The Descendants (2011)

       The main thing that attracted me to the Alexander Payne directed film The Descendants (based on the novel by Kaui Hart Hemmings) was the cinematography. Indeed, the cinematography in the this film is fantastic: from sandy beaches to high mountains, we are shown Hawaii (the film's setting) in all its natural brilliance. However, when the film ended, the thing I thought of most was the one thing I cared least about: George Clooney. In The Descendants, Clooney plays Matt King, a real estate lawyer/land baron whose wife is in a coma after suffering a boating accident. During this time, he is only days a way from making his biggest real estate deal -- one that involves land that he has been in-trusted with. He also has to deal with his youngest daughter Scottie (Amara Miller) and oldest daughter Alexandra (Shailene Woodley). 

       This is the only film I know (in recent memory) that, during the course of the film, I eventually liked characters that I initially disliked. That's because the characters happen to be complex and realistic; so realistic, in fact, I truly believed them - every single one. Every actor and actress in this film is on top of their game, no matter how small the role. Highlights include Robert Forster as King's wife's father, Beau Bridges as Cousin Hugh (one of the many cousins King has in this film), Matthew Lillard as Brian Speer, and Judy Greer as Speer's wife Julie. One character that impressed me was Sid, played by Nick Krause; initially, his character came off as stupid, but as the film went on, we got to know him a bit more and see who he really is (or, at least who he claims himself to really be). It's a terrific example of one of the things this film did phenomenally. In addition to that, I was able to understand the characters, understand why they felt a certain way, why they acted a certain way, and why I would initially dismiss of them. All of them have layers, all of them are more then what they initially seem, and whether or not they themselves reveal the layers, we as an audience are able to see them at some point or another. 

       The other big highlight of this film is, of course, the scenery. The film shows off Hawaii in a non-exploitative fashion, showing us what's really there and not trying to pretty it up (which in turn, makes it all the more beautiful). We see the city how it is (just a city) and we see the world as it truly is (without color saturation). The thing shown the most (in terms of scenery) are mountains, fields, and beaches. The mountains and beaches are all fantastic, but the fields (like the land in-trusted to the King family) is breathtaking. The anamorphic widescreen used in the film really allows the camera to do plenty of close-ups, as well as wide shots of Hawaii's vast geography. On a simple note, seeing people dress like (as King would say it) "bums" (Hawaiian shirts and shorts) is enjoyable, given they all live on a tropical island and it would be expected, but it ends up looking more natural and realistic than one might expect. And that's probably the film's biggest accomplishment: making realistic characters. Characters I can believe in, that I care about. It's always a vast triumph to make your audience truly and honestly care for the characters they see on the screen. 

       Which brings me to what is arguably the film's most important point and its general selling point: Clooney. I like George Clooney a lot, but I didn't see The Descendants because he was in it. Truth be told, I didn't care he was in it. But then I saw his performance. What I saw wasn't George Clooney: what I saw was Matt King, a man who is having the hardest time of his life trying to cope with all that is happening around him. Never would I have thought that Clooney could completely convince me that he could act this good. What makes it is what makes every other character: naturalism. King is a completely human and understandable character, who's actions and motivations are realistic and honest. He also sees everything that happens: the whole movie takes place from his perspective, essentially. Because of this, we are able to see the different sides of every character, the different emotions King experiences (laughter not being one of them), and understand him better than anyone else. By the film's end, King is a real person, a person I know in real life, a person I know and love. King reminded me of my father, and that never happens while I watch a film. While he isn't exactly like my father, King shares realistic qualities that I can relate to real people. But it isn't just King: every character (or at least every main character) in this film reminds me of someone in real life - it doesn't matter if I can name the person or not, the point is these characters are human and real because I've seen their qualities in other people before. I always see these qualities because these qualities are not fictional; nothing the characters do in this film are things that only happen "in the movies." 

