Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)

Clint: 3.4/5 stars, 7.6/10.
Carolyn: 3/5 stars, 5/10.
Ouch. MAJOR DISPARITY from Clint’s rating. It’s so very rarely 3/10 different with us!

Native rating: 3.9/5 stars, 5.4/10.

I have to admit I barely remember anything about this movie just a few days after watching it, so while it entertained me… It wasn’t anything super spectacular in the story department.

It’s a good thing that they are only planning one more movie in this franchise. It’s run its course, and something to tie it all together is the only way for it to not keep getting worse.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1855325/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Audition (1999) (Japan)

3/5 stars from Clint, 2/5 stars from Carolyn.
5/10 from both of us.
7.3/10 from IMDB in general.

“Well… That escalated quickly.”

Not quite as hardcore of a movie as I was expecting from all the talk of this being one of the most traumatizing movies in all of cinema.

It was slow for my taste, and I didn’t care for it too much, except for the final “payoff” scene, which even then was not all that.

Saw, Hostel… You’ve been outdone, Audition. You being Japanese just made you more boring, not more profound.

The fake-out was decent, but only enough to redeem you back up to 5/10.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0235198/

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: The Cabin In The Woods (2011)

4/5 stars from both of us.
7.6/10 from Clint (same as IMDB in general!)
8/10 from Carolyn.

Ultimately I was kind of disappointed with this one, given all the hype.

That doesn’t mean I didn’t like it. I just felt that the concept held more promise than the execution gave. This is usually true in many movies with unique concepts, but it hurt this for me… More than usual. There wasn’t nearly enough time spent on all the *other* monsters.

It felt rushed. It was too short. This story would have been better if it was fleshed out more: 2.5 hours instead of 1.5 hours. But oh, horror movies always have to be 1.5 hours!

This could have been a deeper story, with more epicness. Still a good movie. Still worth seeing. But I rank this as not as good as Joss Whedon’s average work.

The controlled environment definitely reminded me of The Hunger Games — but The Hunger Games had a much better societal commentary.

This seemed to start out too slow, then finish up too fast.

Pacing.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1259521/

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Ginger Snaps 3 aka Ginger Snaps 0 aka Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)

Clint: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.  (Again deferring to Carolyn’s rating.)
Carolyn: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.
Native ratings: 3.3/5 stars Netflix, 5.8/10 IMDB.

Not as good as the first one, but on par with the second one.  This was set in the 19th century.  The IMDB trivia says that the second and third movies were shot back-to-back.

Carolyn thinks she liked the third one ever so slightly better than the second one, though she rated both identically. I am unsure, myself.

This movie sacrifices the opportunity to continue moving the original story further forward, and that is a major points against when compared to Ginger Snaps 2.

But by making it a prequel about 2 girls who just so happen to be the EXACT SAME 2 girls (but in the 1800s), they created an opportunity for Ginger to return as a lead character. This brought back a lot of the chemistry and sisterly character interaction that Ginger Snaps 1 had, but that Ginger Snaps 2 lacked.  So that is major points for.

However, they aren’t in high school… Or even modern american culture as we know it. The unique aspects of the original characters don’t shine in the same light when held to a completely different time and culture, and that is points against when compared to Ginger Snaps 1.

In the end, it’s kind of a wash. This movie is good in ways Ginger Snaps 2 wasn’t, and Ginger Snaps 2 was bad in ways this movie wasn’t. They were filmed at the same time too, so there’s no discrepancy in production or acting. So it’s just another sequel that’s really a prequel.

While I would recommend that 100% of people who liked Ginger Snaps 1 *MUST* watch Ginger Snaps 2…….. This movie is not required viewing. However, it does feel more like Ginger Snaps 1 than Ginger Snaps 2 did, so you still might want to watch it if you were a fan.

Directed by Grant Harvey.

Written by Christina Ray & Stephen Massicotte.

The 2 main characters of course remain:

Emily Perkins (Juno, Insomnia, 35 eps of Da Vinci’s Inquest, 26 eps of Hiccups, 3 eps of Supernatural) as Brigitte.
Katharine Isabelle (Freddy Vs. Jason, 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days, Insomnia, Titanic, 1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of The L Word) as Ginger.

But also, from Ginger Snaps 2:

Brendan Fletcher (1 ep of Smallville) as Finn. He played Jeremy, the librarian in the second movie… Gracious of them to let him return.

The rest were new faces:

Nathaniel Arcand as The Hunter.
JR Bourne (1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of 24) as James, the douchebag.
Hugh Dillon (Trailer Park Boys: The Movie) as Reverend Gilbert.
Adrien Dorval (Twilight 2, Chronicles Of Riddick, 1 ep of The L Word) as Seamus.
Tom McCamus (Siblings, 2 eps of Friday The 13th: The Series, 1 ep of Puppets Who Kill) as Wallace Rowlands, the leader of the fort.
Matthew Walker (The Wicker Man, 1 ep of Smallville) as Doc Murphy, the doctor.
David MacInnis (1 ep of Smallville) as Cormac.

