my thoughts on.... 'Michael Lives: The Making Of 'Halloweeen''

Rob Zombie's take on the 'Halloween' franchise has been met with various levels of positive and negative reviews. Some have valid points and others are just outright "haters". While I can understand both sides of the argument, I personally lie on the positive side of things. I am a huge fan of Rob Zombie's film work and found this remake/reimaging/revisioning to be a fresh take on an old property. The original John Carpenter vision had long since been lost.... somewhere after part 2. 'Season of the Witch' was charming in its own way, but no a true entry in the franchise. Parts 4 and 5 were decent, but felt like out of place. Everything after that was just a downhill race to extinction. In all honesty, I was never a huge fan of Mr. Myers to begin with and I had long since given up on the series. What Rob Zombie created was a fresh take on the films. He breathed life back into a long dead horror icon. This wasn't the Michael Myers you remember, this was the more realistic, grittier and downright vile version. What John Carpenter had started, was a clean slate of a character, one without no face or identity. A "shark", so to speak. He called him 'The Shape'. Rob took that character, gave him a background and an identity beyond the mask. He made it bloody and messy, like it might be in real life. He made the characters react to what was happening in a more real life way and the trauma that remained after, was almost too much to bear. You saw the characters have an arc in their personalities. They grew with time, rather than just stand still. This wasn't a horror-soap opera.... this was Jerry Springer-ish. I now call myself a 'Halloween' fan, thanks for Mr. Zombie's vision of evil.

With the release of the original film, there came several versions on DVD, to choose from. A theatrical, an unrated and a 3 disc collectors edition. I proudly own all three and the only reason I triple dipped and bought the 3 disc version, was to watch the 4 and a 1/2 hour documentary 'Michael Lives: The Making of 'Halloween''. I was not disappointed. (side note: I also own the theatrical and unrated versions of 'Halloween 2' and the "workprint" edition of the original.) Now, you might be asking, "What in the hell could take up 4 and a 1/2 hours of time for THAT film?" Well, a lot.... quite frankly. I actually watched it in hour long segments, just to make it last longer. There is a huge amount of information in this making of documentary and if you're not a fan to begin with, this won't change your mind. This is strictly for die hard fans only, if you're not one of those, you might as well stop reading now. Unlike the similar making of on 'The Devil's Rejects', this kept my interest for the entire time. Perhaps, with the other, I wasn't in the right frame of mind and perhaps I need to give it another chance? Perhaps. What does this cover, you might ask? It's basically a road map of Rob's film making experience from inception to release. Every stone is turned over and nothing is left to the imagination. Every actor, extra and crew person is seen in this behind the scenes extravaganza. You get the chance to know all the players involved and see exactly what it takes to make a film of this scale. There is actually quite a lot of blood, sweat and tears involved with the making of a horror film. Especially one where you're updating what many consider a masterpiece. Rob was very respectful of John Carpenter and his original material. He was a fan first and only took on the project with Mr. Carpenter's blessing. That should really be enough of a reason for the "haters" to stop hating so much. I mean, if he was okay with it, why aren't you? That doesn't mean you have to like it, but at least respect the effort.

This documentary almost plays itself out like a video diary. There is some narration to go with what's going on, but a lot of it is like a home movie. It's a nice even balance of both, so as to keep you interested. You get to see how each actor was selected, how the script grew and changed, how the sets and costumes came to be and even the editing process. This is any 'Halloween' or Rob Zombie lovers dream. All of the people involved in the making of this, took it very seriously and all of them had the best intentions. They wanted to make the definitive vision of 'Halloween'. (That's probably why all of them signed on for the sequel too.) It gives you a fly on the wall feeling and a chance to see what these people are like in real life. It actually made me appreciate the film even more, AFTER watching this opus.

Now, I can't recommend this to everyone. You really have to love the source material. This is not for the passive viewer. This is also not something that I could find for rental. If you want to see 'Michael Lives', you have to own the 3 disc set. Sadly, Rob didn't do the same thing for 'Halloween 2' or 'House of 1000 Corpses', as I would have loved to have seen those as well. I'm hoping that for his new film 'The Lords of Salem', that he'll compile another one of these. When it comes to his work, I can't get enough of it.... even the tiny little details that no one else cares about. As a film maker, film lover and fan, this is like a Christmas present that keeps on giving. I really don't know what else I can say about this, after all, it is just a making of documentary.... not the film itself. I give it 5 out of 5 stars and will eventually take it on again. It's not something to just pop in on a whim, it will take a little pre-planning. Rob, how do I love thee? Enough to own multiple copies of everything you do.

