Straight Outta Compton (2015) Review

 Straight Outta Compton (2015) Review

 It has been a long time since I wrote a review. I apologize for that. I admit I got a bit burned out and stepped away from writing all together. I'm now back to doing what I first loved. Writing. Reviewing. Sharing my thoughts on films I see. All I can really say now is, I'm glad I'm back.

Set in the mid-to-late 1980’s, Straight Outta Compton tells the story of rap group N.W.A. The title of the film is the same as their debut album, which has frequently been called one of the best rap albums ever made. I've listened to it multiple times and its brutality is only matched by its brilliance. Unfortunately, much of the film lacks the punch that the album has. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a decent film at times. It's your basic biopic and can’t help but drop into those clichés we’ve all seen in countless other biopics, except there are more scenes when it doesn't do that than scenes where it does. There are those few shining moments.

The original members of the group are Ice Cube (played by the real Ice Cube's son, O'Shea Jackson Jr.), Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkins), Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), DJ Yella (Neil Brown Jr.), and MC Ren (Aldis Hodge). Each one of them (as stated in the film) grew up in Compton, Los Angeles. Each has various goals and ideas of what they want to accomplish, even if we really only get to explore Ice Cube’s, Dr. Dre’s, and Eazy-E’s. After several run-ins (each more unjustified than the last) with members of the Los Angeles Police Department, Dr. Dre convinces Eazy-E to put the money he gets from selling drugs to good use and together they form Ruthless Records. The group records a single song, called “Boyz N The Hood”. Most music moguls hate it, objecting to its language and stating that it would never receive radio play. The song ultimately becomes the number one most requested song for six weeks. One manager, Jerry Heller (Paul Giamatti) approaches Eazy-E and informs him that he would like to make him and the group legit and that, working together, they could make it big.

That’s just a basic plot outline. The film further deals with police brutality, sex, betrayal, censorship, and several other themes that I don’t want to give away too much about, as I fear that it will lessen the potential impact if you read about it here. The film juggles several of these quite well and from the perspective of its characters and not the average audience. When the members of the group talk about the ways they have been victimized and brutalized by members of law enforcement (specifically in their song “F**k Tha Police”), they are not speaking to everyone’s experiences. They are speaking of their own. One could conceivably make the argument that this would cause many audience members to ignore that aspect, since they can’t relate to it. Well, my friends, that is how you learn about people. By trying to see a world that you might not be able to relate to. By hearing of, and listening to, someone else’s experience. Part of me, a small part, apologizes if this review has suddenly turned political but one cannot ignore those aspects of Straight Outta Compton and how timely they are.

Sections of the film, sadly, feel like they are missing. It jumps whole stretches of time and if not for the occasional “time and location” title on the screen I would have been lost. Not every biopic needs to do that. Gloss over the mundane so we can get to the really good, inspiring moments in an individual’s, or group of individuals’, lives. I would love to have seen these characters in their childhoods. What started them off on these paths they are on when we first meet them. Even fifteen minutes could be devoted to this. Don’t ignore it completely. It’s still just as valid and important as the rest of it.

The film features several strong performances. Giamatti knocks it out of the park as always and Jackson does great work at incorporating the voice and mannerisms of his father. No easy task. Additionally, Hawkins has several great moments (one that nearly brought me to tears) where he makes great use of the script written by Johnathon Herman and Andrea Berloff. Those performances deserve more recognition than they got. However, I must say that the best performance in the film is by Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E. Everything he does in the film is correct and appears effortless. He doesn’t waste a single, solitary moment when he’s onscreen. Like so many well-respected actors of the past we have no idea what he’s going to do next. From scene to scene, you wonder if he’s going to start throwing punches or burst into tears. It’s that unpredictability in his performance that makes him so watchable. He fits the part and I truly look forward to see what he does with his career.

★★★

Frozen (2013) Review

Elsa (Idina Menzel) is a princess in Arendelle with the magical ability to create ice and snow. One night while playing, she accidentally injures her younger sister, Anna (Kristen Bell). Their parents seek help from a group of rock trolls who heal Anna and change all her memories of Elsa’s magic. The king and queen separate the girls from both each other and the outside world until Elsa learns to control her powers. Sadly when the girls are teenagers their parents are killed at sea during a severe storm. Until Elsa comes of age for her coronation, things continue with the girls being isolated. Excited that the gates are finally opened again, Anna explores the town and meets Prince Hans (Santino Fontana) from the Southern Islands. The two instantly fall in love and go to Elsa asking for her blessing to marry. Elsa refuses and the sisters argue, culminating in Elsa accidentally revealing her powers to the kingdom and her sister. Elsa panics and flees the castle, while inadvertently unleashing an eternal winter. High in the mountains she refuses all her previous restrictions and, in one of the best scenes in the film, builds herself an ice palace. Anna sets off in search of Elsa to convince her to return, mend their relationship and undo the winter. While purchasing supplies she meets Kristoff (Jonathan Groff). Anna convinces him to guide her up the mountain with the help of his reindeer, Sven. The group encounters Olaf (Josh Gad), a snowman brought to life by Elsa, who leads them directly to Elsa’s hideaway. Anna persists with trying to persuade Elsa who, after becoming agitated, accidentally strikes Anna in the heart with her powers. In order to drive them away from her, Elsa creates a giant snow monster. As they escape, Kristoff sees that Anna’s red hair is becoming white. He seeks help from the same trolls as earlier who tell them that Anna’s heart has been frozen and unless it is thawed by an act of true love, she will become frozen solid forever. Believing that Hans is their only hope, Kristoff races Anna back to Arendelle. Hans himself has been out searching for Anna and reaches Elsa’s palace. Elsa is knocked unconscious and imprisoned. There, Hans pleads with her to undo the winter, but Elsa has no idea how. When Anna finally reunites with Hans and begs him to kiss her, Hans refuses and reveals his true intentions for marrying her. It’s so that he can gain control of the throne. Leaving Anna to die, he charges Elsa with treason and sentences her to death, who escapes onto the frozen river. Olaf finds Anna and reveals that Kristoff is in love with her and helps her out to the frozen river. Hans finds Elsa and informs her that Anna is dead and that it is. In despair Elsa stops the storm. Anna, seeing that Hans is about to kill Elsa, throws herself in between them just as she freezes solid. Hans is knocked unconscious by the block and Anna, since her sacrifice is an act of true love, thaws. after learning to control her powers, Elsa is able to thaw the kingdom and also helps Olaf survive summer by creating his own personal flurry.

I have put off for a long time writing this review, as I am not entirely sure how I felt about it. It’s utterly inconsistent. Yes, the animation is beautiful and Olaf is a character that works on every level but sadly the story has multiple wasted opportunities and bothersome plot holes. The filmmakers missed a real chance for drama and deepening the relationship between the sisters. If Elsa was somehow resentful of the fact that she is locked up in her room while Anna is able to go about the castle at will, we would easily understand the fight between them. As it is she never makes reference to the fact that Anna had more freedom. Why we don’t get that small bit of dialogue between them is unclear. What is clear is that Elsa has those feelings even if she isn’t aware. It could have come out very naturally and surprised both her and Anna. The worst point is that moments after saying she will never return, Elsa struggles to hear about the state of Arendelle and struggles even more with doing what she believes is right for herself. I wish there was more time between these two emotions. One horribly unexplained aspect of the film is why Kristoff has been adopted by the rock trolls. It doesn’t feel as if the backstory was left unexplained intentionally. It feels as if the filmmakers never bothered to create one.

Most of the songs are well performed (except a couple) but underwritten (except one) and suffer greatly as a result. The song “Fixer Upper” in particular bothers me. Throughout the entire film it is made clear that Elsa has no need to have to have a prince or fall in love but that message is undone rather poorly by the song’s lyrics, ”The way to fix a fixer upper is fix them up with you”. One can’t help but think after hearing that song that, if only Elsa had a boyfriend everything would be okay. That song undoes all the work put into the film’s best song, “Let It Go” the self-empowerment ballad sung by Elsa as she builds her ice palace. That’s a well-written and better performed song. Menzel’s performance of the song calls to mind other earlier films (like Judy Garland singing “Over The Rainbow” or Jodi Benson singing “Part of Your World”). One can hear in their voices that they believe every single word and so does the audience by extension. If the rest of the songs (like the cringe-inducing “Do You Want to Build a Snowman”) were as well done and if as much care had gone into them as “Let It Go”, I would not have a problem with the soundtrack. Truth is I could listen to Menzel sing that song over and over, and I have. No one else any business pretending to have one iota the ability that she has. She owns that song in every possible way.

The simple look of the film is beautiful. The snow in the film is not just white background. There is a shine and sparkle coming off it that I have never seen in any animated film before. The film features some of the best character animation and emotions that computer animated films have to offer. The characters movements are fluid, organic and natural. Not easy to do with humans. Each character is well-animated despite not all the voices being anything special.

