The CineFiles

YOUR HIGHNESS (2011)

2012-02-08T10:45:00.003-05:00

Directed By: David Gordon Green
Written By: Ben Best & Danny McBride
Cinematography By: Tim Orr
Editor: Craig Alpert

Cast: James Franco, Danny McBride, Natalie Portman, Zooey Deschanel, Charles Dance, Damian Lewis, Toby Jones, Justin Theroux

Throughout history, tales of chivalry have burnished the legends of brave, handsome knights who rescue fair damsels, slay dragons and conquer evil. But behind many a hero is a good-for-nothing younger brother trying just to stay out of the way of those dragons, evil and trouble in general. As two princes on a daring mission to save their land, they must rescue the heir apparent's fiancée before their kingdom is destroyed. Thadeous (McBride) has spent his life watching his perfect older brother Fabious (Franco) embark upon valiant journeys and win the hearts of his people. Tired of being passed over for adventure, adoration and the throne, he's settled for a life of wizard's weed, hard booze and easy maidens. But when Fabious' bride-to-be, Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), gets kidnapped by the evil wizard Leezar (Justin Theroux), the king gives his deadbeat son an ultimatum: Man up and help rescue her or get cut off...

I really tried to like this film. The trailer made it look hilarious, but everything about this movie is a big fail. Maybe it’s a movie that is funnier and makes more sense when high. While there are humorous moments most of the jokes fall flat.
It looks cheap like a syfy channel film. Most of the scenes look like really fake sets. Most of the dialogue is olde English mixed with modern slang and curses. There is a lot of gay jokes and surprisingly a lot of graphic gory violence. The special effects are horrible. In fact the witches magic lightning from the movie looked like The streams from GHOSTBUSTERS.

The cast is likeable and there is room for a mid-century comedy. This just wasn’t it which is a shame since I usually like Danny McBride as he is a comedic actor/writer who knows how to mix the vulgar with the sweet. This seems like a project brought about by him believing the critics thinking he can do no wrong, with this film he showed he can.

I am mostly disappointed with director David Gordon Green who has increasingly showed diminishing returns as far as quality ever since he stopped making Indie films and went the mainstream route. Here it feels like he is on auto-pilot and asleep at the wheel. When he should be experimenting with the opportunity he has. While I didn’t love PINEAPPLE EXPRESS I at least enjoyed it somewhat. The technique and style Mr. Green showed in films like GEORGE WASHINGTON, UNDERTOW and ALLTHE REAL GIRLS showed a naturalness and great camerawork and the ability to cut to the heart of characters and scenes. I know this is a comedy, but the camera seems to lay there and everyone plays whatever they want. How they want.

Although the film was written by writer Ben Best and actor Danny McBride, the dialogue is heavily improvised. Director David Gordon Green said there was never a script used on-set. Only the plot outline and written notes were used.

Justin Theroux seems to be the only one who realizes how ridiculous everything is so it might as well have fun. The only excitement is a chase scene involving a chariot. It’s not totally impressive but it’s more interesting thing in the film.

Zooey Deschanel, I don’t know why she is here she really has no character to play. They could have gotten some voloptous playmate turned actress to play the role. That is how thin it is and how little she has to do on-screen.

This was definitely not the year for Natalie Portman after winning the Oscar for BLACK SWAN then having this released as she is basking in the glory and accolades.

SKIP IT

GRADE: F

EYE FOR AN EYE (1996)

2012-02-08T10:36:00.003-05:00

Directed By: John Schlesinger
Written By: Amanda Silver & Rick Jaffa
Based On The Novel By: Erica Holzer
Cinematography By: Amir Mokri
Editor: Peter Honess

Cast: Sally Field, Ed Harris, Joe Mantegna, Olivia Burnette, Beverly D’Angelo, Keith David, Philip Baker Hall, Charlayne Woodard

After her daughter Julie is brutally raped and murdered, Karen McCann is turned down by the LAPD after she requests they keep suspect Robert Doob in jail for good instead of paroling him. Nevertheless, the LAPD and the courts do decide to parole him and Karen turns to a group of hit man trainers for help. They teach her how to manage a gun, etc. Eventually, Karen's husband, Mack, finds out and tries to stop her. Karen backs off. Robert Doob tracks Karen down at the McCaan home and breaks in, hoping to kill her.

The film is a more intense TV-movie more then anything else. It has elements that make it seem like it is perfectly a feature and it is by most rights. Yet it has a innocence and simpleness that makes the film seem direct and seems to play more towards middle America and the cheap seats. It’s a film that is perfectly entertaining as long as you don’t think too hard.

This is a crowd pleaser which is what makes the film enjoyable as it tips it’s hand early by making the villain of the film so evil and one dimensional that you can’t help but root for his demise. Not that you weren’t supposed to but it would be more interesting if he wasn’t so evil felt remorse time to time or worried. Instead he looks bad to the bone so you can see trouble coming off of him and in this tale heis like the big bad wolf just lurking waiting to find a new victim. This is not new territory for Kiefer Sutherland.

Sally Field is good in the lead and we follow her through various emotions. She is the emotional center of the film and while we see other characters react. We never get into their emotional investment in the story, Like her husband we don’t really know anything about him. Even though Ed Harris Co-stars he is given nothing really to do but be a presence. Joe Mantegna shows up as the detective who just can’t cross the immoral line to get the convict convicted though he knows he’s guilty. Charlayne Woodard is Field’s only friend who knows what she is going through. It is a bit shocking during the time period the film was made that her character ends up being a lesbian.

The way the film makes it. It is like no matter what the legal system is useless in trying to convict a career criminal in anything. Which makes it’s way into the final act and gives the film it’s twist.

I remember seeing this film opening weekend. It wasn’t a film I was excited to see it was just a film that seemed to be the best that was coming out that weekend. When movies prices were lower and more affordable. As a teenager I would go to a movie every weekend usually Friday’s. I preferred that day so I could see films before the huge crowds and before anyone could ruin it for me. I think the schedule had been wired into me ever since I was a kid where as most weekends I spent with my father (My parents were separated) were spent at the movies usually Sunday matinees. There was the odd Saturday night feature. Once I could really go to the movies by myself I liked getting a jump on the crowds. Plus sadly it wasn’t like I had parties to go to.
The film was especially shocking to me as I was a fan of Actress Olivia Burnette from watching her on the show. TheTorkelsen’s and Almost Home her death scene in this film is just so brutal. It is a brave performance though she is essentially playing a victim.

It is a film that is entertaining while you watch it and knows how to push your buttons to get an emotional reaction. Soon as it is over though it is forgettable. IT’s a shame that this was directed by Noted Filmmaker John Schlesinger who once made reactionary critical darling films. During his twilight years he still made good films but far from memorable films that seemed more like for hire films more then anything else. Though the rape/Murder scene is brutal and memorable. It is one of the few sparks that come from this film. It’s hard to believe this was made by the same man who directed MIDNIGHT COWBOY. I guess it all comes down to the material they are sending your way.

A satisfying Rental

GRADE: C+

THE BABY (1973)

2012-02-08T10:12:00.002-05:00

Directed By: Ted Post
Written By: Abe Polsky
Cinematography By: Michael B. Margulies
Editor: Bob Crawford Sr. & Dick Wormell

Cast: Anjanette Comer, Ruth Roman, Marianna Hill, Beatrice Manley, Susanne Zenor, David Mooney, Michael Pataki

A social worker who recently lost her husband investigates the strange Wadsworth family. The Wadsworths might not seem too unusual to hear about them at first - consisting of the mother, two grown daughters and the diaper-clad, bottle-sucking baby. The problem is, the baby is twenty-one years old.

This film totally took me by surprise. It is a odd little film that feels exploitive but there is no real exploitation going on. It’s rated PG after all. The film comes off as campy more than anything else.

I like finding these films that are totally off my radar and discovering them. Especially when they are decent in this film. The things that shock us as an audience are normal to the characters in the film a grown 21 year old man who is literally treated and cared for as a baby. Which he acts like is seen as normal throughout the film. Then all of a sudden some female characters find him irresistibly sexy. There is a hint of incest suggested. A hint of child molestation though you wonder does it count if it’s a full grown man.

The film is a oddity but totally entertaining. It never throws you off even though it is ridiculous.

It’s directed by Ted Post, Who makes the early scenes engrossing and the later scenes thrilling. You will definitely have a good time watching the film. Ted Post a respected director in the 70’s. I wondered what attracted him to this film? A chance to do a more artistic film? A favor? Was it the only gig he could get? Just hired by the studio? So doing this as an assignment. He tries hard to make this film have a respectability and dignity more then the material actually deserves. He originally turned it down. It actually took the screenwriter a year to convince him to finally direct the film. Post turned it down all that time as he found the script too negative and dark.

I recognized none of the actors, but I definitely wanted to see the other films they were in. Ruth Roman Has a long resume before playing the over the top boozy matriarch of the family, With two hot daughters. Who seem to be bizarre, but strangely loyal to their mother. One is violently sadistic which you find out little by little slowly. The other sister is twisted in a totally different way. Hinted at then dropped it seems.

The film’s third act is a shocker that trust me you won’t see coming. I really enjoyed this film.

A hidden gem, Worth a purchase

GRADE: B

HOLLOW MAN (2000)

2012-02-08T10:07:00.005-05:00

Directed By: Paul Verhoeven
Written By: Andrew W. Marlowe
Story By: Gary Scott Thompson & Andrew W. Marlowe
Cinematography By: Jost Vacano
Editor: Mark Goldblatt & Ron Vignone

Cast: Kevin Bacon, Josh Brolin, Elisabeth Shue, Kim Dickens, Rhona Mitra, Greg Grunberg, William Devane, Joey Slotnick

Scientists discover how to make people invisible, but their test subject becomes an insane killer who stalks them.

This film is a interesting failure. It is a special Effects film that is supposed to be a blockbuster popcorn film. Though most of the film is set in very few closed off locations that have more in common with indie films then big studio releases.
While Paul Verhoeven manages to shoot beautifully, but still bring in a Raunch factor of scenes that are not necessary and feel weird even being in the film. Misplaced even. As reprehensible as they are at times liven up the film in a bad way. For a special effects movie the effects are good but the film is very closed off because most of it and the action takes place in one location, the lab which if you expected tht would be fine but for a big budget blockbuster you expect more. Now these disappointments in the film work for understanding as lead character his slow decent into madness. Stuck in the same place having to see his ex with a new man who is also a close friend. No real contact with the outside world so that once he gets a chance out along with his new ability he takes full advantage of it and lets it corrupt him.

So in a way it’s a interesting psychological thriller or at least tries to add a new dimension to what could have been a basic popcorn premise. Now did he have to be a pervert. I guess that was a choice Playing on all those fantasy teenage desires of boys and what they would do if they had the power. The film could have done away with his molesting of female colleagues and raping a woman which thankfully is not shown but hinted at. That I guess is the audiences decent into his madness. Director Paul Verhoeven is not exactly known for his restraint.

It’s also a strange cast as I guess at the time they all had clout. Now this cast would never get by a studio or would be a good straight to home video/Indie movie cast. The film was originally supposed to star Jennifer Lopez in the Elisabeth Shue role. Once she dropped out that should have been a hint to everyone else.

It was also written By Andrew W. Marlowe who was a hot screenwriter at the time his other scripts AIR FORCE ONE and END OF DAYS Were in production at the same time that this film was made.

I can’t blame Kevin Bacon for taking the role, It’s a lead in a big budget summer film working with a gifted director. He couldn’t have known what the results would be.

You have to hand it to Verhoeven. This is the fourth film that he has made that has ended up spawning a franchise. Though it is his first film that was initially rated R when viewed by the MPAA. Hisother films were initially rated X or NC-17.

This is a film you can wait for on cable. I would advise wait for television, but as raunchy as it is I don’t know when it would be mostly likely to appear. If it did they would have to cut a lot of it and all the stuff they would cut is what is actually interesting about this film.

GRADE: D

MOVIES THAT WERE WATCHED IN JANUARY (By Jeff)

2012-01-31T09:06:00.004-05:00

RED TAILS 6/10
Disappointing

THE CHASER 9/10
Must see. I love this film

CHERRY 8/10
A movie that came out of nowhere. That really surprised me with how much i enjoyed it.

TINKER,TAILOR,SOLDIER,SPY 8/10
Had to watch twice to fully understand. The mole was a little obvious but i loved the atmosphere

THE DESCENEDENTS 7/10
it was ok. A lot lighter then Sideways and not as character oriented. Definately more happier

CARNAGE 4/10
Overrated

PARADISE LOST 3: PURGATORY 7/10
IT pretty much reiterates the first tow and offers updates

COMING TO AMERICA 10/10
A classic i always come back too

SHALL WE KISS 7/10
Bland but get's better

DIRTY GIRL 5/10
I love Juno Temple, but the movie was just ok

TREE OF LIFE 7/10
Better if i had seen it in the theater as it is more of an experience

KILL LIST 7/10
Interesting

BEING ELMO 910
Inspiring

THE CHANGE-UP 6/10
Started as horrible, then foind it's way to passable

RED TAILS (2012)

2012-01-26T12:48:00.007-05:00

Directed By: Anthony Hemingway
Written By: John Ridley & Aaron McGruder
Story By: John Ridley
Cinematography By: John B. Aronson
Editor: Ben Burtt & Michael O'Halloran

Cast: Nate Parker, David Oyelowo, Michael B. Jordan, Marcus T. Paulk, Elijah Kelly, Bryan Cranston, Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr. Gerald McRaney, Tristan Wilds, Lee Tergesen, Andre Royo, Method Man, Ne-Yo, Daniela Rush

A crew of African American pilots in the Tuskegee training program, having faced segregation while kept mostly on the ground during World War II, are called into duty under the guidance of Col. A.J. Bullard.

I really wanted to enjoy the film. I have to admit it was a subject i really wanted to get emotional watching and feel proud as a part of black history was brought to the screen.

I have to say that i think the movie would have been better made had George Lucas not been the one behind the making of it. I was thinking more of John McTiernan (Die Hard)As a better choice as director of the film. But in Lucas's Defense he was the only person fighting to get this film made for 20 years though no studio would back the film as he originally envisioned it as a trilogy with Part 1 focusing on The Tuskeegee pilot program Part 2 focusing on the combat in the field and Part 3 focusing on the soldiers and how they are treated once they come back home from the war. Ambitiousand interesting. though i have to wonder and worry about that when there is barely enough af a full story in this film. Lucas eventually decided to make one film and just invest his own money in the film and just then sell it to a studio to release it.. Which is what he did with the STAR WARS prequels. I admire the fact that he felt the story should be told, i just feel that just like with the STAR WARS prequels either a studio or non yes man could have been around to maybe curb the flaws that the film has in abundance. Though George Lucas didn't direct or write it his fingerprints are all over the film. He did end up directing the re-shoots. 58 Millin for the production and a furthur 35 million towards advertising

The film is a surpring hit and it shows the film has come a long way when even the studio that releases it is shocked that the film became such a hit.

To tell you the truth the TV-Movie THE TUSKEGEE AIRMEN Starring: LAurence Fishburne and coincidently Cuba Gooding Jr. was a better film. This film feels like a Historical Drama that would bore future students who will be forced to watch it in history class. Between this and MIRACLE AT ST ANNA'S which even though it was noticeably better film. Due to a better filmmaker being behind the scenes. It just seems that it h\is hard to make a satisfying World War II film from the black experience. Terrenc ehoward has also played a Tuskeegee airman in the film HART'S WAR.

Everything just feels poor or wrong. It's not a tolat debacle it just seem that everytime the film does something right and makes you feel proud and happy. it quickly does something to screw it up and suck it back up. I will admit considering George Lucas owns a Special Efffects Company. The effects could havebenn better but yet are just good enough. Cost Cutting? Though i will admit the film did manage to make me tear up towards the end, In a good emotional way.

Other then the two lead pilots. Who George Lucashas said are Based on Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. IT seemed like the other pilot characters were almost interchangeable other then personality all of their dialogue could have been spoken by each other. That was how non distinct they made themselves. it even seemed like one character who was given a strong character arc in the beginning disappeared in the film. Together with a horrible score, bad credits spotty acting and sloppy editing. IT all adds up eventually. though if you go along with the film eventually you just get used to it. Thingslike a interacial romance and picky racism just seemed like afterthoughts.

I will say this is more of an audience movie. Ifyou don't really necessarily look at things like acting, Writing, Cinematography and are out just to enjoy yourselves at the movies with as little thouhgt as possible. The film will be enjoyable and entertaining. Like i said i really wanted to like it. I think it should be seen i just couldn't enjoy it as a whole and more or less and giving it a barely passable rating. The situation with this film is like having a friend who is a singer-Songwriter who sings you a song that they just wrote never has been performed before and it is absolutely perfect then the next night they play it for an audience and you notice the differences and not for the better as they keep missing notes and tomes but pull through the performance. the audience loves it as this is the first time they are presented withit, but you know it's not as good as it could be.

Terrence howard was actually quite good and his scenes were some of the best written as he was also the best written character. Singer Ne-yois in the film and he plays the comic relief and as there are two screenwriters Aaron McGruder half of the screewnwriting duo seemed more brought in to lighten up the film with humor and Ne-yo's character seems like entirely his creation.

I guess i just feel a little sad that when it comes to films it seems that when it comes to films focused on African Americans we have to settle for good enough instead of perfection or really good. I believe in supporting Black Cinema. Ijust hope we get better materail, bigger budgets and more of a chance to tell stories in general.

GRADE: C-

THE WICKER TREE (2011) reviewed by Eric Cohen

2012-01-24T16:31:00.001-05:00

S'been awhile since I've posted a review to the blog and thought I'd try to add my two cents more than I have recently. Jeff's been doing a bang up job keeping the blog alive and I think the rest of us could do the same. It's a new year, the Oscar noms have been announced. Everyone's already posted their "Ten Best Of" lists. And so it goes.

But now I'm gonna' go back to a film that has consistently remained on my "Best Ever" lists since I saw the flick on the UK's Channel Four back when I was a wee lad in the 1980s. It's called THE WICKER MAN. Directed by Robin Hardy. Written by playwright Anthony Shaffer (FRENZY, SLEUTH and the brother of AMADEUS playwright Peter Shaffer). Starring Christopher Lee. On the surface, THE WICKER MAN looked to be a modern take on the kind of gothic horror being produced by Hammer Films and Amicus Productions at the time. And as it was produced in 1973, there would be the expected dose of contemporary sex and violence.

As it turned out, there was so much more to THE WICKER MAN than that.

Anthony Shaffer was already fairly well regarded as the man who wrote SLEUTH. It was both a well received film and play that, while subverting the tropes associated with the mystery thriller, was in itself an ingenious mystery thriller. The piece was written as if by a master game player. The meta jabs at the cliches associated with the genre combined with intricate plotting (and some truly effective surprises) would create an expectation that WICKER MAN may contain some surprises as well while exploring some thought provoking themes that may be uncommon to genre film. In the WICKER MAN, that theme would involve religion and the necessity of belief. While on the surface it was structured as a mystery not unlike SO LONG AT THE FAIR or BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING: a police officer is investigating the disappearance of a little girl whose existence is denied by an island community living off the coast of England. If that were the sole gist of the film, it would be interesting enough. However in the Police Man, Shaffer has in his character a devout Christian (a virginal one at that) and the island natives followers of a pagan religion. So on one level you have this mystery. On the other you have this fish out of water story (almost literally... you can only get to the island by plane or by boat) where a philosophical clash comes about regarding differences in belief.

That's not all.

If you haven't seen the film, you would probably think: these pagan villagers must be presented as sinister, dark, malevolent forces with the Police Man taking on the role of our hero. And since Christopher Lee is in this, he must play the sinister leader of this community and, hence, the movie's main villain. I mean, we've seen this one before. And, ironically, what we've seen before actually harkens back to this particular film. What's even more ironic? THE original take on this (intrepid hero investigates shady going ons within mysterious community that could be a bunch of Satan worshippers or worse) is actually NOT anything like the films potentially descended from it. Because THE WICKER MAN is a bright, sunny movie. It is the antithesis to dark, conspiratorial horror in presentation. The "villains" are nice people, may even go as far as to say they are good, CARING folk towards their own community. And their responses to The Police Man's shock and dismissals of their traditions are rebutted with smart, reasonable, philosophically debatable comments on the merits of a belief system and why one tradition should be considered superior to the other. It also helps to no end that the film is filled with wonderful performances not the least of all by Edward Woodward as the Police Man and Christopher Lee as the smiling Lord Summerisle, the leader of the community. A welcoming, warm-hearted "villain." Added to all of this is a blatant acceptance of open sexuality.

Oh... and that's not all.

Possibly the most unusual aspect of THE WICKER MAN rests not just in it's subversion of horror movie and mystery tropes (instead of darkness we have sun, instead of ominous we have warm-hearted friendliness) but the fact that this movie is, basically, a folk MUSICAL. Religious beliefs are not just debated verbally but communicated through song. And as a result, you have not only a beautiful movie in concept, but after pulling together all of these seemingly contradictory approaches that are not associated with the horror genre, you have, on the whole, a film that becomes effectively ominous and disturbing because of it.

The film has become a legendary cult movie with good reason. Not to mention it is a damn good flick.

Rumors had abound that THE WICKER MAN would have it's own sequel for awhile now. Unfortunately we got Neil LaBute's terrible remake instead. A remake that missed why the original was so effective in the first place. Edward Woodward's belief system and his status as a virgin served more than being an integral piece to the mystery of the original. It also represented the ignorance that results from being a "firm believer." His Christian fundamentalism vs the fundamentalism of the pagan villagers. How religion for some is supposed to enforce the rules of society while religion for others may justify the breaking of those rules. The remake had nothing of this. Nick Cage's protagonist became just another investigator stuck within a conspiratorial situation. It had no bite, no interesting, philosophical theme to chew on (although there was a weak attempt to display some sort of comment on the woman's role in society and the need to take "control" so to speak). And that's why the ending - yes, faithful to the original on the surface - had no "bang." In Hardy's THE WICKER MAN, the ending wasn't just a shock (i.e. the great denouement as to who the real victim is within the mystery) but the implications of what that would mean. That the followers of one religion is sacrificing the true believer of another to their God. And whether there actually is a god for them to sacrifice to is left intentionally ambiguous. We never know who is "right." All we got in LaBute's version is the bad guys won. And they will continue to do so.

Shortly after the release of the remake, the production of a sequel to the original was finally, officially announced. It would use as it's basis an original novel written by Robin Hardy called COWBOYS FOR CHRIST which, quite frankly, would have served as a better title for what would eventually become THE WICKER TREE.

To be fair, THE WICKER TREE is more of a pseudo sequel than the real deal. And Robin Hardy, who has returned to the director's chair after having directed the original almost thirty years ago, has pretty much admitted that it is neither a sequel nor a remake of the first. So I guess it's his update on the theme with just a latent connection to the original. For example none of the characters from the original exist in this film with the exception of Christopher Lee who, within his five second appearance, may or may not be the original Lord Summerisle. The setting has changed as well from an isolated island community to a mainland Scottish village. In the original, the community seemed to subsist off of their own cultural tropes and education. Whereas the new community seem to embrace the tropes of modern society. For example, the Lord Summerisle of this film - the affluent Sir Lachlan Morrison - is not only the religious leader of the group but also the community's breadwinner. It is his nuclear power plant that keeps the natives employed. And if you're familiar with the original, the "missing" girl of that plot was named Rowan Morrison so it could be that he's a relative to that character of some sort. But apparently this was the role that was intended for Christopher Lee. For whatever reason he could not commit and plays a cameo role instead. The basic need for sacrifice in the original - to please the sun god so that the local crops can grow in abundance again - is changed. This time the villagers are infertile. And this may be due to the radiation leaking into the community's water supply from the nearby plant.

Now this brings up an intriguing idea that goes beyond the original's. That Sir Lachlan may be using the pagan religion to keep the villagers happy and distract them from the non mystical science that may be the cause of their infertility. That the leader of this religious sect may be as cynical towards this belief as any outside observer. That even the so called believer of this particular religion MAY NOT ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THIS RELIGION. That it is there as a tool.

(this is summed up after a flash back consisting of a discussion between the young Lachlan and the man who COULD be Lord Summerisle. Hence the Chris Lee cameo. But it's a confusing moment. The present day Sir Lachlan is clearly in his late forties which means the period of the flashback must be close to the time frame of the original WICKER MAN. However, no attempt is made to make Chris Lee look younger or "of the time" or even remotely close to how he looked in the original film. In any case, that flashback serves to remind Lachlan that religion exists if man needs it. If he needed to be Muslim he'd believe in Muhammed. If Jewish then Jehovah. Right now he believes in the sun because that is what is needed now. This is after another character asks him "do you really believe in this?")

The problem with the film, however, is that it tries to touch upon too many things at once and without Anthony Shaffer's talent to tie all sorts of complicated themes into one, coherent and ultimately ingenious story (Shaffer died in 2001), THE WICKER TREE becomes a muddled mess. This is not helped by the addition of two characters - the targeted sacrificial lambs of this movie - who are presented as naive, Christian fundamentalists from America. First of all, their motive for being in this particular place makes no sense. One of the characters is a successful, christian country pop star. The other is her just-as-evangelical fiancee. The script wants you to believe that they are in Scotland to proselytize and convert those who do not believe. But why Scotland? Why not Africa or The Middle East for that matter? And why would a SUCCESSFUL pop star want to go door to door handing out religious pamphlets when she has the money to use the power of media instead?

