 Throughout film history, there have been numerous "waiting periods" for movie titles we knew would eventually happen, but that might be considered "too little, too late." 'Avatar 2' here is perhaps one of the biggest culprits of this. Originally, 'Avatar' was planning a slew of sequels to its original story. I won't go into boring details about what happened, but the wait for a first sequel was a solid thirteen years. Much of this had to do with the technology, which I'll get to later, but the big question is, was it worth the wait?
The film does offer a fairly decent recap of the original. However, still, after such a long wait, one might want to watch 2009's 'Avatar' first, not just for connective purposes, and to try to understand the overarching story a little bit more, but I might say it may very well put some required nostalgia in the viewer's head, managing to amp them up to see more of the beautiful world of Pandora. While the first film showed us a great deal, this chapter shows that there's far more to this wondrous world, and Cameron does his world-building quite well. Taking place 14 years after the original film, Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) has become chief of the Omaticaya Clan and has a family with Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), our love interest from the last film, who introduced Sully to her world. Among the family are sons Neteyam (Jamie Flatters) and Lo'ak (Britain Dalton), daughter Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss) and adopted daughter Kiri (Sigourney Weaver), who was born from Grace Augustine's (also Weaver) immobile Avatar. How is breeding with Avatars possible? Long story short, the Avatars are conveniently compatible with the Na-vi's breeding system. Take it as you will. The children also hang out with a human boy named Spider (Jack Champion), who happens to be the Pandora-born son of Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang). Despite his loss to the Na'vi in the first film, ultimately leading to his death, Quaritch can live on through an Avatar of his own, which acts as something of a "backup" to his mind and memories. With this, Quaritch leads the rest of the RDA back to Pandora to begin colonization and once again becomes the film's big baddie - but with a bit of an upgrade. He's ready for his second shot at driving the Na'vi, including the Omaticaya Clan, out of their homes, this time with vengeance on his mind. Cutting to the chase, Jake and his family head for safety, retreating to the Metkayina - a race not unlike themselves, but who have adapted to the water. Here, the family must learn the "Way of Water" to live among their people. In the meantime, Lo'ak develops a quick love interest in Tsireya (Bailey Bass), the daughter of Chief Tonowari (Cliff Curtis) and his wife, Ronal (Kate Winslet). But more importantly, we see Kiri (remembering she has human DNA) mastering everything she's taught, while everyone else struggles. Meanwhile, Quaritch eventually begins the hunt for Jake Sully and goes to some extremes to find him. The first 'Avatar' was a good film when it came out, but even I couldn't deny that, story-wise, it had been done many times before. It was much more about the big-screen experience at the time, as it immersed us in its world. And while I can give this sequel some kudos for new tech that hasn't been used until now - blending actual underwater filming with performance capture, it comes across as similar, losing its lustre on the small screen as opposed to the epic it came across as on a massive IMAX screen. To the film's credit, the underwater scenes DO look rather impressive. But Cameron draws on his previous works, like 'Titanic' and 'The Abyss.' It's hard to criticize another 'Avatar' film for being "late," as I understand that Cameron wanted the right technology for filming it (again). Visually, the film was worth the wait. But there's that part of me that, even without this fancy new tech, thinks there would have been a much more positive response if Cameron had given us something else sooner, utilizing the same or similar tech as he used in the first film. While Cameron is a king of using new filming technology, there's something to be said about this being "too little, too late." It's a solid movie, much like its predecessor, but, again, far more suited to big-screen viewing. 4/5
0 Comments
 Despite tremendous box-office success, it's interesting to imagine that 'Avatar' had the potential to become the new 'Star Wars', but it most definitely hasn't. Perhaps it's my perspective, but once 'Avatar' here hit theatres and people took in the spectacle on the big screen as it was meant to be seen, it just wasn't discussed as much. While they still tend to be massive box-office successes, these films lose a bit of their lustre once they leave cinemas and come to the less impressive small screen.
