Evil Dead Review

Fede Alvarez’s Evil Dead, a remake of Sam Raimi’s cult-classic The Evil Dead, is one of the best horror remakes of the past decade (though I don’t think that is saying much). In an era of Saw VI and Texas Chainsaw 3D, it was refreshing to see a film that embraces the (at times) ridiculous plot points and character choices present in horror movies (e.g. going into a creepy, dark basement alone). During many of the scenes, however, I wasn’t sure whether the movie was trying to be silly, or if it was actually that outrageous. By the time I saw the scene where a character is brutally stabbed and the others run to get water and sugar to help with his blood loss, I knew this had to be a joke. At least, that’s what I hope. It must also be noted that the film is not as scary as the trailer makes it out to be. I only jumped a couple of times, and the “scary” scenes were more gruesome than they were frightening. Though Evil Dead isn’t as terrifying as I had expected, true horror fans (especially fans of the original film) will not leave the theater disappointed.

Much like Raimi’s The Evil Dead, the remake begins with five college-aged students who decide to spend the weekend at an isolated cabin in the woods. However, in this version of the story the main character Mia (Jane Levy) is a drug-addict, who is using the cabin as a place to battle withdrawal under the watchful eye of her friends and brother. Because Mia almost died from a recent overdose, the group decides they will not leave the cabin until she has successfully sobered up. Unfortunately for them, the cabin has a history of demon possession. When one of the characters finds a variation of the Book of the Dead in the cellar, and of course reads aloud from the books pages, a powerful demon is awakened and the bloodbath begins.

I really enjoyed the inventive new premise of Evil Dead. The drug withdrawal storyline is a good way to tie the characters to the house just long enough for the demon to possess Mia. Additionally, it gives the characters an explanation for her erratic behavior (at least until others fall victim too). The film also gets points for being the goriest movie I’ve ever seen. In comparison to its low-budget predecessor, this film spares no expense when it comes to gruesome makeup and special effects. If you ever wondered what it would look like if someone licked an extra sharp box cutter, or cut off a limb with an electric carving knife, this is the movie for you. However, if you are a bit squeamish, you may want to skip this film (or at least prepare to shield your eyes). Full disclosure, I am not a big fan of gore and had to look away from the screen many times. Isn’t that the fun of a horror movie, though?

In terms of entertainment, Evil Dead was pretty solid. I love movies (horror movies especially) where you feel compelled to yell out to the characters on screen and tell them how stupid they are acting. However, due to the fact that I was underwhelmed by the lack of truly scary moments and that the ending carried on way too long, I wouldn’t suggest you run out to theaters to see it. This is definitely a movie you will enjoy via Netflix.
My Score: C

Evil Dead Trailer

Stoker Movie Review

There are certain films that are more like a work of art than a film; Stoker is one of them. Directed by Park Chan-wook (Oldboy) in his English-language debut, Stoker is a psychosexual thriller that highlights beautiful imagery even amongst a fairly demented storyline. The title “Stoker” alone brings to mind Gothicism and vampires, and while that is not the subject of this film, the theme of generational “bad blood” emanates throughout the movie. Although Stoker may not be for everyone, many of the scenes evoke emotional responses that will stick with you for days, even weeks after you watch it. That is the sign of a good film.

Written by Wentworth Miller (Prison Break), Stoker is the dark, coming-of-age story of India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), a young girl on the cusp of adulthood who is dealing with the sudden death of her beloved father Richard (Dermot Mulroney). India and her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) have a strained relationship, which only gets worse after Richard’s younger brother Charlie (Matthew Goode) arrives for the funeral. India and her mother have never met this mysterious man, since he has spent most of his life traveling through Europe. Though he at first appears to be a breath of fresh air for the grieving family, the audience is quickly shown that Uncle Charlie is not the man he pretends to be. However, due to his charming personality and ability to fill the void left by his brother, it doesn’t take long before both women fall in love with him. This love-triangle, along with many devious twists, paves the way to a powerful third act confrontation that finally answers the question, “Who is Uncle Charlie?”

