"Hotel Transylvania"

So, it’s a Saturday and we needed groceries, which means time to stop at Redbox.

When I wrote about “Beautiful Creatures”, I described something of the thought / discussion process my wife and I go through when choosing what to see at our local multiplex on the off chance the grandparents will babysit. However, when we stop at the Redbox, the considerations are reduced to three questions: what do we want to watch with the kiddo; what are we going to be able to stay awake for after we put him to bed; and what am I interested in watching that my wife isn’t that I can watch in the morning when I wake up at 5am before everyone else is up?

This time, the answer to the second question was ‘nothing’, the answer to the third question I’ll give sometime in the next few days, but the answer to the first was “Hotel Transylvania”.

Over the years, and, especially more recently, I've come to expect a certain quality (or lack thereof) from Adam Sandler vehicles, and, particularly after the public reception of Jack And Jill (which, when I first saw the trailer, I thought it was some kind of elaborate joke that he was playing on the public instead of an actual movie . . . Turns out it was both), my expectations were sufficiently low.  Shoulda known better.

The problem with Adam Sandler movies is one of inconsistency. Actors who manage to have a career of lead roles tend to fall into certain patterns.  When Tom Cruise or Billy Crystal or Katherine Heigl do a movie, they’re always the same. When Johnny Depp or Christian Bale do a movie, they’re always someone different, but they maintain that consistency. Even actors who develop a split career, consistently being one type of character for one type of movie or genre, and a different type of character for a different type of movie or genre. Ben Stiller and Jim Carrey are each either an over the top, ridiculous caricature, or an ordinary schlub in either a ridiculous or serious/dramatic situation.

But Adam Sandler has a habit of departing inconsistently from his standard role ("Punch Drunk Love" and "Reign Over Me", both of which are excellent, but are nothing like a typical Sandler flick), or taking his standard role and putting a twist on it (the endings of both "The Wedding Singer" and "Click" are both uncharacteristically heartfelt, and "Funny People" gets into some pretty heavy drama while poking fun at Sandler's own career). What is evident is that, when he tries, or when he has the right director to reign him in, Adam Sandler is a capable talent. That is, as long as he isn't too busy doing stupid jokes.

While Sandler's influence definitely shows through (particularly in the songs), it complements well the humor of its writer, Robert Smigel, and is powerfully tempered by the film's stylistic director, Genndy Tartakovsky. Smigel is best known for his "TV Funhouse" animated sketches on "Saturday Night Live", such as the "Ambiguously Gay Duo". He has also been a writer for Conan O'Brien, and the voice of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog ('for me to poop on!'). Smigel's influence, however, manifests itself in simple jokes and dialog. The overall tone, pacing and technique of the film are, to anyone familiar with his work, uniquely Tartakovsky’s.

Any kids who grew up through the nineties with Cartoon Network probably remember some of Tartakovsky’s most notable creations, namely “Dexter’s Laboratory” and “Powerpuff Girls”, but at the turn of the century, Tartakovsky’s work for Cartoon Network took a darker and more serious turn, first with “Samurai Jack”, then, in between the theatrical releases of Star Wars: Episodes 2 and 3, with the ‘micro-series’ “Star Wars: Clone Wars” (not to be confused with the CGI series which airs presently), an experiment whose individual episodes were only 5 minutes in length. While “Hotel Transylvania” signifies two firsts for Tartakovsky, namely his first CGI work, and his feature length directorial debut, his signature style permeates the film.

As for the film itself, although it is not a Pixar film (it was produced and released by Sony Pictures Animation), it has many of the earmarks of a Pixar film. It’s bookends of a tragic opening and a celebratory denouement, it’s focus on family, attention to detail, imaginative action sequences, and it’s wide, spanning, epic, beautiful visuals have all become hallmarks to the films of Pixar. While the humor of the story is both more blue and more literalist than the humor of pixar films tends to be, this, in my mind at least, is the first film by a rival animation studio in years to compete in quality of story and storytelling that Pixar has shown in years.  I know that Sony has Tartakovsky contracted for at least one more film, which, I feel, is smart on their part. If they are as smart as I think they are, all evidence of “The Smurfs” to the contrary, they’ll keep him under contract and happy.

My only problem with the film was the song at the end. When “Shrek” featured a cover of “I’m A Believer” as a finale, I took it in stride.  When “Shrek 2” boasted, as a finale, a duet of Eddie Murphy and Antonio Banderas covering “Livin’ La Vida Loca”, it felt completely out of place. But having Adam Sandler, as Dracula, rapping with, as his daughter, Selena Gomez, as a finale was . . . indescribable. While I loved the rest of the original music throughout the film, both the songs by Adam Sandler, and the score by Mark Mothersbaugh (film composer and former lead singer of ‘DEVO’), this finale was the most over the top and out of place I’ve seen for an animated film - ever.

Otherwise, if you’re at the Redbox tonight, looking for something to watch with the kids, pick it up.

For a buck and a half, it’s worth a watch.

"April Fool's Day" (1986)

Sherman, set the Wayback machine for 1986.

As a fan of horror films, I’m sure that I’ve seen every cliche in the book. However, there are times when I find that I can still be surprised. Last week, when I watched “Don’t Look Now”, I was surprised by just how awful it was. However, when I watched “April Fool’s Day”, I was surprised by something else entirely. Actually, I was surprised by two things.

