DIRECTED BY
Samuel Bayer

STARRING
Jackie Earle Haley - Freddy Krueger
Rooney Mara - Nancy Holbrook
Kyle Gallner - Quentin O'Grady
Katie Cassidy - Kris Fowles
Thomas Dekker - Jesse Braun
Kellan Lutz - Dean Russell
Clancy Brown - Alan Smith
Connie Britton - Gwen Holbrook

Genre - Horror/Slasher

Running Time - 95 Minutes

Score - 1 Howl Outta 4


In 1984, Wes Craven unleashed his horror masterpiece to an unsuspecting audience: A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. The idea of a killer murdering you in your dreams was an original, and downright frightening, idea that gave many people nightmares once the film was over. It created a horror icon in Freddy Krueger, played perfectly with malicious glee by Robert Englund, and since has brought us 6 sequels [7 if you consider 2003's FREDDY VS. JASON as part of the NIGHTMARE timeline] that had varied levels of success both creatively and commercially.

With the mega-success of FREDDY VS. JASON, I was hoping it would steer away ideas of a future remake for the franchise, as that film revigorized the character and had potential to bring in other horror icons into the mix for some entertaining times. Unfortunately, that was not to be. Sequel discussions for FvJ went down by the wayside. And the fact that other major horror franchises were being "rebooted" such as THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, HALLOWEEN, and FRIDAY THE 13TH, it was inevitable that A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET would get its own makeover.

Now I don't hate remakes. In fact, I feel many horror films could use updates because the ideas could be improved upon or they're just outdated and could use a modern touch. However, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET was one of those films that didn't need a remake. It's still as fantastic as it was 26 years ago and doesn't need improvement. But it was announced and nothing could be done about it. Jackie Earle Haley of LITTLE CHILDREN and WATCHMEN was playing Krueger, plus a good cast of young actors gave me hope that the film could be a bit decent. But then I forgot that Michael Bay and Platinum Dunes, producers of some of the worst remakes in history, was behind this, dashing those hopes.

But I saw A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2010 with an open mind, hoping it would be as close to the original sequels as possible. Unfortunately, the film is a massive disappointment on many levels.

PLOT
Every horror fan knows the plot to this film. Several teenagers from Springwood, Ohio are having nightmares of the same burnt man with a single glove that's highlighted with razor sharp knives. It turns out this man is Fred Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley), a former groundskeeper at a pre-school who supposedly molested and possibly murdered some of the students. The parents of these children lynched Freddy by burning him, supposedly ending the terror. But now Freddy has gained supernatural abilities that allow him to step inside the dream world, attacking his former students (who are now High Schoolers) for telling on him. And if he kills you in your dreams, you die for real. Can Freddy be stopped or will the nightmares continue?

REVIEW

I wasn't expecting much out of this remake. And my expectations were pretty much met. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2010 is an extremely disappointing revision of a classic film that's still highly regarded for being creative, memorable, and downright chilling. None of those adjectives work for the remake, as it's uninspired, forgettable, and overall lazy as hell. What went so wrong with this film?

Let's start with the main culprit: the screenplay. Now let me get the positives out of the way. I liked the idea of the "micro-nap". This is a legit phenomenon, as we micro-nap whenever we feel drowsy or daydream [or zone out]. It's never been addressed in the other films, so I thought it was clever to see how powerful sleep is. There's no way to escape dreaming even if you stay up for days on end. The exhaustion will take over no matter what, making one vulnerable to Freddy's attack. It definitely helped pick up the last half of the film, especially in the supermarket scene, which I actually liked. I do wish the idea of "what's real and what's not" when it came to this sub-plot was explored deeper. It was easy to tell when it was real and when it was a dream. I think it should have blurred the lines a bit more to really make it an effective narrative tool.

I also appreciate that there was an attempt to revise the Freddy origin. The question of whether he was innocent of pedophilia was an interesting one. Am I a fan of this direction? No, as I feel Freddy would have revelled in raping and murdering children. After all, he was the son of a 100 maniacs. He has every right to be an evil bastard. But I was okay with the fact that maybe he was burned for all the wrong reasons - if the screenwriters had actually let that simmer until the very end. Instead, it's brought up and then revealed right away that he was guilty as sin. What's the point in even bringing it up then if you're just gonna give it away so quickly? Again, it was an appealing attempt but it wasn't executed well enough to have any sort of impact.

As for the rest of the story itself, it's pretty much "been there-done that". It's so generic that I felt better off just watching the original. In fact, it's the same exact shit! I thought the point of a remake is to not only stay true to the source material, but actually change things up enough so the old story feels new again? This remake doesn't really do that. In fact, when I see the same scenes taken from the original and they're done WORSE than in 1984, a part of me dies inside.

