so many movies, TOO MANY MOVIES

Ok, so its that time of year. Good ole' awards season is in fully swing so I've basically spent the past couple of weeks trying to track down some of the hot listed films I either missed or have been waiting to come to my area. And as with every awards season I know I'm going to miss stuff. So sadly I won't be seeing Danny Boyle's "127 Hours" before the year is out and a few others I was interested in. But still I've seen quite a few things and have a couple more to go. So I'm going to do fairly cut and dry reviews for this lot. Then sometime next week I'll finish up with a review for the Coen brothers "True Grit". Directly after that I'll have my Top 20 films of the year list posted. So here we go.

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader"
Overall probably the most enjoyable of the series to watch, but nothing to write home about. It's the first one to not attempt to be like "The Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" and manages some good fight scenes and one highly impressive monster battle at the end. Still there are a good number of dull dips around the middle of the film and also some pretty damn corny ass segments that don't clear up fast enough to not be an issue. All this said I'm not completely knocking it, but I'm far from loving it.

"Best Worst Movie"
If you've never seen "Troll 2" then go rent that and this documentary and make it a double feature. "Best Worst Movie" takes a look at the hardcore fan basis that's amassed for the terrible, but great early 90's horror flick "Troll 2". In it you see almost all of the original cast and crew(which is great at times, but also quite sad given the lives of some of them). Mainly though you follow charismatic and charming George Hardy who played the father in the movie. Hardy is a nice guy through and through, but having him as your tour guide through the wide world of "Troll 2" can be as exhausting as watching the movie a ton of times within a few days. Still it's a fun and funny documentary that it's very entertaining and adds to the lore of the "Troll 2" universe.

"Monsters"
I don't expect ALOT of people to like "Monsters", but I really dug it. Made for a total of $15,000 dollars, it's a qusi-indie drama romance that takes place in an infected section of Mexico. Said infected zone is inhabited by giant alien octopi that are none too friendly. What makes me fall for the movie is really just the way in which creator Gareth Edwards goes the extra mile dramatically to tell a big story despite his budget. Sure some of the effects aren't perfect, but they also aren't that bad. In fact some are pretty fucking great. But really it's about these two people who are trying to get back to the lives they live and question if they want.

"The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest"
An entertaining and interesting end to the trilogy. After being bored and letdown with "The Girl Who Played With Fire", I was pleased to find the finale pretty damn fun to watch. It's far less of a thriller than either of the prior films and is instead closer to a courtroom procedural.

"Black Swan"
Among the tip top best films of the year is Darren Aronofsky's beautiful, twisty and sad "Black Swan". Natalie Portman delivers probably her best and most fearless performance as Nina, the dancer looking for perfection. And like most quests in Aronofsky films... they don't go too well. But the road there is paved with little nuances from the horror genre and then some generally creative integrations of the physical and the mental tension. Simply a GREAT picture and one not to miss.

"The Fighter"
Another great film of the year and also connected with Aronofsky (this time as executive producer). "The Fighter" is simply put a goddamn great movie to watch. It has all the entertaining elements that make dramas good, sporting films good and just general stories good. Christian Bale and Melissa Leo deliver great performances that focus on the showy (which is great). But I do feel like Wahlberg's Micky Ward is a great performance on the opposite end of the spectrum as a strong, but subtle piece of acting. Another key note is director David O. Russell ('Three Kings' and 'I [HEART] Huckabees') reminding us just how good a filmmaker he is. Russell doesn't really change up styles, he just implements some new ones like filming the boxing matching in HBO format. What makes those even more impressive is just how strong the boxing scenes are. While there aren't a ton, they are highly realistic and well done. This is easily his best film since "Three Kings".

"Tron Legacy"
On the one hand I feel like they got the "spirit" of the original with this sequel. Never did I feel that the 1982 "Tron" had a strong storyline or for that matter one that made a lot of sense. But it's designs and some of it's undertones made me love the film. "Tron Legacy" is a well made, fun and very solid sci-fi adventure picture. It's not filled with needless action turning into a meathead movie, but it does lack the subtle "depth" I was hoping for. So yeah I'm a bit disappointed. I DID however like almost all the characters (sadly Michael Sheen is one I didn't care for as he was pretty useless) and I liked seeing the updated design work that really did pay homage to the original instead of trying to just make suped up versions of it. Had "Tron Legacy" (or rather it's writers) aimed at making a headier sci-fi movie I'd be giving this all types of love, but it works for what it is. Daft Punk's score DOES make the film is many ways too. I'm not sure anyone else could have scored this with the same intensity and intelligence. Overall quite fun.

The Warrior's Way review

Walking into movie without much to go upon except a couple of trailers and posters is probably what I love doing the most. Let's face it movies today get spoiled months in advance due to the online world, but once in a while there's a film falls through the cracks in certain respects. One that not enough people have any interest in to comment on the happenings surrounding it. Sometimes it's a movie like "Skyline" in which no one had much to run on outside of the brothers Strause comments about the studio system. Then opening weekend we discovered the movie was absolute shit. And then there is "The Warrior's Way". The trailers almost scream movie made for the meme generation. Slack-jawed, morons without a shred of intelligence or good taste that love to make poor jokes about zombies, ninjas or whatever else is "popular" at the given second. Well it still might kind of be that movie... but it's an absurd amount of fun.

Viewing "The Warrior's Way" can only be compared to the first time I watched something like "Dead Alive" or "Darkman". For the first ten to twenty minutes I questioned what the hell this was and then something happens that makes me fall for it. With "Dead Alive" it zombie killing, kung-fu fighting priest. In "Darkman" it was the lab assault that creates him. In this it's Danny goddamn Huston. Huston plays Colonel, a scar-faced bastard who loves raw steak, fucking with the townsfolk and rape. He loves himself some rape. It's a character role for an impressive actor where seriousness and good taste get to fly out the window and he's let go to do whatever he wants. But he's not alone. As soon as Kate Bosworth opens her mouth and starts rattling off in an over the top, but likely southern jaw it's great. You start to love her goofiness in all fashions. And Geoffrey Rush as a drunken rifleman is as exciting and humorous to say the least. Really the moment in which our hero played by Dong-gun Jang reaches the deconstructed western town is when the film really seems to come alive.

The plot is something of a mixture of generalized eastern and western stories. On one end is the wayward swordsmen who grew a heart and turned his back on his master. On the other is quirky western towns people that gets roughed up by a band of marauders as they just try and skate by in life. Apparently mixing these two elements and having them exist in a cheapened "300" like universe works. And I use the "300" thing lightly. Despite the green screen environment several of the gorgeous horizons don't appear to be CGI, but simply real skies super imposed onto the screen. Also the cheap effects work wonders for the feel of the movie. It starts to feel like something made with the same love and sense of experimentation as old school Jackson or Raimi. Okay that's a big thing to say, but see it and then compare it with some of their older films and see if you can't find the same heart.

I mention the off feeling I had at the beginning of the movie, but by the end it all makes sense. The opening seems like it's aiming to be something less than it could be. It feels like a video game and the violence is too fast and shows very little for an R-rated film. By the end I understood why. It's not a gore-hound film, but it is violent. I realized that had they shown since the opening the style in which they really fight it would have grown stale and dull by the big climax. They employ an interesting type of slow motion fighting that doesn't feel like the Snyder-slo mo we've been seeing as of late. It's faster and more fluid. The action set pieces are also quite fun to watch and cleverly put together. Again they are cheap, but that cheapness WORKS. You don't need sixty million dollars to make a fun and original genre movie and "The Warrior's Way" proves that.

Faster review

Before I jump into what "Faster" does have let me tell what it doesn't. Often times scenes shown on the trailers aren't in the final product. Sometimes it's simply because the scene was a nice trailer shot and nothing more or because in the grand scheme it doesn't work. 98% of these scenes are random shots or diologue. However "Faster" is probably the second film (the first being Michael Mann's "Miami Vice") that actually cuts a key piece of action. The scene is nearing the end of the trailer in which you see Driver (Dwayne Johnson) and Killer (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) play chicken in the desert and collide; sending Driver's car through the air and landing top down. Spoiler as this is that scene has been cut and basically the finale is a big "The End" on screen. Let's just say that spoiled a GREAT deal of cheesy, lead-headed fun. But thanks to the internet I have an idea of why that is the ending.

Now for what we DO get from "Faster". This is the return of Dwayne Johnson: action star. After exiting the WWF he did a number of action pictures some lame ('The Mummy Returns', 'The Scorpion King', 'Walking Tall', 'Doom') and some pretty good (like 'The Rundown' and... well he had 'The Rundown'). Anyways despite some of the movies sucking he was quite impressive. Easily he looked like someone who could and was interested in taking the reigns as a classic action heroes and maybe starting a collection of explosive work himself. Then he went all Brendan Fraser and Jackie Chan on all are asses and found out he could make boat loads of cash doing half-assed kids films. I find it absurd that people would pay more to see Chan in something like "The Spy Next Door" as opposed to "Thunderbolt". "Faster" reminds us that Johnson still can be the badass and look like a badass the same way the old boys did it. Sadly the movie doesn't match his skills.

