I don’t know what is creepier than masks. They freak me out, especially the ones that are supposed to look happy. So I was pretty excited to see The Strangers, and be freaked out by some people wearing creepy masks (and I’m being serious…I really was excited). The previews for this movie had me stoked, it looked like just the kind of movie to make me jump and spill my popcorn. I ended up not spilling my popcorn, but I did jump and scream!

The Strangers starts off kind of slow as the audience is introduced to the main characters James (Scott Speedman, Felicity) and Kristen (Liv Tyler, The Lord of the Rings). Something has happened between them that have caused them to reconsider their relationship. They decide to continue with their plans for the night and stay at a secluded house that James’ family owns. Already the tension is thick as we flashback to earlier that night to find out exactly what happened between the couple. Although things are awkward between them, it’s obvious that they still love each other. Around 4:00am the next morning a knock is heard at their door. It seems to be someone who has the wrong house so the couple ignores the odd feelings they get and continue with their night. Soon enough things get down right scary as the couple begins being attacked and stalked by two girls in creepy happy masks and one man in a bag with a smile drawn on it.

I thought this movie did well with making the audience feel the tension of the entire night. Director and writer Bryan Bertino gets some help here from the wonderful soundtrack that really sets the mood. Not only is the music right, but so are all the creepy noises like the pounding on the door. At first it sounds like a normal knock, but soon turns ominous as the sound deepens and reverberates. Like Kristen, the audience doesn’t know where the sounds are coming from either and that makes it easy to believe how scared she really is. I haven’t seen a movie in awhile that has made such great use of their sound effects.

I thought that Tyler was wonderful in her role. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her in a thriller, and it was a nice change for her. She has a great scream for these kinds of movies, and very expressive eyes that really helped convey her fear. I look forward to seeing her do move scary movies in the future. Speedman didn’t work as well for me. I liked him at first, but his character was just so dumb that I couldn’t get over it. It seemed that as soon as his character seemed to give up, that Speedman did too. Although the strangers faces are never revealed to the audience I thought they had nice performances. It’s got to be hard to act when your face is not seen. They definitely were scary though!

I saw this movie the other night with my boyfriend. He didn’t like it as much as me, and pointed out that it had a similar plot to the movie Vacancy with Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale that we also saw together. Although I see his point, I think that The Strangers was a better made movie. It might have had a smaller budget, but it used its money to the fullest to make an actually scary movie. Vacancy was just overly predictable, and the ending was ridiculous. The ending of The Strangers was much better, but still a little laughable in the last few seconds (when you see it, you’ll know what I’m talking about).

There were really only two things that bothered me about this movie. The continuity was off in very obvious ways. At the beginning of the movie Kristen is wearing a nice dress, she changes into more relaxing clothes, but then at the end of the movie is seen wearing her dress again with no explanation. I sometimes notice little things in movies that are wrong, but they don’t bother me. This one did. There either needed to be an explanation, or someone needs a talking to. The other thing that bothered me was that the beginning of the movie a narrator talks about how this is all based on true events, but at the end you get the normal spiel about how it’s not based on real events. That just seemed unnecessary. It didn’t need to be based on true events to make it scarier, the story was scary enough as it was.

For a good thrill I’d recommend The Strangers and give it a B. It’s a nice change from most of the “scary” movies that have been popular lately that are more just about showing as much nudity as they do gore (think Hostel).

True terror in a scary movie is one of the hardest feelings to successfully create and, ironically, one of the most popular to experience. More often than not, people of all ages would rather be scared witless than laugh at a comedy or cry at a romance. Cloverfield is one of the many films that encourages audiences to feel that horror that never gets old.

Cloverfield takes place in Manhattan, during a going-away party for a young guy named Rob. His best friend Hud is given the job of documenting the night on a video camera and gets more than he bargained for when the ground starts shaking, buildings start exploding, and a strange creature at the heart of it all is captured on his footage.

The entire movie is viewed through the eye of Hud’s (although technically it’s Rob’s) video camera. While at times the jerky movements can make you a little dizzy (people prone to motion sickness might want to avoid the running scenes), I definitely think the filming choice gave a lot of character to the movie. Before watching, I was a little skeptical at how they were going to ensure that the audience saw what they needed to see during certain events. The character holding the camera throughout the entire movie is far from being a filmmaker and is constantly in situations where the choices are to A) get a good view of what’s going on and die or B) forget the video, run away, and live. Surprisingly though, director Matt Reeves did a great job giving the audience what they needed visually while still making Hud a believable character.

And depicting the story visually was extremely important because Cloverfield contains almost no background music (the only exceptions being the music played at Rob’s party and the original score that begins a little over a minute into the ending credits). I personally enjoyed the lack of music because there was no build-up towards a scary event. It just happened. And that made the event even more shocking and scary.

The acting unfortunately wasn’t the best. During my first viewing it wasn’t too noticeable, but the second time through, I felt like the quality of the performances fluctuated a lot. It could’ve been a lot worse, but it also could’ve been better.

Also, as with the majority of creature-attack movies, the monster’s appearance in this film was ultimately not that frightening. It was too obviously CGI-ed, and the noises it made were way overdone. I think I would’ve liked it better if we never got a good or even semi-good view of what the creature really looked like. The human imagination will always be able to create a better monster than any special effects team could anyway.

