# 229 - THE CARD PLAYER (2004)

THE CARD PLAYER (2004 - HORROR / MYSTERY) ***1/2 out of *****

(I’ve heard of high stakes poker matches, but this takes the fucking cake…)



CAST: Stefania Rocca, Liam Cunningham, Silvio Muccino, Adalberto Maria Merli, Claudio Santamaria, Mia Benedetto, Fiore Argento, Cosimo Fusco, Giovanni Visentin, Conchatta Puglisi.

DIRECTOR: Dario Argento

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and rather misguided card sharks straight ahead…




There are three things that I wish I was better at: (1) playing soccer; (2) singing; and (3) keeping a decent poker face. I know that, short of a brain transplant that puts Pele’s grey matter into my noggin, I will never be a great soccer player. I also know that, unless I get Chris Martin’s vocal cords implanted in my throat, I will continue to set off car alarms and neighborhood dogs within a two-mile radius when I sing on my balcony in the morning.

Still, there’s a greater chance of me becoming a great soccer player or an awesome singer, than being able to maintain a decent poker face. As a friend recently told me, “Dude, your face is like an open book. ‘Nostril flare’ means you’re either pissed or impatient. ‘Pursed lips’ means you’re thinking of something - or someone - hot. 'Half-smile' means you’re picturing someone naked. ‘Half-closed eyes’ means you’re either plotting or reminiscing. ‘Steady gaze’ means you’re in business mode and totally uninterested in ripping someone‘s clothes off. ‘Averted gaze’ means you want to rip someone’s clothes off - really bad - and are afraid they might sense it, hence the fear of eye contact. ‘Cheesy grin with triple fist pump in the air’ means you have three of a kind. Am I right or am I right?"

Well, the fucker was right. Except I only do a double fist pump in the air when I have a full house, thank you very much. In short, while having an expressive face is very much an asset when you’re an actor or model, it is absolutely detrimental when you’re playing poker. Which is why I usually get my ass spanked at the game. Literally and figuratively, during some matches that involve alcohol. My face is like a fucking billboard that reads: “Ah gotz mah-self a Straight Flush, bitchezzzz…”

It’s a good thing I’m not in the movie THE CARD PLAYER, because my face would totally give away my hand. And my opponent would win. And that, in turn, would lead to some very, very, very bad things. See, our latest review is about a serial killer who terrorizes Rome by kidnapping women and holding them captive while he plays video poker over the internet with the local cops - with the victim’s life at stake. Every time the cops lose a hand, Mr. Psycho Card Player cuts off something of the captive’s. In other words, eeeeeeew. But if the cops win, he promises to let the victim go.

The first victim is Christine Girdler (Jennifer Poli) a British tourist who disappears, only to soon show up trussed up like a turkey on a webcam broadcasted right into Roma Questura (that’s means ‘police precinct’ to those of us who aren’t beautiful Italians). The killer challenges our Roman cops to a game that might as well be called “Blood Poker.” Unfortunately, the chief of the Questura (Adalberto Maria Merli) basically says, “Fuck that! Not on my watch.” This prompts our impatient serial killer to basically slice Ms. Girdler right on camera, cueing a lot of disgusted reactions on the other end.

As a result of the death of a British national, the UK consulate sends MI-6 agent John Brennan (Liam Cunningham) to the Questura to show those Italians cops that, while they may be smokin’ hot, they still have nothing on the Brits when it comes to sleuthing. After all, Sherlock Holmes was British, right? As you can imagine, John doesn’t exactly win the hearts and minds of his Roman colleagues on first sight. More like exclamations of “Stronzo!” or “Vaffanculo!” In case you’re wondering what those mean, I dare you to walk into an authentic Italian restaurant and scream them out loud.

The only person who doesn’t hate John on sight is our lovely Italian heroine Anna Mari (Stefania Rocca). Anna is a detective at the questura who doesn’t mix business with pleasure, and therefore instantly sympathizes with John, since he’s something of an outlier. Or maybe she just want to fuck his brains out because he looks and acts a lot like Liam Cunningham.

Not much longer after John basically pisses of the entire Rome police force, another woman disappears. And another webcast appears from the killer, with victim # 2 bound and gagged - and another challenge from the killer to play. This time, the cops foist pretty-boy detective Carlo (Claudio Santamaria) to play for the girl’s life. Unfortunately, he turns out to have an even worse poker face than me - because the killer anticipates his every move and ends up beating his fine Italian ass. You know what that means: one less hot Italian chick walking around in a mini-skirt. And one more mark against the Rome Questura.

Realizing they can’t go on this losing streak for much longer, John and Anna end up recruiting a video poker wunderkind named Remo (Silvio Muccino) to battle the killer the next time he issues a challenge. They get clearance from the chief to pay Remo 2,500 euro for each hand he wins - and if he wins the game and the next victim survives, I guess John and Anna will invite him to a threesome. Kidding. But you know you want to see that…

Then the next woman is abducted. And this time, it just happens to be the Questura chief’s fashion designer daughter Lucia (Fiore Argento). Try to contain your laugher at this ironic, but not bitterly so, plot twist. More like hilariously. Bet the chief is glad he authorized that windfall for our poker genius Remo. Because now the little fucker has to deliver.

Will Remo save Lucia? Or will he lose just like Carlo? And will the killer add Lucia to his ever-growing list of victims? Or will he actually release her if Remo wins? Will John and Anna ever catch ’Il Cartaio?’ Or will Rome forever be plagued with disappearing chicks and fucked-up webcasts directed right at the Questura? Who is ’Il Cartaio’ anyway? Is it one of the cops? Is it John? Someone who knows Anna? Is it actually Remo. Is it - gasp! - is it Robert De Niro.

Why not? He’s Italian, and he’s kind of scary… I can totally see it.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Italian horror auteur Dario Argento has been branded “The Italian Hitchcock” for his parade of surreal, baroque, highly-stylized, and intensely bloody horror/thrillers dating back to 1970 with his first smash success, THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE. This was soon followed by classics like DEEP RED, SUSPIRIA, and TENEBRAE, as well as the severely underrated PHENOMENA, which was one of Jennifer Connelly’s first roles.

