Friday, March 31, 2006

Lucky Number Slevin

Title: Lucky Number Slevin (2006)
Dir: Paul McGuigan
Tagline: Wrong Time. Wrong Place. Wrong Number.
Rating: ** out of 5 stars



For the Diamondback....

Love him or hate him, there is no denying that director Quentin Tarantino has inspired dozens of copycat films. Paul McGuigan’s pulp noir Lucky Number Slevin is the latest QT wannabe, with a touch of Hitchcock influence.

Pulling pages right from the Book of Tarantino, McGuigan presents a convoluted story laced with gratuitous violence and pop culture references. But unlike Reservoir Dogs’ quirky discussion of Madonna’s “Like A Virgin”, the dialogue in Slevin is forced and often meaningless. Although it oozes an “I’m-So-Clever” complacency, the script is not as witty as it thinks.

The story begins with a horse. In a flashback told by Smith (Bruce Willis), a series of events involving a rigged horserace culminates in murder. This bloody prologue, although disconnected from the central plot, gives the film a good start. Then we are introduced to Slevin, portrayed by the barely-clad Josh Hartnett (Sin City), who is housesitting for his friend Nick Fisher. Here begins the film’s descent into absurdity.

Slevin, who spends half the movie in nothing but a towel, is repeatedly mistaken for Nick. First, Slevin is taken to a gangster known as the Boss (Morgan Freeman, Batman Begins), to whom Nick owes $96,000. Unable to convince anyone that he is not Nick, Slevin must pay off the debt by doing the Boss a favor – killing the son of rival gangster, the Rabbi (Sir Ben Kingsley, Oliver Twist).

Soon thereafter, he is picked up by Hasidic thugs and taken to see the Rabbi, to whom Nick also owes money. If Slevin does not pay up, cement shoes will surely factor into his future. While Slevin tries to figure a way out of his predicament, we learn that Smith, who is actually an assassin named Goodkat, is pulling the strings and using the two crime lords to frame or kill Slevin – his intentions are not clear.

Meanwhile, Nick’s spunky neighbor Lindsey (Lucy Liu, Kill Bill: Volume 1) plays junior sleuth and tails Goodkat. She and Slevin develop an attraction as they attempt to fulfill the Boss’s order and also pay off the Rabbi. Not helping matters is a nosey detective, played by Stanley Tucci (The Terminal), who shadows their every move.

Slevin draws upon classic Alfred Hitchcock films, including the mistaken-identity thriller North by Northwest - which the Rabbi makes reference to in one of the film’s attempts at quirkiness – and Rear Window, which also featured a spunky girl playing detective for the hero. But unlike its influences, Slevin throws out tension in exchange for black comedy that is ultimately more annoying than funny.

Hartnett, although moderately charming, still struggles to rise above that “Well, at least he’s not Ben Affleck” likeability. Slevin’s smartass one-liners are no substitute for the sharp wit expected of a noir hero. As the villains, Freeman and Kingsley provide the heaviest acting, but sometimes go over-the-top. Willis’ hitman is the most intriguing villain but he is unfortunately relegated to a second-rate character. Meanwhile, Lucy Liu teeters dangerously on the line between cute and obnoxious.

McGuigan, who previously helmed 2004’s Wicker Park, provides stylish direction but the film cannot decide if it wants to be a black comedy or a heavy revenge drama. The shifts in tone are anything but subtle and leave the viewer confused.

Most of film’s faults lie with Jason Smilovic’s script. The dialogue goes beyond the realm of tongue-in-cheek, becoming cheesy and excessive. The film actually could have been improved had the characters never talked. The attempts at Tarantinoesque pop culture references are so forced that it hurts to watch, like when Lindsey and Slevin have a pointless discussion about James Bond.

Then Smilovic tries to win the audience over with the inevitable twist ending. There are two problems with this: 1) if you pay even mild attention, you can guess the ending thirty minutes early; 2) between flashbacks and jump scenes, the “twist” takes a ridiculous amount of time to reveal. As the film recalled each excruciating detail, I couldn’t help but envision Monty Python screaming, “Get on with it!”

Lucky Number Slevin is just not exciting enough for action fans, nor is it smart enough for more critical viewers. As much as the film emulates their work, it lacks the tension of Hitchcock and the cool of Tarantino. The movie is fortunate to have McGuigan, a director with the potential to make a solid noir, but between the ridiculous dialogue and the feeble twist ending, Slevin pushes its luck.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Ice Age: The Meltdown

Title: Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)
Dir: Carlos Saldanha
Tagline: Kiss Your Ice Goodbye.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



For the Diamondback...

Remember how much fun you had watching Woody and Buzz Lightyear compete for favorite toy? Or that warm, fuzzy feeling you got when Nemo reunited with his dad? Well, address those thank you notes to Pixar Studios because you won’t find that quality anywhere else.

When it comes to computer-animated films, Pixar is undisputed ruler. And thanks to its recent merger with Disney, the animation studio is more powerful and more creative than ever. So I sometimes wonder why other companies even bother to throw their hat into the ring. No film has yet rivaled Pixar’s, but a few have actually come close.

With the Ice Age films, 20th Century Fox has attempted to claim a niche of its own. Strangely enough, the second film, Ice Age: The Meltdown, brings the studio much closer to that goal than the first movie. It is not especially original, but with funnier sight gags and better animation, the sequel is a marked improvement over its predecessor.

In Meltdown, the prehistoric animals face the end of their world as global warming begins to melt the ice. A conman - or technically, a con armadillo - named Fast Tony (voiced by Jay Leno) spreads the fear of a Doomsday flood in his attempts to peddle breathing devices and crude boats.

Manny (voice of Ray Romano), the wooly mammoth hero from the last film, dismisses the hype until he witnesses the impending Armageddon for himself. All that stands between them and a massive flood is a crumbling ice dam, so the animals migrate toward a Noah’s Ark-like vessel (actually a large piece of hollow tree).

