“Chef” – Starting from scratch never tasted so good.

Have you ever read a book, gazed on a painting, or really listened to a song that made you rethink your priorities in life? I haven’t either, but “Chef” came really close. But not “close” in the way that made me feel like I’m on the wrong path in life, but “close” in the sense that I REALLY want to learn to cook like a boss.

I’ve always liked Jon Favreau, from “The Replacements” (what I consider to be the best sports movie of all time) to what he kicked off with the “Iron Man” films. He’s got a good head for comedy and his direction is pretty spot on. So when I heard about “Chef” a little while back (guilty for looking up what Robert Downey Jr. had in the chamber), I knew I’d have to check it out when it became available. Last night I sat down with my roommates and we set out on what has surely been the most mouth-watering hour and a half I’ve ever been a part of. Here’s the synopsis:

Really talented chef at a prestigious restaurant loses his job but decides money isn’t what’s important, it’s cooking for people. After much urging and pushing from his ex-wife, he decides to start a food truck business, where he can cook whatever he wants.

I feel that’s a little better than what IMDB has to offer, so forgive me for embellishing. Point is, we get to sit through this man’s (Jon Favreau himself) delicious journey through self-discovery, family, and what the most important things in life are.

The film is packed with some great talent, and they all share the spotlight equally well. Rounding out the cast we have Scarlett Johansson, John Leguizamo, Dustin Hoffman, Oliver Platt, Robert Downey Jr., Sofia Vergara, and Bobby Cannavale. Take a step back for a moment and realize that this is an epic list. Lequizamo shines as Favreau’s good friend and chef-in-arms and really helps keep the mood up even in the few minutes where the film gets sad. The rest of the cast fits in perfectly and I couldn’t be happier with their performances, however the real heavy hitter here is Favreau. The last few films I’ve seen him in, he was portraying Tony Stark’s driver with a witty line here or there, so it was great to see him step off the sidelines and onto the field. He truly made this film a masterpiece.

Shout out to Roy Choi who taught Favreau how to make many of the dishes in the film.

Now onto what I was talking about in the beginning: his cooking. As I understand it, Favreau actually learned how to cook the dishes he’s seen making in the film, and just writing about them now is making me hate the chicken salad I packed for dinner. One of the simplest meals he makes in the film is a grilled cheese, and I’m pretty sure his version tasted better than most filet mignon’s I’ve had. After the credits started to roll I turned to my roommates (one of whom was already looking up how much food trucks cost) and suggested that we each pick out a simple recipe, and over the next few weeks experiment with it until we are able to create a masterpiece. They both seemed to agree and I’ve already started looking up ways to beef up the grilled cheese.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: I feel that films like this are a rarity now, where you not only enjoy what it’s about but are left wanting more out of your own life after viewing. Hats off to you, Mr. Favreau.

FLICKCHART RATING: 294/2200

“The Bunker” – The evil is within.

Wow, it’s been a spell. Anywho I’ve jumped back in with what appeared to be a low-budget horror flick from 2001 called “The Bunker”. This is the third film I’ve seen that has to deal with German soldiers and sealed up bunkers during WWII, and at this point I’m starting to think they lost the war due to paranormal activities. Sadly none of these films really hit “outstanding” on any scale so I’m not sure why they keep getting made, but for what it’s worth “The Bunker” was decent enough and something I may in fact watch sometime in the future. How’s that for a ringing endorsement?

As far as haunted bunker stories go, there isn’t much variation. Generally some Nazi’s stumble upon some sort of building that they need to hide in and there’s always the one older guy who’s seen some sh&* in his time who warns everyone about “the tunnel” or “the basement”, but either through necessity or stupid curiosity everyone winds up below and starts dying. “The Bunker” is no different than this, except that the story is just a tad more interesting than some creature killing everyone off. Without giving away the ending (albeit a cop-out of an ending), the movie has flashbacks every now and then, just a few seconds long, finally leading up to the big reveal of what’s actually haunting these dudes. It’s pretty easy to guess before the ending actually occurs but meh. Unlike its siblings, “The Bunker” focuses more on the paranoia the soldiers experience while being trapped and how it starts to affect each of them in turn. It’s similar to one of my favorite horror movies of all time, “Session 9″…except not as well executed.

