Halloween H20: 20 Years Later

Following the original “Halloween” from director John Carpenter in 1978, this franchise had for all intents and purposes succumbed to the very same pratfalls that have befallen virtually every other horror franchise in existence. What this means is that the series that birthed the very sub-genre it exists within had become nothing more than another lame slasher franchise cranking out useless sequel after sequel, paying little attention to the fact that the stories were fast becoming old and tired.

In 1995, after the sixth film in the series massively disappointed audiences, the future for the franchise no doubt lay in question. Not to mention, the impending twentieth anniversary of the original “Halloween” loomed on the horizon, and it was looking as if the date would be remembered with little to no fanfare. However, all of that changed in the summer of 1998, when original star Jamie Lee Curtis reprised her role of Laurie Strode for the seventh installment in the series, “Halloween H20: 20 Years Later”.

“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” is essentially summed up by the title. Basically, 20 years after the terrible events that victimized Laurie Strode, she continues to live in fear of the possibility that one day her killer brother may finally find her. Living under assumed names, Laurie and her 17-year-old son (Josh Hartnett) are doing their best to keep their dark family secret buried, while carrying on with some semblance of a normal life. However, some secrets are too powerful to be kept hidden forever, and Michael is determined to finish what he started all those years ago.

Over the course of the 17 year gap that separates “Halloween 2” and “Halloween H20” there was numerous other installments released as a part of the franchise. With the release of “H20” all of the sequels beyond the second movie have been omitted from the series’ accepted continuity. For those who are curious, the reason is that movies 3 through 6 did not feature Jamie Lee Curtis or her character Laurie Strode; instead, the focus shifted to Laurie’s orphaned daughter (apparently Laurie died in a car wreck or something like that) who is now being hunted by her dear old Uncle Michael. Even though some plot threads from those previous films were somewhat promising; in the end, it was easier to disregard them for the story in “H20” rather than to rewrite some of the history. While all of this was not incredibly important, I did feel that some exposition was needed for those who may not be aware of why the plots from movies 3 through 6 are never even touched upon, and in fact, most are contradicted by events in “Halloween H20”. Anyways, that’s a basic rundown on the history of the “Halloween” franchise.

If you ever watched any of the previous sequels, then you undoubtedly noticed that the quality of writing took a serious nose-dive from where the series began (which in itself wasn’t exactly brilliant from start to finish). Along with the massive slate cleaning that “H20” brought to the series, the writing for this sequel was much stronger than all of the previous installments thanks to screenwriters Robert Zappia (“Five Days to Midnight”) and Matt Greenberg (“Reign of Fire”), along with some re-writes by Kevin Williamson (“Scream”).

The overall plot for the film is relatively solid, albeit with a few head scratching moments as most horror movies tend to have, but more on that later. The story took a mature approach to the ramifications of that horrific Halloween night and how even after all this time Laurie still lives in fear of her brother’s possible return. Even though at first glance the premise that Michael has supposedly been waiting all this time to come after his sister once again seems a bit far-fetched; the manner in which that plot point was handled was surprisingly effective. I also appreciated the attempt to bring a potential resolution to the conflict set up so long ago between Laurie and Michael. If for no other reason, that portion of the story alone is worth watching for longtime fans of the original who have always wanted to see brother and sister come face-to-face once more.

It has become quite clear that the success of horror hits such as “Scream” or “I Know What You Did Last Summer” made an impact on the characters’ interactions in this film and almost any other horror films that have followed them. The banter, especially between the teenagers, is fast-paced and loaded with innuendo and pop culture references (as are most teenage conversations). I also noticed that when the adult characters were on the screen the slick, fairly well-written dialogue didn’t just disappear or become stale, as is so often the case; instead, it matured (without being too heavy-handed) to tackle the bigger issues that the adult characters, most notably Laurie, were facing throughout the movie.

Now, as I alluded to a moment ago, there were some weak spots in the story though. The biggest weakness this film had was with some of the characters. It seems that ever since “Halloween” started this sub-genre of horror that every other film of this kind must feature the same basic cast of characters in some form or another. You’ve got the rebellious guy, the smart girl, and the horny guy and his female equal, and so on and so forth. While this cast is smaller than many other horror films, it still fills most of the roles with standard stock characters. The only difference here is that in the case of Josh Hartnett and Michelle Williams, they actually appeared to be trying to bring some depth and realism to their characters; thus, serving to elevate their status above all the others in the pantheon of unoriginal character archetypes in horror films. But beyond those two, the rest of the teenaged characters were typical carbon copies left over from previous horror movies.

Another couple of issues with this film revolved around the improbability of how Michael either knows to be in certain places to kill someone or somehow catches up to a person running, despite the fact that he’s walking as slowly and methodically as possible. Those two faults are not exclusive to this series rather they are common issues in almost every single horror franchise in existence. It does not matter what horror franchise you look at, this is a problem area that is universal and has always irritated me. What I want to know is, “Why most directors choose to go along with this obvious absurdity?” And lastly, the pacing early on in the story was a little on the slow side. I enjoyed the opening moments of the film that served as a set-up for the remainder of the movie, but the 15 to 20 minutes that followed struggled to keep things going strong. Note to the writers of horror films, the key is to always keep the audience on edge, it worked for John Carpenter in 1978, and I’m willing to bet it still does even now.

As for the performances in this movie, let us begin by discussing the return of Jamie Lee Curtis to the role that made her into a household name. Jamie’s performance as Laurie is much more mature and refined here than it was in the original film, and let’s just forget about the colossal waste of time that summed up her appearance in the initial sequel. Jamie skillfully portrays the radical change in her character from a woman who continues to be victimized by her memories to a woman ready for a final showdown with her tormentor. From the quieter moments between mother and son, to her soul-bearing confession as to who she really is, to her inevitable moment of truth; Jamie Lee excels in every respect and the movie definitely benefits from her terrific return to the series.

