10/20/2015

Review- Beasts of No Nation (2015)

Directed by: Cary Fukunaga
Written by: Cary Fukunaga
Starring: Abraham Attah, Idris Elba
Synopsis: As civil war rages in Africa, a fierce warlord (Idris Elba) trains a young orphan (Abraham Attah) to join his group of guerrilla soldiers.

War movies usually follow the same themes. War can do things to a person. War is nasty and unkind. It's common, we've seen it a lot since Apocalypse Now. So when I watch a war movie now, I don't need to think about what the film is trying to tell me, but how effective it is at telling me. Beasts of No Nation does it perfectly. No movie has shown the horrors of war in such a way since Saving Private Ryan. This movie is emotional and tense, and it's unforgiving in its portrayal of the modern wars of Africa. The war is fictional and the country is unnamed (some might compare this to the offensive No Escape, but it really isn't), but the themes ring true and the situations our main character, a child named Agu played wonderfully by Ghanian actor Abraham Attah, faces have and do happen to real people. Agu ends up being the perfect way to show the audience what war is.

Along with Abraham Attah, all the child actors are great in this movie. Nothing feels like acting, it feels real. Idris Elba deserves to win an Oscar for his performance as the Commandant, a cult leader-like soldier who picks up children and forces them into his battalion. The character is incredibly well acted and incredibly well written.This whole movie, including the character of Agu, is incredibly well written. It's based off of a novel by the same name written by author Uzodinma Iweala, which I've never read, but I believe it must have been adapted well.



This movie also looks amazing for a 6 million dollar movie. I don't know how Cary Fukunaga did it. If you look at the list of producers and small production companies involved, you can tell this movie wasn't brought up the usual way. A lot of people came to help raise the budget for this movie. I think people saw the potential and genuinely wanted to help make a fantastic piece of art. Thanks to Fukanaga, we got that piece of art. Cinematography is gorgeous, color grading is appropriate and natural, and there are no major CGI shots. There are helicopters and explosions and villages, and nothing at any time feels cheap. Not even 150 million dollar movies can do that.

Talking about this movie not being made the usual way, I have a feeling this movie is going to be largely ignored by the academy because Neflix is behind it. It deserves to be nominated for Best Picture to be honest, and I'll be surprised if it's nominated for anything at all. Releasing a movie the same day it's available for streaming is a controversial idea and it budding heads with movie theater companies. Regardless of the politics of Netflix and movie theaters though, it's hard to ignore that this is a phenomenal film.

I'd highly recommend this movie to anyone and everyone. It's the best 2015 movie I've seen. It's dark and may make those who aren't use to violence in movies queasy, but that's the point and you should endure it. I have no criticisms, only praise.

9.5/10

10/19/2015

Review- Creep (2014)

Directed by: Patrick Brice
Written by: Mark Duplass, Jason Blum
Starring: Mark Duplass, Patrick Brice
Synopsis: Aaron answers an online ad and drives to a stranger's house to film him for the day. The man wants to make a movie for his unborn child, but his requests become more bizarre as the day goes along.

The more I thought about this movie, the more I liked it. Initially while watching it, I thought it was bad but with a few good moments. But I kept thinking about it for the rest of the day, and I came to realize that those good moments outweighed any negative aspects.

The movie suffers from a main character who is completely idiotic. So much that it takes you out of the movie. There are realistic ways to portray how the character made the decisions he did, which basically let the movie's 'Creep' named Josef stalk him and eventually kill him, but instead of taking the time to explore those avenues, they just have a scene where he calls the police once and gets angry because they apparently weren't very helpful. I guess someone who accepts obviously creepy jobs on Craigslist must not be very smart, but no one would be that stupid. It's like most horror movies in that respect, characters who make dumb decisions just so the plot can move along. Also like most horror movies, it's predictable. Within the first few seconds of the movie, you already understand what's going to happen; creepy guy who hired the main character is going to do creepy stuff and eventually kill him.