Returning with Manny are Diego, the sabre-toothed tiger (Denis Leary) and Sid, the dopey sloth (John Leguizamo). The two voice actors, both comedians in life, provide some comic relief to balance Romano’s monotone mammoth.

Also returning is Scrat, the persistent squirrel from the film’s trailers, whose acorn-chasing antics continue against the backdrop of the melting ice dam. His short scenes make for funny intermissions, and recall old Wile E. Coyote cartoons.

As Manny grows depressed thinking he is the last of his species, he meets a female mammoth named Ellie, voiced by Queen Latifah. She thinks she is an opossum, having been raised with two hyper marsupials named Crash and Eddie (Seann William Scott and Josh Peck). Together, the six mammals make their way toward the “Ark” but inevitably encounter obstacles, including reptilian sea monsters, explosive geysers, and of course lots of water.

Ice Age: The Meltdown should have no problem amusing the little ones. All their favorite characters are back, and the two opossums are very funny additions. The movie packs some Shrek-like adult humor, such as a beaver who, seeing the ice dam crack, makes a face like Martin Lawrence and sasses, “Dam!”

Unfortunately, some of the film’s jokes are lifted directly from better movies. You might have seen the commercial where Scrat goes kung fu on some piranhas. And you might remember that same scene in The Lion King between Rafiki and some hyenas. Still, there are some genuinely funny sight gags, mostly courtesy of Scrat and the opossums.

There is also the occasional piece of witty dialogue. As the herd migrates toward safety, a gang of vultures flies overhead, making airport announcements like, “Please do not leave children unattended. All unattended children will be eaten.” However, these gems are few and far-between, since the film is obviously geared toward children for whom potty jokes and kicks to the crotch are comic gold.

The biggest pitfall of the movie is that its lead characters lack charm. They may amuse, but you just don’t fall in love with them. The budding love story between Manny and Ellie is completely uninteresting, as is a subplot involving Diego’s fear of water.

Depending on how much you read into the film, Meltdown has an interesting level of doom surrounding it. Obviously there is no Dr. Strangelove ending here, but the Doomsday theme is still pretty dark for a kid’s movie. And don’t forget the film’s implications of global warming and a Katrina-esque flood. Could Ice Age 2 be quietly taking shots at the Bush administration? Unlikely, but it’s an amusing thought for wandering minds.

Ice Age: The Meltdown cannot touch the work of Pixar, but it does prove superior to the first film. Between trash like Chicken Little and gold like Shrek falls a movie like this. If you are taking kids, it will keep them happy. For everyone else, it carries the entertainment value of a Looney Tunes re-run. You can decide if that’s good or bad.

Phantom Empire

Title: Phantom Empire (1986)
Dir: Fred Olen Ray
Rating: * and 1/2 out of 5 stars



This is the epitome of a bad B-movie. Bad acting, worse FX, ridiculous plot, sexploitation - it's all there. If you really dig cheesy 80s sci-fi movies, check it out. Otherwise, you should remember the name Fred Olen Ray because you must avoid his "films" at all costs.

The "plot" of this movie is as follows: two adventurers take a rich socialite lady out to some old caves in search of valuable jewels. These caves are believed to be the home of cannibalistic monsters, but no mind, they go ahead with the expedition accompanied by a professor and a college student in geology. You'll have to excuse me for not using character names - I really don't care enough to look them up.

Anyway, the team encounters some scantily-clad "cave bunnies", the aforementioned murderous monsters, prehistoric dinosaurs, a laser-shooting robot, and an alien queen who plans to enslave the men for breeding purposes (of course).

Empire claims to be a spoof of trashy old sci-fi flicks, but I'm not so sure. There are moments where I can tell the movie is trying to be funny, but at least 85% of the time the movie really is just that shitty. To some degree, that is amusing. When one character accidently drops a flashlight while talking and another character hands it back to him without a word, I laughed. Why the hell would you leave that in the movie? It's like Ed Wood reincarnate.

There were a few moments that amused me, and just occasionally the characters didn't warrant strangulation. This one has, yes, Jeffrey Combs (the reason I rented it). In addition to wearing the tightest jeans I have ever seen on a man, he is pretty funny in this. And he gets lots of cave bunny ass. Well, he would anyway if not for all the dinosaurs and cave trolls. Maybe next time, Jeff.



Everyone else couldn't act for shit but were entertaining on-and-off. It's still far from the worst movie I've ever seen because it does tip-toe toward "so-bad-it's-good" territory. I guess if you're the kind of person who loved Plan 9 From Outer Space BEFORE Tim Burton made Ed Wood, then you just might like this one.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

V for Vendetta

Title: V for Vendetta (2005)
Dir: James McTeigue
Tagline: Remember, remember the fifth of November.
Rating: ***** out of 5 stars



Every year, there's one film that really stands out to me. It may not always be the best film persay but it's the one that grabs me and I absolutely love it. In 2004, it was Shaun of the Dead. In 2005, Serenity. And although 2006 isn't even half-way over, I think I already have a winner: V for Vendetta.

Let me preface this review by saying, read Alan Moore's comic books. Even if you have seen or choose to see Vendetta in theaters, still read the comic books because they give you an entirely different experience. The filmmakers chose a more loose adaptation of the books, which I LOVE, because there's just no point in making a scene-for-scene adaptation of a book - just read the book! (Although Sin City was pretty cool, aesthetically).

Here is a run-down for those of you living under rocks: In the future, the USA has been destroyed by nuclear war, and England has become a totalitatian state under the rule of Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt, Alien). There is an 11 o'clock curfew, music is forbidden, and privacy is non-existant. Basically, anything in the Bill of Rights would be a no-no.

Determined to challenge this dictatorship and awaken the comatose population of England is a masked terrorist named V (Hugo Weaving, aka Agent Smith of The Matrix). He acts out a personal vendetta while taking on some of England's most powerful - and most corrupt - figures. After saving a young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman, Garden State), V acquires a sometimes-reluctant sidekick in his vengeful endeavors.

