Archive | March, 2012

Review of Julie & Julia (2009)

31 Mar

Julie & Julia (2009) is a biography/romance/dramedy film about the real-life chef Julia Child and a blogger Julie Powell.

Directed by Nora Ephron (This Is My Life (1992), Bewitched (2005)).

Written by Nora Ephron (Silkwood (1983), Hanging Up (2000)).

Starring: Meryl Streep, Amy Adams, Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina, Jane Lynch and others.

You might ask why I’m reviewing this movie? Well, because in a way it is a horror movie. It’s about a huge and demented Meryl Streep destroying lives… sort of.

Right at the start I have to say that I totally understand that I am not the target demographic for this movie, but then again, I think a good movie can be enjoyed by anyone. However, I definitely did not.

The movie is split into two storylines. One is about Julia Child becoming a cook and writing a cook-book in the 50’s. And the other one is about Julie some-last-name, who is writing a blog about cooking everything in Child’s cook-book. Isn’t that an exciting premise? No, it is not. Due to having these two storylines it is way too long for a romantic comedy. And too short for a biographical drama.

Main problem of this movie is that neither Julia or Julie are likable. Julia is just loud, obsessive, insensitive, self-centered and overall obnoxious, although Meryl Streep does make her at times charming and the tallness is definitely done very convincingly. And Julie is a whiny, obsessive, self-centered and hysterical bitch. No wonder Julie idolizes Julia that much.

When Julie starts her blog she writes that she doesn’t know if anyone reads her posts. What kind of blog site is she using? And you’d think that her being a blogger would have helped me identify with her, but I really don’t care about a relatively wealthy 30-year-old woman, who is obsessed with Julia Child and moaning all the time with tears in her eyes. She is a person I would hate in real life. To give her credit she does admit she is a bitch.

So I was left to identify with the husbands, who are in both cases very supportive, normal and nice and have egocentric wives.

Closest I got to an emotional response was when I started feeling hungry or that one scene when the characters are watching a funny SNL sketch on TV.

It is in a way a success story, but it lacks any impact. Oh, you live in a cool apartment in New York and have enough money to keep making these exquisite foods every day? That’s so awful, I hope you’ll get a publishing deal, so you can start living a normal life.

Overall, this movie is shit. Not entertaining, not moving, not funny, not worth seeing.

"Yeah, that's right, what's for dinner, you self-absorbed bitch?"


Review of Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

29 Mar

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) is slasher/horror/thriller film and the fourth entry in the Halloween franchise.

Directed by Dwight H. Little (Tekken (2010), Marked for Death (1990)), best-known for his work on various hit TV shows.

Written by Alan B. McElroy (Spawn (1997), Wrong Turn (2003)).

Starring: Donald Pleasance, Danielle Harris, Ellie Cornell, George P. Wilbur, Kathleen Kinmont and others.

No more picking up the next day after the previous one. This one picks up 10 years after the original and it’s cool that it is in like real-time, since 10 actual years have passed. This rather long period of time leads to Raymond O’Connor playing some security guard, who recaps the previous movies in an everyday conversation manner, which was just painful to watch. Not a good sign, when the first couple of minutes are hard to watch.

But then we hear again one of my favourite movie themes and after the Silver Shamrock song in Season Of The Witch, it’s like …um, music… to my ears.

So Michael Myers is kept in some sanitarium and is in coma (or is he just waiting?) and two things strike me as very odd about this. First is that how come Sam Loomis, who has been trying to kill him so desperately is ok with him just being kept there. Wouldn’t he try to somehow get the job done? And the second is that given how Michael can survive being shot at a bunch of times and getting burned and stuff, wouldn’t some medical scientists be interested in what keeps this guy going?

Of course Michael doesn’t stay in coma, which results in Sam Loomis going after him again and now we really get to see Loomis’ obsession with Michael. I didn’t really care for his character too much in the previous ones, but here I thought Donald Pleasance was just awesome. Oh, and guess on which day of the year do they decide to transport Michael and he wakes up? Halloween? Nope. The night before. Dodged a hugely improbable plot convenience right there, huh?

Danielle Harris is the cutest little girl ever. I usually hate children in movies, but Harris is adorable. And growing up she hasn’t changed much. Sometimes child stars grow up and look just weird, but she’s as hot now as she was cute then. Harris’ character is Laurie Strode’s daughter and she has an amazing hereditary trait – she is having nightmares about Michael, who she has never seen in her life.

