Gee, This Looks Low. &trade

The Love Guru
Paramount Pictures
Starring: Mike Myers
Director: Marco Schnabel

Wayne Campbell.
Austin Powers.
Shrek.

All of these wonderful characters have been brought to us by the comedic genius of Mike Myers. But now, he has recently invented the Guru Pitka; an American raised outside of the country who returns to rule the self-help business with an iron fist.




This film has already sparked some controversy in India for his portrayal of the main character. I didn't hear the Scots getting angry at Fat Bastard, so something must be wrong with this flick. Hockey? Gurus and hockey? I know Myers is a native Canadian and hockey is a way of life up there, but will this film beat out Wayne's World or any of the Austin Powers films? Or be as memorable? I think not.



I could be stoned by my cinephile colleagues for saying this, but it is quite possible Justin Timberlake may be the one saving grace of this film. Or he could help dig the grave deeper for this sad picture. He's been testing his limits with his choices in characters as of late, and I'll be routing for him.

Pitka's Karma is Huge. But my tao is telling me to pass by this one. He ain't randy, he ain't green, and this film doesn't look far out at all.

The Love Guru opens in theaters on Friday, June 20th.

A fun, but not very scary, Nightmare

Nightmare Man
After Dark Horrorfest 2007
Directed by Rolfe Kanefsky
Paradign Pictures

In November of 2006, After Dark Films began a horror film festival that put 8 independent movies into theaters so the masses could experience something different from the Hollywood drivel that's been released recently. Unfortunately, as they only released certain films to certain theaters and all on the same week, I was unable to see or choose any. I was elated when they were released on DVD the following March. I purchased them all and enjoyed them quite a bit. This past November of 2007, After Dark repeated the festival with a new crop of Films to Die For...and released them on DVD March 18th. Being the resident horror geek, I'm on the job.

Nightmare Man is my first After Dark 2007 film. It stars Blythe Metz as Ellen, a woman who orders a fertility mask from Italy (which imported said mask from Africa) and is appalled to discover that the thing is hideous. She tosses it aside and plans to later call the shipping company, certain that there's been a mistake. The audience is then treated to an unsettling scene in which the power goes off in her home and she is stalked by someone in the dark. This stalking culminates in an attack on Ellen by what appears to be a frightening demon.

Now, rest easy, these are not spoilers...this, in fact, only described perhaps the first 7min of the film. The rest of the movie focuses on Ellen's fear of the demon that attacked her and her husband's (Luciano Szafir) disbelief in the monster. Bill, Ellen's oh-so-supportive husband, is driving her to a hospital where she can get some rest and help. Unfortunately, he forgot to fill the gas tank and the car runs out of fuel...shocking, I know. What ensues after he leaves to get some gas is another attack by the demon who supposedly exists only in Ellen's head and a chase through the woods (what, you thought they stalled out on a main road?! Pssh.) to a house where four friends unsuspectedly play Truth or Dare. They are attacked by Ellen's demon and a fight to protect themselves becomes the new focus of the film. There are a few twists and turns in the movie, but nothing we haven't seen before. The end of the film will definitely get you laughing, though - an amusing sequence AND a cameo by Richard Moll of Night Court fame!

Nightmare Man is certainly not a high-caliber horror flick. The chase scene through the woods is far too long and you start hoping the demon would just catch up with her already to end the agony...your agony, not hers. The Truth or Dare friends, led by Mia (Tiffany Shepis), are both amusing and annoying, depending on what dialogue escapes their lips. In fact, Shepis is really the only entertaining actor in the entire film. Her sarcasm isn't witty, that's for sure, but you definitely chuckle at most of her lines. She becomes the tough girl of the film while Ellen is subdued on the couch. Metz's performance as Ellen is rather dry and goofy - like I said earlier, you don't really want her to survive, but her character delivers some seriously funny situations toward the end of the film. The focus of the film shifts too frequently for you to really take it seriously, and the dialogue is certainly not Pulitzer-Prize winning material. In general, the movie is more like a late-night Cinemax film than something Fangoria would rave about. Probably fitting, as Tiffany Shepis has been in a number of Emmanuelle movies. Hrm.

Bottom line, Nightmare Man is a fun horror movie to watch for some empty laughs and entertainment, but will not give you nightmares.


Available on DVD now.

If you're half right, you'll be a genius.

Frank Capra said that.

And movies about making movies always sparks interest. Shadow of the Vampire proved a fruitful and frightening picture, while Living in Oblivion pays tribute to the independent filmmaker and the panic that can ensue on a set. And with this year's The Man In The Chair, generations will clash when seniors and high schoolers unite to make the next celluloid masterpiece.



It is being claimed as Christopher Plummer's "tour-de-force." As an oldie to Hollywood, he pesters cinema goers with his warehouse of worthless celluloid knowledge, while choking down Wild Turkey to his failing liver. Priceless quotes from Hollywood Legends will spark this film and keep it moving, as well as the old senile approach to filmmaking versus the recklessness of youth.

I am unsure as to be more intrigued by Plummer's character, or in the Black Irish sensation, Michael Angarano. This young actor is really carving out a niche for himself, rivaling the likes of Emile Hirsch and Ben Foster. He's got the range, the look, and the talent that projected him into the spotlight when he played the young Red Pollard in Seabiscuit. His leap into a South Boston teenager longing for the approval of his father in Irish is admirable for his age.

Combined with the efforts of seniors M. Emmett Walsh and Robert Wagner, this film looks to paint a rather hopeful picture for the future of cinema. It has taken over a decade for Michael Schroeder to escape the stigma of productions he directed like the Cyborg films, but the vision and execution pre-viewed from the trailer alone screams depth and meaning. Welcome back, Schroeder.



The Man In The Chair comes to video on April 1st, 2008.

Don't expose yourself to Shutter

Shutter
20th Century Fox

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. I have only one for this movie: "YAWN."

Recently, I posted a blog about Hollywood's love affair with the horror movie remake. This particular little gem is part of the epidemic of Asian horror remakes. You know the ones... The Ring really started the onslaught. That's one remake I didn't mind at all -- thought it was wonderfully scary and entertaining. The Ring made me go searching through the plethora of Japanese horror flicks, resulting in the location of The Eye and Audition. Both are spectacular, I think. Anyway, for a while, I raved about the talents of the Japanese for producing horror until I realized something very disheartening -- the Japanese have the same problem we do - nothing is different, nothing is new.

