The Devil Inside

Warning: do not watch The Devil Inside hoping for a feature-film treatment for the 1988 INXS music video.  I think we can all acknowledge the brilliance of such a film, especially when revisiting the source material:

Sadly, The Devil Inside is yet another recent found-footage horror movie, only this one focuses on the concept of possession and exorcism.  As a bonus, this film is "inspired by true events," which is undoubtedly true, particularly if you consider the box-office success of The Exorcist and Paranormal Activity "true events."  Let's face it: found-footage movies are rarely good, and exorcism movies are usually steaming piles.  But when done right, a movie like this can really sneak up on you.  Does The Devil Inside accomplish this?  A thousand times, no.  Spoiler: you shouldn't watch this movie, and I will discuss the ending.

The Devil Inside opens with some of the most hilarious bits of prologue I have ever seen.  The filmmakers would like to make the audience aware that A) the Vatican does not authorize filming exorcisms B) the Vatican does not endorse this film and C) the Vatican did not aid in this film's completion.  Each one of those claims is uniquely amusing.  A) takes it for granted that the Vatican endorses exorcism, which I found hilarious...until I tried to dig up some facts on the issue.  There don't seem to be any.  I couldn't find anything that convinced me that the Vatican endorsed or condemned the practice, which was probably the most disturbing experience I had with this film.  B) is funny because it's not like failing to gain the Pope's thumbs up has ever impacted any movie, ever.  C) I enjoyed initially because I pictured some Cardinals or the Pope working as production assistants.  However, the ending of this movie is so bad, it can be accurately stated that neither the Vatican nor the filmmakers aided in the completion of this film.

Above: a common reaction to paying close attention to this plot

Anyway, The Devil Inside begins with some crime scene footage, shot in the 1989.  "I didn't know small town police stations video taped crime scene investigations," you might say.  That's a good point, but if that is the last inconsistency you find in this movie, consider yourself blessedly ignorant.  It seems that  three priests were killed in an exorcism gone wrong, and the possessed woman was arrested.  Oddly enough, she never made it to court because the Catholic Church shipped her off to Rome to live out her days in a special psychiatric hospital.  Because that sometimes happens.  Three days after the exorcism, the possessed woman's husband died, too.  Spooky, right?  Twenty years later, Isabella Rossi (Fernanda Andrade) has come to a very natural decision.  She is going to help make a documentary about exorcisms and demonic possessions, and she is going to go to Italy with her cameraman, Michael (Ionut Grama) to learn more about mommy dearest.  They immediately befriend a pair of rebel priests, Father Ben (Simon Quarterman) and Father David (Evan Helmuth), who actively engage in exorcisms.

Fact: suspect boards are essential to exorcising demons

Well, that was easy, right?  Almost as easy as it is for Isabella to switch from wanting to learn about her disturbed/possessed mother to wanting these new friends to perform an exorcism on her.  There is one slight problem, though: it seems that the Church does not sanction exorcisms unless the demonic possession can be scientifically proven.  Let that sink in for a moment, file it away under "mock later," and continue on, because if you stop every time this movie is dumb, it will take days to finish.  To illustrate their point, Fathers Ben and David take Isabella and her cameraman with to a real exorcism because of course they allow strangers to witness and document their incredibly secretive acts.  It goes off pretty well, aside from the possessed woman (the prolific film contortionist Bonnie Morgan) gushing blood from her lady garden, saying nasty things and (not surprisingly, given the actress) making her body bend in ways it wasn't meant to.  With that experience under their collective belts, proving that Isabella's mother (Suzan Crowley) is legitimately possessed and then exorcising her demon should be a piece of cake, right? 

Somebody wants cake...!

If you've seen an exorcism movie before, you know damn well that any film's main exorcism is never that easy, and by now it should be obvious that The Devil Inside is not going to provide many surprises.

The acting in The Devil Inside is bland at best.  Fernanda Andrade is mediocre in the lead role, but at least she is convincing as someone who doesn't really know much about exorcisms, which puts her on the same level as the audience.  She plays frightened well enough, but her "Real World" confessional moments are pretty bad.  Ionut Grama gets precious little screen time, since he is holding the camera for almost the entire movie, but his character was awful.  You know who should never whine about people not liking them?  Idiots who don't ever stop filming their friends in uncomfortable moments.  If the script intended for this unseen character to be worth hating, it worked surprisingly well.  Simon Quarterman and Evan Helmuth were both decent as exorcism priests, but they certainly don't steal any spotlights from the underwhelming main character.  That just leaves the two possessed characters.  Bonnie Morgan was easily my favorite actor in this film, although describing her work as "acting" may be a bit of an exaggeration.

"Unpleasantly twisting" is a bit more accurate

Still, her was the most effective part in the film, without a doubt.  Suzan Crowley had the role of crazy possessed woman, and she hammed it up to the degree that the role (more or less) demanded.  She wasn't bad, but this type of role has been done better elsewhere, so seeing a third-rate version was less than thrilling.