As I mentioned earlier, Olaf is a character that works perfectly. He’s charming and funny but never annoying. Characters of comedic relief are a fine line and Olaf walks that line beautifully. Other characters don’t work quite as well. The character of Hans is particularly odd. His motivations come out of nowhere. He’s not the villain because he really believes in what he is doing. He’s the type of insta-just-add-water type of villain that we see on Saturday morning cartoons because he’s convenient. The film would have worked perfectly without his abrupt and, coincidentally, predictable turn from loving to cruel and selfish. There doesn’t need to be a villain.

Parts of this film are really brilliant and the things that are there that I like, I really like. If only everything was as well-handled as those things this would truly be an amazing film. The overall result is a great-looking film with an underwhelming story.

★★1/2

12 Years A Slave (2013) Review

There hasn’t been a film like this in quite some time. One where there is no negative criticism I can give to its direction, writing, performances, music, costumes, production design. Everything about this film is simply perfect. It’s not always easy to write a review for such a film. I feel I must limit the review to a certain length but there is not enough I could possibly say to express my admiration and respect for such a profoundly moving and well-made film. If I could I would go on for an inordinately long time about it.

Based on the book of the same name the film tells the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free black man living in upstate New York who is kidnapped by two men and sold into slavery. His name is taken and replaced with Platt. Taken against his will to the south he is first sold by Theophilus Freeman (Paul Giamatti) to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) who is by all accounts a good, kind man despite being a slaver. After an incident with an overseer (Paul Dano) Solomon is resold, for his protection, to one Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). Epps is the polar opposite of Ford. He is a sadistic, brutal drunk. He has no qualms about treating his slaves how he sees fit including whipping and beating Northup and a young slave named Patsey (Lupita Nyong’o) who is the “favored” slave of Epps. Northup eventually, after many failed attempts, is able to get a letter to friends in the north with the help of a sympathetic Canadian (Brad Pitt) and is re-granted his freedom.

Every single performance in this film is flawless. Ejiofor’s subtleties are all there in his face. He hits every single note and emotion required perfectly creating a truly powerful, emotional and exquisite performance. You believe every second and see every thought the character has because of this. The final moments of the film in which he is re-united with his famliy are among the most angry, heart wrenchingly powerful moments I have ever seen. Fassbender is especially terrifying. He throws himself into the role and is captivating in every sense of the word. The man’s ability to perform so well with his eyes is something I haven’t seen since Claude Rains. He continues to impress me and is always at the top of form. This is no exception. Nyong’o (in her film debut) proves she has the acting chops to keep on par with Ejiofor and Fassbender. She creates a character that is both hopeful and broken. She will have a very long and successful career with performances like this one.

Director Steve McQueen is proving himself a master of the uncomfortable. His style is to force you to watch a series of horrific acts and he pulls no punches. He is a director who wants to make you uncomfortable and never gives the audience an emotional release until the end of the film. This is something that reminds me of the work of Stanley Kubrick. It’s not disturbing for the sake of being disturbing. It’s difficult to watch because he wants to make you uncomfortable. This man is an artist and one of the best directors working today and his films affect the audience in ways I am sure they are not prepared for. I certainly was not prepared to be reduced to tears as I was when the lights came up.

This is the best film of the year. Unflinchingly brutal and honest but an important film and essential for anyone and everyone.

★★★★

Muppets Most Wanted (2014) Review

I have always considered myself a Muppet fan. I love the films (yes even Muppets from Space) and shows and merchandise and characters and on and on and so forth. This film is the first time I have felt a resounding disappointment in something that bears (pun intended) the name. I truly wanted to like it but, as the film unfolded with only chuckle-inducing jokes, a slew of unmemorable songs and twenty cameos per minute, I found I simply could not. Sigh.

The film begins quite literally where The Muppets left off. If you recall the last thing seen before the credits was a firework display with the words “The End” shown in bright, colorful letters. The characters have just wrapped up filming their big comeback. They discuss what they should do next. Some say they should break up again while others want to keep performing for the audience of extras (who consequently left immediately). Ultimately they decide to make another movie. A man name of Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais), appears to the Muppets and informs them that he wants to manage their group on a world tour. They of course agree and begin preparing for this undertaking. The only problem? Dominic is actually (as his name suggests) a bad guy. He is the number two man to the number one criminal in the world Constantine. Constantine is a frog who bears a striking resemblance to Kermit with the addition of a mole on his cheek. He’s specifically a thief who has been locked up in a Russian Gulag run by a feisty and affectionate guard named Nadya (Tina Fey). He escapes from the prison and makes Kermit switch places by painting his mole and gluing one to Kermit. Kermit of course is arrested and taken to the gulag. Now how Constantine escapes from the Gulag is unclear as Nadya makes it clear to Kermit that she has seen every prison escape movie ever made and therefore escape is impossible but I digress. Constantine convinces the other Muppets that he is, in fact Kermit. They set off on their world tour, with the destinations carefully chosen by Dominic and Constantine. All the while there are chased by an Interpol officer (Ty Burell) and Sam Eagle (here playing a CIA agent) while Kermit remains trapped in the Gulag, forced to partake in a talent show under the orders of Nadya. I won’t reveal anything else as this is a (mostly) spoiler-free review.

The film has, I believe, more cameos than any other Muppet production. I counted no less than sixteen. It’s true that The Muppet films have often employed cameos but here they  are so wall-to-wall that we never have a chance to let them all sink in before the next one. This defeats the purpose of cameos. It should be of someone you recognize and give you a laugh. The average audience member may not recognize Frank Langella or Chloë Grace Moretz in their roles but that’s only because they go by so fast that you are left thinking, “I know that was a cameo but who was it?”

I have never laughed at these characters less. In fact I found myself only chuckling a few times. I can’t remember all the times I did but there were no fits of hearty laughter so common in something with the Muppets. Sadly many of the jokes simply fall flat. I’m not saying that it is bereft of humor but I expected to be laughing nearly constantly. Something I did when watching The Muppets or Muppet Treasure Island. I wanted to so much throw my head back and laugh to the point of annoying other audience members. This is perhaps what is most distressing. The fact that I couldn’t do that.

I mentioned earlier the songs being unmemorable and unfortunate. Of the six original songs, all written by Bret McKenzie, I couldn’t hum a single one. It is a sad day when the best songs in your musical come from other musicals (such as “I Hope I Get It” from A Chorus Line) or movies (like “My Heart Will Go On” from Titanic). When they re-did “Rainbow Connection” for The Muppets it worked. It played on our nostalgia to create a heartfelt moment. Here the redone song is “Together Again” from Muppets Take Manhattan. It feels out of place and doesn’t make me feel the same way as when I first heard it. That being said the way that the songs are presented is actually fairly clever and entertaining even if the songs themselves are not.

The Muppet franchise has bounced back from worse so I have no reason the believe it won’t do the same after this film. Was it the worst thing in the history of things? Not necessarily and I acknowledge that, had my expectations not been so high, I may have enjoyed it but why lower my expectations? It fails to live up to the quality of previous entries but then again it freely admits that it’s not as good. I just wish it didn’t celebrate it.

★★

Bride of Chuck (1998) Review

Ten years has passed since serial killer Charles "Chucky" Lee Ray (Brad Dourif) imparted his soul into a child's doll when his old girlfriend, Tiffany (Jennifer Tilly) rescues his fan blade sliced parts from a police impound. She brings him back to life so they can be together but upon learning of his true intentions she locks him up. By true intentions I'm referring to the fact that he didn't intend to marry her. She's a serial killer too. Chucky escapes, murders Tiffany and reincarnates her as her own doll. Chucky then tells Tiffany just how they can both be human again. They must travel to New Jersey to where Ray is buried, dig up the body and retrieve the amulet we saw in Child's Play, Child's Play 2 and Child's Play 3. How it managed to be buried with his human body is beyond me since he used it over and over and said human body had been buried since the start of the first film. Anyway Chucky and Tiffany manage to trick young Jade (Katherine Heigl) and Jesse (Nick Stabile) to travel down to Jersey so they can take over their bodies.

Part of the biggest problem with this franchise is that they never truly explored the dark humor. Sure as Chucky killed someone he'd give some silly, little throw-away line and go on pretending to be just a doll. This was true for three movies until this film. Here they have officially accepted the ridiculousness of a child's doll committing a series of grisly murders. They have now finally realized that a film full of just horrible things is just that. A horrible thing. You must add humor, however dark to make the audience feel safe before you hit them with a scare. It's called playing your audience like a piano and it's one of the principal goals of a film. To affect your audience.

That being said. I have a few criticisms. As with the first few films it is largely a showcase for well-executed puppetry and visual effects than it actually is with any true ability for directing or acting with certain exceptions (Dourif has a voice like a garbage disposal and utilizes it to great effect and Tilly's scenes are oddly funny and a little twisted). Ronny Yu is a director whose filmography showcases some brilliantly made hits (The Bride with White Hair) and some utter flops of epic magnitude (Freddy Vs. Jason). Here he coasts slowly but doesn't wow me or make me hate his work in any way. Almost as though he's nervous of ruining a franchise that was already ruined. From Child's Play 3 (rock bottom) the only way to go is up. Perhaps that's why I don't hate as much as my past responses dictate I do.

