'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2': Nerd Perspectives

When I walked out of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1, I was flabbergasted. I mean, it was actually...good. As just a movie-watcher, I was pleased with it, but for the first time in a long time I actually thought they managed to make a Harry Potter film that was both decent and faithful to the book. And I guess I should put an obvious disclaimer right here that I am, first and foremost, a fan of the books. Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone came out when I was seven years old, and since then I've been on board for the whole thing. I was there at midnight on July 21st, 2007 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get a copy of the last book, and I was there at midnight on July 15th, 2011 with my fake plastic Potter glasses ready to get my mind blown by Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2. And...well.

Eh.

Part of me feels like I should write two separate reviews, because this film will be two separate experiences for two different groups of people. So, for fans of the films or just Random Movie-Watcher no. 393020188-- this is going to be brief. Basically, it's a good movie. The action is absolutely stellar, the special effects are top-notch, the emotions run high. The ending is satisfactory and ties the whole thing up with a convenient, pretty bow. It's good.

Now for fans of the book, it depends on what these last ten years of films have left you expecting. Personally, I stopped expecting faithful adaptations after Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix , but Part 1 of Deathly Hallows left me thinking that the filmmakers and screenwriters had turned themselves around.

Not entirely.

Like I said, if you've grown accustomed to the films' departures from the books, the differences between the last book and the last film won't bother or surprise you very much. Maybe you've even learned to accept the films for what they are--a separate, hybrid version of Harry Potter that can be judged on its own--and if you have, truly...I envy you. You weren't left with the same question that's plagued me, along with a million other diehard fans, for the past couple of years after these last few film adaptations. And that question is why?

SPOILER ALERT, SPOILER ALERT, DO NOT PASS THIS LINE IF YE ARE NOT A DIEHARD FAN

Why change things? The Harry Potter series is one of the most beloved book series of all time. The reason the films are successful is because they are based off of these books. So...why does the Killing Curse now make its victims explode into a million pieces? Since when can memories be collected by saving one's tears in a beaker? These are just two examples of many, many possible examples of pointless changes in the film adaptation. I know that a lot of the changes were made for purpose of having a more 'movie friendly' vibe, and these changes I'm alright with. I'm at peace with the fact that the main battle at Hogwarts would've been less epic if the filmmakers stayed true to the book and didn't suddenly give Voldemort an army of 500,000+ followers. I'm at peace with the fact that the final duel between Harry and Voldy would've sucked if they kept it what it was in the book-- a conversation and one spell. Those changes I can accept. But needless ones...changes to plot points or details that not only combat what's in the books but also what they've explained in previous films....I just don't get it.

Also, I'm sorry, Lord Voldemort would not listen to a speech about love and friendship from Neville Longbottom for more than 10 seconds before saying, "Enough of this," and sending a jet of green light into that kid's face.

But, all in all, it could've been worse. That's what I left the theater at three o' clock in the morning thinking. It could've been worse...it could've been Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. As an adaptation, the last Harry Potter film may have its flaws, but as a movie it's solid. Although some changes left me with a slightly bitter taste in my mouth, I'm happy that they followed the MAIN plot points faithfully and that our heroes all received their proper ending.

Thank you, Harry, for 10 years of amazing books and 10 years of decent films. On behalf of all the unashamed nerds in the world, we'll miss you!

(but as Sirius Black says, as long as you're in our hearts, you'll never be gone. Awwwwww.)

UPDATE!

For the 2 of you who follow this (who am I kidding, what's up, Jeff?), I am now posting both here and at the Landmark Report blog. Here's the link: The Landmark Report

Reviews will still come up here, so I'm not 100% sure why this news needs to be shared, but whatevs.

Anyway, go check out The Landmark Report in general- because any blog that asks me to write for it must be awesome.

Bridesmaids: Half Movie Review, Half Essay, Or Something

I saw Bridesmaids this weekend, and it was funny as balls. The 'review' segment of this post isn't going to get much more complex than that (I guess I should rename it 1/8th Movie Review, 7/8ths Essay??). It was an all around great film, I didn't want it to end, and it actually had a lot of heart. I'd recommend Bridesmaids to anyone because it's FUNNY. And GOOD. That's all. Which leads me to my 'essay' portion.

