The Matrix (1999)

The Matrix is one of those movies that is going to be remembered for years and years to come. It still has a massive amount of significance twelve years after its release, and it is as smart and brilliant as ever. Released in 1999, the year many consider to be one of the best years in modern cinema (and you’d have to search hard to find decent evidence against that claim, with cult favorite Fight Club, The Matrix, Award beauty American Beauty, among many others), this film still stands as one of the science fiction greats. Personally, I stand it close to Minority Report, which I love very much. Except The Matrix has a decent ending (well, to the film, I haven’t heard such great things about the ending of the entire franchise). Starring Keanu Reeves (in one of about three films he’s in that are good) as Thomas Anderson, known as the hacker Neo, the film takes place in a world where everything we know is a lie. According to the mythology of the film, in the early 21st century, the war between man and machine crowned a winner, and the humans had lost to their own creations, these solar-powered metallic monsters. In the middle of the war, in an attempt to defeat the machines, man blocked out the sun powering the robots. But they found a decent-enough replacement-us. Found in the sun, also found in humans are the necessary materials needed to run these things. So humans started to be grown like plants, and harvested, and then tossed away when they die. And in order to keep the humans still and occupied, so that we could be harvested, the machines created this computer program known as The Matrix, which we know as our world. The Matrix works almost perfectly. There are a few people who still notice something wrong, one of which is Neo. He is then led farther down the rabbit hole (the movie makes countless references to Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, and so I thought I might as well too) by Morpheus (Laurence Fishburn), and his crew of the Nebuchadnezzar (Carrie-Ann Moss as Trinity, Marcus Chong as Tank, Joe Pantoliana as Cypher, among others), a ship working in the real world to try to end The Matrix. Residing in The Matrix in order to kill the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar is Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who tries to kill the crew while they are in The Matrix, taking Neo to see The Oracle, who will tell him if he is ‘The One’, the person destined to bring down The Matrix. Sound confusing enough? Don’t even get me started on the whole bug thing. Either way, as weird and confusing as this movie sounds, it is completely brilliant. The movie sticks to its own science, it is brilliant, it is wonderful, and it is easily one of the single greatest science fiction films ever made.
9/10

Zookeeper (2011)

A lot of people really have been bagging on this film, some downright calling it one of the worst films of the year. It really isn’t. It’s just completely inept, and has not a single joke that follows through. There are scenes where something will probably happen, dumb joke or not, at least they’re trying. But there is no payoff. And that is a truly disappointing thing. Kevin James, in this film, blandly portrays a zookeeper named Griffin, who when he tries to propose to his girlfriend (Leslie Bibb), who later turns him down. It was a wonderful proposal, everything was perfect. “It shouldn’t bother me that you’re a zookeeper, but, it kind of does.” Which is the single only funny and true joke in the entire film. Which is kind of sad. There aren’t even any attempts for jokes (besides that one) in this entire film. It’s like the Amy Adams flick Leap Year. You can’t call it a failed attempt at comedy, because there is no attempt to fail at! And even if movies don’t have jokes, it can still be good. As long as the characters are likable, their words are what people would actually say, and the film doesn’t try to cheat out of work, it should be good. But here, we have no emotional attachment to the characters, we have nothing of any importance to say about them. None of the dialogue even makes sense, and the film just gets by on being completely lazy. The crew on this film treats it like I do Latin homework the night after an AMC show is on. Forgetful, and doing it at the last minute. I should probably explain the rest of the plot. After his heart is broken, Griffin finds out that the animals at the zoo he works at can talk, and they help him try to win back his former girlfriend also with the help of a fellow zookeeper (Rosario Dawson), and we know how this is going to end up. But the thing is, none of this film is making sense. Why would a bunch of zoo animals try to help this bumbling idiot get a girl? ITJUST MAKES ME ANGRY! Hate is a strong word, I do recognize that. I use it more than I should, and I’m trying to tone down. I am toning down right now. I hate Kevin James. He has never made a good film. This is a truly terrible, lazy, and completely unfunny film. Please stay away.
2.5/10

