I was in the mood to to watch/mock a bad horror movie last night, and Don't Be Afraid of the Dark seemed like a pretty good option. It's a Katie Holmes vehicle, a remake, it has a first-time director, and a pretty awful title. It should be a shoe-in for a good drunken time, but it had a few surprises in store for me. First of all, the star of this movie is actually a little girl. It's rarely as much fun to brutally ridicule children as much as it is terrible adult actors with lopsided faces. Besides, I think we can all agree that children are creepy. Second of all, Guillermo Del Toro co-produced and co-wrote Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, which implies a certain degree of creativity. So what's it to be? A spectacular crap-fest, or a creative mood piece?
Sally (Bailee Madison) is in the never-enviable position of being the young child being shuttled between self-absorbed divorced parents. Her mother has sent Sally to visit her dad, Alex (Guy Pearce), while he renovates a dilapidated New England mansion. And by "visit," I of course mean "live forever with" --- surprise! Alex isn't a very attentive parent, and his interest in Sally's happiness can best be described as "nonexistent."
Alex, envisioning his daughter's future bedroom
Making things even better for Sally, her dad is dating his interior designed, Kim (Katie Holmes), who feels very uncomfortable acting as a fill-in mother. But that's all okay, because they both more or less ignore her most of the time, which allows Sally to investigate the massive building and its surrounding land.
...which apparently includes parts of Narnia
While exploring, Sally discovers something in part of the overgrown garden. It is a skylight for the basement, which Alex and Kim had no idea existed. You see, the basement had been hidden by someone many years ago, when they put up a wall in front of the basement door. Why would anyone want to do such a thing?
Because they didn't want to see children going through what appears to be a doorway to Hell?
Well, when Sally goes down to the ancient basement, she hears her name being whispered. Some thing --- or things --- that sound like they have emphysema keep whispering for her to play with them. Their actual words are, "We're your friends. Come down to the basement and play with us." While that may ring all sorts of alarm bells in a reasonable person's head, Sally is an eight-year-old and, therefore, capable of an entirely different type of stupidity. Soon enough, the creatures are terrorizing Sally, and she can't get any adult to believe that there are evil faeries hunting her in the darkness.
Try shouting "I don't believe in faeries!" It would kill Tinkerbell.
And that is their biggest weakness: these creatures are sensitive to bright lights. But how hard is it to plunge an isolated old mansion into darkness? And what do they want when they finally get their tiny paws on Sally? They want to feast on her teeth.
Oh relax. You have another set to look forward to.
I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised by the acting in Don't Be Afraid of the Dark. Bailee Madison did a solid job in the lead role. For child actors in horror movies, there is a fine line between acting scared and being extremely annoying, but Madison never really approached anything obnoxious. I thought she was pretty believable, even when making extremely poor choices.
Example: this is where she went potty
She wasn't a fantastic lead, but I'll take solid acting over overacting any day, especially with children. Aside from her lopsided smile, Katie Holmes was also pretty good as the most reasonable character in the movie. Her character was pretty bland, but I didn't mind watching her in this movie, which is as much as I am capable of complimenting her. Guy Pearce was capable as the father, in that I think he played the part that the script asked for, but his character was just awful. It's not just that he was an offensively bad (although, to be fair, not evil) father figure; he has a complete 180 toward the end of the movie, and it just doesn't work.
Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was the first (and so far, only) directorial effort by Troy Nixey. For a first effort, Nixey had an uphill battle. This is, at its core, a haunted house movie, which means it relies heavily on atmosphere and suspense --- two things that even veteran directors have trouble with. There are moments where he succeeds; the smaller-scale scares that leave something to the imagination are actually pretty good.
Two words: creepy hands
However, the script calls for a lot less mystery than I think this plot calls for. For being a movie about creatures in the dark, the audience gets to see an awful lot of the creatures in question. The special effects on these creatures are pretty good, but that's beside the point. If this isn't supposed to be a creature feature --- and it definitely isn't --- then why do we see so much of the things that are supposed to be scaring us in the dark?
"Bippity boppity bitch!"
