Frozen

Year: 2010
Director: Adam Green
Writer: Adam Green
Genre: Drama, Thriller

Frozen is not a movie I've been dying to see for a long time. In fact, it was something that only recently came across my radar. Apparently I missed out on it completely around it's arrival in 2010. Basically, the film is about a group of three twenty something young adults who are having a day out on a snowy mountain. Between two men and one women, the men are best friends, while one of the men is dating the woman.

So, they all spend an awkward day together skiing and snowboarding then are finally ready to come on home. When they do, they somehow manage to get stuck on the chair lift back down the mountain. They came on a Sunday and the mountain won't be open again until Friday....

That's all 30 minutes in or so. For basically the rest of the movie they are stuck in a very small location. I worried that the film wouldn't be able to carry itself just on character interaction. However, it managed to showcase these three real-seeming characters who I cared at least a little bit for. Their reactions to the situation they found themselves in was the most important thing though. It's what kept me interested. If people were in this situation you might expect them to react in some of these ways.

Of course, everything goes wrong at every turn. Although it wasn't overall a gory movie there were some really intense scenes. For the first time in a while, at one point I found myself having to only half watch a certain scene. It just got into me (probably because the situation was realistic enough). I was a bit annoyed by some of the stupidity of the characters but after watching hundreds of slashers it shouldn't be surprising.

Overall, I think Frozen shared a strong experience. It's not the best film ever, or even all that great, but it makes you wonder about what could happen in all our lives. If you're someone who regularly plays around in the mountains though I would suggest you stay far away as it would probably be an especially tough film to watch.

Insidious

Year: 2010
Director: James Wan
Writer: Leigh Whannell
Genre: Horror: Possession

Insidious is exactly the kind of movie I steer clear from. First, it's modern, which always throws me into an angry fervor just because I've felt especially let down by films that everyone says are so great when they're out in theaters. It's the typical reaction for me... Don't believe the hype, in fact, don't even listen to the hype because if you do it's deadly. Even though I don't remember Insidious having a massive wave of interest when it came out, it still is a modern film so it got lumped in with all the rest. Against everything I was telling myself, I decided to watch it anyway.

With all that said I did actually enjoy the film, and much more than I expected. For about half the movie I was paralyzed on my couch. I just sat there staring with a knot in my stomach. The tension was built up quickly, but mostly free from "BOO" scares. I couldn't stand how well the film was put together and it kept me on edge completely. The people who worked on this movie most definitely have a sense of how to string viewers along without giving them relief.

You might have noticed I said for "half the movie". At some point, the film shifts in tone and it's for the worse.  Insidious is about a family who moves into a new home and feels a little bit odd about the whole place. Then, one of the children goes into a coma and things get amped up from there. It was initially a very tight work which didn't focus on showing you shocking things as much as it was about what you didn't see - it made you wonder. This was great.

Then the film starts to show you. It shows you things which are going on and explains reasons why this all is going on. Sure, it's got an otherworldly edge to the explanations, but it's still an explanation. IT's not always bad as it could have been played off as still entirely creepy but something else happened... They filmmakers started to show off what I assume they thought were their big guns and just went crazy with slamming things at the audience.

They weren't simple scares but they were just showing far too much. It felt like the movie completely shifted gears into a different, and far less subtle/frightening tone. It ruined the film for me in a way because it was just so persistent I lost all sense of fear. Scary things were going on, sure, but they weren't viewed as scary by me anymore. They were just ham-fisted and trying to get a rise out of a more typical Hollywood audience.

Perhaps they couldn't figure out how to bring the film to climax in any other way. However, I'm sure with the skill they exhibited earlier on they could have certainly done something better. Instead, they went with the easy route to shock moviegoers. I'm sure many people enjoyed it overall, but I'm left displeased. If you haven't seen the film, check it out and see how you feel. See if you sense the "shift" too or if I'm just being silly.

Dream Home

Year: 2010
Director: Ho-Cheung Pang
Writer: Ho-Cheung Pang
Genre: Horror: Slasher

For some reason, I don't watch that many foreign horror films. When it comes to Asian horror films I'm doubly as reserved to watch them. Now, there are some that I have really enjoyed but for a long while it seemed there was a super focus in the market for ghost stories. Ghosts are fine and all but it seemed a bit tiring to me to see a bunch of the same (even if they were pretty creepy overall). So possibly by because of that I've been really slow to get around to watching Dream Home.