In the supporting roles are mostly up-and-coming talents, although some of these talents are obviously stronger than others. Leading the way for the supporting cast members, as I noted earlier, are Josh Hartnett (“Pearl Harbor”) and Michelle Williams (“Brokeback Mountain”). Both appeared to be committed to their roles, not willing to sit idly by and just speak the lines and hit their marks in as uninspired a fashion as possible; instead, they opted to let their characters emotions and motivations shine through naturally. Plus, their characters’ onscreen chemistry seemed more genuine than most in horror franchises, resulting in their romantic relationship becoming more believable than one would expect.

Next, we have LL Cool J (TV’s “NCIS: Los Angeles”) as a mediocre security guard with lofty aspirations. LL has proven in several other projects since his role in this movie that he clearly has acting talent; however, in this role he is merely average. At times his portrayal seemed a little shaky as if he couldn’t quite get a handle on the character; however, this problem could be more a fault of the script than the actor in the role. Still, despite a potentially weak character arc, LL should have been able to do more with the role; instead, he seemed to rest on his laurels causing his performance to suffer as a result.

Bringing up the rear in the performance category are Jodi Lyn O’Keefe (“The Crow: Salvation”) and Adam Hann-Byrd (“Jumanji”) in the heavily clichéd roles of the sex-crazed teenagers in the movie. Both roles are only included in the movie to fulfill some prerequisite that apparently stipulates that every horror film have at least one promiscuous couple within the cast. While almost every movie has one or two meaningless roles in their lineup, horror films always seem to make sure those roles are the most irritating to audiences; all the while, finding their way into more scenes than they deserve within the movie. I will admit that at least the writers seemed to attempt to flesh out Jodi and Adam’s characters. Yet an over-reliance on sexual puns and unoriginality within the roles overshadowed all efforts to elevate the characters above being anything more than typical throwaway horny teenagers.

“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” is the first sequel in the franchise to even come close to rivaling the original in any respect. While the film is stronger in some areas than the first “Halloween”, it still never manages to recapture the atmosphere and style that was so integral to that one’s success. Until someone can either channel John Carpenter’s directing choices and abilities into another one of these installments or coax Carpenter into returning for another round, I doubt we’ll ever see a movie in this franchise reach the level of the first one.

“Halloween H20: 20 Years Later” is rated R for violence, language, and sensuality.

Surf’s Up

Ever since the documentary “March of the Penguins” captivated audiences in 2005, it seemed that Hollywood just couldn’t get enough of the loveable creatures, at least in animated form. One year after the aforementioned documentary was released, some audiences delighted to the musical/dance themed animated movie “Happy Feet”. This brings us to the 2007 release of “Surf’s Up”, which served as a different kind of animated fare for the tuxedoed creatures. The reason being is that it was more of a sports themed mockumentary of sorts that focuses on penguins (go figure) who love to spend their days surfing. It’s a surprisingly original idea, and one that grabbed my attention more effectively than any of the other penguin-centric movies being released, not to mention the terrific voice cast (which I will grant “Happy Feet” boasted great vocal performers as well), and what appeared to be a more fast-paced, fun, and less politically motivated movie than some of the other entries of its kind.

“Surf’s Up” is the tale of a young penguin named Cody Maverick (Shia LaBeouf) who dreams of one day competing in a surfing contest named for his idol, surfing legend Big Z (Jeff Bridges). After gaining acceptance into the competition, Cody quickly discovers that his quest for winning may just be more difficult than he thought, and that the only way for him to truly become a winner is to learn that sometimes winning isn’t everything.

After watching the tiresome “Happy Feet” I wasn’t looking forward to yet another movie focusing on the flight-less birds that Hollywood had suddenly become enamored with. However, upon viewing “Surf’s Up” I was pleasantly surprised to find that I actually enjoyed the movie from start to finish. I think the reason I enjoyed this movie more than expected is partly (perhaps obviously) due to the writing team of Don Rhymer (“Big Momma’s House 2”), Ash Brannon and Chris Buck (who also served as directors on this movie) being smart enough to keep the movie just a fun ride for both children and adults. For every slapstick moment or age-appropriate joke for children, there would most likely be a sight gag or double entendre slipped in for adults to get a kick out of as well. As a parent I am always very appreciative of a so-called “kid’s movie” that actually takes into account the fact that the target audience will most likely be accompanied by their parents or some other adult guardian; thus, these prescient writers take the effort to actually include some jokes aimed solely at those members of the audience above the age of 10.

Giving life to the animated characters on the screen was a rather talented ensemble of actors and actresses. Shia LaBeouf seems to break out an early version of his quick-witted, fast-talking character of Sam Witwicky from “Transformers” to create his character of Cody. For the most part Shia seemed the ideal choice for the young, somewhat arrogant surfer wannabe; however, there were a few instances where his voice just didn’t seem to fit together with the character’s mannerisms, causing the vocal performance to feel slightly disconnected from the action onscreen. This problem could have been a hiccup in the voice-over process, because if memory serves correctly during those moments it almost sounded as if his voice was echoing for no obvious reason. Whatever the case may be, the problem wasn’t massive, and it didn’t detract too much from the movie, it was just something I thought should have been caught in the editing process of the final film.