Stoker is one of the best cast movies of 2013 (so far). Mia Wasikowska shines as a Wednesday Addams(ish) teen, dealing with her transition into womanhood, as well as her own inner demons. Wasikowska is completely believable in the role and expertly demonstrates that she has the acting chops to keep up with fellow Aussie, Nicole Kidman. Along with Wasikowska, Nicole Kidman is fantastic (as always) in the supporting role of Evelyn. She continues to show what a dynamic actress she is, going from her trashy character in The Paperboy, to a creepy, yet elegant mother in Stoker, to her upcoming role as the glamorous Grace Kelly in Grace of Monaco. What can’t she do?! Matthew Goode is also incredible as the charming, yet menacing Uncle Charlie. He plays the role with an air of mystery, which constantly leaves the audience wondering what he will do next. Other supporting characters played by Jackie Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook), Dermot Mulroney (My Best Friend's Wedding), and Phyllis Somerville (The Big C) round out the fantastic cast.

The one thing that sticks out the most in this film is Park Chan-wook’s fantastic imagery. Even in the most violent scenes, Chan-wook finds beauty. For example, in one scene India is brutally bullied by a classmate at school. To defend herself, India stabs the boy in the hand with her pencil. Following the attack, there is a fantastic scene of India casually sharpening the blood off of her pencil, which is both disturbing as well as intriguing. Another one of my favorite images was of India lying in bed, surrounded by saddle shoes in various sizes from childhood to adulthood, which she unknowingly received from Uncle Charlie on her birthday each year. These types of scenes not only show Park Chan-wook’s artistic gift, but are also what sticks with the audience long after the film has ended.

Stoker is a film that attempts to answer the question of nature vs. nurture. It just may not be the answer that audiences want.

My grade: B+
 

Stoker Trailer

Oz the Great and Powerful: A Love Letter to the Wizard of Oz

The Wizard of Oz is one of my favorite movies; I used to watch it every day as a kid.  I loved the music, the battle between good and evil, and of course, the ruby slippers. However, I was shocked when I heard Disney was developing a prequel. Who would dare tamper with such an iconic film? Not nobody not no how!

Let’s get this out of the way, Oz the Great and Powerful, directed by Sam Raimi (Spiderman), does not hold a candle to the original, nor is it anywhere near as good as the hit Broadway musical Wicked. James Franco is poorly cast as Oscar, who later becomes the Wizard of Oz, and the plot lags at many different points. What I do appreciate, however, is that the film is a love letter to The Wizard of Oz. In almost every scene, there are references to the original film that are either mentioned in dialogue or are up to the audience members to recognize (make sure you look for a pasture of horses of a different color in the background of one scene). Try not to get bogged down in the (at times) dull plot and instead, think of the movie as a scavenger hunt.

Like The Wizard of Oz, Oz the Great and Powerful also begins in black and white. Oscar (James Franco) is a carnival magician and con artist who has loved too many women and angered too many men. After an especially angry bodybuilder comes after him, Oscar escapes in a hot air balloon. Unfortunately, he didn’t notice a menacing tornado barreling toward him and is swept up and diverted to the brilliantly colorful world of Oz. Here Oscar meets two “good” witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis) and her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz). They mistake him for a long prophesied wizard that will save Oz from the “wicked witch” Glinda (Michelle Williams). The sisters show Oscar a Scrooge McDuck-esque vault full of gold and inform him that Oz, along with the money, is his as long as he brings them Glinda’s wand. Of course, Oscar sets off to find the wand, befriending a winged monkey (voiced by Zach Braff) and a porcelain doll (voiced by Joey King) along the way. His friends help him pay attention to what is actually going on behind the sisters’ devious curtain in order to free the people of Oz.

This may sound silly, but besides the references to The Wizard of Oz, my favorite part of the film was the opening credits; it is a hodgepodge of visuals reminiscent of a puppet show and really is fantastically done. Additionally, the colorful costumes and CGI imagery, especially the whimsical landscape of Oz, make the film pop. It was nice that along with the black and white (Kansas) to color (Oz) device from the original film, Raimi also used a more compact aspect ratio in Kansas and transitioned to widescreen in Oz. I thought it would have also been awesome if Raimi had started the film in 2D and then jumped to 3D in Oz. Oz the Great and Powerful really demonstrates how far Raimi has come in the CGI realm since Spiderman 3.

