The Passion of the Christ

It is a story we all know. Jesus (Jim Caviezel) is pinned to a cross for all the wrong reasons and put to death. The story that turned Jesus into who he was and changed the world. This film from 2004 really had many unexpected things in it frankly.

The Passion of the Christ is directed by Mel Gibson. I guess his first decision was who was going to be cast as Jesus and he chose Jim Caviezel? I liked Caviezel in other movies but here there isn't much to him actually. Maia Morgenstern is cast as Mary and seems too young for the character and badly casted. Rosalinda Celentano plays a Satan character that is really not developed. Frankly, I think this is a film that needs more characters overall.

The actual story is interesting in that it brings out many emotions, both good and bad and is very inspirational but this is not conveyed very well in this film. One big problem with the story is that there is very little background given. I think it needed more information on Jesus, his friends and family and what Jesus did leading up to this. A film that also needs more dialogue to make it more convincing and inspiring. There are also many scenes that carry on too long and are more graphic than necessary for a story like this. The ending also should also have been more of a celebration than what it is.

There are some good things in the film and these would include the settings, costume design, the design of the cross and the weapons depicted. The problem here is these things should not be the highlights of the movie.

All this said, I do some give credit to Mel Gibson. This is daring filmmaking because of intense feelings surrounding Christianity and this story, there will surely be a strong reaction to it and there was. It is no doubt hard to tell this story.

The Passion of the Christ is what I call an "it is what it is" type of film. It is just there. The film that didn't have much of an effect on me and is something that I wouldn't watch again.

2/5

Read More

The Rite

I find the exorcist genre in movies to be an interesting one. It is a genre that has many ideas to it and can be really scary and dark if done right but also a genre that can be quite lacking if not done right. With the exorcist movie, The Rite, I really came into this with low expectations. It is interesting no doubt. The cast is good and has been around and they know what they are doing. It is also orginal and if put in the right hands, it could have been a good exorcist film. There are worse exorcist films out there no doubt but this one could have been so much better.

Anthony Hopkins is the exorcist priest in this and his performance is really good even though his character is very unlikable. Colin O'Donoghue is also excellent as an ex-seminary student who is witnessing exorcisms. He handles many of the religious questions in a way I liked voicing many questions and concerns. The film does lack many secondary characters with only Alice Braga and Rutger Hauer mentionable.

This exorcist film is unique in that it uses the Vatican as it's setting. This is a good idea and includes many cool sets. It also uses English well as a second language pretty well at times which is a nice change of pace for a horror film.

So if the setting and cast are above average, what is wrong with this? Well, the plot is a problem. The plot that sets up O'Donoghue well as someone learning the exorcist field but then wanders off in the later acts not knowing what to do with this idea. It also contains a rip-off from 1973 movie The Exorcist with a young teen being possessed with a demon and the plot only really picks up during the last couple of minutes of the film with not much supporting it before.

The Rite is a dry horror movie with not a lot of purpose or direction to it. It is really a cookie-cutter movie type movie for this genre with not much to recommend to it.

2/5

Read More

The Devil Inside

As many movie fans know, January is a terrible month for released films coming out. The film quality of January-released movies is usually very low, and for a person like me living in Michigan, it is  usually better to just watch the snow fall. The year 2012 was no better for January-released movies. Stinkers like One for the Money, Red Tails and the very crappy limited release horror film, Beneath the Darkness were released. The Devil Inside was released in this month but it was one of the more interesting ones. It brought something a little different to the horror genre and was one of the films from the January pool that really could have been something but it still really missed it's mark.

The Devil Inside is an exorcist/Cathohic religion-themed movie. It is the story a middle-aged woman traveling to Rome in 2009 to find her mentally unstable mother who was put away due to a killing that happened during an exorcism twenty years before.

The movie is filmed in the documentary found footage style. I usually like found footage movies but I didn't like this one. It seemed  as if the entire film was trying to copy the other successful found footage films of the past decade without looking at the bigger picture. The found footage style here is really unnecessary and gives the film an uneven quality and is the main reason that the film is not scary.

