Brian's Review - Finding Seoul

What really makes you who you are?

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Documentary, Biography

The Little Theater was packed to the gills - never before had I seen so many Koreans and their families in one place (well, besides the time I had reluctantly attended Korean culture camp as a youth). Rochester is definitely down with the Korean kids.

We were all there for the screening of John Sanvidge's documentary "Finding Seoul" - a film following John's first attempts to make contact with his birth mother in Seoul, South Korea. "Birth mother?" you may ask, confused by the prospect of John potentially being a test tube baby trying to track down a group of rogue geneticists. But no, John wasn't there just for himself; the unveiling of his movie was a shared experience, as almost everyone in the theater was a Korean adoptee (myself included), or someone who had adopted a child from Korea. John's film asked the same questions about identity that many of us asked ourselves growing up and some of us were hoping for answers to.

Coming from a similar situation as John, I was mostly curious to see what the outcome of his personal journey was. I had a slew of questions that I hoped the movie could answer: Did he find his birth mother? Did this quest change how he felt about his family and vice versa? If so, was the experience worth it? Also, why is every Korean I meet taller than me? Do I just have inferior, recessive genes, like an Asian version of Snooki (because I will have to kill myself)? You know, the important stuff.

I wasn't surprised I found the movie incredibly relatable, but what did surprise me was how open and genuine everyone in "Finding Seoul" was: John's journey was an honest one, and when he hit a snag, there wasn't some contrived subplot or deus ex machina to push things forward. Sure, people supported his endeavors in full - most notably his parents, who lovingly and unquestionably threw their support behind their son - but the favors done for him were not ones made only for the camera. And while some might find the film too slow or not rip-roaringly exciting enough due to this, there is no denying the authenticity of this work. This was pure documentary and it involved human perspective straight from its sources, without unneeded sensationalism.

From it's opening moments, I knew one thing for certain: I was not going to be able to keep my shit together. "Finding Seoul" dug at my core like few movies have for me, and watching John lay his hopes, fears, doubts, and dreams out in the open was like watching a piece of myself onscreen. In short, it was enough to make me put on the waterworks multiple times during the film's duration. If John's family's unwavering love and support doesn't make you tear up at least once like a 14-year-old girl watching "The Notebook," then you clearly have some issues expressing yourself.

I'm truly grateful I was able to share in such a powerful experience, but at the same time I have to question how universal this movie's reach is. Not everyone will be able to find the subject matter as profound as I did, which is an unfortunate but undeniable consequence of tackling such a niche topic. My only hope is that those who aren't able to relate quite as obviously to the film are able to take away the bigger message here: nobody can ever really know who they are. It might sound bleak and it might sound hopeless, but it's the shared part of the human experience that keeps us striving for answers every day.

While "Finding Seoul" left much unanswered - both for John and for the audience - the journey is still a satisfying one worth taking. It really managed to make me step back and appreciate the family I have, who I've become because of them, and where I'm going in life. For that, I can't give enough thanks to John. Rarely does something this personal, touching, and worthy of attention come along.

Worth a watch, regardless of your background? Hell yes.

Rating (out of 5): 4

QUICK NOTE: John plans on a return visit to Korea to continue his search for answers. For those who want to follow his ongoing endeavors, the "Finding Seoul" Facebook page is a good place to show your support. Enjoy!

Brian's Review - Contagion (2011)

It's worth getting infected by this movie.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Drama, Thriller

If today's trends dictated everything, 2011's "Contagion" would've been a balls-to-the-wall, adrenaline-saturated, explosion-and-gore-ridden zombie apocalypse action-horror. Those types of films are fun and all, but thank whatever god or deity you worship that this wasn't the case here. If it had been, we would've been robbed of one of the most thought-provoking, tense, and deeply-unsettling movies in recent history.

Boasting an all-star cast, "Contagion" brings the talent like a clown brings the uncomfortable. Acting prowess is on full display here, with a visceral sense of realism striking incredibly close to home at all times - families are pushed to their breaking points, doctors/scientists (science-doctors?) are rushed to discover a cure, the government becomes a scapegoat and is hard-pressed to save the world. "Contagion" presents a wild nightmare world that's not farfetched in the least.

This flick is incredibly effective at presenting a believable emergency scenario, eerily echoing the semi-recent SARS and H1N1 scares that caused mass hysteria and panic everywhere in the world. Except in New Jersey, where I assume everyone was too busy fist-pumping and being generally douchier than the average American to care about the outbreak of a potentially fatal virus. Let 'em burn.

The heaviest sense of dread occurs in the opening acts as we watch the illness spread like wildfire, decimating the population with all the efficiency of an invisible assassin. Unfortunately, "Contagion" is unable to hurdle some noticeable pacing issues, and this momentum peters out a bit around the middle to end segments. And despite a positively spine-tingling ending, the sense of discomfort I felt as the final credits rolled was nothing a few squirts of hand sanitizer couldn't fix. While it's littered with moments that will surely send a germaphobe into an obsessive-compulsive latex-glove-and-disinfectant shopping spree, most people aren't going to be terrified of this movie (although more than a few will be pretty grossed-out). Plus, why does it sound like they let the composer of the "Mass Effect" video game soundtrack do the music for this? It's not bad, but it frequently sounds out of place.

Minor gripes aside, "Contagion" is easily the most realistic, emotionally-intense pandemic flick I can remember off the top of my head. It refuses to waste any time on useless, mushy fluff, but instead creates a pseudo-prediction of a very possible future world crisis. Even if you don't buy into the disturbingly brutal and honest plight of its characters, at the very least "Contagion" will force you to finally wash your hands before you eat dinner. Your mom will thank it for that.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - The Caller (2011)

Time to invest in caller ID.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Thriller, Mystery

While some people may recognize leading lady Rachelle Lefevre from the original, craptastic "Twilight" movie, it'd be a mistake to dismiss 2011's "The Caller on the assumption that it targets a similar demographic. No sparkling vampires can be found here - rather, grating teenage angst is replaced by a brooding, yet thoughtful and constant atmosphere of unrest, and adolescent pining is nowhere to be seen among the truly unsettling character interactions.

While the film's premise may seem a tad absurd, nestled somewhere between an episode of "The Twilight Zone" and a twisted version of "The Lake House," the hodgepodge of plot components surprisingly works here. It's actually even kind of an original and - dare I say? - cool idea. Lefevre's character gives the flick a very grounded feel, as she plays a woman steeped in depression after a nasty divorce, but the scenario manages to avoid congealing into a bucket of Lifetime-worthy slop. This can mostly be attributed to the movie's commendable ability to effectively blend elements from dramas, psychological thrillers, and supernatural horrors. The pacing of the story itself isn't awful either, with the wire-tight tension building consistently over the course of the film, until it reaches a neck-snapping breaking point during the last act.

Unfortunately, the momentum here is broken up too much by awkward and oftentimes bland dialogue. Besides a selection of truly spine-tingling conversations between the main character and the movie's crazy-go-nuts antagonist, verbal interaction is pretty forgettable throughout. Tack on a generous helping of head-explodingly-bad logic from the characters we're supposed to be rooting for (a long-lived tradition in horror/thrillers that apparently must be upheld), and I have to drive the score of "The Caller" way down. It's a shame, because overall it's a decent flick, and could've benefited from some better writing. Regardless, it's fresh enough to be worth at least a single viewing. If not, you can always call yourself in the past and prevent yourself from watching it. Or something.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

This movie will instantly level up your life.

Released: 2010
Genre(s): Action, Comedy, Fantasy

Graphic novel adaptations tend to be gritty, fierce, and giant showcases of Hollywood special effects-driven masculinity. And that's fine - we, as a society, totally dig seeing people getting all punchy, kicky, and shooty on each other onscreen. But normally the best parts of graphic novels are the character interactions - the tiny, quirky, incredibly-human exchanges people have with each other - and oftentimes these are completely neglected during the transition to film. So, when a movie like "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" is created in a world almost solely comprised of guts and glory, it's bound to turn a lot of heads. My head included.