Besides a plot that is at times dull, my main complaint about the film was casting James Franco as Oscar. As opposed to the charming and captivating character the script calls for, Franco is instead forced and over-the-top. It is hard to care what happens to Oscar because Franco is completely unbelievable in the role. Someone like Robert Downey Jr. (the original choice for Oscar), an actor that can effortlessly transition between humorous and serious dialogue, would have been a much better choice. Mila Kunis was also out of her element in comparison with the performances of Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Weisz gives the best performance of the film. Her wickedness, compared to Williams’ ethereal goodness, gave the perfect juxtaposition between good and evil. I wish, however, that Weisz’s character had some of the same campy dialogue used in the original movie. If there is a sequel, I pray it focuses more on the sisters and leaves Franco to a minimum.

Hopefully Wizard of Oz fans can get through the clunky, at times boring plot (and James Franco) and see the movie for what it is, a love letter to our favorite movie. Plus, if the box office is good, maybe this will push Universal to finally develop Wicked for the big screen. Fingers crossed!

My grade: B- (for effort)

Oz the Great and Powerful Trailer

21 and Over Review

If you like tasteless pee and vomit humor, 21 and Over, written and directed by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (The Hangover), is the movie for you. On the other hand, if you like movies that actually make funny jokes and have original plot points, you will certainly want to sit this one out. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy raunchy jokes, but they at least need to be funny. What the movie instead develops into is a Hangover rip-off full of incredibly racist, sexist, and bigoted jokes. I finally reached my limit of tolerance when the characters made Bosnian War rape jokes. Hopefully this summer’s tent-pole comedies The Hangover III and The Heat will put Hollywood back in the right direction.

21 and Over begins where the movie inevitably ends, childhood best friends Miller (Miles Teller) and Casey (Skylar Astin) walking through a college campus completely nude, save a sock over their more private areas. The two are in town to celebrate their other friend Jeff Chang‘s (Jason Chon) 21^st birthday. Only, when they arrive, Jeff informs them that he has an interview for medical school the next day and doesn’t want to go out. Miller and Casey easily change his mind and a night of debauchery begins, full of vengeful sorority girls, a buffalo, and a mysterious gun (and that’s only the beginning of it). When Jeff gets way too drunk and passes out, Miller and Casey set out on a quest to find his house, all while dragging him around Weekend at Bernie’s style. Of course, this journey also comes with many silly side-missions and encounters with “villains”.

While I enjoy the three main actors (Miles Teller was fantastic in Rabbit Hole and Skylar Astin showed he is a triple-threat in Pitch Perfect), their characters are generic and poorly written. As in many recent comedies, there is a Raunchy Spice (Miller), Straight-laced Spice (Casey), and Innocent, Yet Easily Corrupted Spice (Jeff). The actors did the best they could with a bad script, full of poor jokes and inconsistencies. One horrible inconsistency was during most of the movie Jeff Chang is basically in an alcohol-induced coma, but then magically awakens in time to drunkenly drive a car through the college campus. Word to the wise: Binge drinking and drunk driving, while joking about suicide and rape, is not an easy way for a character to relate to the audience.

The only thing worse than the main characters was the group of “villains”, a horde of Latina sorority girls, male cheerleaders (who of course had homosexual undertones), and Jeff Chang’s strict father. The movie became even more ridiculous, if possible, through all the ways these villains would reemerge and mess things up. The action of the film had enough conflict without these horrible contrivances.

The main takeaway from this movie is if you are going to be raunchy and shocking, you have to also be funny. Unfortunately, humor is what this film is lacking.  Probably my favorite part of 21 and Over, besides the end, is that the filmmakers have already set it up for a sequel. Please… please don’t let there be a sequel (unless it’s focused on the only interesting character in the movie, Chief).

My Review: D-/F

21 and Over Trailer

Oscar Predictions!

