411mania.com: Erik Luers

Home

SPOTLIGHTS

MOVIES/TV
// [Gossip] Kim Kardashian Classes It Up For GQ

MUSIC
// Top Ten Albums from 2005

WRESTLING
// 411 PPV Roundtable Preview: WWE Survivor Series 2009

POLITICS
// 411 Politics RoundTable: Thoughts On The Ft. Hood Massacre

MMA
// 411's Roundtable Preview - UFC 106: Ortiz vs. Griffin 2

BOXING
// 411 Roundtable Preview: Kessler vs. Ward

GAMES
// Top 10 Action Role Playing Games

SYNDICATE

411mania RSS Feeds

Follow 411mania on Twitter!

Add 411 On Facebook

411mania » The 411 » Erik Luers

Picture:	none
Name:	Erik Luers
Email:	Triplee456@aol.com
Current Roles:	411 Film Reviewer and author of the column, Please Do Not Forget...which takes a look back at older films which I feel deserve a second (or third) look. Column provides analysis and close readings of films in a longer, in depth format.
Past Roles:
Other credits:
Quote:
History:	Born and raised in Queens, NY. Graduated from the Church of Scorsese, moved on to the Cathedral of Ingmar Bergman, and now reside in the Kurosawa monastery.

Blog

Where The Wild Things Are Review - 11.16.2009

Spike Jonze's Where the Wild Things Are is a sprawling and encompassing pre-teen melodrama that happens to take itself very seriously. Some will go for this, some will not. It has a rough feel to it, and it may be the first kids' film to be thrown into the genre of indie grunge; at times it feels like a student film on a bare bones, community theater, shoestring budget.

The first fifteen minutes of the film, shot mostly with shaky handheld cameras, work perfectly. As we see young Max (played by an excellent, understated Max Records) go wild attacking his dog, getting into snowball fights, wrecking his sister's room, harassing his mother, and more, each frantic camera movement compliments the boy's hectic lifestyle on screen. Max's behavior dictates the early pacing of the movie (as opposed to when the film settles down into a more formal approach once we hit the island). Even the title card for the film looks as if it were written by Max with a piece of old chalk. Welcome to the avant garde world of child hostility.

Designed by Jim Henson's Creature Shop, the wild things themselves are giant puppets (with actors inside them, I assume) with CGI facial expressions. The effect works. Since the physical aspect of the wild things are present on set, it gives Max (the actor) something to play off of for Max (the character). They are big and bulky, and their weight helps make the wild things seem "real". In terms of body type and design, think Ludo from Jim Henson's Labyrinth (unsurprising considering the inclusion of Maurice Sendak's Wild Things book on a character's dresser in the opening moments of that 1986 film). Oh, and wait until you see the two bird characters. Hand puppetry at its finest.

Are the wild things too scary for younger children? Some are confrontational and upfront about their anger (Judith especially), but they are merely replicating Max's behavior. Each of the creatures are angry, depressed, jealous,annoyed, suspicious, confused, and whatever else you can think of. They're going through a constant crisis of youth heartache. Just like Max. For the first time in his life, the young boy finds himself in the role of parent, and he doesn't much care for it.

The film drags a little bit, and there may be one wild rumpus/wrestling match too many, but the film hits more often that it misses. Some have accused the film of being too "emo". Of course it is. All stories about childhood are. The characters are so honest that they at first appear weak, and then by the end you realize how strong they were for being so.

Where the Wild Things Are is not a masterwork, but it tries hard to be taken seriously, and it succeeds most of the way through. I would call it a coming of age tale, but by now you've already figured that out. By the end of the film, Max learns not only to love his mother (although his love may never have been in doubt), but to appreciate and respect her. The film ends at the kitchen table on a peaceful, quiet note. The wild things have rested.

Final Rating: 8/10

Food Inc. Review - 11.15.2009

A powerful and horrifying documentary on what we eat and how we get it, Food Inc. takes an informative and somewhat biased look at the food industry's shady and lesser known political ties. Some of the claims the film makes are scary but necessary, such as the fact that cows are genetically designed to eat grass, and yet farmers feed them corn to fatten them up faster. If they only ate grass, the cows would shed eighty percent of the E. Coli cells over the course of a few days, and yet we feed them corn regardless. The consumer's wallet, and not their health, is the main factor.

Chickens are also fattened up at an exceeding rate (their average life span is six weeks), so much so that they are no longer able to stand and support their own weight. They get kept in dark rooms so that they are less aware of when people come in to carelessly grab and throw them into trucks and take them away. Wait till you get to the chicken throat cutting scenes.

The film makes a strong case for organic foods, and one of the major successes brought to life within the film shows a major food supplier like Walmart carrying healthier food products. They claim to carry what their consumers want, but who dictates to whom? What came first, a starving man or the supermarket?

There is also some interesting talk about patents and pesticides and other things that may seem a little cinematically boring and dull, but it takes on a Big Brother is Watching approach that makes the film more of a thriller than a talking heads doc. It ends on an optimistic note, but be warned: The first seventy-five minutes are extremely pessimistic and bleak. But that's okay, for the issues it raises need to be brought to the forefront. Food Inc. takes that first step.