But yeah, the script was very pedestrian. No character development for much of anyone in this film. People get killed and do the other characters really react to it? No, they're more concerned about themselves and how Freddy will kill them. For a group of friends, they seemed really disconnected from each other. And they were all interchangable. Yeah, some were more of a douchebag than others, but they were all pretty much stereotypes. I expect that in a FRIDAY THE 13TH movie, not in a NIGHTMARE film. Freddy Krueger obviously was the most developed (with Quentin and Nancy right behind him), but even he could have used more fleshing out. The dialogue was bland and awkward at times, as everyone sounded the same for the most part. The scene where Nancy and Quentin confront Nancy's mother was just bizarre. It felt so forced and the information given SHOULD have been effective. But it just made me roll my eyes and laugh. What a waste. I mean, you had EIGHT films to work from and we're given this? I honestly didn't give a fuck about anyone in this film and I was rooting for Freddy the whole time. That doesn't make me sadistic. That makes me smart enough to know that the screenplay sucked.

Then we have the CGI. Wow, this CGI looked really cheap. The scene where Freddy invades through the wall as he attempts to scare Nancy looks terrible in comparison to the scene in the original. It was like a cartoon! And the Tina death scene that's recreated for one of the characters is also lame in comparison. In the original, it was dragged out and looked really brutal and realistic, making it highly effective. Here, the death plays out and then the character is pretty much bouncing off walls like it's a pinball machine and gets slashed. The end. Ugh. I will say some of the transitions between reality and the dream were nicely done, especially in the supermarket scene and the scene at the jailhouse. And I enjoyed seeing the body bag scene again. I just felt that the effects should have been more organic as the CGI just hurt the film more than it helped it. When the effects for FREDDY VS. JASON, which were done in CGI by the way, look more big budget and actually enhanced the film and story more than a reboot does seven years later, something went wrong when it came to the special effects unit.

And for a rated R movie, it sure lacked in nudity and gore. I don't consider seeing Kyle Gallner in a speedo sexually stimulating. Now if Katie Cassidy was in her underwear, that would have been something! And the kills were bland. No creativity whatsoever.

The direction by Samuel Bayer was hit and miss for me. Let me just say that I thought the film had nice cinematography. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2010 is a pretty film, with nice polish and beautiful framing and composition. I think it may have been too polished for a film like this, but it didn't bug me. I also thought Bayer had a decent eye for things and he did show some style when it came to directing scenes. But this is a horror film and I'm expecting to get scared, or at least creeped out, by something. I don't consider making the sound design louder when people pop up on screen from off-frame so people can jump out of their seats to be scary. I expect tension. I expect suspense. Bayer, a music video director who worked on Nirvana's "Smell Like Teen Spirit" and Green Day's "Wake Me Up Before September Ends", doesn't display any of this. I wasn't scared once. I wasn't even creeped out. If you're gonna attempt to make Freddy Krueger scary again rather than funny, at least try and match the tone for the rest of the film. Also, the pacing was way off in this film. The middle portion almost bored me because it was centered more on Quentin and Nancy, who weren't really developed enough for me to care all that much about them. I just thought it was lazy filmmaking for the most part, even though Bayer tried to infuse some energy into his work.

The acting was probably the highlight of the movie. While Robert Englund will always be Freddy Krueger for all us horror fans, Jackie Earle Haley didn't do a bad job replacing him. In fact, he was the best part of the film for me. He made Freddy more menacing than the character had been in years, which was a nice touch. The voice didn't bother me all that much [the make up is another story], even though he spoke really slow for some reason. But the guy is a great actor and he did his best with the role. I think if he was allowed to give the character his own interpretation, it would have been a more interesting performance.

The rest of the actors were given lame characters but did the best they could do. Rooney Mara is a better actress than Heather Langenkamp, but I actually prefer Langenkamp as Nancy. I will say that Mara gave a subtle, more intellectual performance as the final girl. I liked what she brought to the table. I wish the screenplay gave her more things to do. Kyle Gallner played the Johnny Depp role very well. Out of all the teens, I liked him the most as he had the most depth and actually did things that made sense. Gallner and Mara also had some cute chemistry together. Katie Cassidy did her best as Kris[Tina], even though she seemed to force too much emotion in certain scenes, making her performance sometimes unbelievable. Thomas Dekker played the asshole. Nothing more, nothing less. And Kellan Lutz wasn't bad as Dean. Can't really judge him since he's not in the film all that much. And I gotta say that Clancy Brown and Connie Britton was really wasted in their parental roles. These two fine actors deserved better.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE HOPING THIS REMAKE IS NOTHING BUT A DREAM

- Dean "killed himself" by slicing his own throat with a knife. Not surprising really. I felt suicidal after watching TWILIGHT. I can't imagine how it feels to actually star in it.

