Short version: Like Twilight, New Moon is strictly for fans of the book – for the rest of us, it’s actually worse than the first film.

Screen Rant reviews The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Well, maybe the third time will be the charm.

In an earlier article we speculated whether New Moon might turn out to be a good movie not just for fans but for general audiences (maybe even guys!). With the replacement of Twilight director Catherine Hardwicke with Chris Weitz on New Moon, many people were hoping for a more exciting film this time around. Unfortunately, if anything what we’ve gotten is a film that is even slower than the first one.

As New Moon opens things seem to have fallen into as close to normalcy as they can get in Forks, where Bella (Kristen Stewart) and Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) are a couple, even though Bella’s circle of friends still finds him and his family creepy. Bella hasn’t seen Jacob (Taylor Lautner) in quite a while and is shocked to see how he’s beefed up when he turns up. There’s a rivalry between Edward and Jacob, but nothing compared to what it will be by the end of the movie.

Bella still (idiotically) wants to be “turned” – be bitten so she can become a vampire and live forever with Edward at the physical age of 18. Edward refuses because obviously he’s smarter than she is – he’s 109 years old and with that apparently has come some wisdom. They actually joke about the fact that an 18 year old girl is dating a 109 year old guy – while it may seem silly, it’s actually true and quite creepy. You’d think he’d be (as a 109 year old) more interested in hooking up with a woman in her 30s, who’s actually experienced more of life and matured.

Edward tells Bella that the Cullens are leaving, ostensibly to protect their identities, but in reality he believes that as long as he’s around her he puts her in danger. Before he leaves he tells her not to do anything reckless – and the only reason to say something as non-sequiter as that is to set up what comes up later in the movie. Saying she doesn’t take it well would be an understatement. Bella is depressed and morose, doing nothing but sitting in her bedroom moping for months.

Eventually she pretends to snap out of it, just to make her dad happy, and while out with a friend discovers that if she contemplates doing something dangerous, risky (or hey, reckless!), Edward appears to her to tell her not to do it. So she becomes a bit of an adrenaline junkie, looking for dangerous things to do just so Edward will appear to her to tell her NOT to do it. This is a major point in the film, and frankly the more I thought about it, the more it seemed pretty stupid. First, let’s just reverse what I said earlier about Edward being wise – appearing to her ONLY when she’s about to do something risky, with the fact she misses him so much, guarantees she will engage in that behavior. Second, isn’t Bella the only person who he’s not able to “read?” He can’t read her thoughts, can’t tell what she’s planning on doing, etc? Then how the HECK does he appear to her when she’s about to do something stupid? Of course if he’s not appearing to her and she’s imagining it, then she’s having pretty vivid hallucinations and has even bigger problems than we thought.

Meanwhile back on the (Indian) ranch, there are a bunch of guys who hang together and seem to worship the gang leader. This particular fellow seems to be waiting for Jacob to join them even though Jake isn’t interested. Of course there’s a reason they’re called the “Wolf Pack” and soon enough Jacob will be joining them (once he joins them, he spends the rest of the film shirtless just like them). He comforts Bella, who takes advantage of their friendship because it’s obvious he has serious feelings for her, and she allows things to progress as far as closeness and some physical affection, but keeps him at arm’s length. Eventually he, too tells her he can’t be friends with her any more and Bella is now 0 for 2 on people who said they’d never leave her – and do.

Click to continue reading our New Moon review.

• New Moon Character Posters & Image Gallery
• Twilight Fan-Made New Moon Posters
• Three Fresh ‘New Moon’ Character Posters
• Robert Pattinson Confirms Twilight’s ‘Breaking Dawn’
• First Photos Of Twilight Saga’s New Moon
• ‘New Moon’ Starts Shooting (Plus: New Cast Members)

Short Version: If you’re looking for some wicked-cool visuals and destruction on a scale that even Emmerich has never put on screen before, then 2012 is for you. Plot and character development? Move along, nothing to see here.

Screen Rant reviews 2012

That picture right there? That’s why you go see 2012. Heck, lately that’s why you go see any Roland Emmerich film – destruction on a massive scale. The man has taken what Irwin Allen used to do and multiplied it by 100.

2012 actually starts in 2009 – well first it starts out in space, showing us a few different shots of our solar system and the planets lining up all in a row, with the sun at the end of that line. When we get to good old Earth, we’re in India where geologist Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor, the assassin from Serenity) is meeting a fellow scientist at the Institute of Astrophysics. They go 11,000 feet down into a copper mine where it seems they figure they may as well do some scientific research as long as they’re down there.

Anyway, they have tracked a series of the biggest solar flares in history taking place over the last week, and it seems that they’re putting out some different type of neutrino that instead of just passing through the earth is interacting with the core, causing it to heat up to temperatures far exceeding normal. At this point I’m thinking “OK, OK, that’s not bad, I can buy that.”

Helmsley travels to Washington D.C. where he convinces high ranking Washington muckity-muck Carl Anheuser (a very rotund Oliver Platt) the importance of what he’s found. We jump forward to 2010 where the president (Danny Glover – seriously) is addressing European heads of state about the impending end of the world. Another jump to 2011 where it becomes apparant that some sort of stealth operations are taking place to insure the safety of works of art, wealthy and powerful people and presumably other odds and ends.

In the meantime we meet Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), a divorced dad and not very successful author who drives a limo for a living. While his young daughter still has eyes only for daddy, his slightly older son is a much bigger fan of mom’s live-in boyfriend (kids live with mom and her boyfriend – nice move, mom). Taking the kids camping to Yellowstone, he runs into a cordoned off military area where significant changes are happening geologically. It’s here we meet Woody Harrelson as a quasi-nutjob/free-spirit who seems to know what’s going on and fills Jackson in, including the plans for the world’s elite to escape the destruction in spaceships. Of course Cusack doesn’t believe him and heads on his merry way.

It doesn’t take long however for a series of increasingly strong and frequent earthquakes (along with some other things) to convince Jackson that the crazy guy isn’t crazy after all, and he grabs the ex-wife, kids and new boyfriend just in the nick of time in the scene we’ve all watched in trailers and TV commercials.

From here on, all hell breaks out everywhere, and watching it all happen is the whole reason for going to see this movie.

Jackson is determined to save his family, and his journey to find one of these “arks” grows more implausible with every passing scene. Thankfully director Emmerich spreads the destruction out throughout the entire film – so if you’re concerned that you’ll have already seen the best stuff in the trailer, fear not… that was just a taste. I found it interesting that they showed a number of landmarks being destroyed including the Vatican and the famous statue of Christ on a Brazil mountaintop – but although they showed the Kabaa in one scene he did not portray its destruction. I’ve heard that he didn’t show it destroyed due to fear of retribution.

Anyway, the destruction throughout the film was quite well done – I especially liked the scene at Yellowstone… VERY impressive. And of course the expanded version of the destruction of California was well done (and strangely satisfying… I kid, I kid). The arks were quite cool as well, although the MacGuffin that caused the “suspense” at the end was quite ridiculous.

There’s a a fair amount of ridiculousness in 2012, but really, what does one expect going into a film like this? In the end I enjoyed the visual effects and Chiwetel Ejiofor, who I think has a real screen presence about him. Woody Harrelson? Brief appearance but memorable. John Cusack seemed to me like a fish out of water here – like he just really didn’t belong. Thandie Newton was little more than eye candy (although she was supposed to be more). Oh, and Danny Glover as the President of the United States? LOL funny – I think the poor guy left any acting ability he may have had down in Venezuela.

Towards the end of the film it really fell apart as Emmerich tried to inject some emotion into the film. A big contributing factor was the cheesy music in the emotional scene – the whole thing felt like it was out of a made for TV movie. It might have actually worked better had he not tried to “make” us FEEL the emotion via the cliche’d music and maybe trusted the actors to make it happen. If only he could figure out a way to make a film that didn’t require actual people (you know, other than the ones who need to die for the destruction to mean something).

So if you’re looking for much in the way of plot or character development, move along, nothing to see here. But if you’re looking for some wicked-cool visuals and destruction on a scale that even Emmerich has never put on screen before, then 2012 may be the movie for you.

• 5 Minute ‘2012′ Clip Brings More Destruction
• New ‘2012′ Clip: Airplane Escape
• Comic-Con: Destructively Fun Times With 2012
• Latest 2012 Trailer: Impressive CGI, But Will That Be All?
• New Pics from 2012
• ‘2012′ International Trailer

Short Version: Ti West’s The House of the Devil is an agonizingly suspenseful and genuinely creepy homage to 1980s horror that hits nearly all the right notes.

Screen Rant’s Rob Frappier reviews The House of the Devil

Let’s see if this sounds familiar: An attractive and likable college co-ed takes a job as a babysitter at a creaky old house even though we know (and she senses) that something devious is afoot. If you’re thinking to yourself, “Been there, done that,” I’d ask you to continue reading anyway.

While Ti West’s The House of the Devil may sound familiar, the film’s potent mix of suspense, creepiness and gore is well worth the price of admission.

Though I’ve already outlined the plot somewhat, allow me to fill in a few more details. Samantha (played by newcomer Jocelin Donahue) needs some quick cash to move out of her dorm room and into her own apartment. Walking through campus, she sees an ad for a babysitter and decides it could be an easy way to make some money. Upon arriving at the house, which is tucked deep in the woods and reminiscent of The Amityville Horror, Sam meets her employer, the polite, yet vaguely sinister Mr. Ulman (played by the always great Tom Noonan).

At this point, Sam learns she won’t be babysitting, exactly, but instead caring for the Ulman’s elderly mother. Although she tries to duck the job, Ulman offers her too much money to resist and she stays, against the warning of her friend Megan (Greta Gerwig). Like Megan, we in the audience know Sam has made a mistake, something she realizes for herself as she snoops around the home. Suffice it to say, the Ulmans have plans for young Sam and, as plainly indicated in the title, they involve the Devil. Oh, did I mention there’s a lunar eclipse? Surely you can guess what’s in store for Sam.

