F.B.Sigh: “J. Edgar” Doesn’t Quite Gel Into the Powerful Biopic It Could Have Been

“J. Edgar” stars Leonardo DiCaprio and rubbery make-up as John Edgar Hoover, the man who established and ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation until his death in 1972. With a strong pedigree of past Oscar champs - director Clit Eastwood and screenwriter Dunstan Lance Black) – “J. Edgar” should have been the biopic to end all biopics and instead it’s just a sort of average movie with good performances, ok old-age make-up, and a rather confusing and hokey narrative structure that felt unnecessary. Eastwood remains in prime directorial form, but his latest effort feels less compelling than his last effort the unjustly Oscar-has been “Hereafter.”

“J. Edgar” has some positives and that starts with a great performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is simply getting better with age. And that’s mostly because his boyish looks has always felt rather strange to me and depending on the role, makes him less convincing. Although I thought he was wonderful in movies like The Aviator, Revolutionary Road and Blood Diamond, he just seemed too young for those parts. Here he ages from 25 to 65 with the help of some prosthetics and they’re mostly convincing (more on Armie Hammer’s awful rubber mask in a moment). DiCaprio can act the part of an aged man well; he has the proper mannerisms and vocal inflections. I think he deserves an Oscar nomination, but it’s not actually as flashy a performance as one would think. Him and Judi Dench - playing his domineering mother - work well together.

But performances aren’t the only aspect of a film, there has to be a story and this one presents us with a disjointed one for sure. Black, who’s screenplay for “Milk” provided an interesting back and forth narrative structure which worked rather well and was never confusing, employs the same technique here with varying degrees of success. The film cuts back and forth between old J. Edgar (taking place around the early 1960s) and young J. Edgar (around the 1920s). Early J. Edgar is instrumental in forming what later became the FBI. He was appointed as head of the Bureau of Investigations and was actively involved in using modern scientific methods to catch criminals – including fingerprinting and gathering important evidence from crime scenes. As the head of this organization he worked under several presidents whom he has varying political relationships with; the film has some trouble clarifying those relationships. He was as odds with then Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, and in one strange scene makes a personal call to RFK after his brother John is shot to death in Dallas. Some of his political motives and positions are made rather unclear, or rather confusing with some many jumps back and forth in time. The film, like most of Eastwood’s recent successes, should have been compelling and involving as it went on, but the disorganized narrative sort of make things unintentionally stale.

The film’s most interesting aspects definitely come from what most are interesting in learning about – J. Edgar’s private life. There have been varying stories from various people in Edgar’s life about whether he was gay or not. He has a deputy working for him Associate Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer who’s also forced to wear rubbery old age make-up which makes him appear 95 when he’s only supposed to be in his 60s) who seemed to catch Edgar’s fancy from the moment he saw him. There was an unspoken connection between the two men, which many saw has a harmless friendship, while others insist they were in fact secret lovers. There is much unknown about this relationship (and whether Edgar was a cross dresser, which one scene does imply) and Black has made it clear that he wanted his script to be factual rather than speculative. Eastwood sort of dances around the issue in a way another more liberal director might not have, but it’s addressed enough to the point that you can draw your own conclusions.

I expected much more from “J. Edgar” than I was given. With top Hollywood talent at work in front of and behind the camera, the film sort of feels like a let down. The odd narrative style sort of kept me distant from what should have been rather intimate and moving material. Edgar was an interesting, and important, man and the film does a decent job of presenting us that man. DiCaprio gives the movie some life – I wish I could say the same for those prosthetics. Naomi Watts is good in otherwise bland and uninteresting role which felt like it could have been played by anyone. The film does bring up a good question however – where the heck has Lea Thompson been? GRADE: B-

The Tree of Strife: “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” is Not the Holly Jolly Christmas Movie I Expected

Wow it’s sad when a robot toy named Waffle-Bot barely saves your movie. That movie would be “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas.” Or maybe the movie should have been called “Harold & Kumar Need a Christmas Tree.” Cause that’s all it is. And you know what? That you used to be what was great about Harold and Kumar: the simplicity of the story and the unpredictable nonsense that came from it. In the first film best friends/stoners Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) just wanted to eat at White Castle after getting high one evening. That led them on a hilarious adventure. Neal Patrick Harris even showed up playing wildly against type. They upped the craziness in part 2 when Harold & Kumar were mistaken as terrorists aboard an airplane and sent to Guantanamo Bay which lead to some hilarious misadventures as they made their way along the Southern US (and onto George W. Bush’s Texas estate). Now things are as gimmicky as ever (in glorious or should I say crummy-looking 3D) as Harold must find a Christmas tree to replace the one that Kumar accidentally burned down before Harold’s in-laws get back from midnight mass.

The problem with “A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas” isn’t the fact that it’s utterly stupid (because the other two were as well). It’s that most of the jokes fall completely flat and instead were left with boring scene after another. It turns out that Harold and Kumar haven’t talked to each other in a long time ever since Harold settled down and got married. Kumar is still getting baked and his ex-girlfriend doesn’t really want anything to do with him. A mysterious package is left on his doorstep that’s addressed to Harold (who hasn’t lived there in a couple years) and so he decides to drop it off at his house. Harold’s wife’s family is visiting for the weekend and that includes his scary Christmas-obsessed father-in-law played by Danny Trejo (sporting a fine-looking Christmas sweater). He gives his daughter and son-in-law a Christmas tree he grew himself (took him eight years) and 10 minutes later Kumar unintentionally sets it on fire with a massive joint. Now it’s a race against time to find a new tree on Christmas Eve before his wife and her dad finds out.

This brief plot set-up leads to some rather disappointing endeavors which include stopping by Kumar’s friend Adrian’s online girlfriend’s house where he hopes to deflower her. Kumar and Harold must play a game of beer pong with a boy who says they can have his family’s tree if they win. Of course the kid’s father is a Russian mob boss which isn’t a good thing for Harold and Kumar. Harold’s friend Todd (Thomas Lennon) is also along for the ride with his infant daughter who manages to get high on weed and cocaine (and eventually ecstasy) all in the same movie.

But all that stuff is just filler until we wait for Neil Patrick Harris to show up (even though he was killed in the second movie) so that he can liven things up. He plays a funny riff on his widely known gay persona (which in the film is just an act so he can get more female tail). Harris is funny but he doesn’t quite save the movie. No, that job goes to a little fictional toy robot named Waffle-Bot. He’s the film’s hot selling Christmas toy. He makes fresh, delicious waffles and don’t get him started on how much he hates pancakes. He ends up saving Harold and Kumar and end up barely saving the film as well. A well-placed Waffle-Bot commercial featuring a boy getting electrocuted by his toaster is utterly hilarious in a movie that should have been filled with utterly hilarious moments, but alas I really only chuckled that one time.

