"Kingdom of Heaven" Director's Cut

This may very well be my favorite movie of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0320661/

"Braveheart"

This was the first time in watching "Braveheart" that I felt like the movie was dated. Now, this could be due to the fact that of the movies I watched surrounding it, it is the oldest of them, plus it was the one I watched on DVD as opposed to the others being on Blu-ray. But despite the dated feel and look of it, it did not take away from how great of a movie it is. Sure, the story itself when you think about it may be pretty much Hollywood cliche, but it still doesn't take away from the caliber of filmmaking that is involved. Mel Gibson as William Wallace may not be the best (he himself said that he thought he was a decade too old to play the part), but he's definitely not bad and those surrounding him are definitely good. And Mel Gibson as director does a fantastic job with these characters and the story. I just hope that it hasn't reached that point in time where it's old enough to feel dated, but not old enough to be considered dated and therefore understanding of the dated feel because it's an older movie. Either way, you can't help but respect the quality film that "Braveheart" is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/

"The Last Samurai"

There is very little that I don't like about this movie. I'm not a huge Tom Cruise fan, but I think he's great in this as the troubled American soldier. I love the captivating story that we follow of this man trying to find peace in his life. I love the journey we experience with him and I feel the emotions he feels as I watch his story on the screen. I love how in the scope of the greater story and action going on around Tom Cruise's character, we never lose the focus on him and the emotional state that he is in. Ken Watanabe makes for a perfect counter-part to Tom Cruise and their onscreen interaction and chemistry is great to watch. One thing that I do not like is the unimaginative and uninspiring cinematography. Not that I'm an expert on the subject, but for the most part, the cinematography was simply serviceable. It did what it was suposed to do in taking us along this cinematic journey. There were spots where it was inspiring and causes awe in the craftsmanship involved in creating the image we experience, but for the most part it just did an adequate job. But this lack, at least for me, is made up for in the overall experience and emotional journey I feel when watching this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0325710/

"Gladiator" Extended Edition

This movie is just as good today as it was when it was first released! One thing that stuck out to me was the high level of acting from the supporting cast. Joaquin Phoenix was fantastic making his incestual feelings for his sister even creepier than the concept already is (did he really lose "best Supporting Actor? Really?). Connie Nielsen was easily overlooked for her performance despite her command of the screen every time she showed up. And Oliver Reed and Proximo was simply amazing. All of these performances definitely bolstered Russell Crowe's already good performance and make for extremely watchable characters on screen that elicit emotion from you. My one complaint is the over-use of the zoom with the cinematography. It's one thing to use it, that's fine, you can do that, there is definitely time and place for it. But it's another thing when it's over-used and becomes noticeable and distracting, and it was slightly over-used. This also marked the first time that I watched the extended cut (which Ridley Scott points out is an extended cut, not his, the director's, cut of the film). Whilst there was some fun and good back story of things going on and may make some things more understandable, it didn't add anything amazing or essential to the film. It was fun to see and I would recommend to anyone who likes this film to see the extended cut. Outside of all that, this movie is a demonstration of why Ridley Scott is one of the best directors we have the fortune of experiencing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/

Crips and Bloods: Made in America

For being a documentary, this film was a lot more entertaining than it was informing. It was interesting to see the connection between the rise of gangs in Los Angeles with the 1965 Los Angeles riot (or rebellion) even if the connection wasn't the strongest. It was also interesting to see a wide variety of people in gangs, their experiences being a part of or living in the area of gangs, and their current situation in life (especially comparing those who are still members and those who have moved on to other of life's opportunities). Perhaps the biggest frustration in watching this movie (and remember that this is coming from the point of view of a caucasian male who has been afforded every opportunity one could ask for in life) was the constant blaming of society, and for the poor conditions these young people find themselves in having "no choice," for the creation and perpetuation of gangs and criminal activity involved with it. Whilst I understand being a victim of circumstance and easily falling prey to your environment, you, as a person, has the gift and ability of choice. True, sometimes your choices can be limited, but your ability to choose cannot. You have the ability to choose not to engage in that activity. I understand that your choice to not engage in such activity can lead to extreme hardships for you and your family. The point is, it is still your choice. You can make your current condition better, for you and for your family. It may be difficult and seem impossible, but you can. Now, would I say that if I was in the same position of these individuals? Would I choose differently than these young men had? I don't know. It's easy for me to say this from the comfort of my life. One last point that I really liked was the difference that the role of fathers and family make. These were individuals who understood that they were missing a father (or often times even any adult) figure growing up, most understood that they did not want their children to be missing that same figurehead. Overall I enjoyed watching the movie, even if it was mostly people sharing their experiences that weren't necessarily informative. But by the time the credits rolled and the website was shown, I was ready to pick up and move to Los Angeles to help. I'm just not sure my above opinion would be welcome or helpful. Anyone want to come with me?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0479044/

"This Film Is Not Yet Rated"

