House At The End Of The Street

House At The End Of The Street isn?t a great horror movie, but it is a careful one. It consistently chooses the correct camera angles. It lets its characters interact like real human beings. It uses the weather to its advantage. It gives and withholds the right ratio of information. It makes the correct decision more often than not, and consequently, when all of those little moments are added up, they far outweigh the story problems that would have easily sunk most films in its position. Plus, having Jennifer Lawrence and Elisabeth Shue really helps.

Most of us learned a long time ago not to expect anything from performances in horror films. Maybe it?s the subject matter. Maybe it?s the self-fulfilling prophecy of low expectations. Whatever the reason, the acting in scary movies is bad far more often than it?s good, which is why it feels so refreshing to watch Lawrence and Shue offer their usual quality. Both women have been better in other things, but their mere solidness in House At The End Of The Street really helps to sell everything going on. They make us care about their characters? screams and care about their basic movements. They even convince us to care about their mother-daughter relationship.

That?s probably where the two women are most important Like all horror flicks, House is concerned with terror, but the lead-up to the fright fest is longer than usual. In less capable hands, the devoted time could have felt boring and wasted, but here, it feels honest and human. The relationship between mom Sarah (Shue) and daughter Elissa (Lawrence) has been fractured for a long time; so, in order to mend fences and start anew, they trade the hustle and bustle of Chicago for the stillness of a large house next to a national forest. Ordinarily, there?s no way they could afford such a property, but thanks to the odious mansion with a dark past next door, they?re able to move in.

The residence in question is occupied by part-time college student Ryan Jacobson (Max Theriot). When he was a kid, his mentally deranged sister murdered their parents and then escaped into the woods, sinking property values in a ten mile radius and forever cursing him to be the weirdo everyone in town is suspicious of. He just wants to be left alone, but Elissa has other ideas. She sees a sad little project she can fix, much to her mother?s chagrin.

You can make your own guesses as to how this set-up turns into a horror movie. No doubt the more astute among you could probably even come up with a better story arc than what actually unfolds from this point forward. There are definitely a few holes and question marks in what we?re given, but thanks to the solid character development we got early on and a great sense of scare timing from director Mark Tonderai, it?s still snappy, exciting and pretty satisfying.

House At The End Of The Street realizes scariness and creepiness are often proportional to how much we care about the character or characters in trouble. It takes great pains to present Elissa as a believable high school girl (at one point, she expresses an interest in using the term ?dickhole? more) and Sarah as a believable mother (she shoots some of the meanest death glares I?ve ever seen). By the end of the film, they feel like women we know. They feel like women we?d like to see the best for, and even as the plot hurdles out of control, we?re invested in the outcome. We care. That?s rare for a horror movie, and it?s as good of a reason to see a movie as any I can think of.

View the original article here

Judge Dredd [Blu-Ray]

You might not read my reviews regularly, but if you did, then you?d know that Judge Dredd is my kind of movie. I loved it back when I first saw it in the theaters with my dad, and I still love it today. I am?THE LAW!

The Movie:

The Sylvester Stallone vehicle, Judge Dredd, is a much-maligned comic book movie from the 90s, and I never understood why. It?s loud, it?s exciting, and it?s even funny (Yes, Rob Schneider can actually be funny in the right situation!). One of the major complaints is that, oh, wah wah wah, Judge Dredd rarely ever takes off his helmet in the comics, wah, wah, wah. As if you even knew that before this movie came out and somebody told you that fact. And secondly, Spider-Man never shot webs out of his skin, either, but THAT happened in Sam Raimi?s trilogy, which was still widely loved by most fans and newcomers alike. So what?s the deal?

My theory? The unfamiliarity of the character, plus the R rating, and the overall hamminess of it (oh, and Rob Schneider), equals a critical and commercial failure. It?s not like Judge Dredd is an unknown character or anything like that. His 2000 A.D. series is quite famous in the pantheon of comic books, but no one would mistake him for the popularity of Batman or The X-Men. He suffers the same fate as somebody like Jonah Hex, even though that movie was lousy and this one isn?t. People just couldn?t get into the character. At least, that?s what I think.

