WIBW @ The Movies: VANTAGE POINT

The Plot: During a political summit in Spain, the president of the United States is shot and multiple bombs are detonated around the assembly. In the ensuing chaos, news broadcast personnel, secret service agents, local law enforcement, and even uninvolved civilians attempt to discover the mystery behind the attack.

The Review: Much like the best episodes of the television series LOST, Vantage Point is chock full of unexpected plot twists and stupefying revelations. So much so, in fact, that I'm finding it hard to devise a review of the film without giving away any important plot points or surprising story elements. As such, you should be warned that this review may contain some minor spoilers, but none so influential to the plot that they will ruin the experience to watching the film.

Vantage Point begins with an unusual method of telling it's story. Within the first ten or fifteen minutes of the film the president (William Hurt) has already been shot and we witness the effects that this event has on a small group of people. Shortly thereafter the film pauses, "rewinds" itself, and retells the same events we've already seen, but through the eyes of a different individual. When all is said and done, the viewer will have experienced the shooting of the president and the events which immediately follow about five or six times. While this is certainly an original means of telling the story, I have to admit that I was a little annoyed by it after a while. It felt a bit more like a cheap stunt than a totally worthwhile plot device, but that is not to say that it doesn't work. Some people will accept the nonlinear storytelling more readily than others, but though it does get a bit tired after a while, it achieves what it is supposed to and the early events of the film unfold in an intriguing enough way. My biggest complaint involving the staging of the movie is that because the story jumps around so much there are certain elements of it's timeline that don't seem to sync up properly. If you look closely enough at the progression of the film, it's not hard to notice that during some segments certain events occur much more or less rapidly than the same events do in other segments when the time between them isn't as necessary to see fleshed out. Some people might call that a picky critique, but I would call it a flaw on account of the filmmakers. Again, not a weakness that ruins the film, but more-so one that should provide some good argumentative conversation with your friends after viewing it.

Due to the unconventional set-up of the film which allows the focus to fall on so many different characters, no one actor or actress truly feels as though they are the main character for very long. When all is said and done Dennis Quaid's secret service agent character Thomas Barnes is the most obvious candidate for the title of lead character, but he doesn't necessarily earn this distinction with a superior amount of screen time until near the movie's climax. Along the way we see the events of the political summit gone wrong through the eyes of a multitude of different characters. Perhaps the most short-changed is Sigourney Weaver, who plays the woman in charge of the news crew which is televising the event. Her segment is the first of the film, though when the story moves on to the other characters, hers is essentially forgotten and, in hindsight, really served no use in the story other than to introduce the audience to the events transpiring at the summit. Similarly, Eduardo Noriega's character, a local Spanish police officer, didn't seem nearly as important to the plot as he should have been. His character seemed pretty interesting, though it would appear that the details of his involvement in the assassination were lost in an effort to spend more time with other individuals and events.

Another character who is the focus of his own segment is a vacationing civilian with a video camera played by Forest Whitaker. For a man of such great talent, Whitaker seemed to me to be rather heinously overacting at several points during this film, which isn't necessarily surprising when you consider the role that he is playing. He plays the emotional role that is supposed to tug on the viewers' heart strings amidst the chaos which envelops the rest of the running time. His story is intertwined with that of an innocent little girl (Alicia Zapien), and it seemed as though the writers really had to stretch to get her and Whitaker to interact through several parts of the movie. In the same way that I enjoyed Paul Haggis' 2004 film Crash, but was annoyed by some of it's melodrama, the misuse of Forest Whitaker's character as a selfless every-man meant primarily to warm the viewers' hearts felt a bit cheap. Other actors of note in Vantage Point are Matthew Fox as one of Barnes' fellow secret service agents, Edgar Ramirez as a man who is being forced to participate in something he wishes he weren't a part of, and Saïd Tghmaoui as a man that you'll love to hate (or is that hate to love?).

The characters aside, Vantage Point has a lot to offer as a way to occupy a few hours of your time. The premise is rather shallow, but the plot is filled with enough twists, turns, and flat out surprises to catch anyone off guard; and really, who doesn't love a little mystery in their suspense thrillers? Speaking of which, this film has no shortage of suspense or thrills. There are chase scenes and explosions abound in Vantage Point, but the highlight of the movie's action sequences has got to be the car chase leading up to it's climax. I have openly stated before that Quentin Tarantino's Death Proof provides my all-time favorite car chase, but the one in this movie is of a completely different breed. As opposed to the wide open dirt roads and countrysides of Tarantino's half of Grindhouse, Vantage Point's chase scene between agent Barnes and some of the film's villains takes place in the narrow, crowded streets of Spain. Weaving in and out of lines of cars instead of old fences and cows provides for a hell of a gripping action sequence, which is almost reason enough alone to check out the film.

