American Psycho (2000)

Based upon the controversial 1990 novel by Bret Easton Ellis, 'American Psycho' comes to us from director Mary Harron and writer Guinevere Turner. The film took many years to get off the ground due to its source material containing very graphic material, particularly against women leading to many protests since its release. The film adaptation however was met with slightly less backlash though it took many years after its 2000 release to cinemas before it became a bigger hit. It now stands as a cult classic inspiring many modern filmmakers today and becoming the personal favorite film of many critics over the years, including myself.

Both the novel and film revolve around a young businessman during the Wall Street boom of the 1980's named Patrick Bateman. We first see him as no different than your usual Gordon Gecko archtype of the time, with slicked back hair and several thousand dollars worth of beauty and fashion items adorning both Bateman and his posh New York apartment. However, it soon becomes obvious that Patrick is a severely disturbed individual who begins to engage in homicidal and sexual depravity and by the end has unraveled to the point that even we as the audience can't really be sure of what's going on.

 For a small budget, the film has a well known and large cast of actors such as Jared Leto, Reese Witherspoon, Willam Dafoe, and of course, Christian Bale in his first major role after playing the lead in Spielberg's 'Empire of the Sun' back in 1987. The film also was able to gain the rights to a lot of hit music from that time and is by far one of the best film soundtracks out there. I keep the tracklist on my MP3 player on a loop quite frequently and I highly recommend it if you're any kind of fan of 80's music. The other interesting aspect of its budget is that everything feels larger and grander in scale than the film's premise would have you believe. For the most part, it is a slasher or serial killer thriller story but it feels like a major studio production with A list actors and production value.

The film obviously could not adapt the novel as faithfully as one would think given its extreme nature (Even I had to put it down at times). The film is actually rather subtle when it comes to the gore or murder scenes throughout despite their frequency. If anything the film has more graphic sexual content than violence which was unexpected and it did get the film initially slapped with an 'NC-17' rating before minor trims were made. Still though, these scenes while very intense do not retract from the overall themes of the film and its source material. The film is ultimately a personal look into someone's brain and even to this day one is left scratching their head wondering just what the hell happened? Did Bateman commit his crimes? It seems at times others see items covered in blood or something that would clearly get him caught, but then in the next scene it will be simply brushed off or even at times if you look carefully, can vanish entirely leading one to question their own sanity trying to figure this movie out.

It's ultimately these moments along with the film's surprisingly large amount of humor and great writing throughout that make 'American Psycho' well worth watching. It's a film that can be analyzed and examined no matter how many times one sees it and each viewing will leave you with new questions or something you may not have observed on the previous watch. It's a larger film in the overall history of the medium than just a 'sexist' and 'gross out' film. It's a deep and dark thriller with brilliant performances, excellent writing from Ms. Turner and Ms. Harron, and is to this day still my favorite Christian Bale performance hands down. If you haven't seen 'American Psycho' before, or just haven't seen it in a while pop it in and see what it does for you. Oh, and if you have the chance to read the novel I recommend that too but not without strong warning.

 (A+)

(Buy The Novel Here)

A Good Analysis of the Ending (SPOILERS) 

Annabelle (2014)

'Annabelle' is the prequel to 'The Conjuring' and shows the events of how the infamous demon doll became the property of Ed and Lorraine Warren..and it's brought to us from the director of 'Wish Upon', 'Mortal Kombat 2', and 'Butterfly Effect 2'...yeah this movie is going to be painful. Honestly, I can see from director James Wan's choice of John R. Leonetti as he is a wonderful cinematographer. However, being talented in one field does not make you so in others and after seeing the above films and this one, you'd likely be inclined to agree.

In all honesty, I don't think anyone was asking for a film based upon the Annabelle doll. Yes, 'The Conjuring' was a very enjoyable film and one of the best of the genre but the doll was so secondary in that film. Placing an entire 90 minutes upon the shoulders of what began as a subplot in a much superior film is just asking for a disaster. That's not to say it doesn't have some positives to it, such as the cinematography is better than other horror films of the modern age. It doesn't rely on that puke green florescent color scheme that began with 2004's 'SAW'. It's all well lit and has the appropriate spooky atmosphere to it, but even the best looking film is nothing without substance behind it or appropriate tension and buildup.