       Ultimately, what brings The Descendants home is it's message of loyalty. King has many responsibilities, and he stays loyal to each and everyone (or at least he tries). It's the loyalty and honor that make King who he is; it's what makes his daughter's respect him; it's what we as an audience admire most. Every character in this film has something to say that's important, and every character is an important piece to the overall picture. The Descendants tells a story that can resonate with all of us and it makes us care without even trying. It has moments of pain and moments of laughter - but there are two adjectives that describe this movie best. The first adjective is melancholic, for it is the one thing this movie wallows in throughout. The second adjective is beautiful, for it is the main thing this movie proves it self to be. 

Scream 3 (2000)

       Released in February of 2000, Scream 3 is the third installment in the Scream film series and the final installment in the Scream "trilogy," wrapping up the story that began in Scream. As expected, it was directed by Wes Craven, but not written by Kevin Williamson; it was instead written by Ehren Kruger. This was due to Williamson being unavalible to write a full script for the new movie; what he did, instead, was write a 20 to 30 page outline that was used to aid Kruger in re-writing the script. This change in writers is where 3's biggest flaw comes into play: the script - it's just not as good as the first two's. However, this doesn't mean Scream 3 is a terrible movie (as some may have you believe); while the violence and gore is toned down a bit, the scares are still there and the comedy is as abundant as ever. But it wouldn't be a Scream movie without self aware humor, satire, and subverted cliches.

       The film (apparently) takes place three years after the events of the second film. The setting has once again changed, this time to Hollywood, CA. where Stab 3 is being filmed (and believe me, Stab 3 is very important to the film's plot). The plot involves Ghostface, once again terrorizing people and trying to kill Sidney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell), only this time he's leaving clues that relate to Sidney's deceased mother. To say anymore would be to spoil a surprisingly great plot with a twist that'll have you in shock.

       The main cast that survived Scream 2 are here again: Neve Campbell (who I like more and more as the series goes on) as Sidney, David Arquette as Dewey, Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, and Liev Schreiber as Cotton Weary (though, he only shows up in the opening scene).  New faces include: Patrick Dempsey as Detective Mark Kincaid, Scott Foley as Roman Bridger, Lance Henriksen as John Milton, Deon Richmond as Tyson Fox, Matt Keeslar as Tom Prinze, Jenny McCarthy (in an extremely minor role, similar to Sarah Michelle Gellar's minor role in Scream 2) as Sarah Darling, Emily Mortimer (very cute) as Angelina Tyler, Parker Posey as the annoying but amusing Jennifer Jolie, and Patrick Warburton as Steven Stone, Jennifer's security guard. Scream 3 also has more cameos this time around (probably due to the Hollywood setting), which include Jay & Silent Bob, Carrie Fisher, Kelly Rutherford (as Cotton's girlfriend), and Heather Matarazzo (as Randy's sister). There's even a special guest appearance by Jamie Kennedy as Randy, who let's us in on the rules that govern the final installment of a trilogy. And, as it should be, everyone in the film does a great (or good) job.

       The presentation is once again great: the sound, the cinematography, the anamorphic widescreen, it's all good. The scares were really great too; I found myself caring more and more about these characters as the film's progressed, so by this point I was really scared when a character I really liked was attacked (even though most of the cast in this movie is new to the series). As I mentioned before, the violence and gore in 3 is toned down a bit, but not too much, so there's still plenty of great death scenes and chase sequences. Marco Beltrami's score is at its best here, being more haunting and moody then ever before.

       The one thing I really want to talk about is 3's script. As far as story is concerned, it's actually really good, but as far as dialogue and characterization is concerned, it has issues. The story genuinely entertained me, keeping my interest throughout. Some of the dialogue, and its delivery, was either a little silly or awkward at times. In fact, this seems to be Scream 3's other biggest flaw: it's too silly. From some of the acting to some of the events that occur, 3 has more then its share fair of silly moments. But of course, there are plenty of good things in 3, too; I really liked the psychological aspect of the story (which I won't reveal) and the film's self aware humor is still around, flaunting it self wherever it can.