- Don't fall asleep in class. You'll get Freddy Krueger's attention. That A+ is not worth dying over.

- Kris wears a number 10 shirt to bed. And a 10 she is! Ooh baby! ::drools::

- If your dog is missing and it's the middle of the night, don't bother looking for him. He's probably been killed by Freddy. Or better yet, he's making a fine cuisine at an Asian restaurant. Either way, you'll be barking up the wrong tree.

- In Nancy's dream, it snows in her room. The same thing happens in Lindsay Lohan's dreams, but she snorts it before anyone is able to interpret it.

- Jesse had the boiler room dream, wincing and crying after Freddy taunted him. This guy is supposed to save the world from Skynet? Hasta la vista, future!

- Freddy scared Nancy at the supermarket. Damn, just show her how high milk and meat prices have gotten! That'll put the fear in anyone!

- Nancy has to dream in order to pull out Freddy from the dream and bring him into reality. Um, isn't pulling out what got Freddy in trouble to begin with...?

- If you're going to hide from a horror villain, don't do it inside a closet. Unless you're Jamie Lee Curtis, R. Kelly, or Ricky Martin, you're fucked!

THE FINAL HOWL
A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET is another disappointing remake by Platinum Dunes. After thinking about it a couple of days, my thoughts on this film just soured. It's one of those rare cases where the review came about and changed my original score for it. It's lazy and bland - two things that a NIGHTMARE film should not be. Yeah, FREDDY'S DEAD was horrible but at least it wasn't bland. Pretty much on par with the FRIDAY THE 13TH remake, showing us that sometimes a remake isn't a good idea. I think the only new information I gathered from this reboot is that Michael Bay is truly Freddy Krueger's worst nightmare. Stick with the original stuff. You're not missing anything worthwhile with this one.

Ok, to a certain extent I have been happy to defend Michael Bay on some (certainly not all) of his movies. “The Rock” was a kick ass action movie, and it brought Nicholas Cage to a whole new level of stardom which he has since pissed away (to a certain extent anyway). When he gave us “Transformers” two years ago, it seemed really good when you compared it to a lot of his other movies. It seemed like he might turn out to be a little better than we typically give him credit for. Steven Spielberg worked with him for crying out loud!

But now here comes the inevitable sequel entitled “Transformers – Revenge Of The Fallen,” which I thought for a moment could possibly be the “Empire Strikes Back” of the franchise. No such luck, not even in the slightest. If I didn’t have an intense hatred of Michael Bay before, I sure as hell do now. I came out of this sequel cursing that mother fucker as if he had no reason to live. “Transformers – Revenge Of The Fallen” may very well represent the biggest waste of money ever spent on a film that I have seen since “Waterworld” (not to mention “Norbit”). Yes, it has action all over the place, and the effects are incredible and incredibly loud as you would expect them to be. But I came out of this movie wanting to spit at the screen. This is a movie with no heart or soul, and it renders all the hard work put into it as utterly meaningless. What a pathetic waste of celluloid this is! But what’s truly depressing is that no matter how trashed this movie gets by the press or the fans, it’ll still make tons of money.

Shia LaBeouf returns as Sam Witwicky in a performance that threatens to be as utterly annoying as Ralph Macchio’s was in “The Karate Kid Part III.” Despite being a hero and helping the Autobots defeat the evil Decepticons in the first movie, he still acts like a pussy whipped bitch during this sequel. I don’t think Shia’s a bad actor, but he needs to stop playing characters like this lest people start thinking that he’s playing himself in this role. The first “Transformers” gave his career a huge leg up, but this god awful sequel can take him down just the same if he’s not careful.

Megan Fox is also back as Sam’s voraciously attractive girlfriend Mikaela Banes, and she makes her entrance in the film by leaning over a motorcycle showing off one of her best “assets.” This will probably piss off a lot of people (especially females) as Michael Bay makes good sport of objectifying women throughout, and it wouldn’t be the first time either. Still, I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I didn’t say I did enjoy that visual even if it was from a far away distance. Hey Megan, I know you want to be taken seriously as an actress and believe it or not, I would actually like to see that happen for you. Maybe that will happen when we see you in “Jennifer’s Body” later this year, a film written by Diablo Cody (“Juno”). All the same, if there is a third “Transformers” movie, I strongly advise you NOT to do it. I honestly think that you and (yes) Shia deserve better than this.