Interesting ideas are brought up then dropped. One of which involves how this outwardly chaste, virginal pop star had a past as "slutty" Britney Spears type. Which implies she was not chaste at one time ergo she's not the virgin everyone thinks she is. But that's completely forgotten. There's no irony introduced in the fact that so much effort is being made to sacrifice this particular person BECAUSE she's a virgin when, in reality, she's actually not. Although there is some back and forth on the importance of one's religious beliefs over the other, they ring hallow. And awfully didactic. As if it was necessary to shoe horn these discussions in because they were so integral to the original film. And the script contradicts itself. At one point characters describe how the intended sacrifice will NOT be burned (it will be flayed) but later on clearly the plan is to have that sacrifice burned. But just prior to that we see the well preserved, NON BURNED corpses of past sacrificial lambs. Sexuality is also approached in uninspired ways. In the original it felt organic to the needs and beliefs of those characters whereas in WICKER TREE, sex makes an appearance because, well, it was prevalent in the original ergo we got to have some of that in this film too.

And while the original has some creepy, genuinely disturbing elements, THE WICKER TREE has (barely) none of that. Instead, it comes across as almost a parody of the original (kind of like EVIL DEAD 2 is more of a comedic variation of the original rather than a direct sequel). Yes, the original film had plenty of humor. But THE WICKER TREE really pushes the satire envelope going for really easy targets (evangelical Christians are stupid. And hypocritical. Commerce and politics will trump good intentions that come with religious belief. Etcetera) but even the "comedy" doesn't hit right. EVIL DEAD 2 was not just a comedic variation of it's original but it was also a great comedy AND a great horror movie. WICKER TREE feels unformed and half assed.

There are some positives. THE WICKER TREE is, for the most part, well filmed (although lapses into a made for tv quality now and then). Graham McTavish is a solid Sir Lachlan Morrison (who gets some of the best lines. When the protagonists ask him how the villagers see him being the owner of the local plant and, ergo, their chief employer he responds "they probably view me as both the good guy and the bad guy. I see myself as the Montgomery Burns of this town."). And there is an effective moment when the evangelical fiancee (after having believed he had succeeded in winning a game) finds out too late he was victim to a ruse to achieve his own sacrifice. And I admire how it attempts to retain the folk musical aspect of the original. But even the music aspect of the film doesn't resonate as well as THE WICKER MAN. The songs are simply not as well written as Paul Giovanni's work for the original. Nor are they as well showcased.

The most unfortunate aspect of the film is it's ending. THE WICKER MAN'S was so well thought out and memorable that it lingers. Probably one of the best endings to a film ever made. Whereas THE WICKER TREE runs out of steam fast and concludes on a very lazy note. And I mean lazily conceived. Seriously. It's rushed and it sucks. Let's just say one character gets revenge for the death of another and everything seems fine and then IT'S NOT!!! And then we have a coda that is not in the spirit of the original WICKER MAN, but more or less copies the ending of it's TERRIBLE REMAKE. Which makes me very sad.

If I can recommend this film, it's solely by the merit that it is an official connector to the original WICKER MAN. And that may be enough to satiate the curiosity of any fan of the first film. But it's a frustrating movie. Disappointing in that it is nowhere good as the original nor as genre busting as that original film was. In fact, it's not even as good as some of the more middling horror thrillers of the past decade or more. And not just because it's a sequel directed by the same director exploring similar themes. It's because within this whole mess, there were some really smart, intriguing ideas that if properly fleshed out, could have made THE WICKER TREE a worthy successor to THE WICKER MAN.

BEAUTIFUL CREATURES (2000)

2012-01-22T08:48:00.003-05:00

Directed By: Bill Eagles
Written By: Simon Donald
Cinematography By: James Welland
Editor: David Head & Jon Gregory

Cast: Susan Lynch, Rachel Weisz, Iain Glen

One stormy Glasgow night Dorothy and Petula's lives are inextricably thrown together, bonded by a common flaw. Dorothy's on the run from her boyfriend and Petula should be doing the same. Evasion, blackmail, murder, betrayal, revenge and a suitcase loaded with a million quid... it's all there... and then some.

This film is quirky enough to be entertaining that you can forgive it’s flaws. The film tries at times to be a gritty thriller about 2 women in a man’s world fighting to survive in it. At times the film lets it sweetness shine through. It’s more of a woman’s tale in a traditionally male oriented Genre Pulp story.

The film is short but flows quickly it presents every male character as untrustworthy, Abusive and sociopathic. Which I can’t really complain about because how many films have treated women the same way as purely stereotypical and no one complains or bats an eye.

This is sort of a feminist take on the gritty british thrillers. But it is still entertaining for most audiences though the film has a lot of moments of convenience or luck when it comes to believability. The film is actually funny, Darkly humorous. It is also a showcase for the two leads Rachel Weisz and Susan Lynch.

From this film Ms. Weisz seemed destined for stardom playing the ditzy bombshell. This was a good chance for her at the time since she was a up and comer to show what she was capable of in a lead role, But like Melanie Lynskey Fading into the background while Kate Winslet became a star. What happened to Rachel’s co-star in this movie Susan Lynch? She was just as good as the brains of the duo.and though not the bombshell she is attractive.

The film catches you off guard at times but it also feels kind of silly and stupid when you should be on the edge of your seat. Most of the time It leaves you laughing.

This film is a fun rental that is a entertaining little gem that you most likely will forget about a few days after watching. IT’s like a side-note in a laid back day when it happens it’s funny but nothing that you are really dying to tell anyone about.

GRADE: C+

FOXFIRE (1996)

2012-01-22T08:37:00.004-05:00

Directed By: Annette Haywood-Carter
Written By: Elizabeth White
Based on the book By: Joyce Carol Oates
Cinematography By: Newton Thomas Sigel
Editor: Louise innes

Cast: Angelina Jolie, Jenny Lewis, Hedy Burress, Jenny Shimizu, Sarah Rosenberg, John Diehl, Dash Mihok, Peter Facinelli, Chris Mulkey, Cathy Moriarty, Michelle Brookhurst, Elden Henson, Joel David Moore, Shiloh Strong

The story of five teenage girls who form an unlikely bond after beating up a teacher who has sexually harassed them. They build a solid friendship but their wild ways begin to get out of control

What really saves this film from being a clichéd teen girl film about finding your own inner strength and character, Is Angelina Jolie’s performance. If it had been seen by more people. It would have been a star making role. She has a charismatic swagger in the film. Like a female James Dean that makes you desire her, Want to be like her or just have her as a friend. She exudes coolness dripping with it all over the screen.

I wish I could say such nice things about the rest of the film. The camera could just lay there except for some curious angles time to time. The lighting of the film is annoying as there must be a certain brightness. No matter the time or location.
The acting by the rest of the cast is ok. The actresses all look too old to be playing teenagers. I was glad to see Jenny Lewis in the cast. One of my favorite Ex child actresses making a return to acting if only for a short while. (She would soon front the band RILO KILEY) She is one of the few actors I ever wrote a fan letter too as a kid (Alyssa Milano, Candace Cameron and Soliel Moon Frye being the others) The only bad actor in the film is model Jenny Shimizu. There were rumors of her and Angelina hooking up. Which would play well into the homo-erotic subtext at the heart of this tale. It has that and a theme of independence. Defining yourself and not being afraid to stand-up foryourself and of course feminism. This was a film that was rented many times by young female college students when I worked at tower video. It was considered a hot title.

I remember wanting to see it in theaters when I was in High School as I was already a fan of Angelina Jolie from CYBORG 2 and HACKERS. She enchanted me early in her career so that by the time she became popular and famous to mainstream audiences. My infactuation had already passed. I was am partly still a fan. She is a good actress and irresistibly beautiful. In the ways that at first Hollywood seemed to shun her for her voluptuous body type and big lips that eventually became a Hollywood standard. She broke the mark then set it. I miss the old Angelina Jolie. It was fun to see her pick various roles that showed a certain bravery and range, but like most stars. Now she plays it more safe with projects and roles you would expect from her. She Is more poised now, Not the crazy more candid woman I remember. I know she is still capable of good films. Though after she won her Oscar she looked like she would be another victim of the Best Supporting Actress curse. That usually see’s the winners without defined careers get high profile roles that bomb commercially and critically and see there career dry up. Since she picked mostly horrible films to be in, but then she found her groove not to mention her image in action films more or less.

The film is a fine rental to see Angelina’s Early work and a good feminism movie.

GRADE: C

RIDING IN CARS WITH BOYS (2001)

2012-01-22T08:28:00.003-05:00

Directed By: Penny Marshall
Written By: Morgan Upton Ward
Based On the book By: Beverly D’Onofrio
Cinematography By: Miroslav Ondricek
Editor: Lawrence Jordan & Richard Marks

Cast: Drew Barrymore, James Woods, Steve Zahn, Brittany Murphy, Adam Garcia, Lorraine Bracco, Sara Gilbert, Rosie Perez, Peter Facinelli, Vincent Pastore, David Moscow, Marisa Ryan, Mika Boorem, Desmond Harrington, Paz De Le Huerta

Seriocomic story based on the memoir by Beverly Donofrio, the movie follows a young woman who finds her life radically altered by an event from her teen years. Born in 1950, Beverly grew up bright and ambitious in a working-class neighborhood in Connecticut; her father was a tough but good-hearted cop who listened to his daughter's problems, and her mother was a nervous woman eager to imagine the worst. From an early age, Beverly displays a keen intelligence and an interest in literature, and dreams of going to college in New York and becoming a writer. However, she also develops an early interest in boys, and at 15 finds herself madly in love with a boy from her high school. However, an attempt to get his attention leads to an embarassing incident at a party, and Ray, a sweet but thick-headed 18-year-old, steps forward to defend her. Beverly and Ray end up making out, and after one thing leads to another.

Brittany Murphy gives such a fun supporting performance you are able to see the heights of her talent. Being hilarious and real at the same time. In Fact I kind of wish she had the lead. Though her role offers more opportunity to be outrageous. That are usually reserved for supporting character who are at least allowed to be wacky. Where as the lead is the emotional compass for the film. Who the audience is supposed to relate to. Drew Barrymore as the lead is ok in the film. The lead role is the type of character that is getting old for her to rely on plus her playing the age of 15- mid 40’s is stretching it a little especially in the early scenes which are meant to seem fun and carefree but seem embarrassing and unfunny.

I think with the demise of TV-Movies during the 90’s when they were on almost each night or weekly. There was endless supplies of material. Sure a lot of them were interchangeable, but it also kept a lot of minor stories from being made into major motion pictures. While interesting this is one of those stories that would have been better told on the lifetime network or hallmark channel. Then a feature film.

The film offers nothing new we haven’t seen a million times on screen. It seems more like a vanity project, IT has all the trapping of s tv movie but a feature film cast.

Penny Marshall’s direction is rather flat and to the point no nuances. She makes things colorful, but not that interesting. It’s not cold and has all the heartwarming moments, but it doesn’t feel like any real effort went into the film it just arrived. No real passion went into it just work.

The movie has a good cast other then Murphy, James Woods is good playing against type as a gruff but warm hearted and caring father. Trying to deal with his out of control at times daughter.

The Character who Drew Barrymore is based on in the film actually achieved a Master’s Degree in Creative Writing. In thefilm she is a high School Dropout who has a chance at a book deal.

It’s a nice Sunday afternoon movie close to a family film depending on how lenient you are with what your kids view.

I think the major interest for the filmmaker and the audience is the fact that it’s not a uplifting tale. It’s matter of factly told. The lead character screwed up a lot but made it through. Though her character is still very selfish.

Wait for Television

GRADE: C

HEART & SOULS (1993)

2012-01-22T07:44:00.003-05:00

Directed By: Ron Underwood
Written & Story By: Brent Maddock, S.S. Wilson, Gregory Hansen & Erik Hansen
Based on the short film by: Gregory Hansen
Cinematography By: Michael W. Watkins
Editor: O. Nicholas Brown

Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Alfre Woodard, Elisabeth Shue, Charles Grodin, Kyra Sedgwick, Tom Sizemore, David Paymer

This movie is about four people who die in a bus crash and have to take care of some stuff they didn't before they died. At the same moment they died, a baby is born. They are stuck to him forever. Can he help them to finish their business?
This is a light weight throwback film that is all silliness and sweetness. It is more about heart then reality. It also is one of the last times of a bygone era where we get respected character actors playing clichés and being in a film that is beneath their talents but clearly having fun.

Robert Downey Jr. is game at playing the role with physical and verbal flair. The rest of the cast play the stock characters. The warmness in which they play the roles is what ultimately wins you over with this film. You know what is going to happen and is more of a film to play for kids to kill time or distract them maybe even to watch as a family film. The tone is light and breezy with a musical flair. Like a fairly graphic Broadway show with lot’s of locations and few production numbers. It kind of goes with the territory under the direction of Ron Underwood (TREMORS)

The film is a time passer as it moves quickly and doesn’t leave you with many questions. The film feels over before you know it and you find yourself missing the characters as they slowly leave the film. The romance angle is kind of awkward as it just feels put there to round out the film and there is no real chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Elisabeth Shue. Though there is plenty of chemistry amongst the rest of the cast.

Luckily with Robert Downey Jr. it plays to his strengths he seems to be a very talented renaissance man. Like an old Vaudeville entertainer.

The film can’t help but leave you with a smile on your face. Wait for Television.

GRADE: C

BEING ELMO: A PUPPETEER'S JOURNEY (2011)

2012-01-15T11:17:00.002-05:00

Directed By: Constance Marks & Philip Shane

With: Kevin Clash, Frank Oz, Whoopi Goldberg

The film traces Kevin Clash's rise from his modest beginnings in Baltimore to his current success as the man behind Elmo, one of the world's most recognizable and adored characters. Millions of children tune in daily to watch Elmo, yet when Kevin walks down the street he is not recognized. Pivotal to the film is the exploration of Jim Henson's meteoric rise, and Kevin's ultimate achievement of his goal to become part of the Henson family of puppeteers. In addition to puppeteering Elmo, Mr. Clash is arguably the creative force behind today's Sesame Street, producing, directing and traveling around the globe training other puppeteers. Includes interviews with Frank Oz, Rosie O'Donnell, Whoopi Goldberg, Carroll Spinney, Joan Ganz Cooney, Marty Robinson, Fran Brill, and Bill Barretta.

Not only universally inspirational but also inspirational for the African American community.

Seeing someone devote their life to their passion and through skill, ingenuity and imagination. Get to not only live their dream but be mentored by his heroes.
IT also gives a glimpse into the world of puppetry. The legends of that world and the formation of sesame street. Behind the scenes of the muppets and Jim Henson’s movies. This film struck a chord with me as it shows Jim Henson and pays a proper tribute to him a man I have always admired for keeping me entertained as a child, but also for teaching me and other children. Life lessons along with the basics but also inspire us to always use and never lose our imaginations nor sense of wonder. Be Sincere in all that you do. A lesson I always took to heart and try not only to live by and express to others.

Though this film focuses on Kevin Clash he and the film still seem to be spreading that message and towards the end the film gives us hope that this message will pass to the next generation as we see a girl who seems to have the same fascination and passion as Kevin did. We get to learn a lot about his family and how he got to the position that he is at now. We even get to see him teach puppetry in Paris. Though he is shy we never get to learn too much about his personal life currently. It’s still pretty powerful though not too deep and probing. Just getting to see behind the scenes at the jim Henson company. Getting to see the workshop where they assemble and create the various different characters. Though they are only pieces of cloth and material the film and people involved are so magical that you see the puppets as real characters though essentially they are just aspects of the creators personality. I highly recommend the film for the family, kids and those young at heart.

GRADE: A

OFFSIDE (2006)

2012-01-15T11:09:00.000-05:00

Directed & Edited By: Jafar Panahi
Written By: Jafar Panahi & Shadmehr Restin
Cinematography By: Yuval Berazani & Korosh Bozorgpour

Cast: Sima Mobarak-Shahi, Shayesteh Ireni, Ayda Sadeqi, Golanz Parmani, Mahnaz Zabini

"Offside" is about a group of Iranian girls who attempts to enter Tehran's Azadi Stadium dressed as boys in order to watch a big football match but some get caught and arrested. After the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran, women are not allowed to enter the stadiums.

The women here are not very convincing dressed up like men, Some could pass. Here we follow a first timer tries and is caught and detained with other women. We get to see their passion for the sport. The camaraderie that develops between them. The hypocracy involvedin this law prohibiting women. Which even some of the men attending the game see as stupid or don’t really care.

It’s rare the movie that can involve social commentary and still be a light hearted comedy, But this movie succeeds and scores. This film involves characters you grow to love and are astonished at their rebellious nature. For what can be a trivial pastime but they are willing to layit all on the line for football or what we in America would call soccer. The beauty of this film is that even though it’s a dramedy. It feel s more like a documentary due to the realness. The camera work and the fact that it was filmed during an actual world cup qualifying match.

There is nothing outrageous it is more the comedy that comes from real life situations. I like the fact that the film doesn’t make anyone out to be evil or a villain. Even the guards who are there to reinforce the rules are three dimensional characters. Not one dimensional zealots, that you see a lot of times in a lot of other movies.

This is definately a must see. It’s not propaganda or a political film drowned in messages and symbolism. In fact if not for the politics involved this could be a nice breezy comedy. I mean it is rated PG after all.
An Addition to the home library.

GRADE: A

IN A BETTER WORLD (2010)

2012-01-15T11:03:00.000-05:00

Directed By: Susanne Bier
Written By: Anders Thomas Jensen
Cinematography By: Morton Soborg
Editor: Pernille Bach Christensen & Morton Egholm

Cast: Mikael Pensbrandt, Ulrich Thomsen, Markus Rygaard, Trinie Dyrholm

Anton is a doctor who commutes between his home in an idyllic town in Denmark, and his work at an African refugee camp. In these two very different worlds, he and his family are faced with conflicts that lead them to difficult choices between revenge and forgiveness. Anton and his wife Marianne, who have two young sons, are separated and struggling with the possibility of divorce. Their older, ten-year-old son Elias is being bullied at school, until he is defended by Christian, a new boy who has just moved from London with his father, Claus. Christian's mother recently lost her battle with cancer, and Christian is greatly troubled by her death. Elias and Christian quickly form a strong bond, but when Christian involves Elias in a dangerous act of revenge with potentially tragic consequences, their friendship is tested and lives are put in danger. Ultimately, it is their parents who are left to help them come to terms with the complexity of human emotions, pain and empathy.
If you have seen a Susanne Bier film. You know what you are in for Shaky hand held camera movements, Raw naked emotions on display. Shocking acts of sudden violence.
It’s a film that inspires you to want to be a better person. Here it is not too different. Just a film on a bigger worldwide scale. Her films seem to be alike and have the same things, but she manages to make each film different with it’s own identity. Like children in a family they each resemble one another and each have their own personality.

The actors are all good but I have to give the child actors in the film credit. They more then hold their own on screen against the adult actors. They keep you captivated as they are on screen for more then 60% of the film.

The film could be described as a dark coming of age tale. The film seems like it would be melodramatic, but manages to be alive with emotions in each scene. It’s glossy but feels realistic. It’s notan easy film to forget.

The film was nominated for Best Foreign film at the Oscars. Unfortunately it didn’t win but it did face heavy competition. I wanted to see the film in theaters, but it was out of them before I had a chance to see it, but I made sure soon as it arrived on dvd to get a copy. When it comes to Susanne Bier films they can be quite sad. They also make the audience react and question their own humanity of course the way I’m describing it makes it sound like misery porn.

I know this film will be attacked by people who don’t like it. They will call it a pumped up melodramatic after school special. This film is better written and filmed. It also explores it’s subjects and it’s characters more then any of those specials ever did.

I like that the dialogue is simple but the film really relies on emotions and reactions. That is where the action really comes into play.

This is like a emotional horror film. A raw emotional roller coaster ride. The films spins across two nations. It makes us question ourselves.

It’s a film where there is not really a wrong note except the ending seemed a little too Hollywood. The ending is too simple and uplifting. I didn’t want a downer ending as you grow close to all of the characters, But the ending that is here felt a bit false.

The film doesn’t fill in all the details of the situations or characters upfront. It leaves you to discover the information slowly and still doesn’t give you the full story. You can only go by what you can gather. No one is a saint. No one is a complete villain.

I was afraid that was how the film was going to be. Just like her others

GRADE: B+

JEFF OF THE CINEFILES: HALL OF FAME: FILE #0018: BEFORE SUNRISE (1995)

2012-01-15T10:12:00.000-05:00

Directed By: Richard Linklater
Written By: Richard Linklater & Kim Krizan
Cinematography By: Lee Daniel
Editor: Sandra Adair

Cast: Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy

American tourist Jesse and French student Celine meet by chance on the train from Budapest to Vienna. Sensing that they are developing a connection, Jesse asks Celine to spend the day with him in Vienna, and she agrees. Passing the time before his scheduled flight the next morning. How do two perfect strangers connect so intimately over the course of a single day? What is that special thing that bonds two people so strongly? As their bond turns to love, what will happen to them the next morning when Jesse flies away?

Based on a night that Writer-Director Richard Linklater took with a woman when he was young. One of my favorite movies. Why because it seems to be about so little, but manages to make an impact and seem personal to whoever watches it. Making it universal in it’s aspect. Two young people walking around Vienna talking, but it is about so much more. The conversations are at times trite, but reveal so much about the characters and their lives.

This film is a combination of scenery and dialogue. As the locations are natural, Colorful, historical and rich. It’s Europe after all.

The film works as a Romance, Comedy, Travelogue and a social look at the mind set of contemporary youth of the 90’s. Either way it’s like one of those classic movies with a certain style and grace. With an empahasis on Character and dialogue. This is not only a minor classic but a classic film. So many scenes that I remember and cherish in my memory from this movie, being the hopeless romantic that I am. This is a movie I truly believe should be shown in film schools. To teach the student about composition of shots and writing characters and making them truthful.

The scenes that spark the most are the scene where the leads are in a store listening to a record and stealing glances at each other, but looking away when the other looks. The Street Poet who can make a poem centered around whatever word you give him. The longing seen in each other’s eyes as the day comes to a close. The wondering Did they or Didn’t they in the morning after.

This film was followed by a sequel picking up 10 years later. The characters are older. So we get some of our questions answered. We get to find out how they have changed since the last time that they saw each other. Some more questions are actually put forth.

I remember seeing this film in the theater with my cousin. A quarter of the audience walked out. The film was advertised as a romantic comedy with wacky hijinks. The audience didn’t expect a dialogue heavy film that really only has 2 characters. They wanted Pratfalls and slapstick. The audience reacting so negatively to the film only made me realize what a one of a kind film this was. It’s a gem .As the remaining audience sighed about when would the film be over or when they would stop talking and have more action. It made me realize how unique and beautiful the film was, line by line and Scene by scene. Thank god for Home video and dvd where it gained it’s audience.

I wish I could say this is the film that made me want to be a filmmaker. It’s not of course, but it opened my eyes to the fact that films didn’t have to be only plot and story based, They could also just be about characters. This is a film that is mostly conversations, but it is what isn’t spoken that is really going on. We have to read between the lines. It made me want to write and tell stories that were more personal and smaller. So while not being the inspiration, It is one of the films that helped guide and inform me to the style and type of films I wanted to make. As well as helping to open me up to films that are different then what was the usual blockbuster type.

This is a nice sweet film. if you haven’t seen it. You should discover on DVD.I don’t think you’ll be disappointed

GRADE: A+

THE BEST FILMS OF 2011 (At least i think so)

2012-01-09T13:03:00.015-05:00

Now before we get there here are some films i didn't get a chance to see that seem to be making many lists. SHAME, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, THE ARTIST, IDES OF MARCH, JANE EYRE, A SEPERATION.

SPECIAL MENTIONS
These films didn't make the list only because they weren't released officially in 2011 but that is the year i saw them and they are all excellent and deserve to be seen.

THE WILD HUNT
BAARIA
HOUSE
THE HOUSEMAID.

Now without furthur adieu, The list you have been waiting for

THE BEST FILMS OF 2011

24. BELLFLOWER
A good first attempt,One man's journey into love and heartbreak and the aftermath. Personal filmmaking not as Delicate and artsy as other films. This film is haunting and disturbing. Easy to dismiss, but the more i thought about this film the more it meant to me.

23. WARRIOR
This film came as a total surprise. It's entertaining with a story we have seen before that manages to make it new and emotionally resonant for the audience. Emotional but still a guy's movie that women will enjoy.

22. RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
Well made and better then it should be.

21. CAPTAIN AMERICA
I know shocking isn't it. Nostalgic and one of the better Comic Book Movies. Though i would hate it and it ended up blowing Thor and Green Lantern out of the water.

20. 13 ASSASSINS
Takashi Miike Does it again, Beautiful landscapes and shots. Violent and an over 45 minute battle sequence. Push this film over the top to awesome.

19. BEGINNERS

18. LOVE CRIME

17. HARRY POTTER & THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 2
The second half of a film. it can stand up on it's own

16. THE GUARD

15. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

14. I SAW THE DEVIL

13. YOUNG ADULT
I identified with this film alot

12. DRIVE

11. MONEYBALL

10. RED, WHITE AND BLUE
Shocking but oh so emotional and deep

9. THE SKIN I LIVE IN

8. PRINCE OF BROADWAY

7. BRIDESMAIDS

6. THE LAST CIRCUS

5. ATTACK THE BLOCK

4. HUGO

3. WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KEVIN

2. INCENDIES

1. DREAM HOME

- Not the Daniel Craig

THE WORST fILMS OF 2011 (That i watched)

2012-01-09T12:30:00.006-05:00

Now i know the list is shortish. Keep in mind i don't set out to see bad films. If a film get's bad reviews or just doesn't look interesting to me i don't bother seeing
it. So please no comments about certain films, Since most likely i didn't see them.
Like TRANSFORMERS 3

13. SUCKER PUNCH
This film is pretty bad and confusing, butit is shot well and visually it is interesting. Like a fanboy fantasy on celluloid. Who i think it was made for. Then it tries to say it is a female empowerment film, by makingthe females dress up in fetishistic costumes and then kicking the ass of the opressors on there own rules? Huh?

12. SLEEPING BEAUTY
Not the year for Emily Browning. Here she gives a brave performance. I just wish she hadbetter material that has a story to tell and a point.