After The Ring, we had The Grudge - which creeped some people out; it only made me afraid of small Asian boys who meow at me. Being as this is America, there's no surprise that The Ring 2 and The Grudge 2 followed shortly thereafter. We were then hit with Dark Water, Pulse, One Missed Call, The Eye, and other terrible Hollywood versions of Asian films. You'll notice the remake of The Eye in that list. When I mentioned it earlier, I meant the original....not the Jessica Alba thing. All of these movies feature some young girl with dark hair who lurks in corners and wreaks havoc on the lives of the main characters. Sometimes there are children involved, but typically, you're faced with a young twenty-something girl who has been wronged in some way.

Shutter is the latest in the Asian remake craze. These movies are like a bad sinus infection that just won't go away. I, unfortunately, cannot speak to the original film (from Thailand, this time), because I have yet to receive it from Netflix. Our Americans-in-Japan version, starring Joshua Jackson and Rachael Taylor, was released today and, being the resident horror buff, off I went to see it, hoping for something good. No such luck.

Shutter follows two newlyweds to Tokyo, the location of Ben Shaw's (Jackson) new job. He is a photographer who does model shoots and advertisements, I expect - it's never really addressed, as it's not really important. His darling wife, Jane (Taylor), is exploring Tokyo for the first time and is getting used to her new life with her husband. Driving along the road one evening, they hit a girl who - prepare yourself for this BRAND NEW ELEMENT - disappears. The pair continues to their honeymoon, then to Ben's new job. Ben forgets the incident; Jane is freaked out (as I think most of us would be) and can't let go of this girl who vanished after the accident.

The focus of the film is on the photographs being taken throughout. There appears to be a glitch in the film....perhaps it's in the camera itself. Whatever the trouble, there are flaws in the photographs. Jane begins to delve into the idea of spiritual photography - photos in which spirits appear, trying to get messages somehow to the others in the shots. What unravels for the rest of this 85min snoozefest is a cliched haunting of our fresh-faced bride and groom and an even more cliched mystery to solve that involves an Asian woman with long dark hair that hangs in her face all too often....shocking, I know.

The one saving grace to this film...and it's not much...it the ending. The big reveal is interesting and justice is served...or is it? Again, another slight cliche in the resolution of this one, but how could you present a cliched remake of an Asian film without a cliched ending?

Unfortunately, this film is not worth your $10.00 at the cinema. Nor is it worth the discount movie ticket I had to give up. It's not even worth the bargain $2.50 you might pay at a value cinema near you.

Another word has occurred to me that shows what this picture is worth: "UGH." Shut your eyes to this one, folks.

...and here's hoping the remake of Prom Night (Apr 11th) is a little better.

Shutter is playing in theaters now.

Not With A Whimper... Kelly's Tales.

Southland Tales
Directed by Richard Kelly

Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko left us questioning our own meager existences. Despite our weaknesses, setbacks and flaws, can we all be destined for true enlightenment and help others? The same questions coincide with his latest film, Southland Tales.



Texas has been nuked in a strike against America; the second terrorist attack inside of ten years. It is a time for further change in the country? Are the people ready to hand over more of their civil rights for the "safety" of the country? All while in our desperate search for an alternative fuel, one magical "right-under-our-noses" cure has finally been discovered by the latest mega-conglomerate of scientists.

Political Satire.
Psychological Thriller.
Contemporary Musical.
Pre-Apocalyptic Fore-Telling.
And Even a Time-Travel Movie?

As most cinema-goers know, Kelly's films are of the "love it" or "hate it" genre. He pushes the really big questions about life and existence, and if most of us are even worthy of living a full one. He further drives the "what-if" situations in our heads, and does not hold back. For every liberty we hand over, the more we offer ourselves up as controlled slaves and statistics of those higher-ups who are feeding off our non-escapable drowning lives.

Dwayne Johnson (losing "The Rock" title for the first time in his cinematic appearances) carries the film and shows his range even further. His muscles aren't so important this time around. He plays an actor, recently stricken with a bout of amnesia, struggling to piece the last few days together while he seeks solace in the arms of a porn star (Sarah Michelle Gellar), believing the two of them have had a steady relationship for quite some time. Coupled with a side story featuring Sean William Scott, whose dramatic acting matches his comedic style, it shows the silent sacrifice a world would make to not be dependent on fossil fuels.

This film is littered with cameos from all walks of celluloid life, even featuring some returning actors from Darko. Tales, like Kelly's previous film, is not meant to have the story and ideas spoon-fed to you. This film requires a small bit of brain power to understand its message and follow the story. If you are expecting a War of the Worlds film with a smaller budget, you are missing it entirely.

To lay it all out a little better for you, Kelly has released three graphic novels (Chapters 1, 2 and 3), which better illustrate the events leading up to the film, which starts at Chapter 4. Love It or Hate It. But as long as you've received the loud and clear message of Richard Kelly, his job is done. Nothing comes easy, and sometimes the truth hurts.

Have A Nice Apocalypse.

The horror....the horror...

I've called myself a lot of things regarding my passion for movies -- movie geek, vault of useless trivial knowledge -- but I think the most accurate description is purist. What's ironic here is that my preferred genre is horror, which has become the cloudiest, grainest, most turbid category of them all. Nothing in horror is pure anymore; perhaps it hasn't been in decades, seeing as the idea of sequels gained most of its strength and adoration from horror fans. However, it's not the sequel that causes the voice of Joseph Conrad's Mr. Kurtz (or, perhaps, Brando's Col. Kurtz of Apocalypse Now) to echo in my mind. No, the greatest pain to the horror purist is the one trend more frightening than any bump in the night, any cursed Indian burial ground, or any crazed psycho killer: the horror remake is what causes me to wake up screaming in the night.

Each new crop of horror directors (Tod Browning, James Whale, George Romero, John Carpenter, Tobe Hooper, Wes Craven) has brought the genre into a new echelon. The reason each boom of horror has been so great is because it brought something new into the genre. Herein lies the problem: the current boom in horror is exactly the opposite - nothing is new anymore -- all is remakes.



