Suicide Squad (2016) review

WARNING: Mild spoilers ahead!!! Read at your own risk.

(7/10)

     Though the critics may bash Suicide Squad for its uneven pacing, lack of addressing necessary character lore, over-flashy effects, and inconsistent script, the movie delivers an action-packed, pulpy, humorous and heart-wrenching adventure into the lives and personalities of some of DC's finest villians.

PLOT: Long after the days superheroes like Superman have vanished and stopped saving the city, a new war arises within the heart of the city. Government expert Amanda Waller (Viola Davis) constructs a plan to take all of the worst and most powerful criminals in history, put them on a team, and force them to do their bidding. These criminals include baddies like former hitman and family man, Deadshot (Will Smith), and the Joker's wife, Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie) as well as others like Killer Croc, Captain Boomerang, and Diablo. This team, led by Waller and love-struck soldier, Rick Flagg (Joel Kinnaman), are sent to vanquish a supernatural entity taking residence in the body of Rick's girlfriend, June Moone (Cara Delevingne) and destroying the city. The plot is a good example of an excellent idea squandered by lack of information. The story does its best to explain the origin stories of each of our villains and succeeds in covering the basics, but fails in informing the viewer of important extended universe lore that helps drive the plot forward. Some scenes would make un-informed moviegoers scratch their heads without previous knowledge of past relationships. Otherwise, the plot is driven well and an excellent idea to expand upon for DC.

ACTING: The performances were great among the whole cast. The big name actors, like Will Smith, Margot Robbie, and Jared Leto delivered very amusing, fitting, and badass performances as Deadshot, Harley Quinn, and the Joker. Aside from these three show-stealers, the rest of the cast was just beneath them. Other shining performances would be from Joel Kinnaman as Rick Flagg, Cara Delevingne as June Moone/The Enchantress, Viola Davis as Amanda Weller, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Killer Croc, and Jay Hernandez as Diablo. Most of the performances were right on the money even when other aspects of the movie weren't. The talented cast I believe is truly what saved the movie from completely sinking.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The soundtrack in the movie was very well chosen and developed. A lot of the better points in the movie were either punctuated by a relateable, classic rock track or a song newly recorded for the movie. With artists ranging from Black Sabbath and The Rolling Stones to Skrillex and Twenty One Pilots, the soundtrack is very diverse and does its best to keep the flow rolling throughout the movie's entire runtime. For the most part, it does a pretty good job of accomplishing that.

EFFECTS: Suicide Squad's special effects are entirely way too flashy and hit-and-miss for the movie's cause. The effects alternate between something that looks really cool and unique to the equivalent of a computer's graphics card vomiting upon the screen. It feels like the makers of this movie sunk so much into special effects that they forget to touch everything else up. They're way too worried about things looking good than the substance needed to put into it.

OTHER CONTENT: Suicide Squad, contrary to popular critics' beliefs, is NOT a bad movie. It does have several issues as a standalone piece of work, but for fans who already know the characters, storyline, and source material beforehand, it's a rather interesting treat to see how the actors, producers, and director portrayed the comic book characters. Some of the problems the movie has that haven't already been covered would be the pacing and some of the scriptwriting. The pacing of the movie is uneven, varying from moving in fast forward to dragging through formulaic Hollywood pizazz like a snail. The movie does succeed in making the audience want more, but to what extent is too far? It seems we were cheated out of what could have been so much more. The script and screenplay aren't necessarily that bad, but some lines and situations would have been better to just be left out when compared to everything else as a whole. Aside all of the problems previously mentioned, Suicide Squad is still a fun and refreshing breath into a once-dead comic book spin-off. The movie is filled with enough action, personality, and neo-pulpy style that comes as close to feeling as if you were watching the zaniness and intensity of a real comic book playing out before you on screen. The movie focused on its characters and rightfully so, as they were the savior of the entire movie, especially watching the heartbreaking love story between Harley and Joker as well as the backstories of our betrayed "heroes". The movie is actually pretty good if one doesn't set his or her standards too high.

     DC's Suicide Squad does have its issues, from pacing issues to lack of information to flashy special effects, but there's so much more at the heart of it. The movie boasts a talented cast, fresh and pulpy action, excellent one-liners, and a heavy emotional impact for the fans. It's a big, lovely mess of mediocre mistakes and emotional impact as crazy yet loveable as Harley Quinn herself.

The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014) review

(7/10)

     It's always good to discover a hidden gem in the world of horror, as too many lackluster rip-offs and low-budget failures make up the genre today. The Taking of Deborah Logan is an underrated horror film that, though is quite derivative, borrows from all the right places. At some parts, the script flops and the plot's many twists don't add up, but for the most part, this is an all-around creepy, well-acted, and exciting horror film. At least it's better than a lot of the poor excuses nowadays.

PLOT: Mia (Michelle Ang) and her camera crew venture out to document the life of Deborah Logan (Jill Larson), a woman suffering from the early sings of Alzheimer's disease. Deborah's daughter, Sarah (Anne Ramsay), has been staying with Deborah as her disease begins to drain her memory. As the crew gathers footage for their Alzheimer's special, strange things start to happen to Deborah and the people around her. Her disease starts to spread faster, her tantrums start to get more violent, and unjustifiable occurrences start to take place in the family household. The crew slowly moves from documentary mode to investigative mode once these occurrences begin, causing them to uncover some serious mysteries about Deborah's life and former clients. As clues are slowly uncovered, Deborah's condition seems to escalate from Alzheimer's patient to the possessed. The plot is a very cool idea. The whole "found footage" aspect isn't so fresh anymore, but the more specific details make the film seem real unique. It's a documentary gone wrong in the most haywire fashion. Who goes to film an Alzheimer's documentary and expects to get caught in a story of possession? It's a found footage film meets a paranormal investigation. Neither idea is fresh, but combining them has seemed to work in the past.

ACTING: The performances in this film are actually quite great. The star of the show was definitely Jill Larson as the possessed Deborah Logan. Larson portrays Logan's descent into madness and possession in such a way one would get chills. Fully-expressive facial contortions, powerful speech, and accurate motions define the frightening change in Deborah. Larson's interpretation of Deborah sinking from hopeful housewife to evil spirit is quite shocking, believable, and amazing. The rest of the cast was pretty excellent too, with other impressive performances by Anne Ramsey as Sarah, Michelle Ang as Mia, and Ryan Cutrona as Harris. Everyone else played off the drama and trauma created by Deborah in the film quite well.

EFFECTS: The visual effects in this film weren't the most realistic or well-polished, but they were definitely creepy and interesting. The several freaky incarnations of Deborah are quite frightening to look at though obviously fake. What wasn't too obviously fake, however, was the cringe-inducing simulation of the medical procedures Deborah had to go through. Those could make anyone feel uncomfortable because it feels so real and that's rather unsettling. The effects did fail in certain parts, but for the most part they inspired some pretty freaky and occasionally cringe-inducing effects.

