Roach Motel: “Bug” Will Either Get Under Your Skin or Drone On and On

Like the characters in "Bug," I’m feeling slightly paranoid. Unlike the characters in "Bug" I'm not a complete wacko. I'm scared because we found a huge spider in our house the other day. I’m talking Buick-sized here. If one innocent bug (assuming it wasn’t poisonous, seeing as though we live in Connecticut) could make me practically fear for my life, what could hundreds of bugs do? If you want to see a movie in which hundreds of creepy crawly insects attack innocent locals then “Bug” is not it. “Bug” shares much more in common with Hitchcock than “Arachnophobia.” And while it is psychologically taut and watchable from start to finish, it may cause involuntary laughter from those not inclined to deal with a movie called “Bug” that, SPOILER, never shows a single insect on screen.

Based on a stage play by Tracy Letts (who also wrote the screenplay) “Bug” is not a film to be easily liked (read: not mainstream) but it’s a good alternative to the big budget summer spectacles. This is a movie worth praising simply for how different it is. It’s the complete opposite of what you’d expect from a movie opening on Memorial Day weekend. If you’re going to check out Pirates 3 and it’s sold out, I don’t think I could honestly recommend “Bug” because odds are you’re likely to walk out halfway through it. But that’s not because it’s a bad movie, it’s because most moviegoers have been trained to accept a certain type of cinematic structure that is simply different in “Bug.” It’s simply about a couple of emotionally lost characters who talk to each other in a grungy motel room and the mental breakdown that follows. It’s tensely directed and makes you feel uncomfortable and claustrophobic and it has really gross parts as well. It’s a movie easy to dismiss but hard to forget.

William “The Exorcist” Friedkin is an over-the-top director. His films tend to get a little ridiculous and he’s not exactly subtle. For instance, never see “The Guardian” which is about a nanny-posing, tree-worshiping druid. I’m not making this up. I *wish* I was making this up. (It makes the Ashton Kutcher movie of the same name seem like “The Godfather”) Having said that he’s a great director of actors and he wrings a spectacular performance from Ashley Judd. Her scenes (which is basically the entire movie) command your attention; you can hardly keep your eyes off her. Michael Shannon is a lonely drifter who is introduced to Judd by her best gal pal (Lynn Collins). Judd’s a lonely, southern woman and she enjoys the company no matter how odd Shannon seems. (She’s obviously lonely since she lives in a motel literally in the middle of nowhere) Meanwhile, Judd’s crazy ex-husband (perfectly wacky Harry Connick Jr.) is bugging her ever since he was paroled.

Like I mentioned earlier the film is based on a play and it’s obvious: minimal staging, theatrical lighting, lots of monologues, a small cast and lots of psychological tension. The entire movie you’re really thinking what’s the point of all this and where is this going, and then it just ends, and you have to ponder for hours afterwards about what you just witnessed. It will get under your skin and either stay with you and make you think, or it will make you grab a can of Raid and make you swear never to see it again. Like a play there are two acts: the first involving the meeting of Judd and Shannon’s characters. They eventually make passionate love and then he confesses that after serving in the Gulf, the military planted tiny bugs into his body that feed off his blood. Judd pretty much buys this nonsense right away and it sets up the second half of the film in which they basically go completely berserk. Their final scenes achieve a superior lunacy that I found fascinating to watch. This is some tremendous acting because I bought everything they were saying. I almost felt that these actors would need counseling after playing these roles. They present us with some very disturbing (ripping out teeth much?) and vibrant images (a room covered with tinfoil looks cool) and it’s hard to remove yourself from what’s going on.

The allusions to “Psycho” are there: a seedy motel setting and a great opening tracking shot that is repeated throughout the film. Something is coming and we don’t know what, and that’s exactly the point. Because like the enigma-filled TV mystery “Lost,” “Bug” is a mysterious mind trip that you can’t escape. It may bug the heck out of you but it’s a completely watchable and worthwhile experience. GRADE: B

NOTE: During my screening, several people got up and left. They left with probably less than 15 minutes left to go in the movie. The movie is 100 minutes long. If you can stand the first half hour and get up that far into the movie, you’re more of a moron than I give you credit for.

One Flew Ogre the Cuckoo’s Nest: “Shrek the Third” is a Decent Chapter in the Overly Popular Series

My favorite movie of all time is “Airplane!” As strange as it sounds, I love movies so much that I love when movies reference other movies. I remember vividly going to see the first “Shrek” movie. It was practically the “Airplane!” of fairy tale movies. It was about time that an animated film came along that poked fun at the various clichés made uber popular by Disney cartoons. All that those elements like a princess stowed away in a tall tower, slaying dragons, magical woodland creatures, and talking animals all had it handed to them in the first “Shrek.” The film was a sensation that not only wont the first Animated Film Oscar but spawned a sequel and now a third chapter. This third outing of “Shrek” brings back all the characters we’ve come to adore in a story that is mostly enjoyable.

The first “Shrek” had the benefit of its originality. When Princess Fiona is singing to a bird in the forest and her high notes causes it to self-combust, that was a laugh riot! That film turned fairy tale clichés on its head and finally spoofed all the good-natured fun to be found in Disney movies with plenty of a adult humor. “Shrek the Third,” while it still has moments of pure hilarity, just has a slight “been there, done that” feel. It’s obvious that the filmmakers really had to concentrate on getting a decent story (there are nearly five writers) because the first two “Shrek” films didn’t necessarily require a third chapter. It’s obvious that this third film is here to make money and satisfy fans, and in those regards it’s bound to succeed.

At the end of the last film Princess Fiona (in ogre form) and the lovable “Shrek” are living the life of luxury in the kingdom of Far Far Away. Fiona’s parents the Queen and King are the rulers, but the King (in frog form) is dying (in a hilarious scene). As part of his last words, the King announces that there is an heir to the throne to be found in a man by the name of Arthur. Since Shrek doesn’t exactly find himself to be king material, (nor father material even though Fiona is preggers) he sets out with Donkey and Puss in Boots to find this Arthur and make him rightful King of Far Far Away. Of course the devious Prince Charming and all the other storybook villains have other plans in store.

First time director Chris Miller has made a technically brilliant computer animated film. Computer technology has come a long way since the first “Shrek” and it’s obvious. The characters definitely move more realistically, the camera moves are more fluid and the colors are simply beautiful. The details on the characters are amazing from the stubble on Prince Charming’s face to the way the animals’ hair moves realistically. And not surprisingly the talented cast pretty much steals the show. Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Rupert Everett are all in fine form.

The film has several riotous standout moments. The Gingerbread Man has a hilarious sequence in which is life flashes before his eyes. He has many funny memories such as being baked in the oven and being tortured by Lord Farquaad in the first film. Shrek finds Arthur, (Justin Timberlake) who happens to be a teenager in high school, in what has to be a highlight sequence. All the teens talk in a funny mix of Valley Girl talk and Renaissance vernacular. Common lines here are “Like, totally ew-eth.” Also new to the film are the squad of princesses, who must take down Charming’s raid of Far Far Away, including Amy Poehler as Snow White (who has a standout sequence with forest critters), Amy Sedaris as Cinderella, Cheri Oteri as a narcoleptic Sleeping Beauty, and Maya Rudolph as the scheming Rapunzel, complete with hair extensions. And there are about a gazillion other talented actors giving their voices that would take days to list.

I can’t help but think this third outing is just a padded, moneymaking product, but it’s an entertaining product. The characters that we all fell in love with are back and it’s a worthy summer movie. There are plenty of randomly funny sequences, but I think it’s time for Shrek to retire back to his smelly swamp. GRADE: B

Down With the Sickness: “28 Weeks Later” is an Infectiously Good Sequel

“28 Days Later” scared the crap out of me. I’m sure it scared the crap out of you. It was one of those great scary movies that come along every few years and just blow you away. Last year’s was the British import “The Descent.” Remind me not to go cave diving anytime soon. It seems nearly impossible to make a successful horror sequel from such an outstanding first start. (Does the God-awful “Blair Witch 2” ring a bell?) Bigger doesn’t automatically mean better, but “28 Weeks Later” is a gloriously entertaining follow-up that is every bit as intelligent and frightening as it’s predecessor.

Sometimes sequels with a clean slate of characters and crewmembers just don’t work. I’d love to say that’s why “The Birds II: Land’s End” wasn’t successful but that figuring out that mess could take 28 weeks time. I was worried that Jim, Selena and little Hannah weren’t around. By the end of the first film, you felt as if you were experiencing the horrifically disastrous apocalypse with them. And besides isn’t the cardinal rule to continue a horror sequel with the previous film’s survivors? Not in this case, but it turns out to be a good thing.