Admittedly, it wasn’t the ending. I’ve been aware of the ending of “April Fool’s Day” for a few years now; ever since the tv show “Psych” did their “Friday the 13th”/”Sleepaway Camp” parody episode, and made reference to the “April Fool’s Day” ending. (Just so you know, I’m not going to reveal the end.) I’ve only seen the “April Fool’s Day” ending used in one other place: the movie “Cry_Wolf” (2005), which, just like the “Psych” episode, added it’s own twist onto the “April Fool’s Day” ending. I have not, however, seen the 2008 remake.

No, what surprised me about “April Fool’s Day” was how good it is, and who all I recognized in the film. “April Fool’s Day” is a cavalcade of 80’s ‘almost was’s’; actors who may be vaguely recognizable (as in “oh, I know him, he was in that one thing I saw, what was that called” or “oh, look, it’s that guy, what’s he doing in a slasher movie”); or showed up all over numerous miscellaneous episodes of popular 80’s and 90’s tv series, but almost never had a starring or recurring role; or who may have showed up in starring or primary roles in various 80’s films, but whose careers either dead-ended or were never as widely known for any role that followed.

The most recognizable member of the cast is Thomas F. Wilson, best known for playing every visible male member of the ‘Tannen’ clan in the “Back To The Future” trilogy. Since the 80’s, Wilson has been doing mostly voice work for cartoons and video games.  The other most notable is Clayton Rohner, other than Tom Wilson, will be the most likely to make you go, “oh, it’s that guy”. In the 80’s, Rohner showed up all over 80’s tv, including T.J. Hooker, Hill Street Blues, and Miami Vice, and starred in “Just One Of The Guys”. Rohner has been able to maintain his career, never really hitting it big, but in the last few years, Rohner has appeared in Justified, Burn Notice, Castle, and The Mentalist.

I could spend the rest of this review listing the mediocre careers of the rest of the cast, but I’m not going to. I, instead, recommend that you, dear reader, peruse the IMDB listing for “April Fool’s Day” yourself. It is, in this regard, a solid movie for any “6-degrees” gamer to have in their arsenal.

Anyway, as I said before, what surprised me most about “April Fool’s Day” is how good it is. In my review for “Tucker and Dale vs Evil”, I referenced a group of horror movies which were not only solid as horror movies, but also cleverly lampoon the genre as a whole.  I had mentioned “Scream”, “Tremors”, and “Cabin in the Woods”, but I had not realized that a “meta” movie (a movie that parodies movies of a given genre, but is also solidly of that genre) for the ‘slasher’ genre of horror had predated “Scream” by a decade.

“April Fool’s Day” presents a thoroughly non-traditional execution (no pun intended) of a ‘slasher’ movie and does so in two clear ways.  

In horror movies, there are three elements which contribute to what makes it scary; suspense (the anticipation of the moment; the atmosphere), surprise (the arrival of the moment; the jump-scare), and slaughter (the revulsion of the moment; the gore). In ‘slasher’ movies, particularly in the 80’s, emphasis is usually placed on the ‘kill’ scenes, focusing on jump-scares, quick setups and gore, depending on the idea that anyone could be next to provide the suspense and atmosphere. “April Fool’s Day” breaks this convention, setting up the kill in ways similar to other slasher films which had come before, particularly “Friday the 13th” and “Sleepaway Camp”, but, instead of showing the kill, the scene fades to black before hand, revealing the victim’s body some time later. In this way, the film depends more on building and maintaining suspense throughout the movie.

This also allows the characters the opportunity to maintain a more tongue-in-cheek disposition.  Instead of the campy stereotypes of standard ‘slasher’ picks, the characters in “April Fool’s Day” are smart, clever, sarcastic, and a little twisted, making them feel a little more dimensional, more real, which, as it always does, makes the story better, richer. The movie does a solid job of combining “Meatballs” type comedy, gallows humor and self-effacing jokes which also (deliberately) send-up the rest of the ‘slasher’ genre.

Just like today, the 80’s saw the bulk of theatrical release films which were comedies as bawdy farces, and those in the horror genre as campy gore fests, with few diamonds-in-the-rough in either genre. I had thought that I had seen them all.

Nice to know I can still be surprised.

"Grave Encounters 2"

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"Top 5 Worst Movie Endings"

Part of what makes the best movies great is a great ending. Whether it’s an original ending like  “Casablanca” or “Rear Window”, or a stock ending where ‘they live happily ever after’ or ‘they all die in the end’ like “When Harry Met Sally” or “Hamlet”, or even ambiguous endings like “Inception” that can haunt an audience and keep them guessing for years to come, the right ending makes the story complete.

Traditionally, a film or screenplay has three parts or acts. In the first act, the characters are introduced. The first act ends where the second begins; with the inciting incident. In the second act, the situation develops. About halfway through the second act, there is some sort of revelation about the situation, and the protagonist faces further obstacles. The second act ends where the third act begins; with the point-of-no-return, where the protagonist faces their final confrontation, resulting in the climactic moment in the story, and maybe some kind of aftermath. The purpose of the confrontation and climax is to provide some sort of catharsis and closure to the audience.