I wouldn’t have chosen to nap there, but that’s just me.

I’ll be honest, for a low-budget thriller like this one it was actually done decently well. The first internship I ever had was for a straight-to-DVD movie called “Halloween Night” which was downright terrible. This film didn’t rely on gore or overused explosions to freak out the audience, but rather the acting and well timed shadows. I honestly thought it was a film made in the late 80’s/early 90’s when it first started because the music and title screen was very reminiscent of John Carpenter’s early work (look at me being all connoisseur-esque). The cast is also pretty impressive, filled with actors from the UK that you’ve seen before, such as Jack Davenport, Jason Flemyng, and Eddie Marsan. Much like the Tom Cruise film “Valkyrie” they didn’t hide their accents at all, even while portraying German soldiers but if that honestly bothers you then you have bigger things to worry about. With a good cast of veteran supporting actors, they all did a good job making it seem like they are actually terrified of what the tunnels in the bunker have in store for them. Probably the best part is that very few of them are actually scared of “things” down below, but rather the American army they believe themselves to be surrounded by. Interesting to watch a WWII movie where the Americans are in a sense the bad guys.

So there you have it, easy enough storyline to follow, pretty decent acting, and no scares big enough to make you jump but rather make you glad you aren’t in their position. Out of the other bunker films I mentioned earlier, this is definitely not the best nor the worst of them.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Not too long and creepy enough to give you slight chills, but that also might be due to the air conditioner being on too high.

FLICKCHART RATING: 957/2188

“Grabbers” – Last call at the bar

This will be my shortest post ever due to the synopsis of this movie. 

It’s a film about a small Irish town that gets invaded by human-eating aliens. The catch? The aliens are deathly allergic to alcohol. This means that in order to survive, this small IRISH town needs to get drunk.

Yep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DIRECTOR’S CUT: See above.

FLICKCHART RATING: 1278/2143

“Snowpiercer” – We Move Forward.

Good news, this movie will be in theaters somewhere on June 11…though I’m not sure where. I can’t remember how I came across it, probably some IMDB list of “Movies of 2014 you need to see!!!!!!” or something, and being a fan of Chris Evans I gave it a go. Not a bad flick actually, and probably the closest thing to a real life anime film you’ll ever see. So there’s that.

“Snowpiercer” tackles the apocalyptic thought of how we’d survive by placing the remainder of earth’s humans on a self-sustaining train that rides a track built over the entire world. Yeah. As I’m sure Americans would be the first to do, the train is split up by the wealthy and the poor, with the poor being placed in crummy conditions in the “tail” section, while the wealthy get to live it up in the front. Curtis (Chris Evans) is a tail member who just doesn’t want to take it anymore. Everyday they are ruled over by a military force put together by the front and forced to eat “protein” bars; basically black Jell-O that I wouldn’t touch if I were dying. So Curtis and Edgar (Jamie Bell) plan and execute a takeover attempt (not really a spoiler, kind of what the entire movie is about) and it’s essentially a rollercoaster ride of results. Or in this case a train ride. Because it’s a movie about a train.

