Burn After Reading (2008)

Directed by: Ethan & Joel Coen
Format: Theater
Starring: Brad Pitt, John Malkovich, George Clooney, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand
Trailer

There are certain directors who can always get me to fill a seat in the theater. The Coens are two of them. Although I've been burned before by the dynamic duo, I will allow that everyone makes mistakes and they haven't illed so much as to cancel themselves from my list of favorites. Burn After Reading was certainly on my list of "what to see" as soon as I saw the trailer. So, when someone offered to take me to a film Friday night, I immediately knew which one I wanted to go to. Knowing that my movie companion was a little on the conservative side (I don't mean politically), I took the chance that she'd appreciate something a little offbeat, but also oddly amusing. At least, that's what I was hoping for...

Burn After Reading is billed as a "spy comedy", but I wouldn't really classify it that way (Get Smart fits the description more). The whole thing begins with Linda Litzke (McDormand) who is a single woman desperate to feel attractive. To do so, she believes, will take a series of expensive operations. Since her insurance refuses her coverage, she is forced to seek other means of financing her endeavors. When her coworkers at the local gym discover a CD loaded with suspicious documents, she sees her chance at making a little cash. The man that she and gym-mate Chad (Pitt) make a clumsy attempt to blackmail is indeed former CIA agent, Osbourne Cox (Malkovich). The reason he's "former" is because he's got some booze-related problems and his wife, Katie (Swinton) is preparing to divorce him for attractive Treasury agent Harry Pfarrer. Pfarrer, despite the fact that he loves his wife, is an habitual cheater. Not only is he sneaking around with Cox's wife, he also manages to get into Litzke's undergarments. As if that isn't confusing enough, add in the rest of the CIA, the Russians, a few divorce attorneys and an unrequited love. Oy.

I've noticed that many great directors, the Coens included of course, choose to work with the same actors on a regular basis. It almost seems like a group of friends making movies for their own entertainment. Among the Coens regulars are Francis McDormand (Fargo, Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, Miller's Crossing) and George Clooney (O Brother, Where Art Thou?). McDormand is a fantabulous actress without a doubt. She's not as astoundingly impressive as she was in Fargo, but it's easy to see why she's got a career. Clooney's Pfarrer is the most amusing character here by far (I almost peed). He's also clearly a dirt bag for his wife's sake, but is really rather human by the end. Excellently played. Malkovich is really creepy and despicable as Cox. He didn't get any sympathy from me at all. Pitt is dumb, but lovable and takes a respectable break from the heartthrob role.

Burn After Reading does have some unsettling scenes. The overall tone of the movie is amusement and lighthearted mishaps. So, when a couple of graphicly violent shots disrupt that tone, they're all the more disturbing. That doesn't, however, make them negative aspects of the movie. In an industry saturated with explosions, zombie guts and gunfire, it's easy to see violence as commonplace. In this film, however, it has a similar effect as it might in real life. Imagine you're going to retrieve your Sunday morning newspaper from your carefully manicured suburban front lawn. You reach down, carful to keep your robe from opening and look up just in time to see the neighbor hack the paperboy's neck with a hatchet. Blood squirts everywhere and it just ruins your whole day. That's what I mean by disturbing.

I don't think I'll ever be the same after O Brother, Where Art Thou, but I think I can lower my guard just a bit. After two solid flicks (No Country for Old Men included), the Coens are proving they haven't lost their touch (although they do remind me of the guys from Myth Busters). As a fan of the two directors, I highly recommend the film. As your average movie goer, it might not be what you're expecting, but it will be worth the admission price. Go and see it now, or rent it later, but don't let it escape you either way.

Overall Rating: 4 stars
Hottie Rating: 3 stars (for Clooney/Pitt combo)

Alternate Recommendation: Blood Simple
Official Site
IMDB Page
Rolling Stone review - in which Peter Travers tries to force some type of social commentary on the picture.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Format: Theater
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, Aaron Eckhart, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Trailer

Sean Connery, George Lazenby, Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan, Daniel Craig - Bond. Michael Keaton, George Clooney, Val Kilmer, Christain Bale - Batman. No matter who you put in the suit, some franchises live on. Some men fill out the suit better. Some men play the ladies' man with more finesse. But no matter how good or how bad, people always flock to the characters they know the best. That, my friends, is why movies like the 007 series and the Batman series will be revisited by the film industry over and over again. After Batman and Robin in 1997, I thought Hollywood had murdered my favorite caped crusader. When Batman Begins resurrected Gotham in 2005, my hopes were lifted a bit. So, did Christopher Nolan and Christian Bale disappoint in round 2? Does Heath Ledger's last performance live up to the "legendary" status his death has created?

In The Dark Knight, Batman is beginning to get a little bit of help. Officer Gordon (Oldman) has become Commissioner Gordon and a new district attorney, Harvey Dent (Eckhart), is ambitious enough to take on the mob. It looks as if Gotham City may finally see a ray of light at the end of a dark reign of crime. Hold off on that sigh of relief though, because organized crime may not be the biggest menace the city faces. A new face has arrived to challenge Batman, and it's a painted one. The Joker's got no fingerprints and no identity and he doesn't seem to crave power or money. So, how do you fight a man you don't understand? How do you deal with this new flavor of criminal?

In the original comic book series, The Dark Knight represented a more grim and introspective side of Batman. He was a Batman with a shadow over his head and one who was inherently more dangerous. But, the movie version doesn't present that same troubled hero. Instead, it makes Harvey Dent the shining light and Batman not much more than a ready and willing scapegoat. The plot, however, has intensified since Batman Begins. There's more at stake and not everyone will come out alive or unharmed. The appearance of The Joker does make an impact and it isn't business as usual anymore. There's more of a puzzle to be solved in this new movie. The new movie isn't without its' faults, however. There are a lot of unanswered questions at the end of 152 minutes. What happened to the Chinese crook who was so prominent a threat in the beginning? How did The Scarecrow get out of custody? Why isn't Wayne all that upset that his girlfriend is dating Dent?

Whenever a new actor comes along to fill the shoes of another, there's always a comparison. So, naturally, the question comes about, "Is Heath Ledger as good as Jack Nicholson as The Joker?" Well, my answer to that is, "perspective". It was 1989 when Nicholson donned the purple suit and clown makeup of Batman's greatest foe. There were a different set of expectations back then, and Nicholson filled them memorably. But, it's nearly twenty years since that moment and we're all expecting something different. Ledger is not the same Joker as Nicholson was. But, he wasn't trying to be. Initially, when I saw the trailers for The Dark Knight, I had the opposite impression. However, Ledger is a more thoughful character. There's more mystery behind him and a certain twisted logic that added depth. There's no goofy side this time. Granted, he wasn't nearly as "dark" as everyone told me he would be. Nonetheless, I loved him. Ledger did not disappoint.

Bale, as in the last film, isn't quite as satisfying. He doesn't suit the playboy Wayne role as well and he doesn't look as good in the mask. Something about Bale's mouth has always bugged me. And, what's with the voice? Caine as Alfred plays the perfect, if nagging, butler of Wayne manor. Morgan Freeman is a great new addition to the Bat-verse as Gotham's version of Q. Maggie Gyllenhaal was just annoying in The Dark Kight, although she wasn't bad in the previous film. Oldman is the perfect choice for Gordon and I applaud that casting call in particular.

Ever since the death of Ledger, The Dark Knight has been hyped beyond reason. There was a lot of expectation. I, for one, judged it even more harshly than I might have otherwise; approached the movie with more skepticism. It wasn't the directing, the script or the production team that made this movie a success. It was the actors. My faith in Batman remains strong. I never noticed the time go by.

Overall Rating: 3 1/2
Hottie Rating: Hmm...2

Alternate Recommendation: Batman
Official Site
IMDB Site
rave Rolling Stone review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Hancock (2008)

Directed by: Peter Berg
Format: Theater
Starring: Will Smith, Charlize Theron, Jason Bateman, Jae Head
Trailer

Ah, superhero movies. America just doesn't seem to get tired of them. Batman, Superman, Spiderman and Xmen have all jumped the pages of comic books onto the silver screen. Even lesser known characters have sprung forth to have their own feature films; Ironman, The Flash, The Shadow, Electra, Jay & Silent Bob...the list goes on. One of the most surprising developments I've seen in this vein has been The Mask. Originally, yes, it was a comic book. Then, of course, it was a string of films. Oddly, after the films came a children's cartoon. What I find strange about that series of events is that, in its original comic form, the story was so violent, so gruesome and gory, that buyers had to be 18 or older to get their hands on it. That's a far cry from Saturday morning television programming. What peaked my interest in Will Smith's latest feature, Hancock, was that this superhero seemed different. Instead of the latex costume and cape, Hancock appeared as a drunken, unshaven mess, fighting crime in sort of a half-assed fashion. It was encouraging.

