After having to endure White Noise earlier this year, I was definitely looking at The Ring Two to up the ante on the horror genre, much like it did nearly three years ago. After endless sequels of sub-par horror films, and so many rip-offs of the basic premise, Two looked like the film to beat in a flagging genre. Now, here we are, nearly three years after the original, and it seems the sequel we’ve all been waiting for has taken a few pages from its pointless copy-cats. The Ring Two is 2005’s first big disappointment. Not the year’s worst movie by any means (just looking at Naomi Watts solidifies that), but the movie lacks all of the suspense, intrigue, and originality that its predecessor showed us and instead gives us minimal plot and some awkward scenes.

For the previously uninformed, The Ring focuses on a video tape which, when watched by someone, caused their death seven days later. The premise has been spoofed to no end, most recently in Scary Movie 3, but its originality and “villain” held promise. Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) and her son Aidan have put behind them the horrors they experienced during the first film. They’ve move out of the big city, to the suburbs, in the hope of living a normal live, away from the thought of Samara. Yet, the tape resurfaces (someone must have ignored that copyright warning at the beginning) and Rachel and Aidan are thrown back into the mix once again.

The problem is, you have a hard time figuring out what sort of “mix” they are in. Samara doesn’t find our protagonists until Rachel burns the copy of the tape and when she does, she attempts to take over Aidan in a bid to have a loving mother. Aside from the bizarre imagery, the storyline is so hard to follow and makes such little sense that the entire film becomes a clip-show of scenes that may, or may not, have anything to do with the overall story. The hyped return of Carrie star, Sissy Spacek as Evelyn (Samara’s biological mother) is no more than three or four minutes long and doesn’t serve any real purpose in the film.

The shinning star of the film is Naomi Watts as Rachel and her troubled life dealing with the knowledge that she has of the tape, and the events surrounding it. She is a beautiful actress and plays the part well of the mother-in-peril, but her talent seems wasted on such a generically written movie when compared to her other work. David Dorfman portrays the bizarre Aidan well, although his awkward stare after being taken over by Samara can definitely put a chill down your spine. Although that’s really all the movie can do.

The original film wasn’t about true horror as much as the suspense and thrill. Like White Noise before it, The Ring Two resorts to funhouse scares of quick images, and characters jumping out of other places to give the audience a jolt. Besides the annoying junior high kids in the theater, I didn’t see anyone jump or scream in my general vicinity. I’m almost ashamed to say it, but the generic direction, writing, and acting of most of the films participates really makes we wish they didn’t even bother.

Yet, we know why they did. The name is a marketing tool, and, the all mighty dollar comes before creativity in most cases, so we get a shameless sequel banking on the Ring name and delivering nothing of value to the genre or audience. Even being directed by Ringu director Hideo Nakata couldn’t create anything more than average.

The Ring Two falls into the pit fall of its copy-cats and predecessors by banking and cashing in on the name rather than actually providing something worth the franchises name. Instead of a cleverly written, creatively constructed film, we get a generic, cookie-cutter movie that is devoid of nearly everything that made the first film so special. If an inevitable third installment in the series is planned, here’s hoping DreamWorks has the sense to see the creative side of filmmaking instead of dollar signs.

White Noise, the latest copy-cat inspired by The Ring, is either really late coming on to the scene or really early. The movie would be late if it was trying to capitalize on the wave of sub par genre flicks tee-ed off by The Ring, or early if it is attempting to ride the wave of The Ring Two hitting theaters in March. Either way the film is a disappointing, disjointed horror movie that tries to make that time between your cable going out, and your time on hold with the company frightening as the static you see…may…just…get…you.

The film finds Jonathon Rivers (Michael “Batman” Keaton) still feeling the effects of his wife’s death after an apparent accident in which she drown changing a tire on her car (no really). After six months Jon is finally getting his life back in order when a mysterious man offers him the ability to speak to his dead wife through EVP. Apparently, the static and “white noise” of modern devices are a portal through which ghosts can use their anytime minutes and call you, even during peak hours, although they prefer nights and weekends. After Jon’s “medium” is brutally killed he is still determined to talk to his wife, so he sets up his own little studio to record the dead and see what the other side is like.

Unfortunately, White Noise is the kind of static you want to turn off after its slow opening and slightly before its limp climax and “trick” ending which leaves you wondering why you spent money to see this. The film suffers the most from the fact that you just don’t care. It isn’t like the slasher films of yester-yore when you weren’t really suppose to care about the canon fodder, this is a man who has been traumatized by the death of his wife and all I can think about is saving up to 15% on my car insurance. Writer Niall Johnson’s script has about 20 minutes worth of story available to use and is padded by montage shots of Michael Keaton starring at static on his TV. I can do this myself and not spend $6.50.

