The Scary Movie Franchise

A Partially Educated Look At The Scary Movie Franchise

The Cinematic Equivalent of Waterboarding

There should be a rule when it comes to spoof movies; you can only spoof films that your film is better than. You may be thinking "but that would mean they'd never release any spoof movies". Isn't that a wonderful thought?

There's no point reviewing each film in the Scary Movie franchise individually, because you can pretty much say the same thing about all of them. None of them are good, with the level of bad being the only thing that varies. The franchise itself has a lot to answer for. For starters, the original film was responsible for producing a Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer script, something that should have been outlawed after Spy Hard. The success of that film convinced Friedberg and Seltzer to direct the likes of Epic Movie and Disaster Movie. Arguably those films are the bigger affront to humour, but they wouldn't even exist without this franchise.

The series began under the control of the Wayans brothers, with Keenen Ivory Wayans assuming directorial duties. These were the days before White Chicks and Little Man though, so alarm bells weren't immediately sounding. In fact, I remember Scary Movie coming out and the huge levels of hype that were around it. People were excited and wanted to see this film, while myself and my friends cursed when we found out it was an 18 and realised we'd have to wait for a rental release. In the eyes of a 13-year old boy, this was to be the movie event of the year along with X-Men and Kevin & Perry Go Large. Fast forward to a later time when I was, of course, of the legal age to watch it. I'd seen X-Men. I'd seen Kevin & Perry Go Large. It was time to complete the trilogy, as Scary Movie arrived. An hour and a half later; meh. Not "well that was shit". Just meh.

The first film is, by and large, average. There's some bits that make you laugh, there's a lot of bits that don't. It's similar for Scary Movie 3, meaning that if you do feel the urge to watch one of these films, those are the two to go for. Though if you're getting urges to watch these films and you are above the legal age to do so, may I suggest lobotomisation as a better option for both yourself and society as a whole.

It's in the other three films that the real crap lies. Again, they're not all completely dry on the laugh-count. Scary Movie 2 has two laughs, as does Scary Movie 4, although it milks one of them dry and so ruins it. Let's face it though, if all you're able to produce is two laughs in an hour and a half comedy, you should have never been allowed to make the film. The sickener here is that Scary Movies 3 and 4 were both directed by David Zucker; one of the minds behind Airplane and The Naked Gun. This explains how Leslie Nielsen got involved, but it doesn't explain why either thought it was a good idea. However, any suggestion that Zucker was simply being saddled with a bad script is entirely negated by last year's arrival of Scary Movie 5.

The fifth (and please let it be final) instalment of the franchise is the absolute nadir, reaching Disaster Movie levels of annoyance. It cements the fact that Zucker has completely lost it, as he steps aside from directing and sullies himself as a writer instead, and is a film so bad that even Anna Faris didn't return to be in it. Instead, we get an opening cameo with Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen going all self-referential on us and forgetting to have any dignity, charisma or knowledge of comic-timing whilst doing it. This then leads to Ashley Tisdale taking over from Faris as series lead. I've never seen Tisdale in anything else and after Scary Movie 5, I don't WANT to see her in anything else. Her screen presence is so irritating that she's giving Paris Hilton in House Of Wax a run for her money and there's no skewering scene to make up for it.

Over 13 years and 5 films, the franchise has spoofed the likes of Scream, The Exorcist and that most well-known of horror films War Of The Worlds. It has, on occasion, also decided to spoof films that it has some chance of gaining credibility against, with The Grudge and The Village serving as the main targets in the fourth instalment. Even when it is spoofing awful films such as these, it manages to make them look like masterpieces, purely on the basis of just how much better they are than the film that is trying to mock them. The franchise could have been intelligent, sending up a genre that is ripe for the picking, but instead the whole thing feels pettily inept and slightly pathetic.

Scary Movie TWO out of five

Scary Movie 2 ONE out of five

Scary Movie 3 TWO out of five

Scary Movie 4 ONE out of five

Scary Movie 5 ONE out of five

Next time (5th June)

Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the milking of another bad idea!

