Showing posts with label Rachel Nichols. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Nichols. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Directed by Andrew Douglas.
2005. Rated PG-13, 89 minutes.
Cast:
Melissa George
Jesse James
Jimmy Bennett


In 1979, The Amityville Horror hit theaters, and not only became a hit movie, but a cultural phenomenon. People actually made the trek to New York to see the house where the movie was set because it was supposedly a true story. I don’t knock anyone for believing in ghosts and/or haunted houses. To each his own. However, I do have to question the intelligence of people who believe it to be true and go there on purpose. What if it is? Being in the midst of a demonic paranormal entity doesn't sound like a barrel of laughs to me. As noted in my review of the original, whether or not our tale is rooted in reality has been hotly debated and largely debunked. What is inarguable is that it provided the template for the modern haunted house movie which is still being ripped off ad nauseum all these years later.

This brings us to the remake you came here to read about. The setup is the same as the older movie. The Lutz family is house shopping for a place suitable for their family of six: George (Reynolds), Kathy (George), three kids, and one dog. The kids and the dog came with Kathy as part of a package deal, having remarried after the death of her first husband. They check out the fateful house and it is obviously out of their price range. No worries, the real estate agent assures them she’s letting it go cheap. When asked what gives, she explains what we saw at the very beginning. The year before, some nut got up out of bed at 3:15 AM and blasted everyone in his family with a shotgun. Since it is a beautiful house, and George wants to make his woman happy, the Lutzes decide to buy it. After all, as George so eloquently puts it, “houses don’t kill people.” We’ll just see about that, won’t we.

Right away, and every night at 3:15, things go haywire. George is affected more than anyone. The movie, including Reynolds himself, does a nice job with his rapidly deteriorating mental state. This is very clearly a man losing it. Just to make sure we know that it’s the house causing all of his issues, he’s a much nicer guy whenever he is away from it. For the most part, he drives the movie. The film, and the house, uses him to crank things up or ratchet them down at the appropriate times.


The character who shoulders the rest of the load is the daughter Chelsea. She interacts with the house in a way no one else does. As a result, she’s often in harm’s way. This is one of the very early performances of child star Chloë Grace-Moretz. She’s about as solid as any kid would be in the role, but it’s hard to tell from this that she would become a top notch and highly sought after talent with many horror titles on her resumé. Still, the movie effectively uses her to score easy sympathy points and provide some harrowing scenes.

On its own, this is a briskly pace film packed with creepy visuals. It hardly gives us a chance to catch our breath as it is constantly sprinting to the next big moment. Juxtaposed with its predecessor, we see that it is a more concentrated effort. This version is almost solely focused on the Lutz family. The story of Father Callaway (Hall), Father Delaney in the original, ran prominently alongside the main plot in that older flick, but is barely included here, almost totally diminished in importance and altered in execution. Conversely, the bit about Lisa (Nichols), the baby-sitter, is expanded into a much more intense scene and the character herself is completely different. The other major difference is how the dog is handled. In the original, it is used to show how caring a person George really is when not under the house’s influence. This time it’s used to demonstrate George’s loosening grip on reality.

It is my opinion that this is a very underrated movie. It ramps up the tension early and doesn't let up. Ryan Reynolds gives a very convincing performance of a guy flipping out. There are also excellent and unsettling visuals throughout. Normally, a ninety minute remake of a two hour movie is cause to ring the alarms. Ring them even louder when you add the fact that Michael Bay is a producer on this one. Logic tells us that so much would be left out it would feel incomplete. Honestly, there are things left out of this version. However, it feels like what was removed made it a more concise effort without sacrificing the essence of its predecessor. It’s just plain fun to sit through.


MY SCORE: 7/10

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Alex Cross

Directed by Rob Cohen.
2012. Rated PG-13, 101 minutes.

Cast:
Edward Burns
Matthew Fox
John C. McGinley
Werner Daehn
Bonnie Bentley
Giancarlo Esposito


Alex Cross is the lead character in a series of novels written by James Patterson. He was previously brought to the big screen in 1999's Kiss the Girls and 2001’s Along Came a Spider with Morgan Freeman playing the role. Here, the honors belong to Tyler Perry. Our reintroduction to the detective/psychologist starts with him finding out that his wife (Ejogo) is pregnant with their third child. Actually, it starts with a perp chase that’s totally irrelevant to the plot except for being an easy way to introduce us to Alex’s team, but that’s neither here nor there. By the way, the team consists of Alex, his partner and best friend since forever Thomas (Burns) and fairly new to the crew Monica (Nichols). After getting the news about his family’s expansion Alex and company gets called in on a case where a very wealthy young lady and all her bodyguards were found murdered at her home. Getting his Sherlock on, our hero intuits that it was only guy responsible, he tortured the rich chick just for fun, was drawing a picture of her as she was dying, despite not actually being able to see any real evidence of this, and that she was not the main target. The drawing leads his team to dub the bad guy Picasso (they do eventually find a drawing). Trying to catch the artist ensues while he kills more women.

