We've moved!

You're favorite film review blog has outgrown its breeches and moved on up to its own site. So please bookmark www.theautomaton.com as the new movie tirades.

In Theaters: "Fast and Furious" good for fans

Prequel to Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift, in theaters now is Fast and Furious, the fourth film in the series. With Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and a few other original cast members, this latest installment certainly gets immediate points for not going cheap.

The most important question to ask is: How did this one stack up against the others, since it should be assumed that - if you didn't like the first three - you're likely not going to like this one.

The answer is that it compares very well as an action movie, though it is a little darker than the first three both literally and figuratively and so ends up showing off a little less: fewer custom cars and outrageous mods. It fits with the plot, however, which requires "sleeper" cars without much flare.

The acting and circumstances are about as believable as elsewhere in the series, meaning that over-analyzing plot devices is mutually exclusive to enjoying the film. While several of the actors in it have proven their merit elsewhere, Furious is all about well-crafted action, fast cars, and danger around ever corner. In that, it excels, if only in that.

So if you liked the previous films, you'll enjoy Fast and Furious. If you've never seen any of them, this one's not a bad place to start, as you really won't get lost by seeing it first.

It's tough to say whether this is one of those films you really need to see on the big screen. I could see it looking just as good on a nice home theater, since most of the visuals are fairly obvious. Either way, it's good fun and carries on the Fast and Furious torch quite well.

DVD: "The Burrowers" digs another hole

What is it about the old west that so hard to make scary? I mean, it's kinda creepy in its own right really, so what's the problem? You've got rampant and very visual sicknesses like small pox, open forests full of wild creatures, low lighting, "wild" Natives who chant and portray borderline magical practices amid superstitious settlers. If you can't find horror potential in that, you might want to give up writing and try underwater basket weaving.

And yet new-to-DVD flick The Burrowers proves that this is a horror formula that just isn't working for dammit all in Hollywood.

The concept is intriguing enough: a settler family goes missing, and despite Natives being blamed, it's some older, darker beings who travel underground that are snatching people and burying them alive. The acting is quite good, despite a few botched accents here and there. The camera work and music are decent as well, and yet I'm not so much scared as I am bored.

I can't necessarily tell you what it takes to make a good western/horror, but films such as The Cellar, The Missing, and now The Burrowers can surely show you how not to make it work. Maybe it's having "the" before the title that flags it for failure, since the movie that blended the genres best is titled Ghost Town from back in 1988.

So while Burrowers isn't a good western/horror, it's not a bad film. If you have nothing better to do some lazy afternoon, it has enough entertainment value to make it worth a cheap rental - just don't get your hopes up for being scared or finding the storyline even a little disturbing.

In a comic book, I could see the plot working, but apparently such stories just don't translate well to the big screen.

DVD: "Twilight" book or movie?

There was some mild hesitation in either reading or watching new-to-DVD Twilight. I mean, if you couldn't tell by my writing, I'm neither female nor a tween. I compromised by listening to the audio book before watching the film, and I'd already had a taste of Meyer's writing style from her new book The Host.

Instead of offering a conventional review, however, I'll tackle this one from the angle of how the movie stacked up to the book, which is much fairer. After all, it's not as if someone who refused to read the book would suddenly find the movie fascinating, and yet people who've read the book are likely curious about the film if they haven't watched it already.

What is - in my mind - one of the most important factors for a novel-turned-movie is pace: does the film progress as the same rate as the book? In Twilight, I would have to say Yes. Sure, the very lengthy introduction of characters from the book certainly plays on much longer than in the movie, but it builds similarly. That and no one save for the aforementioned tweens would want to see the first three hours of a movie being little more than a roll call of the main players as it is in the book.

Next, and equally important, is how the characters are portrayed. You wouldn't want to see a favorite character of yours from the novel suddenly acting out-of-character: a reserved hero being cocky or a sexy temptress acting coy and insecure. In this way, the film had several characters spot on, to include the big ones: Bella, Edward, and a very well played Charlie Swan (Bella's father). There were a few off-kilter, such as oddly-nervous Jasper, who - in the book - is graced with extreme charisma and grace.

Finally, how well does it follow the story line. Again, seeing a scene take place that is nowhere in the book or - worse - is a deal-breaker for sequels (such as when Eragon easily dispatches the Ra'zac in the film interpretation of the book, despite the Ra'zac's key role in the book sequels).

