Don't Be Afraid of the Dark

Dont' Be Afraid of the Dark -- 2.5/5

There was so much about this movie that I wanted to like, but it never came through for me. I loved that Guillermo del Toro's name was attached to this, and that it looked like a classic haunted house story not so different from one of my favorite horror films El Orfanato (also produced by del Toro). It also had a pretty creepy trailer attached to it, and furthermore I had no clue what it could be about. Maybe not knowing was for the best.

[spoiler alert] The movie starts out in possibly the 1800's. A creepy old scientist who lives in a ridiculously gorgeous mansion knocks out his maid's teeth to feed to these evil sounding creatures who have captured his son and will not give him back until he gives them "child's teeth." Needless to say the scientist angers the whispering creatures by offering them adult teeth and they pull him down some shaft to his death.

Jump to the future, where the movie doesn't seem to quite know where it is. The airport has old fashioned arrival signs, Katie Holmes (the evil step-girlfriend) carries around a Polaroid camera, and the father (Guy Pearce) has a smart phone he can text on. What? At first I thought they could be in the 90's, but the texting really through me off that scent.

Then we get to the house, and it's gorgeous. Probably the only thing that made the movie worth viewing to be honest. Now it's the time where characters are established (sort of). The little girl's parents are divorced, she is taking some pretty strong medication that could be the cause of her depression, and the dad seems like a class-A jerk. Oh, and I shouldn't forget that Katie Holmes' character apparently had a really bad childhood, but don't worry -- apparently that's not important because they never ever mention it again in the movie. Actually, the character's lives aren't important either because all this back story that could be potential character development is shoved to the side for the rest of the movie.

We move on as the secret basement is discovered by young Sally (played by Bailee Madison). After roaming around a fairy-tale-like labyrinth (complete with fairy mushroom circle and all), she finds a window covered by one giant bush, thus the discovery of the basement. Of course, one of the construction workers (Harris) attempts to keep the family away from this discovery, but fails miserably. When the father and girlfriend Holmes discover the basement, they go hog wild. Of course, the audience realizes this basement is the one where the mad scientist killed his maid for her teeth and was in return killed by these whispering creatures. Right away, Sally notices the shaft that has been conveniently bolted up. This intrigues her.

It all seems so simple and easy to follow up until this point. So potentially good and interesting. But alas, this is where the plot holes and weird parts start and keep on coming. This is where the movie gets bad.

Plot Hole #1: Apparently Harris's grandfather was the one who bolted up the shaft (what?) but we never know why his family doesn't own the house anymore and why on earth he's working to restore it if he knows the house's dark and scary secrets.

Plot Hole #2: Even though the creepy whispering creatures sound, well, creepy it doesn't stop Sally from wanting to be their friend (why?). Maybe this is because her parents don't love her (the creatures repeat that a lot), but as a kid if I heard creepy voice who demanded me to "turn off the light!" I would be running away and not trying to release them from there bolted shaft. Maybe she was just lonely.

Weird Part #1: Grown up men can't seem to escape the wrath of these hunchback, limping creatures with tiny sharp objects. And they almost kill poor Harris for attempting to protect Sally. I don't know why he couldn't just walk or run up the stairs to the light and save himself, but apparently these little guys are very...strong?

Plot Hole #3: After Harris' demise and the father refuses to believe the daughter about anything, girlfriend Holmes decides to rush off to the library on the command of Harris. 16 minutes before closing time, she is able to find the young librarian and they run off into a restricted section to discover more about the scientist who owned the house, Blackwood. While she must wear gloves, the librarian doesn't seem to need them while touching these old sketches and diary entries. It is now where we discover the secret of these hunchbacked tiny creatures. Apparently they used to kill people to replenish their ranks, but after making a treaty with the Pope (what?!?!) they started to live off of children's teeth. To get these teeth, at night a child would place his or her tooth under a pillow and in the morning find a silver piece. So, like Darkness Falls, we are dealing with...a tooth fairy. Oh how scary.