Or perhaps it's the fact that I actually find Chucky, an animatronic puppet, to have more life and charisma than any of the other slasher villains. At the end of the day you want your audience to enjoy watching your villain despite all the horrible, awful things they may do. Jason is a hockey puck.

★★★

Jaws (1975) Review

WARNING! SPOILER ALERT!

This film begins very simply with an underwater camera cutting through an ocean. In between these shots of the deep we cut to a beach campfire surrounded by young teens. Two (eventually one of them falls down, too drunk to continue) of them run off for a late night swim. Naked, because that's what teenagers apparently do. While a young woman swims we cut back under the surface. In a shot that obviously references a similar moment from The Creature from the Black Lagoon we see her silhouetted body. She treads water for a few moments enjoying the ocean. This is when a pleasurable moment in the film abruptly becomes jarring. She is pulled under the surface over and over before being dragged from side to side, screaming in pain. We don't see what attacks her. Then she is pulled under one last time. The next day Amity Island Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) is called out to investigate this woman's body (um half body). Much to his dismay, after trying to close the beaches, Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton) informs him that Amity is a beach town and requires that all the beaches stay open. Brody relents but is proven right when a young boy is killed. During a town meeting with lots of angry shouting a hand scratches along a blackboard. That hand belongs to Quint (Robert Shaw) who demands ten thousand dollars to catch and kill the shark now terrorizing this town. While he ponders Quint's offer and reads book after book on sharks. Brody calls in a marine biologist, Dr. Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) from the Oceanographic Institute. Hooper examines the young swimming girl's remains and determines that she was killed by a shark. Immediately following this a tiger shark is caught by a group of fishermen. Hooper, who measures the bite radius, requests to be able to examine the shark for human remains but Mayor Vaughn, who's batting a thousand at this point, refuses to allow it. That night Brody and Hooper cut it open themselves. After several days and two more attacks Hooper, Brody and Quint go on a suicidal hunt of the shark on the ocean.

What the most impressive element is how Steven Spielberg mounts tension. The frightening moments in the film are not when the shark is attacking but just before. It's all about what you don't see. By utilizing underwater cameras he suggests the shark's movements and vision. Throughout the film he creates a pattern. The music rises with a point-of-view shot of the victim and then there's an attack you barely see. Multiple times throughout the film, just to throw you off Spielberg breaks the pattern. Sure the theme plays when the shark grows near but it is always two or three seconds after you believe it will be. It's the right way to terrify your audience and Spielberg knows this and the moment where we finally see the shark, almost an hour and twenty minutes in, it provides a major shock the first time you see it. Even after seeing it many times it still proves itself as a striking image.

The performances are strong here. Particularly the three leads. I've heard stories from Dreyfuss about how Shaw made his life a living hell on the set solely because Quint makes Hooper's life a living hell. I'm not sure how true those statements are but either way it's all noticeable. Of the three I'd say Shaw turns out the best performance. He'd later play a much similar character in The Deep (also based on a book by Peter Benchley) but both are strong performances. Part of Quint's backstory is that he served aboard the World War II Portland-class cruiser USS Indianapolis. He speaks very plainly about his experiences floating in the ocean for days while his fellow crewmen drowned, succumbed to exposure or were eaten by sharks. The speech, written mostly by Shaw, highlights just why Quint hunts sharks and is a rare moment of emotion from Quint. He hunts the sharks because the idea of being hunted and eaten by a shark terrifies him. This makes his desire to kill the shark and his ultimate demise all the more palpable. There is a tragedy to the way Shaw plays Quint and we are forced to feel sympathy for him.

My only criticism for the film is that, in one scene, we are given a jump scare but as with all scares like that. Once we recover it's out of our minds. Jump scares are not scary.

This film is often credited as the first real blockbuster. If only they'd left well enough alone and we wouldn't have to remember Jaws 2, Jaws 3D and Jaws: The Revenge

★★★1/2

Carnival of Souls (1962) Review

A young woman named Mary Henry (Candace Hilligoss) survives a drag race accident that had the car she rode shotgun in toppling off a bridge and into a river below due to no apparent cause. Oddly unfazed and uninjured (except for the fact that she hardly remembers anything) by this incident, the woman heads across the country to her new job as a church organist, a job that puts her near a peculiar carnival. She experiences a number of strange things during her journey, including but not limited to a gaunt, ungainly man's appearance in her car and boarding house window. Director Herk Harvey plays The Man. Mary discovers a peculiar and deserted carnival after the incident with the man and becomes obsessed by it and the secrets it may hold. Mary begins to suspect that her survival of the accident was not as it appears.

The film begins all too abruptly and ends without so much as a "how do you do?" or an explanation as to what the hell you just watched. It raises more questions than its mere 84 minute runtime can answer and skips over whole scenes that might provide the audience with enough information to at least infer what the ending was. The biggest problem is that of Mary, who is a cynical, uncaring human being. Her friends (we assume they're her friends) both perish in the car accident but she shows no signs of survivor's guilt. She just starts off on her journey to Utah. She works as an organist at a church but hardly takes any stock in religion. To her a church is simply a place of business and only does what she does for the money. Her loner actions hardly make us care enough about her losing her mind. We get the sense that she wouldn't care if we were in her Twilight Zone wannabe situation. The film's tagline is, "She was a stranger among the Living." Never has a truer statement been said by a film marketing.

I want to talk about the horrible, terrible no good acting in this film. Every bit of dialogue spoken has the inflections of a bad dubbing. As far as I know the film was recorded in the English language. The only remotely good performance is by Harvey who never speaks. None of the people in the film are trained or established actors and Hilligoss herself only appeared credited in one other film. That was in 1964's The Curse of the Living Corpse. There's no reason to suspect that her performance in that film is any better. Just so you know it isn't.

Carnival of Souls is a pointless exercise in the mundane and illogical although it's far better than the 1998 remake.

★

Night of the Living Dead (1968) Review

Brother and sister, Johnny (Russell Streiner) and Barbara (Judith O'Dea) visit their father's grave in a small town in Pennsylvania. When a re-animated zombie kills Johnny, Barbra runs into a farmhouse to escape. There she meets Ben (Duane Jones), a quick thinking, resourceful man with a plan. After a very brief zombie attack, Barbra and Ben learn that they are not the only ones in the house. Hiding in the cellar were Tom (Kieth Wayne), Judy (Judith Ridley), Harry (Karl Hardman), Helen (Marilyn Eastman) and Karen (Kyra Schon). Tom and Judy are boyfriend and girlfriend while Harry and Helen are the parents of Karen. Ben quickly takes charge much to the chagrin of Harry. They make a series of plans to control or escape the bloodthirsty, undead horde on their doorstep and must put aside petty differences in order to survive.

Every cliché you can possibly think of in any zombie movie ever made can easily be traced back to here. The zombies are slow, dull-witted creatures who travel in innumerous groups. The only way to kill them is a bullet through the brain or a heavy blow to the head. The recently deceased must be burned to ashes quickly or they will re-animate and become simply one of the undead. All of this information is related to our characters, and us by extension, through a series of radio and television broadcasts. This helps to expand the scale of the situation without ever having to leave the farmhouse or the central characters. One imagines that many of the events unfolding on the screen are happening a few miles up the road somewhere.

The most important thing about any zombie film is that it be about the human characters survival. Making your characters be zombie hunters whose only purpose is to kill zombies is boring. What did they do before their current situation? What do they do when it's over? How prepared were they for the zombie apocalypse? The best thing about this film is that it is, more than zombies, about a group of seven people surviving a series of horrible events. The character backgrounds in Night of the Living Dead aren't described in any real detail. They all speak briefly about how they came to be at the farmhouse but not any earlier than the zombie's appearance. Still, through their interactions with each other we learn all we need to. You know that these people would have no interactions outside of the house if they could help it. Least of all Harry (who's a pompous ass) and Ben (who's our hero).

A random factoid that you probably didn't know is that Paramount refused to distribute the film due to its black and white cinematography. Thankfully it's still in black and white. Cinematographer George A. Romero (who also serves as editor, director, writer and producer) shows us the outside world as a bright warm world but anytime inside the house is slathered with light and dark shadows. It creates a feeling of claustrophobia and an eeriness that most "trapped-in-a-house" movies forget to have. We're stuck in this small place with people and are not going to be able to leave until it's all over no matter how much we might want to. The gore, which is very tame by today's standards, is given an extra. Red blood is now an inky black and the grisliest of wounds are covered up by the dark shadows I already mentioned.

This film both re-invented a genre and gave it its own additional subgenre that has now been done to death. Get it?

★★★★

Friday The 13th Part 2 (1981) Review

WARNING! THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

A thought occurred to me as I saw the events of Friday the 13^th Part 2 unfold. This has to be where the whole entire subgenre of beautiful and stupid people in beautiful places being hacked to death has come from. Well, maybe not. This must have been the first film to solidify it. After all this is one of the first "slasher" sequels. This film was released the same year as Halloween II and fared a little better with critics. Not much mind you. Rotten Tomatoes gives Halloween II a 30% approval rating while this film has received a 33%. Truth be told this isn't even the worst slasher movie I've seen. That title belongs to Friday the 13^th: The Final Chapter.

