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.

Brian's Review - Pulse 2: Afterlife

More of a hell than an afterlife.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

Every now and then I get possessed by a masochist and decide to burn my eyeballs out of my skull with the worst movie I can possibly find. Fortunately for you, you can just read my review and spare yourself from the suffering that is "Pulse 2: Afterlife," a direct-to-video sequel to a remake of an actually scary Japanese film. Except unlike said Japanese film, "Pulse 2: Afterlife" completely lacks any sort of finesse, subtlety, or intelligence. Grab some toilet paper, because this is the cinematic version of dysentery.

When it comes to cinematography, this movie is about as interesting as a saltine cracker. Not only do the setups lack the ability to generate any sort of suspense, but almost every shot makes the actors look like they're superimposed into a washed-out, CGI world. Maybe it was just the work of an overzealous effects magician during post-production, or maybe everything really was shot in front of a green screen, but regardless of the excuse, "Pulse 2: Afterlife" is an over-doctored Frankensteinian abomination.

The characters themselves are extremely unlikable, repeatedly making idiotic and frustrating decisions that are not only ridiculous, but unrealistic as well. The actors play their parts with all the gusto of a pack of sleeping three-toed sloths, feigned fear occasionally bubbling to the surface like farts in a tub. Good gravy, is this bad stuff, and it makes it impossible to sympathize with any of the characters' plights.

Even the scares here are poorly done: since there's no creepy atmosphere, the movie falls back far too often on the ever-clichéd tactic of the jump-scare. And what an ugly tactic it is. These "scares" are so ham-fisted and predictable that they end up being positively yawn-inducing. Easily my favorite scene is one where the characters face-off against an idle laptop that is supposedly "dangerous"; the scenario is so preposterous and stupid that I would've laughed out loud...if I hadn't been groaning already. Everything that is meant to create a feeling of hopelessness in us ends up just breeding frustration, and it doesn't help that the movie plods along with all the purpose of diarrhea-flavored chewing gum.

The only thing that "Pulse 2: Afterlife" does even mildly well (besides causing brain aneurysms) is in its portrayal of the detrimental effects the apocalyptic setting has on the protagonist's family. The stress even causes a child to get slapped in one scene, and that's exactly how you'll feel while watching this film: like an abused, helpless child, and as one, you'll never be able to commit an act as atrocious as this movie will commit unto you. Avoid at all costs.

Rating (out of 5): 1

Brian's Review - Men in Black 3

A summer flick that's out of this world.

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

Aliens. Laser blasters. A weird buddy comedy reminiscent of "Lethal Weapon" dressed up in black suits and sunglasses. After ten years of absence, it's the mother-effin' Men in Black, and if you were a fan of the first two films, "Men in Black 3" will tickle your fancy so hard you'll damn near piss yourself with delight. This is good, silly, alien-vaporizing fun, and it's very apparent that Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, and the entire supporting cast are having an absolute blast as they romp around time like a rugby team at an open bar. The most notable additions to the cast are Josh Brolin and Jemaine Clement, both of who show off their rather impressive acting chops, albeit from opposite ends of the personality spectrum. Brolin does a spot-on job portraying the younger version of Tommy Lee Jones' character, but transcends mere emulation - everything from Jones' voice inflection, mannerisms, and droll sense of humor comes across so convincingly that if you were blind, you might not be able to tell the two actors apart. Clement brings a wickedly-hilarious vibe to the sinister villain he plays (a skill he exemplified in "Rio" while playing a similar role); it's this same offbeat kookiness that made him such a hit on the show "The Flight of the Conchords." The adventure revels in wildly-entertaining action sequences, bolstered by special effects so unabashedly cartoony that audiences lucky enough to go see this movie in 3D will swear they're getting showered in gallons of exploding, CGI alien gore. The writing here is far from smart, but there are moments that the dialogue becomes so gut-bustingly funny that snacking during this film becomes a very real choking hazard. It's unfortunate that - like an untrained marathon runner, or an inexperienced college drinker - "Men in Black 3" starts off so strong that it cannot maintain its breakneck speed and stumbles into a weakened pace somewhere around the middle. It, however, does not waste this time completely, using these gaps in the action to do some surprisingly sincere and heartfelt character building. It's all a bit cheesy and a tad on the dramatic side, but it's a nice way to break up what is a normally vanilla formula comprised solely of over-the-top set pieces and effects-heavy silliness. But let's be honest, nobody is going to a "Men in Black" movie for the storyline: we're out for extraterrestrial blood and to see The Fresh Prince bickering with U.S Marshal Samuel Gerard, and "Men in Black 3" is more than glad and capable enough to serve up heaps and heaps of exactly what we want. It's not life-changing in any way, but it's such an enjoyable summer flick that I have no shame in admitting that I'll be first in line if there is ever a fourth installment - even if it takes another decade to make.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - The Amazing Spider-Man

Not quite amazing, but very damn good.