There's also issues like the use of the found footage style after the part in which the main character escapes Joseph's cabin and the ending scene where our main character dies. The found footage feels forced and doesn't work all the time. The scene which the main character dies sort of feels like a Looney Tunes gag, and it's just plain silly.

So what part of this movie works? It's all Mark Duplass and the character he plays. I'm not a fan of the movies Mark Duplass as a director, and I wasn't a fan of his acting in the film The Lazarus Effect, but he did a great job in this. He says everything naturally, and does a good job at looking unintentionally funny but creepy at the same time. This is the first time I think I've ever seen a found footage film where acting is one of the film's strong points. The character is very well written as well. His whole story about raping his wife (which was really his sister), his past mental issues, his whole love of wolves, a search for his 'buddy', and 'Peach Fuzz' were all great little things that helped build a very good character. I think the creators thought a lot about his backstory that's not directly explained (For example, I think there was some implication that his father had raped him.) It's all so believable too. There is a lot to appreciate with the character and it's something you don't find too often in modern horror movies let alone found footage movies.

I recommend this movie for his character alone. This movie is named 'Creep' for a reason. It's not filled with jump scares or blood and guts, but it is very creepy (while also being humorous). It might not be for the average horror fan, but I suppose that's what makes this a very unique movie.

5.5/10

10/15/2015

Review- Upstream Color


Directed by: Shane Curruth
Written by: Shane Curruth
Starring: Amy Seimetz, Shane Curruth, Andrew Sensenig
Synopsis: A woman (Amy Seimetz) unwittingly undergoes a series of bizarre experiments, then meets a kindred spirit (Shane Carruth) who may have experienced the same ordeal.

Shane Curruth is brilliant no-name director who ought be doing more movies. His debut was with a low budget science fiction film called Primer in 2004, which has since been known for being unapologetically complex and scientific. His second film, Upstream Color, is an amazing follow up. It's a bit abstract, it's a bit easier to understand, but incredibly beautiful and stylish.

The premise is an interesting one; two people find themselves together after both unknowingly become part of a parasitic worm's life cycle. With such a subject, other directors would make it a horror movie. Shane Curruth takes a different route and makes a movie about breaking the cycles of life, achieving happiness, and people with difficult pasts accepting each other for who they are. It has warmth and beauty and love. It feels like Terrence Malick instead of David Cronenberg. It's the most beautiful film I've seen in a long time.



The film, like Primer, is an intentional puzzle. I'll try to help with a basic interpretation and I'd recommend reading other people's interpretations after watching it; there are three stages in the parasite's life cycle. There is the man who takes the worm from the flowers and gives it to people, which puts them in a hypnotic state, to steal their money. The next is the pig farmer, who takes the worm out of the person's body and into a pig, which allows him to see what the person sees when he touches the pig which has the person's worm, and this inspires him to make music. The third are two women who, after the pig farmer throws dead pigs (or, as seen in the movie, piglets) into a riv.er, collect orchids that turn blue from the parasite-tainted water. At the end of the movie, the two main characters fall in love because they are connected psychically to the parasite and thus to each other, but they are able to break the cycle and kill the pig farmer (most likely because they think he's the one behind it all, when in reality none are aware that they are part of the life cycle and only do what they do for their own personal gain). They, along with the other people who were given the parasite, take care of the pigs at the end. This seem to make them and the pigs happy, which I believe is a big part of the film. Who's happiness is it? The parasites or the people? In my opinion, I think the ending is optimistic and because they broke the cycle the parasites will stop being able to breed, even though they're still all connected because of the parasites inside them. The rest of the film, however, has the parasite controlling the world around them to allow their life cycle to continue. Again, this is a basic interpretation of the events of the film and I believe it does go significantly deeper. Feel free to come up with your own conclusions because, like most films of this type, they're meant to have different interpretations.

