31 Days of Horror: The Invisible Man (2020)

31 Days of Horror: Suspiria (2018)

The Lion King (2019)

Thursday Movie Picks: Small Towns

Thursday Movie Picks: Ancient World (3600 BC – 500 AD)

Point Break vs. Point Break

31 Days of Horror: Poltergeist (2015)

Ghostbusters (2016)

Thursday Movie Picks: Step Families

In with the New Blogathon: 300

In with the New Blogathon: The Departed

Oldboy (2013)

Carrie (2013)

Directed by Kimberly Peirce.

2013. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.

Cast:

Chloe Grace Moretz

Julianne Moore

Gabriella Wilde

Ansel Elgort

Portia Doubleday

Alex Russell

Judy Geer

Zoe Belkin

Karissa Strain

Connor Price

When I heard they were remaking Carrie, the horror classic from 1976, I wasn't the least bit surprised. I wasn't uspet, either. I have a few reasons. First, and foremost, its themes are timeless. This isn't some purely 70s flick that would have to be stripped and rebuilt to fit the twenty-first century. We're talking bullying, self-esteem, mother-daughter relationships, and revenge. Nothing dated here at all, aside from the clothing. That brings me to the other reason I didn't mind. A new version will bring Carrie to people who might not seek out the original simply because it came out before they were born. The only question is would it be botched, or not. The answer is yes...

and no.

Where it works is in the tone it's going for. The setup is essentially the same as the original, but the execution is different. Carrie (Moretz) freaks out in the shower at school when she gets her very first period and her classmates respond by pointing, laughing, and trying to stone her to death with tampons. She also learns she has telekinesis, the ability to move things with her mind. The '76 version plays up the idea of young women blossoming sexually and having that filter throughout the rest of the movie. This time around, we go for a straight horror vibe with some actual sex thrown in. Well, not actual, but you get the picture. Everything is immediately somber and scored with ominous music. It's also purposely drab. Carrie's mom Margaret (Moore) speaks in a hushed voice and our bullies are mean about the way they go about being mean. Let me explain that last sentence. In the original, the bullies certainly did awful things to Carrie. However, they went about their business in a jolly manner. They often made us laugh. Here, we get none of that. It's all dead serious to them.

A lack of humor is just one of many differences between this movie and its predecessor. Not only is it apparent in our bullies, but more importantly, in Carrie's mom. The role is played so outlandishly by Piper Laurie in the original, it becomes sublime ridiculousness. It is difficult not to see it as satire. She also has a domineering presence. The iron fist with which she rules is clearly evident. We sense that Carrie fears her mother with every bone in her body. Laurie's performance is simultaneously a pointed jab at over the top religious fanatics while making an effective one, herself. She's a woman who knows that without a doubt that she is empowered by God to do the things she does. Julianne Moore's take on the same character in the remake is almost the exact opposite. She speaks softly, often appearing even meeker than her daughter, cowering in the presence of others. There is no humor in watching a woman who is completely vulnerable and saddened by this fact. Even her outlook on religion feels different. Where Laurie is absolutely empowered by her faith, Moore's Margaret seems to approach it from a place of weakness. She's not a tall standing soldier in His army, but a flower wilting in His presence. Her only hope is that she's repented enough to not be punished for past indiscretions. This is a dramatic difference. It changes the dynamics of her relationship with Carrie to the point where it doesn't quite work. Where the original Margaret is commanding of Carrie's every move, this one seems to be pleading with Carrie to maybe find it in her to attend a church service or two. This makes it harder to believe that she would still take the same steps as the other Margaret at the end of this movie.

Without directly comparing it to the original, this version of Carrie still doesn't quite work. Carrie herself doesn't feel quite fragile enough to pull this thing off. For starters, she's standing up to Mama way too soon. When we get to that all-important prom scene she's less like a person who just snapped and couldn't take it anymore, and more like one who is simply vindictive. It's like she's been waiting for this moment her entire life. Take note of the pause in the climactic scene with her mother. It's one, maybe two seconds of film, but gives the scene a totally different feel than the same scene in the first movie. It feels like something this Carrie has just been itching to do. Spacek's Carrie just has an instinctive reaction to a heightened situation. Another issue is Carrie's classmates. Right from the start, one character is far too remorseful of her actions toward Carrie in the opening scene. This removes lots of mystery from the movie and it doesn't quite feel like the entire school is really against her. Too many people are in her corner for us to feel the need to be there.