Perhaps the writers Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg who also penned the other two installments are just running out of ideas. And that’s not surprising since really how many gross-out misadventures can you give these characters? Director Todd Strauss-Schulson doesn’t really know what he’s doing either cause he’s made a pretty ugly film that looks miserable when looking through tinted 3D glasses. The 3D effects are fun and gimmicky which is how 3D should be used in a movie like this, but for such a fun and happy and jolly Christmas stoner movie things look so dank and dismal. I am a fan of Harold & Kumar but this third entry was a major disappointment. Here’s hoping that Harold and Kumar can at least have a more entertaining Martin Luther King Day. GRADE: C-

Real Steal: “Tower Heist” is a Funny, Well-Cast Comedy Caper

It should be noted that “Tower Heist” is not “Ocean’s Eleven” (although it’s way better than Twelve and Thirteen if you’re keeping track). The suave charm of Clooney, Pitt and Damon here are replaced by Ben Stiller, Matthew Broderick and Eddie Murphy. And yet Brett Ratner, apparently the worst thing to happen to the film industry since television was invented, manages to keep thing lively, fresh and just plain fun. The important thing to note is that even though Mr. Ratner has helmed the film, the script was written by comedy caper extraordinaires Ted Griffin (Ocean’s Eleven, Matchstick Men) and Jeff Nathanson (Catch Me If You Can). The script and the cast is the real winner here as “Tower Heist” proves to be an entertaining yarn about decent, regular people who are fed up with white collar crime. Who wouldn’t root for these guys?

Ben Stiller is Josh Kovacs the manager of a fancy Columbus Circle high-rise building known as “The Tower.” The building’s owner is Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). The two seem to have a nice boss-employee relationship as part of Josh’s daily tasks include making sure Mr. Shaw has the right type of cheese to go with his wine. The building is home to the rich and fancy and the workers are the typical blue-collar types. The new elevator operator is Enrique (Michael Peña), the concierge is Charlie (Casey Affleck), Odessa is a rotund Jamaican maid (Gabourey Sidibe) and the friendly doorman is Lester (Stephen Henderson). Things seem to be going well in The Tower, but soon Shaw is arrested on multiple counts of white collar crimes such as fraud. He maintains his innocence which Josh wants to believe, but then it turns out the entire staff’s pensions have been invested by Shaw and now it’s gone. All gone. There’s nothing left for Josh to do but hire the neighborhood crook (and a childhood friend) named Slide (Eddie Murphy “returning to form”) to storm Shaw’s penthouse and steal the millions of dollars that is supposedly hidden there.

It’s great how the film doesn’t just delve completely into the heist part of the story right away. It takes its time trying to develop the characters first and actually allows enough time to buy the fact that Josh and his buddies are willing to actually become criminals just to get their savings back. It’s obvious that these guys are not thieves. In one great sequence Slide makes Josh, Enrique, Charlie, and Mr. Fitzgerald (a down on his luck former tenant who’s been squatting in The Tower played by Matthew Broderick), steal fifty dollars worth of merchandise from the mall. I guess it proves that anyone could be a criminal, but sometimes it’s fun to root for the little guy, even if he’s just ripping of Victoria’s Secret. Meanwhile, Claire (Téa Leoni, where has she been??), an FBI agent who’s in charge of Shaw’s arrest, becomes interested in Josh and she has her own quirky personality: she’s the one that no-so-subtly gives Josh the whole idea to “storm Shaw’s castle.”

“Tower Heist” for the most part seems believable until things begin to get slightly crazy in the third act, which seemed rather hard to swallow, but you have such a fun time watching everything come together that by then it doesn’t really matter. The film works mostly because it’s established early on that these are people you want to root for. And the film couldn’t arrive in theaters at a more convenient time. With tall that “Occupy Wall Street” stuff going on, who wouldn’t want to rob a rich dude’s penthouse?

Don’t let the fact that Brett Ratner (who is not nearly as bad as he’s made out to be in my humble opinion) directed this thing fool you. It’s a fun, breezy movie with funny performances and an appealing story. It works mostly due to its great cast and they all work surprisingly well together. Broderick, Murphy and Stiller are all wonderful together it almost makes you wonder why they hadn’t been in anything together before this. “Tower Heist” is pretty much the definition of escapist, fun movie going. It’s not stupid enough that you have to turn off your brain, but it’s not trying to be anything more important that it actually is. It certainly won’t rob you of your time. GRADE: B+

Demon Night: Things Go Bump in the Night Again in “Paranormal Activity 3”

Sometimes the third part of a horror franchise is great (here’s looking at you “Dream Warriors”) and sometimes it can be just bad (“Halloween III” anyone?). Ok they’re mostly just bad. Scary or not, the third entry always begins to show some signs of fatigue and an overwhelming sense of “been there done that.” That’s mostly true with the latest shot-on-video-cause-we-love-reality-TV scary movie “Paranormal Activity 3.” Here’s the bottom line, right up front: this movie sort of has a “we’ve seen this stuff before” vibe but it still remains a pretty tense experience. It’s not exactly as outright nightmare inducing as the first entry, but it still maintains a superior level of suspense amongst the freaky ghostly goings on. And in fact, it does a great job of expanding on the story and characters established in the first two entries.

In the first film a young couple is being tormented by a spirit. Katie and her boyfriend Micah set up cameras to capture the paranormal phenomenon. In the end Katie becomes possessed and kills her boyfriend. In the second film, which is actually a prequel, we’re introduced to Katie’s sister Kristi. Apparently both girls had a run in with a spirit when they were children and this time the ghost seems to be after Kristi and her newborn son. Now in this new entry we flash back via VHS to 1988 when Katie and Kristi are young girls. Katie is played by Chloe Csengery. Kristi is played by Jessica Tyler Brown. Both girls turn in marvelous performances. You don’t see them acting because they’re disturbingly realistic. They’re so good in fact I’m wondering whether they knew they were going to be in a movie at all. Kristi and Katie’s mom is Julie (Lauren Bittner) and she’s now married to wedding videographer Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith).