The conversations that have started because of this film's release are equal parts important and annoying. Yes, I can't think of a legitimately hilarious film that's starred a predominantly female cast before Bridesmaids (and don't say Sex in the City, because I'll deck you). That's a big deal. Literally every female-driven 'comedy' film before Bridesmaids hasn't really been funny, or at least in a way that appeals to both sexes. But then some hilarious women got together, wrote a hilarious film, and now we're having this discussion. As though women haven't been funny before now. And really, can you blame people for thinking that? For the past decade or so, womens' roles in comedies have been reduced to whining about relationships or...boobs. No, literally. Watch Hot Tub Time Machine. Actually, don't. Please don't.

Because Bridesmaids is the first of it's kind, there's this pressure on the viewer. For example: "Did you like it? If you said yes, was it because it's funny, or because you don't want to look like a sexist??" Now we have people thinking that the high rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the good reviews are because "people don't want to look sexist". This is something The Hangover Part II or the inevitable Hot Tub Time Machine 2 will never have to worry about, and I don't think that's fair. Trust me, if I didn't think Bridesmaids was funny, I wouldn't say it was for the sake of supporting female comedy. And no one would doubt The Hangover's high Rotten Tomatoes rating because of something like that. The Hangover has a high review because it's funny. But, on the other hand, Bridesmaids has a high review either because it's actually funny or because, you know...those women have to defend each other...

--EYE ROLL--

It's bullcrap, but I guess I understand it. What worse than that, though, is the blatant hate you can easily find on any Youtube clip of the movie. Before the film was even out- when all we had was the trailer- people (men) were polluting Youtube, giving it millions of thumbs down and saying awful things, a la "this movie is a rip off of the hangover by girls" (?? totally different plots??) or "ughhh i feel bad for whoever's girlfriend drags them to this". I'll admit, the trailer wasn't the best, but it didn't warrant that kind of backlash. But again, I understand it. A lot of men either a) feel intimidated by funny women or b) don't think they exist because they've grown up on Hot Tub Time Machine. Which...is sad.

I really don't want this to turn into a feminist rant, so I'll stop here. I'm just confused as to why we can't call a funny movie funny without being suspected of ulterior motives. For men who honestly believe the hype for Bridesmaids is a manufactured side effect of political correctness, I'd advise you to watch the movie. I was surrounded by guys at the theater who were cackling the whole time.

Anyway, I give Bridesmaids 5/5. Loved the whole thing.

And finally: The Top 10 Films of 2010

No setup necessary- let's just do this thing.

10. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Although you won't see this film discussed in any Oscar circles, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World definitely deserves some recognition. It's rare to find a film that is so eclectic and, at the same time, not a bit smug about its electiveness. SPVTW didn't have to market to the "indie" crowd to be successful- it just had to be itself. Which is, at its core, just a brilliant, fun movie. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is not just for comic book nerds, video game shut-ins, or hipsters who recognize the Frank Black song in the soundtrack or Scott's reoccurring Smashing Pumpkins shirt...it's for everybody.


9. Winter's Bone

I didn't realize how intense this movie was until after it was finished. Everything starts out so calmly paced, and then, before you know it, people are getting coffee thrown in their faces. Sundance's Best Picture winner sneaks up on you in a way that is truly admirable, and it has pretty much scared me away from the rural Missouri area for life. If the plot doesn't capture your interest (daughter chasing her deadbeat, meth-cooking dad), at least check this one out for newcomer Jennifer Lawrence's Golden Globe-nominated performance for Best Actress. Although Natalie Portman will most likely take the title for her work in Black Swan, Lawrence is definitely one you want to keep your eye on.


8. Inception

While I remain a firm believer that this film is extremely overhyped, I can't honestly look myself in the face and say that it wasn't one of the best films of the year. Even though I had my issues with the convoluted plot and bloated love story (seriously, way too much time devoted to that), Inception is clearly a Christopher Nolan production. What do I mean by that? It was sleek, ambitious, original, and ingenious, just like everything Nolan has ever done.
I don't believe that Inception will win Best Picture or any acting awards, but Nolan has a very good chance at winning the Best Director and/or Best Screenplay awards.


7. How to Train Your Dragon

Who knew that an animated movie about a dragon could make me cry? TWICE? I was dragged to the theater for this one, and I have to say that I left it completely awed by how surprisingly good this film was. It may appear to be a children's movie about a cute dragon, but HTTYD is so much more. It's a movie about self-confidence, father/son relationships, friendship, and love. And if you're not at all moved by it, I question the existence of your heart.