Argento sharply divides film audiences. His loyal fans admire his sheer artistry in presenting visceral stories that are like being trapped in a nightmare state for about two hours. His detractors knock his inability to tell a story without clunky dialogue or awkward passages, and can’t see what the fuss is about. That is a fair assessment. Not everyone has to love Argento, and I can easily understand why many people are put off by his films.

But to criticize and dismiss Argento’s films based on some rather pedestrian writing and thin characterizations is to miss the whole point of his movies: evoke fear in a way that is both raw and beautiful. In particular, SUSPIRIA, PHENOMENA, and DEEP RED are filled with moments of bravura craftsmanship and artful staging that make up for any shortcomings in the story and acting department.

Bottom line: you almost have to be more forgiving with an Argento film because of the ultimate pay-off, which is a surreal and eerie roller-coaster ride through our darkest dreams.

The same goes for THE CARD PLAYER. If Argento divides films audiences, THE CARD PLAYER polarizes Argento fans. Many Argento-philes who hate this movie cite its sterile, clinical, seemingly non-Argento approach. Also, they feel it’s not gory enough, as his best hits have been. Those of us, however, who like THE CARD PLAYER actually like it because it is so different from the rest of Argento’s oeuvre. Make no mistake, though: Argento may be trying something different here, but his usual trademarks are well intact. You just have to keep a sharper eye out for them.

THE CARD PLAYER rates fairly high in my book precisely because Argento manages to juggle his old style with a newer one. His movies are usually defined by memorable setpieces that seem like standalone movies. THE CARD PLAYER has one: the scene wherein Anna is terrorized by the killer in her house. The scene plays out in near-complete darkness, with the killer stalking Anna through the hallways, and with us only catching glimpses of the action. This sequence harkens back to similar chase scenes in SUSPIRIA, INFERNO, and PHENOMENA.

Another reason THE CARD PLAYER is a strong, if atypical, entry into the Argento canon is due to its heroine and the actress playing her. Anna Mari is probably Argento’s best heroine, and Stefania Rocca is the ideal actress to play her. Rocca intuitively understands that Anna is someone who keeps a lot hidden, but doesn’t necessarily want this to be the case. The arrival of John in her orbit forces her to make a connection, not only professionally - but also personally. I was living in Italy when THE CARD PLAYER was filming just two hours north of where I lived, and I remember reading an interview with Stefania Rocca in an Italian magazine. She gaves such an eloquent breakdown of her character’s psyche that I became a fan on the spot. Anyone that gorgeous and with that much insight into human behavior, deserved to be on the silver screen.

If Anna Mari and Stefania Rocca are Argento’s best heroine and lead actress, then surely John Brennan and Liam Cunningham are his best hero and lead actor. Just as Mari and Rocca click together, Cunningham and Rocca generate the perfect degree of chemistry. Nothing too explosive, because then it becomes primarily about sex. But nothing too lukewarm, either. Instead, the two leads give off the electricity of two kindred spirits who find and recognize each other - and quietly celebrate that. Without Rocca and Cunningham in the main roles, THE CARD PLAYER would not have rated as highly as it does.

In the end, THE CARD PLAYER may have disappointed a lot of Argento fans, and puzzled a lot of mainstream audiences, but those of us who know what the “Italian Hitchcock” was aiming for, give him props for this attempt to think outside the box. And to a certain degree, he succeeded.

THE CARD PLAYER stands out from the rest of Dario Argento’s body of work - in an intriguing way. And that’s always a good thing.

UPCOMING REVIEWS FOR THE WEEK OF 1/31/11 - 2/6/11

Hello, folks...

We're on to next week's theme. Which is... GIRL POWER WEEK! Yup, we'll once again review films with strong female leads or co-leads who drive the action. Nothing better than beauty and brains in one tight package...

List of flicks below:

#233 - THE THOMAS CROWN AFFAIR: 1999 (AKA: My Average Relationship)

#234 - ENCHANTED APRIL: 1992 (AKA: A Month In Italy With Your Girlfriends. Sign. Me. Up.)

#235 - BASIC INSTINCT 2: 2006 (AKA: My Girl Catherine T. Is Up To Her Usual Shit Again)

#236 - MISS CONGENIALITY: 2000 (AKA: Sandra Bullock Gives Miss America The Birdy)

#237 - ALIEN 3: 1992 (AKA: Sigourney Weaver Shave It All Off, Pisses Off A Lot of ALIEN Fans)

#238 - CATWOMAN: 2004 (AKA: Halle Berry, You Better Hope Sean Young Doesn't Find You)

#239 - JULIE AND JULIA: 2009 (AKA: French Food Makes You Fat - But Not If Your Blog Gets Turned Into A Book!)













Once the last four Horror Flicks post by Tuesday night, we'll get back on track and start reviewing the above flicks...

REVIEW UPDATE: The Last Four Horror Flicks...

Hi, folks...

The reviews for URBAN LEGEND, THE CHANGELING, and MUTANTS are all up. That leaves us only four reviews behind, then we're back on schedule. Please expect the subject reviews to post by Tuesday night or so.

In the meantime, I will go ahead and release next week's theme. As promised, it's going to be another Girl Power Week.

List of movies to be released soon!

Thanks, folks!

#228 - MUTANTS (2009)

MUTANTS (2009 - HORROR) *** out of *****

(Not exactly the best vacation in the French Alps, huh?)



CAST: Helene de Fouguerolles, Francis Renaud, Didi Diafat, Marie Sohna-Conde, Nicholas Briancon.

DIRECTOR: David Morley

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and ill-advised French Alps excursions straight ahead.




Ah, those pesky French… First, they’re born with innate poise and style that you can’t teach or learn. Second, they’re the second hottest nationality on Earth after the Italians. Third, they’ve recently become better at making American movies than Americans themselves.

What do I mean by that third part? Well, there was a time when French films were marked by the absolute lack of anything going on. You know? The kind of film filled with two hours of silence and people just glaring at one another? While smoking endless cigarettes? And occasionally swearing under their breath? Basically, it was considered un-French to have a movie with a kinetic kick that actually told a story.

That’s the French Film of the past. These days, the French movie is very much like your typical American movie - only much better. Recent years have given us French releases that look, sound, and feel like U.S. productions - only filled with French performers and a certain Gallic sensibility. We’ve had Hitchcockian thrillers (TELL NO ONE, ANTHONY ZIMMER, ANYTHING FOR HER), romantic comedies (HEARTBREAKER), horror films (HIGH TENSION, HIGH LANE, MARTYRS, THEM), and dramas (SUMMER HOURS).

