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.

Iron Man (2008)

Directed by: Jon Favreau
Format: On Demand
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Terrence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow
Trailer

Good prospects seem to hit the movie theaters in waves. For a while, the sea of offerings lap dully at the shore of mediocraty. Then, a string of features with enticing trailers swells up and drenches the box offices. Again, the wave dies down and it's back to chick flicks and Will Ferrell comedies. Trouble is, I'm a poor surfer. I either get so wrapped up in the rest of life that I forget to make it to a show or I end up waiting on the same jerk who keeps promising to take me to the theater and never follows through. When I have money, there's nothing playing and when I'm broke the latest Scorsese or Wes Anderson flick comes out. Murphy's Law of movie going? Perhaps. Consider also the fact that I can hardly stand to spend my evening rushing to make a screen time only to be viciously wallet-raped at the ticket counter and then have the best parts ruined by some inconsiderate anus with a cell phone. Sigh. The fact that I missed watching Robert Downey Jr. zip around the big screen in a material representation of a Black Sabbath song is entirely due to the aforementioned jerk and my reluctance to give up on him. When will I learn?

Tony Stark is a millionaire playboy of the Bruce Wayne variety. He also happens to be an engineering genius. The corporation he inherited, Stark Industries, profits by conceptualizing and manufacturing arms. In an interview with a Vouge Magazine reporter (Sure, like Vouge is any kind of reputable news source.), he makes clear his apathetic and cynical views on heading a company that enables soldiers to blow each other up. In Filmland, a comment like that is sure to land you in Just Dessertsville, and so it does.

Stark is headed back from a demonstration of his newest missile, when his Hummer is attacked and its accompanying troops slaughtered. When he regains consiousness, he finds himself in the clutches of Raza (Faran Tahir), leader of some type of desert-dwelling tribesmen bent on destruction (shall we assume Al Quaeda here?). Guess who's weapons the bad guys are armed with? Guess what Raza wants Tony to make? And so, with the aid of fellow captive Yinsen (Shaun Toub), he builds a robotic suit of armor instead. Thus, Iron Man is born. Upon returning to civilization, Tony Stark announces that he's had a change of heart. He says his company will no longer be producing weapons, which of course, sends his business partner, Obadiah Stane (Bridges) into cardiac arrest.

While I've long been aware of the Iron Man comic's existence, I can't claim the ability to judge how the movie adaptation measures up. So, someone more qualified than I will have to chime in (hint, hint). What I can say is that the movie is chock-full of eye candy. Whether it's Downey's bulging (dare I say..."throbbing"?) deltoids (..yummy..) or wicked-bad CGI, Iron Man doesn't disappoint on the asthetic front. The effects are truly top-notch and if the film has no further redeeming qualities, it's almost worth it for this aspect alone.

The acting is pretty solid all around. I've got a serious crush on Robert Downey Jr. (gee, could you tell?) for some mysterious reason. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be afraid to admit if he'd done a lousy job. I think he was a great choice for Iron Man; he's fun to watch. What really impressed me was that the techies who drew up the costume CGI managed to capture the character's body language. Jeff Bridges, however, always makes me suspicious. I'm not sure if that speaks to his acting skills, or typecasting. In this case, my suspicions were justified. I could have sworn that Terrence Howard was the guy from Scrubs (turns out that's Donald Faison), but the guy is a lousy best friend. When Tony calls up his buddy Turk Dr. Christopher Turk (oh, now I see why I was confused) to show him the new toy he's working on, Howard's character just tells him that he needs to rest and think about producing more weapons of mass destruction. Some pal. The film's answer to Bond's Money Penny is Ms. Pepper Potts. Paltrow, as the sultry secretary/love interest, slinks around the screen in a wardrobe that Carrie Bradshaw would be envious of. She doesn't honestly do much, except bitch when Stark gets all ethical on her. But, she sure looks good doing it. It's not Gwyn's fault really; her character was written as an ornament. The only horrible acting was Shaun Toub (the bad guy) who was nearly as terrible as Dominic Purcell in Blade Trinity (or anything else for that matter).