The film stars Sylvester Stallone in a role that could have just as easily gone to Arnold Schwarzenegger. He plays a cop with adamant beliefs in the law, and acts as judge, jury, and executioner, all wrapped into one glorious piece of beef. He does his job better than anyone else ever could, but things go awry when he?s framed for murder and is sent into exile (with Rob Schneider). What follows is his ascent back to glory as he seeks out the culprit, who is played with hilarious bombast by Armand Assante. One of my favorite moments from Assante occurs when he curls up his lip like Stallone and spouts, ?Leeeeaawwww!? Just watch the movie, and I?m sure you?ll also find this funny.

And that?s why I love this film. It?s so fun to make fun of but genuinely enjoyable to watch, too. Sure, none of the actors take themselves too seriously, but that?s what?s great about it. It feels like a joke, and it is, but it?s also immensely entertaining, just like a dumb action picture should be. I?m not going to compare it to something as classic as say, Commando, which I consider the comic gem of action pictures. But I will say that, all the way through, while I?m laughing at its ridiculousness, I?m also enjoying the special affects, gunfire, and one-liners (?I knew you?d say that?) that this film has to offer. It seriously never lets up, but in a strangely, not-too-violent fashion. Like I mentioned earlier, the movie is rated-R and it really never should have been. Even back then it was tame, and by today?s standards, it?d be downright be PG-13?which is another reason why people might hate it so much. It seems pretty kid-friendly, and almost entirely directed toward teenagers, while people probably expected a bloodbath. Well, that never bothered me, and I liked the film for what it was?A goofy, explosive action flick. I loved it back then, and I still love it today. Long live, Judge Dredd!

The Disc:

Okay, no effort whatsoever went into this Blu-Ray disc. I actually never had this movie on DVD, but if I did, I?m sure I?d have the same special feature in, ?Stallone?s Law: The Making of Judge Dredd,? as it was obviously made make in the 90s. Stallone hasn?t looked so young in years.

It?s enjoyable, to say the least. Stallone hams it up and continues to do that weird curve thing with his lip while he discusses how hard it was to make the film, while the other actors talk up their characters and the movie. It?s all pretty interesting stuff and I enjoyed watching it and learning about the special effects (this is back in the day when people actually worked their asses off to make something look futuristic and real), but really, I wanted something more. Perhaps, an in-depth look at the series in preparation for the new Dredd that comes out pretty soon? Or maybe an, ?In Defense of Dredd? featurette, or something like that, since this new Dredd looks like it was pretty much just created to wash out the bad taste that the original movie made with the general public. Or maybe, I don?t know, a commentary by the director or writer. Anything, really, other than that one special feature, as the only other extra on this disc is the trailer, which is badass and all, but I wanted more.

Overall, it?s a really crummy disc for special features, and if you already own Judge Dredd on DVD, then you can skip the Blu-Ray upgrade entirely. It doesn?t even look that crisp or new. So, this is a great movie, but lousy with special features. That?s pretty much Judge Dredd on Blu-Ray in a nutshell.

Distributor: Hollywood PicturesStarring: Slyvester Stallone, Armand Assante, Diane Lane, Rob Schneider, Max Von SydowProduced by: Charles Lippincott, Beau E.L. MarksWritten by: William Wisher, Jr., Steven E. de Souza

View the original article here

The Perks Of Being A Wallflower

The intense and sometimes terrifying emotions of adolescence, so easily forgotten by adults, are revived, with thoughtfulness and deep affection in The Perks of Being A Wallflower, in which writer and director Stephen Chbosky adapts his own hit young adult novel. It's only Chbosky's second feature, and his first with any kind of real budget, but he navigates the treacherous terrain of altering his own novel quite well. At the very least, he picked a damn-near-perfect cast, which in a movie about the deep feelings and pains of growing up, is more than half the battle.