The Verdict: The unconventional method that the makers of Vantage Point chose to use to tell their story will certainly alienate this film from some of it's potential audience, but without it there wouldn't be much of a point in watching it's events unfold in the first place. Some great acting and superbly thrilling action sequences manage to more than balance out the accompanying sub-par performances and plot holes. While it surely won't go down in history as an example of flawless filmmaking or storytelling, Vantage Point is certainly original and gripping enough to be worthy of at least a viewing or two.

WIBW @ The Movies: BE KIND, REWIND

The Plot: Having accidentally been magnetized after attempting to sabotage a nearby power plant, Jerry (Jack Black) unknowingly erases all of the videotapes in the local Be Kind, Rewind movie rental establishment. With the store's owner out of town, Jerry and Mike (Mos Def) do the only thing that they can think of to keep the business running smoothly: they begin recording (or "sweding") their own versions of the erased movies on the blank videocassettes. Before long their sweded films become more popular among the local movie-renting community than the original films themselves, but their success is put into jeopardy when some angry film studio executives arrive on the scene.

The Review: In the past I haven't been a big fan of director Michel Gondry's work. The two films of his which I had seen before were Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep, neither of which I particularly loved. Yet when I saw the trailer for Be Kind, Rewind, I was immediately interested. There's just something about the idea of a couple of guys remaking classic films in next to no time with no budget that intrigued me. With the addition of the actors involved, I could hardly wait to see this film.

Perhaps the single thing that I was most excited to see in Be Kind, Rewind was Jack Black's performance. My interest in and appreciation of Black have risen and fallen a lot over time. His involvement in Mr. Show and his band Tenacious D's first album, for example, really caught my eye (or ear) and appealed to me. Over the years he has seemed to fall into a repetitious spiral though, constantly playing the same types of characters, being involved in the same types of movies, and in the case of his film Tenacious D in the Pick of Destiny, straight up rehashing old material for the big screen. With Be Kind, Rewind however, it appeared that he may finally be stepping out of his loud, obnoxious, rock music-loving mold and into a different type of character, and luckily that is exactly what he did. For the first time in quite a while I felt that Black's performance was fresh and interesting, and he was different enough from his past stereotypical characters that I didn't feel like I was just watching Jack Black play Jack Black yet again. It was nice to have him make me laugh without resorting to his usual bag of tricks.

In the case of Mos Def, while I wasn't immediately sure about his ability to pull off a comical role in Be Kind, Rewind, he surprised me as Mike, the video store clerk. In his past performances in 16 Blocks and The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, as well as The Italian Job (to an extent), Mos Def proved that he could act, but he created a great yin to Jack Black's comedic yang in this film. Never really stepping outside of a sort of shy, nervous character portrayal, Mos Def is able to make the audience laugh just by being a normal guy instead of playing his role too over-the-top and ludicrous. In a bit of a background role, Danny Glover provides a few humorous moments just based on the fact that he's Danny Glover, but aside from him the only other actors in Be Kind, Rewind that deliver on the film's humor quota are Jack Black and Mos Def. Any other really comedic moments are courtesy of director Michel Gondry's slightly skewed way of telling a story.

While, as I mentioned previously, I'm not historically Michel Gondry's biggest supporter, one thing that I have never denied is that the man is remarkably inventive and has a great visual style. His knack for creating some of the best CG-free visual effects in use today is the one thing that I've always liked about his work, and also the one thing about his directorial style that I thought Be Kind, Rewind would be greatly lacking. Based on the footage I had seen prior to watching the movie, along with what I knew about the story, which is admittedly a good bit more down to Earth than some of his previous ventures, I didn't expect to see Gondry employ many of his signature dream-like visuals. Such was not the case though, as many of the "effects" in the film, especially those during the scenes in which Mike and Jerry were recording their own videos, are beautifully achieved with the ingenuity and low budget indie-sensibilities that Gondry has come to be known for. In fact, considering that the characters in the movie are amateurs when it comes to shooting films, many of the hands-on effects are portrayed in a rather exploitative way, allowing the viewer to fully understand what they are looking at more than is usually the case in a Gondry-helmed feature.

The hold-ups of Be Kind, Rewind, while indeed present, are few and slight, not really effecting the overall enjoyable experience of watching the movie to any great degree. Perhaps my biggest problem with Be Kind, Rewind is the base motivation behind the plot. Danny Glover's video store has two months to earn $60,000 for repairs before it is demolished to make way for newer, more streamlined architecture to take it's place. The "underdog who has to earn a seemingly unachievable amount of money by a deadline which they will inevitably make by the skin of their chinny-chin-chin to save something close to his/her/their heart" story is one of the most played-out in all of Hollywood. Even so, while this flaw was on my mind throughout the entire running time, I couldn't help but feel that by placing itself within the boundaries of this obvious stereotype, Be Kind, Rewind was making a "wink and a nod" comment about the stereotype itself in doing so. If such is the case though, Michel Gondry and company never specifically made this fact known. The other small problem plaguing the film is how easily every problem posed to the characters tended to resolve itself. With it's lighthearted approach to the subject matter, Be Kind, Rewind felt a bit more like a fairy tale than any other known genre anyway. This is proven more and more as the movie goes on when every problem is met with an unrealistically simple and easily-met solution, but given the overall feel of the film, this is not a fact that I would readily hold against it.

