Reviews by Movie Maniac

A light comic romp set in the French countryside during the '20's where a renown illusionist and hard-nose skeptic (Colin Firth) is tasked to disprove the abilities of a beautiful, American medium (Emma Stone) that has made her way up into socialite inner circles. Stumped by her abilities, he begins to see the drabness of life as meaningful for the first time in ages. As can be expected, his efforts are met with a battle of credulity that leads to revelations, not so much about the supernatural but himself.

Leave it to Woody Allen to spin yet another yarn about a scrappy, youthful beauty that falls madly in love with a much older eccentric after drastically changing his life. It's been one of the staples of his oeuvre for decades, only becoming increasingly disturbing as real life and allegations hang a dark cloud over his legacy. Whatever his past may or may not reveal about the nebbish auteur it is undeniable that he's made some of the most influential films of our time and, even when not at the height of his powers, can dish out a slice of breezy,whimsical engaging fare. So, where does "Magic In The Moonlight" fall?

If one were to point out one glaring fault in the film, it's that nothing particularly new can be said about Allen as an artist with this piece. To a seasoned fan of his work this will be a blip in the radar, albeit far from an offensively bad one. To a newcomer it will be a pleasant and breezy watch but not one that might inspire further investigation of Allen's work. It also suffers from some unfortunate (tough still professional) lighting that makes the whole affair somewhat ugly to look at and doesn't really chime with the location, setting, or mood.

Colin Firth is an exceptional lead and an absolute pleasure to watch as the somewhat overly stuffy Stanley, a career magician and unflinching debunker. Seeing him wrestle with the unknown, reassess his life, and see the world through both new and old eyes refreshed is quite the treat. It is this character arc that immediately wraps you into the goings on and, though you can see the ending coming a mile away, keeps you hanging on till the credits roll. Not to insinuate that anything might incite the desire to leave. The film is rife with an excellent supporting cast, clever and charming dialogue, great locations, and a genuine atmosphere that spirits you away to the time portrayed.

So, as with any romantic comedy, you need a female lead to play off the male. As customary with Allen films (again, somewhat disturbingly so in hindsight) that lead tends to be much younger than the male and certainly way out of his league when it comes to looks. The more than capable (and one of my personal favorites) Emma Stone takes the role of the endearing medium Sophie. This should be great news as Stone has more than once proven to have the chops, the timing, and the charm to pull off anything thrown at her but it pains me to say that her character falls somewhat flat.

While it'd be easy to pile the blame fully on her capabilities it would also be disingenuous. In short, Allen's script does nothing truly interesting with her. Stone ultimately feels like a wasted talent. She is neither presented as smart enough despite it being clear she's no dummy, witty enough despite have some excellent exchanges with Stanley, or interesting enough despite being the focus of Stanley's investigation and affections. Instead she comes off as somewhat daft at times and, worse, downright needy at others. This is a woman beholden to the approval of a man. It all feels so dated. Had this been set in present time it might just be downright offensive. We are expected to believe she'd be a source of inspiration for the lead and, less credibly, one that captures his rocky heart.

At first this holds weight because her abilities befuddle Stanley and give his life renewed purpose but as the story progresses the illusion no longer holds. Though the themes of the film center around the true magic of life being in matters of the heart it all ends up feeling somewhat contrived. There truly is no reason for him to love her or her to love him, at least not with what was shown to us. He fell in love with an idea, she fell in love with a curmudgeonly cynic but REALLY they fell in love with each other despite all that? Really, that's the best you could do? How often does this really happen? Here is Allen's ultimate downfall. In real life this relationship would not even be fathomable much less lead to the sappy ending.

All that said, the film IS an enjoyable watch. There is nothing grossly awry with it, after all, it just makes zero impact in Allen's filmography and might prove utterly forgettable to a casual viewer once all is said and done. This feels more like a glorified stage play that is still having the kinks worked out. Its woeful misuse of Emma Stone is a downright shame though Colin Firth does much to keep that dynamic going. This is Allen on automatic, be grateful that he can churn out entertaining material even then. I give "Magic in the Moonlight" a 6 out of 10.

