The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn ― Part 2 (2012)

The saying goes that all good things must come to an end. But what they don't say is that bad things end as well. Case in point: the series of movies based on Stephenie Meyer's Twilight novels. I'd never heard of the Twilight books prior to the first movie's release in 2008, but the media blitz surrounding the movies, along with the offensively bad quality of these cinematic adaptations, have made me vow to never read the books. All of the Twilight movies have been piss-poor, but after this review, I'll never have to watch or even think about them ever again. So let's jump into The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn ― Part 2 and get this mess over with as soon as possible.

Our movie begins where the previous one ended, with Bella Cullen (Kristen Stewart) awaking as a newborn vampire, having been turned by her new husband Edward (Robert Pattinson) in a desperate attempt to save her from death during childbirth. She quickly masters many of the new gifts and abilities that come with being a vampire, her only struggle coming in controlling the bloodlust that is natural to those of the undead persuasion. And she's far from thrilled when she learns that Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) has "imprinted" upon her days-old daughter, an involuntary reflex in which werewolves find their soulmate.

But as time passes, Bella comes to accept and overcome these problems, while her and Edward's daughter Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy) quickly matures thanks to her hybrid human/vampire heritage. Things will get a wee bit rougher for the happy Cullen family, though, as word of Renesmee's birth reaches Aro (Michael Sheen), the leader of the Volturi. Erroneously led to believe that Renesmee is an immortal child, something prohibited in vampire culture, the Volturi venture to Forks to eliminate the Cullens. Fearing a war and desperate to prove Renesmee is not who they think she is, the Cullens band together with a number of other vampire covens and the members of Jacob's werewolf clan to combat the Volturi.

It's like the brain trust behind this insipid franchise only wanted to prolong the torture of non-fans. Because instead of adapting Stephenie Meyer's final Twilight novel into one movie and getting it over and done with, they split it in half and made two. I guess they figured that if Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows can be made into two separate movies that each made a billion dollars worldwide, Breaking Dawn could try doing the same thing. I'm actually surprised they didn't take the full leap and convert the second Breaking Dawn into 3D to shake a little more money out of the audience. And it wouldn't have been so bad if either of the Breaking Dawn movies had been good. This one is a definite step-up from Part 1, but it's just so unbelievably dull that even the moments that aren't totally bad will have you wishing they'd hurry up and get along with it.

Director Bill Condon returns to for the second half of Breaking Dawn, and once again, he's making a respectable effort. He's made what is arguably the least worst out of the Twilight saga with this one, with some of the sequences actually being pretty decent. The climactic fight scene is really good too, but I'll get more into that later. Condon still still falls into some of the same traps that the rest of the movies have fallen into, however. There are quite a few sections that are boring and overlong, others are so hackneyed that one can't believe that someone would allow them to be in the finished product.

But then there's only so much Condon could do with the mediocre script and actors, and the CGI is so atrociously bad that I'm flabbergasted that anybody would allow the movie to be released with it looking the way it does. The CGI baby is especially awful, looking creepy rather than cute. I've seen behind-the-scenes pictures from the movie where baby Renesmee was represented by an ugly animatronic puppet, so the awful CGI is, in retrospect, the lesser of two evils. But the CGI baby is still really off-putting, with my first thought upon seeing it honestly being, "Oh my God, what the hell is this thing?" The one saving grace is that it didn't stick around for long.

The movie has some good elements, sure, but it's weighed down by so many of the bad ones. I find it amazing that Condon can come so close to directing what could have been the lone good entry in the Twilight saga, only to stumble over the same problems that befell three directors before him. It's like the franchise himself was daring Condon to try and make a good movie before pulling the rug out from under him as if it were Lucy Van Pelt holding a football for Charlie Brown.

But again, you can't polish a turd, and with Melissa Rosenberg once again writing the movie, that turd is pretty substantial. Thanks to Breaking Dawn being split into two movies, the material here is thinner than usual. It honestly feels like half a movie stretched out over two hours, with quite a bit of it (particularly the scenes where the Cullens start recruiting other vampires to help them fight) coming off like so much padding.