Immortal, impervious, inebriated Hancock sails to the rescue during the opening scene of the movie. He's got a bottle of whiskey in one hand, having just woken from a park bench and flies gracelessly toward a police pursuit in progress. He saves the day from a truckload of machine gun wielding gangsters, but not without causing millions of dollars in property damage and leaving the vehicle skewered atop a high rise. Rather than applauding Hancock's latest escapade, the city sees him as a menace. When he saves PR man Ray Embrey, he causes a massive train wreck. But, while the witnessing citizens gather around to call him an asshole (his least favorite insult), Embrey stands up and defends his rescuer. That's when he gets the idea that Hancock could use a little polish.

As mentioned earlier, I was excited to see a new type of hero; one without the goody-two-shoes attitude and shiny uniform. But, as the trailers will show, Hancock cleans up his act. He learns how to land softly and say, "good job" to the police force. Even though he struggles with politeness and opening up in anger management therapy, he manages the transformation to respectable do-gooder. I would have enjoyed him more as a misfit. Hancock says to Ray and his wife Mary (Theron) over dinner, that he knows nothing about his past. That aspect of the man is barely touched on in the beginning, yet it becomes a major focal point halfway though the plot. The way the movie arrives at that stage is somewhat sloppy and ill conceived. The person who's the key to his past, one which he didn't seem to care about until then, is awfully convenient. It seems as if the writers were stuck mid-script and pulled up the nearest character as an answer. Even the follow through with that thread is sloppy. After pausing to work out the logistics, none of it really fits together.

Sadly, even the wonderful cast isn't enough to save Hancock's pathetic plot line. Will Smith is just as entertaining as ever, but a weak script and lackluster dialogue doesn't give the superstar much to work with. It is nice to see Smith, after many serious roles, to return to something with a little humor. However, I fear that Hancock will go down under his list of not-so-fantastic roles. Theron is beautiful and does her part to the best of her ability. But, I haven't seen her top Monster yet, and this movie certainly wasn't even close. Jason Bateman is an admirable character, a PR man with a conscience is hard to find. Bateman fit the bill nicely. He's convincing, mildly annoying and well cast. There aren't many other characters in the film worth mentioning. Hancock makes an enemy, as all superheroes must, but Eddie Marsan as Red is no Lex Luthor. It's a sad performance and in a not much developed role.

Basically, Hancock amounts to only mild amusement and gobs of eye candy. These days, eye candy will only get one so far. With a better script, a more thoughtful plot and a worthy adversary, Hancock might have been a truly entertaining cinematic experience. As it is, the movie is seriously disappointing. If you still plan to see Smith's latest feature, I recommend the theater setting over rental. What there is of this movie to enjoy, will fall to pieces once it's off the big screen.

Oh, and if you do pony up the cash for a movie ticket to Hancock, make sure you sit through the credits for a bit.

Overall Rating: 3 stars
Hottie Rating: 2 stars (no rippling abs in this one)

Alternate Recommendation: Unbreakable
Official Site
IMDB Page
SF Gate review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Wanted (2008)

Directed by: Timur Bekmambetov
Format: Theater
Starring: Angelina Jolie, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, Thomas Kretschmann

Movies involving hit men, secret societies and slo-mo gun shots aren't scarce these days, nor have they been for quite some time. So, why do they keep showing up in theaters? Well, the reason is obvious - they make money. People world-wide love to see a good shoot-out. But, the spaghetti westerns of old have given way to more high-tech weaponry and flashy special effects. I think the art of the gunfight was renewed here in the United States, when John Woo was discovered. His films in Hong Kong, like Hard Boiled and The Killer, made battling with guns beautiful. Seeing Chow Yun Fat and Danny Lee face off was like well-choreographed Kung-Fu. Sadly, much of Woo's magic was lost upon arriving on American shores. Then in 1999, The Matrix showed us that, if you can slow down bullets you can be a superstar. Watching Wanted reminded me a lot of the Wachowski brothers' successful debut.

Wesley Gibson (McAvoy) is a typical cube-farm drone with no backbone to speak of. His girlfriend's cheating on him, his boss is a royal bitch and his bank account is overdrawn. However, this sniveling anxiety-ridden excuse for a man soon discovers that he's meant for greater things. While filling his prescription at the local pharmacy, Wesley suddenly becomes the target of a mysterious gunman. As it so happens, he's the son of a magnificent assassin - one that just recently met a grim fate. Now the killer is after the young Gibson. Luckily for him, a member of a secret society of talented killers, Fox (Jolie), comes to his rescue. When ringleader Sloan (Freeman) and Fox reveal to Wesley his inheritance - mad gun fighting skills and a sizable chunk of money - he tells his boss to piss off and goes into training to become a badass.

Wanted borrows many plot devices from other films, but it doesn't feel like a rip-off. As in classic 70's-style martial arts films, the young star finds himself facing a fierce enemy and is defeated. So, the character spends the rest of the movie in training for a rematch. Wesley Gibson is a pathetic mess at first, but then finds a series of "masters" from which he can gain expert training so that he can hunt down his father's killer. Another oft-repeated element in recent films has been that of the disgruntled office worker shrugging off the shackles of modern society. Wanted has that feature too, somewhat reminiscent of an angry Edward Norton in Fight Club (but not quite as cool). Slow motion camera work and creative fight scenes are highly suggestive of The Matrix trilogy, complete with a sexy senior partner to guide the main character along.

So what is it, despite all the commonalities, that separates Wanted from so many other action genre fodder? Part of what makes this movie stand apart is the cast and director. Angelina Jolie, for me, is a gamble when it comes to performance. In films like Mr. & Mrs. Smith and The Good Shepherd, I found her a bit annoying and lacking any special spark. She performs terrifically, however, in this movie. She's sexy and mysterious, but very dedicated (not to mention her bitchin' tattoos). (I nearly wrote "not just eye candy", but everything in this movie is eye candy) Morgan Freeman is generally a safe bet as a seasoned actor, but is very similar to his character in Lucky Number Slevin. Would you have recognized James McAvoy from his role as the fawn in Narnia? I think not. He manages to make the transformation from wormy loser to steamy assassin in Wanted without much trouble. I always have a tendency to respect an actor more if he's shown a bit of range. Even the side characters, like The Butcher (Dato Khabensky) and The Repairman (Marc Warren) are fun to watch. My favorite of them was probably The Exterminator, played by Konstantin Khabensky. Khabensky has worked with Russian director Bekmambetov before as his supernatural anti-hero in Night Watch and Day Watch. As a fan of those films, it was a treat to see the actor have a small part in Wanted.

Bekmambetov was a good choice to helm this film. There's something fresh in his work that may lie in his use of light and colors. He's also got skills when it comes to using the slo-mo effect without over saturating. I'm sometimes reluctant to see successful directors in other countries make a movie in the U.S. Rarely do the producers here allow them to really be themselves without white-washing the film for our domestic audiences. However, Wanted, though not as dark and moody as Night Watch, still has plenty of the director's flavor intact.

Wanted was not a disappointment. Some of what you may have seen in the trailers does not actually show up in the final cut of this film, but that doesn't make it less of a cool flick. There aren't any lulls long enough in this movie to detract from the pulsating action. The dialog could have used a bit of a pick-me-up, but that's hardly more than a minor note in an otherwise fun time. I'd check out Wanted while it's still in theaters, as it's liable to lose some of its impact on a small screen.

Overall Rating: 3 1/2 stars
Hottie Rating: 4 stars

Alternate Recommendation: La Femme Nikita
Official Site
IMDB Page
Movie Cynics review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The Strangers (2008)

Directed by: Bryan Bertino
Format: Theater
Starring: Scott Speedman, Liv Tyler, Gemma Ward, Kip Weeks, Laura Margolis

There are different brands of terror. One horror movie might thrill you because the events are realistic. Another may be full of ghosts and the supernatural, making you wonder what's out there in the shadows. Do you sleep with the lights on? Are you looking over your shoulder? Sometimes horror films aren't even terribly frightening, aside from the occasional start or gallons of gore. So, why is it that people seek out the frightening side of film? Despite my experiences with real-life terror, I'm still a horror film junkie. Why? For me, it's akin to the thrill of riding a roller coaster or the desire to sky-dive. I seek that rush of adrenaline with every theater ticket. But, I sit there, heart pumping, knowing that I'm not in any actual peril. Oh, and don't forget gore...lots and lots of gore....

