scout-Taylor Thompson), and Sandy West (Stella Maeve) – together they are The Runaways!  But, that is kind of the problem, we only ever find out why one of them is a “runaway” and only one of the characters is completely fleshed out, Cheri.  Even Cheri’s sister has more of a back-story than the Wild One – Joan Jett.  Essentially, we are meant to believe Jett is just a wild creature, roaming the streets, hell bent on breaking down mores and standards with her innuendo driven existence – but this film won’t tell you squat about why she is that way and never attempts to develop the other members of the band.  Maybe, in that regard, the film is goading you to do just that, don’t like it?  Tough shit – look it up!  Granted, the plot is ripped from the pages of Cheri Currie’s bio “Neon Angel: The Cherie Currie Story”, so the heavy Cheri slant is to be expected.

The film follows the creation, duration and demise of the punk rock pussy patrol, The Runaways.  It doesn’t have any cohesive message, other than to tell the story of Cheri Currie and her brief existence as THE Cherry Bomb.  A girl once declared to be bigger in Japan than Godzilla!

What I liked most about this flick was that I didn’t know crap about The Runaways when I started watching it; I knew to strap in and enjoy the ride, and overall it was a fun ride, but I just couldn’t get into the characters – and I blame one of my favorite actresses for that, Dakota Fanning.  I have raised the bar for her from now on, because I have seen how talented she can be – but quite frankly, her Cheri was painful to watch as you could see she was trying so hard . . . too hard, to become Cheri.  It just never happened; the whole time I was painfully aware I was watching a talented actress pretending to be a big girl, and step out of her childish roles, with what she assumed would be a “coming out” role.

And, I was incredibly shocked by how well Kristen Stewart did, given almost no exposition for her character.  I am by far not one of her biggest fans, but she impressed me with her Jett.  If you are into these kinds of rock and roll, how they started, almost a Behind the Music, flicks – this is for you.  If you are looking for an intelligent, interesting, thought-provoking film – you might want to steer clear.  Overall, the message appeared to be, with fame comes sacrifice.  In Cheri’s case, the sacrifice was her integrity, giving up who she was to be “cool”.  Jett didn’t have that problem, and I get the feeling her life story would have been a little more interesting – like, just what the hell made her “The Wild One”?  It’s a decent Netflix instant viewer.

The power of Christ is not that compelling…

The H-Bomb: Young seminary student Michael Kovak (Colin O’Donoghue) is having doubts about joining the Priesthood (and about his belief in God in general). So, he is sent to Rome to take a course in Exorcism, where he, being the pragmatic fellow that he is, makes no attempt at hiding his skepticism. His professor Father Xavier (Ciaran Hinds), assigns him to study under practicing Exorcist Father Lucas Trevant (Anthony Hopkins).

Michael soon finds that Trevant is rather unorthodox in his methods as he observes him perform an Exorcism on Rosaria, a 16-year old pregnant girl who is believed to be demonically possessed. At first Michael is unconvinced, believing that the girl, and later Trevant himself, are simply nuts. But as time wears on, he sees and hears things that he simply cannot write off with scientific explanations, and after someone close to him dies, Michael finds his own spirituality re-awakened in time to fight the demonic force that has now targeted him.

Inspired by true events (bullshit alarm sounding!), “The Rite” is a film that I’m a little torn on. On one hand, I’ve always found stories about demonic presence or possession to be intriguing in an unsettling way. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a devout agnostic, but there’s just something about this subject matter that has always gotten under my skin, and as such, there are many moments in the film that I thought were legitimately creepy.

At the same time, I found this overly familiar “Exorcist” clone to be exactly that… an overly familiar “Exorcist” clone that, despite an interesting twist late in the story, follows an all too traveled path to a foreseeable ending that, for me, diluted the potential power that its many unnerving moments could have had. The story tries to get around this by having Trevant make a joking reference to spinning heads and spitting pea soup, but the scenes featuring the possessed Rosaria do nothing but conjure up memories of Regan MacNeil.

Another problem the film has is during it’s climax, which goes way over the top and allows Hopkins to chew up the scenery like it’s nobody’s business. Where the movie should be at it’s most powerful, it just becomes downright silly. Sometimes less is truly more, guys. This is especially true in horror films.

