The Incredible Hulk

 HULK SMASH!!!


Growing up, my childhood superhero was, and still is, Marvel Comic’s Spider-Man. But a close second was always the Hulk.

Back in the late 70s, the television show was a big hit, starring Bill Bixby as David Banner (why they changed the name to David instead of Bruce, I’ll never understand) and Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk. It was pretty true to the comics on how Banner was inundated with gamma rays, causing him to turn into the Hulk when angered. I even bought into how they cast a body builder to be painted green and have him run around roaring at everybody in slow motion. Looking back at it now, it does look a little ridiculous, especially the TV films (Trial and Death) they televised in the early 80s.

In 2003, I was very excited when Hulk came out. It was probably the last time I went to a late night showing of a movie (I think I went to a 10 pm showing) and I really liked the film. Ang Lee gave the film an artsy feel to it, but I thought it was very well done. To me, the ending left you wanting more, even though the film went on ten minutes too long. I waited a few years for a sequel, but was disappointed when I heard another film would be made, but as a reboot.

Reboot (sigh).

Yes, the keyword around Hollywood that almost guarantees a studio’s greenlight of a production is “reboot.”

But this was different as the new film would be tied into the new Marvel Studios universe of films to intersect each other, starting with Iron Man. So, I accepted this reboot of my second favorite superhero as The Incredible Hulk started production.

The film opens with a quick montage of how it all happens, so right away everything was erased from the first film as it’s solely gamma rays that made Bruce Banner what he is. It’s a pretty cool introduction as it follows the old 70s television show more than the comics. Throughout the opening assortment of scenes, we see newspaper articles and schematics which establish Stark Industries as being involved somehow.

After the opening credits, we see that Banner is in hiding down in Brazil and working in a soda bottling factory as he's working with a "Mr. Blue" via computer to try and find a cure for his Hulk-ness. Of course, we have the typical co-worker thugs that give him a hard time, which they’ll come into play a little later in the film. Also, they’re some funny moments as Banner tries to speak Portuguese.

Before you know it, the military finds out where he’s at and makes plans to move in to try to capture Banner. Before heading out, General Ross recruits a military bad-ass named Emil Blonsky (played by Tim Roth) to lead the team into Banner’s hideout.

As expected, Banner turns into the Hulk and takes off leaving Blonsky to ask what the heck was that thing, to which Ross explains everything to him. Blonsky wants another try at Banner and Ross introduces him to a program that has been closed since World War II: the Super Soldier Program—pretty exciting for us comic book buffs who know this is a direct correlation to Captain America. Blonsky takes part and gets injected with the Super Soldier serum and waits for his chance to get another shot at the Hulk.

I don’t want to give too much away, but all this leads to a pretty awesome showdown between the Hulk and Abomination in, what appears to be, New York. The scene was actually filmed in Toronto, Canada, but facades were built to make it look like New York.

As much as I liked the first film, I felt that Eric Bana (as Banner) played the part a little dry and boring. So casting Edward Norton, I thought, was a good choice. We all know the Hulk isn’t going to be on screen the whole time, so his alter ego needs to be an interesting character and Norton gives the movie that extra appeal that the first movie lacked.

Once again, in my opinion, the love story part of the film didn’t work. As with the first film, there didn’t seem to be good chemistry between Liv Tyler (as Betty Ross) and Norton—maybe a smidge more than what we saw between Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly, but not much. Tyler and Norton seemed a little mismatched and it showed in the film.

William Hurt as General Ross was a good choice, because he seemed more like a villain in this rendition than Sam Elliot did in the first film. Hurt showed the desperation he had to capture the Hulk a lot more and how he was solely responsible for his actions, bad and worse.

Tim Roth did fine as Blonsky, as I’ve always felt he is always on top of his game when he plays a villain.

Now, the look of the Hulk was great, a little more realistic than the last version we saw on the big screen. But the problem I have with the look of him was that it didn’t match Edward Norton’s features. In the first movie, you could recognize a little of Eric Bana in the appearance of the Hulk (as a matter of fact, it was said in an interview with the computer animators that they mixed Bana's features with Jennifer Connelly's as well as Ang Lee's to make the Hulk's face). In this one, the Hulk and Norton look nothing alike. That can be considered nitpicking, but I think it brings a little believability to the movie. For instance, Norton’s hair is kept pretty short and doesn’t move around too much; the Hulk’s hair is sort of moppy and a little longer. And let’s face it, Norton’s nose is kind of big, yet the Hulk’s nose is a little smaller. It just seems like the filmmakers and studio had the Hulk designed before they cast Norton in the part.

