The Psycho Remake: Why This Film Should Have Never Been Made & Why I Despise This Film

The exact same quote from the original film

What possessed Hollywood into thinking that remaking a classic like Psycho was a good idea? There have been remakes of other Hitchcock films, but normally they were smaller movies like the remake of Rear Window which was a TV-movie or they change the title entirely as was the case with the remake of Dial M for Murder which was remade as A Perfect Murder in 1998. But, nothing could save the travesty that is the Psycho remake.

Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates

Psycho was released on December 4, 1998, directed by Academy Award nominee Gus Van Sant, fresh off of directing the Academy Award winning film Good Will Hunting. The film stars Vince Vaughn, Anne Heche, Julianne Moore and William H. Macy, we'll touch on the casting in a moment, but before we do that, let's talk about their approach to remaking the film. Gus Van Sant decided that he wanted to make the movie a shot-for-shot remake of the original film. Basically, he was remaking the family exactly just with different actors. I believe he was quoted, when asked why he was remaking the film, something along the lines of "If I didn't make the film, someone else would". After seeing the finished film, I think it would have been better with a different director. 

Vince Vaughn & Anne Heche

Now, let's talk about the casting. The casting is, without hesitation, the worst thing about this movie. In the original we got the brilliance of Anthony Perkins playing Norman Bates. So, what amazing actor did they cast.... Vince Vaughn. Like, what? Vince Vaughn was just starting to gain a name for himself in Hollywood. He had yet jumped out as the comedic actor we all know now. Is Vince Vaughn a bad actor? No, not at all. Was he the worst possible choice to play Norman Bates? Yes, yes he was. Vaughn's performance is stale, cardboard and stiff. It's almost like he was just reading the script instead of acting. During the scene in parlor in the back of the office in the motel (which I said is my favorite scene ever, from the original) is absolutely trashed in the remake. Vaughn and Anne Heche's performances are awful. It should be said that Anne Heche isn't a very good actress on her own, so her performance didn't help the film either. Vaughn can't play nervous to save his life. Every time he says one of the classic lines from that scene he either rushes through it, giving it no emotion, or he does this stupid laugh after what he says. Anthony Perkins played nervous so incredibly well, that in comparison no one really can or should play the part of Norman Bates. It was already done perfectly. Leave it alone. 

Oh, and I misspoke earlier, it's not a shot for shot remake, because they added in a masturbation moment! Now, when Norman looks through the hole in the wall to watch Marion, now he jerks off too. Thank god someone updated this film for 90s audiences! It was the one missing thing from the entire movie! I understand that having that moment does make Norman a very deplorable person, but it really serves no purpose. I guess it was Gus Van Sant's way of saying, "hey it's not the same movie". Also, they changed the look of the Bates house. Not only that, but they built a facade in front of the original house! They literally had the original house, and they chose to put up a wall so the house now doesn't look too iconic, because now it looks like some random house. And it was done for no reason other than a lame attempt to try and this film their own. 

Julianne Moore as Lila Crane

Later Julianne Moore appears playing Lila, Marion's sister and William H. Macy playing Arbogast. Oh, and I totally forgot another unique addition to this film. When Lila and Sam are going up to the Bates Motel in the original film Lila says, "let me get my coat" in the sparkling, shiny new 1998 version of the film Lila says "let me get my Discman" (I think, it might have been Walkman). These tiny additions are so stupid and unnecessary, like the entire movie. The ending is, obviously, no surprise. Oh, but one more tiny addition to the film. Now, when we see Mrs. Bates' corpse, A SPIDER CRAWLS ACROSS HER FACE!! Oh, my god! It's helps make the movie so much better! 

The Psycho remake is one of the very few movies that angers me when I think of it. This movie never should have been remade. When a film is remade, it's supposed to be adding something or seeing that they can improve on something. The original Psycho was and still is a masterpiece. There was nothing that needed to be improved, there is no reason for this film to exist. Needless to say the film bombed in the theaters, making just a little over $37 million worldwide on a $60 million budget. Why in the hell did this movie cost $60 million to make?? This is a very basic story that should have been able to be made for far less. My guess is that most of the budget went to getting Gus Van Sant and building an necessary, giant fucking wall to place in front of the original Bates house. 

I hate, hate, hate, hate this movie (to quote the late Roger Ebert). When I watch this movie I get madder and madder the longer the movie goes on. Why? Just.... why? I can't think of any other movie, ever, that was just unnecessary as much as the Psycho remake. The acting is awful, the direction belongs to Hitchock and not Van Sant, the casting is nowhere near on point and it's just a bad movie. If you like this that's fine, but I will never understand how anyone can like this movie over the 1960 classic. I guarantee that if Hitchock or Anthony Perkins had been alive when this came out, they would have been very vocal about how unnecessary this film really is. 

 

Psycho: An Analyzation of the Film and Why It's My Favorite Horror Movie

 

But, she needs me. It's not as if she were a maniac, a raving thing. She just goes a little mad sometimes... We all go a little mad sometimes

If you were to ask me what's my favorite horror movie, I wouldn't have to think one second about it, Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho is at the top of my list. But, what is it about this movie that makes me love it so? Let's take a dive into the 1960 film, Psycho.

Psycho was released on September 8, 1960. The film had a very unique marketing strategy, no one would be admitted after the film began. This was because Alfred Hitchcock thought that Psycho had to be experienced from beginning to end. Something that I absolutely agree with, if you've never seen the movie before. Before we continue on, please note: SPOILERS AHEAD!! Yes, this is a spoiler alert for a 61-year-old film. But, there's gotta be some people out there who haven't seen film (what are you doing?! Stop reading and go watch it!... then come back and finish reading). The film stars Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin and Vera Miles. A wonderful cast that brought their A-game to the film. Personally, I think Anthony Perkins was spot-on casting! This man WAS Norman Bates!

The movie was filmed in black-and-white because Hitchcock thought that the film was too graphic to be shot in color. The film crew was also, from Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which was a TV anthology series in the 1960s that Hitchcock himself.... presented (sorry!). The film tells a story of a young woman by the name of Marion Crane (Leigh), who works for a real estate office and is given $40,000 to deposit into the bank. Marion wants to marry her boyfriend, Sam Loomis (Gavin), but he says he won't until he can pay off his father's debt and afford a better place to live. When she leaves the office to deposit the money, she has many thoughts go through her head, and this right here is one of the best parts of Psycho, the inner monologue in Marion's head. When she is in the car taking the money to the bank, she has the thoughts that eventually convince her to steal the money. On her way to see Sam, she continues to have these thoughts, even thinking about what everyone is going to say back at her job. She eventually pulls off to the side of the road to sleep. She has an encounter with a cop, who thinks she is acting suspiciously, so he follows her. The inner monologue now amps up. Marion becomes incredibly paranoid by the cop following her, she decides to trade in her car and get a new one. The cop sees all this, but doesn't go after her. 