In The Strangers, James Hoyt (Speedman) and Kristen McKay (Tayler) are staying the night at the Hoyt's family cabin. It's less than a relaxing getaway for the young couple, however, as instead of celebrating their engagement, they're awkwardly trying to reconcile after Hoyt's proposal falls flat. In the middle of their reconciliation, there's a strange knock at the door. A young woman stands outside, asking for someone. They send her away, telling her she's got the wrong address. After James leaves to buy a pack of smokes, Kristen is alone in the house and hears the knock again. Even though she's clever enough not to open the door, someone sneaks in the house while her back is turned. James returns and finds an hysterical Kristen, claiming that there's an intruder and people lurking outside. At first he tries to tell her she's imagining things, but when he finds his car demolished, he realizes they're in real trouble.

There isn't anything hokey or bizarre about The Strangers. Having been "inspired by true events", the plot is a realistic one. Special effects extend only to blood and injury, not amazing CGI ghouls and ghosts. At the beginning of the movie, two missionary boys happen upon the scene of the crime and it's obvious that something terrible has happened. So, no surprises there. Despite being forewarned of the ending though, you can't help but wonder if the couple makes it out alive. In theory, you should be in for a gripping story and all the more so because of its roots in reality.

Liv Tayler is not someone I would have expected to see in this film. However, she pulls off the role quite nicely. She remains terrified, but still competent. Tayler is very convincing. Speedman is passable as the rejected propositioner and is believeable as a frightened, but protective boyfriend. The other actors do a good job holding up their end of the script, but don't have very involved roles. It's Tayler and Speedman carrying the show.

I have to say that, although the trailer gave me chills, The Strangers was lacking something special. I'd like to be able to pinpoint that absent aspect, but I can't quite seem to put my finger on it. The movie had the makings of a truly terrifying 90 minutes, but didn't pull it off. There are a few brief scares, but they fall into the relm of the predicatable. When Hoyt's friend arrives on the scene, it's all to easy to guess what's going to happen. An eerieness is missing. There was more tension in the plot before the indruders even made an appearance and all of the truly creepy scenes are already included in the advertisements. Even the blood looks fake.

Another thing I noticed in The Strangers, were inconsistencies. Honestly speaking, I don't normally pick up on the little mistakes in movies until after a second or third viewing. But in this movie, I did. Firstly, there's the scene with Liv in the kitchen. She's smoking a cigarette and senses danger. So, she turns around and - viola! - disappearing cigarette. No smoke, no ashes, nothing. Secondly, at one point, a character is bound at the wrists (you'll see this in the trailer). In a following scene, no cuts or marks appear where they should be. How many people viewed this film prior to release and didn't catch those things?

So, to sum up, I was very disappointed by my experience with The Strangers. Looking back, I would have chosen any of the other options in theaters right now. Kung-Fu Panda would have been more worth my time. Unless you're exceedingly curious (even after my review), I don't recommend the rental either. Sometimes it's true what they say - your imagination is scarier than the real thing.

Overall Rating: 2 stars
Hottie Rating: 1 star (That's all you get, Speedman)

Alternate Recommendation: Straw Dogs
Official Site
IMDB Page
Appreciating Great Trash review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Juno (2007)

Directed by: Jason Reitman
Format: Theater
Starring: Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman
Trailer

Pending a verdict on her book Candy Girl, Diablo Cody might just be my new hero. A former stripper, Cody (that’s a nom de plume), is a year younger than me and has already won an Academy Award. She rocked out on Oscar night, looking like a tattooed Cleopatra. IMDB quotes her as saying, “If this whole writing thing doesn't work out, I'll be getting right back on the pole.” I admire her attitude and I think that the backlash against her is undeserved, but inevitable. Bottom line – she seems particularly human for Hollywood.

Like recent many, I came to know of Diablo Cody because she wrote the screenplay for the movie Juno. Several trusted friends recommended the film to me and when I heard that it stars one of my favorite new actresses, Ellen Page, I had to check it out. I even went to a late showing during the middle of the week so that I wouldn’t have to put up with irritating crowds. The experience would have been perfect if it weren’t for the $9.25 admission. (I feel a savage rant coming on about the steady decline of the movie going experience, but I’ll get back to the subject at hand.)

Juno tells the story of the title character, a high school student who finds herself dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. After flirting briefly with the idea of abortion, she decides to carry the child to term and find a suitable couple to take over. When she visits the home of Vanessa and Mark Loring, Juno chooses the couple as the ideal candidates for surrogate parenthood. All that’s left for her to do is cope with being the only pregnant girl in school, deciding what she wants from her relationship with the father, and her shifting hormones. Easy, right?

Fortunately for her, Juno has the help of a good friend and the support of a wonderful father and step-mom. She’s also got a tough hide and a sarcastic attitude. I thought that Ellen Page did a wonderful job portraying the pregnant teenager. However, I noticed certain elements of her character in Hard Candy carried over to this film. Juno is like a snippet of Hayley Stark extended over a 96 minute time frame. Maybe that’s why she was chosen for the role or maybe Page has less range than I’d hoped. Regardless of the similarity, I enjoyed each character immensely. Second to Juno, I think my favorite character in this movie might have been her boyfriend Bleeker, played by Michael Cera. He’s a little bit of an awkward dork, but he’s so genuine and good-hearted that it’s hard not to be drawn to him.

In fact, the entire film is pleasantly quirky like that, from the soundtrack to the dialogue; something like a cross between Napoleon Dynamite and Little Miss Sunshine. I wonder if the people out there, who’ve criticized Juno for its lingo, have ever listened to a group of teenagers carry on a conversation. Judging from my experience as sister to a teenaged brother, Diablo Cody captured the demographic superbly in that regard. I just wish I could get that Moldy Peaches song out of my head!

It was nice to see a film about a topic that could have easily been a heavily dramatic one, treated with a lighter touch. It’s important to remember that Juno isn’t a movie about teen pregnancy. It’s a story about a girl and how that individual experiences being a pregnant teen. So, don’t look to the film to provide poignant social commentary or moral lessons. Don’t expect a lengthy examination of the abortion issue. Just relax and let yourself fall in love with the characters.

Overall Rating: 4
Hottie Rating: 3 (I'm hot for Bleeker)

Alternate Recommendation: Little Miss Sunshine
Official Site
IMDB Page
Austin Chronicle review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Directed by: Ethan and Joel Coen
Format: Theater
Starring: Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Woody Harrelson, Kelly Macdonald

There was only one movie nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture this year that I actually had the chance to see prior to the ceremony. However, if I had it to do over again, I would have chosen the same film. After all, No Country for Old Men may not have been the most hyped movie of 2007, but it walked away with the most statues.

Deep in the heart of Texas, Llewelyn Moss (Brolin) is shootin’ at some food, when he catches sight of an injured dog in his scope. Following the dog’s trail of blood back to its origin, he discovers a cluster of pickup trucks and a collection of fresh corpses. It appears to be the scene of a drug deal gone sour and when Llewelyn finds a suitcase full of money, he doesn’t stick around to ask the dead any questions. He’s a clever fellow and he knows that someone will be looking for the cash. What he doesn’t know is that the “someone” is Anton Chigurh (Bardem), and Anton Chigurh isn’t exactly the most well-balanced individual in town. In fact, during one of the earliest scenes, Anton gives us a good healthy dose of just how nuts he really is. You might laugh at the haircut, but hardly any who cross paths with the man is laughing, or ever will again.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who thought that Javier Bardem played an excellent hired killer. He did, after all, earn himself an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for this role. I loved the cool brand of insanity he put forth as Anton. His character isn’t Mickey & Mallory crazy, but smooth and sinister like James Bond if he had roomed with John Wayne Gacy in college. Tommy Lee Jones plays the small town cop trying to get a handle on the madness involved with his new case. Jones is one of those actors, to me, who can be either really terrible, or fairly solid, depending on what movie he’s in. In this one, he does a good job. His character is basically just watching from the sidelines though and primarily works to help the audience glue the pieces together and reflect on the bigger picture. Harrelson appears in a brief role as Carson Wells, the second hit man sent out to recover the suitcase full of cash. But, he talks a big talk without backing it up with anything impressive. The only purpose I could see for Wells was as a foil for Chigurh; to offer up an example of another hired man for the main killer to contrast against. Although well played, I didn’t feel that Harrelson’s character was necessary. I was engrossed in Josh Brolin’s character most of all. Llewelyn had that “common man” appeal, but with an unexpected edge of cunning. So, he was easy to root for as the protagonist. Even though I thought Anton Chigurh was a force to be reckoned with, I kept hoping Moss would get the jump on him.