As the titular wallflower Charlie, Logan Lerman is a little more blank and mannered than the character ought to be, but he's more than balanced out by two terrific co-stars-- Harry Potter alum Emma Watson as ultimate cool-girl-crush Sam, and especially We Need To Talk About Kevin's Ezra Miller as her vivacious brother Patrick. Charlie befriends both Sam and Patrick early on in his freshman year of high school, where he's particularly vulnerable after the suicide of his only real friend from middle school. Sam and Patrick, who call their gang of friends the "island of misfit toys," do all kinds of silly and cool high-school things, like organizing a Rocky Horror live show, going to all the dingy and most interesting parties, or standing on the bed of a truck while driving way too fast through Pittsburgh's Fort Pitt tunnel.

Being the kind of high school story that spans an entire year, Perks has a rangy and loose narrative, tied together by Charlie's perspective and his occasionally deteriorating mental state. We see his nameless parents (Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh) as well-meaning but distant, his popular sister (Nina Dobrev) as an occasionally exasperated but loving caretaker, and in flashbacks his beloved Aunt Helen (Melanie Lynskey), whose death in a car accident is just one of the many things that haunts Charlie about his short life. Charlie is a deeply internal character, and so passive he gets in a relationship with the bossy Mary Elizabeth (the great Mae Whitman) essentially against his will, and can make for a frustrating window into this world, especially near the end of the film when the story takes a sharp turn into Charlie's own mental struggles. With Lerman punching a little above his weight class, and Chbosky an able but not outstanding director, the film's occasional jumps into melodrama doesn't quite ring true, and expose the fact that the movie, while quite good, can't drive through to its own heart the way the book did.

But there are also indelible moments spread throughout the film, like Sam and Patrick's self consciously showy dance in the school gym, the "infinite" drive through the tunnel, or the cafeteria fight after Patrick confronts the football player (Johnny Simmons) he had been dating in secret. Especially with the electric Miller playing him, Patrick is the movie's best contribution to the ranks of cinematic high schoolers, openly gay and popular in that way of wild outsiders, brazen and confident but a little broken too. No one can match him when he's onscreen, even with such a strong cast behind him, but Chbosky knows this, and lets the film's best scenes play out powerfully enough that they make up for what's weaker.

The Perks of Being A Wallflower might not become as iconic as the best-selling book, but its insights into the inner lives of teenagers remain as affecting and rare as they were when the novel was published 10 years ago. Chbosky can't reinvent the characters he created for the screen, but he's definitely done right by them.

View the original article here

The Possession

It?s gotten to the point where I don?t care if a horror movie scares me anymore. Sure, on-screen creepy-crawlies send an undeniable chill down my spine, but Hollywood?s go-to scares ? such as ghosts, vampires, zombies and demons ? just don?t do the trick. I still appreciate horror movies, even if they don't give me nightmares, because I like the fact that filmmakers are trying to get the audience to have a visceral reaction while sitting in a darkened theater. But so many modern horror films are lazy about it, relying on tropes instead of exercising a creative muscle and finding new ways to affect their audience. Ole Bornedal?s The Possession is nothing more than an amalgamation of some of the more popular examples of these and the result is boring, repetitive junk.

In fact, if there?s something impressive about The Possession it?s the sheer number of clich?s that it manages to include in its 92 minute runtime (though, I should mention that it feels a hell of a lot longer than that). Based on a true story ? of course ? the movie centers on a divorced dad (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) who, in hopes of purchasing his daughter?s (Natasha Calis) affection, buys her a ?dybbuk box? at a local yard sale. What he doesn?t know is that the box contains a demon? ? of course ? and when the daughter opens the box she becomes possessed by said demon? ? of course. After numerous interminable scenes of the little girl acting bizarre, the dad eventually goes to a holy man to try and get the demon exorcised.? The only thing even remotely ?new? is the fact that there?s a Tzadik (played by reggae/alternative rock musician Matisyahu) performing the exorcism instead of a priest, but even that was already done in David S. Goyer?s 2009 film The Unborn. Others may feel differently, but I don?t find counting banalities particularly entertaining.

