Saw: The Final Chapter

After six previous installments, the once indomitable “Saw” franchise has finally been laid low by the law of diminishing returns. What an ignominious, albeit fitting end to a once strong horror series that simply overstayed its welcome with audiences.

“Saw: The Final Chapter” finds Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), having survived his death trap at the hands of Jigsaw’s widow, Jill (Betsy Russell), now planning one final game in order to settle the score. Knowing that Hoffman will stop at nothing for revenge, Jill seeks out Detective Matt Gibson (Chad Donella), offering up any and all information she possesses in exchange for protection. Meanwhile, Bobby Dagen (Sean Patrick Flanery), a self-help guru and proclaimed Jigsaw survivor, is out promoting his inspirational tale of survival. However, behind Bobby’s harrowing tale lay a dark secret that may cost him everything that he holds dear.

Having forced myself to endure through the last few entries in this once original and now stale franchise, I thought that perhaps nothing could bring this series to a close. After all, this blood-soaked saga has survived being critically panned repeatedly, it’s own incredibly convoluted and borderline incomprehensible storyline, and ultimately becoming tedious and repetitive.

I never expected that horror fans would eventually grow tired of the same old thing, quit forking over their hard-earned money, and force Lionsgate to kick the Jigsaw legacy to the curb? I mean, hardcore horror fans have kept many an undeserving franchise afloat well past their prime. But, I guess even the most ardent horror aficionados have their limits.

So, where did this most recent, and reportedly “final chapter” go wrong? Well, pretty much in all of the same areas as its torturous brethren. Now, please note my doubt at the “fact” that this is going to be the absolute final installment in this franchise. After all, “Friday the 13th Part 4” was subtitled “The Final Chapter” and yet there were six other sequels that followed in its wake. So, pardon my disbelief, but the word “final” holds very little meaning with horror films. But, I digress.

As has been the growing trend ever since “Saw IV”, the story for this last installment is as paper-thin as ever; relying solely on the traps to keep things moving along. The writing duo of Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan once again return to craft what unsurprisingly turns out to be yet another well below sub-par horror flick.

Now, how does one create a movie that ranks as being below sub-par, you ask? Well, by sticking to the status quo that this duo had established in their previous outings in the series. A checklist of sorts is as follows: creating characters that an audience can relate to is no longer necessary, plot holes can always be fixed by the next installment via flashbacks (except this film can only fix previous entries, any errors here will presumably be left wide open), and originality is either too hard or takes too long.

Now that I’ve listed out briefly what major issues with the story can be found in this movie, let’s look at them a little closer.

I mentioned that providing a character that audiences could relate to was apparently deemed no longer necessary by the writers of this movie. In the first few movies we were introduced to characters quickly, but we would come to know who they were and see them grow to an extent over the course of the film. With this installment, and the previous two for that matter, the characters placed in the various traps are complete blank slates to us.

The only character we do manage to learn bits and pieces about, mostly through the tapes recorded by Jigsaw and a few flashbacks, is the primary victim Bobby Dagen. The problem is, his character, a self-professed self-help guru, is completely uninteresting, and nothing we learn about him improves that perception. For a main character, either the writers poorly handled the role or the actor, Sean Patrick Flanery (“The Boondock Saints”), went completely in the wrong direction with his lame performance. Whatever the case, the character was a narcissistic bore that you find yourself caring very little about.

Another issue is the various flashbacks that take place in this movie. The previous films all featured flashbacks to help fill gaps in the story they are featured in, or fix any plot holes left behind by their predecessors. So, if flashbacks have become such a staple of the franchise, then why do they bother me in this installment more than ever before? The reason is because the flashbacks are used so prevalently that they become distracting.

Every time I saw a flashback in this film, I just found myself thinking, “Ok, here we go, what plot hole, from which film in the series, will we be addressing this time?” When your viewer begins having this type of thought, then game over. Because it has become quite obvious that you’ve relied on this tool for far too long and it has grown tedious.

While we’re on the topic of the tedious nature of this series; we now arrive at the unoriginality inherent in this film. For starters, the characters are nothing more than carbon copies of previously used, forgettable characters from other horror films and franchises. Truth be told, I’m not that surprised by this issue, since lame characters have become another staple for the series lately. Still, a little bit more effort could have been put forth to make some of them seem a little more unique. Oh wait, that would have been too hard, and therefore impossible for this writing duo.

Then there are the infamous traps of the “Saw” franchise. Despite their macabre nature, the traps have always been both creative and complex in their design. In the previous two films, they have become less inventive, and a creative block had apparently found its way into this aspect of the series. Now, I presumed that the writers would take whatever steps necessary to break down this block, and bring back some ingenuity to the most recognizable part of these films. Apparently, I was wrong in that presumption.

Don’t get me wrong, there are a couple of traps that present some originality. However, beyond those two or three traps, the remainder simply repeat various aspects of the three original ideas only with some small twist to make them “new” or “different”. Unfortunately for the writers, this lame attempt to fool the audience failed, and I for one was left feeling like I had already seen it all before.

Now, I know that last angle of criticism seemed odd (as it has every time before), but for this type of movie some critiques may seem a bit out there. I mean, when inventive traps are the order of the day, one must point out when that inventiveness has lost its footing. Anyway, moving on.

In regards to the writers of this film, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan: what I don’t understand is why these two talent-less hacks continued to get the writing job for this series? Especially, when these guys have been so pivotal in this franchise’s steady downfall.

To me, if you’re either Lionsgate or the franchise’s producers you’d want to, I don’t know, maybe find someone that could wrap up the series on a higher note rather than potentially push it down further. I’m all for giving people another chance, but come on, these guys have had three previous movies to make their story work. Yet, all they’ve managed to do was make everything more confusing and derivative.

Perhaps if a different writer or writers had been brought on board to help out or re-write this mess, then maybe the series wouldn’t have devolved into the stagnant, gore and snore-fest that it has become. Then again, ending the series with “Saw III” would have been an even better idea, since that was the last time this series actually possessed anything even remotely resembling a plot and character development. But, I digress once again.

Despite all of the issues to be found in this final installment, there were two things that “Saw: The Final Chapter” sort of did right. First and foremost, the writers managed to finally bring this series to a conclusion. Not necessarily a completely satisfying one, but a conclusion all the same. For that, I say thank you and it’s about time.

Secondly, the flashbacks manage to provide some answers to questions left lingering ever since “Saw IV”. Namely, explaining how so many times since Jigsaw was killed in “Saw III” these other victims just so happened to coincidentally stumble into his traps as he had planned. As it turns out, Jigsaw had yet another accomplice previously unknown to the audience who had been maneuvering these victims into their proper places to undergo their “therapy”, so to speak.