Those familiar with the Scott Pilgrim series of graphic novels by Bryan Lee O'Malley were doubtful that this flick would be able to convey the same type of dreamy, carefree, semi-melancholy flavor fans know and love the original books for, but as someone who's read these literary treats, I have to say that the writers and director got the recipe pretty much perfect. Blending indie romantic comedy-style sensibilities with O'Malley's signature video game/martial arts movie-inspired mayhem, plus tossing in a dash of young adult angst for good measure, makes for one hell of a trip.

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" crashes around the screen like a go-kart equipped with a Hemi, ricocheting back and forth between the young adult love story and balls-to-the-wall action so rapidly that the two merge into a surprisingly compatible combination. It's simultaneously witty, side-splittingly funny, engaging, uplifting, exciting, groan-inducingly corny, romantic, bizarre, and thought-provoking. All of its insane effects aside, there's something in this film that unquestioningly resonates with all of us who've been through it, are going through it, or are preparing to go through it: the message of "Wow, young adult life really is super-confusing and difficult. What do I do?" It's done slightly tongue-in-cheek, but is nevertheless genuine enough to not feel completely cheeseball. I always find myself a little bit more pensive (and a lot more amused) after watching Scott undergo his epic journey of love, fame, and pop-culture references.

For readers of the graphic novels who are still skeptical, trust me when I say that this flick is packed to the gills with fan service, whether it be direct quotes and situations from the books, or subtle nods to O'Malley's wickedly-clever social commentaries. It's not the type of movie that will appeal to everyone - if you hate indie comedies, martial arts romps, video games, or comic book culture, you're probably going to find something you hate in "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World." But for those who want a taste of something different - something with an unbelievable amount of heart and surprising amount of relatability - that boldly makes unconventional attempts to stay fresh and funny, this is definitely worth trying out.

Rating (out of 5): 4.5

Brian's Review - Episode 50

Pray "Episode 51" never, ever happens.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

As I've said before, ghosts are scary. Or, at least they're supposed to be, right? I mean, they do all sorts of effed-up stuff: they pass through physical objects, moan in agony, possess toys and make them creepily move. With such rich, terrifying, and primal mythologies to base spooky spirits off of, how could any film get it wrong?

"Episode 50" is how. Maybe I secretly like brain aneurysms, but whenever Netflix shoves a movie about ghosts in front of me, I find myself hitting "play" before I can reflect on any of my past mistakes. Good golly, I really should have reflected here.

"Episode 50" doesn't even start off with a good presentation: parts of the film are traditional, third-person camerawork, while others are randomly first-person, "found-footage"-style mumbo jumbo, without any real explanation of why these transitions are occurring. They certainly don't look pretty, nor do they add to the suspense or drama of the movie, and relying on them as a novel gimmick has been overdone.

Regarding plot, "Episode 50" weaves a story about a paranormal investigation team that went missing while documenting an allegedly-haunted location. Sound familiar? It should, because this is basically a poor man's version of the massively-underrated "Grave Encounters" - a film superior to this one in every way. This is especially apparent when one observes the acting in "Episode 50," which plays out a lot like a kindergarten play, minus the cute giggling and unintentional stammering of lines. With this movie, I can't tell if the stammering is due to the horrible script or from the actors themselves being completely devoid of talent. This cast is definitely the acting world's version of NFL replacement refs. You want them to die within the first 20 minutes of the film and that feeling only intensifies as the melodrama drags on.

It would've made it slightly less unbearable if there were any scares thrown in to break up the monotony of watching the definition of "stupid" personified onscreen, but alas, this was another essential aspect of ye olde horror movie that was neglected by the filmmakers. "Episode 50" attempts to scrape by with mediocre effects, a complete lack of atmosphere, and poor execution. In all honesty, the only thing you should expect to send shivers down your spine is the atrocious acting. This isn't even bad enough to be fun. Avoid.

Rating (out of 5): 1

Brian's Review - Up in the Air (2009)

An enjoyably down-to-earth experience.

Released: 2009
Genre(s): Drama, Comedy

The ever-talented George Clooney has played many eccentric parts over the years: a casino-robbing genius; a pomade-obsessed fugitive; Batman. But a corporate downsizer? A regular (albeit excessively-arrogant) guy who travels the country firing people for companies? Especially after watching him capably play such a grounded character in the spectacular "The Descendants," I had to check out "Up in the Air" to see if it had been a fluke occurrence.

I can pleasantly announce that Clooney is perfect for this lead role. He manages to embody both the suave, cocky, jet-setting, corporate playboy and the aging, uncertain company man in a fast-changing world, who grapples with his own inability to make real connections with people. It sounds formulaic on paper, but Clooney brings a very relatable personality to this protagonist - you never feel quite bad or down for him, but you chuckle at his jaded outlooks, applaud him for his revelations, and, at moments, kind of wish all of your work clothes looked that good. He's human, engaging, and surrounded by a vibrant supporting cast that's saturated with cameos.

While "Up in the Air" tackles dramatic subject matter, such as the effects of unemployment on our workforce and the devastating consequences of failed expectations, it does so without every bogging itself down with melodrama - in fact, it glares unflinchingly at its topics with every intention of overcoming the weight of today's society with youthful optimism and humor. In the same breath, it doesn't romanticize the real-life ideas it addresses, but handles them realistically and rationally, and asks us not just "What if?" but "What if this were you? Because it very well could be." It's a film that doesn't take itself too seriously, but doesn't take its themes too lightly, and that's a great balance that's rarely pulled off well.

While not a must-see title, "Up in the Air" is well above average in every way, using humor and charm to give us something that can be thought-provoking if we want it to be, or just an easily-digestible, Clooney-driven quip fest if we'd prefer our pertinent social commentary to sit in the background. It's a nice look at reality through somewhat rosy, but very clear and very aware glasses, and by the end of the trip you'll be glad you tried them on.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - Silent House

Silent...but deadly?

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

What makes a haunted house scary? Is it the gruesome brutality of events past? The decrepit, forlorn atmosphere, resulting from years of neglect? The complete lack of wi-fi?

No. It's the otherworldly haunts. Ghosts - whether they float, teleport, crawl, hobble, or slither - are undeniably terrifying mother effers. They can disappear without warning, only to later manifest in any number of places where they don't belong (like your mirror). They come shrieking out of the shadows and get up in your grill. And they're always trying to turn your furniture into avant-garde art fixtures. Even the most misunderstood spirits are creepy as hell, which is normally their own fault for acting like screaming, bleeding assholes, instead of just sending their friends a text from beyond the grave that says "WTF I was murdered LOL."

So what does this have to do with "Silent House"? Well, for one, the movie is riddled with things that go bump in the night - and boy, do they bump a lot. In fact, many of the film's most spine-tingling moments occur when the tranquility of the old, rickety house is unexpectedly shattered by the sounds of shuffling footsteps in some uninhabited upstairs room. Slamming doors, twisted visions of unknown crimes committed during the abode's dark history, and unexplained paranormal activity all contribute to an eerie and unsettling setup.

Unfortunately, said setup is slow to start, with much of the movie's first moments being taken up by backstory that is so bare-bones that it in no way is able to justify its plodding pace or disjointed delivery. Once things actually get going, "Silent House" does manage to ride high on its effective combination of quasi-"found footage" sensibilities and the psychological pressure of the main character's situation. The whole emotional package being sold here is heightened significantly, thanks to the film being edited to view like a single take - the lack of scene transitions ensures there isn't much time to gather yourself between jolts. However, even this novel approach isn't enough to save "Silent House" from itself during some critical moments.