The plot of “Transformers – Revenge Of The Fallen” is… well, it’s somewhere in there. It involves… uh, some shard from that cube that lodged in Sam’s clothing that…umm…well, ends up filling his head with symbols that… jesus this is hard to describe! It makes Sam write all these symbols that…that…I don’t know, lead him to this big fight in Egypt… Oh yeah, he meets up again with Optimus Prime from the first one… Bumblebee is back too, and he threatens to be even more of a pussy than Sam is, but he kicks ass… Then they end up in Egypt and fight alongside those military dudes from the previous film…you know, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson? And then… uh, well… There’s a lot of action!

It’s clear almost from the start that Michael Bay is not concerned with developing a good story or giving us characters that are anything but shallow. It certainly would help to bring us into the action more on an emotional level. I have a pretty good idea what Michael Bay is thinking: Fuck the critics! I make my movie for the audience, not you snobs! But in the process of flipping the bird to those film critics, he is also insulting the intelligence of the audience. And yes, that includes all those 12 and 13 years who this movie was clearly made in mind for. I can’t say that I was a huge fan of the Transformers as a kid, but I bet that even the most die hard of Transformers fans will find a hell of a lot to hate about this horrid sequel, and the call for Michael’s blood will be as loud as the explosions in this film.

All the hallmarks of a Michael Bay movie can be found here; loud explosions every other millisecond, characters communicating to each other by yelling at them (and that’s even when they are clearly close to hear each other), and inane dialogue that makes George Lucas look like John Patrick Shanley. I’m sure there are many who will say that this is a movie where you can “check your brain at the door,” but that only goes so far. There is a point where you take your audience for granted, and finding forgiveness for that transgression is a bitch to say the least. This isn’t the first time that Michael Bay has gone out of his way to intentionally piss off those who seriously hate his films. “Bad Boys II,” another monstrosity of a movie by the way, was Bay lighting a fire under the ass of many a film critic. But the maker of one god awful sequel has now succeeded in creating one that’s every bit as bad.

Michael Bay flips the bird at us even more by introducing two Autobots that are really nothing more than extremely offensive stereotypes of the blatantly racist kind. I’m talking about Mudflap and Skids, the Transformers’ answer to Jar Jar Binks. I figured that by having an actor like Tyrese Gibson that it just might balance out since he doesn’t descend into any stereotypical behavior here, but this is a movie whose main audience will be kids for crying out loud! I usually think that people look into the way certain people are portrayed in movies a little too much, but this time the criticism is more than justified.

Speaking of characters yelling at each other, this god forsaken sequel may very well contain the most yelling of multiple characters in any film (let alone a Michael Bay film). Do you have any idea of just how annoying it is when people TALK LIKE THIS AS IF YOU HAVE SOME HEARING DISABILITY AND THEY THINK YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR HEARING AID EVEN THOUGH YOU DON’T ACTUALLY HAVE ONE BUT THERE’S SO MUCH FIGHTING AND EXPLOSIONS GOING ON THAT YOU DON’T HAVE THE FUCKING TIME TO APOLOGIZE TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE YOU EITHER ARE RUNNING LIKE HELL FROM THOSE NASTY DECEPTICONS OR YOU HAVE TO FIGHT THEM ASSUMING YOU GOT ANY BALLS LIKE THE MILITARY DOES BUT HAVING ANY OLD GUN WON’T HELP BECAUSE YOU NEED THE EQUIVALENT OF A BAZOOKA?… I’m not sure I have seen another movie where I have been desperate to see so many tracheotomies performed in one sitting! It’s not enough to tell one person in this movie to shut the fuck up just once. You have to do it over and over, and they still will end up screaming their anxieties right out at you!

Not just that, but half the time I couldn’t even understand what the hell anyone was saying. Did Bay sneak crystal meth into everyone’s food? It’s bad enough that he gave us a movie at two and a half hours long (who does he think he is, Paul Thomas Anderson?!), but is this how he chooses to condense a lot of it? I wonder if Bay could actually explain to us what’s going on here. I bet the way he sees it, he gave us all sorts of loud explosions and expensive special effects, then who are we to argue? You can get away with that in another movie, but sure as hell not this one.

I feel really bad for all the actors in this movie. They are all just treated like tools at the disposal of the director. Really good actors like John Tuturro and Glenn Moreshower are wasted in a movie like this, and it doesn’t really matter if they’re even good here. If I were an out of work actor (actually, I am now that I think of it), I would be foolish to turn down a role in a Michael Bay movie. But I tell you, if I were a big star, I would not hesitate to make it clear that I would NEVER work for Michael Bay, ever.

