National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation

The holidays are a time for families to get together and celebrate the season. Of course getting large amounts of family members into one area can sometimes lead to problems as the close proximity leads to working on each other's nerves after a while. Christmas Vacation deals in those moments throughout the film and almost always works.

The movie is the third in the Vacation saga as after going to Wally World and Europe, Clark Griswold decides to have people come to his house to celebrate Christmas. We find the Griswolds on a trip to get a tree for their house and it is there where we see how this film will operate throughout. It has a plot- of sorts- but it is more of an excuse to set up sketch pieces and almost every single one of them hit. The tree trip goes horribly wrong over and over again. The Christmas lights on the house go horribly wrong. Both Clark and Ellen's parents come in for Christmas and that goes wrong. The aunt and uncle show up and that goes wrong. Sledding, holiday shopping, and the idea for the pool all go wrong. When things look like the worst, Eddie shows up and him and his family add another level of annoyance to Clark's perfect family Christmas.

What feels right about this film is that they do nail the way your relatives can get on your nerves. When you see people all the time their quirks get easier to focus on and eventually it is all you can notice. The scene where Ellen is trying to reassure Aubrey all the while frantically looking for a pack of cigarettes is a perfect example of this. She is projecting calm but her actions are telling a different story. The moment she lights up the cigarette her mom yells out, "Ellen, are you smoking again?" Ellen ends the scene by sniffing out the cigarette and splitting a head of lettuce with one forceful swing of a knife. The camera ends on that image and focuses for maybe an extra split second before moving to the next scene. It speaks volumes to the feelings that Ellen has about arrangements and underlies some annoyance with Clark. You can also see that Clark has second thoughts about his plans once the parents arrive and he says, "Well I'm gonna go park the cars and get the luggage, and well, I'll be outside for the season."

However, that is not why people watch this movie over and over again. It is the comedic pieces and there are plenty of them here. The film does a good job of balancing slapstick with more subtle humor, sometimes in the same scene. The aforementioned car trip to the tree begins with Clark engaging with another driver in a struggle on the road. It is a nice callback to the first Vacation movie where the lovely Christie Brinkley shook Clark from the redundancy of the road trip. Here Clark is happy and joyous and the actions of the other driver push him in the opposite direction. They crash into the parking lot at the tree place but then it leads to a small scene where Aubrey freezes and Clark tries to give some big speech about the holiday but instead his tongue is so frozen that it ends up coming out in a lisping mess.

Randy Quaid is great again in his role as the completely unhinged Cousin Eddie. It is a little troubling to watch in some ways now seeing as Quaid is really unhinged in real life. So perhaps he wasn't acting so much as playing himself. When he shows up here the anarchic nature of the situation takes off. He wears garish Christmas sweaters, drinks egg nog from a moose antler cup, and dumps the septic tank on his RV into the sewer leading to one the hilarious line, "Merry Christmas. Shitter was full." He does this all while standing in a bathrobe and wool hat in the middle of the street. Later, Edie causes the entire holiday to crash by kidnapping Clark's boss and bringing him and a bevy of cops to the home.

Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo do well again in their roles as the leaders of the Griswold family. They play well off each other and actually feel like a married couple. He has big ideas and she smiles and goes along with them all the while quietly rolling her eyes. Even when she helps Clark get the lights going she lets him have the moment instead opting to enjoy the smile on her husband's face.

What helps this film out is that they have great supporting players up and down the cast sheet. Johnny Galecki and Juliette Lewis play the kids of the Griswold family and bring the right amount of love for their parents and mortification at their more bizarre antics. Doris Roberts and E.G. Marshall play Ellen's parents (And one of my favorite lines in the film comes from Marshall. On the front lawn when the lights don't work, he begins telling the kids how bad their father is in this and Lewis says, "He worked really hard grandpa." He responds with, "So do washing machines." I always loved that line in the film.) William Hickey pops in as Uncle Lewis. Julia Louis Dreyfuss and Brian Doyle Murray play supporting roles as well. The veteran cast of actors and good comedic actors make every line land and know how to play these situations to the hilt.

It's a movie I'm sure you've seen but it is one that is worth re-visiting year after year. In the spirit of the season I will close by saying:

"Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, kiss my ass, kiss his ass, kiss your ass, Happy Hanukkah."

Die Hard

Hans Gruber: Mr. Mystery Guest? Are you still there?

John McClane: Yeah, I'm still here. Unless you wanna open the front door for me.

Hans Gruber: Uh, no I'm afraid not. But you have me at a loss. You know my name but who are you? Just another American who saw too many movies as a child? Another orphan of a bankrupt culture who thinks he's John Wayne? Rambo? Marshall Dillon?

John McClane: I was always kinda' partial to Roy Rogers actually. I really dig those sequined shirts.

Hans Gruber: Do you really think you have a chance against us, Mister Cowboy?

[Elevator rings as Hans's minions arrive on John's floor]

John McClane: [Quietly, as he backs through a door] Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.

I can't begin to tell you how much joy I still derive from that short conversation between villain Hans Gruber and hero John McClane in 1988's Die Hard. Everything that the movie is can be found by analyzing that exchange. The evil German sees McClane as being typical of American culture. McClane is a nobody (in Gruber's eyes) and he feels that McClane is playing a hero because every red blooded male wants to believe that would be them in the role. The dichotomy here comes from the fact that we have seen everything that Gruber has not to that point. McClane is not aSuperman character and everything he is doing comes from thinking and planning. He is not necessarily carefully planning his moves. His only motivation is staying one step ahead of the bad guys that are trying to take the building.

Director John McTiernan was coming off a pretty fun action film in 1987's Predator when he returned to direct this film. The film itself is based on a novel and is brilliant in its simplicity. Today audiences are treated to hero characters that seem mild-mannered until a situation calls for them to be a hero. Then they turn into an all world athlete mixed with a horror movie monster. They operate in the shadows and somehow always have the jump on the bad guys. In this film, it is confined to one building and has a very claustrophobic feel to it. McTiernan films this movie so there are a lot of tight shots on McClane and we get a sense that the walls around him are far more intimate than they appear. It feels like he is trapped in that building and his only way out is to find a way to survive. Not necessarily strap on guns and be a marksmen- but just be good enough.  In fact, the simplicity of the plot was so easy that the running joke in Hollywood pitch meetings to do when describing an action film is to refer to it as "Die Hard on a _____." That is a huge testament to what the creators and the acting parties did here.

This film may not have worked as well though if it didn't have strong actors in the lead roles. Alan Rickman and Bruce Willis are fantastic in the roles they play. They argue with each other but there is always a sense of begrudging respect for the other. Gruber would never admit that he is impressed by McClane wiping out his 12 men by himself but his facial reactions and responses to comments tell a different story. McClane feels it is pretty brazen what Gruber is trying to pull off but being a cop he knows he has a duty to stop him. Everyone else is basically playing stock characters so you need strong forces in the middle pulling the action towards them. I know many criticize Reginald VelJohnson in his role as the cop who talks with McClane throughout the film but I think he works because you need some cop who is sane or else it makes the entire force look stupid and thus has Willis playing off them AND the bad guys.

The story itself is pretty simple. A group of German terrorists take over a building and plan to rob it but must make it look like a terrorist act. McClane is in the building but out of sight when the Germans first show up so they don't know he is there. He spends the film shuffling through the upper floors, offing bad guys, and delivering threatening messages for Gruber.

Other than that, there is not much to say about this film. It is a fun action film with a delicious subtext about what it means to be and American hero. The meaning can be found in that line I quoted at the top. Also, this features a great use of "Christmas in Hollis," by Run DMC. This is a film you need to see if you have not already.

It's A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie

Tell me if you've heard this one before. The Muppet theater is in trouble and the gang needs to raise money so they can save their arena. The group gets together and prepares a knockout show to raise funds and do the job. A seething villain watches on from the outside hoping the Muppets will fail so they can turn their theater into something for the villain's personal good. In the end everything works out okay and the Muppet Theater is saved. If you saw the recent Muppet film in theaters it is pretty much the plot of that film. However, it is also very close to the plot of this 2002 made for NBC movie starring The Muppets.