Of course, this retconning of events didn’t provide resolution for all of the instances of happenstance found in this series. But, at least it was a decent effort all the same. That being said, this surprise revelation still felt convoluted and was an obviously desperate attempt on the writers’ part to save face for their oversights and/or shortcomings with the previous three films.

You may be wondering why I semi-praised the usage of flashbacks after I just complained about them moments before. Well, the reason is that sometimes an element of a movie can be both beneficial and detrimental at the same time. The flashbacks were problematic because of their prevalence in this film, and also for the incredible amount of retconning they did to the series. But at the same time, the retconning proved beneficial at times in attempting cohesion for the franchise as a whole. It’s complicated, but oddly enough I think it’s fitting given how convoluted this entire franchise has become.

Finally, let’s take a look at the quality of acting found in “Saw: The Final Chapter”. In the lead role of Hoffman, Jigsaw’s replacement, we find the insufferably boring and seemingly lifeless (performance-wise), Costas Mandylor. As he has done ever since his first appearance in this series back in “Saw IV”, Costas has presented to us a performance so completely devoid of any shred of humanity, charisma, or excitement that one wonders how this man ever finds work in Hollywood. Not to mention, why did the casting director feel he was an appropriate choice to replace Tobin Bell after Jigsaw’s demise? The answer is beyond me.

Speaking of Tobin Bell, as always his brief appearances in this film are the only times I actually became interested in the movie. I was actually surprised that he wasn’t featured more in this film. I thought the writers were setting a trend with the previous movies by having Jigsaw appear more frequently through flashbacks than he ever did when he was alive. If that had been the case, then maybe this movie wouldn’t have been the worst one yet. I guess they wanted to see if the film could stand more on its own without as much of Tobin’s aid. Too bad it didn’t pan out, though.

Filling out the other primary roles in the film are series veteran Betsy Russell as Jigsaw’s widow and series newcomer Chad Donella (“Final Destination”) as a detective tracking down Hoffman.

Betsy Russell seemed to fall into Costas Mandylor’s method of acting in this film as she does not seem invested in the role at all. Of course, given the low quality of writing found in the script, I can understand why she no longer has any interest in this character. In the case of Chad Donella’s performance, I wasn’t really sure what to expect. If his one-dimensional, wooden performance in this film is any indication, then I think he fits right in with the rest of the cast. Because he certainly doesn’t have the talent necessary for other, much stronger movie fare.

Then we have the cameo appearances by Cary Elwes, reprising his role as Dr. Lawrence Gordon from the original film. Cary’s performance in the first “Saw” was generally over-the-top, and at times laughably so; however, his performance here is almost completely in the other direction. Despite delivering a very restrained performance, Elwes’ portrayal wound up suffering from being far too obvious. While he corrected one performance mistake, he created another one in return, go figure.

What makes this surprising is that Cary’s not new to acting; he’s been acting for years. And I know he can do better, I’ve seen him do it in previous films (for example, “Kiss the Girls”). I guess he just didn’t see a reason to try, most likely due to the quality of the script and how small the role turned out to be.

In the end, a once strong horror franchise has been weakened to the point it can no longer sustain an audience’s interest and must finally be put down. Of course, if you ever watch this entry, or any of the last few for that matter, then it’s not surprising that this is the end given the inferior quality on display. So, unless you’re like me, and have watched all of the previous entries in the series and just want to see it come to a conclusion, do yourself a favor and steer clear of “Saw: The Final Chapter”.

“Saw: The Final Chapter” is rated R for torture, disturbing images, violence and language.

The Last Airbender

Does anyone remember when the name M. Night Shyamalan generated interest for a movie rather than ridicule? It seems so long ago now, when the writer/director was being heralded as “The Next Spielberg” due to his successes with “The Sixth Sense”, “Unbreakable” and “Signs”. However, after those three initial films Shyamalan apparently misplaced his talent for writing and directing, or allowed his rise to fame to get in the way of his creativity and talent. Whatever the case may be, this once acclaimed director has been on a downward spiral career-wise for several years now, and his latest film is easily his worst yet.

“The Last Airbender” chronicles the discovery and rise to power of a young boy named Aang (Noah Ringer) who is destined to become the Avatar that will save his world in its darkest hour. However, accepting his destiny will place himself and those he loves in grave danger as two opposing forces within the dreaded Fire Nation, the despotic Commander Zhao (Aasif Mandvi) and the outcast Prince Zuko (Dev Patel), seek to eliminate this prophesied threat to their power. With time running out and the Fire Nation closing in, Aang and his fellow allies in the Water Nation must stand united or all hope will be lost.

Before I go any further, please let me take a moment to say “Thank You” to M. Night Shyamalan for allowing myself, and everyone else unfortunate enough to have watched this dismal wannabe blockbuster, a front row seat at his career hitting rock bottom. It is an honor, after all so many of us were there when you rose to success with “The Sixth Sense” in 1999, and now just a mere eleven years later, we’re front-and-center for what could be your final bow.

I must say that it has been a journey Mr. Shyamalan, and one that I wish I had abandoned years ago after the crap-tacular “Lady in the Water”. I’m not sure what that says about me, other than I’m an apparent glutton for B-movie punishment, but I digress.

So, how did this movie go wrong for not only the unlucky moviegoers (or renters as the case may be), but M. Night Shyamalan and company as well? For starters, the story is nothing more than a series of bullet points gleamed from the show’s first season. I understand that when a television series is being adapted into a feature film that some distillation must occur, but come on, M. Night, show some restraint in the process.

Every scene in this movie feels like someone is just marking them off a list of events from “Avatar: The Last Airbender” season one. Resulting in nary a shred of true character development, other than Aang’s increasing control of his abilities. Relationships between characters are introduced and handled as if they were merely afterthoughts, rather than being central to the story. Then there are the various character motivations, which are sketchy at best. Nothing within the movie is allowed time to breathe or develop naturally, and the film suffers miserably for it.

Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the plot holes and contradictions scattered throughout the entire duration of the film via editing mishaps. Numerous times characters would refer to situations, character details, or events that either had not occurred in the film yet or the person had not learned. This was typically followed shortly thereafter by the event or knowledge being presented to the person that had just been speaking of it moments before. Which prompted me to wonder, did anyone watch this film to make sure it made sense before releasing it to the general public? I’m guessing the answer would be a “no”.

Regarding the overall failure of the story, a majority of these issues could have been avoided if M. Night had been more judicious in his pacing, editing, and plotting. Attempting to adapt an entire season of a television show into one single two hour movie, and do so without oversimplifying the story, is an impossible task.

