Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Review #2580: Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.

Cast: 

Michael Sheen (Lucian; Alexander Carroll as Young Lucian), Bill Nighy (Viktor), Rhona Mitra (Sonja; Olivia Taylforth as Young Sonja), Steven Mackintosh (Andreas Tanis), Kevin Grevioux (Raze), David Aston (Coloman), Elizabeth Hawthorne (Orsova), Craig Parker (Sabas), Larry Rew (Kosta), Jared Turner (Xristo), Timothy Raby (Janosh), and Tania Nolan (Luka) Directed by Patrick Tatopoulos.

Review: 

Sure, why not make the third Underworld movie serve as a prequel? You might remember that in Underworld (2003), there was this whole thing about everyday life having a group of folks around that don't like each other with vampires and "Lycans" (who among us shortens a word to make up a name), with one particular hunter getting into the funny business of finding out that vampire elders are, well, not much different from Lycans in what you might call a twist on Romeo & Juliet (okay, one person called it that at the time, but hey*). So, with the realization that Lycans were basically slaves to the vampires until they made their fight for freedom, who better to direct than a first-timer? In fairness to Patrick Tatopoulos, the Greek-Frenchman had directed a few music videos and a short before making this film as his directorial debut, having done, well, plenty of work in effects, such as the previous two Underworld films; as it stands, this is his only feature directorial effort. Here's five credited writers: Danny McBride, Dirk Blackman and Howard McCain for the screenplay and Len Wiseman, Robert Orr & McBride for the story. Things returned to normal with Awakening in 2012 (which had Wiseman return to serve as a co-writer).

Remember when the first movie had Michael Sheen and Bill Nighy? Remember when they ended up dead at the end of the movie because, well, they just had to go? It's kind of funny watching a movie with two semi-interesting people in it that can't die here but are trying to make a go of lines such as "You're a credit to your race"* and the ever-developing locale of blue, grey, blue, grey, and maybe a third distinguishable color. So, basically, it's a side-step of quality from Evolution that at least looks like they tried to make you care for the fight of independence (with just a smidge of sex on a cliff*). The cringing of knowing it stinks at least has a smile for what they tried to do in their blue-grey medieval aim. There is a certain type of charm that Sheen brings for a pedestrian type of character that I'm sure had to have been thought of as akin to Moses by at least one filmmaker (you just know someone wanted to say, "let my PEOPLE go!", be honest) that basically keeps the movie afloat with his energy that sells most of what you like to see in acts of defiance that gives some credibility to wanting to see where things are going to go. Sure, you wish there was more time with the dazzling Mitra*, because you want more magnetism to really clear a path for inevitable tragedy, but they are fairly likable to watch in the calamity of forced roles. Nighy makes for a quality adversary in the type of elder arrogance that has both cunning and one-sided vision for what is right within the land of vampires, people, and the ones beneath each (which namely involves money because what else is there to do with castles and horses). I honestly forgot that Mackintosh and Grevioux each appeared in one of the earlier movies and I feel like that indicates the quality of these goofy movies not really rising up to par with the bare minimum presented with the first movie in resembling something cool (vampires, wolves, dark outfits), but I digress. It gives you people getting hit with weapons that aren't just guns and even sees folks hurt by the sun or swords (some of them even live, go figure). You get some decent-looking effects within a fairly efficient runtime of 89 minutes that is sometimes entertaining and may likely give you what you expect in "fill-in things", which I guess is better than nothing. So it goes.

 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day: September 21 edition

*Generally I don't care about gossip and personal lives, but it's kinda funny that Beckinsale met her future husband Len Wiseman when they were doing Underworld (2003)...while in a partnership with Michael Sheen. 

*Not to make a thing about it, but I can't remember if there's even a single black vampire in this film, but the Lycans sure have their guys that decided being one of them is better than being a slave.

*What, too cute of a phrase? Movie Night endorses sex and violence in horror and action movies, naturally.

*Double note: making a reference to The Ten Commandments may or may not sound a bit less cheesy than playing Tony Blair three times. And as for Mitra, hey, I still remember her time on Boston Legal because good golly.

Jennifer's Body.

Review #2457: Jennifer's Body.

Cast: 

Megan Fox (Jennifer Check), Amanda Seyfried (Anita "Needy" Lesnicki), Adam Brody (Nikolai Wolf), Johnny Simmons (Chip Dove), J. K. Simmons (Mr. Wroblewski), Amy Sedaris (Toni Lesnicki), Kyle Gallner (Colin Gray), Cynthia Stevenson (Mrs. Dove), Chris Pratt (Officer Roman Duda), Carrie Genzel (Mrs. Check), Juan Riedinger (Dirk), Juno Ruddell (Officer Warzak), Valerie Tian (Chastity), Aman Johal (Ahmet) Directed by Karyn Kusama.

Review: 

"I was blessed to read this script at a moment where the producers were meeting with directors and it just knocked me out. It was just so original, so imaginative. That’s what it is about this script and the world is that it feels like a fairy tale gone psycho and I think that’s what most fairy tales actually started as. So, they’ve just been sort of neutralized over the years and there’s something about this story that felt old, like coming from old stories but totally fresh, and I just went to bat for myself, I guess."

It isn't often you see a film poster that bills the talents of its writer, but here we are. In the buildup to the sensation that was Juno (2007), Fox Atomic (a short-lived label of 20th Century Fox and Searchlight that was aimed for comedy and genre film distribution) bought the rights to a certain script by Diablo Cody, the blogger-turned-stripper-turned-writer that, well, wound up winning an Academy Award for Juno (hence the film poster); Jason Reitman served as a co-producer for Jennifer's Body. Cody stated in interviews that she wanted to “pay tribute to some of the conventions that we’ve already seen in horror, yet, at the same time, kind of turn them on their ear" while also saying that her macabre sense of humor played into how it became a comedy-horror movie. As it happened, the movie was directed by Karyn Kusama. Kusama previously had directed Girlfight (2000) and Aeon Flux (2005). According to Cody, the movie (distributed by 20th Century Fox after Atomic closed down), which made nearly double its $16 million budget back in its release in 2009 was marketed terribly, as it apparently was marketed to target “boys who like Megan Fox” (which is how you get a poster that has Fox in a miniskirt) as opposed to trying to target, well, girls too; in recent years, with the growing cult audience for the movie, Cody has stated her wish to do a sequel to the movie, while Kusama noted her appreciation for the following the film has developed in recent years.*

It helps that the movie basically is a fairy tale of two growing women who have rapid change befall them, right down to the line actually said in the film of Hell being a teenage girl...that just happens to run with one of them becoming a succubus that actually reminds me a bit of Rosemary's Baby (hey, when the high schoolers get mowed down and "honored" in a manner not exactly more dignified than Heathers, why not crib from one of the alleged great horror movies too?). I thought it was a pretty funny movie, to be honest, mainly because I went in with mild expectations of expecting a bit of humor and gore that hopefully wouldn't crash and burn up and found a delight. Sure, you can probably understand where people may not have got what it really was going for 15 years ago beyond just leering at its star and waiting for things to happen. You've got a succubus who for her first act (that we see) of trying to cope with their new surroundings of desire go up to a person's house to try and eat an entire rotisserie chicken only to vomit goo, fail to bite someone and then just leave. In that sense, Fox does a tremendous job in the lead role, managing to be quite funny along with unnerving in the plight of a person who goes from a creature that might as well be the parasite in their one friendship to a very hungry creature that could be the parasite for all people (hey, an equal opportunity succubus) involved if she had her way. Her dynamic is compelling with Seyfried in ways that work far better than just simply being a creature bereft of comic timing. Seyfried's journey of change is just an interesting, mostly because it is a self-realization story that perhaps one of the miserable people lurking in the world today actually can get lucky for once beyond just being lumped in as a needy odd-duck. It is a worthwhile time to see the two of them engage in banter all throughout that shows just how one can really view somebody they've known for years when the grisly details are presented so clearly. The rest of the cast is fairly interesting in parts, whether that involves the conniving group of wannabee music icons led by Brody or the hook-handed straight-laced Simmons. The gore sequences (as could be read in some part here) involving the unfortunate souls being led in to the promise of, well, flesh (three) is pretty well done as well. The 102-minute runtime does prove worth it, although one wonders if the real ending is worth being in the credits. As a whole, Jennifer's Body is a delightfully macabre film about the perils of growing womanhood that happens to involve blood and guts for a solid curiosity that really did take time for its audience to really find it and appreciate its merits.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Hey, they even did a Q&A of the movie just this week. 

