RoboCop 2 (1990)

When it was released in the summer of 1987, RoboCop was warmly received by both audiences and critics. The movie still holds up nearly thirty years after its release, a testament to just how good it is. And because of its success, it's natural that Hollywood would want to capitalize on it. While the movie inspired a short-lived Saturday morning cartoon in 1988 and some comic books and video games, there was no true successor until MGM released RoboCop 2 in 1990. You'd think the movie would turn out relatively okay, since it has some talented names attached as writer and director. But I guess the original's shoes were too big to fill because this sequel didn't come anywhere near matching its success.

Things haven't exactly gotten any better since we last left Detroit. The city is dangerously close to going bankrupt thanks to the continued machinations of the unscrupulous mega-corporation OCP. A full economic collapse would allow OCP to foreclose upon the city and thus control Detroit's government, allowing them to further pursue the "Delta City" plans they'd proposed in the first movie. To help accomplish this, OCP forces the police to strike by drastically cutting their salaries and pensions. And a police strike means that the streets of Detroit have quickly descended into pure lawless anarchy.

Very few cops are still on regular duty, the most notable one being RoboCop (Peter Weller), who continues his war against crime with the assistance of his partner Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen). But the growing opinion within OCP is that RoboCop is becoming obsolete, and that a more advanced model should be patrolling the streets of Detroit. Their attempts at creating a "RoboCop 2," however, are continually met with disaster when each candidate freaks out and commits suicide upon their activation. Things quickly change when Dr. Juliette Faxx (Belinda Bauer), an amoral psychologist under OCP's employ, takes over the program and gets the idea that they'd gotten lucky with Alex Murphy's transformation into RoboCop. If turning another police officer into RoboCop 2 won't work, then maybe someone with megalomaniacal tendencies could.

And much like with Murphy's death in the first movie, an opportunity quickly presents itself. RoboCop has been investigating the source of a new designer narcotic called "Nuke," following a trail of clues to a factory owned by Cain (Tom Noonan), a drug lord with a messianic complex. His first attempt at apprehending Cain is less than fruitful, as RoboCop is quickly outnumbered, defeated, and literally torn to pieces. OCP rebuilds him, and being quite the obtrusive bureaucrat, Dr. Faxx neuters him by adding over three hundred conflicting orders to his programming, making him more family friendly and politically correct, thus rendering him completely incapable of combating Detroit's violent criminals.

But a distraught RoboCop manages to reset his programming to its original settings, allowing him to go after Cain a second time arrest him, significantly injuring him in the process. Seizing the opportunity, Dr. Faxx switches off Cain's life support and claims his body for the RoboCop 2 program. The end result is a hulking mechanical monstrosity that's more ED-209 than RoboCop, fueled by Nuke and controlled by the mind of a psychopath. So of course, "RoboCain" ends up running amok and it's up to the original RoboCop to bring him down.

RoboCop 2 is the kind of sequel that makes you think the producers had only read the Cliff's Notes of the original movie. You get the feeling that the producers were given a list of all the things people liked about the first movie and decided they would just copy them without thinking what made them so good in the first place. The whole thing is one of the purest examples of a sequel that was made to cash in on its progenitor's success without caring about the quality of their own movie. It was a cash grab, pure and simple. There wasn't any desire to continue the story or further develop the Murphy/RoboCop dichotomy, just some studio executives wanting to make a little money with a name people recognized and liked.

The movie was the final film directed by the late Irvin Kershner, who had previously found success with The Empire Strikes Back and the James Bond movie Never Say Never Again. Part of why the first movie worked was because of Paul Verhoeven's over-the-top sensibilities adding to the movie's dark sense of humor, but because he was off making Total Recall at the time, he was unable to direct RoboCop 2 and as such it lacks the sarcastic tone he brought to the first movie. Kershner creates some fine moments here, but it's tonally inconsistent. The movie tries doing a hundred different things at once in an attempt to replicate the original's formula for success, with Kershner being stuck trying to put it all together into something that makes sense. But the end result is a movie that's all over the place. It veers wildly from clichéd early-‘90s action movie to dumb comedy, stopping once in a while to throw in a brief amount of poorly-handled moody existentialism and the occasional dig at politics. Kershner could only do so much with what he was given, though I will say that he at least tried his hardest. Sometimes, you have to take what you can get.

Even the special effects have their ups and downs. The sequel follows in the original's footsteps by using stop-motion miniatures to represent Cain's new robotic body, but something about it feels off. The stop-motion effects never really blend in with the rest of the scenes they appear in. They never feel like they really co-exist with the actors, a situation that ranges from mildly bothersome to painfully obvious to the point of being distracting depending on what scenes you're watching. Could times have changed so much in the three years between RoboCop and RoboCop 2 that the special effects could look outdated? How do you take such a step backwards in such a short amount of time? Was it a budget problem? Was it some kind of hiccup in the creative process?