Similar making of documentaries: '30 Days in Hell: The Making of 'The Devil's Rejects''....nothing else is quite as in depth

(no trailer is available for this documentary, so I just put the trailer for the film itself.)

my thoughts on.... 'I Spit On Your Grave' (2010)

A while back, I wrote a fairly extensive review (by my standards) on the 1978 film 'I Spit On Your Grave' aka 'Day Of The Woman'. http://amomentarylapsewithjoel.blogspot.com/2010/08/my-thoughts-on-i-spit-on-your-grave-aka.html Meir Zarchi's exploitation epic is nortorious for many reasons and virtually wrecked the career's of a lot of the people involved. Well, somebody thought it would be a good idea to remake it and play with fire. I suppose with the release of the remake of Wes Craven's 'Last House On The Left', that it just seemed like the right time. Both are similar in tone, topic and end results. I've never really been a fan of films involving rape. I respected what the original was trying to do, but I can't say that I enjoyed it. Because of my experience with it, I was very slow to watching the remake. I'm kind of glad I didn't rush into it. After finally seeing it last night, I realized that I really needed to be in the right mind set to experience it. It is hard to watch and extremely graphic. Steven R. Monroe not only set out to remake the original, but to up the ante as well. I think that he also did something the original didn't do.... made it feel less like and exploitation piece and more like a revenge/empowerment piece. This version would have been more aptly subtitled, 'Day Of The Woman'.

The plot follows the original almost to the letter. There are a couple of subtle changes, but I imagine they were approved by Meir Zarchi as he was a producer on this film. The changes don't affect the overall story a lot, but if you've seen the original, it might throw you off a bit. The plot, according to IMDB.com: "Writer Jennifer Hills takes a retreat from the city to a charming cabin in the woods to start on her next book. But Jennifer's presence in the small town attracts the attention of a few morally depraved locals who set out one night to teach this city girl a lesson. They break into her cabin to scare her. However, what starts out as terrifying acts of humiliation and intimidation, quickly and uncontrollably escalates into a night of physical abuse and torturous assault. But before they can kill her, Jennifer sacrifices her broken and beaten body to a raging river that washes her away. As time passes, the men slowly stop searching for her body and try to go back to life as usual. But that isn't about to happen. Against all odds, Jennifer Hills survived her ordeal. Now, with hell bent vengeance, Jennifer's sole purpose is to turn the tables on these animals and to inflict upon them every horrifying and torturous moment they carried out on her." I think that sums it up completely.This film is a revenge story 100%. This is classified as a horror film, but the horror is all too real. There may not be a masked killer or a terrifying ghost, this film boasts monsters that exist and could possibly be people you've already met. One of the things the Mr. Monroe does differently than the original is to add a 5th party to the rape and attempted murder of our lead. I won't tell you who it is, but let's just say that he adds another level to the whole ordeal. It also adds another level of horror to the flim, as this person is possibly the last person you'd expect. It's a nice addition and what that I honestly didn't see coming. Another thing that's different (obviously), but I think better.... is the new leading lady. Camielle Keaton was great in the original, but Sarah Butler takes this character and brings it to a whole different level. She radiates off the screen and exudes so much emotion and eventual strengh. She automatically became a new favorite actress for me. Granted, she's not done much to speak of, that doesn't matter.... she has a bright future ahead of her and if I was making a film, I would hire her in a heartbeat. The setting, the cabin and the bad guys are all very similar to the original. It even feels the same when you watch it. This is a more modern take on the 1978 version, we have cell phones and computers.... but when it comes down to the final revenge, it's all old school. Yet another positive for this film.

The killings that our 'hero' Jennifer Hills carries out in the end are brutal and well deserved by the bad guys. What they did to her and the amount of time they terrorized her, earned them a lengthy stay in hell and she drags them down into that pit very slowly. The original boasted a lengthy rape scene, nearly 45 mins. The remake isn't quite as long, but still extremely graphic and hard to watch. What both films suffered from was bad poster design. Why do we need the rear end of a woman, half naked holding a knife? It just glorifies the wrong aspects of the film. Other than that, I felt this was a solid 4 out of 5 stars. I don't know if it has repeated watching written all over it, however I think it just might. I would never recommend this to a general audience. This film is for hardcore viewers only. This is a film that will stick with you and make you rethink staying alone in a cabin, especially if you're a beautiful woman. Just check your brain at the door during the scene with the crows.... they look a little too fake to me.