My reaction to this new Transformers movie reminds me of when I witnessed Roland Emmerich’s tragically horrific take on “Godzilla.” I went out of that movie feeling depressed and saying to myself that if this is the way Hollywood is going to keep making movies, then I am not going to another one ever again. Over 10 years later, it suddenly feels like we haven’t come any further. Does Michael really think that this is something that people will instantly embrace? In the end, it won’t really matter because “Transformers - Revenge Of The Fallen” is bound to make a ton of money no matter how bad it is. This will enable Michael Bay to make many more movies like this until he stops delivering the profit (assuming there is one to be found). The moviegoers will keep going to them out of curiosity, wondering if he’s gotten any better. I’m no different.

It’s not worth it wasting anymore time on this movie anymore than I already have. Seriously, I was all but ready to spit on the ground of the theater I saw it at. If you didn’t hate Michael Bay before this movie, you will now. Going out of the theater I quietly said to myself:”Fuck Michael Bay! Fuck him royally! Burn in hell!”

In regards to the audience I saw it with, the best piece of praise I heard from anybody about the movie was, “its okay.” Talk about being generous! Right now, I am sick of movies being just okay. So far, there has been only one truly great live action movie out this summer, and that’s “Star Trek.” Coincidentally, two of the screenwriters on this massive train wreck of cinema (Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman) also wrote the screenplay for that one. What the hell guys? Or maybe you’ll get off easy since Bay runs thru your dialogue so fast that we can’t understand what anyone was saying. Don’t worry Robert and Alex, Bay is taking all the heat on this one.

But seriously, fuck you Michael Bay and thank you all the same. You have just given us a great example of how NOT to make a summer blockbuster. Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m gonna go watch “No Country For Old Men” just so I won’t forget what great filmmaking looks and feels like.

½* out of ****

DIRECTED BY
Marcus Nispel

STARRING
Jared Padalecki - Clay Miller
Danielle Panabaker - Jenna
Amanda Righetti - Whitney Miller
Travis Van Winkle - Trent
Aaron Yoo - Chewie
Derek Mears - Jason Voorhees
Julianna Guill - Bree
Arlen Escarpeta - Lawrence
Ryan Hansen - Nolan
Willa Ford - Chelsea

Genre - Horror/Slasher

Running Time - 96 Minutes

Score - 2 Howls Outta 4


I know a lot of horror fans are still having an uproar with the whole re-imagining of beloved horror flicks and I used to be one of them. But recently, I finally resigned and realized that it is what it is and there's nothing we can do about it. As a horror fan since I've been five-years-old [I turn 28 on the 25th of this month], it hurts me to watch my favorite films get turned into a shadow of their former selves just so teenagers can gush over how cool they are. But as a business standpoint, I totally understand it. Horror films can be cheap to make and create a huge profit for your studio. Believe or not, money does make the world go round.

I think the real issue with remakes [besides being pointless on many levels] is that most of them are horrible. Let's mention the good ones: THE THING (1982), THE FLY (1986), NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1990), DAWN OF THE DEAD (2004), THE RING (2002), THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2003), THE AMITYVILLE HORROR (2005), HALLOWEEN (2007 - yes, I still like this film), and recently MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D (2009). I'm sure there are others but the point is that it's easier to list the DECENT horror remakes over the bad ones. That's the problem with this new era of horror.

Now we have FRIDAY THE 13TH, the 2009 version, going on to become the most successful film in the franchise and obviously setting up more installments due to the huge profit both New Line Cinema and Paramount are gonna make out of this remake. While I like this franchise, it was never really my favorite [I prefer the HALLOWEEN and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET franchises more], but you can't deny how successful, simple, and all around fun the FRIDAY THE 13TH films are. I didn't think the original needed a remake [still don't] but it was inevitable and I would save my thoughts until I saw it. The previews were actually pretty cool and piqued my curiosity more than I had wanted it to. And yes, I paid for a full price ticket for this movie just like a lot of people this past weekend.

Now that I've seen the film, I feel a bit cheated out of my money. While not a horrible film, FRIDAY THE 13TH '09 isn't a good one either. When I leave a movie theater feeling LESS than how I came into it, that's not good. Let's see why FRIDAY THE 13TH isn't all that lucky.

PLOT
The film begins with the death of Pamela Voorhees (Nana Visitor), who is beheaded by a surviving camp counselor after Pamela butchered the rest of her friends [the ending of the original FRIDAY THE 13TH] back in 1980. We cut to present day and we watch a group of idiots camping out at the infamous Camp Crystal Lake, who are pretty much there to find some marijuana to sell for a profit. Like in PART 2, we have someone tell the story of Jason Voorhees (Derek Mears), who is claimed to still be alive, and having watched his mother getting killed, is out for revenge. Jason appears and kills them all but Whitney (Amanda Righetti), who kind of looks like Jason's mom and decides to keep her around a while.