Comic Book Reboots: The Good, The Bad & The Unnecessary

Partial Education Presents:

Comic Book Reboots: The Good, The Bad & The Unnecessary

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of (in order):

Batman Begins

The Incredible Hulk

The Amazing Spider-Man

Dredd

and

Man Of Steel

A generally accepted mentality when it comes to comic book films: if it's crap, start again.

The only problem with this is that there are precisely zero shades of grey when it comes to fan opinion on adaptations. If a film isn't excellent, it becomes widely regarded as awful. Perhaps this is down to incredibly high expectations, but, whatever the reasons, there are very few comic book adaptations that have survived a lacklustre instalment without getting rebooted. Here are reviews of five of the more recent examples of a franchise reboot, including whether or not it was actually necessary.

Directed by Christopher Nolan

Starring Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson, Katie Holmes, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Tom Wilkinson and Morgan Freeman

We now live in a world in which Christopher Nolan can do no wrong in the eyes of many. Back in 2005 though, there wasn't enough to back up that mentality. He hadn't made a bad film (and the respect for Memento only grows with time), he just hadn't made too many of them and Batman Begins was a huge leap in both budget and ambition. I'm working on the basis that the majority of people reading this will have seen Batman Begins and so I'm not going to pretend like people don't know it's at least bordering on, if not achieving, masterpiece status.

It's got an advantage in that the origin story has never really been told on film. Tim Burton may have covered it in his first film, but it was used to create far more tension to the plot of that film than the overarching story of why Bruce Wayne does what he does. Here, Wayne's parents fall victim to a burglary gone wrong. Instead of this then becoming the revenge story to spread across the whole film, it becomes the context for Bruce's actions over the whole trilogy. His training from Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson, outstanding) and Ra's Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe, underused) serves to create his own ideals, both through his learnings of combat and self-defence and his rebellion against their own "death sentence" mentality. It needs a damn fine actor to do this and they got one in Christian Bale (again, a gamble at that point in time). I've always felt that Bale was at his best in this part of the trilogy. Though the origins of his deep-voiced "I am the Batman" snarl are present here, they're nowhere near as ridiculous as the levels they would get to. He's a much more playful Bruce Wayne here, rather than the mopey billionaire that he would later become.

The true master of this though is Christopher Nolan, as he achieves the incredibly difficult task of combining a moody atmosphere with a quick pace. Some scenes may finish a little quicker than you'd have liked (Bale and Tom Wilkinson's one conversation is really short), but this is far better than them sticking around too long. In addition, he and his favourite cinematographer Wally Pfister manage to create a beautifully dark film, whilst remembering that darkness is fine, so long as the audience can actually see. The one solace we can take from the tanking of Transcendence is that it may signal Pfister's return to working with Nolan. Batman Begins was, is and will remain not just the start of a genre-defining trilogy, but the vital rejuvenation of a comic book institution.

FIVE out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: Anyone who needs an answer to that question, needs reminding of this…

…this…

…and THESE!

Directed by Louis Leterrier

Starring Edward Norton, Liv Tyler, Tim Roth and William Hurt

How's this for a frightening prospect? The same guy who was responsible for The Transporter and the remake of Clash Of The Titans created a far better Incredible Hulk film than the guy who made Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Life Of Pi. To be honest, The Incredible Hulk is never a character I gave any particular attention to. He's green, he's big, he smashes things. That's all well and good (and, I will confess, cruder than deserved), but the thought of turning that into a 90-minute plus film isn't particularly appetising.

Director Louis Leterrier plays things well, covering the entire origin story within the opening credits, as an acknowledgment that most of the people watching this film already know it. The film's not a complete reboot either. Where the original film ended with Bruce Banner in another country, so too does this, beginning with him hiding in Rio while General Ross (William Hurt) hunts him down. Upon discovering Banner's whereabouts, Ross sends out Commando Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth) to bring him back. Banner escapes, but still returns to the United States in the hope that he has found a way to cure himself. Cue the introduction of faeces to fans. 

