Nov 23: Re-Animator

"A dedicated student at a medical college and his girlfriend become involved in bizarre experiments centering around the re-animation of dead tissue when an odd new student arrives on campus."

Directed by: Stuart Gordon, Rated: UR, 86 minutes'

The 80s is a decade that's remembered (in my eyes) for two things- teen comedies and gory, campy horror movies. Two very different genres that gave us classic after classic, from John Hughes to Wes Craven. In 1985, Stuart Gordon entered the fray with Re-Animator, a quasi re-telling of the story of Frankenstein, set on a medical campus with an eccentric young scientist. It's a very, very gory film filled with practical effects, gallons of blood, and enough mayhem to keep you interested. It also introduced us to Jeffrey Combs, the poor man's Bruce Campbell who's just as awesome.

One of the many faces of awesome. 

Combs plays Herbert West, a reserved scientist who moves to New England to continue his studies he began in Switzerland. On the brink of a great discovery, West begins experimenting with dead issue and his new roommate's (Bruce Abbot) cat. He hopes to perfect a neon green formula that reanimates the dead, bringing them back to life. Thinking he's far ahead of anyone and everyone, West begins pushing the limits of his experimentation and takes his formula to the school's morgue, hoping to find the freshest and most perfect specimen to revive. Unfortunately for West, the formula doesn't quite work as planned, and the man he brings back to life is crazed and aggressive, similar to how a zombie would act. After his John Doe takes out the school's dean, West must figure out a way to reverse death, perfect the formula, and clear his name.

Radioactive Gatorade is apparently the key to bringing back the dead. 

Re-Animator is fun. It balances campy, gory, and genuinely funny rather well and proves to be a strong enough film to stand up against other classics of the 80s. The special effects are memorable, from the opening scene with a doctor's eyes exploding out of his head to scenes featuring a decapitated doctor walking around, you're left amazed. A lot of the effects still hold up in today's standards and as I have mentioned dozens of times before, the practical ones have a special, dirty, gory little spot in my heart. As for the acting, Jeffrey Combs is practically flawless as Herbert West and takes the role in all sorts of directions. At first, he's the mad scientist you could give a shit about, and as the film progresses, he's still that same character, but you understand him better. He's still bat-shit crazy, but when faced with his deadly creations, he becomes more unhinged and ridiculous, and it's just so much fun to watch. Combs is joined by a solid supporting cast in the generic, yet heroic, Bruce Abbot, scream-queen Barbara Crampton, and the terrifying David Gale. Each play their part very well, and each have their own little memorable moments that will stick with you.

A lot to remember. 

Re-Animator is a must watch for any fan of horror and especially those who love a good dose of camp thrown in the mix. It's cheesy, but done well, and has an incredibly fun cast to elevate the film into cult classic status. I'm actually ashamed for not having seen this movie for as long as I have, but am very glad to finally have it under my belt. There's just so many fun things about the film that you have to walk away with something to love. Sure, the story isn't strong and lacks a bit in depth and even length, but the visuals and the obscurity of it all make up for it. It's a twisted ride through a mad man's obsession with resurrecting the dead and the zombie-like consequences he must suffer through for not quite getting it right. That alone should sell you on Re-Animator and if it doesn't, I personally recommend it as well. 

The Good:

hilarity, graphic gore, and wild special effects that keep the film very, very interesting

The Better:

a true vibe of the 80s that reminds you it really is the best decade for movies

The Best:

Jeffrey Combs... enough said

Overall: 7.8/10

Discussion Question:

Where does Re-Animator rank among the horror classics of the 80s? Is Herbert West just as memorable as say, Ash of The Evil Dead.

Trailer:

Nov 8: [Rec] 3: Genesis

"A couple's wedding day turns into a horrific events as some of the guests start showing signs of a strange illness."

Directed by: Paco Plaza, Rated: R, 80 minutes

I am incredibly conflicted with [Rec] 3: Genesis. One, it's part of one of my favorite horror franchises and I feel obligated to love it, no matter how different it is. Two, it's just that- different. Abandoning the found-footage aspect that made the first two films so intense and terrifying, Rec 3 becomes a generic horror film that actually tries to be funny as well. The end result is a grab-bag of genres that can't find it's focus. It's confusing because Paco Plaza, the man behind the first two films, is back at the helm and pulling-double duty on the screenplay. Yet, it never feels like a genuine Rec film.

