Ghostbusters: Afterlife Review (2021, Sci-Fi/Horror/Comedy, Sony Pictures/Columbia Pictures/Bron Creative/Ghost Corps)

 

 

 

I ain't 'fraid of no waxing nostalgic

 

This film was a long time in the making. Since the last entry in this exact series (the 2016 reboot/remake is not tied into the more familiar first two films, at least not directly) was released in 1989, that means that this film took 32 years to make. So in effect, it took all of us nearly as long to get a film sequel to the 2nd mediocre film as I have been alive on this earth. Yikes, but that's not an issue really.

 

What is an issue, for me anyway, is how mixed my feelings are after having seen it in theatres on opening weekend, which have persisted to this day. At first I was so excited that I was shaking, but after a while my anticipation of great things died down akin to a fire waning into mere embers. In part because as the film rolled on more and more, I felt something similar to what I did when I saw the 2016 film in theatres almost six years ago: familiarity with the story beats. This is not a new criticism of either film, but I felt it big time in this one. While the 2016 movie tried (and mostly failed) to do something new (like giving us a new, fresh set of faces not tethered to the original crew), this film simply relies on an almost overwhelming amount of nostalgia value to achieve its goals. It just doesn't have much going for itself as a standalone feature in this franchise.

 

So let's get some positivity in this review; the presentation is very good. There's something cathartic about seeing the familiar again, like the proton packs, the ECTO-1 vehicle, the ghost trap, and others. While the fictional inclusion of the in-universe adverts for the original crew showing on fake YouTube were a bit hard to swallow (this didn't bother me, it just seemed to be an odd, seemingly unintentional breaking of the fourth wall that I never would have expected), almost everything else that reminded us, the viewers, of the original classic are present & accounted for, and they work. 

At least for a while...

You see, this film hinges too much on material from the original film and ends up losing its own identity as a result. What could have been a decent look into a budding, new generation of Ghostbusters, ended up a middling re-tread of not just tropes, but plot threads from the first movie decades ago. There's a problem with all of that: we, the audience, could just watch the (significantly better) original in that case. Why bother with a long-awaited sequel that recycles so much of the first film, when you can just stick with said film and mostly ignore this one with little consequence?

The film presents dedications to the memory of Harold Ramis, the one who played Egon Spengler (but not the person who "played" the character in the opening sequence, whose face is never shown for obvious reasons), and I feel conflicted about them. On the one hand, it is touching to give the character a great sendoff (even if the ideas behind what led up to the film's events are very questionable); on the other hand, they seem exploitative to me. There's absolutely nothing wrong with giving a text-based dedication to Harold Ramis like most films do, but this film went further. It featured a CGI-based rendition of Egon Spengler. But that wasn't Harold Ramis, obviously, but for another thing...

...this was a version of Harold Ramis that is more-or-less congruent with what most audiences remember of Egon Spengler (tall, lanky, nerdy-looking, wearing glasses, etc.) but age-appropriate. Never mind what it would mean for younger audiences. Despite the immediately-touching aspects of this on-screen digital necromancy, Harold Ramis, towards the end of his life, was markedly different physically. Take a gander:

 

 

Notice a difference? I'm not engaging in any sort of post-humous body-shaming here because that's not my intention here. Instead, why couldn't the CGI-rendition of "Harold Ramis" be – I don't know – accurate to how he was towards the end of his actual life? Given that in-universe, he obviously grew old and apart from all friends and family since the events of the second film, why couldn't he resemble the real-life Harold Ramis? I don't get why they couldn't do that instead of the idealized rendition they gave us in the film proper. I won't get into the greater ethical dilemmas this trend of digital necromancy may pose in future film releases, so I'll leave it at that.

 

The original members of the team didn't need to be here, since they didn't really amount to anything more than appeal to nostalgia. Ray's appearance could have been fleshed out a bit more, and better too, but he also could have been left out of the climax. These characters only serve to undermine not just the new characters, but the very principle of this film: ushering in a new generation of Ghostbusters. Call-outs are good, but to have them show up in the flesh, with their appearance amounting to nothing more than a cringe-worthy nod to a silly joke from the original film's climactic battle? I'd have passed on that.

There are genuinely fun moments in the film. It has an upbeat chase & gunner sequence that wasn't done before in the film franchise; brief (and few) sequences with Paul Rudd are always welcome; some intriguing story ideas were explored a bit, even if they went nowhere (sadly enough). There was potential for something pretty good here. If only that potential was explored rather than the end product. I'd rather have the (canonical? Not sure if it has that status anymore) 2009 videogame from Terminal Reality than this one. 

It's not even all that funny, either, and the original was mostly a sex-charged comedy-horror romp that was honestly a needle-in-a-haystack lucky break for all & sundry. This was a conflicted waste of potential and time, sadly enough. We all deserved better, Harold Ramis deserved a better send-off (just the text would have been excellent), and Jason Reitman should have had full reign over the creative & directorial touches needed to give this film the proper touches to allow it to stand out. It only took about 38 years to do, you know?

C

 

The Good:

+ It's Ghostbusters

+ Some genuinely solid moments in the film, as mentioned in the body of the review

+ Paul Rudd

+ Looks good, sounds good

+ Phoebe McKenna did a decent-enough job in the lead role 

+ It's nice that Harold Ramis got a touching dedication, but... 

+ Was filmed in (mostly) local areas around where I live (at time of writing)

The Bad:

- Recycles much of the original film, especially as the film drags on

- Harold Ramis' memory was...exploited in this film. Good intentions were there, sure, but "the road to hell is paved on good intentions", right?

- Why even have the classic Ghostbusters at all? They didn't do anything important or conducive to a distinct, new experience.

- Wal-Mart...Wal-Mart...Wal-Mart

- Re-uses Gozer as the main villain once again. Why? Why not Ivo Shandor, like in the 2009 videogame? He even made an appearance, only to be suddenly killed off by Gozer for no good reason.