So, why is it that M. Night didn’t try to break some of the events apart to make for a series of movies comprising the story of the first season? Who knows? If he had done so, then there would have been time for plot, character, and relationship developing. I’m not saying those developments would have happened, but there would have been time and perhaps a better movie as an outcome.

Now, anyone that has ever seen the show “Avatar: The Last Airbender” knows that to adapt such a show requires an abundance of visual effects work. This shouldn’t have been a problem with today’s technology, along with the film’s sizable budget; however, something went horribly wrong along the way and the visual effects were yet another casualty of this ill-conceived, lackluster production.

The most glaring issue from the visual effects aspect of the film rests with the various displays of water-bending. Every time a water effect was being employed, the water always looked too gel-like and fake. This was even more obvious if real water was shown alongside the CGI-created water, because the consistency and color between the two would be completely different. This should be Special Effects Work 101, if you are mixing a real element with a CGI one then there should not be an easily discernible difference between the two. This is simply shoddy effects work and nothing more.

As a side note to how horrible the water-based effects work truly was, CG-animated water has been employed since James Cameron’s “Abyss” in 1989. How is it that 21 years later, M. Night managed to find a visual effects house incapable of mastering something that James Cameron’s crew had nearly mastered all those years ago? It’s mind-boggling, isn’t it?

As for the other elemental powers on display, they were a mixed bag between ho-hum and decent. The fire powers looked alright, although M. Night never really let the members of the villainous Fire Nation really cut loose with them, so that was disappointing. The air powers used by Aang were standard fare, nothing groundbreaking. And the earth powers were fairly blah and typically felt overlooked in the proceedings.

After seeing the various visual effects on display in this movie, one has to wonder what was done with the 150 million dollar budget this movie was granted? Did M. Night pocket most of it? Because he sure didn’t use big name actors and his visuals didn’t seem to show that kind of financial backing?

If all of those complaints weren’t enough to illustrate the horrendous nature of this movie, we now come to the actors and actresses bringing these characters to life. In his first acting role Noah Ringer semi-resembles Aang and definitely fits the wide-eyed wonder of the character; however, that’s where any praise for the young man ends as his acting is often forced and amateurish. His line delivery was painful almost every single time out of the gate, and any conveying of emotions was even worse. I know this was his first acting gig, but come on, you’re starring in a big budget film, try to appear to know what you’re doing. Seriously, how did he make it through the casting process?

The supporting roles weren’t much better, despite the fact that most of them had had previous film or TV experience. Actor Dev Patel, fresh off the critically acclaimed “Slumdog Millionaire” should have taken a second look at the script before signing onto this epic misfire. Dev showed in his previous movie that he has definite acting chops, but his work here goes from being completely uninspired and flat to over-the-top and laughable at random. Dev made Prince Zuko seem bi-polar and at times childish, rather than a rightful heir to the throne of a nation, driven to prove himself worthy to a distant father.

Actor Aasif Mandvi (TV’s “Jericho”) is comical, although I’m not sure it was intentional, as the film’s primary villain Commander Zhao. I don’t know if M. Night instructed Aasif to overact in virtually every scene like some cheesy, scene chewing stereotypical villain or if that was just Aasif’s interpretation of the character? Whatever the case, the end result was more absurd than evil.

When all is said and done, there is not much of anything to be found worthy of praise in “The Last Airbender” other than the fact that the movie does end. That was probably my favorite part in this movie, as it has been in several other duds before it. No matter how bad a movie gets, I can always rely on the fact that the end will eventually arrive. Sadly, with this film, that moment didn’t arrive soon enough.

“The Last Airbender” is rated PG for violence.

The Crow: City of Angels

After the huge success of “The Crow”, one automatically assumed that a sequel would soon be in the works. However, due to the tragic death of the original film’s star, Brandon Lee, there was some doubt as to whether or not a new film should be made. In the end it was decided that each new Crow film would feature an all-new character taking over the avenging mantle.

This decision didn’t set well with some fans of the original. Many of them felt that continuing the series without the presence of Brandon Lee would be trampling upon the memory of his performance. Personally, even though I do agree that Brandon Lee portrayed the best version of the Crow, the idea of changing out the main character every time suited the franchise perfectly. Not to mention, the original film didn’t exactly leave an open ending for the return of Eric Draven. So, even if Brandon had lived, I think this was the proper course for the series to take.

“The Crow: City of Angels” is set in a city resembling a completely depraved version of Los Angeles. Slowly destroying this city one life at a time with a highly addictive drug is the sick and twisted Judah Earl (Richard Brooks) and his gang of deviants. One of their latest victims, a man named Ashe (Vincent Perez), who was brutally murdered along with his young son by the gang, has returned to avenge their deaths. Joined by a mysterious young woman named Sarah (Mia Kirshner) and the mystical crow, Ashe begins his mission of revenge. However, will he be strong enough to stop the evil that destroyed his life?

Despite the assurances from screenwriter David Goyer that this film would rock, while paying respect to the first film, and above all, please even those fans of the original that felt it was tantamount to sacrilege to continue the series; in the end, this sequel just does not work. So, how could this happen when it seemed that the movie had so much going in its favor?

Well, for starters the story written by David Goyer (“Batman Begins”) is even darker, more twisted, at times sadistic, and utterly weak that it can’t help but pale in comparison to its predecessor. The original film was dark, and featured some undeniably twisted characters for villains, but they never reached this level of depravity. Even in that film’s darkest moments I didn’t get the sense that those times were simply being included gratuitously to push the envelope of edginess in film.

For instance, there were numerous occasions where rather than include some much needed character or plot development the movie opted to show more sadistic and/or perverse imagery. Typically this was done at a time when Ashe was soon to be encountering one of the gang members responsible for his murder. Obviously these scenes were to make us hate the villains even more than we already do. The problem is that these moments occur far too often in a single 90 minute movie. Plus, it was a lazy way to convey the evil inherent in a particular villain, so that when Ashe dispatches his brand of justice the audience will be completely on his side. This was unnecessary because only the coldest of viewers would not completely hate characters willing to kill a father and his son. So, to go to such extremes just to give us these extra tidbits of incentive to root for Ashe was irrelevant.

I for one don’t want to be force fed in such an obvious fashion via these demented sequences that this gang and its leader are evil incarnate. Find some compelling way to tell the story, and over the course of the movie reveal these various criminal activities or dark traits to me. You don’t have to beat me over the head with this crap in an almost non-stop manner for me to understand the sheer malevolence on display. I’m not so dense that I can’t pick up on plot points and character development spread out over the course of a movie.

Beyond the degeneracy on display from the completely one-dimensional villains, the two “good” characters Ashe and Sarah were uninteresting and boring compared to any of their forebears from the original. Their moments together were intended to showcase them as star-crossed lovers, plus give us some insight into their characters. Ultimately though, there was no real spark between the two of them and I never really got to learn much more about them either. Part of me believes this is due to neither performer really giving their all in the scenes, on top of the fact that the script was paper-thin.