The first Rec is still one of the only movies to genuinely creep me out. That ending... Damn

The film's buildup is excellent. The first twenty minutes is actual in the style of the Rec we know, using handheld cameras and wedding footage from the ceremony and reception of Clara (Leticia Dolera) and Koldo (Diego Martin). Unfortunately for the newlyweds, an unusual illness sweeps through their wedding party, turning their guests into flesh-eating zombies (that aren't necessarily zombies). We see the initial outbreak and attacks through the lens of a wedding photographer's camera, but as soon as a character gets tired of it being in his face, he smashes it. Then, Rec 3 becomes your usual, multi-camera HD movie with none of the suspense a close-quartered handheld can actually maintain. Clara and Koldo then must find a way out of the Church and its premises, survive the demonic invasion, and of course, find each other (they get separated at the beginning).

I guess every horror movie does need a beautiful leading lady... 

Paco Plaza is by no means, a bad director. I honestly think that his intentions were good, and that his little baby, the Rec franchise, really does mean a lot to him. With Rec 3, I think he just wanted to experiment a little and breakaway from the found-footage of the first two, maybe in hopes of expanding the series and showing that he can actual do more than film (through first-person) a bunch of people running around an apartment complex. Even with the bad decision to shift the series' style, Plaza still has a terrific talent with a camera. He sets up wonderful shots and captures the color and terror that goes on at a Spanish wedding ceremony brilliantly. However, the weak script detracts from the pretty visuals (including its leading lady, Dolera) and nosedives the film into the realm of the laughable and ridiculous. Plaza definitely attempts to turn the film into a horror comedy, even highlighting each physical joke with cheesy music, all to rather weak effect. Maybe going into this, knowing it was this different, I would have been more prepared, but you don't have to be a genius to know it just doesn't work. 

Showing a little leg while wielding a chainsaw is far from any Rec staple. 

Both leads are interesting characters, but as more horror stories go, they lack any depth or substance. Clara has her moments of being a badass (she goes crazy with a chainsaw) but again, it feels completely unnecessary. The first two Rec films were terrifying because they didn't show a lot, and the moments they did reveal a bit, were all the more terrifying. In Rec 3, Plaza embraces the violence, turning the series down the path of torture-porn and gore. Sure, this works for some movies, but it's not what you sign up for when you head into a Rec flick. However, there's still a lot to enjoy, from the great visuals, to the even better makeup. It's definitely not a failure, just a disappointment. Sure, [Rec] 3: Genesis could have been much greater than it really is but I still like it, even if it is a little difficult to swallow. 

The Good:

the film has style, even if it is a bit misguided

The Bad:

very little of the movie feels like an actual Rec movie and in turn, feels very, very generic (with a lot of blood)

The Ugly:

knowing that the premise is an incredible idea but that its execution ruins it almost completely

Overall: 6.1/10

Discussion Question:

What are some of your favorite foreign horror films?

Trailer:

Nov 7: The Raven

"When a madman begins committing horrific murders inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's works, a young Baltimore detective joins forces with Poe to stop him from making his stories a reality."

Directed by: James McTeigue, Rated: R, 110 minutes

The Raven takes itself way too seriously and turns into a laughable series of ridiculous events, as opposed to an effective thriller. It's a film that's completely unnecessary and attempts to create a world around a historical figure, with as much absurd fiction as possible. Turning Edgar Allan Poe into a Sherlock Holmes/National Treasure-esque detective may have sounded like a grand idea on paper, but the execution is so mundane and uninspired it turns into an insult of one of literature's greatest poets. Did I mention it's boring?

Nevermore. Nevermore. Please..?

In the mid-1800s, a serial killer is on the loose in Baltimore. Detective Fields (Luke Evans) comes to the conclusion that the series of murders is inspired by the work of Edgar Allan Poe (John Cusack). Assuming that a man who writes poems is a perfect assistant to a crime detective, Fields asks Poe for his help in solving the murders. Poe, reluctant at first, joins the cause after the love of his life, Emily (Alice Eve) is kidnapped by the killer, who then leaves a series of notes teasing the poet, dragging him along in a deadly game of cat and mouse. Fields and Poe run from crime scene to crime scene, never really saving anyone, but having discussions reminiscent of CSI: Miami, without David Caruso tearing sunglasses of his face.

