Movie Review: Black Christmas (2006)

 Oh my gosh, I think it's time for me to do this...so just wish me luck, okay?
Glen Morgan, best known for the Final Destination film series, decided to tackle on Bob Clark's 1974 horror classic Black Christmas. All of you should know that this was not a good remake. I'm just going to tell you right off the bat. Though most of the problems I have with this is the writing as the script will always be the backbone of any movie I will review. And I would also like to point out the lousy characterization of the girls. The characters are just awful in this movie and you just feel like throwing darts at them. Okay, there is one thing I like about this film, it's the directing. There wasn't any shaky cam or fast edits or it wasn't too dark that I couldn't see shit. It was perfectly fine and very much tasteful. It also has a way of capturing the beauty of Christmas while at the same time capturing the horror of it as well. The actors did a fine job, its just most of them had the misfortune of playing really shitty characters. The overall movie, though, is just a campy mess. It's too stilted and over-the-top to be taken seriously. I would point out the differences with the original but all I got is the sorority being trapped in a house for the holidays with a killer named Billy. So this version of Black Christmas is just your typical slasher movie who happens to have the same name as the 1974 movie. The end.
The Story: Bitchy sorority girls are trapped with an escaped mental patient while celebrating the Christmas holiday.

Like I said the cast is decent, especially Andrea Martin (who starred in the 1974 original) was a hoot as the house mother, Michelle Trachtenberg, and even Katie Cassidy, who is yet again in a horror remake. Don't worry we'll see more of her in the later reviews, trust me. But the rest of the characters are either bland, shallow, or just plain repulsive to sit through. There is no sense of realism to them at all. In the 1974 film, I related to the characters so much more. They were actual characters. People that you cared about. And they weren't these overglamourized Barbie dolls like how they are in this forgettable remake.

Katie Cassidy did a surprisingly good job. I'm not saying she's a great actress or anything, she was good with what she worked with. Though how I describe Kelli Presley is that she's really bland. The typical Mary Sue character who is a perfect blond good girl who has higher morals than the other girls. She actually one of the few likeable characters but that's what you expect from her.

I've always enjoyed Michelle Trachtenberg as an actress (though I wouldn't say I'm a Dawn fan) and I would say she was very charming in this movie. She doesn't really bring much to the table but that's only because there's not much focus on the character of Melissa. Though I would say she as well is one of the more likeable, nicer characters. You think she would have more agency to be the final girl or at least be one of the survivors but she gets it and she gets it quite gruesomely.

Lacey Chabert was really funny in Mean Girls but I can't help to say she pretty much plays the same character in this movie. Hell, I can't even remember the character's name. And therefore I don't care too either. So moving on.

Then we have this new version of Barb. Nothing else to say really. To add this though, Barb in the original 1974 movie was the epitome of the drunken sorority college girl. She was brass, told it like it is, and would play childish pranks for her own amusement. But through it all, Barb was really funny and likeable character and it makes you think, 'hey I had friends like that', which made her death in the original really tragic and disturbing. So you all know how my feelings about this version of the character is. She was just plain annoying and had nothing to offer. To be fair, this girl does NOT hold a candle to Margot Kidder.

We have the very underrated Mary Elizabeth Winstead but seem to be wasted as spoiled southern belle type.

 

Andrea Martin returns, this time as a house mother and I have to say she was kind of hilarious. In the 1974 film, she played Phyllis, the kind, nurturing friend to Jess and Barb. Now as a sort of shout out to the original, Andrea Martin gets a cameo remake that seems to be extended through time. However, I really enjoyed her performance and she was one of the best things in the movie.

 

A new character is introduced in the form of Leigh Colvin. She supposed to be a substitute of Clair's father in the original. In this version, she is Clair's half sister, who is trying to reconcile with her. It may seem that she's your typical frosty bitch like half the spoiled sorority girls but in the end, she really does care about her sister and even manages to save Kelli in the end. The acting of Kristen Cloke was particularly strong and gave the character a bit of an edge.

Lastly, we have Kelli's jerkass but also very hot boyfriend Kyle. It may seem he's the perfect boyfriend but in the end it's all a façade.

Turns out he was cheating on Kelli with one of the sorority sisters and videotaped it! What. An. Asshole. Let's just say he gets what's coming to him later.
Can I just say this? There is absolutely no suspense or tension in this movie. Okay, I would say there are certain intense scenes like the climax for that matter, but the biggest fault to this movie is the kills.

Remember Clair's death in the original and how she was suffocated with a plastic bag. Be prepared to see that in each of the death scenes in this version with an addition of an eye stab or an eye gouge. There is no creativity puts towards the kills and it just becomes repetitive afterwards.
From what I heard the script was received much better than the actual movie with more character development on the girls and a comprehensive story but maybe that had to do with studio interference.