This was okay for a while....Dracula has been remade countless times, sometimes with actual improvements. The classic Invasion of the Body Snatchers of the sci-fi genre was remade in 1978 - a version many prefer to the original (the new Invasion with Nicole Kidman, however, was definitely terrible). In the 70s, top-of-the-line makeup and special effects were beginning to become essesential to the horror film and greats like Tom Savini were invaluable in the 80s. So updating older films was an exciting venture - a way to take an old story and make it frightening to a new generation. Take movies that weren't great to begin with (except for making your date jump into your lap in fear) and remake them into truly terrifying films! Dark Castle really jump-started the trend by remaking House on Haunted Hill, an original Vincent Price classic. The effects in this film are great, Geoffrey Rush seems to be channelling the late Price himself, and there are genuine scares...the one major fault is the ending - yet there WAS no ending in the original....what can ya do? Dark Castle then moved on to remake 13 Ghosts. As much as I adore the original - you could see the strings carrying the ghosts past the camera!! - the special effects, again, made this remake into what it is - an awesome, fun ride with some really cool makeup. Even the new version of George Romero's Dawn of the Dead brought the wit, horror, and camp of the original to a remake that was just as funny as it was frightening....(my favorite is when the baby zombie looks up and goes, "BLEH!")

Old movies that were campy to begin with are ripe for remaking. The problem here is that Hollywood has begun to search for new opportunities in remake-land. Producers have lost their originality and have begun remaking movies that are classics because they are perfect the way they are. I will, only in passing, bring up Gus Van Sant's Psycho. I don't want to frighten you too much. And then there's that disgusting version of When a Stranger Calls. That crap was taken from the first 20minutes (I swear...no exaggeration) of the original and stretched into 87min of my life that I can't get back. Truly terrifying.

One cause for this trend? Ignorance. Hollywood's favorite demographic is boys in their late teens and 20s and boys love a gorefest. They want action and chaos and something to put their dates in their laps, cowering from the screen....some things never change, I guess. They, however, don't KNOW the original films!!! This drives them to the theater thinking these movies are first-timers, and the more gore, the happier these audiences are.

Being one of the girls who has known guys to cover their eyes from the screen in her prescence, I have asked for nothing less than to be entertained and surprised, gore or no gore. There is no surprise with these remakes, save for the senseless changes in plot. The Haunting (1999) took a brilliant book, The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson - which partly inspired Stephen King to write The Shining - and remade the 1963 film. This movie was so ridiculous, its effects and big-budget stars were blown out of the box office by a little-known Sundance darling that took complete unknowns, half-scripts, and handheld cameras and scared the pants off of its audiences - The Blair Witch Project. Guess why....it was NEW. It was DIFFERENT. It was based in what all quality horror movies water down to - the UNKNOWN.



The most truly frightening aspect of the remake plague in the horror genre is that greed has pushed Hollywood to remake those films that remade the genre. When Jennifer Lopez attempted to remake Casablanca with Ben Affleck, the whole film world almost had an aneurism. But remake Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre? SURE! How about The Amityville Horror? NO PROBLEM. These two films, from the late 70s, were two of the most brilliant and frightening of the genre...they still are. Then, because remakes like these were hitting it big with an audience ignorant to their originals - someone sold his soul to the Devil and gave Rob Zombie the green light for a remake of Halloween. This man doesn't know how to make an original film. House of 1000 Corpses, his first film, was ripped off from Texas Chain Saw Massacre. But it was gory -- those teenaged boys love their gore....



I consider Halloween (2007) to be the official beginning of the end. Carpenter's classic babysitter-stalking killer has been reduced to the oldest cliche of the 90s --- what? You didn't know that Michael Myers was picked on as a kid??? Please. So now, we are facing a plethora of travesties. Hellraiser (2009) is in production -- minus Doug Bradley, who played Pinhead in EVERY Hellraiser film. The Thing and The Fly, both remade once already, are on the slate. The Evil Dead, The Last House on the Left, Pet Sematary, and The Wolf Man are also coming. There's a Friday the 13th movie, but I'm still not sure about that being a remake or a sequel - the 11th, if you count Freddy vs. Jason.


Entertainment Weekly's latest issue says Rosemary's Baby is being worked out now. These movies are 30 years old, true, but they are fantastic for what they are. Will they remake Jaws? The Godfather? Perhaps Star Wars needs some updating. Shall we try remaking more Hitchcock? I'm not looking forward to the inevitable....they already remade The Omen. If Rosemary is on the block next....The Exorcist can't be far behind....

Hollywood is on a roll...Shutter (opening Mar 21) is a remake of a movie made in Thailand; Prom Night (Apr 11) starred one of the original scream queens, Jaime Lee Curtis. There are more of these things coming...some good, some bad....but as far as I see it...."remake" has become a dirty word.

Oh, and did I mention a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is in the works? Yeah....WITHOUT Robert Englund. Blasphemy. Pure blasphemy.

2 blockbusters + 1 potential controversy = 1 crazy summer

So, I was scouring this Interweb thingie, looking for some info on a few movies that will be coming out this summer, when all of a sudden, I stumbled upon this picture, a screenshot from an upcoming action-comedy called Tropic Thunder (apologies to my 4th-grade teacher for the run-on sentence):



Now, obviously, that's Ben Stiller up front (looking like Zoolander and Rambo's bastard offspring), and that's Jack Black taking up the rear with a blonde dye-job (and some kick-ass shades). But who's that in the middle? If he looks familiar, readers, it's probably because his face is going to be everywhere this summer, including in the preceding post. That's right, folks! It's everyone's favorite Iron Man, Robert Downey, Jr., in a hell of a make-up job.

Obviously, Downey will make a killing this summer with the Iron Man movie (and has already stated his willingness to do multiple sequels), so it's very intriguing to see him take a role that involves him wearing blackface. Such an act will no doubt lead to controversy, particularly due to the long history of racial tension that comes with the make-up. In the early days on cinema, white men wore blackface and became extremely stereotypical exaggerations on African-Americans. Indeed, sometimes even black actors were forced to wear blackface (like in D.W. Griffith's notorious epic Birth of a Nation) in order to emphasize and reinforce the stereotypes. In more recent times, attempts by white actors to "become" black were either laughably bad (Michael Richards in Whoops Apocalypse), outright criticized (Ted Danson's infamous Friars Club appearance), or a combination of the two (C. Thomas Howell in Soul Man).