- Not all that funny

- Plot-holes aplenty

- Why is Finn Wolfhard even here? His character barely makes sense and is just a convenient plot device. 

- Give me Slimer, not...Muncher.

The Witch Review (2016, Horror/Thriller/Historical Drama, A24)

Evil does take many forms.

Unlike most reviewers, those who left positive ones anyway, I'm approaching this review with a different perspective. It is that in which I consider that maybe things weren't as they seemed through the events of the film. That maybe something, or someone else was responsible for the horrific events befalling our film's Puritan family.

Central to the film is the character Thomasin, played by Anya Taylor-Joy. Right at the outset we are given an indication that her character is flawed; she gives a long, studied confession in which, among other things, she admits to having doubts about her faith. Also important is the detail that she has been rebelling against her parents. That last detail is pretty crucial to her character because we can see why she would feel that way later on in the movie.

Thomasin and her family, particularly because of their patriarchal father, William, are cast out of a New England colony and forced to fend for themselves. They eventually settle in a patch of land flanked by a very creepy forest (one of the creepiest in recent cinematic history, in fact) and it seems like maybe they won't be so screwed.

You'd be wrong.

William is not as competent as he should be, at farming or at hunting, though there may be certain forces at work in sabotaging his efforts. Thomasin's younger brother, Caleb, is hormonal and frustrated, and unfortunately sexually attracted to Thomasin in a few ways, though that undoubtedly is a prime reason as to why he feels so angry. The family also has twin children, who are bratty, loud, and quite irritating. Katherine is the mother who seems rather moody and quick to judge. And the newest addition to the family is Samuel, who is, depending on how you interpret the plot, the catalyst for the rest of the film.

Thomas in is asked to look after Samuel while Katherine tends to certain duties, possibly because William is not very good at doing them himself. So Thomasin takes him to a wide-open stretch of land some distance away and plays peak-a-boo with the baby. It amuses him and she seems amused, too. She does one last peak-a-boo when she notices that Samuel had literally vanished out of thin air right under her nose. In a panic, she shouts his name and runs around investigating. End scene.

One by one, the family is befallen to tragedy. Crops are failing, there's not enough meat to feed the family, William & Katherine are hiding secrets from one another, the twins are behaving rather strangely and accuse Thomasin of being a witch (due to Samuel's disappearance), and Caleb is being Caleb. Thomasin, meanwhile, is clearly conflicted by what happened. But we are never truly sure what her feelings actually are as to what happened. 

Caleb then sets out to retrieve a trap set previously, and it has thankfully caught some meat. Thomasin insists on accompanying him on horseback. They then stumble upon a hare, a creepy one at that, which startles their dog which had tagged along with the two. It also startles the horse, which sends Thomasin flying. Caleb takes after the dog which chases the hare, and it goes downhill from there. Caleb gets lost and desperate, but finds that the hare is nearby. He follows it, not knowing what else to do, but then he encounters something freaky in the woods. Someone is living deep in these woods, it is clear to him. A vaguely beautiful woman in a red robe seductively approaches him, and he gives in. However, in the back of his mind he knows something is wrong, so he is deeply afraid. The figure assertively closes in on him, kisses him on the cheek, and we see a gnarly hand shoot out and grab his head. End scene.

Now the family is getting terrified. Later the next day, though, Caleb returns in a state of delirium. He battles shock and complete lunacy brought on by something traumatic having happened to him, and he is cold. The family desperately tries to pray for his recovery and just when it seemed to work, he lays down, dead. The twins had been acting particularly eerie the whole time, and since Thomasin was the last to accompany Caleb, suspicions arise. Without knowing any alternatives and refusing to seek help from the colony that exiled him and his family, William then assumes supernatural forces at work. As does Katherine, but she wants something done and is getting angry at her husband. Thomasin, meanwhile, is even more conflicted.

Tensions rise among the surviving family members. Buried secrets and vented frustrations lead to drastic measures, marked by desperation and growing paranoia. Thomasin and her twin siblings are then locked in the goat pen overnight. Horrific circumstances befall the twins and the goats overnight, and Thomasin is all that remains. The next morning, William assumes the worst but is then attacked by the creepy black goat, mortally wounded. While he initially decides to retaliate, he then resigns to his fate and is finally killed by another attack from the goat. Soon, Katherine comes out to witness the scene of carnage and totally breaks down, deciding that Thomasin is indeed in leagues with evil and has killed everything that matters to her. Katherine pins Thomasin to the ground, then starts to strangle her. Left with no other choice, Thomasin grabs a nearby knife and takes out her mother. Now she's all alone, drenched in the blood of the last of her family.

Later, the goat leads her to her father's tool shed, and because she is pretty far gone at this point, she does so without questioning anything. She is then spoken to by a mysterious figure, one we the audience can hardly make out visually, beckoning her to give in to temptation and freedom from the life she thought she knew before. And she signs a book with her name. Then, stripped entirely of her clothes, she walks through the forest. Eventually she comes across an entire coven of witches, who are performing a ritual of sorts that leads to them gaining the ability of flight. After a few moments, she, too, begins to fly. As this happens, she is laughing maniacally, like she has been holding something back for goodness knows how long.

Now do you see what I did there?

The film leaves you with more than one interpretation as to how things unfolded before you. Yeah, you could assume that the witch was very much real and was destroying the family piece by piece, leaving Thomasin to join and strengthen the coven in the woods. Or you could try to understand how it also could have happened. It's set up perfectly in order to see things this way; maybe it was Thomasin who carried out all of this terrible destruction of her family, marred by a psychotic breakdown and need for freedom from the life that she clearly cannot stand by. Her parents treat her more as a commodity or means of bribery (by way of dowry), her twin siblings seem to despise her, and Caleb is having conflicting thoughts about her. Plus, she lives in a very Puritan family, where prayer and God are tantamount to proper living and she must attend to the duties expected of her no questions asked. Along with that, people suspect her to be some malevolent force out to destroy the family.

