HOMEFRONT (2013)

A action/thriller where the South is full of hillbillies and meth addicts/dealers.  Nice.  Directed by Gary Fleder.  Screenplay by  Sylvester Stallone, based on a book by Chuck Logan.  Movies stars: Jason Statham, James Franco, Winona Ryder, Kate Bosworth, Rachelle Lefevre, Frank Grillo, Clancy Brown, and Izabela Vidovic.

The story: an undercover DEA man moves to his wife's Southern, rural hometown with his daughter after his wife's death.  There he gets on the wrong side of a local meth dealer who sets out to get rid of him and his daughter.

Was it good?

Almost.  And what I mean by almost is there's a lot of good stuff here and it's worth watching, but it also gives hints of how good it really could have been, so while you are watching it the movie manages to be entertaining and disappointing at the same time.

The problem is the way pieces connect and grow.  For instance, I'm not real sure why Statham moves from the city to his wife's hometown.  His wife is dead, she doesn't seem to have any relatives there -- so why move there?  It's almost random.  Then once there, the build to his confrontation with Franco is all odd.  It starts with a confrontation between his daughter and a boy at school that somehow keeps building until it gets to Franco who happens to be a meth dealer.  Of course, his being a meth dealer doesn't really add to the direct conflict (even after Statham finds out he is a meth dealer he isn't trying to get him busted really).  Then Franco pulls in the drug dealers from the beginning of the film, but the father is in jail so it really is just random people that come down to kill Statham and his daughter.  There also is a side note between Statham and a school staffer his daughter likes, but that doesn't really add anything or go anything.  Eventually the conflict between the daughter and boy (and Statham and that family) seems to fall away for these random people from the drug lord. 

The story just lacks the clear focus that a good action movie needs, making it feel muddled and emotionally flat.  That said, there is a lot here that works.  Statham and Franco played their parts very well.  Statham is the stoic tough guy (as always), but seen as a father helps give him more than more of his action movies.  Franco as the meth dealer plays against the tough guy, he is more of a thinker, a plotter and schemer, and it makes the movie much more interesting. 

This is a good movie with some nice acting and pieces, but suffers from a muddled core and lack of compelling direct conflict between the two main characters.  An action movie with some heart (for Statham) and a smart villain (Franco) could have been intriguing.  This was entertaining, but didn't quite get to intriguing.

*** RENTAL ***

Watch also: DIE HARD (a classic), MOMENTO (Christopher Nolan's breakthru), BANK JOB (a very good Statham movie).

RAZE (2014) ** RENTAL ***

RAZE (2014) *** RENTAL ***

Hot chicks beating each other to death in an underground fight club.  Dicrected by Josh C. Waller.  Written by .  Stars Zoë Bell with Rachel Nichols, Tracie Thoms and a cameo by Rosario Dawson.

The story:  a woman is abducted and awakens in an underground bunker where fifty abducted women have to fight MMA style to the death or their loved ones will be killed.  Only one will survive and she will be given her freedom.

Was it good?

Kind of.  It was entertaining.  There really isn't any story -- just hot women pounding the hell out of each other -- but it seems to understand that and doesn't try to do too much.  It doesn't have the gonzo fun of the typical women's prison movie, with tawdry sex going on as well, and there isn't really any social statement here. There's also no humor.  But as a rental, where you can talk and play cards, this has some good fight sequences for background entertainment.  Still...it would have been nice if they had done a bit more, especially considering they had Zoe Bell and Rachel Nichols.  Not film worth price of admission, but for a couple buck rental, it's more solid than a lot of low budget films.

*** RENTAL ***

BOUNTY KILLER (2013) ** RENTAL ***

BOUNTY KILLER (2013)

A post-apocalyptic action comedy with sexy bounty hunters.  Directed by Henry Saine.  Stars Matthew Marsden and Christian Pitre with appearances by Kristanna Loken, Beverly D'Angelo, Eve,  Alexa Vega and Gary Busey.

The story: After corporate greed has left the world a giant wasteland, white collar crimes get a death penalty.  Bounty Killers are the people who go after them and are celebrities with fans.  The story follows Drifter (Matthew Marsden) and Mary Death (Christian Pitre) as a bounty is placed on Drifter and they team up (after she goes after him for the bounty) have to evade killers and gypsies to track down the council to find out what is going on.

Was it good?

It was entertaining for a bit.   The strange mix of desolation and celebrity was interesting, and this is certainly a movie that tries to do a lot more than most low budget films.  The co-star Christian Pitre is beautiful and energetic.  This is a movie that just wants to be a B-movie, almost more homage than
real film.  Where as other movies like DEATH RACE 2000 and MAD MAX used the concept to delve into something more, this is just all superficial fun.  Unfortunately, like most movies that are 70% recycling, the humor isn't funny, the characters are cardboard, the plot doesn't make sense and ultimately the movie feels like a pretty empty thing.

Still, Considering the title and cover, you get the feeling the renters will know what they are getting, and while it doesn't have enough to it to make it a cult classic, it has enough for people who like action, sexy women, and ridiculous sci-fi a watch.

