Motion Picture Review: Evil Dead (2013)

Movie: Evil Dead (2013 Remake)

Format: Standard (2D)

General movie information (cast, synopsis, MPAA rating, etc.) can be found at 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1288558/

By now, if you don't know what “The Evil Dead” is, you either don't know what good movies are or you just simply don't know what media is as a whole. In 1981, Sam Raimi set out to make a low-budget horror movie that would not only make a mark on the industry, but also knock people out of their socks, screaming with fear. It spawned two sequels (Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness), countless other media forms, including comic books and is still regarded as one of the best – if not THE best – franchises in cult horror history. Though the second movie was touched by slightly less horror and more humor, and Army of Darkness is more considered just a dark comedy, as a whole the franchise still falls under cult horror.

If you're looking to watch the remake for Ashley J. Williams, hehehe, don't bother. Despite how the original series heavily relied - and still does – on Ash, this reboot is designed for the story more than anything. Any fan, however, already knows that Ash isn't in this movie, but will see it not just despite that fact, but actually because of it. The concept is pretty intriguing really. With all of the pivotal components that Ash portrayed in the original film, some nice creativity had to be followed in the remake in order to tell the story more successfully. So everything that happened in the original story is there, save for a few key zingers – which somehow made it into the trailer and not the theatrical film release – but generally speaking it's all there.

If you want to see it, regardless of whether I say yay or nay, you will do so, so it's probably a good thing I say yay anyway, har-har. You won't likely be disappointed, just try not to compare it to the original too much or you might be. It's a remake, more a reboot actually, and not meant to be an exact replica. I will however say that out of every franchise reboot I've ever seen, this is probably on the #1 best position of the list for accuracy, continuity, common-sense writing, dialogue, etc. It's just plain and simply a great and entertaining film and you're sure to thoroughly enjoy it.

Are there any negatives? Sure, but not big enough annoyances for me to actually nitpick at them. The movie is so great as a whole regardless, that it doesn't even matter on the minor trivial details. Go watch it, you'll love it, and that's an honest statement. While it may just be my humble opinion, I'm pretty well certain I'm correct in stating such a thing.

Story: 10/10

Dialogue: 9.5/10

Continuity: 10/10

Overall: 9.8/10

This article copyright 2013 Ronald H. Smith. All images are property 2013 Sony Pictures Digital Inc. All rights reserved.

Motion Picture Review: The Last Exorcism Part II

Movie: The Last Exorcism Part II (2013)

Format: Standard (2D)

General movie information (cast, synopsis, MPAA rating, etc.) can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2034139/?ref_=sr_1

 

Picking up where the first movie left off - and if you haven't seen that one yet, do it – this film has new writers, a new director, etc., however the characters, environment and everything else is a perfect end cap to the first film's “ending” (don't want to spoil that part for those who've yet to see the first one). Since the final incident of which the first film left us with, young Nell Sweetzer has been trying to move on from her previous life situation, though it's taken it's toll on her rather well. We see her trying to move on and forget about the past and creating for herself a new future.

She meets a boy, falls head-over-heels for him and has even made friends with some other girls, growing into some independence. It's not long, however, before trouble comes-a-knockin' and Nell starts feeling the pressure. Her nightmares of nights-passed had become beautiful dreams of things unrelated, and in the blink of an eye she starts becoming seduced by the demon of which had previously possessed her body. We learn a lot more in this film about Nell herself, rather than the general story of exorcisms and demonic possession, and that most definitely helps to add to the depth quite a bit.

Because the movie focuses on Nell herself, completely centered around her in fact, we are given opportunity to become attached to her and to feel for her much in the same way we would someone in real life. It's as though we're watching someone we've met live out their days. There are even elements of which Nell is treated as a kind of small-time celebrity, but for the most part we just see a blossoming young wallflower, much like Stephen King's Carrie – replacing psychic abilities with being haunted and seduced by a demon of course.