Just like the film Rite did in 2011, The Devil Inside setting is in the Vatican. While this is an interesting setting, there really is no passion to this film and the director William Brent Bell doesn't seem to know much about the place or the subject. This seems to be just thrown together and again Bell seems to be just trying to piggy-back on the success of the previous found footage films.

In just about every part of the film, we don't really care about the characters who are very dry and not developed and frankly it gets worse as the film goes on. Most of the characters are witless with no real soul or even human-like qualities. That said, the character David does starts to change and this gives the film a new approach that kind of fits.

The ending is frankly bad. I do get the feeling that Bell didn't quite know what to do with the ending and it seems thrown together and makes everything before seem meaningless; it is that bad.

I don't mind exorcist type movies but there hasn't been one done right in a long time. As a matter of fact, I think this subject matter only really worked once and that was in The Exorcist in the 1970's and now these movies just seem to be trendy and geared to the teen crowd. Because of it's religious theme, I will say that The Devil Inside is really a sin and just an all-around wrong discombobulated creation of a film. Avoid.

1.5/5

Read More

Grosse Pointe Blank

I have grown up and lived in Michigan for all of my sixteen years. I can't imagine living outside Michigan and of course our state is not the setting for many Hollywood movies. There have been a few movies set in Michigan like the American Pie films, Beverly Hills Cop and Robo Cop. Grosse Pointe Black from 1997 is another one of the few films set in my state as the city of  Grosse Pointe is right next to Detroit. This is a film that tells many things about a relationship that was formed after ten years and which includes the CIA in the plot. This is a fun and different film and one that has unfortunately been kind of forgotten.

The acting from John Cusack and Minnie Driver might be what we have seen before from them in a dozen other films but they are very good here. Cusack and Driver are intelligent and likable with Cusack bringing a unique personality to the role. Both lead characters have chemistry working off each other and there is a good supporting cast with Dan Aykroyd, Jeremy Priven and Alan Arkin.

This film has a decent amount of meat to it and it is a film that is a little hard to figure out once we get in the middle of the CIA plot. That said, the film does kind of unwind a little as we get into it with the characters and their behavior going in directions that really don't fit the story at all. I wasn't sure if some of these confusing scenes were just thrown-in material or if this was all scripted like that on purpose but I didn't care for it, and I thought it made the film a little uneven.

Grosse Pointe Blank certainly has it moments in spite of some rough spots. It is a fine film from the late 90's that is smart, kind of quirky and has a fun edge. Being set in Michigan gives it a close to home feeling that makes it even better for me. I recommend Grosse Pointe Blank.


4/5

Read More

Stake Land

I had a skeptical feeling coming into Stake Land but I do with most vampire films anyway. Well Stake Land is a road film that follows around a character trying to survive a vampire apocalypse.

For a film about vampires, there is nothing particularly noteworthy here but the movie does get a lot of the little things right. The make-up is done well and there are some good apocalypse sets here that work on what seems to be a low budget film.

The lead characters are Nick Damici and Connor Paolo and they are likable and can act but struggle with a sub-par plot. There is not a lot of premise developed with these characters which makes their performances a bit hard to enjoy and really turns what could have been a good horror film into just a rental.

The film has a splendid first act which puts the film initially in the right direction. Act 3 is really the exact opposite as it has many opportunities to end but the film really doesn't know how to and so it kind of falls flat a little.

I don't really love this film and frankly there is not a whole lot to say about it. That said, Stake Land is kind of a nice quality vampire film from 2010 which was a little refreshing as we haven't had one of these in a while.

3.5/5

Read More

Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood

We are now at the final movie of the Leprechaun series, Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood. Here, we learn more about the origins of the leprechaun and how leprechauns are supposed to protect their gold in this world which is exactly what the plot involves in this movie. This movie is from 2003 and again is mercifully the last film in the strange series.

The setting is just like the last movie in the series which is also set in the hood. The lead characters can act somewhat but frankly they are more laughable than not. Again there is a plot involving gold plot and some kill scenes that don't make much sense. It is really a film that nothing to do.

