F

Based on the Ray Bradbury story

There's definitely a good story in here, which is why I figure a remake was announced in 2005. The premise is interesting and the plot is kinda cool, but other elements of the movie are particularly sloppy. The main character's dialogue is oftentimes incomprehensible through his accent. Additionally, events of the story and even the premise go somewhat unexplained, dismissed with paper-thin rationalization that wouldn't stand up to scrutiny. On the plus side, there are some humorous moments in the film which are welcome to prevent it from getting too tedious. It unfortunately doesn't stand up to the test of time.

** out of *****

Michael Moore's attack on President Bush & co.

Let's start with the second half of the movie which is 50% propaganda. Moore uses his classic tricks of getting select opinions, public stunts, confrontational interviews, and drawn-out emotional setups to expertly tug at the soap-opera fan's heartstrings. It's like holding up a big saucer-eyed puppy to get the audience to go Awww. It's skillful when he does this, but it's very weak on factual convincing. Of course, that's what the first half of the movie is for. During this part, he drops hard facts like an overflowing tub of popcorn, separated by typical Moore-style snarky comments. The audience I was at gasped frequently as stuff they didn't know was documented in papers, testimony, and film. He basically took connect-the-dots facts that were already there, connected them to show a dog, then let the audience decide if it was a dog or a Toyota. Very funny and very damning, I only wish he'd put some effort into Diebold, the election, or other issues, too. The audience appluaded for a full minute after the film. A must-see for the facts, if not for Moore's showboating.

***1/2 out of *****

SomethingAwful, the Movie

The gist of this film is that a rabid Natalie Portman fan is taken across country by a film crew of jocks that not only ridicules him from afar, but forces him to fulfill his obsession by meeting the source of it after a long, cross-country trip (depicted by nine days of obvious Callifornia scenery). While it's painful enough to watch as is, what's worse is that in all its advertising and cover info it bills itself as a true story when it is, in fact, a mockumentary that only explains this fact after the film ends (if you weren't savvy enough to pick it up during the film). It appears to cater to people who want to ridicule both fandom and its members, portraying the most incoherent, incapable bottom-rung of the population and condescendingly using it as a blunt stereotype. The main character spends nearly half of the movie in tears at the hands of the crew. And this is supposed to be funny. Better yet, this trauma somehow magically transforms the fan into a bland, married, functional family man - cruelty cures all! The accurately pathetic performances are the only bright spots in an otherwise mean-spirited, misrepresented fake with bad intentions.

*1/2 out of *****

Based on the comic book.

Full disclosure: I've collected Fantastic Four comics religiously since 1985. As a result, I'm a bit of a purist and really hard to please when it comes to comic-book based movies. FF is a rare exception in that I actually approve of a generous portion of the translation. The trailer had me discouraged, with the Torch all about extreme sports and the not-quite-correct look of the Thing (not tall enough, not square-headed, lips), etc. To see the movie, however, was to change my mind in part. The core characters, the four themselves, are actually very easy to get to like, and the interaction between them is authentic and includes upbeat humor that hallmarks the comic. That said, I still have to bash the film for its total butchering of both their origin and Dr. Doom - almost 100% incorrect, painful to watch. It's hard to get around that, but if you're not too strict, this is actually a pretty fun and cool movie.

***1/2 out of *****

Testosterone-drowned street racing

I had a pretty hard time with the movie, everything that could've been good about it was pretty much a prime example of poor writing and filmmaking. The racing scenes were decent if you ignore the fact that the cars drove in a straight line really fast and then stopped. What this movie begged for were chase scenes, watching those vehicles perform and do stunts and stuff. Main centerpieces of the film were totally wasted. The big central race of the film never even happened. There's a conflict with one of the supporting characters that's a total non-sequitur to the plot. The final confrontation is just as inexplicable as its resolution. This film is a mess.

