Saw VI

Directed by Kevin Greutert.
2009. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Tobin Bell
Costas Mandylor
Betsy Russell
Mark Rolston
Peter Outerbridge
Athena Karkanis
Shawnee Smith
Samantha Lemole

Yeah!!! The crowning jewel of the torture porn empire gives us installment number six. Just in case you’ve no clue what the series is about, let me help. Jigsaw (Bell) is a twisted soul who borrows much from the philosophy of John Doe of the movie Seven. Jigsaw finds people he feels are evil or take life for granted, kidnaps them and puts them in “games” that are nearly impossible to survive in order to teach them a lesson. Of those that do manage to make it out with their lives are usually maimed for their efforts. He’s also stricken with an undeniably fatal form of cancer and has actually been dead for the last couple movies. However, being the Tupac of cinematic nutjobs, he keeps posthumously releasing previously unused material, commanding others to do his bidding from beyond the grave.

At the risk of spoiling the previous entry, I have to tell you that Detective Hoffman (Mandylor) is now administering the games and carrying out Jig’s pre-death orders. Much to Hoffman’s chagrin, he has to work with Jill (Russell), the old man’s widow. Even worse, his co-workers seem painfully close to figuring this whole thing out.

This time around, the person Jigsaw decides is in need of a lesson is William Easton (Outerbridge). He’s one of the top dogs at a health insurance company. He also takes great pride and joy in denying as many claims as possible. Of course, this acquits both the government and corporate America in the fight over health care to some degree but, let’s move on.

Unlike most franchises that are fortunate, or unfortunate enough to make it to part six, the story is still fascinating. Better yet, it is a definite improvement over part five. Though it strains a bit and relies heavily on the use of flashbacks, the saga is still developing in an interesting manner. True, the flashbacks are a gimmicky way to keep the main character, and a few others involved, and they’ve added the never-really-slick trick of bringing someone back from the dead (not Jigsaw, thankfully). Still, both are done well and add to the proceedings. The prerequisite twist at the end also works and there are actually two of them. The one involving the insurance man is the much better of the two, but the other is solid. The latter is also more important to continuing the franchise. Yes, Saw VII…ahem…Saw 3D will hit theaters, shortly.

Then, there are the games. They are still the inventive, nasty and downright heinous affairs we’ve come to love. For instance, the game that opens the movie takes a quite literal interpretation of sacrificing a pound of flesh. Blood and guts is the calling card of the series and this version does not disappoint. It is certainly not for the squeamish.

Saw VI delivers what a Saw movie is supposed to. Just by doing that, it places the series among the greatest horror franchises of all time. By the time they reached this point, the Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Child’s Play franchises had become parodies of themselves, comedies built around a string of murders. The Halloween movies were just plain dreadful. And I haven’t even mentioned such dreck as Leprechaun and Police Academy. Wait, what? Police Academy 6: City Under Seige wasn’t a horror flick? Says you.

Anyhoo, each movie in the Saw series is still linked to the one before it, where the movies in those other franchises became stand alone entries that just happen to feature the same villain with the same M.O. It’s still well written, at least for the genre. It still gives us a twist we might not see coming. And believe it, or not, it can still make us cringe at the decisions characters are forced to make in the face of their own mortality as well what happens to them if they make the wrong choice.

The Opposite View: Bob Grimm, Tuscon Weekly

What the Internet Says: 6.2/10 on imdb.com (10/7/10), 42% on rottentomatoes.com, 30/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Jennifer's Body

Directed by Karyn Kasama.
2009. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Megan Fox
Amanda Seyfried
Johnny Simmons
Adam Brody
Sal Cortez
Ryan Levine
Kyle Gallner
J. K. Simmons

Plot: Head cheerleader/hottest girl in school Jennifer (Fox) goes off with a rock band immediately after the club they were playing in burns to the ground. When she resurfaces later that night she's just a little different. By different, I mean she's now literally homicidal and cannibalistic.

The Good: There is something to be said for a movie not taking itself too seriously. This one doesn't and definitely tries to inject humor whenever possible. Occasionally, it succeeds. The emo-fused funeral scene is a thing of beauty and wraps up this movie's snipes at the Twilight franchise rather nicely (then again, I might be the only one who took it that way). It also establishes it's premise pretty quickly and maintains a nice pace. This is important because that premise is actually good, as horror movies go, offering the potential for a solid high school angst hack flick or even a girl-power gore-fest, which it tries. As our heroine, the aptly named Needy, Amanda Seyfried gives us a strong performance.