Ever since Raising Arizona, I’ve been enamored of the Coens’ filmmaking. As if that film isn’t already a fine example, they went on from there, directing Blood Simple, The Big Lebowski and Fargo (another Oscar winner). I could go on for ages about the other films I’ve enjoyed from their filmography. However, the Coens are not infallible. In 2000, there was O Brother, Where Art Thou? , which was thoroughly disappointing. When they fell short of the mark again in 2004 with The Ladykillers, I was beginning to think they’d lost their touch. But, then came No Country for Old Men. At last, my faith was restored! It has everything that I’d come to love from the Coens; good dialogue, interesting characters, and just a little touch of oddity. No Country also has a more ethereal theme that overlays the entire film.

Since I actually braved the theaters for this movie, I had the opportunity to judge crowd reaction to the film. During the majority of the picture, there wasn’t the usual obnoxious rustling of popcorn bags, inconsiderate glowing of cell phones or irritating chatting going on. There was only silence, as if everyone was on the edge of their seats. This tells me that the movie did a great job of holding everyone’s interest. At the conclusion of the movie, there was audibly disappointed gasping. Personally, I enjoy an open-ended finale from time to time. However, it seems that this audience (and maybe you as well) doesn’t approve of endings that don’t arrive in neatly tied-up packages.

Overall Rating: 5
Hottie Rating: 3 (for Javier and his voice)

Alternate viewing recommendation: Miller's Crossing
Official Site
IMDB Page
San Francisco Chronicle review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

I Am Legend (2007)

Directed by: Francis Lawrence
Format: Theater
Starring: Will Smith, Alice Braga, Willow Smith, Salli Richardson, Abby

I Am Legend was one of the few films of 2007 that had its release date marked on my calendar. Everyone I knew was as eager to see it as I was. What made this movie so anticipated? Was it star power? Was it the theme? Was the trailer especially clever? For me, I think it was all three. Funny; even before I saw it, I kept saying that the film reminded me of an old Charlton Heston movie. Come to find out, the movie The Omega Man (1971) was adapted from the same novel - I Am Legend by Richard Matheson. There was apparently a third movie, The Last Man on Earth (which I haven’t seen) that also used the novel as a foundation. So, if nothing else, it seems I have a new book to add to my list.

Watch any of the TV spots for I Am Legend and you’ll get the basic gist of the movie. Robert Neville (Smith) is the last remaining human in New York City and, as far as he knows, the world. His only companion is Sam (Abby), a German Shepherd. Together they go through their daily routine; exercise, gathering food and trying to contact other survivors. As is typical of many other films in the genre, the rest of the population has contracted a virus which has turned them into inhuman monsters. These beasts only come out at night however, which is when Neville and Sam barricade themselves indoors. When he’s not simply trying to survive, Neville works on a cure for the virus that he himself is immune to, hoping to bring back some of the populous.

Some of the CGI in I Am Legend is a bit hokey. The deer and some of the monsters don’t move very convincingly. On the other hand, seeing Times Square deserted and overgrown with weeds was eerie enough. The zombie creatures definitely look like they came out of a video game. Granted, it’s harder to tell these days with graphics improving in leaps and bounds. Even though the city is empty and all the cars in the streets, save one, are stationary, it doesn’t seem to be a completely miserable environment. I’d be willing to bet that a sizeable number of New Yorkers might prefer the streets all to themselves.

I really believe that Will Smith is a terrific movie actor. He’s had the misfortune to be involved in a few stinkers (Wild Wild West), but even DeNiro has his bad days. From the first movie I saw him in, Six Degrees of Separation, it became apparent that Smith had skills beyond that of his musical career. I Am Legend is another movie he can count as a successful performance. It’s difficult for one actor to carry an entire movie on his own in the first place. Smith does it and makes it look easy. Abby did a great job too!

I’m the kind of person who wakes up everyday and hopes that a zombie apocalypse has occurred while I was sleeping. So, the idea of being the only human left isn’t particularly terrifying. But, I do think that the sorrow and solitude of losing human companions would eventually corrode the mind, as it does with Neville – to a degree. I enjoyed the idea of the last survivor as a scientist, trying to cure the disease. It was a different twist I haven’t seen often in the zombie genre. My only real complaint with I Am Legend is the ending. It seemed unnecessary and that lack of necessity cheapened what might have been a heroic finish.

Overall Rating: 3 ½
Hottie Rating: 3 (Smith doing pull-ups)

Alternate recommendation: The Omega Man
Official site
IMDB page
James Berardinelli’s review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

30 Days of Night (2007)

Director: David Slade
Format: theater
Starring: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Ben Foster, Danny Huston, Megan Franich
trailer

For every monster, whether it be in movies or in video games, there are rules. Rules such as; vampires die in the sunlight, werewolves are killed with silver bullets, and the only way to kill a zombie is to destroy its brain. Rules tell the heroes how to survive. Even when the monsters are not standard fare, the ground rules have to be laid in order for the audience to understand how the game is to be played. The zombies in 28 Days Later were not the normal, slow variety that audiences were used to. However, the filmmakers let us know how people were infected and how to avoid becoming a victim. Without some kind of structure, things can go to Hell.

30 Days of Night takes place in Barrow, Alaska - the Northern most town of the United States. This far North on the globe, the sun takes a month off in Winter. So, if you’re a creature of the night, it’s the perfect place to vacation. Just as the sun gets ready to dive below the horizon, a stranger arrives in town. A mysterious chain of circumstances eliminates every escape route and puts the only apparent law officer in residence, Eben Oleson (Hartnett), on his guard. But, he doesn’t have much time to sit around and ponder the situation, because the town falls under attack. Vampires. Much of the town is slaughtered right away, but a small group of citizens manages to find a hiding place and try to find a way to survive until the sun returns.

30 Days of Night has some interesting costuming and makeup. All of the vampires are in spiffy suits and have very animalistic faces. However, instead of the standard elongated incisors, they have two rows of very sharp teeth. I liked that the vampires didn’t speak English. I’m no linguistics major, but their dialect sounded something akin to Russian. They’ve all got the strength and agility of vampires, but not much in the way of personality. Call me a traditionalist, but I prefer the Anne Rice, romantic, sexy vampires to the creatures in this movie. Rather than seducing their prey, they go about slaughtering and tearing throats, much more like a zombie would. They seem to gain no sustenance from their victims and delight merely in the kill. I don’t really like this strain of vampire. They didn’t carry much of the allure that I’m used to.

One thing that surprised me about 30 Day of Night was the gore. After the first 30 minutes of the film, I was resigned to the possibility that I may see nothing more than a few blood spattered walls. Once the main characters became the last survivors in town, the gore factor improved dramatically. There’s even a scene where one man has his head chopped off with an ax. Usually, it’s only the swing and the screaming that suggest a beheading that we get to see. In this film, the actual chopping in full, gory detail fills the screen. Right on! I wonder how it managed to sustain an R rating.

I have quickly become a fan of Josh Hartnett. He’s a bit more rugged (and fully dressed) than I’ve seen him in other films, but no less tasty. On top of his killer good looks, the boy can act. His female counterpart in 30 Days of Night is Stella, played by Melissa George. Her character is a little irritating at the start of the movie, but soon becomes a valuable part of the group. Most of the other characters in the movie are sort of mundane. There wasn’t any feeling of loss as they dropped off one by one. No particularly stellar performances. Eben’s little brother Jake (Mark Rendall) was annoying and I never felt any sort of real connection between him and the older Oleson.

I would wait for 30 Days of Night to hit the rental shelves before viewing. It isn’t nearly worth the $9.50 or other outrageous sum paid for admission. The gore factor almost redeems this movie, but the lack of any sort of guidelines (aside from an aversion to sunlight) or personality on the part of the villains makes the struggle unimpressive.

Overall Rating: 2 ½
Hottie Rating: 4 (Hartnett, of course)

Alternate Viewing: Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Official Site
IMDB Site
Horror Movie A Day review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Constantine (2005)

Director: Francis Lawrence
Format: Theater / DVD
DVD Features: trailers, added scenes, alternate ending, DVD-ROM
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Rachel Weisz, Tilda Swinton, Gavin Rossdale, Shia LaBeouf,

Let it be known from here on out, that I am an Atheist. I don’t believe in God or Heaven or Hell. No, I don’t believe in Satan either, because I imagine that he was invented by the same mythic text as the rest. But, for some reason, I am still fascinated by the personification of the Devil in pop culture. I love grand cathedrals and all of the affectations surrounding faith. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I love horror films, which are often fraught with Catholic symbolism. Many of the best horror films involve priests (The Exorcist, for one), churches or the Apocalypse. So, the trailer for Constantine practically grabbed ahold of me a dragged to the theater.