And that might just be true.

It's all based on the opening, wherein Thomasin "asks" for forgiveness by way of confessing to her sins. They all foretell exactly what happens in the film. And if you assume this interpretation to be true, just think about it: she is so far-gone even at the beginning that she can't come to terms with her even carrying out her horrific deeds as the days roll by. The disappearance (and possible murder) of Samuel, the shocking death of Caleb brought about by a horribly traumatic event he went through in the woods the day before (and Thomasin had accompanied him, by the way), the disappearance of the twins and the deaths of the goats, then the deaths of her mother and father. All of these would drive a person mad. Or, if you are going along with this interpretation, even deeper into madness. When all is said and done, through some form of self-hypnosis or delusion, Thomasin finally wanders into the woods nearby, naked as the day she was born, never seen again.

This, I feel, is the genius behind the movie. It also helps that, and part of it may be due it, the film has a meager budget (all but three million dollars were spent on this film); it has a very minimalist approach to horror film-making. There are no jump scares, the lighting is natural, the dialogue is important sparring rather than forced for the sake of filling out the film's runtime, and the music is deep & brooding. Also, while there is certainly gore, there isn't a ridiculous amount of it. There's also a deep tinge of dread that runs throughout, thanks to the setting and the idea that there is an evil witch toying with the family from the shadows, shape-shifting as it sees fit to avoid their defenses.

I do recall that a handful of foaming-at-the-mouth morons, particularly on the web, attacked this movie as a piece of feminist propaganda (everything revolving around Thomasin, basically). As for the rest of us, we aren't so easily triggered into acting like butthurt crybabies and can appreciate a good piece of modern horror when we see it. The film may bore you with is minimalist approach, it is never loud and boisterous so the attention-deficit watchers will probably fall asleep, and you might not even find witches scary (thanks to their usual portrayal in media being totally hammy and well, not scary) but if you're like me, you'll appreciate what the film does absolutely right.

B

The Good:  

+ Minimalist horror approach helps with the high tension.

+ Witches are actually scary in this movie.

+ Leaves the events of the film ambiguous so that you can interpret it in different ways

+ Great, creepy soundtrack

+ The forest is incredibly creepy and every scene in it is powerful and effective

+ Great use of lighting, as in, there's little at all.

+ Authentic setting and dialogue that fits with the time of the film.

+ No jump scares (an extension of the first positive point)

The Bad:

- Might be a bit too minimalist; it can potentially bore you.

- Caleb's death scene, namely the buildup to it, might come off as unintentionally funny and/or cheesy. It's a bit too forced.

 

AM1200 Review (Horror/Thriller, DreamLogic Pictures)

Get ready for spoilers.

Well it took a while to track this gem down and I finally did tonight. It's a short film of only 39 minutes but those minutes are never squandered. The film was also met with a limited physical release. People who have watched it describe it as Lovecraftian, and when you too give it a gander, you will see exactly what those people mean.

One thing that pops out about the film is the film's minimalism. It has standard filmography that doesn't break any new ground on its own, but that's not befalling of the film's quality. The quality comes from the pacing and of course the eponymous "AM 1200", a radio station from which our anti-hero catches a distress signal. At night. A number of strange goings on, starting with some of his electronics on hand shorting out or suddenly ceasing their functions, mysterious lights forming in the wilderness, and of course the seemingly abandoned radio station all hint at something sinister.

So he goes inside, daft as that may be, and he too tries calling for help. More odd things make him go exactly where he's needed. As he investigates the radio station, noticing a barricaded door in the interim, he comes across a man detained to a pole. The man has clearly come out of some strange spell for he's not only entirely irrational, but is borderline psychotic. The encounter gets stranger and stranger hinting at a greater, more sinister force at work, but then his actions lead to the protagonist being forced to kill him.

After he does this, a strange, unexplained force seems to assault his mind. It's a struggle that he ends up losing and it gets the better of him. He grabs the detained man's body, hauls him over to the barricaded door, removes the barricade, then brings him down a cellar staircase. He hoists the body onto a workshop table of some sort and in a cold fashion he dismembers it. After he takes possession of a couple of those body parts, and brings them toward a hole in the floor.

Our protagonist peers into the hole, which at first resembles a well filled with water. Then something shifts within. It is this something that beckons him to offer the fruits of his horrible misdeed as a twisted feeding ritual. When this is done, he clambers toward the radio equipment that is still working and makes a call for help. The cycle continues.

So with the plot out of the way, let's get down to basics. First is the most noticeable aspect of the film: it is very short. This is not to the detriment of the product because everything that needed to be shown to the viewer was indeed all that was necessary. Ever heard of a little something called "excess" or "bloat", when referring to movies? Well at least this film can't be declared guilty of this. It's short and to the point, which is perfect. And because the film will very likely leave you with questions about what actually happened, that means the mysterious aspect of the plot was written well. It's a horror film with a cosmic tinge. In other words, the perfect Lovecraftian horror film.

Ray Wise, not exactly an A-Lister by some means (he's had credits in RoboCop, Jeepers Creepers 2, Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, and Twin Peaks to name some), does show up in flashbacks to establish the protagonist's backstory, before he's on the run in his car to be exact. Not much is done with Wise's character otherwise but the whole sequence in which he appears does help to cement the film's dreary tone, something akin to a neo-noir film.

There are damn near no special effects used at all. And this actually works to the film's benefit because it ends up being, feeling so raw. When inexplicable lights appear in the woods, seeming to float their way closer and closer to our protagonist, you do feel a bit of dread as to what it is. As more and more strange goings-on manifest to scare the main character into taking shelter. One feeling that you may get from watching the whole thing is that it is all so minimalist. The radio station of note seems particularly tiny, but that adds to how fucking creepy the place is. Then towards the ominous ending you learn the terrible secret literally lurking right underneath.

