Halloween 2

Three years after director John Carpenter’s low-budget horror film “Halloween” debuted in theaters, taking both Hollywood and audiences by surprise; the masked killer, Michael Myers, was back and ready to take another stab at the one that got away.

“Halloween 2” picks up immediately where the first film ended. Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) has just lived through one of the most traumatic nights of her life and believes herself to be safe from any further harm. Sometimes though, appearances can be deceiving. For even though Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) shot Laurie’s would-be killer Michael Myers numerous times; somehow, the masked lunatic survived and managed to evade capture by the authorities. Now, as Laurie is taken to the local hospital, her seemingly unstoppable predator patiently bides his time, just waiting for the perfect moment to strike. With only Dr. Loomis and a handful of police officers and hospital workers standing between Michael and his quarry, Laurie’s night of terror may have only just begun.

I’ve heard it said many times in regards to the plethora of horror franchises, “This series (insert horror franchise of choice) would have been better off if it would have ended after number one.” Generally speaking this statement is fairly accurate. In fact, we could look at numerous horror franchises, and even some from other genres, to which this would apply. However, I will spare you my picks for that rather lengthy list, in order to discuss whether or not the burgeoning ‘Halloween’ franchise has been doomed to a place therein.

Penned by the returning writing and producing duo of John Carpenter and Debra Hill, the film takes us through the remaining hours of that terrifying night depicted in the original. Carpenter and Hill do their level best to retain that special something that made their first movie’s story work so well. Yet, despite their best efforts the film never really seems to grab hold in the way its predecessor did.

The dialogue was stronger in some places, but still suffered from an over-abundance of clichés (which now seems to be a horror movie tradition) and several moments of blandness. While the dialogue was somewhat improved, the suspenseful nature of the original was almost nowhere to be found, much to the chagrin of many a fan. Lastly, there is the obvious lack of character development that runs more or less across the board. This oversight in the story actually surprised me given that franchise originator John Carpenter co-wrote the script. I expected him of all people to continue trying to expand upon the characters he had created. Oddly enough, one of the characters that received some development (albeit ever so briefly touched upon and clumsily handled) is the killer himself, Michael Myers. Aside from that brief moment for Michael, character development was quite scant, and didn’t really seem to occur at all until the final half-hour or so of the movie.

Perhaps these problems were a result of the fact that John Carpenter has admitted on several occasions that he hadn’t really planned ahead for a second installment, and that he only intended to make just the one film. Although, to be honest his excuse has always seemed a little hard to believe when one considers the wide open ending of “Halloween”. Anyways, maybe there is some truth in his words, because it’s possible that John hadn’t really considered continuing the series beyond the first movie, and that any potential sequels were expected to be handled by someone else in every respect. If you think about it, crafting a story that follows a successful movie cannot be an easy task, no matter how talented the screenwriter may be. To make matters worse, having a screenplay that runs into a severe snag approximately halfway through the film isn’t exactly a confidence booster either.

Case in point, when the writer of a story, or in this case a screenplay, realizes that they do not have an ending for their narrative, this typically means that the movie should be a no-go. Yet, in this rare instance, the lack of resolution presented the screenwriters with a chance to deliver a surprising revelation that would provide the plot with a satisfying conclusion. The revelation, although ostracizing to some fans of the original due to the affect it had on the previous film’s story, resulted in the series having a much more intimate overall storyline than it would have had otherwise.

As for the film’s director, Rick Rosenthal was placed in the unenviable position of helming a follow-up to the very film that by all accounts created the sub-genre the series now exists within. To Rick’s credit he tried to recapture the look and feel of the first film via the use of long tracking shots throughout the various locales in the film, and numerous times placed us once more into the shoes of Michael Myers. For the most part, Rick did an admirable job, and it is during those times, listed a moment ago, that the movie really starts to work. However, even during this movie’s stronger moments there are still two key elements to the first film’s success that were noticeably absent from this one’s visual style.

First, there was the lack of subtlety in the scares and/or death scenes. The first film relied heavily on shadows and implication during these moments. By not showing as much of what was happening within the scene, the audience was then forced to imagine the events based on their sounds and shadows moving; thus, the audience’s own imaginations and fears could take over resulting in potentially bigger scares. As I said, with “Halloween 2” the subtlety is essentially gone; in its place, a higher body count and much more gore. Supposedly, the stylistic exchange of more gore for subtlety was a result of re-shoots courtesy of John Carpenter who reportedly wanted the film to be able to go toe-to-toe with its slasher film competition. Whatever the case may be, I feel the decision was detrimental to the end result. Frankly, I’m surprised that John Carpenter didn’t see that flaw in the decision himself.

The second stylistic element that was lacking, although “changed” is probably a more accurate wording, was having Michael Myers extremely visible throughout the entirety of the film. In the original, we had glimpses of Michael for a majority of the time, and were shown more of him near the end. Despite the fact that we already knowing what he looks like, that didn’t mean he needed to be more out in the open. Much of the fear Michael’s character evoked was a result of him sticking predominantly to the shadows. Once that factor is removed he was no longer as mysterious, or even frightening for that matter; instead, he was just another masked man with a knife trying to kill this one young woman that got away.

Speaking of the one that got away, Jamie Lee Curtis was made into a star with her portrayal of would-be victim Laurie Strode. Her performance in the original film was so much more mature than one would usually expect from a horror film character. Of course, the role made such a strong connection with the audience due to the surprising amount of character development that occurred over the course of the movie, a trait that is generally unheard of in horror. However, in this installment, Jamie’s character is reduced to nothing more than a nearly catatonic zombie; effectively wasting her talents as an actress, while doing virtually nothing to enhance the character of Laurie Strode and her involvement in the series. Honestly, it almost seemed as if Jamie was included in the film in order to ensure some star power to attract audiences and nothing else.

Once again leading the supporting cast members is Donald Pleasence as Michael’s former shrink Dr. Loomis. In the last film, Donald received nearly as much screen time and character development as Jamie Lee; thankfully, that was not the case here (in terms of character development, that is). The character of Dr. Loomis appeared to be stalling in terms of his development early on in the film, and for a moment Donald Pleasence looked as if he too was going to be another wasted talent in this picture. However, unlike with Jamie Lee, Loomis’ role became much more intriguing once the big revelation occurred within the story, and his obsession to stop Michael once and for all really kicked into high gear. Within the movie’s final half-hour Donald really began to sink his teeth into the role of Loomis, and the change in his character’s resolve and demeanor were very well conveyed throughout the closing moments of his performance.

The other supporting characters share many of the same attributes as their predecessors from the original; the only big difference is that this time most of the characters are in their early twenties to thirties rather than teenagers. That being said, their age doesn’t appear to have resulted in maturity for most of them. For instance, Leo Rossi’s (“Relentless”) character only seems to exist in the movie to fulfill the role of the horny teenager, but as an adult. Then, there’s Pamela Shoop who seems to have slightly more going on upstairs than Leo Rossi’s character, but not by much. Her role is to provide the obligatory, and completely gratuitous, nude scene so that young teenage males watching the movie won’t be disappointed. Lastly, there’s Lance Guest (“The Last Starfighter”) who aside from Jamie Lee appears to be the youngest member of the main cast of characters. Lance doesn’t give much of a noteworthy performance, but he is clearly trying to make his character more interesting than just a carbon copy of what’s come before. Overall, the supporting cast, Donald Pleasence excluded, were as pointless in their existence as those of the original and maybe even more so.

It was quite clear from the get-go that this particular follow-up was not going to come anywhere close to matching the quality of “Halloween”. While the movie is plagued by more problems than the first film; there were still moments where it did shine (mostly when it was emulating the stronger elements of its predecessor). In the end, “Halloween 2” is a below average sequel that doesn’t completely doom the series, but any more problems and it would have been a different story.

“Halloween 2” is rated R for violence, language, and nudity/sexuality.