This film essentially takes off where the first one left us. We're given a series of flashbacks, which inform us what happened last time in case you missed it or just didn't care enough to remember, thanks to a nightmare of Alice Hardy (Adrienne King) the survivor of the first film. Incidentally Alice does not show any signs of a nightmare (turning her head side to side and whimpering emphatic and forced no's and pleases) until the camera has focused on her. I can't help but imagine Steve Miner, the film's director, standing beside the bed saying, "Okay, Adrienne remember. Don't react until I say so." Everyone knows that nightmares happen on cue. She's of course killed after a shower and while making tea by having an ice pick jammed into her temple by an unknown assailant (duh, it's Jason). We fast forward who knows how long. Camp Crystal Lake has been shut down however there is another camp nearby and on the same lake that is preparing to open. At least I think it is. The film doesn't make it real clear as to whether it will have visitors or just counselors for a training course. It doesn't truly matter. The purpose of these teenagers going there is so they can get drunk, arm wrestle, make out and go skinny dipping for no apparent reason other than to have someone get naked. After a couple of nights of debauchery and stupid decisions a killer in a burlap sack and plaid shirt (maybe the Elephant Man was a lumberjack?) begins picking these people off one by one until one survives.

Remember how I said that these were beautiful and stupid people? The stupidity is nearly overwhelming. In one scene two of them drive up to a gas station ecstatic that they found a gas station. They then proceed to run almost a block away to use a pay phone. Why not just park in front of the phone? It would certainly keep them from parking in a no parking zone to avoid a towing which happens and which they only care about enough to chase for thirty feet before they get a new ride to the camp. If it was me I'd get that ride down to the impound to get my truck back. In another scene a girl (our skinny dipper played by Kirsten Baker) searches for her dog. She calls the dog's name twice before another stupid but beautiful teenager tells her that lunch is ready and she promptly gives up searching for her beloved pet and skips lively to eat lunch. How did any of these folks reach their current ages? I guess it's easier to assume that they lived in bubbles.

I'd like to mention this for a brief moment. Over the course of the film's 87 minute runtime there are 12 people (pets are people too) killed. Three of them bite it in the opening flashbacks, one dog is shown disembowled and eight new airheads bite the dust. If you should happen to do the math that's approximately one dead being for every eight minutes of screen time. Just think if this was a twelve minute short film. There'd be a death a minute and the movie would be over after twelve minutes.

Can you tell I am in a bit of a biting mood?

★

 

Pet Sematary (1989) Review

Dr. Louis Creed (Dale Midkiff) his wife Rachel (Denise Crosby) and their two children move to a small town in Ludlow, Maine. For the first several months all seems well. They have a kind-hearted but mysterious neighbor named Jud Crandall (Fred Gwynne) and Louis has a good job as a university doctor. However, as is often with the novels of Stephen King, nothing is quite as it seems. Louis is haunted by nightmares of a patient he couldn't save (Brad Greenquist) and Rachel is terrified of the memories of her sister Zelda (Andrew Hubatsek) who died as a child from spinal meningitis. All of their problems boil down to one thing. The house in which they are now living is next to a pet cemetery. This cemetery leads to an ancient Indian burial ground that holds a dark secret. Bury the recently deceased and they will return. Despite the warning from Crandall a family tragedy (spoiler) causes Louis to do the unthinkable and has to learn the hard way that sometimes dead is better.

This film is easily one of the scariest, for me personally, films that I have ever seen. It never fails to evoke a feeling of dread and terror deep within the pit of my stomach. There's a subtlety and slow build to the horror that works excellent for, not just the film itself, but the characters. Everything from the music to the production design to the direction by Mary Lambert helps to create atmosphere. The film works much like a stone-lined path. You follow the warm, defined and inviting path into the woods and eventually go off the path until you are lost and terrified. The scariest thing about leaving the path is that we don't know what's in the woods.

I want to focus for a moment on the performance by Gwynne. Not a single line is wasted and Gwynne plays Jud as the type of man who knows everything about what's gone on in this town over the last seven or more decades and acts as the film's Greek chorus, warning the audience of the dangers and the potential for horrific events. The emotional involvement by Gwynne and the gut-wrenching scene in which Jud is, in a sense, confessing his sins to Louis is nothing short of extraordinary and I truly believe that Gwynne shed off any naysaying about his ability to play a multi-faceted, deep character. He was more than just a Herman Munster.

It's a didactic tale that deals with the nature of death. The grieving process is treated as a complex, human emotion and not as an entertainment aspect. This film deals with things we don't like. We don't want to read about it and we don't want to think about it. This film refuses to allow you to escape the harsh reality of life.

★★★★

 

Elvira: Mistress of the Dark (1988) Review

When her great aunt dies unexpectedly Elvira (real name Cassandra Peterson), recently fired from her job as Horror Hostess of Elvira's Movie Macabre, travels to the small puritanical town of Falwell in order to receive her inheritance so she can pursue her dream of being a Vegas showgirl and forever leave behind the B-movie reviewing existence to which she finds herself. In order for her to do that she needs fifty-thousand dollars (something her game show imagination guarantees she'll receive). Upon arriving at Falwell she is met with odd looks, derision and hatred for her sultry appearance and her feisty personality. Not everyone hates her though. The town's young people find themselves enamored with her as much as the movie theater owner name of Bob Redding (Daniel Redding). The people who do however hate her make up the town's Morality Council including our villain and Elvira's great uncle, Vincent Talbot (W. Morgan Sheppard). Elvira is stunned to learn at the reading of the will that she does not receive fifty-thousand, five-thousand or even five dollars. Instead she gets a haunted house, a cookbook and a (soon to be) punk rock poodle. Elvira soon learns of her heritage and just why Vincent Talbot (an amalgamation of the names of horror icons Vincent Price and Lyle Talbot) wants the book so badly. I won't divulge the details as they are complete and total spoilers and I have not called spoiler alert.

Okay, I am completely aware of the fact that this film may fall more under the genre of comedy rather than the genre of horror. However due to the fact that, much like An American Werewolf in London, Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein and Tremors, there are horror elements mixed in well with humor elements. Besides that, OctHorrorFest is my baby and so I make up the qualifiers. Now.

This film is a wonderful celebration of any and all B-movies by the likes of Roger Corman (mentioned by name) and Ed Wood. Those films are "awesomely bad" and so was this. Guilty pleasures and Saturday afternoon entertainment. Camp-ridden is what they are meant to be and they succeed in their first and foremost purpose. To entertain. The work in this film shows that the filmmakers were in a charming, playful mood with their tongues firmly planted in their cheeks. It pokes fun at the films it shows love of while becoming its own example. Nearly every character is increasingly entertaining, particularly both Chastity Pariah (Edie McClurg) and Uncle Vinnie Talbot who exudes a refined malice like Vincent Price, Boris Karloff, Basil Rathbone and Bela Lugosi. From a physical perspective, Elvira, with that showgirl figure and that over-the-top tight-fitting low-cut black costume, just grabs your attention from the get go. But there's much more to enjoy than just her physical appearance. Her ditzy charm and irreverent off color sense of humor made me just love her and oddly root for her. There's no shortage of double entendre jokes which unlike most make one pause for a moment as you realize the implications and overtones.

Now, is it scary? At times. Is it funny? Yes. Is it perfect? No but then it was never really meant to be anything but pure cornball and I love it for that. I always know I can sit down, put this film in and forget any and all problems for 96 minutes and after all isn't that what movies are supposed to be all about?

★★★1/2

 

 

Evil Dead (2013) Review

"David (Shiloh Fernandez), his drug-using sister Mia (Jane Levy) and his friends Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci), Olivia (Jessica Lucas) and Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore) travel to an isolated cabin that belonged to his parents to spend a couple of days together. Mia promises to stop using drugs and Olivia, who is a nurse, promises to help Mia in her abstinence. They discover a hidden basement with witchcraft and the Book of the Dead, and Eric reads it (even though it says "Do Not Read From This Book") and unintentionally summons an evil force. Mia, Olivia and Natalie are possessed by evil and Eric reads the book trying to learn how to destroy the demon."

Anyone who has ever visited this blog and read the post above this one knows that I loved the original film. Its terror was just enough to keep me awake at night but there was an odd sense of fun behind it. As though Sam Raimi and crew were aware they were making potentially the worst horror film since Plan 9 from Outer Space. The new film, more a "re-imagining" then a remake, has no such sense of humor nor interesting or intelligent characters. It's torture porn. 90 minutes of abject horror, vomiting, stabbing, burning, slicing, shooting dismemberment. Let's be honest here my friends. Relentlessly throwing on gore for gore's sake is not an effective way to create suspense. No matter how good your effects are they will not terrify your audience. The building of suspense to a violent event is always more intense than the violent event itself. There is no build up in this film. We literally move from one mutilation to another to another to the end credits. These provide for plenty of shocks but very few scares.