The family notices a few strange noises and Dennis decides to set up some of his video equipment to see what exactly is going on. The film wastes no time getting to the creepy stuff as we almost instantly begin to see signs of very weird activity. Some evidence is so obviously paranormal that you wonder why Dennis and Julie don’t grab the girls and get the heck out of the house right away. There are creepy moments with a babysitter, and Dennis’ camera buddy that all point to “this house is definitely haunted.” Dennis pushes on and even though there’s plenty reasons to suggest something unworldly (such as young Kristi having full on conversations with a presence named Toby that can’t be seen) they stick it out. And a game of Bloody Mary doesn’t exactly end well. It’s sort of made unclear but it seems that Dennis literally wants to see a demon walk across the TV before he’ll do anything. Eventually they can’t take it anymore and go to stay at Julie’s mother’s house, which, without giving too much away, ends up being the worst idea of all.

The movie employs the same scare techniques as the first two films. We get steady shots of the couple and children sleeping and then scary things begin to happen. Dennis even rigs a camera to an oscillating fan that pans back and forth, which is used rather effectively in several scenes. There were parts in this film where I was pretty scared, but not outright terrified. And the audience seemed to be having a good time. Besides now it’s obvious that when you see a “Paranormal Activity” movie you pretty much know what you’re getting and that’s enough for me. The film does give another layer to a growing mythology with these characters and it’s pretty fascinating what screenwriter Christopher Landon has came up with. It’s obvious that he’s more influenced by “Rosemary’s Baby” than just some gore fest. The film was directed by the two guys (Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman) who were responsible for the “is it real or not?” documentary “Catfish” and they certainly lend a realistic hand to the third entry of this surprisingly good trilogy.

If you enjoyed the first two films, you’re more than likely going to like this one as well. Maybe you won’t jump as much as you did with the other films and the scares won’t keep you up at night, but this is a scary movie franchise that relies on good old fashioned foreboding tension and atmosphere to create fear, not blood and guts (not that there’s anything wrong with that). After having to endure seven “Saw” flicks, the new “Paranormal Activity” franchise is certainly a breath of ghostly fresh air. GRADE: B

500 Days of Cancer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt Simply Shines in “50/50”

Cancer sucks. Unfortunately just about everyone knows someone who has been affected by this horrible disease. There are people who survive it and there are those who don’t. Sometimes it’s hard to tell a story about someone getting cancer without coming across as a disease-of-the week TV movie. There are some that just work on a cinematic level, such as the Oscar-winning tear jerker “Terms of Endearment.” And now for the Judd Apatow crowd we have the exceptional comedy-drama “50/50” which follows a twenty seven year old man who is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer and how it affects him and those around him. It’s a movie that’s all at once sad and humorous and is told with 100 percent honesty and it completely earns whatever tears you may shed for it.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, who at the beginning of the film is complaining of back pain and night sweats. He sees his doctor and much to his surprise a tumor is found on his spinal column. He’s in shock as he should be since he’s only twenty-seven years old. He’s a young guy who’s supposed to be in the prime of his life, but unfortunately cancer can affect anyone, even those who don’t drink or smoke or care about the environment enough to recycle. Adam is dating Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard) and when he tells her you can tell from her reaction that she’s not exactly ready to be Adam’s caregiver. And why should she be. Sure she cares about Adam, but they aren’t a married couple and taking on the responsibility of looking after a cancer patient is something no one in this world would ask for. It puts a strain on their relationship to a point where, as she’s only human, Rachael begins seeing another man. Adam tells his mother (played briefly but wonderfully by Anjelica Huston) and his father (Serge Houde) who’s suffering from Alzheimer’s. We get to learn a lot about Adam and his relationships to the people in his life and it’s made clear that the closed relationship he has is actually with his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen doing his best Seth Rogen).

Adam begins his cancer treatments which rightfully begin to take a toll on him physically and emotionally. He connects with some older cancer patients played by Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer. They offer him pot macaroons. He also begins seeing a therapist named Katherine who much to Adam’s surprise is much younger than him. She’s played by Oscar-nominee Anna Kendrick who just simply radiates charm whenever she’s onscreen. Its quickly revealed that she’s a newbie and Adam is in fact only her third patient (she’s working on her doctorate). This situation is new for her and it’s new for Adam. There scenes together begin to indicate that perhaps Katherine and Adam have more than just a doctor-patient relationship, but the focus of the film remains about Adam’s having to deal with cancer and strains it puts on his life. The film’s main focus remains his friendship with Kyle and how something so serious can affect a typical “bro” relationship. Kyle insists that Adam’s cancer can be used to help the guy get laid and he’s certainly loving being able to get high with his buddy with medicinal marijuana. Adam’s prognosis seems worse than anticipated (he reads online that he basically has a 50% survival chance) and he learns that he must have surgery as his tumor has not been responding to the chemotherapy. This puts a whole new strain on things and leads into an extremely heart wrenching and powerful third act.

The film was actually written by comedy writer Will Reiser, a close personal friend of Rogen’s in real life who insisted he tell his own story about getting cancer at a young age and being able to make a full recovery. You can tell that the relationships in the film feel genuine, the laughs are funny (a reference to the late Patrick Swayze is actually pretty hilarious) and help release the dramatic tension and have a level of authenticity that is nearly unheard of in films like this. Director Jonathan Levine, having a strong independent background gives the film an intimacy that makes you feel a part of the characters life. It’s realistic, funny and painful. The actors’ performances, especially Gordon-Levitt are on a level beyond what words can describe. The emotions translated through his performance are just simply astonishing.

“50/50” is a just simply a terrific little film. It’s comical and yet dramatic and balances the two perfectly well. The emotions you’ll feel are extremely well-earned and will resonate with anyone who has every known someone affected by this horrible disease. It’s a wonderful story about the power of friendship in a time of grief and what's it's like for a young person to stare death in the face. It's a movie that will resonate long after it's over. GRADE: A

Dance Dance Revolution: In Defense of the “Footloose” Remake

The new “Footloose” movie is a lot better than it has any right to be. And that’s not because it’s remake of a movie. It’s because it’s a remake of a movie that was bad to begin with. I mean honestly, the film’s story just doesn’t make any sense. A town where dancing is banned? Dancing! Banned? A few kids get killed in a car accident after dancing (and drinking) and apparently the dancing caused them to crash, not the elevated alcohol levels. It was lame and cheesy even for an 80s movie, so therefore this story, which is basically the exact same thing, should make even less sense taking place in the age of iPods and “Dancing with the Stars.” And thankfully there are no references to Twitter or Facebook. Therefore, I present the idea that this new “Footloose” is not only a decent and fun movie, but it might even improve upon its original inspiration.

