A California Christmas: City Lights (2021)

Director: Shaun Paul Piccinino
Writer(s): Lauren Swickard
Starring: Lauren Swickard, Josh Swickard, Ali Afshar and David Del Rio

There are some things that should just be left alone. And yet, it seems to be human nature to mess with it until it becomes a steaming pile of shit. That extends even into the world of lame rom-coms, although generally to a much lesser extent considering the first one is usually pretty bad on its own. However, recent proof comes in the form of The Princess Switch trilogy, which actually had an entertaining first entry, but has steadily gotten worse with each release.

The latest example of this mystifying phenomenon is A California Christmas: City Lights. The first one was about as close to low-budget sappy romantic perfection as you can get. It came out of nowhere, delivered a solid premise with some likable characters and two perfect, attractive leads with a rare chemistry seen in these movies (it comes as no surprise they are married in real life); it all felt so…effortless. Sure, it was a basic, by-the-numbers premise, but it was executed well.

City Lights, however, doesn’t waste any time in dragging down the potential franchise. This isn’t just “lesser” than the first one, nor is it merely “inferior”; this one falls face first off a cliff. It reduces (or removes) everything that was great about the first one, while simultaneously increasing all the things the first one was missing that made it so good.

Like the story. In the first one, you may recall, Joseph stole the identity of a man named Manny in order to work at a farm he was hoping to acquire for his company. Well, he meets the owner of the land - an attractive girl named Callie who just so happens to be his age - and the two of them start a relationship so strong, that Joseph leaves his successful big city world behind.

But now it’s about to catch up with him. Flash forward a year from the events of the first one: The duo are still in love, living on the same land, where they run both a farm, and a winery. But as we know, things can never be smooth for long: Joseph gets a call from his mother, who runs Van Aston Enterprises - the family business - informing him that she is stepping down, effective immediately. Okay, why should he care? Because he’s next in line to run it, of course!

I love how in these movies no one can ever say no. He’s happy with his current life, and yet - when faced with this sudden thing he has no control over - he can’t just have his mom give the company to someone else? Or given the urgency, find someone to temporarily cover until he can figure out a plan? But no, he has to drop everything and take the first plane out to California, with his wife in tow. And boy does she learn a thing or two about her husband that she - presumably - didn’t already know. Like how he was a playboy, and lived his life in excess. You would think these things would get discussed before marriage, but they never seem to be in the movies.

Anyway, long story short, Joseph lets the big city life get to his head, while Callie starts spending more time with her former fiance’s (who died) brother, who runs a soup kitchen and plays the male lead in a two-person play involving the Virgin Mary (I forget who he plays…Jesus maybe? I don’t know.) The two share a weird connection, where you think it might turn romantic, but it never does…yet that doesn’t stop the two-faced snake Victoria (it’s always a Victoria), Joseph’s former colleague and romantic interest, from attempting to blow it out of proportion in order to get Joseph to leave her. Ho-fucking-hum.

This one is a misguided mess from the outset. When you have two married leads with a believable connection, you would think that’s something your story should focus on. After all, that’s the entire point of the whole romance subgenre. People don’t watch these tired retreads for the stories; they watch them to see two attractive people go through (lighthearted) hell to form some kind of ridiculously over-the-top bond that, presumably, lasts a lifetime. (A great plot for a spoof would be to follow a couple from a previous rom-com, faux-documentary style, as they’re now out of love and washed-up versions of their former selves.) A California Christmas: City Lights makes the unforgivable decision to shy away from the intense attraction the two stars have for each other, instead surrounding them with a bloated story that can’t help but steal the spotlight.

It also makes the mistake of giving the supporting castt nothing meaningful to do. While Manny and Joseph’s limo driver - two excellent, likable characters from the original movie - make a return, they are pretty much expendable. The limo driver is barely in it at all, and while Manny sees an increase in screen time, he literally spends it all trying to capture the attention, and the heart, of a woman who is helping him out on the farm. That’s great he gets a love interest, and the girl he falls for is cute, but it quickly becomes not only repetitive, but completely unnecessary. Especially considering the overblown plot, which gives Joseph and Callie far too much screen time already.

I’m shocked to discover that, like the first one, this mess was written by Lauren Swickard, who plays Callie. One would think she would tailor the story to suit the strengths of those involved, but instead she’s responsible for this one-note mess, which takes the series into a new direction that hopefully leads to no further movies.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• The “stitches” subplot involving Hannah is classically retarded. She’s also a shit actress.
• Speaking of which, what is the point of her anyway? Just to show up in a couple scenes and whine? Yet another example of unnecessary characters added to an overinflated story.

ENTERTAINMENT RATING: 2/10

TRAILER

Endless Love (2014)

Director: Shana Feste
Writer(s): Feste and Joshua Safran, from a novel by Scott Spencer
Starring: Gabriella Wilde, Alex Pettyfer, Bruce Greenwood and Robert Patrick

Jesus Christ…it had been a long time since I saw a “mainstream” movie; usually, we delve into the lame holiday rom-coms starring celebrity has-beens on the downhill slope of their careers. For whatever reason, we stumbled on Endless Love, a thriller about a psychopathic father who will stop at nothing to control his family. Oh wait, nevermind…it’s actually a “romantic” movie about a middle-class kid who falls for a girl from a rich family.

The inanity starts off immediately, when we are asked to believe that the aforementioned girl - who, may I remind you, is rich - went unnoticed by virtually everyone all throughout high school. Riiight. This actually sets a pretty good precedent for what follows, which is an ever-increasing collection of boundless stupidity. 

The rich girl whom no one ever noticed is Jade Butterfield, a blonde who would attract any high school boy regardless of social class. Actually, at least one boy was caught up by her looks: That boy is David Elliott, the son of a mechanic, which is the occupation that always seems to be the basic example used in media to represent a middle-class family. Of course, he didn’t have the nerves to talk to her throughout high school, but he finally does work up the nerve on graduation day; rather immediately, the two kids from opposite sides of the tracks form an almost inseparable bond.