The movie also suffers from a lackluster script as well. Comic book legend Frank Miller had originally been hired to write the movie following the success of his now-classic Batman tale The Dark Knight Returns, but his script quickly went through numerous rewrites after studio executives decided they weren't happy with it. The final result, credited to Miller and Walon Green, ends up being a jumbled mess of undercooked ideas and half-hearted attempts at catching lighting in a bottle a second time.

For starters, the script introduces some interesting subplots only to resolve them almost immediately without developing them like they could have been. One sees RoboCop apparently return to his existential "man vs. machine" crisis from the early parts of the first movie, practically stalking Alex Murphy's widow and son, longing to reconnect with them. The subplot is admittedly an intriguing one, one that I was actually happy to see revisited in the new RoboCop remake, but I've got some problems with it. Part of it seems like RoboCop is back to the way he was when he was first introduced in the first movie, using a monotone voice and a more stiff demeanor. By the end of Verhoeven's originalm RoboCop had reclaimed his humanity and his "Alex Murphy" identity had come shining through his programming, so why this step backwards? And why bring up the whole "RoboCop stalks the Murphys" thing at all if you were going to wrap it up as quickly as possible and not do anything worthwhile with it?

The same goes for the other subplot where Dr. Faxx reprograms RoboCop with all those nonsensical directives. The idea doesn't go anywhere or contribute anything to the movie (to the point that I could have easily left it out of the earlier plot synopsis and not missed it at all), and it is resolved so quickly I wondered why they even brought it up at all. RoboCop being turned into an ultra-PC goody-two-shoes by focus groups and meddling corporate executives could have made for a fantastic satire of Hollywood action movies if there had been stronger writing.

And while I'm here, I might as well talk about what some consider the movie's most controversial aspect, its depiction of children. Every child you see in this movie is just as evil as the adult criminals you see. Had it been constrained to just the one scene where the Little League team robs an electronics store, it could have been passed off as a joke and would have been actually pretty funny. But instead we also have the character Hob, who serves as Cain's second-in-command. He's trigger-happy, swears like a sailor, is as vicious as a rabid pit bull, and is also twelve years old. The fact that they had a child play this ruthless would-be drug kingpin is amazing enough, but add on top of it the movie's expectation that we're supposed to feel sympathy for this pint-sized monster when he gets his final comeuppance just because he's a kid is ludicrous. He spends the whole movie trying to kill RoboCop and Lewis, and is a general all-around asshole with no redeeming qualities that I could find, and we're supposed to feel sorry for him at the end? Yeah, no, RoboCop 2. Not gonna happen. You don't want me to pity the adult villains, so why should I pity the child villains?

Even the movie's acting is a bit of a step down from the original movie. I will confess to enjoying Willard E. Pugh's goofy performance as the beleaguered mayor of Detroit, and I thought Peter Weller once again did a fine job as RoboCop. Weller is actually pretty funny in the scenes following RoboCop's psychological neutering, but I wish he'd been given more moments where he's allowed to show that Alex Murphy still exists within that cybernetic body. There's a scene early in the movie where he realizes just how much pain he's causing his widow upon being confronted by her, and gives up on trying to reconnect with his family. While the whole subplot could have been done better, Weller plays it with a level of subtle pathos that shows that there's a human being in that suit. I wanted to see where Weller could go with that because I thought he was fantastic in these moments, but alas, it wasn't to be.

The rest of the cast is inconsistent, though. Many of them are just plain dull, to tell you the truth. RoboCop 2's villains are nowhere near as charismatic or intimidating as the originals, with Tom Noonan especially seeming disinterested in the whole thing. I also can't say I was particularly a fan of Gabriel Damon, who I felt was more annoying than anything else (though much of it has to do with his lousy character). Belinda Bauer is the worst offender though, the only member of the cast that I thought was outright awful. Damon's character might have been annoying, but at least he was watchable. Bauer, on the other hand, is absolutely dreadful in every scene she's in. After a while, I just started fast-forwarding every time she's on the screen just because I couldn't bear to watch her anymore.

RoboCop 2 was a movie I remember thinking was really cool back when I was a kid. But watching it now for the first time in several years, I can't help but notice just how flawed it is. There are moments I will say I liked, but the whole thing feels like someone singing a really bad cover song. The music might be there, but it sounds off-key. It misses everything that made the original RoboCop great, only trying to follow it on the most superficial of levels. Even when you don't compare it to the first movie, RoboCop 2 is still only mediocre at best. But as big a letdown as this one might be, there are far worse RoboCop movies out there...