*1/2 out of *****

Live-action remake of cartoon

At least it wasn't as bad as the previews made it look. This is a particularly unmemorable film that will appeal to no one except those who grew up with Fat Albert back in the day. It's written by Bill Cosby, so it's cute and harmless. It manages to put itself above other recent remakes by avoiding burp and fart jokes (although they do slip in a butt joke). For the eagle-eyed, the animation sequences are some real eye candy. Even though it's from FOX, the animation sequences have all the hallmarks of Warner Brothers cartoons, the same style, pacing, and even gags. Sure enough, WB Visual Effects was behind that effort, making those sequences a little better than they might've been. The film is otherwise a mildly funny run-of-the-mill family film that probably should've been rated G.

**1/2 out of *****

Holocaust survivor story

Many films you may see about Holocaust survivors focus on the most extreme of the atrocities committed in the concentration camps, such as the direct physical abuse and murder. Fateless, a subtitled Hungarian film, instead details the experience of a teenager in a remote labor camp where these implements of torment weren't available. This in no way diminishes the negativity of the experience, but it does make for a slower and more dragged-out film as the director clearly attempts to emphasize the more subtler crimes to a degree that matches more horrific films of the genre. The result is repeated, slow, dazed fades, significant introspection, symbolism, and long scenes of very little activity. Perhaps this simply wasn't a story suitable for filming. It's very well-made and is based on what is probably an excellent book, but it just doesn't translate capably to the screen to make a great film. If good cinematography is what you're looking for, it's excellent, but it's less than gripping otherwise.

**1/2 out of *****

CG lions in Siegfried & Roy show

I saw the series premiere for this on tv and thought it was embarassingly bad. Having now watched the series from beginning to end, commercial-free, starting with the original episode instead of the last-minute out-of-context episode they used right after Roy got mauled, I can say that the show grew on me - a little. From the original beginning, it makes a lot more sense and ramps up the lowbrow humor and lowest common denominator angle rather than hitting you straight off with the incredibly bad taste it eventually achieves. Despite the repetetive, commercial, and cliched plots, it builds to a level of mild adequacy. The animation is fun to watch, too, if a little uniform. The series peaks in the middle and declines into boredom towards the end, going so far as to have Donkey from Shrek as a guest star, performing as...Donkey from Shrek. Not Donkey visits Vegas, or Donkey mistakenly ends up in a Vegas show - just Donkey, the movie star from Shrek, is wandering around in the middle of the program for almost no good reason. If it could've relied more on scripts that related to the characters rather than standard sitcom recipes, it might've been something. Nice for furries, decent CG, not so good on the rest.

**1/2 out of *****

Plane crash survivor can't recover

This heavy-handed drama tends to be a downer and often a tear-jerker, tho mostly in the majority of parts rather than on the whole. Jeff Bridges walks away from a plane crash unscathed after rescuing many passengers and experiences a weird kind of survivor's guilt. While all the other passengers are recovering, he's floating around in a panicky, invincible euphoria, centered around one other passenger who is also having trouble moving on. There are a lot of tears in the film and the depiction of the crash is set to angelic choral voices which makes it rather haunting. Otherwise, the film focuses almost entirely on the people and their interactions and relationships, including a very believeable portrayal by Isabella Rosellini of his wife who has to wade the distance to reach him. If you're not into personal drama, this probably isn't for you, but it's a strong film that seems to be directed at a specific audience.

*** out of *****

Don't not die. It makes Death REALLY mad.

The first film was a great Rube Goldberg who's next? scary movie. It relies on shock and scare and suspense. Final Destination 2 relies on irony and gore. Way way too much gore. I don't need to see the pieces fall out of someone. I don't need to see someone screaming and crying as they die. I don't need to see gore in this much detail. I want shock-value. I don't want to watch people *realistically* suffering horribly, knowing they're getting killed. If I want that, I'll watch the news. Thanks, but this could've been a really good movie, if it hadn't made me more nauseous than scared. On a positive note, the very tippy end is hysterically campy and the beginning sequence is very impressive (if you don't get sick).