It is almost time for the Academy Awards (Oscars), my favorite night of the year! I have been watching the Oscars religiously since I was little and anyone who knows me knows I make a big production about getting ready for MY Super Bowl.  Although I am disappointed by how political the whole process has become, the Oscars give me the chance to rant and rave over who won or lost, or rage over those people and films that were snubbed by the Academy all together (cough THE IMPOSSIBLE cough). To prepare for the big night, I watch every movie that is nominated (even down to the shorts) so I will be able to be an Oscar judge myself. Thankfully, this was a great year for movies.

Starting in November, movie studios and publicists begin to campaign for their films to receive an Oscar nomination. They mail members of the Academy various “For Your Consideration” advertisements and screeners (DVDs) of their films, as well as host special free screenings in theaters around the United States. In late December, the nomination ballots are sent out to the Academy’s 6,000+ voting members who are split into categories based on their profession (e.g. actors, directors, makeup artists, etc.). During the nomination process, each Academy member may only vote to nominate people from the professional category with which they are associated (directors vote for Best Director, actors vote for the Best Actor categories, etc.).  The only exception is Best Picture; every member of the Academy votes to nominate the Best Picture category using a preferential voting system (which is a more complicated process to explain than there is room in this article!). The categories for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Animated Picture are nominated by a committee of people chosen from different professional categories.

The ballots are then sent to PricewaterhouseCoopers, an accounting firm used to certify Academy ballots for the past seventy-nine years, for official tallying. The nominations are announced at a ceremony in Hollywood in January. Once nominations are announced, final ballots are then redistributed to the Academy members for voting.  Unlike in the initial nomination process, every Academy member is allowed to vote on each category for the final selections. The final results are announced on the live award ceremony.

Best Picture

What Will Win: Argo. Argo has been racking up the awards this season; the most important being Affleck’s Best Director win at the Directors Guild Awards (DGAs). The winner of Best Director at the DGAs has correctly predicted the Best Picture winner at the Oscars 58/64 times, meaning they have only gotten it wrong six times in the past sixty-four years. Those seem like good odds to me.  

What Should Win: I would be happy to see Argo win. It was a fantastic film that will hopefully make up for the fact Affleck was not nominated for Best Director.  I do wish, however, that Zero Dark Thirty and The Impossible (it’s shocking to me that this film wasn’t even nominated) could all qualify for a triple tie.  

Best Director

Who Will Win: Steven Spielberg (Lincoln). In a year where many other directors should be nominated, Spielberg will win this one by default. Though I wouldn’t be shocked if the Academy surprised everyone with a win for David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook) or Ang Lee (Life of Pi)

Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty). I loved Ben Affleck’s direction in Argo but it took a lot more skill and talent to bring all of the elements of Zero Dark Thirty together. Bigelow’s snub at the Oscars proves just how political the nomination process has gotten.  

Best Actor

Who Will Win: Daniel Day Lewis (Lincoln). Daniel Day Lewis’ portrayal of  Abraham Lincoln was top-notch. I don’t think anyone can disagree with that. Known for his intense method acting, Day Lewis proved he deserves to be on top.

Who Should Win: Daniel Day Lewis. Few, if any, actors in Hollywood could pull off such a great portrayal of Lincoln. Too bad Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables) and Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook) had to be up against him this year. 

Best Actress

Who Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook). Jennifer Lawrence has recently become the front-runner for Best Actress. While I love Lawrence, she is one of my favorite actresses, I don’t think her performance was the best of the year. She was great, but Naomi Watts and/or Jessica Chastain deserve to win this one.

Who Should Win: Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) or Naomi Watts (The Impossible). Due to the politics of Hollywood, I would be very surprised to see Chastain walk away with a win. Her incredibly restrained performance in Zero Dark Thirty would be hard for any other actress to pull off. She is the best actress to come to Hollywood since Kate Winslet. Unfortunately, she was unable to schmooze with the Academy elite at the traditional Oscar campaign luncheons and parties because she was starring in a play, The Heiress, on Broadway. Not to mention, due to Zero Dark Thirty’s perceived “political” nature, it hasn’t been receiving the accolades it deserves. Naomi Watts’ performance in The Impossible was also incredible; her gut-wrenching, emotional portrayal of a mother trying to bring her family back together in the midst of the 2004 Tsunami tragedy was amazing. In 1969, there was a tie for Best Actress between Katharine Hepburn (The Lion in the Winter) and Barbra Streisand (Funny Girl). Can this please be the year that happens again? 