As with all of the leprechaun films, I like Warwick Davis who plays the leprechaun. As with most of the other films, he can act but due to problems with the plot, he isn't given much to do. Aside from some changes in costume design, his characters is nothing new and more of the same.

Along with the rest of the series, Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood is lazy, uninspired, not very fun and a lame end to this series. Leprechaun: Back 2 tha Hood leaves us with a dead feeling and the feeling that this series really had nowhere to go.

1.5/5

Read More

Leprechaun: In the Hood

One good thing about the Leprechaun movies is the settings whether that is in Las Vegas, a tree house or in space. The fifth Leprechaun movie is set "in the hood" with the leprechaun being more of an evil character than before. Frankly, it seems like another strange and questionable movie unlikely to work. Unlike the fourth movie though, Leprechaun: In the Hood is not completely terrible.

This movie has a bigger budget and better cast than the previous ones with a more realistic setting than the last one which was set in space. Led by Anthony D. Montgomery and Warwick Davis as the leprechaun, the cast is given more to do here especially Davis who is actually much funnier than in the prior movies. The hood setting is no doubt silly and cheap but is put put together pretty well and the movie actually has a good vibe to it.

With a halfway decent cast and setting, the plot isn't too bad either. Ice T makes an appearance as a fugitive and this works. Like the others, there is the four leaf clover theme but here it is connected to street drugs. There is also a interesting flute idea and finally a rapping leprechaun as shown below.

                                      
If you thought the last few movies in this series were weird, this one takes weird to a new level. In this movie are a lot of cross-dressing, illegal drugs, kill scenes with a hair pick and tons of of sexual stuff. While I appreciate something new in this series, I am not sure that there was a point here.

As with the other movies, this one is of course very hard to take seriously but there is some quality here which really came out of the blue as this series seemed dead with the last movie.

2.5/5

Read More

Leprchaun 4: In Space

Even though it is a really bad series, the Leprechaun films have always had interesting settings. The North Dakota setting in the first movie was interesting and a surprise. The second movie had a tree setting that was only fun because of how laughable it was. Las Vegas was the setting for the third movie and now for the fourth movie, the setting is.......well outer space. Obviously putting the leprechaun in outer space puts this series into a quite different perspective. While mixing it up a little, it really did nothing for the quality of the movie as it is as bad as I expected. No, I would say even worse.

Maybe the director, Brian Trenchard-Smith should have thought about his budget when making a film set in outer space. Sure this is going to be a "direct to video" movie but with a $1.6 million budget, why try to make a film like this? The problems are that the plot has too many story lines, space shots that appear to be taken off a mid-90's computer and aliens that look like they were scraped together in five minutes. The space set has so many errors that it is hard for me to describe in one sentence so I won't try. Some of the Spaceship sets are ok and that is probably where all the money went here.

Though they are obviously two very different films, Leprechaun 4: In Space does borrow, or you might say rips-off the Alien movie. It uses the same aspects and qualities of the Bill Paxton and Sigourney Weaver characters in Alien though we never really learn anything about these Leprechaun characters. The acting has a "trying too hard" quality and we really don't care about at all about these characters and don't take them seriously. There is a doctor that appears to serve no purpose and a princess who just gives us an unnecessary nude scene.

The Leprechaun played by Warwick Davis has more powers to him in this movie though that is never explained. The villain does fit here but the movie is quite uneven and has an ending that I think showed that the director frankly didn't know what to do with it.

The Leprechaun series of movies really do not fit together at all and this film really proves it. Obviously, it make no sense why the Leprechaun is in space and then back to earth in the later films. There is no timetable in place either and this is a series that still doesn't know what it is. It all leaves me kind of speechless.

I have reviewed close to 500 films in my career. Nothing really could have prepared me for this film or possibly helped me like it as it brings the Leprechaun movies to a new version of "terrible". Leprechaun 4: In Space is some of worst film making I have ever seen which makes it one of the hardest films I have ever reviewed. It is hard to take seriously. Avoid this at all costs.

