The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003).

Review #2112: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003).

Cast: 

Jessica Biel (Erin), Jonathan Tucker (Morgan), Erica Leerhsen (Pepper), Mike Vogel (Andy), Eric Balfour (Kemper), Andrew Bryniarski (Thomas Hewitt / Leatherface), R. Lee Ermey (Sheriff Hoyt), David Dorfman (Jedidiah), Lauren German (Teenage Girl), Terrence Evans (Old Monty), Marietta Marich (Luda Mae), Heather Kafka (Henrietta), and Kathy Lamkin (Tea Lady in Trailer) Directed by Marcus Nispel (#2108 - Friday the 13th [2009])

Review: 

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) is an undisputed horror classic, let us get that out of the way. Tobe Hooper and Kim Henkel crafted a worthy production that came first from Hooper coming up with a story based on "isolation, the woods, the darkness, and the unknown", one that found elements of news coverage of graphic violence and the exploits of serial murderer Ed Gein to make for a feature film (Henkel also cited killer Elmer Wayne Henley). Of course, one can't stop at one horror film, because everything needed the idea of a sequel to follow up such vaunted interest. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986) was a demented riff that saw Hooper return to direct, while the next two films in Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III (1990) and The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1995) reached smaller and smaller audiences. But then comes a new millennium and perhaps a new era in trying to mine audiences for money based on name value, for which one sees the name Platinum Dunes step in (as created by Michael Bay and others with the express purpose of making cheap features). Hooper and Henkel served as producers on this film, and both share the same cinematographer and opening narrator (I'm sure this time around John Larroquette was not paid in marijuana). This was the directorial debut of Marcus Nispel, who had been born in Frankfurt in West Germany. He had worked in advertising before moving abroad to study at Brooklyn College and the New York Institute of Technology before eventually being a director for commercials at the turn of the 21st century. The film was written by Scott Kosar in his feature writing debut (incidentally, he has written a handful of remake scripts but also The Machinist). A prequel, retaining a few cast members from this film, was released with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning (2006). Incidentally, the next film to bear the Chainsaw label in Texas Chainsaw 3D (2013), tried to serve as a follow-up to only the original that saw it have its own prequel a few years later (to throw you for a loop, thanks to 2022, there are now three Texas Chainsaw Massacre films that all have Larroquette as narrator). The film was released on October 17, 2003 (one thing I will give the film credit for, a horror film being shown in the fall season).

It is amusing, in a sense, to touch upon a film that must have seemed vile and horrific if one had never really seen that many horror movies before that one. The fact that the film runs at 98 minutes is the least surprising thing in the history of all things. I don't exactly remember the acting of most of the folks in the 1974 film, but somehow that film had a raw energy to it that was unsettling and unnerving in what you saw and heard. This film, on the other hand, is everything you could see coming in a "Young Adult Horror Trap" movie, one that is somehow grisly in its levels of gore without being at all interesting in any sort of way with doing anything fresh. It is strange to watch another film set in 1973 that has the same narrator as a film made in 1974 that happens to be shot in a cleaner view by the same man as before only to see a movie that is pale in every facet. Biel (perhaps best known previously for starring on 7th Heaven) is decent, even if one knows from nearly the first minute that she is on screen that she is the Final Girl, but at least when Marilyn Burns was in the previous rendition, one got a real sense of fear and terror from her reactions to what was going on. Here you just see the motions. It is Ermey that nearly lifts the film from the doldrums of remake hell when it comes to the ham that arises from an obvious role that he chews with great interest. He slithers with good ol' boy nature that gives one a rise more than any other time in the film, and that includes the parts with Leatherface, who I somehow have forgotten about unlike the times spent in the first two features.

Obviously, one can't just do a shot-by-shot remake of the first but consider that the framing device of the original was a group of young folks were driving back in a van after checking to see if a grave was desecrated - now we see young folks driving to a concert after buying weed. In short, it is like trying to put ice cubes in soda to make it taste better...flat soda. You've got a good deal of the hallmarks present in other horror films with nameless youths, whether that involves the situation where it seems like the dolts should just leave but do not do so, the aforementioned supporting presence more interesting than the main people, the incredibly obvious Final Girl, a set place that seems to loom larger on the inside, a villain of fairly indestructible tenor (lose an arm and get back to me), and blah blah blah it is conventional stuff. The only people who could get into this are either folks who really appreciate having a watered-down version of something already seen before or ones who seem to believe that they really aren't watching a "safe" film of terror. They probably watch it with casual interest with friends. But for folks like me, who aim to watch (and talk about) as many films as possible on their own, this is nothing more than a boring disgrace that surprises in no regard. Perhaps one has better memories of the film when it was fresh two decades ago, but all I see here is mush ready to be pushed away.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: The Undead.

