Final Destination 3.

Review #2596: Final Destination 3.

Cast: 

Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Wendy Christensen), Ryan Merriman (Kevin Fischer), Kris Lemche (Ian McKinley), Alexz Johnson (Erin Ulmer), Sam Easton (Frankie Cheeks), Jesse Moss (Jason Wise), Gina Holden (Carrie Dreyer), Texas Battle (Lewis Romero), Chelan Simmons (Ashley Freund), Crystal Lowe (Ashlyn Halperin), with Amanda Crew (Julie Christensen), and Tony Todd (voice of the Devil / subway train conductor) Directed by James Wong (#1749 - Final Destination)

Review: 

"I'm hoping they flip out. I hope they dig in and have a lot of fun. My fantasy is that when they go on a roller coaster, they stop for a moment and think about this film. Then they go, "Alright. I'm cool." And then they get on. I just want them to remember the movie when they go to the amusement park."

I suppose you could say this is where my expectations for the Final Destination franchise are firmly established in the position of "not hoping for really much of anything" department. As much as one really tries to avoid the judgement of "don't trash a movie for not doing the premise you wanted in your head", I really maintain that Final Destination probably could've really served with going with a nutjob for a lead that simply believes too much in the power of "saving people with visions*" (of course that makes for one idea, not a franchise, but horror franchises once came out of "what if a leprechaun killed people?"). The second movie almost had an idea with a survivor who'd rather be in the loony bin. Instead, here's a bunch of movies that go along the same path of one guy (or girl) trying to convince people to be careful of their lives because of how death is a force that just doesn't like being cheated. Or something, because even if you go through the climax with your head still on straight, you might just get cooked by a twist ending. Glen Morgan and James Wong, who had done rewrites to the original draft by Jeffrey Reddick (you might remember that he later regretted not having a physical antagonist for the franchise) for what became the first film back in 2000, returned to write the third film together, which they envisioned as a standalone movie that didn't need to deal with "returning" characters. Wong (fresh off the interesting reception of The One [2001]) served as director, his third as a director (he subsequently directed one more movie with Dragonball Evolution in 2009). It ended up being the biggest hit of the series at the time, with a follow-up obviously being wanted by New Line Cinema, which came with David R. Ellis directing The Final Destination in 2009.

Well, it's the same mediocre movie three times in a row, but at least this one sounds like it wants to have a bit more time chuckling at the absurdity of trying to help people out who really think you sound like a nut in saying "hey remember that thing we survived a few months ago, yeah, well, now you're targeted for death". At least there's an attempt to draw at something really frightening for having no real control...in a roller-coaster. In fairness, I've been at an amusement park exactly once in the past five years, and the one ride that spooked me the most was one where you slowly but surely swing and hang upside down for a moment in time. So yes, you get the buildup to the eventual disaster on the roller-coaster (as portrayed through a vision just like the plane crash from the first one and the car accident in the second one) before getting to the nitty gritty of how you can make 93 minutes seem pretty routine. Sure, Winstead leads the way with a bit of worried charm in trying to make sense of the frenzy that comes in random deaths such as tanning booths* that happen to look like the photos taken of people before they *didn't* stay on the doomed roller-coaster ride. At least her path starts with the road of grief (namely because this is one where they actually lost someone dear to them) before getting tangled in the mumbo-jumbo, complete with brushing off the initial "hey, maybe Death is doing something" spiel, which gave me a chuckle, as if the series yearned to be self-aware in the only one of the first five movies without the physical presence of Tony Todd (who this time is utilized for voices connected to impending disaster). The only other interesting idea is a grief-stricken character (evolving from goth boyfriend with lame quips, go figure) that actually has a bit of umbrage with our leads because hey, what's life for if the person you love couldn't hack their way out of Death getting back at them with a nailgun? The second one established "new life" being a loophole and "no you can't kill yourself, it's not your turn", for a second I thought we would see attempted murder to try and close the loop. The gore is about on par with the others in heightened absurdity (death by burns, heads going splat and other various ways to go). I suppose the ending wanted to top the other two in further mayhem with its conceit about "is it really over?", but it basically went in one ear and out the other as the final gasp of desperation to a checked-out viewer who has lowered the bar and gotten the bare minimum. For a series filled with missteps, you know what you're getting with the third movie, warts and all.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*No really, think about it. Imagine if you got lucky one time in being the big hero and saving people's lives, I think there's two ways that could really go for horror: you either go mad with basically thinking you cheated God and therefore feel that these people owe you...or maybe you decide that you did cheat Death and therefore feel bound to finish the job (and you can even put up the Rube Goldberg bullshit as "accidents" so nobody knows). 