I say this all because Dream Home is not a same-y kind of film. If anything, it felt kind of western in presentation. Dream Home focuses on a woman who wants to be able to move into a building. It's her main focus in life. Unfortunately, as it is based around current affairs, the housing markets of the world have been wrecked. She can't afford this housing unit but damn if she doesn't desire it more than anything else. Her passion drives her to do unspeakable things.

I'm not sure what I expected from the movie but I didn't expect to see such strong displays of violence. Maybe I had felt that fad had already died out here, but it seems alive and well elsewhere. Let's be clear though, this film isn't full of torture, but it is full of some gruesome and interesting deaths. When it started out I felt like most of the deaths were a bit eccentric, but could have been something you'd see on the news. They were eerie with how real they could be if the right circumstances presented themselves. As the film went on, the deaths withdrew more from reality but they were still pretty gross to see.

In a way this film reminded me of Bloody Reunion and so if you like that one this is something to watch. I'd reccomend it if you're in the mood for something different and kind of black comedy-like.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Year: 2011
Director: Stephen Daldry
Writer: Eric Roth, Jonathan Safran Foer
Genre: Drama

I never read the book which the film is adapted from. I've wanted to for years but just have never gotten around to it. I've heard from people who read the book that this film really destroys the powerful narrative of the novel. Because I've not read it I was at least able to view the film without a bias. However, that didn't make me like it.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close had the chance to be something quite special. Instead, it imploded on itself due to the highly unlikable main character. I understand that the boy Oscar is supposed to have Aspergers and that explains a bunch of his behavior. As I went in without knowing that though I could assume something was meant to be up, but that he was just a precious little ball of nerdiness. There's nothing wrong with that though, as I love nerds. In a way the main boy in Hugo was also a nerd because of his scientific and technical mind. But Oscar was not cute or lovable or wonderful. He was annoying.

All children have the ability to be annoying, not just ones with Aspergers. Tons of them are just madness and in a lot of ways these days when a child "acts out" or is "different" it seems they get medicated for something which may be nothing other than their personality. Anyway, that's obviously not the point here. I don't know much of anything about Oscar's condition so I can't pretend to tell whether he really showed all the signs. Probably so. Either way, my point is you can be a wild little child with highly unusual and interesting thoughts and be likeable and wonderful. I just didn't feel that way toward him whatsoever.

In the film it felt like he didn't have enough of a character. There were things ABOUT him that seemed to mean to make us care. Like his tambourine which he would shake to calm himself down. That's a lovely trait but it just felt globbed onto the character, not something actually special or wonderful about him. There were a lot of things that felt like they were simply placed around him to try to make a character.

Anyway, with the narrative very tightly focused on this child's attempting to deal with the trauma of 9/11 I was forced to endure his not-at-all charming antics. I couldn't stand him. It made the whole movie feel overplayed and trite, like a cornball TV movie. Also, I am not sure this child could really act. He was good at memorizing lines I guess and good at YELLING but that doesn't make someone a good actor. Oh well, he's young and had the guts to take a huge role. Props to him.

So yeah, there are some movies with detestable characters but stories that still wrap you right up into it all. I could never get past that point with Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close because the narrative just wasn't my cup of tea.

Midnight in Paris

Year: 2011
Director: Woody Allen
Writer: Woody Allen
Genre: Comedy, Romance

Midnight in Paris is a nice film but I don't see how it managed to garner acclaim with mainstream audiences. As a thinly-veiled love letter to Paris, you'd think typical moviegoers would be a little put off. Who cares about all this romantic junk that this guy is spouting about the city? It's just a city! Well, whatever, it turns out the movie is a nice one although it doesn't delve far enough for me.

If you know nothing about the film then you should probably skip this review because the main part of the plot is a nice surprise. So, you've got this American writer named Gil who is completely enamored with Paris. Fine, whatever, aren't we all. He's gone there with his fiance and ends up discovering a way to travel back in time to when Paris was brimming with famous artist types. He meets up with Ernest Hemmingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda Fitzgerald, and a great deal of other people.

Once he's in this land of the past he finds himself swept away by everyone and everything. This time just seems so much better than his own, at least for a while. But every day he comes back to the modern age and sees his life just isn't turning out the way he'd hoped it would.