Focusing on where it all started, when 3D really became a hit gimmick, the concept for 'Avatar' was set in motion shortly after the release of 'Titanic'. Lacking the proper tech for what he wanted to do, however, Cameron had us all waiting for over a decade, but managed to eventually deliver the goods with some killer new 3D motion capture tech, which goes to show that despite general audiences having a bit of impatience, Cameron does a fantastic job at utilizing the very latest in special effects technology. The 3D in this movie was crisp, clean, immersive, and unlike anything we'd seen before. The story takes place far in the future, in 2154, when Earth is on the brink of ecological collapse, sending the Resources Development Administration (RDA) to the lush, beautiful planet Pandora to mine the valuable mineral "unobtanium." On Pandora, dwells a race of big, blue, humanoid/cat-like creatures called the Na'vi, who have accomplished what humanity sucks at: becoming one with nature. The potentially dangerous-to-humans race combined with an unbreathable atmosphere led the RDA to use "Avatars" to explore the planet - something we might see as a video game character we can control, but within a real-life environment. Paraplegic former Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) is recruited to the project after his brother dies. Once he's plugged in and becomes his Avatar, he's able to walk again through said Avatar, and the viewing audience's genuine appreciation for how wondrous this planet is probably starts here as Jake breathes in the world around him. Here, he escorts Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver) and Dr. Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore) 's Avatars through this wonderful planet, immersing the audience in awe. Imagine, back in 2009, this would have been a LOT of people's first 3D movie experience, and it was the height of 3D tech. Back to the story, however, during said escort mission, a monstrous life form attacks Jake, separating him from the others, but he's rescued by Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a Na'vi princess. To make the rest of a long story short, she eventually initiates Jake into her society, and he learns their ways, their appreciation for life and nature, and adapts pretty well. Meanwhile, Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who promises Jake the use of his legs in exchange for inside info on the Na'vi, grows impatient and wants his unobtanium, so eventually it turns into nature lovers vs. industry, technology, and humankind in general. Most of us left this movie in complete awe. The box-office numbers show it's still the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, after all these years. So, its overall accomplishment upon release is nothing to sneeze at. However, there's a hitch. For some, including myself, the fault with the film lies in its basic plot, which has been seen time and time again with 'Pocahontas,' 'Dances With Wolves,' and 'Fern Gully: The Last Rainforest. While I'm with people on this, however, it's impossible to deny that upon its initial release, I still had a blast with it. Enough to pay to see it three times in theatres. I've since received the film on a special edition Blu-ray. While it's still a good watch if I'm in the mood for something a little otherworldly, the full effect is now somewhat lost, as it isn't as immersive as it was on an IMAX 3D screen, making it, understandably, a bit of a product of its time. These movies are meant to be seen on the biggest screen you can find while wearing 3D glasses if you want to experience them. But supposing one hasn't seen this movie yet, it's still worth checking out, if only to remember it as a time capsule before superheroes started to rule the box office. 4/5  Once again, given my inexperience with the 'Five Nights at Freddy's' games, I had to watch it objectively, treating it more as a horror movie than a video game adaptation. The bonus there is that I'm not necessarily looking for all of the flaws in the adaptation. But that also doesn't mean they're not there for game fans who rightfully should demand more than just a name slapped onto something to make some cash. 'Five Nights' here strikes me as such a movie where I'm not entirely sure they knew what they were doing.