Now, we are at the infamous Bates Motel. Marion stops to sleep at the hotel (thanks to a suggestion by the cop earlier in the film). There she meets Norman Bates (Perkins), Anthony Perkins did this role was well, it's crazy. I cannot take my eyes off the screen when he is on, his acting in this film blew my mind and when a massive blunder (Psycho remake) decided to go with Vince Vaughn of all people, to play Norman Bates, his awful performance just made Perkins' interpretation look even better. Norman and Marion eat sandwiches that Norman made in the back of the office at the motel. 

This. Is. My. Favorite. Scene. EVER. 

Not a joke, the scene is just the 2 talking, but it's Perkins' performance that makes this scene so incredibly awesome! Not to take away from Janet Leigh's wonderful performance too. I do believe that Marion saw the evil in Norman's eyes during this scene and it's such a powerful and intense scene, which is just 2 people talking about their lives. Oh, yeah, and then the shower scene comes right after that.

There is another wonderful scene right after, that, of Norman discovering Marion's body and him disposing of her. What's great about this scene is it's about 10 minutes in length, and not a word is uttered. And why? Because there didn't need to be any. Perkins' performance, again, makes this a very powerful scene. The entire time, the audience feels paranoid, because Norman is paranoid he will get caught cleaning up this murder that, supposedly his mother did (ooh, what does he mean?). The car driving by while Norman is taking the cleaning supplies out of the room and he freaks out and puts everything down and smiles at the car. What could possibly be more suspicious than that? And then when he takes her car to sink into a swamp, the part where the car stops and doesn't go fully under the water is great. Again, Perkins plays this part so well, during the whole time he's nervously eating candy and clamping his hands together as the car slowly sinks, but then it stops! What now? Perkins' nervousness here is chilling and then the relief of when the car finally sinks under the water. Brilliant scene, and not a word spoken during it.

Now we meet Marion's sister, Lyla (Miles), she arrives at Sam's place of work hoping that Marion is there. Sam has no idea what's happening. Then we meet Arbogast (Martin Balsam), a private investigator hired by Marion's family. He speaks with both Sam and Lyla about Marion. He believes that Marion was indeed on her way to Sam and he decides to go looking at every hotel for a sign of Marion. Eventually, finding the Bates Motel. This is probably my 2nd favorite scene in the movie. We get to see how Norman is becoming more unhinged. Arbogast questions him about Marion and I believe this scene has the best of Perkins' performance in the film. His nervousness as Arbogast looks through the registry. My favorite part is that Norman starts stuttering, and I think Perkins nailed the stutter. I totally believed that character was badly stuttering. Then Arbogast sees the silhouette of Norman's mother up at the house. This is when we see Norman really become unglued. Arbogast pushes Norman to let him talk to her, but Norman gets a bit aggressive when Arbogast keeps pushing after Norman said she was unable talk to him. Then we get one of my very favorite lines in the film, when Arbogast suggests that Marion made a fool of him he responds back that he isn't capable of being made a fool and then, "let me just say this, she may have fooled me, but she didn't fool my mother", it is a chilling line coming from Norman Bates.

Arbogast calls Lyla to tell him the information he found at the Bates Motel and that he'd be back in an hour after going back to the Bates Motel to try and talk to the mother. When he arrives, Norman is nowhere to be found and Arbogast sneaks into Norman's house, only to be brutally murdered by Norman's mother. The entire scene is so intense, but then it's ruined by that cheap falling down the stairs shot. I can't believe that people were like, "yes, that's okay", when they shot that. Now, Lyla is worried when Arbogast doesn't show back up, so her and Sam head up there themselves. Posing as a married couple who are trying to avoid bad weather, get a room at the Bates Motel. At this point, we as the audience know the movie is going to be over soon and we know something big is going to happen. The brilliance of Alfred Hitchcock knowing perfectly how to make a suspense film. Sam and Lyla split up, Sam is going to distract Norman while Lyla breaks into Norman's house. The confrontation between Norman and Sam gets heated until Norman realizes what Sam is doing. Norman attacks Sam and runs up to the house. Lyla hides in the stairway to the basement as Norman runs upstairs. Lyla almost leaves the house, but something tells her to go into the basement. This is an amazing moment, and one of the biggest surprises in film history. Lyla enters a room and sees an old lady sitting, facing the wall. Lyla realizes that she has found Mrs. Bates and slowly walks closer, she taps Mrs. Bates' shoulder and her body swings around to reveal Mrs. Bates' dead corpse. Lyla swings her hand up in fear, knocking the light, creating this haunting atmosphere as she turns around to see Norman, dressed as Mrs. Bates, come running at her with a butcher knife. Sam comes in at the last minute and saves the day...

So, what about Norman? After that breathtaking, heart pounding scene we get to relax a bit. Sam and Lyla are at the police station being told what exactly happened there. And to me, this is what makes Norman unlike any other slasher, is that Norman is actually diagnosed with something, in this case split personality disorder (and I'm sure a few others things too). Norman is mentally unstable, he has developed a split personality with him and his mother. As Mrs. Bates, Norman killed the people in the film and Norman had no recollection of this. He would talk to himself in his mother's voice and dress in her clothes. In a later prequel we get to see Mrs. Bates alive and what exactly she did to Norman that fucked him up so much. Then we get the scene at the end of Norman who has completely become his mother, monologues in his head in mother's voice and we get the great line to end one of the best films of all-time, 

Let them see what kind of person I am. I'm not even going to swat that fly. I hope they are watching... they'll see. They'll see and they'll know and they'll say 'Why she wouldn't even harm a fly...

The film, was not a huge success at first. But, it grew on people and is now considered a film classic and as of 1992, is in the National Film Registry which selects films to be preserved that are "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant films". The film is one of, if not the most, popular film that came from Alfred Hitchcock. Later in the 1980s, there would be a string of Psycho sequels, all starring Anthony Perkins and Pyscho III he even directed. There was a failed 1987 pilot TV movie entitled Bates Motel and then the awful remake in 1998 (which will be discussed ad nauseam in a future article) and finally the very, very good TV series Bates Motel in 2013. 