Hell of a coincidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRGd7sHN1io

I Am Here....Now.

Review #2146: I Am Here....Now.

Cast: 

Neil Breen (The Being), Joy Senn (Amber), Elizabeth Sekora (Cindy), George Gingerelli (Corporate Executive), Maraud Ford (Gang Leader), Jason Perrin (Politician), Ron Schoenewolf (Corporate Lawyer), Herbert Allen (Man in Wheelchair), Ali Banks (Man in Pickup Truck / Gang Member), and Tommie Vegas (Girl in Pickup Truck) Written, Produced, and Directed by Neil Breen (#1767 - Fateful Findings and #1925 - Double Down)

Review: 

"When I used to go to see the first screenings of films like...I Am Here....Now, I'd be in the back of the theater listening to the audience. The audience may chuckle at parts that I never intended, but in the second half of the film they sort of begin to get it." - Neil Breen

I think there is a sort of accomplishment in making the same kind of boring movie three times in a row. His first film in Double Down (2005) involved Neil Breen playing a CIA agent that liked to eat tuna from the can and put on his medals on a denim vest while talking over a good deal of the film. The earlier film was apparently Breen's learning lesson when it came to making a theatrical film, so here we are with his second feature film (I hear he made some short films, but the world may not be prepared for the short Breen experience). The gall that comes from making such nonsense with hustle is why folks who know the Breen go to see the Breen. Can one pigeonhole Breen as a filmmaker without seeming weird? (I once heard someone who didn't want to call his films midnight movies because he didn't want to "ghettoize" in any particular way). One thing is for sure, it is quite interesting to make it hard to get those earlier films when it comes to online purchases, but thankfully the Internet is useful for finding copies for times like these. Here we have a film where he plays a being that basically is the Messiah but with computer boards attached to him (as so generously shown in one of the numerous stock video moments shown in the introduction, which is longer than it takes to eat a sandwich). Pass Thru (2016), Breen's fourth film, would feature him play an entity again (this time AI from the future) to try and cleanse millions of harmful humans. Breen and Turkey Week is the perfect combo.

Species disappointment has never felt so amusing, particularly with the number of times one sees a cut to Breen seemingly looking like a zombie. Running down the whole film would be a chore, because the fact that there are multiple uses of plastic baby heads (the intro and for a baby in a stroller) is more than enough to highlight. Just watch the intro alone, where he notices a couple drinking before the man tries to play Russian roulette and shoot up a needle and then sees the Being and tries shooting it. I especially like that the Being can resist two bullets to the chest but needs to steal the clothes and the car of someone just to get out of the desert. We've got evil folks talking about their evil plans in the same manner anytime they are on screen to go with Beings that like to lurk around to look at folks that go from having romance (hey, want to see Breen without a T-shirt?) to making folks bleed from their eyes after said person shoved a man in a wheelchair. Okay, okay, listing all the things that happen may be a bit much, but I want to hammer the point that this is probably the least worthy of Breen's first three films when it comes to overall execution. Breen has a clear interest in talking about issues that seem to really matter to him such as corruption or exploitation, but he goes about it in the most arcane of ways that talk in circles in the oddest of languages that might as well be "Breenlish". Apparently, Breen has said that he recruits actors by way of Craigslist ads. God, those ads must be really enticing, since he does his own catering and all. The ending is probably the most bewildering of all: the Being takes those evil folks and decides to put them on those crosses one saw in the beginning. I'm not quite sure how this stuff gets him to give the planet a second chance, but I guess boning folks or turning paraplegics into young folks to partner with women really shifts your perceptions. As a whole, if you are here for the curiosity of where Breen went with his second effort, well, you know it is going to be wrapped in all of the same twists and turns of narrative ass-pull that could only be done by someone with the seeming interest in either making films with all of what he wants to say as the strange re-incarnation of Tom Laughlin, or one who really is playing the great practical joke on us all. Regardless of where one finds Breen in terms of man or man in the box trying to play director, I Am Here....Now has a bit for everyone in sludgefest turkey entertainment. 

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

Next: The Apple.

Friday the 13th (2009).

Review #2108: Friday the 13th (2009).

Cast: 

Jared Padalecki (Clay Miller), Danielle Panabaker (Jenna), Amanda Righetti (Whitney Miller), Travis Van Winkle (Trent), Aaron Yoo (Chewie), Derek Mears (Jason Voorhees), Jonathan Sadowski (Wade), Julianna Guill (Bree), Ben Feldman (Richie), Arlen Escarpeta (Lawrence), Ryan Hansen (Nolan), and Willa Ford (Chelsea) Directed by Marcus Nispel.

Review: 

Admittedly, the Friday the 13th series is a mess worth looking into further when it comes to reliable cheap horror. Okay, maybe calling it "reliable cheap" is a swipe, but I've only managed to see exactly the first two films in the span of over ten years (where I apparently thought the first was better than Part 2) to go with the crossover Freddy vs. Jason (2003), and, well, they weren't exactly the most impressive. But people obviously care about this series since Sean S. Cunnigham first directed the original in 1980 (with the screenplay by Victor Miller), so why not consider the only other tradition hacked away from other horror movies: the remake? The three key producers behind the remake were Michael Bay, Andrew Form, and Brad Fuller for Platinum Dunes. The company had been behind the production of several horror films (with most of them being remakes), which started with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) that extended all the way down to doing remakes of The Amityville Horror in 2005 and The Hitcher in 2007 (a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street came in 2010, as you already might have guessed). Marcus Nispel, the director of the aforementioned Chainsaw remake, directed this one. Damian Shannon, Mark Swift, and Mark Wheaton wrote the story while Shannon and Swfit (behind the previous effort in Freddy vs. Jason) were credited for the screenplay. Paramount and New Line Cinema, who each owned parts of the franchise (due to the former having sold parts to the latter in 1989), served as part of this production. The movie was a hit with audiences, but somehow it did not lead to further installments, since Paramount and New Line (who was absorbed by Warner Bros. in 2008) apparently wanted to wait until the economy was better (while not wanting one to produce it without them) before more plans ended up being scuttled. A lawsuit by Miller for the rights to what he felt was owed as the writer of the original film did not help. A prequel television series is the latest thing "in development". 

