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.

Evil Dead (2013) review

(7/10)

This remake of the original horror classic is an amped-up blood fest that adds modern horror cliches while still paying homage to its source material. The performances were really good and the blood poured freely, but it's missing the dark humor that made the original a classic.

PLOT:On a road trip turned intervention, David (Shiloh Fernandez), his girlfriend, Natalie (Liz Blackmore), his best friend, Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), and other friend, Olivia (Jessica Lucas), meet together at a cabin in the woods to cure Mia (Jane Levy) of her drug addiction. However, things start turning dark when the group discover a former site of witchcraft in the basement of the cabin. There they find a mysterious-looking book with strange passages and incantations, which Eric reads aloud. Eric doesn't know, but he's summoned an evil spirit prepared to take all of them down, one-by-one, starting with Mia. It's a great plot executed pretty well.



ACTING:The acting in here was actually very good. A few of the performances really convinced me. Jane Levy played an excellent part as Mia, the possessed junkie reaching sobriety. I saw the fear and horror in her most. Shiloh Fernandez also played a pretty decent part as David, as did Lou Taylor Pucci as Eric and everyone else. There really wasn't a bad performance in the movie, from the few in the very beginning to the special cameo at the very end.

SCORE:The score in here was very intense and horrific. It was almost as generic as most modern horror movies, but I though it fit just right.

EFFECTS:The blood flows endlessly in this horror movie. The effects were pretty well done in my opinion. You could tell they were fake, but I believe the make-up effects of the demons, the visual effects scattered throughout, and some of the blood effects were really detailed and close to the original. They still succeeded at making the demons look scary in this one.



OTHER CONTENT:This remake actually wasn't as bad as it could have been. Though it added modern cliches to what used to be a classic, the movie still payed a thoughtful homage to the original by adding in scenes directly referencing to the original and its sequel. The main problem I had with this movie is the surprising lack of dark humor that the original had. There were little to no overdone, campy laughs as there were serious horror cliches. One of the things that made the original such a cult classic was its humor, which this lacks minus a few key moments and the very, very end. However, it was still pretty good for a modern horror remake.

OVERALL,a good horror remake with a great plot, very good performances, intense score, detailed yet fake effects, and a few modern horror cliches, but the cliches and bloodflow seem to take the place of the raging dark humor and camp the original had.

Dawn of the Dead (2004) review

(7/10)

This amped-up remake of the Romero classic adds more excitement, a more intricate story, and a bit more added scare to the overall zombie subgenre. However, the movie remake also comes with a few deeply recognizable flaws.

PLOT:The Earth has officially been taken over by a zombie breakout and is rapidly getting worse. The last two remaining that we focus on the most are Ana (Sarah Polley) and Kenneth (VIng Rhames). To flee and find shelter from the undead, the two take shelter in an abandoned shopping mall, where they meet a mean group of security, including stubborn CJ (Michael Kelly) and several other survivors. After the outbreak starts getting worse, the group decides the best thing to do would be to sail to another island in hope of a safe zone. It's a good plot executed very well.



ACTING:The acting in this movie is alright. Some performances are pretty good and others really suck. Sarah Polley and Ving Rhames were pretty okay as the main characters, Ana and Kenneth. Most of the other characters were just okay. The shiners would be Mekhi Phifer as Andre and Ty Burrell as Steve. The rest would be in the middle of okay and forgettable.

SCORE:The score in here is pretty well done, with some good horror score and a few well-placed songs, such as Johnny Cash's "The Man Comes Around" and Richard Cheese's cover of "Down With the Sickness". I enjoyed it altogether.

EFFECTS:The effects in this movie are kind of cheesy, but they also get the job of being scary done. The effects assist with the scares being effective altogether. Compared to the original, these effects are more charged and violent. Both are good nevertheless.



OTHER CONTENT:This fueled remake of the classic is actually almost as good as it is or even better. The energy in this movie is way more charged and in-your-face as compared to the older one, which is a bit more subtly creepy. The constant action goes together with the creepiness in this one and kind of draws it all in together. However, some of the directions this movie decides to go in seem a bit cheesy and overdone. I believe for zombie films, there is a fine line between good substance and overdone cheese. This movie crossed back and forth over that line several times, but still worked it all out together in a way. One thing I also didn't like is that the characters in this seem more forgettable and less complex than they did in the first one. I couldn't really place as many people as I could before.