Anyhow, all these films were marked by brisk plotlines, three-act structures, twisty developments, and a forthright tone. In other words, if it weren’t for all the French being spoken, and insanely hot French actors and actresses, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were American movies. The major difference is these French flicks were often far more engaging than their American parallels.

In fact, some of these new-style French films have been so dynamic that Hollywood studios have taken notice - and started creating American remakes. ANYTHING FOR HER became Russell Crowe’s THE NEXT THREE DAYS (review #156). ANTHONY ZIMMER turned into Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie’s THE TOURIST (review #211). Basically, what we have are Americans remaking French films that were inspired by American movies in the first place.

Got that? I know. Think about it too much, and you start to see double.

Now, the latest French-Flick-Acting-All-American to come down the pike is MUTANTS, which is basically France’s stab at the Running Zombie Genre - and latest attempt to show us Yanks that they can beat us at our own game. Clearly inspired by DAWN OF THE DEAD 2004 and the UK hit 28 DAYS LATER, MUTANTS is basically the Freedom-Fries version of those movies.

True to France’s “copy-the-formula-then-change-it-up” strategy, MUTANTS doesn’t even waste a minute of set-up or exposition. We basically get kicked right into the deep end of the zombie pool, with our heroes already on the run from some sort of zombie contagion. They are: (1) Sonia (Helene De Fougerolles), insanely hot medic; and (2) Marco (Francis Renaud), not-too-hot but still kind of cute ambulance driver.

As Sonia and Marco drive like crazy in their ambulance, we begin to piece together the shite that has gone down even before the opening credits have rolled. Evidently, the following has occurred: (1) some sort of virus has transformed most of France into homicidal, drooling cannibals; (2) Sonia is somehow immune to this bug; and (3) Marco and she have decided to try to head for a NATO base deep in the French Alps for safety. All in all, not the most promising road trip, right?

Unfortunately, Marco and Sonia’s plans to seek sanctuary at the mountain base go south, big-time, when the following lovely things occur: (1) the ambulance breaks down; and (2) Marco gets infected by a dying refugee. With no motor transport to take them deeper into the mountains, and with Marco now beginning his transformation into a sprinting pus-bag with a hankering for human flesh, our heroic couple have no choice but to hide out in some sort of abandoned hospital in the middle of the woods that looks more like a grungier version of the Overlook Hotel from THE SHINING.

Sonia manages to make brief contact with the NATO base nearby before the ambulance radio conks out. She’s instructed to wait for rescue. But will the military get there in time to treat Marco? Or will he turn into a zombie and attack his beloved Sonia? Or will his human instinct remain intact? Or will she be rescued first by other survivors that show up? Or are they all doomed anyway since the zombies have discovered their hiding place?

Find out for yourselves. All I can say is this: thank goodness a French zombie is just as butt-ugly as an American zombie. Otherwise, that’s just unfair…


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Saying it up front: if it weren’t for two things, MUTANTS would be just as average any American zombie flick. Those two things are: (1) the bleak, wintry mountain setting where the story unfolds; and (2) the promise - ultimately unfulfilled - of a THE FLY-style love story about a woman trying to stand by a man who is slowly changing into something grotesque and terrifying. How long can she stay loyal to him before she has to flee - or kill him?

The lead performances are strong, especially Helene de Fougorolles as Sonia. Francis Renaud is suitably touching and sympathetic as the infected Marco. The rest of the cast are just going through the motions, playing stock characters, which further prevents the film from rising from above average to good. In the end, this movie belongs to its central lovers. Too bad director David Morley and his screenwriters knuckled under and didn’t deliver on the initial promise of the central relationship. MUTANTS would’ve rated higher if it would have fully explored Marco’s transformation - and Sonia’s conflict about what she must do to spare him - and survive herself.

Still, enough of this tantalizing subplot remains to keep the film on solid ground. Add to that the bleak and ominous deserted hospital setting, and we’ve got a French riff on the increasingly tired Running Zombie Genre that, while not 100% original or fresh, at least diverts us with some novel touches and mournful atmosphere.

# 227 - THE CHANGELING (1980)

THE CHANGELING (1980 - GHOST / MYSTERY) **** out of *****

(Really? As wealthy as you are, that‘s the only place you could find to rent in the greater Seattle area?)



CAST: George C. Scott, Trish Van Devere, Melvyn Douglas, Jean Marsh, Barry Morse, John Colicos, Madeline Sherwood, Frances Hyland.

DIRECTOR: Peter Medak

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and some old houses that should never be put up for rent - straight ahead…




Horror flicks are filled with protagonists who, while being very nice people, are also just asking for it. That is, they could easily avoid the situation they’re in, but for whatever reason (usually stupidity, but occasionally something else) they head right for the danger in front of them - instead of the other direction.

The hero of our latest review is one such protagonist. He is John Russell (George C. Scott), and is a world-famous composer who matriculated at Seattle’s U-Dub (University of Washington to you folks outside the Northwest). John has recently returned to Seattle after years of living on the East Coast. The reason for his homecoming? The tragic death of his wife (Jean Marsh) and daughter (Michelle Martin) in a car accident.

So, as you can see, our guy deserves some sympathy. And I don’t blame him for wanting to return to some familiar surroundings to ease the grieving process.

But damn… did he have to rent the creepiest-looking place this side of the Winchester House? Well, actually, blame for that bonehead move should go to Claire Norman (Trish Van Devere), a chick who works at the local Historical Society who also found John a place to hang his hat on as he recovers. And the place she gets for him is a sprawling mansion outside Seattle that looks just a little less inviting than the dump that the Addams Family calls home.

Memo to John Russell: Dude, next time go to a full-fledged real estate agent, not some chick who waxes poetic about how beautiful a house is when, in reality, it looks a lot like a mausoleum. I mean, shit… weren’t there any apartment, houses, or condo for rent in the Lake Union or Capitol Hill area? What about Greenwood? If John wanted peace and quiet, he could’ve come to live on my street. I don’t call it Nursing Home Avenue for no reason.

