Rango (2011)

Movies I thought of while watching Rango: High Noon, The Man with No Name Trilogy, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Cat Ballou, Chinatown, Apocalypse Now, Yojimbo, Unforgiven, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Movies I did not think of while watching Rango: Rango.

At what point does a movie stop being its own film, and start becoming a clip show of Hollywood's greatest hits? When John Logan was writing Rango, perhaps he should have put a little less effort into paying homage to so many great films. His basic story is a very interesting one: a lizard that has been kept as a pet suddenly finds himself in an old west town called Dirt, where he has reinvented himself as a gunslinger. That lizard (voiced admirable by Johnny Depp) is the titular Rango, who enjoyed putting on theatrical performances in his terrarium before he suffered an environment change. Shortly after establishing himself as an expert marksmen (accidentally), Rango is promoted to town Sheriff by the Mayor of Dirt (Ned Beatty), a character obviously derived from John Huston's character in Chinatown. But as Rango delves deeper into an investigation about the town's water supply, he finds that the old west may not be the best place for a thespian lizard.

The main problem with Rango is lack of identity. The lead lizard himself is sufferring an identity crisis throughout the film, constantly asking through gloomy voiceover "who am I?" While watching Rango, I sometimes felt as though the movie were asking me "what am I?" The only thing I can say for sure is that Rango is a western, through and through. But where Logan and director Gore Verbinski go wrong is they constantly remind us of past great films, but fail to make Rango anywhere near as good as them. It reaches a point where you ask, "well, why don't I just see those movies?" The highlight of the film comes in the very beginning when Rango is running away from a hawk with another desert creature. This scene is both funny and exciting, and one of the few times that Rango is it's own film. After the scene ends however, the clip show begins.

The animation of Rango is really the saving grace of the film. Every character, though ugly, is beautifully rendered. The most interesting character to look at is bad guy Rattlesnake Jake, voiced by Bill Nighy. His winding, scaly body leads to a tail topped with a Gatling gun instead of a rattle. Every scene with him is thrilling to watch, and in fact were the only times during Rango when my heart actually felt involved in the film. Unfortunately, his scenes don't show up until much later in the film, and they are very scarce even then.

One more important thing that must be stressed is that Rango is NOT a children's movie. Despite being produced by Nickelodeon, this film is riddled with adult humor that children will not understand. On top of that, the humor is not even that funny. You may smirk at an inappropriate comment, but there is very little to laugh at here. Even though the MPAA chose to leave the word "violence" out of it's rating, Rango is littered with it, from claims to cutting off other characters "giblets" to a supporting character who constantly walks around with an arrow through his eye.

Rango is an hour and 47 minutes, but feels a lot longer. It has terrific animation, well crafted action scenes, but an overall slow pace and a very annoying lead character in Rango. Many will find the references to other films endearing and fun, but I found them to be distracting. You are probably better off just watching any of the films I listed earlier. My rating (3/10)

Public Enemies (2009)

From the first scene of Michael Mann's Public Enemies, I knew the ride would be bumpy. As John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) is led through the front gates of a prison, the camera jostles up and down in motion with the characters walking, but with extreme exaggeration. After a few lines of mumbled dialogue the cameraman evidently has a seizure while Dillinger and his jailhouse friends stage a breakout. As Dillinger and his buddies, including John "Red" Hamilton (Jason Clarke) and Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff), exit with guns blazing, not a moment of it is comprehensible through the frenetic cinematography and abrasively loud gunfire. This is just the beginning of the numerous complaints I have about Public Enemies.

In the year 1933, suave criminal John Dillinger is running wild in Chicago. Robbing banks in "a minute and 40 seconds. Flat." has made him public enemy number 1 for J. Edgar Hoover's (Billy Crudup) FBI. With Dillinger gaining popularity in the public eye for his easy-going demeanor, Hoover is desperate to get the criminal to the electric chair. So he hires Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale), the man who hunted down and killed Pretty Boy Floyd, to spearhead the manhunt for Dillinger and his associates, including notorious Fed killer Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham). But the bulk of the story follows Dillinger in his troubled life, trying to balance his "work" with the love of his life, Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard).

The number one reason Public Enemies fails is it's writer/director Michael Mann. As I described in my opening paragraph, Mann's choice of cinematography was a poor one. Choosing to use an HD handheld video camera, Mann probably wanted the viewer to feel as though he was standing next to John Dillinger. Instead, I felt like I was watching a cheap re-enactment put together for the History Channel. By placing the camera directly into the actor's faces, a sense of claustrophobia sets in, and it makes sitting still very difficult. If that were not bad enough, during the gunfights, understanding what is being shown to you is near impossible. The camera moved so fast and so unsteadily that I would think one character was being shot, and then later in the scene he'd appear again perfectly fine. After just a few seconds of this home video-esque style, my head began to hurt and I started to feel woozy. Throw in the fact that Mann made the gunshots as loud as a sonic boom each, and I couldn't listen to the film either. During a scene showing the famous battle of Little Bohemia, after 20 seconds I had my head buried in my chest, eyes shut, with my hands over my ears, because I was becoming so uncomfortable. My sight and sound, the two senses one needs to enjoy a film, were actually rejecting Public Enemies.

If that weren't enough, Mann's writing skills were lacking greatly as well. (Though he shares billing with 2 other people, it's easier to just write his name). Though full of slick conversation, Public Enemies just doesn't make sense at some points. For example (nothing I'm about to say is a spoiler): the first 40 minutes of the film, the FBI is looking everywhere for Dillinger, and they frequently say they have no leads. Then in the next scene, while Dillinger is in a hotel room with Frechette, the FBI busts down the door and arrests him. That's quite the magic trick Mr. Mann, but how is it done? How could it be that the FBI can go from clueless to busting down his door in a matter of one scene? Well he doesn't explain it, so keep dreaming. For all I know, they did discuss it briefly, but who knows through the mumbled voices of almost every actor in the film. Anybody who has seen a film with Christian Bale knows that he has mastered an American accent. However, the chore of speaking in a southern accent proved too great the task for him. In one of his worst performances, Bale can't quite speak clearly enough to help out the audience. As a friend of mine affectionately put it, "it was like he borrowed his accent from Foghorn Leghorn, and he forgot to use it sometimes". Couldn't have said it better myself. The starpower of Johnny Depp, who tries very hard to save this sinking ship by giving a good but forgettable performance, can't distract us from the fact this film's screenplay is awful. It is painfully slow during most scenes, and then frantically hurried in scenes where valuable information is being thrown around. No medium was ever found in the script, and so the transfer to the screen was just as bad.