So, it's safe to say that the tightrope Robert is walking here is an extremely thin and shaky one. There are already rumblings of potential outcry and protests, and we're still 5 months away from the movie's premiere. In the worst-case scenario, this could possibly affect even Iron Man's box office, depending on how far it goes. Sure, Robert Downey, Jr., is a hell of an actor, and should be a lot of fun to watch in Iron Man (as well as his brief appearance in The Incredible Hulk). I wonder if he took the role in Tropic Thunder because he knew his first film this summer was a guaranteed box-office smash, and maybe he wanted to try something a bit (read: very, very) different. Personally, I don't think this role will hurt the box office for either of the Marvel adaptations, but this movie could either be hurt by Robert Downey in blackface (for the aforementioned racial overtones) or could actually give the film a boost (simply for the "Oh, I have got to see this" factor). Even Mr. Downey himself said that it'll either be very successful and well-done, or "we're going to Hell". Either way, it's going to be a wild summer for Mr. Downey; just how wild depends upon what kind of reaction his performance in Tropic Thunder will elicit from the audience.

Maybe it would help if we discuss the plot a bit. A bunch of self-absorbed actors and crew go about making a movie about Vietnam. When the film goes over budget, the studio tries to shut down the production. However, the director (played by Steve Coogan) decides to go rogue, and keeps filming, eventually relocating the actors and crew deeper into the jungles of Southeast Asia, only for everyone to discover that they have now stepped into a literal war zone. So now the actors have to actually go to war. Downey does play a white actor, named Kirk Lazarus, who takes the role that was originally written for a black man, Sgt. Osiris. Of course, there is already another African-American in the cast (Brandon Jackson, formerly from BET), so I'm assuming there will be more than a few racially-motivated jokes tossed between the two characters. Granted, this could be funny, but I hope they didn't create Lazarus simply for that reason alone; there are few things in movies more frustrating than a character that's created simply to be provocative. As I said, it's still months away - there isn't even a formal trailer available - so a lot of this is all conjecture at this point. We shall see in August.

On the whole, the movie looks like it will be entertaining. The cast includes Stiller, Black, Coogan, Nick Nolte, and has cameos from, among others, Tobey Maguire and Tom Cruise. The website for the movie, http://www.tropicthunder.com/, has some funny clips from the film (NOTE: You do have to be 17 to see the site, though. Not my rule.) and gives a good overview of the film. I just worry that this racial issue will be the thing that draws all the publicity and attention, and not the film itself.

But hey, this is Hollywood. Any publicity is good publicity, right?

There's No Rust On Favreau's Upcoming Iron Man.

I've been a fan of Jon Favreau's work since Swingers. To know he had one hand in writing it and another in starring in it, he has since never left my radar. From his appearances in Rudy, P.C.U., and even Daredevil (-cringe-), his choices have been sporadic and non-linear.

But giving credit when credit is due is an understatement when discussing this man. He seamlessly shifted from actor into the director's chair with ease, providing pictures like Made, Elf and Zathura.

His latest effort is in the form of a Marvel production. Multi-billionaire playboy Tony Stark provides high-profile and highly-deadly weapons to the government but when his convoy is attacked in the war zone, he is forced to create a life support suit, which constantly evolves, due to his endless stash of cash and he turns from big-shot head honcho to crime fighter.



Some comic-to-film adaptations have had a struggle transforming from ink into a moving picture. X-Men: The Last Stand struggled in its real-world believability in terms of spectacle, while the audience watching The Hulk couldn't grasp how much mental trauma it took for a man to turn green. Iron Man seems to make this transition as smooth as silk.



Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Tony Stark is a clear-cut case of art imitating life. He's walked that road; he's felt fame slap him in the face and his struggle to stay clean through the haze of the Hollywood drug scene has been admirable. He is more than prepared for this role.

Gwyneth Paltrow is a dutiful actress and has the awards to show for it. The script for this film must have been mighty enticing to have gotten her attention. Coupled with Terrence Howard and Jeff Bridges, this all-star cast is sure to bring this comic movie into the celluloid realm and a carve out a unique story of its own.

Jon Favreau is bringing a beloved comic character to its comic fans. Staying in tight contact with the comic-reading man, Favreau even unveiled one of the Iron Man suits at this year's Comic Con. More than ready to do the comic story justice, he has donned the suit and stepped up to the plate. And does that metal shine!!

Iron Man opens in theaters on May 2nd, 2008.

Okay, Molly -- You win.

Into the Wild
Paramount

As an high school English teacher, you get involved with literacy and trying to encourage students to read more frequently. The school at which I teach has a literacy team that plans a schedule of books and book talks throughout the year. This year, Into the Wild was one of those selections. I tried to read it, but lack of free time and a slight aversion to nonfiction prevented me from actually finishing it...I'm just not a fan of books that speculate about "what probably happened." I hated The Perfect Storm, a book that's approximately 300 pgs long, in which the main characters die at about 150pgs. Anyway, Jon Krakauer's book was selected also because the adaptation was coming out into theaters and a movie always catches the attention of non-readers.

The movie was released and I heard from one student, Molly, "OMG, Pas....it's the greatest movie EVER!! It's totally my favorite!" I apologize, Molly, for making you sound like a Valley Girl, but I can't properly capture your energy in a blog. Maybe I'll have you record it for me later. Point being, Molly ADORES this movie and hasn't stopped talking about it since she first saw it....she has since seen it an estimated 5-6 times...three of those this week alone. Into the Wild was released on DVD this past Tuesday, March 4th, and there was Molly, with DVD in hand, demanding that I give it a try. With trepidation, I watched it. All 2hrs and 28min of it.

Well, guess what. Molly's right. I expected to write a review for this movie with apologies to Molly about how much I was bored by it. Completely not the case. While the movie is rather long, the story is fascinating and inspiring and brilliantly acted.

Emile Hirsch plays Christopher Johnson McCandless, a freshly-out-of-college 23 yr. old who searches for truth. His family life is rocky at best, aside from the closeness he and his sister share. At his celebratory dinner, his parents offer to buy him a brand new car and he is offended by this. The reaction struck me as odd, as I expect it would most people, because who wouldn't want a brand new car? The point is quickly illuminated. Chris eschews material things and yearns to live his life freely and without what he considers to be the evils of society. Material things weigh us down, he believes, and cause us to lie to "fit in" or be accepted. His one desire is to complete his Great Journey - to Alaska - and live off the land.

