Throwback Thursday: "Tourist Trap"

Tourist Trap is not a film that I haven't seen and decided to watch for the first time, as most of my Throwbacks are, but rather one that has been tormenting me since I first saw it during a shut-in at the YMCA in little Greeneville, Tennessee.

Granted, it didn't take too much to scare me back then, but having seen the movie once more a few days ago, I can honestly say that it is a genuinely scary and innovative film that I am surprised doesn't have a more significant following.

Today's horror movies avail themselves of a few modern elements that I think actually hurt the genre, if indeed the purpose of a horror flick is to scare the viewer.

1. Jump scares. These occur when the creepy hand comes out from under the bed and grabs the all-too-inquisitive protagonist, often accompanied by a harsh violin noise. This is nothing new, but the ability to make it loud and solicit more "jumps" is, due to THX sound and home theaters. Hence, however, you have film after film of no real substance, but just one jump scare set up after another. There's just no meat there.

2. CGI. Two words: Van Helsing. There isn't a damn thing about that movie that is remotely scary or disturbing, and CGI is the sole culprit in this. A cartoon wolf - no matter how large, muscular, or agile - is still a cartoon wolf.

3. More CGI. This time, I'm talking about CGI gore. Humans are not easily fooled when it comes to what we see, particularly in regards to other humans. So when someone gets cut and a bunch of CGI blood flies out, there's a very subconscious part of our brain that cries "BS!" Thus, anything that would have been disturbing is now cartoonish and maybe even funny.

Trap has none of the following modern techniques, and it - like so many others - is all the better for it. The fear comes not from hands that shoot out of nowhere or wayward cats leaping from the closet, but from tense, prolonged scenes of horror as the mannequins are brought to life - they laugh, fool, and otherwise torment the teens about to meet their doom. Cacophonous music echoes and builds to a crescendo that ends with the inevitable demise of the victims, with cuts to the various mannequins building the fear factor and making it stick in the head.

In contrast to cartoon wolves of no consequence to the viewer, something as blatantly illogical as a moving mannequin adds a disturbing undertone to the film, so you're not asked to fear some hillbilly hanging on to the dregs of a dying tourist attraction, but rather his animated minions and his masked alter-ego (again, a time when something unnaturally fake is disturbing, not laughable).

Just ask yourself: what was the scariest thing about Poltergeist? The clown, right? Trap taps into that same base revulsion of the doll brought to life.

So pass up gag-worthy modern horrors when you're in the mood for a good scare and give Tourist Trap a try. It represents the type of horror flick now high on the endangered list - the kind which stays with you after it's over.

DVD: "Quarantine" infectious

If you've read some of my other reviews, you'll know I'm a zombie fan, so just take that slight bias into consideration when reading my opinion about new-to-DVD Quarantine. Of course, I might be more critical of zombie flicks, however, since I know when to raise the flag on the parts that violate zombie lore for ill.

And Quarantine does violate some zombie lore...but for good, in my opinion, not for ill. Sometimes it's cringe-worthy to watch a zombie movie where the heroes move as slowly as the zombies. But they films must keep having someone getting bit or else how does it spread? This often tends toward unrealistically clumsy, slow, or careless heroes, who are kicking zombie tail one minute, and then letting a crawling zombie bite their ankle the next.

In Quarantine, the action is contained, as is the infection. You know this at the film's beginning, and it does nothing to take away from it, but rather connects you to the characters without worrying about if and when the infection spreads, the worldwide social effects, and other facets of zombie lore often either glazed over or handled poorly (it is hard to glean a billion extras willing to amble along in heavy makeup, I'm sure).

Before you run off and snag the DVD - zombie fan or not - there are a couple of things to consider:

1. The camera work is choppy, moves a lot, and may cause dizziness is some. This is nothing new. Think Cops. Think Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project. If the camera work in those films doesn't bother you, then you'll be fine. If you like that style (as I do) then you'll find that Quarantine adds to this sub-genre rather well, with innovative scenes in total darkness, real in-your-face moments, etc.

The cameraman really is present for the whole thing, and he's given life and feelings and emotions. For some, this type of film brings out the raw talent of actors where for others, it's just a lot of whining and shaky cameras.

2. Just because I said it goes against zombie lore for good doesn't mean there aren't some "come on!" moments. The incubation time seems to vary completely, as does zombie speed and strength.

