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!***

Collateral (2004)

Director: Michael Mann
Format: DVD
DVD Features: making of, deleted scenes, featurettes, trailers
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Tom Cruise, Mark Ruffalo
Trailer

I’d seen the trailer for Collateral go by on the disks of a few of my other films before. One night, I apparently had enough and buckled under the pressure of Hollywood advertising. So, this week, I found it in my mailbox from Netflix. Since I usually make my selections when I’m a bit inebriated, it’s always an adventure to see what the postman will bring. It’s not the kind of movie I would usually rent. I’m frequently viewing action films, it’s true, but not usually with the cast that Collateral has to offer. So, with some trepidation, I popped this disc into my player.

Jamie Foxx plays Max, a cab driver in L.A. with big plans for the future, plans that he’s been procrastinating on for 12 years. One night, he picks up grey haired, sharp suited Vincent (Tom Cruise), who offers him several hundred dollars to break regulations and chauffer him around for the rest of the night. Max gets his first inkling that it won’t be a quiet evening when Vincent’s latest victim drops out of a window and slams into the cab’s windshield. But, the dead man who finds his way into the trunk of Max’s cab wasn’t just another lowlife. He happens to be the target of an undercover investigation. When Detective Fanning (Mark Ruffalo) discovers that his lead has disappeared in a shower of blood and broken glass, he starts to suspect that there’s something bigger going on. And, when the hospital mortician shows him the collection of recent corpses, Fanning connects the string of murders to an FBI investigation.

I’ve never been particularly fond of Jamie Foxx. I’d had the impression that the actor had quite a high opinion of himself, an opinion that hasn’t been earned. However, his portrayal of Max in this film has changed my views. Max is by no means a big and powerful man. Neither is he a fast action hero or a clever spy. Max is a very nervous, slightly obsessive compulsive, humble fellow who’s frankly just terrified of the whole situation. And Foxx does a very convincing job in the role. On the other side of the coin is costar Cruise. I remember a time when I actually liked the guy – the movies Legend and Top Gun spring to mind. But it seems that no matter what character he’s played since, he’s always Tom Cruise. He’s arrogant, egotistical, and rough with the ladies. The man seems to have his nose so far up in the air these days and I almost never make it a point to see his films. Granted, he was good in Collateral. He was still Tom Cruise though and he’s good at being Tom Cruise. I’m surprised there weren’t any love scenes.

Some of the cinematography is a bit strange. Most of the movie is shot with run of the mill film. Every now and then, though, the movie footage becomes gritty and unpolished like a home video tape. While I’ve often seen this technique used with a positive impact, I didn’t think it was well used in Collateral. There didn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason to its placement or particular plot point that it accentuated. Although there aren’t any CGI or amazing stunts in the movie, it’s not necessary.

I was pleasantly surprised by Collateral. The plot was clever and some of the dialogue brings forth some very true points about society. Likewise, the performances were unexpectedly superb. Although the movie is not chock full of gore and explosions, the point comes across without the need for flashy antics. It’s a little more thoughtful than the average action flick, but manages to maintain the fun aspects of the genre. I think it’d be a candidate for a successful girlfriend/boyfriend movie night compromise.

Overall Rating: 4
Hottie Rating: 0 (Cruise is not hot)

Alternate Viewing: The Borne Supremacy (or The Borne Identity)
Official Site
IMDB Site
Entertainmentopia 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!***

Domino (2005)

Director: Tony Scott
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailer, commentary, deleted scenes, featurette
Starring: Kiera Knightly, Mickey Rourke, Christoper Walken, Edgar Ramirez
Trailer

One of the taglines for this movie is, “Based on a true story. Sort of.” The real Domino Harvey was the daughter of actor Laurence Harvey and model Paulene Stone. She ran a nightclub in London, was a volunteer firefighter, was arrested on drug-related charges and died while Tony Scott’s film was being made. If you watch Domino clear through to the credits, you will catch a glimpse of the real woman. You might also spy her cameo in the movie Constantine. But if you notice the real Domino Harvey in either of those instances, you might notice something else….She doesn’t look a thing like Keira Knightley.

Domino the movie focuses mainly on Harvey’s career as a bounty hunter. We are introduced to her life story via her interrogation by FBI agent Taryn Miles (Lucy Liu), who is questioning her about her latest caper. Always the rebellious, weapon wielding misfit, Domino never felt suited to her life growing up in her Hollywood high-society surroundings. After college, she briefly took on the runway as a fashion model, but didn’t take to that any more fondly. Then came the day she discovered a course on bounty hunting and signed up to learn a thing or two from Ed Mosbey (Mickey Rourke). After convincing him that “bail recovery” was her true calling, she teamed up with Mosbey and his fellow agent Choco (Edgar Ramirez). Before long, the threesome attract the attention of reality show producer Mark Heiss (Christopher Walken), who wants to follow them into action. When things get messy with the mob, Ed, Domino and Choco feel the heat.

I wouldn’t classify Keira Knightly as a bad actress. However, she’s much more believeable as depressed alcoholic Jackie Price in The Jacket than she is as a gritty, thrill seeking bounty hunter. I was never quite convinced of her character in this movie, the act was just too transparent. Rourke has been playing the grizzled bounty hunter role, or something close to it, for a long time now. So, it wasn’t refreshing or different to see him in Domino. Despite the addition of Walken, Macy Gray, Tom Waits and even Jerry Springer to the cast, the film was terribly boring. Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green, formerly of the television show Beverly Hills 90210, appear as themselves and provide comic example of how whitewashed and stale Hollywood has become. It’s almost amusing, but I think that’s just because I’ve always wanted to see the two of them get beat up.