This sits well with every single other character in the movie, except for Hugh Butterfield, Jade’s domineering father. You know how most romance movies have at least a few things that have to try to pull the two lovers apart so that their romance gets tested? Well this romance gets tested time and time again by Hugh’s increasingly sociopathic behavior. He takes an immediate disliking to David just based on his aforementioned social status, believing that since he helps his father work on cars, he has no dreams or aspirations. This is cemented when David admits during a conversation with the Butterfield family that he has no plans to attend college. No one else at the table cares, including Hugh's wife, or Jade's douchey-looking (but actually nice) frat-boy type brother. But for an old-fashioned asshole like Hugh, this is an inconceivable notion; life should be all about getting into a prestigious school, having a prestigious job, getting married, and living a prestigious life. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

And that’s why he goes through almost every conceivable avenue to prevent his daughter from seeing the man that she’s destined to be with. Despite the objections of his wife, his own son, and of course Jade herself, because why should her own opinions matter? After all, she’s just a young girl who doesn’t know the ways of the world, and it should be up to her dad to protect her, right? If this sounds terrifyingly creepy, it is. 

Honestly, a plot outline seems almost moot, given the number of tropes that get crammed into this one. It doesn’t feel like an actual story so much as a collection of them, presented one right after another. Considering this was based on a novel (by Scott Spencer), I would be more apt to blame him for the mess that transpires, except that - based on several sources I've read online (read: everyone) - this strays so far from the original novel that it's really only "loosely based" on it. 

In fact, about the only thing it seems to share with the source material is that, despite the name and marketing materials, it's not at all a charming love story. But whereas the book paints David as "obsessive" towards a more worldly Jade, the movie doesn't even have the slightest clue as to its identity. It focuses too much on the connection between the main stars to be considered a thriller, whereas Hugh's increasingly concerning behavior is completely unsuitable for a romance. It lives inside a grey area where it will only alienate fans of either genre.

At the end of the day, this is almost worse than those cheesy "off-brand" rom-coms, made by smaller studios; given the amount of resources that were no doubt granted to the filmmakers, it's baffling to me how they ended up churning out this bottom-of-the-barrel shit. It’s like they couldn’t decide between making a love story, or a thriller, so they ended up making neither

The ending only makes things worse, when - after ignoring his own family’s pleas to ease up on David for the entire running time - Hugh finally just "snaps out" of his evil streak to save an unconscious David from a burning building. Yep, that's how he makes up for months of abusing David and Jade so badly, that he literally tears his entire family apart. There, I just spoiled it for you so you don’t have to sit through this mindless garbage yourself.

Actually, “mindless” might be giving it too much credit.

RATING: 1/10

TRAILER

Christmas Capsules: A California Christmas (2020)

Director: Shaun Piccinino
Writer: Lauren Swickard
Starring: Lauren Swickard, Josh Swickard, Ali Afshar, and David Del Rio

This one is yet another tired entry into the “save the family farm” trope, but this one takes things to such ridiculous extremes that it can be difficult to watch at times. However, it’s (partially) saved by the two leads (spouses in real life), who deliver tour-de-force performances…at least, as far as cheesy holiday romances are concerned.

Josh Swickard is Joseph, a very attractive man who clearly has no trouble with the ladies. He works for his overbearing mother (surprise!), buying up land from people to---one can only presume—turn them into casinos, or resorts, or some other lofty venture. His latest task is to secure the land owned by Callie and her family, in exchange for some cold, hard cash. Now, in reality, this would probably be a very mutually beneficial situation: Callie’s family farm is wracked with debt, her fiancé and father died in the same car crash, and her mother is (voluntarily) dying of cancer—I’d say that would be the perfect time to just say “fuck it” and move on from the family business.

But good ol’ Callie (Lauren Swickard) is an “all-American” girl, and she’d rather join everyone else around her in death before she gives in to the greed of some land developer looking to make a few bucks at her expense, no matter how desperately she could actually use it.

Through a weird series of events, Callie confuses the all-white Joseph for Manny, a ranch hand who is supposed to start working on their farm. Joseph clearly has never worked manual labor a single day in his life, but Callie doesn’t really seem to notice, as she informs him that some “suit” is supposed to visit her to make her family an offer on the farm. Sensing her hostility, Joseph decides it’s best to just continue to pretend he’s someone he’s not, in order to eventually get what he thinks he wants (to get her to sell the land), but then realizes that it isn’t at all what he wants.

This trope-a-thon throws every sad cliché it possibly can toward the viewer, and it makes for a rather frustrating experience. While Callie is clearly made to look like the “tough family leader”, there just comes a point where you have to throw in the towel for her and tell her to move on. I get that she has “pride” in the farm, but when even your own (dying, may we remind you) mother is on-board with selling it, maybe it’s time to just take a little hint. Sure, it was once the family business, but times change—certainly your dead family members would realize that, and want you to be happy above living in poverty just to continue the family tradition.

Beyond the palpable yearning of the leads, the movie also finds some footing in the relationship between Joseph’s assistant, and the real Manny (who of course the assistant happens to stumble on, because the towns in these movies are so small that only the cast can fit in them). At first, it becomes merely a business proposition: the assistant pays Manny $3,000 to keep his mouth shut, and to not report to work, something he has little problem with. But despite making us believe the story is going to go one way (that Manny will continue to blackmail them to keep getting what he wants), it settles down; the assistant, who basically lives with him for the week, and the Americanized Mexican man become good friends. Their relationship is pretty familiar, thanks to lazy writing, but the cast helps elevate it into another bright point for a movie that sorely needs them.

In the end, this is a promising movie that is undone by the “throw everything and hope it sticks” method that was apparently undertaken by the filmmakers. However, some of it does manage to stick, and that - along with the outstanding lead performances (especially Lauren Swickard, as Callie) - are what elevate this above some similar fare. However slightly.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

• Beyond the tropes listed above, there’s also a kid involved, my least favorite of all tropes. Her character isn’t all that annoying, but she still feels pointless by default, the way kids usually are.
• Of course Callie’s dead fiance’s best friend—who wants desperately to court her now that his friend is out of the picture—is the one who pieces everything together, leading to the obligatory, completely misguided, fight.
• This one might set a record for “most interrupted attempts to tell a person the truth”, as Joseph tries three times to reveal his true identity to Callie, only to get cold feet each time.
• They bang! It’s amazing to me how many Christmas movies just want to be so “wholesome” that they neglect the inclusion of the most romantic, passionate act two lovers can engage in. (Although the fact they're married in real life also probably helped.)
• The strongest part of the movie is also its weakest link: Lauren Swickard (who, for the third time, plays Callie) also wrote the shitty script! Come on, Lauren! Next time write a story that matches your performance!