If I had any gripes, it would be one piece of music used in the film. Most of soundtrack is beautiful and mesmerizing, but one piece in particular felt repetitive and, quite frankly, annoying. It sounded like the horn of a truck going off continuously. There were also a few moments in which the screen goes black for dramatic effect but they felt like false endings and it makes the movie drag on more than it should. Another issue, this one minor, is that in the beginning one of the characters works at what I thought was some sort of robotics company and there were videos and pictures of CGI robots. I'm on really sure what that was and why it was in the movie, but it was never brought up again. Why did they waste money in the movie's budget for a CGI robot that had nothing to do with the plot and was only in it for seconds? I may be confused on what her actual job was and it's possible tha.t the CGI robot in the film was really some sort of stalk video or something, so they didn't have to pay for it. If they did actually spend money on that though, then it was a pretty big waste.

I recommend Upstream Color for those with the patience to watch a slower paced visually-driven film. If you despised Primer or hate Terrence Malick, this isn't up your ally. But if you're interested in this beautiful movie, it's on Netflix.

8/10

10/13/2015

Review- Tremors 5: Bloodlines

Directed by: Don Michael Paul
Written by: Woodrow Truesmith, M.A Deuce, C.J Strebor
Starring: Michael Gross, Jamie Kennedy, Pearl Thusi
Synopsis: Survivalist Burt Gummer (Michael Gross) and his new sidekick Travis (Jamie Kennedy) are hired to track down an ass-blaster terrorizing South Africa. As they engage in battles with the aggressive creatures, they discover an even more lethal creature.

Tremors is one of the most popular B movie franchises in existence. The original Tremors came out in 1996 and was a pretty competent monster flick that became a cult classic. I genuinely love the original and not in any ironic or 'so bad it's good' way. Tremors II: Aftershocks, while much more B movie in nature, has enough charm to make it watchable and fun. I don't much care for Tremors III: Back to Perfection and the introduction or the Ass-Blasters (creatures that literally fart to fly), and while I think the concepts in Tremors 4: The Legend Begins are neat, it fails too. The last two lacked the charm of the first two, shamelessly B-ish.

Tremors 5: Bloodlines feels the most like a B movie. The series has no charm left and this comes off as an attempt to cash in on the SyFy channel bad movie craze that began with Sharknado (and, according to Michael Gross, that was the reason it got made). But it's also not as intentionally dumb as something like Sharknado because it doesn't try to be ironically bad enough to genuinely funny. When there are serious moments in the movie, it seems to try to take itself more seriously than it should. That makes a large portion of this movie unintentionally funny and unintentionally bad.



There's no point in telling you everything wrong with it, you have to be able to let some things go with these types of movies. I'll keep it to the big problems. The first, and the most picky, is that the two main plot points of the movie are introduced incredibly lazily; Burt Gummer is in the desert doing his thing, the new character Travis Welker finds him and convinces him to work with him within seconds, and then directly after that while still in the desert, another guy comes in and hires them to go to South Africa. The whole plot is given to you in the first few minutes of the movie. Again, that complaint is picky considering what the movie is, but it bothered me. The second  is a female character named Dr. Nandi Montabu, who starts randomly carrying a bow and arrow around and acts be like Katness from The Hunger Games. It's probably the most hilarious aspect of the movie, but it's so hilarious that it's irritating. The third is the redesign of the Graboid and Ass-Blaster. Part of the fun of the series is seeing what new Graboid-related creatures they can come up with and seeing what cool new designs they have, but replacing the designs of the classic Graboid and the Ass-Blaster was a mistake. The redesigns are too wormy and overall generic looking. They're not terrible, I suppose, but far from an improvement. The fourth is the whole ending, which has obvious foreshadowing at the beginning of the movie and makes absolutely zero sense. There was lightning, Dr. Nandi shot a fiery arrow into the clouds,  lightning struck the dirt and metal coils, and a Graboid egg exploded. I don't know what the hell it was and I'm not sure what the writer was going for there.

There are a few positives of the movie though. It's always fun to see Burt Gummer return, Michael Gross has always played the character well. For its budget, the CGI was very good. There are some references to Jurassic Park and a few shots that were inspired by the original three Tremors movie, which I thought were clever. The whole premise and setting was neat as well. It's competently shot with competent visual effects and competent acting, which are things you don't always get for these kinds of movies.