Not that it doesn't try. Billy Bob Thornton plays Cop, in all his nasty, scruffy glory. His entrance brought a smile to my face as he shoots up heroin in an ally while Kenny Rogers and the First Edition flairs up in the background. Carla Gugino as a lady cop is more that always excepted. And "Notorious" director George Tillman Jr. displays that he could very well have a future in the action genre. Which is nice considering how many of late have tried it and failed (lookin' at you Haggis). The violence is... workable, the lighting and angles are moody and interesting; and mixed with Clint Mansell's music, quite cool. BUT within this very direct story of revenge there lay three back stories. One is of course of Driver. The second and most interesting is that of the Cop. And finally the one that is completely and utterly boring and pointless... The Killer. He is eye candy for the female viewers which is fine, except that he's dull. He's a computer genius that wants the ultimate rush so he got into contract killing. He has a beautiful girlfriend (Maggie Grace) and some slight mental issues. But neither him nor his backstory are interesting. In fact his character has pretty much NO POINT AT ALL. I think he was placed within this story simply to give Driver something else to deal with between hits instead of just having him deal with people along the way. You know like "Vanishing Point", a film they referenced during the making.

Okay... I'm sounding harsher than I want. "Faster" isn't utter shit. It's dumb, but never boring. It is at heart a throwback film that given the right set of circumstances COULD work as a true, blue grindhouse picture. Not in the tongue-in-cheek way like "Machete", but in the real way. The way where ridiculous shit happens and everyone is pretty dead pan serious about it. That's not a bad thing either. Most genre pictures do this, but aren't willing to embrace it as much as this did. But removing extra character pieces and the original ending do tend to fuck up the mojo. And now back to my original point. Why it ends the way it does.

At first I thought that CBS Films wanted to pick up where FOX left off and start snipping the gibbets off of otherwise decent pictures. Anyone who knows anything about revenge movies... more so road revenge movies knows how it must play out. Anyone watching "Faster" who is privy to this knows as well. It is what makes it work in the end. It's why "Vanishing Point" isn't just a fun movie, but goddamn great picture. No matter how the hero wants to change... in the end he must face the music too. According to sources Tillman and Johnson would like to make this a series. CBS Films announced a sequel due out in spring 2012. Despite my feelings about this film however... I can't deny that a sequel couldn't hurt. Even with the 'they all die' ending to the film wouldn't have been perfect. It's flawed, but it's fun. It keeps you fairly entertained and even more so in the events leading up to the ending. It's predictable, but then again it was never that complex so why shouldn't be? If they are actually serious about a franchise or what have you then do it. These aren't 100 million dollar movies and if you work out these characters and a fully formed story then you might have something totally fun to watch. It's rare that I think that a sequel to a film I disliked is a good idea, but for "Faster"... well... maybe it can work.

Fair Game review

You know I had almost written off director Doug Liman a while ago. After the lackluster "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" and the God awful "Jumper" I had pretty much figured that he'd peaked and now enjoyed simply getting nice pay checks for crap work. I was a bit surprised given his prior works "Swingers", "Go" and of course "The Bourne Identity", but between those films and some poorly produced tv shows that was my thoughts on him. Happily I was wrong and Liman has returned with not just a good film, but his best film and one of the most intelligent and entertaining CIA dramas in years.

"Fair Game" is about Valerie Plame, who in the early 2000's following the invasion of Iraq had her named leaked in the newspaper as an active CIA field agent. As you can imagine this isn't something light. Only her husband Joe Wilson (played by Sean Penn) and her parents knew about her CIA life which would then make normal life a lot less normal. Add to that her name and her husband's name being dragged through the mud on every news show around just so that Washington and the White House could destroy their public creditability. But the question is why. Why was her name dropped and why did they want so badly to make sure we the people wouldn't listen or wouldn't care about her story? The answer is... complex, but not hard to follow.

Simply put it boils down to the news that people want to hear. Behind the scenes motives and theories are never delved into much, but you can tell that it's a lingering thought within the screenplay. Adapted from two books written by Plame and Wilson, "Fair Game" and its impressive screenplay by the Butterworth brothers plays up the best parts of CIA stories, political films and just flat out good drama. Doug Liman seems to be playing with a style vastly different from his latter work and a bit more in tune with "Swingers", but stronger. His independent edge is evident however he has a fairly nice budget here so he can get great wide shots showing bits of destruction during the bombing raids and also shoot the film globally. However 98% of the film is very much focused on Valerie and Joe. As a couple and a working family they have to suffer through something extremely difficult in which they have conflicting opinions on. Joe wants to fight Washington while Valerie is simply worried about their future, the state of a few active operations she had going and just dealing with the overbearing negative press directed at her.

Watts and Penn simply go great together. They both pull off the sort of performances I love to see in which the actors effortlessly kill in dramatic moments while making us like and believe them in more somber settings. Hell there are times in "Fair Game" where it feels like the rage filled work of early Oliver Stone. Something that doesn't want you to simply be content with what the suits in Washington tell you is right, but wants you to ask questions. In many ways this is one of the more patriotic movies I've watched in a long time and equally brings pride and disgust. Many people have different opinions on why we went to war. At this point I'm not totally sure the answer matters as much as it did in 04', 05' or 06', but the amount of uncertainty should raise some red flags to Americans that maybe the simple 'we want to liberate Iraq' answer isn't totally correct. I actually remember her story quite well from the Vanity Fair article after she finally broke her silence. For me hearing her story should have been a big eye opener for those who believe the system is safe and right and truthful. But of course that wasn't what happened.

"Fair Game" doesn't take political sides for the most part, but it doesn't play it safe either. You see a lot of the rage and spit fire from Joe Wilson as he goes on television to defend his wife's name and her work. Wisely Liman uses the actually new footage about the story when say Watts or Penn is watching the tv. That way we can see that the things said about them weren't movie fabrication or exaggeration, but truly mean spirited cheap shots from the talking heads of the media. But the underlined point of it all is to never stop fighting... and they certainly didn't.

Overall this was a well crafted, fantastically acted and real spy drama that totally works. I'm highly impressed with Doug Liman's directing and willingness to not play to just one side. "Fair Game" is one of the very best films I've seen this year and well worth seeking out.

The Next Three Days review

Paul Haggis' "The Next Three Days" is a competent thriller that ought to be more. It comes down to a story that can go in a lot of interesting and different directions; takes some neat ones, but overall feels less surprising then it could be and feels just a bit too stale. Not that there aren't aspects that work, but they could be much better. Screenwriter and director Paul Haggis ("Crash") is actually the main issue here. Not so much his writing as much as his very regular directing. Throughout the vast majority of the film I caught myself thinking what if Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, Paul Greengrass or a number of other, more visually arresting filmmakers had put their eye behind the camera for this. What a thriller this would have been.

Before we jump on that though here's the skinny. Russell Crowe plays a college professor whose wife (Elizabeth Banks) gets arrested for the murder of her boss. We speed up three years as she's attempting more appeals and trying to stay connected with their son while in prison. In their visits the child doesn't respond to her in almost any fashion. Her husband though can't stand any of it. It isn't so much as he feels she's innocent of the crime, but he loves her so much that he cannot take seeing her jailed for possibly the rest of her life. And after the legal system seems to be swinging out of his favor he decides to take on a daring prison break in, rescue and escape. The vast majority of the film is the prep work he does. It's extensive and with some brief words from a master escapist (Liam Neeson in a nice cameo) sets his plan in motion. Though slow this probably one of the more interesting parts of the film. He's sloppy and learning his tricks of breaking into cars or creating bump keys via the internet and doesn't really have the stomach for violence or for making the hard decisions.

Another aspect that works well is Crowe and Banks' chemistry. From the darkly humorous opening it all works well with their back and fourths. They both seem human and quite down to Earth characters. The real problem is simply Haggis' dull directing and lack of style. The idea of "The Next Three Days" can go in so many directions and include so many close calls and tense sequences of suspense or out and out action. Haggis aims more for the suspense, but it rarely hits the mark and is never memorable. I thought back to Michael Mann's "Collateral". It's character rich and includes some decent action and suspense sequences on just a story level. What Mann did was paint us not just full pictures of the characters, but of L.A. from the top down. The world surrounding this one taxi in the city. It made the night and the locations characters and that helps create a real mood. "The Next Three Days" has no mood.