Since Mann chose to "put us in the action" rather than tell us an actual story, Public Enemies was an all out failure. Even if I were to forgive the flaws of the screenplay and most of the acting, I'd still give this film a scathing review because of it's direction. It just goes to show that a cast list alone cannot make a film good. You know what I would like to see? A film based on Baby Face Nelson, played by Stephen Graham again. I felt Graham gave the best performance of the film, and I'd like to see him again in the role. That movie might be good. Public Enemies, not so much. My rating (2/10)

Adventureland (2009)

In 2007, director Greg Mottola made a huge dent in the world of comedy with the hit Superbad. With the assistance of writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, he delivered one of the funniest films of the year and still kept it sincere underneath the loads of vulgar language. In 2009, Mottola went out on his own and wrote and directed the film Adventureland, a project probably very close to his heart because he worked at the real Adventureland long ago. For his sake, I hope this was not an account of his actual experiences there. Not only was this film about as funny as stubbing your toe on the refridgerator, it was overrun with whiny characters that pulled no sympathy from me.

It's 1987 and James Brennan (Jesse Eisenberg) just graduated from college. Before attending Graduate school at Columbia, James wants to spend some time in Europe in hopes of losing his virginity to an easy foreign girl. But when the cost of his trip increases unexpectedly, James is forced to find himself a summer job to pay for the difference. Enter Adventureland, the local amusement park where James' friend Frigo (Matt Bush, the kid from the AT&T commercials, and the only funny part of this film) works. After a brief interview with park manager Bobby (Bill Hader) and his wife Paulette (Kristen Wiig), James begins his thrilling career as a game shack attendant. Life looks bleak for James until he is spotted by Em (Kristen Stewart), another game attendant. The two spark up a friendship that soon turns into romantic feelings for James. But Em's chaotic home life and an attractive musician mechanic named Connell (Ryan Reynolds) jeopardize James' chance of making this summer one he will remember forever, in a good way at least. Falsely advertised as a comedy, Adventureland is a drama chronicling the life of a post-graduate loser in Reagan era Long Island.

Adventureland did have one aspect going for it in it's favor. It was a realistic film in how people, specifically younger generations, interacted with each other in their awful job environment. The awkward and somewhat gloomy nature of these poor souls was a truthful account, so in that respect Mottola did a great job at writing. However, this brings up a serious problem in the film. Real life is not all that funny. In Superbad, the friendship between the two main characters was real, but events in the film were heavily exaggerated to accommodate the comedy of the film. In Adventureland, everything that happened was practical and thus much less funny. Mottola left little room for comedy and instead put heavy effort into developing his characters. In a dramatic film, character development is key. There needs to be a significant amount of it in order to draw an audience in. However, a comedy does not need nearly as much attention put in to the characters. In a good comedy, such as Superbad, the very beginning of the film introduces us to exactly who our main protagonists are. As the film progresses, subtle actions inside the comedy reveal more and more about the characters, but we are never force fed the material. Mottola takes this short 5 minutes of character introduction and stretches it into a full hour. Because of this, there is no light-hearted interlude between the moments we meet our friend James and the main issue of the film. It is drama through and through, and I was looking for a comedy.

Perhaps the biggest disease that Adventureland suffered from was the fact that it was a character driven film with boring characters and lackadaisical actors. Jesse Eisenberg plays the soft spoken intellectual James in a static way that is reminiscent of Michael Cera. Both emit an air of pathetic awkwardness, and neither ever really raise their voice beyond a certain level. The only difference is that Michael Cera is actually funny. Line after line Eisenberg delivers with the same "enthusiasm", and never once did he bring a smile to my face. Much like Paul Rudd's character in I Love You, Man was embarrassing to watch, Eisenberg overplays the quirkiness of his role and never shows the maturity that his character supposedly gained. The lone bright spot as far as performances go belongs to Kristen Stewart, who may have actually been too good for her role. The confusion and mayhem that was Em's life is brought forth with stunning strength though Stewart's performance. I say she may have been too good for this role because since everybody else was so awful and she was so spot on, the gap between was uncomfortably recognizable. However good of a job Stewart did though can be overlooked by the fact that she too, has not a single comedic line in Adventureland. So far, we have a comedy with two main characters. One is pathetically unfunny despite his best efforts, and the other is straight-laced and meant to amp up the drama. Forget good performances, somebody say something funny! It was here that the supporting cast contributed hugely to the film. Matt Bush as James' pestering friend was by far the funniest aspect of Adventureland, but was unfairly underutilized. I have seen Bush in a few TV commercials and I was glad to see that he transferred well onto a big screen. His future in the film industry will hopefully long, despite his upcoming project, Halloween 2. And of course, Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig deliver as always but are, like Bush, rarely on screen. Martin Starr, as James' game shack mentor Joel, provides little to nothing to film, and may as well have been dropped from the script entirely.

It can be argued that Adventureland was not meant to be a comedy in the vein of Superbad but rather a touching coming of age story. This statement I can live with, but respectfully disagree. This film has been marketed vigorously as a hilarious follow-up to Superbad so that is exactly what I expected. Marketing this film as a comedy makes about as much sense as marketing Schindler's List as a great date movie. But judging Adventureland as a coming of age tale does not help it much. Because of the dismal acting and irritating characters, the journey into manhood didn't interest me in the slightest. The final resolution to the film is predictable and conjured not a single emotion from me. The characters themselves showed little emotion to any situation presented to them. They simply looked bored, and that made me bored with them.

Adventureland is a very long 107 minutes that is only good for a few chuckles and one solitary worth while performance. Greg Mottola has fallen victim to the sophomore slump, falling well short of the expectations brought about by Superbad. To those of you who may complain that I am being unfair by comparing this film to Superbad, let me say this. Adventureland as a lone film was boring, not funny, and a waste of $8. My rating (2/10)

RocknRolla (2008)

So what is a Rock-n-Rolla? The marketing campaign for this film circulated this question through every possible medium, causing a terrible case of "annoying fake British accents" amongst our friends and family (a condition similar to "Borat-itis"). Before RocknRolla was even released, people were buzzing with fake British enthusiasm to find the answer to this question. However, when the film was finally released, we discovered people didn't so much care about finding the true meaning of a "Rock-n-Rolla" as much as they did masquerading as a British person. This is evidenced by the fact that RocknRolla only made about $6 million and never broke into the top 10 at the box office. Even I, who was a fan of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, didn't bother seeing this film. It's a good thing I didn't waste my money. RocknRolla tries to be as fun and charismatic as its predecessors, but falls into a veritable mine field of movie faux pas.