As Banner, Edward Norton is great, just as great as Eric Bana was (let's not pretend the cast had anything to do with the first film's flaws), but the best thing about the film is Tim Roth. He's chewing scenery in the best possible way that you can. It doesn't feel like he's trying to say he's above the film, instead it feels like he's there to have a good time and, as a result, you have it with him. There's not much depth to Blonsky and pretty much zip when it comes to understandable shades of conscience to his villainy. He's just a villain, meaning that any encounters between Blonsky and Banner, or Hulk and Abomination, aren't dogged down by a moral dilemma. They just beat the tar out of each other. There's no subtlety to The Incredible Hulk and that's why it works. It's a brainless, fun romp that pretty much justifies it's running time and strips away all the pretension that dogged down the previous film. It's never going to be seen as a classic and Joss Whedon's ingenious handling of Hulk as a character means that this doesn't seem quite as good now. Taken on it's own merits though…

FOUR out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: I go back and forth on this. The biggest problem with the 2003 film was Ang Lee, as he forgot to make a Hulk film and tried to make an Ang Lee film. Take him away and sort the tone out and you still had an alright film with an excellent cast. Things needed sorting, but I think the cast could have stayed (if they wanted to). They pushed this as more of a loose sequel than a reboot. They're kidding themselves. It's a reboot.

Directed by Marc Webb

Starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen and Sally Field

The biggest problem The Amazing Spider-Man has is director Marc Webb. With the solid (500) Days Of Summer behind him, perhaps the studio thought they could take a gamble on him, but his inexperience when it comes to action shows itself quite badly. In the aspects more akin to (500 Days…, Webb plays his strongest hand and plays it very well indeed. The relationship between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacey is leaps and bounds above the one between Parker and Mary Jane in the Sam Ramis films. It's believable and there isn't that need to fall back on domestic tension in order to provide the film with conflict. Writing a happy relationship is far harder than writing a tense one and the trio of writers have done that well here, with the performances and direction doing the rest.

Also on the positive side, Andrew Garfield's Spider-Man is far more entertaining than the wet, goody-two-shoes style that Tobey Maguire went for. He's a sarcastic little sod, which may manifest itself in brattishness when out of the costume, but serves to create some genuinely fun one-liners and some great chances for Spider-Man and Denis Leary's Captain Stacey to play off each other. Sadly, the action is a little bit stale, seriously hampered by Rhys Ifan's bland turn as Curt Connors / The Lizard. Adopting the "tortured villain with initially noble intentions" approach, the biggest problem is that the trope has become slightly stale and they don't find a way of adding anything new to it. This renders the fight scenes slightly soulless and the emotional aspect has to pulled in from elsewhere (I'm avoiding spoilers), because there's simply nothing to help you invest in the fight between Spider-Man and Lizard.

All this serves to render The Amazing Spider-Man a good, but deeply flawed, superhero film that, despite some improvements on Ramis' style, falls way short of the original trilogy's highest moments.

THREE out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: No, no, no, no, no and a thousand times more. Going back to the whole "if it's not excellent, it's awful" mentality, Spider-Man 3 was a huge fall from grace and fumbled Venom terribly, but it was NOT an awful film and the series was very much salvageable. The only way they could reboot the franchise was to retread a hell of a lot of material that had been done only 10 years prior. The Amazing Spider-Man feels, at times, far too similar to the first Ramis film and the reboot treatment came far sooner than was needed.

Directed by Pete Travis

Starring Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Wood Harris and Lena Headey

The plot is simple enough: after answering a distress call, Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) and his trainee, Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), find themselves involved in the world's largest lock-in, as vicious gang leader Ma-Ma (Lena Headey) shuts them inside one of the worst MegaBlocks (think uber-skycraper) in the city, refusing to open the doors until one of the 200 or so residents has killed off the judges. Cue violence and lots of it. Now, if you're thinking this sounds a lot like The Raid, you're not alone in that. However, the incredibly close proximity that the films had vis-à-vis release dates makes this a coincidence, rather than being able to accuse Dredd of being a rip-off. If you move beyond this and just accept that this is an hour and a half of shooting anything that moves and a fair few things that don't, then you will find one of the most enjoyably brainless B-movies ever to disguise itself as a blockbuster.