Plot Hole #4: After successfully crushing one of the creatures, Sally doesn't show anyone the body's remains. Maybe that would have made someone believe she wasn't mental??
Weird Part #2: While these creatures can apparently drag a little girl down to a basement, attack a grown man, and break a woman's legs with a rope, they seem to have issues with stabbing someone with a poker in the face.

Plot Hole #5: Once girlfriend Holmes is taken by these creatures, the father and daughter seem to get out of the situation OK. No police questioning, no anything. The disappearance of Holmes goes unnoticed it seems.

Plot Hole #6: The ending was just of the charts confusing. After sacrificing her life to save little Sally, apparently girlfriend Holmes is now the master and commander of these little tooth fairies (wait....what? why?...the world may never know).

The characters never grow, we only ever get to know them skin deep. It attempts to be a commentary on modern child abuse (what with the medication and the neglect), but stops concerning itself with that about 30 minutes in. Who knows why the creatures were able to make a treaty with the Pope, but were never documented otherwise. The story is all over the place, and it doesn't seem to be very good and understanding what it wants to be. The movie is just confusing.

The sad part about it, is that there were some interesting parts to this movie that if done right could have made it really great. But it fell so short of greatness and completely fell off the map into craziness. It seemed like del Toro mashed all the things he likes (labyrinths, dark houses, children) into one film and didn't care where or how the story would pan out.

Fright Night: Gay Vibes vs. 3D remakes

VS

Up front I'm going to say I really like both of these movie, but in extremely different ways. The 80's Fright Night was undeniably gay and very much enjoyable to watch with a group of people, while the current Fright Night remake was exciting as well as fun and a tad bit self aware.

Last week I watched the 80's Fright Night because I wanted to see the remake, and also because it was mentioned once or twice in my Horror film class. I cannot say it was scary at all, but it was super enjoyable. I love the sexy music that played every time the vampire would stalk a young male, I loved the mom's line regarding the neighbor "with my luck, he'll be gay," and I loved the absurd thought process of the teenagers. The special affects were cool, and the death of Evil Ed was really great. The original has everything going for it, except terror.

And though there are quite a lot of thing that separate the original from the remake, terror may be the biggest one. I would say, Fright Night the remake had a little bit more tension to it. The opening scene was very good to establish that.

I also enjoyed the film's self awareness of the original. It wasn't too distracting, and it gave the movie a little something special for me. I enjoyed Collin Farrell as the new vamp eating the old vamp (Chris Sarandon) for dinner. I thought it was funny how they constantly poked fun at the name Jerry for a vampire. But above it all, I loved it when Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) screamed "I'm feeling a little homo right now!" Total kickback to the homosexual awesomeness in the original one.

[spoiler alert] But there's also something else special about the remake. While the original run amok with homosexual not-so-secret undertones, the new one deals with the difficulties of high school. This time around Ed wasn't popular and had just lost his best friend Charley (or Brewster) to a hot and sexy popular girlfriend (who also turned out to be sweet and kind). Though I would complain that the death of Ed wasn't as devastatingly long as the original's, it had a lot more depth and back story as to why it was so sad. Also (it may be a stretch) but by creating Charley as the killer of his old friend, it was a metaphor for him leaving behind his confused adolescence. [/spoiler alert]

Other little things that made this remake stand out was David Tennant as the vampire hunter (who also had a nice back story), and the 3D surprisingly enough. I would say see it before it leaves theaters, because I fear that will be soon what with all the horror films like Shark Night 3D coming out and hogging the horror spotlight (for better or for worse).

In the end, I love both movies the same, but very differently.

Fright Night (1985): 4/5

Fright Night (2011): 4/5

Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris -- 4.5/5

Even though I missed maybe the first 5 minutes of this movie, it did not take away from its creativity and fabulousness. I loved loved loved the way the story flowed. It was creative writing as well as total eye candy. I'm really glad I was invited to see this movie, because otherwise I wouldn't have seen it til it somehow hit Netflix instant.