RocknRolla is not a sequel as I may have led on, but simply a film in the same vein as Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. After deviating from the "multiple storyline" gimmick since 2000, writer/director Guy Ritchie returns to the form that made him famous for his latest film. Sadly, the eight year break seems to have gotten to Ritchie and he was unable to bring himself back to his heyday. RocknRolla loosely revolves around Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson), the self-proclaimed King of the Old School who runs most of London. Lenny is currently trying to make a deal with some local Russians, and as a token of affection Russian head Uri Omovich (Karal Roden) allows him to hold on to his lucky painting. To Lenny's dismay, the painting is stolen from his home by his estranged son, rock star Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell). While he searches for his junkie offspring, Lenny and his confidant Archie (Mark Strong) must also keep relations with the Russians running smoothly, keeping it a secret that he lost Uri's beloved painting. Unfortunately, tensions rise as the shipment of money between the two parties continually gets stolen by One-Two and Mumbles (Gerard Butler and Idris Elba), two crooks who were tipped off by shifty accountant Stella (Thandie Newton). As the story progresses, everyone's world begins to fold into everyone else's, meeting at an end that was more of a whimper than a bang. Much less cohesive and interesting than his previous efforts, Ritchie wastes his opportunity at a comeback on this scrap heap.

To some degree, RocknRolla is a pretty film. Not in terms of the events sprawled out on the screen, but rather in how Ritchie and cinematographer David Higgs show what is being done. The use of somewhat dirty coloring conveys the grimy feel of the world these no good characters are living in. Ritchie also sometimes redeems himself with a clever filming style, specifically in one scene as One-Two and his partner Mumbles are being chased down by some unstoppable Russians. The rest of the film however, is a total loss and an incomprehensible mess. The smash-bang execution that Ritchie perfected in Snatch was obviously short-lived, as was his ability to spin an engaging story from his mental yarn. The mostly central story following the whereabouts of a missing painting is hardly enough to keep the viewers eyes forward. Even a ten year old who just drank seven Red Bulls would start to get bored. Ritchie fails to create a single memorable character from his basic, bland script. Even as I'm writing this, I frequently have to visit the IMDb page of this film to remind myself of the character's names. I can't even remember if Stella, the accountant, worked for Lenny, Uri, both, or neither. You could say that this is no more than the fault of my own memory, but I argue that Ritchie didn't do a good enough job to plant these faces in my head as he did in Snatch.

In both of Ritchie's previous multi-story films, the plot is driven by a maniacal kingpin who has "commoners" groveling for mercy. In RocknRolla, this role is stepped into by two time Oscar nominee Tom Wilkinson, a consistently impressive actor that most recently knocked me out with his portrayal of Benjamin Franklin in the HBO mini-series "John Adams". To my chagrin, Wilkinson brings the biggest disappointment of the film in the form of his surprisingly weak performance. An intimidating kingpin Tom Wilkinson does not make, so much as a man who is just a jerk. The characters in RocknRolla may have feared Lenny Cole, but that is just because the script told them to. As a viewer, I was as daunted by Cole as I would be of a Pomeranian with a mean streak. In Snatch, Ritchie created a villain that truly induced fear and with the perfect performance of Alan Ford, the character Brick Top was one to remember. Lenny Cole is a boring scoundrel with no lasting power. Even Cole's growing opponent Uri was portrayed in a rather tame manner. With the exception of one scene that shows his power, Karal Roden never gets the opportunity to show how devilish his character is. The supporting performances from the entire cast, including Thandie Newton, Gerard Butler, Jeremy Piven, Mark Strong, and Ludacris, are all nothing but exercises in mediocrity. The only showing anywhere close to being worthy of celebration is Toby Kebbell's drugged out, hyper-violent, comically apathetic Johnny Quid. His character's farcical behavior gives RocknRolla a slight ray of sunshine in an otherwise dank cave. However, his talents are grossly under-utilized and for most of the movie we are subject to the flat stories of the other characters.

RocknRolla could have had a place on my DVD shelf for years to come right next to Ritchie's other accomplishment's, but instead I will never have it enter my home again. It's unnecessary length is the final straw, closing in on two hours. Snatch was by no means short and was only ten minutes shorter than RocknRolla, but it was at least filled with things to appreciate. If you want to watch a caper flick that's fast paced and highly satisfying, watch Snatch. If you want to watched a caper flick that tries to be quick but instead gets bogged down by it's stale story, watch RocknRolla. My rating (3/10)

Be Kind Rewind: What the Hell Was I Thinking?

Back in July of 2008, I wrote a review of the Michel Gondry film Be Kind Rewind. In it, I had written about how it was a predominantly nice film that wasn't so much funny as it was sweet and fun. It reminded me of how my friends and I made our own movies and I liked that I could relate to it. I only gave it a 5.5 out of 10, but that is still a mild recommendation. Recently on a free preview of Cinemax, I got the chance to watch Be Kind Rewind again. I recalled all the nice things I had written about it and thought I'd give it a second watch. After an hour, I had to shut off the television because I couldn't take it anymore. I had made a mistake.

I never said Be Kind Rewind was a very good film. Whenever somebody asked me "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" I never said it was a good movie. My answer was always the same: "It was nice. Very pleasant." I am deeply sorry for misleading you. There is nothing nice or pleasant about this movie. In my first review I made a point of saying how the script was awful, the direction was trite, and the acting was subpar. Those statements stand where they are. But I did say that I enjoyed Jack Black's performance as the eccentric conspiracy theorist Jerry. Holy hell I must have been slipped acid before watching this movie the first time. The second time around, it was Black who I hated THE MOST. He was nothing more than an annoying pestilence. Also at second viewing, the lazy direction and camerawork proved to be not just trite but unyieldingly soporific. It was seriously as though my friends and I through this movie together in a week. And do you know how I said I liked this movie because it reminded me of my friends and the fun we had making our own movies? Well I'm over it.

Sure I didn't watch Be Kind Rewind all the way through the second time, but I wasn't going to subject myself to the rest of it again. After shutting it off, I just thought back to what the ending was, and realized how unfulfilling and inconclusive it was. Forget all the stuff I said before, because I retract it all. My new rating (1/10)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Quantum - (n) a particular amount (adj) sudden and significant

Solace - (n) alleviation or comfort

Quantum of Solace - (?) Absolutely meaningless. Not explained through any medium, specifically the 2008 film Quantum of Solace.

Bond is back and he's...not as good as he should have been in yet another 007 film. Quantum of Solace marks the 22nd official James Bond film of the EON Productions franchise, the 25th James Bond film of all time, and only the 2nd James Bond movie I've ever seen. Although Ian Fleming's character is not my cup of tea, I do know what to expect from the man. As I sat down to watch Quantum of Solace I nestled myself into my chair and waited to be astounded by the gadgets and fancy cars that make Bond so recognizable. What I received was a poorly filmed, sloppily scripted, decently acted hodge-podge that did not capture the spirit of a James Bond film at all. Being only somewhat entertained by 2006's hugely successful Casino Royale, I was surprised to find that I actually prefer that film over this one. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, with only a 20 minute gap between the films. The plot to this film is nearly incomprehensible. I actually had to check the internet for a plot synopsis when I got home to make sure I wouldn't make a mistake in my review. According to Wikipedia, the film follows James Bond (Daniel Craig) as he tries to prevent a group called the "Quantum" from executing a coup d'etat in the country of Brazil. His main focus is on Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), an "environmentalist" who seems to be spearheading the whole operation. Helping Bond in his fight is Camille (Olga Kurylenko), a woman whose family was killed by the very man attempting to take power in Brazil. At the same time, Bond is also seeking revenge for the death of the only woman he ever loved, Vesper Lynd. (This plot synopsis took me a week and a half to write, mainly because I had a lot of trouble putting it into words that were understandable. It's not my best work, but it'll do.)