The story does seem a tad on the short side, I do have to admit, but that's not enough for me to take any marks from it because it doesn't affect the story negatively in any way. If you really think about it, connecting the two movies together actually weaves a fairly intimate and semi-lengthy story. Exorcism movies don't usually bode well with two or more films per franchise, however I do have to say that as long as this one doesn't get a third part, it will do quite well holding it's own. It isn't the greatest film of all time, or even the greatest exorcism film (it is kind of hard to beat The Exorcist after all), however it actually is not that bad a film or pair of films in the slightest. The first installment was a documentary-stylized model, with this one being more Hollywood “this is the aftermath” style. Rather than anyone following Nell around with a camera and cataloging everything like data, the actual story of what's happening to the main character is allowed to unfold and be presented as-is.

Is it perfect? Far from it, but as many know I am a major stickler for continuity, and with that this film hits the nail on the head perfectly. The Last Exorcism Part II quite literally picks up right where the first film left off, and in the intro it actually gives viewers a catch-me-up on what the first film was about and what all happened (though not as entertaining as that film itself, it covers all the major components). I'm seeing ratings on the web that make this film seem like it's a cheese-ball attempt at making a bit more $$$ from something that should just be left alone, however as that might possibly be the case (I can't say yes or no), to me it definitely just seems like a way for those of us who watched the first film to have some closure on what happened.

One thing I also liked, just to point this out, is that unlike a lot of other films in this sub-genre, this film did not go way over-the-top Hollywood craziness with the FX. That happens to be one of my most favorite parts of The Last Exorcism (both films as a whole story), the realism of it. It doesn't have tons of cheesy crazy talk, and the character of Nell is actually convincingly realistic. I applaud Ashley Bell (Nell) for her performance in these films, especially Part II, because she's actually believable in her fear, terror and innocence.

I didn't much like the end of the film, but that's because of what route it took, not because of the FX, stylization, etc. It's an actual end to a story (or is it?) however, and that's appreciable as many films often leave us hanging (and the first one had me for awhile until I saw the trailer for this one) without any closure whatsoever. If you like the exorcism sub-genre of horror films, then you'll possibly like this one, but if you haven't seen the first one yet, I implore you to do so. Watching the first The Last Exorcism film will greatly help you to appreciate Part II much greater than Part II's introduction story-catch-up feature, plus it's actually a pretty nice film all it's own.

Story: 7/10

Dialogue: 9/10

Continuity: 10/10

Overall: 8.7/10

This article copyright 2013 Ronald H. Smith. All images are property 2013 CBS Films Inc. All rights reserved.

Motion Picture Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Title: G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Format: RealD 3D

General movie information (cast, synopsis, MPAA rating, etc.) can be found at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1583421/

Allow me to begin this review by saying that I have been a G.I. Joe fan for pretty well my entire life, since I was a baby. I'm 31 years old and if you add the years up, that's a long time to be a fan, nearly an entire lifetime. From the comics to the cartoons, and even into the toys (naturally) and now the live-action films, I've followed Duke, Hawk, Sgt. Slaughter, Destro, Zartan and the rest of the Joe and Cobra crews throughout the entirety (though I cannot say I'm an expert, far from it in fact), and as such I expect a lot of things – as any real fan should – of these kinds of adaptations, primarily continuity. I'm a huge stickler for continuity, and quite frankly, when it really comes down to it, we deserve such things to be well-preserved and incorporated. It just makes complete sense to do so, right? Right. Anyway, without further ado, I present my own personal review for G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

At the beginning of the film, we start out with some of the most pivotal Joes on a mission to retrieve a fellow-Joe from a Cobra operative base. Duke, Roadblock, Lady Jay and Flint – who we quickly learn has quite a sense of humor – are all there, using advanced technological weaponry and lots of cunning. One of the other things we notice, is that a decent amount of the cast has been replaced with other actors. First red flag goes up there, I don't like that whatsoever because the first film – The Rise of Cobra – had a huge audience of devoted fans who saw those roles played by certain people and like myself they expect continuity. In all honesty, only maybe 4 original actors/actresses from TroC are the same in Retaliation (Snake-Eyes, Storm Shadow, Duke and Zartan that I noticed). I was intrigued by the story though, so I kept watching. We did pay to see it after all, no turning back now.