6. The King's Speech


The King's Speech is painful in the way that, from the very beginning, it puts you right in front of the problem. Before I saw this film, I wondered how a movie about a speech impediment could really be that good. But man. The opening scene is brutal. Sure, having a stutter sucks, but having a stutter and being forced to speak publicly on a regular basis? At a time in history before most people had the sensitivity to forgive you for it? Yeesh. The reason this film works is because we feel the gravity that this stammer has on King George VI (Colin Firth). We can see how much it has, basically, ruined his life. And it makes you want to root for him.
The King's Speech will be a big contender for Best Picture, and I'm pretty much calling Colin Firth's win for Best Actor. Geoffrey Rush will be nominated for Best Supporting Actor, but I don't think he'll get it (only because one other nominee slightly out shined him, which...I'll get to later).


5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows pt. 1

Just when I'd written off the Harry Potter movies as complete and utter crap, the second-to-last one came out and basically blew me away. After several years of progressively bad releases, the Harry Potter franchise closes the last stretch and suddenly decides that it wants to be good again. Actually, even better than it's ever been. It's the only one on the list that I wrote a full review of, and you can read it here: http://bit.ly/91fOB6


4. True Grit

Finally, the Coens reign themselves in and deliver a full, dense, and brilliantly executed story. No weirdness for the sake of weirdness, no loose ends for the sake of loose ends- True Grit is a rare Coen film in the fact that they didn't write it and, therefore, it doesn't seem distinctly Coen. And, the way that I personally look at Coen films, that's a good thing. Having seen the original, I have to say that this version is much better, and that Bridges plays a much more grizzled and complex Rooster Cogburn. Fans of John Wayne might find that sacrilege, but hey, what can you do. Matt Damon and 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld (Maddie) are pretty outstanding, too, and if any of them receive acting nominations they'd be well-deserved. The Coens may be nominated for Best Director, but, as good as True Grit was, I think that award belongs to Fincher or Nolan.


3. The Social Network

Before I saw this film, I was bewildered by all of the buzz. Seriously, how could a movie about Facebook be that good? I'll tell you how. With a talented cast, an amazing director, and a screenplay that's whip smart and expertly paced. This film isn't a history lesson about Facebook. It's a character study of Mark Zuckerberg, brought brilliantly to life by Jesse Eisenburg. We see how ingenious he is and how, in a way, his intelligence directly combats with his social life. Mark is too cerebral to sit and have a friendly chat with a girl he likes; his smart mouth and quick tongue will get him into trouble regardless of his intentions. Another aspect I really loved about this film is its entrepreneur, capitalistic-friendly message. If you're smart enough and you have the ambition, you can do anything you want. I'm not sure if The Social Network will win any major awards, but I'm telling you right now it will be nominated for everything.


2. Toy Story 3

The other film on this list that made me cry. THRICE this time. I don't know what it is, but those animated movies really get me. Much like Pixar's entry last year (Up), Toy Story 3 had me emotionally unstable throughout the entire thing. You feel the sadness at Andy's growth and disinterest in his toys, you feel the defeat in the middle (not going to get into the details), and, lastly, you feel hopeful about where these characters are going in the end. Again, I don't want to give away too much, but there is one scene in this movie that KILLED me. Let's just say that they're all holding hands. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about. Pretty heavy for a 'kids movie'.
As good as How to Train Your Dragon was, Toy Story 3 is pretty much a shoe-in for Best Animated Feature.


1. The Fighter

The Fighter took my top spot for a number of reasons. First of all, I was completely blown away by Christian Bale's performance as Dickie Ekland, Mark Wahlberg's crack-addicted, fading star of a brother. Christian Bale may be credited as a 'supporting actor' in this, but to me, he stole the show. That's not to say that this movie is only good because of the acting, though. The Fighter is inspiring and uplifting without being cheesy or obvious about its message. Unlike similar, based-on-true-story success films, The Fighter isn't about making the audience feel good or empowered. It is about Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) and Dickie's story as two brothers fighting for two different things- success and sobriety. And neither one can succeed without the other.
While I hope this film takes the title of Best Picture, I'm not sure if it'll win. What it WILL win is the Best Supporting Actor award for Christian Bale. I'm calling it now, and if that award goes to anyone else, I will honestly be very upset. Melissa Leo will win the Best Supporting Actress award, too, I think, as Mickey and Dickie's tough-faced but fragile mother Alice.