But anyway, don’t get me wrong, this movie is pretty awesome and I think most Hulk fans will be impressed and blown away. Instead of the TV show and previous movie where all we hear are grunts and roars from the monster, in The Incredible Hulk, we hear him speak a few lines here and there.

A cool piece of trivia: the pizzeria’s owner, Stanley, is Paul Soles. You may not recognize him or his now-gruff voice, but he has done a few famous cartoon voices over the years. He was Hermey the Elf from “Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer,” Bruce Banner from the 1966 cartoon run of “Hulk,” Happy Hogan of the 1966 “Iron Man” cartoon, and none other than Peter Parker/Spider-Man in the 1967 cartoon series. I thought that was a nice cameo they gave him as respect for his legacy. Let’s not forget Stan Lee in his usual cameo, this time chugging the soda that was tainted with Banner’s blood.

Anyway, my final “bit”?

Overall, the film works, regardless of my minor criticisms, and it was smart of the filmmakers to give Hulk a worthy adversary straight out of the comic book pages instead of just have him constantly running from General Ross and the military. The movie is enjoyable and you can’t help but find yourself rooting for the Hulk each and every time he appears. A very nice touch was including the musical cues from the TV show...a very haunting melody that fits in the film. I can not wait for Hulk's manifestation in the Avengers movie with Mark Ruffalo taking over as Banner. With the major accomplishments in CGI and motion-capture technology, it should be a major improvement after what we saw in Avatar (as terrible as it was) and the awesome spectacle of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. We’ve got less than a year to go and I hope it lives up to the hype we’re hearing. The Incredible Hulk is a SMASHing movie.  Yes...I said it.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Apes will rise!

You know, when this film first made news, with the announcement of it being produced, I thought it was kind of strange. There hadn’t been any talk of it, so the announcement caught me off guard. I’m probably one of the very few who enjoyed Tim Burton’s film, the remake of the 1968 film, and I thought they should’ve made a sequel to it. I mean, come on, how did the apes take over Earth? How did Thade get out of that control room and get to Earth in the 1800s? Did he figure out how to open the door and hijack a jet-pod? I hoped for a while, but that hope died down when it was clear that no sequel, from Burton or any other director, would be made.

So, I was pretty excited when they announced the production of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. With the exception of James Franco, each cast addition made me more and more excited.

No offense to Franco, but when they proclaimed that he was going to play a scientist who is working on a cure for Alzheimer’s disease…basically, they lost me at ‘scientist.’ At that point, I just saw him as Harry Osborn from the Spider-Man films or Saul from Pineapple Express. So ‘scientist’ kind of scared me. However, after seeing his performance in 127 Hours, I had hope.

The one cast addition that had me locked into this film was the announcement of Andy Serkis. You may know him as the man who brought Gollum to life in the Lord of the Rings trilogy or for bringing the giant ape to life in King Kong. Serkis has actually played bit parts in some movies like The Prestige and a little known horror flick called The Cottage, but it’s clear that he’ll be forever known as the motion-capture go-to-guy. With already a bunch of trailers and clips on-line regarding this film, there was a marvelous featurette that showed how they filmed the motion-capture scenes involving the apes. Many people have mentioned in the past, and are already talking about it for this film, that Serkis should win an Oscar for his performances. I agree.

So, without further ado, let’s get into Rise of the Planet of the Apes, shall we?

The film opens with poachers on the hunt to trap chimpanzees in their habitat. A sad sight to see, but it shows us the realistic side to how these chimps come to be in experimental labs for testing. The film, then, moves to Gen-Sys, the facility where Will Rodman (James Franco) is working on the latest cure for Alzheimer’s disease called the ALZ-112. As he’s setting up a presentation with the board, the handlers try to get a chimpanzee—treated with the new cure and showing increased high intelligence—ready for the demonstration. The chimp, however, shows signs of aggression and attacks the handlers when they try to get her out of her quarters. She goes on a rampage and is shot dead by security right when she jumps into the boardroom and in front of all the members.