RATING: 5/10

TRAILER

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019)

Director: Andrè Øvredal
Writer(s): Dan and Kevin Hageman, and Guillermo del Toro, from a story by Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton. Based on the books by Alvin Schwartz.
Starring: Zoe Margaret Colletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush, and Dean Norris

I can't think of another book series that summed up my childhood more than the “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” trilogy. The stories were pretty creepy on their own, but it was the infamous illustrations by Stephen Gammell that took them from merely creepy, to utterly terrifying. And it wasn't just me that thought that: so frightening are the images, that after years of increasing scrutiny, the books were re-issued with less disturbing artwork to appease the apparently growing number of concerned parents. (And were then re-issued with the original artwork when there was a growing number of protests to the new images in a rather odd about-face).

Naturally, when I heard they were going to be adapted into a movie, I was pretty leery of the whole idea, and the more and more information that came out did little to alleviate that (not an anthology, PG-13, etc.). This wasn't just a movie, this was more or less a piece of my childhood that was going to be displayed on the big screen. And when that happens, no matter how hard you try, it's virtually impossible to head into it with an unbiased viewpoint. This is material I have sifted over dozens of times, with both words images that have been permanently ingrained in my memory from so many years before.

The one thing it had going for it was the director, Andre Øvredal, the man responsible for Troll Hunters and the Autopsy of Jane Doe, both of which are fantastic examples of the fantasy/horror genres, respectively. I still wasn't completely sold on the idea that even he could pull it off, but he was a better pick than just about everyone else that sprang to mind.

The thin plot finds a group of teenagers who sneak into a haunted house, and discover a book written by the previous tenant: a girl named Sarah Bellows who was tortured, and used that trauma as motivation to turn her life into a book of scary stories. Of course, the teens find the hidden chamber housing the book, and double of course the leader of the group, a redhead girl named Stella, decides to take the book home; this doesn't sit too well with Sarah's restless, vengeful spirit. As the helpless kids will soon discover, the twisted tales did not end after her death, and one-by-one they find themselves starring in stories written by a vengeful ghost from beyond the grave, from which there seems to be no escape...

As much as I despise the idea of using the stories within a linear narrative, rather than as separate stories in an anthology, there are moments in Øvredal's film when he really manages to make the idea work. Actually, he makes it work for about the first hour, with a variety of the familiar tales I read so much as a kid playing out in sometimes surprisingly gruesome ways (at least, as far as PG-13 rated films are concerned). The problem is that once the focus on the individual stories is gone, and the threadbare story connecting them all together—in other words, what should be the “filler” story--takes center stage, it doesn't take long for the project to sputter to a grinding halt...and unfortunately at that point there's still somewhere around an hour left.

And boy is that last hour a chore to sit through, giving me ample time to piece together a comprehensive list of some of the things that went wrong. Here's a list of some of the more egregious issues:

• The looseness of the story adaptations. You would think that being based on a book where the stories are literally only two or three pages, on average, the stories could at least be accurately adhered to. But, very few are straightforward adaptations: many of the stories are blended together, almost completely reworked, or even incoherent as-is. For example, a chapter on “The Haunted House” is started near the end, but is nothing at all like the actual “Haunted House” story from the book. In an even weirder “twist”, the terrifying creature from “The Haunted House” story appears as the ghost looking for her lost toe in “The Big Toe”, which is a completely separate story. Huh? Why?

• Confusing target demographics. Most movies play to their audiences, which is no secret. But what is confusing is just who this movie happens to be targeting: the PG-13 rating certainly suggests a teenaged crowd, but the original source material will probably be lost on most of them (which might be a good thing, as they have nothing to compare them to). Meanwhile, the nearly two-hour run time will make it a marathon for just about any possible target audience it's trying to win over. Making matters more confusing is the dark material, gross effects, and shocking number of swear words that honestly make things feel like it's literally one drop of blood away from an “R” rating. It's like that friend that so desperately wants to be liked by everyone that they adhere to everyone else's thoughts of them, rather than being their own person. What they should have done—and maybe they have—is make a PG-13 theatrical cut, and then have an R-rated version for DVD; considering producer Guillermo del Toro has pretty much stated from the outset they were going for a PG-13 rating, though, it's highly unlikely that this will happen.

• Overreliance on CGI effects. Despite his meager directing credentials, which consist of six completed credits (one of them being a short film), I would almost consider Øvredal to be a master director based on the strength of his latest two offerings (this one exempted). That's what makes the final twenty or so minutes of Scary Stories, which feature an obviously computer-generated creature that is a loose blending of two separate “Scary Stories” creatures as a “final boss” of sorts, so ferociously disappointing. Sure, there are other blatant moments of CGI peppered throughout, but they're generally quick sequences that, while hokey, aren't protracted enough to really tarnish the material. All of that is thrown out the window with the end baddie, which is so bad that I can't see anyone but the youngest of children—or most squeamish of teenagers—being able to take it with an even remote sense of seriousness.

• The deeply-political setting. The stories in the book were all based on folklore, so they were existing stories that, in many cases, were passed down from generation to generation for sometimes hundreds of years. The book's author, Alvin Schwartz, compiled all of them, whittled them down to their barest of essentials, and presented them as a horror book for children. With this in mind, this movie could have been set at any time and place while still being considered a faithful adaptation. And yet, of all time periods, it takes place in 1968, during the peak intensity of both the civil rights era, and the presidential election. But why? Despite frequent shots of the election in full swing, and a character being called a “wet back”, none of it plays any meaningful role in the film whatsoever, aside from maybe just serving as an education lesson to kids that these things happened? It just seems completely out-of-place in a “kids” film, where none of the events have any actual ties to either of those things.

• A solid beginning. This might not sound like a bad thing, but when all of your good ideas are used up by the midway point, it really does make every poor idea that ensues all the more frustrating. Look at it this way: If it was consistently bad throughout, it might have a chance at working in a campy, cheesy kind of way, where it's so awful it's at least entertaining. But once you give your audience a taste of greatness—and in the process, prove that you're not an incompetent idiot—then rapidly abandon everything that made it good to begin with in favor of strictly following a tired, by-the-numbers formula, all of the disappointment is magnified.

This isn't to suggest that there are no redeeming qualities. In fact, there are some things to like here: The make-up effects are brilliant, and on the rare occasions a monster from the book makes an appearance, they look amazingly accurate to Gammell's original drawings. There's also the issue of this being a rather large, highly-marketed film, which means chances are pretty good that there were massive amounts of studio interference guiding the film in ways that Øvredal would not have done on his own.

The acting is also up there on par with recent shows like “Stranger Things” (which seems to have been an inspiration here, especially in the groan-inducing ending that functions as concrete evidence that, despite all the dark imagery, this is an adaptation lacking bite), with the teenaged actors giving mostly impressive performances across the board. And that's no small feat: even as my interest went from “10” to “0”, and as every predictable story thread was revealed and everything started unraveling at such a rapid rate that my heart virtually dropped into my stomach, the acting was never a cause of annoyance for me.