After thought: In the 78' version, Jennifer uses her sexuality to lure the rapists into situations of trust. Once they're in her realm, she dispatches her own brand of justice on each one of them. They never tried to kill her in the original version, they just let her go, expecting her too be to ashamed to say anything. Therefore, it makes it easier for her to convice them that she wants to be with them after the fact. In the 10' version, they attempt to murder her, but she escapes. She hides out plotting her revenge for 1 month before returning. She doesn't come to them trying to convince them of anything.... she hunts them down one by one and kills them slowly and painfully. They have no idea that she's even still alive. It seems much more believable to me and a lot less like they were trying to exploit Jennifer in the modern version. It's just a thought I had and something that I felt needed to be pointed out.

If you feel this is a good film, please watch: 'I Spit On Your Grave' (1978), 'The Brave One' and 'Extremeties'

my thoughts on.... 'Let Me In' (2010)

the battle of the re-makes will never end.... as long as people continue to make films and then re-make them, there will be purists who say it's wrong and others who say it's okay.... and then there's the small group of people who will only know about the original or the re-make, but not both.... i used to be on the side of those who didn't think re-makes were okay.... back when Gus Van Zant re-made Alfred Hitchcocks 'Psycho'.... and my biggest two problems with that were: 1) it was a classic and you don't touch classics.... 2) it was basically a shot for shot remake, so it had no special signature of Gus Van Zant.... it wasn't until i heard him talk about his reasons behind re-making 'Psycho' that i started to change my opinion.... the way that he explained was something like this: film is like a piece of music.... and people re-make music all the time.... Mozart writes a piece of music and then several other orchastra's and conductors perform it, but with their own take on the piece.... and no one has a problem with this.... how is that any different from a film that's been made....? that's not a word for word quote, i'm just paraphrasing.... however, Gus made a good point with that statement.... and he's exactly right.... there is really no difference between the two art forms.... and therefore, i will give any re-make out there a day in court.... i may take a brief period of time to let the first film settle in before watching the newer one.... and these days it seems like a requirement to do that, as so many films are being re-made and in a shorter amount of time.... such is the case of 'Let The Right One In' and the American re-make 'Let Me In'.... i have stated repeatedly that i thought that 'Let The Right One In' was the best vampire film ever made.... i still stand by that statement.... it's proudly displayed as a part of my DVD collection and i've watched it several times and i get something new out of it each time.... after taking a long time to clear my head, i finally sat down tonight to watch 'Let Me In'.... and i am happy to say that i've formulated an opinion on it.... but first, the plot for those who don't know:

Owen is a 12 year old boy who is scrawny and lonely.... he has no real friends and tends to spend his time alone on the playground in the courtyard of his apartment building.... he's picked on by three older boys and dreams of someday being a tough guy.... one night he notices that some new people are moving in to the apartment next door to him.... an older gentleman and a young girl.... soon the girl, Abby, and Owen strike up a conversation and slowly become friends.... what Owen doesn't know is that Abby and the old man, her caretaker, are not who he thinks they are.... she's a vampire who needs blood to survive and her caretaker goes out to find it for her.... Owen and Abby's friendship continues to grow as things get more complicated in each of their lives.... eventually Abby is on her own and Owen is struggling to find out who he is.... in case you haven't already seen the original or the re-make, i won't spoil the rest of it for you.... but needless to say, both films have the same satisfying ending....
so what did i think....? i'll be honest, i did not have a lot of high expectations and i was very pleasantly surprised when it was over.... although much of this film was almost identical to the original, it was still it's own film.... the director, Matt Reeves, re-created the world of 'Let The Right One In' but for the American audience.... he also translated the source material into a smart piece of cinema.... it holds water on its own and is a nice companion piece to the original film.... the cinematography is beautiful and is as much of a character in the film as the actors are.... these things help set the stage for the true stars of the film, Chloe Grace Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee.... they embody the spirits of Abby and Owen and prove that age does not dictate talent.... you forget, at times, that they're only supposed to be 12.... but at the same time, they're obviously young and naive despite the fact that Abby has been 12 years old for a very long time.... these two young actors show amazing promise as to what the future holds for their careers and i look forward to seeing what they do next.... i feel that this film is a fine example of what Gus Van Zant was trying to say.... if the source material is strong (ie: the book) then another director can take their own spin on the story and create another version that is equally as important as the original.... and it leaves the filmgoer the opportunity to decide for themselves which film they perfer or if they like both for different reasons....

