Movie Review: Fantastic Four (2015)

Fant 4 Stic sounds like a great title for a
superhero movie

Let's just get this out of the way: Fantastic Four is a bad movie. There's no sense in beating around the bush with this one. Fantastic Four is bad in just about every way. I bet if you were to crack open a dictionary and look up the definition of "bad film", you'd see Fantastic Four's poster sitting right beside it.

With that being said, Fantastic Four manages to achieve a special level of bad, a level that leaves the view perplexed and downright confused after watching this utter train-wreck of a film. You question whether you've just seen an incomplete movie that was slapped together by the heads of a corporation so they could keep the rights to this somewhat cursed property. You wonder what pieces of this travesty were part of the director's original vision, and what was hastily wielded into place by producers to meet some weird, bottom line. You wonder if this film ever had a chance of being something good, or was doomed from the start.

Fantastic Four is like a Rubix cube that has been scrambled, but happens to also be missing a large chunk, making it very difficult to solve. Also, the cube has been covered in a layer of shit, just to make things even harder for you.

The film possesses numerous problems. The most notable is the jumbled mess of a story where things just happen because that's what the script says happens, or introduces plot points that will just be ignored or never fully explored during the rest of film. The tone also jumps from your typical superhero action film to something that would be more at home in a Cronenberg film. The cinematography is lifeless and uninteresting, the effects lackluster, and the direction insipid. I'm actually shocked that this film made it to theaters in this state.

There are a small handful of things that do work in the film's favor, like its short run time and its cast. Fantastic Four is about 1 hour and 40 minutes long and thankfully moves at a brisk pace, making the actual sit a relatively easy one. The acting isn't bad either. It's not amazing, but the cast does as much as they can with what little they are given, with Miles Teller & Michael B. Jordan being the obvious standouts. The only performance that was truly bad was Toby Keller's turn as Victor Von Doom. He plays one of the best comic book villains ever as a whiny, indignant asshat who suddenly wants to destroy the world near the end of the movie because of stupid reasons.

I know some of you are probably curious about how bad Fantastic Four is after hearing so many negative things about. Some are probably so curious they actually want to see the movie. Here's my suggestion for you. Go find a bootleg of the Roger Corman film and watch that instead. While it's not a great movie, it's at least enjoyably bad. Hell, I'd even suggest watching the Tim Story films from 2005 & 2007 over this film. Just skip this one. You'll thank me for it later.

Movie Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians of the Galaxy is a film that should not work. Its a film based on an obscure team of superheroes, directed and co-written by someone known for dark comedy and horror movies, and possesses a talking raccoon and sentient tree within its cast. The film simply reeked of failure and many feared that it would be Marvel Studios' first real flop.

However, much like its titular team of misfits and outcasts, Guardians of the Galaxy manages to defy expectations. Not only does it work, but its easily one of the best Marvel movies to date, standing up there with The Avengers and Captain America: The Winter Soldier. 

Directed by James Gunn (Slither, Super) and co-written by Gunn and Nicole Perlman, Guardians of the Galaxy is a space opera starting a team of unlikely heroes. We have Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), a scoundrel who goes by the name Star-Lord and loves 70's pop music; Rocket (Bradley Cooper), a gun-toting raccoon; Groot (Vin Diesel), a sentient tree; Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a deadly assassin and Thanos' adoptive daughter; and Drax the Destroyer (David Bautista), a tattooed warrior driven by revenge. 

After stealing a mysterious orb coveted by the vicious warlord Ronan (Lee Pace), Quill finds himself with a massive bounty on his head. Once he breaks free of a high-tech prison, these odd individuals are drawn together with the hopes of evading Ronan and discovering the true power of the orb. Can the Guardians manage to save the galaxy, or will they fail and spell doom for us all? 

If you've seen any of the trailers for the film, you'd most likely expect Guardians of the Galaxy to be a silly romp that focuses more on over-the-top action and humor than serious drama. However, you'd only be partially correct. While Guardians is incredibly irreverent and hilarious, the film's also packed full of heart. I never thought I would feel so much heartache for a talking raccoon and his sentient tree friend. Don't let the strange premise fool you, Guardians of the Galaxy's script is incredibly well-written film, knowing how to balance the humor with surprising emotional depth. Perlman and Gunn should really give themselves a pat on the back. They definitely deserve it.

The protagonists and the performers who portray them are great as well. It would be so easy for the titular Guardians to end up as two-dimensional stereotypes or walking punchlines. However, that great script and some seriously great performances prevent that. As the film progresses, you truly began to care about this group of misfits and want to see them succeed. While everyone does a phenomenal job, I feel like I have to praise Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel specifically. Of all the characters, Rocket and Groot would probably be the easiest to screw up. However, Cooper really does bring life to this genetically enhanced creature and Diesel manages to say and express so much with just three, simple words. Because of that, Rocket and Groot are basically the heart of this film.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention how stunning the film is visually. Each scene is filled with so much color, the designs are intriguing, and the cinematography is great. I never felt board while watching this film, with almost every scene possessing something that's visually interesting. While I didn't see the film in 3D, I feel like it'd be one of the few films that would be worth the extra ticket price.

With that being said, Guardians of the Galaxy does have its flaws. While the script itself is great, the plot is a little too basic at times, leading to situations where the audience can probably figure out what's going to happen with relative ease (at least, a general idea of what's going to happen, since there are some moments within the film that I would have never guessed would happen in a million years). Secondly, the villains are somewhat lacking. While Lee Pace tries his hardest, giving a solid performance, Ronin ultimately isn't that interesting. When you compare him to villains like Loki or The Winter Soldier, that's somewhat unfortunate.

Thankfully, these blemishes do not ruin Guardians of the Galaxy. The film truly is marvelous, managing to take a concept that should have never worked and made something truly special out of it. If you have some free time, I implore you to go down to your local theater and check out this film. You will not regret it. 