It helps that the film rights the wrongs of the 1995 Sylvester Stallone movie, by being faithful to the source material. Dredd never removes his helmet, something that any fan of the comics knows should be a given, and Urban excels in the role despite the fact that the only parts of him we can see are his chin and mouth. Giving Tommy Lee Jones a run for his money, as far as deadpan delivery goes, Dredd could be an insufferable high-and-mighty bore. To be fair, he kind of is, but Urban knows this and plays it to a tee, letting the laughs come from Dredd being Dredd. Thirlby does well as Anderson too, representing the emotional side to the law that Dredd has long forgotten in his strict adherence to the rules. As Ma-Ma, Headey puts the menace on (and then some), but it's just great to find her making the most of her success in Game Of Thrones, a far cry from her bland, boredom inducing turn in that god-awful Terminator series.

This is not just a success because of the actors though, as director Pete Travis nails it, displaying the sort of visual flair that takes the brutal violence and somehow makes it artistic, without feeling forced. As for his use of slow-motion, he's putting Zack Snyder (I'm coming to him) to shame. The main drug peddled by Ma-Ma is Slow-Mo, which, as I'm sure you can guess, makes everything move slower. It's incredibly gimmicky, but it's used brilliantly and when combined with the perfect, almost haunting, score from Paul Leonard-Morgan, it can take the way a belly ripples when a bullet penetrates it and make it both horrific and mesmerising at the same time. Dredd was a failure if you're a business-man (it's box office stank), but if this is failure, I don't know that I want to see success.

FOUR out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: They'd never made a Judge Dredd film before this, they'd made a Sylvester Stallone film. This mends injustices of that previous film. Yes, the reboot was necessary.

Directed by Zack Snyder

Starring Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne and Russell Crowe

Where to begin with Zack Snyder? A man who discovered the slow-mo button and decided this was enough to apply the title 'visionary' to himself. From 300 onwards, his films have been one long line of crushing disappointments. That's not to say I hated all of them. Watchmen was alright, good even, but disappointing in that good was as far as you could take it. I could get started on Sucker Punch, but let's save that for another day.

Man Of Steel provides us with the reboot that should have probably occurred when they made Superman Returns, a film which I will happily accept disappointed many, even if I don't share the animosity. In the interests of fairness, here is what's good about Man Of Steel:

1. Snyder wisely keeps the origin story as short as possible, accepting the fact that everyone already knows it (even more than The Incredible Hulk) and, as a result, getting to the action as quick as possible, using flashback to intersperse the rest of the origin story quickly and efficiently.

2. Kevin Costner and Diane Lane are both really good, in particular Lane, as Clark Kent's "Earth parents", serving clearly defined roles and playing them to a tee.

3. You do eventually get to the point where the film ends and the sense of relief is quite something.

All of those positives are entirely negated though, because Man Of Steel is a witless, soulless, dull and resoundingly pretentious film. With the above exceptions, the acting is awful. Henry Cavill lacks the remotest element of personality to him, perhaps harmed by the fact that the Clark Kent personality is never properly separated from Superman, stripping away what made the Christopher Reeve films so enjoyable. In the chief villain role of General Zod, Michael Shannon sets his face to intense and then overacts to the point of irritation. The truest blight of them all though is Russell Crowe as Jor-El, husband to a blown-up wife, father to an adopted son. Having still failed to recover from Robin Hood, Crowe has been getting worse and worse with the horrors of his singing voice being nothing compared to the abortive attempts at gravitas that he's going for in every one of his scenes here.

Of course, this is a comic book film, so the acting is only part of the necessities. There's the action as well and if you enjoy watching people getting thrown through walls, you'll love it. Be warned though, you REALLY need to love it because it happens again and again and again. From the halfway point, procedures get brain-thumpingly loud, with the small let-ups being far from enough to prepare us for the next infliction of chaos. People are concerned about Ben Affleck and Jesse Eisenberg in the upcoming Batman VS Superman film. May I suggest voicing your concerns as a result of what's been proven. Zack Snyder has no idea what he is doing.

ONE out of five

Was The Reboot Necessary?: If you're going off the basis of the general reaction to Superman Returns, then yes. Despite my own opinions that Superman Returns is decent (it's flawed, but come on, there's much worse out there), the film has become accepted as a misfire by some and a disaster by others. To be honest though, after Man Of Steel, I really don't care.

----

Thanks for reading. I'm off to torture myself, because...

Next Time (22nd May): The Horrific Nature of the Scary Movie Franchise.