Furthermore Haggis works best in the slower bits of the film in general. Conversation pieces work fine, lead ups to slightly important moments work ok as well, but the bigger sequences or intense stuff is flat. It put me in a similar mind frame of "Derailed" and "Taken" except I liked both of those enough to recommend them, however slight it might be. Haggis is a strong and impressive writer and perhaps his directing will get better or he'll pick a story that might require more of a straight dramatic approach. Either way the film left me disappointed in all it could have done.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 review

I'll spare you the 'interesting' tale of how I gained entry to the CW sponsored screening tonight, but I did and as a general event it was fantastic. Since I go to the movies a ridiculous amount at different venues and for different types of films I'm always looking for experiences that transcend just watching a movie. With some films I look for a lively crowd of spectators to provide some sort of running commentary on the film. Not necessarily actual diologue, but emotions and reactions to what they're experiencing. As far as that's concerned HP 7 and it's giddy bunch of fans there tonight were very entertaining and fairly close to the type of group I excepted. Well... perhaps a bit more tame. Oh and the film? Highly impressive.

For those who don't know my feelings on the long running Harry Potter franchise it goes like this. I think the first two films are GREAT for kids, but don't hold up well to anyone else. If you have kids and want an easy way to introduce them into this universe through cinema or into the fantasy adventure genre all together, they are great points of entry. Then came the third and fourth films which stand as two of my favorites. Three because of the best use of CGI in the entire series of films (this one included) and because they began to really flesh out the characters and universe more. Really most of what we say in three we are still seeing now design wise. However part 4 is my favorite of them all. For me it encompasses all the light, dark, adventure, humor and real world troubles this sort of story could contain and it does it very, very well. This brings us to the fifth and sixth films where David Yates took over directorial duties. For both of those films he was my biggest beef. Both films were photographed nicely and performed well, but his directing was rarely exciting and never packed any real emotion.

The best example was in the last film where the beloved Dumbledore dies. There was ways of shooting and editing that sequence to make it more dramatic and actually deliver something more from it, yet it was just another scene. Nothing special. So heading into the Deathly Hallows I figured it would be more of the same. Happily I was wrong. The film isn't perfect and it doesn't dethrone part 4 as my favorite, but it is now a close second. It seems Yates got the picture for the most part and impressively delivers stronger character moments and fairly decent action sequences. But really the best stuff in the film is the slow pieces. The long stretches without a ton of shoddy CGI and simply Radcliffe, Watson and Grint acting in fascinating, real world locations. If there was ever a time to be impressed with their acting abilities, this would be it.

The supporting cast of well-knowns return and don't have a ton of screen time, but in his few scenes Ralph Fiennes' Voldemort gets to play a bit more than in the last two films and almost reminds me of his grand debut in part 4. Back when he was the character we heard about for three films and then finally get to see in all his horrific glory. Here we see a bit more of his true malice in some great quiet scenes. It really makes me long to see the final confrontation between him and Harry. Not so much the fight, but the lead up to the fight. Harry and the gang are really 90% of the picture. Granted they are always the mainstay of things, but this time there are less character additions or action fills. Harry doesn't have all the answers as usual, but this time I kind of... feel it. It doesn't feel like there's the magical safety net that there used to be and getting out and away from Hogwarts makes it far more atmospheric. The foggy woods mixed with Desplat's quiet score and the general tone Yates sets brings it all together.

So what holds it back from greatness? Honestly it's simple things... well mostly. For some reason they still don't spend either the right time or the right amount of money on their CGI. The Dobby stuff near the end looks pretty good, but quite a bit of the beginning CG appears very dated. Also for a time they pull the old 'let's talk about what we don't show' game. This works when you're trying to avoid hard violence or something along those lines, but they decide to tell us about two rather important characters demise instead of showing us the lead up and/or what happened. It's not as if these scene were horribly violent or prolonged, but visually something ought to be delivered. It's as if Sirius died and someone walks in, tells the group and they have a moment of silence. And finally Yates hasn't quite got the hang of action sequences. His love of wanting to stay on the actors faces is well and good, but a nice wide shot or a longer wide shot to really show off the scope and magnitude of the event would be great. All of those issues however, happen within the first twenty to forty minutes of the two and half hour picture. So there was a lot of making up for me to still be really impressed.

I'm happy to eat crow on this. I'm happy that this turned out to be a fun fantasy adventure that hits the right notes. I don't really feel like this had a climax, but it certainly ends at the right moments. I'm not talking like "Empire Strikes Back" right moments; where everything feels horrible and all hope could be lost one way or another. I'm not even talking about "The Dark Knight" finale where it's a 'happy' ending, but with a less than favorable outcome for the hero. It's more of a just the right moment kind of thing. Power and momentum have swung the other direction for the moment, but the battle is far from over. "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" is a hit already no matter what. But at least with this installment I feel that it's earned it and it actually has me looking forward to it's conclusion next July.

Skyline review

In no way, shape or form is "Skyline" a good, decent, passable or even mediocre film. "Skyline" is utter piss from opening to closing. Word to the wise for anyone wanting make a film to 'stick it' to the studio system, try not to make a film far, far worst then they could. This was the plan set up by the Brother Strause; heads of the effects company Hy-dra-lux. They've worked on "Avatar" and the "Iron Man" movies, however we forget so did about a dozen other effects houses and more than likely better ones than theirs. The brothers Strause were also the duo behind "Aliens vs. Predators: Requiem" which managed to suck far more than Paul W.S. Anderson's PG-13 predecessor. At least with Anderson's you see the aliens and predators.

Plain and simple these guys have NO CLUE how to make a movie on any level expect put a bunch of highly unimpressive CGI effects into a city, add some sports cars and hots chicks and BAM instant hit. Again... this is why I can never hate Michael Bay. He can do a similar set up, but with better effects, hotter chicks and sports cars that get to perform on camera. Oh and his films tend to also be shot beautifully. "Skyline" effectively makes the real L.A. skyline look gloomy and dull. It's just a bunch of bright lights and buildings. There was nothing added to make us feel anything for what was about to happen to this city and this planet. No care or emotion or lead up. Nope, we just get 94 minutes of a bunch of self-important doucebags who wake up from a party to discover bright lights have landed all around the city and are sucking people up. Eric Balfour ('Texas Chainsaw Massacre'), Donald Faison ('Scrubs'), Brittany Daniels ('Joe Dirt') and Scottie Thompson ('NCIS') play the 'lovable' and 'interesting' group we follow throughout this event.

The one upside to them is they're not hate-able, just boring. About 85% of the film is them sitting in posh high rise apartments peaking through automatic blinds to see what's going on in the streets. After they get tired of that they talk or rather mash around their mouths and things that kind of sound like words come out. Oh and they smoosh up their faces sometimes too. I think they were trying to discover what emotion is. I could be wrong on that one though. Someone on set might have farted. What fills up the rest of "Skyline" is just shotty effects and technical work. Having just seen "Unstoppable" the day before, one thing that stood out was it's sound design. Trains are huge behemoths and they deliver sounds and metal crunching noises that make us believe that fully. We get a feeling of how dangerous these machines really are. In "Skyline" I couldn't tell you want the aliens or their ships sound like. They have a noise... but it's not distant and I get nothing from it.

The overall designs for the alien shit is just as bad. Basically they took elements from "Independence Day" and Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and smashed them together in as crude a way as possible. Their ship is a giant cluster of steel concealing a blue orb. The aliens themselves are a mix of the previous two films designs with a touch of "Dreamcatcher"; which is to say the aliens eat people using their giant teeth filled vagina mouths. Oh and they regenerate. Because that was really needed.

However the saddest moment of "Skyline" is within it's finale. At one point there is a perfectly fine moment to end this enormous piece of crap. It wouldn't have saved the movie, but it would've been more respectable and logical. NOPE! The brother Strause go for one last hooray within the alien ship. I won't tell you what happens except to say that they rip-off "District 9" in the dumbest goddamn way possible. And by doing that effectively lowered the film to the level of 'a sci-fi channel original movie'. "Skyline" is about two steps away from being on the same level as "Giant Boa vs. Giant Python 2". Congrats boys, in just two films you've nearly hit a directorial low that only likes of Uwe Boll and Ed Wood have achieved so quickly.

Unstoppable review

A long time ago I started realizing that certain studios were best at certain things. Others might be able to do those same things well, but there would always be the studios that did it best as a whole. Universal is a great house for science fiction and horror. Paramount used to be known for it's dramas and comedies... that has changed now I suppose. Now it's more big budget whatevers. Warner Brothers could pull off crime pictures like clockwork. Fox though was a tough one. Really their strongest suit in the old days was putting on nicely produced pieces of whatever was selling at the time. They could do a little of it all. After a while I did notice a few little things that stood out to me more and more. They could make common folk look awesome. For some reason there are a TON of films in which they make slightly more everyday people much more heroic. Cops, civilians, simple villagers, grunt workers etc. Sure it might be a bit of an odd thing to notice, but they did. Tony Scott's "Unstoppable" actually helps revive that skill over at Fox.