Movie Review: Amazing Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man is a character that's always been very near and dear to my heart. Probably like most people my age, I was introduced to Peter Parker through the Fox Kids' Spider-Man cartoon and one of the first comics I ever purchased was a back issue of The Amazing Spider-Man from the 1970's. The adventures of Peter Parker left a lasting impression on me and helped influence my superhero tastes.

Keep that in mind when I say The Amazing Spider-Man 2 disappointed me. Now, don't let that lead you to believe that I hated the film because that couldn't be further from the truth. I actually rather enjoyed the film for what it was and would recommend seeing it if you have the time. However, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had so much potential and could have been spectacular. Unfortunately, its problems cause it to fall short of reaching those heights.

Like the previous film, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tells the story of Peter Parker, a teenager from Queens who developed super powers after being bitten by a radioactive spider. Now, he must balance the demands of his everyday life with the growing responsibilities of being a superhero. After saving the city from the vicious Lizard, Peter has to deal with a shocking new villain and the numerous secrets surrounding the disappearance of his parents and Oscorp. Will Peter be able to protect the city and his loved ones, or will this be the end for Spider-Man?

The biggest problem with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is its unfocused narrative. At one moment, the film is a romantic drama between Peter and Gwen Stacy, at another its a conspiracy movie focusing on the mysteries of Oscorp and his parent's connections to the corporation, then its a movie about the struggles of being a superhero and how great power also leads to great responsibility. While each plot point is relatively fine on its own, bringing them all together into one film causes the story to be less cohesive and very muddled.

There are also times where certain subplots either end in plot cul-de-sacs or seem to only be included to tease future movies. The best examples of this are the two scenes that contain Aleksei Sytsevich (a.k.a. The Rhino). He appears in one of the first few scenes of the movie to give us an example of Peter being a hero, then disappears for the remainder of the film to randomly show up at the end piloting a gigantic, robotic suit designed to look like a rhino. You could easily replace both of these scenes and lose absolutely nothing.

However, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does have two very strong points: its characters and its action scenes.

Like its predecessor, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 possesses a menagerie of interesting characters with great interactions played by wonderful actors. Andrew Garfield continues to be perfect in the role of Peter Parker, capturing the cocky jokester persona of Spider-Man and balancing it with the nerdy outsider that is his secret identity. Emma stone is equally as perfect, making us truly care about Gwen and you believe the two character's relationship due to their excellent chemistry. Finally, I feel like I would be doing Jaime Foxx a disservice if I didn't mention his fantastic performance as Electro. In the hands of a less talented actor, Matt Dillon would have come off as an insulting caricature, but Foxx makes the character believable and you feel how tragic his situation is.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 also excels in the action department. Almost every action scene is kinetic and visually interesting, making you feel the weight of everything that is happening and is incredibly entertaining. I'd also like to applaud the decision to utilize slow motion to visualize Peter's "spidey sense". It works perfectly and really gets the idea across.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a good film that unfortunately could have been an excellent one. If the story was just as good as the characters and action scenes, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 would have truly been amazing.

Movie Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Captain America: The First Avenger is easily one of my favorite superhero movies. Like the director's previous work The Rocketeer, The First Avenger was a period piece that was just good, old fashioned fun. When I learned the sequel would be going in a more serious direction, I was somewhat nervous.

Thankfully, my fears turned out to be unfounded. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is easily one of the best Marvel films to date.

After the battle with the Chitari invaders during the final act of The Avengers, genetically-enhanced super-soldier Steve Rodgers is now an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., handling a number of missions for the powerful organization. However, not everything is at it seems when Nick Fury is seemingly assassinated by a mysterious culprit known simply as "The Winter Soldier" and Rodgers becomes a wanted man. Can Captain America, Black Widow, and the new comer the Falcon discover the truth behind this conspiracy before it's too late, or will they become its newest victims?

Unlike the previous film, The Winter Soldier possesses a much more serious tone. In many ways, the movie resembles a political thriller set in a world where superheroes exist. However, the films doesn't let this new tone overpower the film. The Winter Soldier manages to hold onto the underlying feeling of hope that made The First Avenger great and infuses this darker tale with some well-written humor and fun action scenes that give the film a since of equilibrium and make the film incredibly enjoyable.

The film is also enhanced by a talented cast who all give excellent performances. Chris Evans continues to prove that he was born to play the role of Steve Rodgers, perfectly capturing the essence of the character and making him feel like a real, three-dimensional human being. Scarlett Johansson is equally fantastic, breathing life into a rather complex character and possessing some real platonic chemistry of Evans, making you believe these two characters would work well together as a team and would eventually become friends. Anthony Mackie does a fine job with the new character of Sam Wilson, presenting this veteran as a likable individual who just wants to do what's right and Sebastian Stan is excellent as the Winter Soldier, managing to be terrifying at one moment and tragic the next.

Finally, the directing and writing are top notch. Anthony and Joe Russo, a pair who are not really known for action films, definitely show off their directing chops. Almost every scene is tight and uses the visual language of film superbly. This is only enhanced by a solid script from Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely. Its smartly written and doesn't treat its audience like children, which is a nice change of pace from hand-holding nature of most modern blockbusters.

However, the film does have a few blemishes. While I felt the film's twist was great and I enjoyed its villains, I felt their motivations were a little simplistic. While that's not necessarily a bad thing and I would rather they keep something simplistic instead of overtly complicated, I wish their motivations had a little more meat to them. Also, some of the foreshadowing at the beginning of the film was a little too on the nose at times.

Thankfully, these minor problems do not ruin the film in the slightest. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is probably the 2nd best Marvel film to date, just barely falling short of The Avengers. The film manages to go a darker, more suspenseful route without loosing the sense of hope and fun that was present in its predecessor. If I haven't made it clear by now, I love this film and it easily blew past all my expectations. You will be doing yourself a great disservice if you don't go see this film as soon as humanly possible.

Movie Review: Thor: The Dark World (2013)

Anyone else getting a strange Star Wars vibe from this poster?

Thor: The Dark World follows the adventures of Thor, the God of Thunder, as he battles to save Earth and all the Nine Realms from the dark elves and their vengeful leader Malekith who wish to plunge the universe back into darkness. Can Thor, his brother Loki, and his companions but an end to this menace and save the universe, or will the darkness consume them?