Many zombie flicks now fall just as much into the action genre as they do horror, but Quarantine is horror first, and it's very refreshing to see. While I like movies such as Resident Evil and Doomsday, these are action flicks who happen to have zombies, not horror. Quarantine brings the scary, disturbing element back to the zombie genre in a unique, palpable way that I think Romero's Diary of the Dead tries but falls short of achieving.

Again, this is not for the kiddies, nor the squeamish, but I think that a mature teen who loves the genre could appreciate it without being exposed to excessive gore or sexual situations.

Day of the 'Dog: "Evan Almighty"

After Bruce Almighty, I wasn't expecting too much out of today's dog - the sorta-sequel of director Tom Shadyac, Evan Almighty. But Evan is a pleasant surprise from start to finish.

While rubber-faced Jim Carrey is the total center of attention in Bruce, Evan has a score of notable actors all bringing their own brand of comedy into the mix: Steve Carell, Jonah Hill, and even Wanda Sykes (who I usually find rather annoying, but who's quite funny as Evan's no-holds-barred secretary).

Why it deserves dog status: Evan received a 5.6 star rating compared to Bruce's 6.5, and sports only half of the reviews (granted, Bruce is older). This is likely due to either people who automatically declare that they don't like Carell, or because they still had a bland taste in their mouths after Bruce.

Yet Evan has far more depth than Bruce, bringing up more religious and philosophical ideas rather than the blaming God mantra of Bruce. And speaking of God, Morgan Freeman's character in Evan is much more three dimensional, coming across less as a pedantic deity trying to get his point across and more as a warm and caring God.

Let's not forget the fact that the film is both hilarious and filled with clever symbolism without having one of those close-up "here's the morale of the story" moments that I can't stomach. The chemistry between both Carell and his family as well as his "crew" at the office proves entirely believable, and keeps the story moving along without any "good time to hit the bathroom" moments, either.

If you've not seen Evan because you - like me - think Bruce is pretty mediocre, give it a fair shake and I think you'll be far more entertained and feel much better about Evan, despite the reviews.

DVD: RocknRolla lacks rock

While I am a huge fan of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, Guy Ritchie's new-to-DVD and latest release RocknRolla falls short of my expectations.

The very cover of the DVD and the opening sequence of the film feature a promise of sex, violence and gun-play, with an image of a dual-wielding gunslinger looking like he belongs with the Tremor brothers from Smokin' Aces. Alas, this is just the drugged out, scrawny rocker who weighs a buck twenty and is about as intimidating as Seamus O'Grady from Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle.

While an action film needn't be violent for me to like it, when there's that expectation, and when there's not even a shot fired until more than an hour of the movie has passed, my expectations aren't being met.

Sure, there were some decent action sequences, often as flashbacks, but ultimately much of what is being built up - the clash between the Russians and the Brits, the accountant getting her comeuppance - all took place off-screen. While that's typical Ritchie, since Snatch is done in much the same fashion, in Rolla, it feels like it's just to move things alone or wrap up loose ends, not to better the film.

And lovable dad-type Tom Wilkinson, while a fine actor, doesn't hold a candle to the fearsome mob boss Brick Top from Snatch, just as - despite being a very likable character - Gerard Butler is no Turkish.

Perhaps it's not so much the lack of action that turned me off, but the combination of acting that feels a little rushed, like there weren't enough takes, too little direction, or simply hurried along. This comes through in several places that probably could have used one more pass on the editor's chopping block.

The music is excellent, as are many of the visuals, but Rolla otherwise disappoints and certainly doesn't live up to the very generous IMDb score of 7.4. Had I seen this in the theater based on that rating, I would have left quite unhappy.

DVD: "Blindness" - I just can't see it

I'm still shaking a little after watching an hour and fifteen minutes of new-to-DVD Blindness. The movie isn't that short: I couldn't finish it, as I was so furious and emotional that it was either turn it off or scream.

The first 45 minutes are intriguing: a plague of mysterious blindness sweeps an ambiguous Western city and a quarantine is enacted. Amid the blind, a seemingly immune and seeing Julian Moore hops into the quarantine bus with her afflicted husband and becomes the ace-in-the-hole for the otherwise ignored and detestable quarantine facility.

After the wards fill to capacity, a rogue blind man takes over by threatening brute force and ignoring civility, much as someone would in such a situation. But he's blind. Umm...not like Moore. He steals the food, extorts everything of value from the other wards, and what does Moore's character do? Nothing. He lets the "rebelling" wards go hungry, and what does she do? Nothing.