The Bad: The movie is written by Diablo Cody, who also penned Juno. In that flick, the dialogue was inventive and witty to most and grating to a few. Here, it is grating to most and only clever to a few. Instead of being cool, it comes off like it was written by an adult trying to invent slang terms on the fly that she thinks is cool. Fox's valley-girl style delivery of every line doesn't help. The story itself, while based on a strong premise, turns out to be a poorly executed metaphor. The movie fails visually, as well. The cgi is unconvincing, at best, and often worse than much of what can be seen on YouTube. There's also the strong hint of a very interesting story that could possibly lead to a showdown between Jenny and her one-handed teacher Mr. Worbloski. One of the great character actors, J. K. Simmons handles the role. However, the movie completely wastes him by setting him up to appear he's going to do something major then ignoring him before he actually does anything at all. And how is it we only meet Jennifer's mom once, and at "that" precise moment.

The Ugly: Why Jennifer had to sit on a bag of frozen peas.

Recommendation: It wants to be a horror movie with a dark sense of humor. From time to time, it manages the humor. However, it doesn't manage it nearly enough to make up for the total lack of horror. You may find it to be so bad, it's awesome, but it wasn't quite good/bad enough for me to grant it such lofty status. You may also be infatuated with Megan Fox. In that case, I say "enter at your own risk."

The Opposite View: Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

What the Internet Says: 5.3/10 on imdb.com (10/10/10), 42% on rottentomatoes.com, 47/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 3/10

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant

Directed by Paul Weitz.
2009. Rated PG-13, 109 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Massoglia
John C. Reilly
Josh Hutcherson
Michael Cerveris
Ray Stevenson
Salma Hayek
Jessica Carlson
Ken Watanabe
Patrick Fugit

Plot: In order to save his best friend's life, Darren (Massoglia) sacrifices himself by becoming a "half-vampire". He also finds himself in the middle of a war between the vampires and the "vampinese."

The Good: It adds some interesting new twists to vampire lore (like "super spit"). While doing so, it also forcefully removes some other traditional traits. For instance, there's no transforming into bats for these guys. Then again, do any vampires anymore? Anyhoo, this makes it fairly original and intriguing. There are also lots of interesting characters with quirky abilities.

The Bad: The tone is difficult to gauge. My first instinct is to say it's a comedy, played straight. However, other than the fact it looks like John C. Reilly is struggling mightily to not act goofy, it isn't funny. That would mean it's a serious vampire flick. The problem is it's too cheesy to engage us on a deeper level or offer up vampirism as a metaphor for anything relevant to viewers.

The Ugly: What happens to Madame Truska (Hayek) when she gets aroused.

Recommendation: Overall, it's an interesting watch that's sporadically entertaining. It's uneven tone make it a bit of a frustrating watch and give it the feel of a Disney Channel made-for-TV movie with a few four letter words sprinkled in.

The Opposite View: Marc Savlov, Austin Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 6.2/10 on imdb.com (10/1/10), 37% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 5/10

Pieces

Directed by Juan Piquer Simon.
1983. Rate R, 90 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Smith
Linda Day
Christopher George
Edmund Purdom

A homicidal maniac is loose on campus, chopping up co-eds with a chainsaw at "The University". This thing is poorly written, poorly shot, completely retarded, occasionally random and often bloody. The unintentional humor meter is cranked to ten. Think about this scenario: After a couple girls have gotten hacked up, the police decide to send in an undercover agent. Two seconds after we meet her, one of the male students, who is initially a suspect, comes out of the room where he was being questioned and says to her "Hey, aren't you Mary Riggs, the tennis champion" or something like that. And, why yes, she is! Just so you keep it straight, a well known tennis champ works on the side as an undercover officer (or is tennis her side gig?). Better than that even, is the fact the newspaper reporter covering the story also knows she's the one being sent in to work undercover. Oh, and wait till you see her "playing" tennis. Let's just say the producers didn't waste any money trying to make her believable or anything crazy like that. Oh, did I mention that the killer usually leaves his chainsaw at the scene of the crime but the police never bother trying to get prints off of it or anything ridiculous like that. And wait until you see the final shot. Wow. Quite obviously, I had to love this movie. It's absolutely so bad its awesome.

MY SCORE: -10/10

Dead Snow

Directed by Tommy Wirkola.
2009. Not Rated, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Vergar Hoel
Stig Frode Henriksen
Charlotte Frogner
Lasse Valdal
Evy Kasseth Rosten
Jeppe Beck Laursen
Jenny Skavlan
Ane Dahl Torp
Bjorn Sundquist
Orjan Gamst

Plot: A group of medical students head to a remote cabin in the Norwegian Alps for some wintery fun. Much to their chagrin, they're unwittingly in possession of something that a company of actual Nazi soldiers, leftover from WWII, want very badly. Oh, I almost forgot one little detail: the Nazis still have so much pep in their step because they're zombies.