OVERALL,a good zombie movie with a very well done plot, okay acting, well-placed score, cheesy yet scary effects, more action, and a few more independent scares, but there are forgettable characters and a few overdone sequences.

Fever Pitch (2005) review

(7/10)

This cute romantic comedy actually wasn't that bad. The chemistry between the two leads pretty much kept the movie going and made it worth watching, as well as a few small, good laughs.

PLOT:Ben Wrightman (Jimmy Fallon) has been obsessed with baseball his whole life, specifically the Boston Red Sox. He's been to every game since his uncle took him to his first when he was a child. However, Ben's attention starts to be swayed by a new love interest, Lindsey (Drew Barrymore). Ben met Lindsey on a school field trip with some of the kids he teaches and has been in love since. The couple seems to only rise higher until Lindsey finds out just how obsessed Ben is with the Red Sox. He wouldn't miss a game for anything. This obsession with the game worries Lindsey and threatens their relationship. It's a good plot executed very well.



ACTING:The acting in this movie is really good. Drew Barrymore and Jimmy Fallon play a very romantic and realistic couple as the sensitive Lindsey and the obsessed Ben. The chemistry these two had in this movie is what kept it going. Without these two, it wouldn't be worth much. Though most of the other performances were fairly forgettable, the other shiners would be Jack Kehler as Al, Lenny Clarke as Uncle Carl, and Ione Skye as Molly.

SCORE:The score is mainly made up of randomly recorded songs, some good classics, and some background score. It was pretty good.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was just a fun, cute little romantic comedy. I enjoyed the story and chemistry between the two leads. It was just very entertaining overall. I don't think it was anything spectacular or outstanding, but it was still good enough to be considered worth a watch.

OVERALL, a good romantic comedy with a good plot, really good acting, pretty good score, great chemistry between the leads, an interesting story, and just cute entertainment.

Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013) review

(8/10)

This new installment to the Star Trek franchise is action-packed, visually impressive, and a treat for most Trekkies out there.

PLOT:After an attack on Star Fleet killing off many innocent lives, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) is sent on a mission, accompanied by his Spock (Zachary Quinto) and the rest of his crew, in the Enterprise to go destroy this madman in enemy territory known only as John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch). However, Kirk and the crew decide to bring this criminal back to Earth for a fair trial and eventfully take him from the planet. This move, however, sparks a rebellion against Star Fleet and an interesting story involving Kahn. It's a great plot executed greatly.



ACTING:The acting in this movie was very good. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto did a great job reprising the roles of Captain Kirk and Spock. Benedict Cumberbatch also did a fantastic job as (SPOILER) John Harrison/Kahn. There really wasn't a bad performance in the movie, but Quinto's Spock still doesn't hold a candle to the original. The other shiners were Karl Urban as Bones, Zoe Saldana as Uhura, Simon Pegg as Scotty, John Cho as Sulu, Anton Yelchin as Pavel, Alive Eve as Carol Marcus, Bruce Greenwood as Christopher Pike, and Leonard Nimoy as older Spock.

SCORE:The score was very well done by the great Michael Giacchino. Not only did the score match the mood, but it was very intense and intricate. I liked it.

EFFECTS:The visual effects of this movie were very stunning and impressive. From the first scene to the last frame of the movie, the effects were just brilliant. The effects for the foreign planets, big spaceships, eventful dogfights, and futuristic equipment were just sleek and impressive overall. I bet it took a long time just to get the effects right.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was a really great modern adaptation. There's plenty of action and humor accompanying a familiar story. For the Trekkies who have seen it, you would notice the story is heavily inspired by (SPOILER) "The Wrath of Kahn". However, there are a few drastic changes that throw the movie off for them. Also, the new modernized look for Star Trek may not be agreeable to some of the hardcore Trekkies.

OVERALL,a great movie with a great plot, very good acting, intense score, impressive visual effects, lots of action, some humor, and a well adapted story, but some hardcore Trekkies may not appreciate it as much do to some drastic changes in story and time period.

Frankenweenie (2012) review

(8/10)

Tim Burton has done it again in this charming tale based on his live-action short film from the 80s.

