Friday the 13th (2009).

Review #2108: Friday the 13th (2009).

Cast: 

Jared Padalecki (Clay Miller), Danielle Panabaker (Jenna), Amanda Righetti (Whitney Miller), Travis Van Winkle (Trent), Aaron Yoo (Chewie), Derek Mears (Jason Voorhees), Jonathan Sadowski (Wade), Julianna Guill (Bree), Ben Feldman (Richie), Arlen Escarpeta (Lawrence), Ryan Hansen (Nolan), and Willa Ford (Chelsea) Directed by Marcus Nispel.

Review: 

Admittedly, the Friday the 13th series is a mess worth looking into further when it comes to reliable cheap horror. Okay, maybe calling it "reliable cheap" is a swipe, but I've only managed to see exactly the first two films in the span of over ten years (where I apparently thought the first was better than Part 2) to go with the crossover Freddy vs. Jason (2003), and, well, they weren't exactly the most impressive. But people obviously care about this series since Sean S. Cunnigham first directed the original in 1980 (with the screenplay by Victor Miller), so why not consider the only other tradition hacked away from other horror movies: the remake? The three key producers behind the remake were Michael Bay, Andrew Form, and Brad Fuller for Platinum Dunes. The company had been behind the production of several horror films (with most of them being remakes), which started with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) that extended all the way down to doing remakes of The Amityville Horror in 2005 and The Hitcher in 2007 (a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street came in 2010, as you already might have guessed). Marcus Nispel, the director of the aforementioned Chainsaw remake, directed this one. Damian Shannon, Mark Swift, and Mark Wheaton wrote the story while Shannon and Swfit (behind the previous effort in Freddy vs. Jason) were credited for the screenplay. Paramount and New Line Cinema, who each owned parts of the franchise (due to the former having sold parts to the latter in 1989), served as part of this production. The movie was a hit with audiences, but somehow it did not lead to further installments, since Paramount and New Line (who was absorbed by Warner Bros. in 2008) apparently wanted to wait until the economy was better (while not wanting one to produce it without them) before more plans ended up being scuttled. A lawsuit by Miller for the rights to what he felt was owed as the writer of the original film did not help. A prequel television series is the latest thing "in development". 

Honestly, I didn't hate the film, because my expectations were low to begin with a film that technically isn't a remake if you consider that the first film's killer was not Jason Voorhees but blah blah blah. The film takes elements from the first few films (a vengeful mother murdering the campers in revenge for her son dying there, Jason going from wearing a sack on his head to the mask, know what I mean?).  It isn't much of a bloody spectacle when it comes to "being scary" or "being interesting". The one thing they apparently have done differently with the character of Jason Vorhees is to make him seem like a survivalist that defends his territory (complete with having his own marijuana plant farm). The film runs at a predictable 97 minutes (105 for the "Killer Cut"). Holiday camps and people that might lurk in the woods when you camp is scary to those who see stuff like this, I suppose, but even Sleepaway Camp (1983) made a better effort, and they didn't have digital effects for machetes. In their attempt to bring the series back to some sort of "basics", they basically have crafted a piece of meat that is in dire need of hard liquor to be edible. Sure, it may rank as "desirable" when it comes to comparing it to, say, the one where Jason went to Manhattan, but that is not a high bar. The highlight might be Yoo in comic relief of wandering around inebriated, strangely enough. You can't even say the adults (youths, whatever) are a detriment to the film, because they don't particularly annoy me here, it just happens that they have little substance to do anything noteworthy besides a few amusing lines (imagine a character calling someone's breasts "stupendous" and you get what I mean). You know exactly what you are coming for if you dig the previous films, but I'm not really sure you get anything really that fresh for fun besides references. The stuff with Voorhees having the edge of lurking around with survival instincts is at least semi-interesting, but the film only makes light movements to actually do anything resembling a scare, complete with needing a cheap jump scare ending. As a whole, the semblance of making new ideas is there, but one is seeing most of the same middling results in the most obvious ways that you would see from a "remake". There are better picks than this middle-middle film for horror.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Mr. Brooks.

Review #1137: Mr. Brooks.

Cast: 
Kevin Costner (Earl Brooks), William Hurt (Marshall), Demi Moore (Detective Tracy Atwood), Dane Cook (Mr. Smith / Graves Baffert), Marg Helgenberger (Emma Brooks), Danielle Panabaker (Jane Brooks), Aisha Hinds (Nancy Hart), and Jason Lewis (Jesse Vialo) Directed by Bruce A. Evans.

Review: 
Mr. Brooks is certainly an interesting film to think about, if not for the fact it certainly stands out for its main character - a man addicted to murder, as if they were doing a modern variant on the Jekyll and Hyde tale, to the point where Costner's character goes to twelve-step meetings for addicts to try and curb his "killing addiction". Believe it or not, this was meant to be the first film in a trilogy, and while the film was a mild success at the box office, there were no further follow-ups made. While I can't say that this is a great film, I will say that it is an interesting thing to watch, if not for the twists that it tries to pull and some of its performances being pretty stand-out, even if the film has some deep flaws of its own that can't quite make a success.