There are not many good things to say about Quantum of Solace. Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade all returned as writers for this film, but failed to live up to the precedent set by their previous work on Casino Royale. They created a lackadaisical script that doesn't explain itself very well, and was far too reliant on the first film. It is understandable that a sequel will use the original film as a jumping off point, but you would need to watch Casino Royale immediately before watching this film to get anything! If you've never seen the first film and you plan on watching Quantum, good luck. These writers also abandoned the use of plot development for this film, turning it into an hour and 45 minute marathon of explosions. One of the few things I enjoyed about Casino Royale was that it followed a well thought out script and centered on characters that you learned a lot about. Quantum of Solace gives no backstory to many of the characters, leaving you in the dark when it comes to actually caring about what happens. The shift in director could also be to blame for the mediocre downslope the franchise took in just 2 movies. Marc Foster took the reigns from Martin Campbell, and I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to give them back. Quantum of Solace is the first action film to hit Foster's resume which is comprised of serious pictures such as The Kite Runner and Monster's Ball. From this, it is no wonder Foster seemed out of his element helming a James Bond film. His camera work was utterly dreadful in even the simplest shot. Every action sequence looked as though the man holding the camera was having a seizure. Foster also manages to take all of the intensity and anticipation out of a long awaited film that should have kept the audiences heart's racing. Quantum offers no build up to a final resolution, and the showdown between Bond and Greene was so lackluster that I didn't even realize it was the final showdown until the movie ended five minutes later.

If there is a positive thing to say about Quantum of Solace, it is that Daniel Craig is just as dynamic as he was in Casino Royale as the suave super agent James Bond. His performance alone keeps this film out of the dollar movie bin at Stop & Shop. His dedication to the role actually had me believing it is that easy to be entangled in a series of ropes yet still have the ability to accurately shoot a gun. Sadly, not many of the people around Craig were very convincing. Olga Kurylenko, whose most recent films include Max Payne and Hitman, pretty much lives up to her resume in her role as Bond girl Camille. A flat performance topped off by an inability to understand a word she says really doesn't do much to make the film respectable. In some scenes, Kurylenko's character discusses some grim memories of her family being killed. An actress of higher caliber would have been able to make this monologue memorable, but instead I was left straining my ears, struggling to comprehend the words that were heavily coated in a thick accent. Mathieu Amalric is not bad playing the villain Dominic Greene and is sometimes very engaging. But a one dimensional character makes his villain a forgettable and fruitless minor inconvenience.

Quantum of Solace is (mercifully) the shortest Bond film in the franchise, and I believe that may have been a disadvantage to the film. Perhaps the writers were afraid they would lose the audiences attention if they made the film too long. Whatever the reason, added length could have given Quantum of Solace the honor of being told properly with much more development. But it is futile to sit here pondering "what if's" and I must talk about the film for what it was. With only one and a half good performances, Quantum of Solace is nothing more than a a brief itch that once scratched is gone from your mind for the rest of your life. My rating (3/10)

Quarantine (2008)

Being locked in an apartment building is nothing to get shaken up about. Fill that building with virus infected tenants that want to bite your face off, then you've got a problem. Just ask Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter), a news reporter who is simply trying to find a good story with the Los Angeles fire department. Angela gets her wish when an emergency is called in, forcing every firefighter in the precinct to spring into action. With her cameraman Scott (Steve Harris), Angela joins firefighter Jake (Jay Hernandez) as he sweeps through the building searching for the problem. But when one of their men is fatally bitten by one of the tenants, the group find themselves in a situation that won't play out in their favor. When they try to escape the building, they find the government has sealed them in, trapping them with whatever is causing the strange behavior in the tenants. I watched Quarantine following a strong recommendation from a friend. I now know I should never do that again. Quarantine is as unoriginal, cliche, predictable, and cheap as any other horror movie destroying a cinema near you.

Director John Erick Dowdle is the man to blame for Quarantine. Acting as writer and director, all of the atrocities and incongruities in the film are strictly on his shoulders. In my writing I try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, but for Quarantine, I don't care. What tried to be an innovative horror film was actually a sub par copy of every horror movie you have ever seen. First, the camera. The use of a handicam to shoot a movie has become increasingly popular after its success in Cloverfield. The problem with gimmicks like that though is they wear out their welcome extremely quickly. The camera in Cloverfield was shaky but even at its worst you can still have a general idea of what was happening. However, Quarantine thought it would be a good idea to have the cameraman never stop shaking the camera, perhaps to make it more "realistic". But with realism like that, faces and figures ended up blurring together to create nothing more than masses of differing colors. Second, the creatures. With the splendor of zombie films that are released year after year, it is easy to become exhausted by the genre. Some films recreate these villains, like 28 Days Later. But one thing that all these films hold in common, with the exception of 28 Days Later, is they never reveal why the events you are watching are happening. Usually if a film tries to give an explanation as to why people are suddenly hungry for flesh, they have to try really hard to make it convincing. Quarantine is an example of a film that tried to explain, but didn't do a good enough job. The genius explanation thought up by Dowdle was that a young girl's dog contracted some form of Super Rabies that got out to the rest of the building. Super Rabies. No explanation as to how it became Super. It just is. This leads into the third error of the film: continuity. The reason this Super Rabies is so devastating is because it is exactly like rabies, only people begin to feel the symptoms in a matter of minutes. Yet the little girl who owned the dog, who was shown as sick at the beginning of the film, took over 60 minutes to turn. Not only that, she happened to turn at the exact moment people started thinking, "Maybe the little girl is infected too". So to sound it off, we have bad camera work, bad script writing, and lack of continuity. Sounds like every zombie ever made.

I would love nothing more than to critique the acting in Quarantine. However I feel this may be a futile attempt, because most of the time I couldn't even tell which character was talking due to the awful camera work. All I can say is that the captives were good at screaming and the zombies were good at growling.