From what I understand, almost half of this movie actually unfolds reasonably well. The opening sequence is nice and creepy, giving 'Saw' vibes to the viewer, but without showing any real gore. This will definitely be complained about, but I'm generally of the mind that often less is more. No blood is fine as long as your imagination can fill in the blanks with something even more potentially gruesome. That's something this film did well, and, upon doing some homework, I've read that the games forego blood and gore in favour of atmosphere. You get this treatment throughout the film, so if you're here for gore, this isn't for you. We meet mall security guard Mike Schmidt (Josh Hutcherson), who one day ends up beating some kid's father half to death in the middle of the day and out in the open. Needless to say, he's fired. However, he does have to take care of his little sister, Abby (Piper Rubio), whom social services is threatening to hand over to someone who might as well be her over-the-top Disney-style evil aunt, Jane (Mary Stuart Masterson), due to dwindling custody payments. As a result, Mike, willing to do anything, takes a security job at the now-abandoned "Freddy Fazbears," a "Chuck E. Cheese"-style pizza restaurant that kids still often vandalize. Mike often falls asleep on the job and has bad dreams about his little brother, Garrett (Lucas Grant), who was kidnapped when they were young. Without spoiling too much, this has a deeper connection to the overall story. But at one point, Jane sends some goons to rough up "Fazbears," and this, as far as I'm concerned, is the best part of the movie. The animatronic characters come to life and protect their restaurant in some pretty badass, brutal ways. Again, there is no blood, but the effect is creepy, and I wondered, while watching, why so many people came out of it hating it. If the whole movie was gonna be like that, I was in for the ride. Mike eventually meets Vanessa (Elizabeth Lail), a cop who seems to do routine checks at the restaurant, who gives him a tour of the place and its dark history. One night, Mike brings his little sister there. She befriends these animatronic terrors, and for some reason, the movie almost goes into "fun mode." As soon as it hits that point, you wonder what the hell happened. The film explains things much more clearly, but the viewer is still left wondering why it goes so cliché. It takes you out of the horror the movie should be pushing, and it just didn't need to go there. With something like this, one could just as easily have made these animatronics the vengeful spirits they're apparently supposed to be, turned it into a slasher flick, and made it about Mike having to survive the night while these things go amok, but aren't necessarily seen by Mike. Victims could be anything from criminals to risk-taking teenagers. While probably still not the best, it could have been a good "body count" horror movie that worked its creepy factor to the max. If the movie had taken the scene I described with the vandals and run with the formula, it still would have been cliché, but might have been more effective. It's my understanding that when it comes to this film, however, it's meant to be a good toe-dip for younger audiences into the horror genre. To this, I can't honestly say I disagree, and it IS about time another one of these came along. However, there's a heavy kidnapping plot to this that would probably have traumatized me as a kid, and it's hard to know if it really knows what it wants to be. The right age for this is basically "puberty," I suppose. But this film couldn't quite pick a lane, and it is one of the more significant dips in video game adaptation quality in recent history (debatable, yes, but it's just my opinion). 2/5 Jump to "Now Playing" Review for 'Zootopia 2' (Coming Soon!)  As years pass, 'Zootopia' feels more and more like one of the most important animated films Disney has released in recent years. Not only does it manage to avoid the Disney cliche that is the average "princess" movie, but this is a film that conveys to its viewers, young and old, themes on racism, profiling, prejudice and stereotypes that could easily be applied to everyday life, and it does so by using the way the animal kingdom generally works to its advantage. In its own way, it's a bit of brilliance.
'Zootopia' actually gives us a prime example of why one shouldn't necessarily turn one's nose up at early-year releases, and is one of the few films I recall from the beginning of a year that stayed with me in a big way. I still remember leaving the theatre somewhat awestruck by how well the film was written, offering a sense of depth we can all relate to in some way while still delivering great laugh-out-loud moments. For me, this was what I call "Pixar-level material" for those exact reasons. It's something you leave to give deeper thought to, rather than just saying "that was entertaining." Zootopia is a bustling city inhabited by predators and prey alike, who have evolved beyond their primal state to live in peace with one another. Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a go-getter rabbit from the small community of Bunnyburrow, dreams of breaking barriers to become the first bunny cop in the big city. Although she works hard and finally succeeds, the idea of a bunny police officer is so funny to the ZPD that her supervisor, a strict buffalo named Chief Bogo (Idris Elba), assigns her to parking duty. Although she overachieves in her duties, she still longs to show her full potential. While on the job one day, Judy leaves her post to make an arrest, which doesn't sit well with Chief Bogo, who doesn't think she's fit for "real police work." However, when Mrs. Otterton (Octavia Spencer) pleads with Bogo to find her missing husband, Emmitt, one of many missing predators as of late, Judy volunteers to take the assignment to prove herself worthy of being more important to the department. Reluctantly, Bogo gives her 48 hours to solve what he believes to be an impossible case, or she'll be let go. Luckily, she knows exactly where to start, and that'[s with a shifty fox named Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman). Nick, one of the last people to see Emmitt, is then