The Stepfather

Okay, here’s the thing. I don’t expect The Stepfather to be cinematically on par with The Godfather. No. I know damn well to sit there with an open mind and low standards.

But seriously, come on. How can anyone actually believe that some 40ish dude has been going around for decades, getting in good with families, killing them, then heading to another state to start all over?

He has no form of ID. Ok, I can buy that, not that big of a deal. He only carries cash. I’m still with you, although I do wonder where he gets his money (since he apparently doesn’t rob his victims). But here's the kicker...the cops have no fingerprints, blood samples, or photographs.

Really? No pictures? Are you kidding? It’s pretty simple really. You interview friends of the family and have them try to remember the last time he went to a drug store, a Best Buy, a Home Depot, or any damn place that has a video camera. I mean Jesus, my face was captured by four different video cameras just from walking into the movie theatre. You’re telling me they can’t trace a serial killer?

But alas, we’re already stuck in the movie, so why not stay? If you do, you’ll see Dylan Walsh (Sean, the nice one, from Nip/Tuck) having a good time as a steely cool psycho offing innocent families for the hell of it.

The movie, as you might expect, is garbage. (I mean, if this guy is such a seasoned killer, how come a fuck-up teen can figure him out in a second?) But Walsh looks like he’s having fun. Which, I guess, is good enough (not for $10, but definitely for channel surfing on cable). D

A Serious Man

I’m writing this review three days after I’ve seen the movie, but it still feels too early. You see, A Serious Man isn’t a film bogged down by silly plot devices or Hollywood caricatures. No, the Coen brothers’ new dramedy is a genuine film propelled by a solid story. Not your typical, everything-spelled-out, mainstream mess.

And therein lies its beauty… or its problem, depending on who you talk to.

The film begins as philosophically as it ends. Which means, I don’t really think we’re supposed to take either at face value. Instead, examine what you see. Talk about it. What is its reference? Its point? My god how a love a good post-film chat.

Sorry, I guess I should tell you what it’s about.

Larry Gopnik is a regular man, with serious problems. His tenure as a physics professor is in question, even before getting blackmailed by a student. His wife is angry, even before wanting to leave him for his friend. His kids are full of angst, even before school troubles and unneeded nose jobs. His brother is lost, even before law troubles. His neighbor is spiteful, even before getting technical about property lines.

Nothing is going right. But why? Why can’t helpless Larry get advice from any of his Rabbis? Why is his wife’s lover so cool about everything? Why don’t his kids give a shit about anything? Why is this colossal shit-tornado happening to him at this exact point in time? I have no idea, and much to our delight, neither does Larry.

As Larry, stage actor Michael Stuhlbarg gives an Oscar-worthy, make-or-break performance. Never forcing too much or dismissing issues with a coy demeanor, Stuhlbarg plays Larry with much-recognized emotions. Regardless of who you are or where you live, you’d probably have the same dumbfounded expression and voice inflection that Stuhlbarg has through most of the film. He carries the movie on his shoulders, to great results.

Like most Coen films, the technical aspects are flawless. From veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins’ steely look, to Carter Burwell’s haunting score, to the period-appropriate costumes, everything fits like a corky, Coen glove.

Much has been made about the origin of the film, as it appears to be the only semi-autobiographical work the Coen’s have ever produced. That doesn’t really concern me. The fact that the Coen’s grew up in the 60s, in a small Minnesota town, raised by educator parents, in a strict Jewish home, doesn’t make me love or hate the film. Although I suppose it is interesting.

A Serious Man isn’t for everyone, but no Coen brother’s film is. I can’t promise that you’ll understand the whole thing, hell I can’t even promise that it’ll be in theatres next month. But if you’re remotely interested in the Coens’ work, you’re sure to enjoy Larry’s downfall.

A funny thing has happened while I’ve been writing this review; I’ve actually realized that I liked the film more than I thought. I love that. It’s one of the reasons I keep writing these. Mazel tov. A-

My Favorite Scene: Leaving Las Vegas

There is Jack Lemmon destroying a greenhouse, like a ravaged animal, in desperate search of the liquor bottle he hid there hours earlier in Days of Wine and Roses. There is Ray Milland slinging two bottles of whiskey out of his window, hiding them from his suspicious brother in The Lost Weekend. There is Ed Harris flipping the set dinner table over in an alcoholic rage in Pollock. Or Jennifer Connelly smiling drearily as she clutches her huge bag of cut heroin in Requiem for a Dream.

