Popcorn (1991)

DIRECTED BY
Mark Herrier

Alan Ormsby

STARRING
Jill Schoelen - Maggie
Tom Villard - Toby D'Amato
Derek Rydall - Mark
Tony Roberts - Davis
Dee Wallace Stone - Suzanne
Kelly Jo Minter - Cheryl
Ray Walston - Dr. Malcolm Mnesyne

Genre - Horror/Slasher/Comedy/Cult

Running Time - 90 Minutes


PLOT
Maggie (Jill Schoelen) is having trouble due to some bad dreams. She's been having some bizarre nightmares about some bearded dude whispering disturbing stuff to her - a dude she doesn't recognize. Trying to turn a negative into a positive, Maggie decides to use her dreams as ideas for a screenplay she's trying to complete. However, Maggie's aunt (Dee Wallace Stone) doesn't seem to share in Maggie's positivity for reasons made unclear.

Meanwhile, the film school she attends is trying to have a fundraiser by showing old B-movies that utilize 3-D and aroma gimmicks. While setting up, Maggie and her friends find "The Possessor" - an old film directed by Lanyard Gates. Gates is considered to be a drugged up hippie who lost his marbles, which led to the murder of a lot of people who were in attendance at the screening of the film. Gates also tried to murder his own family on stage, but was shot dead. Or was he? And why does Maggie feel connected to Gates?

As Maggie worries about her connection to the late demented director, her friends end up getting killed during the fundraiser while an unsuspecting audience enjoys themselves. Is Gates back and out for blood? Or is someone else behind the madness?








REVIEW


HITS
- The B-Movie homages. POPCORN is one of the first horror films to reference other films within its narrative, making our characters aware of the horror film rules and motifs. The film festival is based on B-Movies from the 1950s, especially the William Castle variety with different gimmicks involving sight, smell, and touch. And quite honestly, this homage to horror films of yesteryear is the highlight of this slasher film.

POPCORN gives us three fake B-Movies, all of which are silly, campy, and so well done that I wish they were actual features. "The Mosquito" is the 3D film and it feels as if it were made during the era of 1950s science fiction films. The dialogue, the way it's shot, and the acting all feel authentic. We only get clips of the film, but each time it played, I looked forward to more. "The Attack of the Amazing Electrified Man" is the film where the audience would get randomly shocked in their seats anytime the monster would attack. It's obviously a riff on THE TINGLER, but the black-and-white look made it seem like it was made during those classic monster movies. And "The Stench" is the aroma film, basing itself on Japanese monster films. I thought some of the shots shown were pretty funny and cool.

POPCORN , while a slasher film made long after its boon during the early 1980s, seems to embrace the B-movies of the past wholeheartedly. There's nothing wrong with that at all, as the fake films presented seem to have been made with a ton of heart and professionalism. They were the best part of the film for me.

- The cast. While the acting isn't the greatest ever, the charming cast help keep POPCORN afloat through its flaws. Jill Schoelen, best known for her work in 1987's THE STEPFATHER, does well in the role as the Final Girl, Maggie. She apparently replaced another actress in short notice, but you couldn't really tell by her performance. She does what she can with the material and helps carry the film pretty well. Dee Wallace Stone and Ray Walston are pretty wasted in bit parts, but do what they can with what they're given. The late Tom Villard is way over-the-top as Toby, but I enjoyed his performance. He gave the film a ton of energy whenever he was on screen, and really had the most depth out of all the actors and characters in the movie. He was the most memorable out of all the actors. Kelly Jo Minter, of SUMMER SCHOOL and A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 5: THE DREAM CHILD, has some standout moments - especially one where she kicks some guy's ass. That was pretty funny. Derek Rydall is decent as Maggie's boyfriend, Mark, giving the character some sympathetic notes. Plus, he had a falling and tripping gag that ran kind of old after a while. I think if the script was better and the actors had more to do, the acting would have been outstanding. But for what it is, it's more positive than negative.

- The villain. I won't spoil the mystery for those who have not yet seen POPCORN, but I actually dug the villain here. Just a really batshit crazy character with an interesting way to get around undetected. The voice impersonations and the awesome facial masks to cover their true appearance is pretty rad. I'm sure the villain was inspired by more personable villains, like Freddy Krueger, who used great one-liners to become majorly popular and likeable. The villain here isn't that memorable or anywhere near Krueger's league, but I liked the character and his/her motives. The film was a lot more fun whenever he/she appeared.

- The murders. For a slasher film, POPCORN isn't particularly gory at all. In fact, the film was pretty much a low budget affair, so I'm sure special effects weren't exactly a priority. But the way the characters do die are pretty nifty in their own way. Someone gets impaled by a giant mosquito during the screening of the film it's inspired by. We get a gassing and an electrocution [in an electric chair] as well. Not a really violent film, surprisingly since this is a slasher, but I thought that the deaths were cool because each one occurred as the film they were inspired by were playing in the theater. It was a nice touch, I feel.


MISSES
- Direction and tone. From what I've read, there seems to have been some behind-the-scenes trouble when it came to who directed POPCORN. Alan Ormsby, who was the screenwriter for 1972's CHILDREN SHOULDN'T PLAY WITH DEAD THINGS and DEATHDREAM, also was the screenwriter for POPCORN, as well as the film's original director. After Ormsby shot some of the footage, he decided to leave [or was replaced, said by some] the director's chair, which allowed PORKY'S actor, Mark Herrier, to direct the rest. Ormsby was the man responsible for directing the three B-movie segments, which are quite honestly the best looking parts of the film. They all have the right tone for the eras each film are inspired by, as well as the best cinematography as well. It would have been great to see Ormsby direct the entire film, because I'm sure it would have come across better.

That's not to say that Herrier's direction is completely terrible. Some of the editing is good. Some of the shots are stylish, especially during the murder sequences and scenes involving the villain during the last half of the film. However, compared to the B-movie segments, the real plot line is pretty much directed in a generic way that doesn't really allow for much tension or suspense. The visuals aren't as shot as tightly as they could possibly be, and the cinematography isn't all that great either as the film looks grainy and darker scenes needed a bit more lighting. It's competent enough, but there was potential for more.

What also hurts the direction is the uneven tone. Is this supposed to be a serious horror film? Or is this a campy B-movie with silly, throwaway characters and a hammy villain? It never really balances the two out, confusing the viewer on how they should react to the film. Is POPCORN fun to watch? Sure. But it would have been a lot more fun if the film played it straight, as Maggie's plot had very serious and creepy undertones. It would have been fun if it was completely campy, where we don't take anything seriously and the characters are kind of in on it. Hell, a great director would have been able to balance the two in a way that you barely notice the different moods the film wants to build. But Herrier isn't the director to make that happen [ not sure if Ormsby is either, but his experience probably would have improved the final cut]. It's like watching Maggie in a thriller while everyone else around her is acting as if it's a comedy. Plus the musical interludes [with the reggae band - the film was made in Jamaica] ruined the flow of the film for me, even though I did enjoy the music in the film. It doesn't really work for me.

- Narrative too localized amongst main characters. I don't think the narrative, or the screenplay itself, is terrible. In fact, it has a lot of likeable and charming qualities. The fact that the killer goes after the film students behind the fundraiser is a logical plot that POPCORN did right. It's a slasher and that's the template of this sub-genre. The film students, besides Maggie, should be in fatal danger to set Maggie up as the Final Girl. POPCORN does that well.

However, you have a group of people inside the theater who are completely oblivious to what's going on. They're never in danger. They're never fearing for their lives. We, as an audience, can tell that none of them will probably die because the killer isn't focused on them. And that's an issue I kind of have with POPCORN. I think if this was meant to be a horror film, everyone should have been in serious danger by this villain. Why would he just kill the film students? Isn't the audience supporting this fundraiser too? They should also be victims of this person's madness.

Take a look at 1985's DEMONS. Everyone was in danger at that theater. Yes, you knew who the main characters were and why they were there. But other audience members were victims of the demonic attack that plaqued that showing. Hell, I think the horrors of the movie experience were done better in 2008's MIDNIGHT MOVIE. At least that had a tone I could identify with and all the audience members were pretty much screwed by the film's villain. That's what POPCORN needed to really raise it from average to good. There's really no threat here and I never felt that "anything, to anyone, could happen". Maybe that's due to a restricted budget, but the idea should have been there anyway.