Final Rating: 8/10

The Men Who Stare At Goats Review - 11.11.2009

Grant Heslov's The Men Who Stare At Goats is a film which, if you find yourself staring and investing in it for too long, can very well leave you blind. It is an extremely dumb, overtly sophomoric idea about soldiers with superpowers, or at least those who believe to have them. George Clooney plays one of these soldiers, and he mugs it up at every turn. He is a funny actor, but this is not funny material, and his routine, as the always aloof, hippified, Cassidy, gets old very quickly.

The film relies on cheap sight gags and stereotypical humor. Some examples: an obese man dies while eating a hotdog, one man's wife leaves him for a man with a freakish latex covered prosthetic arm, an intense soldier lifts weights with his scrotum, men run into walls, ad nauseum. Here is a political comedy unconcerned with comedy and reality. I'm not saying this material couldn't be funny, just that, in a film where everyone is an idiot, the viewer finds himself having to play the straight man.

The film's pacing also feels off. There are a lot of flashbacks to many years earlier, and they serve no purpose other than to provide a quick joke. For whatever reason, mustaches and long hair is supposed to be constantly humorous. That goes double for men who like to dance(in one instance, a flashback within a flashback no less, a father throws an object at his young dancing son and tells him to stop acting queer). Goofy humor can be funny, of course, but it gets old if there is no presence of a real world; there is never a sense of danger or consequence.

How does Ewan McGregor's character get into this whole mess, you ask? He wants to prove to his girlfriend that he is a brave soul. I'd rather rent Platoon from the library and return it three days late. And then we'll see who's for real.

Final Rating: 4/10

The Burning Plain Review - 11.11.2009

Guillermo Arriaga's directorial debut feature, The Burning Plain, is a hyperlink sort of movie that Arriaga himself made famous in recent years with 21 Grams and Babel. Although it has been trashed and buried by both mainstream and non mainstream critics, The Burning Plain is an enjoyable, twisty turny, multicultural drama about adultery and childhood regret (if Kurosawa hadn't already used the title, No Regrets For Our Youth, back in 1946, it would've worked perfectly here).

Yes, the film is presented out of sequence, and yes, every stranger turns out to be connected to each other in way or another, but here I felt the film's jumbled presentation made sense. There is a twist in the storytelling about midway through that makes you view the piece from a different perspective, and it comes organically through the story, and not out of left field.

Some parts of the film are a little preposterous (the love interest between the two teenagers seems far fetched at first), but everything ties up nicely and its credibility is luckily not stretched thin. It isn't a mystery but it will keep you guessing, and in this case, it works.

Final Rating: 7/10

Couples Retreat Review - 11.01.2009

Not much to say here, except that I didn't hate this movie as much as I thought I might. The jokes are lame but not offensive or outlandishly dumb.

The pacing, though, is all off. It's an overlong comedy with a few good jokes. Sometimes it forgets it's a comedy and seems to just glide on plot (an extended sequence looking for Kristen Bell's character, for instance). Still, I did find myself laughing with them and not at them.

The couples therapy sessions drag, but then again, I'm sure they do in real life as well.

Beautiful scenery in this movie, as all four couples go to a place called Eden. So did Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg in another movie about relationships. It was not the same Eden, and I bet you can tell which movie characters had the better time.

Isn't Jason Bateman a little too old for Kristen Bell? I think so.

Oh, and a little boy in the film, of about five, uses a model toilet in a Home Depot sort of place not once but twice. He gets away with it both times. That was funny to me, but not for the employees that had to clean it up.

This is one of the better Vince Vaughn comedies out there. It isn't different really, just above some of the others.

Final Rating: 5/10

Saw VI Review - 10.29.2009

More of the same, more of the same. Saw VI could have easily been called Saw V, Saw IV, Saw III, or Saw II. Maybe not Saw I though.

It's Halloween time, and thus a new entry in the Saw franchise rolls into town almost by habit. This entry could easily be skipped. No storylines are tied up. No important character dies (although one character we thought was dead in IV comes back in this one for foolish reasons). Nothing is solved. A promise (or more like a threat) for a Saw VII is proclaimed at the end of this one. And that's that.

The film is similar to Saw III in that it follows a man who is trying to help other people survive; he is not the one specifically in danger himself. This man was someone who encountered Jigsaw when Mr. Kramer inquired about health insurance and the guy refused to give it to him. The company doesn't want to help the sick. Isn't that so ironic, the filmmakers seemed to be yelling ever so quietly in my ear.

There is a lot of gore in this one, much more than in the last movie, and there are people that will say that that is an advance. The deaths are "creative", but we've seen them all before. When your bread and butter is sadistic murder, and you can't even do that anymore, it's time to get out of the business.

Jigsaw's sexy wife comes back in this one. She lives in a fancy apartment with quite a view. She is quite a view herself. How did Jigsaw get with her? Maybe she was one of his victims. Who knows. Who cares.