The House of the Devil is a throwback to a simpler time for horror. From its period-appropriate props (over-sized Walkmans, rotary dial phones, etc.) and grainy film stock,  to its amazing score of synth-heavy rock and spare, yet menacing violin and piano, the movie authentically mimics the look and sound of early 1980s horror. Where other directors might use the 1980s as an excuse to make their movie cheesy, however, Ti West understands that the best thing about 1980s horror wasn’t its schlockiness, but rather its emphasis on slow-burning suspense.

To this end, the film moves at an agonizing pace (and I mean that in the best way possible). As she wanders throughout the house doing seemingly normal things (filling her water bottle, reading a book), West keeps Sam’s face tightly framed, tricking the audience into thinking something could happen any time she turns her head. When we’re not in tight frames, West opts for wide establishing shots where the camera moves just slowly enough that we feel someone might be watching Sam from the shadows. It’s a potent mix of cinematography that manages to keep you on the edge of your seat. As the night wears on and Sam becomes more paranoid about her situation, we’re right there with her grasping our imaginary knife to fight off the inevitably bloody ending.

Speaking of the ending, it may be the one part of the movie that doesn’t work quite to perfection. Don’t get me wrong, the ending is still very scary (and very bloody), but after 70 minutes of hair-raising suspense, it’s nearly impossible to live up to the viewer’s sense of dread. It is worth noting that there is a major stylistic shift at the end of the movie, favoring intense visuals and shaky cinematography over the film’s previous camerawork, demonstrating West’s ability to use the camera both as a tool to bring us into the film and to throttle us once we’re there. Despite the film’s very minor letdown at the end (and it really is minor), West works in a satisfying, if somewhat predictable, twist for the last scene that will make you smile in spite of yourself.

To some horror aficionados – most likely fans of über-violent slasher remakes like Rob Zombie’s Halloween – The House of the Devil may be too slow with too little violence. For genre purists, however, there are very few things to not like about the movie. I can only hope that The House of the Devil, along with this summer’s intensely entertaining Drag Me to Hell and the little-Indie-that-could Paranormal Activity, represent a slight shift in the way Hollywood thinks about horror.

The House of the Devil has been in theaters since October 30th, though the film has been in release on Amazon Video and other On Demand services since the beginning of October. If you can, I would recommend seeing this movie in theaters. The cinematography, art design, and sound design are too good to waste on a small screen.

• Poster Friday: Youth in Revolt, Invictus, Heavy Metal & More!
• New Behind-The-Scenes Footage from ‘Saw VI’
• This Week’s Collection of Movie Posters
• Drag Me To Hell Review
• Poster Friday: Saw 6, Legion, Daybreakers, Parnassus & More!
• ‘Nightmare On Elm Street’ Producer Responds To Fan Concerns

Short Version: There are already so many great adaptions of the classic Dickens story – this one adds nothing but CGI and gimmicky 3D effects.

Screen Rant reviews A Christmas Carol

A Christmas Carol is one of my all time favorite Christmas stories. Maybe because most of the year I feel like a somewhat cranky Ebenezer Scrooge but once Thanksgiving is over my mood lightens over the spirit of the upcoming holiday. It seems that every few years someone feels the need to do an update on the classic tale, and sometimes it works. Heck there have certainly been a lot of versions over the years (over two dozen on TV and in movies according to IMDB), and I’ve enjoyed many of those myself.

This time director Robert Zemeckis (who seems intent upon never making another live action film as long as he lives) brings us another 3D, IMAX, CGI motion-capture extravaganza. If the number of buzzwords there don’t tell you what this film is really about, then I can’t help you.

The movie stars Jim Carrey in a variety of roles, most notably old Scrooge himself. The Scrooge character, with it’s caricature-like features is actually the most effective one in the film (thankfully, since he’s the lead). Carrey also plays the three ghosts that come to haunt Ebenezer as well as Scrooge at younger ages. We also have Gary Oldman playing primarily Bob Cratchit and Bob Hoskins (briefly) playing Scrooge’s old boss Mr. Fezziwig. I mention these two in particular because someone made the decision to make the characters look very similar to the actors portraying them. I don’t know what effect they were going for, but I can tell you what the result was: Creepy.

It was just bizarre watching a CGI character that looked so much like Oldman, but not – with the only semi-human animatronic look that defines the “uncanny valley” (the very subtle things that aren’t right in attempted photo-real computer animated portrayal of humans). Most of the characters suffered from the same thing – it was like watching an animatronic display at Disneyland.

On the other hand there were glimpses of amazingly realistic people in the film – but these were always at a distance. There was one scene where I wanted to believe that they inserted a live actress into the film just as an “Easter Egg.” I respect Zemeckis for what he’s doing, I really do – he’s trying to push the frontier when it comes to people rendered as CGI. Problem is you have to get it PERFECT, otherwise your brain just kind of short-circuits looking at this “almost-real” person on the screen. This is why most CGI animated films use caricatures of humans – it’s easier for the mind to accept. By making blue-skinned, overly tall aliens with odd facial features I think James Cameron will get around this in Avatar.

And speaking of the upcoming 3D Cameron-helmed extravaganza, A Christmas Carol is in 3D. I’ve said many times before that I’m a fan of of 3D cinema, but not when it’s used as a gimmick. Overall I really enjoyed the 3D look of the film but there was one sequence that was stuck into the film that just didn’t belong and was there only for the sake of showing off the roller coaster effects and exaggerated 3D in the film. It was at least a five minute sequence and I was mentally tapping my fingers waiting for it to be over so we could get back to the story. Side note: There seemed to be a little tribute to the “tiny Ash” scene from Army of Darkness.

So what did I like? The story, of course, but they don’t get credit for that. I did enjoy the opening scene, which was very effective in showing just HOW miserly and feared Scrooge was. On the flip side, I also really enjoyed the “post-mean” ending of the film – it really gave us more time with the repentant Ebenezer than I’ve seen in any version to date.

Besides what I’ve mentioned, what I didn’t like was that the film was all over the spectrum in terms of tone – sometimes it was goofy-funny, and at other times had scenes that I think will scare the heck out of little kids. When his doorknob comes to life, that’s a heck of a scare and Marley’s jaw coming loose was worthy of a horror movie IMHO. Of course then they put a little “ha ha” moment on the end of that one, but by then your kids has had the poop scared out of them. Oh, and I have to mention the ghost of Christmas past – one of the most unexplainedly ridiculous characters I’ve ever seen on screen. Then again, maybe it’s me, some people were laughing at it, but frankly I was perplexed by the point of what is was doing and thought it was just plain stupid.

No doubt there will be comments below wittily calling me a Scrooge, but you’re too late, I did that in the opening paragraph. But seriously, as I said, I love this story – and I wish that Zemeckis had left the CGI behind and made it a live action film based on the classic tale.

• A CGI Jim Carrey in ‘A Christmas Carol’
• Six Clips from Disney’s A Christmas Carol
• New Trailer, TV Spot & Still for A Christmas Carol
• Comic-Con: Disney 3D Showcases A Christmas Carol
• Disney 3D Trailers: A Christmas Carol and Toy Story 1&2
• New International Posters For ‘A Christmas Carol’

Short Version: Do yourself a favor and find the original 30 minute Twilight Zone episode of The Box and watch that instead.

Screen Rant reviews The Box

Well this is going to be a short review because I don’t want to spend any more time on this movie than I have to. The Box is based on Button, Button – a very short story written by Richard Matheson that was used for an old episode of the classic TV series The Twilight Zone. It was written and directed by Richard Kelly, the man behind the cult classic Donnie Darko and the poorly received Southland Tales.

BTW, personally I think it’s obvious, but this review does tell you whether or not they push the button.

The film takes place in 1976, around the time we started sending probes to Mars. This is the (very thin) reason the film takes place back then – it could have easily taken place today, but then the pacing of the film might not have made as much sense (I’ll get to that later). Cameron Diaz and James Marsden star as a mid-30s couple living in Virginia. He works at Nasa as an optical engineer but has aspirations to be a space shuttle astronaut, she works as a teacher at a private school at which their son attends. They’re living paycheck to paycheck and money is tight (and despite seeming to be a bright guy, mid-30s Marsden is driving a Corvette despite their financial status).

They receive a package wrapped in plain brown paper early one morning: A black box with a glass dome covering a red button. Very simple, but well-crafted. It is locked, and later that day the mysterious Arlington Steward (the ever sophisticated Frank Langella) arrives with a key to the box, a briefcase with one million dollars and half his face CGI’d away and scarred in a terrible burn injury. He makes the offer: Press the button and somewhere, someone you do not know will die, but you will then receive one million dollars tax free.

Decisions, decisions.

Well a couple of things have coincidentally (or, not so much)  just happened to cause the financial noose to tighten a bit more, making the deal tempting them (to the wife in particular). They vacillate between calling the police (telling anyone and the deal will be off), just returning the box, and assuming that even if the guy IS crazy, maybe they can get the money. After all, the person killed “might be some murderer on death row.”

Frankly, maybe it’s just me (and I really hope it’s NOT), but the movie lost me here. If someone showed up at your door and made this offer, with the guarantee that SOMEONE WOULD DIE if you pushed the button, would you? I sure as hell wouldn’t, even for a million dollars.

The husband does decide to open the box, not knowing what to find, but it’s just empty – not even a transmitter to notify anyone if the button had been pushed. Still, he is leery. In the end, the wife pushes the button, Steward arrives with the money, and assures them that the box will be given to someone they do not know.

Didn’t see THAT one coming.

Of course writer/director Richard Kelly realizes this, and in order to keep the movie *cough* interesting *cough* puts in a ton of oddities that could’ve drawn you in with the mystery, but instead just get annoying as they continue to pile on top of each other. In the end what made for a great, short morality tale is made so convoluted by trying to stretch it out into a two hour movie and give explanation to the hows and the whys that you’ll be dying to be done with the movie and get out of the theater.

I found it interesting that it was set in the 70s because the pacing of the film reminded me of movies from that time period. Looking back, a lot of the movies made then seem agonizingly slow in moving the story along, and that’s the case here. In the last 30 minutes or so it feels so completely disjointed, jumping helter-skelter from scene to scene that you’ll wonder what the editor and director were thinking.

I’ll give it two stars for concept and Frank Langella, but that’s being generous – I wouldn’t even call this a rental.