Is Herbert Ross’ “Footloose” really all that special? Sure it helped launch Kevin Bacon’s career (which actually started four years earlier in “Friday the 13^th“) but what has really stuck are those catchy tunes that make their appearances every now and then at weddings and other social gatherings that involve (legal) dancing. Kenny Loggin’s title track is infectious and it’s even more so in the new film’s opening credit sequence which also follows many happy feet as they bust a move. Except this time the characters know the song and sing along as if they all had seen the original film and maybe that’s possible because I think every teenager in this movie could probably win “So You Think You Can Dance.” But then tragedy strikes and public dancing is made illegal for anyone under the age of 18.

The town of Bomont, Georgia is a religious town and its bible thumping preacher Rev. Shaw Moore (Dennis Quaid) is part of the board which made dancing (and playing loud music) a criminal offense much to everyone’s chagrin including his own teen daughter Ariel (Julianne Hough). Shaw’s own son was one of the kids killed in the car wreck and he’s vowed not to let it happen again. That is until new kid Ren MacCormack (Kenny Wormald) swaggers into town to live with his aunt and uncle. He’s from Boston and this supposed bad boy doesn’t get how dancing can be illegal. He butts head with the local deputy who gives him a citation for cranking up some tunes too loud in his VW Beetle, he catches the attention of Ariel even though she’s in a doomed to fail relationship with a creepy redneck guy, and befriends Willard (Miles Teller) who effortlessly steals every scene he’s in. Seriously, Mr. Teller is a great and charming actor. He was also great in “Rabbit Hole” which you should go out and rent right now if you haven’t seen it. Some scenes involve Ariel clashing with her dad because when you restrict teens from being able to dance it can cause some seriously deviant behavior (like dating creepy redneck guys). It’s only a matter of time before Ariel and Ren join forces to rebel against the oppressive elders.

But let’s get to the point, why does one see a movie called “Footloose”? The dancing! Except that since it’s illegal in this movie there’s not exactly a lot of it, but when it happens it’s great. There’s some pretty great choreography going on here. Ren can certainly bust a move (he was on the gymnastics team at his old high school, if that’s not badass I don’t know what is) and when he gets angry and frustrated he lets it all out in a recreation of Kevin Bacon’s famous “angry abandoned warehouse dance.” It was corny then and it’s still corny now. Some cheese is simply timeless. I really enjoyed a sequence where Ren takes Ariel, Willard and Willard’s girlfriend Rusty (Ziah Colon) to a line dancing bar in the city a couple hours outside of town. It’s revealed that Willard just might be the only person in Bomont who can’t dance. And afterwards Ren makes it his mission to teach this goofy kid some moves. Set to “Let’s Hear It for the Boy” of course.

Yes this whole thing is utterly ridiculous and I still insist that the story would make way more sense set in the 1950s or some other oppressed decade. Or it would work as a flat out musical where silly laws (like having to pay to go to the bathroom) just feel more natural. But alas director Craig Brewer who brought some southern twang charm to “Black Snake Moan” (and the Oscar-winning “Hustle & Flow”) has somehow managed the impossible: to take a movie that’s pretty lame and make it not quite as lame while being set in modern day). I think I honestly believed the characters and their wanting to express themselves and the two newcomer leads are actually pretty decent. Let’s face it, we could have easily been stuck with the likes of Miley Cyrus and a Jonas brother. While this new film sill has its corny moments, they feel sort of sincere and the movie has a more mature feel than I was ready for. This isn’t “High School Musical.”

“Footloose” honestly surprised me. It should be bad bad bad, but I found myself enjoying it. The dancing is impressive, the cast is charming and I found myself tapping my foot more than once. “Footloose” purists might scoff, but this is probably the best they could have done with the material. The original film in my opinion just doesn’t hold up well today and feels extremely dated. The defense rests. GRADE: B+

In Cold Blood: “The Thing” is a Prequel Worth Seeing

Let it be known that weather the alien creature in “The Thing” was achieved using practical effects or computer effects it was going to be awesomely gross no matter what. Having said that, there is a lot of CGI in this new prequel to the John Carpenter’s 1982 cult classic “The Thing,” but we can work through it together. However it’s important to note, that while most of the effects are not practical like in the original, they achieve a certain level of grossness that was surprisingly enjoyable (assuming you like that sort of thing). There are plenty of disgusting tentacles and wormy appendages that will most likely give those sensitive to such images the willies. The best thing that can be said about this new “Thing” is that while nowadays remakes, prequels, and reboots are all the rage, this movie – which doesn’t quite match the power or sheer innovation of the 1982 film – still manages to work as a nice companion piece and gives us a glimpse of that scary creature as it assimilates and systematically kills off an entire Norwegian research facility before making its way to a beardy Kurt Russell (who sadly makes no cameo if that’s what you were hoping for).

The film begins just a few days before the events of John Carpenter’s film. It’s 1982 and it’s wintertime in Antarctica. It’s freaking cold. Paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) has been asked to take a look at an extraterrestrial spacecraft that has apparently crash-landed thousands of years earlier. They remove a frozen alien being from the ice and prepare to thaw it out. However, if these scientists had seen “Encino Man” they would probably realize that when ancient creatures are frozen in ice, they’re rarely dead. Kate joins an entire Norwegian research facility filled with men (and just one other woman) who are pretty difficult to tell apart. But there’s a few attempts at character development so that we at least get to know some of them before they’re slaughtered. Of course, since we know the entire facility is mysteriously wiped out (and everything pretty much charred) we know these people won’t be sticking around for very long, save for two non-speaking Norwegians who don’t speak English who appear at the beginning of the 1982 film. It’s here that the plot of this new film, like the creature itself, begins copying its processor’s plot: the creature is very much alive and begins to “absorb” the scientists and then “mimic” them one by one. It sort of works like a virus and it’s difficult to know who is human and who is not which appropriately creates extreme paranoia within the group. Kate, being a practical woman, quickly grabs a flamethrower and begins torching anyone who doesn’t seem quite human.