       Things of note: Scream 3 never seems to mention the events of Scream 2, making it almost seem as though Scream 2 either A) Never happened or B) Happened a long time ago (which, given the film's three year gap between 2, makes some amount of sense). This isn't anything too unusual, however, since certain trilogies do do this, so I was okay with it. Sidney's character doesn't show up as much this time around, so we get to see more of the new cast and the love-hate chemistry between Dewey and Gale (which is never really boring). I really liked the new characters (especially Dempsey) and they all seemed to be varied enough to warrant different types of personalities; the one thing most of the new cast has in common, however, is that most of them either play actors or movie makers. The blend of reality and fantasy doesn't seem to be too apparent this time around, but the film is just as self aware as ever, so I would still say the film plays around with reality and fantasy to some degree.

       While it isn't as good as its predecessors, Scream 3 still manages to deliver wonderful scares, great performances, comedic self aware satire, and an excellent conclusion to the "trilogy." If nothing else, Scream 3 is terrific entertainment that just aims to be fun and enjoyable. But probably the most rewarding thing about Scream 3 is that it reminded me of what the Scream franchise really is: a series of slasher movies, with a touch of satire.

Scream 2 (1997)

       Directed by Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson, Scream 2 is (obviously) the sequel to the hit slasher film Scream. Scream 2 was released only a year after Scream was released, but the film (apparently) takes place two years after the events of the first film. It stars most of the original main cast: Neve Campbell once again as Sidney, David Arquette as Dewey, Jamie Kennedy as the film geek Randy, and Courteney Cox as the ever snoopy for a story Gale Weathers. The comedy and scares are balanced extremely well the second time around and the film manages to be more entertaining and interesting than the first.

       The film's story is similar to the first: a killer is on the loose. However, the setting has changed to a college campus and town (which is something I really liked) and the movie, and it's characters, are well aware that this is a "sequel." The self aware humor is one of the things that made Scream so great and it's in full bloom, once again, in Scream 2. Right from the opening scene (a preview screening for Stab, a movie based on the events of the first movie), the film is all too aware that it's a sequel. Of course, this is mentioned by the characters, who reference the new killings as a sequel to the first killings. It's all done way too well and I enjoyed every second of the self aware attitude this film proudly flaunted. But of course, as I saw in the first film, Scream 2 is serious and scary when it needs to be. Ghostface feels more threatening here, but he's/she's also shown to be even more clumsy and amateur then in the first film; this asserts the realism that was seen in the first film. The death scenes are excellent and even more frightening this time around; the editing is also better and the score is as good as always (although snippets of scores by Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman are also used). Craven's use of anamorphic widescreen is put to better use in 2, as we see him really take advantage of the space he has for some of the more important scenes. On another note, I only saw one tipped-to-an-angle shot this time.

       The returning cast is as great as always, but there are some new faces: Jada Pinkett (Smith) shows up in the opening scene, Timmy Olyphant plays Mickey (a friend of Randy's who is dating Sidney's roommate), Elise Neal plays Sidney's roommate Hallie, Jerry O'Connell plays Sidney's college boyfriend Derek, Duane Martin plays Joel  (Gale's new cameraman), and Liev Schreiber returns to play Cotton Weary, the man who was originally accused of having killed Sidney's mother in Scream. Schreiber's appearance in this film surprised me; I remember him being in Scream for about 10 seconds, but his role in this film is much, much bigger - he even gets semi-top billing in the film's cast credits (but so did Pinkett). Since I'm already a fan of his, I really enjoyed his performance in this film - but of course, his performance (as well as everyone else's) was great regardless. The film also has a couple cameos: Heather Graham plays the Stab version of Casey from the first film, and Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Cici, a sober sorority girl.

