"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.

"Tucker and Dale vs Evil"

Over the weekend I saw what was, at first glance, arguably the stupidest movie I’ve ever seen.

“Tucker and Dale vs Evil” is a horror movie parody about a pair of blue-collar aAppalachianites who have just bought a new vacation cabin which had, unbeknownst to them, previously belong to a family of serial killers.  Both comedy and tragedy ensue when they cross paths with a group of overtly stereotypical college students who happen to mistake them for “Deliverance”-esque sadistic rapist killers.

Wikipedia defines ‘parody’ as a ‘work meant to mock, comment on or trivialize an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satirical or ironic imitation’

Wikipedia also defines ‘horror’ and ‘terror’ as two aspects of a horrifying experience; ‘terror’ being the dread in anticipation of the event, and ‘horror’ being the revulsion in reaction to the event.

Parody is a cornerstone of comedy, and has been a part of literature nearly as long as there has been literature; a part of theatre nearly since the first actor stood on stage to recite words as an actor; a part of film nearly since the first camera rolled.  In fact, much of the early days of comedy in film were parody; from the Keystone Cops to Buster Keaton’s “Sherlock Jr.” to Charlie Chaplin’s “The Great Dictator” (one of many acts to parody Adolf Hitler).  These and many more parodies from this era are regarded as some of the most popular and renowned comedies of all time, including Abbott and Costello’s ‘Who’s On First’ and many of the works of the Marx Brothers, namely “A Night in Casablanca” and “A Night At The Opera”.

Horror has also always been a part of literature since Cain killed Abel; a part of theatre since  since Oedipus learned the truth of his fate; a part of film since Count Orlock rose to walk the night.  The earliest horror films were stories of ghosts and monsters; adaptations of literature which the world knows as ‘gothic’; the nineteenth century creations of Stevenson and Doyle, Shelley and Stoker, Poe and Wells.  Many of the films that we think of today as artful classics, including “Dracula and “Frankenstein”, are horror movies.

Almost as traditional is the act of combining these two, applying comedy in the face of terror, horror and tragedy, known as ‘gallows humor’.  In “Hamlet”, Shakespeare presents the gravedigger’s conversation as comic relief from the string of deaths which plague the play. In film, the very same monsters which permeated horror cinema in the early days of the silver screen are, not long after, lampooned by sharing that screen with comedy greats Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Some of Bob Hope’s earliest films would include horror comedies “The Cat and The Canary” and “The Ghost Breakers”. Even the aptly nicknamed ‘Master-of-Suspense’, Alfred Hitchcock would use comedy throughout his films, particularly in “Rear Window”, but most heavily in “The Trouble With Harry”, which is a movie about a small number of people in a small town who each think that they are responsible for the death of the title character, and who continuously and inadvertently counter each other’s efforts to dispose of his body.

In recent years, horror comedies and horror parodies have gained popularity.  As with any genre, there are, as George Carlin would say, “a few winners, a whole lotta losers”.  Most are the direct-to-dvd efforts of “National Lampoons” wannabees, but a few, like “Scream”, “Tremors”, and “Cabin In The Woods”, are not only very funny, but are solidly frightening and entertainingly clever as well, each sending up different subgenres of horror, and each in very different ways.

“Tucker and Dale vs Evil” falls into this company. While you might expect it to send up “Deliverance” and other, more brutal 70’s horror films, such as “I Spit On Your Grave” or “The Hills Have Eyes”, the movie instead lampoons a particular cliche of horror movies which I would call ‘stupid teenagers going camping’, which is a staple setup for numerous horror films and horror film franchises (“Friday the 13th”, “Sleepaway Camp”). Movies of this genre often sought to serve as cautionary tales, pointing out ‘this is what you don’t do’, yet showing no causal relationship between having sex, smoking pot and drinking beer and getting eviscerated by an axe wielding, hockey mask wearing undead psychopath.  “Tucker and Dale” follows these standards of horror, albeit this time with tongue firmly planted in cheek, and this time illustrates causal relationships between being stupid when you’re camping and getting killed.