"Underworld" is interesting in that it that it is very clearly a product of its time that hit theaters at just the right moment. Any sooner or later and it would of been the target of ridicule. Alas, it was not at least not by the viewing audiences (critics weren't particularly kind). Admittedly, I am one of the ones suckered by it and I'm 100% okay with that. It came at the precise moment when the collective hunger for three films was at an all time high and it fulfilled those needs in its own distinct way. For that reason, it remains something of a guilty pleasure for some and a downright classic for others.

Let's be honest here, this movie owes a lot to the alluded to three films. These three movies had an immense cultural impact with their visual style, dense mythos, deadly serious tone, unique color palette, and focus on stylized action. They were: The Matrix, The Crow, and Blade. Indeed, a cursory glance at "Underworld" will belie those influences. Imitation need not be frowned upon every time, however. "Underworld" also tapped into the goth/metal/alternative subcultures which, at the time, had reached a commercial mainstream peak.

So, with the stars aligned, the story of a leather and latex-clad vampiress assassin in the midst of a centuries long feud with Lycans (werewolves) captured the imagination of audiences and became something of a surprise hit. Made on a tight budget the film also impressed seasoned fans of genre fare with its dedication to practical effects work. Fans of action had a glut of it here with seemingly every inch of "cool" squeezed out of gunplay and fancy moves. To its credit the movie never completely devolves into an orgiastic frenzy of flips and kicks. Instead, it bides its time between indulgent action set pieces and a mystery story. It also doesn't have pretensions of being overly clever. It is what it is and it's good at being just that.

It's brooding tone and distinct blue on black color scheme sets it apart while complimenting the material though it might wear thin on some viewers. Sets, effects work, and costumes are particularly impressive given how low the budget was. You'd think this was a mega-budget affair.

The cast, too, is quite a win for the viewer. Bill Nighy entrances as Viktor, the ruthless leader of the vampires. Kate Beckinsale surprised back then for going from comedy and drama roles to a full on action heroine complete with steely gaze, cold demeanor, and impressive fighting skills. Michael Sheen as Lucian, the leader of the Lycans, stands out in a role that proves to have more substance than the viewer initially suspected. The rest of the cast too seems very much involved in the process and, overall, you feel like you got more than you bargained for in all the best ways.

Ultimately, "Underworld" is kind of a big, silly movie. This is vampires versus werewolves, after all, but something about it just makes it memorable. The mix of its particular aesthetics, its almost staunch refusal to wink at the audience, it's impressive production values, and fantastic cast somehow all just click and elevate the material from goofy to a damn good time.

Is this movie perfect? Far from it. If anything its a snapshot of the times but it's also one that hasn't aged horribly. It's aged with an air of nostalgia that makes everything that's starting to feel silly just this side of acceptable. Despite it's serious approach, the movie never shies away from being what it is, a big ol' monster slugfest and, because of that, it will be fondly looked upon. Need proof? This became a franchise. One that always got decent returns on its budget. Somebody keeps watching these for a reason and a lot of that good faith was earned on this sole film. I give Underworld 7/10.

With the unprecedented success of "Underworld" under his belt, Len Wiseman returned to helm the follow-up with a considerably larger budget and more stylized vampire action and black leather to fill a hundred Hot Topics. However, it wasn't long before he dispelled the old adage of "bigger is better".

"Underworld: Evolution" picks up directly after the events of the first with our heroes, Selene and Michael Corvin (Kate Beckinsale and Scott Speedman, respectively) on the run after they're unfathomable bond and betrayal set in motion a series of events that brought Selene's master to his death and the worlds of Lycans and vampires to disarray. In the wake of this chaos, another elder vampire wakes and that's when things get stupid.