When this self-proclaimed king - a scrawny guy who is just as blind as all others, save for Moore - demands that women be brought to him and his cronies in exchange for food, Moore finally does something...she leads the women of her ward to get raped - herself among them. I did forget to mention that he had a six-shooter. Yeah, the b-l-i-n-d guy.

This is where I stopped watching. I don't care if - two minutes later - she kills the guy and his cohorts. I don't care if she pulls off some master plan to lead him into a hail of gunfire waiting outside the quarantine. The fact is, that the failure of Moore's character as a human being is so morally repugnant to me, that I simply could not endure it long enough to finish the film.

It was Edmund Burke who said: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." I guess that applies to women as well.

I know what the film is trying to say, and I realize that film often builds in a crescendo so that the climax is that much more of a release from the tension. But if Moore is supposed to come across as meek and cowardly - as she would have to be to fail so badly in protecting those people - then this needed to be established earlier, say, by making her a staunch pacifist, agoraphobic, a friggin' Quaker - anything to justify such blatant disregard for life.

I welcome other insights. Opinions from someone who perhaps had the ability to finish the film and feels differently. All I know is that I could be deaf, dumb, and blind and still put up more of a fight than the fearful and sheepish masses of Blindness, let alone of seeing, capable, and yet totally impotent Moore.

Check out the Podcast of this review.

Theatrical Review: "Coraline" 3D

I should come out and admit something right away: I don't like The Nightmare Before Christmas. And watching Spirited Away is akin to taking the GRE for me - my brain working so hard to reconcile oddities that I grow mentally exhausted. While I have a writer's imagination (for good or ill) there's something about a nonsensical universe where a dog becomes a flower becomes a friggin' balloon that's just a little too odd for me.

So, just know that I'm seeing Coraline - a film very much in Nightmare's tradition - through a filter of precarious tastes for the genre before you get into it.

I went to Coraline for two reasons:

1. I love Neil Gaiman's writing - American Gods is an amazing novel, and I'm working on The Graveyard Book now.

2. It is in 3D, and I haven't seen a 3D film since Jason Voorhees popped some guys eyes out in Friday the 13th: Part 3.

In this way - as a 3D film both well-written and well acted - Coraline is certainly worth a watch. The dimensions are very well used and not overdone. There are very few really "in your face" moments: most of the 3D is to add perspective and depth, complimenting the story and the visual affect of many scenes.

Again, this may be my rational side talking, but since Coraline really isn't a "kids movie" maybe some fantastic elements (like the creepy upstairs neighbor with more anatomical anomalies than a Bratz doll) should have been normalized and the fantasy left to the "other" realm.

When the illustration builds a reality we're used to - one of computers and bookshelves and leaky windows - something that smacks of Pixar, not Nightmare - then the introduction of something completely unreal (dancing mice for instance) just confuses.

Back to the 3D element: it seems that the movie was $3 extra, but that's for the film itself, not the glasses. The glasses are supposed to be recycled for later use. So - alas - having your own pair won't bring down 3D ticket prices anytime soon. I didn't recycle mine, but tucked them away ready to plead ignorance if stopped on the way out.

I'm perfectly fine with them claiming that the additional $3 doesn't pay for the 50-cent glasses, just so they are okay with me taking them if I want. I actually have Journey to the Center of the Earth 3D at home and wanted to see if the glasses worked. They didn't. I'll still keep them, of course, in case they work with, say, movies that I could rent which use the same 3D technology.

In the end, I think Coraline is a good film choice for 3D and the technology is worth the extra $3, even if Coraline isn't really my kind of movie; my ambivalence is a product of disliking the genre, not an indictment of Coraline as a film within that type.

I invite anyone who really does enjoy this sort of film to offer some commentary on how Coraline stacks up. Use the comment feature or just email me and I'll be happy to post it.

Day of the 'Dog: Be Kind, Rewind

When I first received Be Kind, Rewind from Netflix, I watched maybe 15 minutes and then left it for later; it didn't suck me in, to say the least. Then, since things that are new to us always seem to come in groups, my guitar teacher mentioned it, and how much he enjoyed it. He admitted it was different, but well worth it.

So, I started it over, and watched it the whole way through - by the end, very glad that I did.

Rewind is not a movie where Jack Black is in full effect, nor is it one in which Mos Def is portraying his typical, off-handidly funny role. So don't go into it thinking you'll be falling off of your chair with laughter in the first ten minutes: watch it for the long game.