The Devil Inside was directed and co-written by William Brent Bell.  What amazed me most about his direction in this movie is just how much filler there is.  It feels like this movie is filled with about 40% B-roll footage, with the remainder being a blend of suspiciously familiar footage that could have come from any number of other exorcism movies and some shots of Bell's unappealing actors going through the motions.  The acting in this movie, while not atrocious, isn't very good.  The camera work in this movie is of the found footage variety, so that's not good, either.  The pacing of this 83 minute film is slow and there are no surprises and there is no suspense.  Bell did a bad job making a bad movie.  Worse than the directing was the writing.  

Yes, it's that bad

It was a generic exorcism script that added nothing new or exciting or vaguely interesting to set The Devil Inside apart in any way.  Well, except maybe with its low quality.  The whole story is filled with questionable "facts" and character motivations, but the absolute worst part of this film was the ending.  With about ten minutes left in the film, it becomes clear that demons can switch the bodies they are possessing by breathing in another person's mouth.  Wouldn't that be something covered earlier in the movie?  In a better film, yes.  Since it is very easy to walk up and breathe right into another person's open mouth (I must do it thirty times a day!), the demon is naturally jumping from body to body.  The heroes get a demon-possessed body into a car and start driving to...the Vatican exorcism ER, I guess...when the demon possesses the driver, and drives the car into oncoming traffic, presumably killing everyone inside.  The screen goes black.  Now, that is a hilariously awful way to end a movie.  Any movie.  But then, before the credits roll, a title card comes up, telling the audience that the Rossi family case is still unresolved, and to check out a website for further developments in the case.  If you go to the website now, it is offline, but more timely reviews describe it as a pretty generic movie site with the sort of material you might look for if you were deciding whether or not to go see the movie.  Of course, since you are directed to check out the site after watching a bad movie with a hilariously stupid ending, that extra work is significantly more aggravating.

 The Devil Inside would be a terrible movie, even without the comically misguided attempt at cross-platform marketing tacked on the end.  The best thing about this movie was the sound effects when Bonnie Morgan was contorting herself.  Unfortunately, there are 82 other minutes in this film.  It's not a crime to make a familiar movie, but if you're going to rip someone else off, try to add something interesting to the mix.  Make the demons talk like pirates or something; write the script in iambic pentameter; give the entire cast handlebar mustaches --- I don't care, just make your movie different enough to be worth remembering.  All I will remember about The Devil Inside is the hilarious title cards before and after the movie.

ATM

31 Days of Horror

Do you ever hear about a movie, or see a trailer or something, and just know you will see that movie?  I'm not talking about movies that you're excited to see, I'm talking about ones that you know will be inescapable?  It doesn't matter how good or bad the movie looks, you know that you will eventually watch it.  I feel that way about the Resident Evil and Underworld franchises; I don't like either, but I'm pretty sure I've seen every single one of them, usually because someone else says, "Hey, do you want to watch the new ___?"  This is how I felt about ATM.  The trailer made it look bad.  But I knew I would be watching horror movies all October, and I knew it went straight to video-on-demand (always a good sign), so this was a date made by destiny.  The question is whether destiny likes me or not.

ATM begins with David (Brian Geraghty) and Corey (Josh Peck) being awful at their day trading job.  No worries, though; tonight is the office Christmas party, which means that the night is full of fancy cocktails and expensive whiskey!

Or...maybe it means "just like a frat party, but while wearing suits."  Red cups?  Really?  David recognizes the party is his last chance to hit on Emily (Alice Eve), because it is her last day at the company, so he makes the most of it, in a clumsy and mostly ineffectual fashion.  He does convince her to let him drive her home, since it is below zero outside and she can't seem to catch a cab.  And she lives pretty far away, and it's pretty late, so she'll probably feel obliged to invite him in and, you know, ease his throbbing man-passion.

A guy going out of his way to help her?  That's the most realistic part of ATM

There's just one hitch: Corey is a cheap bastard and a cock blocker, so he insists on David driving him home, too.  Even though he lives in the opposite direction.  And he wants to stop for food.  But he has no cash, so they'll have to stop at an ATM.

"I know, I know.  I'm a bastard.  I've got a reservation for the ninth circle of Hell."

Naturally, since David wants to get his friend home as quickly as possible, he stops at any one of the hundreds of drive-thru ATMs attached to banks the last freestanding ATM in America.  And I'm not talking about an ATM that is on a city street, or one that is in the lobby of a bank, or one that is inside a convenience store --- this one is a booth in the middle of an enormous parking lot.  It's not even close to the road, so how did David know it was there?  That's not important.  What is important is that, to punish Corey for being a complete dick, David parks the car a few hundred feet away from the ATM entrance.  So that whole "let's hurry" thing?  Not as important as it seemed a few moments ago.  Oh, but it turns out that Corey's ATM card isn't working, so David has to get out of the nice, warm car and loan his douchebag friend money so he can maybe get Emily home before she realizes he's incredibly boring.  So he does.  And then Emily joins them, because David turned the car off (Really?) and it got cold.  Once they get the cash, they are about to leave, when...