I know people love The Muppet Christmas Carol from 10 years earlier but to me this works a little better because it feels more like a Muppet production rather than them shoehorning themselves into the Dickens classic. (However, both pale in comparison to the 1987 television special "A Muppet Family Christmas"). The set-up here is very similar to the old Muppet Show with the gang engaging in screwball antics while guest stars pop up in and out of the film to move it along rather than take over the film. There are a few gags in here that are as good as anything they've done since Jim Henson's untimely passing in 1990.

The story opens with Joe Snow, a Rankin/Bass type snowman, narrating what has been happening in the town. The snowman is quickly dispatched and from there we move into the story. Kermit has been trying to keep the theater going and has the gang working hard on a new show. However, we meet Kermit after something bad has happened and he is dejectedly walking through the streets wondering how much better The Muppets would be if he had never been born.

It is then we are introduced to an angel named Daniel (David Arquette) and his "boss" (Whoopi Goldberg). He takes us back to the beginning of the story to find out what got Kermit into this depression. Kermit was approached by a real estate agent named Rachel Bitterman (Joan Cusack) who says she will foreclose the theater if she is not paid. In this series of events, Pepe the King Prawn deserts the Muppets to join with Bitterman because he thinks she is hot. After Kermit leaves we find out that Bitterman plans to turn the Muppet Theater into a new hot nightspot named Club Dot. Pepe tells Bitterman the deadline in the contract to pay is 12 am so Bitterman changes the contract to 6 pm giving the Muppets less time than they thought. Pepe then spies Bitterman with a new man and tries to warn Kermit about what is coming. He finally gets the message there but then Kermit sends Fozzie with the money and it gets lost forcing the Muppets into foreclosure. Kermit then begins walking the streets wishing he was never born and Daniel has to show him that course of life. From there it is a standard take on It's A Wonderful Life with Kermit seeing what would have happened without him.

This is where you get some of the funnier stuff and some nice in jokes for hardcore fans. Without Kermit the Muppet Theater does not exist so Club Dot is in its place. Kermit enters the building and is immediately accosted by Sam the Eagle as a raver holding glow sticks. The sheer vision of that was enough to make me laugh out loud. Kermit then backs into a cage and sees Scooter as a cage dancer wearing S&M gear. It's a pretty adult joke for the movie although it is not as out of place as you would think in the Muppet universe. The big in joke is that Doc Hopper's has become a big franchise around the country and he is getting rich on selling frog legs. Because you know the Life story you know how this will end but that does not mean the journey there is any less satisfying.

Before we get to the portion at the end there is a ton of classic Muppet antics sprinkled throughout. Fozzie is his normally groan inducing joke-telling self. This all becomes funnier when he gets mistaken for The Grinch in his trip to Bitterman's office. Miss Piggy is her normal diva self, and the rest of the Muppets are trying their hardest to work in their spotlight moments while being good soldiers for the greater good. Kermit is his usually steady center. The fibers of the gang are as strong as ever as they battle the outside forces against them.

Along the way we get cameos from the Scrubs gang, Matthew Lilliard, Joe Rogan, and even Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. they never stay for too long and they are only used to further how zany the Muppet world is. There is also a pretty nice Muppet take on Moulin Rouge entitled Moulin Scrooge.

The simple fact in the end is this. If you like that warm feeling you get inside around this time of year than the Muppets are always going to be right for you. They make a living in reminding you of why they are so eternal, and how the ideas of friendship, loyalty, and dedication are the keys to success and lasting relationships. This is a fun movie and is pretty easy to find around in stores right now.

Gremlins

I remember (somewhat) being a young kid in the mid 1980's. It was really a wonderful time to be a young kid. The cartoons were better, the movies were better, and the toys were top notch- and as a bonus didn't give you lead poisoning. I believe it was either my 3rd or 4th birthday where I got a Gizmo stuffed animal. I couldn't wait to take that thing to nursery school as plenty of my friends had their own little Gizmo's. If you were lucky you had the ones that talked as well with the same playful childlike voice that Howie Mandel used in the film (and later used in his animated series Bobby's World). So it was pretty cool a few months later when I was at a family friend's house and was introduced to where Gizmo really came from. People knew it was from Gremlins but as a kid, toys sort of exist in their own universe and you can not see how they would function outside of that. It's the same theory that has turned Toy Story into a beloved franchise. Anyway, as they flipped through the channels I caught a peek of Gizmo staring at something and was fixated on his image. I wanted to see Gizmo in his adventure. That lasted all of a few minutes before Stripe pounced onto the screen with his scowl and white poof of hair. I was ready to hide quickly.

It took a few years but I revisited the film and was pretty struck by what I saw. What on the surface seemed like a neat little family film- because of the furry lead- was actually a pretty nasty black comedy. The most humorous part of the movie to me is that if you just watched the first 20 minutes or so and then turned it off you would almost never believe how the thing ends up because it would seem so off the wall from the set-up, even with it being slightly ominous and shady.

Randall Peltzer sets out to buy a Christmas gift for his son and heads to Chinatown where he discovers an ancient creature named a Mogwai. He tries to buy one but the owner refuses because owning one he says, "Is a great  responsibility." As Randall leaves he is approached by the store owner's son who agrees to sell the creature because his family needs the money. He however does relay to Randall that there are certain rules to owning a Mogwai. If you've seen the movie you know them, if not well here they are:

1.) Never expose it to bright lights- especially sunlight which will kill it.
2.) Never get it wet- which will make it multiply
3.) Most importantly, never, EVER, feed it after midnight- no matter how much it cries

I guess somewhere in there you should've been able to detect something was amiss here.

That night a glass of water is accidentally spilled on Gizmo and he multiplies by 5 including Stripe who is the leader of the new 5 Mogwai but is very hostile to Gizmo. The son, Billy, wants to learn more about Mogwai so he takes it to his science class and leaves one with his teacher. When Billy returns home the 5 new creatures bite through his alarm clock cord and trick him into feeding them after midnight. When he wakes up the next morning the 5 Mogwai are in cocoons. Gizmo, who refused the food, remains unchanged.  When the Mogwai emerge from their cocoons they are now Gremlins with snarling teeth and a nasty taste for chaos and humans. From there it is a chaotic battle as Stripe and the evil Gremlins try to wipe out everyone in their path.

It also needs to be mentioned that this film helped (along with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom) to usher in the PG-13 movie. It wasn't really a kid's movie but yet it didn't warrant the R rating that more adult films got. So the MPAA invented a new category for these types of films and now PG-13 is looked at as a Holy Grail for studios. If they can get movies into the PG-13 range it opens up a huge audience for them.

This is a really fun little movie and Joe Dante does so much right when it comes to creating a setting and mood for his film. Dante was heavily influenced by films of the 1950's and the town here feels very reminiscent of the stripped down towns presented in those films. There are thousands of blinking Christmas lights, everyone is jolly in town, there are Christmas carols being sung, and it feels like a local neighborhood. This all ends up being incredibly effective when things break down since it feels like it could be happening to you. That small town feel is something Dante would go back to in later movies like Matinee and one of my favorite movies The Burbs. In that latter film and the television show he helped create Eerie, Indiana he focused on the aspect of bad things happening in small town America.

The macabre sense of humor that permeates the film though is where this movie really shines though. Dante takes the structure of a family film and subverts that by introducing so many elements that seem ripped from horror films. You have the evil creatures tormenting the good creature and then the humans it has attached itself too. There is a scene where the Gremlin in the science lab breaks out of its' cage and hides in the corner of a darkened room only to bite the hand off of the teacher. Most notably though is the scene that sticks out like a sore thumb every time you watch the film. It is the scene that many critics attacked, and even Steven Spielberg hated but allowed Dante to keep because it was his film. This was despite the fact that Spielberg had creative control on the film. It's kind of funny that so many critics savaged the scene because it really is something culled from the 1950's where the jokes were usually of a sick and twisted nature. It's hard to describe exactly what is said. In the middle of the chaos Billy and his girlfriend have this discussion:

Kate: Now I have another reason to hate Christmas.