In this capacity, Twilight the film does quite a good job, seeing as how certain scenes such as the final battle are off-screen in the book - a real no-no in film, of course. In other words, I thought that the additions in the film added pieces that Meyer seemed to glaze over in either a display of reserved writing or an attempt to keep what is largely a romance novel away from too much action.

So despite some more tepid reviews, and the inevitable laments of tweens who thought the two hour film should have been five hours, I would have to say that the movie does an excellent job of representing the book. That said, if you like the book, you will likely enjoy the film and vice versa.

A cool IMDb score of 6.1 is likely due more to that fact that tweens don't vote on the site and largely male, 18-35 years old do. And who among that demographic would admit to liking it? Um...besides me, I guess.

Day of the 'Dog: "Population 436"

There is a kind of sad joy in watching bad horror flicks, which - if I had to guess - comes from a desire to mollify the horror by being able to chuckle at the campy effects or guffaw at the poor acting. This is what I expected when I happened upon today's 'dog Population 436.

To my delight, however, it stands out from the typical horror fare right away, with an opening scene full of foreshadowing amid a perfectly timed sequence of events. I have to admit, I've grown partial to Jeremy Sisto after seeing him in horror flick Wrong Turn and Six Feet Under.

Why it deserves 'dog status. Well, it's not a truly terrifying concept nor amazing acting that sets Population apart. It's really the creative movement of the camera to give Sisto's character a constant and tacit feeling of isolation and distance, as well as subtle visual clues and spot-on timing that make this movie unique and worth your time.

Picture The Wicker Man except not sucky. Particularly if you're into mysterious settings with a collective, hidden agenda, his film will have you steeped in the paranoia and asking yourself what you would do in the same situation.

IMDb's 5.9 rating is a little low, in my opinion, but the fact that only 3,600 people have voted speaks to how little play Population has really gotten. So forget seeing the latest horror fiasco at the theaters (they all look good in the previews) and give Population 436 a try.

In Theaters: "Adventureland" a quality flick

I think I would have seen new-in-theaters Adventureland regardless of what others thought of it, since I am a huge fan of Superbad. But admittedly, it didn't hurt when I heard from my favorite movie blogs that it's pretty exceptional.

So despite the student tickets creeping up to $8, my wife and I checked it out last night. Unlike most comedies, this is one that I actually would suggest watching in the theater because of the excellent use of filters and light to convey tacitly everything from era to time of day with great care.

While there aren't many belly-roll laughs in Adventureland, it's carried along smoothly by a pretty amazing cast - each of which is completely believable in their roles. This speaks to solid direction as well as acting, of course.

The theme - a post-bac and still inexperienced young man finds that the only job he qualifies for is working at a lower-echelon amusement park - is far more realistic than the typical drivel, where college inevitably leads to everyone getting his dream job (after graduating from his dream college, of course).

The pace can be a little slow, but you get the feeling that it's very much meant to move at that pace, not that it isn't tightly edited or forcing too many of those Brown Bunny moments of silent contemplation.

Since the genre is certainly not new, Adventureland has been compared to many films: Dazed and Confused, Say Anything. But the angle is really unique enough that you won't likely find yourself making comparisons, but just enjoying what was a well-crafted, well-acted film that has something for any adult aged viewer.

New to DVD: "Paul Blart: Mall Cop"

Right when Happy Madison Productions comes on the screen for new-to-DVD Paul Blart: Mall Cop, I know I'm not watching an Oscar-winning film. But I also figure that there's a good chance that the movie is going to garner a few good laughs, and probably have some replay value.

I mean, no one really knew what the heck to think about Billy Madison when it came out, but then you just kept watching it over and over until it spawned a litany of one-liners and character clones.

While I'll not give Blart Madison status, there are some characteristics that put it outside the typical feel-good slapstick.

First of all, it doesn't have that much slapstick. If it's nothing but Kevin James slipping on stuff or banging his head for 90-minutes, I would have lost interest quick. Fortunately, James is given some room and plays a mall cop perfectly - the comedy being the sort of sad irony that makes "The Office" so great rather than the paper-thin characters of most Rob Schneider Happy Madison flicks.

That said, almost everything that occurs is completely predictable, and it just fills out the 90-minutes before getting tired. Another ten minutes would have really hurt it, so good editing deserves some credit. While I think IMDb's rating of 5.5 isn't far off the mark, it's a solid 5.5 and not a mediocre score because something that should have been awesome was ruined. Instead, this is a so-so flick making you laugh a little and feel good. Nothing wrong with that.

The free-running is pretty sweat too.