If only The Raven's soundtrack consisted of The Who songs. 

I have to admit I was excited at the prospect of The Raven. Edgar Allan Poe is a historical figure that has been screaming for a biopic, and while the film is far from such things, it had the potential to be something awesome. Unfortunately  the film fails in nearly every aspect. Cusack has been bordering the career of Nicolas Cage, and The Raven looks to be his crossing over. He's erratic with an over-the-top performance, and pairing him up with the beautiful Alice Eve only shows his age. He's out of place in the role and while he's believable as the smart and short-tempered Poe, he takes the part too far and into the realm of "I don't give a damn about this man, or his life". I feel bad for Evans as well, as the man has the look and the talent to be a big star, but his career choices have been a one-way ticket to the toilet. The supporting cast is also very unimpressive and by the time you find out who the killer is, you really don't remember him from before. It takes a lot of the mystery out of the film because you really don't care what happens to anyone. Each victim is a "say hi and bye" character so once we see them splayed out and splattered, you're more surprised by the massive gore and not the actual deaths. In the end, The Raven really just turns into a ripoff of Saw set in the 1800s, and even then it's less interesting.

Never in my life did I think I'd miss Jigsaw. 

While I'm not an expert on Poe, I've always found the man interesting and his work exceptional. Unfortunately for The Raven, you don't need to be a pro-of-Poe to know how far off the events are and how unnecessary it all really is. The film is a boring mess that takes itself far too seriously and is in desperate need of a joke (JUST one!). Sure, Poe was a man constantly wrapped up in drama and despair, but Baltimore as a city has much more to offer than somber moment after somber moment. I can't really say that a lot could have been changed to make The Raven better, but a turn of focus to an actual life story of the poet would have been much more intriguing. Had the movie been more based in reality, I would have found myself much more pulled in than I am with the end-result. If you must check it out, you should be fully aware that this is not a good film. Personally, I'd suggest skipping it and watching director, James McTeigue's other films, V for Vendetta and the severely underrated Ninja Assassin. At least those are fun...

The Good:

the bit of ambition the film tends to show, but an over-eagerness that still drags it down

The Bad:

Edgar Allan Poe not getting the movie he deserves as The Raven insults his legacy and work

The Ugly:

John Cusack terrifying me that his career may be well past its prime and that any likability he has is slowly (but surely) dwindling

Overall: 4.4/10

Discussion Question:

What famous author do you want to see come to the screen? Be it a worthwhile biopic or a fictional re-telling of his/her life. 

Trailer:

Nov 4: Red Lights

"Psychologist Margaret Matheson and her assistant study paranormal activity, which leads them to investigate a world-renowned psychic who has resurfaced years after his toughest critic mysteriously passed away."

Directed by: Rodrigo Cortes, Rated: R, 113 minutes

For those of you who have been reading this blog from the start, you know how big of a fan I am of Rodrigo Cortes' 2010 masterpiece, Buried. It's a film that proved to be incredible on both technical aspects and on how to craft a story. Well, Cortes' followup, Red Lights, doesn't have the wow factor of buried, nor is it really an experiment in filmmaker. It is, however, a well-crafted thriller that has plenty of things going for it. Unfortunately, in contrast, there are a handful of things to dislike about the film, such as a rather weak second act that leaves the movie stumbling onward towards its conclusion.

I still stand by Ryan Reynolds and feel he was completely overlooked for the Oscars in 2011. 

The film's introduction is incredibly engaging. Sigourney Weaver plays Margaret Matheson, a psychologist who makes a living off of proving the illegitimacy of so-called "psychics" that scam their audiences into believing what they do is real. Her assistant, Tom Buckley (Cillian Murphy) is a genius physicist but refuses to teach in his field, because of his loyalty to Margaret and the fact he finds what they do incredibly interesting. When retired all-star psychic, Simon Silver (Robert DeNiro), decides to get back into the game years after an accident, the world turns its focus upon the man, as do Tom and Margaret. A shroud of mystery surrounds Silver and Tom struggles to find out how he manages to seemingly read minds, bend spoons, and do all sorts of psychic things. As the secrets begin to unravel, Tom realizes that there is much greater things behind all of the happenings. Unfortunately, he's too caught up in everything and the only way "out" is to continue moving forward, facing Silver head on. 