First off I admit to a bias in enjoyed the vast majority of Tony Scott's films. I maintain that he is still one of the most impressive and enjoyable action directors working today and can more than hold his own in the over CGI-ed genre. But heading into "Unstoppable" I was actually expecting NOT to like it. I wasn't impressed by the trailer which depicted the movie as this massive series of overly emotional and big events, when really it's just one event. As I told a co-worker last weekend I don't think the whole kids on a train thing is a big part of the movie. I was right. It's really about three minutes of the movie... at the beginning. Instead it's one major issue and a fluid series of problems. There's an unmanned train gaining speed, carrying explosive chemicals that will at some point derail and potentially kill several thousand people. Whats to stop it? Two normal working joes.

Right there is where "Unstoppable" fully wins me. There's a lot about it I like and enjoy the shit out of, but the basic fact that we're dealing with realistic guys that at their most heroic are still grounded firmly in the real world, that's something I love to see in film. Sure we get a little bit of emotional and family schmaltz near the beginning when learning about Coulson (Chris Pine), but it's all needed for the bigger picture. This is taking a true story and sensationalizing it into a perilous, escapist thriller. And what would it be without heart? Or for that matter main characters risking their lives with nothing on the line.

Scott again teams up with Denzel Washington who plays Barnes, a train driver and veteran of this kind of work. He's smart and knows his stuff. Basically the kind of role Denzel can play like a fiddle. Pine's Coulson is the newbie, but not unskilled and very daring. Together it's a match made in qusi-realistic, badass heaven. Somewhere Charles Bronson and Walter Matthau are smiling. Rosario Dawson is also in there as Connie, the yard manager from which the train escapes from. Interestingly enough the way it happens in the movie IS the way it happened in real life as well. It's great seeing Dawson in any capacity, but seeing her hold down a role that would normally go to any number of male character actors and do it better than they would makes me a happy viewer.

Most of the film is spent looking at hulking, steel trains running at high speeds through small towns and country side. What Tony Scott and writer Mark Bomback do is explain more than enough of the world of trains to get us to understand why this is such a bad thing. Much like a semi truck trains don't stop on a dime... and neither do the cars it's carrying behind it. Something slightly more important however is the speed limits for certain sets of tracks. Which is to say if an elevated curve says limit 15mph then a train going 75mph just...might...have a problem. Scott makes this situation exciting and fun to watch unfold. His photography is great, Harry Gregson-Williams score is booming as loud as the trains, yet strangely works nicely together. And of course the stunt team pulls off some absolutely intense and fantastic work.

One reason I think I love Tony Scott's work so much is his lack of interest in doing things with CGI. He knows what it can do and why you can use it, but opts to actually derail and explode a train instead. Opts to use real stunt men and his actors running across moving trains rather than green screen it. That attention to detail and the moment makes him invaluable to the film industry.

Beyond that there isn't much left to say really. "Unstoppable" was promoted fucking horribly if you ask me, but it's a surprisingly fun ride. It's sort of a throwback in a way to the days of movies about common people being heroic in the face of peril. I know there's some other runaway train movies, however I can't think of a single one. Or the the last time one was made. It's not a hard movie and it's damn sure not a complex one which is probably why it's so fun. Today I watched and reviewing "Morning Glory" as well and my biggest gripe is that they wanted as much conflict as they could instead of just letting it come naturally from the characters in their current situation. "Unstoppable" wisely doesn't second or third guess itself like that. It's fluid and deals with it's main issue as a whole with no real added fillers.

Also HERE is a link to the real story for which the film is based on.

Morning Glory review

To say "Morning Glory" is lighthearted might be too soft. It's downright fluffy. It's also lopsided and very much a happy comfort food of a movie. But even with all that I did fairly enjoy it. Mainly because of Rachel McAdams. To say she saves the film is a bit of an understatement. She pulls off the goofy, workaholic, sweet thing perfectly. They want us to like her and we do. A lot of the supporting characters are good too; Harrison Ford as a former new anchor great, Diane Keaton as the anchorwoman stuck in a rut and Patrick Wilson as the nice guy Rachel gets with, but without her and her performance the film would fall completely flat.

McAdams plays Becky, an unemployed morning news producer from New Jersey that gets a bit of luck when an exec (Jeff Goldblum) offers her a job on their morning show. Becky is giddy and somewhat naive, but knows her job like the back of her hand. What stands in her way on the road to success however is the terrible work atmosphere on Day Break. Colleen Peck (Keaton) is a constant pessimist and most of the other crew have no reason to think any differently than she does. So in an effort to raise morale and ratings Becky pulls a wild card and convinces Mike Pomeroy (Ford), a Tom Brokaw like anchor to join their show. If Keaton's Colleen Peck was horrible, Pomeroy is easily twenty times harder to deal with. On the upside though Becky is slowly getting to know Adam (Wilson), another producer and things are looking good... if she can shut off her blackberry.

This would place us around the middle area of the film and really this was it at it's tip top. It was light, nice, funny and sweet. Pretty much what it aimed for. However then we get the same old song and dance that if ratings don't improve Day Break and your job are down the drain. Had "Morning Glory" decided against adding in more outside conflict and just allowed the film to play in the sandbox of the rough situation it would've been better. What somewhat saves this piece of the film (besides McAdams again) is the laughs during it. Simple things added that really, really work. Adam and Becky's relationship isn't the best in here either. Their flirtation is cute and somewhat humorous, but when they inject more conflicts into it... well... it just goes down the same old road we've seen in a million movies before it.

In a certain sense it's disappointing. "Morning Glory" has the potential to be a very smart and sweet and funny movie, but settles too easily and relays way too much on classic Hollywood set ups. Things were complicated enough in the movie and the addition of more problems just for the easily foreseeable and happy resolution kills the buzz from the first half. BUT... I can't say I didn't like it. Perhaps it because I don't see nearly as many of these films anymore or because I really like Rachel McAdams, but it doesn't suck. I wish it were better. I wish I could say it's a lighter version of "Network" or "Broadcast News"... but it's not that strong. "Morning Glory" simply works while Rachel McAdams works a lot harder.

Megamind review

Well the good news is that Dreamworks' "Megamind" isn't nearly as headache inducing as their "How to Train Your Dragon" and it's not as boring and dunderhead-ed as Universal's "Despicable Me". But it still doesn't quite hit the right notes. What it does accomplish is making a decent animated superhero adventure movie that's animated and designed quite nicely and flows along smoothly enough. It's failure is that NOTHING in it is funny. No one and nothing. It's not insanely unfunny either. It's basically a movie you can sit through with a straight face and not feel it one way or the other.

Will Ferrell voices the big, blue headed super villain Megamind; who is of course not such a bad guy in his heart of hearts. And in an extended cameo Brad Pitt voices the city's hero Metro Man, who is basically Superman. They have battles, monologues and so fourth, but after one battle it appears as if Megamind has won. So what will he do with the city? No clue. The point was the same of any super-people bout. Who wins isn't important, but the game is. Without a hero Megamind is bored. So was I kinda now that I think about it.

They fill out the cast with impressive talents including Tina Fey and Jonah Hill, but again none of these people do much in the way of laughs. No one has even one stand out line that makes things work above the basic levels of a film. BUT it's crafted nicely. At the end of the day that counts for something right? Dreamworks Animation has really taken a creative dive. For me they have at best four or five good or better movies and the rest are all disposable junk. Will they be forever #2 to Pixar? For the time being, yes. However Pixar is another company that I'm not too pleased with. I stand by almost everything I said about "Toy Story 3" in June, however after re-watching it I don't feel it's strengths are as high as they were on that first viewing. It seems after "Wall-E" (which I think is their best film) they went after the idea of tugging the shit out of people hearts to get what they wanted. Okay, that's all fine and good.

My issue is that with "Up" and "Toy Story 3" they try too hard and they're not as good at it was "Wall-E". For the time being it seems like Pixar has found the secret to award and audience success without being the best. Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and the animated film "The Secret of Kells" were both leagues better than "Up" and yet walked away penniless and without accolades. Apparently being different in that genre doesn't work so well anymore. Both Dreamworks and Pixar have the same problem, yet I know it's not soon to change completely. As it stands the animated film I enjoyed watching the most this year was Zack Snyder's "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole". Granted I passed on reviewing it (mainly because I waited over a month to see it), but it reminded me of the Don Bluth cartoon days. When it was okay to be a bit dark in these films and a bit more adventurous. At no point in 'LotG' do they attempt to make a bigger, more emotional film. It's pure, rich adventure. And it's something we DON'T see anymore.