       Things of note: I really loved the fact that anyone in this sequel could be a victim; but of course, I'll keep the details of that to a minimum. The blend of realism and fantasy is spot on once more, with some really good social commentary thrown in; this is a satire, after all. The chemistry between Dewey and Gale is ever so fun and sweet to watch, having only gotten a small taste of it in the first film. Kennedy plays Randy just as good as he did in Scream, and he even lets us in on the rules that govern a sequel. I didn't fall in love with the climax this time around (like I did with Scream), but it was still great with a twist I didn't see coming; I also thought the ending was better than the first film's. It seems that everything that I thought was (merely) good in Scream was great in Scream 2, which also means that whatever I thought was good in 2 was done better in Scream.

       Scream 2 manages to out do the original by simply being a better overall movie. The self awareness, comedy, and satire are all excellent, the subverted cliches are as great as always, and the performances are even more enjoyable than before; but 2 also manages to be scarier and more violent then its predecessor. It proves it self to be more then just a great slasher movie, but a great movie in general.

Scream (1996)

       Released in December of 1996, the Kevin Williamson penned and Wes Craven directed Scream is truly a unique piece of horror. It attempts and succeeds in satirizing and subverting slasher films and their cliches. However, in this process, it creates a film that is smarter than you might think and a whole lot funnier then you would have expected. The film might be known as a horror comedy but it does have plenty of genuine scares and surprises, all the while playing it straight and joking around.

       The story goes like this: a killer is on the loose in a small town. That's pretty much it. There is some exposition, but I'll be the last to spoil it for you. The film's cast of characters is surprisingly lovable (as opposed to likable): Neve Campbell plays Sidney, the main protagonist; Skeet Ulrich plays Sidney's boyfriend Billy; Rose McGowan plays Sidney's (extremely) attractive best friend Tatum, who is dating Stuart (played phenomenally by Matthew Lillard); Jamie Kennedy plays Randy, a movie geek who lets everyone know the rules of horror flicks; David Arquette plays Tatum's older brother Dewey, a deputy in town; Drew Barrymore plays Casey, one of first victims who only shows up in one scene, although, it's probably the most famous scene in the whole movie; rounding out the main cast is Courteney Cox as Gale Weathers, a nosy reporter who is also a local celebrity. The acting done by this cast is varied and enjoyable, with the highlight going straight to Lillard (for all the right reasons).

       The presentation is spot on, with Craven's trademark anamoprhic widescreen in check. The editing is really great too, and the film has a handful of scenes that are tipped to an angle, making it proto-modern if you ask me. The scenes featuring violence are also handled very well, and the deaths themselves are great (for the most part).

       Things of note: The film's most famous quality is its villain, Ghostface. Ghostface acts more like an entity then an actual person with a knife and the film plays with this idea cleverly and expertly. Whenever Ghost appeared on screen, I was on the edge of my seat and scared like everyone in the movie. However, the film also manages to be something else: hilarious. There are so many funny scenes in Scream but there's no way I'll reveal what they are. Another thing Scream managed to do was have a scene that completely elevated it from being a good movie to a great movie, and that scene is the climax. The biggest twist is revealed during the climax and I cannot tell you how hard I was laughing during this scene; although, the scene it self wasn't exactly funny, but it is arguable the scene is funny in a dark sense. The film's score (by Marco Beltrami) is also worthy of mentioning, maintaining the haunting and self aware attitude the film goes by. There's also some obligatory '90s songs thrown in, but that's okay.  

       Two things I loved in this film were the sense of realism and fantasy throughout. This is probably one of the most realistic films I've ever seen, in terms of characterization. I completely believed all of the character's emotions, behavior, and actions as genuine and real; that feat alone is something to admire. The idea of using an easily available costume to terrorize people is also one of the film's strong points in establishing a realistic setting. Ironically, though, the film also lives in a world of fantasy - like the ones in the movies. Plot points and the subverted cliches help establish this film in a movie world that is self aware of all the cliches and plot points. The blend of realism and fantasy make this film all the more enjoyable to watch (and re-watch).