If you want powerful chills coupled with modest brevity, then AM1200 is the horror flick for you. My only complaint right now is that the official DVD for this rather short (not that it's a downside in itself) film warrants a fifteen dollar price tag. If you think that's reasonable then by all means get it, and show your friends.

B+

The Good: 

+ Nothing in the duration of the film is wasted. It builds up to something, shows us the source of the horror, then sets up more atrocities.
+ Eric Lange delivers convincing emotional responses to the strange occurrences in the film.
+ Makes you keep guessing. That's how you do suspense!
+ The lack of music overall compounds the dread.
+ The radio station is definitely the creepiest part of the film.
+ Is inspired by the works of Lovecraft.
+ That thing in the hole.

The Bad:

- The film's brevity may actually turn off some viewers.
- Leaves  you wanting more.
- The film's price tag is a tad on the steep side.
- Little is done with Ray Wise's character beyond providing backstory to Lange's character.

 

                                                               

Jurassic World review (2015, Action/Adventure/Science Fiction/Horror, Universal Pictures)

Life found a way.

The 1992 original was an accomplishment of film-making for the ages, to be written into history books. It set new standards, kicked dinosaur popularity into high-gear, and even brought some (long since obsolete) innovations to paleontology itself. Just those three achievements alone made the original a very difficult feat to replicate, let alone top off with a sequel. 

To speak of sequels means I should quickly spell out why both of them were not quite worthy of their production; The Lost World lost damn near all the sense of charm & wonderment, while III appeared more like a cash-grab than a legitimate attempt to keep fanning the flames first lit in 1992. The first sequel saw Ian Malcolm go to Site B to collect his girlfriend from certain (and definitely inevitable, given the character's weaknesses) demise although all sense of chaos and desperation was lost. The third film made sure to shoe-horn Dr. Grant for lip service, and to be the one sane guy in a jaunt amongst understandably pissed monsters. But that's in the past.

And this movie is kind of stuck in it.

Our subject, Jurassic World, was stuck in development hell for 10 long years. Colin Trevorrow, the director of the final product, wasn't always helmed in the role. Nor were Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire Dearing & Chris Pratt as Owen Grady originally slated to appear as characters. And the I.Rex was not originally intended to be the dino villain. But, that's what we ended up getting here and it's not to the film's detriment, but there's something amiss in the film that is. It's a particular feeling of...been there, done that.

This nigh $1 billion grossing, record-setting film doesn't do anything new for the franchise, and the little, few things it does that are new for the series are, of course, of little consequence. Nonetheless, these are neat new grounds to tread; the genetic mish-mash abomination in the Indominus Rex (casually referred to as the "I.Rex"), and Owen Grady's trainer/lion dynamic with the film's velociraptors. The former serves as the film's primary villain and displays a staggering degree of cognitive understanding & adaptive intellect, whilst the latter is a Chekov's gun.

The 1993 original film was lauded as a landmark achievement in special effects, thanks to the skills on hand at Industrial Light & Magic. Twenty-two years later and Jurassic World doesn't really up the ante at all, which is a shame, but it doesn't mean it is a step down. The Mosasaur is one of the more impressive feats to be seen in the film's run, and practical effects weren't completely bereft of their grandiosity and relevance. There was a gaffe that could have been corrected in the editing stage, however: an avian dinosaur can be seen clipping through the aviary in a blink & you'll miss it moment.

Otherwise, the film retreads much of the same ground previously trodden in the franchise  ̶   two children directly tied to park manager/owner find themselves in peril, something goes wrong in the park's defenses and all hell breaks loose, a dinosaur (or in this case, dinosaurs) save the day from the big bad Dino, and even character archetypes return. While repeating old tropes isn't in itself a bad thing, it's the stunning fact that the movie does nothing to stand out from the franchise that is.

Why is that inexcusable? Well, it's because of the previously mentioned development time, as more could have been done with the final release. Ten years could have, should have produced a superior flick. It could have truly surprised moviegoers and fans alike, but alas, it didn't do that for me. It paid too much lip-service to the previous films, especially the first, and did almost nothing to set itself apart.

It is a genuine thrill-ride, however. Damn near every scene with the I.Rex in it will see chaos and death ensue in the process, and the raptors are as nasty as ever. A new dinosaur to the films, the Mosasaur, makes a welcome entry into the fray and serves as an important plot device. The pteranodons have become menacing and are used by the villainous I.Rex to sow disarray and bloodshed. Bryce Dallas Howard manages to brave Isla Nublar in its entirety whilst wearing high heels for fuck's sake. And Star-Lord is the god damned alpha of a pack of raptors rather than the leader of galactic misfits. There can't be anything in this movie you'd say you didn't like no matter how stupid they were.

But there's plenty that you may not like at all. There are plot-holes left unexplained, there are leaps & outright debasements of logic, and then there's the fact that it took ten god damn years for moviegoers, whether they're fans or not, to get this rather mediocre installment. Owen Grady and, uh, Bryce Dallas Howard apparently have chemistry that we're supposed to believe is genuine. Yet, people probably paid more attention to Owen Grady being a headstrong badass who is a composite of Dr. Grant & Dr. Malcolm from the original film. The kids do evoke a sense of actual sibling chemistry, but it doesn't go anywhere in this film because it wasn't made to be a drama. At the same time, however, the older brother is a dick to the younger brother and really, these kids received so little development in comparison to those in the original movie so why should anyone really care? The woman who plays the assistant tasked with looking after them goes through what may be the biggest "kick the dog" moment in the franchise (a merit, albeit a kind of sad one, for the film indeed). And a few rather dull scenes involving the kids' parents, in the midst of a divorce (it is why the kids were sent off to Isla Nublar), add timid, rather pointless drama to a film that would rather be having fun.