You don't fock around with this guy. 

The first thirty minutes of Red Lights shows the duo taking down a handful of psychics by hijacking radio frequencies and all sorts of clever methods to prove they're fake. It's a job I certainly would love to have myself as I can only see great joy in ruining the lives of these high profile scam artists. It's also one of the better parts of the film and starts the film off with a lot of excitement. Unfortunately, the second act loses the energy of the intro and as more questions are raised, Red Lights grows tiresome. Lucky for us, by its conclusion, the movie regains its composure and delivers a pretty unique and unpredictable finish that honestly leaves you satisfied, even if some of those questions are still left unanswered. It's something that is easy to look past after the credits roll, but after processing your thoughts about everything, you're left with a rather bland taste in your mouth.

Mainstream psychics like this asshole need to "cross-over" into oblivion. 

A large part of the (somewhat) success of Red Lights is its cast. Cortes managed to recruit some incredible actors for his followup and they elevate it to something worth watching. Sigourney Weaver's role is somewhat substantial and reminds us that she's more talented than her sci-fi cameos. Robert DeNiro also seems to be getting a better grasp on his career, and doesn't quite remind us of his past greatness, but takes a step back toward it.  But even with two powerhouses, the star of Red Lights is Cillian Murphy, who shows us time and again that he's one of the greatest actors working today. He's mesmerizing as Tom Buckley and steals every scene he's in. He has this intensity about him that you don't find a lot and as his paranoia combines with his own intelligence (that Murphy always brings to the table), you can't help but understand his skewed frustrations. Personally, I would watch the man talk to a wall for ninety minutes, as I find him that interesting, and Red Lights does a great job of complimenting his abilities. The film also packs a strong supporting cast that includes Elizabeth Olsen, Toby Jones, and Craig Roberts. 

Seriously, world. Give this man every damn award you can think of. Shower him with love. Admire his talents. IDOLIZE HIM.

Red Lights received an incredibly small release in theaters and a quiet release on DVD. It's a film that deserves some love and attention for its acting and at times, its clever script. Rodrigo Cortes proves again that he's a talented filmmaker and while it's not on the same level as Buried, Red Lights still manages to be successful. It's suspenseful with plenty of twists, and has a unique ending that left me wanting a sequel (that would head in a completely opposite direction). Call me a nice guy, but I can forgive the film's faults and definitely recommend it. While it's not worth running out and buying, it's certainly worth renting and I really hope more people give this under-looked film a chance. If anything, the love and attention you'd show the film would at least give Cortes the money he deserves to continue making movies that are far more unconventional than what we're used to seeing.

The Good:

terrific acting that carries the film above averageness and turns the movie into a very interesting ride

The Bad:

a second act that's lacking the energy of the introduction and leaves you slightly bored

The Ugly:

knowing that there is a large majority of people that believe in psychics and rely on them for many of their day to day decisions

7.4/10

Trailer:

Oct 29: Rock of Ages

"A small town girl and a city boy meet on the Sunset Strip, while pursuing their Hollywood dreams."

Directed by: Adam Shankman, Rated: PG-13, 123 minutes

Had Rock of Ages simply been a continued succession of covers of awesome 80s rock songs with absolutely no story to tie everything together, it would have been great. Instead, in between each rock anthem we must suffer through awful acting and even worse dialogue that's riddled with every damn cliche in the book. However, Tom Cruise delivers an incredible performance and makes the majority of the film something worth watching, even if everything else is disgustingly bad. I seriously considered turning the movie off but after Tom Cruise's introduction and performances, I had to see this thing through. 

Thank you, Xenu. 