Wondering what was in that box given out in Saw V? Well, it contains six envelopes. Why six? Because this is Saw VI. That's as creative as this movie gets.

Eddie Winslow from Family Matters shows up in this one. Yes, I realize that Eddie Winslow is not the actor's real name, but in respect to the actor, I'm sure he wouldn't want me giving out his real name after this cinema de throwup.

What will the next film consist of? 3D, I hear. Hmm. It will make the sameness that much more eye-popping.

Do you want to play a game? No, so stop asking.

Final Rating: 4/10

Paranormal Activity - 10.29.2009

It's time for another list of questions and observations courtesy of the always confused filmgoer, Erik Luers. For the record, I thought this micro-budgeted movie was extremely dull and slow. There is something to be said for "less is more," but here I found less to be nothing more than less. Onto the questions.

The ghost/demon that we find ourselves troubled with acts like an obsessed and angry boyfriend. Why?

The ghost saves photos of our main girl from over fifteen years ago. Since she is now in a new house, where did he save these photos? In his ghostly pockets?

If the ghost will follow the couple wherever they go (therefore making it pointless for them to try and run), why doesn't he ever attack anywhere outside of the house?! Maybe they could run into him in a supermarket or something, you know, just to get the point across.

If the girl has been haunted by this thing for years, why not go to a hospital to get yourself checked out? Or at the very least, live at home with your family so that you could be under constant supervision. That will prevent you from your pesky sleepwalking habits. But does her family care? Does she even have a family? Hell, why does her loyal boyfriend stick around?

Why doesn't the couple ever seem to be at work or at school? They mention going to class in a throwaway line, and yet they always seem to be home, either recording footage or watching it at home on their computer.

If the ghost has been haunting her for years, why does it only take him approx. thirty days to possess her from time the couple decides to set up the camcorder? Is he camera shy? I 'spose he's not ready for his closeup, Mr. DeMille.

Why did the screenwriter feel the need to give the ghost a backstory? It's lame. I thought this filmmaker was big on "less is more".

Why does a previous victim of the ghost have a webpage chronicling her experiences with the spirit? And why are there photos from her less than flattering exorcism days?

What kind of camera records for over seven hours straight? I'm not saying there isn't one out there, but I'm curious.

Why do Quija boards always seem to work in movies but not in real life?

In the living room scenes, why was I more interested in the couples' DVD collection than what was going on in the scene at hand (look at the first interview with the paranormal expert guy; watch how your attention drifts to the DVDs behind the girl)?

If this film is all about being realistic, why do they ruin the illusion by using CGI in the final shot? This goes against everything the movie stands for, no?

Why do the scariest parts of the film involve the characters' body movements as they are being fast forwarded on video?

Of course, as is typical with these kind of movies, I wondered why they would film themselves during such dramatic moments (the girl holds a cross and her hand starts to bleed, and the boyfriend puts the camera down and keeps recording; very considerate). And yet, as the camera must be on in order for there to be a movie in the first place, I will excuse this.

Final Rating: 4/10

Bright Star Review - 10.10.2009

Bright Star, the new film from Academy Award nominated director, Jane Champion (not to be confused with Jan Chapman, one of the film's many producers), features some of the best cinematography in a motion picture this year. The film is simply beautiful to look at. It is very nature heavy, showcasing all the trees and beautiful multicolored fresh and lively flowers imaginable (in every season), and one could describe the movie's mise en scene as being a luscious mosaic of color. Call it a Terence Malick directed romantic drama.

I love the use of snow in movies (i.e. Fargo, The Magnificent Ambersons, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford), and this film uses snow (and snowy trees!) in an effective scene late in the film. The inclusion of butterflies is also interesting and visually pleasing.

Oh, and the costumes are exquisite, as they should be, due to Fanny Brawn's love for the fashionable, and every outfit of hers contrasts the scenery in a striking manner. I would love to see a book compiling all the shots in this picture as a way of aptly giving cinematographer Greig Fraser his due.

The story, of the trials and tribulations of poet John Keats, is well known, and it isn't the be all end all of biopics, if that's the category most moviegoers will categorize it in. As a historical piece, it is not overly dry or slow plodding. It takes its time, sure, but it is not void of human emotion or humor.

Abbie Cornish and Ben Wishaw, as our two lovesick romantic leads, are both excellent. Cornish is the virginal heroine that is loyal to her family and her family name, and Wishaw is the respectful but always on the go poet. The two actors have great chemistry, and when they finally kiss about forty-five minutes in, people may sit up and take notes. It's a very sexy film without sex; a nice look back at the art of wooing.

It is also more involving and moving than one might at first expect. Go in expecting nothing, walk out feeling very satisfied and content.

Final Rating: 8/10

A Serious Man Review - 10.07.2009

Finally the Coen Brothers have gone kosher again. Their new film, A Serious Man, about Jewish identity in late 1960s America, is hilarious and strangely sweet. It's the Coens' best film since, well, No Country For Old Men, just two years ago.