OTHER CONTENT: The Taking of Deborah Logan is probably one of the most underrated horror films of its time. Though there are a lot of flaws, it still manages to excite and creep out the audience. The filmmakers used the proper techniques to distribute the scares among the steady-building suspense the film contains throughout. It builds up suspense and then delivers satisfaction to the audience through small scares until the pot finally boils over near the end. The film is in no way unique, but it knows how to put plot and horror elements to proper use. Most of its scares and situations seem derivative of other works (The Exorcist, Grave Encounters, The Last Exorcism), but they all seem to fall together just right when combined. However, that does also create a few plot twists that don't add up. They twists start to get so preposterous that they run together and begin to make less sense. The filmmakers borrowed the situations well, but didn't tie up all of the loose ends or account for the baggage left by borrowing these situations. The script is also pretty bland and poorly written at parts near the end of the film, but for the most part, everything's rock solid. The film does have a lot of flaws, but it takes what it finds and puts them together in such a way to make exciting entertainment.

     The Taking of Deborah Logan deserves a lot more credit than its gotten thus far. Though it's very derivative and preposterous at times, the film takes the elements its given and puts them together quite nicely, exhibiting a very talented cast and building suspense and excitement up to the frightening end. This film provides some truly creepy imagery and succeeds in grabbing its audience and holding their attention tight as a rope in tug-of-war. Sometimes one just has to give a film a chance and consider what its up against, which is what made this film such a pleasant find in terms of horror.

Scary Movie 3 (2003) review

(3/10)

     The Scary Movie series hasn't been good since the first installment, which this addition proves. Though it is an overall improvement over the previous sequel, Scary Movie 3 still falls to the same juvenile and ridiculously unfunny standards. The movie does succeed, though, in its laugh-out-loud moments and some decently clever jokes. It's like everything's the same, but more polished with more experienced writers.

PLOT: Since the events of the previous installment, Cindy (Anna Faris) has become a newscaster on a sexist TV network, and Brenda (Regina Hall) has become an elementary school teacher. As usual, strange things have begun happening in town, from alien crop circles popping up out of nowhere to a killer videotape circulating around town. Cindy finds her way into this tragedy when she watches it herself. Now she must battle the forthcoming evil with her new love interest, an aspiring rapper named George (Simon Rex). The plot is just as typical as the previous movies. The filmmakers take the main plotlines of several films, add a few jokes, then blend them together. In this one, Signs, The Ring, and 8 Mile are primarily being spoofed, causing their plotlines to intermingle together. Had the films been evenly parodied and the jokes been more well written, this would have been a great piece of satire. However, only a few moments are able to bust through the hilarity barrier.

ACTING: The performances in this movie were about the same as the first for the most part. Anna Faris and Regina Hall returned as their original characters and did about as well as usual- just as sarcastic and dim-witted. A couple of characters were introduced in this addition that were decently humorous. These characters were Mahalik (Anthony Anderson) and C.J. (Kevin Hart). The duo played well off each other and their running gag was quite humorous. Other decent performances come from the likes of Charlie Sheen, Queen Latifah, and the late George Carlin.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The soundtrack was pretty much rubbish ultimately. A few obscure rap songs, a couple original rap battles, and a few sheds of composed score make up the entirety of the soundtrack. Nothing much can be said about this one other than the fact it's bland and mediocre.

OTHER CONTENT: Most of the movies in the series are pretty terrible, but this one was kind of in the middle. This one wasn't the worst but it definitely wasn't the best. This one had almost as many juvenile, unfunny, and awkward jokes as the last one, but this one also actually had a few laugh-out-loud moments. A couple of well-timed one-liners and cleverly parodied situations keep this addition from being entirely devoid of laughs. Most of the running gags failed, but the select few that didn't were definitely worth the screen time.

     Scary Movie 3 is a parody not entirely devoid of laughs, but very sparse. A few jokes with good timing, clever spoofing, and quotability made their way past the hilarity barrier, but for most jokes, everything was so juvenile and underdone that it came off as unfunny. This, however, is in no way the worst in the series or the best. This one simply didn't do anything truly significant or entertain well enough to be considered satisfying. It's not bad enough to kill you within seven days of viewing it, but it might want to make you be abducted by aliens to flee.

Scooby-Doo (2002) review

(3/10)

     The live-action adaptation of Scooby-Doo is nothing short of wasted potential and pure annoyance. The all-star cast is let down by stereotypical script-writing and the fresh plotline is burdened by stale jokes and gags. Watching this as a child was always enjoyable, but, like most goofy movies from my childhood, it became less funny and more juvenile the more time passed. It still fills me with a bit of early-2000s nostalgia, but it fails superbly as a stand alone movie.

PLOT: Scooby-Doo and the gang have been solving mysteries for as long as they can remember. One day after solving an average mystery, the crew gets into an argument, causing Fred (Freddie Prinze, Jr.), Daphne (Sarah Michelle Gellar), and Velma (Linda Cardellini) to go off on their own. Shaggy (Matthew Lillard) and Scooby are left on their own with the Mystery Machine. Some time down the road, the gang is tracked down and coincidentally put on a flight to Spooky Island, a theme park with a dark mystery behind it. Those who visit Spooky Island come back as angry, near-mindless zombies, according to the eyewitness account of the island's owner, Mondavarious (Rowan Atkinson), and he invited the mystery gang to get to the bottom of it. However, this mystery isn't just hunting down some clever man in a mask. The monsters on this island are very real, weird, and threatening, testing the wits of the reunited mystery crew. The plot has a fairly unique twist compared to the previous Scooby-Doo animations as these monsters are real and not just men in masks. The mystery also messes with the timeline of Scooby-Doo in a way seemingly clever for the time. It has now, however, faded into annoyance. If not for the bland and juvenile jokes, the plot would have had potential. But I guess that's how one entertains children, right?

ACTING: The performances in this movie are really terrible for the most part. Each actor and actress plays their part to fit the character's stereotype so closely that its ridiculous. The only performance that showed the character any respect would be Matthew Lillard as Shaggy, as he matched his personality without annoyingly stereotyping him. Rowan Atkinson's role was an interesting one as it was a bit more tame and comprehensive than his previous performances in Mr. Bean and Black Adder. It was an interesting change, but definitely not significant enough to save the casts failures. The only other attempted saviors in the cast would be Isla Fisher as Mary Jane (for she wasn't too terrible) and the nostalgic cameo appearance of Sugar Ray.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The soundtrack is mainly made up of early-2000s era rock and rap, like Sugar Ray, Simple Plan, Baha Men, Outkast, and (of course) Shaggy. It adds to the nostalgic feeling of the time period but compared to now just seems rather mediocre.

EFFECTS: The special effects in this movie are very dated and buggy compared to today's CGI standards, but for the time, these effects weren't too bad. The creative design of the monsters is the best effect of the movie, but due to the mediocre Scrappy Doo and the ghost protoplasms, that isn't enough to save the movie in this field. Most effects are very bland in appearance and cheap-looking, but the creatures get points for nostalgic, early-2000s creativity.