Blade: Trinity.

Review #1667: Blade: Trinity.

Cast:

Wesley Snipes (Eric Brooks / Blade), Jessica Biel (Abigail Whistler), Ryan Reynolds (Hannibal King), Dominic Purcell (Dracula / Drake), Kris Kristofferson (Abraham Whistler), Parker Posey (Danica Talos), Callum Keith Rennie (Asher Talos), Paul "Triple H" Levesque (Jarko Grimwood), Natasha Lyonne (Sommerfield), Haili Page (Zoe), Mark Berry (Chief Martin Vreede), John Michael Higgins (Dr. Edgar Vance), Patton Oswalt (Hedges), and James Remar (FBI Agent Ray Cumberland) Written and Directed by David S. Goyer.

Review:

“That was the most personally and professionally difficult and painful thing I've ever been through,. Having said that, I have incredibly fond memories of working with Ryan and Jessica and a lot of people on the movie. Ryan and I remain really good friends today. It was a challenged shoot, as has been reported. What can I say?”

You don't need any fancy sentences to tell you that this is the worst of the Blade trilogy. However, I will make one easy crack at it: Blade: Trinity is probably the dumbest third action installment of a film series since RoboCop 3 (1993), and it is appropriate given the link between main performances that might as well be played by robots. Each film effectively turned their title hero character into a joke while killing their franchise - it should only make sense that there are talks for a remake of Blade, considering that RoboCop got a remake as well (albeit a very mediocre one). Of course, there are a few differences that make this argument amusing: RoboCop 3 is actually quite amusing to watch, one that is a cheap thrill of hammy lines and effects from folks that did what they had to do with a PG-13 script. Blade: Trinity is a movie to laugh at, mindboggling in its attempts at finishing a trilogy that can't even be definitive in its actual conclusions while being plagued by an indifferent actor and a director/writer that also were producers. Oh, but one could be fair to David S. Goyer, because he actually had been a director one previous time before this film - Zig Zag was released two years prior. However, Snipes did not find favor with Goyer being selected to direct the third movie (after a previous director was selected), and production only rolled down the hill from there in terms of interference and breakdowns - if you listen to the grapevine of reports, Snipes at one point would only respond to the name of his character and communicate by post-it notes, although he has refuted these reports (made by cast members alongside a report from someone who spent time on set that claimed of extensive use of stand-ins for Snipes for anything that wasn't a close-up shot), since he was a producer on this film (among the other two). How about we just sum up the troubles like this: it is a movie so miserable that its main star sued the production for its choice in director, writer, and cast (a settlement was apparently reached, although it certainly left no one with a good taste of memory).

Of course, you have to remember what the Blade series was about in the first place: an adaptation of the comic book character of the same name (as created by Marv Wolfman and Gene Colan) that first got his start in the comic series The Tomb of Dracula - Snipes really seemed in his element with a coolly collected hunter of vampires that had plenty of action to go with some dazzling over-the-top action with plots that hold up just enough to work out well as the first triumphant example of turning Marvel characters into movies. Blade: Trinity is none of that. Vampires have now progressed to running themselves in a big skyscraper with an interest in art that makes them want to bring Dracula into the fold (or more specifically, Dracula leading the vampires around). They have also decided to bring Pomeranians into the fold, which is probably worse than having those dogs as pets. Is this a movie that is supposed to be taken seriously? Perhaps the best argument against that is a scene involving Blade meeting the villain (Dracula, who for some reason is also referred to as Drake) after a long foot chase that ends with a confrontation with a baby being thrown; one gets to see the perspective of Dracula towards humans and vampires...and then he throws a baby at Blade that ends up with him going "coochie coo" after the catch. Actually, you could start as early as the first action sequence with Blade, since (are you ready for this?) he is fooled into taking down humans that were disguised as vampires. Blade has become so efficient at killing vampires that he can't even tell the difference between human and vampire anymore. Questions start to arise quickly? How about Whistler getting shortchanged and dying (again) 20 minutes into the movie? How about a character that engages in action with earbuds that blares music into her ear - who just happens to be the secret daughter of Whistler (a character who saw his two kids and wife get taken down by vampires)? How about a scene where Dracula goes into a goth store that is selling merchandise of Dracula from lunch boxes to cereal (before drinking a worker's blood)? The answer to everything is simple: There is none.