• Six New Clips From ‘The Box’
• Trailer & New Pics From Richard Kelly’s ‘The Box’
• Warner Bros. Panel – Comic-Con 2009
• Frank Langella Headed For Wall Street
• New Trailer & Stills for ‘The Tournament’
• New Posters: Where The Wild Things Are, Michael Jackson & More!

Short Version: IF you let it draw you in with its factual approach, The Fourth Kind will creep you out more than Paranormal Activity.

Screen Rant reviews The Fourth Kind

After the extreme split in opinions on Paranormal Activity (I liked it), I was curious to see The Fourth Kind to see which side of the fence I fell on. I can understand how you can either love or hate the former, and I have a feeling something similar will happen with this film: Either you buy into the whole premise and let it suck you in, or you stand back and call B.S. on the whole thing.

The Fourth Kind opens unexpectedly, with Milla Jovovich as herself talking plainly to the audience. She speaks matter of factly and seriously, telling us the details upon which the film we are about to see are based. In addition to actors portraying real people (most of whom will have their names changed in the film) there will be scenes of actual video shot during the events portrayed in the movie. It will be disturbing, she tells us.

What will be so disturbing? The account of Alaskan psychologist Dr. Abigail Tyler (played by Milla), taken from her notes, videotapes (and a personal interview by director Olatunde Osunsanmi) which tells the story of the strange nocturnal experiences of a number of residents of Nome Alaska in the Summer/Fall of 2000. A number of townsfolk have all been experiencing the same unique visions and sleeplessness at night – similar in details that could not be coincidental, and they’ve individually turned to her for help in determining what these things mean.

They all share visions of being watched by a strange white owl in the middle of the night. This sounds goofy, but when they intercut footage of the actual people in her office relating their story – each on their own and each story with the same details – the creepiness factor starts to escalate. And it only gets worse as Dr. Tyler delves deeper into their psyches to unearth buried details via hypnosis.

What starts her down the path of “something really weird is going on” is the fact that going back to the 1960s there have been (for a town of its size) an awful lot of unexplained missing people in Nome. The FBI has gone out multiple times to try and find answers and has always come up blank. One of her sessions leads to a very tragic event, putting her at odds with the town sheriff who believes she is stirring people up and causing harm. Eventually things come to a head, get really crazy and out of hand, and bring us to the present day interview that is threaded throughout the film.

The creep factor comes in from assuming that what you’re watching is, in fact, true and that the homemade videos are all in fact legitimate. However I will say that the farther you get into the film the more you have to suspend your disbelief – especially with some of what appears in the supposedly real camcorder footage. I won’t give anything away, but you’ll understand if you see the movie.

If you don’t buy into that concept at least a little bit, then The Fourth Kind will leave you as cold as Paranormal Activity did for people who didn’t go along for the ride with that film. However if you let it get in your head, I think you’ll find that The Fourth Kind is even more effective at freaking you out and causing you some nervousness after you turn off the last light at night and head off to bed.

• The Fourth Kind Looks to Scare You with 2 New TV Spots
• Will ‘The Fourth Kind’ Be The Next Paranormal Activity? [Updated]
• Paranormal Activity Director Headed for ‘Area 51′
• Add Your Name to the ‘Paranormal Activity’ DVD Credits
• Poster Friday: Toy Story 3, Saw VI, A Christmas Carol & Many More!
• Paranormal Activity Theatrical Trailer

Short Version: While the animation is excellent, Astro Boy is too intense for younger kids, too corny for teens and annoyingly political overall.

Screen Rant reviews Astro Boy

I went into Astro Boy with high hopes and nostalgia. I’m actually old enough to remember watching the original cartoon back when I was a kid, and being a sci-fi kind of geek even as a wee child, remember enjoying the futuristic show about a robot boy who could fly and had all kinds of cool weapons. Trailers and clips looked good so although I expected a kids’ film, I was looking forward to this and brought along my 13 year old daughter and a friend of hers.

All three of us were of the same opinion: It was a waste of an hour and a half.

There will be some spoilers in this review, but as it’s a movie aimed at kids, and I’m writing this review for parents, I hope you won’t mind.

I swung 180 degrees in my opinion between the time the opening credits began and ended – at first the animation and dramatic music drew me in right off the bat and it looked like we might be in for something good. But then I started seeing the names of the voice actors… one well-known name after another, after another. Kristen Bell, Nicolas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson, Charlize Theron, Donald Sutherland, Nathan Lane, and more. Do I have anything against any of these actors? Not at all. So what was the problem?

More often than not when there is an animated film with a star-studded cast it’s a very good indication that you’re in for a very mediocre movie.

Don’t ask me WHY this so – it just is (in my experience).

As Astro Boy begins we are treated to a quick animated sequence showing how humanity has ruined the planet and we cut to what could be a TV commercial for moving to Metro City – a city literally in the clouds, where everyone is happy and robots do all the work people don’t want to do (including, interestingly enough “Nanny-bots”). They indicate that all is not rosy because while they float above the earth they just dump their trash and old robots over the edge to tumble down to terra firma. Oh, and people actually live on the ground, scrabbling amongst what looks like a vast garbage dump/junkyard.

The man who made this life of leisure possible via his robotic inventions is Dr. Tenma (Nicolas Cage), the father of Toby, a boy of about 13(?) who seems to be on his way to being as brilliant as his father. It seems that a meteorite fell to Earth and had at its core an energy source that could help restore the planet to its once pristine state – problem is that to do that it had to be split into “good” energy and “bad.” Bill Nigh plays a scientist who of course wants to use the good blue energy to bring about, well, good. But President Stone (Donald Sutherland) wants the red energy put to use to create a super-weapon robot that he can use to go to war with the surface dwellers.

In a demonstration of the robot (where things go horribly awry) Toby is killed by the evil robot. Heck of a way to start a movie aimed at kids… Anyway, Tenma is stricken with grief, takes a strand of hair from Toby and uses its DNA and the blue energy to create Astro Boy in an effort to still have his son. While Astro Boy is 90% Toby, he is different enough that Tenma shuns him. Astro Boy ends up on the surface, and is befriended by the children living there, overseen by the apparently benign robot fanatic scientist “Ham Egg” (Nathan Lane).

Eventually Astro Boy makes it back up to Metro City to battle with a giant version of a red-energy-powered robot/President Stone and saves the day.

The 1980s version of Astro Boy

For younger kids (I’d say maybe 6-7 and under) the final battle is pretty intense as the giant robot tries its best to kill Astro Boy (and seemingly succeeds). Also the death scene early on is a bit much – pretty hard core for a PG movie in my opinion. Throughout the film there were (to me) many annoying references to “starting a war in order to get re-elected” and an idiotic quote by the President: “Look at history, negative energy always wins.” Really? Last time I checked the Nazis lost World War II. But the topper for me was a stage set up for the President to speak at a political rally with a banner behind the podium that stated “Now is not the time for change.”

Seriously? In a kids’ film? I remember when movies for kids handed out moral messages, not political ones.

I did enjoy the animation in Astro Boy quite a bit, but then like I said, I’m a fan of the original character and he was portrayed well and voiced just fine by Freddie Highmore plus I’m just a fan of CGI animated films in general. There were also three goofy supporting characters that were quite funny, but I think my daughter’s friend summed it up best: The best thing about the end of the movie is that it meant it was over.

• Astro Boy Trailer Blasts Off
• Astro Boy Full Trailer
• WonderCon 2009 – Knowing / Astro Boy Panel
• SDCC ‘09: Astro Boy Panel (With Kristen Bell!)
• Robotastic New Images From Astro Boy
• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Review

Short Version: Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant is an entertaining “alternative” vampire movie that should appeal to teens – but it’s NOT for younger kids.

Screen Rant reviews Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant

I haven’t read the books this movie is based on (from what I understand, the first three books of a 12 book series – a lot to cram into one film) and I didn’t have any preconceived notions about it good or bad going in. Based on trailers and commercials I really didn’t know what to expect, and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised… in most part due to John C. Reilly’s performance as Larten Crepsley, mentor to our burgeoning hero Darren Shan (played by Chris Massoglia).

Darren Shan is your basic “good kid” teenager. He gets good grades, stays out of trouble and listens to his overly “square” parents. He’s best friends with Steve (Josh Hutcherson), the “wild kid” who’s had a rough upbringing and has stood up for Darren over the years. They find out a freakshow (Cirque du Freak) is coming to their little hole in the wall town, and Steve talks Darren into sneaking out to see it. At the freakshow we meet Mr. Tall (played wonderfully by Ken Watanabe) – the man who runs the show and plays head of the family for the assorted misfits we are about to meet.

Some slight spoilers follow as an FYI to parents.

The stage show is VERY creepy for a film that parents may think about bringing younger kids to… It includes a man with a super-narrow midsection with his internal organs exposed, a man with two huge, grotesque stomachs and a scene where a werewolf rips off a woman’s arm. Throughout the film there are fight scenes that are very dark, aggressive and creepy, and some of the characters may be disturbing to kids under 10 in my opinion – under 8 or so I’d say forget it.

End spoilers.

Steve feels he has nothing to lose and wants to become a vampire, while of course Darren has no interest – guess what happens. Eventually Darren is “blooded” by Mr. Crepsley, who does this to protect Darren from the also quite creepy Mr. Tiny (Michael Cerveris, who gives another effective, if over the top, performance). It seems Mr. Tiny’s mission in life is nothing short of bringing on the apocalypse and he’s looking for a young man to fulfill some prophecy.

There’s a split in the vampire community – there are “good” vampires like Mr. Crepsley, who figured out (finally, if you ask me) that it’s better to just draw some blood from a victim and leave them alive with no memory of what happened than to kill them, thus avoiding the whole “driven out of town by people with pitchforks” scenario. On the other hand there are the “old school” vampires called the “Vampanese” who kill their victims and drain them dry (Mr. Tiny, while not a vampire, is on their side).

Mr. Crepsley decides to hide Darren among the freaks in their circus camp. We meet a variety of characters including the rather engaging snake-man Evra Von (Patrick Fugit) and the rather normal looking young lady Rebecca (Jessica Carlson). Eventually Darren comes to see them as people and not as whatever oddity they display.