11. THE GREEN HORNET
I like the cameo in the beginning, Christoph Waltz is hilarious. I also enjoyed the scene of the green hornet having a bounty put on his head throughoutthe underworld. That is all.

10. LONDON BOULEVARD
Great Cast, Great premise. What the hell Happened?

9. HORRIBLE BOSSES

8. NO STRINGS ATTACHED

7. RAMPART

6. THE FUTURE

5. THE ROOMMATE

4. JUST GO WITH IT
Who knew the movie FUNNY PEOPLE was going to be a premontion of the future of Adam Sandler films. After that film he reached any artistic peak he was goingto and now just takes onthe next horrible comedy he can sign to. The scary part is that him or his team of writers are the one's coming up with these films. It's not like the studio is sending him these films and he is just cashing a paycheck.

3. YOUR HIGHNESS

2. THE GREEN LANTERN

1. THE ARENA

ALMOST MADE IT 2011 - HONORABLE MENTIONS

2012-01-09T11:34:00.005-05:00

Runner up's to the highest honor of BEST OF THE YEAR

HANNA
Style oVer Substance, but a interesting idea

THE WOMAN
Disturbing

SUPER 8

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATOO

POINT BLANK

ESSENTIAL KILLING

LIMITLESS

THE LINCOLN LAWYER

HEARTBEATS

RUBBER

KIDNAPPED

MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN
Not necessarily for quality, But fun and memorable. The greatest Troma movie never made

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS

RED STATE
Great Subject matter, It marked artistic growth in Director KEvin Smith. Not a slam dunk, But a nice try.

50/50

TRUE ADOLESENTS

TABLOID

A BETTER LIFE

SPORK
Never have i enjoyed myself watching a movie that felt personal and moving to me as this

TREE OF LIFE
I think i would have liked the film more if i had seen it in theaters. Though i will say that though it is a beautiful film. I think it is Terrence Malik's worse film. Which is still pretty incredible.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: GHOST PROTOCOL (2011)

2011-12-29T18:37:00.004-05:00

Directed By: Brad Bird
Written By: Josh Applebaum & Andre Nemec
Based on the television series by: Bruce Geller
Cinematography By: Robert Elswitt
Editor: Paul Hirsch

Cast: Tom Cruise, Paula Patton, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Lea Seydoux, Josh Holloway, Anil Kapor, Michael Nyqvist

In the 4th installment of the Mission Impossible series, Ethan Hunt and his team are racing against time to track down a dangerous terrorist named Hendricks, who has gained access to Russian nuclear launch codes and is planning a strike on the United States. An attempt by the team to stop him at the Kremlin ends in a disaster, with an explosion causing severe destruction to the Kremlin and the IMF being implicated in the bombing, forcing the President to invoke Ghost Protocol, under which the IMF is disavowed, and will be offered no help or backup in any form. Undaunted, Ethan and his team chase Hendricks to Dubai, and from there to Mumbai, but several spectacular action sequences later, they might still be too late to stop a disaster.

Watching this film is like watching Tom Cruise’s mid-life crisis as he seems to have to do it all as far as the action goes. He keeps getting injured but has no scars long lasting injuries. The film seems to set up nearly impossible challenges and he rises to the occasion. The whole team does get a chance to shine but the film never let’s you forget who is the star and who is the leader of the pack. Making Tom Cruise’s Character Ethan Hunt the American Version of James Bond. Each film gives us the same character on the same but different missions. Yet each film has it’s own identity and character. Due to each film having a different director who brings there own vision to the character, story and action.

It is noteable as Brad Bird’s Live action Film directing debut. He has made Animated films up until now like THE IRON GIANT, THE INCREDIBLES, RATOUILLE. He more then fits the role of director for this film.

This film has a lot more comedy then the other films. Which is a nice break in between the non-stop action. At least here it fits and is not just awkwardly sitting there like you would find in a Michael Bay film. Simon Pegg is the usual generator of the comedy. Thous as you watch the film the action is over the top and ridiculous. Though the scenes are great to experience and look at. They are well orchestrated.

It’s nice to see the team have to depend more on actual skills as most of the equipment fails or is faulty.

One of the problems with the film is that there isn’t a memorable villain as the other films had one. These films and action films are usually characterized as much by the hero as the villain. The villain here is barely in it. There is even one scene where you wonder why the villain would risk himself instead of his right hand man, Maybe he was just too dedicated to his beliefs to let someone else handle it? The film series which usually places ethan with a new team. Seems to put too much time on us getting to know the team so all that attention is taken off the villain who is more of a unseen threat then a present danger lurking around and haunting the team.

It’s a perfect popcorn movie though half the time you will find yourself rolling your eyes at what is happening on screen and the dialogue. I appreciate though that the film keeps upping the ante. Though at times it feels more like a big cartoon then anything else.

Another problem with films like this is that you never really worry about the
character as you know the main character will survive and be successful. You just watch how he handles it.

Jeremy Renner is supposed to be kind of a badass in fight scenes comes off as whiny in his other scenes. I know that goes to his character history and being out of the field for awhile. I just wish him and Josh Holloway could have switched roles as Holloway comes off as a more interesting presence. Paula Patton has the Halle Berry role. She looks good and has a good action sequence, but is mostly there to be a side character and be nice looking gift wrapping. It’s better then having the typical girlfriend role or damsel in distress. I just wish she had more to do. Thankfully she isnot there to be ethans new love or anything like that.

Grade: B

TANNER HALL (2009)

2011-12-29T17:59:00.003-05:00

Written & Directed By: Francesca Gregorini & Tatiana Von Frustenberg
Cinematography By: Brian Rigney Hubbard
Editor: Michelle Botticelli, Sharon Rutter & Lauren Zuckerman

Cast: Rooney Mara, Brie Larson, Amy Ferguson, Tom Everett Scott, Chris Kattan, Amy Sedaris, Tara Subkoff

Tanner Hall is a vivid peek into the private world of an all-girls boarding school. In a cozy, but run down New England, the knot of adolescent complexity is unraveled through the coming of age stories of four teen-age girls.

This is a coming of age film, Where each character gets their own storyline and their own time to shine. It’s obvious who the star of the film is. Obviously it’s Rooney Mara’s film. Her character get’s most of the screen time and is the narrator.

It is obvious where most of the stories are going and they seem to be rushed.
Trusting the audience does and will get impatient. If they don’t get on with it. So they trim the fat. It’s obvious from the introduction scene of Tom Everett Scott’s character and him picking up Rooney Mara where they are going with the story. Why would you trust your teenage daughter with you fiends husband when they just had a kid and he is going through a mid-life crisis.

Amy Sedaris and Chris Kattan are here more for comic relief. Though I found Kattan’s performance annoying until his character takes a more dramatic turn. He just seems to be there as fodder for the story rather then a genuine character.

You have seen and heard stories like those presented before in this film, Only better done. This might have been a better book then film. Though it might be a better film for teenage girls to watch. A nice introduction to independent films that speaks to them more then it ever spoke to me. As I am older and maybe a bit jaded so I can’t relate to the material really.

The actresses are all good and certainly attractive and effective. Especially Brie Larson

Only one character constantly stays interesting and wouldn’t have minded if the film revolved around her character. She is Georgina King, Whose character seems to really want attention only so that she can cause havoc on them. Get them into trouble making them hate her more so that she can feed off of that and use the hate as enough motivation to kill herself. Which would have been a good film character study in of itself.

The film has heart, but it feels like it’s artificial and running on fumes.

Wait for television.

GRADE: C-

THE ORPHANAGE (2007)

2011-12-29T17:49:00.005-05:00

Directed By: Juan Antonio Bayona
Written By: Sergio C. Sanchez
Cinematography By: Oscar Faura
Editor: Elena Ruiz

Cast: Belen Rueda, Fernando Cayo, Roger Princep, Geraldine Chaplin

Laura, a former orphan, raises her adopted son Simón together with her husband Carlos in an old house and former orphanage where she was raised. While at the orphanage Simón tells Laura that he has five invisible friends which she believes are a product of his active imagination. Laura decides to reopen the orphanage to cater for disabled children and throws a party. During the party Simón tries to persuade Laura to go and take a look at his friends cabin but she's too busy. Later on she sees a mysterious masked boy and realizes that Simón has also disappeared. Laura feels the presence of other people in the house and months later Laura invites a team of parapsychologists to try to unravel the mystery.

When it comes to films that Guillermo Del Toro has his hands in. The film seems to contain a mythology all it’s own. Which is what makes these films worthwhile and magical. They are rich with not only imagery, but also imagination. The scope may seem small, but in reality it is a wonderland that knows no limits. The film is no mere horror film. While it is scary. It is more of a adult fairy tale with suspenseful moments. It’s a dark tale with reality overtones, but at it’s heart. It is playful and has no limits.

The film continuously keeps you guessing. It’s never boring as you find yourself getting more and more enraptured by the story and you begin to identify with the characters and worry about them. The film manages to stay luscious in it’s beauty though there is mainly only one location a sprawling house and yard around it.
The film can be heartbreaking, but it is for a reason that assures you of it’s decisions. The film is a gem that can be breathtaking in it’s beauty. It’s not a simple film, but seems like it is one.

It took me awhile to finally watch this film. It was a film that came acclaimed, but also one that i knew I had to see in the right mood. I knew it was a film that I would appreciate. It’s usual style. But I really would appreciate it’s visual style, but I really wanted to pay attention to it’s other qualities. I was not disappointed in the least. The film has an iconic character who seems at first like a boogeyman that haunts the main character and the film. Until we finally understand everything.
This is a film that is best to go into blind and discover it’s pleasures.

Even my firend who usally doesn't watch foreign films. Watched thisin theaters and enjoyed it.

This is a definite addition to the film library.

GRADE: A

COWBOYS & ALIENS (2011)

2011-12-29T17:29:00.006-05:00

Directed By: Jon Favreau
Written By: Robert Orci, Alex Kurtman, Damon Lindelof, Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby
Story By: Steve Oedekerk, Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby
Based On The Graphic Novel By: Scott Mitchell Rosenberg
Cinematography By: Matthew Labitque
Editor: Dan Lebantal, Jim May

Cast: Daniel Craig, Olivia Wilde, Harrison Ford, Paul Dano, Adam Beach, Clancy Brown, Sam Rockwell, Abigail Spencer, An de la reguera, Toby Huss, David Carradine, Walton Goggins

The Old West.. where a lone cowboy leads an uprising against a terror from beyond our world. 1873. Arizona Territory. A stranger with no memory of his past stumbles into the hard desert town of Absolution. The only hint to his history is a mysterious shackle that encircles one wrist. What he discovers is that the people of Absolution don't welcome strangers, and nobody makes a move on its streets unless ordered to do so by the iron-fisted Colonel Dolarhyde (Ford). It's a town that lives in fear. But Absolution is about to experience fear it can scarcely comprehend as the desolate city is attacked by marauders from the sky. Screaming down with breathtaking velocity and blinding lights to abduct the helpless one by one, these monsters challenge everything the residents have ever known. Now, the stranger they rejected is their only hope for salvation. As this gunslinger slowly starts to remember who he is and where he's been

This film you get exactly what you would expect from the title. A fun filled action extravaganza. That delivers the thrills. It is the very definition of a popcorn movie. It’s big loud and dumb and passes the time in a entertaining way. Impressive considering how much of a disaster it could have ended up being. It’s competently directed.

Instead of feeling like it is based on a popular graphic novel. The film plays out instead more like a video game adaptation with familiar clichéd stories of proving yourself. The effects certainly make the film lead that way and half the time it feels like you are playing a video game while watching it.

It is the first time I have really seen Daniel Craig as a true lead and action star. He brings the Tall dark and quiet qualities that the led character of this film needs.He reminds you of a later day Steve McQueen. Though he is a replacement for original Star Robert Downey Jr. who would have been miscast in the film. Craig is Mysterious dangerous and moral to a point.

Harrison Ford is nice to see giving a supporting performance. Rather then a lead one. It gives him a chance to play a character. Not an icon or heroic lead. It gives him more of a flavor then the vanilla he usually plays.

Olivia Wilde while very beautiful and nice to look at has a role that makes no sense. She took the role after Eva Green turned it down.

Paul Dano is a good actor. Who I am starting to get annoyed with always playing the dweeb characters. Certain actors have their schtick when playing characters ns this seems to be his in particular usually in big budget movie supporting roles. While he has an odd look, He is certainly better then the roles he plays. look at TAKING LIVES he is dangerous in. In THERE WILL BE BLOOD he holds his own against Daniel Day Lewis of all people.

Wait for Cable

GRADE: C

JEFF OF THE CINEFILES: HALL OF FAME: FILE #0017: TAPE (2001)

2011-12-14T17:20:00.003-05:00

Directed By: Richard Linklater
Written By: Steven Belber (Based on his play)
Cinematography By: Maryse Alberti
Editor: Sandra Adair

Cast: Ethan Hawke, Robert Sean Leonard, Uma Thurman

Based on a three-character, one-act play, Tape is set entirely in Room 19 of a seedy motel in Lansing, Michigan rented by Vince, a ill-tempered, outgoing party animal/drug dealer who's visited by his old high school friend Jon, a documentary filmmaker, where they pass the time reminiscing about the good old times which take a turn when Vince records their conversation with Jon admitting to a possible date-rape of Vince's old girlfriend Amy, who later shows up and opens up a new wave of talk and arguments about whose story is fact or fabricated.

Depending on how you like your indie cinema is how much you are going like this film. It is almost filmed like a filmed play. As it is filmed in long takes in a single location, With very few cast members. It was also one of the first films made with a digital camera.

This is a film that is best to go into with limited knowledge. It is a film that is better to discover as it goes along. There are plenty of about faces, Double crosses and shocks. The reason I like this movie is that it is in a closed space and dialogue that strips away the characters façade to reveal more about them. It penetrates you at the same time. You care about the characters and begin to wonder about their Psyche’s and actions. Another reason I like the film is that to a certain extent nothing is resolved, but there is sense of closure. There are only three characters and two of them are in every scene, yet each actor get’s a chance to shine. In act 1 Ethan Hawke shines, Act 2 Robert Sean Leonard Act 3 Uma Thurman doing some of the best acting of her career.

This film is truly monumental for me. It doesn’t look the best, but that only makes the situations seem more realistic. The film is also experimental in nature. IT was filmed in one weekend and once it came out. It seemed to come out of nowhere with no advance word or advertisement. Before this film none of the actors struck me as either deep or noticeable good actors. This film definitely changed my opinion it showed range, Skill and talent. Robert Sean Leonard always came across as a waspy light weight. Here he shows he has strength as an actor. Uma Thurman shows she is more then a pretty face and can be quite manipulative instead of just ethereal. Ethan Hawke shows how at times he is a chameleon blending in the background and showing his true colors just before an attack.

The film is set in a motel room and it isn’t even a real one it is actually a soundstage. That is how realistic it looks.

This film is directed by Richard Linklater a director who never ceases to amaze. Because just when you believe he is coasting after making a few clunkers (Bad News Bears (Remake) The Newton Boys) that seemed more like artiface with very little care. He comes out with a movie like this or BEFORE SUNRISE that are so deeply moving and beautiful. It’s impossible to believe this film is from the same director. He’s like a pop artist. Commercial but at times shows a surprising amount of depth. It amazes me that Richard Linklater always calls himself a lazy director. When it seems that every other film he makes is itself a masterpiece. His films don’t really call attention to themselves technically, but are well made that you can easily lose yourself in. That remind you of the 1970’s aesthetic. Where the films were about artistry more then trying to just make a buck. The films of that period seemed more about personal expression and artistry.

GRADE: A-

RAMPART (2011)

2011-12-14T16:59:00.003-05:00

Directed By: Oren Moverman
Written By: Oren Moverman & James Ellroy
Cinematography By: Bobby Butowski
Editor: Jay Rabinowitz

CAST: Woody Harrelson, Robin Wright-Penn, Sigourney Weaver, Steve Buscemi, Ice Cube, Brie Larson, Anne Heche, Ben Foster, Cynthia Nixon, Ned Beatty, Jon Foster, Jon Bernthal

Set in 1999 Los Angeles, veteran police officer Dave Brown, the last of the renegade cops, works to take care of his family, and struggles for his own survival.
Woody Harrelson does what is called for, he seems natural in the role. The film just fails him as it gives us plenty of his background but doesn’t give us a compelling story to follow him through. I will admit though I was more impressed by his performance in the film THE MESSENGER.

While there is a riveting story and a character study buried in here. It is never utilized to allow a greater more elaborate performance.

The film seems misdirected while trying to go natural. Then all of a sudden artsy camera movements and angles. It’s like the director didn’t know how exactly to set up shots for the best quality of the scene. So he cut together. Various bad ones.
Considering the film is co-written by James Ellroy. It get’s the grittiness correct. As well as the political and inner workings of the L.A.P.D. But half of the bigger name actors seem only to be here in glorified cameos. They seem to only be in the film because they were attracted by the prestige.

There is one scene of true originality. When the chips are down and Woody’s character goes on a bender to a underground Club. Where sex and debauchery is going on all around him. Drunk and on any numerous narcotics. He walks through the club when the screen goes blank and over the next few minutes there are flashes of action bathed in red light of what is going on in the club. It sneaks up on us and plays like his character going in and out of consciousness. So we are with him throughout the experience.

The rest of the film is so unfulfilling that it pushes Mr. Harrelson’s performance to Seem great otherwise compared to the rest of the film. Like a consolation prize. The film shows that he seems to be living the role and reacting to what is thrown at him. Most of the other roles are underwritten and just woven into the tapestry to shape and show unspoken subtle things on the fringes. There are the makings of a great film here.

It’s a shame the film has good actors who seem stuck and misused in the film.

GRADE: D+

SLEEPING BEAUTY (2011)

2011-12-14T16:41:00.004-05:00

Written & Directed By: Julia Leigh
Cinematography By: Geoffrey Simpson
Editor: Nick Meyers

Cast: Emily Browning, Racheal Blake

A haunting portrait of Lucy, a young university student drawn into a mysterious hidden world of unspoken desires

A character study, Where the character we are supposed to be interested in and follow to learn more about. Is incredibly dull. Don’t get me wrong Emily Browning gives a brave performance and is an astonishing beauty to look at, but the film leaves her almost a enigma. While watching what she goes through on screen is what makes her performance noteworthy. Considering she was a replacement for Mia Wasikowska Who really dodged a bullet here. Director Julia Leigh asked her to watch the film ANTI-CHRIST and see Charloette Gainsbourg’s performance tobase her’s on it. Problemis ANTI-Christ is a better film then this.

Nothing much happens really in the film especially plot wise. The film plays more like a bunch of loosely defined sketches of things that are supposed to move things forward and characters who are not fully developed. The film just is very vague and seems to want you the audience member to fill in the blanks for yourself and no matter what you put there. You are not wrong sort of like abstract art. Only here very stylized.

The Camera work is magnificent and there are seed of what could have been a good powerful and erotic story. If only decisions were made not to let the film be so empty. The film is supposed to be erotic and it rises to the occasion without any real sex scenes. There is some niduty that is handled matter of factly but no sex. In effect it is all foreplay with no action.

The director has a keen eye. For the most part she keeps us away and at bay from the character and action. Rarely is there a close-up to show in the cold world in which the character inhabits no feelings. Emotionally spare. Nothing is ever fully explained. Which makes the film impersonal while showing us the main characters personal life. As the film never follws any other character and she is in each scene.

I dowonder that if sex was in the film. Would it make the film pornographic. Would it still make the film feel as empty as it already does.

The film is very slow and I found myself bored constantly. Each time you think the film will speed up. It fakes you out and stays on the same path. The film seems like an idea that was never fully fleshed out. An experiment missing key elements to it’s formula.

A noble Failure, but still a failure.

GRADE: D+

SERAPHIM FALLS (2006)

2011-12-14T16:22:00.004-05:00

Directed By: David Von Ancken
Written By: David Von Ancken & Abby Everett Jaques
Cinematography By: John Toll
Editor: Conrad Buff IV

Cast: Pirece Brosnan, Liam Neeson, Anjelica Huston, Michael Wincott, Ed Lauter, Xander Berkeley, Tom Noonan, Kevin J. O’Connor, Angie Harmon, Wes Studi, Jimmi Simpson

In the 1860s, five men have been tracking a sixth across Nevada for more than two weeks. They shoot and wound him, but he gets away. They pursue, led by the dour Carver, who will pay them each $1 a day once he's captured. The hunted is Gideon, resourceful, skilled with a knife. Gideon's flight and Carver's hunt require horses, water, and bullets. The course takes them past lone settlers, a wagon train, a rail crew, settlements, and an Indian philosopher. What is the reason for the hunt; what connects Gideon and Carver? What happened at Seraphim Falls?

For the first hour of this film. IT totally grabs you by your throat and keeps your attention with it’s violence and grittiness. At first you wonder what’s going on. Then as it moves along The story is filled in.

The thing about the movie is at first you can’t tell who the villain is or supposed to be. Then as you get the back-story you get the reasons why each of these two characters are the way they are. There is very little dialogue which the movie tries to circumvent with action, Beautiful visuals and spine tingling suspense.

Shockingly to me this is more Pierce Brosnan’s film as he feels like a full rounded character. Who is haunted, Yet has a incredible knack for survival. Mr. Brosnan is a surprising actor seeing him as Remington Steele and James Bond. I had written him off as a one note actor who even though he tried in films like nomads and the lawnmower man could only play Waspy Europeans who are suave and mischievous white collar, But after this film and The Matador he shows he can deliver on different character types and I applaud him. He was a last minute replacement for Richard Gere. Brosnan and Liam neeson said this was their favorite film to work on as they both always dreamed of being in a western and finally got a chance with this film.

This film plays like an action packed episode of Deadwood, but the problems overcome the film. Like while the first hour is great. After that it peter’s out it goes off the rails. It becomes boring and repetitious. It would have been better if instead of a full flashback to the characters history. Instead we saw the history in bits and pieces letting us put it together. It would have been more moving and authentic looking. As it is now it looks like a bad cheap set in the middle of the old west role-playing town or a bad recreation of an old west farm.

The other major problem is the ending. This action epic all of a sudden becomes an acid trip hallucinatory metaphysical philosophical crossroads battle and conversation. That sounds more interesting then it is.

The film is an ok rental if you can’t find anything else. Also if you are really into westerns

GRADE: B-

Jeff's Early thoughts on THOR 2

2011-12-14T14:07:00.002-05:00

Patty Jenkins Has dropped out of Directing Thor 2. Which was an odd fit from the beginning. That gave me hope either she would make the film more dramtic and character based with ok effects or effects heavy showing that Jenkins could be more of a mianstream director.

She has already Made MONSTER as a artsy independent film. That got her a foot in the door. She dropped out of this film over creative differences, But she managed to stay on good terms with the studio and saying she might direct a original superhero character film (Hawkeye???) Just not a sequel to a already started franchise shows the studio wants to keep a tone. Which would be great if thor was good or as good as Captain America movie, but the studio's winningness to hand the reigns to director's more attuned to television on one hand, Shows a willingness to give these rookie director's a step up to features a chance, but it reaks of hiring a director who is used to working fast and loose on budget if need be and will follow the studios orders and notes to a t. Afraid to lose the big break that they are getting. Not trying to make the film with their own artistic whims. Though very basically.

(Working in television, You have such a short schedule to shoot and edit. You hve to do it quick and fast) and know they will get not the best quality but disposable enough to entertain and make enough money to make a sequel. Not having to endure fights with a director who has a vision and has enough clout to get what they want or won't bow down and worries about not having their vision onscreen. If jenkins would have stayed it would have been a interesting experiment. As she would have been thor's second director. Who is more well known for directing dramatic films and more actor films then film with action. Kenneth Branagh i could see why he at leat took the first film as it is filled with tons of drama as it is a story about gods and mythology. isfilled with great family dynamics and tales of drama. yet he turned out a film that while entertaining with a greatcastwas pretty basic and uninteresting. Notentirely his fault but understandable why he would choose not to return. It also seemed more interested in effects and action. Whcihnever felt special or awe inspiring. In fact it felt almost second rate.

JEFF OF THE CINEFILES: HALL OF FAME: FILE #0016: EDWARD SCISSORHANDS (1990)

2011-12-08T15:37:00.003-05:00

Directed By: Tim Burton
Written By: Caroline Thompson
Story By: Tim Burton & Caroline Thompson
Cinematography By: Stefan Czapsky
Editor: Richard Halsey
Production Design By: Bo Welch

Cast: Johnny Depp, Winona Ryder, Dianne Wiest, Anthony Michael Hall, Kathy Baker, Vincent Price, Alan Arkin, Conchata Ferrell, O-Lan Jones

In a castle high on top of a hill lives an inventor's greatest creation - Edward, a near-complete person. The creator died before he could finish Edward's hands; instead, Edward is left with metal scissors for hands. Since then, Edward has lived alone, until a kind lady called Peg discovers Edward and welcomes him into her home. At first, everyone welcomes Edward into the community, but soon things begin to take a change for the worse.

This was supposed to be his little follow-up to the big budget BATMAN. Tim Burton used his clout to get this dream project off the ground. Based on a drawing Burton did as a teenager. It was first written as a musical. This also his favorite film that he has directed.

I remember seeing this in theaters around the holidays my father didn’t much care for it but i was transfixed by what I was watching the images. Of course as an outcast socially this film has always appealed to me on a emotional level. The film is just so beautiful and walks a fine line of fragile and innocence, with lush visuals.

This is the closest Tim Burton has ever gotten to making a complete fairy tale which he seemed able to do earlier in his career. Where he seemed to make films that were based off of original ideas. He just worked close with screenwriters to fill out the story. Here this seemed to be the closest we will ever get to a personal film from him. Though he seems to be making a statement as an artist. It seems to be based on his memories of growing up as an outsider in the suburbs or Burbank, California. It just seems like BATMAN and BATMAN RETURNS. Which he added his sensibilities too. It seems to have sapped his creative instincts and wear him out when it comes to studio filmmaking. Though that is where he primarily goes to make films. Never having made a independent film. Though there seems to be a feeling of him bringing a unique eye, but being on auto-pilot when it comes to films such as MARS ATTACKS and PLANET OF THE APES (remake). This film just seems to be one of those perfect projects of director and material. Here he makes a truly original Fairy tale while paying homage to his personal hero Vincent price. Who appears in the film and was his final role. Making it even more personal for him. Even if it wasn’t just the images. The soundtrack alone just bring up emotional and romantic images. So all of his obsessions and Fascinations for Burton truly come together on this film.

