The Evolution of Freddy Krueger: Appreciating the “Nightmare” Films in Anticipation of the Remake/Reboot/Prequel

By the time 1984 rolled around horror movie audiences were very familiar with the slasher genre. Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees had been around for a few years. There had been three Halloween movies, although Myers took vacation time for Part III. There had been four Friday the 13th films. Also audiences were familiar with Leatherface, the Prowler, the Miner from “My Bloody Valentine,” the Driller Killer, the killer from “Prom Night,” etc. I’m almost surprised A Nightmare on Elm Street was even a success. But actually it came at the perfect time. In the six years since “Halloween” started the subgenre, slasher movies were becoming tedious, cheap and horrible. It needed a boost and Freddy Krueger was the only one who could do it.

Horror master Wes Craven was sort of ingenious in creating boogeyman Freddy Krueger for several reasons. First of all, not only did he give this character lines of dialogue, but he made him funny and scary. Granted he doesn’t really have funny lines in the original film, but you know he was just itching for some wisecracks. Freddy remains one of the few slashers who actually talk and while he’s been give more and more lines as the film series have progressed, it is trademark wit that makes Freddy stand out amongst the Jasons and Michael Myers out there. He gave him a trademark look and weapon: his wonderful homemade knife glove, which still is one of horror films’ most recognizable images. Also, Craven created a character that simply can’t be killed. When Jason gets killed a million times in his films the audience never really believes that this guy should still be around. But with Freddy, who exists in the dreams of his teenage victims can simply just live forever.

Wes Craven’s original film “A Nightmare on Elm Street” remains one of the best and important films in the slasher genre and currently stands as my 25th favorite movie of all time (although “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare,” like it or not, is still my favorite of the series). It has many iconic images which includes one of the most memorable murder scenes in horror history. I dare you to watch the scene in which Tina is clawed, thrown out of her bed, and dragged up the wall and onto the ceiling, only to fall back to her bed in a bloody mess. The scene is frightening, disorienting and a pioneering moment in slasher history. And we all remember the bathtub scene, Johnny Depp emerging from his bed as a pool of blood and Freddy rising from Nancy’s mother’s bed.

The many sequels were, not surprisingly less memorable, but fun nonetheless. “A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge” remains one of the strangest and controversial of all the sequels. Quickly dubbed the “gay Freddy movie” by its fans and detractors, it features Freddy’s attempt to possess the body of an effeminate teenage boy and kill teenagers in the real world, rather than in their dreams. Wes Craven had nothing to do with this one, but did return as co-writer for “A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: Dream Warriors.” It stars a young Patricia Arquette who’s committed to a mental hospital with fellow teenagers who are all dreaming of Freddy. Freddy’s trademark one-liners made themselves apparent here: “Welcome to primetime, bitch!” These wisecracks were pushed into overdrive in “A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 4: The Dream Master.” This film still remains the franchise’s most profitable even though its director was ironically Renny “Cutthroat Island” Harlin. The film featured great production values, slick cinematography and plenty of Freddy wit. Its dream sequences were very elaborate. This is the one where the girl from “Just the Ten of Us” is turned into a cockroach. The series started nose-diving with “A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child” which featured Freddy using the heroine’s unborn child’s dream to kill the local teenagers. This one shows Freddy as a baby. Ugh. New Line Cinema reluctantly greenlit “Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare” as an opportunity to kill off everyone’s favorite scarred child murderer. Apparently someone thought that working as an assistant production manager on Part 1 made director Rachel Talalay capable enough to direct this fifth sequel, (ok, relax, she produced the other sequels, but still come on, she sucks!) which had its ending sequence shown in gloriously cheesy 3D. The story this time around was a muddled mess and attempted to show a lot of Freddy’s backstory. You're not hallucinating; that is Alice Cooper as Freddy's abusive father. It also features Freddy at his “funniest.” He shows up as the Wicked Witch of the West for crying out loud and kills a kid in a video game. This is the worst of the series and an embarrassment for all involved. Thankfully, Craven returned for part 7: the wonderfully clever “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare.” The film brilliantly took place in the “real world” and had the fictional Freddy haunt the Nightmare films’ cast and crew members. It was pretty ahead of its time but unfortunately audiences didn’t turn out for this postmodern gem because after 10 years of Freddy Krueger movies people just didn’t care anymore. Ironically, the equally clever and tongue-in-cheek horror flick “Scream,” released just two years later (directed by Craven), went on to become a massive critical and financial hit. And of course, the less said about “Freddy vs. Jason” the better.

So that brings me to the point of all of this Freddy talk and that is a remake is in production and is slated for release next April. Robert Englund, who I can’t believe I’ve failed to mention this whole time, won’t be returning as Krueger as this reboot will be seen as completely fresh. Oscar nominee and former child star has been Jackie Earle Haley will be taking on the iconic role and when you watch this amazing teaser trailer for the new film, maybe you’ll actually find it to be scary and decent looking. As a fan of this series I can honestly say I’m intrigued by this film and I encourage you to find it interesting as well. Even though there seem to be more remakes than original films coming out of Hollywood, I’m not really against it. It seems like they want to make Freddy Krueger scary again. Remakes, while always mostly unnecessary, are always fun and exciting commodities. Yes they are just products to be devoured by fans who are willing to give up their hard earned dough, but frankly I wouldn’t it have it any other way.

Nightmare 1: A, Freddy's Revenge: B, Dream Warriors: B+, Dream Master: B, Dream Child: C+, Freddy's Dead: D, New Nightmare, A+, FvJ: D. Check out the teaser trailer for 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' (2010) below:

Derby Fully Loaded: Drew Barrymore’s Roller Derby Drama “Whip It” Almost Skates Towards Victory

“Whip It” is one of those “triumph” in the end movies, in which a young person goes against their parents’ wishes and proves that their love of a particular sport or activity was worth all his or her secrecy. The plot is nothing new and technically the way the story is told is nothing new, but the actors certainly lift it above standard underdog story. Unfortunately this is going to be just considered “Juno on skates” and while in some ways it is (it’s quirky, weird, funny and hip) it’s not nearly as well written or directed. And I’m okay with that. Drew Barrymore makes a nice debut and while she’s no Alfred Hitchcock, and seriously who is, she brings enough to the table to have a warm and enjoyable enough time.

I’m going to be honest and say that I was super psyched for this movie. I watched the trailer over and over and it gave me chills. It was so happy and fun and colorful. I couldn’t wait to see Ellen Page’s next performance (although I’m starting to worry that she might be typecast as the quirky rebel girl). And then I saw the movie and while I liked it, I have to say on the whole I felt slightly disappointed. But it’s totally my fault and not the movie’s. it’s sort of like when I built up “Slumdog Millionaire.” I was really excited and then I saw the movie and I was like, seriously what’s the big freakin’ deal?

“Whip It” takes place in a small town in Texas. Seventeen year old Bliss’ (Page who is wonderful of course) mother forces her to participate in sexist beauty pageants because frankly I guess that’s all there is for girls to do in small town Texas. However, one day she sees a few “alternative-looking” girls on rollerskates. It turns out they’re in a Roller Derby league and it piques Bliss’ interest. She goes to see a bout with her best friend Pash (Alia Shawkat from ‘Arrested Development’) and is instantly transfixed. She’s encouraged to try out for the league and although she’s underage (you have to be 21) she does it anyways. She goes from falling over in her Barbie skates to being one of the best members on her team (yeah right).

Bliss doesn’t tell her folks that she’s participating in roller derby, because she assumes they “won’t understand,” which is probably a correct assessment. Her mother Brooke, played by the always reliable Marcia Gay Harden, participated in beauty pageants as a young girl and has passed down her unattainable dream to Bliss, who doesn’t even want it. Her dad, played by Daniel Stern, (who apparently has been hiding under a rock or something) is just portrayed as a typical Texan goofball. Bliss’ parents are nice enough but nowhere near as sympathetic as Juno’s dad and stepmom were in “Juno.”

And that brings me to the best part of the film and that is Bliss’ fellow teammates. We get SNL’s Kristen Wiig who is reliable. She’s more serious than we normally see her, but still fun. Quentin Tarantino’s favorite stunt lady Zoe Bell shows up as does rapper Eve. Barrymore shows up as the team’s funniest member who always seems to be getting punched in the face. It makes sense that Barrymore would play this role because its small enough for her to fulfill her directorial duties but potent enough to be remembered. Andrew Wilson is Razor, the team’s headbanded coach. And last but not least, Juliet Lewis shows up as the team’s nemesis.