Another necessity of good horror the film lacks is any sense of hope. The best way to torture your audience is to dangle that little sense of optimism in front of them and then yanking it away. Then giving it back and then taking it again. The filmmakers must've forgotten what it's like to play with a cat. It's only redeeming quality is that it ended.

I do wish I had picked a better film to start out OctHorrorFest but I didn't.

Zero Stars

 

 

The Evil Dead (1981) Review

Five Michigan State University students venture into the hills to spend a weekend in an isolated cabin. There they find the Book of the Dead (a Babylonian and Sumerian text, unrelated to the Egyptian Book of the Dead), otherwise known as the Morturom Demonto. They also find a tape recording by a professor translating the ancient text and reading it aloud. An amateur book-on-tape if you will. Much to the protest of one of the students they play the tape which unleashes demonic forces that take them down one by one. Are you annoyed by the lack of a more in-depth plot summary? To be honest the above paragraph is all I am really able to tell you and still keep this review spoiler free.

The film, written and directed by Sam Raimi, is easily one of the scariest low-budget films I have ever seen. Once the horror scenes begin they don't let up until the credits roll and by the end of the film I was genuinely upset by what all had occurred. Not because it's gruesome or needlessly filled with sex but because I wanted things to work out for the characters in the film. It is one of those films where you are happy it is over.

Perhaps the best scene in the film is when the first character is possessed. She gains an ability to guess the cards in a deck and she turns to reveal hollowed out eyes, a scarred face and a much deeper voice. As if she had inhaled Sulfur Hexafluoride. She contorts her body while the demon inside her reveals its intentions. Many of you are aware that I don't generally care for splatter movies unless they can bring something to it besides blood and guts. What the film brings is false leading. There's several moments where you expect the monster to jump out and when it doesn't you can't relax.

An interesting, cheap and classic way to not have to reveal your villain is to run the camera across the ground in the spirit's point of view. I know I have discussed the trend where, because of a POV shot, we are unable to sympathize with the main characters and eventual victims. However if you never show what happens when your monster attacks you are never really put in the eyes of the villain. Sure the effects are dated and the acting is a bit cheesy but what is the most basic purpose of a horror film? It's to scare you. I have to ask myself did the film fail at its intentions. After a night of uneven sleep, I say without a doubt most certainly.

★★★★

 

 

Scream (1996) Review

Slasher films are that sub-genre of horror that give the rest of the horror films a bad name. Their purpose is put a bunch of pretty people in a situation where they have a very good chance of being stabbed, shot, disemboweled, decapitated, burned, electrocuted or disposed of. After all those films with Freddy, Jason and Michael Myers certain patterns begin to emerge. You know the big ones. Virgins never die and strange noises ought not to be investigated but probably will be so you can see another gruesome kill. There is no subtlety in a slasher movie and, since they don't scare someone by raising tension and building suspense, they increase the body count. There are always exceptions to the rule that says these films are dreck. Scream could possibly be the first one to break that rule effectively.

Sydney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is having a rough time lately: After the brutal rape and murder of her mother a year ago, one of her classmates (Drew Barrymore) has been killed by a lunatic who harassed her with terrifying phone calls and quizzing her on the details of such films as Friday the 13th and Halloween. Soon Sydney starts receiving similar phone calls and is attacked by what we presume to be the same cloaked maniac. With her father missing, she has hardly anyone on her side except her best friend Tatum (Rose McGowan) and Tatum's brother Dewey (David Arquette), a half-bright cop. The murderer could be any number of people: Sydney's father; her cute but overly intense boyfriend Billy (Skeet Ulrich); Tatum's boyfriend Stuart (Matthew Lillard); Randy the movie geek (Jamie Kennedy) or the "tabloid twit" Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox).

Generally when people think of modern horror they are usually aware of two names even if they have never delved into it before. Now that I think about it can you imagine a film directed by Wes Craven and based on a book by Stephen King? I digress but those were the names I planned to mention before I got off-track. Craven, the director, knows how to structure a film to get your audience reacting whatever that reaction may be. He also knows enough about the horror genre to make fun of it intelligently. What he manages to do with Kevin Williamson's script is put more of the focus on the scenes in between the murders. After the horrific opening scene we go to Sydney's bedroom and a scene that for all intents and purposes is sweet and almost romantic. These scenes serve to give the audience a sense of who the characters are as people instead of happy, brainless creatures who spout one-liners until they die.

One of the many things that work so well about the film is its willingness to poke fun at itself and the genre. One does not realize while you watch it that the film is almost self-aware. The characters in it even speak about their lives as if they were in a movie. Its jabs at the horror genre are whimsical and clever. So much so that it crosses into the realm of satire without losing its horror film feel.

★★★1/2

House of Dracula (1945) Review

The third film in my OctHorrorFest series of viewings and reviews is House of Dracula. It's one of the two major monster mash-ups that Universal put out to milk the money for their creations. Sometimes what happens when studios decide to combine their most popular creatures is disastrous. Remember Alien VS Predator?

Dracula (John Carradine) and Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) are tired of being monsters and so they both travel (separately) to Visaria, presumably somewhere in Europe, to enlist the help of a Dr. Edelman (Onslow Stevens) who has a reputation of treating patients with strange diseases. With the help of his hunchbacked assistant Nina (Jane Adams), Dr. Edelman discovers that Dracula has a rare blood disease and Talbot has pressure on certain parts of the brain which bring about his hideous transformation. Unfortunately Edelman's treatment will take more than a month to be ready. Talbot, in a last ditched effort to end it all, jumps off a nearby cliff and into the ocean. He survives (as happened with all his previous attempts) and washes up into an underground cave. When Edelman joins Talbot they discover the body of the Frankenstein monster (Glenn Strange). How the monster managed to go from sinking in a swamp in House of Frankenstein to a cliff-side cave here is not clear. While he deals with the moral question that plagued all the other scientists who came across the monster, Edelman realizes that his experiments with Dracula have caused him to become a vampire as well. All of this leads to a showdown where only one monster can survive.

It's a shame that Onslow Stevens' career took a downward spiral towards the end of his life because he is really quite good in this film. The juxtaposition of the two sides of Dr. Edelman in the final act of the film has an almost Jekyll/Hyde feel to it. It's more than tousling up his hair and moving around with an evil grin on his face. He looks like Dr. Edelman, he sounds like Dr. Edelman but we know that these two are not at all the same. Although Stevens shines the truly great performance of the film is given by Lon Chaney Jr. who was an actor that, unfortunately, was not appreciated during his lifetime for the wonderfully complex portrayals of tortured souls or hulking monsters that he brought forth. By this, his fourth appearance as Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man, Chaney exudes a tragedy that is familiar to those who have seen the other films but no less meaningful.

My only lament for the film is that the Frankenstein monster is left with nothing to do but lie on an operating table and, in the film's climax, have a thankless lurch around the lab. This is a far cry from Boris Karloff's riveting emotional portrayal of the monster in three of the earlier films. Still the fault is not with Strange. He does the best he can with what he's given which sadly isn't much.

Offering just enough scares and plenty of camp, House of Dracula is a wonderful monster mash up for a more civilized audience. Is it perfect? No but the thing about these films that you have to remember is that they are like a fine wine. They just get better with age and the more you watch them.

★★★



 

The House on Haunted Hill (1959) Review

This film is a frequently viewed favorite of mine. I try to watch it at least once a year. Usually this happens during the month of October. Featuring plenty of twists and a couple effective scares it is the second of my daily reviews for a horror film this month.

Vincent Price stars as Frederick Loren. A sinister gent (you're surprised?) who owns a sinister mansion on a sinister hill. He offers several of his enemies $10,000 each. As is the normal practice with such an offer he, just for fun, throws in a catch. If they agree to spend one night in his mansion they get the prize. If they leave or are somehow murdered they don't receive anything and their prize money is divided evenly between the remaining guests. Frederick festively gives each of his invitees a tiny coffin containing a handgun, then he takes delight in setting in motion a number of gadgets and devices designed to frighten the guests to using their weapons. The end result, he hopes, being that they all kill each other.

There's a certain moment in the film which utilizes what I like to call a "jump scare". A jump scare is intended to make people jump and then chuckle. This is a cheap technique that gives your audience five seconds of shock and then they're only reaction is to laugh at themselves. However in this film the jump scare is a primitive version of that technique in that there is no loud bang or sharp musical chord to accompany the scary image. I don't want to ruin that moment for the people who haven't seen the film or have never heard of said moment. Besides if you have seen the film you know exactly what moment I am talking about so I'll just say that after more than fifty years it still startles people and Vincent Price is still at his creepiest (you're surprised?) in this film.

All I can suggest is that, if given the choice between this film and the inadequate remake with Geoffrey Rush, search for this one. It might take you a little longer to find but trust me. It's worth it.