That's a choice that I disagree with, but it doesn't make for a bad film. What dumbs this picture down a few notches is its inconsistency with regards to how it treats light. The sensitivity the devil faeries have for light ranges the gamut, from absolutely requiring deep, dark shadows to being able to hang out at a well-lit party (sitting in a potted plant, but still...). The cinematography doesn't help any. This should be a very, very dark film, from a lighting perspective. It's called Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, but whenever the lights go out, it looks like a spotlight is shining in from outside. And once Katie Holmes' character buys into this whole shadow faery thing, she doesn't think to go out and buy a bunch of lamps or flashlights or anything? That's just stupid. The film's consistency and logic, as well as its look and feel, are definitely things the director is responsible for. I think Nixey had some good instincts in his first directorial effort, but some of the basics are lacking.
As a horror movie, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark doesn't have a lot of what genre fans typically look for in an R-rated flick. There is a bit of gruesome violence at the beginning of the movie; the prologue was pretty cool and even had me cringing a little. For the rest of the movie, though, there isn't much violence or gore to speak of. If you were looking for gratuitous nudity, I would like to point out that the heroine is a child, so...please stop.
This is not sexy
Still, this is more of a suspense-type horror, so sex and violence were never strong possibilities. Unfortunately, the suspense isn't too effective. It has creepy moments, especially in the first half, but the second half is full of mind-numbing stupidity. None of the characters, the monsters included, do anything even remotely logical. Here's just a small example of how frustrating this script is: little Sally has just fought off some faeries and has taken some pictures of them and has even crushed one; when her father dismisses her claims as an overactive imagination, she tries to find a photo to prove her case instead of the faery corpse she left in the damned bookcase. That's not the dumbest moment in this movie, mind you --- it's just one of the easiest to explain. When you add all that up, this isn't a very good horror movie. The acting of Bailee Madison goes a long way toward making this easier to watch, but it doesn't make up for a dumb script. If this was PG or PG-13, I would be a little more forgiving, but being rated R and missing out on anything on my horror checklist AND being stupid is just too much to overlook. It's not as bad as I thought a Katie Holmes movie would be, but it is definitely not very good.
After so many installments, it is getting harder and harder to overlook some basic problems with the Resident Evil franchise. With the fifth (I know!) volume, Resident Evil: Retribution, I have to point out upfront what has ruined my suspension of disbelief: I have a hard time buying into an international evil organization, hell-bent on ruining the world that manages to keep finding glove-tight leather outfits for Milla Jovovich to kick ass in. We're four movies into a global zombie apocalypse, and they still have someone working a bondage/tailoring shop? Sure, it's obviously a solid investment when the zombie apocalypse comes a-knocking --- What would Milla wear, otherwise? Capris? --- but you think somebody would at least brag about having the foresight for this eventuality. If this was my movie, that would be the only thing discussed in the trailer.
***DISCLAIMER: The plot of Resident Evil: Retribution is pretty damn ridiculous, so forgive me if I simplify or gloss over some of the finer points in this plot summary***
When last we left Alice (Milla Jovovich), she was on an aircraft carrier, about to take on the forces of the evil Umbrella Corporation.
This picture perfectly encapsulates all Resident Evil plots
The next thing you know, Alice has woken up to an idyllic suburban life, where she has a husband and a child. But then zombies happen. Again. The next thing you know (again), Alice wakes up in an unnecessarily bright and clean room, wearing only a small towel. Why a towel? Did she slip and hit her head coming out of the shower? Are her hot pants at the cleaner? Is this just a subtle clue that the zombie virus began with mildew accumulating in Milla's towel because she can't be bothered to hang it up like a grown damn woman, and I sure as shit don't need to keep picking up after her --- if she really respected me, she wouldn't be so thoughtless in the shared space of our bathroom, right?
Actually, that stupid idea is only slightly less reasonable than the shoulder shrug reasoning of the actual script. Although having the entire Resident Evil franchise be the concussed dream of Alice, after a bathroom-related head injury, would be pretty hilarious. Anyway, the villain of the last four films, Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts), has taken the time to bleach his hair. Almost as importantly, Wesker tells Alice that he is no longer part of the evil Umbrella Corporation. Now he wants to help humanity, which makes as much sense as anything else in this series. It seems that The Umbrella Corporation has been taken over by a virtual intelligence called the Red Queen.