PLOT:In the strange little town of New Holland, Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) abides with his parents (Catherine O'Hara and Martin Short) and his beloved dog, Sparky. Sparky is pretty much Vic's best friend and they act very inseparable. However, Sparky is hit by a car and killed one tragic day, leaving Victor in his despair. Inspired by the new science teacher (Martin Landau), Victor pulls a classic move and brings his beloved dog back to life with wind and lightning. Now, Victor must try to keep this big breakthrough a secret from his peers and parents. It's a good plot executed greatly.



VOICES:The voice acting in here is pretty good. Charlie Tahan is fairly okay as young Victor Frankenstein, but he doesn't really steal the show. The voice that stole the show belongs to Martin Landau as Mr. Ryzkruski. He did a truly chilling performance of the creepy new science teacher. The other shiners would be Catherine O'Hara as Mrs. Frankenstein, the weird girl, and the gym teacher, Martin Short as Mr. Frankenstein and Mr. Burgemeister, and Winona Ryder as Elsa Van Helsing. A lot of the Tim Burton usuals are in here.

SCORE:The score in here is very charming and done well by the great, Burton favorite, Danny Elfman. The themes are very soft, fitting, and clean.

ANIMATION:The animation in here is one of the best things about this movie. The animation in here is of Burton's usual brand and is done beautifully. The movements are smooth and the design is unique and artful. I appreciate Burton for this.



OTHER CONTENT:Tim Burton revitalized his animation skill in this little movie. This movie is mainly built on charm and entertaining twists, which get it by fine, but it's actually quite scary. It's scarier than I imagined it being. There are jumps and creepy visuals to give you scares. Burton takes the classic Frankenstein story and adds a bunch to it to make it a quirky adventure for kids and family alike. However, there are few points for originality. Though class shows through the way it's shot, the Frankenstein genre has nearly been done to death; not to mention that there are several cliches located throughout the movie.

OVERALL,a great movie with a good plot, pretty good voice acting, charming Elfman score, beautiful animation, lots of charm, entertaining twists, a good bit of scares, and class, but it's not that original and fairly cliched.

Romeo + Juliet (1996) review

(8/10)

This upbeat update to the age-old Shakespeare play is fresh and inventive, but also lacking in accuracy and putting the pieces together.

PLOT:In the big city of Verona, two families live in hate of each other: the Montagues and the Capulets. Romeo Montague (Leonardo DiCaprio), being depressed about his ex Rosaline, is invited to a party held by the Capulets. There, he meets the beautiful Capulet daughter, Juliet (Claire Danes). They fall in love at first sight and agree to be together in secret. However, new obstacles arrive with the rivalry and make things all the more complicated. This version of the popular play is modernized to the max with fast cars, expensive guns, explosive action, and big trips. It's a great plot executed fairly well.



ACTING:The acting in this film was pretty good. It isn't worthy of an award, but it's pretty good still. Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes both played fair parts as Romeo and Juliet, but it could have been done so much better. The other shining performances were John Leguizamo as Tybalt, Harold Perrineau Jr. as Mercutio, Pete Postlethwaite as Father Laurence, Paul Sorvino as Fulgencio Capulet, Vondie Curtis-Hall as Captain Prince, Miriam Margolyes as the Nurse, Christina Pickles as Caroline Montague, Paul Rudd as Paris, and Dash Mihok as Benvolio. The best of these performances had to have been Harold Perrineau Jr. as Mercutio. He almost stole the show with his great supporting role, as well as John Leguizamo or Dash Mihok.

SCORE:The score and soundtrack are both pretty great. Considering the director over this version, you can expect there to be a lot of music in it. The soundtrack to this is very romantic and detailed made up of re-recorded songs and other themes.



OTHER CONTENT:This version of Shakespeare's famous play is very unique and inventive. It's trippy, modernized, clever, and all in the vision of Baz Luhrman. One significant thing I can say about this film is that the emotional impact seems to hit harder at the end of this one than it did in the older version I've seen. It made me really cry because it seemed more real. However, one thing about this film brought it both praise and dislike from me, and that's the fact that it kept the original dialogue. It pleased the Shakespeare fan in me, but it really didn't fit the time period it was set in. It just seemed so out-of-place. Also, this version lost so much and moved around so much that it doesn't hit the same dramatic impact that it did before. It's still very good with emotions, but a little lost in itself.