Another major problem, besides the lack of plot, is the cinematography employed by director Geoffrey Sax who has an immense fixation with arching crane shots to the point where you almost feel as though you are some supreme being trying to find out where this movie went wrong (here’s a hint, it was green lit). I also find a problem with the marketing campaign offering this movie as the most disturbing film in years, and while that may be true, it isn’t for the reasons the corporate suits would like you to believe. I’m sure you’ll find more people horrified that they were subjected to this rather than those scared by the content itself.

The film also shows that writers and directors have run out of ideas when they resort to cheap scares such as establishing shots preceded by a quick flash of an image and loud noise on screen. Truth be told, most of the “jump-scenes” can be picked out by astute horror film buffs, who will be this film’s core audience this week, and seen coming minutes away. If anything White Noise resorts to the generic, cookie-cutter stylings of such copy-cats as FearDotCom which tried to build upon the Ring‘s influence when the latter film was released in 2002.

Since the film centers on Michael Keaton’s character you would think the script would open him up a bit more, but throughout the course of the film we see him as a man who can’t let go and becomes fixated on some cause that may very well have lead to many people’s deaths. The movie attempts to explain why he keeps on doing what he’s doing by making him the savior-de-jour in a set of random scenes which have nothing to do with the movie, but eat up running time. Also the laugh-inducing dialog is even harder to handling by overacting and the strange feeling you might be more entertained if he were wearing his black cowl.

I can’t say much about the film’s ending except it reeks of corporate meddling with the underlying fact that you need to have a trick ending or no one will see your movie. Long gone are the days of Matrix-inspired happy-time-rainbow-endings, now you need to have some twisted person pulling the puppet strings or, gasp, people might avoid your poor showing.

White Noise is an easy film to turn off, most people should lose focus after the opening credits, but for those of you brave enough to give it a try, why not wait until The Ring Two opens in two months. This white noise is the kind of static you want to avoid, and I only wish I had.

After seeing Saw, I certainly know where the producers got their banner name of Twisted Pictures. To put it lightly, the movie is twisted beyond recognition at some parts, but under all the gore and images of dirty, dank surroundings, there is a keen little movie to see. Many early reviews of the film, which has been screened a number of times over the last couple of weeks, made the endless comparison to David Fincher’s Se7en, a film which has a similar storyline.

Se7en focused on John Doe, a serial killer who used the seven deadly sins as his guide. In a unique, intriguing twist, the ending left many very, very surprised. Saw tries to recreate the atmosphere created by Fincher by placing similar characters in similar situations. In Saw, two men wake up in a highly disturbing room chained to polls on opposite sides of the room. After some bantering back and forth, they finally realize that they are the latest victims of the Jigsaw killer. This serial killer, in name only, finds unique ways for his victims to kill themselves, while he watches via video, or a hole in the wall. Jigsaw’s latest players in his twisted game are Adam (Leigh Whannell) and Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes). The killer gives instructions to Dr. Gordon to kill Adam before 6PM or his family will be murdered, to do this task, Jigsaw gives the doctor one bullet and a hacksaw. Lying in the middle of the floor, between the two men, is a body, with a good portion of its head blown off, and in the body’s hand is the gun Gordon needs to complete his task. Conveniently, the gun is just out of his reach.

Saw‘s, directed by James Wan, main appeal comes from its plotline and twisted story. The killer, portrayed via a mechanical doll throughout the film, is, by far, the most interesting of the characters. Elwes and Whannell, as Gordon and Adam respectively, do their best to fit into the roles, but sometimes step over the bounds of believability in their overacting. Surely, we can’t be the ones to judge them based on the fact none of us have been put in a similar situation, but there are times when the actors go a bit over the top. Also featured in the picture is Detective Tapp (Danny Glover), and while his character appears as though he might be going somewhere in the beginning of the film, he really serves no purpose at the film’s climax.

The beauty of the script is in the way the story is told. Rather than go straight forward from the time of the victim’s capture, Wan goes back in time to show how they got to where they are today. This is one of the more intriguing parts of the picture as the storylines of each character seem to overlap, making for an interesting, suspenseful time.

Part of the sick-joy, and allure, for Saw is the manner in which Jigsaw’s victims are killed. One man has to escape through a field of razor wire before a certain time or he will be entombed in the room he is in. Perhaps the film’s most demented device can be easily summed up in three words, “reverse-bear-trap.” This apparatus, which looks intimidating just staring at it, has the tendency to blow your head up when it goes off, tearing the jaw apart at the seams.