I'll be the first one to admit this, but 2011's Thor was my least favorite of Marvel's "Phase One" movies. While I loved Tom Hiddleston's performance as Loki and thought Kenneth Branagh's directing was interesting, I found Thor to be rather lackluster when compared to the likes of Iron Man or Captain America: The First Avenger. 

Thankfully, Thor: The Dark World manages to keep the elements that worked in the original and improved on the ones that didn't. 

Like in the previous film, Asgard and the other set-pieces look absolutely gorgeous. Being a fan of science fiction and fantasy, I would love to visit Asgard and experience the "magical technology" the Asgardians possess. Also, the home world of the dark elves looks absolutely bleak and lifeless, fitting the attitude of its inhabitants and what happened to them ages ago during their war with the Asgardians. 

The actions scenes and cinematography have definitely taken a step up from the previous film. While the first film's action beats and cinematography weren't terrible, they weren't great either. Luckily, that isn't the case here. Almost every action scene is entertaining to watch and the cinematography is rather clean, easy to follow, and visually interesting. 

The acting was great as well. Like before, Tom Hiddleston is amazing in his role as Loki. While he is clearly a villain and has no qualms about doing horrible things, you can't help but love the mischievous bastard. However, there are a few scenes that reveal that he might still have a sliver of goodness buried within him. Chris Hemsworth also does a fantastic job as our titular character. Unlike the first film, it is obvious that Thor has grown as a character and Hemsworth plays this rather well. Also, he is wonderful in his scenes with Hiddleston, making their relationship rather believable.

However, the film is not without its faults. Like the previous movie, the character of Jane Foster is only present because the plot says she has to be present. I have no problem with Natalie Portman's performance, but the character is rather pointless and only seems to be there so Thor can have a love interest and some connection to Earth. The same goes for Darcy (Kat Dennings) and her male intern (whose name escapes me at the moment). Nothing against the actors (I actually rather like Kat Dennings and I find her adorable), but their characters could be erased from the moment and I have a feeling no one would ever notice. 

The film also has some problems with mood. For the most part, the film is rather serious and sticks to a darker mood. However, there are a number of comedic scenes as well (most of which focus on Stellen Skarsgard's character from the first film and The Avengers). Now, most of these scenes do a good job at releasing the tension at the right moment so the audience doesn't become overwhelmed by all the seriousness. Unfortunately, there are too many of these scenes and they occasionally ruin the tone of the scene. 

With that being said, I still found Thor: The Dark World to be an enjoyable (if somewhat problematic) superhero film. The action scenes were great, the visuals were well-done, and the characters (for the most part) were interesting and the actors did a good job. If you like the Marvel movies, enjoy a good mixture of science fiction and fantasy, and just want to have a fun time at the movies, I'd recommend you give Thor: The Dark World a chance. 

Movie Review: Ender's Game (2013)

Based on the novel by Orson Scott Card, Ender's Game takes place in the near future after a hostile alien race called the Formics have attacked Earth. Thankfully, humanity was saved by an International Fleet Commander named Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley). Fearing a second attack, Colonel Hyrum Graff (Harrison Ford) and the International Military have gather the best young minds at the illustrious Battle School, hoping to find the next Mazer and put an end to this conflict once and for all. Graff believes a shy, but brilliant young boy named Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield) might be the person they are looking for. Will Ender be able to step up to the plate and lead the forces of humanity to victory, or will he crack under the pressure and fail?

Not being the biggest fan of Gavin Hood (who most people know as the director of X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and finding most of the trailers rather underwhelming, I went into Ender's Game with rather low expectations. While the film wasn't perfect, I found Ender's Game to be an enjoyable film.

The cinematography was very well done. While it didn't blow me away, I feel like the camera-work and Hood's directing kept the film interesting to watch. The set-design and special effects work really helped int this department as well. The look of the Battle School and the Battle Room match what I imagined when reading the book and I loved the design of the Formics (especially the Queen).

The performances were great as well. Both Asa Butterfield and Harrison Ford gave excellent performances, with Ford easily stealing every scene he's in. Ben Kingsley and Hailee Steinfeld also do a great job, giving solid performances and showing their talents as actors. While some of the actors in the smaller roles were not outstanding, I would hesitate to call anyone's performance in the film bad.

The only real problem I had with the film is its pacing. There are moments in the film where scenes move at lightning speed to the detriment of the scene itself. However, other scenes are a decent pace that keeps the story moving without being too fast or slow. The movie keeps bouncing back and forth between these two and it can be somewhat jarring at times.

With that being said, I still found Ender's Game to be an enjoyable movie. The acting, cinematography, and music are good and make up for the erratic pacing. If you like science-fiction movies and were a fan of Card's novel, you will probably find something to like in the film.

Movie Review: Machete Kills (2013)

The sequel to the 2010 film based on the fake Grindhouse trailer, Machete Kills stars Danny Trejo as ex-Federale agent turned legendary bad-ass Machete. After the death of his lover Sartana Rivera, Machete is recruited by the President of the United States to take down a crazy revolutionary and an eccentric billionaire arms dealer who has hatched a plan to spread war and chaos across the planet.

Now, time for some backstory. Back in 2007, I was lucky enough to see Grindhouse while it was still in theaters. While it wasn't a box office success, I loved every moment of it and hope that we can finally get a sequel to it someday (a man can dream, can't he?).

I remember seeing the fake Machete trailer before Planet Terror and wishing that it was a real film. Thankfully, the movie gods heard my wish and Robert Rodriguez turned the trailer into one of my favorite films of 2010. Machete was a loving homage to the exploitation films of the 1970's, embracing the goofiness that made those films enjoyable, but remembered to infuse just the right amount of heart and soul that made the best of those films memorable. So, it should be obvious that I was rather excited for this sequel, hoping that it would be just as fun as the first. Unfortunately, Machete Kills left me with very mixed emotions.