Let me first say that the idea of this movie and the driving principle behind its intent is one I agree with. The execution was not that great. The biggest problem with this movie is that they mixed filmmakers opinions with the MPAA specifically (which the movie purports to be about) and their opinions of ratings in general, which they liked to call censorship and like to complain about. They try to play this as an exposé on the ratings system as a whole, but really it's about the R rating versus the NC-17 rating and sex versus violence. However, the parts that were on topic were very good in pointing out the inconsistent and ill-defined nature of the Motion Picture Association of America, how they rate films, who rates films, and the appeal process for films' ratings. Their seeking out of raters may have gone a bit too far (good job blurring out the license plate numbers whilst reading them out-loud on screen) when they hired a private investigator, and then plastered their faces on the screen as if these people were the villains (good job pointing out that one of the raters is a Republican whilst not revealing any other raters political persuasion). But it did show falsities in the MPAA's claim of who the raters are. And whilst the movie does well in pointing out the problems with the MPAA, they offer absolutely no solution or possible solution in response to their complaint with the MPAA.  I would be interested to know what this film would look like and what these filmmakers would say if there was more structure and less ambiguity with the MPAA and its system but still the same level of "censorship." Now it's time for my rant on this movie. It's hard not to look at this film as Hollywood liberal propaganda. And just because it's art, realistic, can be found on the internet, and/or has been seen before by someone elsewhere, does not excuse it to be seen by the general public of any or all ages in theaters. But at least they interviewed an attorney who specializes in 1st Amendment rights who works solely with filmmakers to come use big words to convince us of the evils of this modern day censorship we call the MPAA. Now, I believe I'm on the conservative side of the spectrum, but I do watch R rated movies on occasion, I have seen even more objectionable material before, my favorite television show right now is "Game of Thrones" on HBO which is full of sex, violence, nudity, and inappropriate language, but that is my choice. I know what is in these forms of entertainment. I believe that some sort of rating system is necessary. It is a tool that people can use to decide what they want to allow themselves and those they hold responsibility over (ie, their children) to watch and let into their lives. I also believe that the MPAA could use some fixing, assuming this film is accurate in its depiction of the system used by the MPAA. If we're going to rate these movies, we need more behind it than a small group of unknown, unqualified individuals that are touted as "regular, everyday parents with children between the ages of 5 and 17." Why not a qualified board containing filmmakers, psychologists, doctors, law enforcement agencies, a variety of religious leaders, and regular parents? If we have a board of 9 everyday people rating all our movies, why can't we get a few people from each of these areas to do it for us, to bring their expertise to the rating system, to develop a more concrete system of why a movie is rated what it is. And perhaps ratings need to be replaced with not necessarily a rating of the content, but a description of the content. But even then, you need a short way of describing that content, which the rating is supposed to provide. I'm not sure what the answer is to the modern day rating system. In all honesty, I'm fine with it, simply because I'll research a film's or show's content before I watch it if I have questions about it. But if the MPAA truly wants to be an effective tool for people and parents, then they need to be more systematic and concrete in their approach. This movie did point that out, it was just surrounded by a lot of unnecessary noise that was used instead of further exploring the problem of the MPAA and a possible solution for it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

"True Grit" (2010)

When I first saw "True Grit" when it was released, I must admit that I was confused. All the trailers and commercials portrayed it to be this dark, gritty* western, which it wasn't. Having now watched it for a second time years later and after having seen the 1969 John Wayne version, I can say that this movie is amazingly good. Everything that is good about the 1969 version (and there is a lot good about it) is improved on in this film. Jeff Bridges is a little too over the top as "Rooster" Cogburn, but his "too much" is better than John Wayne's "too little." Mattie is played perfectly as a sassy, know-it-all who gets her way by being stubborn that you can't help but be annoyingly pleased. Matt Damon as LaBoeuf is hilarious in his ineptness and Texas arrogance. The dichotomy that the Coen brothers craft between a very gritty** looking western story and humorous characters and dialogue is fabulous. This unique combination suits them very well. One element that sets this movie truly above the 1969 version is the emotion it elicits. The opening scene and monologue carry just as much story and so much more emotion than the opening 10 minutes of the earlier version. Just like John Wayne riding against Ned Pepper and his gang, Jeff Bridges riding against them is just as great (if not better). But when we are drawn into Jeff Bridges racing Mattie to safety afterwards, we all but forget that showdown in favor of the less exciting, but ultimately more emotional journey. Aided by a great script, memorable secondary and even tertiary characters, and talented filmmakers in the Coen brothers, "True Grit" is a spectacular movie.

*Gritty! Get it?

**Gritty! Get it?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1403865/

"True Grit" (1969)

What an absolutely beautifully shot movie this was. Granted, it had the benefit of being shot mostly outdoors in the sunshine on film, but I was surprised by the high quality production design, fantastic scenery, and good cinematography. The movie is pretty hokey just because of the time it was made, but the hokey nature fits the hokey script. It's meant to be sort of dry humor and it lent well to this movie. John Wayne was John Wayne, but often quite funny as the U.S. Marshall "Rooster" Cogburn. Mattie, the little girl, was more annoying than sassy, which is too bad considering it seemed like it was supposed to come off as sassy. Not to mention she looked a lot like Justin Bieber. La Boeuf was silly enough, but the actor often delivered his lines too quickly, losing their humorous effect. The music was sometimes good, but more often than not was ill-fitting. A couple of the most enjoyable elements were the on-screen chemistry between the three main characters, Cogburn, Mattie, and La Boeuf, and the showdown between Cogburn and Ned Pepper. This was a fun story with good things about a hokey movie that was just a little too long for my liking considering the story it contained. A few too many unnecessary scenes that stretched too long.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065126/

"Ned Kelly"