MOVIES YOU EXPECTED TO SEE ON THIS LIST BUT DIDN'T:
-The Town. I felt very meh about The Town, mostly because it felt like so many things I've already seen before. The only thing noteworthy to me about this film was Jeremy Renner, who will most likely receive an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
-Black Swan. I mentioned earlier that I think Natalie Portman will win the award for Best Actress, and I say that because I think she deserves it. Her acting is superb. So much of me wants to trash Black Swan because I didn't like it, but really, it has nothing to do with the merit of the film. I just personally didn't like it. I found it much too disturbing and depressing to enjoy, but that certainly doesn't mean it wasn't good. It's an effective film, just not one that I liked.

HONORABLE MENTION:
- The Other Guys. I have a soft spot for dumb comedies, and this film starring Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg honestly made me laugh out loud a lot. Unfortunately it starts to lose steam by the last thirty or so minutes, but if you're not in a thinking mood and you just want to laugh, go with this one. And if you're not a Ferrell or Adam McKay fan, please consider enduring this for Michael Keaton, who made me cackle obnoxiously.
-The A-Team. Before you get all snooty and preachy on me for including this, tell me: what's wrong with a big, fun action movie? There's nothing brainless about this film. In fact, in terms of its genre, it's pretty smart. The cast is magnificent and, as a huge childhood fan of the TV series, I was very pleased with the outcome. Also, please put Sharlto Copley in more movies, Hollywood.

ONES I MISSED:
-127 Hours. Unfortunately I missed this one when it zipped through theaters, and I think I've got a long time to wait before it's available on DVD. Still, I feel almost certain that I will enjoy it, and I'm extremely bummed that I didn't have a chance to catch it before awards season. When I do get around to seeing it, expect a review, and, if necessary, an alteration to this list.

IN CONCLUSION, MY OSCAR PREDICTIONS:
Best Picture: either The King's Speech or The Fighter
Best Actor: Colin Firth (The King's Speech)
Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)
Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (The Fighter)
Best Director: either Christopher Nolan for Inception or David Fincher for The Social Network
Best Screenplay: either Christopher Nolan for Inception or Aaron Sorkin for The Social Network
Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3

Thoughts?

My MINOR problem with '500 Days of Summer' that has caused outrage

Okay. Let me set up this story.

So, over the weekend, I saw the movie 500 Days of Summer. And it was...okay. There were things about it that I thought were really clever, there were things about it that I thought were cute- all in all, I'd say it was a good movie. Nothing spectacular, but definitely not bad. Just an enjoyable, light, predictable romantic comedy. And there's nothing wrong with that (and actually, is it even possible for a romantic comedy not to be predictable?).

While I was watching it, though, one scene stood out to me. The scene where Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt) is singing karaoke. Actually, all the scenes where anybody was singing karaoke, other than the drunk dude singing "I'm Proud to be an American". I'm not familiar with the song Zooey D...?'s character was singing, but Tom was singing a Pixies song. Here Comes Your Man. In a karaoke bar.

I don't think so. Tell me, have you ever encountered a karaoke bar that plays indie music? Alternative music? Don't even bother telling me the answer, because I know it's no. At a karaoke bar, you hear top hits. You hear drunken people ruining Michael Jackson songs. You know why? Because EVERYBODY knows 'Billie Jean', and EVERYBODY can be amused by some drunk chick slurring out the lyrics. What kind of uppity, smug karaoke bar would have "Here Comes Your Man" preset on their machine? Only a handful of people in the bar would be familiar with the song, and everyone else would be going, "...what is this?"

I'll tell you why Joseph Gordon Levitt's character is singing a Pixies song- because 500 Days of Summer wants to be an "indie movie". And guess what- it IS an indie movie! The soundtrack consists of alternative music, the way they tell the story is inventive and creative, and it wasn't made with a huge budget or, necessarily, A-list stars (although I would argue that JGL might be classified as A-list post-Inception). The makers of this movie thought that they couldn't have the characters singing 'Billie Jean' or 'Private Dancer' or what have you because a popular, mainstream song wouldn't be "indie enough".

To me, this scene took me out of the movie. It shows me the hand of the creators. Everything else about this film was organic, but that scene was unrealistic on purpose for the sake of appeasing smug viewers. There, I said it.

Apparently I've upset some people with this opinion and been told that I have a problem "suspending reality". Well, my favorite book series is Harry Potter and I grew up watching Star Wars, so I find that doubtful. Yes, there are fantasy scenes in the film, but they are clearly fantasy scenes. Most of the scenes in 500 Days are based in reality. Flirting at the IKEA store, sitting on a bench and looking at buildings, getting in fights with your significant other, singing karaoke at a karaoke bar. Like I said, it's an obvious play by filmmakers afraid to have anything remotely mainstream in their movie, and it bugged me.

