Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes (82%)

Director: Hugh Hudson     Cast: Christopher Lambert, Ian Holm     Genre: Drama

Runtime: 137 minutes     Release Date: March 30th, 1984     Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

Greystoke is a modern day retelling of the classic story of Tarzan. Ok, fine, it's a mid 1980's retelling of the classic story of Tarzan. But it feels more modern than it actually is. In fact it comes off feeling like a movie that was made in the last decade or so (minus the CGI effects). It is a movie I grew up watching on television, but like so many movies from that era, it seemed to have disappeared from late night showings, early afternoon showings or virtually any time that I have ever flipped through the 100's of channels I have had over the last decade, or more.

As a movie I had watched when I was younger, over and over and over, can you imagine my excitement in finally getting to watch it again all these years later. This time though I got to watch it in a remastered version, without commercials interrupting it every few minutes and in all it's glorious widescreen beauty. And watch it I did, yesterday, and it had me glued to the television. 

When a ship crashes in Africa, the surviving members of the ship (a husband and wife) continue to live their lives near a family of apes. 10 months later they have a child, but when the mom dies from malaria the apes kill the dad and take the baby for themselves. The baby is Tarzan and he grows to adulthood, raised by the apes and eventually becoming their leader. When a british archaeology expedition is attacked, Tarzan saves the only surviving member. He teaches Tarzan to speak and about his origins and together they seek off after Tarzan's heritage. 

The Good:

Greystoke is an exceptionally well made film. Every aspect is brought to vivid life by everyone involved. Coming out in 1984 it is amazing how good the film looks today. So to discuss what's good about the film is rather hard to do as it was all pretty good. But I'll try anyways and discuss the things that have lingered in my mind since watching it.

First off the apes are amazing here. Sure they are guys in suits (I think) but you can't really tell. Designed by Rick Baker, the legendary man behind such movies as An American Werewolf in London and The Howling, the apes come off amazingly. They are so convincing and real that I am sure he just reused the same costumes and effects for Tim Burton when they collaborated on Planet of the Apes in 2001. Sure he touched up the make-up a bit, made it a bit more modern but otherwise the apes seem the same and the lead ape (Tarzan's ape father) would fit right in with the rest of the apes in Planet of the Apes. He even could be a dead ringer replacement for Tim Roth's Caesar. I didn't watch Planet of the Apes too long ago but I wasn't that impressed by what I saw. I guess what I am saying is that Greystoke has held up so much better in the make-up department and is justifiably impressive.

While some of the acting (particularly in long shots and the dubbed performances) does leave room to be desired the rest of the performances are stellar. Sir Ralph Richardson, in one of his last performances, is absolutely captivating. He is nothing short of spectacular as Tarzan's grandfather. Ian Holm is, as always, a great joy to watch as the Belgian explorer who discovers Tarzan. Andie MacDowell is beautiful here (and is it just me or is this very young version of her a dead ringer for former porn star Sasha Grey?) 

Most surprising though is Christopher Lambert as Tarzan. Now I have seen a few movies with this Lambert fella and I tell you I have never been impressed. In fact I find it quiet hard to believe that he has lasted as long as he has in the film industry. But here he is actually really good. His wooden acting style suits the part perfectly. He has a scared and nervous look about him the whole time and his inability to speak well comes off as a character trait rather than wooden acting. Is his performance actually any good? I'm not sure but it worked really well here and was perfect for this film.

Other things that really struck me while watching this film was how beautiful the cinematography was. It captured the jungles and England majestically with perfectly framed shots and great skill and care was put into the lighting and sets in order to give off a very realistic, yet cinematic at the same time, tone.

I also liked how the filmmakers decided to stay away from showing the boat crash. There was no need for it as it was implied, understood and in a sense was not crucial to the story. I also liked how Tarzan was never called Tarzan. Not once did you hear the name Tarzan spoken in the film. Director Hugh Hudson tried to make a realistic version of the story of Tarzan; he tried to make it seem plausible, like something like this could really happen. And for the most part he succeeds which makes the film feel original and unique.

The Bad:

While I didn't find much to complain about with this film, there was one thing that bothered me and got in the way of enjoying the film. That one thing: THE DUBBING!!! Why did they dub MacDowell's voice? For what ungodly reason did they think it would be a good idea to do this? It actually isn't that bad throughout the film and it is hardly noticeable but I know it happened and I can't understand why. What comes off as worse is the dubbing of Tarzan when he yells while in the jungle. It just doesn't sound like a Tarzan yell, it doesn't sound like the man on screen is yelling it and it doesn't seem real which, like I said, is what this version of Tarzan is striving for.

Although I did enjoy the film one hell of a lot, was never bored and felt captivated for the entire 137 minute run time I did think it could of been trimmed a bit (maybe ten minutes in total) to be an even tighter film. And I also thought (although it works really well for this story) that the ending was slightly anti-climactic, just ever so slightly. 

