Belle de Jour

Year: 1967
Director: Luis Bunuel
Writer: Luis Bunuel, Joseph Kessel
Genre: Drama

My life has found itself full of work lately. I'm not complaining, but in the periods of exhaustion in between, there is little room for films. Watching surrealistic or feminist fare is too stimulating for a tired mind, although "typical" slashers also have been lacking in appear. Upon realizing I've seen barely anything this year, I blindly chose to watch Belle de Jour. The title had been on my list for a while, but had no clue of what to expect. As it turned out, this was the perfect decision on my part. I am completely enamored with the film.

As the story starts we are immediately drawn into a weird dual-reality. The lead character is a young woman married to her husband. Their chaste relationship draws on both of them in different ways, but we see only how she handles herself. All throughout the film, it is hard to determine what is real or imagined as she takes up a job in a brothel. Is she really even there or is this another elaborate fantasy? Are the fantasies real?

None of these questions are ever answered and that is part of the beauty of things. There are symbols, such as bells, which imply that those are her periods of dream, but who can be certain? I felt I could peg what was meant to be fantasy until later on when things became even harder to parse. The film is certainly not stodgy or overly complex though, just something very intriguing.

It's a rare film that makes me continue to look up information and interpretations of it after watching. Belle de Jour has done that for me and I would love to continue to read critical essays about it, or even eventually submit my own. This is an incredible film.

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.

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.

Intruder

Year: 1989
Director: Scott Spiegel
Writer: Lawrence Bender, Scott Spiegel
Genre: Horror: Slasher

If you like slashers then I hope you've seen Intruder (which goes by a few names). If you haven't, then why not? It might have a super dull name but the contents are pretty great. Something that's always bothered me is the mass of horror films taking place in same-y locations. I tire of creepy old houses/mansions and summer camps. Intruder takes place in a supermarket.

Unlike Chopping Mall this film is able to be relatively entertaining as well. Actually, I guess Chopping Mall is entertaining but in a horribly 80s "this doesn't make any sense" way. I like this film better. The cast is primarily young adults who work at the market, but there's a few older people in management there too. Also, since it's a market and on work time there's little to no time for romantic shenanigans. Thank god. That's something else I tire of in slashers.

The characters are nicely believable and keep you interested. If there's any problem there are a few too many characters. I had a bit of trouble remembering who was supposed to be who as people were slowly killed off one by one. At least that helped to keep me guessing about who was left to be the killer. Speaking of which, the murders are pretty gory for the 80s. I guess this is due to the film verging on the 90s so there's a great deal of skill involved with each effect. Still, it's more graphic than was expected.

I like this movie a lot. It isn't the best slasher but it is a pretty fun one. Intruder is not quite a classic but it's still worthy of a viewing.

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane

Year: 1973
Director: Nicolas Gessner
Writer: Laird Koenig
Genre: Drama, Horror

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane was an unexpected film to me. From just the title alone it conjures up images of the typical horror "scary little kid". That's not the case in this film at all and I think that may have played a part in me liking it more. Perhaps that trope has only really come to fruition in the more modern day. I'm not sure, actually, maybe that really found its footing in the 80s with modern spooky, not so much The Bad Seed but more The Brood.

So for this movie we're greeted with a young but very autonomous girl. She's just about 13 (or 14 as she sometimes claims) but acts much older. I found myself completely in awe of the character. She certainly looked the part of a young girl but seeing such maturity coming out of her really threw me for a loop. I enjoyed every moment she spoke.

We all know that something is odd about this girl though because of how she carries out various chores in the city. Nobody ever sees her parents around. It's quite the mystery, although it is solved not too far into the film. Still, seeing her try to hide the truth, as well as seeing how others react to it is a joy. It might be a dark joy, but it was all quite enjoyable.

It's safe to say I quite liked The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane. It's not quite horror, and mostly some sort of building drama, but still a cool film. It also seems to have aged relatively well. I could see this movie existing today with little change.

Satan Place: A Soap Opera From Hell

Year: 1990
Director: Alfred Ramirez, Scott Aschbrenner
Writer:
Genre: Horror: Comedy

It's rare that I watch a movie that I absolutely cannot find through IMDB. I was able to grab some information of it from ZMBD, but what a rarity! From what little I've found, it appears that the movie is based off a comic book of the same name. I guess that makes sense since it plays out as a compilation of short films.

The first few films didn't really interest me but after that there were some really great ones. A short about a girl who is obsessed with watching TV was my favorite. I'd recommend watching it but it's probably a little hard to find. However, it is one of those super cheap movies that would probably appear on Netflix streaming if they were able to grab onto a copy. There's so much on the service that's so cheap, but still a gem.