*Why the fuck would you need to be tanner anyway? Is the sun really not enough for you? The reasoning probably makes about as much sense as willingly drinking hard liquor.

The Ring Two.

Review #1755: The Ring Two.

Cast: 

Naomi Watts (Rachel), Simon Baker (Max Rourke), David Dorfman (Aidan), Elizabeth Perkins (Dr. Emma Temple), Gary Cole (Martin Savide), Sissy Spacek (Evelyn), Ryan Merriman (Jake), Emily VanCamp (Emily), Kelly Overton (Betsy), James Lesure (Doctor), and Kelly Stables (Evil Samara) Directed by Hideo Nakata (#1747 - Ring (1998))

Review: 

"To me, I wouldn't look upon myself as a horror film maker somehow. But whenever I make horror movies, ideally I would like my audience to be really scared and to keep the scariness inside them at least for a few hours, or possibly a day or so. That happened for Ringu, or the American version."

Sure, there are a few ideas you could do when it comes to a horror movie that involves people watching a tape and dying seven days later. Of course, in trying to draw from the double-edged sword of being the sequel to an Americanized remake of a Japanese horror film, one can see where the clichés may fall in, but it is striking to see that this came from the director of the original theatrical feature that started it all with Hideo Nakata. Actually, Nakata wasn't the first one in mind for the sequel, since he actually had wanted to venture past being known as a horror filmmaker (he did a handful of dramas in his native country). It should be noted that he appreciated the 2002 remake that had been done by Gore Verbinksi, one that certainly had more room to expand on what had been done before while standing on its own. After attempts to bring in Noam Murro (a commercial director) failed, Nakata was tapped in. It should be noted that a short film called Rings is included with the DVD of this film, featuring Ryan Merriman, Emily VanCamp, and Kelly Stables that deals with a cult of kids that like to share the experiences they have with the tape (which if you remember has to be passed on to someone before a week is over)...of course no one has apparently seen day seven, but I'm sure you know where that would go, as the story for the short film closes with the opening scene of the theatrical film. Of course, the only ones to return from the last one is Watts, Dorfman, and Stables (well, she was the stunt person for Samara, but now she replaces Daveigh Chase in playing the overall character). Nakata really thought that this triangle of characters would hold up for a script he believed was "very simple but very strong" (one that would be different from his own Ring sequel, which he had done in 1999, just to remember). Ehren Kruger returned to write the script for this film (having done the 2002 film); Nakata would not return back to the Ringu series until Sadako (2019), incidentally.

It is maddening to see just how much of a letdown this movie is, one that seems to be the bastard son of good intentions and studio notes. The aforementioned short film (16 minutes) is both a blessing and a curse, because it actually proves more intriguing than the feature film (110 minutes) that comes after it. No seriously, the premise of the short film seems more interesting to make a feature out of rather than the collection of clichés that come from the overall movie; imagine having folks that are trying to play chicken with death. Instead, the feature has shifted its focus from a killer tape to a hodgepodge that seems reminiscent of The Exorcist more than anything (at least that didn't have CGI deer). Trying to escape just doing a re-hash of what happened before has only resulted in a hollow experience that does nothing particularly new or particularly worthy enough to care, particularly since the triangle just can't keep interest up to begin with. This isn't to say that Watts does a terrible job, but she seems constricted here, mired in a mystery readily apparent to the audience way before the character figures it out. Dorfman is mildly interesting, but the moody tension that had been present the first time around just doesn't stick as well here; the case worker segment is an especially apparent waste of time in that regard, since it wastes Perkins in a shocking amount of time (hell, it uses Cole for just one scene...for attempts at humor!). Baker has the apparent charisma of television static on a clear night, while Spacek is more amusing in her one-note scene than anything. As a whole, most of this proves quite pointless, from its attempts to building lore that doesn't really go far to having its interesting scenes start and end the film (the climax certainly doesn't leave much to draw from the well, at least). There is nothing here that seems readily tense or interesting enough to hold an entire experience, and it perhaps is not surprising that there would not be another sequel in the American line for over a decade. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The circle of five reviews in three days is nearly complete. Halloween - The Week After Part 3 ends the same way 2020's version ended...with a Rob Zombie movie...The Devil's Rejects.

Halloween: Resurrection.

Review #1286: Halloween: Resurrection.