***RENTAL ***

HATCHET 3 (2013) *** RENTAL ***

HATCHET 3 *** RENTAL ***

This is the third (and last?) in the series for HATCHET, the horror series by Adam Green.  Green doesn't direct this one, but he wrote and produces it.  Directed by BJ McDonnell.  Starring Danielle Harris, Kane Hodder, Zach Galligan, Caroline Williams, Robert Diago DoQui, Derek Mears.

The story: Picking up where HATCHET 2 left off, Marybeth Dunston(Danielle Harris) kills Victor Crowley (Kane Holder), then goes to a police station where she is immediately made the prime suspect in the murder of all the people from HATCHET 2.  First the police, then FBI go to  Honey Island Swamp to investigate.  Meanwhile, Amanda Fowler (Caroline Williams), who wants to write a book about Crowley, tries to interview Marybeth, telling her that Crowley can't be killed because he is already dead.  Now the police are attacked by a rejuvenated Crowley and Marybeth with Amanda will try to find a way to stop Crowley once and for all.

Was it good? 

It was, especially the first half.  Starting with a bang, we get right into the action.  Then having Dunston locked up while the police investigate was a nice twist to the standard horror plot and keeps everything interesting.  The writing and acting aren't anything special here, but Danielle Harris does a nice job and it's good to see Zach Galligan (who starred in one of my favorite movies of all time -- GREMLINS!) here as well.  The story really bogs down when the rejuvenated Crowley begins attacking the police, where everything starts to feel very by the numbers.  By the end I didn't really care which side won.  Crowley kills people.  They kill him, but he isn't really dead and he kills a bunch more and they kill him again, but he isn't really dead, etc, etc.  Just crazy repetitious.  Some of the beats were entertaining, but you never like or hate the characters enough to root for or against them. 

Still for all the predictable parts and not-funny dialog, there is still enough here that I liked to recommend it to horror fans.  This isn't horror that will thrill, but for a slightly twisted group looking for a group looking for a fun Friday night splatter-fest, this will fit the bill.

*** RENTAL ***

PACIFIC RIM (2013) *** RENTAL ***

PACIFIC RIM (2013) *** RENTAL ***

The big sci-fi/fantasy action film by Guillermo del Toro (Hellboy).  Features giant robots fighting monsters.  Stars Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Rinko Kikuchi, Charlie Day, Robert Kazinsky, Max Martini, and Ron Perlman.

The story:  a rift to another dimension opens up in the ocean floor and giant monsters start coming out and attacking cities.  To fight them, the world build giant robots.  But as the attacks escalate, they have to carry out a dangerous mission to try to stop them once and for all.

Was it good?

Um...kind of?  I mean look, there's something about watching giant robots fight giant monsters that's just plain cool.  As dopey as it sounds, don't you want to see it?  Some guy in a giant robot suit going toe to toe with a godzilla-like monster all in glorious full screen cgi?  And really that's why I'm giving this a RENTAL because there is just some stuff that is cool to see and this has lots of cool.  However -- and let me repeat that -- HOWEVER I also have to add that this movie is filled with some of the dumbest of everything you could ever imagine.  First, they say we built giant robots to fight the monsters like that is a normal thing.  Who the frack would think of building giant robots?!?!?  And that really is the biggest problem.  This is a movie about giant robots fighting giant monsters and everything else is just an excuse to let this happen.  Really you could replace almost every line of
dialog with Charlie Brown's teacher going "wawawawawa" and the movie would be the same.  There's no thought to the creatures -- they just destroy.  There's no logic behind the dimensional portal (or explanation) -- it's just there.  And why can't they close it?  Because they can't, until they can.  It's like a little kid telling a story where they just kind of make up one thing and then hop to another.  Even the computer interface doesn't make sense (you need two people to pilot a robot...except not always...and is it important?  no, not really).  There is not one piece of genuine science fiction (i.e. thinking), not one piece of clever, not one piece of smart in the entire movie.

But it has del Toro directing giant robots fighting giant monsters.  And that's why I'm giving it a rental, because that is enough to keep you watching once.  Once.

**** RENTAL ****

EVIL DEAD (2013) ** RENTAL***

EVIL DEAD (2013)

This is the remark/reboot of the classic 1980's horror series Evil Dead by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man 1 2 and 3, Darkman, Great and Powerful Oz).  Produced by Sam Raimi and Bruce Campbell (Burn Notice and star of the original Evil Dead movies).  Directed by Fede Alvarez, after directing a short film that got Sam Raimi's attention.  Starring: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez,  Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, and Elizabeth Blackmore.

THE STORY:  A group of friends bring a girl (Jane Levy) to a remote cabin to detox her from drug addiction.  She has recently OD'ed and they feel extreme measures are needed.  However, they find bodies in the basement and one of them reads from a strange book and soon they are being possessed by a horrible demon who tries to kill them and collect their souls.  

WAS IS GOOD?

