Beth Cooper: A Love/Hate Relationship

Premise: I Love You, Beth Cooper revolves around the nerdy and socially inept Denis Cooverman. A high school valedictorian who during his commencement speech declares his vast affection for head cheerleader Beth Cooper. She is the school princess that he has worshiped for years from afar. Denis also takes the opportunity to shoot down all of the fellow classmates that have made the last four years of his life a living hell. The story then turns into a first night of freedom adventure where Beth takes Denis on a John Hughes-esque odyssey involving reckless driving, underage drinking, bully beat downs, and even a girls locker room shower party.

Love: The Book. Written by former Simpsons writer and first time author Larry Doyle. The book I Love You, Beth Cooper was released in summer of 2007. I had never even heard or known it was a book until a few weeks before the release of the movie, which I originally had no interest in seeing. I saw numerous copies on display at the local Barnes & Noble, and recognized the title. On the back cover there were heaps of praise from great authors Tom Perrotta and Dave Barry, not to mention a stellar Entertainment Weekly review. I was intrigued enough to try it out.

The novel is a wonderful little read, and it moves like lightning. This book is full of wit, laughs, and painfully honest and accurate moments in the life of a teen. Denis is a smart and likable character. I found him very easy to admire, pity, and root for. Beth is a sassy wild-child that respects the sweet gesture, and is more than happy to return the favor.

Every chapter begins brilliantly as a portrait of Denis's face is shown that depicts the deteriorating physical and emotional state of our hero. At the bottom of every picture is a quote from a series of teen films over the past fifty years that help set up the events for the upcoming chapter.

The book gets pretty racy at times, and is very descriptive of how teenagers think and feel about the opposite sex. The language and content are hardly extreme, but would never fit into the confines of a non R Rated film. I was sure that much of the juicier content was going to be left on the cutting room floor.

I'm glad I gave this book a chance, and if it had existed while I was in high school then I'm sure I would have loved it even more. I find it vaguely humorous that a book created essentially from numerous situations in teen movies would be turned into a movie itself. It should have remained just a book.

Hate: The Movie. The film version of I Love You, Beth Cooper is a mostly bland experience that lacks heart, humor, and most importantly inspired performances. Hayden Panettiere had the potential to be a fine pick for Beth Cooper. She has got the appropriate look and age of the character, but I never believed her performance for a minute. She never shares an honest connection with the Denis character, and she constantly looks like she wants to be elsewhere. The sweetness of the character just never emerges. Denis (Paul Rust) somewhat overplays his hand, and makes the character too much of a nerd. He is a nice enough guy, but the sympathy wasn't there. The rest of the cast is just one big total cliche: His not-quite-out-of-the-closet and annoying best friend, her stupid and slutty girlfriends, and the jock jarhead boyfriend on a constant mission to murder Denis.

The film does manage to follow the book almost scene for scene as the group drifts in and out of parties, their high school, and hideouts in the woods. Everything feels rushed, and just seems to jump around a lot. I was surprised what did and didn't make it into the final cut of the film. Cocaine references, crotch shots, and cow tipping are all here. However, Beth touching a creepy store clerk's dick for beer is gone. The awkward dry hump session between Beth and Denis is missing. And the final climatic battle between Denis and Kevin (the jock) has vanished.

A few bright spots do manage to emerge. I really liked Alan Ruck and Cynthia Stevenson as Mr. and Mrs. Cooverman. They are funny, supportive, and are not afraid to act like frisky teens themselves. I also must note that the shameless School's Out by Alice Cooper sing-a-long worked rather well for me considering it was a ritual I took part in myself.

There is a scene in both the book and the film where after yet another un-goddess like act from Beth, Denis blurts out "She's not Beth Cooper" as he realizes that his dream girl was not the object of perfection he so desired. After reading the book, and then seeing the film I knew just how he felt. The Book: A- The Movie: C-

Counterpoint: Public Enemies

Allen's review is here. I wanted to like this movie, I really did. And the acting and technical film-making were decent. The biggest problem with the movie is that everything is flat and historical. There is no story. It's a breakout, then a robbery, then a chase, rinse, and repeat, until everyone is dead.

Sure, they try to shoehorn a romance in there, but it's really contrived (ask yourself why he's obsessed with her) and, honestly, their dialogue is so poetic and scripted it rings false. So what you're left with is standard cops and robbers where most of the characters are completely expendable. It's Bale's realistic and uninteresting Purvis versus Depp's overly stylistic and backgroundless Dillinger ("his daddy hit him, so he became the best bank robber ever" doesn't cut it).

Simply put, there needed to be less action and more reasons. I need to know why these characters do what they do, or I can't appreciate this piece as anything more than a history lesson. For that reason, Public Enemies is just not worth seeing -- unless you have to write a term paper on John Dillinger.

Bruno: Uber Uncomfortable

Bible thumpers beware! Bruno is sure to make your worst list, if you can stand to finish it. Better yet, I dare you to start it. Here is a film that most will consider shocking, outrageous, and offensive. Just don't act like you didn't see this coming. Sacha Baron Cohen has had plenty of practice at this game, and although I still consider him to be reckless and fearless, this one does not have the same surprise factor as his previous effort Borat. That being said, it helps that the joke is still pretty funny.

Bruno (Cohen) is an overly flamboyant homosexual fashion reporter who has just been blacklisted from every catwalk event in his homeland of Austria. He decides to come over to America in the hopes of achieving super stardom here in the states. While on his journey he runs across numerous celebrities and common folk to embarrass, and events to destroy with humiliating stunts, videos, and other sordid actions. There really isn't much of a plot here, just a thinly veiled attempt to string together numerous scenes.

The sexual context of this humor has been taken about as far as it was able to go. Nudity (some blacked out/some not) and gay humor dominate this movie. Many of the film's jokes work because they are so outlandish and extreme. Watching the amount of discomfort creeping up on some of these unsuspecting saps is just priceless. There are also numerous reactions shots in this film, and many of them are funnier than the joke itself.

I must applaud Cohen for his ability to take a joke all the way. This guy is not afraid to piss off the wrong people, and he is richly rewarded with plenty of juicy material. Much like Trey Parker and Matt Stone Creators of South Park, Cohen is an equal opportunity offender. Black, white, gay, straight, politicians, prostitutes, and priests are targets one and all.

When compared to Borat there are far fewer scenes that depict how ignorant and scary humans can be sometimes. The major shock scene of this nature in Bruno that comes to mind involved the lengths that some parents will go to make their infant child a star. If their answers are authentic, then it is very disturbing. These people would literally sacrifice their firstborn for a taste of fame.

Did I enjoy this movie? It has been done before and better on The Ali G Show. I would love to see it again with a crowd. Having now seen the movie, I would be more focused and entertained on the reaction of the patrons than on the film itself. With a brisk running time of only 82 minutes I feel Bruno is a summer movie that most definitely is not a nish-nish. B

Assorted Links

- The internets released the trailer for Diablo Cody's new horror vehicle for Megan Fox, Jennifer's Body. At least Amanda Seyfried's in it.

- Graphic novelist Brian K. Vaughan leaves Lost. So does that mean there's an opening for a staff writer?

- Kathryn Bigelow's Hurt Locker is getting serious buzz. Watch the first 8 minutes.

- What movies do stuntmen think have the greatest stunts?

Knowing (DVD): When Your Number's Up

Note: As hard as I tried I realized there was no way to write this review, and explain why I was floored by this film without revealing MAJOR SPOILERS. I strongly recommend you don't read this review until after you have seen the movie yourself.

Knowing is one of the most scatter shot films that I've come across in some time. I'm not just referring to the movie itself, I'll get to that in a minute. I would like to first talk about the critical and audience response the film was met with upon it's theatrical release. When trailers began popping up, I was intrigued at the set up, but ultimately tuned out. The cons outweighed the pros. It was done by Summit Entertainment (recently known for crap: Twilight ), It starred Nicholas Cage (recently known for crap: Bangkok Dangerous), was directed by Alex Proyas (Dark City = Amazing / I, Robot = Crap), and had a cop out rating (PG-13 = Crap).

Then came the reviews, just about all were terrible except from Roger Ebert who awarded the film his highest rating. The film opened the same weekend against the bro-mantic comedy I Love You, Man and the star-studded Duplicity, so I figured it would get crushed. Wrong again, people came out in droves making it #1 at the box office. At Mike Bristow's attempt to prove me incorrect, I went into this one not knowing what to expect. Its reputation was already all over the place in both good and bad ways.

The film itself is about many different things as well. In 1959, a time capsule buried in a school contains a series of seemingly random numbers. Fifty years later the capsule is opened and the list of numbers come into the possession of John Kosetler (Nic Cage), who by pure coincidence discovers that the list actually contains the date, location, and number of deaths involved in every major catastrophe in the last fifty years. And there are still three more events on the the list that have not occurred...yet.

John spends the rest of the film on numerous quests. The first is to discover who wrote the list, and this is how he meets Diana (Rose Byrne). At first, she is about as clueless as John is to the situation, but as the film progresses she begins to realize maybe her mother was not so crazy after all. Then there are the quests of finding the remaining disaster areas. They involve a plane crash and a subway derailment. I gotta tell you I've seen disaster moments in film before, but nothing like this. The crashes are unflinching and totally realistic. People are engulfed in flames or mowed over by steel cars right before your eyes. It's fantastic and horrifying stuff.

John is a man of science that was raised by a man of God. This makes him a little skeptical to the whole fate and life after death thing ( a wife taken prematurely in a fire doesn't help either). There are numerous and interesting discussions about faith and fact. Does everything happen for a reason or does "Shit just happen?"