The Ugly:

Once again I can find nothing ugly about this film. (It's funny, since I started this format of good, bad and ugly reviews most of the films I have reviewed have been pretty good. Or at least they haven't been that bad and therefore the ugly column has been pretty sparse. Just thought I'd mention that here to spruce this section up.)

The Verdict:

Greystoke is a fantastically realized and very realistic portrait of the classic and immortal tale of Tarzan. It is shot impeccably well, directed with a stunningly assured hand and is well acted by the entire cast. The ape effects are amazing and still look good almost 30 years later and of all the live action Tarzan films to have ever been released I cannot think of one that can trump this one. It is ever so slightly long, and some weird dubbing underscores the rest of the film but otherwise I highly recommend this film to anyone with a thirst for adventure that is interlaced with great moments of drama. It makes for a wonderful and effective two hours of viewing pleasure.

Recommendation: Gorillas in the Mist

           Re-playability: 7 out of 10     Directing: 8 out of 10     Originality: 8 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 10 out of 10     Acting: 7 out of 10     Editing: 8 out of 10

Cinematography: 9 out of 10     Music: 7 out of 10     Script: 8 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 10 out of 10                  

Total Score = 82%

Scream 4 (56%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox     Genre: Horror/Comedy

Runtime: 111 minutes     Release Date: April 15, 2011     Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

Back in 2011 I couldn't be more excited for Scream 4 to hit the theatres. I was a big fan of parts one and two but thought things had faltered a bit with the third part. So 11 years after the third entry Wes Craven, the main principle cast and original screenwriter Kevin Williamson all came together to bring the world Scream 4.

Walking out of the theatre that fateful day I couldn't believe what I had just seen. More accurately I couldn't believe how disappointed I was. I had hated the film. Was this some kind of cosmic joke brought to us by Dimension Films? How could everyone involved in the modern classic that was Scream be part and partial to this piece of crap.

That's what I thought on April 15th, 2011 as I left the theatre on opening night and I haven't seen the film (up until last night) since. I have not wanted to and to be honest I was dreading watching it again. But I finally did (and finally finished the films of Wes Craven) and I still found it to be a pretty bad movie. But to my surprise it wasn't as bad as I had first thought. I guess the first time around I must of been soured by expectations that were nowhere close to being met.

Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) returns to Woodsboro promoting her new book. The moment she arrives people start dying, with the Ghost Face copycat killer seemingly targeting Sydney and her cousin and all those around her. Together with Dewey (David Arquette) and Gail Weathers (Courtney Cox) they attempt to find the culprit before they and everyone they know is stabbed to death.

The Good:

The film opens with two girls alone in their house. It is very reminiscent of the opening of Scream 2. Before long they are tormented on the telephone by a new Ghost Face and are soon quickly dispatched in grisly stabbing fashion. The title appears on screen and low and behold it is Stab 6 that we were watching, the fake movie within a movie based on Scream.

We see that it is actually two girls who are watching Stab 6 and one of them starts ranting about how she thinks it's a stupid movie, horror movies are stupid, etc., yadda-yadda-yadda. The other girl gets fed up and stabs her friend in the stomach over and over. The title appears and this time we see we are watching Stab 7.

This opening is the best part about Scream 4. A movie within a movie within a movie where on each level it references itself, the real films and the fake films. It's awesome, it's well written, it's clever and it's damn funny. It is also very much what I would expect from the Scream franchise. Sadly though the film goes downhill from there.

The Bad:

The first bad moment is the second death which occurs maybe three minutes after the wicked opening. A girl is stabbed in the back and crawls her way across her garage floor. She gets half way under the garage door when Ghost Face pushes the garage door button. The world's slowest garage door then causes some serious damage to her back which makes no sense and that's not even mentioning the fact that garage doors have fail safes to prevent such things from happening.

What follows is over an hour and a half of generic slasher moments that aren't as thrilling or original as the first, second or even third film. It's also not as clever as the original(s) and not as sharply written and for the most part the humour falls flat. It's also kind of predictable with the killer being very easy to guess about 25 minutes into the film.

Then there is the cinematography which in the past three films has been stellar. Here it is overly dark for no reason but to keep suspension in the air. It doesn't work at all. Instead I was thinking the whole time that the film was way to dark. Hallways are so dark you can't see who's in them, even though the lights are on. People in cars can barely be seen and hospitals are so dark it's amazing that anyone can get any work done there.

Is Scream 4 at least scary? Not in the least. Unlike the earlier films, this one has no characters you learn to care about; no real investment is given to them and therefore I could care less if they live or die. This along with the fact that it's predictable and just feels like more of the same, the scares just don't come at all.