Rock of Ages starts off with the doe-eyed innocent Sherrie (the terrible Julianne Hough) arriving in L.A to start her own music career. Immediately after getting off the bus she gets a job at the very popular rock-bar, The Bourbon Room, owned by Dennis (Alec Baldwin) and Lonny (Russell Brand). Of course, being young and "beautiful" attracts the attention of all sorts of men, and another aspiring musician, Drew (Diego Boneta) falls in love with her. After just a few moments on screen, the two are madly in love with each other and will do whatever it takes to see the other one succeed. Then comes Stacee Jaxx (Tom Cruise), performing one last time with his band, Arsenal, at The Bourbon Room. Through a series of misleading situations, Drew believes that Sherrie slept with the rock legend and the two part ways. This and that happens, the two meet here and there, and a bunch of songs are sung along the way. Of course, it all builds up to the inevitable coming together of everyone (poorly) singing "Don't Stop Believing".

Don't f**k with Journey. 

Rock of Ages is a movie set in the 80s that's in serious need of cocaine. It's complete absent of the sleaze and smut that surrounded the 80s rock scene and glosses over everything for the PG-13 rating. It also has a severe lack of rock and roll cameos (where's Jon Bon Jovi!?). The love story at the core of the film is completely lacking of any emotion or depth and manages to give a certain vampire movie a run for its money for "worst love story ever". Julianne Hough is best known for her... part? in Dancing with the Stars and being Ryan Seacrest's girlfriend and her acting ability is non-existent. Even with casting a dancer you'd think the filmmakers would use that to her advantage, but Hough dances in about one scene and that involves her swinging around a stripper pole. Diego Bonata, the male lead, has less charm than Zac Efron and is far from leading man material. Each scene that focuses on either of these two falls very flat and you grow incredibly impatient, hoping to see another moment of Tom Cruise. 

Keep pitching Proactive, Hough. That's as far as you'll go. 

Rock of Ages has a terrific soundtrack that features songs from Bon Jovi, Journey, Poison, Foreigner, and more. Many of the covers are genuinely fun, but seeing them being act out on screen feels a little out of place for the most part. Hough and Bonata lack any real charisma or singing voices to bring the songs home. Cruise, however, is wonderfully surprising and completely captures the essence of an 80s rock god. Doubting his singing abilities would be anywhere near good enough to carry the film and sing these ballads can immediate fly out the window and once you see him on stage screaming, you have to admire the man. As I have stated before, I don't care for the man in his personal and private life, but on screen he continues to remind me how badass he is. Rock of Ages is no exception and without his presence, the film would suffer even more. 

Paul Giamatti pops up here and there as well and absolutely nails it as the sleazy music agent/producer. 

Rock of Ages is a decent movie but never manages to find its focus. You can clearly tell the film is based off of a Broadway musical as the movie jumps from set piece to set piece, with a very weak story tying it all together. You'd think that on a cinematic level, each musical sequence would be greater and grander, but it lacks the punch and oomph that, I would assume brings greater energy on stage. Tom Cruise is incredible as Stacee Jaxx but his scenes are indeed far and few between and had the focus been on the aging rock legend instead of the two loveless love birds, Rock of Ages could have easily been something great. Instead, the film flaps its musical wings to no avail, and leaves you with an usual desire to play Rockband or Guitar Hero. 

The Good:

Tom Cruise rocking it like it's 1984

The Bad:

a script that allows no moments of depth and is packed with terrible dialogue

The Ugly:

Hough and Boneta sogging down the film with their lacks of charisma, chemistry, or star power

5.6/10

Discussion Question:

What does it take to successfully adapt a stage musical to the screen? Is it more about the glam and glitter or is it more about the set pieces and staging?

Trailer:

Oct 25: Sinister

"Found footage helps a true-crime author realize how and why a family was murdered in his new home, though his discoveries put his entire family in the path of a supernatural entity."

Directed by: Scott Derrickson, Rated: R, 110 minutes

Sinister is a movie that starts off incredibly well but builds up to a rather lackluster finale. It's in no way a game-changer in the horror genre but it still manages to provide a good chunk of new ideas and a twist on a somewhat familiar mythology. Of course, a large majority of the scares are the gimmicky pop-out ones, but the overall dread the movie creates, with the help of a terrifying score and great sound work, still leaves you on edge.

"Creepy" children and an awkwardly tall post-pubescent boy are scary anymore. 