This all leads up to the big picture: The Apocalypse. Now, when the threat of the end of the world came up in this movie my heart sank because I assumed it would be just that: a threat. I was really intrigued and riveted by the first two thirds of this one, and now I was sure the movie was going to end on a 'let's save the day' note. But here is the kicker: "How do you stop the end of the world?" The film's answer: You don't. I couldn't believe it. It has finally happened: An end of the world movie that actually concludes with the end of the world! I was overjoyed. After all the comets, aliens, and mother nature threats, here is a film that cuts the shit and ends the right way.

I guarantee this film will not cater to all tastes, but I loved it. It is very smart, bleak, and strong stuff. If you ever wished films like The Day the Earth Stood Still were not so bland and would be great if only they had some balls, then Knowing is the film you need to see. A

P.S. Mr. Bristow, you were with this one from the beginning and I was in serious doubt. Thank you for making me see the error in my judgment. Chalk a point up for you, sir.

Hung: Well-Endowed

In HBO's new dramedy Hung, Ray Drecker (Thomas Jane) is a down on his luck high school basketball coach who has lost it all. His gold digging wife (Anne Heche), his goth kids, and even his parent's house (after a fire, home becomes a tent in the front lawn). With money and options running out, ray finds himself at a get rich quick convention. There he learns that the key to making money lies in focusing on your one big talent. Ray is convinced his 'big' talent is between his legs, and opts to become a man-whore.

Ray's first night out on the job is a disaster of Midnight Cowboy proportions. He gets rejected, and fifty bucks is slipped under the door "for his trouble." Ray realizes he is going to need some help. This is where Tanya Skagle (Jane Adams) comes in. Tanya is a poet that worked briefly with Ray's English class, and becomes a fellow member of the 'market yourself' seminar. After a disastrous double fling the two decide to become business partners (i.e. she becomes his pimp).

Now that set up may seem sketchy and simple, turning the show into a one note joke. The pilot is really well made, and resists the urge to jump right into the swing of things with a realization that there will be plenty of time to get into embarrassing sexual pratfalls (hopefully in upcoming episodes). Instead, we get the story of Ray's fading golden years, all of his losses, and we feel his desperation set in. This is not a bad guy, and Jane does an effective job of rendering sympathy.

The pilot is very well done, and I'm interested to see where this show will lead. This kind of feels like HBO's answer to Showtime's slightly superior Californication. Another show about the dangerous link of desperation and fornication. Director Alexander Payne brings to the premiere that same odd yet wonderful feel he has on all of his projects: Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways. It may be to soon to tell, but if this show holds the same amount of interest it had during it's set up, then this series is likely to become hun....er healthy as a horse. A-

Assorted Links

- Cloverfield director to remake the excellent Swedish child-vampire drama, Let the Right One In.

- Julie Taymor inflicts more pain with a Spider-Man musical. Who is the audience for this?

- The Maxx, Sam Kieth's great 90's animated series, is now streaming online.

- Have you heard this wild rumor that Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight was actually an attempt by him to get fired?!

The Proposal: I Propose That We Only See It Once

Not much to say about this one: Classic fish out of water story mixed with Green Card, with a dash of My Best Friend's Wedding and a sprinkle of Meet the Parents. The leads are good but the story is hackneyed. Date movie of last resort.

Extra note: There's a scene about halfway through the movie where Bullock and Reynolds are having an argument on a motorboat, and he has to swerve out of the way of a buoy, and she falls in the water -- but she can't swim! He continues to yell at her as if she's there, and then realizes she's not in the boat and turns around to get her. She's fine.

At the time, I turned to Bree and said: "wouldn't it be great if she drowned and he had to cover it up? It would be half ridiculous romantic comedy and half serious thriller. It would be the most genius thing to happen in film in decades." Sure, it probably wouldn't sell well -- at least, once the secret got out -- but it would be a hell of a genre-switcheroo.

Public Enemies: #1

Michael Mann may be one of the best directors who believes in putting style over story. This may be why he has so many very good movies, and even a few great ones. Manhunter, The Last of the Mohicans, and Heat are all classics in my book. I worship Miami Vice the television show (the movie less so). And Collateral was on a path to becoming a personal favorite until that wretched final act. This is a director who is very humorless. He commands his projects with the utmost respect and seriousness. This guy does not mess around. Now he has released one of the most anticipated projects of the summer, Public Enemies, the story of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and Melivn Purvis (Christian Bale), the criminal and the cop whose paths were to cross more than once.

The story basically is nothing fancy, just meat and potatoes. Dillinger robs banks with his crew, and Purvis pursues them. That is, in all honesty, most of the film. Nothing really original or flashy in terms of story, but the style, performances, and shootouts all hit the mark. This movie feels like Bonnie and Clyde in a couple different ways. First, Dillinger and his gang were cornered by Purvis several times, and yet still managed to escape. There are at least three different occasions where they found Dillinger's hideouts, resulting in massive and explosive shootouts. Not to mention the two times Dillinger and his crew become incarcerated, and manage to pull daring escapes. These guys just refused to be caught. Second, I feel that in the thirties people were either much tougher, or bullets did far less damage. Just about every character gets shot (sometimes in the head or face), but their demise is never immediate.

To be fair there is a subplot that I thought might drag the story down involving Dillinger's meeting and eventual relationship with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard). This relationship angle actually gives the film a boost because the two actors play off each other so well. She is a strong and defiant character that is a perfect match for him and he sees that too. The scene where he tracks her down at the coat check station is a marvel. He sets up the ground rules for their relationship and she agrees to them, but not without a fight first.

The Melvin Purvis character was a surprise to me. Christian Bale plays him with such a strict and hard demeanor. He is either totally emotionless or so angry that he suppresses all emotion throughout the course of the film. He is so determined to catch this criminal that he acts more like a man possessed, there is no joy in his character. This is a good performance because Bale knows how to reign it in, refusing to go over the top. Depp of course is the standout as Dillinger, living today like there will be no tomorrow. He was aggressive and took what he wanted when he wanted it. He lived the criminal life like a celebrity. The movie theatre scene, when the house lights come up while his mug shot is plastered on the screen, is excellent.

I can't say much more about this one without telling you everything. Even John Cusack's character in High Fidelity reveals Dillinger's fate. To me it is quite unfortunate: "He just wanted to go to the movies." With Public Enemies, you will too. B+

Whatever Works: Whatever.

Premise: A neurotic misanthrope genius, Boris (Larry David), meets a runaway southern teenage dimwit, Melody (Evan Rachel Wood). After letting her stay in his basement, and constantly telling her how stupid she is, Boris is enchanted by her adoption of his miserable life philosophy. They get married, and eventually her parents come to New York to look for her.

Comments:

1. Larry David fills in admirably as this year's Woody Surrogate. In contrast to Kenneth Branagh, who did a spot on vocal imitation of Woody in Celebrity, and Will Farrell, who did a spot on character imitation of Woody in Melinda and Melinda, David just plays himself (literally himself -- his character from Curb Your Enthusiasm). It's easy, because the characters are so similar. The only difference is that Larry, from Curb, is immensely more likable because you can sympathize with him -- he gets into wacky situations and has to deal with the unreasonable condemnation of others.* Boris Yelnikoff, on the other hand, is miserable for no reason. As far as I could tell, nothing really bad ever happened to him that warranted the distaste for living the character exhibits.

2. But Boris' unnatural misanthropy fits this film, where every character is a malleable caricature of something: Melody is a young twit who predictably falls in and out of love with supernatural ease; her mother is a repressed Southern Christian conservative who just needs a little flattery about her "primitive photography" to become a promiscuous polyamorous modern artist; her father only needs to meet one gay man, once, to confess that he was forced by society to sublimate his feelings of attraction toward the footbal team's tight end. No complexity.

3. Thematically speaking, this film is in some ways a comedic expansion of the relationship between Frederick (Max von Sydow) and Lee (Barbara Hershey) in Hannah and Her Sisters. That relationship consisted of a classic older male teacher and an uneducated younger female, where the primary attraction revolved around the worship of intellect. Many of the same points are made -- I told you that you shouldn't have fallen in love with me, I knew you'd leave me, you're a simple girl , etc. And in that sense, I think Whatever Works is effective. Larry David does a good job of accepting Melody's arrival and departure. At the beginning, he's reluctant and belittling, but he as comes to experience life through her he becomes happy. When she leaves him, he's angry, and strikes out with insults, but he understands why she's going and quiety mourns. This relationship, it turns out, is just one in the long line of things that works temporarily, and he drudgingly accepts that fact.

4. Woody is back in New York again after a four-film absence (Match Point, Scoop, Cassandra's Dream, Vicky Christina Barcelona), but I hear he's going back to London for his next film, thankfully. After seeing this movie, I think there's nothing new in New York for Woody to work with. I think he's all tapped out here. I look forward to his continued experimentation abroad.

Recommendation: Only for Woody devotees, or if you need a date movie that will make you feel good about your relationship. Go in with low expectations.

* This is my interpretation of what happens on Curb, which might tell you a lot about who I am.

I Must Spoil Passengers

SPOILER ALERT, but you should really keep reading.

* * *

Passengers (DVD), starring Anne Hathaway and Patrick Wilson, is about a psychologist (Hathaway) who must help the few surviving passengers of a plane crash come to terms with their emotions. During their therapy sessions, she discovers there are some discrepancies among the passengers and the airline about what exactly happened. She starts to suspect things are not as they seem.

The film's director, Rodrigo Garcia, is also the director of many of the episodes in the first season of HBO's excellent series, In Treatment. In some ways Passengers replicates elements of the show: it is about a psychologist; it consists mostly of her attempts at getting them to talk about their traumas; it aspires to the same tone.

But that is where the similarity ends. Without giving anything specific away, Passengers has more in common with movies like Stay, The Sixth Sense, and Vanilla Sky, than In Treatment. Take that however you want.