Like I said though, it's a supremely cheap film overall. The video quality makes it seem much older than it actually is, and the acting sometimes leaves much to be desired. If you can look past those things though it's quite an odd little treat. Check it out if you like Creepshow, but then, who doesn't like Creepshow?

I took a few screenshots from this film for some reason. You can check them out if you want.

Carrie (Remake)

Year: 2002
Director: David Carson
Writer: Bryan Fuller
Genre: Horror

Carrie is a pretty damn famous piece of work. The novel and first film rendition are modern classics, so it always seems weird to see remakes for them. Still, in the world of remakes I would say this is a pretty decent one. It also happens to be a made-for-TV remake which makes it all the more surprising as to how decent it is. Of course, IT was also a TV special so apparently that path doesn't always spell doom.

The film is very much like the older version with some modern flair. The characters are more 2000s teen, which may be a good or bad thing. Still, the basics remain the same. Carrie is still ostracized, living with a fanatically religious mother, and discovering her psychic powers. At times it seems exactly like the original film, although it strays from that path by bringing more of the novel into the movie. This may please some.

As it is a TV movie the effects are very laughable at times. Still, you've got to give them credit for trying to remain authentic to the source material. Presumably the TV audience wouldn't really care one way or the other. Angela Bettis plays Carrie - and she seems to have a knack for these kinds of roles. I remember thinking she did pretty well in the film May. Apparently she was also in Girl, Interrupted and Toolbox Murders but somehow I don't remember. You think I would since she has such distinctive facial features.

Anyway, the film definitely works. Some choices are a bit laughable, but beyond that I liked it a lot. It fares better than the Psycho remake at least where there's absolutely nothing new thrown into the mix. This version of Carrie has a distinctive spirit so I commend it for trying.

Valentine

Year: 2001
Director: Jamie Blanks
Writer: Donna Powers
Genre: Horror: Thriller

Usually when I go into more modern horror films I don't expect much. This movie doesn't intend to blow your socks off but what it does it does very well. You'v got a cast of very likable (and attractive) adults all going about their lives. Valentine's Day is coming around so the group is certainly rather focused on finding or maintaining love. Unfortunately, some weird things are going on where their friends are slowly dying off.... receiving weird Valentine's cards, and that sort of thing. Seems like this year things are going to be pretty different.

The movie is a little silly but mostly I really liked the characters and the progression of the story from mildly creepy things to "Look behind you! Watch out!". Maybe that's just me though. The characters mostly are agreeable although their Hollywood glamour makes you sometimes focus on how fake the film is.

Valentine is good at getting you to follow the wrong trail. I always tend to enjoy movies that will confuse you as to who the killer is. Sure, most every film tries to keep that a secret but often it's hard to actually maintain that secrecy. Or, movies will just throw something completely out of left field because that's the best they could do. I like being deceived when it makes sense though, and it made sense here.

Totally check it out since, well, it's Valentine's Day!

The Stepford Wives

Year: 1975
Director: Bryan Forbes
Writer: Ira Levin, William Goldman
Genre: Thriller

I went into The Stepford Wives with little interest or knowledge of the film. I knew that there was something wrong with the Stepford women, of course, but that's all. Beyond that I've managed to avoid most analysis or spoilers of the story all this time.

Basically the story starts off with a husband and wife who are moving to the small, kindly town Stepford. It seems like a real taste of the country when they speak to neighbors who seem completely radiant, polite, and proper. Joanna quickly makes friends with a couple of the women but finds the others are wholly impenetrable. All they seem to want to talk about is housework or other simple things.

Joanna and her newfound friend Bobbie attempt to start a consciousness raising group because there is obviously something a little dated about the women inhabitants. From there, things slowly become more chilling and weirder. The story is wound tight and as it continues you can almost taste the tension getting tighter and tighter until it finally snaps.

I absolutely adored this movie. It isn't technically horror but it honestly might as well be for anyone sitting down and watching it today. While we have come pretty far thanks to the feminists movements of the past The Stepford Wives is still insanely pertinent. While the "truth" behind the story may be goofball, it certainly doesn't diminish the point of the film (although it does diffuse a lot of the tension of the climax). There's something about Ira Levin that I really appreciate. He might not have a knack for believable endings, but he seems to really have an interest in women and the world and rights they have.

Definitely check this one out. Now I need to hurry up and read the book so I can see if that's even more enthralling than this brief film affair.