Now I mentioned that it was the equivalent to a real life anime, and I’m pretty sure that’s spot on. There are fight scenes with axes, torches, guns, dodging, Tilda Swinton, and just all out anarchy. There’s this great scene where everyone is throwin’ ‘bows in a train car when a conductorish guy comes out and blows a whistle, gets everyone’s attention, counts down from three and then wishes all a happy new year. You don’t see stuff like that in your everyday movie, so it added a nice level of humor to what was going on. As for the cast, a lot of recognizable faces in very odd roles that ultimately pull the whole thing together. Obviously Chris Evans is Captain America without the shield or shower, and his language is a bit more colorful but he runs the show. Jamie Bell as his number two, and John Hurt as his number one, the man who looks as if he’s run some rebellions in his time. Personally I’m surprised this guy is still acting (and doing a great job at it), as he looked about 50 in “Alien”. Alison Pill makes an outstanding “Teacher”, completely in love with the “benevolent “creator of the train and brainwashing her kids with stories of the years spent riding around the world. Last but not least is Tilda Swinton, who I had to double check to make sure it was actually her. Basically the voice of the train’s upper class she serves to keep the tail section in line both before and during their revolution. She’s got an excellent set of upper teeth and coke bottle glasses that give her character the most ridiculous sounding voice and look ever, and I loved it. She’s so creepily stern, especially when during the rebellion she stands in front of the attackers and says, “Precisely 74% of you will die.” Eerie. Plus it’s Tilda Swinton, so she’s got that going for her.

Welcome to the weirdest fight scene you’ve ever watched.

All in all this is a pretty decent movie. If anything it’s a new take on how to handle the apocalypse via the DC metro system. Director Joon-ho Bong really tackled a series of graphic novels with this film, and in my opinion did a much better job with this than his previous, “The Host” (not the Twilight piece of crap). So don’t see that. See “Snowpiercer”.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: See this. Don’t see “The Host”. And if the apocalypse is soon, I’d opt for the non-train version.

FLICKCHART RATING: 1611/2142 (Let’s just take a moment and point out that I’ve seen 2,142 movies)

“After the Dark” – What if you had to die to survive?

This review comes with a caveat. The reason I watched it is because awhile back I noticed that my crush was starring and outside of her usual role. So popping it onto the TV last night I wound up getting sucked into a pretty intriguing story that I’ve found lots of reviewers elsewhere have torn apart. After reading why these other moviegoers disliked it so much, I think I can understand where they all went astray.

Originally titled “The Philosophers” (and probably still called that in the UK) the film is about a group of 20 students from all over the world in their last day of philosophy class in Jakarta. I’m assuming they are all studying abroad, otherwise that’s one weird school. Anyway, their professor Mr. Zimit (James D’Arcy) decides that instead of the normal last day spent cleaning your desks with shaving cream and telling that girl in the third row that you’ve been in love with her for the entire year, these students would be engaging in a final project. Choosing not to participate would result in a letter grade drop (I had a teacher threaten to do that in 4th grade), so naturally all of the kids decide to stick it out.

The premise is simple: a situation is posed where an atomic apocalypse is headed towards the class of 20 while on a field trip, and the only shelter they have is a bunker with enough oxygen to hold 10 of the students. Each student picks at random a piece of paper with an occupation on it, and from that occupation alone they need to decide among themselves who will live and who will die. The wild card is that Mr. Zimit is playing too but he does not reveal what his trait is, the students simply have to decide if he’s worth keeping around.

Pretty cool, right? Well this idea repeats itself three times with three different scenarios, each time a new trait revealed, such as an orthopedic surgeon (scenario 1)…who just happened to treat an ebola virus victim two weeks prior (season 2). As you can see, that person may have been essential in the first scenario but screw that noise when it comes to the second. I enjoyed this as it would be an interesting discussion to have with friends. In fact I couldn’t stop thinking about how much my friend Eric would enjoy being in those situations. He’d probably be so good at it that the other students would decide that he wouldn’t get a spot out of sheer spite. But I digress, he is not a character in that film.

For your final exam, you’re going to kill each other off. Good luck.

Here is my note to the other reviewers. Almost all of the negative reviews I read were due to the fact that the characters didn’t seem to carry much emotion, ie. they weren’t acting very much. I honestly think that most people would see it this way because yes, they were quite stoic and it seemed weird, UNLESS you put yourself in their world. Hear me out. The students never leave their classroom so all of the scenarios (acted out in their real world locations) are just imaginations. The kids walk around referring to previous scenarios and information they learned as if it’s just a game, which technically it is. Therefore the actors aren’t really “acting” per se, they are just living out their imaginations as a group. I’m realizing now that this is harder to explain than I thought, so if you’re lost I’m sorry.