Like the first film, the acting is solid. Danny Trejo continues to be as bad-ass as before, showing the world why he deserves to be the star of his own action franchise. That grizzled appearance and "man of few words" personality really sells the tough nature of the character and makes you believe he'd be able to cause so much carnage and mayhem. The rest of the ensemble cast do decent jobs as well, with Demian Bichir as Mendez the crazy revolutionary with multiple personalities, Michelle Rodriguez as the one-eyed ass-kicker Luz, and Mel Gibson as the psychic arms dealer Voz being the obvious stand-outs.

Machete Kills also manages to take the insane level of violence from the first film and crank it up to 11. While the first film had its crazy moments, it was still grounded within some sense of reality. Machete Kills, however, leaves that grounded reality behind embraces the violent insanity. This is a movie where our main character uses a gun that turns people inside out and kills an enemy by cutting out his intestines and hurling them into a helicopter's blades, causing the man to be ripped up and chopped into pieces. There is just something morbidly hilarious about that and if you can accept that, you will find yourself laughing and smiling at the gleeful levels of violence.

Unfortunately, Machete Kills has two major problems that keep it from being a great film. The first film, for the most part, was a rather simple revenge story. Machete is hired to perform a job, but is betrayed and left for dead. Afterwords, he decided to track down those who were responsible and take out his vengeance on them. While there are a few additional elements and subplots to the story, the basic plot is rather straight-forward and structurally-sound. Machete Kills, on the other hand, seems like its trying so hard to be so many different things at once. It wants to be a 1980's action film, but it also wants to be a cheesy sci-fi film as well, with a good dose of Mad Max and Escape From New York in the middle. Because its trying to do a lot of things, Machete Kills stretches itself a little thin and the movie's structure suffers for it.

Secondly, Machete Kills' special effects are atrocious. The majority of the CGI effects look like something a 13-year old would create on Adobe After Effects instead of a movie with a $20 million dollar budget and a seasoned director at the helm. When the first film had some amazing practical effects and you have one of the best special effect artists in your movie (Tom Savini), its rather depressing to see such horrible CGI.

Machete Kills is a rather mixed bag. While the acting is solid and the action enjoyably over-the-top, the film isn't as well-structured as the original and the god awful effects weaken the film. If you can get past that terrible CGI and accept the film for what it is (a loud, insanely violent action film that tells reality to fuck off), you will find a lot to love about Machete Kills.

31 Days of Horror: The Haunting (1963)

Directed by Robert Wise, The Haunting is an adaptation of Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House. The film stars Julie Harris as Eleanor Vance, a questionably sane young woman who is asked to join anthropologist Dr. Markway (Richard Johnson) and two other individuals as they investigate the supernatural incidents occurring in the infamous Hill House. As the group learns more about the house and its tragic past, they discover the legends surrounding the mansion might hold more truth than the skeptical guests previously expected.

The Haunting is one of the most highly regarded haunted house films ever created. Instead of focusing on cheap scares and supernatural antics (which can be fun when done well), the film builds an unsettling atmosphere that enhances the natural tension of the story and situation, and includes more subtle scares that rely heavily on the "Less is More" philosophy of horror film-making.

Robert Wise, being a veteran at the art of film-making, sets up his shots perfectly, keeping the film visually interesting and downright beautiful at times. Like any good, atmospheric horror film, The Haunting uses each and every scene to build tension and show just enough to creep us out and get us scared without beating us over the head with loud scares. The music is equally fantastic, enhancing each scene at just the right moment, adding to the mood and situation.

The acting is also superb. Julie Harris does a great job at portraying Eleanor, showing her as a young woman who you believe is teetering on the breaking point of sanity. She plays the character in such a sympathetic way, making you worried about her and her mental state, hoping that she manages to stay together and make it out of the house in one piece. All of the other actors give equally great performances.

The Haunting is definitely a classic of horror cinema and one of the most influential haunted house films ever made. It does a great job at building suspense and releasing it at just the right moment. If you love haunted house movies the focus more on atmosphere and mood, you will love The Haunting.

31 Days of Horror: Horror of Dracula (1958)

Inspired by Bram Stoker's classic novel and directed by Hammer Horror alumni Terence Fisher, Horror of Dracula stars Christopher Lee as the undead Count Dracula who travels from his castle in Transylvania to England, hoping to seek revenge on a mortal man who tried to vanquish him. In the process, the Count runs into his arch-nemesis, Dr. Van Helsing, who will do whatever he can to end Dracula's reign of terror.

Horror of Dracula, with its predecessor Cure of Frankenstein, helped turn Hammer Films into an icon of horror cinema. The movie is a perfect mixture of gothic horror, wonderful performances, fantastic sets and special effects, and a good dash of suaveness and sexuality.

Like the novel and the 1931 Universal movie, Horror of Dracula possesses an eerie atmosphere that melds perfectly with the dread surrounding Count Dracula and the situations of the story. Its a movie that focuses more on mood and situation instead of on-the-nose scares. It wants to draw you into the story, making you feel like you have a connection with the characters, a connection that causes you to worry when a character is put into danger and hope they will succeed, and the films pulls it off.

The acting is also superb. Christopher Lee, who would go on to play Dracula several more times in future Hammer Horror films, is easily the best actor to dawn the cape and fangs since Bela Lugosi in the 1930's. He easily captures the spookiness and terror that is inherent to the character, but mixes that with a suave demeanor that draws you in, like another one of his victims. Peter Cushing is just as amazing. You actually believe he's dedicated his life to studying the undead and will do whatever he can to destroy Dracula. He also seems to have a will of iron, not even batting an eye when a vampire comes at him and not hesitating in the slightest to fight Dracula in the climax, knowing the Count is most likely stronger than him. While Lee and Cushing are easily the stand-outs in the cast, the other actors do a fantastic job as well.

For a film made in the late 50's, the majority of Horror of Dracula's effects and sets manage to hold up fairly well. While there are times when you can see through the illusion, like Dracula turning to ash for example, most of the sets are beautiful to look at and the effects are great and get the job done.