Along with Shia we have Jeff Bridges (“Iron Man”), Jon Heder (“Napoleon Dynamite”), and Zooey Deschanel (“Yes Man”) voicing the various friends that Cody meets along the way to the competition. Jeff Bridges’ character of Big Z sounds like a distilled version of his character “The Dude” from “The Big Lebowski”, but since the target audience of this movie would be too young to have seen that film, there’s no harm in reproducing the character once more for another role; not to mention that character’s speech pattern, attitude, and general approach to his daily life makes for an ideal fit for Big Z. Jon Heder offers the majority of the big laughs, mostly for the kids though, as Chicken Joe. Joe is… well, he’s a chicken, as the name suggests, who hails from Michigan and hopes to be recognized as one of the surfing greats among his fellow penguin competitors. Thankfully, Jon didn’t seem to bring any of his annoying Napoleon Dynamite attributes to this film, which was a good thing for me since I despised his work in the aforementioned comedy bore. Rounding out the primary supporting cast members we have Zooey Deschanel as a penguin lifeguard overseeing the competition. Zooey isn’t given a whole lot to do in the movie, but she is granted a few moments of the spotlight to spout off some rather cute and funny one-liners. One other cast member of note would be James Woods (“Hercules”) who plays a Don King-esque promoter (complete with wild, stand-up straight hair) for the competition. His role isn’t very large, and truthfully comes off as a glorified cameo in the end, but Woods’ trademark fast-talking, schmoozing nature is a perfect fit for the character, and is a dead-on ringer for the animal kingdom’s answer to Don King.

Even with the necessary inclusion of a talented voice cast, every animated movie must also employ top-notch animation to fully flesh out the characters movements, mannerisms, and quirks on the big screen. The talented crew of Sony Pictures Animation really did an excellent job with their second feature film (the first being the lackluster “Open Season”) of bringing such a strange idea of penguins going surfing to life. From the characters to the environments to the surfing action, everything about the production looked terrific to the point that it’s quite hard to find something to really single out as being outstanding or innovative. Although I must say that there is one nice touch that sets this computer animated movie apart from most others; the use of an older film stock appearance employed for some of the semi-flashback sequences gave the mockumentary style a more realistic feel, given that old film footage is used so frequently in almost every single documentary, especially sports-themed ones.

While “Surf’s Up” was nothing more than just another case of a Hollywood studio jumping onto whatever bandwagon is popular at the time, it is arguably the best entry from that fad for audiences to enjoy. A good story that was wise enough to include both kids and adults in on the jokes, a talented cast, great animation, and a novel concept to make a mockumentary style children’s movie elevates “Surf’s Up” well above its competition in every way.

“Surf’s Up” is rated PG for mildly crude humor.

No Country for Old Men

When I visited my local video store recently I was having a difficult time deciding on what movie I wished to see. Several new titles of interest had been released, yet I knew that there were still some from earlier in the year that I had yet to watch. This thought led to a new problem for me, choosing which not-so new release to pick up. After much internal debating with myself, I finally decided I wanted something that had some substance to it, and wasn’t going to be a movie where I could just turn my brain off and watch it. I wanted a movie that was going to demand my attention, thus I decided I would pick the film chosen as Best Picture at this year’s Academy Awards, the critically acclaimed “No Country for Old Men”, written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (“O Brother, Where Art Thou?”).

“No Country for Old Men” follows an intense couple of days for a man named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who happens to come across a drug deal gone bad and discovers for himself two million dollars in cash. However, taking the money may just prove to be the biggest mistake in his entire life. As a sadistic killer (Javier Bardem) is hot on his trail, and leaving a mess of dead bodies in his wake, the likes of which the local sheriff (Tommy Lee Jones) and the West Texas area has never seen.

If there’s one thing I can say with the utmost certainty about “No Country for Old Men”, it’s that this is definitely one film that demands your attention, and if you get too distracted at any point you will quickly become lost in the intricately detailed story. With that in mind, even though I gave the movie my undivided attention, I still found myself somewhat confounded by the events in the closing moments of the movie. For roughly 85% of the film I was right there with it every step of the way, perfectly understanding everything, but in the final five to ten minutes it just got strange for me, and I didn’t quite understand how it had ended. I do believe that I have a decent grasp on it now, having given more thought to the film and even re-watching the final moments, but even with my newfound understanding, it’s still a strange and disappointing ending to what appeared to be a superb film.

That brings me to my problem with this film; I was really into the story and thought that perhaps this was going to be a movie that I would want in my collection, but the ending ruined it for me. For starters I’m somewhat surprised by the fact that I even remotely enjoyed “No Country for Old Men”, because lately it seems that most Best Picture winners and nominees for the Oscars tend to be these high-brow dramas that don’t appeal to me in the least, yet here was the most recent winner enthralling me with its excellent storytelling. I thought the many concepts that the film dealt with, such as fate and/or destiny (which the killer, Anton Chigurh, mentions to many of his victims), the depravity of society as reflected by the more sadistic killers being unleashed upon the world, or how pride always comes before a fall, were all very well presented and thought provoking. Yet, as great as the story was, the extremely unsatisfactory final act and resultant ending that left me puzzled, managed to bring the entire movie to its knees. I believe I am a smart man, and I can’t remember the last time that I watched a movie that left me feeling so stupid because of my inability to grasp what I had just seen, but that’s how this movie made me feel. I understand that the Coen brothers are extremely talented and smart writers, no argument there, but perhaps they could have rethought the final portion of this movie. Not necessarily changing all the events, but at least the final moments that confused me, and from what I’ve heard, it did the same for many other viewers as well.

As far as the acting goes every single performance was fantastic, not a single one felt out of place or off the mark in any way. Josh Brolin (“W.”) convincingly portrays just a down-home, good ol’ country boy who just so happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and allowed his pride to stand in the way of finding the means to save himself. Veteran actor Tommy Lee Jones once again portrays a law enforcement official, something he has done all too often since winning an Academy Award for “The Fugitive”. At least in this movie Tommy didn’t play the same old guy as he has so many times before. This time around he played an aging lawman who is struggling desperately to find relevance for his brand of justice in a world that has become so dark that it may have passed him by. Javier Bardem (“Vicky Cristina Barcelona”) delivered a chilling performance as killer Anton Chigurh, a man who believes killing to be a perfectly natural solution to any problem, no matter who or what may be involved. Lastly, Woody Harrelson (“Semi-Pro”) gives a surprisingly strong supporting performance as a man hired to track down Chigurh and stop him by any means necessary. I personally never thought Woody could act all that well, but he definitely brought his A-game to the table in this picture.