So, why is this my favorite horror film? For the longest time I said that Friday the 13th was my favorite horror film, but that is not accurate. Friday the 13th is definitely my favorite series of horror films, but the crown goes to Psycho. I know I mentioned it many times throughout this article that I love Anthony Perkins' performance. I honestly think, that if another actor played Norman Bates the film wouldn't be as good. It's a Hitchcock film, so there is that familiar atmosphere he presents in his other films. All the actors were amazing, Vera Miles even went on to return to the role in Psycho II. Hitchcock's brilliance can be felt 100% here. He chose to shoot the film with his TV crew, 1, because it was cheaper but 2, he wanted to prove that he could make a big Hollywood movie with a TV crew and he succeeded incredibly. I love everything about this film from the acting to the black-and-white cinematography (what? Steven mentioned cinematography?!), the writing is brilliant, mainly the dialogue, and is what really brought this film to life. You can have the greatest actors in the world, but if you have a bad script, then you have a bad movie. It's the suspense! That's what makes this movie important, incredible and some other word that starts with 'I' I can't think of right now. 

Colorization of Black-and-White Films (and TV) and Why It's Morally & Artistically Wrong

 

"The coloring of black-and-white films is wrong. It's morally and artistically wrong"

-James Stewart

James Stewart said it best, colorizing black-and-white movies and TV shows is wrong and this is why...

Color in film has been around since the 1910s, though it was very much still in its infancy back then. Color films didn't become popular until the 1960s, so that means decades worth of black-and-white films exist. Classic films like Dracula, Frankenstein, Casablanca, all the Three Stooges shorts and, of course, Citizen Kane. Colorization didn't become popular until the 1980s as there was a boom of films being released that were originally in black-and-white, but now have been colorized. It's a Wonderful Life was an unfortunate victim to this, and ever since any DVD/BD release of the film has had both the black-and-white film as well as the bastardized colorized version. 

Miracle on 34th Street

Television was not safe from this travesty either. Shows such as: Bewitched (the first 2 seasons were filmed in black-and-white), Gilligan's Island (the first season was filmed in black-and-white), I Dream of Jeannie (the first season was filmed in black-and-white) and then random episodes from both The Honeymooners and I Love Lucy, both shows were filmed entirely in black-and-white. During the 1990s some episodes from these series were released on VHS. But, the worst was in the early 2000s when companies such as Sony, began releasing complete season sets of their back catalog. Both Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie had their first (and second, in the case of Bewitched) season released on DVD in both black-and-white and the shitty colorized version. Years later, I Dream of Jeannie (and possibly Bewitched) were released in complete series sets with their first season being colorized, the black-and-white season(s) was only available in separate season sets. 

Raging Bull

So, why is this all bad? People like color films better than black-and-white films, right? Sadly, the general US population would probably watch a colorized version of a film (or TV show) over a black-and-white film (or TV show). I am a firm believer that films and TV shows should be seen the way they were originally released or premiered on TV. Colorizing a film is the same as creating a pan-and-scan version of a film. If you are not familiar, pan-and-scan was a way of taking widescreen films and changing them so they would fit into the square box of your TV. Obviously, this was most popular in the 1980s and 1990s. This was the common thing for movies on VHS, but pan-and-scan means that they are taking the widescreen image and zooming into the middle until the dimensions are that of a TV screen. Meaning, that all the film on the sides was being cut off so you couldn't see it on your TV. Well, what if something is happening on those parts of the film not visible? Well, they created an artificial pan, so if something important was happening on those parts of the film that were not visible, they would put this artificial pan of the camera to that part of the film and then it would come back when the important part. Thankfully, this stupid process (which was just to appease the general population who couldn't understand what widescreen meant) died out in the 2000s. Anyway, back on topic: so just like pan-and-scan destroyed a film when released for home release, colorizing the film is just as bad. These are fake colors, everything you see on the screen is fake. Does it make the film look better being in color? No, not at all, there is just an artificial feeling to the entire film (or TV show) when it is colorized. Why would anyone want to watch a film that is filled with irritating crap that wasn't there before (Star Wars, I'm looking at you)?  

I Love Lucy

I'm sure the filmmakers weren't too pleased with this boom in the 1980s, obviously, taking from the James Stewart quote above. Basically, what colorizing does is it places these fake colors on top of the real film, to make people who can't comprehend black-and-white happy. When I watch a film (or TV show) I want to see it the way it was released. Period. I'm not interesting in watching a fake colorized version, when I can watch the original version.

Bewitched

Sadly, today, it seems some things will only be colorized, at least on TV anyway. Every year CBS broadcasts the I Love Lucy Christmas episode, in color. It's sad that these generations are not able to watch this episode in its original black-and-white glory unless they pay to buy the series on DVD. The one thing positive I do have to say about colorizing films is that, normally, when released on DVD, the black-and-white versions are at least available to purchase instead of the colorized garbage. 

It's a Wonderful Life

In the end, it really depends on what you want to watch. I urge people to watch the original black-and-white versions, but if you want to watch the colorized version, that's up to you. 

How Grease Was, and Still Is, Problematic

 

Grease was a phenomenon! The 1978 film, based on the hit Broadway musical! Grease is a wonderful film, to discover in childhood and enjoy the rest of your life. 

But, wait a minute!

Childhood? That's a good question. What do you think of when you think of Grease? It was a great film, great music, great dance numbers and a very likeable cast. Perfect for the whole family........

Grease is a film that, as long as I can remember, was always marketed as a "family" film. Well, from my description above it sounds like a pretty damn good family movie. But, let's delve a little deeper into Grease. The film received a PG rating, which thinking about today's standards, yeah pretty average rating for a family movie. But, when you sit down and go to watch Frozen, which is also rated PG, I don't think you'll hear anything about female genitalia. Let's talk about the lyrics in Grease.

"You know that it ain't shit, we'll be getting lots of tit"

"You know that I ain't braggin', she's a real pussy wagon"

"You are supreme, the chicks'll cream for greased lightnin'"

These are the lyrics in the song "Greased Lightnin'". A real show stopper, but let's think about this. First of all, the word "shit" is in the movie more than once, that alone, would have gotten the movie a PG rating. The word "pussy" (not referring to a cat here), I'm not sure if the rating would have gone up with that or not, but the fact that the word is even used. And of course the innuendo of the "chicks'll cream". 

When Grease Live aired in 2016, all 3 of these lyrics were changed. There is a reason they were changed, because this kind of language shouldn't be used in a "family" film. Now, it should be pointed out that I am in no way up tight about any of these, I am just giving this film a glance from all sides. So, this song, right away, should not make this a family film. 