- Bland characterization. It doesn't help that POPCORN has really underdeveloped characters. To be quite honest, most of them were interchangeable. We had the slutty girl. We had the nerdy guy. We had the buff boyfriend. We had the tough girl. But other than those stereotypes, I had no idea who these people were. When that happens, I start to tune out and not care. I don't mind stereotypical characters as long as they have some sort of personality, or if the actors are trying to give them more depth than they probably deserve. Neither one is present here. I just felt indifferent about these people and didn't really care if the killer got them or not. They were neither interesting or annoying. They were just there for me, and that's never good. They were in the film because they had to be there to raise the body count. Luckily some characters were interestingly enough to keep me watching, but the supporting characters could have used a tiny bit more substance for me to react to them in a positive or negative way. My reactions were stuck in limbo, unfortunately.


THE FINAL HOWL

While flawed, the underrated POPCORN is still a decent film that deserves some appreciation for its attempt to create something fresh in the horror scene of the early 1990s. The uneven tone, the average direction, and the dull supporting characters hurt the film. But POPCORN has some decent acting, great homages to classic B-movies, interesting methods of murder, and a villain who happens to be the highlight. POPCORN is a film that could use a remake of some sort, which could probably lead to a supplemental DVD/Blu-Ray package that it definitely deserves. Just above average POPCORN here. Could have used more butter, in my honest opinion.


SCORE

2.5 Howls Outta 4

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

DIRECTED BY
Louis Leterrier

STARRING
Edward Norton - Dr. Bruce Banner
Liv Tyler - Dr. Betty Ross
Tim Roth - Emil Blonsky
William Hurt - General Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross
Tim Blake Nelson - Dr. Samuel Sterns
Ty Burrell - Dr. Samson
Paul Soles - Stanley

Genre - Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Science Fiction/Comic Books

Running Time - 113 Minutes


PLOT
After getting Dr. Bruce Banner's (Edward Norton) transformation into the Incredible Hulk due to high levels of gamma radiation through an experiment, we find Banner in Brazil working in a factory that bottles beverages. Brazil is Banner's hideout, as he's evading the search made by the United States Army, led by General 'Thunderbolt' Ross (William Hurt) - who the experiments were conducted for. After some of Banner's radioactive blood accidentally is ingested by a customer who bought a tainted bottle from the factory, Ross sends a squad to go after him, led by the power-hungry Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). Even though Banner had tried to suppress his anger with many techniques to keep his alter-ego in check, the ambush on him pushes him over the edge and into The Hulk, who can't be stopped by bullets or any other military weapons. Banner manages to escape, realizing he needs to go home in order to find a cure for his 'disease'.

When Banner returns to the States, he hides for a while until reuniting with his lost love, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) - who also happens to be 'Thunderbolt''s daughter. Even though she tried to move on from Banner's incident and disappearance, she still has feelings for him and goes along to help him find a cure. Betty's allegiance with Banner paints 'Thunderbolt' into a corner - as he wants to protect his daughter while attempting to stop Banner from spilling any secrets that will hinder his plan to use gamma radiation as a weapon. Realizing that he needs someone special and strong to stop Banner, 'Thunderbolt' decides to inject Blonsky with some special super soldier serum that turns Blonsky into something of an Abomination.

REVIEW

HITS
- A new direction. The character of Dr. Bruce Banner/The Hulk has been a part of pop culture since his debut in 1962. Not only is he one of Marvel Comics' most popular comic book characters, but the character has starred in multiple cartoons and the insanely popular television show starring both Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno as Banner and The Hulk respective from 1978-1982. The same cast also starred in three television films in the late 80s through the early 90s.

In 2003, the character was finally given the big screen treatment with Ang Lee directing Eric Bana as Bruce Banner and Jennifer Connolly as Betty Ross. While THE HULK was a decent success, it wasn't the blockbuster studios and audiences were expecting. It's a shame because I'm probably one of the few who didn't mind the more character driven and introspective version of the character, although I do agree that the film should have had more "HULK SMASH!" One day I'll discuss this film in more depth, as it's one that will spark a debate in comic book fans.

Realizing that THE HULK wasn't the most fitting movie for their powerhouse character, Marvel decided to buy the rights of the characters for their own studio feature that would later tie in for this year's THE AVENGERS. Hiring TRANSPORTER 2 director Louis Leterrier and signing intense actor, Edward Norton to star in the lead role, 2008's THE INCREDIBLE HULK was meant to act as a reboot for the character in a more action-filled and traditional comic book manner. And while it made pretty much the same as Lee's 2003 film, most fans prefer THE INCREDIBLE HULK due to its energetic and fast paced style.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK is a mix of THE FUGITIVE meets DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE, with its chase narrative and the drama Banner struggles with as he attempts to keep his moods in check. While the story doesn't have much character development, especially in terms of the supporting characters, it makes up for it by presenting what the fans want - The Hulk smashing stuff and kicking ass. There's no origin story here, besides what's presented in a cool opening credits montage, so the rest of the film is allowed to present something different - or retro, as it's pretty similar to the structure of each episode of the television show [which I'm sure was intentional]. We see Bruce trying to find a cure, the military attacking him, The Hulk is unleashed due to Banner's anger over his situation, The Hulk kicks ass, and it repeats with slightly different variations. Nothing really wrong with that, to be honest. It's what most of us would expect out of a Hulk film, so I can definitely dig the narrative.

THE INCREDIBLE HULK is mainly focused on Banner, as it should be, so he obviously gets the most depth. His struggle to get rid of the monster rather than control it is a great drama plot device. We watch him do meditation. We watch him avoid any sort of confrontation. We even see how sexual activity effects him in a negative [and interestingly human] way. Banner is obviously a victim of his experiment gone wrong, wanting to do the right thing by laying low, but can't due to outside forces wanting him found dead or alive. The cat-and-mouse chase between Banner and General Ross is great because it gives both characters personalities and something active to do. Ross wants the Hulk contained for his own selfish reasons [he doesn't want his part in it exposed while wanting to create more of The Hulk as a personal army] while conflicted over protecting his daughter, who has feelings for Banner. Betty is more of the stereotypical girlfriend role, but she has enough spunk to be something besides the generic damsel-in-distress. I thought the love story aspect was typical, but still worked due to the chemistry between Norton and Tyler. All three characters present a cliche dynamic that becomes interesting when one of them is really two people in one.

And then we have Emil Blonsky, who manages to be a formidable foe for The Hulk. With or without super powers, Blonsky manages to keep The Hulk on his toes and finally gives the character someone powerful to battle against. I thought Blonsky didn't have much of an arc, other than he wanted to be like The Hulk due to his power, but it's great to see him evolve from a proud soldier into a genetic freak known as The Abomination [one of the Hulk's greatest villains]. Add in Dr. Samuel Sterns [who later becomes The Leader], and you got a good Hulk flick here. The story isn't perfect and follows the template we're already used to, but it's what the fans wanted and that's fine by me.

- The acting. None of the acting is spectacular, but it gets the job done. Edward Norton [who also co-wrote the film under a different name] does well as Bruce Banner. He brings a level of sympathy to the character in a very realistic and natural way. Plus he's a pro at the action scenes as well. It's a shame he wasn't asked back to play the role in THE AVENGERS, but Norton wasn't exactly proud of this film's final cut. I'll get into that shortly. Liv Tyler does what she can as Betty Ross. She doesn't get a whole lot to do, but she has nice chemistry with Norton. William Hurt is a bit bland as General Ross [I thought Sam Elliott was a lot better in the 2003 film], but he didn't do a terrible job as a whole. Tim Roth hams it up as Emil Blonsky. I love it when he plays a villain and he played a nice foil to Norton. Tim Blake Nelson almost borders on annoying as Dr. Samuel Sterns, but he isn't in the film long to get to that point. Ty Burrell is just there as Dr. Samson. And the cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is fantastic and a great way to tie the Marvel Universe together. Not the best acting in a superhero film, but they made the most out of the material.

- The direction. Louis Leterrier is a director who is more style than substance, but it works well for THE INCREDIBLE HULK. His visual style has a ton of energy and the action sequences are very impressive and exciting. The pace of the film is quick, as it just builds and builds towards it's action-packed climax. The editing is a bit iffy at times [some shots seem to be cut before they should be], but Leterrier does a great job keeping the film visually stimulating and watchable. A definite departure from Ang Lee's style, but one that seems to fit the franchise a lot better.

- The "Lonely Man" theme. In a great homage to the television show [besides the cameo by Lou Ferrigno and the short TV clip of Bill Bixby], the "Lonely Man" theme that played during the end of the show plays every once in a while as Bruce Banner tries to find a new place to hide. It's just a nice touch of respect by the filmmakers that made me feel all nostalgic.