By the way, other kids laugh about her being an orphan. Really? Is that a common thing? I mean, it’s not like she lives in an orphanage, she has a family, her clothes are nice and everything. The fact of someone being an orphan isn’t funny at any age, there’s just not that much to it. You don’t have parents. Being adopted is at least a bit funny, having no parents is not. I don’t want to read too much into a slasher movie, but I think little kids psychologically wouldn’t find not having parents funny, because we all have this fear of suddenly losing parents.

Here, watching one of the most basic horror movie clichés – lightning storm during dramatic moments, I realised that I’ve never actually seen lightning bolt light up a room in real life.

I actually kind of loved the ending, although it wouldn’t really work out if they went for the idea, it’s just like the same thing in two of the Friday the 13th movies.

Overall, it’s not bad, but Halloween movies have this problem of taking themselves seriously when they are not and ending up not all that entertaining. Still, I recommend it, even though it was a bit bland.

"Hey, Michael! I brought this gun here, I know they don't do shit for you, but don't I look like Dirty Harry or something?"

Review of Häxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages (1922)

27 Mar

Häxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages (1922) is a Danish/Swedish silent horror/documentary film, that shows how superstition led to witch-hunting.

Directed by Benjamin Christensen (House of Horror (1929), Mockery (1927)).

Written by Benjamin Christensen (The Devil’s Circus (1926), Seven Footprints to Satan (1929)).

Starring: Benjamin Christensen, Clara Pontoppidan, Oscar Stribolt, Astrid Holm, Maren Pedersen and others.

So this early horror classic is actually a weird documentary consisting of various ways of portraying witchcraft myths and truths, while adding up to a creepy piece of silent cinema.

There are some strange illustrations while some facts about the way authorities have dealt with witches are told. This feels like an odd educational film for kids, that kids shouldn’t be watching.

When we actually get to the live-action stuff, they show both the portrayal of people thinking everything is black magic and re-enactments of the myths about witches. The movie has a sort of dark sense of humor as it shows us witchcraft rituals that might ask for a figurative interpretation. Like „all the witches had to kiss devil’s behind” gives us a rather amusing sight of witches lining up behind the devil (played by the director in make-up), who has bent over. I don’t think the filmmakers took these parts too seriously themselves.

Seeing this early example I noticed that often I’ve seen monks portrayed as morbidly obese, gross pigs, eating like whole  cow-legs. Does that mean they are corrupt or just into gluttony? I guess the first option is better since corruption is not a deadly sin. Here the monks are total assholes and one example of a witch-myth actually made sense. Why did this fat monk just rape some girl? Of course! A witch must have slipped him some love potion.

Another great example is a totally absurd way of making sure if a girl is a witch. You tie her up and throw her in the water. If she comes up, it means she is a witch and they kill her, if she does not and drowns, then you should thank God for her innocence. One thing is for sure, they knew a fool-proof plan, when they came up with one. It is an interesting commentary on how people afraid of some things actually create the myths about the existence of such things.

At times I felt like the movie is just throwing examples and concepts at me, but doesn’t do anything with them, they’re just there and don’t lead anywhere. After a while I started wondering what’s the point of all this. I get that people were gullible and stupid, move on!

Some of the imagery is really creepy and for 1920’s the make-up and costumes are pretty decent. Out of the context those scenes are even nightmarishly unsettling. Back then the audiences must have been terrified by this stuff.

Then there’s some presentations of various torture devices, they just show them to you, tell you what they do and almost show you them in action. Sounds boring, but actually was my favourite part, because it is done in the classic horror movie way. They set up how they work and just before you see them deliver the crippling they cut away and you’re left there imagining what did happen.

I wonder why nowadays there are so few mainstream witch movies? I guess we are so PC that they would be instantly considered sexist. Yet having the lead of a vampire/werewolf movie be a blank, selfish and unlikable human girl isn’t a disservice to women.

The score is really great, having some nice classical pieces, like one of my favourites – Beethoven’s „Moonlight Sonata”. On the other hand I’m not sure if they aren’t just randomly thrown on or do they in fact add to the idea of scenes.

Also it concludes with some scenes showing how the alleged „witchcraft” is now recognized as various mental illnesses and they are being treated instead of persecuted.