Honestly, I didn't hate the film, because my expectations were low to begin with a film that technically isn't a remake if you consider that the first film's killer was not Jason Voorhees but blah blah blah. The film takes elements from the first few films (a vengeful mother murdering the campers in revenge for her son dying there, Jason going from wearing a sack on his head to the mask, know what I mean?).  It isn't much of a bloody spectacle when it comes to "being scary" or "being interesting". The one thing they apparently have done differently with the character of Jason Vorhees is to make him seem like a survivalist that defends his territory (complete with having his own marijuana plant farm). The film runs at a predictable 97 minutes (105 for the "Killer Cut"). Holiday camps and people that might lurk in the woods when you camp is scary to those who see stuff like this, I suppose, but even Sleepaway Camp (1983) made a better effort, and they didn't have digital effects for machetes. In their attempt to bring the series back to some sort of "basics", they basically have crafted a piece of meat that is in dire need of hard liquor to be edible. Sure, it may rank as "desirable" when it comes to comparing it to, say, the one where Jason went to Manhattan, but that is not a high bar. The highlight might be Yoo in comic relief of wandering around inebriated, strangely enough. You can't even say the adults (youths, whatever) are a detriment to the film, because they don't particularly annoy me here, it just happens that they have little substance to do anything noteworthy besides a few amusing lines (imagine a character calling someone's breasts "stupendous" and you get what I mean). You know exactly what you are coming for if you dig the previous films, but I'm not really sure you get anything really that fresh for fun besides references. The stuff with Voorhees having the edge of lurking around with survival instincts is at least semi-interesting, but the film only makes light movements to actually do anything resembling a scare, complete with needing a cheap jump scare ending. As a whole, the semblance of making new ideas is there, but one is seeing most of the same middling results in the most obvious ways that you would see from a "remake". There are better picks than this middle-middle film for horror.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

District 9.

Review #1959: District 9.

Cast: 

Sharlto Copley (Wikus van de Merwe), Jason Cope (Christopher Johnson / Grey Bradnam / Speaking Alien Voices / Cameraman Trent), David James (Colonel Koobus Venter), Vanessa Haywood (Tania Smit-van de Merwe), Mandla Gaduka (Fundiswa Mhlanga), Eugene Wanangwa Khumbanyiwa (Obesandjo), Louis Minnaar (Piet Smit), Kenneth Nkosi (Thomas), William Allen Young (Dirk Michaels), Nathalie Boltt (Sarah Livingstone), and Sylvaine Strike (Katrina McKenzie) Directed by Neill Blomkamp.

Review: 

"I don't know whether the film has that feeling or not for the audience, but I wanted it to have that harsh 1980s kind of vibe—I didn't want it to feel glossy and slick."

The important thing to say about this film by Neill Blomkamp is that it was his very first one. He was born in Johannesburg in South Africa, and his studies at Redhill High School in the city led him to meet Sharlto Copley (who had graduated from there a few years earlier). Blomkamp had a passion for 3D animation and design from a young age, and he struck a deal with Copley to do 3D work for pitches on projects for Copley's production company; Blomkamp moved to Vancouver to study at Vancouver Film School at the age of 18. Beginning in the late 1990s, he did a variety of animation work for various television shows and films, such as lead 3D animator for 3000 Miles to Graceland (2001). He also shot commercial work and shorts when not working, and it was a reel of his work that got the attention of Peter Jackson. One of those shorts was Alive in Joburg, which was a mockumentary short about aliens marooned in Johannesburg (Blomkamp asked questions to black South Africans about how they felt about Nigerians and Zimbabweans, which is where the idea came from about what would happen if there were aliens living in South Africa). Jackson soon tapped Blomkamp to try and direct a film adaptation of the Halo video game series; the result was nothing short of failure, but Jackson was willing to work with Blomkamp on something else in mind, with Jackson serving as producer. Blomkamp wrote the film with his production partner and wife Terri Tatchell. Since the release of this film nearly fifteen years ago in August 2009, Blomkamp has directed three further films with Elysium (2013), Chappie (2015), and Demonic (2021).

The film takes inspiration from "District Six", an actual residential area in South Africa (specifically Cape Town), which had seen thousands of people be forcibly removed beginning in 1966 during the apartheid era of the country to make way for white people (this was a country that had three different Group Areas Acts that dealt with racial groups living in certain places only); a museum resides in the area, along with a plaque. The film even had shooting done in an area that just saw people moved from an area of impoverished housing (Chiawelo, in Johannesburg). As such, Blomkamp has made a film that shows the effects of social engineering within communities that basically turns into hell. In that sense, one could argue it is not only a science fiction action film but also a horror feature. After all, there is a considerable body-count that comes from the consequences of trying to segregate others. Xenophobia action films that also feature a mechanized battle suit and booming alien weapons make for a neat combination. The aliens in the film remind one of crickets, and the phrase used to refer to them is "prawn". Granted, prawns are actually small species of sea creatures, but the Parktown prawn (also known as the African king cricket or tusked king cricket) is a species of cricket that is generally held in low regard in Africa. Of course, not everyone was big on this film. Did you know Nigeria banned the film? Apparently they took it really seriously that Nigerians would eat aliens, proving that there are people easily irritated by any sort of slight anywhere (this also works for so-called most "white savior" articles). Simply put: it's a movie about seeing just how folks all around the world could unite in their hatred of the other and the result of when push comes to shove.

For the "documentary" sequences, Copley (who had never acted in a professional feature before) ad-libbed all of his lines, and Cope did improvisation as well, specifically with the eviction sequences. Copley does well within the reaches of the performance requires, which desires someone who can pull off a growing sense of humanity even when he starts to look less like it. He has the timing to pull it off, endearing in both sides that come from this personality, whether that is the bumbling bureaucrat or the frenzied creature on the run. Cope accompanies him with varying levels of performance that is meant to strike a different chord from the usual alien visitor on the run type, which works to the idea of the film of portraying creatures that are murky in their own motivations (i.e. they seem both humane and disgusting). Grimy aliens and slimier humans is a worthy path to see in a film, you know. James and Khumbanyiwa both play the dark side of absolute belief in what they want (which involve the creatures, obviously), which makes their eventual fate all the most satisfying since they make quality adversaries. The rest of the cast is fine, even if they come and go within the bits and pieces of "found footage", but one is here for the 112-minute runtime in seeing quality CG effects go together with a fairly compelling story. The third act involving a round of shoot-out action is probably the most standard part of the film, but it is always nice to see visualized pushback within an inevitable closing point for a sci-fi film (in other words, action doesn't stifle my excitement for material as long as it is done right, as opposed to just being a bland puddle). A sequel has been teased for years (the ending of the film sort of teases an idea or two, in a messy sort of sense) but time will tell if there is a return to a district of creatures of aliens and humans that may be more alike than they believe. As a whole, it is a worthy first start for its director in terms of quality storytelling filled with wrenching imagination that is executed with most of the right beats for entertainment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Halloween II (2009).

Review #1751: Halloween II (2009)

Cast: 

Scout Taylor-Compton (Laurie Strode), Malcolm McDowell (Samuel Loomis), Tyler Mane (Michael Myers; with Chase Wright Vanek as Younger version), Sheri Moon Zombie (Deborah Myers), Brad Dourif (Sheriff Lee Brackett), Danielle Harris (Annie Brackett), Brea Grant (Mya Rockwell), Howard Hesseman (Uncle Meat), Angela Trimbur (Harley David), Mary Birdsong (Nancy McDonald), Daniel Roebuck (Big Lou), Jeff Daniel Phillips (Howard Boggs and Seymour Coffins), Sylvia Jefferies (Misty Dawn), Bill Fagerbakke (Deputy Webb), Richard Brake (Gary Scott), Dayton Callie (Coroner Hooks), and Margot Kidder (Barbara Collier) Directed by Rob Zombie (#743 - Halloween (2007) and #1590 - House of 1000 Corpses)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember a film like this. After all, it isn't like there are numerous timelines to consider for a series involving the exploits of a masked killer slowly going around and mowing folks from a little town called Haddonfield (which may or may not involve more than one sibling of the Myers family). Well, sort of. Not only was this the last Halloween film for nine years, it was also the second and final feature in Rob Zombie's interpretation of Michael Myers with his offbeat style of filmmaking, which is covered in plenty of gritty violence (and shots) alongside certain narrative and casting choices (and yes, Weird Al). Honestly, it has probably been too long since I watched Zombie's original attempt at re-inventing the series (six years), but the one point that stuck with me is in how sloppy it ended up being with actually being a meaningful different step from what had been done in the past eight Halloween films in trying to make the character scary again (the cynical answer would have been to not make one for like ten or twenty years in order to make folks forget). Its interpretation of Myers in origins is still ridiculous to ponder, if only because I am reminded that it was essentially an extended segue of what had happened before (which took less than fifteen minutes) that took away the mystique of what was merely just a force of nature, with John Carpenter even saying as much when asked about it years later. Of course, I do wonder if it felt so ridiculously built in overt "edginess" like its sequel ends up being, what with the whole "Charlie Manson on someone's wall" thing. Hell, would it surprise you that each film had an unrated Director's Cut - given the offbeat track record of Dimension Films, who can blame him? 

