Screen Rant reviews The Crazies

The Crazies is a remake of George Romero’s 1973 film of the same name. I’ve never seen that version, so my review won’t be from the point of view of comparing it to the original. This remake takes place in a little prototypical American farm town called Ogden Marsh (Iowa). Within a couple of minutes of the film’s start, it’s clear that we’re in for not only some scary stuff, but a bit of subtle humor as well.

Timothy Olyphant plays sheriff David Dutton, married to the attractive town doctor (Radha Mitchell). From the first scene we’re made quite aware that while right now this is an idyllic little town, within a couple of days all hell wil break loose. The first indication is when the town (ex?)drunk wanders onto a baseball field in the middle of a game while carrying a shotgun. He seems drunk or out of sorts, and Dutton is forced to kill him when he prepares to shoot.

Everyone is devastated (it’s a small enough town where everyone pretty much knows everyone else), but soon enough another local goes glassy-eyed and murderous – and devastation turns to fear. There’s an infection spreading throughout the town and things are even more amiss than they seem when all communication with the outside world is cut off. The reason becomes clear when gas mask-wearing soldiers appear and begin herding the townsfolk into a fenced holding facility, separating those they believe are infected from those who are not.

Dutton is separated from his wife when she is flagged as being infected – she’s had a slight running fever for a month due to the fact that she’s pregnant, but the government doctors on the scene are oblivious and not listening to anyone’s excuses. Things go from bad to worse as not everyone has been rounded up and a break out occurs at the facility. There’s good reason as no one from the government is giving even a hint of an explanation as to what is going on.

I don’t think I’m spoiling anything by telling you that Dutton rescues his wife from the facility – from there they try to avoid the authorities and get out of town along with his deputy and another young woman.

Directed by Breck Eisner, The Crazies manages a deft combination of occasional humor juxtaposed against scares and a story that will make you feel uneasy. Within five minutes I thought to myself “this is good.” Yes, it uses jump scares (among other things, and more effectively than some films) and their may be cliched aspects to it, but sometimes things become cliches because they’ve worked so well for so long. The film is gory, but not excessively so.

I thought there were a lot of very good small moments in the film between various characters, and Timothy Olyphant made the film easy to watch. H made it seem more believable and realistic than it might have been with someone else in the lead. Actually what I appreciated about the film was that it was so relatively realistic and grounded in reality. That made what was happening seep that much more under your skin. They didn’t get into much of a socio-political message in the film (thankfully) despite the outbreak not only having been the government’s fault, but that the “clean up” was terribly brutal and mishandled.

There were quite a few scenes that caused the audience (and me) to jump and there were scenes that made you laugh out loud (intentionally) as well as cheer.

If you’re a horror movie fan (or more specifically, a fan of the zombie genre, even though it’s technically not a zombie film) then I give The Crazies a hearty recommendation.

Screen Rant reviews The Wolfman

The Wolfman is a remake of the classic 1941 film. It’s not a sequel, prequel, reboot or re-imagining that takes place present day – it is a remake in the purest sense of the word. Now here at Screen Rant we tend to rail against remakes on a weekly basis, but I’m here to tell you that if you’re going to do it, this is the way to go about it.

The film takes place in Blackmoor, England, in 1891 and Benicio del Toro plays Lawrence Talbot – the fellow in the original film who was cursed to become a werewolf by being bitten by one himself. He’s a well-known actor in London but was raised in the U.S., sent to live with his aunt by his father (played by Anthony Hopkins). His brother’s fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt) contacts Lawrence to let him know that his brother has been missing for two weeks. His brother is of course, dead (killed before the opening credits, so that’s not a spoiler) and his body turns up just before Lawrence (estranged from his father) returns to Blackmoor.

Although his brother is dead, Lawrence is determined to figure out who, or what, killed him. The townsfolk are feeding the rumor mill, not knowing who would so completely mutilate bodies (there have been other murders), and the speculation runs from crazed lunatic to some recently arrived gypsies to the dancing bear they brought with them.

Eventually his search leads him to the gypsies to find out what business his brother had with them, and the inevitable attack soon follows. Like in the original, he comes to a slow realization of what has happened to him and is torn between his will to live and wanting to destroy himself so he cannot kill.

The townsfolk are suspicious of him but his father manages to keep them at bay when they come out to his estate to try and take Lawrence away. Gwen has tended to his injuries (which heal at an accelerated rate) and while they have grown close, the fact that she was his brother’s fiancee keeps them both at arms’ length from each other despite their growing attraction.

Soon on the scene is a detective from Scotland Yard (Hugo Weaving, who I’m always happy to see in a film) there to investigate the recent deaths. He has his eye on Lawrence as a possible suspect (Lawrence’s father sent him to a mental hospital for a year before sending him to America – the reason why becomes clear by the end of the film). He is of course a rational man and the townsfolk speaking of silver bullets to kill monsters is poppycock to a man like him.

Emily Blunt in a scene from 'The Wolfman'

Now there have been concerns about this film due to re-shoots and production delays, but I’m here to tell you not to worry. Director Joe Johnston (who is set to direct Captain America movie) has done an excellent job on all fronts with this film. His goal seemed to be to make this a gothic period piece and a horror film that pays homage to the original – and he nails it. Watching this you’ll just get the weird feeling that you’re watching a classic 1940s horror film, but made with modern technology.

Rick Baker (who’s previous special effects makeup credit includes the modern classic An American Werewolf in London) is the lead on the werewolf and transformation scenes here, and thankfully due to his skills there are many more practical effects than CGI. The transformation sequences looked particularly painful for Lawrence and the final design of the werewolf was wicked-cool (I was particularly fond of the hands with the long, razor-sharp claws).

Music by Danny Elfman was great and appropriate (seems like it’s been a while…). Always a fan of Anthony Hopkins on screen and Benicio has a screen gravitas that’s undeniable. The one weak link for me was Emily Blunt – maybe having seen her recently in Sunshine Cleaning, I just couldn’t quite buy her as the refined, delicate, British fiancee and it distracted me perhaps more than it should have.

While a bit choppy, the action scenes were very well done and quite effective. There was a bit too much reliance on “jump scares” but it was done in a way that didn’t seem as cheesy as we usually see in other films. And the film is rated R for good reason: PLENTY of gore and blood here folks and all I can say to that is thank you Joe Johnston! It just added a whole ‘nother level to the attacks and ferocity of the werewolf that just wouldn’t be there with all the blood and gore scrubbed from the movie to give it a bloodless PG-13 (teens might find the film a bit slow, anyway – it’s really more for grown ups).

Don’t take my last statement to mean that there’s nothing to keep you entertained here when it comes to action – there’s certainly enough and the ending is more satisfying than I thought it could be. Now if you’re looking for some hip update of the classic film, then move along, nothing to see here. Some may complain that this doesn’t bring anything new to the genre – but that’s not the point of this film. This version is a big time homage to the original, recreating it with modern day visual effects.

I think that eventually this version of The Wolfman will be considered a modern classic – and if you’re a fan of the old black & white classic horror films and can take the updated gore, I highly recommend it.

Screen Rant reviews Avatar

So, after endless fanboy hype (and hate) rivaling that of the months leading up to Watchmen, Avatar is finally upon us. The burning question (once again): Is this film worthy of all the hype preceding it?

Well, first let’s get to the story…

Sam Worthington plays Jake Sulley, a Marine who lost the use of his legs in battle. He has absolutely nothing to do with the Avatar project until his twin brother is killed (apparently in a senseless mugging). His brother was a scientist who had been working on and preparing for the Avatar project for three years.

This is significant because the bio-engineered Na’vi bodies created for the Avatar project are genetically coded to a specific human – and since Jake is the identical twin of his brother (despite having zero training in the project) the corporation talks him into joining it. Their logic is they can always use a Na’vi Avatar with combat skills on their side. Worthington’s character is not only a Na’vi Avatar, but also obviously one for the audience as well… the person who comes onto the scene not knowing anything about what is going on (like the audience) and the film’s exposition happens through his point of view for our benefit.