Overall, it is an interesting piece of cinema history and I would recommend it as such, but it doesn’t really work as conventional movie due to the constant changes of narrative style and it doesn’t work as a documentary, because it spends too much time on just dramatically portraying various myths. Still, recommended for enthusiasts of cinema history, other than that it doesn’t offer much for a modern viewer.


Pictured: Probably the illustration for the phrase "what the fuck?" in the Danish dictionary.

Review of Freddy Vs. Jason (2003)

24 Mar

Freddy Vs. Jason (2003) is a slasher/horror/thriller film, which is the crossover of the A Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday the 13th film franchises.

Directed by Ronny Yu (The 51st State (2001), Fearless (2006)).

Written by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (Friday the 13th (2009)).

Starring: Robert Englund, Ken Kirzinger, Monica Keena, Jason Ritter, Kelly Rowland, Chris Marquette and others.

Ah, yes. This is a special review for me since it concludes both the Friday the 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street film reviews. That is, of course, until they decide to make a sequel to any of the remakes.

Jason Goes To Hell left us with a promise of Freddy Krueger going against Jason Voorhees and then ten years passed until we actually got it. I’m kind of surprised it happened at all, because the only other modern big franchise crossover I can think of is AVP: Alien vs. Predator a year later and I don’t really have much good to say about that.

Then we get some insight into Jason’s psychology as Freddy has a plan to get Jason out of hell (which isn’t all that hard) and make him do his dirty work so people would start fearing him again. So he disguises himself as Jason’s mom and starts realizing this contrived plot.

I wish they would’ve let Kane Hodder play Jason, this one doesn’t look quite right. Sure, Ken Kirzinger is tall as shit, but there’s nothing some platform shoes couldn’t fix. Maybe they got that lanky geek to make the scene, where Jason can’t pull his machete out of a table more believable. Also for me there’s only one Pamela Voorhees and that’s Betsy Palmer.

It’s surprisingly not anywhere near as gimmicky and comedic as I had imagined it, but I guess it helps to make the movie more believable since it is about a guy killing people in their dreams teaming up and then going against a guy who is an almost invincible zombie retard, that kills people with a machete, and they both get out of hell.

Where did Freddy find out about Jason? Is there a message board in hell that says „most awaited serial killers”, or did he notice him in the 80’s-slashers-with-declining-quality-sequels meetings?

Every slasher movie has some bad acting, but since here two slasher franchise come together we get one of the worst I’ve ever seen in the body of Kerry Rowland from Destiny Child. She is so awful I kept hoping she would die already, but no, she fucking stays almost until the very end. And her playing an incredibly unlikable character doesn’t help either. Also at one point she basically calls Freddy a faggot in a Christmas sweater. Not cool.

The CGI is mostly bad and I don’t know why it was necessary. It hit the bottom with some lame CG Freddy maggot creatures.

Most of the movie Jason turns up from time to time, kills someone and slides back into the shadows, so it’s mostly A Nightmare On Elm Street. But on the other hand, the filmmakers seemed to favor Jason a bit more.

This movie has the same thing that really surprised me in Rob Zombie’s Halloween II, I mean, seriously? There’s two guys who think it is a good idea to make fun of a six-foot five guy in a hockey mask. You can afford it if you know, for example, some kung fu, but not if you’re just a drunk and stoned moron.

It goes into a bit of overexplaining itself, having the characters come up with exactly what happened going through some absurd leaps of logic, which would be all fine and dandy if we hadn’t seen it happen in the movie in the hour before.

When Jason starts going against Freddy (or is it the other way around?) we are presented a curious case of Jason being afraid of water. What? Was this inspired by the stupid ending of Jason Takes Manhattan? Does it matter that Jason has gone willingly into water a shitload of times before?  He’s even spent years in a lake. I guess it doesn’t.

The showdown between Freddy and Jason still might be one of the best things ever brought to screen and makes sitting through the rest of the movie worth it.

Overall, mostly painfully bland and mediocre, but not insultingly bad. Recommended, if only to see Jason and Freddy’s epic fight.

"Smile, Robert!"
"Oh, I'll smile, but don't think I forgot about your faggot remarks, you bitch."

Review of Jason X (2001)

22 Mar

Jason X (2001) is a slasher/sci-fi/thriller film and the 10th film in the Friday the 13th franchise.

Directed by James Isaac (The Horror Show (1989), Skinwalkers (2006)).

Written by Todd Farmer (Drive Angry (2011), Messengers 2: The Scarecrow (2009)).