Our main character, Larry Gopnik, a loyal physics teacher, is being cheated on by his wife and his daughter wants a nosejob and his son wants to watch F Troop when he should be preparing for his Bar Mitzvah and his brother won't look for a job and find his own place and a Korean student tries to bribe him into getting a better grade. I realize that was a very descriptive run on sentence, but it's for a man who's life never seems to calm down. The film's tagline could most certainly read, "oy vey."

Larry wants to do right by society, but he keeps catching a bad break; if he were any less optimistic, he would've snapped and killed himself already. He's a happier version of Woody Allen. He is also the bumbling do-gooder who's life never does him any good. Time to consult the three rabbis.

Since this is a dark comedy, you expect some cruel and malicious characters and actions (a dream sequence involving the two brothers saying goodbye is very moving, that is until anti-semetism intervenes), and the Coens deliver in spades. They're good at this. I found last year's Burn After Reading to be a dopey joke in search of a point, but this new film is about something.

Many will suspect that this is the Coens' most personal film, and they will probably be right. Every stereotype feels completely real and authentic (as real and authentic as stereotypes can be, at least), including the woman who must always clear her throat whenever she begins to walk, and the elderly Jewish rabbi with terrible hearing. Even the Korean student is a stereotype, but it isn't as offensive as it is willfully unapologetic.

Midway through there's a brilliant sequence involving a dentist obsessed with Hebrew writings on the back of a patient's teeth. You'll see. It's one of the funniest couple of minutes in recent cinema.

The award for Best Pop Song Used In A Movie This Year also goes to this film for the inclusion of the Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody To Love". The song is used both diegetically and nondiegetically, and it is more important to the narrative you may initally think. Its inclusion is perfect. I also guarantee that most people will be singing the song aloud as they exit the theater.

Roger Deakins returns as the Coens' cinematographer, and there is one very funny site gag. Larry finishes writing extensive notes on a chalkboard in class (in closeup), and then we cut to the POV of the back of the room and see the entire thirty foot board covered in formulas. How is Larry that smart and how did he make it all the way up there were two thoughts that immediately crossed my mind. Carter Burwell does the score, and his musical notes are a little mystical (the film feels like a suburban fairy tale at times) and sad, and it accompanies Larry perfectly.

There will be many theories and questions about what the prologue has to do with the rest of the film. I have my own theory. The dead come back to haunt the living, and misery loves company. The final two minutes of the film imply that God has seen enough and wants to start over again. A plague be a'coming. He is dissatisfied and it is time to wipe everyone out and begin anew. At least that's one goyum's take on it.

Final Rating: 9/10

Surrogates Review - 10.01.2009

Jonathan Mostow's new film, Surrogates is a disappointing science fiction film big on ideas but low on the execution of them. It asks a lot of questions and then runs in the other direction. Mostow's movie, Breakdown, was fun and dumb. This one is dumb and dull, a good concept without much to do.

A few questions. Why do all the surrogates look like prostitutes? Why do all the older people want to look younger? Is everyone against aging? Their surrogates love makeup.

How many surrogates does James Cromwell's character have? I lost count.

Why do the stars in the film (Bruce Willis, Radha Mitchell) have surrogates that look just like them in real life? Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose, at least somewhat?

How do the humans feel what their surrogates feel? Sometimes when we see a surrogate die, the human being in control dies as well. Sometimes they just get nosebleeds. Sometimes they aren't affected at all. How does this process work?

For those wanting to know if this follows the important horror movie rule of killing the lead African-American male off fast, the answer is, yes it does. In fact, they kill him off twice. And another character, played by Ving Rhames, turns out to be Caucasian. Don't ask.

Surrogate stealing is illegal, but what's to stop people from doing it? How can you be sure that the surrogate you're conversing with is really the human being you think you know? And I thought text messaging was ruining the art of conversation.

Some men have female surrogates and some women have male surrogates, or at least that's what Bruce Willis' character implies at one point. Call John Waters and Divine and we got one hell of a movie.

I also felt some District 9 vibes throughout this film. The news footage segments served as a good reminder of the movie about prawns, as did the "no humans allowed" signs and grungy areas that the humans in this movie decide to live in. Bad release date timing.

Is it a terrible movie? No, but it's too safe, too confused. It's a short film (about ninety minutes long) but it left me tired and thinking about sleep. I started to just see images on the screen and found myself unable to connect with them. And then the movie ended.

Luckily, I saw Pandorum a couple of minutes later and that kept me involved and intrigued. Now that was a good sci-fi movie. See that one.

Final Rating: 4/10

Jennifer's Body Review - 09.24.2009

Karyn Kusama's new film, Jennifer's Body, is a riot. It's a horror comedy that's actually very funny, a rarity these days. With a screenplay by Oscar winner, Diablo Cody (who's 2007 film, Juno, I couldn't stand), the film is light on its feet, satiric, and witty.