The setup is logical, the action is as ridiculous but entertaining as before, and all the self-serious goth meets The Matrix aesthetic is on high but the film quickly comes undone with the presence of Markus (Tony Curran) as the big bad. Markus' story necessitates a retcon of the idea that Viktor was the first and most formidable vampire, essentially telling the audience that they're fools for ever finding that guy a threat. In a bid to up the ante and introduced a bigger and more imposing menace, the film effectively treads on the good work of BIll Nighy who had commanded every scene as Viktor in the first film. Worse, Markus, for all his bluster, is ultimately a weak replacement that inexplicably didn't put his current plan into effect until Viktor's death despite having a virtual life insurance the whole time. The film tries to explain this away by telling us that he feared Viktor's armies but the fact that they wouldn't dare kill him anyway makes it all nonsense.

You see, the film starts by showing us a Markus that was dead set on locking his Lycan twin away but by the time Markus returns he's dead set on releasing him and creating some sort of master race. It's ludicrous to even type this stuff up. It almost feels like they were missing some intrinsic piece of backstory that would lead us to care or believe that Markus' loved his brother enough to bite his tongue for years and then finally unleash his wrath upon Viktor's death. If it is, bad news, it was pivotal. As it stands the movie lacks it and comes off as preposterous

That, however, is the least of its sins. The film introduces a character so baffling and useless that it literally made me watch the movie twice to see if I missed something. Derek Jacobi as Corvinus, the father of all three races of beings in this universe has SOMEHOW always been behind the scenes and only tidies up for the vamps and Lycans and basically is an exposition machine that serves no purpose but to overcomplicate a concept that didn't need muddling with. When I say he serves no purpose, I mean he literally refuses to get involved save by proxy of our heroine. We could of done without this joker and had the same results.

While they never undo the balance of supernatural and science (Lycans and vampires being genetic freaks) that the first movie set forward they do make it profoundly stupid by verifying that the legend of Corvinus it's based on is true. This effectively makes Markus even more stupid by making him a guy that somewhere along the way was actually bitten by a bat and mutated because of his genetic predisposition. This gets dumber when you realize that if that part of the legend turned out to be reality then that means his brother had to, by chance, be bitten by a wolf too so he could spawn werewolves. Before this movie this was just a legend that people used to explain a condition, after this movie it's a literal headache-inducing reality. Oy vey.

And the nonsense piles on with ridiculous deus ex machina and the butchering of their own mythos just to fit in this plot with Markus and his brother. Oh, Viktor has a key in his chest all along and that's tied into the locket that was on his daughter and Lucian. All these "reveals" feel forced and totally unnecessary. A single key would of been sufficient, did they have it out for Bill Nighy or something? Sure felt that way.

"Evolution" is mind-numbingly overwrought. It thinks it's clever but it's really jaw-droppingly stupid. The action is a respite from the absurdity and Kate Beckinsale's Selene is someone you want to see in something far better than this dreck. Effects are mostly fantastic save a few moments that, despite the budget boost, look atrocious. I'm looking at you intro CGI werewolves.

I had seen this movie previous to reviewing ages ago and I remembered nothing about it. Now I know why.

Two movies into the "Underworld" series, the creative team made a surprisingdecision to make a prequel instead of move ahead with the story that had just earned them a healthy sum at the box office. But was it really a strange choice? In retrospect, no. Despite its exciting action and amped up visuals, "Evolution" had effectively weakened the foundations of the first movie that had endeared the public to the franchise. So it was logical, even wise, choice to attempt to repair that damage.

And so they did with "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans", which gave the viewer a chance to see the very roots of what had started the hateful blood feud between Lycans and vampires. Where "Evolution" had complicated the mythos with extraneous characters, pre-Lycan werewolves, and a cheapening of Viktor's menace, "Rise" sought to remind us why we were invested in this story to begin with.