The planet Pandora contains a very rare mineral with extremely valuable properties (that are never explained, no need) called… Unobtainium. Yeah, I know. They only call it that once in the film, thankfully. Anyway, there are pockets of it scattered throughout the planet, but the biggest cache of it happens to be directly beneath the village of the Na’vi we come to know. The goal is to either negotiate with them to get them to move so the bulldozers can come in and mine or to expel them via military force.

Relations with the Na’vi have been shaky at best – it seems that olive branches were extended in the forms of schools, roads and supplies, but the Na’vi are not interested in any of it – and there have been some isolated clashes between them and the military. It’s decided that Sully (not being a scientist) would be an ideal mole – he can go in and gain the trust of the locals in order to gather intel that can be used against them should things come to blows. Sully is promised that the expensive surgery which could once again give him use of his legs would be taken care of if he goes along with the plan – which he does. He has three months.

Sigouney Weaver plays Grace, the fairly grizzled, smoking lead scientist on the project who is not happy (to say the least) to see Jake show up to take his brother’s place.  There’s another scientist who was friends with Jake’s brother and who comes to resent the fact that after he has put in so much time learning how to be a Na’vi, that a newcomer with no experience comes in and plays a central role in the project. The scientists are determined to find a diplomatic solution (although tasking scientists with this doesn’t really make much sense) and are constantly at odds with the military. They relocate their lab far away from central command in hopes that they can function more autonomously, without intervention from the corporation (represented by Giovanni Ribisi as the lead on the project) or the military.

Speaking of the military, Stephen Lang absolutely shines as Colonel Miles Quaritch, a chiseled in stone older soldier with plenty of field experience who is in charge of military operations on Pandora. Scenes with him, Weaver, the sci-fi tech and Cameron at the helm took me back to the most excellent James Cameron film, Aliens. In some ways this almost felt like a continuation of that film – if not in story, then in characters and hardware.

And of course we have Zoe Saldana as Neytiri, who does a fine job as the lead female who is put in charge of teaching (Avatar) Jake the language and culture of the Na’vi. At first she intensely dislikes and mistrusts Jake, but over the course of the film their relationship’s development is the focal point as she softens towards him and he comes to respect and understand the Na’vi deeply.

So what’s the verdict?

(Click to continue reading our Avatar review)

If you’ve seen the movie and want to talk about it without worrying about spoilers, please head over to our Avatar Spoilers Discussion.

Please don’t discuss movie spoilers here in order to not ruin it for people who haven’t seen it yet.

Screen Rant’s Kofi Outlaw reviews Up In The Air

Up In The Air is a film whose entire point can be discerned from its title. This new offering from Juno director Jason Reitman stars George Clooney as a man whose existence involves traveling the country airport to airport, essentially living “above” all that life presses upon the rest of us stuck below.

Clooney’s character, Ryan Bingham, is a corporate ax man. Struggling companies hire men like Ryan to fire employees for them – a way of sparing cowardly bosses the inconvenience of actually having to face their crushed employees. With the economy in shambles, life is grand for the restless Ryan – he has plenty of axed employees to help “transition” all across America, meaning he can stay out on the road, free, flying high where he feels he belongs.

A monkey wrench gets thrown into Ryan’s frequent-flying lifestyle when young corporate shark Natalie (Anna Kendrick) sells Ryan’s boss (Jason Bateman) on a business model where ax men terminate employees over webcam, sparing the company the bill for all that costly traveling. Seeing his own profession (and lifestyle) facing the brink of extinction, Ryan convinces the boss that this young whipper-snapper Natalie needs a firsthand tour of the world she is so desperate to “streamline.” So off they go, old pro and young shark, flying into the failing heartland of America.

The journey, of course, reveals new things about the travelers. Ryan has some wonderful “layovers” with Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent-flyer elitist, and starts to wonder if his isolated life is truly worthwhile. Natalie goes out on the front lines, axing real flesh-and-blood employees face-to-face, and wonders if her cold ambition isn’t really hiding a soft heart. Ryan is soft in demeanor but slightly cold at heart and Natalie is his opposite; it’s a wonderful pairing. By the end, who can say what is what and what the future will hold? And therein lies, what I feel will be for many people, the make or break point of Up In The Air.

Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner’s adaptation of Walter Kim’s novel is masterful in its approach. There is a lot of heavy stuff going on in this film, yet the film itself manages to avoid being cheaply sentimental or emotionally manipulative. The scenes of Ryan and Natalie at work, firing people, contain montages of real Americans who have been “cast adrift” in the struggling economy. The impact of hearing and seeing real people vent their anger, fear and frustrations about the future hits with a sense of urgency, but also with a sense of real human dignity that is hard for Hollywood to mimic. Luckily, Reitman makes the wise choice of just laying things out there with a documentarian’s eye – this is what is going on, this is what it’s like out there right now – without preaching any gospel or trying to hang blame.

The two principal characters, Ryan and Natalie, are likewise drawn from the smart angle of two people sent out to deal with a mess that’s been made – without worrying about who made it. Stripped of cliched moral or ethical concerns, the film opens up a very fresh examination about how we deal with turmoil, fear and uncertainty as people, both externally (like concern for our jobs), or internally, primarily where our emotions and emotional connections are concerned.

The principal cast in this film are excellent. George Clooney – in a brilliantly understated performance – never seems to shy away from the ever-present fact that aspects of his off-screen persona – his real-life attitudes toward marriage, for example – are being reflected in Ryan’s character. I’ll go so far as to say Clooney is brave in this film, for channeling  so much of his public swagger and gusto through Ryan, even when it’s being made clear during several of Up In The Air’s most gut-wrenching (and beautifully understated) moments that Ryan is a man who has been believing in his own B.S. for far too long.

Anna Kendrick has already sparked a raging buzz for her turn as hot-shot Natalie, and rightfully so. She spends just about all of her screen time trading quips with one of the most charming and engaging leading men currently on the planet, and never once comes off looking like the new girl at school (unless her character is supposed to). In fact, Kendrick is pretty much a scene-stealer throughout the film – impressive achievement when acting against the likes of Clooney.

Vera Farmiga is as elusive, mysterious and  beautiful as ever in her role as Alex. Like her performance in The Departed, I never feel like I’ve gotten enough of her presence onscreen – but I’m certainly left  feeling like I want to see more of her in the future. Up In The Air also boasts some great cameos, including standout moments from J.K. Simmons (Juno), Zach Galifianakas (The Hangover) and Danny McBride (Tropic Thunder).

Jason Reitman once again deserves his sure-to-be-forthcoming award nominations for this film. From the opening credits sequence, which features a gorgeous mashup of pilot’s eye landscaping shots; to every richly colored scene; to the still, quiet and heavily weighted moments of human emotion, the direction here is tight and expertly controlled, yet still soft and subtle enough to make you forget you’re watching something that has been so carefully, masterfully, crafted. From start to finish, I was totally on board for this flight.

The ending will be the dividing factor for this film, no doubt. I’m still wrestling with that ending and it is primarily why I can’t give Up In The Air five stars. Without spoiling anything, I’ll refer to what I said at the start: Up In The Air is a film whose entire point can be discerned from its title.

For those who like movies where good is rewarded, bad is punished and there is no such thing as moral or ethical gray – you will be upset by the end of this film, I won’t lie to you. For those of you who are of the opinion that the journey of life is never as simple as flying from point A to point B without delays, inclement weather, or cancellations, then be happy in the knowledge that there is a beautiful, timely film out there talking directly to you.

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 too 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…

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.

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.

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?

Screen Rant reviews 9

There’s been a lot of buzz around the Shane Aker-directed, Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov-produced movie 9. The idea for a feature length 9 movie was sparked by a short film of the same name by writer-director Shane Aker.