And then there's only one scene where they ever address just how weird the whole "Jacob imprinting on Renesmee" thing is. It feels rather pedophilic, and I'm not surprised that Bella would be righteously pissed off when she finds out about it. The problem is, though, that any drama that could come from it is diffused when the whole thing is dropped like a hot potato almost as soon as it happens. Jacob is pretty much treated like Renesmee's bodyguard after that and that's it. Rosenberg never delves into it or goes anywhere with it, and all it does is allow Rosenberg to resolve the Edward/Bella/Jacob love triangle in the quickest "let's sweep this under the rug" way possible.

And then there's the climax. That awful, awful climax. (Be warned, here be SPOILERS.) The movie ends with a truly awesome 10-minute brawl pitting the Cullens and Jacob's werewolves against the Volturi, and it's a sight to behold. It's the best thing to happen in all five movies, a climax that made slogging through all these movies absolutely worth it. I'm not joking, I actually did really like this sequence. But then comes the revelation that the whole thing was just a vision implanted in Aro's head. You know how mentioned Lucy, Charlie Brown, and the football earlier? That applies to the climax too. It's frustrating to see that Rosenberg wrote a movie that spends two hours establishing that the Cullens were building a gang of vampires with superpowers to fight the Volturi like they were the X-Men, only to find out that the big epic fight scene technically never happened and that the whole movie was for nothing. It's just one great big cheat that slaps everyone that watches this movie in the face. But then I've come to expect disappointment from Rosenberg, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm also not surprised by how weak the cast is. For starters, Robert Pattinson seems like he's just there because of a contractual obligation. You really get the feeling that he doesn't care at all, but is happy that this is the last time he'll have to play Edward Cullen just he can get on with his life. Kristen Stewart, meanwhile, once again proves just how terrible an actress she is. Even when she's showing emotion, it feels like it's beyond her meager abilities. But then, considering how awful a character Bella is, I guess it makes sense that they'd keep an awful actress around to play her for five movies.

It's not all bad, though. Billy Burke and Michael Sheen are great, and many members of the supporting cast are decent despite not being very memorable. And while Taylor Lautner still isn't the most talented actor in the world, he's still the finest of the three leads. The guy does a decent enough job as Jacob, and he's likable despite how weird the whole "Jacob imprinting on Renesmee" thing is. Lautner's not awful, and has just enough charisma and charm to stand out from Pattinson and Stewart here. And with a little luck, he could end up becoming much better down the road. I hope that happens for his sake, because I don't think he wants any more repeats of his poorly-received 2011 flick Abduction in his future.

With this review coming to a close, I can now finally wash my hands of the Twilight saga. And it end not with a bang, but with a limp across the finish line. I've spent the last five years dreading the release of each chapter in this franchise, knowing that my masochism would kick in and I'd have to sit through them. Sure, I afforded myself the luxury of watching them on cable or downloading bootlegs off the Internet so I wouldn't have to spend any actual money on them. I just can't shake the feeling, however, that I was cheated out of something. Precious brain cells, maybe. My free time, certainly. But now that it's all over and done with, I can go back to pretending these movies never existed and I can return to watching bad movies that are actually fun, like The Room or Troll 2. Goodbye, Twilight, and good riddance.

Final Rating: **½

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

When The Hunger Games hit theaters last year, I'll admit that I wasn't expecting much out of it. I thought it would be just another movie in the vein of the Twilight franchise, a lame piece of crap made solely for the tweens who'd read and adored the books that inspired it. The fact that one of the constant criticisms was a negative comparison to Battle Royale, a movie that I absolutely love, didn't help my initial perceptions either. But then I actually saw The Hunger Games, and was blown away by just how good it was. I left the theater excited to see the sequels, and hoping they would come sooner rather than later.

So when the second chapter in the franchise was released, I was the odd man out, the adult man surrounded by an army of teenage girls that had been camping out at the theater all day in anticipating of the movie's first showing. But it was totally worth it, because The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a legitimately fantastic movie.

For the first time in its history, two people have emerged victorious from the Hunger Games. But for Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), winning the Games is only the beginning. As they prepare for their upcoming "Victors' Tour" of Panem's twelve districts, President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland) confronts Katniss in secret. He explains that while many viewed Katniss and Peeta's attempted suicide pact at the end of the Games as romantic, it made fools of the Capitol and has sown the seeds of rebellion amongst the districts. And unless she and Peeta want their loved ones to be killed, they'll have to use the Victors' Tour convince the nation and Snow himself that the whole suicide idea was not an act of defiance against the Capitol, but as the last desperate act of two young lovers who couldn't bear living without one another.

