The Stepford Wives (Remake)

Year: 2004
Director: Frank Oz
Writer: Paul Rudnik
Genre: Thriller, comedy

I don't know what Frank Oz was thinking when he made this movie but I can attempt to guess at it. It's the 2000s and feminism is over and done with. Women are completely equal. Actually, women might even be more powerful now and are definitely wearing the pants and asserting it. So, let's make fun of that! Even the original movie was pretty hilarious! Men wanting their wives to be subordinates to them? Naaaah that's so dumb we've got to ratchet it up times a million now! That's what I think he was thinking and it just not work for me.

You see, in this take of the film, Joanna is no longer a sort of meek feminist. She's now a powerhouse media icon along the lines of Oprah. She has tremendous power and only loses it when one of her TV shows causes far too much of a ruckus for the CEO. They fire her, and in an attempt to make her feel better, her husband whisks the family away to the gated community of Stepford.

One of the things I don't like about this film is that it immediately presents the women as 100% warped from the get go. There's no question as to the fakeness of them and maybe they figured everyone already knew. Still, that basically kills off all potential growing drama when there's nothing to wonder about. Beyond that, Joanna is tremendously unlikable. She is what I imagine a lot of men view feminists as. They are always stiff and unfeeling in their dark power suits and have nothing but disdain for most around them. Since I believe the point of the original The Stepford Wives is still pertinent I find this version to be mocking the mere notion of it.

Anyway, beyond that the movie is actually very different from the original film. It takes mostly a life of its own by injecting some new characters and changing around the big reveal. I guess that's cool because then it would give people more of a reason to see the new film. There's nothing more useless than a remake that is a carbon copy of the original. Still, I'm not sure the changes that were made were for the best. I guess there's nothing I can do about it now though except wait for the eventual remake of this remake to come out down the line.

Blood Freak

Year: 1972
Director: Brad F. Grinter, Steve Hawkes
Writer: Brad F. Grinter, Steve Hawkes
Genre: Horror: Monster - Mutation

Man, I knew Blood Freak was going to be a weird movie when I saw the cover but I didn't know just how weird. Or how dull. The film focuses on a man who is friends with two sisters who apparently both want a piece of him. One is hyper-religious and the other is a no-rules kind of gal who's into recreational drugs. While at first he seems ready to stick with the first he becomes swayed by the other sister. This is important somehow.

After he smokes some weed he gets a job with an animal testing lab. He is simply to eat the genetically enhanced chicken meat and see if it affects him any. For some reason, this makes him grow a chicken head and become a bloodthirsty maniac. From then on lots of murdering ensues.

The story is mostly cobbled together out of nothing. The whole drug thing really doesn't seem to relate to the chicken bit and yet ends up being a very big part of the finale. Overall it seems like the movie wants to have an anti-drug message (quite a statement in the 70s) but I don't see how the chicken thing works into it. It seems like perhaps they used the guise of a crazy horror film to lure teens in only to bombard them with a message by the end. How sneaky of them!

The murder isn't even all that interesting anyway. For one, every female has the same canned scream when she dies (apparently the men also only have one scream variety). I've never been sure why people use canned screams but maybe it helps keep the actor/actress throats safe. Anyway, it's not very gory aside from a little blood and mostly is really goofy. I think that has most to do with the chicken-headed man but the victims also look and act silly.

I'd avoid this one unless you're in the mood for a shoddily-produced dull movie. Or if you're terrified of chickens, maybe.

Feed

Year: 2005
Director: Brett Leonard
Writer: Kieran Galvin
Genre: Thriller

There are some movies out there that make us question our humanity. Then there are movies that attempt to disturb us with the furthest reaches of humanity. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don't. In the case of Feed I'd have to say they don't succeed at all.

If you've ever seen The Human Centipede and liked it then this movie may be for you. For me though I hated the film. It seemed to focus too deeply on how gross the concept was rather than actually formulating anything solid for us to watch. I feel much the same way about Feed except that the idea behind it didn't really bother me at all.

In Feed, the story is based around romance, I guess, and the different ways people express it. In one relationship, the man is completely jealous and also violent. In another that is touched upon, one of the lovers wants to be fried up and eaten by the other (this is no secret, happens in the first few minutes). Then the focus of the story is the relationship between one man and woman where the man fattens her up to some 600 pounds.