The Verdict: Be Kind, Rewind has plenty of laughs, heartfelt moments, and examples of interesting, inventive filmmaking to satisfy just about any movie-goer. Great, spot-on, and, in some cases, wholly original performances fill the cast of characters and an uncontrollable feeling of nostalgia for anyone who grew up watching video tapes is inevitable. While I didn't leave the theater after watching it with the same feeling of immediate adoration for what I'd just seen as I have after some other recent viewings, Be Kind, Rewind is an easy movie to recommend to just about anyone.

WIBW @ The Movies: JUMPER

The Plot: Based upon the first in a series of science fiction novels by author Steven Gould, Jumper follows a young man named David Rice, who, after a harrowing experience in his youth, discovers that he has the ability to teleport from place to place just by thinking about it. After years of living the secret life of a superhuman, which has brought him considerable wealth and loneliness, David attempts to reconnect with his high school crush only to be tracked down by a man named Roland who belongs to an underground society of people known as Paladins. Just as David discovers that there are other people out there with the same unusual gift as him, he also discovers that the Paladins are intent on ridding the world of David and his kind, whom they refer to as "Jumpers".

The Review: While I thought that the commercials and trailers for Jumper made it look like an incredibly entertaining movie, I will admit that in the week or so leading up to the release of the film I was beginning to question just how good it would be based on the massive array of bad reviews I'd seen and heard about it online. Much to my pleasant surprise, my initial instincts proved correct, and I found myself exiting the theater after watching Jumper having just enjoyed the hell out of what I'd seen. Jumper isn't Shakespeare (or perhaps more appropriately Asimov, Clark, or Dick), but it is an eye-pleasing, fun movie with a hell of a lot of original and entertaining ideas.

Where to begin? You know the scene in the White House that opens X-Men 2 featuring Nightcrawler teleporting all over the place? Remember how damn cool that scene was? Well stretch that incredible sequence out into a full length movie and you've essentially got the backbone of Jumper. The idea of teleportation is certainly nothing new, but what the writers/director of Jumper have done is to plant the seed of this age old science fiction concept and allow it's roots to grow, following them in all sorts of new directions that no one has ever touched on before. I don't want to say too much about the specifics of Hayden Christensen's character's abilities and the way that Sam Jackson's character combats them, but suffice to say that every time a new sci-fi rich aspect of the plot involving teleportation was introduced, I, as a massive fan of crazy, out there ideas, could hardly stop myself from grinning with delight at each of the intelligent, provocative instances being placed in front of me onscreen. The way that the teleportation in the film works is a fresh take on a tired idea to say the least. The weapons that the Paladins use against the Jumpers are insanely cool and unconventional. The best of all though? "The machine". When this device makes it's first true appearance toward the climax of the film the plot seemed to reach a whole new level of excitement and cleverness as multiple new possibilities were introduced. Not to mention, beyond the pure nerd-fodder of Jumper, it included a lot of great exposition on what it would be like to live the life of someone empowered by an inhuman gift. Just as the Spiderman films tend to dwell on the responsibilities and hardships of the life of a superhuman, Jumper offers several examples of what the upsides of such a situation might be. It was an incredibly gratifying feeling watching a movie about super powers that wasn't strictly a vehicle for heroics and a do-gooder mentality.

My biggest concern going into Jumper was that, like many action films these days (including most superhero films), the action sequences which provide the most compelling reason for stepping foot into the theater to see one of them would be shot in a confusing manner. Coming off of The Bourne Identity, a film series known for it's quick cutting action shots and shaky, handheld camera work, Doug Liman, while having made multiple films that I enjoy, was the trump card on this occasion. Fortunately, unlike the majority of the action fare out there these days, every moment of Jumper was as clear and concise as could be both during and between the fight/chase scenes with excellent accompanying special effects around every turn. Another possible fault of the film going in was the casting of Hayden Christensen. Having quite disliked his performance in the second and third Star Wars prequels as Anakin Skywalker, I wasn't sure that he would be able to carry Jumper as the the film's main character. Thankfully, he seems to be able to handle himself quite well in front of the camera when he's not sporting long braids and discussing the force. Along with Christensen, Sam Jackson lights up the screen, snow white hair and all, as the evil Roland. Jackson really impressed me in Jumper by not succumbing to the urge to rely on the current popularity of the man behind the character in fleshing out his role. Sam is such an icon these days that it's hard not to just see the celebrity onscreen instead of whoever he's playing (such as was the case with Snakes on a Plane, among others), but he really seemed to lose himself in his role in Jumper, creating a great villain that I would be glad to see revisited again and again. Playing Griffin, the film's other Jumper, Jamie Bell was another great choice for this movie. Finally, while she was certainly the least impressive of the core cast, Rachel Bilson delivered a passable performance as the love interest of Hayden's David.