OVERALL,a great film with a well-executed plot, good acting, romantic Luhrman soundtrack, a bigger emotional impact, inventiveness, and original dialogue, but it all seems so out-of-place and lost a few important story elements in itself.

House of Wax (1953) review

(8/10)

Any movie I've seen with Vincent Price has been pretty good because of his haunting acting and the creepiness the film creates. This one is no exception; there's plenty of creepy imagery to be found along with Price, but does it stand the test of time?

PLOT:Professor Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price) was a great artist of wax sculpting and used to own his own wax museum with his beautiful creations bound up inside. However, his museum is burned down after a jealous investor burns it down from not getting Jarrod's money. Later on down the road, Jarrod is never found and the investor is in wealth, yet, he one day is found mysteriously hanging from a noose in an elevator shaft. While the cops are trying to solve this mystery, another one is forming involving corpses vanishing from the morgue. Also, a certain Sue Allen (Phyllis Kirk) is being followed home by a strange and ugly figure, terrorizing her. Things really pick up when Jarrod is discovered not dead and crippled in a wheelchair with helpers starting his new wax museum. It's a big hit, but the wax dummies have a little too much of a striking resemblance to real people. It's a good plot executed greatly.



ACTING:The performances in here weren't the best, and might be a little dated, but some still are good today. Vincent Price played a creepy and passionate role as Professor Henry Jarrod. Nobody else really stood out like he did in this. The other shiners, however, would be Phyllis Kirk as Sue Allen, Paul Cavanagh as Sidney Wallace, and Paul Picerni as Scott Andrews.

SCORE:The score wasn't the best I've heard, but it was pretty good still. It didn't do anything real special.

EFFECTS:The effects in this movie are pretty good. The make-up effects for the character(s) are very well done and creepy. The best effects would have to be of the wax dummies melting in the fire. The camera is aimed at them at such an angle and timing that it actually does give you the creeps.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was probably a dead ringer for a good horror film in its time, especially with the introduction of the 3D effects, and probably had a high entertainment value. The movie had great dialogue and was full of suspense, but it's still rather dated. Some of the scares and thrills shot in here aren't as scary as they probably were back then, especially with the 3D. Plus, this movie is easily classified as more a horror for entertainment with a couple laughs and the 3D thrills induced in it. It's still a pretty great horror film today, but the test of time has worn it down a great bit from what it has been.

OVERALL,a great horror film with a good plot, mainly dated acting aside from Price, unimportant score, creepy make-up and wax effects, great dialogue, and lots of supsense, but a lot of the scares and such appear to be dated and for pure entertainment.

Stephen King's The Shining (1997) review

(6/10)

This version may not be as scary, psychological, or popular as Kubrick's, but it stays to the book more accurately than Kubrick's ever did. However, it's still a typical TV miniseries.

PLOT:Jack Torrance (Steven Weber) is a former drinker with a wife named Wendy (Rebecca De Mornay) and a son named Danny (Courtland Mead). He's referred by his friend Al to a job as winter caretaker of the rich Overlook Hotel. Because he's in need of the money, he takes the job and his family up to the Hotel closing day. While there, they meet the cook, Dick Hallorran (Melvin van Peebles), who discovers that Danny has a certain power, known as the "shine", which can help him see the possible future and things his parents can't. Things start out fine for the Torrances until Danny senses via his imaginary friend, Tony (Wil Horneff), that the hotel has a mind of its own and wants Jack to be its permanent caretaker. Danny must avoid the hotel's tricks and keep his daddy from succumbing into the hotel's whims. It's a great plot executed fairly well.



ACTING:The acting in here was pretty good overall. Steven Weber played an excellent job as Jack Torrance. He wasn't as good as Nicholson in Kubrick's version, but he played a pretty accurate Jack. Rebecca De Mornay also played a pretty great part as Wendy Torrance, playing right off of Weber's lines. Wil Hornef played a supple role as Tony and the older Danny, but his lines and the execution kind of ruined it for him. Melvin van Peebles played an accurate part as the shining cook, Dick Hallorran, but he wasn't anything spectacular. The rest of the roles were hit-or-miss, but the worst performance in the whole miniseries was Courtland Mead as Danny Torrance. His childlike acting got annoying and unrealistic, which nearly ruined it all.

SCORE:The score didn't matter all that much, but it was spooky and intense. It set the mood rather well for this horror miniseries/movie.