Ellison Oswald (Ethan Hawke) is a true-crime novelist. He's written a handful of books but cannot seem to recapture the success of his first book, Kentucky Blood. After a family is murdered in the backyard of a house, Oswald decides to move his family to the location, in hopes of uncovering secrets behind the murder and get into the mindset of the murdered family. Oswald discovers a box of old Super 8 films in the attic only to find out that they are actual footage of the murder that took place previously in the home as well as a few others. With the help of a local college professor (Vincent D'Onofrio), Oswald realizes that the murders are connected and that the source of evil behind each of the gruesome events is the pagan god, Baghul, a deity who uses images as portals into our world, only to kidnap children and feed on their souls. Oswald puts his own family at risk and needs to figure out a way to 

stop the evil.

If you look closely you can see him riiiiiighhhtttt there. 

Sinister's greatest strengths are the sounds, the actual Super 8 films, and the performance of Ethan Hawke. The score is incredibly unsettling and its constant dissonance becomes a white noise that distracts, making each scare more effective. Each movie-in-the-movie is just as scary, and the grainy, "found-footage-ness" of each makes them feel all too real. As for Hawke, he carries the film to a level that not only gives the movie a good chunk of credibility, but actually has someone who can act at the center of it. Most horror films suffer from terrible acting and with Hawke in the role, it escalates to awesome. Even with all of these strengths, however, Sinister has plenty of flaws. To start, the first 45 minutes are terrific but the last 45 are rather boring and lead to a very expected and almost laughable ending. Another problem with the film is that as Oswald looks into the films until the wee-hours of the night, he makes a lot of noise. Only once does he wake up his family, even after making enough racket to sound like an earthquake. Also, not once does Oswald turn on any damn light. As for myself, if I hear a single bump in the night, I go around turning every damn light on in the house. Because as we all know, lights keep away the boogeyman and pagan gods. Each of these things annoy the f**k out of you, and once you notice them, it takes a hell of a lot away from the movie. 

I idolize Ethan Hawke, but dammit man, turn on a light. You're smarter than that!

Sinister is still worth watching. With all the shit in the horror genre that comes out lately, it's a shallow breath of fresh air. One thing many horror movies these day suck at doing is creating a score that's somewhat memorable and just as scary on its own as it is with the accompanying movie. Christopher Young delivers a great score that blends both music, sound effects, and voices. Of course, director Scott Derrickson (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) also manages to create great images that crawl across the screen and his attention to detail is admirable. Even with its flaws, Sinister delivers some solid scares and gets under your skin. Had the ending been changed a bit (and  not as rushed), Sinister could easily have been a new classic, and Baghul could have begun his initiation process into the ranks of Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger, and Jason Voorhees. Unfortunately  for now, he's gonna have to wait in line behind Jigsaw and just ahead of f**king Toby (Paranormal Activity). 

The Good:

the sounds, the music, the direction, and Ethan Hawke's performance

The Bad:

a script that has plenty of stupid moments and a apparently has a fear of turning on the lights

The Ugly:

the ending... it really could have been so much better

7.3/10

Discussion Question:

Do you think that in this day and age, we can see a horror villain as memorable as the classic three? Or are we too saturated with lackluster horror films to have any single character stand out? 

Trailer:

Jan 29: Rubber

"When Robert, a tire, discovers his destructive telepathic powers, he soon sets his sights on a desert town; in particular, a mysterious woman becomes his obsession."

   From the very beginning, Rubber grabs your interest. The opening is a man giving a monologue about the concept of "no reason" in films, stating that so much just simply happens because it can.  Rubber is an "homage to the no reason- the most powerful element of style" and it is because of that fact, the film succeeds in its own way. There is no need to question why a tire goes around killing animals and people because you know it's all happening for no reason. It just simply occurs, and we simply watch it all happen. It's a strange concept to accept but, if you can, Rubber proves to be a lot more interesting than you'd think. Plus, heads explode, which is always pretty awesome. 

The most famous head explosion of all time. 

   Because of its "no reason" philosophy, Rubber is a hard film to explain. It's baffling in that you can't tell if there is symbolism in something, or if it's completely without reason. The film is open to interpretation and would definitely spark some interesting conversation. In the film, an "audience" watches the tire's actions from far away with binoculars and provide commentary on what is happening but, even then, what actually plays out is just too weird to explain. It's almost like a dream where after you wake up, you can't explain what happened but have the images dancing around inside your head. 

Only after waking up will he realize he has no clue of what the f**k just happened. 