The Verdict: Try as I may, I just cannot think of anything bad to say about Jumper. Science fiction and action have been rather strange bedfellows in way too many films in the past, but here they fit seamlessly together to form a smart, original, intriguing, and overall enjoyable movie-going experience. A superhero movie without any real "heroes" to speak of, Jumper bends multiple genres into a new aesthetically pleasing shape that was as welcome and refreshing to me among the sea of recent sub-par-to-horrible sci-fi action films as a bottle of water surely is to a man lost in the desert.

WIBW @ The Movies: RAMBO

The Plot: Many years after his last documented conflict, John Rambo is living peacefully and simply in Thailand. After a great deal of convincing, he agrees to escort a small group of Christian aid workers across the border into the hot zone that is Burma via his boat. Not long after their arrival, the village that the group has come to help is attacked by the Burmese army and Rambo is called upon to lead a gang of mercenaries into the region to rescue the missing American civilians.

The Review: While I enjoy and appreciate the original three Rambo films for what they are (relatively mindless eighties action movies), they have never graced my list of favorite action films. This, the fourth installment of the confusingly titled Rambo/First Blood franchise, continues the tradition of being about mindless action, but adds a great production value, a cast of competent actors, and a lot more realism than we've seen in the series up to this point to the mix.

With the possible exception of First Blood, Rambo is a massive step up in the plot department. This feels a bit odd to say though, considering that there is very little substance to the story in this film. The plot of Rambo is literally as simple as "some people are taken hostage and Rambo and co. have to get them back". There are certainly statements being made in this film about the state of affairs in Burma and what it means to have compassion or contempt for your fellow man, but these things don't play too large of a role in the story line. Rambo knows it's place in the modern film landscape and doesn't try to over-step it's bounds by becoming too complicated for it's own good like so many action films try to do these days. It is short, simple, and to the point. And speaking of short, though IMDb claims that Rambo is ninety three minutes long, I'm (almost) positive that it is in fact shorter than an hour and a half. Either that or my cell phone's clock is broken.

I dare say that the one major flaw in Rambo is also one of it's greatest strengths. I am of course speaking of the violence. Not since the horrifically realistic opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan have I seen brutally eye-opening violence of such severity in a movie. If you think Stephen Spielberg's beaches of Normandy scene was gory and gut-wrenchingly horrendous though, you haven't seen anything until you've watched Rambo. As big of a fan of horror and action movies as I am, it takes a lot to wow me in the violence/gore department, but I found myself with my mouth agape at several points throughout Rambo. The violence and shocking imagery in the action scenes of this film simply cannot be described. You have to see it to believe it. As I said, this aspect of the movie is both it's greatest flaw and it's greatest strength. There were some people who walked out of the theater immediately following the scene in which the Burmese army attacked and ravaged the small village that the aid workers were attempting to help, proving that the reality of the situation is just too much for some to stomach. Then again, had the violence been toned down or avoided in any way a lot of Rambo's validity would have gone right out the window and it would have become just as dismissible as the previous installments of the series.

At 61 years old, Sylvester Stallone hasn't played the character of John Rambo for just under two whole decades, but take my word for it when I say that he's still got it. His character felt just as capable of causing massive amounts of carnage as he always has, and any shortcomings which he may show in Rambo are completely understandable based upon the age of the character, not just the age of the actor portraying him. Not only did Stallone bring the character of Rambo back with perfection however, he also wrote and directed the film expertly. The men playing the mercenaries accompanying Rambo on his rescue mission were over the top in every way that you would expect characters like theirs to be, but were also likable and all well cast. Julie Benz and Paul Schulze's characters were also stereotypical in ways that served to advance the plot and character development of the film. The Burmese soldiers served their purpose well, which was simply to make the audience hate them to the point that they were rooting for them to die. As much of a surprise as it is for me to say it, for what it was, Rambo was probably about as perfect a film as it could have been.

The Verdict: The action of Rambo is stunning in both the sense that it is shocking and incredible to watch. The film doesn't try to be overly deep or intelligent and has the piece of mind to remain short and to the point, which is what any movie of this caliber should do. It has an impact and is both well made and fun to watch. Rambo isn't Shakespeare, but it's a damn good movie.

Random Rapid Fire Reviews - Nov./Dec. '07

Futurama: Bender's Big Score
For fans of Futurama who have been waiting eagerly for it's return, the wait is over and it was more than worth it. Bender's Big Score continues the series' trend of mixing gut-busting humor with slick visuals and mind-bending science fiction concepts as though the show never left. The whole cast is back and they've all picked up right where they left off without a hitch. A new species of aliens have "spammed" Earth and are in the process of taking over the entire planet while, through a series of flashbacks and time travel sequences, the story of a new character named Lars is revealed.