The short film is really quite amazing (click on the link above to see it) and I was excited to hear a full length film would be made based on it. However when I saw the first trailer and there was dialog (the short film has none) I got a bit worried that it might not have the power of the original short film. While the addition of dialog does remove a fair amount of the sense of awe and mystery, the full length 9 still manages to stand on its own as a film worth watching.

9 is both the title of the film and the “name” of the hero of the film (voiced by Elijah Wood). As the film opens, the first thing we see is the unconscious, burlap, rag doll figure that is 9 hanging by his wrist in the center of some mechanical device. It’s obvious that he’s been there for quite a while – long enough that the thin string supporting him has frayed against the circular frame surrounding him and the look of the surroundings. The string finally breaks, and upon hitting the table 9 awakens, disoriented by his surroundings.

He finds himself in a dangerous, post-apocalyptic world devoid of human life – and in possession of a mysterious device that he senses must be important. Eventually he runs into others of his own kind who have been hiding from a terrifying mechanical cat beast, hoping that it eventually dies away. They are led by “1″ (voiced by Christopher Plummer) who has a big, burly and not very smart “8″ as a protector. When 9 appears on the scene, he is dismayed at the sense of fatality and status quo the few survivors are living in. “2″ was the first person he ran into – 2 saved his life and while he was taken away by the cat beast, 1 has no intention of sending anyone off on a rescue attempt.

9 takes things into his own hands and along with 5 (a scientist-apprentice of 2) heads off to try to rescue their captured comrade. Along the way they meet 7 (Jennifer Connelly), an independent young female who has ninja-like skills and refuses to live under 1’s rule.

9 and 5 head out to rescue their friend

Soon the device found by 9 is put into use with disastrous consequences, from which our intrepid little heroes must extricate themselves.

Shane Acker and the actors manage to bring many nuances of emotion to the little robotic(?) characters in the film and it doesn’t take long at all to start feeling for and empathizing with them. Each character was designed to excel at a specific function and their personalities match whichever that might be. We do also get to see what led to the world they live in through flashbacks – and there is a cool retro “War of the Worlds” vibe to that part of the film.

The film is more than a bit vague on how these little critters were created – in the original short film it’s not an issue, but in a full length feature film the lack of a better explanation here did intrude on my enjoyment of the film a bit. Also, even at just 80 minutes it still felt a little long to me.

This movie is wonderful visually – I loved the detail and texture of the world they created here (if you’re a fan of the “steampunk” genre you’ll probably love 9). The film is dark both visually and in tone – and so rich in detail that you won’t be able to absorb it all in one viewing. Speaking of “dark,” 9 is rated PG-13 for “violence and scary images.” In particular cat beast and the seamstress are sure to freak the little ones out – so please keep in mind while this is an animated CGI film, it might not be suitable for kids under 7 or so. There is some nightmare material here for sure for more sensitive kids.

While there are familiar elements to the story (while details of the story are unique, the overall story arc is fairly conventional), the originality of the idea still shines through loud and clear. Being that it has the odd combination of being a CGI animated film that’s not really suited for younger children, I hope that 9 still manages to find an audience because it’s a film that is definitely worth watching.

Screen Rant reviews Inglourious Basterds

I am not a Quentin Tarantino disciple (just thought I’d get that out of the way).

Now don’t jump to conclusions – I like most of Tarantino’s films, I’m just not a dyed in the wool Tarantino junkie. I like most of his movies but I haven’t made a secret of the fact that I absolutely despised most of Death Proof.

Despite a directing history going back to 1987, Inglourious Basterds is only the seventh movie he’s directed. If there’s one thing you can say about him it’s that he’s got a sense of style when it comes to his films, and this one is no exception.

Inglorious Basterds (and unless I missed it, it’s never explained why it’s not just spelled Inglorious Bastards) is the story of a small team of Jewish-American soldiers assembled by Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) in order to strike fear into the soldiers of the Third Reich by brutally killing (”we don’t take prisoners”) and scalping Nazis. Eventually they cross paths with Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent), a young French-Jewish woman whose family was murdered when she was younger and now runs a movie theater in Paris.

The film is broken up into chapters, beginning with: “Chapter One – Once upon a time in Nazi-occupied France.” It’s a cool retro way to segment the film into its different sections. Also retro was the music during the opening credits, which seemed to come right out of a 1960s Sergio Leone spaghetti western – it put a grin on my face and was a good way to get the audience in the right mood for the film.

Now I like fast-moving scenes as much as the next guy, but this first chapter opens in 1941 on a rural farm in a scene that is (and I hesitate to use this word) deliciously slow. A farmer spies a carload of Nazis a mile away coming towards the farm. He has four daughters, is concerned about them and has them head inside their small home. Here is where we first meet Col. Hans Landa (brilliantly played by Christoph Waltz) – a charming on the outside, Machiavellian on the inside Nazi officer with the nickname of “Jew Hunter.” The tension in this scene builds and builds and is excruciatingly good. Tarantino is known for the dialog in his films and uses it to great effect here.

Christoph Waltz in 'Inglourious Basterds'

It is in Chapter Two that we meet the “Basterds,” a line up of what looks like mainly a bunch of pencil-necked Jewish guys, along with a crazy-eyed Eli Roth playing Sgt. Donny “Bear Jew” Donowitz – a soldier with a predilection for bashing Nazi brains in with a baseball bat. We see Brad Pitt looking like he’s doing his best facial impression of Marlon Brando as The Godfather, but with a seriously Southern accent. He tells the men (and the audience) the purpose of their mission, which is to kill Nazis in the most brutal ways possible in order to strike fear into them and have it spread throughout their ranks.

We get to see them in action, and their shall we say “no nonsense” approach is immediately evident in their interrogation of a German officer and then an enlisted man.

Advertising and trailers aside, the real story here is about Shosanna. She is beautiful and a hero of the Reich has become enamored with her. Of course considering her family was murdered by Nazis she is not swayed by his charm at all. Things being what they are she is dragged into being forced to show a Nazi propaganda film at her theater and she devises a plan to take full advantage of that.

Melanie Laurent in 'Inglourious Basterds'

Eventually her plans dovetail (not smoothly) with that of the Basterds, along with a plan by British officers to do some serious damage to the Nazis as well. Hint: This is an alternate universe version of World War II.

Tarantino has come up with a decent combination of a throwback to World War II movies from 40+ years ago mixed with more graphic (how about swastikas being carved into foreheads?) violence, his signature dialog and great use of music. I mentioned the tension in the opening chapter, but there are a lot of tense scenes throughout the movie – however beyond the opening scene (which while long and drawn out, worked well), some scenes later in the film do suffer from the typical Tarantino “over-dialoged” style and go on too long. Mixed in between the drama and violence were moments of humor that worked very well and didn’t suck you out of the movie.

On the other hand, don’t go in expecting a balls-out action movie, because this isn’t it. While there are action set pieces in the film, it’s mostly about the dialog. There are a lot of characters in the film, some of which seem like they could have been cut without doing the film much harm. And for Brad Pitt fans – know that while he has quite a few scenes in the film, he’s not in it as much as you might hope.

Except for Eli Roth (who really seemed out of place), performances throughout the film were very well done (again, Christoph Waltz is my absolute favorite). Laurent was mesmerizing in her performance in addition to being easy on the eyes. I got a kick out of Brad Pitt, but I couldn’t get the vision of Brando with cotton in his cheeks out of my head.

By the way, you’d better be a fan of subtitled movies because there is a LOT of that in this film – most scenes involving the French or Germans are spoken in their native language.

Overall this is a typical over the top Tarantino film, alternately intensely serious and then not taking itself seriously at all. Frankly, I would have preferred (and was expecting) more of The Dirty Dozen type of film, focused on the Basterds taking out tons of Nazis throughout the movie. If you’re a Tarantino fan you’ll most likely enjoy Inglourious Basterds – if you’re not and don’t have an issue with graphic violence mixed with close-to-campiness you may have a good time with it as well.