I'm curious what they'll do next with this series. Did the ending imply a TV show of Burt Gummer and Travis Welker going around hunting monsters? I might be interested in that. I think it would be cool if they introduced new creatures. Something that eats the Graboids? Underwater Graboids? Graboids with drills on their heads that can invade a city? There's a lot of potential with Tremors and because it's a B movie series that's not attempting to stay grounded in reality, all doors are open. As for this one, I recommend this only to people who are Tremors fans or people who enjoy B movies.

3/10

10/11/2015

Review- The Martian (2015)

Directed by: Ridley Scott
Written by: Drew Goddard
Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor
Synopsis: When astronauts blast off from the planet Mars, they leave behind Mark Watney (Matt Damon), presumed dead after a fierce storm. With only a meager amount of supplies, the stranded visitor must utilize his wits and spirit to find a way to survive the hostile planet. Meanwhile, back on Earth, members of NASA and a team of international scientists work tirelessly to bring him home, while his crew hatch their own plan for a daring rescue mission.

People have said that director Ridley Scott has gone crazy or senile and because he's surrounded by yes men, he's making terrible movies and that The Martian is his 'comeback'. To be honest, I never believed Ridley Scott went anywhere. I didn't like The Counselor but thought Exodus and Robin Hood were fine movies. I find Prometheus incredibly underrated and all around great. Here's the thing about Ridley Scott; he makes a ton of movies, go look at his filmography. It's incredibly varied and sometimes it feels like he makes movies yearly. So when you make that many movies you're bound to have some misses along with the hits. Apparently to everyone else, Scott's recent films have been misses, but I think we'll all agree The Martian is a hit.

This film is in stark contrast with his other recent films because of its vibrant and hopeful nature, as well as a script that wasn't messy. Yet, it shares a lot of similarities with his Prometheus and therefore Alien. It has several open desert shots which are similar to shots found in Prometheus, and even the title of the movie is presented like the beginning of Alien but in reverse (instead of the letters appearing from basic lines, the letters disappear into them). The night sandstorm scenes look nearly identical to ones in both Prometheus and Alien. It makes me question if Ridley Scott hid some references to the Alien films. He's said before that Blade Runner takes place in the same universe (although Warner Bros. own the rights to that film, while Fox owns the rights to the Alien franchise), Scott Free Productions being a link between the two may make it plausible), so why not this one? It feels like a time before the cynical evil futuristic universe Alien and Prometheus take place in, and thinking that way makes the setting very interesting.

Other times, the movie doesn't feel like a Ridley Scott movie at all. It feels like something Tony Scott would have directed, and I'm curious if Ridley did that one purpose. The fact that it has that classic American feel and follows certain cliche tropes, has the overall joyfulness it has, even just the color grading, reminds me of his films.



But how does this movie compare to the other two 'yearly oscarbait sci-fi movies'? Well, I don't believe it's as thrilling as Gravity or emotionally captivating as Interstellar, and I thought it was less cinematic than either. It's much more general audience-friendly. It simply doesn't take enough risks to be on the same level. It's a very safe film. So, I think Gravity and Interstellar are better movies (Interstellar being the best, in case you're asking).

I think most of the humor worked and were much needed, but I would have liked it to be toned down just a bit more. There were moments where the humor broke the tension in times that I wanted tension. Surviving on Mars doesn't sound like an easy thing to accomplish, so having some dead-serious suspenseful moments would have been a massive improvement. Cast Away, for example, managed  to have humorous moments while also being incredibly captivating because you felt that the character's peril was eminent. That's lacking for the most part, despite still being overall thrilling.

The starving Matt Damon double was also painfully obvious and a few of the visuals were off putting, but nothing unforgivable. It's mainly one scene in the climax that shows Jessica Chastain in space, with a space shuttle and Mars in the background, and it looked obviously green screened. But again, nothing unforgivable. The performances all sort of felt phoned-in except for Matt Damon. The score was good overall, but the disco music running joke felt like it was trying to cut in on the success of Guardians of the Galaxy (although I really like the songs used in the film, but Matt Damon's character would disagree).