Billy Peltzer: What are you talking about?

Kate: The worst thing that ever happened to me was on Christmas. Oh, God. It was so horrible. It was Christmas Eve. I was 9 years old. Me and Mom were decorating the tree, waiting for Dad to come home from work. A couple hours went by. Dad wasn't home. So Mom called the office. No answer. Christmas Day came and went, and still nothing. So the police began a search. Four or five days went by. Neither one of us could eat or sleep. Everything was falling apart. It was snowing outside. The house was freezing, so I went to try to light up the fire. That's when I noticed the smell. The firemen came and broke through the chimney top. And me and Mom were expecting them to pull out a dead cat or a bird. And instead they pulled out my father. He was dressed in a Santa Claus suit. He'd been climbing down the chimney... his arms loaded with presents. He was gonna surprise us. He slipped and broke his neck. He died instantly. And that's how I found out there was no Santa Claus.

It feels so out of place and so bizarre in the middle of the film. I never minded its inclusion but it feels like they wedge it into the story rather than just letting it naturally happen. Still it's an amusing anecdote and is an old urban legend.

In the end this is two different movies that really shouldn't work together but with Dante's deft touch they do. You have a family Christmas film on one hand, and on the other a horror comedy. Dante at this time was really turning into a good director with a nice style and he found a way to find common threads between the two genres  and create a film that really is fun to revisit at any time of the year. Even if just to see how cute Gizmo is again.

 

 

Scrooged

Charles Dickens classic novella A Christmas Carol was written in 1843 and to this day still holds up as a classic piece of literature. The ideas presented by the book- the fortunate looking out for those who are less fortunate, and the obligations of society to help those in need lest they face eternal doom are timeless and are still ideas many of us could learn from even today. It's those themes that lead the book to still be loved and taught in schools even 168 years after its first publication. Those themes also make it perfect for the Christmas (or holiday) season where the sense of brotherhood and glad tidings and goodwill should make us take a look at those around us and reach out where we can. If you've ever stopped to throw a dollar in the Salvation Army bucket this time of year you know where the themes stem from.

The universality of the themes in the novella make it easy to adapt into films and television shows since it represents what we always hope to be as human beings rather than how we usually end up being. Hollywood has taken numerous stabs at the material from the George C. Scott film in 1984 to Scrooge McDuck playing the title role in Mickey's Christmas Carol. Even It's A Wonderful Life features some variation on the theme and you have to be able to see how The Grinch's plight has its foundation in the character of Ebenezer Scrooge. However, 1988's Scrooged starring Bill Murray and directed by Richard Donner may be one of the more off kilter adaptations of the source material.

Part of that comes from Donner directing the film. Donner has an interesting eye when it comes to helming films. He has bounced between superhero films (Superman), action movies (Lethal Weapon series) to horror movies (The Omen). A Christmas Carol has a dark sense of humor about its self but it is always couched in the fact that in the end we get to see Scrooge come full circle as a character. When the ending hits it drives home the point that some of the humor in the story comes from Scrooge trying to rationalize what is happening to him and the fact that the ghosts delight in showing Scrooge how poorly he makes everyone around him. In this film the dark humor is really amped up but then at the end instead of a full circle character change, we get Murray playing Scrooge as a slightly less abrasive jerk. To be fair, some of that may be a result of the screenplay. The writers of the screenplay (one of which was the original head writer for Saturday Night Live) came out at the time of the film and declared that the movie was much different than the screenplay they wrote. It would be fun to see how they originally wrote the film because the finished product goes heavier on the dark rather than the comedy. The only time it really gets humorous is when it seems like Murray is going off on his own little tangents.

The film itself stays pretty true to the format of the novella. Bill Murray plays Frank Cross, a hotshot television executive, who delights in offending people at every turn and is forcing his employees to come to work on Christmas Eve for a live presentation of Scrooge. In a meeting about a commercial spot for the show he presents a commercial basically promising the viewer nuclear Armageddon if they don't watch the show.  When the meeting closes Eliot Loudermilk (Bobcat Goldwaith) stays behind to voice his displeasure and is promptly fired by Cross. His mentor then shows up as the Jacob Marley character promising three ghosts will visit. That leads to Buster Poindexter as the Ghost of Christmas Past, Carol Kane as the Ghost of Christmas Present, and then a seven foot ghoul as the Ghost of Christmas Future. You know what Cross will see and what will ultimately come of it. In the end Murray's character breaks into the live presentation of Scrooge and delivers a speech extolling the virtues of the holiday and relaying the ideas of what he has learned.

Murray is the star here and plays the part with his typical manic energy. He is having fun throughout and is only one of two who seems to be doing so. At the end when he issues his speech he slips into his lounge singer persona from SNL and just goes completely off the wall with what he is saying and doing. In fact, the film is so tied to Murray I would go so far to say that without him in the lead role this would've been a completely terrible film. As it is, he keeps it just funny enough that the character- while an acerbic jerk- is just barely likable enough.

In the supporting cast it is a mixed bag with one real standout. Poindexter is okay as the Ghost of Christmas Past but his cigar chomping and voice that sounds tinged after a 6 day whiskey binge gets old fairly quickly. Karen Allen plays Cross's ex-girlfriend and she is pretty good in an underdeveloped role. She works in a homeless shelter and is the direct opposite of her former boyfriend in that she only does good for people who are needy. She smiles and laughs but Murray and her never seem to have any real chemistry together. Part of that is the completely jokey nature Murray takes throughout but part is the script. Alfre Woodard plays a variation of the Bob Cratchit role as Cross's secretary and the mother to a couple kids that are living as best they can. Her youngest son is someone who never speaks and she is clearly worried about his demeanor. She is fine in the role even if they don't give her or her story quite enough screentime. Goldwaith is pretty funny as the employee who gets fired and gradually loses his mind before turning back up at the station with a shotgun looking to kill Frank. By the end he is in full-on Goldwaith mode where he is screeching, talking fast, and using every facial tick at his disposal to get across how unnerved he is. The real standout though is Carol Kane who plays the Ghost of Christmas Present. She plays her part as some mix of Glenda the Good Witch and a UFC fighter. She talks in a bizarre accent, squeaks her lines in a high pitched voice, and engages Cross in one beating after another. It is the one supporting player that Murray seems to really have some chemistry with and the middle section of the film with her around really sizzles and moves along quickly. So quickly in fact that we only get a minute or two with the Christmas Future ghost and it feels so anti-climatic compared to what just happened in front of it.

In the end though, the film is fun even with its problem areas. If you are a fan of Bill Murray (and I'm a huge fan) you will enjoy this film because he is basically playing versions of characters that came before. It is almost as if the Ghosts of Performances Past are at work here. You won't get any new ground covered, and you know the story, but with the sheer unhinged nature of Murray's performance, and the choices made by the makers of the film it is never boring to watch.

Mission Impossible 3

Now this film is more like it. That is not to say that it is a perfect movie but it gets far more right than it gets wrong and is easily the most enjoyable of the first three films in this series (This reminder that Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is now in theaters). All it took was turning the keys to the car over to a guy who was directly in the middle of a buzz filled television show.

The script throws us directly into the fire with Ethan Hunt strapped to a chair and his wife strapped to a second chair across from him. Controlling the action is Owen Davian, played with a sinister glee by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Hunt is pleading for his wife's life while Davian is insisting that Hunt hand over the Rabbit's Foot. The sequence ends with Davian shooting Hunt's wife in the head and then the film jumps back in time to show us how we got to that point. By structuring the film this way it did a few things that worked. In the first two films we met Hunt either in the middle of getting one up on someone or out climbing mountains on vacation. Here, he is a hero in peril from the start and we know that no matter what happens with Hunt having the upper hand, at some point he will be trapped by the villains. Also, it jump started the story giving us a frame of reference to work towards rather than just trying to build from the start which is sort of where the second one falls apart. In the second one the story builds to a virus being released. Here, we aren't sure what the Rabbit's Foot is, but if a guy is willing to shoot a woman point blank in the face it must be something that carries some heavy power. This film has stakes and it throws a bunch of cards on the table at the start.