Twilight

The summer of 2008 was easily dominated by movies filled with testosterone, as is most often the case for movies that are released during that lucrative time of year. So if the summer belonged to the guys (which it did), then the fall and winter easily belonged to the girls, as one of the top ten highest grossing films of the year, “Twilight”, took massive bites out of the box office for weeks on end.

“Twilight” focuses on a young woman, Bella (Kristen Stewart), who moves to a small town in Washington to live with her father (Billy Burke). Upon her arrival she quickly catches the eye of the mysterious Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), who just so happens to be a vampire living secretly among humanity. As Bella and Edward grow closer and closer together, a faction of evil vampires take notice of Bella and hunger to make her their next meal.

Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the last six months or so, then you have undoubtedly heard of either the film “Twilight” or the book of the same name on which the movie was based. The book, which is the first of four in a series, is a bestseller that many young teenage girls and adult women have become nearly obsessed with, and the subsequent release of the film adaptation for this book added even more chaos to the frenzy. As with all film adaptations of beloved novels, the movie stands little chance of measuring up to the detail, subtle nuances, character and plot development, and overall richness of the written version. However, most film adaptations do succeed in capturing some of the items listed above in some form or another, so that the core fan base can enjoy and hopefully supply plenty of revenue in the process. Generally speaking, the screenwriters, directors, and actors giving new life to these adaptations do their level best to also ensure that those members of the audience that are perhaps unfamiliar with the story will not be lost in the shuffle or feel that the film is lacking in some way. In this respect, I feel that “Twilight” failed to impress, at least in this viewer’s opinion.

The screenplay as written by Melissa Rosenberg (“Step Up”), and based on the New York Times best-selling novel from Stephanie Meyer, appears to take the basic elements contained within the novel and adds very little effort in transferring them over to the big screen. By this I mean it felt to me (speaking as one who has not read any of the novels) like the writer assumed that certain aspects of the characters relationships, personal quirks, or plot points in general would be understood with very little exposition being given, because the audience would be predominantly made up of fans of the books. This was an ill-conceived notion in my estimation, and one that caused me several moments of confusion throughout the story where events or a character’s actions didn’t seem to really add up. Over time it began to dawn on me, plus the fact that my wife explained it to me, that whenever an aspect of the story wasn’t making as much sense to me, it made perfect sense to her because she knew of the explanation that was contained within the novel. To me if a movie is to be adapted from a book, comic book or otherwise, it needs to take the necessary amount of time to fully explain certain inexplicable actions, events, or whatever the case may be to those not in the know. But I digress.

In regards to the rest of the screenplay, barring all of the under-developed aspects, I thought the entire film was poorly written and at times borderline cringe-inducing. The love story aspect, which one person had informed me was barely evident in the film (this was not the case), was extremely heavy-handed, and lacking in any sense of subtlety. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue surrounding this aspect of the story was almost as insufferable as watching any given episode of a soap opera or any of the plethora of teenage romantic dramas one can find on the CW network. Also, if an actor’s or actress’s character’s name wasn’t Edward or Bella, then very little time if any was devoted to developing them beyond one or two personality quirks brought over from the books and a few moments of screen time. I understand that this film is all about Edward and Bella and their blossoming relationship; however, the supporting characters, whether good or bad, should be given more to do than just pop-up here and there, offering little to the overall story.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I do fully understand that this film, and the series of books on which these films are to be based, are intended for teenagers, primarily females. However, I would have thought that even then the writing would be much more refined and developed than what I found in this film. According to my wife, and several others I’ve talked to, the books are well-written, fast-moving pieces of fiction. In that case, I can only come to the conclusion that the screenwriter was to blame for the horrible nature of the story, and if that is true, I hold out very little hope for the future installments if Melissa Rosenberg remains the sole screenwriter.

As for the actors and actresses portraying these coveted characters the performances were universally underwhelming, with not a single stand-out amongst the group. In the lead roles, Kristen Stewart (“The Messengers”) and Robert Pattinson (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix”) appeared bored and wooden, respectively. For a young starlet in such a high-profile role, I would have thought that Kristen would have attempted to bring some semblance of emotional range or at least an interest in the role; however, all I ever felt when watching her portrayal was that she would rather be anywhere except in the movie. Then there is Robert Pattinson whose performance gives even the much maligned Hayden Christensen a run for the money in terms of stiffness and general lack of anything resembling an acting talent. Personally I wondered how either of the two leads in this movie managed to make it through the casting process given their end results on the screen. However, based on the box office numbers and fan hysteria surrounding the film, I would say my opinion on the matter falls somewhere in the minority.

The supporting cast members as I stated a moment ago were generally uninspiring in their performances as well. Portraying the leader of the evil vampires is actor Cam Gigandet (“Never Back Down”). Unfortunately for Cam, and the other two members of his posse in the film, with characters as thinly developed and underutilized as these, you’ll be lucky to enjoy an enduring career in a business as fickle as the movies. For these characters the fact that they are bad is established through a couple of moments of stalking, a minor altercation or two with some of the town’s folk, and just an overall creepy demeanor. Their characters served as another prime example in how this film’s screenplay lacked in any form of subtlety.

Rounding out the primary players of note (if one can consider them that) are actors Billy Burke (“Untraceable”) and Peter Facinelli (“Hollow Man 2”). Both of these actors are decent enough, and have appeared in several television shows and movies, generally in smaller roles, but they can be relied upon to deliver a solid performance nonetheless. In this film, Billy Burke’s character of Bella’s father appears sporadically throughout the story, and aside from providing the necessary plot device enabling Bella’s presence in this town, he serves no other real purpose. As for Peter Facinelli who portrays the surrogate father to all the “good” vampires living in the sleepy little town, he isn’t given much more to do than offer a few tidbits of common sense that the characters should have already known or sage advice on surviving altercations with the evil vampires.

Lastly, the direction of this film, as handled by Catherine Hardwicke (“Lords of Dogtown”), was merely average at best. The direction wasn’t without its fair share of problems though, and Catherine’s lack of experience with visual effects and more fantastical elements was very apparent. Due to her disadvantage in this area, I feel that she settled on some shots that looked horrid rather than working the problem to better improve them, especially shots involving the vampires using their strength and speed. For the majority of the time when a vampire was moving very quickly the effect employed (kind of a blurring of the actor or something similar to that) would look extremely odd, and instead of making the character appear to move faster they looked slower. Basically, the effects sequences used in the film were detrimental to the end result almost every single time. Of course, Catherine’s very straight-forward, nothing too fancy or flashy camera style didn’t benefit this movie either. With a film like this you expect more grandiose camera maneuvers or tricks; instead she shot it more like a small budget indie film. Which isn’t surprising given that independent film is the world of cinema that she hails from; however, I believe that it’s not a good fit for a movie of this size.

In the end, I found very little to praise in this film, and when one only enjoys approximately 20 minutes out of a nearly two hour running time, it’s to be expected. I know “Twilight” did excellent at the box office, and has struck a chord with many moviegoers, but for me the laughable script, stilted acting, dull sense of direction, and poorly chosen visual effects made this one movie experience that I do not want to endure again.

“Twilight” is rated PG-13 for violence and brief language.

Righteous Kill

What happens when someone in Hollywood gets a great idea, but the execution of said idea becomes mismanaged, resulting in an essentially half-hearted attempt at a movie? Well, one could say that the outcome would resemble something similar to the mind-numbingly formulaic, contrived, and completely devoid of any thrills thriller known as “Righteous Kill” starring screen legends Robert DeNiro (“Goodfellas”) and Al Pacino (“The Godfather” trilogy).

“Righteous Kill” centers upon two detectives, “Turk” (Robert DeNiro) and “Rooster” (Al Pacino), longtime partners within the NYPD for over 30 years. For these two decorated officers the streets shouldn’t be able to offer them any new surprises; that is until several known criminals begin getting murdered by an alleged vigilante. To make matters worse, the dead bodies are all tied to cases the pair had solved over their many years on the force, prompting many in the department to wonder if one of their own has gone over the edge.