But I digress. Anyhow, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise when John moves in - and immediately finds himself dealing with some truly bizarre shit. Such as: (1) a pounding sound in the walls at exactly 6:00 AM every morning; (2) a bouncing ball that keeps tumbling down the front stairs; (3) slamming doors; (4) eerie whispers and moans; and (5) a secret room filled with creepy crap. In other words, your basic Capitol Hill party. Except this ain’t happening in Capitol Hill, which means it must be… a haunting.

Soon, John and Claire are playing Nick and Norah Charles and chasing down leads that might explain the identity of the ghost. As they dig into the history of the house, they discover some very disturbing things. Like that Washington state’s senator, Joe Carmichael (Melvyn Douglas), used to live there as a child. Eventually, John and Claire decide to have a session to contact the ghost. During this supremely freaky scene, they discover that the ghost has a name: Joseph. And that he died in the house many years ago. And they also discover that they have weak bowels - especially when confronted by supernatural phenomena.

Who is “Joseph”? What connection does he have to the house? What connection does he have to John? Will John and Claire be able to solve the mystery? What does Senator Carmichael have to do with the haunting? Is there more going on here than meets the eye? And the most important question of all: why didn’t John just opt for a nice house on Lake Washington?

Whatever. It’s his funeral.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: I’m going to deliberately say as little as possible about THE CHANGELING, because it is a groundbreaking horror film that drips atmosphere, intelligence, and dread. This film basically sets the standard for the Supernatural Mystery Flick genre, members of which include WHAT LIES BENEATH, THE RING, STIR OF ECHOES, SHUTTER, and others that would come much later.

You know a film is terrifying when grown men actually crawl on top of a couch in anticipation of the scares. I actually saw this happen when a bunch of military buddies and I watched THE CHANGELING during a Halloween party. We’re talking hard-nosed Alpha-men here - and this film reduced them to quivering little simps. I’ve never seen any other film have a similar effect on them.

The cast is terrific, with George C. Scott a nice, stoic hero. His real-life wife Trish Van Devere makes a good match for him as the strong and sensitive Claire, who becomes his ally in unraveling the mystery. Melvyn Douglas adds an additional touch of class as the powerful senator who may know more about the house’s history than he’s telling.

But I fear I have already shared too much. Let me just close with two last tidbits: watch out for that séance scene - and look out for the “wheelchair chase scene.”

You’ve been warned….

# 226 - URBAN LEGEND (1998)

URBAN LEGEND (1998 - HORROR) *** out of *****

(Did you hear the one about the killer who looked like Nanook of the North?)



CAST: Jared Leto, Alicia Witt, Rebecca Gayheart, Joshua Jackson, Michael Rosenbaum, Tara Reid, Loretta Devine, Natasha Gregson-Warner, John Neville, Danielle Harris.

DIRECTOR: Jaime Blanks

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and some rather literal (and bloody) interpretations of urban legends - straight ahead…




I remember the first urban legend I heard about while growing up in Southeast Asia. It was the one about “The Babysitter and the Killer Upstairs.” If you folks will recall, that story revolved around a babysitter home alone who starts receiving threatening phone calls. Eventually, she gets the police to trace the calls - and they discover that they’re coming from a second phone line upstairs. Cue the killer’s entrance and cue our heroine’s messy curtain call.

Anyhow, even at that young age, I knew for certain this had to be something that happened in the States, because there’s no way it would have happened in the Southeast Asian country I grew up in. To wit: (1) people there wait years and years to get a phone installed in their home - I can’t even fucking imagine how long a wait a second phone line would require - and by the time they get a phone line, the kids would be all grown up and there wouldn‘t be a need for a babysitter; (2) the cops barely have the technology to make a decent cup of coffee, let alone trace a goddamn phone call; and (3) the killers in that country don’t fuck around - he would’ve come downstairs the minute the parents left and turned the babysitter into meat on a stick. He wouldn’t have wasted time making any fucking phone calls.

This is very much unlike the killer in our latest review, the horror flick URBAN LEGEND. This dude (or dudette?) actually enjoys taunting his (her?) victims, to the point where you’re just begging them to be killed and put out of their misery already. Our killer’s MO also involves turning urban legends into reality, hence the title.

The first UL to get the reality treatment is “The Killer In The Backseat.” Just like it sounds, our killer climbs into the backseat of co-ed Michelle Mancini’s (Natasha Gregson Warner) car and, after an interminable amount of listening to her sing along (badly) to Bonnie Tyler’s “Total Eclipse of the Heart,” he finally chops her head off. Leading to a, well, total eclipse of her heart.

News of Michelle’s murder spreads like wildfire through Pendleton University, rattling the student body and staff. A few of them include: (1) Natalie (Alicia Witt), hot and brainy chick who harbors a dark secret; (2) Paul (Jared Leto), hot and studious journalism student who smells a story; (3) Brenda (Rebecca Gayheart), hot and sporty co-ed who really wants Paul; (4) Sasha (Tara Reid), hot and slutty co-ed who is also the campus DJ; (5) Damon (Joshua Jackson), hot and cocky frat boy who should really put some conditioner in his hair; (6) Parker (Michael Rosenbaum), hot and cocky frat boy #2 who should really study more and party less; (7) Tosh (Danielle Harris), hot and weird goth chick who is also Natalie’s roommate; (8) Professor Wexler (Robert Englund), not-so-hot but definitely weird prof who knows something about the school’s grim past; and (9) Reese (Loretta Devine), head of campus security who thinks she’s Pam Grier.

All these folks are bothered by Michelle’s murder. Things get even worse when Damon bites it while trying to make out with Natalie, in what appears to be a reenactment of “The Scratching Sound on top of the Car.” Then Tosh dies while Natalie sleeps soundly nearby, in an obvious reenactment of “Aren’t You Glad You Didn’t Turn On The Light?” Doesn’t take long for our heroine Natalie to come up with the same conclusion my cat did after taking one look at the DVD cover: “Someone is turning urban legends into reality!”

The authorities’ response to Natalie’s hypothesis is basically gales of laughter, and basically a nice pat on the tushie while saying, “Run along and study hard, toots.” Undeterred, Natalie eventually teams up with Paul to figure out what the hell is going on. Their sleuthing reveals that a massacre happened at Pendleton U. about 25 years ago, and the sole survivor was… Professor Wexler. Is there a connection to the new set of murders?