One could almost forget that actors are present in this film, really. Snipes probably didn't say that many lines in the first two films to begin with but consider one thing: him and Kristofferson are the only ones to star in each movie, let along star in two of them. Each movie is a different group to experience that just happens to have him paired with Kristofferson in diminishing ways, and the only way Snipes reacts to it is to persist on with trying to seem cool. This time around, it is a good thing I found out about the "stand-in" rumors after I saw the movie, because one could really be distracted by what counts as acting by Snipes and what isn't acting and never come out with a straight answer. Simply put, there is a balance of times where the lines will land as amusing that are either meant to be that way or are not intended to be but come off as unintentionally hilarious, as if the sunglasses are only there to hide displeasure at what is going on in the script. Before we get to the other main focuses, I have to note Kristofferson, because it seems almost any movie with him being featured should get a modest description of him - man, do I wish he wasn't short-changed in this feature. Perhaps it was always the intent to have his time with Snipes come to a natural conclusion...of course, he also was "shot" in the first film, and that last exchange was actually more meaningful than anything that came afterwards. Simply put, Kristofferson deserved better than to be cut down to a few sentences. Oh but Purcell deserves mention too when it comes to deserving better, because he has to play a role that has been done to death for over a century in Dracula, who this time around gets to walk in the sun and shape-shift on occasion before turning into a beast. That aforementioned scene in the goth shop is the easiest scene to highlight in embarrassment, not so much because it is meant to show Dracula's disdain for the modern world (uh huh), but because of the fact that you could trim it down to five seconds and probably miss nothing of importance. By the time he is fighting Blade with a blade, one isn't so much wondering how the fight will end but rather how silly it can get with beast-man Dracula in this duel of honor. Biel and Reynolds each were best known for roles on television series (7th Heaven and Two Guys and a Girl, respectively), although film roles were sprinkled between that. One can see where the idea for a spin-off could happen here, not so much because they are good, but because they might actually have more stage presence than the main star itself with their attempts at action hero dress-up. Reynolds is better in that the ad-libs are the easiest thing to remember in terms of lines (whether to groan at or not), even if they can't help be anything other than generic. Posey, who most might know for work within independent cinema, is certainly an interesting pick for a secondary villainous role - she seems fine with the role, treating it as something fun to do as one could see in a big dumb action movie without falling into the trap of scene-chewing (at least not too much, considering the film). Triple H, however, seems aptly appropriate for a movie this ridiculous, towering over all the folks with a goon presence that only a (WWE) wrestler could do with flourish. Everyone else is pretty much disposable, which seems appropriate given the propensity of the series to keep introducing people to Blade for help/hinderance only to see them not be seen again.

Folks who remember the first film well enough will note that the third film has decided to use the "blood farm" idea that had been deleted from the first film's intended climax, in which the vampires had a solution to that whole problem of turning everyone into a vampire - just store some humans in a fridge and feast on the leftovers. Honestly, it still seems pretty silly to think about, but what is amusing is the fact that each side ends up having the exact same plan: wanting to wipe out the other side like the plague. It is bad enough to have resorted to Dracula as your final villain, but sure, let's just throw a plague out there in the open...and the movie can't even be definitive about anything, since the movie ends with Blade still going around trying to take down more vampires in a never-ending war. The action shots don't seem that much more interesting, as if to add insult to injury. Somehow, there are three different endings to this mess: the original ending involves Dracula being nice in honor of his death by making it look like Blade is dead for the authorities while Blade goes on to fight his never-ending war against vampires; the unrated ending ends with Blade attacking the authorities that makes one wonder if the thirst has returned, while a different ending involves a new enemy for everyone but Blade: werewolves (yes, you heard that right). There were ideas of doing a spin-off film with the Nightstalkers, because if you couldn't do anything else with Blade (aside from a subsequent television series that lasted one season), why not spin further away from things? In the end, 113 minutes cannot end fast enough for a movie that is an absolute headstone for a series that ran its course with failures in action and characterization that make for a laughable affair for all involved, going from Snipes all the way down to its director. But hey, at least a new Blade feature might come into your future to make things seem better.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Stealth.

Review #1089: Stealth.

