"Five carnival workers are kidnapped and held hostage in an abandoned, Hell-like compound where they are forced to participate in a violent game, the goal of which is to survive twelve hours against a gang of sadistic clowns."
Yet another adaptation of "The Most Dangerous Game", but this time populated with the usual American white trash characters and psycho clowns which are the norm for Rob Zombie's movies. Maybe he has something against Juggalos, or maybe he likes them? I really don't know. What's far more evident is how there isn't a whole lot of anything very original about "31".
In other words, "31" is Rob Zombie's version of "Hostel" and "The Running Man" with his very beautiful wife Sheri Moon Zombie as the star, and Malcolm McDowell picking up a pay cheque for doing not very much except play dress-up and chew scenery in the background.
Jeff Daniel Phillips as Roscoe Pepper and Richard Brake as Doom-Head steal every scene they are in, but Richard Brake is the most memorable as a cross between Rorschach from "Watchmen" and a much better version of The Joker than in any of the "Batman" movies.
The rest of the cast play mostly disposable characters who exist only to be killed off before you even have time to care about them. Everyone runs around stabbing, bashing, slicing, and wielding various weapons against each other in a very satisfying manner if only this movie had been made 10 years ago. The kills aren't very inventive, but they are competently executed. Pardon the mostly intentional pun.
Malcolm McDowell punctuates all the expected blood, gore, and violence like something out of Derek Jarman's "Jubilee" (1978), but there's not really enough of him to stand out like he often does. Shame. Fan favourites Meg Foster and E.G. Daily make up for this to some extent by adding more pathos to their performances and characters than the rest of the movie actually deserves.
Minor spoiler: Sheri Moon Zombie has lovely wrists, but the open ending is annoying.
Nicely shot, "31" isn't a bad movie, and it's certainly much better at storytelling than "The Lords of Salem" (2012), but Rob Zombie's best work still begins and ends with "The Devil's Rejects" (2005).
"A disturbed and delusional high school student with aspirations of a career in medicine goes to extremes to earn the approval of her controlling mother."
Starring AnnaLynne McCord (from "Nip/Tuck"), Roger Bart (from "Desperate Housewives"), Ariel Winter (from "One Missed Call"), Traci Lords, Malcolm McDowell, and Matthew Gray Gubler (the guy with the exceedingly long neck from "Criminal Minds"), "Excision" isn't really a horror movie, but I was asked to take a look at it and briefly review it for somebody on another site that I occasionally hang out on.
If you like slow-moving, offbeat, highschool/coming of age dramas with lots of blood and gore in dream sequences then "Excision" will make you very happy indeed. There are bucket loads of blood in this, several mouthfuls of vomit, and some particularly revolting teenage acne. Even herpes makes a guest appearance. For me, however, "Excision" seems to take all day to get to the point. Apart from the practical effects, I'm not overly impressed by any of it.
The acting is fine, there are no problems with the camerawork or any of the other production values, but for obvious reasons, "Excision" looks and feels just like an episode of "Nip/Tuck", "American Horror Story" or "Desperate Housewives". It tries to be all sexy, controversial and outrageous, but just like on TV, many punches are pulled, and it's far too long despite the running time being only an hour and 20 minutes.
The main problem with any "horror" movie which isn't really a horror movie until the very end is how much is put in to prepare you for the final reveal. In this case, "Excision" shows all the gory bits right from the very beginning, and this ruins the shock value of the ending. Even for the squeamish, this technique is anaesthetising and predictable.
Although it's still quite insane, less dark comedy and an even more "out of left field" punchline could have turned "Excision" into a really good story instead of a cult wannabe. The same thing almost happens with "Teeth" except that the similar vibe and over-extended gag plays out better. It's definitely not a good idea to watch the two back-to-back if you are looking for originality.
As a quick cash grab, there are the usual suspects involved in this including Malcolm McDowell phoning-in another performance as a snarky British maths teacher. Traci Lords does a nice impersonation of Bree from "Desperate Housewives" while, ironically, Roger Bart is slightly more endearing than usual. I can't really fault Roger Bart in anything except "Hostel 2" though. Unfortunately, not one member of the cast is outstanding because "Excision" spends too much time lingering over the gloriously bloody effects rather than the superficial characterisation. There's simply nobody in this to care about.
I absolutely loathed AnnaLynne McCord when she played Eden in "Nip/Tuck" and was extremely happy when she was written out. Pauline, her character in "Excision", is equally vile, distancing, and unsympathetic plus she looks sicker than her onscreen sister (Ariel Winter) who is supposed to have cystic fibrosis. As soon as I saw her "ugly" make-up and fake pimples, I had no interest in seeing any more of her. Apart from showing some skin, she's very "TV" acting-wise and just isn't convincing as an angsty teenager now either.
I wish I had something more positive to say about "Excision" because there's definitely something good underneath. The trouble is that it has to struggle so much to be seen through the mediocre execution of everything else. If you are less critical than me, you will probably love it in spite of the flaws.