95% of 'Annabelle' consists of jump scares, which is the laziest way to scare your audience and is generally frowned upon by every horror fan. It's not a real scare as it's just a loud noise that you will instinctively jump at and feel foolish afterwords. That is not the same as genuine dread or fear, as I don't look behind me while walking home at night after seeing a jump scare in a movie. It's actually quite astounding to see something genuinely frightening like 'The Conjuring' spin off into something so bland and generic for the genre. The film's screenplay also sadly suffers from other tropes of horror, such as characters doing stupid things for no explained reason and just the basic idea of why on earth would a couple reasonably have a doll like this for their infant child? If the doll wasn't so overly designed to look evil and kept something closer to its real life counterpart, then maybe this wouldn't feel so out of place and in general I think this would come off as scary much more.

In the end, 'Annabelle' is just another horror movie from the 2010's. It's really bad yes, but it's also completely forgettable once you leave the theater so overall it's rather harmless but this is a problem in of itself. We shouldn't just accept it as a product of its time because no matter the material, it should have some sign that the people behind it gave a crap about it in some way other than a payday. Even TROMA makes efforts when they put out their trashy films but with 'Annabelle' you just feel that no one really cared about it being a decent film. If you really still wish to take a chance on it, may I counter offer with the various paranormal documentaries about the subject or simply watch 'The Conjuring' and its sequel again.

( D- )

Wishmaster (1997)

'Wishmaster' surprised many back in 1997 with its extreme gore and its cast of nearly every famous horror star of the time including Robert Englund (Nightmare on Elm Street), Kane Hodder (Friday the 13th), & Tony Todd (Candyman). The story begins back in ancient Persia where an ancient evil demon known as the Djinn is wreaking havok before he is sealed away inside a red gem awaiting some poor soul to unleash him once again. And that's exactly what happens when a statue containing the jewel is stolen by a petty thief and the evil Djinn is released. The rest of the film consists of the Djinn asking someone what they'd wish for, then granting it but with an evil or ironic twist (I.E. a woman wanting to remain beautiful forever, thus the Djinn turning her into a mannaquin).

'Wishmaster' really is nothing too special now and even when it first came out, horror fans were more eager to see all the various cameos and gore effects regardless of what the premise was. And really, that's all you're gonna get out of the flick but at least in that department you get your money's worth.

Just some examples below (NSFW):

 For 1997, 'Wishmaster' contains practical effects work at its very best and seeing as how the film is directed by the head of KNB Effects who have worked on everything from 'Evil Dead' to the recent 'Walking Dead' series, you'd hope they can do that at least. Unfortunately, the effects come at the cost of everything else kind of sucking. When I first saw this film as a kid, I had no idea it came to theaters because it looks like a film you'd see on SyFy Channel late one night and in some of the lighter scenes, you almost think you're watching a softcore porn on Cinemax. The film's small budget clearly went to the gore and Djinn effects and I know that's what the audience wants to see, but horror movies also need to look the part and this film has no atmosphere due to its cheap cinematography and overall look.

Despite seeing almost every famous horror player at the time in various and often funny cameos, they take you out of the movie and frankly I just wished (heh heh see what I did there?) that I was instead watching one of their better flicks instead of 'Wishmaster' and that's something your movie should ever be doing. The one actor who does his very best is Andrew Divoff as the Djinn and he is by far the best aspect of the film. His character is both funny and sinister like many horror icons of the time. He gets the usual one-liners like Freddy or Chucky and when disguised in human form has the most hilarious evil grin constantly on his face, and yet no one ever finds this suspicious.

(Totally Not Evil At All)

'Wishmaster' is fun at times, but really doesn't hold up all that well. I loved this film as a kid but rewatching it recently it's actually quite boring to sit through. The finale is the only real epic sequence and where most of the effects are viewed. I would recommend skipping to the end if you come across it but don't expect much else out of it.

( D - )

Wish Upon (2017)

'Wish Upon' comes to us from the director of 'Mortal Kombat: Annihilation', 'Butterfly Effect 2', and 'Annabelle'...Why does this guy get work again? The movie is exactly what you think it is: a bland and forgettable PG-13 teeny bopper garbage that you'd normally find way back in January along with such 'classics' as 'The Bye Bye Man' although amazingly it's still nowhere near that level of horror trash. What can I really say though? Of course I'm going to hate a movie like this, horror films of this nature are simply not for my age group, however that doesn't excuse it from being so incredibly lazy and providing no tension or scares whatsoever. I'm sick and tired of the excuse of 'It's for teens or kids so it's okay that its stupid and lazy' because that's far from the case. No matter what film you're working on, you should always attempt something that resembles effort regardless of the material you're given. Preteens and kids who see these watered down films are not stupid and they deserve better.