Best Supporting Actor

Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained). This choice is partly that I think he will win and partly that I refuse to write Tommy Lee Jones ‘(Lincoln) name as a potential winner. Jones plays the same role in every film he is in… which is himself. Waltz was fantastic in Django Unchained and out of everyone nominated for Best Supporting Actor, he deserves it.

Who Should Win: Tom Holland. Holland was absolutely fantastic in The Impossible and it blows my mind that he wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. It is incredible that he was only thirteen years old when he filmed the movie. Thankfully, with his talent, I expect to see him at many awards in the upcoming years.

Best Supporting Actress

Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables). Hathaway did a great job in Les Miserables as Fantine. When thinking about the film, her emotional rendition of “I Dreamed A Dream” is what sticks with you.

Who Should Win: Anne Hathaway or Amy Adams (The Master). Hathaway brought a lot of emotion to Fantine and I wouldn’t be terribly upset to see her win. However, I would like to see Amy Adams take this one home too. Adams is great in everything she’s in and I appreciated her incredibly reserved performance in The Master. With her fourth nomination, it’s finally time for Adams to take the prize.

**Don’t forget to watch the Oscars on February 24, 2013 at 8 pm on ABC. I’ll be live tweeting the event and would love to hear what you think (@flickchickdc)! Who do you want to win the top categories? Discuss below.

Snitch: Duller Than Expected

Snitch, directed by former stuntman Ric Roman Waugh, is the latest example of Hollywood’s movie trailer trickery. While the film’s trailers make it look action-packed, in reality the action scenes only account for small parts of the movie (most occurring in the third act). With a former stuntman as the director and Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson (Fast Five) as the lead, it was surprising that the film lagged. Admittedly, the duller, dialogue-driven aspects of the plot made the tagline “inspired by true events” more plausible, as opposed to the continuous off-the-wall action scenes that I had expected. As an audience member, however, the 112 minute runtime seemed more like 180. Snitch is one of the better films in Johnson’s repertoire, but it is a movie you will forget pretty soon after you watch it.

The premise of Snitch is interesting. A teenage boy, Jason (Rafi Gavron), makes the mistake of accepting a package of Ecstasy sent by his best friend Craig for safekeeping. It turns out the package was tracked by DEA agents in a setup plot, whereby Craig would get a reduced sentence in exchange for snitching on Jason. Because the quantity of pills was so large, Jason was charged with drug distribution, which carries a minimum of ten years in jail. The only way he can reduce this sentence is by ratting on someone else. Unfortunately, Jason has no other drug contacts to snitch on and refuses to setup any of his friends so he is out of options. That is, until his dad John (Dwayne Johnson) takes matters into his own hands. John persuades the U.S. attorney (Susan Sarandon) to dismiss his son’s case in exchange for his help in capturing a drug kingpin. When the situation starts to escalate, John must decide whether his son’s freedom is worth risking his life.

While the premise of the film is intriguing, especially since it is based on a true story, the screenwriter seemed to be more interested in projecting a political message, strict drug laws in the United States need to be changed, than developing characters and an interesting storyline (I won’t even get into the scene where John searches for “drug cartels” on Wikipedia). The audience is constantly asked to feel sorry for Jason’s situation because he is a “good kid”, however, the only example we are given of him being “good” is the fact he is going to college; you’re not given enough time to meet Jason and feel bad for him before all of the action starts. It also seemed strange that high-target drug dealers would be so quick to trust a man like John without asking more questions, or at least following him! John made so many trips to the U.S. attorney’s office and prison, I was convinced he was being followed. Disappointingly, the situations I created in my head were much more suspenseful than any scenes in the actual script.