While Elizabeth Olsen does an excellent job of working herself into a horrified frenzy, she's unable to support the entire cast. The supporting characters seem wooden in their movements and conversations, making it impossible for us to feel the same level of panic during each scene. Where there isn't any dialogue, we're left with long, drawn-out sequences that rob the movie of all momentum, instead of offering the same delectable slow burn tactics seen during the middle acts. These moments become even more unbearable once the plot basically begins to bash us over the head with such obvious foreshadowing that the rest of the film feels like a game of "Wheel of Fortune" with only the vowels missing. It's honestly insulting to the audience's intelligence and makes the twist incredibly underwhelming.

It's a shame, because "Silent House" could have utilized its blend of gimmicky camerawork, haunted house elements, and psychological horror presentation to differentiate itself from similar films in the genre; instead, it ends up as a mediocre remake of the original Uruguayan movie. It's also a huge bummer that someone in Hollywood felt the need to steal this idea almost immediately after the release of its South American counterpart. Even lamer is the claim that this film is "inspired by true events" - this is basically movie maker code for "at some point, something happened to some people that may or may not have been like this, but we think this is what went down." Leaning on gimmicks more than on substance makes this an average flick with a couple good scares and a subpar, dissatisfying ending.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - The Legend of Lucy Keyes

A legend not worth retelling.

Released: 2006
Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Thriller, Horror

Every now and then I play Netflix Russian roulette, where I pick a movie at random and pray to the ancient gods of old that it ends up being good. I'd say about half the movies I find are decent, with the other half causing me to hemorrhage intensely and/or uppercut random objects in a blind fury. Unfortunately for myself, my possessions, and my loved ones, "The Legend of Lucy Keyes" was the exact type of brain-meltingly horrendous concoction that normally causes said uppercutting marathons. Sweet bags of kettle corn, is this film bad.

Let me start off by saying that Netflix needs to get its shit together. Not only did they categorize this movie as a "horror," but they also used the super-creepy version of the poster featuring a little ghost girl (and nothing is scarier than undead children). This is outrageously misleading, and I say shame on Netflix for betraying my trust. Sure, the film features its fair share of otherworldly spooks looming out of the mist to shriek at the protagonists, but in reality this is a drama. And I don't mean "The King's Speech"-caliber drama; no, I mean gut-wrenching, contrived, brain-numbing, overacted, poorly-scripted drama. This movie did really well on Lifetime, and no offense to anybody who enjoys a good "mom and daughter bonding over cancer/death/underage pregnancy in the family" cry fest, but I can see why. Despite being made in 2006, everything from the credits to the music to the filter used on the camera has that special (read: cheesy) 1980's quality to it - and the acting is no exception.

This is about as scary as a reading of "Goodnight Moon" (which means it's significantly less scary than people who shop at Walmart), without any semblance of real suspense or thrills, and a pace that would make a nursing home look like a fraternity house during the weekend. There's a part or two where a half-assed attempt to "creep out the audience" occurs, but every time I started to grip my seat in anticipation, the film reminded me of what it really was, and lost all momentum abruptly. The worst part of this carrot-and-stick approach is that once the "big reveal" of the movie finally comes to light, it's impossible to justify the immense amount of mental pain the story and bad acting doled out beforehand.

So let's go over this again, shall we? Production: bad. Acting: bad. Music: bad (unless you're really into generic synthesizer riffs). Plot: stupid (despite the claim that this is based on a true story). Overall, this is one of those films where nothing could have gone worse for it (or the audience viewing it). It's rare that I stumble across something so completely devoid of redeeming characteristics that I have to smack it with the lowest of low scores, but "The Legend of Lucy Keyes" is epic in its shittiness. Unless you have a soft spot (and I mean a very soft spot) for the corniest of movies, I can almost guarantee that this is not going to be for you. In keeping with my Russian roulette reference from before, this is an effing bullet to the head.

Rating (out of 5): 1

Brian's Review - Quarantine

Time to update your vaccinations.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Sci-Fi

America has a habit of taking other countries' awesome ideas and giving them the Hollywood remake treatment, often to the entire world's chagrin. While not all repackaging attempts fail, those that do fail so hard that I audibly groan (or swear) when I see a new one being advertised. Combine that with the standard of awfulness set by "found footage"-style films and you can easily see why "Quarantine" immediately climbed to the top of my "Looks Too Stupid to Give a Chance" list. And there it stayed for almost four whole years until I saw it at the library and my morbid curiosity kicked in (what can I say? I'm a sucker for free movies). While many sources tell me that the original Spanish film "REC" (sometimes stylized as "[REC]" or "[Rec]") is far superior and far scarier than this remake, I have to say that I honestly enjoyed most of what "Quarantine" had to offer (although if "REC" is supposedly a better movie, I'll definitely have to check that out soon).

Set almost completely in a dark apartment building, this spin on the zombie survival sub-genre intelligently utilizes its environment to produce some intensely claustrophobic encounters with the ravenous menaces stalking those unfortunate enough to still be alive during this nightmare. The film does a nice job of building up tension before delivering some solid nerve-blasting jolts - all without relying on a corny or predictable soundtrack. In fact, the only audio in the entire movie is the sound of terrified screaming/crying from the survivors, enraged shrieking from the zombie-tenants as they hunt down said survivors, and occasionally the squishy sounds of some poor sap being disemboweled. The experience becomes a daunting test of bravery as abandoned apartment rooms quickly transform from silent, dark sanctuaries into echoing caverns of bone-chilling chaos without a single warning. I'm not a huge fan of the jump-scare, but it's employed here quite effectively. The creature effects are commendably creepy as well, with the zombies looking more like diseased, emaciated (and terrifyingly fast) horrors than clumsy, shambling, B-movie corpses.

The biggest issue I had with this flick is a common one among horror entries (and one that will probably never be truly fixed by the industry): protagonists being idiots. If I had a bottle of mouthwash for every time I've seen a moronic survivor cluelessly reach out to touch a person who is clearly already an effing zombie, I'd be the town drunk. "Quarantine" seems eager to fit in with the rest, falling guilty of this, as well as many other mindless clichés. It's the type of film that really doesn't want its characters to survive, and doesn't give a damn about whether you do or not. In fact, it's easier to not care about their mortality when they're acting like a bunch of brainless children who got into dad's private stash of cocaine from the '80s. Carelessly running around while screaming and making generally dumb decisions means you can become zombie food for all I care.

Overall, the flick pulls itself together into something that shocks, rattles, and unsettles to an adequate degree. It's not a masterpiece (as I'm told of "REC" - review pending), but it's a pretty decent remake, especially given its gimmicky composition. I'd definitely recommend it over the slew of subpar filth that makes up similar entries in the sub-genre. If you live in an apartment, you can even use "Quarantine" as a guide on what not to do in the middle of a zombie attack inside a shared residential building. Added bonus!

Rating (out of 5): 3

Movie-Related Nonsense: The Oatmeal's "How movie theaters SHOULD be laid out"

Since it's Monday and my brain is exhausted from weekend shenanigans (read: "still recovering from my attempt to drown it with beer"), I decided to save writing a new review for a later date. Instead, I wanted to share with you a comic strip that perfectly sums up my thoughts every time I go into a movie theater (and is largely responsible for why I hate going to see new films in said theaters). It's from The Oatmeal, a hilariously-pointed webcomic written and illustrated by the incredibly talented Matthew Inman. Check out his site for consistently brilliant commentary on everything from movies to religion to Sriracha sauce.

Click here to see the most intelligent movie theater redesign I've ever seen. Enjoy.

New movie reviews coming soon, because that's what I do! Thanks for all the awesome support!

Brian's Review - The Hangover Part II

Grab some aspirin and black coffee for this one.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Comedy

2009 brought us the original "The Hangover" - a rip-roaring romp through the seediest venues in Las Vegas, starring a pack of physically and morally-dehydrated (yet lovable) idiots attempting to piece a drunken and drugged night of unbridled debauchery back together. Insanity ensued. Laughter was had. Then a sequel was announced and the world held its breath with anticipation for what surely had to be a second, side-splitting comedy tour de force.