OTHER CONTENT: This adaptation of the classic show is still a childhood favorite of several late nineties kids and early millennials, but if one were to look at it outside of the calming nostalgia, one would notice that it's really terrible as a stand-alone movie. The jokes and gags become stale and juvenile, making the animated show look more clever and worth wasting time to watch. This movie did have a lot of potential as a children's film, for if it were done right, it could have become one of the more respectable children's films. However, the plot's potential was dashed aside for stereotypical leads and cheap jokes. The only things keeping this movie worth a watch is the nostalgia factor that some kids have tied to it, such as I to a minute extent.

     Live-action adaptations of children's shows don't always go down in film history. In fact, the majority of them completely miss the mark. Scooby-Doo is a surefire example of that. Plot is forgotten for cheap jokes and lazy leads. However, what would one expect in a film made to primarily please a bunch of eight-year-olds? The movie does have some nostalgia for the early millennials, but that's the only significance this movie holds. If not for that connection, Scooby-Doo would be remembered only as a classic cartoon.

Poltergeist (2015) review

(6/10)

     Most horror remakes these days grow to be trashed by Hollywood flair and jump scares. The remake of Spielberg's Poltergeist just barely falls short of that. The modernized remake adds little to what the source material provided back in the eighties, but what it does add is supple for the general public. Some creepy imagery and new quirks keep the movie from completely failing.

PLOT: Eric (Sam Rockwell) and Amy (Rosemarie DeWitt) Bowen are moving into a new house with their three children when, as in the original film, strange things start to happen. As the family gets established in their new house, electric anomalies start occurring and things start to happen on their own. As time goes on, things get stranger and stranger until the youngest daughter is sucked into a vortex leading into the spirit world where she stays trapped. The family goes to seek help to defeat these malevolent spirits and recruit the help of two different, rival paranormal investigators. As in the original film, the family and crew must pull the daughter out of the spirit world existing due to the house's location above a sacred burial ground. The main plotline is pretty much unchanged from the original film, which would be nice if the producers would have dedicated to some of the scarier parts of the original as well. They try to add too many generic changes like cheesy jump scares and alternate situations loosely based on those that happened in the original. The movie tried to be its own entity, which it is in a bad way. It's the bland remake everyone wasted their hype on. If people had expected a small homage to the film in place of something brilliant in the horror world, the movie's reception would have been more reasonable.

ACTING: The performances in this movie are for the most part pretty bland. The roles are let down by unenthusiastic acting and unfitting roles. Sam Rockwell, though talented in some of his previous media, was a terrible fit for the father in Poltergeist. None of the other cast really adds any spirit to the movie except for maybe Jared Harris and Jane Adams as the rival paranormal investigators, Carrigan Burke and Dr. Brooke Powell. They were decent in their roles, but maybe that's because the characters felt fresher and not defined by too much of a previous standard. They kept the plot a bit more interesting in its changes.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The score composed by Jake R. Sanderson isn't anything too fresh. The score just does what it needs to, which is adding suspenseful and creepy music to the background.

EFFECTS: The effects here are hit-and-miss for the most part. Some of the more basic effects were pretty well done, like the clown doll and electricity effects. However, some of the effects were just the trippy equivalent of overused CGI. For example, the spirits inside the vortex were a cool concept to add, but the effects made them look extremely fake and over-polished. The effects of the vortex itself were probably the best in the movie, as they were at least visually pleasing.

OTHER CONTENT: For the most part, it may sound to the audience like I'm trashing the Poltergeist remake entirely. For the most part, it does have a lot of flaws to the close eye of a horror buff. However, it does add a few new views on certain aspects of the movie. Modernizing the film was good in relation to the use of technology. It made the whole "haunted house" effect feel a bit more definable. Also, the remake adds some truly creepy imagery in parts. Though not as frequently freaky as in the first film, the imagery still does present a feeling of uneasiness, especially in relation to any scene with the clown doll. The movie also doesn't take too long to pick up and get the action rolling, which isn't so bad. It captures the audience's attention at the beginning and does its best to keep the audience hooked while establishing little sections of background story. This remake actually does have a few successes compared to all of its flaws, which its why it's not a completely bland adaptation of the classic. The remake is pretty generic yet entirely its own entity, rising and falling in several different aspects the original had all together.

     In today's world, it's so easy to ruin a classic with a terrible remake attempting to recreate movie magic. This remake of Poltergeist is one step above that. It isn't too terrible, but it isn't too great either. The movie tries to establish itself as its own entity but for the most part fails. So much things were done wrong, which actually makes the things done right stick out. Some new creepy imagery and modernized views keep the movie from completely bombing, as well as the fairly frequent scenes of action. The movie is worth a watch, but probably only one. For these filmmakers, that may be frightening enough to give up or give it another try in the horror world.

Vacation (2015) review

(4/10)

     Some things in life just can't be replicated, as proven by the lackluster, Vacation. The movie fails at all of the standards Chevy Chase and his original crew set back in the glory days. The jokes are more generic, crude, and unfunny with little cleverness to them compared to what could've been. However, the movie didn't completely miss its mark, with a few one-liners, cameos, and perfromances that prevented it from downright sinking.

PLOT: Rusty Griswold (Ed Helms) is all grown up with a wife named Debbie (Christina Applegate) and two children. One day, due to the apparent family's falling apart, Rusty decides to take his family on the age-old trip to Wally World, though no one really wants to go. Regardless, the family packs up in a foreign rent-a-car and begins the worst yet most eventful road trip they'll ever have. Along the way, the family comes runs into many obstacles including old sorority games, a "hot spring", and an intimidating trucker tracking them the whole way as well as many other comedic misfortunes. Through this road trip, Rusty helps to restore the family's happiness as well as his dying love life with his wife. The plot is the same as the fist National Lampoon's Vacation but executed with a less creative and less clever way. The twists and turns are just as crazy, but not nearly as funny or original in comparison with most raunchy comedies of the modern age.

ACTING: The performances at heart weren't too bad. The lousy writing is what made them seem sour. Ed Helms actually does a pretty great job as Rusty Griswold, giving it his all to channel his inner Clark Griswold. Helms tries but is let down by a bad screenplay. Same goes for most of the actors. However, one additional aspect that helped save the movie was the brief cameo appearances by Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo reprising their classic roles as Clark and Ellen Griswold. They didn't completely save the movie, but they made it a little less low quality.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: There's nothing too special about the score or the soundtrack, which consists mostly of pop and rap songs with a few different covers of the National Lampoon's Vacation, "Holiday Road."

OTHER CONTENT: This movie was just a cheap attempt at re-capturing and re-vamping movie magic of the past. The Vacation movies were great in their time, instilling clever laughs into each themed vacation. This addition is the exception, as expressed even by the intentional fourth wall break near the beginning. This movie is supposed to be treated as its own entity, and that's what made it truly fail. Everyone goes in expecting a new Vacation adventure but instead gets another raunchy comedy with gross humor and more mature jokes. The movie does have its occasional one-liners that inspire a chuckle or two, but for the most part, the movie is a crude and generic mess trying to take the place of something more clever. It's not bringing honor to the franchise, just changes that no true fan wanted. It's all hit-or-miss at best.