Unfortunately while the roller derby scenes are fun and full of energy (and don’t worry the film does a decent job of showing us how the game is played) it gets bogged down by an unnecessary romance element that grinds the film’s fun momentum to a halt. Bliss catches the eye of a weird rock singer and she falls for him and they have a little fling. Of course I’m sure he’d love to hear that by the film’s end he’s unkowningly committed statutory rape. Fun huh?

“Whip It” has familiar story elements (writer Shauna Cross adapted the film from her novel) which you’ve seen dozens of times before, but I’m willing to state that the winning cast does a great job of making it all worth it. This is a fun effort from Barrymore. I’m interested to see what else she has up her sleeves. The film’s look is simple and isn’t particularly flashy. I’ll call it competent. The real reason to see the film is Ellen Page who always manages to make a film even better than it should be. While this is really just Juno-lite, it offers enough fun for a recommendation. GRADE: B-

The Seventeen Year Bitch: “Jennifer’s Body” is Not Another Teen Movie

“Jennifer’s Body” is not a movie I can recommend to everyone. Writer/former stripper Diablo Cody, who tries her hand at the teen horror genre, weaves a strange tale of female rage against the machine (the machine here is boys). If you liked Juno, you’ll find something to like here, which mostly includes Cody’s trademark cool and hip dialogue (“move on dot org” is so this year’s “honest to blog”). And if you crossed Juno’s post-modern coolness with that of last years indie cult horror hit “Teeth” in which a teenage girl’s vagina is equipped with a nasty and angry set of jaws, you can pretty get a vague understanding of what “Jennifer’s Body” is like. It’s certainly original, in terms of the horror genre, but I’m not even really sure I’d even call it a horror film. It seems like a really really really dark comedy. Think “Juno” with teeth in her genitalia.

“Jennifer’s Body” is a movie made by women. Like I said Oscar winner Diablo Cody is behind the words and director Karyn Kusama is behind the lens. I guess you could call the film a feminist look at high school. What we get is the story of two best girlfriends. One is Needy, who is played by Amanda Seyfried. She’s slightly nerdy, but cool enough to get by. She has an equally goofy yet charming boyfriend. She’s hardly on the lower ranks of the popularity echelon. Although maybe she’s a little needy, for lack of a better word. What she needs is her best friend Jennifer (the perfectly cast Megan Fox who expands on her I’m the pretty girl image from the “Transformers” role) who is the popular/hot girl who all guys go gaga for and all the girls want to be like. Frankly I don’t believe it because Jennifer is in the colorguard and frankly they’re never the most popular girls in school. Although Jennifer is the popular hot chick, she’s not really mean nor nasty. That is until she’s taken away by the members of an indie rock band called Low Shoulder, headlined by actor Adam Brody who will always be known to me as Seth Cohen from “The OC.” They take her away in a van after the bar where they’re playing burns to the ground, along with some of the town’s citizens. And when Jennifer returns, she’s not really the same person. Like all teenage girls, she’s boy crazy, but now she’s boy hungry. Jennifer quickly gobbles up a jock in the woods behind he school and Needy is curious as to why the male population at school seems to be dwindling.

If I heard this premise and didn’t know who was writing it, I would almost without hesitation not give it another look. I’d think it was a story guaranteed to wind up in the DVD bargain bin at your favorite local megastore. For some reason, Cody’s flashy writing and nose for clever dialogue is really what keeps this thing a float. And that is why I see this film more as a comedy than straight out horror. Yeah this thing is violent and has buckets of blood, but I’m not sure I’d say any of it was particularly scary. But I’m ok with that. Because as long as you can read it as a metaphor for high school and all things adolescence then it works. The performances here work, mostly because what the actors have coming out of their mouths are witty and fun. We see the film mostly through Needy’s eyes, not Jennifer’s, and it is her who we identify. It’s odd that she seems almost just as infatuated with Jennifer as all the boys in the school are, and we’re to wonder what exactly her character’s desires lay.

I wouldn’t really call this a boys are bad movie, in that I should be offended because its about a girl who kills boys, but rather a movie that has the guts to be horrific and yet sternly funny. In fact I see it more of a spoof of high school clichés more than anything else. Everyone knew that “mean, bitchy girl” in high school, and this movie dares to ask the question. What if that mean, bitchy girl was actually evil evil, not high school evil? It’s just like eleven years ago when the movie “The Faculty” answered the question, what if your teachers really were aliens?

So yes, I recommend this movie and while it’s certainly weird and different, and occasionally sloppy in its plotting (why does Needy seem to gain some sort of ESP power?), I think it’s clever dialogue and dark humor is what is really on display here. If you thought Juno was too hip for its own good then you’ll probably find this film a slog to sit through, but if you’re prepared to see what an indie rock band is willing to do to become famous, you should do yourself a favor and check out “Jennifer’s Body.” GRADE: B

Theta Die: “Sorority Row” is a Campy Ode to Classic 80s Slashers

You simply can’t take a movie like “Sorority Row” seriously. I mean the movie opens and we see a pajama party taking place in a sorority house in which co-eds bare their butts while jumping on a trampoline. Actually this first shot is pretty impressive. I didn’t notice a single cut for a few minutes. Was this a “Touch of Evil” homage? Who knows. What I do know, is that if you’re a fan of any horror film that was made in the 80s you’re bound to find something in “Sorority Row” to love.

The film is based on “The House on Sorority Row” which was released way back in 1983, but since I was merely a new born back then, I was unable to experience it in theaters. So now we have an updated version which sort of plays like “Gossip Girl” meets “I Know What You Did Last Summer.” It’s about a stupid prank that goes horribly awry. It appears that a guy cheated on one of the Theta Pi sisters. And if you cheat on one Theta you cheat on every Theta. So they decide to teach this dude a lesson and the girl who he cheated on, Megan (Audrina Patridge), pretends to die from a pill that she was given. They decide to cover up the crime and drive out to the middle of nowhere. The sisters look for “sharp rocks to cut up the body” meanwhile, Garett (Matt O'Leary)the tool that’s being punk'd, whips out a tire iron and stabs Megan in the chest, which you guessed it, kills her for real. So they decide to cover up the crime for real, and in true horror movie fashion, the story flash forwards “8 months later.”

Cassidy (Briana Evigan) is the one sister, and inevitable ‘final girl,’ who has a conscience and never really wanted to go along with the cover up. We also have my personal favorite character Jessica (played with bitchy perfection by Leah Pipes) who is the blonde sorority president who is the Queen Bee. She’s given the best lines and she delivers them with skanky finesse. Unfortunately we also get Rumar Willis who basically is horrible as the sister who just can’t deal with the stress and has to cry every five minutes. Why she doesn’t get killed off first, I’ll never know. And Korean-American actress Jamie Chung adds the necessary diversity to the strictly all white cast.

So if you haven’t guessed by now, after eight months, someone knows these girls’ “secret” and is going to kill them off one by one. It’s finally slasher time! We get a wine bottle down a throat and lots of slashings by way of a pimped out tire iron. I have to praise director Stewart Hendler, who, even though this is his first feature film, seems to know the genre pretty well. He stays close to nearly every cliché and frankly I wouldn’t have it any other way. If you want to see an original horror film unlike anything you’ve ever seen before, “Sorority Row” is not the movie for you. It retains the cheesy yet classic elements of slasher movies of 80s past. Think: "Prom Night," "My Bloody Valentine," "Graduation Day," "The Initiation," etc.

This is not “torture porn” which seems to have been the focus for horror films of the past few years, but a genuinely fun slasher movie complete with hooded killer. Some of the dialogue, while at times painfully bad, can actually be pretty witty at times. Like I said Ms. Pipes luckily gets the best lines. So yeah, I mean this isn’t classic cinema by any means. This isn’t “Citizen Kane,” it’s not even “Halloween” but like the recent campy thrill ride “The Final Destination,” “Sorority Row” is destined to be another cult horror classic that will be rewatched over and over again by horror movie fans for years to come. GRADE: B

PS – Carrie Fisher is simply awesome as Theta Pi's house mother. She wields a mean shotgun and she totally deserved her own shoutout. Ms. Fisher I salute you.