Final Rating: **

RoboCop (1987)

When I was a kid, I loved going in the local mom-and-pop video store. You'd find me in there at some point every Friday or Saturday night, and most of the time I'd be either in the horror section or going through whatever old-school pro wrestling videos they had in stock at the time. But because those two collections were in the back of the store, it gave me plenty of opportunities to see what else was available as I passed by them. And this allowed a number of movies to catch my eye, movies that I would fall in love with over the course of numerous repeat viewings.

One of those movies was the action/sci-fi classic RoboCop. The cover of the VHS tape and the movie's tagline ― "Part Man, Part Machine, All Cop: The Future of Law Enforcement" ― were themselves enough to sell me on it, and between the video store's copy, airings of the movie on television, and my own copy of the movie that I got on one particular birthday, I must have seen the movie dozens of times during my adolescent years. RoboCop is one of those movies that very much deserves its accolades and popularity, as it still holds up as a damn good movie even over two and a half decades since its first release. So allow me, if I may, to look back on RoboCop and explain just why I enjoy it so much.

Welcome to Detroit in the near future. The city is falling apart thanks to the double-whammy of financial woes and rampant, unchecked crime. Desperate to combat this, the local government sells the Detroit Police Department to the mega-corporation Omni Consumer Products, who plan to demolish the slums of "Old Detroit" and redevelop the area into a swanky utopia known as Delta City.

With the number of police officers killed in the line of duty escalating every day, OCP begins experimenting with robotic law enforcement. OCP senior president Dick Jones (Ronny Cox) suggests utilizing ED-209, a cumbersome tank-like droid originally prepped for military use. Jones, however, quickly finds himself embarrassed and his project ruined after ED-209 malfunctions during its initial demonstration and kills a board member. Ambitious executive Bob Morton (Miguel Ferrer) immediately seizes the opportunity and suggests his new "RoboCop" program, which would implant the brain of a recently deceased police officer into a robotic body. All it needs is a test subject.

One quickly presents itself in the form of Alex Murphy (Peter Weller), who we meet as he's transferring to a new precinct in the heart of Old Detroit. But what he and his new partner Anne Lewis (Nancy Allen) initially believe will be a boring patrol takes a turn for the worst when they get involved in a car chase with notorious crime lord Clarence Boddicker (Kurtwood Smith). The chase leads them to an abandoned steel mill, where Murphy is brutally executed by Boddicker and his gang.

OCP claims what's left of Murphy's body and harvests bits and pieces for the RoboCop program, transforming the slain policeman into an amalgam of man and machine. RoboCop makes an immediate impact against violent crime and becomes a huge media sensation. But while Murphy's memory was believed to be erased during RoboCop's creation, elements of his life and death haunt him. He dreams of happy moments with his wife and son, has terrible nightmares about his death. As his humanity begins reasserting itself, RoboCop's existential crisis sends him on a mission to bring Alex Murphy's murderers to justice, a quest that through many twists and turns will lead him not only to Boddicker, but to OCP's board of directors as well.

RoboCop is one of those rare genre movies that succeeds on so many levels that nearly everyone who sees it can come away having enjoyed something about it. Do you want an exciting action movie chock full of violence? You've got it. How about a thought-provoking science-fiction movie? That's there too. Are you looking for a dark comedy satirizing Reagan-era America? Then you're in luck! RoboCop is all of those things in one lean, mean package. And that's part of the big reason the movie has managed to withstand the test of time. It's such a fantastically-made movie from practically every aspect that no matter how many times you watch it over any length of time, it never gets old. I've seen RoboCop dozens of times since the early part of the 1990s, and it feels brand new every time. That's how great it is.

The movie was directed by Paul Verhoeven, a filmmaker who knows no bounds when it comes to excess. He is the man who brought us Showgirls, after all. Subtlety and nuance aren't exactly his strong suits, and honestly, with RoboCop, he seems less interested in developing Murphy as a character before and after his transformation into RoboCop, and more interested in delivering fast-paced action and graphic violence. That's exactly what you get from Verhoeven here, but that's not a bad thing because it actually helps to make the movie pretty awesome. The movie's action sequences are exciting and intense, some of the best I've seen in any action flick past or present, thanks in part to the cinematography from frequent Verhoeven collaborator Jost Vocano and the absolutely amazing music composed by the late, great Basil Poledouris.

And in watching the movie, I'm amazed at just how well all the practical effects are. I've never been completely opposed to CGI use, but loving movies like I do, I'm a big proponent of practical effects and RoboCop is one reason why. They just make things seem more realistic, especially in the case of the stop-motion animation used for the ED-209 sequences. These moments are a lot more effective because ED-209 is an actual existing prop, as opposed to something some random person inserted into the movie with their computer weeks or even months after the scene was filmed.