       Scream was a breath of fresh air at the time of its release and still is today in the twenty-first century. It's a funny and scary movie that satirizes the slasher genre by subverting the cliches and surprising you at every available opportunity, all the while making you wonder: Who's really the killer? It succeeds in turning the slasher genre on its head and making a mockery of it, while giving the audience some great twists that make it more then just an average horror flick. But in the end, that's exactly what Scream is: an easily mock-able slasher film.

The Muppets (2011)

       Years have passed, but the good ol' Muppet gang is back for a big screen show like never before. Probably what makes this Muppet movie so different is its self-aware attitude, and I must say, it's the best self-aware movie I've ever seen. As for the movie overall, if it isn't excellent, it sure as hell is fantastic. With great and hilarious performances from Jason Segel (who co-wrote the film), Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, and of course, the Muppets, The Muppets succeeds in making us believe in magic and optimism all over again and putting a huge smile on our faces.

       The story concerns Walter, the brother of Gary (Jason Segel); Walter is technically a Muppet, but the movie doesn't directly state this. He's been a fan of the Muppets nearly all his life, so when his brother tells him they're going to Los Angeles, Walter is ecstatic to see the old Muppet Studios. Once there, they realize it's pretty much run down and is to be taken over by a rich oil tycoon by the name of Richman (Chris Cooper). Walter decides to reach out to Kermit the Frog and the other Muppets to raise the appropriate funds to save the studio. All the characters in this film are great: Peter Linz voices Walter, an energetic character and a great addition to the Muppet cast; Segel is terrific as Gary, who's heart is always in the right place; Amy Adams plays Gary's girlfriend (of ten years) Mary, who is absolutely cool and adorable at the same time; Chris Cooper couldn't be funnier and more awesome as Richman; and all of the Muppets (Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, etc. etc.) are at the top of their game (for the most part, anyway). What's great is that every character gets their time to shine, which is something I really appreciated - plus, there are a ton of awesome cameos. My favorite characters, of course, are Statler and Waldorf, the two old Muppets who are always cracking jokes; each of their scenes is gold.

       Something that's note worthy are the effects. The Muppets look excellent and are as believable as they can be in a movie about Muppets. There are also musical numbers, which should be expected from a Muppets movie, but anywho: each of these musical numbers turns out being wonderful in some way or the other. And of course, this movie would be nothing without its jokes, but don't expect me to tell you what they are - there are too many to count anyway. Just be alert that this film's full of them and there's a high chance you'll laugh at each one (hopefully).

       Regardless of what you may think before or after the show's over, whether you grew up with these characters or don't even know who they are, The Muppets is guaranteed to put a smile on your face and keep you happy and optimistic the whole way through. It features great performances from all involved and leaves you with a wonderful attitude. In a world where cynicism and negativity reign, it's extremely nice for a movie like this to come along and show us that sometimes all we need to do is believe in ourselves and keep smiling. Movies like The Muppets need to come out more often.

Superman II (1980)

       Superman and Superman II were originally to be filmed back-to-back, but ultimately, production on II was halted to complete Superman. Once it was completed and a success, the crew went back to finish II. However, Richard Donner, the director of the first film, was not asked to finish the film (that job went to Richard Lester); the reasons vary, but the main reason seems to be creative differences. At this time, Donner had already filmed what he says was 75% of the film, so what ended up happening was Lester re-filmed certain scenes and changed up some stuff, which led to the film being, technically, co-directed, with 65-75% of the film being shot by Lester and the reaming being done originally by Donner. To this day there is still controversy on the whole thing. Donner's true vision was never shown to the public until him and some of the crew restored and made Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut in 2006. Regardless of the controversy and problems, Superman II was a big hit with fans and critics alike, with some saying it surpasses the original. 