Sort of.  If you are a fan of the original then, well, this doesn't measure up.  At all.  And I'll talk about why in a minute.  If you haven't seen the original twenty times and used the phrase "Groovy" as your ringtone then there is a lot to like.  The basic idea of a group of friends trying to detox a girl who becomes possessed is interesting, and there are some nice twists and turns.  The action is pretty much non-stop.  The problem is that you don't care.  There are no relationships and there's no real build up to anything.  It's the girl gets possessed and then messes up he friends, pretty much one-by-one, killing them off.  the movies makes an interesting turn when the girl is cured by her brother and now she becomes the target of the demons, but while it has a cool "what will happen now" effect, there's no real emotion or sense to it.  And it builds to a big dramatic ending that is simply solved with a chainsaw. 

Now compare that to the original, which slowly builds for the first ten minutes, allowing you to meet the characters and see them interact.  Next the demons are invoked.  Now one girl becomes possessed, but instead of just inflicting violence, the demon wants to possess the people and terrorize them, turning their friends against them and taunting them.  In this movie there is some of that, but it just never lands.  The demon isn't trying to terrorize, but simply to kill and it isn't nearly as interesting.  Seeing people get picked off one-by-one (let me go visit the demon girl and hey, look, I got attacked) isn't as interesting as a group in a room together trying to protect each other.  There is also the odd switch of the girl at first being the antagonist (once she is possessed) and then becoming the hero at the end.  It was an interesting choice, but I can't say I was really hoping for her to win.  It goes back to the original concept of a group of friends trying to get a girl to detox.  It is he friends that are the protagonists and they are the ones we bond with.  Switching to the girl as the protagonist at the end breaks the concept.  If the idea had been a girl trying to detox is attacked by demons and has to save herself, then it would have been fine, but in general when you switch concepts in the 3rd act, you are going to lose a lot of mojo.  And this movie felt over with 15 minutes to go.

Another thing to mention is that there is a lot of gore in this movie.  The idea of people cutting off their own limbs is a recurring thing.  (And you thought that was the sort of thing you only needed to see once?  Ha!)  It got to the point where it felt like most of the brainstorming was about what gruesome effects they could do, because they go for the gross out a lot!

All in all, while this was an interesting movie, it didn't have that "Evil Dead" feel.  Worth a rental though.  Hopefully next time they will concentrate on story and character more and less on gore.

** RENTAL **

FLYPAPER (2010) (a review)

FLYPAPER (2011) (a review)

A heist movie and a detective movie and a romance all in one. Stars Ashley Judd and Patrick Dempsey.

The story: Tripp (Dempsey) flirts with a cute teller, Kaitlin, who is about to be married (Judd) when two groups enter the bank to rob simultaneously. But then things start to go wrong and now Tripp, who is eccentric and obsessive tries to figure out who really set up the heist and what plan they have for all of them.

Was it good?

In parts. As a heist movie it isn't that interesting or exciting. As a romance, it isn't that convincing. And as a comedy it wasn't very funny. However, there is something charming about it. Between Tripp and Kaitlin's flirting, everything going wrong and Tripp's attempts to figure out what is happening it is constantly entertaining. Unfortunately, a lot of the explainations don't really hold and the movie at times veers off into the silly/unbelievable catagory. In a lot of ways it reminded me of a silly (and not as good) version of the episode "Bad Breaks" on BURN NOTICE. In that episode Michael is trapped inside a bank during a robbery and he has to try to stop the robbers by sabatoging them while pretending to help them. This movie isn't as clever or as funny and some of the twists are obvious and even the ones that aren't just never really surprise you.

Still, for all the ways in which is doesn't succeed, it is consistantly entertaining and almost always charming. I wouldn't recommend it at theater prices, but for a light/fun movie with a little robbery throw in, it's definitely worth a rental.

*** RENTAL ***

ANOTHER EARTH (a reivew)

ANOTHER EARTH (2011) (a review)

By first time director Mike Cahill, this sci-fi indy movie was a hit at Sundance and generated a lot of buzz. Starts William Mapother (Ethan on LOST) and Brit Marling. The movie was co-written by Cahill and Marling. It was made for $200,000.

The story: high school student, Rhoda (Marling) is accept into MIT, but gets into a car accident where she kills a woman and young boy. She is sent to prison. When she gets out she gets a job as a janitor at her old high school and then seeks out John, the man whose wife and son she killed (Mapother). She begins to work for him without telling him who she is, but as they grow closer and closer her guilt grows as well. At the same time, a planet is discovered that is an exact replica of the Earth -- everything from the buildings, to the people, to the history -- everything is an exact replica of this Earth. People begin to communicate with this "other Earth" and plan to fly a space ship out to it. Rhoda wins a spot on the ship, but will she go or will she stay with John and will she tell him she is the one who killed his wife and son?

Was it good?

It was pretty good. For a sci-fi film, there isn't any actual sci- in it. The story focuses on the relationship between Rhoda and John as she begins cleaning his house as a way to deal with her guilt and as they grow closer. The "Other Earth" is mainly a metaphore -- the idea of a second chance, of a life where Rhoda hadn't made that one tragic mistake. This is both the strength and weakness of the movie. The movie isn't really sci-fi -- it's just the story of a woman who caused an accident and then tries to make up for it while not telling the person who she is. It's almost identical to the relationship in THE TOWN (Ben Affleck), MANON OF THE SPRING and countless other movies. And while everything is well done, the realtionships really just hit all the beats you would expect -- the initial lie, growing closer, will he find out, etc. There's just nothing new in the movie, except for that idea of the Other Earth. But since the OA is just a metaphore, it doesn't feel nearly enough.