Really, Øvredal seems to have done the best that he could do with the source material, which was deeply flawed to begin with: it all comes down to the godawful story, which wouldn't have given anyone a chance to succeed behind the camera. It starts off great, but once it goes off the rails, it does so with such gusto and fervor that nothing—including one of the most talented horror directors working today—could possibly save it.

But damn was that first half promising.

OVERALL: 4/10

TRAILER

47 Meters Down (2017)

Director: Johannes Roberts
Writer: Roberts, and Ernest Riera
Starring: Mandy Moore, Claire Holt, Matthew Modine, and Chris Johnson

Mandy Moore is one of the dullest actresses on the planet. She’s been pigeonholed—happily, it seems—as the perfect actress for completely boring characters. Have a prude? She’ll play it. Have a character who’s allergic to having fun? Sign her up. Watching her in movies, you get the sense that you’re really watching her, and the results couldn’t be more off-putting.

Well now, she gets a chance to play that exact same character again in 47 Meters Down, a movie that can’t help but suck despite a naturally-terrifying premise that plays on primal human fears.

Moore plays Lisa, a boring woman who has just broken up with her boyfriend for—get this—being boring (no joke!) She goes to an island with Kate, her sister, but not to have fun or spend time with her sibling, but rather in an attempt to win her ex back. (How, you may be wondering? Her thought process is, if he sees pics of her online having fun, he’ll fall in love with her all over again. Wow, boring and completely fucking stupid!)

While on vacation, they two girls meet up with two attractive male strangers, who suggest they go diving in a shark cage, because you know, what else is there to do on an island? Of course, Lisa can’t be bothered with such a potentially exciting idea and dismisses it instantly, while Kate desperately urges her to go along. (Actually, in this case, I might be on Lisa’s side: being stranded thousands of yards from land with complete strangers, and in a foreign land, probably isn’t a smart idea.) 

Thankfully for the viewers, Kate wins, saving us from having to watch a movie consisting only of Lisa sitting alone in her beach hotel room, sobbing to pictures of her ex-boyfriend.

Before you know it, the two girls are being lowered into the ocean—by complete strangers, thousands of miles from their home country, just for reiteration—in the world’s oldest, rustiest shark cage. What could possibly go wrong? I’ll tell you: the pole holding the cage rips off, sending the duo plummeting to the titular underwater level.

That’s when the “action” starts, and all of a sudden Lisa’s version of the movie doesn’t seem so bad: It has the feel of an amusement park ride, with convenient scares popping out then retreating at set stages, and walkie communication with the boat (whose inhabitants oddly stick around, despite having no emotional attachment or investment with these two girls whatsoever) coming and going whenever is best for the sake of the story.

The usual and expected dangers apply, with a limited amount of oxygen and the surrounding sharks (who all seem to be blind given the amount of times they miss biting either of the main stars) being the two biggest attractions, and a case of “the bends” conveniently ruling out the possibility of merely swimming up to the surface and sparing us all a protracted movie-watching experience.

I must admit that 47 Meters Down does manage a couple effective moments, but that owes more to its claustrophobic setting than the skill of anyone involved in the production: watching characters have to remove diving gear deep underwater to fit through a small crevice (?), or running low on oxygen while trapped in a steel cage is enough to cause anxiety in most people, regardless of claustrophobia or fear of water. Unfortunately, even being given this head start, it's never able to build on it to create anything more than another forgettable big-budget thriller.

Its most egregious failure is also one that highlights the shortcomings of the American studio system: it foregoes the chance at a brilliant, brilliant finish—one that very nearly undid much of the damage the movie inflicted on my sense of wonder and excitement for the previous 80 minutes—for a decidedly “happier” ending that allows Mandy Moore’s character to survive almost out of nowhere. And any movie that allows Mandy Moore to survive has just committed an unforgivable offense.

STRAY OBSERVATIONS

-Why do the guys even stick around to help, especially when several minutes go by at first without hearing any word from the girls (who conveniently can't reach the walkie)? They have no emotional attachment to them, and there's no indication anyone else even knows they're going.
-Why is Mandy Moore so goddamned boring? Even underwater she's annoying as shit.
-I don't understand the point of having the “ex-boyfriend” subplot; it serves absolutely no purpose in advancing the storyline.
-Apparently, sharks have a hard time eating stationary main characters with no diving experience, but can easily nab minor ones even when they are experienced divers on the move.
-The boat inhabitants call the Coast Guard, who will take an hour to get to the girls' position. Wouldn't waiting it out to conserve oxygen and energy be the smart thing to do?
-If you ever find yourself in a similar situation, remember that Mandy Moore would make excellent shark bait to buy more time.
-I still can't believe the forced ending. While still not entirely “happy”, it negates the movie's only moment of near brilliance.

RATING: 3/10

TRAILER

The Plague Dogs (1982)

Director: Martin Rosen
Writer(s): Rosen, adapted from the novel "The Plague Dogs" by Richard Adams.
Starring: John Hurt, Christopher Benjamin, James Bolam, and Nigel Hawthorne

If you have ever wanted to lose faith in humanity, then plan a viewing of Martin Rosen’s animated tearjerker The Plague Dogs. I can only imagine the look on the faces of confused parents who, seeing animated dogs on the cover, rented this for their children expecting lighthearted cartoon fare; there are no laughs to be had, only feelings of intense despair and sadness. We know how it will end almost before it begins, when the depressing opening credit song kicks in:

I don’t feel no pain no more
I don’t feel no pain no more
I’ve left this cruel world behind
And I found my piece of mind
I don’t feel no pain no more
Not far removed from the opening credits, we witness a dog in a water tank, swimming while “white coats” (the dog’s slang for the people wearing lab coats that carry out the cruel animal tests) time him; once he passes out from exhaustion and starts to drown, they remove him from the tub, and place him back in a cage. This is Rowf, a large black Labrador mix, and we soon learn that he is a frequent, but unwilling, participant in these water experiments (the “white coats” even excitedly comment on how his stamina and time keeps going up with each attempt).

His pal is Snitter, a smooth fox terrier who is in an adjoining cell, and wears a plastic cap on his head. Unlike Rowf, who has only known this life, Snitter was once in a loving home with a loving master. But all that changes when his owner is hit by a car. Soon after, Snitter was sold to the laboratory, who constantly operated on his brain; as a result, he constantly dips in and out of reality, and frequently hallucinates.

