Reviews

**1/2 out of ****

Upon reading the reviews, a lot of them entailed that while "Oculus" is told in a non-linear fashion, that it makes sense in the end, and that everything is wrapped up in a nice little package. I think we saw a different movie.

"Oculus" revolves around brother and sister trying to figure out if the mirror is responsible for a tragic death that occurred, which landed brother into the loony bin.

Now what I liked about "Oculus" is what a lot of critics did as well: Mixing the past with the present, sometimes with events that are a figment of one of the character's imaginations, or seen from a character's different perspective. This leaves what could have been a typical "something went bump in the night!" story, behind. But why this doesn't work: It feels like there's no plot. Rather than having your exposition, your rising action, climax, etc., it's like there's no climax, there's no "ah! that's why this makes sense" moment. It's like watching fragments of a movie, with no complete picture.

One thing I must say is that the acting wasn't all-around spectacular like many lead me to believe. The sister was at times a bit much, and her "theories" got to get a little out of hand. It reminded me of those overt-religious movies that get too preachy. But other than a few times she got out of hand, she was solid. The brother was serviceable but nothing amazing. The father was a really good actor, but the mother was a little wooden. The little kid actors though stole the show. I might even start to believe the child actors were better than the grown-ups!

Now what's shocking about "Oculus" is how light it is on scares, and surprisingly, how much it relied on jump scares and cheap thrills. While every reviewer out there will try to hinder this fact, I'm going to tell you while the way it's presented is a little different, it's essentially the same scare-vehicle. You have people coming in and out of scenes, the whole "gotcha!" moments, etc. It was like "Insidious". But I have to hand it to the filmmakers, there was a few times I was watching "Oculus" where I was flabbergasted.

What a few reviewers picked up on was how pitch-perfect the editing was, and I agree. Studying editing myself, and cutting together some amateur videos, there was not one shot I would change, editing-wise. Everything ran at the length it should have, I liked transitions, etc. But as far as direction goes, the beginning and end leave a lot to be desired. I didn't have as much as an issue with the beginning as most people had, but some of the stuff just did not work. The dialog got to be cheesy, character motifs were pretty questionable, it felt at times like a rough draft. And that ending? I might not have taken a Psychology course, but even I don't think everything fit like a perfect package.

What stays the same in all these mirror movies are the complex structures, and I don't know why. "Mirrors" which came out maybe half a decade ago was completely nonsensical and rather dry. "Oculus" was more interesting you could argue, but still kind of perplexing and nonsensical in its structure.

I think the biggest problem with "Oculus" is not that it wasn't what I expected, in a matter of fact, that's what might get a lot of non-horror fans and general moviegoers to see this one. It's the fact that it is way too silly to take seriously at times. We already had to suspend our belief with the mirror already, but there's some instances that took me out of the film.

While it sounds like I found this movie highly problematic, I will say that it didn't disappoint me to the point where I regret seeing it. Not exactly praise, or a reason to get you to see this movie, but it's definitely different. I just wouldn't go in expecting something among the greats such as "The Conjuring". If you expect more like this year's "Insidious" or maybe even "Sinister", you'll walk away a little more fulfilled.

I'm going to give "Oculus" a mild recommendation and advise a matinée.

When people compile their list of favorite directors, Sofia Coppola is usually absent. While she hit a home run with "Lost in Translation", and while "The Virgin Suicides" put her on the map, there lies the clunky "Marie Antoinette" (I haven't seen it, but critically it was a misfire), and "Somewhere" isn't in the league of her first two films (both audience/critic-wise). So I can understand why she hasn't made lists yet.

What intrigued me about "Somewhere" was not only who was at the helm (Coppola), but in fact Coppola's interviews for the film. She said she envisioned the script when she stayed at the exact hotel the movie takes place in, and how it mirrored her and her father (Francis Coppola)'s relationship, back when she was a younger girl. She basically gave the impression this was a deeply personal film, including her taking control of the shots of the film, and with her writing credit as well as her directing credit, I couldn't wait to see how the film unfolded.

The critics were spot-on with "Somewhere". It's not a great movie because "Somewhere" turns into "Nowhere" at times, but it was worth going along the ride at least once. But what made the trip worthwhile? Like any review hasn't mentioned this, but the acting from Dorff and Fanning was nothing short of excellent. But the way Coppola uses facial expressions, long pans without any dialogue or movement, combined with aesthetics to create mood is definitely a skill she's picked up from film school. Everything here matches the tone perfectly, along with the pitch- perfect score (It was funny hearing Gwen Stefani's "Cool" in what appeared to be a 70's/80's set film, but to my surprise the time period was modern). I also loved the color palette/scheme of the film. Visuals here aren't exactly perfectly detailed, and at points it looks like it was shot at 35mm, but that's part of the charm.

Where did "Somewhere" go "Nowhere"? For starters, the pacing. Never once did I drift off the screen too much, but there's moments in the film where if it were to be exempt from the project, I don't believe it would disrupt the flow, or take anything away from the film from an emotional standpoint, but Coppola let all 97 minutes run by. Also, I understand Coppola's style of filmmaking is to let the pictures do the talking, not exactly the script, but some moments in the film (where a dilemma is reached), the audience is scratching their head because they aren't exactly sure what a motive is behind a character, or why it would be a big deal. And that ending could've used some work.

I don't doubt your average moviegoer will rip "Somewhere" to shreds. With its cautious pace, its quite environment, and anti-Hollywood portrayal (even if that's not a major concept Coppola tackles), this is not for everyone. However, just because a film may be different than what you are used to seeing doesn't mean it has to be bad, so this is where "Somewhere" succeeds. My advice to Coppola is that she continues to shoot films how she'd been shooting them, and to keep her aesthetics on a leash, but to give her characters more to work with because at times the experience can be lagging. All in all, despite some bumps in the road, "Somewhere" is worth seeing at least once to show how much Coppola has come along since her previous efforts.

** out of ****

While the first Thor generally received favorable reviews, it wasn't exactly met with acclaim. But I liked it a lot more than I had anticipated, so I thought lightning would strike twice (pun- intended), especially since this time around, reviews weren't too striking (pun-intended) for "The Dark World". With my logic, the reviews would REALLY not subside my experience of the film. Well... they were spot-on. The top critics that is.