New director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo has made his film similarly to Danny Boyle’s without just ripping off his style (the film is also shot mostly on Digital Video). It feels as if Boyle could perhaps be behind the camera, but alas his only credit here is as executive producer. At least we don’t get an overwhelmingly dark and crazy third act, although I’d have to say the ending here is in the least…bleak. Our new characters consist of Don (The Full Monty’s Robert Carlyle) who escapes the intense precredit sequence without his wife, because the guy LEFT HER BEHIND. How fascinating to start a movie with a cowardly hero! Let’s thank the brave writers Rowan Joffe, Jesús Olmo and Fresnadillo.

After nearly 6 months, the infection (which consists of the “rage” virus that turns bitten humans into ravaging, blood-vomiting lunatics) that has nearly wiped out England has been abolished (And by abolished I mean it’s going to come back in the second act). Don is able to return to what’s left of society and is reunited with his children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). The United States Army is in charged of helping the Englanders’ reenter civilization. They are taking no chances and have severely guarded an enclosed area. The outside areas still have rotting corpses all over the place. Leave it to the US to help rebuild a society torn apart by malevolent forces (you see what I’m getting at here or what?) And as it turns out, Tammy and Andy’s mommy (Catherine McCormack) survived the opening sequence but she somehow carries the “rage” virus but doesn’t show any outward symptoms. Perhaps a cure is in order.

I think you can pretty much guess what happens next, so I won’t spoil the fun. If you’re willing to buy how the outbreak begins again then you’ll have lots of fun and you’re bound to jump out of your seat at least a few times. The characters here are just as interesting as the previous film’s and they’re likable including Army nurse Scarlet (Rose Byrne) and US soldier Doyle (Jeremy Renner). I guess the exception here would be jerk soldier Flynn played by Lost’s Harold Perrineau; just because he got off the island is no reason to be all cocky. Fresnadillo has presented some really suspenseful sequences including one that is seen nearly entirely through a night vision lens.

“28 Weeks Later” is a fully competent, enjoyable follow up to 2003’s fantastic “28 Days Later.” It has just as much suspense and surprise, and like all sequels it’s all pumped up. It’s certainly gorier, so the weak stomached might want to skip the big meal before seeing it. I’m not sure a third film could be made successfully (28 Months Later?) because that would just seem like overkill, but when smart sequels like this are produced who knows what number three could bring. GRADE: B+

A Bug’s Life: “Spiderman 3” is a Web of Summer Fun

Don’t be fooled by some of the critics’ lesser reviews of the third installment of the wildly popular Spiderman series. While I’d have to agree that you’re jaw won’t drop and you won’t be overwhelmed by feelings of awesomeness, my spidey sense tells me that if you enjoyed the first two films, there’s still plenty to love. Sam Raimi returns to the helm to add his trademark style of fun, humor and enjoyable action into this pumped-up, song-filled (kind of) tale of Peter Parker, his webslinging alter ego, and the love of his life Mary Jane Watson.

Raimi and his older brother Ivan have written this third script with help from “Spidey 2” scribe Alvin Sargent. Overall it’s a mixed bag. There is a lot to be excited about. A meteorite crashes down which unleashes a creepy, crawly black substance that will be important later on. We’re introduced to criminal-on-the-run Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church) who just may be responsible for Peter’s uncle’s tragic murder. He falls into a government experiment and becomes the villainous CGI-centric Sandman, whose effects are startling to witness.

The Raimis also introduce several other characters. Topher Grace stars as freelance Daily Bugle photographer (read: Peter’s rival) Eddie Brock. He will turn into the villain Venom, which is one of the coolest villains to hit a Spiderman movie since Doc Ock. His semi-girlfriend is New York City Captain Stacy’s (James Cromwell) daughter Gwen (Bryce Dallas Howard, who I still haven’t forgiven for Lady in the Water, shudder). She has a slightly annoying perky quality that seems right at home in a Sam Raimi/comic book movie. Daddy Ron Howard must be proud. Sam Raimi regular Bruce Campbell turns in an amusing cameo as a French restaurant’s maître d’. All of these characters are basically as interesting as they need to be and nothing more.

And that’s okay, because those that have returned are in fine form as well. Toby Maguire is a great Peter Parker and he even makes a great superhero. At the film’s start his in-limbo friendship with Harry (James Franco) takes a turn for the worse when he begins behaving like his father’s (Willem Dafoe) psychotic Green Goblin character. Except Harry’s villain is much cooler, hipper and interesting. (IMDb refers to Harry’s alter ego as the “New Goblin” whether that’s accurate is beyond me) I enjoyed Harry’s character arc a lot more than I thought I would. But what audiences really want to know is how Peter and Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst) are doing. Peter wants to marry MJ but with the introduction of Gwen that’s highly unlikely. Jealous are we, MJ? There is some soapy love triangle stuff going on here, which will either bore you or be entertaining enough so that you won’t truly mind. And I’d be a horrible critic if I didn’t mention J.K. Simmons who shines and provides big laughs as always as the Daily Bugle’s editor-in-chief.

And not only does this new Spiderman adventure contain new villains but it contains singing, dancing and lots of crying. Apparently this is bad for some critics but I highly enjoyed it. MJ is in a Tony-award winning musical on Broadway and when Peter Parker becomes infected with a certain outer space black slime, it not only brings out his dark side, but his dancing side as well. If you thought the “Rain Drops Keep Falling on My Head” segment in Part 2 was corny, just wait till you see what is in store for you here. It seems odd and out of place, but it definitely goes with Peter’s new dark alter ego (complete with emo bangs and eye liner) and I welcomed it.

While most people will find something to complain about, (I guess technically Sandman’s story could be completely removed without any real loss, but his effects are awesome) you’re bound to enjoy some aspect of Spiderman’s third go round (such as anything having to due with Venom). It has a great mix of action and slow talky parts and yet you’ll probably never even notice that the film runs over two hours. It’s impossible to top the amazing second chapter, but this is definitely a worthy conclusion of the Spiderman trilogy. Of course, this franchise is bound to keep going and going, so enjoy these movies while they’re worth your time and money. GRADE: B+

NOTE: I heard that Bono is writing the music for Spiderman’s Broadway debut. Just a fun fact, do what you want with it.

And They Call It Puppy Love... The Terrific Fable “Year of the Dog” Has Bite

Where has Molly Shannon been lately? The last time she headlined a movie, it was the critically panned “Superstar.” She has since shown up in smaller supporting roles in movies like “Wet Hot American Summer,” “Talladega Nights” and even “Marie Antoinette.” How come this funny lady hasn’t had top billing since 1999? Who knows really, but “Year of the Dog” is a triumphant return. Here, she is funny and emotionally deep as a woman whose best friend is her dog. And then her dog dies.

As Peggy, Shannon imbues the awkward loneliness that was the central characteristic of her Mary Catherine Gallagher SNL character. Of course, here she is playing it for emotional depth, rather than broad comedy. This seems like a role written for her. She has restrained herself and she’s surprisingly capable of being extremely moving. Peggy loves her small dog Pencil. She lets him sleep in her bed with her and she even shares meals with him. She also has an office job at a company where she has a loyal female friendship with Layla (Regina King). King is terrific in this role as the off the wall friend, a supporting role that is usually played by Shannon.

One night poor little Pencil is sniffing around the yard and is tragically poisoned. Peggy is devastated, as is the audience, because her whole world is gone. She is at first consoled by her neighbor Al (John C. Reilly), and then suspects that perhaps he might have something to due with Pencil’s unfortunate demise. Eventually Peggy meets animal lover/vegan Newt (Peter Sarsgaard). A strong friendship builds between them and he insists that she adopt a new dog. Soon she pours herself into animal charity and animal rights activism. She promptly adopts a vegan lifestyle and begins a mission to help animals any way she can. Even when her new adopted dog (an abused German Shepherd) becomes aggressive with her, she refuses to just kick him out. She knows he’s just an animal and she still wants to care for him.

There are a few other people in Peggy’s lives: most notably her brother Pier (Thomas McCarthy) and his wife Bret (a perfect Laura Dern). They are your average suburban young power couple. They have a young daughter and a baby. Bret is the type of young mother who is at constant odds with her daughter’s school’s administration and feels movies like “Babe” are too powerfully emotional for young children, despite its G-rating. Peggy baby-sits for her niece one weekend, in which she promptly drags her to an animal sanctuary where farm animals have been saved from slaughter. Of course an attempt to visit an actual slaughterhouse doesn’t go over too well with the little tyke.

Wanting to take a youngin’ to the slaughter house is just one example of the dark nature of the film, which at times almost seems like Todd Solodnz directing “Erin Brockovich.” It’s funny that Peggy would take a 5-year-old girl to see cows get turned into hamburger meat, and while they never actually make it there, you can’t help but laugh at the absurd situation. Peggy soon goes from animal loving to animal crazy. Her transformation from dog lover to animal activist to animal rights absurdity is not to be missed.