This film is of course designed to appeal to those of us who feel or felt like outsiders. Or as Film critic Pauline Kael wrote of the film “The film has no mystery, it’s pre-interpreted. And Tim Burton is being too personal, Too tenderly self-serving. Edward is pure Creative artist, Who can’t be around people, Because he can’t help hurting them. He’s the person who can’t reach out, Can’t communicate, Can’t express his love. He’s a woeful misunderstood kid. “ That is what makes the film so special again this is the closest to the inner workings and inner life of Burton’s life and imagination we will probably ever get.

The film plays like a sad bit, more realistic fairy Tale feels like it could have been made in the 1950’s tries to connect with people. An audience who are at first fascinated then bored as he becomes more common and a constant in their lives. He tries to make a connection only to hurt the ones he loves and cares about not on purpose. Edward is used and then is turned against when they have no use for him. They exploit his good nature. The film also manages to satirize Tim Burton’s youth growing up in the bright suburbs of Burbank, California. Alan Arkin plays a father almost out of a 50’s sitcom.

This film is almost like a lite gothic version of Frankenstein without so much Dr. Frankenstein.

The film score to this film is just as important to this film as the visuals. It is truly an achievement unto itself. His previous scores had been implemental to his earlier movies in that most of the time the action had no dialogue and were like cartoons come to life so while watching the action go down the music accompanying the scenes help set the dark visuals into a light atmosphere so while the images were startling it was ok to laugh along with it. Now not only do you remember the scenes but you also remember the music that accompanied it so much that now when you hear it randomly it instantly bring up memories of the film. Here Danny Elfman outdoes himself. To think Tim Burton first offered the chance to Robert Smith of THE CURE to compose the music. He turned it down and the rest is history. Even Elfman has said this is his favorite music he has ever composed in his career.

The role of Edward was highly sought after. Tim Burton took a chance on Johnny Depp over such candidates as Tom Cruise, Jim Carrey , Robert Downey Jr. and Michael Jackson. Johnny Depp truly scores in this film with a emotional and pure performance. He lost 25 pounds for the role. The Rest of the cast does well. Dianne Wiest is noteworthy also in her role that seems comedic but also has a deepness with dramatic despair.

Again it’s a classic love story that has had a effect on me over the years. As the two lovers start off with only him instantly falling in love with her. She is only finally being won over by him, but only once most of the others who supported him, turn on him and finally though they love one another for various reasons. Never being able to be with one another, but still loving and never forgetting each other. With him each year showing his devotion by making it always snow during the holidays. While making ice sculptures devoted to her and his memories of her, forever as he never ages.

The film was a hit another feather in Mr. Burton’s cap. Though with it coming out round the holidays and it’s theme it was certainly one of the most strange yet original holiday films released. Family friendly but definitely different from most holiday fare.

This film has cursed me to a certain degree, In certain aspects as it has put a romantic ideal. Where I believe all great love stories should be this touching. While I strive for the passion, magic and beauty of the moments I witness in this film. In life, My work and in other films. Not so upfront and intense, but gentle and subtle. Unfortunately it’s rare that love affairs start so simply, Grand and witty. Not so much meet cute more effort these days. As a hopeless romantic this film is one of the few that inspires me. I still haven’t lived up to it.

I don’t feel Tim Burton has ever hit so close of a emotional truth in his work with a fantasy background. Which is his strength again until BIG FISH. Which was already a book, Not written by him. Here he came up with the story. Though the film is not written by him. It has his fingerprints and ideas all over it. Though I love it, Not even ED WOOD came close to the admiration and emotions on display here
It’s a tearjerker that if you can ever get a chance to is best seen on the big screen.

GRADE: A

MY LIFE AS A DOG (Mitt lliv som hund) (1985)

2011-12-08T15:23:00.004-05:00

Directed By: Lasse Hallstrom
Written By: Lasse Hallstrom, Reidar Jonsson, Brasse Brannstrom & Per Berglund
Based on the novel by: Reidar Jonsson
Cinematography By: Jorgen Persson
Editor: Christer Furubrand & Susanne Linmann

Cast: Anton Granzelius, Tomas Von Bromssen, Melinda Kinnaman, Leif Ericsson

Ingemar lives with his brother and his terminally ill mother. He may have a rough time, but not as bad as Laika - the russian dog sent into space... He gets sent away to stay with relations for the summer. While there, he meets various strange characters, giving him experiences that will affect him for the rest of his life.

This was one of the first foreign films that I ever saw. I will admit it was dubbed which was one of the reasons I watched it. Another reason was that when i watched it I was the same age of the characters so any of the films that came out that featured children or young people were much more appealing to me at the time. It was like seeing myself represented on the big screen in different locations and having experiences I was privy to or wished I was having in my own life. This film also didn’t talk down to kids like most did at the time nor did it relate to gross humor. (Keep in mind I thought it was a kid’s film when I saw it) It was less playful but it felt real. I saw this film when I was 10 on channel 13, pbs.

The film was a wonder for me. it exposed me to a culture unlike my own, but still similar. It is what kept me connected to the film

It’s a coming of age film, Which I am still a sucker for. So while I review this film I might be looking at it more nostalgically then anything else. Though I think most people who have seen the film or plan on watching the film in the future will enjoy it.

I don’t pay as much attention to the technical aspects as there is nothing wrong with them nor are they bad. It’s just that in this film and in the other films of Lasse Hallstrom they are more about emotion and atmosphere you find yourself caught up and lost in the story more than analyzing what is going on behind the scenes. In this film, it seems more that you are watching things happen naturally then a plotted film.

Watching the film as an adult. The film is still eye opening, but I feel I understand the adult themes of the film. The seriousness at times more now. Even though the film is mainly seen through the child as it’s center’s eyes. The marvel is that the film is made by a adult filmmaker who opens up his imagination to see the world through a child’s eyes.

The film opened me up to be willing to watch Foreign films at a young age and the remain some of my favorite films to watch. As it has become a lifelong love affair. It wasn’t only this film it was also films like THEPEANUT BUTTER SOLUTION and THE DOG THAT STOPPED THE WAR. Even though both of those movies were made in Canada and this one was from scandanavia

It’s a great film. Definately deserved to be added to your Home Library. The film is Joyful and heartbreaking at times. Sometimes even in the same scene.

Grade: A

NICE GUY JOHNNY (2010)

2011-12-04T14:33:00.003-05:00

Written & Directed By: Ed Burns
Cinematography By: William Rexer
Editor: Janet Gaynor

Cast: Matt Bush, Ed Burns, Kerry Bishe, Callie Thorne, Jay Patterson

Now I am the first to admit I am not a big Ed Burns fan. I thought THE BROTHERS MCMULLEN was ok. Not worth the praise it got. I always felt he was very smug and hoped he would burn out and not have to be bothered by him again. It looked like he was heading that way, but a funny thing happened he grew up and found some ground to stick to. He is still not the best filmmaker. He seems to be a low budget more serious surly Irish American Woody Allen. He at least found his niche. I give him credit for sticking to his guns as a independent filmmaker and making projects close to his heart and stories he wants to tell instead of going the easy way, selling out and making Hollywood pap. I give him credit that at least his projects might be basic romantic comedies, but at least they have more character and gravitas then the romantic comedy films that Hollywood is churning out that don’t feel real at all. He actually embodies Independent spirit. Making his own films which he usually casts himself in lead or supporting roles. (Like I said a Woody Allen clone only more cool and level headed.) While also acting in big budget Hollywood films to make ends meat.
The film was shot in 10 days, With a budget of only $25,000. His lowest since THE BROTHERS MCMULLEN. The cast did their own hair and make-up. The crew Consisted of only 3 people who worked for free. They all got profit sharing points in the film. Burns also found free locations to film in from tips provided by family and friends. I have to give him some admiration for seeing the film through. It also shows what is possible if you have a vision for a project and the passion to see it through. It is surprisingly polished for a film that costs so little.

This film is Rather Sweet, Simple and charming. It starts off slow but slowly wins you over. Just like the characters on display. It is predictable though. You don’t mind the time spent with the characters to get to the familiar points though.
I will admit the film has a horrible score and soundtrack among other disappointments.

The film has a sameness about it. As most Romantic comedies do. Except here at least the characters feels fresh, organic, lived in and real. They don’t feel like inventions or defined by certain caricatures. Though it all leads to the predictable ending.

Kerry Bishe has a beauty and charm that transcends the film. She really took be my surprise. Sure she fits into the manic pixie dream girl cliché. I do wish her character had more dynamics and a few more details to her, But for this kind of film she fits right in.

The film puts forth a simple message. About life and happiness. You wouldn’t go wrong renting this film. It’s not magical, nor will it change your world view. It is just a cute and charming little film you might be able to relate to and leave you a little happier for having seen and experiencing it.

GRADE: C

FORMULA 51 (2001)

2011-12-04T13:41:00.004-05:00

Directed By: Ronny Yu
Written By: Stel Pavlou
Cinematography By: Hang-Sang Poon
Editor: David Wu

Cast: Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Carlyle, Emily Mortimer, Meatloaf, Rhys Ifans, Ade, Sean Pertwee

Elmo McElroy is a streetwise American master chemist who heads to England to sell his special new formula - a powerful, blue concoction guaranteed to take you to 'the 51st state.' McElroy's new product delivers a feeling 51 times more powerful than any thrill, any pleasure, any high in history. But his plans for a quick, profitable score go comically awry when he gets stuck in Liverpool with an unlikely escort and his ex-girlfriend and becomes entangled in a bizarre web of double-dealing and double-crosses.

Watching this film the most obvious thing about it is that Samuel L. Jackson is having fun in this film. His character wears a kilt and is the coolest character in the film. Full of memorable over the top characters. His character is smart, Cool and can kick ass. Which makes it all the more strange that his character would need a bodyguard. Especially since he dominates the action sequences. The bodyguard is only needed to pad out the story and give him a contact in the underworld. IT also allows the movie to be set up for a eventual buddy comedy in the later half.

Samuel L. Jackson always seems to pick oddball projects that look ridiculous, But once you watch them are kind of guilty pleasures. I don’t know if he does them out of paycheck, Filming locations, People he wants to work with or really loves the character he is playing and faith in script. I am sure it varies on each project. Though soon they all do seem to have the same oddball manner. Which is starting to make him the modern day Christopher Walken. Taking any project that can afford his fee and making the film virtually his as being the most charismatic actor in the whole film.

One of the weaknesses of the films is that the film has two of the co-leads played by actors who usually excel in roles that are more character based. Here they strangely seem bland. I can’t tell if it is the performances that are uninspired or if that is how the script leaves them. Trying to make the other characters so over the top. They use them as more regular joe’s to balance out the film.

This film is so over the top that it seems to throw in everything it can including the kitchen sink. Just to keep the momentum up. Since it is partly a drug tale I guess they wanted to make it feel that energetic and wacky. So hence the film is action packed. The film has so much ridiculousness that a lot of the strangeness passes by and is never explained and no one really seems to comment on it. The action sequences are fun. They feel like a comic book come to life.

I hope that Ronny Yu get’s a chance to make more films like this only a bit better when it comes to script and story quality. I really hope he get’s the chance to bring a graphic novel to the big screen. It appears that is where his talents lie. As the film is fast it is also funky and has plenty of color and a certain richness in it’s visuals.

This is what I like to consider a disposable film. There is no real reason to exist it is simply here to have fun with and be entertained by watching. A time waster but an exciting one at least.

GRADE: C+

ZOMBIE STRIPPERS (2008)

2011-11-27T12:07:00.004-05:00

Written, Directed, Edited and Cinematography By: Jay Lee

Cast: Robert Englund, Jenna Jameson, Roxy Saint, Penny Drake, Whitney Anderson, Jennifer Holland

In a near future, President George Bush has been just elected for the fourth time with his vice Arnold Schwarzenegger and the USA is in war against many nations, among them Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Venezuela, France and Alaska. In order to compensate the loss of soldiers, the government is researching a virus to reanimate the dead tissue of deceased soldiers and reactivate their brains, to form a powerful army of undead. When the experiment goes wrong and gets out of control in a facility in Sartre, Nebraska, the efficient Z Squad is summoned to destroy the zombies. However, the soldier Byrdflough is bitten by a zombie and afraid of being killed, he escapes to the underground Brademus strip-club owned by the greedy Ianna Esco. Byrdflough bites the star Kat and the stripper spreads the virus, turning her colleagues into zombies and eating the flesh of their clients

You know what your getting into with this movie just by the title alone. So you can’t take this too seriously. It’s totally tongue in cheek, that is why I have no problem giving it such a high grade. I was entertained and the production values are impressive for such a obvious low-budgeted film. It’s more fun than anything else.

The film was shot in 18 days with a one million dollar budget.

The special effects while not the best were very impressive when they weren’t obvious computer designed. This is like watching a USA UP ALL NIGHT movie without the edits. (Up all night was a show that ran on the USA network on firday and Saturday nights . Hosted on Friday by B-Movie actress Rhonda Shear and Saturday Night by Comedian Gilbert Gotfried. The host’s would show really bad b and z grade movies and exploitation films. Some would be straight to home video films. During Commercial breaks the host’s would make fun of the movies usually many problems. This might be where I get my fondness for trashy cinema) IT’s campy morbidly funny with it’s low brow humor. There are plenty of sex jokes. Tons of nudity as most of the characters are strippers. Certain parts of the movie make no sense. I’m sure there was some allegorical deep meaning and symbolism somewhere, But i was too busy laughing. It reminds me of the classic Exploitation films only updated as the main attraction is Having Adult Actress Jenna Jameson star in the film. They include her in the action and add exploitive joys of sex and violence around her. A Successful formula here. It tries to give off a Grindhouse feel with the mixture of horror and comedy.

This film is certainly not for everyone. I can’t compare it or judge it against something like DOG DAY AFTERNOON because this film wasn’t so much made to impress and find an artistic truth, but to entertain and appeal. I can’t even compare it to a Steven Seagal film because I like this film. Where as with Seagal it’s hit or miss. Most commonly miss.

If I were a thinking man watching this film I would wonder why no one was afraid or freaked out or reported these zombies, but why? This is the kind of trash cinema so just go with it.

When I see movies like this, I guess it reminds me of my teenage years and those weekend nights. Where I obviously had nothing to do or go out to especially during the summer with my uncles in new jersey. Who were the ones who made me aware of the show and shaped my cinematic mind. So this one goes out to them

I would suggest this film if you are looking for some cheap thrills. That is more comedic then it is horror.

GRADE: B+

THE DOOM GENERATION (1995)

2011-11-26T10:52:00.003-05:00

Written & Directed By: Greg Araki
Cinematography By: Jim Fealy
Editor: Greg Araki & Kate McGowan

Cast: Rose McGowan, James Duval, Johnathon Schaech, Cress Williams, Nicky Katt, Skinny Puppy, Margaret Cho, Dustin Nguyen, Amanda Bearse, Christopher Knight, Perry
Farrell, Heidi Fleiss, Parker Posey

Jordan White and Amy Blue, two troubled teens, pick up an adolescent drifter, Xavier Red. Together, the threesome embark on a sex and violence-filled journey through an America of psychos and quickiemarts.

A Road movie that tries to model itself like all those classic lovers on the road classics. With it’s own style and updated for today’s audiences. The film has a stylish eye going for it but, This is a really bad movie, it seems to be going for a vibe of FASTER PUSSYCAT KILL KILL as a film that breaks all the rules and is all about attitude. Which is where it’s problems lay. It has this great cast of hip celebrities from the 90’s making cameos that makes you believe the film is about something or has a belief that it stands for but it doesn’t . It seems to just try to shock it’s audience with extreme sadistic violence or extreme sex. For which there is no rhyme or reason. Which I guess is what the title is supposed to represent what the generation is about that it is representing. It does have a devil and hell theme that stays throughout.

The film has no real ideas. It isn’t even all that greatly filmed. The film’s devil may care attitude might have gotten it so far and I like that it is fearless but it’s not really rebelling against anything and often times just comes off as disgusting. The film thinks it comes off as dangerous and edgy and worse of all cool. It’s like a cool high school kid that is full of delusions that doesn’t know what’s going to happen once they get into the real world.

I believe that is why this film is such a lauded midnight film. The Film’s attitude and fearlessness. The problem is that it thinks it’s cool and it isn’t worse now when you watch it it’s like seeing a snapshot of the things you wore in high school and thought were so cool now you look at it and are embarrassed.

I guess it tries to be a modern day version of a 1970’s youth generation/Head Movie that doesn’t work at all.

It amazes me this is why when it comes to Director Greg Araki he is hit or miss with me because he can create something Beautiful like Mysterious Skin. Something fun with the same type of attitude but actually entertaining like KABOOM and NOWHERE even SPLENDOR was ok. But films like this and SMILEY FACE. Makes you wonder what went so wrong on these films. This was film #2 in Araki’s Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy. The first was TOTALLY F**KED UP and the third was NOWHERE. I had never seen Araki’s two previous films before I saw this film. To this day I still haven’t. The first being THE LIVING END. I’m still not sure I want to. He is a great independent voice when he wants to but with films like this I don’t know exactly what the message is or what he was striving for in his artistic vision. This obviously isn’t a one off or a film made for fun. It seems more like a film that was made up just to make something and interest investors by saying it will be cool and what the young people will like and of course all kinds of nudity and sex. This was his first bisexual film after making movies that were more geared towards the gay community.

I saw the NC-17 Version not the shorter Rated R version. The director has likened this to a sort of mesh of dream and late night television the type of film you might dream of when going to sleep watching bad cable television. Which should have been the first clue that this film wasn’t a good idea.

One of the good things, I can say about the film is that it introduced the world to Rose McGowan. This is her debut and while she is good. This is the type of role that has pretty much defined her whole career. A no nonsense Sarcastic ass kicker. Who everyone wants to be with. The only other good thing is the cameos in the film they are shocking, entertaining and brief. Sort of like a low brow version of IT’S A MAD MAD MAD WORLD. I thought the ending was the only real inventive part of the film. It was when the movie finally made me happy.

If the film is trying to send a message about lost souls surrounded by a mercenary world. and satirizing macho culture and meaningless consumption. Then it need to make it’s message little more clear. I don’t mind if it’s a homage to road movies. At least be about something or have a point.

I didn’t like the film, but it has gained a sort of notoriety over the years in popularity. Which i believe is only because so many people have become enamored with Rose McGowan. She is really the only reason to see the film. To see all of her, But I would only even mildly recommend it to you. Only if you are a true die hard fan.

Skip It

GRADE: F

CAN'T HARDLY WAIT (1998)

2011-11-24T16:33:00.002-05:00

Written & Directed By: Deborah Kaplan & Harry Elfont
Cinematography By: Lloyd Ahern II
Editor: Michael Jablow

Cast: Jennifer Love Hewitt, Ethan Embry, Seth Green, Lauren Ambrose, Charlie Korsmo, Peter Fancinelli, Marisol Nichols, Clea Duvall, Sean Patrick Thomas, Erik Palladino, Freddy Rodriguez, Jamie Pressly, Donald Faison, Breckin Meyer, Tamala Jones, Chris Owen, Jason Segel, Paige Moss, Liz Stauber, Nicole Bilderback, Sara Rue, Selma Blair, Leslie Grossman, Victor Togunde

I’m a sucker for teen movies, Especially ones I grew up with. I like not love this movie one of the main reasons why I don’t love this movie is that it seems in the 90’s teen movies seemed to have an identity crisis. They seemed more about pop culture then being universally truthful. Which tome is why the John Hughes films lasted. Though they included 80’s culture the stories and characters felt classic. That most audiences can still identify with today. The teen films of the 90’s were hopelessly clean (Until American Pie Came out) What was worse was that they were not racy at all. All the racy material was referred to or hidden in the background. They were perfectly PG-13. Not hardcore PG-13, But perfectly PG-13 hardly any need for editing on tv airings. This film is damn near PG perfect for family time. The problem I find is that the films don’t feel authentic. The whole theme of youth is experimentation and rebellion. There is no sense of danger in this film. Trust me hang around older teenagers and I guarantee there is little Pg-13 about them.
The Big Graduation party, Telling your crush your true feelings. The nerd becoming cool for night. Two old friends reconnecting and drop their superficial so called title thrust on them and just are their real selves around each other (Shades of THE BREAKFAST CLUB)

This film seems to celebrate and Pay homage to teen movies but it fills itself with so many scenes you have seen before in other films that it hardly carves out an identity of it’s own. I will admit that I did enjoy some of the homages. Another Problem with this movie is that most of the people playing teenagers look too old to play them. Now I can deal with adults playing teenagers. As long as they don’t still look like adults. This is like a cleaner version of DAZED AND CONFUSED. Only set in the 90’s. It seems like they cast every actor under 25 who the casting director thought could pass for a teenager. If you watch a lot of 90’s movies and television you will spot at least 10 recognizable faces.

What does work for this movie is Seth Green becoming a breakout star with this role showcasing his comedic talent and timing raising the bar if you will of the rest of the film. It is the first performance of Lauren Ambrose that I remember seeing and she does leave a mark and is memorable. Unfortunately the two of them are about the only ones who do. Ethan Embry seems to googly eyed and goofy. His performance feels like an act. It never feels truthful.

Jennifer Love Hewitt as always impresses she is beautiful as the object of desire and I like that the film leaves her with trying to find out who she truly is. Since she has always just been a girlfriend. So her character is pretty vacant but nice throughout the film. I have always felt. She never got a chance to be a real star she had a window for awhile around the time this film came out. She gave a really good performance in HEARTBREAKERS. I think because she took suck lightweight roles and didn’t really reveal any skin nor was sexual. Yet wore tight outfits. She was treated as a tease. No one ever gave her a chance to take harder more adult roles. Now she seems relegated to Television and tv movie roles. She should get more work and opportunities

One scene that made me wonder how they achieved it cinematically was how they achieved the Police raid scene. It looks like it was done in one take. Though I wonder how they mastered it with all those extras.

The filmmakers also try to add star power to the movie by casting people who were stars at the time in cameo roles. That feel like Special guest star status from a TV show.

This is a nice cute film. Nothing more, nothing less. This is not a deep film. Which is why it never made too much of a impression on me. There is no emotional connection. It takes place in almost one location with many rooms.

GRADE: B-

BABE: PIG INTHE CITY (1998)

2011-11-23T23:47:00.004-05:00

Directed By: George Miller
Written By: George Miller, Judy Morris & Mark Lamprell
Based On Characters Created By: Dick King-Smith
Cinematography By: Andrew Lesnie
Editor: Jay Friedkin & Margaret Sixel

Cast: James Cromwell, Magda Szubanski, Mickey Rooney, Mary Stein (With the voices of) E.G. Daily, Steven Wright, Miriam Margolyes, Adam Goldberg, Roscoe Lee Browne, Glenne Headly, Danny Mann

After Babe's great victory in the shepherding contest, Farmer Arthur Hoggett turns down all offers to make money with his pig's talents. But when he gets hurt severely in the well, his wife has to take up farming. She does her best but cannot meet the bank's requirements, which results in the necessity of getting back to Babe. Soon, Esme Hoggett is sitting in a plane headed for "the" city. There, Babe unwillingly causes deep trouble. He has to stay with Mrs. Hoggett in the only hotel in town that accepts pets. Friendly neighbours send officials who catch all animals from the hotel: Cats, dogs, chimpanzees and many others. Babe, who managed to stay free, decides to help his new friends and gets unexpected help - not only by Ferdinand, who flew all the way to the city.

This film is not as magical as the first film. Where as the first film was more warm and cuddly. This film like it’s title suggests take place in the city. Which leaves the film not only darker but cold and sleek. It doesn’t help that while the animals still talk they don’t talk as much and even when babe does speak it seems to be more out of despair. The subdued talking was probably due to Elizabeth Daily replacing Christine Cavanaugh as the voice of babe. The Filmmakers probably didn’t want the audience to notice so the dialogue was thrown out until it was decided they had to talk to help the film move forward.

It works more if you know what is going to happen going in as most of the animal scenes are well choreographed and play more like a silent comedy due to they are more based on action than anything else. Simple action not explosive action. That makes you admire George miller as a filmmaker for not exactly copying the formula and taking the familiar characters and sending them on a new adventure that Is clearly different from the first film. That let’s this film have it’s own identity. So if you go into this film expecting it to be a copy of the first one you will be disappointed. It’s still family friendly yet carves out a adventure that feels a little more for a older audience. Maybe the plan was to gear the film towards the audience that was so young when the first film came out’s advanced age.

It is disappointing as one of the beautiful things about the original was the blossoming relationship between babe and the farmer played by James Cromwell. In this film James Cromwell has just a cameo. Which is strange considering the first film got him a Best Supporting Actor nomination. Here his wife is the one in charge of Babe though she doesn’t seem that warm to him at first throughout the film she goes through hell to find him and get him back. Her scenes are more played for slapstick comedy filled with gags and mechanisms.

I have to say that I enjoyed the film. At first I was taken aback but once I got into the rhythem of the film I got more into the film. It’s a Sequel that doesn’t surpass the original but does work as a continuation story. A new chapter for the characters if you will.

This is the type of children’ film that I feel is in short supply these days. This film doesn’t seem preoccupied with product placement or trying to sell toys like so many others do today. This is a film that allows children to not only use their imagination. It also allows them to see that there is no limit to whatever they can think of. I believe one of the strengths of children’s films other then to educate is to inspire them. This film shows actual creativity at work and a certain kind of passion and logic. Sure it has some cheap laughs and is goofy. IT is also well put together and the story works like clockwork so that everything comes together naturally to tell a complete story. This leads to that, that leads to this and so forth with precision timing .