Alas. Those were simpler, more innocent times. Times before recycled jokes and scenarios were thrown about all willy-nilly in an uninspired attempt to cash in on the success of the first film. Times before full-frontal nudity seared my eyeballs at every turn. Times before...well, that last one was pretty bad; we'll leave it at that.

That's not to say that "The Hangover Part II" is a bad movie. In fact, there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and one-liners that were just as, if not more genius than the first flick. The comedy stylings of Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong are particularly potent here, playing up the already outrageous characters they portrayed in the original. Everyone else comfortably slips back into their archetypes with ease, rounding out a solid cast with some serious laugh-generating potential. So why does this movie not hit like the first entry did?

For one, almost everything here is a reheated leftover from the preceding film - some scenes are shameless replicas of the first movie, almost shot-for-shot - and while this was delicious the first time around, nobody likes soggy french fries. Unfortunately, this blandness permeates throughout the entire film, weakly imitating some of the best jokes from the original.

Second, where was the acting here? I know it's a comedy with the primary focus of bathing in smut, but part of selling comedy is making it at least a little bit human or relatable. With the exception of Ed Helms, nobody seems to actually react to the fact that mind-boggling shit is going down for a second time. Nobody (once again, excluding Helms) gets overly pissed off. Nobody freaks out. Everybody kind of just takes it as it is and shrugs it all off, especially during the rushed and feeble ending scenes.

Third, where's the story? Whereas the first movie had the protagonists stumbling upon delightful situation after delightful situation (which did a great job of fleshing out interpersonal relationships and backstories), we're left knowing next to nothing about what actually happened during this most outrageous journey. With such a radically different setting to work with, it's a wonder why this wasn't capitalized on more. Instead, all we get are a bunch of shots of wieners.

And that brings us to our fourth point: shock factor. I'm all for it, when used in moderation, but to completely replace the plot with gross/weird-out moments is purely amateur. It grabs a couple of laughs here and there, but overall this darker take on humor actually hits with far less comedic impact than it should. And that's because it's repeatedly beaten into the fabric of this film. With a penis.

It may seem like I panned the eff out of this flick (my writing kind of did), but I want to make sure everyone knows that I didn't hate "The Hangover Part II"; rather, I was just very disappointed. The last movie was a delicious, well-seasoned steak. I came back to the same restaurant, ordered the same thing as last time, and was served this film: a Steak-Umm with ketchup on it. It serves up a decent helping of funny moments, but overall it's incredibly underwhelming, and for that I have to drop it down to a score of "meh." Let's hope that the next "The Hangover" movie comes back a bit less hungover.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Grave Encounters

Just another reason to hate mental hospitals.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Horror

I've said it a million times before, but I'll say it again: I hate "found footage"-style movies. More often than not, they're cheesy, gimmicky wastes of time, marred by horrendous acting, paper-thin storylines, and a linear mentality that severely limits the film's ability to build up any real terror. They're a lot like the guy at the party who knows how to do magic, but only knows one trick (and that trick is already kind of lame). Needless to say, I wasn't setting my expectations very high when I saw "Grave Encounters" sitting in the long line of third-rate horror movies on Netflix. Also, the last horror flick I watched about mental asylums was the abysmal "The Ward" and the horrible aftertaste that experience left with me was still fresh enough to make me wary of the sub-genre. Regardless, I had a couple beers to numb my brain for what I assumed would be a mentally-deadening hour and a half of cinematic slop and hit play.

Turns out, I was pleasantly surprised. This is by no means a masterpiece, but it hits all the right notes in terms of horror fare - the scares come quick and vicious, making up for a slow opening that plods on for just a little too long. Then again, without this rather lengthy, incredibly cheesy setup, there wouldn't be nearly as many fun, obvious jabs in the direction of crap like "Ghost Adventures" and the multitude of other similar shows starring douchebags with cameras in dark buildings. As far as satire is concerned, this film hits the nail right on the head.

As I mentioned, the movie does a great job at being frightening, but it's how it goes about it that makes it truly memorable. There's definitely less emphasis on the amateur jump-scare technique, with more chills being drawn out and built up through subtle imagery, creepy ambient sound effects, and the downright terrified reactions of the characters. Some panned this flick for its special effects, but I have to disagree wholeheartedly, as I found the ghosts here to be intensely unsettling. More disturbing still is the fact that the cast isn't your standard, horror film, throwaway kill-fodder: instead of helplessly and idiotically bumbling about with targets on their backs, these people fight to stay alive. Hard. They break down every door in their way, seek safety when attacked, and do what they can to survive what is honestly one of the most nightmarish onscreen situations I've seen recently. Watching them struggle with such fervor against the dark forces closing in around them, only to fall time and time again, is ridiculously disheartening. To further strengthen this oppressive atmosphere, the abundance of supernatural elements here are expertly combined with a claustrophobic setting enshrined in darkness, getting under your skin all the more when the whole mess is compacted by all the heaviest characteristics of a psychological thriller.

Needless to say, "Grave Encounters" left me both unexpectedly impressed and insanely creeped out. This is honestly some spooky shit. If you hate mental patients, the facilities they're housed in, ghosts, dark hallways, dark hallways in mental facilities full of the ghosts of mental patients, or the F-word, your heart will probably explode in a ball of crybaby hysteria upon watching this. For everyone else, it won't scare the dickens out of you, but it's an experience that's sure to bring a healthy dose of dread and suspense into your life, while simultaneously poking fun at the reality TV industry. In the world of suffocating, Netflix horror sludge, "Grave Encounters" is a solid piece of ground to take a break on.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - The Hunger Games

This is not the greatest sacrifice in the world. This is just a tribute.

Released: 2012
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi

Say what you will of today's movie culture, Hollywood is pretty gifted when it comes to harnessing the mass attention of the tween/teen demographic. Look at "The Twilight Saga": the fourth film hasn't even come out yet, but it's already whipping fan girls into some sort of unstoppable, frothing bloodlust. Teenagers love what's hot, and right now "The Hunger Games" is a 3000-degree glass-melting oven. Unfortunately, to hype up the product even more, the transition from page to screen experienced some noticeable watering-down.

That's not to say that "The Hunger Games" is a bad book-to-movie adaptation; in fact, this is one of the best ones I've seen, at least in terms of fan service. Many of the iconic scenes from the original novel make their way into this silver screen interpretation, meaning people who have read the book will be able appreciate the plethora of nods to the source material here. While this focus is one of the film's greatest strengths, it's also a huge drawback.

"The Hunger Games" is almost too much of a tribute (no pun intended) to fans of the book series, making this initially appealing asset a double-edged sword in many ways. I understand why it was necessary to cut out much of Suzanne Collins' original 374-page work, with this bad boy already clocking in at almost two and a half hours, but what was chosen to be removed is what confuses me. While the main body of the story remains intact, many of the more intricate details of the plot are executed, but never explained, leaving anyone who hasn't read the book scratching their heads in blind confusion. While it's not especially detrimental to the onscreen action, the storyline gets a bit muddled at points due to this, losing a massive amount of momentum as a consequence.

Probably the most frustrating example of this is the whitewashing of the characters' personalities, particularly that of protagonist Katniss Everdeen. I, in no way, blame Jennifer Lawrence for the blandness of her character here - she proved herself a more than capable actress in "Winter's Bone" - nor do I criticize Suzanne Collins, whose protagonist in the novel is strong-willed, resourceful, and mature beyond her years. Rather, I point the finger at Hollywood for making her into a somewhat cold, emotionless vehicle for flashy action elements and star power-driven marketing strategies. It's sad to see this happen to a character that stands tall in the world of strong female leads, at least in her literary adventures.

The sense of frantic urgency and hopeless, heavy, dystopian atmosphere the books convey so well are also unfortunately lost in translation. Except for the scenes where horrible stuff is actually getting up in Katniss' shit (i.e. fire, murderous teens from other districts, etc.), you never feel like she's in any real danger. And unlike in the novel, the starving masses of the world are nowhere to be seen; in fact, nobody seems all that hungry - I mean, isn't that why the competition is called The Hunger Games? Good gravy, that should be a no-brainer in terms of details.