V for Vendetta was written by The Wachowski Brothers of Matrix fame. For some people (like me), that was a turnoff because the Matrix sequels were discouraging. However, their writing on Vendetta is fantastic, and their love for Moore's writing really shows. Still they add their own style to it, going so far as to completely change or remove characters and events. But they do not hurt the original story at all - in fact, they enhance it! It's a true testament to your love for someone else's story when you can add new chapters of equal or greater quality.

The directing of McTeigue, a newcomer, is fantastic. Despite what you may hear, he is not some Wachowski-wannabe and Vendetta does not rip off The Matrix. Stupid people seem to think that the Wachowski's invented the slow-motion feature. But anyway, the directing is original and perfect for this movie. I can't wait to see more of his work.

For a lot of people, the most engaging part of Vendetta is V's revolution against the government. Cool and moving as that is, there is something about the character that moves me so much more - his own personal vendetta. I've always loved Batman because of his dark baggage, but V takes personal pain to a whole new level. The movie doesn't even touch on it that much, but I can absolutely feel his pain and it moves me.

Unlike Batman, V is not against killing, which opens up a whole new moral issue: is he a hero, or just a terrorist? Is murder ever justified? He does work very hard to free the people of England (including Evey) from their prison. Yes, it's partly vengeful, but there are some truly heroic qualities there.

I am so fascinated by tortured characters, and V takes the cake. Everytime I look at him, I see a man scarred both physically and mentally but he lives on both for vengeance and for the desire to save others from his fate. This is real. V is a real superhero, as far as I'm concerned. He is not perfect, and he has selfish motives sometimes. He wears a mask not to hide his identity, but to hide his pain (yes, I know he isn't the only character to ever do this).

He wears a plastic smile to hide what was done to him. Still, V has a cheery disposition about him, especially when he is with Evey. He seems so childlike sometimes, as if to suggest his real childhood was taken from him. For a man to be so vengeful and dangerous, and yet so lovable and sweet - god it is fascinating!

If you see nothing more than an action movie about some guy in a mask fucking over the government - well, you've really missed out. There is some seriously deep shit in this film and it blows my mind everytime I think about it.

In the role of V, Hugo Weaving is PERFECT. I've loved the man since I was 15 and heard him utter the words, "Mr Anderson..." But I fell all over again with this movie - and he's in a mask! I never thought voice and body language alone could convey a character so well. With just a cock of the head, he can be witty and charming. If you know Hugo's voice at all, it sounds nothing like V (or Agent Smith), so I was all the more blown away by his voice acting in this movie. There never could've been a more perfect V.

Portman is pretty good here. I'm always gonna like the girl, if only for The Professional, cause she was an amazing actress for a 13-year old. Only Christian Bale ever rivaled that. As for this movie, she's good as Evey (though entirely different from the comic, but that's a good thing, trust me) and I like her chemistry with V.

I didn't mention his character earlier, but Stephen Rea plays a detective trying to catch V and he is my second favorite performance. His performance and his character are great - another brilliant piece of casting. Everyone else is also very good and I wouldn't change a thing.

As you can tell from the essay I just wrote, I love this movie. I've seen it twice in theaters already and I'm anxiously awaiting a third viewing.

The City of Lost Children

Title: La cité des enfants perdus -aka- The City of Lost Children (1995)
Dir: Marc Caro, Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Tagline: Where happily ever after is just a dream.
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



If nothing else, you've gotta give a movie like this credit for being absolutely unlike anything you've ever seen before. The closest comparison I could make is "Brazil" but really the only thing they have in common is that each is so unique!

Firstly, I love fantasy films. They are so rarely made anymore. There's nothing quite like watching a movie as if through the imagination of a child. Sorry if that sounded cliche, but it's true. City of Lost Children is definitely that sort of movie, chock full of dreamlike imagery and eccentric characters.

And like most fantasy films of this type, the children are the strongest and most intelligent characters, surrounded by strange, untrustworthy adults. And in City we have Ron Perlman's character - a circus strongman - who has the body of an adult but the mind of a child, thus bringing the best of both worlds.

So here's a quick rundown: A lonely scientist, frsutrated that he cannot dream, is kidnapping children so that he can steal their dreams through a machine. He kidnaps the young brother of a circus strongman named One (Perlman), who goes after his little brother with the help of a young pickpocket girl. Standing in their way is the mad scientist, his tiny test-tube-baby wife, and his "sons" who are actually clones of himself. There's also some child-stealing "Cyclopses" and a pair of evil Siamese sisters known collectively as "The Octopus".

Sound weird? It is. And it's great. The cinematography is beautiful and imaginitive, as you'd expect of Jeunet. It might be a little off-putting at the start if you're not accustomed to strange movies, but it begins to make sense after a bit.

City is the kind of film you'll remember. 'Forgettable' is just not a word you'd associate with this movie. If you like any of Jeunet's other films - and for most of you, that means Amelie - you should definitely check this one out. And the same goes for you Gilliam fans.

Undertaking Betty

Title: Undertaking Betty -aka- Plots With A View (2002)
Dir: Nick Hurran
Tagline: A comedy where love finds new life and death is something to laugh about.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



I'm not gonna lie: romantic comedies aren't really my thing. But I could not pass up a movie about Alfred Molina and Christopher Walken as competing undertakers.

The movie is about an funeral owner named Boris (Molina) who has always been in love with Betty (Brenda Blethyn) but the snag is, she married some asshole. Well turns out Betty also has feelings for Boris, and they decide to fake her death so that she can escape her husband and run off with Boris. And thus the wacky hijinks ensue.

The film isn't anything special, and I've already forgotten most of it. In fact, I wasn't really feeling the love story between Boris and Betty - it was pretty rushed so they could spend most of the movie on faking her death. But it's not a bad movie and can be pretty cute.

Christopher Walken, who is fun to watch as always, plays the eccentric (duh) competing undertaking, Frank Featherbed, who offers themed funerals for his clients. Lee Evans plays his apprentice, and he's kind of annoying but I do like that Lee Evans. I can never remember if he's actually British or just pretending.