At its core, the movie is yet another take on the forbidden love formula of "Romeo and Juliet" which, let's face it, is hard to screw up or dislike. A smattering of subtext about race and justifiable insurrection make this tried and true approach all the stronger and, just like that, we have an immediately likable hero in Lucian (an engaging Michael Sheen) to go against the villainous vampire that owned every scene he was in in the first movie, Viktor (Bill Nighy). Rhona Mitra is uniquely beautiful and poised as Lucian's paramour. These three give a movie about monsters fighting each other much more credibility than you'd think.

Patrick Tatopoulos, who formerly was in charge of creature design, takes on the directorial reins and brings the presentation down from gothic comic book fare to fantasy horror drama while never losing that visual aesthetic cohesiveness that makes the film feel undoubtedly like part of the series. His keen eye serves the material exceptionally well and the action, though still fantastic, seems far more realistic than previously in the series. Better yet, it stands out as the most rousing and visually arresting. Most importantly, he makes sure the film has its own strong identity and never lets the audience miss Beckinsale's Selene.

Again, the effects work is a mixture of the practical and CGI with the latter being used only when absolutely necessary and downright logical (i.e. hordes of hundreds of wolves). The dark monotone hues help the two mediums work together very well despite a few minor hiccups here and there. The sets and costuming are spectacular and really work to give the world a lived in look so pivotal to making fantasy or period pieces work.

You wouldn't think they could wring much out of a backstory they touched upon quite a bit in the previous two installments but the writers managed to do not only that but give it a surprising amount of substance and heart. More importantly, they retroactively give meaning to some of the weaker points of "Evolution" and allow you to forgive some of the stupider ones (the key mechanism in Viktor's chest) by actually given heft to the Lycan's plight and Viktor's hatred of them.

"Rise of the Lycans" can not exist without its ties to the first "Underworld" film but it certainly does much to stand apart on its own. In all honesty, this is probably the best film in the series and while that is not a hard bar to reach it is rare that a sequel outdoes the film that birthed it.

The fourth installment in the "Underworld" franchise gives us a twelve year time leap thus excusing itself of the obvious loss of of its lead characters (Scott Speedman's Michael Corvin) and instead focuses on the outcome of genetic tampering of his DNA and Selene (Kate Beckinsale), namely a daughter that is the target of both vampire and Lycan attention in a world that has driven both species near to extinction in the aftermath of the "Underworld: Evolution". Sounds heady and over-convoluted but, trust me, it it isn't.

No, unlike the overwrought and unnecessarily over-complicated plot of "Evolution" (which this chronologically follows) this installment is blissfully simple. This frees the viewer to stop wrestling with the ridiculous leaps in logic, retconning, and plot holes of that aforementioned film and just sit back and enjoy. Granted, they may have taken the dedication to simplicity a bit too seriously but unlike some of the plot elements in "Evolution" nothing is headscratchingly bogus or stupid.

Yes, "Awakening" is mean, nasty, and to the point and all the better for it. At the very least it proved to be a thrilling way to spend a paltry hour and twenty minutes (slightly over the 30 minute mark if you count the suspiciously long credits). Despite its incredibly short runtime, the film never lets up. It delivers what, by this point, the series really has to offer: gorgeous action, slobberknocking confrontations between monsters, and the thrill of seeing Kate Beckinsale put boots to butts.

"Awakening' is a film that realized the story needed to be herded out of the tangle "Evolution" had drawn it into and that it couldn't revisit the past as "Rise of the Lycans" did. Instead it gives us a "(wo)man on the run" movie that quickly becomes a "rescue mission" movie. Not to say it abandoned the world-building attributes of the series. In fact, it manages to fit that in quite nicely into the state the characters are in and the villain's motives.

The directors know how to handle action and the set-pieces here are a fun time through and through. You'll find yourself more than glad to leave your brain at the door and watch Selene do her thing. Effects are a bit more reliant on CGI than before but physical effects were not totally abandoned.