One day, they get a stroke of luck: a hurried worker doesn’t close Rowf’s cage all the way. Snitter sneaks through a small opening in the wire, and the two of them make their escape from the testing facility. However, they soon learn that survival on the outside is even more difficult than their torturous existence within the testing compound, a fact made even more strenuous when the media declares that they might be carriers of the bubonic plague, which ensures no one will help them, lest they run the risk of getting the disease.

Thankfully, Rowf and Snitter do have an ally in this whole ordeal, and he comes in the form of The Tod, a sly and crafty fox with whom they strike an uneasy alliance. While Snitter is taken by The Tod, old grumpy Rowf is certain that they would be better off without him; before long, The Tod runs off and he gets his wish, learning too late that maybe they need him for their survival after all.

Initially, the trio manage to survive by killing and eating sheep; this angers the sheep’s owner and starts a manhunt to destroy the animals that are cutting into his livelihood. They manage to survive that, only to be rewarded with the horrors of winter, when the sheep are taken out of the fields and put some place warmer. This is when the "true" manhunt begins…the military is sent in to "take care of" the dogs, who are believed to be infected with plague, only of course in this instance, "take care of" means "kill". The military eventually manages to trap the dogs, and then...

The Plague Dogs is, at times, a powerful film, but I have to admit that the film’s style really bothered me—Rosen relies heavily on fades to black between scenes, which honestly makes the movie feel like it’s a series of vignettes moreso than one continuing narrative. Even worse, the passage of time between the fades is very inconsistent: sometimes, it picks up just a few moments later, and other times we’re informed that several days have passed. The fragmented storytelling really broke up the momentum for me, and I felt that it was never really firing on all cylinders; it literally took me completely out of the movie on occasion. There’s no doubting that I still liked the film overall—just the plot alone packs a mean punch—but there’s also no doubting that it could have been infinitely more powerful with better editing/direction.

I’m also not sure of Rosen’s ultimate objective for this—the book on which this is based (also called “The Plague Dogs”, and written by Richard Adams) is clearly against vivisection and animal cruelty (he even spent a year as president of the ASPCA: American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). Rosen, on the other hand, adamantly maintained that this movie had no agenda, and was instead an “adventure” film. The material itself makes you cheer for the animals, while making the humans look like insensitive pricks, but I’m wondering how well it could have worked in the hands of a director willing to focus more on the anti-cruelty aspects, instead of merely trying to make it exciting and "entertaining".

Still, this is almost required viewing for all animal lovers that are willing to stomach this kind of stuff. It is an all-too-rare instance of an adult story trapped within the confines of a typically-children’s visual style, and one that couldn’t be told any other way. I’m really not sure it will stick with me that long after this initial viewing—unlike the brilliance of a film like White God, which I can’t get out of my head several months later—but The Plague Dogs is certainly a worthwhile alternative to the constant string of feel-good animated junk that comes out every year. Just make sure you have the tissues ready for an “Oh no don’t you dare do this to me” ending that’s both ironic, and emotionally shattering.

RECAP: There are certainly pacing and directorial issues (a fade-to-black every two minutes…really?), but despite these, The Plague Dogs still manages to be an occasionally powerful story of two dogs who escape an animal testing facility, only to find that life on the outside is every bit as difficult. Even though it’s animated, this is no feel-good story; it’s almost endlessly bleak, with an ending that seems to fake ambiguity but seems all too depressingly obvious. If you can stomach the plot, and if you can forgive the often plodding pace, then this is a great example of a decidedly adult film that couldn’t be told in any other way.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

Clueless (1995)

Director: Amy Heckerling
Writer(s): Heckerling
Starring: Alicia Silverstone, Stacey Dash, Brittany Murphy, and Paul Rudd

Remember Alicia Silverstone? It’s hard to believe that there was a time that she was Hollywood’s “it” girl, a title that lasted about four short years before she took the inevitable deep slope into nothingness. Being an adolescent male at the time, I pretty much went out of my way to avoid her works—a theory that I would have still maintained had it not been for my wife desperately urging me to watch this, eager to take a trip down memory lane.

Hers was much different: She was six years old when it was released to theaters, but ten or so years old when she finally caught a copy on VHS thanks to her older sister. At that impressionable age, she didn’t just see Alicia Silverstone’s Cher or her flamboyantly over-the-top friends as the caricatures they were meant to be—she legitimately wanted their lifestyle, and spent many hours watching and rewatching the movie, memorizing entire scenes and lines.

Clueless is the simple story of Cher, and her close friend Dionne, two materialistic, rich high school girls who live in Beverly Hills. Dionne is in a long-term relationship with Murray (Donald Faison, one of the film’s biggest highlights), while Cher is with no one. She lives in a mansion with her father (Dan Hedaya, another highlight), and is frequently in the company of Josh (Paul Rudd), a temporary former stepbrother from when their parents were married for a brief time. The movie makes it abundantly clear that they are no longer related, nor are they blood-related, because that would be very creepy if related people were to fall in love, which is exactly what the film has planned for them.

Getting thrown into the mix is Tai (a young, and very much alive, Brittany Murphy), who came from the rougher side of the tracks—her family is not rich, and she is, by Cher’s own admission, “tragically unhip”. Cher takes it upon herself to raise Tai’s property value, elevating her into the upper echelon of high school coolness, simply because she sees it as giving back to her community (?).

Considering this is a high school-related comedy, I could probably spend six pages fully fleshing everything out, like how Tai really wants to get with skateboarding stoner Travis (a perfect Breckin Meyer) but is steered by Cher and her clique toward popular Elton (Jeremy Sisto), who mistakes Cher’s cheerfulness toward him as flirting and attempts to force himself upon her in his car. But I’ll leave most of those subplots for you to discover on your own, because at the end of the day, as it is with most romantic comedies, the film’s only point is finding a love interest for Cher. It’s probably pretty obvious just from reading this; if it’s not, then it will be pretty obvious to you after twenty or so minutes.

Naturally, there’s not much new or original on display here—I’m sure the whole exaggerated “Valley girl” shtick had been done many times before—but there are nevertheless moments when Clueless works well. Like many of the scenes Silverstone is in; I did not realize just how beautiful she is, with her long slender legs often on display in short skirts and dresses. I’m not one to fall for “Hollywood beauty”, but her looks, along with her youthful innocence, makes it one of the few times in any chick flick I’ve seen, where I started to feel about her the way all the other characters did. This was her breakthrough role, and it’s pretty evident why she exploded the way she did, though a string of failures (culminating in the failure of all failures, Batman & Robin) a couple of years later would pretty much do her in.