Prior to viewing this film I began to notice some rather strange omissions from the trailers preceding the impending release upon DVD and Blu-ray. Namely, the lack of any critical praise being thrown about; of course, this makes perfect sense given that a vast majority of film critics blasted the movie to pieces. With a growing sense that perhaps this movie is as lackluster as the critics had said it was, I found that my eagerness to see it was waning significantly. Yet, like a glutton for punishment I decided to sit down one night to see it for myself, because even though the movie was almost universally panned, I still like to make my own judgments about a film. Needless to say, after watching “Righteous Kill” I find myself in complete agreement with the majority of the critics, and wondering why on Earth did this film ever see the light of day, let alone find its way into the hands of two of Hollywood’s icons?

To attempt to understand where this film went wrong we must first look at the base on which the film stands… the screenplay. Next to the involvement of actors Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, the other big surprise surrounding this film was the fact that the script was written by the man who penned the outstanding heist film “Inside Man”, writer Russell Gewirtz. After crafting such an entertaining thriller full of twists and turns and originality, I’m surprised that Gewirtz’s follow-up would essentially embody the antithesis of all that was great about his previous script. With “Righteous Kill” there is nary a hint of originality, in place of that is an abundance of predictability that causes all of the potential twists and turns that the story will no doubt throw at the audience to fail due to the sheer obviousness of the proceedings.

On top of that is the fact that the only way any sense of suspense was created in this film was through a contrived plot device where several of the characters are referred to solely by their nicknames. This way the viewer doesn’t know who is really who until the final moments of the film. It is this manufactured form of suspense that made me feel especially disappointed for two reasons. One, I can’t think of a single person whose nickname is the only name by which they are called; and second, if Russell Gewirtz didn’t want certain people’s identities being truly known until the end, there are much more natural ways to achieve this. For instance, many people don’t even refer to someone by name when talking to them, especially if they are very familiar with them. So, in the movie the nickname device could have still been used in conjunction with just casual conversation where no names are ever mentioned. This way the dialogue could still feel natural, and the unknown identities would still be a form of manufactured suspense, but one far less obvious and annoying.

Now lets move on to the director of this travesty, the much maligned (by me, that is) Jon Avnet, director of the abominable “88 Minutes”. From what I have been able to gather after watching Jon’s last two attempts at feature films, if it weren’t for the surprisingly talented cast members he is able to ensnare, his films would most likely wind up on rental shelves or never even see the light of day in the first place. I find myself completely surprised that this man is able to get such high-caliber actors and actresses to flesh out his roles. Granted his track record of television shows (“Boomtown” for instance) is a bit more impressive, even if his shows haven’t been the longest lasting, at least they were compelling; and it is conceivable that news of the utter crap-fest that was “88 Minutes” was not made known until after it was too late and those involved in this film were already signed. With those two thoughts in mind, they may serve as an explanation as to why Pacino and DeNiro would even consider joining up with such a hack director; although Pacino by all rights should have already figured out that this guy didn’t have a clue after his time spent headlining the previous film. Whatever the case may be for why this man still has work coming to him in Hollywood, from my perspective he’s had his first and second chances, and massively blown them both, so I can’t understand why he isn’t just shown the door or at least his way onto the B-list, a.k.a. the Direct-to-DVD list.

As I stated before, the biggest surprise of all surrounding this movie, was the involvement of Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino. The last time these two screen legends had acted opposite each other was in the superbly crafted “Heat” from director Michael Mann. Here we are 13 years later, and what should have been one of the greatest Hollywood reunions of all time, is wasted in a movie that is well below their considerable talents. Although some could argue that neither actor has been at the top of their game in quite some time; I still believed that their common sense would have told them to run away from this mess before it is too late. But I guess I would have been wrong on that count. Which leads me to wonder if these two acting giants have lost the drive that once made them such forces to be reckoned with, and is it too late for them to reclaim what they appear to have lost?

I will say that even though this film is well below the standards of their prime, both Pacino and DeNiro did give decent performances. However, I would have to say that neither one seemed too committed to their respective role, but at least they weren’t just overtly going through the motions without a care, as they have done in some of their recent work (i.e. “88 Minutes”). Joining them we have actress Carla Gugino (“Sin City”) who serves the purpose of being nothing more than the eye candy of the film. Her role doesn’t really offer anything to the proceedings, and the one point in the story when it seems her character may have some relevance after all, is squandered in the end. Other supporting cast members include Donnie Wahlberg (“Saw 2”) and John Leguizamo (“The Happening”) as two other police officers with ties to some of the various criminals being murdered. I’m sure their characters were intended to serve as compelling antagonists to Pacino and DeNiro’s, but in the end both of them appear as bland and uninspired as the rest of the production, despite the efforts of Leguizamo and Wahlberg. Lastly, Brian Dennehy appears in a thankless role so small that it is almost relegated to cameo status as the boss/friend of “Turk” and “Rooster”. Brian Dennehy is a talented actor who has always managed to entertain no matter the role; yet in this film even he can’t make a miracle happen and his choice for signing onto this project seems just as bewildering as the two leads.

It’s a shame that such a large amount of talent was wasted on such a generic movie as “Righteous Kill”, and truth be told had the star power associated with this film not been involved, I have no doubt that most people never would have heard of the movie and it would have found its way directly on to rental shelves instead of in theaters. Now, if you have not seen a mystery/thriller or any kind of cop movie or television program, then perhaps you will find “Righteous Kill” to be outstanding; however, if you have seen any of the aforementioned, then you will most likely find this film to be just as dull and boring as I did.

“Righteous Kill” is rated R for violence, language, and sexuality.

Batman & Robin

What happens when a film franchise starts off with a massive success, follows that up with a smaller, somewhat unfocused sequel alienating some moviegoers, then comes back with a completely different tone, actors, director, etc., all of which leaves the movie studio (Warner Brothers in this instance) believing that lighter, more family friendly fare may be the way to go? Well, in the case of the once successful Batman franchise, the end result of this chain of events is the utterly campy, ridiculously acted, slap-in-the-face to the comic book fans, excuse of a movie titled “Batman & Robin”.

“Batman & Robin” follows the Dynamic Duo (George Clooney as Batman and Chris O’Donnell as Robin) on yet another adventure as they must take on the villainous pair of Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman). With Mr. Freeze attempting to freeze all of Gotham City’s population to death so that Poison Ivy can remake the city in a more Earth-friendly image, Batman and Robin, along with newcomer Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) joining the Bat-family, must work together as only a family can, in order to save Gotham City’s citizens before time runs out.

Where to begin? This is a tough one for me to determine a good starting point for my critique portion of the review, mostly because the movie is just so horrible, with very few good points, that I find myself unsure of what to criticize first. Oh well, let’s just take the plunge and see what happens.

First we have the story, written once again by screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (“Batman Forever”), which is one of the campiest, lamest one-liner ridden, with the cheesiest action scenes, little to no drama, and poorly acted, pieces of comic book garbage that I have seen come out of Hollywood since either “Superman 3” or “Howard the Duck”. The plot is the thinnest of all of the four Batman films in the franchise, leaving me to wonder if Akiva didn’t really feel all that into writing this installment and perhaps allowed a child to do most of the work for him, that’s how low the quality is for the overall story in this movie. I thought perhaps given the tone of the previous film being so much lighter than the first two movies in the series that perhaps the franchise was heading into the direction of the 60’s television series, but I held onto hope that no one wanted to see that again; apparently I was way wrong. Now, I can’t blame the writer completely for the lighter direction this franchise took with this last installment (although I can blame him for how horribly it was written); apparently Warner Brothers felt that because with “Batman Returns” audiences complained about it being so dark and twisted, that with “Batman Forever” the tone needed to be much friendlier towards children and family audiences. So, due to the success that “Batman Forever” enjoyed, which was considerably more than that of “Batman Returns”, the WB decided that the fourth installment in the series needed to go even lighter, essentially making the movie funnier, more outlandish, and almost completely devoid of any semblance of drama, basically just recycle the 60’s television series with new actors and you’ll have the movie “Batman & Robin”.