Screen Rant reviews District 9

District 9 is probably not what you’re expecting.

The trailers and clips that you may have seen so far don’t really tell you what the movie is about – and that’s a good thing.

20 years ago, an alien ship appeared over (of all places) the city of Johannesburg, South Africa. That’s a pretty matter of fact statement made within a couple of minutes of the start of District 9, which starts off in documentary fashion, complete with behind the scenes types of shots that wouldn’t appear in the final cut of a documentary film.

District 9 (and the documentary) revolves around the story of Wikus Van De Merwe (played extremely well by Sharlto Copley), a supervisor for mega-corporation MNU (Mutli-National United). When the aliens first arrived, an attempt was made to integrate them into the civilian population despite their radically alien, insect-like appearance. However there were issues between them and the humans including theft, murder and mayhem on a sometimes massive scale. Eventually things came to a head (evident by the numerous “no aliens” signs), segregation was imposed and they were moved into a huge refugee-type camp called – District 9.

While the film was produced by none other than Peter Jackson, director Neill Blomkamp was raised in South Africa until he was 18, and this film is a direct reflection of a similar camp/shantytown called “District 6″ which was used to segregate blacks until apartheid was finally lifted.

At the start of the film the discovery of the aliens is described along with the fact that over their 20 year stay (there was something wrong with their ship and they’ve been unable to leave) their number has grown from one million to 1.8 million. With the clashes with the local population the decision was made to move them all to a new camp over 100 miles away from Johannesburg, and this is one of the focal points of the film. Van De Merwe is put in charge of coordinating the giant migration (which must began with a legal eviction of the “prawns” as they’re derisively called) from their current homes.

MNU is tasked with this project – but another very significant part of the company is weapons manufacture. They want to figure out how to make the alien weapons work, but they are designed to be triggered only by alien DNA. Solving this problem would mean billions of dollars in profit for the company.

The story revolves almost exclusively around Van De Merwe, and it is hinted at very early on in the film that something happens which causes him to be eventually branded a traitor. We’re with him through the entire film and to say he goes through some tribulations and changes is putting it mildly. Watching him evolve as a character as the movie progresses is one of the best things about the film.

This film is a fitting movie for winding down the summer movie season – while it has its share of action and explosions, it also tells a compelling story and wraps it in social commentary (and don’t worry, it’s not remotely “preachy”). It has drama, action, violence, touching moments and even some comedy – but all these aspects seam together smoothly for the most part. Towards the end of the film there is something that will immediately call to mind the robots from Transformers, and considering what’s come before that does seem a little out of place and inserted just for the sake of a big action set-piece.

The documentary approach that opens the film starts out light and a bit funny, and it may throw you off a bit. As the film goes on eventually the obvious documentary approach falls by the wayside and we’re back in standard observer of what’s happening mode, with the sporadic news clip and interview inserted as a kind of narrative.

This movie is rife with tons of little details that all combine to add to the tapestry of the film – Van De Merwe’s clumsy geekyness at the start of the film, his wife reminiscing about him, the misinformation in news reports (that may take you back to Robocop just a little bit), the aliens’ obsession with cat food (of all things!), and it goes on and on.

District 9 is rated R and for good reason: There is a ton of gore and violence, and enough F-bombs that even if you tried you’d lose count. Now neither of those are a bad thing in the film – they both fit into the context perfectly (there’s almost a certain glee that comes with the amount and level of blood spatters that hit the camera lense throughout the film). I’m just letting you know that this is one where you might want to fork out the bucks for a babysitter.

I would dare say that the movie will take you in a direction you didn’t expect and that after you watch it, it may take a while for what you just saw to sink in. Is it perfect? No – there are a few things that I thought were a bit of a plot hole or stretched out time-wise that didn’t make perfect sense, and in the third act it seems to get a bit over-”actiony” just for the sake of it. But if you’re looking for a smart Sci-Fi movie to cleanse your palate of the fluffy Sci-Fi films that have been the hallmark of 2009, District 9 may be just the ticket.

Discuss your non-spoiler thoughts on the film below, or head to our District 9 spoilers page to talk about the film without worrying about ruining for people who haven’t seen it yet.

Screen Rant reviews 'Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince'

If you really care about Harry Potter, Ron & Ginny Weasley and Hermione Granger as living, breathing characters then you’re going to love Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

Disclosure: I’ve only ever read the first book and while I’ve thought the previous films were “OK,” I’ve never been a huge fan of the series. This latest film was directed by David Yates, the same fellow who directed the previous film Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix – and for perspective, I don’t even remember was that one was about.

Having said that, I believe this latest installment is arguably the best Harry Potter film that’s been released so far.

This is the sixth year Harry and Co. will be attending Hogwarts and they’ve all come a long way from the kids we saw back in the first film. They’re certified young adults now and it’s a pleasure seeing them on the screen with much more depth and complexity in themselves and their relationships with each other. As a matter of fact those relationships are what make this movie shine.

Harry (Daniel Radcliffe, of course) finds a book on potions that has copious handwritten notes by “The Half-Blood Prince.” Whoever this person was, he was brilliant and creating potions – subtly modifying the recipes in the book to make them all work perfectly, was one of his skills. Harry’s newfound “skill” at potion-making draws the attention of newly re-recruited professor Horace Slughorn. The professor is played by Jim Broadbent, who gives an excellent and surprisingly nuanced performance considering the (apparently) comedic nature of the role.

It turns out there is a very important reason that Slughorn was enticed to come back to Hogwarts, and professor Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) enlists Harry to pry some hidden information from the returning professor. Professor Snape (Alan Rickman, whose brief time on-screen is reason enough to go watch this movie with his mesmerizing screen presence) is involved, and his true(?) purpose becomes clear by the end of the film.

Much of the film is dedicated to the interrelationships between Harry, Ron, Hermione and Ginny. There is much teenage romantic angst – something that would normally trigger my teen-soap-opera-eyeball-roll reaction, but it’s handled so sweetly and deftly here that it’s a pleasure to watch and really draws you in to what they’re all going through. Emma Watson, Bonnie Wright and Rupert Grint all do a fine job.

In combination with that, the gorgeous, muted cinematography and fantastic visual effects (not just in execution but style as well) is just icing on the cake.

Is this film perfect? No. One complaint I’ve heard from others is that over the course of 2 1/2 hours nothing much happens to move the story forward – and that the ending of the film (which has a definite Empire Strikes Back vibe) could have been a bit more effective. However these points detract very little from the overall enjoyment of what I think is the best summer blockbuster film of 2009.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is rated PG and provides a few scenes that might be a bit intense for the littler ones, and there’s one jump scene that will probably get them – but nothing too over the top. And frankly it was a pleasure to watch a movie aimed at the same age group as Transformers 2 without a single word of foul language to be heard nor anything that’ll make a parent squirm while watching it with a child.

This may be the first Harry Potter film that I end up watching more than once.

Screen Rant reviews Moon

Moon is the debut feature film by writer/director Duncan Jones. The film stars Sam Rockwell, the voice of Kevin Spacey and… actually just those two, really. The film is set on the lunar base Selene in a future where Helium 3, a gas mined from the moon’s surface, holds the key to reversing Earth’s energy crisis.

Rockwell plays Sam Bell, the one-man team assigned to Selene on a three-year contract. Bell’s primary job is waiting around days on end for one of the corporation’s three automated lunar harvesters to register a full Helium 3 load, which he then extracts and jettisons to Earth on a small space transport.

Moon opens as Bell is coming to the end of his three-year term. He’s bored, isolated, lonely and desperately aching to be reunited with his wife and the daughter he never met back on Earth. Bell’s only “friend” on the station is GERTY (voice of Spacey), an artificial intelligence system charged with watching over Sam and keeping him pacified and focused on his job.