I'm sure fans of romantic comedies - especially British ones - would enjoy this. It's just not my personal cup of tea. I never could get into 'Waking Ned Devine' and movies like that. I liked the morbid side of Ned and Betty, but they are still too cutesy for my taste.

Friday, March 17, 2006

Evil Aliens

Title: Evil Aliens (2005)
Dir: Jake West
Tagline: A Bloody Close Encounter.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



This film proves there really is a thin line between brilliant and stupid. And that one man's trash is another man's treasure. For instance, I grew up hating the movie Orca but some consider it a "cult classic". To me it's just another waste of celluloid that belongs on the Sci Fi Channel at 3am.

Evil Aliens is similar. I guess you'll love it or hate the fuck out of it. You must have a taste for weird Peter Jackson-esque humor, but also vulgar British humor. And lots of gratuitious sexuality. And some hardcore gore. And bad dialogue. And god awful CGI.

The movie begins with a Welsh girl being abducted - and impregnanted - by aliens. A sci-fi tv program, getting wind of her story, goes to film her testimony and a re-enactment of the abduction. The host, a story-hungry slut, brings along two prissy actors (one female, the other male but practically female), a cameraman, a sound guy, and a nerdy "alien expert."

They encounter the aliens, who are tearing apart cattle - and people. You can guess the rest: they try to leave, but can't, and so they must fight off the aliens. Etc etc etc.

I think my biggest beef with this movie is the computer graphics. I cannot take CGI in a horror film, especially as bad as this. Like one scene has a guy impaled through the mouth upon a big wooden stake. Now if you can't think of a more creative way to do that, or you cant afford a dummy to impale, don't film it. The CGI used for the scene is just ridiculous.

All the actors initially annoyed the crap out of me, but they get better. The lead girl is a bitch and I don't really care for her. The nerdy guy bugged me, too. The cameraman gets better toward the end, but spends most of the film being worthless.

Surprisingly, the bimbo blonde actress turns out to be one of the most fun to watch. She goes from seemingly vulnerable to shotgun-wielding badass, and yet the transition is not ridiculous like in most movies. I can't explain why it works in this film, it just does. Along with an old Welsh farmer, she kicks some alien ass and the pair are very entertaining.



Evil Aliens has a lot of nonsense moments, and stuff that made me roll my eyes. Namely, alien-on-human sex. Just silly. I guess that's the point, but I could've done without it.

So how is the gore? Maybe it's just me, but the scene of a guy getting drilled (yes, literally DRILLED) in the asshole...eh, not my cup o tea. I like blood as much as the next gorehound, but this just seemed over-the-top.

There are some genuinely good moments later on, though, including;

- three Welsh farmers face off with the aliens (chainsaw involved = always good)
- blondie takes on a shed full of aliens using a variety of shop tools - a presumed homage to Dead Alive
- a character driving a mechanical harvester....well, use your imagination.
- my favorite: i won't spoil it but it involves severed legs and an alien fetus.

For those scenes alone, I'd probably recommend seeing the movie once. Like I said, some of it is really good shit. There's a funny epilogue too, so stay tuned for that.

This one isn't for everybody. Horror fans should find enjoyment, but be warned of the silliness and shitty CGI. Non-horror fans....well, why are you even reading this? Move along to the next review.

Castle Freak

Title: Castle Freak (1995)
Dir: Stuart Gordon
Tagline: Hideous...hungry...and loose!
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



If you know anything about this movie, it shouldn't surprise you that I watched it. Stuart Gordon...Jeffrey Combs....Barbara Crampton...HP Lovecraft. It's like a Re-Animator reunion, with fewer zombies but even more bizarre sexual situations. Decapitated-head cunnilingus has got nothing on some of the sick stuff in Castle Freak.

Combs and Crampton play an unhappily married couple who inherit a spooky old castle in Italy. She hates him because his drunken-driving years prior caused the death of their son J.J. and permanently blinded their daughter Rebecca. So while they're squabbling, the daughter discovers they are not alone in the castle. There is a freakish creature living in the dungeon who escapes and decides to do naughty things to the women of the house. Meanwhile, the father goes back to the bottle, and into the arms of a prostitute. After she is brutally killed by the Freak, daddy gets arrested for murder. He gradually realizes who the culprit is, and must go save his family.

It's so weird to see those two actors playing a married couple, after Re-Animator. It's even weirder to imagine Herbert West getting drunk and banging an Italian hooker. But anyway, it works. Castle Freak is not meant to be funny like its aforementioned predecessor. It gets pretty brutal at times. Apparently Gordon likes to show monsters trying to sexually assault girls. I'm noticing that pattern. It is a pretty horrifying image, though.

I would like to point out that it never feels exploitative. I HATE exploitative horror, that shocks for the sake of shocking. I think Gordon knows how terrifying rape is, just like Hitchcock knew claustrophobia, heights, etc. were natural fears. Just like there was nothing wrong with the rape scenes in Boys Don't Cry or Deliverance, there's nothing exploitative about the attempted-monster-rape here. Gordon also doesn't degrade his female characters. The hooker gets it the worst, but Gordon didnt de-humanize her, which was admirable. Usually, those characters in horror movies are treated like token victims and you feel no sympathy for them.

There is also sympathy for the monster, of course. And I think Gordon was trying to compare Combs' character John to the freak, both as "men" who cannot escape their tortured pasts. John never wanted to kill his son, and the freak never asked to be what he became. But neither can ever make things right.

The film has some slow-moving parts, but overall I liked it. With the brutality, it's certainly not everyone's cup o' tea. But really it's one of those horror films where an uncovered secret or history is far more disturbing than anything we actually see onscreen (for examples, see Angels and Insects or Crimson Rivers). So expect more drama and less hack-and-slash. It's just not that kind of horror film, despite its generic b-movie title.

Thank You For Smoking

Title: Thank You For Smoking (2005)
Dir: Jason Reitman
Tagline: Nick Naylor doesn't hide the truth...he filters it.
Rating: **** out of 5 stars



For the Diamondback...