Starring: Kane Hodder, Lisa Ryder, Lexa Doig, David Cronenberg, Barna Moritz, Todd Farmer and others.

So who had this brilliant idea? Where would Jason feel most out-of-place? In space! So there he goes. But let’s backtrack a bit.

We start with him being shackled in some military/science facility. It might sound not too far-fetched, but trust me, it doesn’t make any fucking sense. Have they seen any of the previous films? So there he is all fine, just standing there, with his now fuzzy hair and weird-looking hockey mask. Then he kills a bunch of people and is free, he has pulled a machete out of his ass and all, when he is frozen.

A couple of hundred years later he is found by some people and he wakes up in what looks like a bad SyFy channel movie. I thought just seeing Jason in the age of CGI is weird, but seeing him in the 25th century on a spaceship, is a bit too much.

There’s some nice kills, like smashing of a frozen face or an homage to the classic sleeping bag kill, but most of the time I was at a constant cringe state. Mostly due to the acting, the robot chick was just unbearable.

But despite it’s blatant stupidity and ridiculous concept, it is kind of fun and entertaining movie, if not in the traditional, then in the so-bad-it’s-good sense. I hate to admit I enjoyed something as awful as this, but I sort of did.

If I had to describe this in movie in comparison to another one, I’d say it is a brightly lit Alien with Jason as the monster, unlikable characters and no suspense. So basically it’s nothing like Alien. And if that is the benchmark of space horror, then you can see what’s the problem here. You rarely get a slasher flick in space, but if this is it, then it’s not a great loss.

The gore is decent at times, but it lacks any Friday the 13th feel to it, since the spaceship is like Star Trek sterile. There’s barely any nudity.

You sure can’t blame the filmmakers for not trying anything new, but you can blame them for trying the most idiotic new thing possible.

Apparently Jason isn’t so bullet resistant in the future, since they manage to shoot his extremities off. And a minute later we get a cyborg-Jason. Even in this movie, it seemed pretty damn ridiculous. He looks kind of cool, but at the same time totally fucking idiotic.

While a character is in danger, she says „this sucks on so many levels”, clever right? See how she got her little review of Jason X in the movie? That’s some meta-humor right there. Unless she’s just referring to the fact that she is being sucked into space.

The best part of the movie might be a little sequence of Jason walking into a simulation of 80’s in the woods. You feel some sweet nostalgia and then you get the rest of the stupid movie.

Overall, it is ridiculous and idiotic, looks cheap and has bad acting, but I’d recommend seeing it, just because I think this is something that you just have to see to believe it and you might have some fun as well.

Pictured: Even Jason feels nostalgia.

Review of The Happening (2008)

20 Mar

The Happening (2008) is a mystery/sci-fi/thriller film. It is about people trying to get away from a neurotoxin that makes you commit suicide.

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (Wide Awake (1998), Unbreakable (2000)).

Written by M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense (1999), Stuart Little (1999)).

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, Joey Leguizamo, Ashlyn Sanchez, Frank Collison and others.

This is a movie that shows that Shyamalan is better in small amounts. After The Sixth Sense the quality of his movies keeps decreasing and now he has become more of a punchline in a joke about twist endings than a respectable filmmaker. I just don’t understand what the hell he was thinking when making this movie.

The writing is stunningly bad. As I was listening to the dialogue I felt like I’ve missed some class in human communication, called „Numbingly stupid conversations”. I just don’t see how someone could write these ridiculous lines and think „yeah, ‘hotdogs got a bad rep’ that sounds natural”.

There’s barely a chance for any actor to redeem the awful script, but Zooey Deschanel and Mark Wahlberg are not the ones to try. Deschanel is cast for reasons I cannot fathom. You know, because which hipster chick who is actually a musician and has been in some comedies can’t do convincing dramatic acting?

And Wahlberg? Can someone please explain to me, what exactly was he doing? I just didn’t get it. And him talking to a plastic plant didn’t help that either. He has some acting experience, how didn’t he realize that he is talking utter nonsense? The best I can describe it is, if Forest Gump somehow got through college and became a science teacher, he would talk like Wahlberg here. You know, still retarded.

I like John Leguizamo, but I’m sometimes surprised by either his choice of roles or him getting cast in those roles. Here he plays a character that could be summarized as latino-teacher-dad. It didn’t require a guy who played that clown thing in Spawn. In this movie his just a bit neurotic and compared to the other actors isn’t bad.