When marketing a film, you should do your best to give away as much of the plot as possible to intrigue people, but not give enough away to ruin the entire movie. When it comes to Quarantine, there isn't much of a plot to talk about. It is essentially just people locked in a house with flesh eating monsters. So the only thing this movie could possibly have going for it is hope. You should want people to hope these main characters get out alive (or die, depending on what kind of a person you are). An audience should be stuck to the screen waiting for the characters next move which could at any moment, be their last. Putting aside the fact that I felt no attachment to the characters because I was so put off by the terrible directing and writing, I still didn't feel that hope, because I already knew the ending of the film. No I did not research the ending or ask my friend how it concluded; it was the marketers fault. The fate of the main character is given away in every trailer, commercial, and even the poster. That scene of the woman being dragged away through a night vision lens is literally the last occurrence in the film before the credits roll. The filmmakers and marketing team completely took away the mystery because you knew ahead of time that rooting for them to live was pointless. I sat for 90 minutes watching a bad movie just so I can see what has already been shown in every commercial.

I'm sure many of you are saying "Well Nicholas, it is after all just a horror film. Just let us know whether it was scary or not, because all of these notes on the filmmaking are unnecessary". You are right, perhaps I am being a little harsh and judgemental. I should just worry about whether it was scary or not. Well you know what? It wasn't. Quarantine is nothing more than a pop up and scare you horror film. You could swap this film with any other of the same genre and not be able to tell the difference. If you enjoy cheap scares and terrible movies, I recommend Quarantine. If you want to watch a horror movie that is actually good, steer clear. My rating (2/10)

Teeth (2007)

Warning: The following post contains numerous references to the male and female anatomy. If you haven't heard about the birds and the bees yet, I suggest clicking on another review.

Are you a parent of a teenage son? Do you live in worry that he will come home one day with the news that he has gotten a girl pregnant after an irresponsible night? Do you wish there was a way to somehow keep your son from making this stupid mistake? Well I have good news for you. A movie has been released that serves as the most potent anti-sex film since the dawn of time. I am talking about Teeth, a film that for some reason won an award at the Sundance Film Festival, and just so happens to have ended up on my friend's television screen when I went to his house. If you have a friend or if you are a person who keeps track of recent releases of independent films, you may have heard of this film as "the one with the girl who's got teeth in her danger zone". Well yes, that is essentially what the film is about. Teeth is the gag inducing tale of Dawn O'Keefe (Jess Weixler), a teenage girl who strongly advocates abstinence before marriage. After becoming the object of attraction for fellow abstainer Toby (Hale Appleman), Dawn discovers that she isn't like normal girls. When Toby attempts to take advantage of her (some nice guy he turned out to be right?), the event is short lived as his penis soon becomes a thing of the past. How could this have happened? You guessed it. Teeth in the va-j-j. Horrified by herself (as she should be), Dawn researches her unusual condition and discovers she has Vagina Dentata, a mythical affliction that seems to have been brought to reality through her body. Although this could possibly make for an effective scary story around a campfire, turning this plot into a feature film was a huge mistake. Then again, voluntarily watching it was a huge mistake on my part.

I saw Teeth a while ago, but am only just writing about it because I tried so desperately to remove it from my memory. I came to the decision that instead of keeping it locked away, I should share with the world the atrocities of this film, so that they could avoid the mistake that I was so foolish to make. I'm sure the makers of Teeth didn't plan on making a film that's sole purpose was to scare the sex drive out of teenage boys, but ultimately that's what they got. Being a teenage boy myself, it took me a day and a half to rationalize that it was just a movie. Looking back I feel silly that I was even affected at all. But in all seriousness, Teeth does not work as anything more than a film preaching abstinence. Even in that respect, it doesn't succeed. Like I said, it took me only a day and a half to get over it. I haven't had sex, but if my girlfriend offered it to me I wouldn't say "No, first I want you to get checked for Vagina Dentata". Teeth also fails as an amusing splatstick film, because I couldn't really find the comedy in watching multiple penises get removed. It just didn't sit right with me. I've grown fond of having a penis, and the thought of it having ripped away makes me very sad. I guess you could say if somebody tried to take it away, I'd have quite the BONE to pick with them =D....no? Nothing? Ok moving on. Director Mitchell Lichtenstein, who has done practically nothing in the past, should never be allowed to work again after bringing us this vile, poorly filmed squalor. Not to mention the most obnoxious and overly dramatic score since There Will Be Blood (I'd give There Will Be Blood a 9 instead of a 10 only because of the score, but that's a different review). In some particularly ugly shots (including the opening shot of the film), Lichtenstein shows a landscape view of the bright and sunny town that the film takes place in. Technicolor that is reminiscent of the early Batman television series makes this shot an eye sore, and it foreshadows the rest of the film as being a terrible viewing experience.

If you are going to be physically and emotionally sickened by a film, one should hope that there were some redeeming qualities that kept you interested. Teeth offers you nothing, and on top of that nothing shows you graphic scenes of penal amputation. Makes for one hell of a movie right!? Wrong. Jess Weixler is annoying and sometimes unwatchable as the girl with the devil's vagina, Dawn. Even though her character is reasonably in hysterics for a lot of the film, she still managed to over-act and sometimes even under-act. Never did Weixler hit the nail on the head. No supporting performances give Teeth an extra boost, not even John Hensley's performance as Dawn's drug taking, sex having, deeply disturbed step brother Brad. The relationship between Dawn and Brad had potential to be intriguing and memorable but instead falls flat on its back. The resolution between the two is predictable and altogether unsatisfying. You see what is about to happen from a mile away and when it is finally done you are left scratching your head thinking, "That's it? I really watched that entire movie just so I can see something that I totally expected to happen like an hour ago? I'm gonna go throw up". Now I didn't throw up when I finished the film, but if they had some kind of memory eraser that I could take to erase it from my head that would be swell. If you know any good ways to remove something from your memory without damaging everything else in your head just leave a comment.

Now underneath the repulsive visuals displayed in Teeth, there lies the foundation of any film, and that is the script. The director Mitchell Lichtenstein also wrote the screenplay for the film, and I must say this man really does not have any talent. He managed to take a completely original idea (something that is very rare in today's movies) and drive it so far into the ground that the heat from the earth's core melted it. Lichtenstein could not decide whether to make his film heavy on the horror and light on comedy or the other way around. Scenes flip flop between scary and comical, and sometimes the scary scenes are more laugh producing than the funny ones. Either way, I didn't find the film to be funny at all. The subject matter is a bit too grotesque to be funny. Beneath his sequences of horror and violence, there is meant to be a feeling of female empowerment delivered by Dawn, who can somewhat be classified as a hero given the film's ending. The idea that this girl is using her "gift" to punish sex driven men (albeit by having sex with them) probably would give a woman a sense of pride and the feeling that she can overcome the oppression of any man. WELL I'M NOT A WOMAN! I fail to see the pride one can gain from having teeth in her vagina! And as a boy, I learned absolutely nothing from this film. The only possible message could have been to not be so hasty with who you become intimate with. But all I learned was to always check the quality of the turf before you step out on the field.