...they see someone else in the parking lot.  Holy.  Fucking.  Shit.  And he's just...standing there, like a psychopath!  Are they overreacting?  Yes and no.  Right when common sense was about to shame these morons into walking to their car like adults, the dude in the winter coat murders a guy who was taking his dog for a walk (through a parking lot?).  This winter coat guy clearly means business, and by "business," I of course mean "murder."  Thankfully, the ATM enclosure has heat, lighting, bulletproof glass, and a security door.  But can that stop someone who is capable of such horror?

Look into the face of appropriately clothed evil and despair!

There are only three real characters in ATM, so breaking down the acting here will be thankfully brief.  Brian Geraghty was timid and whiny when his character was supposed to be shy and likable.  I don't ordinarily dislike Geraghty, but he took a role that should have at least been sympathetic and instead played the part like a little bitch.  Alice Eve was more likable, but so is the killer.  Eve was decent before the trio stopped at the ATM, and once she was there, her character played the weak link in the group.  Her dialogue indicates that Eve did a decent job with the part, but her character was unrealistic and annoying.  This is the first movie I have seen Josh Peck in, but I will congratulate him for making it out of Nickelodeon-child-actor-hood and not being a ham.  He doesn't have nearly the weaselly charm that his character is supposed to have, but I thought he was a slight improvement over Geraghty's impression of a six-year-old girl with bladder problems.

"Why don't we have winter clothing, like that guy in the parking lot?"

While it is certainly not good, the acting is not the main problem with ATM.  Is it the direction, though, or the writing?  Let's look at the direction first.  This is David Brooks' first attempt at directing a feature film.  With a limited cast of characters, enclosed in a small space while someone tries to kill them, it would make sense for the director to have a firm hand on the tone of this film.  He does not.  There is no suspense in this movie.  There is no tension.  When a character tried to escape the ATM and wound up being clotheslined by some fishing wire in the parking lot, it should have been startling, or it should have elicited a gasp.  I laughed until I couldn't stop coughing, and then I rewound and played it again to make sure I didn't miss anything. 

...and this should look like terror instead of Alice Eve saying "hello" with a Kennedy accent

I blame Brooks for not seeing some of the problems in this script and trying to overcome them.  Three people are willingly staying inside an ATM vestibule because a killer is outside, and yet they constantly lose track of where the killer is?  How is that not a priority?  Wouldn't someone be assigned to lookout duty?  That is a very visual problem with this movie, which makes it a problem for the director.  As for the technical bits, Brooks was uninspired.  Aside from occasionally cutting to the ATM security feed, his style was boring and commonplace.  He did make an odd editing choice during the opening credits to intersperse shots of the crime scene at the end of the film with the introductory scenes at the very beginning of the movie. It basically served the same purpose as having the survivor of a horror movie recount the events in a flashback, but without singling out any particular character as a survivor.  It's not a terrible way to hint at the horror to come, but not give away the plot; of course, that horror movie trope is cheap and completely unnecessary to begin with, but at least he did a halfway decent job with it.  One thing that you will notice about ATM is how boring it is to watch. 

The action scenes suck, too.  Just sitting through a fire?  BO-ring.

That is only partly due to the subject matter.  The rest if dull cinematography.  How many times can you show the same camera shot?  I understand that the story takes place in an enclosed space with a small cast, but you have to mix things up to keep the viewer interested!  Buried takes place exclusively inside a coffin and used more interesting camera angles than ATM.

This shot is 80% of ATM's storyboards

As sub-par as the directing is, it is the writing that sinks ATM.  Chris Sparling (who wrote Buried) received the writing credit for this movie, although I don't see anything to indicate whether he turned in a traditional script or if he handed in a stack of papers covered in crayon scribbles and boogers.  This is easily the worst produced script I have seen in a good long while.  Sucker Punch was better written than this movie, that's how dumb this script is.  How is this script idiotic?  Let's run down the list:

• Three young professionals live in what appears to be the Wisconsin/Illinois area (judging by the killer's maps) in Winter, and yet none of them have a real Winter coat?  Or gloves?  And only the girl has a hat, and it's one of those fluffy ones that are more for looks than warmth?  That's not how it works in the American Midwest.  Nobody looks sexy outdoors in December in Chicago.  Everyone bundles the hell up.  Everyone.  Even those assholes who wear shorts all year long will wear a puffy down jacket when it gets below zero.
• Every other character in the movie is wearing the exact same Winter jacket with a fur trim on the hood.  I live in Illinois, and I don't know a single man with fur trim on his jacket.  I also rarely see people with their hoods up, unless it's sleeting.  Hats, yes.  Hoods, not so much.  A string of men, all indistinguishable from each other because they all own the same damn coat and have their hoods up?  That's about as likely as three people failing to have Winter jackets at the same time.
• All three twentysomethings left their phones in the car (or let their battery die).  All three?  I am just outside the smartphone generation, and I rarely leave my phone in another room, let alone get out of the car without it.  You're telling me that these three all did it at the same time?
• Emily left her purse in the car (which was not her car, and was out in the open) when she got out to go to the ATM.  I'm no expert on women, but I give that a zero percent chance of happening.
• The killer shows up with no weapons.  What the hell?  His original plan was to look menacing, until someone gave him the means to find a weapon?  Hell, he couldn't have done half of the things he did to the ATM vestibule without the tools he conveniently found in the trunk of David's car.
• Who leaves a fire hose out overnight, let alone around Christmas?
• David has a fully-stocked toolbox in his trunk.  He trades securities or something like that.  Why would he keep a few hundred dollars of non-tire-changing tools in his trunk?