It also works any time Hedaya, as Cher’s father, is on the screen…his intense persona, paired up with his love and protectiveness towards his daughter, lead to some genuine comedy gems. Ditto that for Donald Faison (as Murray), who plays a stereotypical over-the-top black man. But while his character, like the film, is a recycled idea, Faison plays it perfectly, managing to elicit some unexpected laughs. It’s no surprise that he would go on to play in "Scrubs", alongside Zach Braff, a show that I will admit to enjoying.

In the end, there’s not much here to recommend to anyone outside of their high school years--or anyone looking for a nostalgic peek back into that time frame--but for those other men who are forced to sit down and watch it at the behest of their significant others, rest easy—it’s not as bad as most of them turn out to be. And that, I suppose, is good enough praise.

RECAP: The over-the-top Valley girl lingo is humorous at first, before wearing thin, but Clueless is still a fairly entertaining romp through overly familiar territory. Its strengths lie in its characters, with all of the main cast, lead by Alicia Silverstone, turning in good performances. There are large sections where jokes fall flat, but there are enough laughs to keep the film moving along. I would recommend this more toward the younger crowd, who would probably get a bigger kick out of it than older viewers, but there are certainly much worse things you could do with 90 minutes of your time.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

Frequency (2000)

Director: Gregory Hoblit
Writer(s): Toby Emmerich
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Jim Caviezel, Shawn Doyle, and Elizabeth Mitchell

Gregory Hoblit’s Frequency is a ridiculously convoluted mess of a film that builds to an ending so neat and disgustingly sappy, that the Garth Brooks song that rolls over the end credits (the plainly titled "When You Come Back To Me Again") feels right at home. It’s sloppily written and narrowly-focused—every event altered seems to only directly effect the main characters, with no far-reaching implications beyond those that can’t be patched up by a simple action from one of its stars. It breaks off more than it can chew, and can’t decide if it wants to be a drama, science fiction, police procedural, or serial killer film, even though it spends a good amount of time dabbling in each of them. When it’s all said and done, it’s quite technically a terrible film.

And yet I love the hell out of it.

I can’t really explain why. Its flaws are evident even as the events play out on screen. It gets more and more unbelievable as it wears on, and let’s be honest, a movie about a guy talking to his dead father over a HAM radio doesn’t exactly resonate with plausibility. But even by the film’s loose standards, the twists become so disjointed and messy near the end that it becomes apparent we are simply being duped by the whim’s of the writer, instead of being put in a living, breathing world all its own.

But it’s such a completely interesting failure that I was absolutely transfixed by it, both times I have seen it. A lot of it has to do with the great performances by Dennis Quaid and Jim Caviezel, who play father and son, respectively. Quaid is Frank Sullivan, a firefighter who succumbs to a blaze in 1969, leaving behind his wife, Julia, and six-year-old son, John. Thirty years later, John, who has recently been dumped by his girlfriend and now lives alone in the same house he grew up in, finds his dad’s old radio buried in a closet, and tests it to see if it still works. Lo and behold, he does make contact with someone, and he slowly realizes it’s his dad, circa 1969!

The scenes where father and son rekindle after thirty years are emotional and heartfelt. Granted, most of these are simply by default, as we, as humans, are automatically wired to find comfort in these scenes. Even if you have never experienced loss on a personal level, can’t you imagine what it would be like to never be able to see someone you loved again? Still, they pack quite a wallop, and you may find yourself reaching for the nearest tissue box. But Frequency’s plot is only starting to take shape, because by this point we are only about at the half-hour mark.

Armed with his knowledge of the present, John decides he’s going to save his father from the blaze that took his life. Frank, at this point, is still leery of this whole situation, but heeds his future son’s advice and makes it out alive! However, it’s a small victory, because John learns that it has only altered the future: Instead of dying in a fire back in 1969, his dad will die in 1989, from cancer caused by his excessive smoking. But just when you think you’re finally getting settled into the story, you find out there’s still more: His mother becomes the target of a serial killer, who offs her a week after his dad survives the blaze, back in 1969 again!

So now the son must guide the father to prevent that from happening, then he goes one step further by having him try to prevent the murders of all of the serial killer’s victims. Then stuff happens on top of other stuff, and the whole story just descends into a chaotic mess of genre clichés, as if writer Toby Emmerich is desperately trying to pad his entire resume with just one movie. As if all this isn’t bogus enough, the dust settles, and we’re left with a gag-inducing happy ending that conveniently ties up every loose end into a pretty little bow.

This is the kind of movie I hate ninety nine times out of a hundred, but director Gregory Hoblit confidently navigates through the complex material, delivering a sure-handed final product that would have buried most other directors dumb enough to approach it. The dramatic scenes pack a punch, the twists and turns are at least fascinating, when they’re not utterly gripping, and even the serial killing aspect, which seem like they were cut and pasted in to an otherwise finished script, somehow works, at least as best it can within this general framework.

If you’re looking for me to explain myself, to defend every nuance and every contrived detail, to describe in explicit terms why I came to this conclusion, I will refer you to the Apple Jacks commercials of the mid ‘90s, in which children, who are notified of the cereal tasting nothing like apple, are asked why they like it. “I don’t know. We just do.” Couldn't have said it any better myself.

RECAP: It’s a convoluted, clichéd mess that weaves its way through three genres, some of them completely unnecessary, and yet, through a mix of great acting and often gripping (though increasingly implausible) twists and turns, manages to somehow not only be a competent movie, but often an excellent one. Even the ridiculously upbeat ending had me hook, line, and sinker, and I hate happy endings. Quite simply put, this is an underrated gem, and well worth a watch.

RATING: 8.5/10

TRAILER

The 5th Wave (2016)

Director: J Blakeson
Writer(s): Susannah Grant, Akiva Goldsman, and Jeff Pinkner. Based on the novel by Rick Yancey.
Starring: Chloe Grace Moretz, Alex Roe, Zackary Arthur, and Liev Schreiber

Prior to seeing The 5th Wave in a (second-run) theater, I was immediately reminded why I stopped seeing mainstream movies at all in the first place: it’s a joyless walk through derivative landscapes, featuring carbon-copy characters stolen almost verbatim from a million movies before it. It’s a bad movie, but not because of its blandness or its write-by-numbers plot; rather, it’s a bad movie because it blatantly strives for nothing more than mediocrity.