     The new Vacation is anything but a break from the norm. The jokes are adapted to a more modern audience and the majority fail due to over-raunchiness and bad screenplay writing. The movie tries to retain its name by replacing old traditions with new events but fails to do anything but sink into the predictable field of modern comedy. So much acting and story potential is just squandered, as way more could have been done. I guess some people just don't get the point when told to leave something like this alone. Its time is now clearly passed.

Deadpool (2016) review

(9/10)

     Deadpool lives up to the hype built for it, easily earning its place as one of the best superhero movies of the year as well as one of the best comedies. With a superb screenplay, rich yet tasteless jokes and gags, a fitting lead, and a surprising amount of story, this film brings its titular hero to life and becomes a little more than your run-of-the-mill modern comedy or superhero flick.

PLOT: Wade Wilson (Ryan Reynolds) is man of little moral sense and a darker outlook on life. He works doing underground jobs as a sort of "hitman" in a shady bar. One day, things start to change for Wade when he meets the love of his life, Vanessa (Morena Baccarin), who is in every aspect like him and dedicated to pleasing him. Though things seem to look good for Wade, his "brief commercial break of happiness" ends when he's diagnosed with a terminal form of cancer. Wilson, in desperation of a cure, takes a shady offer from the bar that promises a cure in the form of becoming a superhero. Wilson regrets this decision when the offer turns out to be a scam that puts him through hours of torture, disfigures him, and makes him invincible. At this moment, Wade Wilson abandons his identity, flees from Vanessa in fear of rejection, and takes on the identity of Deadpool: not a superhero, but an entity that cares about very little with an abundant sense of humor. The movie primarily takes place when Deadpool is hunting for Ajax a. k. a. Frances (Ed Skrein), the man who disfigured him. The plot and the backstory are both extremely excellent, adding a bit more personality and experience to the character of Deadpool. The backstory adds to the overall effect of the movie and establishes itself as more than just the comedy most people expected it to be. They use the story to bring Wilson's character sympathy, empathy, and depth in addition to making him the comedy relief. This adaptation fully succeeds in bringing Deadpool's character to life through story, as assisted by a dedicated lead.

ACTING: The acting in this movie is pretty fantastic and well fitting, especially with Ryan Reynolds as the titular lead, Captain Deadp- oh sorry - just Deadpool. Reynolds is a dedicated, fitting, and well-rehearsed actor for the job of Marvel's funniest superhero, or anti-hero, if you do prefer. I don't believe another actor could have shown the role more life or clever care than Reynolds. The rest of the cast is excellent as well, with the best being by Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Ed Skrein as Ajax/Frances, and T. J. Miller as Weasel. Each part was very well done, keeping Vanessa an interesting love interest, Ajax an intimidating villain, and Weasel awkwardly comedic. All performances were great, even if overshadowed by Ryan Reynolds.

SCORE/SOUNDTRACK: The score seemed to be your standard action movie music for the most part, with the addition of a couple humorous original songs, but the soundtrack is pretty diverse. The soundtrack includes a wide variety from light stuff like Juice Newton, Chicago, and WHAM! to more modern stuff like Flo Rida, DMX, and The Black Keys. The soundtrack is just as familiar to most of the audience as in most Marvel movie soundtracks, which is always a positive in my book. If everyone knows the songs, everyone will buy them or the soundtrack!

EFFECTS: The special effects in this movie were pretty smoothly done. From the painful scene of Wade Wilson's transformation to the smooth metallic look of Colossus, these effects are high quality as they can be for something purely, heroicly fictional. They compliment the action real well too.

OTHER CONTENT: The main aspect that kept the movie afloat was its clever screenplay and script. The jokes are just clever, tasteless, and fourth-wall shattering that a film critic will comment about in on their blog in a positive way. What, can't break the fourth wall on occasion? In all seriousness, the jokes are very well written, dirty yet satisfying and clever yet silly in a way that only Deadpool could pull off. The only problem I seemed to have with the movie (which may actually be what the makers of this movie intended) is that it felt too short. The audience was delivered with a lot of backstory, but the action only last for a short time in comparison. It made the whole movie feel shorter than it should have been, even with its nearly two-hour runtime. However, the filmmakers may have done this to get the audience more ready and in anticipation of the potential next Deadpool movie. Aside from this slight malaise, the movie is a very fitting and respectable film portraying the fourth-wall breaking hero the comic book nerds all love (for the most part).

     The movie we've all been waiting for from our favorite antihero is all we have expected it to be, even though we are left wanting so much more. Ryan Reynolds plays the role better than anyone ever could have, with fantastic support from the rest of the cast. This treat was almost everything the major fans could have dreamed for. I guess we can all keep dreaming for the second one, right?

Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens (2015) review

(Warning: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD)

(8/10)

    The Force Awakens is a film worth the hype built for it. The thrilling action keeps the audience on the edge of their seats, almost making up for the ambiguous backseat given to more specific detail of story. The film is in no way bad, but lacking, if not even separate from, the same spirit of the previous original Star Wars films. The Force Awakens feels more like its own film than an addition to the franchise, recapturing as much of the previous magic as it could through sly references and familiar faces.

PLOT: Without going into too much detail, the plot and story revolve around the First Order (a. k. a. The Empire) searching for BB-8, a droid with the map to the hiding place of legendary hero and Jedi Luke Skywalker. The Resistance (a. k. a. The Rebel Alliance) is the only group of opposition aside from the modern new hope, a scavenger named Ren (Daisy Ridley) and a rebel stormtrooper nicknamed Fin (John Boyega). However, with a new hope comes a new evil: a power-hungry Sith named Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), whose primarily in charge of the new First Order. This is as far as I'll go to prevent spoilers for the desperate fans. The plot's actual story was well intended, but not very well thought out. I was left with so many questions as so many aspects of background development were missing. The audience, like in most Hollywood action films, is dropped in a situation they know nothing about and are expected to pick out the main characters and guess their motives and backstories. The audience is delivered with little character development and explanation, even with the opening credits recapping past events. No one knows or seems to want to explain why things have become the way they are. However, if one neglects the finer details of the story-line and focuses more on the plot's execution (a. k. a. the action and comedy), one will have a more thrilling time indeed. The plot's execution is stellar, with nail-biting action keeping the audience awake and ready for anything and clever references to the previous films keeping the nostalgic viewers laughing. Though lacking in a developing story, the plot finds its saving grace in its enthralling action and well-spread references.

ACTING: The performances in this film are pretty stellar. One aspect where there is little room to be picky in is the casting and performances. The newer lead roles of Daisy Ridley as the intelligent scavenger, Rey, John Boyega as rebel stormtrooper, Fin, and Adam Driver as the evil Sith, Kylo Ren are excellent. Each puts a piece of his or her own self into the role, which is clearly evident by the real, quirky, natural, and serious dispositions of the film's characters. Other shining members of the new cast were Andy Serkis as First Order Supreme Leader Snoke, Oscar Isaac as rebel pilot, Po Dameron, and Domhnall Gleeson as the First Order's chief-in-command, General Hux. Each of these actors portrayed their new roles just as excellently as the main characters. Another positive thing about the cast is the cameos of some of the classic cast, including (SPOILER WARNING) Harrison Ford as Han Solo, Carrie Fisher as Leia Organa, Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca, Anthony Daniels as C-3PO, and a very brief Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker. The old cast feels like a sight for sore eyes, knitting themselves snug into the story just as if they never left, especially Ford and Fisher, who seem just as playful and loving as in the original trilogy.