Speaking of studio interference, this was the biggest sin created by the studio. Once you see the trailer, there are particular scenes that are not even from the movie. And my fifteen year old self was pretty much fooled by this. I regret ever coming to theaters to see this but hey I was a teenager.

There really wasn't a need to extend the backstory of the killer Billy. What I liked about the original was that he was more of mystery, not even going so far as to show his face. There was no rhyme or reason for his killings, he was a just psychopath, that's what scary about him. Having these chains of events like witnessing his father's death, being abused, neglected and raped by his mother, having a child out of incest, and eating human skin like cookies and milk was so forced. Okay, I will admit the look of Billy was kind of cool but I can't help to think the filmmakers tried to make him look like The Yellow Bastard from Sin City. Interesting look, though.

Lastly, the movie is over-the-top gory to the point where it's unnecessary. Sure, this could be a treat for gorehounds though what it's missing is the tight-knit suspense and the unease tension that the original had. It wasn't about the kills, it was about the scares. All I have to say is, just like with Texas Chainsaw: The Beginning, the gore is not going to help the movie.

There is, you guessed it, a twist. there is actually two killers in the movie. Billy's accomplice turns out to be Billy's daughter/sister, Agnes. Though, it puzzles me why after Billy attacked her, gouged her eye out, killed her family and then decides to join her dad's killing spree is beyond me.
This movie also have two endings, which baffled me. Just as you wanted the movie to be over, it just never ends and the second ending is a literal rip off of Halloween 2. There are also many alternate versions of scenes, even a UK edition and it makes me think, 'boy, this movie had a lot to go through for it's process.'
The Verdict? Go with the original. I can tell some people are fans of this. Yes, it is sort of a guilty pleasure if you have nothing to do on a Saturday night but at the same time, it's a campy incoherent mess that almost becomes a parody of the original. The original did have a sort of black comedic tone to it, however, it still had creepy, intense moments that balanced it out, which worked for it.
This should've have been remade at all. To have this titled Black Christmas is insulting. It was any other run-of-the-mill horror film with a strange premise as this, I would've went with it. As a horror remake, however, not in a lifetime.
My last word: Avoid this at all cost unless you're drunk with friends, of course.



 

Scream Queens: My Thoughts

 Looking into Scream Queens, I thought the show was a....mixed bag. Once apon a time, I used to watch a show called Glee but that 'like'(I say like not love) has been gone since the writing gotten bad, and I also happen to be a fan of American Horror Story, even with it's writing flaws. So safe to say, my expectations for this show was definitely high. When I heard the news that Jamie Lee Curtis, Jamie Lee Curtis, a scream queen legend, was going to be on this show, I was ecstatic, alongside Lea Michelle (Glee) and American Horror Story alum Emma Roberts, who is good at playing bitchy roles.

Once I got to viewing this though, my reaction was kind of meh. But I do have my fingers crossed just a little for it to get better. I do believe this show have SOME potential. The show seems to be obviously inspired by Black Christmas and Sorority Row, I'm talking about the remakes, not the originals. It has the same bitchiness and cattiness from the female cast, and it also harbors this strange, over-the-top, so bad-it's good vibe from those movies as well. Hell, the show even go so far as to cast one of the actors that starred in one of those movies. Sooner or later, I'll be reviewing them in a while. ..
The humor is a bit off-putting. It hits but then it misses. Though, the writing is the biggest problem I have with the show. It's just so....cliché. But for those of you who like the show, this isn't a bad review. I just wasn't impressed with the pilot that much. It didn't sink me in. Then again, it's just a pilot. Hopefully, the show will get better in time. and I'll probably love it but only time will tell.

P.S. Nick Jonas is Smoking Hot! Now that's one of the highlights I've seen in the pilot.

Be sure to catch an episode tonight at 9/10 est.

 

Movie Review: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

Before I start this review, I would like to talk a little bit about the upcoming Texas Chainsaw Prequel featuring a young Leatherface. Yes guys, there's going to be another Texas Chainsaw Prequel. And judging by the fact that this would be the younger version of Leatherface:

Let's say I don't particularly have high hopes for this one. Sure, he's a cute guy but I just don't picture him being Leatherface. Maybe He'll surprise me but who knows. This prequel is being made by a film company named Millennium and is possibly getting a distribution from Lionsgate. Many people have their own opinions on this but with mine, I really think they should just leave this series alone. I don't see how the creators could pick up the chainsaw franchise after it's lowest point. Hell, it hasn't been that long. Besides the point, let's get to the real topic at hand here.
After the success of the 2003 remake, Michael Bay and Company decided to make a prequel in 2006, chronicling the origin story of Leatherface. Was it worth it? Sadly, no. No it wasn't.
The origin story had some potential, the acting was decent, and there were some tension and suspense along with some gory deaths. But the results were rather.....dull. I feel like there really wasn't a reason to make this other than for Platinum Dunes to have rights to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and gain momentum at the box office. I see the thought and effort put into the story, however, I just don't see a true origin story here. In the end, it's just a by the numbers slasher and a 'how we got here' prologue for the remake.
The Story: In 1969, Brothers Eric and Dean along with their girlfriends, Chrissie and Bailey, are heading cross country to enlist in Vietnam, only to get ambushed and terrorized by the Hewitt family.