Released: 2012
Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Fantasy

Who was it that asked for a reboot of Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man" film trilogy, especially when it just ended a few years ago? Nobody. Not a person with an interest in movies should have given a damn about "The Amazing Spider-Man," when Raimi's blockbuster entries had just so recently sputtered into mediocrity in the eyes of both critics and fans alike. Fortunately, some people did give a damn, most notably of all director Marc Webb, who clearly has a passion for both the Spider-Man franchise and for his craft as a filmmaker. Webb's work on "(500) Days of Summer" piqued my interest in this flick, and I have to say that Webb's high-flying revamp of Spider-Man transformed me from jaded comic movie fan into a full-blown supporter of the new iteration. Despite studios beating us over the heads with superhero origin stories recently, "The Amazing Spider-Man" feels fresher than most. Maybe it's the believable performance of leading man Andrew Garfield as he fumbles around with his new powers, evolving over the course of the film instead of suddenly and immediately becoming an invincible master of his talents; there is indeed something very human about watching him learn from his mistakes. Or maybe it's how this movie pays homage to the comic and cartoon series' (specifically the one from the '90s) comedic wit, giving us a more familiar, smart-alecky titular character than past attempts have given us. Maybe it's just the genuine portrayal of a teenager falling in love for the first time, with Garfield and romantic interest Emma Stone adding a healthy dose of awkward, bashful relationship-based angst to the mix. Instead of bashing us in the face repeatedly with some contrived ideal regarding the importance of "responsibility" and "doing good," this film lets its protagonist discover his own brand of justice; the result is something that's more sincerely heartfelt than most other superhero adventures. It's still a little cheesy, but hey, it's a freaking comic book movie - kitsch is as much of a part of this universe as evil villains wearing giant fishbowls on their heads and malicious, shape-shifting alien parasites. The biggest glaring issue "The Amazing Spider-Man" falls to is the inconsistency of its special effects: despite getting glammed-up by the Hollywood treatment, the film's CGI waxes and wanes from sleek and stylish action sequences to Windows 98-generated goofiness. It's a small crack in this movie's rather impressive visual exoskeleton, but one that is majorly detrimental to some of the fight scenes and larger set pieces. Still, it doesn't take away too much from what this film is all about: incredibly digestible entertainment value. This is the Spider-Man adventure Stan Lee certainly wants us to see, and the one we as audiences have been waiting for. "The Amazing Spider-Man" serves up exactly what every summer moviegoer seeks: a film that combines the best parts of the franchise's campy melodrama, honest ideals, and web-slinging fun. And when all is said and done, the effort proves to be not just satisfying, but absolutely heroic.

Rating (out of 5): 4

Brian's Review - Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow

A Marvel movie that's marvelous for kids, but a bit tame for the rest.

Released: 2008
Genre(s): Animation, Action, Family

Marvel Animation has been a consistent contributor to the greater Marvel multiverse for years, creating diverse and impressive reimaginings of canon favorites, and adding entertaining, new characters to the already eclectic mix. "Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow" does a spectacular job of making its young protagonists feel like natural fits in the already established mythos surrounding them, while also keeping everything family-friendly and fairly lighthearted - in fact, this is Marvel's first PG-rated animated film, and it definitely has a certain cutesy, Saturday morning cartoon appeal. The animation isn't groundbreaking - think an imitation of Cartoon Network's "Ben 10" - but is appropriate for a direct-to-video feature, coming off not quite as smooth as a major Disney caper, but not utilizing the clunkiest or clumsiest of presentations either. This "Teen Titans"-style treatment unfortunately can have a harsh polarizing effect among viewers: while the jaunty antics and adventures of the new superhero team are wonderful for kids, neither being too violent or complicated in nature, this approach may alienate those older fans more familiar with Marvel's darker thematic elements. While far inferior to the parade of live-action blockbusters that have marched through theaters over the past few years, "Next Avengers: Heroes of Tomorrow" is a fresh, fun take on one of the most famous superhero teams of all time, promising to delight younger audiences and not put older ones to sleep. Plan to pick it up for an entertaining family movie night.

Rating (out of 5): 3

Brian's Review - Occupant (2011)

Worth leasing, but not buying.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

The low-budget thriller/horror film market is saturated with an unfathomable volume of horrendous crap, and more times than not these attempts merely recycle or mimic more well-known and higher-quality entries into the genre. While it can be excruciatingly horrible to wade through this onslaught of cinematic sludge, every now and then I stumble across a diamond in the rough. "Occupant" isn't the smartest effort of recent memory, nor is it the scariest, but it's certainly unique enough to be worth mentioning. The plot here isn't especially innovative, borrowing heavily from movies like "1408" and Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining," but much like said inspiration, the execution is what differentiates this film from the slew of other cheap imitations. The movie is actually pretty sleek-looking for a lower-budget offering, and it makes effective use of its small, fairly-unknown cast, especially leading man Van Hansis, whose portrayal of a man grappling with his sanity is so convincing its unsettling. The atmosphere is dark, disturbing, and suspenseful, akin to an under-your-skin David Lynch head trip; it's that special blend of intentionally-ambiguous psychological thriller and supernatural horror that makes this a very carrot-on-a-stick experience, never allowing the viewer to turn away once the action begins its slow-burning buildup. Unfortunately, this very same technique is a double-edged sword, as the pacing of this film lacks the polish of experienced Lynchian projects, sometimes clumsily lurching about as the character flounders and fumbles through his maddening ordeal. Regardless, the movie is creepy enough to make for one entertaining night, or maybe even two if you're charmed enough by its chilling premise and ability to draw on our primal fear of isolation. "Occupant" may not be a masterpiece, but the cost of renting this apartment-centric thriller sure beats paying a security deposit - go ahead and rent away.

Rating (out of 5): 3