Halloween: Resurrection

Apparently it’s impossible to keep a masked homicidal maniac down. Despite being shot numerous times at point blank range (“Halloween”), engulfed in a raging inferno (“Halloween 2”), and stabbed multiple times before eventually losing his head (“Halloween H20”); it seems that nothing can stop Michael Myers from partaking in his favorite trick-or-treating past time… murder. Five years after “Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” appeared to bring the franchise to a satisfying close, Michael has returned for more All Hallows’ Eve mayhem in “Halloween: Resurrection”.

“Halloween: Resurrection” finds Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) locked away in a psychiatric hospital after the events of the previous film. All appearances to the contrary, Laurie is not as disturbed as she lets on, but is merely biding her time as she awaits her brother’s inevitable return. Meanwhile, back in Haddonfield a reality TV show is taking place with six teenagers being asked to spend one night in the childhood home of Michael Myers. What was intended to be a major ratings bonanza for the show courtesy of some cheaply staged scares and urban legends run amok, turns into a night of terror when Michael finally comes back home.

Let’s take a moment to break down the quality of the “Halloween” franchise, albeit only recognizing those movies included in the generally accepted continuity. The first film was innovative in its methods and overall execution, not to mention it created an entire sub-genre of film; although it did contain some weak points courtesy of hit-and-miss character development and dialogue. Number two amplifies the problems from the first film, while at the same time replacing genuine scares with too much gore. Skip ahead 17 years after “Halloween 2” and “H20” does its level best to correct the past mistakes of the series in an attempt to recapture the essence of the original; plus, it supposedly gives fans a satisfactory ending to the series’ 20-year long storyline.

In summation, we find that the first and third movies in the established continuity are good, but the second by comparison could be considered bad. So, if one believes that history can, and will, repeat itself, then one could easily presume that the next film in the series will also be bad. Now, I’m sure you’re all wondering, “Does history repeat itself within this franchise?” The answer is… Yes, I believe it does.

Trust me when I say that going into this movie I did try my best to keep an open mind about the prospect of another installment despite the fact that the series felt resolved. Mostly I was curious to see how the “creative” minds behind this series were going to prove Michael Myers un-killable, at least permanently, this time around (hence the subtitle of the film).

Surprisingly the story for this installment, written by Larry Brand (“The Right Temptation”) and Sean Hood (“The Crow: Wicked Prayer”), did seem to show some promising signs that perhaps the audience would be in store for a good movie. The concept of once again creating that voyeuristic feel to the proceedings via webcams, rather than the first-person viewpoint of Michael, was for all intents and purposes intriguing. Even though the reasoning for Michael still being alive after the last film was a little too convenient for my tastes; the result of this retcon (retroactive continuity) to “H20” had potential for yet another exciting showdown between brother and sister. Alas, as is so often the case with horror franchises that have dragged on for far too long, the chances of having yet another “good” installment becomes more and more fleeting.

While some plot points could have been interesting if handled properly, the end result was nothing more than a boring exercise in by-the-book horror filmmaking. The online reality show set in Michael’s house was made completely annoying due to the fact that almost every single character was written to be as irritating as humanly possible. Although there was one tolerable character named Sara (Bianca Kajlich), her role was ruined by some inexplicable character quirks that should not have been left unexplained. At almost every turn, the writers squandered countless opportunities for character development within the story. Instead, they opted to introduce more and more character ticks and/or flaws to make them seem more fascinating, but without the use of helpful exposition the writers were never able to fully sell these eccentricities to the audience.

Then there’s the issue, or should I say issues, surrounding the retcon of the closing moments from “H20”. As I stated earlier, this modification to the story did present a potentially engaging twist; however, when all’s said and done, the change just felt like a sad excuse to keep the franchise going. The retcon also enabled a return appearance by Jamie Lee as Laurie, although this proved to be little more than a disappointing cameo that had no real significant impact on the overall story for the film. Truth be told, the series would have been better off had it ended after the conclusion of the previous movie. At least then the fans would have been satisfied with the series’ finale; instead of being left with this poorly executed attempt at a follow-up.

Continuing the trend of weakness that permeates almost every inch of this film is the cast of actors and actresses assembled to annoy audiences to seemingly no end. Honestly, there are no real standouts in the movie to speak of, I mean, there are a couple of decent performances (one of them I mentioned earlier), but nothing to get excited over. To be fair I will elaborate a little further on Bianca Kajlich’s performance, along with touching on the shameless appearance by Jamie Lee Curtis, and lastly, chastise the casting of rappers and/or models that cannot act to save their lives.

In what comes as close to the starring role as one could get in this horror movie ensemble is actress Bianca Kajlich (TV’s “Rules of Engagement”). Throughout her performance there were moments where Bianca shined, displaying a sincerity and innocence that hadn’t been seen in the series since the first film. However, some oddities about her character that never get explained and a generally uninteresting story arc overshadow anything positive that she could have accomplished in the role.

As for Jamie Lee’s part in the film, can anyone say “stunt casting”? Her portion of the movie was the biggest waste of time out of the entire duration. Granted the reason for her story’s occurrence is vital to the continuation of the series; even with that, one cannot deny that the end result feels like an insult to everything the previous film achieved. At least I can say that Jamie Lee was given more to do in this glorified cameo than the entirety of her role in the dismal “Halloween 2”. Jamie Lee should have been wise enough to just say “No” to this movie, and maybe the series would have ended on a high note rather than in despondency. For those not aware, “Halloween: Resurrection” is for all intents and purposes the final installment in the original franchise; a reboot of the series began in 2007 under the direction of Rob Zombie (“The Devil’s Rejects”).

Last, and definitely least of all, are the talent-less performers (in terms of acting), Busta Rhymes (“Shaft”) and Tyra Banks (“Coyote Ugly”). For the most part, I am not a fan of rappers turned actors, I don’t think they have the chops to play with the big boys, so to speak. I will admit that there are some exceptions that could be found. So, perhaps I should say most gangsta rappers shouldn’t be considered for movie roles, even for something as inane as a horror film. The problem with Busta Rhymes was that he was so over-the-top in his delivery, that it was obvious he was just playing a slightly caricaturized version of himself. Of course, there’s also his character’s obsession with all things martial arts and his apparent skill with that obsession that seemed a little unusual and frankly, unbelievable. Some screenwriters need to learn that adding character quirks does not equal instant character development or generate further interest from the audience.

Models on the other hand are not necessarily as limited in range as the previous grouping, but that’s not to say that all of them need to find their way onto a movie set either. Tyra Banks’ performance in the film, much like Busta Rhymes, seemed to be an exaggerated impersonation of her celebrity persona. Her portrayal was much livelier than Busta’s, and her dialogue didn’t appear to be nearly as limited to slang. Still, I never really believed her in the role, she just didn’t seem tenacious enough to be in the position of power she found herself in. I hope that this movie will mark the final time she is ever considered for a part in a movie, even if the role is that of a model.