Horror of Dracula deserves its place among the classics, such as Frankenstein or The Wolf Man. Its a well-made, beautifully shot film that has an eerie atmosphere and wonderful acting. If you like vampire movies, atmospheric horror films, and great acting, you will love Horror of Dracula.

31 Days of Horror: Bride of Frankenstein (1935)

The sequel to the 1931 horror classic Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein is considered by many to be just as good, if not better than its predecessor.

The film begins immediately after the events of the first movie. After managing to survive the collapse of the burning windmill, a chastened Henry Frankenstein abandons his plans to create life. Sadly, he is tempted and ultimately coerced by the Monster, encouraged by Frankenstein's old mentor Dr. Pretorius, into constructing  a mate for him.

Bride of Frankenstein is a perfect example of how to make a sequel that not only lives up to the original, but surpasses it. Like its predecessor, Bride of Frankenstein's cinematography is utterly beautiful and captivating. Its obvious how much time and effort the director and crew put into this film, wanting it to be the best movie the could make, and I believe they succeeded at that goal.

The music is expertly done as well. Like its predecessor's score, Bride of Frankenstein's music is atmospheric and haunting, perfectly matching the film and enhancing each and every scene. Its so good and captivating that I have a good feeling that I keep catching myself humming the tunes to myself as I write this review.

Finally, every actor and actress in the film gives a wonderful performance. Boris Karloff once again portray's the Monster, using his facial expressions and physicality to give the character a unique personality that makes us relate with the creature and understand his plight. Ernst Thesiger also captures the eerie and diabolical nature of Dr. Pretorius perfectly and Elsa Lanchester is as both Mary Shelley in the film's prologue scene and the titular Bride. While these three were easily the stand-out performers, the rest of the cast is great and each performance helps make the film better.

Bride of Frankenstein is the rare sequel that takes what was great about the original film and just makes it better. Its beautifully shot, hauntingly scored, and jam-packed with excellent performances. Bride of Frankenstein is a classic movie that everyone needs to see at least once in their life. I guarantee you won't be disappointed.

31 Days of Horror: Night of the Demons (2009)

Night of the Demons is a remake of the 1988 film of the same name. In the film, Maddie (Monica Keena) and a few friends attend a party being held by a girl named Angela (Shannon Elizabeth) at the Broussard Mansion, a New Orleans house with a dark history. After the cops break up the party and most of the guests leave, Angela and Maddie's ex-boyfriend Colin (Edward Furlong) venture into the basement and make a grisly discover that accidentally releases a horde of ancient demons who terrorize the remaining party goers who are now trapped inside the mansion. Will they survive, or will they succumb to the diabolical demons?

Generally, there is a rather negative stigma attached to horror movie remakes. While some of them can be great, like John Carpenter's The Thing or David Cronenberg's The Fly, the majority of them seem to be nothing but garbage meant to cash in on a recognizable name and the nostalgia of a generation. While Night of the Demons isn't a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, I'm not sure I can throw it into the same trash can with the likes of the Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street remakes.

While the film's story has a number of flaws and most of the characters are rather bland and forgettable, Night of the Demons makes up for its faults with some really well done make-up and special effects, some decent performances, and a sense of fun that keeps the audience from walking out.

Most of the film's special effects seem to be practically done, which is something I always like to see, and happen to be rather effective for the most part. The make-up for most of the demons, with Angela's and another party-goer named Suzanne's in particular, is equally great and looks pretty damn cool.

While some of the acting in the film is rather mediocre and bad, Monica Keena and Shannon Elizabeth do a decent job with the script they have been given. It's actually rather surprising how good Elizabeth is at playing a demon and Keena presents Maddie in a way that makes her rather likable.

Finally, but most importantly, Night of the Demons knows what kind of film it is and decides to just have a fun time being loud, gory, and goofy. The film is presented with its tongue firmly planted in its cheek and embraces the underlying silliness of the situation. This is a movie where a girl is possessed by a demon that was banished from hell and has the ability to shoot tentacles from her breasts. I think that one effect perfectly captures the tone this film is going for, and if you can accept that tone, you will have a good time with it.

31 Days of Horror: Piranha (1978)

Directed by Joe Dante, Piranha follows Insurance investigator Maggie McKeown (Heather Menzies) who is dispatched to find two teenagers who have gone missing near Lost River Lake. After hiring the surly drunkard Paul Grogan (Bradford Dillman) to serve as her guide and help her search the area, they find a seemingly abandoned military facility. The two end up draining one of the facility's pools and accidentally releasing a particularly vicious swarm of piranha into the local waterways. Maggie and Paul race to warn the locals, but their pleas fall upon skeptical ears - until the piranha reach the swimmers.

Piranha is a spoof of "Nature Run Amok" films, with Jaws being the specific target. The movie is incredibly goofy at times, having characters act in ways that seem rather illogical and utilizing some cheesy special effects for the titular creatures. However, none of these elements actually hurt the film, but help make the film incredibly enjoyable to watch.

Piranha is a film that knows exactly what it is, a cheesy spoof of a popular film that doesn't take itself seriously in the slightest. If you can accept that, you will find a lot to like about the film. Dillman and Menzies actually give decent performances, presenting their somewhat eccentric characters in a believable and likable manner. While a good amount of the effects are rather cheesy, there are a few that I found pretty well executed, such as the stop-motion creatures lurking within abandoned military facility. The music is also not half bad and there are a few moments in the film that are actually rather scary and well-done (like the piranha attack at the summer camp)

Piranha is one of those films that can be pretty entertaining if you accept the inherent goofiness of the product. It's not a masterpiece of horror cinema, but its still an enjoyable film that I'd recommend to those who like goofy monster films and Joe Dante movies.

31 Days of Horror: The Howling: Reborn (2011)

Directed by Joe Nimziki, The Howling: Reborn is the 9th entry in The Howling franchise. The film follows Will Kidman, a high school senior whose mother was attacked and killed when he was just a baby. As his graduation grows closer, Will discovers that he too is a werewolf and realizes a pack of werewolves are coming after him.