The Good: Gore, gore and more gore. Let's see; there are eyes gouged out, necks bitten and slit, a head pulled apart with the orifices serving as handles, intestines spilled and used for multiple purposes and plenty of severed limbs. If that's not enough, don't worry, I think I left out a few things. The movie doesn't take itself too seriously, either. It wants to be blood-splattering fun and that's what it is. The way it sets itself up, it plays more like a slasher flick than a zombie movie. Finally, this has to be the most intelligent group of zombies in cinematic history. They actually have a purpose besides eating your brains, use military tactics and even employ a chain of command.

The Bad: As smart as our zombies are, they're physically inconsistent. At times, they have superhuman strength, yet they struggle in hand to hand combat with regular folks. It'll occasionally make you scratch your head. Even though it's only a 90 minute movie, it takes a bit long to hit its stride. Our med students just aren't interesting enough for us to spend such a long period of time with and the story just runs through a laundry list of genre cliches before we get to the fun.

The Ugly: One guy going Bruce Campbell on himself with a chainsaw.

Recommendation: Lots and lots of blood and guts. I'll just leave it at that. Should you journey into this land of the undead bring your reading glasses. We're speaking German.

The Opposite View: Walter Addiego, San Francisco Examiner

What the Internet Says: 6.6/10 on imdb.com (4/19/10), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 61/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 7/10

Paranormal Activity

Directed by Oren Peli.

2009. Rated R, 86 minutes.
Cast:
Katie Featherston
Micah Sloat
Mark Fredrichs
Amber Armstrong

Plot: Katie (Featherston) believes something has been haunting her for her entire life and is in the house where she now lives with her boyfriend Micah (Sloat). Micah decides to film all the goings on in the house, hoping to get to the bottom of it. Things going bump in the night ensue.

The Good: Through the limitations of one of our characters having to hold the camera and the lack of extravagant special fx, it successfully feigns reality. Its easy to believe this is an actual couple and you are watching video documentation of their life. This makes it very easy to relate what's happening on the screen to the noises that break the night silence in your own home. Therefore, its as plausible as a haunted house movie can be and there is where its power lies.

The Bad: Its worst offense is because of that same camera that's such an asset. Even when the situation seems to dictate getting to or away from whatever is going on quickly, someone, usually Micah, usually stops to grab the camera, first. A major horror cliche pops up from time to time. It's that old favorite "You hear that? I'm gonna go check it out." And yes, Micah get annoying.

The Ugly: After one particularly adventurous night about halfway through, if I were Kate's boyfriend, without question I would've given her "the speech." What speech, you ask? "You know what babe? I don't think this thing is gonna work out between us. It's you...er...it's me, not you. Peace out." Love, be damned!

Recommendation: This is a very nice haunted house flick, best one I've seen in quite some time. It easily surpasses The Haunting in Connecticut, 2009's other major entry into the genre. Yes, it totally steals the concept from The Blair Witch Project, or probably more accurately from Cloverfield which stole it from TBWP but I like it better than both of those. As with all haunted house movies, I recommend watching this at home, late at night, with all the lights off, then going to bed immediately afterwards.

The Opposite View: Marc Savlov, Austin Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 7.0/10 on imdb.com (12/14/09), 82% on rottentomatoes.com, 68/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10

Frankenstein (1931)

Directed by James Whale.
1931. Not Rated, 70 minutes.
Cast:
Colin Clive
Mae Clarke
Boris Karloff
John Boles
Edward Von Sloan
Frederick Kerr
Dwight Frye
Lionel Belmore
Marilyn Harris

Dr. Henry Frankenstein (Clive) is hellbent on creating life. He doesn’t want to do it the old fashioned way. He wants to animate a deceased and fully grown human being, sort of. His “human being” is actually sewn together from parts he’s gathered from graveyards, the gallows and God knows where else. Hmmm, God. That’s it, he wants to be God.

Fearing he’s gone mad, his fiancée, Elizabeth (Clarke), enlists the help of a couple of Henry’s colleagues to perform a kind of intervention. They do manage to get him to at least take a break long enough to marry his gal, but they’re still too late. His experiment has already succeeded.

What follows is an iconic monster movie warning us of the dangers of pretending to be the Almighty. Boris Karloff, as the monster, turns in his signature performance without saying a word. It’s not at all scary, by today’s standards, but it’s still an intriguing and eventually sad story.

The film’s biggest drawback is actually no fault of its own. It is simply too familiar to us. The story has been with us far too long. It’s been remade and parodied so often, it’s difficult to judge on its own merit without comparing it to whatever version you’ve already seen. Still, if you’re a horror buff and care even a little about its history, this is essential viewing.