I got WAY off track here, but honestly there isn't much to talk about involving "Megamind". It's trailers tell you the story top to bottom, left to right and with no surprises. The genre doesn't need more "Megamind". It doesn't need more overly emotional goo either. It needs something different and original. Something to stir things up. Boy I like dreaming.

Due Date review

Todd Phillips' "Due Date" isn't as good as "The Hangover". I wanted to get that out of the way since that's probably the biggest thought people might have. At the same time I don't think it aimed to be and I don't think it quite had the potential. The issue is that it's funny, but it doesn't always gel together right. That's what "The Hangover" really had going for it I think; it was cohesive and connected comedy throughout. "Due Date" is basically a simple road movie comedy where Peter (Robert Downey Jr.) and Ethan (Zach Galifianakis) travel across the country to L.A. so Peter can see his child be born and Ethan can meet an agent and begins his tv acting career. Plus Ethan is an idiot and Peter hates him for all the massive trouble he's giving him.

Basically it's "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", but rated R. Nothing wrong with that either. Movies have similar plots all the time, but as long was it's enjoyable then it's and mostly fresh then it's not ripping anything off. Peter is the straight man and despite that does manage to be just as stupid as Ethan some times. Mainly through his attitude towards people and it getting him into worse trouble then he already was in. And Ethan is simply a buffoon that falls into things, smokes too much pot and generally isn't fit to be in public without a leash. Ethan only gets worse as the trip continues which leads to hijackings, car crashes, broken bones and people getting shot. Some of the best stuff though comes from their later banter. Whether it's Peter laying into Ethan outside a hospital or them discussing Peter's wife and his friend Darryl's (Jamie Foxx) friendship; it's all quite funny.

Seeing the film with a big audience is also pretty fun because... well... it's a big and often lively audience. They can make funny stuff funnier and they can make not so funny stuff funnier. Entire sequences might have been drowned out due to laughter. And honestly that always a great time at the movies... unless the movie is shit... like "Grown Ups". Luckily it isn't. I mean despite them giving away a good number of funny jokes on the trailers, there is still a great deal to laugh at here. But it doesn't always come together right. Some gags just kind of fizzle about and aren't that impressive. There's also some pretty damn big logical lapses. Not a MAJOR issue, but to a point it feels like something more should've happened after the boarder patrol scene (one of the best parts in my opinion) and a few others. And then there seem to just be pieces to add insult to injury for the sake of a joke.

What's weird though is that despite that... a lot of those things are still at least kind of funny. Enough to be chuckle worthy. Usually when that point arises I'm exhausted from the humor and kind want out. Yet this comes to the edge and pulls back enough for me not to get too tired of it. I feel like with "The Hangover" Todd Phillips turned over a new leaf as a director. His style that he used in "Old School", "Starskey & Hutch" and the boring as hell "School for Scoundrels" was gone. He had tweaked it in just the right ways to make it flesh, a little darker photographically and storytelling wise making simple plot concepts and working around in them sandbox style. "Due Date" keeps that style alive and I'm sure next summers "The Hangover 2" will offer up some more of that. Despite it's flaws "Due Date" is really fun to watch and a good crowd-pleaser. If you need a simple comic pick me up or escape from your life for 90 minutes, this is certainly not a bad way to do it.

Hereafter review

Every Clint Eastwood film is a treat to me in some form or another. Even if the film isn't up to par with his better work, even if the film isn't even good... it still will have some quality to it that's impressive and different from the norm in that genre. "Hereafter" is very good, but isn't quite up there with great Eastwood; mainly because it the double edge sword of a story it has.

What I love about it's plot is that is follows three separate stories: a woman who has a near death experience (Cecile De' France), a psychic who left that world behind him to attempt a normal life (Matt Damon) and little boy whose twin brother was killed and has some serious questions about the afterlife. Each of these stories are made important and have strong emotional keys. It's rare for a film like this to keep those plates spinning consistently, but Eastwood and writer Peter Morgan get it done. France's character was a French news reporter who has seen the afterlife and is beginning to see visions from it. She can't shake these images and it's beginning to effect her work and even day to day life. Matt Damon's normality seeking psychic has to contend with his brother who wants him to go back to reading and start making the big bucks again. He hates his ability and wants nothing more then to put it behind him and meet someone. And the great lengths the young boy goes to for answers is astonishing and offers up a healthy bit of skepticism in religion and the afterlife.

The main flaw that arises however is that after a while... when those stories start coming together it gets a bit if-y. There was a story about producer Steven Spielberg saying the ending needed fixing because the film begins big (with a tsunami) and then ends small. He's right and while I don't think it kills the film by any measure and it's a pleasant conclusion, I do think it's an odd note to go out on. "Hereafter" is really a supernatural film for the skeptical. It offers both sides of the story and Morgan's beliefs on the whole thing. Although I am a bit fuzzy on if he believe all psychics are fake or that most are, but there are those rare people with an extra sense that we cannot explain. Then again that's not so much the big picture point.

"Hereafter" impresses the most though for one simple fact: it's a film not about death, but about life. The real point is how do you deal with loss and pain and keep moving forward. Most movies like this would run up the ghostly stuff as much as possible and really make that it's main focus, but again that power and intelligence of Eastwood helps move it into a more human and equally interesting area. This isn't a drama for everyone... there's a lot going on, a lot of strings and it doesn't move in a regular fashion; however that's why I liking it so much. "Hereafter" is a beautifully crafted piece of work that definitely deserves a viewing.

Fake Halloween Film Festival III

Ok so basically what this is, is me creating a fantasy film festival that would run during October. Think fantasy football without the football. This is (probably) the third year I've created such a list and its basically done so that people might consider seeing either films they've never heard of or missed that could work well with general Halloween-ish times. Not all are conventional horror movies, but then again I don't feel like they need to be. If something conveys immense tension or creates an unsettling atmosphere then isn't that note worthy for the holiday? Eh, maybe it's just me. Anyways here's my twenty picks. Most of them you can track down via the video store or Netflix; there's at least one new theatrical release and then there's a couple that might take some digging.

1. "Hausu" (1977) pictured above
I always try to sell this as like "The Evil Dead" before there was "The Evil Dead". Basically you have a fun loving group of Japanese school girls that go visit one of the girl's elderly grandmother. However after a while they slowly start disappearing and one of them thinks the grandmother is involved. "Hausu" is fantastic because of it's mix of the beautiful, the horrific, the funny and the bizarre. Nobuhiko Obayashi was a veteran commercial director known for his surreal and very different visual style. "Hausu" is like a psychedelic, experimental ghost story that ought to be seen by anyone with even the smallest interest in film; be it horror or other.

2. "Eyes Without a Face" (1960)
A wealthy French man hires a doctor to restore his daughters beautiful face using an untested and radical type of plastic surgery. A perfect example of slow burn, suspense based horror.

3. "Manhunter" (1986)
Before Jonathan Demme and Anthony Hopkins took Hannibal Lecter and turned him into the infamous film villain we met in "The Silence of the Lambs", Michael Mann did it with Brian Cox in the first adaption of "Red Dragon". Brett Ratner's remake is pretty close to Mann's version which I why I think they both work on their own and need no comparison mostly. However I feel "Manhunter" does display a certain level of eeriness that "Red Dragon" lacked. Mainly steaming for the way Mann shoots during key scenes and from Tom Noonan's depiction of Francis Dollarhyde.

4. "Road Games" (1981)
Directed by Richard Franklin, a student of Alfred Hitchcock; "Road Games" is a paranoid, Australian road thriller for the motormouth generation. Stacy Keach and Jamie Lee Curtis have great chemistry which is evident throughout the film. Franklin directs the film in ways that would make his teacher proud, however concludes the film as typical B-aussie thriller form might dictate. Not a bad thing either.

5. "Lost Highway" (1997)
I always want at least one David Lynch film on these lists so this year it'll be his surrealistic noir film. Bill Pullman is a jazz musician with a dark history, Patrica Arquette is wife who's frightened by these video tapes she's being sent that show someone taping their house and then someone taping them while in the house. Robert Blake (the guy who probably murdered his wife) plays the mystery man that's behind it... probably. "Lost Highway" is pure, unfiltered Lynch. It's scary, bizarre, erotic and complex.

6. "Let Me In" (2010)
I reviewed Matt Reeves remake of "Let the Right One In" earlier this month and said that I felt his version as a whole worked a lot better and made the story much more engrossing and atmospheric than the original work. I stand by all of that. The performances and the relationship between this boy and girl are what drive the entire film. Reeves directs the film with effortless style and beauty. Sadly at this point I'm pretty certain we can call it a box office flop. However if it's still in your area I'd highly recommend seeing it.

7. "Shallow Grave" (1994)
Danny Boyle's film debut. Also his first example of how to make generally dis-likable people likable. The only time I feel he failed with that is "Sunshine", but here it's done perfectly. Three shitty roommates interview various people for a room they're renting out. They finally pick a guy that suits them and after a few days he dies. However when they search his room they discover a suitcase full of money. Thus begins the long and dark conflict among the three friends.