It teaches important lessons, like ‘Don’t dive headlong at someone standing in front of the business end of a woodchipper.’, ‘Don’t look down the barrel of a gun to figure out why it won’t fire’, ‘Don’t run a chainsaw through a bees nest’, or (and I cannot stress this one enough) ‘Don’t throw moonshine on a fire’.  The movie also offers some fun asides, like “He’s heavy for half a guy”, and one-liners, like “I shoulda knowd that if a guy like me talked to a girl like you, somebody’d end up dead.”

The end of the second act drags a little, with the twists and turns at that point feeling a little forced.  But the third act is solid, with a lead-in that feels a little like the ‘Groovy’ scene from “Evil Dead 2”. In all, I have very few complaints.  However, be prepared for an over-abundance of stupid from the teenagers as well as the titular characters.

If you can get past that and just enjoy it, “Tucker and Dale vs Evil” is a very funny movie and a lot of fun.

"Looper"

If you could go back to any point in history, what would you change?  How would you do it?

What if it was the other way around; if you were faced with someone telling you that you were going to damn the future?  What would you do?

A few days ago, I wrote a post about “Primer” and about the different types of time travel stories. One aspect of time travel stories that I neglected to acknowledge was that of perspective.  The time travel aspects which I mentioned in that post all had the same perspective: the time traveler is the protagonist. However, there are a whole set of stories, few as they may be, where the time traveler is the antagonist. They’ve come back in time to change history, reshape it the way they want, and the protagonist is the one who has to stop them from hurting those who get in their way.

Prior to “Looper”, the two notable films of this type are those in the “Terminator” franchise, and the latest “Star Trek” film. In the “Terminator” films, a series of successively more sophisticated robot assassins from a post-apocalyptic future controlled by machines are sent back to kill the leader of the future human resistance at different points in his life. In the second of these films, we find that scientists who had found the technology left after the first assassin’s destruction are now developing the science which will eventually lead to the future from whence it came.  In the latest “Star Trek” film, when the last survivors from the destruction of a planet are pulled back in time by the technology which was intended to save it, their very presence alters the timeline irrevocably, altering the destinies of the series’ characters along with an entire race.

With “Looper”, filmmaker Rian Johnson brings an original aspect to this type of story:  What do you do when that threat from the future is you?

“Looper” is the third film to be written and directed by Rian Johnson.  Johnson debuted in 2005 with “Brick”.  “Brick” is a revelation: a noir mystery thriller in the best style Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler. Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the sleuth; a student with a talent for getting information and solving problems at a high school embroiled with drugs and crime, enlisted for help by an old flame who then goes missing. The story is a complete noir world with all the best earmarks of the genre, including the raffish sleuth, the arcane crime boss, the relentless tough, and the duplicitous femme fatale, but set (and by set, I mean embedded tightly) in a high school, and with a clever slang all of it’s own, giving this film a style all it’s own. Johnson could not have shown more potential as a new filmmaker; he had created a world in the film.

In his followup film, “The Brothers Bloom”, Johnson delves into a different type of noir film: the caper. For the uninitiated, the caper is the story of the committing of a crime.  The most critically acclaimed of these is “The Sting”, and the most widely known currently would be “Ocean’s Eleven”. In a caper, a band of thieves, con artists and other disreputables conspire against a whale and/or a heavy, to take the whale’s money and to at least embarrass or, more often, get out from under the thumb of the heavy. In the two aforementioned films, the whale and the heavy are one and the same; a power broker against whom our rapscallion heroes seek to make a retaliatory strike with the reward of long money. However, in “The Brothers Bloom”, our merry band of miscreants are the titular brothers, Stephen and Bloom; grifters of literary esteem and endowment; the whale is a charmingly whimsical and bubbly millionaire heiress shut-in; and the heavy is the nefarious ‘Diamond Dog’, world-renowned thief, con-man and criminal mastermind who wants the boys either dead or back in his fold, but who Stephen wants to see dead and Bloom just wants to be out from under.  Stephen is the orchestrator, writing his cons “with thematic arcs and embedded symbolism and shit” with Bloom as his ever-suffering sidekick, unable to have any sort of real life, wanting out.