forced to work with Judy to find out who took Emmitt and why, through blackmail. As the film unfolds, the pair discover that there's more to these missing predators than meets the eye. Something seems to be restoring them to their feral state. The mere fact that only predators seem to be affected by whatever is going on results in more stereotypical views of the average predator, and this is where a lot of the prejudice enters into it, with details like the citizens of Zootopia not feeling safe having the small population of predators around (they make up about 10% of Zootopia's population). Although the film's deeper levels offer a more serious message in human behaviour, there's still so much more to it, not the least of which is the mass of voice talent, including names like Tommy Chong as Yax (a hilarious meditative hippie), JK Simmons as Lionheart (the city's mayor), Shakira as pop star Gazelle, Maurice LaMarche as a shrew mobster named "Mr. Big" and several more. I found many of these characters to hold their own charm as they delivered laughs, but no one really does it better than Flash (Raymond S. Persi), a sloth at the DMV, which may be the film's funniest and most adult-relatable scene. With so much good going on with this film, I can highly recommend it to anyone and everyone who hasn't checked it out yet. Although some may point their fingers at this and accuse it of being "too woke" or something, it's impossible for yours truly to deny how incredibly well done this film was, seemingly offering a little something for everyone. Even at its most basic, the film is about breaking barriers and tolerating others, offering an inspirational film, very much made for "the little guy," which is something I've always appreciated in filmmaking. In all honesty, it's probably one of Disney's all-time bests. 5/5  At this point, the original 'Running Man' has become a bit dated. It provides a 1987 look at what the future might have been in 2017, which is something I always kind of enjoy, seeing as we're past 2017 in reality. Much like 'Back to the Future 2' with 2015, it’s fun to see how incredibly “off” the movie is. Add to that the cheesy 80s Schwarzenegger action factor, and the fact that it’s so insanely far separated from its original source material, and one can probably see why author Stephen King wasn’t the biggest fan.
Just to set the record straight, however, this is still an awesomely fun thrill ride of a movie as long as you can see it in the right light and treat it as its own thing. Schwarzenegger has his own collection of features, all released between the 80s and early 90s, in which he always plays a buff action hero, full of one-liners, delivered in his very particular accent, which has been parodied to no end. Back then, Schwarzenegger was THE name for action - you always knew you were going to have fun with what he was going to deliver. I know I always did, whether the movie itself was good or not. In the 1987 "adaptation," by 2017, the world has undergone economic collapse, and the US government stays in control through ICS (Internal Broadcasting Corporation) which runs the popular game show 'The Running Man,' in which prisoners, aka "runners" are made to run for their lives against the network's hired goons, the "stalkers." If one survives 'The Running Man,' they can earn their freedom. In this crooked future, it seems anyone can be arrested for anything, including unsanctioned art or communication, seemingly in an effort to throw contestants into 'The Running Man' for ratings. While on duty, Captain Ben Richards (Schwarzenegger) refuses to open fire on hungry protestors. As a result, his fellow officers complete the task for him, frame him, and he is henceforth known as the "Butcher of Bakersfield." He is then arrested and imprisoned in a labour camp alongside resistance fighters Harold Weiss (Marvin J. McIntyre) and William Laughlin (Yaphet Kotto). Eventually, the trio escape the labour camp but are recaptured; Richards, in particular, by ICS composer Amber Mendez (Maria Conchita Alonso), who believes the network's lies about him being the "Butcher." Richards and the others are eventually entered into 'The Running Man' gameshow, hosted by Damon Killian (the brilliantly cast Richard Dawson). When introducing the runners, the network lies about Richards to boost its ratings with his "Butcher of Bakersfield" title. Seeing this, Amber starts to realize the network's lies and how corrupt they really are, preying on innocent lives for their ratings. However, going against the network could very well mean getting dropped into the gameshow, herself. Within the game, the trio, essentially headed by Richards, attempts to survive the "stalkers" the network throws at them, which, in this version, are chosen by gameshow audience members and are much more "themed" as though they came out of a retro video game, like "Buzzsaw" or "Dynamo" who are powered by chainsaws and electricity, respectively. Of course, with Arnold kicking ass and taking names, these fights tend to always result in the stalkers becoming almost stupidly defeated and looking like jackasses. The film is definitely a far cry from the book, so if you're any kind of die-hard King fan, it's hard to say if this would be enjoyable for you or not - I may sooner direct you to the 2025 version, as it's much closer to the original source material. However, if you're just looking for some retro Schwarzenegger-style action, this is one of his more famous titles, complete with everything that makes his old movies great. Despite not adapting the source material very well at all, on its own, this makes for a fun addition to the Schwarzenegger library, even if it's a bit of a guilty pleasure today. 3/5  Looking back, I remember being very interested in this movie. As advertised, I only really took it as a typical kidnapping-torture movie, which I generally don't go for. Still, the trailers carried the eerie atmosphere I enjoy in horror, which is always a green flag. Upon seeing it, I was so impressed that I considered it one of my favourite movies of the year, thanks to its creativity, the performances from everyone involved, and the fantastic job it did of advertising it as something far simpler than it was.