The film is an odd combination of humor and serious/kid-scary scenes. John C. Reilly is really a joy to watch in every scene, conveying the ascerbic humor of his character perfectly. I also enjoyed the heck out of Ken Watanabe here – so wonderfully… strange. And I couldn’t take my eyes off the creepy, mesmerizing Michael Cervis as Mr. Tiny. Salma Hayek co-stars with her abundant cleavage (see the movie and you’ll get what I mean – not that I’m complaining) and Willem Defoe makes a brief appearance that is memorable despite his lack of screen time. The young leads were adequate, but nothing very memorable – Massoglia was no doubt chosen for his teen eye candy appeal.

While The Vampire’s Assistant is a hard movie to nail down as far as tone, I really did find myself enjoying it for what it was throughout its entirety. I think teens and even adults might enjoy it, but leave the little ones at home for this one – trust me on that.

• ‘Cirque Du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant’ Trailer & Poster
• Fantastic Fest Day Three: Japanese Sci-Fi Punk Rock, Russian Doctors on Drugs, and Vampirical Assistants
• This Week’s Collection of Movie Posters
• Poster Friday: Moon, Tooth Fairy, Parnassus & More!
• Poster Friday: New Moon, Caprica, The Crazies & More!
• Blood: The Last Vampire Review

Short version: Ong Bak 2: The Beginning isn’t for everyone, but for action junkies, it provides exactly what you’d expect.

Screen Rant’s Ross Miller reviews Ong Bak 2

The first Ong Bak (subtitled Muay Thai Warrior) I found to be quite entertaining, with some seriously kick-ass fight sequences, consisting of some often jaw-dropping choreography and stunts. Unfortunately, there were also some not-so-great aspects, notably the poor acting and thin storyline. But overall there was enough there to make it worthwhile, and it was pretty much inevitable that another movie would follow.

It’s no surprise to find that Ong Bak 2, or Ong Bak 2: The Beginning, is practically more of the same, but it manages to get rid of (or at least better mask) the bad elements, while subsequently improving on the fight sequences (if you can believe it).

Ong Bak 2 is actually a prequel to Ong Bak, taking place in ancient Thailand as opposed to modern-day Thailand. However, what wasn’t entirely clear was how the sequel links to the first one, since it takes place centuries prior (unless Tony Jaa’s character is immortal, I can’t see how it’s the same guy in both – their names are different, for one thing). Confusion aside, the new (or old) setting is a nice change-up from what we saw in the first movie, perhaps even enhancing the awe-inspiring fighting in a strange way.

The plot follows Tien (Jaa), the son of a Lord murdered in Thailand in the late 15th century. After resisting ruthless slave traders and just moments from death, Tien is rescued by a renowned warrior who takes him under his wing and trains him in martial arts, including the heavy use of weapons. He eventually grows up and into “one of the most dangerous men alive.” Tien goes on to track down and exact vengeance on the men who enslaved him as a child, as well as getting revenge on the warlord who killed his father.

I think Ong Bak 2 is the type of movie you have to judge on the grounds of what it’s attempting to do, and if it achieved that goal or not. And I can say that it certainly does achieve its goals. The movie zips along at a fairly quick pace, linking one amazing fight scene to another, with only a few sags in the narrative here and there but nothing too detrimental to the film as a whole.

The fight scenes are often unbelievably well executed and will be impressive (I imagine) to even the most avid action movie goer. Thank the talents of star and director, Tony Jaa; he punched and kicked his way onto the cinematic radar with the first Ong Bak, defying gravity, kicking the asses of more bad guys than can possibly be counted, while bringing a fresh style to the martial arts genre. The fact that he had directorial control this time around definitely shows on-screen: the action scenes seem to flow a lot better than they did in the first film, not exactly entering into the realm of the believable (the more ridiculous, the better, I say!), but somehow feeling as such within the context of the film itself.

For instance, there’s a scene where Tien uses an elephant – which he’s managed to “tame” – when battling just one of the many bands of bad guys he runs into. He uses the elephant to spring off and swing on in order to pull off a special type of fly-kick, and even uses the elephant’s tusks to knock out his foes. Sounds a bit out there, right? Well in principle it is, but Jaa makes it work. Go figure.

As I said, even though you have to judge this type of film for what it’s trying to do, that still doesn’t stop some poorly handled aspects from somewhat weighing it down. The story feels fairly generic, or at least predictable – young boy’s father is killed, he gets taken in by a warrior, trains to be an amazing fighter, and goes out to avenge said father. The dialogue – the little there is of it – is very by-the-book (sometimes ultra-cheesy) and the acting (as far as I could tell since I don’t speak Thai) was sub-par at best.

But I imagine if you’re thinking about checking out Ong Bak 2, acting, script or story will be the furthest thing from your mind. Chances are you’re looking for more of the kick-ass fight sequences we saw in the first Ong Bak (as well as the similar The Protector) and I’m happy to say the film delivers on that in absolute spades.

• District 9 (Apparently) More Action-Packed Than We Thought
• Blood: The Last Vampire Review
• G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra Review
• ‘Ninja Assassin’s’ Rain To ‘Awaken The Dragon?’
• Tim Robbins Is NOT In Iron Man 2 After All
• The Taking of Pelham 123 Review

Short version: Despite its flaws, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus still offers some jaw-dropping visuals, fine performances and showcases a fantastically creative imagination that make it worth seeing.

Screen Rant’s Ross Miller Reviews The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

There are a handful of directors out there – including Quentin Tarantino, David Lynch and The Coen brothers – whose new films are always considered to be cinematic events. Amongst that list of directors (for me) is Terry Gilliam, who I think is one of the most imaginative and creative filmmakers out there when it comes to the ideas and subsequent visuals that come the wild imagination he possesses.

Even when he’s at his weakest, Gilliam always offers something worth watching in my books, whether it be ambitious sci-fi (Twelve Monkeys) or almost self-indulgent fantasy (Tideland). So does his latest fantasy-laden film, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus deliver yet again on that Gilliam charm? Thankfully yes, even if the film is not exactly perfect.

Doctor Parnassus centers on the titular character (Christopher Plummer), a 1,000 year-old former monk who centuries ago made a deal with the devil (Tom Waits) to obtain immortality in return for any children he might father in his life, once said child turned 16. Dr. Parnassus makes a living from his traveling Imaginarium theater, which allows its audience to enter a magical and mysterious world which takes the form of the person’s imagination, fueled by the power that Dr. Parnassus has.

One day Dr. Parnassus, along with his daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole), and his travelling theater workers Anton (Andrew Garfield) and Percy (Verne Troyer), come across the mysterious and amnesiac named Tony (Heath Ledger). With time running out on his satanic contract, Dr. Parnassus and his troupe venture out to save Parnassus’s daughter before the devil comes to collect.

Doctor Parnassus suffers from what many of these types of real world/fantasy world films suffer from: The gorgeous, often awe-inspiring visuals to be found in the fantasy world make the real world pale in comparison. It’s the scenes in the real world – which unfortunately make up the majority of the movie – that tend to sag in places, due to a thin story and how unevenly that story is handled. Perhaps the less-than-exciting scenes of the real world are watered down on purpose to make the fantasy aspects stand out even more – but as much as that’s admirable in hindsight, it doesn’t make watching the film any more entertaining. In my opinion, Gilliam proves that his imagination sometimes outreaches his ability to frame it within a package that works in its entirety.

It’s a huge relief, then, that things pick up when it comes to the fantasy elements of this film – whether its the stories being told by Dr. Parnassus that are shown in flashback, or the actual fantasy world in all its visually stunning glory. From reflective lands filled with giant candy canes and golden lily pads (which kind of looks like a warped, no-boundaries Willy Wonka factory), to bright, cheerful, rolling hills with endless ladders pointed towards the sky – this film really is a visual treat that needs to be seen to be truly appreciated.

Whether right or wrong, much of the interest in seeing Doctor Parnassus will be to see the late Heath Ledger in his last film role before he sadly passed away. And if I’m being completely honest, it took me a while from when he was introduced in the film (which isn’t straight away, FYI) to get used to it. And I would be lying if I said that Ledger’s last performance was fantastic, or even his personal best, because it’s not (as populist as it may be to say, his performance as The Joker was his peak). However, don’t get me wrong: Ledger turns in a good, even great, performance, once again showing off his diversity as an actor and his true talent when placed in the right roles (he’s been in some not-so-great films, too, let’s not kid ourselves).

After Ledger died mid-way through Doctor Parnassus’s production, it was questioned whether or not Gilliam was going to even continue on and finish shooting the film. As a fix, Gilliam brought on-board three of Ledger’s friends, Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. As great as it was (back when) to hear three great talents being added to the already impressive cast, I was dubious that four different actors (particularly such well known ones) playing a single character was going to work.

I can honestly say that the substitutions for Ledger did work, and in fact the changes seem so finely woven into the fabric of the film that it’s hard to imagine it being any other way. Depp, Law and Farrell’s appearances don’t last that long (suprisingly, Farrell is probably on-screen the most, then Law and then Depp), but each put their distinct stamp on the proceedings while simultaneously fitting in very well with Ledger’s performance. Like the fantasy visuals, it’s hard to explain in words – you really do need to see it for yourself to truly “get it.”

Alongside Ledger, we have some fine supporting performances from the likes of model-turned-actress, Lily Cole (sweet and innocent with a hint of mischief under the surface), Andrew Garfield (quick-witted and fun to watch), Verne Troyer (playing an often rude but nonetheless loveable character), Christopher Plummer as the titular Dr. (who’s pretty much perfect for the role) and Tom Waits as The Devil (a genius piece of casting if ever there was one).

At almost two hours, I felt Doctor Parnassus was a little bit on the long side, with numerous scenes that could have been heavily trimmed or perhaps even removed completely. But even at its weakest, there’s always something interesting to look at or a strange atmosphere to soak up.

Doctor Parnassus may not be what you’d call a perfect film, but there’s enough visual wonder and conveyance (whether coherent or not) of Gilliam’s unmatched imagination that I felt I got my time and money’s worth. Gilliam fans will get more out of it than the average movie goer, but for those who love to be transported to fantastical worlds, the film is worth seeing.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus hits U.S. theaters on Christmas Day, 2009.