But there are many ways that an ending can go wrong. It may be out of place, like if, just as Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks are about to meet at the top of the Empire State building, King Kong would reach out and grab Meg Ryan. There might be no confrontation, no catharsis, like if, just after the cops get the camera feed from the bus to loop, Dennis Hopper had just blown up the bus. It may just be that the final confrontation is too easy, like if Dorothy had just spilled water on the witch when she first got brought to the castle.

The wrong ending, or an absence of one can ruin a movie. The following are, in my opinion, the five worst, and should be viewed as a cautionary tale to any potential storytellers.

As a final warning, while in most of my reviews, I attempt to avoid spoilers at all costs, I am speaking in these cases directly about the endings to the films, so, be aware: Here there be spoilers! (if you didn’t read that in a pirate voice, try it now)

1. They (2002)

It’s difficult for me semantically to say that this movie has the worst ending when it really has no ending to speak of, it just stops.

In “They”, Julie Lund is asked for help by a childhood friend. After he eats a bullet right across the booth of a quaint little diner that they share, she begins seeing the same monsters-in-the-shadows which had previously plagued her friend. Her visions of these creatures continue to grow more intense, and, each time, as she flails to protect herself, she lashes out against anyone who might try to help her, while those same people continually grow more wary of her sanity.

Shortly after her well-meaning boyfriend has her committed, she is finally abducted by the creatures which have stalked her. When her doctor and an orderly come to check on her, she has disappeared from her locked room, and is shown as trapped in the invisible, parallel world of the creatures, unable to break free. Fade to black. Roll credits.

As I said, this movie has no third act. It’s as though the writer and director reached the point of no return, saying “We’ve just painted this girl into a corner and don’t know how to get her out” and then just gave up and made the movie anyway.

2. House On Haunted Hill (1999)

This is the first of three films in this list which, to me, fall under the category of ‘cheating’.

The premise of “House On Haunted Hill” is simple. The ‘house’ was once a mental institution, in which the inmates were all burned alive while the staff escaped. Now, the current owners of the house have invited a group of people to a macabre dinner party where the survivors of the evening will each have an equal share of $5 million. Unbeknownst to them, the ‘house’ has arranged so that the guests at the party are all the descendants of the staff who had escaped, so that it may have its revenge.

By the end of the movie, the house has taken all but two of the intrepid party-goers, one of whom has managed to escape, supposedly because she wasn’t actually the person the house was after, only masquerading as her. The other has just gotten trapped, and is staring into the gaping maw of the conglomeration of the hundred vengeful maniac ghosts, and he shouts at it, “But I’m Adopted!!!”, then manages to escape. Then the filmmakers just leave our heroes stranded on a ledge on top of the three-story evil house with the $5 million and no hope of rescue.

3. Ocean’s 12 (2004)

There is a phenomenon in mystery stories where the sleuth waits till the final reveal and ensnaring of the perpetrator to give the one piece of evidence needed to know whodunit, to the frustration of everyone else present, particularly the audience. In the bookending “Ocean’s” movies, the twists and turns of the cons and flimflams which permeate the “caper” movie genre are all revealed in due time with style, fun, and appropriate timing. However, in “Ocean’s 12”, one key clue is deliberately withheld from the audience until the very end.

In the film, Danny Ocean’s band of grifters and scoundrels, in order to pay off their debt to Benedict, take a job in Europe, namely a challenge by a rival cat-burglar to steal a rare Faberge egg from a museum before he does. One-by-one, each of the Ocean clan are nicked by the cops, and the cat-burglar gets away with the egg. However, once Ocean and his friends are released and regroup with the cat-burglar, they reveal to him that they had swapped out the egg with a fake before it ever made it to the museum.  That’s cheating on multiple levels.

4. Signs (2002)

I read an article recently of 'Pixar's Rules for Writing, and one of the rules was something like, 'coincidence which is a hinderance for the protagonist makes for a good story; coincidence which helps the protagonist is just cheating'.

In "Signs", Mel Gibson plays a former priest who lost his faith when his wife dies, and then aliens begin to invade slowly. In the last moments of the movie, when one of the aliens invades his home, he ‘sees’ that confluence of coincidences as more than just that, but as a pattern, a ‘sign’ of how to save his family.

5. Red Lights (2012)

An ending doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make sense.

“Red Lights” had such potential. It’s the story of a pair of scientists, Matheson and Buckley (Sigourney Weaver and Cillian Murphy) who debunk psychics.  When they go after a particularly notorious and blind one, Simon Silver (Robert De Niro), bad, creepy things start happening to Buckley, and Matheson dies. After Silver undergoes a series of laboratory tests to try to confirm his legitimacy, Buckley confronts him at his ‘triumphant return show’ where the interior of the theatre begins to shake and fall apart (in much the same way as had been done previously in the story). Then, when the pseudo-quake stops, Buckley throws something at Silver who catches it, revealing in front of his audience that he can see, and, as Buckley is leaving, Silver is shouting over and over “How did you do that?”, and Buckley flashes back over all the creepy things that happened to him throughout the movie.

I don’t get it. Is Simon asking Buckley how he figured out that Simon could see? Or is he asking how Buckley shook the theatre, and is actually psychic? I don’t mind ambiguous endings, and love some of them, but there is a big difference between ambiguous and just flat out confusing.