The parts I liked the most about the movie were it's clever moments. Watching Matt Damon's character and the NASA employees figure out how to solve incredibly sticky situations using ingenuity and science was highly entertaining. The surprising thing was that it never feels ridiculous, even moreso than Gravity and Interstellar. Proof you don't a have to make something dumb like Armageddon to be enjoyable for all audiences.

These yearly oscarbait sci-fis have really impressed me and I'm glad it's a thing. I've always been a huge fan of hard science fiction novels, and before Gravity, the last movie of its kind was Sunshine, which was awhile ago. So I'd rather have this then monthly superhero movies, that's for sure. I believe 2016's sci-fi will be Passengers, which will be directed by Morten Tyldem and star Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Count me in.

7.5/10

10/05/2015

Review- Naked Lunch (1991)


Directed by: David Cronenberg
Written by: David Cronenberg
Starring: Peter Weller, Judy Davis, Ian Holm

Naked Lunch is a grotesque film for the weird and freaky. That's a good thing. It's full of wonderful creature effects and bloody insect body parts. The best part is that, despite being based on a novel, it's original. For novels many consider unfilmable, it takes a genius director like David Cronenberg to come in and find a way.

What makes this an original adaptation is that it isn't a direct adaptation of William S. Boroughs' famous novel Naked Lunch, but a hybrid of the stories in it while also being inspired by events in Borough's own life. It's, in a sense, a biographical film with chunks of surreal adventure mixed into it. It offers a unique experience. There is a negative side effect, though. I think that if you didn't come in knowing that information first, you'd have no idea what this movie was about. Unlike some surreal films, like Eraserhead, you can't exactly take what's in front of you and then try to interpret it without researching it first. But it's an artistic vision, it's personal to Cronenberg, and that's what art is all about.



There is also another negative side effect to this adaptation, and it's a big one. I wouldn't call this movie homophobic, I wouldn't call David Cronenberg homophobic, and I don't know what the hell Boroughs is considering he was homosexual but then said Naked Lunch 'cured' him from his homosexuality,  but this movie could come off that way to people. Cronenberg's goal was to use the novel in a way that could be combined with Borough's life. Borough wrote about homosexuality along with such subjects as drug addiction and violence. So, combine that with the fact that he felt that he had cured his homosexuality with the book? It makes the theme of the movie feel like it's about trying to get rid of the addiction of being gay. I don't think the movie does much to help make homosexuality look good, but I do not believe it's anti-gay.

But the creature effects are brilliant. Beetle typewriters with anus mouths? Alien things with phallic head ornaments that leak innuendo ooze? They're effective and just fun to watch on screen. It's classic Cronenberg. Music, however, was a bit irritating. The free form jazz went on too long in some places and was just more distracting and headache-inducing than fitting for what was going on in the movie.

The movie has a lot of genius moments and I'd recommend it. I have a feeling many will misunderstand it, though, and so I don't think it's for everybody. I think this movie is for Cronenberg, Boroughs, and film fans only.

6.5/10

10/03/2015

'Pretentious' is a Pretentious Word



Whenever I hear a critic or someone criticizing a film using the word 'pretentious', lava starts bubbling my stomach and I become furious. Furious enough to make a blog post about it! It's not that it can't be used as constructive criticism, but I think people (and of course I'll be generalizing in this article, so I don't claim to speak for everybody) who have used the word are really trying to say something else and I'll explain why.

The definition of pretentious is to "attempt to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc, than actually possessed." That could hypothetically apply to a movie, yes, but don't most filmmakers aspire their movie to be important? That it will stick with people, either by being incredibly entertaining or thought provoking? You're essentially saying that the movie failed to speak to you. Which happens. But you could hypothetically say that about any movie you didn't like. Batman & Robin just wanted to be entertaining to people, and it failed. Is Batman & Robin pretentious?

No, people use this word for a specific type of movie. These movies are slower paced, often long shots, less dialogue, less action, moments of surrealism, typically more focused on cinematography than story or characters. It's these movies that I always see people call pretentious. Why is that? I'll tell you why, and you're gonna hate me for saying such a cliche and annoying line; they just didn't understand it.

