Archive for August, 2003

Jeepers Creepers 2

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted August 29, 2003 at 12:50 am

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating: R for horror violence and language
Starring: Ray Wise, Johnathan Breck, Travis Schiffner
Directed By:Victor Salva

Final Grade:

People love to be scared. People Love to Laugh. A wise man was on The Conan O’Brien Show a few months back. His name was Christopher Walken. With a smile and through his own laughter he tried to explain to Conan and the Audience that being scared and laughter can go together. As he explained there is something “fun and just plain funny about being scared by something in a movie.” There must be a central truth to those words or else the Hollywood Horror Machine wouldn’t be cranking out campy horror flicks one after another since the eighties.

Following in the footsteps of Horror flicks from earlier this year, like Wrong Turn, House of 1000 Corpses, and the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (which will be coming soon) Jeepers Creepers 2 appeared on the big screen as the summer blockbuster “sequel Summer” came to a close. The outbreak of these films are trying to show us that there doesn’t have to be a big named killer like “Michael Myers,” “Jason” or “Freddy Kruger” to scare the living daylights out of people. Yet in the same phrase (especially in this film) are trying to convince audiences that new villains such as “The Creeper” are the new faces of Horror.

Our Story opens with a father and his two sons working on the family farm when the mysterious creeper comes and snatches up their youngest boy. Not realizing what this Creature is, the father vows to destroy it. Around the same time a busload of State Champion Basketball Stars and cheerleaders ends up broken down along the road. Being stranded in the middle of nowhere is bad enough but the fact that a killer creature is trying to eat them doesn’t help matters. As “The Creeper” stalks and sulks around the busload of kids, they need to figure out a way to stay alive or become “The Creeper’s” Next Snack….

Our story is simple, our plot is simpler but that doesn’t mean this is a terrible film. In all honesty, I was mildly entertained. By no means are we going to see “The Creeper” up for Oscars this fall, nor will we see any members of the bus load of children up for awards for “Best Original Scream in a Campy Horror Flick” come Oscar time either. The film is there to entertain you with a few cheap pops and intentional and unintentional laughs as well. The director does a nice job of keeping a campy horror feel and the script helps him do so without sticking in really really bad Dialogue for the characters. It’s not Shakespeare either, but in the end, They don’t have lines like “It’s Ok! He just wanted his machete back!” (Sorry Jason X fans). Although the cheap pops are predictable they still hold your attention which is all this film is really trying to achieve.

The real question is though, How effective is “The Creeper’s” Character? The supposedly unkillable bat from hell is both a joke and scare at the same time. He looks like nothing more than a man in a Wal-Mart Halloween mask with a little bit of slime. His huge bat wings look like a flesh colored shower curtain that is strapped to his back. When we actually see the creeper close up he is almost cute. He isn’t hideous looking. He doesn’t make you scream like a killer in a hockey mask but instead just smiles at you with his big yellow eyes and stained teeth. In fact, I am more afraid of Smegol (Gollum’s “good” side in Lord of the Rings) than I actually was of the creeper. If the creeper is the new face or terror, frankly I am little worried.

However don’t think the creeper is a complete waste of screen time. His quick movements, his flesh eating charisma and the way he silently stalks his victims before snatching them up before they even realize he is coming, proves top be kind of a neat little trick. Despite his looks, his sounds (even though they sound like a “Predator”) make him a little more creepy as well as his ability to Throw Sharp pointy objects with pinpoint accuracy.

Despite the mild entertainment value I got from this movie, I still learned a very valuable lesson. That lesson being, they don’t make trucks like they used to. Watching the film I saw a truck literally be destroyed and yet still drive 5 minutes later. The mere fact that this truck has to be possessed by demons in order to drive off after a wreck like that is scarier than the creeper himself.

I think it was our ending that annoyed me the most. It was almost as though they got bored, and just tried to end it as quickly as possible. The Injured Creeper stalking one of they boys is quite possibly one of the funniest things I have ever seen, and laughed almost uncontrollably even though the “creepy music” was trying to tell me not to. And to top the entire movie off they tacked on an ending that was so cheesy it made me just laugh. Up until the very ending, I would have to say though I wasn’t annoyed by the film.