Personally I don't think it went far enough. It has a hint of magical realism with the time travel, but nothing further. Why is this all there is? I guess that's not a bad thing though, just rubbed me as a little bit silly. Secondly, here's yet another case of romanticizing cheating. At least for this movie we are able to see the disingenuous nature of Gil's engagement first hand instead of having to blindly assume it.

Overall the biggest turn off for me was that this film feels like a big love letter to Paris and its people. That is fine, but a movie lauding the place does nothing for me. It seems the film only exists to say "wow, look at all these cool people! I'm interacting with them - this is so cool!" and that seems the biggest point that the plot serves. It also seems odd to me that the film discusses our constant longing for a "golden age" - an age which truly doesn't exist. And yet, in the end, Gil basically finds his golden place, so to speak, in Paris. Wasn't the point of the film to show that nothing is perfect? The grass will always be greener on the other side? Oh well, apparently there is a truly golden place and age because Gil gets to bask in it at the end.

The Descendants

Year: 2011
Director: Alexander Payne
Writer: Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon
Genre: Comedy, Drama

Why didn't this film win more awards? Simply put, it is far from an astonishing film. It is a good movie, but not even great. I'm not sure how it even managed to be up for Best Picture. Of course, I'm not quite sure how half the movies selected managed to make it up there (War Horse). That's not to say The Descendants is bad, because that's not the case either. Average is more like it.

I enjoyed watching The Descendants for one reason. I loved the two daughters. They were very real characters and their banter was wonderfully crude. Somehow even Clooney was outshined by these young actresses. It seems odd considering, but maybe the character he portrayed just wasn't lively enough. Maybe hen's not meant to be the important one. It's hard to tell sometimes.

The reason I think this film was nominated was for its plot. In it, annoyed, unconnected, and uncaring husband Matt suddenly is forced to re-evaluate his marriage when his wife is in a life-threatening accident. As a result, she ends up stuck in a coma from which she will never wake and the husband is forced to mull over the tough decision of whether or not she should be kept this way or let free to die. All this is played alongside Matt also having to decide who to give his massive share of Hawaiian land to because for some reason he is a descendant of some powerful people.

This is all some serious stuff but the movie plays everything off in a rather amusing fashion. The approach is certainly valid but to me at least it left things feeling less important. It's just a happy go lucky film with some dipping points. It is a very modern film with very modern jokes too and for that it feels weaker. Maybe that's just me though because I am more used to films which don't try so hard to plant themselves firmly in the moment.

Check the film out and see how it works for you. I enjoyed it I just don't see it being Oscar-worthy. Perhaps you'll view it differently.

The Artist

Year: 2011
Director: Michel Hazanavicius
Writer: Michel Hazanavicius
Genre: Comedy, Romance

The Artist walked out of the Oscars with a boat load of awards, and with good reason. It's a wonderfully solid and fun film. It brings us back to a cinematic experience that is purely joyful to experience and not bogged down by excessively complex plots of multi-million dollar effects. If you haven't had the pleasure of watching it yet then that's highly suggested, although all the praise its received may dampen your own perception of it a bit.

For me, it was a solid picture. However, I wish it had done something more creative or daring. You might say that releasing a silent film in this age is daring, and it is in a way. However it certainly isn't the only modern silent film out there. Many other indie films have employed the same effect and many others will continue to do so in the future. They just don't happen to garner so much acclaim with the general public.

Now, what is it about this film that I don't exactly appreciate? Well, I don't know, maybe it's better to go over what was good first. The acting was solid and in a way it definitely out does the old silent films. It manages to tell a story and get dialogue across without forcing characters to overact too far. It mostly falls within the realms of modern acting, just with a little extra to make sure the viewer understands. The story is cute too: A silent film star finds himself unwilling and unable to compete with the new-fangled talking movies.

What I didn't enjoy was the fact that this movie plays it so entirely safe. Yes, it's a silent film but you don't have to place a silent film in the set of the era where they were popular. It would be much more impressive to me to see a movie taking place in our "current world" done silently. There's no reason that you have to stick it in one specific era just because that's where it originated. I also don't really appreciate the romanticizing of cheating, but of course that's common for many films. It just seemed a bit more out of place here because, to me, initially the interactions between the husband and wife seemed to be relatively happy ones.