I guess I should get into the 'story' right? Well, it's about a selfish teenage girl who discovers a wish box that grants her seven wishes with deadly consequences. For those familiar with the 1997 splatter film 'Wishmaster' or even read the old story of the 'Monkey's Paw', this story will sound a little redundant and quite frankly it is. Even when 'Wishmaster' came out to modest success with both fans and critics, this story was long since played out so even when its executed well it's still not on par with other quality horror flicks out there. The film's script doesn't help matters when our heroine never seems to ever learn a real lesson here despite the pain and suffering she brings to those around her. She remains selfish and annoying from the start to the very end and you sit there wondering just what aspect of her character were you supposed to like and become attached to. That is when you're not nodding off from the sheer boredom of the flick itself.

'Wish Upon' is a sad example of the state of horror when it comes to mainstream theatrical releases. Home media now seems to be the permanent home to the genre if you want high quality films or are a hardcore fan. If the likes of this or 'Jigsaw' are all we're going to see in theaters from here on out, then count me out.

( F )

Castlevania (Season One)

Netflix's new series 'Castlevania' brings the 1986 video game classic to the small screen and with huge success, though I only wish it were a longer ride. The series' first season only comprises of four episodes, each about a half hour which is insane considering the other Netflix originals available. Perhaps less is more in this situation however as this is a really great adaptation of the classic game series and I cannot wait for more to come. For those not in the know when it comes to the franchise lore, the first season is set around the storyline of 'Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse' in which Count Dracula has taken his vengeance upon the land of Wallachia after his beloved mortal wife is burned at the stake for witchcraft. Only the Belmont clan, once banished for their involvement with magic can stop his reign of terror.

The biggest surprise with 'Castlevania' is how much story and development it can get into only 4 episodes and not leave the viewer confused. This is likely the one video game story that will appeal to most audiences and not leave them in the dark with its various characters. It's Dracula and many other popular monsters so its story is familiar enough for everyone to enjoy. It also establishes each character from the game (with the exception of one strange absence) and by the end you know everyone's role and what is to come in the future. The show's animation for the most part is impressive, though when compared to other modern anime its a little weak. It's missing some detail and some scenes come off looking a little cheap. The animation is combined with various digital effects that are also really hit and miss but overall nothing too distracting unless you're really knowledgeable about those kind of things.

As both a warning and a recommendation to horror fans and regular viewers alike, the show is absolutely brutal, something that honestly took me by surprise. You see eyeballs ripped out, babies eaten, children torn apart, and various other gore along with really strong language. This show is definitely not for the kiddies and I commend them for going for it and not holding back like many other horror shows today. 'Castlevania' is a good start for a promising new Netflix show and a really good example of a video game adaptation done right. If you're a fan of the games or anime then give this one a try.

( A )

Popcorn (1991)

I have heard from every horror fan imaginable about the film 'POPCORN' without ever having been able to obtain and see it for myself and for many years that's how it was for many. Now having finally sat down and watched through it, did it live up to its cult status and love? Not really, but this is still a fun little gem if you've yet to hear about it. Released in 1991 to absolutely zero fanfare and considered a box office bomb at the time of release, 'Popcorn' unfortunately came after the 80's boom of slasher and horror films and people were pretty sick of them. It's even more sad considering Wes Craven's masterpiece 'Scream' would only be a few short years away however while many do call this film a slasher, it almost feels like a strange mish-mash of various horror tropes and pop culture references.

The setup is your standard fare: A group of film students at the local college decide to set up a horror movie marathon, consisting of various gimmicks and props much like the films of the mid 1950's but especially the films of William Castle (13 Ghosts, The House on Haunted Hill). During these times, going to the movies was more than taking a seat, eating some junk food, and sitting through whatever blockbuster Michael Bay vomits out. That's not to say the films of that time were good, in fact they were cheese all the way, but it was these fun little gimmicks that made them memorable far beyond the silver screen. Castle would implement all kinds of fun stunts at his shows, ranging from flying skeletons to shocking audience members in their seats and 'Popcorn' takes these memorable moments in film history and makes them into a fun tribute.

The three films within films shown are the highlight of the film and you almost forget that you're watching a slasher flick. 'Mosquito' features cheesy death effects, 3D glasses, and a flying Mosquito prop chasing the audience around. 'The Incredible Electrifying Man' features Crispin Glover's brother as a death row inmate who shocks his victims leading to the chairs in the audience getting the same. Finally, the Japanese horror 'The Stench' has various stink bombs flooding the theater. I wish movie going was still like this, I'd never want to leave the theater. After all that praise however, when it comes to the final product of 'Popcorn' itself, the film is a mess when it gets down to the slashing.