Ragtime: “9” is a Fun, Stylish Animated Adventure

The animated post apocalyptic adventure ‘9" opened in theaters on, you guessed it, September 9th 2009. Much like the release of the remake of The Omen (which was released on 6-6-06) it seemed destined to be more of a gimmick more than anything else. Of course that is just dead wrong because "9" is an incredible wonder. A fun ride with lovable characters, frightening villains, and a fascinating visual design that is sure to wow you.

Ok so I was worried that this movie would be long and boring. But when I found out that it was literally 79 minutes (9 of which were most likely just credits) long I was generally estatic. I honestly had some lower expectations for this movie because I figured it would be all style and no substance and therefore a slog to sit through. That was the case with the film Coraline which came out earlier this year. At 100 minutes that flick was about 30 minutes too long and I almost couldn’t wait for it to be over. Director Shane Acker had no problem turning his short film into a runtime that flies by and yet keeps you captivated for 79 wonderful minutes.

I almost want to say the film’s animation style skewers towards stop-motion animation, but it’s definitely CG and I’m ok with that. While the film is dark and more appealing to older audiences, I was surprised at how wonderfully appealing a post-apocalyptic world could look. And if you think the background looks great don’t even get me started on…

The story involves a man who creates 9 different rag doll figures who he brings to life. We learn they are actually nine separate aspects of his personality. 9 is the main character who gives the film its title and you’re almost instantly entranced by him. He meets others who are just as lovable. I could tell right away that if I was ten years old, I would definitely want every "9" toy.
The character 9 is voiced by Elijah Wood and he’s an excellent choice, because a) he has a unique voice and b) because his voice lends an innocence that fits the character perfectly. He sounds young and naïve and it helps the viewer connect almost instantly. Of course, the other actors are fine as well. We get Jennifer Connelly, John C. Riley, Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, and Crispin Glover as the other numbered characters. Each actor, along with the animators, create easily distinguishable characters.

I’ve been gushing about this flick and you probably don’t even know what I’m talking about. "9" takes place in the future. Like every other post apocalyptic tale (I’m thinking Terminator) we learn that technology has found a way to revolt against humans. The machines take over leaving a desolate wasteland behind. "9" more specifically tells the story of 9 who awakens to find himself in this wasteland and finds a small band of survivors who look just like him. They’re fighting off the evil machines one of which kidnaps one of these survivors. It seems as though only 9 can help to get him back. Writer Pamela Pettler, whose script is based on a story by Acker has managed to turn 79 minutes into a gripping tale of survival. This is an suspenseful action adventure story that just happens to be animated.

I’m not necessarily sure that "9" is a movie that will have mass appeal and I certainly can’t honestly recommend it to everyone. But if you’re a fan of either animation, or sci-fi, or just a good action adventure than "9" is certainly almost a guaranteed good time. GRADE: B+

Die Hard: Death Doesn’t Take a Holiday in “The Final Destination”

Whenever you start to see more than three chapters of a horror franchise, you have to stop taking it seriously. Ok so I stopped taking the Final Destination movies seriously by the end of the first movie. The first film was, dare I say, a brilliant new take on the slasher film in which the Grim Reaper actually stands in for the masked killer and his weapons of choice are everyday accidents. The novelty of the films soon became any everyday situation could be a death trap. We’re talking going to bathroom, packing up your belongings, going to the dentist, riding an elevator, going tanning. And now we get to add car washes, swimming pools and movie theaters as potential places of gruesome deaths.

Director David R. Ellis who most recently gave us the hilariously campy “Snakes on a Plane” takes creative control of this fourth film “The Final Destination” (I’m not even going to spend a second complaining about the film’s strange and obnoxious title, whoops too late). Ellis directed the second chapter in this series and immediately turned it into a silly story about a bunch of people trying to escape death. These movies are just excuses to show people being diced and sliced and gouged and smashed and chopped. There is no artistic merit and no redeeming qualities. They are a product of which I enjoy supersized.

This time around Ellis stages a graphic speedway car crash in which many people are viciously killed by falling debris and tires and other sharp objects. This film’s hero Nick (second rate James Franco look-a-like Bobby Campo) has a premonition that him and his three friends and many others will die in a horrible accident. He’s able to warn them in time and his friends escape along with a few others. If you’ve ever seen any of these movies you know exactly what happens next. Death isn’t happy that these people survived because they ruined his “design.” So he comes up with even more gruesome fates for them. So it's only a matter of time before beautiful people are sucked through a pool drain, or sliced through a metal fence, or ground up in an escalator.

This is not a good movie. Want proof? The filmmakers knew the only way they could get people in the theater a fourth time was to film it in 3D. It's certainly the film's most original concept. The third dimension here actually helps the proceedings and employs some pretty desirable effects. It certainly doesn’t help build character, or make the story more plausible or help the actors with their bland performances. But you know what? None of that really matters. I just spent the night before watching Rob Zombie’s "Halloween II" and you can tell that guy really thought he was making a good movie. And he failed miserably. Here, Ellis and his team are trying to just make a fun, campy gory ride and while it’s not good cinema, I’m perfectly okay with that. He didn’t make an unpleasant movie. He knows he made a B movie and he succeeded.

If you’re a fan of these movies, there is no reason you won’t enjoy “The Final Destination.” It has a real fun sense of humor about itself (the film’s climax cleverly takes place in a 3D movie theater) and it is a welcomed source of “turn your brain off” fun. The film is probably more funny than scary but any movie in which a racist redneck is dragged down the street by his own truck while on fire is certainly ok in my book. GRADE: B

Halloween Bore The Return of Michael Myers: Rob Zombie’s “Halloween II” Sucks

OMG. Please whatever you do, please do not see “Halloween II.” I am a huge Halloween franchise fan and I’m here to say that it’s most definitely the worst of any Halloween movie starring Michael Myers (I don’t really count Part III, but it might even be worse than that piece of garbage). I’m not going to sit here and tell you what to do, so if you want to see the final chapter of Rob Zombie’s “vision” then by all means be my guest. There are so many things wrong with this movie I don’t even know where to start.

I’m going to forgive the fact that this movie even exists. There will always be Michael Myers movies it’s just a fact. Even the godfather of the Halloween movies, Moustapha Akkad (who unfortunately died back in 2005 in a Jordan terrorist attack) has said that he would make at least 22 Michale Myers movies, so there’s no surprise that we’ve got ten so far. What distresses me so much about this new movie is that the producers actually thought Mr. Zombie was talented enough to make another movie. Yeah he has vision, but I’m not so sure it fits with the Halloween movies. He should be directing “The Devil’s Rejects II” not “Halloween II.”

“Halloween II” picks up right where the remake left off, which I guess is sort of a nod to the original film’s sequel. Laurie Strode (played again by Scout Taylor-Compton whose acting ability has worsened since the last film) has shot her psychotic brother and she’s taken to the hospital. It takes six men to life Michael Myer’s body into a van where two idiots are in charge of transporting him to somewhere far away. The two idiots hit a cow and crash leaving one dead and leaving the other guy with a severe case of Tourette’s Syndrome. He literally says “F*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck, f*ck.” Rob Zombie is obviously a talented screenwriter. So Michael Myers thankfully cuts the dude’s head off, sees his dead mother (soon to be Razzie nominee Sheri Moon Zombie) and a white horse (!) and is told that he must find Laurie at the hospital so that they can be a family again. Oy. Suddenly “Halloween 6” makes so much more sense.

So Michael conveniently finds Laurie in the hospital where she’s recovering from surgery. In an annoying little twist (aka writer’s block) it turns out everything at the hospital is a dream and it’s really a year later. Laurie has gone from a virginal, innocent teen into a wild and crazy young woman who has weird dreams. She lives with her friend Annie (Danielle Harris) and her sheriff father Brackett (Brad Dourif) in an isolated farm house in the middle of nowhere. Laurie is all goth now which I guess is what happens when you’re either a) an attempted victim of Michael Myers or b) in a film directed by Rob Zombie (I’m thinking it’s a little bit of both). So Laurie whines all the time because she thinks Michael is going to come after her, but little does she know that Dr. Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) has written a tell-all book about Michael Myers and he reveals Laurie and Michael’s blood relation. That makes her even more crazy so she decides to dress up as Magenta from The Rocky Horror Picture Show (remember Rob Zombie is the director) and weirdo goth friends dress up as Columbia and Dr. Frank-N-Furter. They both die, if you can believe it.