It doesn't exactly work that way, though, as uprisings continue to gain steam despite Katniss and Peeta's attempts to publicly play a happy, loving couple. Realizing that Katniss is developing a reputation a symbol of the rebellion, Snow decides that she has to be eliminated. Most attempts would just turn Katniss into a martyr and make her a greater symbol than she already is, but an opportunity presents itself in the form of the third Quarter Quell, a special version of the Hunger Games that occurs every twenty-five years and boasts a major twist to shake things up.

With the Quarter Quell approaching, President Snow announces that this year's twist will be that its Tributes will be selected solely from all living Hunger Games winners. And since Katniss is District 12's only female victor, she realizes that Snow has essentially written her death sentence. As this new game begins, she and Peeta quickly align themselves with the handful of fellow Tributes they feel that can actually trust. Survival is not their only plan, though, as some of the Tributes ― among them cocky pretty boy Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), scientifically-minded Beetee Latier (Jeffrey Wright), and bitterly sarcastic Johanna Mason (Jena Malone) ― have devised a way to give the Capital the finger even if it costs them their own lives.

I'll admit that I approached Catching Fire differently than I did the first movie. While I went into the first movie with a bit of trepidation because of my inexperience with the source material and a general distrust of movies based on young adult novels (a distrust that was caused solely by Twilight), I was excited to see Catching Fire. I couldn't wait to step into that theater and see what would happen next in the world of Panem, and Catching Fire didn't disappoint either. It's one of those seemingly rare sequels that completely outdoes its progenitor.

With Gary Ross unable to return to the franchise due to scheduling conflicts, Francis Lawrence replaces him in the director's chair and does a fine job with it. Seeing Lawrence attached to the movie didn't really fill me with a lot of hope, since my past experiences with his body of work ― I Am Legend and Constantine ― weren't exactly all that great. But I did, however, really like his efforts with Catching Fire. Much of the movie is dedicated to how the characters must deal with the emotional and sociopolitical fallout from the Hunger Games, material that Lawrence handles delicately. He doesn't rush anything, instead allowing it to simmer until it finally boils over in the climax.

The Quarter Quell makes up the movie's third act, and Lawrence makes sure these games feel like a far different beast than the ones we saw in the first movie. There's something deeper to it; it isn't children being forced to die for a government's amusement, but that government using it as a weapon to throw water on a fire of rebellion that threatens to burn out of control. The delicacy Lawrence used with the rest of the movie is there, but it feels meaner, more rough and intense. These aren't frightened kids in the arena, but experienced killers with a bucket of psychological issues, and Lawrence builds this accordingly.

With the trendy shaky-cam used sparingly and only when it work in the movie's favor, Lawrence crafts the Quarter Quell in a way that makes it feel even more dangerous. Certain moments, like the swarm of screaming "jabberjay" birds and the scene where the center of the arena is spun like a top while the Tributes fight atop it, are particularly intense. But Lawrence never forgets that the characters are bigger than the games and he makes sure it stays about them.

While Lawrence's direction is very good, Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt's script might actually be better. I've only read a few bits and pieces of Suzanne Collins's novel, so I can't truly speak for how faithful Beaufoy and Arndt were to it. What they bring to the movie, though, is a deptyh and intelligence that many of these movie based on young adult novels wish they had. The material could lend itself to schlocky melodrama if handled wrong, but Beaufoy and Arndt approach it maturely.

Their script doesn't treat the audience like idiots, nor does it shy away from the psychological and political repercussions of the Hunger Games. Katniss has constant nightmares about the horrors she saw and constant guilt over the horrors she was forced to commit, while the downtrodden citizens of the Districts see her as a symbol of hope following her acts of compassion and bravery in the Games, realizing that if a teenage girl can stand up to the Capital's oppression, they can too. Beaufoy and Arndt obviously wrote the movie with a audience full of young women in mind, but they treat it in a way that allows it to be greater than the trappings of the substandard claptrap foisted upon today's youth by much of Hollywood.