Each of these scenes masterfully conveys the often misunderstand disease of addiction. And while these films are memorable in their own light, the most unflinching, brutal, realistic depiction of addiction I’ve seen is Mike Figgis’ modern masterpiece Leaving Las Vegas.

Nicolas Cage embodies alcoholism in a way I’ve never seen. As Ben, a helpless writer who moves to Las Vegas with the sole intention of drinking himself to death, Cage quite simply delivers one of the best acting performances of the ‘90s. His performance is unselfish, unrelenting, and immensely horrifying. It’s the type of acting film students study.

About an hour into the film, when Ben first arrives at Sera’s (Elizabeth Shue) home, they sit on the couch and discuss their awkward arrangement. Sera, a prostitute longing for some kind of human connection, has asked Ben to stay with her until he fulfills his life-ending goal.

After they talk, Sera gives Ben a few gifts, the first of which is a tacky, bright orange shirt, which Ben accepts in stride. Next, Sera hands Ben a small box, which he opens delicately. Moving the tissue paper out of the way, with the camera slowly closing in on Cage’s face, we see what he sees. A brand new, shiny silver flask. The camera stays on Cage’s face for the longest moment. He puts his hand over his mouth, fighting back tears. Then, with his voice cracking, he forces out: “Well, it looks like I’m with the right girl.”

He is completely dumbfounded. Never in his life has someone been as accepting of his disease. And that’s the power of the scene. Is it a nice gift? Of course. That’s what great gifts do, they fill a lack of want that we previously had (or didn’t know we had). But is it a noble gift? My god, no. It’s the same as giving a box of syringes to a heroin addict. Sera knows this. And she accepts it. She knows that by giving the flask to Ben, she’s only speeding up his untimely death. But there’s something tender and beautiful about the scene. Something… uplifting, but at the same time, devastatingly heartbreaking. In short, it’s the single greatest film moment I’ve seen involving addiction. It’s the scene that won Cage the Best Actor Oscar.

The underlying themes of Leaving Las Vegas are beautifully conveyed on that couch. Figgis, who has never made a better film, created a world that felt so vivid and real (thanks to his shoe-string budget and 16MM film stock), that you can’t help but fall in love with these battered characters.

I love recommending Leaving Las Vegas to people. I warn them that it’s heavy cinema and it stars a great Nicolas Cage. “What? Nicolas Cage? Great?” I know, it’s strange to hear. But it’s stranger to watch, because what we get is a performance free of any inhibitions. It’s the essence of acting: we don’t see Nicolas Cage, sell-out action star. We see Ben Sanderson, helpless alcoholic.

Watching Leaving Las Vegas is being thrown into a world that you knew existed, just not with this much severity. It’s a remarkable experience. You’ll end this favorite scene the same way you’ll end the film; feeling grimy, sad, deserted, but also terribly moved.

Paranormal Activity

Maybe you’ve heard of this little film phenomenon called Paranormal Activity? But in case you’ve been living under a rock… three years ago, struggling filmmaker Oren Peli scrapped together a slim 15 grand, bought on decent camera, and shot a horror flick in his house using only two main actors.

Finding no distributor, Peli began previewing his film at midnight showings in a handful of college towns. Word spread. Like wildfire. Soon a trendy website was created where people could go on and request the film to come to their city. It worked. Big time. Every week the movie expanded to more screens. Now it’s up for a major release.

Which is a pleasant way of saying: now people all across America are about to seriously get the shit scared out of them.

No bullshit. Paranormal Activity is, hands down, one of the most terrifying movie-going experiences I’ve ever had. Coming from a guy who rarely gets freaked by films, take my word for it, you’re in for a fright.

The plot takes a lot less time to explain than the film’s origin. Katie and boyfriend Michah buy a camera to investigate a ghost that Katie thinks has been following her since she was 8. Michah, who doesn’t take the ghost stuff seriously, shoots a little during the day, but at night, he stations the camera at the foot of their bed, giving us a first-hand glimpse of what’s going down.

Things don’t begin balls-out. Each night scene is a slow progression into psychological, demonic madness. So, don’t expect all the blood and guts and bullshit that litters Hollywood horror flicks. No, instead, with this film, you create your own fear. Sure we see stuff, but for the most part the audience will be in charge of freaking themselves out, even if you don’t realize it.