• Full Trailer For The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
• New ‘Doctor Parnassus’ Clips Look Great
• New Images From ‘The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus’
• A Look At Depp, Law and Farrell In ‘Doctor Parnassus’
• Heath Ledger’s Final Movie Opening In Cannes
• First Footage of Heath Ledger In ‘Doctor Parnassus’

Short Version: While some may view it as spoofing-by-the-numbers, Black Dynamite is still a worthy send-up of the blaxploitation genre.

Screen Rant guest review of 'Black Dynamite'

Black Dynamite, directed by Scott Sanders, is a glorious mash-up spoof of 1970s grind house and blaxploitation movies.  It stars Michael Jai White, most recently seen as Gambol in The Dark Knight.

The “story” centers on Black Dynamite avenging the death of his bother, who was apparently dealing drugs. Of course the brother wasn’t really dealing dope, but was instead being framed by “The Man.” If you can’t tell yet the plot is classic blaxploitation and the semi-familiar players all admirably fill their rolls, toting names such as “Cream Corn,” “Tasty Freeze” and “Chicago Wind.”  For you fans of The Best D*mn Sports Show Period, John Salley even makes a guest appearance as a hood named “Kotex.”

The first 2/3 of Black Dynamite is ripe with all the sophomoric humor one might associate with any Judd Apatow production, which (to me) is a good thing.  For those of you who remember the movie Airplane! you will appreciate a great joke involving a boom mike. Jokes regarding the low budgets of grindhouse movies are rife throughout this film.  A particularly funny one involves the “tears” that are and then aren’t flowing in an emotional scene between Black Dynamite and Honeybee.  Everything is up for parody in this movie.

What ultimately makes this film so enjoyable is the way it takes the tropes of blaxploitation and grindhouse films from the 1970s, and somehow makes them seem fresh. Even the old caricature of the solitary hero just back from Vietnam is played for laughs, as Black Dynamite consistently refers to the wrong country, every time he suffers another flashback while on the violent search for his brother’s murderer. And it’s a quest which ascends the ladder of culprits all the way to the top.

I don’t think I’m giving away anything by revealing that the “surprise” archvillain is Tricky Dick Nixon himself (who else would it be, really?) and that the ex-Pres is surprisingly handy with a pair of nunchucks. Even the whole “diabolical plot” created by The Man – to shrink the “member” size of African American males – is a hilarious send-up of a stereotype; almost every joke has a reason for being in the film and seems to have been wittily thought out.

Before too long I knew what was going to happen in every scene of this movie (which says more about the number of B-movies I’ve seen and less with the predictability of the movie itself), but unlike repetitive and uninspired drek like Transformers 2 (and despite the fairly bizarre nature of the climax), I still laughed a lot, as did a fair portion of the audience.

If you like blaxploitation, grindhouse B-movies or just a good, funny spoof, you’ll like Black Dynamite.

(Thanks to guest writer Sulai Sivadel for the review.)

Black Dynamite is currently playing in the following locations and theaters:

• Black Dynamite Blowing Up on Screens Big and Small!
• Black Dynamite Coming to Theaters In October
• Black Dynamite Red Band Trailer Goes Green
• Black Dynamite Fights Smack In The Orphanages!
• Pirates of the Caribbean 4 Has a Plot
• The Taking of Pelham 123 Review

Short Version: Law Abiding Citizen is a satisfying (and at times funny) revenge movie that unfortunately loses its way in the last 20 minutes.

Screen Rant reviews Law Abiding Citizen

It seems like Law Abiding Citizen is one in a series of husband/father avenges the death/mistreatment of his family movies spawned by the success of Taken (next in line is the Mel Gibson-starring Edge of Darkness).

In this one we have Gerard Butler as Clyde Shelton, loving father and husband (established quite effectively in just the first couple of minutes of the film) up against Jamie Foxx as prosecutor Nick Rice in a game of psychological cat and mouse.

Clyde’s wife and very young daughter are brutally murdered (his wife, before his eyes) by a couple of burglars who break into his home. In order to guarantee that at least one of the perpetrators gets the death sentence, Nick cuts a plea bargain with the other, who will only serve five years. He does this without first consulting with Clyde, who doesn’t buy Nick’s argument of it being better to see some justice served rather than take the chance that both men go free. Within the first 10 minutes you’ll get the entire set up for the film.

Cut to 10 years later – Nick now has a 9 year old daughter and the death row inmate is about to be executed. What should be a standard death by injection goes horribly wrong in a scene that will probably have you cringing in your seat at least a little. Soon after the bad guy who only served five years gets put in a compromising position by Clyde – and he is going to have a very, very bad (last) day.

One thing leads to another and Nick determines that Clyde is the guy behind both deaths. In a scene that frankly makes no sense other than to show Gerard Butler’s naked butt, the cops capture him and take him in. It soon becomes clear that Clyde wanted more than revenge – he wants to expose the corrupt justice system where compromises are made and the letter of the law sometimes leads to injustice.

Murders of those involved in the plea deal continue to take place even with Clyde behind bars, where he makes a series of odd and interesting requests – all of which turn out to be made for very specific reasons. Of course the big mystery is how these things continue to happen despite the fact Clyde is behind bars – who is his accomplice? Unfortunately the longer this goes on, the bigger the shovel that is needed to dig out the answer to this question, and the solution is hard to swallow.

Gerard Butler basically chews the scenery and Jamie Foxx isn’t given a whole lot to do here other than look and act solemn.

The movie is very violent, at times quite funny (Gerard gets some great lines that had the audience laughing out loud) and has at least one scene that comes at you out of nowhere with a hell of a punch. I’m a big fan of this sort of film being a husband and father myself, and was really enjoying it up until about the final 20 minutes where it took a turn in a direction that ends up putting a big damper on the experience. The ending seals the deal and really left me pretty cold (unfortunately).

So while the ending is pretty unsatisfying, I had a lot of fun for most of the movie. So overall if you’re into this sort of film and you’re a fan of Gerard Butler and/or Jamie Foxx I recommend Law Abiding Citizen.

• Law Abiding Citizen First Trailer
• New Posters: Saw VI, Extract, Gamer & Lots More
• New Posters: Where The Wild Things Are, Michael Jackson & More!
• Gerard Butler Is In For 300 Prequel/Sequel?
• Mike Tyson Wants Jamie Foxx To Play Him In Biopic
• A Perfect Getaway Review

Short Version: Where the Wild Things Are is a wonderful movie more suited to grown-ups who want to remember their childhood than for the kids who are still there.

Screen Rant reviews Where the Wild Things Are

Just so you know, I don’t have fond memories of Maurice Sendak’s children’s book Where the Wild Things Are. Neither for myself as a child nor for reading it to my daughter when she was younger (the book I remember is The Wheels on the Bus). So I didn’t have any bubble to burst going into the movie.

I don’t know how this will go over with fans of the book… Spike Jonze had to flesh out a book whose entire text maybe amounted to one paragraph into a 100 minute movie – so he had to fill in a LOT of story that isn’t in the book.

The film opens pretty close to the original story, with Max (played wonderfully by Max Records) running through the house crazy and screaming, chasing the poor family dog. Max is an only child with no father who doesn’t seem to have friends – and he’s a bit of a wild child.

Max really wants attention, but is hard pressed to get as much as he wants from his loving, working mom who is also trying to get a relationship going of her own. One evening Max crosses the line in behavior and the result is (unlike the book) his running away. He finds his way to a nearby park with a shoreline, finds a small boat and sails away. After a rough journey he comes upon an island, and makes his way to a campfire where there are a bunch of large, odd creatures trying to convince one of their own not to demolish their huts.

Once he reveals himself to them he has to spin a yarn about being a king of the Vikings with magical powers in order to avoid being eaten. Max is supported by the apparant leader of the group, Carol (a male character, voice by James Gandolfini). It seems that Carol is perturbed by the recent departure of KW, who seems to be as close to a girlfriend as these monster-creatures get. Carol looks to Max to bring some purpose and happiness to the group, which has its share of dysfunctional characters.

For a while things go well, but eventually conflicts and doubts arise – and the complexity of the relationships and emotions will be a surprise to people going in expecting a fairly simple adaptation of a beloved children’s story.

Where the Wild Things Are put a grin on my face from the very first frame, with the Warner Bros. logo surrounded by hand drawn scribbles. Max Records is simply wonderful in the film and just draws you in with every subtle facial expression. And then we have the muppet with CGI face characters voiced by the likes of James Gandolfini, Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose, Catherine O’Hara and the rest – subtle, touching performances all around by big, furry creatures. At the end of the film I asked myself how big HR Puf’n'Stuff looking creatures could bring a tear to my eye.

The film is a look at the world through the eyes of a nine year old more effective than I’ve seen in a while, if ever. Director Spike Jonze does a fantastic job of it, and combined with the beautiful music and breathtaking cinematography if you let yourself go it should really transport you to another place. I actually believe that the older you are, the more you will appreciate this film.

So if that’s the case, what about children?

Well honestly I don’t know how this will go over with kids – there are a couple of scenes that the really young ones (at the age that they’ll actually enjoy the book right now) will probably find a bit frightening (the movie is rated PG). Kids a bit older than that (Max’s age) may not exactly be transported by the film because, well, they’re already there – and the relative complexities of the relationships will probably bore them. So – I’m very curious how this will go over with the general public. Critics seem to be split on this so I imagine the audience will be the same. I knocked off half a star because this should have been a film that appeals to all ages (think Pixar) but I don’t think it really works for kids.

Where the Wild Things Are is destined to be a film classic, and I encourage you to go see it for yourself.

• ‘Where The Wild Things Are’ Getting IMAX Release
• Glowing Early Review of ‘Where the Wild Things Are’
• Where The Wild Things Are Soundtrack Streaming Free Online
• New ‘Where the Wild Things Are’ Pics
• New Where The Wild Things Are Trailer Even Better Than The Last
• Where The Wild Things Are TV Spots

Short Version: The Road taps the power, beauty and horror of Cormac McCarthy’s novel and gives us a movie that is both gorgeous and gut-wrenching.