I suppose part of that blame falls on the books, which rely on the ever-popular Twilight formula in which a human falls in love with a non-human, and then must defy the odds to make the relationship work. Only here, the “outsider” of the relationship is not a vampire, but an alien, which is part of a race that are imaginatively referred to as “The Others”. But whereas the books seem to be pushing the envelope of its target demographic (my wife, who has read the two that have been published up until now, says they are much more violent and have more language than the movie does), the film version is content with watering everything down to its lowest-common-denominator roots, in an obvious effort to cater to the teenage crowd.

Cassie Sullivan (played by Chloe Grace Moretz) is your typical high-schooler with a caring, loving, complete, and wholesome family consisting of a father (a completely unnecessary Luke Wilson), a mother (Maggie Siff), and a younger brother named Sam (Zackary Arthur). But things are not as perfect as they seem in this fairytale world: aliens are beginning the most-drawn out invasion in history. As we learn from the long tagline, which also serves as a curiously-concise plot synopsis that almost eliminates the need to even watch the movie in the first place, the first wave is darkness: the aliens, who hover above Earth in large UFOs, use an electromagnetic shield to disable everything, from engines, to cell phones, to electricity. In wave two, they cause massive flooding to all bodies of water on Earth, meaning those that live within a hundred miles of an ocean are all but screwed.

The third wave brings disease, as “The Others” infect birds with a deadly virus that naturally spreads to almost all living things. Some of the people are naturally immune to it, but those that aren’t slowly die an agonizing death: Cassie’s mother is one of them. The fourth wave is an all-out invasion, which we learn after the Army infiltrates a refugee camp in which Cassie, Sam, and their father are staying. Curiously, the children are bussed out to safety, while the parents are told that the one functioning bus will be back shortly to reunite parents with their children. Not surprisingly, this is a lie; through a debriefing to the parents by the required is-he-evil-or-is-he-good character Colonel Vosch (coolly played by Liev Schreiber), the Earth is under attack by aliens who can possess anyone without any trace. In other words, it’s impossible to differentiate the aliens, who look exactly like you or I, from normal humans. Also not surprisingly, Cassie does not make the bus, leaving her brother to make the mysterious trip all by himself, while also giving the story a convenient story arc.

Then there’s the fifth wave, in which the captured children are turned into soldiers to fight the onslaught of aliens, using technologically-advanced headsets that can detect who the aliens are. Would you believe that Cassie’s old high school crush, Ben Parrish,  and her brother Sam happen to be in the same squad? Or that Ben takes a liking to Sam (not knowing of his relation to Cassie) and does everything in his power to protect him from a world so violent and cruel?

But Cassie isn’t just twiddling her thumbs during all of this: after witnessing the death of her father at the hands of the military, she grabs a machine-gun and starts off in her quest to find Sam. Not long into her quest, she is shot in the leg while roaming through an abandoned freeway; so great is her blood loss that she lapses into unconsciousness. As we know will happen, she wakes up in a mysterious place, conveniently picked up by an attractive young man with dreamy eyes who attempts to nurse her back to health. He is Evan Walker, and we learn that all of his immediate relatives were wiped out during the previous waves, and he is deadset on helping her to compensate for his failure to save his own family. She is reluctant to accept his help at first, fearing that he may be one of “The Others”, but after he saves her life, she realizes that he might not be so bad to have around after all.

Then, one night, they are attacked while hiding out in a car, and the ease in which Evan dispatches three people, all armed, has Cassie questioning his genetic makeup yet again. Is he a human, as he assured her that he was, or something much, much worse? Forming an uneasy alliance (aren’t they always in these stories?), they set aside their differences in order to infiltrate the military base where Sam, and the other kids, are being forced to fight the alien intruders. But not everything is what it seems, as they will soon find out…

The whole project just feels emotionless and distant, like we are clearly watching actors and crew go through the motions simply to collect a paycheck: everyone does their jobs, but no one is interested in going above and beyond. Even though it’s been years (literally) since I have seen a big-budget “blockbuster”, I see the focus is still on computer effects, which are very much still obviously computer effects; the technology doesn’t seem to have progressed all that much in the many months I’ve been absent from the scene. I am probably in the minority—and probably sounding like a condescending, elitist jerk at the moment—but I just don’t get any satisfaction from hopelessly watching a videogame that I can’t control play out in front of my eyes. So to say that none of this inspired me to do anything but excitedly leave the theater when it was over, should go without saying.

The one saving grace for me was Liev Schreiber’s performance as Vosch, a man who is required to hover between “evil” and “genuine”, something that Shreiber does with complete conviction. He has such an intimidating presence that he gives his character a complexity missing from all the rest; an effortless balance that constantly leaves the viewer guessing what side he’s on, even as it becomes more and more apparent. Schreiber does something that is nearly impossible to do, and that is to almost singlehandedly give an uninspired character an extra dimension; I was absolutely drawn to his performance, and he easily became my favorite anything of the whole movie.

If you are a fan of the big-budget spectacle disguised as a movie, or if you have read the books in this series (as my wife has), then you will probably enjoy this a lot more than I did (and in the interest of full disclosure, my wife really liked it). It’s the kind of movie that allows you to just sit back, shut your mind off, eat some popcorn, and understand everything without having to make much effort to follow along. My biggest qualm is that those qualities have come to define almost every Hollywood blockbuster these days, to the point that audiences seem content with never having to turn their minds back on. But watching movies like The 5th Wave, ones that strictly adhere to time-worn formulas simply to make a buck, is akin to making a copy of a copy of a piece of paper, and then repeating this a million times: it doesn’t take long for the quality to drop until, eventually, all you are left with is a blank sheet of paper.

RECAP: As with the vast number of Hollywood blockbusters, The 5th Wave is long on obviously fake computer-generated effects, but short on anything of actual substance. It’s a cash grab, from the first frame to the last, one that follows a strictly formulaic story from which it never has the desire to stray. It feels emotionless and distant: sure, it has plenty of the obligatory scenes of emotional distress, but they are completely simulated by actors who either lack the talent, or the commitment, to give them any kind of lasting effect. My one plus is Liev Schreiber’s performance as Vosch; he oozes charisma, and strikes his character’s required balance of “evil” and “genuine” with surprising aptitude. Of course, if you like this kind of movie, or are familiar with the source material, then chances are pretty good that you will like this one, as my wife did. Personally, I just can’t get any satisfaction out of watching a movie that I feel like I have seen dozens of times before, completely verbatim.