SCORE: The score is just as memorable and classic as in the original films, done by none other that the great composer, John Williams. Williams, being a veteran of the Star Wars franchise, weaves a score so perfectly preserved and high-energy that even the most skeptic fans tilt their ear to the sound and smile.

EFFECTS: The special effects are definitely well done. One thing I appreciate about this film in relation to other action and sci-fi films of its time is not strictly using computer graphics for all its visual effects. Aside from the explosions, space fights, and wild creatures, most effects are done with make-up and costume design. The more intelligent aliens look real and just as tangible as they did in the days of the original trilogy. In attempting to preserve the classic film feeling, the directors did right with the special effects.

OTHER CONTENT: The Force Awakens is all a casual film-goer could ask for: nonstop action, clever references, and enough tragedy in the story to drive it. However, this film isn't a hundred percent what the true Star Wars fans could ask for. We have plenty of action, wit, and hype, but it falls not only in the story as I mentioned earlier, but in its structure and intent. The Force Awakens is so caught up in the Hollywood hype that it follows its typical formula: a thrill ride of action with little droplets of story leaking through so the watcher actually comprehends what's going on. The film tries so hard to reconnect with the past movie magic of the original trilogy that it almost falls flat in trying. In fact, the film feels like its own separate entity. In trying to reconnect with sentimentalists of the franchise's magic, the film's makers and writers distance the film so that it feels more different than even the prequels. There are many familiar faces and clever references in the film, but it almost feels self-satirizing, as if this weren't another chapter to the famous franchise but its own spin-off. Even in the film's imagery, showing the classic craft and characters old and dust-covered just symbolizes how this is an entirely new entity. Now don't judge me wrong, the film is nowhere near bad. To increase the emphasis on this point, I'm going to repeat again THE FILM IS NOWHERE NEAR BAD. The driving action, new additions, and clever references are still a breath of fresh air into a franchise once dead. The film isn't all the true Star Wars fan could want, but its just enough for us to be satisfied in our complex fandom. Who really knows though? This could just be the A New Hope to another Empire Strikes Back, which would clarify all we need to know in grave detail.

     Star Wars VII: The Force Awakens is definitely worth the hype, but nothing too much more than that. If one goes for nail-biting action, clever references to the old films, and a simply nostalgic breath of life into the series, one would be greatly satisfied. However, for the picky Star Wars fan, this seems like a tad over subpar to the movie magic in the original trilogy. The character development and inner story is greatly lacking, leaving several questions of why and how and losing them in the monotonous formula for a blockbuster Hollywood film. The new Star Wars is not bad at all. In fact, it's super stellar. The force is with this one, though it is but a padawan, having much to learn.

Dark Shadows (2012) review

(7/10)

   Tim Burton and Johnny Depp team up once again to bring us a movie with just enough gothic charm and dramatic twists to keep it afloat, though very derivative of Burton's past works. Though effective in entertaining the masses, Dark Shadows proves to be one of Burton's weakest films.

PLOT: Barnabus Collins (Johnny Depp) was once the child of a very wealthy family, whom the town of Collinsport is named after. Things are going very well for Barnabus until he decides to break the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), an evil witch who curses his family with bad luck throughout the rest of their lives. Not only does Angelique curse the entire family, but she also hypnotizes Barnabus' current lover off a cliff and turns Barnabus into a vampire, cursed to live forever locked in a coffin underground. Many years down the road, in the early 1970s, the Collins family is still living, led by Elizabeth (Michelle Pfieffer) and Roger Collins (Jonny Lee Miller), but they are definitely not as rich as they used to be. Their son, David (Gully McGrath), is being "helped" by alcoholic psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter), and their daughter Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz) is very strange. Things get even stranger for the family when Barnabus is dug up by accident and released to walk the Earth again. Barnabus has plans to restore his family honor, though he becomes distracted by the still-living witch plotting his downfall and the Collins' family aide, Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote), who greatly resembles the woman the witch hypnotized off the cliff that fateful day. The plot is somewhat basic, but executed excellently. The amount of dramatic twists this movie takes isn't phenomenal, but it accumulates enough to save this movie from having a kind of "hollow" plotline. Without the twists, we'd just have a backstory with no more excitement.

ACTING: The performances in this movie are all very brilliantly done. Johnny Depp plays a fantastic part as the gothic Barnabus Collins. Helena Bonham Carter and Eva Green complimented his character well with their performances as Dr. Hoffman and the witch, Angelique. Other fantastic performances came from Chloe Grace Moretz as Carolyn, Bella Heathcote as Victoria Winters, Jackie Earle Haley as housekeeper Mr. Loomis, the late great Christopher Lee as Clarney, and of course, the cameo of shock-rocker Alice Cooper. Each performance only enhanced the gothic and dramatic tone of the movie.

SCORE: The score and soundtrack in this movie are both amazing. Though familiar, the great Danny Elfman conducts an excellent score for the movie. The soundtrack includes classics from artists such as The Moody Blues, Donovan, and, of course, Alice Cooper. Each compliments its own scene accurately.

EFFECTS: The special effects, though flashy, are effective and well done. The effects of Angelique's injuries, the ghost in the manor, the werewolf near the end, and Barnabus himself were probably the most unique and well detailed.

OTHER CONTENT: Dark Shadows isn't a bad movie by far. It's entertaining, bearing an all-star cast, a killer soundtrack, and supple dramatic elements. However, this is probably the movie Tim Burton put his least effort into. Unlike Burton's other works, Dark Shadows misses out on an inner meaning or purpose, rather than to just entertain the masses. However, much like Burton's other works, Dark Shadows tries to convey a sort of realism through a unique, dynamic character. This movie fails at that as it does nothing to convey a true meaning.

   Dark Shadows is like a poor man's Edward Scissorhands; it uses some of the same story elements, such as the dynamic character in a surreal environment, but it fails in conveying a true meaning like Burton's past works. Though led by a superb cast, classic soundtrack, and well-executed plot twists, Dark Shadows feels more like a shot at making money by entertaining the masses. The movie is entertaining, but contains little true substance or significance.

Memory (2006) review

(7/10)

   Memory is probably one of the most underrated horror movies of its kind. Stellar acting, an enthralling mystery, and some truly creepy imagery kept this semi-confusing and somewhat slow movie afloat. It's a poor man's psychological thriller at best.