The ALZ-112 appears to be a failure as the CEO of Gen-Sys orders the handlers to destroy all the test chimps, citing their exposure to the ALZ-112 has them contaminated. As it turns out, after all the test chimps have been put down, the reason the female chimp went on her rampage was because she had given birth and was protecting her young.

Rodman decides to take the baby chimp home and take care of it temporarily. As Will comes home, we see his father is really stricken by Alzheimer’s as he, an accomplished musician (we see the many certificates framed on the wall), has a tough time playing a simple song on the piano. When Will shows the baby chimp to his father, he sees that the chimp brings something out, seemingly helping his spirits. The chimp, named by Will’s father as Caesar, ends up staying with them and even gets his own room up in the attic. But, without giving too much away, things go bad as Caesar is court ordered to be placed in an ape sanctuary where an ape upheaval will soon start.

There were so many things that I loved about this movie. The movements of the apes—especially Caesar’s—were just enough to show us what they were thinking and feeling. At times, it was very heartfelt as we saw how much Caesar loves Will and Charles Rodman. Other times, you felt Caesar’s pain, like when he’s left at the ape sanctuary. The messages were loud and clear regarding the testing of animals and how cruel they can be treated at these labs.

One thing that hit home for me about the story is the subplot about how Will Rodman is driven to find the Alzheimer’s cure. As I watched John Lithgow play his ill father, suffering from the disease, it reminded me of what I went through with my mother. I can definitely relate to Franco’s character throughout this movie and it really moved me.

Again, I’m surprised that a movie of this caliber wasn’t forced to be filmed in 3D by the studio. Although I’m not a fan of 3D and feel it’s just a gimmick running its course (getting old, if you ask me), the visuals that you see in this film would’ve been perfect for it: Caesar climbing the giant trees in the Muir Woods, the apes swinging above and below the Golden Gate Bridge, the make-shift spears and manhole covers thrown…this seemed like total 3D fodder to me. But I guess Rupert Wyatt didn’t want to go the James Cameron route and wanted to get people in the theater to see the movie’s story and not the movie’s 3D.

Even though the acting is good from the cast, it’s the performances from the apes that you’ll be paying attention to—especially Andy Serkis’s Caesar.

Throughout the whole film, I had nothing negative to say or think about. The whole flick is believable and made me think about it long after leaving the theater. But if there’s one thing that I can nitpick about is at the very end. I don’t want to say or give away too much, but I felt myself about to say, out loud, “Oh, come on.” However, later on, it made me think a bit more, so I’m still pondering on it. Your thoughts?

Anyway…my final bit?

Rise of the Planet of the Apes, in my opinion, is the best film of 2011. Unless Fright Night kicks ass, Final Destination 5 pulls out an Oscar-worthy performance, The Thing prequel or Real Steel blows me away, my money’s on Apes as my favorite of 2011.

See it!

CaptainAmerica: The First Avenger

The title says it all, the one movie leading up to what can possibly be the single most greatest comic book movie ever! There’s a lot riding on Josh Whedon’s superhero assembly next year, what with all the great origin movies coming out to lead up to The Avengers. And there’s no turning back now!  Captain America: The First Avenger’s title character is the leader and heart of The Avengers, so to bring him in now is the final step in setting up the ultimate movie next year.

But, again, I’m getting ahead of myself.

Captain America is a comic book character I didn’t follow, but was always interested in when they tried to bring him to life on screen. He was first brought to the screen in the 40s in serials, then they tried in the late 70s when they cast Reb Brown running around in a motorcycle helmet and doing nothing with the shield. But in 1990, they almost had it right with a good-looking costume and a nice make-up job to depict Scott Paulin as the Red Skull. However, the movie was kind of boring and had the typical dialogue you hear in 1990s movies that will make you laugh today.

Yes, we knew it was coming, since we caught a glimpse of the shield in the first Iron Man film and a deleted scene from The Incredible Hulk supposedly showed a body frozen in the ice that may have been Mr. Steve Rogers himself. So all us comic book geek brethren waited with baited breath as the release date drew near.

The only news I was concerned with when keeping track of the production news was when they announced Joe Johnston was directing it and that Chris Evans was cast as Steve Rogers, aka Captain America.