Somehow, some cliche sci-fi villain dude thinks that raptors would make great replacements for highly-trained field infantry in the game of war. Somehow Owen gets his hands on the chunk of flesh  that the I.Rex ripped out of its own body in spite of the fact that Owen was nowhere near where the I.Rex did it. Somehow someone thought it was a good idea to go inside of the I.Rex's pen despite the lack of intel on where the fucking thing actually is. Somehow the park's owner has no idea what actually went into the I.Rex's design until the movie demands the 'shocking' revelation. Somehow the I.Rex catches up with Owen & Dearing when they're investigating the old park visitor center (well after the boys had left) even though it had been stated multiple times before that the I.Rex was on a direct course to the park proper. Somehow the boys are able to fix a 22 year old Jeep by replacing the battery for it, and the damn thing runs as if it were fresh out of the auto-shop. Somehow none of the idiots thought to trigger the shock collar technology they have on each dinosaur when there's a whole flock of avian dinos closing in on the park's visitors. Somehow Claire Dearing pulls off the entire flick walking/running around in high god damn heels, and even manages to outrun ol' Rexy wearing those fucking things. Somehow, and this is for last, why did someone think that the raptors (in spite of their clandestine status on the island and being feared so much because of previous movies) should be made all over again?

Oh and product placement. Holy fucking shit, guys.

And it really does have fun. But very little of the fun in the movie is original fun. I must re-iterate: this film took 10 god damn years to make. It was stuck in development hell for most of that duration, but there's little excuse to get a movie that hardly stands out on its own in a franchise that, in spite of its raw earning power, hasn't critically pleased anyone in over 20 years. At least it's guaranteed that a sequel will be ordered, but will they at least try to do something interesting with it?

                                                                             

C

The Good: 

+ Chris Pr--Star-Lord, leading a pack of (scientifically inaccurate) velociraptors. Stupid, but fun.

+ They didn't discard any all practical effects

+ Final battle is nonsensical but it is fun nonsense. 

+ The Mosasaur is a welcome addition to the bestiary.
+ A tad bit of tension can be felt in the scene where our hero has to investigate the I.Rex's compound.
+ That scene where the assistant gets chomped on by the Mosasaur. That scene.
+ It's another Jurassic Park movie. Only the first one truly stands the test of time (the rest are... serviceable at best).

The Bad: 

- In many ways this is a re-tread of the first film. Only that movie had a superior director, character development, tension, and Jeff Goldblum.
- It's PG-13.
- The special effects gaffe mentioned previously produces unintended chuckles.

- Somehow the boys manage to "fix" a vehicle that was left unattended with zero maintenance for twenty years running as if it were brand new. Keep in mind that the setting is tropical, and goes through hurricanes at least once a year. Also, one of the night vision goggles seen briefly in the original film, in spite of running on battery power, still works. Ever heard of battery drain? What about leakage?
- Hoskins is a very weak character with vaguely implied ties into the massacre in the park.
- Predictable plot that gets more predictable with the more shoutouts to previous films that you can literally rattle off by the minute.
- What kind of park and its owners doesn't understand what their most ferocious dinosaur is made from?
- A few forced lines of comedy.
- The CGI is on overload in comparison to the original movie, which used it sparingly. And to top it all off it hasn't even grown all that much better in quality since 22 years ago.
- Owen is a total jackass to Claire
- Claire is a total airhead and is not fit to manage a park with giant killer animals that should have been left extinct in the first place.
- Nowhere near as suspenseful as the original movie.
- A leap in logic regarding how the raptors behave in the movie.
- The fight at the end, in spite of its entertainment value, very likely wouldn't have happened if the film didn't predictably call for the action contained within.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   EDIT: Wanted to update some of the body of the review to coincide with my vwawdd                                                                                                                                                            

F.E.A.R. 3 (PS3, Xbox 360, PC, 2011, Day 1 Studios/Warner Bros. Interactive)

What do you F.E.A.R.?

Well, no really, what do you fear? Suffice to say, you won't come to feel much of any in this installment. While it was hyped for John Carpenter's involvement in directing the cinematic department, the game didn't really deliver anything astounding, story OR plotwise. This franchise has always been a horror-FPS one, and while it achieved some level of success in that vein, this is definitely the lowest point. Carpenter might as well have not even been involved at all because it made no difference.

One of the problems that has always set the franchise back, as far as horror goes, is the mute protagonist cliche present in every last one of them. And in the one game where the story is hyped the most, and pretty much falls flat in the end, it should have been a no-brainer: give the Point Man some god damn personality and maybe you'll get some tension, dramatic and all. I know they have explained why, although in a cryptic fashion that may have very well eluded you so far in the series, but it's an excuse to "make you feel like your own action hero." Only the Half-Life series does anything right with the mute protagonist trope, and even lampshades it. I know this may seem like a run-on point, but when your secondary playable character does have a personality as you play, it becomes so jarring as to hurt the game, significantly.

A common criticism of this installment is the overall lack of horror, and that's certainly the case. It's hard to feel that when all of its horror tropes have been done before in the series, and better at that. It's hard to feel scared when you're such a power-house, plowing through all that stand before you. It's hard to feel scared when the atmospheric moments come so rarely, and for all but the final section of the game, there's no subtlety and mind-fuckery. And most of all, it's hard to feel ANY horror brilliance when the UI in this game blatantly tells you that you have unlocked something.

I don't know what Day 1 was thinking with the UI in this game. It's not the HUD or the menus that are problematic, but the score system that flat-out kills most of the horror aspects of the game because they're so in-your-face. If you kill enough enemies with a weapon the game will tell you that you've earned points; if you establish a "psychic link" with a random corpse in a level, it tells you that you've earned points; if you are in a section that would otherwise grant some degree of tension and you do just about anything, you are likely to earn points. All of this is shown in bright, vivid colours in an arcade-like presentation. At times this is what the game felt like, actually. That's not what the series is about and Day 1 really dropped the ball here. Subtlety is one of the key methods of achieving a horror vibe, and this entire feature eviscerates that.