Do you even care about any of this? I certainly didn’t. Especially when Mrs. Zombie shows up all in white looking horribly out of place. If Mr. Zombie was going for unintentional laughs then her certainly succeeded by a mile. Oh those stupid flashbacks and visions are so stupid I literally slapped my forehead. Zombie also makes every victim so horrendously obnoxious that he practically justifies Myers killing him or her. He even breaks into a stipclub an and kills the sleazy owner and his stripper girlfriend for no real reason except to show a naked woman being smashed face first into a mirror. Now, if any of this were to occur in another movie not related to Halloween, then maybe it would make sense, but nothing in this movie feels like a Halloween movie. It’s obvious that Zombie had almost complete creative freedom to come up with whatever horrendous crap he could think of. And he did. It’s 100 minutes of crap.

Please for your well-being I cannot recommend “Halloween II” for any reason whatsoever. It has no redeeming qualities at all. The cinematography is lame and overdone. The music by Tyler Bates is dumb and he doesn’t even use John Carpenter’s theme until the end credits (the best part). Even the death scenes are repetitive and overly done. I realize Michael is a psycho but there’s no reason to stab someone 234385757 times and for Rob Zombie to show it. It makes the first film (which I hesitantly and generously gave a B-) look Oscar-worthy. Ok, not really but you get my point, right?

There should be a government warning on this flick ‘cause it’s bad for your health. Just do yourself a favor and Just Say No to “Halloween II.” I wish I had. GRADE: F

Jew Man Group: Tarantino’s WWII Flick “Inglourious Basterds” is A-Boomin’

I really want to spoil the ending of “Inglourious Basterds.” But I know I shouldn’t and since I want you to go into this film without knowing how it ends I’m going to do you a favor and just say it is awesome. I will say, however, that if you go into Quentin Tarantino’s World War II Nazi-scalping drama looking for historical accuracy then you’ll probably be disappointed. And if you’re a history teacher you may not want to bring your class to see this flick because they’re likely to fail their final exam.

Since Quentin Tarantino directed this war movie, a first for the former video store clerk, there are some things you know you’re going to see. You’re going to see long scenes of dialogue that at first appears to have nothing to do with anything. It’ll most likely take a second viewing to really appreciate these scenes. They’re in “Reservoir Dogs.” They’re in “Pulp Fiction.” They’re in “Kill Bill Vol. 2.” They’re in “Death Proof.” I’m sure they’re in "Jackie Brown," but I’ve only seen it once and was slightly bored. Probably because of the long scenes of dialogue. The opening scene of “Inglourious Basterds” is very simple and involves lots of talking but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t filled to the brim with excruciating suspense.

And you’ll also find lots of violence in “Inglourious Basterds.” Brad Pitt is the top billed actor and here he plays Lt. Aldo Raine who is the leader of the Inglourious Basterds which is a small group of mostly Jewish-American soldiers who go around Nazi-occupied France hunting members of Hitler’s army. There’s one soldier, dubbed “The Bear Jew” played here by horror director Eli Roth. His weapon of choice is a baseball bat (how American!) and his enemy of choice is, of course, Nazis who won't divulge important information. Raine orders his men to collect 100 Nazi scalps. If you don’t want to see Nazis getting scalped then don’t see “Inglourious Basterds.” (Although, the film could of used a few more scalpings if you ask me).

Meanwhile a young French Jewish woman (Mélanie Laurent) who escaped the evil clutches of a sadistic (aren’t they all?) Nazi named Col. Hans Landa (played with Oscar quality perfection by Christoph Waltz), sees an opportunity for revenge when her movie house is chosen to hold a huge Nazi movie premiere. Many high ranking officers will attending and she’ll stop at nothing to make sure they all burn to death in a fiery blaze of Nazi death (you see old nitrate film used to be highly flammable). Raine and his men also plot an independent mission when they find out that the highest ranking Nazi, one Adolf Hitler, will be attending as well. We all know what shouldn’t happen in this movie, but we all know what WILL happen.

Tarantino has crafted another movie based on a whole bunch of random movies you and I have never seen or heard of and turned it into a digestible slice of Americana. The title is based on an old Italian “man on a mission” war movie titled “The Inglorious Bastards” and don’t ask me why his title is spelled incorrectly (although it might be obvious since the title is wrong as is the film's historical accuracy). But when you’re Quentin Tarantino you can get away with things like that. And of course there are the random people that show up. Look it’s Mike Myers! Look it’s that guy from “The Office!” Look it’s what’s her face from the “National Treasure” movies! Look it’s Samuel L. Jackson’s voice!

If you want a movie with suspense, lots of dialogue (most of which at time seems unnecessary but can actually be pretty witty and funny), and some great performances, then you should be going to see Brad Pitt kick some Nazi butt right now. And if you don’t cheer at the end of this movie, then you’re probably a skinhead or something. GRADE: B+

Out of Africa: You Shouldn’t Evict “District 9” From Your Summer Movie Schedule

The less that is said about “District 9” the better. Is that because it sucks and isn’t worth talking about? Heck no. It’s a great movie. It’s original and inventive and exciting and complex and entertaining. But to discuss it any further would to ruin the fun. It’s certainly everything that “Transformers 2” wasn’t.

“District 9” is interesting because it borrows so heavily from other movies and yet it feels so fresh and original. I can spot influences from as far away as “Blood Diamond,” “The Blair Witch Project,” “Independence Day,” “The Fly,” “Starship Troopers,” and “Dawn of the Dead.” And even Entertainment Weekly film critic thinks there’s a little bit of “Enemy Mine” thrown in for good measure. Basically what I’m going to tell you about the film’s plot is something you already know from the trailers. A large city-like space ship has arrived on Earth over Johannesburg, South Africa. It just hovers there. Inside is a large race of malnourished aliens. The humans bring the aliens down to the surface and over time force them to live in squalor in a place known as District 9. If you’re thinking apartheid you’re correct.

The begins as a sort of documentary which sets up this alternative universe in which aliens have arrived on Earth. They sort of look like giant bugs and are derogatorily nicknamed “Prawns.” They speak in a weird frog-like language, but don’t worry we get subtitles. We’re introduced to an employee of the Multi-National United (MNU) which one critic lovingly reminded him of Michael Scott from “The Office.” This is a random dude who thinks he knows everything. He’s chosen to go into Disctrict 9 and evict the “non-humans.” You see these aliens have been living on Earth for over twenty years and now the government is forcing them out. This man is Wikus van der Merwe and he’s played by Sharlto Copley and I’m sure he’ll become a big star. He’s supposedly just friends with the director Neill Blomkamp.

I refuse to say anything more about the film’s plot. But I will discuss Blomkamp’s wonderful direction. The scenes that are “documentary-like” are well done and are never cheesy. The film has a great set up and as the film’s plot points are reveals it is interesting how quickly you get into it. I will say that Wikus is a character who is difficult to like at first and he really didn’t have me on his side until towards the end of the film.

And of course there is whole political allegory that is never too painfully obvious and yet it’s SO obvious. There is a moral center here and I think we all know what it is. It’s sort of amazing at how seamless this world that Blomkamp creates is. We get this alternate history in which the people of South Africa are living amongst aliens and however ridiculous it may seem it’s all too painfully realistic.

The film is really violent. There are lots of exploding bodies and splashing of blood. But I would never say it was exploitative in anyway. There’s plenty of action for those who enjoy that stuff and just as much thought provoking themes that intellectuals will enjoy. Besides how many exploding bodies are there in Transformers? None, exactly. And I was sort of surprised at how well the visual effects worked here. The film was made for about 30 million and you’d never really know it. Check out “District 9” for a truly one of a kind experience. It’s nowhere near my favorite movie of the summer, but you’d be hard pressed to find something as innovative as this. GRADE: B

Fish Out of Water: “Ponyo” is a Colorful, Magical Tale of Earth’s Delicate Balance

I would have never guessed in a million years that I’d be reviewing “Ponyo,” a Japanese animated feature film from legendary animation director Hayao Miyazaki. I have never seen any of his other films and that equally makes me feel happy and ashamed. I’m ashamed to call myself a film fan even though ive never seen his other films and yet I’m glad that I haven’t had to sit through all that boring, fantastical anime. I’ve never had much a desire for anime and I don’t think “Ponyo” will really change my feelings towards the subject, but I am willing to agree that it is a fun and beautifully hand drawn animated film with an interesting story (inspired by Hans Christian Anderson’s ‘The Little Mermaid’) a wonderful music score by Joe Hisaishi, and loveable characters.