Something that I also think could’ve been improved is the title. Cloverfield is a cool name, sure, but if the filmmakers would’ve included the word “Cloverfield” in the actual movie at all or switched to a name more significant to the plot, the title would’ve been much cooler.

Basically, it has its moments but also its flaws. If you’re looking for a little fright to spice up a late night with friends, go for it. If you’re a horror junkie searching for the next original terror film, you’ll probably want to pass.

“Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.” This is how the movie 21 starts, and from there the audience is taken on a wild ride from Boston to Las Vegas and back again. I’ve heard a lot of bad things about this movie mostly about how unrealistic it is.  None of the things I heard though stopped me from enjoying this movie.  Yes it is based on a true story (told in the book “Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions” by Ben Mezrich), but there’s obviously some Hollywood flair added to this tale.  When I go to the movies, sometimes I look for the realistic elements, but usually it’s the unrealistic elements that make going to the movies enjoyable. 

When the audience first meets Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess, Across the Universe) he is a nerd who has given up everything for studying in hopes of going to Harvard Medical School.  The only way hope he has of going to Harvard though rests on a full ride scholarship, which many students compete for.  In the meantime he is approached by his math professor (Kevin Spacey, American Beauty) who asks him to join a black jack team of fellow students.  This team is special though because they have the ability to count cards, and not get caught.  At first Ben resists the group, but the money and temptation of the girl of his dreams (Kate Bosworth, Superman Returns) also being on the team finally makes him give in.  What follows is a whirlwind ride of Ben transforming from geek to chic.  The team teaches him their system of how to count cards, and putting it into action in a busy Vegas casino.  How could anything possibly go wrong? Enter Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix) as a security guard whose job is being replaced by special face recognition cameras, and he is not too happy about it. 

Directed by Robert Luketic (Legally Blonde) I thought 21 was fast paced and enjoyable (I saw it twice in theaters, which is a rarity for me).  Sturgess was wonderful as Ben, and I thought his accent was pretty accurate.  This movie is just another example that he is definitely an actor to keep your eyes on.  Bosworth struggles a bit in her role, but eventually finds the right footing to keep going.  I really enjoyed the supporting characters who added humor to the movie including Josh Gad and Sam Golzari as Ben’s nerdy friends.  Spacey was pretty engaging as the cool professor, turned enemy. 

Now I never said I didn’t find some of the moments in this movie unbelievable, because I do, and this is one of the downsides to the movie.  For example, how can they use the same hand signals at the same casino every weekend and not get caught sooner?  Also, why is Bosworth’s character the only one to ever really wear a disguise until the end? Why is Ben working in a suit shop that is selling ties for $200 but he’s only making $8/hour as an assistant manager? Well…I guess I can believe that one.

Even with the unbelievable elements, I’d still recommend 21.  It’s a fun movie to watch and I’d give it a B.  It might not deserve a whole chicken dinner, but it would at least get a wing from me.

In the outback of Texas Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles across a drug exchange that has gone violently wrong. Amongst the dead bodies he comes across a trailer full of heroin and an unclaimed two million dollars. The opportunity to take the money is too compelling. Unfortunately on his trail is psychopathic killer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who relentlessly pursues his quarry and the money. Looking on is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) who struggles to comprehend the violence that ensues.

I should start out by saying that I’m a huge Coen Brothers fan. I still go around looking for an excuse to quote Tim Robbins’ character in The Hudsucker Proxy “You know, for kids”. Which is quite sad considering that movie came out over a decade ago and I now get the kind of blank looks that Norville Banes used to get.

So, it might come as a bit of surprise that I don’t think No Country for Old Men is the masterpiece that everyone seems to say it is. Now, don’t misunderstand. It’s superbly shot - the use of Texan landscapes is magnificent. The acting is brilliant from start to finish which is incredible considering the amount of dialogue there is in the movie. You would think at some point the actors would start looking sheepish at the having to portray so much without words.

It’s hard not to appreciate the struggle of hair that Javier Bardem overcame to make his character ruthlessly evil and not at all comical. Josh Brolin was excellent as the man pursued. It was also nice to see Kelly Macdonald getting a good Hollywood part. She’s probably still mainly known for Trainspotting but this should lead to some more meaty roles.

I know the whole point of the film is to look at the violence and not the crime itself but I’m not sure it works. I’ve not read the Cormac McCarthy novel but I’ve heard the Coen brothers didn’t stray far with their screenplay. The book may pull it off but I don’t think the film does. The man whose eyes we’re supposed to be looking through is a peripheral character. Although I can appreciate his shock and despair at the sheer violence he sees, it’s hard for his view to have any weight in the film. For me, he didn’t have the onscreen presence to make the incredibly abrupt ending work.

What really happens is the audience invests a lot of time with a psychopathic killer pursuing his prey but don’t get paid off with a climax. When a movie finishes there should be an overall feeling that you’ve been touched by what you’ve seen. No Country for Old Men just sort of glides off the screen and I was left feeling cheated somehow.

Technically and artistically it’s a brilliant movie up to the point where Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) pops up for a few laughs and then it seems to lose focus. By the time the end came I really didn’t care about any of the characters. Who lived, who died seemed irrelevant and Chigurh’s coin flipping was left meaningless.

It’s definitely worth a watch and I’m sure it will cause all sorts of debate. Unfortunately I just can’t get on the masterpiece bandwagon. Even though I think it’s well done, ultimately I just didn’t find it the story that engaging.