This is the scariest type of cinema. The unknown. The psychological brutality of not knowing what the hell is going on. Sleep is a must, you can’t live without it. But knowing something is going to happen to you when you close your eyes… that’s troubling. And pulling it off in a way that isn't lame (ie Freddy Kruger), takes skill.

Describing the creepy antics that go down is to take the piss out of the entire film, so forget it. But let me say that it isn’t just the images that freak you out, no way. Peli’s use of sound is worth an Oscar. There is a slight sound (Bass cord? Ambient music? Guitar cord? I’m not sure), everytime something bad is about to happen. So after a while, each time you hear that noise, you know something is coming. Yet you can’t help your heart from pounding.

It’s a fantastic experiment in psychology. Like Pavlov’s experiment with dogs, Peli is using sound to produce a response, in this case one we subconsciously deem frightful.

I would be remised if i didn't admit my one major problem with the film. I’m not giving anything away by saying that Peli is seriously pushing this as a documentary, as if the San Diego Police Department found the camera and released edited footage. To me, that’s just silly. When the origin of a film is as popular as the film itself, people aren’t going to believe that it’s a true story. It worked for the Blair Witch Project because the internet wasn’t what it is today. But oh well. This fault says nothing bad about the film itself, just a slightly lame marketing tactic.

So, who should see Paranormal Activity? That’s easy. Everyone. For fans of horror films, this will rank up high with the best you’ve seen. For critics of the genre, like myself, a film like Paranormal Activity is a stroke of haunted genius. It slightly subsides our skepticism concerning a tired genre.

But be warned: sleep will not come easy that night that you see it. Or the next. Or hell, the night after that, too. A

Couple's Retreat

Given its title and trailer, you may be tempted to venture into Couple’s Retreat with your significant other. See some famous faces, have a few laughs, and so on. Don’t. For… the… love… of… god.

This movie is flat-out awful. Its 107 minutes produces not one laugh. I’m not exaggerating. That isn’t an hyperbole. I seriously did not laugh once in the entire film. And believe me, I’m a fan of most of the stars, but I suspect that the shooting location was far more appealing to them than the dialogue of the film.

There isn’t a scene acted or a line spoken that doesn’t feel forced and tired. Maybe you chuckled at the preview. Trust me, those are the only one-liners that produce the mildest of smirks. Save your money, stay away, or go see one of the other 20 movies out right now.

2009 is shaping up to be a hell of a year. Couple’s Retreat is right up there with Transformers 2 and Whiteout as the worst films of the decade. Seeing this movie is no retreat. It’s plunging your toilet, unsuccessfully, leaving shit all over the damn place. F

the Directors: the Coen Brothers

Who can switch gears better than the Coen brothers? They are seamless at jumping from dead serious crime drama to slapstick comedy. (Many will argue that their ability to fuse those two genres together produces their best work.)

Their films aren’t always great (or even that good) but you have to give them credit for experimenting with each passing picture. (I mean, can you believe the same guys that created The Dude also brought Anton Chirgurh (Jarvier Bardem in No Country for Old Men) to life?

Often dubbed “The Two-Headed Director” the Coens never fail to intrigue, and with their new film, A Serious Man out this month, it seems like an appropriate time to examine their work.

Blood Simple (1984)
A simply stunning film debut. Everytime I watch it, I’m somehow tricked by the exquisitely manipulated details. The Coen’s didn’t make another film like this until No Country for Old Men, and damn if they didn’t completely nail the noir tone from the get-go. Never seen it? No matter what kind of movies you like, you will surely enjoy this. A+


Interesting Fact:
Often voted as one of the best directional debuts in film history. Also, Joel met his future wife, Frances McDormand while making this film.