“Halloween: Resurrection” not only lessened the impact of the previous film on the series, but also wasted any and all opportunities to capitalize on the retconning that occurred early on in this film. Jam-packed with annoying characters, hackneyed set-ups and dialogue, and let’s not forget an overbearing sense of predictability; this sequel is just another shameless attempt to cash in on a franchise that has apparently lost every shred of quality and entertainment value.

As an interesting side note, the director of this film, Rick Rosenthal, just so happened to be the director of the ill-conceived “Halloween 2”. What are the odds that the same director would be responsible for the weakest installments in the official continuity of the series? Apparently, the odds are quite good, much to the audiences’ dismay.

“Halloween: Resurrection” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

The Spirit

The Spirit is a classic comic book character that sprung from the imagination of famed comic book writer and artist Will Eisner and is revered by many a comic book fan. “The Spirit” is also a recent movie adaptation from writer/director Frank Miller (“Sin City”), and is despised by not only comic book fans, but virtually every other moviegoer that was unlucky enough to believe it looked appealing. So, aside from the obvious difference in mediums, why is one version of this character so much more beloved than the other? My guess is that the biggest faults of this movie lie with the horrible dialogue, sub-par visual effects, over-the-top acting, and an uninteresting storyline. Now I must ask, amongst all of those items what is the common denominator that links them all together? The answer is… the overrated writer and co-director of “Sin City”, and formerly brilliant comic book writer, Frank Miller.

Denny Colt (Gabriel Macht) used to be one of Central City’s finest, patrolling the city to ensure that its citizens were safe from harm. After a gangster’s bullet brought the life of Officer Colt to a sudden end, he found himself mysteriously resurrected as the avenging hero known as The Spirit. Now, he must contend with seductive foes such as Sand Saref (Eva Mendes) and Silken Floss (Scarlett Johansson), femme fatales who are as dangerous as they are beautiful. As if that wasn’t enough to deal with, this new hero must also thwart the nefarious schemes of his archenemy, the Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson), before all of Central City is destroyed.

The cast for “The Spirit” is led by actor Gabriel Macht (“The Recruit”), a generally solid actor who isn’t the most recognizable of talents, yet still delivers on most instances. He’s one of those guys that when you see him in a movie you recognize him, but you just can’t quite place him exactly. As the Spirit, which I believe to be Gabriel’s first true lead role, Gabriel’s performance falls prey to what virtually every other member of the cast is guilty of, repeated bouts of wooden acting during many of the monologue-esque moments in the film or overacting in a way that is far too distracting to the point that the character is laughable at best. Granted I believe the script and the direction (Frank Miller’s responsible for both) that Gabriel and the entire cast received most likely prompted them to act in those ways, but the end result is extremely detrimental to the movie and any enjoyment I could have derived from it.

Along with Gabriel Macht are several talented actresses, who without a doubt definitely look the parts of female comic book characters. With their voluptuous curves and great beauty, it’s as if each of the film’s main actresses from Scarlett Johansson (“The Island”) to Eva Mendes (“Ghost Rider”) to Paz Vega (“Spanglish”) could have jumped off the comic book pages themselves or at least served as part of the inspiration for their illustrated counterparts. As far as their performances went, as I said a moment ago, the entire cast suffered from the same problems in their roles, and these ladies are no exception. The only one I can really say stood out a little more than the others would be Eva Mendes, mostly because her character was given the most to do out of all the females, and she seemed to keep her performance as grounded as possible. Truthfully, I must admit that I was a little disappointed in Scarlett’s performance, because she seemed to be quite bored in the role during several scenes. She just never really sold her commitment to the character at any point within the film’s duration. As for Paz Vega, well she did as good as the others, which obviously isn’t saying a whole lot given my complaints about the performances, but her character just didn’t have all that much to do in the film. From what I can recall, I really didn’t see the need for her character to even be included in the story. Mostly the character felt like she had been wedged in because she probably appeared in the comics, so it was merely a gesture intended to please the fans is my guess.

And last but not least is the almost always enjoyable Samuel L. Jackson as The Spirit’s archenemy, The Octopus. Sam’s performance here easily ranks as one of his least enjoyable from my perspective, and out of the entire cast he is the worst offender in terms of overacting and cheesiness within a performance. I know Sam sometimes tends to wander towards the over-the-top side of things in his various roles, but this time he really goes overboard, and the character never benefits from the choice at all. Really it didn’t feel like he was playing a new character, merely an over-exaggerated version of his celebrity persona, imbuing The Octopus with Sam Jackson-ism’s so to speak. As a role it obviously didn’t challenge Samuel, but he didn’t seem to be trying too hard to improve upon what was given to him either. It’s a shame when even someone like Sam Jackson, who is one of my favorite actors, doesn’t even give a performance worth talking about or remembering (at least not in a good way).

What is really surprising to me is the fact that so many talented actors and actresses signed on for such a horribly written movie like this. Surely they all, or at least most of them, would have looked at the script first. Did no one catch on to how horribly written this snore-fest was? Speaking of the story not only does it feature some extremely bland moments of dialogue, but numerous times throughout the film the story barely ever makes sense. There were times where a plot point was being discussed, then out of nowhere the topic is changed to something pointless, and the plot never gets readdressed. I guess Frank Miller just assumed that we wouldn’t notice that the plot just skips around without ever fully fleshing out the different points. Perhaps he was trying to go for some kind of record in movies for the most instances of pointless conversations within a single film or just trying to get noticed for making one of the most incoherent pieces of cinema to hit the big screen in quite some time.

Another problem with the story was that believability was stretched far too thin, even for a comic book movie. It is one thing to deal with super-powered beings, aliens, or any other science fiction related item, those things can be accepted if the audience is aware that that is the kind of movie they are watching. However to have a comic book movie that doesn’t really deal in the arena of sci-fi all that much, yet have it still push the envelope in terms of believability is quite surprising. For instance, how many different guns can The Octopus pull out of his fur coat? I know from watching “The Matrix” that a person can strap a shockingly large amount of guns to their person; however, the amount and sheer size of the weapons The Octopus pulls out in some scenes is a little too extreme given that he was supposedly hiding them all under his coat. It was just so ridiculous to watch that it made me question my sanity for even sitting through the entire film. Perhaps a little more of a grounded sense of reality could have strengthened this film’s story just a little bit, it still wouldn’t have made it a great movie, but at least it would have been more bearable to watch.