The Tree of Life (2011)

I am both fortunate and unfortunate to be born a film-lover in the final years of the 20th century. I am fortunate because I can completely evaluate twenty-eight years of Terrence Malick’s career in five films. I am unfortunate because I never got to experience them in the theaters, on the largest screens, with others who love film. I never got to pay eleven dollars, walk in, and go see The Godfather. I never got to run in opening night to The Lord of the Rings. Instead, I’m sitting in a crowded theater for two hours watching Hop. But I am still glad for the first thing I said. I’m glad I can fully evaluate one man’s work in two hours. And I am also glad that, if I choose so, I can have the first film I see by a director his magnum opus. The only problem with Terrence Malick is that every film he makes is his magnum opus. So I’m just going backwards. The Tree of Life, then The New World (which I am watching as I write this review), then eventually The Thin Red Line, then Days of Heaven, and lastly, his first feature film, Badlands. But that’s neither here nor there. I’ve wasted enough words. Now let’s talk about The Tree of Life. An experimental drama set mostly through the eyes of a Midwestern family in the 1950s, The Tree of Life is the story of father and son. The father, Mr. O’Brian (Brad Pitt) of Waco, Texas, is a less-than-compassionate father. His son Jack, played as a kid by Hunter McCracken, who is truly amazing (the character is also played by Sean Penn as an adult for ten seconds, which is truly frustrating). The third central piece to the puzzle is Mrs. O’Brian (wonderfully and simplistically played by Jessica Chastain), an idealistic housewife who, honestly, puts way too much faith into her family. This trio, along with two other kids, create the O’Brien family, which is the main focal point of the film, although including an extremely impressive 30-minute-long sequence about the creation of the universe, created, which is reported to have been created practically, like the effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is amazing. My God, is it amazing. A lot of this film is truly amazing. It is unnaturally subtle, and a lot of the events in the film aren’t explained. However, if you pay close attention, and try to forgive the few times when so little is explained that it is incomprehensible, this is a great film that completely deserves to be seen. Do not be surprised when Malick’s name is tossed around during Oscar season.
9/10

The Godfather (1972)

For over one full year, from August 13th 2010 to October 14th 2011, the 2010 Edgar Wright film Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World was my favorite film. Then came the day of October 15th 2011. I sat on the couch, staring completely for five minutes shy of three hours, and watched Francis Ford Coppola’s 1972 adaptation of Mario Puzo’s The Godfather. The spot has been filled. Mr. Coppola, I congratulate you. You have done what many people deem impossible. You have appeased a published cynic. Well done. Chronicling the events of the Italian-American Corleone family between 1945 and 1955, The Godfather is a tale of betrayal, corruption, murder, and family. And with some families, those like the Corleones, those four words mean the exact same thing. At the beginning of this little morality tale, the patriarch (that word is honestly one of my favorite words) of the family is Vito Corleone (Marlon Brando, who won the Academy Award for Best Actor for his performance in this), a man who, after an assassination attempt due to a lack-of-help in protection of a heroin business, is forced to be bed-ridden, and unable to perform his duties. There is a great line in the film-“He put a gun to the man’s head and told him it would either be his brains or his signature on the contract. Then he changed his mind.” This combined with the murder of Sonny (James Caan, in a performance nominated for Best Supporting Actor), one of Vito’s sons (the one who put the severed horse head in a man’s bed), leads one of Vito’s other sons Michael Corleone (Al Pacino, who was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor), who previously wanted nothing to do with the family business, to take up a much darker personality and lifestyle. Consider the story of Michael Corleone to be similar with the story of Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars films. In the original trilogy, you think the story is about Luke Skywalker. In the first hour of the first film in The Godfather trilogy, you think that Don Vito Corleone is the main character. And despite the fact that he won Best Actor, he is not the main actor in it. Al Pacino is. The Godfather is the tale of the corruption of Michael Corleone, as he takes his father’s place in the business. And what a beautiful tale it is. Nothing, even by the standards of those who nit-pick all films to the bone, is wrong with this film. It is a purely perfect movie. The direction by Francis Ford Coppola (nominated for Best Director) is outstanding, the screenplay by Puzo and Coppola is perfect (winner for Best Adapted Screenplay), and the acting is truly some of the single best and most memorable performances in human history. Seriously, do watch this fabulous film. You cannot call yourself a lover of film without it. I was lying when I called myself a lover of film. Now I am not.
10/10