this film will be another part of my DVD collection.... and it will sit next to 'Let The Right One In' as a fine example of good filmmaking.... i can't say that all re-makes can accomplish what this one did.... in fact, i think that it's more of a rarity than a rule.... but i'm man enough to say that this film lived up to the hype it received once it was released.... it wasn't without flaws, but the flaws were so minor that the rest of film was not tarnished by them.... the biggest thing that bothered me was the way that Abby looked and moved while attacking people and climbing the tree.... it was obviously CGI and drew attention away from the film.... i don't know exactly how else they could have done it, but the film was obviously backed by a big budget and they could have afforded a bit more time on the special effects.... that was really my only gripe and the one i see most often in film forums.... now, i gave 'Let The Right One In' 5 out of 5 stars.... i gave 'Let Me In' 4 out of 5 stars.... the difference lies in the fact that the original had no seams in it.... i found no flaws with the acting, script, effects, cinematography or directing.... it was pitch-perfect filmmaking and set a standard for what a true artist can do with a little time, money and desire to make a long lasting piece of cinema.... 'Let Me In' came damn close to catching that same lightning in a bottle for a second time.... and if it wasn't for the small segments that bothered me, it would be on the same level as the original.... i can honestly say that these two films compliment each other and show different sides to the same story and fill in some of the blanks that were there in the first film.... (i'm sure the book explains even more.).... so if you're hesitant to rent this film because you love the first one so much, take a little time to let go of your prejudices and then give it an opportunity, you may be surprised at what you find.... and for those who haven't seen either and would rather start with 'Let Me In', you really can't go wrong.... it's a great film.... and a fine example of what American filmmakers can do and that you don't need quick cuts and big explosions to get asses in seats....

there you have it.... proof that one version of a film does not mean that another one can't exist that is almost equally as good.

if you like this, please take time to watch: 'Let The Right One In' and then read the book.

my brief thoughts on.... 'Piranha' (2010)

when Alexandre Aja released his film 'Haute Tension aka High Tension' in 2003, i hailed him as one of the up and coming directors that was going to save horror.... he was part of an elite group of artists that had a unique vision and something fresh to contibute to a genre saturated with PG-13 crap fests.... he had something gritty, dark, original, well thought out, violent, and beautiful to watch (cinematography).... over the years he's released some good and some okay horror films.... i don't think he's done yet and i still have faith in what the future holds.... regardless of all of that, when i heard he was remaking the cult classic 'Piranha' from 1978 i was a little concerned.... and when i heard it was going to be yet another 3-D movie, i got a little more concerned.... i thought maybe i was wrong and that maybe he had bought into all of the recent trends in Hollywood filmmaking.... because of that, i stayed away from this for a bit.... the only thing that turned me around on watching this sooner than expected was some very glowing reviews.... not only did the press enjoy it, but a lot of my friends felt the same way.... no one said this was high art, however they all agreed that it was a damn fun ride worthy of an audience.... and that brings me to now....

this movie is about a spring break like scenario at Lake Havasu.... while all the young people are partying and getting drunk, an earthquake strikes the town.... some researchers are exploring the phenomenon and find an underwater lake beneath the lake.... what they discover there is killer piranha's from 1000's of years ago.... soon the killer fish begin to attack and kill everyone around the lake and chaos ensues.... only a few survivors remain to stop the attack....
i hesitantly gave this 3 out of 5 stars.... i think with another viewing of this movie, that i will probably raise it to 4 stars.... it's just such a fun little excursion from the average movie going experience.... it's big stupid fun with a silly script and storyline.... the fish are over the top.... the acting is over the top.... there's nothing small or half-assed about this movie.... it knew what it was going to be and relished in that fact instead of trying to pretend it was something other than a B-grade movie with a big budget.... this is not the defining moment of Alexandre Aja's career, but it's a nice little notch in his accomplishment belt.... if you want a silly little bloody getaway, this is the movie you need to see.... even the ending is funny.... the only thing is, before you watch this movie, grab some fish to eat.... before it eats you....!