I'm not going to re-tell the synopsis for you. It's Thor. It's the sequel. There's a comic book to it and when you read a review for a blockbuster sequel, you just want to know the simple answer to a very simple question: Is the movie good? No... but let's not get too carried away with the fact it's not great, because it's not bad. So where does the problem lie?

Well for starters, this movie was underwhelming as hell. With so many twists and turns, and changes in character motifs, you'd think the film would be very emotionally enveloping. But it just feels so dry, because the pacing is too abrupt to let you soak in the material. And characters just pop in and out of places, without a sense of cohesion or above-average scriptwriting.

The first to me really nailed the chemistries between characters, but this one didn't make me care for anyone with the exception of- you guessed it- Thor. I found Darcy to actually be borderline obnoxious here, and Jane was just... Natalie Portman. Even Anthony Hopkins felt underused with his character.

I understand being a sequel, you want to rush to the big action set pieces and show off every penny you've spent on graphics/effects, but what made the first Thor so great is while it was visually pleasing, it connected to its viewers on a more emotional level. This made for some truly epic moments and considering it took its time, the payoff was way more substantial.

Also, while I viewed this in 2D, I feel it would be so unnecessary to see in 3D. No 3D moments. It doesn't seem like it'd have this grand depth of field. It just looks like a lovely 2D production.

While "The Dark World" may snag an Oscar nom. for its art direction, there's a reason why the nominations stop there. I'm not saying "Thor" should aim at an Oscar (that'd be spectacular though), but just saying it should aim at least somewhat higher. With a more rushed pace, a lack of cohesion (feeling dodgy in parts), and a more than underwhelming resolution, "The Dark World" roped me into a lackluster one. It's not exactly a bad movie, but with the inflation of movie tickets, who wants to see an inferior sequel to a better-made original? (Which is cheaper to view by the way).

**1/2 out of (****)- FRESH

Sporting its T&A as proud as a high school diploma, the scantily-clad beauties venture off to their neon-infused Candyland from Hell in the bombastic "Spring Breakers". If one were to just take a glance at the posters or the commercials for this movie, it would garner a lot of groans. Another teen sex romp? It's unfortunate this didn't draw in the movie it should've, because if you scoffed at what you thought Breakers was going to sell you, it did it's job. Because this isn't the movie your expecting. At all.

The movie opens with a typical Eurotrip-like crowd pleaser. Plethora of boobs, loud party music, visceral beach shots, etc. It's all there. Soon enough, when the scenes are darker (both figuratively and aesthetically), that's when you know you walked into the wrong movie. What I found interesting about Spring Breakers was actually its cinematography. It's like Putting Edge (a neon mini golf facility) splashed onto a movie. If ever your mind drifts from the movie, you still are awe-inspired by the visual aspect of the film.

What I liked about Breakers that few movies do right is how you actually feel like your on a ride. Most films try to emulate the experience, but it's stuck in that Hollywood gloss. Fortunately, Harmony Korine's art form drowns his movie out with a euphoric soundtrack, Enter the Void's the hell out of the movie, and gives our characters this odd, dream-like approach. And he takes it a notch further by building this obscene tone and atmosphere.

I also think that this movie is highly controversial. I applied the later party shots, depicting the true brutality of parties like this, the over-the-top level of nudity, the debauchery, etc. There's also a saucy pool threesome tossed in for good measure.

What might take you out of Korine's tour-de-force is the lack of story. For a movie with a striking tone, a precise direction, and a lot more going for it, a script is one it lacks. But with such an abstract movie like Breakers, a story isn't going to be your biggest issue.

My last complaint is how it's not too coherent. It's like Korine wants to enhance this level of madness/insanity you feel watching it by making a very off-the-wall pacing and throwing a lot of rough cuts at you. This leaves you perplexed in places where you really shouldn't feel that way.

Breakers is a mostly hit-and-miss affair, but I enjoyed it greatly. You'd think with a "6", I didn't care for it much, but it's a high one. When most films concentrate on a story or its characters, Breakers does something new. It concentrates on the tone/atmosphere and in the end, you're rewarded with a unique experience. It might also be one of the most well shot and interestingly directed films you're likely to see this year. Critics or fans may be divided, but I thought Spring Breakers was a good movie.

** out of (***)

The first Child's Play surprised audiences with its decent tension build-up and likable characters, but with #2 going straight for the kills, the suspense is killed and Chucky is about a fraction of menacing as he was in the first.

The problem is that Chucky is shown during the killings. This is a problem because when we're supposed to be cringing, we're laughing. The first did this perfectly because we only saw a silhouette of the doll, nothing else (sans the third act). If the doll HAD to be shown, maybe less screen time and witty jabs?

Moreover, I had more fun when the film tried on different hats. For an example, the scenes between Andy and the other foster child, and how the values like family, trust, etc. are put to test. That alone made for an interesting character background, and I would've preferred to have that relationship carry on throughout the film as the doll slashed his way from victim to victim.

The highly-talked about toy factory sequence does not disappoint either. The gore is amped up to about infinity, the races are on, and that's pretty much when the sh*t hits the fan. Too bad the whole film didn't have that spark.

What would've made Child's Play 2 a more taut film? Dispose of the whole "no one believes Andy" subplot. It happened the first time, it just gets more "been-there-done-that" as it continues to happen. Furthermore, develop Andy and the foster child (as I previously stated). And less screen time on Chucky would pay off in spades.

All in all, this is not a bad sequel. This movie could've gone in much worse directions as its future sequels (the abysmal "Seed of Chucky"), but they should've just scrapped the material. The first by itself would've made for a terrific little thriller. Now that it's a franchise, all appeal is lost. Well on the brightside, if you like this little bugger, you have 4 more movies with him. As for the rest of us, we'll be re-visiting the original. So I guess everyone wins?

In honor of Friday the 13th, I decided to pop in the 'ol 1980 Cunningham classic "Friday the 13th". I remember the first time seeing it and thinking to myself "that was a damn good movie". Keep in mind, I was half my age too. Even with still being a horror fan since childhood, I can easily say I don't know how the hell I liked this film the first time around considering it almost put me to sleep at about the midpoint of its running time.