The cast was pretty decent but I would say there's nothing special about the characters. There is some character development, I'm sure of it, especially the dynamic between two brothers but other than that they all become flat all around and pretty much chainsaw fodder for the Hewitt family.

Jordana Brewster is a good actress though I can't help to feel she was wasted here. The character of Chrissie doesn't really have the same fire as Jessica Biel's Erin. You think she would but she doesn't. She makes stupid decision after stupid decision to the point where you just want to give up. She has a chance of safety, however, she fails at every moment.

She's just not an easy character to root for and judging that this is a prequel to the 2003 remake, what's the point?

Diora Barid as Bailey is, as you guessed it, the typical horror movie blond bimbo. Right off the bat, she is shown showing off her assets and frolicking around with her boyfriend. Character Development, I think not.

Though she does get tortured the worst. The treatment she receives from the Hewitt family is awful and you can't help but feel sorry for her when she meets her end.
Now on to the boys. And Oh my gosh, I have so much to tell you because the male leads in this movie is H-O-T HOT!

First off, we have the oh-so sexy Matt Bomer as Eric and his striking blue eyes. When I first seen him slowly come out of the pool I just melted.....But let me focus here. His character arc involves him joining Vietnam. He's pretty much pumped to go but soon finds out his brother burned his draft card and is reluctant to join.

This causes conflict between the brothers and furthermore adds to the character development but it sort of ends there and it's only used as a catalyst for Sheriff Hoyt's military-style torture.

His death is probably the most brutal in the movie and Chrissie is drenched in his own blood, no less.

 

 

Then there's adorable hottie Taylor Handley as Dean and his luscious blond locks. The story with him is that he's reluctant to go Vietnam and when he tells his brother about this this causes tension between them though it dies down once they get captured and mauled by Sheriff Hoyt. Throughout the movie, he is pretty capable as a hero but ,just like Chrissie, seems to fail miserably at any moment. I can't help to feel that this was done intentionally by the filmmakers. Of course, he doesn't make it.

The little backstory on Sheriff Hoyt I've already explained in the review of the 2003 remake, though most of us would already know that he's really not a sheriff. Somehow in some convoluted way, he and Leatherface successfully kill the sheriff of the town and owns the badge of honor. It's just....so moronic how that is conceived. Since Hoyt served in World War II, he gets the tortured the boys military style. It's really just R. Lee Ermey playing his character from Full Metal Jacket, So I have nothing else to say for that matter.

There could've been much more time and effort put into Leatherface since it is, you know, he's origin story after all. It's just these quick little tidbits of him being born in the most harshest conditions, losing his job as meat cutter and being a young upstart providing for his cannibalistic family.

Can I say that this movie is extremely gory? because it is. I know that most fans who saw the 2003 remake would say that that version of the movie wasn't gory enough but this turns it up to eleven. I really doesn't help the movie in any matter though. And through my research, this is why the uncut version got a NC-17.

But this is what bugged me: The Dinner Table scene. I really didn't see there was no point to this other than the filmmakers to please the fans who didn't get to see a dinner table scene in the remake. But this just seems forced. I liked the fact there wasn't a dinner table scene in the remake because that would come off a bit cheesy. We've already seen the dinner table scene in each of the sequels, and you know some of those sequels were kind of campy at times. And like I said they making this as though this should've been the remake though 2003 remake has it's own merits which why it's better than this movie.

Now it all leads to one of the most stupidest endings in a horror film, which left the movie more dull and lifeless. So you think Chrissie would've escaped fine, right? Wrong. In some odd way, She gets chainsawed at the backseat of the car, which causes her to crash into nearby police cars, killing each officer in the way. And soon this is the beginning of Leatherface's bloody journey as the chainsaw slayer. How. Fucking. Dumb. The narrator doesn't even give a shit.
Laughably, Platinum Dunes just gave up and sold the rights back to the creators. I guess they wanted to put the series to rest, since this one wasn't much of a hit at the box office. At least it wasn't as bad as Chainsaw 3D, of course.

I know I didn't really put much care into this review but what can I say? There was no point to make this and therefore, I'll just leave it at that.

My Last Word: Watch the 1974 original. It's much more of a benefit, actually.

 

 

 

Showgirls: A Look In History Of Trash Cinema

Check Our Showgirls Movie Review At JD And Ivy's Dome.