For a man with a resume that includes Top Gun, True Romance and The Hunger, I expected far more out of Tony Scott. The action is so choppy and the cuts are so random and frequent that it’s hard to tolerate at times. Because that type of technique has become the trend in action films these days, Domino comes off as neither exciting nor innovative, just annoying and trite. The diced up storyline doesn’t work magic either. From reading what little I have about the real Domino Harvey, it seems a shame that the last movie made about her life ended up being so much less entertaining than her actual exploits were.

Basically, I wouldn’t recommend buying Domino. I wouldn’t recommend renting Domino. I wouldn’t even recommend pausing in front of the DVD player if someone else was watching Domino. Unless you’re a die hard Keira Knightley fanatic (and even then it’s barely justifiable)stay well away from this boring film. Even the website sucks.

Overall Rating: 2
Hottie Rating: 3 (for sexual tension between Choco and Domino)

Alternate viewing: True Romance
Official site
IMDB site
Reel.com 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!***

The Fountain (2006)

Director: Darren Aronofsky
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailer, featurette
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Rachel Weisz, Ellen Burstyn
Trailer

I have a cousin, close in age and remote in distance, whose life parallels my own in many ways. His, like mine, has been laden with a series of unhappy events (I call them Little Tragedies) and thus, he is always recommending tragic dramas for me to watch. Last time, it was Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. That one cut right to the heart. This time, it was The Fountain and I watched it with my grandmother and uncle. Neither of them seemed to grasp what the movie was about, and they expressed a sense of confusion at the conclusion. This cousin of mine is a writer, and thinks deeply on many levels, so I knew the movie was meaningful to him. I think I got a bit more from it than my companions did, but it is a highly interpretive film.

The “fountain” in the title refers to The Fountain of Youth in various senses. There are three storylines in the movie that parallel each other and each has to do with the search for immortality. In the primary storyline, Hugh Jackman plays Dr. Tom Creo. Creo is a medical researcher who is trying frantically to find a cure for the brain tumor that’s killing his wife. However, he’s spending so much of his time in this desperate quest that he’s missing out on the few precious moments he has left with her. She, however, has taken a more courageous view of her situation and prefers to consider death as the beginning of something new.

Creo’s wife, Izzi (Rachel Weisz), is in the process of writing a story, and this is where the second aspect of the movie comes into play. Jackman, this time, is a conquistador who is sent by his Spanish queen (also Weisz) on a quest for The Tree of Life. She hands him a ring and promises that when he’s returned successful, the two of them will join and the crown will be safe. He is relentless in his search for the Tree, to the point that his accompanying troops begin to believe that he’s gone mad.

In yet a third thread of The Fountain, Jackman plays a man traveling through space in an enclosed bubble of atmosphere. The only other traveler in the bubble is a large tree, from which he receives sustinence and companionship. His goal is to bring the tree to a nebula which will preserve the ailing tree’s life.

Aside from common theme and actors, the three tales are linked by two other elements. One is The Tree. It is The Fountain of Youth that the conquistador searches for. It is the man in the bubble’s only concern. It is also an ingredient that Dr. Creo uses in his experiments. The other associated object is a ring. In the main storyline, the doctor loses his wedding ring when he is washing up for surgery. It is also an object of promise from the Spanish queen. And in the bubble, the man has tattooed himself with rings signifying the years he and the tree have shared together. Eventually, some of these ingredients cross over from one stream of the story to another and the three become more entwined.

I cannot say enough good things about either Hugh Jackman’s or Rachel Weisz in this movie. Both of them make you care so much about their characters that it’s almost impossible not to become emotionally invested in what’s happening to them. Izzi is practically an angel and is so enlightened in her perspective but remains very human at the same time. Weisz as the Spanish queen is almost ethereal and likewise angelic. It’s hard not to sympathize with Creo, because it’s apparent that his every effort is expended on his wife’s behalf and that his love for her is very powerful. While there are a few supporting roles, none of them seem of any consequence compared to Creo and his wife.

As I mentioned earlier in this review, The Fountain has many different layers and I think that it can be interpreted in several ways. It can either be terribly depressing or gently uplifting, depending on your perspective. The overall message can be one of despair, or one of encouragement. However, there is a difference in the way I interpreted this film and the comments I’ve read online about it. Generally, people seem to view the three storylines as past, present and future. Contrary to that, I believe that the three stories indicate the same message and longing for discovery, but rather than being a difference in time, they are a difference in the way that Dr. Creo chooses to consider the battle between himself and his wife’s illness.

The main story is what happens in actuality. The story involving the queen and her soldier is a tale that Izzi had written in order to express to her husband how she perceives his quest for a cure. Finally, the man in the bubble is the doctor’s personal insight into his relationship with his wife and his urgent desire to hold on to her. I hesitate to delve further into my explaination for fear of spoiling the film, but that is the basic concept of the film as I saw it.

It seems that The Fountain has some really nice CGI. But, in fact, the director wanted to stay away from computer graphics. Instead, he used microphotography to create many of the effects. The lighting in the film is effective in giving the entire story a sort of fantasy quality. However, some scenes were shot so dimly that it was very difficult to follow the action. That is probably my only criticism of the entire film.

Because there are so many layers of meaning to The Fountain, it really depends on one’s interpretation of the film as to whether or not that person will find it enjoyable. The Fountain is definitely not a funny, happy-go-lucky movie. Neither is it for the kids. Don’t look to the film for high action or witty dialogue and don’t expect a clear resolution. I think that it will appeal to fans of Aronofsky’s other work, but may turn off much of the mainstream movie going audience. While the two main characters are played by popular stars, the movie strays sufficiently off the beaten path to resist appeal to a wide selection of Jackman and Weisz fans. Personally, I found it engaging, asthetically appealing, tragic and deeply meaningful. However, it’s not a movie I would watch all the time because it is so heavy on the heart and mind.