The film is divided into chapters of growth - from Birth to Manhood - and we are brought along on a remarkable journey across the country. Chris, traveling as Alexander Supertramp, meets many and enlightens the people whom he comes across and you adore them as much as you do him.

The supporting cast is just superb - from hippie Catherine Keener, to parents William Hurt and Marcia Gay Harden, sister Jena Malone and young, impressionable Kristen Stewart, to the Academy Award-nominated, sweet, yet stubborn Hal Holbrook. Each is simply, heartbreakingly human and you love love love every single person. You cheer for their accomplishments and feel for their losses. It's because Emile Hirsch's portrayal of Chris is so endearing and real that you feel what he feels for them.

How Hirsch was overlooked for an Academy Award nomination is astounding to me. Also, I think Sean Penn's screenwriting and directing talents are clearly evident with Into the Wild. While the movie is a tad long and you find yourself checking how much is left in the film, it's not through boredom exactly....it's more in wonder of what's coming next and how much time you have to travel left with Chris. I can't quite pin down if it's the feel of a long movie or the dread of what you know is coming - like The Perfect Storm, it's no secret that our hero doesn't make it out of this film alive. Yet you still wish he does, especially when you come to know him as the brilliant, caring, inspiring human being Christopher McCandless must have been.

Thanks, Molly. Good call.



Available on DVD now.

John Hears Happy Children (but is that enough?)

Coming out next Friday is the computer-animated adaptation of Dr. Seuss's classic Horton Hears a Who! Here's the trailer for it:



There's a few things I have to say about this. First, the animation looks great - very colorful and expressive, but not over-the-top cartoony (which, considering it is from a Dr. Seuss book, would have been an easy road to take). The Whos, in particular, are well-animated. This, of course, is aided by the ever-hilarious Steve Carell; you can easily envision Mr. Carell making the same movements and expressions as his animated persona. It looks as if the interaction amongst the Whos will provide plenty of comedy for the parents and older kids, while the little ones laugh it up for Jim Carrey's presentation of the happy-go-lucky Horton (Carrey may not have been my first choice for the role - still hard to look past Ace Ventura and Lloyd Christmas - but he was a lot of fun as the Grinch, and it looks like he'll elicit quite a few laughs from the crowd this time around). The one worry I may have about this film (though this is just a teaser) isn't particularly aimed at Horton or the Whos, or even Fox and Blue Sky Studios - it's more of a general lamentation.

At their core, Dr. Seuss' books all provide a lesson for the juvenile audience. Horton Hears a Who! is about tolerance and acceptance. In the book (as you may recall), the other animals persecute and imprison Horton because they can't hear or see the Whos. The Whos manage to save Horton - and themselves - by shouting as loud as they can, and even then, it is only the added volume from the littlest Who that makes them heard to all the other animals. The well-known line from that book, "A person's a person, no matter how small", not only teaches children to be kind to others, but it also lets them know that they should be respected and appreciated themselves. Granted, if the child is acting like a little monster, it can be fairly difficult to appreciate the brat, but you get my point.

The problem I have in general is that too often, the studios will be willing to sacrifice the true morals and lessons of the stories in order to get a few more laughs out of the audience. Part of the blame falls on the parents, too - it seems to me that parents nowadays care more about keeping their child entertained, and education is only secondary. We've regressed from Sesame Street (pre-Elmo) to Barney to the Teletubbies to Boohbah (if you don't know, don't ask). And I worry that a bunch of animals threatening to turn an entire colony of Whos into beezlenut stew may be seen as "too dark and scary" for the young ones, which would be really unfortunate. Dr. Seuss' books have been a staple of childhood for generations - I would hope that the folks at Fox have the common sense and respect for the good doctor to keep the essence of the story intact. We'll see in seven days.

Braving the Dark Side of Humanity

The Brave One
Warner Bros. Pictures

So on a recent, icy Friday night with little to do, I decided to order something from On Demand. Anyone who's ever navigated through the On Demand menu knows it takes days, but after much menu searching and deliberation, I decided to give The Brave One a shot.

When this movie was released in theaters, I was impressed by the premise, but I really didn't think it would go anywhere really interesting. I mean, yeah - the vigilantism and revenge movie thing has been done -- a number of times....the ones that come to mind for me are Eye for an Eye and Double Jeopardy. I liked Eye, but Double Jeopardy left me cold...I mean, how interesting is a movie that requires you to wait out a resolution you already know! Not impressed by that one. Anyway, I figured the wronged woman turned strong woman thing couldn't give me much that was new but this little gem surprised me.

The Brave One stars Jodie Foster as Erica Bain, a radio host with a show about walking the streets of New York. She and her fiance, played by Naveen Andrews...of Lost fame...get attacked in Central Park and are brutally beaten. Erica survives, her fiance doesn't. What follows is an interesting study in the dark side human nature -- fear, depression, anger, identity-struggle. Erica finds herself afraid to leave her apartment building until she decides to procure a gun for herself. The vigilantism doesn't begin immediately, however, as we're led to believe by the trailers...she falls into it accidentally. Erica becomes a witness to a violent domestic dispute and has to defend herself. This is her first time actually shooting the gun and her self-exploration as a result is what the movie really focuses upon.

Foster has always been very selective with her roles. She plays intelligent, tough women and does so successfully every time. The Brave One is no different. She brings out the humanity in a New Yorker who loves her city so much she carries a tape recorder to capture its essence. She's got such passion, too, that I believe her show (if it existed - SIRIUS Satellite Radio, anyone?) would do very well....at least, I'd be a dedicated listener. You feel for her every step of the way and her fear is completely relatable.

Terrence Howard gives a really understated performance as Detective Mercer. He's really, really good -- we knew this already, but I don't think he gets the credit he really deserves. Take Denzel Washington minus a few sensationalism points. Where Denzel is out in the fight dredging stuff up, Howard is the silent observant type who looks before he leaps. You may disagree, but I just see him as much more low-key than Denzel, yet just as talented.

What's really interesting about this film is the friendship that comes to fruition between Bain and Mercer -- not because he's looking at her as a suspect, mind you, but because, again, they kind of fall into each other's laps. It's difficult to explain without giving stuff away, which you all know I hate to do. Suffice it to say, their relationship is just as interesting as Erica's actions.