For those biting their nails in anticipation (I know you’re out there), I’ll skip the usual opening fanfare and get right to it: In my opinion, director John Hillcoat has successfully taken the power, beauty and horror of Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Road and translated it, intact, to the big screen. I think that those moviegoers who don’t already read McCarthy now have another good example of why they should (The Coen Brothers’ No Country For Old Men being the other); I think that those who DO read McCarthy will at least be happy that the movie version “didn’t screw it up,” and at most will truly appreciate the movie based on its own merits.

Now that I’ve got that out, let’s back it up and start at the beginning.

The Road tells the story of a bleak future where America (and maybe the world) has become a slowly rotting dystopia, scorched by some unnamed disaster. The days are gray, ash rains from the sky and the air is only getting colder as the world grows dark. In this hell are The Man (Viggo Mortensen) and The Boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee), walking the road from up north down the southern coastline, where hopefully they won’t freeze to death come winter. Man and Boy used to be completed by Wife (Charlize Theron), until the burden of protecting a child from hell on Earth became to much for her to bear.

For Man and Boy, the objective is simple: Head south along the road and keep surviving. That means finding food – somehow, someway – amidst the bone-picked ash lands, and more importantly, keeping out of the sights and snares of roving bands of cannibal gangs, who will surely rape, kill and then devour Man and Boy both – not necessarily in that order.

Welcome to the world of Mr. McCarthy.

Though the plot sounds like something out of a horror film, the real power of The Road is found in the poignant and gut-wrenching meditation on the power of a parent’s love. That Cormac McCarthy spun such a brilliant book out of those threads was a feat in itself; the task facing John Hillcoat and his cast when embarking on this film was monumental: bottle lightning twice, on a much bigger scale. I’m happy to report that both visually and performance-wise, all parties rise to the occasion.

Let’s start with the visuals. I was literally blown away by how well each and every single scene in the film brought to life the scorched world as told in McCarthy’s prose. If you read the author, you know of his unequaled (almost poetic) talent for describing scenes of land and nature – they’re the heart of his books and to overlook them would be a fatal flaw on the part of any film trying to recreate “the McCarthy experience.” Thankfully, Hillcoat takes a page out of The Coen Brothers’ playbook and invests wisely in an array of gorgeous scorched-Earth landscaping shots.

Not only does The Road nail pretty much every major set piece of the book, I dare say that the filmmakers are often successful in enhancing what the book created – as any cinematic adaptation worth a damn should do. There are these perfect little touches to every set piece: Ash piles and blackened metal husks on some burnt-out city block; loose bills of money blood-stuck to the ground that flail in the wind; ashen horizons, naked, gnarled forests and sludge-filled creeks; body parts, spilled guts and burnt skeletons littering the wayside – it’s all there, and the carnage is gorgeous. Even McCarthy’s constant mention of dying trees uprooting and falling over has been noted and included. It’s a film you could literally watch on mute and enjoy all the same.

But what about the acting?

Without some knockout performances, the entire emotional narrative of The Road would have sank beneath the horror-movie premise. But again, John Hillcoat is wise in his decision making, tapping just the right actors (read: talented) to play the handful of supporting roles the film offers.

At the center are The Man and The Boy. I know a few ladies are excited to see Viggo Mortensen back on the screen doing what he does best, and Mr. Mortensen once again steps up to the plate and earns that praise, giving us a Man who is half-crazed from love for his son, the loss of his Wife and the burden of waking up everyday to hell just to make sure that breath stays flowing through his son’s body. The film quickly forces you to understand that this is a world where the most important lesson a father has to teach his son is how to properly blow his brains out if cornered by cannibals. Mortensen attacks these chilling moments with all the genuine concern of a parent who truly wants the best for their child, making such moments all the more terrible. I couldn’t stop cringing in my seat.

Regarding Kodi Smit-McPhee as The Boy… I rank The Road 4.5 out of 5 only because I know that some people will make the fair argument that The Boy is “annoying” at times. For my part, I think Smit-McPhee does good work – only in a film where the rest of the cast and director are doing great work. The young actor is clearly too, well, young to totally comprehend (let alone convey) what this story is all about. As it stands, The Boy ends up as more of a physical metaphor than a realized character, and I think you can (and will) debate amongst yourselves about how closely (or not) that portrayal honors what McCarthy intended in the novel.

As for the supporting cast, I applaud the filmmakers for turning to a skilled set of actors to play what might be considered by more foolish minds to be “bit parts.” Garret Dillahunt (Deadwood) made my skin crawl in two minutes of screen time as a cannibal gang member; Michael K. Williams (The Wire) continues to prove why he’s so respected, bringing total humanity to The Thief (above) in just three minutes; Guy Pearce keeps you guessing for a minute whether The Veteran is going to save or savor The Boy; and Robert Duvall is a seasoned pro, transforming yet another supporting role into an indelible one. No weak links in this chain.

Continue reading our review of The Road…

• The Road: New Clips & An Early Review
• First Trailer for ‘The Road’ Misses The Mark
• The Weinstein Company Tampered With ‘The Road’ Trailer
• TIFF 2009 Must See Films: ‘Get Low’, ‘Precious’ & ‘The Road’
• Viggo Mortensen To NOT Quit Acting
• ‘The Road’ Delayed…Yet Again

Short Version: Zombieland is Shaun of the Dead’s crazy, funny redneck cousin.

Screen Rant reviews Zombieland

Don’t kid yourself going into Zombieland: It is a VERY gory movie. So if based on trailers and commercials you’re expecting just a funny, goofy film, you’ll be in for a surprise. On the other hand if you’re a fan of the zombie movie genre, you’re in for a great time.

Zombieland is about a couple of guys trying to get by after the zombie apocalypse. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a shut-in, introverted geek with a fear of clowns and Talahassee is a nothing-to-lose, redneck badass who’s finally discovered his gift in life: Zombie killin’. Oh – and Talahassee’s one burning goal is to find some Twinkies so he can satisfy his burning craving for them.

Columbus has managed to survive because even before the zombies took over he didn’t like being around people and was very paranoid. He’s developed a list of rules for surviving in a world overrun by zombies, and the first few are highlighted hysterically in the opening minutes of the film. Among them include Rule #1: Cardio – it goes back to the old joke about not having to outrun the bear, just your buddy. He notes that “fatties” were among the first to go after the zombies took over because they were easy to catch. Other rules include “Beware of bathrooms” (you don’t want to get caught by a zombie while on the toilet) and “Always double-tap” (two gunshots, whacks with a blunt object or blade to be sure the zombie stays down).

There are a few additional rules sprinkled throughout (he has over 30) and they’re used to good effect.

Then we have Talahassee, who you’ll like immediately – he’s apparently taken the situation in stride, no, strike that – he actually seems to be enjoying it. His favorite thing to do in the world is to kill zombies. He’s travelling in a Cadillac Escalade, armed to the teeth, and you’ll get a kick out of the creativity and gusto he uses when dispatching the undead.

Our heroes meet Wichita and Little Rock (Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin), who have also found unique ways to survive the zombie mayhem. However part of their survival has included not trusting anyone, so things are sketchy between both pairs for quite a while.

Eventually they end up in Beverly Hills, where they pick up a “Map of the Star’s Homes” in order to find a certain celebrity’s home where they can relax for a while. There’s a great cameo in the film and I won’t spoil who it is. Soon after the girls head to an amusement park in the LA area so that Little Rock can have at least a little childhood fun, but things take a sour turn, requiring rescue from the boys.

As I mentioned in my “Short Version” this is a lot rougher than the only other recent zombie comedy I can think of, Shaun of the Dead. That one had more of that dry, Brit humor and at times was scary than this film (this film really wasn’t scary at all, just gory).

Zombieland was a lot of fun, but even though it only had about a 90 minute runtime, by the end it seemed to me like they were stretching it out a bit – I think most of that was in the final scene in the amusement park… could have been trimmed somewhat. I thought everyone in the film was great, but one think that bugged me a little was some of Jesse Eisenberg’s dialog: He played the character as a really, meek, introverted, geeky kind of guy so the spurts of f-bombs and other foul language coming from him really seemed added for cheap laughs. Yes, I know this is an R-rated film and I have no issue with foul language if it fits – but for his character I just didn’t think it did.

Those nits aside, I thought Zombieland was a lot of fun with many laugh out loud moments and lots of gore to satisfy fans of the genre – but do me a favor and leave the kids at home for this one, would ya?

• Hilarious Red Band Trailer for Zombieland
• The First Trailer For Zombieland Rocks!
• Zombieland International Trailer
• Comic-Con: Zombieland Pleases The Hordes
• Five New Zombieland Clips
• New Clips & TV Spots: Pandorum, Zombieland, Ninja Assassin & More!

Short Version: While not as smart as it could be, Surrogates is thought provoking and mildly entertaining.

Screen Rant reviews Surrogates

Bruce Willis’ latest (semi-)action movie is Surrogates, a thought provoking look at the idea of taking our virtual/avatar online selves to a whole other level. In the film, it has been 14 years since Lionel Canter (James Cromwell) developed the first generation of a technology that allowed robots to be controlled completely via thought. We are briefly shown the stages of the development and integration of the technology over ensuing years, leading to present day (some time in the near future in the film).

The “Surrogate” (or “Surrey”) technology became so advanced and its use so widespread that eventually almost everyone now has their own personal robotic duplicate. What’s the point, you ask? Well these duplicates (which of course are idealized versions of the real person, or perhaps a completely different “fantasy” personage) go out into the world and interact with other people via their surrogates. In the film, due to 98% of the worlds population using surrogates, crime has plummeted and people are able to lead more supposedly satisfying lives – able to engage in all sorts of dangerous and risky behavior with no fear of getting hurt.

Bruce Willis plays Tom Greer, an FBI agent brought in to investigate the destruction of two surrogates. With the ultra-low crime rate this is an unusual event – moreso due to the effects of the destruction: Burnt out “eyes” on the units. Things get more complicated when it’s discovered that the human operators of these surrogates died from as a result of the “death” of their robots. This is a very big deal as one of the main selling points of the robots is the fact that there is no chance of injury whatsoever to the operator.

The main plot of the film is Greer attempting to find out who is behind the weapon because it could bring mass chaos to a world that has become completely dependent on the technology.