Teeth runs at the longest 94 minutes you will ever endure, and shows you no mercy along the way. I had a feeling going in that I wouldn't enjoy this film, and I was dead right. Perhaps if the film was not as graphic it would have been easier to watch. But the pervasive obscenity of the amputation scenes were unnecessary and in no way entertaining. Maybe if you are a woman you can watch this film and laugh and say "Ha! Take that you stupid man! Chicks rule! Girl power, woohoo!" But other than that, there is nothing that can come from this film except misery and unhappiness. Everybody, especially men, should run away from this film at all costs. My rating (1/10)

You Don't Mess With The Zohan (2008)

One year after bringing us one of the worst movies of 2007 in the form of I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, Adam Sandler brings us...one of the worst movies of 2008. You Don't Mess With the Zohan is so unfunny and insulting that it should have been banned from public eyes. Sandler stars as Zohan, an Israeli counter-terrorist who decided he wants to give up his profession to follow his dream. After faking his own death from fighting Palestinian terrorist Phantom (John Turturro), Zohan travels to America in his quest to become a hairdresser for Paul Mitchell. But when he is turned down by almost every hair salon in New York City, he is forced to work for a Palestinian hairdresser named Dalia (Emmanuelle Chriqui). Isn't it so funny and ironic that this ex Israeli soldier must now work together with someone whose nationality is that of his enemy!? No, it's not. Zohan begins to bring in business for this small beauty salon as he earns a reputation for being a terrific hairdresser, and also because when he's done with your hair he takes you in the back and has sex with you. No, I'm serious, he actually does that. Despite the fact that this is basically prostitution, Dalia allows this to continue because it's bringing her money. There is also a random plot line thrown in more than halfway through the movie that involves a rich tycoon named Walbridge (Michael Buffer. Yes, the guy that says let's get ready to rumblllllllllllllllee!) trying to put Dalia out of business so he can build a mall. How very original. You Don't Mess With the Zohan is full of hummus and hip thrusting, but completely devoid of laughter.

Dennis Dugan, the man who directed many of Sandler's other films including last years terrible Chuck and Larry, once again joins Sandler with You Don't Mess With the Zohan. Dugan's work has never been top notch, but he is at his absolute worst in this film. The scenes are shot with what seems like haste, as if he just wanted to get the movie over with. I don't blame him for that much. Practically every scene is choppy and seems to be held together with scotch tape that's beginning to peel. Judd Apatow has been credited as being a co-writer for You Don't Mess With the Zohan, and I am deeply saddened by this fact. To think he had anything to do with this completely laughless debacle is so depressing. Sandler's writing has always been known to be childish, but the subject matter of this film is far too adult for children to understand. And for anybody older the age of 13, you will understand the subject matter but not laugh because the jokes are still far too childish. Mr. Sandler, you are 41 years of age. Perhaps it is time to give up this act and start working on a more serious career, because you have shown potential for one in the past. The fact that the Zohan takes five jokes from the first ten minutes of the film and then repeats them through the entirety of the 113 minutes tells me that you have officially run out of originality and are reliant on used gags. We get it, Zohan likes hummus, thrusting his hips, and having sex with any woman that he wants...do something else! Grow up. It felt like Sandler spent more time wondering how he could sprinkle his buddies into the film rather than writing a good film.

Sandler's acting in You Don't Mess With the Zohan is just as detestable as his writing. He takes his character Zohan and makes him an unappealing person that is not funny but just annoying. Oh, and if you are able to understand more than 50% of what he is saying through his terrible fake accent, congratulations. I found myself having to sound out words in my head in order to comprehend what he was talking about. When I finally did figure out what he said, I was left unsatisfied at the tacky joke that it turned out to be. Actually, everybody in this garbage heap had a terrible accent. I probably understood only 60% of the dialogue in the entire film. Even Chris Rock who appears in the movie for under a minute as a Jamaican cab driver had a terrible accent. The only thing I picked up from him speaking is that he likes Chinese food. That's not funny. Emmanuelle Chriqui is Dalia, the Palestinian salon owner that hires Zohan. She doesn't use a heavy accent, but it didn't matter. She was still awful. Zohan's arch-enemy Phantom was played by John Turturro and it's as if he didn't even try. There is no other way of saying it. Nick Swardson plays Michael, a New Yorker who takes in Zohan when he first arrives to the city. (Zohan thanks him by having sex with Michael's mother. Funny, right?). I am a fan of Swardson and I thought he was hilarious in Grandma's Boy, another Happy Madison production. But he is a very R rated comedian, and the Zohan's PG-13 rating held back Swardson's potential, thus wasting him as an asset. There are plenty of other cameos from Sandler's associates such as Kevin James, John McEnroe, Kevin Nealon, and Rob Schneider. None are funny. Actually, that is not true. The only funny part in the entire film goes to Dave Matthews (that's right, of the Dave Matthew's Band) as a redneck who threatens a cage of puppies. It's not hilarious, but it is the only part I laughed out loud at. As far as Michael Buffer's part of the plot goes, he shows up late in the film, has two lines, and then it's over. Blink and you'll miss him.

In an attempt to make You Don't Mess With the Zohan somewhat meaningful, Sandler explores interactions between Palestinians and Israelis in New York. This is possibly where Judd Apatow fit in to this whole project, as he shows a great aptitude for sincerity. By showing us the encounters of these two groups in New York as opposed to the Middle East, we were supposed to see that we are not all so different in a very lighthearted way. But it is very hard to feel this way when the interactions are spent talking about which politicians wives you would have sex with. Although, the message was pounded into my brain that war is bad and it is not OK to assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are not from here. But these are two things I learned from my parents and teachers long ago. I didn't need Adam Sandler to try and explain it to me. What I do need is Adam Sandler to make a funny movie, and he did not do that.

I deeply considered walking out on You Don't Mess With the Zohan, but I was with someone so I could not leave. As I mentioned before, the film is 113 minutes, and is absolutely excruciating. What makes it even worse is that the jokes in this movie do not stop coming. There is one joke right after another. This wouldn't be so bad if any of those jokes were actually funny! Do you have any idea how uncomfortable it is to watch a movie that deals out jokes left and right but not a single hit lands? You will if you watch this movie. When the end credits finally began to roll, I practically sprinted out of the theater. Avoid this film like the plague. No wait, I have a better idea. Go to your local theater, break into the projector room, steal this film, take it to the beach, put it in a garbage pail, and start a bonfire with it. At least that way it could provide you with some fun. My rating (1/10)

Date Movie/Epic Movie (2006/2007)

There are some movies in this world that make me sick to my stomach because they perfectly exemplify everything that is wrong with this world. Two of these movies are Date Movie and Epic Movie, both written and directed by Jason Freidberg and Adam Seltzer, or as I like to call them, Satan's workers. These men simply have NO idea what a spoof movie is meant to be. They throw pop culture icons on the screen and simply hope it sparks a laugh from the audience. But chances are it won't because they forgot one very important aspect of making a comedy: you have to write jokes! You can't just put actors that look like other actors on screen and say "HAHAHAHA THAT'S HILARIOUS!" That isn't how it works!

