Reviews

I was happy to discover as I entered 'Theater 2' this afternoon, that there were very few people attending this movie besides me. With my buddy we numbered six, no joke, but you can laugh anyway because we sure did.

And we didn't laugh to make the experience any less frightening, we did it to get some entertainment out of this dead horse. Actually, seeing a real dead horse probably would've scared me more than this film.

It's nice watching a movie like this if a halfway decent actor shows up, and luckily one did eventually (Ian Somerhalder), though his performance wasn't all that wonderful. But, hell, compared to the other actors he was a deity.

Kristen Bell leads the show in this depressing, dimly shot flick. And she likes to gaze away, stare intently at someone/something, or pretend she actually cares about whatever's gobbling up her stereotypical college friends (and the whole city for that matter) like candy corn.

"Red tape keeps them out. I don't know why" Her emo boyfriend says through a sticky note pasted onto a generous amount of the adhesive stuff inside of his social security box. What does it keep out? Why the ghosts of course. Or are they some sorta electronic frequency? In the end, it doesn't matter. The spirit/virus/signal/pulse/horror movie cliché wants to suck everyone into the underworld, and I don't mean the one Kate Beckinsale lives in. You're better off accepting the ghost-things as typical evil monsters than trying to figure them out, because once you do come to a conclusion, like I did, you'll realize that it DOES NOT matter what they are because they still devour people in this movie all the same.

However, as one of Kristen's friend's points out, the ghosts want life again and will try to "infect" you in an attempt to get it back. Neat concept.

That's why it had already been done to death in countless movies before...

My real question for this movie is why there are apparently only evil ghosts. Are we all supposed to become spiteful, pale demons that prey upon our living kindred when we die? This, too, doesn't really matter at all.

There are plenty of "Boo!" scares and some weird images, but this isn't anything new. The horror franchise thrives on that stuff.

After the long opening credits (think of "Firewall") the movie unfolds with a scene that looks very much like it belonged in the *middle* of the movie. Wes Craven thinks he's clever by sllllloooooowwwwwwlllllyyy revealing one little answer after another and tries explaining this awkward beginning to keep the audience from going "Huh?" most of the time.

He also cannot write dialogue to save his life, or maybe that was his non-Japanese partner whose name you will read in place of Kiyoshi Kurosawa's like the movie's main page here on IMDb advertises.

All this adds up to is another force-fed Hollywood plot that left me feeling as empty as the depressed characters in this movie.

Maybe the ghosts got to me? If they did I guess they panicked and left me alone after they realized how bland of a movie I was watching.

"Why do I care about any of this?" is a good thing to remember throughout this film. Nothing is worth figuring out because you, and the movie, won't give a care by the end of it all.

Just a waste of time. 4/10

Just in time for the New Year audiences have been treated to a remake of the classical King Kong, directed by The Lord of the Rings famous Peter Jackson.

And what a ride he has taken audiences on this time.

King Kong boasts absolutely every form of genre possible at one time or another during its mighty 3-hour running time. During this extensive show the audience is introduced to Ann Darrow (Watts), a struggling actress in the early thirties, Carl Denham (Black), a desperate and virtue-less director, and Jack Driscoll (Brody), a famous screenplay writer.

Early on in the film, the world as it was in America during the 1930's is portrayed accurately. Poverty is not uncommon and the theory of "the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer" is apparent. It is in this beginning that Ann Darrow and Carl Denham meet on their destined paths and set out for the cursed Skull Island, dragging a reluctant Jack Driscoll with them who becomes "caught up" in the chaos to say the least.

For the first hour or so of Kong, a beautiful love story is told that never quite meets in full blossom (due to the arrival on Skull Island) between Ann and Jack. All of the members of the crew have unique personalities and are not forgotten (until later, that is) in the main story, including Lumpy (Andy Serkis) who proves to steal nearly every scene he is in with a mixture of comedy and loyalty to his fellow crewmen.

However, upon making a crash landing on Skull Island, the film speeds up dramatically into what can only be described as "Uber Action Mode" and from there the movie goes insane.

Characters halt any chance of development, excluding Ann who gradually grows to understand Kong. Eye-pooping CGI scenes assault the audience at every turn with immense and exciting battle scenes that would have been perfect if not for the utter unrealism (a scene involving stampeding is very prominent in my mind).

One by one the once immense group of men (and one woman) are picked off by bizarre and colorful beasts that too are created through CGI. Kong's greatest weakness is the abandonment of many characters and the overuse of CGI which hinders any chance of allowing for the imagination to come even close to believing what the audience sees.

I admit, King Kong is definitely one of the stronger films of 2005, if sheerly for its popcorn and entertainment value. As an adventure/action film it has almost no rivals, but as a drama, the cut-out of characters drops sympathy levels for humans and Kong alike just short of being good.

I highly recommend this film to lovers of Adventure/Action, Suspense, Sci-fi, Fantasy, and perhaps even Horror (if watching beasts take down the helpless humans appeals that is).

If you are a fan of films that delve into a bit more realism, such as having less CGI and more attempts at robot or puppet creatures, or you would like characters to remain more prominent in personality rather than cannon fodder for death, you may want to look elsewhere or just give this one a rent.

7/10 Stars Another Peter Jackson work of wonder.

Ouch. I find it very rare that a movie comes about that has no apparent intention of being good, nor pulling in a crowd for that matter.

Of course this could be because it's a TV film.

We join our heroes, the Navy Seals as they pursue some rather naughty terrorists to a lush volcanic island in the middle of nowhere. Soon after arriving on the bit of land we are introduced to a lame one-liner leader and a group of passive raptors that only strike those who scream very loudly and fire their guns inaccurately.

The terrorists soon garner pity and then sad looks of disgust as one by one they are devoured and reduced to small piles of stained leaves and shoes. Sometimes not even that! The raptors have grown so hungry that clothing and combat boots seem just as appetizing as flesh.

Then there's the fact that they aren't raptors at all...., but actually small lizards exposed to chemicals that have made them big and immortal against the 70+ rounds that barrage their bodies, spraying up fun amounts of CGI gore.

The already stinking pot of this film gains more ingredients as the stupidity progresses. Raptors stand and take the abuse of hundreds of shells without so much as a flinch and people act like abandoned infants that need their diapers changed.

If you are a fan of terribly produced horror flicks like myself, you'll enjoy a campy romp through a somewhat engaging atmosphere chocked full of jokes and MSTing.

But, fairly ye be warned if you've come across this film looking for decency.

2/10