The technicalities and the suspension of disbelief aside, I’m pretty indifferent about Jeepers Creepers 2. I don’t ever foresee The Creeper up in the list of big name psychos like Freddy and Jason, but he’s not a bad character either. In the end this stab at the campy horror flick is mediocrity at best, and maybe worth a rental on a bored Saturday night. Just don’t think though that it is worth the ticket price, unless you crave a really pointless fluff film that leaves you wanting more than what you got in the end. To sum things up the amount of money you would waste on tickets, popcorn and candy as you get ready to see Jeepers Creepers 2 would probably be more scary than the movie itself….

No Comments
Filed under: Horror, Movies

The Medallion

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted August 22, 2003 at 5:45 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:PG-13 for kung-fu fighting and other stuff
Starring: Jackie Chan, Claire Forlani, Lee Evans
Directed By: Gordon Chan

Final Grade:

You may remember when I started writing reviews for this site, and was introduced to you all with my review of the Jackie Chan flick, The Tuxedo. In my youth and inexperience, I decided I would have a little fun and give that film a higher grade than it deserved just for fun, while still accurately speaking of its mediocrity. In doing so I established my cardinal rule of film reviewing: There are no rules except my rules. That being said I now bring you my review of The Medallion, a film that does not deserve serious consideration and that I’ve decided will be best reviewed as an installment in my “You may remember” series of reviews.

You may remember seeing ads for The Medallion, or you may not. It’s been mere weeks since I first heard of this film, cementing its status as a late summer orphan film. The studio didn’t know what to do with it, so they dropped it on us when nothing big was coming out in hopes for a meager success. I doubt they’ll gain that success, but they probably have their best chance right now. The film itself is a jumbled mess, the type that has five names credited for writing the screenplay. Why one would need five people to write a script that’s nearly similar to every other martial arts film (with extreme similarities to this spring’s Bulletproof Monk) eludes me, and is a question I probably don’t need to know the answer to.

You may remember Jackie Chan being young. If so, you’re much older than I am, and probably older than my parents. The man’s getting a little frightening in appearance with age, yet he still manages to fly through his action scenes like he’s a 12 year old kid. Too bad he can’t write, because the script is so bad that the action scenes don’t even serve as good filler. The man can still fly, and still draw a crowd on occasion if he has a costar, but this is not an example of that.

Speaking of costars, you may remember Claire Forlani as an actress that gained slight hype in the mid 90’s leading up to her role in Meet Joe Black. She’s a bad actress. Really bad. She’s so bad that she was only in one Kevin Smith film. Everyone else that’s been in a Kevin Smith film came back for another, except her. She’s that bad. She looks good as Chan’s partner/love-interest, and she gets to participate in the standard chick-on-chick kung-fu fight (how I love these), but that’s about it.

You may also remember Lee Evans (not to be confused with the wide receiver from the University of Wisconsin who should be a NFL star within five years) as the pitiful Tucker/Norm in the comedy smash There’s Something About Mary. He was funny in that film due to the writing and the fact that he was only used in small doses. Here he’s relied on for all the film’s comic relief, and comes off as both annoying and funny, although he pulls off the former with more consistency than the latter. If his role was smaller it would have worked well, but there’s simply too much silliness.

A martial arts film about resurrecting the dead with superhuman strength should not be taken seriously. You may remember films like this that have succeeded before, but unfortunately, this is not one of those films. If you’re really in the mood for such high-flying hijinks, this film may please you to an extent. But I’m sure that as you leave the theater you may remember something wrong about it more than something good about it. You may remember that great song and start humming “Everybody was Kung-fu fighting – HA!” And you may remember it like I will, by disregarding it completely.