Also, it seemed to take Michael a little too long to come around and accept that there was something supernatural happening. He’s able to dismiss Rosaria’s sudden ability to speak English and her excessive strength with practical explanations, but when the possessed girl actually starts to tell him details of his past that she couldn’t possibly know about and he’s still not willing to believe that something out of the ordinary is going on, I stopped believing in this character.

Mikael Hafstrom (“1408”) goes the stylish route with his direction and manages to shape some rather eerie scenes, it’s just too bad the script is so “been there, done that.” As far as the performances go, relative newcomer O’Donoghue is very solid as the conflicted Michael. He has a strong presence and gives the character a lighter side when appropriate, which helps in him coming across as a naturalistic, rounded character.

Hopkins, when he isn’t hamming it up, shows us that he’s still one of the best in the business. Unfortunately, when he does kick in to overdrive, oh dear… just be prepared to laugh at times when you know you’re not supposed to be laughing. “Silence of the Hams”, anyone? If only hams would be silent.

As for everyone else, Ciaran Hinds and Toby Jones are wasted in throwaway roles. Rutger Hauer has a few fleeting scenes as Michael’s father, I just wish he had more. Alice Braga shows up as a reporter researching a story on exorcisms. She does fine, but aside from being a confidant and potential love interest for Michael, the character wasn’t really needed.

On the scale of Satanic movies, I’d say that this doesn’t even hold a black candle to “The Exorcist”, but it’s far superior to all of the “Exorcist” sequels and prequels, which ain’t saying a whole hell of a lot, but… well… it ain’t saying a whole hell of a lot. “The Rite” did have moments that were truly chilling, but again, the story is very old hat, steeped in demonic cliché, and I can’t really recommend it. Watch “The Exorcist” again, instead.

We’d like to thank guest writer, Alyn Darnay of Chaos Films for sharing this review for our readers.  -Swift

Check out our friends at Chaos Films, here.

Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Starring: Scoot McNairy (In Search of a Midnight Kiss) and Whitney Able (All the Boys Love Mandy Lane)

I grew up on Sci-Fi, reading every book and seeing every movie I could find, and loving most of them. Then, I developed a taste for what I considered the best of the genre. Unfortunately, for me, Monsters is not one of those great ones I can enjoy. Yes it has all the requisite elements, including the bandied around ‘auteur’ title given to new director Gareth Edwards at SXSW, but ultimately I found it dull and more than a little boring. If you don’t mind wading through a non-love affair while traveling through a dense jungle, during a neatly conceived alien invasion for something to happen, then this is definitely your film.

The story goes like this; Six years ago NASA launched a probe to collect samples of a possible life form, which crashed upon re-entry over Central America. Suddenly, a new alien life form began to appear and started destroying everything around it. Portions of Mexico were quarantined and labeled an INFECTED ZONE. During this completely off screen destruction, the story centers on an American Photo Journalist, Andrew (Scoot McNairy) who begrudgingly agrees to escort his boss’s daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able), a scared American tourist, through the infected zone to the safety of the US border. What happens next amounts to nothing more than, scared looks, one semi interesting attack on a convoy, and a lot of no chemistry between the two main characters as they make their way through “Hostile Territory.”

The film tries to be part alien invasion, part road movie and part love story, either which alone might have made for a better film. It should have been much more entertaining than it was. I found it a kind of throw back to the B-grade films of the 50’s, with its tentacled, bioluminescent aliens, rather than say a more contemporary “Cloverfield” style film, which generated more thrills and suspenseful moments.

To the director’s credit, and I shout that loudly here, making an Indy film like this is a Herculean task on no budget (the estimated budget was around $15,000); especially doing it while backpacking across Costa Rica, Guatemala, Belize, Mexico and Texas with two actors, a boom operator and a camera, then editing and creating CGI effects by yourself. Just the fact that he was able to create all this basically on his own, is a testament to his huge talent, I applaud it and expect some great films from him going forward. This first film is a noble try, but it just misses the mark.

If you want to see “Monsters”, my suggestion, wait for the DVD, it’ll be along very soon.