What is going on at Pendleton U.? Who is the parka-clad killer? One of the students? One of the staff? Someone else? Who will be the next victim of an urban legend? Parker? Sasha? Brenda? Paul? Or even Natalie herself? What secret is Natalie hiding that might be able to solve the mystery once and for all? Will Reese be able to protect the students? Or is she just another another lamb to the slaughter? And why the hell does this chick think she can out-fabulous Pam Grier?

Whatever. Just prepare yourself for some rather creative interpretations of your favorite bullshit stories…


BUT, SERIOUSLY: In the wake of SCREAM’s success in 1996, the floodgates opened and a tidal wave of post-modern slasher flicks flooded the marketplace. Of those, the best were I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and… URBAN LEGEND. With a very interesting premise at its core, URBAN LEGEND could’ve easily been as good as SCREAM. Unfortunately, a great concept doesn’t always guarantee a great film. The script takes some rather illogical leaps that sometimes take you out of the story.

Fortunately, director Jamie Blanks helms the film with such grace and confidence, that the momentum of the plot helps offset any head-scratching moments of incredulity. The way he shoots URBAN LEGEND is reminiscent of the look and feel of horror classics like HALLOWEEN and THE FOG. In other words, each shot breathes atmosphere and tension - and it goes a long way in keeping us engaged in the film. There are also some exciting sequences that rank up there with those in SCREAM and I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER. The opening murder of Michelle, and Sasha’s extended chase scene through the deserted radio station are two that come to mind.

The cast is solid, if not exactly remarkable. They do what they have to do - and do it reasonably well. The standouts in the younger crowd are Alicia Witt as the conflicted heroine Natalie, and Jared Leto as the crusading would-be journalist, while Loretta Devine as the quirky campus cop Reese is the best of the veteran cast. Robert Englund provides some occasional creepy moments as the professor who may or may not be the killer.

All in all, URBAN LEGEND may not live up to its fantastic premise, but it still delivers an engaging and suspenseful ride for modern audiences, while still retaining the feel of the old-school classics. Given how many slasher films strike out, that is something to praise.

REMINDER: Two-Thirds Mark is just around the corner...

Hi, folks...

Just realized that review #244 not too far off, and I'm looking at all the recommendations I haven't used to see what would be a good flick to commemorate that milestone with.

We had the awesome 127 HOURS for our Halfway Point review (thanks! you know who you are!). Let's see what you folks come up with for our next milestone.

Please get your recommendations in by Feb 11, Friday.

Buona Serata!

REVIEW UPDATE: The Horror Flicks...

Evening, folks...

Just a quick note to inform everyone that all the New Releases from last week are all in the can. The Horror Flicks from this week should all be published by Tuesday or so, and then we're on to the first week of February's theme: Girl Power Week, Part 3.

Please expect the reviews for URBAN LEGEND, THE CHANGELING, and MUTANTS to post by tomorrow at midnight. Then between Monday and Tuesday, the reviews for THE CARD PLAYER, CURTAINS, THE RITE, and THE FOG shall post. Then we'll be back on schedule. Hooray!

Have a great Saturday night! Thanks for your patience...

# 225 - THE COMPANY MEN (2010)

THE COMPANY MEN (2010 - DRAMA) ***1/2 out of *****

(Well, that was a downer...)



CAST: Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, Kevin Costner, Chris Cooper, Maria Bello, Rosemary DeWitt, Craig T. Nelson.

DIRECTOR: John Wells.

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and some buzz-killing subject matters straight ahead…




Picture this: a husband and wife are sitting at the dinner table reading the movie schedules, trying to pick a film to go to that evening.

HUSBAND: Look, babe… that new Ben Affleck/Tommy Lee Jones/Kevin Costner movie called THE COMPANY MEN is playing down the street in half-an-hour!

WIFE: Oh, I like Ben Affleck. He was so cute in THE TOWN. Let’s go see it. What’s it about?

HUSBAND: (reading from synopsis in paper) “The lives of four different men are overturned when they face the grim realities of the current recession and unemployment.”

Husband and wife stare at each other for about five seconds, then:

HUSBAND: Let’s go see FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS instead!

WIFE: Yeah!

You can bet that’s pretty much what’s going on right now in kitchens, dining rooms, and living rooms across America. And you can’t exactly blame folks. After all, in these tough times, we go to the movies to escape - not to be reminded of the bleak economic situation we’re in. Hell, I probably would’ve gone to see FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS myself - if I hadn’t promised someone I would review THE COMPANY MEN because she recommended it. (I hope you’re satisfied. You know who you are).

Anyway, as the synopsis in our mock-scene above states, THE COMPANY MEN is indeed about four men whose lives are affected by the shitty economic conditions we currently find ourselves swimming in. With the exception of one dude, these guys are mostly rich executives. They are: (1) Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck), flashy mid-level exec who is unexpectedly laid off; (2) Gene McClary (Tommy Lee Jones), kind-hearted high-level exec who thinks of Bobby as a surrogate son but can’t keep him from being laid off and feel’s guilty about that; (3) Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper), grumpy sort-of-high-level exec who also faces the axe along with Bobby; and (4) Jack Dolan (Kevin Costner), crusty blue-collar type who runs his own booming drywall business - which technically makes him the most successful of the four.

At any rate, these guys all must grapple with not only lifestyle changes and the hard realities of unemployment, but also their lost sense of self-worth. After all, studies show that American men are the ones who engage in dick-measuring contests the most. And the measuring tape usually comes in the form of status, which grows out of the particular job that they have. How do they measure their dicks when they no longer have jobs? Who will prove to be the survivor and find his way back to employment in one piece? Who will not fare as well? Will la-di-da pretty boy Bobby be forced to work as a drywaller with salt-of-the-Earth no-bullshit Jack?

Well, tune in to this flick to find out. All I’ll say is this: in my book, Jack’s weathered flannel shirt, dirty jeans, and scuffed-up work boots beat an Armani suit and tie - any goddamned day of the year.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Like I wrote above, most people will likely shun THE COMPANY MEN because it is an all-too-grim reminder of what’s going on in our country this very second. People losing their jobs. Lives being upended. Families being destroyed. THE COMPANY MEN won’t take you away from any of that. If anything it puts you right in the middle of it, and most people won’t want to see it.