Thank You For Smoking could not have come at a better time. No, I am not referring to the conveniently-timed Katie Holmes sex scene scandal that put this movie on the map. Rather, I mean the film is a breath of fresh air amidst the painfully unfunny comedies in theaters lately.

Director Jason Reitman (son of Ghostbusters director Ivan) has crafted a witty satire that appeals to intellectuals, activists, and general moviegoers alike. It is a smart movie, but you won’t need a PhD to be entertained. The humor is fresh, fast-paced, and so dead-on accurate it is almost eerie.

Based on Christopher Buckley’s novel of the same name, Thank You For Smoking follows Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart, Erin Brockovich), a notorious lobbyist for the tobacco industry. Often called “The Sultan of Spin”, Naylor prides himself on the ability to twist any argument in his favor. With a wink and a smile, he can convince anyone that smoking is not only harmless, but can actually save lives.

When not being paid to talk, Naylor hangs at the bar with Polly Bailey (Maria Bello, A History of Violence), lobbyist for alcohol, and Bobby Jay Bliss (David Koechner, Anchorman), lobbyist for guns. Calling themselves the MOD Squad (“Merchants of Death”), the trio frequently argues over whose employer has killed the most people. Although portrayed as immoral, it is impossible to not love every minute they are onscreen.

Like the MOD Squad, every character in this movie is hilarious. The ever-amazing J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man) plays Naylor’s tough-as-nails boss, while legendary Godfather actor Robert Duvall portrays the grandpa of the tobacco industry, simply known as “Captain”.

These two send Naylor on a variety of outings, including an attempt to bribe the original Marlboro Man (Sam Elliott, Hulk) who is now dying of cancer and eager to renounce tobacco. Naylor also visits an eccentric Hollywood agent (a hilarious cameo by Rob Lowe) to try and put more cigarettes on film.

Rounding out the movie’s cast are Holmes (Batman Begins) as a reporter willing to do anything for a scoop on Naylor, and William H. Macy (Fargo) as the Vermont senator and token anti-tobacco liberal.

As Naylor himself, Eckhart is great. He exudes the charm and confidence to make you love watching him, but also shows a human side, particularly in scenes with son Joey (Cameron Bright, Ultraviolet). Everyone else is equally wonderful in their roles. Even the weakest actors (ahem, Katie) manage to shine here.

There are a lot of great blink-and-miss-them jokes in the film. For instance, Lowe’s agent works for a company called EGO (Entertainment Global Offices). Jokes like that are very common throughout, and you probably won’t catch them all the first time. Reitman’s attention to detail is astounding, and every single in-joke earns a laugh.

Aside from its great comedic timing and stellar cast, Smoking’s best attribute is that it doesn’t preach to the audience. Rather than being caught up in the issue of who is right, the film steps back and satires the absurdity surrounding the “war on tobacco”.

Neither the industry nor its liberal opponents are safe from the film’s mockery. Politicians, film agents, business executives – they are all fair game to Reitman. With lines like, “If you want an easy job, go work for the Red Cross”, this movie does not submit to political correctness. For that reason, it provides pure satire at its best.

The humor is never stuffy or dry, as one might expect from a film about politics. Almost everything in the story is fictional and so absurd that it’s practically fantasy. It has a dark-but-absurdly-comical feel usually found only in Coen Brothers films.

Reitman’s biggest flaw as a director is that he can be overzealous. Since this is his first major feature, some MTV-style flashiness is to be expected. Particularly at the film’s start, he likes to speed up the frames, or randomly film a scene on video. But as the movie gets moving, this is less obvious and the story takes center stage.

Do not watch this film expecting a Michael Moore-style attack on corporate tobacco. It is a reality-based fantasy with a constant stream of light-hearted humor. Thank You For Smoking does not ask you to question your morals, but simply aims to entertain (with a healthy level of intelligence). Whether you are pro- or anti-tobacco, you will be laughing from opening to closing credits.

Sunday, March 12, 2006

Beyond Re-Animator

Title: Beyond Re-Animator (2003)
Dir: Brian Yuzna
Tagline: Welcome To Death Row. The Doctor Will See You Now.
Rating: * 1/2 out of 5 stars



This will be long, I have a lot of bones to pick with Beyond Re-Animator.

Maybe it's my overwhelming love for the original movie that has made Bride of Re-Animator sort of grow on me since my review. It certainly wasn't awful, and it had potential. It felt like the less witty younger brother of Re-Animator. The third installment, however, is NOTHING like either of its predecessors. And no, that is not a good thing.

This movie is a steaming pile of ass molasses.

I did not see Beyond Re-Animator because I am a completist. I saw it because I genuinely love the series, and I am more than willing to watch Jeffrey Combs do anything. Sure enough, he was the only redeemable thing about this one. Okay, it had a moment or two that made me smirk. But largely, I was just astounded by the awful acting, dialogue, and plotline.

So the plot goes like this: Herbert West is locked up in prison after one of his re-animated zombies killed a girl. In the pen, he continues his experiments on the sly, testing a new theory on rats. He has discovered "neuroplasm" that can be captured from specimens (by electrocution) and then given to a re-animated specimen to make them normal again. A young doctor, Howard Phillips, shows up to help Dr. West in his work. Turns out that he was the brother of that girl West inadvertantly killed, and he is interested in 'saving' people with West's reagent. Oh, and there's a chick - some reporter who is investigating the prison warden, and then West.

I'll start by ripping apart that plot. Firstly, why did it takes 3 movies for West to get imprisoned? It's not like his zombies never killed anyone before, so why the arrest now? I'm also kinda curious how his trial didnt make public all his work and thus expose the reagent to the scientific world. But whatever, that's not relevant, so I'll move on. So he's in prison now, doing more experiments from his cell. He creates a crude electrocution set-up from a LIGHT BULB. I know Herbert is brilliant and all, but c'mon. He also manages to collect this so-called neuroplasm inside a bulb, and somehow makes the conductor which inserts into the brain. How? Don't ask. All the neurplasm stuff is pretty absurd and insulting to anyone who knows anything about science, but I'll let that go. It's just a horror movie, afterall.