This movie isn't going to win awards but it knows that and just runs with what it is. It doesn't pretend that the post "The Crow" gothic aesthetics are in or that it can be as good as the best "Blade" movie or that it didn't crib a bit from "The Matrix". It's boiled down the essence of what we find cool about the movies previous and done away with the burden of some of the overcooked plotting that, frankly, wouldn't work anymore. Here is "Underworld" at its most basic and I can appreciate that.

Wanna see an over-serious, monster-action slugfest? This will do you just fine. Sometimes it's okay to just think somebody is badass for a good stretch of minutes.

By this point in a franchise, you're either looking for a decent ending or, in the rarest of scenarios, are still highly invested. I was in the former camp. The "Underworld" franchise is one that somehow kept creeping up under the radar and always pretty much doubling or tripling its budget to ensure that a new one was just a few years around the corner.

"Underworld: Blood Wars" has Selene still on the run from both Lycans and vampires, who both seek the blood of her child to ensure their survival or evolution. She is soon recruited by the vampires that have ostracized her in a bid to win the war against the rising tide of Lycan rebels at their door. However, not all is as it seems.

This fifth installment came after the breezy and action-packed "Underworld: Awakening" which, though a quick watch, tapped into the series' visual strengths and packed a pleasant visceral punch. Comparatively, "Blood Wars" brings the goings-on to a sudden halt with a story that skips over the relevant human issues brought forth in its predecessor and just goes back to the well. Unfortunately, that well is running a bit dry. Worse yet, don't try to go back to your roots if you can't afford to.

Yes, that's right, the budget on this installment was slashed in half compared to the previous film and it shows. Conspicuously absent are hordes of Lycans (werewolves) and in there place are just guy in fur coats that we are assured turn into them...sometimes. Even when they do, it seems too little, too late. The action scenes (something the series always managed to pull off even at the worst of times) are lackluster and underwhelming here. Costumes and sets look a bit more suitable for direct-to-DVD than a theatrical film and the lighting (still that signature blue hue) manages to somehow be "off".

However, we can't solely blame budget. After all, the third installment (Rise of the Lycans) had the same budget and managed to be easily among the best in the series, sported tons of practical effects wizardry (yes, hordes of Lycans), was a period piece, AND had some stunning action set pieces. The blame here lies on a script that feels a little too thin despite having more plot than the previous one and terribly pedestrian direction from its director, Anna Foerster. Under more capable hands this movie would of been a bit more palatable.

The actors aren't anything to write home about either. Kate Beckinsale is not allowed to shine much as Selene (with some heavily reduced screen time), an absolute shame as she is the ONLY reason to stick around for this series at this point. To be fair, she looked miserable in this so it was probably for the best. The main villain Marius (Tobias Menzies) has the presence of a fart in the wind and the secondary villain, while better, is not precisely amazing.

This series has time and again used dubious methods to sort some of its wrinkles out and here its at its worst. The Michael Corvin character is unceremoniously dumped (after being a stand in replacement), Selene's daughter is pretty much only spoken about and "shot around" when onscreen, the involvement of humans is completely ignored after being a huge issue in "Awakening", and Selene is put through one of the most incredulous (even for a movie about werewolves and vampires) story ringers ever in a bid to make her a savior figure she already was anyway.

So does it provide a suitable ending for the series at least? Somewhat. Is it satisfying? Not remotely. In fact, a lot of the elements in play feel like a cop out or completely fall flat. This series ends with a whimper not the bang it should have. I give "Underworld: Blood Wars" a 2 out of 10.

Failing his duty as an exorcist, a spiritually shaken Father Lamont is tasked with the duty of validating Father Merrin's work in light of a progressive Church's attempts to discredit it and call him a heretic. In the process he uncovers why Regan MacNeil was targeted and meaning of Merrin's work in light of the larger scale plot of the demon Pazuzu.