**1/2 out of *****

More death by Rube Goldberg

I believe I can safely say that this franchise has worn out its welcome in terms of the abandonment of any particular effort on behalf of plot and scripting. Aside from the creative series of events, devices, and contraptions that come together to spell the deaths of shallow, unexplored characters one after the other, the rest of the film has been stripped down like an abandoned car to its skeleton which tries to serve as a viable product. Some of the dialogue is unbelieveably horrid. Gone is the spectre of death implied behind the scenes, now replaced by mere laughably unlikely coincidences. The sleuthing and research on the concept by the teens, as seen in the prior two films, never occurs. Instead, the two main characters just visit each cast member, who dies horribly in front of them, and then they skip off with a notable lack of traumatization to the next one. After the third or fourth friend gets maimed in front of them in the same day, covering their faces in gore, you wonder why they aren't curled up in fetal positions, sucking their thumbs. The opening and ending are nearly plagiarized from the original. At least the level of gore isn't as nauseating as it was raised to in the first sequel.

** out of *****

$70 mil in the first weekend

Now the biggest opening animated film ever, it turns out that this undersea adventure truly deserves it. Probably the best Pixar film yet, both visually and in entertainment value. Nearly every scene is memorable, filled with loads of character and characters. It also manages to dole out the perfect level of sappy without being weepy. Oh, and many parts are absolutely hysterical, particularly the seagulls. Lots and lots of little digs and homages throughout. I believe it may also be the longest Pixar film yet, clocking in at nearly 2 hours. Nobody's perfect, of course, in that the climactic finale feels like a tacked on substitution for something discarded. Also, the traditional Disney cliches are lain out in standard heavy-handed (finned?) fashion. Still, this film is the best movie I've seen so far this year.

****1/2 out of *****

Drama about the making of the Peter Pan screenplay

Most people who are interested in Peter Pan usually think of the Disney cartoon. Thinking more culturally, you have the Peter Pan broadway play which came first. This film dramatizes an idealist version of how the play might've come about. It heavily fictionalizes the reality to make it more interesting for the viewer, but the retelling still isn't interesting enough for a person who might be into Peter Pan, so it throws all sorts of fantastical embellishments in to spice it up a little. Unfortunately, those embellishments never do more than serve to frost an already rather dull cake. The story is apparently just not interesting enough to stand on its own and needs Johnny Depp and special effects to be something more. It's mildly interesting, but isn't particularly unique. The best part is, in fact, the outtakes graciously included in the extras on the DVD, which are hysterical.

**1/2 out of *****

Lawyers = Evil!

You know the stereotype that lawyers are sharks out for money. This film with Tom Cruise takes it one step further, making things more sinister very effectively. The film is rated R, but mostly for language, as the suspense is nearly bloodless. It's very well executed (and long: 2.5 hrs +) with a very low boredom factor. The twists are also extremely satisfying, including the conclusion. Lots of tension. The only drawback seemed to be that there were a few events that weren't explained clearly and I had to stop and ask what was going on, but they weren't inexplicable. And, hey, you get to see Tom Cruise beat the crap out of Wilford Brimley!

**** out of *****

Build your own plane.

This is a remake of the 1960s film which many argue was much better. This is the only one I've seen, so I take it as is. It's got a great crash sequence in the beginning and various boilerplate adventures as they rebuild. The cast of characters is almost too large and many are left unexplored in the background. This is balanced by the heavy-handed roles by several of the main characters. Dennis Quaid has a totally Harrison Ford thing going on these days, it's really great - now if he could just put it to use in bigger roles. Giovanni Ribisi is equally creepy and solidly played like a little nazi. It's a big adventure/survival film that tells a different story, but underneath it's mostly what you've seen before. Decent and fun.

*** out of *****

Engineer in peril

Very similar to the film "Red Eye", we have a story of a female passenger at odds with a threatening antagonist. In this case, we get a well-rehearsed Jodie Foster who manages to replace teenage endangerment with her traditional steely, intense resolve which is pretty much what makes the film watchable. Unfortunately, the parallels continue, including that of feminine empowerment in which our heroine is capable of fleeing, outwitting, and generally beating the poop out of the bad guy which, in the end, makes the film as a whole just not particularly scary or even tense. At most, I was worried about how embarassed Foster's character would be in front of the other passengers. Ooh, that guy's not going to get in the bathroom in time. Uh oh, the food cart's in the way, she'll have to go around it! The entirety revolves around a missing person element that fades into the background. An interesting premise, but executed poorly.