Which is a shame, because this movie is actually quite good, with strong performances from everyone concerned. Ben Affleck continues his remarkable comeback and proves himself to be a natural actor with a very likable presence. His character here is much more polished than the guy he played in THE TOWN, and it’s a testament to Affleck’s versatility that he disappears into this role the same way.

Tommy Lee Jones is strong as the humane and altruistic Gene. After Bobby is fired, Gene almost takes it personally, especially because he couldn’t stop it. Gene’s wife ultimately reminds him that he’s not Bobby’s father. This scene captures the essence of the character, and Jones vividly conveys that Gene is someone who values people far above stock market prices.

Chris Cooper also makes an impression as the tragic Phil Woodward. Phil basically typifies that type of American male for whom work has become his sole identifier - and when that is taken away from him, he basically goes into a tailspin. The fact that his wife still makes him leave the house everyday and not come home before 6 PM, just so the neighbors won’t know he was fired, is quite sad - and Cooper plays this pathos without wallowing in it.

Kevin Costner turns in a humbly gracious performance as Jack Dolan, the most down-to- earth of the four main characters. Employing a respectable Boston accent, Costner reminds us here of what brought him to acclaim and stardom in the first place: the uncanny ability to play the guy-next-door, but make him distinctive and memorable at the same time. He also has one of the film’s best lines, delivered after a family dinner when he gives his opinion of Bobby to his sister, who happens to be Bobby’s wife. Just five words, but Costner infuses them with hilarious venom.

As the major female characters, Rosemary DeWitt and Maria Bello are also solid as, respectively: (1) Bobby’s fiercely loyal and pragmatic wife, Maggie; and (2) Sally Wilcox, the conflicted HR exec who despises her role in the firings - but can’t do anything about it. DeWitt and Bello hold their own quite nicely against their male counterparts - and are quite lovely.

All in all, THE COMPANY MEN is a good film that, right now, hits too closely to home for many people. Hopefully, in a few years’ time, when the economy is booming again, this movie will serve as a cautionary tale of what could happen again - if we’re not careful.

# 224 - SOMEWHERE (2010)

SOMEWHERE (2010 - DRAMA) ***1/2 out of *****

(Chateau Marmont, you are no Tokyo Park Hotel, but you‘re still kind of okay…)



CAST: Stephen Dorff, Elle Fanning, Michelle Monaghan.

DIRECTOR: Sofia Coppola

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and pretty strong argument for enforcing a maximum limit on hotel stays.




There are days when I think that living in a hotel must be the best thing in the world. Think of it: (1) someone to clean your room/suite everyday and bring towels, (2) room service anytime you want it; (3) a decent gym and pool (hopefully) on the premises; and (4) most importantly: a bar you don’t have to drive to. Hell, I’d do it.

The hero of our next review is Hollywood actor Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), and he is apparently of the same opinion. Johnny, like certain real-life bad boy stars, lives in a suite at the Chateau Marmont in Beverly Hills when he’s not off shooting some movie. Like, oh, right now.

Doesn’t mean Johnny ain’t busy, though. Far from it. He keeps himself occupied with the following cerebral activities: (1) watching private strippers do a dance routine in his suite; (2) sitting on his couch drinking beer; (3) promoting his latest film at local press junkets while smiling mindlessly with a co-star (Michelle Monaghan) that hates him; and (4) driving his car out into the desert where he goes round and round in circles.

You’d have to be someone with zero analytical ability to not guess that this last bit in particular is a metaphor for the rut that Johnny’s life is suddenly in. Sure, he’s a rich, successful actor. But is that enough? The answer is… well, depends on how rich you are. Because you can buy “meaning” if you have millions of dollar. Let’s not overdo the angst, folks.

Anyhow, things take a turn for the more (sigh) meaningful when Johnny’s daughter Cleo turns up at the hotel to spend some time with him. Suddenly, Johnny’s got a (sort of) purpose in life. For the next several weeks, father and daughter romp around. To wit, they: (1) play video games; (2) drive around L.A.; (3) fly to Italy on an unexpected press tour; and (4) generally walk around the hotel acting like they’re Bob and Charlotte from LOST IN TRANSLATION. In short, Johnny is almost happy.

But what happens when the time comes for Cleo to move on to her summer camp? What will Johnny do then? Will he go back to having private strippers come up to his suite? Or will he actually try to, you know, grow up? Is it even possible for him to do this? Will he eventually move out of the Chateau Marmont and get on with his life? Or is he pretty much going to grow old and die there?

Well, frankly speaking, there are worst places to croak than the Chateau Marmont. Like the hotel down the street that looks like Dracula lives in it.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our review for LOST IN TRANSLATION (review # 99), I mentioned that it was one of my favorite films. Basically a love story focused on friendship rather than sex, this film sharply divided audiences with its leisurely and abstract way of telling the story of two Americans in Tokyo who encounter each other quite by chance - and make an instant, lifelong connection. Do they act on this connection - or do they fight it? The answer made for one of the most memorable (and heartfelt) endings ever.

Director Sofia Coppola struck gold with LOST IN TRANSLATION. Her screenplay won the Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars, and the movie landed on more “Ten Best Movies of the Year” lists than you could count with your fingers and toes. Given the resounding success of this “Little Movie That Could,” it was only understandable that Coppola would try to repeat history.

Did she succeed? Is SOMEWHERE as good as its universally-acclaimed cinematic older brother? Well, no… and yes.

No, SOMEWHERE is not as great as LOST IN TRANSLATION. The very structure of the former’s story negates attaining the same emotional power of the latter. The most exhilarating thing about any relationship is meeting someone new - and learning about them in leaps and bounds. That’s why the early stages of any romance are exquisite: it’s all about the thrill of discovering a kindred spirit - and gradually getting to know them better. This is basically the path that Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johanssen) traversed in LOST IN TRANSLATION.

SOMEWHERE is a different gem, though. It’s not a love story between strangers who discover they are soulmates. Rather, it’s a love story between a father and daughter who re-discover one another - and realize they are soulmates. The time that Johnny spends with Cleo makes him realize just how special she is - and she sees him for the first time as a human being separate from being just “Dad.” Sometimes, discovering the treasure that you had all along can be just as powerful, if not more, than finding a new one.