Away We Go

There are a wonderful pair of scenes late into Away We Go where Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) are given an example of what a family is and how it works. While at a diner their college friend Tom explains, using his plate of pancakes, three sugar cubes, some toothpicks, and a drink coaster as a visual aid. You got your parents and a child and they have a shelter, but that isn't what makes a family complete. He then douses the display in an puddle of syrup, explaining that love is the glue that holds the family unit together. The very next scene Tom explains to Burt in almost heartbreaking detail how his wife just had her fifth miscarriage as he contemplates how unfair it is that a fourteen year old can get knocked up without trying, while a couple who are now in their thirties might have waited too long. I couldn't help but think that if Frank and April Wheeler (the characters from Sam Mendes harshly amazing previous offering Revolutionary Road) had heard these two stories their marriage might have been saved.

Burt and Verona are in love, and they are about to become unplanned parents (the opening "you taste different" scene is a riot). He wants to get married, she does not. They have not a clue what it means to be a parents, and are hoping that his folks will carry some of the load. Jeff Daniels and Catherine O'Hara (the first of many quirky characters) announce they will be leaving the country for two years a month before their grandchild will be born. Convinced that they are "fuck-ups", Burt and Verona set out on a cross-country trip to get some examples from friends and family on what having a child in your life is like.

They first meet up with Verona's former boss Lilly and her husband Lowell (Allison Janney and Jim Gaffigan). Lilly is one of the worst mothers to grace the screen in quite a while. She screams loud embarrassing obscenities in public that she thinks are hilarious. She ridicules her family right in front of them claiming "it's all white noise to them." I tend to think they have just put up with her merciless shit for so long they have learned to just tune her out. One afternoon with these people is more than enough for Burt and Verona.

After all that madness the film tones down briefly with a lovely scene involving Verona's sister Grace (Carmen Ejogo). The two sisters sit and caress each other in a hardware store bathtub while they reminisce about their mother who passed years ago. Then the film turns the crazy back on when we are introduced to Burt's old friend LN (Maggie Gyllenhaal). She is still breast feeding well past her children's appropriate age (super creepy), is terrified of strollers, and has no qualms about making love in front of her children or telling people that she does. Burt and Verona wisely leave before their meal is finished.

Next up is Tom and Munch, the couple I mentioned at the beginning. Their relationship is not creepy, but it is heartbreaking and therefore also no good for Burt and Verona. The last stop they make is to Tom's brother (Paul Schnieder). His wife has just left him, and he doesn't know what or how to tell his daughter. He is also very concerned about his daughter's motherless future.

In the end I came to realize that the only two sane characters in the entire film are the only characters who actually recognize they are insane: Burt and Verona! At least after their odyssey they can acknowledge that that are afraid, but also promise that they will be there for each other. I left feeling satisfied that these two characters would make wonderful parents.

It was incredibly difficult for me to put an appropriate label on this film. It's a comedy because I laughed a lot. It's a drama because there are deeply depressing moments that clicked. It's a romance because there is such a sweet and authentic tenderness between the Krasinski and Rudolph characters. The film also has numerous and even borderline disturbing moments and characters that shocked a reaction out of me (pay close attention to what the kid in the airport terminal says about babies). This film is many different things, and I enjoyed pretty much all of it. A-

'Trailer' Park

There have been a slew of new trailers to hit my eyes and ears over the past few days and here is my reaction to a number of them:

District 9: RATED R! I still can't believe it. I was really looking forward to this one, and now with this news my interest has just sky rocketed. Illegal Aliens (the outer space kind) treated like refugees shot in mockumentary style containing strong bloody violence. Can't wait.

The Box: Looks like a twisted feature length Twilight Zone episode. Cameron Diaz and James Marsden play a married couple with financial woes who are offered a million dollars by a deformed Frank Langella. All they have to do is push a button inside a box that will kill a stranger in an unknown location. I know Richard Kelly movies (Donnie Darko, Southland Tales) don't even make sense to him let alone an audience, but this one feels more accessible. It also comes out just in time for Halloween.

2012: John Cusack and Chiwetel Ejiofor are possibly two of my favorite actors, so why in God's name are they starring in what is essentially The Day After Tomorrow 2? Roland Emmerich, I think you have done more than enough damage to the planet (Independence Day) and movie going audiences (Godzilla). You need to be stop.

The Invention of Lying: Ricky Gervias discovers how to lie in a nothing but the truth telling world, and turns his ordinary life into a much more exciting one. Quite the opposite of Liar Liar, this one actually looks funny. This film is lucky to have Jennifer Garner as the love interest. She can make any romantic comedy better (Ricky, you are not the only person who knows how to lie. I can too.)

The Hurt Locker: Why can't I be living in a major city where this intense looking war film is playing right now? An elite squad of soldiers in Iraq must seek out and defuse deadly bombs in the middle of harsh urban combat. And you thought your job sucked? Director Kathyrn Bigelow has proved in the past she can make an action film as great as the big boys can (Near Dark & Point Break). Early word is this is her best work yet.

Assorted Links

- The first 24 minutes of James Cameron's Avatar is screened -- and an avalanche of superlatives follow.

- David Fincher, Aaron Sorkin and Kevin Spacey to collaborate . . . on Facebook movie?

- Zack Snyder gives fans one weekend of the director's cut of Watchmen.

- R.I.P. King of Pop, Farrah Fawcett

Transformers 2: How Have the Mighty 'Fallen'

I might have to keep this one brief because of the amount of pain I am in right now. I have got a splitting headache, my eyes are burning, my ears are ringing, and I'm a little drowsy from boredom. If you haven't guessed yet I have just come from one of the dozen plus showings a day of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Man, this one is bad.

I will not hide that fact that, while I was never a real fan of the Transformers toys or animated show, that I had a pretty good time with the first film. It was big, loud, dumb, stuff got blowed up real good, and I was especially surprised at the amount of humor. Plenty of jokes missed, but an oddly high number of jokes hit. This made the first film one of the bigger hits of summer 2007. Now along comes this sequel that pretty much tarnishes what little respect I had for the first film.

Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is about to leave for college when a piece of "the cube" left over from the first film falls out of an old shirt and into his kitchen. This causes all of the little appliances to turn into havoc-creating little robots. The Decepticons (bad guys) catch wind of this and decide to use this little fragment to bring back Megatron who wants revenge. Then I don't know -- there are just a ton of explosions, incoherent fight scenes, something about a ray gun to take out earth's sun. I drifted in and out of this one a lot. The whole film has a much darker and unfriendly tone to it. The humor is much more risque, but for all the wrong reasons. We got Sam's mom eating weed brownies, robots humping human legs, and even a great big pair of Transformer testicles.

Lots of familiar faces return, but are given virtually nothing to do. Megan Fox is on the proper path to becoming the next Jessica Alba with projects like this one. She may look great, but she couldn't act her way out of a paper bag. If there were a running in slow motion academy award she would still probably lose (even if there were nine other nominees) Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson return as soldiers to help the Autobots (good guys) fight, but all they really do is fight with the stereotypical "human with power" who wants to shut the whole project down. (see Walter Peck in Ghostbusters). John Turturro is also back as the now disgraced Agent Simmons who has no reason whatsoever to help these kids, but does so just to stay in the movie.

My real hatred for this film stems from its pointless existence, and exposes the notion that everything that needed to be said about Transformers was done so in the first film. I guess what it really boils down to is money. They made a lot of it with the first one, and they spent a lot to make a sequel. Investing it all on special effects and none of it on a script that makes sense. I guess they expect to make even more with this one which they most likely will. Paving the way for a third film and so on.

It is not just that this film is bad, but what makes the film terrible is that it is bad for so long! I wouldn't have been so harsh on a 90 minute little throwaway piece, but this beast is a mind numbing 151 minutes. I could have spent my time watching two better movies. Any two.

I watched this film with a buddy of mine named AJ who could quite possibly be one of the biggest Transformers fans of all time. I mean this guy has got a whole room in his house that is literally a Transformers shrine. Before we left for the theater he confessed to me that if they ever made a movie about Optimus Prime taking a mechanical dump for two and a half hours that he would watch it. As we left the theater I realized that was what we had just witnessed. D-

Oscar Expansion: John's Take

I agree with everything that Allen just said (except for the part about DMTH being the best film of the year so far). This is a bad move. Allen asks "why?" but he inadvertently answers his own question: the reason is to expand the effect of Oscar-season movie-watching, and thereby increase the $$$$ Hollywood earns. Of course, due to the Law of Unintended Consequences, the Oscar people have essentially released the curse of "grade inflation" upon themselves. Watch as the Oscars become the redheaded stepchild to the BAFTAs, Cannes, and the Golden Globes. Instead of more people going to see nominated movies, they will eventually regard nomination as irrelevant.

Also, why did they have to make the leap straight to ten? Why not seven? Also, why not apply this change to the acting categories instead -- after all, statistically speaking, there are more likely to be ten worthy performances than ten worthy movies, since there are simply more performances than films.

One other thing: Are they going to keep the "plurality wins" feature of voting? (i.e., you win as long as you have more than anyone else, even if not the majority of votes). If they do, they will see some really terrible movies winning Best Pic with 11% of the votes.

Oscar Expansion: "Why Don't You Just Give Em the Trophy?"

Why? That is the only word I can think of. Why did they decide to make this cheap move? I just read that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has decided that they are going to to name 10 Best Picture nominees next year instead of 5. This may sound like great news to people who thought films like The Dark Knight and Wall E were overlooked. In all honesty when I took a step back and looked at the situation it now feels more like a publicity stunt, and even worse a cruel tease.