Cast: 
Josh Lucas (Lt. Ben "Big" Gannon), Jessica Biel (Lt. Kara "Guns" Wade), Jamie Foxx (Lt. Henry "E-Z" Purcell), Sam Shepard (Capt. George Cummings), Joe Morton (Capt. Dick Marshfield), Richard Roxburgh (Dr. Keith Orbit), Ian Bliss (Lt. Aaron Shaftsbury), Ebon Moss-Bachrach (Tim), David Andrews (Ray), and Wentworth Miller (EDI) Directed by Rob Cohen (#043 - The Fast and the Furious and #924 - The Boy Next Door)

Review: 
For a movie that is called "Stealth", the film's only real secret is that it is terrible within the first twenty minutes. From its preposterous plot to the underplayed characters that are followed up by equally underplayed acting, this film was a notable failure upon original release, making just over half of its reported budget of $135 million dollars. It would seem they put more thought into spending money for the effects than anything else, for the movie's detriment as it turns out. The effects aren't terrible, but there isn't a moment where you really feel the need to appreciate what is being shown on screen, with the action sequences being the worst offenders at this, feeling like bad cut-scenes that never cease to try and stymie the eyeballs. I was reminded of Broken Arrow (1996), a film I covered five years ago, while watching this flick - and that is not a compliment, seeing how that one was actually more riveting in comparison, where even Top Gun (1986) would be embarrassed at this thing. The movie uses the "set in the near future" excuse as a way to try and throw lingo (such as quantum computing) and the concept of AI, which is even more amusing if one has seen 2001: A Space Odyssey and its version of AI with HAL 9000, which was thought of in the 1960s as opposed to the 21st century like with Stealth, with the AI here seemingly placed to make it seem a little less like a generic action film and more like a generic science fiction action movie, but there is no way that any sane person would consider this sci-fi. This is more the kind of movie you would reject for $1 at the pawn shop than a worthwhile thing to watch.

There is something about this movie can't generate excitement beyond a chuckle at how over-the-top it presents itself that makes it a chore from start to finish. The acting is the nail in the coffin for this film, with our main trio of Lucas-Biel-Foxx being ridiculous to follow through with, in part because their characters are relentlessly generic and none of them are really up to the task of elevating them to watchability. The closest to entertainment value is Foxx, who has a few moments of amusement. Lucas and Biel have zero chemistry with each other, and they equally add zero charisma to these roles, coming off as boring people to follow that aren't entertaining even in the action sequences. Shepard doesn't do too bad, but the film seems to be beneath him, reminding me of how much more fun I had with him in The Right Stuff (1983). The most amusing voice is Miller, playing the "rogue AI", a trope that you can see coming nearly five minutes after he is first introduced. The plot is all over the place with stuff that you can readily expect and stuff that you wouldn't dare expect, but the most amusing aspect is a line of dialogue referring to the AI, in that it apparently downloaded all of the songs from the web. Yes, an rogue AI that not only goes against commands but also is a pirate of music companies. Oh, the horror. Trying to analyze the film or tear down its flaws piece by piece would be just as exhausting as watching the movie, only less time-consuming. By the time the film has the gall to end with a post-credits scene, you will have already started the process of trying to forget what you have seen, in the hope that it won't bore you to death any further than it already has in its 121 minute run-time. Even as a bad flick, it isn't enjoyably bad, managing to be a relentlessly dull and plodding piece of dreck.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Planet 51.

Review #130: Planet 51.

Cast
Dwayne Johnson (Captain Charles "Chuck" T. Baker), Justin Long (Lem), Jessica Biel (Neera), Gary Oldman (General Grawl), Seann William Scott (Skiff), and John Cleese (Professor Kipple) Directed by Jorge Blanco.

Review
This film has an alright cast, with Johnson not having to do some gimmick to attract the viewers (Such as being a Tooth Fairy, a Quarterback with daughter issues) The plot is meh to say the least. The animation is decent, with reasonable voice acting. This film is not exactly a good film, being simple, but it does manage to make you chuckle or giggle at least a few times, being enough to entertain you for at least 91 minutes. Relatively harmless, but decent enough.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The A-Team.

Review #049: The A-Team.

Cast
Liam Neeson (John "Hannibal" Smith), Bradley Cooper (Templeton "Face" Peck), Quinton "Rampage" Jackson (B.A. Baracus), Sharlto Copley (H.M. "Howling Mad" Murdock), Jessica Biel (Charissa Sosa), Patrick Wilson (Agent Vance Burress/Agent Lynch), Brian Bloom (Brock Pike), and Gerald McRaney (Russell Morrison) Directed by Joe Carnahan.

Review
The film doesn't do much to be like the classic 80's show (which I should see) The film has loads of action, all in silly fun (especially the Tank flying through the sky). While the film isn't exactly good, it still manages to get your attention with some memorable things (that thing I just mentioned a line ago) If you want something to spend your time on that while not making you think (it's an action film), it will entertain you.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.