The gems of this movie, aside from some really great performances, are the cinematography -- really great angles -- editing, and the ending. The editing is really cool -- clipping together intimate scenes between Erica and her fiance with scenes of their attack and the hospital afterwards. Really stuns you into the realization that this is too real for comfort and that this is the last intimacy they'll share. There are others, too, but that one really impressed me. An odd choice, but extremely effective. The ending, though, is just fabulous. You really don't expect this kind of ending, but, on another level, you could find it controversial. I remember when the movie was released, some people had issue with the title - a glorification of a vigilante, essentially -- and with the overall plot. I can see why, but I still really enjoyed it.

One other potential shortcoming -- it seems that Bain really just steps into trouble repeatedly...I mean, superheroes don't meet danger this frequently. While I understand that it goes with the plot and overall theme, it can be a tad overdone. A minor issue in an otherwise cool flick.

Bottom line, check this one out. It's really worth seeing, simply for the performances and technicalities of the film. But I really think you'll be intrigued by the choices the filmmakers made with this one -- editing, camera angles, and ending.



Available now on DVD.

Say NO to #4!!

I think they're beating a dead horse, in my opinion.

Why jeopardize the fantastic trilogy; especially when they ended on Indy searching for his most prized and priceless possession: his own father.

A story about a father and son is the root of almost every Spielberg film. Either the son has no father, the father returns, or the son finds a father figure he's long been yearning for. Such examples include A.I.: Artificial Intelligence, War of the Worlds, E.T., hell even Hook.

They ended The Indiana Jones Trilogy perfectly, in my opinion. I feel the story should have ended there. I will be very reluctant when this project comes to theaters. It will leave a nasty taste in my stomach watching a much-older and should-be-retired Harrison Ford running and jumping and cracking the old whip. What will be even worse is the fact that the rest of the audience will be thinking the same thing. People will go to the cinema out of sympathy and the lost hopes that this adventure will live up to the originals.



Ford doesn't look too bad for his age. But with Industrial Light & Magic at Spielberg's disposal, he can make a newborn baby look like Gandhi, and vice versa. I don't understand why they are bringing back Marion Ravenwood - none of the other "Indy girls" came back, so why ruin the recurring? I do believe Spielberg is obsessed with Shia LaBeouf and ever since Transformers, he has been trying to get the young lad into one of his films.

I want to see if Cate Blanchett signed on for this film just for fun, or if her role will actually have some meat to it. Ray Winstone has been gaining some momentum with parts in The Departed and Beowulf, but in this film, he looks like a possible slimeball, a lengthier rehashing of Alfred Molina's character in Raiders of The Lost Ark. Denholm Elliott is turning in his grave.

And where is Sallah??

--Predictions--

I believe the first action sequence, right at the start of the film, will be Indy infiltrating the nursing home where they have his dad. Fully-loaded bedpans will be boobytrapped along the floors, with diapers swinging on pulleys that he will have to evade. He will face a gauntlet, including changing the diapers of the residents, and dressing them by the names scribbled on the tags behind the neck.

There will be a wheelchair chase sequence through the halls. Walking canes will be used for sword duels and the beeps of heart monitors will unravel a secret code as to where the most cherished artifact, the golden Serenity diaper, is in safe keeping.

But luckily, Indy will escape, unbeknownst to him that his father was transferred to a home in Florida. Cue the wonderful red dot plane-travel sequence.
--------------

I pray the hat and whip are not handed down to LaBeouf. I enjoy his versatility as an actor, but to put the fate of the continuation of these adventures in his hands sounds like celluloid suicide.

Is this what cinema is coming to? Rebirthing deceased successes in hopes of getting people off their couches, away from their 52-inch plasma screen televisions with a Dolby 5.1 surround sound hookup and push them into a theater with chain-smoking, coughing-up-a-lung ignoramuses, crying babies, and the constant tearing of snack-food wrappers.

Count me out.

Video games and Hollywood or: How I Learned to Stop Caring and Ignore the Garbage

Let me start off by saying two things: 1) I love movies. 2) My love for movies is overshadowed only by my love for video games. It's borderline addiction, and as Andy can tell you, sometimes I scare people when talking about them. So when I was looking at Andy's post on re-inventing the Mortal Kombat movies, it struck me - has there ever been a movie based off a video game that has actually been good? Most of you know the answer already: no, there hasn't. Not one. Sure, some may be seen as mildly entertaining fare, like the first Resident Evil and the Tomb Raider films, but there hasn't been one that I've seen that really captures the spirit of the game and leaves me with a lasting impression (nausea doesn't count). Here's the real question, though... Why is that?

Video games, particularly ones popular enough to have treatments made for them, typically have a plot already set up. Sure, most of them are fairly straightforward, Point A-to-Point B, good-vs-evil standard fare, but in modern games, it is not uncommon to see intriguing subplots, great character development, and fantastic worlds that just beg to be translated pixel-by-pixel to the silver screen. However, the more I think about it, the more I begin to understand the difficulties that could arise.

First, sometimes the games, mainly the old ones that you used to play on your NES or Sega Genesis, didn't have much of a backstory (or if it did, it was largely forgettable). So, Hollywood writers were forced to explain things that were simply taken for granted by gamers. Most of the time, their explanations were so obtuse that you wondered exactly how strong their ganja was. So what ended up happening was that the movie alienated the masses who just didn't understand what was going on, but it also alienated the hardcore fans by changing things around to the point where it became a shadow of the game it was supposed to honor. Movies like Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, and the unbelievably abysmal Super Mario Bros. all fall into this category. Indeed, even today, there are a few unnecessary tweaks in the adaptations that have frustrated many gamers - Hitman, for example, changed much of the back-story for its main character, Agent 47, and also made him, dare I say, somewhat less plausible. I always thought a contract killer was supposed to be stealthy, but hey, if you want to blow up everything in your path, more power to you, I guess.

Then there are the adaptations that just try to suck the money out of your wallet. These, like BloodRayne, House of the Dead, and Alone in the Dark, are poorly written, poorly produced, pieces of garbage (and wouldn't you know it, they were all directed by Uwe Boll!). Funny, if I didn't know any better, I'd think Mr. Boll was intentionally making horrible gaming movies just so he can make a bunch of cash off of kids who don't know any better. Word to the wise, folks - if you see Uwe Boll's name attached to a movie, run. Run far, far away. If you've been playing too many video games and can't run for an extended period of time, call a cab. The important thing is that you distance yourself from the unholy black essence of said abomination.