“The Thing” will not become a horror classic the way the Carpenter’s remake became a horror classic, but there are still plenty of things I enjoyed here. Both films share a similar visual style that helps connect the films. There’s nothing particularly flashy about the photography even though a European has directed the film (Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.) Heijningen is a proclaimed fan of the original film and it shows because people who know the first film well will be able to see the small connections and the film’s ending leads wonderfully into the opening of the 1982 film. The film works despite its heavy use of CGI effects, but the creature is so disturbingly disgusting it’s hard to find fault with the effects. There’s just no way that modern filmmakers will use animatronic effects like they used to and it’s time for all of us to accept it. And I liked the slow build up. The film could have easily just started with a typical scene of someone being attacked by an unseen monster but luckily we don’t get any of that. I thought the performances were good even though writers Eric Heisserer and Ronald D. Moore don’t particularly flesh out any characters very well. Kate isn’t exactly Ripley, but Winstead plays her with an intelligent spunk which I liked. And there are some good jump scares that help lighten the tension.

Remember this is the type of movie that we’ve all seen a million times before but there’s a reason why movies like this work. It’s fun to be scared. “The Thing” works as a nice companion piece to the 1982 film, it’s similar in style and structure and while most will call it just a “copy” of that film I think there’s enough new material here (and nods to the original like nice tributes to Ennio Morricone’s terrific score) that fans of the first film will find something to like about it. Of course nothing will ever top the gross spider head, but this alien is still one of the most enjoyably disgusting creatures put on film. Sure this new film may not exactly be out of this world, but it’s certainly a welcome addition to the scary movie holiday season (and ten times better than having to sit through another “Saw” sequel). GRADE: B

My Faris Lady: “What’s Your Number?” is Clichéd Rom-Com Junk Food

Romantic comedies are like horror films: both are typically riddled with clichés. They always tend to follow the formula yet people turn out for them over and over again. There’s a reason: they work. Why mess with a particularly successful formula? Sure once in a while a movie breaks the mold and tries something new. The latest rom-com starring perennially funny girl Anna Faris does not break the mold. In fact, it rarely deviates from the mold. Here we have a pretty girl, who has had lots of relationships, yet they all never work out. What’s a hot chick like Anna Faris to do? Maybe the equally hot guy across the hall that looks a lot like Chris Evans is the man of her dreams? No way, he’s a womanizing jerk! How could they ever be the perfect match? Oh the clichés, let me count the ways.

A romantic comedy’s success firmly stands on how well the romantic leads work together. If there is no chemistry between the actors there can be no chemistry between the characters. There is something between Anna Faris, who plays Ally Darling and Chris Evans who plays Colin Shea. Ally is in sort of a rut. She’s just been fired from her marketing job and then she makes the biggest mistake a woman her age can make: she follows advice from one of those girly magazines. She realizes that she’s slept with way too many guys (the national average is apparently 10.5) and her friends tell her that if she keeps having failed relationships she’s doomed to never settle down and get married. This begins a whole crusade to track down her ex-boyfriends in hopes that perhaps one of them has changed enough to be her dream man. Spoiler alert: he’s actually waiting across the hall. Ally enlists the help of her too-jock-like-to-be-a-struggling-musician across the hall neighbor Colin (Evans). Apparently Colin knows how to get dirt on people since he used to go on stakeouts with his cop dad. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that Colin and Ally will end up together in the end (but not before a temporary setback in which they have an argument or fight and then one of them seeks the other out to professes their love to the other in which the other one realizes they love the other one too and then they kiss and live happily ever after).

To be honest, I rooted for Ally and Colin but that’s mostly because I find Faris and Evans to be some of the most charming actors working today. They’re so likable you forget that the script refuses to let them be together until the last 15 minutes or so. And Ally is such an beautiful girl you wonder why she’s attracted so many losers. These include a puppeteer played by Andy Samberg, her creepy ex-boss played by Joel McHale, and a former fatty but newly svelte and engaged guy played by Faris’ real life beau Chris Pratt. With all these obvious losers behind her, I’m not quite sure why Ally wouldn’t just immediately throw herself at Colin, but I guess even some women who’ve slept with 20 guys have some standards. Meanwhile, there’s a subplot involving Ally’s younger sister Daisy’s (Ari Graynor) wedding and her attempts to avoid her overbearing mother played wonderfully by Blythe Danner.

I think one of the major flaws of the film is its attempts to be just plain filthy. Ally, Daisy, and their friends talk about sex and vaginas and penises, and while it’s refreshing to here women talk about this stuff rather than men, it felt rather forced to me. It was as if they were trying to compete with movies like “Bridesmaids” in the raunch department. Screenwriters Gabrielle Allan and Jennifer Crittenden (and director Mark Mylod) seem more interested in finding ways to get Colin and Ally undressed than to have any character say or do anything remotely profound. And the comedy part of this romantic comedy sort of lacks too. Faris is hilarious and she has a few standout moments and lines, but otherwise she’s playing it remotely safe. She’s as likable as ever, but she has yet to find a starring role that really plays to her brilliant comedic talents.

Ally and Colin belong together, but the script says they can’t be together until the end of the movie. Meanwhile we have to sit through lots of jokes about creepy guys sniffing their own crotches, a neighbor who supposedly has sex with his dog and a completely random game of Strip HORSE at the TD Garden arena. “What’s Your Number?” adds nothing new to a repeatedly worn out genre and can only be redeemed because of the two completely likable leads. One day I believe Faris will get the script she truly deserves, but until then I guess this will have to do. GRADE: C+

A Cult Above the Rest: Kevin Smith Gets Preachy in “Red State”

If you don’t like political views being shoved down you’re throat then you probably shouldn’t see “Red State.” You also probably shouldn’t see it if you don’t like watching people being violently executed while bound to a crucifix. Kevin Smith no stranger to controversy in the cinematic world has unleashed a new kind of film that is unlike anything he has done before. And people thought “Cop Out” was uncharacteristic. “Red State” is not a comedy whatsoever. It’s about a religious cult somewhere in Middle America who persecute all types of sexual deviancy including what they see as the ultimate perversion: homosexuality. These fundamentalists see themselves as some kind of martyrs whose job it is to destroy these sinners all the while they, the last time I checked, committing a sing themselves BECAUSE THEY ARE MURDERING PEOPLE.

The film starts off similarly to movies like “Hostel” where horny teenage boys set off to have some promiscuous sex and instead find themselves being bound and gagged and tortured. Jared (Kyle Gallner) and his two buddies visit a sex internet site with the intention of having sex with an older woman. They drive out that night to meet up where they encounter Sarah Cooper (Melissa Leo). She offers them some beer first. What teenage boy wouldn’t accept beer from a middle aged woman in a trailer? As soon as they begin stripping off their clothes it’s revealed they’ve been drugged and unfortunately sex is the last thing they will be getting this evening. Jared wakes up in a metal cage where he witnesses a preacher named Abin Cooper (Michael Parks) giving a hate-filled sermon about the evils of homosexuality and other sexual abominations. Good thing Jared is not a homosexual right? Wrong.