Fair trigger warning for this one, it does consist of such things as physical abuse towards a young girl and consistent bullying, so it may prove to be a little tricky to get through the first little bit. However, one could see this in comparison to a much lighter version of 'The Hills Have Eyes' or 'Last House on the Left' as far as style and execution - the worst parts make you want to see the hero kick some ass, and it delivers in its own, clever way with the performances of child actors Mason Thames and Madeleine McGraw; a couple of other young actors who convinced me would make a name for themselves and did, at least in Thames' case. The story here takes place in 1978, where the streets of a Denver suburb are being terrorized by a child abductor who has been dubbed "The Grabber" (Ethan Hawke). In the meantime, we follow Finney (Thames) and Gwen Blake (McGraw), the children of an alcoholic, abusive father, Terrence (Jeremy Davies). To make his life worse, Finney is also constantly bullied at school, but he does have a friend, Robin (Miguel Cazarez Mora), who stands up to Finney's bullies for him, but is also the one who tries to push Finney into standing up for himself one day, which heavily foreshadows the nightmare to come. As for Gwen, she does okay in school, but gets heavily abused by her father, who blames her for things like the police calling their house, sadly not due to reports of abuse, but because Gwen seems to have some answers as far as the case of the Grabber goes, and here's where things get supernatural. Much like her late mother, she experiences psychic dreams in which she sees who the Grabber abducts next; an ability that allegedly drove her mother to commit suicide, which is the reason her Dad took to the bottle, and sees red any time these dreams are brought into question. One such dream of Gwen's sends her into a panic, as it involves Finney, who is indeed taken, and awakens in a soundproofed basement, faced with his kidnapper, who goes back and forth to the room, not to harm him, but to keep an eye on him. Sitting on the wall of the room is a black rotary phone, which the Grabber insists doesn't work. Yet when the Grabber is out of the room, Finney gets constant calls from the former kidnapped kids who do what they can to help him escape. The catch, however, is that all of these kids are deceased. Working together, but apart, both Finney and Gwen use their abilities to stop the Grabber once and for all. As far as giving the movie any honest criticism, I don't have much to offer. While bits and pieces may be predictable for some, the more unpredictable moments are well executed, namely the climactic scene, which I wouldn't call a twist but rather a bit of a surprise. For me, what I found perhaps most interesting about the film was that, for as solid a job Ethan Hawke does here as the villain, the true highlights of the movie, surprisingly, were the kids' performances. Opinions will differ as per usual, but considering their ages, their skills were compelling. I give the film credit for its share of imagination and creative ideas that put a unique spin on an otherwise fairly typical plot scenario. Between Gwen's creepy dreams and Finney's phone calls, it's a great movie to illustrate how some horror tropes (in this case the whole kidnapping and potential torture scenario) can still be really good if they provide a bit of the truly unusual, or even blend some aspects of horror with others, ie, dream/ghost horror with real world scenarios like the kidnapper. It's odd, but I welcome it with open arms because it's at least different and a little more unpredictable than your standard slasher or haunting flick. 4/5  Back in 2010, I recall seeing the ads for this and thinking they looked pretty cool, so I watched the 1982 film for the first time in an effort to catch up on things. As it turns out, however, 'Legacy' only carries over a few bare basics, retconning a few things, making things a bit more confusing than they really need to be. It's just my humble opinion, but I think to really like this chapter of the 'Tron' series (and probably more to come), one will have to sort of treat it as its own separate "what if?" entity.