Note: the worst CGI in this series is for a computer-generated character
Umbrella and the Queen have captured Alice and cloned the crap out of her and a lot of other people (many we have seen in previous Resident Evil movies), running simulation after simulation, and using Alice's unique physiology (I think) to perfect the zombie disease. Wesker wants to help Alice escape the of-course-it's-underwater Umbrella station she is in, so he sends in some help, in the form of Ada Wong (Bingbing Li). All the two of them have to do is fight their way across three city-sized zombie experiments and meet up with Wesker's extraction team.
That sounds easy enough
There are a lot of returning characters to Resident Evil: Retribution, but the acting is at the level the series is known for (hint: the bar is not set high). This is actually Milla Jovovich's best work in the series to date, as she not only kicks ass and looks sexy, but she also manages to deliver a few one-liners. It's not impressive work by most standards, but for an actress as wooden as Jovovich, it is worth noting. How about the rest of the cast? Well, there are some newcomers. Bingbing Li is pretty and wore some fantastically inappropriate clothes for fighting zombies, but it all of her dialogue was dubbed over in post-production. And it looked like it, too.
An evening dress is a solid choice for outrunning zombies, right?
Aryana Engineer was adequate as the completely useless little girl that Alice took with her, but she was less of a character and more of a plot device. Johann Urb played Leon Kennedy, the main character from the fifth RE video game, and he has a little less characterization than your average video game character; in case his haircut bothers you, that was also inspired by the game. Kevin Durand also plays a character from the games. While his role in the movie seemed somewhat minor, I thought Durand did a solid job as an unnecessarily macho character. The returning cast sees Sienna Guillory, Shawn Roberts, and Boris Kodjoe survive the last film, with Michelle Rodriguez, Oded Fehr, and Colin Salmon having their now-dead characters cloned, with Fehr and Rodriguez doing double duty as both "good" and "bad" clones. On the whole, there is less "acting" in this movie than there is "shouting until something explodes," but that is to be expected. Nobody (except for Li) was embarrassingly bad, but this is a movie about a supermodel who fights zombies in a leather bodysuit --- good acting was never in the cards.
Thankfully, "posing with weapons" was
Luckily, writer/director Paul W.S. Anderson was well aware of that fact, and made a movie that played to both the franchise's and his own strengths: CGI action sequences. If you're looking for ninety minutes of mindless action sequences, Resident Evil: Retribution may be the film for you. Anderson has a knack for making Jovovich look like a formidable action hero, and his production of action scenes is some of the smoothest in the business right now. That doesn't make up for his shortcomings as a screenwriter, but at least he's not spending a lot of time trying and failing to have these characters force emotions or a lot of hammy jokes.
Although a "women driving" line would have been good here
After watching this film with Danny O'D, we both reached the same conclusion with regards to Paul W.S. Anderson's talents: it's not that he's a good director or anything, but it is nice that he keeps making action movies for Milla Jovovich to be a sex object in. She's not exactly old here, but how many other 37-year old actresses have this kind of opportunity to kill fake things and be ogled by audiences in genuinely profitable films? The answer, obviously, is "not enough." Hollywood has failed to generate a new generation of dumb action heroes as Stallone and Schwarzenegger have aged into irrelevance, so why not make some scripts for aging (by Hollywood standards) beauties that may or may not have acting talent? Just retool an old Chuck Norris movie for someone like Jennifer Love-Hewitt or Jenny McCarthy and have them fight Communist zombie ninjas. How hard is that? It's obviously working for Kate Beckinsale.
Note: I would also watch Michelle Rodriguez fighting Nazi alien terrorists
Okay, so Resident Evil: Retribution isn't a legitimately good movie. How is it in terms of action movies, or at least the other Resident Evil movies? The action certainly looks good in Retribution, and there is an awful lot of it. But there is also a lot of stupid plotting, despite the fact that this movie feels like an hour and a half of mindless action. Did this story need to keep tabs on Leon Kennedy and the other gun-toting "characters" that were meeting up with Alice? Absolutely not. Did we need Alice to care for a child? Lord, no. How about changing the villain in the series out of absolutely nowhere? That was only slightly less stupid than filling the cast with recognizable actors who were "only" clones, and therefore perfectly expendable.
Look, the less attention you pay to this horrible excuse for a story (example: whatever happened to Ali Larter and Wentworth Miller after the last movie, anyway?), the better off you are.