I'm not sure what about this is meant to be so shocking. There are all kinds of people out there and at least in the case of these two it seems to be a consensual deal about being fed. Despite this, some Australian cop freaks way out and comes all the way to America to try and stop this evil man from his consensual but odd relationship. I don't understand the point and none of the characters are likable. It's a very dumb film focused on how HORRIBLE and GROSS and WEIRD this TOTALLY IS. Eh, it's mostly silly in its over-exaggeration. For some reason there are a lot of explanatory monologues too. The film really would have done better without attempting to throw all the logic behind these things at us.

So there you are. If you liked The Human Centipede then you might very well like this too. Beyond that though I'd say skip it. It's weirdly preachy and ultimately has no good point.

Wishmaster 2: Evil Never Dies

Year: 1999
Director: Jack Sholder
Writer: Jack Sholder
Genre: Horror: Fantasy

Because I felt I hadn't suffered enough I took the time to watch the second Wishmaster film. As it turns out, it's better than the first. For one, the massive over-reliance on CGI is mostly gone. There are some new gross gore scenes, and generally the movie just makes a bit more sense. I still didn't really like it but it was an improvement.

This time around the evil genie man gets sent to jail. With all the murder he was committing in the first movie it really only was a matter of time. It's in jail where he gets to grant the wishes of may convicts. They seem to take things in stride even if people are getting screwed up left and right. Just pass him a pack of cigarettes and it's about the same level of dealings that these guys were used to before.

Beyond that there's some sort of story going on with the lead woman but really it's the genie who is the star. His slick demeanor drives everyone nuts except the viewer. It's entertaining to watch him work his magic on unsuspecting victims.

Still, the movie seems to rely too much on the coolness of how wishes can be mistranslated rather than any true story. Sometimes it's fun when there's no real story to have to focus on but in the case of Wishmaster 2 I mostly fell asleep. It might be a good time for some people though.

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.

Boxing Helena

Year: 1993
Director: Jennifer Chambers Lynch
Writer: Jennifer Chambers Lynch
Genre: Drama

If you've never seen Boxing Helena I will suggest you never do. That is, unless you're a fan of terrible films. Why would I make such an accusation? One simply needs to watch the film and will probably be left feeling much the same way. Let me elaborate.

First off, Jennifer Chambers Lynch is the daughter of David Lynch, which is quite a name to live up to. I'm not sure if she wanted to be a director or just wanted to try her hand at it. Certainly she probably had seen all her father's films and they must have left some sort of impression on her. I feel like Boxing Helena was her own attempt to create something unusual to leave a mark on American cinema-goers. I'm sure it left a mark, but not the predicted one.

The film takes us into the world of a man who is married but longs for another woman - Helena. Apparently he had only been romantic with her once but that was enough to have him obsessing and yearning way after the fact. Despite knowing better he invites her to a party just to "see her again" and things spiral quickly downward for everyone involved.

It's a weird movie but not in a Lynch way. It's weird for the plot which is very simple to comprehend but not understand. Why would people behave in such a way? Why would horrible acts be treated as great? And who on earth thought the ending (which I will not spoil) was clever in any way? It's weird, dumb, and cumbersome. This is all my opinion, of course, but I'd strongly advise from wasting time with it.

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.

Prom Night

Year: 2008
Director: Nelson McCormick
Writer: J.S. Cardone
Genre: Horror: Slasher

When I started watching this movie and seeing the basic plot being structured I thought it was not a remake of the 1980's Prom Night. As it turned out, it's not a "remake" at all but a "re-imagining". Honestly though, there are basically no similarities between the two whatsoever. With this being the case they really should have just made an entirely new, not titled "Prom Night" film. However, as seems to be the case in Hollywood, scripts only seem to get optioned if they are an adaptation or remake.

So, with the fact that there is absolutely nothing binding this version to the original I can't compare them. I can say however that this film all by itself is a decent horror romp. It's another PG-13 horror film so you never get to see wounds inflicted directly although you do get surprisingly graphic stabbing sequences (does that make sense?). I guess you might have to watch to see what I mean.

