Ryan's Reviews

Welcome you all into my cabin. My name is Ryan, and as you walk around Camp Horror, you have stumbled your way into my review page. What's that you say? Another reviewer telling you what movies to like and what movies not to like? Oh no my friends, this one is different. My reviews are going to be based on a few things, and most of them are different than what you're used to. Come in, sit down and get ready for the first, and special Halloween edition of Ryan's Reviews...

Since this is my first review for you all, I am going to spell things out for you. I am not going to give you the same run down of the past few weeks worth's of new releases every week, rather my reviews are going to be widespread, taking on a classic, a newer DVD release and a theatrical release (when all 3 are available.) I am going to rate each review on 5 different scales, each one bone to 5 bones, and as everyone here should know, the more bones the better.

•  First Category, Premise. This of course is the basic idea of the movie, and will be graded on things like originality and the various surprises that may or may not occur.

•  Second Category, Direction. This is a judgment on whether or not the director did his job well; i.e.; actors actually acting, cinematography, pace of the movie, etc.

•  Third Category, Acting. Well, that's self-explanatory... do the screams seem real, or like Jamie Lee knockoffs.

•  Fourth Category, Cross Genre. As movies get more and more diverse it's important to look at the movie outside the normal realm of classification. For example, Scary Movie series is not only Comedy, but yes a horror movie as well.

•  Fifth, and not least Category, Gore. This is the amount of blood spilt in the flick. I won't just be giving more bones for more blood, but in order to get a high score here, the movie will need to justify the use or lack of gore.

Each category will be graded 1 - 5 bones and then the average rounded to the nearest half bone will be the total. At the end, I will sum up each movie in 4 words or less. Enough explaining, lets begin.

This issue I will be reviewing a recent theater release, “ Scary Movie 3” and a recent DVD release. “28 Days Later”.

Scary Movie 3 2003 by Dimension Films Written by Brian Lynch, Craig Mazin, Pat Proft, Kevin Smith and Zucker. Running time: 90 minutes. Rated PG-13 Director: David Zucker. Starring: Anna Farris, Charlie Sheen

Some of you may be groaning as you read that as my first horror movie review I am reviewing a comedy. But, if you peel back the funny looking skin of these movies, there is a reason behind my madness. These movies are spoofs of a genre that I, and probably you, hold dear to your heart, the horror genre. They say that when a specific type of movie is on it's way out, then that type of movie gets spoofed. It happened with the Action/Romance, (Top Gun, Days of Thunder) genre with Hot Shots, and it's sequel, and it happened again with the teen movie scene with " Not Another Teen Movie." So what's to be said about a genre that has been spoofed three times in past three years? Well the combined 278 million dollars the first 3 movies have already made should say something. The horror genre, once again breaks the mold, and even though it continues to be spoofed, (Scary Movie 4 is actually supposed to hit theatres in the next 6 - 9 months), Horror keeps coming on strong with new, but maybe not so fresh content.
So is there a threat from the onslaught of spoofs and throwbacks to the older 70's style movies? Of course. My take on the entire issue is actually disturbing to myself. With the spoofs, and new versions of old movies being thrown into theatres, the movie watching public will soon become bored, and mostly already has. Anyone knows that the way to wake the public up is to shock them, and unfortunately Hollywood chooses to shock us with ultra gorrific pictures. That might please some, but not me.
That aside, what we are reviewing here are three very funny movies, and in some cases, almost scary... well maybe not. On to the review.

“Scary Movie 3” as a horror movie was very weak, for obvious reasons. The plot loosely follows “The Ring” and of course mixed into the plot were various other recent hits, most noticeably, “Signs.”

The acting in the movie is actually step up from the first two, with a lot less marijuana and bongs jokes, don't worry there are some, and a lot more spoofing on specific scenes in other movies. Some of this isn't very funny, but when it is, it really really is…

•  Premise: As discussed above not much there. 2 Bones .

•  Direction: Heres where it gets tricky. You see even though the movie was well plotted for spoofs, Zucker doesn't quite grasp the feel of the first two movies. The innocence in the characters is still found, but the logistics of the scenes don't mesh very well. Very thrown together feel, sort of like a ‘best of' episode of a sitcom. 2 Bones.