They sure seem to use a lot of Smallville people…

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365265/combined

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Ginger Snaps 2: Unleashed (2004)

Clint: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10. (I’m deferring to Carolyn’s rating as I’m kind of unsure of my feelings.)
Carolyn: 3.4/5 stars, 7/10.
Native ratings: 3.2/5 stars Netflix, 6.4/10 IMDB.

Not as good as the first one.  This one follows Brigitte as she deals with being infected by the lycanthropy.  It was still entertaining enough.  It was still good. Just not nearly as good. It was a good horror movie, but they kinda dropped the whole sisterly aspect of the first one that brought much of the interestingness to the original. So the chemistry was completely different, and it didn’t have that Ginger Snaps 1 feel that they brought back with Ginger Snaps 3 (which I’ll be reviewing next).

What this movie has going for it is that it is a continuation of the same original story. It’s canon. Ginger Snaps 3 is not. So this is it. When you watch this movie, don’t be tricked into thinking that the story will continue. That’s it, it’s over, and it’s kind of messed up.

Also, just what was unleashed? If anything, that’s backward. But I digress.

This is worth watching simply as a way to coast by on the good feeling you get from how awesome Ginger Snaps 1 is. I’d definitely recommend watching this. Definitely. You need to see how the story concludes. But this movie doesn’t stand on its own as being particularly special, other than how it connects to the greatness of Ginger Snaps 1.

Directed by Brett Sullivan. Written by Megan Martin.

Only the 2 main characters were from the first movie: Ginger & Brigitte.

Emily Perkins (Juno, Insomnia, 35 eps of Da Vinci’s Inquest, 26 eps of Hiccups, 3 eps of Supernatural) as Brigitte.
Katharine Isabelle (Freddy Vs. Jason, 30 Days Of Night: Dark Days, Insomnia, Titanic, 1 ep of Smallville, 1 ep of The L Word) as Ginger.

The rest were new faces:

Brendan Fletcher (1 ep of Smallville) as Jeremy, the librarian.
Tatiana Maslany (Stir Of Echoes 2, 11 eps of Orphan Black) as Ghost.
Janet Kidder as Alice.
Pascale Hutton (Fantastic Four, 3 eps of Smallville) as Beth-Ann, the mean girl.
Michelle Beaudoin (24 eps of Sabrina The Teenage Witch) as Winnie.
Eric Johnson (24 eps of Smallville, Flash Gordon in 21 eps of Flash Gordon) as Tyler, the guy who returns favors.
Patricia Idlette (Scary Movie 3) as Dr. Brookner.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0353489/combined

VIDEO: MOVIES: REVIEW: Night Of The Living Dead (1990)

Clint: 3.2/5 stars, 7.2/10.
Carolyn: 3/5 stars, 7/10.
Native ratings: 3.5/5 stars Netflix, 6.7/10 IMDB.

So we are apparently doing this backward. We watched the 2006 3-D remake-of-a-remake some time back. Now we are watching the 1990 remake. Meanwhlie, we’ve never seen the 1968 original.

Definitely one of the small-scenario zombie movies; more old school in that sense. Also old school in that there is some definite cheeziness and bad acting that wouldn’t pass muster these days. But still. This was good.

I really liked the ending… That was quite different than I was expecting. They added a whole social commentary angle to it. It wasn’t profound, but still. It could have just been nothing.

And I like how the main character was a completely different person by the end of the movie, transformed by the events of the movie.

And it was cool to see Tony Todd (“Candyman Candyman Candyman!”) after watching his guest appearance on the underrated awesome sitcom Holliston.

So all in all, I’m glad I finally saw this.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100258/?ref_=sr_1

VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Hostel 3 aka Hostel: Part III (2011) (direct to video)

5/5 stars, 8/10 from Clint.
3/5 stars, 7/10 from Carolyn.
Major disparity here.

Native rating: 4.7/10 (vs 5.8,5.4 for first 2 movies), 3.1/5 stars (vs 3.2,3.2).
Netflix guessed 3.9/5 for us. Considering I rated the first 2 Hostel movies 5/5 stars, Netflix really should know better.

I thought this was one of the more sinister Hostel movies. The major spoiler of the movie is WAY more evil than anything that was done in the first two Hostel movies.

I actually think the franchise has been improving with each release, which is contrary to most popular opinion and common sense.

Hostel 2 > Hostel 1, because after seeing the 1, watching 2 is an exercise in extreme paranoia. But after going that route, Hostel 3 is more of an experience in “living large” and making the franchise more grandiouse, with the hell on earth no longer in a 3rd world eastern European country, but in Las Fucking Vegas.

This is also the most unique of the 3 films (due to large similarities between Hostel 1 and Hostel 2).

I am glad that in the IMDB comments I found other people who liked this better than Hostel 1 & 2. It is probably the opinion of a 10% minority, but I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks 3 > 2 > 1.

FREAK ALERT! John Hensley, the fucking idiot son from Nip/Tuck, plays a handicapped person here. Interesting to see him again, if only to be reminded of how much I hated his character on Nip/Tuck. He also has a kind of weird look to him, which lends itself well to playing someone with a physical malady.

LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1255916