This is where the film sort of lost me because having three straight teenage boys being persecuted by this “Five Points Church” religious cult didn’t quite make too much sense to me. The film opens with these people protesting a gay teenager’s funeral. There is so much debating and discussions revolving around the idea of homosexuality that I thought it was strange that the main characters being attacked by these people aren’t even homosexual. Sarah and Abin’s excuse for targeting these boys is that they were willing to all have sexual relations with Sarah all at once, which makes it even worse apparently. I don’t know, that all seemed fishy to me at best. I can imagine that kind of heat Smith would have taken if he actually had gay main characters being bound and gagged. What kind of example could he be setting? He’s obviously not on the fundamentalist side, but that would have been much too hard to witness.

The actual filmmaking here itself feels sort of shotty at best. Smith came from his gritty, independent roots and he definitely returns to them here. The film has a very low budget, digital look and feel but instead of giving the film a grainy look, it really just feels “direct-to-video” instead. I’m not quite surprised the film wasn’t picked up for theatrical distribution after premiering at Sundance. And I’m not even really quite sure what to even classify this thing. I would assume it’s supposed to be horror and while it has shocking parts, I was never that quite scared. The idea of a group of people seeking out “deviants” and executing them for their “sins” is scary itself, but I think the execution here is a little off. The film goes from being “Hostel” to being a hostage shootout movie once the film shifts to John Goodman’s character an AFT agent who becomes aware that these church freaks not only have hostages, but entire machine gun arsenal.

I know Kevin Smith is a talented guy, I’ve never been his biggest fan, but he certainly has a strong cult following. I appreciate him wanting to break away from his more standard gross out comedies. I mean what film fan wouldn’t want to direct their own horror movie? This is his. I can’t quite say it’s completely successful, but it’s not bad for a filmmaker who has never worked in this genre before. The film features some good performances (especially Leo who nails every movie she’s in) but the film’s odd tonal shifts and low budget feel sort of work against it. GRADE: C+

Man of the House: James Marsden Searches for his Masculinity in the New “Straw Dogs”

Alexander Skarsgård certainly has come a long way since playing a ditzy male model in “Zoolander.” The charming Swedish “True Blood” star gives a terrific performance as Charlie, a creepy but charismatic red neck southerner who makes a perfect foil to timid screenwriter David Sumner (played by James Marsden). “Straw Dogs” is a remake yes, and sure it basically has no reason to exist, but here’s a theme that is worth revisiting: regaining masculinity through violence. It’s a subject ripe for discussion and even if this a typical glossy remake that isn’t particularly memorable or original, it still evokes the power and tension of the original film, right up until the end when a mousy man must brutally slaughter half a dozen other guys just to prove he is, in fact, a man.

David Sumner (Marsden) is a Hollywood screenwriter who moves with his TV actress wife Amy (Kate Bosworth) back to her hometown in Blackwater, Mississippi. There he plans on finishing up his script, while Amy can oversee fixing up her late father’s farm property. She hires her old friend Charlie (Skarsgård) and his crew of sloppy, greasy buddies to fix up the barn’s roof which was damaged in a recent hurricane. There’s an immediate culture clash between David and the locals, where the tension builds for nearly the entire length of the film. David is the LA type; he drives a fancy car, wears nice clothes, is well-groomed, doesn’t “get” religion and cares more about cell service than anything else. He’s not a cocky guy or dislikable by any means, but Charlie and his friends are immediately turned off by the very presence of this metrosexual. Especially since Amy and Charlie used to have a thing together back in the day. Amy immediately begins to flirt with Charlie and it begins to send him over the edge. It seems as though Amy wants a real man and David may just may not be man enough for her. A sexual attack eventually takes place and it’s the fascinating ambiguity in Amy’s reaction that drives the film forward.

The original 1971 “Straw Dogs” has always been a notorious film fitting in with the likes of “A Clockwork Orange” as a brutally violent film that met controversy the moment it was released. Many have been confused about the depiction of violence in the film as glorifying horrible acts and cheering violence as a valid form of vengeance. I don’t think the film glorifies violence at all and neither does this new film. The acts of violence are supposed to be shocking although in this day and age it’s much harder to be. Writer/director Rod Lurie, like Sam Peckinpah, builds the tension through the whole film before giving us anything very shocking. When that rape scene occurs it feels earned, not out of place, and it’s as difficult to watch as any rape scene should be. The film will also be remembered as statement that violence helps a man regain his masculinity. In the original film Dustin Hoffman is a nerdy mathematician, here he’s a screenwriter. He’s not tough; Charlie looks down on him as much as Amy does, and he’s always being stepped on. But like the tagline reminds us, everyone has a breaking point.

“Straw Dogs” features some great performances, especially from the three leads. I was particularly impressed with Bosworth if simply because I’ve always found her sort of bland and uninteresting. Marsden, an arguably masculine guy does will against type here and does mousy surprisingly well. Skarsgård is particularly impressive. And James Woods gives a disturbing performance as a pent up overprotective hothead. “Straw Dogs” won’t erase the existence of the original film and if this makes those unfamiliar with it add it to their Netflix cue than that’s a good thing. I’m not exactly an avid fan of the original film but I found this a worthy and fascinating enough film that’s certainly worth checking out. GRADE: B

Stunt Trouble: The Exhilarating and Intense “Drive” Will Leave You Feeling Exhausted

“Drive” isn’t exactly the most fun movie to watch but it’s certainly an intense experience. It’s a movie that is almost as pretty as it is ugly. It shows the dark, seedy side of LA, a side of the city most filmmakers love exposing. It’s filled with grotesque violence, but even the sleek nature of the film doesn’t glorify this violence. It’s brutal and ugly and not fun. You won’t feel good watching Albert Brooks stab a guy repeatedly in the neck. “Drive” tells a dark story about crime through the eyes of a part time Hollywood stunt driver/auto mechanic. Ryan Gosling, as the “driver,” gives another outstanding performance in what can only be described as an art-house heist thriller as filtered through the likes of Martin Scorsese and the Coen brothers.