The second set of problems that I had with “Batman & Robin” is with returning director Joel Schumacher (“Batman Forever”), who took everything that I didn’t enjoy about his previous effort, “Batman Forever”, and multiplied it by ten for this movie. For instance, in the previous movie, Schumacher used a lot of neon and bright colors to lighten up the movie’s atmosphere, which felt completely out of place in a Batman film; so, in “Batman & Robin” everything is brighter and utilizes tons of neon, to the point that it feels like every scene has some sort of neon color in it. Another issue I have with the director is that once more Joel chose to leave nipples on the costumes for Batman and Robin, and once again I say to this, “No nipples on the suits! Never in the history of the comic books or even in the really good film adaptations (which would exclude Joel’s attempts) have there been nipples on the costumes, there’s just no point to having them there!” My last major gripe with Joel Schumacher’s direction was that the action scenes were so phony and cheesy that I had to roll my eyes as I watched some of the absolutely ridiculous things both the heroes and villains do in this movie. Every stunt has the feel of obvious wire work, and not very good wire work at that, and all of the fight choreography is so telegraphed that you can see what’s coming a mile away! One last thing regarding the stunts, whoever decided to have Robin’s motorcycle bust through a wall leaving a hole in the shape of the Robin symbol really should be slapped (and I’m thinking the guilty party is you, Joel Schumacher), because that is so stupid, that even kids point at that moment and laugh at how ridiculous a stunt that is.

My third and final batch of complaints must be aimed at the cast of “Batman & Robin”, all of which act as if Jim Carrey had been their acting coach, or should I say “over-acting”. Now, I understand that given the lack of a decent script and questionable direction from the writer and director respectively, that the actors didn’t have a whole lot to make do with; however, this isn’t the first time a group of actors have had to make something out of nothing, and it’s been done successfully many times over, just not in this movie. George Clooney who hadn’t done very many feature films prior to this one, wasn’t the greatest actor at this point in his career (today he is much more accomplished at his craft), and without a doubt George gives the weakest performance as Batman within this franchise. Michael Keaton knew to establish Bruce Wayne and Batman as two discernible characters, the same with Val Kilmer in “Batman Forever”, but with George there was no distinguishing between Bruce Wayne and Batman other than the costume, because he played both sides to the character the exact same way. Chris O’Donnell was good as Robin, though not as interesting as he had been in the previous movie. This time around Robin seemed more like a spoiled brat than a superhero, which made Batman seem more like a nanny than the Caped Crusader. Michael Gough portrayed Alfred once more in this installment, and provided the only true source of drama for the entire movie, but even that aspect wasn’t executed near as well as it should have been.

With “Batman & Robin” we were also introduced to several new characters, none of which come close to capturing the true essence of what made those characters so great in the comics. Alicia Silverstone (“Clueless”) as Batgirl was an alright choice, she wouldn’t have been my first pick; however, she’s a decent enough actress that I thought maybe she could do a good job. Well, she wasn’t great, but that’s not completely her fault because the story arc she is given is fairly weak all across the board, but her line readings were mostly flat and uninspired. Not to mention the fact that her origin has been altered to make her Alfred’s niece instead of Commissioner Gordon’s daughter, a decision that served as just another problem, in the already far too long list, this movie had going against it. Along with Alicia we also have Uma Thurman (“Kill Bill”) as Poison Ivy. Now, I thought that Uma definitely looked the part of Poison Ivy, but the constant use of Earth inspired references throughout her dialogue began to grow tiresome, and she apparently felt that because she was playing a villain it would be the perfect opportunity for her to practice the Jim Carrey art of over-acting in every scene in hopes of getting attention, most of which fell pathetically flat. Lastly, we have Arnold Schwarzenegger (‘The Terminator’ series) as one of the worst bits of casting I have seen in a comic book inspired movie. In the comics, Mr. Freeze was a skinny man in a mechanized suit with a big freeze gun; obviously Arnold couldn’t pull off the skinny man routine due to his physique, so his resemblance to the character’s appearance was nowhere near accurate. Although, to the Casting Director’s credit, DC Comics did change the appearance of Mr. Freeze to resemble more closely that of Arnold in the movie, so maybe the choice wasn’t all that bad, to me it was just another example of how everyone associated with this movie did not take the source material seriously at all. Aside from Arnold’s obvious physical difference to the character’s initial appearance, his acting in this movie was alright, but just like Uma Thurman’s character of Poison Ivy, writer Akiva Goldsman apparently felt that including as many ice-themed one-liners into his dialogue as possible would be a good idea. Wrong, all that decision did was made his character become incredibly annoying at an even faster rate than Poison Ivy’s.

Well, you may be wondering when I will get to the good points regarding this movie, because so far it’s all been mostly negative. I do have a couple of positive things to say regarding “Batman & Robin”, first I must say that as pathetic as the story was, it did contain some decent elements in regards to trust and family issues that Batman and Robin must face, although sometimes even this was done a little too heavy-handed that it was a bit on the annoying side. Another standout achievement for the movie, was that the special effects (given that this movie is 11 years old now) were very good, especially for the numerous “ice covered” or “freezing” sequences featured throughout the movie. The last good thing I can say for this movie is this… It ends! Yes, that is probably the best aspect this movie has going for it, the fact that eventually the movie ends. On the flip side of that, is once the movie ends, you’re left with the nagging feeling of having wasted two hours of your life away that you’ll never be able to get back, other than that it’s all good though.

“Batman & Robin”, if you haven’t figured it out yet, is absolutely the worst installment in the Batman franchise that spanned from 1989 through 1997; however as pathetic as this movie is, for some reason it has the same appeal as that of the 1960’s television series and movie. The movie’s like a train wreck, you know the results are going to be horrifying, yet you can’t seem to bring yourself to look away; although, this movie does push the limits of that sentiment a few times.

“Batman & Robin” is rated PG-13 for violence and sensuality.

Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem

After six individual films (four ‘Alien’ films and two ‘Predator’ films) showcased two of Hollywood’s scariest monster movie icons, the Aliens and Predators, and then the initial pairing of the two species in 2003’s “AVP: Alien Vs Predator”, a concept that was years in the making after an Alien skull was spotted on the Predator’s ship at the closing of “Predator 2”, it appears that these enduring icons of sci-fi/horror films may have lost a step or two along the way. With all the success that these two franchises have enjoyed over the years since their introductions, it’s a shame that such an ill-conceived sequel like the lackluster “Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem” (or AVP: R as it is often abbreviated), could possibly prove to be the final blow that puts both monsters down for the count.

“Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem” picks up directly after the events of the original film, as we find a hybrid of a Predator and an Alien crash landing on Earth. Upon arrival the PredAlien quickly begins producing Alien offspring and once they are full grown, they begin to eliminate any humans they come into contact with. When the Predator ship that spawned the PredAlien fails to return to the Predator homeworld, one lone Predator comes to Earth to “clean up” the Alien infestation and destroy the hybrid at all costs.

I have enjoyed all of the ‘Alien’ and ‘Predator’ movies (some more than others), and I thought that the initial pairing of the two monsters, “AVP: Alien Vs Predator”, was a great way of linking the two franchises together, much the same way that the comic books had done many years before. So, when it was announced that another ‘Versus’ movie was coming to theaters in 2007, I was instantly excited by the prospect to get to see these two beings fight it out once again. The first film was action packed and featured a decent amount of Alien and Predator fighting, but it seemed to focus more on the two species’ attacking the humans caught in the crossfire. So, I was hoping that with this sequel there would be much more creature fighting creature instead of fighting humans, and I can honestly say that is the one thing this film got right. With “AVP: R” anyone that watched the first movie and was somewhat disappointed by the lack of creature fighting will definitely get their fill and then some. The fights are very fast and brutal; taking full advantage of the ‘R’ rating it was given, so kudos for that aspect of the movie.