some other Alexandre Aja films: 'Haute Tension aka High Tension', 'The Hills Have Eyes' (2006), and 'Mirrors'

my brief thoughts on.... 'Dinner for Schmucks'

i like Paul Rudd, he's from Kansas City.... i like Steve Carell, he's not from Kansas City.... regardless of their Kansas City connections, i had high hopes for this movie.... it just seemed like a great reunion movie for these two funny guys.... the only drawback was the director was the same person who directed 'Meet the Parents', which i did not like.... but i figured i'd give it a shot and hope for the best.... what i got in return was a mediocre movie that i really don't ever need to see again.... not that it's a bad movie, it's just bland and predictible (like 'Meet the Parents' was....).... there were a couple of funny moments.... but the whole premise of the movie was the dinner.... and the actual dinner doesn't take place until almost the very end.... it seems like almost an afterthought to the rest of the movie, which is basically a buddy comedy.... i don't know how this compares to the original version of this movie.... but if they remade it, the original must have been a worthwhile movie....

Paul Rudd plays a guy who gets a big break at his job, but in order to get in good with his boss he has to go to his dinner party.... the dinner party is designed so that each person brings a complete mornon, but tells them they're exceptional.... and everyone there gets to make fun of the 'guests'.... Paul finds the perfect man, played by Steve Carell.... before the dinner occurs, there's a series of things that happen and Steve gets way more involved in Paul's life than he wanted.... hilarity ensues....
the end result of this was a 3 out of 5 star movie.... not a waste of the talents of Paul and Steve, i just wish they'd found a better vehicle for these two.... 'Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy' was such a better movie and featured these same two actors.... i'm sure it's not the last time we'll see these two guys together.... they have a long career ahead of them and a lot of movies to make.... if you're looking for a movie, just to watch a movie.... one that doesn't make you feel good or bad or happy or sad, then this is the movie for you.... i can check it off my 'to do' list now.... the end.

if you watch this, also watch: 'Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy', 'The 40 Year Old Virgin', or 'Knocked Up'

my brief thoughts on.... 'Night of the Demons' (2009)

in 1988, Kevin Tenny directed a fun little flick called 'Night of the Demons'.... it's a cult classic and a film that gets brought up quite often in the horror forums.... it's was good in 1988 and it still holds up in 2011.... i heard of this remake after it was already done and about to come out.... i didn't know what to think.... i'll give every remake a day in court, as i believe that some of them are on par with the original and sometimes even better.... this was not one of those times....

this movie was about demons and a small group of people trying to survive the night in the mansion where the demons have trapped them and are trying to turn them all into demons.... sounds kind of good, right....? it's not.... the story is about a woman who hosts a Halloween party and after the cops raid the mansion where she's hosting the party, things happen and suddenly demons start attacking the remaining partygoers....
the script goes from bad to worse as the movie progresses.... it's full of holes and jumps in logic.... they try to create a backstory that will make the movie deeper than it is.... but it just doesn't work.... the demons look kind of cool and i was happy to see Edward Furlong in a movie again, but it's just so over the top and not very good.... not even bad good that i wouldn't recommend it to anyone.... i gave it 1 out of 5 stars.... and i know that i don't ever need to see it again.... oh and by the way, when Edward Furlong falls through the floor and down about 3 stories, he breaks his leg.... his femur to be exact.... and when Monica Keena repels down to help him, she takes his leg and 'pops' it back into place to splint it.... (he turns into a demon right away *spoiler*, so i guess this whole bit doesn't really matter).... note to the writer of the movie.... if someone breaks their femur and you attempt to re-set it in order to splint it, you can rip the femoral artery and the person will bleed out in about 2 minutes.... so what you've esentially done is given some horrible advice to potential hero's.... just one more strike against this lame remake.

watch: 'Night of the Demons' (1988), 'Night of the Demons 2' (1994), or '28 Days Later'.... those are much better alternate takes on the zombie genre....