"Dredd"

I read some time ago an article which stated that NASA was using the film "Armageddon" as a training exercise; asking their newest scientists and engineers to watch the film and point out all the scientific inaccuracies they could find (the number of which being somewhere in the neighborhood of 186). I feel as though the filmmakers of "Dredd" must have done something similar; painstakingly scouring its predecessor, "Judge Dredd" for its every cinematic failing.
 
Now, that’s not to say that the original doesn’t have it’s offerings; it is entertainingly bad.
In my post about “Don’t Look Now”, I talked about movies that were bad enough to earn from “AV Club” an ‘F’, a grade reserved for films which are bad in an original way. While this grade is reserved for the worst films in history, these films can be divided into two categories: those which are unwatchable, so bad that they are capable of doing psychological damage upon repeat or even singular viewing; and those which are so bad that they’ve somehow looped back around to entertaining, as though the presence of Joel, Crow and Tom Servo is implicit. For me, “Don’t Look Now” falls into the former of these two categories. “Judge Dredd”, on the other hand, falls into the latter.
 
“Judge Dredd” is a clutter of disjoint stories and movie types, namely a John Woo style action movie starring Sylvester Stallone and Armand Assante, a Lifetime-television-esque conspiracy mystery starring Diane Lane, and a Rob Schneider ‘Comedy’ (to use the term loosely), all set against the backdrop of a 90’s-typical flashy scifi, complete with spandex and neon and disneyworld reject animatronic puppets and bad matting jobs and flying motorcycles, like they were trying to make a cross between “Blade Runner” and “Flash Gordon”.
 
"Judge Dredd" is hardly the first comic-book-based property to be eviscerated on celluloid in the eighties and nineties. "Spawn", "The Shadow", "The Phantom", "Steel", the '89 "Punisher" movie, the '91 "Captain America" movie, and even (somewhat) the third and definitely the fourth films in both the "Superman" and "Batman" franchises all, to some degree or another, fall into many of the the same traps. Instead of following the nature of a character to cast an appropriate actor to the role, the film is made a vehicle for a particular star.  Instead of trying to translate the world of the comic into one which fits a cinematic audience as opposed to graphic novel readership, the filmmakers attempt to make a movie that watches the way a comic book reads, which has only ever worked for "Creepshow", which doesn't count because that was a horror comic, not a superhero one. And then there are the tights.
 
The 1989 "Batman" movie of Tim Burton was groundbreaking in many ways, but the one for me that goes least talked about is the costume: this was the first time where the Batman costume consisted of something more than simple cloth or tights. It was a big, heavy suit of rubber armor, the most practical version of the costume for that point in time. This only helps to highlight one of the key problems in 90's comic book films: anti-heroes cannot be badasses and be flashy at the same time. They cannot ride around in neon and black lighting. They cannot have comedy relief sidekicks. And, most assuredly, they cannot wear spandex.
 
These are just some of the many flaws and false steps of 1995's "Judge Dredd", and 2012's "Dredd" side steps, avoids, or directly counters every one of them with a style all its own.
 
The shiny, bright and clean look and feel of the original is now grim, gritty, seedy and grey.  The bright neon and futuristic ‘Megacity’ is replaced by an unending slum, punctuated by monolithic tenements. The superhero-like judges are now beat-cops; their high-and-mighty smugness replaced with a world-weariness; spandex and linebacker shoulder pads replaced with SWAT-like body armor; their ridiculous flying motorcycles simplified and made more realistic. Even the titular character, himself, is completely different: while both are secretive, withdrawn, moral and brutal, the original’s conspiracy-centric genetically engineered past is ignored entirely, and this new Dredd is a colder, more strategic, and more mysterious. However, it doesn’t matter; this is not some major conspiracy, it’s a western.
In “Dredd”, the title character is partnered with a trainee.  The two enter a tenement called “Peach Trees”, and quickly find themselves hunted by any and all of the employees of the local drug kingpin, who turns out to have the entire building under her thumb and control. It’s a classic western theme; a crooked boss has run a town into a criminal empire under marshall law, dispensing their own brand of torturous punishment against any who might rebel or betray, when a new sheriff comes into town to take them all on, a masked man or a man with no name.
 
The environment is rich with additional detail which gives the film a ‘20 minutes into the future’ feel. The drug, ‘slo-mo’, giving the users the experience of slow time, also gives the filmmakers ample opportunity to justify utilizing ‘bullet-time’ techniques pioneered in “The Matrix”, but making them their own. Dredd’s trainee partner explained to be, within the first act, a mutant telepath, giving additional opportunity to create some artful visuals. In my review of “Don’t Look Now”, I criticised that film’s director for abandoning or ignoring his directorial duties in favor of dressing up the film with pretentious and insincere visuals masquerading as art.  “Dredd” does the exact opposite; it is a consistent, solid, cohesive film, well directed, well acted, with original and honestly artful visuals, dark and gritty, and, at the same time, beautiful.
 
It’s predecessor may have been entertainingly bad, this new “Dredd” is entertaining and stunning.

"Don't Look Now"

I was first alerted to this film some years ago when watching Bravo's "One Hundred Scariest Movie Moments" with my wife.  We're both movie fanatics, so we watched the list and made a check list. Not having seen it prior to the list, and striking out at our local video store (Hollywood Video, rest in peace), I hadn't given the movie another thought until last week, when I noticed it on Amazon Prime (a solid investment). So, I watched it.


I wish I could get those two hours back.