The truth of the matter is, one shouldn't have to do that, and things could probably stand to be better-written as far as a continuing story goes, but let's face it, the prominent stand-out feature in a 'Tron' movie (aside from a kick-ass soundtrack) is probably going to be its visual impact, and 'Legacy' has that in spades. At the same time, the unfolding storyline amounts to not a hell of a lot more than "okay." Still, through the right lens, much like the original film, it can be a fun ride if you allow it to be, much like a 'Fast & Furious' film, or something along those lines. Following the events of 'Tron,' Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) is promoted to CEO of ENCOM International, the tech company that initially fired him but which Flynn saved from a hostile takeover by the Master Control Program. Seven years later, in 1989, Flynn disappears suddenly without a trace, leaving his son, Sam (Garrett Hedlund/Owen Best), to grow up fatherless and, much like his Dad, get into a bit of trouble. Twenty years after Flynn's disappearance, he sneaks into ENCOM to release their operating system to the public online for free, following his father's ideals of free software. The problem is, he trespasses to do this, so he foolishly finds himself under arrest. Sam is also ENCOM's primary shareholder, so the whole thing lends itself to the idea that the writing here isn't all that great, as the entire situation seems incredibly unnecessary. Either way, he's eventually bailed out by Flynn's old friend Alan (Bruce Boxleitner), who informs him of a pager message originating from Flynn's old, abandoned video arcade, which has since been disconnected for twenty years and somehow wasn't replaced by a Starbucks. Regardless, Sam goes to check out what this pager message could be. As Sam enters Flynn's abandoned arcade, we experience a bit of nostalgia, recalling the good old days of video arcades and seeing all the machinery that has since collected several layers of dust. As he wanders, looking for who may have sent the message, he finds a hidden basement with a particle laser that soon zaps him into The Grid, where he is immediately seized and taken to the Games, much like the strays within the system of the last film were made to do, in a sort of Collisseum style, where the games aren't fun so much as deadly. To cut to the chase, Sam soon meets Clu (also played by Jeff Bridges), a program created by Kevin Flynn, designed to be perfect, who aims to outdo his perfection by building and assembling an army of programs to enter the real world and take it over. He also manages to locate and reunite with his dad and his apprentice, Quorra (Olivia Wilde), who are probably the only hope of stopping Clu. As Sam and Clu race to the portal Sam originally came through to get back to it, or, in Clu's case, take it over. So, it's your standard race against time. Visually stunning and complete with a soundtrack that fits the film's style like a glove, these things just aren't enough to save the movie as a whole. The truth of the matter is that I tend to find the "rule the world" motivation of villains tired, dated and basic. It's also strange to me that they retconned Clu's origin to some degree, complicating things more than they really need to be. However, despite all my criticism, I think that much like 'Tron', this can still be a fun watch if one wants to enjoy a bit of futuristic-looking entertainment. Just bear in mind that the film is primarily style over substance. 3/5  The original 'Tron' was always a fascinating title to me when I was a kid. It seemed as though everyone, including myself, was aware of it, but we had never seen it. It was just a video cassette that stood out on rental shelves with its tech-fancy font against a flat black background, and a couple of mysterious futuristic-looking characters in front of the "O". 'The Simpsons' even jokes about how no one ever saw it in the Halloween short 'Homer3.' It was one of the strangest entities that sported a Disney logo, to my recollection.