Honestly, if it wasn’t for the obligatory flashback sequences filling us in on what happened to Ashe and his son, we really wouldn’t know much about him or care. Truth be told, the only reason we even remotely root for him to succeed is because of the unbelievably heinous nature of the criminals he’s hunting, which again is due to the repeated usage of disturbing imagery and the flashbacks of the murders.

As for Sarah, there were several unanswered questions surrounding her character. Such as, what exactly is her link to the mystical crow and how did it come about? Plus, is she on the run from her memories or just can’t stand being in a single location for too long? Maybe her whole backstory is a combination of the two or neither. Whatever the case may be, screenwriter David Goyer managed to mishandle virtually every single aspect of this film’s story from start to finish. This meant that no matter how incredible the director or actors and actresses may come across, the movie was destined to fail from the get-go.

It is due to weak points in the story such as these that led this sequel to feeling like some half-hearted, under-developed attempt at cashing in on the previous movie’s success and perhaps even the memory of Brandon Lee. Thankfully, in the years since “The Crow: City of Angels” David Goyer appears to have fine-tuned his writing skills, and has crafted many a terrific screenplay. Perhaps it was just an off day for him when he wrote this drivel or the studio and/or director hamstringed him during the filming and editing processes. Who knows?

Speaking of the film’s director, Tim Pope, this is as far as I can tell his only feature film work to date, otherwise he’s typically a music video director. I will grant Tim that he was straddled with a shoddy screenplay full of sickness and disgust, so the task of making this film even remotely entertaining was daunting. Although, he is apparently a fan of rocker Iggy Pop’s, who also happens to appear in this film and Iggy is one twisted individual from what I can tell. So, maybe this movie wasn’t a challenge to work on after all, except for the whole “make it entertaining” part. Hmmm…

Anyways, I should give some credit to Tim and his crew for creating a very eerie atmosphere for the movie. Where the original film seemed to borrow heavily from Tim Burton’s influence, this movie featured a distinctive tone all its own to set it apart from not only the previous movie, but any comparisons to other darker heroes as well. Beyond that, I don’t have anything really good to say for Mr. Pope, because he doesn’t appear to be all that talented of a director in my estimation. Every scene featuring the criminals felt repetitive, as did scenes of Ashe riding his motorcycle or talking with Sarah. Nothing about this movie’s visual style, beyond the look and atmosphere, stood out or was exciting in any respect.

Finally, we arrive at the film’s cast, or as I think of them, the last remaining weak links in this already fragile chain. To begin, new lead star Vincent Perez (“I Dreamed of Africa”) was a poor follow-up to Brandon Lee’s superb performance as Eric Draven. Now, I didn’t set out to compare the two actors’ performances, but being a sequel a comparison is inevitable and in my estimation, warranted. Vincent never seemed to possess, or at least be able to convincingly convey the rage of his character the way Brandon did with Eric. With Vincent, he always seemed uneasy and when he did begin to cut loose in a possible fit of rage, he wound up looking goofy. Plus, his character seemed too effeminate much of the time, so I was never really sold on him being the avenging type, which would be the key for Vincent to really sell this character to the audience.

Portraying the only returning character from the original film, Sarah, although this movie is set several years later in her life, is actress Mia Kirshner (“The Black Dahlia”). Mia as shown in various other projects, both in film and on TV, is a very capable and talented actress. Yet her portrayal in this film, as I touched upon earlier, is incredibly disappointing and uninspired.

Maybe her reasons for not appearing as committed to the role as I felt she should be is due to her character’s bizarre, unexplained traits and lame story arc. I mean, if I were in her shoes, and given a character that is exhibiting odd abilities and seems to be on the run from something in her past (which doesn’t make sense given how things were looking up for her at the closing of “The Crow”), then I would probably find it difficult to get into the role. So perhaps the blame cannot fully rest with her, but must be laid once more at the feet of David Goyer and his script, or director Tim Pope.

Rounding out the main characters of this movie are actor Richard Brooks (TV’s “Law and Order”) and rock star Iggy Pop (“Snow Day”) as the film’s primary villains. Actually, I must correct myself, if you looked at the movie’s screen time for the various characters, you would make the assumption that these two villains were the only main characters of the story, and that Ashe and Sarah were ancillary roles rather than the leads. Anyways, I digress.

As the leader of the gang responsible for Ashe and his son’s murder, Judah Earl, is Richard Brooks. Much like Mia Kirshner, I know Richard Brooks is a capable actor in other roles, but even though his actions are despicable and steeped completely in all things evil, he as a character was never menacing. His performance just never really sold me on Judah being this man that commands the respect of all these deviants that he surrounds himself with, and that he would be in control of an apparently vast drug empire. I just don’t see how he would have risen to such a powerful role compared to some of his underlings, in particular the most immoral and wicked of the gang, Curve played by Iggy Pop.

Speaking of Iggy, his portrayal of Curve was over-the-top, twisted, and had an underlying streak of insanity running throughout. Out of the entire cast, Iggy’s was the only performance that was interesting, if for no other reason than that I wasn’t sure what exactly he was going to do next. So at the very least he proved to be an intriguing presence, even though his character takes part in seemingly every vice conceivable by man. That being said, he also is given numerous ridiculous lines of dialogue that are so bad it’s laughable, and many times he seemed to be overacting which made his performance amateurish at best. It is with those thoughts that make the fact that his was the most memorable performance of the bunch, all the more sad and pathetic.

You know, it’s a shame that such an excellent movie could kick start what should be a promising franchise, only to have said franchise begin to falter with the first sequel out of the gate. But, that’s what happens when your follow-up is plagued by a horrible script that is bogged down by the sickest and most twisted individuals one can conceive of, uninteresting performances for the most part, and repetitive sequences that show zero creativity or imagination. If you enjoyed the original movie, but never got around to this particular sequel, feel free to skip it. Trust me, you haven’t missed anything.

“The Crow: City of Angels” is rated R for violence, language, and pervasive sexuality/nudity.

Universal Soldier: The Return

Seven years after the original “Universal Soldier” was a worldwide box office success, and two made for TV sequels bored audiences at home, Tristar Pictures released “Universal Soldier: The Return”. Serving as the first “official” sequel to the 1992 original, this film brought back star Jean-Claude Van Damme, but even his presence wasn’t enough to bring back repeat business for this lackluster film.