Raising Arizona (1987)
The Coen’s give us the first does of their zany, original humor. Usually these loopy comedies are a hit or miss, and I must admit, Raising Arizona has never done it for me. I think the comedy is forced and half-assed. But, there are several people that would disagree. You be the judge. B-

Interesting Fact:
The only main character to not cry in the film is the baby, Nathan Jr.
Miller’s Crossing (1990)
A fantastic gangster film. The dialogue pops just as well as the Tommy guns. Another Coen gem that you can watch over and over without ever being bored. I’m hard-pressed to think of a better ‘20s-era gangster flick. A+

Interesting Fact:
This is one of the few movies that the Coens didn’t edit themselves (along with Raising Arizona and The Hudsucker Proxy.) The brothers usual edit under the pseudonym Roderick Jaynes.
Barton Fink (1991)
For this odd outing, the brothers experiment in blending their unique humor with startling suspense, to great results. John Turturro gives a tour de force performance. It’s not for everyone (ie, as the film gets longer, the scenes get weirder), but I’m a big fan. It’s one of their more little-seen films, but if you’re a Coen buff, it’s a must. A-

Interesting Fact:
The brothers wrote this movie in three weeks while suffering an extreme case of writer’s block while penning Miller’s Crossing.
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Again, the Coen’s miss with their comedy. Some of this is funny, I suppose. The running gags, the over-the-top-ness of it all. But it doesn’t sit well with me, not compared to their other work. C+

Interesting Fact:
The death of Waring Hudsucker was inspired by a real-life incident. In 1975, Eli Black, the CEO of the United Fruit Company, smashed an office window with his briefcase and jumped to his death from the 44th floor of the Pan Am Building in New York City.
Fargo (1996)
What’s to say? A modern film masterpiece. Everything is flawless: the perfectly timed acting, the steely score, the icy cinematography, the geographically-specific dialogue, it’s all utter perfection. I want to highlight one particular aspect of the film that is often overlooked. Pay attention to the editing of the picture (by the Coens, naturally). The assembly of scenes is almost the best part of the movie. We don’t even meet our heroine Marge (Frances McDormand) until 40 minutes into the 98 minute film. Certain scenes seem unnecessary, which, if you’re not bored, is called character development. What’s better than two thugs banging a few hookers then cutting immediately to the four of them watching The Tonight Show? Not to be missed. A+


Interesting Fact:
The beginning of this film comes with a disclaimer saying that it is based on a true story. It isn’t. In keeping with their odd demeanor, the Coens created the “Based on a True Story” bit as a marketing ploy.
The Big Lebowski (1998)
A cult masterwork that lives up to its reputation. This is a strange movie-watching experience as each viewing actually gets better than the previous one. So if you’re off-put by the unusual humor (“Take it easy man! There’s a beverage here!”) don’t fret, just watch it again. Easily the Coen’s most successful comedy. A


Interesting Fact:
The only direction Jeff Bridges wanted before each of his scenes was to know if The Dude had “burned one down.”
O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)
Another successful comic venture. It even holds up well as a folksy musical. Who woulda thunk that George Clooney would be a perfect fit for a zany Coen Brothers picture? Immensely enjoyable. A-

Interesting Fact:
This was the Coens first film not made from an original screenplay. They adapted the movie from Homer’s "The Odyssey".
The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001)
I love that this film is rated R solely due to a 30 second scene of violence; the Coens never let anyone sway their vision, ratings be damned. This black and white, old school noir really hits its mark, with an impeccable Billy Bob Thornton in the lead. Although the highlight has got to be Tony Shalhoub as the fast-talking lawyer. A great, patient delight. A


Interesting Fact:
The movie was actually filmed in color, then printed in black and white via special processing.
Intolerable Cruelty (2003)
I’m up in the air about this one. It has its moments, but like most other Coen comedies, it falters badly as well. Some subplots are downright unnecessary. The question is, does the good stuff outweigh the bad? Sadly, I think not. C+

Interesting Fact:
I honestly can’t think of anything remotely interesting.
The Ladykillers (2004)
Another tough one to pin down. Tom Hanks is good, sure. But sometimes it feels like the Coens… just try a little too hard. It is entertaining, but it certainly drags on. J.K. Simmons is most definitely the highlight. C+

Interesting Fact:
This is the first Coen Brothers film where Joel Coen and Ethan Coen are both given directing and producing credits. They have shared these duties on all of their films, but Joel has always been listed as the director, and Ethan as producer.
Paris, je t’aime (2006)
Well, their six-minute short certainly isn’t the best of the bunch (that would be Alexander Payne’s closing segment), but it is amusing, and clearly marked with the Coen’s comedic stamp. Steve Buscemi is great in a wordless role. Pretty entertaining on its own. B+