This seems to grow from the fact that J.J. Abrams (Lost, Fringe) knows how to make viewers emotionally invested in the characters. Hunt had a quality of not being likable at times in the first two. Here he has some personality and we can feel for the plight he finds himself in. From there then we actually get some supporting characters fleshed out a little. It's not great, and it is still where the film falters some, but Simon Pegg in a few minutes of screen time is almost as developed a character as Thandie Newton was in the second film.

The film shines to when the big action pieces show up including the bridge scene which is arguably the best action sequence in the series of films. Davian is being transported in a convoy when it is attacked by Davian's crew. There is a helicopter firing on the trucks from above knocking out quite a few of the good guys. It is tense and there are plenty of explosions which all lead to Davian escaping. This leads to hunt fearing for his wife's safety and leads us into the scene which began the film.

What really sets this film apart from the other ones though is that Hoffman is great as the villain. He is enjoying the role and controls the situations with a seething vengeance. He resists the urge to yell most of the time and instead relies on ordering threats and commands through gritted teeth. Since he is so evil and defined it gives Hunt a real foil to play off of and that means the action has some sense of conflict. What is happening matters because the viewer cares for Hunt and his wife. It also means the plot twist isn't as bad because the viewer can see a scenario where Davian convinced the person to flip just by sheer force of a threat.

I have to admit by the time this sequel rolled around I was growing weary of the series. However, Abrams brought a fresh take and developed a movie that- while still formulaic was never boring and was actually interesting throughout. Hopefully the 4th one keeps the train moving in a positive direction.

Mission Impossible 2

In yesterday's post I discussed some of the problems I had with the film adaptation of the Mission Impossible television show. Again I feel i need to mention that I generally had no problem with the first movie in the end though. It has some glaring imperfections but underneath it all I think they were trying to make a goofy action film and they ended up making a goofy action film with an incredibly insulting plot twist to fans of the series. I also mentioned that I found the two sequels to be quite polarizing. Here we are at the first one and I can say without any reservations:

This movie is not any good.

The first red flag for this film was bringing in John Woo to direct. That sounds like a knock on Woo and in some ways it is. On the other hand though I have enjoyed a few of his American films but I think he falls into his familiar patterns to often and removes all the tension in an action sequence by giving everyone guns and then reducing the movie to a slow motion piece. Worse than that though is that Woo has a vast world at his disposal as far as weapons go in a vaguely futuristic society and instead relies on staples of the action movie genre resorting to a computer over and over again. All those factors combined remove any emotional attachment from the film to the point where the characters fates don't matter. It's especially troubling when the film is asking us to sympathize with Thandie Newton's character throughout. By the time she injects herself with the virus it almost feels like you want her to just die and get it over with.

The script is a let down too as it doubles down on the Ethan Hunt character at the expense of everyone around him yet it somehow finds a way to even further minimize the rest of the team. Ving Rhames spends most of his time looking at a computer screen watching what is happening as if he is a viewer surrogate. Newton is given nothing to do throughout other than wear cutoff shirts. Dougray Scott, usually pretty great, just plays a stock villain here and is given a lame plan and is then underwritten on top of it.

The action tries to look great and they only really succeed in the opening sequence with Hunt climbing through the mountains. Other than that it is just variations on pieces from the first film including using something similar to Ethan rappelling into the building. It just feels like the film has no ideas to put forward and is instead just daring the audience to not like it. I can hear the studio suits saying, "They saw the first one and this will be pretty much the same film."

There is really nothing to say about the film beyond that. It's a film with little to no character development that has a villain with a silly plan and no real good guys to speak because even Ethan is willing to let Nyah take some abuse for the greater good. Luckily for viewers the series got much better with the next entry.

Mission Impossible

(As a warning- the first part of this post will reference ideas that anyone under the age of 17 will not be able to comprehend. Be warned if you are of that age)

For about 7 years of my life growing up my family did not have cable. Basically we had the normal 3,6,10,17,29,57 and then whatever else I could find on the old UHF stations by manipulating the rabbit ears and adding sheet after sheet of tin foil. On one of the stations on Friday nights they would show the old Mission Impossible television show. One night I found the station just as the theme song was kicking on and I was instantly hooked. The episode was one where a scientist had developed a pill that turned people into willing slaves and as it wound to a close the words popped up, "To Be Continued." There was no way I was missing the conclusion to that story (luckily for me they showed 3 hours of the show every Friday night so I didn't have to wait long) and I was hooked. In fact, I was so hooked to the point that when they announced the movies were coming out I immediately bought the cassette single of the theme to play at home, and when I finally got my license a year later it was the soundtrack of my first drive ever. So yes, I enjoyed the show immensely.

Yet, when they announced a movie based on the series it was met with reservations from me. I thought how are they going to replace the original actors. When I found out it was going to be Tom Cruise in the starring role my worries eased some. I know Crusie gets a ton of praise for his eccentricities but the guy is a pretty damn good actor and is enjoyable to watch in almost everything he does whether it be a starring role like Lt. Daniel Kaffee in A Few Good Men or a supporting role like Les Goodman in Tropic Thunder. Add in Jon Voight, Vanessa Redgrave, and Jean Reno and you have a pretty solid cast. When you factor in Brian DePalma you have the right pieces in place. I was excited when the movie opened and I remember seeing it opening weekend still.

Watching it 15 years later my enthusiasm has waned some for the film. Perhaps I'm over my nostalgia for the original work, or perhaps it is just that the film is a little too busy. Also, there are a few other issues, the first one I'll mention bothered me at the time as well.

On the original show, the IMF was a true team effort. They had their star agents but everyone got turns in the spotlight. In this film though it is all about Cruise's character from start to finish. That would've worked had this been an origin story of sorts but it really isn't. It is a mission we are thrown into and then it is Ethan Hunt creating a team once his old team is obliterated in a double cross.What really bothered me though was that in the end they had Phelps be a traitor which ruins the entire fabric of the television show that I and so many others invested time in watching religiously. Isn't the movie being made for them? Why insult them?

The big problem though is that this is an action movie but it is really a bunch of set pieces loosely strung together with a convoluted storyline. By the time you get to the end so many people have jumped teams and so many things are happening that you need a flow chart to keep up. Maybe my 15 year old brain wasn't processing everything or I was much smarter then (both are legitimate possibilities).

The first team they have assembled is a completely likable group with Kristin Scott Thomas and Emilio Estevez but they get killed off in the first 15 minutes which then means we have Cruise for a long time until the next team assembles. We don't have enough time with the old team or the new team to grow attached to any of them which means their fates aren't something that really matter. They are just ancillary pieces to Hunt and his story.

There are parts where DePalma creates some nice tension but too often he keeps falling back on action pieces which are more from James Bond movies than Mission Impossible.

In the end I sort of feel indifferent towards the film. I didn't really like it, but I didn't really hate it either. Plus, the following two films are far more polarizing to me. As it is, this film worked in being an action movie but don't expect a coherent film in any way.

Crazy Stupid Love

 

 

Back in college there was a wonderful little movie theater about 15 minutes from campus off of 741. The place was called Kendig Square Cinema and it was a multiplex that showed second run movies. It was a great way to spend an evening and it only cost 2 dollars a showing. This past weekend I was out near Lancaster and decided to find my way back to that theater and catch a movie that somehow eluded me throughout the summer. The dingy atmosphere, the sound of the projector rolling, the front theater speakers, and old seating were a trip down memory lane and on top of that, I saw a great little film that deserves a ton of attention.