A few years ago, I watched The Howling for the first time. I've always been a werewolf fan and I felt I had to watch the classics, such as The Wolf-Man and An American Werewolf in London. I immediately fell in love with the film and its one of my favorite monster movies of all time. With that piece of context, you can understand what I mean when I say that The Howling: Reborn is one of the most depressing and disappointing films that I've seen in a very long time.

It's rather obvious that The Howling: Reborn is trying desperately to draw in the Twilight crowd. Both films share a rather gloomy soundtrack, washed-out cinematography, and pretentious philosophizing that makes you want to just punch whoever is saying this stupid shit. The story, like the sanitized supernatural romances that its trying to emulate, is rather dull and predictable, hitting all the expected beats.

The special effects are just as bad. Some, like the oddly psychopathic bully falling over the stair railing, are so bad they managed to coax a laugh out of me. The rest just made sigh and wish I was watching the original. Its kind of sad seeing how far this franchise has fallen.

Now, I will give the film this, the majority of the actors seem to actually be trying to take the mediocre script and give a decent performance. The two leads, Landon Liboiron and Lindsay Shaw, being the most successful. The two actors do seem to have some inkling of chemistry, which is more than I can say for their Twilight counterparts.

However, their performances are not enough to save this incredibly mediocre film. Its boring, uninspired, and rather depressing if you're a fan of the original. If you're looking for a good werewolf film, watch the 1st Howling and An American Werewolf in London instead.

Verdict: See it if you like the Twilight formula and like the two leads starts a lot. Skip it if you like your werewolf films to be a little more brutal and not so sanitized. 

31 Days of Horror: Psychosis (2010)

A remake of the "Dreamhouse" episode from the anthology film Screamtime, Psychosis follows prominent horror writer Susan (Charisma Carpenter). After moving to a sprawling country estate in order to recover from a massive mental breakdown, Susan begins to experience gruesome visions of a long-forgotten murder. Are these visions due to Susan's questionable mental health, or is there something else going on?

Psychosis is a competently made film that, unfortunately, is incredibly slow and meandering. The idea behind the film isn't a bad one, and in the right hands, could have made for a really interesting delves into the main character's psyche, but Psychosis just moves through the story at an incredibly slow and boring pace that made it a chore to watch. What makes this worse is that the ending is rather disappointing, giving you no actual reward for sitting through this dull film.

With that being said, there are a few gems buried within the film. The music and sound design is decent and the cinematography is pretty competent (with only a few weak spots scattered throughout the film). The actors, especially Carpenter, try their hardest to give good performances. Sadly, there is only so much you can do with a boring script.

While there are a few decent elements sprinkled throughout the film, Psychosis fails due to its slow as hell pacing and rather boring narrative. If you are looking for a good psychological horror film, I'd recommend checking out Jacob's Ladder and skipping Psychosis.

Verdict: See it if you are a huge fan of Charisma Carpenter and you have an hour and twenty-nine minutes to kill. Skip it if you hate films that are incredibly slow with a lackluster pay-off.

31 Days of Horror: Frankenstein Created Woman (1967)

The fourth film in the Hammer Horror's Frankenstein series, Frankenstein Created Woman continues the tale of Baron Victor Frankenstein (Peter Cushing) and his strange experiments.

This time around, Baron Frankenstein is trying to discover a way to trap the soul of a recently deceased person, believing that he can transfer it into another recently deceased body and restore it to life. While the good doctor is working on his experiments, his assistant Hans (Robert Morris) is wrongly accused of murdering his lover Christina's (Susan Denberg) father.

After his execution, Christina commits suicide. Seeing a perfect opportunity before him, Frankenstein resurrects Christina with Hans' soul and everything goes as planned, until the group of young dandies who were actually responsible for the crime start turning up dead, and all signs point to Frankenstein's latest creation.

Frankenstein Created Woman is easily one of the weaker entries in Hammer's Frankenstein series. While it has some interesting ideas, the story itself is rather predictable and the film's pacing is slower than it really needs to be. While I was watching the movie, I found myself thinking this story could have been a rather interesting Tales From The Crypt episode and that show's runtime would have fit it much better.

However, the film is not a horrible movie. Hell, it's not even a bad film. The acting is pretty good, with Cushing being amazing as always and Denberg giving a pretty good performance as well, and the music and cinematography is well-done as well. Frankenstein Created Woman just isn't as good as the previous entries in the series. Its a decent, enjoyable movie, but I'd suggest watching Curse of Frankenstein instead.

Verdict: Watch it if you like the other entries in Hammer's Frankenstein series, enjoy Peter Cushing, and are interested in the ideas presented in the film. Skip it if you dislike stories that are rather predictable and have some pacing issues.

31 Days of Horror: Hatchet (2006)

Directed and written by Adam Green, Hatchet is a loving homage to the classic slasher films of the 70's and 80's. The story follows a group Louisiana who decide to participate in a haunted swamp tour instead of the usual Mardi Gras festivities. After the boat hits some rocks and sinks, the group is soon pursued the murderous Victor Crowley, the ghost of a backwoods mutant who kills anyone who enters his swamp. Can the group escape the swamp with their lives, or will they fall victim to the legend of Victor Crowley like so many others?

As I've already mentioned, Hatchet is a love letter to the slasher films of yesteryear. Adam Green manages to capture the spirit of those movies perfectly and shows why they were so entertaining and fun. Instead of just throwing us into the middle of the action and have us follow a group of one-dimensional characters who will mostly be fodder for uninspired deaths, Green & Co. take their time to introduce us to the characters, making them feel well-rounded enough that we actually want to see some of them survive and feel bad when they are killed brutally. Also, the death scenes are glorious. Each is interesting and unique, keeping the movie fresh. If I had to choose a favorite, I think I'd have to pick the second death in the movie, where Crowley grabs a woman and rips her head apart with his bare hands. His slasher forefathers would be proud.