Think of it like this: What were the five best picture nominees last year? Slumdog Millionaire, The Reader, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, and Milk. Now being the movie fanatic I am I managed to see all five of these films before the ceremony, but I was not able to find another living soul that had seen more than one let alone all five prior to the announcement. Adding more nominees will only push people to see more movies that may not be worth awarding. I also predict that since the creation of the best animated category (another academy cop out) we will never see an animated film win best picture so who cares if it gets nominated? Sorry UP it will not be your year.

One more quick note: I know it's still only half way, but the best film I've seen so far this year has regurgitating gypsies, talking goats, and a slaughtered kitten. I know it won't make the cut because it's far too awesome. My point being are there any films worth expanding for? Unless Oscar season really cooks this year, my guess would be no.

To me the whole thing seems about as desperate as watching Wolverine tap dance and sing show tunes. Every year the oscars seem to be turning into the MTV Movie Awards, and I'll be damned if I gotta see New Moon win best picture on both.

Assorted Links

- M. Night has a new website "experience" - Wander around in his haunted house and, if you're lucky, maybe a twist will make the whole thing worth it. Or not.

- The director of Kontroll, Nimrod Antal, may direct the new Predator sequel, which is being produced by Robert Rodriguez. Don't stand too close to the edge of the platform, Robert!

- Triumph (The Insult Comic Dog) goes to Bonnaroo for Conan. Look for a cameo by the nude Max Weinberg!

- David Cross, Will Arnett and Spike Jonze (!) are starring in a new British TV comedy series. Great, now I'm going to call my cable company to order BBC America.

- New, longer, more revealing Inglourious Basterds trailer.

- R.I.P., Ed McMahon.

Assorted Links

- Check out this Charlie Kaufman knock-off: Cold Souls, starring Paul Giamatti as. . . Paul Giamatti. Based on the trailer, it looks less than compelling.

- No Neve Campbell in Scream 4 -- she's just soooooo busy right now. And in such high demand.

- Mrs. Doubtfire trailer, reworked as a thriller. They should've used footage from One Hour Photo -- missed opportunity!

- Do you like Transformers and G.I. Joe, but yearn for more? Check out this great cartoon on other possibilities for movies made from our childhood toys.

- Unbreakable 2? Would anyone besides me see it?

Celebrity Sighting: Johnny Depp

Chicago is not really a hotspot for celebrities, and I don't consider myself a celebrity follower,* but I have to admit I totally embraced the crowd's wild enthusiasm for Johnny Depp. We saw him yesterday night in front of the River East AMC, where they had a screening of Public Enemies, Michael Mann's new John Dillinger biopic, which was filmed in, and set in Chicago.

Christian Bale drove up first, but we didn't really get a good look at him since he went straight into the press tent and then into the theater. Depp, on the other hand, got out of the car and went into the press tent, and then walked straight down Illinois Street waving to fans (pictured above). To our suprise, he started shaking hands and signing autographs, going systematically down the south side of the street. When he was done he went into the theater.

The girls I was with were hugely disappointed, since we were on the north side of the street. Soon after Depp went inside, a cop announced that Depp was just going in to introduce the movie, and that after that, he would come back out and do the other side of the street. Anyway, after about 20 minutes, he did just that, and my friends were able to get their close-range Johnny fix.

Like I said, I don't see many celebrities, but I have to say that Depp's demeanor was really fan-friendly. He really went out of his way to say hi to everyone that came out, while a certain other not-to-be-named, less-famous, raspy-voiced, bat-suit-wearing fellow didn't even give the crowd any face time. In short, as a celebrity, Depp's a class act.

* I did walk behind Vince Vaugn down Michigan Ave once, but to be fair, he was behind me for a while, and I didn't follow him for any longer than it took to get to where I was going.

Full 'Bloom' & A Zombieland Sneak

George Roy Hill may have invented the con game, and David Mamet might have perfected it. That is not to say that there are still numerous pleasures that can be taken away from The Brothers Bloom. This is Rian Johnson's follow up feature to his quite excellent debut 2005's Brick. A noir film about drugs, deception, and death that spoke almost in code and was set in a modern day high school. It was a fresh blending of two stale genres and made me anxious for this newcomers next project. Word must have gotten out about this guys talent because this sucker has got a cast to die for.

Steven (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrian Brody) star as the two life long con artist brothers. The film begins with their first grift as children involving a first love, a fairy tale, and a hidden third finale where it seems the brothers may have lost control of the con, but is reveled to be merely a piece of the puzzle. A very nice touch that all of this is narrated by Ricky Jay. This opener was amazing, humorous, and it lays the groundwork for the kind of caper film this is going to be. 20 years pass and the brothers are still up to their old tricks. Steven is living the life and loving it as the brains of the operation, and Bloom is the talent who wants out because he is sick of living a lie. So it all comes down to that old promise of "one last job, and then I'm out for good."

The brothers along with a mostly mute demolitions expert Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi scene stealer alert!) decide to work the last of their magic that separates a mark from its money on a sweetly charming simpleton named Penelope Stamp (the stunning Rachel Weisz). A wealthy heiress who has never left the house for the most hilarious reasons devised. She is the kind of woman who will trash multiple Ferraris, play numerous musical instruments, and juggle chainsaws on a ten foot tall unicycle. The con involves getting Penelope to fall in love with Bloom and make her believe she is in on the heist. She is quick to give up her money because she has more than enough, and has always wanted a little adventure.

To reveal any more would most likely spoil the fun in seeing where all of this leads. Like any good con game there are crosses and double crosses, and you never really are quite sure when the scenario has stopped being a game and has turned into the real deal. I have to mention the style that this film has is remarkable with a sharp sense of fashion as well. All of the costumes seem straight out of a Vogue magazine and look great on these very handsome players. The color schemes are quite pleasing on the eyes. Pink and green neon signs, burning bookcases, and viewing thunderstorms from a moving train all look amazing. The attitude is so quirky sometimes it feels as if Wes Anderson had made House of Games.

You may see all of the surprises coming a mile away especially if you have seen numerous films about con artists. I was sure I had this one pretty figured out, and for the most part I did. It may be predictable but style, quirk, and likable players can carry a movie a long way sometimes. That's not to say that The Brothers Bloom doesn't have a surprise ace (or in this case a queen of hearts) up it's sleeve. B+

Trailer Report: Zombieland

The last Columbia Pictures trailer that had me cracking up, featured Emma Stone, and had some Van Halen blaring on the soundtrack was a little ditty called Superbad. While I don't believe that this one will be as well received (another zombie movie, really?) I still think it looks pretty rockin. Woody Harrelson, Jessie Eisenberg, and Abigail Breslin (Talk about diverse casting!) play a group of survivors who will battle the living dead at what looks like a theme park. Lack of Brrrrrrrrrrains? Most likely, but seeing Woody blast flesh eaters while hanging from a roller coaster. Tell me that doesn't sound like fun.

Year One: No Fun

Premise: Two misfits (Jack Black and Michael Cera) get ejected from a prehistoric clan, only to stumble into various situations from the Book of Genesis.

Comments:

1. This movie wants to be Superbad in ancient Israel, but it ends up feeling more like Bill & Ted Save Soddom & Gomorrah. It's just two dopes getting involved with biblical characters, such as Cain (David Cross), Abel (Paul Rudd), Abraham (Hank Azaria), and Isaac (McLovin), all the while seeking to get laid. Very stale stuff.

2. Jack Black and Michael Cera do what each gets paid to do: Black flails wildly with jubilant stupidity, while Cera complains snarkily with lame, stuttering boyishness. It usually works for them, but not here. Maybe with halfway decent writing, they would have been funny together, but alas, we'll never know.

3. Most of the genuine laughs come from gross-out humor: Jack Black tastes some bear shit and describes it; Michael Cera pees on himself; Adam's son lyrically farts; Oliver Platt gets rubbed in oil; testicles are tossed; statue penises fall off, etc. You might smile or snicker at other gags* in the movie, but I guarantee that only the above will even come close to evoking an audible giggle.

4. There are more laughs in the ending credit blooper reel than in the movie proper. It's sad because the bloopers weren't even that good (They must have been desperate to include that unfunny Olivia Wilde blooper, no offense to Olivia Wilde).

5. For the sake of full disclosure, I am a Jack Black fan. I am a Michael Cera fan. I typically like this kind of movie. I enjoy low brow toilet humor. But this movie was just boring to me. What does that tell you?

6. P.S. Harold Ramis -- the scene where Cain beats Abel to death with a rock -- bad choice.

Recommendation: Even if you like the usual Apatow fare, you won't be able to squeeze more than a few half-hearted chuckles from this one. If you have to see it, wait for the DVD.

* With one exception: At one point, after Cera's character is exposed to circumcision and eunuchs, he says: "What is with all the genital mutilation?" That was pretty funny.

Shower Power & 'Shutter' Flutter

Psycho (1960): Everyone remembers the first time they were terrified as a child by a movie. For some it is the sight of blue monkeys with wings tearing a living scarecrow to pieces. Others believe seeing a shark devouring a helpless boy is pretty horrifying. Although these are great examples mine was a little different. The image of horror that burned into my head at the tender age of nine was seeing a silhouetted transvestite (uh...not exactly) slashing and hacking at a beautiful bathing embezzler while high pitched violins screeched an unforgiving tune. My world was shattered and from that moment on I had a greater respect and fascination of film. Of course I am talking about Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece Psycho. A film that I just had the pleasure of seeing on the big screen at the Cinema Center, Fort Wayne's local art house theater. I felt compelled to share the experience.

Before the film began there was a half hour discussion about the history and reputation this film has that I found pretty interesting. I was amazed at how little plot revealing there was during the presentation, and also couldn't help but notice how young that audience in attendance was. There was a good forty person turnout. Before the film began the presenter asked the audience how many people have never seen this movie before and a good thirty hands reached for the ceiling. My eyes widened, my face shot to the floor and I could only hang my head in shame. After spurts of laughter the presenter gave a perfect and simple response: "I envy you."