Honestly, it wasn't even a big deal to me, but the moment I mentioned it I had rabid fans telling me I couldn't suspend reality and that I was wrong. For the record, again, I liked 500 Days of Summer. Some people love 500 Days of Summer. Either way, I should be able to critique it however I want and not be accused of misunderstanding something.

THAT IS ALL. Thoughts?

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: DUDE.

I grew up as a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, so, first of all- I am probably one of the toughest people to sell the Potter movies to. Because? They've sucked. HARD. The first two movies were good, the third one was 'meh', the fourth one was 'meh', and the fifth and sixth were utter abominations of film. I mean it. Walking out after 'Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' to me was a defining experience- that's when I finally said to myself, "Self, you better learn your lesson. Stop expecting these movies to be good. They suck now. Deal with it and try to move on."

So, needless to say, I walked into Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows with pretty shitty expectations. I figured, well, the movie's probably gonna suck (and by all means it should've- it had all of the same people working on it as the last two films), so if anything I should just focus on all the hot wizard boiz. But man, was I surprised.

There is a darkness to this film that, for the first time, fits. In OOTP and HBP, David Yates was trying to darken the mood, but...it didn't work. I don't care what's going on in or outside Hogwarts- you CAN'T make Hogwarts a dark and foreboding place. You just can't. It's a flippin' magical castle full of wonder and innocence, and I think that's a big reason why I disliked those movies. Yates went overboard on the darkness theme and, in the end, those moves just felt heartless.

Not the case with Deathly Hallows. Why? Because Hogwarts isn't in play. Hogwarts is a symbol of everything young and magical and happy in the wizarding world, and when you're not in it? Things are really, really bad. There's nothing cutting off Harry and the gang from the real world in this movie. And the real world is dark. Thus, the motif finally fits. When the gang is in Hogwarts, really, there's nothing immediate at hand. Maybe when they leave, yes, but Hogwarts is a safe haven (except for the end of HBP, but I digress). Without that safe haven, there's something around every corner. There's immediate danger facing everyone, always. The film really benefits from that.

When I first heard the news that DH was being split into 2 films, I thought to myself: Why? But, now that I've seen the results of part 1, I understand it completely and I wonder what could've been accomplished by the last two films had they been given more time. DH doesn't suffer from the same stressed-out pacing as OOTP and HBP...it has the luxury of taking its time. So much of what's going on in DH has to do with the characters- mostly our main trio- despairing. The opener of the film shows this perfectly, and by the time the title frame floats up, you feel like there actually is a weight to all this darkness. It's not overblown teen angst anymore. This shit has gotten real.

Daniel Radcliffe, for the first time, blew me away. Finally, for the last film, he's decided to be 100% there. Rupert Grint has always been capable, and in this film he gets to show it off. Now, I still have issues with Emma Watson- Hermione was never supposed to be so pretty and dull- but even I have to admit that has nothing to do with her acting. I'm just not a fan of the portrayal. Of course, we still have the legendary cast of always-dependable supporting actors: Alan Rickman, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Isaacs, Helena Bonham Carter, etc., etc. So, in the acting department, all was well. Which...I don't think that's ever happened in a Harry Potter film before. There was always some weak link in the younger actors that detracted from the experience. Not the case in this film. Well, other than Bonnie Wright as Ginny, who still sucks, but thankfully we only had to tolerate her for three minutes.

As for things to nitpick at, I think being a huge Harry Potter fan gives me a few. First of all: when Ron destroys the locket? Too much. Naked CGI groping is not a thing I wanted to see, especially when it wasn't necessary. In the book, all Ron saw was his greatest fear- Harry and Hermione together. Kissing. Not having ferocious, CGI sex. Also, some of the camping scenes between just Harry and Hermione were awkward as f*ck. I understand everyone is in despair, but damn. Awkward dancing scene was too much for me to take- if you haven't seen it, you'll know what I'm talking about. Also, near the end of the part 1, things started to feel a little rushed. After taking its time with the camping, the film seems to snap out of that section with a breakneck speed, not giving enough time to either a) the incident at Xenophillius Lovegood's house or b) Malfoy Manor. Which are two of the most bad ass, tension-filled events. Especially Malfoy Manor*. To me, that was the turning point in the book, and it seemed like they were in and out of there way too quickly.

