Hello to all those faithfully reading and hopefully enjoying this effort to make even the worst horror movie more watcha... aw, screw that - I'm not that good. If a movie makes you cringe because yet another batch of unlikable teens that are pushing 30 are inching toward their deaths, having a party no one does anywhere ever, a paranormal movie is boring you to tears with unending pans of empty rooms, or thanks to CGI technology when people finally bite it, their blood squirts everywhere except on the victim, the ground, the people next to them... you're in good company and this is the right place for you.

Friday, April 12, 2013

JUST LEAVE IT ALONE ALREADY



12/12/12 (2012)/ Scre4m (2011)

I think I've mentioned before how much I hate franchises (even though I AM guilty of watching a few of them) because the okay, nay, may I say good ideas get so overdone and one-upped in sequels that they lose the original scare theory... that's my long winded way of saying they mostly suck.


12/12/12: There was a horrible movie by The Asylum called 11/11/11 about - you guessed it - a demon child born on that day to wreak havoc and destroy us all. It massively sucked, as do most movies churned out by The Asylum. So why, with this incredibly smart mind of mine (insert massive sarcasm here) would I even turn on a movie called 12/12/12 which is about... well, see 11/11/11. It was made by Global Asylum (Yeah right, you trying to hide suckers?). Let me tell you - the first movie could be declared as genius and put in the Hall of Movie Fame if there was one compared to the sequel, if it is that. Basically you have a kid trying to put off being born until said date and mom has to be cut open to get it out. It is sticky, gross, and promptly kills the doctor and nurse by chewing their necks.

Now at this point, the mom would die from being cut open, the baby killed for eating the above two people and the movie over. But instead mommy, baby and daddy go home which is reality in no world ever. WTH? From there the ugliest prop in the world (the best way to describe it is a cheap doll with clay baked onto it's face and black eyes popped in) chews through people or mesmerizes them into dying. 

Now if we could dispense with the fact that the thing isn't even remotely believable, and the people are obviously holding this thing ONTO their necks as they get killed (Wouldn't you be pulling the damn thing as hard as you could away from you?), why is the date significant? Like the first one, there is no explanation because there wasn't a budget for a decent writer, never mind special effects, good actors, location, etc. Stay away from this thing - I watched it with one eye and still got a massive headache.


Scre4m: I am guilty as charged for enjoying the Scream movie. It was fresh, a broad wink at the genre and it was worth repeating - if it could be done well. It wasn't. There were some good moments, mostly in the people who were in them. Besides the basic combination of Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courney Cox, we got the following that were as fun to watch as the movie was scary:

Matthew Lillard, Rose McGowan, Skeet Ulrich, Drew Barrymore, Jada Pinkett, Jerry O'Connell, Laurie Metcalf, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Henry Winkler, Timothy Olyphant, Omar Epps, Laurie Metcalf, Lance Henricksen, Patrick Dempsey, Patrick Warburton, Rebecca Gayheart, and a slew of others that popped up briefly for part of the fun.

So here is number four and I had to say, why? Well, I have a theory and it's just mine so don't take it as gospel. See, Wes Craven directed this movie. He is, as all know, the director of the original Nightmare on Elm Street and a couple of the sequels. It is well known he was not happy with the direction other directors took the Nightmare franchise and that he got a chance to air that in a sequel he directed later. I think he is doing that same thing with this installment also.

The Scream franchise's main goal is to reinvent itself each time, each sequel being different with different 'rules' for each one, with the exception of a few main ones. And this one also tries - very, very hard to be different. And that's the problem. It is trying so hard to be original and not write itself into a corner that it feels like they're straining to come up with a different angle and the story twists around on itself so much you practically need a scorecard just to keep up with it. 

I mean the beginning which started with an ending and another beginning and another ending and started another beginning.... that was cute, but still confusing (and having one character say 'I saw it in theaters' was a small chuckle - how many theaters did she go to?). Going round and round about who the new killer or killers could be - again, this movie tries waaay too hard to be sooo different that you only end up frustrated trying to keep up and it takes away from the scare.

And as I said I think that was Wes' way of commenting on keeping the original tone of his ideas. In fact, when Sydney, the perpetual survivor makes the statement 'Don't f*** with the original', I'll bet that came straight from Mr. Craven's mouth. And if so, doesn't that make all the sequels a waste of time?