Interesting Fact:
Each of the filmmakers had two weeks to write, shoot, edit and deliver their film to the producers of the movie.
No Country For Old Men (2007)
Right up there with the Coen’s best. The brothers justly won Best Picture and Director Oscars for their tense, deadly serious work. It takes real balls to completely throw out your style and invent something totally different. The performances are tightly wound and flawless (Woody Harrleson can act? Hmm). A lot of people bitch about the ending, not me. I think it suits the tone of the film perfectly (if you take the title quite literally, it may make more sense to you). One of the most faithful book-to-screen adaptations I’ve ever seen. No wonder Cormac McCarthy was pleased. A+


Interesting Fact:
The Coens refused to give Josh Brolin an audition for the movie, so he asked director Robert Rodriguez to help him shoot an audition tape while Brolin was filming Planet Terror. With Quentin Tarantino directing, Rodriguez shot the tape with a $950,000 digital camera. Brolin sent it to the Coen's, their only remark: "Who did the lighting?"
Burn After Reading (2008)
Again, when I first saw it, I was indifferent toward it. During the second viewing, I completely ruined the movie for my girlfriend (her first viewing), as I laughed hysterically every second Brad Pitt was on screen. I’ll swear by this, but Pitt is much better here than in Benjamin Button (which he received an Oscar nomination for the same year). B+

Interesting Fact:
Looks like Georgetown, right? In fact, the film was mostly shot in and around New York City.
A Serious Man (2009)
Watching poor Larry, a regular man with serious problems, try and deal with one shit storm after the other is pure bliss. Definitely not for everyone, (but no Coen brother’s film is)? I can’t promise that you’ll understand the whole thing, but if you’re remotely interested in the Coens’ work, you’re sure to appreciate the philosophical, zany nature of it all. A-


Interesting fact:
This is the only seemingly semi-autobiographical film the Coen's have ever done. They too grew up in the Midwest during the 60s, to teacher parents under a strict Jewish upbringing.

Capitalism: A Love Story

Seeing a documentary is a different kind of movie-going experience. If I agree with its cause going in (The Cove, Food, Inc.) then I have to remind myself to view the film with complete objectivity. Critique it based on its cinematic merit; how well it portrays the cause, not how well it agrees with it. So, based solely on that criteria, I must say that Capitalism isn’t all that great.

I’m no fan of Michael Moore but I am a fan of his filmmaking. Whether or not you agree with his left ideals, you can’t dispute his skill to craft a documentary. His timing in use of music and retro pop culture clips is impeccable, some of the best around.

When he’s at his worst, Moore is intrusive (more than is needed), annoying, laughable and just simply unamusing. But at his best, Moore shows us some deeply honest moments, that no one but him could catch. The laid-off worker hearing “Wouldn’t it Be Nice” immediately after getting canned in Roger and Me, the K-Mart/bullet incident in Bowling for Columbine, the grieving mother breaking down in front of the White House in Fahrenheit 9/11, almost every interview in Sicko, and so on.

Capitalism has a few of those tender moments, sure, but they aren’t enough to shield you from Moore’s trying-too-hard antics.

When I “learn” something from Moore film, I take it with a grain of salt. Which means I go home and immediately research to see if it’s true. A few things in Capitalism (companies cash insurance policies on dead employees, then pay the family nothing), were shocking to see, and I found out, true. You see, I wouldn’t have known that if I hadn’t seen this movie. So for that I can appreciate it. I can say I learned something.

But other times, specifically near the end, Moore seems to veer way off course (cause?). He has an extended section mocking conservatives’ use of the word Socialism. Like it’s a bad, four letter word. BEWARE OF THE… SOCIALISTS! In typical Moore style, he lets the people make fun of themselves by showing actual news footage. But then something strange happens. Toward the end of the movie, Moore ends up doing the same exact thing with the word Capitalism. He starts going all fire and brimstone like Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly would (do?). And believe me, Moore isn’t doing this mockingly. He’s serious. So, now, he’s become a sort of contradiction. Making slight use of a word as if it is an all evil force (he even begs the audience to help his cause via some awful narration). I have trouble with this. And yeah, it kind of ruined the movie for me.

Sicko is long and far my favorite Michael Moore film. Why? Because I enjoy hearing about the cause. Because it feels the most real. And maybe, because Moore is in it the least. C

Zombieland

Liked Shaun of the Dead? Then you’ll like Zombieland (although not as much). That’s pretty much all I need to say, but of course, I’ll elaborate briefly.