“Universal Soldier: The Return” picks up several years after the events of the previous movie. Now, Luc Deveraux (Jean-Claude Van Damme) is a technical adviser/trainer for the next generation of UniSol’s. Led by a powerful supercomputer named S.E.T.H. (Michael Jai White) this new crop of soldiers is more controlled, faster, and deadlier than their predecessors. However, when the government seeks to cut the funding to the UniSol program altogether, S.E.T.H. takes drastic measures to protect his army and ensure his survival no matter the cost.

You know, it’s never a good sign for a movie, when the moment the first scene ends the viewer is already rolling his eyes at how ridiculous everything has been thus far. From that first scene alone, which was also the film’s first action sequence (talk about not wasting anytime), I already had a growing suspicion that I was going to regret watching this movie. Of course, much to my dismay the remaining hour and twenty minutes or so managed to prove my suspicions correct; leaving me with 90 minutes of my life stripped away with nary an ounce of enjoyment from the experience.

The story for “Universal Soldier: The Return” sounded like a promising follow-up to the vastly superior original film. Yet, a promising story does not always make for a good movie, and screenwriters William Malone (“Supernova”) and John Fasano (“Darkness Falls”) saw to that. The plot for this entry is so riddled with holes and inconsistencies that it is borderline incoherent and I for one was stunned that the studio even allowed this movie to see the light of day. Events in the movie would repeat themselves, bits of information previously brought to light in an earlier scene would be rehashed (with the same characters present, mind you) as if the information had never been heard before. Not to mention, the dialogue is so amateurish that it is more cringe inducing than the worst written daytime soap opera or your typical tweens show on the Disney Channel.

The action sequences are average at best, some of them were exciting, but for the most part even they felt tired and boring. I would have never suspected that fight scenes could become so generic that I could almost doze off, yet somehow this movie found a way. What’s surprising about how run-of-the-mill the action in this film was is that two skilled martial artists are involved in the movie, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Michael Jai White. One should feel fairly confident in the assumption that with two martial artists on the set, that one of them could have ensured that at least the action sequences would be top-notch. However, that assumption would be incorrect. Not to mention the director, Mic Rogers, is no stranger to action movies having served as Assistant Director on several high-profile films, such as “Mr. and Mrs. Smith” and “Wanted”. Apparently, no matter who was involved in this production, with horribly written material as the backbone, it was only a matter of time before the rest of the movie would begin to suffer.

Speaking of other areas that suffered in this movie, the acting in this film was laughable at best. Sole returning cast member Jean-Claude Van Damme was given far too many comedic moments (whether intentional or not) that his character didn’t even remotely feel like the same man from the original. I just have a hard time picturing the Luc Deveraux from the first film, whether an active UniSol or not, kicking and/or punching some bad guy, then spouting off some lame one-liner. Also, I guess no one noticed that in the first movie, Jean-Claude’s dialogue was kept to a minimum to disguise his thick accent that didn’t fit his namesake; however, in this film no such effort was made and his accent was a definite distraction.

As if the problems with Jean-Claude’s performance weren’t enough, the movie’s villains didn’t fare any better. Serving as the main antagonists to Jean-Claude are former WWE wrestler Bill Goldberg (“Half Past Dead 2”) and martial arts expert Michael Jai White (“Spawn”). Bill Goldberg must have been under the impression that the method of “acting” used in the WWE is the same for movies. Because every line he speaks or grunts or whatever, sounds as if he’s giving a sound bite from a cue card on “Monday Night Raw”. His lines all fall flat and his acting is so wooden that he makes Keanu Reeves look lively.

As for Michael Jai White, his fighting ability looks to be above reproach as he believably holds his own against the skills of Van Damme. As for his acting it’s not nearly as impressive in this film. I’ve seen him in other movies, and typically he turns in a solid performance, but like everything else in this abysmal film, his acting manages to fall well short of expectations and/or talent.

I feel fairly safe in saying that if given the opportunity, every single person associated with this movie would go back and undo the damage this movie did to the franchise, and potentially to their careers. This is especially true for Jean-Claude, who shortly after this film’s release began to see his movies making their way to Direct-to-DVD shelves everywhere. This movie is a prime example of what can happen when money talks more than quality, and the end result is nothing short of terrible.

Lastly, “Universal Soldier: The Return” is one of those rare films that will make you question your sanity for even bothering to finish the movie. Very few action films will make you long for the most brainless Direct-to-DVD efforts, but this one does its level best to do so.

“Universal Soldier: The Return” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity.

Halloween 2 (2009)

Well, it’s January again. Christmas time has come and gone, the New Year has begun, and what better way to start things off than with a deluge of horror films. At least that’s what Hollywood apparently believes. Apparently the annual January to February tradition for rentals is to make available the many horror films that were released to theaters the previous September and October. The most recent horror film from last year to be released was the not-so eagerly anticipated (at least by me) Rob Zombie sequel to his “Halloween” remake from 2007, the aptly titled “Halloween 2”.

“Halloween 2” finds Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor Compton) struggling to find some semblance of understanding as to why the masked monstrosity known as Michael Myers attacked her and her friends without provocation. Now, two years after that horrific night, the presumed dead Michael Myers has mysteriously returned to Haddonfield to finish what he started.

While watching this horrible creation spawned from the twisted mind of former rocker turned writer/director Rob Zombie, I was reminded yet again that this new remake driven “Halloween” franchise is nothing at all like its predecessor. For clarification, the fact that a remake-centric series is drastically different from the original is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case though, the bad far outweighs any good that one could possibly gleam from the first two entries into the new franchise.

For starters, the initial remake in 2007 was a twisted amalgamation of depravity, sadism, and gratuitous sex and gore that shared only a slight resemblance to the John Carpenter classic to which it was supposedly paying homage. Not only did it have all that working against it, but it also tried to create a sense of empathy for Michael Myers, and I for one do not want to feel sorry for or understand him. I preferred the Michael that was more mysterious and ultimately less savage than what we find in this series. So, with the initial movie, this series of “Halloween” films was already off to a bad start and with “Halloween 2” the quality appears to have suffered even more.

In the sequel, everything that was sick and twisted about the first film is taken even further in this entry. The gore is even more grotesque and pervasive, the characters are even more morally bankrupt, and the unbridled savagery of Michael is taken to an all-time low for either series. Essentially, there are no redeemable aspects to find within this movie, except (and this is a stretch) it does attempt to bring a resolution to the story that was started in the previous film… oh, and the fact that the movie ends (that was my favorite part of the experience).

Now, this is not to say that the original series was brilliant filmmaking or a treasure trove of movie goodness, but it never once sank to the depths of darkness and despair that has consumed this newest franchise. The aspects that made the original John Carpenter classic so intriguing were as follows: Michael was a mystery to the audience, the story constantly kept a steady pace, the characters were moderately interesting, and whenever an attack were about to occur the suspense was so palpable that it could be cut with a knife.