Iron Man was marginally better than I had expected it to be. I've almost had enough of the comic-to-movie genre. But, Downey's performance was great as a jerk turned hero genius scientist and the CGI was eye-popping. I was pleased to see no time wasted on obligitory love scenes or weak comeback lines. The movie isn't, by far, any Oscar winning goldmine here, but it is a solid, entertaining piece of cinema. Go ahead and rent this baby and have yourself a good time. In many ways, Iron Man is what Hancock should have been.

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

Alternate Recommendation: The Maxx
Official Site
IMDB Page
353 Haiku review

Shutter (2008)

Directed by: Masayuki Ochiai
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailers, director feature, spirit photography featurettes, deleted scenes
Starring: Joshua Jackson, Rachael Taylor, Megumi Okina, John Hensley, Maya Hazen
Trailer

I thought the trend of Asian horror movie remakes was at an end. It apparently hasn't quite died yet. This time, instead of taking from the stock of Japanese films, the original Shutter was from Thailand. Nonetheless, the American version was shot in Japan by a Japanese director. According to his interview in the special features section of the disc, Ochiai attempted to stay as true to the original as possible. While I feel that to be an admirable trait, I remember being disappointed when I saw Ringu because it was so similar to the American version. When will American audiences learn to enjoy foreign cinema without having it tailor-made for us?

In Shutter (the English version), Benjamin and Jane have just gotten married. The happy couple plans to spend their honeymoon in Japan, where Ben has a photography shoot. He'll be working with his two pals Bruno and Adam who've set the couple up with a nice apartment and studio in an abandoned building. As the couple is driving in from the airport, Jane accidentally crashes into a girl standing in the road. When they regain consciousness, there's no body and the police find no evidence of an injured girl. Riddled with guilt, Jane begins to see the girl in window reflections. But Ben tells her she's imagining things and with the stress he's experiencing at the job, it's not a good time to bring this up. Apparently, the expensive photo shoot didn't go well. All of Ben's pictures developed with strange defects, just like their honeymoon roll. While Jane is flipping through her amateur shots, she notices the girl from the road is in all of them. Who is this woman, what does she want and what doesn't Jane know about her husband's past in Japan?

The main premise of Shutter relies heavily on the concept of spirit photography. A big deal in Japan, it hasn't quite hit Western shores (I always wondered where the idea for the game Fatal Frame came from). There are magazines filled with pictures of ghosts in Japan and it seems that Ben and Jane have managed quite a collection of their own. I think spirit photography is a fascinating idea and an interesting one to base a film around. But Shutter suffers from many of the same similarities as most of its predecessors. There is always the culture shock of American transplants to Japan and it always seems to be the girlfriends who are suffering. While Jane does a little bit better tackling the subway system than most, she's still feeling a bit lost and isolated. Just once, I'd like to see an American woman who's having a good time in that country.

Shutter also has the same brand of fear as most of the other films. There isn't really a gore factor and all of the terror comes in slow, suspenseful waves. I appreciate the fact that the filmmakers aren't constantly trying to make the audience jump at inane little things. However, I'm getting really tired of spooky long-haired chicks. In The Grudge it was scary. In The Ring it was a puzzle. In Shutter, it's just old news. This film does have the benefit of an interesting plot and a few unexpected twists, which makes it more enjoyable than it otherwise could have been and that's what saves it from just another Japanese remake.

All of the actors here are acceptable in their roles. None are really fantastic or will leave a lasting impression. Joshua Jackson makes a great loving husband who falls gradually from grace, but I didn't buy his fear. Seeing a character in a horror film truly convey their fright makes me feel afraid all the more. Jackson didn't do that for me. Jane (Taylor) never seems more than curious and frustrated. The Japanese actress, Megumi (who plays the ghost Megumi) doesn't have to do much more than move slowly. Bruno (David Denman) and Adam (Hensley) are really just sort of older jocks who've acclimated to live overseas. No depth there, I'm afraid.