Meanwhile, the acting will bring up the rear of this review, and it's just as fantastic as the rest of the movie. Nearly everyone makes some kind of memorable contribution, no matter how major or minor their role. Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks are funny and sweet as Katniss and Peeta's mentor and Capitol-assigned chaperone respectively, while Jena Malone and Philip Seymour Hoffman are in top form in their roles. Jeffrey Wright and Sam Claflin are also very likable as well, with Claflin in particular standing out with his confident, charismatic performance.

Among the more major players, I really liked Josh Hutcherson here. He has a certain "nice guy" vibe going that makes you want to root for him. I can't really say the same for Liam Hemsworth, though. The movie tries setting up a love triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Hemsworth's character, but Hemsworth has so little screen time and that you never really get a chance to feel anything other than ambivalence towards him. It doesn't help that he's dull as dishwater and doesn't have much in the way of on-screen chemistry with Jennifer Lawrence, either. All he does is just make the love triangle element feel tacked on.

But Hemsworth's shortcomings are made up for not only by the strength of the rest of the movie, but by its villain and heroine as well. Donald Sutherland makes for a damn fine bad guy, playing President Snow as calm and cool but delivering every line of dialogue as if his words were the auditory equivalent of rattlesnake venom. Snow is smarmy, vindictive, power-hungry, and absolutely heartless, and Sutherland plays it perfectly.

But above all else, the movie belongs to Jennifer Lawrence. She's an insanely talented actress, and she uses those talents to make Katniss a character worth following. Lawrence imbues her character with heartbreak and anguish and rage, simultaneously terrified yet daring to fight and potentially die to protect those she loves. Katniss is a very complex, very deep character, and Lawrence makes her one you absolutely cannot take your eyes off of.

I can actually say the same about Catching Fire as a whole. It's an impressive movie, one whose complexities are deceptively hidden beneath the glossy sheen of a teen-oriented Hollywood blockbuster. Catching Fire also defies the notion that the middle chapter of a trilogy is the weakest by being a fascinating, exciting watch. It commands your attention and refuses to let go once it has it. I hear that they'll be following in the footsteps of the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises by splitting the third Hunger Games book into two movies, a decision that I'm not one hundred percent sure I agree with. I don't know why the producers would feel the need to really do that other than to milk the franchise for all they can get, but either way, Catching Fire is such a fantastic movie that it's made me excited to see both of them. This is that kind of movie.

Final Rating: ****

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

When the "Marvel Cinematic Universe" seemingly climaxed with The Avengers last summer, the movie's billion-dollar success all but guaranteed that the franchise would continue. And continue it did, both with the release of Iron Man 3 this past May and the debut of the TV series Marvel's Agents of SHIELD on ABC two months ago. This brings us to the next entry in the saga, Thor: The Dark World. The first Thor movie was actually pretty surprising, as I've never really been the biggest fan of out-of-this-world fantasies yet I thoroughly enjoyed it. The idea of a sequel was enough to get me excited even before the release of The Avengers, and now that the franchise is in its post-Avengers state, I was intrigued to see where things were in Asgard. Nut enough chit-chat, let's dive in.

With the Chitauri invasion of Earth successfully repelled, the mighty Thor (Chris Hemsworth) returns to Asgard with Loki (Tom Hiddleston) in custody. Their father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) angrily sentences Loki to spend the rest of his existence in the palace's dungeon, while Thor and his warrior compatriots travel across the Nine Realms diffusing the tensions raised by the Bifrost Bridge's destruction at the end of the first movie.

Back on Earth, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and her crew tour England, investigating bizarre gravitational anomalies similar to the ones encountered when she first met Thor. One of these pulls Jane into another realm where she inadvertently absorbs a liquid-like energy field that attacks anyone who touches her. This draws Thor's attention, and he whisks Jane away to Asgard to figure out how to separate her from it.

This energy, they discover, is "the Aether," a weapon of mass destruction unleashed eons ago by the dark elf Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). Malekith and his armies were eventually defeated in battle by Odin's father, who hid the Aether away where it was believed no one would ever find it. But it has indeed been found, and it has awakened Malekith and the dark elves from thousands of years of slumber. And as the Nine Realms approach a rare convergence, acquiring the Aether will allow Malekith to achieve his goal of throwing the universe into darkness. Forced to disobey his father's direct orders in order to protect both Jane and Asgard, Thor must forge an uneasy alliance with Loki if he is to combat Malekith.