As his time on the station comes to a close, Sam starts feeling strange. He starts seeing things, feeling odd pangs of emotion, and even some physical pain. One day, while out on a routine Helium 3 extraction, Sam suffers a terrible accident that prompts the corporation to initiate a horrifying contingency plan, all but forgetting about Sam even as his life hangs in the balance.

I’ll stop there. I’ve been debating for some time about how much of the plot of Moon I should reveal. In this case, it’s hard to judge where the line between spoilers and non-spoilers falls. I will say this: What you think is going to be Moon’s eleventh-hour plot twist is actually a first-half-hour plot twist. Conventions that other sci-fi films try to use as a climatic gimmick, Moon uses as a jumping-off point. Already that catapults the film far ahead of other sci-fi movies, landing it in a realm of originality all its own. And, to its credit, Moon does a pretty good job building on that fresh terrain.

The real standout in this film is Sam Rockwell. Those familiar with some of Rockwell’s back catalog (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Matchstick Men, Choke) know what a dangerously underrated actor he is. In Moon, Rockwell is (essentially) a one-man show: He gets up on screen and for 97 minutes takes his character through every conceivable emotion you could ever be asked to portray at an acting workshop. And not only is the performance funny, sad, freaky, thought-provoking and totally believable, it’s also very engaging. It’s a hard thing for one actor to hold an audience’s interest for a whole movie (Tom Hanks got an Oscar nom for it), yet every time I thought I knew what Sam Bell was going to do next, I was surprised. A great performance.

I also really enjoyed the “character” of GERTY. It’s essentially Kevin Spacey’s voice (which is somehow simultaneously soothing and slightly unnerving) and a robotic arm with a small monitor screen displaying an emoticon. And yet somehow, despite his monotone dialogue and programmed responses, GERTY nearly steals every scene he’s in and is arguably the most “human” character in the film. Some people might be tempted to say, “Dude, it’s HAL from 2001,” but in the end, I think GERTY will win most viewers over.

With Moon, writer-director Duncan Jones (who is David Bowie’s son, BTW) has definitely managed to achieve the nearly impossible: Breaking free of sci-fi conventions to create something new and unique, and yet oddly familiar. Like with GERTY, there were a couple of times during the movie I thought it was going to become a carbon-copy of this or that famous sci-fi film – but every time I started to feel that way, Jones managed to veer things just far enough off the beaten path to keep Moon feeling refreshingly interesting. Jones, I suspect, will become a very accomplished sci-fi director if he chooses to stay with the genre.

The only real criticism I have with this film is the story. The characters are well rendered, the plot never really gets lost in its own convolutions, and the major themes (even the implied ones) are very, very, interesting to think about. Moon is one of those movies you finish seeing and immediatly want to see again, knowing what you know now.

Tension is the real weak point of the story. Without giving too much away, lets just say that the nature of the plot makes it hard for the story to have any real sense of narrative or thematic tension. The ending of the film is primarily a thematic payoff, one that could be hard for some viewers to relate to on a personal or emotional level. Basically the film is like watching skilled philosophers (that would be Moon co-writers Jones and Nathan Parker) positing a philosophical point and calling that posited point a “climax.” Sure, what’s being posited may be interesting, but how many people are going to care?

In the end, though Moon may fall short of stirring the heart, it sure does stir the intellect. And let’s face it: Intellectual stimulation is pretty much what sci-fi fans are all about. Moon is a high point for the genre, and Douglas Jones and Sam Rockwell deserve a lot of the credit for taking it into orbit.

Screen Rant reviews The Hangover

When you start laughing about 30 seconds into a movie, that’s usually a good sign.

The plot of The Hangover is very simple: Three buddies (and one tag-along) head to Las Vegas to celebrate the impending marriage of one of their own with a bachelor party weekend. They get so incredibly blasted on the night of their arrival that they don’t remember a single thing that happened – of course maximum mayhem ensued during the evening, and they must piece together because the groom-to-be has gone missing.

Now I’m pretty finicky when it comes to comedies, especially the R-rated variety. “Stupid-funny” doesn’t work for me at all, so based on some of what I’d seen in the marketing I was a bit concerned I was possibly in for some vulgar, dumb humor. While The Hangover is certainly vulgar and not for everyone, I found it to be far from stupid. The dialog and characters are brilliant, and had me laughing throughout most of the film.

We’ve got a great cast of characters – Bradley Cooper as Phil, the handsome, smooth talker of the group, Ed Helms as Stu Price – the dentist who keeps reminding people he’s a doctor, and Zach Galifianakis who steals the movie as Alan, the future brother in law of Doug (Justin Bartha). In addition we have Stu’s insane yuppie girlfriend, Heather Graham gorgeous as the old stand by “hooker with a heart of gold,” Jeffrey Tambor as the future father-in-law and Ken Jeong as “Mr. Chow.”

I don’t usually list so many actors, but they all did such a great job that I just had to give them all a shout. While Jeffrey Tambor had a small role, he’s just great at chewing the scenery even with just a look and not a lot of screen time. Ken Jeong was priceless as the Asian gangster, absolutely hysterical – but the stand out performance had to be Zach Galifianakis as the “not quite all there” member of the troupe. He plays the role as almost mildly retarded, and the lines he delivers and the way he says them are probably on their own enough to make you want to see the movie again.

There are great bits throughout the entire film, and while it does bog down for a bit about 3/4 of the way through, but it regains its footing soon enough to wrap up with a really great ending. However I loved how they handled the backtracking to figure out just what happened the night before – they didn’t resort to flashbacks or fancy back and forward time-jumps… we just hung with the guys real-time and discovered the pieces to the puzzle along with them. So not only do we have great comedy, as a bonus we get a mystery to unravel as well.

Rest assured this movie earns its R-rating so for the love of Pete leave the kids at HOME for this one. If you can’t afford a babysitter this week, save a couple of bucks a day and wait until next week to see it. What really blew my mind was the fact that the most extreme scenes in the movie actually don’t appear until the credits are rolling. I won’t give away anything other than to say if you’re offended by sexually explicit material, you’d better leave just as the credits begin to roll. Frankly I’d like to know how the hell they got the very last thing that appears past the MPAA and retained an R rating.

However if you’re into R-rated comedies and don’t mind crude and crass humor, The Hangover is not to be missed.

Screen Rant reviews Drag Me to Hell

If you’re a REAL Sam Raimi fan, you’ve heard of him long before he ever sat in the director’s chair for the first Spider-Man movie. His claim to fame came with a little trilogy of films known as the Evil Dead series.

The first film was made on a shoestring budget and launched Bruce Campbell into the B-movie limelight. Evil Dead 2 was essentially a remake of the first film but with a bigger budget. While many people think that film is the best of the series, to me the crown jewel is the third film: Army of Darkness.

Each film had an odd mixture of humor and horror – the first film had a bit of it that made it seem campy. But with each subsequent film he refined the comedy/horror one-two punch to a high art. By the time we arrived at Army of Darkness, he pulled out all the stops and the film was 90% comedy, 10% horror.

People have been waiting for YEARS for Raimi to return to the low budget horror/comedy niche and he finally relented with Drag Me to Hell. He’s commented that he needed to “recharge” on a smaller, fun film after the mega-budget stresses of working on three consecutive Spider-Man films.

So has he lost his touch?

Hell, no!

The basic plot of Drag Me to Hell revolves around loan officer Christine Brown (Alllison Lohman) – she’s an eager-beaver at her bank, wanting to be promoted into an open assistant manager position very badly. The problem is that she’s up against a new male employee who is a much more aggressive guy who also happens to have mastery over the fine art of sucking up to the boss.