More of this, less of deaf children
However, even glossing over the plot doesn't make this film a must-see. The best action movies have cool heroes doing cool things that kill bad guys. The action scenes in Retribution are very smooth and generally look pretty good and lots of bad guys die, but these scenes don't always make a lot of sense. That wouldn't be a huge knock on the movie, but Alice is a dull heroine. When you add zero charisma to nonsensical action and a terrible plot, you get a sub-par movie. Still, this is a movie about a zombie-killing woman in a vacuum-sealed catsuit; it may not be great, but it at least plays up what it does well.
Within the Resident Evil series, I would say that Retribution is slightly worse than Resurrection, but still a little better than Apocalypse. Given the $220 million Resident Evil: Retribution has made, it looks like we'll be seeing a sixth Milla RE movie soon. With any luck, it will be a little less idiotic and a little more sensational. And then, most likely, we'll see a reboot two years later.
After an entire month of horror movie reviews, what better way to cleanse the palette than an animated feature for children? I opted to go with a movie that I had always been curious about, but never went to see because...well...I don't have kids, so I can pick and choose my animated movie experiences. Aside from the fact that the CG animation looks amazing in this trailer, this is also Zack Snyder's first effort at directing an animated movie (although I would argue that Watchmen and 300come pretty darn close), and I've always liked his visual touch, so hopefully this is pretty awesome.
In a throwback to 80s "children" movies like The Dark Crystal, The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole opens with a kidnapping. After all, who says that children's movies shouldn't make your children cry? Soren (voiced by Jim Sturgess) is an owl that was goofing off with his little brother, Kludd (Ryan Kwanten), when Kludd kicks Soren out of the nest, before he could fly. And, because nature abhors terrible siblings, Kludd also lost his balance and fell to the base of their maghty home tree, with Soren. Instead of getting eaten by Tasamanian Devils, which was apparently an option, the pair was rescued/kidnapped by a couple of dim-witted adult owls. These scary-looking creatures take young Soren and Kludd to a distant land, where they are presented with an interesting choice. They can either follow the racist/speciesist teachings of Nyra (Helen Mirren), queen of the Pure Ones, or they can become mindless slaves.
Alternate title: White (Owl) Power
Kludd opts to follow the obvious villain, while Soren rebels and tries to escape. The strange thing about the Pure Ones is that they're supposed to be the stuff of legend; Soren and Kludd grew up to takes of them being the villains in a long battle against the heroic Guardians. If the Pure Ones are real, I wonder if the Guardians could be real, too?
Above: an owl realizing that someone wrote sixteen books about owl racism
Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole could not be a modern animated movie without a ridiculously famous cast of voice actors. The most effective in their roles were probably Helen Mirren and Geoffrey Rush; both have wonderfully emotive voices and did a fine job as important, but ultimately peripheral, characters. Rush plays a great grouch, so it was nice to see that talent being utilized. Hugo Weaving had a double role, although his voice talents are not exactly what I would call "audibly versatile." He fine fine in both parts, but anyone who knows his voice can instantly recognize him in both roles. Joel Edgerton was pretty good as the head bad guy, but it seems odd in retrospect that he was the cast member chosen for the villain role, and not Weaving or Rush.
Maybe he got the role thanks to his physical presence
Sam Neill was well-cast in a bit part, where his lovely voice was meant to be a contrast to his character's actions, and that was nicely done. But those are just the most notable supporting voice actors. Jim Sturgess played the main character, a young and idealistic owl who sometimes gets the benefits of super-slow motion shots.
ACTING!
Sturgess was fine, but this is a pretty generic character and he didn't really add anything special to the part. An odd thing about this cast (that I just noticed) is that it is predominantly Australian, with a few Brits sprinkled here and there. I didn't realize that owls needed to speak the Queen's English. Ryan Kwanten, Anthony LaPaglia, Richard Roxburgh, Leigh Whannell, David Wenham, Essie Davis, Abbie Cornish, and Angus Sampson, Aussies one and all, had roles of varying importance. Most of their voices were recognizable, but I guess that's point when you fill your voice cast with actual actors. None of them were bad, but none were too impressive. As for the non-Australian supporting cast, I thought Miriam Margolyes was suitably cartoonish as a snake nanny and Emily Barclay was suitably bland as the romantic interest for Jim Sturgess.