Cast: 
Busta Rhymes (Freddie Harris), Bianca Kajlich (Sara Moyer), Thomas Ian Nicholas (Bill Woodlake), Ryan Merriman (Myles "Deckard" Barton), Sean Patrick Thomas (Rudy Grimes), Tyra Banks (Nora Winston), Jamie Lee Curtis (Laurie Strode), Brad Loree (Michael Myers), Katee Sackhoff (Jennifer "Jen" Danzig), Daisy McCrackin (Donna Chang) Directed by Rick Rosenthal (#268 - Halloween II)

Review: 
"Ultimately, this is a Halloween product that only serves as a pale shadow of the original two films that should have served as the end for this series." Those are the words I said about Halloween H20: 20 Years Later (1998), which had the clearest way to defeat its main horror icon with a chop of an ax. So how does a sequel endure? (box office profits, really). Within the first five minutes of this film, it is explained that when Laurie had chopped Michael's head off, it was (get ready for this) actually not Michael in the mask, since he choked a paramedic and his larynx and had him put on the mask. It's nice to know that even in a mediocre Halloween film, its climax can still be shortchanged by some silly idea like its own sequel. It should only prove that Halloween is a scary time of year for horror films. This is especially true when it comes to horrifyingly bad films, as is the case here, which we should expect with a cliche title like Resurrection. Trust me, the shortchanging doesn't stop there, particularly with the end of the only living interesting character in this series in Curtis (who described the film as a joke, one that she was contractually obligated to do, for which she asked the character to be killed off) by the first 15 minutes. Maybe they really wanted to give a shock to the audience, but the only real scare is in how ridiculous everything turns out to be.

The characters are as cliche as they come, right down to the basic characteristics they all do. Yes, there really is a character that actually tries to apply "critical studies" theories to Michael. Guess how that works out. It isn't even worth the effort to call out the cliche things done here, because this is already ridiculous enough. Imagine casting someone slated to be the final survivor and they literally cannot scream. No joke, Kajlich had to be dubbed in post-production because she cannot actually scream. Nobody really delivers an interesting performance among the ones slated to participate in the "show", so one doesn't care all too much when they start dropping, which minimizes the tension.  Of course it also takes an hour before anybody watching might think that Michael might actually be in the house killing the contestants. If someone wanted to make a live internet horror film (complete with portable camera)s), perhaps it could've worked in making this franchise seem like it wants to do something different, as opposed to just changing the setting for where Michael hunts (which at least seems better than being at a boarding school, I guess). But the show within the film doesn't even seem that interesting to go with, what with the fake skeletons (in the midst of the shape already having killed some of the crew) and then a sequence of another person (take one guess) dressed up as Michael Myers. It is the funniest thing in the whole movie, for all the wrong reasons, where it takes the film into new lows on a horror level but raises the unintentional hilarity levels significantly. Actually, of all the people in this film, Rhymes is likely the one reason to watch this film. How many movies feature a kung-fu fight in fire? Plenty might exist, but none are as relentlessly silly as this turns out to be, which inspires plenty of snickers, particularly since this leads up to a lame cop out ending. Supposedly there were multiple endings considered, with one involving Myers popping out of a manhole and grabbing at someone. But I suppose they really needed to bait audiences further with Myers' eyes opening up suddenly. It didn't matter anyway, since despite the film making a profit (making over double its $13 million budget at the box office), a sequel did not come to pass. Instead, a remake was commissioned, done in 2007 (which was technically better). In the end, this is a movie that represents the last laugh of miserable sequels that does get one thing right: It's all being done for the money.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 42.

Review #372: 42.

Cast
Chadwick Boseman (Jackie Robinson), Harrison Ford (Branch Rickey), Andre Holland (Wendell Smith), Christopher Meloni (Leo Durocher), John C. McGinley (Red Barber), Lucas Black (Pee Wee Reese), Alan Tudyk (Ben Chapman), Nicole Beharie (Rachel Isum Robinson), Brett Cullen (Clay Hopper), and Ryan Merriman (Dixie Walker) Directed by Brian Helgeland.

Review
On a day like this where baseball is around to entertain us as the week begins, history is once again turned into a movie and once again I'm reviewing a film about Jackie Robinson, the first one starring himself (#365 - The Jackie Robinson Story), which wasn't bad, but not too special. This is first film reviewed here from 2013, and trust me there will be more soon enough from 2013. This film...manages to be entertaining. While it may have some inaccuracies that some have found, I don't mind. It seems sweetening and easy to figure, but it manages to capture a tone of the 1940's, which given the mood back then, makes sense, I suppose. Boseman is a surprisingly good actor for someone I haven't watched before, leaving an impression, looking the part. But the actor I think is the best out of all of them is Harrison Ford, who surprised me because he does radical change to be Rickey and does a great job, making me smile. The rest of the cast (Examples being Meloni, Holland and Beharie) do a fine job, keeping the film at pace as well. The baseball action works well, and it captures an old feel of life, baseball and more. It has its moments, and it certainly is a good biopic. Essentially, 42 hits a ball that goes deep into right field, narrowly missing the foul pole but still going fair.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.