There are several more examples, but those are the most mind-numbingly stupid instances of the writing in this movie.  In the other cases, you can blame horror movie logic for their choices, but these are  inexcusable.

"Now I have machine gun tire iron.  Ho ho ho."

It is also worth pointing out that the movie portrays the killer as a mastermind that planned all this.  Before the opening credits, we saw him writing on some schematics, planning his attack.  But here's the thing: while the killer was "clever" enough to SPOILER ALERT: not get caught on camera, his foolproof plan apparently depended on having the stupidest three people alive do exactly the right things to allow this plan to work.  Three people that decide not to overpower one person, even when they have proof that they could?  Check.  Three people with cell phones who all happen to leave their cell phones in the car?  Double check.  Three people who are made more desperate by the fact that they don't know what to wear when it is ridiculously cold out?  Triple check.  A group who parks their car just far enough away to have no chance of reaching it without the villain reaching them?  Quadruple check.

Finally!  Somebody parks their damn car close to the ATM machine.  He's helping!

If you change any of those conditions, all of which are extremely unlikely, this dastardly plan falls apart.  And if you think about any of those conditions, the movie falls apart.  But let's not be completely negative.  When David and Corey were having bro time, talking like normal guys, the dialogue was awkward and not terribly clever.  So there's a silver lining.

As bad as ATM is, I couldn't help laughing at its ineptness.  It takes itself so seriously that the obvious mistakes and plot holes feel utterly ridiculous.  I can't imagine a modern movie with recognizable actors that is stupider than ATM.  More pretentious?  Sure.  More frustrating?  Easily.  Simply worse?  Yes.  But dumber?  The only thing that could be dumber than ATM would be a sequel.  By the way, the ending clearly sets up a sequel.  Since this movie made about forty-two cents against a budget of three million dollars, it probably won't happen, but how sweet would it have been for ATM 2: The ATMining to have had the same villain, with the same MO, against someone who wasn't fatally moronic?

Even better: same coat, but in Florida

The fact that ATM got made is an insult to any unpublished screenplays out there.

That doesn't mean it's not fun to watch, though.  This movie has just enough stupidity to keep me interested in pointing out what the next mistake will be.  It was close, though.  There is a fine line between Lefty Gold and utter trash sometimes, I will admit.  ATM straddles that line for much of the film.  Thankfully, the fate of each character and the reveal of the killer as a "mastermind" was enough to make me belly laugh.  I wouldn't advise watching this sober and/or alone, but in the right state of mind, it's pretty solid Lefty Gold.

Troll 2

I had been putting off the notoriously bad Troll 2 for quite a while.  I'm not exactly sure why; I often enjoy movies that are amusingly bad.  Maybe it was because I haven't spent time with friends who enjoy a nice, terrible movie lately.  Maybe I just didn't want to be frustrated by another bad film.  Whatever my reasons were, I was mistaken.  You need to watch this movie.  Seriously, it will change your life.  You may ask "Just how bad is this movie?"  Well, they made a documentary about it and named it Best Worst Movie, for starters.  "But shouldn't I watch the original Troll to have something to compare it to?"  No need; Troll 2 is not a sequel to Troll, nor is it a prequel.  Troll 2 has absolutely nothing to do with any other Troll movie.  In fact, there isn't a single troll to be found in this film.  Are you intrigued?

The Waits family --- father Michael, mother Diana, daughter Holly and son Joshua --- are doing something unusual for summer vacation this year.  They are swapping homes with a family that owns a farm; the Waits will live off the land for a few months and the other family will enjoy suburbia.  Apparently, the farming family doesn't mind the very probable odds of city folk ruining their crops without help or supervision.  Also worth noting is the fact that the Waits parents must be crazy, sadistic bastards to put their kids through this experience.

"One step closer, and I will snap my son's neck, I swear to God!"

And what kind of jobs do these parents have that they can take three months off to enjoy backbreaking labor?  Just before the family leaves on their trip, Joshua is contacted by the ghost of his grandfather --- which appears to be a common and unexplained occurrence --- who warns Joshua about the dangers of goblins.  Goblins are vegan monsters who eat people...but only after they somehow turn their victims into vegetables.  This brings up two important questions.  How does dead grandpa ghost know about goblins?  More importantly, why don't goblins just stick to eating vegetables that have never been human?