Both movies revolve around...well...nothing. There are no plots, as they are just an attempt to fit as many movie references into one 80 minute movie as possible.

The acting is...well technically I'm not even sure if you can call it acting. It's more or less the equivalent of a group of high school friends who got drunk and decided to film a video.

The directing is...you know what, I can't even do it. If I were to review these sickening displays as I would any other film, it would be suggesting that I consider these to actually be movies. To call these disgraceful showings "movies" would be an insult to all actual movies everywhere. Date Movie and Epic Movie shouldn't just be shunned by the world, they should be buried 20 feet under the earth, along with the people that made them.

If you want to watch a REAL spoof movie, watch Airplane. That movie was released in 1980 and still has relevancy today. In 20 years, nobody will remember any of the references that Date or Epic Movie made, making them even MORE worthless. I have to stop typing now. I've become too angry. My Rating (-20/10)

21 (2008)

When will Hollywood learn that watching people play cards is not fun? Their latest attempt to make a card game look exciting is 21, one of the worst movie experiences I have ever had in my life. The story follows Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess), a genius MIT student who has just been accepted into Harvard Medical School. But Ben has a bit of a problem. In order to attend the college of his dreams, Ben needs over $300,000. As many of us know, that kind of money isn't very easy to come by. But Ben's prayers might be answered by a higher power in the form of his teacher Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey). Every weekend, Rosa and 4 of his most gifted students go to Vegas and return home hundreds of thousands of dollars richer. Their secret: counting cards. After Ben impresses Rosa by solving a problem that even I knew how to do (and I didn't even go to MIT!), Micky ultimately deduces that Ben must be a genius and therefore he is a perfect candidate to join his blackjack team. After some cliche moments of Ben dipping his feet into the water, he finally decides to jump in the pool and join his teachers squad. But as he begins to feel the highs of winning, will Ben take it too far and end up destroying all that he built up? Of course! If he didn't, they wouldn't have a very interesting movie would they?

Actually, this movie wasn't very interesting anyway. As I watched the first 15 minutes of 21, I had the strongest sensation to pull on my hair, just to ease the pain. Needless to say, I was bored senseless and I was at wit's end trying to find a way to stay awake during this predictable, unentertaining, soporific, mildly moronic hamfest. The plot turns and twists were cliche and easily recognizable 5 minutes before they even happened. The card counting scenes were uninspired and only interesting the first time you view them. But as the movie progresses and you feel as though you are watching the same scene over and over again, you get the strangest feeling that you could have stayed home and watched the World Series of Poker Tournament and had the same amount of excitement. After just one hour of 21, I was ready to count all my chips and just walk away...but my friend was my ride home and he didn't want to leave. Damn him.

Jim Sturgess is absolutely terrible as Ben Campbell. Throughout the entire film, his face remained expressionless, and his voice a near whisper. Even as he did the voiceover, the dynamics of his voice never raised and never fell. It was always the same. The romance between him and fellow teammate Jill, played plainly by Kate Bosworth, was utterly dreadful and often made me cringe at the sheer unconvincing manner in which it is acted out. This is another textbook case of a role going to a person based solely on their looks. Kevin Spacey does a fine job as the teacher Micky Rosa, which is no surprise because Spacey is an excellent actor, and is very capable of creating great moments in bad movies (see Superman Returns). Laurence Fishburne is extremely one dimensional and characterless as the casino's security enforcer. It is also very evident that his role was exaggerated greatly for the sake of the film, as he takes cheaters into a boiler room and beats them to a bloody pulp. I'm pretty sure that in real life, the only authority he has is to politely ask the person to leave.

21 was directed by Robert Luketic, who's previous credits contain Legally Blonde, Win a Date With Tad Hamilton, and Monster In-Law. It isn't exactly the best resume is it? Sadly, he will have to add one more dud to his list of "accomplishments" with this lame excuse for a movie. His overall directing style is lacking and he does very little to keep your interest peaked through even the "exciting" moments of the film. The writing is average and the attempts to wow us by displaying the main characters brilliance fail miserably, making me feel as if I could go to MIT and be just as smart as everyone else.

What makes 21 even worse is the fact that it is way too long. It also doesn't help that every minute of the 123 minutes was boring due to the aforementioned bad acting, directing, and writing. I began to fidget restlessly in my chair thinking the movie was almost over, only to discover that I was only 1 hour in. Ladies and gentlemen, there is a hell, and I was there. 21 was extremely predictable and was so uneventful that I could barely keep my eyes open for the duration. I had gone into this film with very low expectations, and came out discovering I was right on the money about every assumption I had made previous to watching this movie. Jim Sturgess must stick to minor roles because that is all his talent allows for, Kevin Spacey needs to start picking better movies to star in, and Hollywood must stop thinking that movies about playing cards are fun. They suck, just accept it. My rating (3/10)

The Hills Have Eyes 1 and 2 (2006 and 2007)

For some strange reason, torture porn becomes more and more popular as time goes on. Two movies that follow this ongoing trend are the remakes of The Hills Have Eyes and The Hills Have Eyes 2. Now, I have not seen the original films, so I am not qualified to compare these disgraceful movies to them. But watching these films as individuals, I am repulsed. Even excellent movies have their fair share of brutal murders (No Country For Old Men, Silence of the Lambs, to name a few). But those films at least have a fitting context to put those deaths in. The Hills Have Eyes simply murders people for the sake of murdering people. I myself have a guilty pleasure when it comes to the Saw franchise, but even I get disgusted by some of the things I see.
Both movies revolve around a group of people who for some reason or another get trapped in a desolate area of the desert referred to as Sector 16. The desert alone is a brutal enemy, but what lurks in the desert is far worse than any heat related ailment. Bands of radioactive mutants still live in the mountains, and decide to kill anything that passes by, for unexplained reasons of course. The groups must then fend for themselves as they begin to get picked off one by one by these ugly beings.
As I have already stated, this movie does nothing but kill people. The plot is practically irrelevant, and the characters interchangeable. The acting and script are atrocious, and the direction doesn't do anything to impress. You feel no sorrow for the victims, and you don't feel anything whatsoever about the killers. The films were written and directed by different people, and none of the original stars returned for the sequel. Actually that isn't true. Michael Bailey Smith was a mutant in the first movie, and also played one in the second. But his character dies in the first movie and they brought him back as a different character. Lack of continuity, yet another reason these movies are terrible.
But you really can't take this films seriously. When they were being made, I doubt anybody involved was very proud of themselves. The story is a joke, the actings bad, the scripts bad, the directing's bad, and the fact that these movies were even made makes me sad. What makes it worse is that I actually watched these films. I don't know what I was thinking. I obviously wasn't. Still, I'd say they were better than Ratatouille. My rating (2/10)