Even though “AVP: R” included more creature versus creature fighting into the story, which was a major concern for the directors of this movie, The Brothers Strause (as they prefer to be called). Apparently, the thought never occurred to the directors or their writer, Shane Salerno (2000’s “Shaft”), to include any semblance of an actual story that would hold any interest with the audience. The story for the first movie was solid, featured plenty of interesting characters, and provided numerous references to the two franchises, along with a nice beginning of a bridge between the two series’. With “AVP: R” the story that was started in the previous movie gets a very slight nudge forward near the end of the film, but for the most part the story pretty much just stands still. A decision which led me to believe that the creative minds behind this movie didn’t really have any intention of extending the bridge that was started in “AVP”, but merely wanted to cram as much fighting, gore, and incredibly lame characters and dialogue as they possibly could into a movie, leaving me incredibly disappointed in the process.

The actors in “Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem” were adequate given what little they had to work with from such a paper-thin story. The main star of this ensemble cast comprised of B or even C-List actors was Steven Pasquale (TV’s “Rescue Me”), who gave a fairly by-the-book portrayal as the token reformed tough guy with a good heart but always finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Next we have Reiko Aylesworth (TV’s “24”) as a mother just returning home from a tour of duty, and appears to be filling the role of an Ellen Ripley type of character. She does an adequate job of filling the role, and would have most likely been a much more intriguing character had the movie featured a more substantial story; instead, she’s just another run-of-the-mill character that you can find in any bargain bin action movie. Rounding out the primary cast for “AVP:R” is John Ortiz (“Miami Vice”) as the local sheriff who is in way over his head and is having to prove to himself and those around him that he deserves the job and the respect that comes with it. The rest of the supporting cast are a bunch of unknown, primarily teenage to early twenties, up-and-coming actors who are as forgettable as the rest of this dreadful movie.

My last complaint for this movie is in regards to how it was filmed. I don’t know who had the not-so bright idea to shroud the majority of this film in such extreme darkness, but someone should have spoken up to point out how stupid of an idea it was. The majority of this movie, and especially the numerous action sequences, are so incredibly dark or dimly lit that you can’t see what’s going on for the most part, and for this type of movie where the word “versus” is in the title, I think the action sequences are quite crucial and it should have been easier to see what was happening. However, you really can’t see any details of the two creatures fighting to speak of, which caused me to begin losing interest in the movie’s numerous fight scenes, and since “AVP: R” featured an abundance of fights I therefore quickly lost interest in the movie in general because the flimsy plot that was being used as the story sure wasn’t going to keep my attention from waning. The biggest disappointment with how dark the film was is the fact that you hardly get to see the PredAlien hybrid, except for through the Predator’s various vision settings, which only gave partial details of the creature’s appearance. There were a couple of scenes that you could see more of the hybrid, and it looked cool from what I could tell, but when this new creature was essentially the driving force behind the movie, I just expected to see more of it, which was not the case at all and added even more to my frustration with the inferior nature of this sequel.

“Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem” is an extremely weak attempt at a follow-up to the very entertaining “AVP: Alien Vs Predator” that first joined these two monstrous icons of Hollywood. For those that haven’t noticed, the creative “geniuses” behind this movie were so lazy that aside from adding the subtitle “Requiem” to the title the only other change was adding the letter ‘s’ to the end of ‘Alien’. At least by adding the subtitle the title became somewhat more interesting, prior to that addition the film was originally going to be called “Aliens Vs Predator”, using only the ‘s’ to note that it was a sequel and not a re-release of the original movie, how creative these directors’, The Brothers Strause, have proven themselves to be. The story is surprisingly thin given that it was written by a decent writer with solid credentials, featuring stock characters that come off as fodder for the two creatures and not anyone to really care about; however, it does provide fans plenty of fighting between the two creatures although you’ll be hard-pressed to really see any details in the scenes given how dark the color palette is for this movie. As a fan of both franchises separately, and of their initial versus match, I for one am hoping that this horrible excuse for a sequel will not be the end of what looked to have been a promising link between the two series’.

“Aliens Vs Predator: Requiem” is available in rated R and unrated editions both contain violence and language.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry

I must admit sometimes my expectations for a movie tend to get a bit too high; of course this isn’t completely my fault, mind you. Generally it’s caused by what I see in the previews or who the actors/actresses are that are starring in the film, or who the director is, or maybe just the subject matter. Whatever the case, there are times that I get excited to see a movie and whether I just expected too much or whatever, the movie just flat out lets me down and I leave the experience wishing I could get my time back. A recent example of this occurrence would be the Adam Sandler (“Reign Over Me”) led comedy “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry”, also starring Kevin James (TV’s “King of Queens”) and Jessica Biel (“Stealth”).

“I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” is the story of two firemen, Chuck (Adam Sanlder) and Larry (Kevin James), best friends who would do anything for each other. After Larry’s wife passed away, and some forgetfulness on his part regarding necessary paperwork noting his spouse’s passing, Larry discovers that his department’s benefits will not cover his children should something happen to him, that is unless he is legally married. With such a hazardous job and the thought of leaving his kids with nothing looming over him, Larry does the only thing he can think to do, marry his best friend Chuck. However, by making this choice they must convince the rest of the world that their gay marriage is completely real, and this will prove to not be such an easy task for these two completely straight guys.

The previews for this movie portrayed the film as a laugh out loud comedy that by all rights would have me hurting from laughter. I mean with subject matter such as straight guys posing as homosexuals the possibility for comic gold was obvious. However, the result was somewhat lacking and the movie was left feeling overly long, with a thin story line that seemed to have way too many lulls between laughs, and way too politically correct for its own good. ‘Chuck and Larry’ wound up being yet another movie that had a great preview that completely sold me on the film, but when I got to the actual movie I had already seen all the good stuff in the preview.

As a fan of Adam Sandler, I’ve gotta say I expected much more from him here. Comically this had to have been his absolute weakest film to date. Sure the stuff that was shown in the previews was funny, but that’s pretty much all there was. I felt that it seemed like Sandler was playing it safe with this movie, not wanting to possibly offend anyone, therefore all the jokes and comic situations were watered down to fit into our politically correct world. This wasn’t the only problem I had with Adam in this movie though; he also acted as if he wasn’t really into the role of Chuck. Most of his scenes were so flat and boring that I was surprised the director actually accepted them for the movie. Kevin James was much better in the role of Larry, but even his funniest moments were shown in the previews. I will say that Kevin did have one of the most dramatic scenes, and possibly one of the best scenes, in the movie when he had to face the fact that his wife had died and it was time for him to move on. Kevin played the scene so well, his pain was so genuine and him talking to his wife as if she were in the room with him was such a nice touch to fully illustrate just how connected he still was to her and how hard letting go has been for him. The rest of the cast was decent, Jessica Biel was a good choice for the eye candy role of the movie, and her role didn’t require much on her part other than looking sexy, which isn’t much of a stretch for her. Steve Buscemi as the slimy, somewhat creepy government employee attempting to prove that Chuck and Larry’s relationship is a sham was perfect and it’s a role he always handles so well. Ving Rhames and David Spade made several funny appearances that were surprising and enjoyable, but didn’t really add much to elevate the movie above being a below average comedy. The biggest surprise out of the entire cast was Rob Schneider as the oriental minister, I normally get a small kick out of Schneider’s cameos in each of Sandler’s comedies, but this role was probably his best to date. He was so hilarious in the few scenes he was in, actually stealing the spotlight from Adam and Kevin in those instances, and I was left wishing that his character actually had more to do in the film, and maybe then the movie would have been better.