“Ponyo” whose original Japanese title is something like “Gake no ue no Ponyo” tells the story of a little red fish. she winds up near the surface of the water and crosses paths with a young boy named Sosuke (voiced by the Jonas Brothers little bro Frankie). Sosuke is instantly smitten with the cute little creature and he names her Ponyo. He takes scoops her up in a bucket and runs back to his house on the cliff where he lives with his mother Lisa (Tina Fey). Of course Ponyo’s magical human-like “father” Fujimoto (Liam Neeson) who resembles the lead singer of an ‘80s glam rock band, isn’t too happy about this. It turns out that creatures who live in the ocean are meant to live in the ocean. And it also turns out that Ponyo, after licking a cut on Sosuke’s finger, has the power to turn human. And she has the desire to be as well.

Now anyone who has seen the Disney version of ‘The Little Mermaid’will recognize parts of this movie as being similar. Like for instance the desire of a character who is born of the sea to be on land. And let’s not forget the demanding father who doesn’t think it’s a very good idea. However, in this version there is an extremely evident environmental message as well (which I hear Miyazaki is known for). It turns out that the water in which little Sosuke’s house is near just happens to be very polluted. Fujimoto complains about the human’s using the water as their own personal garbage bin and how it angers the sea gods or whatever you want to call it.

Eventually little Ponyo (Miley Cyrus’ little sis Noah) makes her way back to daddy in the water much to Sosuke’s dismay. But there is no stopping the little critter and she begins sprouting arms and legs and she’s whisked off to the surface to be reunited with Sosuke. All of her little fish sisters transform into big beautiful blue fish and help her ride the waves back into Sosuke’s life. She takes on the form a young girl similar to Sosuke’s age and his mother says it’s alright if she stays with them. Here she learns all about basic human things such as eating dinner. These scenes inside the house are simply enjoyable in the traditional “fish out of water” way. Literally. But unbeknownst to Ponyo and her new human friends, the water is rising rapidly due to the moon’s new position in the sky (which is something I missed along the way) and because Ponyo is now a “human” earth is completely out of whack.

But let’s be honest, the real reason most people would venture to the theater to see this movie is its unusually animation style. Like I said, Miyazaki employs actual hand drawn animation and from what I understand no uses of computers at all. I can hardly remember the last traditional animated feature film I saw in the theater. It was probably “Lilo & Stitch” way back in 2002. Disney since has sort of given up on that type of animated, save for December’s “The Princess and the Frog” which will wisely return Disney to its traditional animation roots. At first I was almost a little put off by “Ponyo’s” animation. It almost seemed cheap and low budgeted. Something you’d find on Saturday morning but blown up to huge proportions. But then I realized that I just wasn’t used to seeing animation that way.

Another thing that is just odd to me is the use of American actors doing the voicework. This a foreign film through and through and while it was enjoyable to hear familiar voices (and it certainly helps the movie be more accessible to American audiences) it is sort of weird hearing Betty White’s voice come out of a character named Noriko. Lily Tomlin, Cloris Leachman, Cate Blanchett and Matt Damon are some of the other talented actors lending their voices.

“Ponyo” will be a huge success amongst those who flock to see these types of films and as an outsider I will say I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the film. I can’t say that it makes me want to see movies like “Spirited Away” or “Princess Mononoke,” but I’m glad I was able to put my prejudices aside when it comes to anime and enjoy a fun animated movie that anyone can enjoy. GRADE: B+

Another Day in Paradise: “A Perfect Getaway” is Far From Perfect But is a Completely Sufficient Thriller

“A Perfect Getaway” does offers a few positives. It feature some beautiful tropical locations. It offers a pretty witty script from writer/director David Twohy. And lastly it has a pretty cool twist that won’t make you slap your forehead in disbelieve. I almost couldn’t believe it but then once I realized what was going on, I was like, hey that’s pretty cool and different. It makes me want to watch the movie again and see from a new point of view. But enough about that. “A Pefect Getway” I would classify as a thriller and although it takes awhile to get to the thrills, I appreciated it’s attempts at building suspense than just going for blood and guts whenever it had the chance.

The film opens with some home video footage of a wedding. And then we’re introduced to the newlyweds Cliff (Steve Zahn, shedding his goofy, typecast persona, kind of) and Cydney (Milla Jovovich, who is all eyes) as they’re about to embark on a treacherous hike in Hawaii for their honeymoon. There one of those couples who would rather do some dangerous hiking done rather than sit on a relaxing beach drinking colorful drinks. I’m going to get this out of the way up front, I didn’t really believe them as a married couple. I’m not saying their not good actors or that they’re necessarily miscast, but they seemed more like brother a sister than husband and wife. But that’s all I’m saying.

They meet up with another strange couple, also newlyweds, who are hitchhiking. They’re hesitant to give them a ride mostly because they’re super weird and creepy and grizzly. They are played by Marley Shelton and Chris Hemsworth. They speed off where they run into another couple played by Timothy Olyphant (perfectly cast) and Kiele Sanchez. Although sort of strange, Cliff and Cydney decide to hike along with them since they seem to know what they’re doing. Of course they run into a few other hikers who have just been informed that a newlywed couple had just been brutally murdered one on of the other islands. I take it you can guess that the killers might just show up.

A good chunk of the movie involves Cliff and Cydney trying to determine if Nick (Olyphant), an Iraq War veteran and innocent, southern Gina (Sanchez) are the killers or not. Cliff has his trustly Blackberry on hand, and when he gets a decent enough signal he attempts to read about the killings. There is even a poor quality surveillance photo of the killers, but Cydney informs him it looks like they could be anybody. They also think they’re being followed. Is it that strange hitchhiking couple or is there something more sinister out there?

Remember I said the screenplay was witty and that is mostly due to the fact that Cliff is a screenwriter. So him and Nick have conversations about one of Cliff’s scripts that’s currently in pre-production. They have conversations about plot and characters and even red herrings (which Nick naively calls ‘red snappers’). I found the conversation about red herrings most interesting as any alert viewer is going to try to figure out what exactly the red herring in the movie actually is. Some of the dialogue reminded me of “Scream” although it wasn’t quite as self-reflexive or savvy, but it was definitely above average for a movie of this type.

And like I said, the movie’s twists and turns were pretty interesting and well deserved. They never seemed forced and I enjoyed that the film took its time getting going. Too many movies these days rush to the gore, and not that I mind, but even I want a little substance once in a while. I enjoyed the film’s ultimate revelation and I think you might as well. And if anything could be learned from this neat little thriller, is that sometimes it’s safer to just stay home. GRADE: B

Fry Hard: Amy Adams and Meryl Streep Cook Up Great Performances in “Julie & Julia”

Julie Powell did an amazing thing. She spent 365 days of her life cooking all the recipes (524 to be exact) in Julia Child’s cookbook “Mastering the Art of French Cooking” and wrote a blog about it. What’s so amazing? She never once made French toast or French fries. Julie’s real-life mission is depicted in the latest biopic to hit the big screen, “Julie & Julia” which tells two true stories. That of famed American chef Julia Child who gained prominence as a world class chef while living in France with her husband and went on to write numerous cookbooks and became a spunky TV personality. With her tall frame and her boisterous voice and attitude Julie Child quickly became one of the most recognizable people in America. And she never even had a sex tape.

Julie Powell was an aspiring writer who lived in Queens with her husband and cat. She worked in a cubicle and was unimpressed with her life. She wanted to do something. She loved cooking and writing so it was natural that she’d find a way to merge both her interests. She decided to cook all of Child’s famed recipes from her French cookbook and blog about it and in the movie she’s played wonderfully by Amy Adams. Adams is such a delightful and talented performer it’s no surprise she was selected for the role. You identify with her and you want her to succeed in her “Julie/Julia Project.” Her story takes place in 2002.

The film is crosscut with the story of Julia Child who is played also wonderfully by Meryl Streep. I’m sure Streep has a Golden Globe in the bag for this performance because it’ll definitely be considered one of her trademark performances. I learned so much about Child’s real life and I found most of it fascinating. She’s married to a loyal man named Paul (Stanley Tucci) who supports her always. Like Julie, she was bored with her life and decided to go to school for cooking. As she whipped up lots of delicious recipes she spent nearly a decade trying to get a cookbook published. She dreamed of having a cookbook written with lots of tasty French recipes tailor-made for American women. It was a difficult struggle but we’re with her 100% of the way.