Like I said in the beginning, I really don't mind that Carrie was remade. I just think director Kimberly Peirce's approach to the material was a mistake. Trying to make it a straight horror flick doesn't really work. The original was not that. It was a movie that used teen angst and religious commentary in service of a twisted sense of humor that culminated in two fantastic horror movie scenes. It seems she mistook those non-horror elements as ancillary components of the film rather than being integral to its effectiveness. The performances she gets from Moretz and Moore are actually pretty good, but misguided as detailed above. On the other hand, the major plus of the film is its look, including a fairly impressive prom scene. However, and you should know my rule by now, a movie with not much besides pretty pictures is not a good movie.

MY SCORE: 5/10

The Equalizer

Directed by Antoine Fuqua.

2014. Rated R, 131 minutes.

Cast:

Denzel Washington

Marton Csokas

Chloe Grace Moretz

David Harbour

Johnny Skourtis

Melissa Leo

Bill Pullman

Haley Bennett

Alex Veadov

Vladimir Kulich

At Home Depot...er...HomeMart, where he works, Rober McCall (Washington) is the star employee. His bosses and co-workers all look up to him and he'll do anything he can to help out each and every one of them. He is also a man deeply mired in the routines of his life. He has to have everything a certain way. A bit of an insomniac, he finds himself at the local diner at 2 AM every morning. He sits in the same booth, sets up his silverware the way he likes and gets a cup of hot water for the tea bag that he brings from home. He also talks to Elaina (Moretz), the young girl who is always seated at the counter. She also happens to be a hooker. The night she's not there, Robert becomes very worried. When he finds out she's in the hospital after being badly beaten by her pimp, he takes matters into his own hands.

The early parts of the movie are spent developing Mr. McCall's character. We get to see what makes him tick. During this time, Denzel Washington owns the screen, completely selling us on what type of guy McCall is. The first few scenes establish him as definitely having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. However, it's subsequent scenes during which the point is driven home. It's not necessarily in the acting out of the routines, but in his subtle reactions when those routines are broken. More importantly, we come to realize how much he cares for those around him. This is most ably demonstrated through his conversations with Elaina and his interactions with Ralphie (Skourtis), one of his co-workers down at HomeMart. Washington's supporting cast helps him out just enough, too. Marton Csokas gives us a solidly detestable villain. In her brief screen time, Chloe Grace Moretz also does very well.

Once the movie transitions into our hero taking care of business, it becomes a very different affair. This part of the movie is loaded with action of the brutally violent sort. Mr. McCall makes use of things such as corkscrews, power drills, nail guns, and more. It's to the point where my wife expressed wariness of ever visiting a Home Depot ever again. Speaking of Home Depot, or Lowe's for that matter, how is it they didn't drop a few bucks to get their name on this? This would have functioned as the best commercial either company has ever had. Just imagine the logo of one of those stores being visible as Denzel Washington strolls away from an explosion in slow motion. By the way, I know such scenes are cliche, but the one in this movie might be the best one ever filmed. And I'm not exaggerating one bit. I generally roll my eyes when these happen in other action flicks. I even started to when I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was about to happen in this one. However, this one was so deliciously overboard that I couldn't help but love it. The action as a whole has this effect. Yes, it's over the top, but it is also done with a twisted sense of humor that comes across really well. Honestly, though, it makes the best use of this when the action happens off-screen. We'll see our hero immediately after he's done something heinous to a bad guy which we didn't get to see. It's usually funny enough that we don't mind missing out on what he actually did.

For those of us old enough to remember, and to care, the big question is how does it compare to the TV show that it was based on. I am old enough to remember. However, I must confess that I was never a fan of the show. I might have watched it a handful of times and really don't remember anything about it other than the star. This means that, sadly, I've no clue whether or not it does the show proud. I do know that it does the action genre proud. Once it gets going The Equalizer is insanely fun, provided you're not put off by all the blood and guts. The first act perfectly sets up the last two acts. It's a guy we like doing things we wish we could do for the people we care about. Admittedly, there are some late second act scenes that fill in some of our hero's back story, though not very much. The real point of these is to provide something that could be expanded on in sequels. Trust me, this movie clearly wants sequels. To be honest, though, it might be better as a standalone. In either case, it's Denzel showing us all that he can still carry a movie without a big name co-star and still be extremely compelling. That quality is what really makes this an excellent watch.