Instead, the filmmakers place the main emphasis on the action, and before you start bellyaching, let's clear something up - this is an action flick, and it is based on an action-focused adventure book. Sure, it can get a little angst-ridden, but this isn't a clichéd teen romance, so don't throw a temper tantrum when this movie decides to spend less time spouting sweet nothings and more time wrecking kids in the face. Although I would've preferred a more "Battle Royale"-style film, full of gut-wrenching kills, I understand why the violence from the novel is toned down to meet the target audience's PG-13 rating. The unfortunate consequence of softening these kills is that they become less profound and less shocking than those portrayed in the book. Still, the movie does a pretty damn good job of packing in as much brutal, high-paced action as possible, while maintaining its teen-friendly image.

There's honestly not a whole lot more I can say about this film (sorry for the gigantic-ass review, but thank you for sticking it out until the end). "The Hunger Games" is a pretty decent book-to-movie adaptation (it blows the first "Twilight" crapfest right out of the water), but it's far short of "great." Still, it should be fun for readers of the novels and action fans alike, with plenty of bloodshed and interesting interpersonal relationships to win over new fans as well. I say check it out and get your slaughter on.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Priest (2011)

Even if you pray for it, this movie doesn't get any better.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Horror, Sci-Fi

In a cinematic market saturated with cheeseball, romanticized vampire love-romps, it's nice to see a movie bring the fight back to these supernatural beings with all the bloody, balls-to-the-wall determination of 1998's "Blade." While "Priest" missteps many times in many directions, it's not the worst film I've seen, and I can't condone hating it as a whole. With that being said, it's also not a movie I can particularly like, and I can absolutely condone hating certain pieces of it.

While the film's visual style is a sleek, flashy, streamlined blend of commendable CGI and prop work, the world the characters inhabit lacks sufficient substance: the oppressive human city ruled by the church doesn't seem oppressive enough, the desert wasteland doesn't seem harsh enough, the vampire hives don't feel threatening enough. This could be overlooked if it wasn't for the fact that the main character and his companion(s) are constantly exploring new settings throughout their journey, bringing us back over and over again to locations that are not fleshed out in the least. It's an overlooked aspect that unfortunately damages the presentation of the movie, and prevents viewers from immersing themselves into this fantasy backdrop.

In fact, it may be hard for some viewers to invest themselves into this film at all due to a number of reasons. Continuity (or lack thereof) in regards to the original Korean comic aside, "Priest" has a story as interesting as a wet paper bag and as engaging as a Slinky without a staircase; it's practically nonexistent, and what is there is pretty ho-hum. Additionally, none of the characters seem to give a damn about anything, including each other. The interpersonal relationships here are sparse at most, and the "acting" seems to all be executed as a complete afterthought. Which is acceptable, to a degree - after all, this is an action flick.

And as an action flick, "Priest" shines: the vampires are hellish, vile, and savage creatures, making the fight scenes rapid and brutal, and blood is splashed liberally about the screen during the ensuing chaos. It's not some of the most fluid choreography out there, but it gets the job done in a quick, dirty, and fun manner that should satiate the appetites of most action fans. There are a couple moments here that stood out as completely badass, proving "Priest" as an enjoyably competent actioner.

In the end, "Priest" boils down to a mediocre concoction, unable to establish a profound sense of compassion, understanding, or urgency, while successfully utilizing action sequences to pump itself into a high-octane fight scene showcase. Without substance, the movie quickly crumbles under its own weight, forcing it to lean on its effects and set pieces to an almost crippling degree. Fortunately, if you're going in looking for an action film and nothing else, "Priest" will maintain your interest throughout, since it spends all of 15 minutes to explain any of the plot. This is great for adrenaline junkies, but bad for anyone looking for anything deeper. View at your own discretion.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Darkness (2002)

You probably won't even need a nightlight for this one.

Released: 2002
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

The "haunted house" sub-genre of horror - as overdone as it is - is one of my favorites, so I'm always on the lookout for hidden gems I may have missed over the years. Long before her rise to fame as the star of the inexplicably popular, vampire flavor-of-the-moment "True Blood," Anna Paquin was effing around with other supernatural forces in "Darkness" - a horror movie so bad, I'm surprised the residual stigma didn't cripple her career permanently. This was not the droi-...erm, haunted house I was looking for. In fact, it's not the haunted house anyone is looking for. Not that people go around looking for haunted houses on the regular. Well, I guess douchebags do.

Far too frequently, I find that directors neglect to include the one primary ingredient that makes a horror film a horror film: horror. How the hell do you forget that? "Darkness" falls into this category of teeth-grindingly false advertising, selling the prospect of terror here with all the effort and honed precision of a German Olympic diver. Not only is this movie almost completely devoid of scares, but the ones that did make their way into this film are so flimsy and underwhelming that they're also immediately forgettable. Without any kind of backbone, the "frightening" aspects of this film (many of which are almost directly lifted from similar flicks) flop about clumsily and inconsistently, never truly digging into the viewer with any kind of substantial force. You're constantly wanting more while watching this. Add some of the worst acting ever seen in the past ten years to some of the most rigid, robotic dialogue ever written, and you have the recipe for a big bowl of instant disappointment soup.

There's little silver lining to be found in this attempt, but what there is can be located in the first half of this gigantic, steaming cinematic turd. This is where the plot (which later turns into a wildly-thrashing, nonsensical melodrama) is actually interesting and holds some suspenseful potential as it delves into the occult and supernatural rustlings within the house. "Darkness" - ever so briefly - finds its footing during these miniscule moments, and manages to present a tense and creepy mood. Mind you, immediately after each scene, the atmosphere quickly throws up in its own mouth and chokes to death, so make sure you don't blink, because you can potentially miss all the "good" parts here.

There's no denying that "Darkness" is crap: everything from its acting to its direction is executed poorly. What it lacks in substance, it makes up for slightly with mystery and thrills in the opening act, although even these unfortunately dissipate almost entirely into yawn-inducing clichés and some of the most unrealistic portrayals of human reactions of all time. I'm not even sure that "Darkness" would've turned out any better in any other director's hands, solely due to the fact that the story is so stupid; in that respect, it reminds me of another incredibly lame movie that touted a theme centered on darkness. And much like that film, this one should've left us all in the dark about its existence.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Descent

A fun experience that descends into stupidity.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Adventure

For years now, I've been told by dozens of my friends to check out "The Descent" - apparently, "one of the scariest horror movies of all time." I heard grand stories about how heavy the atmosphere was, how it was littered with terrifying jump-scares, and hardcore action sequences. And, no offense to said friends, but it all honestly made me want to avoid the eff out of something so massively hyped-up. Seven years later, my willpower worn to its breaking point, I borrowed this "instant classic" from the library to see if it really was worth all the buzz. Even though I managed to go into it with only moderately-high expectations, "The Descent" just didn't cut it for me.

One part spelunking accident film (think "Sanctum" on land), one part creature-feature, "The Descent" isn't especially original, but the concept has tons of potential for claustrophobic encounters and brutal violence, which it does manage to deliver plenty of. In fact, once the first creepy-crawly makes itself apparent (actually one of the best parts of the entire movie) and our female protagonists finally start to repurpose their climbing gear into deadly weapons, things manage to get mildly exciting. Unfortunately, the fight scenes only occasionally border on badass, with most of the girls degrading into unlikeable idiots, ending up as lame vehicles for cheap-looking gore effects. The action sequences suffer from a strong case of premature climax, satiating nothing but quick adrenaline fixes. It wouldn't be such a lopsided payout if the scenes between weren't so excruciatingly boring, infuriating, or soulless.