my brief thoughts on.... 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' (2010)

i've long since overcome my dispute with remakes.... instead, i give them their day in court and try and keep an open mind.... with the majority of the ones i've seen lately, they don't seem to be getting any better.... and with the recent news that Robert Zemeckis is looking to re-do 'The Wizard of Oz' i'm really wondering what they're going to be re-tooling next.... anyway.... the original NoES was a film with heart.... it was limited by the FX of the time.... but Wes Craven had a vision and he carried it out as best he could.... and what he created gave birth to one of the most recognizable horror icons in the history of film.... and spawned multiple sequels....

now to this version.... i think Jackie Earle Haley is a talented guy.... he's short and that kind of works against him in the title role of Freddy Krueger, but he makes the best of it.... the first thing that jumped out at me with this movie was the make-up effects for Freddy.... they went for a more realistic burn victim look.... in the original, Freddy didn't look nearly as burned as he did a pizza face.... but it worked.... with the new make-up, it became distracting to look at Freddy.... also, the voice of Freddy was deeper and more menacing.... it gave him a darker edge.... i did like the way Jackie used the knives on the glove by rubbing them together in anticipation before he killed.... it showed that he relished in what he was doing.... in taking revenge on the children of Elm street.... he also kept the character from making jokes.... something that eventually destoryed the NoES franchise.... my favorite scene in this movie was where Freddy had just killed the teen in the jail cell and then we cut to the dreamworld where Freddy has him hanging upside down.... he comes up to his face and says something like, "....the human mind lives on for 7 more minutes after death.... this means we have 6 more minutes to play...." if the whole movie was this sinister, it might have put the fear of Freddy back into us all.... sadly, this is the high point....
i didn't care for the character Nancy nearly as much as in the original.... and most of the characters came off as flat and dull.... not too mention, something i covered earlier, this movie didn't have the same heart as the original NoES.... it was just a movie made for the sake of making a movie.... and for that, i started to lose interest after a while.... i still enjoyed the ride and enjoyed Jackie's portrayal.... i just hoped for something more.... there's talk of a sequel already and i kind of doubt that they could take it to a new place and a better place.... but who knows....? i'm sure i'll submit myself to watching it.... i am always willing to give a movie a try.... i gave this 3 out of 5 stars.... mostly for Jackie Earle Haley.... as for the rest of the cast and crew, sorry but you didn't pull off a miracle....

if you're a fan of the original, you may want to think twice before watching this.... who knows maybe i'm wrong and you'll love it....?

if you like this or want something similar, watch: 'Friday the 13th' (2009), 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' (2003) and 'My Bloody Valentine' (2009)

my brief thoughts on.... 'The Heartbreak Kid' (2007)

it's no secret, for those of you who know me, that i really enjoy Ben Stillers work.... ever since 'The Ben Stiller Show' was on the air, i've been a fan.... i don't know what it is about him, but i like him.... and 'Permanent Midnight' made me a true believer.... this is more his speed though.... directed by the Farrelly brothers.... the masters of the gross out comedy.... this is a fun film with no apologies.... it's got a great cast, including Stillers own father Jerry Stiller.... the comedy is strong, the romance is sweet (somewhat) and the actors are in top form.... i don't know what took me so long to see this.... but it did and i'm glad i finally sat down and put in the time to enjoy it....

the story involves a man in his 40's with no real prospects or plans of getting married.... but he meets, what seems like, the girl of his dreams and takes the plunge rather quickly.... he soon realizes that maybe this wasn't the smartest move.... and while on his honeymoon he meets another woman whom he soon falls in love with.... and thus creates the tragic comedy that is this movie....
i'm a die hard romantic comedy lover.... and if they're done right they can take you from laughing your ass off to being almost in tears in the matter of a heartbeat.... and i have to say this one worked on all levels.... granted it's not going to win any awards and it's not for everyone's taste.... but i really enjoyed it and i feel no shame in that.... i gave it 3 out of 5 stars for being what it set out to be.... it's exactly what i expected and with that being the case, how can you be disappointed....?

if you dig this flick, check out: 'There's Something About Mary', 'Shallow Hal' and 'Kingpin'

my thoughts on.... 'The Crazies' (2010)

in George A. Romero's original film version of 'The Crazies' from 1973, he used the military as opposed to the actual "Crazies" to show how crazy the military actually is.... not nearly as much as the "Crazies" themselves.... in this 2010 update.... i don't think the producer, writer and director didn't seem to get that.... granted, i think that everyone wanted more of the actual "Crazies" in the original.... and me, personally, was kind of let down in the way it was handled by Mr. Romero.... i actually reviewed this movie already on this blog and let's just say that i didn't care too much for it.... and i'm a fan of his.... so when the trailers and previews for this movie seemed to indicate that they were making it more focused on the "Crazies" themselves, i was happy.... it looked more like a zombie movie or a plague movie.... like '28 Days Later'.... what we got instead was a watered down mixture of the military version from Romero's vision and the zombie-like victims of this version.... and the mixture didn't work.... it ended up just being kind of a big mess of a movie....