Still, I thought everything in the movie was well done. This is a slower, more character focused movie, but still enjoyable. Maybe not worth theater prices, but if you are in the mood for more of a character piece, then it can be worth a rental.

If you want something more story to it, I'd recommend THE TOWN over this. In fact, even if you don't want more story, I'd still recommend THE TOWN over this. But if you have already seen THE TOWN, then this movie is worth watching too.

*** RENTAL ****

MESKADA (2010) (a review)

MESKADA (2010) (a review)

An indy crime movie that focuses on more than just the crime and the cops. Stars" Nick Stahl (T3), Kellan Lutz (Twilight, Immortals, 90210), Rachel Nichols (GI Joe, Conan the Barbarian), Jonathan Tucker. Written and directed by Josh Sternfeld.

The story: A boy in an affluent town is murdered during a robbery. The detective suspects the murderer came from an adjascent town where people are struggling to find work. Complicating matters, the town (Caswell) is also trying to get a large corporation to move in which would mean hundreds of jubs and save the town.

Was it good?

Sort of. There is a lot of good and a lot of bad. Overall the acting is okay. What works best is the approach -- the focus on these two towns, one affluent and one struggling. Unfortunately, we don't get enough of that. All of it needed to be developed in a more powerful way. For instance, there is a scene (a very good one) where two people from Caswell are presenting their plan to the commissioner's office. However, the meeting doesn't go well. You see, the mother of the dead boy was a County Commissioner. It's a great scene that works because there are so many threads tangled together -- the town wants the jobs but it's a small town that doesn't like the police coming in and is stilling to protect its own, but then the mother of the murdered child is on the commission and it is clear they are not happy with the town and are ready to punish them by denying them the money for infrastructure they need to bring the corporation to their town. Because of this it spins everything with the town -- they want to protect themselves, but they need to find the killer, but they also lash out at the police blaming them for bringing the town under suspicion. It's great stuff. Unfortunately, it isn't set up nearly as strongly as it should have been. We don't know enough about the town, we don't have a good enough feel for the characters yet. They say the town will die without the company jobs, but that feeling just isn't there yet.

It's a problem that is grounded in the first act, where they show the murder of the boy and then focus on the two men responsible going back to their town and the detective who will try to track them down. Nothing is particularly bad about it, but it doesn't lay the ground work that is needed for later on -- namely the town's need for those jobs. What the movie needed was to move away from the structural of a procedural and focus more on the conflict between these two towns -- one affluent, one struggling.

As it is, the movie is okay, but it could have been something special. There's just too much that we have seen before, too much that isn't gripping. And as a detective story, the actual detective work is pretty boring. It needs more conflict within the small town -- the characters should each embody a philosophy that put them at odds with each other (one person is for the jobs, one person against an outside company coming into their town, one person wants to help the police find the people that murdered those boys, one person doesn't care about someone from that town getting killed, etc). This is important because you need to be able to explore the small town mindset in a clear way with as few people as possible and having the people each embody a different attitude will do that. Unfortunately, while interesting it never really reaches the dramatic heights that it could.

It's still a movie worth watching. It's a movie that tries to do much more than most crime stories and definitely has some interesting moments. It just also has stretches where you can safely go make a snack without missing anything. I wouldn't recommend it for theatrical, but if you are in the mood for something a little different, something that tries to do a little more, it's worth a rent.

*** RENTAL ***

ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) (a review) *** RENTAL ***

ATTACK THE BLOCK (2011) (a review)

A Brittish horror-comedy from the studio behind SHAUN OF THE DEAD, HOT FUZZ and SCOTT PILGRIM VS THE WORLD.

The story: after robbing a young nurse new to their neighborhood, a group of street thugs on the verge of becoming drug dealers realize their block is being attacked by space aliens and struggle to defeat the monsters and save their neighborhood.

Was it good?

Kind of.

Honestly there was a lot I liked. The space aliens as monsters were pretty cool (kind of like the Iz in THE MAXX). There was a lot of comedy and once they start having to deal with the aliens it was all really good. There was just one big problem -- the kids.

The basic arc is that these kids start out as street hoods and then become heroes, but for me nothing they did later made up for who they showed themselves to be early on. These weren't good kids in a bad gang or kids who needed money to pay some bills -- these were kids that were taking pleasure in terrifying other people. Especially with the nurse, not only robbing her but trying to frighten her and enjoying it. And the whole "redeem" arc just didn't work for me. I didn't believe they had changed, I didn't think they deserved to be forgiven, and honestly I was hoping the monsters would kill them all.

Another weird thing, when the nurse was attacked it was the cops who came to her aid and tried to help her. But later (as we're supposed to side with the kids) the cops are portrayed as bad guys and I just never felt that.