Despite having a horror legend like Sam Raimi serving as a producer, the film doesn?t even manage to be appealing aesthetically. Scenes don?t so much end as have the next one begin, making the movie feel like it was edited with a jackhammer instead of a scalpel. Many just cut to black and then fade into the next sequence, which completely undercuts any kind of tension or tone the film striving to achieve. Even the score comes across as lazy, with its single piano notes adding nothing to the atmosphere and simply saying, ?Oh, just so you know this movie does have some music playing in the background.? There are cases where a simply story can be saved by technical ingenuity and creativity, but this is not one of those cases.

The Possession is a PG-13 movie that probably should have been an R, and watching the ?horror? scenes you question what the potential could have been with the more restrictive rating. While there are two scenes in which characters are thrown violently around rooms, they are cut so quickly and we see so little that they end up having very little effect on the audience. This winds up putting all of the pressure on ?creepy? scenes in which the little girl, where she is surrounded by moths or finds fingers growing out of the back of her throat, but, again, it?s hard to be chilled by something you?ve seen hundreds of times before.

I?m certain that there are still creative, interesting stories to be told based around the idea of demonic possession, but this one can barely be considered an effort. To the film?s credit, the performances, particularly those by Morgan and Calis, are solid, but there?s only so much that actors can do with such empty material. Chances are you?ve already seen a movie exactly like The Possession once or twice before, so don?t bother wasting your money on it again.

View the original article here

LOTR: The Two Towers Extended Edition 5-Disc Set [Blu-ray]

For the most part The Two Towers is a seamless merging of the films in the trilogy. As the center film within three, The Two Towers ran the risk of getting lost a little between the newness of the first film and the conclusion of the third, but it may actually be better precisely because it is the center film. Where The Fellowship of the Ring must deal with a lengthy introduction to the series and The Return of the King must close all of its storylines out, The Two Towers is all action.

The Movie:

While The Fellowship of the Ring is a story about combining forces to meet a unique challenge, The Two Towers finds our heroes split apart and harried. Ultimately, they are still working to defeat Sauron, however, and although they split up, the bonds simply seem stretched rather than broken. Beyond this, the group?s various journeys allow us to see more of Middle-earth. This makes the world seem more vast and more dangerous, but also a creation so unique and varied that it is absolutely worth preserving, even if the nine are separated and fighting different battles along the way.

The Two Towers relies slightly more heavily on special effects (or at least creates a slew of different visions with special effects) than the first film in the trilogy, which actually proves to be a boon for the film. Battle intricacies and exquisite scenes featuring the bold-eyed Gollum (Andy Serkis) are the real standouts on the set. As Gollum, Serkis plays wretched and ghoulish perfectly, and in him we see the movements and textures of some important CGI characters that followed (think Harry Potter?s Dobby). As the design team notes in the commentary to the set, as a digital character, Gollum had to deliver as if he was a real performer on set, with the same range of movement and expressions. Gollum is a home run, but the character isn?t the only winning thing about the film.

There?s over forty minutes of extra footage with the film and with the extra time, nearly all of the characters are able to be fleshed out to more of an extent. Faramir gets the biggest bump that I?ve noticed in the extended edition, but it?s nice to see more from the hobbits and the other characters, as well.

When it was filmed, The Two Towers felt like a disaster to Jackson, the design crew, and the production crew. Not only was it difficult to translate the book into a script that would work for a theatrical film, it was difficult to build characterization when each of the characters was hopping from one location to another and there was more than one journey for the camera to follow at any given moment. This caused a lot of editing stress, and The Two Towers may be the film that is least close to Tolkien?s vision. However, sometimes stress can be inspiring. The Two Towers may not be perfect for series fans, but it?s cut together so well and it tells such compelling stories with such vivid action, for the less literary fan, it?s probably the easiest film in the trilogy to invest in, more intricate than the first film and less arduous than the third.

Are you looking for Cinema Blend?s reviews of the Extended Edition 5-Disc singles sets for The Fellowship of the Ring or The Return of the King? We?ve got them!