A great addition to the home library, but get the first film before you get this one.

GRADE: B

ESCAPE FROM L.A. (1996)

2011-11-18T12:43:00.005-05:00

Directed By: John Carpenter
Written By: John Carpenter, Debra Hill & Kurt Russell
Based On Characters Written By: John Carpenter & Nick Castle
Cinematography By: Gary B. Kibbe
Editor: Edward A. Warschilka

Cast: Kurt Russell, Cliff Robertson, Stacy Keach, Steve Buscemi, A.J. Langer, Pam Grier, Bruce Campbell, Valeria Golino, Peter Fonda, Michelle Forbes, Breckin Meyer, Robert Carradine, Leland Orser

The year is 2013 and Snake Plissken is back but this time it's L.A., which through the agency of earthquakes has become an island of the damned. But something has gone wrong in this new moral order, because the President's daughter has absconded to L.A. with a detonation device, and Snake is commandeered to retrieve it. But just below the surface there is a coiled Snake ready to strike.

I really wanted to like this film. I think it’s ok, But it could be so much better. I remember when Carpenter made original unforgettable films that were challenging. With this film you see the familiar spark of imagination and style here and there, But it feels like a smorgasbord and reminds you of how much better it could have been. It reminds you of how much better it could have been. It is a reminder that once upon a time carpenter’s films were memorable. Now his later one’s where he admits he’s burnt out. Even some films that weren’t made when he claims he was like VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (Remake) aren’t memorable or are memorable for the wrong reasons. After THEYLIVE other then IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and episodes of MASTERS OF HORROR and maybe VAMPIRES. It has been good took material.

The first film ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK was gritty and interesting it came from a mixture of Sci-fi and exploitive elements. In this film it is more about lampooning and satirizing L.A. While this feels more polished with less direction and not as interesting supporting characters. This film feels exactly like the town it is satirizing Shiny and empty. It has way too much fake looking CGI. At least the film stays true to it’s nihilistic view. The film was held up for 10 years as John Carpenter felt the script originally written in 1985 was too campy and silly. It seems like it still is.

John Caprenter says that the making of GHOSTS OF MARS exhausted him. I find that hard to believe as this film seems more like a film that would grind you down. Just from the size of the production, Which is really grand.

The character of Snake Plissken seems like a superhero with a bad attitude in this film not the bad ass he was in the first film. Kurt Russell just doesn’t feel as inspired in his performance in this film either. He stays true to the character in the end though. Which Kurt Russell has gone on record as saying is his favorite character. In fact it was through his persistence that the film got made.

Another major weakness is that the villain of the film, Who is not that interesting and feels like a generic Che Guevara rip off revolutionary who wants popularity and power more then inspiring a movement or helping the public like he claims.

The first film felt like a deep action adventure extravaganza that had shades of being a futuristic western. This film feels like it was put together too fast without ideas being fully thought through. It feels like a knock off insincere and plastic. It’s too shiny. It needed to go through a few more drafts.

The most exciting scene is the one set in Beverly Hills. Snake fighting his way through the location which is overrun by plastic surgery Zombies who keep wanting more upgrades. It is what the film does well the action set pieces are good and so are the many cameos by character actors in bit roles.

GRADE: C

PRINCE OF BROADWAY (2008)

2011-11-18T11:54:00.002-05:00

Directed, Edited and Cinematography By: Sean Baker
Written By: Sean Baker & Darren Dean

Cast: Prince Adu, Kat Sanchez, Karren Karagulian, Aiden Noesi, Keyali Mayaga, Victoria Tate

Prince of Broadway is the story of Lucky and Levon, two men whose lives converge in the underbelly of New York's wholesale fashion district. Lucky, an illegal immigrant from Ghana, makes ends meet by soliciting shoppers on the street with knock-off brand merchandise. Levon, a Armenian-Lebanese immigrant, operates an illegal store front with a concealed back room where counterfeit goods are showcased to interested shoppers. Lucky's world is suddenly turned upside down when a child is thrust into his life by a woman who insists the toddler is his son. While Lucky copes with his new domestic dilemma, Levon struggles to save a marriage that is falling apart.

Released into theaters, but only released on dvd this year. Which is also when the Dvd Comemntary was recorded. This is one of the DIY films with low budgets that are being released slowly by companies like Indie Movement productions. Films Like this MANITO, DON’T LET ME DROWN, MAN PUSH CART, CHOP SHOP and DAY NIGHT DAY NIGHT. Are all films that deserve bigger audiences. They truly need tobe seen and celebrated.
The film is as real as it not only captures the main situations but also side conversations.

The film is not singular as it does focus on it’s main character for most of the film but allows different characters point of view involved to tell many sides of a full story.

No character is 100% good or evil. You can understand why they make the decisions that they do. Though you might not be in total agreement with them.

The film is like a French new wave film though not with so much style and rapid editing. It is just short of a documentary. It’s shot in a cinema verite style. That’s how real it feels. Each scene is filled with an emotional suspense. That keeps you on the edge throughout. As you grow to care about The characters. Through it all you care mostly about the child involved and worry not only about his well being, but his future. It shows a truth in cinema that is rare.

Each set back feels magnified until you are totally connected in the emotional journey, There is some fun to be had but it quickly comes few and far in between. It is a unpredictable tale, That is easy to identify with the hardships at least.
This film is more or less what I thought the Dardenne Brothers. The directors of the film L’ENFANT was going to be like. Taking us in more and having the lead learn to take responsibility and learn from the consequences of his actions. That film i didn’t really get emotionally involved I know that was the films aim, but it left me cold at many points.

I might have felt more of a connection to this film. As I have seen and know the type of characters in this film. These types of situations are becoming regulatory in life. IT needs to be discussed and have a light shined on it. As too many people put emphasis on themselves and materials instead of responsibility and caring. The film at least offers a little hope.

Director Sean Baker get’s a lot from his cast of non professional actors. The dialogue was realized through improvisation and collaborative process with all the actors. He wasn’t shoving them full of untrue rhetoric that didn’t necessarily feel emotionally truthful. Letting the actors in character realize for themselves what feels true for the character and situation. Which leaves the film satisfying.

This is a indie film i urge you to seek out. I warn you though it is not a cookie cutter type tale.

GRADE: A

BROKEN ARROW (1996)

2011-11-13T10:32:00.008-05:00

Directed By: John Woo
Written By: Graham Yost
Cinematography By: Peter Levy
Editor: John Wright, Steve Mirkovich & Joe Hutshing

Cast: John Travolta, Christian Slater, Howie Long, Samantha Mathis, Delroy Lindo, Frank Whaley, Bob Gunton, Vondie-Curtis Hall, Jack Thompson

"Broken Arrow" is the term used to describe a nuclear device that has been lost. In this movie, two nuclear missiles are stolen by rogue US pilot Deakins, but hot on his trail is his co-pilot Hale and a Park Ranger, Terry. The action takes place in Utah's canyon country; a high stakes game of cat and mouse.

The film’s title sounds like a long lost western or a native american drama. Not the title of an action film about a nuclear warhead. I guess it goes in tune with code names.

What’s interesting is that this film feels bigger then what it is. It feels like a lot of money went into the film and it’s production Yet it seems to take pace in such a small location. Which is what lends to the ridiculousness of the film. It seems to get sillier as the film goes on, but the action sequences are fun.
This is your typical no brainer Hollywood popcorn film. That seems more there to entertain and make sure the audience doesn’t get bored, then with character, story or plausibility.

This was one of John Travolta’s big roles after the comeback with Pulp Fiction and here he is clearly having fun chewing the scenery as the villain. Travolta was actually given the choice of playing the hero or the villain. He choose wisely. It was a high profile project at the time and the hero of thefilm his nemesis is of all people Christian Slater who was still a name at the time. Now I like Christian Slater as an actor but a action hero he is not, Villian or sidekick yes. Around this time he was either picking action hero roles or they were being offered a lot to him just like his starring turn in HARD RAIN.

Now as I have already said I am a fan of Christian Slater. I really don’t like some critics downplaying his acting just because he was a popular teen actor. He has more then proven himself time and again as a good actor. Sure the films haven’t been great over the years, But he usually gave a solid performance more times then not. Check out his performance in MURDER IN THE FIRST and HE WAS A QUIET MAN. Here he does what he is asked to do, Not too accomplished. It is rare though that a action film leaves too much room for characterization especially in such a tight time frame of frantic energy. This is a sort of reunion for him as Samantha Mathis is the female lead who he spends most of his scenes with. They also co-Starred in one of my favorite films PUMP UP THE VOLUME. She was actually picked over Jennifer Aniston and Halle Berry. Christian turned down the Sylvester Stallone film ASSASSIANS, just to work with director John Woo.

Then having a ending Fist fight was inevitable. Since early and throughout the film we keep being reminded that they are spar boxing partners.

Howie long is actually pretty good as Travolta’s right hand man.

This Is another film directed By john Woo here there are plenty of action sequences unfortunately none too memorable. There aren’t even too many gun battles. John Woo originally wanted the film to be more downbeat by having the hero be successful, but then die. Which would have actually given the film some credibility as one of the few to have it’s hero die, but the studio quickly put an end to that. One of the problems of this film is that you can hardly tell it’s a John Woo film. This film is so basic and by the numbers it really has no personality or thrills. Things happen you watch. Explosions wake you up. They just don’t make you feel anything. They don’t impress. Things just happen.

One of the more hilarious scenes is that after building up some supporting characters and making it look like they are going to be the calvary that actually helps the film makes them and there efforts disappear in one fell swoop. It’s a shame as the supporting cast is actually established actors. Better then the leads.
The film just feels like a Straight to DVD film with a budget. It just seems generic. It’s a film that was obviously made more to get audiences in with their love of the lead actors and seeing them onscreen then by story alone.

Wait for Cable.

Grade: C –

HOW DO YOU KNOW? (2010)

2011-11-10T18:43:00.005-05:00

Written & Directed By: James L. Brooks
Cinematography By: Janusz Kaminski
Editor: Richard Marks & Tracey Wadmore-Smith

Cast: Reese Witherspoon, Paul Rudd, Owen Wilson, Jack Nicholson, Mark Linn Baker, Dominick Lombardozzi, Tony Shalhoub, Kathryn Hahn, Molly Price, Lenny Venito, Tara Subkoff

Star softball player, Lisa, has just been cut from the national team; Scholarly business man, George, has just been indicted from his father's company. With everything that they know in their lives taken from them, Lisa and George attempt to find romance. Lisa's potential boyfriend, Matty, however, is as clueless and perpetually single as they come, and George's girlfriend just dumped him. A chance hook-up through mutual friends, Lisa and George may be able to form a friendship, or more, that can help them climb out of the piles of lemons that life has handed to them

I think this is a good film, but though it was made recently it feels like a film out of place. If this film had been made in the 1950’s to 1980’s I thin the film would still be seen as lighthearted and as fluff but as a penetrating piece of fluff. As it does well by exploring the issues and mindset’s of the characters. Its just that the film feels so breezy, Laid back and easy going. Which is also how the performances go in the film. That there never truly feels like there is anything at stake there is conflict but the conflict is not that vital so the stakes are very low. Which makes the audience feel relaxed and like thereis nothing worth paying too much attention to.

The film is the happiest that James L. Brooks has made. His films are usually romantic but also paint a more cynical look at love and romance and the characters involved in them. They usually have a certain bite and are quotable. Here this film feels like it runs away from his usual trademarks and is just trying to make a crowd pleaser. It feels like a lightweight Jerry Maguire. Where it is just as romantic with great odes to loves spoken by the characters. It just feels more false then truthful.

I enjoyed the cast, Though I felt Resse Witherspoon never had the proper chemistry with any of her love interests. Owen Wilson to me even seemed out of place in this film. I guess he felt more goofy then real in the film. Jack Nicholson is here more as a supporting character that was a last minute favor to the director as Bill Murray was supposed to play the role but dropped out at the last minute. He does good work but his role feels like a afterthought and like he is just there. I will admit this is one of the most strangely cast film I have ever seen. It almost seemed like the cast names were picked out of a bad or if the roles were offered to other bigger names and these were just the first to say yes as they went down the list.
The film has all the ingredients to make a truly good film, but the ingredients are mixed not to the right amounts so that while it has a unique taste it doesn’t come out the recipe is supposed to come out.

I really wanted this film to be better but even when I saw the previews I knew it didn’t look like the type of film I wanted to see. Even though I love most James L. Brooks films. This is the first one when I saw the trailer I really had little interest in the film. So much so that I actually avoided it in theaters. Which is a shame, not that I think I would have enjoyed it if I had seen it there.

The film is very colorful and it is nice to see actors like Mark Linn baker have roles on the big screen again. The film feels closer to a theatrical stage play that is more expressive with locations then a Motion picture. The film just feels more focused on character and dialogue then most modern films. Which is supposed to be a good thing. It just feels like the cast was not up to the task to really sell the material and the Situations could have felt more vital then how they are presented.
The budget of the film was $120 million. Which while the film looks good doesn’t look like it cost that much so I am guessing a good chunk went to salaries. The film
only made $30 million worldwide.

The film isn’t horrible. I just can see what it strives to be and unfortunately falls short of.

GRADE: C

THE ICE STORM (1997)

2011-11-10T18:41:00.002-05:00

Directed By: Ang Lee
Written By: James Schamus
Based on the book By: Rick Moody
Cinematography By: Frederick Elmes
Editor: Tim Squyres

Cast: Kevin Kline, Joan Allen, Sigourney Weaver, Jamey Sheridan, Christina Ricci, Elijah Wood, Henry Czerny, Adam Hann-Byrd, David Krumholtz, Katie Holmes, Kate Burton, Allison Janney, Colleen Camp, Courtney Peldon

In the weekend after thanksgiving 1973 the Hoods are skidding out of control. Benjamin Hood reels from drink to drink, trying not to think about his trouble at the office. His wife, Elena, is reading self help books and losing patience with her husband's lies. Their son, Paul, home for the holidays, escapes to the city to pursue an alluring rich girl from his prep school. And young, budding nymphomaniac, Wendy Hood roams the neighborhood, innocently exploring liquor cabinets and lingerie drawers of her friends' parents, looking for something new. Then an ice storm hits, the worst in a century. Things get bad...

I know it almost sounds like a action film, or a disaster film. which it is to a point.

I read the book so when this film was being made to when it came out I was obsessed. I was disappointed when Natalie Portman dropped out but just from the cast alone I was excited seeing Christina Ricci and Elijah Wood in more adult roles. The cast listing was spectacular even Katie Holmes in her first performance in a film before Dawson’s creek.

I saw the film the first weekend it was out and found the film to be haunting and affecting. There was a small tinge of disappointment as the film lives up to it’s title it is emotional yet the characters and mood leaves you cold. There feels like there is no passion in the whole film from the situations to the characters. There is a surprising scene of tenderness. That cuts through everything.

The film plays like a dark comedy that feels more dramatic then anything else. Putting in little themes of the 70’s that feels nostalgic to the point of all the bad things about the time period. Yet still manages to be a beautiful look at a family and marriage slowly falling aprt by indifference and miscommunication. Of course I miss some of the small details from the book that didn’t make it into the film. Over all the film is good.

This is one of the few times I have seen Kevin Kline as entirely dramatic. Here he doesn’t have the flair he usually does. Absent is his humor and charisma that he usually brings into most of his roles. He is still good but his performance while dramatic like the rest of the film feels empty. The rest of the performances are on par as the rest of the film Joan Allen is the only one who seems to bring heart to her performance and character and the film. As a woman Clearly out of touch with the changing times, But willing to go with anything to support her family. Christina Ricci totally is controlled in her performance . After this film she would continue to play roles like this for almost a decade challenging but hinting at a certain kinkiness that seem like a fetish for her. Tobey Maguire seems to play his charming nerd character that seems like practice for his eventual role as spiderman.

I saw this film three times in theaters not only to introduce the film to friends. Also to try to make up my mind how I felt about the film. Truth be told also to listen to a Song by David Bowie when he was with his side project Tin Machine. The song titled “I can’t read”.

I liked it but always felt it could have been better. I will admit I am not a fan of Ang Lee’s direction, but I must give him credit as this is one of the better films he has made. I find it interesting that this is a look at the 70’s nuclear family presented by a foreigner who get’s it mostly right.

The film is worth discovering it’s not a classic, but it is a film that deserves a better reputation then it has. Considering it has a big name cast, but isn’t a very popular film. I warn you that it is a very dour film. I think it is worth watching.

Just remember I could be wrong as the book’s writer Rick Moody. Liked it so much he sobbed through the ending.

Grade: B

BACK TO SCHOOL (1986)

2011-11-06T13:56:00.005-05:00

Directed By: Alan Metter
Written By: Will Poter, Harold Ramis, Steven Kampmann & Peter Torokvei
Story By: Rodney Dangerfield, Dennis Snee & Greg Fields
Cinematography By: Thomas E. Ackerman
Editor: David Rawlins

Cast: Rodney Dangerfield, Burt Young, Robert Downey Jr., Keith Gordon, William Zbaka, Ned Beatty, Sally Kellerman, Robert Picardo, Paxton Whitehead, Sam Kinison, M. Emmett Walsh, Edie McClurg, Adrienne Barbeau

To help his discouraged son get through college, a funloving and obnoxious rich businessman decides to enter the school as a student himself.

This is a review proof movie as many who appreciate and like the film like myself more or less grew up with this film not only in theaters, but constantly being played on tv and cable. Whenever i see the film i get nostalgic for myyouth.

The film is hilarious. Your enjoyment of the film will be basedon how much you actually enjoy rodeny dangerfield his personea and his comedy. I love him this is part of 4 movies that i love thathe starred in. I will admit the quality of his films went downover the years,but he was getting older and not accustomed to the changing times. Plus his films were never cinematic classics. They are well remembered fun comedies. CADDYSHACK, EASY MONEY, BACK TO SCHOOL and LADYBUGS.

This film eh also got a chance to nurture a young comedian named Sam Kinison. Giving him a small but substantial role. Dangerfield was accustomed to always trying to hep out new comedic talent. Jim Carrey almostgot a rolevin the film before being deemed too young looking. This is also one of the last Acting jobs Keith Gordon (CHRISTINE) took before focusing exclusively on directing. He isvnow a ssuccessful director of television (DEXTER) and Film (MOTHER NIGHT) The film also has a young Robert Downey Jr. as an exuberent Experimental college student. 80's teen movie villian extrodinaire William Zbaka as what else the villian. one of the few problems i have withthe film. Is the love interest for Dangerfield's son isnot that interesting a character and she has no chemistry with gordon. So you never truly see whyhe is head over heels for her and willing to put himslef through so much pain for her.

Originally the script called for Rodney Dangerfield's character to be poor, but they decided to make him rich since he was always playing a poor slob. This let them switchit around a little. It definately paid off more.

The film has plenty of cameos even one by Kurt Vonnegaut Jr. and the score and soundtrack is all Danny elfman. This film certainly has it's charms.

I don't know if all of you will enjoy it as much as i do. I think you should give it a chance if you haven't seen it though. A good Time capsule of the 80's and a goodfilm to see Rodney Dangerfield in his prime. I'm not going to lie this isn't great filmmaking, but it is a fun film to enjoy.

Definately a Must See

GRADE: B-

THE SKIN I LIVE IN (2011)

2011-11-03T15:41:00.002-04:00

Written & Directed By: Pedro Almodovar
Based on the novel "Trantula" Written by: Thierry Jonquet
Cinematography By: Jose Luis Alcaine
Editor: Jose Salcedo

Cast: Antonio Banderas, Elena Ayana, Blanca Suarez, Marisa Parades, Jan Cornet, Robert Alamo, Barbara Lennie

A brilliant plastic surgeon, haunted by past tragedies, creates a type of synthetic skin that withstands any kind of damage. His guinea pig: a mysterious and volatile woman who holds the key to his obsession.

The first half hour of this film. Each shot looks so beautiful like painitings. Oneof the first things i will say about this film is that The film is as beautiful as it is disturbing. Which automatically endears itself to me at least. it mixes them both with the sublime. The film is more of a thriller. Which is not a rare genre for Almodovar to inhabit, here though it is a little more dark then we are used to seeing. IT is still earthy but more clinical. His touches are still here as well as his homages to classic cinema that are obvious influences on him and his work. This film is a little more scary then his usual fare. It is a film i wish i could have made myself, But i think in the masterful hands of an Artist such as Pedro Almodovar. He brings out the best in the material and makes a near masterpiece.

To tell the truth i Believe Pedro Almodovar is definately in my top 10 of living directors, maybe even top 10 directors of all time.

Pedro Almodovar always seems to bring out the best in his cast Especially the lead actresses. Then again he isone of the few directors who continously offers Actresses suchpowerful roles no matter what age and he always gives them a certain amount of glamour. Which i think is missing from films these days. I admire the fact that when he writes his own original work he writes from a place where he knows the actress he wants to cast and uses them and what he knows about them to help him write so that in effect they are his muses. Wheneverheseems to work with someone new there seems to be a collaboration. Where they give him input yet he still manages to mold them into his ideal.

The film reveals itself slowly. It begins with the middle then fills us in on the beginning until finally we get to an end. One of the reasons i love froeign films is that while watching them they slowly pull you in with story and character that seems to get more interesting the longer you stay with the film. It soon becomes enriched with culture and atmosphere once you truly understand what is going on. The films seems to have time to tell their stories and details without coming to a main point within the first 30 minutes and going straight to the action. There doesn't seem tobe a formula at owrk. It is more freestlye, At least to me. in other words it takes it's time and draws you in the longer the film goes on, until it has you fully in it's grasp and knows you will follow it anywhere.

Here he is reunited with one of his old stars Antonio Banderas. Banderas is like Hugh Jackman to me. They both have Classic leading man looks and charm. Handome Gentlemen, Charisma. The thing is that Jackman seems onlyto be believable in hollywood type films. Where banderas and maybe because he started out playing in low budget indies. Can be both hollywood leading man and character actor in indie films. He is getting older but he still has the looks and that star quality. he has just added debonair to the list.He should work more. In this film he is more scary and disturbed slowly drivenmad but not in an obvious way.

The film truly shows the beauty and talents of Elena Ayana whose career i have followed since the great film SEX AND LUCIA With Paz Vega. Finally has gotten a role worthy of her talents and gives her a chance to show off. Which she does and i mean everything. She is certainly a Silver screen scorching siren. Who i have had a Film crush on for quite awhile. I watched VAN HELSING just because i knew she had a role in it. Which i paid for dearly as it was very bad,

The film doesn't any gore or as much violence as you might expect with this type of tale. It is sexualy graphic though and as always colorful. Whichyou can imagine my enjoyment as when i saw it. it was mostly with senior citizens. So seeing graphic sexuality and sex scenes with them felt more then a little perverted.

A film like this is definately better enjoyed on the big screen. One of thebest films i have seen all year. A MUST SEE

GRADE: A

FRIDAY THE 13TH: PART VII - THE NEW BLOOD (1988)

2011-10-29T11:54:00.002-04:00

Cast: Lar Park-lincoln, Kane Hodder, Terry Kisey, Susan Jennifer Sullivan, Heidi Kozak

Directed By: John Carl Buechler
Written By: Manuel Fidello & Daryl Haney
Cinematography By: Paul Elloit
Editor: Barry Zetin & Mary O’Connell & Martin Jay Sadoff

The premise of this movie is that we all know Jason is practically a non-stop killing machine but this time he may have meet his match in a girl who has telekinesis. She having been brought there by her therapist who seems intent on exploiting her powers for his own gain.

It seems years ago she got mad at her dad after arguing with her father and toppling his boat and causing him to drown. So she was so angry she caused the accident she has been afraid of using her powers but then she gets angry again after her psychiatrist argues with her and her mother she accidentally resurrects Jason again by electrocution. Then pretty soon Jason is doing his usual by now I have to consider Jason Voorhies a zombie who is never hungry.

It seems like with each new film the directors have set the bar and thrown down a challenge to each other to top each other as far as effects and kills go. Here director is luckily he has a premise that allows him to go a little over the top then a regular horror film sequel.

While this is not the best film or my favorite I remember being jazzed to go see it. Now having said that I have never seen any of these movies in the theater I’m sure it enhances the experience. Half the fun of watching these films is seeing the bad 80’s fashions and the same clichés played out over and over almost like in a bond film where you already know what’s going to happen you just go to see how they are going to dress it up and try and make it look different. You still have the teenagers doing drugs having unprotected pre-marital sex. Which instantly stamps there death certificates this one surprisingly has a lot less nudity then usual but at this point maybe the filmmakers realized it was redundant. But they forget that there main audience for these films are teenagers even though they shouldn’t be allowed to see it since it is rated R but by this point Jason voorhies is an icon so if they want to see it just like porn they will find a way. It doesn’t help that at the time most television networks show the Friday the 13th films on a regular basis edited but still anyone watching it would get the point of the films.

I think parents actually like the films they are sort of like a worst case scenario version of rules. You se what happens when you mess with drugs and have pre marital sex and leave your parents to hand out with those bad apples. More meant to scare kids then actual teenagers who watch these films and are amazed by its violence but laugh at the stupidness of the characters.

This film was supposed to be the original Freddy Vs. Jason but when the two studios couldn’t agree behind the scenes the decision was made for Jason to meet his match by going up against a psychic. One of the things cut was a alternate ending with Jason rising from the water at the end to kill a fisherman that had just caught and killed a bass. I guess a kind of PETA ad waiting to happen. It as deemed to similar to the endings of Friday the 13th part 1 and 3. as usual the MPAA made them cut a particularly graphic scene that was near the end and involved a woman getting a axe to the face we see the carnage of her split face and her eyes still moving and wiggling then throwing her to the side. It also let’s us see jason’s face for the first few times in the recent films. He is in full zombie mode here.

This is worth a rental if you are into the series but not the best one to start with.