The main characters completely lack any semblance of intelligent thought, and therefore prevent any semblance of sympathy to be cast their way. It always sucks when a filmmaker doesn't manage to infuse a single note of humor into any of the writing, and it sucks even more when said brainless dialogue leads to the protagonists having only as much personality as the feral savages hunting them. This was like watching an episode of "BattleBots," with the girls and monsters hacking each other to pieces, except that show was fun and involved science, whereas this just involves stupid jump-scares and bad acting. I also cared about the fates of the robots in "BattleBots" more than the characters here. Cardboard cutouts, all the way around.

Don't get me wrong here - I halfway liked this movie, if only for the visceral and oftentimes over-the-top action scenes; these moments were genuinely fun and the idea of battling something hellish with a climbing pick is pretty hardcore. However, there are just far too many negatives here to give it a good score, most notably the fact that this film isn't scary at all. There is so much potential here for primal, darkness-themed, tight-quartered terror, and "The Descent" drops the ball in every way possible. This also means my friends either a) are gigantic, wimpy babies, b) are shamelessly lying trolls, or c) don't remember 2005 very well. Maybe it just wasn't that scary of a year. Then again, Robert Rodriguez did decide to make the movie "The Adventures of Sharkboy & Lavagirl" in 2005, which sucked so hard that it was horrifying to think that Rodriguez willing created it. Regardless, "The Descent" doesn't live up to the cult-like fervor surrounding it, and is a mildly distracting experience at best.

Rating (out of 5): 2.5

Brian's Review - Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns

The creepiest cigarette company ad ever.

Released: 2005
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Despite the misleading name, John Carpenter's Masters of Horror entry "Cigarette Burns" has nothing to do with smoking tobacco and a lot to do with the slang term referring to cue marks that appear on film reels. It also has a lot to do with a cursed movie that effs up people's lives, à la that creepy video from "The Ring," or the insanely disturbing 1920's silent short film "Un Chien Andalou" (which some may know for its famously grotesque scene of an eyeball being slit open with a straight razor). While the movie "Cigarette Burns" is unsettling in itself, this film within the film is almost like a living, breathing character with a far more important - and sinsiter - role than most of the human cast.

In typical Carpenter fashion, this movie plays up the slow burn, albeit at a bit of an accelerated pace, since it has to cram an entire plotline into a mere hour's timespan (after all, "Masters of Horror" is technically a television series). Unfortunately, with such a limited length, those precious moments that are eaten up by the movie dragging its ass seem all the more pointless. While the greatest scenes occur when the atmosphere is at its most foreboding and psychologically horrific, the in-between moments plod along and break up any sort of tension that could have been capitalized on. Carpenter, however, is a master of his craft, with experience allowing him to gather flesh-rending steam and enough momentum to barrel into this film's ultimately satisfying climax at full force.

I can't really say that I was blown away by this attempt: it's undeniably unnerving, but it doesn't have enough conviction behind it to make it truly scary. Still, it's one of the better acted (fan girls - and probably some boys too - will squeal with delight at the sight of Norman Reedus) and more unique concepts for "Masters of Horror," and not everything about the execution can be critiqued negatively. If you're looking for a good place to dive headfirst into the series from, then seek no more; John Carpenter will guide you the rest of the way.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Adventureland

More fun than Misadventureland.

Released: 2009
Genre(s): Comedy, Drama, Romance

Teen dramedies have been coming out for as long as the dinosaurs have been extinct. While calling them "hit-or-miss" would actually be a generous evaluation of the sub-genre as a whole, those that have managed to surpass the typical summer slopfest tend to stick out as instant classics. 2009's "Adventureland" falls just short of achieving status as a timeless title, but still manages to serve up heaps of that bittersweet flavoring we all love to shovel down our gullets.

Set in what many consider to be easily one of the cheesiest eras of all time, this '80s-styled period piece focuses on all the roaring good times and stupefying woes of young adulthood, and does so in delightfully accurate fashion: "Adventureland" doesn't try to sugarcoat its portrayal of what is ultimately an awkward and undeniably bizarre time in every person's life. This in itself is a commendable feat, since it seems that most directors tend to lean heavily on caricatures and bold misrepresentations of what really goes down during this phase of existence. More often than not, these efforts are pretty effing bad, so it's nice to see a movie make an earnest effort at capturing the period's human elements instead of sacrificing them entirely for the sake of exaggerated humor.

While the post-adolescent drama might grate a bit on the more mature palette, this film boasts a cast with some pretty decent acting chops that is more than talented enough to deliver the movie's abundance of witty comedy. Clever - and oftentimes deadpan - dialogue claims the spotlight here rather than loud, boisterous slapstick, making this more "Superbad" than "American Pie"; indeed, "Adventureland" channels a pretty prominent John Hughes vibe, and once you feel its laid-back, mildly-angsty goodness, you'll throw your fist right up into the air while your outro music plays.

It's not perfect - the characters grow annoying at times as they flounder about without direction, the plot stumbles clumsily and lacks the subtly of its humor, and at points, the writing becomes so stale that everything almost grinds to an agonizing halt. However, the charm here is soundly ingrained into the myriad of interpersonal interactions and colorful dialogue, making this one ticket worth buying. By the time "Adventureland" ends, you'll wish the ride hadn't rolled back into the station quite so quickly.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - Haunted Forest

It'd be a cool place to hike. If it wasn't for, you know, the killer ghost and stuff.

Released: 2007
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Although I've said it many times before, I'll say it again: the idea of an evil/misunderstood female spirit seeking bloody vengeance on those who wronged her/accidentally crossed her path is not a new one - nor is it normally an effectively scary one. While movies like "Ju-on: The Grudge" undeniably cemented the "creepy ghost girl" sub-genre into mainstream horror, finding a fresh, new spin on this approach has proven fairly difficult for most filmmakers - there is an abundance of copycat attempts that flood the market almost every year, all which manage to fall disappointingly flat. With this in mind, it shouldn't come as any surprise that I wasn't expecting a lot - if anything - from "Haunted Forest," which initially sounded like an uninspired mash-up of "The Ring" and "Pocahontas." However, after actually giving it a chance, I'm glad to say that this particular entry colored outside the lines just enough to pleasantly exceed all my expectations.

The Native American mythology infused into the plot here is done surprisingly well, never straying into blindly-offensive or stereotyped clichés, and not overdoing what effectively becomes the focal point of the movie - instead, "Haunted Forest" very organically allows the backstory to flow into the events unfolding on screen. And said events are pretty creepy.

While the dark-haired, gnarled, ghostly antagonist that stalks the main characters may seem like a ripoff of Samara, the way this one slinks up for the jolts (and the kills) is truly unsettling. There's a lot of dark energy and imagery here that really crawls under your skin, and most of the frights aren't cheap jump-scares, but rather set up with atmosphere in mind. Gore is limited, never dominating the movie's focus or sapping it away from what's truly important in a horror film - the horror - so gorehounds can stop getting all hot and bothered, and go back to making out with their "The Human Centipede" posters and loneliness. The effects are fairly decent for something that is clearly low-budget fare, and the bang you get for your buck scare-wise is well worth the price of admission (admission in my case being my Netflix subscription fee). My final verdict: if you're sick of following the same path most ghost flicks try leading you down, then go get lost in the woods. You may end up pleasantly surprised with what you find.

Rating (out of 5): 3.5

Brian's Review - The Devil Inside

Inside? Outside? Who cares? This movie still sucks.

Released: 2012
Genre(s): Horror

No matter how innovative, ambitious, or eager to break the mold, every film about exorcism released since 1973 has been and always will be compared to "The Exorcist" - perhaps the most memorable, influential, and frightening movie about the subject ever made. No other film has received more praise or more appreciative nods within this horror sub-genre. Now, thanks to the magic of modern movies, Hollywood has managed to create "The Devil Inside" - a ham-fisted, ugly film that could be considered the exact opposite of the '70s classic.

The movie doesn't start off so badly, combining the (regrettably) exploitable style of "found footage" with slow-burning creeps, all built around a premise reminiscent of 2011's "The Rite." It effectively raises those "science-versus-religion" questions (the very same that generate those 250 comment-long battles on Facebook), while simultaneously managing to raise a goosebump or two. And that's about it. There's not really a whole lot of redeeming qualities to this film.