What Saw does well is deliver a well crafter story that has enough suspense to last for the 110 minute runtime. There are parts where the story becomes a bit thin and slows down due to an attempt at character development, but if you can look past those, you will see the film’s deeper meaning, a cult classic in the making.

Much chagrin has been given to the film’s ending, which I won’t spoil, for been too contrived and for simply being in the film to have the prerequisite trick ending. I, for one, was very surprised by the ending, as was everyone else in the theater I was in judging from the gasping and “no f*$%ing way!” coming behind me. There is definitely some disturbing stuff in Saw, but if you made it through Se7en and have the slightest twisted sensibility to you, then Saw is right up your alley.

The prerequisite requirement for any movie based on a video game is that it actually contains references to the source material. The original Resident Evil did this, while setting up a story of its own and introducing new characters. The less fortunate video game movies failed this aspect, which made House of the Dead one of the most unbearable movies in recent memory. I swear that I still have nightmares about seeing that film again. Now, two years after the original’s release, another Resident Evil movie hits the scene basically picking up right where the first left off and successfully bridging the gap between the movie and video game franchises.

For the uninformed, Resident Evil is the multimillion dollar franchise created in the mid-90s and debuting on Sony’s PlayStation. The first game, which was disregarded in the first film adaptation had two teams of specially trained police officers (called S.T.A.R.S.) stumbling upon a mansion deep in the mountains. To make a long story short five members of the team survived only to face a new nightmare soon thereafter. The second and third games in the series, to which the movie references, take place inside Raccoon City where the T-Virus has been unleashed and is turning Raccoon into a city of the dead.

Fresh off of her survival in Resident Evil, Alice (Milla Jovovich) has been captured and experimented on by Umbrella, the evil corporation at the forefront of this outbreak. She will eventually run into Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), Carlos Olivera (Oded Fehr), and a few other survivors. Also making an appearance from the video game series is Nemesis a Tyrant-class bio-weapon who sports a mean rocket launcher and mini-gun and turns S.T.A.R.S. into mincemeat.

To enjoy Resident Evil: Apocalypse you need to put yourself in the right mind frame. Essentially the game’s installed fan-base makes this movie equally critic-proof while enjoyable only because first week sales will be driven by fans, such as me, who enjoy the series. Sure, the first film, and now the second, isn’t perfect in any way, in fact I can find a lot of things they did wrong, but when I also look at what they did right a smile comes to my face and I want to see it again.

The most obvious change from the first film to the second is the video game references are handed out in droves this time. The most obvious of which, is the appearance of Jill Valentine in nearly a picture-perfect costume and attitude and Nemesis which both come form Resident Evil 3: Nemesis. If you look hard enough, and believe me, I have, you can also find references to every RE game including the amazing intro to Resident Evil CODE: Veronica complete with helicopter chase and shoot-out. Not only will you find RE references, but there are also shout-outs to other video games including Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto which very few people understood, but had me giddy with glee.

First time feature film director Alexander Witt’s direction is stylistic at times, but also hard to follow. Hollywood’s reliance on the “x-treme camera” during fight scenes is fast becoming tiresome as it makes it harder and harder to appreciate fight scenes when all you see is a big blur from frame to frame. When you do actually get to see some fisticuffs they are well worth the wait. Jovovich’s Alice, who sees herself as the enemy should Sony green-light a third film, is fun to watch kicking zombie butt and taking on Nemesis but the “emotional” attachment left over from the first film leaves the climatic fight scene between the two severely muted. The Nemesis isn’t nearly as imposing as you would believe if you have played the game.

Aside form the questionable camerawork, you aren’t getting award-winning cinema here people, and you need to understand that before you enter the theater. This isn’t the Dawn of the Dead remake or 28 Days Later, this is a video game movie come to life, with bits and pieces of game elements mixed in with original movie franchise pieces placed together in a cohesive mix. Sure there are going to be a lot of people who simply don’t understand the film (one look on Rotten Tomatoes can alert you to that fact) but are aware that a majority of them are simply looking at the film from the same perspective we judge Lord of the Rings or the latest art-house sensation. Resident Evil: Apocalypse simply isn’t that type of film, and after the core audience is satisfied the film will fade away from the box office, but those core fans will be pleased in what they saw, and, in the end, that’s all that really matters when it comes to video game movies. Those expecting full mass-market penetration are simply misled. If you have ever enjoyed a Resident Evil game you will enjoy this film, no doubt about it. RE: A is not a good movie in the sense it creates memorable characters and contains a detailed plot, but it is a good movie by staying close to the source material and providing an outlet to fans starving for the next entry in the series debuting early next year, and, in the end, that’s all I was expecting.