Because fear is delicious

The Waits leave for the town of Nilbog before those questions can be answered.  Once they arrive, young Joshua has a revelation:

Joshua has a bright future as a detective, as you can see.  When the Waits family arrives in their newly-swapped summer home, they find a vast "feast" laid out for them.  The quotations marks are deserved, since most of the meal appears to be made of green Play-Doh and colored whipped cream.

I Can't Believe It's Not Butter

Ghost grandpa shows up again and freezes time to explain to Joshua that the food has some sort of magical potion in it that will turn anyone who eats it into vegetable people.  But grandpa ghost froze time too late!  Nobody will believe Joshua is getting advice from a ghost, much less follow that advice.  With only seconds to act, Joshua springs onto the table and urinates all over the food, table, and anyone with food near their mouth.  It might not have been the perfect solution, but it certainly was the most eloquent.  The scene left me with a burning question, though: if grandpa is powerful enough to STOP FREAKING TIME, how is he so weak that he has to speak only to the smallest and dumbest member of the family?

Of course, sooner or later it becomes obvious to the Waits that Nilbog is full of goblins.  In fact, it is comprised entirely of goblins.

Only some of whom are forced to wear crappy costumes

Luckily for the Waits family, the cast of Troll 2 is padded with Holly's boyfriend and his buddies.  These youngsters act as cannon fodder and show off the variety of ways goblins can kill people.  Will goblins eat the Waits family?  Or will ghost grandpa manage to save the day by explaining the one goblin weakness and give Joshua a bologna sandwich for protection?  I can't believe that sentence makes sense within the context of this movie.

What sets Troll 2 apart from so many other bad movies is how fantastically inept it is, in every way.  No matter what aspect of the movie-making process you want to focus on, Troll 2 does it wrong to a hilarious degree.  Let's start with something simple, like costumes and make-up.  Not every movie is going to have a huge budget for special effects or convincing inhuman costumes.

Some can afford only masks and potato sacks

But that's why few movies have towns full of goblins in the plot.  If you ignore the shoddy costuming of the goblins, their irregular appearance from goblin to goblin, the fact that the lips of the goblin masks don't move when the actors speak, and the confusion caused by adult-sized people wearing the goblin costumes and still being called "dwarves," you are still left with some pretty awful costume and makeup work.

Battle of Crazy Eyes

When even the most basic concepts, like not making rouge look like a facial burn, are screwed up, you just can't help but laugh.

From what I've researched, it seems that this film was written by the director and his wife, who were both Italian and neither of whom spoke fluent English.  Furthermore, it seems that the director insisted on the cast reading their lines as they were written, regardless of grammar or common sense.  That definitely explains much of the acting in Troll 2.  If you like flat line delivery, odd emphasis, and bizarre vocal cadences, this is the movie for you.

It's not over-acting if she doesn't know what she's saying

Troll 2 has developed a bit of a cult following over the years, and the acting plays a large part in that.  There are several dozen instances in the film, but the most infamous is this scene (I've provided the English and Spanish translation for your viewing pleasure):

Isn't the Spanish dubbing far superior?  I think my favorite part of that scene is how obviously awful it is, and yet the director was apparently satisfied with it.  A fly landed on the actor's forehead while he screamed, which practically begs for another take, but apparently the director came from the Ed Wood school of direction and marched on.

I could go on and on, examining the ridiculous music, direction, editing, and story, but that would just make me want to watch the movie again.

Story problem: sex scenes involving corn cobs are not sexy

I don't really have anything original to add, regarding Troll 2.  It is truly one of the worst films I have ever seen, in every aspect of filmmaking.  It is surprisingly lovable, though; as bad as it is, this movie is a lot of fun to watch.  From a strictly objective point of view, Troll 2 earned a rating of

But whoever said I have to be objective?  I had a blast watching this alone, and it will only get better as I share it with others.  Hell, I will probably watch Best Worst Movie when I do my next October run of horror movies.  Troll 2 is, indeed, the best worst movie and the finest case of Lefty Gold I have ever encountered.

Sucker Punch

I typically don't have to think much when reviewing a movie.  I watch, I ponder briefly --- often as I type --- and share my judgement with a disinterested world via this blog.  I had a hard time with Sucker Punch, though.  It's not the first time I had difficulty accurately capturing my thoughts on a screen, but unlike Ingmar Bergman's Persona, this wasn't because I was confused by the film.  To better illustrate my difficulty, I would like to present you with the plot, complete with my reactions to the first twenty minutes of the film (my reactions are in bold):

Five minutes in

So, Baby Doll's (Emily Browning) mom dies, leaving her and her sister with their (presumed step-) father (Gerard Plunkett), who likes to leer at his daughters, especially when other people are present, like at a funeral.  Why have there been multiple slow-motion shots already?  There's been no action to justify them.  When dead mom leaves everything in her will to the kids --- which I assume is supposed to be a significant amount, although it is never again referenced in the film, despite it being a key motivating factor --- molester dad decides to molest his kids.  When Baby Doll fights back, he locks her in her room and goes after the sister.  Baby Doll breaks out, starts a house fire, steals daddy's gun, accidentally starts a gas leak, and shoots daddy.  He doesn't die.  The sister does.  The police show up and take Baby Doll to the insane asylum.  What the hell kind of police action is that?  You can prove prolonged sexual abuse, even on the sister-corpse, and the cops let the sister's death get pinned on Baby Doll, despite it not being a gun-related death?  And what was the point of showing the gas leak, if there was never an explosion?  Fire and gas leaks don't play well, especially in films, and yet Sucker Punch decides that it is above little nuisances like exploding houses.  By the way, the plot and cinematography in these scenes felt like a mash-up homage to the music videos of Korn and Aerosmith's "Janie's Got a Gun".  Cheery stuff.  What a great way to start a movie that is supposed to be an action-fantasy movie with hot chicks in it.