Then the lights dimmed and the movie started. It turned out to be a much better viewing than I expected. seeing a bunch of first timers reacting to lines and scenes I long since had memorized. They laughed at a few dated lines and jokes, and shrieked and jumped at the more horrifying moments. People literally yelled "Don't go into the cellar!", and this was all done in a authentic way. It was almost like going into a time machine and watching it with a 1960 audience. When the lights came up there was a collective chill. Then slowly there was clapping, murmuring, and smiles abound. These people knew that had just witnessed a truly excellent film.

I won't go too into detail about the film itself because odds are that you have seen it already. If you never have then stop reading this right now, and get to your nearest video store. Psycho is really two crime films rolled into one. Crimes of passion and profit. Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) has just stolen 40,000 dollars from her bank to start a new life with her strapped-for-cash boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). When en route she stops in the middle of a thunderstorm at a seemingly deserted motel that "seems to be hiding from the rest of the world". This is the Bates Motel and its run by a seemingly nice, but nerdy young man named Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins) and his overbearing & cranky mother Mrs. Bates. The two talk over dinner about mistakes and mad mothers (a truly chilling moment: "put her in someplace"). Marion realizes she made a mistake and plans to return the money, but not before taking a shower. The rest is cinematic history.

Psycho works so well at telling a story and getting under your skin you can't help but respect and love the power it holds over you. It will dupe the shit out of you and could even mildly change your daily habits. I always lock the bathroom door before showering. The same way I always check the backseat of my car at night before starting the engine (thanks a lot Halloween). I know there is nothing to fear, it is now just an unbreakable habit. People say they hate being scared, I think it's a total rush. I know many other people share this feeling because if they didn't not a single slasher film would have been made after Psycho. It was a major success and paved the way for nothing but imitators that never came close. Speaking of imitators, Psycho had shot for shot remake made in 1998. I saw it in the theater as well (with my mother) and in reaction could only mimic Mrs. Bates immortal words: "I refuse to speak of such disgusting things, because they disgust me!"

Trailer Report: Shutter Island
"You mean an institution, a madhouse. Have you ever seen the inside of one of those places? The laughing and the tears and the cruel eyes studying you." Sorry, I guess I'm still psyched about Psycho. From the early looks of Martin Scorsese's next project we may not be too far off. Shutter Island will star Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo as a couple of 50's detectives called onto an isolated asylum to track down a missing inmate that may know too much. As the case progresses we learn that the detectives may lose a way back home along with their minds. The trailer is phenomenal and creepy. Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane whose previous book to film adaptations were the stellar Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone. I can't wait to see Scorsese go to the places Clint Eastwood and Ben Affleck have brought back some of their best work.

Linkfest!

- Sean Penn drops out of the Farrelly Bros.' Three Stooges. Thank God. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

- Everyone loves a fake trailer! Check out the movies of George Simmons, Adam Sandler's character from Apatow's upcoming Funny People.

- Tony Blair = Ernst Stavro Blofeld? Michael Sheen rumored to be next Bond villain.

Linkfest!

- Check out this awesome "Futuristic Movie Timeline" that charts each movie by when it was made and when it is supposed to take place.

- Three sequels in the works right now that just don't need to happen: Hangover 2, Wanted 2, and Indiana Jones 5: The Curse of Box Office Success.

- How fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on whom you ask) that Robert Rodriguez has made so much money from those Spy Kids movies that he can pretty much do whatever he wants. Case in point: Machete -- you know it from the faux-trailer from Grindhouse.

The Calculus of Shutter

Shutter = What Lies Beneath + Lost in Translation

Seriously, that's all I have to say.

Linkfest!

The Linkfest is a short list of interesting movie and television tidbits from around the web. This is just a trial run, so please let us know in the comments if you'd like us to continue and/or provide other features. Thanks!

- Lost's Matthew Fox reveals a teeny tiny, itty bitty, miniscule, deliberately vague bit of information about next season!

- AMC is remaking The Prisoner, starring Jim Caviezel and Ian McKellen. I'll be seeing it. Get it? Seeing it, like "I'll be seeing you"? Nevermind.

- Del Toro's Hobbit is bringing back some of the LOTR big guns.

- Liam Neeson in talks to join Bradley "Faceman" Cooper in the A-Team remake. Hint: he's not playing B.A. Baracus.

- Who was the ad wizard who came up with this one? They're remaking Don Knott's epic WWII drama, The Incredible Mr. Limpet!

The Taking of Pelham: Once, Twice, Three Times a Movie

Everyone seems to love a good crackerjack heist/ransom thriller, especially a film called The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. So much so that this same movie has been made three different times. A very simple setup involving a hijacked train, a handful of hostages, a negotiator in way over his head, and a group of name color coded criminals. (Where do you think QT got the idea for Reservoir Dogs?) Film fanatics remember the original hard boiled 1974 version, and the new 2009 version has been getting plenty of publicity. Little do people know that there is a lesser known third version of this same film with the same title. It was released as a made for TV movie back in 1998, and starred Edward James Olmos as the negotiating officer, and Vincent D'Onofrio as the mastermind thief. Unfortunately I never did get the opportunity to see this version, so I will not be able to review it. I have however seen the two more well known versions and can say that in the span of 35 years the more things change the more they stay the same.

The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974): It all begins like any other dirty morning in the big apple. People are loading onto the subway when a group of men enter one at a time at various different stops. They are all dressed in similar manner wearing long coats, hats, glasses, and matching fake moustaches. Each man is also carrying a bag or a box containing an automatic weapon, very reminiscent of Dog Day Afternoon and Terminator 2: Judgement Day. Once the leader Mr. Blue (an always steely cool Robert Shaw) has taken control of the head of the train, he and his crew split the cabs into sections, and begin to make their demands. One million dollars in one hour or a hostage dies for every following minute the money is not delivered.

It just so happens that this morning Lt. Garber (the reliably grouchy Walter Matthau) is giving a tour of the criminal division of the transit department, when all hell begins to break loose. Matthau acts as the voice of reason trying to talk to the kidnappers, negotiate with them, and pick up clues on their character. At first all of the commotion and confusion feels boiled down to negligence on the train conductor's part. Everyone at the control base is baffled as to why the train continues to stop and separate, and it is making them increasingly mad. Then the demands come and the heat is turned up even higher.

That is one thing I noticed about this version right off the bat. It is a very angry film full of very angry characters. The mayor is upset when he finds out he has to pay a ransom he can't afford. The cops are upset the mayor is paying the ransom as opposed to giving a strike order. The hostages are upset they may die over a lousy million bucks. But nothing compares to the transit workers who spend the whole movie angry their train traffic flow has been disrupted by a bunch of bums. They also have no problem back talking to both the cops and the criminals. A random bit of their dialogue goes like this: "Screw the goddamn passengers! What the hell did they expect for their lousy 35 cents - to live forever?" You may be surprised to learn that the people who manage to keep their cool throughout most of the film are the criminals, even if there is a wild card.

This is a pure example of 70's cinema. The fashion, the style, the attitude. Everything just seems to be a little tougher. This film is fill of racist and sexist remarks suggesting that many people were not too happy with the changing cultural climate. I love the pairing of Shaw and Matthau. Such polar opposites having to negotiate to get what they want. It's a shame their isn't more of a showdown resolution when they finally meet. Nevertheless this is a very good crime caper. It may be simple in plot, but is still pretty hot under the collar.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009): The updated version of this film is aside form a few quibbles, and a drastically altered for the worse ending is a pretty kinetic and faithful remake. I wasn't expecting the first two thirds to keep to the same basic story, and have it work fairly effectively. The cast now consists of Denzel Washington as the dispatcher, and John Travolta as the mastermind of the heist. Travolta plays his character fast and loose instead of cool and collected, and this was a change I rather enjoyed. He can't compare to Shaw so he plays the Ryder character with fits of extreme anger and ecstasy. He seems like he's having a great time in this role. Denzel keeps his cool this time around is a bit more clean cut physically, but more morally corrupt than Matthau. These two have pretty good chemistry. Part of the pleasure of this film is watching these two banter back and forth and match each other move for move and word for word.

It is also highly respected for refusing to take things down a notch and turn into a play it safe summer film. Obscenities fly wild and not all of the hostages will walk out of the situation, some will need to be carried out. This being a Tony Scott film it has moments of sped up blur shots that are distracting but taken down a notch, not nearly as many as in Domino. I must note that the dispatcher central gave me a bit of deja vu. Quite possibly because it looked exactly like left over set pieces from a previous Scott/Denzel film: Deja vu.

I really disliked the obvious plot ploy of giving one of the hostages a way of reaching help on the outside. This time it's a guy with a laptop who has picked a swell time to decide whether he is ready to commit to is girlfriend or not (awful). I also mentioned how disappointed I was that in the original film there was not a big enough showdown between the two leads. This version changes that and after seeing it I was happier with the original. (minor SPOILER ALERT) It comes down to the two leads on a bridge, and both have a gun. If you've seen Collateral or any other action film ever, you already know the outcome.

Both films turn out to be worth checking out one more so than the other, but as far as heist films and their remakes go it could have been way worse. Pelham old and new are a couple of trains that are worth catching. Pelham (1974): B+ Pelham (2009): B-

Gomorrah: Corrupt to the Core

"I'm a gangster, I'm a straight up G. The gangster life is the life for me. Shooting people by day, selling drugs by night. Being a gangster is hella tight." - Josh Toban.

Hollywood has spent decades glamorizing the idea of what the life of a gangster is all about. We are shown images of wads of cash, mountains of cocaine, and bikini clad woman everywhere. It seems that in the movies a life of crime pays rather well. Gomorrah on the other hand, a very bleak and horrifying film from Italy shows what the life of a gangster really entails. For all of those people out there who worship Scarface and live by the motto: "The world is yours". This is the true gangster film you should be watching. It may very well prove that this life my not be as glamorous as you think.