Yes, there are a plethora of pop culture references on display here (a Cody staple now), and while they certainly sound as random and odd as they did in Juno, here the characters aren't meant to be taken seriously. They're all bizarre in their own little ways, and the movie they're in is gleefully absurd. There is no "praise abstinence" or "God is good" message here; it's a feature length sketch, but a smart one.

Have you ever before seen a film where an indie rock group sacrifices a virgin to the Devil for their one chance at fame? If you have, please tell me, so I can add it to my Netflix queue. It's an undiscovered genre.

What the band didn't realize, however, was that their sacrifice, Jennifer (Megan Fox), was not a virgin (not even a backdoor virgin, she so eloquently explains), and thus, all hell breaks loose. That goes double for Ahmed, the quiet Indian foreign exchange student. What a rough day he has.

Jennifer goes on to kill boys hoping to bed her (at least praying mantis have the decency to murder their lovers during sex and not before), and once in a while she has an audience for her murders that is eerily similar to the cast of Bambi.

J.K. Simmons shows up with a claw for a hand and a funny haircut. He is greatly respected in Devil's Kettle, but his haircut is not.

You wouldn't know this by the television spots and poster for the movie, but the main character in Jennifer's Body isn't Jennifer, but Needy (Amanda Seyfried). What a name. Wait till you see her mother. She has dreams of her daughter getting nailed to wooden boards like Jesus Christ. Talk about a lot for a kid to live up to.

The score is indie pop heavy, but it works for the film. At times it reminded me of that 1996 movie, The Craft, but this is much more funny and playful. So playful that it includes multiple Evil Dead references, a film which resembles this one in its presentation of wacky possessed females. Sorry, but it's true.

The visual setups are impressive. There is a shot near the beginning of the film at the local bar where Needy plays an arcade game. She hears the band talk about deflowering a "virgin" like Jennifer. Kusama then divides the frame between Needy's frightened face (in closeup), and the band (in the background), and the shot is Scorsese like (even if Scorsese may have stolen it from old man Hitchcock).

There's also a nice shot of a jock named Jonas, alone on the football field, thinking about his recently deceased friend. The camera flies at his face, and the rock music blasts, and it's a complex camera movement, even if it's only, you know, one camera movement.

And you must like a film where a guy asks a girl out to go see a midnite showing of Rocky Horror, and she responds (I'm paraphrasing), "Sorry. I don't really like boxing movies." That made me smile.

Final Score: 7/10

The Uninvited Review - 09.16.2009

The Uninvited is a disposable horror/thriller flick that comes packaged with a surprise twist ending that's only surprising in its idiocy and blandness. Think The Sixth Sense with a dash of generic movie serial killer syndrome.

The women in this film are very attractive (well, most of them), but as actresses, they give poor, uninspired performances. Our main girl, the pure, virginal, and innocent Anna (Emily Browning), does okay, that is until her characterization takes a turn for the ludicrous. And Elizabeth Banks (you may remember her from Oliver Stone's W playing the always smiling Laura Bush) methodically plays a one dimensional villain that turns out to be....well, you'll see. It's dumb.

The setting, right by the beautiful open water surrounding the countryside, is nice to look at, but not enough is done with it, give or take a drowning or two.

Oh, and way too many dream sequences. Not only is the trick getting old, it's now very much near decay. Tsk tsk.

I will admit that I have yet to see the Korean original, A Tale of Two Sisters, but that wrong will soon be corrected. This Americanized version is, at eighty three minutes long (minus the end credits), a dumbed down story where everyone but the father knows what's going on. Why is it that kids in movies are always so smart and and quick? And why are their parents so dumb? Who raised them? Their upper class, nicely paid, well dressed nannies?

Listen to your kids, America! And tell them about your future marriage plans, especially if their sick and beloved mother recently perished in a group of flames down by the water. You think there gonna warm up to another woman so quickly? And one that's a quarter of a century younger than their father? Let's be real now.

Final Rating: 3/10

Halloween 2 Review - 08.31.2009

Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 has finally arrived, and it's a big, brutal, amped up slasher film, but nothing more. This time out, Zombie lacks something crucial: a story. Say what you will about his 2007 remake, but at least it had a plot (and some people accused it of having too much of one). In this new film, Michael Myers has returned to Haddonfield to kill some more. That's it. No special twists, no big secrets; it's just the same old, same old.

The filmmaker doesn't even both to explain how Myers survived falling out of his house at the end of the first movie. Isn't he supposed to be a regular mortal and, albeit extra strong, human being?

At the beginning of this film, Mike is rescued by a cow; the cops drive into one while talking about making love to dead bodies. Myers than sees a creepy image of his dead mother, all in white, with a white horse. Is this creepy or funny? Maybe both. I have seen two films this weekend in theaters with white horses in them, and although I don't know what it means, I just thought I should point that out. I couldn't help but think what it would be like if Death from The Seventh Seal came down and tried hitting on Michael's mom.

The strip club now advertises itself as the former work place of the serial killer's mother, and I found that pretty amusing. Well, amusing for me, not for the people that work there. One guy gets his head stepped in as if Mikey had just watched Irreversible. Ouch.