So then there's Dr. Phillips. Watching his sister get murdered somehow made him fascinated with Dr. West's work, but not at all in a vengeful way. In fact, he isn't even remotely bitter about it. The movie keeps emphasizing the doctor's obssession with his sister's death and his desire to save people (where he couldn't save her), but it's pretty difficult to believe he isn't at least a little angry at West.

That brings me to the actors. The dude playing Phillips (who's name is not worth looking up) is so awful. So, so awful. His bad acting even ruins a classic Jeffrey Combs moment! After killing the warden, West re-animates him without telling Phillips. So later when Phillips says, "The warden is dead!", West gives the best shifty-eyed "i didnt do it" look, to which Phillips screams, "GODDAMMIT!". It would've been a great moment except that 'goddammit' was the worst acting I've ever heard. Goddammit, indeed, ruining a classic Combs moment! I never loved Dan Cain, but this movie and this stupid actor really made me miss him. Bruce Abbott would've delivered that line perfect.

The chick in the movie, who does not cover her Spanish accent well at ALL, is not as bad as the doctor guy, but still not very good. Couldn't they get better actors for this shit?? Thank god for Combs. He brings some class and talent to the movie. Twenty years later, he still nails the role of Herbert West. He should've been in Beyond Re-Animator a LOT more, though. Too much of the film is taken up by the young, "good-looking" people (fuck that, I'll take Jeff any day). He's Herbert fucking West! After 3 movies, with Dan finally gone, can't Herbert finally have the lead?!?

So how's the gore in this one? Not as good as everyone claimed it to be. Jawless zombie drinking milk? Did anyone else think he looked exactly like Dr. Tongue from Day of the Dead? That was a disgustingly obvious rip-off. A guy overdoses on reagent and explodes? Gee, I seem to remember Re-Animator ending that way. The movie uses CGI where its predecessors obviously couldn't. And as usual, those old-fashioned FX are 100 times better. Having David Gale sit under a desk to give the appearance of a severed head 20 years ago looks way better than the horseshit in this movie.

Yuzna disappointed me with Bride, and downright appalled me with Beyond. Stuart Gordon, come back, for the love of god!!! Yuzna seems like a nice guy and I think he really loves the series, but he just fucks it up. He tries to give Beyond a modern, edgy feel but it looks stupid.

Combs, as always, is the glue holding the movie together. He is just not capable of boring me, and I especially love him as West. His character isn't the same as it used to be (maybe 13 years in prison does that to ya), but it still worked. He is much older (obviously) and pretty normal compared to the weirdos surrounding him in this movie. I do miss the nerdier, wussier West. He has a slightly bigger backbone in this one, but elements of the young West do shine through. There's a moment where the warden discovers West's secret lab, and Herbert stands in front of his work. The warden tells him to move, and Herbert gives a half-second of defiance and then sheepishly moves. I laughed because that's classic West, and it was a relief to see ANYTHING that resembled the original movie.

As for the non-Jeff moments I liked, there's a so-weird-its-amusing scene involving a severed penis and a rat. And it kinda amused me when one prisoner explodes from the reagent, and then his exploded body gets up and asks for another fix. It's very cheesy, but I chuckled.

As much as these films are increasingly letting me down, I do hope for more sequels (only with Jeff, of course). I keep coming back because I love West and his story. But alas, horror films just aren't as entertaining as they used to be. It's like once we hit the 1990s, all the black humor got sucked from horror. Since 2000, even worse. I should've known better than to watch a 2003 sequel to Re-Animator, but my naivete and love for the original keep bringing me back. And as long as Combs is on-board, I will continue to crawl back.

Failure to Launch

Title: Failure to Launch (2006)
Dir: Tom Dey
Tagline: To leave the nest, some men just need a little push.
Rating: *** out of 5



For the Diamondback....

A 35-year old man who plays XBox all day is forgivable; a 35-year old man who collects Empire Strikes Back action figures is tolerable; but a 35-year old man who still lives with his parents is just not something most women can accept.

In Tom Dey’s Failure to Launch, that 35-year old slacker is Trip, a boat salesman who lives a comfortable life in his parents’ house. Portrayed by Matthew McConaughey (Sahara), Trip is obviously not your run-of-the-mill mama’s boy. He is handsome, charming, and irresistible to women – until he brings them home to his unconventional bachelor pad. With no intentions of moving out, he sabotages one relationship after another without care.

Eager for some time alone, Trip’s well-meaning parents (played by Misery actress Kathy Bates and former QB Terry Bradshaw) hire a “professional interventionist” named Paula (Sex and the City’s Sarah Jessica Parker) to motivate their son into moving out. Her goal is to simulate a romantic relationship with Trip, so that he will detach from his parents and become a self-sufficient adult. She does attract Trip, but her usual strategy for wooing a man does not work as planned.

The movie follows that familiar formula used in romantic comedies like She’s All That and 10 Things I Hate About You wherein one character pretends to love another for a job or a bet but unexpectedly falls for their target. This usually culminates in a line like, “Everything you ever told me was a lie!” but the protagonists eventually work it out. It doesn’t happen exactly like that in Failure to Launch, but it is close enough to be tiresome and predictable.

The film gets no points for originality, but it does offer some quirky amusements. In a strange running gag, Paula’s roommate Kit (Zooey Deschanel, Elf) grows angry over a mockingbird that keeps her awake at night. When she considers buying a shotgun to end its chirping, there is a funny cameo by The Daily Show’s Rob Corddry as a gun shop clerk. Does the mockingbird have anything to do with Trip and Paula’s story? Doubtful, but it makes for a light distraction from all the romantic mush.

The bird is not the only animal reference in the film. In fact, there is another running motif involving Trip and a variety of animals biting him. Eventually you get the film’s point, but the first time a chipmunk takes a bite out of McConaughey, you may be scratching your head thinking, “What just happened?”