★★★1/2

 

Monkey Shines (1988) Review

You know those films that are so bad they're brilliant? Films that offer more enjoyment to make fun of than to take seriously. They are the films that you must take with a grain of salt. Otherwise you should be prepared for an awful experience. Frequently these films tend to be low-budget horror films. Monkey Shines is a film that is no exception. It is most certainly one of the films that the term "awesomely bad" seems to be coined for. Therefore I shall be giving it an earnest and occasionally good review. I know that the film is fairly, for lack of a better phrase, crappy but in this case entertainment value trumps what I know to be a low quality film.

Allan (Jason Beghe) takes care of himself. He eats healthy and jogs several times a day with a backpack full of bricks. His lifestyle and habits make little difference when he is hit by a truck and becomes a paraplegic. Allan loses all will to live until his best friend Geoffrey (John Pankow) gives him a genetically engineered monkey as an assistance animal. The monkey's name is Ella (Boo) and she becomes Allan's best friend while helping him. Eventually Ella's extreme intelligence causes her to develop feelings toward her master while developing feelings of jealousy toward her trainer (Kate McNeil). Ella begins to carry out Allan's subconscious wishes caused by his rage and his desire for revenge.

So much of this film is too ridiculous to be scary. I hope that director George A. Romero knew what he was doing when he decided to write this film. After all he's a man who has made a career out of making zombie films with underlying social commentaries for those smart enough to notice them. I admit I have not read the novel by Michael Stewart on which the film is based. I'm willing to give Romero the benefit of the doubt since this film was re-cut by Orion Pictures, the studio that released the film. The performances for the film are just bloody awful. Boo, the monkey actually outshines all of her human costars. Just as an example Beghe spends nearly the entire film paralyzed from the shoulders down. This means that he retains the ability to move his head and instead of moving as a realistic person he becomes a bobble head. The best example of this is when Allan yells at his overprotective mother, "Mother did you see my hand move or didn't you?!"
I admit the film itself is awful but God help me I liked watching it. If I didn't do you really think I'd give it such a high rating. Oh, what would we do without our guilty pleasures?

★★1/2



 

Shame (2011) Review

Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is a successful businessman in his 30's living in New York. To most of the people around him, Brandon appears calm and confident, but inside his home he wrestles with a powerful demon. Addiction. He is obsessed with pornography (even views it at work) and only desires to engage in short-term relationships with women that allow him to keep the world at arm's length. The grim routine of Brandon's life is upset when his sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) stops by for an extended visit without notice. Brandon and Sissy, although close, are polar opposites. Where Brandon is reserved and introverted, Sissy is outgoing and flashy. As Sissy forces her brother to look closely at his current situation and confront his past, he comes to understand the circumstances that made him the man he has become and his seemingly unbreakable cover of calm begins to crack.

Michael Fassbender is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors with each performance I see. This film just put the man on a list of actors to watch. Take for instance the scene in which Brandon, while walking on a pier, comes to the realization that he cannot overcome his addiction and in a rare moment breaks down and releases his suppressed emotions. This scene is played with such heartbreaking realism that we feel the need to root for Brandon where earlier in the film we might find him predatory, abusive and overall unlikeable. Fassbender's ability to play that unlikeable man who we find ourselves hoping the best for is nothing short of extraordinary.

The film is directed by Steve McQueen (no, not that one) and there's several decisions he made in the filming that need to be mentioned. Many of the scenes feature very long shots. I'm a big fan of very few cuts. What's so great about long shots you might wonder? The most important thing is this allows us to see everything that is happening. When a director includes too many cuts I am reminded that I am watching a movie. With Shame the phrase "fly on the wall" comes to mind. Everything that happens, including a very uncomfortable scene between Sissy and Brandon, unfolds for us in long takes. This technique only further shows the talent of the film's lead actor.

With regards to the sex scenes, McQueen takes an approach that I am a firm believer in. A sex scene in a film should be sensual in nature and not sexual. The film features one such scene in particular. Brandon goes to the apartment of two women and sleeps with them both. While watching this scene I am reminded of The English Patient's love scenes.

A brilliantly worded script by McQueen and fully-fleshed out competent performance by Fassbender recommend multiple viewings.

★★★★

American Reunion (2012) Review

You can basically expect two things when you go to see an American Pie film. One. An all-encompassing amount of sex. Two. An all-emcompassing amount of sex-related jokes. Basically these two things are what American Reunion gives us. Jim (Jason Biggs), Michelle (Alyson Hannigan), Stifler (Seann William Scott) and all the rest (I'm too lazy to list them) all return home for their high school reunion. Sure some of them have relationship problems and Jim's Dad makes everything really awkward. But that's about it.

As I'm sure you must be aware if you ever looked in the 5.99 bin at your local Wal-Mart there are approximately seven separate films in the franchise. This is only one of four to feature all these characters and the rest were released direct-to-dvd. The film itself elicited two separate reactions from me. One was a couple of instances of genuine laughter (one involved Jim's Dad [Eugene Levy]) and a whole lot of head-shaking. I prepared for that by sitting in the back of the theater so no one would see my annoying non-frat boy reaction. Unfortunately I was informed after the screening by one of the individuals in my party that he could see it several times.

There are really only two types of jokes in this film. There are the bad jokes that become good by one or two actions and the good jokes that go too far. I'm going to go ahead and reveal what the other joke was. You know the one that redeemed itself and then went too far? After being humiliated by a trio of high school punks, Stifler seeks his revenge. He ties their jet skis to his truck and silently sneaks to their icebox, opens it, and evacuates his bowels into it complete with nasty sound effect. He runs off and, true to formula of a collage party film, high school punk #1 opens it and sticks his hand into it to get a beer. The thing is that excrement jokes, in and of themselves, are not funny and the act of covering someone in said excrement is also not funny. Now, you may say, "Joe, why when you were so annoyed by the same effect in Joe Dirt and Fast Five do you give American Reunion a pass?" The answer is simple. While performing the act Jim asks Stifler, as any rational person would do, what he is doing. Stifler smiles and, silently, informs him what he is doing sitting on the icebox with his shorts around his ankles. That was what I laughed at. Then they had to ruin it by showing the contents on high school punk #1. From the looks of it methinks Stifler needs to eat more yogurt with live and active cultures.

The problem is that the franchise has been raucous and bordering offensive since the very beginning. With each passing film I fear the filmmakers must up the ante on how far they can push it. Why? This is what the audience expects. At this point the audience expects to see a man's penis behind a clear pot lid.

You know what I would have loved? If for once, just once, not everything works out for these people. Can't one of them get hit by a car and not walk away from it? Can't we end the film with them sitting on the sidewalk realizing their life sucks? Why does everybody have to get laid by the end?

★

 

 

Sleeping Beauty (2011) Review

Lucy (Emily Browning) is a 22 year-old university student who spends her time outside of school working a number of jobs. She works at a coffee shop, volunteers at a research lab and as a photocopy clerk. She answers an ad for women to make at least $250 an hour. Starting out as a lingerie-clad waitress she gains the favor of her employers and soon is promoted to the job of Sleeping Beauty. The job requires her to be drugged and sleep nude while paying customers do whatever they want with her body short of penetration.

This film has the emotional warmth of a walk in freezer. The depiction of human nature is not only completely miserable. It is unbearably, ridiculously miserable. There seems to be an attempt to replicate the films of Stanley Kubrick, particularly Eyes Wide Shut. That film was a masterpiece. Sleeping Beauty is a near abysmal implementation of faux eroticism and fails to be even remotely erotic.

Here's the thing. Much has been said about Browning's "visceral" performance and bravery for baring all onscreen. If nudity automatically translated to a good performance Elizabeth Berkley would have won an Academy Award for Showgirls. Did she? No. I should say that it's not entirely Browning's fault for an unmoving and uninvolving performance. The script, written by Julia Leigh (who also directed) gives her very little to do but walk around in the same miniskirt day after day and then take off her clothes and sleep. However Miss Browning cannot escape all the blame. I couldn't help but wonder where her natural accent goes from scene to scene and the finale features a scream that is neither engaging nor short enough to avoid laughing at.

The script does not present any background for Lucy and we learn nothing about her. We don't get to find out what she's studying or why. We don't get to discover how she makes the decision to take the job she does. Why can't we know of her dreams or fears? Is it the intention of Leigh to present her as a thoroughly unlikable, rude and unfeeling woman? I'm not sure but that was my reaction to it. I could care less about her friend who is either a drug addict or has a terminal illness or both.

The most annoying technique in the film is a slow fade to black. I counted nine. I'm sure that there were more but I lost count. When you have very little happening onscreen besides one character sitting down somewhere and you don't move the camera I suppose you have to put in some sort of attempt at style. Nice attempt. And before I stop writing this review like I should have stopped watching the film I want to say this. Julia Leigh needs to watch Creature from the Black Lagoon and see that no one wants to listen to bubbles for twenty minutes so the occasional piece of music would be nice. She needs to realize that silence is boring if not used appropriately and sparingly.

Zero Stars

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) Review

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a film that lacks clarity and structure. A near constant jumping around of time periods and obscurity create a feeling of confusion and, I must confess, made me feel very lost. Remember the 1992 film Unforgiven? That was a film with a subpar script and a subpar story that featured fantastic performances. This film suffers from the same condition. Of course given the caliber of actors in this film (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Colin Firth, Mark Strong) saying that they give great performances is like saying that chocolate is sweet.