Underneath the movie's creative concept it's a (not so average) story about a man who doesn't know if he's making the right decisions. Move to Malibu with his fiance or stay in Paris alone? Does he even truly love his fiance? Does she love him or his money and prestige success? Midnight in Paris uses the imagination of a nostalgic writer to help answer these questions. And I loved following his journey all the way.

Midnight in Paris is about a screenwriter (Owen Wilson) who travels back in time to Paris in the 1920's every night at midnight. Along his adventure he meets the Fitzgerald's, Ernest Hemingway, Picasso, Salvador Dali, and a beautiful "art groupie" who has a nostalgic fantasy for the 1890's (played by the gorgeous Marion Cotillard). It's hard to decipher if his trips back in time are actually real or a fantasy inspired by prescription drugs, but it doesn't matter because it's fun to experience either way.

I really enjoyed the message this movie concluded on -- it's doesn't do well to consume oneself with dreams of another life in some other time and to live your own present the best you can. Do not settle for less than you feel you deserve :). It's cute to watch Owen Wilson find the right girl in the end, who appreciates the 20's like him and loves to walk around Paris in the rain. Smiles all around, this movie is so cute.

I also really love the cast in this movie. Previously mentioned Wilson and Cotillard, Adrien Brody (<3), Rachel McAdams, Michael Sheen, Kathy Bates, Alison Pill, and Tom Hiddleston (also known for Loki in Thor! <3) are some of the more well known faces. They're all great actors, but as good as they are, they were given great characters to play. Though I cannot say I am much of a Woody Allen fan, he really knew the famous names he was writing. My favorite would have to have been Hemingway's voice (played by Corey Stoll). I couldn't prevent myself from laughing when he talked about how "it was raining." I can finally appreciate reading A Farewell to Arms, something I never thought I would be able to do.

I really want to go to Paris now. Maybe I can catch a Peugeot 401 and head back to the 1920's myself :).

The Help

The Help -- 4/5

To be honest, nothing about this movie really screamed interesting to me. I usually skip out on films like this, because they really feel generated towards a certain older female audience. It doesn't really help either that the poster has this awful yellow that is unappealing to the eye. Actually, the only reason I was remotely interested in this movie is because I remember my madre reading the book a while back, and if she read it and liked it maybe it's good. I honestly never saw a trailer for this movie because the movies I go out and see wouldn't be advertising this one to their audience.

Well, after good reviews and this movie being at the top of the box office, I decided to switch it over from the "maybe I'll go see it if I have time" list to the "I want to see this pretty soon" list. It had Emma Stone in it at least, and she's been in the spotlight as of late. So I found someone who was interested in it too, and that's when I found myself in a theater watching this movie rather than Final Destination 5 (which I still want to see).

Oh gosh, the trailers leading up to this movie were dreadful, and if I hadn't read raving reviews about this movie, I would have been very much skeptical about the movie I was about to see. The trailers were so bad -- each one I had never heard of and there was a reason for it. It was torture. But finally the movie started and things were starting to look up.

First and foremost, this movie had some spectacular acting. Emma Stone really showed off what she can do outside teen-type roles, but other than her everyone else was spectacular too. Who knew Bryce Dallas Howard of Twilight fame could really act? I honestly wouldn't have bet on it. But all the actresses are solid, and it is so much more than a girly movie (referring to its dominant female cast). I also wouldn't be surprised if there was a best actress nomination in store for Viola Davis who plays Aibileen Clark. So there's one reason for seeing this movie if you think it's honestly not your thing.

And it's not just the actresses that make this movie work. It's a really great story, that brought a little tear to my eye at the end. It's funny, it's heart-warming, it's sad. It doesn't stay at one note the whole time. The movie has a depth to its story that's historical, but it doesn't stop you from thinking about racism that still exists. Not everyone's crying the whole time, but everyone isn't giggling uncontrollably either. Even the shallow characters appear to have some depth to them in the end, which is something I really enjoyed viewing.

