SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK

SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK: B+

Good film. A little darker than fair expectation would think it to be. Based on a series of stories geared towards children and preteens, that was laid out as a genuine horror, meant to terrify adult audiences. It wasn't that the source material wasn't used, it was that the tone was much darker. The film could've stood to have been a little lighter and made better use of comic relief.

The scenery was authentic and believable. The characters likable and identifiable. There were a few scenes that felt underacted, but for the most part performances were solid. As to the story, the build up of suspense and tension had a nice pace. A little too convenient at times. Almost to the point of being steered off course, but often brought back on track through convincing action.

The teeter totter of presupposition in regards to the ending was fun, yet indecisive. The fork in the road seemed to indicate dark and gloomy one way and happy the other. Yet once the choice was made, we're left with a lukewarm feeling. The ambiguity met with a sense of hope and determination sets up for a sequel.

More Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark?

You can bank on it.

INSIDIOUS CHAPTER 2

INSIDIOUS CHAPTER 2: B

Better than the first one. Better scares, better pacing and a more captivating story. The first film tried too hard to be ambiguous and struggled with the balance of conceal and reveal. This one asked questions and answered them at an appropriate pace. It kept you guessing to the point of interest and then unveiled before the point of annoyance.

It was a clever film, full of interesting twists that advanced the story. Nothing unnecessary or convenient, each moment pivotal as well as believable to the plot.

The only real criticism here and its more of a issue of taste and expectation than it is that of delivery. The film has such a tone of horror. A build up of terrifying, bone chilling fear. An atmosphere created to bleach its audience white with scare.

Yet by the end of the film, the environment changes to one of action. Almost humorous. As if reading Stephen King, and the next page is a Saturday morning funny. It's a change in tone that makes you think at one second the exorcist might appear and then the next you're waiting for the Ghostbusters.

Overall, good film. A little shaky on the transitions towards the end.

KIDNAPPING STELLA

KIDNAPPING STELLA: D+

First off major violation for false advertising. Based on the film's synopsis one should go in expecting to fall in love with a smart, clever and resilient heroine. Stella was nothing of the sort. She was a pathetic, idiotic moron who on more than one occasion was lucky she wasn't shot dead on the spot. Her choices were not that of someone within any capability to outsmart anyone. Her only saving grace was that Tom was dumber than she was. He was a complete idiot. Perhaps even on the edge of mental retardation. His choices were that of a character in Looney Tunes. Bugs Bunny would have had a heyday with this dunce.

With that said keep in mind that writing is 100% to blame here. Jella Haase & especially Max von der Groeben gave solid performances. They shouldn't be blamed for lazy storytelling on behalf of the writing.

The directing however, did its best to try and salvage, despite such a week script. The film was visually appealing and did a great job of telling a story (even though the story was shit) through visualizations. It was clear to tell from the beginning even without dialog that Vic was a collected, sure of himself, focused psychopath and that Tom was in doubt, unsure of himself, unsure of the situation, empath.

I appreciate the contrast between a very intelligent, yet sadistic Vic and a very stupid, yet conflicted Tom. How in the end you're left questioning whether Vic feels more betrayed by Tom or by himself for ever trusting Tom. It's just a shame that the writing couldn't compliment the directing or the performance.

Clemens Schick was very good. Timing, delivery, response, all down very patented. It was quite impressive.

Actors and directors alike hopefully wonder what to do in a situation if a studio ever hands them a shitty script and says, "make a film out of this."

KIDNAPPING STELLA would be required viewing of any professor wanting to answer that question.

INSIDIOUS

INSIDIOUS: B-

The film did well in setting the tone, upping the suspense, keeping the thrill and being genuinely frightening. It was creepy and unsettling as a good horror should be. All performances were fairly solid, with Lin Shaye, Rose Byrne and Patrick Wilson in particularly sticking out.

What weakens an otherwise strong film are the nonsensical and often times foolish seemingly out of character choices of the characters. Elise Rainier is schooled and experienced in her craft. It was clear that she knew the potential of the father passing his abilities on to his son. Why wouldn't proper precaution to prevent him from going into the further have been taken?

Even more irrational is why she would place herself in danger by taking a picture of the possessed father when she did. She was intelligent enough and experienced enough to have waited until she was in the safety of a larger group to have snapped the picture. I didn't buy that she was foolish enough to have caused her own death in that scene. That's the type of mistake a rookie investigator would make. Not someone with years of experience.

The father also knew the importance of not drawing attention to himself once he went after his son and he seemed to do anything and everything TO draw attention to himself. Again a rather nonsensical character choice in order to advance the plot.

These sequence of events felt connived and unnatural. As a result what could have been an A film, gets knocked down to a B-.

