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 - 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

Brian's Review - The Green Hornet (2011)

Lacks any sort of sting.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Action, Crime, Comedy

I have to be honest: I've never seen any of the original "The Green Hornet" TV episodes or earlier movies, but if they're anything like 2011's cluster-bomb of a superhero flick, then I'd prefer to avoid them. The film isn't the worst thing I've ever seen, boasting enough sleek special effects and quippy dialogue to keep the popcorn crowd at least mildly entertained; however, I'm not going to go as far as calling it a good movie. The goofy dynamic between Seth Rogen and Jay Chou echoes "Rush Hour," without relying on cheap stereotype-based humor to drive the comic repartee that makes up a majority of the character interaction here. This unfortunately - much like many of the initially enjoyable aspects of "The Green Hornet" - wears thin quickly, with Rogen's incessant babbling coming off more like the ramblings of an irritating, drunk idiot as this feature drags on. Christopher Waltz keeps things watchable as a delightfully evil, yet eccentric villain, but his screen time is proportionately minimal to the montage of redundant beatings, CGI explosions, and mundane car chases that comprise most of this film. Balancing this out more may have ironically allowed the villain to save the day (or in this case, the movie). Besides Chou (who portrays easily the coolest character in this film, if only due to his ability to kick massive amounts of ass) and Waltz, the supporting cast is inexplicably topped off by Cameron Diaz, who adds yet another notch to her belt of crappy action flick outings. I can't completely criticize the vision of this movie - it's style, set pieces, and tongue-in-cheek sensibilities are all in place - but the odd hodgepodge of excessive violence, "Knocked Up"-style wit-trading between characters, and unorthodox superhero origin story make this a hard pill to swallow, especially since no one genre is done especially well. It's honestly an adventure where nothing in particular starts it up, nothing in particular happens, and nothing in particular stays with you as the end credits roll. If anything, you'll want to see this film for the badass car - really almost a character by itself. Everything else just buzzes around like an obnoxious bug that would be a waste of time to even swat.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Thing (2011)

1982's original was something. 2011's prequel is nothing.

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

When John Carpenter released "The Thing" in 1982, it's combination of bizarre animatronic magic and nail-bitingly tense atmosphere was unsettling and jarring enough to generate a cult following of significant magnitude that still exists today. As an avid Carpenter fan, my enthusiasm for the 2011 prequel was mixed: would this movie be able to harness the same sheer, terrified energy caused by the unknown assailant from the original, or would Hollywood glam it up into a cheap, street-walking version of its former self? The answer is unfortunate, with "The Thing" of 2011 coming off as more of a soulless echo of the epic creature feature it could have been. Gone is the focus on suspense that made Carpenter's version, and Ridley Scott's "Alien" before it, so intense – no longer do we watch the characters carefully and meticulously explore their once-secure base, expecting horror around every corner, and no longer do said paranoid fixations cause them to unravel and implode; in reality, the characters in this iteration are almost as devoid of emotion as the creature itself. What we do get is plenty of in-your-face, close encounters with the alien, but it does less stalking of the survivors to build satisfying dread, and more brutal evisceration and mutilation. One might expect that this approach would yield more visceral, white-knuckle action sequences to make up for the lack of effectively chilling ambiance, but instead we're served a big, boring platter of dull, gray hack-and-slash. Even the CGI here is inconsistent - one moment, the effects appear lifelike and bold, the next, they become clumsy and ham-fisted, allowing even the outdated special effects of 1999's "The Mummy" to make them look like an elementary school art project. While the events that unfold during the end credits are a surprisingly bright light in this massive pool of sludge, the "too little, too late" rule applies here: ultimately, this "The Thing" is an ugly, plodding mess of slime, and unfortunately, I'm not just referring to the monster.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - Friday the 13th (1980)

Don't waste your time at this summer camp.

Released: 1980
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

"Friday the 13th" is lauded as one of the greatest horror movies of all time, having experienced significant box office success at its release, and creating a cult following that has allowed it to cement itself into the quintessential pantheon of slasher films. While I can't argue against its importance to the genesis of its own franchise, this is a film that time has not been kind to. "Friday the 13th" works on a stop-and-go dynamic that fails to invoke the same consistent suspense that John Carpenter's "Halloween" did two years before the release of this movie: there are plenty of moments where the tension begins to build, when suddenly it inexplicably fades away as the scene cuts to something unrelated, deflating any sense of impending doom that may have been generated. The other disastrous directing choice that is all too apparent is the emphasis of gore over genuine scares - almost every kill lacks the proper buildup to incite true thrills, instead falling back on gruesome gore effects to sell what is ultimately an underwhelming scene. The characters themselves are no more than lambs to the (literal) slaughter, clueless, two-dimensional cardboard cutouts, who even come across as somewhat unlikable. The inability to feel remorse for most, if not all, of the victims takes away a lot of the potential terror this film desperately tries to produce. I can't hate "Friday the 13th," but it wastes far too much time meandering around Mediocrity City (MedioCity?) to be considered one of the greatest horror movies of all time. I'd recommend checking out the original "Halloween" for a more bone-chilling fright fest, or, at the very least, watching the sequel "Friday the 13th Part 2," which spends a good portion of its opening moments recapping this entire film in all of its lackluster glory.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - Splice

Even human genes can't make this a smart movie.

