Google+: Jason Pitt
It is very rare that a film exceeds my expectations so drastically as J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek", which really is a perfect Hollywood blockbuster. I recently watched "Wolverine", and while I wouldn't quite say that it was a steaming pile of shit, it was most certainly not good. However, at the same time, it wasn't quite bad enough for me to extend my thoughts on the film. It was simply there, and amidst the incredibly cliched story and action set-pieces, was a film that was pure and simply forgettable. It seemed to exist for no particular reason, as the film's climax served to disprove the relevance of any of the events that occurred throughout the film.
A big-budget B-movie is, in itself, a contradiction. A B-movie, by definition, can not have a big budget, and draws the entirety of its entertainment value from a generally under-developed screenplay, less than stellar production values, poor acting and direction, etc. "Snakes on a Plane" falls out of the B-Movie canon, with significantly higher production values, some capable acting and direction, and what can only be described as a deliberately under-developed script. The question is – How successful is a movie that differs so much from the very films it celebrates?
As I sat in the theatre earlier this evening watching "Slither", I was upset by the fact that there were only about ten other people in the theatre. This is only five days after its initial release. With horror films dominating the box office nearly every week they're released, I expected more. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a horror fan first and foremost, but I wish more horror films failed at the box office. Although I am a devout fan of the horror genre, I do have a reason for this, and if you're a horror fan – a true horror fan – you'll agree with me. (You probably see where I'm going with this, don't you?)
I love reviewing films like "Sleepover Nightmare". It really is a terribly film, yet I find some bizarre attraction to films of this kind. I don't rent a lot of movies, so I end up wasting a lot more money than I probably should on garbage like "Sleepover Nightmare". But in the long run, I'm never disappointed by my choices, no matter how terrible they are. I guess it's kind of nice knowing that I could make a better film than some of the films that are currently being produced.
"Silent Hill" is a film which, as seems to be the current trend, works far better as a two minute trailer than it does a 2 hour feature. The trailer was put together quite well, revealing some potentially creepy monsters, while telling the viewer essentially everything they need to know about "Silent Hill". It does what a good trailer is supposed to do, draw people in. However, those who were unfortunate enough to see "Silent Hill" in it's opening weekend, found a film with virtually no substance, numerous plot holes, and a story that just plain doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or, maybe it did make sense, but I was just far too bored to notice.
Samuel Fuller's "Shock Corridor" was the 19th release on Criterion's DVD collection, and is certainly worthy of its inclusion. It is a film which is surprisingly powerful from a political standpoint, as well as being an enjoyable pulp picture, which delights in its own excesses.
The Asian horror boom is more than partly responsible for the resurgence of horror as a prevalent genre in mainstream cinema these days, as a number of the more (and less) popular horror films of recent years are direct remakes of film produced in Asia in previous years. “The Grudge”, “The Ring”, “Shutter”, “One Missed Call”, “Pulse”, and so on, and so forth. The list goes on and on, and as these remakes are generally quite popular in North American, we keep seeing more and more remakes produced, and realistically, most of them are bad. Really bad. Yet they keep on coming, because they make money... and that is what's important, isn't it?
The gossip between three government office clerks over the relationship between a mysterious woman, her deceased sister, and the madman loved by both women takes a twist in its implications when the clerks discover a photograph left behind by said mysterious woman after visiting their office.
A taut reinvention of vampire lore, Shadowland opens in modern day North America, where construction workers uncover an old stone cross and what appears to be a wooden stake. They remove the stake from the ground, allowing Laura (Caitlin McIntosh), a slumbering vampire, to revive and rise from the earth. Beaten and weak, Laura is unable to speak, remember who she is, or even the fact that she is a vampire! As Laura attempts to make sense of the strange new world around her, she begins to remember not only an idyllic human life in 1897 but the handsome Lazarus (Carlos Antonio León), a mysterious lover who may not have had her best interests in mind. Soon Julian (Jason Contini), a world-weary vampire hunter employed by the church, begins tracking Laura, but as he closes in for the kill he learns that things are not what they seem.