Because the animal jokes are so absurd, you will probably love them or hate them passionately. They are also the only distinguishable element that Failure to Launch has to offer. Everything else is over-done chick flick material, so the film’s goofy sense of humor will probably make it or break it. If reruns of America Funniest Home Videos have you rolling, expect to be won over. If not, watch at your own risk.

Sometimes it is downright eerie how a film’s title reviews itself. True enough, Failure to Launch runs at a steady pace without really getting anywhere - it, ahem, fails to launch. Sometimes it feels like just an endless stream of sight gags.

As for the leading couple, McConaughey and Parker never really develop on-screen chemistry. From the beginning, we know Paula is a fraud, and Trip is an immature playboy. Furthermore, the director never really develops a love affair between the two.

Consistently more appealing are Kit, along with Trip’s best friends Ace (Justin Bartha, National Treasure) and Demo (Bradley Cooper, Wedding Crashers). These supporting characters are way more charming and funny than their protagonist counterparts, even if they are sometimes forced to ham it up.

Watching this film, I could not help but recall Parker’s last romantic comedy, The Family Stone, where all the melodrama sucked the romance and the comedy right out of the movie. To the credit of Failure to Launch, it escaped this fate. With an above-average level of absurdity, it avoids the heavy drama that tore down Stone and some other comedies.

To you guys living at home, or girlfriends of those guys, do not expect a film you can relate to. Matthew McConaughey does not portray a realistic case of a man who lives at home, but instead portrays, well, Matthew McConaughey. Trip is a cocky ladies man who willingly chooses to destroy his relationships by bringing the girls home to Mom. The emphasis is placed more on Trip’s fear of commitment due to some emotional baggage. If you are looking to watch a more realistic man-child and an all-around better film, 40 Year Old Virgin is the way to go.

For a date night movie, Failure to Launch can’t hurt. Depending on your sense of humor, you might really enjoy it. It does have the benefit of being light and not taking itself too seriously, which some romantic comedies have forgotten. If seeing this movie keeps you out of the Ultraviolet and Big Momma’s House 2 theatres, then by all means, see it! Otherwise, I recommend you wait for the DVD and have a date-night on the couch.

Friday, March 03, 2006

Red Eye

Title: Red Eye (2005)
Dir: Wes Craven
Tagline: Fear Takes Flight.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



Plot rundown: On an overnight flight to Miami, hotel manager Lisa (Rachel McAdams) meets a charming stranger (Cillian Murphy), who eventually reveals that he is part of an assassination plot. Having kidnapped her father, he tells Lisa she must help in the assassination (by moving the target to a different room in her hotel) or her father will die. So she tries her best to escape the situation without getting anyone killed.

Both the leads actor are good, I've always liked each of them. Murphy makes a great bad guy, and while I don't want him to get typcast, I hope he takes more roles like this (and Scarecrow). McAdams makes a realistic business woman/daddy's girl, so she has just the right combination of feminine strength and brains + girlish vulnerability.

It's not a return to form for Wes Craven (ie, Last House on the Left, Nightmare on Elm Street) but considering his recent failures, Red Eye is a big step up. At least he hasn't lost his mind and talent completely (oh, John Carpenter). It's probably his best film since Scream, although not as good. It does have a good bit of tension though, partly because of the plane. The director takes a cue from Hitchcock, buiding tension with claustrophobia and viewers' natural fear of flying.

The second half of the movie takes place in Miami (not the plane), where Craven switches into Scream gear, with Lisa running and hiding from a killer in her house. Still it works, if only as fleeting entertainment. It's nothing profound, but the tension and the actors bring together a good popcorn flick.

However, I would not recommend Red Eye as an in-flight movie...that's just cruel.

Bride of Re-Animator

Title: Bride of Re-Animator (1990)
Dir: Brian Yuzna
Tagline: Date. Mate. Re-Animate.
Rating: ** 1/2 out of 5 stars



SPOILER WARNING: The following contains spoilers about the first Re-Animator movie. DO NOT read this review if you have not seen the first movie!

I hate to say it, but this movie really let me down. Even without comparing it to the original, this sequel just fell flat. Am I missing something? A lot of people seem to love this one. Why?

Plot rundown: Herbert West and Dan Cain are still researchin dead tissue re-animation, when West figures out how to re-animate body parts. Together they attempt to create life in the form of a Frankenstein-like woman, made up of various people's body parts.

So why was I disappointed? Firstly, it's impossible to overlook the GAPING plotholes between the first and second movies. I can ignore the fact that it looked like West died in the first movie - if he's not shown dead, I don't complain. And I certainly do not complain about more Jeffrey Combs. But Dr. Hill's head was clearly crushed at the first film's end, but the head was intact in Bride. And they never explain how it ended up at a sideshow (although a funny reference to West's line in the original movie). And what happened to Meg? Did the reagent work? How did she die (again)?

When Bride began, and those familiar opening credits rolled, I thought, "Hmm, Yuzna seems to be following the first movie pretty closely. I like that, it shows respect for the first film." Apparently I was completely wrong, as shown by all those gigantic plot inconsistencies. Did he even watch the original movie?

Secondly, the sequel had some pretty shitty acting. There was some major overacting, and much of the dialogue was pretty dumb, save a few memorable lines from West ("Don't let the little head rule the big head, Dan"). The police lieutenant and Dr. Graves were completely useless and I didn't like them. There should have been more Hill! Obviously there's no way to explain how his head was intact again, but at the very least they could've given him more screentime. He had no purpose here - the plot wasn't about him. I think he should've done a lot more in this movie, being treated as a proper villain and not just some unthreatening side character.

Third, I liked the homage to Bride of Frankenstein, but the writers could've gone further with the bride/mother theme. So much talk of women and wombs, but no baby-related stuff. Maybe it's the Dead Alive fan in me, but I would've liked to see a re-animated Frankenstein baby!

Overall, the movie felt very disconnected - kinda ironic considering it's all about stringing together body parts. It's as if the writers half-assedly stitched together the left over pieces of Re-Animator and came up with this movie. And why does this movie look so dated and cheap? I'm guessing it had a lower budget, cause this one really felt like a late night B-movie whereas its predecessor did not.