All of Peggy’s actions are a direct result of her pet’s heartbreaking death. It’s through Pencil’s death that Peggy finds out what her meaning in life really is. It’s very unpredictable to figure out what bizarre action she’ll take next or how she’ll end up. We’re not sure if the film is going to follow Peggy and Newt into a blissful relationship and when we find out that’s not the case, we’re completely ready for the next step in the plot. The characters are richly defined and rooted in realistic human behavior. For instance, when Peggy brings in vegan cupcakes to her office, her co-workers quickly refuse the desserts as if they were made of cyanide.

First time feature director Mike White, who co-scripted last year’s odd Mexican fable “Nacho Libre” does a great job behind the camera (a camera which hardly moves; he let’s the actors do the work). His characters are quirky and interesting and he constructs a narrative of true human nature. His film will make you laugh and cry; it’s a fun fable that’s paws above the rest. GRADE: A-

Police Farce: Action Spoof “Hot Fuzz” is Mostly a Mixed Bag

Sometimes it takes me a while to want to see anything with, err, British accents. Their articulate manner of speaking, so eloquently makes my stomach churn. I’m especially not a fan of period pieces. I don’t think I could ever sit through an entire movie having anything to do with the words Jane and Austen. However, there are plenty of British imports, horror mostly, that have made it past my “but it has British accents” way of filtering out to see. I saw “28 Days Later.” Loved it. I saw “The Descent.” It was one of the best of 2006. I saw “Shaun of the Dead.” It was hysterically gory. And here comes the next British import: a spoof of cop action movies mostly in the vein of Michael Bay. I unfortunately had a mixed reaction. Let’s discuss.

Director Edgar Wright has an eclectic style all his own. He uses lots of flashy editing, but not because he thinks it’s cool. It’s because he knows that other directors think it’s cool. He’s in on the joke. He directed "Shaun of the Dead" with finesse. He knew the zombie formula very well. And his fake trailer segment “Don’t” in the “Grindhouse” double feature is hysterical. He understands parody. In "Hot Fuzz" it seems like there’s too much going on. He can’t really focus. What genre is he spoofing? Romantic comedy? Police procedural? Horror? Action? I’m not so sure either.

Simon Pegg is a great comic actor. He’s also a great actor beyond just humor. He gets inside his overachieving London police officer character Sgt. Nicholas Angel with humorous depth. He also co-wrote the film with Wright and they offer some genuinely funny moments. (And odd cameos by Peter Jackson and Cate Blanchett, but good luck spotting them) It’s just that the screenplay is a little awkward. Just when what seems like the final plot twist is revealed there’s still 50 minutes to go. The first half is more “Police Academy” and the second half is more “Bad Boys.” And the movie's plot goes from ridiculous to absurd in no time flat (although I guess you have to blame Michael Bay on that one).

Angel is promoted and reassigned (because he's too good at his job) to Sargeant at a hamlet's police service, which is home to some of the most inept police officers since "The Naked Gun." Jim Broadbent his here as Inspector Frank Butterman. “Shaun” alum Nick Frost is his son Danny. We have the Andys who are two cocky, mustached incompetents. An old geezer who’s accent is so thick it sounds like he is mentally challenged. And they throw in a female officer to spice things up. All of these characters add mildly funny bits, but they’re definitely not up to par with what “Shaun’s” supporting characters had to add.

And let’s not forget the suspected bad guy which includes former 007 Timothy Dalton as the owner of the local supermarket. He first tells Sgt. Angel that he’s a slasher…of low prices. But right away we know this guy is really up to no good. Eventually a serial killer begins stalking this safe village. And it turns out that the culprit may have some accomplices. There is an entire coverup that Angel intends to uncover. Meanwhile, there are some scattered gross out deaths that seem left over from the filmmaker’s previous zombie comedy, but they were welcomed nonetheless. And it’s not until the end of the film that all the slow motiona action, car chases and gunfire occur. It's all well staged, (as good as Mr. Bay) but by that point I didn’t really care too much.

“Hot Fuzz” has its amusing moments and some genuine laughs. It knows what it’s trying to do, but I wish it went about it in a different way. Some of the later plot points are completely outrageous, which bogs down the story but does add more potential comedy. I really thought the second half was just odd. Although seeing a priest getting shot and proclaiming “Jesus Christ!” made me laugh more than it should. It’s not as dumb as “Police Academy” and not as smart as “The Naked Gun.” And as far as being similar to "Reno 911," "Point Break" or "Bad Boys" who knows, because I had the good fortune to miss out on those. GRADE B-

Legally Bland: “Fracture” Offers Great Performances and an Okay Script

Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter to some people. And some people is me. A cold chill runs down my spine when I see his face. I know this great actor is just that: an actor. However, it’s impossible not to compare his best performance to his other bodies of work. In “Fracture” he plays another sophisticated psychopath. However, now he has no real apparent motive and no interesting backstory. And even without trademark lines references fava beans and Chianti, this thriller is still miles above the recent Hopkins-less Lecter prequel “Hannibal Rising.” The problem is that for all the powerhouse acting onscreen, director Gregory Hoblit doesn’t give us much here that’s suspenseful or engaging.

Ryan Gosling is definitely one of the best young actors working these days. Every performance he gives is outstanding. And I think it was I who first said that he would get an Oscar nomination for his role in the wonderful “Half Nelson.” Okay, so I wasn’t the only one, but still, he was amazing! While his acting is still up to par, the only real reason to see this film is to witness the legal clash between our young hero Willy Beachum (Gosling) and our aged villain Ted Crawford (Hopkins).

Ted’s younger wife Jennifer (Embeth Davidtz) is having an affair with Rob (Billy Burke). Apparently this is ground for murder and in first ten minutes poor Jennifer has been shot in the head in her own home, by her own husband. Ted has known about the affair and decided to take matters into his own hand. The police enter Ted’s home and promptly arrest him. And lo and behold, one of the arresting officers is Rob. The police get a signed confession; this is an open and shut case. Or at least local hotshot District Attorney Willy thinks so. He decides to take the case and Ted decides to act as his own lawyer.

And so begins a battle of wits between theses two men who must carry the rest of the film. All of the evidence eventually becomes unusable. A conflict of interest makes the signed confession useless. And before Willy can say, “Boy am I screwed,” Willy is confronting the judge about being acquitted. The script introduces a forced love interest in the form of Nikki (Rosamund Pike) who is supposed to be Willy’s new boss. Of course that doesn’t stop them from doin’ it.

As it turns out Jennifer is in a coma. Her prognosis is not good, but it’s not really bad either. She may wake up she may not. Willy visits her in the hospital because he feels guilty for letting the man he knows did it go free. The point is that he just can’t prove it in court. Is the film trying to say our justice system doesn’t work or that guilty people get off too easy? I’m not really that sure. In fact, I’m not really sure what the film is trying to do at all. If it’s supposed to thrill, it doesn’t. If it’s supposed to be suspenseful, it’s not. If it’s supposed to showcase powerhouse acting, it does. And let’s not forget past Oscar nominee David Strathairn as Gosling’s employer who has a commanding presence.

I’m not so sure what to think of “Fracture.” It doesn’t really have much to say about our justice system. It doesn’t really have much to say about why people commit horrible crimes. There’s no real motivation behind Ted’s actions. There’s no reason why he chooses to mess with Willy’s mind. It’s basically an excuse to have a young and a seasoned actor go head to head. If you’re expecting the next great villain ala Hannibal Lecter you’re dead wrong. GRADE: B-

Fear Window: “Disturbia” is a Slightly Ingenious Hybrid of Hitchcock and The O.C.

I was disturbed about half way through “Disturbia.” The reason I was disturbed had to do with how much I actually enjoyed it. It’s not an award-worthy piece of cinema, but it’s a lot better than just a high tech Hitchcock rip-off. If fact, it’s leaps and bounds better than Gus Van Sant’s horrendous, ill-fated “Psycho” remake, which still gives me headaches. “Disturbia” takes it’s time to build suspense thanks to D.J. Caruso’s competent direction, enjoyable teen characters borrowed from The OC and a script (penned by Christopher B. Landon & Red Eye’s Carl Ellsworth) that has enough twists and turns to keep this out of the update hall of crap.

The film begins oddly enough with a father and son fishing together. At first you might suspect that you’ve sat down in the wrong theater. Alas something tragic occurs and you realize that this film might just live up to its title. In fact the entire film is slightly ingenious in a way, because it updates a classic film (“Rear Window”) for a modern audience, yet it still remains legitimately faithful to the source material. Okay, so a lot has changed in major ways, but the underlying story still remains. Up and coming actor Shia LeBeouf plays Kale, who is a troubled teen (aren’t they all?) A school incident results in him having to be under house arrest for the summer. He has a sensor on his ankle that fetches the police when he wanders too far from his yard.