Because of this different track that SOMEWHERE takes, there isn’t as obvious a build-up of intimacy between the leads as there was in LOST IN TRANSLATION. Johnny and Cleo already know each other and have been in each other’s lives for awhile. The few weeks they spend together allows them to see each other with new eyes. But it’s only after Cleo leaves at the very end that Johnny realizes just how much she changed him during her stay.

This has caused a couple of folks I know to say that SOMEWHERE is unsatisfying and ends rather abruptly. I respectfully disagree. I think Sofia Coppola intentionally wrote the story that way. Just like most human beings, Johnny doesn’t realize what he has until it has left him. The scenes following Cleo’s departure at the end are some of Stephen Dorff’s best scenes. The scene where he breaks down and realizes the rut he’s in is Oscar-worthy. It’s Cleo who triggers this realization in him. Yes, it comes late in the game. But isn’t that how life often is? Only when something walks away do you realize its value.

Stephen Dorff and Elle Fanning are terrific as a father-daughter team. Dorff has always impressed from as far back as his debut in the cheesy late-80’s horror film THE GATE. He’s always managed to combined laid-back charm with a passionate intensity. It’s an interesting combo that gives him a very strong screen presence, which he uses to turn Johnny Marco into an interesting character whose childlike wonder is never far from the surface. Watch the scene where he quietly observes Cleo as she practices her figure skating. It‘s a master class in the playing a scene to the hilt without saying a single word.

Fanning proves that the acting gene didn’t just find a home in her sister Dakota. I was so relieved that Cleo didn’t turn into the kind of irritating and whiny adolescent movie character like Mattie from TRUE GRIT. Fanning plays this girl as smart, but not overbearingly so. She also remembers to infuse Cleo with the same innocent wonder that her father has. Obviously, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. The result is not only a believable father-daughter duo, but one of the most memorable ones to grace the silver screen.

And then there’s that wonderful ending. It’s almost as pitch-perfect as LOST IN TRANSLATION’s. It’s both clear and mysterious, at the same time. In short, you won’t forget it anytime soon and will be discussing it with your friends over drinks and such. Which is what any good movie should leave you doing.

In summary, while SOMEWHERE may not be the classic that LOST IN TRANSLATION was, it's still a very worthy effort that can stand straight with conviction. Just remember: it tells its own story...

# 223 - THE KING’S SPEECH (2010)

THE KING’S SPEECH (2010 - DRAMA) ***** out of *****

(I‘d like to see His Royal Highness say “Peter Piper Picked a Pack of Pickled Peppers“ twenty times - really fast)



CAST: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham-Carter.

DIRECTOR: Tom Hooper

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one Royal Bromance - straight ahead…





UrbanDictionary.com defines the term “Bromance” as: (1) “the complicated love and affection between two men” that does not involve sex; and (2) “a non-sexual relationship between two men who are unusually close.” Basically, it’s BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN - only one dude doesn’t want to fuck the other. He may, however, want to cry on his shoulder once in awhile, though. And maybe even cuddle on a rainy day. Kidding. But not really.

We’ve seen many examples of Bromances throughout the years, even before the term entered the zeitgeist. A Bromance Movie can be from any genre, as long as it shows a close, non-sexual, and often complicated relationship between two men. Examples include: SCENT OF A WOMAN, 48 HOURS, FANDANGO, GOOD WILL HUNTING, ROLE MODELS, GROWN-UPS, DINER, LETHAL WEAPON and its sequels, and many others.

Our latest review is set in pre-WWII London, and is probably the classiest Bromance Movie I’ve ever seen. Our “lovebirds” are: (1) Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), a quirky and unconventional speech therapist who must be very effective for his clients to put up with his, shall we say, unorthodox techniques; and (2) King George VI (Colin Firth), Head Monarch of England. Really.

And you thought I was just fucking around when I wrote that this was the classiest Bromance Movie I’ve ever seen. Dorks.

Anyhow, King G. has this horrible stammer problem which surfaces when he speaks publicly. That is quite inconvenient, what with him having to give speeches to the nation and all. It goes without saying that all the speech therapists he’s seen have been about as effective as a mesh condom. One even tries to cure King G’s speech impediment by forcing him to (I swear to God) suck on some steel balls. How this is supposed to keep our Royal Hero from stammering is beyond my fucking comprehension. But then again, the therapist might be on to something: I don’t know any gay dudes who stammer. Do you? Well, then…

Anyway, with King G’s role as CEO of Britain and all, it’s quite urgent that he surmount this problem - prontissimo. Eventually, his loyal wife Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter) hears about a certain speech therapist on the other side of London who seems to have a promising track record. She pays him a visit in person and, as you can imagine, this isn’t one of the more boring meet-and-greets in the history of the World. I know if I stepped into my waiting room to find the First Lady waiting for me, I can safely say I would shit myself.

Fortunately, this new speech therapist must be used to Royalty swinging by, because he barely bats an eyelash. He is Lionel Logue, and he seems to pretty sangfroid for someone who just landed the gig of a lifetime. Either that, or Queen E. interrupted him while having a nip of something stronger than coffee, know what I’m sayin’? Anyhow, after practically zero minutes of hesitation, Lionel agrees to coach King G to orate and expound more effectively.

And so begins Lionel and Georgie’s Bromance? Will it be smooth sailing? Or will Lionel enrage King G with his offbeat methods? Will King G eventually thaw and embrace Lionel’s strategy? And what happens when war breaks out between England and Germany - and King G must give a series of important speeches designed to win the country’s confidence and boost morale? Will he succeed? Or will he stammer his way through the whole thing again? Will Lionel and Georgie’s “love” conquer all?

See for yourselves. All I’ll say is I’d be very interested to know how that “Sucking on Steel Balls” treatment came about. Very interested, indeed.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Because THE KING’S SPEECH is one of those films that are most effective when going in knowing the bare essentials, I’ll keep this analysis to 6 statements:

1. This film is based on the true story of King George VI’s speech impediment and his remarkable friendship with Lionel Logue.

2. Colin Firth deserves his recent Academy Award Nomination for this role. In his talented hands, King George is a moving combination of icy imperiousness, uncertain vulnerability, and tentative courage. It’s a heartbreaker of a performance that rivals James Franco’s from 127 HOURS, who was also nominated. I would hate to be the one to choose between these two for Best Actor.