Body Melt

Year: 1993
Director: Philip Brophy
Writer: Rod Bishop, Philip Brophy
Genre: Horror: Comedy, Body Horror

For some reason I kept avoiding Body Melt. Something about the title repelled me and made me feel like it was going to be cheesy and worthless. I was so wrong and I'm really glad that the time was finally taken to watch it.

Body Melt is about some sort of health research company thing who is trying out their latest "stuff". It's supposed to make you feel amazing, I suppose, and maybe keep you looking good too. It could be some sort of miracle drug but now the time has come to run human tests. Instead of getting people to sign off on waivers and test things though the company has instead built up a nice little suburban area. Basically everyone on the block gets these interesting tablets and packets delivered to their house and for some reason they ingest them no questions asked. From there, the company tracks their reactions to the chemicals secretly. If nothing else the plot is certainly creative.

As one might expect, the drugs bring about unforeseen complications. The biggest side effect is that eventually your body melts. Like, completely. It's pretty gnarly honestly and that is the word I thought of when looking at some of the effects. It's disgusting, but almost cool to see some of the creative things happening on screen.

The movie can be compared to Bad Taste in regards to budget, but Dead Alive in regards to creativity. It's a highly creative and entertaining film. It's also pretty disgusting but if that's what you're into then this is the ticket. Overall I found it very enjoyable and I wish there were more movies out there like this.

Dracula 2000

Year: 2000
Director: Patrick Lussier
Writer: Joel Soisson, Patrick Lussier
Genre: Horror: Vampire

Dracula 2000 is right up there in cinematic worth aside Godzilla 2000. Seriously. The "2000" of the film is that it's a modern take on the whole Dracula tale. There's not a thing wrong with that in theory and it actually starts out kind of cool. We begin the movie in some crazy bank vault with a man who appears to be the grandson of Van Helsing or something of that sort. A troop of highly trained men crack into Van Helsing's safe one night (despite having no clue what's inside it). Apparently, anything worth that much security must be worth zillions of dollars. So they get in there and extract a coffin because they're certainly not going to leave empty-handed. I'm sure you can assume what the coffin contains.

From then on things descend quickly into silliness. Really, the best thing about the film is that we have a hunky Gerard Butler playing Dracula. Beyond that though the film is nearly pure teenage Hollywood drivel. That's not to say there are not things to like about it. For one, it is kind of cool how the characters were modernized. However, the film also seems to be plagued by the worst product placement ever. It seems that stuff was really vile in the late 90s/early 2000s. Virgin Records is pimped so damn much in the movie for no good reason you'd almost think this was a commercial.  Honestly, when Dracula gapes in astonishment at the store for 30 seconds you tend to notice.

If you're just looking for a very simplistic and flashy vampire romp it's not so bad. I doubt the movie was ever really intended to be taken seriously (like say, Bram Stoker's Dracula [1992]). Especially with a name like Dracula 2000 it seems targeted squarely at the kind of audience who goes gaga over graphical splendor and sirens. So, overall the movie wasn't for me.

Misery

Year: 1990
Director: Rob Reiner
Writer: Stephen King, William Goldman
Genre: Thriller

First things first I went into this movie without ever reading the original Stephen King work. I'd like to at some point, but basically I've seen every King item before ever attempting to read it. Anyway, so here's Misery which I believe was a hit when it came out.

The story is based around a successful author who has been writing a series of novels. He'd like to finally break away from the series though so in his latest book he kills off the main character (it is not yet published he has just written the draft). As he drives on a snowy road back from his writing retreat, he loses control and crashes off the road. Someone finds him and nurses him back to her house to continue to care for him. This woman happens to only be his biggest fan. But unlike when most people say it, she is truly devoted to the series and its characters.

If you know nothing about Misery then it's probably best you continue to know nothing about it because then the movie can lull you in. You feel like there is something very sweet going on between the author and his caretaker. She is a little awkward, but there's nothing wrong with that. All she wants to do is care for her idol and she's doing an amazing job at it.

Obviously, things can't stay all rosy for this story sprang from the mind of King. The spiraling down to worse and worse moods and conditions is pitch perfect. I wouldn't have sped up or slowed down the progression of anything. It seems perfect. The movie was quite enjoyable and I'm glad to see it was able to become a movie so readily. It seems normally a story focused on two characters alone in a house would be hard to keep interesting.