Scarface: The Shame of the Nation (1932)

NOTE: Sometimes the film is referred to as just Scarface, sometimes just The Shame of the Nation, and at times the full title, Scarface: The Shame of the Nation. Due to the fact that I have the liberty to choose the titles freely, I am siding with the AFI with the title. Scarface: The Shame of the Nation was the title listed when the film was said to be the sixth best gangster film of all time, beating the Quentin Tarantino film Pulp Fiction. And that, my readers, is why I proclaim that this film is good. NOTE OVER. Providing the basis for the soon-to-be-remade 1983 cult Brian De Palma film Scarface starring Al Pacino (which I will finally see in a very long amount of time) and based off of the 1929 novel by Armitage Trail which was based off of the life of Al Capone (my God, that’s a lot of versions), Scarface: The Shame of the Nation tells the story of Tony Camonte (Paul Muni), a man who, through a couple of bullets, rises to the top of the city, which I assume is Chicago, and then watches himself fall from the top, lower than he could have ever imagined. Now, the rise of Tony and the fall of Tony isn’t as crystal-clear as that of Tony Montana in the Brain De Palma film (according to one reviewer, there is a moment where the screen goes black, making the transition between the two. And, unlike many people, being unable to compare the two versions of this film, I can say, pure and true, that this is a good film. Not a brilliant film, not a perfect film, not The Godfather, but a good film none-the-less. If you are like me, and are intent on discovering the full history of cinema, and one of the most fascinating sub-genres, the gangster film, it is definitely worth a watch.
8.5/10

Judy Moody and the NOT Bummer Summer (2011)

I think you and I both know where this review is going. I grew up with the Judy Moody books by Megan McDonald. I was around eight or nine when the bulk of them came out, and when you are that age, those books are the single greatest thing ever made. My brother is the same way, falling into that age right now with the Diary of a Wimpy Kid. Those books are good too. The only difference between the Diary of a Wimpy Kid films and Judy Moody and the NOT Bummer Summer is that the former is good, fun, entertaining, and decently well-made, and while the latter is studio hashed, devoid, brutal trash. So yeah, I’m not a huge fan of this film. Starring the pleasantly (and with the right training, could actually become a very good actress) spunky Jordana Beatty as third grader Judy Moody, the film is one that not even one Judy’s age would enjoy. Seriously. My brother, who is in 4th grade (1 year really doesn’t make a difference), proclaimed this film to be the worst of the year. It nearly brought me to tears. I had never been so proud of him. But by now I should probably be explaining the plot of the film. Judy Moody hates summers, because she never has any fun. So she plans, with her three friends in the ‘toad pee’ club (I am completely serious), to have the most-and I quote-“thrill-a-delic” summer ever. But she is devastated when two of those friends leave for the summer (kid actors who apparently have very good agents, not letting themselves be in the full film), and she is forced to spend the summer, trying to have fun with her Aunt Opal (Heather Graham, what the heck happened?) and her brother Stink, who is a much better character in the comics. They have to help Judy have the best summer ever by collecting more “Thrill-points” than any of her friends, which she does by trying to catch Bigfoot (I’m writing this during the season 2 premier of The Walking Dead, a very serious and horrific and brilliant show, and I’m smiling like nobody’s business listening to myself work over the plot synopsis). I am 100% serious. But you can make a good, funny, and wonderful film out of an insane premise (Think about it-does the plot of Toy Story 2 make much sense to a rational human being either?), but here, the laziness just gets worse. There are no other gags in the film other than bathroom humor and physical comedy, of the lowest common denominator. Like-less than Adam Sandler films. And you all know how much I hate some Adam Sandler films. The direction is unnaturally bland, by the director of such epics as Aliens in the Attic, and the acting is usually atrocious. Graham isn’t terrible and if Beatty plays her cards right, things could work out for her, but everyone else is completely and utterly awful. That’s what this film is. Completely and utterly awful. It’s worse than Hoodwinked Too! Hood Vs. Evil. It is easily one of the worst flicks of the year.
1/10