EFFECTS:Aside from Mead's acting, this was the worst part of the miniseries. The computer-generated effects used to animate the ghosts appearing and the hedge animals moving was pretty bad and looked cheap and unrealistic. However, the make-up and blood effects weren't all that bad and actually worked pretty well.



OTHER CONTENT:This wasn't actually as bad as you'd expect it to be. It stayed reliable to the book, still was pretty scary, and had a decent emotional impact. This stayed way more reliable to the events in the book than Kubrick's star-studded version ever did. It captured nearly everything that his version missed. This one wasn't as scary as Kubrick's, however. It was still pretty spooky, I'd say, for a TV miniseries. This also had a pretty decent emotional impact toward the couple's marriage, the parental relationship, and the afterwards of the event. The con to this is that it's a TV miniseries; that in itself isn't a bad thing, but it has the feeling of one. The effects are cheap, the actors probably haven't had much work after this, the script was a bit flawed, and the execution had some major problems, especially with Tony's scenes. I believe this was a great attempt at rekindling the relationship between King and his book, but it is still just another TV miniseries/movie.

OVERALL,an ok TV movie with a fairly well-executed plot, pretty good acting, mood-fitting score, working make-up effects, reliability to the book, kept some scare, and had a decent emotional impact, but the lead child actor was annoying, the computer effects were bad, the script was flawed, and it had some major problems with execution.

Scarface (1983) review

(10/10)

This is the tale of how fame, drugs, and violence drove one of the richest drug dealers into the ground.

PLOT:After being shipped as a prisoner with some Cuban refugees to Florida, Tony Montana (Al Pacino) has to make a life and a name for himself in America. He gets asked to do a high-paying drug retrieval (which he nearly dies in), and that spins him off into his million-dollar career of drug-trafficking for a Frank Lopez (Robert Loggia) and his wife, Elvira (Michelle Pfieffer), who he has interest in. He also reconnects with his family, including his now-adult sister, Gina (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio), whom he has over-protective fears for. However, his career starts to fade after he starts to get a big head and "gets high on his own supply." It's a good plot executed brilliantly.



ACTING:The acting in here was pretty great. No performance was a bad one. Al Pacino took over the screen as Scarface, being both the tough-as-nails gangster and humorous comic relief. Any other actor wouldn't have done the character as much justice. The other shiners were Robert Loggia as Frank Lopez, Michelle Pfieffer as Elvira, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Gina, Miriam Colon as Mama Montana, and Steven Bauer as Manny Ray.

SCORE:The score didn't fit the film as well as it should have, but it was still pretty great. It was basically cheesy '80s score, but it was still pretty good considering it was done by the great Giorgio Mororder. I think it would have worked better with some more suspenseful stuff, but this was still pretty great.



OTHER CONTENT:This film is one of the greats; it's iconic, meaningly violent, and serves as an example for younger people to stay away from drugs and to not get too cocky, or have a "big head". This film was also under the direction of the great Brian DePalma; his direction remained solid throughout. This is another one of those films that has one scene that everyone knows because it's become such an icon nowadays. Everybody can quote this film and the iconic scene: "Say hello to my little friend!" DePalma has truly created a brilliant film here.

OVERALL,an epic film with a brilliantly-executed plot, great acting, great-yet-unfitting Mororder score, iconic scenes, violence with meaning, example-setting ideas, and solid direction by the great DePalma.

Piranha (2010) review

(9/10)

This contains the 3 B's of a campy horror B-movie: boobs, blood, and beer!

PLOT:It's spring break at Lake Victoria and the party is shaking; apparently, the lake's shaking too, due to the fact that a major quake has opened up an underwater trench that releases thousands of blood-thirsty, prehistoric piranha. Caught in the middle of this is young Jake Forester (Steven McQueen), who insted of watching his little brother and sister like his mom and the county sheriff, Julie (Elizabeth Shue), told him to, decides to get in on the spring break action by being a lake guide for Wild Wild porn director, Derrick Jones (Jerry O'Connell) and his Wild Wild Girls (Kelly Brook and Riley Steele). The story heats up when Jake's love interest, Kelly (Jessica Szohr), joins the group. You can tell just by the set-up that this is going to be a viscous bloodbath between man and fish. It's a great horror plot executed to the greatest factor of grit and camp.