I was reading recently about how the website "AV Club" rates movies. Following in the tradition of the "Gentlemen's C" (the lowest passible grade imaginable, reserved for well to do slackers), the "AV Club" utilizes what it refers to as the "Gentleman's F". This is not something dirty or taboo, but is, instead, a grade of 'D-' ascribed to films which are awful, but awful in a standard, cookie cutter way, that display blatantly the Hollywood assembly line they fell off of.  This grade is usually reserved for the films of Nora Ephron and Nicolas Sparks and Michael Bay. They do this to distinguish between these films and those failures which are truly deserving of the worst grade imaginable; great horrible implosions, overachieving underachievers, films which explore new frontiers of failure, that fail in a way that no film has failed before. Movies like "Gigli", "I Know Who Killed Me", and the collected works of Ed Wood and M. Night Shyamalan, and the remakes of Tim Burton would all fall nicely (to use the term loosely) into this category.


I've been asked time and again what I think the worst film ever made was, and I always reply "Lost Souls" (2000), but I've recently seen a film which will, now and forever remain a close second (and I've watched "I Know Who Killed Me").


"Don't Look Back" is the story of a couple, played by Donald Sutherland ("Invasion of the Bodysnatchers") and Julie Christie ("Doctor Zhivago"), whose young daughter drowns accidently, which the father somehow supposedly senses happening. After some unacknowledged period of time, the couple puts their surviving son into private school and moves to Venice, where the husband is working to restore a deteriorating church, and a killer is terrorising the populace. The story plays as though it were trying to be a John Irving story (“Cider House Rules”, “Hotel New Hampshire”, “The World According To Garp”); the couple are going through the motions of their marriage but are still mourning their daughter’s death and are thoroughly forlorn. Things change for them when the wife meets a pair of elderly sisters, one of whom is both blind and psychic. The psychic tells the wife of her dead daughter’s wishes.

I do not know how to begin to describe how bad this film is.


First off, the story is a discombobulated mess of cliches and stock plot devices, strewn together by blind luck and bad timing. The idea of someone sensing when family member is in trouble or dying is an urban legend, an old wives tale as old as time, as is the idea of the blind psychic communing with that same relative. There are numerous other films which also present either of these ideas, and do so in more imaginative ways. And then there’s the element of the killer . . .


The Russian playwright Anton Chekhov once wrote, “If there is a gun over a fireplace in the first act, it should be fired in the second act.”  This anecdote coined the phrase “Chekhov’s Gun”, which has come to refer to a plot device which introduces an element into the story, many times innocuously or subtly, that is generally ignored through the rest of the story, until it is used or referenced again in another, usually unrelated or otherwise disconnected context. The most famous cases of this are the gadgets in the “Bond” movies or the clues in detective stories. In the movie “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” (2005), Robert Downey Jr, as narrator, even lampoons this idea immediately after the scene that introduces the “Chekhov’s Gun” for that movie:

“Okay, I’m apologize, that is a terrible scene. It’s like, ‘Why was that in the movie? Gee, do you think maybe it’ll come back later? Maybe?!’ I hate that, a tv’s on, talking about the new power plant. Hmm, wonder where the climax will happen. Or that shot of the cook in ‘Hunt for Red October’. So, anyway.”

Ahh, palate cleanser.


Anyway, by the time the end comes and the killer is revealed and eighty-sixes Donald Sutherland, we’ve heard about it enough times that there’s no other way it could have ended.  All the twists and turns are so cliche, it’s like watching a single, short row of dominos falling in slow motion at a weird angle; you know exactly what will happen, and all you can do is watch it happen, wait for it to end, and wonder how the hell someone can get away with calling it art.


Well, this is what happens when you tell cinematographers that they get to be directors.
This movie might have been somewhere, anywhere, closer to mediocre than it is if someone had actually taken time to direct it, instead of just telling the actors to memorize their lines, do their scenes, and let someone shoot it. The actors play like the robots in Douglas Adams’ book, ‘So Long, and Thanks For All The Fish’; they have two emotions: happy and bored. Any mourning or sadness or anger or fear that they are supposed to be experiencing only plays as bored, any joy or pleasure or excitement just plays with simple, dopey smiles, like they’re stoned.  Meanwhile, the scenes look as though they were shot by a cameraman wearing moon boots, and cut together through the judicious use of the most unwieldy chainsaw and hatchett imaginable.  If someone was high enough, they might be able to call some of the shots artful, but to those of us who aren’t, it’s really just dressed up that way.


Speaking of dressed, the scariest thing about this movie is the ten minutes of screentime given to Donald Sutherland’s ass. Honestly, ten minutes. The tenth of a second that it’s shown in “Animal House” is more than enough, and not funny. To do so for ten minutes is sadistic in a way that should draw the attention of the Hague.


Honestly, Donald Sutherland’s ass has now given me worse nightmares than the NASA guys with no faces in E.T.

"Beautiful Creatures"

Go see this movie.

Do yourself a favor when you’re considering what to see at your local neighborhood multiplex tonight and choose to see this movie.  Forget about the big action blockbusters or horror extravaganzas like “A Good Day To Die Hard”, “Hanzel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” or “Mama”; those are box office chowder and will stick around for a while.  Forget comedies like “Identity Thief”, “Warm Bodies” or “This is 40”; movies like this tend to offer little or no visual candy, will be barely reduced if at all by watching it on your tv, computer, tablet or even phone when you get around to renting it in 6 to 8 months from Redbox or Netflix. Even the awards season will keep movies like “Silver Linings Playbook”, “The Impossible”, or “Zero Dark Thirty” on the big screen for a while.