Truthfully, “I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” would have been a better movie if it would have trimmed down the running time by about thirty minutes. Most comedies are only 90 minutes, very few actually try for the two hour mark, and those that do are smart enough to cram enough jokes and maybe even a little drama to fill in the space, but ‘Chuck and Larry’ apparently went for the less is more approach to fill in their two hour run time, and the decision backfired massively. Had I not seen all the funny parts in the previews (and they were funny, enough to get my expectations up), the running time been shorter, and the jokes not been so politically correct, then I think this movie could have been the laugh out loud comedy I was expecting it to be. But often times what we expect is rarely what we actually get.

“I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry” is rated PG-13 for language and sexual references.

Halloween (remake)

With the release of “Halloween” in 1978, director John Carpenter introduced audiences to one of the horror genres most iconic villains, Michael Myers, and ushered in the era of the slasher film. Even though his film was not classified as a slasher, the many sequels, and countless other film series’, which were spawned from it were definitely slashers. Skip forward to 2007, after 7 sequels, some good and some not so much, the ‘Halloween’ film series seemed to have run its course. So, it must have appeared to some executives in Hollywood that the only options left for this franchise were to, A) let it die (which would have been fine and should have happened after “Halloween: H20”), B) continue making pointless sequel after sequel that would most likely wind up going straight to DVD shelves (case in point, the ‘Hellraiser’ series), or C) remake/reimagine the franchise. Apparently option C seemed the most viable, as musician/director/writer Rob Zombie (“House of 1,000 Corpses” and “The Devil’s Rejects”) was tapped to helm this new incarnation of Michael Myers with his remake of the original film, simply titled “Halloween”.

“Halloween” is partly a remake of the John Carpenter original from 1978, but is also an origin story for Michael Myers. Young Michael Myers seemed like a fairly normal 10-year-old kid, but appearances can often be deceiving. Behind his seemingly innocent facade was a cold-blooded killer, he just hadn’t fully manifested himself yet. Then one Halloween night, Michael suddenly unleashes his dark side resulting in a string of grisly murders. After that fateful night, Michael is locked away in a psychiatric hospital where he meets his longtime doctor Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell), and begins to fall even further into the abyss of his murderous psychosis. Fast forward 15 years, and Michael suddenly decides it is time to escape the hospital that has served as his prison for so long, and return to the town where his rampage began and finish what he started.

The choice of Rob Zombie as director and writer for the new film didn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. Sure, the franchise had kind of wandered into the typical slasher sub-genre of horror films, but Zombie’s brand of horror was much more extreme and gratuitous than anything contained within this series. However, when the movie was released and began receiving some praise for the reinterpretation of the original classic, I thought maybe Rob Zombie had managed to make a more mainstream movie; instead of his typically demented brand of horror that he’d been crafting over the last couple of years. So, when I rented the film I approached it openly, and had hopes that it would be good, and possibly equal the original (which should always be the goal of any remake). If nothing else I thought the movie might give an interesting origin story to the character of Michael.

Upon watching the film, I soon realized, after getting about 30 minutes into the unrated version of the movie, that this was nothing that really resembled its predecessor. This film, although not a typical Rob Zombie movie, contained most of the familiar elements that he loves to include in his films, i.e. plenty of language, graphic nudity, disturbing images, and extreme violence. Basically, Rob was making a more toned down film than usual, but in the end it didn’t really feel like it was a part of the ‘Halloween’ series. Really it seemed to fit more in line with Zombie’s previous two disturbing pieces of cinema, than with the film it was supposedly paying homage to, while trying to breathe new life into the character.

The story, as I stated earlier, is a mixture of origin tale and remake all rolled into one film. The first half of the film is devoted to the early years of Michael Myers, essentially expanding on the opening moments from the original movie. This portion of the movie was somewhat interesting because it was showcasing a different time in the life of this villain, and also giving some clues as to why he became a killer. But, this new origin seemed to contradict the opening of the original film. Because here Michael’s family is painted as broken and abusive; whereas, in the original he appeared to have come from a loving home and he simply snapped one day. Having Michael come from such an abusive upbringing served as a way of explaining why he killed some members of his family. However, it also seemed like an attempt on Zombie’s part to humanize Michael in an attempt to gain sympathy for the character from the audience.

Trying to build sympathy for Michael is where I feel the movie made a big mistake. The film is about Michael Myers, a masked killer and horror legend, I for one do not want to be made to feel sorry for this character. Why should we as an audience be sympathetic to him? Why not just show him as a kid who suddenly snapped, committed a horrible crime, and then show how he slipped further into psychosis while in the mental hospital? That is what I thought this movie was going to do, and to an extent it did, but it also seemed to go to great lengths to engender sympathy, which should not have happened.

The good news is that the scenes centered around Michael’s time served in the institution are where the film finally begins to gain some momentum. These are some of the most fascinating scenes in the movie, and I thought that Rob Zombie actually did a good job of showing the character’s gradual descent into madness. While in the institution scenes, Zombie did provide me with an interesting observation about Michael that I hadn’t anticipated. Several scenes focus on the exploration of why Michael always wears a mask, and it is within these moments that the story really gains its footing. As I said this area of the film is by far the strongest and most intriguing for me.

The second half of the film, is basically a rehash of the original with some changes made to certain events. This portion of the movie works on some levels, but not as well on others. I liked some of the changes that Rob made to the original film; although it was interesting to see that even after all these years, some aspects of the original are just too good to change. However, as good as parts of this section of the movie was, they were overshadowed by Rob Zombie’s penchant for blood, gore, and gratuitous nudity. All of those unnecessary elements took away from not just this portion of the story, but the entire movie as well, due to them being sprinkled throughout.

The actors in this film were decent; those playing the various teenagers were average at best. Their performances for the most part were fairly by the book; therefore, their characters were somewhat forgettable. Not a single one of the younger stars contained even an ounce of the screen presence of Jamie Lee Curtis. Her performance in the original film is part of what made that film so successful. Laurie Strode was so sweet and innocent, and Jamie played her so naturally that you couldn’t help but invest in her character. But the ones here were pretty much standard horror film fare. No real standouts, just a bunch of unknowns trying to make a break, even though none of them deliver anything resembling a memorable performance.

The highlight of the cast was Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis, the role made famous by the late Donald Pleasence. Malcolm plays Loomis as a caring child psychologist who desperately wants to reach Michael in hopes of finding some good in him. When Michael escapes, Loomis comes after him with such zeal that it seems borderline obsessive. McDowell is truly fun to watch as Dr. Loomis, and steals every scene that he is in. We get to see more of the time Loomis spent with Michael as a boy in the institution as he attempts to understand what happened, all of which was alluded to in the original but never explored. Malcolm convincingly takes the role from being a man who only cares for this young boy as a patient to becoming obsessed with stopping a monster for whom he feels responsible due to his failure in reaching him early on.

In the end, “Halloween” is a lackluster movie and a weak excuse for a remake. It fails to even come close to capturing what made the original film so good, and I think a majority of the blame must be laid on the shoulders of the film’s writer and director Rob Zombie. His talents as a screenwriter and director are average at best, definitely not worthy of big screen feature films. His body of work seems more at home in the Direct-to-DVD marketplace than in your local multiplex. Even if you are a fan of Rob Zombie’s movies, there should be no denying that his adaptation of “Halloween” is nowhere near good enough to hold a candle to John Carpenter’s original film that started it all.

“Halloween” is available in rated R and unrated editions, both containing graphic violence, language, nudity/sexuality, and gore.