Her boss tells her she’s in the running but the other guy is more aggressive and is able “to make the hard decisions” (ie. those that favor the bank and hurt the customer). So when a creepy old woman shows up at her desk asking for an extension on her mortgage, Christine decides this is the opportunity to make one of those hard decisions.

Bad call Christine, bad call.

Mrs. Ganush (Lorna Raver, who does an awesome job and is pictured at the top of this review) starts out nice enough, although she’s creepy and gross as all get out – but once she is denied and embarrassed by Christine the fangs (almost literally) come out and she places a curse on our young up and comer that will give her three days of hell before something REALLY terrible happens.

We see something happen in the opening of the film that is a precursor to the curse, and frankly that opening sequence dropped my expectations for the movie. I found it to be neither particularly scary nor funny and I sat there thinking “Oh man, Raimi has lost his touch?” However I’m happy to have been proven wrong as the film moved along.

Along the way we meet her boyfriend, played by Justin Long, his rich parents including a snooty mom, and Indian fortune teller Rham Jas (played by Dileep Rao). Everyone fits right into the movie nicely like pieces of a tight-fitting puzzle.

The film takes a bit of time to rev up, beginning with the scene in the parking garage that you’ve probably already had a chance to see in the trailer. What’s in the trailer is just a hint and while you’ll be jumping out of your seat at the beginning of that sequence, by the end you’ll be laughing your head off. From there it backs off to the mundane for a bit but once the curse kicks in – a little bit here and there at first, but escalating in intensity… you’ll continue to be pummeled by scary scenes wrapped in bizarre comedy.

Raimi takes Lohman’s character from a sweet, if misguided loan officer to a desperate woman and right on through to someone willing to do whatever it takes to shake off this curse, and it’s hysterical to watch some of the choices she makes as she travels along her path.

Oh, and while (as far as I could tell) Bruce Campbell did NOT have a cameo in the film, you will notice a familiar car…

If you’re a fan of the original Evil Dead movies I think you’re really going to enjoy Drag Me to Hell. And even if you’re not, it provides plenty of VERY effective jump scares (I’m usually not a fan of those, but they’re applied to great effect here), lots of gross visual effects (amazing what you can get away with now in a PG-13 movie) plus a ton of Raimi’s trademark horror humor.

This one has future cult movie written all over it and gets a thumbs up from me.

Screen Rant reviews Star Trek

Where to start? (This is going to be a long one, folks. If you want to skip the preamble and get right to the review itself click here.)

Some people are Star Wars fanatics, others go nuts over Transformers or X-Men. While I’m a huge Iron Man fan, Star Trek is my true love going back well over 30 years. My favorite of all the shows? The Original Series (aka TOS). You may look at it now and think it looks cheesy (however I highly recommend you check out the digitally remastered version with brand new visual effects on DVD or Blu-ray), but remember the original Star Trek is over 40 years old.

At the time the other big Sci-Fi TV show was the cheese-fest called Lost in Space – so keep that in mind as a comparison.

I have Star Trek prop replicas on my bookshelves (some pretty damned nice ones) along with a copy of the original Star Fleet Technical Manual by Franz Joseph and a set of blueprints of the original U.S.S. Enterprise NCC-1701 (which shows the location of a bowling alley on the ship!). I’ve memorized every episode of the original series – I can tell you which one each one is within seconds of any of them starting. And I’ve seen every movie.

Yes, I’m into Trek “canon” – tracking all the little details that tie the whole Star Trek universe together, however I’m also aware (though some fans seem to be in denial about this) that over the course of hundreds of episodes across five different series, Star Trek itself has violated its own canon many times.

Why am I telling you all this? So you have some context for my review of J.J. Abrams’, Roberto Orci’s and Alex Kurtzman’s reboot of the Star Trek universe. However this is not a review just for “Trekkies,” and that’s appropriate because neither is this film just for that group of die hard fans (among which I include myself).

Also, I did read the four part prequel comic that tells the story which leads to the events that take place in the film. If you have a chance I recommend you find it and pick it up at your local comic book store as it really fleshes out the “villain” in the film, Nero.

Some fans may disagree, but this franchise was in desperate need of a reboot, re-imagination, fresh “take” or whatever you’d like to call it. Star Trek, as a brand, was whithering on the vine and was in danger of being put on the shelf for who knows how long – until Paramount might decide enough time had gone by to give it another go. This was due to a number of factors, among which included the subsequent series being taken in directions by Rick Berman (and to some exent, Brannon Braga) that the fans did not agree with. Essentially it was a case of “the fans don’t know what’s good for them – we’ll tell them what they want.”

From this we gained the ignoble death of Captain Kirk in a transition movie with a stupidly weak plot device, Star Trek: Voyager, the Lost in Space of Trek, progressively crappier movies and finally Enterprise: At least an attempt at something fresh in Trek, which unfortunately went off in some half-assed direction – and Manny Coto’s efforts to bring the show back to what it should have been in season 4 were too little, too late.

So… when it was announced that the new film would go back to before the original series crew had met I was both excited at the prospect and terrified of how it might turn out. I mean we’re talking about recasting iconic roles. Bill Shatner? Leonard Nimoy? DeForest Kelly and James Doohan?

Sacrilege!

But I tried to be cautiously optimistic over the course of very early news, pre-production and through the production. I listed this film as my most anticipated of the year…

And I was NOT disappointed.

So finally – the review…

Click here to continue reading our Star Trek review…

Screen Rant’s Niall Browne reviews State of Play

State of Play is a classy piece of Hollywood filmmaking that delivers an entertaining two hours in the cinema and features enjoyable star performances from Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams.

The film which is based on the British BBC series of the same name (which first aired in 2003) unfolds in the tradition of other newspaper films such as All The Presidents Men and even His Girl Friday. State of Play is an old fashioned thriller that deals with political conspiracy, journalistic values and as a running theme – how the internet has changed the written word.

In a way State of Play’s under-performance at the box office mirrors the print journalism vs. blogging theme that is woven throughout the film’s running time. In the same way that a lot of people now look for their news online, the target audience for A State of Play will probably wait for the film to hit DVD before catching it, thus making the film unprofitable, and therefore possibly hurting the chance of other films of this ilk hitting the big screen. A shame.

We are first introduced to Crowe’s Cal McAffery, a writer for the Washington Globe following the murder of a pretty criminal and the attempted murder of a passer-by. McAffery is an old school journalist who loves ink on his hands and who has a working relationship with his police contacts that offers him ground level information on the killing. A short time later a young political researcher dies in what appears to be subway accident. She’s currently working for (and having an affair with) Affleck’s Stephen Collins – a rising political star investigating a private security firm.

Soon the Capitol Hill dogs are howling and Crowe’s McAffery is dragged into the proceedings because he’s an old friend of Collins’ from college. Infuriated by McAdam’s character (Della Frye), a political blogger whose lack of effort in news gathering (she just posts what she hears on the web without checking the facts), McAffery takes Frye under his wing to show her how to find the real story and clear the name of his old friend.”

The anchor of Kevin McDonald’s film is without a doubt Russell Crowe. The Oscar winning actor delivers a charming performance that’s filled with heart and passion. While I’ve never been a great fan of his work (great in LA Confidential and overrated and overexposed after Gladiator) I think that he’s now coming into his own. The Australian star portrays a character lacking in vanity with long greasy hair and a love of chili fries –  it’s almost as if he’s portraying the tabloid version of himself. There’s even a scene in a hotel room with Jason Bateman where a telephone comes close to being thrown.

Affleck is also good – although his role could have been expanded, though  I’m sure this is the casualty of the film being adapted from a six hour series. Affleck often comes under severe critical scrutiny for his performances and I feel that he acquits himself well, playing the all American political hero with skeletons in his closet. Rachel McAdams is also good as the “green” blogger who is groomed by Crowe to become “an old fashioned newspaper man.” The pair have good chemistry and in a bygone era they might have even gotten a sequel out of this film.