The Battleship Potemkin (1925)

Ladies and gentlemen, the greatest film ever made! Well, not really. I still stand by the idea that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made, but if someone came up to me saying that The Battleship Potemkin was the greatest film ever made, I would disagree, but still respect and understand the person’s opinion. If someone came up to me claiming that Catwoman, per say, was the greatest film ever made, I would probably have to resort to violence. That was a bad example, yes, but that’s not the point. Is The Battleship Potemkin the greatest film ever made? No. Is it one of the greatest films ever made? It’s debatable, but I say yes. Not THE greatest film, but somewhere high up. And that is high praise coming from anyone who sees as many movies as I do. Granted, other people have seen more, but when you average about 45 films per month, or 540 films a year (dang.), it still counts as high praise. A dramatic retelling of the events leading to the Russian Revolution, The Battleship Potemkin begins with the greatest of all things-meat. And the evilest of all things-rotten meat. The crew of ‘Potemkin’ are forced to eat rancid meat, have horrible living conditions, and have captains who basically count as tyrants. So the entire crew of the battleship rises up, and gets the news to mainland Russia, attempting to completely start a revolution in Russia. The people carry on the revolution after seeing the body of a crew member who was killed in the revolution of the ship, leading to the fictional but entrancing account of a Russian massacre on the Odessa Steps, and a battle between ‘Potemkin’ and the Russian army. This film is amazing. That is without-a-doubt. The massacre at the Odessa Steps is one of the most iconic and often mimicked (even by our good man Martin Scorcese) out of possibly any other scene in contemporary cinema. Now, the film isn’t perfect. It loses its footing at times, and the film being a silent film, I wish there were more little cards to show what the characters were saying, but those complaints are minor. Minor complaints in a field of great. That is what we have here. Pure and utter greatness.
9.5/10

Transformers (2007)

The entire Transformers trilogy in general is difficult to review. Because the people that love this franchise LOVE it, and the people that hate it have seen Citizen Kane. I know. I’m being cynical. Actually, I do like the first movie in this series. It is silly, fun, and a good time. But the second film is trash, and I don’t have too high of hopes for the third. But why should that take away from my enjoyment of this lump of dumb fun? Based off of the toy line by Hasbro, the television series, and a slew of other things, Transformers is the tale of Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBouf), whose great-grandfather Archibald went exploring, and found a robotic creature in the ice. Which, inevitably, leads Sam to be confronted by a large amount of giant robots, both good guys and bad guys. They are both looking for the All Spark, the object that creates life for these creatures (there is actually a shot in the climax of the film in which an XBOX 360 turns into a transformer). And if put into the wrong hands, it could end all human life. But in all complete honesty, the plot doesn’t matter to this film. Transformers exists for one reason and one reason only-to watch robots beat each other up. And on that scale, the movie is actually quite fun, and, surprisingly, it has some decent merit to back it up, at least partly. The acting isn’t bad (Megan Fox excepted. I don’t care what you say, she cannot act. Beautiful, yes. Talented, no.), the directing is higher than standard for Michael Bay, and the writing isn’t terrible. The jokes actually do take sometimes, a fact that surprised me, watching it again. Because when the movie came out in 2007, all I knew was that this was the greatest film ever made. Watching it again with my younger brother, four years older, this is not the greatest film ever made. But it is good old-fashioned popcorn entertainment, and in reality, there’s nothing wrong with that.
7/10

Arthur (2011)