"Ned Kelly" is the Australian film about, surprise, surprise, Ned Kelly, an Australian outlaw that is roughly the equivalent of the American Billy the Kid. The movie itself is a sort of poor-man's version of "The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford." All the things that made that movie amazing, were the same things that made "Ned Kelly" good. Heath Ledger as the title character and Orlando Bloom as his fellow outlaw Joe Byrne gave extremely solid acting performances. The cinematography was beautiful, aided by the beautiful country of Australia. The story itself wasn't original, but the beginning of the film was extremely calm and poignant, then decided to take a stereotypical turn shortly after Ned became an outlaw. Luckily the last thirty minutes or so had a very strong end to the story. Special note should be made about the music that was quite fitting to the emotions of the movie. Overall, I really liked this movie, and would have probably really, really liked it, had I not seen the superior film concerning Jessie James. Though, Brad Pitt never had a beard like Heath Ledger did in this movie. I may or may be slightly jealous.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277941/

A History of Horror: Conclusion

I'm not going to say that I've become some expert or aficionado when it comes to horror films. In fact, I still see myself as a fairly casual movie watcher in general. Part of the exercise of me doing this blog, as well as one of the purposes of "A History of Horror" movie marathon, is to be a more educated and considerate movie watcher. So with the conclusion of this movie marathon, I feel I have gained a better appreciation of horror movies. Different than the affinity I had before for them, but a stronger love for them now that I can appreciate the genre's beginnings and progressions to where horror movies are today. The biggest, most pleasant surprise was definitely the silent film, "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." The biggest disappointment was "The Bride of Frankenstein," especially when compared to its overwhelmingly positive reviews. I really like the slasher era of the 70s and 80s. Ridiculous movies that are meant to be ridiculous have a very special place in my heart. Ridiculous movies that aren't meant to be so have a very not-so-special place. Despite a few great ones in recent years, I'm not sure we'll ever see great horror movies like we saw from the 30s through the early 80s. But unlike other genres, a horror movie doesn't necessarily have to be horrific or scary or cause me to jump to be good. Proficient filmmaking in creating even subtle tension and emotional character interaction can lead to a good horror movie. I would never again try to watch so many movies in such a short amount of time (usually watching a movie six out of the seven days in a week, sometimes two movies a night) but I am definitely more excited about the genre as a whole. And I look forward to seeing where it will go in the future.

A History of Horror: 5-Stars

"Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde"

This is silent film at its best. Granted, I haven't seen a lot, but this movie is incredible. So we'll say silent film at its best according to Nathan. The effects of the transformation between the two title characters is fantastic. The creature of Mr. Hyde is amazingly creepy. But these great elements take second stage to the moral dilemma of the virtuous doctor and how this story is told with the moving picture. This was by far the biggest and best surprise of the entire horror movie marathon.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022835/

"Arsenic and Old Lace"

This is an all-time great movie and one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. Anything else I say would just diminish that fact.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036613/

"Invasion of the Body Snatchers" (1956)

This is a solid movie all the way around. Great story and great acting. You have well developed escalation and progression that lead masterfully to the final, climatic cliffhanger like ending. This is one movie that I remember enjoying as a kid thanks to my dad, but it's not until now that I realize just how great a film it is.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366/

"Psycho"

This is the quintessential horror/thriller movie, a movie that holds up even today. The true greatness of "Psycho" lies in its defiance of the principle of horror movies. Horror movies are looked upon as cheap investments seeking high return, no care for quality of filmmaking. All of the sudden you pair that same beginning principle of cheap investment with a top-tier director, and you get a cinematic masterpiece. This truly goes to show the brilliance of Alfred Hitchcock. You don't need a large budget, an artful story, or mind-blowing effects. A talented director can make a movie great, and that's what Hitchcock did with "Psycho."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/

"The Omen"

I was surprised how much I loved this movie. You have this religious themed story, a creepy boy, cinema's first on-screen decapitation, and delightfully dramatic music that fit so well together. Gregory Peck gives a great performance, despite seeming too old, and the hired nanny may be even creepier than the little boy. Richard Donner further displays his ability to direct, and direct well, diverse genres.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075005/

"Shaun of the Dead"

This movie is the ultimate, best tribute to horror films. If you do not like this movie, then we are not friends.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365748/

"The Strangers"

I sometimes feel like I'm the only one who loves this movie, and I don't know exactly what it is about this movie, but it just does it for me. From beginning to end I feel tense and ready to jump at any moment. I love the masks and burlap sack worn by the Strangers, I love the realistic setting and circumstances, I love the long tension building cinematography, and I love the ending. I just love it. It gets me every time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0482606/

"Drag Me To Hell"

Guilty pleasure? Definitely this movie. This movie is gross, over-the-top, weird, and ridiculous. And I love every minute of it! Sam Raimi fantastically directs this shock value horror and expertly makes anyone who watches this movie want to throw up. The only thing more ridiculous than this movie is the ridiculous amount of love I have for it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1127180/

"Cabin in the Woods"

This movie is so unbelievably unexpected. It builds on the stereotype of teenagers going to a cabin or lake or whatnot for the weekend and they unknowingly release or stumble across this danger that starts to kill them off one by one. But this cliche is surrounded by this unexplained yet connected story line that pretty much leaves you confused as to what's going on. These two stories finally accumulate in the most unexpected ending that I don't want to say too much about, but that I will say I absolutely loved for its unexpected and ridiculous nature.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

A History of Horror: 4-Stars

"Frankenstein"
There is a reason this movie is a classic. The production design is incredible, Boris Karloff is fantastic, and the journey of Dr. Frankenstein is enjoyable.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0021884/