Now, the next bit we are going to talk about is the sexual innuendos. They are everywhere in this movie, and although that alone doesn't make it a "non-family" film, take a good look back at your childhood cartoons. The sexual innuendos have always been there, for 2 reasons: 1, they are humor for the adults watching things like this and 2, they are also there to be discovered when the children who watched originally grow up. But, some of them are stronger than others. Danny saying "bite the weenie, Riz" and Rizzo responding "with relish", that's a pretty crazy one. 

And now, here's one of the biggest things that makes this not a family movie. Abortion. Yes, Rizzo thinks she's pregnant (so, there is teenage pregnancy mentioned in this movie too) and then proceeds to sing a song about it! I mean, name me another family movie that has abortion talks in it. This whole sub-story really shouldn't be in a family movie. I mean, the topic is still very controversial and it's something children wouldn't understand nor should they. 

But, we are not done yet! There is, of course, the obvious topic of Sandy changing at the end. Basically, with Sandy changing her ways to be more like Danny so she "fits in" with the gang. All this does is send the message to young girls that if you want a guy, you better be willing to change so he likes you. You can argue that Danny changed as well, but he took that lettermen's jacket off pretty damn quickly. What I never understood was, Danny clearly liked her, there was no indication that Sandy needed to change his mind. Danny was really the one who needed to change. Danny showed his real side to Sandy over the summer, but when he was back around his friends he felt the peer pressure to act like an asshole to Sandy. Sandy was Sandy throughout the entire film, until the end. Of course, if it didn't end like this we wouldn't have gotten the beautiful lyrics of "You're the One That I Want". 

Finally, and something that has bugged me since I was a kid. In the film, the character of Jan is constantly portrayed in baggy tops. In one of the scenes she's offered ice cream, looks at it like she really wants it, but then shakes her head. And even one of the characters says "I've always thought there was more to you then just fat"... wait, what? Jan is supposed to be fat? Go back and rewatch the movie, because the obviously thin Jan is wearing these big baggies shirts or sweatshirts and then at then end of the film she is wearing a neatly fit green dress. So, that's how Hollywood decided to portray this? Have you ever watched this film and thought to yourself, wow Jan is really fat! No, you don't, because it is clear, it's a thin actress wearing a big shirt. In fact, it took several viewings before I even realized she was supposed to be fat. There is almost no mention of it until that scene at the ice cream parlor. So, why does this bother me? One, it's a terrible way to show that a person is fat. They could have shoved a pillow into the shirt or something, but a big shirt does not mean fat! The second reason is that I feel like there's a problem here, and that problem is sending the wrong message to people. If I didn't even notice it until multiple viewings in, then I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought that. Is that sending a message to young girls that if you dress like that then you're fat? Or unattractive?  Perhaps, I'm diving too deep into this one, but I feel like there's a problem there.

So, what's the verdict. Is Grease a family movie? The answer is yes and no. For all the reasons listed above, this movie is absolutely not a family movie. The language, the vulgarity, the ABORTION song, this isn't a family movie. Now, I understand that the PG-13 rating did not exist in 1978 and that the PG rating got away with showing a man rip his own face off in Poltergeist. That being said, the subject material in Grease should make this a non-family film. 

But, it can be a family movie. If this is a movie that you want to share with your children, then by all means, do it. I was introduced to this film in 1998, when I was 14-years-old. This was during the 20th Anniversary and the film was re-released into theaters. And there was a lot that went over my head at the time and I'm sure most of this stuff would go over any child's head, but let's face it, Grease is problematic, in more ways than one.

He-Man & She-Ra: The Secret of the Sword (1985)

 

"I've got that flying horsey in my sight"

He-Man & the Masters of the Universe was a massive hit toy line and a massive hit animated TV series. He-Man ruled the airwaves in the 80s and it would only make sense to not only make a feature length theatrical film but also a new spin-off series with a new character!

The film follows Price Adam/He-Man as he embarks on the search for his twin sister. Turns out that a new villain by the name of Hordak had kidnapped He-Man's twin sister shortly after birth and taken here to another dimension on a planet called Etherea. No one knows what happened to the little girl, Adora. But, with this information and with a magical sword, He-Man is on his way to find Princess Adora. 

What much can be said of "The Secret of the Sword", it's not necessarily a film for cinemas as there is nothing special enough about the movie for it to warrant a theatrical release, other than the length of the film. The animation remains the same as the TV series. And the reasoning behind this is because the movie is the first 5 episodes of "She-Ra: Princess of Power" edited into a film. The film had to add some things and/or edit out other things in order to keep the flow of the story, so the episodes when aired are slightly different than what appears in the film.

As an overall movie, if you grew up watching He-Man or you're a fan of the TV series, then you will more than likely enjoy this film. If you don't like He-Man or haven never seen the TV series, chances are you probably won't like it. I don't think today's kids could relate the cheap animation and corny characters/storylines.

8 Mile (2002)

 

"You ever get to a point when you gotta stop living up here and start living down here?"

 

2002 must have been the year for singers starring in movies. Just like Britney Spears earlier in the year with "Crossroads", Eminem follows suit with his film debut, "8 Mile". However, unlike Britney Spears, Eminem puts in a stellar performance and this movie is actually really good. 

"8 Mile" follows Jimmy 'B-Rabbit' Smith as he tries putting his life back together. B-Rabbit has to move back in with his mother and little sister and, at the same time, he is trying to get his rapping career off the ground with his attempt, and utter failure at local rap battles. Smith's friends are constantly fighting with the New World led by Papa Doc (Anthony Mackie). Smith's friend Future (Mekhi Phifer)sees Smith's talent and signs him up to battle other rappers again, against Smith's wishes. Smith eventually gets his life back together in order to battle in the final scene.

The reason that "8 Mile" is so good is that Eminem's acting is phenomenal. I believe his emotion and I believe he IS this character. I'm sure it helps that this film is semi-biographical, Eminem did grow up like this, he did have a dysfunctional mother and he did rap battles. The film isn't short on talent either including Academy Award winner Kim Basinger as his mother, Brittany Murphy, Mekhi Phifer, Anthony Mackie and Michael Shannon (playing his mother's boyfriend) and directed by Academy Award winner Curtis Hanson. And let's not forget that Eminem, himself, won an Academy Award for Best Original Song for this movie. 

There is very little bad about this movie, if anything. I remember when this movie came out originally, I honestly thought Eminem was going to be an actor and surprisingly he did not. I'd love to see him star in another movie because he really is a good actor.

Crossroads (2002)

 

"All we have is now, and right now we have each other"

 

Crossroads came out in 2002, during Britney Spears's heyday. Younger people may not realize how big Britney Spears was in the early 2000s. It was natural for her to make her way into acting. Problem is, Britney Spears isn't a very good actress.