As a final note, I would like to mention that The Fountain does depict animal testing (specifically on monkeys) which is something that I neither endorse or condone. So, as a warning to fellow animal rights crusaders, some scenes may be difficult for sensitive viewers.

Overall Rating: 4 ½
Hottie Rating: 4 (Jackman with his shirt off)

Alternate viewing: Pi
Official site
IMDB site
Cinepinion 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!***

Runaway Jury (2003)

Director: Gary Fleder
Format: DVD
DVD Features: commentary, deleted scenes, featurettes
Starring: John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman
Trailer

The latest trend arriving in my mailbox appears to be a series of John Grisham inspired films. Previously, I had never been partial to court drama. However, working in a law office has given me a bit of new perspective on the topic. I have also never been a reader of Grisham’s novels, although I haven’t intentionally avoided them. So, it seems slightly odd to me that at some point many months ago, I felt that I needed to add some legal material to my movie repertoire. It has become somewhat of an adventure to travel this seemingly random path I have chosen. It almost makes me wonder if I shouldn’t open up my Netflix queue to the general public just to see what I’ll end up with.

In Runaway Jury, Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) and Durwood Cable (Bruce Davison) are attorneys on opposing sides of lawsuit that will ultimately decide whether or not gun manufacturers can be held responsible for the deaths of people killed by their products. The plot thickens, though, when a third party surfaces offering to sway the jury to either side in return for a cool ten million (give or take a few mil). On each side of the case, is a jury consultant who makes his living trying to judge which jurors will vote in their favor.

There are a lot of dual-sided elements to this film. Obviously, there is the conflict involved with the case itself. Then, just as obviously, there is the issue of gun control and constitutional rights. Two lawyers represent opposite sides of the case, two profilers attempting to aid either side, and two people working together to manipulate the case. But despite this black and white aspect to the film, the characters don’t quite balance each other out. Gene Hackman’s character, Rankin Fitch (I like the name), is working for the bad guys. He directs a team assigned to photograph, investigate and basically stalk all of the potential jurors in the case. After the jury is chosen, they continue to manipulate the lives of these people in order to convince them to favor their side of the case. Fitch is apparently an old hand at the business and his personality far overshadows that of Lawrence Green (Jeremy Piven), who is his counterpart on the good guy’s side. Rohr is counsel for the good side of the fight, but this is one of Hoffman’s weaker roles. Cusack is….well, typically Cusack. His girlfriend Marlee (Rachel Weisz) is a bit more hardcore than he is. Weisz is very strong in this role and gives an excellent performance. She is fast becoming one of my more favorite actors.

One particularly disappointing characteristic of Runaway Jury is that the filmmakers make it abundantly clear which side of the gun control issue the story favors. Hoffman and Piven are both the more humble, earthy type of people than their counterparts, who are greasy, big city men. The conclusion of the film, not just the verdict in the case, leaves no grey area as to how the audience should feel about the right to bear arms. I have not read John Grisham’s novel, and therefore cannot attest as to the accuracy of the movie, but I wish that Runaway Jury had shown more of a balanced argument. Regardless of my personal beliefs surrounding the issue, I always like to see both sides of a topic represented, giving more freedom to the audience; more respect for their right to make their own descisions.

I really did enjoy the story, aside from the weight so apparently shifted to one side. I did not see the ending coming (the verdict, yes, but not the true motives of Easter and Marlee), so it was refreshing to be surprised. The story is sufficiently intricate and most of the characters are very strong. I would recommend Runaway Jury if you are the type of person who enjoys a good court mystery. If you aren’t usually the kind to go in for this sort of thing, I don’t think it’s so distinctly different from the rest of the genre.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 2 (for Weisz and Cusack in general)

Alternate viewing: The Pelican Brief
Official site (I was unable to navigate to Runaway Jury at Fox’s site here, even though there is a link to it. Maybe you’ll have better luck.)
IMDB site
The Onion AV Club review

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

Night Watch (2004)

Russian Title: Nochnoy dozor
Director: Timur Bekmambetov
Format: DVD
DVD Features: featurettes, subtitles, English dub, poster gallery, trailers, animation shorts
Starring: Konstatntin Khabensky, Galina Tyunina, Dmitry Martynov, Aleskei Chadov
Trailer

On the back of the cover for Night Watch, there is a quote and endorsement from Quentin Tarantino. It reads, “Just after we’ve lived through The Lord of The Rings and we can’t even imagine another move spellbinding us, along comes Timur Beckmambetov’s fantasy masterpiece. Like Ridley Scoot, Timur is an astonishing visionary and Night Watch is an epic of extraordinary power.” Tarantino has endorsed a gaggle of flicks following his fame as director of Pulp Fiction. Most of which, I’ve already seen and form a stable foundation for B movie education. This one, however, is a bit above his usual recommendations.

Have you ever seen something you just couldn’t explain? Felt the tingle of the supernatural creep up your spine? Thought you may have powers no one could understand? Well, you might just be an “Other”. Anton Gorodetsky discovers that he’s one on the night he visits a witch in hopes of bringing back his cheating wife. And, since then, he has been fighting a battle on the side of light, the side of Night Watch. Ages ago, a battle between the light and dark forces of the world was ended in stalemate. So a truce was formed with two factions created to police each other under the rules of the truce. Day Watch is the dark side. They police the forces of good. Night Watch is the power of light, keeping watch on the vampires and evil-doers to assure their compliance. As the prophecy has foretold, there comes a boy who will decide who wins control and a virgin who’s curse may end the truce.