   The acting in Rubber is surprisingly decent for this type of film. None of the people involved really show signs of wanting to get out of the movie they are in, and it all just fits in its own weird way. The special effects are very, very good and each head explosion and animal kill looks real, not that I've ever actually seen it happen. Robert, the tire, moves in a realistic (?) way and you believe he's alive. It's rather impressive how much character the filmmakers gave a tire. He even falls in "love" with a woman and kills anyone that hurts her. 

Voted "Most Likely to Pop a Tire's Heart" in high school

   Overall, Rubber proves to be entertaining in the weirdest of ways and it isn't as bad a movie as I thought it would be. I just finally got around to watching it because I was weary of the ridiculous premise. In an astonishing way, I really don't regret wasting 90 minutes watching it. I do not, however, think it is a movie I would revisit or even recommend. It exists simply to exist, with no reason at all, and it's up to the movie-watching population to decide whether or not it's worth his or her time. The film does have a very dragged out ending and its conclusion only frustrates and confuses the viewer even more. The whole thing just leaves you in awe, as in, you sit and wonder what the f**k just happened. 

Sight:The film is shot very well and many of the scenes featuring an alive tire seem real. The special effects are superb and the whole thing is really fun to watch... I think.

Sound: The sound the tire makes before he blows someone's head off makes you feel uncomfortable and the smallest details in the sound of his movement and actions give him so much more character. 

Skill: The acting is great, which is absolutely surprising for a film with such a premise as Rubber.

Script: Smart and unique, but confusing and bizarre, the script of Rubber does what I only assume the filmmakers needed it to do.

Overall: a baffling 6.5/10

Best Quote:

Lt. Chad: "My God, the kid was right. The killer is the tire." (after witnessing someone's head explode)

Jan 15: Ronin

"A freelancing former US intelligence agent tries to track down a mysterious package that is wanted by both the Irish and the Russians."

   Ronin is a rather interesting movie, filled with great stunt driving, betrayal, violence, shootouts, and Robert De Niro. Ronin is widely considered one of the last "real" films, in that it uses all technical special effects with no CGI. Now a days, everything has to be in front of a green screen. Watching this film, made with real filming techniques, is refreshing.

That's a wrap. You can go, we'll make the movie later. 

   Robert De Niro is a former special agent and is brought on board for a heist. The plan is to simply steal a package and sell it, then walk away with thousands of dollars. Of course, since this is a movie, and there is 90+ minutes to fill, it does not go as planned. The package goes from person to person, and De Niro needs to track it down...of course, he does this with style. The car chases in Ronin are some of the best I have ever seen. The stunt driving is phenomenal and with clever camerawork, you can easily believe it is the actual actors doing the work. 

Look ma! No CGI!

  Now, Ronin is not without it's faults. Sure it has great action and a high body count (car and person), but the script is immensely lacking. The film uses many of the genre's cliches (betrayals, double agents, the "I know a guy" plot device). However, with the action as solid as it is, the script really does take second fiddle. The acting is just okay, as De Niro really just plays himself. Jean Reno, an always underrated badass, shines as his "partner". Whatever happened to that guy?

Dammit. 

   Overall, Ronin is a nice reminder of what action movies used to be and that you don't need computers and green screens to make a good film. The action makes Ronin a fun ride, but the acting and the script drag the film behind. Each scene of dialogue is not necessarily bad, but it is really used to break up the action and to give the crew time to find new cars to wreck. The film also has quite a soft, weak ending. Enjoyable, but not incredible, Ronin is a good film to watch on a rainy Sunday. I'd recommend staying in anyways, as Ronin will make you want to drive 90mph, wherever you go. 

Sight: The driving and stunt work are done extraordinarily well, as are the car crashes and explosions. The lack of CGI use makes the film even more impressive. 

Sound: The film really lacks much of a score. The sound effects, while seemingly done well in contrast with the stunt driving, are just okay. 

Skill: Like I mentioned above, the acting is not bad, it is just nothing award worthy. De Niro plays the badass De Niro (not the shitty Fockers De Niro), and the supporting cast is solid. 

Script: The script is nothing special. 

Overall: 6.2/10

Best Quote:

Spence: "You ever kill anybody?"
Sam: "I hurt somebody's feelings once."