With the recent trend in Hollywood to recreate and remake old movies, many holding a significant nostalgic experience for moviegoers, it seems that maybe studios have run out of new ideas for movies. So far this year we are already being treated to a re-envisioning of Dawn of the Dead and a remake of Walking Tall, and we aren’t even out of March yet. Yet, while New Line’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre update disappointed many fans of the original film, fans of Dawn of the Dead should be very happy with Universal’s update to the cult classic.

For those who have never seen the original film, you will be treated to an energetic, fast-paced zombie infested ride that never seems to let you go. Those that have seen the original will see an energetic, fast-paced update to the zombie infested classic that builds upon the strong points of George A. Romero’s classic, while adding a few of its own. Taking a cue from 28 Days Later, Dawn of the Dead brings in zombies who are not the stumbling, mindless bodies of our neighbors reanimated for an unknown reason; zombies now have super-human strength and the ability to run our heroes down.

Even before the opening credits flash on screen in smears of blood you know this film isn’t going to dilly around, something that hampered the original film with lots of downtime in between bouts of action. When Ana’s (Sarah Polley) husband is attacked by a neighbor girl in their bedroom, he is only down for less than a minute before he stands back up and has a thirst for blood and a hunger for flesh. Ana is able to escape and meets up with Kenneth (Ving Rhames). Together, with a few other survivors they seek refuge in a shopping mall. Whereas the original took nearly half the film to reach the mall, our updated characters reach it in nearly 15 minutes and then the fun begins.

Romero’s original version of the film was a stab against consumerism, but the updated version of the film drops this not-too-subtle metaphor in place of raw emotion and action. Adding into the mix is the feeling that humans worst enemy is other humans, something already established with the aforementioned 28 Days Later. Even without the deep meaning to the piece, Dawn of the Dead excels in every aspect of film making. It gives us characters that aren’t fully realized, but not completely 2D, it gives us internal and external conflicts, it gives us gore, it gives us love, and it gives us sacrifice and redemption. Everything you are looking for in a non-award-fishing film is presented wholly in this movie.

Fans of the original will find nods to the classic. The chopper, used as the primary mode of transportation in the original, makes a cameo appearance in the beginning of the film. Several of the stores at the shopping mall have been renamed for members of the original cast. For instance, during the first wide-angle shot of the mall a department store called Gaylen Ross can be seen, she is the actress who played Fran. The B.P. Trucking Company is back in the update as well as actors Ken Foree and Scott H. Reiniger in cameos along with the original’s make-up artist, Tom Savini. Luckily, the motorcycle gang does not return this time.

There are some problems here and there with the film. In the beginning the beginnings of a storyline are presented when a character suffers an injury and then falls into contaminated water, but the affects of this happenstance never come to fruition in the film. Also, while the film does contain a very high body count, the extreme gore of the original is not present here. Those looking for a screwdriver in the ear will have to look elsewhere.

Dawn of the Dead is one of the few films that can boast they are just as good, if not better, than the original film they were crafted from. Fans of the original may be a bit disenchanted by the thematic liberty taken by new comer Zack Snyder in the director’s chair, but as different as the film is from the cult classic that spawned it, Dawn of the Dead rises to the occasion.

I had to buy myself a thesaurus for this review to think of as many different ways to say how disappointed I am with this film: let down, dissatisfied, disenchanted, and saddened. Those should get me by for a little while. Broken Lizard’s Super Troopers wasn’t an all out laugh-fest and it didn’t differ too much from the beaten path of past films, but it had funny moments, a testament to the writing ability of the Broken Lizard troupe. Yet, after watching Club Dread I may be ready to take back all the nice things I said about their first film.

I was eagerly awaiting the release of Club Dread mainly because I enjoyed Super Troopers so very much, and while the film makes an honest effort to spoof the horror genre it can’t compare to mastery works like Scary Movie and Scream. For those who can’t believe I called Scary Movie a mastery work, I just did. Club Dread plays with the clichés that we find in all horror movies, but when old-school films such as Freddy vs. Jason begin to make fun of themselves, do we really need poorly conceived spoof films to make fun of work that is already being parodied by its progenitors?

Club Dread takes place on a tropical island where the drinks flow freely and there are not strings attached. Coconut Pete (Bill Paxton) runs this swanky island paradise with the money he earned making hilarious sounding records referring to many things people would do on brain-altering drugs. When someone begins picking off resort workers (no doubt a throwback to the killing of camp counselors in Friday the 13^th), our fearless crew must stay alive until a boat comes to retrieve them and return them to safety. This isn’t award winning cinema, but it is still dangerously thin to get by with.