MISSES
- Not enough depth. While it's great that THE INCREDIBLE HULK has a narrative that enhances the action stuff, the film could use some more substance when it comes to certain characters and situations. Betty Ross doesn't really have much to do and is really just there for the love portion and to show people that someone can calm down The Hulk. Nothing more, nothing less. Betty is an interesting character because of her relationship and devotion to Bruce Banner. More scenes with her father would have been nice to really explore their relationship. Also, why did Betty forget about her relationship with Dr. Samson all of a sudden once she laid eyes on Bruce again? It was like it never existed, even though the two seemed more than chummy. It feels like something was edited out there. Very weird.

General Ross also had his inconsistencies. One moment he wants Bruce/The Hulk dead. Then he feels bad because Betty is in love with Bruce/The Hulk. But then, he uses people in her life to rat on her whereabouts to find Bruce to shut him up. He'll attack areas without question, even though it could kill anyone around him. You're never really sure what the guy's real deal is. He's so conflicted in terms of his actions, that he ends up coming across as confusing and not realistic. They either needed to make Ross a real bastard who didn't care who he was hurting as long as he achieved his goal in stopping The Hulk, or he's a concerned father who's doing his best to protect his daughter and everyone else from what he considers a threat to himself and others. The middle doesn't really work here.

I thought Emil Blonsky, while a cool villain, was a bit one-note at times. He seemed to be about just one thing [power] and that doesn't really make for an interesting character. Also, what was up with the dude who drank that contaminated bottle? What happened to him after he ingested the beverage? Did he become Hulk-like as well? It just seemed to disappear. I also thought the last shot was pretty lame too. It seemed to contradict with the rest of Banner's goal.

Apparently, a lot of the narrative misfires was due to conflicts between Edward Norton and the studio. Norton, under the name Edward Harrison, added lines of dialogue and extra scenes during each day of the shoot to accommodate for his character and the plot devices around him - about 30 more minutes worth [and the film is already too long at 113 minutes]. Norton took out the characters of Rick Jones and the presence of S.H.I.E.L.D., while adding scenes involving the flower that proved to be a failed antidote. A scene involving Captain America trapped in a block of ice was also deleted. The edits made, due to what the studios wanted, angered both Leterrier and Norton because they wanted a longer film that would create more character development. But when the studios wanted a film less than two hours, Norton decided not to really promote the film during the film's release. Whether the case, you can tell some sub-plots were shortened or taken out entirely as you watch the movie. It doesn't really hurt the film in a really terrible way, but it would have been interesting to see what a longer cut would have looked like.

- The CGI. Now I understand that both The Hulk and The Abomination have to be CGI effects because of the characters' looks. But at least make the special effects look as close to realistic as possible. Did I like the final battle between The Hulk and The Abomination? Sure. But it's kind of hard to take seriously when I'm watching two computer generated characters beat the crap out of each other, while CGI helicopters try to shoot down one of them. But like I said, I understand why it's used and it's better than the CGI used in THE HULK. But it just looks so obvious compared to its surroundings, making it seem funnier than what's probably intended. From what I've seen, the CGI in THE AVENGERS looks much more realistic - so applause for improvement. It looks as good as it can, I guess. But even some of the locations look computer generated. I'm a fan of practical effects, but the CGI isn't totally terrible. But it's somewhat distracting at times. Still, it's better than watching a bodybuilder covered in green paint kicking ass. It may have worked in 1978, but it wouldn't have in 2008.


THE FINAL HOWL

THE INCREDIBLE HULK is a flawed film, but still manages to be entertaining and very watchable nonetheless. The character development could have been better. Some of the continuity is questionable. It could have been ten to fifteen minutes shorter. But there's a lot to like, especially Edward Norton's performance, a simple to follow narrative, energetic direction, and a nice homage to the television show. It's not as good as IRON MAN and/or THE DARK KNIGHT, both of which were released the same year, but still manages to be good popcorn entertainment.


SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

The Cabin in the Woods (2012)

DIRECTED BY
Drew Goddard

STARRING
Kristen Connolly - Dana Polk
Chris Hemsworth - Curt Vaughan
Anna Hutchison - Jules Louden
Fran Kranz - Marty Mikalski
Jesse Williams - Holden McCrea

Genre - Horror/Comedy

Running Time - 95 Minutes


Normally, you would see the normal format with PLOT and REVIEW here. But it takes a special kind of film to throw that out entirely. And THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is that film. Reviewing it and discussing it in depth would just ruin it for those reading who are interested and/or haven't watched it yet. Let's just say that the posters and trailers really don't show you much of anything of what the film is really about - and that's a great thing. THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is an experience and an interesting way to look at horror films past, present, and even future.

Even though I won't discuss the plot, I will say that Joss Whedon has done it again with his screenplay [which was co-written by director Drew Goddard]. I went into THE CABIN IN THE WOODS expecting a pretty normal horror-comedy with the usual twist at the end to cap it all off. But I was pleasantly surprised by the twists, turns, and the usage of the cliche conventions horror films have grown stale by that were turned on their head to become witty, clever, and almost unrecognizable. Every time I thought the film would go one way, it went to a totally different direction I could not see coming. The film repeatedly does this and you realize that this horror film is a lot smarter and different from the usual suspects. The characters are stereotypical on paper, but due to the situation presented, are given a ton of depth and are very likeable. Even the antagonist(s) is/are really well-written. I also loved the homages to other classic horror films and characters. Sure it had plot holes here and there [supposedly done purposely for a planned sequel in mind], but they never really bugged me while watching. I was on a ride and I had fun. That's all that matters.

The direction by Drew Goddard, who also wrote CLOVERFIELD, is great. Lots of stylish shots. Cinematography by Peter Deming was great. The pace was fast, as the film just builds and builds until its finale. The editing was fantastic and clever, jarring the audience from going to one scene to a totally different one in form of juxtaposition. The action sequences are exciting, while the murder sequences [while not scary] are a bit creepy and tense. It's not an overly gory film [until the end] but it's more than enough to satisfy those who have a blood lust when it comes to horror. There are a lot of subtle fourth wall references that are visually presented as well, which makes the viewing audience a lot of fun. THE CABIN IN THE WOODS could have gone off the rails due to its complex narrative. But Goddard manages a tight ship and should be commended and respected for putting together a visual feast.

The acting is more than solid here. Each actor and actress play their part to a tee. There are definitely highlights, which I won't share due to this review being a non-spoiler. But all the people involved 'got it' and played to it extremely well. No one in this cast bugged me. They all had a purpose and were great in making it happen. There's also a great cameo in the final act as well.

THE FINAL HOWL
THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is said by some to be the end of how we look at horror films. But I feel it's a new beginning of a genre that definitely needed a kick in the ass to make studios and audiences realize that there's still a lot of originality left to create something different for true horror fans. Whedon and Goddard have crafted an incredibly smart and inventive film with sharp satire that's clever. It didn't scare me in the slightest, but it sure made me laugh at how genius the premise was. The less you know about THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, the better you are. This film is an experience that will surprise you in a good way. I 'got' what this film was trying to express and I appreciated it. I don't think I could recommend a modern horror film as much as THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. Dammit, I want to visit this one again now. So, so good.




SCORE

4 Howls Outta 4

Cabin Fever (2002)

DIRECTED BY
Eli Roth

STARRING
Rider Strong - Paul
James DeBello - Bert
Cerina Vincent - Marcy
Joey Kern - Jeff
Jordan Ladd - Karen
Giuseppe Andrews - Deputy Winston Olsen
Arie Verveen - The Hermit

Genre - Horror/Comedy/Virus

Running Time - 93 Minutes


PLOT
In a woodsy area, a hermit (Arie Verveen) finds his dog lying motionless, all bloodied. When the hermit checks on his beloved pet, a burst of blood squirts on the hermit's face. Unknowingly, he has been infected with a flesh eating virus.

Meanwhile, five college buddies - Paul ( Rider Strong), Bert (James DeBello), Karen (Jordan Ladd), Marcy (Cerina Vincent), and Jeff (Joey Kern) - are headed to these very woods for a weekend of anticipated debauchery at some cabin. After some relaxation and partying, the infected hermit [now decomposing and spitting up blood] approaches the group asking for help. Being scared, selfish, and afraid to catch whatever this guy has, the group lock themselves into the cabin refusing to help and accidentally setting him on fire instead.