I honestly didn't think Thor: The Dark World was one of the strongest entries in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It has one too many flaws keeping it from being more than the sum of its parts. But I will say that the movie is a genuinely fun ride in spite of those flaws. The movie gets off to a fine start and doesn't let up for more than a few moments at a time, keeping the audience continually intrigued in the adventure. And really, that's all I could want from a movie like this.

Director Alan Taylor's body of work doesn't exactly make him sound like the type of filmmaker who would make something like this, but he does a very good job with it. Not only does he put some lovely cinematography to good use, but Taylor builds the movie in a way that makes it feel like it were some kind grand fantasy. Much like what Kenneth Branagh did with the first Thor, Taylor makes Asgard's scenes feel epic, while Earths seem like there's always something going on beneath the surface that we just can't grasp yet. He also crafts the action sequences in as exciting a way as possible, making them as big and boisterous as a movie like this needs.

I was mildly disappointed, though, with the movie's 3D effects. The problem with it is that it suffered from the same woes that most movies converted into 3D in post-production suffer from. It works really well some of the time, like during the scenes in Asgard and others that are heavy on CGI, but looks flat the rest of the time. It's not a particularly successful transfer, but I just don't see why a movie with a budget of 170 million dollars couldn't afford to spend at least a little cash on cameras that would allow its crew to shoot it natively in 3D.

But in the grand scheme of things, I did think the movie's 3D worked slightly better than its script. Written by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus, and Stephen McFeely from a story by Dan Payne and Robert Rodat, the script is very weak in more than a few spots. The story is kinda there, mostly serving as a series of setups for each action sequence. I can overlook that, considering that this is a superhero movie, but it gets worse from there, primarily in regards to the characters. I'm specifically referring to the movie's villain, who is so badly written that I'm just flabbergasted. Malekith barely exists here, a one-note villain who's actually missing the one note. He barely has enough screen time to justify even being in the movie at all, and does so little that the movie might have been better off making Loki the villain again.

Malekith is quite simply an empty slate, a villain who's only in the movie because the movie needed a villain. His motivations are beyond simple, and he comes across as a generic pseudo-villain. I've made references in the past to movies having what felt like placeholders for characters, and Thor: The Dark World does this with Malekith. There are five credited writers, and this is the best they could do?

But at least the movie has a decent enough collection of actors to work with. Anthony Hopkins and Rene Russo are fine as the king and queen of Asgard, though Hopkins does get a little hammy at times. I also enjoyed Kat Dennings,w ho reprises her role as Jane Foster's sidekick. While I understand why people might find her annoying, I thought Dennings added some humor and levity to her scenes.

The movie is owned, however, by the great performances of Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. Hemsworth is charming and likable as Thor, playing him with both a wisdom and bravado that makes the character so much fun. Hiddleston, meanwhile, once again shines as Loki. He doesn't go for the scenery-chewing overacting he brought to The Avengers and the first Thor movie, but Hiddleston still approaches Loki in a way that makes it hard to dislike him.

Unfortunately, not everyone in this movie does so well. Natalie Portman, for example, is incredibly dull here. She has a few moments that I thought were cute, but it feels like she's going through the motions, as if she'd rather be in any other movie but this one. Christopher Eccleston, on the other hand, fails to leave an impression simply because he's never given anything to work with. The character of Malekith is so undercooked and so underdeveloped that they could have brought any actor to play the part and nobody would have noticed. I honestly think they could have stopped some random person that happened to be walking by the set on any given day, slapped Malekith's makeup and costume on them, and it wouldn't have affected the movie in the slightest.

But all flaws aside, I did enjoy Thor: The Dark World. I can forgive flaws so long as the movie is entertaining, and that's exactly what this movie is. Much like the first Thor movie, I left the theater satisfied and looking forward to seeing where the Marvel Cinematic Universe would go next. So if the preview of Captain America: The Winter Soldier before the movie and the mid-credits scene featuring Benicio del Toro's character from Guardians of the Galaxy are any indication, then 2014 will be a good year for fans of Marvel Comics movies. And if being a fun movie and wanting to see more are signs of success, then Thor: The Dark World hits the bullseye.