Watching the movie makes me wish I had just stolen the book from my mom's bookshelf and read it, but sadly I never did. Maybe someday I will get around to it, because the movie has convinced me it is probably a great book (because all books are better than the movie).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes -- 4.5/5

One word: brilliant. I'm not going to pretend that I've seen all the previous Planet of the Apes movies in full, nor will I pretend that I remember them because I watched them on TV when I was so much younger. I remember those movies as much as I remembered Star Wars, which I realized 6 months ago when my boyfriend forced me to watch a marathon of the older movies I had only retained bits and pieces of the films. I blame my sleepiness and my short attention span for movies on TV that weren't The Wizard of Oz :). But I digress.

This movie was just so well done. And dare I say it near perfect. This movie is one of the few summer films that really delivered what they promised (much like X-Men). The perfect trailers told no lies -- this movie was worth the long trudge through the under-preforming summer remakes and reboots. It flowed with such an ease, and it felt so effortlessly good. This movie delivered what it promised, which is something so many movies struggle with.

And it's not doubt who stole the show in this movie -- Andy Serkis. The other day I read an article that was about how he felt that he didn't get as much respect as an actor, because his CGI characters sort of steal the show from him. I can see where a lot of people would overlook him, for sure. He never looks like himself in movies, and always looks like something else, whether it be Gollum or Caesar. It's a shame that he's so far down the cast list on Internet Movie Database, really. He not only stole the show, but he really was the main actor in the movie. He's fabulous. There was one specific scene where Caesar is communicating to his fellow monkeys without any words or subtitles and it's beautiful. When an actor doesn't need words to keep an audience engaged, that's when you know he's among the great. Andy Serkis was much of the reason I went to see this movie, and he is very much the reason I fell in love with this movie walking out. Like Boris Karloff, Serkis brings life to his characters that are not necessarily human; A monster-actor like no other*.

If my rambles about Andy Serkis don't convince you to got out and see this movie, then please go see it for the quality. It's beautiful, it's wondrous, and it's ever so fabulous. The story is so well paced, the movie is edited so well, and I really want to go out and see this movie again before it leaves theaters. This movie does not fall short on writing. Do not miss this greatness on screen please :).

* My friend Tasha inspired this line by telling me about an article she read on Andy Serkis a few weeks ago :)

30 Minutes or Less

30 Minutes or Less -- 2.5/5

30 Minutes or Less was...less than good. Though it had a few chuckles and giggles, it felt so formulaic and just not very enjoyable. It was alright, it was okay. If anything it was a rental, not a movie you go to see on the bigger screen for $10.

It was so lack luster, and so underwhelming for me. I really thought this movie could do no wrong. It had the director, it had the actors, and it had the girl from Greek! What more could a person ask for in a comedy?? Nothing! And this is why I shouldn't judge a movie by its flashy big names. It only brings disappointment, really.

The biggest complaint I have with this movie is Danny McBride and everything his character's story brought to the table. I used to have the highest admiration for him as a comedian, and now I'm not so sure. As my friend Tasha said, sometimes crass for the sake of it isn't funny at all. What Danny McBride did in Pineapple Express was refreshing at the time, and now it's just annoying to listen to. I don't want to hear about all the code names for a BJ, I'm not interested! Also, his character had zero development. He ended the way he started -- a loser. Maybe if he ended up admitting he was in love with his best pal it would have elevated the movie a teeny bit, but not by much. Everyone just ran around in circles and learned nothing. It was the result of really poor writing.

One thing I learned from this movie is that Jesse Eisenberg and Aziz Ansari are a really great comedy duo and can make an script more enjoyable. They were pretty funny throughout and their energy really balanced each other out. I'd love to see them in more things with another.