So here is summer vacation and this poor guy has to sit in his house all day long. His mom (The Matrix’s Carrie-Ann Moss) rightfully cancels his itunes subscription and cuts the wire to his TV set. What’s a troubled teen to do? He grabs his binoculars and begins spying on the neighbors of course! He’s sometimes joined by his friend Ronnie (Aaron Yo, who plays an enjoyable, if clichéd, ethnic sidekick). Both boys’ libidos race for Ashley (Sarah Roemer) the young hottie who has just moved in next door. She spends her summer afternoons exiting her swimming pool in slow motion. Eventually she becomes watch buddies with Kale and Ronnie.

The film takes its time establishing its characters and that’s a good thing. We will grow to enjoy them and become more worried for them once they get into danger. The danger would be the form of the scary neighbor across the street who just may be a serial killer. I can’t really say anything else without giving away all the fun. The neighbor is played by character actor David Morse (I recall him as Jodie Foster’s dad in “Contact”), and he does a great job of throwing everyone off balance. He’s creepy and then not and then creepy again. The film has fun playing with us, because we’re actually not sure whether everything will just turn out to be a red herring, much like the first half of “What Lies Beneath.”

Elements of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” make appearances (and the plot is similar to an episode of “The Simpsons” in which a handicapped Bart suspects Ned Flanders of murdering his wife) after Kale causes the cops to come out one too many times. The film also celebrates the medium’s (and the Hitch’s) most favorite theme: voyeurism. And while the film really does take its time getting to the good stuff (Hitch would be proud) it’s worth the wait. In fact, I feel the target audience for this film might even be bored. There are so many elements that are geared for the under 15 crowd, yet I can’t help but think that adults will enjoy it as much as teens. Perhaps they should have pumped up the language to keep out the annoying cellphone texting tweeners.

“Disturbia” is Alfred Hitchcock for the ipod listening, blog writing, You Tube watching generation. It’s hip without seeming too corny, yet it’s mostly intelligent unlike most PG-13 rated scary movie garbage. Most of it is believable and when the characters make stupid decisions or make bone headed moves, you’re quickly able to forgive them. The young leads are appealing and the villain is legitimately frightening. If Hitchcock was still around I wonder what his Ipod playlist would be like? GRADE: B+

The Gore the Merrier: “Grindhouse” Offers Two Bloody Fun Pictures For the Price of One

I didn’t grow up in the 70s when cheesy exploitation flicks crowded urban movie houses. Grindhouse is an ode to exploitation and has no social value whatsoever. Grindhouse films were B-movies made famous by small cinemas who’d grind out schlock flick after schlock flick so often that the film itself would become scratched and damaged. These were films not part of the mainstream. And like any popular auteur, directors Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino have made films that could appeal to anyone who loves going to the movies. Or at least anyone who has a craving to see Fergie get torn apart by ravenous zombies.

Each director has written and directed his own film with phony film trailers appearing before and in-between each movie. It’s important to note that going to see Grindhouse is an experience. It will take over 3 hours of your time, but it’s well worth it. Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. Let me comment on the fake trailers. We get previews for Machete, Werewolf Women of the S.S., Don’t and Thanksgiving. These are expertly made trailers for films that look undeniably horrible. Of course that’s what makes them so fun. God-awful director Ed Wood would be lovin’ it if he were still kicking. These trailers are a perfect part of the Grindhouse experience. And if you don’t like watching trailers too bad: remember this is a movie for people who love going to the movies!

The first film up is Rodriguez’s “Planet Terror.” In short, it involves a spreading virus, which causes people to blister up and become monstrous zombies. It’s one of the best homage to B-movies ever. Sort of similar to last year’s Troma-inspired “Slither,” this film is awash in colorful characters and even more colorful blood & guts. Rose McGowan is Cherry. She is a go-go dancer, not a stripper. Her leg ends up being a zombie’s lunch. She’s fitted with a literal peg leg and eventually a machine gun. Watching this femme wipe out a horde of bloodthirsty zombies with her machine gun leg is one of the most iconic cinematic images since Dorothy skipped down the yellow brick road. (Too much?) The film has intentionally funny dialogue yet plenty of gross outs and jumps. Horror film fans will be foaming at the mouth.

Next is a slight change of pace: Tarantino’s “Death Proof.” This segment stars Kurt Russell as a homicidal stunt car driver. He uses his car which he insists is “death proof” to hunt down unsuspecting victims. Of course he doesn’t expect to meet up with real life stuntwoman Zoe Bell who takes him on the ride of his life. Rosario Dawson co-stars in here with Bell and two others as members of a film crew. Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is an actress in the film, while Dawson is the make-up girl. The four of them share stories during long dialogue scenes, which could put some to sleep. However, anyone who enjoys Tarantino’s ear for enjoyable, pop culture driven dialogue will love it.

Grindhouse is genre filmmaking at it’s best. The films are skillfully and artfully made (with each director as the credited DP) and even Tarantino gets in on the fun. He plays Rapist #1 in “Planet Terror.” And it’s his best performance since playing an Elvis impersonator on an episode of “The Golden Girls.” Not much more can be said about the films in terms of plot without giving too much away, but this is well worth your time. You won’t be moved, become a smarter human being, or have a life altering experience with “Grindhouse,” but you’re sure to have killer time. GRADE: A

Lord of the Rings: “Peaceful Warrior” is a Slightly Corny Tale of Personal Triumph

I was expecting a historic fight. I was expecting a Yoda vs. Mr. Miyagi battle. Both were inspirational mentors wise beyond their years. While their respective films may have ended, there are plenty of “let’s train the cocky newbie” stories left to be told. Now we have the true story, as told in the book “The Tale of the Peaceful Warrior,” of Dan Millman who was a star college gymnast who seemed to have everything. He was fit and dedicated to his sport, had great grades and an equally successful social live. But what about on the inside?

Those expecting a simple triumph over adversity tale will be disappointed to know this is a self-help book disguised as a movie. And that is not necessarily a bad thing, but the film can be rather preachy at times. Dan (Scott Mechlowicz) is the kid who thinks he has it all until he meets the random gas station attendant who he refers to as Socrates (Nick Nolte). Apparently this man can leap from the ground to the roof in a split second and Dan wants to know how. But before he can learn about Socrates he has to first learn about himself.

As written and directed by Victor Salva, the film has a structure of what I’d like to call “gym scenes” and “gas station scenes.” In the gym scenes we get to learn about Dan and his teammates who are all training hard for the Olympic qualifying competition. We get scenes of strong young men training on the hobble horse or dangling on the rings, which is Dan’s main event. Everything he’s ever wanted is in those rings. It’s through the “gas station scenes” in which Dan learns that it’s not about the goal but the journey that’s important.

Of course tragedy strikes and it doesn’t look very good for Dan. He has shattered his right leg and it’s unlikely he’ll ever be able to compete again. I’m sure you can guess what happens. Dan is determined! Socrates will help his young protégé; his young “peaceful warrior.” Meanwhile Dan catches the eye of Joy (Amy Smart) who is somehow a relative of or friend of Socrates. The film thankfully doesn’t give the love story a full storyline, yet it’s so underdeveloped that it’s borderline unnecessary.

For all its philosophy 101 attributes the film is slowly paced and plodding, but it does have a good message that is fairly worth seeking out. While the film isn’t vacant of clichés, it has enough original flourishes to give it a decent recommendation. Nolte’s performance is subdued and mysterious. Mechlowicz makes his character interesting enough to care about, even though he’s not really altogether likable. And it appears that the actor has done a lot of his own gymnastics. His teammates are just caricatures and appear so that the “gym scenes” can actually have dialogue. The camerawork is very good, with some neat compositions and nice visual sense.

A standard “look inside yourself” inspirational drama, this time about gymnastics, “Peaceful Warrior” is fairly engaging and it does inspire. Whether or not you’ll find the “gas station scenes” all that interesting or believable is another story. You’re bound to get caught up in it or laugh out loud. The studio obviously had no faith in the film itself, as it only received a limited release last summer and has hardly made a blimp on the radar since then. GRADE: B-

Skate Movie: Figure Skating Gets It’s Due in the Uproarious “Blades of Glory”

It’s been done before certainly, but at least here it’s done well enough that it doesn’t matter. Blades of Glory is about two male figure skating rivals who are forced to skate together. And surprisingly the film doesn’t rely too heavily on male-on-male ice skating jokes. It basically pokes fun at figure skating competition in general. Who wouldn’t love to see Will Ferrell and Napoleon Dynamite’s Jon Heder gliding ever so gently across the ice to popular pop songs? If you thought the ads for Blades looked stupid, be prepared to laugh loud and often.