I suppose one could dismiss my affinity for the film as me being swept up in the nostalgia of the day but I would declare those people off base. Crazy Stupid Love is an intelligent romantic comedy that manages to pull the rare feat of being both romantic AND comedic.

We've all been in love- or at least felt like we were- at some point in our lives. In those moments of romance we are tunnel visioned into thinking that nothing will ever go wrong. The ones we love will always love us, or return the favor, and once you are in it, you never have to experience what it feels like to not be in it again. Of course that is a bit of a pipe dream because love sometimes (unfortunately) doesn't last. This movie focuses on what happens in those moments. How does one put back together the pieces when the thing that they thought shaped their point of view has been destroyed?

Cal Weaver (Steve Carrell) is married to his wife Emily (Julianne Moore) and has three kids. One day she suddenly says she wants a divorce and Cal's life is tossed into disarray. He doesn't believe the news and neither do his kids. Trying to recover from this he ends up spending multiple nights in an upscale lounge talking to himself after his awkward failed attempts to chat with women. In general, opening with, "My wife left me," isn't a good thing. While at the bar one night Cal is spotted by Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling) who takes pity on Cal and decides to impart his wisdom onto him. For Jacob, love is a thing best kept far away from. He sees women as conquests and spends his nights talking his way into women's pants. (And because he looks like Ryan Gosling it comes easy for him).

Jacob gets Cal a new wardrobe and gives him the tools he feels one needs in order to score with women. Cal, despite his best efforts to mess it up, works his magic on Kate (Marisa Tomei) one night at the bar by hitting her with the line that, "(She) is the perfect mix of hot and cute." It's a good line and I'm sure some women would be enthralled to be told that. Problem is that it is a line that Cal has used before in his life which comes back to haunt him.

Further complicating manners are the fact that Cal's 13 year old son Robbie is in love with his 17 year old babysitter, who is in love with Cal. For Robbie, he feels grand gestures are the best way to win a woman's heart. It's a method that I've tried in the past but it is one that you need to figure out how the girl feels about you first. If she isn't interested you just come off creepy. Robbie's babysitter, gets advice from a girl at school about her own grand gesture for Cal but because she is not totally sold on the idea it comes off poorly. Robbie and his babysitter have similar trappings. They want to be in love and they have what they think it is, but they are being fooled by the idea of being in love and not love itself. This causes their actions to take some wild detours. 

Jacob gets his world turned upside down when he meets a girl at the lounge named Hannah (Emma Stone) who resists his advances. This confuses Jacob. He only knows success and having someone deflect his advances offers a sense of intrigue and appeal. It is only natural that he is intensely drawn to the one girl he can't have. This also sends Jacob on the opposite path as Cal. Both are moving because of love, but in different directions. When you add in all the other side stories moving in opposite directions it can only lead to the inevitable spot where all the stories crash into each other and the viewer gets the entire puzzle shown to them. This isn't a mystery by any stretch but when you realize what exactly is happening it catches you off guard and asks you to reflect on your own beliefs about what has happened up to that point. 

The most refreshing part about this story is that it is written as an adult love story for adults. The characters are not treated stupidly here. They do dumb things but it isn't some plot contrived event, it happens because they are following their heart blindly and not listening to reason. Anyone who has ever felt love can identify with that. Essentially what you have here is a film that focuses on love and then looks at it from multiple genders, ages, and perspectives. You are bound to find someone to connect with here. That alone is an achievement because too often these films paint characters in unflattering light. Here we have a movie littered with sympathetic characters. Even David Lindhagen (Kevin Bacon) who has the affair with Emily is painted with a soft brush. He isn't some co-worker prowling over some married woman. She was looking to cheat and needed attention and David happened to be there at the right time for that to happen.

Up and down this film there are nothing but great performances. Carrell finds a sweet balance between a man hopeful and desperate to keep together what he has. Moore and Bacon play their parts well. Tomei is all spastic energy and her scenes are some of the funniest in the film. Emma Stone is a fantastic actress and as long as she doesn't shoot herself off the rails she will be one of the best actresses of her generation. The real find here is Gosling though. He finds good spaces for this part and infuses a lecherous man with enough heart and goodwill that you are on his side. You want to be in the bar watching him at work and as a guy with little luck with women, I wish I could be as smooth as him.

This is a great little film and I encourage you to find this in theaters yet or catch it on television. It is a breezy way to spend two hours.

Life As We Know It

The romantic comedy genre has its share of fans but also has a huge share of detractors. If you watch them enough you can easily see why they are enjoyed by some and annoy others. They are formulaic and always driving towards putting the two main characters together in the film. On one hand that idea of people finding "true love" and getting together is a nice sentiment. Most of the fairy tales that permeate our culture operate on similar principles (well most of the Disney versions of those fairy tales anyway). However it is that same premise that causes the derision. Once someone has seen a few they know all the beats of the genre. One movie to the next is similar- boy and girl meet, they are perfect for each other but don't know it yet, something happens where they realize they are and they begin dating, something happens that makes them question the relationship, they have a moment of awakening and they end up together, everyone lives happily ever after. So I understand why people might not like that, and for a long time I sort of focused on it as well. To me though, what makes a romantic comedy good or bad is the two people playing the lead characters. Two actors with no chemistry is the kiss of death for these films. Sometimes the script treats them like dummies and makes them completely unlikable. Still in the end, if I like the characters I generally like the film.

A weeks ago on Facebook I made a snide comment about Life As We Know It stating, "Life As We Know It starring Katherine Heigl and Josh Duhamel is almost 2 hours long. Is there even a small chance that movie is any good?" A few of my female friends responded that they really enjoyed the film. Mentally I sort of wrote that off as a woman thing and gave up. However, it was still on HBO on Demand and my curiosity got the best of me regarding the film. 

From the first scene I was concerned about the film. Holly (Katherine Heigl) and Eric (Josh Duhamel) get their disastrous first date out of the way before the opening credits. At the end of the scene Holly calls her friend that set them up and says to her, "You can make it up to me by making sure I never see him again." The very next scene is a birthday party for the little girl in the film and both Holly and Eric are there. Clearly this scene is happening after the first one and immediately it undercuts the character of Holly. If she was so furious about the date and issued her ultimatum why would she only have mild revulsion to Eric's character in the next scene. I mean, the guy tried to set up a booty call in front of her on their date. I don't know much about women, but I do know that many would not act rationally to this course of action. Furthermore, it's pretty clear that Holly and Eric knew each other before the date so it is odd that either one would've expected the other to be any different than they actually were. Who did they think they were going on a date with? If this would've lead to some premise where they had dopplegangers out there and acting differently it would've been great. Alas they didn't go that route.

From there the film goes into one of the darker and weirder premises for a romantic comedy/dramedy. Holly and Eric's mutual friends are killed in a car accident leaving behind the little girl. The parents left Holly and Eric as the legal guardians in their will. Holly and Eric have no idea about this. Who would possibly leave someone as the legal guardian of their child and then not tell that person? Did they do it mere seconds before they were killed not leaving them the ability to alert their friends. Also, if you know the two friends hate each other as much as they do why would you stipulate that they work together to raise a kid? Even with those complaints though, I found the premise here fascinating. I mean this is a romantic comedy where the characters are joined by death. Fascinating that someone would think of that and pitch it as a film.

In spite of this initial inanity, I found myself mildly enjoying the film as it moved along. There are absolutely they completely predictable spots where the two new parents have no idea how to do things. There are scenes where they try to embarrass each other in the presence of the others in the neighborhood. There are silly scenes that have no semblance of reality. I don't care how well you know someone there is no way you would make a taxi driver babysit your kid for an extended period of time. Also there is some terrible dialogue sprinkled throughout. Often it is in the lines that are supposed to be comedy. There is a scene where the baby takes a poop in her diaper (because what romantic comedy doesn't need scatological humor) and Holly and Eric open the diaper and begin gagging. Eric's response is, "Ohhhh, it smells like Slumdog Millionaire in there." What the hell does that line even meaning. First off, the line has a bit of a racist undertone. Secondly, why wouldn't you just say, "Ohhhh, it smells like indian food"? Why would someone name the title of a movie as what it smells like? What does that even mean? It's a terrible line and really has no place in the film.