Speaking of the classic slasher villains, the film also has a few nods to the past with three nice, little cameos. Victor Crowley, who is very reminiscent of Jason Voorhees, is actually played by Jason alumni Kane Hodder, who also plays Crowley's father in the flashback and does an excellent job. In the opening scene, we have Robert "Freddy Krueger" England as an alligator hunter and Tony "Candyman" Todd shows up later as a flamboyant New Orleans entertainer later in the film, both of them doing great and showing their acting chops and why they are so highly regarded among the horror fan-base.

Hatchet is an over-the-top gory slasher film that is just as entertaining as its predecessors from the 70's and 80's. Its a heart-felt homage that captures the spirit of those old films and shows why they worked so well and why most of us horror fans love them.

Verdict: See it is you love the slasher films of the 70's and 80's, over-the-top death scenes, and great practical effects. Skip it if you don't like gory death scenes and like more psychological, atmospheric horror films. 

31 Days of Horror: Carnival of Souls (1962)

Directed by Herk Harvey, Carnival of Souls centers around a young woman named Mary Henry (Clandice Hilligoss), the sole survivor of a tragic car crash who moves to a small town in Utah to work as an organist in a local church. When she arrives, she finds herself fascinated with an abandoned pavilion and haunted by ghoulish figure. Is Mary just imagining things, or is there more to the situation than meets the eye?

While the film didn't receive widespread attention when it was original released as a B-movie, Carnival of Souls is considered a cult classic by many today and has been cited as an important influence on the films of David Lynch and George A. Romero. After watching the film, I can understand why it has obtained that cult status.

Unlike other horror films that focus on creepy special effects (which isn't a bad thing at all), Carnival of Souls uses atmosphere and music to create a rather effective mood of unease and foreboding. In many ways, Carnival of Souls is like a feature-length episode of the Twilight Zone, taking a rather normal character who has experience a tragic event and having her deal with a number of strange and surreal situations that lead to a nice, little twist at the end .

Due to the film's low budget, almost all the actors are amateurs who had worked with Harvey on his previous educational films. However, none of the actors give particularly bad performances. On the contrary, most of the actors and actresses due a decent job with the material they have been given, with Hilligoss and Sidney Berger as Mary's neighbor John Linden being the stand-out performances in my opinion.

Carnival of Souls only real weakness is that its concept isn't strong enough to sustain an hour and twenty minutes of screen time. Now, it would fit perfectly in the old 30 minute format of the first few seasons of the Twilight Zone. However, the feature-length run-time causes the film to be padded with a few scenes that are rather dull and don't really add all that much to the final product.

However, Carnival of Souls is still worth a watch. While it feels like a Twilight Zone episode that ran a little too long, it would still be a good episode. The concept and twist are interesting and the creepy atmosphere and music are great.

Verdict: See it if you enjoy films that focus more on atmosphere and mood than special effects. Skip it if you dislike movies that are rather slow-paced and surreal.

31 Days of Horror: The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

  

Vincent Price is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of the most iconic horror actors of all time. He starred in such classic films as The House on Haunted Hill, The Fly, and The Last Man on Earth. Price was well known for his distinctive voice and his ability to mix serious drama with comedy, making him well-suited for roles that were rather over-the-top. The Abominable Dr. Phibes is a perfect example Price at his best.

Set in 1925, The Abominable Dr. Phibes tells the tale of Anton Phibes, a horribly disfigured genius that was supposedly killed in a car crash. Convinced that his beloved wife died due to the incompetent of seven doctors and one nurse, Phibes seeks vengeance by killing each culprit through a series of tortuous methods based on the Ten Plagues of Egypt from the Old Testament.

Price, as usual, knows how capture that perfect mixture of drama and camp, making his performance as the vengeful doctor perfect. Watching him put together these elaborate and imaginative murders is incredibly, but you also feel pity for the character when you hear him talk about his dead wife and how losing her has affected him. Because of this, you want Phibes to succeed in his goals and see the people who caused the death of his beloved pay.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes' cinematography and set design is wonderful as well. Director Robert Fuest and the crew behind the film have created a rather stylized version of the early 20th century that fits rather nicely with Phibes' rather bizarre methods and the tone of the story over-all. Fuest also knows how to get the most out of his scenes, each getting their point across without over-staying their welcome and are shot rather nicely.

The film's only true weakness, in my opinion, are the secondary characters. While he has some good comedic moments and Peter Jeffrey gives a fine performance, Inspector Harry Trout is kind of boring as a character and Phibes' silent assistant Vulnavia isn't much better. Thankfully, the film doesn't linger on them too much.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes is a perfect example of campy 1970's horror at its best. Vincent Price gives an excellent performance and the film is entertaining as hell. If you like a little dash of dark humor with your horror and want to have a good time and a good laugh, The Abominable Dr. Phibes will satisfy your needs.

Verdict: See it if you like campy horror films with great acting, cinematography, and set design. Skip it if you prefer more serious horror films with more believable situations.

31 Days of Horror: Trollhunter (2010)

Director:  André Øvredal

Writer:  André Øvredal

Starring: Otto Jespersen, Hans Morten Hansen, Tomas Alf Larsen, Johanna Mørck, Knut Nærum, Robert Stoltenberg, Glenn Erland Tosterud

Summary: Trollhunter follows a group of Norwegian film students who are shadowing Hans, a professional hunter who tracks down and eliminates real-life trolls for the government agency known as the Troll Security Service, who do everything they can to keep the public ignorant of the troll menace.

The Good: As I've mentioned before, I am really not a fan of the "found footage" genre. Like 3-D, I see "found footage" as a gimmick that filmmakers use to make something seem more "real" when the actual style adds very little to the film. Thankfully, Trollhunter's director knows how to use the vérité and uses it well. Like The Bay, Trollhunter is shot as if its a documentary, which gives a ready explanation for the camera's presence. Also, since the documentary crew is supposed to be a couple of college students who have never made a documentary before, the questionable cinematography can be forgiven. 