A phobic geek (Jesse Eisenberg) and a bad mo-fo (Woody Harrelson), trek across a barren U.S. inhabited only by zombies. The unlikely duo run into two con sisters (Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin) who want nothing more than to get to an LA amusement park, apparently zombie free.

Why see it:
-- It can be funny. Harrelson and Eisenberg play off their type-casts well and the constant stabs at pop cultural are amusing.
-- Stone, sexy in thick slabs in black eye shadow, is proving to be of worth, I think she’ll have a good career.
-- A dynamite cameo, in which an actor plays himself, is easily the highlight. Don’t ask around, don’t IMDB it, just let yourself be surprised.

Why not to see it:
-- Because you’ve seen it all before.
-- Because Eisenberg has played the same geeky, virgin character in his four biggest roles (Roger Dodger, The Squid and the Whale, Adventureland, Zombieland). I mean shit, can’t the kid get laid?

But like most other horror throwaways, if you’ve paid the price of admission, you probably know what you’re getting yourself into, (although one couple did walk out early on… did they not read the title of the film?). Zombieland lacks the original wit of Shaun of the Dead, and the creeps of 28 Days Later. But it’s enough to keep you entertained on a Friday night (or maybe a rainy Sunday afternoon). C+

The Invention of Lying

I’m kind of surprised that The Invention of Lying hasn’t earned more controversy. In fact, I’ve heard very little about it except that it’s Ricky Gervais’ directorial debut. Although, I have a theory. If a film actually has to be good to gain controversy, then it’s clear why this movie has hidden under the radar.

Yes, sadly, as much as I enjoy Gervais’ slight, dry humor (as is evident in the original Office and HBOs short-lived Extras), he doesn’t have what it takes to create an engaging, funny, comedy.

In the fictional world we’re presented in the film, no one can tell a lie (we find this out via cheesy, unneeded voice over, a tell for novice filmmakers). Gervais’ character discovers he’s the only person on Earth that can lie. So naturally he advances his career, steals a lot of money and, almost, gets laid.

Gervais’ acting isn’t the problem (nor is Jennifer Garner’s or Rob Lowe’s or Tina Fey’s), no, they all exercise great comedic timing that will make you… chuckle once or twice. The problem is in the story and filmmaking in general. The script is so lame at parts that I could actually imagine the actors rolling their eyes off camera.

Oh, the controversy, right. Is it bad to spoil a film if I don’t recommend it from the get-go? In short, Gervais (an outspoken Atheist in real life) presents a film where the pleasant ending is that people find out that there isn’t a God, or an afterlife. It’s pretty ballsy, really, but I just simply wasn’t sold.

Not even a slew of spirited cameos (the best of which is a crazed cop) can save the film. Maybe in finer-tuned hands, The Invention of Lying could’ve soared. Not so much here. C

The Informant!

There’s a scene in The Informant!, Steven Soderbergh’s new refreshing film, that is unlike any scene I’ve ever seen in a film.  Without divulging too much, the scene has Matt Damon sitting next to his wife on their couch, a familiar FBI agent in front of them.  Suddenly Damon’s narration, which so far in the film has served only as a witty, stream-of-conscience plot device, finally makes a purpose.  Everything clicks into place.  The audience, along with the supporting characters in the scene, finally understand Damon’s character.  It’s the kind of scene that will get Damon nominated for an Oscar.

The Informant! is by far the most invigorating, mature comedy of the year.  Based on a true story, Damon plays Mark Whitacre, a high-level exec at an agri-business giant.  Unhappy with his work, he admirably goes to the FBI to whistle blow his company’s wrong doings.  What, we routinely ask, is Whitacre getting out of this situation?  And therein lies the bulk of the film.

Damon, who packed on some serious pounds, grew a bad mustache and an even worse haircut, has never been better than as the conflicted Whitacre.  His every move, from his facial twitches to his posture, are completely believable.  He makes the film a total joy. 