“No Country for Old Men” is one of those instances in movies where virtually every element works perfectly together to create an engrossing experience. From the superbly written screenplay, thought-provoking ideas and concepts, and excellent performances, this movie delivers in almost every way imaginable; however, the troublesome final act of the film brings the movie crashing down amidst a cacophony of confusion and disappointment. It’s such an unfortunate fate for such a promising film.

“No Country for Old Men” is rated R for violence and language.

Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Due to the recent release of the fourth installment, “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, in the long-time trilogy, now turned ongoing “Indiana Jones” series; I felt the need to go back and re-watch all the classic original films that started this whole franchise. Without further ado, let us begin with the 1981 adventure flick that made Harrison Ford even more of a household name, with his second most iconic character’s first film, “Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark”.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” (as it was known when initially released to theaters) follows the adventures of Dr. Henry “Indiana” Jones, Jr. (Harrison Ford), an archaeology professor/tomb raider. After being contacted by members of the U.S. government concerning a former colleague’s connection to the Nazis and Hitler’s interest in all things related to the occult, Indy embarks upon a quest to discover the powerful Ark of the Covenant before the evil Nazis can get their hands on it. To do so, Indy must ally himself with a former love, Marian Ravenwood (Karen Allen), who fully lives up to the phrase “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”, and do his best to keep both of them alive as their harrowing journey takes them from South America to the streets of Cairo, and beyond.

Many movie fans have long held “Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark” in extremely high regard as being one of the all-time classics of American cinema, along with being heralded as the best in the “Indiana Jones” series. I agree with the first half of the statement, but I beg to differ on the latter. Although I do enjoy “Raiders of the Lost Ark”, I do feel that in the early stages of the movie, the story seems to struggle to find its footing. This results in some rather uneven pacing problems in the first 30 to 45 minutes of the film. While the lulls in the story are never so problematic that the movie begins to truly suffer for it, these moments do tend to draw some attention and caused me to become a bit restless early on. That being said, all the minor problems were fully taken care of by the 45 minute to 1 hour mark, when the movie really kicked into gear and the pace began moving along at a very steady clip; but without going so fast as to make the early parts feel too out of place.

I think my biggest problem with the story for “Raiders”, is that early on in the movie there seems to be so much backstory between Indy and Marion, and while it is dealt with to an extent, it never quite seems to get the attention it deserves. I mean, this woman clearly despises this man for something he’s done in the past, yet she seems more than willing to let bygones be bygones. And she does so in a manner that makes her anger in the beginning seem immature and irrational. Now, I will be honest that I’m a little at odds with myself on my viewpoint for this aspect of the story. On the one hand, I wish that they would have fleshed out the history between Indy and Marion a little further to justify her intense anger for him; while on the other hand, I’m glad they didn’t because this was the very portion of the story that I felt caused the movie to seem uneven. So, I guess I can’t have it both ways, but the resulting conundrum regarding this part of the film is most likely the primary reason for why this movie doesn’t rank as the best in the series for me, unlike most other fans of the “Indiana Jones” franchise.

From an acting standpoint the movie is very solid across the board. Harrison Ford (“Star Wars” original trilogy) creates another classically heroic, yet flawed character for audiences to easily relate to. Harrison provided Indy with a dry wit, intelligence, and strength that allowed audiences to embrace more of a thinking man’s hero that still knows how to handle himself in a fight, without resorting to the typical one-dimensional action hero that one would normally find in these types of movies. Karen Allen (“Starman”) is nearly perfect as the fiery ex-girlfriend of Indiana Jones, while she ultimately becomes the typical damsel-in-distress this kind of movie requires; she proves herself to be quite capable of handling herself in minor fights and drinking games as well. The only problem I had with Karen in this movie, aside from her seemingly irrational disdain for Indy early on, was that at times her line readings seem a bit forced. I don’t know if this was due to rewrites of the script during the filming or what, perhaps it was just nerves; whatever the case may be, her performance just didn’t seem to be consistent all the way through the movie. Serving as Indy’s go-to-guy in Cairo, named Sallah, we have actor John Rhys-Davies (“The Lord of the Rings” trilogy), who delivers the majority of the comedic moments for the film; while still getting to see his fair share of adventure during his stint in the story. For the most part, the majority of the cast created some very memorable characters, all of which were entertaining and interesting; two qualities that are sometimes hard to come by in these types of films, where the characters usually tend to be a bit more one-dimensional.

With this movie being 27 years old, I find myself surprised by some of the bold stunts that director Steven Spielberg (“Close Encounters of the Third Kind”) and his producer/co-creator of the story George Lucas (“Star Wars” saga) dared to accomplish in the film. The boulder chasing Indy in the opening moments of the movie, and the scenes at the end involving the Ark of the Covenant are exceptional works of movie magic. The fact that these two sequences, along with a few others, still look as good as they do even to this day is amazing to me; while at the same time, serving as a fitting tribute to the talent and ingenuity that these two men and the many individuals in their employ, that help to make this magic happen, have at their disposal to take audiences on an adventure that they’ll not soon forget.

When all is said and done, “Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark” is an incredibly fun movie to watch. While it does have some problems during the first half of the movie, overall it’s a film that stands strong on its own and kicks off one of the greatest adventure series’ in cinematic history.

“Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark” is rated PG for violence and brief language.

Batman Returns

With the success of 1989’s “Batman”, Warner Brothers obviously saw the potential for a franchise in this darker and more serious interpretation of the Dark Knight. Wasting little time in putting a sequel in motion, director Tim Burton (“Batman”) and star Michael Keaton returned three years later to once more fight crime within Gotham City with “Batman Returns”.