I hate to do this but I can hardly remember a thing about the film and so much trouble following its plot that I am left with either not including a synopsis or copying it from another source. I pride myself on (almost) never having to do this but I want to be fair to it so I will have to take it from IMDB:

"In the early 1970s during the Cold War, the head of British Intelligence, Control (John Hurt), resigns after an operation in Budapest, Hungary goes badly wrong. It transpires that Control believed one of four senior figures in the service was in fact a Russian agent - a mole - and the Hungary operation was an attempt to identify which of them it was. George Smiley (Gary Oldman) had been forced into retirement by the departure of Control, but is asked by a senior government figure to investigate a story told to him by a rogue agent, Ricky Tarr (Tom Hardy), that there was a mole. Smiley considers that the failure of the Hungary operation and the continuing success of Operation Witchcraft (an apparent source of significant Soviet intelligence) confirms this, and takes up the task of finding him. Through the efforts of Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley obtains information that eventually leads him to Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong), the agent at the heart of the Hungary fiasco. He is then able to put together the pieces of the puzzle, which leads him to the identity of the mole and the true intent of Operation Witchcraft."

A major issue is that too many characters are introduced in too rapid a succession. In one single scene we meet every single senior member of the organization and are hardly even able to follow what their names are, for one thing, and what they're purpose is for another. This is a cheap and lazy way to bring in all this information at once and I sat there in the theater scratching my head as I wondered where a character came from and if they had already introduced them and saying, "wait, didn't that guy get shot?"

Unmemorable and confusing Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy leaves much to be desired.

★1/2

 

 

A Separation (2011) Review

A film that can only be described as disappointing, A Separation begins uninterestingly and ends anti-climactically. As I have not seen the other contenders for Best Foreign Language Film I cannot comment on whether or not it deserved the Oscar. All I can do is report on what I didn't like.

Simin (Leila Hatami) wants to leave Iran to try and give her daughter Termah (Sarina Farhadi) a better life. However her husband Nader (Peyman Moadi) can't leave as he has to take care of his father with Alzheimer's. Simin leaves Nader as he refuses to go with her. Termah, in an attempt to bring her parents back together decides to live with her father. Nader hires a young woman named Razieh (Sareh Bayat) to be caregiver for his father. Nader does not know that Razieh is not only pregnant, but also working without her unstable husband's (Shahab Hosseini) permission. Coming home to find his father tied to the bed and Razieh nowhere around, Nader literally throws her out. Later he is charged with murder after she suffers a miscarriage supposedly caused by falling down the stairs.

The film ends with Termah being forced to choose between her parents. While Simin and Nader wait in a hallway for her decision the credits begin to roll. I am not against ambiguous endings when I care about the individuals involved. That's where my biggest issue with the film lies. It was immaterial to me if Simin and Nader get back together or if Razieh is telling the truth or what happens to Nader's father. The only characters I felt any sympathy or empathy for where Termah and Razieh's young daughter. They are unwillingly simply caught up in their issues of their parents. Beyond these two this is no such thing as a likable character.

The film is tedious and dull until we reach the catalyst, which even then is uninteresting. It doesn't so much forget the title of the film as much as it goes off on an irritating tangent from what could have been a film about how Simin and Nader deal with their conflict and the difficult decisions they must make. Perhaps someone who is fluent in the language being spoken would feel more of a connection with the characters.

There is one scene in the film that I enjoyed. It is the scene in which Nader confesses a truth to his daughter. For all you spoiler police don't worry I won't give too much away about it.

Like I said, I can't comment on whether or not it deserved the Oscar until the other films and I won't fault it for the typo-ridden subtitles. I'd rather see "threatening" misspelled several times than hear someone else dub the lines in English.

★★

The Artist (2011) Review

A fantastically phenomenal film that harkens back to the early days of cinema, The Artist tells the story of George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). He is arguably the most admired silent film star of 1927. During the post-premiere of his latest film The Russian Affair he runs into an aspiring young actress/dancer named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) which ends up being the springboard to her career. With the advent of the talkies their roles of success are reversed. Peppy becomes Kinograph's new biggest star while George, who rejects and resists the entire idea of talking pictures, fades into oblivion. Peppy attempts to help George as much as she can, even going so far as to convince her producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) to let George read for a major role. Ultimately it would have to be up to George if he manages to be successful in an era where he doesn't believe audiences are interested in hearing him speak.

The film is the first (mostly) silent film to receive a large release in theaters in over thirty years. I love classic cinema and with that comes a love of silent films. The Artist is as close to extraordinary and perfect a film as it gets. Certainly one of the best films that I have seen in recent years and currently is a leading contender for a spot on my list of my all-time favorite films. There is a massive amount of affection for the films that inspired it and its love of those films is nothing short of brilliant. I must confess that I cannot praise it enough.

The thing about a silent film is that because there is no sound, short of the orchestra, and so your ears hunger for it. There isn't any dialogue actually heard until the last five minutes. In this scene Jean Dujardin says his only two words. Upon being asked by Al Zimmer if he and Peppy can do another take of a considerably complicated dance sequence he replies simply, "With pleasure." When he finally speaks I felt an enormous amount of elation that he does so. It's a wonderful scene where you can celebrate the emotional journey that this character goes through.

Throughout the entire film I got the feeling like I was a member of the audience in 1927. Perhaps it was the aspect ratio of 4:3 which was what was actually used for 35 mm films in the silent film era of cinema. Some films need the aspect ratio of 2:39:1 but The Artist is a film that is made better by the decision of a lower aspect ratio.

I've heard it said that the three most important things for an actor to use are their voice, face and hands. Silent film actors have a particularly larger challenge as they don't have the use of their voice and so they must walk a fine line with their facial expressions and hands. Jean Dujardin's performance fits comfortably with the likes of Lon Chaney, Charles Chaplin, Conrad Veidt and etc. so that you believe that he could have in fact been an actor during that time period. He hams it up if you will just enough without it being gimmicky.

As I said I cannot praise this film enough. It is extraordinary and so much more.

★★★★

 

 

Hugo (2011) Review

A masterful picture made with an exponential love of early and classic cinema. Its wonderful cinematography coupled with an interesting cast of characters in a "keep you guessing" story makes Hugo Martin Scorcese's best film since Goodfellas.

Set in Paris in 1931 Hugo tells the story of a resourceful and imaginative orphan who, upon the death of his father (Jude Law), begins a quest to uncover the secret of an automaton (a mechanical man intended to use a pen and write a message). Convinced the message is from his father Hugo goes at great lengths to repair it. He hides in a railway station and runs the clocks all while avoiding the ever watchful Chief Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) Hugo's journey brings him to the attention of a bitter toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley) after he is caught trying to steal parts for the automaton. The toy-shop owner, Georges Méliès takes Hugo's notebook, which contains notes and drawings on the automaton, from him with the intent of burning it. Hugo follows Georges to his home where he meets Georges goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz). Hugo and Isabelle follow all the possible clues which eventually lead them to a secret about Méliès.

Hugo is in many ways not a Scorcese film. There are no gangsters and the film is not Rated-R. It does however speak to Scorcese's adoration of film and his belief of protecting the films of the past. It is thoroughly upsetting that half of all films made before 1940 are gone. Hugo is his love letter to cinema and a well-made love letter at that.

Something that I was able to pick up on was the wonderful cinematography and digitally developed backgrounds. The backgrounds and shots of the Paris skyline look like glossier Matte paintings then we've seen previously. This film is all about escaping to the movies and the "not quite reality" look allows us to do just that. Your opinion may differ from mine about artificially created backgrounds but the work done in this film is a wonderful. Indeed the use of lighting and color in the film presents Hugo's relationship to each character. When Hugo is around Méliès there are a lot of blacks and greys and when he later runs into Isabelle the color turns to a hopeful gold. Whatever Hugo's particular feeling is at any given time is reflected in the film's look.

Distinguishably one of the better films of 2011 and most absolutely one of Martin Scorcese's best films he has ever made that presents a message that I unreservedly agree with. Movies and the experience of going to them are "what dreams are made of."

★★★★

Winnie the Pooh (2011) Review

Less childlike and more childish the latest installment in the franchise is an overall abysmal and highly disappointing turn for the characters and the stories created by A.A Milne and popularized in the United States by Walt Disney.

Attempting to return to the form presented by The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh the film is more a series of animated shorts compiled into one film. Among them are the story of Eeyore (voice of Bud Luckey) losing his tail and Winnie The Pooh, Tigger (both voiced by Jim Cummings), Owl (voiced by Craig Ferguson), Rabbit (voiced by Tom Kenny), Piglet (voiced by Travis Oates), Kanga (voiced by Kristen Anderson-Lopez) and Roo (voiced by Wyatt Dean Hall) all begin a contest to find a new one. While misinterpreting a note from Christopher Robin (Jack Boulter), Owl convinces everyone that he has been kidnapped by a horrible creature known as the Backson (Back soon) and Pooh attempts to find honey.