It's not all thorns and ugly ducklings, though; the controls are some of the best in the series, which has so far never had them down-pat for some odd reason. Gunplay is also on par with the first game (since the second game not only simplified that aspect for no discernible reason, but toned down the "oomph" factor that the first game had) in many regards. The AI won't stand out in your playthrough, but they're loaded for bear and on higher difficulties will present a challenge. The Point-Man more-or-less finally seems like a real super soldier, since he was conceived as one in the first place. When you play as Paxton Fettel you are presented with body-hopping and psychic "slam" abilities, opening up for tactical options. The graphics in this title, while a little behind in the times, are the best in the series yet. And some of the multiplayer modes, while absolutely devoid of activity today, are unique and interesting, such as "Fucking Run!" and the game's own take on the survival craze seen in Call Of Duty & others as of late.

You'd be better off experiencing the game from the perspective of Paxton Fettel, at least to experience the unique, well somewhat unique at least, gameplay that he presents. But that's not to be had until you beat the game as the mute, dull, and at best sufficient Point Man. The problem with this requirement is that you'll come to realize that the storyline is pretty much dead on arrival. Like, somehow, you come across Jin midway through the game, who was a supporting character in the first game, only to lose all contact with her for no real reason. It all feels a bit disconnected from the previous game with only a few nods to it at all. For one, Sergeant Beckett (the player character from the second game) is shoe-horned in and, somehow, his sacrificial-lamb status in the plot leads our heroes to...their childhood memories? Alma's role is damn near minimal in the storyline, replaced mostly by the irritating (but at least challenging, finally) Creep, who is implied to be the spirit of Harlan Wade, the man who was responsible for everything in the series.

The two brothers are still at odds with each other, but have to work together to achieve their respective goals. Paxton wants to reunite with their mother and usher in a new age, or something, but the Point Man is driven solely to carry out the objective he was assigned all the way back in the first game. Rowdy Betters, the handler for First Encounter Assault Recon (which is a team of paranormal special ops, or something), is nowhere to be found and the token black guy from the first game is nowhere to be found, either (and no, "Extraction Point" is not considered canon). Inexplicably, or at least it's cryptic as to why, the Replica army is still standing strong AND now fully controlled by Armacham. Alma doesn't mess with the player anymore because she's in her birth pangs, and somehow before the opening level the Point Man got captured by Armacham for reasons unclear.

Anyway, the story is paranormal but mediocre, and doesn't hit any high notes. At least, not until you've finished the game and you're treated to a ridiculously awesome video of Paxton's first "synchronicity event", where people basically burst like watermelons (from the inside, mind you) while trying to sedate him during one of his breakdowns. Throughout the game you see snippets that lead up to that scene, but story-wise, the aforementioned scene is a treat for any who would find the mythos of the series at all interesting. One of the means of gaining new insight into the series' story came from "Intel" items, which after finding them in the game world, gave you some reading material describing the lore, basically. This game doesn't have that feature, which is a little off-putting for me, personally.

Enough about the story, let's get on with talking about the gameplay. Well, control-wise, it is the smoothest of the series so far. Your character moves much more fluidly than at any point in the franchise, with spot-on reaction times, and a sprint that actually resembles one. One of the off-putting features introduced in the second game was the sprint function, which was more akin to a jog, that only allowed for a two-second jaunt for evasion purposes. You also couldn't pivot or change direction while sprinting, so it was very awkward. That's not the case here. Also, cover mechanics work just fine, requiring appropriate swings of the mouse to situate your aim where you want it. You have a more capable melee attack as well, allowing you to chain swipes and stabs which can save you some precious ammo.

The guns, while somewhat lacklustre in design (they're quite generic, until you get to the experimental weapons later on), serve their purposes. The pistol has just the right recoil, deals the right amount of damage, is properly accurate, and coupled with ADS, is an effective side-arm throughout the entire game. The shotgun is king again; it sounds good, packs a huge punch as it did in the first game, and ammunition is not as scarce as in the second title. The devastator returns just as badass as ever, and there's a lightning gun which, while definitely not an original idea, works in this game's favour for delivering swift death to the evil that stands in your way. You can't lay traps anymore, so there's fewer tactical options at your disposal. Oh and, you spill a LOT of blood in the goings ahead.

Some new enemies come to challenge you. There are a bunch of raving nutjobs that occupy the inner city, called "cultists", which have been warped not only emotionally, but physically by Alma's widespread influences. There are also a few instances where you fight ATC bosses who have a phasing ability as well as high amounts of armor, who also summon basic grunts to keep you distracted. Snipers, which were a thorn in your side in F.E.A.R. 2, are nowhere to be found, which is both a blessing and a hint as to how much easier this game really is (not entirely for the better). Alma's powers have always generated monstrous apparitions, and this time we come up against "Scavengers", born out of the memories of Alma's time locked up in the vault. And you sometimes encounter ghastly "spectres", which possess similar abilities to Paxton Fettel.

Through the arcade-like features noticeable in the rewards system, you gain a slew of perks accessible both in single and online gameplay. They typically consist of increasing how long you can use Slow-Mo, how long Paxton can possess enemies, the amount of ammunition you can carry for weaponry, your total health, and regeneration time. However, this system, as described earlier, will likely ruin the immersion and you might come to dislike it a lot, even if it amounts to improving your character's abilities. The developers couldn't have chosen a more intrusive, horror-killing experience system if they tried, so this is definitely a negative aspect of the game in spite of its positive ramifications.

It's also far too easy for my liking, even on hard difficulties. Yes, enemies will kill you quickly in the hardest level, but you don't have to manage any of your resources, aside from how many rounds you use in your quest (as per usual, anyway). All other games in the series had medkits, and you increased your total health & slow-mo time with often hidden boosts for each; that's not the case here because your character, while it makes a little bit of sense in context (you play as a supersoldier & a ghost, respectively), has regenerating health. It doesn't make you unstoppable but it still makes the firefights more tedious than challenging, since you don't have to worry about your ability, or lack thereof, to restore lost health. The only challenge may come from the Creep itself, and because of said monster, he becomes pretty much the only final boss the series has featured so far.