In the end though I enjoyed the film on some level because- going back to my viewing habits on these films- Duhamel and Heigl are having fun in the film and they do have some level of chemistry here. Heigl is getting too comfortable in these roles but she does radiate a certain energy and Duhamel really does feel like a normal person in this film instead of the caricature most guys are written as. There is a movie inside of here that would've been vastly entertaining but instead they went with the tried and true romantic comedy formula instead of branching outward. I wouldn't highly recommend the film, but as romantic comedies go- I've seen far worse.

 

Fright Night

I sat down to write this review and kept getting stuck on certain aspects of what I wanted to write. Not necessarily because I didn't know how I felt about the movie or how I would relate it to the original film upon which it is based. Rather, the problem was going to come in my mind because I know quite a few in my horror movie fan brethren are not going to be happy with me on certain things I say. With that disclaimer up front I feel now like I can move forward with my discussion of the film- for better or worse.

The original Fright Night from 1985 is renowned by many as being a part of the canon of horror films. There are those that love the film and think it is a modern classic in many ways. I have never been one of those people. That does not mean I dislike the film, but I never quite got the love that the film got. Chris Sarandon is wonderful as Jerry Dandrige, the ageless vampire causing havoc in suburbia and William Ragsdale, Stephen Geoffreys, Amanda Bearse match him step for step. Also, it needs to be said just how great Roddy McDowall is in his role. I have never been able to shake the feeling though that the film is pretty slow. At a one hour and forty-six minute running time it feels like it is over two hours long and the stakes never feel raised enough until the final twenty minutes or so which makes the ending sequence feel a little rushed. All that should not be mistaken as me hating the film though. I do enjoy the movie for the performances of the actors and-while slow, they are clearly having a good time throughout and commit to everything they do during the film. While some people in the horror community rolled their eyes at the announcement of a remake of the film, I got excited for it. My hope was that they would up the pace of the film and build off the established story people know. As it turns out- I enjoyed much of what they did, but there were other things they did that sort of counterbalanced all the enjoyment I felt.

The remake of the film follows the story of the original for a large portion of the first act of the film with some different beats along the way. Charley Brewster comes home from school and his mom introduces him to their new neighbor Jerry. Shortly after meeting Jerry, Charley rushes out to meet up with his friend "Evil" Ed to investigate the disappearance of a friend. Ed is convinced that Jerry is a vampire and he is killing everyone in the neighborhood. Charley does not believe him and ridicules his friend and eventually leaves him behind. On the way home Ed runs into Jerry and the same thing happens as happens in the original. Charley becomes increasingly worried about what is happening and begins to believe everything Ed was telling him. In his haste to figure out how to dispatch of Jerry he consults with Peter Vincent for tips.

In the original, Peter Vincent was the host of a late night horror movie show that showed lesser known horror films. In the 1980's those types of shows were all over the place. I still remember seeing promos on the local NBC affiliate for the show Saturday Night Dead hosted by Stella, and of course we had Elvira. Today those types of shows are not found on television anymore so they needed to find a different avenue to introduce Vincent. In this film he is a Vegas magician in the vein of Criss Angel who performs many acts based on vampire fighting. Vincent mocks Charley and sends him on his way. From there it becomes a giant cat and mouse game between Charley and Jerry as he tries to protect the people he loves and prevent Jerry from consuming them.

Colin Farrell steps into the role of Jerry here and much of the film hinges on his performance. It is a good thing as well because Farrell is clearly having fun here playing this part and he works on every level in the role. I hesitate to say he is better than Chris Sarandon in the original, but he plays the character quite differently even while hitting some of the same beats. In Fright Night the vampires are not totally used as visual eye candy for women and they certainly do not sparkle. The vampires in these films- especially in Farrell's case- are vicious killers that women still have vividly impure thoughts about. Farrell relishes being able to play this role and immerses himself into the horrific nature of Jerry. He is a feeding machine in this. From the get go you can see he has the ability to seduce anyone and anything in his way. He also has a sense of being smart enough to keep himself in hiding but also not fearing that people know who, and what, he is. More importantly though, Farrell plays the character almost as if he is a tweaking drug addict. He is twitchy in the role and gives off the vibe that he is resisting hard his want to just rip people's throats apart in the twilight of the evening. When Charley leaves the house to go meet with Ed there is a knowing glint in Jerry's eye about what the kid is doing. When Charley tries to rescue a neighbor from the house, Jerry watches slyly from the shadows and lets the kid escape because he knows what will ultimately happen. The familiar scene of Jerry inviting his date into the house and then glancing up at Charley's bedroom window is played subtlety different. In the original, Sarandon played the look as a scowl. Here, Farrell looks up at the window with a menacing smirk almost as if he is daring Charley to come stop him.

The best scene that illustrates the way Farrell plays the character though is one where he comes over to borrow a six pack of beer before the date. He first tries to get Charley to invite him into the house, because vampires obviously cannot enter a home unless invited. When Charley declines a knowing glare washes over Jerry's face. He knows now that Charley- while somewhat skeptical still- is almost firmly convinced about what Jerry is. When Charley's nerves cause him to drop, and break, a bottle Jerry immediately bounces on the opportunity to offer help. Charley declines again and Jerry flinches at being rejected again. Charley walks to the door frame with the six pack and holds them in a spot where Jerry cannot touch them yet. Jerry wants too, and you can see Farrell play that up, but knows he is unable to grab the beer. When Charley finally does hand him the beer Jerry then launches into a speech telling Charley that it is an impossible job to protect his mom and girlfriend and then talks in veiled terms about how he feels towards both of them sexually. He is trying to goad Charley into a fight, maybe not immediately, but somewhere down the road. It is a brilliantly played scene and the tension level in the scene is as high as it gets int the film.

The problem though is that while Farrell ups the ante on his performance, the rest of the characters either do not match their original counterpart or the script really sketches them out poorly. The biggest example of that is Charley's character. Here he is a teenage boy who is trying to fit in with a cool group of friends at school and does so at the expense of his relationship with Ed. Charley is a bit of a jerk to Ed throughout the first 20 minutes and it really positions the viewer against him for much of the movie. I get that they were trying to give him an arc but they started from a really bad place and Brewster never gets to where he needs to be to come full circle.

From there you are left with Christopher Mintz-Plasse playing Evil Ed which does not work well but he really is in only about ten minutes of the film. The other guy is David Tennant playing Peter Vincent and he works well for much the same reason that Farrell does. Mainly in that the script is not calling for him to be Peter Vincent from the original. Obviously the dressing of the character is different (and Tennant is not McDowall) but he has some good material to work with and he plays Vincent as a guy who is far more reluctant throughout to get involved. Even at the end when he does get involved he is not really interested in being there. Vincent in the original has much more of an arc towards the end where he becomes a hero in addition to Charley. Here, he is a guy who is aware that he is a fake and only pursues the actions he does because he feels he has to in order to gain some measure of revenge.

Technically speaking this film is odd looking. It is really dark and I didn't see it in 3D. In that format I can't imagine it looking good at all. Also, the scenes look a little too glossy and almost fake looking. That does not help the film in anyway. I also could have done without the over reliance on CGI blood splatters but logistically I understand why filmmaker do it. Also, it needs to be mentioned that while the cameo in the movie is cute, it feels sort of unnecessary.

