Evies Blog

Compare Prices on In the Valley of Elah

• Amazon Sales Rank: #4021 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-12-01
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Running time: 122 minutes

The rest of the story
Much has been made of the fact that this movie is based on a true story, the 2003 murder of Richard Davis, a story chronicled by Mark Boal in an extensive magazine article, “Death and Dishonor,” that appeared in the May 2004 issue of Playboy (an article that can be found online and that is far more thought-provoking than this film). Some reviews go so far as to say that the film hews closely to the story reported by Boal, but the truth is otherwise. (The film opens with the statement that it was “inspired by actual incidents” - a statement that usually heralds significant dramatic license.) Indeed, of adapting his story for the screen, Mr. Boal, who shares writing credits for the story with director Paul Haggis (Mr. Haggis alone is credited with the screenplay), had this to say: “It’s a fictional piece [the film], and so at various junctures Paul [Haggis] and I thought we should change Lanny’s story to make it feel more universal.” The Lanny to which Mr. Boal refers is Lanny Davis, the real-life father of the victim and the model for the character Hank Deerfield, whom Tommy Lee Jones plays. Exactly what was done to make the story “feel more universal”? Be advised that spoilers follow.

Lanny Davis, upon whom Hank Deerfield is based, is, in fact, a 20-year veteran of the Army, 16 of those years with the Military Police. About a month after his son, Richard Davis, was reported AWOL, from his first 2-day pass following his return from six months in Iraq, Mr. Davis traveled to Fort Bragg, where he spent several days trying unsuccessfully to motivate a missing-person investigation into his son’s disappearance by either Army or civilian authorities. Failing in that effort, he returned home. About two weeks later he enlisted the support of his congressman, who had the clout to push the Army to investigate Richard Davis as a missing person. At first, the men in Davis’s platoon stonewalled. Then, as the Army pressed its cross-examinations, a single soldier repeated a rumor that had been circulating: four members of the platoon had killed Davis and left his body in a wooded area, and he identified both the men and the area. The area fell under the jurisdiction of the Columbus (Georgia) Police Department, which promptly investigated and quickly located remains of the victim. The same day that remains were found, the Army arrested the four members of Richard Davis’s platoon identified as responsible and delivered them into civilian custody.

The stories the men told authorities were of an alcohol-fueled night on the town, their first since returning from six months in Iraq, that turned violent. After being evicted from a club, the group was angry with the victim, whose rowdy behavior, it was claimed, was responsible for their eviction, and an argument ensued in the club’s parking lot between the victim and one of the group. Then, so their stories went, the group got into their car and left, but as they drove the argument continued. They stopped at an unfamiliar location, got out of the car, and a fistfight ensued between the victim and the fellow with who he had been arguing. But at some point, one of the men pulled a knife and began stabbing the victim. The others claimed to have tried unsuccessfully to intervene. Afterwards, they dragged the body into a more secluded area, and later they returned with gasoline and set it afire. No one involved with the case believes this version of events - it is far more plausible that three of the group were active participants in the victim’s death - but the confessions were enough to secure two convictions: one for murder and one for voluntary manslaughter. (The fourth person, whose presence in the group that night was deemed incidental, received five years probation.) The convictions satisfied authorities but not Lanny Davis, who believes his son was killed because he had knowledge of a rape committed in Iraq by the perpetrators, and he remains angry that has not been investigated.

Throughout the film, the Army is portrayed as impeding the investigation, of covering up, and of not cooperating with local authorities, which, as the record shows, is not true. Neither is it true that the civilian authorities were eager to avoid investigating the case. Lanny Davis did not play Sherlock Holmes and conduct his own investigation; neither did he beat a suspect (he first saw the accused at trial). The civilian detective played by Charlize Theron is fiction. (You’ll have to ask Mr. Haggis why her fellow detectives and superiors are portrayed as sexist pigs.) There was no cell phone rich with imagery of soldiers acting badly; no suicide. Richard Davis’s only sibling is a sister. (In the film he supposedly had a brother who was killed while a soldier, in a helicopter crash, which plays into an emotional scene in which Susan Sarandon asks Tommy Lee Jones something to the effect of “couldn’t you have left me one?”, suggesting that the father encouraged both his sons to join the military. In fact, Lanny Davis did not encourage his only son to join.)

Furthermore, the film seems to suggest that the killers were fine, upstanding young men so dehumanized by what they saw and experienced as soldiers in Iraq that not only could they viciously kill one of their own, they could be hungry enough afterwards to require stopping for fast food. In fact, the three soldiers convicted of Richard Davis’s death were hardly fine or upstanding, a fact that leads to the more interesting question: what happens when we send misfits into an environment like Iraq. And as for stopping for fast food afterwards, I found nothing in the record to suggest that is anything but dramatic license. (Lanny Davis dismisses the suggestion that post-traumatic stress syndrome played a role in his son’s murder.)

Some aspects of the film may be inspired by actual incidents, but incidents that had nothing to do with the Richard Davis case and which were included, depending on your perspective, either to stack the deck against the policies and institutions whom the director targets, or to make the film “more universal.” For example, a woman tells Charlize Theron’s character that her husband (a veteran of Iraq) drowned their dog in their bathtub, that she’s afraid he will hurt her, and she appeals for the authorities to intervene. The response of Ms. Theron’s character is to suggest the woman have her husband seek help from the VA. Of course, the woman is later found drowned in her bathtub. To avoid possible ambush, did Lanny Davis’s son run over an Iraqi child rather than stop the vehicle he was driving? No. Might these two incidents be based on real events? Yes. Does their inclusion in this story make it more universal? You be the judge.

Tommy Lee Jones’s performance has been justly praised, and he is ably supported by others of the cast. But the problem here is not the performances, it’s the script. The film touches upon important issues but does so dishonestly in its quest to make the story “feel more universal.”

A Masterpiece!
There have been many films about the aftermath of war, but never have I seen such a brutally honest and shocking depiction of the de-humanization of soldiers back from war. This is the underlying premise of the new crime thriller from academy award winning writer/director Paul Haggis (Crash).

Hank Deerfield (played by Tommy Lee Jones) is a retired veteran and military police officer searching for his son who has gone AWOL. A detective Emily Sanders (played by Charlize Theron) becomes interested in the case and starts helping Hank outside of her job. When Hank’s son’s body is found, the search suddenly turns into a search for the murderer.

One of the many aspects I appreciated was that director Haggis did not turn this into a typical Hollywood crime thriller and also not turn it into a political propaganda piece against the war and President Bush. Instead he mixes the two plots together seamless and subtle, letting you decide for your self.

Tommy Lee Jones gives the best performance of his long career as he plays a quiet, emotionless war vet, but still shows tremendous amount of emotion. Just watching his face as he sits in a diner and listens to one of his retired friends tell him about plans to go visit his grandchildren is heartbreaking. We can almost see the internal emotional struggle as he realizes he will never be able to do that. Charlize Theron does a wonderful job as the detective, and despite her small screen time Susan Surandon plays the grieving wife of Jones to perfection.

This film is such a moving masterpiece on so many levels it is simply wonderful to watch. The quiet pacing of the film building up to the climax is captivatingly intense in its own way. I am sure this will be a popular film at the Oscars this year, and if they gave out awards for best scene this would be sure to garner a nomination for a simple, poignant, yet profoundly moving scene when Frank tells the story of David and Goliath (which took place in the Valley of Elah) to the little son of detective Sanders.

A Theron tour de force
First of all, I have no idea why this movie was panned or lauded during its theatrical release as some kind of statement for or against the Iraq war. After having watched it, the political ramifications of that war are, in my opinion, totally irrelevant to this movie as a work of entertainment. There have been atrocities in every war since tribes were clubbing each other with mastodon bones, so let’s just put that aside.

Having been raised in the military as an Army brat — and being a veteran myself — I really love movies oriented toward military subjects, and this movie doesn’t disappoint. In many ways, it’s territory we’ve explored before in movies such as “The Caine Mutiny”, “A Few Good Men”, “Basic”, “The General’s Daughter”, “Rules of Engagement” (another Jones movie), and many others. Why this one was castigated as being anti-war in any special way is totally beyond me.

We have a stellar cast in what is essentially a “Courage Under Fire” genre movie, a Rashomon scenario, wherein Tommy Lee Jones — the father of a murdered vet — tries to uncover the details of his son’s murder with the help of an outcast female police detective played by Charlize Theron.

Jones is always a marvel to watch, and the supporting cast is also top notch: Josh Brolin, Jason Patric, Susan Sarandon, Francis Fisher (in a gutsy role for a middle-aged woman), as well as the lesser lights.

But in my opinion, Charlize Theron stole this show, hands down.

Having won an Oscar for her incredible performance as the serial killer in “Monster” a couple of years back (and keeping in mind her physical transformation for that role), and also bearing in mind her usual public persona as a beautiful woman gracing the red carpet in a slinky gown, it would be easy to dismiss her as a one-hit wonder who got lucky a couple of years ago.

This movie disproves that idea. Though she doesn’t transform herself as grotesquely for this role, it’s actually a much more subtle and sublime transformation, which in my opinion makes her success in the role even more difficult. Where in “Monster” she could hide herself behind the grotesquery of the physical transformation, in this movie she simply makes herself…… plain.

How much harder it is to be a distinctive blade of grass than it is to be a toadstool.

I can’t believe she wasn’t nominated again for this role.

ANYway…. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, especially for that performance, but it also worked very well on all levels.

Electric Cigarettes

Compare Prices on Protector

• Amazon Sales Rank: #5204 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-01-01
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Running time: 84 minutes

Awesome
I’ve noticed a disturbing trend in a number of these reviews: People are saying they didn’t like this movie because of the lame plot. Do these people have any idea how insane this is? Who cares? People are getting spoiled, I guess, by all these expensive, arty, dramatic and well-acted martial arts movies that have been being released as of late, so now they can’t appreciate a fun, old school and ludicrously-plotted stunner like “The Protector”. (Or, more likely, they couldn’t appreciate this kinda thing in the first place.) I haven’t got anything against these fancy martial arts movies, mind you, but “The Protector” is a lot more fun than almost all of them, and letting the tired, thin plot get in the way of the spectacular fighting is just insane.

The plot’s like this: Some gangsters steal Tony Jaa’s elephants, and he’s gotta kill ‘em all ’til he gets his damn elephants back. There’s some subplots, yeah, but what’d I say about the plot not mattering. None of it matters in the least, or should matter, anyway. That said, I will admit that, in the international version, the story takes perhaps a bit too much screentime, particularly at the beginning. Occasionally it seems like the filmmakers forgot that the plot was to be ignored. Still, you never gotta wait around too long for it to get good, and damn does it get good.

I guess the best thing to say is that if you enjoyed “Ong-Bak” I can’t imagine that you wouldn’t like “The Protector” as well. Jaa plays pretty much the same character he did in “Ong-Bak”, being a naive, good-natured rural guy who happens to be a superhuman killing machine. It’s a bit less stunt-intensive, on Jaa’s part, anyway, but he still does plenty of amazing stuff, and the fights are even better then before. The fight in the restaurant is particularly renowned, and not without good reason. It’s a 4 1/2 minute unbroken take as Jaa works his way up the stairs and takes out a few dozen opponents, and it would have to qualify as one of the most stunning action scenes I’ve ever seen. This is hardly the only standout, and we get plenty of other scenes that would put anything in most martial arts movies to shame: We’ve got the ultra-bizarre face off between Jaa and a pack of roller-blade clad goons wielding fluorescent lights; We’ve got him taking on pretty much the whole of the Australo-Thai mafia and breaking at least one limb on each of them; We’ve got him fighting a colossal, apparently invulnerable Australian dude in a burning, flooded temple. And it just goes on. The fights very pretty substantially in quality, but that’s mostly because of how amazing the best ones are.

Anyway, I’ve not got much else to say. Suffice to say, Tony Jaa is far beyond human and it’ll be an absurd crime if he doesn’t become far more popular in the States. Check it out.

Grade: A-

The Protector shows some great skills!
This movie is what it should be; an action movie first and foremost. Considering that, the movie is pretty sweet. The action is totally out of control just as you might expect. I do like the realistic style of Tony Jaa when compared to movies like Kung Fu Hustle that are a little too crazy at times but fantastic all around. This movie certainly stretches the imagination and that’s why we have them. I can state categorically that if you had issues with “Ong-Bak” because of the storyline then you’re going to have exactly the same problems here (and, it has to be said, with just about every modern action movie). But if you were thrilled in any way by Jaa’s auspicious career-launcher, then the chances are you’re going to find plenty to get excited about in “The Protector.”

There were three times during “The Protector” when my jaw hit the floor. The most visually splendiferous is a fight in a burning church that plays almost like a demo mode on a high definition version of Tekken, as Jaa goes up against Eddie Gordo, an armour-free Yoshimitsu and a hulking Craig Marduk (”I’ll break your face!”), but all of this is for real and, as ever, effects and wire-work free.

But the real show-stopper, the sequence that every fan of martial arts cinema should see the film for, has Jaa visit a large, three-storey, criminal-run club/restaurant and fight a total of 30 opponents (I counted ‘em), smashing them into windows, throwing them through wooden screens, assaulting them with furniture, and even picking them up and hurling them off the balcony into a display two story’s below, and it’s all done in one, 3 minute 46 second stedicam shot. The planning, timing and stamina required to pull this off are just mind-bending, but pull it off they do - it’s a stunning marriage of fight choreography, stunt work and camera direction that actually has a dramatic pay-off when Kham discovers just what is located on the top floor, as darkly and inventively twisted an idea as you’ll find in a film all year, and all the more disturbing because it very probably exists.

So yes, the story is flimsy, but “The Protector” delivers where it counts and is an absolute must-see for all genre fans. Jaa confirms his status as the most exciting screen fighter around today, and if he could just drop the MTV visuals and editing and get himself a decent script, then director Petchtai Wongkamlao could yet climb to the very top of the action tree.

Pure Entertainment at it’s best
This movie blew me away. I won’t try and say it should be up for best movie or anything, but if you are looking for a great way to kill an hour and a half, look no further. I’m a huge fan of movies in general, of all genres, but kung fu happens to be one of my favorites.

I’ve always preferred 70’s kung fu movies over modern ones for there lack of Hollywood touch. This has that feel of a 70’s kung fu movie, with the picture and sound quality of today’s movies. No Keanu Reeves dodging bullets and floating through the air, no Chow Yun Fat fighting on tree limbs that should not carry his weight! Just straight realistic fighting. Sure some parts seem over the top, but it fits the movie perfect.

Almost all of this movie is action (I watched the American version, havn’t watch the original Thai version (Tom Yum Goong)that I’ve heard is 30 minutes or so longer. I imagine the extra footage adds a lot to the plot of this flick. But this one feels like there is no more then 10 minutes of non-fighting scenes.

If you liked Ong Bak, or if you are a fan of the greats like Sonny Chiba or Bruce Lee, then you must see this. You will be impressed. I couldn’t take my eyes off the screen. I saw an earlier review mentioning rewinding a bunch of scenes, and how true that comment is. I can’t tell you how many times I had to watch certain kicks or moves over to try and grasp what I just saw.

Bottom line - if you like action movies and can settle for average acting, plots and storie lines - SEE THIS MOVIE

Electric Cigaretts

Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #4115 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-12-18
• Rating: PG-13 (Parental Guidance Suggested)
• Running time: 116 minutes

Customer Reviews:

The Films that restarted William Shatner’s Career
Sandra Bullock’s Grace Hart is one of the best character’s she ever created. This semi tough FBI agent with a heart of gold is very well expressed in these both Miss Congeniality films.

William Shatner is rediscovered and restarted in these films as the had been (Bert Parks like) MC . He acts the straight man for the humor around him and it works.

In the first film, Hart is sent in to the Miss USA beauty contest to protect the other gitl’s and save the day. Benjamin Bratt plays her FBI partner. Micheal Caine is the groomer who makes her from FBI agent to Beauty Queen> Candice Bergan is the show organizer. (Boston Legal fans note, this film was FIRST!)

The second film, Grace who has become an FBI press darling, because everyone knows her from the USA contest and she can not go undercover. She has written a book and goes on press tours showcasing the NEW FBI. She is saddled with a partner who does not like her and comedy tensions ensue. Miss USA and the show’s MC is kidnapped and Grace is on the case

Dont expect these films to be like the POLICE ACADEMY films, but dont expect to be great Oscar film making either…its good set of films to enjoy for just the laughes

Bennet Pomerantz AUDIOWORLD

miss congeniality
my daughter loves these movies. we could not find them anywhere, it was great to find them here. they came in good condition and fast.

2 for 1 is wirth the money
I liked the first movie a lot and wanted to see the second one. We didn’t have a copy ay home so this was an easy choice. Everyone in the family likes both and it will see a lot of play.

Electronic Cigarette

Blind Spot Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #9699 in TV Series Episode Video on Demand
• Released on: 2009-06-21
• Running time: 44 minutes

Customer Reviews:

Smokeless Cigarettes

Ong-Bak: The Thai Warrior English dubbed Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #8301 in Movie
• Released on: 2008-05-01
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Running time: 106 minutes

Customer Reviews:

No Stunts, No Wires, No CGIs, Just Actions; Just Amazing
You like Jackie Chan films? Or remember Bruce Lee? If so, don’t miss this one from Thailand, where the film industry is thriving more than ever. And remember the name of Tony Jaa, stunt-turned-actor (incidentally, he was a stunt in the second ‘Mortal Kombat’ film, and his then co-worker was Ray Park, ‘X-Men’) Jaa’s martial arts skills based on Muay Thai (Thai-style fighting) are simply astonishing.

[NO STUNTS, NO CGIs] Strangely titled film ‘Ong-bak: Thai Warrior’ is, as the title says, an exciting Thai actioner starring Tony Jaa (real name Panom Yeerum), who plays the hero Ting living in an apparently sleepy country in Thailand. Not exactly, you soon see. In this interesting opening scene, you see these scantily dressed guys climing up one big tree, and during the fighting, they fall one by one onto the ground. This is actually a kind of festival, or ritual, of the hero’s village, but what you should realize is, the film uses NO CGIs, NO WIRES ATTACHED.

[FORGET THE STORY] Story? Need one? OK, Tony Jaa’s hero has to track down the theives who cut off and stole the head of the sacred statue in his village. With this mission, he goes to town, where he meets one middle-aged man George, and his friend (perhaps girlfriend) Muay. Before you know it, they all got in troubles for the thugs start attack them.

[ACTIONS] Then, actions begin, which are simply eye-poping. One example: in the cat-and-mouse chase scene in the market, running away from the bad guys, Tony Jarr jumps over the tables, stalls, and cars (!) with Jackie’s comic timing. And look how he slides into UNDER an RV! To add to them, he leaps through a ring of barbed wires (real ones, I suppose), and comes out unharmed, never stopping a moment!

Himself a Muay Thai fighter, Tony Jaa (or his character) joins in several illegal boxing bouts. You might say you have seen this kind of bloody, bone-crunching fight sequences in the past. Not Tony Jaa’s high-kicking that strikes the opponent at the speed of lightening. This sounds like cliche, I know, but it is true, his agile movement reminds me of the deadly power of Bruce Lee and the ultra-fast speed of Jet Li.

And that’s not the end, for Jaa does many, many other actions, which I refuse to write about here, for you should see them for yourself in theatres. Again, I say, Tony Jaa uses no stunts, no special effects or no strings. Of course, he will not win the Oscar for acting the hero of this film, but when he can fight like Lee, Chan, and Li, who cares?

My advice: ‘Ong-bak’ is a must for any fans who love action films. Watch it, and be surprised.

Blunt-force Trauma as High Art
I saw this movie recently at the Acadamy Theater in Pasadena, California. I was feeling a little under the weather. There were about 20 other somber people in the theater, including my five year-old daughter who I brought with me despite my concerns about the R rating.

Suffice it to say that about thirty minutes into the movie the entire audience was visibly activated and energized by this stone-cold classic-for-eternity. My health had suddenly returned, I was pumped up on massive doses of epinephrine. Folks, this movie succeeeds on every level. I’m not a huge martial arts expert like many of the reviewers, but I was a kid in the late 60’s when Bruce Lee (and Jimi Hendrix) ruled the world, and rightly so. This is the only fighting movie which I’ve seen since which even comes close to one of the better Bruce Lee movies. I will even contend, with some reservation, that it surpasses the Bruce Lee classics: there is humour, dramatic and sophisticated tuk-tuk chase scenes, foot-chase scenes, splendidly convincing archeological sights, and obviously, absolutely SAVAGE multiple fight scenes where good defeats evil with satisfying Dirty Harry righteousness. The fight scenes in this movie are certified artistic masterpieces and deserve their own special place at the Smithsonian. And, even the soundtrack is good, with a pulsating techno-style music that really builds the tension. This movie delivers the goods.

Having been to Thailand several times and loving that country, I was very happy that this movie pays such a fitting tribute to their culture, the Thai kickboxing sport as well as the gentle and happy demeanor of the Thai people.

I should mention that by the end of the movie I had nothing but pleasure in having had my daughter watch the movie and share this unique experience. Goodness prevails over evil. Bad guys die a deserved death. Disciplined boy saves his village through courage, honor, persistence and skill. Wayward soul (Ting’s cousin who has gambling debts and other character…flaws) is reminded of his roots through observing the integrity of his friend, and he finds spiritual redemption through his efforts at becoming a good guy once again.Boy returns to village having honored his family and completed the mission…I’m afraid Sesame Street could not teach a better lesson about life and its struggles.

This movie will almost certainly become more famous as time goes on and people outside of the martial arts community learn about it. I left the theater stunned and enthralled. Just awesome.

Sizzling Martial Arts Action and Compelling Drama
From a small Thai village the statue of the revered deity Ong Bak is vandalized … his head is stolen. The film shows how the eight moves of Muay Thai are executed by Ting, the best maritial arts fighter in the village who is sent to the city to find and return this sacred object. The local priest admonishes Ting to use only peaceful means because the moves can be deadly. Ting is given money and valuables by the villagers who aresimple and poor but faithful he will succeed … He is advised to seek the help of a cousin, who lives in the city. Ting finds his cousin who is less than enthusiastic to receive a visitor from his village. The cousin is ashamed of his village roots, he has taken on an American name and has a girlfriend whom he likes to impress that he is “cool” … unfortunately, he also has a gambling habit that has gotten him into deep debt with the underworld bosses.

After the cousin stole Ting’s money and gambled it away, Ting ends up fighting goons sent by the local gangster to put fear into his cousin, essentially pay up or risk permanent injury. Ting’s fighting prowess impresses his cousin who gets the idea to have him fight at a local arena against the best fighters where betting takes place. The cousin is certain he will recoup his losses …Ting agrees on the condition afterwards his cousin will help find Ong Bak. While the story line is basic, the fighting scenes captivate and capture the viewer’s attention and hold it throughout the film.

The scenes where Tony Jaa jumps over several produce carts during a chase in the city while knives are thrown at him is astonishing. Another phenomenal scene involves a huge number of three wheeled taxis which are driven by Ting’s would-be captors as he fights them off while he is riding in a moving taxi. When they come to the end of the freeway there is an unexpected drop off … like the edge of a cliff, the freeway is under constructed and incomplete. There is an explosive ending related to the capture of the gangster boss and the *surprise* location of an unprecedented number of Buddha heads which were stolen. This DVD has great extra features, such as a live performance of martial arts by Tony Jaa on stage in Paris during the opening of his film. It also has a rap music video which incorporates phenomenal martial arts performed by Tony Jaa. Some behind the scenes footage features the creation of specific stunts within the film. Erika Borsos [pepper flower]

Quitting Smoking Cigarette

Vacancy 2: The First Cut Description:

• Amazon Sales Rank: #13853 in Movie
• Released on: 2009-06-04
• Rating: R (Restricted)
• Running time: 87 minutes

Customer Reviews:

Falls Short Of The Original, But Still Good In Its Own Right
Vacancy 2: The First Cut follows very close to the original, with the main exception being that it’s a prequel where we can see the beginnings of the whole motel-as-deathtrap theme. In place of Kate Beckinsale and Luke Wilson we have a trio - engaged couple Agnes Bruckner and Trevor Wright, and their friend Arjay Smith - that checks into the secluded motel where the psychotic staff runs their own real-life snuff video outfit, utilizing hidden cameras to film the terrorizing and killing of the hotel’s occupants.

In the first Vacancy, the premise was deadly effective and seemed believable; here, it comes off contrived. Part of the problem is that it’s a prequel and showing how it all came about just felt forced. Prequels often have a hard time because they often over-explain what didn’t need to be explained; in horror prequels it often tries to tear away the shroud of mystery that’s remained even after the villain or phenomenon had their origins partially revealed in the original. In Exorcist - The Beginning (Widescreen Edition), it worked because when they went into the backstory that had been hinted at in the original, they retained the element of the unknown by hinting at a much broader backstory way further in the past. In Ginger Snaps Back - The Beginning, it added in a much more otherworldy air of eeriness than its predecessors had. In Vacancy 2, we learn that the motel was originally a set up whereby sleazy employees secretly filmed the sexual encounters of tenants and sold the tapes on the black market; as their profit margin begins to fall they accidentally film a murder in one of the rooms, and subsequently they work out an arrangement with the killer that he keep on this track and they film their murders, switching the nature of their black market product to what they hope will be a more lucrative field. This whole angle, in contrast to the first movie, felt contrived and almost campy to me. From then on (this set-up part all gets handled in the first 15 minutes or so) the movie rapidly gets better. It never manages to match the scares and razor-taut tension of the original, but it’s pretty good in its own right. The ending, however, didn’t feel like it completely synced with what we know comes after it.

Alright, there’s the negatives. Here’s the positives: judged on its own merits, this is actually a fine horror thriller. While I said it didn’t match the scares and tension of the first, that was an awfully high bar, and Vacancy 2 manages some suspense and fright of its own. It’s more violent this time (most of the really vicious carnage in the first one was seen in relatively short glimpses - it was a masterpiece when it came to using measured doses of gore and brutality to suggest much more and really ratchet up the fear of what was coming around the next corner), although how much it helps the movie is up for debate. The individual scenes do raise the fright factor a bit, but it doesn’t sustain its tension long enough, and after well-done examples of very brutal torture horror like Turistas (Unrated Edition) and most of the Saw series, it didn’t have as much shock impact as it might have. Scenes like the victims’s desperate flight into the woods, trying to hide in the dark from pursuers who know the forest much better than they do, proved more effective though. The acting in the film was well-done all-around, with frequent horror heroine Agnes Bruckner standing out as usual. The special effects were good and so was the camerawork.

Vacancy 2 had the same writer and the same producers as the original (different director, though), but I feel they may have had more success if they’d skipped the prequel aspect and had it as, say, a copycat situation in a different motel somewhere. Or just done a different horror movie with the theme of an isolated motel, but not attached directly to Vacancy. I’m a big fan of sequels and series - often the more chapters the better - but Vacancy was one horror movie that I’m not sure was really the right pick for a follow-up. It wrapped up pretty definatively, and its lack of a clearly spelled-out origin of its central premise didn’t really need to be filled in.

I’m making this movie sound worse than it was. Judged by itself, it’s a good horror movie that’s definately worth watching, if not necessarily buying. Well made and never boring; I just personally felt it didn’t live up to the first one.

The first cut
Vacancy’s prequel is just your average Horror-thriller actually. In my opinion, it’s not as good and suspenseful as the first one. I had higher expectations for this one, so it fell a little short for me. What I did like is that it adhered right to it’s endeavor of making more sense of the original’s premise, like a prequel should (not always the case with prequels and sequels). There’s not much character development however, so you don’t care much about them (just a lot of arguing); but there is decent acting, effects, and cinematography here. Overall I thought it was ok.

Vacancy 2: The first cut
I really enjoyed the first one better. This was a good stand alone movie. Revealed background of operation well. I just liked the first better.

Smokeless Cigarettes