8. "The Magician" (1958)
First off you can't go wrong with Bergman. Second here is a beautifully shot and unraveling battle of wits between a potion selling magician and a royal doctor that seeks to break down his abilities. A great piece of dramatic creepiness.

9. "Next of Kin" (1982)
This is one of those hard as shit to find ones, BUT if you can it's pretty great. You can a daughter that reads her mother's diary and soon after the bizarre events within it start happening to her. It's got a lot in common with "The Shining" and is made with A LOT of impressive, occasionally surrealistic style.

10. "Shutter Island" (2010)
It's hard not to love Scorsese films sometimes. I saw this theatrically a few times and each time I found something else I loved about it. Robert Richardson's photography, DiCaprio's hard ass, gum shoe attitude, the musical choices, Michelle Williams performance... fuck just the overall tone of the film. And yeah I stand by that I think it does hold up with the given ending, but I also feel it's all in how you choose to see it. When really listening to what a lot of characters have to say often times you can spin it either way. Personally I hate going into mysteries and thinking 'well let's figure this out'. Honestly there's no point to seeing it if that's your mind set because it closes you off to pretty much anything else is has to offer. All your brain is doing is collecting evidence.

11. "Nosferatu: the Vampyre" (1979)
I decided to use this one over Herzog's "The Enigma of Kasper Houser", although both are great and haunting little films. Personally I love Herzog's remake above the original because of how he decides to spin things nearing the final act. There's an entire piece where the city is slowly becoming engulfed in rats and the black plague. People begin losing their minds. Klaus Kinski's performance is (as it usually is) stellar and Bruno Ganz is an impressive Harker.

12. "The Cove" (2009)
Ok, ok... it's not EXACTLY the perfect fit for this list. However anyone who has seen "The Cove" can attest to it's power, tension and occasionally graphic violence. The idea of having this is to place something more real on the list. "The Cove" isn't simply about a community that kills dolphins. It's about a community that lies to the world about what they're really doing. It's about how they're killing their own people and not telling them. And more importantly it's about people who want to stop it from continuing. So yeah it's not the poster child for Halloween horror film or thriller watching, but it's just as intense, traumatic and unsettling as anything else you're likely to see in the genre.

13. "Hellraiser" (1987)
Honestly I don't think Clive Barker's the shit. BUT "Hellraiser" definitely is. I'm sure many of you have seen it and it's various sequels and know all about Pinhead. But for those who don't... oh boy... quite a flick. I always schedule it in a couple times a year because I love so much of the effects and the vibe of the film. This was Barker's first and in my opinion BEST film.

14. "Dead Ringers" (1988)
CRONENBERG TIME! No one quite does psycho-sexual horror like Cronenberg and "Dead Ringer" might be his finest. Jeremy Irons plays twin brothers who are polar opposites personality wise, but share almost everything else in life. This includes women. The whole film leads to some wild, lurid and creepy as shit places. I will grant you that this goes under the hard to find list, but if you can GRAB IT.

15. "Phone Booth" (2002)
When Joel Schmucher has the right set of circumstances he can really make an impressive film. "Phone Booth" is that. It works within the conversions of a thriller that seeks to break down one shitty person and see if he does still has some morality. Colin Farrell delivers one of his best performances (second only to "In Bruges") as a generally shitty New York agent with a lot of skeletons in his closest. Kiefer Sutherland plays the voice of the caller who's threatening to shoot Farrell (using a high powered rifle) if he doesn't follow his exact directions. I also think this is Schmacher's best film. Yeah that's right, I'm not a fan of "The Lost Boys".

16. "Repulsion" (1965)
Among Roman Polanski's best films and another great psycho-sexually thriller. What we have here is Catherine Deneuve as Carole; a sexually repressed woman who starts fantasizing and/or losing her mind thinking about sex and rape. Polanski's a great mentalist and first the film time in his short career started toying around with a stronger visual style a well. Quite a gorgeously shot and put together film.

17. "Trick R' Treat" (2007)
Warner Brothers really fucked up when they didn't release this in theaters. Written and directed by Michael Dougherty and produced by Bryan Singer this is one of the best episodic horror films since "Creepshow". All of the stories are fun and interesting horror shorts that easily double as good old fashion campfire stories. The effects are well done and the execution is great. I really hope to see Dougherty get another stab at directing soon.

18. John Carpenter's "They Live" (1988)
Quite an interesting sci-fi action, horror, thriller where we get to see aliens that resemble inside out humans, hidden subliminal messages throughout the world and Roddy Piper & Keith David in a classic, brutal back alley fight scene. It's not great Carpenter, but it is one of his last enjoyable and often gleefully goofy films. It was pretty much downhill after this.

19. "A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors" (1987)
My favorite Elm Street sequel for numerous reasons. A great young cast, creative Freddy kills, fantastic set design and some hilarious one liners.

20. (CLASSIC CHOICE) "Alien" (1979)
Seriously if you've never seen Ridley Scott's "Alien" then... well... shit. You should see Ridley Scott's "Alien". Maybe the perfect example of sci-fi suspense horror. Outstanding designs, effects, performances and overall scope.

Never Let Me Go review

Here's one of those times when I wish a film got wide, mass distribution. In a given year there are several movies that try their damnedest to invoke an emotion or general care out of the audience. Movies like "Remember Me" or "Life As We Know It" tact on as much fake emotion and tear jerking moves as they can so that when you walk out of the theater you just wanna go hug someone and tell them you love them. Then let them know that you never want them to end up in the World Trade Center on 9/11 or for them to die in a horrible car accident and leave you their 2-year old kid. Granted with that last one much piss poor hilarity might ensue... still... you'll be missed. No, "Never Let Me Go" is the real deal. This is a film that almost from moment one you begin to feel the subtle tinge in your gut that something is wrong. A few minutes after that it gets worse. And soon after that you witness a group of young child informed that they were created simply for harvesting and will never really live.

To place the film tone wise it's as if Mark Romanek decided to make a science fiction drama where the entire running time felt like the ending of "Blade Runner". For those of you who aren't aware the moment of me watching the ending of that film and understanding why Roy Batty saved Deckard and why he was telling him these stories of things he has seen, made a strong and emotional attachment to me. There's something about the will to live and it being out of your hands too soon just destroys me. Thus here's a film TOTALLY dealing with that subject AND the characters it directly effects from kids to adults. Simply put the entire film is utterly heartbreaking.

The donors we primarily deal with are Kathy (Carry Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightly). However it is through Kathy's voice do we get to hear the tale. They all grow up in what appears to be a large orphanage in England; tucked away in the country. They all have regimented diets and are scanned before leaving to play outside. They don't go beyond the crumbling fence however as they were told horrific stories about the child that did. This is something a young Ruth and Kathy informed one of the new teachers Mrs. Lucy. Ruth and Kathy appear friendly enough, but it somewhat seems like one of those uneasy friendships where it's more out of convenience than out of general connectivity. Tommy is a bit of an outcast who is artistic and kind, but has terrible tantrums. Most of the kids including Ruth tease Tommy, but Kathy sees something in him that's nice and takes a liking to him. Unfortunately Ruth seemed to as well and that relationship takes off. The complex world of love. It's a confusing thing isn't it?

As they become teenagers they move out and into a series of cottages in which they get to briefly experience touches of the real world before making their first donation. Generally speaking it seems like most donors make out two before completion (death), however some went on until there was nothing more to take. While living there Kathy has to deal with the two romantic relationships around her which includes sex. A topic she knew about and feelings she had to suppress as best she could. To help with that she begins training to become a caregiver; someone who comes to the aid of hospitalized donors and makes them feel comfortable as best they can. This gets her out of the house a lot and makes her ability to be a donor, but only for a while.

There's much in this little picture and far be it for me to spoil the ride with extra details and what not. Shit, I kind of feel like I may have said too much already. Then again there's a lot in "Never Let Me Go". There's a lot of feeling and care and love and pain. Carry Mulligan delivers another perfect performance which will no doubt get her a second Oscar nod (and hopefully win as I've seen NOBODY this good so far). Andrew Garfield's Tommy is terrific as well, but is easily overshadowed by his amazing work in "The Social Network" which is a stronger performance. Not for any specific reason, but simply he's given a bit more range in that. Keira Knightly is very much a supporting member of the cast, but she does a great job. She's given quite a bit of extended range with Ruth and every bit of it works.