“Batman Returns” follows Batman’s (Michael Keaton) continuing war on crime in and around Gotham City. After taking on the likes of the maniacal Joker, how could things possibly get any worse for Gotham and its caped crusader? When a grotesque new villain named Penguin (Danny DeVito) teams up with a sultry, feline-inspired femme fatale by the name of Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer), it seems that perhaps Batman may have met his match when he discovers just what they have planned for him and his beloved Gotham City.

The previous movie, “Batman”, established a serious, obviously darker take on the title character than any of his previous incarnations outside of the comic books; but with “Batman Returns” everything seems to take a decidedly more wicked turn. The story written by Daniel Waters (“Demolition Man”) was fairly solid for the most part, serving as a decent follow-up to the blockbuster original. The action seemed bigger in scope, the set pieces much more grand, though not breaking away from the design established in the first movie, and the characters were still kept front and center, never sacrificing plot or development for the sake of another action sequence. However, this much darker story (which I liked the overall direction this movie went) felt a little out of sorts in places, for a majority of the movie the story flowed very well, but there were several parts in the middle of the film where the story seemed to lose its focus. What I’m referring to are the portions of the story revolving around Penguin’s bid for public office (a kind of interesting, although unbelievable plot point), for some reason these scenes really felt less polished, as if the writer just couldn’t figure out how to work this aspect of the character’s story arc into the big picture; therefore, leaving us with a mid-section of a movie that feels out of place, breaking the movie’s steady pace down to almost a crawl at times.

Director Tim Burton clearly knew what it took to make a good Batman movie after doing so well with his first effort, but I wonder if in his attempt to equal what he had done with the original film, did he set himself up to fail with this one. The general progression for the character and this franchise would be to up the stakes to some degree, and with “Batman Returns” this happened all across the board, just to varying degrees of success. The story as I stated already was much darker than that of the original, a natural evolution for the character, so I was completely fine with that, the problem occurs when the main character receives less attention than supporting characters. Just like in “Batman”, it appears that Bruce Wayne/Batman doesn’t get near as much time on screen as the villains he is encountering. I understand that when you have two villains instead of one, more time will need to be spent on developing them as viable threats for our hero, and also to establish them as believable characters for the audience to connect with on some level; however, when the title character feels like an afterthought, I think the focal point of the movie has been lost. By including two villains, I feel that Tim Burton and his writer, Daniel Waters, couldn’t figure out how to give equal time, or at least close it, to Batman without missing out on any development for their new characters. With this obvious problem, which was no doubt an unintended consequence of trying to be bigger and better than the previous movie, “Batman Returns” felt a little off in my opinion, and not nearly up to the standard previously established with “Batman”.

Michael Keaton continues to build on what he had done as Bruce Wayne/Batman, further establishing the discomfort Bruce has with his billionaire side as he awaits the time for darkness to fall over the city so that the Batman can once more prowl the rooftops of Gotham. This point was illustrated perfectly in the movie, when Bruce is sitting in his study by himself, not doing anything but sitting there, and the bat signal shines into the room and suddenly he comes to life. Without saying a single word, Michael Keaton was able to clearly portray exactly how the character was feeling and what it is that drives him in life. Danny DeVito (“Deck the Halls”) was an ideal choice for Penguin, his smaller stature and heavier build makes him a nearly perfect fit for the general appearance of the villain, although it appeared that more weight was needed for the character’s girth, because it is quite obvious a couple of times in the film that DeVito is wearing some sort of padding under his costume to make him look even larger. I’ve never really been all that impressed with Danny DeVito as an actor, I thought he was alright, but nothing all that great; however, as Penguin he really seemed to connect with the character, and something about his performance just worked and I was actually impressed with just how twisted and evil he was able to make the character become. Danny’s version of Penguin was much more of a threat, and definitely more grotesque, than his previous incarnation on the 60’s television series or even how he had appeared in the comic books. Michelle Pfeiffer (“Hairspray”) did an excellent job of establishing two distinct sides to her character that are as different as night and day, by playing Selina Kyle as such a weak individual who can’t defend herself and is constantly belittled by her boss (Christopher Walken), yet when she becomes Catwoman this entirely new side to her emerges, that is so much more aggressive and driven. I really liked the way the story intertwined both Selina’s story and Catwoman’s story so much that eventually she would be forced to choose which side would become dominant, because as much as she wants love and companionship, which she may have found in Bruce Wayne, her dual identity as the villainous Catwoman will prevent her from truly settling down, not to mention being a criminal puts her at odds with her lover’s alter ego.

“Batman Returns” is a fairly solid sequel, containing a decent story, with a heftier dose of action (even though there seemed to be fewer fight scenes, the scenes were much longer than what had been done previously), and more great performances from the actors involved. However, a very slow midpoint in the film, caused by a semi-interesting, yet unfocused character arc, forced the movie to lose momentum, which it struggled to get back and maintain for the remainder of the movie’s duration.

“Batman Returns” is rated PG-13 for violence and language.

Blade

The movies responsible for the rejuvenation of the comic book movie genre are believed to be by most audiences, movies like “Spider-Man” or “X-Men”. However, before either of those movies was released to theaters, let alone even being made, one comic book character managed to revive two genres, vampires and comic books, the character is Blade. While many would probably disagree with me about the movie “Blade” being responsible for resurrecting the comic book movie genre, due to the fact that most moviegoers view “Blade” as simply another horror movie about vampires. Personally, I disagree with those people, because without the success of “Blade”, “X-Men” would have probably not been made the same way. What I mean by this is, “Blade” took a serious look at the subject matter of comics and vampires, and treated it as if the story took place in our reality. Since this film concept worked, it may have led to Bryan Singer adapting the characters of the X-Men in a realistic fashion, thus giving audiences a more realistic superhero film. But, now is not the time to continue this debate for two reasons, one is that this debate could take a while, and second is because I’m supposed to be reviewing “Blade”, and not debating it’s impact on the current comic book movie craze.