In this, Rewind is rich with a cultural literacy of film that will have you smiling and nodding your head. The story is, a video store down on its luck in a poor neighborhood reinvents itself by re-shooting popular films locally when all of the VHS tapes become magnetized. The members of the neighborhood pull together to support the store not only by paying the exorbitant prices for the custom films, but also by participating in them.

Why it deserves 'dog status: Check out the respectable IMDb score of 6.7 and more than 30,000 votes, and you might deduce that Rewind got its comeuppance. While I applaud the sheer number of votes (though I'd have scored it a little higher), it still strikes me as vastly under-exposed. Me and my guitar teacher are the only people I know who've seen it, so while 30,000 viewers out there thought it worthy of a review, it's still way off the radar.

Too, Rewind exposes the ridiculous nature of the MPAA copyright infringement lawsuits - a brave and novel approach to a subject often glazed over or ignored by screen actors as well as writers and treated with either willful ambivalence or ignorant finger-wagging by the public at large (thanks largely to the MPAA's moralized anti-piracy propaganda).

While there are some great laughs, Rewind feels more like a documentary of a formerly indolent and decaying piece of America revitalized by innovation and a redefining of neighborly relationships and a patched sense of community.

For this reason, and the earnestness with which some silly ideas are put forth, Rewind is a rare treat of a movie.

Resident Evil: Degeneration a zombie treat

First released in Japan, the latest installment of the video game-born Resident Evil saga continues with new-to-DVD Resident Evil: Degeneration, a CGI flick akin to Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.

If you don't know the plot by now - which is largely the same in each installment, let me get you up to speed: think Microsoft, but with bio-weapons. Umbrella Corporation created a virus that animates the dead and makes them want nothing more than to feast on the flesh of the living. Incubation time: about two minutes. Weakness: the good 'ole one shot in the head.

Now that we're on the same page, what does Degeneration bring to the table? Well, there's not much new in the way of the zombies themselves, nor inventive ways in which they're killed, but what Degeneration does have is a very crafty, beautiful way of laying out the carnage. The CGI is a little stiff in some characters (no pun intended); the women appear to have Botox lips and the little girl looks like another curious case of Benjamin Button.

But everything else - the lighting, the effects, and the action - are masterfully done. As you might imagine, there are things that CGI can portray so far as scenes and action sequences that regular film - even with today's technology - is hard-pressed to imitate. But with excellent physics, immersing effects like blood and water flecking the camera, and focus shots, the animation still suspends your disbelief.

The pinnacle creature is a little cheesy, but the battle scenes - with the protagonist executing some sweet-looking free-running and staple slo-mo dives - makes up for the more fantastical elements.

So if you liked the previous Resident Evil movies, or enjoy the games, Degeneration will certainly please, and add to Rez Evil lore. If you're just a zombie fan, you'll also find enough ghoul-killing fun to keep your blood up. But just because it's a cartoon, don't think this is okay for the kiddies, and a date movie it ain't.

Throwback Thursday: "The Burning"

Let's go ahead and tackle the obvious here: The Burning is pretty much Friday the 13th. If you're okay with that concept, you might just find something you like in this campy '80s slasher flick.

The setting is a summer camp full of various-aged kids: maybe 8 to 18. It's a given that there's got to be some gratuitous teen sex, so the storyline surrounds the upper-aged teens most of all, plus it's the teens who are responsible for setting the murdering rampage of the antagonist in motion.

Like in many films before and since, such as U-Turn and Sunshine, being horribly disfigured mysteriously acts as a permanent boost to the bad guy's speed, strength, and stamina. He stalks with the catlike prowess of a panther, though the viewer is alerted to his presence by a cacophonous blare as if the music composer fell asleep lying on a church pipe organ.

The actual deaths are pretty clever, with excellent gore and splatter effects. The madman groundskeeper doesn't quite have the arsenal of Jason, but he gets pretty crafty considering his weapon of choice is an impossibly sharp set of garden sheers.

The cast has some pretty big names, such as Jason Anderson and that nerdy kid from Fast Times at Ridgemont High (who plays a nerdy kid in Burning, as well).

While the plot has the depth of a kiddie pool, the film tries to communicate the horror of what caused the massacre through flashbacks and build-up scenes that are quite well done, though again smacking of the early Friday films.

So if you enjoyed the Friday films and don't mind a little gratuitous gore with your butchered teenagers, check out The Burning. With decent acting, good effects, and a well-portrayed (if cloned) plot line, it's sure to please slasher-film fans who missed this one from the camping horror lineup.