"The Thing from Another World"
There is so much in this movie that reminds me of John Carpenter's "The Thing" which is one of my all-time favorite films. For this reason I really liked this movie and allowed me to overlook what I did not like. But, if push comes to shove and you have to choose one or the other, choose the 1982 "The Thing." Since I'm sure you have time to see both in your life, watch both.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044121/

"House on Haunted Hill"
This movie is fantastic. I love Vincent Price. I love the over-dramatic, drunk guest. I love the cheesy ending. I don't care about how dated this movie is, it's just a great watch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051744/

"The Haunting"
I'll admit that I watched this movie over two days because I fell asleep the first night I watched it. So, I'm not sure if I was really just tired or if the first half was really just boring. Either way, the second half of this movie is absolutely incredible and the practical effects in this movie are often times amazing. For what it's worth, I hear this is Martin Scorcese's favorite horror film, but don't quote me on that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057129/

"Bloody Pit of Horror"
This is Italian horror cinema at its finest. Make no mistake, this is terrible filmmaking, but you are unable to tear yourself away from it. You are unable to not appreciate its horribleness.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058983/

"Night of the Living Dead"
Considering the small budget this movie had and the effect it had on horror movie history in catapulting the zombie sub-genre, you can't help but appreciate it. Setting that aside, you see great human interaction in the face of catastrophe, feel tension in the ever-approaching threat, and see the great beginning that modern zombie films sprouted from.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063350/

"Halloween"
Michael Myers makes for a great, menacing antagonist. This start of the slasher genre is an amazing beginning. There are drawbacks to this film (an under-developed origin of Michael Myers and a prolonged stalking by Michael Myers), but when you first arrive at the mental institution and see the first gowned patient escaped in the dark, rainy night, you realize you're in an unsafe environment and the tension grows from there. Despite it being literally the only musical score in the entire movie, you realize why this movie and its theme is so iconic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077651/

"Poltergeist"
The single greatest element of "Poltergeist" is the increasing and progressive nature of the film. We start with a rather thunderous event, but after that we start small, increase subtly, and climax with a full on creature feature from the 80s which is nothing short of terrific. This movie is borderline 5-stars, and I would not be surprised if with further viewing it became that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/

"The Monster Squad"
You know how I mentioned that there are other movies in the same vein as "The Gate" that are good, silly, cheesy, fun times but that I like better? "Monster Squad" is one of them. You know how "Van Helsing," starring Hugh Jackman, tried to make a movie that combined the classic Universal Monsters but failed miserably? This is the movie that did that concept right.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093560/

"Scream"
Holy crap! Where did this movie come from? I remember seeing it when it came out, and yes, it was scary enough. But watching this time around, this was borderline brilliant. From the opening, tense scene, you are taken on a ride of constant tension, genuine scares, and a smart play on horror movie cliches. Wes Craven made this movie as almost a tribute to horror, what he himself made his name on. It's unfortunate that the sequels slowly descended into stereotypical cliche whereas this first one's brilliance is found on its deliberate, homage cliches.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117571/

"Sleepy Hollow"
I don't care what anyone says about this movie. I don't care if this movie really is bad. I really like this movie. It's true that the production design vaults this movie despite its campy acting and story, but how can you not like a movie about a headless horseman with the tagline, "Heads will roll?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0162661/

"What Lies Beneath"
This movie has absolutely nothing new in it. However, all the cliches and stereotypes of horror/thriller movies that are in "What Lies Beneath" are done so incredibly well, that you can't help but enjoy it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0161081/

"28 Days Later"
As much as I like to see Scarecrow naked on a hospital bed, the true beauty of this movie is how it changed the zombie genre. Danny Boyle's zombie apocalypse movie moved us from the slow, ever-present, ever-approaching zombie to the fast, unexpected, sudden-approaching zombie. This shift was handled beautifully by Mr. Boyle and made for an exciting, enjoyable, tense movie watching experience.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/

"1408"
John Cusack was serviceable enough. Sam Jackson was  great. And the best part of this supernatural themed movie is the control they exercise in the use of that supernatural. They don't go overboard in doing whatever they want just because they can because all things are possible when the supernatural is present. They used it within the confines of the hotel room and the events that happened there.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450385/

"The Orphanage"
Knock on the wall game. That's all I have to say.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0464141/

A History of Horror: 3-Stars

"The Mummy"
This movie is probably better than I think, but when it's compared to its contemporaries, it lacks the menace of the other classic Universal Monsters. But like its contemporaries, the sets are incredible and its production value for the time is fabulous. Not to mention Boris Karloff is, of course, fantastic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023245/

"The Wolf Man"
This movie was definitely fun and enjoyable, it just wasn't great. Lon Chaney Jr. was a little cheesier than I would have liked, but the idea of a werewolf and gypsies and the foggy forest were way good. Definitely a good Halloween time movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034398/

"The Night of the Hunter"
This movie is probably the movie I am most indifferent on. It was creepy at times, and just plain weird at others. There was stuff that I liked about it, stuff that I didn't like. But even using those terms seems too strong of feelings. The Preacher was good, the wife/mother was bad. If "meh" was ever to describe my thoughts on a movie, this one would be it. I would be interested to learn of why others think so highly of it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048424/

"The Changeling"
This is one of those movies that had great moments (the séance, the well under the house, and the whole use of the wheelchair) which make it a very enjoyable watch. It unfortunately is missing that certain, undefinable something that takes it beyond a string of great moments connected by mediocrity.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080516/