With Rob Zombie’s revisionist look at the series all the suspense has been stripped away and replaced with an in your face approach that leaves nothing to the imagination and excessive gore that rivals the “Saw” franchise. The plot plods along at a meandering pace for much of the time. For example, how many times must we be shown Michael just walking around? I get it, the man doesn’t really drive or run anywhere he goes, he has to walk, point taken. Then, there’s the odd psychological elements included in the movie that are more distracting than illuminating. The intentions of these scenes is to give us some insight into Michael’s inner psyche; however, the scenes come off as being an amateurish and pathetic attempt to make the movie seem smarter than it could ever hope to be.

Honestly, these film work best when less time is spent on explaining the reasoning and driving forces for these villains. If Zombie would have paid better attention, the original franchise went south when the writers started trying to explore what made Michael tick, rather than just leave his story be with what was revealed about his and Laurie’s connection in the second film. This movie’s running time of nearly two hours could have been trimmed down by at least 30 minutes had we removed all the unnecessary walking bits or the nonsensical, ponderous moments showcasing Michael’s inner neurosis.

Another oddity to me is the fact that the characters swear with almost every other word that is spoken. I know that they’re supposed to be teenagers, some of which have survived some decidedly grisly events, but I think one would be hard-pressed to find any true teenager that has a vocabulary so limited that cuss words are used for the majority of their adjectives, verbs, and so on. To me, I think Rob Zombie takes the approach when making a movie that he is going to take every aspect to the extreme even if it sacrifices realism and/or becomes irritating and disrupts the flow of the movie. Either that or this is an example of just how limited his vocabulary truly is. Who knows?

Now, that I feel I have sufficiently torn into the bulk of the film and its shortcomings, let’s discuss the cast for a moment. Out of the entire film, the primary cast members are the only elements that can receive even a glimmer of praise.

Leading the cast is Scout Taylor Compton reprising her role as Laurie Strode. Scout does a passable job of trying to keep Laurie grounded without going too overboard in the hysterics while coping with her nightmarish memories. Although, she does go a little crazy in a few scenes and out of the entire cast she is the primary culprit for using expletives incessantly. As I pointed out above, the constant battery of four letter words does begin to distract. Not to mention, take away from the proceedings, plus making Laurie seem uneducated due to such a restricted vocabulary.

The supporting cast is essentially comprised of the other survivors from the previous movie. Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Sam Loomis, who was one of the best parts of the previous film, is flat-out irritating in this installment. For whatever reason Loomis is now a glory seeking media hound who is trying to find his fame by capitalizing on Michael’s murderous rage. Previously, Loomis was a sympathetic character who only wanted to help Michael and then stop him in the end due to his feeling responsible for his continued existence (much the same way as Donald Pleasence’s version of Loomis had done). However, in this film, there is only the slightest glimmer of that Dr. Loomis lurking within, and what has replaced him is a narcissistic man who lives solely for the limelight. Despite this change in character, Malcolm does handle this new Loomis very well and makes his purported self-importance believable in every scene.

Rounding out the supporting cast is Brad Dourif and Danielle Harris as Sheriff Brackett and his daughter Annie, respectively. Neither of these two characters really got to do all that much in this film. Both were much more involved in the previous movie, but this time around were relegated to the background and only popping up to provide some arguably questionable moral support for Laurie.

Lastly, Rob Zombie’s wife, Sheri Moon Zombie, does appear several times throughout the film, mainly during the moments spotlighting Michael’s inner thoughts. Her performance was fairly one-note, nowhere nearly as emotional or intriguing as she had been in the previous film. Plus, her scenes in this movie were some of the most boring and drawn out in the entire film. Her character would have been better off left in the sole flashback sequence seen at the beginning of the movie, as this was the most engaging moment for her character.

Not that this is necessary, but in summation, this movie is an absolutely dreadful piece of cinematic garbage that should have remained in the recesses of Rob Zombie’s twisted imagination. Containing only scant moments of interest yet filled to the brim with unreasonable amounts of gore, violence, and language. “Halloween 2” is by far one of the worst films ever created for any genre, and that’s saying a lot.

“Halloween 2” is available in rated R and unrated editions; both contain pervasive violence, language, and nudity.

88 Minutes

I feel fairly confident in stating that veteran actor Al Pacino (“The Godfather” trilogy, “Any Given Sunday”, “Serpico”) is easily one of the greatest actors ever to appear on the silver screen. With that being said, is it just me or is anyone else scratching their head over one of Al’s recent releases, the supposed thriller “88 Minutes”, which has become the worst reviewed movie of Pacino’s illustrious career. If you haven’t seen the movie yet, once you do I’m sure you’ll join me and many others in wondering, “Why does a man as successful as Al Pacino debase himself by starring in this piece of cinematic garbage?”

“88 Minutes” follows one extremely stressful day in the life of forensic psychologist Jack Gramm (Al Pacino) as he receives a threatening phone call claiming that he only has 88 minutes to live (hence the name). To make things worse, a killer is leaving a trail of bodies that just so happen to be friends/colleagues or students of Gramm’s. Now, suspicions are on the rise that Jack may have snapped; all the while time is ticking away for Jack to discover who is committing these murders, which of his colleagues and/or students may be killed next, and most important of all, how he can survive the following 88 minutes of his day.

So, after viewing this less than thrilling thriller, which for some reason lasted nearly 20 minutes past the 88 minutes of story the movie actually has in store, I find myself pondering the question I posed a few moments ago, regarding Al’s questionable decision to star in such an obviously bad film that is nothing more than a pale imitation of a sub-par episode of any “CSI” or “Law and Order” series. Surely, the script read as poorly on paper as it sounded in the context of the movie. Well Al, can you answer my question or are you just as dumbfounded as the rest of us? That’s what I thought, you’re as dumbfounded by your decision to star in this garbage as we are (I felt like giving him the benefit of the doubt based on his numerous years of cinematic greatness that he has given us).

The story for “88 Minutes” holds promise early on, but by approximately 20 to 30 minutes into the film one quickly realizes that things are beginning to go awry and soon after that the material completely spirals out of control amidst a mess of more red herrings than an entire season of Scooby-Doo, a cornucopia of continuity errors, and impossible coincidences that are too obvious to ignore. Writer Gary Scott Thompson (TV’s “Las Vegas”) is not exactly a stranger to compelling drama, but for some reason he wasn’t able to squeeze any out of his script for this movie. I think the concept for the movie sounded good on paper, but when trying to flesh out the script Thompson most likely realized that the concept wouldn’t be able to hold up without relying on absurd coincidences. I believe Thompson, in an attempt to somewhat disguise the over-reliance on coincidences that are completely improbable, chose to introduce as many red herrings as he possibly could, to the point that as a viewer you eventually lose track of which ones you’ve eliminated as possible suspects and you just take a shot in the dark regarding who the guilty party may be. Whatever the case may actually be, one thing is for certain, the movie’s story is far too contrived and jumbled for any person to actually enjoy sitting through it from start to finish.