The Science of Sleep
Director Michel Gondry, master of the infusion of modern and retro special effects, tells a story which is, in tone, not all that far removed from his previous film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. A young man named Stephane falls in love with a girl named Stephanie who lives across the hall in his mother's building. His desires may be strong, but his will is weak, leading to a series of uncomfortable and morally ambiguous encounters between Stephane and the girl of his dreams...which is a literal term in this case. Stephane's dreams begin to mix with reality until not even the surreal visual effects seem to be able to help the audience to determine when the main character is awake or asleep. The story of The Science of Sleep is touching, but also often too confusing to allow the emotions of the viewer to let their guard down long enough to sympathize with the characters. My favorite aspects of the film were it's (rightfully) dreamlike visuals, but as was the case with Eternal Sunshine, they weren't enough to completely win me over.


The Wrong Man
Henry Fonda plays a musician named Christopher Balestrero who lived an average life with his beautiful wife and two sons until one day he made the mistake of looking like a criminal. As the title of this 1956 Alfred Hitchcock film suggests, Balestrero is accused of committing a crime that he had nothing to do with. After being run through the local prison and court systems, Balestrero and his wife are driven to the brink of madness by a situation that they aren't responsible for, but which they can't seem to extricate themselves from. The Wrong Man's story is incredibly interesting, especially due to the fact that it is based very closely on true events, but two things it never manages to be are exciting or suspenseful. This film plays more like a police procedural than a mystery and often focuses too much on the steps of the process of arresting someone and trying them than it does on finding the true culprit. The wrong man also manages to be so depressing in it's hopelessness that even when things sounded as though they may turn out okay, I still felt uncontrollably despondent.


Dirty Harry
Nowadays you can throw a rock in the "action" aisle of a Blockbuster or Hollywood Video and you will inevitably hit a film about a cop who breaks all the rules to catch a bad guy and argues incessantly with the chief of police. This has become a stereotype so long-lasting and frequently occurring that it seems as though it was never an original idea. Well, it was when Dirty Harry was released in 1971. The title character of this movie played by Clint Eastwood was the first real onscreen cop to disobey the system in a big way to do what's right and face the consequences for it. When a maniac seems to be performing random acts of violence around San Francisco and demanding payoffs, Inspector Harry Callahan and his new partner are the only ones willing to step forward and do what is necessary to diffuse the situation. By today's standards this film is nothing special, but taken in the context that it was the first of it's kind, Dirty Harry is an exceptional achievement in the action genre that any fan of Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, or Bad Boys should take the time to check out.


Magnum Force
The first of four sequels to the classic action movie Dirty Harry, Magnum Force comes close to the level of quality that the previous installment of the franchise achieved, but inevitably falls a bit short. I mentioned in my review of Dirty Harry that it was the first of it's kind and a film that countless others had copied from. Somehow, only two years after the release of the original, Magnum Force manages to feel as though it is just another in a long line of copycat films. Scenes such as the one in which Clint Eastwood as Harry stops some hijackers from making off with a plane from the San Francisco International Airport feel ridiculous and not very well thought out. The premise of the movie is original and interesting though, as a group of new recruits to the force are acting as judge, jury, and executioner and must be stopped by Harry, a fellow cop. My biggest complaint about Magnum Force is that it felt a bit anti-climactic at the end of the chase scene with the remaining loose cannon motorcycle cops, but the chases leading up to this sequence were enough to make up for the short-changed action.


Tootsie
While not the first film to tackle the subject of cross-dressing (I believe that honor may go to Edward D. Wood Jr's "Glen or Glenda?"), Tootsie is probably the best of the lot. Struggling actor Michael Dorsey (Dustin Hoffman) discovers that if he dresses up as a woman he can get regular acting work which will serve to fund his and roommate Jeff's (Bill Murray) own projects, but he unwittingly becomes best friends with a female costar (Jessica Lange) whom he's also fallen for, creating a sticky situation to say the least. Obviously the film that inspired the more recent Mrs. Doubtfire, I think that Tootsie works better mainly because the man doing the cross-dressing is Dustin Hoffman, who is known as more of a dramatic actor than Robin Williams, whose claim to fame is comedy. Hoffman does take rather well to the comedic moments in this film though, and I found myself laughing much more than I expected to.