Finally, I must take some time to touch upon one of the biggest eye sores within the film, the visual effects employed to create the backgrounds for virtually every single frame of the movie. I know that Frank Miller was trying to recreate a look and feel similar to what he and co-director Robert Rodriguez had captured on “Sin City”. This was a decent idea, not very original, and in the end seemed like Miller was more interested in making another “Sin City” movie rather than one based on The Spirit. Beyond all that is the fact that the budget for “The Spirit” must have been considerably less than that of “Sin City” or “300”, for that matter. I say this because almost every scene reeks of CGI created or enhanced backgrounds, and for the most part they all look extremely fake and poorly rendered. If you are going to make a film using this method of filmmaking, then perhaps you should either have the proper amount of funding or be sure your visual effects house can handle the workload to produce a quality result that can at least meet, if not exceed today’s audience expectations.

In the end, “The Spirit” is a terrible movie that is full of cheesy one-liners, an abundance of wooden and/or over-the-top performances, shoddy effects work, not to mention a generally unexciting story making it one of the weakest comic book adaptations I have ever seen. This film was so bad that it may actually give “Catwoman”, “Howard the Duck” or “Supergirl” a run for their money in being the absolute worst adaptation ever. For any directors or producers out there in Hollywood who may be wishing to make a comic book film adaptation, please take note of this movie, because this is essentially a lesson on what not to do.

“The Spirit” is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and brief nudity.

Saw 5

Well, it is now official the “Saw” franchise has without question reached the shameful level that most horror franchises reside upon, meaning every subsequent film will be worse than its predecessor. After viewing “Saw 4” I was really gaining the sense that this series was descending into mediocrity, and existed solely for the purpose of providing more blood and gore, with little to no story in the process. With “Saw 5” my suspicions have been proven correct, and the series is officially standing still in my opinion; offering no true chills or interesting storytelling, devolving into just another a run-of-the-mill horror franchise at best.

“Saw 5” does what all the previous sequels have done, which is pick up directly where its predecessor left off. Special Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) is investigating the grisly murder scenes left in Jigsaw’s bloody wake; and the deeper he digs the darker the revelations become. Attempting to put an end to Agent Strahm’s investigation is Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), who just so happens to have been one of Jigsaw’s twisted accomplices all along. As these two men close in on each other, a new batch of subjects are fighting for their very lives amidst a series of traps that Jigsaw set into motion prior to his death. Who will make it out alive? Only time will tell… Let the games begin, again.

As far as most horror movies go, the story is generally not focused upon all that much past the initial film, as the series generally becomes all about the mayhem and the murder in the sequels. However, when the first film in the “Saw” franchise hacked its way into theaters in 2004, boasting a much smarter script than most of its kind; it appeared that perhaps the story was going to have a much more equal share of the screen time as the blood and gore in this series. This stayed true through a majority of the first three films, but by the time “Saw 4” was released to theaters in 2007, the story was quickly becoming quite thin and stagnant.

With “Saw 5” the writing duo of Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, the same writers that penned the previous installment, took the very thin, new layer of story that they had applied in “Saw 4” and attempted to build upon it in hopes of stabilizing this weakened series. Instead of moving forward they keep this new story revolving around the very same events that were chronicled in the previous films. Since the groundwork for their new story was laid in “Saw 4”, this time all they are trying to do is add a new piece into an already far too convoluted and increasingly ridiculous puzzle, by expounding on yet another accomplice to Jigsaw. Along with this new accomplice, who by the way we hadn’t seen prior to the fourth film in the series, we are also supposed to believe that Jigsaw had also set into motion another group of people to be tested while he was going to be most likely murdered by one of his test subjects (watch “Saw 3” for better understanding on this plot development). Do the writers really expect us to just continue going along believing that this man really planned all of these events into a several day period, while at the same time preparing for the inevitability of his own murder? Apparently so, but the thought process behind this plot isn’t working for me anymore.

Not to mention, the usage of coincidence as a plot device is being implemented far too liberally in this film. This problem began creeping its way into the series with “Saw 4”, but by the time we get through “Saw 5” it is essentially the main crux of the story, and the only way this storyline is even continuing. I guess it’s just further evidence that the writers are just plain lazy and unwilling to actually commit any real thought into creating a truly intriguing story; instead they take the approach of beating an already dead horse until it is virtually unrecognizable.

For those that have stuck with the “Saw” series from the beginning one staple of the franchise is the usage of very unique and inventive death traps that the victims are required to survive if they hope to regain their life. Over the course of the previous films the traps have consistently remained sick, yet undeniably creative in design. However, in this film the story isn’t the only thing that seems haphazardly thrown together, the traps themselves are the most unimaginative in the series. I’m sure to some this may seem like a strange complaint for a movie, but if you have seen any of the previous films in the franchise, then you know where I’m coming from on this. I’m not complaining that the film had less torture than its predecessors, just that the traps are apparently another example of the series’ steady decline in creativity and freshness.

The cast of “Saw 5” continues the tradition that began in “Saw 2” which was gather together a bunch of unknown or relatively unknown actors and actresses to play the parts of the would-be victims, while the more recognizable actors that had at least been established in one of the previous films provides the link to past installments. Returning cast members Costas Mandylor and Scott Patterson (“Saw 4”) provide most of the stronger moments within the film, but even that’s not saying a whole lot for the movie. Actor Scott Patterson reprises his role as Agent Strahm, and this time he appears to be giving a somewhat stronger performance than his last outing; yet he still appears too wooden in several scenes, so his portrayal looks forced and makes for a difficult time believing him in this type of role. Costas Mandylor seems to be unable to decide if he wants to commit to the role and give us a decent performance (as he does in a few spots) or if he’s just going to phone it in (as he appears to do a majority of the time). For the supposed replacement of Jigsaw, Costas’ character of Detective Hoffman isn’t nearly as interesting as his mentor.

Speaking of Hoffman’s mentor, the one true highlight of these last couple of sequels is the inclusion of Tobin Bell’s character Jigsaw in flashback sequences. Besides his brief voiceovers, that are used in the various tape-recordings delivering the instructions for how to survive the death traps, Bell only appears in the film approximately five to ten minutes tops. Even with his role being relegated to cameo status, Tobin generally does the best he can in the small amount of time he’s given, but even his performance isn’t above criticism. Unlike his appearances in the previous four movies, Tobin seems to be enjoying his role less and less; perhaps this has something to do with the realization that the only reason he is even in these films any longer is to keep some measure of stability within the dying series. If I were Tobin, I’d consider letting the character’s involvement die out soon, especially since the character’s actual death occurred two films back.