Ferrell plays Chazz Michael Michaels a sexaholic figure skater with the figure of well, not a figure skater. Heder plays Jimmy MacElroy a shaggy-haired orphan who just so happens to have skated since he was a little boy. Both are introduced “Access Hollywood” style and we know that right from the start this isn’t a film to be taken extremely seriously. We open up with Jimmy as a young boy skating with nuns to the tune of Andrea Bocelli’s “Con Te Partiro.” An event occurs in which both rivals are banned from competing in professional male single figure skating. But alas there is a loophole found by Jimmy’s stalker fan Hector who hilariously gives John Lennon’s stalker a run for his creepy money.

Since both male skaters are encouraged to join forces and skate together we need another villain! Enter in brother and sister team Stranz and Fairchild Van Waldenberg (Will Arnett & Amy Poehler). They are a manipulative, incestuous (and funny) pair who makes life miserable for their innocent, younger sister Katie (Jenna Fischer of The Office), who is always being blamed for their parent’s tragic death. Both Arnett and Poehler work extremely well together and Fischer makes a perfect foil for the crazy pair.

Meanwhile Chazz and Jimmy are coached by none other than Mr. Coach himself Craig T. Nelson. According to imdb his character is simply “coach.” Coach teaches this flamboyant pair to work as a team and to get over the fact that millions will be making fun of them. Their situations are comical and engaging and while it could have easily been montage, montage, montage, the script actually has being both smart and funny on its plate.

The film (directed by Josh Gordon & Will Speck) has plenty of great things going for it. We get the standard figure skating cameos (Brian Boitano, Nancy Kerrigan etc) and even frat pat regular Luke Wilson shows up for fun. The skating sequences are a hoot. The costumes are appropriately ridiculous. The dialogue is funny, must of it seeming to be improvised. I must credit first time writers Jeff & Craig Fox for simple hilarity. The cast is entertaining, and I would be lying if I said I didn’t get caught up in it all. While some may find that this has been done before as “Dodgeball” or “Talladega Nights,” Blades of Glory offers enough laughs worthy of a gold metal. GRADE: B+

Battle of the Bulges: “300” Is Neither Style Nor Substance

I never thought a film could make me pine for the cheesiness that is "Troy," the Spartan vs. Trojan epic that many thought of as nothing more than a "Gladiator" rip-off. Not to mention a poor adaptation of The Illiad that made no attempt to be original or intelligent. It had laughable throwaway lines like Brad Pitt shouting, “Do you know what's waiting beyond that beach? Immortality! Take it! It's yours!” Even though the whole thing was basically a mess of a film, it was entertaining. The latest sword & sandal flick to hit the big screen, “300” tries way too hard to entertain it’s target audience of 15 year old boys.

I enjoyed director Zack Snyder’s “Dawn of the Dead” remake a lot if not more than the original. That was a film updated for today’s MTV “I need an edit every other second” generation type of moviegoers. And frankly, sometimes I’m one of them. While it was definitely quicker paced than the 1978 version, it stood out besides the fact that it was all hip and cool. Now we have “300” which is supposed to be a hybrid of the Gladiator-esque epic and Sin City-esque coolness. It’s really neither. The “style” (scenes shot in front of green screen with the computer effects placed later) wears thin after ten minutes. And frankly the palette here is just ugly. The washed out colors are supposed to look old and vintage, but are just bland.

The film is based on Frank Miller’s comic…err, graphic novel of the same name. It follows the true story of King Leonidas (Gerard Butler, or as some may end up calling him, Butt-ler) and his army of 300 burly Spartans, who have more six packs than a frat party. They end up being outnumbered in the ensuing Battle of Thermopylae (in 480 B.C. for those historians who care). Their numbers are low, but their spirits are high. Barf. This is as inspirational as a high school football game in Texas. Then there is the enemy Persian leader (Rodrigo Santoro) who looks like RuPaul with bling. Let’s not forget the Frank Miller essential “creatures” including Ephialtes (Andrew Tiernan), looking like the love child of Gollum and The Goonies’ Sloth, who will eventually betray the Spartan army.

As “original” as the film is trying to be, it ultimately isn’t. The soundtrack didn’t have any oomph and I’m getting sick of the typical female vocalist whining on the soundtrack. What about family members of the hero running through wheat fields? Got it. Or how about shots of thousands of arrows coming toward the camera? Been there, done that. And whoever thinks this film is violent obviously has never seen a Road Runner & Wile E. Coyote cartoon. A child is more likely become a serial murderer from watching Saturday morning cartoons than from watching this.

It’s really just a geek show. Let’s just say “300” won’t make any converts of non graphic novel fans. I know there are plenty of people who will love this movie, I’m not one of them and that’s okay. I just felt that I didn’t get to know any of the characters particularly well, so did I even care if any of them get killed?* It got annoying watching inspirational speech, battle, speech, battle, and speech for two hours in dreary colors. This is a testosterone-filled, emotionally empty movie of mind numbing special effect shots that aren’t very impressive in the first place. GRADE: C

*I realize I may sound like a hypocrite since I enjoy slasher films that don’t exactly rely on three dimensional character development, but I digress.

Romancing the Tone: Drew Barrymore & Hugh Grant Turn Up the Charm in “Music & Lyrics”

I find myself indulging way too much on VH1’s popular “I love the (insert decade here)” series. My favorite is the ‘80s with such classical pop culture references as Cabbage Patch Dolls, The Breakfast Club and Wham! When the film “Music & Lyrics” opens with a horrendously cheesy ‘80s music video by fictional pop group Pop! the nostalgia bus hit me. Okay, so maybe I was only 6 when Milli Vanilli lip-synced their way to a Grammy Award, but I love all things 80s. Then the film introduces washed up Pop! has been Alex Fletcher (Hugh Grant) and we never get to see the 80s again! The film would rather be a typical romantic comedy than a skewering of everyone’s favorite bad-hair decade.

This is definitely an above average romantic comedy, but it doesn’t come close to capturing the comedy of Drew Barrymore’s last romantic romp Fever Pitch. Writer/director Marc Lawrence assures us there’s no question that Barrymore and Grant will get together, with bumps along the way, but there’s a mildly engaging time to had here. Sophie Fisher comes into Alex’s apartment to take care of his plants. And while Alex is having a little bit of songwriter’s block, it just so happens that Sophie is a gifted writer. If Alex can write a hit song for Cora a Shakira-like pop singer then he’ll surely be superstar again.

So Alex and Sophie become writing partners. He writes the music and she writes the lyrics. And wouldn’t you know that these two might just hit it off in the love department. Sophie has some odd quirks, which Barrymore handles well. She pricks her finger on a cactus and promptly exits Alex’ apartment before it gets infected. It’s kind of difficult to see how Alex was ever such a huge star, but we just have to accept it.

A romantic comedy works only as well as the two lead work together. Does the audience actually want to see the two get together? Do they make a good couple? Are they worth rooting for? The answer here is yes but their romantic journey isn’t without it’s lulls. There are many scenes that just sort of hang there with no real direction. Some of their scenes in which they try to sort out their music are just kind of boring. There are laughs to be had, but it’s not really a laughfest.

Most comedies like this reveal in funny, entertaining secondary characters. Here we have some TV veterans in on the fun. Brad Garrett, of Everybody Loves Raymond fame, plays Alex’s manager and he has a good goofy quality that works, but doesn’t necessarily make him funny. The standout here is Kristen Johnston of 3rd Rock From the Sun who plays Sophie’s sister. As Rhonda, a married woman with kids who never lost that Pop! crush she has such an unfeminine way about here that completely works in her favor. Her shouting, “Gary I’m going out!” after learning she has a chance to see her favorite Pop! star in person (while in unfocused background) is the film’s funniest throwaway line.

Music & Lyrics isn’t without some issues, but anyone in the mood for a light romantic romp should be please. It’s not total garbage, yet not a complete success. While I’m sure many would find it a waste of time, I found enough about it to be charmed by it all. GRADE: B-

Skank’s on a Chain: The Oddball Southern Tale “Black Snake Moan” is Surprisingly Watchable

I don’t even know what to say. The trailer for “Black Snake Moan” puzzled me way back in December. What appeared to be a film about a black man who “rehabilitates” a young promiscuous white woman in the Deep South looked like an odd movie going experience. And low and behold it is! This is certainly a B-movie if there ever was one. And I’ve decided that every movie that Samuel L. Jackson makes from now on should have “snake” somewhere in the title.

We open on some old black & white stock footage of a black blues guitarist unknown by me. Then we cut to Christina Ricci doin’ it with Justin Timberlake. Then we have Samuel L. Jackson in what appears to be a scene involving his ex-wife. What is going on? I have no idea. Quickly Ronnie (Timberlake) is going off to war and Rae (Ricci) is going to be left all by her lonesome. As Ronnie drives away, Rae (who gives Reese Witherspoon a run for her money in the Southern accent department) begins to thrive and wriggle in the grass in what appears to be an orgasm brought on by Ronnie’s car exhaust. After a night of being drugged up and wasted at a party she ends up right near Lazarus’ (Jackson) house. She’s beaten up and barely conscious and barely clothed for that matter.