The story focuses on a pretty high school senior. Three years ago she was stalked by one of her teachers and this stalking culminated in him killing her family. Now living with her aunt and uncle it is time for her high school prom - and the murderous teacher just escaped from jail.

It all plays out in a pretty straightforward fashion but I found myself getting very antsy when characters were being stalked. I don't know what caused this. It might have been the movie or it may have just been my mood while watching but it's always fun when a film makes you a little scared. Online it seems the movie is unanimously panned, which seems strange. Unless I've suddenly grown soft I thought this film was acceptable. It's nothing classic or noteworthy but it was an okay way to spend some time. However, I don't generally enjoy films that don't employ empowerment of the lead character at some point so, it definitely loses some points there.

The film also made me question a few things. Like, I was really excited to see a black leading cop character. I'm so used to the typical white tough guy cops/fatherly protectors that it was nicely refreshing. On that same note it made me wonder why the lead wasn't the black teen instead. She was perfectly competent and it's not like the actual lead was all that great anyway (just blonde and blue eyed). I know it's nothing new but it would have been cool if the people who made the film had the same idea as me. The scenes that scared me most were the ones of the supporting gal, not the actual lead girl!

If you ever have the chance to watch Prom Night (either of them) I would suggest the original. While they may be two entirely different films with the same location the 1980 film is infused with much more spirit. Aside from that, it has a Jamie Lee Curtis dance number which is awesome.

Following

Year: 1998
Director: Christopher Nolan
Writer: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Mystery, Drama

I'm starting to think I'm not a fan of Christopher Nolan. I'm sure that's blasphemous to say in the film community but I just can't get into his movies. He seems to really like nonlinear storytelling, which I suppose is fine, but I don't like how the eventual reveals are meant to be huge deals. I've seen Memento and Inception and didn't enjoy either of them. I'm sure that will lose me a few fans right there.

Honestly, I just don't find the point to these films. But this is not a discussion of those other movies this is a discussion of Following. I wasn't grabbed right at the start and never ended up getting grabbed. I had a bit of trouble distinguishing between characters. Because I did have this issue may mean that was purposeful and "significant" but I never caught on to the significance. I'm not a stupid movie-watcher by any means it just never clicked.

As for the story that was being told nothing really interesting seemed to be going on. I'm not really a fan of crime or mafia/gang drama as is so that may have been why. I liked the look of the film, at least. It was very attractively done in black and white. I'm not sure if that was necessary but I suppose it was an unusual noir tale.

So, fans of Memento would probably find a great film here. If not though, then feel free to skip right over this.

Alice

Year: 1988
Director: Jan Svankmajer
Writer: Jan Svankmajer
Genre: Fantasy

The story of how I became a Svankmajer fan is one that happened fully on chance. It came from reading some random thread on SomethingAwful and seeing someone with the strangest animated avatar. Someone asked them what on earth it was. The answer was it was the baby in the film Little Otik. As the image intrigued me so damn much, I went ahead and got a copy of the film and watched it straight away. It was great. It was a sort of fairy tale gone dark and weird (in a much different and "realer" way than Tim Burton's modern stuff). So, that's my backstory.

I didn't even know he made an adaptation of Alice in Wonderland until more recently. Obviously, it interested me but finally just got around to seeing it shortly ago. While it does contain his signature eccentricity, it doesn't come together as an all-together great piece. Firstly, the film draws on much too long and is very dull in many parts.

There was some definite charm and moments where I laughed out of sheer amazement, but these moments were few and far between. The story is about the same as the original from what I recall, but of course played out a bit odder. The caterpillar character for example is a sock with holes in it which he fills with marble eyes. he sits upon a wooden knob and hides in a desk drawer while sleeping. It's odd stuff.

What is most interesting is to see how what is now basically classified as a "children's story" can still be so warped. In the introductory monologue Alice states that this is a movie for children "perhaps?". All I know is it would be a rather horrific movie for a child. The visuals are much stranger than any Disney film and the animation technique of Svankmajer always borders on creepy. It might be worth a watch for Alice in Wonderland buffs, but otherwise you're not missing much.