As for those chosen to embody the new crop of victims in Jigsaw’s twisted game, at least the casting was a little better than the last couple of films. Most of these people I hadn’t seen in any other film and/or television show, except for actress Julie Benz (“Rambo”); but at least they all tried to put a little effort into their roles. Even though Julie is a much more established talent than most of the victims of this film or any of its predecessors (not counting the first film which had a better cast); Julie doesn’t really get to do all that much in her role. It seems to me that the victims are now viewed as nothing more than fodder for the traps by the series’ writers, unlike in the first film where the victims had a much more developed story arc. In “Saw” time was devoted within the script to fleshing out the victimized characters so the audience could be able to invest in them to an extent, but since then less and less time and thought has been put into character development (a major pitfall for almost every single horror franchise).

Uninterested in correcting the mistakes of the previous films that have been leading the series into mediocrity, the writers, and their director David Hackl (second unit director on “Saw 3” and “Saw 4”), go to great lengths to stay the course, to the point that the franchise is essentially a pointless mess of unoriginality and laziness. The only other attribute I can apply to this film is that it has taken the title of “Weakest Film in the Franchise” from the previous installment, so congratulations on that achievement.

“Saw 5” is available in rated R and unrated editions both contain violence, gore, and language.

The Happening

You know, I used to think that writer/director M. Night Shymalan was actually a really talented filmmaker; one who knew how to make movies that audiences the world over could enjoy. I mean this was the man that chilled audiences with his breakthrough hit “The Sixth Sense”, showed us a burgeoning hero coming to grips with who and what he was becoming in “Unbreakable”, and then explored faith and paranoia in “Signs”. As good as those movies were, with “The Sixth Sense” being the best of them, after only three movies something began to go wrong and we were suddenly given some rather underwhelming films, such as “The Village” or the extremely dull and quirky “Lady in the Water”. Even with M. Night’s apparent fall from Hollywood grace due to his previous two efforts, his latest movie looked as if it might actually have what it takes to stand tall amongst the earlier work in his career. However, after watching the recently released “The Happening” I have now come to the realization that M. Night Shymalan is officially overrated and that he no longer understands what it takes to make a truly great movie.

“The Happening” follows a science teacher, Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), as he tries to grasp what is causing some extremely bizarre events that have begun to plague the people around him. As more and more people begin acting strangely, Elliot senses that perhaps an unseen force is causing humans to do bizarre and violent things to themselves. The further Elliot tries to understand what is happening around him, the more shocking the truth becomes as it appears that humanity may be under attack from the very plants that surround us everywhere.

For some reason I really did want to see this movie when I first saw the trailer. Regardless, of the less-than-stellar results his last two films yielded, I thought that perhaps M. Night Shymalan had once more discovered what he seemed to have forgotten that made his early movies favorites among moviegoers. However, after only getting 20 minutes into “The Happening” it was painfully clear that I was wrong, and that M. Night had once again delivered a steaming pile of crap to audiences. Now, I did go ahead and finish this movie, but I couldn’t hardly wait for the 90 minute long running time to come to a close so that I could swiftly eject this movie from my player, and soon begin purging the memory of this movie from my mind; sadly I have yet to succeed in doing this completely.

The plot for this movie is such a ludicrous concept, and obviously done in an attempt to cash in on the whole “Go Green” craze that seems to be sweeping the nation. I believe even the most ardent “Green” supporter will laugh at the sheer stupidity of the notion that perhaps the plant-life of Earth is attempting to kill humanity in response to all the damage we’ve done to the environment over the years. As if the basic plot for this movie wasn’t bad enough, the dialogue was sub-par throughout the entire movie. I don’t know what M. Night was thinking when writing this movie, but he seems to have forgotten how to write clever, intriguing, and realistic dialogue for his characters to recite. In place of well-written dialogue we find surprisingly pointless conversations and even a few areas where characters are given a line to say that feels completely out of place given everything they’ve been experiencing over the course of the film. Essentially, nothing in the story for “The Happening” worked for me, and if the studio felt that this would be a nice attempt to cash in on the “Go Green” agenda, they were sorely mistaken as this movie made only a paltry amount of money during its mercifully brief stint at the box office.

To top off this movie’s horrible excuse for a story, “The Happening” also managed to have really talented actors give some of the worst performances of their careers. The movie’s lead, Mark Wahlberg (“The Departed”), is an actor who I would normally classify as extremely talented and one of my favorite actor’s in the business today; however, this movie really causes one to question what Mark was thinking in signing on for such an obvious flop. For an actor that generally chooses really good roles in typically great movies, this seems like a giant blunder on his part; especially when his overall performance is very uneven and generally uninspired, complete with some poor line readings and unconvincing acting in places. Supporting Mark we have actress Zooey Deschanel (“Failure to Launch”) who does an average job as Elliot’s distant wife, although a couple of times her performance seemed to falter, but this could have been caused by the rather dim-witted lines of dialogue her character was given to speak. Rounding out the primary supporting cast we have comedian and actor John Leguizamo (“Righteous Kill”). John is typically a fairly solid character actor, but here I think he was trying too hard to create a quirky character to the point that he ends up becoming more annoying than unique. I must point out that even though the cast had some rough spots in their performances, I believe a lot of the blame must rest with M. Night Shymalan for not giving his actors something worthy of their talents to work with.

At one time writer/director M. Night Shymalan was being heralded as one of the most original filmmakers to hit Hollywood in years, thanks in no small part to the blockbuster successes of “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs”; and yet over the course of his career, only half of the movies he has made have actually been worth watching. “The Happening” continues the streak of cinematic garbage that M. Night has dumped upon unsuspecting moviegoers hoping for some sort of surprising movie experience, the likes of which we haven’t seen since “The Sixth Sense”. Perhaps with three well-below average movies in a row both studios and audiences will cease to give this overrated hack a chance, at least until he can come up with a story worthy of our attention once again.

For those of you that may have noticed, “The Happening” is M. Night Shymalan’s first rated R movie, a fact that the studio is heavily touting in their advertising for the recent DVD release; but I honestly can’t say that I saw anything in this movie that should have garnered such a rating. Although, I do find it somewhat humorous that the only aspect of this movie the studio’s marketing department can choose to focus on is its rating. When something like this occurs it’s a pretty clear indication that the movie won’t be worth your time or money.

“The Happening” is rated R for violence and brief language.

Prom Night

28 years ago a fairly successful horror movie was released starring the then-reigning scream queen, Jamie Lee Curtis (“Halloween”), and dealt with teenagers being murdered on what should be one of the happiest nights of their lives, Prom Night. Fast-forward to 2008, and director Nelson McCormick (TV’s “Prison Break”) and writer J.S. Cardone (“The Covenant”) have attempted to serve up another dose of mayhem and murder surrounding that festive evening with a loosely-inspired remake of the 1980 slasher film of the same name, the appropriately titled “Prom Night”.

“Prom Night” is the story, as you may have guessed by the title, of a group of teenage friends attending their high school prom, except what should be a night of fond memories, will end up becoming a night of horrifying nightmares for those that survive. Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow), a popular girl in the school, lost her entire family to a killer obsessed with being with her. Now, on the night she has waited for throughout her entire high school life, the killer returns to finish what he started.