ACTING:The acting wasn't a marvel, but it was still pretty great for a horror movie. The shiners were Steven McQueen as Jake, Jerry O'Connell as Derrick, Kelly Brook as Danni, Ving Rhames as Deputy Fallen, and Brooklyn Proalx as Laura Forester, with cameos b Richard Dreyfuss as Matt Boyd and Christopher Lloyd as Mr. Goodman. I kind of felt that Elizabeth Shue didn't do anything too much to be considered really special.

SCORE:The score is mainly made up of dramatic horror score and modern rave-party songs, and each does the job of fitting the mood at the right time.

EFFECTS:Being made in 3D (believe me, it was much better in theaters, when it WAS in 3D!), you wouldn't expect the movie's CG effects to be any good, but when it came to our razor-toothed killers, the effects were pretty detailed. The better effects, however, were the natural make-up and prop effects used to show the injuries and corpses the piranha left behind. They were truly grisly and even frightening.



OTHER CONTENT:This movie has everything a good CAMPY horror movie should have: bloody carnage, crude jokes, nude girls, drug abuse, and an unavoidable setup or premise. Aja definitely did a great job of making a fun horror flick. The only problem with this movie is that it's not supposed to be perfect at all, so it doesn't come off as THE BEST horr film ever by far. The only part where it truly felt like a serious horror instead of a campy one is when the piranha hit the beach and the carnage starts ensuing; even then, they make it full of grit.

OVERALL,an awesome horror flick with a great, campy plot, great horror acting, fitting score and soundtrack, detailed CG effects and grisly make-up effects, and everything this movie needs to be the ultimate campy horror, but it wasn't made to be perfect obviously, for it shows.

Inglourious Basterds (2009) review

(9/10)

I have finally seen it. The wait is over for me, and passed on to another unlucky cinephile.

PLOT:There are two separate storylines in this anti-Holocaust film. The first is led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), leader of the notorious Nazi killing group, The Basterds. They have grouped everyone from the ferocious Donnie "The Bear Jew" Donowitz (Eli Roth) to the notorious Hugo Stiglitz (Til Schweiger). They formulate a plan to ambush the local theater they're showing the Nazi film, "Nation's Pride" in and blow it up, for the four highest ranks in the war (including Hitler) are attending. The second storyline is following Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), an escaped, incognito Jew, who now runs a theater with her partner in France. When she meets a Nazi war hero that falls for her (Daniel Bruhl), he pulls a few strings and has the premiere of his film, "Nation's Pride", shown at her theatre; the same Col. Landa (Christopher Waltz) that killed her family is even going to be there. To get her revenge, Shoshanna comes up with the idea to lock all of the Nazis inside of her theatre and burn it down. If you haven't noticed already, the two storylines seem to run into each other to where the climax sycnhronizes. As you can guess, things don't go directly according to plan. It's a well-thought out plot based on the Holocaust executed to the true Tarentino factor.



ACTING:The acting in here was brilliant. Pitt shined indefinitely in this role as Aldo Raine. He added a certain flair and charm to the role that I don't think could have been pulled off quite by anyone else. Every actor did a fine job, but he definitely stole the show. Other shiners or honorable mentions are Laurent as Shoshanna, Waltz as Col. Landa, Eli Roth as Donny, Michael Fassbender as Archie Hilcox, Martin Wuttke as Hitler, Diane Kruger as Bridget von Hammersmark, and the brief cameo of Rod Taylor as Winston Churchill.

SCORE:The soundtrack is one of the finest parts of the film; my dad even had to buy it and he isn't a cinephile or score fan! The score consists of old, vinyl-sounding tunes, marching string tracks, haunting piano themes, and in your face rock songs. This is definitely one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a while.



OTHER CONTENT:This is indeed a Quentin Tarentino film. His direction shows, from cut scene to calm-then-violent cutscene. He definitely has a clean cut vision for direction, and it showed in here. I admire his directing. This film was a thrilling, fun, violent, interesting ride through a historic fiction idea. Just as Tarentino likes, he separated the movie into sections, or chapters, for better effect. Like the films he does that in, you find yourself somewhat confused until the finale. It follows classic Tarentino formula, and follows it well. The film would have gotten a lower rating from me if it had not been for the shocking and pleasing ending. The finale ties the whole film together and gives us what we have been waiting for. My only problem with the film is I feel it's a slight bit predictable,  though satisfying, and that it lags a bit in the middle. It's just a few small flaws to such a great masterpiece.