I can also say the same for the movie's bloodshed. The movie is absolutely swimming in gore, especially if you're watching the extended edition rather than the theatrical cut. The MPAA gave RoboCop an X rating eleven times before finally giving it an R, and for good reason. It's respectable, though, because Verhoeven and the effects team working on the movie used practical effects when building the violence. Nowadays, filmmakers and studios would probably insist upon using CGI to do it all, not trusting makeup creators and stunt coordinators with making things look authentic.

And yes, the movie is perhaps excessively violent (like I said, Verhoeven is the kind of filmmaker who has no problem taking things too far), but it's also so consistently over the top that it veers into the realm of black comedy. Take the scene where ED-209 opens fire on the OCP executive, for example. The fact that the poor guy is basically being shot at with cannons and heavy machine guns is one thing (and the fact that it was actually loaded with live ammunition for some ungodly reason is another), but the fact that ED-209 just keeps shooting long after he's dead and reduced to a puddle of red goo is so ludicrous that it's hard to take it and scenes like it seriously. The only scene where it actually feels serious is when Boddicker's gang executes Murphy. The scene is the hardest to watch because it isn't played for the sake of laughs or entertainment. There's a certain emotional weight lifted by the outrageousness of it all and the knowledge that the bad guys all have it coming to them, but this scene doesn't have any of that. That absence just makes Murphy's death feel that much more brutal. It's, in my eyes, the one scene that lingers the most because it hits the hardest.

But if you've seen and enjoyed the movie, you know it has more going for it than just Verhoeven's ultraviolent style. There's also the intelligent script written by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner. Drawing inspiration from British comic book 2000 AD's authoritarian supercop Judge Dredd for their main character, Neumeier and Miner use the opportunity to create a movie lampooning much of American society during the 1980s. While not everything has aged well, with references to Lee Iacocca and the Cold War particularly standing out, much of it is still relevant in some form or fashion today. The city of Detroit is being strangled to death by both its high crime rates and financial instability, mega-corporations have way too much financial and political influence within the government, television numbs us with crappy shows and incessant advertising for terrible products, and ratings-driven news programs only cover the important topics for a few seconds at a time while spending what seems like forever talking about unimportant claptrap. It's weird watching a movie made about things relevant in 1987 and realizing that it could still apply now.

It also helps that RoboCop has some truly awesome characters. While much of what makes them so great is the collaboration of Verhoeven and the actors, the movie's characters are as much a memorable part of the movie as anything else. Action movies from the '80s always needed good villains as much as they needed good heroes, and RoboCop has them in spades. They're some of the absolute meanest snakes I've seen, an utterly despicable group of bad guys that makes it all the more satisfying when RoboCop takes them out.

There is a slight negative to this, though. The problem I had is that I didn't feel we spent enough time getting to really know Alex Murphy before he became RoboCop. We do see RoboCop struggle with Murphy's memories at times, the machine struggling to accept that it was once a man and vice versa. But I thought these scenes would have been much more effective had Murphy not been killed off so soon into the movie. Maybe we could have had a scene or two with his family or something to establish what kind of guy Murphy is? Knowing what kind of filmmaker Verhoeven is, I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to hurry up and get to all the action and violence and RoboCop stuff, but come on now.

But two and a half decades later, it's a little late to change that now. The character, just like the rest, still works, and the great acting helps as well. Peter Weller was at the time best known as the star of another '80s cult classic, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, but it's RoboCop that people recognize him for now. And honestly, the character might not have been a dream role for him. Weller was stuck in a heavy, uncomfortable, and unbearably hot costume for hours at a time, so I'm sure that would hamper his performance to a degree. But Weller still does as fine a job as he can, playing RoboCop as cold and robotic yet with traces of his past humanity shining through. He counters this during his scenes as the still-human Murphy by playing him with a warmth and slyness. I noted earlier I would have enjoyed more scenes with Murphy before he became RoboCop, and with Weller in the role, those scenes could have been great.

I also thought Nancy Allen did a fine job as Murphy's partner Anne Lewis, but she doesn't really get a whole lot to do during the movie. Where the really enjoyable acting comes from are the movie's bad guys. While he isn't actually playing a villain per se, Miguel Ferrer is a lot of fun in his role. The character of Bob Morton is cocky, brash, ambitious, and a total sleazeball, and Ferrer plays it perfectly. He might not be playing a very likable guy, but Ferrer's great performance makes Morton a douchebag worth watching.

Getting to the movie's true bad guys, Ronny Cox provides some quality acting as the vicious Dick Jones. He takes the idea of a corrupt corporate executive and cranks the "corrupt" part up to eleven, playing Jones as utterly heartless and self-serving. He doesn't care if his products have flaws that could be fatal as long as clients buy them, and he has no problem intimidating people or having them killed outright if they make him look bad or disrespect him. It's this maliciousness that Cox brings to the part that makes it work.