There are several songs in the film (written by Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez) and every single one of them fails to live up to the wonderful songs written by Robert and Richard Sherman for the previous shorts. There is a lack of charm and constant laziness in the new songs that causes them to be unmemorable. Repeating "honey" thirteen times does not make a good song and the complete shortage of talent in Zooey Deschanel is apparent in her singing of at least one of the songs.

One thing I have always loved about the characters that were originally created by A.A. Milne and illustrated by E.H Shepard was how honest and open they were with each other. They never tried to pull anything over on one another. In this film that is gone. The script, developed by no less than ten individuals, is so chock full of somewhat sinister actions (such as "toss in the pig") and lying that the individuals perpetually border on unlikeable. Perhaps I am lamenting for an era of animation and a style of storytelling that is gone or maybe I haven't given many programs the chances they deserve. Whatever the reason, I was severely disappointed in what I have been given by Disney in their attempts to update the characters to fit into a world of cynicism.

If I was to say anything good about the film it would be the voice work by Jim Cummings. He is the only member of the cast whose performances I didn't hate. His near pitch-perfect imitation of the late Sterling Holloway is so spot on that you would swear it was the same person. Of course he has had years to practice but he, nonetheless remains true to his characters unlike the rest of the cast.

★

The Grey (2012) Review

Man vs. nature. There has been several of these type of films as I am sure you are aware. The films present a major fear of humans. How does one survive when they are lost in the wilderness going up against the animals that live full-time in that wilderness? The Grey exploits that fear in a satisfying albeit predictable way.

John Ottway (Liam Neeson) is a member of an oil drilling team based in Alaska. His job is to kill wolves that surround and threaten the team. On his last day he writes a letter to his wife and walks out into the woods to commit suicide. However while kneeling in the snow with his rifle in his mouth he hears a wolf howl which stops him. Upon completion of the job the team and Ottway board a plane headed for home. The plane is unable to withstand the power of a blizzard and crashes in a barren wasteland killing all but Ottway and seven of the oil-drillers. Ottway immediately assumes control of the group whose initial plan is to stay with the destroyed remnants of the plane but upon realizing they are in a wolf pack's territory (especially after one member is torn apart by the wolves in the middle of the night) the team decides that it is better to walk south in the hope of being rescued or finding civilization. The wolves continue to hunt the men on their journey and, as you would expect, one by one the men are killed by the cold, wolves, trees etc.

The film unfortunately is far too predictable at times to really feel as original as I wanted it to feel. I was literally able to sit in the theater and know who would be killed next and/or how they would be killed and so the film follows a formula and plays it safe. It doesn't shock or frighten nearly as much as it should when one factors in the harsh environment the fortunately fully fleshed out characters are in.

Previously I mentioned the film's satisfying use of the fear the characters have. It might seem as though I am contradicting myself but the truth is that half the film is predictable while the other half is a lean forward in your seat type of film. The scenes in which the characters are surrounded by the wolves or face to face with them are among some of the most frightening and intense scenes in the film. Dracula's opinion of their musical prowess comes to mind in several scenes. I only wish the filmmakers had focused more on the eyes of the wolves which are the feature that an audience relates to most in an animal onscreen. There are issues with the CGI animation of the wolves but to be fair Hollywood has always had issues with the animation of wolves and indeed the animation of creatures with fur. The wolves lack weight when running or attacking and their size in the film is excessive and visibly surpasses the average wolf size while some of their hunting behavior is inaccurate.

The trivia section of imdb for the film mentions that the atrocious Bradley Cooper was initially cast in Liam Neeson's role and all I can be is thankful for the change because Neeson's performance is one his better. As my friend remarked after the film's credits, "when I grow up I want to be Liam Neeson."

An interesting take for the film's cinematography is to create it in a coherent style with the film's title. There is a lot of attention obviously given to the color palette and style of the shots (although I wish there weren't so many establishing shots of the snow covered mountains). Everything is either gray, white or black which creates a feeling of dreariness to the film.

An overall fear-provoking and intense picture that walks a balance and unfortunately sometimes falls off into predictable and pointlessness.

★★★

 

 

 

Anonymous (2011) Review

Anonymous is about what you'd expect. Ludicrous hypotheticals abound in this film directed by Roland Emmerich, who you might remember directed the equally ludicrous though far worse 10,000 B.C. The film's tagline reads "What If Shakespeare Was a Fraud?" which basically sums up what the film is about. It subscribes to the Oxford theory and suggests that the plays were written by the 17th Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans). Due to his status as an important individual in society and his relationship with William Cecil (David Thewlis) and Queen Elizabeth I (Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson) he cannot take credit for the plays and sonnets so he decides to make Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) put his name to them and have them performed. Who should happen to take credit from Jonson but the film's biggest buffoon William Shakespeare, played entertainingly by Rafe Spall. The next hour and a half is as slow and tedious as Shakespeare can be to read.

As I said the film is filled with absurdity. It does not follow a chronological story but instead tries a rather transparent tactic of confusing the audience by fastforwarding and backflashing to mask it's absurdity and historical inaccuracies (such as Young Elizabeth having near constant relations with several men and birthing several bastards) and anachronisms (for example Macbeth is seen being performed during Elizabeth I's reign even though it was performed during the reign of King James. There is also a scene where the Globe burns down nearly ten years before it actually burned down).

Despite the ridiculousness of the film there are several things of merit. The performances by Ifans, Redgrave and Edward Hogg (who is particularly creepy as Robert Cecil) are all of a fairly high quality but it is David Thewlis who shines in his role and gives quite possibly the best performance of his career thus far. The character of William Cecil goes through, physically speaking, the most change transforming from young to old to dying but a great makeup is only going to be able to carry an actor so far. Without the subtleties that Thewlis gives in his role it would simply be a great makeup wasted.


Besides the performances the film is actually good from a technical standpoint. When I say technical I am referring to the costumes, cinematography, makeup, art direction etc. I guarantee that there will be some Academy Award nominations for those moments

I know the theories and arguments about who wrote Shakespeare is quite polarized and I admit I am not an expert on Shakespeare. Oxfordians think that the Stratfordians are idiots and vice versa. I know a lot of you Shakespearean scholars and students will think me an idiot because I refuse to "pick a side" but the truth, my friends, is that at the end of the day it doesn't matter who wrote Hamlet, Henry V, Sonnet #81, Macbeth, A Midsummer Night's Dream, King Lear or Romeo & Juliet. They all were written by someone and exist for us to analyze, praise, scrutinize, be bored by or just plain enjoy.

★★★

Beginners (2010) Review

Rarely do you have a film like Beginners. It is a film that works on mostly every level and is so wonderfully simple in its complexity. Graphic designer Oliver (Ewan McGregor) meets a free-spirited actress named Anna (Mélanie Laurent) after his father, Hal (Christopher Plummer) has passed away. As Oliver gets to know Anna he realizes that he is very much inexperienced in the prospect of a long-lasting romantic relationship. Oliver's memories of his father, who, following the death of his wife of 45 years came out of the closet to lead a full, energized and wonderful life and possibly encourage Oliver to find a woman and do the same and find true happiness. Oliver ends up taking in Hal's dog, named Arthur who can understand up to 150 words but does not talk except in subtitles. It is unclear as to whether the words at the bottom of the screen are what the dog is thinking or just what Oliver decides the dog would say if he could. One thing does remain clear and that's the fact that Arthur is the only character in the film that truly has a good bead on his life and is able to be happy with no effort at all.

The film moves from time period to time period with surprising finesse and fluidity. All too often a filmmaker attempts to do this in a way that is fresh and doesn't annoy the audience and fails in their attempt. Writer/director Mike Mills succeeds by presenting all the flashbacks as Oliver's memories. This allows the audience to feel comfortable with the seemingly random jumping around because the human mind recalls memories at random. The script really doesn't feel chaotic as one would expect or would easily happen. Oliver's narration in the film provides the set up by saying, "this is 2003. This is nature and the stars and the president and movies. This is what happy looks like in 1955. This was smoking etc."

The three leads (McGregor, Laurent and Plummer) all deliver great performances in the film with special mention going to the perfection of Christopher Plummer in his now Oscar-nominated role. As Hal he is a cheerful and simple man that is surprisingly transparent. He does not overplay the stereotypical gay man but instead plays it as a man who is finally being true to what he is. This makes Plummer's performance one of his most human performances. I do admit that although I have only seen her in one other film (Inglorious Basterds) I predict and expect great things to come from Laurent throughout her career in the US. I guarantee that she will bring many other great performances in the future.

One of the things that bothered me the whole film though was the musical score. Don't get your dander up. I do not say that I necessarily disliked the score as much as it's placement in the film. It feels out of place in this film. It is almost as though composer Roger Neill wrote the music for another film and decided to put it to use here. Although pleasant to listen to by itself it simply does not fit here. Still the film is so wonderfully made on every other level so I suppose in the grand scheme of things the issues I have with the music are a minor inconvenience.

★★★1/2