To be fair, thigh-highs and guns are on the way

Ten minutes in

Baby Doll is being walked through the insane asylum, accompanied by molester dad.  While walking through, the camera holds on specific items as Baby Doll passes.  I wonder if these seemingly commonplace items will be important later on?  Subtle!  In the asylum, we meet Blue Jones (Oscar Isaac), an asylum orderly or something like that.  He and daddy discuss (in a room filled with people, and it's not like they are whispering) their plan to have Baby Doll illegally lobotomized (in front of Baby Doll, mind you) by a doctor who will visit the asylum in five days.  Meanwhile, Baby Doll shares a glance filled with meaning (or homo-eroticism, I can't tell which) with Sweet Pea (Abbie Cornish), from across the room of crazy folk.  Fast-forward five days, and Baby Doll is in the surgery chair, with an ice pick-looking thing milliseconds away from being nailed through her eye socket.  Well, at least we have something not-at-all-depressing to look forward to: a happy ending for a victim of sexual abuse and police mis-investigation.  I bet the deleted scenes show forty minutes of her being object raped by Blue Jones.  But wait!  Everything changes!

Twenty minutes in

Baby Doll has entered a fantasy world, one where she is an orphan (what a shitty fantasy) and has been more or less purchased by a gangster to work in his whorehouse/dance club.  But she's not going to have sex yet!  Of course not.  That would make sense.  Instead, she is awaiting the arrival of the High Roller, to whom she and her virginity will be sold.  All the other girls from the insane asylum (or at least the attractive ones) are in this fantasy world as dancing prostitutes. 

They do look happy as hookers

For a fantasy world, though, their lives all kind of suck.  Aside from the whole being-forced-to-have sex-for-money thing, they are often victimized by whorehouse employees and can be killed for misbehaving.  Baby Doll knows that she must escape before the High Roller arrives, so she hatches a plan to steal certain items (perhaps the ones that were slow-motion-ed earlier?  Subtlety pays off!) that will help her and the others escape.  The key to the plan is for Baby Doll to distract particular men by doing her sexy (and nudity-free) dance, which has the ability to mesmerize any audience.  Except the film's audience, because we are never privy to a single moment of Baby Doll dancing.  And when Baby Doll dances, everything changes again!  Now, we are in a fantasy world where the whores are essentially the heroines of an action video game, fighting off orcs, dragons, robots, samurai demons, and steam-powered German zombies.

Because normal action scenes were too realistic

Sweet!  Now we have a ridiculous fantasy within a crappy fantasy, with an assured lobotomy awaiting when we leave these fantasy worlds!  It's like a Russian nesting doll, only one that is made of crap!

What a depressing movie!  All the promotional work for Sucker Punch promises high-octane action and elaborate fantasy --- the tagline was "You will be unprepared" --- and yet we are shoved into a film where innocent women are repeatedly victimized by evil, evil men.  I suppose the tagline was right.

The acting in Sucker Punch is hard to gauge.  It is certainly not good, but the script is beyond wretched, so it's hard to completely blame the cast.

Literally one million times better than Sucker Punch dialogue

The ladies fared better than most of the guys.  Emily Browning got to deliver dead-eyed cliches, Abbie Cornish had strong opinions until she suddenly didn't, Jena Malone balanced some decent horror-stricken scenes with some numbingly dull lines, and Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung stare vacantly in the background of scenes.  Carla Gugino gave her very best Natasha from The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle impression.  While these women certainly didn't "wow" with their acting, I will admit that they struck cheesecake poses quite well.  The men of Sucker Punch were pretty terrible.  Oscar Isaac is the lead male, and he's about as subtle as a Disney villain; I'm shocked that his mustache wasn't long enough to twirl.

But he looks so understanding!

Scott Glenn shows up as the advisor to the super-heroines of the video game-ish fantasy world.  He basically acts like a lesser Charlie to their Angels, and his last line in each scene begins "One more thing..." followed by something nearly impossible.  I won't begrudge an old man acting with young beauties, but it was a dumb role and he can do better.  Jon Hamm also has a brief appearance, but his dialogue is so wooden and unnatural that it felt like he was reading off cue cards for his three minutes of screen time.