Eyes Wide Shut

Year: 1999
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Writer: Stanley Kubrick
Genre: Drama: Mystery

I wasn't sure what to expect when watching Eyes Wide Shut. At over 2 hours long I thought it must be some sort of twisted epic... some sort of exciting sensual ride which I would emerge confused from. What the movie actually is is a pretty straight forward dramatic mystery. While I'm sure it titillated and disturbed audiences to me it seemed a rather dull exercise. Or, perhaps a very grandiose attempt to tell a simple story.

That doesn't mean I don't like it. In Eyes Wide Shut the main character is having a nice married life with a young daughter. However, things change as one night she reveals how much she had desired to cheat on him once, but didn't. The thought festers in his mind as he obsesses on it throughout the day. He comes across an old friend of his who inadvertently lets him in on a very secretive party he will be at. For some reason, this becomes the main character's obsession - to break into this party.

From then on things get all mysterious and creepy about the party and what happens to those outsiders who infiltrate it. Personally I don't quite get what the point of the story was. It all comes to pass one way or another and we are left back in the very plain husband and wife world. What was the point of showing such grandiose things? Why all the decadence and secrecy for something which we will never truly know? Maybe that's the point of it, but it just seemed to end on a very dull note.

Still, the characters are compelling and I was drawn into seeing what would happen. It's an okay film but not really worth watching unless you're having a Kubrick-athon or have read the novella it was based off (Traumnovelle).

Monkey Shines

Year: 1998
Director: George A. Romero
Writer: George A. Romero
Genre: Horror: Drama, animal attack

Monkey Shines is a weird movie. It all starts out one day with the camera following a man who seems to have it all. He has a gorgeous girlfriend and pictures around his home of him winning what looks like marathon races all around. This man is in prime physical shape and seems to be heading places. On his morning job though his fate is changed when he is hit by a car which paralyzes most of his body.

Because he becomes so reliant on others, his brother sees it fit to get him a helper monkey, sort of like a seeing eye dog. The monkey is issued commands and does whatever he can to aid his human companion. The little capuchin is cute and things all seem to be looking up. But then people start turning up dead.

Honestly, the movie sounds like a big joke when being described. Somehow though it all feels rather believable and it's still easy to get sucked right into the wild situation. It is a bit annoying though how the film ends. I don't know, maybe I just don't like happy endings.

If you've ever wanted a pet monkey maybe this movie will make you think otherwise. I've always wondered why this certain type of monkey was banned from ownership in certain states and it would be laughable to think it was in any way due to this movie. There are probably other reasons, but with all the other crazy things that someone can own - why not a little monkey?

If you're in the mood for strange monkey/human interactions I'd recommend Altered States. It's kind of strange how similar the movies are for one base feature of them, but nothing else. Altered States is definitely the much weirder of the two films though, and not recommended if you don't like trippy things like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Matinee

Year: 1993
Director: Joe Dante
Movie: Charles S. Haas
Genre: Comedy

Set near the end o the Cold War era, this is a strange little movie. Jon Goodman plays a Hollywood wannabe hotshot who is making sci-fi pictures. I say "wannabe" because although he thinks he's better than Hitchcock he really only succeeds at making 50s era-style silly sci-fi movies. His latest creation, "Mant", is about to play in a small town.A young teen boy widly devours everything sci-fi, so he is excited as can be that the famous director of these movies is coming to his city. From there, things get goofy.

Matinee is a sort of treasure. I'd generally have never picked it up but it's kind of a cute love letter of sorts to the eras gone by. I'd love to sit in a theater with a movie in Smell-O-Vision, Shock-O-Vision, Scare-O-Rama, or anything like that. But obviously those things were never meant to catch on which is why we're mostly done with that dumb stuff today (well, maybe 3D can be classified the same way much of the time).

The movie is strange because there are multiple layers of reality going on simultaneously. It's nothing deep like Inception, just that there is the reality of the movie plot, the character's in the  movie theater plot, and the overarching Cold War scare. It's silly and cute.

Strangely though the whole movie seems to be parodying the fact that people were scared at all for these events. Sure, ducking and covering wouldn't have done any good but still, there was certainly a legitimate reason for people to be scared out of their minds at times. Well, I suppose it was a nice message for the time anyway. Overall the movie is nice PG fare with a fun sci-fi twist. Besides, Mant is a hilarious movie and worth watching all by itself.

Psycho

Year: 1998
Director: Gus Van Sant
Writer: Joseph Stefano
Genre: Horror: Mystery

Everyone and their mother knows Psycho. Being one of Alfred Hitchcock's seminal pieces is certainly no small matter. From what I know, when Psycho came out in 1960 everyone was stunned when the heroine was killed about halfway through the movie. That shower scene has gone on to be one of the most famous and recognizable moments in any film. With a movie as important to the genre as this it seems strange anyone would even dare to remake it.