Underdog

Some movies just don’t sound all that appealing from the moment you hear about them. Case in point, Disney’s newest film “Underdog” based on the classic cartoon series about a crime fighting super dog. The premise is stupid, just as it was on the cartoon, but the cartoon still managed to entertain audiences in its day and it still does with reruns whenever they air. But when I heard that Disney was making a live-action adaptation of the cartoon, I thought this is going to be a really stupid, most likely crappy movie. But then I saw a preview for the movie, and my opinion changed, the preview showed that the movie had decent acting talents Jim Belushi, Peter Dinklage, Patrick Warburton, and Jason Lee; the film also seemed to be full of humor, with a little bit of slapstick thrown in for good measure (a must when adapting a cartoon); and it seemed that the movie actually had good special effects for making a flying, talking, superhero dog believable. So, I went from not caring if I ever saw the movie, to actually looking forward to getting to sit down to watch it.

“Underdog” is the story of an ordinary beagle named Shoeshine (voiced by Jason Lee) who through a series of unforeseen accidents; finds himself in a lab operated by a mad scientist named Dr. Barsinister (Peter Dinklage). When Barsinister tries to experiment on Shoeshine, the dog breaks free causing a devastating accident in the lab, and he is exposed to an experimental chemical that leaves him with super powers such as flight, strength and the ability to talk. After breaking free of the lab, Shoeshine finds himself a new home with a security guard (Jim Belushi) and his son, where he determines that his newfound powers can be used to save the citizens of Capital City from evil as the crime fighter, Underdog. However, when Barsinister, along with his henchman Cad (Patrick Warburton), discovers that this new hero, Underdog, is actually their escaped beagle, they will stop at nothing until the dog is returned to them, leaving the fates of those Shoeshine/Underdog cares for hanging in the balance. Now, all that remains is for us to hear those famous heroic words, “This looks like a job for Superm…err, umm… oops, wrong movie, here’s what I meant, “There’s no need to fear, Underdog is here!”.

Well, here’s the lesson that I learned from watching Disney’s new film, “Underdog”. Sometimes it’s better to go with your initial gut instinct, instead of letting your mind be changed by smart marketing types who know how to properly edit batches of film together to make a fun, entertaining trailer that will get your attention and make you want to see the film, even though your better judgment is telling you that there’s no reason at all that you should even be tempted to watch it.

The problems I had with “Underdog” are not major, but they are big enough gripes to take away from the overall enjoyment of the movie. The story isn’t anything spectacular by any means; I mean it is supposed to be a kids movie that is adapted from a classic kids cartoon. When a studio sets out to make a kids movie, which is something that Disney does quite often (though to varying degrees of success as of late), then the filmmaker(s) and the writer(s) should feel some obligation to entertain the parents on some level, not the entire time necessarily, but at least a little bit. Especially, when the subject matter is taken from a classic cartoon series that some of these parents most likely watched and loved as kids, therefore I think there should at least be some kind of joke or sight gag or something that adults would get and enjoy as well. Now, I’m not saying there needs to be some kind of raunchy humor, by no means is that what I’m implying, you still keep the family-friendly tone, but there are ways to inject humor aimed more at adults without getting dirty, ‘Looney Toons’ used to do it all the time in their animated shorts, so why can’t the current crop of creative types come up with anything?

The casting choices for this film were good, for the most part; some of the more talented members of the cast seemed wasted in their roles. Jim Belushi and Patrick Warburton are two very funny actors (in my opinion), but in this film neither funnyman is given much to do. Jim Belushi has had great success with his hit sitcom “According to Jim” on ABC, and with various movie projects throughout the years, but in this film it seemed like they didn’t want him to be funny, which is fine he’s done drama as well, and he’s good at it, but his material is just so paper thin that I’m surprised he even signed on to the film. I mean, his character basically exists as a plot device to get the dog, Shoeshine, into a loving home, setting up for the obligatory shenanigans around the home that have been done to death in other movies, except here they can take things a little more extreme due to the whole super powered dog trick. Now, Disney has used Patrick Warburton in at least one of their previous films the hit animated movie “The Emperor’s New Groove”, he was the hilarious not-so evil, evil sidekick Kronk, who essentially stole the show, even got his own sequel “Kronk’s New Groove”. In this film, just like Jim Belushi, Patrick’s character seems like a waste of time, he’s given a few funny lines to say, but other than that he pretty much just stands around with nothing to do. With two solid comedic actors in such thankless roles, it makes me wonder was the script much funnier before filming or editing took place or were the paychecks just too good to resist? Actor Jason Lee (better known as Earl on TV’s “My Name is Earl”) was decent as the voice of Shoeshine/Underdog, he gave the character a likeable charm and sharp wit, but truth be told, any other actor could have done just as good, it’s not like he has crafted a character that people will only remember his voice associated with. Peter Dinklage was good as the evil Dr. Barsinister, he seemed to be enjoying the role and being allowed to ham it up, but after awhile even his character seemed to have less and less to do. The younger actors (the one playing Jim Belushi’s son and his would-be girlfriend) were alright, but both seemed inexperienced, and their performances felt stiff because of this.

The special effects employed in this film were all very well done. I was surprised that for a kids movie that was adapted from a cartoon that the effects looked much more realistic than cartoonish. The flying scenes in particular were really well done, especially the sequence where Underdog is squaring off against three other super powered dogs working for the evil Barsinister. Basically, the effects are the only real highlight for this film, at least from an adult’s perspective; kids will no doubt be entertained throughout the entire duration of the movie.

Overall, “Underdog” is an average movie, that’s aimed solely at kids with little to no humor that ever manages to get above the level of cute. So, you parents out there who may believe that the movie looked good based on the previews (in case your curious this is a case where most of the funny parts are in the previews) and your fond memories of the cartoon series, don’t expect too much from the end result. You will most likely wind up just as disappointed as I was, but at least your kids will be happy, so at least you’ll have that.

“Underdog” is rated PG for mild violence.

Saw 4

How long can a horror franchise continue before the movies within the series become just plain bad? For most franchises it’s only a matter of two, maybe three movies before this occurs. Some examples would be the ‘Halloween’ series, the first 2 movies were solid entries into what at the time was a burgeoning franchise, but by “Halloween 3: The Season of the Witch” the series lost its footing and never seemed to regain it until the seventh installment “Halloween: H20″.

The majority of horror franchises aren’t as fortunate as ‘Halloween’, because generally speaking once a franchise suffers one negative entry in terms of box office take or audience reaction, the series never gets back to what made it work in the first place. A perfect example would be the ‘Friday the 13th’ series, by the third film the series had tanked; however, in its case the films, as bad as they were, still made a lot of money so the studio kept cranking out more and more until the series eventually ran its course with the 10th entry, “Jason X”.

Now I come to the series at hand, the ‘Saw’ franchise of horror films. The first 3 films in the series were better-than-average horror films, with the first film being the best. After releasing “Saw 2″ and “Saw 3″ with great success in terms of box office returns, Lionsgate had a virtual no-brainer when it came down to whether or not to return to the lucrative series for more traps and more lessons on valuing one’s life. Well, Lionsgate gave the 3rd sequel a go ahead, but the difference between this film and its predecessors was the fact that the writers for the previous three films did not return for this installment. So, with a different set of writers, along with the same director that helmed the previous two films, and numerous returning cast members from the first 3 movies, not to mention a few new ones to throw into the mix, the question that needs answered is, “Can this latest installment into the franchise possibly live up to the standards of the previous films?”

“Saw 4″ does the exact same thing as the previous films had done; it begins exactly where the previous film left off. Meaning, Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) is dead, yet his traps that he set into motion prior to his death are still being played out. The victim this time is Sgt. Rigg (Lyriq Bent), whose only flaw is the fact that he feels the need to save everyone, but through his obsession he has managed to alienate his wife and some of the people that he works with at the police department. Now, from beyond the grave Jigsaw, will test Rigg’s commitment to his obsession with saving lives, and whether or not he can actually let go of some of the lives he failed to save in the past that continually haunt him to this day.