Now if the movie had just let the kids be real anti-heroes instead of trying to turn them into "good" kids/redeem them, then it might have been more interesting. The aliens attack but the kids fight them off not because they are really good kids, but because they are more vicious and sadistic than the aliens...that might have been interesting.

So this is a tough call for me. There's a lot to like and if I just cut off a bit from the beginning and the end, it would have been a great film and a strong recommend...but as it was once I could feel the filmmakers pushing me to be sympathetic to the kids, I just couldn't accept it. However, there's enough here that it might be worth a look for some...

*** RENTAL ***

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

RED STATE (2011) (a review)

This is the new movie by Kevin Smith (Clerks, Jay and Silent Bob, Dogma, Cop Out). Unlike many of his movies that fall in the View Askew universe this is more of an action/horror movie. The movie stars John Goodman, Kevin Pollack, Michael Parks, Melissa Leo, and Stephen Root.

The story: a couple kids drive out into the woods to meet a woman for quick sex, but are taken hostage by religious cult who plan to kill them. The cops arrive and leads to a stand off between the FBI and the fundamentalists.

Was it good?

Kind of. It was interesting, but I'm not sure I would call it good.

The first half is a pretty standard horror movie. There's some humor and some odd little moments, but it's played much more grounded than, say, a Friday the 13th. The kids are taken hostage and one of them is killed and the others struggle to survive. The religious people are a cult full of wackos and the kids are kind of a-holes, but they don't deserve to die.

Then, around midpoint is when the FBI arrive and that's when the movie gets odd. Up until them it's pretty clear we root for the kids and are against the religious/anti-gay/people killers. However, the FBI isn't actually good. And even more oddly, the kids that we have been following virtually disappear from the story. It becomes a stand off between two sides that no one would really root for.

Now this might work if the story was told in a realistic way and wanted to really explore both sides of a difficult situation, but that's not the case. Both sides are so exaggerated they become parodies at times. And the loss of any character or storyline where there is anything really to root for, it leave you (or me or whoever the audience is) feeling adrift. It's like the story was designed not just to end badly (which a lot of horror movies do...people tend to die at the end of them) but it's meant to end in a way that make you feel useless.

Still it was an interesting movie. For cinephiles and fans of indy movies maybe this will work too. It's just not a movie I could recommend for most. Still, there's enough good here that if you are looking for a rental it might be worth your time.

*** RENTAL ***

THE BEAVER (2011) (a reivew)

THE BEAVER (2011) (a review)

This reteams Mel Gibson and Jodie Foster (who were in Maverick together). Jodie Foster also directed.

The story: Walter (Mel Gibson) is a chronically depressed man who is disconnected from his family and finally sick of it his wife (Jodie Foster) throws him out. Walter then finds a puppet that he puts on and begins to talk to him. He cedes control of his life to the puppet and the puppet begins to turn his life around. During this time his son, who has deep resentment toward him, begins a relationship with a girl who is the class valedictorian who is paying him to write her graduation speech. Everything gets better until people want him to put the puppet aside at which case the puppet decides it isn't going anywhere.

Was it good?

Um...yeah. It was good, but not great. It feels like a movie that wants to be a twisted AMERICAN BEAUTY, with a depressed, miserable family that finds a way to reinvent itself and find happiness. However, where A-B starts miserable, but gets happier and has moments of real honesty and a simple, powerful message -- if you are depressed just find someone to screw and you will be happy -- this movie keeps turning dark and obsessive and is lacking both the romantic optimism of A-B and those painfully honest moments that made that movie really connect with people.

There's still alot to like here. Mel Gibson gives a great performance. And for the first half most of the movie works. However, it's actually with the best moment of the second half (where the puppet claims to be alive!) that also signals when the movie becomes dark and violent that loses all the uplifting momentum it had built. The ending does find a positive moment, but it's too little too late. So while I wouldn't recommend it for theatrical, as a rental -- if you don't mind a movie that gets a little darker than most -- it's worth a watch.

**** RENTAL ****

PLAYING HOUSE (2011) (a review)

PLAYING HOUSE (2011) (a review)

A thriller by writer/dictor Tom Vaughn. This appears to be his directoral debut.

The story: newlyweds struggling with their mortgage ask a friend to move in and pay rent. He begins a romance with a woman who then sets her sights on his married best friend and the house.

Was it good?

No. There are some good parts and some good elements but there are a lot of things that sabotage the movie, and unfortunately for the actors two of the biggies are the writing and the editing, two things totally out of their control.

First, the writing. What a mess. The idea is basic enough, but they never get beyond it giving the movie a very cardboard-n0t-making-sense feel to it. The big motivation seems to be that the femme fatale wants a house (not a condo) and when she finds a guy who owns a house she is willing to kill for it. Really? She's never met a man who owns a house before? Is that really that hard to do? I could understand if it was the middle of Manhatten, but they are off in the suburbs -- everyone owns a house!

Now it would be more understandable if she fell in love with that specific guy or if they made it clear that she wanted that house and no other houses...but they don't. Also, if she's so coco for a house then why did she start dating the houseless friend in the first place?