Power teens, activate!

Who knows why this bothers me so much, but tell me I'm not the only one who thinks teen television and movies in which the teens are more cultured than a Harvard professor are as annoying and fabricated as I think they are.

I was a fan of Juno when it came out, though that was because I could ignore the big elephant in the room: that Juno represented an American teenager about as much as Family Guy's Stewie represents you average drooling infant.

After seeing this freakishly cultured, educated, and loquacious teen theme on shows such as Gossip Girl - where none of the actors is every without a witty retort, and speaks at length sans a single stutter, misplaced modifier, or even the slightest hint of insecurity - I now have an eye for it whether I like it or not.

Read my review of Nick and Norah to see how these new BS-detector goggles ruined any enjoyment I could squeeze out of that hyper-cultured teen fantasy. Christ, why didn't they all just have inductions into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame, be knighted, and have honorary degrees from Oxford for crying out loud?

How about Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, where magically you have the gamut of all things creative coming to full fruition: the writer gets published, the filmmaker gets into NYU and directs her own movies, the actor who's not even an actor makes Kenneth Branagh look clumsy, and the artist gets into any art school she pleases and gets to travel with her art at will.

When the hell did the liberal arts become so easy?

At my alma mater, the liberal arts buildings were code red, meaning that - at any moment - they might collapse and bury our sorry, artistic asses under a few hundred tons of rubble. We were lucky if someone used what we'd written as a tissue to blow their nose into. Yet modern teen film and shows would have you believe that writing, art, and movies are as easy to get into and master as flipping burgers.

If I'd have known getting published in The New Yorker was as easy as sending some stream-of-consciousness drivel off on a whim, I would have sent them stories years ago.

And then - with these new goggles of disgust at this utterly unrealistic trope - I switched on HBO while at my hotel to find Juno right in the middle of it.

"Juno," I said to myself. "You like Juno. Just sit and enjoy it."

And then Juno rattles of her favorite bands - none of which you're supposed to have heard of, directors and movies you're just not smart enough to know, and other prattle that would never, ever spew from a teenager's mouth. I switched it off, now secure in the unintentional, ineffable knowledge that I can no longer stomach Juno or its ilk.

Is this all my fault? Has this always been there, and I've been to willfully blind to see it? Or do movies and shows that portray teens as intellectual, social, and cultural powerhouses do us all a disservice?

I'm shooting for the latter.

Nine Hollywood Tropes Moviegoers Loathe: Part Seven

Disney Endings (modern day's Deus Ex Machina)

Who doesn’t like seeing the hero prevail after enduring 90 minutes of hardship? Of course we want Indiana Jones to get the girl and the treasure, or for Brewster to get the whole $300 million.

But that’s not what I’m talking about. I mean the kind of denouement that is nothing but a cheery end to a film that’s winding down and has to end sometime, so the directors just shoot the good guy winning and go have coffee.

Take Changing Lanes for example. It isn’t worth watching twice, but while watching it, I'm really growing concerned about where this feud between Ben Affleck and Samuel L. Jackson is going to end. Could it end up getting physical? Would one of them have to die?

Not to ruin a completely mediocre film, but what’s the magic cure for a brutal and ugly clash between these characters? A friggin' chit-chat! Affleck goes over to see Jackson’s wife - throwing out one of those cheesy side-grins of his - and he explains what’s happened.

Wow. How bloody exciting. A bit like the climax of 300 but…not.

How about the ladies’ favorite flick Pretty Woman? I can understand Gere’s character needing to go slumming: we’ve all been there. I can understand him defending her from the likes of George Costanza’s hairy mitts. I might even understand him learning to loosen up a little while this street-rat introduces him to more proletarian habits such as burping or the Arsenio Hall “whoo, whoo, whoo” thing.

But giving up the inevitable top-shelf ladies that a billionaire could pull for a prostitute? Umm…nahh. I'm not saying Hollywood needs to echo real life, or there'd be no Die Hard, but we at least need to feel like the ending wasn't just some slapdash scene hurried through because the studio was out of money.

Day of the 'Dog: "Fierce Creatures"

Today's underdog came along nearly a decade after the only comedy to be nominated for best picture: A Fish Called Wanda. Obviously, Wanda got lots of attention as did the actors starring in it. When the cast of Wanda got together again for Fierce Creatures, though, the film was scarcely a blip on the radar of most moviegoers.

I didn't see it in the theaters, either, but waited until it was out for rent and subsequently found myself laughing hard enough to stop the tape for fear of missing something else.