The Mist
Shortly after David Drayton (Thomas Jane) and his son venture to a local grocery store to pick up a few things, they, as well as the rest of the occupants of the store, are trapped inside by a thick mist that has accumulated outside, and which seems to be the source of several varieties of horrifying, unearthly creatures. I have nothing but good things to say about this film. The screenplay and direction are incredible. Every single actor, including Jane's character's son (surprisingly for a child so young), gives an outstanding performance. The mood of The Mist is dark, disturbing, and foreboding, making for some truly memorable and effective scenes of horror when the creatures hidden in the gloom attack. The monsters themselves are all amazing to look at and have characteristics that made me, as a fan of science fiction and monster movies, smile uncontrollably with glee. For example, the word "tentacle" doesn't appear to leave much to the imagination, but the tentacle sequence toward the beginning of the movie is hair-raisingly horrifying and features the most original design for a squid-like body part that I've ever seen. In addition to the inhuman beings populating The Mist, Marcia Gay Harden plays a psychotic religious zealot who becomes the true villain of the film and did so in such a magnificent way that I get the feeling that whenever I see the actress' face in the future, I'll only be able to think of her as her despicable character in this movie. The visuals, acting, and directing aside, the pure concept of this film, which is based upon a story written by Stephen King, is just plain unnerving and creepy. Some of the best moments of The Mist come when the characters ask themselves the same questions that the audience is surely asking, such as "where did the mist come from?" and "how far does it reach?" After only one viewing I am positive that The Mist will become, much like Alien, Aliens, Predator, The Thing, and Tremors, a monster movie that I will watch repeatedly for the rest of my days.


Psycho (1960)
A beautiful female bank employee makes off with a sizable chunk of an investor's money to begin a new life with her boyfriend, but instead her life is ended in the most famous shower scene in cinema history. I'm sure that everyone is familiar with Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, so instead of explaining the film I'll just say what I thought of it. It's okay. As far as suspense goes I much prefer Hitchock's Rear Window and for achievements in filmmaking I would choose his film The Birds over this one, but for some reason Psycho gets all the fanfare. I assume that this is because of the odd subject matter of the film and the curious identity of it's killer, but as the passing of time generally seems to make younger audiences more and more accepting of the bizarre and unusual, Norman Bates' disorder/kink didn't really shock me all that much (not that I didn't already know what it was going into the movie). However, as underwhelmed as I was with Psycho's big climactic reveal, what really bugged me about the film was the fact that the viewer wasn't trusted to understand what they'd just seen. Instead there is a long, dull scene in which the plot is essentially laid out in front of us by a psychologist and some very forced-sounding dialogue. I understand that this portion of the film was there for the benefit of the audiences at the time of it's original release, but time hasn't been very kind to it. Psycho isn't a bad movie, I just don't think it's as perfect as so many film buffs seem to believe it to be.


Castle Freak
Having recently watched the H.P. Lovecraft-inspired horror movies The Re-Animator and From Beyond from director Stuart Gordon, I found myself eagerly anticipating the discovery of more similar films. Much to my delight, I came across a little movie called Castle Freak. Released direct to video in 1995, not many people have even heard of Castle Freak, but in my opinion it belongs right up there with the two aforementioned horror masterpieces. The story follows a family who has inherited a castle in a foreign land which happens to have a hideously deformed person stalking it's halls. The plot sounds both simple and dumb, but I guarantee that this movie is neither of those things. Castle Freak's budget is low, but it's quality is high. The hands-on make-up and effects are impressive to say the least, and the direction is nothing short of that of Stuart Gordon's previous achievements. Frequent Gordon collaborators Jeffrey Combs and Barbara Crampton lead a small, but able cast of unknowns, and the film's title character is not to be missed. Fans of Stuart Gordon or horror movies in general should seek this out at all costs, or for about $5 on eBay like me.


Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Here's a good example of a strange incident that occurs with me every now and then. I watch a film that is widely regarded as a masterpiece and find myself struggling to figure out how or why I don't feel the same way as the majority. Richard Dreyfuss plays a man who has a "close encounter" with some alien beings and then finds himself compelled to travel to a landmark out in the wilderness, however as he figures this out he manages to screw his life up pretty well. I enjoyed the ending of close encounters when the humans are attempting to communicate with the aliens, but I found just about everything up until that point to be a bit of a boring mess. When I watched Close Encounters I got the feeling that there was once a very clear and precise plot progression, but then it seemed that somewhere in the editing room somebody started chopping bits out and reordering things. The film isn't hard to understand, I just felt that it could have been a lot more focused. For a movie about aliens it could have also been a bit less slow and drab. The effects still stand up pretty well and I enjoy the core concept of Close Encounters of the Third Kind, but I honestly don't see why it's regarded as such a classic.