Now, to give some credit, for a lot of the movie they make things interesting. The first half is less about house-crazy than about the relationship stuff. The friend seems to have a thing for the wife, the girl has a thing for the husband, the couple is fighting about stuff...will they won't they...there is a lot of entertainment to it. The problem is that many of those elements aren't well set up and there is almost no follow through for any of it, except for the girl wanting the husband, so you spend a lot of time bringing up questions (is the friend making a play for the wife, for instance) that just go nowhere and you realize were wastes of time.

Better (to me at least) would have been to pick exactly what the woman wants. Does she want that specific house? Does she want that specific husband? Maybe they both (the friend and the girl) want to switch (and go for the wife and the husband)? Either of those could have been a compelling movie if the story were really well structured around that concept. Instead we get bits and pieces of all three which are brought up and dropped at various places.

Of course, there are obvious comparisons to HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE and, unfortunately, this movie isn't in the same league. The story structure for that is head and shoulders above this one and one of the problems this movie has is that it feels like a poor man's rip off of a better movie. Just compare -- this movie has a woman who wants a man with a house and begins to seduce and kill for get him. HTRTC is about a woman whose husband commits suicide after being accused of sexually molesting a patient and then the women sets out to destroy the woman who made the accusation, taking away all the things she has lost -- her husband, her home, her baby.

The other thing that hurt the film was the editing. It was really bad. Where it's most noticable is in the arguement scenes. Normally a good editor will pre-roll or post-roll dialog to help tighten a scene and keep the tension up by eliminating a lot of the unnecessary pauses. This editor didn't do it. Because of it some of the scenes that are supposed to have the most tension become almost comic with these extra beats. It's may not seem like a huge thing (we're talking a fraction of a second), but in how a scene plays it ends up having a huge effect.

Still, for all the problems it wasn't a horrible film. If you feel like watching a poor-man's version of HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE, you could do worse. The real shame is that if they had just structured the movie better and gotten a better editor the movie might have been actually good instead of just not bad.

*** RENTAL ***

HORRIBLE BOSSES (2011) (a review)

HORRIBLE BOSSES (2011) (a review)

A black comedy starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis, Kevin Spacey, Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell, Jamie Foxx.

The story: three guys hate their bosses and make an agreement to kill each other bosses. However, after doing some recon, one of the bosses kills one of the other bosses and now they the chief suspects in a police investigation and while trying to get the killer boss to admit to what he did they he now is after them to knock them off as well.

Was it good?

Not really. The problem is that the central idea -- these three guys wanting to commit murder -- just wasn't funny. The best parts are when the bosses are being abusive. The three main characters were annoying. So I wasn't rooting for the main guys and I wanting rooting for the bad guys and that means I was just kind of there.

That said it wasn't horrible. If you get into the concept or are a fan of any of the actors maybe you'd be able to get into it more than I did. The movie keeps moving and they work in plenty of jokes. I just wasn't into it. So for me I can't recommend paying theatrical money, but would tell people that are interested to check it out on video.

*** RENTAL ***

GREEN LANTERN (2011) (a review)

GREEN LANTERN (2011) (a review)

This is the big budget ($200M+) comic book adaptation. It's the first big superhero movie by DC that wasn't Superman or Batman. It starts Ryan Reynolds with Blake Lively as the girlfriend. Directed by Martin Campbell who directed Mask of Zorro and the sequel...which I never even knew existed before I just looked it up.

The story: Hal Jordan (Reynolds) is a test pilot who finds a crashed alien ship. Inside the ship, the alien gives him the Green Lantern ring which gives him the power to create anything he can imagine. However, he needs training so he goes off into space to learn about the Green Lantern Corps, a whole bunch of Green Lanterns from around the universe who fight evil, and to learn to not be afraid. Back on Earth, this other guy has been infected by a bad space alien and he has mutated into this weird dude and taken Jordan's girl hostage so he has to save him, but then an even bigger space alien appears and now Jordan has to fight this final alien that could destroy the world, and he has to do it without the help of the Green Lantern Corps who are worried that they will lose.

Was it good?

No.

It wasn't horrible-horrible, and I'm sure kids would like it, but as a movie that might also appeal to adults the way the Batman or Spider-Man or Iron Man or X-Men or even Thor did, it's really bad.

First, I didn't like Reynolds as the superhero. Reynolds, for me, is basically a smart ass. Which is fine for a comedy like THE PROPOSAL or his role in SCRUBS, but for this movie, where he occasionally has to give dramatic superhero lines at key moments...well, none of them worked for me.

Then there are a lot of things that didn't connect. Like Hal Jordan is a fearless fighter pilot. Then he gets the ring and suddenly he is afraid? How does that make sense? Or the whole idea of the Green Lanterns is to not give in to fear, but the reason why the Lanterns won't help Hal fight the big bad evil is because they are afraid of what will happen if they lose. Huh? Aren't they supposed to be the ones without fear?

I also didn't get the love story. I mean, they know each other and maybe used to be an item, but then aren't and why? Then he's a superhero so they are a couple again? Really? That's all there is to it?