Zombie apparently wanted to kill everybody off in this film, as if to seal the idea of no third movie (the second movie made $39 million back on a $15 million budget, but an attempt at a "3D" film came and went), with producer Malek Akkad giving Zombie his blessing to try and not follow the rules that he had put for the previous film; in that sense, only Myers in the main trio seems to not be affected in terms of Zombie wanting to go...Zombie (sure, hallucinating seems different, but...no).  Of course, there is one thing to consider: the original Halloween II (1981) wasn't very good (of course, the family angle, thought of by Carpenter and Hill, was later called "foolish" by Carpenter himself), so what do you expect from this film? The movie differs considerably depending on what you see: the Theatrical Cut is 105 minutes long while the Unrated Cut is 119 minutes, which includes alternative footage to go with re-cuts, with the most notable difference being that the Laurie character spirals downward right from the jump (as opposed to being less off the bend in the Theatrical version, which had the setting as one year later as opposed to two)...and of course the ending is altered. You know you are not on a good track when you start with a dream sequence. Regardless if it is there to add suspense, gore, or whatever, it is the easiest moment to generate eyerolls in preposterous-ness. If the first film managed to have plenty of brutality while perhaps being at the cost of suspense, you sure won't see much change here. Being an uncompromising film only works if I actually care about what is going on. The strangest thing is this: it somehow manages to be more interesting than the original remake...but it also is easier to make fun of, one for folks who want to see how much a director can go up their own...you get the idea. If Zombie wanted to make a trashy movie with weird aspects completely different from what was, he surely accomplished it with an assortment of aspects that I'm sure you will all "appreciate", such as weirdos talking about adventures with corpses, Margot Kidder playing a psychiatrist, music at a concert that will make you appreciate listening to Zombie's stuff instead, the aforementioned white horse, and a movie where the only folks to like are either because of camp value (McDowell) or in small amounts (Dourif and Harris). This is the kind of movie that is perfect bait for even the smug to pick at, particularly ones who don't care to look into the psyche of every main focus. The problem is that I fit into the latter category, but I do fit into the category of making fun of terrible movies, so there is that. Besides, the last interesting idea that this series ever had was the climax of Halloween 4...which was two decades ago.

Taylor-Compton does what she can with material that surely must be interesting to consider depending on which version you see: one where she eventually goes nuts, or one that is pretty much nuts from the drop. It just so happens that it isn't as interesting as the movie thinks it is in actually latching on to her perspective, which mostly involves screaming. Strangely enough, Halloween (2018) would try its own angle in the eyes of trauma with Laurie, which I imagine has inspired its own curiosity and detractors. Oh look, a Rob Zombie movie with Sheri Moon Zombie, who would have ever guessed? Hell, she randomly shows up time to time as a hallucination (which when paired with "hobo Michael" is quite the contrast) that results in bemusement more than anything. True, one probably can't imitate Donald Pleasance and his character of Dr. Loomis for very long without seeming pale. So, why not have McDowell play him like he was Dr. Phil? It is amusing in a cynical way, if only because McDowell seems exactly the type to play an odd role in a movie teetering on the edge of mismatched-ness, but his scene-chewing in the name of ego is far more interesting than hearing a plethora of one certain curse word to go along with boring folks in edgy stuff (of course, his turn in the climax is probably a bit too late). What I mean about "edgy" is that there are certain times when the movie seems to be trying to make a point about how an attack affects everyone around them...it just ends up with the resonance of a "uh huh, that's nice dear." Dourif and Harris are experienced enough with these kind of movies, and that is likely why they probably resonate better than most of the folks present here, in that they actually rate well to the generic stuff present without being crushed by it. Well, of course, there is Mane to consider in whatever he is meant to be doing with the whole derelict composure thing with Michael, which is more amusing than anything (in a series full of offbeat scenes with the character to begin with). As a whole, Halloween II is a mess, one made by Zombie with the intent of saying...something...about the dynamic that comes from a killer and his target that seem more alike than at first glance while looking on the shift of all involved since that one terrible night on Halloween. Of course, Halloween (1978) succeeded best not because it tried to explain anything, but because it executed shock in a way that had not been seen by audiences of the time. Halloween II (2009) only accomplishes the notion that having an offbeat flawed interpretation of its main character is still a flawed interpretation, regardless how much curiosity one has for a "different" follow-up when compared to the other features past and present.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars. 

Happy Halloween. I'm sure you folks are having a wonderful time in the holiday season, and I hope you enjoyed seeing 23 reviews in 31 days. Of course, we're not quite done yet with horror, so sit back for Halloween: The Week After Part 3, which will cover horror films as it says on the tin (until November 7th). Who knows what should come up...

Next Time: Halloween Kills.

Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Review #1553: Fantastic Mr. Fox.

Cast: 
George Clooney (Mr. Fox), Meryl Streep (Felicity Fox), Jason Schwartzman (Ash Fox), Bill Murray (Clive Badger), Willem Dafoe (Rat), Michael Gambon (Franklin Bean), Owen Wilson (Coach Skip), Wallace Wolodarsky (Kylie), Eric Anderson (Kristofferson Silverfox), Jarvis Cocker (Petey), Wes Anderson (Stan Weasel), Robin Hurlstone (Walter Boggis), and Hugo Guinness (Nathan Bunce) Directed by Wes Anderson.

Review: 
"I like to do things that are a little surrealistic but with characters who are real. So that, even if things are a little unusual, the emotions will come through anyway.”

The auteur filmmaker is one that knows and controls his style to create a distinct film of his own merit. Wes Anderson certainly has proven himself worthy of the label alongside a variety of others with his level of filmmaking. The native Texan made films from a young age - making his first films with a Super-8 camera. He liked films such as Star Wars and directors like Alfred Hitchcock, even working as a projectionist when studying philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin. In 1992, he directed a short film with friend Owen Wilson called Bottle Rocket (which he wrote with Wilson that was inspired by films like Mean Streets). A submission to the Sundance Film Festival (which James L. Brooks, upon viewing it was "dazzled" by) resulted in an opportunity to direct a feature film based on the short (with time spent re-working the script and filming) - released in 1996, it received notice but was not an audience hit. His next film in Rushmore (1998) proved more successful; after these two films, he already had one significant fan in Martin Scorsese (who called both films "very funny, but also very moving"). His subsequent films have received a good deal of notice that have made for nine released features in nearly 25 films of filmmaking. Anderson is noted for his distinct style of films, which he described as "very personal movies in a way", built with quirks in his characters and with the choices of music and look of each film, while also featuring a variety of recurring actors (such as Schwartzman, Murray, Dafoe, Wolodarsky, and Wilson). For this film (which he co-wrote with Noah Baumbach along with serving as co-producer), it would be done in stop-motion animation with figurines that were made out of fur (with tailored clothing of fabric that he designed himself).