I'm rating "Excision" as below average. Numerically, I'd give it a 4 out of 10 if I was still doing things that way. It's a good idea, entertaining enough, nicely produced, but too quirky, far-fetched and unsatisfying. At the end of the day, "Excision" is Richard Bates Jr.'s directorial debut. He had four years to develop this from his short of the same name, but I won't hold that against him.
"Two female vampires in modern-day New York City are faced with daunting romantic possibilities."
Given the new format of my blog, I didn't know whether to post this review yesterday for those people who are absolutely terrified of watching romantic comedies meant for middle-aged women or wait until today due to how miserable "Vamps" turned out to be. Obviously, I decided that "Woeful Wednesday" was the best choice.
I should have realised that something was very wrong with a movie that had a very limited theatrical release only a few days before becoming available on DVD and Blu-ray. Call me cynical, but it reeks of the distributor realising beforehand that "Vamps" was going to bomb in the cinemas.
"Vamps" is certainly not in the same league as "Clueless" (1995) in spite of its cast, but it isn't actually that bad if you don't have a sense of humour. I'm lucky that way because I watched it as a straight vampire movie and used it merely as a means to ogle Krysten Ritter. For "normal" people who want something to laugh at other than pop culture references, "Vamps" will probably be a disappointment.
The story itself isn't so much a comedy in the strict sense of the word as it is a semi-tragedy. While there are enough contrived scenes of merriment to appease the casual (and extremely dumb) viewer, the more you think about the macabre existence of the lead vampiresses, Goody (Alicia Silverstone) and Stacy (Krysten Ritter), the worse it becomes.
Like everything Amy Heckerling has written, the dialogue in "Vamps" is clever and witty. Unfortunately, it would be better coming from the mouths of a bunch of desperate, old satchel-asses in a TV series rather than in a movie about vampires. Make up your own mind about which TV series I'm referring to as I'm sure you can think of three or four others off the top of your head.
Unless you are of a certain age, you probably won't understand all the cynical swipes at teenagers, the internet, the "must have gadgets", or the sad message of "Vamps" that eventually you simply have to stop pretending to be young. I get them, and they are kind of depressing especially as I agree with them all. I also despise texters, smartphones, reality television stars, and 99% of the "Sex and the City"-inspired generation that I'm forced to endure daily. Kudos to Amy Heckerling for lampooning today's society even though she's a bit late on the bandwagon this time.
However, as I said, I really only watched "Vamps" to lust over Krysten Ritter. As much as I worship Alicia Silverstone like the crazy goddess she is, a vampiric Audrey Hepburn lookalike really does it for me. Although Alicia is good, Krysten steals the show in every scene they share. I'm not familiar with her work and have never seen her in anything else so presumably she's a known comedy actress. Based on how sexy she looks with fangs, I hope she does some hardcore horror movies in the future.
The other cast members are also culled from the TV comedy genre apart from Dan Stevens who plays Lord Arthur Holmwood in the 2006 TV version of "Dracula" (which I have yet to see), and the once "big name" actors such as Sigourney Weaver and Malcolm McDowell who appear to be slumming it. I can't say that any of them give a bad performance, but it's surprising to see them in something like this.
A precedent for vampire comedies starring actors who should know better goes way back to "The Fearless Vampire Killers" (1967) so "Vamps" isn't entirely out of place among such titles as "Love at First Bite" (1979), "Once Bitten" (1985), "Vampire's Kiss" (1989), "Love Bites" (1993), "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" (1995), and "Vampire in Brooklyn" (1995). I have no idea why anyone would think that vampires and comedy go together as none of these movies really have enough horror to be classed as true horror-comedies. None have enough comedy to be funny either.
"Vamps" does quite well with its plethora of amiable yet slightly odd characters despite them all being inconsistent and woefully underused. In several cases, they aren't much more than extended cameos which is a shame considering the heart that must have been put into creating them. Even in such a throwaway comedy, they deserve better.
Some of the computer effects are horrendous although I have to give credit where it's due for the make-up which is mostly excellent (and also a little bit silly looking on the older "Stem" vampires). Someone did a great job on Sigourney Weaver who doesn't look her age at all. Her Cisserus character is a mixed bag, but it hammers home an excellent jibe at certain TV show cougars.
I wish I had more to say about Alicia Silverstone, but she gets eclipsed by everything else which is going on including a whole world in the background which is more interesting. Basically, Goody isn't ditzy enough or a strong enough character to carry the film on her own. Lovely and talented as she is, Alicia also looks too old for the part. Not that she tries, but she can't get away with being Cher anymore. Lamentably, this is hardly another "Clueless".
With the best lines and scenes already given away in the trailer, I can't recommend that you rush to see "Vamps" if you expect it to contain any more of the same. I'm not saying that it's full of padding because there is more than enough material forced into this to make a decent 92 minute long feature. I just don't think it's put together in the best way possible, and it might have been better as a pilot for a TV series.