However, judging from the nature of the trailer, and the fact that every other movie at the cineplex today seems to be receiving more buzz, more attention, and the fact that my wife and I were only two of four people seeing that movie last night, I doubt that “Beautiful Creatures” will be staying in theatres for very long, which is a real shame. I understand that, at first glance, this movie looks like another supernatural teen romance melodrama, attempting to cajole and mesmerize audiences of the “Twilight” films.  Quite to the contrary, any similarity between this movie and the “Twilight” films is purely coincidental: “Beautiful Creatures” is the precept to which “Twilight” should have endeavored.

The first, and most noticeable element of this film is the setting.  The story is set in a small town deep in the South Carolinian countryside, which the filmmakers expertly capture.  Lush and rich, natural and yet resoundingly unnatural, the 'deep south' has served a hauntingly beautiful setting for many a supernatural film: “Interview With A Vampire” and "The Skeleton Key" in New Orleans and rural Louisiana; “Midnight in the Garden of Good And Evil” and “The Gift” both in Savannah, GA (and “Forces of Nature”, but I think Ben Affleck would prefer we forget that one).

The other most immediate component to the film is the character of Ethan Wate. Ethan is our narrator (at least in the beginning) and one of our protagonists. Ethan's narration quickly sets the stage as a high school junior who has recently lost his mother. While cynical in his attitude towards his hometown, and in spite of his circumstances, Ethan is surprisingly upbeat and optimistic, especially with regard to the prospect of college; Ethan's one chance for escape. As one of the few people in a town full of book-burners who actually reads the books, sympathetic of 'Boo Radley' and an admirer of 'Billy Pilgrim', Ethan quickly curries favor with the audience; an important charge for the protagonist and the romantic lead. Actor Alden Ehrenreich brings just the right amount of subtle awkwardness, ‘aww, shucks’ charm and charisma and smartly tempered drive to the character of Ethan, making him perfect for the role.

Ethan’s love interest is the mysterious Lena Duchannes, whose family, the Ravenwoods, led by her overprotective Uncle Macon (Jeremy Irons), are lambasted by those same book burners which drive the town, of being satanists and witches. Lena is, herself, a malcontent in the best traditions of Winona Ryder in “Beetlejuice” and “Heathers”, and is, we learn fairly quickly, quite the reader of banned books herself.

Ravenwood manor is a character unto itself, in much the same way as '1313 Mockingbird Lane'.  On the outside, the manor looks every bit the part of a deserted southern plantation, decrepit and overgrown. The interior of the manor, however, could not be more divergent from its surroundings. Part metropolitan art museum, part 'Bond' villain secret headquarters, the Ravenwood sitting room and foyer is visually stunning and perfectly out of place. The Ravenwoods themselves are just as eclectic; they make the Addams family seem dull.

The story of "Beautiful Creatures" is, first and foremost, the love story between Ethan and Lena. The story is far more complex, with both Lena's uncle and her mother each conspiring to direct Lena's future (how best to use her special . . . talents), and how those interferences affect Lena and Ethan's love.

As I said, this story is everything that "Twilight" should have aspired to be. Lena and Ethan are far more likable characters than Edward and Bella ever were: more dimensional and better defined; their love story is far more impassioned; the stakes in the challenges they face are far more drastic. The settings and scenery are far more visually stunning than that of 'Forks'. The story is much more involved, and far more full of richly developed characters. For solid comparisons of quality and beauty and depth of character, "Twilight" can't hope to hold a candle to this film; one is better off looking to the body of work of the filmmaker responsible for "Beautiful Creatures".

Screenwriter Richard LaGravenese's career has seen critical acclaim for "The Ref", "The Bridges of Madison County" and "The Horse Whisperer", but his career has spanned from "The Fisher King" to "Water for Elephants". So, not a light weight. His directorial credits are far more sparse, the most well known of which being "Freedom Writers" and "PS I Love You". "Beautiful Creatures", however, is his first 'fantasy' film, and his first big-budget film. All that said and understood, I feel as though this film is a great achievement for him and hope it will be regarded by others as a success.

For all of my praise there was one area which impaired the film for me: an inconsistent narrative.  The narrative is the perspective from which the story is told. This may be from an external narrator, or one of the characters, and in film it may be with or without a voice over. A truly creative narrative may redefine how stories are told in film. Numerous filmmakers have experimented with first-person filming, as well as removing the constraints of chronology from the story, both of which can alter the very nature of the story itself. A poorly constructed or inconsistent narrative can, at worst, confuse an audience to a degree which makes the film unwatchable (I'm looking at you David Lynch), and, at the very least, unveils to the audience an area of weakness for the filmmaker ("District 9"). Many films and stories have been told through multiple narrators ("Dracula"), but when a story changes narrators suddenly and without warning, as this film does on occasion, the results may range from subconscious to jarring and confusing. Fortunately, the changes in the narrative are small and ineffective, but their presence in a film by such a renowned and acclaimed filmmaker appears to me an amateurish mistake.

There are also a number of small details which are left open ended at the end of the film, which may be disconcerting. This is more understandable when realizing that the book from which this film has been adapted is the first in a trilogy. I can only hope they make the other two.