Lazarus comes to the girl’s rescue. He runs down to the pharmacy for some medicine and makes it his goal to help this poor thing. Soon he discovers that she’s hornier than a rabbit in heat and before you know it Lazarus has chained up poor Rae to the radiator. He has decided to cure Rae of her wicked ways (read: stop being a slut). There are scenes of Ricci writhing around on the floor as if the Invisible Man is sexually assaulting her and it’s really hard to figure out what we’re supposed to do with all of this. I mean, it’s kind of funny and kind of not, but it’s always entertaining.

The film doesn’t exactly know what genre it is, but it always has a conscious idea that it’s a too silly to be taken seriously. There are outrageously funny parts including a young teen who stops by the house to deliver something and Rae promptly jumps him. Music also has a main role here although I would hardly called it a musical. There are scenes that take place in a steamy jazz club in which Lazarus is center stage and filled with secondary characters. This is a film that could have been Misery meets Pretty Woman but it’s not. And the film works best if you try not to label it as one type of genre.

The actors do good jobs in their roles especially Jackson and Ricci. I admire Ricci for taking a sexually provocative role that I’m sure many actresses certainly passed on. I’ve never found her to be an overly gifted actress (even in Monster she was one-note) but she finally gets a role she can shine in. Jackson is also well cast as the Southern musician who’s mission it is to cure Rae of her sins. And Timberlake does a fairly good job as Rae’s boyfriend, but it’s still hard to keep a straight face when his character breaks down into tears. I mean this is the guy who sings SexyBack for God’s sake.

This is one of the strangest movies I’ve ever seen and writer/director Craig Brewer (Hustle & Flow) has certainly come up with one of the most original stories to come out in awhile. It’s a film not exactly recommended for everyone, but anyone curious enough to see what a film called “Black Snake Moan” could possibly be about should give it a try. GRADE: B+

I Saw the Sign: “Zodiac” is an Enjoyable Murder Mystery

I love serial killers. Okay that makes me sound like Ted Bundy; rather, I enjoy learning about what goes on inside a serial murderer’s mind. Some might not think so, but it can be fascinating. I really enjoy the sick ones: Dahmer, Gacy, Gein, you know, the ones that cut people up or turned their home’s crawl space into a foul grave. Can you blame me? I like movies like Saw and Hostel. So, it’s not surprising to find out I was thrilled to learn David Fincher was making another serial killer flick, but the Zodiac? I’ve never found him a very interesting or compelling killer. And to me, besides the fact he was never caught, there’s not much about him that’s fascinating. Therefore is it not surprising that I didn’t absolutely LOVE “Zodiac”? It is a very good film and a fascinating look at the people who literally became obsessed with finding out who this maniac was.

Since most of us know that the Zodiac was never identified (even though some of his victims survived) we can probably guess the film’s ending, but it’s the process in how we get there that’s compelling. The film starts superbly with a young couple in a car in the late sixties. We’re just waiting to see how they get killed and it’s suspenseful. The murder scenes are the best parts of the film. The next couple by the lake is especially good, it’s hard to know where it’s going exactly. The killer shows up with a gun, but they end up being stabbed.

The main characters included San Francisco Chronicle cartoonist and single dad Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal). Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) is a writer for the paper. The Zodiac begins by sending cryptic letters to the Chronicle, in code (paging Robert Langdon), in which he demands they be printed in the circulated paper. Soon Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) enters the scene as the case’s lead detective. The actors are good, and while many might find this to be an exceptional cast, I found it just good. These are all watchable actors, but none of which I’m a particular fan of. As for the women, I’ve never particularly liked the blandness that is Chloë Sevigny (she’s Gyllenhaal’s blind date and eventual wife).

While the film is long, that’s not a problem. The film runs smoothly and is moderately intriguing, but the film’s second half (which has no more murder scenes) gets slightly hysterical when Robert takes over (Paul has a complete collapse and leaves the paper) and becomes obsessed with the finding out the killer’s identity. Downey’s character is a scene-stealer and he’s missed in the fim’s last half.

This is the least David Fincher-esque of all his films (although I’ve never seen The Game). He has some trademark stylistic camera moves and placements. I loved that taxicab aerial view shot. While he played homage to Hitchcock in Panic Room (with fun experimentation with long takes and nifty camera moves), here he pays homage to 70s procedural flicks. This is more of a police mystery rather than psycho thriller, which seem like it could definitely have been released in 1978. It plays more like All the President’s Men than Silence of the Lambs, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, just unexpected.

Unfortunately we get no real insights into a serial killer’s mind. We don’t get the sense of the fear of what it was like to live in the Bay area during this time, but we get to feel what it was like to be a reporter at a newspaper. That seems odd to me. One scene towards the end that is supposed to be suspenseful isn’t because it would be way too obvious if a certain character just happened to unwittingly step into the killer’s domicile ala Jodie foster at the end of Lambs.
While the film is enjoyable, sophisticated and unexpectedly not overly grotesque, I couldn’t help but feel like the whole thing was procedural. It didn’t feel exactly fresh or new, but I found it a worthwhile cinematic experience. GRADE: B

UPDATED! Oscar Forecast: Little Miss Departed?

Well well well. The Departed rained on Little Miss Sunshine's parade and took home the gold in one of the most exciting and entertaining Oscar ceremonies in ages. Everyone was jumping for joy here at my party, how about yours? Scorsese's Boston crime saga cleaned up (sorry Marky Mark, you'll have other shots) with 4 total wins. And wouldn't you know Alan Arkin beat Norbit star Eddie Murphy. I'm not so sure he'll have another shot. Ellen not surprisingly turned out to be a great host. Her highlights included giving Martin Scorsese her unpublished script and vacuuming underneath Penelope Cruz's dress. Even with 8 nominations Dreamgirls didn't exactly clean up except for frontrunner Jennifer Hudson and the sound mixers. I guess perenial sound loser Kevin O'Connell will have to try again next time. As for my predicitions, I had a rough night. (No foreign film award for Pan's Labyrinth? No original song for Dreamgirls? No best animated feature for Cars?) And wouldn't you know I got all the boring awards incorrect. I only got 13 categories correct, how about you?

It’s almost Oscar night and one thing is certain: no one really knows who is going to take home the top prize. The Best Picture winner is fogger than ever and you might as well just flip a coin to predict who’ll win. Will the Academy select the royal drama The Queen? The war drama Letters from Iwo Jima? The crime drama The Departed? The multicultural drama Babel? Or the family dramedy Little Miss Sunshine? History would rule out Sunshine because it’s funny, has the least nominations and it’s director(s) failed to earn a nom. The Academy has never awarded Best Picture to film with mostly subtitles, sorry Babel and Letters. Many think The Queen is Helen Mirren’s show. And The Departed, made the most money and is a critical fav but is this bloody film Best Picture worthy?

These are my predictions and come Oscar night, I hope to at least have a few of these correct: (winners appear in BOLD)

Best Picture
Will win: The Departed
I seriously have no clue what film is going to win. It seems to come down to Babel and Little Miss Sunshine, but I still think The Departed has a very good shot. Whoever predicts this category correctly has luck on their side.
Should Win: The Departed
It’s by far my favorite film of the bunch, although I’ve yet to see Letters from Iwo Jima. Little Miss Sunshine is a great film, although I’m not so sure it’s Best Picture worthy. Babel is epic and enjoyable, but if it were to win it would feel like a Crash rehash.
Should have been nominated: United 93

Best Actor
Will Win: Forest Whitaker, The Last King Of Scotland
I haven’t seen this film, nor am I fan of Whitaker, but I hear he’s simply amazing. Seeing as though he’s won every other award, it seems obvious he’ll get it. Although, his boring acceptance speeches (Golden Globes, SAG) have been pitifully boring and unenlightening. Those voting with their hearts may check off Peter O’Toole who has never won before. Had his film Venus been better, he’d be a shoo-in.
Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed
Wait? He’s not nominated for The Departed? What was the academy thinking! He’s wonderful in Blood Diamond, but he’s even better in The Departed, and had he been nominated for it, he might have siphoned some votes away from Forest Whitaker. Second place should be Ryan Gosling whose extraordinary performance in Half Nelson sill amazes months later.
Should have been nominated: Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed

Best Actress
Will Win: Helen Mirren, The Queen
If you don’t predict that Mirren will win, you’re a moron. She can’t lose! Who would even have a shot of winning? The other actresses are great, but this is Mirren’s year.
Should Win: Helen Mirren, The Queen
I loved Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada, but whether she actually deserves to win an Oscar is questionable. I loved Little Children but Kate Winslet will definitely have more shots at this.
Should have been nominated: Annette Bening, Running With Scissors


Best Director
Will Win: Martin Scorsese, The Departed
Finally! While I’ve never been a huge Scorsese fan, I think he at least deserves an Oscar for crying out loud! His work on The Departed was excellent. It’s film that could have easily become a tired crime saga, but it turned out to be the best film of the year! Kudos!
Should Win: Martin Scorsese, The Departed
Hello, it’s my favorite movie of 2006! Clint’s won before, Paul Greengrass’s nom is his award, and hopefully Frears and Inarritu will have other shots down the road.
Should have been nominated: Valarie Faris and Jonathan Dayton, Little Miss Sunshine
(If it wins best picture, it’ll just make them feel like crap for God’s sake!)