There’s a little reference to Psycho. And I started wishing I was watching that instead of this. Alfred Hitchcock liked twists as well, but on his worst day he wouldn’t make The Happening.

Could everyone stop saying the word „happening”? It is repeated like… enough times, to have a drinking game.

The actions of characters are also very peculiar. They have interesting ideas like hanging around on a porch with an 8-year-old girl, looking at the two guys who just been shot on it, I guessed they used up their running limit on that scene a couple of minutes earlier when they were running from the wind.

It sort of has a twist ending, although it is stupid and not surprising at all.

Overall, one of the most ridiculous mainstream movies I’ve ever seen. It’s just stupid. Not recommended, except if you want to watch this with some friends (preferably while drinking) and laugh about it.

Pictured: Wahlberg slowly realising what kind of movie he's in. (Also my expression while watching it)

Review of Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)

18 Mar

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993) is a slasher/horror/thriller film and the… ninth film in the Friday the 13th franchise.

Directed by Adam Marcus (Snow Days (1999), Conspiracy (2008)).

Written by Jay Huguely (Silk Stalkings (1991 TV), Magnum, P.I. (1980 TV)) and Dean Lorey (My Boyfriend’s Back (1993), Major Payne (1995)).

Starring: Kane Hodder, Steven Williams, John D. LeMay, Steven Culp, Erin Grey, Rusty Schwimmer and others.

So here we start with no clue of how Jason came back from New York considering the state he was in at the end of the last film. His appearance is also for some reason changed, now he has a huge bulbous head in which the mask is pressed in and has some long strands of hair. The big city must’ve changed him.

A few minutes into the movie Jason is shot a shitload of times and then blown to pieces. Let’s stop here and think of what a person who has watched Jason going on a killing spree seven (six, if you don’t count A New Beginning) times before wants to see. Well, Jason might just be one of those things, but what do they do? You guessed it, they fucking blow up Jason and don’t show him until the last 5 minutes.

Since Kane Hodder barely gets to be in the movie, he gets a little cameo as some kind of police officer/special forces guy and ironically gets killed by Jas…black coroner guy, who is possessed by Jason. That’s right, in this movie Jason is possessing people. I could deal with him being a super-strong retard, could handle him as a zombie, could watch him go against a telekinetic chick, but him possessing people? I’m sorry, but that is stretching it.

When I heard the title I actually thought Jason is going to be „killing” people in hell (don’t know how that works), but no, we get Jason the body snatcher. So most of the movie I kept thinking „fuck, I really wish Jason was in this movie”. But he just keeps getting shot and changing to various people, he is fucking T-1000 from Terminator 2.

Steven Williams is pretty bad-ass in this as this Jason hunter guy. John D. LeMay isn’t bad as the reluctant hero and Steven Culp was quite menacing when he got the Jason bug.

There’s a scene of random camping teenagers, one of which is quite likable, but she dies a couple of minutes later. Also in the same unimportant scene we get to see some tits and a guy shows his ass. So there’s something for the ladies too. While on the subject, the body changing is quite odd and involves some not very vague homoerotic kissing.

Nudity and gore always go hand in hand and here we get one of the coolest effects in the whole series. It’s a guy melting. Sounds great? No? Well, it is.

It is a well-made movie, but why did they think this would appeal to the fans to the series I do not know. I did however enjoy the last half hour of it. It had action, gore, even a bit of Jason, both as his usual self and a weird little puppet which looks like Jason and a chestburster from Alien had a child.

If was watching it back in 1993 and then at the end saw Freddy grabbing Jason’s mask I’d be damn excited and then totally pissed for having to wait 10 fucking years for a crossover, which isn’t even good, but I’ll get to that.

It’s nice of them to try to do something new with the franchise, but A New Beginning should have been a lesson that almost having Jason is not good enough.

Overall, I don’t think it is as bad as one would be led to think, but some really bad choices had been made during the production. That being said, I would actually recommend this one, though mostly to people who are not fans of Jason.

Oh, yeah, because punching Jason has worked so well before.

Review of The Omen (1976)

16 Mar

The Omen (1976) is a horror/mystery/thriller film, continuing the trend kick-started by The Exorcist, dealing with various incarnations of evil, often involving children.

Directed by Richard Donner (16 Blocks (2006), Superman (1978)), known for inventing the modern superhero film and the buddy cop film franchise Lethal Weapon.