Laurie is now in therapy because she is still afraid of Michael (let's just call him MM) coming back. You know how she could protect herself? By moving to another town. Nothing too far, just an area a mile or two away. Michael would show up to Haddonfield and be shit out of luck.

How can Laurie speak to her dead mother's ghost? Better yet, how does she know what her mother even looks like? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't she start seeing visions of her before Loomis' book comes out? Laurie hasn't seen her since she was a few months old, so what gives? And where the hell is the ghost of Judith Myers? Continuity, people, continuity.

And speaking of Loomis' book, you mean to tell me that the first time Laurie ever found out about her relation to MM was when she bought a copy of the book and read it? Didn't she ever think to be like every other kid in America and Google herself? She was too busy hanging out with her friends at Hot Topic, me thinks. And if the Myers family tree is such a secret, how can Loomis reveal this classified information?

Oh, and why is Loomis in this movie? There's no plot to begin with, but Malcolm McDowell just seems to be there to make wisecracks (to be fair, he is very funny). And, in the film's finale, how does he make it to the woods so quickly? Is his hotel room in the same woods as the Myers' Old Style Bed and Breakfast?

I must say, I did like the idea of Loomis as a money hungry sell out, and his scene with Al Yankovic ("hello, Mr. Weird") is pretty fun. At least someone finally brought up the Austin Powers' Mike Myers Myers in a Halloween movie. Sooner or later, it was bound to happen, fans.

The gore scenes in this film are pretty twisted, and good for that. Wait until you see what Michael does to a helpless dog. Talk about Kibble and Bits! I also liked the idea of Michael camping out in the forest for a whole year (kind of like in Halloween 5, give or take a friendly hermit), and then making the long trip back to Haddonfield.

But how does he know when it's Halloween? Does he have a calendar? Does he make x's with it with a sharpie as he anxiously counts down the days? There's that one helicopter shot where we see Michael walking through the fields and it is quite terrifying, I must admit. And boy, is his beard fierce!

Why does Zombie break a big horror movie rule by flooding the film with unnecessary dream sequences? The hospital segment is absolutely first rate, but the fact that it didn't really occur feels like a cop out. Talk about a waste of time. By the time the third dream sequence came up, I was about to call John Carpenter or Harvey Weinstein and ask them to set this series straight. I'm sure neither would have picked up their phones.

And yet, this film scores major points for an excellent hidden cameo in the bookstore scene. As Loomis argues with an angry father, we see a photo of Penelope Cruz in Volver taped to the wall. That almost makes this film a masterwork. Almost.

Final Rating: 6/10

Inglorious Basterds Review - 08.27.2009

First and foremost, Quentin Tarantino's new film, Inglorious Basterds, is about the art of filmmaking and film culture. Packed with a plethora of verbal references(including G.W. Pabst, Louis B. Mayer, Leni Riefenstahl, and the Kino Eye), visual (Landa's crew riding slowly towards a French family's house as if in preparation for a duel, the use of heavy metal font to introduce certain characters like pulse pounding rock stars), and musical (the film seems inspired by Ennio Morricone and David Bowie), this film is all about, as Pauline Kael titled one of her books, Movie Love.

The final act takes place almost entirely in a beautiful French moviehouse, and of all the terrible acts of violence that occur onscreen over the course of two and a half hours, perhaps there is none the more mortifying than the destruction of three hundred and fifty 35MM film prints. Film preservationists and archivists may walk out of this film very depressed.

Using the bookend chapter titles that he has become somewhat famous for, Tarantino presents a smart and sophisticated drive in, midnite movie sleazefest. Those that are accusing Inglorious Basterds of being historically inacurate are totally missing the point; this director isn't interested in World War II, but rather the opportunity of working within the WWII movie subgenre. More than Death Proof, this film is an ode to 1970s Grindhouse cinema.

What a great cast too! Every German and French actor in this film is superb, and if there was ever a film to award an ensemble acting prize to, this is it. Brad Pitt and Diane Kruger (known to American audiences for a multitude of film projects)deliver showy supporting performances, while funnyman Mike Myers shows up for a brief but well played cameo. The two standouts however are Christoph Waltz and the sexy and exotic Melanie Laurent.

Waltz creates a Landa that is twisted, scary, and sincere, a bizarre combination that makes his characterization all the more effective. His opening scene goes for a good fifteen to twenty minutes, and every second is uncomfortably frightening and dreadfully still (Tarantino has some great lengthy dialogue sequences in the film, and what a joy it is to watch them play out at their own speed; i.e. the basement/bar sequence). And Laurent is a woman out for revenge, at times saddened and filled with immense hatred for the men who murdered her family. Laurent is an extremely compelling actress to watch. With her old movie star looks and demeanor, she is first rate.

The film is gory, but in a good, practical way. Using Howard Berger and the KNB EFX Group (legends in the blood and guts movie makeup department, about a tier below Tom Savini), each scalping and stabbing looks a little too real and a little too fake. In other words, it's perfect for the genre.