PLOT: After accidentally ingesting a hallucinogenic powder being tested on lab rats, Dr. Taylor Briggs (Billy Zane) starts to have strange daydreams, lining up with real murders and tragedies that happened before he was born. After some intense research, things start to get more and more peculiar as Taylor starts to think he's witnessing the past of one of his relatives. Everyone begins to think he's gone crazy, except his lover, artist Stephanie (Tricia Helfer), his mother, Carol (Ann-Margret), and his father-in-law, Max (Dennis Hopper). However, as Taylor and Stephanie start getting to the bottom of these weird visions, they start to notice it may be the missing link in Taylor's family timeline. The plot is essentially a combination of the premise of Altered States and the mechanics of Memento. The plot, at its bare bones, is preposterous and confusing, but by the end of the movie, you'll be impressed to see how they pulled it off. The moments of horror are filmed excellently and the writers, though they got carried away, succeeded in tying up all loose ends.

ACTING: The performances in this movie are very well done. Billy Zane does justice to the part of frantic Dr. Briggs, Tricia Hefler does a great job as the "sidekick", Stephanie. Dennis Hopper and Ann-Margret did an excellent job as the parents, especially Ann-Margret near the end. Everyone does a pretty great job with their parts.

SCORE: The score and soundtrack definitely has potential. The main theme is pretty haunting yet simple, and the alternative soundtrack almost enhances the movie.

OTHER CONTENT: Memory is basically an expected disaster turned good. The movie has its faults, like a preposterous mystery, unnecessary side-conversations, and several confusing turns of events. As evidence is tossed at us and pieced together, the mystery becomes more and more confusing, but just as much enthralling. The victory in this movie is that it succeeded in pulling off a mystery so unrealistic. If the unintentionally-good mystery isn't enough to save this movie, then the horror scenes will. The horror sequences, especially near the movie's finale, are expertly done and very well filmed. I would believe them to be the best sequences in the movie. They're memorable and very unsettling, both respectable factors for a true horror.

   Memory would probably be the biggest expected disaster that somehow saved itself. It may be preposterous, confusing, and unnecessary at times, but it saves itself by sucking you into the mystery and chilling you with the sequences of horror. Most horror fans may end up despising the movie, but I think it's an underrated gem of modern independent horror.

Carnivore (2000) review

(2/10)

   Generic, unintentionally hilarious, and overall a disaster, Carnivore fails to do anything as a horror movie but pass the time and inspire a few cheesy laughs.

PLOT: The legend of the old haunted house in town has been instilling fear and suspicion in the hearts of the local citizens, but what they didn't know was that the house was being utilized as a high-tech lab, housing a new genetically-engineered creature. The creature, called the Carnivore, or "Carnie", is under the care of a Dr. Westmont (Steven Walker). One day, Dr. Westmont puts too much confidence in the creature's trust, causing the creature to kill him and run rampant throughout the house. This prompts special visitors from the nation's capital to come down and attempt to contain the failed experiment before it gets out of hand. However, a foolish group of drunk teens decide that same night to have some fun and spend a night in the old haunted house. As predicted, none of this goes well. The plot is rather cheesy and underdeveloped. Had they added a bit more substance, character development, or film-making skills, this movie might have had a story worth watching. Sadly, this movie drifts into the zone where generic creature-features go to be forgotten, including others like The Relic. 

ACTING: All of the performances in this movie practically sucked. The acting is akin to scraping someone off the street and paying them a few bucks to do an impression of his or her character. The teenagers seemed to be a kind of the comedy relief and the generic "naughty teenager" types. The cops and government officials seemed over-angry and under-experienced. No one in this movie even takes a step in the direction of good acting.

SCORE: The score was nothing too special. For the most part, it felt cheesy and misfitting. The soundtrack contains some obscure metal songs that don't do anything for the movie.

EFFECTS: The effects in this movie were really disappointing. The "Carnivore" looks more like puppet with a Halloween mask on. The blood and gore, for the most part, was cheap to the point of hilarity. The worst part of the special effects would have to be the camera through the monster's point of view. This grainy, out-of-contrast "monster vision" is just kind of dizzying and lazily done.

OTHER CONTENT: This movie fails in almost every aspect of cinema. Aside from the horrendous acting and lackluster plot, Carnivore brings to the table bad script-writing, unfunny humor and unintentionally funny action scenes, and a complete ignorance of the creature. The movie should have been named after the fighting cops or the foolish teenagers, for they take up more screen time than the monster.The only victory this movie has is making me laugh. Carnivore is on the borderline of so-bad-it's-good territory, as its cheesy effects and moments of horror inspire a few chuckles of ridicule. Had the humor been intentional, this movie would have been alright. However, it takes itself way too seriously for the numerous amount of flaws it contains.

   Carnivore is far from a good horror film, but it's at least mindless entertainment to make the mindful laugh. Bad performances, an underdeveloped plot, a terrible script, and squandered potential are what this movie is all about. If you want a cheap laugh or to pass the time, by all means, watch this. You'll spend half of the movie wondering where the creature went.

Roman (2006) review

(6/10)

   Offbeat horror director, Lucky McKee, makes his acting debut in this independent, post-May psychological horror, which, though lacking much scare factor and budget, contains much substance.

PLOT: Roman (Lucky McKee) is a recluse of a sort with no friends, no TV and nothing to do but work and watch The Girl (Kristen Bell) pass by his apartment window everyday around 5:30 PM. Roman clearly has a kind of creepy, shy obsession with this girl. One day when Roman decides to get out of the house for a bit, he finally meets this girl. They start to have a few conversations and become friends. Next day, Roman meets the girl outside his apartment after work and invites her in. Things get a little exciting for Roman before she says she has to leave. Roman, in a fit of excitement, doesn't let her leave and accidentally smothers her trying to keep there and keep her quiet. When Roman realizes what he's done, he's distraught and doesn't want to let go of her for anything. In turn, Roman dumps her body in his bathtub and starts to preserve it under ice, as he doesn't want to lose her or have anybody find out. Roman's life continues normally until a new girl moves into the empty apartment. Her name is Eva (Nectar Rose) and she's a very strange character similar to Roman. Roman's life with his "two girlfriends" starts to get better but also very confusing in trying to let go of one obsession and begin with another. The plot is simple but executed pretty decently. Though McKee actually doesn't direct in this one, it still contains a flair of offbeat, disturbing horror through the telling of Roman's obsession with his corpse and his sheltering from the world. It's not perfect, but it could be done so much worse.

ACTING: The acting here is hit-and-miss for the most part. All of the performances are the equivalent to an everyday conversation with the person. Lucky McKee did a decent job as Roman, pulling out all the stops at the end of the movie. Nectar Rose also stood out a bit with her role as the visionary Eva. She took the part as if it came natural. The rest of the performances are just kind of plain, even Kristen Bell as The Girl. The murder scene was pretty much the highlight of her performance.

SCORE: The soundtrack is a weird mix of different kinds of alternative music. Though not too pleasant to hear, it sets the mood quite well for Roman's "dates" and fantasies.

EFFECTS: The only special effects involve the steady-rotting corpse of Roman's obsession. They're very cheap and inexpensive, but I like the fact that they tried to show the passage of time in this manner.

OTHER CONTENT: This movie is definitely a strange one, but for an obscure indie horror, it kind of works. Haunting atmosphere, a well-written script, surreal editing, and a prying look at a the life of an inexperienced recluse help this movie kind of float into the safe zone. This horror is by far not the best, but it would have to be an independent favorite for me. McKee and director Angela Bettis come together to make a very neat little psych horror, with a surprising amount of heart and realism.