Lord of Illusions
The most recent of horror master Clive Barker's directorial efforts, Lord of Illusions follows a morose private detective played by Scott Bakula as he accidentally uncovers the sinister dealings of a demonic cult whose master is on the verge of returning from the grave to wreak havoc upon the Earth. The private dick's heart of gold compels him to assist a professional illusionist (Kevin J. O'Connor) and his wife (Famke Janssen) in putting a stop to the resurrection; a task which takes him on a tour of the mystical underground of Los Angeles. For fans of Barker's Hellraiser series I'm sure that Lord of Illusions is quite a treat, but I can't imagine that it has much of an audience past that demographic. This film is filled with the requisite amount of demonic violence and weird, pseudo-gothic horror that is par for the course when Clive Barker is involved, and it also has a somewhat interesting plot. I will admit that the film could have moved a little faster, but my guess is that Barker was trying to infuse a bit of noir thinking into the mix, what with the stereotypically sarcastic, down on his luck private detective and all. The highlight of Lord of Illusions for me were the visual effects, which is a bit of a shock for me to even type considering that this film includes one of the worst computer generated effects that I have ever seen in a motion picture. Taking into account the period in time when this movie came out, it is understandable that any CG involved would be fairly poorly executed, but even so, whoever was in charge of animating the weird, floaty, transforming triangle thing that attacks Scott Bakula in Swann's mansion should be ashamed of themselves. The visual effects that so impressed me came mostly during the climax of the film when the demonic cult leader grows strange globules from his skin and fuses his moronic followers into the floor of their hideout. Lord of Illusions is no masterpiece of filmmaking, but it certainly turned out better than I expected it to based on the DVD packaging.


The Aviator
I've reviewed two other Martin Scorcese films in recent memory and in both of those cases, as well as this one, I find it hard to think of things to write about them. The Aviator is an incredible movie. In fact, it is so masterfully made that I can't really think of anything to critique about it. Why did I give it four stars instead of five, then? I suppose that's because I didn't like it quite as much as the other Scorcese films I've seen lately, but the only reason for that is that I wasn't quite as interested in the subject matter as I was with those others. The Aviator tells a partial biography of the life of Howard Hughes, the infamous film director and aircraft designer. As with the majority of biopics, The Aviator begins by showing the rise of someone with an interesting and wonderful life before turning things one hundred and eighty degrees on us about two thirds of the way into the film. The emotional roller coaster ride that Scorcese takes the viewer on is nothing short of spectacular, and there are plenty of memorable characters to meet along the way. Leonardo DiCaprio is his usual incredible self, and he is joined by Cate Blanchett as Catherine Hepburn and Kate Beckinsale in the most impressive role I've ever seen her in as Ava gardner. So long as you like to sit back and enjoy a good dramatic story, you can't go wrong with Scorcese, and you certainly can't go wrong with The Aviator.


North By Northwest
Mistaken for a secret agent by some foreign spies, advertising executive Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) is forced to first run for his life and then track down the man who he's been confused with to clear his name. Never quite sure who to trust or when he's safe, Thornhill is drugged, chased, and betrayed as he struggles to get to the bottom of his severe case of mistaken identity. North By Northwest is full of imagery that I've seen referenced or spoofed numerous times, but which I never knew the true origins of. Namely the scene in the country when Cary Grant is attacked by a crop-dusting plane and another during the climax when he scrambles across the giant stone faces of Mount Rushmore while being chased by gunmen. The reason that I'd seen so many homages to these scenes are because Alfred Hitchcock's suspenseful masterpiece is one of the first and greatest spy thrillers ever made. The funny thing about that statement is that there isn't a single spy in the entire movie. Almost every single scene involves another plot twist or a shocking reveal, and the viewer never quite knows what to expect next. It's tough to critique the specific details of the plot without giving much away, so I won't even try to go into the methods that Grant's character uses to search for the truth. Regardless, rest assured that so long as you don't mind campy old movies, North By Northwest is a classic genre film in every sense and deserves to be seen by audiences of all ages and generations.


I Am Legend
I Am Legend is the third feature film to be based upon the novel of the same name by Richard Matheson; the other two being The Last Man On Earth and The Omega Man. In the near future a plague erupts which turns most of mankind into pale, cannibalistic creatures who cannot stand sunlight, but leaving a select few people unharmed. Robert Neville (Will Smith) is a scientist and survivor of the disaster who has been living alone with his dog in New York City ever since the plague hit, trying to find a cure. The most impressive thing about I Am Legend has got to be the location. Using CG, the filmmakers were able to create an abandoned, rundown cityscape much like that of Danny Boyle's zombie film 28 Days Later. Seeing New york as barren and decrepit as it appears in the film is stunning to look witness. Will Smith gives, in my opinion, the best performance of his career as Neville, which is no small task considering that for the majority of the movie he has nobody to interact with, yet he keeps things interesting and moving along smoothly. My only real complaint with the film is that the CG vampire/zombie characters look ridiculous. The CG that made such a gorgeous cityscape was apparently not up to the task of creating realistic cannibal people. The movements and general appearance of them are anything but impressive, which begs the question, "why did they use CG instead of casting real people and using make-up effects?"