Robocop (2014)

Directed by Jose Padilha.

2014. Rated PG-13, 117 minutes.

Cast:

Joel Kinnaman

Gary Oldman

Michael Keaton

Samuel L. Jackson

Abbie Cornish

Jackie Earle Haley

Michael K. Williams

Jennifer Ehle

Jay Baruchel

Marianne Jean-Baptiste

Aimee Garcia

Around the world, American company OmniCorp employs robots of various sizes to take the place of actual U.S. soldiers, thus saving the lives of many American men and women. However, the practice is banned here in the states. Despite deep pockets and powerful lobbyists, the company can't persuade the powers that be to lift the ban. CEO Raymond Sellars (Keaton) believes the key to getting it overturned is by actually putting a man inside one of his machines. This is where Detroit detective Alex Murphy (Kinnaman) comes in. Alex and his partner Jack (Williams) are working undercover on a big case. When things go south, Jack winds up in the hospital after having been shot. Since the bad guys want to finish the job, they soon come after Alex, by blowing up his car with him right next to it. Without some form of life support, he will die. However, he is deemed to be the perfect candidate by head doctor Dennett Norton (Oldman) and is soon given his very own technologically advanced suit of armor that doubles as his body and becomes Robocop. Trying to get him just right before sending him out on the streets ensues. In case you've somehow never heard of it, this is a remake of the 1987. original.

Right off the bat, there is a major problem with this movie. That problem is Alex Murphy. What it is about him that makes him the perfect candidate for such a daring experiment is never sufficiently explained. We're never shown, either. What we do see makes him more likely to go on the reject pile. He's hot-headed, impulsive, reckless, and has a problem with authority. On top of that, he's not the most likable guy. All of these are things that should disqualify him from such a program. Matters aren't helped by the fact that even though we know there must be something more to him, we're never really given the chance to find out what that is. He is basically the same hard-boiled cop we've seen in hundreds of movies that barks at everyone and is going to do things his way and then suddenly he's Robocop. That type of character works in a movie where the hero following his instincts serves him right while it becomes obvious that following protocol would work to his detriment. It doesn't work when the movie depicts a big corporation looking for someone to walk the company line and present a good face to the public. It's something that keeps us from becoming invested in the character.

Once our hero is in the suit, Robocop takes its cue from comic book origin movies, and spends lots of time on the training of our hero. We get lengthy scenes of conversations about what should be done with him followed by us witnessing the implication of whatever strategies Sellars and Norton come up with. At least the latter usually shows some type of showdown between Robocop and Rick Mattox (Haley), the guy that works with all the machines. Eventually, we get to the actual police work part of the movie. When we do, it rather quickly becomes a revenge flick as our hero is simply out to get the people responsible for his condition. The action showing this is mostly fun, and exciting stuff. Unfortunately, because of what has or hasn't transpired to this point, it is lacking any sort of heart. All we've done is connect the dots that we're supposed to in this sort of film. It simply goes 'life changing event, training, loud stuff, end.' We see it, but never care about it. Action junkies won't dismiss it, but even they aren't likely to embrace it, either. It simply becomes stuff happening on the screen while time passes.

Those of us who have seen the original, of course, get a double whammy. Not only is what we're seeing not all that compelling, but it removes the elements that made the original work. We first have to revisit the portrayal of the protagonist. The Alex Murphy played by Peter Weller in '87 is a genuinely likable guy. We see how important his family is to him. We also know that he not only wants to do the right thing, but to accomplish it the right way. This new version also wants to do what is right, however, it's clear he's willing to cut corners to do it. Once he's in the suit, it's made worse by the handling of the functionality of his artificial parts verses his natural ones. Namely, we're talking about how his psyche is handled. The original understood that for him to be at all believable the parts of him that made him distinctly human must remain intact. This is what creates the conflict between himself and the machine he's trapped in. The remake pays lip service to that idea, explicitly stating that what makes a person a person is their brain, not the parts surrounding it. Then, a few minutes later, when that brain is causing a problem it's simply shut off. How much of his own thought process is in play can literally be controlled by the turning of a dial. It's an artificial, not to mention arbitrary, obstacle that didn't need to be there. The idea of a man merged with a machine is already hard to swallow, but something we can buy into. Being able to just shut off the human side, especially without sufficient buildup to this, is not. It's an added layer of silliness that detracts from the movie rather than adding to it.