   Though McKee isn't in the director's chair this time around, I'd still group it with all of his other works easily. Roman is a haunting, disturbing, and surreal psychological horror that is very underrated. Though the performances and scare factors aren't rock solid, the mood is still set accurately with all other factors falling decently into place. It's nowhere near perfect, but definitely the right touch of offbeat.

Chappie (2015) review

(5/10)

   Chappie has great special effects, a surprising amount of charm, and a surreal approach to the editing and execution, but the acting is hit-and-miss, there's barely any character development, and the plot is both preposterous and way too familiar.

PLOT: Sometime in the near future in South Africa, a company named Tetravaal arises and invents a strong, robotic police force ideal for taking down crime rates and the gangster underground. One day, the inventor of the robotic police, Deon Wilson (Dave Patel), invents a sort of robotic consciousness that can give these robots feelings and the potential to be human. When he presents this idea to Tetravaal's leader (Sigourney Weaver), however, she shoots it down and disregards it altogether. Deon, being confident in his abilities, attempts to sneak out a badly damaged robot with intentions to fix it up and run his consciousness programming on it. In the process, however, Deon is ambushed by small group of thugs containing gangster, Ninja, his girlfriend, Yolandi (Yolandi Visser), and their foreign friend, Amerika (Jose Pablo Cantillo). These thugs capture Deon and his robot and force him to program the robot to fight for them in their gangster wars, though Deon's new consciousness program forces the robot to have to learn slowly, like a child. With only a few days battery left on the robot (whom they name Chappie), a major heist coming up, and a jealous coworker (Hugh Jackman) out to shut down Deon's project, tensions are high in teaching Chappie how to be both a gangster and a scientific marvel. The plot has great potential and is executed fairly well, but it has a couple fatal flaws that set it away from being truly great. For one, the plot is way too familiar. The ideas of robotic cops and street education have been overdone greatly and don't add anything too fresh to this movie. Also, the plot twists just end up making the plot itself so preposterous and unrealistic that it veers into very spacey territory. The plot had potential, but it just ended up being wasted.

ACTING: The performances in this movie weren't all really solid. The majority of the performances were truly hit-and-miss. Some actors were excellent in their roles while others made you question why they were chosen for their parts. The best performances came from Hugh Jackman as Vincent Moore, Dev Patel as Deon Wilson, and Sigourney Weaver as Michelle Bradley. The addition of veteran actors really helped this movie succeed performance-wise but only by a little. The rest of the performances were good in some parts and mediocre in others. It almost feels like the actors only acted right in the parts they wanted to. Sharlto Copley also did a pretty good job as the voice of Chappie.

SCORE: The score was pretty good, but the soundtrack was pretty horrible. The great Hanz Zimmer conducted the score for the movie, which was pretty fantastic in the dramatic and action-packed parts. The soundtrack, however, consisted mainly of mediocre-sounding rap and hip-hop songs, more than likely done by Ninja himself.

EFFECTS: The special effects were probably one of the best parts about the movie. The effects seemed fairly realistic at certain points in the movie. The robots looked nice and real for the most part and the explosions were pretty nice. If there was a big budget for this movie, it went mainly into the special effects and the big name casting.

OTHER CONTENT: This movie had two other prime factors that helped it succeed just a little more than it should have: its unexpected charm and its surreal editing. For a movie about robotic cops and gangsters, Chappie had a surprising amount of unexpected charm, from teaching Chappie how to be a human to seeing him become a true gangster. The charm inspires a lot of humor, which keeps the movie from truly sinking. Also, the editing in this movie made it seem so much more possible and surreal, like the beginning scenes where the robots were on CNN. However, with these great pros comes at least one more great con. This movie's character development, except for Chappie himself, was rather pathetic. From the start of the movie, we're just thrust headfirst into the main plot with possible main characters we're just supposed to be expected to know. The only true backstory we get is that of the robots themselves, and even that's minimal.

   Chappie wasn't a terrible movie, but it wasn't one of the greats either. The special effects, veteran actors, surprising charm, and surreal editing kept the movie from truly sinking, but the familiar and preposterous plot, hit-and-miss supporting cast, lack of character development, and terrible soundtrack kept it from becoming one of the greats. I would watch it again, but it's nowhere close to one of my favorites.

Jurassic World (2015) review

(8/10)

   This breath of fresh air to the once-dead franchise was a fun, surprise-filled trip into a modern look at the Jurassic Park premise. Skilled performances, killer special effects, thrilling fight scenes, and an overall feeling of nostalgia almost overrule the movie's slight predictability and uneven pace.

PLOT; Scientists have attempted to revive the dream of a living dinosaur park, as attempted many years in the past. Young dino-enthusiast Gray (Ty Simpkins) and older, unenthusiastic brother, Zach (Nick Robinson), are sent to this new park to spend some time with their Aunt Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), who is a big boss over the park. Claire informs the supervisors of the park that they have genetically engineered a new dinosaur, crossbred between a T. Rex and a classified dinosaur. The new dino is terrifying, intelligent, and fierce. As expected in a Jurassic-themed movie, the dino breaks out and starts to wreak havoc on the park's staff and guests. It's up to the staff, including Claire and dino-trainer, Owen (Chris Pratt), to contain the situation and save the people and the park, but twists and turns are around each corner. The plot contains the same beloved premise as the rest of the Jurassic movies, but adds some fresh, thrilling cliches and styles to help modernize the franchise. Though exciting, some parts of the movie seem utterly predictable. Though still fun, these cliches run the movie straight into summer blockbuster-popcorn thriller territory.

ACTING: The performances in this movie are pretty great. Though the characters themselves are of a stereotypical type, the performers themselves are excellent at what they do. The best performances in this movie would have to be from Chris Pratt as raptor-trainer Owen, Bryce Dallas Howard as Aunt Claire, Omar Sy as raptor-assistant Barry, Vincent D'Onofrio as conniving Vic Hoskins, and Irrfan Khan as big boss Simon Masrani. All performances, even the extras, were pretty well done, but these few stood out in securing their roles. 

SCORE: The musical score to Jurassic World is pretty epic and nostalgic, bringing back the traditional Jurassic Park theme music and adding some intense action music to the thrilling fight scenes. The great Michael Giacchino steps up to compose the music for this movie, and as usual, he does a fine job of the sort.

EFFECTS: The special effects in this movie were fantastic. The CG dinosaurs in this movie looked awesome and very close to real in detail. From the T. Rex to the raptors all the way to the water dino and the new dino, every one looked awesome. Even the aftermath of the fights and attacks looked amazing thanks to the modern effects.