The first and second films were all about 'rules' of slasher films and were fun to watch them play out with the characters who believed they knew better. Here they say there are no 'rules' or there are 'rules' but they can be broken which in the end makes for no 'rules' and for a subpar Scream film. As does the fact that characters appear in places suddenly if for no other reason than to mislead the audience as to who the bad guy is.

The Ugly:

Jill (Emma Roberts) has an ex named Trevor, played by Nico Tortorella. She receives a phone call from his phone, only it is Ghost Face calling. She is attacked and narrowly escapes with Ghost Face running out the front door. Seconds later Trevor runs right into the house to console her. He is never questioned by the police, she never questions why he was there so quick and the whole idea just doesn't sit well with me.

That type of thing happens a hell of a lot more in this film than it should, especially with the killer. It makes no sense how the killer moves from place to place in such short amounts of time. Even once you find out who the killer is it still doesn't answer how they can move from a party, to a house, to a hospital, to a parking garage, to anywhere in the short amount of seconds that they do.

The thing that bothered me the most the first time I saw this film and still bothered me here was the whole 'meta' self referencing thing. In the first film Randy is the one who speaks the rules and is the one that really makes the self aware aspect come alive. In the second film it is spread to a university class studying film. Here it is everywhere and spoken by everyone. Every character has at least one line that says 'if this was a movie' or 'that is so meta' or 'the rules state'. It's overbearing and annoying!!

One final thing to say before I wrap this up. At Stabathon (an annual festival where all seven Stab films are shown in Woodsboro) the hosts talk about a drinking game where every time a certain event happens you take a drink. Some of those events have slipped my mind but one that I do remember is take a drink every time an innocent character pops up behind a fridge door for a cheap scare. Well all I can say is that Scream 4 is a movie that is literally full of those moments, which to me says the film is succumbing to a level of genericness that the first films tried so hard to escape.

The Verdict:

Scream 4 ends up being a rather large disappointment. It is a film that ultimately is as generic as the first film made fun of and subverted. Besides the opening few moments this film feels stale and old, stupid and nonsensical, unscary and unfunny. It is overdone and overblown and is exactly the reason why horror films in the 80's had such a bad rap. It's never outright boring and it's bloody enough but as it played out all I could think of was 'I'd much rather be watching the original'. Unless you are a Craven completist or doing a Scream marathon I would recommend that you stay way from this one, unless of course you are a sucker for disappointment.

Recommendation: Scream

           Re-playability: 4 out of 10     Directing: 5 out of 10     Originality: 2 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 8 out of 10     Acting: 7 out of 10     Editing: 6 out of 10

Cinematography: 4 out of 10     Music: 6 out of 10     Script: 3 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 7 out of 10                  

Total Score = 52%

My Soul to Take (43%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast:Max Thieriot, John Magaro      Genre: Horror

Runtime: 108 minutes     Release Date: October 8, 2010     Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

Of all the horror films that Wes Craven has made, the ones that were most successful (in my opinion and not including A Nightmare on Elm Street and New Nightmare) were the ones he didn't write. Films like Deadly Blessing (he had a hand in writing it but it wasn't solely written by him), The Serpent and the Rainbow and of course Scream 1 and 2.

So in 2010, 16 years after his last effort as writer and director, Wes Craven returned to that double duty with My Soul to Keep and like many of his films, and many of the horror films to be released post 2000, it is not very good. Now I'm not one to scoff at horror movies too much, generally liking most of them, even the ones that are poorly received but this one I am afraid just didn't do it for me.

My Soul to Take ranks up there with the worst of Craven's films. Surprisingly so as Craven has proven himself quiet adept at the slasher film (minus Shocker), more so than anything else. It is not only a bad Craven film but a bad film in general and shows no signs of creativity or originality in the script, the direction or any other aspect you might care to mention.

In the small town of Riverton, a man suddenly discovers that he is the murderer the authorities have been looking for. He can't believe it but before he can help himself and be treated properly he kills his wife and heads to his daughters room to make quick work of her. The police save her just in the nick of time. Cut to 16 years later where the seven children born on that fateful day are doing an anual ritual where they protect themselves from the spirit of the deceased/lost murderer. When the ritual is stopped half way through by the police the seven children start getting knocked off one by one.

The Good:

The music is decent and has a nice sound to it, the sets and locations look pretty good and the effects don't look to bad either. The cinematography is sharp and is probably the best thing about this film. That's about it. I can't think of anything else that was any good in this film (well, the first five minutes were pretty good too) but otherwise there is not much else to say here.

The Bad:

My Soul to Take runs on way to long. Even though a lot seems to be happening in the film, with not much wasted in shots or scenes, it stills ends up feeling overly long and even boring. That then is the only bad thing about the film, everything else falls into the ugly.