Costner and Hurt are easily the highlights for the film, interacting with each other over the nature of what they are bound to do with the kind of energy and interest that you would probably expect from a buddy film. Costner manages to pull off a entertaining performance, balancing the family man aspect of his role handily while also balancing his struggle to deal with his urges as if he was in a werewolf film. It's hard to resist seeing Hurt and his fiendish grin in his role as the alter ego, being watchable each time he appears on screen with his conversations, having fun with the mayhem that he lives on to compel Mr. Brooks to do. One big flaw that comes out from the cast is that there isn't anyone else in the film that actually gets up to the level of Costner and Hurt in terms of performance or presence. Moore plays her detective role with the kind of wooden nature that could only come from humorless television movies, but the more amusing thing is the threads that the film tries to stake on her character. She doesn't just play a detective, she plays a rich detective who does what she does for her own reasons, which the film likes to explain in the end as some sort of sting. In any case, there isn't any scene where she gives enough energy to make this role seem remotely interesting, being one of the lulls that stops the film's momentum. Would you expect that Moore's character has three plot-lines? Yes, between her investigation into the serial murders in the main thread, there is also the thread of her divorce and the thread about another killer that has escaped from jail that she put away that is in the pursuit of her - named the Hangman. The other lull is in Cook, playing a character seemingly devoid of charm or interest, which I suppose makes sense when playing someone who is trying to parrot Costner's character. Perhaps this would've worked if Cook (a stand-up comedian playing a dramatic role for some reason) actually made this person someone I wanted to be around with Costner and Hurt. Perhaps someone with a bit more charm (or possibly less time on screen) would've made the film run without less stoppage to it. Yes, the character is a slimy one, but it at least could've been a useful slimy one to be around with. Strangely enough, there isn't as much time for Helgenberger and Panabaker, who have minimal time on screen to be around Costner for this on-screen family. Maybe there would've been more for them to do if there had been sequels (and I put that generously), but there had to be another way to have them more involved. I feel like the parts with Costner and Panabaker should've had more of a focus, since she basically only has three brief scenes, and she basically disappears after the first hour. Yes, her character does have a function to at least one plot thread, but it doesn't really resonate as much as it could have. Spoiler alert, her character also committed a murder, as if she inherited it from her dad. Sure, why not. There are just as many plot threads than actual deaths in this film. By the time it gets to its climax, the film essentially collapses from exhaustion. It can be a creepy film sometimes, when it involves the nature of what makes Mr. Brooks who he is, but it isn't as effective as it probably should've been.

With all of its attempts to pull so many twists and narratives, the film can't quite execute at a fair rate, where there become so many threads that it almost feels needless. After a while, it becomes exhausting to wonder why there are so many plot threads going about in a film that probably should've just stuck to a bit more simple for a psychological thriller that manages to last two hours. When it wants to be just Costner and Hurt, the film works just fine, but when it tries to verge on others in its small cast, it feels a bit distracted and not too particularly focused. This may have worked better a television series with all the threads it wants to throw around, but even with that it mind, it's just a frustrating movie to sit through. I like the idea of where it wants to go with Costner and Hurt, but the final product just isn't enough to fully give thrills and satisfaction without becoming ridiculous and overstuffed. It's the kind of movie that might serve as a guilty pleasure for ones in the right mindset, or ones with more patience in mind for where it ultimately lingers.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sky High (2005).

Review #1107: Sky High.

Cast: 
Michael Angarano (Will Stronghold), Kurt Russell (Steve Stronghold / The Commander), Kelly Preston (Josie DeMarco-Stronghold / Jetstream), Danielle Panabaker (Layla Williams), Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Gwen Grayson / Royal Pain), Steven Strait (Warren Peace), Dee Jay Daniels (Ethan Bank), Kelly Vitz (Magenta Lewis), Nicholas Braun (Zachary "Zach" Braun / Zack Attack), with Malika Haqq and Khadijah Haqq (Penny Lent), Jake Sandvig and Will Harris (Lash and Speed), Lynda Carter (Principal Powers), Bruce Campbell (Tommy Boomowski / Sonic Boom), Kevin Heffernan (Ron Wilson, Bus Driver), Cloris Leachman (Nurse Spex), Jim Rash (Stitches), Dave Foley (Jonathan Boy / All-American Boy), and Kevin McDonald (Professor Medulla) Directed by Mike Mitchell (#209 - Shrek Forever After and #890 - Surviving Christmas)

Review: 
For a superhero flick that doubles as a family movie, Sky High proves to be average but acceptable fare as far as entertainment goes. It manages to present its premise and characters adequately with a share of laughs, while not being overly tongue-in-cheek, although it sometimes resembles fare you might see on television, which isn't too surprising given that Walt Disney Pictures was behind its production. Perhaps I should have expected more from a movie presenting the concept of a school attended by kids with superpowers, but on the whole the film does enough with showcasing numerous powered people while trying to juggle its story and its parts that you would expect from something relating to high school without becoming stale, with its action sequences being okay. Anyone looking for nuance in this film will be pretty dissapointed, but it will work out well for anybody willing to let things play out (no matter how silly it might seem). Although the occasional appearances by the adult actors can tend to stick out better than the child actors, the cast as a whole do well enough in making for engaging scenes that would've probably felt like TV movie fare with lesser actors. Angarano does a decent job, hitting his marks well enough to make the character useful to watch for the audience. Russell and Preston are both engaging to watch, playing the parent roles with the fair share of energy that you would expect from either of them. Panabaker and Winstead both do fine jobs, and the other members of the main kid core (Strait, Daniels, Vitz, Braun) all doing fair jobs. It is nice to see Campbell on screen for a few minutes, providing a fair deal of amusement alongside others such as Heffernan and Foley. At 100 minutes, this is a pretty breezy film to sit-through, and while it may be a bit routine in some of its choices, it will prove satisfactory for people (such as families) in the right mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.