Fast-forward to around the time 'Tron: Legacy' was coming out, me remembering 'Tron' was even a thing, and finally deciding to give it a chance, wondering why I never had before. Besides, with its ads and Daft Punk soundtrack, I really wanted to see 'Legacy,' so a bit of homework felt necessary. When it was all said and done, I found it, and still find it, relatively entertaining for its time; 1982, when widespread video game tech was still in its infancy, and the best console one could get their hands on was an Atari 2600. One must always keep in mind the real-world era in which this was released. Former ENCOM employee and computer hacker, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), who now owns a video arcade, attempts to infiltrate ENCOM's system using CLU, a program designed to break in and search for Flynn's allegedly stolen work. With this, CLU has difficulty when the search is disrupted by ENCOM's Master Control Program, or "MCP" as it's more often referred to here. The MCP (voice of David Warner) informs senior executive vice president Ed Dillinger (also David Warner) about the hacker and blocks ENCOM's access, thereby becoming its own entity by swiping various documents, some of which are government-related, to increase its power. Meanwhile, two ENCOM workers, Lora (Cindy Morgan) and Alan (Bruce Boxleitner), figure out that Flynn is the mystery hacker, knowing his history, and head to the arcade to warn him that they're on to him. However, when Flynn informs them of Dillinger's plagiarism, the trio plans a break-in to ENCOM in an attempt to unlock Alan's "Tron" program, meant to counteract the MCP. Soon, Flynn comes face-to-face with the MCP while attempting a hack, and he gets pulled into the system we now know more as "The Grid." Just to say it, if you're a bit confused by any of this, forgive me, because the opening is a little confusing. Within the Grid, computer programs roam around, resembling avatars of their creators. For example, CLU is also played by Jeff Bridges. Here, the MCP rules over everything with its partner, Sark (also David Warner), opposing belief in the "Users," and forcing those with faith to participate in deadly games. In my eyes, the whole thing makes for a sort of tech bible story, the "Users" essentially being their Gods, able to manipulate things within the system. In this strange world, Flynn, with the help of programs Tron (also Bruce Boxleitner), Ram (Dan Shor), and Yori (also Cindy Morgan), intends to get to the MCP and destroy it from within. As previously mentioned, things can get a little confusing with this movie, but it does make for a charming time capsule, capturing what "futuristic" looked like in 1982. It's intriguing to see how dated it seems by today's standards, but at the time, it was a groundbreaking revolution in animation, known for its pioneering use of CGI. Also, to my surprise, despite assuming no one ever watched this, it actually outperformed 'Blade Runner' and 'The Thing' at the box office that year. Apparently, it was something I missed the boat on, but I still don't recall anyone discussing it as much as other titles released around the same time, growing up. I'll also mention that if you're any 'South Park' fan, that will add to the fun in watching this, as there are at least a couple of things in the film the show parodies, perhaps most popularly "Moses" who resembles the MCP, but there are a couple more. As far as my enjoyment of the film goes, it's not something I'd place among my favourites, but it's a fun watch, at least, if you're hanging out on a Sunday afternoon. It's a product of its time, and I respect that; however, it's a title that warrants further examination as well, as I personally feel like they were going after something a little deeper than I had originall thought. 3/5  I'm not going to surprise anyone by saying this, if they've read my reviews on the previous two 'Strangers' movies, but there's still nothing special about these movies. At one point, I even gave the villains credit for being effectively creepy, bu even that's getting stale at this point. This is one of those films that forces one to ask the question "who the hell asked for this?" Going by the idea of the movie, in that this was supposed to be a story of how the "Strangers" started out, I'd normally be pretty forgiving... but...
As it turns out, there is absolutely nothing to this movie that we have never seen before. I'm talking right down to lines of dialogue that get repeated (most famously the cold reason these killers have for doing what they do, amounting to "just because"), and kills that we've already seen, lacking creativity entirely. I'll tell you what, 'Jason X' is pretty terrible, but the flash-freeze kill in it is at least pretty damn cool. This is nothing but more of the same, and it all boils down to a misleading trailer that makes one think maybe they'll get an interesting origin story. And so, with a deep sigh I move on and try to review what I've essentially already reviewed twice. I mean, hell, people once thought the 'Friday the 13th' movies were repetitive. This time around, we're back to two main character who we really don't care about, by the names of Maya (Madelaine Petsch) and Ryan (Froy Gutierrez); a couple driving cross country to celebrate their fifth dating anniversary. This time around, however, there's no awkward tension between the main characters, and no real sense of them "bettering" themselves in some way before the film ends. No sir, just a couple of bags of meat here! The happy-go-lucky couple get themselves lost and stop in a town called Venus, where the locals are the modern equivalent to your average locals in an old western saloon - just always looking nasty and giving the stink-eye to anyone new in town. To no one's surprise, the