Released: 2009
Genre(s): Thriller, Sci-Fi, Horror

Nothing irks me more than a movie that's advertised as horror, then completely fails to deliver on the premise. "Splice" is one such movie. While this is most likely a minor issue to most people, I find this sort of misdirection forgivable only if there is something else that redeems the film in some sort of major way. Fortunately for "Splice," despite the complete lack of scares, the special effects are notably stylish, seamlessly blending live-action actors and environments with sleek-looking CG. Also, I have to give the story some credit for being something that, while echoing monster classic "Frankenstein," manages to mildly succeed outside the box. However, the acting in this movie is mediocre at best, mainly due to one of the worst scripts in recent history - the actors desperately try to salvage some sort of emotional connection to their characters, but end up failing to be believable in the least. The writing in this film is so craptastic that it reeks with a pungent stench similar to every mass-produced, low-budget Syfy flick. Add in some incredibly awkward and completely unnecessary creature-on-human sex scenes, and you've got a giant science-fiction turd sandwich. "Splice" is barely sci-fi-lite and can hardly even be considered a thriller, making this film one gigantic failed experiment.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

A Nightmare on Remake Street.

Released: 2010
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

As a child, Freddy Krueger held a special place in my nightmares: the bladed glove-wielding maniac was capable of terrorizing audiences in creative, new ways, while simultaneously dropping some of the most darkly-hilarious one-liners in horror movie history. Wes Craven had effectively crafted one of the most iconic and memorable figures of the genre in the original 1984 release of "A Nightmare on Elm Street." Jump ahead to 2010: Michael Bay has already begun to poison Hollywood with a slew of terrible remakes nobody asked for. "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is easily among the most disappointing. While Jackie Earle Haley's portrayal of Freddy is fantastic (albeit, a bit darker than Robert Englund), all the other characters feel like slasher fodder - no one is fleshed-out, rather serving only as Freddy's generic victims. This makes the movie significantly less scary than most modern horror offerings - not caring about the characters means not caring about their survival. Freddy is imposing and threatening, but the movie spends too much time focusing on his backstory, instead of trying to generate genuine scares. Unfortunately, even the kills are less creative than the original, and fail to incite any sort of visceral tension or terror. Overall, an incredibly forgettable, ho-hum remake, and an obnoxious reminder that Hollywood makes money by bastardizing soundly-established franchises.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)

In fact, don't be afraid of this movie.

Released: 2011
Genre(s): Thriller, Horror

Guillermo del Toro is known for conjuring up skin-crawling creeps set against twisted, gritty backgrounds, taking advantage of the darkest corners of the imagination in a way that is both whimsical and haunting. "Don't Be Afraid of the Dark" does not accomplish any of this. While the signature transformation of a mundane, familiar setting (i.e. a house) into a threatening atmosphere occurs here, the expected scares are completely lacking from this film. The lore and fairy tale feel of this movie are truly del Toro, but to call this a horror movie would be completely incorrect. Look elsewhere, if you're a serious scare-seeker.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - The Perfume of the Lady in Black

This one smells a little outdated.

Released: 1974
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller, Mystery

"The Perfume of the Lady in Black" (original Italian title: "Il profumo della signora in nero") is a shining example of the typical '70s Italian horror/thriller - cerebral madness, oftentimes bordering on complete nonsense, with a hint of murder/mystery conspiracy thrown in for good measure. While some of these movies are entertainingly wild and undeniably creepy entries into the horror genre (i.e. "Suspiria"), many of them are too sluggish and dry to be enjoyed by those who are seeking "true" terror. "The Perfume of the Lady in Black" falls into the latter category, spending more time being awkward than it does being terrifying. That's not to say that it doesn't have a fair amount of heavy atmosphere - there are some truly disturbing scenes here that create a tension that's almost palpable at times. However, it's during these scenes that the film completely underwhelms. As much as I appreciate keeping some things ambiguous in a horror movie to make them more menacing, the events in this movie are just too random to be frightened by. While an effective dark tone is set early on and maintains throughout the entire film, the lack of real scares makes it hard for me to recommend this to anyone but the most hardcore of '70s Italian horror/thriller fans.

Rating (out of 5): 2

Brian's Review - Burnt Offerings

Find another offering.

Released: 1976
Genre(s): Horror, Thriller

"Burnt Offerings" follows the commonplace formula of almost all '70s horror movies - a family moves into/visits a haunted house possessed by some unexplained evil force that slowly drives them all to the breaking point. Along the way, a menacing atmosphere is created by dissonant violin squeals, and random flashback sequences depicting something unnerving. The problem with "Burnt Offerings" is that while it manages to successfully create tension in a very unsettling way, it never truly delivers on the scares. Opportunities are missed throughout this entire haunted house romp - the scariest part of this movie was the (incorrect) belief that something startling or frightening was actually going to happen, as I constantly psyched myself out when nothing truly interesting was going on. The concept behind the action is creepy enough, but the action itself is so nonsensical that by the end of the film, nothing has been explained, and thus nothing is particularly memorable or satisfying. If you're an old-school horror movie fanatic, you might get a kick out of this, but there are much better horror offerings from this era for everyone else.

Rating (out of 5): 2