While Cox is good, though, I'd be willing to say that he's outshined by Kurtwood Smith. Smith's appearance here is one of his two most famous roles, the other being Red Forman from That '70s Show, and for good reason. He turns Clarence Boddicker into one of the coolest movie villains I've ever seen, playing him with an air of ruthlessness and unpredictability, and a cold, calculating demeanor that makes you want RoboCop to get his hands on him as soon as possible. And Smith does it with a flair that makes it seem like Boddicker's having the time of his life in every scene (except for the ones where things don't go his way, anyway), which makes him so fascinating and downright entertaining to watch.

And if RoboCop is anything at all, it's certainly entertaining. That's probably the biggest reason it's held up so well for so many years. The violence is too much for some, I understand, but lovers of sci-fi and action movies continue to sing RoboCop's praises to this day because it's quite simply one of the most fun entries in either of those genres. Some critics initially dismissed the movie when it was released in 1987 based on the title and concept alone, since it's most assuredly the kind of thing you'd expect out of some wacky B-movie. But it's more than just that, and at the end of the day, RoboCop is a movie that certainly should be seen if you haven't had the chance yet. Sequels and remake be damned, RoboCop has earned its status as a classic and I'll proudly recommend it to anyone.

Final Rating: ****

American Mary (2012)

While I'd figure that a sizable percentage of the movies I've seen and reviewed for this blog over the last decade or so are big-budget Hollywood productions that have gotten huge advertising campaigns, there are more than a few I'd only heard of through word of mouth. Whether it be via a post on some online message board or a review on a random website (or honestly, even as an appearance on Mystery Science Theater 3000), I've seen my share of movies I probably would have never heard of had someone not told me about them.

Such was the case with the movie American Mary. I'd heard about it late last summer shortly after it was released on DVD, and while it sounded intriguing, I was hesitant to watch it because I was honestly creeped out by its concept. But I remained curious about it, wondering if I was actually doing myself a disservice by avoiding it. So I've finally given in to my curiosity and sat down to watch it, and I'm here to tell you that in spite of some glaring flaws, American Mary is a hell of a movie.

The "Mary" of the title refers to Mary Mason (Katherine Isabelle), a med student who longs to one day become a surgeon. Buried to her neck in bills and desperate to dig herself out of this massive debt, Mary applies for a job at a strip club. The club's owner, Billy Barker (Antonio Cupo), gets a bit of a laugh out of Mary bringing a résumé to her interview, but is soon happy she did. Taking notice of her education, Billy offers Mary five thousand dollars cash if she'll perform emergency surgery on a badly injured friend. She accepts, but returns home emotionally rattled by the experience.

Mary is contacted the next day by Beatress Johnson (Tristan Risk), a dancer at the club Mary had visited the night before. Having undergone numerous procedures to make herself resemble Betty Boop, Beatress offers Mary a hefty sum of money to perform some cosmetic surgery on a friend who wishes to look like a real-life Barbie doll by having her nipples removed and genitals altered. Mary accepts the job despite her initial ethical objections to it, because the paycheck too good to refuse.

Requests from others within the body modification community come rolling in once word gets out about the success she had with Beatress's friend, but Mary would prefer to stay on the up-and-up in the world of surgical practice. But when she's drugged and sexually assaulted by one Dr. Alan Grant (David Lovgren), her trusted mentor, Mary has a change of heart. She drops out of med school and starts performing these radical surgeries full time. While she finds a modicum of fame and success with her new line of work, the bizarre nature of it, along with the brand of horrific retribution she decides to exact on Dr. Grant, begin to take their toll on her sanity as she becomes a very dangerous person to deal with.

American Mary is a weird movie, no doubt about it. Granted, it may be less weird if the whole extreme body modification thing is what you're into, but that doesn't make the movie any less unique. I won't lie and call it a perfect movie, since there are a couple of flaws that hold it back from being great, but it's still an oddly compelling movie that I couldn't turn away from.

The movie was written and directed by twin sisters Jen and Sylvia Soska, who had made something of a splash on the independent movie scene in 2009 with their debut effort, the ludicrously-named exploitation flick Dead Hooker in a Trunk (which is probably the most straightforward title for a movie I've heard since Hobo with a Shotgun). But alas, I have yet to see Dead Hooker in a Trunk, so I can't say how much the Soskas have developed as filmmakers since then. I can say, however, that their work with this movie is really good.