I can't really confess any strong feelings either way on this movie. I did expect it to be terrible and it wasn't. It's just different enough of a movie to be interesting, but just similar enough to others to be boring. I don't regret the rental and the DVD's special features are good (just don't watch them before you see the movie). But, when you've seen one American remake of an Asian horror film, you've sadly seen them all.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 2

Alternate Recommendation: go see something in its original language
Official Site
IMDB Page
A.V. Club review

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

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!***

Introducing...The Gummi Awards!!

I am proud to announce the inception of the very first Gummi Awards!! It seems that every movie reviewer or film website eventually devises their own version of the more famous awards programs, Gummi Popcorn being no exception. After all, we wouldn't be reviewers if we didn't like to offer our opinions (or force them on people)! However, I've tried to steer clear of the usual "Best Actor" and "Best Picture" categories and inject my special brand of weirdness into the mix. Yes, you've seen awards for things like "Best Kiss", but what about "Best Breakdance Routine" (that's not really a category, btw)?

Another aspect of the very special Gummi Awards that sets it apart, is timing. You'll notice that it isn't part of the pre-Academy hype. In fact, I'm not sure if I'll do this annually or just whenever the Hell I feel like it. This year, the Awards are roughly around the time of SXSW in Austin, TX. Having lived in that fantastic city for a while, the festival holds a special place in my heart. So, that could be one reason I chose this change of seasons to celebrate.

What's really going to cook your noodle though, is the way in which the winners will be decided! Instead of Gummi Popcorn presenting the nominations and our readers' votes deciding the winners, it's going to be a switcheroo! Are you psyched yet? Okay, here's how it all breaks down:

Within the next few days, all of the award categories will be posted here at Gummi Popcorn, along with their criterion. Your job, as the reader, is to nominate the movies, characters and scenes you think best fit the bill. You can nominate as many movies as you like, in as many categories as you like. As the nominations come in, I will post them under their category and watch them if I haven't seen them already. After I've had time to review all of the nominations, I'll make my descision and award the winner.

But, wait! There's a twist ~ Prizes!! And it's not Hollywood that wins this time, it's you! Once I've decided on a winner for each category, the person who first nominated that film, character or scene will receive a Gummi Popcorn bag full of Prizes!! What are the prizes you ask? Well, the Popcorn bag will include a very random assortment of items. You can expect to find things like Gummi Popcorn merch, something gummi, some type of microwave popcorn, and whatever else I find lying around HQ.

But, wait!! There's another twist!! The Popcorn bags come in two sizes: medium and large (we don't do small). The large bags bags will include a DVD or a theater gift certificate! How will I decide who gets a free movie? Well, most categories were invented specifially because I had a certain movie in mind. Of course, I'm not going to give away which films or which categories they are. The point is...if your nomination meets or beats my original idea, you get the bonus bag!!

Sounds good, right? Are you on board?? Wait...what's that?? "How do I submit my nomination," you ask? Well, I mentioned earlier that each award category will have its own post here at Gummi Popcorn. When you see a category that you'd like to submit a nomination for, simply post a comment at the bottom! It's that simple! You've got to include your name and email as well as a description of the scene and/or name of the movie/actor you wish to suggest as the winner. All comments left at Gummi Popcorn are sent to me via email for approval before they are posted on the site. I will simply record your nomination and info on a piece of paper here at HQ, and decline to post the comment. See how easy it all is! Your name and information will not be viewable by the public until winners are selected, at which point only your first name (or nickname) will be mentioned.

Gummi Popcorn will not, under any circumstances, sell, share or distribute any of your information at any point. Ever. Not even if they back a truckload of cash up to my house. So, the only thing I'll be using your info for is to notify you that you've won and find out where to send your Popcorn bag!!

Stay tuned for the Gummi Awards categories!