To summarize, F3AR doesn't do everything right, and it really doesn't bring anything all that new to the formula. The horror aspect is at an all-time low, it's far easier than any game before it, and it resembles Call Of Duty a bit more than it should. What few positives it has in its favour is that the controls are better than ever, guns are actually fun to use again (anything that isn't an assault rifle or sub-machinegun anyway), and there's some distinct multiplayer fun to be had even if no one really plays it anymore. John Carpenter may have had a directorial hand in the game's story, but it didn't make a difference as per its quality.

The Rundown:

Positives

+ Smooth, fluid controls and character movement.

+ Playing as Paxton Fettel opens up new ways to play through the game story.

+ Weapons (mostly) feel good to shoot again.

+ The sprint function actually resembles a sprint rather than a lethargic, two-second jog.

+ Can actually challenge you at times.

+ Some standout multiplayer modes.
+ Graphically decent, but nothing earth-shattering.
+ The perk system sees steady growth of your character over time.

Negatives

- No one plays multiplayer anymore.

- That GOD AWFUL reward system UI

- Much too short a campaign for a F.E.A.R. title
- No intel items, which previously provided reading material in older games.

- Regenerating health, although you can make excuses for it (you're playing as a supersoldier and a specter, basically)

- Alma takes a backseat in the story, with none of the menace she exhibited. This goes against one of the hyped promises of the game's story.

- Not scary at all, unless you're the most timid motherfucker around
- Sgt. Beckett, the playable character from the second title, unceremoniously dies to serve as a plot forwarding device.
- There are a number of plot holes present. One being the fact that you begin the game in some nondescript, dilapidated prison in fuckknowswhere? How the fuck did the Point Man end up there? Why is he there, beyond the fact that he is, just before you start playing, under custody of ATC goons? Just where the fuck is this place in relation to Fairport, the same location where all the shit was hitting the fan to begin with?
- The perk system is delivered by the shitty, intrusive UI mentioned previously. And eventually you get every perk in the game and realize that you couldn't be arsed to play anymore.

C-

Absentia review (2011, Horror/Mystery/Thriller, Mike Flanagan, Fallback Plan Productions/Blue Dot Productions)

Seventy-thousand dollars, and we get this hidden gem.

Granted, that is an estimate as far as the web (IMDB's "Box Office" section for the film notes this) is concerned, but if there's a significant grain of truth in that number, then it's quite something. But you may be wondering just why I am harping on this point instead of getting to the point?

The point is that this film is remarkable given its barebones budget. Just think about it: George Romero produced the 1968 horror classic Night of the Living Dead on a $114,000 budget. I don't know what that figure is when you adjust for inflation, but it's quite a bit more than what Mike Flanagan, the director/writer of Absentia, had to work with, and this was done in 2011.

Regardless, the film excels in so many ways in spite of that heavily-restrictive budget. For one, it's a far cry from the typical cheap scares & tricks of the genre today. Instead, the film has a slow, but deliberate pacing to it, building the tension for you to experience throughout the film. When any "in your face" horror does appear, it is appropriate and not forced just to try and get a rise out of the audience.

There's also a bit of drama to experience as well. The premise is that Tricia (Courtney Bell, also involved in the production of the film), eight months pregnant, has nearly finished grieving over the loss of her highschool sweetheart & husband seven years prior. Or so she hopes to believe. When she has to declare him legally dead (in absentia), her guilt comes to haunt her. Her guilt takes on the form of an emaciated, ghoulish-looking image of her husband. As for the reason she's seeing him, it is left up to the viewer's interpretation. As for her situation that may be causing her emotional duress, she's pending delivery of her unborn baby, and creeping unease is haunting her over the course of the film; could she feel guilty for having slept with a man while her husband was still missing? Does she feel that her husband, her teenage-sweetheart, should have been the father? Or could she truly be over the grieving process regarding her loss? That's for you to decide.

In the meantime, her younger sister Callie (Katie Parker) has returned from her status as a drifter searching for answers as to the meaning of life, among other things. Apparently recovering from drug abuse and trying to cope with her own problems through prayer, Callie nonetheless reignites the sister-sister bond with Tricia in their respective times of need. Supportive of her sister when she needs her most, Callie is an important piece of the puzzle in the plot of the film.

However, as time goes on, disappearances occur in their immediate neighborhood, and old cases open up anew, bringing tingling questions with them. To go on further, though, would be to spoil the film unjustly.

First of all, there's no elaborate special effects to be found throughout the film. If you're one of those viewers who needs spectacular visual displays to occur at one point or another, then you're going to be gravely disappointed in this one. Also, as I've mentioned, the film has a deliberate, prodding pace, and it may bore the less attentive of viewers quite a bit. Unlike most horror films ever made, Absentia presents the horror elements through tense buildup, and rather clever release (monsters showing up & other engaging scenes) sparsely.

You're also likely not going to feel like the film has been resolved. What really happened by the end of the film? Did people really disappear without a trace, or did they run away for a life anew? Is there a message, a theme overlying the plot of the film that could explain the rash of people in absentia? What about the thing in the tunnel?

Admirably, the plot is actually rather semi-linear, in that it presents alternate threads throughout the events that unfold. Some may take this as the filmmakers lacking confidence in the storyline they were writing, but I think the filmmakers were rather trying to give the audience the means to come to their own interpretation(s). It's something that is sorely lacking in this overburdened genre that lacks true tension and creativity. Remember when horror was both stunning and surprising? Yeah, it's been a long ass time.