I enjoyed how writer Nora Ephron, who finally getting her grove back since she hasn’t really had a hit film since “You’ve Got Mail,” chose to tell both of these stories simultaneously. She easily finds the commonality between Julie and Julia who have ironically similar names and shared many of the same ups and downs during their lives. Both were unhappy women who wanted to make an improvement in their lives and went for it. They had a dream and achieved it. The movie is a happy one and it’ll most likely make you happy as well.

As well as hungry. Now if you know me at all, I’m a picky eater and I probably wouldn’t have eaten 98% of the foods Julie or Julia made in this film, but that certainly didn’t stop me from smacking my lips every few minutes. This movie is certainly a feast for the eyes and for the soul. It is charming and features terrific performances. The film almost feels a little long and the ending isn’t quite as climatic as I’d have hoped, but the film is worth seeing. If you’re a fan of Meryl or of Amy or of food, and who isn’t, you could do a lot worse than the yummy confection that is “Julie & Julia.” GRADE: B

House Trap: Low Budget “The Collector” is Better Than the ‘Saw’ Sequels, But That’s Not Saying Much

I can’t help but blame the “Saw” movies for “The Collector’s” lack of originality. Had "The Collector" come out before "Saw" I’m sure it would get slightly more praise. Then again when it comes right down to it, "The Collector" is just a small, low budget exploitation flick with sadistic violence and torture. Of course it certainly has an intriguing enough premise that made me want to check it out. A man enters a house with the goal of robbing it. However, as he’s about to break into a safe, he realizes there’s someone else already in the house who is more sadistic then he ever imagined. Cool right? A robber is faced with a moral dilemma. Does he try to get out of the house to save his own life or does he attempt to help the very people he was intending to rip off?

"The Collector" is a low budget movie. It was shot on 16mm film stock which gives it a dark, gritty grindhouse feel. Fans of 1970s horror take note. The film features no name actors who are all decent enough. The film is apparently proud of the fact that its director wrote “Saw IV,” “V” and the upcoming “VI.” I stopped watching those movies at part IV simply because they were basically all the same. Of course that doesn’t really matter since most horror film franchises are the same plot or premise repeated ad nauseam. But anyways, "The Collector," which is a sort of strange hybrid of "Saw," "The Strangers" and "Home Alone" (!) is watchable enough and really nothing more.

Arkin (Josh Stewart) is a handyman who works for Michael (Michael Reilly Burke) in his home. Michael has a wife, a teenage daughter and a younger daughter. Arkin has a sweet moment with the young girl Hannah (Karley Scott Collins) because it turns out he has a young daughter himself. It turns out that his ex-wife owes a lot of money to a lone shark and she has until midnight to pay him off. Since desperate times call for desperate measures, Arkin, knowning about a rare and expensive stone in Michael’s safe, decides to break in while the family is away to pay off his ex-wife’s debt. Little does he know that when he breaks inside, a masked maniac has booby-trapped the entire house and has been torturing Michael and his wife, while their wild teen daughter is out unbeknownst with her horny boyfriend. And little Hannah is no where to be found.

Arkin, who is a decently fleshed out character for the most part, realizes that it's up to him to help the very people he was about to rob. It’s sort of amazing how quickly I was on his side. You try to put youself in his shoes and you’d like to think you’d want to do the right thing, but honestly, I’d be out of there! He sees Michael all bloody and attempts to release him. He quickly discovers that every time you grab a knife or flick a light switch something sharp or pointy will go flying into your face. The maniac even pours some sort of sticky acid in one of the bedrooms which eats through shoes and books, but doesn’t seem to eat through the floor. Oh and it melts a cat. Gross.

Being a fan of gross movies I appreciate the film’s dark and twisted Rube Goldberg-ian set-ups which always result in some kind of bloody or gory death. Of course, it’s really hard to swallow that this guy could really set up all these traps. And for what reason? Just because he’s a psychopath? It seems like too much work and too little payoff if you ask me. Like where does one get 20 bear traps to fill the living room with? It was hard enough to swallow Macaulay Culkin setting up his traps in “Home Alone,” but I guess I’ll give the Collector the edge since he’s a grown up.

This is certainly a horror film through and through, but is it really scary at all? The film features a few sequences of genuine tension, but I’m not so sure I would call it scary. The Collector himself is pretty creepy and when he looms into frame and stares the camera it sent a small shiver up my spine, but otherwise he didn’t give me nightmares (Niether did the film's unrealistic CGI spiders). Overall, “The Collector” is a decent enough horror flick, with a breezy runtime, but since there have already been five movies with saw in the title, it feels a tad too little too late (Although I still think this is better than all the “Saw” sequels). And I bet you’ll never guess what it is this guy collects. It ain’t stamps. GRADE: B-

She Loves You Nah Nah Nah: Simply Put “(500) Days of Summer” is This Generation’s ‘Annie Hall’

“Annie Hall” is my 9th favorite movie of all time. I easily consider it to be the greatest romantic comedy of all time. It’s a fascinating look at the beginning, middle and end of a romantic relationship. “(500) Days of Summer” could easily sit right along side it on a list of the best romantic comedies. It’s that good. Ok before I start raving, and make you think you’re going to literally see Jesus in person by going to see this movie, let me be frank. This movie may not change your life, but it simply is a pleasing and well made film that is certainly worth your time. It features terrific performances, original direction, a hilarious and heartfelt script and a killer soundtrack. All the sights and sounds are perfect, what more can you ask for in a movie?

Like the narrator states, “(500) Days of Summer” is not a love story it's a story about love. Yes it shows how a young man named Tom (a too-good for words Joseph Gordon-Levitt) falls in love with Summer (a perfect Zooey Deschanel). The problem is what happens when you fall in love with someone who doesn’t even believe in love in the first place? The film jumps back in forth in time, with various numbered title cards indicating how far or early into the relationship Tom and Summer are. We see around the 280 mark that things are not going very well. But we jump forward and see that things are blossoming circa day 40.

Of course we get to see day 1 where Summer is hired as Tom’s boss’s assistant at the greeting card company he works at. He sees her and, who can blame him, is instantly smitten. It’s ok that I used the word smitten because this is the type of movie where people become smitten with each other. Look at the trendy way Tom dresses; he’s a cool, easy going, slightly geeky, laid back type of guy. The one who isn’t afraid to show his emotions and fall head over in heels in love with a girl. While he finds Summer attractive he learns from her own mouth that she doesn’t want a relationship, although it doesn’t stop her from making out with him in the copy room. She doesn’t want the baggage that comes along with spending all of her time with the “love of her life.” Of course Tom is very much the opposite, he wants a woman to love and wants love in return. He even says that loneliness is overrated.

Director Marc Webb takes appropriate cues from Woody Allen by doing all sorts of fun cinematic stuff. He stops the film to show us various points along the way and even gives us a happy and hilarious show stopping musical number once Tom and Summer have consummated their “love.” Cue the marching band and animated blue bird of happiness. What I love so much about the film besides its cinematic trickery (and great use of split screens) is that I simply fell in love with these characters myself. They each have flaws, but like any good romantic comedy you enjoy seeing the main characters’ romantic behaviors. This is the type of couple who sits in the park on a nice warm day and decides to play the Penis Game (oh please like you don't know how to play) or hangs out in Ikea while an Asian family looks at them awkwardly.

I enjoyed all of the quirkiness writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber have weaved into their smart and highly original script. (Please Academy take note!) The sheer fact that Summer’s favorite Beatle is Ringo Starr instantly makes her unique. I loved the sequence in which Tom, all depressed over Summer, goes to an Ingmar Bergman triple feature in which he imagines himself in the films. Woody Allen would love that! And while the film does a lot of cutting back and forth, you’re never lost because of Webb’s masterful direction (and a big thumbs up to the music supervisor).