* Also, I am obligated to say this: I am obsessed with Tom Felton, and more time at Malfoy Manor would've meant more time with Draco Malfoy, so I may be a TAD biased.

But, all in all, I found Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows to be shockingly good. Great, even. And after going into it with such low expectations, I can't tell you how fulfilling it was to walk out of there satisfied. I can't wait for part 2, and after seeing how great part 1 was, I don't know how it could be bad.

Highlights: the Tale of the Three Brothers animation, Godric's Hollow, Malfoy Manor even though it was brief, Ron's return. Ugh. Just such a good movie.

4.5/5 stars

Splice: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Do My Mom

I know this one's a little late, but I'll be honest with you. It took me awhile to process this one. There were so many things going on in 'Splice', all of which have disturbed me for life. I mean really, the fact that I made it through the whole movie without projectile vomiting on the guy in front of me is a feat, my friend.

Now, usually I don't like to get spoilery on you guys, but with this one I can't help it. So, if you're interested in seeing Splice...you probably don't want to read this. Although at this point you've already read the title, which in itself is a spoiler, so...whoops (enduring shrug!). This is one that I just can't post a cutesy little summary of. I was horrifed, thus I must express my horror.

Adrien Brody and...his girlfriend (too lazy to Google) are genius scientist who've been experimenting with mixing and SPLICING (oh, I get it!) DNA strands. I was a constant B- student in science, so I'm not going to act like I fully understood what was going on, but I don't think you necessarily have to understand the specifics. Really, they're effing with nature. That's what you need to know.

Behind their benefactors' back, they decide to splice human DNA with several different animal DNA strands. And little fleshy penis baby is born! It's a girl, and they name her Dren, which is Nerd spelled backwards (guffaw guffaw guffaw). She can't talk and expresses herself in creepy shrieks. Brody wants to kill it because it's a hassle to hide the thing, and his girlfriend (unnamed lady actor) is going all psycho possessive mother on it, but...it lives. And it's aging, rapidly.

Eventually, it gets to teenager mode (at this point in the film they've moved Dren out to an abandoned, creepy farmhouse). I guess it's important to point out that Dren looks about 70% human- the only difference is she has velociraptor arms and legs and has retractable flesh wings.

And here's where it gets really...really...effed up, bro. The woman finds little doodles of Adrien Brody's face in Dren's "room" and asks, "You didn' draw any of me?"

And that's when I realized what I was in for and proceeding to shrink down into my seat. Yes. Dren's in love with Adrien Brody. At some point, Dren attacks the woman, and she has to amputate Dren's stinger tail to keep herself safe. Brody walks in on naked, fresh-from-amputation Dren, and...cue the Marvin Gaye.

Yes. Sex. The woman walks in, of course, because this is a movie, and when somebody bangs their mutant daughter, people are gonna find out! She and Brody eventually have a long talk and decide they have to kill Dren. She's out of control! So they drive to the farmhouse and discover...gasp...Dead Dren.

They bury Dren. Not-important secondary character and Brody's brother suddenly drive up. Brody's bro spilled the beans! Not-important secondary character expresses outrage. "I want to see it!" "It's too late, she's dead." Then, mysterious rattling of bushes. Then, SWOOP-ACTION!

Not-important secondary character is dead in the trees. Then Brody's brother is dead, I think in the trees again. Brody and Dren's momma run away, and to make a short story short, here we go: Dren has mutated into A MAN. A MAN I TELL YOU. It's face is scary and manly, it's boobies are gone, and yes, my friends. Dren is a man. Male Dren kills Adrien Brody and rapes its mom with it's stinger dick.

Dis. Gust. Ing.

Then she manages to kill Dren with a rock, post-rape. Final scene of the movie: there's a long, stupid conversation between one of the lady's benefactors and the woman. Then, the woman stands up and...she's pregnant!

Bum bum bum. The end.

Now do you understand? I should get some kind of award for holding my dinner in. At first I was so horrified by 'Splice' that I couldn't give it a fair review, but I think I can now. And honestly, it wasn't a poorly made film. Just because something grosses me out doesn't mean it's bad. The actors are capable, the direction is good (check out director Vincenzo Natali's previous film 'Cube'; it's much better IMO), and, although the story is absolutely filthy, at least it's original.

3/5 stars.

PS: Alright, that was a little unfair. The chick's name is Sarah Polley.