No Comments
Filed under: Comedy, Movies

Open Range

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted August 15, 2003 at 6:01 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating: Rated R for violence.
Starring: Kevin Costner, Robert Duvall, Annette Benning
Directed By:Kevin Costner

Final Grade:

Movies are full of mistakes. Whether you are in the business or in a film there are always mistakes to be made. Many people sit in films and look for those mistakes in movies, just so they can feel like a king even if it was only a quick sighting of a power line in the “Count of Monte Cristo” or a small dot that is supposedly a car in “The Lord of the Rings.” In the business of reviewing movies, mistakes are made too. Often times your loyalties to particular actor winds up effecting your overall perception of a film. A few years ago I hailed Dragonfly as a great movie. A Year later watching it in it’s mediocrity I still find enjoyment in it but realize my initial grade was indeed a mistake. For the last few years my fellow critics have scoffed at my expense telling me that Costner was a terrible actor and that they would rather gnaw off their own arm rather than watch any of his films. With the general public standing by their side after Costner’s recent slew of “too long and too boring” to watch movies, I couldn’t really take a strong stand against them. So when a new Costner flick came along, it took little time for The Mike to begin poking fun at me again and told me to stir up the middle age woman in me again and go out and praise the newest Costner flick. And so here goes nothing, I plan to do just that.

Costner teams up with the aging Robert Duvall in his latest flick and returns to the one genre of film that made him famous in the first place, Dances with Wolves. Costner and Duvall play the roles of cattle herders who stumble across a town that doesn’t really enjoy the company of “Free Grazing” cattle ranchers. And when a group of bandits decide to make an example of them to the rest of the town, Duvall and Costner waste no time to set things right, even if it ends in death.

Now I know I’ve praised Costner time and time again. Is his character any different than anything else he has ever done? Not really. Costner’s acting depends on being a man of few words, and although many people will grumble about his emotionless acting, I praise it because he plays the emotionless character so well. Costner tries to use this to his advantage in this film, and it works to a certain extent. However when he does speak it sometimes almost seems to be nothing more than a slew of Hollywood dialogues rather than what his character would have actually said. His dialogue a little forced at times, yet is still does the trick.

Our Real hero in Open Range is Robert Duvall. I was let down earlier this year in “Assassination Tango” but Duvall didn’t let me down in this one. The gifted old timer takes no time in establishing himself in the very first scene and carries you with him the entire way. Duvall demands the attention every time he is on the screen. His performance is golden, and proves once again that he can be a movie god. He simply steals the scene every time he is in it, and even overpowers our headlining star, Costner.

Where Costner lacks in acting he picks up in his directing. The film is wonderfully shot, filled with a wide range of beautiful landscapes and really brings about a “western” feel to the film. Costner keeps his eye on his characters as well, giving us just enough info to tease our imaginations and keeping us interested until the very end. It’s something that is hard to do in a western that isn’t filled with gunfights and dance hall girls.

And don’t be frightened by the runtime, It may be over two hours but it moves quite quickly. Most Costner films have a “dragging” point where you want to get up out of your seat and leave, but this flick keeps everything moving smoothly and quickly. With the performances you get sucked in quickly and lose your mind and sense of the time fairly quickly. In fact I will go as far as saying this may be one of the most enjoyable and engrossing since Field of Dreams, Dances with Wolves or for you crazy Costner fans out there The Bodyguard (which even though I like the film, it is a little lengthy).

In Hollywood the Western is normally attempted by many but failed by most. Many Westerns head straight to video shelves without being noticed. Even Star Trek’s Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) has tried his hand at a cowboy flick or two. But they always blow over like a tumble weed in a seemingly ghost town like section of video stores called “Westerns.” Costner does his best to rekindle the western and the days of old, but his success are pretty uncertain. Even though the film may be good, a slew of bad movies can kill a career. Sadly enough in Costner’s case he has his share of those and so it will keep the numbers lower. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t go check it out. Costner does a wonderful job of bring spark into the genre once again, and tries to breathe life back into the classic Hollywood cowboy flick by using beautiful scenery, colorful characters filled with depth, and a style that is a joy to watch.

Once again, I’ll stick my neck out for Costner, this time with a little more pride. His directing and the performances are worth your cash far more than a lot of other things he has done. In fact, Open Range may be the first western to hit my DVD collection. If it might be worth $20 for me in a few months, then it must be worth the $6 ticket for you, don’t you think?