**1/2 out of *****

What more documentaries need is a good dose of humor without losing their message or displacing the facts. Flock of Dodos, a light documentary on the evolution vs. intelligent design debate, accomplishes this with ease. While it's hard to argue that the goal isn't one-sided and isn't likely to convince those who espouse the intelligent design position of their error, it does a pretty good job of both exhibiting the history of the debate, the current status, and debunking the poor logic being used to both present and perpetuate the argument, all while eliciting some chuckles and using a good dose of animation. The main drawbacks are a handful of arguable conclusions and the fact that it focuses significantly on the narrator and his family, a method I've seen increasingly in recent docs. Be sure to watch the deleted scenes and comedy bits in the extras where, in the interest of fairness, the most damaging sound bites against the ID movement were relegated.

**** out of *****

Remake of The Absentminded Professor.

Disney's remake of their old classic has "focus group" written all over it. Must've taken the writer a good, oh, three hours to plagiarize the old script, update it for modernity, add humorlessly bland and cliched gags stolen from Home Alone, and pick Robin Williams to play the utterly unconvincing lead. Hey, let's add a cutesy flying hockey puck that talks and plays irreverent video clips for no good reason at all (which are the only mildly funny bits)! The film is merely a playground for CG, as if used as a sandbox merely to exploit techniques that were new in 1997. Totally unappealingly PC and Disney at their worst.

* out of *****

There once was a guy who swallowed a fly...

It's official - putting Jeff Goldblum in a scary movie instantly turns it into a dark comedy. His personality, his manner of speaking just are not conducive to keeping a straight face. So when you dress him up as some hulking mutated monster and then give him a script to read, it just ends up being comical. This is not entirely a bad thing because this film sorely needed that type of levity. As directed by David Cronenberg, it's full of inside out animals, dissolving body parts, internal organs, and other gross-ities that make you want to look away. But put that in the context of a schlocky 80s romance and it ends up being kinda fun. Except for the last 15 minutes which are really just disgusting. Visceral body-related ick. Blech. Bit of trivia: this is the movie that coined the phrase: "Be afraid. Be very afraid."

***1/2 out of *****

Cheap attempt to imitate Cronenberg

Those wacky film studios, they just gotta have their sequels, don't they? This film is one of the last true Hollywood-style B-grade monster movies. And I really mean B-grade. It's like they hired actors from those old USA Up All Night bikini films to play the rent-a-cops and rejiggered a plot from some Police Academy sequel, then gave the creature department a budget. Let's see... It's not scary if you see the monster in bright lighting for 30 minutes of the movie. Doing a horror FX shot for no good reason at all does not further the film. Predictable in the extreme. Massive plot holes. It's a total popcorn-muncher for the beer & pretzel crowd and lost all semblance of deep-seated stomach-turning fright that made the first one keep you awake at night. Fun for monster-fans, not for the casual consumer.

** out of *****

Documentary on Colin McKenzie

This film is a surprise little documentary by none other than LotR director Peter Jackson, detailing the life and times of Colin McKenzie, the little known filmmaker from the turn of the century in New Zealand who actually pioneered multiple film techniques before the people that historians often credit them to. Told with a broad and dry humor, it's a pretty cool exploration of all sorts of factoids about film that they don't teach you in school. Make sure you watch the excellent documentary on the DVD as well, which goes into some pertinent background on where most of this unreported info came from.

*** out of *****

A hotel bellhop's night, told in four stories by four directors.

A slow start with the first story, which is rather light and goofy and open-ended. During this one, the bellhop character is somewhat irritating, although he becomes increasingly nutjobby as the film progresses. The second story starts getting crazy with a real wtf? script. The third story is high octane insanity and the bellhop is quite certifiable by the end. Lastly, the fourth story is by Quentin Tarantino, so... It even has a surprise guest cameo. The stories even interlock a little bit in amusing ways. While the film as a whole is unbalanced and unpolished, it's thoroughly worth it for the silly suspense and is probably a film I'll pick up for the collection, specifically for the pleasure of showing it to others.