I will admit that I have only seen bits and pieces of the original “Prom Night” that starred Jamie Lee Curtis and Leslie Nielsen, and what I’ve seen appeared to be fairly predictable, as most horror films in the 80’s tended to be. So, I’m pretty confident I could surmise what happened in the end without ever finishing the movie. With this 2008 incarnation that has been dubbed a remake by most viewers, albeit an extremely loose one at that, the same predictability of the original continues to exist even in today’s incarnation and the movie definitely does not benefit from it. “Prom Night” begins with a very brutal opening sequence that definitely catches the audience by surprise. When watching this surprising opening portion of the movie, you are given this false sense that perhaps you are going to be watching a horror film that is in the vein of the slashers of the 80’s; except that this is one that actually knows how to send thrills and chills through you. However, after that initial sequence ends you quickly begin to realize that this movie is going to fall extremely short of the expectations that its opening had set you up with.

I was intrigued by the story at first, not just because of the opening sequence, but because writer J.S. Cardone had actually created an extremely creepy villain (Johnathon Schaech) that was not supernatural as many of the villains in the traditional horror films have been. This villain is one that may actually exist somewhere in the world, and that is a very frightening prospect when you stop to think about it. Even though the killer was much more believable than most within horror films, the movie quickly loses itself amongst numerous horror movie clichés, insipid dialogue, and an undeniably heavy dose of plot holes and continuity errors; not to mention the fact that the movie unfolds in such a predictable fashion that it simply boggles the mind that any writer would even bother submitting this as a finished screenplay.

The biggest problem that I had with “Prom Night” was the numerous plot holes and continuity errors that plagued the film. Many movies have these problems, sometimes you can ignore them, but there are times when they occur so frequently that it becomes flat-out distracting and there’s just no denying their existence. “Prom Night” falls into the category of a movie with so many plot holes/errors that there isn’t enough substance left over to make the movie work in any logical sense. One of the main sources of the problem was the fact that whenever the killer murders someone (and this isn’t really spoiling anything, because everyone has figured out by now that murders occur in horror films), he somehow is able to move their body without making any noise when someone may be in the other room, and also without leaving any kind of bloody trail or blood stain of any kind. Yeah right, give me a break.

Leading the cast of mostly unknown teenagers, many of which I doubt will have all that lengthy of a career in Hollywood, was the surprisingly talented actress Brittany Snow (“Hairspray”). Brittany easily carried this film on her own, and her likeability and talent as an actress made the movie at least bearable, but one can’t help but wonder why a young actress as talented as she bothers to debase herself by coming within ten feet of this garbage. The only reason I can figure is that Brittany most likely viewed this as an opportunity to expand her fan base by gaining the exposure amongst teenagers that a horror film can provide; however, there have got to be better choices out there than something this ridiculous and uninspired.

The rest of the teenage cast, or at least those pretending to be that young, was a mixture of those that were moderately talented individuals, to those that shouldn’t expect much more work to come their way later. Many members of the cast fell into the latter category. The only other good performance in the movie, aside from Brittany Snow’s, would be from Johnathon Schaech as the film’s creepy villain. Although Johnathon created an interesting and realistic villain, whoever made the decision to have him walk slower than a snail during the killing sequences really should have taken a few more moments to think that through. In most horror movies, especially those of the “Halloween” or “Friday the 13th” variety, the killer tends to walk unbelievably slow for someone trying to make a killing; however, as slow as those killers walk, their victims normally stop to hide/catch their breath which allows the killer to catch them. With “Prom Night” the killer walks slower than Jason or Michael Myers ever did, and his victims rarely stop running away; yet somehow he manages to catch them every time and to me that is a problem for believability in a movie that is already pushing the limits in that area to begin with.

With too many problems that plague the entire movie, “Prom Night” fails to deliver any sort of thrills or chills to the audience; mostly because the audience is too busy laughing at how stupid everything and everyone is within this movie. I must point out that the filmmaker, Nelson McCormick, was smart enough to determine that his movie had far too many problems; so he kept the movie’s pace going along at a very fast rate. This was done so the audience would hardly have any time to notice all of the little inconsistencies or impossibilities that kept occurring throughout his pale imitation of a horror thriller.

“Prom Night” is available in PG-13 and unrated editions both contain violence, language, and sensuality.

The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior

After only amassing a moderate box office success with 2002’s “The Scorpion King” starring former wrestling superstar Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, Universal Pictures apparently put on hold any potential sequels to the prequel (that sounded funny… oh well) of their popular “The Mummy” series. In 2008, Universal dusted off the character of the Scorpion King for another shot at movie audiences; however, this effort would not star The Rock, as it was to be a prequel (a decision that I believe was prompted by The Rock most likely rejecting the notion of starring in another ‘Scorpion King’ movie), and it would also skip any kind of theatrical release, going directly to DVD. So, let me think about this for a second, the star of the original movie most likely rejected the idea of reprising his role for a sequel, potentially causing the shift from sequel to prequel, then the movie skips theaters altogether and goes directly to DVD, finally getting released around the same time as another ‘Mummy’ movie was hitting theaters. Does anyone else besides me believe that this spelled potential disaster for this second entry in the inferior spin-off series to “The Mummy”? Let’s have a show of hands… Yeah, that’s what I thought, pretty much everyone sees this movie as nothing more than a hack job primarily made for cashing in on the recently released “The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor”.

“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior” centers on a young Mathayus (Michael Copon) as he begins learning the ways of an assassin in order to better serve his king. However, when a warrior named Sargon (Randy Couture) murders Mathayus’ father, Mathayus forgoes his oath of honor to begin a quest for vengeance against the evil Sargon and all those that side with him.

Wow, I don’t know if I can think of a time when the description on the back of a DVD could have been further from the truth. The description touted this action/adventure prequel as “…a heroic adventure filled with heart-stopping action and thrilling visual effects!” Well, I’m not sure what movie the marketing people that came up with that load of bull were watching, but it sure wasn’t “The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior”, I can tell you that right now. For a movie with supposedly “heart-stopping action”, I was fairly bored a good majority of the time, and as for the “thrilling visual effects” they were more like B-movie effects or worse. In fact, I think that the Sci-Fi channel original movies have better effects than what was employed here.