Directed by Tamra Davis, Crossroads is a very formulaic coming of age film. Lucy (Spears) is a new high school graduate who is under the rule of her father (Dan Aykroyd), all he wants her to do is ignore her social life and become a doctor. Meanwhile, Lucy has broken up with her friends during high school. Her friends consist of Kit (Zoe Saldana) who has become a self-centered model and Mimi (Taryn Manning) who has become pregnant trailer trash. Lucy, now has the reputation of being a goody two shoes. When Mimi brings the trio back together to dig up a time capsule they buried as children, she reveals she will be going across country to go to L.A. for a singing competition. The trio head out with Ben (Anson Mount) who is allegedly a murderer (we later find out it was rumor). And that's pretty much the entire movie.

This is a very bland and (as mentioned before) formulaic. There is nothing in this movie we haven't seen previously in other films. Britney Spears is a cardboard actress (at least in this movie). Taryn Manning plays trailer trash which is a stretch for her from playing previous trailer trash characters. Manning was clearly put on this earth to play trailer trash. Even Zoe Saldana, who is a good actress, is bad in this movie. 

Also, this movie treats pregnancy as a disease. During a karaoke scene (which is only there to promote a single from Britney's 2001 album "Britney") Mimi attempts to sing, which she sucks at, you hear a random guy in the crowd yell out "SHE'S PREGNANT!" and then later on when Dan Aykroyd's character finds Lucy he says to here "This isn't like you, running way... with a PREGNANT GIRL!". I mean, come on! Pregnant women are still women, they can stand and sing, they can travel, it's not something taboo or crazy. Yes, she is a teenager, but she's 18, so what difference does it make?

Overall, this movie isn't very good. With the bland acting and the poor writing, this movie is just a promotional video for Britney Spears and her recent album at the time. That being said, this movie has a special place in my heart as I am a pretty hardcore Britney fan and I was definitely a hardcore fan in 2002. So, I enjoy this movie but I can see its major flaws and recognize this movie as bad.

Wes Craven: The Man, The Legend

I've told the story many, many times over the years but it's time to tell the story again. Way back in 1997, I was a dorky, little fool who really only liked comedies and Disney movies. But, one thing I hated more than anything was horror films. I refused to watch horror films because I just didn't like them. When a little film called Scream came out everyone, everywhere were raving about this movie. And I, for one, just didn't care. Finally, I just gave into peer pressure and finally, reluctantly, sat down to watch this little horror film.

I sat there riveted. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time and when the movie was over I realized I had just watched something special. Scream would go on to spawn 3 sequels and a successful 2015 TV series. But, at least in my generation, the film kind of became a joke. So, me saying that this film is special to me and "changed my life" makes me feel kind of goofy. But it did change my life, it completely changed my life.

After seeing "Scream", I made it a mission to see as many horror films as I could so I would understand any of the references in any of the films. And now, almost 20 years later, I get all the references!

You may be asking yourself, why am I even bothering telling this story again? If you really wanted to read the story you could go back and read my "Scream" review from years ago. The reason is because, not only did the film get me into horror films but it introduced me to the person who would go on to become my favorite director and aside from one movie that followed "Scream", I would see every single one of his movies in the theater. That man, was Wes Craven.

Unlike most of the general public, I had never heard of Wes Craven when Scream came out. I had heard of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and knew it involved Freddy Krueger and how he looked but that was it. Didn't know the director or the cast or anything else. But after seeing "Scream" one of the things I did was make it a mission to see more films by Wes Craven. This led me down a path I was never coming back from but enjoying the hell out of.

I spent the next, nearly 20 years, enjoying horror films and changing my passion from nothing to writing. The writing aspect came from Mr. Craven himself as I began to realize he wrote a lot of the films he directed and I found that the films he wrote were far better than the ones he didn't. And so began my passion for writing.

On August 30, 2015 we lost Mr. Craven after a battle with brain cancer. Words could not describe the pain I felt. Wes Craven was a big part of my life through his films. I would watch anything and everything he worked on from his big budget theatrical films to his garbage TV movies to films that he simply produced all the way down to the film "Wes Craven Presents They" which he had absolutely nothing to do with. I felt like I lost a friend and even though I knew the day was eventually coming that he would be gone, I never really thought about that. It had been a dream of mine to meet the man and tell him how much he changed my life and how I majored in writing in college because of his films. I spent many years of my life studying writing because I loved the movies he made. Some might looked at his films as low budget trash, especially films like "The Last House on the Left" and "The Hills Have Eyes" but I look at them as groundbreaking and very interestingly those films look very tame nowadays compared to the torture-porn crap we have today.

I'm writing this really to just get my feelings out there. I wanted to do this right away the day after he died, but I just couldn't put any of this into words until today. Most people nowadays will remember him for Scream, but he did so much more, he worked on films and TV. He was a director, writer, producer and actor. One of his greatest films he ever made "New Nightmare" brought all of those aspects of him together.

Wes, even though I never got to meet you and tell you this, but you changed my life. You meant so much to me and you will never be forgotten. Not by me and not by the millions of others who were touched by your work as I was. Your legacy lives on and I want to thank you for all the wonderful films you have left us with.

When a Stranger Calls (1979)

"Have you checked the children?"

Before there was "Scream" there was 'The Stranger'...

"When a Stranger Calls" is horror film from the late 1970s that was inspired by a classic urban legend. The babysitter alone in a house being terrorized by a man who keeps calling asking if she's "checked children", only to find out the call is coming from inside the house! And that, ladies & gentlemen, is the first 20 minutes of the film. The rest of the film drags and drags and drags. After the initial 20 minutes of the movie we jump 7 years where we find that the psychopath from the first film has escaped and is now roaming the streets, stalking some ugly middle-aged woman. The film spends a good 40 minutes with this whole thing and it never pays off!

Charles Durning plays a private detective who is tracking down this psycho. After he almost catches him we jump back to Jill (played by Carol Kane) where she is now a stay at home mom with 2 kids. First thing I have to say is, how is Jill old enough to have 2 kids THOSE ages. They look to be at least 7 and 3. We are led to believe that she is a teenager in the beginning of the film and then the film jumps 7 years, which would make her in her early to mid 20s. Just seems kind of odd to me.
Anyway, she and her husband are going out to dinner and leave their kids with a babysitter. Somehow the psycho knows where she lives and what restaurant she will be at and calls her and starts her freaking out all over again. The film ends abruptly and you walk out wondering what the hell you just saw.