So too is this film. Inglorious Basterds is quite content with what it is, a homage to the pro American war fantasy films of yesteryear. At times it goes so far over the top, it could touch the moon. As a historical drama, it isn't factual, but damn if it isn't compelling fiction. Inglorious Basterds is as much a fan of movies as you are.

Final Rating: 9/10

Ponyo Review - 08.19.2009

Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is a sweet, good natured, warmhearted, sincere film that made me smile. The kids in the film, Sozuke and Ponyo, are so kind and brave that you may want to adopt them by the time the end credits roll. There's been a lot of talk about how kids have had it much harder growing up these days, and while that's true, Ponyo shows children as uncomplicated vessels wanting to be loved. Sozuke misses his father off at sea, Ponyo misses her mother and fears her father, etc.

This is a story about parents and their children, and sometimes their inability to connect. Everyone in the film has the best intentions, but sometimes they are perceived as evil or distant due to their inability to understand another point of view (Ponyo's father). It's the youth and the old trying to see eye to eye (the old age home shows the elderly as child like, playful and honest).

The film also deals a lot with the ocean and its lively inhabitants, and Miyazaki sheds light on a disastrous aspect: pollution. The sea is littered with garbage left over by the humans, and Ponyo's father(himself a former human)is bitter and ashamed. Is he an overbearing parent? Perhaps, but he is just trying to protect his daughter. Ironically, Ponyo first meets Sozuke when she gets stuck in a glass jar; pollution brings them together.

The animation is first rate, and it's refreshing to a see an intricate 2D animated film. Every frame in this movie is alive, bursting with movement. Viewing the film with a lot of little children, I could hear the "oos" and the "ahhs" whenever the random sea creatures crawled across the screen, and I think I heard a few parents too. Oh, and the ocean is alive and has surveying eyes, which in turn plays an important role in the film. And when the entire town gets flooded and engulfed in water, the effect is stunning and creative; Sozuke and Ponyo literally ride above the city.

Online film critic James Berdanelli writes on the film, "not as narratively sophisticated as other Miyazaki films, but stunning to behold." I agree with the second part. In regards to his first point I ask, how is it not "sophisticated"? It's a film about children and their needs, and Miyazaki serves that admirably. Is it a somewhat slight movie? Not if your absorbing it on a purely emotional level. There's a scene where Ponyo chases Sozuki and his mother, quickly driving up a hill to avoid a tsunami,hoping to return to her new best friend. It's a great moment, and it almost brought me to tears. It's a selfless moment and it sums up the entire film perfectly.

Final Rating: 8/10

District 9 Review - 08.17.2009

A good if unsubtle summer sci-fi shoot em up, District 9 works best when it leaves the political stuff behind and concentrates on what it really wants to be: a "things go boom in the post apocalyptic world" movie. While I enjoy political subtext in films, this flick's intent seemed strained, as if trying too forcefully make a statement. It's a black and white film, both literally (race plays a factor in the film) and figuratively (the aliens are good, the humans bad, without hardly a middle ground).

The first half, dealing with eviction notices for the creatures, or "prawns", as the film identifies them, is shot in a documentary, cinema verite style. While that worked for films like Cloverfield (which stuck with the technique all the way to the very end), I must be honest, it isn't very necessary for District 9. Luckily, director Neill Blomkamp abandons this approach fairly early on, perhaps so that we can look at the dirty, dusty Terminator world in which most of our film is set.

The film excels in the second half, with a father/son dynamic that personalizes the story and makes us care. Sure, our lead human protagonist is supposed to be redeemed by the end of the story, but let's be honest, the only reason he even bothers to help the Prawns is to help himself and his body changing condition. Before then, he wanted nothing to do with them. So why should I care?

The special effects are excellent. The creatures, the explosions, the rippings of flesh, and the random animals that get hurled through the sky (you'll see) all look first rate. Even the Iron Man suit that our leading man dons late in the film looks stellar in a, you know, rickety old junkyard sort of way. This story could really benefit from a sequel......in about three years time.....exactly three years.

Question: How can human beings understand the Prawn vocabulary (and vice versa) and yet neither can speak the other species' language? I found that rather odd.

District 9 kept me interested, and it's light years above a lot of other summer stuff we've been subjected to recently (Wolverine, Transformers 2, GI Joe, and to a lesser degree, Terminator: Salvation), so I feel fine recommending this one. Even if the film struggles with too many ideas on its plate, I suppose we can be happy that Blomkamp even thought to bring them to the table in the first place.

I can't wait for Blomkamp's next film: An allegorical Bigfoot story about prohibition. Hey, I can dream.

Final Rating: 7/10

Inglorious Bastards (1978) Review - 08.15.2009

Finally got around to seeing this in preparation for Quentin Tarantino's "is it or is it not a remake?" feature film opening this Friday. And I must say, this was a very, very bad film, the equivalent to watching paint dry. The acting is laughable, the action scenes over the top (when Fred Williamson decided to sneak up and dropkick a soldier, I couldn't believe what I was seeing), and the plot, very murky (why does the whole train subplot come in an hour into the film after we've already given up on the story?).

