Sorority Row (2009)

Director: Stewart Hendler

Starring: Teri Andrez, Adam Barrie, Megan Wolfley, Robert Belushi, Marie Blanchard, Briana Evigan, Zack Garrett, Margo Harshman, Rumer Willis, Carrie Fisher

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Sisters for life... and death.

Plot: A group of sorority sisters try to cover up the death of their house-sister after a prank gone wrong, only to be stalked by a serial killer.

My rating: 5.5/10

Will I watch it again? No.

Why watch this?  Because Carrie Fisher needs to have my babies.  OK, so she's barely in it but she's fun while she lasts.  This picture started out interesting and potentially fun (I LOVED the prank that gets the picture going) but the fun never really happens.  I don't know what I expected but it just didn't grab me at all.  I guess the only thing that kept me going was trying to figure out who the killer was.  I never did and when the killer's identity was revealed it was a weak choice and a major disappointment.  It's a good looking film and it's competently made but it's missing that spark of fun or sheer horror that it needs to be enjoyable.  It's a right-down-the-middle horror flick that fails to ignite or bore the piss out of me. That's hardly an endorsement either way.

It Came from Beneath the Sea (1955)

Director: Robert Gordon

Starring: Kenneth Tobey, Faith Domergue, Donald Curtis, Ian Keith, Dean Maddox Jr., Chuck Griffiths, Harry Lauter, Richard W. Peterson

More info: IMDb

Tagline: IT CRUSHES! KILLS! DESTROYS!

Plot: A Giant Octopus, whose feeding habits have been affected by radiation from H-Bomb tests, rises from the Mindanao Deep to terrorize the California Coast.

My rating: 6.5/10

Will I watch it again? Nah.

While this could be seen as a run of the mill 50s monster movie, it's got one thing most of them didn't - Ray Harryhausen's brilliant stop motion special effects.  The talking part of the picture is rather fun with its antiquated treatment of women and stock cliche'd characters but they're a lot of fun also because of that. But the real meat and potatoes is Harryhausen's monster effects. They're expertly done and loads of fun.  Seeing the giant octopus destroy this and that is the real reason to watch this.  Most of the monster action is loaded in the end of the picture but you get little sprinkles of it throughout and that's what keeps you going.  If it weren't for Harryhausen, this would be your average 50s genre picture but with shoddy effects. 

Ted (2012)

Director: Seth MacFarlane

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Seth MacFarlane, Patrick Stewart, Joel McHale, Giovanni Ribisi, Patrick Warburton, Sam J. Jones, Alex Borstein

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Ted is coming.

Plot: As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when Lori, John's girlfriend of four years, wants more from their relationship.


My rating: 8/10

Will I watch it again? Yeah.


I'm a fan of MacFarlane's, the premise sounded fun and it's got Sam "FLASH GORDON" Fucking Jones in it.  I'm glad I missed this at the theater because, from what I've heard, the unrated version only released on video is a lot funnier.  I laughed my ass off and I can't imagine how tame the theatrical cut is in comparison.  Not only is TED genuinely funny but there's a real friendship between John (Wahlberg) and Ted (MacFarlane) that was surprisingly well done.  The jokes are fucking hilarious and there are a shit ton of them (in the unrated version). 

The bit about the hooker shit had me in stitches and the party scene with Sam Jones was loads of fun.  One thing I liked about MacFarlane's live action directorial debut is that the jokes don't stop and the picture is filled with laughs from start to finish.  It's not a one-joke movie where the idea wears thin.  MacFarlane goes beyond the typical Hollywood cash grab approach (he even makes fun of those types of comedies by ragging on Adam Sandler) and delivers a movie with heart but most of all, with lots of funny.

After Earth (2013)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring:  Will Smith, Jaden Smith, Sophie Okonedo, Zoe Kravitz

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Danger is real. Fear is a choice.

Plot: A crash landing leaves Kitai Raige and his father Cypher stranded on Earth, 1,000 years after events forced humanity's escape. With Cypher injured, Kitai must embark on a perilous journey to signal for help.

My rating: 6.5/10

Will I watch it again?  Nah.