Some film fans have anxiety about seeing a movie with a returning cast - thinking it will be a tired version of the film that made them famous. But Creatures has actors such as John Cleese, Jamie Lee Curtis, and Kevin Kline in completely different roles from Wanda, and is so autonomous that the two have little in common, and nothing in the way of cheesy, inside jokes as a wink and a nod to fans of the previous film.

These are - after all - accomplished actors, and there are some noteworthy acting additions that add flavor to the setting: a zoo on the outs in need of a financial face lift.

The comedy itself is a lot like Wanda - that is, very witty situation comedy and clever repartee between characters. You could just about listen to the whole things as an audio book and still laugh your butt off.

Why it deserves dog status: It could be that movie buffs still held such high regard for Wanda that to them anything like it would not fill such large shoes. It could be that Creatures got lost in the mix somewhere between a British and American film, which has certainly happened to other films, vis a vis underdog Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels (which is just as good and very similar to the much more popular film, Snatch).

Either way, Creatures is a complete peach of a comedy that has tons of replayability and a simple choice for a crowd-pleaser, since it's more "Americanized" and therefore more accessible to mainstream viewers than many British or British-influenced films.

Too, you could never have seen Wanda (or anything remotely British for that matter) and still find Creatures as funny and original as long-time, self-proclaimed British humor fans who speak of Benny Hill as ranking just under the Messiah.

Throwback Thursday: "Three 'o' Clock High"

High school in the '80s was a cruel time of ill-advised fashion and what would today be social hara-kiri in the form of yellow sweater vest, bright aqua turtlenecks, and hair teased so high that it could tangle in low-hanging branches.

Three 'o' Clock High is in many ways a very typical '80s movie: the main guy is dorky, but not too dorky, not like his friends; he has a brunette falling all over him, but he wants the blonde; and all matters high school are overblown to a global scale, as if the film's outcome holds the same weight as a war or a presidential election.

In many ways, though, High is anything but typical. From the very beginning, the camera work is extremely elaborate - shooting and editing must have been a bear. Sometimes this gives the impression of being overdone, but most times (particularly in the beginning montage) it adds solid appeal to a film that doesn't have much originality in the story or setting department.

The acting, with plenty of recognizable faces, is pretty good. While the story is predicated on an agreed-upon sense of drama quite typical of high school, everyone's on the same level, so there are no outliers to run against the film's grain.

The whole thing is supposed to be funny, I'm pretty sure, but it's not so much funny as it is comfortably entertaining. It would have been better with a few really solid laughs like how John Hughes would pepper his high school drama flicks, but High doesn't need the comedy to move it along, really.

So, though the story has been done before and since, give it a viewing for camera work and editing alone, both of which are excellent. In this way, High is a fine, under-the-radar addition to the Hughes-esque '80s canon.

"Nick and Norah" falls short of "infinite" anything

I thought it was very gutsy for the New York City tourism board to bankroll Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. Apparently that's precisely what happened, or else there's just no explanation for the fact that the film was 90 grueling minutes of how cool and hip NYC is.

The film features parentless teenagers who are seemingly allowed free run of the entire city - to include nightclubs - without fear for their safety, or any real reciprocity for their incessant meanderings altogether. But that's perfectly fine because each one is in a band of some sort and enjoys an advanced, post-college understanding of music, entertainment, and literature...so there's that.

It seems that in Nick and Norah's NYC, drunken antics will not get you date-raped or mugged, but will instead summon the collective and complete understanding and warmth of everyone you come in contact with.

Dispensing with the dripping satire for a moment, I had though - erroneously - that every movie patched together with the cast of The 40 Year Virgin, Arrested Development, or stemming from the old Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared days could do no wrong. The actors were just too damn funny to produce anything that completely sucked, despite the occasionally long-winded flicks like Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

I was wrong: even quirky little Michael Cera can really suck. While I usually trust IMDB for their rating system (how can 6,000 voters really add up to an inaccurate rating?) I have to utterly disagree with the 7 out of 10 rating.

Sure, it's possible that I've just not come to terms with the fact that I'm 30-ish now and films about high schoolers who are completely indistinguishable from college students are not going to appeal to me. I mean, not like "Where's Fluffy" the mythical and impossible-to-find band from Nick and Norah. Here's a band that everyone - everyone - universally loves. All ages, all races. They love it so much that - at sunrise - they all flock the streets like it's Black Friday and built up speed with giant smiles on their faces just to hear this band.