Romantic owl eyes are slightly unsettling
What about Zack Snyder's direction? It's no secret that Snyder likes to aim for "epic" as a director, and he did a solid job framing Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole in an epic fashion. It is interesting watching Snyder's direction in a film where he can get exactly the visuals he wants. It's not too different from his normal style. The visuals are stunning. The slow-motion is prominent and occasionally questionable.
Or, as Snyder likes to call it, "The speed at which all things should happen"
There are large-scale battles, where a small cast of heroes faces down a large number of interchangeable villains.
They're like Storm Troopers that cough up pellets
Snyder tells the story ably enough, but he doesn't get great performances out of his most important characters. The ideas of love and betrayal have never been prominent in any of Snyder's other films, so seeing him ignore them in a children's story might not be as surprising as it should be. Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole has all the basic elements of an entertaining animated film, but there's no emotional core to it. Part of the problem is with the writing, which spends little time on characterization, but the director should notice a little thing like entirely two-dimensional characters and have it changed.
I'm guessing he focused more on eye reflections than the script
My other problem with Legend of the Guardians is that it feels very, very familiar. If you're familiar with Star Wars or the Chronicles of Narnia, or just about any other epic tale with children as an intended audience, then you've seen this plot before. A lot of kid's movies are like that, but this feels like a Frankenstein of epic childhood fiction, with the only new addition being the owls.
This scene actually dubs in dialogue from Attack of the Clones
I take that back. Making some of the child characters into mindless slaves is somewhat unique, especially in a movie aimed at children.
The moment that crystallized my feelings toward Legend of the Guardians came toward the end. After growing up with tales of the Guardians of Ga'Hoole, Soren is happy to tell his father that the Guardians are not just legend, but are real. His father's response was, "You made them real." At first glance, it looks like the meaningless "kids rawk" fluff that often pops up in animated movies. But this was so blatantly wrong that my wife got seriously irritated. She actually raised her voice to ask, "HOW? They already exist!" My wife doesn't like every movie, but she doesn't loudly question movies very often. To put that in perspective, the last time she watched an animated feature and wasn't happy with it was G-Force. Congrats, Legend of the Guardians, you are in elite company. Apparently, there was not enough cute to counteract the dull and stupid here.
Sorry kid, not cute enough
Let's be honest, though. This is a movie for kids, and the standards of entertainment for children are comically low. Sadly, Legend of the Guardians doesn't quite meet those unimpressive standards. There are a few moments that truly "wow" the viewer --- yes, they are in slow motion --- but they are not the most important or memorable parts of the plot.
This scene > rain flying
However, thanks to the dull story, these inconsequential scenes are what I remember most about this film. The story is too dark to be cutesy, but there are characters clearly designed to just be cute. And yet, the story is not dark enough to be frightening or to make the story less predictable. Even the primary staple of animated movies, the goofy supporting character, is absent for most of this movie. Yes, Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole looks nice, but it is genuinely uninteresting and charmless.
Saturday the 13th isn't quite as good as Friday the 13th, but this was the most appropriate day I could fit in a Friday the 13th movie review (P.S.: it's my final one! I've got a complete set now!). On the surface, the notion of Jason Voorhies in space sounds like a desperate gambit, destined for failure. And it is. The only reason this movie ever happened was because Freddy vs. Jason was stuck in development hell, and the production company didn't want to risk their property falling out of the public's awareness. It was set in the future --- and space --- so as to not interfere with the franchise continuity, just in case FvJ opted to make use of that history (SPOILER: it didn't). Still...this is the tenth Friday the 13th film, and it is one of the few, the proud, the incredibly stupid --- the horror sequel set in space. Maybe the sheer audacity of doing something this dumb will redeem Jason X.
Jason X is an important film, not only because it is the tenth entry in a film series --- how many films can boast that claim? (four, actually) --- but also because it teaches us important lessons. The film opens in the Crystal Lake Research Facility, because research facilities are typically built in the same area as remote Summer camps. There, we meet Rowan (Lexa Doig), a scientist heading a team that is researching Jason Voorhies (Kane Hodder). Everyone knows about how Jason was captured by the government; they "executed him for the first time" in 2008, remember? He just won't stay dead, though. In 2010, Rowan plans to freeze Jason for further study, but David Cronenberg wants to do something stupid that inevitably leads to Jason getting free and having himself a blood orgy.