A few weeks pass and some rich prick named Trent (Travis Van Winkle) and his friends vacation at his father's lake house, which just coincidentally happens to be on Camp Crystal Lake. On their way, they meet Whitney's brother Clay (Jared Padalecki), who is posting flyers and asking the townspeople about his missing sister [taken from FRIDAY THE 13TH - THE FINAL CHAPTER]. While Trent is a jerk to Clay about the whole situation, Trent's girlfriend Jenny (Danielle Panabaker) sticks up for Clay and ends up helping him. From here on, Travis and his friends end up partying up with sex, drugs, and naked water-skiing. That is, until Jason decides to crash the party and celebrate his birthday the only way he knows how - by murdering stereotypical teenagers and finding his trademark goalie mask [FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 3-D]. Yep, it's FRIDAY THE 13TH alright.

REVIEW
Sigh. I wasn't expecting much out of this remake but I'm disappointed it wasn't better. When the trailer for the film is better than the actual film itself, something is definitely wrong. FRIDAY THE 13TH '09 left me numb and cold. How does a horror film leave a person feeling numb? I wish this film was absolutely terrible so I could just bash the hell out of it. But it wasn't. Yet it wasn't good either so I can't praise it. I'm stuck in the middle with this film and I hate that feeling.

The story, written by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift [who also wrote the light years better FREDDY VS. JASON from 2003], is pretty average as far as I'm concerned. Let me get the good stuff out of the way first:

I like that the screenplay took elements from the first four FRIDAY films and didn't totally do them in a way that they were all that similar to the original source. It made the film familiar to older fans who appreciate this franchise while still bringing something new to them along with the modern audience. The remake never felt like a remake, thank God. Honestly, it felt like an installment of the franchise that was never told until now. In other words, a lost sequel. I was totally cool with that.

I also liked that the script played it like your regular FRIDAY THE 13TH film. We have stupid stereotypical characters who each have their own role to play in the movie before Jason chases them down and murders them one-by-one. That's all I look for in a FRIDAY THE 13TH flick. These films were never known for their character development to begin with - and Shannon and Swift continued the tradition. Much appreciated.

However, I felt the narrative was very disjointed. It felt like three movies in one for me and there were certain plot holes in the film that just made me scratch my head. Plus a lot of the dialogue was pretty bad and just made me roll my eyes most of the time. And what was up with all the pot activity in this film? Drugs are a big part of this franchise but it just seemed like the main focus of these characters most of the time. Look I know Michael Phelps looks cooler with a bong on his mouth, but one or two potheads in a horror flick should be the limit. It became redundant after a while.

The murder scenes written into the film were pretty weak too. I thought the death scenes in the original were more violent than the ones in the remake. And that was 29 years ago! C'mon! Very generic stuff, although I did like some of them. The arrow death is always cool to see, plus I thought Willa Ford's death scene at the pier was pretty awesome just because I didn't expect it to happen like that. And the sleeping bag over the campfire was very nice and probably the most memorable one in the entire film. But it was disappointing to watch and I thought they weren't written well enough in the script.

And I won't even mention the ending. How lame was that? Totally predictable and not even in a good way.

I think the problem with the story was that the filmmakers INTENTIONALLY decided to cut out 25 minutes just to sell an Uncut and Extended Version of the film on DVD and Blu-Ray. Apparently they wanted the viewers to be confused in order to get the answers to their questions when the DVD is released. Nice business movie, but the filmmakers can still go fuck themselves. No wonder the pacing was off. Assholes.

Speaking of the death scenes, where was the gore? Did the MPAA cut some stuff or did the filmmakers do this just for the DVD? I mean, MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3-D pretty much gave it all to us and I appreciated it. But we just get a lot of stabbings and throats being sliced, which is nothing new. Even Mrs. Voorhee's beheading wasn't even shown in its entirety. It looked like she had her throat slit when she really had her head cut off. It was a bit too tame for a FRIDAY THE 13TH flick, as far as I'm concerned. Very disappointing.

The direction by Marcus Nipsel was bland. It was like watching THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake [which Nipsel directed back in 2003] but with a different cast and Jason replacing Leatherface. What's sad is that the TCM remake is better than this film is. Yeah, the film looks great and beautifully polished with its murky colors. The editing is good and some moments, like the Willa Ford scene where she's stabbed on top of her head and pulled up to reveal her beautiful breasts before dropping into the lake again, were actually well done. But I thought the pacing was off [The title card within 20 minutes of the film? I thought that was the funniest part of the movie!], the tension and suspense weren't effective enough, and the death sequences way too predictable [and repetitive] and almost similar to THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake. And what was up with that loud music every time Jason would pop up to kill? Very distracting. How about this - why not SURPRISE us when Jason kills someone? Oh right...that might scare alot of people. Too logical, sorry. Nipsel has style and the visuals weren't horrible at all, but he doesn't bother trying to update or reinvent the series. Instead, he just follows and regurgitates what's been done before. The whole point of a remake is to bring something new to the table. In that case, Nipsel fails completely.