I expected to hate this film. I really did. I saw the original because I knew this was coming out, loved it, and was awaiting a very funny review in which I bash this film like no other. But I didn’t hate the movie, actually. In fact, I kind of like it. Is it anywhere near as bad as people say it is? No. It is nearly as good as the original? HECK, NO! But it is still a very good film. If it wasn’t based off of the Dudley Moore film, I think people would have been kinder to the flick. But it was not. Based off of the film of the same name starring Dudley Moore as Russel Brand’s character here, Arthur Bach, we have a revamped version of this movie around thirty years later. Arthur Bach, as I said in my review of the original film, is a lovable drunk who is being forced to marry a girl named Susan (Jennifer Garner) in order for him to keep the near-billion dollars he is the heir of. This would be just fine, except for the face that Arthur has just fallen in love with the Liza Minnelli character from the original, here named Naomi, played by Greta Gerwig. So our lovable billionaire, guided by his nanny Hobson (who in the original was played by a man, John Gielgud, in an Oscar-winning performance), here played by Helen Mirren (somebody was talking about how he wanted her to win the Razzie for Worst Supporting Actress? What?), has to figure out what is more important to him, the girl or the money. It’s basically the same as having to choose between a hollow chocolate bunny wrapped in gold, or a filled chocolate bunny with some bruises, found in the bottom of the freezer. I use the chocolate bunny metaphor a lot, and I do like that metaphor very much. It represents a lot of things. But not back to the review. The movie does have a sense of charm that the original encompassed, even if in a lesser capacity. There are a lot of the jokes in the film that work, and a good few that don’t. All of the performances do take very well; the script and the direction are both simple and good, and the movie is just plain good. Nothing special about it, you forget it within the course of twenty minutes, but it’s an enjoyable experience, and not harmful at all. There is much worse stuff you can see.
7.5/10

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006)

Is there something wrong with me? Is there something wrong with my brain? Is it that I just don’t understand, or is it just that my senses are different? Because this movie was not funny. There were a couple moments of the film that are very funny, but far and few between. Maybe it’s just another Happy Gilmore. A movie that the entire world is convinced is hilarious but I do not find good at all. Because this movie is just not funny. Not as unfunny as Happy Gilmore is, but still unfunny on a decently monumental aspect. The film starts Will Ferrell as the title character, Ricky Bobby, who is one of the greatest NASCAR hillbilly drivers out there. He doesn’t like to work with other people. He has a beautiful and extremely attractive and kind of stupid wife (Leslie Bibb), a best friend (John C. Reily) who always boosts Bobby into 1st but has never had a second in a place other than 2nd, and two kids who blatantly swear and throw rude insults out at their ill grandfather (which is one of the few funny parts in the film). But Bobby’s world completely falls apart when a gay French driver names Jean Girard (Sasha Baron Cohen) comes, with the sole mission to race Ricky Bobby, both at the top of their game, in a race for the ages. Ricky becomes fed up with beating Girard, to the point of complete mental breakdown. This man’s life falls apart, and must find redemption, at the help of one of his old associates (Amy Adams), by completing the task that made him lose his complete mind in the first place. The film is riddled with a good couple other smaller roles by very cool people, including the always fabulous Jane Lynch, our own Kenneth Parcell, Jack McBrayer, and Michael Clarke Duncan, the man who fought Ben Affleck in Daredevil (I seriously think I am the only person who likes that film). But, in the end of it all, the movie does not work. I don’t care about any of these characters. And most of the jokes just are not that funny. There are a couple jokes that take, including one involving Theodore Roosevelt, but most of them are just failed attempts or not attempts at all. There are talented people in this film. Just not any good comedy to back it up.
4.5/10

Moneyball (2011)