Sometimes a film can be just a bit more than just a fine adaptation of another work. This was based off the 1970 children's novel of the same name by Roald Dahl (who many will recognize as writer of works such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Matilda, and The BFG, each of which I read as a child) - it was apparently the first book Anderson remembers owning. The film is mostly faithful to the novel, aside from having a focus on the relation of Mr. Fox to his family (which cut the four children to one) that expands upon the narrative (in other words, more than just a fox stealing chickens from a bunch of weirdos), in addition to a tweaking of the ending and a few added scenes. Sure, one could have the voices done in the booth, or they could have them done at a farmhouse as is the case here with such a marvelous film like this proves to be. It never wavers from delivering an interesting story with plenty of whimsy and skill with performances to go along with entertaining voices and design that make a wonderful classic worth 88 minutes. It all falls first to Clooney, who does quite well in brimming confidence that weaves interest and curiosity that generate subtle amusement fitting for that particular timing and character. Streep goes along with reserved grace that makes a well-tuned chemistry with Clooney in their scenes shared together. Schwartzman does well in generating interesting angst and smart remarks for when it is necessary that drives the film in those careful moments handled with his counterpart in E. Anderson (illustrator and author, who had made cameo appearances in his brother's films). Murray makes a few funny moments count without needing to hear too much of him badger on, while Dafoe equally makes his dandy moments count well in amusement. The film hits its stride early and never lets go in examining the nature of longing, alienation, and ultimately togetherness within a worthwhile adventure. I am dazzled by the animation of the film, as it looks quite intricate and rightly executed in creating a world of dazzling charm and palate (with a distinct lack of blues or greens) that never looks excessively gaudy or too much for enjoyment. I like the entertainment it brought to a charming work that honors the original book with its own flourish of humor and narrative for a resplendent achievement for animation alongside its era and director.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

A Serious Man.

Review #1552: A Serious Man.

Cast: 
Michael Stuhlbarg (Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik), Richard Kind (Arthur Gopnik), Fred Melamed (Sy Ableman), Sari Lennick (Judith Gopnik), Aaron Wolff (Danny Gopnik), Jessica McManus (Sarah Gopnik), Alan Mandell (Rabbi Marshak), Adam Arkin (Don Milgram), George Wyner (Rabbi Nachtner), and Amy Landecker (Mrs. Vivienne Samsky) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, and #1517 - The Big Lebowski)

Review: 
"There were Jewish characters, but in regards to whether our background influences our film making who knows? We don't think about it. There's no doubt that our Jewish heritage affects how we see things."

It all started out with an idea for a short. The Coens envisioned a short film that would be about a conversation between a kid has with an elder rabbi that they described as a sort of "mysterious figure" after his bar mitzvah. Naturally this would spiral into  Some of the characters present in the film had inspiration from people the Coens knew growing up in Minnesota (such as with Melamed's character), with this taking place in 1967 (being shot in Bloomington but set in the Coens' birthplace of St. Louis Park) that reflect their upbringing in spirituality in study as children (Ethan once described wanting to explore the "incongruity" of Jews living in the Midwest as its own "strange subculture" - interpret that however you will). This is their 14th feature film together, which like most of their previous work they also served as editor for in a decade that was their busiest and most prominent as directors/writers/editors/producers (seven in total, which ranged from crime drama to dark comedy).

Sometimes you just have a film where the amusement comes in wincing at what is going on, where certainties and perceptions are never what one might think are coming, particularly when needing answers that suit tradition. Sometimes it all comes down to having one bump in the road turning out to spiral into something way worse, as perspective gives way to irony. Paradox and ambiguity are at the forefront here in a film that reaches as darkly amusing at times, one that will likely benefit from a re-watch for those who find its mesh of fictional and autobiographical work to prove a useful fable that fits upon telling (supposedly helpful) fables of its own involving dybbuks and symbols, which go hand-in-hand with moments that range from attempts at avoid bribes/blackmail to strange neighbors. This was the first starring role in film for Stuhlbarg, who had been acting in the theater since 1992 and in minor film + TV roles since 1998. He does quite well with a role that almost seems to be an observer in his own story, capturing pathos with a well-infused sense of anguish and confusion that manages to reflect well for a viewer in what is found and not found with him to look upon without having to spelled out for us. He reflects the alienation and hollow charade that can come from the conflict of certainty versus mystery of life, one who has been described as fitting the mold of the Book of Job (a Hebrew Bible book on divine wisdom and suffering) that might as well fit into a parable for the times now, which he does with well reflection. Kind makes for an interesting creature of habit in his time on screen, one that reflects his on-screen brother with careful and distinct sad quality. Melamed utilizes his time as a greatly captured creature of smug confidence, warm to the point of overheating that makes an amusing curiosity. Lennick fits the mold of no-nonsense interest that gravitates towards said serious folks with brazen confidence. Wolff and McManus do fine as the children of their own path of life and spirit, while Wyner provides the best laugh in the whole film in a scene near the end and Landecker does well in one elusive scene. The ending is as offbeat and elusive as the mysteries that came before it, which certainly will be interesting for those who find it worthwhile to fit its revolving message of mystery without needing a direct answer (or for others something of a cypher). It is a peculiar movie, fitting best for those with prior experience with the films of the Coen brothers or for those who like something with its own way of telling a story about mystery and certainty that work itself just well enough for satisfaction in the long run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Inglourious Basterds.

Review #1551: Inglourious Basterds.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain), Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux), Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz), Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox), Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark), Daniel Brühl (Pfc. Fredrick Zoller), Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz), Gedeon Burkhard (Corporal Wilhelm Wicki), Jacky Ido (Marcel), B. J. Novak (Pfc. Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich), Omar Doom (Pfc. Omar Ulmer), Samm Levine (Pfc. Gerold Hirschberg), and August Diehl (Dieter Hellstrom) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and #1307 - Jackie Brown)

Review: 
"Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with - except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again."

Doing a Quentin Tarantino film can be quite an experience, depending on one's moods for his particular style towards filmmaking that have made him an interesting auteur with ten released features in the span of over two decades, which are generally known for their handling of violence, ensemble casting and drawing upon films and other media. Tarantino spent ten years writing the film, but he apparently could not come up with an ending at first. He has stated his desire to make a spaghetti western but as a World War II film, one that could forward the war-mission subgenre with more artistic movement. Of course he also believes that the opening chapter of the film was the best thing he had written since True Romance (1993), so cut it however you like it.

It's rather amazing with all the spectacle and time built into making a 153 minute film that goes where it wants with dual stories (alongside a significant amount of dialogue spoken in Italian, French, and German) and many actors making an appearance (such as a brief nod for Rod Taylor and Mike Myers, believe it or not) that it all comes down to being remarkably average. I don't really know what I was expecting, but while I found some of it fairly enjoyable when it comes to exploitation material, other parts seem to go on for quite a bit longer than they really should and it really seems like a case of too much boldness where it needs to be less. His films are definitely ones that could desire multiple viewings, but I really didn't latch onto this one that much to really think I'll go back and just look on it again anytime soon (which is strange, since I re-watched his subsequent film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and actually liked it better than I already did, and that also is a sprawling film involving alternate history). For something that aspires for sprawling story, it really feels like two hollow ends of the same instrument. Pitt leads the film with reasoned edge, confident in exactly what is needed for someone needing to deal in blunt vengeance. Somehow, Laurent didn't really seemed to connect well here, as if somehow one desires more interest in the other structure of revenge than passiveness that really didn't make as much an impression as I might've liked, which is probably important with the whole "let's burn it all down" time spent - she might be shown as bigger-than-life, but it sure doesn't translate to a big factor of focus. Of course this could also apply to Fassbender or Kruger as well, since they both feature in a whole sequence involving accents, a guessing game, and exactly what you might expect in tedium. Waltz is the best part of the whole film, honestly. It seems strange that of a diverse grab-bag of international actors that it is the one involved in television and film since the late 1970s (in either German or English language) as a native of Austria that outranks the rest, capturing a great adversary of courteous and sardonic skill. Roth (occasional actor and director of films such as Cabin Fever) makes the most impression of the title characters, mostly because of a bravado to go with a big swing.