The major let down in the film is Helen Mirren’s turn as Crowe and McAdams’ Editor. For an acclaimed Oscar winning actress she just doesn’t show conviction, it’s as if she believes that all that’s needed to act as an editor is spout lines like “you’ve got a deadline.” Mirren appears self conscious and miscast, which is confusing considering that the younger stars are so good.

While on occasion the film’s plot hangs on coincidence and the occasional contrivance, it’s still a cut above the usual Hollywood output in the 21st Century. As an entry in the pantheon of newspaper films the thriller can justly sit alongside other films in the genre like the aforementioned All the Presidents Men, His Girl Friday as well as Mean Season, The Paper and of course Ace in The Hole.

What makes State of Play so enjoyable is that there’s a solid story and good performances. The film should feature a disclaimer saying “no CGI or snappy edits are contained in this feature.” it’s Hollywood filmmaking at it’s purest and I highly rate it for that.

Screen Rant reviews Watchmen

I’ve really been dreading writing this review because frankly, I’m still not sure how I feel about Zack Snyder’s big screen adaptation of the revered graphic novel (yes, I’m calling it a graphic novel), Watchmen.

There are some films that I really wish I could watch TWICE prior to writing a review: Big, highly-anticipated blockbusters tend to taint my initial viewing with expectations. Ideally there would be one viewing where I’d just let the film wash over me and then a second viewing where I could be more objective and analytical.

A little background for context: I read the graphic novel once, last year, following the San Diego Comic-Con. I’m not a die-hard devotee of the book, but I recognize that at the time it was written it was groundbreaking in its approach to the superhero genre. I don’t remember every nuance or panel of the story, but I remember enough for the film to make sense to me.

The problem is – I can’t “unremember” the book in order to give you the point of view of someone coming to the film with little knowledge of the story, and I’m not so into it that I can compare it detail by detail to the book – so take this review for what it’s worth. Some of you will end up agreeing with me and others will probably call me an idiot… such is the life of a guy who runs a movie website.

First off, for the uninitiated, you should know a couple of things:

1. This is NOT really a superhero movie in the sense that we’ve come to know the genre. It’s not X-Men or Spider-Man – it’s not even The Dark Knight… it’s really more of a murder mystery with a bit of superhero action thrown in for flavor.
2. It also seriously EARNS its R-rating, people. This is NOT a film you should bring your kids to because “it’s a superhero movie.” There is extremely graphic, horror movie-level gore, scenes of intense, realistic violence, full frontal male nudity throughout the film – and a very explicit sex scene.

Watchmen is also a very “dense” film, one that a viewer will no doubt pick up more details and nuances upon repeated viewings, so I won’t be covering a lot of detail here as far as story.

The film opens with a montage of scenes giving us the history of costumed vigilante crime fighters back in the 1940s. It’s pretty damned cool looking back and seeing men and women wearing homemade costumes and masks taking on muggers and such, sometimes even posing for the newspaper photographers in the middle of capturing the bad guys.

These are the glory days of the masked crime fighter, with society loving them and the heroes enjoying the heck out of what they do – even forming a loose alliance with one another. Eventually in the film we see some of these older “superheroes” who are now either dead or retired – trying to live normal lives.

The Comedian meets his end in Watchmen

From there we move to the iconic scene from the book – The Comedian (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), now in his 60s, sitting at home in his apartment when a shadowy figure breaks in and beats him to a bloody pulp – culminating in his murder via being thrown out of a window high above street level.

It is now 1985 and masked vigilantes have been outlawed by the government for almost 15 years; Richard Nixon is in his 5th term as President, and the world is on the brink of a nuclear war between the United States and Russia.

Rorschach/Walter Kovacs (Jackie Earle Haley) is a vigilante who has told the government to go screw itself and still prowls the streets at night. As depicted in the film, I would say that he is probably portrayed as some Liberals imagine all Conservatives to be. He’s borderline crazy (if not actually over the edge), but he knows where he stands and what he believes in – to a fault. He doesn’t believe the killing of the Comedian was a burglary gone bad – he thinks that it was outright murder and that someone is tracking down ex-heroes one by one in an attempt to wipe them out.

This mystery is in fact the crux of the film – we follow Rorschach through his investigation and along the line we meet other ex-heroes Nite Owl II/Dan Dreiberg (Patrick Wilson) and Silk Spectre II/Laurie Jupiter (Malin Akerman). Dan lives a quiet, lonely life (he comes across as a bit of a geek) while Laurie has a relationship with the one true superhero in the story: Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup). Things are strained between Laurie and Dr. Manhattan, as he is slipping farther and farther away from humanity due to his god-like powers and intellect.

Rorschach tells Dan his theory about a “mask-killer” (they were once partners) and Dan goes off to warn Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias (Matthew Goode) that his life may be in danger as well. Adrian is a super-genius billionaire who created his mega-corporation after vigilantism was banned. He is supremely confident and is determined to change the world for the better and bring it back from the brink of nuclear destruction.

Malin Akerman as Silk Spectre II and Patrick Wilson as Nite Owl II

The film takes us through Dan and Laurie rediscovering that the only time they really feel alive is when they’re in full costume, out there fighting crime. As a matter of fact, Dan goes through a Clark Kent to Superman transformation once he dons his costume, changing from a clumsy, impotent coward, into (as Jesse Ventura so eloquently said in Predator) a sexual Tyrannosaurus.

Overall, what this story is about is showing how really messed up in the head people who put on bizarre costumes to go out and beat up bad guys would be if they actually existed in the real world. We’re talking about your next door neighbor putting on a batsuit complete with mask and cape, going downtown and beating up people so badly that they had to go to the hospital. Sure, it sounds good in a comic book or a movie, but would you really want to live next door to that guy? Would you really feel safe?

Watchmen follows the book very closely for the most part. Where it deviates mainly is via omission of certain aspects of the book and the ending. But what you see on the screen follows the imagery in the book to a “T.” Visually, I don’t think anyone could have done a better job with bringing the artwork from the book to life. I do think that some of what was omitted (and may be in the director’s cut for all I know) might have brought more humanity to the film. In particular what you’ll find missing if you’ve read the book is anything having to do with the old magazine stand guy and the young man reading “Tales of the Black Freighter” while keeping him company.

The format of the film is such that you don’t get to know some of the characters until you’re pretty deep into the film. We don’t get to see the pre-Dr. Manhattan Jon Osterman until we’re probably over an hour into the film. The movie jumps around quite a bit, and I don’t know how that will go over with people who aren’t familiar with the original story. It seems to me that perhaps some license should have been taken with the structure of the film considering the fact that the original story took place in 12 separate comic book issues spread over the course of an entire year. But if you know the story, this won’t bother you at all.

Naked Dr. Manhattan with the naughty bits blurred (as they aren’t in the film)

Visually, Zack Snyder did a fantastic job with Watchmen. The incredible attention to detail in everything from the background sets to the props and costumes is really something to see. Of course one aspect of the film I could have stood to see a bit less of was Dr. Manhattan’s penis. The logic of the story was that eventually he becomes so detached from human norms that he doesn’t see the point of wearing any clothing. However I’m pretty sure I don’t recall Mr. Happy being so prevalent in the book. Here we’ve got full body shots all over the place and frankly, it was a bit distracting (I’ll never look at Blue Man Group quite the same way again).

The CGI effects for Dr. Manhattan were very impressive, except when it came to him actually speaking – there was a bit of the “uncanny valley” effect at work there and it just didn’t look quite right.

Far and away the best thing about Watchmen was Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. The man is mesmerizing and his performance rivals that of Heath Ledger as the Joker. I loved his interpretation of the how the character would sound, and when he gets to prison you’ll be jumping out of your seat at just how awesome he is.

Jackie Earle Haley about to go ballistic in Watchmen

Another bright spot was the despicable Comedian. Jeffrey Dean Morgan was great to watch… he was just SO twisted that you couldn’t turn away and he just draws you in.