I can’t say enough positive things about “(500) Days of Summer.” It’s a movie that’s so enjoyable I just wanted to give it a hug after it was all over. Yes I just said I wanted to hug a movie, if it was at all possible. Or maybe I just wanted to hug Tom and Summer because I wanted to be their best friends, not that there’s anything wrong with my real best friends. I’m just sayin’. Please see this movie; I dare you not to fall in love with it ‘cause it’s one of the year’s best. GRADE: A

The Comedy of Errors: “Funny People” Isn’t Really That Funny

I didn’t think “Funny People” was very funny. I know I know, I realize it’s supposed to be more a drama than a flat-out comedy. I knew it was about Adam Sandler’s character realizing he had a terminal illness. I knew all of that going in. but that still didn’t make any of the other funny parts very funny. I am one of Judd Apatow’s number one fans. I loved “The 40 Year-Old Virgin” and loved “Knocked Up” even more. I loved all the other movies he’s produced since then… “Superbad,” “Pineapple Express,” “Walk Hard,” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Heck I even liked “Drillbit Taylor” for crying out loud (and I even had Lisa Lampanelli, who has a small cameo, sign my Blu-ray when I met her and she even said, “This was a cute movie wasn’t it?”). So it is with my trepidation that I’m hear to say that I didn’t really enjoy Judd’s third film “Funny People” very much. There are a few scattershot laughs and although the movie’s never boring, it never quite gelled for me.

I’m not really much a fan of Adam Sandler. I enjoy some early Sandler, including “Happy Gilmore,” “Big Daddy” and “The Wedding Singer.” I don’t like Billy Madison, his Waterboy character is annoying, I refuse to watch any of his bits from SNL and his Hanukah Song is severely overrated. Having said that I guess I can blame him for 60 percent of the reason why I didn’t enjoy Funny People. He gives a decent enough performance as George Simmons, and Adam Sandler-like actor/comedian who learns he has a terminal illiness. He handles it rather strangely by confronting wannabe stand up comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) that he wants him to write jokes for him and be his assistant. Ira is the only one he shares his secret with and he’s forced to confront his own mortality. After all, stand up comedians don’t live forever.

Blah blah blah. I frankly didn’t like Sandler’s character that much and I’m not even sure if Sandler’s fans will enjoy the character that much. I realize Judd, who wrote the film, is making him purposely unlikable, but I think he goes too far. Rogen is likeable as always and is definitely one of the film’s bright spots, as are his roommates Leo (Jonah Hill) and Mark (Apatow newcomer Jason Schwartzman) who are constantly teasing Ira because they have roles on a popular NBC sitcom, which looks awful. I wish Apatow had focused more on this group of people, but if he had it would have just seemed like Sueprbad-lite or something, so I understand why he felt he needed to be more “serious.”

George then contacts an old flame named Laura (Apatow’s real life wife Leslie Mann) who has now started a family with Clarke (a game Eric Bana). The film’s third act involves George and Ira visiting Laura and her kids while he attempts to woo her back. Eric Bana gives a great performance, in his native tongue, and while he’s almost portrayed as the stereotypical “angry, unfaithful husband” he gives the role enough originality to break free from that mold.

Probably one of the more surprising qualities of the film lies in its cinematography. I’m not usually one to mention the director of photography when it comes to comedies, but since Apatow has employed Spielberg regular Janusz Kaminski. Some shots literally look as if they had been deleted frames from The Diving Bell & the Butterfly. The film has a beautiful and interesting look, but all I can say is it really necessary? Good work, as always, Janusz. And lastly the film has a great soundtrack with a sweet and simple score from cast member Jason Schwartzmen. And remember people he used to play the drums for the band Phantom Planet.

And lastly, not to be Debbie Downer or anything, but I’m honestly not the biggest fan of stand up comedy. Yeah there are the ones I like such as Kathy Griffin and Ms. Lampanelli whom I mentioned earlier, but none of the comedian jokes that were mentioned throughout the film made me laugh. What did make me laugh were the standard Apatow-isms, like when Eric Bana recounts his trip to China and Seth Rogen mentioned it seemed like a scene from “The Deer Hunter.” It’s jokes like that that are worth laughing about, and sadly, there isn’t much in “Funny People’s” overlong runtime worth dying over. GRADE: C+

Not Without My Daughter: There May Be Something Wrong with Esther, But There Isn’t Something Wrong With “Orphan”

Esther is one mean bitch! She is evil incarnate and she certainly shames little Damien from “The Omen.” Heck, even Macaulay Culkin from “The Good Son” would be crying for his mommy if he ever met Esther. Esther, a little Russian 9 year-old orphan, is played brilliantly by Isabelle Fuhrman. Dakota Fanning better watch her back cause a new child actor is in town! “Orphan” is an “evil child” movie in which a child, who is the main focus of the story does evil things and there’s a mystery to discover a) why a child is doing such evil things or b) figure out an explanation for why evil things are occurring. Of course when it comes to b, we the audience usually know what’s going on but the other characters don’t. In fact Orphan is pretty neat in that it gives us both a and b. We know there’s something up with Esther, but we don’t really know what. We know she’s bad and scary but we don’t know why. And we enjoy watching the other characters fumble around trying to come with an explanation about why children are getting pushed off playgrounds and why nuns are getting hammered. Literally.

We’re introduced to all-American Connecticut couple Kate and John (Vera Farmiga and Peter Sarsgaard) who has just lost a child. Kate recently miscarried and its taken a huge toll on her. We see her in therapy and we learn she is a recovering alcoholic. Even though Kate and John have two other kids - a young daughter named Max (Aryana Engineer, super cute and super good) who is almost completely deaf and an older son named Daniel (Jimmy Bennett) – they decide that they want to adopt a child. They end up at a local school for little girls and there is where they meet Esther. She paints instead of playing with the other youn girls; and there’s a reason. She Russian and she wears dresses instead of more traditional little girl clothes; and there’s a reason. She’s proper, articulate and intelligent; and there’s a reason.

Kate and John think they’ve adopted the nicest young girl on the planet but what they don’t know is that she’s a conniving little bitch who kills people and has serious mental stability problems. She even pushes a fellow schoolgirl off the playground when she’s made fun of early in class. What is great about “Orphan” is knowing right away that Esther is evil. We’ve all seen the TV ads, so we’re not surprised when ominous music begins to play whenever she’s comes onscreen. Why don’t know why she’s evil or where she really came from and that’s what makes the movie fun to figure out. First time screenwriter, David Johnson has actually crafted a pretty decent script for such a standard type of thriller. And Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra – who gave such a surreal and creepy vibe to the “House of Wax” remake – manages to wrangle out some pretty tense situations. His handling of certain scenes with the deaf Max, who Esther implicates in some of her dastardly crimes, is very well done. He even manages to make a labyrinthine playground a chilling location.

Of course don’t be fooled, cause there are going to be people who think this movie is garbage and over-the-top violent trash which revels in disturbing behavior caused by a preteens, but you know what? It’s well-made trash and has a few scares and even some pretty dark humor as well. Some of Esther’s lines are priceless and there are even a few scenes in which I was rooting on behalf of Esther’s badassness. I guess we can look at “Orphan” as an “anti-adoption” parable, but if Brangelina have so man adopted kids and not one of them has killed anyone, I think it’s safe to say that Esther is certainly the odd one out. GRADE: B+

Fashion Faux Ha! “Brüno” Ist a Very Funny Film (and It’s Much Better Than Cancer)

Has it really been three years since Sacha Baron Cohen unleashed “Borat” on an unsuspecting America? My how time flies! Now he has unleashed the fabulous 19 year old Brüno, a hip flamboyant homosexual fashion personality. Bruno follows the same mockumentary style as “Borat” so in one way it sort of feels like a retread, but Bruno contains enough fresh and utterly shocking moments that certainly makes it worth seeing. Cohen is such a brilliant comedian that you never once think Brüno is a made up character. He’s even gone all out in all the marketing for the film and only appears as Brüno. He really sells this stuff.

Let me just get this out of the way first. Even though it’s only July I can easily say that “Brüno” is already a lead contender for the newly announced Golden Gallo Award category for Best Talking Genitalia Award. Enough said. The film begins in Austria, Brüno’s home country where he has his own TV show. After bad incident during a fashion show involving an outfit made completely out of Velcro, he moves to the United States in hopes of becoming a famous celebrity.

Here, we see Brüno’s many attempts at celebrity. And I think this is really what the film does best. We all have an idea of what makes a “celebrity” and how celebrities are born. Sometimes celebrities are born because they are good looking, or because they have their own TV show, or they’re caught in a sex scandal or even because of their humanitarian efforts. Brüno’s various attempts basically mocks every celebrity cliché out there and it is downright hilarious trying to see Brüno’s failed attempt after failed attempt.