So that's my two cents about The Artist. It's great fun and will probably make a lot of average film fans feel cultured. Hopefully it ushers other filmmakers to try their hands at something different.

The Help

Year: 2011
Director: Tate Taylor
Writer: Tate Taylor, Kathryn Stockett
Genre: Drama

I liked The Help. As a mostly comedy with dramatic asides, it has some strong characters and a lovely narrative. There is also a lot wrong with this film, in my eyes. Despite that though it still manages to be a wholly enthralling narrative that kept my attention all the way through. Also, I loved the character of Celia. Yes, I loved her enough to state that in my first paragraph.

Basically in the film you've got a young woman who seems to rebel against every norm in her world. She's not really interested in getting a man - she's getting a job! She's also not taken aback by the idea of African Americans being equal to everyone else. Whatever she drank really should have gotten into the bodies of the other gals, but of course, if it did then we wouldn't have a movie.

Anyway, it's a film about this journalist who wants to get the true stories from "the help", or maids. So she goes for it and slowly gains the trust of the women she wants to interview. It's quite entertaining most of the time, so I'm not sure why exactly it's tagged as a "drama" on IMDB.

There's nothing wrong with a movie having fun, even for a semi-period piece. It just feels kind of bad to watch because of how it seems to push aside the harsh realities of the time. It might have been the 60s but damn if that wasn't practically a world away from where we are now. It was an extremely turbulent period for civil rights and nearly completely glossing over that was a huge failing, in my opinion. Yes, there's are a handful of moments in the film which attempt to bring this reality home. It never quite reaches though. There's a point where a young black woman is beaten by an officer, but then the fear of the moment is quickly dissipated by a new scene filled with patented sass.

The points the film seem to make are filled with good intentions, but that doesn't mean the film itself is pure. To me the things it teaches are that African American maids really were living a mostly fine life. Oh sure, they couldn't even use the same toilets but other than that they just had so much fun gabbing with their friends and making fun of white ladies behind their back. Oh sure, their friends were getting beaten by those who are supposed to protect the town, but what does it really matter when you can bake a pie with poop in it and serve it to your old employer?

Despite the failings that I felt exist because of how it downplayed the reality of the situation, I still found myself captivated by the silly narrative. I laughed at many jokes and liked the ending. I felt the end was actually focused on a maid character, not the journalist, like many have said. It's a great film that you can watch as long as you turn off the analytical part of your brain.

Hugo

Year: 2011
Director: Martin Scorsese
Writer: John Logan, Brian Selznick
Genre: Adventure

I'm not usually one for family films. I'm also not usually interested in 3D films. However, this one was both and I was stuck in a theater watching it. As it turned out though, it ended up being really nice. I must say though that the 3D effect seemed lost on me. That, or it was just so masterfully done that I didn't even notice it. Well, what I'm used to is hokey 3D where things are jutting out at you. I don't recall any of that. This is a plus.

The film was very beautiful. This is the first thing I noticed, and probably the first thing my theater compatriots also saw. You'd never expect dust floating around to look marvelous but this movie managed it. Everything seemed just a bit too bright and pretty to be real. It all added to the playful atmosphere and that was great. Even though the story itself wasn't award caliber, the visuals sure were.

In Hugo you're greeted with a young boy who has lost his father. The poor child is stuck tending to the clockwork in a train station and hopes to never get caught (orphans get sent off). He's also trying to fix a broken mechanical person which his father had attempted to fix before his untimely demise. It's a sweet little tale that gets slightly convoluted, but mostly nice. It's also got a big focus on the love of film. I'm surprised that two films this season were feelin' the love in that way (The Artist being the other).

I don't think that this movie is incredible. The story is cute but not much more than that. What makes it worth a watch is the excellent visuals. Or, if you have a child they'd probably get a lot more out of it then I did.

The Last Circus

Year: 2010
Director: Álex de la Iglesia
Writer: Álex de la Iglesia
Genre: Drama, Comedy

I came into this movie pretty cold. It was simply a suggestion and I only looked at the stars it scored before jumping in. The Last Circus is foreign film where a boy grows up quickly after his father is killed right before his eyes. He inherits the role of a clown just like his father before him and joins the circus. There he meets a girl and, predictably, starts to feel something for her.