I walked into this film knowing very little about it, other than it was a critically acclaimed foreign film about how harsh a life of crime can be. It tells very interesting and multiple tales of how crime affects everyone. Old, young, poor, and wealthy all are subjected to this shady way of life. There are five separate stories that the film focuses on and in a rather odd move the stories do not intersect with one another, even though I expected them to.

There is the delivery kid who is looking for his big break into the gang. Part of his initiation involves wearing a bulletproof vest and then intentionally taking a round to get the fear out of his system. The pacifist Don of the neighborhood who slowly realizes that his power is slipping out of his hands and into the hands of violent street gangs. The shady dealer and his protegee looking to find and use land to fill with deadly toxic waste. The tailor who decides to go against the mob and start designing dresses for rival Chinese corporations. Then there are the two most memorable characters of the film, a couple of really stupid Tony Montana wannabes who find out the hard way that stealing guns from the wrong people can have disastrous consequences.

As the film played out I couldn't help but make comparisons to both City of God and Syriana. Two very different films about two very different kinds of crime. In this film the stories that follow the youngsters looking to find a way in mostly resembled City of God. The brutally harsh way of life that is hard to watch adults live out suddenly becomes more horrifying when you realize the adults have vanished and the children have taken their place. Then comes the white collar crime where deals are struck, and backs are stabbed. No one gets their finger nails pulled out here, but if you are doing an under-the-table deal and your new employer asks you to ride in the trunk that can't be a good sign.

In the end some of these characters are lucky enough to find a way out, and some were doomed from the start. Just about every character ends up with the dilemma of having to sell their soul or having their blood spilled. Sometimes it's both. Gomorrah may not paint a very pretty picture, but it does paint an honest one. Apparently this is a way of life in this part of the world, and much of the film stems from true stories. I will end this review with some of the best advice I've ever received from a gangster film that many characters in this film could have used. Layer Cake: "Avoid like the plague, loud attention seeking wannabe gangsters who are in it for the glory, to be a face, to be a name. They don't mean to fuck up. They just do." B

Royal Pains: House in the Hamptons

Royal Pains is a new hour-long series that premiered last Thursday at 9c on the USA network . It stars TV veteran Mark Feuerstein as Hank Lawson, a "Medical McGuyver" ER doctor who gets blackballed by mainstream medicine and ends up becoming a high-paid "concierge doctor" -- a personal physician to the uber-wealthy of the Hamptons.

In the pilot episode, Hank gets dragged to a party in the Hamptons by his brother, Evan, who is basically a dorky accountant version of Christian Troy. At the party, Hank rescues a beautiful girl who is misdiagnosed by the party doctor (you see, these parties get so hardcore out there that each one needs its own medical staff) and then, after being offered cash by the creepy Austrian count hosting the party (the awesome Campbell Scott), disappears into the night from whence he came, with every intention of leaving the Hamptons and never coming back.

Of course, after just one awesome display of ER heroics, Hank's phone number gets magically teleported into the cell phones of every rich person in the Hamptons. By the end of the next day, overly-reluctant Hank ends up diagnosing a "cyberchondriac" teenager, saving a hemophiliac car crash victim with on-the-spot surgery, popping a breast implant, hiring a cute (but odd) Indian girl as his assistant, fighting off the advances of the beautiful girl whose life he saved, and going on a date with the local hospital administrator. After having praise, money (bar of gold!), and women thrown at him all day long, Hank finally capitulates, gives in to his awesomeness, and becomes Campbell Scott's concierge doctor.

Hank is like the action-hero version of Greg House (timeout: I'll give you a second to appreciate my fantastic pun in the title), because he has to diagnose you and treat you in a matter of seconds, all the while using household items like pens, scissors, baggies, and vodka. In other words, he's better than House, because he does it all, and faster, and dreamier -- but not as humorously (his brother, played by the "smart one" from Road Trip, aka Paul Costanzo, is the comic relief).

Recommendation: Royal Pains looks like it will be more lighthearted than the topic matter might normally allow (Royal Pains : Medicine :: Burn Notice : Espionage), so that's a plus if you don't need realism and don't mind not being sad. Subject matter-wise, it probably falls somewhere between Nip/Tuck and House on the continuum of medical dramedies. If you like Nip/Tuck, you'll enjoy Royal Pains' wacky Felix-Oscar brother dynamic, the ultra-eccentric clients, and a bevy of gratuitously placed beautiful women. If you like House, you'll enjoy Royal Pains' quick-form diagnostics and outside-the-box professionalism.

Coming Soon: Moon

From a very positive review of Sam Rockwell's new film, Moon:

Playing a lonely man on the moon as he nears the end of his three-year mining contract, Rockwell digs deep and comes up with an intricately layered portrait of a drone at wits’ end. As he preps for his return to Earth, Sam starts hallucinating about sinister scenarios that may or may not be unfolding at his lunar outpost. Glitches in video messages he receives from his wife and from his corporate masters only fuel his paranoia.

Sounds captivating. I can't believe I hadn't heard of it earlier -- or even seen a trailer for it.

Incredulous Commentary: Drag Me to Hell & The Hangover

Re: Drag Me to Hell:

1. What legitimate reason could there be to hang an anvil in your garage? That is, unless your name is Wile E. Coyote.

2. Is Allison Lohman reverse aging? How is possible that she now looks younger than she was in Matchstick Men?

3. (a) If you're a gypsy who can call up evil demons to drag random people to hell, why are you having such a hard time paying your mortgage? (b) If you're a gypsy that has a huge network of friends and family that come to celebrate you, why are you having such a hard time paying your mortgage? . . . I could go on like this all night.

Re: The Hangover:

1. Thank god counting cards is so easy. 700% return on one night of playing is pretty . . . impossible.

2. Did Doug actually spend two whole days on top of a Las Vegas skyscraper roof with no water and still survive? Unlikely.

3. Lucky Bradley Cooper's character only sustained a cut on his lip after being smacked dead in the face with a crowbar.

The Hangover: Laugh 'Til it Hurts

I have already learned from the excellent 2006 comedy The Matador, that the best way to cure a hangover is to take three aspirins and eat a raw egg before you go to bed. Believe it or not it I've tried it twice or so and it totally works. Movies may sometimes give the audience advice that might seem stupid or irresponsible, but on occasions some films are like a well of knowledge. Here are a few things I learned while watching The Hangover.

10. Screening this film with your sister and her fiancee can be a little creepy considering she has a brother named Alan who is a bit of a loner, has a gut, facial hair, and is spending some time bonding with his soon to be brother-in-law. The whole opening of this film hit a little close to home. (congrats Em & Paul)

9. Letting children wield tazers may lead to disastrous, yet hilarious results.

8. Counting cards is not illegal it's just frowned upon, kind of like masturbating in airplanes.

7. It's a big mistake to call a satchel a 'man-purse'. Satchels are considered way more masculine because Indiana Jones wears one.

6. I'm convinced Director Todd Phillips has a bizarre obsession with hearing wedding singers perform totally inappropriate sexually suggestive songs, or inserting expletives into harmless ones during wedding receptions. Although I must admit turning Total Eclipse of the Heart into a F-bomb laced laugh riot is pretty clever. (see Old School)

5. Even if he is portraying a father, husband, and a school teacher in the same role Bradley Cooper has been, is, and most likely always will play a Douche bag.

4. A sweet yet slightly trashy Heather Graham is a total upgrade when compared to a bitchy and overbearing Rachael Harris.

3. Calling Zach Galifianakis "Fat Jesus" and then watching him take a pummeling is pretty funny stuff, especially to weird Asian crime lords.

2. Tigers love pepper...they hate Cinnamon.

1. Sometimes saving your best material for the end credits can be a stroke of genius.

This is a guy's night out comedy that dosen't loose it's edge. It may not be as suave as Swingers or as heartfelt as Sideways, but it totally works. I just hope you like your comedy the way you take your coffee the next morning after a night of heavy drinking: Black. B+

When Worlds Collide: Harryhausen meets SNL

OK, lets face it Land of the Lost was a bust. Everyone told me it was going to be, and in this case everyone was right. Fear not though, for my video selections this week will surely satisfy your (or at the very least my own) desire to see late night comedians and prehistoric creatures. Only catch is you have to watch them separately, not mashed together in the same film.

Video Pick(s) of the Week:

Mysterious Island: I remember watching this on basic cable years ago with my father who was quick to introduce me to the wonders of stop motion animation. The 7th Voyage of Sinbad & Jason and the Argonauts were two other Saturday afternoon classics I grew up with. In the golden age of cinema there were no computerized special effects. There was only an effects wizard by the name of Ray Harryhausen. This man made sword fighting skeletons, mammoth metal warriors, and scary cyclops creatures look amazing for it's time. Mysterious Island from 1961 is another work of art by this master of motion. The film revolves around a group of captured civil war soldiers who make their escape in a giant balloon. They become lost in a giant hurricane and wash up on shore of the altogether now....Mysterious Island! While occasionally bickering amongst each other they quickly discover they are not alone. This island also inhabits giant crabs, flightless birds, and massive honey bees. A food supply is not hard to come by here, but you have to earn your meal first by doing battle with these monsters... and then eating them. Time has been pretty kind to this one, it is still a lot of fun and looks great for it's age.