The visual effects and direction in Night Watch were truly superb. My favorite creature, although briefly glimpsed, is the spider-legged pixie doll. All of the CGI merges seamlessly into the true film footage. One particular demonstration of such technique is the sequence wherein a bolt flies off of a distressed airplane and finds it’s way down a ventilation shaft right into the virgin’s cup of instant coffee. Brilliant! This movie reminded me very much of the atmosphere Marc Caro and Jean-Pierre Jeunet conjure up in Delicatessen. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101700/ . The entire movie is shot with a “dark and gritty” filter and really creates the perfect atmosphere for the story.

Konstatntin Khabensky plays the main character, Anton. At the beginning of the film, Anton is a dorky looking fellow, who’s wife has left him for another man. When Night Watch grabs the witch performing an abortion spell for him, Anton awakens to his talents as an Other. Afterwards, Anton becomes an alcoholic phsychic fighting on the side of light. Got to love the vodka/pig’s blood cocktail churning in his stomach as he prepares to seek a vampire. I loved his character. One role I was a bit disappointed with was Olga (Galina Tyunina). She’s is given to Anton in the form of an owl, to assist him on his mission to find the virgin and lift the curse. But, shortly after he scoffs at her abilities to aid him, she transforms into a woman in his kitchen. But, beyond that, the film never shows a lot of promise in Olga. She obviously has a keen sense of observation, but other than that, doesn’t exhibit any extraordinary powers. I can only hope that her character is further explored in the sequel.

Among the numerous lovely perks of the film, there is a kickin’ soundtrack and Anton’s neighbor. His neighbor, Kostya is a vampire played by Aleskei Chadov and he’s hot. If you’ve got a thing for vampires (like I do) you might just hope for a bite on the neck from Kostya. Too bad he’s not a main character. There is a faint element of romance as well, in the relationship of the two vampires hunting the boy Yegor (Dmitry Martynov). The head of Day Watch (those are the bad guys) loves to play out the plot in the form of a one-on-one fighting game. Keep your eyes open for the spine sword – classic Mortal Kombat type stuff.

The Night Watch DVD comes as a dual layer disc. One side is the English version, the other is the original Russian. If you prefer to watch the film it it’s original language, your only option for subtitles is English for the hearing impaired. So, there will be descriptions of the sound effects to tolerate. Quite honestly, I have never elected to view the English version, as I feel it takes away from some of the value of the film. There isn’t much in the way of special features on this disc. Director commentary is about the only extra available. But don’t let any of that stand in your way. Night Watch is a fantastic movie and I whole-hartedly recommend the rental, if not the purchase. I can hardly wait until Day Watch hits US shores.

Overall Rating: 4 ½
Hottie Rating: 4 (sexy vampires)

Alternate Viewing: Foreign pick - Tale of Two Sisters (Korea) Domestic pick – Underworld: Evolution (only if you’ve seen the first one)
Official Site: (Yes, it’s in Russian)
IMDB Site
A Nutshell Review

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

The Ice Harvest (2005)

Director: Harold Ramis
Format: DVD
DVD Features: alternate endings, featurettes, commentary, outtakes
Starring: John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton, Connie Nielsen
Trailer

As I looked over the description on the sleeve of The Ice Harvest, my heart sank a little when I read the words “…Harold Ramis’s outlandish holiday thriller.” Outlandish can be alright sometimes. Thriller is usually a good bet. But, holiday?! You see, I’m not fond of holiday movies at all, not when “holiday” means Christmas. Seeing as how I’m not fond of Christmas, unless there’s mass murder involved, I don’t appreciate the holiday interfering with my movie enjoyment. Naturally, there are a few exceptions. A Christmas Story is rather amusing, especially because it’s so dysfunctional.

The Ice Harvest takes place in Wichita Falls, Kansas. It’s wintertime (hence the word "ice" in the title). Charlie (John Cusack) is a mob lawyer who has a plan, but not the guts to follow it through. Vic (Billy Bob Thornton) is his partner, who has the guts but not the brains. After sneaking away from Charlie’s boss with two million bucks, the two of them plan to spend the night in town, acting casual, and then fly out nice and easy the next day. But, one night turns out to hold a lot of surprises. And by the end of that same night, Charlie proves to have more guts and Vic proves to have more brains than anyone thought.

As is characteristic of his recent persona, John Cusack plays the role of Charlie with a mostly calm and collected sort of cynicism. Although he is a bit of a nervous character at times, he holds steady through this caper. His lack of panic during the most stressful of situations is pretty much the only outstanding trait Charlie has. Billy Bob Thornton plays a creepy, suspicious character much better than he has ever played a fine, upstanding citizen. I think it’s his shifty eyes that give him away. One of the most simple, but enjoyable characters in The Ice Harvest is Renata, played by Connie Nielsen. She is the sultry club owner and target of Charlie’s affection. Or, rather, lust. She got a smooth, deep voice, bright red lipstick, a killer figure, and the word “danger” written all over her. Renata may have been more at home in a Bogart murder mystery. Nielsen practically steals the show from Cusack and Thornton.

It is difficult for me to decide on who I think must hate Kansas more – the people who live there or the people who wisely stay away. The entire landscape is bleak, rainy, and frigid. Only the indoor scenes hold any warmth or interesting décor. All of the main characters in the film hold a strong desire to escape Wichita Falls. Even though Charlie and Vic are looking to run from the man they robbed, the whole reason for grabbing the cash in the first place is to leave town. If it hadn’t been a hundred degrees outside, I may have welcomed the warmth of the indoor scenes. Practically every room held something warm, from lighted holiday figurines, to windows draped in red. The inside of Charlie’s former home, now that of his friend Pete, was decorated in steel and blue glow and even that seemed toasty in comparison to the weather outside.


The word “Christmas” in this movie’s description turned out to be a non-concern. Amidst the lighted trees and reindeer, so much foul spirited activity abounds it is easy to forget that the holiday is looming. So, I was relieved of that at least. But even despite the good work of the actors involved, The Ice Harvest lacked any real hook. I didn’t find myself routing for the hero (or anti-hero) or tense during any of the action. I basically didn’t care and I wasn’t so concerned about how the whole thing would turn out. It was truly as mediocre as the Kansas landscape.