My biggest gripe with this Halloween rip-off (I'm quoting the director people!), is the pacing. I kid you not, there are shots of absolutely nothing filling the screen and they can run as long as five minutes. If you were to actually compile all the deaths and fights/mayhem into one movie, it'd be as long as a Youtube video.

Now I'm one for character development, but these characters are some of the most unlikable people I've come across. You have your genre staples, okay I get it's a run-of-the-mill slasher, but never have I suffered this much through such wooden acting. Is it bad to say I really didn't care the final girl either?

And what is up with everyone saying the kills are tremendous. If you blink, you'll miss it! Not only did the MPAA butcher the hell out of these scenes, an axe to the face is hardly what I call trend-setting.

Why do I think Friday the 13th retained its notoriety? For one, the clever plot twist. I might have my gripes with the pacing/characters, but one thing is that out of all the by-the-number slasher plots, this one mixes up the formula just enough to give you a taste of something new.

Also, while this film is touted for its kills, it actually racks up some decent tension in its early kills. Is it embarrassing to say I was actually on the edge of my seat at some parts? And lastly, the ending. It may be a cliffhanger, but again, it's a smart one at that.

What do I think would make Friday the 13th even more of a classic? Get a new editor, fight with the MPAA until you get rights to your kills, and hire a new cast. Oh right, they did that with the new remake. Strangely enough, they're both the same (quality-wise). Well, I guess no matter if you re-make Jason, pit him against Freddy, this is just one story that (so far) has not bode well from script to silver screen. What a shame.

(***) out of (*****)

"Happy-Go-Lucky" is the sort of film I expected to be a critically-acclaimed family-friendly tour- de-force into Sally Hawkin's everyday life. What you'll get instead is an independent, not-for- everyone sort of tour-de-force, but still keeping its critical (and public?) acclaim. How did it resonate with me?

A bit overrated. Sure the average IMDb score is a 7, which I'm awarding it, but while I'd give the film a solid 3/4, most are either impeccable or near-impeccable marks (which I can understand), but I feel while being a good film, has its problems.

Let's start off with the good: Without Sally Hawkins, this movie would just fall apart. You take her away and anybody could've made this movie. Well, the cinematography definitely scores some points as this is a BEAUTIFUL movie to look at.

I also liked that the movie really reached its art-house status, most notably when Hawkins interacts with a homeless guy. Lots of subtlety going on in that one, and this is where her character really takes off.

What irked me? The pacing. This is a film that's surprisingly very slow, and it takes a while for you to get used to the main character (since when the title reads "Happy-Go-Lucky", it really delivers upon what it promises). And, maybe this isn't a gripe, but just how depressing that climax was. This film is like eating a piece of cake. It's all sweet, maybe too sweet, and then BAM! It hits you. Yes, the resolution leaves the movie on a positive note, but it's a little too abrupt for you to feel all giddy about yourself again. And also, there were some things left unopened, as the child's past (I thought we could've delved a little deeper into that).

All in all, if you're looking to take a walk away from the real world, see the entire thing, skip the climax, and finish watching at the resolution and it's your money well spent. I can't deny the cinematography is gorgeous and the acting is quite up to par, but the direction left me a little underwhelmed to say the least. While I had my gripes here and there, this is a film that maybe isn't deserving of its full acclaim, but it's at least worth a look.

(**) out of (****)- ROTTEN

"A Haunted House", "Movie 43", and now "Scary MoVie" in my opinion are actually not the death of cinema and while they are all awful, they do so in a way that's pretty entertaining in a so-bad- it's-good theory but still guys, don't waste your time if you have it elsewhere to spend it on.

After riding of our beloved Anna Faris.. and pretty much everyone, leaving us with Ashley Tisdale left me worried. But actually, I liked Ashley! She put a fresh spin on the genre and is good at playing crazy. Everyone else? direct-to-DVD level acting. The jokes? Immature, gross, mildly amusing. Actually "Mama" and "Black Swan"'s spoofs steal the show.

Clocking at an 80 (last time I checked) minutes, this runs pretty short and without its credits, so if you're hurling at the inaneness of it, it'll be over in no time.

Maybe I'm being more lenient on films because I feel I've been too picky, or maybe I'm just having a field day, but I truly believe there are far worse films out there. That's not to say these aren't bad, but for what I was expecting, not that bad. And Lindsay Lohan pretty much MAKES the movie, even though she's in it in the blink of an eye. And for what it's worth, it's actually better than the tepid 3 and 4 of the series.

(**) out of (****)- ROTTEN

"It's the Citizen Kane of awful!" "It's been shelved for over three years!" "No actors are promoting it" "It has a zero on Rotten Tomatoes!" Who on EARTH would pay to see such a thing? Me of course! Call me sophomoric, but whenever I want to see a film, whether good/bad consensus, I see it anyway out of my own curiosity. To my surprise, maybe I just had too much of an open mind or I had some LSD, but this movie is not the earth-shatteringly, god-awful atrocity probably 95% of the Internet is leading you to believe.

What they're not telling you is how entertainingly awful these skits are, but the sour feeling you get after you watch it does not leave you. See with Movie 43: It's pretty damn amusing to see actors such as Naomi Watts and Kate Winslet to be engaged in some pretty degrading roles, and see them just take a big sh-t on their career. The problem? This is where the fun ends.

For one, I hate the rating of this film. It's a solid R (tons of breasts, vaginas, etc.), lots of foul language, and I wouldn't even feel comfortable having my 15 year old cousin watching this, but the humor is so childish, without all its adulterated gigs, it would be a G rating. It's almost like the directors are left with this weird, unclear demographic. What's also pretty lazy about this film is how cheap the entire thing looks. You can definitely see all the money went to these actors and not much else.

There's not much to be said about Movie 43, than what I already have said. The skits, while entertaining to see your favorite stars engage in some whimsical gags, just leave you with a bitter feeling afterwards, like you just gave a homeless guy on the street money for crack. And the entire thing feels cheap and nothing more than a cash grab. Nonetheless, it induced a few laughs out of me here and there and while it's a train wreck, it's one I couldn't stop looking at. So Movie 43 is tolerable, however, there's no way in hell I'd see it again.