Although Constantine was based on a comic book (Hellblazer), the main character is more of an anti-hero. John Constantine (Keanu Reeves) drinks a lot, smokes even more and is particularly cynical about most everything. Albeit, not without reason. See, the man has literally been to Hell and back after a botched suicide attempt. He’s been graced, or cursed, with the power to see angels, demons, and what he calls “half-breeds” and he’s become a crusader of sorts. With the aid of his friends Hennessy (Pruitt Taylor Vince) and Beeman (Max Baker) and aprentice Chas Kramer (Shia LaBeouf) travel around the city performing exorcisms and combating evil spirits.

After her sister’s death, Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) seeks out Constantine in the hope of finding answers to what she doesn’t believe was a suicide. At first, John throws the badge carrying Angela out of his apartment. But, when he realizes that she’s being hunted by the supernatural, he rushes to help her. The two of them pick up a series of clues and soon figure out that the proverbial shit is about to hit the fan, in terms of the fate of the world.

The visuals in Constantine are amazing. Hell is a smoldering, disintegrating version of the living world, populated by sincerely grotesque monstrosities. It’s so beautifully constructed that it’s hard to keep from sweating, watching the heat waves engulf entire landscapes. In the human plain, costuming is impeccable and Gabriel’s wings are worthy of an angel. His outfit near the end of the film is terrifically inventive, and just try to top Satan in his white suit. The sets are grim and gritty, full of texture. Constantine’s apartment and Beeman’s hideout are both curiously fascinating haunts.

For years and years, I have avoided films that star Keanu Reeves. I have never considered him a good actor. When The Matrix came out, I started to give the actor more of a chance. Once, I read an article about Reeves, which made the point that he’s a good actor because he’s such an empty slate. Regardless, Keanu makes a wonderful Constantine. The only other actor I would have considered for the job might be John Cusack, but he’s a little too meek to measure up. Rachel Weisz is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses. However, she’s not particularly convincing as a police officer. Granted, the plot doesn’t focus much on her career, but there’s an edge she seems to be lacking. Chas, Hennessy, and Beeman are all terrific characters, richly designed and well played. Tilda Swinton is divine as the angel Gabriel, but her demon counterpart, Balthazar (Gavin Rossdale) was disappointing. One of the best characters is Midnite, played by Djimon Hounsou. If there were to be another movie with this set of characters, I would love to learn more about him.

I don’t have anything bad to say about Constantine. It’s exciting, visually appealing, well acted, and has a great storyline. My only wish is for more of the characters and their individual stories. Some movies have the ability to astound in the theater, but can’t hold up to repeat viewing at home. Although I eventually purchased the DVD release of Constantine, I have watched it over and over again without growing tired or disinterested. This one’s a sure bet.

Overall Rating: 5
Hottie Rating: 5 (for Reeves and LaBeouf, and for Weisz's wet shirt scene)

Alternate Viewing: Night Watch
Official Site
IMDB Site
Salon.com review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)

Director: Larry Charles
Format: Theater
Starring: Sasha Baron Cohen, Pamela Anderson, Ken Davitian
Theater

If you’re unfamiliar with Sacha Baron Cohen, he’s probably best known as the writer and star of Da Ali G Show. That show, I believe, is where the character of Borat originated. Cohen plays two other characters on the show, Ali G and Brüno and the basic gist of the program consists of Cohen posing as one his various characters in order to interview certain public figures. The whole prank designs to discredit or otherwise embarrass the person being interviewed. Think of Da Ali G Show as a cross between The Daily Show and Jackass. So, if you take the television show, eliminate two of the three characters and stretch the premise for 84 minutes, you’ve got Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan.

Borat Sagdiyev is a TV personality assigned by his government to travel to America and report back to Kazakhstan with information with which to better their country. He begins his documentary in his rural hometown, introducing his family. Then, he travels to the US with a camera crew and producer Azamat Bagatov (Ken Davitian) to try and capture some of the culture (and Pamela Anderson). Along the way, he emcees at a rodeo, gets drunk in an RV full of frat boys, attends a fancy dinner party in the South and gains custody of a bear and an ice cream truck. Oh yeah, and who could forget the all-nude wrestling match between Borat and Azamat that rages wildly through a hotel lobby?

The goofy sort of physical and low-brow comedy is not something I usually go for in a film. So, I wasn’t really interested in seeing Borat for a while. I had seen Da Ali G Show a couple of times and thought it was a bit novel and not half bad, but not amusing enough to entertain me for a feature length time span. But, sadly, I became a victim to hype. There was so much hype surrounding this movie when it was released that you couldn’t throw a rock and not hit something with Cohen’s face on it. I did get the point, of course, that the primary purpose for this movie was to illustrate how ignorant and intolerant people in this country often are. As one reviewer put it, “He gives America the rope, but they hang themselves.”

When Borat is interviewing someone and asking seemingly innocent questions, it’s clear that he is attempting to trick them into admitting something that illustrates whatever points Cohen is trying to make. And the victims consistently fall into his trap. It’s not that he’s bad at what he does, quite the contrary. But, it’s not my kind of humor at all. I am already painfully aware of the level of ignorance and bigotry apparent in several aspects American culture. Having the point hammered home is not really funny, but rather depressing and a bit frightening. When the credits rolled at the end of Borat, I was desperately wishing I could have my $5 back. I think I laughed twice during the entire movie; once when Borat introduces his sister and once when he falls out of the frat-boy RV. Neither of which was due to any clever coaxing by our Kazak reporter. Honestly, I’d rather run barefoot through a room full of thumb tacks than see this movie again.

Overall Rating: 1
Hottie Rating: 0

Alternate Viewing: Jackass (at least it has Johnny Knoxville)
Official Site
IMDB Site
Appreciating Great Trash review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Land of the Dead (2005)

Director: George A. Romero
Format: theater / DVD
DVD Features: featurettes, music video, deleted scenes, commentary
Starring: John Leguizamo, Simon Baker, Robert Joy, Dennis Hopper, Asia Argento
Trailer

Surprisingly, it’s been a while since I’ve reviewed a horror film or in fact, even watched one. So, it feels good to revisit the genre, especially since it’s one of my favorites. The reason that the venue above is listed as both theater and DVD, is that I originally visited the theater when the movie was released and then saw it more recently again on DVD. For a long time after my love affair with horror began, I continued to steer clear of zombies. I didn’t find them very exciting or frightening at all. But, two movies changed my opinion forever and now I have become a gung-ho zombie enthusiast. Those two movies were 28 Days Later and the original Night of the Living Dead. The latter was, in fact, directed by the famous George A. Romero as well and I know that this recent installment of his Dead series was much anticipated amongst his fans.

During the opening credits of Land of the Dead, snippets of news reports provide background for the current state of affairs. The living dead have taken over the majority of the land. Only one non-dead oasis remains, shielded by rivers, walls and troops. And in the middle of this motley city, full of the poor and destitute remainders of the living, stands a towering complex called Fiddler’s Green wherein the elite and well-to-do dine on fine foods and sip their single-malt scotch. A group of soldiers, headed by Riley (Simon Baker) and including Cholo (John Leguizamo), make forays outside of the city to scavenge food and supplies.

While Cholo is raiding the abandoned liquor stores for a means to profit, Riley and his sidekick Charlie (Robert Joy) notice some disturbing behavior (more so than normal) starting to show in the zombie population. As if droves of flesh-eating monsters aren’t dangerous enough, it seems that the undead are exhibiting signs of intelligence. They’re starting to communicate and organize. One zombie in particular, Big Daddy, seems to be the ringleader, showing the others how to use tools and operate machine guns. Once the mass of creatures realizes that they can cross the river, the refuge of the living is f*cked.

There’s more than one threat to the city, however. Cholo, who thought that doing favors for head honcho Kaufman (Dennis Hopper) would earn him entry into Fiddler’s Green, is very disappointed to discover that his kind isn’t welcome. In retribution, he has stolen the tank-mobile called Dead Reckoning and is threatening to blow up the tower unless he gets paid back with interest. And who does Kaufman send to go after Cholo and his expensive machine? That’s right, it’s Riley. Riley, Charlie, former prostitute Slack (Asia Argento) and an escort of Kaufman’s troops are sent out to intercept Cholo and Dead Reckoning before they blow everything to kingdom come.