"Friday the 13th"
You know those movies you watched when you were younger and you thought were so good and so scary, but you watch it when you're older and you wonder what you were thinking ("The Rock" anyone?)? This is one of those movies. But maybe if Mrs. Voorhees hopped up after being knocked out one more time I might find it better and scarier.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/

"The Fog"
This is a movie I'm torn by. I liked a whole lot about it. The Fog, the creatures, the journey throughout, the ending. But it just didn't leave an amazing taste in my mouth afterwards, just an okay taste. It probably just needed Tom Welling in it to change that.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080749/

"The Gate"
If you like good, silly, cheesy, fun times with dated and over the top effects when watching a movie, then you'll love Stephen Dorff in "The Gate." I think the reason this movie isn't higher for me is that there are other movies in this same vein that I like better.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093075/

"Mary Shelley's Frankenstein"
This movie is the definition of over-done. Over-acted, over-dramatic, and over-the-top (and not in the Sylvester Stallone winning arm-wrestling matches type of way). Whilst it is this way, there are menacing elements that are enjoyable, Robert De Niro is great as the Creature, and Kenneth Branagh is good when he's not busy over-acting.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109836/

"When a Stranger Calls"
This is nothing new, nothing groundbreaking, and nothing original. In fact, it's quite cliche. This does not take away from the good time that it is. It has a good opening scene, some good moments, some good scares, and a good bad guy. So, I guess I would say this movie is good.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455857/

"Paranormal Activity"
I'm not a huge fan of the reality show style that this movie is filmed in, but I cannot deny the effectiveness of many parts of it. I jumped when I was supposed to jump, felt tense when I was suposed to feel tense, and hesitated when I walked to my room after watching it. But I in no way felt connected, sympathetic, empathetic, or invested in the characters or story.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1179904/

"Let the Right One In"
I honestly don't know what to say concerning what I think about this film. I want to like it and I'm pretty sure I do like it. There are things I don't like about it. But I like the relationship between the vampire girl and human boy, I like the cinematography, and the ending leaves me smiling. But for some reason there's something that leaves me unable to really like this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1139797/

"Paranormal Activity 3"
This has similar elements from the first that I liked. The bathroom scene with the step-father's friend babysitting was incredible! This also repeats a lot from the first "Paranormal Activity" that are just redundant, therefore losing effectiveness. And whilst the ending was building in tension and was very effective on me, the payoff was silly, meant to outdo the first, and left an unsatisfying feeling despite my positive feelings throughout the rest of the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1778304/

A History of Horror: 2-Stars

"Creature from the Black Lagoon"
This was another of the most disappointing because of how much I loved it the first time I watched it. The second time (and granted I watched it second in a double feature late at night) I found it to be boring, slow, and far too many dragging minutes of underwater shots. This is one of the rare exceptions  low on my list of these movies I am keen to watch again under more favorable circumstances to see if it was great like the first time I watched it, or boring like the second time I saw it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046876/

"The Amityville Horror"
This is another one that I enjoyed the first time and it fell flat the second viewing. This movie had a lot of good elements that I enjoyed, but as a whole it was seriously lacking with an abrupt and uneventful ending.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078767/

"The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
The opening scene to this movie was brilliant. The rest of the movie had too disturbing of a theme to really enjoy. Despite what good elements exist in this movie, they are overshadowed by the disturbing nature which leaves you feeling dirty at its end.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072271/

"The Devil's Backbone"
Forget that the title of this film has nothing to do with the movie itself (unless you count the one scene that references spina bifida), the movie itself is the definition of unmemorable.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256009/

A History of Horror: 1-Star

"The Bride of Frankenstein"
With how well this movie is reviewed, this was by far the biggest disappointment. It was campy (yes, even for 1935 standards) and pales in comparison to its predecessor. Boris talking was deflating to the Monster, the introduction was silly, and the realization of the Monster's Bride was anticlimactic even when compared to the poor build up.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0026138/


"Wes Craven's New Nightmare"
This movie tried to be "Scream" before "Scream" but failed horribly. They tried to play off the whole this is/was a movie with cliches and the like, but it just turns out to be 90s horror camp at its worst.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0111686/


"The Ring"
I do not get why this movie was so popular when it came out. This did absolutely nothing for me. Not one jump, not one scare, not one tense moment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0298130/

"The Mist"
I should say that I liked the idea of what they were trying to do in making a horror movie that focused on the people involved and not the antagonizing element. But when they fail so immensely by making you nothing but frustrated, it makes for an unenjoyable experience. True it may have been intended to be frustrating, but paired with the most horrific and ridiculous ending, it made for a movie I did not like.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0884328/

A History of Horror: Introduction

Near the beginning of September I was able to participate in "A History of Horror," a horror movie marathon organized by my brother-in-law in anticipation of the Halloween holiday. The intent of this movie marathon was to watch select horror movies in chronological order to help understand the history of horror films, their progressions and trends and enjoy older films for what they are and when they were made instead of comparing them to more contemporary horror films. You can view the "A History of Horror" Facebook page here to read more about the intent and the list of movies decided to watch. In doing this I, and I'm sure anyone else who participated, was able to further appreciate horror films (which I already loved). In reviewing these movies, instead of making individual posts for each film, I will rate each movie on a 5-star scale and give a few thoughts on each film. To give a better idea of these rankings, 5-stars are movies that I loved, all-time great or near to that level. 4-stars are movies that I really liked and look forward to watching again anytime of the year. 3-stars are movies that I liked well enough, though had drawbacks to them, but will make adequate Halloween time movies in the future. 2-stars are movies that I did not like and/or was disappointed in. 1-star are movies that I did not like at all and had almost no redeeming qualities to them. So, with that said, lets start at the bottom.