With Johnson’s latest film, “Looper”, his penchant for noir falls second to a story of time travel, and, therefore, of regret. However, the story is original on multiple fronts. In this film, Johnson’s noir considerations take the form of a mob story, a tale of drug addicts turned into assassins, brought into a ‘family’, given one extended contract: eighty-six whoever they’re sent at a given time and place. Just so happens they’re being sent from 30 years in the future. They’re sent their kills with their payment and, after enough, they’re sent one last job: their future self, and get paid enough to be set up for the next thirty years. They’re called ‘loopers’ because, when they do their last job, they’ve ‘closed their loop’.

Joseph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis both play Joe, a looper. Levitt plays the young Joe, before his loop has closed. Willis plays old Joe, who, when he gets taken to be ‘closed’, fights back, and goes back anyway, hoping to change things, make them better; to take down the tenebrous overlord who has degraded the future in which he’s grown old. When Old Joe gets away from his younger self, Young Joe is on the lamb from the ‘family’ and chasing after the old man to close his loop and get back in.  Meanwhile, Old Joe is tracking down his mysterious enemy; a talented and dangerous telekinetic who is, in Young Joe’s time, no more than a child, and taking on the ‘family’ at the same time.

“Looper” is part “12 Monkeys”, part “Terminator”, part “Fugitive”, part “Pulp Fiction”. Like “Brick” and “The Brothers Bloom” before it, the characters play like a Chandler or a Hammett or an Elmore Leonard. The continuities and causalities are brilliant, they would make even H.G. Wells’ or Einstein's head’s spin.

What is most impressive is the scale.  As incredible as “Brick” was, it was very small; a few small sets, basic locations, small cast.  “The Brothers Bloom” was not much larger, however, it did boast some beautiful locations.  This is his first ‘big budget’ film: futuristic settings, superhero effects, incredible stunts.

And to whoever it was that made Joseph Gordon Levitt up to look like Bruce Willis did it perfectly.

"One for The Money"

I do not consider myself to be exceedingly intelligent. I am not a member of MENSA. I have no access to state secrets or privileged information (other than my own). I am not, nor do I pretend to be, a prognosticator of any degree or talent. I have no knowledge of the inner workings of Hollywood politics. There are a great many things that I do not know, but only one of them haunts me.

How, for . . . How does Katherine Heigl keep getting work?  Please, someone explain this to me. End my sleepless nights.

I recently watched “One For The Money”, the film adaptation of the Janet Evanovich novel of the same name.  In the movie, Heigl plays Evanovich’s popular sleuth, “Stephanie Plum”.  I say plays, as though Heigl were capable of some sort of acting range. What really happens (and anyone who has seen “The Ringer”, “Knocked Up”, “27 Dresses”, ”The Ugly Truth” and “Killers” can testify to this) is that Katherine Heigl keeps the same character, and that that character is uptight, condescending, obnoxious, snide, inept and phony.

In her earlier movies, it wasn’t quite as noticeable or detrimental. In “The Ringer”, Heigl’s character seemed like more of an afterthought; a romantic interest for Johnny Knoxville’s character whose presence was meant to be a distraction for Knoxville and to create an internal conflict for him.  In this movie, Heigl plays a coordinator at the Special Olympics where Knoxville, pretending to be developmentally disabled, has entered as a contestant to pay off his gardener’s extensive medical bills.  The movie, however, focuses very little on the potential or would-be romance between Knoxville and Heigl, and much more on Knoxville bonding with the other contestants.  Both of these aspects are meant to make him feel guilty about what he’s doing (which he already does from the beginning) which leads to him eventually confessing.