The first 20 minutes of the film are amazing, truly terrifying. I am not scared by much, but as I watched this in my dark bedroom in the middle of the night, I found myself clinging to my blankets because it was seriously scary. But after that the film falls apart. The director spends too much time on the killer and his odd obsession with some random middle-aged woman he finds in a bar. As the audience I just didn't give a shit about this story line, especially since it leads to nothing! Once we get back to Jill and her story I feel the film finds itself, but it's literally just rehash of the beginning of the film with Jill now the mother instead of the babysitter.

The film will always be remembered for the first 20 minutes but nothing else, I don't really consider it a classic but it's worth watching at least once.

A Christmas Story 2 (2012)

In 1983, late director Bob Clark (Black Christmas, Porky's) made what some consider the greatest Christmas movie ever made. "A Christmas Story" has gone down in history for that that simple fact; even TBS plays the movie for 24 hours straight on Christmas day. Personally, I feel the film is very overrated, not saying that it's a bad film just overrated. That being said, Warner Brothers in their infinite wisdom decided that what "A Christmas Story" needed was a sequel, almost 30 years later.

Being promoted as "the official sequel to 'A Christmas Story'", Warner Brothers seems to have forgotten that the film already has had TWO sequels before this one: a 1988 TV movie entitled "Ollie Hopnoodle's Haven of Bliss" and the 1994 film "It Runs in the Family" (most commonly known as "My Summer Story"), but since Warner Brothers didn't make those films I guess they felt they didn't count as sequels and they have completely disregarded them.

Now that that's out of the way lets delve into this bear sized shit of a movie. The story is about Ralphie and he's an annoying 15-year old who wants a car. Him and his stupid friends wreck a car at a dealership and the rest of the movie is all about them trying to come up with $85 to fix the car. Daniel Stern (Home Alone) plays the father in this film and he comes off as a very cold hearted cheapskate. At the end of the film he seems to have redeemed himself and proves to be a loving father, but throughout the rest of the film he's just an asshole. 

The film does what I assume they felt were homages to the original film but in reality they were just blatant rip offs. This film rehashes so much from the original film it baffles me why they even bothered making a "sequel" instead of a "remake". They rehash the tongue to the pole in a rather stupid way by having the same character stick his tongue in a vacuum at a department store and then you get to see his face stretch out inside the tube as some goofy way of making this generation of retarded children laugh. Having Ralphie dress up in a stupid animal costume is rehashed having him dress as a reindeer at a department store. Somehow the leg lamp is back at the very end, though the film never really admits who the hell gave it to the father. So much is rehashed from the original film all the way down to Ralphie's brother getting a space ship for Christmas and sitting on the floor making "vroom" sounds with it (in the original film he gets a blimp and does the same thing).

This film fails so horribly it's not even funny. I didn't expect anything at all from this film but I just wanted to give it a shot. Seeing Daniel Stern embarrass himself in this direct-to-video garbage is terrible. The man made some classic comedies in his day and he has been reduced to this trash. That being said, Stern is the ONLY good thing about this film. He does give a stellar performance but his character is so cynical it's hard to even enjoy it. The only thing this film did well (and I'm using that term lightly) is they got an actor (surprisingly the writer) to sound JUST like Jean Shepard narrating. But something that small and pathetic can't save this useless, unneeded and unwanted sequel to a film that is considered a classic. 

Halloween (1978)

"It's Halloween, I guess everyone is entitled to one good scare"

The mother of them all! Halloween was made during a time when horror films were few and far between. "Psycho" started the slasher genre in 1960 but the genre laid dormant for almost 2 decades until John Carpenter came along and changed film history forever.

Halloween was released in 1978 and cost a mere $320,000 to make but it earned far more than that, becoming the highest grossing independent film at that time. The film is so simple yet so effective. The film follows Laurie Strode (played by a then unknown Jamie Lee Curtis) and her friends on the night of Halloween as they are stalked and killed by a masked assailant. By today's standards this story has been told a million times over, by in the late 1970s this was something new. Especially the tone that Carpenter brought forth. The film is genuinely scary because of the simpleness to it. Michael Myers is portrayed as a faceless character, and when you do see his face (only twice) he shows no emotion whatsoever. The film begins with a very long POV shot of a young girl being stalked and then murdered, when the scene is over you discover the person whose point of view it came from was a 6-year-old boy. Just the thought of that is enough to chill you to the bone!

This film also really established the horny, drug crazed teenagers that followed oh, so many times in the following decade. This really defined many films since then. And it was even the basis of the 2012 film "The Cabin in the Woods". 

Overall, much can be said about Carpenter and his influence on the horror genre. Halloween was his crowning achievement and sadly he has distanced himself as much as he can from the film. I guess he got tired of being constantly reminded of it, but it's a shame he doesn't like it anymore. It seems over the past few years Carpenter has really distanced himself from all of his films, he almost comes off as if he resents the films. But, he has left us with a great amount of fantastic horror/sci-fi films to choose from. 

Halloween was such a success that a franchise began followed by the 1981 sequel "Halloween II" which was produced and written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. "Halloween III" which came out the following year was also produced and written by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. The duo left the franchise after that never to be attached to it again. 

A Short Review of "The Body", an episode of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"

I spent my years in college studying television production and writing and received my B.A. in that in 2009. Throughout my years in college I have learned to analyze and love television shows from the stories to the production value and I continue that to this very day. Granted I have not been able to practice my art in many ways since I graduated but I still watch television shows more than anything else, regardless of this blog being specifically for movie reviews.

Today, I have chosen to speak about one of my favorite episodes of any television show out there. This episode spoke to me profoundly for many reasons, but the main reason is because something like this happened to me in my own life. In 2000, my mother suffered a severe stroke and later died in 2006 from complications related to that. It was a very dark time in my life, a time that I would never want to relive. In 2002, I began watching the television series "Buffy the Vampire Slayer". I've a horror fan for many years, and I felt I would enjoy this series. I was right! "Buffy" is such a fun series to watch and re-watch, the writing is brilliant, the acting is brilliant, almost everything about this series is brilliant. In early 2001 an episode aired called "The Body" which dealt with the death of Buffy's mother. I did not see the episode until very late 2003 but when I finally did I realized how important this episode would be to me.

The episode deals with Buffy's mother who had surgery done to remove a tumor from her brain and in the episode she dies from complications due to this. The rest of the episode is basically everyone coping with the loss of her, and just that description sounds pretty boring or could be sappy, but I want to take a look at some of the things that happen in the show.