The Marvel movies work when they take a person with an interesting problem (can't get the girl, manufacturing weapons, etc) and then find a way to externalize it into a superhero story. Here, I don't know what the story of Hal Jordan was supposed to be. It wasn't about not being afraid -- he wasn't afraid before! It's not about the girl. It's not about anything.

It's part of the reason why the movie, for all the action and special effects feels so hollow.

It's a shame. I was hoping to like this. I was hoping that DC had figured out how to make movies out of their characters so we could get a Flash movie and Wonder Woman and all the other cool DC characters. Instead, this looks like a huge step back for them.

Still, for kids it's good enough to see. For adults, if you are interested then you can wait until it's out in dvd.

**** RENTAL ****

UNKNOWN (2011) (a review)

UNKNOWN (2011) (a review)

This is the action/thriller starring Liam Neeson he made as a follow-up to his hit film TAKEN. Also stars Diane Kruger and January Jones.

The story: Dr Martin Harris arrives in Germany for a conference. He leaves his briefcase at the airport and has to go back for it, but his car gets into an accident and he goes into a coma for four days. When he awakens and tries to find his wife, she denies knowing him and is with another man who claims that HE is Dr Martin Harris. Now he has to unravel the mystery to get his life back even as mysterious men begin to follow him.

Was it good?

It was okay. Not bad, but completely forgettable. The movie is light a brainless version of THE NET (with Sandra Bullock) or FLIGHT PLAN (with Jodie Foster). Both of those movies packed a much stronger punch because they really hammered where it hurts -- the feeling of losing something precious to you. In THE NET it was her life and her identity. She was someone who did everything on computer/over the internet and so had very few physical contacts with people and then suddenly she is on the outside of her own life. In FLIGHT PLAN it was a woman who had lost her husband and now was missing her daughter and no one believes her. This movie hits some of the same chords, but they never seem to resonate as hard. When his wife says she doesn't recognize him, they shuttle him off and the two are seperated quickly. There just wasn't much emotion there.

The other problem the movie has is the antagonist. In NET and FLIGHT PLAN, the antagonists seemed much more active, much more aggressive. In THE NET, they steal her identity to make her come to them after she received a disk, so we know what they are after at least. In FLIGHT PLAN, they try very hard to convince her she is crazy, but then use her daughter as bait because they need something from her. In UNKNOWN, they don't need him and they don't want him. Even when they are coming after him it feels more like an after thought. So while there is some tension, it just isn't that strong because their pursuit of him seems more like an after thought instead of him being an important part of their plan.

Still, it has a lot of fun stuff. It's great seeing Neeson in stuff like this (which I liked a lot more than AFTERLIFE or CHLOE). So if you are up for brain dead actiony fun, this is okay (but forgetable).

*** RENTAL ***

HANNA (2011) (a review)

HANNA (2011) (a review)

Hey, look, it's a teen girl assassin movie! Maybe I'm just sensitive about the subject because I have an idea for one that I haven't gotten a chance to write yet, but with Hanna and Hit-Girl from the movie KICK ASS it seems to be the current trend. Directed by acclaimed director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement) with a script that landed on the Black List (a list of the best unproduced screenplays in America) not once but twice! Also stars Eric Bana and Cate Blanchet.

The story: Hanna is a teen girl who has been raised in complete isolation by her father who trains her to be a perfect fighter. However, she becomes bored of the isolation and wants to leave. To do that however will set the CIA operative who killed her mother and wants Hanna on her trail. Hanna does it anyway which sets a cat-and-mouse game to the powerful conclusion.

Was it good?

Kind of. I mean, it wasn't horrible and it had a lot of fun in it, but like with KICK ASS, it's one of those movies that you can't think about because none of it makes sense. At all. Really...at all.

And part of the diff with Hanna is that it seems to want to be about something, this idea of kids having to grow up and enter the world, but that metaphore (which I like) just doesn't work in the movie. Part of this is the central problem with the script -- things in a small scale might make sense, but then they don't. For instance, the female agent that wants to kill/capture them. Um, why? I get that she might want to finish the job when she killed the mom, but there really isn't anything behind it. If Hanna's desire to go into the world is a metaphore for kids wanting to grow up, then she is a metaphore for people that want to kill them? Or stop them from growing up...except that doesn't seem to be what she wants because she never mentions anything. She doesn't seem to want a relationship with the child or anything, it's just kill her.

Also, for a girl that wants to leave the weird life of isolation, the only other people she stumbles on are the strange kind of hippy people that she befriends for a short time. Again, it's not like she gets a shot at normal. So is it just that she wants adventure? Because that isn't the feel and the fact that *** SPOILER *** her father dies *** ----------- doesn't really make it seem worth it. In the end, she might have her freedom (unless the agency sends someone else after her now that she has killed a dozen operatives), but she is lost in a world totally strange to her, with no family, no friends...how the hell is that a good thing? What has she really won?

It reminded me of the end of FROM DUSK TIL DAWN when Clooney leaves the girl stranded there by the bar and she just has nothing. Um...yay?

That said, there is a lot of fun stuff in the movie, and as a mindless action movie it does a good job. But this is a movie that screams that it wants to be something more, and the something more just doesn't work.