Best Supporting Actor
Will Win: Eddie Murphy, Dreamgirls
He was really good in Dreamgirls and he added greatly to the scenes he was in. Murphy has been making pretty crappy movies lately, but I think the Academy will recognize him here.
Should Win: Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine
As Grandpa, Arkin gives a caustic, brilliantly funny portrayal of a grumpy old man. But of course he’s lovable and his scenes with fellow nominee Abigail Breslin are warm and touching.
Should have been nominated: Jack Nicholson, The Departed

Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls
If she doesn’t win, she should stand up during the winner’s speech and belt out And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going and storm out. I though her performance in Dreamgirls was award worthy… Tony award worthy. Her scenes are affecting and she makes you want to stand up and cheer, but let’s face it, we’ve all seen better screen acting.
Should Win: Rinko Kikuchi, Babel
This unknown Asian actress gives a heart wrenching performance, without uttering a single word. As deaf-mute teenager she adds the most to the movie. While her character’s storyline doesn’t quite fit in with the rest of the film, if you took her out, the film would suffer. Adriana Barraza was also amazing, but I had to give Kikuchi the edge because she gave a great performance without speaking. Hopefully, little Abigail Breslin will have other shots when she’s older.
Should have been nominated: Catherine O’Hara, For Your Consideration

…and the rest…

Best Original Screenplay: Little Miss Sunshine

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Departed

Best Original Score: The Queen Babel

Best Original Song: 'Listen' - Dreamgirls An Inconvenient Truth

Best Animated Film: Cars Happy Feet

Best Foreign Film: Pan's Labyrinth The Lives of Others

Best Art Direction: Pan's Labyrinth

Best Cinematography: Children Of Men Pan's Labyrinth

Best Costume Design: Marie Antoinette

Best Documentary Feature: An Inconvenient Truth

Best Documentary (Short Subject): Two Hands who cares!

Best Film Editing: Babel The Departed

Best Make-up: Pan's Labyrinth

Best Short Film (Animated): The Little Matchgirl who cares!

Best Short Film (Live Action): Eramos Pocos (One Too Many) who cares!

Best Sound Editing: Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest Letters from Iwo Jima

Best Sound Mixing: Dreamgirls

Best Visual Effects: Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

Math Addict: Serious Jim Carrey + Is He Serious? Director Joel Schumacher = Seriously Silly “The Number 23”

I’m sorry, but if you are afraid of numbers and the wild coincidents they sometimes concoct you are a serious loser. Now I went into “The Number 23” with an open mind. The previews suggest that Jim Carrey, playing “serious” again, begins to become obsessed with the mathematical integer known as 23. His birthday is 2/3, his social security number adds up to 23, and by golly he, like all humans, got 23 chromosomes from each parent. If you’re scared yet then you should see a shrink.

Director Joel Schumacher (of the recent Phantom of the Opera) only further tarnishes the movie’s silly premise with his garish visual style. He over directs every scene and manages to get, surprise-surprise, overacting from his cast. Carrey is a funny guy but he can also act. Unfortunately, Schumacher doesn’t let him act normal. He prefers style over substance, as was the case when he took over the popular Batman franchise from Tim Burton in 1995. Burton is also a stylistic director, but his films usually aren’t terrible. Schumacher has to beat it over our heads that he’s hip and cool and look at the neat shots he has come up with. Is he trying to make the film’s silly story scary? If so, he fails.

The script shows how Walter’s (Carrey) wife Agatha (Virginia Madsen) wanders into a small bookshop (Walter is running late because a dog bit him and she’s waiting to meet him) and a book entitled The Number 23 catches her eye. She thumbs through it and decides to buy it for her husband as a birthday gift (She should have just gotten him socks and a nice golf bag). As Walter reads the book we’re transported into the world of the novel he’s reading. These scenes are told in a film noir sort of way that reminded me of the God-awful Black ‘I-Just-Might-Dry-Heave’ Dahlia, which I’m still recovering from. It turns out the tattoo-tattered Carrey we’ve come to find so strange in the trailers isn’t the Walter character but the book’s Detective Fingerling character. Are you confused?

So Walter becomes obsessed with this book because the Fingerling character becomes obsessed with the number 23 and it’s relation to him. It seems like 23 is some kind of evil number. For instance did you know that 9/11/2001 adds up to 23? Or that Ted Bundy was executed on the 23rd day of the month? Or that the Mayans thought the end of the world would come on the 23rd? If you get sick of hearing the many ways the number 23 is evil you should stay away. It gets sickening hearing 11+1+11=23 or 20+3=23 or 2/3=.666. Who really cares? The dialogue is down right silly and thank you screenwriter Fernley Phillips for lines like “23 is just a number!” Ya think?

This movie is ridiculous and doesn’t for minute make you believe in the crazy things going on. It’s not thrilling, it’s not scary, it’s not gripping, it’s not entertaining, it’s not suspenseful, it’s not amusing, the script is bad, the acting is bad, the editing is bad, the directing is bad, it’s not exciting, it’s not interesting, it doesn’t make sense, it’s not creepy, it’s not chilling, it’s not frightening, it’s not funny, it’s not so bad it’s good, it’s poorly cast, it’s boring, it’s tedious, it’s frustrating and it makes “The Da Vinci Code” look Oscar-worthy. There you go, 23 reasons to stay home. GRADE: D

Food For Thought: “Hannibal Rising” Proves It’s Not the Greatest Story Ever Told

Let’s take a moment and trace the history of one of cinema’s most frightening yet sophisticated serial killers. In Michael Mann’s “Manhunter” Hannibal Lecter had yet to become a household name. Brian Cox briefly played him with a fierce intensity that was chilling but not really particularly memorable. Then came “The Silence of the Lambs” a film nearly perfect in every way. Anthony Hopkins blew nearly everyone away as a monster taking the shape of a human being. He was frightening just to look at yet he was so utterly fascinating. In “Hannibal,” the long awaited follow-up, he’s on the loose yet he’s a lot less scary. By focusing more on Lecter rather than another killer (i.e. Tooth Fairy in “Manhunter,” Buffalo Bill in “Lambs”) he became more of an antihero. I mean come on, didn’t everyone cheer when he fed Ray Liotta his own brains? “Red Dragon” went back to the basics and was more like “Lambs.” It was a decent re-imagining of the book and Lecter, while still masterfully played by Hopkins, began to become one note. And now we have the completely unnecessary “Hannibal Rising” which feels like a prologue to a better film. His childhood, as horrific as it was, isn’t very fascinating, and the film stops just when Lecter’s story should be getting good.

As directed by Peter Webber, the film has a good visual style and is well photographed, but that doesn’t really mean anything if the story doesn’t interest you. The film seems to be a strange brew of genres. The film begins during the Nazi invasion where Lecter is a young boy. His parents are killed so he’s left to care for his young sister Mischa. That is until some war criminals come in and end up dining on poor little Mischa. So that’s how a cannibal is born: eaten siblings. Flash forward years later where Lecter is a teenager (played by newcomer Gaspard Ulliel, more on him later) at a boarding school. Apparently he’s a mute except when he screams out Mischa’s name in the middle of the night. Then he escapes and travels to somewhere else in Europe where he meets up with his uncle’s Japanese wife. From here on the film becomes a “Kill Bill” revenge tale as Gong Li’s character trains him to be a master warrior. Call me crazy but I don’t recall Lecter being a trained warrior in “Silence of the Lambs,” but I digress. He first kills the man who insults Gong Li and we patiently wait for him to chow down on his first plate of liver and fava beans.

It’s impossible to analyze the film without thinking of the four previous versions, but this is by far the weakest. Even on it’s own it tells it’s story is a slightly plodding way. First this happens then that happens which causes this to happen. What a snooze! There’s nothing exciting waiting in the wings for us Lecter fans. No twists, no surprises. Now I’m beginning to realize why it took so long for this story to be told. Like previous “origin story” “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning,” all this ends up being is an excuse to gather fans eager enough to waste more money on a film with the Lecter namesake.