I don't want to sound like I hate it - it had some cool moments. Those body-part creatures were pretty freaky! I was just disappointed, especially after hearing it was as good as the original. I think Stuart Gordon could've have pulled it together into something better. Ah well.

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

16 Blocks

Title: 16 Blocks (2006)
Dir: Richard Donner
Tagline: For a New York cop and his witness, the distance between life and death just got very short.
Rating: *** out of 5 stars



For the Diamondback....

Imagine you are driving through a severe hurricane, and at a bus stop you see three people: a dying old lady, your best friend, and the love of your life. You only have room in your car for one person. Who do you pick up?

In 16 Blocks, Eddie Bunker (rapper Mos Def) proposes that riddle to Detective Jack Mosley (a very aged Bruce Willis). The depressed, middle-aged Mosley is assigned to transport Bunker to a downtown courthouse, where he will testify against an officer of the NYPD. Like in the riddle, Mosley faces a moral dilemma when he learns that his fellow cops want to kill Bunker before he can testify against their colleague. Should he protect his trusted friends, or help a strange in need?

Mosley, with his bad leg and penchant for booze, is a joke at the police station. So when his longtime partner Frank (David Morse, The Green Mile) asks him to turn a blind eye to the murder scheme, old Jack proves that he is still worth a damn by helping Bunker escape his would-be assassins. Mosley has an hour and a half to move Bunker sixteen blocks to the courthouse without being found by the crooked cops.

Director Richard Donner is no stranger to action films, having helmed the entire Lethal Weapon series. Although not nearly as witty, 16 Blocks still boasts a fair amount of action, and holds its own in the tried-but-true “last good cop” genre.

The role of Mosley is reminiscent of Willis’ performance in Sin City as the aging Detective Hartigan who desperately tried to prove his worth by saving a young girl. Unlike Hartigan, Mosley is not trying to be a hero, but once he commits to protecting Bunker, he is desperate to prove that he is capable of saving him.

Willis lacks the tough guy charm from his glory days (see Die Hard), but the transformation is intentional. Mosley is no action hero – he’s just a tired lush with a shady past. Unlike watching Harrison Ford hobble across screen pretending to be tough (e.g., Firewall), we see Willis as a man who is flawed but believably capable of heroism. With roles like this, Bruce continues to prove he can act as well as he can fire a gun.

As the witness-under-fire, Mos Def is likable with one distinct flaw: his voice. He puts on an accent to sound uneducated, which is appropriate for a character targeted by a police cover-up, but the actor comes across sounding like Handi-Man from In Living Color. Once you can overlook the voice, Mos Def is good and provides what little comic relief the film has.

The movie occasionally falters in character development. For instance, the script fails to establish Mosley’s twenty-year relationship with Frank before exposing him as a villain. And yet later, the movie beats us over the head with how close the two cops supposedly were. This lapse in character development makes Frank’s exposure as bad guy seem less shocking and makes Mosley’s decision to defy his friend seem less difficult. This is a minor but obvious flaw in an otherwise good film.

Overall, 16 Blocks is an exciting action movie, with a surprisingly cute (yes, cute) ending. It cannot always escape cliché territory (can any action movie?) but it is an enjoyable popcorn flick with an above-average amount of heart.

Re-Animator

Title: Re-Animator (1985)
Dir: Stuart Gordon
Tagline: Herbert West Has A Very Good Head On His Shoulders...And Another One In A Dish On His Desk.
Rating: ***** out of 5 stars



I heart Jeffrey Combs. I really do. It's kinda ironic he was randomly in my dream today, the same day Re-Animator arrived in my mailbox. Yes, it's true - I had not seen this movie until now. I almost bought it last August at Horrorfind Weekend, along with a porn version called Re-Penetrator. No joke. The tagline was, "Herbert Breast has a very good head on his shoulders, and another one on his cock." Catchy, huh? haha, barf. Turns out that porno is DISGUSTING, but I regret not buying the horror movie because as you probably know, it's frickin awesome!

Re-Animator is loosely based on the H.P. Lovecraft story of the same name. The film is about a med school student named Herbert West (Combs) who discovers the key to re-animating dead tissue. With the help of fellow student Dan, West tests his reagent on some human specimens, and the results are pretty disastrous. Like all good zombies, these re-animated corpses are very strong and very violent. You can imagine the rest. Some of it is basic zombie formula, and much of it is Frankenstein-based. The opening credit sequence is actually very Hitchcockian, which is pretty neat.

I was worried that after seeing all the Evil Deads, Peter Jackson movies, etc that I had run out of hilarious, gorefests to see. Thankfully, there was Re-Animator. I mistakenly always thought Combs had the lead role in this, but he clearly steals the show. At 31, this guy looked like he was 17. That just makes it even funnier to me, haha. He was born to play West. He's so great in this, and I cannot wait to watch the sequels (Is Bride really as good as people say?).

The movie is so twisted, and I've seen a lot of twisted movies. I'm sorry, but no torture scene in the world is going to disturb me more than seeing a bloody decapitated head trying to eat a girl out. Now that's cinema! haha, seriously it is fucked up, but not in a bad way - it keeps you laughing throughout. I was so disappointed when it ended - I want more!

The gore is just great. Much of it is low-budget trickery, which gives me hope that I can do it, too! There are just gallons and gallons of blood. It has all the sick twistedness of the Evil Dead series but doesn't at all rip those movies off. Re-Animator also boasts a good director. I haven't seen the sequels yet, but I'm disappointed that Gordon did not direct them. He has some really great shots in this movie, and he must have a real sick sense of humor.

If you like stuff like Dead Alive or Evil Dead 2, do NOT miss this one. Frankly, if you like those movies I'd bet my life you've already seen Re-Animator. I'm just a d-bag for waiting so long to watch it. In any case, this movie rocks. Even if you generally like horror, you'll dig it, so go rent or buy it. And afterwards, watch The Frighteners and love Jeffrey Combs all over again.