***1/2 out of *****

Bill Paxton finds God, then he and his kids go out and kill people.

This is disconcerting on so many levels. Like an un-PC scary story told around a campfire. The fact that you have a front row seat to children being intimately involved with a murder-spree makes you squirm. But the conclusion of the film is even worse, almost attempting to justify murder by religion by providing a fictional and all-too-likely-to-be-in-an-actual-newspaper explanation. Even rewarding the hero? antihero? villain? What side is this movie trying to take?

*** out of *****

Where did Alex Winter go after playing Bill in the Bill & Ted movies? Apparently here, without passing go or collecting...well, anything. Imagine Bill & Ted crossed with a Zucker film and the result is pretty close to this. A nearly incomprehensible introduction leads to three lead characters trapped in a South American freak show led by Randy Quaid. There's a surprising number of cameos here, including Bobcat Goldthwait as a sock, Mr. T as a bearded lady, Brooke Shields, and Keanu Reeves as an uncredited dog boy. The script is just plain dumb, but this sort of film doesn't really need a good one. There's a number of moderate laughs, especially in the beginning out of sheer absurdity, but most of the budget went to special effects that feature a cow-man (complete with inexplicable udders), a dog with two rear ends (which two stagehands hump in the outtakes), and a goat puppet in a heavy petting zoo. Among other stuff. Yes, you're probably weirded out by now. That was what drove me to rent it, too. Dumb, dumb, dumb. But fun.

**1/2 out of *****

Rated one of the 25 most dangerous films of all time by Premiere magazine, Freaks, banned in Europe for 30 years, is one of those underground classics that I've always wanted to see. Having done so, I can safely say that I'm glad to have gotten the credit for having seen it, but...eh. The main goal of the film is really to satisfy morbid curiosity. The actors playing the freaks in the film are real sidehow artists, selected as the most extreme of their time from around the world. The plot, cast as a horror flick, is actually a story of love, betrayal, and redemption between Hans and Frieda, the two diminutive lead actors among the sideshow community. The script moves slowly and the dialogue is stilted, but that's what comes from the early days of talking films. It was apparently very effective as a fright fest back in the day, but the context is more historical and an example of the times now. It's watchable as a notable film, but the documentary on the DVD is more interesting and informative (as well as equally long) than the film itself.

**1/2 out of *****

A sideshow in NJ

While watching this documentary on Ken Harck, collector of rare circus memorabilia and founder of a sideshow on the Seaside Heights, NJ boardwalk, I was reminded of UnConventional, an in-house doc on a horror convention in that same state. Clearly filmed on the cheap with horrible sound, grainy video, and awful close-ups of the unphotogenic Harck (count his nose hairs!). It is nonetheless entertaining despite itself because of the subject matter. The first twenty minutes are a bit light, with Harck walking around his house and describing the various collectibles he has, interspersed with some historic footage of turn-of-the-century circuses. The rest is the life and times of his sideshow on the boardwalk, featuring Katzen, the tiger woman, The Enigma, the tattooed man, Slymenstra, the snake charmer, and William Drake, fire eater. There's no narration throughout, so you mostly get a reality-show take, following them around as they do their thing. Much of the performance video seems to come from the Jim Rose Sideshow rather than the one being filmed [correction from the director: By the way, all footage was shot on the last weekend of Harck's sideshow on the NJ boardwalk -- no footage at all from the JR sideshow. But several performers (and likely their acts) were the same.], but it has the same performers. Lots of footage of the acts are included, which is a good thing because shortly after this documentary was completed, the sideshow shut down and the troupe split up. Poor documentary balanced by interesting subject matter.