There are a few nice shots, but they never provide any flow to the scenes (the scene with the naked bathing women is funny but so random that it frustrates). When one male character gets a love interest midway through, I thought that may lead to something. But nope, she gets discarded for the second half of the film, give or take thirty needless seconds at the very end.

Tarantino likes these kinds of films, which is fine, as he tends to pay homage to them by making them somewhat better in his versions. This Italian film, however, is one hundred minutes of dragging, indistinguishable shootouts and cartoonish violence (involving knife throwings and bridge explosions). And what's with the strange guy that looks a little like Tom Savini? What the hell movie is he in? Skip this flick.

Final Rating: 2/10

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra Review - 08.14.2009

So I forced myself to sit through this one earlier in the week, and surprise, surprise, the movie is hardly anything to talk about. It's got the special effects of a Nintendo 64 game(remember Wave Race? There's a scene here involving driving through rings underwater that directly reminded me of it), or at least a summer action flick from 1990. If the budget for this was really $170 million, where did all the money go? The silicone on the women (very hot but too hot to be taken seriously)? I suppose Stephen Sommers' heart was in the right place, as this film isn't out to offend like Michael Bay's Transformers 2 was a month and half ago, but his efforts are still poor.

Who is Cobra anyway? When a certain brother character puts on a cheap 99 cent store mask, he becomes Cobra? Why bother? He already has an interesting Cenobite look going on that would've sufficed and scared the kiddies.

The film is all about this green liquid of which everyone is out to capture or protect. When the liquid gets "unleashed" in Paris, it causes a lot of destruction, and I liked this scene in all of it's frenetic exuberance. And then, a character digitally shuts the liquid off. How can a liquid be shut off? Logic returns to rear its ugly head.

Why is Jonathan Pryce in this movie? Does he still have David Mamet's number? Why must there always be a president character in these kind of flicks? And why must he always be a good guy? I wonder.

So many flashbacks does not a good film make. Wait till you see one that takes place when two characters were young children. They fought with food and retained their characters' original wardrobes for over twenty years (well, at least that Shadow guy did).

Why are there closeups of characters wearing masks? We can't see any of their concentrated internal thought as we're not allowed to see their faces. Seems like a wasted effort.

Marlon Waynes gives a better performance here than Dennis Quaid. That's saying something. When you see Quaid as a hologram near the beginning of the film, your hopes of a good performance from the man will be dashed. Hopes being dashed is a common theme in this film.

GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra is what it is, of course, but what it is isn't very good.

Final Rating: 3/10

Thirst Review - 08.11.2009

Forgot to mention that I also saw Park Chan-wook's Thirst a week and a half ago. It's a fantastic film that has a lot of horror elements within it, but it's not something I'd classify as pure horror. The gross stuff is treated as very matter of fact. It's more of a tale about a priest trying to resist his human urges. When he becomes a vampire, the urges are intensified and thus, we have quite a conflict. He wants sex, he wants blood.......but he does not want to harm anyone.

As a priest, he deals with sickly people all the time, you see, so he can easily drink their blood through an IV needle at the local hospital. Murdering is not for him, at least not at first. It's quite an ironic film that's very fun and mature. It takes its time and that makes the viewing experience all the more satisfying. Great score, too. Well done.

Final Rating: 9/10

Friday the 13th (2009) "The Killer Cut" Review - 07.27.2009

Just finished watching the Killer Cut of the Friday the 13th remake. It's about ten minutes longer than what was shown in theaters. It isn't very different from the theatrical cut, save for a sequence where Whitney escapes from Jason's lair only to get recaught when she reaches Trent's house. The sequence proves pretty pointless as she is set back to square one (thus, the discarding of this scene did nothing to affect the theatrical version's continuity).

I also noticed some more needless snipets of that Clay character running through the woods, flashlight swishing and swirling through the air. Enough already! It felt like Nispel was just desperate to pad out the running time. Towards the end, Clay also discovers some of the dead bodies that Jason dealt with earlier, but it's much ado about nothing really.

Did anyone realize that in the final moments, when Jason is thrown off the dock into the lake, his mask is thrown off separately? And if you did, isn't it strange that Jason pops up a couple of seconds later with the mask ON? There's a shot that shows the mask hitting the bottom of the lake. Did Jason retrieve it that quickly? And if so, why bother putting it back on anyway?

The DVD features two interesting deleted scenes that should have been included in the original version. The first is an alternate way of how Jason obtained his hockey mask. It works a lot better than what we in the theater audience got stuck with. The second scene features the cop that Clay comes in contact with earlier deciding to check on the terrorized kids. It's a quick moment, but it adds a layer of sincerity to the Crystal Lake police officer. He believes in Clay's "preposterous" claims. I guess Nispel thought, "characterization? Not in MY Friday the 13th film!"

Final Rating: 4/10

full blog