“Blade” follows the story of vampire hunter Blade (Wesley Snipes), who is half human/half vampire. Blade and his mentor/weapons maker, Whistler (Kris Kristofferson) spend their days hunting vampires, and searching for the vampire that bit Blade’s mother. They have been waging their war on the vampires for some time now, and most vampires fear the name Blade, all except for one, Deacon Frost (Stephen Dorff). Deacon believes the key to defeating Blade is to unleash the blood god, La Magra. To save humanity from Frost’s evil plan, Blade must use all of his training and weapons, or else humanity’s day could very well be over.

Director Stephen Norrington (“LXG: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen”) has crafted a terrific mix of drama, action, and horror that makes for a great movie experience. Along with writer David S. Goyer (“The Crow: City of Angels” and “Batman Begins”), “Blade” is a very good vampire movie and is a really solid adaptation of a lesser-known Marvel comic book that stayed true to the character’s roots. The movie also gave the character of Blade an updated background and mythology that has proven to be so popular that Marvel even adopted the new origin for the character’s comic book counterpart.

Wesley Snipes as Blade is perfect casting, his physical prowess and martial arts training made him the ideal candidate for the role of the vampires’ worst nightmare. Kris Kristofferson was a great choice for Whistler, his sage advice mixed with dripping sarcasm made him a fun, interesting character that in some ways stole every scene he was in. Stephen Dorff gave a menacing performance as the film’s primary vampire villain, Deacon Frost. Stephen played him as a self-styled vampire messiah who was willing to sacrifice anything and everything to usher in the age of the blood god La Magra and the world domination of vampires.

The special effects were rather good for the most part, it seemed as if the film’s budget wasn’t as high as it should have been, and some of the effects suffered for it to an extent. Even though this film didn’t have an adequate special effects budget to make this the visual extravaganza that it could have been, the success of “Blade” paved the way for its two sequels “Blade 2” and “Blade: Trinity” to have much higher budgets and more visually exciting special effects. With the lower budget, the filmmakers did the best they could with what they had, and “Blade” still boasted some impressive visuals, though to be honest they mostly involved wirework during the intense, fast-paced action sequences that were no doubt the highlights of the film.

Overall, “Blade” is a really good vampire movie, and a great comic book adaptation that managed to accomplish a rare feat in Hollywood, finding success in two genres with just one movie. The higher quality actors that were featured in this film, plus the incredible martial arts action scenes, along with the real world tone imbued by writer David S. Goyer and director Stephen Norrington, allowed “Blade” to become one of the best comic book adaptations at that time, and provided studios a sort of how-to approach to not only making solid horror movies, but also successful comic book movies.

“Blade” is rated R for violence, language, and sensuality.

Hitch

Typically when I’m choosing a movie to watch in my spare time, I will choose from action, drama, comedy, sci-fi, thrillers, etc. (what you would basically expect from any guy), I can honestly say that I very rarely choose a romantic comedy, and never a musical. However, sometimes a romantic comedy comes along that looks interesting and funny to me, generally because the premise is different from most or because I like the stars in it, or simply because my wife chooses the movie for our movie night. In the case of “Hitch” it was a combination of the first 2 factors, but for some reason my wife and I never got around to watching this movie in theaters, and for the longest time on DVD. But recently, we sat down and watched it, and I must say that even though many critics and some moviegoers weren’t entertained that much by the movie, I found it to be highly enjoyable and one of the better romantic comedies I had seen.

“Hitch” is the story of Alex ‘Hitch’ Hitchens (Will Smith), a man whose job is to find ways for a man to successfully woo the woman of his choice into a successful dating relationship. Hitch is a man that is good at his job, but never really finds the time for his own dating life. When Hitch begins coaching a pudgy accountant (Kevin James) on how to get noticed by an attractive, wealthy heiress, his own love life begins to blossom, but through a series of mishaps starts to go horribly awry. Inevitably leaving Hitch wondering why he can make love happen for complete strangers but never for himself. But before he can figure out what’s going on in his life, a newsreporter (Eva Mendes) is trying to uncover the true identity of this so-called ‘Date Doctor’, and after protecting his identity for so long Hitch finds himself in the media crosshairs, and his profession on the line.

As far as romantic comedies go, most of them are generally predictable to some extent, sometimes the predictability of these types of films lends to boredom for me. However, there are a few romantic comedies that manage to be predictable, yet still entertain, and then there are the few (very few) that just surprise you by not being all that predictable. “Hitch” falls somewhere between somewhat predictable and not all that much, there are the typical romantic comedy elements that are crucial for this type of film. For example, guy finds girl, impresses girl, things get serious, some secret about guy is discovered by girl, girl breaks up with guy, guy proclaims love for girl, and all is well with the world – those are your basic elements (give or take one or two) to almost every romantic comedy these days, and “Hitch” contains several of them. The difference for me was that unlike a lot of other romantic comedies where the story is so thin and the humor is virtually non-existent that you find yourself already knowing how the movie will end and checking your eyelids for holes within the first 30 minutes due to boredom, “Hitch” keeps things going at a very steady pace with plenty of laughs and clever dialogue that I never got distracted by getting ahead of the story, and remained entertained throughout. Probably the element I enjoyed the most of the movie was the way the character of Hitch had taken a by-the-book approach to dating, as far as his tips go, that worked like a charm for every guy that he tutored, yet could never get the same approach to work for him, and in the end he discovers that love, much like life, isn’t always so simply figured out.