The acting won't win awards but I didn't hate anybody's performances. Jared Padalecki had the strongest performance as Clay. Didn't know much about the character but I liked Padalecki alot. He made a good male lead and was definitely the bright spot acting-wise. Amanda Righetti and Danielle Panabaker were both hot and did nicely as the female leads. Travis Van Winkle played a good asshole character in Trent. I hated that character for the right reasons. Winkle did a good job. Aaron Yoo was funny as Chewie. He was the only character who got a reaction from the sold out audience I was sitting with. Pretty funny role and I could tell he improvised a lot of his stuff. Willa Ford had nice boobs. Thanks. And Derek Mears was decent as Jason Voorhees. I still prefer Kane Hodder, to be honest, but Mears wasn't so bad. I just didn't feel threatened by the guy though. But it was nice to see pre-Zombie Jason back on the screen again. I would have preferred unknown actors, like in the original franchise, but what can you do?

And before I finish up this review, where in the fuck was the "Ki Ki Ki Ma Ma Ma" sounds in this film? I heard them like twice in the entire movie! What's a FRIDAY THE 13TH film without that in the background? Nice move, guys.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE SUFFERING FROM A MEDIOCRE CASE OF TRISKAIDEKAPHOBIA

- Don't ever listen to Night Ranger's "Sister Christian" while peeing in the woods. You'll wish you were motoring while you'll die to know what's the price for flight by some masked killer with mommy issues.

- Amanda was hung over a campfire while trapped inside a sleeping bag. I know Amanda was hot but that's being a bit too literal, don't you think?

- Chelsea actually placed herself in front of a motorboat, thinking her dead boyfriend would stop for her, causing Chelsea to have a headache from the impact. Do I have to tell you she was blonde? No? Okay then.

- Chelsea got stabbed through the top of her skull while she was hiding from Jason. That's what you get when you wanna be bad.

- Chewie is the Wood Wizard, but not for his masturbation skills. Yeah, because that title is already taken by me! Ha! Oh wait...uh...that's just a rumor! Yeah...

THE FINAL HOWL
FRIDAY THE 13TH '09 is one of those films that just happens to be "there". It's not good but it's not bad either. It just did nothing for me either way. It just didn't feel like a FRIDAY THE 13TH film for me. Hopefully the DVD Extended Version will be a more complete film and actually be an improvement on the theater version. Let's see if the next installment [and there will be one undoubtedly] will get back to what made these films so fun to watch to begin with. But this version just left me "blah". Color me unimpressed.

“Transformers”

2007

** out of ****
Director: Michael Bay

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Josh Duhamel

Earlier this week, I had a fight with some kid about how “Transformers” pretty much sucks ass. Their reason to this was that the robots were cool. Now first off, I could say that the robots were cool, but that would be giving Michael Bay a compliment, and there is no way in hell I’m going to do that after spending two and a half hours watching “Pearl Harbor.” The robots looked faker than Kevin Federline’s rapping skills. If “Transformers” really was so great, then let’s have an actual plot to the story.

And since there isn’t one, I’m going to do my best at it.

Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is the great grandson of the late great Witwicky. I forget what he done and really could give two shits anyway so it’s not really relevant to the plot. He sells all of his great grandfather’s old items though on eBay, so Sam can give two-thousand dollars to his dad to buy him a new car. It turns out that the yellow Camaro that Sam picks out is shitty, and it works when it wants to (or when Sam is being a little bitch, the car slaps the living shit out of him and wakes him up) and doesn’t work when someone disrespects it. Sam uses the car to pick up on the girl Mikaela (Megan Fox), who has secrets of her own that don’t involve lots of makeup.

We later find out (and by we, I mean Sam and Mikaela) that his yellow Camaro is not only a shitty and sensitive car, but a robot in disguise called Bumblebee, and who wouldn’t have guessed its name? Bumblebee is an Autobot, a team of robots that disguise themselves as cars. There are others too that we meet – Jazz, an Autobot that acts like he’s a white version of Dr. Dre; Ironhide, an Autobot that uses “Dirty Harry” phrases to make him sound tough; Ratchet, a boring and pretty unused character; and Optimus Prime, the leader of the group and the only one that actually seems like a hero. These Autobots are looking for Allspark, before the Decepticons (mainly the leader Megatron) get their hands on it.