Overall Rating: 2
Hottie Rating: 3 (Renata smokes up the screen)

Alternate Viewing: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil
Official Site
IMDB Site
Boston.com 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!***

More Bunnies

Hey, YOU asked for 'em.

Horror Poll

As promised, there's a new poll available! Just follow the link to the right to make your voice heard!

Opinion Poll #1 Results

The voting period for our first poll has expired.
Here are the results:

14.3% voted to see a New Layout
28.6% voted to see More Reviews
14.3% voted for More Interesting Reviews
14.3% voted to see More Bunnies
14.3% want to see Blood
14.3% want to see More Blood

There were 7 votes overall. Thanks to everyone who took the time to vote, and there will be a new poll up shortly.

Lord of War (2005)

Director: Andrew Niccol
Format: DVD
DVD Features: making of, documentary, deleted scenes, commentaries
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Jared Leto, Ethan Hawke, Bridget Moynahan
Trailer

This is the third movie in a row that I’ve seen starring Nicolas Cage. The two movies that I have to compare Lord of War to are Wild At Heart and The Weather Man. Wild At Heart was shot in 1990, 15 years before The Weather Man and Lord of War were released. So, do I prefer the young Cage or the more modern, more cynical Cage? I don’t know that I’m quite ready to end my Cage-fest just yet, although it seems to have been postponed, according to the random fate dealt to me via my Netflix queue. I long to re-experience the classic Raising Arizona and the fuzzy recollection of 8MM. Looking at his filmography, it’s astonishing how prolific Cage is as an actor, sometimes doing 4 movies in a year. It looks like I’ll have plenty of ammunition for my next Cage-O-Rama.

In Lord of War, Nicolas Cage plays Ukrainian immigrant Yuri Orlov (although that’s just the first in a string of aliases). Dissatisfied with his lower class surroundings, he discovers that his calling in life is illegal arms dealing. He asks his brother Vitaly (Jared Leto) to partner with him and the two begin supplying weapons to the neighborhood gangsters. Before too long, he’s dealing weapons to top ranking military officials and bringing in a hefty profit. Orlov finally attracts the attention of model Ava Fontaine (Bridget Moynahan) and the two of them have a son. He’s also attracts the attention of ATF agent Jack Valentine (Ethan Hawke) who is intent on making sure Yuri won’t enjoy a comfortable life.

In both Lord of War and The Weather Man, the story is narrated by the main character. I didn’t feel it was a necessary feature in either. In fact, it seemed like the screenwriter’s way of cheating. The narration is a bit spotty in both films; a little heavier in the beginning, and fairly infrequent during the rest of the story. However, it seemed to me that a better film would cut out the narration and use other techniques to move the tale along during those lulls in action. The subject matter involved is so much more exciting in Lord of War. Yuri is involved with an insane dictator, a drunken Soviet official and truck loads of ammunition. He’s got to stay on top of the world politics that signal who’s about to go to war and who’s got army surplus to unload. All the while, he keeps his profession a secret from his family. There is some attempt at bringing morality into the picture. Is he just a necessary evil or is he the reason people are killing each other? Lord of War doesn’t attempt to do much more than raise the question though and delves no deeper into the issue. Vitaly Orlov, his brother, is primarily a character in the film to provide juxtaposition for Yuri (oh, AND for eye candy). Even though he is a hopeless drug addict, he has a stronger conscience than his brother. It’s not all about the money with Vitaly. Actually, it’s not all about the money with Yuri either. He does it because he’s good at it.

I really did like Cage in his role as Lord of War. It was a fitting position for his wry humor and cool under pressure personality. It feels good to see him succeed despite his questionable occupation. However, the morality of his acts doesn’t seem to sink in at all. He has conveniently settled on an excuse for himself as only a facilitator of an eventuality. Even when he tries to fly straight at the request of his wife, there’s no fire in his attitude. And that’s a credit to Cage’s acting. I wasn’t terribly fond of his wife, Ava. She wasn’t much of a character in the film until near the ending. All the while, she enjoys the fruits of Yuri’s labor, never questioning how he provides her with luxury. Then, when she discovers the truth of her husbands extended business trips, she suddenly becomes a pillar of morality. Shallow to say the least.

From what I’ve read about the film, many aspects were authentic. Most of the arsenal being traded is the real thing. That supply of Soviet tanks are all actually sitting there, even waiting to be shipped off to a battle. There were actual arms dealers consulted in making the movie. Lord of War was supposedly based on true events and I wouldn’t really doubt it. After all, doesn’t it seem logical that there are men facilitating the sale and purchase of helicopters, rocket launchers and missles from country to country? In cinema, it always seems that what we should be worried about are computer switches for nuclear arms and stolen warheads. At one point in Lord of War, the point is made that nuclear warheads are hardly ever used in war, that it’s the M-16 and the AK47 that do the dirty work.

On the surface, Lord of War was an enjoyable movie. As long as you don’t look to the film for any deep, moral content, it’s good. The acting was about average. There are some nerve-wracking sceens and in general, the audience can root for the bad guy. It was certainly better than the mundane depression of The Weather Man, but not nearly as disturbing as Wild At Heart. To answer the question I posed earlier; the young Nicolas Cage or the current Nicolas Cage? I think I’ll go for the Raizing Arizona version. He’s so much more random and fun.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 5 (love that Leto!)

Alternate Viewing: The Good Shepard
Official Site
IMDB Site
Roger Ebert’s review

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

LOL Rabbits

According to the results of my poll, 14.3% of you would like to see more bunnies on Neko Goes To The Movies. So, for your enjoyment, here's an LOLRabbits that I made.