The group feels various levels of guilt for what they've done to the hermit, but all agree to find help in order to get home safely. Unfortunately, the hermit died in the river - which leads into the water supply. That means the virus has now spread, unfortunately to the water drinking group back at the cabin.






REVIEW


HITS

- The gore. Even though CABIN FEVER had about a million dollar budget, KNB EFX Group deliver some memorable shock moments. We get a lot of bloody moments, especially infected people coughing blood all over the place. Plus there's a lot of body horror as well, as the skin of the victims get destroyed by the flesh eating virus. We get decayed faces, ugly rashes all over the body, and the infamous scene where Cerina Vincent shaves her legs to the point that she peels the skin off of them. It's not the goriest film ever, but it does it job to unsettle and make the audience cringe.

- The inspirations/homages. Eli Roth, while writing CABIN FEVER as he was working on  the film PRIVATE PARTS as Howard Stern's human alarm clock, was obviously inspired by some of his favorite horror films from the 1970s and the early 1980s. We get the redneck characters from DELIVERANCE (1972) and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974). We get moments going to the cabin in the woods from 1982's THE EVIL DEAD. One of the character's exits is lifted from the profound ending of 1968's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. We have the paranoia theme from 1982's THE THING. We got a dude in a bunny suit that reminded me of that creepy and weird scene from 1980's THE SHINING. Plus, David Hess' song, "Wait for the Rain", from THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972) can be heard in the film as well. Some may say he's stealing from better films to create this movie, but I think Roth genuinely wanted to pay homage to those classics by creating a modern horror film. It's not original in anyway, but it works for me as he doesn't insult these inspirations at all.

- The acting. Not the greatest in the world, but the cast tries hard and portray their roles quite well in context of the narrative. Rider Strong, formerly of Boy Meets World, does well as Paul. He's no Shawn Hunter here, as he plays the role straight and is quite likeable. He saves the smugness for some of the other actors in the film. Jordan Ladd does well as Karen. She's nice to look at and played the best friend/object of affection believably. James DeBello is pretty damn annoying as Bert, but that's the character for you. Cerina Vincent is the stereotypical slut with a conscience and is good at it. Joey Kern was great as the douchebag, Jeff. Giuseppe Andrews is pretty funny as Deputy Winston, the one cop who would rather party than arrest anyone. Plus we get cameos by Eli Roth as the pothead Justin, Arie Verveen as the infected hermit, and a bunch of actors playing the hilarious redneck characters. I don't mind the cast at all.

- The direction. Eli Roth does a good job directing CABIN FEVER, his first feature film. There's a ton of style here, definitely inspired by his favorite horror films of the 1970s and 1980s. There's a lot of red filters used. We get some nifty POV shots. There's a great atmosphere that keeps you invested, especially when it helps create suspense and tension. The cinematography is cool, as it looks grainy like older horror films. There's a lot to like visually about CABIN FEVER. Roth definitely has a great eye when it comes to horror. You can definitely tell this was directed by a fan.

- The stereotypical characters. While this can normally be a bad thing due to lack of real depth to the main characters, it actually makes CABIN FEVER a fun watch. Each character is an archetype horror character, which is to be expected in the genre, but Roth writes them all well. Paul is the nice guy/best friend who has a crush on his girl-next-door best friend. He's pretty level headed and tries to keep the group together, making him the defacto leader and the one that figures out everything. There are some things he does that are questionable [I'll get to that in the next section], but he's pretty much the typical hero for the most part. Karen is the girl-next-door who wants to be best friends with Paul, but obviously likes him because he's a nice guy. She doesn't come across as a virgin or anything, but she's a regular nice girl. Bert is the annoying friend that you wonder why he's part of your gang, but he's there regardless. He likes to hunt squirrels for some reason and is just plain weird when it comes to social behavior. He's an annoying jerk, but there's always one in these kind of films. Marcy is the nympho who doesn't mind getting around with her male friends, but also happens to have morals as well. In a strange twist, she never turns into a bitch - which is a plus. Jeff is the friend who believes he's on a status higher than the others, making him the pompous prick of the group. His fear of germs and his lack of friendship make him a character you want dead right away.

We also have the funny deputy who just wants to party. Then he have the poor innocent hermit who gets infected. Plus we have the rednecks, especially Dennis. He's the weird kid who loves pancakes and enjoys biting people, which leads to bad results towards the end. I especially love the store clerk who has a strange appreciation towards the black community by calling them the N-word. A strange cast of characters that aren't original in any way, but they're written well enough to be mostly enjoyable.

- The subtext. While CABIN FEVER is a gory horror film on the surface, its strength comes from the themes behind the terror. The fact that the villain isn't a physical one, but rather a virus [a real virus to be exact - the flesh-eating virus] creates more dread and uncertainty, which strengthens the tension the paranoia brings to the film. In fact, the virus may be looked at how ignorant people view the HIV virus and the AIDS epidemic. The word "gay" gets tossed around quite a bit in this film, even by the female characters, as if that's a terrible thing to be a part of. Since AIDS was known as a "gay disease" in its earliest days, this doesn't seem like a bit coincidence. In fact, we're never really sure when CABIN FEVER takes place [even though we know it's modern], which helps create something timeless that could never be dated. When the group starts getting infected, they push each other away because they're afraid to catch what the other has. Since they don't understand what they're dealing with, they lash out at each other and segregate themselves for their own survival, which backfires at all of them when they start dying one by one. HIV and AIDS are still diseases that still make people behave today the same way they did back in the early 1980s, even though we have more knowledge about it. It's kind of ironic that some characters hide the fact that they have the disease, while others realize it during or after sexual relations. I may be reading too much into it, but the paranoia and fear of something that they can't understand or comprehend is something we all face in our every day lives. It's not too far of a stretch to think that Roth was using HIV and AIDS as sort of an inspiration for the subtext here, even though necrotizing fasciitis is a real disease that's scary enough on its own.


MISSES

- The characters' actions. While I dig the characters, some of what they do makes it somewhat hard to like and/or respect them completely. While Paul does come across as the "hero" of the film, he does do some questionable things. For one, he finds out that his crush, Karen, is infected by fingering her genitals. This wouldn't be a problem, except for the fact that Karen is sick on her bed and Paul pretty much takes advantage of her in a subtle form of "rape". I always found this scene disturbing just for that reason alone. Also, Paul deals with Karen's disease by screwing Marcy, who screws Paul because Jeff treats her like crap. If I'm freaked out about the outbreak of some deadly disease, sex is probably the last thing I'm thinking about. That's just me though.

Also, the way the group treats others is pretty unlikeable. They put Karen in a shed, not wanting to deal with her infection to the virus. They also do it, believing that it's contagious and not wanting any part of it. Bert hides the fact he has it, running away and leaving his friends behind. Jeff covers his face and leaves his friends to deal with the virus on their own, disowning each one of them for being sick. Even before all this with the hermit, who only wanted help. I would be freaked out too, but to treat the man the way they did is pretty terrible. They pretty much try to attack him so he can go away. Yet, they don't mind some weird dude with drugs to stay around for a fun time. Nice to see they have common sense.

And the adults are no better. For authority figures and supposed figures of wisdom and experience, they decide to treat the disease by ignoring it and sweeping it under the rug. Or they'd rather party and not worry about it. I get that they had no idea how to deal with it because they were scared and unaware of what the disease was. But common sense says that if they were anywhere near the disease, they're probably gonna get it regardless of being ignorant or not. The characters are great because they all offer something different to the film, but some of their actions just left me scratching my head.

- The uneven tone. It must be hard to make a horror-comedy. It either tries too hard to be both scary and funny, or doesn't try enough and loses one or the other. CABIN FEVER is a little of both actually. There are some seriously funny moments in the movie. There are also some pretty creepy and cringe-worthy scenes as well. But it never manages to balance the two in a way that it's truly successful. CABIN FEVER both wants to be a legitimate R-rated horror flick, as well as a satire on horror cliches and societal issues. For a while, there's a ton of dread going on amongst the characters. Then all of a sudden, a really weird character will show up to add humor. If the film was tongue-in-cheek, this wouldn't be a problem. But the characters act seriously to their situation, which is why the audience takes it seriously. Adding bizarre characters to lighten the mood comes across as silly and distracting.

The ending itself pretty much says it all. I get why it's there, but it's just so absurd and silly that you wonder how the first 80 minutes led to that. CABIN FEVER has more slapstick and gags than necessary. I think if the humor was more natural in context to the horror, it would have worked a lot better. Instead, the film ends up being schizophrenic. I know a lot of people who are turned off by this film just for this reason alone.


THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE STILL TAKING ANTIBIOTICS

- A kid named Dennis bit Paul's hand. The show was Boy Meets World, not Boy Eats World...

- Bert tried to shoplift a Snickers bar. I guess he was feeling like Winona Rider rather than himself.

- Bert likes to shoot squirrels. The guy is obviously nuts.

- One time, Bert's dog licked his balls and ass while he masturbated. Self love can be a bitch sometimes...

- The group exiled Karen after she got infected. It sucks not having good health insurance.

- Marcie skinned herself while shaving her legs. That Venus razor is definitely cutting edge technology.

- A redneck received a screwdriver to the head. Just be glad he wasn't a zombie. They really hate that.


THE FINAL HOWL

CABIN FEVER is a good splatter flick that thrives on ambition and a love for the genre. The narrative and the subtext it uses are effective. The acting is good. The direction is solid. And the gore will make you cringe. For a low budget feature, it's an impressive watch. Too bad it tries to be too clever for its own good, pretty much destroying the great atmosphere the serious moments are trying to build [that final act almost falls apart because of it]. Still, it showed that Eli Roth made his stamp in the horror genre whether fans liked it or not. And after 10 years, the film still holds up.







SCORE

3 Howls Outta 4

Full Moon Reviews is now 4 Years Old! Plus, the 7 x 7 Award!

Well it's that time again. On April 12, 2008, this blog was created as a back up for any reviews I posted on my then-blog on MySpace [do people still use MySpace?]. I'm close to 500 reviews now, thanks to the support of readers, viewers, bloggers, and just all-around family and friends who enjoy what I offer here. The blog almost has 400,000 views, which I find completely amazing. I'm so grateful so many people appreciate my reviews and thoughts on genre films I love so very much. All I ever wanted to do was entertain others, so I'm glad it seems to be working. What was once something I just did for the hell of it has become something that means a whole lot to me personally and even professionally.

So I just want to thank anyone and everyone who has taken a peek at Full Moon Reviews, including those who have commented and shared anything related to this blog. I've met so many great people because of this and I wouldn't change reviewing films for the world. I can't believe Full Moon Reviews is now FOUR YEARS OLD. It just boggles my mind. It really does.

As for what's coming up: Expect a group of superhero stuff, as films leading up to the highly anticipated THE AVENGERS film will be covered, as well as the continuation of the BATMAN franchise leading to THE DARK KNIGHT RISES. Also there will be horror reviews for CABIN IN THE WOODS, CABIN FEVER and CABIN FEVER 2: SPRING FEVER, JEEPERS CREEPERS, and more. Plus the 500th review will probably be out this month - and it's for a cult classic that I've been wanting to review for a very long time now.

Also expect more Hit & Miss reviews, as I'm heavily backed up in terms of films I have watched for review due to the whole Netflix-Starz fiasco that really overwhelmed most of us bloggers. Plus, they just seem quicker to do than the normal long " Things I've Learned..." reviews - which means more content on the blog monthly. I will still continue long reviews for films I feel need or deserve them, whether they're milestone reviews [every 50th review], part of a major franchise that deserves to be highlighted, or involving an Original vs. Remake type of post. From what I can tell, a lot of you enjoy the simple Hit & Miss reviews, so it won't make much difference. I will try to get at least 2 reviews out per week. As a matter of fact, CABIN FEVER may be out sometime tonight or even tomorrow.

As for video reviews, there aren't any planned. I just don't have the time to film them and then edit them. Plus it seems the written reviews are more popular anyway. I'll return to videos one day, but not anytime soon.

Thanks again to everyone who have supported this blog in any way. It truly means a lot to me. The Big Five is next year - which should be a special one. Stay tuned.

- Fred [The Wolf]


TOP 10 MOST VIEWED REVIEWS [April 12, 2011]

1. 1408 (2007) - 4,045 Views

2. WITCHBOARD (1987) - 3,137 Views

3. ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988) - 2,552 Views

4. BABYSITTER WANTED (2008) - 1,284 Views

5. PIRANHA (1978) - 932 Views

6. THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (1986) - 573 Views

7. 2001 MANIACS: FIELD OF SCREAMS (2010) - 513 Views

8. NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (2009) - 469 Views

9. MEGA SHARK VERSUS GIANT OCTOPUS (2009) - 438 Views

10. NEIGHBOR (2009) [Video Review] - 427 Views


TOP 10 MOST VIEWED REVIEWS [April 12, 2012]

1. 1408 (2007) - 14,192 Views

2. WITCHBOARD (1987) - 10,933 Views

3. ELVIRA, MISTRESS OF THE DARK (1988) - 4,242 Views

4. BABYSITTER WANTED (2008) - 2,986 Views

5. A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010) - 2,526 Views

6. SCREAM 4 (2011) [Video Review] - 2,317 Views

7. TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES (1990) - 2,129 Views

8. MORTAL KOMBAT (1995) & MORTAL KOMBAT: ANNIHILATION (1997)  - 2,085 Views

9. 2001 MANIACS: FIELD OF SCREAMS (2010) - 1,973 Views

10. THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE 2 (1986) - 1,960 Views


Now the second reason for this post:

 

I just received the 7 x 7 Link Award by my friend Nolahn of Bloggin' Bin Revue. He's one of the coolest guys I have met on the blogosphere, and definitely a major supporter of me and Full Moon Reviews. If you love a guy who sarcastically reviews B-grade schlock and does a great podcast called The Lair of the Unwanted, definitely check out his blog plus his actual website, Bargain Bin Review. He always links to my blog, so I am returning the favor. Thanks, Nolahn!

Now let's see what the rules are for this award.

RULE 1: Tell everyone something that no one else knows about you.

A tiny number of people know this, but I used to write an e-mail soap opera for many years. It started back in 2000, when I joined role-playing wrestling federations, where you would choose characters and play as them for matches. You would be judged by how well your promos were against your opponent. I created a character called Johnny Danger, who a lot of people in the fed really enjoyed.

Once I stopped in 2002, I continued the character and all the people that supported that character in a spin-off called Danger TV. I used Jesse Metcalfe as photos for Danger, while Jenna Jameson was the inspiration for his girlfriend/wife. I also had characters who would be "played" by James Franco, Vin Diesel, Dean Cain, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Chris Evans, Denzel Washington, and so on. I used to write it and send it to a group of friends. They were like scripts for a television show that only existed in my head. It had action, comedy, horror, romance, sci-fi, and everything in between.

Not sure how many read them, but I continued until 2007. It just became a chore as the "episodes" just got really long due to 60 characters that I had trouble balancing. Plus I started reviewing in October 2006 and was still in college, which didn't help matters either. I still have an unfinished episode that hasn't been worked on since 2008 and it looks like it'll never be done. I have thought about bringing it back recently, but in a reboot sort of way where the past episodes still exist, yet the newer episodes would take place in a different time frame [sort of like time was changed and only a few characters realize it]. But I never actually sit down and write anything for it. Johnny Danger still exists, however, anytime I buy a WWE game as he's my created character. Other than that, Danger TV is under permanent hiatus. But I had a lot of fun writing it and I hope those who did read it enjoyed it just as much.


RULE 2: Link to one of the posts that I personally think best fits the following categories: Most Beautiful Piece, Most Helpful Piece, Most Popular Piece, Most Controversial Piece, Most Surprisingly Successful Piece, Most Underrated Piece, and Most Pride-Worthy Piece.

Most Beautiful Piece: Dawn of the Dead (1978 & 2004)
I chose this one because it's probably the most different of the reviews I have done, since it's not really a review. This post was a term paper for a final that my college Horror Genre class had issued, where we could decide what to write about in a compare and contrast sort of manner. I got an A+ on it and figured that instead of reviewing the film AGAIN, I would just post it and share why I felt the two films were powerful and well-done in their own respective ways.

Unfortunately, not a lot of people read it [it's one of my lowest viewed posts]. It's a shame because I felt both films deserve more love, even if I did discuss the films in an unfamiliar way in terms of the blog. Maybe mentioning it now will gain more views for the piece, but I'm particularly proud of that post.

Most Helpful Piece: Tape Me: Reel 1 [Indie Horror Spotlight]
I think every Indie Horror Spotlight I do helps the filmmaker gain more traffic and attention to their projects. But my post for my friend Christopher Outridge's project, TAPE ME: REEL 1, definitely seemed to help his views on YouTube [and it's my highest IHS piece in terms of view count]. I believe he's on REEL 3 now and his project is catching on. I like to think that my blog post about it aided in doing that.