GRADE: C+

FRIDAY THE 13TH: PART 5 - A NEW BEGINNING (1985)

2011-10-29T11:35:00.003-04:00

Cast: Shavar Ross, Miguel Nunez Jr., Anthony Barrie, Todd Bryant

Directed By: Danny Steinman
Written By: Danny Steinman & Martin Kitrosser & David Cohen
Story By: Martin Kitrosser & David Cohen
Cinematography By: Steven L. Posey
Editor: Bruce Green

They Lied. Even though the film does live up to it's title

(SPOILER ALERT)

This whole review is a spoiler

I Give this film credit as it is a ruse and kind of a cop out since there is no real Jason in the film but it is a continuation in the series as young Tommy Jarvis grows up and is put in a home for troubled teens. Corey Feldman was supposed to reprise his role but he was too busy filming “The Goonies” Wise decision or not you decide.

You know where this film is headed when the first kill is not by Jason but some random disturbed character that we think or hope we won’t be seeing again. The guy they kill is expendable because not only is he mentally challenged but fat. But the ending makes no sense since the guy who killed his son is behind bars why not kill him and get it over with instead of killing all these people who didn’t really have anything to do with it.

The film has a few good ideas of continuing the series sort of like Halloween 3 but a lot better. This film still keeps up the high body count and plenty of violence but in the end you find out that Jason is a imposter. You can tell early on look at the mask it has blue marks instead of red ones. But there are plenty of problems with the film even though it is supposed to be a typical Jason film why is it made lie a who done it the director makes it seem like certain members of the cast are killing everyone off even though we see it is Jason I can understand the characters in the film thinking this but why make the audience also think it.

Now I know the Friday the 13th films are short on logic but if this is a imposter Jason how come he has almost as much strength which borders on supernatural.

Now A the end and once you think about it you can see how the imposter came to be seeing as what happened earlier in the film how it could scar them to be driven to do this almost similar to what made Jason become the killing machine we know him as though without the strength and mongoloidism.

The pleasures of this film though are Shavar Ross who will be familiar to fans of television as Dudley of different strokes as one of the first African Americans in the series and as a about face the first to actually survive. In going with all these breakthroughs he also has the realest reactions of a character in a horror film when he sees the killer monster he screams like a girl and hightails it out of there leaving his friend to fend for herself she is a afterthought. It also features Miguel Nunez in full bad 80’s rock gear complete with a jheri curl as one of the first African American characters killed by Jason and in the toilet none the less. Pure magic and hilarious

Later I found out there was a heavily edited Scene where Jason kills the punk rock girl originally he was supposed to stab her right in her privates and we watch her bled out that way instead of the usual slash in the intestines. Now most of these films it ends up as violent as they are the MPAA has declared war on these films citing it for being sexist and excessive I’m sure they are and certain age groups shouldn’t be allowed to watch these films but that is the responsibility of the parents these films are made for pure entertainment not social statements they don’t preach a certain rhetoric and just like I am reviewing them, you take what you believe from them attacking them doesn’t stop them as you can see they still come out in fact you stump the audience and creators by not showing the story to the best of there abilities I know how ridiculous this all is for a movie that is sub-par but it needs to be said.

The ending is just bizarre as the ghost of Jason sets up Tommy in the hospital to become the new Jason. Which doesn’t exactly happen but we don’t find that out until the next film. For now this is truly the only Jason movie that really has no Jason in it. Kind of a rip off but a interesting experiment for the series.

GRADE: C

FRIDAY THE 13TH: PART 4 - THE FINAL CHAPTER (1984)

2011-10-29T11:31:00.002-04:00

Cast: Kimberly Beck, Lawrence Monoson, Corey Feldman, Crispin Glover, Barbara Howard, Camilla Moore, Carey Moore, Lisa Freeman, Bonnie Hellman

Directed By: Joseph Zito
Story By: Bruce Hidemi Sakow
Written By: Barry Cohen
Cinematography By: Joao Fernandes
Editor: Joel Goodman

This is officially the first Friday the 13th film that I saw uncut i.e. not on Television or edited. My uncle was watching it and I came in on the scene where Jason harpoons the guy through the crotch in the middle of the lake and I wanted to know how the film got to that point so I watched the rest of the film then rewound it and watched it from the beginning at first the violence was startling and scared the hell out of me. But I was happy I saw it truly prepared me for not only future horror films but the other films in this series.

I was initially intrigued because this film has the most recognizable and well known cast I mean it has Corey Feldman in it. It has Crispin glover and Lawrence monoson who I will always remember because of “the last American virgin” plus the rumor was the only reason Tom Savini agreed to work on this film was because it was supposed to be the final movie and he would be able to kill Jason off. Which also I’m sure helped the box office because when they saw how much money the movie had made they decided the series was worth continuing.

You can tell there original intent because this movie goes for broke in the way of the killings and the viciousness you would have thought all the teens had killed him mother themselves that’s how relentless he is. It certainly has the most sex and drugs but it also involves for the first time a character who is hunting Jason as revenge for one of his past killings even tough strangely he seems to be the only one who knows Jason is out there that has always confused me about the series I know the films up to this point take place supposedly only a few days apart but how come he never really goes to town to kill the townspeople who live around there or how come they don’t move knowing the legend of camp crystal lake. In part 2 he left camp crystal lake to hunt the survivor of the first film to her apartment. Just like if these films take place days after each other what is with the changing styles of clothes and music. Though I have to say all the kids in this film have the worst style in clothing and hair-dos I have ever seen maybe that’s why they go camping instead of to resorts to hide from the actual cool kids

It was my thinking these films took place every year or every few years for continuity always on Friday the 13th which is just a date to drive the audience and associate it with a notorious date like “Halloween” or “Christmas evil”. But these films are not going to take place on a different date they don’t want to change the date of the title. As this being the first one I saw I compare most of the films to my enjoyment of one this is where I really got to learn what the other sequels would most likely be like.

I really like the series and the movies. Though in this one he seems to enjoy hanging bodies around as warnings and traps. This is his abstract period I guess. This is a ending for the character somewhat. Ted White Who played Jason notoriously didn’t get along with director Joseph Zito especially the way he treated the cast and for years didn’t even want his name credited on the film

Definitely worth a rental.

GRADE: C+

FRIDAY THE 13TH: PART 3 (1982)

2011-10-29T11:17:00.002-04:00

Cast: Dana Kimmell, Larry Zerner, Nick Savage, Jeffrey Rogers

Directed By: Steve Miner
Written By: Martin Kitrosser & Carol Watson & Petru Popescu (Uncredited)Cinematography By: Gerald Feil
Editor: George Hively

This is the first Jason movie I ever saw completely even though it was edited on television I didn’t think it was that good but that was mainly because half the kills seemed more like gags to enhance the 3-d effect now as I have gotten older and seen more of the sequels I appreciate this film more it’s still not great but it’s a fun addition to the sequels as well as the first where Jason wears the hockey mask.

One of the first thing that attracted me to the series was that whenever I would go to a video rental place I would see the movie posters and the art always impressed me and made me want to see the films even though at the time I know the material in the films would scare me.

This is one of those film where I feel the victims you can feel sorry for because they characters in this film still have the universal cast of characters of every character type but all the characters are likeable and you truly do feel sorry instead of interested when they die especially the guy in the wheel chair he is finally going to get lucky then killed not only once but then he falls/rolls down the stairs and out of his wheelchair.

This film has two alternate endings one where Chris kills Jason but then has a dream in which Jason decapitates her then she wakes up The End the other one Chris does the same thing as the ending here except Ali survives with her and when the cops look for Jason’s body he has disappeared. The film also was supposed to have Amy Steel from the second movie coming back only to be killed which is why she turned it down. This was another film that was greatly cut to not get a X rating much of it involved steaming blood and a lot of it flowing and another one had a leg decapitation that had also opened the victims stomach and all there intestines spilling forth.

The reason I watched this was that the lead actress Dana Kimmell Who I recognized from plenty of Televison work and was excited to see her starring in a movie though I was slightly disappointed that she didn’t get nude. It’s disappointing that most of the actors in this series rarely went onto more films I know there acting wasn’t that great but they didn’t exactly have the best material to work with knowing they would be eventual victims making them nothing more then breathing props.

(Spoiler Alert)

This is a decent addition t the series but for the first time it really seems like a stuck on auto-pilot sequel that seems more made as a gimmick then a well thought out story it’s not bad but not the best it is entertaining. It also has a non-sensical ending where Mrs. Voorhies comes out of the lake to drag the survivor down which goes into the theme of a lot of the kills in this film copying or being based on similar kills in the original Friday the 13th. It also provides a false promise as this is never brought up in future sequels and is only here to end the film startlingly but ends up only as a gimmick A Rental

GRADE: C

FRIDAY THE 13TH: PART 2 (1981)

2011-10-22T09:05:00.003-04:00

Directed By: Steve Miner
Written By: Ron Kurz
Based On Character Created By: Victor Miller
Cinematography By: Peter Stein
Editor: Susan E. Cunningham

Cast: Amy Steel, Adrienne King, Warrington Gillette, Kristen Baker, John Furey, Walt Gorney, Betsy Palmer

The thing that hurts the film is that it is terribly dated and the things that were thought scary and violent beack then are tame by today's standards. This is a good starter movie for people just getting into the horror genre of movies.

What was revolutionary and new back then are now run of the mill. So looking at it recently i was disappointed at how unscary it was. I liked how it tried to be arty. After each kill there is a bright flash of light and the movie moves onto the next scene. There is blood, but it is not really violent. Plus the special effects make-up are fake and obvious. It doesn't suspend disbelief for a second.

This is the first real Jason movie. He doesn't really have a mask. Instead he wears a sack over his head. He doesn't get the iconic mask until the next installment. This was when the formula was still fresh and before it fell ito it's eventual knowledgable cliche's. So that the boogeyman lurking in the woods had a bit of truth and fear to it.

This is almost the most sexless Jason film. There is sex, but it is not as gratuitous as it would become in future sequels. This film has a innocence to it compared to the others.

The film leaves many questions. What happened to the guy who was with the female survivor. Jason jumps at her. Next scene she is in an ambulance and no one mentions him. Also what happened to the training camp director's assistant? We last see him looking for a after hours bar and then we never see hi again or hear of him either. Then there is the first scene This deformed man who can only kill. Supposedly can read and find out hwere the survivor of the first film lives. So he can get his revenge. Where has he been all this time? Did the death of his mother make him rise from the grave. Though supposedly at this point he is still human. How come no one notices him with this sack on his head?

I also had a problem with the camera placement. There is alot of hand-held camerawork that works well and gives an overall creepy mood and atmosphere, but then when we are seeing Jason's POV behind a victim. The camera show the front of the victim with no one behind him. It starts taking you out of the movie. As implausable and weak as it seems. If you don't think too hard this film is quite enjoyable.

As it has a innocence and purity. It is one of the earlier examples of the slasher film and ow to build it's sequels. Since supposedly Jason lays Dormant for 5 yearsn before all of a sudden getting a kill lust.

Though it is better made then the original. See this only to see a piece of horror history. A somewhat classicin stature, But not quality

GRADE: C

ALIEN RAIDERS (2008)

2011-10-21T11:51:00.004-04:00

Directed By: Ben Rock
Written By: Julia Fair & David Simkins
Cinematography By: Waly Lloyd
Editor: Auggie Hess

Cast: Carlos Bernard, Matthew St. Patrick, Rockmund Dunbar, Courtney Ford, Derek Basco, Bonita Firedericy

It's the end of yet another night at Hastings Supermarket, an idyllic family grocery store in Buck Lake, Arizona. But the normal monotony of rounding up shopping carts and settling out the cash drawers is broken at 11:07pm, just before closing when a group of masked and armed-to-the-teeth militants invades the store, immediately killing several of the employees and shoppers and holding the rest hostage. Though the hostage-takers at first appear to be robbers or terrorists, they reveal themselves to be a cadre of rogue scientists that has discovered and tracked an alien infestation to THIS STORE on THIS NIGHT, and they are determined to find out which of the survivors are extraterrestrials and end the invasion at any cost.

The Film is like a Sci-Fi channel original movie in terms of quality. It has 2 stars of television shows and is low budget, but for what it lacks in budget it makes up for in suspense and Story. Which really saves the film.

It borrows a little from THE THINGonly in a more urban area.

The film begins with a jolt of energy and leaves you wondering what is going on exactly. Thenwhen it reveals what itis. It opens so many doors in your head as to what is going to happen.

I like the fact that the heroes are inexperienced sceientists playing tough. It's nice to see them not be expert commandos who mkess up. Though are supposed to be a tightly trained unit. Still smart in other ways.I like the fact the more thehostages try to escape and save themselves the more danger theyput not only themselves in, but everybody else.

Sinceitis low budget there aren't too many effects and the ones they do have are a bit fake. The gory attacks that do happen they tend not to show. They let you hear it. leaving you to imagine what is happening. Your imagination is usually worse and more violent then what they could come up with or afford. When someone untalented does it. it feels like a cop out and a waste, but when a filmmaker knows what he is doing and knows how to build up tension. It is moreof a skill int he telling of the story. That is what director Ben Rock does here.

I look forward to seeing more work from him I was hooked just off of the preview. This film seemed like it was going to be a splatter fest. When in reality it is anice b-movie horror film that keep you guessing down toit's predictable twist ending. I only wonder what a producer like Tony Kravtz who helped make the earlier great horror film OTIS, could have done with this material. Sice he was one of the producers of 24 and 24's Carlos Bernard is in this. I think it would have been a nice reunion and upped the film's game a little more. Not that i don't like the film. It's a pleasent surprise and i recommend it highly. I wish it was longer as it seems to go through it's victims pretty quickly. I tend to like films that start off one genre and then quickly redefine themselves as another genre as long as the transition is done well.

GRADE: C+

TOOLBOX MURDERS (2004)

2011-10-21T10:54:00.006-04:00

Directed By: Tobe Hooper
Written By: Jace Anderson & Adam Gierasch
Cinematography By: Steve Yedlin
Editor: Andrew Cohen

CAST: Angela Bettis, Rance Howard, Juliet Landau, Marco Rodriguez, Sherri Moon Zombie, Adam Gierasch

WARNING SPOILER HEAVY. ONLY READ IF YOU HAVE WATHCED THIS FILM...

The difference in this remake instead of just being a run of the mill serial killer film. Like the original where the killer kills only women in states of undress with tools from a toolbox for his own personal use. Now the killer is some kind of deranged mongoloid that is somehow connected to a cult that had meetings at this hotel that all the characters live in since there is constant construction going on at the hotel for renovations. The killer uses tools that are laying around.

The original was not a hard film to improve on. I can understand the filmmakers wanting to keep the title and find a way to include tools with the killer. It helps to give us a mystery and a explination. The story just feels like it was a already written scriopt and they knew it wouldn't sell on it's own so making it a remake and including a few aspects to make it live up to it's title helped. Unfortunately it still seems ill concieved and a waste.I don't min dthem remaking a bad movie. In fact i applaud it. I just wish some more thought was put into it overall. If i didn't know better i would swear they were making it up as they went along.

The kills are good, but that is the only thing that is interesting about the film. Other then the violence the film is horrible. I don't know what happened to Tobe Hooper, If this was a paycheck job or what butt This film is dreck. Even for a haoor film. It starts off a s a who done it before revealing, it's more supernatural aspects.

It is a movie that simply didn't need to be made. It just seems like an excuse for gruesopme violence and kills. No real creativity.

The film is a major diappointment considering the director and the star. Angela Bettis who is becoming the Jamie Lee Curtis of low budget horror films, but always pulls through with believable performances. This plays almost like a bad extended episode of MASTERS OF HORROR.

It's shocking to me that after this abysmal remake that they would go try another remake. Which they actually succeed ast maybe they learned what not to do from this experience.

SKIP IT

GRADE: F

THE CRAZIES (2010)

2011-10-16T11:23:00.007-04:00

Directed By: Breck Eisner
Written By: Scott Kosar & Ray Wright
Based on the original Screenplay by: George Romero
Cinematography By: Maxime Alexandre
Editor: Billy Fox

Cast: Timothy Olyphant, Radha Mitchell, Danielle Panabaker, Joe Anderson

As a toxin begins to turn the residents of Ogden Marsh, Iowa into violent psychopaths, sheriff David Dutton tries to make sense of the situation while he, his wife, and two other unaffected townspeople band together in a fight for survival.

This film is well shot, but too much quick editing. That makes some scenes feel scattershot. Leaving the film hard to follow, which makes me wonder if that was what the filmmakers were going for in the first place, driving the audience crazy trying to make sense of it all.

It's filmed more like a thriller then a horror film. Which is good in theory, but with the material not good in actual practice.

Since the film just tries to make the townsfolk seem to go crazy from some sort of toxic spill. Andit is a remake of a george Romero film. It jsut seems like having townsfolk go crazy is easier and more of a mystery then just making another zombie film.

I felt nothing the whole time i watched this film. No Shock i didn't care about the characters. I was bored throughout. There was plenty of action hppening. It all felt very hollow, Again maybe it's because i never got to now the characters. they were jsut sketches so i didn't really care. It's a shame what is happening to them, but other then that. How am i supposed to be drawn in or care.

Now i have seen the original and while that film isn't all that good or well acted at least. I cared and followed the characters and the situations.

This film has decent acting but that is all. The film felt like a total waste of time watching it and i usually like Timothy Olyphant.

I can understand making the governmentThe villian, but the reason this is happening comes across as a afterthought. Just like it seems people get violent or sick when it's convenient to amp up a scene. It would have been more interesting instead of them gaining the look of zombies. They stay normal like in the original. So you can't necessarily tell if they have fully changed. Like in the original this is one reimagining that would have been just a better remakes because the changes make it seem more thrilling but dumb.

GRADE: F

THE RITZ (1976)

2011-10-16T10:11:00.004-04:00

Directed By: Richard Lester
Written By: Terrence McNally (Play & Film)
Cinematography By: Paul Wilson
Editor: John Bloom

Cast: Jack Weston, Treat Williams, F. Murray Abraham, Jerry Stiller, Rita Moreno, Kaye Ballard, John Ratzenberger
On his deathbed Carmine Vespucci's father tells him to "get Proclo". With "the hit" on, Gaetano tells a cab driver to take him where Carmine can't find him. He arrives at the Ritz, a gay bathhouse where he is pursued amorously by "chubby chaser" Paul B. Price and by entertainer Googie Gomez who believes him to be a broadway producer. His guides through the Ritz are gatekeeper Abe, habitue Chris, and bellhop/go-go-boys Tiger and Duff. Squeaky-voiced detective Michael Brick and his employer Carmine do locate Gateano at the Ritz, as does his wife Vivian

This film took me by surprise. I wasn't expecting much and was pleasently surprised. The film is Reminisent of a certain era in hollywood when they used to turn hit broadway plays into film instead of vice versa (Why no one has tried to make bad films like tht one into hit broad way show i will never know. Maybe it would improved the film to have song and dance routines to lighten the already ridiculous story.) Some of the jokes fall flat and the film is a bit homophobic by presenting so many stereotypes, But ti's not cruel about it. After all this is a gay farce really at heart.

There are so many jokes both visual, physical and spoken sinc ethe film is is fast paced. the just come at you so fast. yet they are witty and i like films like this. They remind me of the screwball comedies that i love. So it's a joy discovering this one when you think you have seen all the great ones worth watching. then this gem comes along. The film is definately a farce as you can't take anything in this film seriously.

It Stars Jack Weston who with Allen Garfield were great go to guys as supporting actors of the 70's especially in comedic roles. Always were solid and funny but rarely got to play leads ad when they did the films were usually bombs. They yhtemselves were usually good.

This is a unappreciated gem. Hilarious from the beginning to the end. The whole cast steal scenes from one another. This is John Ratzenberger's film debut. THe show originally began on broadway and the show's cast all reprise there roles except Stephen Collins who in the film is replaced by Treat Williams

The Films fast pace flows well but i would not expect anything lest from director Richard Lester. Who always seems to make chaos enjoyable and somehow make sense in the end. He seems to bring out the beauty in it. From his films with the beatles to here. He always injects the preceedings with a certain amount of boundless energy and joy which is always very welcome.

Go out and rent it. Though it is worth buying and will be a good inclusion into your home library and a goodsuggestion for the friend who claims to have seen everything. I can see how this film might not be for everybody.

GRADE: B+

FACE/OFF (1997)

2011-10-16T09:09:00.007-04:00

Directed By: John Woo
Written By: Mike Werb & Michael Colleary
Cinematography By: Oliver Wood
Editor: Steven Kemper & Christian Wagner

Cast: John Travolta, Nicholas Cage, Joan Allen, Alessandro Nivola, Nick Cassavetes, Gina Gershon, Robert Wisdom, Dominique Swain, Harve Presnell, Colm Foere, CCH Pounder, John Caroll Lynch, Danny Masterson, Margaret Cho, Thomas Jane, Kirk Baltz, Lisa Boyle

I am surprised how much i still enjoy the film.
The film is strange in that it's supposedly modern but everything feels a little off, Futuristic. The style of the action is broad and over the top. Yet styled with director John Woo's usual style: Doves, Two pistols one in each hand, Ridiculous shoot outs. an obstacle between them throwing around a few comments before the "showdown." It is almost like a comic book come to life, but made in the 80's before they could let the characters be too deep and fully responsible.

It's a fun film as Nicholas Cage goes from full over the top to mournful and giving a meaningful performance and protecting those around you. He is surpringly really good and affective.

John Travolta is ok. I tend to find that he excels when playing villians. So to see him go from mournful which is ok to over the top bad as the villian. Which you can see he prefers but it's always more fun to play the villian. Yuo have no Conscience and can get over the top in chewing scenery.

It's fun to think this was a highly touted big summer movie. Two box office draws at the time in one film co-starring and probably 5 years before this film was made their careers were in such dire straits theywould have been co-starring in straight to home video movies with a far less big a budget.

This film seems to be the highlight of John Woo's hollywood career because after this it seemingly went downhill. He got to direct MISSION IMPOSSIBLE 2, Thenhe directed WINDTALKERS which bombed big time. Then PAYCHECK with Ben Affleck. That the films seemed more and more generic. John Woo needs a comeback, I'd rather see him direct a action film then some hack fresh out of film school whois at the mercy of the studio financing it. I guess what hurts him is that he has a style that only itself to epics and action oriented material. Which was in abundance in the 90's. Today people seem to more want thrillers and horror. He has a more bombastic 80's style with style and grace. Here he get's 2 good performances out of 2 actors who have been known time to time to phone in performances. Especially when they are not properly stimulated by the material. Here he makes them compelling of course a good supporting casthelps them stay on their toes.

The Action sequences are great, They are greatly executed and put together so that they amaze you while wondering how theydid that. It keeps you awake and interested. The raid on Nicholas Cage's compound, The Prison Escape and the funeral chase/Shoot out are the standouts.

I foundit interesting that the film was allowed to showcompassion for the so called villians and his messed up family. His brother in law/Right hand man and girlfriend are not actually evil people.They are jsut trying to survive in their own way.

This is a film i highly recommend more for fun then anything else. The type of popcorn film i can really enjoy and not think too hard about, but wonder how it managed to be so good.

GRADE: B

DOGHOUSE (2009)

2011-10-10T08:38:00.004-04:00

Directed By: Jake West
Written By: Dan Schaffer
Cinematography By: Ali Asad
Editor: Jake West, Will Gilbey & Julian Gilbey
Production Design: Matthew Button

Cast: Stephen Graham, Noel Clarke, Danny Dyer, Christina Cole, Lee Ingleby

Vince is handling his divorce badly. He's depressed. Gone to pieces. But his mates aren't giving up on him. Struggling with their own women troubles, they drag him off for an ultimate lads drinking weekend in the country. Arriving in the village of Moodley where the women outnumber the men 3:1, the boys find themselves holidaying in a village overrun by psychotic, homicidal Zombirds with a thirst for male flesh.

I have to admit. I had heard about this film before i saw it. What i heard didn't impress me much, but i figured i'd give it a chance only because it has a interesting premise and i am a fan of actors Noel Clarke and Stephen Graham. I picked it up and the cover made it look like typical Straigh to Dvd material, until i noticed the cast and figured it had to be something a bit more. Like a film that they didn't know how to market to a american audience so the distribution house lost all faith and dumps it. Considering i didn't expect much i have to say i was pleasently surprised by this film as it ended up being much more enjoyable then i could believe. I love Horror- comedy when it is done right but it is so rare that each element get's fair play and that it ends up mixing perfectly. This is the rare film that achieves the right mix.

This film is like a adreneline shot. It has a infectous energy that get's you pumped up with adreneline as a audience memeber.

I can see how some people will labelthefilm Misogynistic. It is basically Men Vs. Zombie women withquite a few scenes of the men attacking and brutalizing women. Who have all been turned into zombies. They are doing it for survival though. It doesn't help that there are no positive women characters in the film really. This being a genre title though i wonder is the audience for this film really looking for that. Do they want to look at this film intellectually or are they just watching it for entertainment? The main characters are stereotypical males all having relationship problems. We get to know them and symapthize with them as they gor through this horror.

The film is gory and at times is realistic more in emotions then situations, But it all has a comedic edge that makes the film move along briskly and keeps a smile on your face.

The film has good ideas though in the end is what you expect out of a zombie film. Just one of the better ones.

It's a british film that is full of up and coming british character actors.

I like that the film doesn't offer any explinations. Just like Alfred Hitchcock's classic film THE BIRDS. Though it doesn't come close to the score and skill ued in making that classic. It can be seen as bad or lazt filmmaking offering no answer. The mood set by this film makes it seem like a natural way of things. Not knowing anything really just trying to survive.