Although I mentioned "The Devil Inside" is slow-burning, it should be noted that "slow" is the operative word here: this movie straight-up drags its ass through a glue factory. If you're not yet asleep after the first half, you'll find yourself in more "exciting" territory, where the jump-scares are frequent, cheap, and predictable. Any atmosphere that the film built up and could have capitalized on is gone by the second act. Instead, it decides to fall back on its gimmicky "novelties," lazy, clichéd writing, paper-thin characters, and tired and recycled plot points - it all plays out like a low-budget waste of time, and nobody will be found caring. To make matters worse, it sets up what is easily one of the worst endings in cinematic history. Prepare to be overwhelmed with rage.

Pointing out that this is a ripoff of earlier, better genre attempts seems redundant. It's also completely unnecessary to compare this to "The Exorcist": it'd be a massive insult to the iconic horror entry to even place it side-by-side with this crap. "The Devil Inside" doesn't manage to pay any sort of respectful homage to its predecessors, and it ends up being an utterly boring, humorless example of poor planning and even poorer execution. Even the movie cover promising the involvement of a creepy, blind nun is a lie. Disappointing doesn't even sum this one up. Avoid it like a jet of Linda Blair's demon puke.

Rating (out of 5): 1.5

Brian's Review - Abduction (2011)

Somebody abducted the good writing here. All of it.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Drama

Taylor Lautner has become a household name over the past few years, thanks to his role in "The Twilight Saga" movies - a set of films that apparently makes him contractually obligated to burst out of his shirt randomly, and get angstier than a teenage girl going stag on prom night. Unfortunately, these types of movies, saturated with their brooding, sparkling vampires and melodramatic, half-naked wolf-boys, tend to attract the attention of a niche crowd (i.e. squealing fan girls), and leave little room for a young, fresh star with a significant martial arts background to prove that he's no one-trick pony. This was obviously the thought process of director John Singleton, because he decided to make "Abduction" - an (incredibly forced) attempt to inject Lautner's image with some high-octane masculinity and chutzpah.

While this idea was sound in theory, it by no means was executed well. Lautner has about as much emotional range as Clive Owen on his most lethargic days and comes across as convincing as a pig in lipstick; fortunately, being as young as he is, he has plenty of time to mature as an actor (as long as they don't release 17 more "Twilight" sequels).

Supplementing the leading man's (boy's?) train wreck of an attempt at sincerity is Lily Collins, whose only notable qualities are her relation to rock icon Phil Collins and her eyebrows' ability to rival the absurdly distracting nature of the single, dark caterpillar Anthony Davis allows to live above his eyes. It's unfortunate, but there is no denying that when Collins' scrunches up her face in what's supposed to be a look of frustration, your eyes are instantly drawn to what your brain will always initially assume is a production of the musical "Cats" playing out on her forehead. Plus, her acting is about as good as Lautner's here, which means the already groan-inducing dialogue is made that much more unbearable when these two are put in situations where they have to interact. Sweet Sally, it's bad.

Even the action sequences are weak, poorly-choreographed, and reek of "copy/paste" dynamics, sloppily stolen from more original works. There's also a lot of awkwardly inserted moments of clunky-looking and completely unnecessary parkour. Thrown in for good(?) measure, I suppose. Sure, why the hell not? When you want something to stink, you want it to stink to high heaven.

There's really not much more to say about this clumsy and mindless flick. Sigourney Weaver makes an inexplicable appearance here, and she seems so bored with - well, everything - that you can't help but assume she was offered some huge boatload of money, or more likely lost a bet. Best of all, despite the movie's title promising some potential thriller-style elements involving kidnapping or identity issues à la "Unknown," there is absolutely no actual abduction in its entirety, save for the abduction of your attention and intelligence as you watch this nonsense. The film gets a half-point, because Lautner does most of his own stunts, and I have to give him some props for that. But in all honesty, homie needs acting lessons if he ever wants to escape the stigma of "The Twilight Saga." It's unfortunate to see such an obvious attempt to exploit him as a "what's hip now" star with such a piss-poor cinematic effort, and it's even more unfortunate to know that people out there are making the mistake of viewing this. Avoid this like the hairiest and smelliest of all the CGI werewolves.

Rating (out of 5): 1.5

Brian's Review - S. Darko

If you can, time travel far away from this sequel.

Released: 2009
Genre(s): Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi

As many of you know from the review I posted back in June, I wasn't quite as swept up into the hype of "Donnie Darko" as many of the movie's staunchest supporters (let's call them "cult members") have been. Granted, I can't deny the film's appeal - the genre mash-up of psychological thriller, science-fiction, and even the trappings of teen drama make it a wickedly-delightful experience, definitely warranting at least one viewing. But obsessive fanaticism? No.

So why is it that eight years later a movie claiming to be its sequel inexplicably popped into existence like a plane engine suddenly appearing above a suburban house? And the director of said sequel wasn't Richard Kelly, the director of the first "Darko" entry? I have no answers. Neither does Richard Kelly, it seems, who insists he and his company did not and will not have anything to do with any "Donnie Darko" sequels, which includes "S. Darko," a slopfest of a follow-up to the 2001 hit.

While it's clear that there's a lot of love for the original infused into this film, there's actually an overabundance of it: not only do some of the events in "S. Darko" pay homage to the first movie, but many of them are simply carbon copies or cheap imitations of iconic scenes. The concepts from "Donnie Darko" that have been duplicated here lack the soul and spine-chilling heaviness that pervaded throughout the original film. It's unfortunate how hollow these images play out once devoid of all unique flair and purpose.

I mean, sure, the effects are passable, and some moments even get a little creepy. Hell, even the acting isn't horrendous (in fact, the characters are so good at playing completely clueless douchebags that you're fine when misfortune befalls them). But with the story lacking substance and with plot holes the size of Utah's Mormon population, this is an undeniably ugly attempt at continuing the pedigree. Really, the most impressive thing "S. Darko" has going for it is that Daveigh Chase, who plays the main character here, reprises her role from "Donnie Darko" despite a massive time gap. I guess "impressive" is the wrong word; it's more "mildly noteworthy" or "outrageously average" than anything else.

This is the type of sequel that makes me ball up in frustration and it messes up my digestion and everything. I know movie studios like the "cheap and easy" approach, but chopping up a fan favorite and bastardizing its name to create quick cash is a technique that wears thin on me. Maybe I'm just too old-fashioned. Regardless, I think a line the sheriff says early on in "S. Darko" sums up this craptacular effort quite nicely: "Big, ol' horseshit from the sky, if you ask me." Well said, sheriff; well said.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - Sanctum

Like an underwater caving expedition, this movie is dark, dingy, and disappointingly damp.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Adventure, Drama, Thriller

Outside of the horror genre, it's not often that I find myself feeling absolutely no remorse for the cast of characters as they undergo terrible and deadly tragedy. Even less common are situations that cause me to actively root for the deaths of the protagonists, if only so the movie will end sooner. "Sanctum" is one such film, coming off not only as a shallow and clumsy offering into the world of adventure-thrillers, but a frustrating one as well.

The plot of the movie is interesting enough: there's an underwater cave, there are some underwater cave divers, things go horribly wrong, and everything turns into the least fun season of "Survivor" ever. Well, not as bad as "Survivor," but things get pretty damn lame very quickly, despite the film's inexcusably dreadful pacing.

This slug race urgency mainly stems from the painfully slow progress the characters themselves make on their journey. These same characters also make it absolutely impossible to sympathize with their plight, coming off as overwhelmingly stupid and irritating.