0.5/5

Read More

Leprechaun 3

Even though I am not a fan of most sequels, Leprechaun 3 could have been something. Maybe something likable if done right and put in the right hands. Maybe add an interesting idea or two and build  on the first two. Well, Leprechaun 3 didn't do that and missed it's mark all together, and is a film that really took this series to a new low.

As with the other films in this series, there are a mix characters here. Led by Warwick Davis, John Gatins and Lee Armstong, like the first two movies the acting is up and down. Davis as the leprechaun is fun but this the first of these films where he just isn't given much to do.

The plot involves trying to get gold back that we've seen before in these movies. With the gold theme, Las Vegas seems to be the perfect setting with it's money, gambling and sexual culture. That said, this setting is not done very well as aside from some early scenes of the Las Vegas strip, the movie is mostly set in a cheap casino and hotel. Kind of a downer but this movie does create some interesting gambling scenes. There just could have been more Vegas pizazz.

This is the first of the Leprechaun films that just tries to do too much. It tries to turn the lead character Scott into a leprechaun that has thrown-about quality to it. Also many characters really serve no purpose at all and add nothing to the film other than disappointment.

Unlike the first two movies, in this one the Leprechaun just kind of shows up in the film. There is a statue with a leprechaun imprisoned in it brought to a pawn shop by crippled person with no backstop or explanation on this. Actually, it kind of shows the good way first films ended and that this film could have been avoided altogether.

As well as trying to do too much, the film also seemed like it was trying to be something other than what it is. It is really uneven,  and shows way too much of lead actors and it seems like it trying to be a mid-90's Las Vegas movie without a real plot instead of a horror film which it is supposed to be.

Leprechaun 3 is not fun, not funny and lacks any kind of punch that a horror movie needs. This is where the Leprechaun series really should have ended as it was now dead but sadly we know it didn't.

1.5/5

Read More

Leprechaun 2

After seeing the first Leprechaun movie, I was pretty much done. It is a film that is only worth one visit and it is generous to say that it probably should have never been made.You left it with a weird feeling. So why not see Leprechaun 2? Well I did and Leprechaun 2 is more of the same and frankly of lesser quality than the first one. It is another film that is really not needed, bringing a new meaning to "bad" and is unfortunately the start of some pretty horrible sequels.

Leprechaun 2 has an interesting plot that I kind of like while at the same time, I cringe about it. Here, the leprechaun tries to find a human bride. Pretty interesting to have a leprechaun marry a person but creepy because of what it involves and because the movie mixes horror and love themes together. Like I said, this movie did not need to be made. The plot also revolves around searching for gold that runs it course and doesn't bring much to the table.

Like the first movie, the acting is sub-par. Aside from Warwick Davis and Clint Howard, the cast which includes Charlie Heath and Shevonne Durkin is pretty unrecognizable. The actors are kind of likable but this really is some of the worst acting ever put on film and it really wears on you throughout this movie. Warwick is his usual silly self that is kind fun to watch but it is more of the same stuff from the first movie and this time around, you don't  really care as much because you saw it before.

As I said in my review of the first movie, the settings can be a hidden gem. Here the settings are kind of a mixed bag, using parts of Los Angeles, a go-kart track and a tree which is the leprechaun's home. Los Angeles really has been an overdone setting through the years so that is a bit tiresome. The go-kart does have the only good murder scene in the movie. The tree though is the most interesting setting of them all. It is a very interesting place with some creepy dark hallways. I do appreciate the effort but it is done on the "cheap" and it is kind of silly and really doesn't make much sense.

The kill scenes helped make the first film but they are pretty lacking here. They are pretty useless with not much substance and in the end not very memorable. These could could have really helped the movie work like the first one.

While this is a very flawed movie, there is a little quality here and there in bits and pieces so it could have been worse. The whole movie seems forced and  lacking and this is the first film in the series which is really rotten.


2/5

Read More

Leprechaun

With St. Patrick's Day coming up, I thought it would be fun to review the Leprechaun movies. Here is the first one!