Steven Soderbergh is one of the few living American auteurs of cinema.  Whether he gives us his bare-bones indies (Bubble, The Girlfriend Experience), some heavyweight blockbusters (the Ocean’s 11 series) or a fresh mix of both (Traffic, Out of Sight), he never bores.  In short: I have yet to see a bad, or disappointing, Soderbergh film (yes this includes Solaris, Full Frontal, The Limey, etc).  His dedication to the craft of filmmaking is so evident, whether he’s attributing the ‘50s Rat Pack era, ‘70s crime, or even historical drama, the man can make a film (and shoot and edit, which he often does under pseudonyms).  I’m a fan, what can I say.

But sorry, back to The Informant!, which is a film for everyone.  Older crowds will enjoy the business politics of it (and they may remember the actual story), and the younger crowd will like the well-paced comedic timing (especially in that Adaptation-esque narration).

The preview for the film isn’t that impressive.  But for good reason. The Informant! offers up a lot of surprises, which are better discovered during the actual movie.  Damon, Soderbergh and the odd (albeit brilliantly played) cast are all in top form.  Sure to be one of the best films of the year.  A

Jennifer's Body

Jennifer’s Body will likely make a nice chunk of change it’s first weekend.  The dudes will go to get a glimpse of Megan Fox, and the gals will go to see some feminism empowerment (well, maybe).  But after this first weekend, believe you me, the film’s numbers will tank.

Why?  Because it sucks.

Don’t blame Fox (she’s not that bad), and definitely not Amanda Seyfried (Big Love, Mean Girls), they do good work.  Blame the silly, pointless, meandering script by Diablo Cody (who won an Oscar for writing Juno).  The film doesn’t make much sense, and when it seldom does, you won’t care enough to stay involved.  Director Karyn Kusama, who made the great Girlfight in 2000, seems to enjoy the hyperbolic metaphor of it all: the hot man eater actually is… a… man eater.  But the rest of us don’t feel “in” on the joke.

Jennifer Check, a clichéd high school hottie turns into a demon via the lamest demonic takeover I’ve ever seen.  She roams around school, flaunting her shit when she’s well fed, and preying on men when she starts to become physically weak.  Her best friend, Needy is the first and only one to figure it out, which eventually lands her in an insane asylum (really?).

You might enjoy this movie if a.) you like Cody’s smartass writing (which I often feel is too smart for its own good), or b.) you want to see some Fox-y skin.  Let me help the horny jerkoffs: you don’t see nothin’.  So basically, stay away.  I’d rather you see Sorority Row.  D

(Note: Okay, I just finished reading Roger Ebert's review of the film.  His last sentence says: "It's not art, it's not Juno, it's not Girlfight, for that matter, but as a movie about a flesh-eating cheerleader, it's better than it has to be."  Yes, I suppose that's fair.)

Sorority Row

So, why did I enjoy Sorority Row (well, as much as a person can enjoy a movie called Sorotiy Row)? Honestly, I’m not sure. All the basic teen-slasher clichés are there. The predictability. The silly killings. The false reality (I mean seriously, where the hell do these girls go to school? I’ve frequented many a college party and have never come close to what these chicks have going on.)

So, why?

Maybe it’s because I see promise in the lead, played by Briana Evigan (the one with a conscience). Maybe it’s because one of the lame dudes playing a typical frat boy actually made me, purposefully, laugh at out loud (“We’ll talk later”). Maybe it’s because the in-focus/out-of-focus cinematography felt fresh. Maybe it’s because the film didn’t tastelessly illustrate young women’s bodies as much as I thought it would.

I don’t know. Can’t explain it. But this seemingly throwaway slasher about a slew of sorority sisters who accidentally kill one of their own, unwisely try to cover it up, then find it biting them in ass several months later (yes, it’s I Know What You Did Last Summer with a bitchy cast), really isn’t that bad.

Or maybe, after seeing Whiteout, Halloween 2, and The Final Destination, dogshit would look like filet mignon. C+

Whiteout

Ten struggling independent filmmakers could’ve made their first feature.  One thousand families could’ve received free health care. 14,285 African children could’ve been fed for their entire young lives. 

What do these statistics have in common?  They are all better uses for the amount of money it took to make Whiteout.  A film that isn’t worth the time it would take me to type a plot summary. 

Why, Kate Beckinsale, why?  You have so much talent, as is evident in The Last Days of Disco, Brokedown Palace, Laurel Canyon, The Aviator and (most of all) Snow Angels. 

Stop.  Selling.  Out.