From then on, things manage to take the worst turns possible and the movie ends up being one filled with bullets, bloodshed, and disfigurement. It's alright. I have a feeling this movie will or has already been on favorite film lists. It definitely has the stuff to be something special, but or me it was just filler.

I liked the story progression well enough but it just came out too dramatic for my tastes. What can you expect from a drama film but drama? It's an odd criticism coming from me too though since I loved the whacked out Fatal Attraction. That certainly never let up on the intense drama... Well, somehow The Last Circus didn't click with me.

Still, the movie is a neat little experience and will probably please some. Check it out if you're interested in some clown-related craziness.

Chillerama

Year: 2011
Director: Adam Green, Joe Lynch, Adam Rifkin, Tim Sullivan
Writer: Adam Green, Joe Lynch, Adam Rifkin, Tim Sullivan
Genre: Horror: Anthology

Chillerama is a recent horror anthology effort. I've been a fan of anthologies since I first saw Creepshow and am always interested in seeing new ones. Some are certainly hit and miss but at least every collection usually has at least one good short. This film contains four shorts: Wadzilla, I Was a Teenage Wearbear, The Diary of Anne Frankenstein, and Zom-B-Movie.

Of the four, I really enjoyed three of them. The final one in particular is not just a short but basically the wraparound story which contains the other segments. It's probably the best overarching story I've seen for an anthology yet. Although I didn't much care for the Wearbear flick I could see where they were coming from. Each film has it's own thing going on and I like that they all take on different timeframes and ideas. The Frankenstein film takes place during the WW2 era while Zom-B-Movie brings us right up to the modern day.

The anthology clocks in around 2 hours. If I could make a suggestion I would say skip past the werewolf-style flick for something else. I found myself on an enjoyable ride with the other films but that one just seems to slow it down. Maybe that's just me though. So, I guess actually watch them all and let me know what you think.

Scream 4

Year: 2011
Director: Wes Craven
Writer: Kevin Williamson
Genre: Horror: Slasher

Scream is one of the more creative horror series out there. I really enjoy how the story continues from movie to movie and even plays in a sort of dual reality... Like, in Scream the Stab films are based off the "true story" in Scream and it's just really cool. Anyways, it took me a while to finally see Scream 4 but now that it's on DVD I couldn't hold back any longer.

Even though the advertisements for this latest movie sort of obscured the fact that this is the 4th film in the series, it is definitely a sequel and not a reboot or anything like that. But then again, it nearly could be because it introduces a new cast of characters alongside the old ones. Either way, it's 100% sequel with some new things to say.

After the events from the previous movies everyone thinks things are finally done. It's been 10 years and blah blah blah. As per horror movie conventions though all is not over as someone new dons the Ghostface mask and starts killing.

The movie is pretty good and definitely fun but it's a little weird in parts. There is a lot of discussion about what needs to happen for a horror movie to be successful these days. It was all about how things need to be reinvented and updated for modern teen tastes. I could understand what they were saying but it sounded like they were trying to sound "hip". I don't know...  It would have been very easy to convey the messages of this movie to a teen audience in a more normal way but everything was talked about in an educational sort of tone. I really can't explain it but it just felt really odd at times the way the movie tried to be inventive but did so while pointing out "look how modern and cool I am!".

Overall, Scream fans definitely need to check it out and everyone else might want to stick with the trilogy first.

Paranormal Activity 2

Year: 2010
Director: Tod Williams
Writer: Michael R. Perry, Christopher B. Landon
Genre: Horror: Haunting

Last Halloween I watched Paranormal Activity and was pleasantly surprised. On a whim, I decided to hit up the sequel and see if it was still good. This version takes us into the lives of another family and they're a bit more interesting. You've got a mother, father, daughter, baby boy, the mother's sister, and even a dog in the cast. If there was one issue with the first movie it was that it felt a little too foreign to moviegoers with having only two main characters.

So, we've got a nice cast of rounded-out characters. The premise remains pretty similar about spirits coming after people for whatever reason... Then of course there are cameras around the house just like in the original which help you see the hauntings. It's something I liked most about the first film. Things are shown on camera but most of the time it's very minor stuff. For example, a door opening slightly or a pot falling in another room. It's all very small stuff and I appreciate it.