I have given a bit of slack to films that resonate in entertainment despite perhaps lacking in depth. For this, I just can't really give this that much to grab on because I feel that it is just okay at actually executing itself in boldness beyond a few tricks of war films past and an attempt at making revenge and action seem more than it really is. It brandishes itself in camp and fervor that does do fine with some of its sequences in generating shock or a bit of smile, and the opening sequence is at the very least a useful to set itself up on the right track. Pitt and Waltz do enough to carry a film in casual interest of sidestepping history that mostly make up for a film with flickering energy to actually land its convictions and passion it yearns to have, but it certainly could provide a curiosity for those interested in its presentation and its vision to get there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Serious Moonlight.

Review #1259: Serious Moonlight.

Cast: 
Meg Ryan (Louise), Timothy Hutton (Ian), Kristen Bell (Sara), Justin Long (Todd), Nathan Dean (Detective), Andy Ostroy (Police Officer), Kimberlee Peterson (Trashy Girl), Derek Carter (Man #1), and Bill Parks (Man #2) Directed by Cheryl Hines.

Review: 
Some movies are just meant to stay in the movie bin. This isn't even a case of just being dreadful - this is a movie is too lame for even ironic watching like someone could do for Troll 2. The film can be summed up through three questions: Where is the comedy? Who thought this would be a good idea? Why is the film predictably pathetic? The best answer I have for any of these questions is this: Someone really thought this was going to work. This was written by the late Adrienne Shelly, who had written/directed/co-starred with Hines in Waitress (2007), with her widow being one of the producers of this film. This was shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in early 2009 before being acquired by Magnolia Pictures, who released it through their Ultra Video on Demand program one month before theatrical release. I am curious to wonder how many people decided to check this out on the streaming platform (barf) out of curiosity and how long they lasted before shutting it off. It amazes me that one can make an 84 minute movie seem interminable to go through. This is evidently a black comedy, and I say evidently in the loosest sense because it is roughly at the enjoyment level of lemon juice squeezed right onto your face in terms of humor. It is a film that is filled with contrivances in order to drive a romance angle that never really takes off - maybe there could be something funny about taping up your husband until he is persuaded that he still loves you and not his mistress, too bad this isn't the one to do it with. I shouldn't have been surprised that this scheme actually works, but maybe I really thought someone facing consequences for something so stupid could actually lead to a laugh. Obviously I should know better from a film with a title not to be confused with a David Bowie concert tour.

Who does one blame for such a blandly derivative film? You really can't blame the quartet of actors saddled with this material, who either got a memo to scream in every other scene or just really thought this was the way to go. Ryan (years removed from mediocre rom-coms like Sleepless in Seattle) is stuck in such a thankless position, where the dubious honor of trying to serenade her husband with a guitar is compounded by him being taped to a toilet after being knocked out (again). She is meant to have some sort of high-strung energy, but it never really comes out in a useful way to make me care. Hutton (spending most of his time acting from a toilet, a sentence for which I have to compose myself before I collapse from laughing) is similarly stuck with either having to shout or trying to be snide, which could be funny if the film wanted to do so. After all, it is just these two for over half the film. To say nothing of Bell, energetic yet not in the film enough to make more laughs. Long playing a robber sounds like a punchline already, but he mostly spends his time either hitting Hutton or lazily robbing them with his friends, which isn't as fun as it sounds. It gets stuck between the gear of sentimentality and cynicism and never gets out, where the direction and the script harmonize into ridiculousness that disappoints and irritates the audience at once. Nothing ever feels like it matters, with no real sense of consequences in any sense to be found. Why should I care about this loveless marriage and the attempts to revive it? Why should I care about them being tied up in their own house? Why make an implication with the ending about the couple seeing the robbers in the street after reconciling if you won't actually go anywhere with it? Is this really a film that needed to end before it even reached 90 minutes? As the questions ride over my head like a never-ending drumbeat, I can only say that this is the weakest kind of terrible movie - a whimpering and pathetic piece that can be mocked to oblivion and still have the insolence to linger there in its defeated state until the magnifying glass is taken off. The best thing to say for this film isn't to yammer about how awful it is for an essay longer than needed - if you see it sitting somewhere on a shelf or as an option on a streaming service (again, barf), just ignore it. By not watching it, you've saved those minutes for something better. Whether spent alone surfing the Internet, or spending time at work, or spending time with friends (whichever seems realistic), Serious Moonlight makes the case for appreciating doing those things more often as opposed to seeing the film more than zero times.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.

Redux: Star Trek (2009).

Redux Review #009: Star Trek.

Cast: 
Chris Pine (James T. Kirk), Zachary Quinto (Spock), Leonard Nimoy (Spock Prime), Eric Bana (Captain Nero), Bruce Greenwood (Christopher Pike), Karl Urban (Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy), Zoe Saldaña (Nyota Uhura), Simon Pegg (Montgomery "Scotty" Scott), John Cho (Hikaru Sulu), Anton Yelchin (Pavel Chekov), Ben Cross (Sarek), Winona Ryder (Amanda Grayson), Clifton Collins, Jr. (Ayel), Chris Hemsworth (George Kirk), and Jennifer Morrison (Winona Kirk) Directed by J. J. Abrams.

Review: 
On December 20, 2010, I covered Star Trek (2009). As is the case with any of the reviews from Season One, while I do feel the rating is probably still accurate to what I feel now as opposed to then, it does feel appropriate to revisit this film, since it has been ten years since its release on May 8, 2009. Hope you folks enjoy - live long and prosper.

It goes without saying that Star Trek is a cultural phenomenon. It has endured for over a half-century in part because of how entertaining it has proven itself to be with a balance of adventure and intelligence throughout its several incarnations. While the original series was cancelled after just three seasons in 1969, it proved to be a hit in syndication, leading to an eventual feature film and a subsequent film franchise. From 1979 to 2002, ten films were released into theaters, six covering the original cast and four with the cast of the third Star Trek show, Star Trek: The Next Generation, which began in 1987. From that year onto 2005, there was at least one Star Trek series on television, with four series coming and going before the cancellation of Star Trek: Enterprise. That, alongside the previous failure of Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) led to a pursuit for a different direction of the franchise, with Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (writers of Mission: Impossible III alongside J. J. Abrams) brought in to help write a new film, with Abrams initially being brought in as producer. However, he subsequently accepted Paramount Pictures' offer to serve as director, owing to how he felt about the duo's script, describing it in an interview as "...so emotional and so relatable". It is evident to see that Abrams has a passion for entertainment, even if he described himself as someone who was not a particularly a big fan of the original show. He wanted to make a movie that any sort of fan can be interested in without becoming a shell of itself or becoming too absorbed in references. The idea of making a prequel wasn't new to Star Trek, since plans for an Academy Years film was thought up after the failure of the fifth film in 1989, although it was soon scrapped, and the aforementioned Enterprise show was set a century prior to the original. This film tries to have a balance with its time travel aspects and its usage of Nimoy to bridge the past into making a new, somewhat familiar future, which works itself out more often than not.