Still, there's enough good stuff that if you are in the mood with an action movie with a European sensibilty (i.e. slower pacing, weird characters, some plotless mood segments) then it's a good one to check out.

**** RENTAL ****

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) (a review)

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU (2011) (a review)

Movie loosely based on a short story by Philip K Dick, which pits a man against his destiny. Stars Matt Damon and Emily Blunt.

The story: David (Damon) fails to win a seat in congress. While practicing his concession speech he meets a beautiful girl Elise, (Emily Blunt) and is instantly attracted to her. Three years later he is preparing another run for Congress, this one sure to win when he runs into her again. The problem is now she might ruin his chance for Congress and later the Presidency because with her in his life he wn't feel that desperate need that is driving him toward public office. Now fate (or God or angels or whatever) has decided that they want his to be president so they attempt to break the couple up and David and Elise will have to go on the run to try to escape their fates to be together.

Was it good?

Almost. Parts of it were good, but it has a few problems.

First, the whole fate thing is pretty far-fetched. I mean, it's just really hard to by into, and then they have all these guys wearing hats like if fate were such an important thing then they would really let it be decided by whether or not someone is wearing a hat! So the concept itself is pretty weak.

Also, the whole driving force is that fate wants Damon to be president, but there is never any sense of why he needs to be president. So there isn't really a strong struggle here -- he could be with the woman he loves and be happy, or be president which would fulfill someone else's desire which is supposed to be important for some reason.

Now for all the hokeiness to it there are some things that work. The whole idea of fighting fate, of feeling like you are supposed to do something and struggling against it for your own happiness...well, it has a certain Romeo and Juliet quality that works.

And they did a decent job with the romance. It was easy to get a feel for why these two people, who really only spend a couple days together spread out over several years, would fight to be together. However, ultimately the problem is that the story wanders. If they had avoided the beat at the end of the second act when David breaks up with Elise so she can achieve her dream (without even talking to her about it!) and kept it about fate trying to seperate them, it would have worked better. The problem is that there's a difference in a story that is about two people who want to be together but fate is keeping them apart and a story about a man struggling with two choice on where his life should go, and this movie seems to confuse the two.

Still, even for all the hokeiness and story problems, if you are specificlly looking for an actiony-romance this will probably fill your need. And because I can be a sucker too...

*** RENTAL ***

Frankenstein Syndrome (2010) (a review)

Frankenstein Syndrome (2010) (a review)

A low budget horror movie starring Tiffany Shepis (as all low budget horror movies seem to do). It's an interesting modern take on the classic Frankenstein story, although an alternative name is The Prometheus Project because the Prometheus myth is there as well.

The story: an illegal genetics lab develops a regeneration formula that can bring back people from the dead, but the guy they bring back starts to show supernatural power and wreak havok on the lab.

Was it good?

Yeah, it was a neat little film. Now, this is low budget stuff and they never really overcome their low budget -- the script has problems, the acting is uneven, the directing and camerawork...none of it is top class. The best low budget movies seem to understand their limitations and either find a way to make it part of the film (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY) or find a way to overcome it (MONSTERS). This movie doesn't. What it does have, for the first half, is a nice take on the Frankenstein story that doesn't rely on blood and killing. It focuses on the test subject (well, the one that lives) and how the doctors deal with him. It has some nice writing elements -- for instance one nice reversal was having the doctor most against the project be the one that bonds with the subject. It's a simple thing, but having one or two little reversals is something that helps give the story more dimension and seperates the amateurs from the pros.

Unfortunately, the second half, when all the over-the-top powers come in and all the violence starts, feels pretty ordinary. And while there are some nice elements and reversals to the first half, the second half feels like it's playing out pretty by the numbers. The problem is there is no real depth, no emotion, to the story at all (as opposed to RE-ANIMATOR which had a love triangle played out in a horrible way). Essentially, there is no inner story for any of the characters, so the second half is just plot and much less engaging.

Still, for a low budget horror movie it kept me entertained and for much of it kept me off-kilter so I didn't know exactly what they were going to do. For the first half, I'd recommend it. It's just too bad they didn't find a stronger second half with some character depth instead of gore.

*** RENTAL ****

DOA - DEAD OR ALIVE (2006) (a review)

DOA - DEAD OR ALIVE (2006) (a review)

This is a silly martial arts movie with beautiful woman as the ultimate fighters. Loosely based on a team ninja game of the same name. It stars Holly Valance, Jaime Pressly, Devon Aoki, Sarah Carter and Natassia Malthe. Directed by Corey Yuen. Produced by Paul W.S. Anderson.

The story: a bunch of beautiful woman who are expert marial artists are invite to a mysterious island for a DOA match -- matches to the death.

Was it good?

Kind of. Honestly, I watched it a while ago and barely remember anything specific about it. I assume there was a plot (I remember some element of mystery or intrigue), but really it's a bunch of really hot women doing crazy fun martial arts. If you go in expecting anything special or deep you mght be disappointed, but if you are just looking for some crazy fun with action and eye candy then this is a solid choice. (It's mainly PG eye candy -- if you want more, you need to go to Skinemax.)

*** RENTAL ***