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

Oh it felt great to be back in Middle-earth! To me, this was a bitter-sweet reunion with this fantasy world, but one that was definitely more sweet than bitter. In fact, from seeing trailers, reading articles, and building my expectations in anticipation for this movie, I can honestly say that all my expectations were met, both the good and the bad. My single greatest expectation was that of returning to Middle-earth. That definitely happened. My single greatest fear was that of an over-sized budget. That also happened. My biggest complaint is ultimately symbolized by the Pale Orc, Azog the Defiler. This is not to say that I didn't like him. In fact I did. What it is saying is that in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, a character of this importance would not have been a completely computer generated character, but rather an actor in prosthetics, costume, and props. What made "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy so amazing was it's use of practical effects, costumes, sets, and what the film-makers would refer to as "bigatures" in creating Middle-earth. What disappointed me about "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" was the replacement of these things with computer generated effects and green-screen. This is something you see increasingly in movies these days with bloated budgets, pouring increasing amounts of money into these computer effects. Yes, I understand these things are necessary (take Gollum for example, who looked better than ever in this movie!), especially when making an epic fantasy film. And yes, we don't have a "George Lucas" thing going here where the entire movie is filmed on a green-screen with minimal actors (though at times it sure seemed like that). This may be a poor way to critique any film, but one of the things that made "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy so great was how great it looked. When that good practical look is replaced with the not-nearly-as-good-looking computer generated look, it takes quite a bit away for me; it takes me out of the "believable" illusion, the suspended reality you need when watching movies of this genre. Now, one may think I'm unfair in comparing "The Hobbit" to "The Lord of the Rings," but since they found it a necessity to join the two so closely, I feel justified in comparing the two. Despite these being two separate stories that have over-lapping characters and elements, Peter Jackson decided to remind us, and remind us often, that these films will be a prequel to his previous films. Is that necessary? Is it warranted? Is it some sort of marketing scheme because we're all somehow going to forget that these films are related to "The Lord of the Rings" and we need to be reminded so that we remember how much we loved the previous films and want to see these ones? I'm fine with them being connected. The fact is, they are connected in certain ways. But do we need a little shout-out, turn and wink at the audience moment in every other scene reminding us of the previous films? I don't, and I would think others don't either. My other substantial complaint was the prologue. I understand you're trying to replicate "The Fellowship of the Ring" and give us the back story in your opening prologue setting up your trilogy. I understand how effective it was in "The Fellowship of the Ring." Unfortunately, it fell pretty flat in "An Unexpected Journey" and felt extremely contrived. Other minor concerns (the difference of actors/characters in this film from their performances in "The Lord of the Rings," the sometimes slow-moving, one might even say stagnant, story) I'm willing to hold judgement on for the sake of how they fit into context of the trilogy as a whole. I understand that seems like a lot to not like about a movie, so I should reiterate, I loved being back in Middle-earth! And there was a lot to love about this movie. The shining characteristic of this movie is Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. He was great! He played the reluctant adventurer well who is awed by this new world he is discovering and slowly finding his courage and yearning for adventure. The single greatest segment for me was Bilbo and his confrontation with Gollum. Despite his finding the One Ring being completely different in this film than was portrayed in "The Fellowship of the Ring" prologue (one could argue that that is taken care of by the opening prologue in this film telling us how this is the "true" story that no one knows), the scenes of him in the caves, his finding the Ring, his game of riddles with Gollum, his sparing of Gollum's life, and subsequent escape was amazing. Never more did I feel like I was back in Middle-earth, Gollum and a small hobbit together again, joined by circumstance involving the One Ring. Despite Ian Mckellen's Gandalf in "The Hobbit" not quite being as consistent with his portrayal of Gandalf in "The Lord of the Rings," it was still Gandalf, and there were more times than not that made smile seeing him on the big screen again. I loved the dynamic between the dwarves, though I wish we could have seen more of all thirteen of them. I loved the difference between the dwarves, I'm glad they don't all look like Gimli. I really liked Richard Armitage as Thorin. It was great how he was trusting and almost affectionate toward his dwarf comrades and untrusting and almost vile toward everyone else. The music was good, I can't quite say that it was great like it was in "The Lord of the Rings." It was good to hear a lot of the old themes from "The Lord of the Rings." It was good to hear new themes ("Song of the Lonely Mountain" anyone?). Unfortunately where "The Lord of the Rings" had diversity in it's themes that we heard throughout, the music in this was often repetitious. As cool as it was to hear the dwarves sing around Bilbo's hearth, to hear the tune throughout the movie constantly was a bit distracting. I realize one could make the same argument for the same song playing for the 3 and a half hours we watch Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli pursue.....well, anyone or anything. That is why I am more in favor of the music than I am against it. This was the theme of the dwarves and we follow the dwarves the entire movie. It's not hard to understand why we're hearing their theme constantly. Besides, it is a really good theme. The Pale Orc (despite my previous critique) was a great villain for the heroic Thorin. Radagast the Brown (despite his no doubt meant to appeal to younger audiences rabbit-drawn forest sleigh) was a fun character and effective device in introducing us to the Necromancer and his connection to future events. The scenery (despite their too often green-screen nature) was still beautiful to look at. The fact is, I was anxious to get back to Middle-earth and "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" took me there. As much as I was bothered by certain things, they are drowned out by what I loved about the movie and the fact that it was great to be back. I anxiously look forward to the future installments.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/