My God, I think. This band might just make this awful movie worth my $10. Right at the end of the movie, the band takes stage, and...nothing. Our main characters have sneaked off to have some more teen sex. Then I remember why: because a band universally loved does not exist, just like the characters, city, and circumstances of this crappy movie do not exist.

The fact that it falls short of even delivering on a movie-long promise of the apply-named "Fluffy" is a testament to how flat the entire feature fell.

Day of the 'Dog: "The Long Kiss Goodnight"

This week's underdog puts the A in action - and you've likely never even heard of it. While flicks like Die Hard and The Bourne Identity have earned their fame, if we look to the number of IMDb reviews as a litmus test for movie views, The Long Kiss Goodnight only registers 25% of Bourne's feedback and a paltry 16% of Die Hard's.

Starring Gina Davis and Samuel L. Jackson, and packing as many solid laughs as it does tight and well-crafted action sequences, it's hard to tell what made this one go relatively unnoticed by moviegoers at large. It could be that action/comedies are often breezed over at the video store for fear of the scenes coming out too cheesy to pass as action, but too busy to be comedies.

I would still call Kiss an action flick - hands down - but it is laden with comedy to be sure.

The first time I saw it was during a double date of beer and pizza where - much to my date's chagrin - I became more engaged in the movie than in her. Had my friend not taken a chance on it, I might never have come across this action gem.

Why it deserves dog status: Few action movies are really well rounded. Some end up sliding into sub-genres of spy vs spy, super cops, or A-Team action (you know, where nobody dies despite massive explosions and a rain of gunfire so that it can get a PG-13 rating). Kiss is extremely well-rounded, with hope and despair, underdogs, and larger-than-life heroes (a la Davis' alter-ego Charly). The dialogue is very witty, with quips you'll have to see the movie a couple of times to fully appreciate.

The replay value is quite high, as well: I've owned the VHS and then - when my VCR followed the Betamax to the bottom of the ocean - I bought the DVD without hesitation. I know that at least once a year I'll be watching Kiss again, and still feeling my pulse race at the action, and laughing out loud at the comedy.

The likability of the characters and the awesome chemistry between Davis and Jackson make Kiss a memorable ride through spy games, shootouts, and narrow escapes that's sure to please.

Throwback Thursday: "Omega Man"

I don't know what it is with Charlton Heston flicks lately, but this Thursday's throwback is Omega Man, inspired by my enjoyment of I Am Legend - the book and the movie.

Omega follows Richard Matheson's novel about as much as Will Smith's I Am Legend, which means there are various interpretative liberties - some of which are good, some maybe not. For those who have seen or read Legend: in Omega, the "vampires" are more like albino Amish, with about as much of a fear factor.

The enemy of self-assured "last man on earth" Heston, the albinos refuse to use the machines of war to out Heston's character, Dr. Robert Neville. To me - this would have been a welcome handicap to accelerating their extinction, but Heston's Neville - much like Matheson's - mostly gets drunk and talks to himself.

Omega also does a good job of portraying the book Neville's, ahem...yearnings, shall we say, that would be pretty substantial after a few years of no Internet porn.

The film is from 1971, and for the time period, they do a fine job of showing empty streets, isolation, mass death, and broad shots using clever camera tricks that we take for granted now that there's so much technology to facilitate it. Heston is a believable Neville if not a little creepy when he smiles.

This may be a childhood riddled with Planet of the Apes movies talking, but this felt eerily similar. While the albinos are a little off simian, I'd venture to guess that if you like Apes then you'll like Omega.

I strongly doubt there were any Oscars won for acting, but the period special effects are good, the story is pretty solid, and it's got some decent action sequences.

So, if you’re looking for another take on what World War Z author Max Brooks calls LMOEs (Last Man on Earth) type stories, which I favor, admittedly) then give Omega Man a go.

Nine Hollywood Tropes Moviegoers Loathe: Part Five

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

"The Reader" thoughtful and sublime

I'm still reeling a bit, having just come from the theater, as The Reader certainly gives moviegoers a lot to mull over...if they choose to, that is.

I went into the Grandin Theater, which was packed to the gills, having heard very little about the film - not a preview or a review. I liked it that way, since I was pretty convinced, given the actors and the buzz it has already generated, that it wasn't going to be a waste of my time.

The movie really is a pleasure: perfect timing, witty, and with a solid flow that carries you through the spectacular sets. The jumps from this time to that might confuse some people, though I was able to follow along.