Worth Watching

GRADE: B-

NOWHERE (1997)

2011-10-09T16:34:00.006-04:00

Written, Edited & Directed By: Greg Araki
Cinematography By: Arturo Smith
Production Design: Patti Podesta

Cast: James Duval, Jeremy Jordan, Mena Suvari, Rachel True, Jordan Ladd, Sarah Lassez, Christina Applegate, Nathan Bexton, Kathleen Robertson, Guillermo Diaz, Ryan Phillippe, Heather Graham, Debi Mazar, Shannen Doherty, Traci Lords, Rose McGowan, John Ritter, Christopher Knight, Eve Plumb, Devon Odessa, Staci Keenan, Denise Richards, Teresa Hill, David Leisure, John Enos III, Charloette Rae

This plays like a demented , warped satire of BEVERY HILLS 90210 and teen movies and culture of the 90's.

The film takes place over one day in california. It follows a group of teen friends and their misadventures. Noreal solid plot as much of the movie just seems to happen not much seems actually planned.Though it's a teen movie it definately is not for kids. It tackles all the usual subjects. Drugs (tons of them) Infidelity, Date Rape, Suicide, LOve, First dates, Butit also includes new ones like Zombies, Cross Dressing and Fetishes. The film also takes typical cliched characters and turns your pre-concieved notions of them and turns them on their ear.With characters named Dark, zero, ducky, Lucifer, Dingbat, Kozy, Hand Job, and Egg. you know this is not your typical film.

It's has a very surreal stlye. The saturated colors in scenes. One character even has the lyrics of a song superimposed on his bedroom walls that surround him at every turn. It tries to be more punk style if film more then anything else

This is the third part of Greg Araki's Teenage apocalypse trilogy though his film KABOOM deals with similar subjects. Truth be told this at the time was the first film of greg araki's that i enjoyed. The film is a nihlistic piece of work as usual fro him in his early work. He calls this his first heterosexual film. As most of his previous work was considered gay cinema

Even though the film takes place in one day. the characters change clothes numerous times throughout the film.

This film is filled with both tons of cameos giving it a all star cast and filled with at the time many up and coming actors. The filmis filled with sex but oddly very little nudity. Though it does contain plenty of graphic shocking violence.

This film feels like a chance for the young stars of the film to distort whatever images they have in film and television. To show they have an edge and sense of humor. It also gives them a chanceto do a indie film. Which was the cool thing to do at the time. The film is almost like a time capsule to 90's culture.

Itis a veautiful film to look at no matter how trashy it tries to be. The art Direction, Camera work are truly admirable, but in the same mindset. The film can make things beautiful, but also stomach turning even the characters.

Just like the film the soundtrack is very vivid itself. Scoring the film with uneasiness and energy.

This film is crazy and definately out there, but i can honestly say i enjoyed it enough to give it a mild recommendation.

GRADE: C+

MAX MAX BEYOND THUNDERDOME (1985)

2011-10-09T14:13:00.007-04:00

Directed By: George Miller & George Ogilve
Written By: Terry Hayes & George Miller
Cinematography By: Dean Semler
Editor: Richard Francis-Bruce

CAST: Mel Gibson, Tina Turner, Bruce Spence

George Miller has gone off the rails and once again Created a totally original film. Though it is the third in a trilogy. Though this is a sequel, This film could seprate and be a stand alone film.

Though this film is not as focused as the first two films. George miller has managed to create his own world of the future. That mixes old and new machienry and gadgets.

George Miller actually co-directed the fim so he could focus on the stunts and action. while George ogilve focused on the actors and dramatic sequences. He had initially lost interest in the project after a close friend of his died, Which is why he only directedthe action scenes.

The film even pays attention to details like Max has a permanently dilated people after the serious injuries he sustaines in THE ROAD WARRIOR and in this film it is more evident in the close-ups.

George miller owns the rights to all the films. He had to give up ownership and directing duties to the film CONTACT to get it though. i think it was worth it.
This film once again Shows the brutality of the world while searching for a peaceful place. Where you can restart society and bring about hope in this world. Away fromthe scavengers and brutes. That seems to be the theme of this film, Hope. In this film unlike the others. It seems possible.

Tina Turner in this film, Not only to up the box office and lend star power, But she also sings the hit single theme song. This is her big screen debut. She doesn't really act in films that much that makes her appearance here rare. The film is the first to have american financing which mightbe why she was cast. The film is the tamest of all the films which is why it is also the most mainstream as it has the least amount of action and violence and half the cast is children. Tina turner is not bad as the leader a brutal gang and town that finds max and enslaves him then makes a dealwith him until he disappoints them. Then they punish him until he is found by a lost tribe. Who believes he is there savior, Who has been Prophesized about.

This film has the proper amount of action, Comedy and adventure, It has visual flair and lunacy. Like a scene where in the middle of a chase. Thechildren put on and focus on a record that teaches english to french.

Mad max is one of the greatest movie characters a anti-hero who always ends up doing the right thing, even if it is against his will at times. Once a cop always a cop i guess. There seems tobe a little religious subtext in this film. Max is afterall the messiah for the innocents. Th efilm originally was supposed to be about children living without parents in the future. The filmmakers needed someone to help discover them and defend them and that was when it was decided to make a mad max film.

This is one of Mel gibson few indelable screen characters and one he will always be remembered for.

The film also has many quotable lines as well as many classicaction scenes. Not as styled as the other films. it still has a style fo it's own.
This is definately a movie for the home library.

GRADE: B

A HORRIBLE WAY TO DIE (2011)

2011-09-29T07:46:00.007-04:00

Directed & Edited By: Adam Wingard
Written By: Simon Barett
Cinematography By: Chris Hilleke & Mark Shelhorse

Cast: Amy Seimetz, A.J. Bowen, Joe Swanberg, Whitney Moore

An escaped murderer is in pursuit of his ex-girlfriend, who has fled to start a new life in a small town.

This is going to sound weird.This film is oddly personal for me. No i am not a serial killer, but it is a story similar to a project i am writing. Not only that but the ruzzle piecing narrative that is non-linear leaving the audience to figure things out without the hand holding most films give you. Is a style i wanted to use for another project. So this film and it's filmmakers and me seem to have similar ideas. He just beat me to the punch. Though we may have gone about things in a different way when it comes to direction.

I must say at first the film put me off. The shaky camera and angles were getting on my nerves and made me thankfuli didn't see it in theaters but as the film goes on you getusedtoit and hardly notice it. The film is a interesting Genre mix of Mumblecore and Thriller/Horror that actually works. Since it allows us to know the characters involved in the story even somewhat side characters. While providing the violence that the horror genre requires. It just doesn't revel in it. It is more of a artistic Horror film. Then a genre one. I have to admire it. It stands apart in a genre known for creativity.

The film is certainly not a slam dunk it's short and yet it feels longer then it is. This is a film you definately have to have patience with to fully enjoy. I was tempted to quitit quite a few times. I'm glad i stayed for the whole thing.

The film is interested in visuals and trying to give off a gritty grindhouse appearance. The film also seems more interested in characters then plot and development. The title certainly makes it sound like a grindhouse film.

At times like most films the story or at least some moments in it seem ridiculous. You expect that from most films though at this point. This one feels oddly realistic. I applaud the director for not going the usually beautiful actors route. not thatthe actors are unattractive. They look like normal people not movie stars. That is what i think i enjoyed about this film is that it's not really that talky and all of it feels like it could really happen...Almost. AJ bowen who i recognize from many low budget horror films gave me faith in the film. As he plays oine of the leads.

At it's heart, The film is a mumblecore movie as it has fearless actors that are far from recognizable. The conversations sound normal full of not knowing what to say next so it seems almost inprovised. At the core of the film is a love story. There is even a sex scene a very unsexy and humiliating one. That to me is a true interpretation of being intimate with someone new then any hollywood film that bills itself as romantic. Some of the actors are even Mumblecore veterens as one is Joe Swanberg a prolific Mumblecore film director who usually casts himself in his own films. I am a bit of a fan of his work. The director fo this film even appeared in Swanberg's Film AUTOEROTIC. So the two of them working together on this film is like a meeting of the minds. In fact it is what attracted me to this project in the first place.

I know it seems like i love this film, but it's far form perfect but it is something new and different that seems a bit experimental and is also confident enough in itself to try something different and creative. So i give it a lot of respect and it pulls it off. Though it is a much more cerebral enjoyment when it comes to this film.

GRADE: B-

JEFF OF THE CINEFILES: HALL OF FAME: FILE #0015: PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE (2002)

2011-09-25T16:14:00.004-04:00

Written & Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Cinematography By: Roger Elswit
Editor: Leslie Jones

Cast: Adam Sandler, Emily Watson, Luis Guzman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Mary Lynn Raskjub, Robert Smeigel

Barry Egan is a small business owner with seven sisters whose abuse has kept him alone and unable to fall in love. When a harmonium and a mysterious woman enter his life, his romantic journey begins.

This is a Adam Sandler type film. His fingerprints are all over it. At least Classic Sandler. A man Childish character who is prone to rage and outrageous violence. Speaking in some scenes in a childish manor, but ti does allow him to show range as he is the main character. He is still not the coolest or smoothest like in his later films. There is also not a bunch of sight gags. Paul Thomas Anderson calls this an arthouse Adam Sandler film.

The film has a certain heaviness. It is pretentious at times and has it’s fair share of outrageous and ridiculous circumstances. That could have been played big and broad, but here more or less are downplayed to try and make the film more grounded in reality. The film manages to tap into real emotions and feelings of despair, Loneliness, Depression, Love and discovery. How it feels to make a connection with someone. The feeling of first falling in love with a person. Accepting the flaws and letting the pluses outnumber them. Seeing the good in people first and foremost. Some elements are brought up in the film. like him having only sisters who are strong and seem to bully him, but they are there to give back-story and a hint of what shaped him to the way he is now. That are good storytelling without going overboard and having too many scenes devoted to explanation that are not really needed. When it can be explained in one or two leaving the film to focus on it’s core story.

Even the romance angle is unconventional. Two characters, So oddball find each other. He has more quirks then her, But as they are middle aged. Se is willing to accept them for a man who truly loves and appreciates her. Even his violent streak seems more Romantic and heroic. Like a classic fantasy romantic leading man.

This is a film that could have easily been a disaster, but it manages to march to a beat of it’s own drummer and soon you are in tune with it’s beat. It’s also interesting this is a story of middle-aged people falling in love. One who has lived life and has a past falling in love. Who is virtually a clean slate. It’s a romantic relationship that at times seems more like a maternal one. Throw in a wacky side plot that would probably be a more central device in a film that would be played purely for laughs.

I think the whole oddball-outsider Socially awkward hero at the heart of the story makes me see the film as personal for me. This was before Judd Apatow brought it to the forefront of films. The outsider getting the girl. The Schlub getting the dream-girl. What is unique is that this is a adult relationship and that the girl is not necessarily a bombshell or model. Most films of this type would have mated him with. Wishful thinking on the filmmakers part an attempt to reach every member of the audience

When it comes to Paul Thomas Anderson films. I’m not going to lie, They aren’t al great, but they are good in my opinion. Except for one HARD EIGHT. Which showed skill but is his only film that never affected me. His films show style, Talent and voice of a true filmmaker. Who keeps thing interesting when he comes out with a new film. I know the excitement felt in the 1960’s and 70’s where these Auteurs were making classics and they were coming out it seemed like every few weeks. When Mr. Anderson’s films come out. I know they will be something to behold. This films definitely influenced my cinematic growth as I learned more and more about film.
His films come out and always amazes me, but also showed me technique. Just as this film is clearly influenced by a director. Who was a great influence on his work. The late Robert Altman. The off kilter casting. The non reliance on plot so much as moments even some songs from Altman’s POPEYE make it onto the soundtrack. The long takes roaming scenic hallways.

This is not only a love story, But a love song to Altman. A director who to me was 50/50 When it came the end product. He was willing to be experimental. Which at first threw me off, but once I got into his films I usually enjoyed them. Even when he made a bad film there was something to admire in the film. A certain fearlessness and willingness to experiment and get his actors to find the emotional truth. That Paul Thomas Anderson emulates, but in his own way. Even though at times Altman films could get artsy to the nth degree and feel pretentious. He found a way to save it overall and make it worth watching. Though Anderson’s use of some things like the use of light installations between the scenes are not needed.

I Love this film. It means a lot to me. It’s one of the rare love stories I appreciate that doesn’t over do it. It’s no TRUE ROMANCE. That love seems more pumped with adrenaline. This is more the love you wait for and eventually find. It inspires me and leaves me hoping to have this type of love and romance one day. It’s the type of story that doesn’t overstate itself or feel sickening. I wish more films were not afraid to allow the film and their characters some dignity and the chance to be vulnerable. Even the soundtrack effects me I always use it for introspection.
The camera rarely leaves the character. It follows leading to long takes but seeing them in their element after the conversation or situations.

Sean Penn had to drop out of the film and was replaced by Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Some of the things I like about the film are the small details. Like Adam Sandler’s characters insistence of learning about this instrument he finds. The color scheme of the film. The unforgettable visuals that are simple and don’t call attention to themselves like more stylish directors would have. The soundscape of the film which is hard to describe and one of a kind. It is very much a experimental film with Steadicam shots fit in with camera shots that are out of focus at times. Even the score for the film was planned to be different with The score being written and played while filming of scenes. That didn’t work out so the score was constantly played on the set to help set the mood of the film.

GRADE: A

DRIVE (2011)

2011-09-25T16:00:00.004-04:00

Directed By: Nicolas Winding Refn
Written By: Hossein Amini
Based On The Novel By: Jamie Sallis
Cinematography By: Newtom Thomas Sigel
Editor: Matthew Newman

CAST: Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston, Carey Mulligan, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman, Oscar Issac, Christina Hendricks, Russ Tamblyn

A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.

I will admit the film is more style over Substance

I would put this film in my hall of fame. Unfortunately it is too early. The film is that good.

I can admit i built this movie up in my head, so much there was no way it could reach the expectations i had in my head. It was close. The problem is it is a crime story you have seen a million times only with more applied style. The film definitely has a European feel of making everything, even the grimiest locations and people good looking and smooth.

This was one of the films I looked forward too all year. While it didn’t reach the levels I had expected. It taught me a lesson of how expectations can affect the outlook and impression of a film.

Some reviewers remarked Carey Mulligan’s is miscast. I feel that is because it’s a
role some may feel any good actress could play and a actress of her nature is too big for the typical girlfriend, Damsel in Distress mode. I believe she fills the role well as you need a powerful actress to go toe to toe with Ryan Gosling and make his hard character into a virtual puppy dog around her.

The script is scarce on dialogue more time is devoted to body language, Facial reactions and mood. It’s like a Michael Mann film, though more compact and smaller scaled. The film relies heavily on mood, Soundtrack and score. The soundtrack is excellent and the fashion, style and music make the film seem more like a 80’s themed film.

For the guys it is incredibly violent, even the scenes you have seen before in many films are over the top violent. i would compare the character to the main one in Le Samuorai. Only Gosling's character is not as Cold Blooded.

If you don’t like the mood and style in the beginning, You are probably not going to like the film by large at all. the film get's under your skin. It has long Shots that last long where a normal director would cut. The camera stays on the characters so that you get the action and the emotional aftermath. Which leads to some scenes being awkward, yet that makes the scenes and film so special.

I believe Nicolas Winding Refn is a true talent, Here he is just taking something cliché and dressing it up to give it a individual identity set itself apart. I feel he is both trying to impress and express his vision artistically. To tell the truth I would rather the studios give a person who has a vision and has original ideas $100million to make a movie. Then a hack who will bring me a film that is exactly the same as we have seen hundreds of times, but I get it Studios want to be successful it’s like those who want to seem edgy but are really square underneath it all.
He is a talent just as I believe M. Night Shamalayan Has a visual talent. He just believes his own hype his films might be horrible, but the production values. The visuals so crisp and rich. It makes you wish the movies were better.

Nicolas Winding Refn Makes his mark by doing the most genre film he has ever made to date. IT has to be somewhat indulgent and pretentious. If not this would be a run of the mill B-Movie. You had seen before or a action extravaganza that left you bored. It would essentially be one of the films that you complain about and wonder how did this get made. This is the first film Mr. Refn has made that he didn’t write the script for. Surprisingly he only got the Job after Neil Marshall dropped out and Ryan Gosling who ended up Replacing Hugh Jackman as star requested him.

Albert Brooks is great as the low rent gangster in the middle of this. He brings a joyness in his role even though he is a tough person to deal with in the film. His curly hair is straightened to help play a Californian. His character is someone who is totally in control. No Neurosis, No lieing to himself. He’s even likeable despite the evil things he must do.

Ryan Gosling what can I say at first I didn’t get it, his appeal but he is slowly has grown on me and it’s funny the role where he barely talks is the one that impresses me the most. I believe it’s his intenseness. No matter what scene like he could kiss or kill you. The way in which he never takes his eyes off of whoever is in the room. Always looking around for exits and angles. He speaks little in the film but says so much. He also brings a physicality to the role. He let’s his actions do all the talking, With his all American boyish looks (though he is Canadian) He has a innocent look that when he unleashes his viciousness, Is startling. If you loved, THE NOTEBOOK and liked CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE. This film is exactly the Ryan Gosling porn you have been waiting for. So many close-ups of him. A family man of a certain type. Violent but only to protect the ones he cares about. Strong and silent. A man of his word with his own morals. Men want to be him, Women want to be with him. To get more into the character Gosling restored the 1973 Chevy Malibu that his character uses in the film.

The fact that we don’t know anything about his past and it is never explained gives Gosling’s nameless character. The air of mystery and allows us as individuals to indulge ourselves into imagining his past to fit the story and most exciting aspects for ourselves to make him see cooler. Where as if it was explained to us. It would never be as exciting compared to what we imagine ourselves for him.
Yes the violence is excessive more so then is needed. It’s almost like a horror film the level of it is so grisly. It seems it is there to make a point. To shock you and to also make you pay attention. It would seem the more important the character the more violent the death.

I will admit a few scenes seem a bit ridiculously indulgent, but it get’s across certain points. Take the ending the soundtrack seems to be telling you how to feel and think with it’s song selection it’s not over the top but it is leading.

The film feels like it has been put together like a opera. So that everything and every one has a specific purpose and it helps feed and complete the director’s vision. The film is not so much a crowd pleaser, but is a film that forces you to have an opinion on it.

This is a film to be more or less enjoyed and marveled at for it’s technical aspects then anything else. It seems to be a film more for film geeks and hardcore movie watchers more then general audiences.
See as soon as possible. Definitely a addition to the film library.

GRADE: B+

U-TURN (1997)

2011-09-25T15:49:00.002-04:00

Directed By: Oliver Stone
Written By: John Ridley; Based on his book “Stray Dogs”
Cinematography By: Robert Richardson
Editor: Hank Corwin & Thomas J. Nordberg

Cast: Sean Penn, Jennifer Lopez, Nick Nolte, Billy Bob Thornton, Claire Danes, Powers Boothe, Joaquin Phoenix, Julie Hagerty, Jon Voight, Brent Briscoe, Liv Tyler, Abraham Benrubi

A man running from a mysterious past is trapped in a small desert town after his car breaks down. Everybody in this town seems to have totally lost their mind and Bobby can't wait to leave. But there is a problem: Bobby doesn't have the money to get his car back. So when an aging man offers him money to kill his young wife Bobby seriously thinks about it. However the gorgeous young woman casts some kind of spell on him and she asks him to get rid of her husband. But this time, the stakes are much higher...

This film is a Neo-Noir. In a bright sunny climate. It tries to reverse some of the conventions while embracing them. It has a drained out film look. It focuses on the more tawdry elements making it seem as sleazy as the characters. None of the characters are likeable memorable yes. Likeable no.
It just becomes a case of who isn’t as bad or evil then the next. If you are a film fan. You should know what is going to happen but that film tries to throw a monkey wrench into things.

The film has an all star cast. Who are clearly having fun with their roles. Though it is a small cast. They are constantly surprising you their performances. Billy bob Thornton who gained 50 pounds for this film. Literally plays white trash all dirty.
At heart it’s a cynical dark comedy.

Director Oliver Stone admits he is a fan of bad movies. The films he watches obviously have an influence over him as he seems to use tricks he see’s from them. This film isn’t bad. He directs the film as a B-movie. It seems to be a valentine to them or at least his version. While giving the film a blockbuster gloss. I believe he needed to make the film a bit more serious then playing the scenes more for laughs. So that at times we feel nothing is really at stake. We are just watching people go through the motions. When asked why he made the film. Mr. Stone explained that he wanted to make a small film that he would want to watch as a teenager.

This film was around the time Sean Penn was embracing acting again. There was a period where he wasn’t really making any films acting wise. So this was really one of the first times seeing him o the big screen. It’s fun watching him be manic and not in control as he usually plays roles in which he is reserved and laid back. He at first turned the film down and Bill Paxton was cast, but he had to drop out a week before filming, So luckily Sean Penn was willing to step in last minute. Oliver stone even tried to get Tom Cruise to take the lead and Marlon Brando to play the Navajo narrator

Jennifer Lopez needs more roles like this. She plays off her bombshell image and actually allows her to have range. Which Jessica alba tried to similarly do in THE KILLER INSIDE ME to less effect. This role was originally intended for Sharon Stone. When I see Ms. Lopez in this film it reminds me of what she is capable of with the right script, Role and director to help shape her performance. A director who has clout and a reputation to get her to place her trust in them. Instead she seems to choose these romantic comedy where she sleep walks through the roles, yet looking fabulous. Using her star power to intimidate new or hack directors into doing things her way and letting her coast instead of challenging her. I’m not saying every role has to be challenging but at least once in a while. Especially when her potential is obvious.

I looked forward to this film when it was coming out. Even reading the novelization before thefilm came out. Which gives you more of a background on the main character and gives insight into the situations he finds himself in.

GRADE: B-

THE DAY AFTER (1983)

2011-09-11T11:37:00.001-04:00

Directed By: Nicholas Meyer
Written By: Edward Hume
Cinematography By: Gayne Rescher
Editor: William Paul Dornisch & Robert Florio

Cast: Steve Guttenberg, JoBeth Williams, Jason Robards, William Allen Young, Arliss Howard, John Lithgow, Amy Madigan

The frightening story of the weeks leading up to and following a nuclear strike on the United States. The bulk of the activity centers around the town of Lawrence, Kansas.

Yes i know it's technically a Tv-Movie (Though released as a feature in europe) but i recently watched it for the first time and shockingly found it's far off premise actually affecting. After the explosion inthe film no sponsor wanted to advertise so when the film first aired the second half was shown commerical free.

Awhit if movie that used the theory that was on many people's minds during the cold war of the 1980's What if the U.S. and Russia fired nuclear missles at each other. What would happen in the aftermath and instead of the poulation in the big cities (Whcih Would have been too expensive). The film focuses on different characters in America's heartland.

The film wouldhave gotten a better grade if the film had a bigger budget to afford more impressive effects. The story and script are there, But the visuals betray them every step of the way. Unfortunately Major studio films got it the other way great effects horrible stories. The movies production Values. Now look cheesy and fake, But at the time it looks good enough to make it into theaters. Especially with it's cast which weren;t as distinguished then.

When you watch the film it is a little laughable to think it was cutting edge back in the day.

Surprisingly at times this movie can be shocking in a good way. It's surprisingly downbeat for a Tv-Movie. Watching the film is equivalent to watching a Sci-Fi B movie from the 1950's. It has anostalgic feel. It's fun to watch and it;s logic and theories make sense if you put yourself in the character's mindset. Though i will admit some scenes are ridiculous.

The film had more ambitious special effects scenes that were cut. Due to the budget being altered when the film went from being a planned 4 hour epic to a 2 1/2 hour one.

The film decided to depict kansas as the center of all the action beauce it was theorized that since it is in the exact center of the united states. In a nuclear attack it would be genrally unaffected.

It'san ensemble film like a Robert Altman film (With less Skill) Where characters know and/ot Criss cross each other and are linked in some way.

GRADE: C+

It's a worthy rental as long as you don't expect much.

PARTY GIRL (1995)

2011-09-11T10:30:00.007-04:00

Directed By: Daisy Von Scherler Mayer
Written By: Daisy Von Scherler Mayer & Harry Birckmayer
Story By: Sheila Gaffney & Daisy Von Scherler Mayer & Harry Birckmayer
Cinematograhy By: Michael Slovis
Editor: Cara Silverman

CAST: Parker Posey, Guillermo Diaz, Anthony DeSando, Liev Schrieber, Omar Townsend, Donna Mitchell, John Ventimiglia, Dwight Ewell

Mary is a free-spirited young woman with a run-down New York apartment and a high fashion wardrobe. She calls her godmother, a librarian, for bail money after being arrested for throwing an illegal party. To repay the loan, she begins working as a library clerk. At first she hates it, but when challenged decides to master the Dewey Decimal System and become a great library clerk, while romancing a falafel vendor and helping her roommate in his goal to become a professional DJ

A perfect time capsule of the 90's and the new york party scene circuit. As far as independent cinema. It's a mainstream story. It was a surprise hit that was even turned into a disasterous sitcom starring Christine Taylor. The sitcom couldn't catch the magic of the film nor the charisma of PArker Posey.

This is the film that has made me a life Long fan of Ms. Posey. It introduced me to her and unfortunately she has rarely gotten a role that let's her shine as bright as she does here. It's a starmaking role and Ms. Posey is excellent in the lead. She is funny Perfect pitch and comic timing. There really is no reason sheis not a world class star by now. Many other actresses have gotten famous with lesser material. If only she was a coemdian or a strictly comedic actress. She would probably be at the top ofher game by now, But alas she is a real actress ableto do comedy and drama in one quick swoop.

This is a movie that cant help but put a smile on your face. Not a fairy tale even thoughshe has a prince in the form of a falafel vendor. He does not sweep her off her feet to take care of her, but he does support her. This is after all a tale of empowerment. A woman's film a guy could stand to watch.

I can't say enough good things about this movie. Which would still be good, not great without parker posey in it but together they are dynamite. It's kismet. The role was meant for her. I couldn't imagine anyone else playing it. Like Reese Witherspoon in LEGALLY BLONDE and Heath Ledger in THE DARK KNIGHT.