After leaving "Never Let Me Go" I couldn't shake so much as a second of it from my mind. Within it short running time to places you through a gauntlet of emotions and brings you into the short lives of beautiful people who aren't allowed to live. Director Mark Romanek ("One Hour Photo") hasn't just made his second movie; he's crafted a classic. I don't say that often because a lot of times I see movies I absolutely love, but know that they'll fall by the wayside at some point and I'll have to see it pointed out to remember it again. But this is something I know I'll remember. If "Never Let Me Go" is near I urge you to see it. It won't leave you feeling like sunshine and daisies by any stretch, but it's a soulful and beautiful piece of work that needs to be experienced.

Red review

There are two things that "Red" get 100% right. One is that they casted the film to perfection from top to bottom. This is a great bunch of performers that could have put on many, many things and instead decided to go for a fun genre piece instead. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it's a little bit admirable since a lot of them mainly do award made films. The second thing is that this is the closest I've come to liking a film by Robert Schwentke; he also directed "Flight Plan" (which I still hate) and last years "The Time Travelers Wife" (*snooze*). However "Red" still doesn't quite work.

The set up is quirky and fun enough. Willis is Frank Moses, a retired CIA agent who destroys his severance checks so he can talk to the rep in Kansas. Her name is Sarah (Mary Louise Parker) and they both seem to really enjoy each others distant company. All of a sudden however a hit squad comes after Moses in the middle of the night causing him to on the run across America. First to collect Sarah who he thinks is in danger and then to meet old allies to figure out what's going on. Morgan Freeman, Brian Cox, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren play his old buddies and off they go on one last adventure. Now seriously with people like this... what fun couldn't be had here, right? Well in the right hands boat loads. It's old people shooting up the town six ways from Sunday and even some clever humor, but it never goes all the way.

As a comedy "Red" works for a while and then allows that aspect to take a backseat to it's pretty by the numbers plot and action sequences. As an action picture it does have moments of delight. Despite it's PG-13 rating I did like the way they blew up bodies and showed it using fire to mask the gore. At the same time there are several other set pieces that aren't particularly exciting or intense; just stuff happening with no real style or even full blown clarification for why it's going on. The big ending sequence in which the team has it (mostly) figured out who is behind all this and why starts off clever enough, but really just boils down to a basic stand off and with an ending we saw coming. Well... ok... we saw most everything in this movie coming, but still there are ways of making that road there very fun.

The real strength of the movie is the fact that it's got so many talented and interesting people in it. In addition to the others there is Karl Urban ('Star Trek'), Rebbecca Pigeon ('The Spanish Prisoner' or most David Mamet films), Ernest Borgnine ('Escape from New York'), James Remar ('The Warriors', 'The Fast and the Furious'), Jullian McMahon ('Nip/Tuck') and Richard Dreyfuss ('Jaws', 'W.'). All of which are given there little moments. But nothing is enough. When certain main characters die we don't really care except for the fact that the actor is no longer in the movie. We don't know or feel for most of these people and it's a bit of a shame. This is a similar problem I've had with the last couple of Harry Potter films. I've wanted to feel something during the big, emotional or even epic moments of the film, but I don't. I see great images and performances and decent effects (seriously they haven't been outstanding for a while), but no real feeling. Direction has A LOT to do with this.

With "Red" Robert Schwentke did go into a new genre for himself. In the beginning you could see his eye and his skill as he took a few plays from Fincher's old book. But as the movie progresses his creativity wares away. I'm thinking he's getting better so maybe by his next picture he'll have gotten the hang of things, but so far I'm not too impressed. I can't and won't call "Red" a bad film, but I'll call it weak all day long. It's a fun idea that isn't made as fun as it could be. In the right hands it could've been a funny and exciting dark action, comedy as the source material seems to imply. Oh well... better luck nice time I guess.

Jackass 3D review

Anyone who is even the slightest bit aware of what "Jackass" is ought to know well and good what a 3D made version of it would entail. Poop in 3D, penis' going random sometimes horrible things in 3D, absurd and painful stunts... in 3D. That's what it is like it or lump it. And how is it? The same as it ever was. If you enjoy their brand of low brow, but occasionally somewhat higher comedy then you'll love it just as much as their other pieces. If not, then you won't. Also if you don't enjoy their stuff seeing it really wouldn't make a lot of sense; especially in 3D with the added ticket price.

The added enjoyment of "Jackass 3D" really is the 3D. It's not always in your face, but when it is it can add to the laugh. If for anything then for the fact that you're about to witness something like a dildo fired from a cannon go right into your face. What can I say, sometimes we need that raw, gallows humor. Sometimes seeing a bunch of guys laugh as their friend willing gets his tooth pulled out by a speeding Lamborghini. Maybe the key to it all is the enjoyment and good sportsmanship we see from all of these guys. Perhaps it's similar to the concept of "Fight Club", in which for men to feel masculine they get into brutal fist fights, but never with emotion or disdain towards the other man. Simply to get that missing rush in life. There's always that friendship and respect despite everything. I suppose it would be different if after every time someone hit someone in the groin they would scream and yell and go into a full bizerker mode.

Most of all the stunt pieces and set up achieve their desired effect. They aim for a heavy degree of shock value, but also have some very clever public skits and pranks on one another that consistently work. There's no much more to be said then that really. I've seen it now in both 2D and 3D and found them both a lot of fun. If you've got the extra cash then by all means seeing it in 3D is a great way to go. If you don't then 2D is simply a really polished looking version of the same film. Either way "Jackass 3D" is fast, dirty and hilarious. If this is the final installment then the boys have gone out on quite a high note.

My Soul to Take review

Every once in a great while a film comes along that changes you in such a profound way that it could warrant a case study. A film that is as important as a great masterwork, but is in fact an enormous pile of shit that you want to remember forever to A: never watch again and if you're like me B: never make ANYTHING nearly this terrible. "My Soul to Take" by writer, director and "master of horror" Wes Craven should be further proof that he has completely lost his touch. Hey it happens. George A. Romero lost it, John Carpenter lost it, Dario Argento and Clive Barker lost it. Why should he be any different?At least those guys pretty much never get to make movies anymore and none of them have made something quite this terrible.

The wonder that is Craven's mind has crafted a story that might have worked as an episode of "Are You Afraid of the Dark?"back in the early 90's. Which is to say that it's a concept that might be interesting purely for thirty minutes or less. Basically you have a serial killer with multiple personalities or as we later learn souls; that dies. However his seven souls go into the seven children that were born the night of his death. Fast forward sixteen years and the murders begin again and one of the seven kids is the culprit. The ONE thing the film seems to get right is the casting, but only to a point. They put together people that LOOK the age they're portraying, unfortunately most of them, including lead Max Thieriot who plays Bug cannot act. Oh and why is his nickname Bug you ask? I dunno. It's never told to us. Also why does the "ripper" have a knife with the word 'vengeance' carved on the side? I dunno; that too is never explained. Why does the killer make a phone call to one of his next victims, yet otherwise doesn't speak or make his presence known until his moment to strike? Dunno. Why does he strangely sound like a bad Robert Englund impersonator at one point and like Duke Nukem at another? I... don't... know.

In addition let us discuss the fact that the film is both rated-R and in 3D and yet both seem completely unnecessary. This is mainly a language R and the only violence is less than something you might catch on "CSI". As for the 3D... well... it's none existent. It's pure conversion 3D that was added to pad a ticket price. That's it. How about we dig a little deeper into these character too while we're at it?! Bug is apparently crazy and snaps in and out of different personalities, but only sometimes and only sort of. Basically he'll start talking like a girl and shake his head a lot if a female character died for example. In their high school there is also a hierarchy which involves a girl they call "Fang" (I shit you not on this) who controls the school system like a mob boss. The film spends an ungodly amount of time dealing with this uninteresting and idiotic storyline to the point where walking out of the theater and into traffic seems like a sweet dream by comparison. Bug's two friends who also share the same birthday as him are just as shallow and uninteresting as he is. There's the token out going and know it all friend that nobody in the school likes. And of course there's the black kid who doubles as the school's one disabled person because he also happens to be blind. But don't feel too bad for him. Being blind doesn't stop him from running through the woods after dark or climbing into a second story window. He's like a teenage Daredevil!

You know I didn't really believe I'd be more unhappy with any other film this year after seeing "Resident Evil: Afterlife". Then again I thought the same thing after seeing "Grown Ups". And before that when I saw "Sex and the City 2". However this time I might have found the one. I've found a film that might not only be the worst film of the year, but one of the worst films I've ever seen. By the way this isn't the first Wes Craven movie to land in that circle. I would also place "Vampire in Brooklyn", "Cursed", "Shocker" and both versions of "The Hills Have Eyes 2" along side this. Less we forget all his produced films which in the couple of decades he's branched out to that has yet to deliver one even mildly impressive product. So why is he still held up with such high esteem? Like most of the other things in this film I don't know.