"Blood Orgy" would make a pretty solid Cronenberg title
The details don't matter. The important thing is that Rowan and Jason wind up being cryogenically frozen. In the year 2455, a group of students is on...um...a class trip? An archaeology expedition? A weak excuse to move the plot forward? Whatever. They find the two Popsicles and bring them on board their spaceship. Rowan is thawed out first, and her immediate thoughts returned to keeping Jason dead-ish. Her worries are immediately dismissed because she's only the person they found with their unknown subject. Some unknown stimulus does the impossible and brings Jason back from the dead.
The "unknown stimulus" is cadaver table romance?
Being a ruthless zombie murderer that has feels no pain still makes for a fairly efficient killer, even in the distant future. However, it's only a matter of time until future technology outclasses this machete-wielding maniac. Of course, that's assuming that Jason can't keep up with the times.
Goalie masks: still fashionable, even in 450 years
The acting in Jason X is better off not being mentioned. Let's just say that it's campy at best and amateurish at worst and leave it at that.
It's possible this guy doesn't even list this movie on his resume
James Issacs directed Jason X. He didn't try to make the characters too likable, or make the spaceship look good. His focus was on violence and campy humor. How successful was he?
Well, one fantastic kill can't carry an entire horror movie (...Or can it? Let me know if you have a good example), but that is easily one of my all-time favorite death scenes in this franchise. The rest of the violence isn't as creative or graphic, but Jason was certainly prolific; I counted twenty-four kills, with several more implied off-screen. That's a pretty high body count, but that doesn't guarantee entertainment. To increase the likelihood of Jason X being fun to watch, the writer (Todd Farmer) and director teamed up to make this the campiest and silliest Friday the 13th yet. Was it actually funny? Well...here and there.
"We love premarital sex!"
There are a few gags that worked quite well. My personal favorite was the premarital sex girls/sleeping bag death scene. It was predictable, but still great. I also liked some of the more knowing dialogue; I don't usually like it when a movie has characters that comment on the action, but the potentially annoying observations were surprisingly solid in Jason X. James Isaacs and Todd Farmer deserve some credit for making this as watchable as it is. Even with all the parts that made me chuckle, there were a lot more moments that were just eye-rollingly lame. Take this scene, for example:
It's humorously violent, it has characters making commentary, and is filled with over-the-top ridiculousness. When done correctly, that should make for an awesome scene. This one...it's not bad. I might even go so far as to call it "pretty good." But it doesn't quite work. There's some absolutely silly moves from the lady, some mediocre one-liner comments, and Jason looking confused while he gets blown to hell. It's fun, but it feels a bit forced.
There is a problem with the way I approached Jason X. Since this is the tenth freakin' Friday, and it is set in space, I instinctively treated it with kid gloves; since I went in with such gloriously low expectations, minor accomplishments like occasionally competent dialogue seem far more valuable than they really are. It's like applauding a toddler for pooping in a toilet --- we expect that of most people, but the bar is set pretty low for these kids because we know they're crapped themselves so many times before.
Look! Jason's distracted by my amazing simile!
If you go into Jason X with absolutely no preconceptions, this will be a pretty bad movie. If you walk into it knowing that it's going to be truly idiotic and violent, though, it's shining moments will seem like pure gold. Is it any good? Surprisingly, it's only slightly more than half-bad.
If you're looking to laugh, though, there is enough Lefty Gold to power several drinking games.
Of course, some of the best moments in Jason X are not related directly to the story at all. Here's a handy list to help you pick out some of the choicer moments of conceptual humor:
- Jason still has his gross old clothes and mask. Think about that for a moment. Jason had been captured by the government for several years and they tried every way they could imagine to kill him. And yet, the scientists never replaced his shitty clothes or hockey mask. For that matter, the fact that Jason is able to easily get his hands on a giant-ass machete just goes to show that the Crystal Lake Research Facility is probably not the high-end, respectable place that the name implies.
- Students in space are always ready for sexy time. I have no problem with characters in horror movies acting sex-crazed, since that's one of the characteristics of slasher movies. I was surprised by how much skin was showing while these students were working on corpses.
Midriff- and shoulder-baring sweaters are actually part of the dissection uniform
- Hockey is on its last legs. According to Jason X, which we can all agree is a historical document, hockey will be outlawed in 2024. Sorry, Canada, you only have twelve more years to live for.
- Machetes are medical tools in the future. 'Nuff said.