(**) out of (****)

Giving "Paranormal Activity 4" a passable score is a bit of a stretch, considering how badly I want to give it a 4, but that wouldn't be honest. What I can tell you is this is probably the weakest "5" I've given a film. Let's cut to the chase: Even if you're a "Paranormal" fan, there are absolutely no scares in this one. Well, there wasn't really in the last one (in my opinion), but this one just re- enforces that belief.

Where did it all go wrong? Humor. Okay, I understand you have to inject some (especially considering a new direction), but they went overboard. At times, I thought they were going to cross Scary Movie territory. Also, too polished in some areas and rough in others. Unlike the first two, (maybe) the third one, this has Hollywood written all over it. For an example, the soccer match in the beginning of the movie is too crisp/smooth for a film like this. It suspends all belief. Yet scenes within the family at night, are a little cheaper than before.

So NO scares? It's everything the series avoided. A plethora of jump scares. All this build up for sometimes a no show. And many GOTCHA! moments, that are not organic in the least. The main lead does a fine job, but her boyfriend makes me raise a finger or two. And don't get me started on the family. And that ending? Golly. This might be worse than The Devil Inside's resolution!

If they make a fifth, go back to the territory the first two explored. After that, the series just took a decline. Typically with films rated a "5", you should at the least rent it, but you really don't need to waste your time with this one.

"One of the goriest experiences of all time"! "The whole audience fainted!" "I threw up". I'm not sure which movie people were talking about, but sign me up because that sure as hell wasn't "Evil Dead". Before I get written off or torn by my limbs, the Evil Dead trilogy was and still is my favorite trilogy of any film. I have watched each movie at least three times and own a copy of the Book of the Dead edition of the first "Evil Dead" and have forced each and one of my friends to watch the first "Evil Dead", and even they loved it.

Where does it all go wrong? The first "Evil Dead"'s notoriety was garnered for pushing the envelope with its grotesque portrayal of violence, yes, but it also had a charismatic lead. I don't care about gender, I don't care that we don't have "Ash" anymore, Mia just isn't a great lead. Yes she's gone through a lot, yes her backstory pretty much spells her character, but a sob story shouldn't be the main reason why we should put our fists in the air.

Now what every person came to watch "Evil Dead" for. GORE. GORE. GORE. GORE. GORE. Maybe the fact I spotted cuts every so often, or maybe I'm just desensitized, but aside from the blood- bath, this is pretty much your average horror flick. If any thing, it might be one of the bloodiest films of the year, but not the GORIEST. While TED was essentially "Unrated" (baring it all), I'm still sure the NC-17 version of this re-boot can't touch the continuous break-neck pacing and violence of that movie.

I'll give the movie points for TRYING to establish character development and bringing some new insight, but it's so underdeveloped that if anything, it takes the movie out of place. We're supposed to "care" about these characters when in fact we don't. They're not bad actors, actually, some surprised me, but at the end of the day, we just want to see some flying limbs. And with that being said, it cuts into 1/3 of the movie.

The most-raved about opening sequence is nothing more than a disappointment. Cue the foul language. Cue every cliché in filmmaking history. And of course cue the blood card. It's laid out all on here. Well at least the tree rape was a solid homage, but I still prefer the original's.

All in all, "Evil Dead" can't be described as "awful", "insulting", or a bad remake. It can be described as "not scary", "average", or really both of those things. With so much hype, and Raimi/Campbell behind this, AND with all the rave reviews from screenings, this is not the movie the fans got. Maybe an unrated version down the road will bump up a few points but for now, a 5 is satisfactory.

*1/2 out of **** (ROTTEN)

Now before you people all throw the "you-didn't-get-it" card at me, you should know, I generally do that to every "indie" flick that really IS the "you-have-to-get-it" card to pull. However, the naysayers are unfortunately right... and right on the money as well. Trust me, I as well as you guys were really pumped for this film. I knew what I was getting myself into anyway. I know the director's works, read reviews, saw advertisements/clips. I am as non-biased as they come.

But it had such a neat trailer, where did it all go wrong? For starters, the pacing. I think a snail goes at a faster pace than this movie. Some sequences go on for just WAY too long. I'm one patient moviegoer but come on now, this is just asking for way too much. Sometimes I felt like a scene would go on for five minutes. It was just way, way, waay too long.

Second off, the entire plot is just put to waste. All the characters are underdeveloped, nothing makes sense AT ALL, and there's just no film structure. I honestly feel like the script missed the mark entirely. The movie you see in the trailer does not even come close to the final product.

From the trailer, you get this "happy-go-lucky" vibe when in reality, it is emotionally straining. The ending is so depressing, I felt like I actually had to take a shower. And not in the good depressing. Almost like it was just "forced" on to be that way, to garner a reaction. Then the uncomfortable tension between Marilyn Monroe and her husband. It wasn't "artsy" to me, it wasn't "bold", it wasn't "daring". It was just really, really emotionally straining.

All in all, I would not recommend this movie. It's way too long, the trailer makes it seem better than it is, nothing makes sense, and usually if there's some underlying meaning in here, okay, but it's just such a flaccid film, I just didn't care. I'm all up for movies that aren't afraid to be different, but at least be interesting. It wasn't awful, considering it had a nice idea and for the first act, it wasn't too shabby. But man... you really couldn't pay me to sit through this again.

*1/2 out of **** (ROTTEN)

Channel the New Year. Already in the second week, the Tomato Meter is at its lowest- a dashing seven percent, and with a spoof movie. This cannot end well. I will admit, the trailer had me chuckling. I'm big on stereotypical humor, and from time to time I like to succumb myself to just stupid, dumb fun. Being a fan of the first Scary Movie certainly doesn't hurt matters.

With that being said, "A Haunted House" is exactly what you'd expect... and not much else. In terms of humor, the ratio's about 2:5. That might seem like a bad mark, which it is, but for a film that aims at the lowest common denominator and scores a higher denominator, it's not too shabby. Acting/story, well, you don't go to these kinds of movies for that. Same goes for editing/choreography.

There's not much you can say about this film. This is one of those cases where you either are the audience FOR this film or you're not. If you're a fan of the first two Scary Movies, have an admiration for the Wayans brothers, and dig the advertisements for this film, you'll walk out of there with some good laughs here and there. If you completely despise these movies, or this type of humor in general, you'll walk out feeling cheated.