This follow up to one of the perennial classics of film was destined to fall short of the mark. After all, how do you live up to something so universally lauded and feared? The answer is, you don't. This, however, doesn't bar you from making a good film despite living in the shadow of a greater predecessor. Unfortunately, "The Exorcist II: The Heretic" doesn't quite achieve that goal either.

Oft maligned and ignored in favor of the vastly superior "The Exorcist III", part two has a pretty awful reputation. Ripped apart by critics and audiences alike, it tends to be treated worse than the red-headed stepchild. Truth be told, It's earned a lot of that criticism but that's not to say that it deserves all of it. No, in fact, upon reviewing the film shows an admirable bit of ambition and, at times, it even manages to stir up something of the response it was aiming for but, first, we must get the negatives out of the way.

Its foremost sin is that it quickly undoes the deep character work that was established in the first movie, relegating Father Karras and his role to a virtual non-issue by choosing to solely focus on Father Merrin's legacy. Given the heft of Karras' sacrifice and the fact that the story arc of the first depended so much on his journey from doubtful and apathetic to willing martyr, it almost feels like an intentional blow below the belt when he's not even cursorily mentioned.

You almost forgive this as the introduction to Father Lamont and his assignment is engaging enough a start but once the concepts of science and religion cross paths the movie asks far too much of its audience. It's quite the remarkable shift as the tone goes from acceptably somber and ominous to downright incredulous as a "mental synchronizer" is used in a hypno-therapy session to essentially link the minds of the priest and the now "normal" Regan MacNeil. Were this intended to be a b-movie (or if it followed one) then the concept could be shrugged off as a silly piece of deus ex machina but since it's not it stands out like a sore thumb. That bit of incredulity really mars the entire affair, as from that point forward you begin to ask too many questions.

Another huge blow to the original comes subsequently as we find out that the demon was never really cast out of Regan but that she remains somewhat susceptible to it (how much so being determine by the needs of the movie, no less). This revelation sets Lamont on a mission to find the source of Merrin's first encounter with the demon, seemingly a means to help Regan. What follows is a long and convoluted second act that feels burdensome and clumsy at times and visually adventurous at others. Limitations of either budget or effects manage to hobble most of these attempts and plunge them deep into laughably bad territory.

The movie seems hellbent on explaining science with religion and vice versa but does so in such an incompetent fashion that the science comes off as more hokey than any piece of dubious doctrine. The ultimate revelation that Pazuzu is targeting people that are essentially supposed to be a step forward in evolution would of been far more interesting, and credible, if it had been cast entirely in a mystic light. There's an intriguing nugget of an idea there, for sure. That the increasingly evil world, symbolically represented by the habits of locusts (both as beings of nature and as an avatar of Pazuzu), could be changed by those that bring healing and light to it (the "good locusts" trained to change the course of the hive mind and people like Regan). A phenomenal concept but it feels half-formed in the movie and hindered by the psuedo-science.

The final confrontation between good and evil in this movie is the nail in the coffin. The demon attempts to destroy Regan one more time via other means because, apparently its hold on her wasn't as strong as it boasted, and, well, it just this harebrained, huge set piece that serves more to confuse than to give you something conclusive or satisfactory. I feel that Boorman's earlier approach to showing the influence of evil with juxtaposed images and other camera tricks would of worked far better than to have a priest beating on somebody like an enraged chimp.

Other notable faults include: Laughable dialogue at times, some confoundingly bad or uneven acting from otherwise good actors, and an unruly pace. Most notable is the razor thin character arc for Father Lamont. One of the strongest points of the original is here turned into a something best inferred than actually felt or seen. Lamont (Richard Burton) basically goes from doubtful of his abilities to determined to help to driven by demons and he rarely looks or acts any different between these stages.