The Ugly:

So much to say here. Too much to say here. Let's begin with the beginning. The killer is shot in the chest and the head numerous times yet he doesn't die. He isn't supernatural, he's just a man but apparently he can't die. Cut to the end of the film and the killer (who can it be?) is killed by being stabbed in the kidney area. That's consistant eh?

The acting by most of the principles is pretty weak although Max Thieriot (named Bug here for no reason at all) is decent, as is his buddy Alex, played by John Magaro. The killer that is wiping out the children looks ridiculous and makes me want to laugh more than scream. Scratch the first five minutes out of the film and there isn't a scare to be had.

Then there is the fact that there is not an ounce of originality in this film. It's like A Nightmare on Elm Street lite, mixed with the look of Scream (and the end killer soliloquy). Bug has nightmares that are straight out of Nightmare, in fact the whole story is like a simpler and stupider version of that film. There are no surprises, the ending is predictable (although Bug should of been the killer, it would of made more sense) and there is nary a moment of suspense to be had. 

The very idea of the children having the annual festival to keep the killer at bay makes no sense and as I watched it I felt embarrassed for Wes Craven for writing such trite and for myself for actually sitting through it. The characters are generic and not a single one acts like a real person would. There are moments that happen and in the next scene moments that contradict the last scene. This is a trend that happens throughout the entire movie.

There is so much more I want to say but can't seem to find the words and the energy to spell it out. So with that said I would say that the next sentence will speak volumes towards this film: My Soul to Take is one of the worst and most boring  slasher films I have ever seen.

The Verdict:

This movie is a complete waste of time and I cannot recommend it to anybody. If you pop it in to your DVD or Blu-Ray player or you come across it on television trust me when I say turn it off after they save the little girl (which is right at the beginning). After that it becomes unoriginal, boring and stupid and it just keeps getting worse and worse. It rips off Craven's best work and that's one of the better things about this picture. This film is a waste of talent, a waste of celluloid and a waste of time. Stay as far away as you can from it.

Recommendation: A Nightmare on Elm Street 

           Re-playability: 2 out of 10     Directing: 5 out of 10     Originality: 0 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 4 out of 10     Acting: 6 out of 10     Editing: 5 out of 10

Cinematography: 7 out of 10     Music: 7 out of 10     Script: 1 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 7 out of 10                  

Total Score = 43%

Red Eye (74%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast: Rachel McAdams, Cillian Murphy     Genre: Thriller

Runtime: 85 minutes     Release Date: August 19, 2005     Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1

For the second time in his career Wes Craven chose to direct a film that didn't fall into the horror genre and as with the first time he has made a film that is better than most films that have come before. Out of the 20 films that I have recently watched and reviewed, Red Eye stands as a solid thriller that is in the upper echelon of films directed by Craven.

I sat down and watched Red Eye for the first time last night and it was exactly the film I thought it would be. Short, sweet, entertaining and a whole lot of fun. It is a movie that I missed in theatres (that doesn't happen a lot) but one that I have always wanted to see. I can only imagine it playing even better on the big screen. 

It stars Rachel McAdams as Lisa, Cillian Murphy as Jackson and Brian Cox in an untitled role as Lisa's dad. Lisa is on her way back from a funeral out of town. She is about to catch the red eye back home where she works at a hotel as acting manager . At the hotel a famous and controversial politician is arriving at any moment. Lisa meets Jackson at the airport and they hit it off well. When she finds her seat on the airplane low and behold she is sitting next to Jackson. As soon as the plane takes off Jackson reveals his true self. He has been hired to force Lisa into getting the politician to switch rooms at the hotel. If she doesn't comply Jackson will have her father killed. It is up to Lisa to figure out how to save herself, her dad and the politician.

The Good:

The film runs a short 85 minutes (including credits) and is therefore a tightly edited and pulse racing thriller. Not a shot is wasted and not a scene runs on too long. It's shot really well too, with crisp and clear images and effective and moody lighting. The effects and sets look realistic and the leads all pull out great performances.

McAdams is likeable and sweet as Lisa. She brings an innocence and charm to her role making her character likeable from the very start and giving the viewer enough reason to care when the shit hits the fan. Murphy is amazing (isn't he always) as the bad guy and he just oozes evil with every line and action that he does. He comes off as very likeable at the beginning and when his character switches you right away end up hating him. And then there is Brian Cox!!! What more can I say than that: Brian Cox!!! Put him in a movie and it just becomes better, just like that.

The story is solid and fun, if not outrightly original. It's pretty much a given that Lisa is going to outwit and outsmart Jackson but the fun of the movie is how it keeps the audience guessing at how she will succeed at this. Stuck in a window seat, with Jackson on the other side of her it seems like there is no way she can escape him, or get the upper hand and it's a blast waiting, and trying to figure out how she will escape.

The Bad:

Although done in a short, taught and exciting way, the story is one that has been told many times before. It's not the most original story and it's not filled with anything spectacularly unique. The music is fun, but isn't as overpowering as it should be and with all that said and done the repeat factor of Red Eye doesn't hold up well. This is not a movie that you can watch over and over as once you know how it ends, the fun factor is slightly removed. Sure one or two viewings would work, and even a third many years down the line but the staying factor of Red Eye just doesn't seem to be that strong.

Minus the three leads, the acting here is just okay. Jack Scalia, who plays the ever important politician, is okay but nothing special and many of the small supporting roles pale in comparison to the rest of the cast. The irate passenger at the beginning is very badly acted and the irate hotel guests are generic and come of as poor stereotypes that don't really have much to complain about but do anyways.

The last scene in the movie is fun in a way but feels unnecessary and doesn't really add to the film; it doesn't take away anything either, it's just that it didn't really need to be there. On a a final note, here in the bad, I just want to mention the end credits. The movie runs a total of 85 minutes but if you take off the end credits it actually only runs 77 minutes. I have no problems with short films but as a guy who sits through the end credits of every movie I watch (it's a respect thing) this really pissed me off. I feel that the only reason those credits ran eight minutes was to bump the runtime to a respectable just shy of 90 minutes. There was no reason for them to be so long and slow. I know that the credits don't really say much about the movie but it bothered me a lot and I thought it was worth a mention.

The Ugly:

Not much in the way of anything ugly here. 

The Verdict:

Red Eye is a fun, tight and exhilarating thriller that will keep you questioning the outcome to the very end. It's well made, it looks really good and it's got an awesome performance from Cillian Murphy. Rachel McAdams is fun and beautiful and Brian cox is Brian Cox and you can never have too much of him in a film. There are a few weak performances and it's not terribly original but the film is still an exciting and fun 85 (77) minutes of adrenaline pumped thrills. It may not be as exciting after a couple of views but it still comes highly recommended for those who haven't seen it. 

Recommendation: Collateral 

           Re-playability: 6 out of 10     Directing: 8 out of 10     Originality: 6 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 8 out of 10     Acting: 7 out of 10     Editing: 9 out of 10

Cinematography: 8 out of 10     Music: 7 out of 10     Script: 7 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 8 out of 10                  

Total Score = 74%

Cursed (66%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast: Christina Ricci, Jesse Eisenberg     Genre: Horror/Comedy

Runtime: 109 minutes     Release Date: February 25, 2005     Aspect Ratio: 2.40:1

Up until last night I had only ever heard of Cursed but had never yet had a chance to see it. I wasn't around when it came out in theatres (I was living in the UK) and where I was living I do believe that it never actually got released. That was almost 8 years ago to the day and since then I have heard only bad things about this movie.

When I say bad things I mean that it has been universally panned by critics everywhere. Anybody I know who has seen it, which is not many, have all stated profusely to stay away. As I have made my way through all the films directed by Wes Craven, Cursed is the one that I have been least looking forward to. Craven has made a few stinkers in his time and from what I heard this film sits at the bottom with Swamp Thing and Deadly Friend.

Well I finished it and imagine my surprise when I found it to be nowhere near as bad as I was led to believe. I mean, sure there were over the top moments that leave nothing to be desired, some acting that could use a little more finesse and some plot issues that could fill the Indian Ocean but otherwise I kind of had fun watching it.

Christina Ricci and Jesse Eisenberg are brother and sister who, one night, get in a car accident. While trying to rescue a third party in the accident they get attacked by a wolf of sorts but survive to live another day. It turns out that the creature that attacked them is a werewolf and that they have now both been cursed, as it were. They discover that the only way to cure themselves is to destroy the beast that originally attacked them which of course turns out to be not so easy.

The Good:

Cursed is a highly illogical movie but it sure is fun. It breezes by, it's got a lot of familiar faces and it's amped up in the gore department (uncensored version only). Blood and guts and decapitations are around aplenty in this film. I love a good gory flick and Cursed delivers on all fronts for that. It also looks really good. Give or take an effect or two most of it looks 'bloody' good.

As does the locations and the sets and they are captured perfectly by the cinematographer. The lighting is eerie and the sets well designed. Some of the setes have a look to them of old school horror movies from the 30's and 40's, a la Frankenstein and The Wolfman and the horror museum is just cool. It's also fun to see all the references to other horror films in the museum (and out). 

In an early role, Jesse Eisenberg shines as Jimmy. His transformation from dweeb to macho hunk is nothing short of awesome and it really comes together because of his acting chops. Judy Greer and Joshua Jackson also give good performances that anchor the film and I'm not gonna lie but I find Judy Greer to be super sexy and I could watch her all day. Craig Kilborn makes a cameo as himself (back when he hosted The Late Late Show) which is damn funny (funniest thing in the film).

Putting them all together, Eisenberg, Greer, Jackson, copious amounts of gore, cool horror references and some genuine chills and you've got a movie that is not only fun and entertaining but is a movie that you wouldn't mind watching again on a cold and rainy night or if you were came across it playing on television as you were flipping through the channels trying to decide what to watch.

The Bad:

The script for Cursed is no great shakes. Written by Kevin Williamson, the man behind Scream, he does a good job at keeping the pacing going but it is filled with illogical moments and over the top scenes. Scream was a perfect horror film that referenced the films that came before it and brought something new to the table. Williamson tries to do the same here but in the end he doesn't pull it off.

Characters switch between good and bad for no reason other than to propel the plot. Characters appear  for brief moments and then disappear never to be seen again.  If you think about the plot, and not even for that long, you'll realize that there are to many coincidences to be believable and to many scenes that make no sense in context of the story. For example, the film is a werwolf film so why does Ricci dream she is a vampire?

Speaking of Ricci, her performance here is pretty weak. I usually like her and actually think she is a damn fine actress most of the time but in this movie she just wasn't very good. I guess she does get better as the film progresses but in general she gives the weakest performance in the film, and the weakest performance I have ever seen her give.

And the film is just not funny. It's billed as a horror/comedy and it comes from the huy who brought you Scream and Scream 2 but most of the humour falls flat. Other than Kilborn's appearance I wasn't actually sure this was supposed to be a comedy. Eisenberg is kinda funny as a neurotic nerd but that alone does not make the film a comedy. I only realized that the film was indeed a horror/comedy when the wolf at one point gets upset with Ricci and gives her the finger. Otherwise it felt like a straight up horror film.

The Ugly:

Shannon Elizabeth appears at the beginning of the film. Typical of Craven and Williamson, they hire a beautiful, known celebrity to get killed off in the opening sequence. Elizabeth is just that star for this movie. She gets attacked by the werewolf and she is torn literally in half. It's gory and it's cool but then she breathes and moves and crawls and looks at the camera and is in pain and does a whole lot of things that really make no sense. Why? Why wasn't she just dead? Why did she have to still be alive? It made no sense, it felt weird and it really took me out of the film. Thank god it happened at the beginning.

There are a few other moments in the film that were as bad as that moment. For the life of me I can't recall what they were right now but I do remember feeling out of place when watching them. They are very brief and happen far enough apart that they don't ruin the film in the end but they are there and they are distracting enough to warrant mention. I'm thinking all of these bits I don't remember had to do with Ricci and her character, but I could be wrong there.

The Verdict:

While over the top, illogical and filled with enough holes to give Sonny Corleone a run for his money, Cursed still manages to be fun enough to be a good time waster. It's no masterpiece but it's enjoyable and super gory. It breezes by and never left me bored. Sure the humour falls flat on it's face but you wouldn't even know Cursed is a comedy unless some told you. Taken as a straight horror film it's got enough going for it to recommend a viewing or two. Watch Eisenberg prove he's a star, watch guts and blood fly everywhere, watch Cursed and have a good old time at the movies.

Recommendation: An American Werewolf in London

           Re-playability: 6 out of 10     Directing: 7 out of 10     Originality: 4 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 8 out of 10     Acting: 7 out of 10     Editing: 8 out of 10

Cinematography: 8 out of 10     Music: 7 out of 10     Script: 4 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 7 out of 10                  

Total Score = 66%

Scream 3 (60%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox     Genre: Horror/Comedy

Runtime: 117 minutes     Release Date: February 04, 2000     Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

In 1996 a little movie (well not that little) was released called Scream. Not only did it shake up the box office but it re-energized and jump started the resurgence of horror movies on the big screen, in particular the slasher film. Blending horror and comedy together, the film used a self aware style that is still copied today.

A year later Scream 2 was released. Written by the same writer, directed by the same director and having the entire surviving cast led to a better than average sequel that worked much better than it should of. It featured the same self aware style and had the same blend of horror and comedy as the first film. It wasn't as good as Scream but it sure came close.

Cut to three years later and we get Scream 3, a film that reunites the director with the surviving cast of Scream 2 but brings on a new writer. Unfortunately, perhaps due to the new writer, the film doesn't come close to being as good as its predecessors. It's not a terrible film but it pales in comparison to what came before and in the end it can't hold a candle to the original let alone the sequel.

Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is living a solitary existence, hiding from the world and potential psychos that make her life a living hell. On the other side of the world, Hollywood is making Stab 3, 

a sequel to the fake set of movies based on the events of the first two movies (and this one). When the cast starts getting knocked off one by one, Sydney and company are forced to reunite and try stop this new killer from completing his task and destroying them in the process.

The Good:

Everyone you remember from Scream 2 (that survived) has returned here. It makes it fun to watch and gives a nice sense of unity to the film. The acting is pretty good throughout but like the first films nothing here is worth an award. Parker Posey is awesome as the girl who plays Gail Weathers and made me want to just watch her the entire film. Lance Henrikson has a small role too, and le's be honest, Lance Henrikson rocks!!! 

There is also a fun game of spot the cameo going on. Some of them are very obvious (and quite funny) and some of them are hard to see or only noticeable if you are a die hard film geek like me and know a shit ton about movies and who makes them. Director Wes Craven obviously has a lot of clout in Hollywood (for reasons unbeknownst to me) as he is able to always get actors and behind the scenes people to be in front of the camera for short periods of time.

The film also takes place during the making of Stab 3, which is really Scream 3 being played out before it is even made. Sound confusing? It's not really. Basically what we the audience is watching is the story behind Stab 3 and as it plays out it becomes part of the story within the story. Okay, fine, it still sounds confusing but it isn't when you are watching it. In fact it's really kind of clever and there are scenes that elude to later scenes in the film that are rather fun and amusing. 

It's cool to see new actors playing the parts of the characters from Scream/Stab and to see them have their own parts as other actors in the film. And it's also cool to see the soundstage for Stab 3 which is made up to look like Woodsboro, the setting from the first film. It's shot really well and it gives a sense of foreboding and a sense of things coming full circle as you watch the film.

The Bad:

Where Scream 3 falls apart is in the script. Unlike the first film (and even the second) there is nothing original about this film. It plays like a generic sequel to the films that came before and although it tries to be clever (see above) for the most part it fails. It really does feel like a lazy version of both the previous films. The deaths are unoriginal, the twists are predictable, the killer is pretty weak.

In the first Scream, the killer at the end laments about how no motivation for the killings is scary. Scream 3 ignores that idea completely. Here, the killer (who is a pretty bad actor to boot) has a weak, stupid and very connected motivation for trying to kill Sydney. Not only that but the connections the writer throws at you are poorly conceived and come off as 'too coincidental' than realistic.

The killer here is killing off the actors in Stab 3 in the order that they die in the script. Why? What does that have to do with Sydney? Nothing. It kinda works when you are watching the film but when it's over and you think about it it really makes no sense at all. As does the voice changing speakerbox the killer uses.  

In short, there is not enough originality here, it's too much of the same and the film suffers from it. It slightly drags, it's kinda predictable and it feels a lot worse for wear than parts one and two. The writer, Kevin Williamson, of the first two films is sorely missed here.

The Ugly: 

*******SPOILER ALERT...SPOILER ALERT...SPOILER ALERT...SPOILER ALERT...*******

Near the end of the film Sydney is lying on the floor having just been beat up by the killer. The said killer grabs a gun and shoots her twice. Once in the chest and once, very obviously in the neck. The killer, in a shocking set of events, just killed Sydney Prescott. No fucking way!!! But wait, what's that? She's still moving? Huh? 

It turns out that she was wearing a bullet proof vest. That would make sense if she was shot only in the chest but she wasn't. She was very clearly shot in the neck where there was nothing but skin. That was a cheat and a scam and was a useless and poor attempt at playing with the viewers emotions. And it was just poorly done. It's as plain as that. It was the worst moment in all three Scream films.

The Verdict:

Scream 3 is a mess and a disappointment, coming after two great movies. It's muddled, generic, more of the same but not as good, and has a weak killer with a weak motivation. It makes less sense the more you think about it but while you are watching it it does tend to feel kinda cool (after all it is Scream). 

While there are a few cool moments, some great cameo's and some funny and interesting scenes, overall it just feels like a weaker and sadder version of a classic film and sequel. I don't recommend this film to anybody except die hard horror/Scream fans. Anybody else should stick with the first two and not tarnish their memories by watching this film. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, I was after all slightly entertained, but it's just not that good either. 

Recommendation: Scream

           Re-playability: 5 out of 10     Directing: 7 out of 10     Originality: 3 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 6 out of 10     Acting: 7 out of 10     Editing: 6 out of 10

Cinematography: 7 out of 10     Music: 7 out of 10     Script: 4 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 8 out of 10                  

Total Score = 60%

Music of the Heart (77%)

Director: Wes Craven     Cast: Meryl Streep, Angela Bassett     Genre: Drama
Runtime: 123 minutes     Release Date: November 29. 1999     Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1

Wes Craven has been called the 'Master of Horror" and is considered one of the greatest living horror directors around. Having watched almost all his films I would greatly contest those statements. While he has made a few excellent films, such as A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream, he has also made some terrible films a la Swamp Thing and Deadly Friend. Most of the rest of his films fall into the average/slightly better than average category and that to me does not say 'great filmmaker' let alone 'master'.

Coming out in 1999, right after the success of Scream, Music of the Heart is one of the most unlikeliest films from Wes Craven. It's a drama, about music and teaching and the human spirit and the need for music, or art of any kind, to play a part in our lives. It's an uplifting and motivational story and it comes from the man who brought you Freddy Kruger.

Meryl Streep plays Roberta Guaspari, a recently divorced woman with two kids, who takes on a job in East Harlem teaching kids to play the violin. She succeeds in her first few years and ends up becoming quite famous in the area. After a decade of teaching, the school board cuts their funding and Roberta's classes are the first to go. With the help of former students, parents, teachers and friends Roberta puts up a fight to save her class from coming to an end.

I wasn't expecting much from the man who brought to the silver screen such films as The Hills Have Eyes and Shocker. In the almost 30 years of working as a director, Craven hasn't shown much by way of being adept at drama. A lot of his films are stilted, wooden and just not that well put together. So Music of the Heart didn't really hold any high hopes from me but having just watched it I can say that I was pleasantly surprised. 

The Good:

The thing that anchors this film, that makes it so strong, that elevates it above the typical inspiring teacher beating the odds story that has been played out so many times in so few ways, is the acting, especially from Streep. As Roberta, Streep shows once again why she is the best actress of her generation (or ever?). She is amazing here bringing sadness and happiness and strength to her character in ways that few actors can.

She is literally captivating here and I couldn't take my eyes off of her. She is by far the best thing about this movie. After it ended I watched a few clips of the real Roberta and it made Streep's performance even better. Other than looking like Meryl Streep, she is spot on as Roberta; her mannerisms, the way she talks, the way she moves, it is all pitch perfect.

The rest of the cast is rather effective as well. Angela Bassett is wonderful as the principal of the school and the children (there are tons and tons throughout the film) give professional and realistic performances as well. Aidan Quinn and Jay O. Sanders give touching performances as the nice guys that come into Roberta's life. 

Another great thing about this film is the music and the musicians who pop up playing themselves. It would of been easy to set the film to classical music played through violin strings and to some extent it is. But it is also juxtaposed with the hip hop beats that echo through the streets of East Harlem and a lighter and softer score that never intrudes on the rest of the film. And cameos by Isaac Stern and Itzhak Perlman don't hurt the film either.

The script too is near perfect for the kind of film Music of the Heart is. True to life characters, realistic dialogue and something like 12 years played out perfectly over 123 minutes. This is a story that has been told before a 1000 times but here it feels real, it sounds real and it avoids many (not quite all) of the hollywood cliches that tend to dominate these type of films.

The Bad:

I said above that the acting was uniformly excellent but there was one performance that just didn't feel as good as the rest. A performance that was jarringly out of place compared to everybody else. That performance was by Gloria Estefan. She's a singer, not an actress, and it's easy to tell as she gives the weakest (not outright bad, just weakest) performance of the entire film.

I also said the script is near perfect but even still the outcome is pretty much a given when it finally comes around and because of that there really isn't much by way of tension or expectation shattering going on. It doesn't really hurt the film (as Streep keeps you riveted) but it doesn't help it either. And taking place over twelve years, the kids grow up, while the adults just change their hairstyle (if even that) but otherwise look exactly the same.  That is probably the most notable problem in the whole film.

One thing Craven and his cinematographer seemed to stay away from is to give the film a glossy and shiny look. It's muted and somewhat cold and nothing particularly stands out in the visual department. Even Carnegie Hall doesn't look as majestic and magical as it should. The film is never to dark to see but it also never makes the eye marvel at what it is seeing. This too puts a slight damper on the film but not enough to ruin the feel and emotions that th story and actors ultimately deliver.

The Ugly:

Nope. Nothing really ugly about this film.

The Verdict:

Music of the Heart is a film that I enjoyed a hell of a lot more than I expected. It is surprisingly well directed by 'horror legend' Wes Craven, who shows a skill and adeptness to drama that is missing from most of other work. It's a revelation and one can only hope he will do more films that aren't labeled as horror. While it does have a problem or two, Music of the Heart is a film that is endlessly watchable based on it's great script and great performances. Streep is heartbreaking at times and captivating from start to finish and she becomes the rock, the anchor and the boat of the film. Without a doubt she is the reason the movie works as well as it does. The film is ultimately uplifting, fun and enjoyable and comes with my seal of approval for virtually anyone to enjoy.

Recommendation: Dead Poets Society

           Re-playability: 8 out of 10     Directing: 8 out of 10     Originality: 7 out of 10                 

Costumes and Make-up: 6 out of 10     Acting: 9 out of 10     Editing: 7 out of 10

Cinematography: 7 out of 10     Music: 8 out of 10     Script: 9 out of 10

         Production Design (Sets/Locations/Special Effects): 8 out of 10                  

Total Score = 77%