As far as their direction goes, the Soskas prove themselves to be very smart, capable filmmakers. They obviously knew exactly what they wanted to do with the movie and how they wanted to accomplish it. The movie boasts some fantastic cinematography, adding a certain modicum of artistic beauty to the on-screen oddities. I also thought the Soskas had the pacing down pat too, never rushing into things yet crafting scenes in a way that always keeps the audience intrigued and curious about what might happen next.

I can't say I was as enthusiastic about their script, though. It comes across like a series of loosely connected vignettes instead of a linear narrative, with only a handful of things tying each scene to the next. I also thought the subplot with the curious detective prodding Mary about Dr. Grant's disappearance never really went anywhere. It feels like it belongs in a completely different movie, since I never thought it ever really carried the same weight as anything else in the movie.

The movie's ending also comes completely out of nowhere, but the third act is so disjointed that I shouldn't be surprised. The first two-thirds of the movie are really good, but the third act comes apart at the seams to the point that the movie just kinda stops instead of actually ending. There's no real climax, no denouement or sense of closure. It just struck me as something the Soskas might have slapped together at the last minute after painting themselves into a corner.

But not only do the Soskas make up for it with their great direction, but the majority of the cast does their part as well. Among the supporting players, Antonio Cupo is sadly inconsistent in his role. The character is written as a sleazeball with a nice guy demeanor buried deep down, but Cupo only makes this evident part of the time. He's stiff for much of the movie, and he doesn't have much in the way of chemistry with our lead actress. There are times when Cupo isn't bad, but for much of the movie, he's just taking up space. However, I immensely enjoyed Tristan Risk in her role as the bubbly Betty Boop wannabe. She's very likable and sweet, with a voice that seems stolen from Ellen Green from Little Shop of Horrors. She's a little unsettling at times too, but then I'm sure that was the point.

But the real reason to see American Mary is its leading lady, Katherine Isabelle. I've been a fan of Isabelle ever since I first saw Ginger Snaps, and she doesn't disappoint here. She plays Mary as increasingly cold, almost sociopathic at times, You get the sense that she's got so much bottled up, like she's hiding something deep inside that she doesn't want anyone, even herself, so see or even acknowledge. Isabelle is frightening here, knowing exactly which buttons to push to be as scary as possible. I'm honestly surprised Isabelle isn't a bigger name than she is, because she has a ton of talent that should really be seen by more people.

Despite it stumbling near the end, American Mary is still a damn fine flick. The fact that it's so unlike the majority of the horror movies I usually watch makes it worth watching. Its uniqueness and off-kilter nature help to lessen the impact of the movie's less-than-stellar conclusion, and had the movie not existed outside the mainstream, it probably would have been ruined by overzealous studio executives and focus groups. But being made and released independently allows its originality to shine. And if American Mary is any indication, Jen and Sylvia Soska have a bright future ahead of them. I can't wait to see what they bring us next.

Final Rating: ***

Devil's Due (2014)

The month of January has long been stigmatized as Hollywood's dumping ground. Low-budget genre movies and stuff that the studios think may underperform or just plain stink are often released not long after New Year's just so they can possibly make a little money from audiences that are worn out by the holidays and are looking for a little relief from miserable winter weather. This year's movie dump began a few weeks ago with Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones and continues onward with another "found footage" movie, Devil's Due. I've never had a problem with found footage horror movies, but much like zombie movies, every one I see nowadays is just dime-a-dozen claptrap. Such was the case with Devil's Due, a movie that despite a few good moments never really reaches above mediocrity.

The movie focuses on Zach (Zach Gilford) and Samantha McCall (Allison Miller), a young couple who've just recently gotten married. While honeymooning in the Dominican Republic, Zach and Samantha are picked up by an aggressively friendly cab driver who offers to take them to the hottest nightclub in town. They agree to go once they realize the driver won't take no for an answer, and end up partying all night with other tourists. Things take a dark turn, though, when a passed-out Samantha is secretly taken to what appears to be the nightclub's basement and has a satanic ritual performed on her.

Zach and Samantha awaken in their hotel room the next morning with terrible hangovers and no idea how they got back to the hotel, and since actually watching what was filmed rarely occurs to anyone in found footage movies, they casually return home. Seven weeks later, Samantha discovers she's pregnant despite having taken birth control pills on a regular basis. They're shocked but overjoyed, but the joy gives way to fear as the months pass when they realize all is not right with their unborn baby. It starts with Samantha having random nosebleeds and cravings for raw meat despite being a vegetarian. And then there's her fits of rage, yelling at Zach over minor inconveniences and shattering car windows with her bare hands. Coupling this with the strange people watching their house at all hours of the day and night and the strange happenings at the abandoned house down the street, it soon becomes apparent that their baby is anything but normal.