I remember seeing this film the same day as seeing THE INCREDIBLY TRUE ADVENTURES OF 2 GIRLS IN LOVE. I only decided to watch this film on a whim since so many people had gotten tickets to see it. My Cousin said we should since she was interested in seeing it too so we snuck in. I was Pleasently surprised. it was a breath of fresh aira nd eye opening in the way to entertain and get laughs on a low budget. I enjoyed it more then the film we had just watched. I think that day cemented not only my love of indie cinema, but knowing that i wanted to be a part of it somehow.

This movie has the spirit of the story The Little engine that could. The story is slight, but through the characters more then the situations it makes a impact. It's a rated R film but really should be rated PG-13 Due to language partial nudity and drug use.

A MUST SEE
GRADE: A

MYSTIC RIVER (2003)

2011-09-10T08:54:00.006-04:00

Directed By: Clint Eastwood
Written By: Brian Helgeland
Based On The Novel By: Dennis Lehane
Cinematography By: Tom Stern
Editor: Joel Cox

Cast: Sean Penn, Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, Laurence Fishburne, Laura Linney, Marcia Gay Harden, Tom Guiry, Emmy Rossum, Spencer Treat Clark, Ari Graynor

During a summer in 1975, Dave Boyle and two friends, Jimmy and Sean, are playing on a sidewalk in Boston when Dave is abducted by two men and subjected to sexual abuse over a period of several days. Eventually escaping, but haunted into adulthood by his trauma, Dave becomes a primary suspect when Jimmy's daughter, Katie, is found murdered. Sean, assigned to investigate the crime, finds himself facing both demons from the past and demons in the present as the circumstances surrounding Katie's death are uncovered.

I believe this film is overated, but still good. It hits a lot of emotional tones that do ring true and leaves not only the character haunted but those of us in the audience also.The film works on a bunch of different levels and stories.

It's a murder mystery, a revenge drama but it favors characters over plot, but both get a decent representation. It's just that some of it seems overcooked. There are odd points of development that come out of nowhere like near the ending Laura linney gives a speech that sound like King Lear where all of a sudden she is comparing theor family to kings and knights unprovoked. With conviction and attitude. She all of a sudden has a confidence that she never showed before. The same thing haoppens with Tim Robbins character getting grilled by the cops and just because the cops note it also doesn't mean you are allowed to get away with it because of admission. Even towards the end Sean Penn who has seemed sweet throughout the film slowly starts to look and behave like some aging gangster out of nowhere. Marica Gay Harden's emotional overacting in desperation.

I realize the film is based on a novel and has to follow the stroy arcs to a degree. Alli a asking is for the Strange elements of the story to be done a little more subtler.

Tim Robbins is good here, but i wouldn't say oscar worthy. His characterbecomes more like PEter Falk's Columbo and while you do feel sorry for him. He's truly is the most tragic character in the film. I wasn't 100% sold. I feel the reason why a lot of people like the film, Is the thought of how would they react in similar circumstances.

Again the film is based on a book, but you feel like you know these characters. No one get's out of this film without some kind of blood on their hands Sacrring them for life. The film tries to pull you in emotionally instead of with a compelling story. It ends up laying it on so thick it's either too much. Suffocating you even running the risk of being melodramatic.

The main difference is that the film explores the emotions of men dealing with tragedy, Instead of with women. It's a gritty hollywood film instead of a real gritty film. SEan Pen is excellent as usual. Kevin Bacon is memorable in a low key role. Everyone in thecast brings There A game. Even The great Eli Wallach's one scene is a scene stealer. Putting in a cameo for his old friend and Co-star of THE GOOD, THE BAD and THE UGLY. Michael Keaton was originally cast in Kevin Bacon's role but dropped out a month before filming after an argument with Clint Eastwood. Forrest Whitaker was ORiginally Cast In LAurence Fishburne's role before he hadto drop out due to another film.

The film is written like a tragedy. So there are really no bright spots. That seems to be the type director Clint Eastwood prefers. No matter how talented he is as a director. When he's good he is pretty good like this film. Rarely excelelnt though. When he is bad he is terrible. It might be his lack of interest in some of the other parts of the story that causes him to neglect or forget. Being too busy and interested on the acting side of things to pay full attention to the directing and script.

He has a relaxed directing style where he is not as interested in visuals as in reaching the emotional truth of scenes and focusing on characters. Which might come from age or just from working with big name classic directors and learnign from them. Since he tends to direct films that he stars in these days. Sometimes i wonder if he picks projects to keepboredom away. As his projects are random. He wants to keep busy and these are the best he can find. Not to sound insulting. I am just not as impressed by his directing as others are.

Here he picks a good project and the films faults are not entirely his own. He makes a meorable film, A good film yet not a excellent film. The film comes off as needy. It wants so much from the audience. I am not a fan of films that attemot to manipulate me emotionally, but i do admore the craft of this film. Which is why i recommend it and say it is worthy of your film library (At a discount) It won't be in mine though.

GRADE: B

KISS ME GUIDO (1997)

2011-09-08T16:53:00.007-04:00

Written & Directed By: Tony Vitale
Cinematography By: Claudia Raschke
Editor: Alexander Hall

Cast: Nick Scotti, Anthony Barrile, Anthony DeSando, Domeinck Lombardozzi, Christopher Lawford, Jennifer Esposito, Molly Price, Dwight Ewell, Rebecca Waxman, Guinevere Turner

Warren has an extra room in his apartment (and is five months behind on the rent) after his lover moves out, so a friend places an ad on his behalf for a GWM roommate. Frankie, a pizza baker (and aspiring actor), decides to move out of his family's flat in The Bronx when he comes home one evening and walks in on his brother making love to Frankie's girlfriend. Frankie checks ads for roommates in "the city" (i.e., Manhattan), notices Warren's ad and decides to answer it, reasoning that GWM stands for "Guy With Money."

Admitting i wathced this to the other Cinefiles, was not an easy thing. They were cruel in the teasing they gave me. It started off as a joke then i admitted that i did see the film. Let me explain. I rented this film back in my Video-store days. It wasn't a burning desire to watch the film. It was just me looking for a film to watch that night i came across the film. it sounded intriguing and i remember when it came out. the publicity around it was huge.

Essentially the film is a sitcom made into a movie. Eventually it actually did end up becoming a sitcom on CBS that lasted one season Titled SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS Starring: Jason Bateman and Danny Nucci. For good reason it was pitched in 1991 as a sitcom. When the writer found out the studio was trying to steal the idea for a sitcom. He immediately wrote this as a play then as a movie. After being a minor success, it was then made into the series. This is the type of film that during the independent 90's movement was one of the more commerical products put out. that could have been made by a studio, But had a certain element that made it get indie funding. It's lightweight to the core. While trying to explore stereotypes and learning abouteach other through the clashing of cultures.

It's a charming Odd Couple-esque little comedy. That prey's heavily on stereotypes of both cultures. While it reinforces a bunch. It also delves into the characters of each culture and more improtantly exposes them as individuals.

The film is rather clunky with a lot of overacting involved. Though as the film goes along you get to know the characters. They stillseem to stay stereotypes looking for characteristics to seperate them from most of the characters.

The director Tony Vitale Eventually made another movie. I wonder if this was the only story he had or wanted to tell at the time or for many years. Though by listening to his commentary. It seems like what lead to this film was a constant fascination of both cultures and how they coexist when it came to clubbing. Without any hostility between them though you would guess there would be, but how in some instances like music choices, they are on the same page.

Mr. Vitale Also seemed to have dreams of grandeur when it came to this project of what he wanted and whohe wantedtocast with such a low budget, but such is the dream whenit comes to directors and writers. Though the film ccmes off ok. he also seems to credit his own film as being a masterpiece.

RED STATE (2011)

2011-09-03T07:29:00.006-04:00

Written, Edited & Directed By: Kevin Smith
Cinematography by: David Klein

Cast: Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, Stephen Root, John Goodman, Nicholas Braun, Michael Angarano, Marc Blucas, Damian Young, Kevin Alejandro, Ralph Garman, Kevin Pollack, Anna Gunn, Matt L. Jones, Kerry Bishe, James Parks

Set in Middle America, a group of teens receive an online invitation for sex, though they soon encounter fundamentalists with a much more sinister agenda.

Now i have been waiting to see this film and i am writing this review fresh from seeing the film. I really wanted to go to the premiere at Radio City Music Hall when Kevin Smith was touring with the film. (I usually goto his appearances in New York) When i couldn't go i was very pissed off. Now i have had a chance to see the film. Not as magical as it would have been to see it with Smith in attendance.

First let it be known i am a unabashed Kevin Smith fan. I will admit that his more recent films have been disappointing and each new film feels like diminishing returns. I still held onto hope he would make a good film again sort of like Woody Allen. (Just like whom most fans would say his early work was the best) Prove himself and the talent i felt he had. I at least was winning to give each of his new projects a chance before passing decision. Either way i always felt he was a entertaining person. With this film like Allen does once in awhile he stages a comeback. He finally Lives up to the early promise people knew he had. This was the film we have been waiting for. (it also makes me wonder if he has been watching Lars von trier and Michael Haneke films. The commentary and Violence that the film makes seem normal though is shocking seems inspired by their films.)

First of all if there had not been so much press about this film you wouldn't really be able to tell that this is a film made by Kevin Smith. Until the last ten minutes. Except maybe when it comes to characters delivering monologues. He has totally changed up his filmmaking style. I don't know if he felt a need to prove naysayers wrong or if he wanted to prove to himself that he could make a film with gravitas out of his usual element. It could have been he just felt a need to tell a story, either way. i am happy he did. i find it interesting that he waited to his next to last film to show growth in his craft that people have been waiting for him to do ever since his third film give or take. It's not quite a slam dunk, but it is impressive.

The film begins with a sinister dark feeling i thought the early scenes would bemore like a typical smith film then delve into more of a dark tale, but it has a sorrowful mood from the beginning which feels like a slasher film.

The film not only becomes a examination of oneof kevin smith's interest religion taken to extremes. it has thrilling elements that makes it close to being a suspenseful horrror film only in reality. it certainly has the elements for being one. The film has no musical score. All the music is live in the scenes. It was filmed using the red Digital camera.

It has a beginning where we follow a few characters then opes the story up so that we move o from them to another element of the story but involving various characters. Like a small ensemble piece. I have to say i am impressed by Smith getting John Goodman, Stephen Root and recent oscar winner Melissa Leo. They are all impressive as always. Michael Parks is a great villian though there is not enough here to really take him seriously as Best Actor material (as was rumored)but his performance is pretty strong. Just one dimensional like a proper villian. The role was written with himin mind after Mr. Smith waytched his performance in FROM DUSK TIL DAWN. He has also said that if Michael PArks had turned it down. He wouldn't have made the film. It is another feather in his hat of memorable roles. Interesting Enough Smauel L. Jackson was considered for the John Goodman role. He would have been equally excellent, but Goodman is just so eye opening in the role (Especially due to the fact this is oneof his first roles after losing a lot of weight) He is clearly on a role.

The film is constantly surprising. It is very Bleak and in it's last act kind of whimpers out as it tries to set a message. The film is small scale which helps it become believable. It takes a more cynicl look at the world. The film isn't a complete success. Smith is still rough around the edges in some ways, Buti have to hand it to him here he seems like he is trying and showing growth and depth as a filmmkaer by finally showing a willingness to challenge himself and experiment. He's not playing it safe as much as he usually does with what seems like little effort. (I always like howi defend him by sounding more like i am insulting him)

The film was written anround the Same Time Of ZACK & MIRI MAKE A PORNO. He presented both scripts to the Weinstein Company. They instantly greenlit Zack & Miri as they felt red state was too risky to turn a profit, Plus to bleak. If they would have approved Smith says he would have filmed them both back to back.

A definite addition to the film library. Go out and see(k).

GRADE: B

Offspring (2009)

2011-09-01T17:13:00.006-04:00

Directed By: Andrew Van Den Houten
Written By: Jack Ketchum
Based on the Novel by: Jack Ketchum
Cinematography By: William M. Miller
Editor: Douglas Buck

Cast: Pollyanna McIntosh, Amy Hargreaves, Art Hindle, Ahna Tessler, Erick Kastel

Survivors of a feral flesh-eating clan are chowing their way through the locals. Amy Halbard and Claire Carey strive to survive their abduction by the cannibals and save their children. A subplot involving Claire's despicable husband, Steven, gives an opportunity to cleverly compare predatory civilized folk to the appetite-driven primitives

I will admit i am a big fan of Jack Ketchum and his novels. I will Furthur admit, i saw the sequel or continuation to it first THE WOMAN. I only decided to watch this to see where the sequel originated from. It would have been better for me to stay blind to this film. It has a great story, but the follow through is pretty bad.

it seems to focus more on the gory parts instead of any insight into the pack so to speak. we are presented characters in both the primal pack and the regular humans. We really know nothing about either of them other then 5 minutes of a introduction before they cross paths and the splattering begins.

I wanted to know about both the humans and the pack somewhat before any of the action starts. The film jus tleaves it open. i like the suggewstion that the ex-husband a human monster himself seems to undersatnd the feral creatures almost instantly as they seem to relate to one another.

I realize the book is so disturbing and graphic it would have been hard to adapt. It deserves better then this. The budget is low and it shows. there are ways around it. Look At STAKELAND which on a budget probably similar was able to give you scope and view into a world. It truly showed a talneted filmmaker and someone with an imagination.

The sad part is that the book's author also wrote the screenplay. It seems there was a attempt to earnestly bring the story to the screen. It's just it was trusted into the wrong hands who doesn't know how to fill the film with suspense at all. It's a shame because the previous film made from Mr. Ketchum's books haven't been perfect but they were at least noteworthy this is a complete failure. The only bright spot is that with this film came the continuation. Which more then makes up for this film and brings back Pollyanna McIntosh. who is the rare bright spot in this film. So that she get's her own film to shine in.

This film seems run of the mill with a different idea or two thrown in. It moves briskly. it was over before i knew it. I beleieve it was because they were more interested in showing the massacre instead of showing the lead up which might have made more of a impact. in such a way we know the characters and don't want to see the horrible things happen to them.

The film and book is dwonright cruel to it's characters, yet it gives you a understanding of things. Here it all seems randomly thrown together. Then just add kids to the mix to make it all the more shocking and distasteful. Hey i'm no prude buit watching this i kept wandering why bother.

Though with aqll the gore the film still doesn't make a impression as it feels like the primal characters are more playing dress up. Don't get me wrong they were vicious but at no point did this film feel real. It felt like a 70's exploitation film. Made to shock but it fails at it's mission.

Event he ending comes about abruptly.

It is definately a movie you can skip the original and go straight to the sequel. But read the book it fills you in a lot of details. I would have rather it had the reputation as unfilmable then this lame attempt. The bad thing is the movie gives the book a bad name.

SKIP IT.

GRADE: F

BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER (1992)

2011-08-29T13:53:00.006-04:00

Directed By: Fran Rubel Kuzui
Written By: Joss Whedon
Cinematography By: James Hayman
Editor: Jill Savitt & Camilla Toniolo

Cast: Kristy Swanson, Luke Perry, Rugter Hauer, Paul Ruebens, Donald Sutherland, Hillary Swank, Natasha Gregson Wagner, David Arquette, Stephen Root, Andrew Lowery, Thomas Jane, Ben Affleck, Candy Clark, Mark DeCarlo, Alexis Arquette, Ricki Lake

Now i am a big fan of the series, but before that there was this film that i actually went to see in the theaters. Now i'm not going to lie when i first saw this film advertised i went for only two reason the campiness factor and i thought Kristy Swanson was hot at the time. It was Pg-13 and i was 15 at the time. It was only me and two other people in the theater and i feel the same about the film now that i did then. it's ok.

Now being a huge fan of the show i know the history of the film. Which was heavily rewritten to make the tone lighter. infact you can read the origina script or story at least in the Buffy Graphic novel. THE ORIGIN. in fact the series is more or less based on a continuation of the graphic novel more then the movie. The problem with the film is that it is too campy and goofy to ever be taken seriously. It's definately not horror as it is not scary at all and there is no violence or suspense in fact other then a few curveballs it is pretty predictable. You have some fun getting there but not too much.

When the series came out i had my reservations but figured it would maybe correct the problems i had with the film i could never had dreamed how much it did. As it eventually became one of my all time favorite tv series. It didn't affect my view of the original movie except to think like i did when i first saw it. That it blew an oppurtunty to make something really fun and original to make a middling film.

Watching it now it is dated. It's thetype of film that's fun to watch late at night as it is so ridiculous and bad at certain times that you have no choice but too laugh. the problem i believe is the direction. it's not very good, it's cheap looking there is no stellar acting. The direction looks more in tune with a television sitcom then a film.

It;s interesting thsat the film has a cast of future notable actors in bit roles. While having quite a name cast at the time. The film is purely nmade on various moments of the film that are entertaining and fun then as a whole. Paul ruebens is fun in his role as the vampire henchmen of the main ghoul and his improvised death scene is hilarious. Rugter hauer as the main vampire is fun to watch as he preens like a former heartthrob gotten older but still on the prowl.

Joss Whedon still kept his name on the script though after seeing the movie being filmed one day. He was so upset he walked off the set never too return. Maybe that is why he is so hands on with his material now.

In the end the film is fun, yet clumsy with it's material. If it had been darker it would have been noteworthy. the lightness in tone doesn't exactly match the material and makes this mnore of a cult mnovie simply for what doesn't work then what does.

If it hadn't have been made into a television series. This is the type of film i would have suggested for a remake. To make what was a disaster salvagable with a small audience already.

Wait for Cable.

GRADE: C+

THE WARD (2010

2011-08-29T12:48:00.007-04:00

Directed By: John Carpenter
Written By: Michael Ramussen & Shawn Ramussen
Cinematography By: Yaron Orbach
Editor: Patrick McMahon

Cast: Amber Heard, Jared Harris, Mika Boorem, Danielle Pannabaker, Maime Gummer, Laura-Leigh, Lyndsey Fonesca

While i was expecting the film to be bad the way it has been talked about and dumped into theaters and now DVD. it's not as bad as you have heard. it's certainly not Carpenter's worst film, Nor does it reach any of the high's of his best remembered films. The film does turn out disappointing because you can tell carpenter's heart isn't entirely in the film. He still shows skill behind the camera to make things interesting.

At first the film plays like a typical haunted house film. Then it changes to a slasher film that hides a cinspiracy in it's heart. Towards the third act though it breaks up the monontany to shake things up, so that the film soon becomes unpredictable. I like the way the film plays with conventions of the genre slowly then suddenly turns them on their ear, playing with the audience to keep nthem on their toes. unfortunately this isn't enough to make the film entirely successful. I can see why Carpenter was attracted to the material. I don't know if he reaqlly was or took it as a for hire job. there are very little of his traqdemarks on display, but you can tell the film is in the hands of a master instead of some hack. He gives the story more respect then anything else. he doesn't go for flashy cuts or camera angles. he knows how to build suspense in a scene.

Thought the film stars many attractive young ladies. Carpenter doesn't flirt with sex or sleaze when it comes to them. He doesn't make them desperate for each other or a man turning them into sex objects more then characters. like films of this type usually succumb to.

While the script isn't the greatest it is one of the better recent horror one's that at least tries something different while playing inside of the rules. The only sad part is that by watching the film you can tell Carpenter is at the end of his rope. This film is his first not shot on panavision. It's not a bad film to go out on. It's just sad to see a old master slowly go out the pasture as he doesn't have the interest or the passion to really make films anymore. This is actually the first feature he has directed in 10 years. The only other things he directed in that time was 2 episodes of the MASTERS OF HORROR series.

I believe he is just worn down. He is a old school filmmaker. He likes to make films with anti-heroes and usally a bit of social commentary. He likes to throw himself into his films usually scoring and scripting. It's just that these days it is tougher to get a film made by a studio then ever. The studios are more or less run by Business school students who are more interested in profits then artistic achievement. So it's harder for filmmakers like him to get films made by reputation. He has had to fight so much to get his films and dream projects made over the years, That now he can live off of the residuals and his reputation. He doesn't really care about remakes or sequels to his work. these days he is more interested in videogames. I learned this last tidbit last year at the 2010 new york comic con from the Writersw of the Prequel of THE THING.

It's a shame as John Carpenter's films might not always be the best, but there is something noteworthy in the films he usually makes. If not his whole career.

This film is a satisfying rental. It's a good double feature with the film IDENTITY. they both invoke the same mood. Only one is done better.

GRADE: C

THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO (1998)

2011-08-22T08:36:00.005-04:00

Written & Directed By: Whit Stillman
Cinematography By: John Thomas
Editor: Andrew Hafitz & Jay Pires

Cast: Kate Beckinsale, Chloe Sevingy, Robert Sean Leonard, Chris Eigeman, Mackenzie Astin, Jennifer Beals, Matt Kesslar, David Thornton, Tara Subkoff, Burr Steers, Jaid Barrymore, Michael Weatherly

Story of two female Manhattan book editors fresh out of college, both finding love and themselves while frequenting the local disco.

This is actually Whit Stillman's most accessable film. It's like hos others talkative exploring the yuppie crowd. Even though it is an esemble piece. It focus is more onthe female characters, this time more then in his past films.

It is also set during a definite point in time Making this a period piece of the early 80's. then his more ambigous time periods of his other films.

The films seems more of an attempt at entertaining mainstream audiences, While keeping his signature style. At least it was marketed to be, Though it might just be him maturing as a filmmaker also. it still has the look and feel of a stillman film only with a bigger budget and a soundtrack full of classic disco tunes. Which made going to see this film in the theater feel nostalgic.

The film is based around a faux studio 54 type club and the inhabitants who frequent it. it for the most part concerns itself with witty conversations between self involved characters and the in's and out's of their love and sex lives.

I tink the way the film was marketed was misleading. it threw off the audinece the film was intended for. They were expecting Studio 54. they got a Talkative indie comedy. I consider myself lucky for having seen this on the big screen. As it took awile to come to home video and after quite a few years finally came out on Criterion Dvd which it deserved.

Kate Beckinsale is surprisngly good for the first time to me (At that point) but she is blown out of the water by the charming and sweet Chloe Sevingy playing a regular character for one of the rare times inher career. i like that the film flirts with all the disasters of std's, financial ruin, and finding yourself. Plus showig the changing tides of the times.

It is also a first for Mr. Stillman working with actors out of his core group of players. Chris Eigeman is still around, but the main stars of the film run the gamut of established up and coming actors of the time. Who seem to all easily adapt to his characters and style. He unfortunately is more of a cult director then a celebrated one that he should be. His films are very distinct and one of a kind. He truly achieves Auteur Status with this film because within minutes or seconds you can tell it's one ofhisfilms, especially the more familiar you become with his work.He not only has a certian style and a way with dilogue but also the camera and characters that make his style unique.

It's only a shame he doesn't make more films because he showed how impressive he can be with studio funding. Unfortunately i think the Soundtrack was more successful then the movie, As everyone seemed to have it once it came out, but not so many to this day have really seen the film. Even my uncle who never saw the film owns the soundtrack. I seem to b the rare moviegoer who has vivid memories of this film

Castle rock the studio that produced the film wanted a name in the role of Alice. An offer was sent out to Winona Ryder. In the meantime Chole Sevingy read for the role and was perfect. Whit Stillman made uphis mind she was perfect for the role and found a way out of casting her.

This is a definite addition to the film library. Go out and see it.

GRADE: B

54 (1998)

2011-08-22T07:37:00.005-04:00

Written & Directed By: Michael Christopher
Cinematography By: Alexander Gruszynski
Editor: Lee Percy

Cast: Ryan Phillipe, Salma Hayek, Breckin Meyer, Mike Myers, Sherry Stringfield, Neve Campbell, Sela Ward, Erika Alexander, Mark Ruffalo, Lauren Hutton, Heather Matarazzo, Michael York, Skip Sudduth, Ron Jeremy, Michael Pitt,Justin Bartha

Famous 70's NYC nightclub seen and told through the eyes of a young employee.

This movie has a lot of potential but it feels like a lot has been edited down amd this is what was left. A lot of times the film seems like it is the shell that was left. At times the the film seems like it's going to go over the top and you expect to be immeresed in the raunch. Then beforeit goes there the film tames itself.

The film tries to throw in something shocking now and then to match the material it is supposed to be covering. Another problem is that while it is based around studio 54. it usesa fictional character and group of friends as our protagonists. to tell it's story, but then we are involved in their melodramatic personal lives that is really nothing we haven't seen before. It's just dressed up in 70's clothing. Leaving us to learn nothing about the club in general.

I was expecting a in depth look at studio 54 and it's inhabitants, more like the film CASINO. Giving you an eye into the business and the behind the scenes drama while Dramatizing the workings by giving us a character who is out introduction to the place. then maybe let the film take place as things happen a esemble truly working together.

There are a lot of plot threads that are simply dropped with no closure. I always thought to liven the film up their should have been a love triangle between Salma Hayek, Breckin Meyer and Ryan Phillipe that is only hinted at. The film might nothave gotten made if Ryan Phillipe's character was sleeping with both of them. So it could have Salma torn between the two while trying to get her music career started. Then sleeping with a record exec. While ryan could be torn between Salma and the heated yet innocent romance of him and Neve Campbell.

I would suggest anything to liven up scenes that seem to lay there and feel like they were written by a first time screenwriter still in writing class. Instead of noted playwrite but novice Director/Screenwriter Michael Christopher.

One of the few bright spots of the film is surpringly Mike Myers as Steve Ruebell. He makes the character funny at first but slowly he becomes more and more human. As we see him as a deeply flawed and lonely human being even though hr has the keys to a castle everyone wants entrance to. Myers shows that he can actually do drama and play a realistic human being instead of the cartoonish comedic characters he usually plays. The only problem is that he appears so few times. If he was thelead this would have been a movie to marvel at evenif it was only for the performance. Instead of how easily forgettable this film is, Though with nice art direction.

Skip It

GRADE: D-