It’s also a pity to note that director Russell Mulcahy comes fresh off of helming the successful third entry, “Resident Evil: Extinction”, in the popular zombie franchise to directing this Direct-to-DVD piece of garbage. Now, I’m not trying to insinuate that I feel like Russell is an A-list director at all; in fact, I don’t think he will ever compare to the likes of Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorcese, but regardless of that, he still is a decent enough Hollywood director that has had his fair share of successes that he deserved better than to be directing this movie. If Russell chose this as his next movie of his own free will then that’s one thing, I personally would be shocked if that were the case, and would have to seriously question the judgment of a person who would willingly subject themselves to the kind of criticism this movie will draw from critics and movie fans alike. It is possible that whoever convinced Russell Mulcahy to direct this movie made the concept sound a heck of a lot better than the end result ever could hope to be, and if so, then kudos to whoever did the selling, because whatever you said worked and you managed to get a decent Hollywood director to really demean himself by working on a project as pathetic as this one.

The cast for this movie was comprised of relative newcomers to the industry, several of them did have previous movie experience, but not much and what little they had wasn’t all that impressive to be worth mentioning. For instance, the actual star of the movie (even though he doesn’t get top-billing), Michael Copon, his biggest claim to movie fame was the third installment in the ‘Bring It On’ franchise (a franchise that apparently will not go away) with “Bring It On: In It to Win It”. I must point out that Michael was a good choice for the role because he does appear to be a decent enough resemblance to The Rock to pass off as a believable younger version of the first film’s star. Getting top-billing for this movie, even though he only appears in maybe half of the movie, is UFC star Randy Couture. Days before watching this movie, I had seen Randy in David Mamet’s “Redbelt” where he played a commentator for a fighting organization similar to UFC, and in that movie I thought that Randy showed some real potential to be a good actor; however, whatever potential I thought he had, was completely squandered by the time I saw his performance in this movie. Randy apparently didn’t know how to effectively play the villainous role whatsoever, because there’s nary a scene in which he isn’t snarling or saying his lines in a menacing way, even if the line doesn’t warrant that type of reading. With such a laughable performance as the one in this movie, I now feel that Randy has little to no hope for a future in Hollywood films, at least from my humble perspective.

“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior” has got to be one of the most blatant, and poorly executed, attempts at cashing in on a theatrical release that I have seen go directly to DVD in a long time. The writing is horrible, the acting is sub-par at best, and the visual effects are possibly worse than an episode of The Power Rangers on TV. There is nothing much to praise with this prequel other than these two points; 1) Michael Copon was a good casting choice and did an alright job with the role, and 2) the movie does eventually end after an overly bloated, almost two hour long running time; so that those who were like me, and suffered through every moment of this crap, can eventually begin to work on putting the experience out of their minds. Perhaps some therapy could help, who knows.

“The Scorpion King 2: Rise of a Warrior” is rated PG-13 for violence and sensuality.

Hannibal Rising

In the history of cinema there are many great cinematic villains that have terrified movie audiences over the years. Often times they are frightening in appearance or deeds, sometimes they are misunderstood or victims of circumstance, and they can even be so captivating that you can’t help but pay attention to their many evil acts. These great villains range from the dreaded Darth Vader, to the slashers known as Freddy, Jason, and Leatherface, or the brilliant evil genius’ of the James Bond films, to the most feared psychological villain of all time, Hannibal ‘the cannibal’ Lecter. Moviemakers lately have felt the need to explain the origins to some of cinema’s classic villains from George Lucas’ prequel trilogy of ‘Star Wars’ films, to Leatherface’s lackluster origin story in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning”, the most recent addition to the list of villains getting the origin treatment would be Hannibal Lecter in the Weinstein Company’s adaptation of Thomas Harris’ novel, “Hannibal Rising”.

“Hannibal Rising” is the origin story of Hannibal Lecter, showing how he went from being an innocent young boy in Lithuania to society’s most deadly, cannibalistic serial killer. As a young boy in Lithuania, Hannibal witnessed the deaths of his parents in World War 2, leaving he and his sister Mischa to fend for themselves. Just when Hannibal thought things couldn’t get worse, a group of militia men invade their home, taking Hannibal and Mischa hostage. Some time after that, grown up and in college, Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel), is mastering every course he takes, and well on his way to earning his doctorate. Little does his professors know that Hannibal hides a dark, deadly secret. In his own time he is obsessively pursuing the men that formed the militia, and if there’s one thing Hannibal intends to do when he finds them, it’s take his pound of flesh for what they’ve done.

The decision to make a prequel to the popular Hannibal Lecter trilogy of films seemed like a waste of time and space, simply a way for the studio to just cash in on the character’s well-known name. Which left me feeling like this would be a pathetic movie, because more than likely not a single person associated with the previous films would be involved, and for the most part I was right on that count, but there was a glimmer of a chance that this movie would be more than expected. Shortly after the film was greenlit, it was announced that the movie was being written by none other than Thomas Harris, the creator of Hannibal Lecter, based on his novel of the same name that he was in the process of finishing up. With that prospect, I thought that “Hannibal Rising” (at the time the movie was being called “Young Hannibal”) just may stand a chance of equaling its predecessors in terms of quality storytelling and acting that is among the best Hollywood has to offer.

Well, as good of a writer Thomas Harris is, or I should say was (his other three books in the Lecter series are great works of fiction), this novel and the screenplay that was based on it are far inferior to anything offered in the other installments. I was disappointed by the movie for several reasons; first I felt the actor chosen to portray young Hannibal was only okay. I understand he was trying to only give hints as to what this character will become later on, and I’ll give it to the actor, there were a couple of times that I saw a glimpse of Anthony Hopkins’ creepy portrayal seep in, but these were few and far between. For the most part the actor was just flat in his performance and apparently the only expression he really knew how to make was a snarl, he didn’t really have any of the nuances that Anthony perfected in this character.

Second, it seemed like Hannibal took to cannibalism a little too easily. I understand that the experiences the young man has endured would definitely scar a young child, but when he commits his first act of cannibalism, there doesn’t appear to be any uncertainty or disdain for what he’s doing. He simply does the deed, doesn’t appear to be bothered by it, in fact he may even have enjoyed it (the movie really doesn’t explain this), and moves on in search of the next victim on his list. Which brings me to my third problem with this movie; aside from revenge being his motive for killing those who’ve wronged him, he doesn’t show any further conviction to commit murder. Leaving one to wonder why he continued to murder throughout his life? Did the events in this movie create such an obsession within him that he just felt compelled to do more or what? This was an aspect that wasn’t explained, and I felt should have been, especially since this was to be the origin of his evil life and a deep psychological profile into the why of his life of crime. Instead, Thomas Harris’ screenplay barely scratched the surface, no doubt because the Weinstein’s are hoping to cash in on further installments of prequels, since Hopkins is probably through portraying the character.