The continuity errors sprinkled all throughout “88 Minutes” could be attributed some to the writing, but in the end the director, Jon Avnet (“Righteous Kill”), does have control over what ones will be visible in the final product. This for me became a major distraction over the course of the movie; for instance, in one scene a car is shown vandalized, yet five to ten minutes later that very same vehicle is shown in completely pristine condition and the vandalism disappearing is never touched upon as being fixed and due to the 88 minute plot device, there was never any time for the car to be repaired, hence one major error that should have been caught on the set or in the script and wasn’t. One other example would be Al Pacino’s crazy hairstyle in this movie. I don’t normally pay too close of attention to an actor or actresses hair in a movie, but his was so odd and varying from moment to moment that it was hard to miss, and the hair seemed like it was almost alive and taking on a life all its own at times. Granted the former is a much bigger problem than the latter in terms of complaints about the movie; yet both serve as prime examples for a couple of instances where continuity was obviously ignored, and the problem permeated into almost every scene of the film.

Speaking of Al Pacino I normally enjoy his performances even in movies that aren’t always the greatest, he at least provides some semblance of entertainment. In this movie, Al seems hardly invested in the role, as if he’s just going through the motions to collect a paycheck that I hardly believe he was in such desperate need of to sign on to such a ridiculous project. Generally, in every Pacino movie there is a moment or two where Al kind of goes over-the-top, not to the point of bad acting, it’s just something you come to expect from him through his intense portrayal of his various roles, and in a way you kind of look forward to it; yet in this movie he maybe does it once, and not to the extent that any real intensity is conveyed. That lack of intensity gave me a clear indication of how little Al actually cared for the material he was being given to work with here.

Supporting Al’s uninspired performance were some fairly recognizable faces ranging from the always reliable character actor William Forsythe (“Gotti”), to former TV stars Amy Brenneman (“Judging Amy”) and Neil McDonough (“Boomtown”), to some of Hollywood’s obscure young talents Leelee Sobieski (“Joy Ride”) and Alicia Witt (“Urban Legend”). Most of the supporting cast was decent in their various roles, although Leelee Sobieski seemed a little forced in her performance, not feeling all that natural in her role as a student to Jack Gramm. Perhaps this was due to the fact that maybe she was aware of how ridiculous this movie actually was, I do not know, but whatever the reason, she just didn’t seem comfortable in her role from the moment her character was introduced.

What it all boils down to is this, “88 Minutes” is one of the worst movies, if not the worst movie of 2008, and by far is the worst movie in Al Pacino’s highly successful career. A poor story full of contrived plot points, inconsistencies, and a running time that doesn’t end soon enough, “88 Minutes” will have you bored and looking for the stop button long before the credits will begin to roll.

“88 Minutes” is rated R for violence and language.

Catwoman

If you have read some of my reviews for the recent crop of superhero movies, then you’ve figured out by now that I am a comic book fan. I have many different series’ that I read consistently month-to-month, so of course anytime a comic book adaptation is released as a feature film, I do my best to lend my support by either watching it in theaters or at least on DVD, that way if one of these films tank I can at least say that I gave my support. Nine times out of ten I enjoy the comic book movie that I go to see, there have been a couple of stinkers from the recent crop, the most notable horrible comic book adaptations, in my opinion, are Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez’s disjointed comic book adaptation “Sin City” and the lackluster, utter crap-fest adaptation of DC Comics’ “Catwoman” starring Halle Berry as the title character.

“Catwoman” is the story of graphic artist Patience Phillips (Halle Berry) who works for a cosmetic firm that is secretly making cosmetics that cause people to deteriorate and therefore, require more makeup from the same company. Patience discovers this plot and is ultimately killed for her discovery, only to be resurrected by cats. Her resurrection hasn’t come without some side effects though, as she now finds that she has an affinity for kitty litter, sleeping outside, increased agility, and an aversion to all things dog. Now tired of feeling beaten down, Patience will use some of her newfound attributes to strike back at not only those who have wronged her, but also take a few nice things from jewelry stores and such on the side. Quite the hero indeed (please note sarcasm).

Where to start, where to start? “Catwoman” is simply horrible, there is nothing in this movie that makes it worth watching, not even Halle Berry. The story is so completely simple and too stupid that it’s shocking that it ever made it into any kind of film. The characters are paper-thin, and the portion of the movie where Patience gains cat-like attributes is full of just really stupid stuff that the director and writer probably thought would be cool in the movie but comes off laughable, not to mention that the CGI effects work is the worst I have seen in quite some time. I watched the movie all the way through, hoping it would at some point become interesting, but it never does. For those not in the know, “Catwoman” is based on the popular character from DC Comics; she is a cat burglar with an obsession for all things feline (hence the name). She is commonly used as a villain for Batman and at the same time a lover of sorts for Batman. This movie pretty much ignores every connection to Batman, and Catwoman’s origins from the comics, which tells me that Warner Brothers knew that this movie had stinker written all over it and didn’t want to possibly taint their chances of reviving their once popular ‘Batman’ franchise in the years to come (which the WB succeeded in with the smash hit “Batman Begins”). To further convince me that this was in fact the case with “Catwoman”, there is not one single reference in this movie to Batman or any of his films, other than a barely seen picture of Michelle Pfieffer (she portrayed Catwoman in “Batman Returns”) in one scene.

As I said earlier the acting is horrible in this movie, which somewhat surprises me since the cast was comprised of rather talented actors and actresses from Academy Award winner Halle Berry (“X-Men”) to Benjamin Bratt (“Miss Congeniality”) to Sharon Stone (“Basic Instinct”). Maybe it was the fault of the director for why the performances are so overdone, of course the writer didn’t help, it’s obvious that the script didn’t give much to work with for any of the characters included in the movie, but still a little effort from the cast would have been nice. The biggest surprise to me, and I know to most critics and moviegoers, is that Halle Berry chose this film to follow up her Oscar winning performance in “Monster’s Ball”. Now some of you may try the excuse for Halle that she acted so poorly and basically hammed it up because it was a comic book movie, well I’d buy that if it wasn’t for the fact that she had already done three superior superhero films in the popular ‘X-Men’ trilogy, so there’s just no excusing her in this film.