What I don't appreciate about Paranormal Activity 2 is that it pulls more Hollywood-styled hauntings into the mix. About 3/4th of the way through the movie I felt like I was watching Poltergeist. That's a fine movie on its own but in this one where it is attempting to be "found footage" the hauntings seem much less plausible.

The movie was still okay but felt stretched by the end. I wish they could have kept the atmosphere of the first without having to go and blow it later on. If you like this movie you should also check out REC. 

I Spit on Your Grave

Year: 2010
Director: Steven R. Monroe
Writer: Stuart Morse
Genre: Horror: Exploitation

I Spit on Your Grave/Day of the Woman was a film that I never thought would be remade. The first (and only) time I watched the original I was petrified through most of it. Sure, there was no murderer or giant monster but all that happened onscreen was intense. It seemed the kind of movie nobody wanted to touch then and would never touch again.

But then a remake happened and somehow left me feeling the exact same way. What's interesting to me is while the rape scenes were toned down of actual graphic content, they were kept long in other ways. The buildup and abuse carried out by the group of men was just as hard to watch as the scenes that would follow.

What also struck me was that I believe the way that revenge was served was more graphic than before. It was also more creative. I figure these scenes must have been amped up because a movie-going audience would accept it after the atrocities the woman had to go through. Still, it was surprisingly hard to sit and watch it all. I needed a break in the middle of it and took one (something I rarely do).

This is the kind of movie you don't watch with friends, if ever. It stands as a very powerful film around the same caliber of Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom and Men Behind the Sun.

Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy

Year: 2010
Director: Daniel Farrands, Andrew Kasch
Writer: Thommy Huston
Genre: Documentary, horror

This is one of the greatest movie documentaries I've ever seen. It probably has to do with the fact that I'm a big fan of the series, but overall it was really well done. You could tell that everyone involved in making the documentary, appearing in it, and putting it together were mad about Freddy.

It was some 4 hours long and that is incredibly more than most docs out there. However, because there is so much source material to go over in the Nightmare world it makes sense that it is so damn long. From beginning to end I was crazy about it and hung on everyone's words. I felt like a kid in a candy store getting a behind the scenes look at the awesome movies.

What was really weird was how my opinion on Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was. Upon watching it I thought it was a completely terrible movie but after the doc it seemed so much better. Despite it being a bit of a car wreck, seeing how much everyone loved making it made it seem better overall. It was especially interesting to see that they actually went to Nintendo to see if they'd let Freddy wear a power glove during the stoner video game scene. When Nintendo said no, they did it anyway! you gotta love the guts they had to do things like that.

The only sad thing is that Johnny Depp wasn't in the documentary except for in one early 90s interview clip. It really felt like Depp was ashamed of his first film. That's really sad if true because A Nightmare on Elm Street is a classic horror film. Completely on the opposite end of things, it really seemed like Heather Langenkamp is in love with her character and the series. That, I think, is wonderful.

Bottom line: Incredible documentary for anyone who likes Nightmare.

I Want to See Scream 4

Or more so, I'm curious as to how it is. However, as with any sort of remakes/sequels I worry about their quality. At times, they work out damn well, such as the case for Night of the Living Dead or True Grit. Most of the time though things end up as a pile of junk or just okay (Halloween).

Despite my worry, I am cautiously optomistic about Scream 4. I loved the Scream trilogy. They always found ways to keep it going and I'm curious if they can keep up that innovative style. The premise of Scream (scary dude harassing you on phone about horror movies and stuff) has even been parodied in porn. It's iconic, even if not quite as much as the "he's calling from inside the house!" shtick of When a Stranger Calls. Then you've got the remakes that were just completely unnecessary (see: I Spit on Your Grave and Death Race).

This isn't meant to be a post about remakes though as apparently Scream 4 is not a remake. If it were, it would have left the "4" out of the title. I honestly don't know all that much about the movie. I know it was refreshing when the first film came out but will it remain that way today? What was once original is probably now par for the modern movie audience.

It has a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes but a 7.6 on IMDB. I've never relied to heavily on IMDB ratings, but Rotten Tomatoes is usually a pretty good source. Then again, Avatar has an 83% on there so maybe I should trust them less.

Maybe I'll see Scream 4 in theaters. If I do, that'll be the first new film I've watched in theaters this year. Joy.