 

Movie Review: The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

In Honor of the Late Great Wes Craven I present this review to you...
In 1977, Wes Craven, riding high from the very disturbing Last House On The Left, directed the equally disturbing The Hills Have Eyes. I have to be honest and say that the film doesn't quite hold up well as it be but back then it was fresh in it's animalistic brutality of how this seemingly normal family gets attacked by a savage group of feral cannibals. Most recently, Alexander Aja who takes over the directing chair in 2006 to remake the Wes Craven cult classic. Now there was a obscure 1985 sequel but lets leave that for another day, it's best to not have that in our minds.
So here in 2006, Mr. Aja, The French director known for the not-well received but extremely bloody High Tension, took on the directing seat with Wes Craven as Producer. And oh boy, it's awesome!
Now there are some problems I have with it, mainly the cast, but I think the true beauty of this movie is the raw impact of grittiness and realism. Showing the brutality of the mutant clan while the Carter family tries to survive their attacks.
Say what you will about High Tension, I think Alexander Aja has a very artistic eye and I think he's one of those directors who really put his passion into his work. So you can quite tell that I am happy to review this.
The Story: The Carter family, going on a road trip from Ohio to California, gets trapped in a series of terrible events, playing a cat and mouse game with a group of vicious mutant cannibals.

The cast is fantastic, bringing in these incredible performances, especially from the leads but, however, there are some flaws to that, not from the actors per say, but the characters they're playing. And for the most part, my focus will be mainly on these three.

Let's start with Doug first, our hero of the movie. In the original, he was a typical everyday man, who had a strive of leadership and competence. Doug in this version is a bit uptight and annoyingly geeky, though that was intentional for the filmmakers for him to be effective as a hero throughout the story. But that's not my main problem with this guy.

He complains and complains throughout half of the movie and his wife, the saint that she is, have to deal with this while taking care of their newborn child.
Not only that but it seems he has a thing for his own sister-in-law. I'm not joking, guys. There is literally a scene where Doug is caught ogling at his FIFTEEN-year old sister-in-law, who's wearing a bikini. If that's not creepy I don't what it is. But Doug somehow redeems himself once he takes charge and saves his baby girl.

Then there's Brenda, an example of the blond bimbo you'd had to deal with in high school. This girl is quite the little brat where she would bitch and moan even more so than Doug.

Imagine Debbie Thornberry but in live action form. Yeah, she's definitely like that. The original version of Brenda is no better as her screeching high-pitched voice will send blood to your ears.

Though by the middle of the movie, Brenda is able to get our sympathy from a traumatic event but have to deal with Brenda as a character is a sore to get through.

Lastly, there's Bobby, who's actually the more likeable of the three. There's not much to say about Bobby and there are times where he is whiny but then again, he's just a teenage boy and having to deal with the situation at hand, he would be sympathetic in that light.

So then again, with his intelligence, he is useful after all.
Now to showcase the big bad Jupiter family played by character actors Michael Bailey Smith, Desmond Askew, and Billy Drago. Fun Fact! All three actors guest-starred on the show Charmed, just to squeeze some trivia there.

The biggest accomplishment that I got from this remake is the special effects. I just want to be honest here, in the original, the mutants just didn't look like mutants to me, more like feral homeless men with a little dirt on their faces. But in this new version, the mutants' look are out of this world. They are also more smarter and vicious than their original counterparts, making their brutal attacks more effective. What's even more great about this version of the movie is how they written in a backstory about the mutants and how they evolved into their animalistic savagery.

Now there is one special addition that blew the original out of the water, this movie is GO-ORY, which will lead me to the epic climatic battle between Doug and Mutants. Now let's talk a little bit about the original, Wes Craven will always be crowned the master of suspense but boy does this man loves his booby traps. Yes, that's how the climax went down mostly, defeating the mutants with booby traps. Kind of cool but kind of unexciting as well.

But in this version, it goes balls out. In search of his child, Doug goes into a full-on blood soaked fight with the mutants out of an act of revenge and it is glorious. It's one of my favorite parts of the movie and you should see it yourself.
The Verdict? Both movies could be looked at as commentary on class and social values, even though in some parts, the movies aren't exactly perfect. But with good directors on their hands, they hold up just fine in cult classic territory. But the main problem with both versions is how the family are portrayed. They are just plain unlikeable and yes, even when bad things start to happen to them, of course I am with them, but in order for me to gain just enough sympathy for a character in a horror film, you have to make them likeable, just sayin'. And if the filmmakers in the 2006 version, I would've liked this movie better. So I guess I go with the remake with this one. Although I see Wes Craven as a legend, the original Hills Have Eyes isn't all that memorable to me.
My Last Word: Go see both versions, they go hand in hand.