I guess what I took away from this whole film is that this really could happen somewhere, sometime. It doesn’t have to be during an apocalypse or a cataclysmic event but the point is that choices will have to be made about who is expendable and who isn’t. The movie does a great job of distinguishing the differences between “necessary” and “wishful”. Sure, the organic farmer may be an important person to have in the bunker but that doesn’t mean the poet is an immediate negative. Everyone in the world will have their own vision of who should stay and who should go, so at most “After the Dark” gives you something to ponder.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: With the exception of the ending being kind of loose and a bit of a cop out, I found it pretty enjoyable overall. And I’m guilty for enjoying Bonnie Wright.

FLICKCHART RATING: 396/2133 (A bit high but Flickchart kept giving me crap to rate it against)

“The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman”

If this title intrigues you then stop right now. Don’t google the movie, don’t watch the trailer, and definitely don’t read the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. I am going to do the best I can at barely touching the surface for this film because I find it incredible. I’ve since imparted it on two friends of mine and they both loved it, though they also went it with little to no knowledge of the premise. So with all of the warnings out of the way, let’s jump in.

I’ve never been a hater for Shia, and I know he gets a pretty bad rep for the “Transformers” films and definitely for “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, but like most sane people I just pretend that movie never happened. Therefore when I first heard of “Charlie Countryman” I was intrigued; it had some recognizable names and seemed like an interesting story based on the one line synopsis I read. I gradually forgot about it until recently when I picked up the Blu Ray off eBay. My roommate and I sat down to watch it one night and besides the previous knowledge I had (which I summed up two sentences before this), my roommate had none so we just figured “why not”. Easily one of the best decisions I made during the month of February.

I’m going to try my best to give you a plot outline without really giving you anything to go on, if that makes sense. Remember, this is about all I had and I still wanted to see it, so hopefully you’ll feel the same way. Shia LaBeouf is the titular Charlie Countryman who decides to travel to Bucharest on a whim. Through an unfortunate series of events he meets a girl, and he understands that he needs to take the leap.

Yeah, that’s all you get. I don’t want to tell more because then you’ll pull out the microscope and things will get nasty. Yes it gets a little disjointed at times, yes it may have a plot hole or two, but you just have to jump in, much like Charlie. The journey we as an audience go on is one of just letting go of preconceived notions, and instead of looking back for the rest of your life wondering “what could have been”, that we should have at least one of those moments where we decide to “do”. Charlie’s adventures are crazy, dangerous, sexy, fun, and just about every emotion you could possibly go, and the ride is totally worth it. The way I told my friend about the film was by relating it to “Drive”, another film that leaves you thinking about it way past the disc being ejected. He sat down to watch it on this recommendation and liked it so much that he watched it again the next night with his girlfriend. I urge you to give it a shot, look past your dislike for Shia (because it’s got other people in it, like Mads Mikkelsen, Evan Rachel Wood, and Rupert Grint in a very NON “Harry Potter” role…that should be enough to give it a view) and just try it. I promise you will be happily surprised, and if you are…please spread the word.

And if you still aren’t hooked, Shia reportedly tripped on acid for the scene where he…trips on acid. Legit.

Oh and one final thing. This blog came about because I was mentally “collecting scenes” from movies. You could watch an entire film and feel pretty good about it but if the last scene sucks, or the music’s off, or something just doesn’t click how it should, your reaction will turn into “Meh” whenever you’re asked about it. “Charlie Countryman” was way above any sort of bad feelings by the end, but in case it ever needed the extra push the ending scene has a defining moment where a song by M83 comes blasting through the speakers at the most perfect time, and I couldn’t help but smile. Consider that scene “collected”.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Please pass this film along, it has some pretty sad ratings on Rotten Tomatoes and elsewhere, and even if Shia has decided that he’s no longer famous, this film needs some love. At the very least you’ll have a new outlook on taking that leap.