The Weather Man (2005)

Director: Gore Verbinski
Format: DVD
DVD Features: trailer, featurettes
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Michael Caine, Hope Davis
Trailer

The latest batch of movies in my mailbox have all starred Nicolas Cage. Which means, several months ago, when I made my selection online, I must have felt that my movie watching menu could use a little dash of Cage. Although I don’t recall now what led me to that conclusion, I find that I’m enjoying the experience of having a Cage-Fest. What’s nice about viewing a series of movies headlined by the same actor, is that it’s easy to compare how an actor performs in certain roles, as opposed to others, and notice their progression in style at varying time periods.

In The Weather Man, Cage plays a middle-aged local weatherman. He is separated from his wife and struggling in relationships with his two children. He constantly feels that his ailing father (Michael Caine) disapproves of him; his career, his attempts at fatherhood, and the fact that he never has more than a dollar in his wallet. It doesn’t help that the general public takes delight in hitting him with fast food. Throughout the film, the viewer is given insight to David’s (Cage) thoughts via first person narration.

I found the vast majority of the film to be very depressing. Here’s our hero, David, trying his best to hold things together, and failing at every turn despite his best intentions. His failure is not set in a comical light, aside from the food throwing, but rather an all-to-realistic one. Some might feel that the realism of the picture is a credit to the filmmakers. However, for me it was a gloomy reminder of the mundane life most of us likely experience and would like to get away from. I suppose that I look to movies for an escape of sorts, and The Weather Man did not provide that for me. But, ironically, it’s the realism of the ending that I liked. All of David’s plans do not come together in a sugary Disneyland conclusion, but rather, it’s culminated in an inner realization that leads to David’s satisfaction with his circumstances.

Nicolas Cage performs well in an underdog role. I think that one of his best aspects is that the audience can sympathize with him and really feels a lift when his characters win. His casting in “bad ass” roles, like Ghost Rider and Wild At Heart are a testament to that. Michael Caine is always Michael Caine. His bread and butter is the stoic wisdom he so easily conveys, and it is rare to see him step outside that mold. Noreen (Hope Davis) is the quintessential ex-wife. (Although she’s a little bit more friendly than Kathleen Turner in The War of The Roses.) Their two children, Shelly and Mike are realistically remote and apathetic. The acting all around was solid and it wasn’t at all a negative aspect of the film.

Most of the movie takes place in Chicago during the winter, which makes everything all the more depressing. However, there are some wonderful shots of the ice and rain. Appropriate, of course, for a movie about a man who predicts the weather. Almost all of the scenes are cityscapes full of taxicabs and highrises. The movies takes place in the current time period, so it’s hard to get too creative with costume and wardrobe design. I will say that the change in Shelly’s dress was a vast improvement. In that regard, I think that the wardrobe was clever. Everyone else’s clothing realistically reflects the suit and tie world of the upper middle class city dweller; mostly greys and blacks and not much flare or attitude.

I think that The Weather Man could have used a bit of comedy here and there to lighten the tone. The movie would have been just as effective in getting the point across, but wouldn’t have been such a bummer to watch. Even the ending is hardly uplifting enough to make the previous 101 minutes worth sitting through. A horrible tragedy would have even given a refreshing change to the tone of the film. But, even when David loses his father, it’s hard to feel much of an emotional reaction. So, if you’re looking for an uplifting tale, The Weather Man is not the movie for you.

Overall Rating: 1 ½
Hottie Rating: 0 (bummer)

Alternate Viewing: Little Children
Official Site
IMDB Site
Frank’s Reel Reviews review

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

Update

I have added a poll to the navbar on the right. The purpose of this poll is to gather information for some possible changes to the site. So, I'm looking for YOUR opinions on how to improve Neko Goes to the Movies. Please go and vote and make your voice heard!

From time to time, I may change the poll to something bizarre or practical, but you'll never know until you click!

Free Ticket Alert!

If you're in the downtown Denver area today, Highlander Comix on Colfax is giving away free movie passes to Grindhouse (you know, the new Tarantino double feature). The showing will be at the Denver Pavillions tomorrow night. From speaking with one of their employees, I gather that there are only a few left at the store. However, usually when these types of things go out, there are several locations at which the tickets are dropped off. So, if you don't see any left at Highlander, try one of the local coffee shops (not Starbucks) or Watercourse.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make the show tomorrow night, even if I could get up from my desk and run down there. So, good luck to the rest of you!

Updatey

If you've noticed a lack of new posting here, it's because drama in my homelife has been keeping me busy. Soon, things should calm down a bit and I will pick up the slack here at Neko Goes To The Movies. I have been working on a few reviews here and there that just haven't made it to the presentable stage yet. Look for reviews of Little Miss Sunshine, Spider Forest, and Oldboy to post in the next few days. Thanks for stickin' around!

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Directors: Jonathan Dayton & Valerie Farris
Format: DVD
DVD Features: alternate ending, commentary, deleted scenes, music vidso
Starring: Alan Arkin, Greg Kinnear, Steve Carell, Toni Collette
Trailer

When I first saw ads for this movie, I wasn’t very interested. It seemed a little too “heartwarming” for my usual taste. Gradually, I began to hear more and more about it. The thing that really surprised me was that most of the people I talked to who gave it a good review were men. It struck me as odd that a film that seemed to target a very tender audience appealed to such a different demographic. So, I decided to give it a shot. Of course, the fact that it won two Academy Awards didn’t hurt either.

In a surprise decision, seven-year-old Olive has been selected as a contestant in the Little Miss Sunshine competition. Short of time before the beauty pageant’s check-in deadline, her father and mother realize they’ve got to pack up the whole family and deliver Olive to the stage themselves. Her coach Grandfather, suicidal Uncle Frank and silent brother Dwayne join them in the family’s dilapidated, yellow VW bus and head off across state lines. A string of mishaps threatens to bring the whole adventure down on their heads.