NOTE: Since the film is based off of a true story, I am going to spoil some stuff. Enter at your own risk, my readers. I would like to live in a world where Aaron Sorkin makes a movie every year. So far, we had The Social Network in 2010 and now Moneyball in 2011, if we get another in 2012, I shall be very happy. In all honesty, Aaron Sorkin is the only reason I went out of my way to go see this in the theaters. If not him having co-written the screenplay, I probably would have ended up seeing something like Dream House or Abduction, which, unfortunately, I have to end up watching when the DVD comes out. But that’s neither here nor there. I probably would then just have watched this movie on DVD, regretted that I didn’t see it in the theater, and then bought the DVD. See my opinions on Hanna, Trollhunter, The Beaver, and Everything Must Go for more information. But, long story short, I am very glad that I got to see this wonderful film. Currently, it has nudged its place between Hanna and Trollhunter on my ‘Best of 2011’ list, a place it has earned and deserves. The plot of the film, based on a true story, tells the story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), the manager for the Oaklank A’s in 2001/2002, etc. The Oakland A’s, in 2001, is a terrible team. Just short and sweet. They are downright terrible, and it’s not even their fault. They just don’t have enough money. I would probably eat my own foot for $30 million, but apparently in the baseball world, that is nothing. I quote Brad Pitt-“There are rich teams, and there are poor teams. Then there’s fifty feet of crap. And then there’s us.” But Mr. Beane’s luck begins to change when Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), based off of someone who didn’t want himself to be played by a sweaty, nerdy Jonah Hill (understandable, but still unreasonable), a young, spunky, brilliant Yale graduate, who comes up with a system for finding the best forgotten players in the business, in order to find a winning team, an ‘island of misfit toys’, as they put it. Nobody thought it would work. Not a single soul on the planet other than those two had even the slightest idea that good would come of this. 20 games. The Oakland A’s won 20 consecutive games in 2002, the world record for a baseball winning streak. Amazing. This movie is amazing. Is it as good as The Social Network is? No, of course not. The Social Network deserved Best Picture last year, without a doubt. And I assume greatly that Moneyball is going to be announced this January, as well as Brad Pitt on Best Actor. Jonah Hill for Best Supporting? Not as likely, this really isn’t Jonah’s film, and it’s not an Award-ready character, but if Jonah Hill keeps being smarter than the version of him that’s 10 years older, Seth Rogen, he’ll be making brilliant comedies and quick dramas while Rogen is making the sequel to The Green Hornet. So, in short, the acting in the film is very good. The direction of the film by Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote is very well-done, quiet, quick, and amazing. There is one scene in the film, that is just a flash of different computer shots with the characters talking, and it just works to so much extent. It was one of the best montage sequences in a film this year, coming from a person who HATES montages. And now for the script. Co-written by Aaron Sorkin. I say no more. I want to see another Oscar nod for Sorkin. The script is amazing. In short, I will say once again two more words-Aaron Sorkin.
9.5/10

The Lovely Bones (2009)

Peter Jackson truly is an epic filmmaker. Be it a fantasy, drama, or even zombie film, he sees it on a grand scale. With every film, you can see that Peter Jackson has to make these three-hour films because he is just about to explode with talent. And the biggest problem with The Lovely Bones is that it is not an epic film. It is not an epic script, it is not an epic story, and I don’t even think it counts as an epic book. I cannot be a decent judge of that last one, due to the fact that I have not read the book and it is decently low on my list (currently I am reading the Cormac McCarthy novel No Country for Old Men, and it is very good), but, in short, this was never a film for Peter Jackson to direct. The first thirty minutes of this film are nearly perfect. And then we get to the scenes after that which just plain and simple, do not work a bit. The plotline of the film concerns 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan), who is murdered (in the book, there’s a bit more that I do not care to talk about here) by a man by the name of Harvey (an absolutely amazing performance by Stanley Tucci) in 1973. While in her own personal purgatory, awaiting to be taken to heaven, she decides to help her father (Mark Wahlberg) and mother (Rachel Weisz) find the man, and put him to justice before he ends up killing his next victim, who he plans to be Suzie’s younger sister. The first thirty minutes that I was talking about was the tragic lead-in to Suzie’s murder, you know it was coming, but you find such a soul and heart in this aspiring photographer that you hate seeing her go. And then she does. And that is where the movie begins to falter. Peter Jackson then tried to make this an epic film, and not a small drama like it was meant to be. He has these epic scenes of special effects magic-land, where everything is happy fun-time. And that is what I hate about this film. It toys with your emotions, but not in an artistic way. You have this brilliant tragic opening, and then try to pass it along as happy. The movie works when it is dealing with serious drama. When it is on earth, and we see the evil in Stanley Tucci, and the desperation and deterioration of Mark Wahlberg, we have a very effective drama. But whenever Peter Jackson is trying to make another King Kong, we have nothing but mindless trash. There is a lot about The Lovely Bones that works. But there is also a good bit that does not. It doesn’t even hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings and King Kong, but it definitely isn’t terrible.
6.5/10