"Drive"

The more I think about this movie, the more I really like it. One of the driving forces in me enjoying this movie is Ryan Goslings performance as the stoic and introverted Driver. His performance is reminiscent of Orlando Bloom in "Kingdom of Heaven" except substantially better. I understand how some people can look at these performances as hollow, but they are both meant to be reserved characters with little emotion. The biggest difference is that Ryan Gosling has greater emotion behind his stoic exterior, not to mention he wears the sweetest white jacket with a gold embroidered scorpion I've ever seen. The movie itself has two diametrically opposed halves which works great for me. The first part is a slow, yet rhythmically paced introduction to these characters, their lives, and the bonds they begin to form. The director does great in building these relationships with little more than the imagery on the screen, using little dialogue. Ryan Gosling does have a short opening monologue at the very beginning of the film, but after that his next line in the movie is 17 minutes into it. 17 whole minutes yet you still know, understand, and feel! Then about halfway through the movie the excrement makes physical contact with a hydro-electric powered oscillating air current distribution device and you are thrown into this intense sequence throughout the rest of the film. This half is just as powerful in it's imagery with little dialogue needed. Throughout this entire film, you have the emotional, yet near mute, performance of Ryan Gosling which is truly fantastic. The other acting performances turned in are solid and the driving sequences are enjoyable. Two final points of order. First, in the second half of the movie, there is a lot of violence. A lot of graphic violence. A lot of gratuitous graphic violence. This did take away from the movie a bit for me, simply because I saw it as unnecessary. Second, the music in this movie was incredible. I don't know what to say except that it was unique and had that perfect blend of accentuating the emotion without being distracting. Overall I really enjoyed this film, I'm just sad that the unnecessary graphic nature of it will lead to me re-watching it less.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0780504/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

"The Winning Season"

Let me first say that I love Sam Rockwell. In case you didn't already know, yes, I love Sam Rockwell. And like anything else you have great affection for, you can tend to be biased toward that. In addition, what I like about independent films is that you are forced to focus on story and direction, acting and characters. You don't have the noise of impressive (or unimpressive) effects to cloud your judgement one way or the other.  With that confession now out in the open, this movie was pretty good, and it was Sam Rockwell who made it pretty good. Despite him playing what I now see as the cliche "asshole-who-really-cares," he played it very well with some brilliant parts to his acting performance. As far as acting from others, it was serviceable enough, nothing stellar, nothing to complain too much about (unless you count the Hispanic girl crying when she missed the game winner that was worse crying than Daniel Radcliffe crying in the third Harry Potter film when he found out that Sirius Black was his godfather and parent's friend and Hermione pulled off his invisibility cloak to reveal a terrible crying performance*). A bit of a small gem was Rob Corddry's embarrassing sport's father at all the games which made for some good chuckles. Outside of the acting, there's not a whole lot to write home about. The story was fun enough; a somewhat stereotypical sports movie. The writing was good, not great; seemed like a lot of one-liners the writer/director probably heard during drinks with his friends over the years. And the characters were likable and/or watchable enough. But it is Sam Rockwell (and I swear I'm not being biased here) that makes this movie better than the mediocrity that the remainder of it is.

*Whilst I'm giving away spoilers, Snape kills Dumbledore, Bruce Willis is really dead, Darth Vader is really Luke's father and Leia is his sister, Norman Bates is Mother, and Charlton Heston is on Earth the entire time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1293842/

"Beyond the Sea"

"Beyond the Sea" is the biopic following Bobby Darin, perhaps most well known to the general public for his song "Splish Splash." This movie came out in the midst of other musical biopics such as "Ray" and "Walk the Line," but with far less notoriety, and I think for good reason. I'm no musicphile, but I'm more aware of who Ray Charles and Johnny Cash are than I am of who Bobby Darin is. But whilst watching the movie, I am definitely aware of some of the songs he sang. I feel the only reason this movie was made is because it was a pet projet of Kevin Spacey who starred in and directed it, also taking writing credit as well. Whilst the writing was fine, the direction often seemed like that of a first-timer (despite this being Spacey's second time). It was as if they were one-shot wonders, "getting" the perfect shot the first time and moving on. This lead to either over-acting or wooden boxes talking on screen. Kevin Spacey as Bobby Darin was pretty good, though not as memorable as Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles or Joaquin Phoenix as Johnny Cash, but his singing was quite good. The biggest problem with Kevin Spacey as Bobby Darin is his age. Bobby Darin died when he was 37, Kevin Spacey was 45 when he played Bobby Darin. He always looked older than he should have been, and I don't think they ever mentioned his age in the movie as if to not draw attention to it. Outside of that, Kevin Spacey was quite enjoyable and was able to effectively mimic Darin's mannerisms in performing (or so I learned from watching some videos of the real Bobby Darin after watching this movie). One of the positive aspects of the movie was the use of a fantasy type tool, Spacey's Darin having discussions with his younger self throughout the movie, in which you don't realize how under-utilized it was until the end when the young actor shows his singing and dancing skills in a duet with Kevin Spacey which was fabulous. Overall this movie was fine and enjoyable, just not as memorable as it's contemporary musical biopics.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363473/

"The Last of the Mohicans"

You know what the problem with 90s period films is? They are too dated. You know what the problem with "The Last of the Mohicans" is? It's too dated. I can imagine that when it came out it was an incredible movie to experience. Unfortunately this was my first time ever watching it and all I could think of was how old it looked even though it is only 20 years old. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with older films. But like people, some don't age well, and this is one of those films that age is unkind to. But you know what was great about "The Last of the Mohicans?" The music! And..........um............the music!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/