In all, this film is a stunning effort, an intricately woven tale of love and responsibility, of fate and freewill.

Go see it and take a date; you won't be sorry.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol"

Don’t be afraid to have high expectations for the latest film in the “Mission Impossible” franchise: it will deliver.

It’s easy to have lowered expectations for “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol”, being fourth in the series. The title itself lowers expectations, implying that the filmmakers would rather not admit that it is the fourth film. Considering the inherent implications that come along with sequels in general, much less a third sequel, not to mention all the baggage of each movie that has come before.

Sequels are traditionally looked down upon, but for good reason. The preponderance of film sequels and film franchises provides ample evidence of films which are lazy, thinly-veiled formulaic copies of the original. Even sequels which are viewed as potentially superior to their predecessors are still seen as lacking because they would not be what they are without the original having set the groundwork.  However, this does not preclude them from being original, entertaining, or quality films. Numerous, albeit few, sequels have gone on to be more widely known or more highly regarded than the original, such as “Godfather Part 2”, “The Empire Strikes Back” or “Evil Dead 2”.

However, the majority of sequels tend to xerox their predecessors using one of two directions: be bigger or be more personal. This rule tends to become exasperated as more sequels are added to a given franchise. Each additional sequel which follows this formula usually turns out the way xeroxed copies turn out when their original is itself a copy. By the time a franchise reaches 5, 6, 7 films, the latest sequel ends up a copy of a copy of a copy of a . . .

However, this cliche tends to be relegated to horror movies.  The most successful and longest running franchise in film history has just celebrated the DVD / Blu-ray release of its 23rd film, namely “Skyfall”, along with the 50th anniversary of the first film in the series, “Dr. No”.  The “James Bond” franchise has been able to do what no other franchise has done. Outside of the horror genre, only a few film franchises have made it past 5 films, and none have made it past 10. Time and again, “Bond” films have attempted to reinvent the nature of the franchise, the stories, the era in which they are set, and even the character himself, many times with mixed results, but many times to critical acclaim.

Spy movies lend themselves to originality in sequels in a way that horror movies cannot.  Horror movie franchises (“Friday the 13th”, “Halloween”, “Nightmare on Elm Street”) tend to trap themselves in a paradox: the same villainous monster which gained the franchise its popularity and infamy grips the franchise in the rules of the character, throttling creative ingenuity within the franchise, limiting subsequent sequels to extravagant gimmicks dressed up as original (“Halloween: Resurrection”, “Jason X”).  However, spy films have no such limitations.  The capabilities of the villains of spy films are only limited by the creativity of the filmmakers.  The only consistency necessary in spy films are the hero.

The “Bond” films, of course, feature one of the most recognizable heroes in film.  In the 60’s, a number of films attempted to imitate the “Bond” success with similar characters, like Derek Flint, but the result inadvertently lampooned “Bond” instead of following in suit.  The difficulty, of course, in replicating the “Bond” has been in creating a so-called ‘superspy’ character which is distinguishable from “Bond” and yet not ridiculous enough to be seen as a parody. Where the “Mission Impossible” franchise succeeds is in sidestepping this mistake altogether, and, instead of trying to create a superspy who can do anything, providing a team of specialists whose particular skills and personalities complement each other.

Filmmaker Brad Bird has expertly brought together a team of interesting and vulnerable characters, a rarity for the genre, but a staple for Bird. As his live action debut, this Pixar alum, who was previously responsible for "The Iron Giant" and "The Incredibles", makes the transition smartly, building stunts and effects which are both extravagant and believable, strengthening the story with rich detail.

The cast all bring solid and expansive performances as well. Paula Patton (“Deja Vu”) flexes her action movie muscles, but still manages to fully portray the depth of her character. Jeremy Renner (“Avengers”, “Bourne Legacy”), while bringing the action we’ve all come to expect from him, delivers a performance which is (unexpectedly) both maudlin and funny. Even Simon Pegg shows more than just the funny man. While he tends to be the main source of comedy in the film, he is definitely not the only source, but he also brings more than that, with moments of seriousness not yet seen from him.

This is also the (arguably) the funniest of the four. While Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner bring a lot of the comedy to the film, both in playing off of each other as well as on their own, the movie also does plenty to lampoon itself, spy movies, and action movies in general, particularly when it comes to the gadgets. Gadgets are a staple of the spy movie genre, particularly the “Bond” films, where 007 is issued a set of gadgets at the beginning of the film, each with a fairly explicit purpose and use, and each of which he just so happens to find a need for within that movie. This feature is also lampooned thoroughly in the tv series “Get Smart” where, far from being useful, the gadgets have earned such a reputation for not working, that both the characters and the audience expect it.  But in “Ghost Protocol”, the gadgets are expected to work, and only fail at the moment that would be most inconvenient, and raise the stakes of the story. This not only makes for some great comedy, but a stronger story as well.

However, the films still have a few flaws. Tom Cruise is still Tom Cruise; with a performance that pales in comparison to numerous others from his career, particularly that from the previous film.  This is also the fourth film which uses the same plot device; namely that Tom Cruise’s character Ethan Hunt is set-up to look like he’s betrayed the agency, and has to function outside the agency, with a team who has limited resources.  He’s been through this four times now; while he seems to be able to handle it just fine, that only makes it less interesting for us.