The Disc:

The first 2 discs in the 5-Disc Extended Edition set feature the movie, as well as commentaries with the cast, director and writer, production team, and design team. Because there are the aforementioned four commentaries accompanying the movie, and because it is the extended version of the film, the movie is split onto the two separate discs. The cast commentary is certainly the most jovial of the commentaries, followed by the Peter Jackson-oriented director?s commentary. However, if you are more excited about the tricks of the trade and the technical specifications, you?ll want to check out the other two.

There?s a whole set of features that look at how the book came together and ?J.R.R. Tolkien? Origins of Middle-earth? is a documentary about ?The Inklings,? which was a group of friends?including C.S. Lewis?that met to hang out and read one another?s works in progress. There was more of a challenge with writing The Two Towers for Tolkien and for the movie creators because the ending of The Fellowship of the Rings leaves its characters in a very complicated arc. Producers had to mix and match book elements a lot more during this film, which is why Faramir (David Wenham) ends up taking a different trip and even certain fighting scenes are displaced. Several segments take a look at the significance of Gollum in the book and films. Like the other extended sets, there is a Middle-earth map and a look at how New Zealand was transformed for the film.

For the film buffs, Disc 4 might be the most fascinating. There?s a documentary, called ?Filming the Two Towers,? that looks in depth at the making of the film, and following that, the disc looks at the editorial work, the music, and, the visual effects. Finally ?The Battle for Helm?s Deep is Over? discusses how negative the entire cast and crew were while filming The Two Towers due to the problems with the script and the up-in-the-air way everyone thought the film might be received. Luckily things went well, and by the time the film premiere for The Two Tower occurred, the buzz was high and the hobbits (Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Dominic Monaghan, and Billy Boyd), especially, had become super stars. This kind of helped to rejuvenate everyone?s mental state for some of the bonus feature interviews.

Disc 5 features a documentary by Costa Botes that features a lot of raw footage from the film production. While watching, I came to the realization that the behind-the-scenes look gives a lot of visual answers to how various special effects were achieved. Some of this stuff is even mentioned in the commentary, but to get a real visual of what the designers or Jackson had to accomplish really was invaluable.

The extras in The Two Towers Extended Edition 5-Disc set are mostly extras available with the regular DVD set. What you are trading up for this time around is remastered audio and a reworked picture. The set looks beautiful, and the menu is one of the most fun to navigate I have ever seen. Still, if you?ve doled out for the Extended Edition DVD, you may not want to risk the price. I would say it depends on how invested in the series you are.

LOTR: The Two Towers Extended Edition 5-Disc Set [Blu-ray] DetailsStarring: Elijah Wood, Sean Astin, Andy Serkis, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellanProduced by: Peter Jackson, Barrie M. Osborne, Fran WalshWritten by: Fran Walsh, Peter Jackson, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair

View the original article here

The Words

Sometimes the success or failure of a film shouldn?t be measured by totaling how many things it does right and how many it does wrong. Sometimes the better gauge is whether the movie remains interesting throughout.

The Words is supposed to be complicated, but at times, it?s needlessly so. It follows people being read a book about a character who is being told the true story behind the main character in a work of fiction. Apart from giving the screenwriters the ability to comment on their own work--which, by the way, is annoying and stupid--there?s not a single reason why this extra layer is necessary. Coupled with a tendency to gloss over rather than actually analyze and a rather strange pacing, there?s a hell of a lot that could be improved upon, but The Words still works because it offers a story viewers will want to see through to the end. Even as it ambles in wrong directions and inserts unearned tears, it never feels like a waste of time. Like one of the women listening to the story, we need to know how it ends.

Well before we get that satisfaction, we?re introduced to Rory Jansen (Bradley Cooper). He?s a struggling author and far less importantly, the fictional main character in successful writer Clay Hammond?s (Dennis Quaid) new novel. Rory writes mostly angry young male stuff, as he self-deprecatingly calls it, but after a few years of rejections, he takes a real job to help support his beautiful wife Dora (Zoe Saldana). They honeymoon in Paris, and at an antique shop, find an old leather satchel. Inside its pocket is an old manuscript, which problematically, is better than anything Rory has ever written.