Most Popular Piece: 1408 (2007)
In terms of view counts, 1408 has somehow gained so much love on Full Moon Reviews. It's really weird since hardly anyone has commented on the review. Also, 1408 isn't a film many people talk about...like anywhere. But it's been the top post on Full Moon Reviews since its inception, with over 14,000 views as of today. I don't know if that has to do with some spamming, or because there's a huge fan base for John Cusack and/or Samuel L. Jackson. Either way, it's the most popular review, even though I think the review itself is far from my greatest accomplishment.

Most Controversial Piece: Do You Wanna Know A Secret? (2000)
You can't really tell from the post at Full Moon Reviews, but my review for DO YOU WANNA KNOW A SECRET? made me realize that as a reviewer, I finally made it. When I posted this review in 2008, I will simultaneously posting the reviews on MySpace as well. I pretty much bashed the film and even gave it a BOMB rating [which it rightfully deserves]. However, I had one commenter who pretty much ripped me apart for doing so. She also happened to be the sister of one of the stars of the film, Leonora Scelfo. It was my most commented post on my MySpace blog, as my friends jumped in to my defense and pretty much had a heated debate with this lady who I didn't know from atom. It was my first piece of hate mail, and I enjoyed every second of it. I realized that I was doing something right to get that sort of reaction, and the incident is still brought up by those who were there to experience it. The review is one of my favorites because of that situation alone. I hope Ms. Scelfo and her "lovely" sister are doing well. :D

Most Surprisingly Successful Piece: Babysitter Wanted (2008)
BABYSITTER WANTED is a film I really enjoyed and I'm glad it got a lot of love. But for my review to be the 4th highest viewed on the blog for two straight years?? I don't get it. Sure, I think my review for it was well written. But BABYSITTER WANTED isn't a high profile film that I would think could garner that many views. And I didn't really promote all that much, to be honest. I guess there are more Sarah Thompson fans than I had realized. I hope the film got more attention because of my review, if that's any consolation.

Most Underrated Piece: "Hitch on the Hump": YOUNG AND INNOCENT [THE GIRL WAS YOUNG] (1938)
I did this post for a series that my good friend, TL Bugg was doing for his blog: The Lightning Bug's Lair. It was based on the films of the legendary Alfred Hitchcock, where he chose bloggers to discuss various movies in his filmography. I chose one of his earliest films because there's so many articles one could read on VERTIGO, THE BIRDS, and PSYCHO (1960). I felt the piece was one of my best and I wanted to share a film that not many genre fans had probably known about. Unfortunately the piece is my least viewed post and no one really seemed to care about the film. It's a shame, but you can't please everyone. In fact, PSYCHO (1960) doesn't have that many views either [PSYCHO II has almost three times the amount]. No Hitchcock fans around here? For shame!

Most Pride-Worthy Piece – Savage Streets (1984)
I would have chosen NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD (1968/1990/2006) and THE HITCHER (2007) love letter to Sophia Bush for this category because they're two of my favorites. But I gotta go with SAVAGE STREETS, only because someone thought it was good enough to add it to Wikipedia for the film's page. I got an e-mail that it may be on a blurb for a future DVD/Blu-Ray release, but I'll believe it when I see it. But yeah, that's one of my proudest reviews.

RULE 3: Pass this award on to seven other bloggers.

Here ya go, ladies and gents!


Jenny of Memoirs of a Scream Queen

Master Gio of Words From the Master

Franco of The Film Connoisseur

Maynard of Maynard Morrissey's Horror Movie Diary

Matt of Direct to Video Connoisseur

The Mike of From Midnight, With Love

The Guys of Guts and Grog Reviews

And because it's the blog's birthday, here's an extra one:

Michele of The Girl Who Loves Horror

Batman Forever (1995)

DIRECTED BY
Joel Schumacher

STARRING
Val Kilmer - Batman/Bruce Wayne
Chris O'Donnell - Robin/Dick Grayson
Jim Carrey - The Riddler/Edward Nygma
Tommy Lee Jones - Harvey Dent/Two-Face
Nicole Kidman - Dr. Chase Meridian
Michael Gough - Alfred Pennyworth
Pat Hingle - Commissioner Gordon
Drew Barrymore - Sugar
Debi Mazar - Spice

Genre - Action/Adventure/Fantasy/Comic Book

Running Time - 121 Minutes


Even though the character was very popular in comic book form and due to its nostalgia from the popular 1960's television show, it wasn't until Tim Burton's mega successful BATMAN (1989) and its awesome sequel BATMAN RETURNS (1992) that Batman became a pop culture phenomenon. The films were both critically and commercially successful. Studios started to realize that adapting comic books into serious films was a good business move. Merchandise and comic book sales rose. And the films led to the creation of one of the best comic book cartoons ever, Batman: The Animated Series. Warner Brothers and Tim Burton had turned a popular comic book character into a household name - which led to other comic book characters finally getting their due as well.

Even though 1992's BATMAN RETURNS was a critic's favorite and financially successful, Warner Bros. was still very disappointed that it didn't make more money than the studio had hoped. The reason for this was due to Burton's quirky and dark take on the mythos within the sequel, which seemed to turn off parents who felt their children shouldn't watch a film that violent or sexually charged as BATMAN RETURNS. Also, a lot of sponsors pulled out for the same reason, which turned off the studio heads. So when discussing the next BATMAN sequel, it was decided that changes needed to be made.

Feeling that Tim Burton had started to take the franchise into a darker and "non-family friendly" direction, Warner Bros. demoted Burton into a producer rather than a director. The studio felt that to save the franchise, the sequel needed to be a bit more upbeat, comic book like, and have elements of the 60s television show that still remained popular with the mainstream. Due to Burton's loss of control over a franchise he helped build financially, Michael Keaton [offered $15 million to star in the third film] decided not to return as Bruce Wayne/Batman. He didn't think the new direction was a good fit for the franchise, feeling that he'd be better off focusing on more "interesting roles". Also, the proposed spin-off with Michelle Pfeiffer reprising her role as Catwoman was now dead in the water.

As producer, Burton got a hand in picking the sequel's new director. He chose Joel Schumacher, best known for his work on THE LOST BOYS and THE CLIENT. Schumacher wanted to do a sequel based on the classic comic book story, Frank Miller's Batman: Year One, which dealt with Batman's origin. However, the studio wanted to continue what was already established in the previous films. So the idea was rejected, even though portions of it still remain in the actual film. Schumacher hired Val Kilmer as Batman, impressed by his performance in 1993's TOMBSTONE, even though Kilmer didn't read the script or even know who was directing the film [Johnny Depp, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Ralph Fiennes were also up for the Batman role]. Tommy Lee Jones replaced Billy Dee Williams as Harvey Dent/Two-Face in a controversial move, only because his son loved the character. Jim Carrey won the role as The Riddler after Robin Williams and Micky Dolenz fought for the role as well. Chris O'Donnell was cast as Robin, even though Marlon Wayans was considered since the inception of BATMAN RETURNS. And Nicole Kidman was cast as Dr. Chase Meridian, Batman's new love interest.

Schumacher also wanted to recreate Gotham City, giving it more color and wanting a look that resembled images that appeared in a Batman comic book from the 1940s and 1950s, combining architecture from 1930's New York City mixed with modern Tokyo. The Batmobile also got a sleeker look, as well as a new Batman costume. Rick Baker was hired to do prosthetics, while John Dykstra and his crew handled the visual effects. Plus, the film got a more contemporary soundtrack with modern artists [for its time] playing within the actual film to give it a more mainstream and MTV-friendly feel. The production wasn't always smooth, as Schumacher had issues working with both Kilmer and Jones. Kilmer acted like a jerk to the rest of the crew and refused to listen to any sort of direction without some sort of a fit. Jones was threatened by Carrey's growing popularity and bigger role in the film, feeling he should have been the main villain due to his stature in Hollywood.

None of this really mattered, as BATMAN FOREVER would become the 6th highest grossing film of 1995. It made $336 million on a $100 million budget, being more successful than BATMAN RETURNS. While it wasn't as critically embraced, it seemed the new direction had worked in the studio's favor. But does it still hold up after 17 years?