His first attempt is to have his own TV show in the United States. He films a show and brings it to a test audience. And lets just say it bombs. These people, who we’re supposed to believe think this is actually real, are completely disturbed at what they see including interviewing someone about whether Jamie Lynn Spears should abort her baby or not and dancing naked for camera and “interviewing” Harrison Ford. In fact one person in the test audience says the show is worse than cancer. Brüno even attempts to make a sex tape with none other than US Congressman Ron Paul, who he mistaks for drag queen RuPaul. He even flies out to the Middle East to help solve the conflict between Palestine and Israel. And there he confuses Hamas with hummus. He even insults a terrorist by telling him that Osama bin Laden looks like a dirty wizard. This is all shocking and hilarious, and I’m still amazing Cohen made it out of there alive.

Brüno then figures if Brangelina and Madonna can adopt children from Africa why can’t he? He goes on a local talk show hosted by Richard Bey and bring out his Black baby (complete with “Gayby” T-shirt) whom he names a traditional African name: OJ. The entire Black audience is hilariously outraged and Brüno even gets his child taken away by child protective services. After his child is taken away, he figures if he really wants to be famous he should become straight. After all some of Hollywood’s biggest celebrities are straight like manly men John Travolta and Tom Cruise. There Brüno meets with a Christian “gay converter” and learns how to repress his homosexuality. There he enlists in the Army and even spends some quality heterosexual time with a group of hunters in Alabama. These scenes are absolutely hysterical and show how ignorant some people in this country really are.

The film culminates in one of the movie’s most shocking and outrageous scenes as a cage fighting match turns into a gay love fest between Brüno and his assistant’s assistant. I can’t even tell you how disturbed this dumbed-down middle American audience really is and it’s actually pretty disturbing to see their reactions. How they couldn’t tell that the whole this is staged is beyond me and guess there are most stupid people in the world then we realize.

Overall, and while it follows pretty closely the style and plot of Borat (which makes sense since Larry Charles directed both and they share some of the same writers) there are enough outrageous and shocking moments that certainly makes Brüno a welcome addition to this summer’s line up. The film is under 90 minutes long and you’ll most likely be either laughing our sitting there with your mouth agape. It is offensive, trashy, un-PC and utterly ridiculous. In short, it’s uber-funny and a great time at the movies! And please do me a favor, please slap your head when you watch Paula Abdul actually sit down on a Mexican person who has been forced to become a piece of Brüno’s furniture. GRADE: A-

New York Stories: Woody Allen Finally Returns to the City That Never Sleeps in “Whatever Works”

Woody Allen’s last four films have taken place in Europe. He has said the reason he has shot so many of his recent films in England and Spain was a purely fiscal: it was cheaper to shoot in Europe. His clever “Match Point” was even written to take place in the Hamptons, but was able to modify it to London once he realized no American studio wanted to give him money, basically whatever works. So is the philosophy of his new New York City set flick “Whatever Works.” He had no money, so he went to Europe. He mad some pretty decent movies over there and now he’s returned to his old stomping ground for a mildly engaging “feel bad” comedy, that mostly works.

In this new movie Larry David (creator/star of “Curb Your Enthusiasm”) is Boris Yellnikoff, Allen’s latest onscreen alter ego. Yellnikoff is a New York intellectual who has no time for “inchworms” or stupid people like you and me. We know this because he speaks directly to the audience, however, the other characters don’t seem to see us sitting there. He’s miserable and crabby and super ADD – he sings Happy Birthday, out loud, twice while washing his hands. Life sucks so much for him that when he tried to kill himself it didn’t work. He even divorced his wife simply because they were a perfect match.

Enter Melodie. Melodie (played by Evan Rachel Wood) is a young woman from the South. I almost want to say this is the first time such a stranger foreigner has garnered such a large role in one of Allen’s films. She is sort of cliché… she’s dumb and naïve. But what is true, is that’s how New Yorkers view Southerners. But Allen has a point in turning Melodie into a cliché because his characters even have full-on conversations about clichés. So because Boris, god bless his cranky heart, is such a nice guy and his philosophy is whatever works, he takes this homeless girl into his and gives her some food and even lets her crash there. He even shows her the ways of the busy intellectual New Yorker and they form an unlikely friendship and maybe even more…and then Melodie’s mother shows up.

Could another one of Woody Allen’s actresses earn yet another support actress nomination come February? As Melodie’s crazy bible thumping mother Marietta, Patricia Clarkson simply radiates. She shines so bright I needed sunglasses. Ok that was super lame, but I really enjoyed her. And no only is she a funny scene stealer (who tries to hook her daughter up with square-jawed Brit Henry Cavill of “The Tudors” and ends up in a threeway relationship), but it’s fascinating to see her character’s story arch. Say what you want about any one of Allen’s personal life, but what he simply does best is create dynamite roles for women. And for that I simply can’t complain. If you’re a female actress you need to get yourself into a Woody Allen movie stat.

I wouldn’t easily describe “Whatever Works” as an instant classic. It’s a decent enough comedy although I’m not so sure it feels like this is the movie that should have been his big return to New York, but I will take it. He has some really genuinely funny moments, mostly because of a) Boris’ shrill view of life and b) Patricia Clarkson. I am and always will continue to be a huge Woody Allen fan, and for me “Whatever Works” works. So whatever. GRADE: B

Note: I’d be lying if I said I sort of wish (and nothing against David’s great performance) Allen himself had played the role of Boris, but whatever works.

American Gangster: I’m Not Too Big a Fan of “Public Enemies”

There is nothing really technically wrong with Michael Mann’s John Dillinger crime saga “Public Enemies.” Let’s just say I wasn’t living in gangster’s paradise. In fact, there were some parts where I could barely keep my eyes open. But maybe that was because I was tired (I went to a 4:50 PM showing ha!) or because the surround sound wasn’t quite right. I’m officially convinced I could have recreated a better audio experience with my Blu-ray home theater system, but I digress. Besides the fact that the flick, at times, looks like something you could easily access for free on YouTube, Public Enemies will appeal to fans of classic gangster pictures, of which I’m completely indifferent about.

I’m a fan of Michael Mann’s Collateral because it is suspenseful and draws you in from the opening scene. Even Mann’s early Hannibal Lecter flick “Manhunter,” which sort of gets forgotten about since Anthony Hopkins became Hannibal, is completely enjoyable. I’m going to go on record by saying, and I don’t think I’m alone here, that “Miami Vice” was completely and unabashedly horrendous. So in comparison to that movie, Public Enemies is amazing. And yet I felt mostly underwhelmed by the experience. I mean, Johnny Depp as John Dillinger is great, which really isn’t a surprise. Christian Bale is good as well, although he’s not really around that much. And I enjoy Oscar winner Marion Cotillard who, as one of the film’s few female characters, shows up here as Dillinger’s love interest. Apparently according to the credits Stephen Doff is in there but I didn’t even recognize him.

I think the biggest problem here was that I just didn’t care. I think that’s really a problem that I have to deal with though. I enjoy when movies let you “root for” the “bad guy” but I guess I really didn’t think John Dillinger was all that bad. So he robs banks, who cares. By today’s standards he’s practically Gandhi. I didn’t really care if he got caught or got away. In most of these types of movies you’re supposed to be on the side of the bad guy, but like I said, I didn’t care much. and when movies like this take place in this time frame where everyone is practically dressed the same it’s sort of difficult to figure out who are the cops and who are the robbers. Ehh.

I appreciate the film’s look a lot. It’s cool that a studio would pay to produce a big epic period piece and make it look like your Uncle George’s wedding video. According to imdb the film was shot with a mix of traditional 35mm film and video, which is the same as Mann’s previous movies Miami Vice and Collateral. You can really feel the intimacy and really puts you into the action. Although I guess it totally didn’t work on me since I could hardly keep my eyes open. And some shots were so video looking, I almost cringed. It felt like I could have been the camera operator.

I guess the problem ultimately lies with Mann’s not-too-special script who he co-wrote with Ann Biderman and Ronan Bennett and that’s a shame cause Biderman wrote one of my favorites “Copycat.” I just didn’t find this story fascinating, but I could see how others would. The film is technical achievement in terms of the recreation of the 1930s, but for me for you dawg, it was just ‘aight. (And Billy Crudup who plays J. Edgar Hoover, doesn't even cross dress once! Talk about historical inaccuracies...) GRADE: C