The performances by the cast were uniformly strong, Will Smith and Kevin James out-shined everyone, which wasn’t really all that surprising given their comedic and acting talents. Eva Mendes was very endearing as the woman that Hitch is trying to start a relationship with, and she shows a great on-screen chemistry with Will Smith that made their couple very believable. The story as I said earlier contained many of the familiar elements of most romantic comedies, yet still entertained me, and I never felt like I’d seen it all before. The ending is what you expect, and of course hope for in this type of movie, but the execution of the ending was done in a very interesting and unique way that I didn’t expect, probably making it a much more enjoyable ending than most.

With all of that being said, “Hitch” isn’t the most original romantic comedy, but there are numerous elements that are unique, and allowed me to overlook the same old elements that are so tried and true to this genre. It was a very entertaining movie, that provides you plenty of laughter and leaves you feeling good, which is what these movies should do.

“Hitch” is rated PG-13 for language and sensuality.

Men in Black 2

After successfully saving the planet from a deadly alien threat and raking in big money at the box office, the boys at ‘MIB’ were livin’ the good life and enjoying all the perks of being beloved by moviegoers. Which is probably why Columbia Pictures felt the need to bring more intergalactic action and hilarity to the masses with a sequel to the highly popular film with the hopes of starting a franchise. So, 5 years after their first big screen adventure, Agent’s K and J (Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith) are back again to save mankind from the worst scum of the universe, in Barry Sonnenfeld’s “Men in Black 2″.

“Men in Black 2″ finds Agent J (Will Smith) having a difficult time keeping partners while protecting the Earth from alien threats. After he de-neuralized his former partner/mentor Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones), J feels he’s better as loner agent than partnered up. However, when a deadly new threat comes to Earth in the guise of a lingerie model (Lara Flynn Boyle), J and ‘MIB’ must bring in the one agent who will stand a chance of stopping this threat and saving humanity once again, Agent K. The only problem is, he doesn’t remember anything about his life in ‘MIB’.

What happens when a movie is so successful that it makes tons of money, turns its young lead actor into a mega-star, and catches audiences completely by surprise with how good and unique of a movie it was? Well, the obvious answer would be to make a sequel and cash in on the original film’s success, which is exactly what Columbia Pictures did. However, there is a slight problem with this plan, how do you top what’s already been done? The surprise factor is gone, the freshness has worn off, and it’s possible that due to the mediocre animated series that was spawned from the original movie has diminished people’s interest in the series.

To solve their possible problems Columbia Pictures brought on two writers that can handle the type of material needed for this type of movie, meaning plenty of action, humor, and sci-fi fun. Next, the powers-that-be managed to convince the main cast to reprise their roles from the first film, and lastly bring back the director that made them successful in the first place. So, did Columbia’s plan of action work for this film or was it to fall prey to being yet another inferior sequel in an already long list? The answer, mostly yes, but there were some issues with the movie.

The cast was excellent, which isn’t surprising given the talent assembled here, but as much as I enjoy Will Smith in most movies he makes, at times he actually felt boring to me here. I understand that the goal was having his character in the place of Tommy Lee Jones’ at the beginning of the movie, being the serious career agent, no longer the care free rookie, but he came off like he was bored, leaving his performance feeling stiff. Now, I will say that once Tommy Lee Jones’ character was back in play, Will Smith lightened up and the movie quickly picked up and felt more like the original, but the early part of his performance does put a bit of a damper on things. Tommy Lee Jones returns to playing the role that he does best, and apparently it’s the only role he knows how to do, the no-nonsense serious man with a mission and a really dry, subtle sense of humor. Though the schtick is the same as before, it’s still fun to see these two characters interact on screen, easily erasing the crappiness of the children’s animated series. The supporting cast was solid throughout, I did grow tired of Johnny Knoxville’s character, but he did provide some humorous moments. The rest of the cast was fun, and giving more screen time to Frank the Pug and the ‘Worm’ guys was a nice touch.

The story was a good follow-up to the original, with plenty of humor, though not as much as I’d hoped for before Agent K returns, but still the jokes were funny. The action was energetic like before, though a little more over-the-top in places than even the previous film had done, and the sci-fi elements were inventive. However, with all that being said, the story did suffer some from the fact that it had lost its freshness and originality since the first one was so much of a surprise and audiences didn’t know what to expect, but this time we had a pretty good idea. Honestly it didn’t matter what anyone did in this movie, no matter what was tried they just couldn’t match the original, which is unfortunate since the characters are so fun and story potential is everywhere, but in the end you still can’t do better than what’s come before. This is actually one of those rare cases when the potential for a sequel is there, but the studio should avoid going through with it for the simple fact that you most likely won’t be able to do better than what you already have done.

“Men in Black 2″ is still a fun movie, though not as good as the original, but that doesn’t mean the movie’s not worth seeing or owning. Yes, there are some problems with this movie in some areas, but most are overcome early on, leaving audiences with a rather enjoyable movie experience.

“Men in Black 2″ is rated PG-13 for violence, language, and sensuality.

The 40 Year Old Virgin

“The 40 Year Old Virgin” was a movie that I was on the fence about seeing for a long time. When I saw the trailer for it on TV and in theaters I thought it looked like it had possibilities of being funny, but then I wondered if all the good stuff had already been shown like so many other comedies do in their previews anymore. With that thought I managed to talk myself out of seeing the movie in theaters, opting to wait for DVD instead. The time came for the DVD release and I found myself with little interest in watching the movie, since it had been a while since I had seen the previews, and the desire to see it had waned. However, a co-worker was talking about seeing it again recently, and how funny it still was even after multiple viewings. When I mentioned that I hadn’t seen the movie, and what my concerns were regarding how funny it would still be beyond seeing the previews, to which the response was that the previews didn’t even show the half of it. So, needless to say that was enough to get my interest back, and I decided to rent “The 40 Year Old Virgin” for the wife and I to hopefully enjoy thoroughly once the kids were asleep.