What makes Little Miss Sunshine entertaining is not the plot particularly, but rather the dysfunctional cast of characters. Olive herself is charming and fairly even tempered, aside from her obsession with the contest. The actress, Abigail Breslin, was nominated for Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role at the 2006 Academy Awards for Little Miss Sunshine. Alan Arkin, her grandfather and pageant coach in the movie, won Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting role that year. His character has, perhaps, the most disturbing set of vices out of the group. Just prior to their road trip, Grandpa was ejected from a nursing home for snorting heroin and his enthusiasm for pornography actually saves the family at one point in the film. Olive’s Uncle Frank, played by Steve Carell, is a suicidal, homosexual, Proust scholar. It’s strange to see the actor playing this role with such a straight-face, but he manages to be funny anyway; maybe even more so because of it. The girl’s brother Dwayne (Paul Dano) has taken a vow of silence, inspired by his love for Nietzsche and his desire to become an Air Force pilot. He may have been my favorite out of the group.

Olive’s parents are quite a pair as well. Her father Richard (Greg Kinnear), aspires to a career as a motivational speaker and lectures ad nauseum about what types of people make “winners”. Ironically, he’s the biggest “loser” out of them all. I really dislike the roles Kinnear is routinely cast in. He plays the loser quite well, but that doesn’t convince me to like the losers he plays. Richard’s wife Sheryl (Toni Collette) is prone to chain smoking just to cope with the rest of the crew and consistently seems at her wits end. The two of them seem to barely be holding their marriage together. Last, but not least, is the VW bus, which is a character in and of itself. Perhaps it’s a metaphor for the rest of the bunch or for the screwed up journey they experience. Regardless, the vehicle has as many problems as each of the family members. It has to be push started before each leg of the trip, the back door falls off its hinges, and it barely runs.

I was surprised by Little Miss Sunshine. Pleasantly so, because it wasn’t a typical, cheesy “family” film. Several of the characters had a level of depth I wasn’t expecting and the grim humor of Uncle Frank’s situation and Grandpa’s situation appealed to me. Although the film had a distinctly “indie” quality to it, it still reeked of Hollywood. I don’t mean to say that all Hollywood movies are terrible, but there’s something generally synthetic about them. The performances, for the most part, were fantastic. Even though most of the subject matter is depressing in nature, Little Miss manages not to be a downer film. The ending, with all of the JonBenet type girls, was a tad bit disturbing. I think it was meant to be. See Little Miss Sunshine if you’re looking for a movie that’s entertaining, slightly down-tempo, funny and unusual.

Overall Rating: 3 ½
Hottie Rating: 0

Alternate viewing: I Heart Huckabees
Official site
IMDB site
Boston.com review

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

The Prestige (2006)

Director: Christopher Nolan
Format: DVD
DVD Features: making of, Tesla documentary, featurettes, art galleries, trailers
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Christopher Bale, Scarlett Johansson, Miachael Caine
Trailer

Since the end of February, my father and I have been on an Oscar movie kick. Not surprising, as The Academy Awards is, after all, one huge advertising campaign. The Prestige is our fourth movie in the last two weeks that earned a nomination for 2006. It was nominated for best Art Direction (Nathan Crowley) and Set Decoration (Julie Ochipinti). The award, however, was lost to Pan’s Labyrinth.

In The Prestige, Hugh Jackman and Christopher Bale play two talented magicians who begin their careers as colleagues. A bitter rivalry is sparked between the two after one trick goes disastrously awry. After they go their separate ways, their careers begin to take off, each man competing to pull off the more impressive trick, while jealously guarding his secrets. Friends, wives, lovers and money all char in the fire of this obsession.

With a name like “The Prestige” the movie sounds more likely to be about a Harvard scholar or a Military commander; not about a magic act. According to the film, the prestige is the final piece of any trick – the part where objects reappear. Of course, the plot revolves around each magician performing disappearing and reappearing acts of one form or another. The problem is, after a while, it becomes tiresome watching the same trick repetitively. When the plot twists initially, it’s to be expected and a little amusing. When the plot twists the third or fourth time, it becomes tiresome and a bit insulting.

The cast is full of familiar faces. Michael Caine plays Cutter, the early mentor of both magicians and the long term supporter of Angier (Jackman). Scarlett Johansson is Olivia, the stage girl who gets tossed back and forth between the two men. Don’t miss David Bowie as the renowned scientist Nikola Tesla. Tesla’s assistant, Alley, might even be familiar, but I won’t give that one away. Each of the cast members gives a solid, although not astounding, performance. (and yes, we get to see Hugh Jackman with his shirt off)

The set designs and atmosphere of the movie were very nicely constructed. The best shots by the cinematographer in the film were in the field of lights scene. The atmosphere was completely believable and the costuming seemed authentic. It’s only because the fantasy realm of Pan’s Labyrinth lent itself more easily to impressive costuming that it won the Academy over The Prestige.

I would have been much more impressed with this film, had I not seen The Illusionist first. For two movies so close in theme and period, it’s amazing how much one sparkles more than the other. I didn’t feel the same emotional connection to the characters in The Prestige. I didn’t become breathless waiting for the next act. Suspiciously similar is the point in either movie wherein the magician elects to shut out his normal stage crew in favor of a gang of blind men (as in The Prestige) or a cluster of foreigners (as in The Illusionist). It makes me curious as to what the profession was actually like during the time period these two movies imitate. Did the filmmakers spy on each other, like the magicians in The Prestige, to learn each other’s secrets?