FLICKCHART RATING: 262/2099

“The Emperor’s Club” – In everyone’s life there’s that one person who makes all the difference.

I remember when this movie first came out and thinking, “This is desperately trying to be the ‘Dead Poets Society’ for our generation.” I finally got around to putting it on the Netflix queue, and Netflix finally got around to sending it to me, so I popped it in last night and gave it a viewing. Good to know my predictions from 12 years ago were true.

This wasn’t a bad movie by any means, though that doesn’t mean you should watch this instead of “Dead Poets”. Kevin Kline stars as William Hundert, the name already stumbling off the tongue, a teacher of Western Civilization at an all boy’s school. The movie opens with him looking old so it’s easy to guess that the whole thing is going to be a flashback. That assumption is quickly solidified as he opens up an old yearbook with a weathered ’76 on the cover, and thus the story begins….except you’d never guess it was the Seventies because there is no allusion to it at all. A minor detail that doesn’t really impact the story until much later.

So we have this teacher and a class of misfits, among them are younger versions of Paul Dano, Jesse Eisenberg, and the center of attention for the movie, Emile Hirsch. Kline’s teacher is very enthusiastic, possibly a 2nd cousin to Robin Williams’ Professor Keating, but with a bit more edge. Over the course of the film he rubs off on the kids as they start to rub off on him, though it’s really only focused on during random series of montages. Kind of upsetting since it doesn’t really let the audience feel like the characters are growing since it doesn’t hone in on one student in particular. That, and the last half hour takes place 25 years later so all of the actors are replaced with much older and handsomer versions (ie. Patrick Dempsey as an adult Jesse Eisenberg). Both of these “issues” make it difficult to connect with the characters in any real way, and you definitely don’t feel like standing on top of a desk at the end.

I’m sure there’s a racial joke here.

Granted, this movie was based off a short story so it’s not really fair to call it a ripoff of “Dead Poets”, but it just tries to be way too much. Kline’s acting is great as it always is and even the young students shine through the muck, but it just wasn’t enough for me to wind up recommending this film to anyone. I know I know, I said it wasn’t terrible and I seem to be berating it here, but I guess if it’s ever something on cable then I’d say it’s worth a view.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Pretty sure by the end you’ll just kick the blankets off and say, “Meh.”

FLICKCHART RATING: 774/2099

“The Wolf of Wall Street” – The name of the game, moving the money from the client’s pocket to your pocket.

Scorsese is a lot like Tarantino to me; I don’t like all the movies that everyone else seems to love. The last Scorsese movie I truly enjoyed was probably “Gangs of New York”, which I believe was also his first collaboration with DiCaprio. I’ve seen most of his other DiCaprio movies but none of them really grip me; they’re just long and seem to follow the same recipe of “riches to rags”. Sadly I didn’t feel like much was different with “The Wolf of Wall Street”, but it was definitely more entertaining than some of their other films.

If the movie made me feel anything, it’s that I’m glad I don’t deal with the stock market. I tend to say “enjoy fast-paced environments” on cover letters but there’s no way I’d survive in a pit. Of course this movie focuses on insider trading and illegal stock sales that wind up making the characters millionaires, when at first they barely had a pot to, you know, do stuff in. DiCaprio narrates the entire movie and sometimes breaks the 4th wall entirely, so in case you aren’t able to follow his visual spiral into drugs and bad, you’ll be able to listen to how poorly things are going. Honestly it just didn’t…do a whole lot that “Wall Street” didn’t do. In fact, I think DiCaprio’s character Jordan Belfort even mentions at one point that his idol was Gordon Gecko. So it’s your basic recipe of get-rick-quick schemes that go awry and then the awkward hour and a half of watching these characters struggle to hold on and survive, while continually shoving powder up their noses.