Greer is married but has suffered a great loss not long ago – the result of this is that his wife Maggie (Rosamund Pike) will not leave her room, but will only eveer be “seen” in the guise of her perfect, surrogate self. Greer is weary of living life virtually, hooked up to the equipment in his room and never leaving his home. That is how everyone lives now – interacting with each other only via their perfect-looking surrogates, while in reality sequestering themselves alone at home.

There are groups of people in every major city living in self-restricted compounds called human reservations. They think that this “virtual life” via surrogates is an abomination and want humanity to return living as we were intended. These people are led by a “messiah” called The Prophet – played by Ving Rhames, who is not who he appears to be.

The movie is based on a comic book miniseries written by Robert Venditti which I haven’t read – so how faithful it is to the source material overall, I don’t know (other than the ending deviates from the comic in a typical movie “happy ending” sort of way). It’s an intriguing concept – extrapolating from people’s growing dependence today on sites like Facebook and Twitter as well as virtual communities where you only exist to others via your online avatar (I read recently that now every one out of five minutes online are spend on social networking sites).

Unfortunately it’s very difficult to connect with the film in any way since most of the time the characters on screen are the CGI-enhanced, overly perfect surrogate versions of the actors. I did like the slightly artificial look and sheen of the surrogates, but the flip side is that as these characters they were stiff and could not emote very well. As a counterpoint to this uber-perfection it seemed like the film over compensated in the “real person” department, making the people in the film (too not put too fine a point on it) really ugly. Then again I suppose if you never had any reason to EVER leave your home, you wouldn’t worry so much about such niceties as shaving, showering every day, putting on makeup if you’re a woman, etc.

So in the end, it was an interesting concept but the execution left me a bit cold – while it could have been a film that sticks with you for a while, instead it was kind of forgettable. I’d say it’s worth a rental when it comes out on DVD.

• New Viral Teaser Poster for ‘Surrogates’
• Three New ‘Surrogates’ Clips
• ‘Surrogates’ Behind-The-Scenes Featurette
• Explosive New Surrogates Trailer
• Bruce Willis’ Surrogates Trailer Finally Arrives!
• Three New ‘Surrogates’ TV Spots

Short Version: Pandorum is a mess of a movie that squanders a lot of potential.

Screen Rant Reviews Pandorum

Movies often fail for varying reasons; sometimes the fatal flaw is in the script, sometimes the performances of the actors and sometimes because of the filmmaker’s total ineptness. Pandorum suffers from the latter case: director Christian Alvart has stitched together a patchwork of scenes that never really cohere into an actual movie. It’s a real tragedy, considering the potential this film had.

Pandorum opens as Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) wakes from cryogenic sleep aboard the starship Elysium (clever pun), whose mission is to ferry the last remnants of humanity to a new home planet. Bower wakes with all of his technical memory intact – how to operate the ship’s equipment, his military protocol – but his personal memories (events leading up to waking, such as where he is and how he got there) are all foggy. The room he wakes up in is sealed shut, and the ship’s power supply is in disarray due to a reactor malfunction. Soon after Bower gets on his feet, another cryo-pod pops open and Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid) joins party.

As the slimmer man, Bower heads up into the ventilation ducts bound for the ship’s reactor, which he seems to recall being assigned to operate and fix. With Payton guiding him via comm link, Bower enters the bowels of the ship and steps right into a living nightmare.

Monsters have taken over the ship (as if you didn’t already know). They are a species of pale white, inhumanly fast and strong warrior-killers, who spend their days hunting down the remaining humans and feasting on their bodies. After narrowly escaping the creatures, Bower meets a pretty ecologist-turned-survival expert named Nadia (Antje Traue) and a hunter-warrior named Manh (martial arts star Cung Le). After a violent introduction, the three humans band together to venture into the heart of the ship and reset the reactor before the vessel loses all power and the last of humanity dies in space.

While the field team is at work, Payton is running point from the cryo-chamber room and is eventually joined by Corporal Gallo (Cam Gigandet), who claims to be one of three crew members awake for the Elysium’s initial lift-off from Earth. According to Gallo, his crewmates became afflicted with the space madness known as “pandorum,” forcing Gallo to kill them all. The corporal tells Payton that Bower might also be suffering from pandorum, since he ventured out on a veritable suicide mission; for the good of the ship, Payton should seize control of the situation.

What unfolds from there is as predictable as your first guess and is even less exciting than you imagine. Like I said, this film is a patchwork of scenes that never feel connected, set in the framework of a film that never can decide which story to tell. Is the focus Bower and Payton’s mysterious pasts? Is it a survival story? Is it a psychological thriller about space madness (what the hell is “pandorum,” exactly)? And where did those creatures come from and what are they after? That last question does get some explanation (I think), but again, even the story behind the story is such a mess that I’m not quite clear what the explanation was. The shots and action sequences are often so incoherent that you’ll lose track of where YOU are or what is going on, just the characters themselves. It’s not a favorable position to put a movie audience in.

I will take a minute to absolve the stars of Pandorum of blame, since I don’t believe the fatal fault lies with them. Everybody on screen looks lost and/or confused most of the time (see pic above), and rightly so: most of the scenes look like they were shot with the director sitting up on a high chair yelling “Do This! Ok… Now do that!” in random increments over a megaphone while the actors just tried to keep up. There is no character development (we’re supposed to believe that these characters’ choices are their choices just because the film says they are), and worst of all, I didn’t like, dislike or connect in any way to even one character in this film, and when you can remain that indifferent for an hour and a half…

Instead of depth and meaning we get a mindless progression – Event A, followed by Event B, followed by Event C. Whatever happens, happens, with absolutely no regard for whether or not the occurrences are consistent with the characters, or whether or not they make any narrative sense. It’s storytelling in the dark. Poor Dennis Quaid suffers the brunt of it – his entire role is set in the cryo-room, engaged in increasingly ridiculous back-and-forths with Gigandet. God bless him – I would have shot myself.

As for the monsters – which Pandorum kept veiled in secrecy during the ad campaigns – they’re badass, but unfortunately just as hollow and flimsy as everything else in this movie. And oh man, by the time you get to the “twist ending” you’ll want to hunt down the filmmakers, bop them on the head with a rolled up newspaper and say, “Bad dog! No! No!”

In the end, there is nothing redeeming about this movie. For the first twenty minutes you’ll be handed the promise of a freaky sci-fi thriller (thank Foster, as usual, for making a lot out of a little), but after that, if you hang around for the rest of Pandorum, you too will be forced to watch that promise denigrate into cosmic slop.

Welcome to the first real disappointment of the fall 2009 movie season.

• Exclusive: Final Pandorum Trailer
• Pandorum: TV Spots & “Creature Feature” Clip
• Ben Foster Talks Pandorum
• ‘Pandorum’ German Trailer Released
• Freaktastic New Poster for Pandorum
• Creepy ‘Pandorum’ & Mysterious ‘Order of Chaos’ Posters

SHORT VERSION: “Scariest Movie Ever” is a tall order to fill, but Paranormal Activity is definitely a serious fright flick that will continue to creep you out long after the movie ends.

Screen Rant Reviews Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity is a little film that was reportedly made for $11,000 over the course of a seven-day shoot by writer/director/producer/editor Oren Peli, and stars newbies Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat and the couple’s camcorder.

The ghost story is pretty straightforward: Katie and Micah (the actors use their real names in the film) are a young couple who have been together for about a year or two and have recently taken the plunge of moving in together. Soon after, they begin to experience weird paranormal activity taking place in their home – lights and sinks turning on and off, doors slamming, etc. Katie soon reveals that this isn’t the first time she’s been “haunted by ghosts” – when she was 8, she had re-occurring visits from a shadowy apparition and her family’s home was eventually burned to the ground without explanation. Since then, the apparition has followed Katie wherever she goes, “visiting” her from time to time, up to the present. Micah wishes that Katie had told him all this BEFORE they moved in together.

Katie is freaking out about the reappearance of her ghostly stalker, but Micah (of course) is too MANLY to believe in such nonsense, so he invests in a top-grade camera, some top-grade mini microphones and sound recording software, in order to wire the house for a ghost-hunting experiment. Our POV is that of the camcorder and boom mic, as they record the paranormal happenings taking place in Katie and Micha’s home over the course of about three weeks.

That’s the setup, and it would be hard to go much deeper without dropping some major SPOILERS.

I can tell you that Katie and Micah bring in a psychic (Michael Bayouth) who determines that what they’re facing isn’t a ghost trying to establish communication, but rather a malevolent demon, hell bent (pun intended) on claiming Katie’s soul. The psychic tells Katie and Micah that they need to bring in a “demonologist” to help exorcise the evil spirit – only the guy is currently vacation, so they’ll have to wait it out. In the meantime, the psychic breaks down a few demon rules for the couple (and us) to understand:

1. There is no running from it – leave the house and the spirit will only follow.
2. The spirit feeds off negative energy (anger, fear, etc).
3. Don’t do ANYTHING to enrage or attract the demon – especially buying a Ouija Board.

Of course, if you’ve ever seen a horror movie before you know that the rules are only there to be broken by doomed fools. Katie is all nervousness and pragmatism (“Honey, let’s just stop and ask for directions…”), but Micah, the skeptic, would rather “man-up” and handle things his own way (read: pacing the house, challenging the evil spirit to show itself). Smart idea.

The best horror movies are the ones that exploit our deep-seated anxieties about real-life events or situations. The Exorcist was every parent’s worst nightmare: their innocent child suffering a terrible affliction; Rosemary’s Baby played upon the high-anxiety of pregnancy and child-rearing; Hitchcock’s Psycho gleefully exploited the near-universal fear of random, unprovoked violence. Paranormal Activity will stand out for a long time in my mind (and I’m sure others) because it hits just the right panic buttons inside the brain: the familiar fear of the creaky, empty house at night – but more importantly, the high-anxiety of being in a relationship.