       Indeed, Superman II manages to be better than its predecessor - as a movie, anyway. What I mean to say is this: Superman had a better story but Superman II was a better movie overall. Much of this has to do with the fact that Superman II is really a continuation and conclusion (of sorts) to the story that began in Superman. The film stars everyone who was important in the first film (except Marlon Brando) and the cast do an excellent job again. While some characters don't get as much spotlight as they did in the first film (Lex Luthor, Perry White) the film makes up for it (and makes you forget about it) with three characters that first appeared in the original: General Zod (Terence Stamp), Ursa (Sarah Douglas), and Non (Jack O'Halloran). These three are the main villains of the movie and are the best part of Superman II. But what would Superman II be without the Man of Steel himself? Christopher Reeve returns, being just as great as he was in the first one and Margot Kidder also returns as Lois Lane, who is much more likable this time around.

       The story continues from Superman, bringing along with it slight allusions to the story of Christ (Resurrection) and great themes concerning the idea of self-fishness and accepting one's destiny. Like I said, the story isn't as good or as epic as the first film, but it's continuing a story so it's understandable and forgivable, especially when the action makes up for it. That's something Superman II has that Superman didn't seem to have too much of: action.

       The bad guys are great and true individuals: Zod is an arrogant egomaniac who keeps telling people to kneel before him and plans to rule the planet Earth (because he can, right?); Ursa is Zod's second in command and she is a sexy and cold foe with moves of her own and an attitude that shows she cares not for human life (her outfit is also the only one of the three that has opened slits on it's arms and legs, revealing her skin, which didn't seem like a surprising choice of style in her costume's design); Non is a brute that is -what else?- mute, but still a force to be reckoned with. The three Kryptonian villains wreak havoc whenever they're around and it's their interactions with Earth and it's people that is, in my opinion, the best part of the movie. Every scene involving them is excellent and arguably their scenes alone can make the film worth watching. As for Superman? He's just as super as ever: saving the day and being the good guy he was born to be. Clark Kent is also just as fantastic, maybe even better than how we was last time, but that's debatable (not to mention a pointless thing to debate). Lois Lane seems to be the most improved here, not being as annoying and being more entertaining. Lex Luthor (Gene Hackman, receiving top billing once again) is just as arrogant and hilarious, but like I mentioned before, he isn't in the movie as much (some of his scenes were cut). Even so, he still has scenes that are true highlights (one scene involving him and Ursa is a particular favorite of mine).  

       Sadly, I don't have as much to say about this film as I did for the first (probably because it's not as epic and doesn't have as much depth), but I do have some other things to say: The film is a bit shorter than Superman. II also features a main title sequence nearly identical to the first film (with some scenes from the first movie thrown in). The score isn't composed by John Williams this time, but it still features some of his original compositions. Unlike Superman, II doesn't seem to take place in a specific year, but we can only assume it's '79 or '80. The film has plenty of humor but didn't make me laugh as much as the first film did - maybe because I saw it in the morning in a college library as opposed to how I saw the first film: in my house at night with a glass of soda. There's also a scene that I thought was awesome for no reason involving Superman and a cellophane S (you might even know what I'm talking about). Also, Marlboro has its brand shown more than once throughout the film, but is only obnoxious about it in one popular sequence; this is because Marlboro was II's biggest sponsor. The one scene I found a tad unnecessary involves Zod and Ursa using their blow-wind-from-my-mouth power to blow people and cars away. There's nothing wrong with the scene itself, I just think it went on longer than it had to. Also, it should be mentioned that the special effects in this film are spectacular.

       Superman II is a film that doesn't so much improve on its predecessor as much as it takes a slightly different approach and makes a better film overall. While the story isn't as grand, the film has more action, more enjoyable characters, a great ending, and terrific dialogue, featuring some of the best quotes I've heard in any movie ("Lex Luthor, ruler of Australia"). The action is great and the romance between Lane and Kent builds up to gather interest (or at least some interest). And even with a less than amazing story, the film still manages to address grand themes of sacrifice and destiny that, if elaborated on in this review, would surly spoil the film. Overall, Superman II is an excellent picture that rivals the original and has still to this day garnered respect and praise by fans and critics alike. 