All those grievous faults aside, there are interesting portions of this movie. The director uses an interesting array of visual tactics to communicate large ideas that, at times, are pretty admirable. It is, as aforementioned, quite ambitious in the scope and breadth of what it's trying to do, even if it doesn't quite achieve that most times. Ennio Morricone provides an exceptional score that actually lends a lot of atmosphere to the events even when they don't deserve that honor. There are some beautiful sets and locations and some interesting work with lighting to be acknowledged. Likewise, the intro to the film and the buildup to the finale are actually pretty decent.

In the end, however, the bad FAR outweighs any good. The film depends so much on its predecessor that you can't even watch it on its few merits. I can see where this idea was going and it could of been great. Alas, it turns out to be more of curious failed experiment more than anything else. However, strange things do warrant a peek every now and then and I think that is where this one stands. A weird item that on occasion can be revisited if only to see what could have been behind all the incompetence. 4/10

A disgraced former LAPD detective is thrown in the midst of a murder spree targeting the cast of a cultural boundary-breaking show. He and his disgruntled ex-partner track down the culprit in the seedy underbelly of the city all the while struggling against the prejudicial ideas about their respective people. Sounds deadly serious, except that the gumshoe and the victims happen to be puppets. Hi-jinks ensue.

"The Happytime Murders" feels less like the outrageous good time it should of been and more a cavalcade of missed opportunities. Sin number one is that this is not necessarily a fresh concept. Movies like "Who Killed Roger Rabbit?" and "Meet The Feebles" have touched on similar concepts in far better fashion. Sin number two, it often eschews clever or subversive humor for straightforward comedy despite having fertile material to work with. Sin number three: it believes that overt vulgarity and profanity are ALWAYS legitimate laugh instigators. This proves to be its most misguided failure.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing offensive here (not that I would find much offensive) but dialogue feels hammered out with the bluntest of instruments. There exists no nuance, no sly takes, no dexterous use of the concept to lampoon something relevant to the viewer. It seemed to be aiming at loftier goals (and thus a richer source of laughs) when it made the puppet's social state that of second-class citizens but it drops that pretense early on an just kind of let's it linger in the background.

In its place we get a relentless smorgasbord of lewd acts, the word "fuck", and crude jokes. There's nothing inherently wrong with that but this movie suffers from a severe unbalance when it comes to its gags. It seems dead set on trying to push the limits of good taste but all it really achieves is making you remember why this type of humor ages so badly. And, honestly, if you're going to take things far then do it with unrepentant gusto. This movie just kinda tippy-toes around familiar areas when it comes to its tasteless japes. Meanwhile, you see ample opportunities for socially topical humor, self-aware noir genre jests, and ample culture clash wisecracks just flutter on by untouched.

Not all is a loss, however. The puppet work is awesome and Bill Barretta as the lead puppet is downright good at what he does. If you hang on for someone it's him. Actually, the whole affair is relatively watchable and entertaining enough when the film is not trying (key word: trying) to be repulsive or needlessly over the top. Had it not plumbed the depths of the comic toilet so ineptly it would of been a fairly decent watch albeit a forgettable one.

Ultimately, one wonders what this concept could have been in much more capable hands. It put itself in a corner by cutting its comic appeal in half from the get go with its clumsy attempts at crassness and polished itself off by being quite unremarkable. Did I hate myself for watching it? No. Will I ever watch it again? Definitely not.

After a wild night out, clean cut reporter (Elizabeth Banks) is left to trek across the gritty urban landscape by herself if she is to get the job of her dreams. The best way to describe the plot of "Walk Of Shame" is by calling it what it is, "The Hangover" by way of "Falling Down" only without the risque, oddball madness of the former and panoply of intriguing incidents of the latter.

This is not to suggest that a pastiche of other concepts being slapped together could never yield a good product, it's just that "Walk Of Shame" is not an example of such. Is it awful? No, not really. It is a trope heavy to the point of predictability, grossly inoffensive (shocking, given the careless use of stereotyping), and mildly enjoyable, albeit forgettable, affair. In fact, the whole running time I kept on thinking how each and every escapade our main character encountered ended up feeling like a missed opportunity. As aforementioned, it is entertaining enough to not make you give up entirely and I admittedly chuckled a few times despite myself but, really, that's it.