SHAZAM

SHAZAM: B

A fun comedy/action comic-book flick that was full of impressive special effects, passable humor and solid performances. Visually this film was quite strong, with Zach Levi in a very believable role as a boy trapped in a man's body. In contrast, Asher Angel who seemed to be a man trapped in a boy's body. I commend the film for its courage to explore the contrast but feel it could have used more work to mesh the two together. Whereas in the film BIG with Tom Hanks, I felt the child Josh and the adult Josh were the same person throughout the film's entirety. There were times here when I didn't.

The film's greatest weakness in my opinion was the lack of exposition and proper backstory. Especially that of villain Dr. Sivana played by Mark Strong. I didn't buy the fatherly/brotherly/wizardly rejection that was quickly glossed over. I didn't see why when a countless number of others had been rejected, why he was the one destined to lead the evil. And as a result I feel this made the character rather one dimensional.

It's not that explanations weren't there at all, it's more that they felt empty and without substance. As if they were missing something. As if they could've used more.

This film was meant to entertain and it was clear a great deal of attention and detail was spent on making sure that the fight scenes were full of excitement. I personally could have used a bit more development in the characters and a greater sense of cause and effect in essence to experience and reaction.

CURSED

CURSED: D+

Directed by Wes Craven, with an all-star cast of Christine Ricci, Joshua Jackson and Judy Greer. How did this film go for nearly 15 years without me knowing anything about it?

Oh, the B-level story, that's how.

The film had its moments and it even got to a handful of points to where it was the on the verge of being good. Christine Ricci despite having little to work with in terms of a script and having to carry Jesse Eisenberg through nearly all of their scenes was without dispute the best thing this film had going for itself. It'd almost be fair to say she was the ONLY thing that the film had going for itself, but Jackson and Greer also gave passable performances.

Normally I'm thrilled as well as thankful to see amateur wrestling depicted in a film, but I'd just as soon that it wasn't here. Wrestling coaches being impressed with illegal maneuvers and their star wrestlers getting hurt? I don't think so. And not only is their a homoerotic tone, but of course the closet homosexual has to a wrestler. Before I'm misunderstood, misconstrued and misquoted, lets be sure to point out what I am saying vs what I a not. I'm a supporter of LGBT. I"m a supporter of homosexuals and homosexual rights. I've marched in Gay parades. I lived with a gay guy for 11 months. I was in a wedding where two men married each other. I've known gay wrestlers and I supported them in wrestling. What I do NOT support is the idea that wrestling is a homosexual sport and that only homosexuals participate in it. I have to say, I lost a bit of respect for the late Wes Craven do to these scenes and the attitude that was displayed towards the sport I love.

But, I didn't let that spoil the whole film for me.

No what did spoil it was a false ending that wasn't really a false ending. The whole, "It was HIM!!!" to, "NO, it was HER!!!" then back to "Oh..ok we were right the first time, it WAS HIM!" was not done well at all. It was not shocking. It was not twisting. It wasn't even the least bit suspenseful. It was, "Well, duh."

And then they put Scott Baio in the film and they don't kill him off with a brutal long drawn out torturous death? Are you kidding me? Build up my hopes that he'll have his ears torn off, and his eyes poked out, both of them shoved up his rectum so that he can see and hear his butt getting kicked. And nothing of the sort happens. Talk about a let down.

With a smidgen of help from Jackson and a sprinkle of assistance from Green Ricci practically carried this film by herself. It's no wonder she had such a firm, sexy body. Having to carry Eisenberg during the production was quite the workout.

They say no matter how good you are, everyone has a turd in them. Wes Craven, this is your toot.

LEPRECHAUN RETURNS

LEPRECHAUN RETURNS: C

Too much gore, and not enough story. Certainly better than LEPRECHAUN: ORIGINS and on par with LEPRECHAUN: IN THE HOOD but a far cry from original first three films.

This movie had "B" if not "C" or even "D" written all over it with nonsensical plot points, painfully convenient solutions and special effects that seemed older than the 25 year old references they kept making throughout the film.

Could have used a bit more character development and a little less gore on the kills for my taste but the film did have a few highlights.

The acting wasn't going to win any academies but it wasn't as Golden Raspberry as I initially anticipated. I appreciated Mark Holton's return and feel that he was somewhat used right, although I would have liked to have seen a bit more of him. Taylor Spreitler did well here as the film's protagonist, although I feel the script could've given her a bit more development.

Linden Porco has a long way to go before he lives up to the legend that is Warwick Davis, but it certainly isn't because he didn't try. He had some great lines and he did well in delivering them. I was impressed with how he was able to bring something new and fresh to the character, something that is unique and of himself, while at the same time keeping the origin, and paying homage to the original creation.

Had the focus of the film been more on the characters and their relationships to one another, this film could've earned itself a B. Instead the focus zoned in on unique kills, which added nothing to the story.