So what didn’t work? I thought that both Malin Akerman and Carla Gugino were quite weak. Akerman’s performance came across as pretty shallow to me, and Gugino’s first real scene in the film as an old woman almost had me laughing out loud because it seemed so campy. I could take or leave Patrick Wilson’s performance – maybe it was just the character he was playing that left me cold.

I also really didn’t think that Matthew Goode was the best choice for Veidt/Ozymandias. He seemed too frail of build to me, and this became much more of an issue in the final scenes in the film where he displayed what seemed to be superhuman strength in a film where the only super-powered being is supposed to be Dr. Manhattan. This also came up in the early scene where the Comedian is fighting for his life – he punches through what looks like solid brick, and while it might look cool, it didn’t seem to make sense.

Matthew Goode as Adrian Veidt

Aside from the Comedian and Rorschach (and maybe even Dr. Manhattan), I never really felt drawn into the characters in the film. They felt like, well, characters – instead of real people. I suppose it was almost akin to an Opera, where you’re very aware of what you’re watching as an observer. It was so obviously trying to honor the source material that you could actually TELL that’s what it was doing.

So in the end, is Watchmen a good film? I think so. Was it a great or close to perfect film? I’d have to say no. It felt long to me, and we have the issues I pointed out above. It is however yet another comic book-based movie that breaks the mold, and lays the groundwork for more non-traditional comic book stories to be turned into films.

I think it’s definitely worth seeing, and I’ll be very curious to hear what you think of it. I really think Watchmen is destined to be a cult movie – not very mainstream, but with a smaller and very dedicated core of fans loving it as time goes on.

Screen Rant reviews Taken

My opinion of Taken may be skewed – I have a daughter. So a movie that shows a father’s daughter being kidnapped and the father going after the perpetrators with a vengeance most definitely speaks to me.

Another factor in favor of the film is casting an older actor as a kick ass action hero: Liam Neeson. Of course the flip side is that having a 56 year old “regular guy” kicking major amounts of butt does strain credulity just a bit.

Taken opens with Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) in the living room of a modest home. He’s alone and seems lonely. It turns out that he is divorced and is trying to make up for lost time with his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace). His ex-wife Lenore (a very stiff Famke Janssen) has married a rich man, and Bryan is having a hard time competing with that, even though his Kim obviously loves him.

Kim wants to go on a trip to France with a friend, but being ex-CIA and familiar with the dangers that are out there doesn’t want her to go. His ex-wife bullies him and his daughter’s disappointment finally convinces him to reluctantly let her go, but with a bunch of rules for calling him and checking in often.

Of course he turns out to be right and she and her friend are kidnapped rather soon after their arrival in Paris. Kim calls her dad while terrified as she sees her friend being manhandled, knowing that she is next. Bryan immediately goes into “CIA mode” during the call and when one of the kidnappers gets on the phone Bryan tells him that he has kidnapped the wrong person in no uncertain terms.

He heads off to Paris alone to track down the kidnappers and save his daughter, and that’s where the fun really begins. Despite the heavy tone of the film and what is at stake, it’s great watching Neeson as he follows the breadcrumbs, taking twists and turns (some of which are VERY unexpected) in tracking down his daughter’s whereabouts.

Surprisingly, Taken is rated PG-13. They manage this with the old “no blood visible” trick, but from the amount of violence and the subject matter (teen girls being kidnapped for sale into prostitution and addicted to serious drugs) I certainly think this should have been rated R.

Neeson is calm, cool and he kicks all kinds of bad guy butt. I enjoyed the film so much I could easily sit through it again, but it did have its flaws. Why did his CIA buddies not offer to go along and help? Some of the action scenes are a bit unbelievable considering how outnumbered Neeson is and the fact that they don’t present him as an uber-buff Stallone character. The number of dots he connects within a short span of time is also hard to swallow. And one of the people he kills at the end of the film with no repercussions is a bit hard to swallow.

But enough with the nit-picking: Taken was a rocking good time, especially during this January/February time of year when there isn’t much worth seeing at the movies.

Screen Rant Reviews The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a film adapted from the 1921 short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, about a man who is born old and proceeds to age in reverse until his death. The film adaptation takes this interesting premise and stretches it out (way, way, out) into a lengthy meditation on the nature of life, death, and everything human that is crammed in between.

The meditative tone is quickly established at the onset as the film opens on a hospital room in which a dying woman asks her daughter to read to her from the diary of a man named Benjamin Button, hoping that Button’s reflections on the reverse-course of his life will give her some kind of perspective on life in her own final moments. The rest, as they say, is flashbacks. The thing is these flashbacks have the effect of making us feel as though we are moving through a kind of dream remembered. Thank superb director David Fincher for that.

The principle cast is relatively small: Brad Pitt plays the titular character (with the help of some superb F/X and makeup); Cate Blanchett plays Button’s long-sought love, Daisy; and the way underrated Taraji P. Henson plays Benjamin’s adoptive mother, Queenie. Over the course of the movie some other familiar faces (like Tilda Swinton) come and go, as Benjamin makes his way through life, one adventure at a time. I have no criticisms of the actresses in the film. Blanchett excels a usual, and Henson once again takes what could’ve been a peripheral character and imbues her with light and life (many of the film’s best lines are hers).

The only debatable actor in the ensemble is Pitt himself. While his scenes as young (aged) Benjamin are fantastic, by the time Benjamin is middle aged and Pitt appears onscreen sans the liver spots, the celebrity’s all too familiar face stares back at us, blank as a mask that never really cracks to let even the slightest hint of emotion escape. I understand that there is a very zen tone to the film, but Benjamin shouldn’t have been portrayed as such the zen master. The whole point of the story (we’re told) is that he is as human (ie confused and flawed) as any of us.

The “over-zen” problem doesn’t end with Pitt, either. David Fincher may be my favorite director: his craftsmanship is so ambitious, accomplished, flawless and slick that certain sequences in this film look like paintings in motion that will never fade from memory. Having lauded all that praise, however, problems arise when the director’s technique overwhelms the heart of the story–as is the case, unfortunately, in this film.

Somewhere around hour 2.5 The Curious Case of Benjamin Button loses its heart: Benjamin inevitably gets younger and younger while those around him age and die. The F/X are cool and the climatic moments of Benjamin’s regression are quietly moving, however the emotional impact is left up to Cate Blanchett’s (thankfully able) acting. It is her graying, wrinkling, face that offers the only emotional tether for the audience, as she struggles to adapt her love in a very human way to circumstances that are almost too fantastic to imagine (or watch). And, for all of Ms. Blanchett’s massive talent, regrettably it’s not enough to keep most movie goers from getting antsy for a pee break around hour 2.75.

The other criticism Benjamin Button has received is that it is little more than Forrest Gump with a better F/X budget. This criticism I do not agree with. Gump was a character blissfully unaware of his own place in the course of life and history. Benjamin Button is a character all too aware of his place: an oddity to the rest of the world, yet never feeling anything else but human while ‘looking out of his own eyes.’ And while some critics might see reverse aging as a sort of cheap narrative device, it nonetheless serves to prove the point that no matter which direction we are headed along the spectrum of life and death–no matter which path we are taking– we are all on a journey that ultimately delivers us all to the same fate. It is powerful, poignant, profound and (as my grandmother said to me after) sad. Forrest Gump was just an entertaining story.

Go see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, if for no other reason than the fact that you’re going to be hearing about it for weeks to come as award season approaches. It is a phenomenal piece of cinema, one weighted with an emotionally gripping story. It could have used an intermission, though, and don’t expect Brad Pitt’s name to get tossed into the award categories this year. Just enjoy the film for its crated beauty and let it take you on its journey–it’s worth the ticket price.

]]> http://screenrant.com/curious-case-benjamin-button-review-kofi-4849/feed/ 13