While there are many problems with Sucker Punch, most of them can be laid at the feet of director/co-writer Zack Snyder.  This was Snyder's first attempt at adapting an original screenplay, and that took on even more importance after the criticisms he received for being too devoted to the source texts for 300 and Watchmen.  This was his chance to show off what his imagination could do without the restrictions that come with staying true to a source story.  And the result was an overcomplicated plot about women being victimized?  I would not have guessed that.  Sure, Snyder was probably trying to show these women as empowered, because they fight back and the bad men are all eventually punished; too bad that concept never actually reached the script, much less the big screen.  And here's a tip: revenge against abusers by the abused is not the same thing as empowerment.  It boggles my mind that this film was green-lit.  Who is the target audience?  It is a PG-13 movie with no gore or nudity that focuses on sexy ladies in action scenes.  It tries to incorporate music in the same way Moulin Rouge did, only without any explicit significance to the plot.  And what was with all the rape?!?  It's like Sucker Punch was made for internet-deprived video game enthusiasts who love musicals, but hate sex and violence, and want to masturbate to rape fantasies.  Maybe Snyder watched I Spit On Your Grave and thought to himself, "That was great, but how can I sell this to a wider audience?" 

Answer: Sailor Moon outfits

Zack Snyder also failed as a director in Sucker Punch.  This movie is full of scantily-clad women and ridiculous action sequences in fantastic worlds, and it still feels really, really boring.  The pacing is just atrocious.  It doesn't help that the plot is obvious and predictable, but Snyder has developed a style where he plods forward with his stories and randomly throws in slow-motion scenes, regardless of appropriateness.  Nothing ever happens quickly in a Sucker Punch, especially the action.  That was an interesting choice that glorified the violence in 300; without an R rating, all that style provides in Sucker Punch is a longer running time.  Speaking of the rating, for a movie that clearly wants the audience to ogle its women, I found the lack of nudity or consensual sex astonishing.  If there is a way for Snyder to show off cleavage or an ass in a slow-motion shot, he makes it happen.  And yet...PG-13.  No sex, no violence...so what the hell was I suppose to look forward to, once the plot was obviously terrible?

One of the few ass-free camera shots

Even the soundtrack was annoying.  Each song was sung by a female artist and they were mostly cover versions of songs made famous by male singers.  That would be fine, I suppose, but the songs are all used in the same manner (to vaguely describe the actions in the video game fantasy) with the same sound (breathy vocals and faux electronic rock production).  Do I really need a trip hop version of The Stooges' "Search and Destroy"?  No, I do not.  Bjork's "Army of Me" was remixed for the movie, and it serves as Baby Doll's sexy dance song, despite having a strange beat and absolutely no sexiness in the song itself.

I wasn't expecting a whole lot from Sucker Punch.  I was hoping for either a cool visual experience or something ridiculous enough to make me laugh.  This movie featured a gundam with an angry cartoon bunny face on it, and I was still bored stupid.

At this point, I didn't even care...and there were fifty minutes left!

 The action, which should have been awesome, was boring and routine.  The villains didn't put up a fight and with no gore, there were no shocking moments.

The absolute worst thing about Sucker Punch is that it is not completely inept.  If this was made by an amateur filmmaker, it would certainly be more palatable (although I would still wonder about all the rape).  Zack Snyder provides some very cool images and ideas --- like the steam-powered zombies --- and still managed to make an unwatchable film.

Cool-looking is rarely a solid character trait --- sorry, Boba Fett

The gorgeous images serve as a constant reminder that the rest of the movie absolutely sucks and will probably try to pee in your mouth if you fall asleep in front of your television.  It's one thing to make a bad movie and know it's bad.  I might not enjoy your movie, but I will respect the goals you set for your film.  But I have no idea what Sucker Punch was attempting.  I can't even argue that it aimed for the stars and simply fell short, because the story and script are so bad that they cannot be pretentious.  This was just a complete failure on every artistic level, save for the visuals --- and even those could have been better and more imaginative.  I felt insulted and cheated when this movie ended.  Sucker Punch, indeed.

The half star is for the visuals, particularly the idea of steam-powered villains in World War I.  And here's Bjork's video for "Army of Me," which is infinitely more creative and weird than Sucker Punch could ever hope to be.
w

Skyline

"Don't look up"?!?  What kind of tag line is that for a movie about UFOs attacking Earth?  Right away, if the title Skyline didn't clue you in, that tag line is slap to the back of the head that lets you know that this movie will suck.  "Skyline"???  Is that the best they could come up with?  Just to prove how worthless whoever titled this film is, I'm going list roll a few better options off the top of my head:

• Blue F'n Lights - it's not a J.J. Abrams film, but it still fits
• Star Whores - probably a porno title, but since nobody could have actually liked the script, both terms feel appropriate...
• Underwhelming FX: The Movie - as an Illinois native, it pains me to criticize a special effects company out of Waukegan, but...why not?  They're so far north, they might as well be Wisconsinites
• Eric Balfour vs. The Universe - he needs to be stopped, and our world is clearly not up to the task
• Aliens Rape LA - my personal favorite

It's not like the term "skyline" has any importance to the plot, or (as far as I can recall) is even mentioned in the script.  Whatever, I'm over it.  There is one other thing I have to point out about this movie poster.  Look at the two guys on the poster.  It looks like they're getting ready for some action; one of them has a gun and appears to be sneaking up on the spaceship, and the other looks poised and ready to go.  This shot is taken directly from the film, and I promise you that the scene is nowhere near as cool as the poster might lead you to believe.  For starters, the guy on the left, who looks like he might be wearing a Kevlar vest or something, is just wearing a jumpsuit.  The other guy is holding a video camera.  They're not getting ready for action, they're getting ready to crap their pants.