Undeniably, the film hinges on the dynamic of Pine and Quinto and their characters, with the film building itself up towards them being in the film together. I found myself more interested in the sequence with a young Spock and Sarek than the part with young Kirk, since it felt more impactful to the nature of the plot dynamic, seeing how the former is one of two worlds where the other has had better moments. By the time the plot kicks in, one does get a hold for most of these characters without too many objections (whether fan or not). Pine, trying to not find himself playing a shadow of the original Kirk played by William Shatner, comes off as fairly charming to be around with, fitting right in with the adventure and delivering some of the heroic qualities one would expect, as brash and confident as one can be. Quinto, who has the interesting proposition of trying to fit themselves in as a character while being passed the torch by the previous actor, proves quite capable. He delivers a measured performance, as calm and logical as per the standard while maintaining both human and alien nature that plays off well when with others like Pine, where the seeds of a friendship get well cultivated by the film. When Nimoy appears (feeling as a mix of fan-service and a way to deliver exposition), it does sure feel nice to see him back again, seeming just as in-step with his calm exterior and logic as ever when he is on screen. Bana makes for an okay villain, but he feels underscored when compared to the things around him. His ultimate plan never really seems to come into focus as much as it should. It is clear to see that they want to make a villain just as threatening as Khan from the second film, but they can't quite make someone worth being around. Greenwood carries his weight for the first half quite nicely, encouraging and reliable at once. Urban does well with recreating the abrasive yet amusing nature of his role without too much trouble, feeling right at home for his time on screen. Saldana proves to be a fine match to go alongside the others, as is the case with Pegg, Cho, and Yelchin, who each get their little moments into shine without seeming lost in the background. Instead of a 1960s take on how the 23rd century would be with regard to space travel, now it is a 2009 take, with plenty of lighting choices to go around alongside other things. It certainly is an interesting movie to look at, having plenty of interesting effects (and enough lens flare to point out and likely stair or make fun of) that makes this a well-done spectacle while having enough of a grip with a capable if not flawed plot (in the age of the Internet one could have a bit of day with its usage of black holes); it manages to have a strong foundation while lingering forward in its middle and closing out strongly enough to make a winner. It sets out to please both fans of the original and curious newcomers and does well with its intentions, finding a middle ground that inspires some joy, a little bit of laughs (mostly intentional), but also a pursuit to see where it could go from there, maintaining the spirit of curiosity and wonder from before without being lost in spectacle or technobabble. It works as a recommendation for newcomers and fans looking for a new frontier to set their eyes on.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Messenger (2009).

Review #1133: The Messenger.

Cast: 
Ben Foster (Sgt. Will Montgomery), Woody Harrelson (Capt. Tony Stone), Samantha Morton (Olivia Pitterson), Jena Malone (Kelly), Steve Buscemi (Dale Martin), Yaya DaCosta (Monica Washington), and Eamonn Walker (LtCol. Stuart Dorsett) Directed by Oren Moverman.

Review: 
It feels hard to face the truth at times. The realities of life and how people deal with their actions and consequences can make for an interesting subject for a film to confront. With this film, the main focus in on casualty notification officers, with the main two being a trainee and his mentor, as they try to do their job - no matter how hard it may be, whether for the notifier or the person being notified. There is a dark but driving feel to the reality that it shows for these two and the people that they encounter in their mission that justifies its existence through a 113 minute run-time. It may fall a bit with pacing at times, but there is a sense of duty to tell a story worth wanting to see, being factual and punctual with showing emotion that never feels cynically manufactured in its episodic nature. Foster and Harrelson make for an interesting pair to follow with, where they are faced with trying to do the job they are assigned to do within the standards of the role while dealing with their own story-lines. Foster does a fine job with what he is given, balancing the trauma the character has to deal with while dealing the newfangled reality of his assignment - particularly the people he encounters. Harrelson stands out the most among the cast, having a hardened edge of sincerity and intensity that invites us to look at him with a inquisitive lens that keeps the movie moving along. Morton does fine with what's she is given for a role that occasionally invites focus of interest, and her chemistry with Foster is somewhat present, making for a few fair moments. Buscemi, with a presence of probably less than ten minutes on screen, does fine with showing a good range of emotion as one of the receivers of news from the main group. The movie is at its finest when trying to show honestly with the rough nature of the main duo's job, which makes the first half work a bit better than the second half, which isn't as too held together. The film has a few cliches to it, but it isn't anything that makes the material come off as anything other than fairly watchable. It isn't the kind of movie that had much success upon original release, having a limited run in few theaters before making just over a million dollars on a $6.5 million budget, although it did receive nominations for numerous awards, such as Best Original Screenplay at the Academy Awards for writers Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman and Best Supporting Actor for Harrelson; in any case, this is a fairly decent film that manages to pull enough emotional honesty and focus from its main two actors to pull a victory out, and I'm sure it will work just fine for people in the mindset for something a bit different for a war drama.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Moon.

Review #1010: Moon.

Cast: 
Sam Rockwell (Sam Bell), Kevin Spacey (GERTY), Dominique McElligott (Tess Bell), Kaya Scodelario (Eve Bell), Benedict Wong (Thompson), Matt Berry (Overmeyers), and Malcolm Stewart (The Technician) Directed by Duncan Jones.

Review: 
In terms of science fiction, the genre is certainly interesting for how diverse and how thought provoking it can be with its use of imaginative and futuristic concepts. It's clear that Moon wants to be like some of the classic sci-fi films, such as Silent Running (#091) or 2001: A Space Odyssey (#093), with its own touch of humanity and intelligence. Made on a budget of $5 million, this is an efficient movie that showcases its ideas and never looks off for the most part. Rockwell is the only actor physically on-screen, and he certainly takes good advantage of that, having a fairly outstanding time with this role. If you don't find him to be all that effective to root for or care about, you likely won't have much of a good time with the film, and I will admit that it took me a while to get into the film fully, but it earns its moments with Rockwell fairly well. Spacey does a fine job with this sentient computer role, being slightly creepy but also effective.

I can't really delve into the plot details too much, because doing so would spoil the mystery and fun of seeing it for oneself, but I will say that it is interesting to watch unfold on screen, having a fine pace that certainly rolls itself coherently for my taste. I will admit that the scenes with the hallucinations are a bit odd, mainly because I feel that they don't really go that well with the rest of the plot, feeling a bit out-of-place with what the film wants to be. At 97 minutes, it is fairly paced, with some suspense that does take its time but ultimately feels worthy. The miniature model work is pretty good, having a look and feel that works while having a nice-looking quality to it that fits well with the movie. On the whole, this is a very well made movie, utilizing its human elements and fine movie-making by Jones in his directorial debut that works more often than not in being good science fiction that simply lets you wonder.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

Review #940: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs.

Cast: 
Bill Hader (Flint Lockwood), Anna Faris (Sam Sparks), James Caan (Tim Lockwood), Neil Patrick Harris (Steve the Monkey), Bruce Campbell (Mayor Shelbourne), Andy Samberg (Brent McHale), Mr. T (Officer Earl Devereaux), Bobb'e J. Thompson (Calvin "Cal" Devereaux), Benjamin Bratt (Manny), and Al Roker (Patrick Patrickson) Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (#540 - The Lego Movie and #568 - 21 Jump Street)

Review: 
The last time that I had reviewed an animated movie was back in December (with Beauty and the Beast - #891), so it is welcome to review a film that is from a different animation studio - Sony Pictures Animation. This is based off the children's book of the same name, which I remember reading quite fondly when I was a child; obviously the movie takes liberties with the source material (with the food falling from the sky being from a machine being one example), but can it manage to pull off delicious entertainment (pardon the pun)? To put it lightly, it works just fine. Hader and Faris shine just fine as leads, having a fair amount of chemistry while also being fairly interesting in their own ways; Hader's character treads on familiar grounds, but he manages to give the character enough likability and charm, especially when on screen with Faris' character, who is equally engaging to watch. The father-son dynamic between Hader and Caan goes around the same lines that you'd expect from these kind of movies, though at least it isn't broadly annoying. Campbell does a fine job at showing the gluttony of the de facto antagonist of the movie (unless you count an abundance of food as an adversary); the supporting cast is pretty likable, with Harris, Samberg and Mr. T being capable highlights. The highlight of the film is the animation, which is bright and colorful but it fits for the movie; seeing burgers come out of the sky while the sky becomes a shade of purple is quite nice to look at (alongside other shots of fun foods, like ice cream). It isn't a movie without much emotional punch, but there is enough entertainment and moments of charm and food (so much food) within its 90 minute run-time to make a capable movie. Is it something to the caliber up something like Up (#288, released months before this film)? Not quite, but not everything needs to be that kind of gem; sometimes the best thing to watch (or eat) is a nice tasty digestible burger (or movie). Bottom line, this is a capable little film worth at least checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Bride Wars.