First off, there is no music. Throughout the entire episode no music is heard at all. I felt this gave off the eeriness of that feeling you get after someone dies. It's hard to explain the feelings you go through after a loved one dies, especially someone so close to you. This episode spoke to me so much because Joss Whedon did such a good job recreating a time in someone's life that is so hard to describe. In the opening Buffy finds her mother dead and tries frantically to call 911 and administer CPR, but to no avail. The paramedics show up and realize she is dead and leave Buffy alone. She then calls Giles, but her phone call is very vague as to what has happened, leading Giles to think that the main villain of that season is at her house. Buffy then wanders through her house aimlessly. The power of this scene speaks volumes, as when something terrible like that happens I think most people do the same thing. You don't know what to do but you know you have to do something. When Giles arrives he tries himself to revive the mother, but Buffy bursts out with the line "We're not supposed to move the body" and she realizes that she just referred to her mother as "the body" and she breaks down. There some sort of denial when someone dies. It's subconscious to a point but it hits you like a truck when you say out loud "she's dead" or you refer to her as "the body" instead of "mom".

One of my favorite scenes in the entire episode is when we find Willow, Xander, Anya and Tara getting ready to go to the hospital to be with Buffy and Anya doesn't understand why someone so close to them has died and why she can't just get up and go on living. The actress, Emma Caulfield, did such an amazing job performing that scene that it always touches my heart. When you're thrown into a situation like this no one really knows why someone has died and why life has to even end. I still ask myself these questions to this very day. And something that is stated during this scene is how the character was drinking something and when they heard the mother died one of the things she thought was that the mother would never drink that drink again. I don't know about other people, but when someone close to me dies I always think about how there are certain things they'll never do again or see items they've left behind and how it might have been when they left it there. When my mother died our house was filled with stuff she had touched just the day before and it broke my heart.

It's the little things that were in the episode that made it very special. I think the episode spoke volumes to me because of my own personal situation, I'm not sure if it spoke to other people like this or not, but it is a very special episode to me and I personally think it's the greatest television episode ever made. Joss Whedon did such a wonderful job perfecting this episode in every way and the actors were so unbelievable at the same time.

The Music Man (2003)

"The sadder but wiser girl for me"

Meredith Willson's The Music Man was a Broadway musical that brought down the house. The year was 1959 and only a few years later a big budget Hollywood film version would be done. In 1962, Robert Preston wowed audiences with his portrayal of Harold Hill in this very film. Preston reprised his role from the Tony Award winning performance he gave in the Broadway show. Just over 40 years later Disney decided it was time to remake The Music Man for The Wonderful World of Disney...

The film is a direct adaptation of the original Broadway play and comparing it to the original plays out very much like the film version. Matthew Broderick plays Professor Harold Hill and his performance is a yawn fest. And in all fairness I did not sit there comparing this film to the original, Broderick cannot play Harold Hill to save his life. He plays the character very much like he's reading off cue cards. If you look at his performance of the songs "Ya Got Trouble" and "76 Trombones" it is very obvious he just doesn't give a shit. That character should be charismatic but he plays it like he forgot to read the script and everyone is just helping him. The songs are incredibly slow because of his cardboard performance.

And Broderick isn't the only offender here either. All of the actors preform as if they are made of cardboard. Even veteran actors like Victor Garber (playing Mayor Shinn) are awful. I'm not sure if the actors were trying to portray the actors from the original film or they really just didn't care, but all the performances in this film are awful.

The casting was poorly done as well. Matthew Broderick was chosen because at the time he was a big star on Broadway with "The Producers" so it was a natural selection to pick him. But, take a look at the film version of "The Producers" and he's just as bad in that film too! Molly Shannon (playing Mrs. Shinn) was probably one of the worst choices they could have made. Shannon overacts in every single thing she is in. A really good example of how bad she is and how bad the producers were on this film is the scene in which the firecracker goes off under her feet. In the original film it goes off, she yells out "I'm shot!" and falls down. A very funny scene and direct to the point. In this film, the firecracker blows her dress up over her head and she falls backward into a curtain pulling it down yelling out "I'm shot! I'm shot! George! George!", seriously over done for no reason, and it takes all the fun out of the little prank.

Victor Garber I thought was a good choice to play Mayor Shinn but as earlier stated his performance is very subpar. He was really great as Oliver Warbucks in Disney's 1999 film "Annie", but sadly he suffers in this role. Kristen Chenoweth as Marion Paroo was poorly cast as well. I've seen Kristen in other roles and she always plays odd characters. The role of Marion Paroo is a very straight forward character that I just can't seen Kristen doing well, and she doesn't. She can sing, there's no doubt about that, but she can't act.

Overall the film is awful, the opening song was so badly done it was ridiculous! The song is supposed to be fast paced, but it's slowed down for whatever reason and it's awful. Also, the fun of the opening scene is that Harold Hill is sitting in the train car the whole time and NO ONE knows about it, especially the audience! Yet in this version the director chooses to do close ups of Broderick over and over again taking the reveal of his character completely away! Also, the reaction of the character when he finds it is Hill is so elementary school stupid. He does a double take then keeps repeating "That's Harold Hill! That's the guy we were just talking about!", as if those guys or even the audience didn't already know that! His name is on the fucking briefcase! I think the director/producers think that America is really that stupid that we couldn't figure stuff like that out.

Anyway, enough of my ranting, if you want to see the film go watch the original 1962 film starring Robert Preston and avoid this one like the plague!

Rock of Ages (2012)

"I love rock n' roll"

I am a big fan of musicals, and I am actually a pretty big fan of the 2007 film "Hairspray", so when I saw a new musical was coming from the director of "Hairspray" I was pretty excited, especially since it was a musical featuring 80s music. A film with an amazing cast and some really good looking things, pretty much fell flat.

The film centers around Sherrie who shows up in Hollywood from Ohio ready to break out on the scene as a singer. She meets Drew who works at the Bourbon Room and he gets her a job. The entire film takes place over the course of a few days and involves the last ever performance of the band Arsenal, featuring lead singer Stacee Jaxx (played by Tom Cruise). The film starts out really great, a great opening musical number performed by a great lineup of performers (including a short verse by Alec Baldwin). The film seems to have quite a bit of plotlines going on. Aside from the band's final performance there's a plotline of Sherrie trying to get Drew to take the stage and perform with his band, The Bourbon Room is bankrupt, Catherine Zeta-Jones plays the wife of the mayor trying to get The Bourbon Room shut down because rock music is satan music, there's a reporter who at first hates Stacee Jaxx then loves him... there's just too much going on in this film.