It’s tempting to try and debate the ramifications of zombies forming a union. Do these new signs of intelligence indicate that there may be a path to recovery? Should zombies be given basic human rights? How can zombies evolve if they don’t reproduce? It’s times like this that I remind myself of one of my favorite phrases, “suspension of disbelief”. Sometimes it’s important to remember that scrutinizing details like these for realism, when the movie under scrutiny is about walking corpses, is kind of silly. It can be entertaining to ponder such things, but it’s not necessarily a point upon which enjoyment of the film should rest.

One of my favorite elements in any horror movie is gore. And gore seems particularly prevalent when those that each human flesh are involved. Land of the Dead has scene after lovely scene of beheading, blood gushing, and intestine chewing to enjoy. The effects crew did a fantastic job of making it all nauseatingly realistic as well. It’s almost too much to land MPAA approval and I’m mildly surprised that certain parts of this movie made it into the final cut. More shocking a revelation, however, is that Tom Savini, the Godfather of Gore, is not credited for any work on the film’s special effects, although he makes a brief cameo appearance. Two recent celebrities who also appear fleetingly in the background of Land of the Dead are Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright. It was admirable of Romero to recognize the two creators of the cult favorite Shawn of the Dead. Look for them as zombies at the photo booth.

Though Land of the Dead is entertaining and dripping with blood, I do have a couple of negatives to point out. One of them is the script. Robert Joy’s character, Charlie, is particularly irritating. That’s not because he’s slow and not because he follows Riley around like a lost puppy, but because he tirelessly repeats the same humorless catch phrases throughout the entire movie. None of the dialogue is particularly inspired and the actors seem to realize it. The best characters come from Hopper and Leguizamo. However, neither actor steps out of his boundaries or gives an unusually stellar performance. Sometimes filmmakers seem to forget that terrible acting is not necessarily a required element of horror, The Shining being a case in point.

While intelligent zombies are a new take for movies of the like, the plot in Land of the Dead is a little unfocused. The undead take a backseat, at times, to the storyline involving Cholo and Kaufman. It’s almost as if they’re just an inconvenient backdrop rather than a serious threat. Until, of course, they storm the city and wreak havoc on the citizens. The movements of Big Daddy and the rest of the undead are in and out of focus in relation to the conflicts elsewhere in the film.

I don’t mean to knock Romero and I don’t presume to tell the master of zombie films his business, even with those few drawbacks I’ve pointed out. The director remains the legendary figure he has been since 1968, his reputation intact. My overall impression of Land of the Dead was that it was a pretty decent horror movie. But, I don’t think it outshines Romero's previous filmography.

Overall Rating: 3 ½
Hottie Rating: 2 (for Argento)

Alternate viewing: 28 Days Later
Official site
IMDB site
Austin Chronicle review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Spiderman 3 (2007)

Director: Sam Raimi
Format: theater
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Topher Grace, James Franco

I’ll admit to having been a comic book geek once upon a time. I’ve still got a small collection, but I don’t spend $100 a week on them anymore. It’s an art form like any other; to be respected and appreciated. The history of movie adaptations from comics is spotty. The first two Batman movies were decent, as was the most recent Batman Begins (2005). A few of the early Superman movies were good and the X-Men movies to date have met with success. Contrast those with the painfully horrible Batman & Robin (1997) and Hulk (2003). The Catwoman movie, starring Halle Berry, is on my list of worst movies of all time. So, I think it takes just the right combination of elements to make a good comic hero movie. The first two films in Sam Raimi’s Spiderman series have been wildly popular and anticipation for the third was widespread. I even got goose bumps during the trailer. But, how long can our friendly neighborhood Spidey keep up the good work on screen?

In the third and latest installment of the Spiderman trifecta, a mysterious life form arrives on the planet in the shape of a black goo. Unbeknownst to Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire), the tar-like alien attaches itself to the Spidey suit. When Parker reaches for his costume, he discovers that it has turned from the usual red and black to a sinister black and silver. And when he dons the outfit, he learns that he’s got even more strength and power than before. Meanwhile, misunderstood convict Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) finds himself trapped in a research experiment that jumbles up his molecules with a pile of sand and turns him into The Sandman. Electing, of course, to use his new qualities for criminal gain, he terrorizes the city’s bank vaults. While fighting this new menace, Spiderman discovers that Marko is the man truly responsible for his Uncle Ben’s death.

Remember Harry Osborn (James Franco)? Well, he’s still a little sore at Spiderman for killing his father. So, he decides to take on the guise of The New Goblin and even the score. And, as if these two villains weren’t enough for our hero to battle, there’s another character with a bone to pick. But, this time it’s with Peter. Eddie Brock (Topher Grace) is contending with Parker for a photography job at The Daily Planet and almost convinces Jameson (J.K. Simmons) to replace him. When Parker points out that Brock’s snapshots of Spiderman are fraudulent, Brock loses the position and develops a grudge.

On top of all the new villains to contend with, Peter has internal issues to fight. The new, black Spidey suit not only makes Peter stronger, it also amplifies his darker urges. He lands his relationship with Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) on the rocks by planting a kiss on the police captain’s daughter, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard). But, then he upsets Gwen when he uses her to make MJ jealous. He gets up in Brock’s face in an uncharacteristic show of aggression at the newspaper and demands freshly baked cookies from his neighbor Ursula (Mageine Tovah). Before long, Parker realizes that he’s out of control and manages to detach the alien goo from his suit. When the creature finds a new host in Brock, Brock is transformed into Venom, one of Spiderman’s deadliest foes yet.

Since I seem to be in the mood for confessions, I might as well admit that I’ve been carrying a little torch for Topher Grace since the first episode of That 70’s Show. So, it was great to see him outside of the basement and in a feature film. Add to that the wicked nature and devilish fangs and we have a grin of approval for his performance as Eddie Brock/Venom. Maguire and Dunst are just as fantastic as they were in the first film. In fact, I cannot call to mind any actor in Spiderman 3 who didn’t do a great job. I was impressed by Church’s portrayal of Flint/Sandman. He was able to give the villain a softer side without making it terribly sappy or comical. Even though he’s the killer Spiderman thought he’d already punished, it’s difficult not to be sympathetic towards him. As expected, Raimi’s good friend Bruce Campbell makes it onto the cast and keep your eyes open for comic book legend Stan Lee to make a cameo appearance.

My main criticism of Spiderman 3 is that there are too many new characters squeezed into the plot at once. Like a Cirque du Soleil show, there’s so much going on at the same time, that it’s hard to fully enjoy everything. There’s Flint, Sandman, Gwen, Brock, and the ooze as both Venom and the black suit and they all have separate issues. I did enjoy the brief reuniting of Parker and Osborn, after Harry temporarily loses his memory. But, when he comes back as New Goblin (I thought it was Hob Goblin in the comics? Anyone?), it’s almost a waste of energy.

Although the third movie didn’t have the impact of the first two, it was still great fun to watch. Seeing Parker act out his less honorable intentions made me smile. It reminded me of the scene in one of the old Superman movies, when Superman gets his powers back and goes to return a beat-down to a trucker at a bar. I think that, as average individuals, it’s refreshing to see our heroes express some negativity from time to time. It makes the character seem more human, and thus, easier to identify with. Nobody likes a goody-two-shoes, do they?

Spiderman 3 has just as much web-slinging action as the first two, but maybe just a little too much action all at once. While the concept has been around for a while, the Raimi’s (Sam & Ivan wrote the screenplay) have done a great job in keeping the series from going wrong. So many other trilogies have gone horribly stale by their third go-round and I was relieved to see that Spidey still has most of the old magic.

Overall Rating: 3 ½
Hottie Rating: 4 (Grace is a cutie and no one has looked as good as Maguire in the Spidey suit)

Alternate viewing: Unbreakable
Official site
IMDB site
ReelViews review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Marie Antoinette (2006)

Director: Sophia Coppola
Format: theater
Starring: Kirsten Dunst, Jason Schwartzman, Asia Argento,

I first became aware of Sophia Coppola as the director of The Virgin Suicides. Shortly before the movie was released in 1999, I had finished the novel of the same name by Jeffrey Eugenides. I was very pleased with Sophia’s remarkable adaptation of the book. When Lost in Translation came out in 2003, I was starting to get the idea that the young Coppola might be a good director to keep an eye on. So, finally, Marie Antoinette appeared in theaters and some friends and I made it a point to go. It looked refreshing, offbeat, and it had the Sophia Coppola stamp (she wrote and produced this film as well). Kirsten Dunst was another draw for me and I was looking forward to the modern soundtrack.