The basic concept that acts as the foundation of the film is really interesting. While its not a very original premise, its still fun to see what it would be like if trolls actually existed. Being someone who loves folklore and mythology, it was cool to see the trolls retain their weakness to sunlight, their rock-based appetite, and the ability to smell the blood of a Christian. Its also interesting to learn how the trollhunter Hans hunts these creatures and learn how the Troll Security Service (TSS for short) keeps their existence a secret. After watching the film, I want to know more about these trolls, the TSS, and if similar organizations and other trollhunters exist around the world. 

Speaking of trollhunters, the character of Hans is rather intriguing as well. The character comes off as a weary warrior who is growing tired of the fight and sees the chance to finally come clean about the secrets he's been keeping when these college students who up, wanting to film him. Otter Jespersen plays the character perfectly, the tired nature of the character coming through clearly thanks to Jespersen's performance and posture throughout the film. He is easily the best thing in this film.

The Bad: While this is probably the result of a low budget, the CGI effects in the film are rather poor. They aren't horrible and they get the job done, but I always felt myself draw out of the film almost every time one of the trolls was on screen. The only exception was the Jotnar at the end of the film, which was pretty well done.

Besides Hans, the other characters in the film are rather bland or one-note. When Hans wasn't the focus of the film, I found myself not really caring about any of the other characters and just wanting to get back to Hans and his situation.

Conclusion: While the CGI is rather lackluster and most of the characters are rather bland, Trollhunters is saved by an interesting concept, good execution, and a very interesting main character. If you like monster movies and want to see one with an interesting take on the situation, give Trollhunter a watch.

Netflix Reviews: The ABCs of Death

Directed By: Nacho Vigalondo, Ti West, Adam Wingard, Srdjan Spasojevic, Ben Wheatly, Jon Schnepp, Xavier Gens, Jason Eisener, Yoshihiro Nishimura, etc.

Written By: Nacho Vigalondo, Ti West, Adam Wingard, Srdjan Spasojevic, Ben Wheatly, Jon Schnepp, Xavier Gens, Jason Eisener, Yoshihiro Nishimura, etc.

Main Cast: Dallas Malloy, Peter Pedrero, Fraser Corbett, Kyra Zagorsky, Darenzia, etc.

Summary: The ABCs of Death is an anthology film divided into 26 individual chapters, each handled by a different director assigned a different letter of the alphabet. Each director was given free rein to choose a word to create a story involving death, which range from accidents to murder.

The Good: Its kind of hard to review a film like The ABCs of Death. Not only is it an anthology film, but its an anthology film where each short is made by a different director and creative team and there are 26 of them. So, to make this easier on everyone reading, I'm just going to touch on the shorts I particularly liked and disliked.

G is for Gravity (directed and written by Andrew Traucki): This was the first short in the film that I actually liked. It was rather simple, short, and made good use of the letter G. While I'm not a big fan of the shaky cam, I can forgive it for this short since its supposed to be a first person perspective. I also loved how the short managed to convey its story without a single line of dialogue. The behavior and the heavy breathing of the POV character helped as well.

H is for Hydro-Electric Diffusion (directed and written by Thomas Malling): Malling's short was definitely one of the more comedic ones and one of the few of that variety that I actually felt worked. The short is just so weird, but you can feel the hard work the director and crew put into it and its easily one of the most fun. Also, the costuming, make-up, and set design was fantastic.

Q is for Quack (directed and written by Adam Wingard and Simon Barrett): Q is for Quack is another one of the "comedy" shorts that really works. I love the meta-fictional concept of the directors struggling to find a word and hook for the letter Q. The acting on this one is really solid as well, Wingard and Barret feeling very natural and believable as themselves. To be honest, this was probably my favorite short in the film.

U is for Unearthed (directed and written by Ben Wheatley): Another short shot with a first-person perspective, U is for Unearthed is a very quick and interesting little chapter. The film is shown from the perspective of a recently risen vampire who is chased by an angry mob that is trying to kill him. I think I liked this one mostly because it kept closer to vampiric mythology and kept the vampire as a soulless monster.

The Bad: Now, like most anthology films, The ABCs of Death is very uneven. While some of the shorts are really good and a lot of them are decent, there are some that are just god awful. Here's the ones that I personally found rather dreadful.

D is for Dogfight (directed and written by Marcel Sarmiento): While the cinematography is amazing and the use of slow-motion throughout the short is very effective, the are some big problems with the plot that when you start to think about them, make the story kind of fall apart.

F is for Fart (directed and written by Noboru Iguchi): This one was by far the dumbest short of the bunch. The story revolves around a Japanese school girl who decided she'd rather be killed by the teacher who she has a crush on's farts instead of a poisonous gas released by an earthquake. The special effects are horrible, the story is mind-numbingly dumb, and just had me shaking my head by the end of it.

M is for Miscarriage (directed and written by Ti West): This one was really disappointing because I usually like West's work. I loved House of the Devil and I thought The Innkeepers was fantastic. However, M is for Miscarriage is just really lazily done and rather mean-spirited. The only good thing about this chapter is that it is incredibly short.

O is for Orgasm (directed and written by Bruno Forzani & Helene Cattet): While I hate to use this word because it is incredibly overused, but its best word to use when critiquing this chapter. O is for Orgasm is just a collection of "artsy", pretentious images strung together. Luckily, like M is for Miscarriage, this one goes by rather quickly.

W is for WTF! (directed and written by Jon Schnepp): Like M is for Miscarriage, W is for WTF! is incredibly lazy and tries to steal the basic concept behind Q is for Quack. While the random nature of the short does match the chosen word pretty well, the random scenes aren't particularly good and are downright annoying at times.

Conclusion: As with most anthology films, The ABCs of Death is very uneven. Some of the shorts really work and are interesting, some are decent but kind of forgettable or don't really stand out all that much, and some are just terrible and bring the film down. Basically, the film is a very mixed bag.

Recommended?: Yes and no. While I wouldn't recommend it to a general audience, I would say check it out if you like to watch strange movies, are a fan of some of the directors, and have a few friends over who you can laugh at it with and see how they react. Otherwise, you can skip The ABCs of Death.