Make no mistake, I am not claiming to be super intelligent (or of average intelligence, for that matter) or suggest that those who thought these movies were pretentious are stupid, but they usually don't understand what the movie was trying to do. It's not that these movies are 'too smart' for them but that it's basically a whole type of 'genre', often arthouse, experimental, surreal, or any movie that is has a slow-burn pacing, that a lot of people just simply aren't into. They usually are under the assumption that the slow pace and the lack of dialogue and the surrealism and all that must be there because the underlying themes of the movie has to be important, super-clever, and worth the trouble. When they learn that sometimes the themes and messages that these movies just aren't that amazing, they feel they've wasted their time watching something they thought was boring. But you see, if you found it boring then you found it boring, not pretentious.

Some people just don't find these types of movies entertaining and that's perfectly fine. I, however, enjoy movies that a bit more slower paced and has surrealism. Movies that get weird and hypnotic are just what I'm into. I like movies that focus on cinematography and trying to give off certain emotions through visuals rather than a standard narrative and I'd recommend people open their eyes to what's entertaining. That especially goes for people who believe 'movies don't have to be entertaining!', because I believe they do. It's just how broad is your palette of entertainment is. Art, no matter how depressing, disgusting, or puzzling it is, should give you enjoyment, enjoyment that a film was good enough to make you feel the way the movie intended you to feel.

Could you trust those beady, evil eyes?


But, hey, maybe these movies just aren't your cup of tea, you're fine and there isn't anything wrong with that. Maybe you see movie fans who claim to have superior knowledge because they watched The Master and all of Christopher Nolan's filmography. Those people are pretentious. A director asserting that his movies are the best movies in the world, that's a person who's pretentious. But you see a film that you thought you understood and didn't like because the underlying themes weren't worth the bore? You were just bored, so why not say it as it is?

And of course I'm not speaking to everyone who uses the word, some undoubtedly use it correctly. But this is what I've seen over and over by people. Feel free to agree or disagree, but I hope you'll have an open mind about it because, in truth, it often comes across to me as an insult to a filmmaker, essentially calling that person a show-off idiot, than anything else.

Review- Insomnia (2002)

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Written by: Hillary Seitz
Starring: Al Pacino, Robin Williams, Hillary Swank
Synopsis: Two Los Angeles homicide detectives are dispatched to a northern town where the sun doesn't set to investigate the methodical murder of a local teen.

Nolan is both one of the most overrated and the most underrated directors of all time. He was praised initially, and then when it became a stereotype that those who liked Nolan were fedora-wearing obese teenagers who pretend to know a lot about film, people began to criticize his movies. After The Dark Knight Rises came out, it had (despite still being very good in my opinion) enough flaws for people to assert that he wasn't just overrated but also bad in general. Interstellar became incredibly polarized and furthered this Nolan fanboys Vs. Nolan-haters fight on the internet. Personally, I think he's pretty good. He's one of the top mainstream working directors, to be honest. He's not amazing and his films don't have the intellectual prowess some of his fans believe, but he's never made a bad movie and that's always something to appreciate.

Insomnia is a perfect example to describe Nolan, because it's just good. It's not great, it's not bad. It's just good. It's a remake,  so I can't exactly praise the story or it's originality, but from what I've read it seems to be have adapted the story properly to take place in America. I've never seen the Norwegian film, so I don't know if Nolan's version is the weaker version, but the director of the Norwegian version did express that he liked it, so there's that.



The film is executed very well. It's got that Nolan-esque lighting the dark colors seem to pop out. It's a bit like David Fincher lighting except a bit more high contrast and less 'smooth'. Like in all his movies, it looks fantastic. Al Pacino and Robin Williams give amazing performances. When watching the movie, I wasn't constantly distracted by the recognizable faces, it wasn't 'Al Pacino and Robin Williams in the same movie', I took them seriously as the characters they played. That's a hard thing to do if you're a big-named actor. The film makes great use of the Alaskan (and possibly Canadian, as it was filmed there too) scenery as well, giving the film a haunting atmosphere.