Of course, Rory decides to steal the novel, but The Words isn?t about that decision exactly. It?s about how dozens of decisions made by Rory and the man who actually wrote the book (Jeremy Irons) all had to happen in order to give the failed author a chance to steal his critically acclaimed book. Within this framework, there are larger ideas, but given the film?s snappy runtime and the inclusion of Quaid?s useless character, most subtlety and nuance is eschewed in favor of actually showing those dozens of decisions that had to happen. Whether or not this is a bad thing depends on your expectations.

All of the focus on plot makes The Words exciting and swift. There are two good stories here, and we?re given each in a timely manner. The result is pretty riveting, but because so much actually happens, the film ruins its chance to be anything better than pretty good. We don?t really know the main characters, we?re just told details about their lives. We don?t really see the lead-ups to events, we just see the events themselves. We?re shuttled from one place to another so quickly that there?s just not much time for anything else.

The Words is the type of film that?s easy to nitpick. It?s the type that can be cast off for plenty of little errors and poor decisions, but no matter how many times it gets lost, it never loses its momentum or intrigue. A shallow good time is still a good time.

View the original article here

Trouble With The Curve

Trouble With The Curve, the directorial debut of Robert Lorenz, is almost the exact opposite of Bennett Miller?s Moneyball. One is a bold story about a man who identifies a broken system and tries to break through the status quo by introducing a new approach to baseball scouting using statistics, algorithms and technology. The other is about a veteran scout who outright rejects any kind of new system or ideas in favor of the aforementioned status quo. But the most important difference between the baseball dramas is that one is a compelling, well-made movie with something to say, while the other is as fresh as a twelfth inning ballpark hot dog and half as entertaining.

The problems start with the script. Written by Robert Brown, the story follows Gus (Clint Eastwood), an Atlanta Braves scout who discovers he is losing his eyesight and goes on what could possibly be his last scouting trip. Joining him is his lawyer daughter Mickey (Amy Adams), not only to make sure that he?s alright, but to also try and bond with him and get some answers to lifelong questions. It?s a too-familiar father-daughter story, but the issues run much deeper than that. The characters are all clich?s ? from Mickey being the standard workaholic, emotionally unavailable female lead to Justin Timberlake?s Johnny, a young, hot-shot, up-and-coming scout who looks to Gus as a mentor and takes a romantic interest in his daughter ? and their motivations and actions often don?t make sense (for example, Gus goes to see a doctor when he first has trouble seeing and then ignores the doctor's advice to see a specialist because he doesn't trust doctors). The antagonists ? namely the computer-centric younger scout played by Matthew Lillard and endorsement deal-obsessed player (Joe Massingill) that Gus travels to look at ? are cartoonishly douchey; the third act turn is foreshadowed to death; there are two dance sequences written within five minutes of each other?the list just keeps going.

While Adams does manage to put in a solid and honest performance, digging deep to find emotional moments for her rote character, the script, direction and editing actually makes you worry about the talented cast. There?s a scene early in the film where John Goodman, who plays Gus? pal and colleague, visits his friend?s home for a chat and the dialogue is as atonal as a middle school play. Given Eastwood?s well-known directorial habit of rarely doing more than two or three takes of any shot, it?s not hard to imagine that Lorenz, who long served as Eastwood?s first assistant director, took the same approach. Hopefully the lesson he?ll take into his next project will be to shoot a few more for safety.

The film is the first that Eastwood has acted in since 2008?s Gran Torino, and watching it you wish that he had stayed behind the scenes. Gus gives him absolutely nothing to do other than sit around looking grumpy, yell at people and complain about the younger generation and his declining health ? you know, the stereotypical grandpa. The audience is meant to take him as a troubled, sad old man, but he?s so disgruntled and mean that it?s hard to give him any sympathy. Eastwood is a true film legend and known for being such a man?s man, and nobody wants to see an icon like him as a troubled, sad, old man. He used to be The Man With No Name, Dirty Harry Callahan and Josey Wales, but now he?s having trouble urinating due to an inflamed prostate (30 seconds after the title card, no less) and awkwardly warbling ?You Are My Sunshine? to his wife?s gravestone. And as bad as that sounds reading it, it?s even worse on the big screen.

View the original article here