RATING: 3.5/10

TRAILER

National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)

Director: Jeremiah S. Chechik
Writer(s): John Hughes
Starring: Chevy Chase, Beverly D'Angelo, Juliette Lewis, Johnny Galecki

The hardest movies to look at subjectively are the ones that we gather around the fireplace to watch every year: yes, I am talking about Christmas movies.  A lot of them are simply tradition; I don’t doubt many people get yuletide joy out of watching the same movies over and over again during the holiday season (hence the 24-hour A Christmas Story marathons), but I’ve just grown numb to a lot of them.  I don’t want to sound like a Scrooge—I like the holiday season and enjoy the atmosphere, so it has nothing to do with that—but once I know every joke and can recite large portions of dialogue from memory, that’s a sign it’s time to skip five years.

And so it can become kind of unfair to review a movie like National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation, long after the events have permanently etched themselves into my brain.  Most Christmas movies I manage to avoid watching annually, but considering this is my wife and her family’s favorite one, I think I have literally watched it for at least seven out of the last nine years we’ve been together…very little joy remains.

By now, I think everyone knows the story, so I will severely abridge this: It’s Christmastime at the Griswold house, “lead” by Clark (Chevy Chase), a caring father but hapless dolt of a man who screws up everything that he touches.  Things don’t get any better when the rest of the immediate family show up; covering every comedy stereotype from the hard-of-hearing grandma, to the sour in-laws, and just about everything else in between, it’s ensured that no one has even an ounce of fun between all the bickering and cartoonish hijinx.  Save for the viewer, of course!

It should come as no surprise that, by the end, they all learn a thing or two about the spirit of Christmas.  Well, not so much the actual biblical meaning of Christmas, but that it’s a time for loving, and giving, and gathering with loved ones and friends and family.  Thankfully, all that happens after we have had our fill of hilarity, and we can flip off the DVD player (or Blu-Ray, or VCR) with a renewed sense of holiday cheer.

Christmas Vacation is obvious, the way all Christmas movies are, but it’s also funny; the jokes come fast and furious, and it’s all lighthearted and silly stuff.  There is a surprising amount of swearing that I had completely forgotten about (the “s” word is mentioned around five times, and even “gd” makes an appearance once), so it’s probably not suitable for young kids, but then again, that’s why it’s rated PG-13.  The cast is perfect in their roles, especially a pre-insane Randy Quaid, who steals the show as Clark’s completely-white trash cousin-in-law, and a pre-egotistical Chevy Chase as Clark himself.  Julia-Louis Dreyfuss also has a hilarious role as the Griswold’s rich and stuck-up next door neighbor.

Its only crime is that it’s a holiday tradition, so all the excitement of sitting down to a viewing has been worn completely thin.  But even with this complaint cast aside—even if this was just a typical movie that wasn’t glued to holiday tradition—it would still be too obvious and predictable to be any kind of classic.  So even though I’ve seen it a dozen times, and I’m sure the future holds at least a dozen more viewings, I’m confident in saying that my rating would stay more or less the same.

RECAP: Christmas Vacation is certainly a funny film, and although years of repeat viewings have kind of worn the excitement thin for me, even if it wasn’t required annual viewing, the jokes are too predictable and obvious to be any kind of comedy classic.  Still, it’s great for what it is, with the whole cast delivering solid performances, and Chevy Chase, Randy Quaid, and Julia Louis-Dreyfuss standing out as the best amongst all of them.  At the very least, no matter how terrible your latest Christmas was, chances are it will always be better than the Griswold’s, simply by default.  A pleasant time-waster that will deliver some yuletide laughter.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER:

The Monster Squad (1987)

Director: Fred Dekker
Writer(s): Dekker, Shane Black
Starring: Andre Gower, Robby Kiger, and Stephen Macht

I have a personal theory that horror movies should not be rated PG-13.  If they are, I generally won’t watch them.  How can you cram a sufficient amount of terror and/or violence into a rating designed to appeal to teenagers?  Of course, studios do it, because obviously the more people that can see it, the more money they can make, but most such “horror” movies are despicable, lowest-common-denominator drivel that succeed solely because the American public is undemanding; we don’t want anything that might challenge us, or provoke us.  We just want something familiar, that we’ve already seen a thousand times before.

Rant aside, I made an exception for The Monster Squad a decade-or-so back, based solely on the fact it’s one of the very few directing credits for Fred Dekker, the man responsible for crafting one of my favorite horror movies of all time, Night of the Creeps (his only other feature-length credit is for RoboCop 3, so it was very easy to narrow down which one to watch).  I had very little hopes for enjoying the film, expecting it to be a typical movie that panders to younger audiences, but figured I was doing my part by giving it a chance, no matter how small that chance was.

The plot is actually fairly unique for a kid’s flick:  Dracula, Wolf Man, Frankenstein, Gill Man, and The Mummy come to life, in search of a mystical amulet.  You see, the amulet, which is typically indestructible, can be destroyed within a very small window every hundred years; if it is destroyed, all five movie monsters will be banished to an alternate realm.  As we learn from the intro, Van Helsing and a small team attempted to destroy it back in the 1880s, and failed.  Flash forward to the present day, and a group of kids who call themselves The Monster Squad learn of the amulet and its story.  They also learn that the movie monsters that they idolize are real…and are looking to secure the amulet to help them rule the world.  It also just so happens that the next hundred-year window opens tomorrow… 

It didn’t take long for me to realize that this is NOT a children’s movie, at least not in the traditional sense.  Kids play the main roles, sure, but there is a shocking amount of violence and swearing spattered throughout, to the extent that I’m actually kind of surprised it got away with a PG-13 way back in 1987:  Little girls are called “bitch”, “titties” are mentioned,“faggot” is uttered twice…and there are literally a handful of other such words uttered.  There are also some moments of threat and terror that I could see really getting to younger kids, so once again, the rating is not meant to be taken lightly.

On a technical front, the effects are pretty darn good; I feel like most kids movies will shave a few bucks off the special effects budget, knowing they’re easy to fool and entertain, but even today, the visuals hold up pretty well.  The creatures also look fantastic, but considering they were designed by Stan Winston, that shouldn’t come as a shock.  All in all, I’m surprised at the level of attention and detail that went into this movie; it’s evident that it wasn’t just the kids that Fred Dekker was trying to entertain, and the end result is a fun romp for just about the whole family.

RECAP: This movie is filled with inventiveness, solid writing, and loads of humor, but do not take the rating lightly:  There is quite a bit of profanity, and some violence and terror that may be too intense for younger viewers (even early teenagers).  But for fans of horror films, The Monster Squad is a welcome change from the non-stop gore and splatter that seems to permeate movie screens these days; it’s funny, it’s fun, and it can be enjoyed by parents just as much as children.

SCORE: 8/10

TRAILER: