Alright, so, as explained in my last post, my theater was not offering My Bloody Valentine 3-D in 3-D; now, if you read that statement, it kind of sounds hypocritical, right? Right. The theater's website had said that My Bloody Valentine was, in fact, in 3-D, and I trusted it. As I got there, I ordered the tickets, waiting to receive my 3-D glasses; when the girl behind the glass only handed me two tickets, I smiled and said to myself, "Well, it might be too hard to handle the glasses up front - I bet they give them to you in the theater."
I gave my tickets to the ticket-ripper guy - which is kind of pointless as it is two feet from the ticket stand - and made my way through the popcorn-littered hallway. The theater for MBV was all the way in the back of the building, in the smallest theater that they had. I had to contend with a grumpy old man with a walker who was looking for theater 2 snarl at me, but finally reached the film. This was only to find that there were no glasses in the theater, either. I sat down, totally pissed, and I heard everyone else filing in saying that they thought the movie was supposed to be in 3-D as well. I went out and asked the dude taking tickets and he assured me the movie WAS NOT in 3-D, even though THAT IS THE NAME OF THE MOVIE. Oh, and the movie theater has a glamorous rule about no refunds. Yay for me, I was stuck watching a 3-D movie in 2-D like every other film.
It just so happens that I missed this little tidbit from the MBV website -
Well now... marketing a 3-D movie in 2-D? That sounds less than fair. I understand that not all theaters can afford to have the film in 3-D, but the theater should have the responsibility of telling the public that they will not be offering it in this format.
---
Okay. Explanation done, and on to the movie review.
My Bloody Valentine 3D is, as most know, a remake of the 1981 slasher flick of the same name. Of course, as the name suggests, the setting for the film is supposed to take place around Valentine's Day, but as we'll see later, the film in question has little to do with the holiday itself. In this re-imagining, a crazed miner, Henry Warden (Rich Walters), goes on a killing spree when a bunch of teens gather together at the mine where he worked. Those in attendence include Tom Hanniger (Jensen Ackles) and his girlfriend at the time, Sarah (Jaime King), and Axel Palmer (Kerr Smith) and his girl, Irene (Betsy Rue). These protagonists make it out alive, although leaving Tom for the killer's wrath. The police intervene just in time, stopping Harry from busting Tom's head in with a pickaxe, and then we're relocated ten years later in the same town. It's the anniversary of the vicious murders, and Tom is back in town to sell the mine that he owns. Instead of ending the memory of the murders, though, Tom seems to bring them back, as another killer is running amok and imitating Harry Warden. Axel is out to stop whoever is doing it, systematically running a generic search for the killer, all the while cheating on his wife. People are killed, and towards the end of the film, Axel's wife, Sarah (who used to be Tom's girlfriend), has to choose between who the real killer is - Axel or Tom.
What choice does she make? Better yet - who cares?
Jensen Ackles looks just as confused as I was.
First, let's get right down to business, shall we? Before we even meet our protagonists, they are already under attack by psycho killer Harry Warden. The movie gives us no basis as to why Harry Warden has gone on his teen-murdering rampage and barely even clearing up why he's in the movie to begin with. Harry kills his victims as generically as possible, and the only thing that is a surprise to the audience is the fact that people are already dying. There is no lead-up, hardly an introduction to the protagonists who we're supposed to be "rooting" for, and everyone that dies is a stock character that was placed in the film for just that killing stroke. At this point (and that's like ten minutes into the movie), the violence felt much like exploitative shock value and not anything meaningful to the plot.
As we begin to meet the characters ten years later, it's hard to recognize that these are actually the same people as the opening sequence. I was under the impression that Axel was just some small-town cop. This is partially the fault of the harried introductions, and Axel's goofy moustache is also partly to blame. Tom is from the beginning the most likable character of the group, but this may only be because we are with him the most. The rest of the characters seem either stupid, or, in the case of Axel, gigantic douchebags, and the only character that really matters is Tom, anyway.
"Little Jimmy did an EXTRA good job on his haunted house this year!"
So it goes on in this way from 15 minutes in until around the hour and thirty minute mark, where people die that we barely know in humorous ways that are supposed to be seen as grotesque. There are very vague reference's to the actual holiday of Valentine's Day, but in all honesty, these murders could have happened on any day of the year. It's true that Axel's affair does play into the story somewhat, but only as a way to get the viewer and Sarah to distrust Axel at the very end.
The killing is monotonous, stroke after stroke from the killer's pickaxe driving me more and more into a drooling fatigue. The chase scenes are not tense, practically asking for someone in the theater to yell at the screen, "You moron!" Most scenes feel ripped out of other slasher films, especially a shovel beheading that had serious tones of Wrong Turn, only it looked like it had been done by a high school tech crew. If it weren't for some of the (totally unnecessary) full-frontal nudity, sex, and over-the-top bloodshed, this could have easily been a sister to the equally-horrible Prom Night remake from 2008. Instead, the producers thought to give this film an R-rating to try and rope in some more suckers who thought the film would be more fun than it actually is.
"Is that you Red Ranger? You know we're supposed to be in the Megazord!"
Ahem, couldn't help giving a Power Rangers reference.
Throughout, I kept asking myself, "How old are these people?" The characters seem like they're still teenagers, even if they are married, and they definitely still act like it. And most of the people in the movie are stupid beyond belief. They can and will fall for anything, given the right circumstances, and paint their own demise all over the wall. There's no subtlety here; it's generic scriptwriting and execution from square one.
The story has no definite tone - when it's trying to be serious, it's hilarious, and when it's trying to be comical satire, it fails because of the blatant copyright infringement the screenwriters have to be dealing with in court. If MBV had just gone the straight satire route, pointing out all of the humorous slasher cliches, it would have fared better, but the plot tries to move the viewer emotionally, and all it got from me was a fart and a "Pah!"
Hmm, that's weird. I don't recall her wearing underwear in this scene...
But the trailer thinks so.
Even then, I could accept the fact that this was just another slasher with a tedious, albeit coherent, script. And then I got to the ending, where everything was "wrapped" up. Just so you know, SPOILER ALERT. If you care.
Tom is schizophrenic, okay, got that. You made it all too clear in the beginning of the film when Tom and the killer eyed each other for a minute straight and then stood up at the same time. Makes sense. But then, when the killer goes and kills a miner deep down in the mine, and comes and locks Tom in a cage, where the lock is bent from the outside, I'm just wondering WHERE TOM'S PICKAXE WENT. Or the fact that TOM HAD TO HIDE HIS COSTUME. So where was all that stuff if the cops checked out the are? Scenes like this just don't add up. It doesn't make sense. END SPOILER.
Where have I seen this scene before? Oh yeah, that's right...
EVERY SLASHER MOVIE EVER.
There's another instance where Tom asks a cop, "Why were you in the mine?" All fine and good, except I don't remember seeing this happen when we were with Tom in the mine, and so a lot of the scenes feel like there's just something missing. It's almost as if we're missing puzzle pieces, that the movie got too long and some scenes needed to be deleted.
The tension is thrown way off as well. The killer is not menacing, almost funny actually, and at the end when there is supposed to be an "intense" chase/face-off sequence, the only thing I was anxious about was the fact that my gum had lost all of its flavor. I can relate this to the film as well, because by about the half hour mark, it too had lost its flavor.
Little Harry found out the hard way that
a pickaxe boomerang is not a good idea.
In the end, it didn't really matter who the killer was, and the classic "shoot-him-not-me" sequence fell flat on its face. The movie offered enough evidence for both Tom and Axel to be the killer, and my bets were on Tom just because the audience would like him more. Either way, I couldn't have cared less; I was just hoping that she'd shoot one of them and get it over again.
Would this film have been more fun in 3-D? Yes, definitely. I could see the instances where there would have been a 3-D moment, and while there weren't really that many (most of them being flashlights glaring out of the screen), it would have made the film a tad more interesting. Could it have saved the film from its uninspired script, stale and stupid characters, or the monotonous killing spree? Absolutely not. Nothing could have saved that film, and I can now see why it was stuck in the back of the theater, and why they didn't want to spend money on getting it in 3-D. I think everyone walked out thinking how ridiculous the film was and what a waste of money it was to see it. Now I know why the tagline was so bad. No one wants this valentine...
My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) on Rotten Tomatoes
My Bloody Valentine 3D is, as most know, a remake of the 1981 slasher flick of the same name. Of course, as the name suggests, the setting for the film is supposed to take place around Valentine's Day, but as we'll see later, the film in question has little to do with the holiday itself. In this re-imagining, a crazed miner, Henry Warden (Rich Walters), goes on a killing spree when a bunch of teens gather together at the mine where he worked. Those in attendence include Tom Hanniger (Jensen Ackles) and his girlfriend at the time, Sarah (Jaime King), and Axel Palmer (Kerr Smith) and his girl, Irene (Betsy Rue). These protagonists make it out alive, although leaving Tom for the killer's wrath. The police intervene just in time, stopping Harry from busting Tom's head in with a pickaxe, and then we're relocated ten years later in the same town. It's the anniversary of the vicious murders, and Tom is back in town to sell the mine that he owns. Instead of ending the memory of the murders, though, Tom seems to bring them back, as another killer is running amok and imitating Harry Warden. Axel is out to stop whoever is doing it, systematically running a generic search for the killer, all the while cheating on his wife. People are killed, and towards the end of the film, Axel's wife, Sarah (who used to be Tom's girlfriend), has to choose between who the real killer is - Axel or Tom.
What choice does she make? Better yet - who cares?
Jensen Ackles looks just as confused as I was.First, let's get right down to business, shall we? Before we even meet our protagonists, they are already under attack by psycho killer Harry Warden. The movie gives us no basis as to why Harry Warden has gone on his teen-murdering rampage and barely even clearing up why he's in the movie to begin with. Harry kills his victims as generically as possible, and the only thing that is a surprise to the audience is the fact that people are already dying. There is no lead-up, hardly an introduction to the protagonists who we're supposed to be "rooting" for, and everyone that dies is a stock character that was placed in the film for just that killing stroke. At this point (and that's like ten minutes into the movie), the violence felt much like exploitative shock value and not anything meaningful to the plot.
As we begin to meet the characters ten years later, it's hard to recognize that these are actually the same people as the opening sequence. I was under the impression that Axel was just some small-town cop. This is partially the fault of the harried introductions, and Axel's goofy moustache is also partly to blame. Tom is from the beginning the most likable character of the group, but this may only be because we are with him the most. The rest of the characters seem either stupid, or, in the case of Axel, gigantic douchebags, and the only character that really matters is Tom, anyway.
"Little Jimmy did an EXTRA good job on his haunted house this year!"So it goes on in this way from 15 minutes in until around the hour and thirty minute mark, where people die that we barely know in humorous ways that are supposed to be seen as grotesque. There are very vague reference's to the actual holiday of Valentine's Day, but in all honesty, these murders could have happened on any day of the year. It's true that Axel's affair does play into the story somewhat, but only as a way to get the viewer and Sarah to distrust Axel at the very end.
The killing is monotonous, stroke after stroke from the killer's pickaxe driving me more and more into a drooling fatigue. The chase scenes are not tense, practically asking for someone in the theater to yell at the screen, "You moron!" Most scenes feel ripped out of other slasher films, especially a shovel beheading that had serious tones of Wrong Turn, only it looked like it had been done by a high school tech crew. If it weren't for some of the (totally unnecessary) full-frontal nudity, sex, and over-the-top bloodshed, this could have easily been a sister to the equally-horrible Prom Night remake from 2008. Instead, the producers thought to give this film an R-rating to try and rope in some more suckers who thought the film would be more fun than it actually is.
"Is that you Red Ranger? You know we're supposed to be in the Megazord!"Ahem, couldn't help giving a Power Rangers reference.
Throughout, I kept asking myself, "How old are these people?" The characters seem like they're still teenagers, even if they are married, and they definitely still act like it. And most of the people in the movie are stupid beyond belief. They can and will fall for anything, given the right circumstances, and paint their own demise all over the wall. There's no subtlety here; it's generic scriptwriting and execution from square one.
The story has no definite tone - when it's trying to be serious, it's hilarious, and when it's trying to be comical satire, it fails because of the blatant copyright infringement the screenwriters have to be dealing with in court. If MBV had just gone the straight satire route, pointing out all of the humorous slasher cliches, it would have fared better, but the plot tries to move the viewer emotionally, and all it got from me was a fart and a "Pah!"
Hmm, that's weird. I don't recall her wearing underwear in this scene...But the trailer thinks so.
Even then, I could accept the fact that this was just another slasher with a tedious, albeit coherent, script. And then I got to the ending, where everything was "wrapped" up. Just so you know, SPOILER ALERT. If you care.
Tom is schizophrenic, okay, got that. You made it all too clear in the beginning of the film when Tom and the killer eyed each other for a minute straight and then stood up at the same time. Makes sense. But then, when the killer goes and kills a miner deep down in the mine, and comes and locks Tom in a cage, where the lock is bent from the outside, I'm just wondering WHERE TOM'S PICKAXE WENT. Or the fact that TOM HAD TO HIDE HIS COSTUME. So where was all that stuff if the cops checked out the are? Scenes like this just don't add up. It doesn't make sense. END SPOILER.
Where have I seen this scene before? Oh yeah, that's right...EVERY SLASHER MOVIE EVER.
There's another instance where Tom asks a cop, "Why were you in the mine?" All fine and good, except I don't remember seeing this happen when we were with Tom in the mine, and so a lot of the scenes feel like there's just something missing. It's almost as if we're missing puzzle pieces, that the movie got too long and some scenes needed to be deleted.
The tension is thrown way off as well. The killer is not menacing, almost funny actually, and at the end when there is supposed to be an "intense" chase/face-off sequence, the only thing I was anxious about was the fact that my gum had lost all of its flavor. I can relate this to the film as well, because by about the half hour mark, it too had lost its flavor.
Little Harry found out the hard way thata pickaxe boomerang is not a good idea.
In the end, it didn't really matter who the killer was, and the classic "shoot-him-not-me" sequence fell flat on its face. The movie offered enough evidence for both Tom and Axel to be the killer, and my bets were on Tom just because the audience would like him more. Either way, I couldn't have cared less; I was just hoping that she'd shoot one of them and get it over again.
Would this film have been more fun in 3-D? Yes, definitely. I could see the instances where there would have been a 3-D moment, and while there weren't really that many (most of them being flashlights glaring out of the screen), it would have made the film a tad more interesting. Could it have saved the film from its uninspired script, stale and stupid characters, or the monotonous killing spree? Absolutely not. Nothing could have saved that film, and I can now see why it was stuck in the back of the theater, and why they didn't want to spend money on getting it in 3-D. I think everyone walked out thinking how ridiculous the film was and what a waste of money it was to see it. Now I know why the tagline was so bad. No one wants this valentine...
My Bloody Valentine 3D (2009) on Rotten Tomatoes
17 COMMENTS:
What a bad experience you had Ryne - sorry to hear that - you are 100% right that the theatre should have stated the film was only being shown in 2-D
[I saw it in 3-D, and while the 3-D was cool, it still didn't save the film]
I even warned people in my review, not to see it in the theatre, unless they were going to see it in 3-D [only for the experience]
Rattling elaborate movie refresh here you hit my appreciation. In a movie, recollect in music practice is not really emphasized. I was hoping to see more review on music in every examination i interpret.
While it's crap that you got bait-n-switched on the 3-D, I have to agree with bonebreaker that you would have been only slightly less bored.
You and I were just born too late to give a crap about a pointless rehash of a slasher flick that was an also ran more than 20 years ago.
Glad to see I wasn't the only who thought this half-witted movie was a waste of space.
Rotten Tomatoes has it at a 57% or something!
i suppose i'll have to be the voice of dissent, b/c i loved mbv3d. i think a lot of that had to do with being in a packed theater and actually seeing it in 3d -- two vital aspects of the experience your outing seemed to be lacking. i'm sorry you missed the amusement park ride-esque experience it was intended to be -- it's like you showed up at the theme park to ride the world's biggest and scariest roller coaster, and all they had open was the scoobie doo trolley ride.
Corey, I'm glad you disagree.
Do you feel like, had the movie been only 2D and without the environmental stimulus of your theater, the film would have been as good? Or would it have just been another uninspired remake?
it's hard to say since i only have the one experience to base my opinion on, but i think if i'd watched it alone in 2d, i wouldn't have liked it as much -- but i still would have liked it. the plot was entertaining, the kills were suspenseful and over-the-top, and the humor was dark and funny.
sure, the details of the story didn't make a lot of sense and a lot of what happened is implausible (if not impossible) -- but that was probably intentional as the film's main goal was to be fun... if doing that leaves giant plot holes, so be it.
i'll admit, apart from the 3d, the film didn't have anything particularly original... but my feeling has always been -- feel free to rip off halloween and friday the 13 all you want, as long as you do it well and keep me entertained.
every slasher film may have that scene where the cheerleader (or whoever) goes and checks out that noise she heard in the dark basement (or where ever), and i may scream at the screen, "no, don't go down there! what are you, stupid?!?"... but that scene gets me on the edge of my seat every single time... and as long as the cliches of the genre keep working on me, i'll keep loving films like this one.
You have to see it in 3D if you have the option. The kill scenes are all made for 3D, and there's a lot of them.
Corey -
It's interesting that you like that in a slasher, because I am the exact opposite. I like it to actually excel in the genre. That explains our difference in opinion on the film I guess.
Mike -
If the DVD release is in 3D, I'll catch it then, but I would not pay another $7.50 to go see this film in theaters.
oh, i'm all for excellence and innovation in the genre... i'm just still happy when filmmakers make anything even closely resembling the films i loved in my youth, whether they bring something new to the table or not. it's certainly preferable to something like the sanitized and non-subversive remakes like prom night.
i believe the dvd will have 3d -- but it will be the blue/red kind, which really sucks. if you've never seen a 3d movie using Real3D (the clear glasses), i highly recommend you go see a matinee of mbv3d again. i'm not saying you'll love it, but chances to see horror films in 3d only come around every 25 years or so... and this film's use of 3d (as well as the technology) is far better than anything anyone has done before. that really may play a large part in while i liked it so...
Though this film is not "good," I still had a fun time.
But I believe I had the right recipe for enjoyment:
1) I grew up in the 80s and indulged in all the slasher movies (albeit on VHS rentals).
2) I saw it on opening night with a bunch of horror-movie-lovin' friends in a large packed theater.
3) I saw it in 3D.
As I wrote on my site, this is the type of event movie you need to see with an audience on the big, packed opening weekend.
I know... I KNOW that when I revisit this on DVD I'm going to think "Whoah... um... this... this was not good."
The plot made no sense.
The acting was terrible (I love me some Atkins, but man was he beyond hammy.)
But:
The kill scenes were inventive.
The movie moved along at a good pace (probably benefited by the fact that Patrick Lussier has edited a bunch of other horror films).
The winks to the horror genre weren't too over the top. ("Jason... is that you?" got a knowing laugh from our audience.)
For an hour and a half I regressed to 13 years old and enjoyed this "homage" or "throwback" to the pointless slashers of yesteryear.
I think, had you seen it in a similar recipe to my experience, you may have enjoyed it more.
AllHallowSteve
halloweenaddict.com
^^^
i shouldn't have said anything... steve just said it much better. :)
you're right, there were so many points in the movie where I wondered how the plot didn't cover it's ass and make sure we were all clear on the details. The swerve ending was too unbelieveable, they should've had a little more backstory. Sorry you missed the 3-D...I called a bunch of theaters to find out if they offered 3-D and not many of them did. I wound up seeing it on vacation in Vegas at the Palms. The major reason for seeing this is the 3-D effect which was pretty cool...but I've seen better 3-D effects. Overall, I wasn't expecting much going in so I wasn't too dissappointed.
Hmm, seems like there are a lot of different opinions on this film. I like it!
Well I can promise you that you did NOT miss much by not seeing it in 3d. Being as I did, I wish I has chosen to see it in 2d as my nose still hurts from those blasted glasses and I have no depth perception to mention so I got no benefit of the feature at all. That being said, this was typical 80's slasher remake (I just reviewed it myself even tho I saw it opening day.) Definitely a little too cookie-cutter by todays standards. Oh well, as least there was lots of blood and nudity, right?
Exactly, Petra. Glad to see that you felt the 3D wasn't that cool as well, makes me feel a little less angry.
Glad to see you back in the blog-o-sphere too!
My bloody valentine really freaks me out is the kind of movie that you can't watch alone.
Post a Comment