Johnston was a worry because he had some downers, in my opinion, under his belt. He directed Jurassic Park III and, most recently, The Wolfman. I enjoyed both of those movies, but for the upcoming Avengers film, all these inaugural films have to be stellar in the box office to be sure of the beginning ensemble extravaganza. However, he did direct The Rockateer a while back, which captured the feel of the era, so I felt there was some hope.

Evans concerned me because of how he constantly made quips and jokes in every movie I’d seen him in thus far. But I held faith and heard in an interview that he was going to take the character in a serious path, so I thought it might work with him in the lead.

So a few weeks ago, I went to the local cinema complex and sat down to watch Captain America: The First Avenger.

I loved it.

The origin truly showed how much love this individual had for his country and his drive to join the military as he went to every recruitment office he could venture to, seeing if there was one that would accept his weak, frail body.

It wasn’t until he went with his friend, Bucky—already in the army and about to head off to fight the Nazis—at the Stark Expo (where we see where Tony Stark gets his eccentric personality as Dominic Cooper portrays Howard Stark, Tony’s father, perfectly) and Steve decides to try to enlist again at the recruitment station inside the expo. Bucky tells him it won’t work and tries to get Steve to come with him with a couple of girls to go dancing and forget about joining. Steve tells him how important it is for him to join, that he wants to be over in Germany to fight along with all the other soldiers who are giving their lives for him and his country. He tells Bucky that he feels he owes that much and wants to do his part. This is where we first see Stanley Tucci as Dr. Erskine, overhearing the conversation intently. Bucky doesn’t talk Steve out of trying to enlist and says goodbye to Steve as he has to deploy the following day. Next, Steve is going through his rigmarole of trying to enlist and Erskine intervenes, gettingRogers accepted. He gets Steve to take part in an experiment and a Super Soldier is born.

The beginning of the film is quite an origin story, taking a while to get to Captain America getting in to fight in the war, but quite awe-inspiring as the story gets there. The introduction of Howard Stark, Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) and other familiar characters from CaptainAmerica’s universe keeps the film interesting. We’re also introduced to Johann Schmidt (the Red Skull) and how Thor’s world is intertwined there, which is pretty awesome. The start of the movie will leave you wondering how the heck they were able to make Chris Evans look like a little runt, but you forget about it quickly as the story progresses. The cinematography captures the feel of the era just like The Rockateer did and you really feel like this took place in the 40s. Overall, Joe Johnston did a great job in the director’s
chair.

And, of course, the shield was pretty awesome and used perfectly. It wasn’t something that Cap carried around to shield him from weapons, but used as a weapon itself as he sliced it through the air boomeranging and ricocheting off walls—and villains—back into Cap’s hands.

Ofcourse, no spoilers here, but stick around after the credits for an added scene, which leads to a nice surprise afterwards.

My final “bit” on Captain America: The First Avenger? Chris Evans did a wonderful job, putting on the straight face and showcasing his talent to become a leading man who was believable in every scene. He made me wish I’d joined the military when I was younger and made me love my country even more than I already had. The film was a great patriotic film and it’s a shame they didn’t release it during the Fourth of July weekend. It would’ve been a perfect film for that time. Along with the two Iron Man films and Thor, this film will definitely take a high space in my DVD and Blu-Ray collection.

Thor

Marvel Studios, once again, marches on triumphantly, getting closer to the awesomeness that will be The Avengers (coming out in the summer of 2012) as they released Thor last May.
Marvel sure has surpassed DC Comics in the last decade with great comic book adaptations, but it’s this new trek that we take towards the ultimate superhero movie, The Avengers, that is going to take the genre above and beyond anything ever filmed.  Unless the super ensemble totally flops, we’re probably going to see DC Comics follow, with Warner Bros., finally bringing their own counterparts in The Justice League come to life.

But enough about the upcoming and possible films of the future, let’s talk about Thor.