The biggest problem with the film is the general lack of laughs. There are only two times that a real gut-buster of a joke is told and when you don’t see them coming, they just aren’t that funny. Surprisingly the film tries to enter the drama realm, something Broken Lizard managed to do in Super Troopers, but stumbles here even with the added incentive that people may get naked and killed.

Naked and killed you say? For a comedy piece there is a surprising amount of gore and bloodshed with gruesome deaths being suffered by almost every member of the principle cast including stomachs sliced open, decapitations, and machetes impaled through the chest. While not containing the body count or gore of Freddy vs. Jason, it certainly raises the bar a bit for the comedy genre. As for the nudity, the film has an ample amount of both male and female, depending on where your interests lie. Most notable of the birthday-suit baring is that of Cabin Fever‘s Jordan Ladd who shows us here gymnastic abilities in the comfort of a hotel room.

Without any laughs you are forced to look at the drama components of the film, but when the killer is finally revealed, and when the reason for his killing is explained the whole thing is suppose to be funny, yet it isn’t, which can be said for a majority of the film. There just isn’t that much that compels you to keep watching. You aren’t going to laugh, the film offers little to no suspense, and it isn’t the most heartwarming piece of cinema ever, so why keep watching? The only reason I can give you is the funniest moment of the film which lies at the very end. Aside form this parody of returning killers only the outtakes during the ending credits present you with any real laughs.

Unfortunately Club Dread was the first big disappointment of the new year, aside from the lackluster and completely average Along Came Polly. Those expecting the comedic timing and laughs of Super Troopers will be the most disappointed as we are forced to sit through nearly two hours of jokes that miss their mark and gags that don’t quite instill the uproarious laughter we were expecting. Here’s one more for the road: thwarted.

The rate at which remakes are coming out is making me increasingly nervous about the lack of good, new ideas in Hollywood. The more disturbing trend it to remake movies that people in their late 40s early 50s would remember sneaking in to long ago. The amount of time before a movie is released is becoming shorter and shorter before it becomes grounds for the remake treatment, and while some rightfully deserve this retouching, others may just be a waste of energy and time. Luckily, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre falls into the previous category as the re-imagined tale of twisted murder is vividly brought to the screen with only a few problems.

One thing that stood out to me, having not seen the original in any form, or it’s sequels, was how much Rob Zombie’s House of 1000 Corpses “borrows” from this picture. Even in its remake form the storylines are eerily parallel almost to the point of a true rip-off. While I wasn’t impressed with Corpses, Massacre has a sort of freshness to it that holds it above past movies in the genre, almost as though you need to watch it as Leatherface and the twisted manner of the film has seeped deeply into pop culture.

The story starts off with five teenagers making a trek across Texas to see a concert (with front row tickets non-the-less). When they almost hit a girl walking in the middle of the street it starts them out on a journey through death, despair, and some of the most wretched, vile people this side of the Mississippi. When something terrible happens the group is thrown through hoop after hoop as they try to track down the town Sheriff. Through the passage of time they will meet an “interesting” cast of characters and learn about true fear.

The horror staples pioneered by Friday the 13^th and A Nightmare on Elm Street remain with the kids having sex, taking drugs, and drinking. This is all it takes in a horror movie to seal your fate. Keep track of who does what and you may be able to guess the ending, or not. The film itself establishes the story quite well and the full circle feel gives you a full feeling when its over whereas some movies leave you wanting more in the bad sense (meaning the movie felt incomplete) The Texas Chainsaw Massacre leaves you wanting more in the good sense (meaning the film was good).

There are some problems here and there that detracted from the atmosphere a bit. The biggest drawback is the film isn’t scary in any sense of the word, it is more suspenseful than anything, but even with the cheap jump-shocks you never actually feel any fear while watching. Secondly, the acting isn’t necessarily the high point on any of the films actors and actresses; it seems being able to act isn’t necessarily a prerequisite to actually being cast in a film. Also there are points when the believability of the film skews into the “I don’t freaking think so category,” mainly with a certain character taking on the long-known persona of a hockey masked killer.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a name everyone can ask anyone about and they will give you a vague inference of what it is about. For a movie released almost 30 years ago the story holds up quite well and the main killer shines as one of the greats in a sea of mediocre “monsters” that all have unique staples into killing, but lack the originality and simplicity that once had audiences swooning in their seats. This remake has been tagged by many as a waste of time and an effort to cash in on the license once again, but those who can see past the negative comments, and haven’t seen the original, may find a pleasant Halloween treat, and that isn’t a trick.