But, in general, it’s still a fun ride and a good movie

Also, fun thing, watch for the variations of the phrase “your mission, should you choose to accept it” and for appearances of the number 4.

Top 5 Favorite Movies (That Nobody Knows About)

I’ve been reviewing numerous recent releases as of late, both good and bad, but the job of a reviewer is not only to pass judgement on the new, but also to give recommendations to movies which may be highly palatable, but may not be as well known. To this end I present the following:

My top 5 favorite movies that no one else knows about:

1. The Zero Effect

Over a decade before the Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law first provided their interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s most famous characters, those same characters would be given a very different kind of interpretation.  In his debut film, son of legendary screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, (“Empire Strikes Back”, “Return of the Jedi”, and “Raiders of the Lost Ark”), filmmaker Jake Kasdan provides an adaptation of Doyle’s “A Scandal In Bohemia” with his variations on Holmes and Watson played by Bill Pullman and Ben Stiller, but under the names of Daryl Zero and Steve Arlo.

Don’t let the fact that Ben Stiller’s name is on this fool you into thinking that this is the typical, over-the-top fare for which he is most well known, far from it; Stiller’s performance as legal representative of the ‘greatest detective in the world’ is subdued, honest, and very smart.  While “The Zero Effect” takes numerous liberties with the source material, the spirit of the story is faithful to Doyle in the extreme, giving both the characters and the story only enough of an update as is relevant to the new setting. However, where the film truly shines is Bill Pullman, whose performance as the titular character is, arguably, just as real, interesting, and entertaining a version of Holmes as that of Robert Downey Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch (“Sherlock” miniseries).

2. Radioland Murders

Before there was television, there was radio; not just music and talk radio, but every genre of storytelling that can now or could ever be seen on television (with the exception, thank god, of ‘reality tv’) could once be heard on radio.  Soap operas and sitcoms, scifi and horror, westerns and variety shows could not only all be heard on radio, but are the reason why both those genres and formats came to tv.

“Radioland Murders” is a murder-mystery comedy set against the backdrop of a national radio station in the midst of the radio’s golden age, which is, itself, a love letter to that age.  It features a huge comedy cast, dialog and situations which are, at times, smart, silly, clever and ridiculous, and, as all mysteries need, some great twists and turns.  I strongly recommend you double-feature this with “Oscar” (# 3 on this list).

3. Explorers

I mentioned this movie briefly in my review of “The Hole” as my first exposure to film director Joe Dante. To review: “Explorers” is about three boys who build their own spaceship out of a “Tilt-A-Whirl” and fly out into space. In the story, a boy named Ben, who is a scifi b-movie fanatic, (Ethan Hawke) has dreams which illustrate to him a circuit diagram.  He passes these diagrams onto his friend Wolfgang (River Phoenix), a boy inventor, who builds a circuit board from the diagrams and discovers that it generates a force field.  With the help of a third boy, Darren, who helps Ben to face a school bully, they build a ship to sit in inside the force field so they can go into space and try to find where Ben’s dreams are coming from.

This is a really fun and imaginative movie in the traditions of “Goonies”, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” and “Young Sherlock Holmes”.  It may be a little out of date, but watch it with your kids or as a family.

4. Oscar

Back in the early days of film, mobsters were usually just a part of other noir films; detective stories and caper stories.  There were a few well knowns: the original “Scarface” and “White Heat” (“I’m on the top o’ the world, ma!”), but they were mostly recognized as B-movies.  That is until a little picture called “The Godfather” won the Oscar for ‘Best Picture’. Since then, some of the most revered and critically acclaimed films have been ‘mob movies’.

‘Mob Comedies’, on the other hand, have all but fallen flat. Stinkers like ‘Johnny Dangerously’ and ‘Mafia’ were destroyed by critics, all but ignored by mainstream audiences, all but forgotten from history, and deservedly so. But one movie that managed to get swallowed up in this effect and has been generally ignored and forgotten is ‘Oscar’, ‘mob comedy’ effort by comedy favorite filmmaker John Landis, which featured an all-star cast including Sylvester Stallone, Marisa Tomei, Peter Reigert, Chazz Palmintari, Tim Curry and numerous others.  While ‘Oscar’ falls squarely into the traditions of old Hollywood farce and comedy-of-errors, it is executed both brilliantly and beautifully, with wonderful twists and turns, elegant and elaborate sets, and quick fire dialog which is clever, fun and hilariously funny.

5. Forget Paris

Long before Marc Webb’s “(500) Days of Summer” would boast “This is not a love story. This is a story about love.”, Billy Crystal would, as writer, director and star, give us the story of Ellen and Mickey. Actually, “Forget Paris” is exactly that; the stories of Ellen and Mickey, all being recounted by their friends. The stories span the breadth of twists and turns that can occur in a relationship, silly and romantic, funny and sad, boring and maddening, beautiful and tragic.

This is one of the only romantic comedies I can stomach.  The rest of the cast are a lot of fun as well, with clever and fun dialog and asides. In all, “Forget Paris” is a great look at what happens after the all-too-typical ‘Happily Ever After’ of standard rom-com fodder; and honest and funny look at the work and compromises it takes to keep a relationship working.


Each of these films is a personal favorite; films which I can watch again and again and still get something out of.

Watch. Enjoy.

I hope you will.