Piranha 3D review

Ok let me get all this out of the way in as best a way as I possibly can right now. When you see an ad, trailer or generally hear that there is a 3D movie about prehistoric piranhas swimming around and eating horny, half and fully naked pretty people... do you really go in looking for the horror experience of a lifetime? FUCK NO, are you a wee-brain?! Christ it's like walking into "The Expendables" looking for a deep and meaningful allegory for the duality in morals for men of war. So why in the hell would you walking into this expecting more is beyond me.

All this said while I can never speak for everyone, I can say that I did surprisingly enjoy with absurd, retarded delight all that was on the plate with "Piranha 3D". Now I know that classic Roger Corman production directed by Joe Dante (pre "Gremlins" and "The Howling" days) is some sort of high art classic now, but I assure you all the thematic material and anus clinching suspense is still there. Ok all my asshole-ness aside yes I enjoyed this way more than I ought to have. I'll tell you the biggest flaw is the short 82 minute running time that kind of stops the fun of the film way short. Whether this was a plan created to have a sequel pick up where this one left off or a case of not enough money for the big, spectacular money sequence to leave the film on I can't say. But generally these types of films come in riding a mild to high mild wave of curiosity and excitement due to the absurdity of the situation and of the take on the situation, but few hit the mark.

I mentioned earlier "The Expendables" from last week which was looking to be a great return to 80's, big gun action instead it was over CGI-ed junk with about as much fun was "War"; also known as the last time Statham and Li were in a crap action movie together. Sometimes these kind of go off and play ideas don't turn out to be as fun as they could've been. "Snakes on a Plane", "Army of Darkness", "Gamer" etc; all movies that had chances to work as a good ole' piece of over the top, silly as silver shit cinema, but didn't manage. "Piranha 3D" mostly does it for me. It promoted itself in a similar way that "My Bloody Valentine 3D" did it. It had sex and violence in fairly legitimate 3D and you'll wanna see it. And then once you get there who knows... maybe you'll have more fun with it than just a nice accuse to tits and blood on the big screen. Again "Piranha" does that. Instead of being just a gory, sex filled creature feature it works a bit harder to create entertaining set pieces for these things to happen. It may not sound like much of a bonus, but after really enduring a lot of the movies that toss out the ability to get a little crazier with it's creativity in the vice department you end up respecting those little things a lot more.

Make no mistake there is blood and sex and tons of it, but all done with that layer of cheese, sleaze and disconnection with the real world that makes it fun. French director Alexandre Aja has never made a film I fully enjoyed as far as his directed work is concerned. "High Tension", "The Hills Have Eyes" and "Mirrors" all suffer from the same issues with pacing, dis likable or lackluster characters doing some kind of alright things, but on the flip do offer up some nice visuals and editing style and Aja wisely does a lot of practical horror work mixed with the CG stuff. Honestly that's something I respect since today people barely even use make up effects for pick up shots after the action. Here is the first one of his movies I walked out off feeling like I fully had a good time watching it without a lot of 'buts'.

The movie is also filled with former greats now C-list actors like Elisabeth Shue, Ving Rhames, Christopher Lloyd, Adam Scott and Jerry O' Connell. Seriously most of these people I'm lucky to see in a major release once everything couple of years in a bit part, but now I've got em' all and while their characters aren't fleshed out much they still get to do some fun things and get the spotlight again if only for a moment. Aja also shoots and edits the film as a cheap, sholck and sex picture in a real fashion instead of someone trying much harder to get that sort of older feel. Everything from the casting to the music to the credit font smells like a lot of the horror stuff I used to watch on HBO and VHS growing up and reveling in it's stupidity. Here is one of those movies through and through.

I know close to no one will probably side with me on this and again I'll look like the blind idiot that just can't grasp the notion of what movies "should" be, but at this point I don't care. Having fun at the movies is just as important as seeing a film that speaks to you internally and ends up effecting you on different levels and blah, blah, blah. I guess at the end of the day there's not a lot of defense one can do for a film with a scene where a man's penis is eaten and coughed up in 3D by cartoon fish.

Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever

I've got a sorted history with "Cabin Fever". In fact I've got sorted history with Eli Roth. I watched the first film back in 2004 upon it's DVD release, as I skipped it in theaters. I watched it and hated it. Hardcore hated it. Hated it like I hated "The Grudge" which I had seen on DVD around that same time. Then "Hostel" came around. Hooray more shitty "Saw" inspired torture porn. But something was different. In fact this is something I've argued with people about. I actually like the "Hostel" films. I find them gross and often hard to watch and furthermore hard to enjoy, but I think they're funny. And then I started thinking... maybe this is what I missed with Roth's "Cabin Fever". At the time I wasn't jumping to find out, but as more time passed I started reading Roth's stuff and watching him in interviews and talk film and... well... I like the dude's personality. His movies are nothing to call or write home about, but his opinions and thoughts on cinema are actually really sound and he gives off that mild doucebag look, but without taking himself seriously in the least. I can dig that.