In “Knocked Up”, Heigl plays a woman who gets pregnant from a one-night-stand with a nearly-unemployed slacker played by Seth Rogen.  The bulk of the movie is fairly predictable, going through the motions of these two people, who would never have been brought together were it not for random chance and too much alcohol, following through with a decision that, clearly, neither of them want to, pretending the whole time that it’s what the want, and trying not to resent each other for any of it.  Any resemblance between this movie and romance or comedy is purely coincidental.  The only comedy to be derived from this movie is from the supporting cast, which, for all the very funny people involved, should be more.

“27 Dresses” is nearly unwatchable, and had almost ruined Elton John’s “Bennie and the Jets” for me until I saw “Gnomeo and Juliet”.  In it, Heigl plays a character who has, (and I cannot emphasize this enough) voluntarily, been the maid-of-honor and organizer of 27 different weddings for different friends, and then spends the rest of movie demanding that everyone else feel sorry for her that she hasn’t been married yet, particularly when her sister starts dating her boss, for whom she (Heigl’s character) has had a secret crush.  It is the most predictable and unoriginal story, full of unlikeable and unsympathetic characters, with lame jokes and unnatural dialog. The only redeemable quality this movie is a (mostly) decent performance by James Marsden.

“The Ugly Truth” breaks new ground of predictability as Heigl plays an uptight producer of a morning news show who hires the cable equivalent of a shock jock to boost ratings, then lets herself be convinced to take his advice to better her chances with some other guy.  He (the shock jock) then proceeds to fall for her.  This is yet another version of “Pygmalion”, which was the basis for “My Fair Lady”, and every version which has proceeded it has been more original, less predictable, better performed, more sympathetic, more likable, and generally more stomachable.  This is even probably the worst performance I’ve seen put forth by Gerard Butler.

In “Killers”, Katherine Heigl is back to being the only unlikeable part of the film, when she marries a man, played by Ashton Kutcher (“That 70’s Show”, “Two and a Half Men”), without knowing that he’s a secret agent, and she doesn’t find out until people start trying to kill them.  It starts out as a solid film for Kutcher before he falls into old habits of being over-the-top in order to be more funny, but once he’s rolling, both he and Heigl quickly become insufferable.  This is also yet another film which teaches the lesson of “just because you cast a bunch of comedy actors, doesn’t mean you have a comedy”.

As bad as all of these films were that came before, “One for the Money” is even worse.  Instead of getting someone who could actually carry the roll, like Mila Kunis or Rachel Weiss, they take Katherine Heigl, dye her hair brunette and have her try to speak in a New Jersey accent, which just ends up sounding caricaturish.  Everything Heigl does in this film plays as phony.  The character of Stephanie Plum is supposed to not know what she’s doing, but the way Heigl plays it, it’s as though she’s pretending to not know what she’s doing, and she’s hamming it up for the camera, the way she always does.

I feel I need to acknowledge those parts of the film which actually pass muster, but I with the caveat that it is in no way a recommendation for this film.  Debbie Reynolds shines as she always does as Stephanie Plum’s grandmother.  Jason O’Mara turns in an adequate performance, and his accent is more subtle, but I’ve seen him do better.

However, making this film a Heigl vehicle has done it’s damage.  I now have less interest in the works of Janet Evanovich than I did before.  If you want to see a decent movie about a woman learning how to be a badass bounty hunter, rent “Domino”.  If you don’t want to see yet another wretched Heigl performance, then save yourself the $1.30 at Redbox and the two hours.

Also, I want to ask the people who make the trailers for her movies one question: To what demon in hell did you sell your soul to be able to keep convincing me to see her movies?

"The Hole"

If you find a large, old creepy square door bolted to the cement floor of your basement which is locked by six padlocks, just move out.  Get out of the basement and don’t ever go back.  Don’t ask questions.  Don’t bother to call your Realtor until you’re safely in another timezone.  Only pack what you absolutely need and will fit in your car.  Just get out of the house and as far away as you can.  Whatever else you may do, do not, ever, under any circumstances, take the locks off.  Do not ever, EVER, open it.

Do not ever open the large, old creepy square door bolted to the cement floor of your basement which is locked by six padlocks.