And the hugest disappointment of them all was the complete lack of Dilshad Vadsaria, my favorite sorority sister from the TV show Greek. She showed up in maybe 3 scenes, had very little dialogue, and could have easily been cut from the script. I thought that maybe she would end up dating Eisenberg in the end, but the movie left that really open ended. They kissed a few times, but not enough to convince me that after that night they would be together for the long haul.

If you are interested in this movie, I would say wait to rent it :) It would really be the best bet.

A Barefoot Dream & It's Kind of a Funny Story

A Barefoot Dream (2010) -- 3/5

Awh, how cute. Underprivileged children running around smiling, laughing and crying with their eyes set on one specific goal -- to become soccer stars. It's a movie that can really translate to all cultures alike. Sports just work that way, and that's why we have the Olympics. So even if you were a little weary on watching a film with subtitles, a movie like this would be a good place to start. There are even children with a sports dream! And all children are adorable, no matter what culture.

I'm not a sports movie kind of person. They kind of all hold the same formula and either has one of two endings (they win or they don't). I don't care what sport it is, I get bored. However, this one had its amusing parts thanks to the adult actor (I honestly could not tell you his name). He talks out loud to himself like no one else can hear him, which is a really amusing character quirk and it also helped hold my interest.

There were some rather irking plot holes. The main character has a family he calls via phone every once in a while, but the director really doesn't dive into their estranged relationship. All the audience knows is that he has a son and possibly an ex-wife/girlfriend and neither want anything to do with him. You are also aware that he was a popular soccer player before, but no longer is and after his career he got in a lot of money trouble somehow. Honestly though, I didn't care enough for them to dive and deeper into his personal life back in Korea.

The children were very cute. They reminded me a lot of the kids in Slumdog Millionaire. The little girl was especially wonderful and was very close to bringing tears to my eyes when she was crying for the main actor to stay.

Another issue with the film was the languages. I'm sure this could possibly happen, but when the Korean character could easily have a conversation with the Indonesian guy who only speaks English it's odd to listen to. They can understand each other's languages, but cannot even speak one word of them? It felt slightly off to me.

It feels like every sports film to be honest. So if you like those types of movies, but are a little nervous to watch an international film, one like this could easily be a great segue into watching more of them.

It's Kind of a Funny Story (2010) -- 3/5

I had this movie forever sitting by my bluray player, waiting for me to watch it. I put my expensive Netflix membership to such great use, obviously. To be honest though, I was going through a Harry Potter obsession that this movie could not break into. I had been wanting to watch this movie for some time, and maybe my hopes were too high, but it just didn't click with me at all.

I feel like I missed the point of this movie. A kid checks himself into a mental ward at a hospital, has some good times with young females and older males, possibly discovers himself, and then after a week leaves because all is well! Oh, but in the end he specifically states that all is not really well, but it's a great start. I don't buy any of this. I also honestly cannot remember, but I'm pretty sure he falls in love with Emma Robert's character at the end, which also feels a little odd. Of course he's in love with her, just like he was in love with his best friend played by Zoe Kravitz of X-Men: First Class fame. Maybe I am jaded. Maybe I've seen one too many teen indie movies like this, but I'm a little tired of them. They have the same formula as Juno, and I feel like they want me to think the movie is oh so original. I honestly don't. And it bores me more than sports films.

Maybe the book is better, and just cannot be made into a movie (like many books!). Maybe I'm a grumpy 21 year old who dislikes romantic-y movies already. Or maybe my Post-Potter-Depression was still working into me and I cannot like anything that's not like Harry Potter. Maybe, maybe. It's all a maybe.

The acting and characters are what makes this movie interesting and worth watching I think. It's not unenjoyable. It's cutesy. The characters are solid. I'm sure the book goes into more depth with them (one would only hope) and all this movie could do was skim the surface with them. At least they could pull a great cast together to bring these characters to life. Great characters can stitch up any plot holes in a film, by making it more interesting and watchable :). It's also a lot better than most American rom-coms out there (please see my review on Friends with Benefits). I'm sure if you're an indie film fan, you will probably go gaga over this film. I can guarantee it.