"The Secret of NIMH"

Would I say that "The Secret of NIMH" is great? No. But would I say it's really good? Definitely yes. When you consider what animated movies Disney, or any other company for that matter, has released after "The Lion King" back in 1994, you have to lament not just the decline, but now basically non-existent nature of traditional animated features. But when you go back to the early to mid-nineties and before, you find not just great Disney animated films, but other gems as well. "The Secret of NIMH" is one of those gems. True it follows that cliche talking animals thing, but it has unique, beautiful artwork and a strong, brave heroine, both of which make for a engaging movie experience. Sure, it isn't a cinematic classic, but in a world seemingly without the traditional animated movie, this is one that is highly favorable and enjoyable. Or maybe this whole review is just my nostalgia talking, who knows.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084649/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

"The Avengers"

I liked "The Avengers" the first time I saw it. I finally saw it for a second time and enjoyed it even more. I'm still not ready to say it's the greatest super-hero movie of all time. in fact, I will never say that. I will say that I now believe it to be Marvel's best outing. I am again struck by the relationship between Tony Stark and Bruce Banner and how much I love them together and their interactions. Watching it for a second time I was struck by how little of focus there was on Captain America and his acclimation to now living in the future, the role of Thor despite the antagonist being his (adoptive) brother, and the dire peril the Avengers were in at the end. Here we have this epic, climatic battle in which they are sufficiently winning, and then for about 37 seconds they are losing, all hope is lost, before Iron Man saves the day. They hardly give you enough time to recognize, let alone digest, the hopeless nature of their predicament. Despite the flaws this movie has, despite the stereotypical problems Marvel has in all their movies, this movie is just a great time.

PS, Joss Whedon, I heart you!

PPS, I'm not the only one who thinks Chris Hemsworth is yummy, right?

PPS, Could Robert Downey Jr. be the single greatest decision by Marvel? Ever? Of all time?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848228/

"The Last Lovecraft: Relic of Cthulhu"

This is meant to be one of those funny indie films with quirky and/or lovable characters and I think that would, for the most part, adequately describe this movie. Think of it as a sort of modern-day "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" but not as funny, not as memorable, and more adult content (definitely some good wholesome, humorous gore). I enjoyed this movie because I'm a fan of H.P. Lovecraft. If you are not a fan, I'm not sure you'd enjoy this movie as much and it's not as if this movie would make you a fan of his writings. It was a fun watch for what it was. I might turn it on to fall asleep to, but not sit down and watch it again or seriously recommend it to many despite my positive level of enjoyment from it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1522262/

"The Trip"

The bad part about "The Trip" is that most of the funny parts are in the trailer. The good part about "The Trip" is that those parts are still really funny and there are still some great parts in the movie that aren't in the trailer. Another bad part about the movie is that it can drag, seem a bit boring at parts, and can lose you on this trek following two friends. Another good part about this movie is the general sense of finding one's place and direction in life, most particularly as far as employment goes (I know, boring, right?), that Steve Coogan "experiences." As one who has struggled and still struggles with this, it was obviously a movie that speaks to my soul personally, and combine that with a pair of funny chaps (see how I used a British phrase for this British movie) and their friendship, comrade, and positive chemistry and it makes for a very enjoyable movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1740047/

"Limitless"

I can see the appeal of this movie, especially in our society today where we have this expectation of instant gratification, this sense of self-importance, and some form of entitlement to materialistic things. The fact of the matter is that behind the fun story, flashy camera work, and oh-so-charming Bradley Cooper, "Limitless" is a story about a drug addict who gets all he could ever want instantly under the guise that this is the human body's potential when focused, motivated, and "working hard." Let's just throw away the fact it's his dependency on this illegal drug that allows him to do such and that "working hard" in this movie is defined as putting in long days of work for about two days. But wait! Bradley Cooper is already smart, he had it in him, we all have it in us, this drug just helped him access it, and Robert De Niro is a crazy coot who believes in hard work, experience, and earning what you get, so let us portray him as the bad guy at the end by having him blackmail our handsome lead character who has weaned himself off the drug and still has this gift in him which makes every other choice he made up to this point justified. It's too bad you have to use such a stylish, enjoyable, and enticing package to deliver such silly message. And by silly I mean ridiculous, absurd, and dumb. I understand the entertainment value in such a movie, I myself was entertained. But it's hard to be entertained when this entertainment is a-moralistic at best.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/

"Immortals"

Holy crap! And I thought "Conan the Barbarian" was bad! This movie is like..........really, really, really, really ridiculously not good. It's like "300" but without a single redeeming quality. On a scale of 1 to 10 I give it an punch in the face with dance moves.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253864/

"Conan the Barbarian" (2011)

What do you call a movie with no substance, no style, an abundance of poor effects, a greater abundance of bad acting, and a few topless women? I'll give you a hint, it rhymes with "Ronan the Librarian."

PS, If you want to see Jason Momoa as a real bad-a (yeah, that's right, this post is rated PG), check him out in "Game of Thrones" as Khal Drogo. Just ignore the fact that he basically gets killed by a small scratch. Oh, spoiler alert.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816462/

"Raiders of the Lost Ark"

So I watched this cinematic masterpiece, this Hollywood icon, on the big screen for the first time in my life, and you know what? It did not suck one bit!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082971/