However, the remake did happen and it follows the strict plot of the original. If you were to play the original alongside it most aspects would remain unchanged. Because of this, the movie is quite good. It's a testament to the original's story and method of storytelling that it still works well today. But then, if the original was such a good film then why waste the time remaking it?

There's a saying that if something isn't broke then don't fix it. Psycho wasn't broken and there was no need to go in and spice the film up with more current actors. Sure, they fulfilled their parts well but why watch this? The original is perfectly watchable today. Unless someone can't view the black and white version it is silly to need to watch this one. Even the shower and stair scenes are replicated as best as possible. They were made to look just as hokey as they did back then.

Basically I feel that there's no reason to watch this movie. If you're going to check out Psycho you should go with the original.

Girly

Year: 1970
Director: Freddie Francis
Writer: Brian Comport
Genre: Horror: Thriller

Girly is an odd little British film. In it, we have a family living all together in a great big house. Their names are Mumsy, Nanny, Sonny, and Girly. In fact, their names were the original title of the movie but when it was brought to other locations they simply called it "Girly".

Sonny and Girly are two adorable and attractive teenagers who just love to play games. They play not only because it is a rule Mumsy imposes but because they enjoy it. One of their games is to find men and bring them back home with them. There they can play with everyone until Mumsy decides they are no longer needed. Once they are dull or break the rules they are murdered. Sounds like perfect family fun to me!

It's definitely unusual to see these characters all interacting. The home life of all the inhabitants is strangely infantile and free of adult logic. Even though there are multiple adults present it never seems any of them ever focus on "tough" matters. It's interesting to see how everyone interacts and how their world is normal to them.

Unfortunately, the movie is rather dull. There's some fun to be had but mostly I never was able to get into the groove of watching it. It also ends on a very abrupt note. You feel like the movie could continue on further but we never get to see the final resolution (you're simply left to assume).

My Bloody Valentine

Year: 2009
Director: Patrick Lussier
Writer: Todd Farmer, Zane Smith
Genre: Horror: Slasher

My Bloody Valentine (3D) is a remake I actually contemplated going to see when it was out. To me, it seemed like the perfect way to cap off a Valentine's Day date. However, as fate would have it I never went to see it then. Watching the film today lets me know that was probably the best twist of fate ever.

This movie is entirely too dull. The premise presented is neat enough... A miner killed his partners in a mine shaft, then it collapsed, leaving him in a coma for years after. He came to some years later and started killing once again before being shot down during his spree. More years pass and then it seems our miner killer is back again!

It's close enough in soul to the original except that it doesn't feel nearly as fun. It's all dull and you never find yourself caring for anyone. The movie almost feels like a horrible train wreck at points. There is a part where a woman is completely naked and running from the murderer. Yes, 100% nude. This takes the "girl in skimpy outfit running from maniac" to the extreme and I can't say I liked it one bit.

None of the lead males are especially compelling either. I mean, are we supposed to feel for the young cop on the force who had some of his friends die to the maniac? I could initially understand that but nearly a minute after he is introduce we find out he's a huge cheater. I don't know about you, but knowing someone is cheating rather uncaringly on their partner isn't going to bond me with them. As for the other guy, well, he just feels like a slab of concrete. He's got no real personality that shines through. Oh, there's a "twist" ending too. I figured it out early on and I'm sure anyone else watching will catch it too.

Maybe I sound harsh but I'm mad that I wasted an hour and 40 minutes on this thing. If you like or want to watch it though, then more power to ya.

The Stepfather

Year: 2009
Director: Nelson McCormick
Writer: J.S. Cardone
Genre: Horror: Thriller

I don't know what it was about the 1987 original but I really liked The Stepfather. Because of my enjoyment of that version I was a little apprehensive about giving this movie a view. Either way, I've gone and done it and it wasn't so painful.

This film is very similar to the first. Basically, you've got a man who goes around trying to find his perfect family. He meets divorced women with kids and worms his way in until he can marry them. However, things seem to never exactly work out so he murders them and runs away to find a new family. This is the tale of just one family and it's decent.

 The characters are all decently believable. It's good to see characters actively raising attention about how strange the father is. In many movies, characters just tend to gloss over that stuff (so that the killer can keep on killing). Sometimes it feels like characters are too detective-like but I suppose that's better than simply going with the flow. It creates a "staccato" murdering spree which is neat.

The movie isn't incredible or great or too good but it's okay. Fans of the original might as well see it for better or for worse.