The film opens brilliantly as it establishes the sheer talent of the unnamed main character "the driver” (Gosling). He works various night jobs as a getaway driver. He gives the robbers five minutes to get into the car and he can avoid and lose the cops faster than you can say “Steve McQueen.” His boss Shannon (Bryan Cranston) at the auto shop where he works sets these gigs up. Shannon is involved with a Jewish mob guy named Bernie. And even though Bernie is played by the same guy who voiced a clown fish in “Finding Nemo” (Albert Brooks) he is one mean dude. He’s associated with another scary guy named Nino (Ron Pearlman). Bernie and Nino are the last people you’d want to be associated with as our driver will soon find out. Some of these relationships become a little confusing, but the point is obvious: these are bad fellas. And "driver" begins to become romantically involved with his cute neighbor Irene (Carey Mulligan) who has a young son. Her husband is being released from prison and he owes a major “debt.” Driver cares just enough for this woman that he’s willing to get involved in a heist that, for lack of better words, goes horribly wrong.

All this mobster and heist and bags of money stuff are familiar elements that we’ve seen countless times before, but somehow Hossein Amini’s script (based on the book of the same name) transcends the genre. There's much more focus on character than is usually found in films like this. There’s minimum dialogue which is put to great use by director Nicolas Winding Refn. He stages the heist sequences with almost unbearable tension and it’s always from the driver’s point of view. The driving sequences are almost so well staged and realistic that those who get car sick might want to bring a barf bag. Speaking of barf bags, the violence here is almost so sudden and unsettling you almost wonder what the ratings board was really thinking. But the violence here, like I mentioned previously, is not cool or entertaining. It is what it's supposed to be: brutal and repulsive. Refn’s use of music and Cliff Martinez’s electronic score is pretty standout and it gives the film a sort of strange 80s vibe (and that wicked pink font helps too). The film overall feels like something from the American New Wave, although comparisons to European cinema are not at all wrong.

“Drive” is so well directed and acted it almost feels like a shoo-in for awards once the time comes. But I wonder if this is a film that’s too edgy for the Academy’s tastes? It’s a sleekly made, visceral film that’s actually pretty difficult to describe. It’s certainly unlike what you may expect. Those expecting something amusing on the level of a “Fast and the Furious” film will be utterly disappointed. Think more “Taxi Driver” meets “No Country for Old Men” with car chases. Although it has action and suspense and drama this is an art house indie film through and through. It’s certainly, and appropriately, not the most entertaining film of the year, but it’s certainly one of the most unforgettable. GRADE: A-

Maid to Order: “The Help” is a Wonderful Ensemble Drama

I don’t know if “The Help” will be remembered as a landmark in race relations cinema the way “The Color Purple” or “Do the Right Thing” are but darned if it isn’t just a fun, entertaining piece of moving filmmaking (and certainly much lighter and easier to digest). It’s sort of reminded me of a weird hybrid of “Hairspray” (without the songs) and “Steel Magnolias.” It’s definitely the “chick flick” of the summer, but don’t let that scare you away my fellow friends from Mars, “The Help” is a moving piece of work and if you’re a fan of any of the ladies on display you might find yourself getting sucked in to this thing. Deep down it’s essentially a Lifetime movie in big budget clothing, but the actors are so good you might actually forget that you’re most likely completely surrounded by middle aged women.

Being a huge Emma Stone fan I was excited to see her breakout into something more than just silly comedies. Here she does drama straight on as Skeeter, a young aspiring journalist living in 1950s Jackson, Mississippi. She hasn’t been “courting” so naturally her mother (an always wonderful Allison Janney) thinks she’s a lesbian. She’s too busy to meet boys. She’d rather be a career woman which was a big no no in that time. Women’s jobs back then were to be wives and mothers. And the jobs of black women in those days were as maids and servants. This is the story of Aibileen (Viola Davis), a lifelong maid who spends her days working for snobby white women. She practically raises these kids and in fact they look up to her more than their own mother. Skeeter has a crazy idea to write an article the point of view of “the help:” the black maids in town.

This of course is mostly unheard of because as we all recall black and white matters were an extremely hot issue back then and someone like Skeeter could get in a lot of trouble for giving these poor women a voice. One of which is Minny (a radiant Octavia Spencer) who gets a job working for Jessica Chastain’s Celia Foote, a white high society woman who has been ostracized by her fellow bridge club ladies for reasons to be revealed later in the story. It is the relationship between Celia and Minny truly form the heart and soul of this movie. Sure Emma Stone is great and Viola Davis can act circles around anyone who comes near her, but the Celia/Minny scenes truly shine. Spencer, who finally gets a role to sink her teeth into had previously played bit parts such as “troubled woman,” “bank co-worker,” and “big customer.” Here she gives an Oscar worthy performance as a sassy maid who won’t let anything bring her down, even a rivalry with her former employer played with perfect white bitch nastiness by Bryce Dallas Howard.

“The Help” is directed by Taylor Tate (he’s white), who wrote the script from Kathryn Stockett’s novel, and he somehow really gets inside these women. Her certainly seems to have gotten the period details right. Although I can't be certain since this takes place way before my time. On paper most of these roles are simply “the good guy” or “the bad guy” but the actresses make them their own. Stone’s character exists essentially as a plot device: we’re not really sure why she cares for these maids but the other white women don’t so much. She’s so good as a woman determined to make a difference and not care about what others think she almost makes you forget we’ve seen characters like this dozens of times before. Howard, as the mean girl queen bee, is made to be so hateful that even when Minny does a despicable thing, you cheer instead of sneer. Janney’s character who we think is just a racist like all the others even has a chance to redeem herself by the film’s end and forms one of the film’s more satisfying minor character arcs. Even Sissy Spacek is great in a tiny role as Howard’s mother.

If you’re like me, and you’re not a middle aged woman, you probably wanted to see “The Help” because you like Emma Stone or because you heard about Viola Davis’ great performance. Yeah they’re wonderful, but Chastain and Spencer are where it’s at. Chastain is a star on the rise (with two other magnetic performances in The Tree of Life and The Debt) and even though she sound just like Daryl Hannah in “Steel Magnolias” (tell me I’m wrong) she really makes this role her own. And Spencer is just radiant as well, she’s so lovable and easy to root for. Even if it has a fault or two “The Help” was definitely a pleasant surprise. GRADE: B+

The Plague’s the Thing: “Contagion” is a First Class Outbreak Disaster Flick

One this is for certain: if “Contagion” is a box office success everyone should probably invest in hand sanitizer stock. That stuff is gonna start selling like hotcakes. Just a couple years ago, the “swine flu,” or rather the more PC term “h1n1 flu,” became a hot media sensation when various people all over the country began contracting a new deadly virus. Of course things didn’t turn out like they did in the terrific 1995 thriller “Outbreak” but it was enough of a concern that Purell dispensers were installed all over my work building. Disaster flicks have always been popular in Hollywood and while they’re mostly just fantasy, sometimes some movies come along that are so realistic and well-made they almost seem too real.