Hot Rod: When this one came out a few years back I, like a lot of people was quick to dismiss it as a moronic and juvenile looking kiddie flick made by a bunch of new Saturday Night Live cast members. It is all of those things, and furthermore there are numerous scenes that are incoherent nonsense. So why is it so damn funny? I can pop this 87 minute gem in anytime and instantly have a better day. Andy Samberg (the guy responsible for those wicked awesome SNL digital shorts) plays Rod. A nearly 30 year old kid stuntman wannabe who must raise 50 grand for his stepfather's heart surgery only so Rod can "beat him to death", and earn his respect. His crew of misfits include: his younger stepbrother Kevin (Jorma Taccone) who video tapes all of Rod's stunts. Dave (Bill Hader) and Rico (Danny McBride) are resopnsible for ramp building and pyrotechnics (they like to party). And then there is Denise (Isla Fisher) the cute as a button girl next door who provides moral support. Numerous jokes involve Samburg getting hurt from his stunts and tons of random rapping, punch-dancing, and inspirational musical montages. The soundtrack by 80's glam band Europe (minus "The Final Countdown") is so awful that it achieves some kind of excellence. Numerous names that appear in Land of the Lost are also present here: McBride, Taccone, and even Will Ferrell was an executive producer. This was why I was quick to make the connection. The only difference is this one came in under the radar, is much funnier, and I predict will become something of a future cult classic.

The Goode Family: Judge Enters the Culture Wars

I'm not sure if Mike Judge's new series, The Goode Family, will be given a chance, but if it does, it might end up being one of the very few shows on TV to make it while poking fun at political correctness (only South Park has really succeeded massively at this, with It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia bringing up the rear). So far, it's being commended by the libertarian-leaning press (See Glenn Garvin's review), but it remains to be seen whether the Prius-driving folk will enjoy it, or at least, not be offended by it.

The premise is this: the Goode family, consisting of Gerald and Helen Goode, their independent daughter "Bliss," their adopted son from Africa, Ubuntu (who's white -- they were initially disappointed), their vegan dog "Che" (who's a secret carnivore), and Helen's dad, the consummate conservative man's man. The plots generally revolve around how the Goodes respond to their desire to be "good" when put in opposition to various obstacles, such as the needs of their kids (e.g., Ubuntu wants to play football, Bliss doesn't want to talk about contraception), and usually involves some decision about how to square their values with reality.

The beauty of the show is that it lampoons political correctness without making uncomfortable political attacks -- in fact, Judge does a good job of hitting both the left and right pretty equally. What the show really goes after is mindless conformity. We are meant to like and sympathize with the Goode Family -- they just want to be good liberals -- environmentally friendly, socially conscientious, tolerant, and peaceful. But they get pushed on from both sides -- pressured by the extremists on the left to fit in (e.g., poor Helen is ridiculed for not having brought her own bag to an organic grocery, animal rights extremists accuse a pet rescue drive of promoting "slavery") and freaked out by extremists on the other side (e.g., abstinence movement people who have creepy dad-daughter marriage ceremonies, animal sacrifice hungry football fans). Naturally, they form a synthesis from the two opposite sides to try to be reasonable -- very similar to the way South Park's Stan synthesizes a viewpoint between uber-conservative Cartman and left-leaning Kyle.

Given the new (possibly permanent) Democratic majority, this is really a show for our times. If allowed to survive, it will serve a necessary function by checking the orthodoxy of the increasingly too-cautious entertainment industry. Three episodes in, and The Goode Family is hitting a wide range of topics, keeping the subject matter relatively light, avoiding low blows, and hiding a little subversive comedy among the safer stuff. Give it a chance.

Land of the Lost: Tachyons, Tyrannosaurus, and Terrible Execution

Movies from old television shows are hardly ever a good idea. I find that for every Fugitive there are about a dozen Lost in Space or The Avengers. Terrible films that no one really seemed to be clamoring for even if the TV show was pretty good. Having never seen a single episode of Sid and Marty Krofft's cheesy, ultra low budget version of Land of the Lost, I went into this one with a glimmer of hope. I'll be honest, it had plenty going for it: The cast, the special effects, the comedic slant. So why was this movie so lame and unlikeable?

Dr. Rick Marshall (Will Ferrell) has spent the last three years as something of a scientific punchline. He believes that he has created a space and time machine allowing people to travel to alternate universes in search of new fuel sources. After getting booted off the Today show and the scientific community for his asinine theories Marshall has pretty much given up. One day he is tracked down by Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel) who believes that his machine could work. They set out to a trashy tourist trap in the middle of the desert run by Will Stanton (Danny McBride). While on a pitiful raft ride there is an earthquake, the time machine gets turned on and the three of them fall into a time warp, entering the land of the lost. We learn that in this dimension the past, present, and future are all rolled into one. The land is full of dinosaurs, giant crabs, Sleestacks (human/lizard hybrids that have rows of sharp teeth), and then there is Chaka (Jorma Taccone) a little human/monkey that enjoys dancing insanely to oldies, and grabbing Holly's chest. The plot then turns incredibly simple: "How do we get back home?"

My problems with this film are numerous. The whole time paradox is not even worth mentioning because it is silly and senseless. I don't know why they are called special effects this time around because there is nothing special about them. Dinos have looked way better in films like Jurassic Park and King Kong. Films that are considerably older, but look way better. Speaking of the dinos I had a huge problem with the decision to give the T-Rex a personality. Somehow this mammoth creature of death and destruction begins a personal vendetta against Marshall for being called an idiot. He doesn't want to attack because he is a predator, and he only ever attacks Marshall. There literally is a scene when the T-Rex lets Holly and Will walk right by just so he can battle Rick. Once the battle is finished in a pretty awful manner, Holly then scolds the beast right to it's face. I figured that this was supposed to humor any kids watching, but I found it cringe worthy. For a comedy this one is pretty unfunny. There are a few chuckles in the early McBride scenes, and hearing Marshall tell Chaka to protect master then turning around and calling him a "little asshole" I have to admit was pretty funny. Other than these weak offerings this film is devoid of laughs.

This film is also a career low for nearly everyone involved. Will Ferrell has had a pretty streaky record since leaving the world of SNL to make films. He has had comedic success in fare like Step Brothers, and is even better with dramatic rolls like Stranger Than Fiction and Winter Passing. But on the flip side of that coin you have some real misfires like Semi-Pro and Bewitched. Ah, Bewitched a perfect film to compare this one to. It originates from an old TV show that has been updated to modern times, stars Will Ferrell, and is apparently a comedy without any real laughs, sound familiar? I found Anna Friel adorable on the cancelled to soon Pushing Daises, but she is so miscast here. Her accent was distracting, and she really brings nothing to the table aside from having a chest for Chaka to grab. Danny McBride has always been reliable to me for a laugh, and he comes the closest to saving face here. He does arrogant redneck so well I'm beginning to believe he is not an actor at all. Almost the same way Michael Cera does flustered teen to perfection. These guys aren't acting they just are that way in reality. Director Brad Silberling has few films to his credit, but they were not bad ones at all. Moonlight Mile and Lemony Snicket were both quality flicks to me.

It really makes me wonder: how could a pretty good cast, a pretty good director, and a pretty good idea have taken the wrong step at nearly every turn? The answer is that this film is unfunny, uninspired, and just downright lazy. It will possibly end up being one of the biggest disappointments this summer. I'm still not ready to turn my back completely on anyone here, but just a warning Mr. Ferrell: stay away form old TV to film updates, they certainly are not helping your career any. D

Up: Superlatives Abound, But Pixar Can Do Better

Premise: An elderly widower who's being forced into a nursing home decides to lift his house with helium balloons and fly to Paradise Falls, a magical place in South America where he and his wife fantasized about living before she died. A rambunctious, daddy-seeking boy scout accidentally stows away under his porch, and navigates the house through a storm and all the way to South America. After landing, the old guy and boy scout try to pull the house (which is floating a couple stories above them) with ropes to a spot right over the falls. A wacky bird and a troupe of talking dogs hunting said bird get in the way. Resistance, danger, acceptance, and adventure ensue.

Comments:

1. Better than WALL-E, but not as good as Ratatouille.

2. But it was perhaps more beautiful than either. And I did not see it in 3D (shame on me), but I totally imagined where they would use the 3D while I was watching it, and I'm sure it would have been awesome.

3. I must say that, although some disagree, I think that Pixar's use of cartoonish looking figures implanted in a very realistic environment enhances the viewer's comfort with the CGI by avoiding the yuckies caused by the uncanny valley. It also creates a contrast that makes the environment seem even more real in relation to the cartoon actors. Stay the course, Pixar! Do not go the way of Beowulf.

4. The plot is a combination of About Schmidt, Indiana Jones, and King Kong. Pixar kind of reached a bit. Too many elements may have harmed the storytelling here -- I find that simple stories, like Pixar's superior Ratatouille, are better suited to Pixar's style and are more effective at getting us to care about characters. I found that Up at times felt like a set of artificially bundled-up ideas, rather than a cohesive and naturally progressing whole.

5. Speaking of caring, we do, an awful lot, for this old man. But it feels a little forced. The beginning of the movie serves us up a big platter of tearjerker, letting us watch a montage of his and his wife's life together, from their childhood meeting to her death [Bree remarked to me that this is kind of "cheap" on Pixar's part, because it is almost too easy to appeal to our emotions that way. True, indeed. But that doesn't make it any less effective.] The old man's entire voyage is premised on realizing his wife's unfulfilled wishes, and if that can't draw some saline out of your lacrimal glands, you should take your heart out of the freezer.

6. The comic relief comes in the tripartite form of the bumbling boyscout, the dinosaur-like bird, and a dog named Doug, who has a collar that allows him to talk (translating his thoughts into words?). Among these, the bird is most successful, combining the best elements of slapstick physical comedy and bird-specific ridiculousness (watch the eye movement especially). The boyscout is a Dennis the Menace-type, and most of his comedy is of the "kids say the darndest things" variety. Doug the Dog has his moments, and there are plenty of talking dogs in this movie besides him, but for the most part, the writers missed an opportunity to really get inside dogs' heads. Any dog lover knows that there's a lot of good material in the fiction of talking dogs, but the writers seemed content to stick with "I love you, you're my master" and "there's a squirrel!" They ever so slightly dropped the ball.