As you may have guessed from the title, this movie is about the life of the infamous Queen of France in the 18th Century. It covers the period from her marriage to Louis XVI at the age of 14 until The Fall of Versailles in 1789. In the beginning of the film, Marie (Kirsten Dunst), in the process of her transition from Austrian archduchess to French royalty, is stripped of her possessions, her clothing and even her dog, as a symbol of her new loyalty to France. That event marks the beginning of her discontent. She is married off to the young Louis (Jason Schwartzman) who shows no signs at all of wishing to consummate their union and therefore denying Marie’s hopes of validating her position by bearing a royal son. She is despised by the king’s consort, Cometesse du Barry (Asia Argento), scolded by her mother, and embarrassed daily by being forced to dress in front of an audience. The only things that seem to lift her from depression are gambling, partying and shopping, the three of which she does with fabulous indulgence.

Kirsten Dunst seems to be a favorite of Sophia Coppola’s. She played the lead character in The Virgin Suicides as well, and did an excellent job. However, in Marie Antoinette, she failed to entice any strong feelings from me. I couldn’t bring myself to feel sorry for the moping teenage queen, especially because she didn’t seem to be trying to do much for her situation. Likewise, I was disappointed by Jason Schwartzman’s performance. He usually brings so much personality to a character. Seeing him as Louis XVI was, well, boring in comparison to his previous roles in movies like I Heart Huckabees and Rushmore.

Part of what makes Marie Antoinette different from other films that focus on this particular time period, is that it has a modern soundtrack. Amidst montages of fancy shoes and elaborate cakes you’ll hear music from bands like Aphex Twin, Air, Siouxsie and the Banshees, The Cure, and The Strokes. Sophia is not the first director to use this technique, of course. Brian Helgeland did something similar with A Knight’s Tale in 2001. The wardrobes in Marie Antoinette were amazing enough to earn an Oscar for Best Achievement in Costume Design at the 2007 awards. The set designs are likewise lavish and impressive. The colors used in the film are interesting. Most of the palette is a dusty pink or beige.

Marie Antoinette is not a terrible film and is even fun in moments. However, I found it terribly lukewarm and mediocre overall. I didn’t care much for the characters and didn’t feel sympathy where sympathy was clearly solicited. Sure, it was offbeat and different, but it really takes more to entertain me than excessive spending. In comparison to Sophia Coppolla’s previous films, this one was a real disappointment.

Overall Rating: 2 ½
Hottie Rating: 3 (Dunst is pretty and her soldier is a hottie too)

Alternate Viewing: The Virgin Suicides
Official Site
IMDB Site
Appreciating Great Trash review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

Director: David Yates
Format: Theater
Starring: Ralph Fiennes, Imelda Staunton, Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson
Trailer

I have to admit it; I was late jumping on the Harry Potter bandwagon. I only just began reading the novels in June, but I’m halfway through The Prisoner of Azkaban already. I’m addicted. I even bought a bag of Bertie Bott’s Every-flavor beans. So far, my only disappointment is that the film adaptations to that point are so close to the novels. So, having seen a majority of the Potter movies, there haven’t been any surprises in the books. That’s quite a turn from my usual book-to-movie experience. Having not caught up to the most recent movie: Order of the Phoenix, I don’t know if the adaptation of that particular novel is up to par. However, I have heard rumor that the thicker the books get, the looser the adaptations.

Once again, Harry’s mortal enemy, Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), seems to be on the rise to power. Cornelius Fudge and The Ministry of Magic are in a state of paranoid denial and launch a smear campaign in The Daily Prophet aimed at Harry and Hogwarts. The only people who seem to realize the truth about the Dark Lord’s return are a group of faithful witches and wizards called The Order of the Phoenix. Fearing that The Order is creating rumors in order to overthrow the Ministry, Fudge removes Dumbledore and Hagrid from the school and appoints the new teacher for Defense Against the Dark Arts, Dolores Umbridge (Imelda Staunton) as headmaster. Her enthusiastic attitude and cheerful tone of voice do little to veil the sinister creature beneath. Umbridge is obviously a fan of the “old school” methods of punishment. The students at Hogwarts are trying to do their best to cope with the stringent new rules, while Harry struggles with his own inner demons (and pubescent angst).

Daniel Radcliffe has played the character of Harry Potter throughout the entire series. In fact, one aspect I love about the films is that all of the original actors have stuck with their roles. But, contrary to some other reviews I’ve read, I don’t think that Radcliffe has developed much as an actor. Sure, he’s obviously grown quite a bit at a physical level, but Radcliffe seems to have relied on the same five facial expressions all along. I was a little more forgiving when he was still a kid. On the contrary, Rupert Grint, who plays Ron Weasley and Emma Watson, who plays Hermione Granger have both grown nicely into their characters. Grint plays Ron exactly as I would have imagined him from the novels and he and Watson have only gotten more convincing.

The obviously more seasoned actors are a bit more consistent with their performances. My favorite characters in the series have always been Professor Snape (Alan Rickman) and Sirius Black (Gary Oldman). I love the way Rickman portrays the villain who is always really on the good side. He conveys his distain for Potter and his crew with just the perfect roll of the eyes and heavy sarcasm. I have to whine a bit that Black’s character isn’t around much in Order. There’s a new character in this movie; Luna Lovegood (Evanna Lynch) and I was hoping that she would be a new love interest for Harry. I love the innocently creepy addition to the cast. However, Harry sticks with Cho Chang (Katie Leung). I hope to see Luna developed more in the next stage of the story. Nymphadora Tonks (Natalia Tena) is in the movie briefly as well. But, there are so many characters in The Order of the Phoenix, that many of the seemingly more interesting ones are only barely touched upon. I would have liked to have seen more character development with Helena Bonham Carter’s character, Bellatrix Lestrange.

Of course, The Order is filled with dazzling special effects, from ghostly dementors to a fierce lightning battle. But, this installment is a bit darker and more sinister than the others. It’s unsettling to see Hogwarts such a gloomy place. Most of the scenes are heavy with dark blue, black and steely hues that add a cold unpleasantness to the entire film. Of course, that must have been the idea. Despite the title of the film, the storyline doesn't do much more than touch on what the Order is about and how it was founded.

If you haven’t seen the other Potter movies, or read the books, you will be completely lost with Order. So, I definitely do not recommend this movie for anyone who isn’t already invested in the series. But for those of us who’ve been following the story, Order of the Phoenix is a very dark and menacing installment comparatively. It also seems as if it’s straining to fit too much into too short a timeline. I’d only recommend it as a reference to the next movie. I think most Potter fans will see it anyway, but it’s not one of my favorite Potter films.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 2 (is it okay to think Potter's hot now?)

Alternate viewing: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
Official site
IMDB site
FilmJerk review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

1408 (2007)

Director: Mikael Håfström
Format: Theater
Starring: John Cusack, Samuel Jackson, Jasmine Jessica Anthony, Mary McCormack
Trailer

I do not, in general, seek out movies based on Stephen King novels. In fact, I usually avoid them. The only exception to that has been The Shining. However, it is rumored that the author of the book did not agree with Kubrick’s adaptation. I stopped being able to stomach King’s writing after my freshman year in high school. Until that point, I’d read many of his earlier novels and my favorite was the collection of shorts entitled, “Skeleton Crew”. Aside from the afore mentioned film, most movies based on King’s books are terribly scripted and painful to watch. I cannot claim to have read 1408 and therefore cannot vouch for the movie’s accuracy.

The trailer for 1408 is a bit misleading. It explains that Mike Enslin (John Cusack), after having suffered the loss of his young daughter, becomes obsessed with the paranormal and seeks out his child’s ghost. While that idea can certainly be interpreted from the film, it’s not the main plot point or even openly stated. Mr. Enslin is a writer (surprised?) who is sarcastic, cynical, borderline alcoholic, and does not believe in ghosts or the afterlife. He travels the country, checking into purportedly haunted places of lodging and publishing his reviews in guides like, “Top 10 Spooky Graveyards” or “10 Haunted Lighthouses” (I made those titles up). Judging from his small array of ghost hunting gadgets though, he does appear to be seeking proof to challenge his skepticism. When he receives a mysterious postcard warning him to stay away from room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel, naturally, that’s the first place he goes. After a wordy argument with the hotel’s manager, Gerald Olin (Samuel Jackson), Enslin steps up to the challenge and enters room 1408. This time, he’s not disappointed.