Recently I discussed the whole Shyamalan slamming thing with a few people. My biggest question was exactly why has only he has been singled out for making bad films? Even Uwe Boll doesn't have quite the hatred that M. Night has gotten. Craven has made SEVERAL films ranging from bad to terrible and no one says shit about it. I've defended both directors before and think both have made great pieces of work. At the same time I'm more than willing to admit that both have had big missteps. Most people I talk to about this claim it's because the public have more of a nostalgia factor with Craven and remember the days of "The Last House on the Left", "The Hills Have Eyes", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Scream". Sure that's all great; it's also over a fucking decade ago! I'm not telling people to re-fall in love with M. Night. In fact I think it's good that people were outspoken to him about their distaste for "The Last Airbender"; but I want Craven to receive similar treatment for his cinematic crimes. And with "My Soul to Take" I would like to HOPE that people out there might finally raise a stink about all of his terrible work so that he can finally STOP being called a master of horror.

Case 39 review

It's interesting coming off a weekend with terrific pieces of work like "The Social Network" and "Let Me In" and heading straight back into shitsville with "Case 39". Lets just say after the first twenty or so minutes you can tell why the film was held back from release for so long. Its almost a complete mess. Actually something I hate more about it is the fact that it's fully comprehend-able, just really fucking stupid and extremely dated.

Basically Renee Zellweger plays Emily, a social worker that believes a young girl is being abused and wants her boss to try and get her pulled from the home. Of course the higher ups are almost completely no help so Emily gives the girl her home number and tries to connect with her so that she'll get that important late night call about the parents trying to "send her to hell". Well it came pretty soon and with the help of her cop friend (played by Ian McShane), they break in, subdue the parents and save the girl from being burned alive in an oven. Emily then drops her case and takes her into her home until another worker can find her a new home. That's when the stuff starts happening. And when I say stuff... well that's exactly what I mean.

"Case 39" isn't a slow burn horror, thriller; it's just lazy. The first half cruises along without much intensity, intrigue or emotion. The second half is almost as empty, but has dull and uninspired devil movie sequences inserted. It's all just random stuff that would've been lame back in the heyday of horror movies. Jodelle Ferland ('Silent Hill', 'Tideland' and 'Twilight: Eclipse") plays the little girl and shoots for the moon trying seem evil and menacing. Sadly none of it works. Bradley Cooper basically has an extended cameo type role before he's dispensed in a prolonged, ridiculous and generally stupid fashion. In fact just how he dies is something up for debate... you know if anybody really cared to debate about it.

Zellweger is just as boring and generally flat as she usually is when she's not aiming at another Oscar nod. When things do heat up for her character she lacks the strength (or care) to really send home the whole panicking or terrifying feeling. When dealing with the other adult characters she's simply bland and dull. The horror aspects are straight from the early 2000's and seem like lamer pieces from stuff like "Darkness Falls", "The Ring Two" and "Boogeyman". So basically it's in the vein of already really shitty horror movies. There is no reason to seek out "Case 39" with so many really fun and impressive movies out right now. This is something that will hit DVD and probably within a couple of months be tossed into the $5 bin at Wal-Mart. If it's not busy being a boring thriller then it's slowly trying to just be a piss poor supernatural movie. Seriously, this is a massive waste of time and money.

Let Me In review

Time to talk remakes again I suppose. That dirty little word that's uttered anytime people in the film community want to discuss what appears to be wrong with the American system. I guess we'll just overlook the highly unimpressive Asian remake of the Coen brothers "Blood Simple"or the fact that the Italian's were doing worse things in the 70's and 80's by ripping off whole movies and retitling them. Ok, soap box moment over... my feverish annoyance at this idea that we're the only country to remake things tends to always put me in a bad mood. Even more so when they write off pieces of work that are actually very, very good before they come out because 'it's an American remake'.

"Let the Right One In" is regarded as a modern classic in the geek community and somewhat in the film community. Is it as the Washington Post put it "the best vampire movie ever"? I can't truly say. It's a great story, but personally I don't think it's a great movie. It's really, really damn good, but there's more than a few things that I wasn't completely taken with where I can't fall in love with it. Matt Reeves' remake on the other hand does have that quality and I am shocked. Granted I was interested/skeptical to see what Reeves had planned and after reading his thoughts a few months back I was even more interested, but I still had my doubts about things. However pretty much from the minute the film starts it's clear that he's aiming to make something different. It does tie well into it's book source, but also take a few cues from the original film. It's not playing the "Psycho" game where everything is just as it was, but there is that subtle safety net that's there if needed from time to time.

The entire movie really hinges on two things; the performances and relationship between Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Abby (Chole Moretz). There honestly is nothing for Reeves and co. to fall back on. The adult characters (Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas) are in VERY much supporting roles and the true, blue horror movie elements are secondary at best. Happily it all works though. Their chemistry and performances are golden and actually work to make you believe it. From there it's simply making everything move in a slow, but strong pace of building that relationship and shaping the world around it. Owen is mercilessly bullied at school, his parents are going through a rough divorce and it's clear on both sides things are far from getting better. In effect Owen is an anti-social outcast. Abby moves in during the night with her father (Jenkins) and slowly build what becames a friendship and then possibly more. Again a lot lays on their shoulders and when they get closer on Reeves' (who also wrote the screenplay).

It's easy to pull vampire-human romance with attractive teens or twenty-somethings. Granted "Twilight" hasn't been able to do it in three movies, but for people with at least half a creative thought in their head it's simple. When it's kids around twelve or so... not so much. With kids romance or general strong feels aren't really about arriving at sex. Let's face it once you hit a certain point that does become even if subconscious or way removed from your up front feelings, an unavoidable thought concept. And as the relationship progresses so does the sexual build up. But with kids it's not nearly that far up the ladder. For them kissing and maybe light groping could be the 'end game'. Unless of course if the kid is a straight hormone charged freakazoid. They play off the advanced relationship with much of the same quiet subtly they place on everything else in the film. For them it's not about a bunch of big moments, but tons of fucking great small ones.

Composer and Oscar winner Michael Giacchino ('Star Trek' and 'Up') delivers what I think is one of his best, but most subtle pieces of work yet. His musical score plays up the slow creepiness of the picture along with the emotion and then gives us some fantastic operatic thrusts to send it all home in the more intense segments. Something else that Matt Reeves had stated in an interview was that he was visually inspired by 70's and 80's Spielbergia where films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", "E.T." and "Poltergeist" took place. Those little places in middle America that were like advanced, living forms of Norman Rockwell paintings. It's photographed beautifully and with a film grain that often even gives it an 80's appearance. It's an atmosphere that so few horror films and thrillers kind of lack and can honestly only help your picture.

Fuck it, I'll say that yeah I do love this version a bit more than the original. It's similar to my love of "Sorcerer" over "The Wages of Fear". Both are great, but I get way more engrossed with Friedkin's remake than the original film. I still feel the best remake probably is "The Departed". The original Hong Kong film "Infernal Affairs" remains an example of the type of H.K. action film I don't like; where it's over edited to such a point to where the biggest scenes resemble trailers rather than an actual movie. As far was this goes though it's probably too soon to tell, but it's among the best I've seen. As a American horror picture it is the way I feel we ought to be heading. We've proven that we can have fun still and be bloody, but it's so rare that we can produce strong, dramatic horror anymore. We're afraid of the slow burn horror so we simply don't make it anymore. Granted audience also choose not to see them also... ummm... I wonder could there be a connection?

Now while I'm writing this on Monday morning I'm already aware of the film's box office results. Personally I was rooting for David Fincher's "The Social Network" and it performed as I would have imagined. Congrats to them and Sony on that and for making at this point the most engrossing and entertaining film I've seen this year. Seriously before that the best film I'd seen was "Exit Through the Gift Shop" and that came out in March. Seven months and even the closest film to it wasn't nearly able to top it. However I was looking for "Let Me In" to perform a lot better. I imagine it didn't because people didn't see the original, but might not have wanted to support a remake. "Twilight" has honestly fucked up chances for good vampire stories to come along and do well. And also because the trailers are angled at... I'll say it... idiots. Overture did for this what Focus Features did for "The American". They lied. This IS NOT a straight or kind of straight horror film. It's a drama with horror elements. They lied because they wanted that horror fan money and sadly it seems they didn't get it. I guess now I have to wonder what might have been if they did release a slow moving, dramatic and methodical ad campaign instead. Landing at #8 your opening weekend is rough. It's hard to bounce back and considering "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" was at #4 and couldn't do, I'm sure this won't either. There's not a lot of convincing I can give to see the movie that hasn't already been stated so I figure readers that have the interest will do it on their own accord. But... even though films like "Paranormal Activity 2" and "Saw VII" and "My Soul to Take" by Wes Craven are a little ways off... I can almost assure you that by missing this you will be missing the most impressive horror film of the season.

Surprisingly writing this review sort of depressed me by the end. Yet another bitter finale to a great piece of work.