However, be warned, this is NOT a kids film (ala a Jason Friedberg/Aaron Seltzer production or even the last Scary Movies that were PG-13). Tons of sex scenes (played for laughs though), nudity, drugs, and such abound.

All in all, it's not as bad as you're led to believe, but it's still pretty flimsy.

** out of (****)

Growing up as a mere lil' fellar, I always had this cautious curiosity with the unknown. I always had this fascination with the paranormal and would be exposed to films such as "The Others", "The Ring", and so on. But one little gadget I had my heart set on was a Ouija board. I heard that absolutely nothing good had come out of it and I've heard some bone-chilling stories that would make the trickle of hairs on my neck stand up. When I recently found out a little 80's cult classic beauty named "Witchboard" surfaced the video shelves, my curiosity was intrigued, and with impeccable interest.

Just glancing at the title "Witchboard", it's pretty sensible to assume it's about a woman who draws a connection to the Ouija board, which at first turns out safe and harmless, but as her obsession grows with the object, the board turns evil on her and evil spirits are released.

Going by the concept, it sounds amusing enough and it is. One of the strongest suits about movies involving the paranormal is that they always find a way to keep things going. Whether shedding some light on the background history of them, a bump in the night, or a shadow in the day. It's always moving along, same with "Witchboard". It doesn't take long to get the ball rolling and when we're introduced to the little doohickey, all interest is piqued.

The acting? Eh, not so much. The performers here aren't exactly the most likable and what they offer is next to nothing. It's almost as if the directors copied some good looking twenty or thirty-somethings and pasted them into the movie, and handed them their scripts. But granted, they aren't terrible. As the film progresses, so do the characters and you'd actually be surprised at the character's motivations or purposes they serve near the film's rising action.

The direction? It's a bit on and off here. There are some moments where I thought it used the premise to its fullest potential and others I thought were a true waste of time. The pacing for the most part is right on the money. It feels like one cohesive picture, (possibly) save for the ending.

Now the one million dollar question: is it scary? Unfortunately, no, but that doesn't mean it's not suspenseful. There are times where I sprung about a foot or two from my seat. And the tone is consistently suspenseful thanks to the score. But when I say there are some moments where it makes you jump, it's not because the director uses the jump-scare tactic (basically minimizing the volume for about 5 minutes and just making a U-turn with the camera and cranking up the speakers to haphazardly affecting your eardrums). It's because there are its moments that build up genuine suspense and creating a chilling atmosphere.

But, my one gripe, that ending. Save for the last three or so minutes and I was contemplating on giving this movie a "6" instead of a mediocre rating, but that resolution just did it for me. They went in such a predictable and uninspiring route. It's almost like eating a nice sandwich, but then finding a hair in it when you're almost done.

All in all, "Witchboard" makes for a decent watch. It has its moments and if there's one thing this movie accomplishes, its the setting and tone. However, the acting and the ending just kill "Witchboard". I bet you if I showed someone this movie, being a non-paranormal fan and replaced the ending, they might actually get into these types of movies. But now I see why people steer clear of them. It's just that typical Hollywood resolution.

** out of (****)

After the abysmal trainwreck that was "The Devil Inside", I was looking for a decent roller coaster ride of chills and thrills. The hoopla for this movie certainly rose to such gargantuan heights, and a good chunk of top critics took a liking to this, so what went wrong? Everything.

"Black" revolves around a young lawyer, who travels to a remote village where he discovers the vengeful ghost of a scorned woman is terrorizing the locals.

Being an avid horror fan, especially of the supernatural sub-genre (if you will), this movie basically shot up my adrenaline from the first shot of the trailer 'til the last. I was more than ready for this movie. So automatically, I am disqualified from the "hater bias" bullcrap you IMDb'ers like to toss around when us average Joe's get disappointed by a film, that we were actually rooting for from the start.

Well, first off, this film is just not scary. The first half of the film is conducive to cheap and generic jump scares, that just fall flat on their faces. Oh look it's some murky liquid leaking from a dirty faucet! Oh look it's just a bird! It was just all very cheap. From the first half, it is just tedious to endure. We don't establish a sufficient enough amount of character development and we really don't go in-depth with the premise. It is just a very stale first hour or so that's chock-full of filler, so as to consume most of its running time. Just lots of blabber about the town and tons of GOTCHA! moments that don't fully run their course.

Then we get to the second half which is a notch better from the first, but still don't bring us anywhere. Here we get even more jump scares, some which prove to be effective and others which are just tedious time-wasters. Here's a lesson to future filmmakers: You can use the cheap thrill tactic maybe about three times at the most. If you abuse your power, you're just downgrading your film and everything else just becomes that much more uninspired. But let's steer clear from my rant of jump scares. The story. From the trailer, the premise sounds bone-chilling and simple enough, right? The film overcomplicates everything and raises too many questions that are left too open-ended. And atop of that, the pacing is just way too slow. The whole film is just a slow-burn effect that amounts to absolutely nothing. And that ending? Oh boy, this movie is just a mess.

Well, there are a few good things I can say for "The Woman in Black". For one, the production crew did their homework. A lot of attention to detail is payed when organizing their pops and set designs. This is one of the most visually exciting horror films I've seen. And also, the performances are very strong. Daniel Radcliffe ditches his whole Potter affair and does something very worthwhile here.

All in all, "The Woman in Black" is such a huge disappointment. The scares go nowhere and are recycled, the pacing is just too slow and tedious that it's almost a chore to sit through, and the premise is even less than compelling. It's quite a shame considering it looked like a refreshing and nostalgic horror film that could've started '12 on a high note. Unfortunately, any potential it had was wasted. Well, I guess you can say it isn't terrible and actually raises a peak of interest here and there, but that doesn't amount to much when you're paying a hefty price for it.

*** out of (****)

Back in the summer of '10, I remember promptly awaiting for my ticket stub, unwillingly actually, for Carnahan's "The A-Team". To this day, I still find it a trashy, long, and overblown action extravaganza. I put it in my worsts of '10 list. Yes, I despised it THAT much. Fast- forward to '12 and I'm ready to put Carnahan's "The Grey" in my bests of '12 list thus far. "The Grey" is everything that "The A-Team" wished it could've been, and still leagues and miles better. It's action-packed, minus the gratuitous nature, it's impressively acted without giving off any pretentious undertones whatsoever, and it's consistently involving.