Written by David Seltzer (Dragonfly (2002), My Giant (1998)), interestingly, he also wrote the 2006 remake of The Omen.

Starring: Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, David Warner, Harvey Stephens, Billie Whitelaw and others.

“Look at me Damien! It’s all for you.” says a nanny before hanging herself and smashing through a window. This and a few other scenes might just be some of the most memorable moments of horror cinema, which is why this movie is regarded as a classic. In this case it is totally deserved. I often use this particular quote randomly in everyday conversations, that must count for something.

Damien, the six-year-old antichrist played by Harvey Stephens isn’t all that active in the movie, except for a scene where he starts punching and scratching his mother for taking him to the church. This could be considered a reasonable reaction. What kid enjoys going to church? This movie must have reduced the number of newborn children being named Damien. For some reason it seems a very appropriate name.

Gregory Peck in this movie has decided that he won’t actually do emotions, unless the situation is very extreme. You’re wife falls from the second floor, breaks everything in her body and is put in the hospital. Peck just puts on a little frown as if to say “well, she isn’t dead, now is she?”. Peck’s hair seems to change its grayness  in certain scenes, drawing my attention to the fact that nowadays the possibility of a 60-year-old man being the star of a horror movie is rather small.

When a priest turns to Peck’s character to say his child is evil, he is quite unbelieving and understandably so, since it’s hard to trust a priest when another one slipped you the devil six years ago.

Richard Donner seems very confident with directing, which is not surprising, considering the 15 years of doing various tv series before this movie.

The score is just brilliant, over the years there’s been countless imitations.  The choral parts in latin and blasting orchestral score really got my heart pounding leading on the second best death of the film. But I must admit that at times the powerful score was a bit too much for me.

The undoubtedly best death is when a character loses his head in the most amazing slow motion decapitation scene I’ve ever seen, which is caused by an improbable and elaborate string of  events. It might have inspired the whole Final Destination gimmick.

Besides just the shenanigans with the little rascal Damien at the Thorn house, what aids the movie greatly is the far more interesting subplot, where a photographer starts figuring out that something isn’t right.

I think this movies target audience is new parents (preferably adoptive), who might be terrified by the thought of their child turning out to be the antichrist himself.

There are many and beautiful locations, which seems odd for a movie with a budget this modest. Although they might have taken some shortcuts. For example when the characters are looking for a specific old church it turns out to be on the Old Church road. Suspiciously convenient, isn’t it?

The ending is nice, you might think it promises a sequel, but back then it wasn’t such a common practice. Of course that doesn’t mean there were no sequels.

Overall, a good, well-written, well-directed movie, really suspenseful and entertaining, takes itself seriously enough and I totally recommend it for everyone.

"Hello, I'm your son's new nanny, don't mind me, looking absolutely terrifying and showing up from nowhere."

Review of Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

14 Mar

Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989) is a slasher/horror/thriller film and you guessed it, the eight film in the Friday the 13th franchise.

Directed by Rob Hedden (Boxboarders! (2007), The Colony (1995)).

Written by Rob Hedden (Clockstoppers (2002), The Condemned (2007)).

Starring: Kane Hodder, Tiffany Paulsen, Kelly Hu, Peter Mark Richman, Jensen Daggett and others.

So we’re back again with the world’s most powerful retard in a hockey mask, played once again by Kane Hodder, who does bring some personality to Jason, especially in one of my favourite moments of the whole series, where some “punks” are listening to hip-hop and Jason walks past them and just fucking kicks away the radio, followed by him showing his disfigured face to scare the punks away. In a way it’s odd that Jason is self-conscious enough to know his face would scare people.

But this is way into the movie so let’s go back a bit. The idea of taking Jason out of the woods is ok, I mean haven’t we seen him slashing unsuspecting campers enough? But even though you can take Jason out of the woods, you can’t take the woods out of Jason as he still is pissed with random teenagers, just because one teenager years ago back at the lake chopped his mom’s head off. Geez, get over it, Jason. But he has not in fact got over it and he decides to get out of that damned lake again and go on with his usual routine.

4 minutes in we get some tits and ass, usually a good sign, both in an aesthetic way and meaning that somebody’s going to die real soon. So two teenagers are killed, because they decided to take a little boat trip on that same lake. Of course Jason gets a new hockey mask, because the boat owner had one on the boat, because who doesn’t?