Chris Hemsworth plays the title character, the God of Thunder, Thor, Anthony Hopkins plays his father, Odin, and Tom Hiddleston plays his brother, Loki. After seeing Thor on Earth, as Jane Foster (played by Natalie Portman) and two other scientists find him during a strange storm episode, the story flashes back to see Thor and Loki as children and how their father, Odin, seemingly favored Thor over Loki. The story goes forward as we see Thor, as an adult, about to be crowned king to take over Asgard from his father, Odin, the current king. Thor appears very arrogant and pompous, almost with a celebrity status as he smiles and winks to the crowd while walking up to accept the crown. Alarms go off and interrupt the ceremony as intruders have broke into the kingdom to try and steal a power relic. It’s found out that the intruders were Frost Giants and Thor becomes furious, wanting to retaliate. Odin, however, forbids Thor’s desired revenge and wants to keep the peace. But the warrior in Thor does not accept that and goes against his father’s ruling as he takes his warrior companions, along with Loki, to the Frost Giants planet to seek out revenge. Odin finds out, intervenes during the battle and brings Thor back to deal out his punishment, which is to be banished to Earth. He takes Thor’s mighty hammer, his Mjollnir, and casts it away through an open portal. Thor is stripped of his armor and is cast away through it as well.

The story picks up back on Earth, as we see what follows when Jane Foster ran into Thor at the beginning of the film.

The story is no great epic, but has an awesome feel to it as we see Thor learn to leave his arrogance behind and stand for something. Because, as Odin speaks before casting out Thor’s Mjollnir, only one who is worthy can wield the mighty weapon. And, as we saw at the end of the credits in Iron Man 2, that weapon landed and was lodged in the middle of the desert, no one being able to lift it from its place in the sand.

In Thor, we start off seeing a self-aware god and see how he becomes a noble hero.

Hemsworth definitely plays the part well, as does Hiddleston playing Loki. But Anthony Hopkins commands the screen with his portrayal of Odin. It takes me back to the rumor a few years back of how he was approached to play Jor-El in Superman Returns.  If he brought out this type of performance as Superman's birth father, it might've saved that film.  And although there was a spark of romance between Hemsworth and Portman, for me the chemistry wasn’t there between them; but they had some good scenes together.  The special effects were awesome and the spectacular landscapes and buildings of Asgard were stunning.

I was never really a fan of the comic book character, so I went in not expecting too much. The correlation to The Avengers kind of boggles me and I’m wondering how they’re going to bring a god into this group of human heroes.  But I guess we’ll have to wait until next summer to see how that goes. I’m really looking forward to see the Hulk on the big screen again and think that Mark Ruffalo will make a great Bruce Banner.  It’s such a shame that other characters can’t be added in to the mix as well, like Spidey or the X-Men, or maybe the Fantastic Four…

Anyway, my final “bit” on Thor is go watch it if it’s still in theaters…otherwise, rent it or buy it when it comes out on DVD and Blu-Ray.

Scream 4

Well, well, well…Scream 4, huh?  Or is it SCRE4M?  Anyway…I never thought it would happen.  As ridiculous as the original trilogy was (and when I say ridiculous, I’m referring to parts 2 and 3), I thought it went full circle and concluded as a three-part tale back when Scream 3 finished it in 2000.

However, when it was first talked about, publicly, that another sequel (actually, another trilogy) was in the works, I was skeptical and didn’t think much of it.  I thought that’s all it was—talk.  But when it was announced that some of the original cast members were signed on for it, including Wes Craven, it pricked up my ears.  When a release date was announced, I paid full attention.  Finally, when trailers started popping up, I became very interested.

With some of the original cast coming back—the ones whose characters were still alive and not killed off (there was a rumor that Jamie Kennedy's character of Randy was going to make a cameo)—I figured the magic would appear and the cast would come back to their characters like slipping into a comfortable pair of sneakers.  And that’s what gave the original movie, in 1996, the magic it had: the cast.  Neve Campbell, Rose McGowan, David Arquette, Courteney Cox, Jamie Kennedy, Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard, and many more, all had great chemistry together.

But, of course, with my optimism came my skepticism.

Suddenly, the cast announcements kept coming, stating that a lot of newcomers were joining the troupe—newcomers to the franchise, but well known faces in other teeny bopper flicks, making me think that this new Scream movie was turning into a Twilight-esque nightmare.  Even more cringing, was the thought that the only reason Neve Campbell, David Arquette and Courteney Cox were coming back was just to be killed off to make room for all these newbies.
All that aside, the weekend finally showed up and Scream 4 arrived at my local theater.  I waited a few days, of course—since there are always idiots who show up opening day to ruin the movie with incessant talking and remarks—until Sunday and took a drive to watch the flick.