Still photo of Donald Faison, mid-pants-crapping

All right, I guess  should get this over with.  Jarrod (Eric Balfour)and his girlfriend, Elaine (Scottie Thompson), fly out to Los Angeles to help celebrate the birthday of Jarrod's bestest buddy, Terry (Donald Faison).  The pair go way back, which is a nicer way of saying that they don't really see each other too much any more.  Terry has become a big time musician or actor or something along those lines.  I don't recall any specifics about his career, but he has money, a swingin' pad, a sexy girlfriend (Brittany Daniel) and a sexy secretary (Crystal Reed).  After a night of partying and some personal revelations, this fascinating look into group relationships is rudely interrupted by aliens.

...making everything earlier in the film completely irrelevant.

These aren't your ordinary aliens, though.  Well, they kind of are.  There are huge spaceships that appear to be disintegrating entire chunks of the city and sucking people into their core.  There are ground troops that vary capturing/eating people with smashing them into raspberry jam.  Neither of these sound atypical of movie aliens, but wait until you get a load of The Light.

Walk toward the light.  Pleeeeeease.  End this quickly.

The alien ships use a blue light (very similar, but far less subtle than the Blue F'n Lights of Super 8) to lure stupid humans to their doom.  Seriously.  The light goes on, people get mesmerized by it, and then they evaporate.  Or something.  Oh, and your skin and eyes get all blotchy.  That's probably important.  But it might not be.  So this assortment of civilians winds up being improbably important in humanity's war on alien scum, right?  Actually, no.  These people spend most of the movie hanging out in a penthouse, watching other people fighting the aliens.  And that's how the movie goes.

About par for the action scenes in this film.

This is a bad movie.  I wasn't expecting a whole lot from it, but I enjoyed the last effort from Colin and Greg Strouse (Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem) and thought this would make for some stupid fun.  There was plenty of stupid in Skyline, but precious little fun.

It starts with the acting.  I assumed that Donald Faison would be the star of the movie, since he has had the most successful (television) career in the cast and because I saw his interview on Attack of the Show several months ago.  I hate sitcoms, so I was never a fan of Scrubs, but he seems like a decent guy and I was interested in seeing him carry a sci-fi movie.  Well, he's only in about thirty minutes.  Looks like I put all my expectation eggs in the wrong basket.  Instead, the dreadful Eric Balfour is the main character.  It's not that he's a bad actor (although he is), it's that he brings down every movie I see him in.  Here, his motivations are asinine at best, his opinions are stupid, and his character is pretty unsympathetic.  Oh, and he hasn't quite figured out how to act convincingly against special effects.  Or people, for that matter.  Brittany Daniel and Scottie Thompson were a little better, but only because the story didn't focus as much on them.  Both women were unreasonably bitchy at extremely inappropriate times (like, you know, when aliens invade our planet), and sometimes their over-serious reactions to things were bafflingly funny.  David Zayas has a surprisingly large role for a character that isn't featured in the first third of the film.  He wasn't great, but compared to the rest of the cast, he looked like Lawrence freaking Olivier.

Special effects mean you don't have to act as much, right?

The ultimate problem with Skyline isn't the acting or the directing, even though both are awful.  The main problem is that the writing is idiotic.  This film follows a group of people who spend most of the film hiding in an apartment building.  From aliens.  Aliens that are destroying Los Angeles.  So, instead of focusing on people that are, you know, fighting aliens (like the not terrible Battle: Los Angeles), we focus on people who are hiding.  That seems like a poor choice.  And a boring one, at that.  I'm not saying that you can't make a movie like this, but it should focus a lot more on the characters and have someone that the audience can like.  In other words, it shouldn't try to be a showcase for special effects.  It's not too much to ask, is it?  Skyline provides an unsympathetic group of characters, has them act like jerks, and I'm supposed to give a shit about them?  Sorry, that's not going to happen.

I would have been fine with Skyline's terrible acting and directing if the movie had been fun.  It's not.  It's the worst alien invasion movie ever.  Well, okay, Alien Predators was a worse film, but Skyline is way less fun because nothing ever seems to happen in the damn movie.  To give you an idea of how dull this film is, it is a key plot point for the group of people to work together and put blinds over a window; they are not successful.  Just thinking about that scene is making me mad.  Thank goodness they chose not to give it a proper ending and left the door open for a sequel.  Ugh.  The only thing keeping this from zero stars is how hard I laughed during Donald Faison's last scene, and that was only because I assumed he was the main character.