OVERALL,an awesome Tarentino film with a well-thought out plot, brilliant acting, a great soundtrack, a fun and interesting ride of thrills, classic Tarentino formula, and a finale that ties the whole film together, but with all these flaws comes one small problem; it lags a bit in the middle.

Winnie the Pooh (2011) review

(7/10)

Ruin or strengthen my childhood? I choose strengthen.

PLOT:Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings) and his friends are living their everyday lives when they realize that Eeyore (Bud Luckey) has lost his tail. Owl (Craig Ferguson) organizes a contest in which the natives to the Hundred Acre Wood go out to find Eeyore a new tail. In all of this buzz, Pooh finds a letter at Christopher Robin's house that Owl interprets to say that Christopher has been kidnapped by an imaginary creature named the "Backson", and so they set out to catch this creature and get Christopher Robin back. It's a very simple plot executed simply right.

VOICES:The voices kind of threw me off a little because of the ones I have been used to in the older movies/series'. Some fit well, some were pretty awful. The best replacements were Jim Cummings as Pooh, Craig Ferguson as Owl, and Kristen Anderson-Lopez as Kanga. There was only one voice I couldn't get into, and that was Tom Kenny as Rabbit. It was a good try and good idea, but it didn't work out.



SCORE:The score was mainly made up of cute little songs put in between to maximize the children's movie theme. They were cute and entertaining, but nothing more.

ANIMATION:The animation was one of the best parts of the movie. They went on odds end to make the animation as nostalgic and whimsical as it used to be in the old days. I loved it; it made me feel like I was a carefree child watching the show with my mom again. The days...



OTHER CONTENT:This movie was really made for nothing more but to re-vamp the old franchise of Pooh and bring back memories. Though some consider it unnecessary, I liked it. The movie isn't anything spectacular, it's just a fun-to-watch, cute, remniscient kid's movie. I admit that I expected a little more out of it (especially running time wise), but it was fine the way it was.

OVERALL, a good children's movie with a simply executed plot, mainly decent replacement voices, cutely entertaining score, nostalgic animation, and too short of a running time.

Day of the Dead (2007) review

(1/10)

If it had not been a gift from a secret santa, I wouldn't have watched it.

PLOT:In a Leadville, Colorado, a virues has broken out where a parasite infects the brain and turns the infected into flesh-eating zombies. Now it's up to a socially-awkward teenager (Michael Welch), his jittery girlfriend (AnnaLynne McCord), a tough-as-nails military officer (Mena Suvari), and a comically-influenced soldier (Nick Cannon) to warn others, put an end to it all, and get out alive. It's a very interesting zombie set-up, but it's executed very crudely.

ACTING:This had to be the worst part of the movie. Suvari couldn't get any emotion expressed, McCord was a bland character, and Welch played a typical character. Cannon I cannot even go into how bad he was. He mainly was the comic relief, but the whole movie stole his job.



SCORE:Typical horror jump-score. Nothing impressive.

EFFECTS:This is the second worst part of the film. The effects are either digital effects that appear out-of-place or make-up effects that look like strawberry jello and pizza. This failed pathetically at the realistic factor and horribly at the entertainment factor.



OTHER CONTENT:Where do I begin? This movie is supposed to be a remake based off of Romero's "Day of the Dead", which it is, but it can't even capture a bit of the terror and cult following the original received in here. It tries to recreate some of the iconic scenes from the movie, but it puts it to shame and only angers me by how they actually tried to copy them scene-by-scene. Secondly, the zombies in the original are typical yet ferocious, wherever these are ferocious and overdone to the point of trying to hard. This movie's so suckily done that even the combat scenes fail. They switch the camera angles so much during combat that you can barely tell what's happening and all the "cool stuff" is lost in translation. I don't even think I should mention the plot twists. The plot twists are so ridiculously written that it couldn't even entertain a simpleton. The only thing that made this movie worthwile was that everything was fun to laugh at. The movie itself, as I said before, turns into a huge comedy relief.

OVERALL,a horrible movie with a crudely executed plot, emotionless and typical acting, jump score, failing effects, failure at trying to re-vamp Romero, overdone zombies, failing combat scenes, and ridiculous plot twists, but it's fun to laugh at.