Knockaround Guys
Matty Demaret (Barry Pepper) asks his father, a New York mob boss (Dennis Hopper), for a job in an attempt to earn his respect. Finally in charge of one of his father's illegal dealings due in part to the convincing power of Teddy Deserve (John Malkovich), Matty enlists the help of a friend named Johnny Marbles (Seth Green), who promptly screws up the job. Now Matty and Marbles, along with Taylor (Vin Diesel) and Chris (Andrew Davoli), have to clean up their mess before they foul things up even further. If you've never heard of Knockaround Guys before, don't be surprised. Watching the film, it felt to me as though the project was once a high priority for the studio behind it (hence some of the big names), but somewhere along the way was recognized as the sub-par film that it eventually turned out to be. With a few tweaks to the story, the acting, and the direction here and there, Knockaround Guys probably could have held it's own up against similar films like Snatch or The Usual Suspects, but in it's current state it is never bound to garner much acclaim. The film is almost worth the time it takes to watch it just because of the star power involved, but not even that does much to make the plain old average story worth sitting through. It's not great and it's not horrible, it's just Knockaround Guys.


The Devil's Rejects
"The Devil's Rejects" is the creepy Captain Spaulding's pet name for his family of grotesque, redneck murderers who are on the run from the law in this sequel to House of 1,000 Corpses. I never saw the previous installment of Director Rob Zombie's twisted horror franchise in it's entirety, so perhaps that's one of the reasons why I didn't enjoy The Devil's Rejects, but I'd wager that seeing it wouldn't do much to sway my opinion. If I had to choose one word to describe this film, it would be "worthless". I say this because I literally don't think that it has any worth. I got absolutely nothing out of it except for close to two hours of pointless violence, unwarranted raunchiness, and self-indulgent flashiness. I really couldn't tell you what Rob Zombie's goal in making this film was, but even more perplexing to me is that so many people saw and somehow seemed to enjoy it. I'm never one to shy away from disturbing imagery or violence in a film, but I need some reason to be watching it in order to feel that it's portrayal is validated, and I got no such thing from The Devil's Rejects. One thing that I can think of which might have made the film better is if Zombie had decided whether he wanted us to like or loathe the main characters. At some points they seem like the villains of the film while at other times it is as if the viewer is supposed to give a damn about them. For the final sequence, imagine the ending of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but instead of likable outlaws Butch and Sundance were sadists who raped and murdered everyone they came across. Steer clear of this film unless you're training to be a serial killer, and even then you should probably just avoid The Devil's Rejects and go for something a little more worthwhile like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.


Everything Is Illuminated
Elijah Wood plays Jonathan, a collector. What that means is that he collects things to preserve memories of his life and the lives of those around him. In an attempt to find out as much as possible about his grandfather, from whose life he's managed to collect next to nothing, Jonathan ventures from his home in America to Germany. It is there that he hopes to track down the Ukranian woman who helped his Jewish grandfather escape the Nazis during World War II. Everything Is Illuminated marks the directorial debut of actor Liev Schreiber and is based upon the book of the same name. It is an incredibly emotional story that I found to be told in a very remarkable way. Aiding Jonathan in his search are a young German raver named Alex and his grandfather. The language and customary barriers between Jonathan and his cohorts are at the same time very humorous and essential to the emotional progression of the plot. Due to an inability to properly communicate at many points throughout the movie, simple looks or facial expressions from Alex, his grandfather, and Jonathan translate complex silent exchanges between the characters. In fact, silence, or at least a lack of dialogue mixed with the perfect music for a given scene, is a very important part of Everything Is Illuminated and in this way it reminded me a lot of the works of Wes Anderson. Through the superb acting and excellent storytelling I found that I was able to be very moved by a story that I had no prior understanding of or attachment to. This is a very promising start to Liev Schreiber's directorial career.


Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Considering that musicals aren't really my thing, it's not hard to decipher that my reason for wanting to see Sweeney Todd was Tim Burton. While not one of my favorite directors, Burton has made some classic films and has a magnificent ability to craft fairy tale-esque movies that don't require the viewer to take them one hundred percent seriously. Such is the reason that Sweeney Todd succeeds in providing more than adequate entertainment despite it's peculiar narrative style. Based upon the stage play of the same name, this Sweeney Todd tells the story of a barber (Johnny Depp) who disappears after being wronged by a judge and his subordinates and returns somewhere in the vicinity of a decade later to take his revenge by slitting the throats of his enemies with a straight razor. Along the way, Todd and his new associate Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter) discover that they can make a rather decent living by cooking his victims into meat pies and selling them to the unsuspecting townsfolk. An incredibly dark comedy, the horrors of Sweeney Todd are offset by the fact that most of the dialogue is sung along to some genuinely catchy tunes, which gives the goings-on a certain sense of innocence. There is a surprising amount of blood in Sweeney Todd, but not so much that any modern, desensitized youth shouldn't be able to stomach it, and if you can too you're in for a fun movie-going experience that should leave you humming a tune.