In the end I enjoyed this film quite a bit and actually texted a friend to write, "This film is better than it has any right to be." I think the lessons for directors and writers of remakes in the future are clear though. When the characters are asked to be different from their counterparts in the original the film works out well. When they are asked to basically copy the same actions it does not work nearly as well. I like this film as much as - if not slightly more- than I did the original mainly based on the performances but some of the technical aspects are too hard to overlook. There are some cute asides to the original (The "You're so cool Brewster" line is here but in a different context) but they feel almost superfluous at times. Even though I may like this film more than the original that does not mean that I would significantly grade it higher than the original one. If they are both "C" films to me- one would be a 76 and one a 75. If nothing else, this has been a good summer for Colin Farrell and reminds you why people were so high on him for so long. Catch the film for that reason alone, and if you bristle at spending the full price, you still owe it a matinee showing while it is in theaters.

Tucker & Dale vs Evil

The story of "city slickers heading into the woods and meeting an untimely demise at the hands of hillbillies" is a story that has been done to death in the horror genre. More often than not the scenario comes about because the people from the city underestimate the abilities of their counterparts and find themselves being gruesomely dispatched with. The movies are usually violent, and often unpleasant to watch. Being that this story has been done so often it shocks me that it has never really been played for laughs. Consider that rectified as this movie does it's best to turn the convention of that horror sub-genre on its ear. From there it is just a matter of whether the movie works or not. The answer for me is- a resounding yes.

Tucker (Alan Tudyk from Dodgeball and 3:10 to Yuma) and Dale (Taylor Labine from Reaper and Invasion) are two well meaning hillbillies who are going into the woods to work on the vacation home that they just bought. The house is a run down cabin near a lake which looks like any number of houses that would be in this type of film. Along the way they encounter a group of college students out on vacation (led by Katrina Bowden of 30 Rock) and the boys are pegged immediately as creepy hillbilly losers. At the general store Dale becomes smitten with Bowden's character Allison and Tucker encourages him to go and talk to her. For some unknown reason Dale walks over with a sickle and tries to start a conversation. He takes Tucker's advice to laugh no matter what she says which leads to an awkward situation that makes the two men seem even creepier than first thought.

Once out in the woods the college students head off skinny dipping in the middle of the night in the same lake where Tucker and Dale are fishing. Allison shows up and gets startled by the two while undressing to go skinny dipping. She falls underwater, hits her head and doesn't come up for air right away leading Tucker and Dale to rescue her. When her friends go looking for her they see Tucker and Dale loading her into their boat so they can help her. Tucker yells to the college students, "We've got your friend" which only exacerbates the situation. From there it is a constant stream of misconstrued situations that lead to a battle between the college students and Tucker and Dale. I wouldn't dare ruin them but suffice to say the result of these situations are often hilarious and are well laid out set pieces. I will say though that my favorite piece in the film is when Tucker accidentally cuts through a beehive with a chainsaw leading to a chase where Tucker and the student are both running from their perceived, or very real, antagonist. Also, Tucker and Dale's reactions are exactly what they should be to these events as the viewer can see what is happening and they can identify throughout.

Labine and Tuudyk have a great chemistry here and they play well off each other throughout the film. There was a chance of their characters being played as goofs and turning the film against them but the script and direction make it clear from the first frame that these guys mean no harm to anyone and are just as confused about what is happening as the college students are. The script also makes a smart move to show everything from the point of view of Tucker and Dale for the first hour or so of the film. Once things start going nuts they probably should have switched narrative places with the college students to make the concept work fully but it is really a minor complaint. At every turn, the viewer feels for what is happening to Tucker and Dale and you root for them from start to finish. It works in the last act of the film especially when the one college student goes full on Rambo trying to wipe them out.

For all the aspects of these types of films that the movie gets right the best one is that final part of the previous paragraph. Too often in these films one protagonist turns into an action hero way too quickly and can fight their way out of anything. In this film- had the character just talked with people and listened nothing happens. However, because he tries to be a hero he in turn screws up everything.

This is a great film and again- if I said too much I risk ruining what the film has in store for you. The film has had a tough road to theaters and they have finally gotten a distribution deal and should be hitting theaters at the end of September. If this film opens anywhere near you I encourage you to check this out- especially if you are not a fan of this genre of film. The director and writer, while they love those types of films, see the inherent problems that others do and make fun of those deficiencies at every turn. This is a solid laugh out loud film and while horror comedies may be infrequent, this is one that hopefully leads to a resurgence of that particular sub-genre of the horror film.

The only thing that prevents this from becoming an instant classic is the last 20 minutes or so, but it is excellent up to that point until it just becomes a good film.

Some quick hits on the summer hits- August

This movie feels like a stand-up comedy routine. In fact, I'd wager that if you read the script there would be notes in it that include the comments setting up the jokes and scenarios in the film. That would all be fine though if the script did not work so hard to get the viewer to hate the characters so much. Ryan Reynolds is particularly unlikable which is a shame because Reynolds is generally a pretty good actor. Here though he is a cad who is filled with so many douchebag tendencies that you can never get behind him. As a single person with married friends I personally try to be conscious of how I act around them. You never want to be in a position where your friend evaluates why they put up with you in the first place. Here though it's hard to understand why Bateman's character is friends with Reynolds. I say some off the wall things to my friends and their wives but telling your friend's wife you want her to sit on your face while you recite the alphabet is a pretty bad thing to say in front of your friend. There are funny moments in the film but they come too infrequently and the rest of the time you are wondering why the radiant Leslie Mann is putting up with all of this stupidity around her.

With Super 8 in June and this film in August it gave me some great relief to the future of summer blockbusters. This film, much like Super, flashes big action sequences but surrounds it with a completely compelling story making the impact that much more satisfying. The film got slagged a little early on because people were expecting this to be a film where apes destroy everything and run roughshod over the city of San Francisco. This isn't that movie though. This is more about the apes starting to gain a stronger foothold in the world as the human race begins to eliminate their own. They explicitly show in a tag scene during the closing credits how this will happen. The real fun here though comes from Andy Serkis. His acting in the film covers a wide variety of emotions as he plays Caesar as a wide eyed youngster, a rebelling teenager, a person questioning their identity and finally a defiant leader. There is a debate going on about his Oscar chances and I think he really deserves strong consideration. I know it is a computer and everything but it is him infusing the character with emotion and really elevating the story at every single turn. It's a great performance and probably his best work so far.

At this point in the franchise you know what you are in for and that carries some good and bad. With these films though you know people are going to die so from there it becomes a matter of how effectively they milk the scenarios for tension. This film improves over the last one by leaps and bounds in that regard. A few of the kills are incredibly intense and are nail biting. The one scene from the trailer shows a gymnast on a balance beam with a nail looming on the beam. In the film though that sequence is about 5 minutes long and the camera sets up about 4 different things that could go wrong and every time the camera cuts to them- with the cuts increasing in frequency as we move forward- you feel angst for the woman. The kill then comes and it is completely out of left field from the rest of the sequence and just works perfectly. The 3D here is top notch as the director (Cameron's second unit director on Avatar) uses the device to full hilt and launches things at the camera without the viewer ever seeing the launch. The ending too is hinted at throughout but it is still a surprise when it happens and works extremely well. Here's a hint (AND SPOILER OF SORTS)- the male is going to Paris for cooking school. Remember Paris? This is a nice infusion of blood to the franchise and hopefully leads to a nice new direction.

I really don't know what to say about this film. It gets so much wrong and is so off base throughout that it never feels like a movie that was completed. You get the impression that this film was only about half finished and then hustled through the production phase to get to theaters. The actors are all wrong, the script is terrible, and other than the first 25 minutes there is little to no enjoyment in this film. And apparently the 3D makes the film even worse, and I only saw it in 2D.