**1/2 out of *****

Remake of Disney's classic

A really good Disney movie? In this day and age? Who'd'a thunk it? Yes, believe it or not, this film is actually great entertainment. Not only is it truly funny, but the lead women are both totally believeable in their roles when switched. The predicaments are played out from goofy screwballness to squirmy critical confliction. Not only that, but the whole cast is eminently likeable. The only thing holding this feel-good film back is that it is a remake after all, and it doesn't manage to rise above fluff-level (good fluff, tho) to feel like a landmark event. Nevertheless, highly recommended for everyone.

**** out of *****

Guess.

Well, the big battle was worth it, even if the rest of the movie kinda wasn't. The cannon fodder was just that, they might as well have just used hand-puppets for the screaming girls and drunk boys who get whacked with such frequency, it's not even scary or gory anymore, it's just funny. Somehow, they even manage to slip in a Jay (of & Silent Bob) ripoff character. But that's not what we came for, right? Jason and Freddy are in top form, but I'd critique Jason as being a little too zombie-like and Freddy as being a little too narrative - albeit his one-liners are still great along with the cartoony-violence he inflicts. Definitely a sweet, sweet candy movie for fans of the genre. Tastes great, but no nutritional value.

*** out of *****

Camp counselors get whacked.

I'll keep this short, cos there's going to be 9 more just like it. Compared to today's films, it's laughable. It still had a couple good scares and is suprisingly gory for a movie made in 1980. Nevertheless, the source of so many cliches is just a gigglefest now. Factoid: there's almost no Jason in this first one.

** out of *****

Camp counselors just can't keep from getting whacked.

More cliches, and a few returning characters get theirs. Less gory than its predecessor, but features a full-frontal female nudity shot, again a surprise for a film made in 1981. In the wheelchair-on-the-stairs scene, think "boingboingboingboing" and the laughter just starts again... Watch for the cat hurled in the window and the mysterious third car (we only have two cars!). Factoid: Jason still hasn't adopted the hockey mask through this film.

** out of *****

Kid battles next-door vampire

Ah, the 80s wash over me, how refreshing! deza at Games Night had recommended this film and I'd heard of it before, so I took a whack at it. Remember when movie protagonists weren't indestructible underwear models who knew kung-fu and followed up every kill with some snappy line? Yeah, the days when the good guys actually got in trouble and knew it when they were. No urban attitude, no hip-hop MTV video in the middle, just classic 80's schlock cliche - goofy kid, scary house, clingy girlfriend in distress, creepy and goofy vampire hunter... All the elements of old-fashioned retro-mayhem. Ignore the plot holes in the floor and lack of continuity, please. Was this where the vampires-as-sex-objects mythos started? For an amusing side-trip, look up on IMDB what the actor who played Evil Ed has been doing since this film...

*** out of *****

More vampires, but goofier.

As they said in Futurama, "It's got a vampire AND an explosion!" Actually, it's got a bunch of vampires. And rollerskates. And bowling. Yeah, this film gets silly rather quickly. It just barely squeaks in as a comedy - it doesn't quite have gag lines, but more humorous visuals and settings. The one goofy vampire actually isn't funny at all, but rather annoying. If you ignore things like the Abba vampire, for example, the film still retains the color and flavor of its predecessor. It's in no way scary and is truly 80s style camp, but it's a great cliche film to talk back to and make fun of.

*** out of *****

N/A

What a very interesting movie! ...if you can stand watching people get gorily carved up. The thematic environments and charismatic characters sure made for a great viewing. Without them, I'm not sure I could've watched it. Not that it's a bad movie, but it's full of historical references, sometimes with almost no relation to the actual plot (hunting down Jack the Ripper). Extremely artsy and worth watching late at night with the lights off, although you have to be the right kind of person to really enjoy it. The comic book it was based on must've been very interesting...

***1/2 out of *****

Marine training and deployment during Vietnam

The first 50 minutes of this film is a black-humored laugh riot. It balances extreme humor with extreme depression and cruelty in such a way that you feel really bad for laughing in many parts. The star is the drill seargant who supposedly was a real one who did a better job than the actor he was training. After that first 50 minutes, tho, the film degrades into jock-level posturing and unbelieveability. The acting is thin and the roles are see-through. Worth the first half.

**1/2 out of *****