Ultimately, all I came away thinking was how great Banks looked traipsing around in a small, yellow dress and that's a shame for an actress of her prodigious comedic talents. To be fair, she does the best she can with the material and does come off an incredibly likable. The rest of the cast too is noteworthy for milking whatever amusement they can out of the material. One wonders how banal and dull this movie would be had it been populated with lesser personalities.

And that's it. Not much more can be said about this movie. It comes and goes just about as you could possibly guess and not long after you'll forget you watched it. The concept alone should of been fertile ground for more inventive humor but it mostly goes to waste on the familiar. The only shame here is when you occasionally do laugh to a tired old gag.

The third chapter in the "Insidious" series takes an unexpected detour by establishing itself as a prequel to the events of the previous two films. In it we meet Elise (the wonderful LIn Shaye) a reluctant medium after an ominous warning from The Further and her husband's death sends her into a pit of depression and fearful self-doubt. However, the mounting attacks on a young girl by a hostile being from beyond soon force the grand dame to return to the fold (and maybe find some future friends while she's at it).

The production pretty much didn't do itself any favors by taking a creative step backwards with a prequel but a change at the helm furthered the damage. This go-round writer/producer Leigh Whannell directs and his much less fine-tuned approach to this type of material versus that of James Wan shows. While nothing is glaringly awful, Whannell just didn't possess the skill to evoke the atmosphere and visual tension that Wan did. He also returns to the well quite a bit when it comes to constructing an effective scare and some things end up losing their novelty. In short, Wan earned his jump scares with razor tense buildup and expectation while Whannell's attempts sometimes fall flat. That is not to say it's horribly incompetent, it's just a very dramatic step back.

On a similar note, the effects here also take a drastic turn in quality and hobble the scares at times. Very noticeable CGI touchups abound and the lighting sometimes is quite ineffectual in fostering the mood necessary for the ghastly affairs at hand. Really, it's a 50/50 affair for the most part, as some of the effects do stand out as relatively good in comparison to their lesser counterparts.

The most crushing blow to this entry however is the less than stellar protagonists that Elise and company must save from the affliction of the cruel entity. Secondary and tertiary characters feel grossly expendable while the central ones, Quinn Brenner and her father Sean (Stefanie Scott and Dermot Mulroney, respectively), just aren't alluring or easy to empathize with despite a relatable angle having to do with a recently deceased matriarch. Ultimately, their lackluster presence makes the wait for Elise's involvement feel uncharacteristically long. A few choice trims to the excess "character building" would of done much to expedite the events and make the pace feel much less languid. Unlike the magnetic presence of Patrick Wilson and Rose Byrne in the previous entries, these characters just don't have much to offer.

It might seem like I absolutely loathe this movie. In fact, I do not, but I do find it to be the lesser offering in this series. Besides a decently creepy antagonist and the neat, "fan service" connective tissue to the previous entries, this can easily be disregarded. Unlike, its predecessors it doesn't add much to the rules of this horror universe and, worse, feels virtually unimportant given the impact of the other hauntings in the series.

HOWEVER, Lin Shaye's character is like the flame to the viewer's moth and she proves enough to keep us hanging around and wanting to know more about her. Likewise, for the competent and welcome comedic relief and dynamic between Specs and Tucker (Leigh Whannel and Angus Sampson). While it does feel a bit forced that we be shown how they came together and their previous lives, it is still a pretty fun time to be around these them. And, yes, some horror set pieces are decently effective, the antagonist is interesting enough, and the markers of the series are pleasant (Elise, The Further, etc). All this does not a complete experience make, however.

"Insidious Chapter 3" is not a bad movie but it's also not a great movie. It is more of a forgettable entry that might be proper to revisit every now and again if only for the feeling of completist achievement. Not for anyone but the most ardent of Insidious fans.

5/10