To it’s credit though, it wasn’t a “bad” movie, I did enjoy it. And by “enjoy” I mean that I wasn’t dying of boredom by the end as Scorcese’s movies tend to make me do. There are some excellent performances throughout the whole thing, namely by DiCaprio (who so far deserves the Oscar in my mind, but I haven’t watched all the movies yet), but also Matthew McConaughey who’s in the movie a whopping five minutes, Jonah Hill, Kyle Chandler, and Jean Dujardin. Jonah Hill especially dazzles, considering one of the first movies I ever saw him in was “Accepted” (which I still hold true to be an excellent flick), and is more than deserving of his Oscar nod. That’s the thing about Scorcese’s films, is that more than the cinematography or scenery, the acting is always impeccable so I’ve got to hand him that. Reading through the trivia I found out that the real Jordan Belfort was pretty happy with the outcome of the film, so that’s got to be a testament to some good film making.

Can’t say it would be bad to have a yacht though. I’m sure all of Scorcese’s cast members get one as a “Thank you.”

Honestly the strongest things to me that made it more “eh” than “awesome” were the constant drug use and T&A. I remember first realizing what separated PG-13 from R, and it just made me think that producers would watch a screener and say, “If we’re going to call this an R film, we need bucket loads of swearing and so many naked women you’d start to think it was normal.” Sadly Scorcese seems to have bought into this theory because most scenes contain one, if not both of these. A strong film should rely more on the story than naked bodies and drugs to entice viewers, but I’m not a ratings reader so who knows what drew people to see it. I don’t know, seems a lot of mobster movies these days contain these two things and they have a huge following, one that I’m not a part of, so I could be barking up the wrong tree. Oh well.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Overall I was happy with the outcome and not sad that it took up three hours of my life. If it wins some statues, I won’t be disappointed.

FLICKCHART RATING: 694/2074

“Gravity” – Don’t Let Go

So with the Oscars right around the corner and ten movies on the “Best Picture” list, I figured it was time to start checking some of these out. Granted I’ve waited long enough for all the hype to sink in, which is therefore going to mean that this post will probably piss off some people, but that’s why I write. “Gravity” was pretty good…but definitely not Oscar worthy in my mind.

Ok now that some of you are teeming with anger, let’s press on. The Academy loves to honor films that really push actor’s limits, whether physically or because they’re pretty much the only person on screen. The latter happens to be the case for “Gravity”, as we find ourselves joining Sandra Bullock for about 3/4 of the movie, and I’m pretty sure the soundtrack could’ve been recorded by the Williams’ sisters with all the grunting. Basic outline is this (if you couldn’t gather it from the trailer/poster): Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) are two astronauts repairing the hubble space telescope when they are informed that some Russians blew up a defunct satellite which in turn creates a chain reaction of debris to get caught in Earth’s gravitational pull. What this means is that a bunch of sharp crap is going to be flying towards our heroes at Superman speeds. Naturally things go bad and Stone becomes untethered in space.

There’s your story.

So yeah, the plot is pretty good because it keeps you on edge. When it’s one-on-one like that you tend to feel like you’re right there experiencing the fear that the character is feeling. “Gravity” did a pretty good job with that, and there’s nothing wrong with it…it just felt empty. This is not meant to undermine Sandra Bullock’s acting in anyway, I just felt that by the end of the movie I could’ve guessed the whole thing without watching it. And George Clooney was in the film for maybe a minute so it makes you wonder if he was just attached to give it more traction. Again, not a bad movie by any means, just not something I would root for at the Oscars.

Yeah um, screw that.