The subject matter, which my speaking of should betray very little of the film's plot, surrounds questions of justice and redemption after Nazi Germany: not exactly brand new content for Hollywood.

I must say that some judgments made in the film, notably by protagonist David Kross (younger Michael) and Ralph Fiennes (older Michael), surprise me. In life and film, I find that judgment should be reserved to the law, and that whatever judgment the law makes is as far as anyone can judge the guilty - or else, for what, indeed, do we have law at all? Granted, this comes from someone who has been blessed by not having to make choices of who deserves redemption and who does not.

More to the film, the various zeitgeists portrayed through several key periods in our recent history are quite well done, and - while I wasn't looking for any - I found no anachronisms to speak of.

Suffice it to say that Reader is well worth watching and thinking on, so much so that I intend to read the book as well, though I'm not in the habit of reading books after movies (to be clear, the book did come first).

So, while pivoting off of a trite plot of post-Nazi Germany, Reader is fresh in its ideas and invites viewers to devise much of the unraveling for themselves.

Day of the 'Dog: "Dogville"

Honest, I didn't choose Dogville just because of the title - it really is an underdog. Even with a smokin' IMDb score of 7.9 and winning mad lower-vis awards, just ask yourself: "Have I seen it." Unlikely.

What you'll first notice in the film is the complete lack of a set. This is not like in Kill Bill where it will suddenly go from black and white back to good 'ole color; No, there really isn't a set.

However, this demands a completely different level of imagination, and - while it might seem a little funky at first - your brain will align with it and soon you'll begin to see walls and furniture and windows. Or, if you have no imagination, just go with it...and then work on that imagination thing in your spare time.

Why is deserves 'dog status: Well, Dogville's lackluster success might be due to the immediate expectations of exotic sets, larger-than-life heroes, and lots of stuff blowing up, but it's really no surprise that a film without a set flew under the radar. What some would call inventive, others will claim is "low-budget" or "boring," though that kind of implies big-budget, action-packed blockbusters like Hulk are automatically good, and I think we all know better than that.

In essence, Dogville encapsulates a sort of Lord of the Flies type of society where each transgression enables someone else to react in kind and even push the moral envelope further in a nefarious direction. Thing is, this is not an island full of children, but a small town full of adults. At heart, the film implies that any weakness can and will be exploited if given enough time.

The voice over is immaculate, with poetic lines such as: "...respect for cultivation, harvest, and fruit could be directly measured in provision of carnality." Man, that's like something a founding father might have said.

The use of light also did a lot to communicate the decline of the town, along with sparse props, sound, and pregnant pauses in the music.

While not exactly a film about tea and crumpets (Chloë Sevigny is an even bigger sadist than in Big Love), Dogville deserves crazy props for its innovations, is sure to entertain, and might even make you consider the ever-lurking shady side in all of us.

DVD: "Babylon AD" not a bad ride

A future filled with violence, war, and gladiators...and Vin Diesel's right in the middle of it. What could go wrong? Well, I guess that while Bablyon AD had a great formula for success (see Blade Runner and Cyborg) there's always the chance that a movie will biff a solid plot (see Ultraviolet and Aeon Flux).

But allow me to lay out the cards and you can judge for yourself if new-to DVD Babylon is worth a rental.

Babylon's main character, Toorop, is a little like Xander Cage's great-grandson from XXX. He's a bad ass with a gun who gets ample opportunity to kick butt and take names. Unlike XXX, though, Babylon retains a solemn tone throughout, fitting considering the setting - a Cold War-esque landscape of black markets where its every man for himself. It rang of late-bloomer hit PC game STALKER: Shadows of Chernobyl where you can't find a decent meal and vodka is worth more than gold, but technolgy shows up amid firearms that could lay waste to Robocop.

While sporting a bleak view of the future, Babylon doesn't feel implausible, and I quickly found myself pulled in and genuinely interested in the characters. There is some excellent camera work to support the feel of the film, with little to break your immersion - a wise move by director Mathieu Kassovitz. Nothing spoils dreary more than punny one-liners or sight gags.

Okay, so why didn't more people like it? Well, it did coalesce into something a little less than the sum of its parts. I don't know what kind of ending I was expecting, but I felt a little let down.

I still maintain a good taste in my mouth for the film, but I can legitimately see where others gave it a tepid review (thought I think an IMDb score 5.3 is a little unfair).

Let me know what you thought, since few two opinions seem to be the same on this flick.