When you think of St. Patrick's Day, you think of non-stop drinking, the "green river" in downtown Chicago, parades and well, a lot of green. Can't forget about leprechauns though they kind of are just "around" with not a lot of influence on things. Leprechaun the film is kind of like that. It is really pointless and laughable and stayed in the spotlight because of it's style and most of all it's cheesiness.

Set in a farmhouse in North Dakota, Leprechaun has the same kind of feel as Critters 2. Here, an evil leprechaun (Warwick Davis) attacks a father a father, his daughter and a painting group. As the killer is a leprechaun, it is no surprise that the only way to kill him is with a four leaf clover.

One thing that is forgotten is that Jennifer Aniston is in this movie. In her very first movie role, and it is obvious at times, she is likable and obviously a very pretty actress who gets better in the later acts. Aside from her, the cast which includes Ken Olandt and Mark Holton have largely disappeared over the years but here they fit their assigned roles and deliver some cheesy acting that is fun to watch really.

I am not sure that the North Dakota setting fits the overall story very well. We see a lot of fields, woods, rusted out cars and small town settings and this is a part of the film that's get overlooked and something that I liked.

Obviously most everybody watching this movie is here to see the Leprechaun. He is played by three foot tall Warwick Davis and Davis fits the role perfectly. The character is gritty, mean-spirited with a "devil may care" attitude and Davis nails it with acting that is strange and kind of in a cult-style. He kills his victims with pogo sticks, wheelchairs and toy cars and this just adds to his bizarre character. The movie does struggle with a back-story on him that could have been avoided but really that is the only complaint I have on the leprechaun character that couldn't help liking.

I had not seen this film in a few years so I forgot about the four leaf clover idea but I think it is great. It is original, adds to the style of the film and includes a pretty funny ending.

Leprechaun is a "bad" film, but a bad film that still I still enjoyed in an odd way and definitely is a different take on this St. Patrick's Day holiday.


3/5

Read More

Oz the Great and Powerful

 

The Wizard of Oz is a film that has had some adaptions throughout the years. There were animated versions, a rock musical, a 1985 unofficial sequel that has a cult feel now and the Muppets even were in one version in 2005. Oz the Great and Powerful is one of the more interesting adaptations. It is one that I will definitely remember both on it's own and also for what it offers the Wizard of Oz movies.

Oz the Great and Powerful is directed by Sami Raimi and is based off the book from L. Frank Baum. It is a prequel to the original 1939 version and features the ruler of Oz, Oscar Diggs nicknamed Oz, played by James Franco. It tells of how Oz became the wizard of a strange land and how he eventually defeated the evil witches who threatened the people of this land.

If you didn't like this film that is fine, but I really don't see how you can not like the opening scenes. They are shot in black and white only using the middle of the screen showing Oscar Diggs' life as a carnival magician. This opening develops Franco's seedy-like character very well. We also see the great Zach Braff who is back in Hollywood after being away for some time and plays Diggs' unappreciated assistant. This is a perfect way to start the movie before we get to the land of Oz.

Substituting for the Tin Man, Lion and Scarecrow from the 1939 version, are a China (doll) Girl (Joey King) and Finley a flying monkey also played by Zach Braff. China Girl is fragile but also sweet and sassy but still with the characteristics of a young girl. Finley has an older adult-feel who is likable, kind and funny. Both characters really help James Franco carry this film and make it work.

My main concern going into this film was how they were going to make the land of Oz and how would it compare to the original. Well it is beautiful and has a lot of charm with vivid colors and style which includes flowers and exotic creatures. The special effects make everything in Oz look very realistic and like a real world.

I think the witch in the original Wizard of Oz really stood out. The witches in Oz the Great and Powerful are a bit uneven and lacking at times. That said, the witches here are much more developed here than in the original and part of that is done through costume, makeup, set-up and special effects. Both Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz both bring a gritty edge to these characters which I liked.