PLOT
Bruce Wayne a.k.a. Batman (Val Kilmer) is still dealing with his place in Gotham City as the famous masked vigilante. While he struggles with his own internal issues that stem from his parent's murder, two new villains are adding to his stress. First is Harvey Dent (Tommy Lee Jones), a former district attorney who was once an ally of Batman until acid was thrown on half of his face, causing him psychological trauma that convinced him he's better off as a criminal. Now as Two-Face and flipping his trusty coin that decides the fates of his victims, Dent blames Batman for his troubles and plans on killing him. Commissioner Gordon (Pat Hingle), figuring Batman could use some help, brings in a well renowned criminal psychologist named Chase Meridian (Nicole Kidman) to give some insight into Two-Face. However Batman proves to be a distraction, as Chase is immediately smitten with the Caped Crusader on first sight.

Meanwhile in Bruce's personal life, he has to deal with a bitter scientist named Edward Nygma (Jim Carrey). Nygma has created an invention that can read brain waves and wants Bruce to approve of making more items of this invention. Unfortunately, Bruce turns Nygma down, making Nygma angry and out for revenge on Bruce. Killing his boss after realizing he can use his invention to not only read brain waves, but manipulate them and feed them to his own brain, Nygma decides to become a criminal called The Riddler. Seeing an ally in Two-Face, Riddler decides to join forces with him to take down Batman and take over Gotham City. This alliance is heightened when Two-Face invades a traveling circus and murders an acrobatic family called The Flying Graysons except for the youngest son, Dick (Chris O'Donnell).

This adds more stress to Bruce as he takes in Dick as his ward, knowing that Dick wants revenge on those who murdered his family. Bruce also has to deal with his feelings for Chase, who has feelings for Batman, not realizing that Bruce and Batman are the same person. Bruce starts to question whether Batman is necessary in his life, wondering if the costume is holding him back from achieving true happiness. When Two-Face and The Riddler realize that Bruce and Batman are one and the same, Bruce realizes that he needs to be Batman in order to stop these two villains - taking in Dick as his sidekick under the moniker of Robin.

REVIEW

I was one of many who went to theaters to watch BATMAN FOREVER, digging it more than a lot of people I knew. Sure, it wasn't as deep, dark, or as well structured in a narrative sense than the previous two films. But I still managed to have fun with the film, even if it was silly and different from the previous two. Even 17 years later, I still find the film entertaining in a "popcorn movie" sort of way. But I do see its flaws and understand why so many fans consider BATMAN FOREVER one of the weaker installments in the franchise.

The problem really lies in the screenplay. There's a ton going on, with not much depth to anything either. We have two villains who want to hurt Bruce Wayne/Batman for different reasons. They come together, then they grow apart due to ego, and then come back together again when they realize two are better than one [even though it's never really compelling to watch]. They each have their own story. They each get their moments to shine. Bruce has feelings for Chase. Chase has feelings for Batman. Then Bruce wants to tell Chase that he's Batman to be with her, but Chase would rather be with Bruce. Then the whole deal with Dick Grayson/Robin wanting revenge, which matches what Bruce went through when he became Batman. While you're into it all from a visual standpoint, and because the film is paced quickly, there's not much substance to any of it.

Yes, it's great that BATMAN FOREVER has a theme where every major character in the film is psychologically split into two personae, or going into two different directions in terms of motive and love. It keeps the story going and it's the best thing about the narrative, since that is what Batman should be about - dealing with the schism of his dual-identity and how it effects the people around him [same goes with his rogues gallery and supporting characters]. It's easy to understand and it never hammers it into your head in a way you wish the subplot would just move on. But there's just so much action that it never really means all that much at the end of the story, due to the fact that this schism effects mostly everyone in the film. Because of multiple character arcs in a two-hour film, it can never develop in a way the previous two films did. That hurts BATMAN FOREVER, even though the story is still pretty much a success in terms of fun and entertainment value. It wants to be a character study, but also wants to be a fun comic book with nods to the 60s television show. It never truly balances the two out believably.

A lot of this has to do with the way the characters are presented. Luckily here, the heroes have the most depth out of anyone. Bruce Wayne is still dealing with his parents' murder and his struggle to balance both his billionaire life and his superhero life. He's still haunted by his past and how it's effected his present, especially when it comes to his personal life, his heroic life, and the parallels to Dick's tragedy because Two-Face was targeting him. Unlike the previous two films, this film does have a lot of Batman stuff going on here and he does feel like a main character rather than a supporting character. So that is a step forward and makes it easier to relate to our hero. Dick Grayson is similar to Bruce Wayne when he was younger, as he's struggling with his family's murder and only sees revenge as his form of healing. Dick has an ego, is cocky, rebellious, reckless, yet potentially heroic. Plus his role is the student to Bruce Wayne, who gives Dick advice about how vengeance could corrupt a person's life, eating away at the individual for the rest of their life. I do think this version of Robin is a bit too old compared to Batman, but the dynamic still works somewhat as you understand why Batman would want to mentor him. Robin isn't my favorite character in the world, but I think he fits pretty okay in BATMAN FOREVER. He has a believable purpose in this film, and that's why Robin works.

Unfortunately the other characters, while silly and fun, are pretty shallow. This is really strange, especially for the villains, as they're usually the highlight of these movies due to their depth and the way the characters are portrayed in context to the story. The Riddler comes across better than Two-Face, in all honesty. While silly and over-the-top, at least The Riddler is fun to watch and has the best dialogue in the film. I do think Edward Nygma comes across as a bit cartoonish at times, with one-liners that will either make you laugh or make you roll your eyes. He also doesn't have much of an origin we can really connect with, as he's just a scientist who feels rejected that his idol doesn't want to sponsor his insane and dangerous project. You mean an invention that manipulates brain waves of unsuspecting victims wouldn't be allowed mass production and consumption without a test run? Gee, you think? But at least he has a motive to go after Bruce Wayne, and then Batman, to become the number one guy in Gotham. Sure, he's a genius. Sure, he's anti-social and weak physically. Sure, he makes more jokes than one villain should [The Riddler is NOT The Joker]. But at least of the two villains, The Riddler comes across as the more interesting and watchable one. To be honest, I think he should have been the only villain of the film. The narrative would have been a lot deeper and stronger because of it.

It's too bad that isn't the case and Two-Face is also in the film. I don't mind the character at all, as he should be in a Batman film as a lead villain. But there's no depth to this character at all unless you already know who he is from the comics and the cartoons. The first mistake was not giving Harvey Dent a true origin as he becomes the Two-Face character. We see a snippet of it during a news broadcast, as acid is thrown in Dent's face during a criminal trial. But it's not enough to really understand his motivations or his sudden change in personality. THE DARK KNIGHT did the character justice because we got to see Harvey Dent as a hero for the people before his unfortunate accident that psychologically traumatized him. The moment BATMAN FOREVER begins, he's already Two-Face and trying to kill Batman. There's no sense of their friendship in the past. There's no build up to Dent's transformation that could have created a lot of tension and drama in the film [which is much needed]. He's just a Joker wannabe who flips a coin so he decide what to do with his victims. He's also second fiddle to The Riddler, who is a much more interesting character because he did get a proper build up that revealed a lot of that character's personality and motive. I will say that I do like that Two-Face has two girlfriends - one for his Dent side [Sugar] and one for his traumatized side [Spice]. And the character does have his moments, in particular the circus scene where he murders Robin's family. But otherwise, the character should have been in another sequel. Maybe The Riddler could have scarred Harvey Dent trying to get to Batman, which would have led to Dent turning into Two-Face out of revenge for Batman in the following sequel. I guess when all you can see is money, logic is never welcome.

And then we have Dr. Chase Meridian, a character who wasn't part of any of the Batman mythos until this film was released. I'm half and half on this character, as I felt she has a ton of potential that really went nowhere at the end. She's a criminal psychologist, which automatically makes her our eyes because she can see these characters for who and what they are. She sees Batman, Two-Face, and even The Riddler as schizophrenics and psychopaths due to their behavior and needing to be two people in order to live their lives normally. But she also comes across as psychologically disturbed due to her behavior towards Batman and Bruce Wayne. She's immediately attracted to Batman because he's different and because she likes bad boys that can analyze. She's not into Bruce Wayne because she sees him as a normal guy who happens to be rich. But she suddenly changes her mind out of the blue, with no build up or even an explanation as to why that change even occurred. I really don't understand this character. Then again, I don't understand women in general, so maybe this is normal behavior. My issue is that she could have been a really compelling love interest. I think she's stronger than Vicki Vale, but nowhere the level of Selina Kyle. Plus she was a more independent woman who could stand her ground and get what she wanted because she went for it rather than play games to do so. So I like Chase for that. But she doesn't really add as much as she could to the story because we know she's nothing but a shallow footnote on Batman's bedpost.