So after all this, I did go back and watch "Cabin Fever" again and I liked it. I found it funny and bloody and while the pacing and some of the tone was a bit off, I liked where some of the stuff ended up going. But most importantly I liked the gore effects. Even when I hated the film, that was something I was impressed by. So we come to "Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever" directed by Ti West, an indie horror fan and critic favorite whose "The House of the Devil" is still on my list of need to watch pictures. West's style is great and very much in keepings with the 80's horror cinema look and feel. The major downside to the very watchable, but very dismissible sequel is the story and the lack of real gory violence which is what these pictures are all about.

The film picks up right where the first left off, but destroying the lead of the last film in it's opening (a very nice scene it was). The flesh eating virus has made its way into the water system and said water has been bottled up and delivered to various places, like the local high school. So what West and company attempt to do is make a teen dramedy with a horror twist. Ok, that's something I can dig, however West's plan has it's drawbacks. There's several generally awkwardly paced out pieces of the movie through its conversational parts and much of that bloody nasty stuff with skin pealing away and all that jazz has been tossed out for the most part. Instead we have some very 80's inspired blood puking and decay going on, on the multicolored dance floor and the military is moving in.

Here again is a chance to do some really cool stuff "Planet Terror" style or "The Crazies" style, but alas very little is done with the this piece. Is it a set up to a third picture? Sure, but why do that while leaving this one fairly incomplete? Then again I feel like I'm attempting to give a lot of credit to a straight-to-DVD flick. In short "Cabin Fever 2" is watchable and has a few cool moments and a great look to it, but doesn't do much in the way of wowing you over to convince you that it's anything of real worth. Great example of a throw away movie.

Zombieland review

"Zombieland" is big, bloody, funny and done with a lot of style. And with that I want people to stop making zom-coms (zombie comedies). I'm not saying it out of anything beyond the fact that I feel like it's old now and in a lot of way "Zombieland" proved that. For one they (and this was a great decision) focused primarily on the group of survivors interaction with one another more than anything else. Each character named for the places that they're either from or want to go.

All this rather than dwelling on the zombie violence, which there is a good deal of as well. The reason I'm tired of it is because it's gotten too easy. "Shaun of the Dead" I would still give the highest watermark to in zombie humor, but that's because there was a lot more creativity working behind it. "Zombieland" is mindless yet fairly witty, gory yet subdued in it's violence and a big scale movie that feels angled much smaller. This is helped by it's first person narration by Columbus played by Jesse Eisenberg ('A History of Violence' and 'Adventureland'). He's shy, compulsive, nerdy and has survived as long as he has due to those skills. We're meant to love this kid. Woody Harrelson plays Tallahassee, a master zombie killer whose pretty much as over the top movie badass as they come.

They meet up and have a long standing relationship with Wichita played by Emma Stone (who we all love) and her sister Little Rock played by Abigail Breslin of 'Little Miss Sunshine' (smart career move by the way). The chemistry with this group is a great love hate thing and seeing them come together and fall apart takes up the vast majority of the film. In fact in many ways you could see the whole picture as a violent sub-version of 'Dodgeball' as far as tone goes. Oh and the Bill Murray cameo was probably the best part of the whole picture hands down, but that's something that's better seen then told about. For the most part it's a character piece.

But the issue I have with it all, is it's still too easy of a movie. The laughs are good, but foreseeable. The gore is nice, but we've all seen better. Really it's just a character comedy that happens to have zombies and that's how they all feel now. It's rare to see a horror movie that's funny because of it's horror. Maybe that's why I hold Raim's 'Drag Me to Hell' in such high esteem because it was a horror movie that was funny; not a comedy with horror movie stuff in it. Perhaps it's because execs know teens and what not will watch anything for a laugh, but only things for a scream with a number at the end of the title. Who knows, but for all the things that went into by mind before, during and after 'Zombieland', I can't deny it's a fun flick. It's not great on any level, but it's good and it'll make money. Perhaps when I see more diversity in theaters when it comes to horror... and comedy I'll feel a bit less bitter towards it.

"Zombieland" *** out of ****

Jennifer's Body review

In 2007 there were two main female talents that became overnight successes. One was a Megan Fox due to the massive success of 'Transformers' and her being nearly absurdly hot. The second was a former stripper turned Oscar winning writer of a multi-award winning dramedy about teen pregnancy called 'Juno', Diablo Cody. Speed it up two years and we find them together for B-horror comedy in the vein of many 80's horror films involving hot girls, blood and guts.