For one, the filmmakers behind it were not really going for a slasher in the first place but rather a more traditional and loving tribute to the days of old, a idea better implemented later with Joe Dante's 'MATINEE'. In all honesty, I don't really understand what they were trying to accomplish here, since you hear in the documentary included with this Blu-Ray set that they had intended for a PG-13 film if not for the MPAA's insistence that the film was 'Too Intense'. That's funny when considering that there's absolutely NO blood in this entire flick. For someone who was expecting a slasher film and not getting that, you instinctively will be pretty bummed like I was the first time. The story of a killer attacking others in the theater is not a bad idea in itself, but here it feels distracting in comparison to the other scenes with the audience enjoying the corny B-Movies and that's not what you want in a movie.

Is 'Popcorn' worth watching though? Yes, especially if you enjoy old B-Movies like myself but I really want people to know what exactly they're getting into, because the film's marketing and everybody who told me about it sure as hell didn't. Know that you're going into a bland and standard slasher plot, but the film festival itself is what will keep you from turning it off. 'Popcorn' has a lot of problems and it's hard from high-art even in the horror genre but it's still something that needs to be seen at least once.

( C- )

The Mummy (2017)

'The Mummy' uses the famous quote from 1932's 'Bride of Frankenstein' as its tagline, although if this latest incarnation of the monster classic is what Universal considers 'A New World of Gods & Monsters' then we are in for a very grim world indeed. Those who know me have already heard my cries of anger since the announcement of a 'Dark Universe' in which the classic monsters will basically be reduced to a cash in to the current superhero trend so I will skip that for the most part. The story tells of Nick (Tom Cruise) who is a thief that just happens to stumble upon what he thinks is a major pay day only to unleash the ancient evil mummy Ahmanet (Sophia Boutella) and now must work with Dr. Henry Jekyll and his special unit known as S.H.I.E.L.D...I mean the Prodigium. And the rest of the surprisingly short film is all padding and set ups for a future line up of films that may or may not even come to be if this film doesn't scrounge up enough box office dough.

'The Mummy' is a film I like to use as an example in recent film arguments that I call 'Film ADHD'. When Marvel Comics began it's cinematic universe back in 2008, it began a huge phenomenon that I doubt even those in the business could have predicted and naturally everyone wanted in on the success. Since then, we've had DC barely able to catch up with its own works (with 'Wonder Woman' being the only one worth a damn so far) and now we have Universal's 'Dark Universe' and like DC's 2016 'Batman v. Superman', the studio has their focus on the future and the moolah rather than focusing on the task and films at hand. In fact, everything about 'The Mummy' feels jumbled and confusing. The film's screenplay was written by at least four that I know of which naturally results in a confusing story and bland and forgetful characters.

Amazingly, the film looks like it was shot on the cheap as well. We get some really mundane and generic cinematography or those typical shots you'd see in a summer blockbuster film such as this. According to the producers, this is supposed to be one of the higher budgeted films in this so-called universe too, which makes me cringe at what horrible looking sequels they can come up with later. If there is one saving grace to 'The Mummy', it would have to be the cast. Tom Cruise is fine, doing what he usually does and does it well but he's just never been for me personally. Sophia Boutella as the Princess Ahmanet is really good actually and her performance is by far the most interesting to watch. Finally, there's Russel Crowe's Dr. Jekyll who was in the film more than I thought but he does his job well too. His introduction here is to set up the later movies, but with such an important role like this why is he only in the middle half of the film?

That's one of the biggest issues I had with the movie, why does it set up without any kind of payoff whatsoever? Not even the scenes of exposition really work all that well, and we don't even get a nice post-credits scene to set something up or give us horror fans a fun Easter egg to leave on a high with. 'The Mummy' was sadly everything I predicted it would be, and that's not a good thing. The film is a horrible mess that should have stayed buried and the film devoured by Scarab Beetles. This is Universal Pictures' legacy now: mediocre rehashes of the very films that stood as pillars to the studios' very foundation. Carl Laemmle would be ashamed of what his studio has become and its beloved monsters. Skip this film at all costs, and see 'It Comes At Night' or even watch your old copy of 1999's 'Mummy' remake. You'll be better off.

( D- )