Without giving too much away (and definitely no spoilers here), the opening movie-within-a-movie-within-a-movie gimmick seemed like a bad omen on what was to come.  But I remained optimistic and watched, nevertheless.

Now, the story itself seemed good.  As they showcased in the trailers, there are updated rules—not really new ones, but changed a bit.  But these rules were stated by the new faces of the cast, not the originals.  Also, I really liked the message about how Hollywood is just regurgitating stories with remakes and reboots constantly.  Overall, you’re kept in your seat, waiting, to find out who the killer is.  But that’s about it.

What’s bad about this movie is the size of the “new” cast, because it was a little too much.  It wasn’t that you couldn’t keep track of all of them, but there were just too many.  Maybe it was a way to keep everybody guessing who the killer was.  Maybe it was a message about how off-putting it is to see new faces in a rebooted franchise.  Because it seemed like they did it deliberately: Sidney’s cousin (Sidney), the suspicious-looking boyfriend (Billy), the talkative friend (Tatum), the film geeks (Randy), a couple of inapt deputies (Dewey), and so on.  I don’t know if it was a bad thing or a good thing, or if it was a message from Wes Craven—especially since he had one of his previous masterpieces terribly remade last year (A Nightmare on Elm Street), but it was there.

I’ll just end this with saying that, like most other reviewers, the last ten to fifteen minutes of the film are the most critical and satisfying to watch.  But that’s not saying much.  The reveal is a little predictable, but the motives for the killer are ridiculous.  After watching My Soul to Take a while back, I was hoping that Craven would’ve made up for it with Scream 4.  He did…a little…but not much.

My final “bit” on Scream 4?  I’d wait for it to come out on DVD/Blu-Ray to rent it.  A die hard Scream fan, like me, may buy it to add to their movie collection, but I’m a completist and I can’t help it.  One other thing…I’m surprised as hell that they didn’t release this in 3-D.  With the latest craze (that’s sure to die down, leaving everybody with expensive TVs and glasses that’ll end up in the Beta, 8-track, laser disc and HD DVD wayside), I’m shocked that the studio didn’t insist on it.  But, maybe the Weinsteins are realizing that you need to put story ahead of visual gimmicks and know that there are quite a few film fans who are smarter than wanting to sit down and watch crap like Avatar.  I'm sure Craven and the studio learned their lesson with My Soul to Take.

I Spit on Your Grave

A little over thirty years ago in 1978, a little known movie, I Spit on Your Grave, was made and received cult status over the years as a feminist revenge movie. Growing up, as I started loving horror movies, I had always seen this film in the shelves of local video rental shops. I never bothered renting it, not because I had no intention, but because I simply overlooked it.

Five or six years ago, I finally placed it in my Netflix queue and moved it to the top to have it shipped to me a few days later.

I popped it in and watched it…horrified.

Firstly, the movie played out like some old pornography show, especially seeing how the actors spoke and the way they dressed gave it that air. But seeing that this was a 70s movie, I understood.

I’ll explain the movie like Roger Ebert put it: a writer rents a cabin so that she can write her new novel in peace, but as she’s sunbathing one day, four local men take her away to rape and beat her multiple times. She’s left alone at her cabin afterwards to recuperate and goes back to the men to take her revenge.

Watching that old film was tough, I couldn’t believe some of the things that went on and how stupid some of the things played out, like how she brought one of the men back to the cabin to seduce him. Did he really think she was into him after he beat ad raped her days before? Better yet, how could she bring herself to seduce him?

Yet, it was the 1970s and only a few years before, Wes Craven directed the catchy-titled The Last House on the Left, which had a similar theme as I Spit on Your Grave. So plot holes such as those would go unnoticed.

When I heard that I Spit on Your Grave was being remade, I couldn’t help but remember the 1978 version I had watched a few years prior, thinking that it wouldn’t work. But then I got to thinking that if they would rewrite it intelligently, making it more realistic and modern, then maybe it can work and be something worth watching.

I actually entered the date on my calendar for when it was to be released in theaters, but it was a limited release and didn’t show up anywhere near my city. It’s probably a good thing anyway, because I think this movie would’ve been uncomfortable to watch in public, especially since I usually travel to the theaters alone (my wife does not enjoy the movies I like to watch). I remembered squirming during quite a few scenes of The Devil’s Rejects, even as a few women left the theater because of those scenes.