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies, Western

Freddy Vs. Jason

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted at 2:59 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Rating:RATED R for all the good things horror movies should have
Starring: Robert Englund, Monica Keena, Kelly Rowland
Directed By: Ronny Yu

Final Grade:

There are two types of filmgoers. There are the ones that get the willies waiting for the next historical epic by some award winning director, while some get psyched for films like Freddy vs. Jason. While I’d like to think I’m in the first group (unless that award winning epicmaker is Kevin Costner), I know deep in my heart that I’m in the latter. So, despite all the critics that are bending over backwards for Costner’s latest epic that opens today, I will bet that for most people like me out there, the most entertaining film opening this weekend is Freddy vs. Jason.

It’s an idea that’s been in the works for over fifteen years. The knife-fingered killer that’s been the cash cow for New Line Cinema since 1984, and the hockey masked killer that’s been at it since 1981 (Most will say 1980, but a true horror fanatic like myself will tell you that Jason didn’t show up until the sequel, hence the date should be 1981), face-to-face, one-on-one, mano-a-mano. Of course, it could never have happened, because Paramount Pictures owned Jason’s Friday the 13th Series. That all changed in the early 90’s, when New Line bought the rights to Jason after Paramount made 8 Friday the 13ths in 9 years throughout the 80’s. Jason went to hell in 1993, and Freddy was dead in 1991. Each then returned for one more sequel (Freddy in New Nightmare (1994) and Jason in Jason X (2001)). Finally, the idea became more than an idea, and New Line greenlit Freddy vs. Jason.

OK…now for a review…I like history a little too much. Freddy vs. Jason opens with Freddy narrating, telling of how he’s been forgotten due to lack of interest. He then finds Jason in a dark corner of hell, chasing a big-breasted naked chick. His plan: Disguised as Jason’s beloved mother, convince him to go to Elm Street and start killing. Jason does so, and a misinformed cop thinks that Freddy must be responsible. Of course, our heroine (Monica Keena) overhears the name of Freddy, and he starts gaining power. Soon he’s back, but the problem is that Jason is still going. This irks the dreammaster, and he begins trying to cause the demise of Jason as a stepping stone to the youth population. As the annoying chick from Destiny’s Child says, they’re “not safe awake or asleep”.

This film is stupid. The plot is ludicrous, the acting is bad, and the dialogue is worse. Freddy stopped being scary after the third of his films, and Jason really never was scary, although he’s a much more imposing force than most killers not named Michael Myers. Star Monica Keena is not pitiful, and Katharine Isabelle (from the remake of Insomnia and the wonderful Canadian horror film Ginger Snaps) is a well cast victim. The rest of the cast of teens is awful, especially former Destiny’s Child Kelly Rowland. I’d always been a bigger Freddy fan than Jason, yet he looks so different than usual and is louder and more annoying than ever that I was quickly rooting for Jason when the battle came. There are too many things wrong with this film.

So what? It’s fun, it’s enjoyable, and the idea alone is worth the price of admission. The kills will please any horror fan, especially Jason’s – he really steals Freddy’s show. The last twenty minutes are a horror fan’s dream. And it didn’t completely sell out at the end like I’d expected. I liken the film to the experience American Wedding was. If you knew what you were going to each film for, and were a fan of their predecessors, it did everything that you’d want it to. Unlike that film, I am a fan of the predecessors of this one, and therefore had fun.

If you want to have a good time at the theater, go check out Freddy vs. Jason. If you’re the Costner type, then skip it and check that out. I’ll close by saying something that the horror fan will understand and the average filmgoer will take as they will. Freddy vs. Jason is a much less entertaining film than Jason X was, but it’s still worth every moment. Now I’ve said it. And I’ll say I liked this film too.