My expectations going into Devil's Due were honestly pretty low. I'd heard it had gotten overwhelmingly lousy reviews and the commercials didn't exactly sell me on the movie either, plus I was still in kind of a funk after being disappointed by the new Paranormal Activity movie a few weeks ago. But I was feeling brave and decided to see it anyway. I left the theater feeling conflicted. I honestly didn't hate the movie, having actually enjoyed several parts of it. But it was just parts that I liked, not the complete package. There were just as many elements that dragged it down as there were ones that I liked, which ends up making me wish I'd just stayed home and rented the DVD from Netflix in a few months and saved myself the effort of having to drive to the theater.

The movie was directed by Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gilbert from the filmmaking quartet known as "Radio Silence." The duo have plenty of experience with found footage, having worked with the other members of Radio Silence on the fantastic "10/31/98" segment of V/H/S along with a number of shorts featured on YouTube. There were some real flashes of brilliance here, with some scenes that are genuinely spooky and others that are very tense and suspenseful. The only bad part is that a lot of the movie feels like padding. One really gets the feeling that the movie was a short film that had gotten stretched out to feature length. Some of that is due to the lackluster script (which I'll get to later), but there's so much boring filler between the good stuff that it makes the rest of the movie look bad.

Bettinelli-Olpin and Gilbert also take some real liberties with the "found footage" concept. The reasoning behind the constant camera use is flimsy enough, but Bettinelli-Olpin and Gilbert cheat by utilizing store security cameras, along with footage from spy cameras installed in the McCall house by the evil cult behind all the supernatural shenanigans. Hell, the whole found footage gimmick in general just feels unnecessary here. The movie could have worked just as easily as a traditional movie. Upon reflect, that's probably why they went with security cameras and hidden cameras, to do regular movie stuff and found footage at the same time. And to me, that just feels kinda cheap.

But the directors could only improve upon the lousy script so much. Penned by Lindsay Devlin, the script for Devil's Due is almost unforgivably weak. It meanders on at a snail's pace, never really going anywhere and only occasionally doing anything worthwhile. By the time the climax arrives, it's like Devlin realized how much time has been wasted and just rushes into it.

It can't be stressed enough just how lousy this movie's pacing is. Both the directors and the writer have structured the movie in such an odd way that it's hard for it to get in a real groove. Scenes go on way too long and wear out their welcome, while other scenes that could have improved the movie in establishing a creepy, frightening vibe by appearing earlier don't show up until we're almost to the end. The most effective scenes are so late in the movie that by the time they arrive, less-enthusiastic audience members might have given up on the whole thing.

There are two consistently good elements to this movie, though, in the form of its two primary actors. Zach Gilford and Allison Miller are the absolute best parts of Devil's Due. Both of them are charming and likable, with a believable chemistry together and never wavering when there characters show some of the flaws the characters in other found footage movies have. I especially liked Miller, who added a sympathetic feeling to her character that she needed. You honestly find yourself feeling awful for her with each scene thanks to the earnestness she brings to the role.

I wish I could say that about the whole of Devil's Due, but I can't. Some movies can overcome a few flaws by playing to its own strengths, but this movie never does that. It's one of those mixed bags that never really gels into a decent whole. I'm actually surprised it got a theatrical release from a major Hollywood studio, because it feels like it could have gone straight to video. I noted in the introduction that found footage movies are becoming a dime a dozen, and Devil's Due unfortunately lends credence to that theory. The movie's worth a rental if you're trying to slap together a horror movie marathon at the last minute, but really, the devil could have delivered something better.

Final Rating: **

Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones (2014)

For the longest time, it seemed like The Blair Witch Project was the standard bearer for the "found footage" style of filmmaking. Even when the style really took off a few years ago in the wake of movies like Cloverfield, it was that cheap little indie flick that a lot of people thought of whenever the topic of found footage movies came up.

That is until 2009, when Paramount Pictures picked up and released Paranormal Activity to theaters nationwide after a successful run touring the film festival circuit. The movie was a huge hit, spawned sequel after sequel in rapid succession, and arguably helped to kill the Saw franchise. But after four consecutive Halloween weekends saw a release of a new entry in the franchise in some form or fashion, the year 2013 passed without one. However, now that 2014 has arrived, a new Paranormal Activity movie has also arrived with it in the form of what's being called a spinoff to the franchise. After the disappointment that was the fourth movie, I went into Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones expecting the worst but hoping for the best. And while it was far from the best chapter in the series, it still had its moments.

The movie quickly introduces us to Jesse (Andrew Jacobs), a recent high school graduate with his whole life ahead of him. But with no real immediate direction to travel in, he's content to spend all day goofing off with his best friend Hector (Jorge Diaz), pulling pranks on one another and capturing it and their day-to-day lives with Hector's ever-present camcorder. But things go from fun to frightening when their camera accidentally captures an old lady in a neighboring apartment in the midst of a ritual conjuring some serious black magic.