The other big differences between this and its predecessor are the tone and the visuals. In the original, these two things work in concert to create a hyper-violent dark comedy. Tonally, it is mostly tongue-in-cheek and takes aim at our insatiable consumerism, among other things. From that end of it, we get a razor sharp satire. From the visual end, we get a fairly gory movie. To keep from going into a lengthy description of it, let's just say it makes you familiar with the term splatter. The remake goes in the opposite direction. As far as satire goes, this version will have none of it. It takes itself overly serious and just trudges forward. If there is any attempt at it, it's wrapped in the scenes featuring Samuel L. Jackson as Pat Novak, a political talk show host. Essentially, he's a shill for OmniCorp. The situation is ripe for examining corporate influence on both the media and the government. However, the opportunity passes unexamined. In the violence department, the amount is reduced quite a bit and what we do get is sanitized to fit into its PG-13 box. So, while that part of it is fun in the way lots of action scenes are, it's not a visceral experience. Nothing about it makes us sit up and say 'wow.'

That lack of a wow factor is the biggest problem with this movie. Even if you're not at all familiar with the original, it just doesn't have much pizazz. For those of you in that category, it'll probably be a passable action flick, nothing more. Instead of standing out from the crowd, it fits snugly within it. The all-star cast can only help so much because they are all working in service of an unmemorable hero. The best thing about him is the design of his suit. Compared to the old one, it's sleeker and sexier, even if it inexplicably (and weirdly) includes Murphy's actual right hand. For those of us that have seen the original, the suit is the only thing this movie does better. Most things, the old one does better by a large margin. That was an inventive and gutsy movie. The 2014 version of Robocop is a re-imagining without much imagination.

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Directed by Andrew Douglas.

2005. Rated PG-13, 89 minutes.

Cast:

Ryan Reynolds

Melissa George

Chloë Grace-Moretz

Jesse James

Jimmy Bennett

Rachel Nichols

Philip Baker Hall

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

The Wicker Man (2006)

Directed by Neil LaBute.

2006. Rated PG-13, 102 minutes.

Cast:

Nicolas Cage

Ellen Burstyn

Kate Beahan

Frances Conroy

Molly Parker

Leelee Sobieski

Diane Delano

Police officer Edward Malus (Cage) witnesses a mother and daughter get killed when an out of control eighteen-wheeler smashes into their vehicle during a traffic stop. While on leave following this traumatic event, he receives a letter from his former fiancée Willow (Beahan) letting him know that her daughter is missing somewhere on the Summersisle, where they live. It seems to be a largely self-sufficient and private farming community. Sensing that he may be Willow’s only hope to find her little girl, Edward travels to the island in hopes of saving the day. This is even harder than he imagines because when he gets there no on will admit to having even heard of her. They’re also a really tight-knit cult under the rule of Sister Summersisle (Burstyn). To say Malus is given the run-around is putting it lightly.

The plot’s skeleton is the same as the 1973 original. The flesh surrounding it is something else entirely. In lieu of the wacky approach to story-telling taken by its predecessor, this one favors more conventional methods. It settles into being rather run of the mill with no sense of wonder or fun. Many of the original’s outrageous elements are completely stripped away. The rest is put through a strainer until we’re left with the dried meat of a PG-13 thriller designed to appeal to as wide an audience as possible.

The point of our story is also different. Whereas the original tests our notions of right and wrong, of religion itself, and seems to sling its ending at us from deep left field, the remake narrows its focus and telegraphs its conclusion. By narrowing the focus, I mean things are much more personal for our hero this time around. True, in the older flick his sensibilities are offended by the locals and he searches diligently for answers to his philosophical questions and the whereabouts of the girl. This time, however, he’s connected to the case in such a way that it is simply all about him. This ties into the finale because we can plainly see that all of the goings on are concentrated on his actions and we are occasionally shown women having conversations that spell out their ill will. What happens is that even though the ending plays out similarly in both movies they feel markedly different. As mentioned, the original tackles some rather large and possibly magnanimous themes. This one seems born of a misogyny fueled paranoia about man’s lessening stature in the world, the increasing power of women and the feeling of emasculation it gives to those suffering from its grips.