So we meet our incredibly forgettable heroine, since the only thing I remember about her is that she got a gift from her teacher. To be fair it was a pretty cool gift – Stephen King’s pen. Useful fact: you can make Jason leave temporarily by stabbing him in the eye with it. And then she gets on a cruise ship with her classmates and teacher who is also her guardian.

After a short while it turns out that Jason is just floating somewhere in the water nearby New Jersey and he gets on the cruise ship – hilarious hijinks ensue.

We meet the only sort of interesting character J.J., played by Saffron Henderson, playing a guitar. No, not actually playing, movie-guitar-playing, which is the equivalent of lip-synching. Although she seems to have at least a slight idea of how to play. And of course she is the first one to die.

There’s a nice kill in the sauna involving a chest and a hot stone. Talking about hot, there is Kelly Hu and you might think that this movie helped to start her career, it might, but certainly not as much as her being, as previously mentioned, hot.

Jason’s habit of killing people one by one is greatly helped by the fact that the teenagers mostly hang out in ones and are the only people on the ship. I can tell from my experience that teenagers like to hang out in small groups at least and get drunk, but here there’s only one chick that’s doing coke. And wouldn’t having the whole ship to just the teenagers cost a shitload of money? I guess it’s cheaper because on this Titanic the crew consists of about four people, including the janitor.

After a while you start wondering if they’ll ever get to Manhattan, which allegedly Jason is taking. Does the trip from New Jersey to New York really take that long – forever in movie time?

When we get to NY it is actually pretty fun. Jason kicks a radio, gets from place to place in about a second and fucking punches a head off a guy’s neck!

This time Jason’s make-up is just awful, nothing like what it looked like in the previous film and it culminates in maybe the dumbest ending possible.

Overall, of course, it’s not good, but it is watchable and even though I said you should skip to this one in my previous review, I’d say skip this one as well, and if you have to choose from the two, then maybe you’re better off choosing Jason vs. Carrie instead.

Pictured: C-3PO as a zombie.

Review of Black Butterflies (2011)

11 Mar

Black Butterflies (2011) is a Dutch drama/romance/biography film about the life of South-African poet Ingrid Jonker.

Directed by Paula van der Oest (Moonlight (2002), Zus & zo (2001)).

Written by Greg Latter (Cyborg Cop (1993), Dangerous Ground (1997)).

Starring: Carice van Houten, Rutger Hauer, Liam Cunningham, Grant Swanby, Candice D’Arcy and others.

I can’t quite figure out why is Netherlands is making an English-language film about South-African poet, starring Dutch and Irish actors, but I don’t even give a shit, because this movie isn’t worth caring.

I kept wanting to see more Rutger Hauer, since he is the only reason I watched this movie. This is no Blade Runner so all you get is him sitting and being an asshole father of the main character. He is still great, but did not meet my expectations. Interestingly, after seeing this, he is still the only reason to watch this movie.

They use a line here, that reminded me of a better movie I could be watching – X2. At one point a character says „You’re beautiful, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise”, excuse me, but I prefer Ian McKellen saying this.

The main character is this young woman, a poet. It is hard to care about her, since there’s only a few seconds throughout the film, where she is not totally unlikable and stupid. Also you must possess a certain self-indulgent idiocy to write your own poetry all over your walls. That being said, I think Carice  van Houten did a great job portraying this horrible bitch.

But I have to ask what is the purpose of the film? Is it to show this despicable person writing half-decent poetry and having some social significance? In that case I think she would be better off as being remembered only by her poems. At the start of the film she is a spoiled bitch with daddy issues and by the end of it she is a psychotic bitch with suicidal tendencies. Am I supposed to feel sorry for her? I’ll never know.

It’s rated 12, but that is bullshit, it is an R movie, first of all I don’t think teenagers would like this movie anyway, it’s more for hipster chicks in their twenties, who would see a folk-heroine in Jonker. And even more than that, it has sexual overtones all over it, but of course they suppose putting an orchestral score to a sex scene and once in a while cutting to the poetry on the walls makes it tasteful and beautiful. No, it does not.

I can’t quite figure out why is Netherlands is making an English-language film about South-African poet, starring Dutch and Irish actors, but I don’t  even give a shit.

Overall, pretentious crap, a proof that not everyone’s life is worth to be made into a biopic. Not recommended, except if you really want to see Rutger Hauer being a mean daddy.

"I don't really need glasses. The moustache is also ironic. And I like Terrance Malick's movies."