When word comes a few days later that the old lady has been murdered, a curious Jesse and Hector sneak into her apartment and find evidence that lends credence to their belief that their recently deceased neighbor was a witch. Jesse awakens the next morning with a bloody bite mark on his forearm, but the horror is tempered when he discovers that he's developed what appear to be superpowers. He tosses bullies across a parking lot with his bare hands, throws himself backwards to find himself levitating just above the ground, and defies gravity by jumping a skateboard over a standing Hector's head.

This comes with a price, however. Jesse quickly becomes distant and quick to anger, refusing to speak to Hector and attacking another boy for simply having a polite conversation with a mutual acquaintance. A deeper investigation soon makes it apparent that Jesse has been cursed, and that he'll get far worse before he gets better.

I had been led to believe that this would be the movie that would redefine and reshape the Paranormal Activity franchise. The handful of reviews I'd read implied that The Marked Ones would blow the socks off the fans who'd stood by the series. But it turns out I'd basically read a whole bunch of overblown hyperbole. I won't say the movie is actively bad, but it's just kinda there. It has its ups and downs like most movies, yet it doesn't really do much to make itself better than any of the other Paranormal Activity movies. Outside of a handful of references to the earlier movies and the crazy ending, it honestly could have been just another random mediocre found footage movie that would have otherwise flown under the radar.

The movie was written and directed by Christopher Landon, who is no stranger to the franchise, having written all of the other sequels beginning with Paranormal Activity 2. But for someone so heavily involved with the evolution of this series, The Marked Ones comes across like he was just throwing things at the wall to see what would stick. It was as if he was unsure of what he wanted to do with the movie. I understand that Landon might want to shake things up after the disappointment that was the fourth movie, but he takes it in a really weird direction. Landon moves away from the "haunted house" vibe of the first four movies and instead gives us what would happen if you combined Chronicle with demonic possession. The whole "being cursed gives Jesse superpowers" thing is interesting, I'll give it that, but Landon handles it awkwardly. It feels clunky and forced, and doesn't add a whole lot to the movie other than to imply that something weird is happening to Jesse. And honestly, that's something that could have been done so much better.

And in moving away from the "haunted house" format, Landon also moves away from the franchise's typical formula by eschewing slow-burning fear for cheap jump scare after cheap jump scare. There's not really any suspense, no feeling of dread brought on by a lurking, invisible menace. It's just stuff leaping into frame and yelling "boo!" over and over and over until it becomes monotonous. These moments have their place in horror movies and I'm not opposed to them, but if that's all there is, they lose their punch after a while. Some of the scares in The Marked Ones are good, but the spooky feeling from the other movies is barely here at all.

And while I'll applaud Landon's efforts to deepen the franchise's mythology, it's really just a mess. This is the first entry in the franchise in which Katie or her nephew Hunter aren't the focus of the movie in some form or fashion, which paves the way for Landon to investigate the whole evil cult thing that's been building from the other sequels. At least, that's what you'd think. Even when they have characters come in solely to dump a whole bunch of exposition on us, we never really feel like much is learned. For every question from the earlier movies that it might answer, it just raises twenty more. It's like Landon wanted to straighten some things out while still leaving the movie's mythology confusing enough that it would draw people into the next Paranormal Activity sequel to see if that one would make any sense.

At least the movie's cast is relatively strong. While much of the supporting cast isn't all that really memorable, they all play their parts as well as they can. The movie belongs to Andrew Jacobs and Jorge Diaz, though. Diaz is funny in his role as the protagonist's sidekick and comic relief, while Jacobs is likable, charismatic, and sympathetic all at once. Despite how crazy and borderline silly the movie gets at times, Jacobs remains relatively consistent. He's good enough that you can't help but worry for Jesse and his friends during all the awful stuff that plagues them. He also proves to be pretty scary too, his increasingly cold demeanor becoming more and more off-putting as the movie goes on. It's a good performance that really makes the movie a little bit better.

Unfortunately, the movie as a whole is still kinda mediocre. There are some parts of the movie that are genuinely fun and some really good scares to be found. It's a definite step up from the fourth movie, at the very least. But The Marked Ones is still honestly one of the weaker entries in the Paranormal Activity saga. The elements that work in the movie's favor are bogged down by the amount of stuff that just plain doesn't work. It's a movie that could have turned the whole franchise on its ear, but ultimately stumbled over its own feet. The next Paranormal Activity movie is apparently still in the works and looks to be released at the end of October. Assuming that holds true, we've got a ten-month wait to see just where the story will go from here. I'm actually genuinely curious to see it, just to see if any lessons have been learned from two "meh" sequels in a row. But then we'll see this Halloween, won't we?

Final Rating: **½