OTHER CONTENT: This is probably going to be one of the best summer blockbusters of the year. Aside from the previously-mentioned pros, the movie contained thrilling scenes of high-energy dinosaur fights, twists and turns around every corner, and an overall feeling of nostalgia for the fans of the beloved franchise. The fight scenes had me on the edge of my seat, as well as all of the unexpected twists. This movie sparked a bit of nostalgia for myself by referring to the previous films in all the right places. However, the movie had a couple of minor flaws that deterred my viewing experience, such as the predictability in some scenes I mentioned earlier and the uneven pace. One minute, everything's moving in fast, high-energy fashion, while the next, it's dragging out every little step or precaution taken. It's not a major problem, but it is noticeable. The movie, overall, was pretty great, but still a standard Hollywood blockbuster.

   This movie was still really great to see. The acting, plot execution, effects, feelings of nostalgia, and high-energy action scenes definitely drew me in, but the movie is still just your standard Hollywood blockbuster, with some predictability and an uneven pacing. Recommended!

Club Dread (2004) review

(5/10)

   Aside from the more popular horror spoofs (Scary Movie) and comedy troupes (Monty Python), modern comedians, Broken Lizard, decide to have their take on the horror genre with this mock at a slasher film. Some of the jokes are pretty hilarious and some of the imagery is pretty creepy as well, but most jokes fall flat on their face with acting either suckish or fairly decent.  I doubt one would completely dread Club Dread.

PLOT: A new masseuse, Lars (Kevin Heffeman), comes to fill in for a summer at tropical resort/island, Coconut Pete's Pleasure Island, where women are everywhere, drugs are in circulation, the staff is very colorful, and the party never stops. Leading this tropical resort is Coconut Pete (Bill Paxton), a more-obscured, stoner version of Jimmy Buffet, whom he hates. Everybody's expecting another good time at Pleasure Island, staff and all. However, things start going awry when some of the staff members start disappearing and later are discovered as murdered. The staff almost loses its cool and makes the guests evacuate back to the mainland, but due to the promise of the killer, the staff either has to do their jobs with no worries or die. After some clever investigation, the staff decides that the killer must be another staff member, since he or she has access to the staff's knowledge of the island. The trouble is going to be figuring out who the true killer is. The plot is pretty well established, setting up the perfect scenario for a comedy horror movie. However, the execution is nowhere near as funny as it needs to be to pull the concept off as set up.



ACTING: The acting in this movie is mainly decent. Not very many performances in this movie shine out. The best performances in this movie would have to be from Bill Paxton as Coconut Pete, Paul Soter as Dave, Erik Stolhanske as Sam, and Kevin Heffeman as Lars. Paxton played his role as the smoked-out, played-out rock star with ease as though not worried at all. Soter and Heffeman both put a fair amount of emotion in their work, convincing me of their feelings, as did Stolhanske in more than one tone. Aside from these few, the performances in this movie were fairly average or just sub-par of being good. Even the director, Jay Chandrasekhar, who played Putman, couldn't put enough feeling or proper action in his role.

SCORE: The score is nothing too special. Aside from a few basic themes, there are some club tunes scattered throughout and some satirical tracks from Coconut Pete, including "Naughty Cal" and "Pina  Coladaberg", obviously poking fun at Buffet. The Coconut Pete tracks are fairly enjoyable.

EFFECTS: The effects in this comedy slasher were pretty decent. The blood didn't look completely fake and the dead bodies with severed limbs looked decently scary. The best effects had to be the head-on-the-record, the severed torso, and the speedboat explosion. The effects surprisingly were pretty good for a movie of this genre.



MISC. THOUGHTS: The comedy horror genre has been greatly overdone since the early 2000s, and this one isn't a landmark to prove my opinion wrong. This spoof uses all of the same conventions, poking fun at the usual cliches of horror movies, from fake jump scares to hidden messages. However, the movie does seem to borrow from some of the right places, referencing to Friday the 13th cleverly near the end. Also, some of the imagery was very pleasing to the eye, from some creepy murder scenes and killings to beautiful babes getting into trouble. For a comedy, some of the imagery is actually unintentionally creepy, and it works. Not all of the jokes succeed, however, for a comedy. Some jokes make you question whether it was meant to be funny and others are just too crude, yet some are so ridiculous that you just have to laugh and think about how unexpected they were.

   Broken Lizard is definitely no Monty Python, but this comedy horror could almost, if not, stomp the majority of the Scary Movie franchise. Though a good handful of the jokes fall flat, a fair amount of the performances are bland, and the execution is off-kilter to where it wants to be, there is some truly creepy imagery present with a few clever jokes and nods to other horror films and a handful of key actors that knew what they were doing.

Boo (2005) review

(4/10)

   Looking back to when this first came out, I remember really enjoying this. However, age has proven me wrong again. There are still some instances of very creepy imagery and great jump scares, but bad acting, cheap effects, and a boring backstory put this movie into the bargain bin with the rest of the low-budget horror failures. This felt like a cheap haunted house at an obscure carnival.

PLOT: One Halloween night, a group of college students decide it'd be fun to set up a haunted house inside of an old mental hospital, which burned to the ground years ago. Everyone around the area knows, however, that the 3rd floor of the hospital is extremely haunted. Once the teens go in, they soon learn that there's no way out, for every the elevator only takes them to the 3rd floor and all of the doors are blocked. This isn't an ordinary ghost, however. The ghost of a former evil patient wants out, and he's willing to do whatever he can to get there. It's a decent plot but the execution is either hit-or-miss. Some scenes I enjoyed greatly as a horror fan. Other scenes, particularly during the backstory of the ghosts and the hospital, were greatly uneeded as well as cheesy and boring.



ACTING: The performances in this movie were quite terrible and inexperienced. Most, if not all, of the actors and actresses in this movie were either new or unheard of. No performances truly blew me away at all, but some were fairly decent, such as Arlo Ray Baines (formerly "Dynamite Jones") played by Dig Wayne and Jacob, the ghostly mental patient, played by M. Steven Felty. Honestly, Taylor Hurley played a better part as the ghost of the little girl than the majority of the people in this movie.

SCORE: The score in this movie is actually quite creepy. It's nothing too significant, but it definitely did what it was supposed to do. It set the mood for some of the creepy imagery the movie set up.

EFFECTS: The effects in this movie are just plain cheap. From the digital presence of the ghosts to the melting faces of the possessed, the effects just seem cheaply done. You feel like this is a low-budget movie. However, some of the effects were able to set a creepy mood. The deceased dog coming back to life and the editing effects of the ghosts moving actually helped set the mood, and I was fairly pleased.



MISC. THOUGHTS: The movie was more a fail than anything, but it succeeded in a couple things. A good bit of things in here helped set a truly creepy mood. The setting, a select few effects, and a couple mood-setting moments helped this come off as very creepy. Also, there were actually a few successful jump scares, if that's a thing someone could appreciate. Jump scares don't usually set a horror movie above the rest, but they actually worked in here a fraction of the time. Honestly, this had the potential to be a pretty good horror movie. However, bad acting, cheap effects, and a boring backstory that wasn't completely necessary made the movie just like every other generic, low-budget horror.

   This movie is filled with wasted potential. truly creepy imagery and working jump scares showed that this could have worked. However, actors pulled in from the street, unnecessary backstories, and effects from the dollar store muddled the good name this movie could have had. You don't have a ghost of a chance enjoying this movie to the full potential.