So when I Spit on Your Grave was released on DVD, I entered it into my Netflix queue, scooted it up to the top and awaited the delivery shortly after, which happened to be this past weekend.

Now, it was still an uncomfortable film to watch, especially having to pause the movie every time my wife walked into the room; but if the remake was anything like the original, I knew there’d be a point to all of it.

In this one, we have a young woman, Jennifer (played by Sarah Butler), who’s an author working on her next novel. She’s a beautiful girl, looking in her twenties, and she’s traveling alone to a cabin in the woods. Jennifer receives the keys from the caretaker, as well as directions via his scribbled map, and heads off to the cabin. She stops for gas and is greeted by the creepy stares of a couple of guys (one playing a harmonica) just sitting behind the station and creepily staring at Jennifer. The station attendant, Johnny (played by Jeff Branson), appears and Jennifer asks him for directions to the road leading to the cabin. He asks if she’s staying at the well-known cabin and Jennifer unwisely says that she is. After she leaves, Johnny’s upset that the “city girl” didn’t accept his advances. Later on, Johnny and his friends decide to pay Jennifer a visit.

The remake pretty much plays on like the original and it’s no secret what happens in the beginning and at the end. However, the script here is smarter and doesn’t include unrealistic plots or subplots. Everything you see is frightfully believable and makes you cringe. The new film adds a new element to the story which makes it a bit more frightening, if you can believe that, because the original, I’m sure, will make any woman cringe and any man want to jump through the screen to kill these guys.

Of course, as you’re watching Jennifer get her revenge, you kind of set aside the wonderment of how she was able to plan all this out and how she was able to execute each revenge without a hitch. You’re just involved in it and silently cheering for her that you forget about that. But we do get a bit of foreshadowing of each plan. For example, we see the camera pan through the shed and pause at the container of lye.

As unpleasant a subject matter this movie is, I thoroughly liked it and would definitely see this again. Even though you have to sit through the cruel humiliating scenes Jennifer goes through, as well as the beating and raping she receives, it’s needed in this film to warrant the revenge in the third act.

A nice piece of trivia: one of Johnny’s creepy friends, Andy, is played by Rodney Eastman. Rodney is known for playing Joey, the teenager who doesn’t speak until the end, in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3.

My final “bit” on I Spit on Your Grave? Aside from it seeming like an exploitive movie, I think it was a disturbing movie that may serve some purpose. For one, a twenty-five year-old woman (or man, for that matter) should not travel to some remote cabin by herself. Like I said, the rape scenes were a bit much and will make the average audience feel very uncomfortable, but the plotted out revenge will make anyone cheer after seeing what our heroine went through. Bottom line, however, is that this woman will not live happily ever after because she went through some shit that will fuck up her life for good. It’s definitely re-watchable and I’d say add this to your movie collection. Just watch it alone...for it's not a movie you can watch with a bunch of your friends.

The Fourth Kind

Before you go on and read the rest of this review on The Fourth Kind, just a warning that there are going to be spoilers within.

Okay, with that out of the way, I’ll get into The Fourth Kind and let you know how I felt about it.

Going into this film, I had no knowledge of what was it about besides what I had seen in TV spots and trailers. It looked pretty good and I’ve always enjoyed Milla Jovovich in every part I’ve seen her play. But what really hooked me was the part in the trailer where she’s looking right into the camera and says that she’s playing the part of the main character, talking about how real footage will be added to the film and that some of it may be upsetting. I also had gotten the idea that it was about alien abduction, as they go through what each “kind” means. First is sighting, second is evidence, third is contact and the fourth is abduction. Without a doubt, I had to see this movie.

So, as usual, I didn’t go onto the Internet to find out any facts about the validity of the film and just went in with the facts presented to me by Milla herself. I went straight to the movie theater and this movie scared the crap out of me. Now, I usually have a high tolerance for horror films and rarely get scared this much. The reason for my fright was that the video footage they showed throughout the film was upsetting.

With all that said, let me get into the film.