I enjoyed the minimalistic soundtrack as well. There's a low, downbeat dark ambient tune that plays throughout most of the film, and it helps establish the mysterious mood that permeates its duration. A few scenes break what could have been a monotonous soundtrack with light rock songs, cleverly integrated into the activities the characters are actually engaging in (in one scene, Callie is jogging while listening to a track on her MP3 player; a little later, she takes off her headphones and the song dies down). 

Couple the intelligent brand of horror, the open-ended plotline, the down-to-earth characters, and the minimalistic but appropriate soundtrack, Absentia is a showcase of what to do with a horror film, no matter the budget & personnel limitations. Those latter two elements of film-making are not good excuses for churning out recycled crap that generates so much mockery of this genre that possesses enormous opportunities.

B+

The Good:

+ Down-to-earth, obscure actors present believable, at-times sympathetic performances.

+ In spite of the miniscule budget, there seemed to be a very natural, stress-free approach taken to the film. Nothing is overly forced or hammy.

+ A subtle breed of horror that builds tension, then shocks the audience without abusing such things for spectacle sake.

+ Open-ended, semi-linear plotline that is open to interpretation.

+ No overt special effects.

The Bad:

- May leave some viewers unsatisfied with the ending.

The Thing Review (2011)(SPOILERS)

There's little imagination to be found here. While it didn't have the huge shoes to fill that a sequel would, it didn't serve much justice as a prequel, either. The audience of the Carpenter original didn't need to be brought up to speed as to the creature's origins; it was established right at the beginning sequence. This review is only intended for others who have watched the film, because it has spoilers.

I had a problem with the in-your-face nature of how the Thing went about its practices. Most daunting was how it was so illogical; it attacked people often when they were surrounded by others, even when armed with weapons it must have realized at a point could kill it in a painful, hot way. It wasn't subtle, it didn't 'scan' the area for vantage points or hiding spots in case it screws up its assimilation attempts (in Carpenter's film, the dog thing goes about the camp, finding out the layout of the place, and listens in on the crew members and finds out how it can go about its activities).

The beginning of the film was better than the ending, even though the ending is
spot-on, faithful to how the canonical sequel began (the man with the slit throat, the split-face corpse, the bloodied axe embedded into the wall, and the block of ice with a large opening are all present). Indeed, the beginning of the film, all 20 or so minutes of it, gives a feeling of some mystery, like, "what is this thing? Where is it from?" However, that is thrown out the window the moment it literally leaps into action and begins its assault on the crew members without a care in the world what happens. Surely the creature would be as weary of foreign lifeforms as the humans are (except for the Sanders character, who was unbelievably naive and should I say, stupid); why would it choose to throw itself into possible danger like that? Oh, that's right, the writers of the film wouldn't have a movie if they gave it more of a dimension than what it ended up having, because they had little imagination.

The characters were virtually card-board cutouts, most of them soulless or lacking of any depth to make them interesting. There was some paranoia development between the characters, I'll give the film this merit, but it didn't have the same feel as the sequel. Plus, why bother being paranoid about people when for little reason, the Thing assimilates someone completely random with no indication as to why, where, or how the person became a victim. I did like this film's own take on the identity test, which relied on, get this, tooth fillings. There actually was some logic to be found in this little plot device, as when it tried to assimilate a person (unsuccessfully I might add), it rejected a metal leg plate during the process because it was inorganic. That's a simple AND clever plot device and it is a plus for the film. However, this is one of the elements of the film that gives it the classification of "remake", seeing as it borrowed many elements from Carpenter's film, as if the design team of the film had nothing else to go on.

Atmosphere is a helpful way to give a film identity, and this film doesn't disappoint, for the most part. It doesn't help that the creature takes no liberties, doesn't seem to hatch any effective plan to take people over, and that even when it goes about its business, there's always people right there to burn it to death. There is a lot of tension during these moments, but the film is chock full of them that it doesn't allow for much ambiance, any breaks from action, which in Carpenter's film were used to great effect thanks to Morricone's stunning soundtrack. While I forgot the name of the person responsible for this film's soundtrack, it was rather forgettable other than the remix of "Humanity" heard at the end sequence, which sounded too much like the original anyway.

CGI was heavily used in this film. It didn't bother me, though, because I've come to accept this method of film effects (except for some cases. 'Deep Blue Sea', I'm looking at you!). Frankly, they were well done, but they didn't have the visceral feel that Rob Bottin's creations from the Carpenter film had. Indeed, many of the mutations were unoriginal or uninspired; Bottin had things like flesh flowers, a huge set of dinosaur-like teeth inside of one's chest, massive deformed-looking claws, a huge skull of what looked like a huge and mean looking dog, and many other things. This Thing almost always had a set of octopus jaws in the chest of the host, and crab-like claws. That's about all that I could say of it because the creature design was decent at best.

In closing, this is a decent film, but it doesn't add anything new to The Thing canon. There was little imagination, it made way too many nods to the Carpenter original, and character development and interaction was, in most cases, nonexistent. And the creature, while still as scary as ever because of its shape-shifting abilities and the way it mutates, is made one-dimensional and somewhat boring. Paranoia is still there, but there's nothing else to speak of. I guess the only real upside to this film is that it'll expose this canon to more people, and might invigorate some interest in it to generate a possible sequel. However, because of the ambiguous nature of the ending of Carpenter's film, it'll be hard to fill such shoes.

C+

+ Does have some faith to the Carpenter film

+ Retains some of the paranoia you'd think people would feel in such a situation

+ CGI is not bad, but it isn't spectacular, either

+ The beginning gives some sense of wonderment 

- Doesn't try anything really new, but does have some twists

- Too many nods to the original

- Monster behavior, and the situations where it attacks, are illogical

- Forgettable soundtrack and the atmosphere is almost nullified by the constant action

- Not as scary as it is gory and intense. In that case, it is more of a sci-fi thriller than a sci-fi horror film.

Additional note: Congrats on the clever identity test method, guys.