The main female character in the crew manages to make a bad name for women in disaster-style situations, not only coming off as obnoxiously moronic, but also as an overly-stubborn dumbass. While I'm all about women standing their ground, especially in as widely-digested media as movies, I can't help but feel that this character was intentionally more brainless than the others. That's not to say that the writers are completely misogynistic douchebags though - there is still a good chance that they're just inexcusably awful at writing. Unfortunately, the actress doesn't help her case at all, coming off as unintentionally awkward and wooden. Also, why the hell does it sound like she's attempting to do a Sigourney Weaver from "Alien" impression during most of her scenes?

There's simply no other way to describe the young male protagonist except as a "punchable little shit" - I'm not sure if the writers wanted to make his character come across as a completely generic, whiny, ungrateful turd in this toilet bowl of a film, but even once he manages to reconcile his angsty feelings with his father, the relationship that develops between the two feels so artificial that you could pack it into an Easy Cheese canister and nobody would be able to tell the difference. The amount of tearjerking potential here is on the same level as a pigeon crapping on your windshield; unless you're having a really, really, really bad day (i.e. your dad and you just got trapped in an underwater cave), then you probably won't need the tissue box for this one.

But maybe you will, because after all, this is a James Cameron flick. So maybe if you cried during "Titanic" or "Avatar" or one of his other cornball cinematic ventures, you'll shed a tear or two. But let's not give him too much credit for this epic amount of cheese and overwrought emotion - after all, he only co-produced "Sanctum" - although I'm willing to wager that this inept attempt to create a movie that's truly "moving" and "redemptive" in quality may have attracted him a little, like a moth to the most garish of flames. Fortunately, Mr. Cameron redeems himself somewhat by giving us some beautiful underwater eye candy to ogle from time to time, despite occasionally slipping into some minor CGI-ugliness.

While "Sanctum" is a good idea in theory, none of the pieces are in place to make this an effective film: the acting is unconvincing, the dialogue is dry, the action is snore-worthy, and the one or two genuinely suspenseful scenes are completely overshadowed by the suffocating cloud of crap pervading throughout. Unless you're fanatically into caving, diving, or bad movies, this can be avoided like a bullet between the eyes. It's unfortunate, but the bad writing here sinks "Sanctum" and leaves it to rot at the bottom of an underwater abyss. Honestly, that's where you should let it stay.

Rating (out of 5): 2

10 Things Movies Have Taught Me NOT to Do

Hey all! So, the film blog has been going on for some time now and boy, oh boy, have I watched a lot of crap. Like hundreds of movies - obviously, most of which I haven't written up posts for yet. I hope you find at least some of my reviews useful so far. I know I have.

I try my best to apply this knowledge to everything I do. I really feel it's made me into a much healthier person. Here's a list of 10 things movies have taught me NOT to do:

1. Don't use the internet.

And to a much greater extent, technology in general. If the American remake of "Pulse" can teach us anything at all, it's that haunted computer viruses will eventually cause our greatest societies to crumble like a nerd during a dodgeball game. Basically this means that if you're reading this now, you're screwed. It also means I'm screwed while I write this. Shit.

I know some of you out there won't heed my advice and will continue to play Angry Birds on your smartphones or download gigabytes of internet porn from BitTorrent. Well, if you need more convincing, just check out the remake's sequel "Pulse 2: Afterlife," which has a scene where two of the characters battle an evil laptop. Be afraid. Very afraid.

2. Don't lease a rent-controlled apartment.

Chances are it will drive you crazy and cause you to act like Jack Nicholson in "The Shining." Just ask the main character from "Occupant," a recluse who has to rely on his weird, Super Mario-looking doorman to bring him groceries. Imagine waiting for toilet paper on taco and loose corn night, while simultaneously fending off the forces of psychological and supernatural darkness. My apartment isn't rent-controlled and I never have to deal with that kind of effed-up head trip. No money in the world is worth that.

3. Don't poop in the haunted outhouse.

Just don't. Because if you do, you'll probably have to squeeze it off halfway through once all the weird paranormal junk starts happening, and we all know how uncomfortable that is. The guy in "The Presence" taught me how terrifying this can be, and you don't want to go through what he did (an outhouse began shaking while he was in it). Plus, chances are that while you've got your pants down, some creepy ghost will be staring directly at your business. Don't encourage the supernatural voyeurs.

4. Don't let your lack of superpowers prevent you from being a superhero.

Batman who? "The Green Hornet" proves exactly how easy it is to become a nocturnal vigilante if you just have a ton of inherited money, partner with a highly-skilled "Ninja Assassin" of a sidekick to do the hard stuff, and act like a totally obnoxious, drunk jackass all the time. To me, that spells winning. Maybe even bi-winning.

In the face of this Triforce of heroic characteristics, guys like Spider-Man seem like total weenies, who have to rely on special abilities to impress people. I'll grab me some gadgets and a handful of poorly-written one-liners over that crap any day.

5. Don't be a zombie.

"Land of the Dead" taught me one very important lesson: don't die and reanimate as a flesh-eating version of yourself. It sucks enough when you want to eat flesh while you're still alive, but once you become a zombie it's all you can think about. No more 2 AM runs to McDonald's after the bar. No more awesome Super Smash Bros. tournaments with the dudes (which you shouldn't be doing anyway, if you read the first item on my list). No more talking about cool movies or reading cool movie blogs. Just man-flesh all up in your mouth. Plus, according to the Romero movies, you become slow as hell, and I personally don't want to make undead pee in my pants as I shamble to the bathroom.

6. Don't be a Greek god.

If you've ever seen "Immortals," then you know that being a Greek deity isn't all that it's cracked up to be. Not only will you speak with an inexplicable British accent, but you will also be forced to wear the most ridiculous clothes ever conceived. Also, someone might try to film you in unnecessary 3D. Even if you're really into wielding unfathomable power, this is still not a good trade-off.

7. Don't go to summer camp.

With the exception of the hilarious "Wet Hot American Summer," chances are that the summer camp you or your children worked at or attended was actually the main stomping grounds of a deformed serial killer with a huge-ass knife. Why else would they make 12 different movies in the "Friday the 13th" series about this unless it was real? There's obviously some desire to get the sickening truth out there, because there's no other reason anyone in their right mind would keep intentionally releasing this cinematic crap.

8. Don't go to the moon.

While most of us won't have to worry about this one, there's probably still enough potential future astronauts out there sputtering "OMG! WTF? You're cramping my style, bro" about this item for it to be worth mentioning. Take it seriously, otherwise you'll end up like Sam Rockwell in "Moon" or, worse yet, the guys from "Apollo 18." You can tell that "Apollo 18" really happened by the crappy, shaky Handycam-style footage. I mean, no filmmaker would ever intentionally do this as a gimmick. Right?

Apparently, if you go to the moon, shit will get all up in your spacesuit and kill your ass. It's obviously natural's way of saying "Hey you! Get back on down to Earth, where things are all natural-like!" And honestly, who the hell are we to argue with nature?

9. Don't go to Japan. Ever.

As if Japan wasn't a weird enough place already, they had to go ahead and put effing ghosts in it. If you've seen any of "The Grudge" movies, specifically the Japanese iterations "Ju-on: The Grudge" and "Ju-on: The Grudge 2," then you know as well as I do that it's not uncommon in Japan for creepy, croaking women to crawl at you, or for pale, young boys to screech like a cat in your face while running around bare-ass naked. On its own, this would be scary enough, but add on the extra risk of this situation potentially leading to the Japanese version of Chris Hansen suddenly showing up to expose and apprehend you. Totally not worth the ramen noodles, no matter how authentic they are.

10. Don't be afraid of the dark.

This isn't really a piece of advice I learned from movies at all: I just wanted to reiterate how awful of a del Toro flick "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" is. Yeesh.

Closing comments:

If what people say is true - that movies imitate life - then we have more to worry about than the meager 10 listings I just went over. In this same respect, life should learn from the mistakes made in movies. So be sure to unplug your cellphones, shut your blinds, and cancel all international travel plans, because if you've absorbed as much as I have from these films, then you're on the right path to staying alive. And alive is a very, very good thing to be.