Another big question I had going into this movie is the James Franco "Oz" character who carries the film. The movie starts and ends with him. Franco has an edge to him and delivers a quite versatile  performance. He's a fraud and a con man, also goofy, has kind of a love interest in good witch Glenda but also shows a paternal side with the China Girl. He also has a comedic side that appeals to all including children. Even though a little dry at times, Michelle Williams who plays Glenda brings chemistry to a nice love story between her and Oz that is a little unexpected.

Once Act 3 begins, the movie starts to drag a little but the ending is creative and stylish like the rest of the film. Oz is essentially an underdog story with the peaceful people of Oz defeating the wicked witches with the wizard's help.

Oz the Great and Powerful has kind of a slow pace to it with a lot of dialogue but there are also some scary parts and enough that it may not be appropriate for some very young children. It does have a campy style that is faithful to the original but also leaves it's own mark. I liked Sam Raimi before this film and I like him even more now. I recommend Oz the Great and Powerful.

4/5

Read More

Jack the Giant Slayer

Jack the Giant Slayer is the first film in a while where I had some mixed feelings beforehand. This film was supposed to be released in the summer of 2012 but it got moved back to now which sometimes is not a good sign. It is also a film from director Bryan Singer who can be good or bad. It does however have Nicholas Hoult in the lead role and he was very fun to watch in Warm Bodies. My mixed feelings before the movie turned out to be on point as the film is an up and down affair.

This has the same familiar plot of an old kingdom with a bean stalk leading to the sky with something up there. The film is beautiful with great aerial and ground shots. There are castles, forests, trolls and period costumes that really give the feel of being in a far-away land. It's all good  but none of it is really new as we have seem stuff like this in the Harry Potter, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings movies. This could really appeal to followers of all those films but frankly I didn't really love any of those films.

The plot involves a love story between the princess of the land, Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) and a farm boy Jack (Hoult). There is some chemistry between them but not full or intense. There is a repeat of the Shrek and Shakespeare story lines with Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci) who has been chosen to marry a reluctant Isabelle and of course Jack comes between them.

                                            


One thing in this movie that is above average is the cast. Nicholas Haut is good and quite likable. Eleanor Thompson is kind of a weak link and maybe a little bland but she tries. Stanley Tucci and Ewan McGregor as leader of the King's elite guards are as usual very good in their roles and I should add that it is fun to watch McGregor's hair change in every scene.

Act 3 which closes the movie is kind of a mixed bag. It is mostly a climatic battle between the king's army and the invading Giants who came from above down the bean stalk, but I kind of got lost in the battle once we got in it. It felt a little too easy and it also had a few silly draw-bridge scenes. Finally, the characters did not age at the very end of the movie which is a pet peeve of mine.

Fantasy-adventure is not really my favorite genre but that said, I found Jack the Giant Slayer to be an average movie and something I would probably watch again.

3/5

Read More

Sideways

As a person who was born in 1996, I grew up with actors, Thomas Haden Church and Paul Giamatti even though it was only two films. I liked Church in George of the Jungle which is now just a film to see how skinny Brendan Fraser was back in the day. I liked Giamatti in Big Fat Liar which now I can see as an awful film though as a kid I liked it. Seeing these two was the only reason why I sat down to watch this film. That said, it is a film that is high-minded and intelligent but again nothing I would have gone out of my way to see.

Sideways is part road movie, part drama and part relationship film about buddies Miles and Jack (Giamatti and Church) who go on a road trip for days up the California Valley tasting wine just before Jack's wedding.

As expected, Giamatti and Church are excellent but the supporting cast might be even better. The secondary cast includes Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh and it is the secondary cast that brings everything together pushing it in the right direction and fitting the film into a nice package. The characters show a variety of emotions. They can be mean, full of good sexual antics, and also show heart and warmth along the way. They might not be the most original but again, they make a good package.

The main reason why I was a little less than impressed with this movie was the rather dull plot. Maybe because I am still a teenager, I really don't see what is so interesting about wine. It is a different idea no doubt but it is still dull and the scenes are not really developed and don't go anywhere.

Sideways is a movie with an interesting idea but the movie was kind of beyond me and not a movie I would spend any time with again.

4/5

Read More