If you saw this film and didn’t understand the Allspark, well, good. That was the point and you guys weren’t smart enough to realize it. The Allspark is a MacGuffin, a term used by the cinematic god Alfred Hitchcock as a plot device that is only mentioned to drive the plot, but it doesn’t affect the plot whatsoever. Unfortunately, Michael Bay thinks he’s the next Hitchcock and he tries to act like none of us will notice it by asking questions on what was the point of it. The Allspark is just driving us to the action and CGI scenes, or also called “Michael Bay’s Only Talent and It Still Isn’t Good Enough.”

Even the action scenes aren’t anything special. He doesn’t break any new ground with it. It’s the standard gun shots, shakey cam (and there’s a lot of it, and you guys know that I didn’t like “The Bourne Ultimatum”), explosions, and slow motion that you’ve seen in his other movies (and “Pearl Harbor;” I’m sorry but I refuse to call it a movie). And go ahead, say or even THINK the words “Well, it’s not supposed to be ‘The Godfather.’” Well first off, I kind of think “The Godfather” is overrated to begin with, but that’s a whole other story. Secondly, help me out here. It’s supposed to be an action movie right? Where robots are fighting? I’m sorry, but where did they fight? I saw them bitch-slap each other a few times, but that’s about it. All of that hype and I get bitch-slapping is just plain wrong.

Could you guys also tell me what was so action-packed about it? Did you guys LOOK at it the way I did? It is three genres put into one movie, dammit. It’s supposed to be an action movie, but it is more of a comedy of robot’s fighting and there is way too much whining about Shia LaBeouf’s character’s love life. And did you see his eBay user name? His character doesn’t only feel like it has came onto the wrong movie set, but it feels like that Michael Bay wanted his character to be misogynic and a pervert at the same exact time. Action movies are supposed to be filled with action that makes you go “wow” and “ooooh,” but all that “Transformers” made me do was “God” and “boo.”

And Christ, even Bay knows that we don’t give a flying fuck about the characters. He knows that we came more for fighting robots than the characters, so why work on character development? You don’t believe that, “Transformer” fans? Well a perfect example is Mikaela’s character. We don’t know that she had a criminal record until an hour and thirty minutes into the movie. Michael Bay and Tyler Perry would have a lot in common if they really met up with each other. Maybe I can look forward to their next movie called “Madea’s Final Revenge;” taking place in Atlanta, Madea finds out that drug dealers are making a big deal in her neighborhood. The movie will include lots and lots of shakey-cam, and in the last five minutes of the movie we find out that Madea is really a guy dressed up in a fat old lady’s outfit, and coming out of costume is… Martin Lawrence. AHA! ANOTHER MICHAEL BAY TWIST!

I couldn’t even complain about all action and blow-ups, you know. That is if the action was good and realistic and it didn’t get in the way of everything else that was going on. Notice how I never bitched once about the action scenes in “28 Weeks Later,” “Live Free or Die Hard,” “Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer,” and “Pirates of the Caribbean 3,” and I’ll even throw “Rush Hour 3” in there to make it seem like I’m one tasteless motherfucker. I listed those five films for the reason that their action scenes never got into the way of the plot. Instead, “28 Weeks Later” was actually effective and emotional (unlike “Transformers”), the action in “Die Hard” WAS the plot, “Silver Surfer” was fun at least, “Pirates of the Caribbean” was properly built up to the action sequences, and “Rush Hour 3” was funny. That is why I gave them all positive ratings. The opposite is why I gave “Transformers” a negative one.

But I give credit where credit is due, and just because it is a Michael Bay movie doesn’t mean I won’t do that now. You guys know that I love blockbusters with a kickass cast, and Michael Bay (and yes, I’m going to acclaim him for this) doesn’t do that any better than anyone else in Hollywood. That was the only reason that I call “Armageddon” a movie, you know. Shia LaBeouf, Hollywood’s young leading guy, is alright, but only was casted for his popularity. Megan Fox was also miscast. There are tons of cameos, but I’m not going into them. I feel like I’ve already said enough as to why you should not see this.

Do you guys know why “Transformers” made so much money? Its name. One hundred dollars says that. It’s not even a “Transformers” movie. It’s Michael Bay’s wet-dreams at three in the morning. Oh, and its Steven Spielberg’s name that gives it credit for making at least one hundred million of it’s gross. There is no way in hell that “Transformers” makes a good movie. Most cinema goers will like “Transformers,” but Jesus Christ and his Mexican brother Quentin Tarantino, you guys would like ninety minutes of nothing but a bare ass if it was put in front of you on a silver plate (AHAHAHAH “Idiocracy” reference!!!!!!).

As soon as Michael Bay sticks a finger up his ass-crack and pulls out a good movie, THAT is when I will be impressed. Until then, I’ll watch movies that are worth a damn and don’t involve lubricant to have fun with.