This film had all the earmarks of being something special in the horror genre. Del Toro has an affinity for these films, and Pearce and Holmes are both pretty good actors and the television movie in 1973 is good source material. Somewhere along the way though this film came off the rails and never recovered. The young actress in the lead role is really good and without her this movie would've been considerably worse. She begins hearing whispers in the vents at the house and being a child explores this until she lets loose ancient creatures that only want to take her back to their lair and feast. And while the creatures are in the shadows this film works and then some. It is scary and the tension is high. But then, they show the creatures and what we see are one foot tall simian like creatures with humpbacks that are off some CGI demo reel. To make matters worse, the creatures begin talking, and everytime they talked the laughs in the theater were audible. The scenes were they talk too are played for comedy even though it is clear that is not what the intended effort was. As the creatures are battering the young girl in the library she is screaming "What do you want," as she is getting closer and closer to the bookcase. At this point the lead creature pops up and yells, "We want YOUUUUUU." It was stupid and silly and it ruined whatever good will the film had created up to that point. By the end then we get a cliched ending and a silly tag to the end of the film designed to drive home the point of what has happened. It just feels off. Had they kept things in the shadows this movie works so much better.

Top Ten Horror Movies of the Last Ten Years

I was viewing the website of a friend the other day when I came upon his list of the Top Ten Horror Films of the past Ten Years. His list can be found here John Bem's list (the website could be considered NSFW as Blogger makes you click a button indicating that the site contains some questionable material). I have to say after reading the list that I was most intrigued by the concept of the list. John got the idea from another website that had a pretty compelling list as well. 

I can't say there is much deviation in their lists versus mine when I sat down to come up with my own top ten ranking, although there is some slight variation. However, the ones that do show up multiple times indicate that those particular films are most righteous and probably should be viewed if you have never seen them. The rules are that we take films from 2002-present So after sitting down and whittling a preliminary list down to ten, here is what I came up with. But first:

Honorable mention: Malevolence (2005)- A simple understated take on the horror slasher. It starts as a story about a bank robbery and kidnapping and then takes a left turn about halfway in and becomes increasingly disturbing. Also, filmed in the Bethlehem area.

28 Days Later (2002)- Killed me to leave this one off the list as I really love aspects of it including the deserted nature of London. However, I think the film takes a while to get into second gear and you could argue it comes a little too late into the film.

Paranormal Activity (2009)- While I generally liked the film and found it scary, I don't see it having the same appeal on a second viewing. The situation is still terrifying, but much of what it is gearing towards is based off the unknown and once you see the beats it's hard to forget them for the second time around.

Dawn of the Dead (2004), Shaun of the Dead (2005), & The Strangers (2008)- The last three films I cut off my list and each one had a big internal debate. On the first one, Zach Snyder's take on the Romero classic is well done but seeing as I just spent 3 weeks writing a 25 page paper on the original I find it hard to ignore that the subtext of the film is stripped in the new one. It's scary but it's empty. Shaun is a movie that is as hilarious as it is scary, and it is generally scary at times. There are some brilliant scenes and I think you should absolutely see it if you never have. The last one was a pleasant surprise of a movie to me and while a normal person would've escaped no less than 5 times it still manages to create an atmosphere that is haunted at every turn.

10. Let the Right One In (2008)/ Let Me In (2010)- You can call this a cheat if you want but there are not a bunch of huge differences between the Swedish film and its American remake. In fact, there is one aspect I like more in the remake and one thing I like less in the remake so in the end it becomes a bit of a wash to me. It is a horror movie of sorts but there is a loving romantic sentiment that permeates throughout the film. There is some gore at spots but it is the relationship between the young vampire and the boy who feels attached to her. A haunting film and beautiful even with a bleak slate.

9. Final Destination 2 (2002)- I know at this point for many the series is played out (although I think the new one reignites the franchise with some clever turns and the best "sometime later" sequence in the franchise), but in 2002 this series was hot and they followed up a great first effort with this sequel which found a new way to play with the formula. It stripped away much of the character introduction and instead upped the ante on the Rube Goldberg style gonzo kills. An elevator, a pipe, and an airbag are the death blows here with the latter setting off a huge set piece killing off a number of characters. However, it is all about that car crash that sets the film in motion as the premonition. It is an exhilarating 2-3 minute sequence with new obstacles popping up over and over again before carnage is all that is left. One of the best car crash scenes ever put on film and it helped differentiate the sequel from the sequels that followed.

8. Saw (2003)- Another series that by now has run its course but that should not detract from how great the first one is. The series turned to garbage by the middle of the third one and this film did lead to the torture porn genre that drew the ire of many. However, it should be remembered that the first film did not rely on its gruesome traps to draw its suspense. The central question at the heart of the films was "How far would you go to protect yourself and ultimately value your life?" And then that ending- that ending is what launched the film from a nice scary little horror movie to a massive worldwide franchise.

7. Pontypool- What happens when the English language turns on you? That is the central question in this film as zombies are spreading but it is not bites but rather the spoken word that is spreading the disease. If you've ever had a word, phrase, or song stuck in your head this movie will resonate and make you cautious of the words you say for the next week or so after viewing.

6. Insidious (2011)- It is a recent film but it is really well done and has the feel of a Gothic Hitchcock movie. The sound editing is top notch on this film as it creates scares and tension without resorting to cheap fake jump scares. The strings on the soundtrack reverberate fear into the viewer and then there are some absolutely terrifying images throughout including one of the best jump scares in the past 10 years. What really sets this film apart though is that director James Wan really wants you to be forever scanning the screen for what lurks in the corner or on the periphery of the action. There is one creepy scene that takes place in the middle of the two and features two "Did I just see that moments?" which work incredibly well. There may be some complaints about the last third of the movie but the first two thirds are so well done it gave the filmmakers a little bit of leeway with me. I didn't find the explanation of what was happening to be great but it wasn't terrible like some try to claim.

5. The Devil's Rejects (2005)- Some like House of 1000 Corpses better but to me this film is the pinnacle of Zombie's film work as it works as a horror movie, road trip film, with some touches of black comedy sprinkled throughout. By giving the villains from the first film characters and personalities he found a way to make the viewer identify with the killers and blurred the line between good and bad. William Forsythe is great as the cop but his methods make you question if he is really the good guy in all of this. On top of that it has a great wild climax set to "Free Bird" for the entire duration of the song. Unfortunately Zombie has really dropped the ball with his films after this.

4. The Mist (2007)- Stephen King can be hard to get right on screen but Frank Darabont has had considerable success in adapting King's work for film. With this movie he does a great job at drawing scares even while the CGI is delightfully cheesy at times. While it is a monster movie, at its core it is about what regular people would do under extreme circumstances. It isn't about the monsters outside against us but rather about the monsters on the insider. How we respond to things happening around us and how we gauge our friends and neighbor's reactions. It carries a special kind of weight being that it came out in such a polarizing climate. That ending as well, while different from the book, is amazing and one of the more jaw-dropping scenes I've ever seen. You could generally feel a hush come over the theater when the scene happened. That closing imagery will haunt you.

3. Slither (2006)- Equal parts funny and scary- this films works on multiple levels. What is disheartening is that the film did not find an audience at theaters as I think people didn't know how to take the horror comedy. There are great performances, some great lines, and Michael Rooker being as awesome as Michael Rooker normally is. I implore those that have never seen this film to watch it.

2. Drag Me To Hell (2009)- Before he graduated to big budget superhero movies, Sam Raimi was a well received horror director by helming the cult classic Evil Dead series. His return to the genre came with big fanfare and this really felt like the former graduate coming back to give a commencement speech. He took a formula he was good at and infused it with some of the big budget tricks he learned on the bigger pictures. It is a film that is PG-13 but earns its horror stripes by focusing on some vicious, and viciously gross, scenes. Plus Alison Lohman is just wonderful as the lead character. You feel for her throughout and it brings you into her plight from the beginning and by the end you are rooting hard for her.

1. The Descent (2005)- One of the most harrowing films I've ever experienced in theaters. Often it is dark and the camera positions itself in such a way that it carries a horrible sense of claustrophobia throughout. it is a fresh take on the monster film genre as it keeps the characters hidden for a majority of the film and it pivots on the relationships between the women in the cave. Because the film takes a long time to set up the story it pays off in the end when things get crazy. I prefer the ending of the British version of the film as it is far bleaker than the American ending but both work in various ways. Many of the scenes are pulse-pounding and create tension even though, and usually because, you're not always quite sure what is happening.