No Comments
Filed under: Horror, Movies, Suspense

Uptown Girls

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted August 14, 2003 at 5:09 pm

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Rating:Rated PG-13 for sexual content and language
Starring: Brittany Murphy, Dakota Fanning, Heather Locklear
Directed By:Boaz Yakin

Final Grade:

“It’s a Harsh World” are the words that comes out of young Dakota Fanning’s mouth as she flips down her sunglasses in Uptown Girls. And boy is she right. The world is harsh. Everywhere you turn there is poverty and people barely being able to survive on the streets, families torn apart and emotional pitfalls in the hearts of some of the world’s most kind and gentle human beings. Yes Dakota it is a Harsh world and even harsher are the critics who watched your latest film, Uptown Girls.

We all remember young Dakota Fanning from “I am Sam” last year with Sean Penn. She was that adorable young girl that mentally handicapped Sam fought the court system to raise on his own. A year later she is playing a spoiled little hypochondriac who’s father is in a comatose state, and her mother (played by Heather Locklear-(“There is a god, and Heather be thy name!” – for all you Wayne’s World Fans)) who might as well be in one as well. Her mother finds her daughters troubles too much of a pain to meddle with, and simply shrugs her off to a series of Nannies, each one of them having their fill of the spoiled little brat after only a few weeks.

Now enter Molly (Brittany Murphy), the little princess who had it all, because her famous rock star parents left her everything she ever needed after their death. All Grown up now, Molly has never had to work in her entire life and doesn’t have any responsibility. But when the family money caretaker embezzles her fortunes, Molly is left broke, penniless and forced to find…Oh my god! – A JOB! With the lack of funds to be able to carry on her lifestyle Molly moves in with friends and begins babysitting our young Hypochondriac brat. Both of them instantly hate each other, then begin to understand each other, and finally both learn from each other. Isn’t that cute?

If you thought the above scenario was cute, well maybe you are right. I have been told by the female audience that this is just sooooooo cute and worth a B-. But in reality if you hear me out, I think my reasons for not liking this film are justifiable.

We are supposed to feel pity for our two characters. We are actually supposed to pity Molly because she hasn’t had to work for a living, has no responsibility and no direction in her life. As she shoves away her friend who tries to help her, we are supposed to view those who help her as being selfish and “cruel” to her. And as she does a series of irresponsible things we are supposed to find humor in it, and say why doesn’t that 8 year old girl Molly is babysitting for want to act like a pre-school princess again. And then there is Dakota Fanning’s character, Ray. Ray is a spoiled brat. It’s hard to see beyond that. It her spoiled natures because her father is dying in the room next door while neither she nor her mother show any emotion? Is it because she gets whatever she wants except for the love and attention that she needs? Or is it simply because she is a bitter bitter little girl? It’s hard to find a shred of emotion for Ray because she is the way she is. She drives people away from her, why should we as an audience find pity for someone who doesn’t really deserve it?

Our characters are so fluffy and ridiculous it is hard to really delve into a plot. We know the outcome from the get go, everyone goes home happy, and Brittany Murphy learns that her former princess lifestyle means nothing if she can’t stand on her own two feet, and young Ray learns that life is nothing without friends. It’s so sweet and adorable but the sudden change of heart comes so quickly I want to barf. No one has that fast of an attitude change! No one! Not even in the movies. And for us to think by the end that suddenly Brittany Murphy’s slew of mistakes will suddenly make her a better person, I find it hard to believe and even harder to enjoy.

For an end of the summer movie that is supposed to be a comedy, I found very few laughs and only a few snickers here and there. It was more or less a 90-minute pityfest for characters that really didn’t deserve my pity at all. It’s a harsh world out there no doubt, but the oh so horrid events that I saw happen to these two little girls was no more of a problem than a Hollywood celebrity whining over how big their personal trailer is, or how their makeup is not the perfect shade of purple. In the end all I can say is don’t donate your money to this film, but instead donate it to a worthwhile cause like feeding the hungry or curing cancer, heck maybe even buy your pet dog a new treat! Just do anything and I mean anything with that money except watch two spoiled characters learn a magical lesson from each other that in the end really isn’t that magical at all.

No Comments
Filed under: Comedy, Movies
?>