7. This is darker than your average Pixar film. The villain is a (one-dimensional) psychotic murderer with a pack of snarling canines willing to attack on command. Each of the main characters encounters significant peril, including being bitten, falling down cliffs, smashing into rocks, and being caught in a fire. I'd imagine it might be a little scary for the youngsters, especially in 3D.

Recommendation: You might as well see in on the big screen, if you're going to see it, and you will see it eventually. All in all, it was a good ride spattered with hearty tears. But Pixar has not exceeded expectations with this one -- perhaps they set the bar too high.

Angels & Demons: Jack Bauer, Meet Robert Langdon

Premise: On the eve of the election of a new pope, symbologist Robert Langdon is summoned by the Vatican to investigate the reappearance of the Illuminati, along with the kidnapping of some cardinals and the theft of some antimatter [suspend your disbelief] that could blow Vatican City to kingdom come.

Comments:

1. I was entertained. Angels & Demons is the Catholic Church version of TV's 24 (of which I am a devoted fan). First, the whole thing is structured in the form of a 5-part ticking clock, in which the four cardinals will be killed each hour on the hour, leading up to the antimatter "bomb" potentially going off at midnight. Langdon and his sidekick race from location to location trying to solve multiple mysteries and dodging dangerous obstacles, and each hour could be an episode unto itself. Second, the predicaments Langdon gets himself in are positively Bauerian: He gets locked in the Vatican's airless archives, jumps into a fountain to rescue a sinking priest, and climbs through grates in churches to avoid gunfire. Pretty daring stuff for a spy, much less for a middle-aged professor.

2. I am not entirely sure the plot holds up -- without giving anything away, I would suggest the viewer consider what the "bad guy" is intending to do, and all the things that could be happening during the movie to conflict with, negate, or otherwise alter his plan. It seems to me that he either must have quite a few contingency plans, or he very masterly made things work out as planned. Maybe the book is clearer, but I'll never know.

3. Israeli actress Ayelet Zurer, who plays Langdon's physicist sidekick, quietly makes this a breakout role for American film (she was also in Munich, but who knew?). Though she doesn't do anything extraordinary, she exudes a graceful manner that could give her a niche in American dramas. (Something Audrey Tatou, of The DaVinci Code, was not able to make happen, unfortunately).

4. For those uninterested in the plot, the film still serves a useful purpose: as a tour through the main hotspots in Rome and Vatican city. Langdon & Friends stream through the Pantheon, Piazza Navona, St. Peter's, the Sistine Chapel, Castle Sant'Angelo, and other historically significant and picturesque locales. Furthermore, the dialogue in Angels & Demons will probably give you just as good a primer on these spots as Rick Steves would.

5. Three cheers for Chicago's own David Pasquesi, who has a pretty big role as one of the Vatican's chief security operatives. Dave, as many of you know, does a popular two-man improv comedy show with his partner, T.J. Jagodowski, at the Improv Olympic in Chicago, which I have seen multiple times and is really awesome. Nice Italian accent, Dave!

Recommendation: If you liked DaVinci Code you'll like this better. If you didn't like DaVinci Code, but like 24, you might still like this. If you hate both Dan Brown and 24, don't see this movie.

Raimi's Resume

With Drag Me to Hell opening this weekend, I thought it might be necessary to explain why horror fans (myself included) are so jacked about the return of Raimi. The man is a wizard, he brings so much zany energy into many of his movies that just jolt the audience to life. Here are a number of examples why he has such a devoted cult and mainstream following:

Video Pick(s) of the Week:

The Evil Dead Trilogy: This is arguably the greatest horror/comedy trilogy of all time. These films revolve around the hero/coward man child Ash (Bruce Campbell) and his run- ins with the living dead. The dead are reanimated by reading from the Necronomicon (the book of the dead), and once resurrected have a goal to "swallow your soul". The first two films Evil Dead & Evil Dead II: Dead by Dawn take place in a secluded cabin in the woods, but the third film Army of Darkness takes Ash to medieval times curiosity of a time warp. Using stop motion animation, very skewed camera angles, grotesque amounts of gore and violence, and lots of Three Stooges slapstick humor, all of these films work on many different levels. "Gimme some sugar, baby" All three films: A

Darkman: A comic book like story structure introduces us to Peyton Westlake (Liam Nesson) a scientist looking to perfect a synthetic skin formula for burn victims that only works for 99 minutes in the light. In a cruel twist of fate the doctor and his lab are badly burned by thugs. Consumed by rage and revenge Westlake ingeniously uses his deformed state and formula to make masks of the gangsters, confusing them into killing one another. This movie was about a decade ahead of it's time. If it were to be released today it would be hailed as a masterpiece, it sill is in my opinion. A

The Quick & the Dead: A western about a quick draw competition. Why was this not thought of sooner? The casting of Sharon Stone as the wronged desperado was pretty much a misfire. It's a good thing the supporting cast was dead on. Gene Hackman plays essentially the same character he did in Unforgiven, and it still works. Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio also turn in fine early career performances as a preacher and the kid, both a couple of crack shots. The plot (who cares?) is a revenge saga. The real reason to watch this movie is for the shootouts, there are plenty of them with style to spare. B


A Simple Plan: A black as night thriller involving three men, a downed plane, and four million dollars up for grabs. Greed is the name of the game, and how even the most normal men can be easily corrupted. Bill Paxton and Billy Bob Thornton play two brothers that the money first brings together, then tears apart. Bridget Fonda is chilling as a "Lady Macbeth" that goes from rebuking the idea of keeping the cash, to becoming the mastermind who most desperately wants to keep it. A

The Gift: A deep fried southern Gothic mystery with multiple characters, all involved in the disappearance of a local woman. Cate Blancett stars as a single mother of three that works as a psychic on the side. When all roads of finding the missing woman lead to a dead end Blanchett is called in to help by using her second sight. It's not exactly original, The Sixth Sense and Stir of Echoes were just released the previous year. What it does have is excellent mood and performances. Keanu Reeves gets his best role to date as a horrifying, abusive, redneck who loves to make life hard for everyone. B+

Spider-Man 1&2: In the first film we witness Peter Parker's transformation from high school wimp to web-slinger. He also finds his first nemesis in The Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe) who just happens to be his best friend's father. We learn just as Peter does that the more power a person gets, the more problems they have to deal with. This results in him having to reject the advances of his dream girl Mary Jane (Kristen Dunst). It works, but is not nearly as well as it's follow-up in which Peter finds a new enemy in Doc Octopus a scientist who was deformed by his own creation, and becomes obsessed with following through on his work. This one has much more heart and better effects than it it predecessor. Spider-Man: B Spider-Man 2: A-


(Yes, I am well aware that there is a third Spider-Man film. I can't review it because I haven't seen it. I've been told that it pretty much ruins everything that was good about the first two films. I also have never seen For Love of the Game, but haven't heard too many good things about that one either.)

Drag Me to Hell: A Brimstone Blast

Hail to the king baby. Sam Raimi is back to doing what he does best. Here is a director that began his career making Super 8 films with his school friends for less then nothing. Twenty years later he became responsible for the comic book resurgence we've seen over the last decade. On top of all that most of his films in the middle while being diverse as hell were pretty excellent too. This guy made a western staring Sharon Stone into a good movie for god sakes! If that isn't an impressive feat, then I don't know what is. Now Raimi is going back to where it all began with Drag Me to Hell. A gross, frightening, and campy funhouse of excellence.

Alison Lohman stars as Christine Brown, a former farm girl who is just looking to advance her career at her local bank. She is in heavy competition with the resident suck up, and it looks as though her boss may be leaning in his direction. She is told she needs to be more aggressive, and make difficult choices if she wants the new assistant management job. Christine decides to flex her management muscle on the wrong client. Enter Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver), a pitiful and delightfully disgusting gypsy who pleads to Christine for a third extension on her house payments. When Ganush is denied, she attacks Christine in a wonderfully over the top fight scene in the deserted basement parking lot. The result of this fight ends in a curse where Christine soon discovers that at the end of three days there is going to be hell to pay.

The rest of the film involves Christine living with the effects of the curse, and let me tell you they are not pretty. This is one of the most nauseating films I have seen in years. It assaults the viewer with this undeniable joy and sense of humor to it, turning the film into a campy riot. I mean that in the best possible way. Our heroine gets covered in or subjected to numerous amounts of the following: blood, pus, mucus, saliva, decay-eating worms, and even (embalming fluid) vomit. Christine is constantly tormented by visions of Mrs. Ganush in flash shock fashion. A number of scenes also involve Christine tossed around her house, and beaten by an unseen (except in shadow) demon that plans do the job of the title. Her boyfriend Clay (Justin Long) is skeptical and too worried about his uppity and judgemental parents to be of any help. Christine visits a fortune teller named Rham Jas (Dileep Rao) who informs her of the situation, and offers to help rid her of this curse...for a price.

Let me just say that this is how a horror movie should be made. This is the kind of gutsy film that has absolutely no qualms about killing off children before the opening credits, or even helpless and adorable animals. The creepy soundtrack of shrieking violins and amped up sound effects are a Raimi staple, and further enhance the mood. The dialogue is incredibly silly at times "I'm gonna go get some!", but this was intentional and just made me love it even more. I spent the entire movie laughing, jumping, gagging, or just sitting there with a big dopey grin on my face just waiting to see what revolting surprises would be thrown my way next. I especially love the way the film begins and ends with the retro Universal Pictures logos, reminding us how good old school throwback horror can be. A