Final Rating: ***

Carrie (2013)

When Stephen King's first novel, Carrie, was published in 1974, King couldn't have possibly imagined where his career would go after that. And I'm sure he never envisioned that Brian De Palma would turn that first book into one of the most beloved horror movies of the '70s. De Palma's Carrie is a movie that horror fans have watched and loved over and over for nearly forty years, which naturally means that Hollywood had to do a remake of it sooner or later.

But Carrie wasn't the typical "classic movie, and then a remake decades later" story. It was actually turned into an ill-fated Broadway musical in 1988, spawned a crappy sequel in 1999, and was first remade as a mediocre made-for-TV movie in 2002. But unless you've been living under a rock for the last few weeks, you've probably seen the advertisements for the new remake. Because of my affection for De Palma's Carrie, I was hesitant to see this new remake yet curious and excited to see how it would turn out. And it turns out that, despite a few very good elements, it's another remake plagued by a "been there, done that" feeling.

It's hard not to feel sorry for poor Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz). The daughter of an abusive religious fanatic (Julianne Moore), Carrie's social awkwardness makes her a target for merciless teasing and abuse from her classmates. But just when Carrie thinks life can't get much worse, she gets her first period while showering after gym class. Thanks to her strict, sheltered upbringing, Carrie has no idea what's happening and believes she's bleeding to death. Her classmates take great humor from Carrie's panicked cries for help, throwing tampons and heaping insults upon her. The scene is only broken up when Miss Desjardin (Judy Greer), the gym teacher, intervenes.

Feeling guilty for her part in what happened, Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) tries to make amends with Carrie by convincing her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to the prom and show her a good time. But they are unaware of the plans of Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday), whose extreme lack of remorse for having teased Carrie ― including having posted a video of the shower incident on YouTube ― gets her banned from the prom by Miss Desjardin. Rather than try apologizing to Carrie, Chris instead wants revenge for being punished. She rigs the ballot to get Carrie elected prom queen, and dumps a bucket of pig blood over her head during the coronation. No one could have predicted, though, that this prank would fully trigger Carrie's burgeoning telekinetic powers, an ability that sparks a violent, bloody rampage.

In my review of the Carrie remake from 2002, I argued that it was a remake fit the times due to the seemingly frequent school shootings at the end of the '90s. This new remake could be considered even more timely. With bullying being a serious hot-button issue and more and more teenagers committing suicide because they didn't know how to overcome the mental and physical anguish their tormentors inflicted upon them, it seems as good a time as any to make a horror movie about a bullied misfit. But all this new remake really does is include a few coy references to social media. It doesn't tread any new ground, nothing we haven't seen before. The original movie is timeless, with the ugly fashion of the '70s being the only part that hasn't aged well, and this new remake doesn't do anything to make itself stand as anything close to equal with it.

But that's not to say it it's a bad movie. I actually thought it was rather well done in spots. This was in part due to the fine direction of Kimberly Peirce, who builds actually builds a fair amount of tension in a few sequences, especially the scenes where Carrie and her mother are together and the movie's climax. Carrie's massacre at the prom is one of the entire horror genre's most classic moments, and Peirce handles it excellently. The overdone CGI doesn't help, but I felt that the whole scene ― from the moment Tommy and Carrie's limousine arrives at the prom to when a blood-drenched Carrie arrives home after causing so much carnage ― is spectacularly done. Granted, it's a little weird seeing Carrie using her telekinesis to actually fly across the room to avoid being electrocuted on the wet gym floor (I felt the 2002 remake did this a lot more effectively by having Carrie push the water away from her feet with her powers), but I still felt the sequence was amazingly done and actually pretty satisfying.

The only really bad part is that a lot of the time, the movie feels like a typical post-Scream teen horror movie from the end of the '90s. It's slick and glossy, full of pretty people and mediocre actors. This remake of Carrie could have fit right in with movies like Urban Legend or I Know What You Did Last Summer (or even The Rage: Carrie 2, for that matter). It doesn't help anything that this is the third time the story of Carrie White has been told (or fourth if you want to count Carrie 2), which can leave you with a legitimate feeling that you've seen it all before. Pierce doesn't tackle the material with any sort of unique perspective or approach, and much like the sequel and the other remake, all this new movie accomplished is leaving me wanting to watch the original movie instead. The only thing she really improves upon is adding a greater level of sheer chaos to the prom sequence, and that's it.