After the preamble by Milla Jovovich, the film starts off with a video of a Dr. Abigail Tyler as she’s being interviewed and analyzed by a colleague of hers. As it goes on, the screen splits with Jovovich and Elias Koteas acting the interview out word for word. At one point, the screen is fully on the actors and they go on with the scene. Very often throughout this film, the direction resorts to this structure as they incorporate the video footage alongside the acted out scenes side by side on a split screen. At first this had gotten on my nerves, but then I relished the scenes and really wanted to see the video footage. As the scene goes on, we see that Tyler is under hypnosis and we see a flashback of her husband as he’s murdered in their bed; but we never see who’s stabbing him.

The movie goes on and we see that Milla Jovovich, playing the part of Dr Abigail Tyler, is a psychologist with a number of patients she sees in the small Alaskan town of Nome. The surrounding nature of the town makes it impossible to drive into from afar and aircraft is needed to enter the little city, which gives you an idea of the isolation one must feel while living there.

We get a small montage of Dr. Tyler interviewing her patients and they seem to have trouble sleeping, always seeing an owl at their window. The filmmakers show the representation of this owl at times and I must admit—it is freaky-looking.

As the sessions go on with her patients, Dr. Tyler asks one of them if they’d like to be hypnotized to see what they can remember. One of them—Tommy—agrees and they go forward with the hypnosis.

Again, the film shows both the acted out film alongside the video footage and it gets to you. Tommy starts remembering something about the owl and how it got into his house. Both the man in the film and the man in the video scream out and appear frightened as they back up onto the couch, falling off and breaking a side table in the process. Tommy wakes up and seems calm and serene, telling Dr. Tyler he’d like to talk about it at their next session. She agrees and he leaves. But later, there’s a police dispatch that informs the authorities that there’s a domestic violence call at Tommy’s house. When they get there, Tommy tells the cops over the phone that he wants to speak to Dr. Tyler. Again, we have video footage from the police cruiser that captured the scene on video, showing Tommy in his house and holding his wife and kids hostage. When Tyler gets there, Tommy yells out to her about some gibberish language and what he remembered (which is still confusing), then shoots his wife and children before shooting himself dead.

Seeing all this is exciting but leaves you wanting to know just what the hell is going on and what memory would make this guy want to commit murder-suicide. Of course, the sheriff, played by Will Patton, interrogates Tyler, wanting to know what drove this guy to do what he did after his last contact was her.

As the film goes on, we have a few other hypnosis sessions, one with another patient of Tyler’s that results in him being paralyzed and the other with Tyler herself after she discovers an audio recording of her abduction.

Another element of this film included the director of the film interviewing the real Abigail Tyler, looking sickly and haunted.

The film as a whole was very interesting and intriguing, with a few shocks and frights thrown in to get your blood pumping. It was even sad when, at the end, the final interview with Tyler showed how sad and defeated she was.

All through this movie I kept telling myself, I’ve got to look this up online to see if those video footages were real. Well, what I found was more (or less) than what I had bargained for. Turns out, everything was fake. The video footage was fake, the audio footage was fake, the recorded sessions and police recordings were staged…there’s not even a real Dr. Abigail Tyler.

So after seeing Milla Jovovich tell me at the beginning of this film that it’s based on a true story with the actual video footage, I found out she lied to me. All the people that I saw in this film, whom I began caring about and was sad for, were fictional.

But you know what? My anger turned to gratification for the fact that I thought it was real, because that’s what made this film frightening and interesting. In fact, when I ponder the thought that if I saw this movie knowing it was a fraud, I ask myself, Would it be as good?  I think I might’ve found it boring. So this is a tough one to critique.

As for the acting, pretty good and intense, with Will Patton playing his part a little over-the-top, but good. I’ve always liked Elias Koteas in all the roles that he’s played. As a whole, the cast was spot on and made it believable and I don’t think they needed to add the video footage to make this a truly frightening alien abduction flick.

So what is my final “bit” on The Fourth Kind? Well, as I’d said, the acting is great, the story interesting—but confusing at times, the cast was astral and perfect, so I can’t complain there. Where I can complain is the fact I was duped by the director and star, feeding me that line in the beginning and telling me the footage was real. But at the same time, I was scared when I heard the alien voices and saw what they caused the people’s bodies to do under hypnosis. I guess I might watch the film on DVD when it’s released and see if I’ll like it then. Otherwise, view at your own risk.