However, in my opinion, the one fatal flaw in game-based movies is the one thing that will probably never be translated from your XBox to the big screen: interactivity. The whole fun of video games is that you get to live vicariously through the hero. To play as Master Chief, or Link, or Mario, or hundreds of other characters, offers an escape from reality, but one which is completely dependent upon your actions and control. Therefore, the hero in the game becomes an extension of yourself, and so even though the game's the same for everyone, the characters and stories have a slightly different resonance for each individual player. That's the biggest obstacle to overcome - even if the studio manages to line up a solid cast and script, it may still be difficult to get the audience to buy into the story, because they're not the ones telling it. I will give the makers of Doom credit for the five-minute, first-person-view segment in an attempt to re-create the experience, but it's not the same. It can't be the same. The visceral experience of controlling the hero in a game just cannot be reproduced by a cast of actors.

So, if that's the case, it is possible to make a good movie based on a game? I think it still is. Getting feedback from gamers would certainly help the writers and directors get a feel for the tone and style of the story and setting, and if you fail to follow the plot of the game, you should still be able to place a new plot in the same universe without having to make drastic changes to the characters or the backstory. The game developers manage to do it all the time; surely the Hollywood writers can do the same. The source material is often pretty good... there's little need to mess with the formula. As I said, it's not possible to perfectly re-create the video game on film, but as long as the spirit of the game is honored and maintained, the gaming audience should be satisfied. God knows they haven't been very satisfied so far.

Will Hollywood actually get the message? Who knows? But with production for movies based on Spy Hunter, Castlevania, Postal, and even The Sims (your guess is as good as mine) underway, as well as rumors about Halo, Splinter Cell, and Max Payne (not to mention the scores of other games that deserve a movie), we'll have plenty of opportunities over the coming years to see if they can get it right.

This gamer is keeping his fingers crossed.

Creepy orphans = feel good movie? 'Tis true!

I went to this movie knowing very little. I do that sometimes....see movies I know barely anything about:

1. It involved Guillermo Del Toro, who directed Hellboy (don't judge...not a bad flick) and El Labertino del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth)...which I ADORED. I thought he directed this too, but it turns out he's a producer. Whatever...I'll take the bait.

2. It was some kind of a Spanish horror movie. I'd seen the trailer only once and the Del Toro thing had already hooked me. This looked to me like a haunted house movie, a genre in which we are hard-pressed to find GOOD flicks. Fine.

3. The main character grew up in the house she lives in now...it was the orphanage she lived in. And it's haunted. SOLD.

That's it. I knew nothing else. I thought I'd enjoy it. Good movies don't come out often and it's been quite a while since I NEEDED to see a movie. This opened and I really wanted to see it, since it looked like a quality horror/psychological something-or-other kind of movie. I didn't realize it would be equally haunting, touching, and would keep me pretty well freaked-out for almost the whole thing.

If a movie can make me jump more than once, and keep me genuinely on edge in suspense, I'm a happy girl. (LOVED The Forgotten - I was actually on a blind date for that one....I almost jumped in the guy's lap at the car accident....egad!) Throw in some great games and some really creepy hauntings, I'm paying close attention. Add a dash of classic literature and you've got me, hook, line, and sinker.

Directed by J. A. Bayona, El Orfanato stars Belen Rueda as Laura, a woman who now owns the orphanage in which she grew up. She and her husband, Carlos (Fernando Cayo), plan to utilize it as a home for special kids. Their adopted son, Simon, adorably played by Roger Princep, has imaginary friends, a great personality, and, tragically, HIV. (Side note...most of these actor names have accents, but I can't figure a way to get an accent in this type, so it's bugging me right now....) Anyway. Simon's two starter imaginary friends, Pepe and Walton, get replaced by Tomas and five other children. His parents are slightly concerned, but, hey...imaginative kid...no harm.

Simon disappears one day while Laura and Carlos are hosting a welcoming party for their special kids' families. He's missing for quite some time, and now their home is creaking, doors are slamming, and a small boy in a sack mask keeps showing up in the hallways. Obviously, Laura will stop at nothing to find Simon - posters, support groups, mediums/paranormal experts (you KNOW I loved this sequence....ten times freakier than Poltergeist's!).

This movie is so suspenseful, you won't want to tear your eyes away. The tie-ins to literature and Laura's childhood are extremely touching and the movie's resolution just makes the film an experience. It rings familiar with a novel by Orson Scott Card called Lost Boys - no - no relation to that awesome vampire flick we all love. Card's novel is fabulous...add that to your list, too. I won't give away which piece of literature is utilized here, but as Pan's Labyrinth used Alice in Wonderland, this other classic is used just as wonderfully.

I don't often leave suspense/horror films with the feeling of elation and wonder that I did tonight. As far as I'm concerned, this movie is close-to, if not completely, perfect.
Those of you who whine about foreign films and subtitles need to get over yourselves. El Orfanato(The Orphanage), like Life is Beautiful, Cinema Paradiso, and El Labertino del Fauno (Pan's Labyrinth), is so spectacular, you have to make the effort to get over not wanting to "read" your movies. There's no effort whatsoever. This movie will captivate you and your imagination....if you're anything like me, that is.



Available on DVD on April 22, 2008

Ju-know you want to see it.

Juno
Fox Searchlight Pictures

It's being hailed as the next Little Miss Sunshine, which I hate. Not LMS, I luurrrrve that movie. I hate that people always have to compare movies with others....really, that people have to compare anything with what preceded it. Perhaps it's unavoidable...I do it myself, admittedly. But anyway....

Yes, Juno is the next independent film to get big reviews and actually be a film people will see. Will it become the next My Big Fat Greek Wedding? (See?? There I go again!) No. Juno stands on its own as a very, very funny flick about a non-conformist -- aka "weird" -- 16 year old girl who gets pregnant. Is that all there is to it? Of course not.

Ellen Page is a wonderful actress. She was really freaky-cool in Hard Candy (2005) but you would know her, if your memory is better than mine, as Kitty Pryde in X-Men: The Last Stand. One way or the other, she's definitely an up-and-comer. She's so dry and, well, the word "witty" doesn't describe her properly. Her one-liners are so brilliant you want to write them down and use them yourself. Granted, the credit for those one-liners should go to Academy Award-winning writer Diablo Cody. She completely deserves that golden statuette for writing this flick, but it's Page's delivery that sends this one to the stratosphere. My personal fave is when she's arguing with her stepmother about dogs - apparently her stepmom's goal is to own Weimaraners - and Juno (Page) responds with a "Oooh...dream big." as she leaves the room. I totally don't do it justice, but it's hysterical. Trust me.

Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman (whom I had a wicked crush on when he was on The Hogan Family -- yeah...I said it. ) play a couple Juno finds in the Pennysaver - a couple who wants to adopt. Garner's got the "I'm high-class, but feel bad for me" sympathetic character thing down...she annoys you, but you do feel for her. Bateman plays the stifled cool guy who has a room -- one whole room -- to himself for his stuff and connects with Juno over Sonic Youth...sort of...and horror movies (my kind of guy...did I mention I had a crush on him once? )

JK Simmons (yes, Dr. Skoda from Law & Order) plays Juno's dad and Allison Janney plays her stepmom. Both have great scenes in which their characters just shine. Michael Cera, Olivia Thirlby, and Rainn Wilson are also fabulous in their respective parts. It really is a movie about people and their interactions, but it's an extremely hysterical, yet touching, look at what happens when a 16-year-old makes an uncharacteristically unintelligent choice.

Put this one on your list. It starts off a little slowly, with interactions between Juno and her friend Leah that resound with Thora Birch & Scarlett Johanssen/Mena Suvari (Ghost World/American Beauty, respectively) but the movie definitely turns away from these others....remember those comparisons? Unavoidable, I told you. The music, writing, and character development is non-comparable. The music especially. A movie that uses a song called "Anyone Else But You", by The Moldy Peaches and has it performed by the characters themselves is touching....

...one that follows that moment with a song called, "Vampire" by a group called Antsy Pants...with lyrics that go "IamavampireIamavampireIamavampire"....yeah. That movie rocks....go see this one.



Available on DVD April 15, 2008

Re-Casting Mortal Kombat!!

This one was a lot of fun to come up with some ideas if New Line (who is losing about 75% of their employees very soon) ever decided to start from scratch. There were rumors for a long time that a third MK movie was in the works, but with the fan distaste of the original two, why greenlight the project.

Now, on with the casting choices:



Why? Because Tony Jaa is well-built, performs all of his stunts himself and never uses any computer-generated enhancements. Plus, finding a physical way to bicycle kick without wires would truly be a sight.



Why? Chris Evans has the strength, the charm and the comedic timing executed in the Fantastic Four films. He might be a bit young, but it would certainly bring another element to the table in terms of a young-pup fighter away from the film set he's used to.



Why? Lena Headey is carving out a niche for herself as a leading lady. As of late with 300 and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, she's got presence and if she bulked up a little more, finding Kano in Outworld would be a walk in the park for her.



Why? Because Ken Watanabe can do anything.



Why? Because this film would finally mark a moment in cinematic time when Russell Crowe wouldn't have to adopt an accent different than his own. Plus, he's a rough and tumble man from down under. I'm sure many fans would like to see if he's still got the fighting chops after raising two children.



Why? Jet Li has stated he will not do any more large epic action/martial arts films, but this is fantasy casting anyway. Just knowing he's under that mask would drive people to the seats to catch some excellent fight scenes. Just watch Lethal Weapon 4; he can act with his eyes alone and still getl a chill to run down your spine.



Why? I know I'm going to catch hell for this - but I am actually a fan of The Rock's acting. He isn't afraid to poke fun at himself via The Game Plan, and I am very much anticipating his perfomance in Southland Tales. Plus, I feel a larger presence is needed for Scorpion, compared to the thin, borderline-lanky Chris Cassamassa. Just as long as Dwayne Johnson didn't cock that eyebrow behind the mask. GET OVER HERE!!



Why? Here's where it could get interesting. I enjoyed the animatronic Goro in the original film, but wasn't scared of him at all. I'd want to see a fully computer-generated Goro, voiced by Richard Newman, who gave the character of Rhinox from Beast Wars: Transformers a bit of a stoic, old-warrior air about him. Although, if this film was made, there'd be no fight with Liu Kang, seeing as Tony Jaa doesn't dabble in the digital world. A pity, but I'd pay $10 to hear Chris Evans says "Those were $500 sunglasses, asshole!!"

And finally...



Why? First, because he was a protege of Sonny Chiba, the original Street Fighter. I know: wrong game and taken out of context, but we're still sticking with the video game-to-film motif. Ever since seeing Sanada's performance in The Last Samurai, I was blown away by his acting ability. Sunshine solidified that fact tenfold. I'd love to see him act out a powerful, deadly, shape-shifting sorcerer. I'd foresee a much better fight scene between Jaa and Sanada than in the original climax. Hell, even hearing Jaa say "Flawless Victory" would be more entertaining than the final fight.


There you have it. So real it hurts!!

M. Night Shyamalan: Restricted by Hollywood or King of Dull Endings?

M. Night Shyamalan's celluloid track record is less than satisfactory as of late. The average cinemagoer was blown away at the ending of The Sixth Sense, but now have turned a naked eye at his latest directorial efforts. Why? Because the endings are quite dull. He paints an epic picture; Signs featured an alien invasion shown only through the eyes of a rural town. The subject matter is on a grand scale, but the point of view, instead of a world stage, is restricted to a peephole.

His concepts are lacking longevity when they clearly have the chance to. But who is to blame? Could it be the studios financing the film, cutting corners in hopes of surviving its opening week with a few cents in their pockets? Or the writer, who birthed the whole concept only to watch it butchered by producers or script doctors? Or the executor, who brings its from page to screen?

I, personally, have only watched The Sixth Sense three times. I have no need to see it again. I learned the extremely clever and spooky ending with the first viewing, and in the second and third, watched for all those moments missed that led to the ending. They were right under our noses, but once you learn of them, there is no need to re-visit.



His latest film, The Happening, seems to be following in the same sci-fi/thriller/horror that his previous films have. However, from some of the shots shown in the trailer, it appears to be adhering to the epic subject/epic viewpoint mentality that some films need to have that feeling of balance. This is a far cry from his other projects in terms of vision, but he has cemented himself in that particular supernatural genre.

And if he is comfortable there, then have a seat, Mr. Shyamalan. We'll watch your films with popcorn in hand, just don't make us waste our money.