Without a doubt the saddest thing about this entire movie is the fact that the best part of the film is when Patience finally settles on her final costume. You know the one I’m talking about, it’s the one that every guy has seen in the commercials or on the posters, and knows very well. It’s the bikini top, with shredded leather pants, and a crappy looking mask. When the big costume reveal is the best part of a superhero movie, and this is because the final version of the costume really shows off Halle’s “assets”, you know you have one of the worst comic book entries ever made and one that should either be scrapped or completely reworked.

When this movie is all over with and the audience is left wishing they could get the last 90 minutes of their lives back that the director has stolen from them, all that is left to say is that “Catwoman” is a terrible movie with a beautiful lead actress that should have known better than to say yes to this picture. I would not recommend watching this movie at all, not even if you do want to make fun of a movie, there are plenty of other bad movies that are still watchable that you can make fun of, this one is just not worth the jokes you could throw at it.

“Catwoman” is rated PG-13 for stylized violence, language, and sexuality.

The Dukes of Hazzard

What possesses a movie studio as powerful and respected as Warner Brothers to make a movie based on a classic, family-friendly TV show into a perverted, slap-stick ridden, raunch-fest of a comedy? What blows my mind is how could anyone at this studio truly believe that this movie would be a good idea? Who knows, but obviously someone thought it was movie-gold and that’s why we are treated with this utter crap-fest starring raunchy comedians Seann William Scott (‘American Pie Trilogy’ and “The Rundown”) and Johnny Knoxville (MTV’s “Jackass” and “Men In Black 2″), along with country legend Willie Nelson, and sexy siren Jessica Simpson, known as “The Dukes of Hazzard”.

“The Dukes of Hazzard” follows the raunchy, dimwitted exploits of cousins Bo (Seann William Scott) and Luke (Johnny Knoxville) Duke. Throughout their escapades, the cousins stumble upon a dastardly plot by the county’s evil commissioner, Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds), who seeks to level numerous farms in Hazzard County to begin a coal mining operation. Discovering that their family farm is on the chopping block, the Dukes along with Daisy (Jessica Simpson) and Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson) attempt to thwart this evil from occurring and become the town’s heroes instead of zeroes.

There are so many ways to describe just how bad this movie is, lets take a moment to list some of those ways. Well, it’s a boring, idiotic, utterly perverted, not even that funny, waste of time. After watching this movie I felt like I was dumber from the experience. The humorous elements, what little there was, come not from the two lead actors, but from Jessica Simpson’s Daisy Duke. Out of the entire cast, not only is she the most attractive, but also the funniest, though to be fair I must admit that I’m probably being overly kind to her on account of her sex appeal.

There is very little about this movie that can even be deemed as entertaining. It is evident that the director and the movie studio didn’t set out to do an accurate adaptation of the classic TV show, but instead to make just another raunchy, teen comedy (except they forget to include the comedy). The story is so paper thin that you almost find yourself trying to think of ways that you could have made the movie better than those behind the camera. The only purpose the story in “The Dukes of Hazzard” has is to serve as a vehicle to get from one crude joke or sight gag to the next with minimal fuss, or to give a close up of Jessica Simpson and her “short” shorts (not that I’m complaining about that), or to just show the car from time to time; otherwise, the story didn’t have any purpose whatsoever.

So, in the end, if I was unable to convince you of just how crappy this movie truly is, and you still want to watch it. Then by all means, knock yourself out, and after completing the movie you may want to seek help, because you may need it to clear the experience from your mind, and hopefully gain a few IQ points back.

“The Dukes of Hazzard” is available in rated PG-13 and unrated editions, both contain violence, language, and brief nudity/sexuality.

Perfect Stranger

Every year you’re pretty much guaranteed that Hollywood will release at least 1 or 2 movies that make you wonder, what were they thinking? Sometimes the film has a really good cast and no story, sometimes it’s the other way around, and then there are those times when nothing in the movie works and it really makes one question the logic in releasing the movie. I for one hadn’t seen a movie like that in a little while, that is, until I watched the Halle Berry and Bruce Willis thriller “Perfect Stranger”.

“Perfect Stranger” is essentially a story of deception and lies, and how nothing is ever what it seems. When a high-profile advertising executive (Bruce Willis) has an affair that appears to end in the woman’s murder, her friend Rowena (Halle Berry), who just so happens to conveniently be an investigative reporter, begins looking into the murder. Rowena believes that the ad exec is the most probable perpetrator of the crime, but he keeps himself so well guarded that there’s no easy way to get access to him. So, using her good looks, charm, and investigative skills, Rowena hatches a plan to get close to the exec by any means necessary to bring her friend’s killer to justice.

“Perfect Stranger” is the kind of movie that seemed to hold a decent amount of promise, and I must admit that from the previews I thought that this would actually be a really solid thriller. But sometimes, much like the basic theme of the movie, appearances can be deceiving, because not only was this movie not all that thrilling, but the story was rather blah. It didn’t seem to contain a whole lot of substance, sure there were numerous plot twists that were intended to keep the audience enthralled and guessing as to what would come next, but not much else was going on. As a result, the twists (which were the only parts of the story worth paying attention to) left audiences with a feeling that each one was either a convenient plot device to push things in the right direction, or in the case of the final twist in the movie near the end, just a cheap attempt at surprising the audience with the unexpected, regardless of the fact that it didn’t really fit in with the rest of the movie.

Though the movie’s story was lacking in depth and plausibility, and heavy on coincidence (which isn’t always detrimental to a film’s success, but it was here), it did boast two very good actors with Bruce Willis (‘Die Hard’ series) and Halle Berry (‘X-Men’ trilogy) in the lead roles. Numerous times Bruce Willis has made some not so hot choices in terms of movie roles he’s taken, (“The Fifth Element” is a good example), but he’s been on a fairly decent streak lately with hits such as, “16 Blocks” and “Hostage”, so I can cut him some slack. In the case of Halle Berry, she has also been on a decent hit streak of late with the ‘X-Men’ films and her turn as a Bond girl in “007: Die Another Day”, but this Oscar winner is also the woman who made the stupid decision to star in the movie “Catwoman”, so it’s hard to say what she was thinking when she took this role. I would like to think that both of these two really solid actors were simply picking up a paycheck with this movie, basically wanting to fill some time in their schedule, and not really paying much attention to the story of the film. Because if these two actually thought that the story for “Perfect Stranger” was truly interesting after reading the script, I’ve really got to question their decision making capabilities, but like I said earlier I already do question Halle’s just a little bit for making “Catwoman” (I know, I should let it go).

What it all boils down to is that “Perfect Stranger”, though it looked appealing from the trailers, was nothing more than a letdown of a movie. Featuring numerous convoluted plot twists that were way too convenient and flat-out annoying without adding any interest to the movie, and a rather boring story that failed to take off.

“Perfect Stranger” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.