Review #630: Bride Wars.

Cast
Kate Hudson (Olivia Lerner), Anne Hathaway (Emma Allen), Candice Bergen (Marion St. Claire), Chris Pratt (Fletcher Flemson), Bryan Greenberg (Nathan Lerner), Steve Howey (Daniel Williams), Kristen Johnston (Deb), and Michael Arden (Kevin) Directed by Gary Winick.

Review
Zzzzzzzzzzz....hmm? Oh sorry, I was busy sleeping, it seems I decided to take a nap after watching this film, hoping to find my happy place. It didn't work. The movie is rarely entertaining but its worst problem is the lack of fun you get with these characters. I guess these characters were supposed to change over time as the movie goes on, though that really doesn't happen. The whole movie rides on a clerical error. Actually, I take that back, it rides on the stubbornness on one of these characters simply changing their wedding venue or just having a double wedding, instead they morph into vengeful people who do pranks on the other one that are less funny and more head-shaking, as explained above. The supporting cast is mediocre, I'm surprised that the main characters aren't too angry (or suing it for that matter) at the wedding planner even though it is responsible for this "war" occurring. This is at heart a boring movie that makes me wonder how sleep doesn't help me find that happy place. At least the next movie (and review) will be better than this, I promise you that. Zzzzzzzzz.....

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Avatar (2009).

Review #388: Avatar.

Cast
Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Zoe Saldaña (Neytiri), Stephen Lang (Miles Quaritch), Sigourney Weaver (Dr. Grace Augustine), Michelle Rodriguez (Trudy Chacón), Giovanni Ribisi (Parker Selfridge), Joel David Moore (Norm Spellman), and Dileep Rao (Max Patel) Directed by James Cameron (#001 - Terminator 2: Judgement Day, #063 - The Terminator)

Review
When this film was about to come out, I had never heard so much hype before. And keep in mind, it has been four years since the film was released, and I barely just got to reviewing this. So, after all this hype, does it live up to in a satisfactory way? Sort of. It does have good effects at points, which do work to its advantage, but effects aren't everything. The characters...aren't are as good as the effects. The flaw I think is evident in this film is the way the characters are portrayed, which is easily summed up like this: "The hero with a "unknown" secret" to "unlikable brute". There are of course scientists, but the film somewhat follows the Scientist Rule, which means that if you have a scientist in your film, he/she will either be ignored by a important character which proves to be important. While the characters may not have that much depth to them, the actors at least are alright. Maybe it's just me, but my favorite actress in this film is Sigourney Weaver, doing another good job in a film reviewed here. Someone once described this film as "Dances with Smurfs", and after seeing this, I can't argue against that. The film has spectacle, but this film sometimes hammers its message too much, the character sometimes feel a bit generic. Does it have anything good? Sure, but this is not a great film by any means. It's not Star Wars (1977), more of a Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: 9.

Review #321: 9.

Cast
Elijah Wood (9), Jennifer Connelly (7), John C. Reilly (5), Crispin Glover (6), Christopher Plummer (1), Fred Tatasciore (8), Martin Landau (2), and Alan Oppenheimer (The Scientist) Directed by Shane Acker.

Review
This is an unusual film, with a different kind of animation than usual and a decent set of characters. While it does feel shorter than it could've been (Seems to be a cliche that some animated films don't last longer than 79-90 minutes), it is imaginative and very deep in its intended roots of being a dark tale not just for kids (at least I hope that is the intention), and it makes sure not to be a disappointment. The voice acting is fine, not being embarrassingly odd, just doing a fine job of establishing the characters (though odd they may be), which is a benefit. I like the fact that the film manages to have some sort of pace, always keeping you in check and making sure not to be slowed down. In the end, it's a decent film, with some sort of focus and imagination, and I'm mostly glad I watched (and reviewed) it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Up.

Review #288: Up.

Cast
Ed Asner (Carl Fredricksen), Jordan Nagai (Russell), Bob Peterson (Dug), Christopher Plummer (Charles F. Muntz), Pete Docter (Kevin), Elizabeth Docter (Ellie), Delroy Lindo (Beta), Jerome Ranft (Gamma), and John Ratzenberger (Tom) Directed by Pete Docter (#074 - Monsters, Inc.) and Bob Peterson.

Review
This is the 6th Pixar film I've reviewed here (#074 - Monsters, Inc, #153 - The Incredibles, #155 - Finding Nemo, #158 - Ratatouille, #222 - WALL-E.), the previous five were very good, none having a rating below 9/10. Does this continue the trend? I think you know the answer if you've seen the film: Yeah, pretty much. Asner does a great job, making the character range from grumbling to even smiling at times. Also I love the fact he resembles Spencer Tracy, giving him an even more good look. There is some action, which reminds me an old adventure (especially with the zeppelin. There is even a newsreel at the beginning). But what gives the film its ultimate edge is its emotional depth. The scene between Carl and his wife Ellie is really warming and touching with a bit of tear inducing all into one, and that's a bit rare in films. Before I forget, the animation is excellent, which helps give more of an adventurous theme in a strange place. In the end, this is a triumph for Pixar that is a film for everyone.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Review #201: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Cast
Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Marlon Wayans (Wallace A. Weems / Ripcord), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Hershel Dalton / Heavy Duty), Rachel Nichols (Shana M. O'Hara / Scarlett), Sienna Miller (Anastasia DeCobray / Ana Lewis / The Baroness), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Saïd Taghmaoui (Abel Shaz / Breaker), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Rexford G. "Rex" Lewis / The Doctor / Cobra Commander), Christopher Eccleston (Laird James McCullen XXIV / Destro), Lee Byung-hun (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Jonathan Pryce (The President), Dennis Quaid (General Clayton M. Abernathy / Hawk), and Karolína Kurková (Courtney A. Krieger / Cover Girl) Directed by Stephen Sommers.

Review
It's been a few days since my last review, and given the subject matters of the last two films, let's dissapoint with this film. First off, I'm not a follower of G.I. Joe (Sadly, the most I've heard of it was on That 70's Show, and that as a debate over if it was a doll or an action figure), but with this film, I wouldn't want to. The acting is standard, with not much substance to help out. And to certain fans of one actor, you'll be dissapointed that he is in this at all (Those fans? Probably 3rd Rock from the Sun or something) The action isn't much better, at one point I went to sleep at the underwater part (and I had to rewind the film, that's a first) I have one question (among others) Why do they need to steal their own warheads? Why build a base under the polar icecaps? With all the silliness, they could've had the base in space and it would've made sense. You know, with Transformers, there were Robots and humans to go with it. This is just humans and some tech that desn't have much style, but can be a film of dumb fun. Just turn off the brain, ignore everything, and don't sleep at the end. There will be a sequel to this, but after 4 years does anyone really care? Not really.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Coraline.

Review #189: Coraline.

Cast
Dakota Fanning (Coraline Jones), Teri Hatcher (Mel Jones/Other Mother), Jennifer Saunders (April Spink), Dawn French (Miriam Forcible), John Hodgman (Charlie Jones/Other Father), Robert Bailey, Jr (Wybie Lovat), Ian McShane (Mr. Bobinsky), and Keith David (The Cat) Directed by Henry Selick.

Review
This film was based off the book by Neil Gaiman, which I have not heard of (Though he did write Doctor Who: The Doctor's Wife). Anyway, this film is beautiful in its stop motion animation, as the story is intriguing, keeping you interested as the story unravels. The voice acting is excellent, especially from Fanning and Hatcher. The film is imaginative and engaging with good characterizations in this excellent film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.