Well, it finally happened, the ‘Saw’ series has now joined the pantheon of average or below average horror franchises by having an installment whose quality is so beneath its predecessors that it reeked of existing purely to cash in on the name and the fame of those that had come before. When neither of the two writers from the first 3 films (James Wan and Leigh Whannell) opted to return to pen the fourth installment, that was the first warning sign that this series was going down the tubes; however, the one possible saving grace for “Saw 4″ was the fact that director Darren Lynn Bousman (“Saw 2 and 3″) was returning to helm this current installment. In the end, the only thing Bousman’s presence did for this movie was ensure a steady directorial hand that has had plenty of experience with this franchise to keep the proceedings in a similar tone and feel, but other than that his presence did nothing to elevate the film above its meager standards. From this moment on the ‘Saw’ films will most likely be no different than your average, run-of-the-mill horror series, where each installment is worse than the previous one, yet until the movies quit making money at the box office we’ll still see more traps, more gore, and more mayhem at the hands of the now deceased Jigsaw even though he died in “Saw 3″.

The cast of “Saw 4″ was essentially a reunion of many of the primary cast members from the first 3 films in the series. Donnie Wahlberg, Lyriq Bent, Tobin Bell, Costas Mandylor, and Angus MacFadyen each make appearances in the film, some with more substance than others, with a few of the appearances feeling like nothing more than tacked on cameo appearances that seemed to come out of nowhere. The newest addition to the cast, Scott Patterson (TV’s “Gilmore Girls”) was average as an FBI agent trying to piece together the recent murders that were the result of the various nefarious traps set by Jigsaw. However, the problem with Patterson’s performance was that he seemed to overact in many places, trying too hard to seem like the tough-as-nails, no nonsense FBI agent, that he instead came off as fake and even a little forced, allowing for none of his natural charisma and charm that he had shown so often on TV to shine through to make for an interesting character that the audience could root for.

My biggest complaint in regards to “Saw 4″ lies in the inferior story that was written by series newcomers, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan. Not only did these two writers craft the worst installment in the series thus far, but they also continued the trend that had begun in “Saw 3″, by trying to humanize the villain Jigsaw to the audience. As I said in my review for “Saw 3″, when the initial signs of trying to gain sympathy for Jigsaw first appeared, why do Hollywood writers feel the need to make villains in movies more human so that the audience will possibly empathize with them? I just want a villain to remain simply that, a villain, with his motives selfish and evil, not having his actions be caused by some unfortunate incident in his past that twisted him in such a way that he felt he had no possible alternative than to allow the darkness to consume him. I didn’t mind that in “Saw 2″ the writers introduced the fact that Jigsaw had cancer, and that this terrible news essentially drove him insane and started him on the dark path to murder and mayhem that we had seen in the series. This aspect of the character was fine, and provided just the right amount of back story as to why Jigsaw does what he does, but it didn’t make any overt attempts to create sympathy from the audience, and seemed to serve the purpose of showing that the darkness had been within Jigsaw all along and merely needed a release.

“Saw 4″ is without a doubt the weakest installment in the franchise, but it is also the goriest as well. It seemed like the biggest purpose for this movie was to just put more blood and guts on the screen, and not worry too much about substance within the story. In the defense of “Saw 4″, though it is the weakest of the series, it merely continued the already weakening storyline that had shown signs of trouble back in “Saw 2″ and barely redeemed itself ever so briefly during portions of “Saw 3″. Ultimately this series was destined to fall prey to the shortcomings that befall most horror franchises; the shifting of focus from providing quality storytelling and good scares to merely cranking out as many films as possible before the interest fades. When this occurs the subsequent installments become lesser and lesser in quality and entertainment value.

“Saw 4″ is available in rated R and unrated editions, both contain violence and language.

Awake

I want to start things off by saying that from the viewpoint of someone who just had a surgery where the doctor’s put you under for the procedure the phenomenon known as “anesthetic awareness”, which served as the focal point for the recent release “Awake” was a somewhat disturbing concept that I didn’t want to experience. Prior to my surgery (and it was a very minor one, mind you) I knew the movie “Awake” starring Hayden Christensen and Jessica Alba was being released on DVD, and I was wanting to see it; however, I had heard the critics say that this movie did for surgeries what “Jaws” did for swimming in the ocean. So, needless to say, I chose to wait until after the procedure to view this movie, but after I watched it I wished I would have just chosen a different movie to spend my time and money on.

“Awake” is the story of a rich tycoon named Clayton, (Hayden Christensen) who must undergo a heart transplant due to a heart condition. Not one for leaving possible unfinished business in his life behind should the surgery not be successful, Clayton decides to marry his girlfriend (Jessica Alba), attempt to make peace with his mother (Lena Olin), and get all his other affairs in order. While everything leading up to the surgery seems to be going off without a hitch, once in the operating room Clayton quickly discovers things are a disturbingly different story. After the anesthesia renders Clayton unconscious he soon realizes that his body is paralyzed, but his mind is very much awake, and fully aware of all that is occurring to his body during the procedure. As if the intensely horrible pain wasn’t enough to contend with, Clayton begins to hear the doctor’s discussing the very thing no patient ever wants to hear their wish to purposely cause the procedure to fail therefore killing the young man. As his time draws short, Clayton must desperately struggle to send out any kind of outward sign of his impending doom or all hope is lost.

I had hoped that “Awake” would be a thoroughly engaging medical thriller that would live up to the promise that critic Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter had made stating, “Awake does for operations what Jaws did for the beach”, or that it would be “completely absorbing” as Roger Ebert had felt it was. However, to me it was a boring drama that I couldn’t wait to finish and it would have had no redeeming factors whatsoever if not for a couple of clever plot twists that made the latter half of the film somewhat more bearable. For first time director and writer Joby Harold it was a nice try, and the subject matter was an intriguing choice, the cast was strong, and the dialogue was mostly well-written; but the execution of the material was less than stellar. Maybe the director’s next effort, whatever that may be, will have better luck and pacing.

The talented cast led by Hayden Christensen (“Star Wars – Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith”), Jessica Alba (“Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer”), and Terrence Howard (“Four Brothers”) is very good for the most part, but their rather capable talents alone are not enough to keep this movie interesting to me. Out of the cast the only possible weak link was star Hayden Christensen, for the most part he did a very good job, but there were a few points where his dialogue seemed forced, although he made up for those moments with his voicing of his internal thoughts for the audience during the painful surgical procedure. Those moments were not only painful to watch, but also to hear his reactions as he tries in vain to fight through the pain and to think about anything other than what is happening to his body. Jessica Alba and Terrence Howard were very convincing as the caring new wife and the doctor who claims to be Clayton’s friend, but hides the sinister secret of plotting his impending murder. But sometimes in movies a strong cast is not enough to overcome other weaknesses that can plague a film.

The story features an interesting subject matter, as I’ve stated already, but it lacks any feeling of momentum to propel the story onward. For the first half of the movie, I was really bored and tempted to quit watching the movie altogether; then the major turning point in the plot occurs and the movie became a little more interesting. Even with the somewhat more enticing second half of the movie, the momentum still seemed a bit lacking and the mostly solid performances were not adequate in helping the story find its proper pacing. Perhaps some better editing choices could have helped the pacing of the story, or maybe some snappier dialogue earlier on, who knows, but something was sorely lacking in the story department.

“Awake” could have been a gripping thriller that would have left the audience on the edge of their seats, and made them leave the theater dreading hospital visits. However, the mostly strong performances on behalf of the actors, a decent story, and intriguing subject matter were not enough to overcome the incredibly slow pacing and dull points that filled the first half of the film and popped up once in a while in the latter half as well. So to me, any lasting effect the film could have had on me was lost due to boredom and an overall lack of interest in the outcome of the film.

“Awake” is rated R for disturbing images, language, and sexuality.