While I thought THE HAPPENING (2008) was pretty damn bad, I've thoroughly enjoyed all of M. Night's previous films.  I haven't seen THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010) simply because it's a kids movie and one that doesn't appeal to me.  I may see it someday but it's certainly not on my list of things to watch before I die.  It seems nearly everyone is lambasting this flick for one reason or another and I think some of it has to come from people jumping on the M. Night haters bandwagon.  The truth is, it's not that bad.  The only issues I have with it are with M. Night's inability to grasp basic science (just like in THE HAPPENING).  See, this takes place 1,000 years after humans abandoned Earth.  Will Smith tells his son that every creature on Earth has evolved to do one thing...kill humans.  How is that possible if we left the planet 1,000 years ago and there are no humans to kill?  Besides, why would that happen anyway?  Why didn't the flocks of birds try to kill Kitai?  How could tigers evolve to climb trees (which stand a hundred or more feet high) to reach a bird's nest for food?  Why is it that the Earth freezes every single night and defrosts the next day to return to lush, green plant life and not kill everything including the plethora of animals?  Why, when Kitai was in danger of freezing one night, is all it takes to survive the cold is covering yourself with leaves and branches?  We're told that he must reach certain 'hot spots', warmed by underground lava, each night before the sun goes down or he'll freeze to death.  What's the point in even having that plot device if you're going to shit on the audiences ability to easily see through the bullshit.  Damn, now I'm talking myself out of even liking it just a little.

My point is, that this has a few things like that thrown into it to make the story more complicated than it has to be.  We know it's a science fiction film so why does EVERYTHING have to be different than what we're accustomed to?  The future tech was pretty cool and they did a good job with coming up with some neat sci-fi gadgets and such but Earth is not going to change that much in only 1,000 years.  100,000 years might have been more appropriate.  Maybe us dumb audiences would have found that harder to believe than what they gave us.  The plot is very simple and bare.  Why does everything in Hollywood have to be so damn busy and complicated at the expense of telling a story?  AFTER EARTH isn't nearly as bad as all the critics are saying but it does have some things like those mentioned above that could frustrate you and question the integrity of the film makers.  Take a kneel, M. Night, and get a sense of who you are, your surroundings and focus on making good movies again.  You made Kitai do that in this film, now lead by example.  I miss the old you and I'd like to see the old you return to making fun and interesting movies that don't insult me.

The Comedy of Terrors (1963)

Director: Jacques Tourneur

Starring: Vincent Price, Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, Joyce Jameson, Joe E. Brown, Beverly Powers, Basil Rathbone

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Your favorite creeps...together again!

Plot: Waldo Trumbull, an undertaker who hasn't had any 'customers' in a long time is forced the pay one year's back-rent. To get money he starts to kill people in order to get new clients.

My rating: 8/10

Will I watch it again? Yes.

This is my first viewing and I loved it.  Vincent Price is in rare form.  It's such a treat when I see iconic actors doing something different for a change.  Just like in HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL (1959), the dialogue exchanges between Price's character and his on-screen wife are priceless.  He's scathing in his treatment of Amaryllis (Jameson) and it's hilarious at every turn.  Price is wickedly funny and he's having the time of his life doing it, too.  Boris Karloff surprised the hell out of me in that I didn't recognize him until halfway into the picture.  Like Price, he's showing off his skills as an actor and he completely transformed his usual horror persona into something completely different and funny.  The final scene between him and Price is one for the books.  This has got several laugh out loud moments even if you don't dig the broad comedy approach to some of the situations.  Sometimes the comedy bits were too much for me but I found so much to love with everything else.  And what's cooler (besides the playful and fun Les Baxter score) is that it was directed by the gifted Jacques "CAT PEOPLE (1942)" Tourneur and I belted out a big laugh when his name appeared during the closing credits with Rhubarb the Cat walking across the screen.  Nice touch.

House on Haunted Hill (1959)

Director: William Castle

Starring: Vincent Price, Carol Ohmart, Richard Long, Alan Marshal, Carolyn Craig, Elisha Cook Jr., Julie Mitchum, Leona Anderson, Howard Hoffman, Skeleton

More info: IMDb

Tagline: See it with someone with warm hands!

Plot: A millionaire offers ten thousand dollars to 5 people whom agreed to be locked in a large, spooky, rented house overnight with he and his wife.

My rating: 7/10

Will I watch it again? Yes.

This weekend it was a Vincent Price double feature at the Scorethefilm pad with this one starting the show.  It's been an awful long time since I saw this and I'd almost forgotten how much fun it is.  The dialogue exchange between Frederick (Price) and his wife, Annabelle (Ohmart), near the start of the film is wonderfully sinister and hilarious.  The rapid, scathing jabs at each other are deliciously fun and I would love to see a movie with just these two going at each other for 90 minutes straight.  Price is a master at making anything sound great but he's perfection when he's actually given something good to recite like what he has here.  This picture could easily be lost among a gazillion like it made from the 30s-50s if it weren't for Price, Castle's direction and Robb White's hoot of a script.  The cast perform their parts with all seriousness (Cook had me in stitches at just about every turn), if not too much so.  I'd forgotten who the killer was and everything having to do with the ending so I was surprised at how it went down.  It's an awful lot of fun and a great cap to what would otherwise be a silly little horror film.  It's still goofy but I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Director: J.J. Abrams

Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Benedict Cumberbatch, Anton Yelchin, Bruce Greenwood, Peter Weller, Alice Eve

More info: IMDb

Tagline: Beyond the darkness, lies greatness.

Plot: After the crew of the Enterprise find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization, Captain Kirk leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

My rating: 8.5/10

Will I watch it again? Of course.

Now that we had gotten the introductions out of the way in STAR TREK (2009), it's nice to see the cast settle into their roles with their next big adventure, and one that tops the previous.  I'm going to keep this spoiler free (I feel like I'm late to the dance having just seen this last night) but I will, without naming names, touch on some points that bugged me.  Let's get the problems out of the way.

I was really digging the direction they were going with Cumberbatch's character.  Abrams & Co. were doing something really neat with someone we all know and love from the Trek universe.  I actually thought that was terrific.  However, the tail end of his business was a bit too much.  The biggest offender for my money was that moment where he screams that one iconic word.  Didn't need that at all.  Now they're just pandering to the audience.  The other big no-no was having so-and-so make an appearance.  I understand that he motivates Spock to do what needs to be done but, again, it felt like pandering.  Didn't need that. There are any number of other ways Spock could have gotten to that same conclusion.

Now the great.  The cast feels like they've got their roles down pat.  Chris Pine impressed me the most. He's fantastic.  He's so good (as is everyone else) in this one that I really hope this cast continues to make TREK movies until the cows come home.  Cumberbatch made for a great villain. He puts the previous one to shame...but then his part was better written and there was much more for him to do.  Peter Weller brought a lot of weight to his character, too.  He's compelling in every scene he's in.  Scotty's character is much more likable and less whinny this time and his alien companion isn't annoying like he was in the first picture.  In fact, the first scene with Scotty and Kirk (the one where they disagree and Scotty does the unthinkable) was brilliant, real and tense.  There were at least three moments like that with characters that really hit home the drama and I loved every one of them.

One thing that felt strange was the amount of swearing.  I don't recall swearing in any of the other TREK pictures which makes this one stand out that much more.  I liked it but it was weird hear 'shit' a couple of times (well used, though) and 'bitch', 'damn', etc.  I thought I heard a 'fuck' once but I quickly dismissed it as something else that was said.  I'll pay more attention the next time.  Michael Giacchino's score is just as wonderful as the last but I came out only remembering the two themes (well, one theme and one motif) that he used in the previous film.  I miss the days of melodic scores with themes you want to hear over and over, long after the movie ends.  Sigh.

There's been a lot of talk that this is more of an action film than it is a TREK film and there is some merit to that.  However, Kirk doesn't 'get' the Enterprise to use for space exploration until the end of the picture and he only gets it after proving that he's worthy.  It reminded me a lot of SKYFALL (2012) and how the end of the picture sets up the next one to be a return to form.  I'm indifferent about whether or not they make the sequel less action-y and more like a talky, exploratory, science-y kind of TREK film.  The film makers are doing a great job so far and if they want to continue with more action and less heady themes then go right ahead.  They've clearly shown they can do it and still respect the TREK universe without leaving the fans of all the previous films and series completely behind in the dust.  They haven't abandoned the canon, they're just going in a new and exciting direction.