The latter theme is only subtly touched on, due to the nature of the POV (it would’ve stupid to have the couple record their dramatic fight moments), but that current is always on and running, coursing through the cinematic subtext. Anybody you partner with in life is bound to come with baggage – Katie’s baggage just so happens to be a freaky demon. Micah is portrayed as something of an alpha-male stereotype – brash and insensitive a lot of the time, you know the picture – but also as a guy who is genuinely trying to help his chick sort out all of the crazy in her past, so they can be happy together in the present. And, like real-life relationships, sometimes the best intentions…

Continue reading our Paranormal Activity Review

• Paranormal Activity: The Original Ending
• Paranormal Activity: Alternate Endings & Recut Scenes [Updated]
• Paramount Chooses NOT to Remake ‘Paranormal Activity’
• Paranormal Activity Director Headed for ‘Area 51′
• Paranormal Activity 2 On The Way?
• Paranormal Activity Trailer & Poster (Do Not Watch Alone)

Short Version: Overall Jennifer’s Body is just a boring movie – punctuated by occasional humor and fewer scares.

Screen Rant reviews Jennifer’s Body

Let’s just get this right out of the way: Megan Fox does not appear naked in Jennifer’s Body.

So if that’s the main reason you want to go see this film, you’re out of luck. If the other reason you want to see the film is for the girl/girl makeout scene – there is a very brief scene of a kiss between Megan and Amanda Seyfried, and it’s shot in such an extreme close-up that for all I know they might have had “stunt doubles” do it.

Now that we have that out of the way, on to the review.

Megan Fox plays Jennifer, the uber-hot, like, totally popular babe at high school that girls envy and boys want desperately. She’s a typical movie hot-chick high school cheerleader, caring more about parties, guys and what she looks like than things like schoolwork. Her long-time best friend is Needy Lesnicky (played by Amanda Seyfried, obvious pretty-girl-hiding-behind-glasses-bad-hair-and-bad-clothes). It’s obvious quite early on that their friendship is not exactly balanced, with Needy cowtowing to Jennifer in every way, but happy to do it due to a misplaced sense of loyalty and the fact that being so UNpopular she of course gets a thrill out of being the popular girl’s best friend.

Jennifer being Jennifer, she gets into groupie mode over the lead singer of a visiting band (played by Adam Brody). She persuades Needy to ditch her “good guy” boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons) and to go with her to the only bar in town to watch the band play. By the end of the evening, Jennifer ends up taking off with the boys in the band, who are obviously not exactly Boy Scouts. Later that evening Jennifer turns up bruised and bloody at Needy’s house, acting strange, creepy and threatening.

A bloody Megan Fox in "Jennifer's Body"

Soon thereafter a series of grisly murders invade the small, usually quiet town, and Needy starts putting two and two together. Of course her boyfriend won’t believe her when she tries to tell him what’s going on, our main characters end up in grave danger, etc., etc.

Jennifer’s Body was written by Diablo Cody, the woman who wrote the critically acclaimed Juno – so despite the fact that this film was starring Megan Fox, people were hoping for something worthwhile. However where the dialog in Juno flowed easily and naturally, and the wit came easy, here it all seems forced and you get the sense that they’re just trying too hard to be hip – and failing.

You want an example? How about “They’re agents of Satan… with cool haircuts.”

Oh, hang on a sec – I’ve got to step away from the keyboard due to the non-stop laughter that won’t let me type.

The movie actually starts to get interesting once the creature appears and the killing starts – actually that’s when it starts to get at least a bit funny. There were maybe two or three times that I laughed during the entire film. So OK, but is it scary, then? No, not really. Right at the start of the film there is the weakest “jump scare” I have ever seen in a film, and while there are maybe a couple of horror movie-worthy scenes, overall it doesn’t work on that level either. I will admit that the smile that Megan Fox gave when she first showed up covered in blood DID creep me the hell out.

There were a few laughs here and there, one early on when Jennifer heads off in the band van and one funny bit during an awkward teenage sex scene (no, it doesn’t involve Fox, sorry).

And then there’s Megan Fox. For the guys, this still from the film shows more of her than you’ll see in the entire movie, so you can just get your fill right here:

Frankly, based on what I’ve read about Fox and from her in the form of interviews, it seemed to me that the character she was playing was pretty close to just being herself – not much of a stretch. The Jennifer character seemed so close to reports of those who’ve worked with Fox, and based on the sort of statements she herself has made – I just couldn’t buy into the character. I just saw Megan being Megan (except of course for the whole fangs and eating entrails thing).

Highlights? J.K. Simmons appears here and once again plays a slightly off-center supporting character. Love the man’s delivery of even the most basic lines of dialog. Amanda Seyfried did a nice job as the nerdy protagonist, and Johnny Simmons was convincingly sincere. And Adam Brody did some scenery chewing in his brief scenes that made it look like he was having fun with the role.

As Annalee Newitz of io9.com pointed out, Jennifer’s Body is about the horror of abusive female friendships instead of the more common female sexuality angle – and it’s commendable that writer Diablo Cody and director Karyn Kusama wanted to try something different… it’s too bad that it just doesn’t work.

But hey if you just can’t get enough of Megan Fox on the big screen and acting sexy, supposedly hip dialog, awkward teenage sex, a bit of gore and mild scares, then maybe this movie’s for you. Me? I was bored and for a 102 minute movie it felt WAY longer.

Oh, if you do go, stay through the credits for some “closure.”

• Jennifer’s Body: Megan Fox Close-Up, Poster & Green Band Trailer
• Bloody Good Red Band Trailer for ‘Jennifer’s Body’
• Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried in ‘Jennifer’s Body’
• Critics Split By Gender On Jennifer’s Body
• Megan Fox Plays Passion For Mickey Rourke
• Mid-Week Movie News Wrap Up – April 9, 2009

Short version: While far from perfect, Whiteout does manage to keep you guessing until the end and ultimately doesn’t leave you feeling ripped off.

Screen Rant’s Paul Young reviews Whiteout

A while back, Kate Beckinsale was asked about her involvement with the next Underworld movie and she explained that she was done wearing tight leather outfits. I thought she might be serious, but man, she didn’t have to go overboard on the next film by walking around 95% of the time wearing a parka! But I’ve got to give credit to whoever wrote the opening scene for Whiteout, Oscar-worthy material my friend – in a scene that was obviously written to appeal to the young male audience, Beckinsale walks through the snow into her room and promptly removes most (read: not enough) of her clothing in order to take a shower.

The scene does nothing to move along, set up, or explain the story of Whiteout and is sure to become “Most Unnecessary (and Gratuitous) Scene of the Year.” That being said, based on the graphic novel by Greg Rucka, Whiteout is a decent enough attempt at a Fall movie season thriller.

Set at a U.S. Geological camp at the South Pole in Antarctica only three days before winter starts, Beckinsale plays U.S. Marshall Carrie Stetko, and she has some issues with trust. When a body, or “popsicle,” is discovered in the ice by pilot Delfy (Columbus Short), Stetko and camp doctor Dr. John Fury (Tom Skerritt) head out to investigate.

Their investigation leads them to realize that a murder has occurred and that the killer is still at large; and, seeing as how they are at the most remote place on the planet, there’s a better than good chance the killer is still in the camp. Along the way, she meets U.N. detective Robert Pryce, played by The Spirit’s Gabriel Macht, and together they hunt the killer and try to recover some lost Russian items.

The writers do a good job of throwing in plenty of misdirection and some red herrings to keep audiences guessing (although I pegged the twist about ¾ of the way through). What director Dominic Sena (Swordfish, Gone in Sixty Seconds) could have left out were all the hazy, orange saturated flashbacks. I sort of understand what he was trying to do with them but he only needed to do it once and not the three or four times he choose to go with. Also, he could have left out the “ah-ha” moment as a flashback. Once the twist is revealed, it’s not that hard to connect the dots and by flashing back Sena insults the audience.

What Whiteout tries to do (emphasis on tries), is make the audience feel the solidarity and aloneness of being at the bottom of the earth, but that’s very hard to do because it seems like dozens of people are living and working down there and it’s a party every day. Heck, I want to go just drink off the “million year old ice.” Here’s a tip for all directors that want me to feel like I’m alone: Stop putting so many people in your film! Stetko is literally alone for maybe 5 minutes the entire film, even the shower scene is interrupted after 30 seconds.

The action scenes in the snow and blizzards are a neat idea but they aren’t really done right because of all the CGI. Everything ends up looking blurry, out of focus and ultimately is just too hard to discern. The idea of fighting in a blizzard does lend itself to some interesting concepts but it just didn’t work here, which leads me to my next point.

There is WAY too much CGI in a movie like this. I have feared for some time now that directors were beginning to lean on the CGI crutch far too often and this just goes to prove my point. The opening scene of a Russian plane flying and then crashing in the Antarctic would have been super cool to watch but the whole thing is done in CG. I don’t see how it’s cheaper to hire a team of CG artists to design everything but the sky instead of just renting a plane for a day and then adding some digital snow but I guess that’s why I don’t sign the checks.

Another thing that bothered me was the ending – I saw it coming long before it happened and it seemed like the writers took the easy way out. The whole scene feels very much like the Necromonger walking into the sun’s rays from Chronicles of Riddick. You’ll know what I mean after you watch it. Also, the killer is very scary and I never really felt Stetko’s anxiety or any impending doom for any of the characters.

I’ve said it before in my Observe and Report review but I don’t really need to see a line of flopping man junk running across the screen for me to enjoy a film. Oh yes, there is a scene like that in Whiteout, it’s short and at the beginning but again, unnecessary to the plot and didn’t help set the mood or surroundings at all. In fact, it goes against everything the movie portrays about the extreme cold at the South Pole. We are told that it gets to -65 degree Celsius and you begin to experience hypothermia after three minutes. Don’t know about you, but I don’t need any frozen tundra down unda!

Overall though, those are minor gripes on a mostly entertaining film. If you’re looking for something new to watch this weekend that isn’t animated, Whiteout is a solid choice and will make for a decent night out. There’s no way it beats out 9 for number one this weekend, but hopefully it puts Gamer out of play and kills off Final Destination for the number two spot.

• ‘Whiteout’ Trailer Brings the Heat
• New Posters: Saw VI, Extract, Gamer & Lots More
• Law Abiding Citizen Review
• X-Men Origins: Wolverine Review
• A Perfect Getaway Review
• Kate Beckinsale May Not Be In Underworld 4?