•  Acting: Anna Farris does an excellent reprisal role, and one of the most underrated comedy actors around. Her innocent look, but intelligent acting makes her the true star of the movie, even if resident spoofer Sheen is around. Neilson plays a great role; almost replaying is Naked Gun role to a tee. 3 Bones.

•  Cross Genre: Obviously more a comedy than a real horror movie, this film does one nicely and the other one not so nicely. I wish that there was just a little more actual danger for the characters like the first movies, to add to the true scary element, which was non existent. 3 Bones .

•  Gore: Virtually non-existent, save for a corpse being torn into pieces, but fit the movie well. 3 Bones.

Overall Average: About 2 and a half bones.

4 words or less: Good Comedy, Bad Horror.

28 Days Later 2003 by Fox Searchlight Director: Danny Boyle Writer: Alex Garland. Starring: Cillian Murphy, Naomie Harris, and Megan Burns. Rating: R Running Time: 1 hr, 48 minutes.

28 Days Later is nothing less than a spectacular achievement in filmmaking. Again, FOX does a great job a tracking down a wonderful film to release under their Searchlight name, adding to the already good track record (“Boys Don't Cry”, and “The Full Monty”.)

The movie starts in a lab where we are led to believe that a top-secret investigation of medicine is being conducted. After a group of apparent animal empathizers free a monkey that has been infected with a disease called Rage we assume it is now released onto the public. This scene is very intriguing, and very well shot; especially where a monkey is strapped to a gurney and is being forced to watch endless acts of violence by human civilization. From this point you can see how this film is beyond a horror or sci-fi movie, but into the level of art. Various scenes are shot from different angles and viewpoints to give the viewer something else to chew on besides the main dialogue or action. For instance in one scene there is a large gas explosion, where the angle is very high, and the activity on the ground is a stark contrast to the dull dead metropolis. Another great shot is where the group of survivors are talking about their chance of survival, and we watch them with a close up of goldfish nearly out of water, gasping for air.

The action picks up quickly as Jim, a man in a coma for the past 28 days who gets missed by the virus, escapes his hospital room and soon is met up with a few other survivors. As a group they are trying to escape the hundreds of infected that only live to eat another person, to infect them. Some of the these other survivors die, and new ones come, but the story stays focused on Jim and his struggle to decide for himself what is more important; survive or help others survive.

There are a few plot holes however. In one case, the infected really don't eat their victims for more than one bite, even though their survival without eating is a main focus in the movie. Also the ending seemed a little out of proportion with the rest of the film, but because of the fell of it, most overlook it.

The movie is a great look at the human condition, and things hold true meaning in our lives. Towards the end of the movie, Jim gets more and more bloody and rugged, looking more and more like the infected that they are escaping. Again another great directing job here, forcing us to ask if killing another person for survival is any worse that what the infected zombies are doing in the first place. Both kill for survival.

•  Premise: Great idea that had almost been done before. The illness is something that society is very afraid of right now, and I think it struck home some of the fear in the film. 4 Bones.

•  Direction: Beautiful cinematography adds to an even more wonderfully acted piece, and the director gets the credit here. This really stands above the selected genre as a piece of true art, from the coloring, camera angles, and even the look of the infected. Only the few plot holes keep this from the perfect 5 bone score. 4.5 bones

•  Acting: Absolutely tremendous. Mostly a group of unknowns, (for American eyes anyway), steal a great film and each make a resounding statement in the film. Each actor does a great job portraying what his or her character is willing to do to survive. 5 Bones.

•  Cross Genre: I'll say it one more time. Stands ABOVE as just being a horror movie. Science Fiction, Drama, Comedy and a true work of art, this is one of the rare films that everyone should see, just for the pure simple joy in watching a great director working with a great script. 5 Bones

•  Gore: Done in the right places, although I think exaggerated in most cases. The one cliché this movie did have is the almost literally gallons of blood that a person can spit out of their mouths, even if there insides have turned into goo. 4 Stars.

Overall: 4.5 STARS!

In 4 words or less: Must see scary film!