“Hannibal Rising” is not the worst film ever made, it’s actually an ok movie, and if it had been the first in the series to be made, it may have seemed better. However, when comparing it to the other three already in the franchise, “Hannibal Rising” pales in comparison. The other movies contained many psychological aspects to them, especially “The Silence of the Lambs”, “Red Dragon” and “Hannibal” did to an extent just not as much, but this film didn’t contain any. There was potential, especially given that Hannibal endured a horrific childhood which is the root of his evil, but aside from a few dream sequences we don’t get much insight into his character. Which is probably where the biggest problem of this film lies, is that in trying to explain why Hannibal is who he is, the makers of the film try to make the audience feel sympathy for him. This is one of modern cinema’s greatest movie villains, I don’t want to feel sorry for him, I want to see what made him who he is. The filmmakers tried to accomplish the why of the character, but went about it wrong, they only focused on his thirst for vengeance, nothing further to shed light on his murderous impulses throughout his life. My guess is that the filmmakers were wanting the audience to feel that his killing is justified, at least in this movie (it’s just a really sick brand of justice), and in doing so you sympathize with him. What this all boils down to is that everyone pretty much dropped the ball on explaining the origin of Hannibal Lecter, opting simply to give audiences an average revenge tale, just a little gorier than most.

“Hannibal Rising” is unrated containing violence, gore, and language.

Smokin’ Aces

Here is a movie that I thought looked really good from the moment I saw the first trailer. It featured an all-star cast ranging from younger stars Ryan Reynolds, Ben Affleck, and Jeremy Piven to veterans Ray Liotta, Andy Garcia, and Alex Rocco, which together should create plenty of interesting scenes, plus some really impressive action set pieces, and what appeared to be a really engaging story this should make for a really good movie. Throw in a critically acclaimed director, Joe Carnahan (“Narc”) and “Smokin’ Aces” becomes what should definitely be a movie to see, but in the end could this ensemble movie meet the high expectations that I had set for it?

“Smokin’ Aces” begins with a mob hit being placed on the head of Las Vegas illusionist/mob entertainer/recently turned FBI rat, Buddy “Aces” Israel (Jeremy Piven). Responding to this extremely high-profile hit is a melting pot of deadly talent that includes a team of bail bondsmen (led by Ben Affleck), an attractive femme fatale (Alicia Keys), a torturous sadist, and a trio of savage brothers who live to kill. As these various hit men (and women) converge on Las Vegas, unbeknownst to them is them is the fact that the FBI is trying to seal their deal with Buddy who is still waffling on whether or not to completely become an informant. To fully convince him, and to try to save his life are two agents (Ryan Reynolds and Ray Liotta) who have been ordered by their boss (Andy Garcia) to do whatever it takes to ensure that Buddy doesn’t fall into harms way before making the deal.

So, with all my expectations regarding this movie, could “Smokin’ Aces” live up to what I hoped for? Well, sadly it couldn’t. Now, you might be thinking that I set my standards for this movie too high and so I was destined to be disappointed, maybe so. But I’ve had some time to think about this movie since watching it, and I’ve come to the conclusion that even if I hadn’t been so excited to see it, I still would have been disappointed in it. The movie just flat out does not deliver the goods, plain and simple.

The story is intriguing enough, and though it was fairly simple, I thought it worked to this film’s advantage due to the amount of characters that were receiving so much screen time. However, the mix of humor and drama didn’t feel smooth, I personally would have preferred less humor, and some of it may not have been so intentional, but to me the humor went a little too far into stupidity at times to not be noticed. Thus, taking away from the seriousness of the overall story. The worst offenders regarding the stupid humor were the trio of brothers, these guys were supposed to be scary, but instead they came off as being imbeciles and at times almost incestual which was a pointless, and gross character trait. Adding to the problems that took away from the story was the fact that by 3/4 of the way through the movie I began to really not care what happened to any of the characters, most were became highly unlikable (not that there were too many of them to root for anyways), and some of the plot points began to not make as much sense and became pointless or cliché, making the story seem excessive for such a simple premise, so when all was said and done the movie basically crumbled under its own weight.

What did work fairly well for this movie, and these are the only parts that did, were the acting and the gunplay. Pretty much the entire cast of talented actors deliver very strong, sometimes intense performances that would normally make for a great movie; however, the story didn’t serve them as well as they served it. The action sequences were all very impressive to watch, sometimes a little too crowded, and therefore confusing as to who was shooting whom, but nonetheless they were fun. But the majority of the action doesn’t occur until the final act of the movie, and by then I was just wanting to see how it all ended, and wasn’t really caring too much for the characters. But, it was also during this final conflict that the movie began to crumble, because the chaos of the action was too jumbled and the characters became a little too clichéd. So even when the movie was doing what it did best, it was still failing to me. All of this served as a definite sign that this movie could not live up to anything more than what it truly was, a Direct-to-DVD movie filled with A-list Hollywood talent that allowed it to hit theaters rather than be doomed to the bargain bin.

“Smokin’ Aces” is rated R for violence, language, drug use, and sexuality/nudity.

The Hitcher (remake)

In the horror film genre you can always count on the fact that these types of movies will undoubtedly follow the trends of the time. In the early days of cinema monster films were the way to go. In the 70’s, John Carpenter set a new trend of the unkillable killer with his classic “Halloween”. With the 80’s came the era of the overly repetitive sequel with series’ such as ‘Friday the 13th’ and ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’. Then, director Wes Craven introduced the hip, smart-talking, mystery filled horror film with his mega hit “Scream”. But the most recent trend began in 2003 with the remake of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, thus the trend of the remake had begun and is still going strong. The most recent addition to this trend is the 2007 release of “The Hitcher” starring Sean Bean, a remake of a 1986 film of the same name starring Rutger Hauer.

“The Hitcher” is set during spring break when a young couple is taking a road trip to see some friends. But what started out as a peaceful, fun trip quickly turned deadly when the couple decides to pick-up a hitchhiker (Sean Bean), and this kind gesture is now a fight for survival against a psychotic killer that will never give up.

With many of these recent remakes I find myself wondering, “Why? What’s the point with these movies?” And for the most part I can’t come up with much of an answer for myself. I see to some extent that you may want to make the story a little more solid, or at least attempt to, maybe give some more background to some of these villains that have become cult icons. But for the most part, the biggest point to making one of these remakes is to up the blood and gore quotient of the original film. Generally the originals were made with far less emphasis on gore, and for some reason today’s directors feel the need to dump as many buckets of fake blood over the course of the movie as possible. And of course plenty of horror film enthusiasts will go out and see these films. Now I will admit that I watch horror films, and some of them I actually think are good (the ‘Scream’ trilogy, for instance), but I don’t watch these movies just to see blood and guts, in fact I’m fine with the more Hitchkockian approach of making the audience imagine what’s happening rather than showing them. What gets me to want to see one of these movies is if the movie appears to have a story, looks intriguing, and the possibility of a couple of thrills, and maybe even a jump scene or two. But with these recent remakes that Hollywood has been churning out, I’ve got to say, I’m not impressed. I haven’t seen a single one that was really worth anything. Most are simply the same story but with much more gore, not too much more depth is added to any other aspect of the original film, they all just seem like an excuse to splash some more blood on the screen.