I think the movie had some editing problems, though. I think this is Nolan's greatest flaw and I see it in every one of his movies. The way scenes transition, the way shots change from one to the other, don't always flow right. I also think, and this isn't a criticism but an observation,  that The Machinist is a much better movie, which came out two years later, with the same idea of having a character who can't sleep because of a guilty conscience. I like that Insomnia is a bit more subtle with it, but The Machinist, to me, is a much better movie overall.

I'd recommend this movie if you're into noir, detective films, crime thrillers, or just a Nolan fan who hasn't seen his earlier films. It's one of both Robin Williams's and Al Pacino's best performances as well, so I'd recommend it for those reasons alone. I'd also recommend it to those who need to be reminded that just because a director has a fanbase you might not like, or is seen as 'entry-level', doesn't mean the director makes bad movies.

7.5/10

10/01/2015

Review- The Monster Squad (1987)

Directed by: Fred Dekker
Written by: Shane Black
Starring: Andre Gower, Duncan Regehr, Stephen Macht, Stan Shaw, Tom Noonan
Synopsis: Members of a monster fan club meet Count Dracula, Wolf Man, Frankenstein, the Mummy, and the Gill-Man.


Sometimes movies like these can have a charm factor that's irresistible, Army of Darkness for example. What drew me to watch The Monster Squad was that it had Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Creature From The Black Lagoon, and the Wolfman teaming up. Seemed like B-movie inspired fun. It wasn't.

It didn't have self-awareness to have the charm factor. I thought that they were trying to embrace the cheesiness of older films with a similar premise. It embraces nothing and ends up being almost as bad as the B-movies but less entertaining. The intro text at the beginning of the film, which is part of the few moments of exposition that lets you know what's going on in the movie, implied a full on comedy and I was excited, but then it just turned into a mess. I will say though, that all the elements were there to make this movie good. It had competent actors (what's with 80s films and good child actors?), good production value, cool costumes, but it was written poorly. It had completely the wrong script.

Often, the movie went for a Spielbergian look. Cinematography mirrors ET and other Spielberg films, and many moments feel like they were trying to imitate Spielberg scenes and failed. I'm not sure why that's the angle they tried to go with either. Other times, they imitate Star Wars (Dracula's silhouette looking like Darth Vader) or older movies like the original Frankenstein, and those moments were neat.



As for why the story is bad, there are two major reasons. The first is that the film doesn't seem to really care about what the end goal for these monsters are. They just seem to be there to do something with a green talisman or something. They didn't really seem to have a plan other than to slowly walk towards the children (which, by the way, we never figure out why the monsters are attacking specifically the children.) The second is that the children jump the gun and try to save the day before they know anything bad is going to happen. They were ready to kill even before they met Frankenstein and asked the Holocaust survivor to translate his book he got randomly. It doesn't help that neither the monsters or the characters are interesting. The most characterization comes from the little girl and Frankenstein, but even that was just bare minimum. The lack of care in the made me not care or understand what's going on and I just wanted the movie to end about 20 minutes into the movie.

Also, there is a disturbing scene in this movie in which the kids need a virgin to say a ancient spell that well get rid of the monsters. They find a teenage girl and ask if she's lost her virginity, and she becomes frightened and wants to leave their treehouse but they threaten to share photos that they took of her while she was undressing by her window. And this scene was intended to be funny. I don't know if I can actually consider this a criticism because, as they say, times have changed, but it's funny of how unintentionally creepy this scene is.

It's riddled with bad stuff like Burger King product placement and the fact that the 'Wolf Man and Gill Man' are rip offs of The Wolfman and The Creature of the Black Lagoon, which are owned by Universal (this film was made by Tri-Star Pictures), but it's not worth mentioning them all. The movie is bad. I would recommend it if you're a big fan of the Universal monsters and B movies, or maybe if you want children under 7 to watch it. It's not really made for anybody else.

3/10