I was also really disappointed with the movie's lackluster script. Writer Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa doesn't give is the fleshed-out, three-dimensional characters that a movie like this needs. Instead, he gives us a tiny step above the most basic character archetypes. Chris Hargensen is a foul-mouthed bitch, Miss Desjardin is the one nice teacher, and so on. There's not much to say about the characters beyond their simplest descriptions. They're dull, lifeless placeholders for where characters were supposed to go.

It's especially bad with Sue Snell, who is so terribly written that I was almost offended. The character of Sue as written by Aguirre-Sacasa is flat and completely devoid of any real personality. Sue's just there because the story dictates she has to be. One almost gets the feeling that she could have been left out without it affecting the story much. And that's particularly frustrating because Sue is nearly as important to the story as Carrie herself. Sue being written so poorly is nothing short of a shame.

Aguirre-Sacasa does get close to doing some good, though, pprimarily through Carrie and Margaret White. I did think he handled their relationship well, though I did believe he could have elaborated on some things. For example, the movie depicts Margaret as being prone to hurting herself. She bashes her head against a wall, jabs herself in the arms and legs with sewing implements, and so on. I know people who engage in self-harm have a variety of psychological reasons that lead them to do it, but why Margaret White? Is it because she's full-blown crazy? Is it because her insane religious beliefs have led her to add variants of self-flagellation and the old "mortification of the flesh" practices? It certainly makes Margaret creepier, but it actually left me more curious than anything else.

The relationship between Margaret and Carrie could have used a little touching up, but for the most part, I thought Aguirre-Sacasa did an okay job with it. You really got the impression that Carrie truly loves and cares for her mother despite all the beatings and abuse and torture, though whether that's due to compassion or feeling it's her duty as her daughter isn't ever made clear. But either way, I honestly got why Carrie would be a bit weird. If my mother were a crazy person that regularly beat me, insulted me, and locked me in a closet for no reason, I'd probably be messed up too.

But as much as the movie disappointed me, I was especially let down by how frustratingly mediocre and forgettable much of the cast is. If I hadn't made a habit of scribbling down some notes in the parking lot after I leave the theater, I'd have forgotten about most of the cast by now. Gabriella Wilde is practically a blank slate as Sue Snell, never once actually doing anything to make me care. Portia Doubleday, meanwhile, effortlessly plays her character into a vicious, loathsome villain, but comes dangerously close to turning the character into an over-the-top caricature of a more vile version of a character from Mean Girls.

But I will say this about the cast: hiring Chloë Grace Moretz and Julianne Moore was a fantastic decision. Moore is absolutely terrifying, playing the part as a mentally ill woman who would fit better in a cult than in everyday society. Her intensity is scary enough, but the fact that every twitch of her face is practically screaming "kill Carrie!" makes it worse.

Moretz, meanwhile, is fabulous as our title character. She's perhaps too pretty to play the mousy Carrie, but she still plays the role to perfection. Moretz is an immensely talented young actress and she brings that telent to the movie. She gives Carrie a shy sweetness and sympathetic nature, making it easy to like her and feel awful for her while she's on the receiving end of abuse. It also makes Carrie's loss of control at the prom satisfying on a visceral level too. And as disappointing as much of this movie is, it's still worth seeing for both Moretz and Moore.

I don't have a problem with remakes. I've actually seen a few remakes that I genuinely love. But this new version of Carrie is not one of them. I've said it before, most recently in my review of the other Carrie remake, but if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Updating Carrie for modern audiences and modern sensibilities isn't a bad idea, but if you aren't going to make your movie stand out and be something special, why bother? There are some elements of this movie that I did like, but the whole package is one big letdown. His version might have some flaws here and there, but Brian De Palma got it right the first time. I'll just stick with that one.

Final Rating: **

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982)

Every long-running movie franchise has at least one chapter that's viewed as the redheaded stepchild. It's the one that doesn't quite fit in, the one that doesn't quite belong. And if you're a fan of slasher movies or '80s horror in general, the first movie that comes to mind would probably be Halloween III: Season of the Witch. If you're even remotely familiar with the Halloween franchise, you'll automatically associate it with its recurring antagonist, the homicidal Michael Myers. But Halloween III stands out as the most unique one, for the simple fact that that nothing connects it to the franchise at large outside of the name. No Michael Myers, no Dr. Loomis, no Haddonfield. But you know what? The movie is still pretty great.