Though underused, the saving grace of Snitch is its fantastic supporting cast. Susan Sarandon (Thelma and Louise) once again proves she will shine in any role, however minimal, and Barry Pepper (Saving Private Ryan) plays one of the most interesting characters in the film, an undercover DEA agent who serves as a mentor to John. It was also nice to see Jay Bernthal (Shane from The Walking Dead) onscreen again. His character, an ex-con who uses his past connections to introduce John to the drug world, was poorly written, but he did the best he could with the material.

 

If you are looking for an action-packed thrill ride, Snitch is definitely not the movie for you. In fact, it should be classified as a drama more than an action movie (I was going to say thriller, but few parts of the film were actually thrilling). Though I appreciate Johnson’s attempt to break away from his action-hero persona, this was not the movie to do it.  This is definitely the type of film you should wait to come to TV, and even then, you will probably forget you’re watching it when you flip the channel during commercials.

My Score: C-

A Good Day To Die Hard Skip A Movie

 
In the latest installment of the Die Hard franchise, A Good Day to Die Hard, audience members are once again asked to suspend all notions of reality to jump into the world of John McClane (Bruce Willis). With a survivability rate akin to the Road Runner, John and his son Jack (Jai Courtney) brave extreme car crashes, heavy enemy fire, oh, and radiation exposure at Chernobyl (maybe we will see the effects of that in future movies). Unfortunately, this good luck does not extend to the content of the film; the script is full of cornier than usual one-liners and a typical, yet also convoluted, action plot: Russian bad guys want nuclear material, American good guys try to stop them. I’m ready for something new from the franchise. I can excuse corny jokes, though the “I’m on vacation” shtick got really old after the third time it was used, but a boring, scattered plot is killer.

As opposed to the other Die Hard films, where it is up to John McClane to save the day, in this film, he is partly responsible for the conflict. Upon hearing that his estranged son Jack is imprisoned in Moscow, John sets off to free him. On the surface, it looks as if Jack has gotten involved with the wrong crowd. However, in reality, he is an undercover CIA officer who is assigned to protect Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch), an imprisoned Russian billionaire, from his former partner Viktor, a prominent Russian official. Komarov has a key to a locker, which is allegedly full of incriminating information against Viktor; he was going to use this information as leverage in exchange for freedom. As it turns out the CIA is also interested in the information, so on the day of Komarov’s trial, Jack busts him out of jail. Unfortunately, John interferes and the extraction plan is ruined. It is now up to John and Jack to protect the asset and retrieve the information. Got all of that? When the action then shifts to Chernobyl, and a “surprise” twist emerges, the film is unsalvageable. 

 
The best parts of the previous Die Hard movies are the villains. Alan Rickman (Die Hard) and Jeremy Irons (Die Hard With A Vengeance) were especially fantastic as McClane’s nemeses. In A Good Day to Die Hard, however, the main villain, Alik, is lacking. His signature characteristics are tap dancing and eating carrots… scary stuff. There were no mind games or witty dialogue; in fact, the “most chilling” thing he said to the McClanes was “I hate cowboys”.  The radiation at Chernobyl was the scariest aspect of the movie for me. 

Besides immortality, the running theme throughout the film was characters’ “daddy issues”. Jack resents John, and Komarov’s daughter seemingly resents her father. I will admit that the relationship between father and son was an enjoyable addition to the franchise. It was nice to finally see John interact with a member of his family throughout the whole film, as opposed to a brief hug before the closing credits or a two second phone call in the third act. However, the relationship storyline needed to be more fleshed out. The audience understands that Jack has issues with his father, but never find out exactly why. Is it because his dad worked a lot and didn’t have time for his family? Why is there so much resentment? 

 
A Good Day to Die Hard is not the type of film you want to see only months after seeing a great action film like Skyfall, nor is it the way Hollywood should want to start 2013. If you’re a hardcore Die Hard fan, you may be disappointed by how far the franchise has plummeted. Speaking of plummeting, one particular scene at the end of the film, reminiscent of Die Hard, made me wonder if the studio has plans to hand the reigns of the franchise to Jai Courtney whenever Bruce Willis decides it’s time to retire. Was this his coronation into the world of Die Hard? Perhaps the studio is leaving it up to the box office to decide.

My Score: D

A Good Day To Die Hard Trailer