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 2 (Jackman)

Alternate Viewing: The Illusionist
Official site
IMDB site
Stylus review

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

Amen, My Brotha

More Savage Chickens

Babel (2006)

Trailer

Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Format: DVD
DVD Features: audio, subtitles
Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Adrianna Barraza, Rinko Kikuchi
Trailer

It’s amazing how many films have been born from biblical stories. From The Passion of the Christ to Pinocchio, The Book has inspired countless cinematic interpretations. Not being the churchgoing type myself, I am only familiar with the most famous stories – Cain and Abel, Jonah and the Whale, The Garden of Eden, etc. But I’ve always been fascinated by the concept that God would curse the tongues of man in order to discourage their cooperation. It doesn’t seem condusive to peace at all, and I think that was one point among many that the director of Babel was trying to make.

Babel is a collection of four tales which are each in different tongues, but all connected in one way or another. One part of the story revolves around two boys herding goats in the hills of Morocco. Their father buys a rifle so that the family can protect their herd from jackals. But, the weapon soon becomes a source of competition between the boys and they compete to see who the better marksman is. The Second segment involves an American couple (Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett) who are vacationing overseas in the hopes of reconciliation after her tragic miscarriage. That issue becomes moot very shortly, when the woman is seriously injured. Back at home, their two children, Debbie and Mike, are being cared for by their Mexican housekeeper, Amelia (Adrianna Barraza). When the parents are away longer than expected, Amelia has to decide to either miss her son’s wedding across the border, or take the children on a field trip. The fourth part of the movie involves a deaf and mute Japanese girl, Cheiko (Rinko Kikuchi), with a longing for physical affection. She not only has the recent death of her mother to deal with, but her feeling of alienation from men drives her to drastic measures.

Alejandro González Iñárritu is the director of both Babel and a movie called Amores Perros. Both films feature several different stories seemingly separate, but in some way linked. Like Amores Perros, Babel shows each part of the tale a little at a time, and not always sequenced in chronological order (very similar to what Quentin Tarantino did with Pulp Fiction). However, I didn’t enjoy the more recent film as much his 2000 movie. The story of Cheiko is linked to the other three stories only by a minor detail. The other three stories share a much closer connection. But, Cheiko’s story is by far the more compelling. All the tales deal with a barrier of some type, not necessarily language, but culture and distance.

When I first finished watching Babel, I was left wondering, “Why did Iñárritu make this film? What was he trying to say?” It was only upon further meditation and conversation that I arrived at the broader theme. Why was this movie nominated for an Academy Award? I think it’s the exact formula that The Academy looks for. It was a Hollywood version of an “art house” film. Its aim is to make the audience feel as if they are examining a deeper philosophy, without actually pondering any real controversial material. It’s a façade. There is also present the familiar flavor of terrorism, which has been a popular theme in Hollywood since 9/11.

With so many worthwhile films released this year, Babel isn’t at the top of my list. It strikes me as the kind of film that upper-middle class Anglos go to in order to make themselves feel worldly and cultured. And afterwards, they pop off to Starbucks for a latte and forget all about the messages they could have gleaned from the experience.

Overall Rating: 3
Hottie Rating: 2 (for cute Japanese guys)

Alternate Viewing: Amores Perros
Official Site
IMDB site
Deep Focus review

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

Creep (2005)

Director: Christopher Smith
Format: DVD
DVD Features: alternate beginning and ending, making of, operation scene
Starring: Franka Potente, Vas Blackwood, Paul Rattray
Trailer

What elements do I find in foreign horror films that make them more frightening than their American counterparts? It’s not a language barrier, because British and Australian horror films have the same effect on me. Maybe it’s the fact that the surroundings are similar, but just a touch different. Is it the minor differences that make me feel less secure and therefore more easily startled when something jumps out of the shadows? Whatever it may be, it’s true for most foreign horror – except those from Japan. While I’ve seen some very disturbing horror films from Japan, they weren’t really scary in the same sense. But, I digress…

Creep was made in the UK. Since it takes place in The Underground, that fact should become apparent immediately. Kate (Franka Potente) misses the last train out of the station one night and finds herself locked in the subway. She soon discovers that the railway is home to more than just homeless junkies and that lecherous men are the least of her problems. With the help of Jimmy (Paul Rattray), one of the subterranean residents and George (Vas Blackwood), an ex-con sewer worker, she tries to stay alive through the night. Rats, raw sewage, and an abandoned medical facility don’t make her struggle any simpler.

As I mentioned earlier in this review, the fact that the movie has that special foreign flavor gave it more of an edge in the terror department. The dark passages of the London Underground were an excellent setting for this type of film. It was actually filmed in unused portions of The Underground, which makes the film that much more realistic. In the opening scenes of Creep, two sewage workers are trudging through slime and entrails, their cockney slang echoing off the walls. The older man is describing how the odors vary from district to district.

There’s only one monster in the movie (although Guy is one in a different sense), but he’s just as grotesque and twisted on the inside as he is on the outside. The director, in his commentary on the DVD, said that he wanted the audience to feel a degree of sympathy for the antagonist. However, I didn’t see any reason to pity him, especially after the “operation” scene. (Trust me; you don’t want to play doctor with this guy.) I did find it eerie when it becomes clear that the creature does have some intelligence, even though that scene isn’t particularly scary.

Although I usually enjoy Franka Potente’s acting, I don’t think she gave her best performance in this movie. There’s no point at which she seems really terrified, just frustrated and inconvenienced. However, no single member of the cast in Creep stood out as being particularly awful or spectacular. When that’s the case in movies, I imagine that it’s a fault in the directing or the script, rather than the cast members. There are a few aspects of the plot that seem unnecessary or not properly supported.

Overall Rating: 2 1/2 stars
Hottie Rating: 0

Alternate viewing: Resident Evil
Official site
IMDB site
Rotten Tomatoes review

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