In Alaska, an oil drilling team struggle to survive after a plane crash strands them in the wild. Hunting the humans are a pack of wolves who see them as intruders.

Now onto the performers. With the six survivors, each and every one of them is fully developed to their greatest potential. It's quite remarkable to see that a film with such a heavy amount of characters still goes into fullest of depths to sustain each person. All did a fantastic job. As for the premise? Very intense, but well-written. The use of symbolism was truly something astonishing and coincided with the film beautifully. And how the script was executed? In such a taut and mesmerizing way. It was interesting to see the film progress and what moment would happen next.

The one element that really separates this film apart is how unpredictable it is. Most survival films tend to miss the mark on trying NOT to be given away, within the first fifteen minutes. Carnahan does a great job of misleading the viewer into what they initially thought what was going to occur on-screen.

With such solid film features, why the imperfect rating? For once, that ending. With such a bold project, that resolution is not only an uncompromising one, it's just a plain cop-out altogether. It's almost as if there was twenty more minutes added to "The Grey" and the director just cut it short and said "See you back next year for the sequel". That was insulting. Second, the pacing at points can be a downer. The film works as a whole, no doubt about it, but you had your scenes where you could dose off a bit or look at your watch. Fortunately enough, those moments are few and far between. And lastly, I thought the language was at times too vulgar. I understand the predicament and the cruel nature, but dropping an F-bomb five minutes or mentioning getting a piece of a woman's assets quite a few times was a bit redundant.

All in all, despite its flaws, "The Grey" is the first film of the new year that's not only been good, but has reached the impeccable heights of surpassing expectations. It might not end up on the best of year lists because this year is quite strong ("The Dark Knight Rises", "The Hobbit", "The Avengers", "The Amazing Spider Man", etc.), but if it does, I wouldn't be taken by surprise. Well done Carnahan.

*1/2 out of (****)

After the promising viral trailer released back ago, I had a leap of faith for the faux documentary-filmed space horror, "Apollo 18". After constant film schedule delayed and incoming sour critical reception, I decided to wait until the film debuted in home video to spend my money then. It turns out, that wasn't the smartest move. You know why? Because I shouldn't have even bothered to watch it in the first place.

"Apollo 18" revolves around some astronauts that fly to the moon, in search to see what paranormal or extraterrestrial presence is there. Soon, they then embark on the antagonist and from there, they try to go back to land.

First off, the performances are just laughably bad and downright atrocious. The director tries to pull a feel-good card from one of the characters with a family, but it just doesn't fit and screams artificial to me. Likewise, the characters are flat and have about as much human qualities as a cardboard cutout. Moreover, the pacing is just so incompetent and the entire film is a bore. For a film that clocks in under 90 minutes, a good portion of it is just brief camera shakes, horror film clichés, and a predictability level that's just off the charts.

With a "4", there had to be some redeeming qualities? Fortunately, yes, but not many. What drew me into this movie was its setting. There aren't too many space horror extravaganzas, so I decided to count my marbles on this one, even though proved to be a mistake. And second of all, the last ten minutes, right before the finale, were actually pretty interesting. Too bad the film didn't delve deeper. What a shame.

All in all, "Apollo" is a bore. I don't need to give you another elaborate paragraph with my sophisticated vocabulary when my kindergarden-written sentence conveys the same message: It's boring. Don't waste your time on this one folks. The scares are absent, the film just goes nowhere and the sucker punch of an ending is one to upset the viewers. Trust me, seeing "Apollo 18" was enough. Come to think of it, maybe not seeing it at all would probably be sufficient enough.

*** out of (****)

Going into "Moneyball", it was moreso dependent on my absolute Aaron Sorkin fetish and a quite intrigue in digesting all the Oscar-buzzing films I could possibly take in. I was never a fan of Pitt. Don't get me wrong, the guy has the chops, but he never astounded me before. Well... now he has. In this 2011 baseball extravaganza, Pitt gives it his all and Sorkin knocks this one out of the park (pun-intended), with his incredible script. But let's not have director Miller's thunder stolen away with this very competently directed picture.

The story of Oakland A's general manager Billy Beane's successful attempt to put together a baseball club on a budget by employing computer-generated analysis to draft his players.

Solely looking at the premise, I merely just copied and pasted, seeing as how I couldn't summarize it better than if I tried. Anyway, what's interesting for this review is that I've never been drawn to sports. Being a heterosexual male, you'd probably revoke my penis card, but in all honesty, I really haven't, especially baseball. But you know what? With the way the story was presented, I actually was indulged in the premise. That and having some spectacular performances didn't hurt either.

The cinematography is just the icing on the cake. The scenes in this film are just beautifully shot and all around are an enhancement to an already solid movie. However, this isn't the movie I expect to either get an Oscar or create an earth-shattering hoopla. The film does take awhile to get the ball rolling and the resolution isn't entirely all that satisfactory, but what we have for the bulk of the movie is good.

All in all, "Moneyball" is not entirely what I expected it to be. Coming from a non-sports addict, it impressed me in more ways than most films of this genre did. That truly says something about the performers, the director, and the writer(s). This movie isn't going to be the best of the year or break records, but so what? In a time of lackluster sport movies and clichéd barrels of boredom, "Moneyball" is a nice exception.

***1/2 out of (****)

After waiting an impeccably long time for "Tattoo" to get the ball rolling into cinemas, a strong critical reception was promised. And I got that, but something was odd. Fincher's films typically are critically acclaimed with a solid praise, almost promising it's THE movie of the year ("The Social Network", "Benjamin Button", and "Zodiac" anyone?). This..., this just got some solid word-of-mouth but strangely enough, no actual hoopla. With a more than prosperous book trilogy and Sweden film collection, how does Fincher's glossy and more polished, Americanized version stack up?

"Tattoo" revolves around our central protagonist Lisbeth, played by the iconic Rooney Mara teams up with the co-star of the show, Daniel Craig. Together, they are on the hunt for the missing Harriet, who vanished nearly half a century ago.