"Jennifer's Body" is a near perfect double feature sister to Sam Raimi's "Drag Me to Hell" from earlier this year. Both films are filled with horror nods, laughs and know how to clock in around 100 minutes so we never get overwrought with the absurdities. However I say NEAR perfect because "Jennifer's Body" has a flaw. Not something so bad as to make the movie bad, it's actually a solidly fun horror comedy. The flaw is that it's only a solidly fun horror comedy. Throughout almost every frame there is an infinite amount of potential. It has moments that strike me of "An American Werewolf in London" in it's dark humor and horror mixture. It has emo boy's ripped limb from limb and even a stabbing with the murders joyfully singing Rick Springfield. That's funny stuff. But it's not as great as I feel it could be.

Right off the bat this isn't a normal horror or horror comedy, it's a character piece. On the one end is Megan Fox as Jennifer Check and on the other is Amanda Seyfried as her BFF Needy Lesnicky. A good healthy portion of the movie contains their dynamic together before and after things start to get nasty. And it's all interesting. Needy isn't the hapless nerdy girl in school most movies would make her out to be. She has a fairly long term boyfriend, steady friendships and is simply normal. She's not pushed at lunch or made fun of for the purposes of making us feel sorry for her, she's just normal. Jennifer on the hand had been drooled over for years by every guy in school and knows it and likes it. It's part of her world. Within that world however lays the insecurities of the popular hot chick. They must be the best looking girl in the room. They must be able to have any man they want wrapped around their finger. They must be the alpha. And while Needy and Jennifer's friendship is good, there is still some of that within it all. Which is simply how it is in life and Cody knows how to draw out those tiny details and make them part of the grand scheme.

Diablo Cody knows her horror also. I urge people to read some of her interviews where she's talked about horror films and what not. She's got good taste and she writes quite well to boot. Hopefully one day she'll take up the director's chair.... which I feel perhaps she should. This is definitely her story, dialogue and characters created to a tee. She makes you care for the big and small characters while still knowing how to place ones in for scare-humor fun like J.K. Simmons as the one handed teacher. It's cheesy and hilarious for those familiar with the 'Juno'/'Thank You for Smoking'/Jason Reitman clan. I will say some of her quirky, teen dialogue was toned down, but not on a 'I'm trying to appease my critics' level. Beyond that it's also well acted out by everyone big and small.

Fox has needed something to show case more than just her looks and while she definitely gets to do that in spades here , she also delivers Cody's words perfectly. Fox's caviler attitude plays into the character and when certain moments come up her timing and pitch are spot on. Amanda Seyfried from 'Mama Mia!' also knows how to land her pieces. She never plays Needy like the wimpy nerd friend. She takes many different, fairly logical as well as movie logical paths during the rough parts of the film that seem to point to her best friend killing and eating boys. And while a lot of that IS movie logic, it's funny and somewhat plausible to what a real friend might do. In fact seeing her in this makes me really disappointed she couldn't join Zack Snyder's female cast of "Sucker Punch". Seyfried honestly is beginning to strike me as someone who will become a name and a face in the film world, especially if she continues picking diverse roles. Also I can't forget the highly underused Adam Brody as a lead singer and agent of Satan who's fantastically menacing and funny at the same time. I really wish he got more roles like this that show him off this well.

Okay enough pussy-footing around, here's my beef. This could've been a 100 proof awesome horror flick that I would scream to the heavens see it, BUT the movie tends to settle. What I mean is it's never super gory. It never launches into scare mode and it never causes tearful laughter. And constantly this is a possibility in the film. I would've loved to have seen an overly violent feasting for a few frames instead of an aftermath shot and Megan Fox taking a couple of sips of blood. I would have loved to hear Fox and Seyfried have a full blown, uncut conversation in Cody speak. Hell she even seems like the type who might toss in a layer of self parody with it. But these things never happen. Who's to blame? I don't really know. Director Karyn Kusama of 'Girlfight' and the out and out awful 'Aeon Flux' did what I'd say is her best work yet, but it still left a lot to be desired. This is why I think Cody should start (if she hasn't) mulling over the prospect of directing her own scripts. I could easily see this film being amazing under her eye.

But I mean don't get wrong the film is fun and more than earns it's passing grade as far as these types of films go, but it could've been a big deal picture. Every year horror films come out in early fall, staying away from the far over the hill 'Saw' pictures (which I pray every night stop getting made) Halloween release date and I always find one or two that could directly fight 'Saw', but never come out even near the same time which baffles me. After six crappy yet sadly mildly successful films I would think someone could destroy it on it's opening weekend and end this horrid cycle of regurgitated, mindless torture porn. I think in it's current state "Jennifer's Body" could've taken on Jigsaw... or Rip off Jigsaw or whatever the hell he is at this point and faired well, but I know if it were more over the top... it would have fucking killed it. End of story.

"Jennifer's Body" *** out of ****


SIDE NOTE! I'm an idiot. In 2007 there were THREE main female talents that came about. The third was 'Juno' star Ellen Page, however I'll talk more about that in a few weeks when I see her new film "Whip It".