I know that I’ve said before that what makes a good horror movie is also what makes a good movie, but I’ve forgotten that the directors of some of my favorite films from when I was a kid also made some of the scariest horror movies ever. Joe Dante is the only director I know who could do both with the same movie.

I don’t know who’s more sick, me or him.

Joe Dante got his start in the 70’s working under Roger Corman.  In the 60’s, Roger Corman was a cottage industry for making the worst movies in history including “X: The Man With X-Ray Eyes”, “The Creature From The Haunted Sea”, and the original “Little Shop of Horrors”.  He also made a series of highly regarded adaptations of the works of Edgar Allan Poe.  In the 70’s, though, Cormon founded “New World Pictures” whose purpose was to produce and distribute smaller films that larger studios wouldn’t, particularly independent films, and mass distribute foreign films to US audiences for the first time, including the works of Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini and Akira Kurosawa.  From this time forth, Corman made a life of shepherding and mentoring young filmmakers.  He has influenced the careers of directors, producers, writers, and actors alike, such as Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, Peter Bogdanovich, Jonathan Demme, James Cameron, Curtis Hanson, John Sayles, Jack Nicholson, William Shatner, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, Talia Shire and Robert De Niro.  So Joe Dante is in good company.

My first exposure to the works of Joe Dante was “Explorers”; I was seven. “Explorers” is about a three boys who build their own spaceship out of a 'Tilt-A-Whirl'. When you’re seven years old, what’s not cool about that? Dante’s best known film is “Gremlins”, but his career, which began in the 70’s with “Piranha” and “The Howling”, has included “Innerspace”, “The ‘Burbs”, “Twilight Zone: The Movie”; all of which blending Looney-Tunes-esque comedy, an eye for terror and suspense, and a sense of the fantastic and ridiculous into very fun films which pay solid tribute to Roger Corman. In the early 90’s, Joe Dante went one step closer to paying tribute to Roger Corman and his contemporaries, such as William Castle with “Matinee”, a period drama about what happens when a big name monster movie director comes to a small town to host the release of his latest film at the height of the red scare. Dante’s career in the late 90’s / early 2000’s took a few missteps with “Small Soldiers” and “Looney Tunes: Back in Action”, but now, with “The Hole”, hes back.

“The Hole” starts out simply enough with a mother moving her teen and preteen sons into a new house in a small town (next to a cute girl, of course, which is just prerequisite). While playing, the boys find a door (just as I described at the beginning of this review) in the floor, and, of course, they open it. Weirdness ensues, but in a much more original way than the opening or credits might imply.

"The Hole" stars Chris Massoglia ("The Vampire's Assistant"), Teri Polo ("Meet The Parents"), and features cameo appearances by Joe Dante alumni Dick Miller ("Explorers","Gremlins") and Bruce Dern ("The 'Burbs").

As the film progresses, Joe Dante is in full form and more. There are elements from a number of his previous films, including "The 'Burbs", "Gremlins" and "Twilight Zone".  There are also elements which show influence from other sources as well, such as Asian horror cinema, like "Ringu" or "Ju-on", which integrate well to build a highly creepy atmosphere and an overall scarier movie.

The most impressive part of the film, however, is the rating. "The Hole" is rated PG-13. There are very few horror movies which manage an R rating, and fewer still which manage to be actually scary.  Most horror films tend to be, to some degree or another, over the top, which means death, blood, gore, violence, sex, drugs, swearing, and pretty much anything else which will get the MPAA’s ire up.  Making a horror movie without any of these things also tends to be extremely difficult, as it depends entirely on the director’s ability to create atmosphere.  Fortunately, Joe Dante’s skill at this has never abated.  The ending doesn't disappoint, either. While inevitable, even predictable, the ending corresponds perfectly to the setup.

Two lousy efforts and a six year absence are enough to put any director off his game, but Joe Dante has come back with all his old tricks and even some new ones.  I hope we’ll be seeing more from him soon.

"Primer"

“Man, are you hungry? I haven’t eaten since later this afternoon.”