With all that being said, and my rant on this most recent trend complete, I will move on to what I thought of “The Hitcher”. So, did “The Hitcher” manage to succeed where all the other horror remakes have failed or did it succumb to the same sad ending? In my opinion, “The Hitcher” succumbed. The movie started out with some promise, but quickly began to crumble due to not enough story and too many plot holes. I don’t know what the writers were thinking, perhaps they felt the audience was smart enough to just interpret the rest of the story for themselves so that they wouldn’t have to write it out. I don’t know, but for the most part there was too much left unexplained and too many ‘How did that happen?’ type of scenarios that caused this movie to fall apart in a hurry.

The actors all did well with what they were given to work with, Sophia Bush and Zachary Knighton as the young couple were very capable as the victims, and Neal McDonough’s (“Walking Tall”) brief appearance as a police lieutenant was a bright spot for the movie. But the biggest kudos go to Sean Bean for his menacing turn as the villain John Ryder (originally played by Rutger Hauer in the 1986 version). Sean does very well in the villainous role, but what I don’t get though, is as good of an actor as Sean Bean is, why would he choose to sign on to a movie like this? I understand that maybe he wanted to play a character that is well known and try to put his own spin on it, but he surely read the script first. I mean when your character’s entire motivation for why he’s doing this is summed up with the words “You’re a smart boy, you’ll figure it out.”, you know you’re in trouble, because it’s obvious the writers couldn’t come up with a reason for why he’s a killer. My guess is that Sean was bored and just wanted a paycheck, otherwise there’s not much more reason for him taking the role in this lame remake.

“The Hitcher” is one of those movies that looked good, had what appeared to be a decent story, a solid actor as the villain, but somewhere along the way managed to fall completely apart. And clearly, I’m not alone in my thinking because the movie did not do well at the box office, staying only a brief time in theaters before being sent on it’s way to DVD shelves where it should have premiered in the first place.

“The Hitcher” is rated R for violence and language.

Shoot ‘Em Up

Some movies you just can’t seem to understand why you bother watching them. There are just certain movies that are kind of like train wrecks, you know that the outcome will no doubt be disastrous, yet you can’t help but watch as the movie reaches its inevitable conclusion. It’s these types of films that have earned the title ‘Guilty Pleasures’, because no matter how hard you try there’s just no explaining why you’re watching the film, because there isn’t much of anything to merit your attention, but there you sit, like a goober, watching a movie that you know will end up being a waste of time. A recent example of this is the 2007 brainless, action movie “Shoot ‘Em Up” starring Clive Owen (“King Arthur”), Monica Bellucci (“The Matrix Reloaded”), and Paul Giamatti (“Cinderella Man”).

“Shoot ‘Em Up” is about a man named Smith (Clive Owen) who, out of sheer coincidence, happens to be in the right place at the right time as a man is attempting to kill a pregnant woman just before she is about to give birth. Smith follows the man, proceeding to intervene before the murder takes place, after dispatching the killer and assisting the woman in childbirth, Smith finds himself in yet another fight between the would be killer’s former cohorts, led by a man named Hertz (Paul Giamatti). After escaping from the fight, Smith finds himself the surrogate father to the newborn baby after the mother is caught in the crossfire. Now, Smith is on the run with a baby in tow from a maniacal mad man, and his only assistance is a prostitute (Monica Bellucci) with the proverbial heart of gold.

Writer/director Michael Davis has managed to take a bunch of over-the-top, overblown action sequences strung them together with one of the weakest storylines I’ve seen in a feature film (even some of Steven Seagal’s Direct-to-DVD films have better plots), assembled a fairly strong cast (each of whom should really have known better than to do this movie, but you know the saying, “Money talks.”), and somehow convinced New Line Cinema that this was a viable property worthy of theatrical release. Kudos for the effort Mr. Davis, I don’t know how you did it but the fact that this movie ever made it to theaters is beyond me, this movie’s script had DVD bargain bin written all over it! I will give “Shoot ‘Em Up” and its writer/director Michael Davis this, the action sequences may be over-the-top in every sense, but they are mostly a lot of fun to watch, although by the end of the movie I found myself tired of the endless barrage of gunfire that had permeated almost every scene in the film. If nothing else, these stylistic, fast-paced gun battles is probably what kept my attention in this film, because it sure wasn’t the story which wasn’t made clear until approximately 15 to 20 minutes from the end of the film.

For an action movie to succeed with audiences it must of course contain plenty of high octane, energetic action sequences to keep the adrenaline junkies going, but it must also have some semblance of a storyline tying the fight scenes together to give the movie some sense of purpose otherwise we’re just watching a bunch of meaningless fights that don’t have any point behind them and that gets boring really quickly. But, when a movie’s story isn’t made clear to the audience until about 20 minutes from the end of the movie, then I think the writer has made a horrible mistake and is lucky the audience has made it with them this far into the film. In the case of “Shoot ‘Em Up” writer/director Michael Davis was fortunate that he had crafted such creative and fun gunfights to keep my attention, plus the fact that I like the cast helped him out quite a bit, because without those key components I would have ditched this movie long before the basic plot was revealed and would have felt that I hadn’t missed much of anything. A little advice for Michael Davis, if you intend to keep the audience on board with you for this kind of movie, it would probably be a smart idea to give a little bit more of the story away throughout the entire duration of the film, not just waiting for the end to explain everything like its some massive secret that would change the entire movie experience.

The cast that was assembled for this film, led by Clive Owen, Monica Bellucci, and Paul Giamatti, were of a much higher caliber than I would have expected in such an inferior piece of so-called “entertainment”. Even though the story was lacking in almost every way, the actors managed to do a decent job of creating characters the audience could become interested in, even if their story arcs were essentially non-existent. I must say Paul Giamatti was actually a surprise as the villain in the film, I never thought that he could handle playing the main villain in such a movie, but the over-the-top performance he gave as Hertz fit right in with the rest of the movie’s tone, and was actually one of the best things about the entire film.

If nothing else can be said for “Shoot ‘Em Up”, it at least lives up to its name, this film is essentially nothing but one gun battle after another and before long all the style and quick camera cuts in the world can’t help these scenes from looking the same and leaving the audience bored. I believe that even die hard action fans that love to see nothing but non-stop action will be hard pressed to actually enjoy this movie all that much, because by the time the movie is almost over you’ll probably find yourself hating the constant barrage of gunfights and wishing for a little drama to fill up some time.

“Shoot ‘Em Up” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.