“Contagion” is almost so real it’s scary. It’s not exactly the most pleasant movie to sit through but it sure is captivating. As directed by Oscar-winner Steven Soderbergh the film is a well-cast ensemble piece. We get everyday characters like you and me and government officials and various doctors and scientists. The film begins when a woman returning home from a trip to China gets sick. Beth Emhoff (Gwyneth Paltrow) returns home to her family in the States, the next day she begins having a seizure. Her husband Mitch brings her to the hospital, where she unexpectedly dies. Not only is Mitch dumbfounded, but so are the doctors. We see other cases of this disease in other parts of the world where slowly the bug is passed along to a few and then to thousands upon thousands of people. It appears to be airborne.

The movie is shot as if it were “Traffic” meets “Outbreak.” We see the point of view of workers at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia. Laurence Fishburne is Dr. Ellis Cheever who knows that this is one serious bug and that it’s spreading faster than they can cure it. He enlists the help of Dr. Erin Mears (Kate Winslet) who is an expert in dealing with epidemics. It is through her that we learn some disturbing true facts. Things like we, as humans, touch our face thousands of times and in between we’re touching so many various objects from doorknobs to faucets to other people. Germs are everywhere and once in a while people come in contact with really, really bad ones.

There is a somewhat sterile sheen to the whole proceeding which sort of left me sort of emotionally detached from a majority of what was going on, but I think that works for the film. Sure there were characters I cared about (most notably Winslet’s) but I think we ultimately spend too little time with everyone to become too invested. But we are invested mostly because they’re humans and we’re humans and Scott Burn’s script is so realistic that the film feels more of a documentary with high production value recreations than a traditional narrative. Meanwhile we get some political muckraking in the form of Jude Law’s blogger/journalist Alan Krumwiede who believes the CDC are liars and insist there’s a larger conspiracy going on.

Soderbergh’s trademark style (including those colorful filters) has always been realism, which he founded in the groundbreaking “Sex Lies and Videotape;” it’s a style that has followed him in his career for over two decades. And he’s one of the most diverse directors working today. He can go from churning out Hollywood hits (like Erin Brockovich or Ocean’s Eleven) to tiny indies you probably haven’t even heard of (Bubble or The Limey). Here he fuses them together to gives us an unsettling and realistic look at what would happen if something like this did really happen. It’s scary without being sensationalistic and it features some terrific performances. He even has the balls to kill off Gwyneth Paltrow before you even get a chance to finish your bag of popcorn.

“Contagion” will make you think twice about what you touch and put near your mouth. It’s obviously common courtesy to cover your mouth when you cough or sneeze, but it’s scary to think how many people never do. It’s not exactly a film that is going to scare the living daylights out of people to the point of wanting to become invalids, but it’ll make you wish you hadn’t booked that dream vacation to Hong Kong. GRADE: B+

Lake Flaccid: “Shark Night 3D” Doesn’t Quite Have the Same Bite as Piranha 3D

I know you’re dying to know whether “Shark Night 3D” is better or worse than last year’s surprisingly fun financial bomb “Piranha 3D.” It’s worse. But it has entertainment value if you enjoy watching hot people being eating by sharks. I can imagine most people being disappointed with the lack of hardcore gore, lack of bare breasts and an unfortunate lack of tongue-in-cheek fun. This is probably what “Piranha 3D” could have been but I’m extremely grateful it wasn’t. Now that’s not to say that “Shark Night 3D” is a total loss, because it’s not. It’s a stupid movie that gets stupider as it goes along and it’s pretty much pure junk but who doesn’t like some cinematic crap every once in a while?

“Shark Night 3D” offers exactly what you expect and nothing more. It has sharks and it takes place mostly at night and it’s in three dimensions. The story, if anyone even cares, revolves around college coed Sara (Sara Paxton showing about a total of 1.5 emotions throughout) inviting her friends to her Louisiana lake house on the bayou. It’s pretty isolated. So isolated in fact that not only do they not get cell service there, but they don’t even have a landline (Heck even the Professor was able to make a phone on Gilligan’s Island I think). Sara and her friends even have to take a speedboat to get to her place. But that’s not before they run into the redneck bayou locals. One of which is way too Abercrombie & Fitch looking to be such a creep. His name is Dennis (Chris Carmack) and it seems he and Sara have a sordid past!

Sara’s friends include people of varying degrees of hotness and handsomeness. Most, however, are of average or below average acting ability. There’s her pre-med guy friend Nick (Dustin Milligan)who just so happens to be attracted to Sara. American Idol runner up Katherine McPhee is there and the token Latina girl and the token Black guy and the skinny goofy guy who somehow thinks he’s a ladies man, and the blonde male model guy (who is literally a male model in the movie). Yes it’s a typical MTV Spring Break down on the lake. Everything is fine until the sharks show up and start eating these folks. There's blood spilt, but nothing too gruesome enough to divert your eyes. This is PG-13 stuff here after all.

Of course after the first attack the best idea would be to not go in the water. But our fearless writers Will Hayes and Jesse Studenberg have found a way around that by having not only fishy CGI villains, but human ones as well. Remember I mentioned those creepy locals? They just might have something to do with sharks hanging around in a lake. And it just might have something to do with Shark Week. But why spoil all the fun?

Director David R. Ellis, who is no stranger to chintzy, silly movies like this having directed two Final Destination films and even Snakes on a Plane, scores points mostly for wanting the title of the film to be “Untitled 3D Shark Thriller.” On a technical level he mostly just gets the job done. He places his camera in the usual spots (lots of shark POVs and lots of ogling of tanned female and male skin) and there are some fun uses of that gimmick known these days as 3D. Nothing too spectacular (nothing has yet to best Final Destination 5 this summer) although the “driving to the lake house” montage had some cool depth perception.

Look, here’s the short of it: This is pretty dumb movie. Ok it’s a very dumb movie. You will probably laugh. At it. You may even jump once or twice (yeah I jumped, sue me) and it has some genuinely scary... opening titles. The biggest problem is that it seems to be taking itself a little too seriously. But if you’re paying to see a movie called "Shark Night 3D," you know what you’re getting into. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. GRADE: B-