I’m sure I could do some deeper research into “Space movies that have won Academy Awards” to see how they’ve fared in the past, but I don’t get paid to do this. So instead I’ll focus on seeing it without the “Oscar” connotation. The action crops up pretty fast, and watching satellite debris tear through the telescope is pretty awesome. I’ve never been in space (duh) but I can’t say it’s at the top of my list when things like that can occur. After Stone is broken loose from her tether we get to listen to Kowalski calm her down with idle chit-chat about where they’re from. I’m pretty sure that if I were floating through space that it’d take a bit more than “So what’s Tulsa like this time of year?” to keep me from screaming to death. After awhile Kowalski finally catches up to Stone using thrusters and they make their way towards the International Space Station (which inconveniently blew up in “Armageddon”). But of course nothing in space is easy, so once they reach the ISS a new set of problems arise, such as the fact that the earlier debris is still caught in Earth’s pull, which means HEY! It’s coming back for round two. So essentially, the movie starts all over again and we are forced to watch as Sandra Bullock and George Clooney make it painfully obvious that space sucks.

There you have it, I know I tend to do “in a nutshell” reviews but this almost covered the entire film without giving away spoilers. It’s said that the Oscars are all politics anyway so who knows, but when the credits started to roll both my roommate and I looked at each other and said, “Well it was good…but it wasn’t Oscar good.”

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Great acting with awesome voice work by Ed Harris, and entertaining to say the least, but just leaves you a bit empty afterwards.

FLICKCHART RATING: 547/2071

“Insidious: Chapter 2” – It Will Take What You Love Most

I love a good scary movie. In fact if lights are on, I’ll turn them off before I start it. I’ll do whatever I can to enhance the experience. So when a sequel comes out to a movie that legitimately gave me the willies…you’ve got my attention. Sadly as with James Wan’s first foray into horror (“Saw”) it would appear that this series is destined for the same “sequels equal money” path. It definitely had some moments that got my heart-rate up, but then again so does running up the stairs.

The first film did a great job taking a normal haunted house flick and turning it on its head. It freaked us out because as with almost every other film, the hauntings tend to stop once you move into a different house, but what happens when one of you is haunted? Plus the ending to “Insidious” just made you go, “Well great, I’m never living with roommates again.” and that was that. The sequel starts up right where the first one left off, which honestly detracts from what made the original great but oh well. I think  there’s actually a third one on the way so I’m losing hope as I’m writing this. But I digress…

So a quick premise of the first film: family has son who can wander in his dreams, accidentally wanders into Hell or something similar, becomes lost and possessed. Hijinks ensue and eventually all seems well when son wakes up. Ending comes out of nowhere, you need new pants. Ok, now that we’re caught up we’ll move on to the second chapter. Family moves into a new house (a la normal thought process of hauntings) and of course crap keeps happening to everyone, only this time the son isn’t to blame. Without giving away too much plot because it will give away pretty much the entire first film, just know that it’s very sub-par to the first film. The scares aren’t as genuine and they rely on the same “sudden noise” effect that is more related to how high your volume is. Also they tried to give a backstory to the hauntings which I believe rarely works. Much like “Paranormal Activity” it was so much scarier when things were happening and you had no idea why, versus some tortured soul of the creepy guy next door whose house was always the recipient of hurled rotten eggs. That, and by the time it was over they were totally gearing up for the threequel, and knowing Hollywood I’m sure we’re destined for about four more of these as well.

I know this is from the first movie, but it still scares the crap out of me.

Now if you’ve read at least a few of my reviews then chances are that you’ve seen one of my horror pieces. To be honest I think most of them have low ratings from me but that’s because I’ve set the bar rather high when it comes to scaring myself, something that only “What Lies Beneath” and “The Tunnel” can still do on a reoccurring basis. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, and in some ways I did but just not as a follow-up to “Insidious”. First time I watched it was in broad daylight and after it was over I still had to politely excuse myself to go for a good cry. Last night I popped this on while on the couch in pitch black and with the volume at a decent “scare” level, and I still felt like “meh” when I crawled into bed afterwards. The acting was not the greatest and I’m sure the actors just phoned this one in for the paycheck, but then again Hollywood isn’t exactly rolling out the originals these days.

DIRECTOR’S CUT: Definitely watch the first film, it will remain better than it’s follower and most likely all of the films after that. Oh, and the guy on the poster for this one isn’t even in the movie.

FLICKCHART RATING: 731/2057