John Cusack has proven himself, to me at least, to be a very solid actor. I am pleased that he didn’t sink in the mire of his 1980’s chick-flick past as so many stars of the time did. It’s a good thing too, because 1408 is primarily a one man show, with most of the film taking place while Enslin is alone in the hotel room. (I use the word “alone” very loosely in this instance.) He is terrific at playing the cynical type, as in High Fidelity, which makes him a great skeptic ghost hunter. Samuel Jackson is also known to give a solid performance. Although his character has a very minor role in the story, it is chock full of the type of dialog delivery the actor became known for in Pulp Fiction. The rest of the actors appear only briefly here and there. As usual, the child annoyed me to death.

1408 gave me some serious acid flashbacks. Seriously. Some of the special effects were a bit hokey. Specifically, Olin’s appearance in the refrigerator. However, I can honestly say that at least the first portion of the film had me drawing my feet up onto the seat. (Ever get that feeling that something’s just about to grab your ankles?) There are a few glaring continuity errors. The most obvious is the fact that, despite being told that electronics do not function in room 1408, Enlin is able to operate his cell phone, his laptop, the radio and light switches. It might have been interesting to delve more closely into the individual ghosts haunting the room, but the movie focuses most directly on Enlin’s inner psyche and past. His daughter’s death from an undisclosed illness and his subsequent separation from his wife plague him as the main terrors of room 1408. There are some hints during the film of what the ending will look like, but just when you might think it’s over – it’s not.

So, it appears that 1408 has entered the elite ranks of the two Stephen King movies I can stand. A surprising thumbs up. It is a commonly known bit of trivia that the author appears in every one of his films (except The Shining), just like Hitchcock and, now, Shyamalan. I didn’t notice him myself, but maybe you can spot him.

Overall Rating: 4
Hottie Rating: 1 (eh, Cusack's not bad)

Alternate viewing: Night Watch (Russia)
Official Site
IMDB Page
Wild Bluff Media review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

Turistas (2006)

Director: John Stockwell
Format: theater
Starring: Melissa George, Olivia Wilde, Miguel Lunardi

If my readers haven't noticed by now, my favorite genre of film is horror. Whether it be zombies, vampires, or masked stalkers, I'm game. No matter if the terror comes from the shores of Japan, Russia or Hollywood, I will give it a chance. That’s why, whenever an interesting new horror film hits the theaters, I’m itching to go. But, sometimes it’s not always worth the price of admission. Turistas promised to be a gorey adventure along the lines of Hostel. I didn’t like Hostel, but that’s beside the point.

Alex, his sister Bea and their friend Amy are on the typical mid-twenties backpacking excursion, trekking with their gear through the Brazilian landscape. When the rickety bus they are riding in breaks down, they are told that it’s going to be a long wait until the next vehicle arrives. But, their spirits are lifted when they discover a cozy beach getaway with locals, music and a bar. They proceed to party on the beach until the early hours, when they all pass out. Upon waking, they realize they’ve been drugged. Looking around, they also realize that they’ve been robbed of all their possessions. The trio team up with fellow tourists Pru, Finn and Liam and find a local boy to be their guide. He offers to take them to his village and his Uncle’s cabin. After the long and risky journey the destination they thought was safety turns out to be far worse than waiting for the next bus.

My hands-down favorite character in Turistas was Pru, played by Melissa George. She’s everything I’d love to be: attractive, smart and well-traveled. Pru could appear to some as a snotty know-it-all, but I don’t think the crew would have gotten far without her. There are enough main characters that, I presume, the general public could find one to identify with. However, all of the acting is what you might expect from a mid-grade horror film. It wasn’t atrocious, granted, but I wouldn’t rush out specifically to see anyone in the cast. The rest of the gang is the usual jock/cheerleader crowd, with the exception of Alex’s sister Bea (Olivia Wilde). She’s the token booksmart girl. Not Goths or freaks are among the heroes (or victims) in this movie.

So, was I frightened by Turistas? Did the evil Doctor Zamora (Miguel Lunardi) make me tremble in my seat? Am I less likely to go on a Brazilian excursion? The answer to all three questions is a resounding “no”. The only element to Turistas that made me a bit uneasy is when the group has to swim through a series of underground caves. Lack of air makes be nervous and I sympathized with the characters in that instance, much like the tight-walled cave scene in The Descent. But, I never felt that moment when I needed to hide behind my popcorn. The small amount of gore involved didn’t make me flinch in the slightest. No nightmares, no turning on the lights when I got home. And since that’s what I look for in a good horror movie, Turistas scored low on all accounts. Save your price of admission on this one, and call your travel agent for a true adventure.

Overall Rating: 1
Hottie Rating: 3 (lots of chicks/dudes in swimwear)

Alternate viewing: The Descent
Official site (at MySpace)
IMDB site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***

The Messengers (2007)

Directors: Oxide Pang Chun & Danny Pang
Venue: Theater
Starring: Dylan McDermott, Kristen Stewart, Penelope Ann Miller
Trailer

On a whim, I decided to treat myself to a movie after work. Having missed so many horror films in the theater lately, I was craving big screen scare. So, I went online and looked up the closest starting time at the nearest cinema. I remembered that the trailer for The Messengers had given me chills and I decided that it would be my choice for the evening. Ten minutes and five dollars later, I was seated in a virtually empty theater and hoping for the best.

After a hard time in the big city, Roy (Dylan McDermott) decides to invest in some property and pack his family off to farm country. Little does he suspect, their new home has a sorted past. As Roy prepares to try his hand at growing sunflowers, his wife Denise (Penelope Ann Miller) unpacks, his daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) mopes about and his son Ben gets acquainted with the house’s “late” residents. Although Jess has an inkling that there’s something different about the house, she doesn’t really begin to worry until she is witness to a terrifying display of paranormal activity. Naturally, her parents aren’t around when the furniture starts to fly about and they accuse her of acting out in rebellion against the move. Typical horror film parents. Jess realizes though, that her speechless brother can see the ghosts too. Scenes of her carrying the toddler around, seeking out apparitions were what initially spooked me about the trailer.

Unfortunately, that aspect of the feature itself wasn’t as prominent as I’d anticipated. That wasn’t the only disappointment either. The interaction between the characters in The Messengers seemed a bit disjointed. Judging from the way her parents are acting, one would imagine that Jess is throwing a fit about the family’s relocation. In actuality, she seems to be adjusting quite well and isn’t snotty or misbehaved at all. In the beginning, Roy seems to be very considerate of his daughter’s wellbeing. But, midway through the story, she starts to seek the farmhand, Burwell (John Corbett), for understanding. The mother isn’t much of a person either. It seems that she’s gone so far into the country only to facilitate her husband’s desires and doesn’t offer much of her own input on any subject. Oddly, there is never any mention of what Jess’ school situation might be either. She does meet a nice boy in town, but his character only seems to have been written into the script for the sake of convenience. He doesn’t really have much of a personality. Basically, the entire cast of characters is very lukewarm.

Here’s a question: Why do the ghosts in the house seem so hell bent on harming the girl, but not her younger sibling? The “fright factor” in The Messengers is as tepid as the cast. Granted, being the horror movie veteran that I am, it takes quite a bit to make me jump. Each of the moments designed to make the audience leap up in their seats is very formulaic. If you’ve been around the block a few times, they’re easy to see coming. What I crave these days is a pervasive creepiness and rising goose bumps. I didn’t find that the haunted farmhouse offered much in the way of spooky atmosphere.

The special effects in The Messengers are mediocre as well. Compared to The Grudge, the ghosts here are essentially of the same variety, but somewhat less terrifying. The basic plot and storyline have already been used in a score of previous movies and the “twist” at the end, despite the fact that I didn’t see it coming, wasn’t a surprise at all.

One of the little things I did enjoy about the movie was the presence of crows. I have a “thing” for the large, black creatures and can appreciate the element they bring to a scene in almost any setting. They’re significance in this movie is a little obscure aside from just being a nuisance to the farmer. The toddler (played by Evan and Theodore Turner) didn’t get on my nerves even slightly, as most child actors do. Maybe it was because he only has one line in the film.

At the risk of being redundant at this point, I’ll go ahead and officially state that this movie was a disappointment. Even the title leaves me wondering what the producers were thinking. The “messengers” aren’t really trying too hard to send any kind of “message” other than to scare the crap out of Jess. Granted, this wasn’t as awfully rank as some of the other movies currently out (just wait for my review of Primevil), but it fell far short of my expectations. The verdict: avoid spending money on a ticket to this one and rent it only if you can find a discount.

Overall Rating: 2
Hottie Rating: 0

Alternate viewing: The Sixth Sense
Official site
IMDB site
Rotten Tomatoes review

***Note: If you found this review via IMDB, please let us know by leaving a comment. Thanks!***