Almost immediately after that opening sequence, my stomach turned. As I've said, continuity is a major issue for me in just about everything, especially movies. The opening credits part of the film began and while I was all “cool!” from the 3D fx of all the nice digital this and that flying around, what they were explaining really ticked me off a lot. I am not joking, so prepare yourself here... Between the first and second movies, roughly an entire movie's-worth, or a couple of TV seasons-worth, of content has simply just been tossed to the wayside, years have passed and it's all casually tucked in a drawer like it's nothing. I mean seriously, with what all they explain, an entire film, 2 television show seasons and even a few years of comics could have all been slapped together and explained ALL of it!!!

The entire film is full of action, drama and humor, but honestly it felt rushed to me. There was a bit too much going on and being skimmed over lightly, it easily could have been split into at least two separate movies rather than just one. One of the few things I did like was to see more Joes and Cobras brought into the mix, however with them focusing heavily on how the Arashikage were mixed up in the primary situation and plot (and somehow a key member of the Arashikage in the previous iterations of G.I. Joe shows up and yet doesn't appear to have anything to do with them whatsoever in this movie – say what?!), it greatly takes away any real creativity of the film.

Another thing to note, is that although the film is RealD 3D, it heavily used the overlay 3D effect, which is when the movie itself is 2D, yet uses 3D FX over the top of it, but only in certain areas of the screen. For example, if yuou took off the 3D glasses, you would notice that the movie itself is like normal, but the flashy credits, flying objects in explosions, etc. are wavy and blurry. From the other RealD 3D films I've seen, this is a cop-out to me and really doesn't give me my money's-worth to be honest. When I went to see Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (which I've also reviewed) in RealD 3D, I was actually pretty amazed at how they used it to their advantage, adding depth of field, immersion, etc. This film, G.I. Joe: Retaliation, left me feeling a bit jipped because of that. Call me spoiled, but once you have something to compare it to, you really do see it.

Overall, the actual 3D fx were decent, but I really would have preferred them used in the entirety of the film. There are some scenes, the Snake-Eyes Vs. Storm Shadow one in particular, where the screen is difficult to watch due to blur, as if the movie was filmed at a higher speed than the projector would actually refresh at. The scene where Snake-Eyes and Jinx were fighting the Cobra Ninjas on the mountainside, admittedly it was pretty nice, but it felt too average visually (no depth-of-field distinction, etc.). Quite an opportunity was missed there, clearly. I'd also have liked to have seen some additional notable characters lingering about, supporting characters if you will. It would have made for some of the depth and immersion in the story to be made up for. Then again, I'd also have liked for this film to have actually had some depth to it, a real hook-you-in story, and for it to have not left the same taste in my mouth as a can of 6-month-old flat cola.

I am thoroughly disappointed in the film and would say if you can find it at your local cheap-o/dollar theatre, it's worth watching there, but no way would I pay full theatrical price to see it again. Hasbro has some serious making up to do with us fans, I do have to say, as does Paramount. Go see it if you must, but even my 9-year-old son – who loves G.I. Joe as much as I do – was sorely disappointed in it. We might pick it up in the $5 Value Bin at Walmart one day, but certainly won't bother to touch it at any price above that.

Story: 4/10

Dialogue: 6/10

Continuity: 2/10

Overall: 4/10

This article copyright 2013 Ronald H. Smith, all images are property 2013 of Paramount Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Skydance Productions, Hasbro and Di Bonaventura Pictures.  G.I. Joe is a registered trademark of Hasbro, all rights reserved.