Trollhunter (2011)

Man, I love them Norwegians. Well, at least, I love their movies. Out of all the Norwegian films I have seen, there has not been a bad one. In short, this is not a bad movie, as this is the only Norwegian film I have seen. Ever. And it is pretty amazing. Breathing new life into one of the single most forgotten and stereotyped genres of film, found footage, Trollhunter is a big ‘ha’ in the face of those who write off the entire found footage genre into a non-eventful boring pile of trash. Trollhunter, Cloverfield, REC (which I have not yet seen, but am dying to), and to a lesser extent, Paranormal Activity 2, are all films that have brought action, fun, and life into the genre that The Blair Witch Project and the original Paranormal Activity so boringly founded. The film follows three Norwegian film students who are filming a documentary about a bear poacher named Hans (Otto Jespersen), who is actually a troll exterminator for the Norwegian government (any time I think-‘Hans from Norway’, I think of the line by Chloe Grace Moretz in (500) Days of Summer-“Until you find her with Hans from Norway.” “Who’s Hans from Norway?” “Oh, just some guy that she met at work with Brad Pitt’s face and Jesus’ abs.”). The three do not believe him at first, and then he proceeds to turn a gigantic 30-feet-troll into pure stone with a big flashlight. And that is not the extent of the crazy science that this movie shoots out. But, impressively, the movie sticks to its crazy science. Within some of the insane things that are said in the film, such as that trolls can smell the blood of Christians (I knew a troll was gonna be the one to finish me off one day), it all sticks to itself. Even with some stuff that makes absolutely no sense, at the very least it sticks to its science. The movie is also very well-done and exciting, having some of the best sci-fi action since Cloverfield all those wonderful years ago. I own Cloverfield on DVD, and I plan to do the same with Trollhunter. This Blu-ray is gonna look amazing.
9/10

Peeping Tom (1960)

In 1960, Michael Powell’s career was put to a sharp stop with his at-the-time completely utterly horrible shocker Peeping Tom. Watching it fifty years later, I both can understand why and not understand why at all. First off, the movie is effective. It may not be completely and utterly terrifying, but it is a decently scary flick. About as scary as Poltergeist, not being completely terrifying or completely laughable by today’s modern horror standards, just a really good film. It stars Carl Boehm as Mark Lewis, a camera-worker at a film studio with a decent amount of childhood issues, who begins murdering women with a blade that pops out of a camcorder he uses. While he brutally murders these women, he films their expressions to find pure, honest, fear. All this filming leads up to a grand finale, one final death, one for the road. But poor serial killer Mark’s plans begin to halt when he meets Helen (Anna Massey), a sweet, kind-natured woman who takes a liking to the secluded cinematographer. But not even her can save this demented man. She asks him once, “Will you film me?” Mark responds with, “No. Not you. Never you.” At that point in the film, we realize that we are dealing with a truly messed up man. This entire movie is about a messed up man. It is about as much a horror movie as The Walking Dead (brilliant show, by the way) is a show about zombies. Is it a crucial element? Yes, of course. But at its core, we have nothing other than a character study. And a very good one at that. Peeping Tom is a brilliant horror drama, with a decent amount of very tense scenes thrown in. Just don’t go in expecting to have found another A Nightmare on Elm Street.
9/10