Ratatouille (2007)

Pixar is famous for releasing animated films that make us laugh and feel good, but recently they decided to change their formula. Somebody who was apparently very mad at the world and worked at Pixar decided to trick us into seeing a movie that would torture us and destroy our trust in an animated film. This film is Ratatouille, my vote for one of the worst films of 2007. The plot revolves around a rodent named Remy, who happens to be a marvelous cook. After a bunch of complex circumstances, Remy ends up meeting Linguini, a busboy at a very fancy restaurant that is going under quickly due to a bad review from famous food critic Anton Ego. Linguini soon learns that Remy is an amazing chef and instead of say, running away in fear or at least laying down a mouse trap, he decides to use Remy to help pull the restaraunt out of depression.
Now I completely understand that this is an animated movie, but seriously. It's about a RAT that cooks FOOD. It is VERMIN. And we are supposed to have no problem with this? We are expected to find it funny? Even cute?! No, that's not how it works. If this movie was made in live action, it wouldn't be nearly as accepted as it was.
Secondly, if you can look past the stupid plot, the movie itself is extremely lacking in all forms of entertainment. In it, I felt no joy, no laughter, no happiness, no sentiment, not a single moment of interest. For the first 45 minutes I tried with every ounce of strength I had to remain interested, but I simply couldn't do it. Every minute after that simply felt like another minute towards freedom and away from this awful movie. The plot wears thin after the first half hour, as you continually repeat to yourself, "OK. The rat cooks. Anything else? Does this movie offer anything other than that? " No. It doesn't.
The human characters don't offer much in this dreadful rat pellet of a movie. Linguini is utterly annoying and you don't feel any connection to him whatsoever. There is also supposed to be a small love story between Linguini and fellow chef Collette, but it seems very forced and frankly silly as there is practically no interaction between the characters for basically the entire first hour of the movie.
The jokes in this movie are flat and are sometimes a little too grown up for the usual target audience of a Pixar film. I don't think there is much here for little kiddies to enjoy, and this movie isn't quite sensible enough for a self respecting human being to enjoy. Basically, there isn't much to offer in this movie except for great animations. But seriously, in this day and age, the animations on EVERY movie are great. Just because something animated looks real doesn't make the entire movie good. In this case, the animations were the only good thing offered. My rating (1/10)

30 Days of Night (2007)

In a decade of awful horror movies, one film tries to be better than the rest. 30 Days of Night attempts to revive the horror genre by releasing a new breed of vampires to the world. Based on the graphic novel, the story takes place in the northernmost town in Alaska, where one month out of the year, the sun does not rise. This particular year, right before this stretch of darkness occurs, a stranger wanders into town seemingly from thin air. After startling a local, he is brought to the police station by the town sheriff, played by Josh Hartnett. Once there, the creepy man begins warning the sheriff that "something's coming". In this case, the "something's" are a pack of vicious vampires who are obviously out for that beautiful elixir that they just cannot resist. As the sun goes down, townspeople begin to be picked off one by one. Eventually, a small group of people meet and decide to ride out the attack together. They must then fight for their lives as they try to find food to last the month, or become food in the process.
According to the commercial, 30 Days of Night was going to "reinvent the vampire movie". The people who came up with that tag line should immediately be fired for flat out lying to America. In truth, this movie does nothing differently than any vampire movie I've ever seen. In a movie like 28 Days Later, zombies were redefined as being able to run just as fast as humans, thus rendering hope lost. But the vampires in this film are much the same as all vampires: quick, agile, violent, and vulnerable to sunlight. The only noticeable difference was the shape of some of their heads. But I'm not sure that's what they meant. Put simply, I've seen all of this before.
30 Days of Night is chock full of the cliches we have all become accustomed to; The band of survivors crowding in one building talking of loved ones and crying about futures that may not come; Somebody saying "It's not safe here, we have to move"; People being killed one by one as they do the aforementioned moving. It seems as though this movie follows the motions of all the films it supposedly is trying to be better than.
It is impossible to rate the acting in this film, as it is after all a modern day horror film. The only reason such a well known actor as Josh Hartnett was cast was probably to attract fans of his to seeing it. Ben Foster plays the mysterious stranger, and pretty much nails the ability to look and speak menacingly. Because of this, he becomes the only character that anybody really wants to see more of. Unfortunately, the stranger has only 15 minutes of screen time, leaving me one extremely pissed off movie-goer.
Overall, 30 Days of Night is a repetition of any other movie of its kind, using the same formula that's been around for years now. The ending lacks substance, and definetly leaves you feeling cheated out of your time. And when it's all said and done, it's basically just watching people get killed in nasty ways. My rating (3/10)

Halloween (2007)

First I must clarify that this is not a review of the original Halloween, which was near pefect. This is a review of Rob Zombie's far from perfect remake of Halloween. With that being said, who told Rob Zombie it was OK for him to direct movies? Bad! That's a bad Rob Zombie! Who told you it was OK to take a great movie and redo it with your own interpretation! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now let me explore the atrocity that is Halloween.
The movie reintroduces us to Michael Myers, part time psychopathic killer, part time mask maker. Unlike the first film that only included a 5 second clip of young Myers, we get to watch an entire hour of original material about him, thought up straight from Rob Zombie's twisted imagination. After living in a degenerate household with degenerate parents and a degenerate older sister, young Michael turns into the maniac that we've come to know and love. Well, at least before this movie was released.
We are then subjected to 45 minutes of uninteresting blather before we finally pick up to where the original film started. At last, we are introduced to Laurie Strode, played by Scout Taylor Compton, and her two friends, played by miscellaneous actresses who were probably cast for the sole reason of needing money and a willingness to be nude in front of a camera. We then get to watch basically the original Halloween only without the suspense, horror, character development, and excellent directing of the original. The suspense was replaced with sex, the horror was replaced with cheap scares, the character development was replaced with sex, and the great directing was replaced with Rob Zombie.
Some of you may feel I'm being unfair because I continually compare this film to the original. Well here's a sentence that describes this film just as a singular movie: This movie had poor directing, bad acting, no suspense, no scares, no characters worth caring about, and overall nothing redeeming whatsoever. Oh yea, Malcolm McDowell is in it too, because apparently his career has spiraled since A Clockwork Orange. My Rating (2/10)

Good Luck Chuck (2007)

Ugh. This was horrible. Not even close to being good. Dane Cook was horrible. Jessica Alba was terrible. That fat guy with the stupid hair was dreadful. Just.......ugh. I didn't even finish watching it. I don't even know how it ends. Frankly, I don't care. My rating: (0/10)