By now, you should see my main problem with this movie. No, it’s not the star. More on him, later. I get that Alex is a genius with immense powers of deductive reasoning. However, to figure out a lot of things in this movie he’s more psychic than psychologist. Take the drawing, for example. Granted, I’m certainly not a crime scene investigator. However, from the information before him I’m not seeing how Alex just decides this guy was drawing a picture of his victim. A few moments later, voila! Thomas finds a picture. A short while later, he’s folding the drawing in precisely the right manner to uncover a clue left by Picasso.

This gift for precise premonition isn’t limited to our hero, either. The bad guy seems able to quickly know things he really shouldn’t. In particular, he magically knows where Alex is going to be in one scene and where another cop lives in the next. It feels lazy, as if the writers just relied on the fact that similar things happen in movies all the time so we probably won’t question it.


Things eventually cycle back in Alex’s favor. This is where we get our most egregious misuse of our hero’s ability. The movie’s entire runtime is spent on the cat and mouse between Alex and Picasso, which is fine, but never clearly establishes reason and motive for the events. Instead, after what we think is the finale, Alex just suddenly knows a lot more information and we have a bit more movie to watch.

In the lead role, Tyler Perry was just fine. He won’t make anyone forget anything Morgan Freeman ever did, but he performs admirably. In roles that require him to show his own face he’s usually bland, hardly engaging. Here, those qualities work for him because it gives the analytical Cross the proper distance from most of the atrocities being committed. It is my understanding that Idris Elba was originally signed to play this role. I think Elba is the better actor, but plays even his non-action roles with too much brawn for this character. Perry’s a better fit and did a good job.

The rest of the cast also does well. Matthew Fox as our bad guy is particularly good. He gives us a solid psychopath. Filling out the rest of the roster are a bunch of folks capable of great work, but given very little to do: Jean Reno, Rachel Nichols, Giancarlo Esposito, Carmen Ejogo, and possibly John C. McGinley. Director Rob Cohen has assembled a nice group but made little use of them with a paint-by-numbers screenplay filled with easy answers.

Friday, February 24, 2012

Conan the Barbarian

Directed by Marcus Nispel.
2011. Rated R, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Momoa
Rachel Nichols
Stephen Lang
Rose McGowan
Saïd Taghmaoui
Leo Howard
Ron Perlman
Bob Sapp

The people involved in making the 2011 version of Conan the Barbarian would like you to know that it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1982 movie which helped Arnold Schwarzenegger become a star. With that in mind, I’ll not mention “The Governator” or that film again. This movie is based more directly on the works of Robert E. Howard who created the character about 80 years ago. If ever there were a movie strictly about swords and sorcery, this is it. Both are responsible for all manner of death and/or dismemberment.

Well, there is a plot cobbled together. It actually starts with the bad guy, Khalar Zym (Lang). His wife had been killed some time ago, I think I heard a thousand years. Hmph. Now, with the help of his sorceress daughter Marique, played by a barely recognizable Rose McGowan, he’s trying to find the one woman of pure Archerion blood so he can use her body to resurrect his bride. Together, they will rule the world! Muwahahahahaahaha! Ahem, sorry. Anyhoo, this twisted father and daughter team don’t just look for the pure blooded girl, they go from village to village killing or enslaving everyon that isn’t who they’re looking for. As fate would have it, they come upon little Conan’s village (the character is played by Howard as a child). They make the tiny warrior watch his father die (Perlman handles the dying, here), then they burn the place to the ground killing the rest of our hero’s people. Fast forward about a decade. The evil dad and his evil-er female spawn are still searching for that special someone and Conan is out for revenge.



Like any other flick, Conan has its strengths and weaknesses. It’s strength is obviously the non-stop bloody violence. Body parts are hacked off or literally beaten to a pulp with great regularity. They fly all over the place, too. After it was over, I had to sweep up some severed heads, arms and legs, several each. I’m having new carpet put in this week, the blood soaked right through.

On the weak side is everything else. For starters, there is no character development. Even as simplistic as the plot is, the story-telling is muddled. The dialogue is a cheesy form of Olde English and almost all of the acting is over the top. Despite a love scene that says otherwise, there is little chemistry between Conan and “it girl” Tamara (Nichols). Finally, for some reason they wasted money and runtime by having none other than Morgan Freeman narrate. Don’t get me wrong, if you need a narrator for your movie, Freeman is an outstanding choice. Just having him read the labels on cereal boxes will probably sound good. The problem is after he gives a long spiel explaining something, we’re given a scene that shows us the exact same thing. Pick one.

With regards to picking, that’s what you will have to do before seeing this. You have to decide, if you don’t know already, what floats your boat. Long review short: Conan is one long gory action scene with a pause for topless wenches (that’s in the credits), another pause for sex and a few brief pauses for talking…er…yelling and grunting. The story is told in a way that makes me believe my 12 year old nephew worked closely with the director. Is it fun to sit through? If you’re looking for wall-to-wall action, then the answer is yes. Is there anything at all here that will leave a lasting impression? No.