That being said, do I think the story is terrible? Absolutely not. Yes, it has many flaws. But BATMAN FOREVER does try and be a good sequel with its attempt to tie all of the subplots nicely in a tight bow by the film's conclusion. It's easy to follow. The structure is your typical comic book adaptation narrative. We know who we should care about and who we shouldn't. There's a ton of action. There's a ton of jokes and witty dialogue. The characters all feel different from one another. The serious moments are quite good, especially the origin stuff and the mirror theme between Batman and Robin. All the elements are there and BATMAN FOREVER works as a brainless summer popcorn flick. The script definitely displays the franchise's new direction into something lighter and mainstream. After all, with a new director and new actors, it couldn't be the same kind of film as BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS. Still, those two films had big shoes to fill, which makes BATMAN FOREVER kind of disappointing, even if it is harmless and silly fun. It's a comic book brought to life and I can understand that on a business and financial level.

The visual presentation of BATMAN FOREVER is a complete 180 degrees from the previous two installments. Gone are the gothic sets and the bleak and decaying look of Gotham City. Instead, we have a ton of neon lights and more daytime scenes with sun shining all over the place. It has a film noir/1940s kind of decor that I actually like quite a lot here. Every set and location are quite stunning. The Batcave is different, but I dig it. The circus stuff looks really awesome, with bright colors and gargoyles inside the tent. I love Two-Face's headquarters with its two colors to reflect his two personalities. The large tower that The Riddler hides out is also very nice to look at, especially with the neon green. It's all very flashy compared to the darkness Tim Burton had infused previously. But Burton's world would have never worked with Joel Shumacher's vision here, so I'm more than okay with it. The visuals definitely enhance the viewing experience and makes it look like a fun cartoon rather than something we ought to take seriously. Again, it's disappointing compared to the previous films, but as its own film, I find it quite charming and enjoyable to look at.

I also thought the action scenes were actually handled better here than they were in previous BATMAN installments. While it's silly for Batman to have all these gadgets at hand anytime he's in a terrible bind - and coincidentally, the gadgets happen to be the ones needed to solve the problem, as if Batman knew what was gonna occur - it's still cool to see the Caped Crusader go all out and do some cool stunts. From grappling hooks, to visors that can scan things, to Batarangs that can do just about anything, the action is definitely eye-popping. I love how the Batmobile can scale walls at a dead end. I couldn't stop laughing. Plus Batman moves a lot faster here and does have some great fight choreography in his hand-to-hand combat sequences. Anything is possible in BATMAN FOREVER, which makes it easy to digest. If the story isn't deep, why should the action be? At least I can respect its consistency.

Director Joel Schumacher is considered the man who destroyed the first BATMAN franchise with BATMAN & ROBIN, but I don't think he does a terrible job with BATMAN FOREVER. Schumacher keeps the film's pace quick, has a ton of visual style, and knows how to direct some exciting action. I do think Schumacher should have reined in Jim Carrey and Tommy Lee Jones a bit because they really pushed the boundaries of overacting at times [I guess to compensate for a hollow script], but Schumacher treats BATMAN FOREVER like a live-action cartoon anyway. Also, the homoeroticism slowly creeps into the franchise [wait until BATMAN & ROBIN!] with the Bat-Butt, Bat-Nipples, The Riddler grabbing his crotch as a squeak sound follows, and so on. I think a lot of people blame Schumacher for the look and tone of the film [I'm sure the studio had some say in that], but it is what it is and fits the narrative well enough to entertain. Schumacher seems to be enjoying creating a flashier and campier version of the Batman character, but he never overdoes it. There's a decent balance of the darkness that was established with the more livelier atmosphere Schumacher infuses. BATMAN FOREVER is a nice looking film and it's directed well. Too bad I can't say the same about the next installment.

The acting is more hit than miss. Val Kilmer replaces the superior Michael Keaton as both Bruce Wayne and Batman. Kilmer doesn't have the presence or the charisma of Keaton in the role, but he does his best filling in while creating his own take on the character. I honestly think Kilmer made for a better Bruce than he did a Batman, but he handled the material well I thought. Too bad he was such a prima donna because I wouldn't have minded if he had starred in another sequel. Jim Carrey is the star of the film as Edward Nygma/The Riddler. He's more Frank Gorshin than what's portrayed in the comic books, but he energizes the film anytime he appears. He does happen to be a bit silly and corny at times, but I laughed for much of what he says and does. Like I mentioned earlier, it would have been nice if Schumacher toned Carrey down a bit. But Warner Bros. hired the manic and overboard guy who made ACE VENTURA: PET DETECTIVE and THE MASK so popular. And that's exactly who appears in this film.

Nicole Kidman plays Dr. Chase Meridian, who is nothing more but a love interest and damsel-in-distress for Batman. I'm not a big Kidman fan, but she does well with the role and makes the most of it. Plus I don't think she ever looked as sexy as she does in this film. I would have revealed my identity for her too. Too bad she was replaced by a wax figure later on in her career. Chris O'Donnell gets a lot of flack with his take as Dick Grayson/Robin, due to many finding that he's trying to hard which causes him to appear annoying to audiences. But he doesn't annoy me at all in this film. I honestly don't think he's all that bad in the role, even though I think he's a bit too old to play the part. He's not the greatest actor, but I've seen a lot worse. We also get cameos by Drew Barrymore and Debi Mazar as Sugar and Spice. Michael Gough returns as Alfred, still rocking the part. Pat Hingle gets even less to do as Commissoner Gordon. Why this important character is treated as an afterthought in the original franchise is beyond me?

And then we get to Tommy Lee Jones as Two-Face. Wow, is his performance really bad or what? I'm not sure it was because he was trying to compete with Jim Carrey, had no idea who his character was due to the script, or because Schumacher wanted Two-Face to be a less interesting Joker wannabe. But I didn't like Jones' performance back in 1995 and I still don't like it now. He's a great actor in the right role [which is usually 95% of the time]. But he's a terrible Harvey Dent/Two-Face. I kind of feel bad for him because he deserved better than what he was given. I think BATMAN FOREVER should have been The Riddler's story rather than The Riddler trying to share it with Two-Face. Jones does his best, but it's not enough to save the character.

By the way, I thought Elliot Goldenthal did a nice job with the score of the film. It's not Danny Elfman, but he puts his own twist that I enjoyed. Plus the soundtrack is pretty cool in this as well. I still love the U2 and Seal songs today.

THINGS I'VE LEARNED WHILE FLIPPING A COIN TO DECIDE WHETHER TO GIVE THIS FILM A GOOD OR BAD GRADE

- Dr. Chase Meridian finds Batman attractive once she lays eyes on him. Lucky he digs chicks. She'd be wasting her time if he were a fruit bat.

- Two-Face's helicopter crashed into the face of Lady Liberty. Well, she was looking for an excuse for that face lift...

- Edward Nygma was starstruck by Bruce Wayne. I guess some people can't control themselves when they see their idols In Living Color...

- Nygma's invention drains the brain power of others to give him more intelligence. Hopefully with this, he'll finally be smarter than that 5th grader.

- Two-Face has two girlfriends - one for each side of his personality. Schizophrenics have all the luck with the ladies.

- En Vogue have cameos as Gotham City hookers. Their motto: My lovin', you're never gonna get it - unless you pay in advance.

- Both Batman and The Riddler have a thing for Chase. Well at this point in her career, she was TO DIE FOR.

- The Riddler read Bruce Wayne's brain waves to find out that he's Batman. I guess we now know who the REAL GENIUS is in this equation.

- Two-Face and The Riddler play Battleship to stop Robin in the Batboat. And they said Family Game Night wasn't productive...

THE FINAL HOWL

While nowhere near the level of BATMAN, BATMAN RETURNS, and later on BATMAN BEGINS and THE DARK KNIGHT, BATMAN FOREVER isn't all that bad. Sure it's made for a younger audience. Sure it's a big cartoon with its silliness, bright neon colors, and its homage to the old campy television show. But even with its flaws, it still manages to do more right than wrong. Definitely a step down from the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton era due to its unevenness, but BATMAN FOREVER still manages to be fun and entertaining on a superficial level. Too bad I probably won't be saying the same for the next installment. Sigh...

SCORE

2.5 Howls Outta 4



TRAILER


U2 - "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me"


Seal - "Kiss From A Rose"