We’re still a few months away, but Whiteout is right up there with Transformers 2 for worst film of the decade. 

A friend recently asked me: “if you don’t like these cheesy horror movies, then why the hell do you go see them?”

My response was simple: “So you don’t have to.”  F

Halloween II

Halloween II starts off with a dream sequence… I think. Michael Myers, presumed dead, wakes up after the ambulance transporting his body hits a cow in the middle of the road (a cow… really?). He offs the two paramedics then walks off. Next scene, the female lead from the first Halloween wakes up in her ER room, only to be stalked by Myers, who finally chases her down and drives a knife into her head. Then she wakes up. So when did the dream start? Did Myers actually escape the ambulance like that? I have no idea. But maybe I’m looking too much into it.

Rob Zombie’s revamp of John Carpenter’s classic was actually not that bad. I remember seeing his first Halloween two years ago and being entertained throughout (mostly with the first hour, when we deal with the young Michael). Such is not the case here.

We often give horror films the benefit of the doubt. Myers gets shot several times and lives, okay. He lives for a year in a shack, walking around empty fields, okay. He puts on his mask before he kills people, even though they won’t be able to tell anyone about him anyway, okay. He happens to kill a girl at a crowded party (who just happens to be best friend with his most sought after victim), okay. But seriously, how can this dude possibly know where his biological sister, Laurie now lives? The yellow pages? Google maps? Does Michael Myers own a GPS? I wonder what the sales person at Best Buy thought of his buoyant personality.

You want blood? You got it. Boobs? Check. Bad acting? Of course. But if you’re in the torture-porn mood already, I suggest staying home, renting Zombie’s first Halloween, tuning off the lights and being entertainingly grossed out.

One positive quality of the film that I will mention is that it does look good. As with the first Halloween, Zombie produces a dark, shadowy, blue-ish hue that is very pleasing, and distinctive, to the eye. He also knows how to use slow motion in a way that is not distracting or annoying. Take for instance the scene when Laurie runs rabidly through the woods, freezing just in front of bright lights, silhouetting her in the dark moonlight; it looks great, I just don’t give a shit about what I’m seeing. D

Extract

Here’s the thing, I’m writing this review nearly five hours after seeing Extract, problem is, I’m having trouble remembering it. Not because I wasn’t paying attention, but because there isn’t anything memorable to recall.

Shame, as director Mike Judge is responsible to two of pop culture’s most original cartoons (Beavis and Butt-Head, King of the Hill) and the cult classic Office Space. But no, Extract is a run-of-the-mill, clichéd mess.

Joel (Jason Bateman, always funny, but not here) is hoping to sell his food flavoring company and retire early. But why? He hates the Caribbean and his wife (Kristin Wiig, always funny, but not here) wears her sweatpants so tight that Joel hasn’t gotten laid in months. Suddenly a factory worker loses one of his balls in a freak accident and Joel’s corporate buy-out isn’t so feasible.

In his spare time Joel goes to a hotel bar where his favorite, stoned-out barkeep (Ben Affleck, sometimes funny, but not here) convinces Joel to cheat on his wife. So Joel, doped up a horse tranquilizer (could be funny, but not here) conjures up a plan to hire a gigolo to seduce his wife, so that Joel can bang a hustling hottie (Mila Kunis, always a knockout, especially here). Keeping up? Didn’t think so.

Trying to make a film as funny and original as Office Space is a daunting task. I wasn’t expecting that. I was just hoping for some laughs from a cast I usually enjoy (who, if you haven’t guessed, aren’t funny).

Maybe I’ll get some crap from my peers for judging this film too harshly and not appreciating what it is: a simple comedy, meant only to provoke a few laughs. But that’s not true, I do understand that concept, it’s just that Extract really isn’t funny. The movie might have been saved if it didn’t reuse its same gags over and over. The annoying neighbor stopping the car, the bitching about not getting any, the barroom talks, the stupid gigolo, the tight sweatpants, the accountant who can’t remember names. All of these jokes would play well if we only saw them once (maybe twice), but instead Judge reuses them again and again, wearing us out with each “new” scene.

I can see Beavis and Butt-Head watching Extract on TV. After about 10 minutes, Butt-Head would slap Beavis in the head for not changing the channel sooner. “Beavis,” he’d say, “That chick was hot, but that movie blows.” Sadly, I’d be inclined to agree. D