This was my favorite line from the movie “Primer”; it’s everything the movie tried to be: clever, but subtle.  It’s a different sort of time travel story, but, while concept behind the story is original, the way it’s told falls flat.

Time Travel stories are as different as snowflakes; but what defines the challenges within the story falls to two questions: how do we travel through time, and, more importantly, what effect do we have on the time and place we’ve come to and to ourselves when we try to change things in the past?
The answer to the former question typically has one of three possibilities: 1) by accident / don’t know (“Army of Darkness”, “Groundhog Day”, “Time Traveler’s Wife”); 2) by force of will (“Somewhere In Time”, “Butterfly Effect”); 3) through some sort of device (“Back to the Future”, “Timeline”).  The issue with the second possibility is “how do we invoke our will to travel?”  The issue created with having a device is “what do we do if the device breaks while we’re in another time?”  The real question at the root of all of these is “How do we get home?”.

The answer to the latter question is (typically) one of four possibilities: 1) we can’t change anything, and, even if we change things, time and history move on around us (“The Time Machine”); 2) we can change things, but, in trying to change certain events, we end up causing the outcome we sought to alter (“12 Monkeys”); 3) we need to be extremely careful what we change, because changing even the smallest change in the past could lead to drastic changes to the future (most time travel stories, including “Back to the Future”, “Butterfly Effect” and “Looper”); and 4) we can change anything we want, because our very presence in the past has created an alternate universe, so we will not be affected by any changes we make (JJ Abrams “Star Trek”).

There is a third question which I didn’t approach, because it’s not usually addressed in time travel stories, which is “If you travel back closely enough within your own life, what would happen if you went back to meet yourself?”

This last question is the most relevant of the three, because it spawns the real question at the root of time travel fiction: What would you do over?

Well? Ask yourself that question: If you could go back to any moment in your own lifetime, have one day to live over, have one decision to take back, have one more time to say goodbye to a lost loved one, have a chance to be the hero or get the win or get the girl or . . . anything, what would you do?
Time travel stories, or, at least, many of them, are cautionary tales against regret: If you change that moment, what else would that moment change to your life now?  If you relive a moment, would it live up to how you remember it?

In “Primer”, it is these last questions which get asked, but asked in smaller terms: “If you could go back from tonight to this morning, if you could go back a day, two days, a week, and do anything, what would you do?”

The most original thing about “Primer” is how it limits that question, but I’ll get back to that in a moment.

“Primer” focuses on the story of two engineers who, while working on an a new invention, accidentally discover that they’ve invented a machine that holds whatever has been placed in it in a time loop.  This time loop will run from the time which a setting on the machine is turned on to when it’s turned off, and then it will loop back to when it was turned on.  The important part is that they can enter and exit at either end of the loop, so, if you turn the setting on at say 8am, and turn it off at 6pm, then get into the machine at that time, and stay in for 10 hours, when you get out it will be 8am again. So, those are the rules: Turn the machine on, wait, turn it off, get in, wait, and, when you get out, you will be back at the time when the machine was turned on.

The rest of the movie focuses on these inventors figuring out what the other rules of the machine are, what they can do within those rules, and what they become when they realize that those actions have no consequences.

My only problem with “Primer” is that, in trying to explain the rules and what they are doing, the dialog is overloaded with technical jargon and abstract-speak, making the conversations more difficult to follow than they needed to be.  This is also reflected in how the film is paced; in how the different twists and turns in the movie are revealed; that they are deliberately more confusing and convoluted than they need to be.  I felt as though the story could have been told more clearly and still been just as dramatic and original.

Overall, the film was clever enough to be interesting, and the twists and turns made for an original story.  But, the way in which they made much of the reveals of those twists and turns more confusing and more difficult to understand felt unnecessary, as though it would do more to alienate the audience than draw them in.

In theatre, they say that the only thing the audience won’t forgive is not being able to see or hear you.

They also won’t forgive you if they can’t understand you.

(Also, the trailer doesn't help you any).