As the teenage Lecter, Ulliel neither looks like a young Hopkins nor does he have the same aura of Hopkins. While I wasn’t expecting an imitation, I at least was trying desperately to figure out how this young man will become the psychotic psychiatrist we all know and love. Without comparing to Hopkins, he doesn’t really bring any psychological depth to his role. And boy is that scar on his cheek is irritating!

And one last thing. What kind of movie is this anyways? The previous films were thrillers and had scary moments, but this film has none. We’re put on Hannibal’s side from the very beginning. Are we supposed to feel bad for his victims? They ate little Mischa for crying out loud! The film is never scary, suspenseful or exciting. I blame Thomas Harris who as the creator of Hannibal the Cannibal should have written a movie with a lot more bite. GRADE: C-

The Old Man and the She: Peter O’Toole Gives a Career Capping Performance in “Venus”

You should have to swipe your AARP card to get into “Venus,” a film tailor-made for the over 60 crowd. Basically, if you’re graying and you think Glen Miller is hip you’ll get a kick out of it. And even though I’m a fan of the old ladies show “The Golden Girls” I found very little to enjoy about “Venus.” Peter O’Toole gives an Oscar-nominated performance as, gasp, an aging actor. What a stretch. But in all seriousness, he does grasp his role very well and gives it all he’s got. Basically the film starts out as the Odd Couple and delves into an old man/young woman love affair.

Young Jodie Whittaker is the Venus of the film’s title and she moves in to take care of her elderly uncle Leslie Phillips. Philips and O’Toole are old friends. And boy do I mean old. They spend their afternoons sharing each other’s medication as if they were their wives’ recipes. They even clip each other’s toenails. O’Toole takes a liking to this young woman who for the record is trying to break into modelin’, not yodelin’.

The film moves along at the pace of an old woman’s wobbly walker. It makes you feel as if time is slipping between your fingers. You almost expect to be 100 years old before it’s over. The film has its moments of comic hilarity, but unfortunately it meanders through scene after scene of O’Toole ogling Whittaker and you just want them to get it on already! (Actually you really don’t) It’s impossible to think that this woman would even have a slight interest in hanging out with O’Toole, but she does anyways.

We don’t really get to learn a whole lot about O’Toole’s character, although we do get to witness some of his acting gigs. One includes playing, an elderly dying man. So here we have a film in which an elderly man plays an elderly man playing an elderly man. If that doesn’t sound Oscar-worthy I don’t know what is.

Director Roger Michell who has made the other British romantic comedy “Notting Hill,” handles the material well, but he doesn’t completely grasp our attention. He was smart to open the film with these two old men exchanging pills, but after that highlight there’s nowhere else to go but down. See this for O’Toole’s great performance, otherwise you’d get more out of cheering up some geriatrics at the old folks home. GRADE: C+

What's That Smell? The Worst Films of 2006!

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. And so the saying goes. So, for as many good films that grace the silver screen there are plenty that make you wish you never paid for your ticket. Of course bad cinema can be a great thing. It’s the train wreck theory. You’d never want to be a part of such a catastrophe, but there’s something instinctual about witnessing something so horrid, so ghastly bad that it’s just extremely pleasurable. Of course my list of the worst films of the year aren’t fun at all. These are films that are so bad they’re awful. If you want to see a good bad movie watch "Snakes on a Plane" or the best bad movie ever made, "Showgirls." But if you can, whatever you do, don’t even think about renting any of the following films. Witness at your own risk my list of 2006’s worst films:

LADY IN THE WATER - This movie is so bad that I can almost taste my stomach lining as it attempts to force its way up my esophagus. This is a horrid miscalculation on every level and I blame its pretentious director M. Night Shayamalan. The film begins with a stupid animated sequence that sets up the film’s story, but who cares? Even this opening can’t help us make sense of the atrocities that follow. Paul Giamatti and Bryce Dallas Howard are at their worst as a stuttering apartment superintendent and sea nymph respectively. This supposedly scary fairy tale makes you realize that perhaps getting that root canal you desperately need might be slightly more entertaining.

THE BLACK DAHLIA – Is it true? Has this film actually been nominated for an Academy Award? Apparently the camerawork is worthy of an award but no one else connected to this mess is. There is a lot of talented people here but unfortunately they left their talent at home. This film, which is supposedly about the infamous murder of what the LA press called “the Black Dahlia,” commits two cinematic sins: being boring and confusing. Atrocious performances by Hilary Swank, Aaron Eckhart, Josh Hartnett and Scarlett Johansson don’t help either. It takes way too long to get into the story and by the time it does we realize that maybe we should of just stayed home.

LITTLE MAN - There are plenty of bad comedies that are good. It’s just too easy to brand a comedy as a piece of cinematic trash. Of course there are plenty of bad comedies that are just plain bad. Take "Little Man" for instance. It’s horrendously awful. Now, if you know me at all, then you’ll realize I must sound like a hypocrite. I enjoy some of the worst movies ever. I could watch the Mary Katherine Gallagher flick "Superstar" all day long. I loved the Wayans’ brother previous effort "White Chicks." I also display all four "Scary Movie" DVDs on my movie shelf. Now, as a lover of really bad comedies, let me steer you away from attempting to watch this horrid movie. Marlon Wayans’ head on a little person’s body is funny for about .78 seconds. A brief appearance by Molly Shannon as a soccer mom driving a minivan isn’t even worth the price of a rental.

PULSE – God strike me dead if one more PG-13 rated Japanese horror film adaptation is made! Whoever thought that a goof film could be made about the Internet being a scary portal for evil spirits to come through is out of their mind. I can’t believe horror master Wes Craven is actually a credited writer of the horrid attempt at movie making. The film stars Lost’s Ian Somerhaulder and Veronica Mars’ Kristen Bell as young adults attempting to figure out the mystery Bell's friend’s strange suicide. Speaking of suicide, this film will make you run out to the hardware store and buy a rope…

FREEDOMLAND – This very bad attempt to be as socially aware as last year’s Oscar-winning “Crash” is horribly wrong-headed from the very beginning. Julianne Moore gives a terrible performance as a woman whose car is supposedly stolen by a Black man. Samuel L. Jackson plays the cop who helps her. Oh, and then she remembers her kid was in the backseat. Yes, then suddenly she remembers her kid was in the car. Oh and then they quarantine an entire poor Black community in an attempt to find the culprit. This ridiculous film makes you want to watch “Crash” just to get the bad taste out of your mouth.

MAN OF THE YEAR – This is certainly not the movie of the year by any standards. What a complete waste of Robin Williams’ manic comic style. He plays a Jon Stewart-like TV host who decides to run for president when an audience member suggests he run. Low and behold he wins, but it’s because of a computer glitch in what is supposed to be a side plot which ends up making the audience roll their eyes every other second. This wildly unbalanced attempt at satire and thriller is laughable at best. Barry Levinson should be forced to give his directing Oscar back.

MIAMI VICE – How could this film, from Michael Mann, be one of the worst films of the year? Watch it and find out. It’s all about expectations. Hot off of “Collateral” both Mann and Jamie Foxx shockingly disappoint. And yes Colin Farrel stinks too. This film which has a cool style has been sucked dry of any fun. The storyline is nearly incomprehensible. And about twenty minutes into it, you realize it’s not going to get any better.

YOU, ME & DUPREE – This movie is way too easy to make fun of, so I’ve decided to be nice. Owen Wilson becomes the third wheel to newly married Matt Dillon and Kate Hudson. Dupree as he’s named, is obnoxious but we’re supposed to feel sorry for him and like him. Of course we only like him when he’s getting hit by moving vehicles. The characters never make rational decisions which add to the frustrations. If you want your IQ to be lower, check this out.

THE BREAK-UP – Vince Vaughn has never been more annoying than he is here. We’re supposed to buy that he and Jennifer Aniston are a real couple. And they are…oh wait that didn’t work out did it? But I digress… this is supposed to be funny but it ends up being sappy and presents us with overly sadistic fights between the leads. If you can’t get enough of your best friends’ obnoxious bickering then “The Break-Up” is for you.

DISHONORABLE MENTION:
SCARY MOVIE 4 – I gave this film a D+ when I reviewed it. It’s a horrible movie. It makes the other films in the franchise look like Oscar winners. I’m such a huge "Scary Movie" fan that I was shocked at how poor it really is. How did David Zucker of the ZAZ team actually make this? Of course on repeat viewings (ok so sue me, I bought the DVD used) it began to grow on me, due mainly to the fact that I think Anna Faris is hysterical. (If it were up to me she would be cast in every movie ever made. I mean she’s in "Brokeback Mountain" for God’s sake!) This movie is by no means good and I can’t recommend it to anyone, but on the occasion I find myself wanting to indulge just a little. Judge for yourself.

Scroll down for my list of the Best Films of 2006!