The film never really feels like it has a plot at all. There's just so much going on it felt like the writer just sat down and wrote down ideas and then instead of trying to form them into a story he just threw them all in front of each other. There are a few funny moments, mainly from Russell Brand, but overall the film isn't that great. It drags on a lot, and they have some weird moments. There's a part in the film when Drew plays "Don't Stop Believing" by Journey and claims that he wrote it about Sherrie and himself. This just comes off as odd, why would they have a movie where none of the rock music in the real world exists. It would have been more believable and more acceptable if Drew had been a member of Journey, but he isn't. And in reality the song was written in 1981, the film takes place in 1987, so this makes absolutely no sense!

As for the musical numbers they all seem to be ensemble pieces. And some of them are 2 different songs spliced together. At some points it's good, but mostly it feels awkward and even some times pointless. And unlike the director's previous musical film, this film does not end on a big musical number. It ends with Stacee Jaxx and company performing "Don't Stop Believing", which at this point feels very much like "Glee" as they have made that their anthem. 

Overall the film is okay at best, if you want to see it go see it and judge for yourself. But, I feel the film fell flat and disappointed.

The Three Stooges (2012)

"Who's the fancy pants in the top hat and scarf?... That's a snowman"

When I first heard about a film company wanting to make a Three Stooges film, I was very much against it. I mean, these guys actually existed and they were hilarious! You can just pick some random actors and make them look like the guys and think they can be funny. Well, I was wrong. "The Three Stooges" delivers with a boatload of laughs and hilarity.

The film is split into 3 segments (designed to be like 3 Three Stooges shorts put together). The first of the segments is about how the three came to be, being dropped off at an orphanage and growing up there. Here we see the boys as kids for a while and then finally grown up. The stuff with the kids is kind of boring with a few laughs here and there. Amazingly, the filmmakers got a great kid to play Moe. The kid playing Larry is kind of creepy looking that's for sure! Once we meet up with the guys as adults the hilarity begins. 

The film's overall plot involves a rich woman trying to get the guys to kill her husband so she can get his money and run off with his best friend. A pretty standard plot, but the guys give it there all. There are plenty of scenes with physical humor that go on forever and you'll be laughing your ass off the whole time. 

But you can't have great scenes without some scenes that sadly the filmmakers sunk to. There is a scene in a maternity ward where the guys use babies peeing sort of like water guns. A scene that isn't very funny and very juvenile. The Three Stooges were about physical comedy and most of their stuff was "smart" comedy. In other words it was well thought out. This, was not that. Another scene involving a lion chained to a wall and one of the characters taunting it. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, however, the way the lion gets off the chain is something hits him in a testicles and this gives him power to break the chain. That, was really sinking low. Absolute bathroom humor that just wasn't needed. And finally a fart scene, I'm not going to go into details, but seriously, that's not the kind of humor the Stooges did. 

Overall, the film is greatly done. The actors do a wonderful job, especially the actor playing Moe. Moe was always the main character (so to speak) and it was important that they get someone who can play him correctly. They did a great job. The film is classic slapstick humor and the film was absolutely done greatly. With a few flaws, the film is a home run!

American Reunion (2012)

"I love the 'Twilight' books, 'New Moon' is my favorite!"

The "American Pie" franchise has surprisingly survived almost 15 years. Whether it's the original sequels with the original cast or those bastardized additions that carry the "American Pie Presents..." title, the series has been fruitful. For many years since "American Wedding" in 2003, everyone has been asking if another sequel was in the works. In 2012 (a full 9 years after "Wedding") the fans got what they were asking for. But was it a good thing or a bad thing?

"American Reunion" centers around the gang's 13th high school reunion (right here I stop and ask 13th??). The group gets back together and they all have their problems: whether it's Jim and Michelle's sex life after baby or Oz's crazy fucked up girlfriend and his yearning for Heather or Stifler trying to hide the fact that his life sucks now. The premise is simple so what's the next step? Add sex jokes and nudie scenes!

The "American Pie" films have been famous for 2 things: having a nudie scene somewhere around the middle of the film and having something disgusting happen to Stifler. Well, sadly in "American Reunion" neither of these things happen. There is a scene with a naked drunk girl and Jim trying to get her home but that's hardly the lesbian scene in "American Pie 2" or even the bachelor party in "American Wedding" and it doesn't even hold a candle to Shannon Elizabeth's scene in "American Pie". Stifler does do something disgusting but it doesn't happen to him. Do these things ruin the film? No, not at all.

Lets take a look at the characters. All the original cast members return for this outing in the franchise. Whether or not that's a good thing or not is up to the viewer. As much as I personally don't like Chris Klein, it was still nice to see Oz back. My problem with it was the fact that him and Heather were not together and he was with some bimbo in Hollywood. His story line dealt with exactly that, and at the end he and Heather are back together. But the main focus of all the "American Pie" films revolve around Jim and Stifler. Jim's story is he and Michelle haven't had much of a sex life since their son was born. The idea is boring especially with a character like Michelle who in the other films was a sex deviant. Stifler's story is his life sucks, he's stuck at a dead end job of being a gofer, but doesn't want anyone else to know. This is pretty much where a character like Stifler would more than likely end up in real life, so it's believable. As for Michelle, I'd like to ask where the quirky adorable Michelle went? I'm not sure if the producers didn't want to go this route with her or if Alyson Hannigan forgot how to do it, but it's completely gone. Her character isn't the same character from the other 3 films.

Even the minor characters from the past films returned. Jessica has returned to reveal she's a lesbian, Sherman returns and does his "Shermanator" stuff and Nadia returns with a Jim look-a-like. The problem with these cameos is that they are pointless. Jessica comes up to Stifler and literally says "Let me just get this out of the way, I'm a lesbian"... sorry, that's poor writing, just flatly telling the audience what's up with her? You don't just say what the characters are feeling or doing, you show the audience! Sherman's bit was pretty lame, but the worst offender was Nadia's cameo. She shows up see's Jim and Michelle having sex then leaves, I kid you not. Why did Shannon Elizabeth even agree to that? Plus, she sure as hell doesn't remember how to do her accent anymore.

Overall the film is decent, but it was a bit of letdown. The funniest character in the film is Jim's Dad. There's a scene in which he gets drunk and then high and it's fucking hilarious! The film really represents the feeling of kids who were in high school in the late 90s and how we are all adults now and we can't really fit into the high school world anymore. This is a realization that comes to Stifler in the film as well. It's a nice ending to the series and it comes full circle. I don't see them making another film and honestly they don't need to. "American Reunion" is the ending to the franchise in my opinion, the series started out with them as immature high school students and has ended with them realizing they are adults and it's time to act like them. The film was decent and worth a shot if you like the other films.