Clocking in at an excessive 158 minutes, never once does this film drop the ball or lose its steam. Boasting an elaborate and rather oily opening credits sequence, what a way to kick off such a mesmerizing movie-going experience. First off, the performances here are just astonishing to say the least. Craig and Mara are the pitch perfect detective duo and give it their all. I can smell some Academy nominations. Moreover, the script of this film is extremely well written, with various amounts of attention to detail. And how the script is executed? Very competent, with every ounce of the script being projected in its fullest potential.

Now where this film shines is rather in the star power. Throughout the film, Lisbeth and Craig's character undergo this intimate love triangle (if you want to even call it that) and makes things especially interesting. But, speaking of intimate and personal, how is the much talked about rape scene? With all the buzz revolving around the three minute tragedy, I can definitely say I've seen worse, but this was still pretty brutal to watch. Don't get me wrong, rape is never an easy subject to touch on, but the execution here was just disturbing and gut- wrenching.

What about the score? Just the cherry on top. Trent Reznor fails to disappoint with this eerie and mostly engaging soundtrack. It definitely enhances this film on all levels. And last but not least, the cinematography is some of the best I've seen. The shots are simply beautiful and when there isn't your fair share of sex, rape, or violence going on, the atmosphere is definitely one to suck you in.

If there was a complaint I would have, it would be the pacing. The first two hours are paced brilliantly, with Fincher directed a very evenly paced and coherent picture. But those last 30+ minutes are edited just very choppy and it goes off the rails a bit after a smooth transition between the hours.

All in all, Fincher has another winner on its hands. The acting, the visuals, the plot, it's all there and it's all quite extraordinary. Is this movie as mind-blowing and earth-shattering as the hype persuades you to be? That's up to you, but personally, it didn't. But what we have here is still a solid picture that is more than deserving to be on a Top 10 list or two. We shall soon meet again Fincher.

* out of (****)

Exorcism films are one of the hardest films to make for two reasons. (1) Critics and audiences alike dethrone nearly any film that doesn't measure up to the impeccable heights of that of Friedkin's 1973 cinematic icon "The Exorcist". And (2) Because they offer next to nothing to the table, making it 80+ minutes of virtually watching the same film- over and over again. (Sometimes even less than 80- Thank the Lord). So typically, I tend to try to be as lenient as possible when critiquing a film of such content because I know it is a tough accomplishment to actually make a serviceable horror flick.

Bell's sophomore effort "The Devil Inside" revolves around Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade) who traveled to Italy to attend exorcism school and to pay a visit to her ill mother Maria Rossi, played by Suzan Crowley. From there, a few questions are at stake. What's wrong with Maria Rossi? Could Maria's demon be transferred to her daughter? Could Isabella turn out like her mother?

Just by hearing the synopsis, I'm pretty sure you don't need to spare 87 minutes to conjure up some logical answers based on the aforementioned questions. But let's talk about the performances first. The acting is surprisingly decent. Everyone here does there job... but that's pretty much it. You can certainly throw character development out the window as every actor is dull and about as lifeless as a cardboard cut-out. It's hard to sympathize with our main protagonists when they aren't even established as characters. Strike one. Strike two, the film takes an excruciatingly long time to get the ball rolling. For the first hour or so, you have to hear some tedious blabber about religion, which doesn't serve as controversial, but just insipid and soporific. I don't mind drawn-out sequences of dialogue, if it has something to say about our characters or the plot, but it's used to consume most of the already short running time. Here's my philosophy: If you don't have enough footage to tell your story and still keep your audience's interest, don't stretch out what originally could've been a solid 15 minute story into 70 more minutes.

Now onto the question everyone wants to know: Is it scary? Absolutely not. "Devil" resorts to generic jump scares, heavy cut-aways, and the shaking of the camera. If you weren't scared by the trailer, you must certainly won't be by the film. Which reminds me, if you're going to shoot a film in mockumentary style, at least make it believable. Just because you shoot in found-footage doesn't mean you can side-skirt believability. I'm one who is prone to stretch my imagination, but not as far as Bell wants me to. What am I, an imbecile?

And lastly, this film is just so predictable. If you're film isn't frightening, and certainly isn't interesting, try to spice it up a bit. If you've watched any film about an exorcism, you've seen this one already. I completely guessed the "twist" (if you can even call it one) even before I got to the theater. And that ending? One of the most retarded endings I've seen in a long time. How they got away with such a haphazard ending is just... MIND BOGGLING.

For the first thirty minutes or so, "The Devil Inside" isn't such a bad outing. It raises a few interesting plot points, the direction is pretty good for the most part, and actually got me invested in what Bell was trying to sell the viewer here. After that, it's pretty much downhill and when you think things couldn't get any worse, the last five minutes prove that. Just when you think the film was going somewhere, it just cuts you off and is of the equivalence of shoving the middle finger down our throats, saying "Ha Ha. I took your money. See us next year for the sequel." All I wanted to see was a decent exorcism movie. I didn't care how predicable or clichéd it was. I didn't care if I was the biggest fan of the actors or not. All I asked for was a decent way to spend 87 minutes, and I couldn't even get that. If you seriously want a good exorcism movie, rent "The Exorcist" or if you want something more modern, see "The Last Exorcism". But for the love of God (no pun intended), do not see "The REPUGNANCE Inside" or "The Rite". Oh and the film apparently wants you to see their "website"? F. THAT.

**1/2 out of (****)

I just finished watching "The Innkeepers" and a hole in my pocket (the OnDemand service will cost you ten dollars), and it does not disappoint. The tension here is very well paced and West (director of "The House of the Devil") creates a moody atmosphere that adds layers to an already serviceable horror flick. The characters are well written and each are inclusive to a very unique complexity. What especially worked about this film was how nostalgic it was. If you rewind yourself back to the 70's and 80's, old school horror was very similar to West's style. Long, drawn-out tension with each frame, and it does not let up. My only gripe is that it takes awhile to get the ball rolling. The buildup consumes about 80% of the running time. That and the resolution is very uncompromising, yet unsatisfactory all the same. Despite some adverse effects, West has another winner on his hands. While I believe "The House of the Devil" was a much more intense and enthralling experience, "The Inkeepers" isn't such a bad way to spend the night. It has some nifty scares, great character development, and a decent atmosphere. And really- could you ask for more?