I’m not one to automatically disparage remakes, but this one really does pale in comparison to the original. That, however, is not its biggest problem. The most pressing issue is that as a standalone film it’s a rather hum-drum experience. It can be easily filed away as yet another picture in which Nicolas Cage is kind of quirky and a bit of a smart-alec. Nothing it does separates it from his rather large pack of terrible movies. You know what? I’m not even blaming him, nor anyone else involved in making this. I’m beyond that, for now. I’m blaming you John or Jane American. That’s right. You. Why? It’s simple. All of the unique qualities of the original were ripped from its predecessor because the powers that be think you can’t handle it and won’t fork over your hard earned bucks to see something that takes the less beaten path. Therefore, instead of something that embraces the oddity that is the first movie, we get this.

Speed Racer

Total Recall (2012)

Directed by Len Wiseman.

2012. Rated PG-13, 118 minutes.

Cast: 

Colin Farrell

Kate Beckinsale

Jessica Biel

Bryan Cranston

Bokeem Woodbine

Bill Nighy

John Cho

Will Yun Lee

Mishael Morgan

Natalie Lisinska

In this version of the future, there are only two inhabitable places left on our great planet. To oversimplify, the more affluent folks live in Britain, also where the good jobs are, while poor people live in Australia, known as The Colony. In true dystopian fashion, the government is engaged in a bloody war with rebels from The Colony. Our focus is on Douglas Quaid (Farrell). He’s a regular joe from The Colony who works in Britain assembling automated police officers. Yes, it’s one helluva commute. He’s married to Lori (Beckinsale), a real-live cop. Despite all the chaos of the world around him, Doug’s biggest concern is the recurring nightmare he has and what it means. He decides to do something about it and finds himself at Rekall. They inject you with memories of whatever it is you want. Just about the time he gets strapped into the chair, the law bursts in shooting. Much to his own surprise, Doug manages to kill a bunch of flesh and blood cops plus some synthetic ones and escapes. Now, he really has to find out what’s going on. Yup, it’s a remake of the Arnold Schwarzenegger movie of the same name. Both are based on the Phillip K. Dick short story We’ll Remember It For You, Wholesale.

For those of us old enough to remember, or with a hankering for old sci-fi and/or Governator flicks, the muscle-bound Austrian in the room is that original. This one keeps the action here on Earth as opposed to Mars, does away with mutants with one three-boobed exception (one of a few homages to the first movie) and the limited oxygen supply. Vibrant and varied colors are traded in for a fairly monochromatic look. It also combines a few different characters into one and ramps up the action. In fact, there are times when it feels like one continuous chase scene. While this is fun, it’s not always filling. For starters, our hero’s motivation for going to Rekall in the first place is misguided. In Arnold’s version, it was clear. Doug dreams about Mars all the time and wants to go, but can’t afford it, so he goes to Rekall for the next best thing. Farrell’s Quaid should be walking into a psychiatrist’s office, not a place where reality is manufactured. Nonetheless, that’s where he goes. Okay, fine.

From there, thankfully, much is the same between the two films. Most of the plot points from the original are hit, sometimes in a different order, but they are there. Farrell gives us a wild-eyed, bewildered performance that serves the film well. He gets plenty of help from some pretty awesome special fx, the hyperkinetic pacing and he two ladies fighting over him. Kate Beckinsale is in her cold-blooded Selene mode, sans vampire teeth and tight black leather. Biel is her more compassionate, but equal, opposite. The two provide more than their fair share of the action including some knock-down drag-outs with Farrell and each other. If there is a clear advantage for this movie over its predecessor they are it. Together, they dwarf what Sharon Stone and Rachel Ticotin were able to accomplish in the original.

That said, Total Recall still falls well short of Arnie’s film. It forsakes storytelling in favor of being bigger and brawnier. The result is a movie that’s fun to sit through but seems to be lacking all the little touches that make the first movie special. Of course, if you haven’t seen the original, this is irrelevant to you and this version will probably work just fine. In fact, if you go back and watch the older movie after seeing this one, you might find it dated and think I’m crazy. Still, I’m not quite on the bandwagon with all those folks calling this a horrible picture. True, it lacks the nuance of its predecessor making it feel emptier. However, I don’t think it is a bad movie. It’s just not my Total Recall.