the story behind the infection and containment revolve around a plane crashing into the main water supply of a small town.... the plane contained a bio-chemical weapon that was headed to another location for destruction, but crashed instead.... and what happens next is the slow downfall of a community under the grasp of a horrific virus and the tight fisted grip of the military.... it's a total breakdown of society itself.... and as the military takes over the town to try and stop the spread of the virus, things get out of control.... and our heros must fight against all odds to save themselves and whatever they can of the town...

this isn't a terrible movie.... but it's also not great either.... even the lovely Radha Mitchell can only do so much to save this movie.... it's just a big mess.... i don't think it really knew what it wanted to be exactly.... and that shone through the entire movie.... granted there were some pretty darn creepy moments.... and some very tense ones.... and that made the movie worthwhile to watch.... but there just weren't enough of them to save the movie overall.... the scene in the schoolhouse with the man with the pitchfork is especially effective.... and probably one of the most powerful scenes.... and i've heard some complaints about the ending.... i think it was the best way to end it.... and without giving anything away, i think it made sense and gave a solid finish to the movie....

i give it 3 out of 5 stars.... which might be a bit generous.... but i felt that the good vs. the bad balanced themselves out pretty well.... would i own it....? maybe if it was a few bucks to help complete my Radha Mitchell collection.... but i don't know that i would make a strong effort to watch it over and over.... i just don't think it has that kind of staying power.... i would ask that you give it a chance.... you might dig it.... it's an improvement over the original, which is considered a classic.... i just expeceted more.

if you like this, check out: '28 Days Later', 'Quarantine' and 'Day of the Dead' (1985)

my thoughts on.... 'The Stepfather' (2009)

Terry O'Quinn sold the original 'Stepfather'.... LONG before he was ever on 'Lost'.... and that movie holds a small little place in my heart as one of the better slashers of that year.... then i heard they were re-making it.... so i figured i'd give the new one it's day in court.... right....? i mean, i treat all movies equally.... because sometimes you can find that diamond in the rough where you least expect it.... this really wasn't one of those times.... i mean, the cast and crew did it's best.... and i firmly believe that.... right down to the girlfriend of the son running around half naked most of the time.... but when it came down to it.... they never captured the essence of what made the original so great and spawned sequels.... this felt more like a movie of the week on CBS than a major motion picture....

in your typical slasher movie.... you expect a certain amount of bodies to hit the floor and usually some pretty original ways for it to happen.... this really never lived up to those rules.... the kills were low to none and the originality was just not there.... i do give the director credit for trying to keep the level of tension fairly high.... and he succeeded for the most part.... i found myself hanging on the edge of my seat for some of the scenes.... and i think that the actors had a lot to do with it.... they dragged out some quality b-grade actors.... and they took the script they were given and made the best of it....
the idea behind the story.... if you couldn't guess by the poster.... is about a stepfather who marries into a family and then proceeds to kill them after a while because that's what he does.... the big difference between this and the original.... is that Terry O'Quinn did it out of the fact that when things didn't turn out to be the perfect family he wanted, everyone died.... in this version, they just die.... it almost left the main character without a good motive.... supposedly this is loosely based on actual events.... and they even tie 'America's Most Wanted' into the mix.... i don't know how true it all is.... it makes for an interesting premise either way....

okay, the movies over.... i'm feeling like i'm a pretty darn good father.... and i'm rating this 2 out of 5 stars because it just didn't hold a candle to the original.... the ending was lame at best.... the 3rd act was disjointed and confusing.... all of the cliche's of every other horror movie you've ever seen all were kind of played out, but on a lower grade.... it's not something i would recommend for anyone but die hard fans of movies and is desperate for something to fill and hour and a half.... otherwise, stay away.... i watched it so you didn't have to.

you're welcome....

if you enjoy this movie, check out: 'The Stepfather' (1987), 'Disturbia' and 'Mother's Day'