House (1977)

       There is absolutely no proper way to describe Nobuhiko Obayashi's House (which retained its English title in its native country of Japan as a way of keeping things "taboo"). An actual review of this film would only consist of a brief plot summary and explanations of the various events that occur during the course of the film's running time. The film was released by Toho, a popular and well known film company in Japan. Toho decided to take a chance with this film, which was partially written by Obayashi and inspired by the imagination of his daughter. It was hated by Japanese critics but a hit with young audiences, so it was quite successful. The film never saw a North American release date until only recently, when Janus Films bought the distribution rights and released it theatrically in 2009; the result was a hit with the midnight-movie crowd and more positive reception from critics, helping this one-of-a-kind film achieve cult status.

       The film's plot concerns a girl and her 6 classmates, each of them going by a nickname: Gorgeous, Sweet, Prof, Fantasy, Mac, Melody, and (my personal favorite) Kung Fu. Gorgeous invites them all to her aunt's house after their initial summer vacation plans don't work out. Once there, weird things start to happen.

       Majority of this movie takes place in the titular house (or mansion, whatever you wanna call it), but even from the beginning, this movie acts strange. From odd camera styles, to questionable transitions (wipes, fades, those sorts of things), this film lets on early that it's weird. Most of the things that happen have no meaning or anything like that; it's just random. Weird things happen for absolutely no reason -- there are so many bizarre events and occurrences that trying to describe them all or explain them all is pointless, but describing the events can also spoil it for anyone wanting to see this movie. Some highlights that I don't mind mentioning include the cat Blanche (watch out for that cat!), a scene involving pieces of wood, a scene involving large lips, and a scene involving what can only be described as a dance sequence (you'll know it when you see it).

       While the plot may seem nonsensical, it apparently has underlying themes on WWII and what not. This mainly has to do with the aunt, but I won't go into it. I'd rather talk about the main characters, because they're pretty interesting and unique. Each of their nicknames reflects them in some way: Gorgeous is seen to be the most beautiful and glamorous of the group; Sweet is, well, the sweetest and probably the cutest of the group, as well as the most innocent; Prof is the brains of the group, wearing glasses and reading at various points during the film; Fantasy is the one who starts to see the odd events before anyone else realizes they exist, so naturally, they say it's her imagination; Mac is always hungry and eating something; Kung Fu is a martial artist and takes the initiative to do things, as well as use her martial arts skills to defend the girls (but she also uses her skills to do other non-lethal stuff). Another character worthy of mentioning is Mr. Togo, who was originally going to take the 6 girls (not including Gorgeous) to some training camp thing, but it didn't work out, so he also got invited to go to Gorgeous's aunt's house. This character doesn't show up very often, but he's extremely humorous and gives, what in my opinion is, the funniest line in the whole movie ("Bananas!"); the line itself may not be too funny, but the way he says it and the context in which he says it makes it hysterical.

       Overall, House is the craziest movie I've ever seen (Eraserhead, eat your heart out!). It's a film that features intentionally cheesy effects, random background music, unique characters, and a house full of stuff that kills people. I don't know if I'd recommend it to just anyone, but given its odd ball approach and anything goes way of being, I'd say anyone can see it if they want to. There's a few scenes of nudity and gore, but for the most part it's just a silly and (believe it or not) joyous film that only aims to entertain. If you're a fan of midnight movies or Japanese cinema, I definitely recommend it. If you're a fan of movies that make no sense and mess with your head, I highly recommend it. In the end, there is no proper way to review House or explain it; you'll just have to see it for yourself. And if you do decide to see it, be aware that what you're going to see isn't from this planet.