** out of (****)

Back in X-mas '09, Richie unleashed "Sherlock Holmes", which rang with critics as well as audiences alike. It was inclusive to a few clever gags, some well choreographed action set pieces, and a slick, neat style. Fast-forward twenty four months later and you have the exact opposite. "Shadows" may be eccentric and ambitious in its attempts, but the result is rather unsatisfying. What's even more disappointing to hear is how the film starts off with a bang, but unfortunately lets up before its two hours clocks in.

I won't waste my time and energy deciphering the plot since it's pretty much the same concept except with some twists and turns thrown in along the way, so onto the acting. First of all, the performances are undoubtedly up to par. Without the star power, the films wouldn't carry its weight as great as they have. Downey Jr, Law, Rapace, and McAdams give it their all. In terms of a script? Very jumbled. I will say this though: If you look at the movie in parts, it's a whole other film (an impressive one). But alas, since the film has to run its course, watching it all play out is like watching someone re-arrange the pieces of a Jigsaw puzzle. You know that in pieces its parts are much greater than as a whole.

The major knock against this film is the pacing. The film begins with this ferocious first hour. Action-heavy sequences interspersed with smart dialogue and a very well-guided direction. But once the second hour hits, the script/writing/direction is too misguided. If you're coming here for one thing- and one thing only: The cinematography is definitely up there. Every scene soars with its visuals. Same with its action.

If you want a full-throttle of a ride, ambitious and daring in its actions, see the first half and then leave. The second is not worth bothering for. Richie, for number tres, take a bit more time on how you map out your film direction. It's unfortunate to see such a promising start with such a wimp of an ending. "A Game of Shadows" quickly fades to "A Game of Insipid".

* out of (****)

Let's cut to the chase: "The Hangover Part II" is one of the laziest, unfunniest, and crude films I've ever seen and is the perfect candidate for the worst film of the year. The fact that such a trainwreck was greenlit makes me cringe for Hollywood. Yes, Hollywood has sunken low, but this... this is just hitting rock bottom. The most ironic part is that "The Hangover" was one of the best movies of its year. Funny how, fast-forward in time, the iconic sequel winds up being the complete opposite. The sad part such a film like this is making every one of its millions spent back and there'll be more sequels to come, no doubt about it. With a year full of disasters (i.e. "Sucker Punch", "The Rite", "Arthur), we might've found a new stinker award.

So what's so rancid and unforgiving about Todd Phillip's sophomore adventure with these mongoloids? First off, almost 95% of the jokes in this movie are completely recycled. I understand as a sequel, you have to include some homages here and there or your humor might be the same, but almost quote for quote, word by word? That just says a lot about your credibility right there. Second of all, this film is a drag. As the film progresses, it increasingly becomes more dull and uninteresting. And what really takes the cake is how lazy this film is. Anything that would be shocking, yet simultaneously innovative is just presented bland and insipid here. Congratulations, Todd, you're film might just snag up a few Razzies.

The acting? Everyone here is under-looked because they leave Alan to be the star of the show and boy, was that the worst idea fathomable. If you don't already know, my favorite character from the first movie was Alan. Every time he was on-screen he just stole every scene and would have me quoting his lines everyday. Now, he is just a waste of a character and someone I would single-handedly like to punch square in the face. Every other actor just looks like they had the life sucked out of them. Don't even get me started on the amateur, poor direction that the director had his grubby little hands on.

You know what I think was the downfall of this movie? The hype got to everyone's head. Here's an idea for a sequel: Either make it right or simply, just don't make it at all. Aside from a few jokes, which are TV sitcom worthy at best, this would've gotten a one, easily. "The Hangover: Part II" is not only one of the most disappointing films of the year... it's also the worst.

** out of (****)

Having not watched Harold and Kumar's predecessing stoner extravaganzas, I went into this one completely blind. Not knowing their motive or intention, it was blatant from the opening shot of the trailer of what it was. With the generally favorable critical reception, as well as feedback from fans, this film just didn't stack up. I feel the film spent too much time going over-the-top and pushing the envelope, that it couldn't have just sat back and let the chips fall. This is an especially difficult title to review because I want to recommend the film because it has its moments, but I feel as if its energy could've worked its way into the script.

Harold and Kumar are pretty much up to their old tricks yet again. Except, Harold is now married and has strayed away from his substance use yet Kumar has a more immature perspective by resorting to his weed. Inevitably, they're involved in their stoner pratfalls.

Now with such a commercial and carefree title, this is an obvious one you don't watch with half a brain. It packs in the most politically incorrect jokes its little heart desires while saying "F.U." to every prudish, overly-sensitive audience member. Do I fall into that category? No. I actually smirked here and there. Some of their crude and stereotypical gags were pretty clever. But the humor here is just not original. The humor just outstays its welcome, which is the most major strike a film can have against its self. The acting? Harold and Kumar are likable in their roles. Their bromance is perfectly panned out. The direction? In all honesty, this department brought the film down a notch for me. The director, to me, pushed boundaries but didn't go the route I expected it to go in- moreso wanted to go.

After hearing all these snobby critiques, you're probably sitting dumbfounded wondering, where's the 3D review? You'd pretty much be an imbecile at this moment to be ignorant to the fact that if the 3D is right for you or not. Its all just a huge gimmick- but that's pretty much the point here. The 3D, for what it does, gives the film some brownie points. You haven't heard of too many 3D stoner movies. Christmas themed ones at that. But, the question I'm sure most are asking. How was the gratuitous T+A? You'll get your fix of boobs, vajayjay, penises, butts, etc. Come to think of, some of the obligatory actually coincides with some of the events the characters undergo.

All in all, Harold and Kumar packs a sufficient enough resolution, some smirky moments here and there, and will provide your dose of T+A, but what was once boundary-pushing and fun, feels kind of stale now. The 3D is a brownie-pointer winner, and yes folks, it does score points, but, think of it this way: You order the FATTIEST, GREASIEST burger from a fast-food eatery joint and to make the taste even more processed, you throw in a milkshake in for good measure. This is a very lacking, but energetic 3D Christmas.