“The 40 Year Old Virgin” is the story of a man named Andy (Steve Carell), a stock room manager at a tech store who is content with living the life of a single man who loves to collect toys (never opening them from their box to ensure their value), play video games, and just have some good wholesome fun. During a poker night with some friends, the conversation is steered towards their individual sex lives, all of which seem to have some rather exaggerated details included, and when it comes to Andy’s turn to share he flubs his way through a story that is so paper thin that it becomes very apparent that he is indeed still a virgin. With this discovery his friends take it upon themselves to solve, what they deem to be a problem, for Andy by trying to hook him up with a woman. However, their methods are not necessarily what’s best for Andy, and their tips seem to range from bad to worse. With all this going on in his life, insanity seems like a sure bet, but then a woman named Trish (Catherine Keener) comes along who just might be the perfect woman to bring some stability to Andy’s life, so long as his friends don’t mess it up too much first.

This is a movie that I must say truly surprised me. Sure it contained the raunchy comedy that I expected from a movie with a title such as this, of course there is plenty of awkward situations (that are hilarious mind you) as his friends attempt to fix him up with a girl, and yes, the moral compass for the film is greatly skewed (for most of the characters anyway), but what I didn’t expect was the endearing goodness and sincerity of Andy that serves as an anchor for all of the outlandish hilarity that ensues throughout the movie. Having a main character be someone with an essentially strong moral compass, in this type of movie was a very welcome change of pace, and one that probably made this movie be better than it would have been allowing it to stand out from the rest of the crop.

The cast comprised of very talented comedic actors, such as; Seth Rogen (“Knocked Up”), Paul Rudd (“Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”) and of course, the star of the show Steve Carell (“Evan Almighty”), each of whom brought their characters to such hilarious and memorable life. The talented cast would have been nothing if not for the direction of experienced writer/producer, but relative newcomer to directing, Judd Apatow. Apatow, who also helped co-write the movie with Steve Carell, brought a freshness to the adult comedy genre opting to have more hilarious scenes, jokes, and even some drama, rather than relying on gratuitous nudity to carry the movie.

“The 40 Year Old Virgin” is very much an adult oriented comedy that is not at all safe for children, but it is without a doubt a hilarious movie filled with innuendo, sometimes raunchy comedy, and even some sweetness that is definitely worth watching, and is even one of the few of its kind that is even remotely original.

“The 40 Year Old Virgin” is available in rated R and unrated editions, both contain language, sexual references, and nudity.

The Girl Next Door

Teen comedies always turn up big business at the box office, most of the time they are a dime-a-dozen, opening big and fading shortly thereafter, with little lasting appeal with audiences. However, there have been some successes in the genre that have had more staying power than others, examples would be “Animal House”, the `Scary Movie’ franchise, and the `American Pie’ series. With those examples of successful teen comedies, they all have some common traits in which they share, basically they are packed full of sexual innuendo, possibly some nudity, and crude humor and language. However, one thing these examples of successful teen comedies, and even the unsuccessful ones lack is any amount of heart or soul in the story. In 2004, Fox Studios produced yet another teen comedy to appease the masses for a short while, “The Girl Next Door”. Starring Elisha Cuthbert (TV’s “24″) and an unknown lead actor named Emile Hirsch, “The Girl Next Door” would stand out from the other teen comedies that have come before it or even after it, for this movie contained the one thing that I said was lacking in those others, that is heart and soul.

“The Girl Next Door” is the story of 18-year-old Matthew Kidman (Emile Hirsch), a straight-laced, overachieving, good boy who has never really lived life to the fullest. That is, until he spies his incredibly sexy neighbor (Elisha Cuthbert) changing in the window, and finds that through his desire to be with her, he will do anything and everything to be with her. But, Matthew gets thrown for somewhat of a loop when he discovers that his perfect `girl next door’ is actually a former adult film star, who is trying to forget about the life she used to lead. Now, Matthew’s sheltered life quickly begins to spin out of control as he attempts to help his new girlfriend leave the life she knew to embrace the life she longs for.

The reason I feel this movie is far and above those other teen comedies I listed, is like I said earlier “The Girl Next Door” contains plenty of heart and soul in its story. This movie isn’t simply about having sex, yes there is that obligatory teen comedy element in this movie, but this movie is actually about the discovery that sex isn’t the only thing to look for in a relationship with someone. To prove that point the main character in the story, Matthew, who by the way is played perfectly by Emile Hirsch, is forced to learn that to have a true meaningful relationship with a woman, he must get past his lustful desire to only want the physical body, with no regard for the emotional side of the woman, and discover who she really is as a person.

The writing in this story is better than most contained in this type of movie, generally the story is fairly thin, and is pretty much there to link each crude joke to the next; however, in this movie the story is the main focus. Yes, there are the crude jokes and innuendo and some of the other stuff generally contained in these types of movies, but the story isn’t simply a minor plot device to get the audience to these obligatory teen comedy sequences. The actors all do a very good job of bringing their characters to life, and appear to be enjoying themselves immensely with the roles they’ve been given. Elisha Cuthbert and Emile Hirsch share a great chemistry that helps to elevate this movie to almost a romantic comedy level, instead of just teen comedy. Timothy Olyphant (“A Man Apart” and “Scream 2″) makes several appearances throughout the film as a shady producer, and he manages to steal almost every scene that he’s in, and actually provides Matthew with some rather sage advice, though inadvertently I might add.

If you are a fan of teen comedies, but are perhaps tired of the same old thing, then check out “The Girl Next Door”, I promise you it is more than your average teen, gross-out sex comedy.

“The Girl Next Door” is available in both rated R and Unrated editions, both contain language and sexuality/nudity.