couple's car "breaks down," and eventually they find themselves stalked by the trio of killers known best as "Man in Mask," or now "Scarecrow" (Matus Lajcak) "Dollface" (Olivia Kreutzova) and "Pin-Up Girl" (Letizia Fabbri), and it's all just survival horror with a similar ending to the previous ones. It's a crying shame for me to say that this is one of the most disappointing and misleading horror movies I've seen in a while. In my own way, I had high hopes for this to actually be something creative that would tell a story of how and why the Strangers became what they became. Y'know, character development, give them a bit of a history, etc... tell an actual story. And with Renny Harlin behind the wheel, and me being a big fan of 'Elm Street 4,' I can say that the man has much better material out there. What really blows my mind about this movie is that it's the third in a batch, and there's an apparent couple of sequels to this that are on their way. But for crying out loud, if this is something that must happen, can we get more character development in there instead of just telling the audience in so many words "you've seen everything we're doing already." With the exception of a few brief moments in tension (and that's being generous), the film is altogether predictable as ever, roughly acted, and again, and perhaps most importantly nothing new or original. Save your money on this one, folks! I'm hard-pressed to imagine what the next two chapters will consist of, but I can say with all honesty that I'm not entirely looking forward to eventually reviewing them when they pop up. I'd love to be able to write more about some sort of interesting details about these films, but there's so little here it's almost ridiculous. At this point, I might as well review what's coming up now to keep it simple and just say "more of the same." I tend to be pretty damn forgiving towards movies, understanding that sometimes shit happens... but this is the kind of film I'd almost dub "insulting" considering just how misleading the concept it. Can it get worse? 1/5  All things considered, I probably like this one just a touch more than the original. That said, however, it's kind of like saying "this piece of black licorice is better than that piece of black licorice" (and I do NOT like black licorice!) Again, things are pretty damn basic, there's not a whole hell of a lot to it, and the characters are mostly pretty bland. However, I will say in this chapter's case, a couple of them kind of grew on me in time. But again, it's almost like developing a taste for alcohol - nasty at first.
The film kicks off with the "Man in the Mask" (Damian Maffei) "Dollface" (Emma Bellomy) and "Pin-Up Girl" (Lea Enslin) invading a trailer park in Kalida, OH, and killing a middle-aged couple. None of the actors from the original are back to reprise their roles, and isn't that the beauty of slasher films involving masked characters? I mean, just look at how many Jason Voorhees' there have been over the years. The nice thing here, though, is everyone replacing these roles does a good job, and I was none the wiser. This is not like comparing little Jason from 'Part II' to monster zombie Jason from 'Part VII.' The next day, the family of four who become the victims of the masked trio's stalking in this chapter arrive at the trailer park to spend some family time together before the daughter, Kinsey (Bailee Madison) leaves for boarding school. While her mother, Cindy (Christina Hendricks) and father, Mike (Martin Henderson) try to keep things civil, Kinsey continues to be a brat who we immediately don't like. And her brother, Luke (Lewis Pullman), isn't much better. However, these are the aforementioned characters who eventually grew on me. I have to admit that I appreciated how the film allowed some room for liking this brother-sister duo. Once you get them on their own, they're quite nice to each other, and it's like they keep up their bickering for appearances. They also end up making a pretty good team throughout the film. On top of that, once again, I liked the villains here because they are truly scary and somewhat eerily realistic in their nature. Although a lot of the actual physics in some of the attacking and fighting back is... questionable. Anyway, that's basically all there is to it. Eventually the family finds themselves going up against the "Strangers," who are trying to kill them off one by one just because, and it's just about as chilling as it was last time. The only exception here is that I'll give it credit for a lot of the kill/fight scenes being far more intense and creepier than last time. The film basically amped everything that was good about the last film up a bit, but it's still not quite enough to save things altogether. Once again, things here focus on some sort of a family/social speed bump, like in the last one when a proposal fell through. This time around, it's tension between Kinsey and her family for being sent to boarding school. But also once again, the whole situation doesn't really enter into things in the long-run. It's kind of just there to create tension enough to make Kinsey grow up a bit as well as add some sort of "life's not always great, but could be worse" lesson of sorts into the mix. With not much more to say on the matter, I can say that it's a pretty faithful sequel to its predecessor, altogether. But having said that, this is still very standard slasher horror with that home-invasion plot we know all too well at this point. A horror newbie could watch these back to back and maybe take a few more footsteps into the genre with relative ease. But for someone who might be a gore hound, or into the more psychological, it's just okay. Passable for what it is, but a low pass. There has been better since. 3/5 |
Take 5 Reviews
RSS Feed