A man named Harry Grimbridge (Al Berry) is brought into a hospital emergency room, clutching a Halloween mask and ranting about someone who will "kill us all." He's admitted to the hospital and placed in the care of Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins). But he isn't there long before another man enters Harry's room and crushes his skull before walking out to the parking lot and setting himself on fire. The police rule it a drug-related incident, but Dr. Challis doesn't believe that.

He and Harry's daughter, Ellie (Stacey Nelkin), start investigating just what was going on, following a trail of clues that lead them to the small town of Santa Mira, California. Santa Mira is pretty much owned by Silver Shamrock Novelties, the makers of a popular line of Halloween masks similar to the one Harry had with him. It is through these masks that Silver Shamrock's director, Conal Cochrane (Dan O'Herlihy), plans to cause untold scores of mayhem on Halloween night.

Halloween III has always been one of the real curiosities of horror movies from the '80s. The lack of Michael Myers despite bearing the Halloween name has always thrown people off. But it makes the movie a unique experience that I honestly would have liked seeing the fruits of. The movie was conceived by producers John Carpenter and Debra Hill, who wanted to take the name and create an anthology series where a new Halloween movie would be released annually, each of them focusing on some element of the Halloween season. That idea obviously didn't go anywhere, as the negativity from fans and critics at the time led to the franchise going back to its roots a few years later with the release of the fourth movie. But Halloween III is a brave experiment that I thought was a lot better than its reputation would lead one to believe.

Franchise creator Carpenter relegates himself to the role of producer for this movie, handing the reins over to his frequent collaborator Tommy Lee Wallace, who pulls double duty here as both writer and director. Wallace's script isn't exactly the movie's biggest selling point, considering its thin plot and characters that no one would ever accuse of being well-developed. But where Wallace does succeed, however, is his direction. Setting the movie in California doesn't really instill a lush autumn atmosphere that one might generally associate with Halloween, but Wallace still manages to infuse the movie with plenty of suspense, scares, and an overarching sense of dread. It's a legitimately tense movie at times due to how well Wallace crafts it. The cinematography and lighting work well in the movie's favor, building a feeling that nothing is really ever just quite right. And in this movie, nothing ever is.

The movie also features some impressive acting too. While most of the supporting cast aren't memorable and Stacey Nelkin is actually pretty forgettable, the movie is deftly carried by Tom Atkins and Dan O'Herlihy. Atkins is a cult icon among fans of '80s horror movies, and his performance here is possibly second only to Night of the Creeps in helping solidify his status among the genre devoted. He spends the early parts of the movie blowing off his kids and ex-wife before downing a six-pack of Miller High Life and seducing a lovely young woman nearly twenty-five years his junior in a seedy motel room. Between this and Night of the Creeps, Atkins was the manliest man alive for a legion of horror fans growing up in the '80s.

When it all hits the fan in the third act, though, Atkins kicks things into high gear. He makes for a decent enough hero even if the character isn't the nicest guy in the world, and you genuinely want to see him succeed in stopping Cochrane's plans. It makes for an intriguing dichotomy with the movie's villain. Dan O'Herlihy plays Conal Cochrane with a friendliness and joviality that makes him immediately likable. But once Atkins's character discovers what he's up to and the third act begins, he becomes a vicious snake of a man. O'Herlihy plays the role perfectly, with just the right amount of both disarming amiability and simmering evil. I'm used to picturing O'Herlihy in my head as the chairman of OCP in RoboCop, a character that wasn't really much more than a coldhearted businessman. But seeing him here in Halloween III, seeing him as this unabashedly villainous but still somehow likable character, is how I'd like to picture OCP's head honcho from now on.

It's been over thirty years since Halloween III was released, and in that time, more people have started warming up to it. But there are still people out there who refuse to give it a chance simply because it can't be a true Halloween movie if Michael Myers isn't in it. And that's a real shame, because Halloween III is a great flick. Any scary movie marathon you might be attending on any given October 31st would benefit from including it. I don't have a problem with the franchise bringing back Michael for Halloween 4, but I just wish we could have seen where the franchise could have gone if Halloween III had been successful.

Final Rating: ***½