MY SCORE: 6/10

Sparkle (2012)

Directed by Salim Akil.

2012. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.

Cast:

Jordin Sparks

Whitney Houston

Carmen Ejogo

Derek Luke

Mike Epps

Tamela Mann

Tika Sumpter

Omari Hardwick

Brely Evans

Michael Beach

Cee Lo Green

Terrence J

Sparkle (Sparks) is a songwriter with stage fright. Since she still wants her music to be heard, she recruits her oldest and most brazen sister named Sister (Ejogo), no less, to take a bus across town and sing her songs at a nightclub. Eventually, the girls meet up with Stix (Luke), a budding promoter. With dreams of making them into the next Supremes, by the way this is 1968, he recruits their middle sister Delores and transforms the trio into a girl group. He then begins getting them work all over Detroit in hopes of making it big. Even though the girls are grown, Sparkle is the youngest at 19, all of this requires repeatedly sneaking out the house of their tyrannical mother Emma played by Whitney Houston in her final feature film before her death in February of this year. Yes, this is a remake of the 1976 ‘hood classic.

If the title leads you to believe this movie is about Sparkle, you’re only partially right. We don’t focus on her until the final act. Honestly, the original did the same so that, in and of itself, isn’t a major complaint. The difference is the girl’s relationship with their mother takes center stage in this version while it was only occasionally touched upon in its predecessor. This moves our title character down to third on the totem pole. It’s probably just as well. Jordin Sparks isn’t a very good actress so lightening her load makes some sense.

In the older movie, the mother is a supportive sideline player. Here, she’s the complete opposite. To make sure we know who’s in charge, Whitney Houston is in full blown, stark raving mad lunatic warden mode. You get the feeling the girls have to ask permission to use the restroom or risk her wrath. She embodies the role well. Sadly, it’s a role that feels specifically written for her. Emma is a woman who has battled drug addiction along with the ups and downs of the music business and now wants to protect her daughters from suffering the same fate, or worse. As she continually rages, it’s difficult to watch her, listen to the sounds come from her obviously shredded voice box and not think of her tumultuous real life and the once flawless pipes with which she serenaded us all. It’s distracting and depressing which makes it a morbidly effective portrayal.

Also of more importance than Sparkle is Sister. She’s clearly the most like her mother. Indeed, much of the film’s fireworks are made up of shouting matches between the two. In the role, Carmen Ejogo gives a powerhouse portrayal rivaling Lonette McKee’s in the same role in the original. Sister’s story also contains another excellent performance, albeit from a surprising source. As comedian Satin Struthers, the movie’s lone unrepentant villain, Mike Epps turns in what is easily his best work. Though playing a comic, which is how he started in his real career, he really does bring this character to life and not just rehash the old Mike Epps schtick.

People who love this movie, and there will be plenty, will do so on the strengths of the aforementioned performances, the music and prerequisite ups and downs of high octane melodrama. However, there are serious problems. Beginning with the second act, the movie shifts into overdrive, propelling itself forward at breakneck speed. The various strands resolve themselves suddenly and/or predictably, leaving plot holes in their wake. In this regard, it pretty clearly follows the Tyler Perry template of filmmaking: scream, bicker, fuss and fight until an instant moment of clarity, kiss, make up.

In comparison with the original, Sparkle also suffers mightily in the charm department. That one is flawed, but it has a much more genuine feel. The grit and grime of the Harlem setting infused the characters not only with a sense of urgency about changing their station in life but also a naiveté about the temptations even minor success may bring. It also gives us a sense of danger. The same could’ve been achieved for this movie in Civil Rights-era Detroit. However, we’re given what feels like a glamorized version of the city wherever the girls perform. At their nicely sized suburban home they want for nothing tangible and can retreat from one another in a way the girls in the original could not. There is a real sense of a unit breaking up as the older movie progresses. Here, each of the sisters wears their individuality proudly on their sleeve, weakening both their bond to one another and ours to them. The glossiness of the sets, flossiness of the outfits and four ladies constantly proclaiming “I am woman, hear me roar!” mark this effort as falling off the assembly line of movies aimed at black females over the last decade. Girl power is great and I generally applaud movies for the attitude but it misses the point of its predecessor.

MY SCORE: 5/10