3. Geoffrey Rush is equally terrific as the atypical speech therapist, Lionel Logue. His stubborn refusal to be intimidated by George, and his relentless drive to help him, forms the motor of their relationship - and Rush plays it beautifully.

4. Helena Bonham-Carter is perfect as Queen Elizabeth. Bonham-Carter is an ace at playing coolly composed women with softness lurking beneath, and this portrayal is no exception. She and Firth are a great cinematic couple, and the best scenes are of the deeply-loyal Elizabeth raising the spirits of her troubled husband.

5. You should see this movie only if you appreciate thoughtful, intelligent, methodically-paced films that eventually yield significant emotional rewards. Otherwise, go see SEASON OF THE WITCH.

6. The film ends with on-screen text that tells us that George and Lionel remained close friends even after the treatment, and continued to be so for the rest of their lives.

Now if that’s not a Bromance, I don’t know what it is…

# 222 - SEASON OF THE WITCH (2010)

SEASON OF THE WITCH (2010 - HORROR) * out of *****

(What a waste of a good title…)



CAST: Nicolas Cage, Ron Perlman, Claire Foy, Stephen Campbell Moore, Ulrich Thomsen.

DIRECTOR: Dominic Sena

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and appropriately brief reviews of one utterly crappy movie - straight ahead…




A dear friend whom we will call “Russell Costner” (because he looks like a cross between Russell Crowe and Kevin Costner) recently learned about this blog. I refused to give him the link because I’m not sure if he’s ready for my special brand of humor. However, I did confide in him that trying to stay on schedule with these reviews - and still be able to go out drinking and dancing and throwing dinner parties - was kind of challenging.

“Russell C.” responded that I should basically tailor my reviews to the quality of the film under scrutiny. Basically, if the flick is good or above, then go ahead and write a thesis on it. If it ain’t so great, then don’t use too many words on it. Although I adore “Russell C.” and have found his advice to be life-saving more than once, I privately disagreed with him.

See, I believe all movies - like all people - have value to them. Sometimes you just have to look deeper. Just because something is flawed or seemingly uncomplicated, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t spend some time trying to understand it better - or give it the benefit of the doubt. That’s why you’ll find on this blog phone book-length discourses on the likes of SLIVER, POSEIDON, DEEP BLUE SEA, PROM NIGHT, GRANDMA’S BOY, HOT TUB TIME MACHINE, and many more.

And believe me: the more time I spend writing lengthy movie reviews is less time I can spend doing Jell-O shots off someone’s hairy chest. Which, while fun and exhilarating, sometimes leads to Drama-With-A-Capital-D when his girlfriend comes storming across the bar to accuse me of “Trying to lure my Sammy to the dark side!”

Oh, really? Bitch, no one made him lift that T-shirt and lay on his back on the pool table. Maybe you should go down on him more.

But I digress. Again. The point is I didn’t think I’d ever watch a mainstream film that I would refuse to dissect or analyze to a reasonable degree.

Then I watched SEASON OF THE WITCH. And I realized that “Russel C.” was right: some movies are just not worth it. Giving a sardonic plot breakdown with two sentences is more than this gargantuan piece of shit deserves, but I’ll be magnanimous and do it anyway:

So, like, Nicolas Cage and Ron Perlman (acting badly, both) play “crusaders” in Medieval times who somehow get roped into accompanying some possessed chick (Claire Foy) to some abbey deep in the fucked-up woods of Eastern Europe. This all happens during the Black Plague, and the geniuses running the Church think that if this chick gets exorcised, the Plague might go away.

HUH?

Anyhow, that’s more than I’m willing to say about the movie. No, scratch that… I’d like to add one more thing: this movie has CGI so awful it makes the “parasurfing” scene from DIE ANOTHER DAY look like the height of state-of-the-art realism.

I owe “Russell C.” a bottle of Tequila for this.

BUT, SERIOUSLY: I speak in all seriousness when I say you should avoid this movie like the Plague. Get it? The Plague?

Okay, that’s enough.

# 221 - TRUE GRIT (2010)

TRUE GRIT (2010 - WESTERN / DRAMA / “MEH” MOVIE) **½ out of *****

(Really? Really?)



CAST: Jeff Bridges, Hallee Stanfield, Matt Damon, Barry Pepper.

DIRECTOR: The Coen Brothers

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one utterly flummoxed armchair critic - straight ahead…




There is a category of film that I have christened the “Meh Movie.”

What is a Meh Movie? Well, allow me to enlighten: A Meh Movie is a flick that seems to be loved by every, man, woman, child, vegetable, mineral, and marine mammal on Earth - with the notable exception of you and a few other hold-outs. When you folks watch these movies, though, your immediate response is not: “THAT WAS FUCKING AWESOME!!! CAN‘T WAIT TO SEE IT AGAIN!“ Nope. After watching these films, your response is one word:

“Meh.”

Basically, it’s as if you’re in INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS: everyone has been converted, and if you’re not careful, you could be next, bucko. Or, in more relatable terms (to us whorish Scorpios, anyway), it’s like finally bedding that hottie you’ve lusted after for weeks and then finding out he’s about as fun in the sack as folding laundry. In other words: “Meh.” Next.

Now, please understand that Meh Movies are not necessarily bad. If fact, many of them are average or above average - even good. They’re just not the unforgettable classics that the majority of audiences makes them out to be. In a word, these flicks are overrated. Way overrated. Wait… that’s two words.

Whatever. Be honest with yourself: you know you have your own list of Meh Movies. My own are: THE FUGITIVE, IN THE LINE OF FIRE, BIG, CONTACT, CASINO, THE ROCK, KNOCKED UP, THE SIXTH SENSE, UNBREAKABLE, SIGNS, and any other film that M. Night Shyamalan will pull out of his ass in this lifetime.

Our next review falls under that category. It’s a remake of a classic Western from the 50’s, has a prestigious cast, and is helmed by two of the most talented directors in the world: Joel and Ethan Coen. In other words: tilt-bingo-jackpot. Right?

To 98% of the world, maybe. To this lowly armchair critic, it’s about as painful as watching my cat compulsively move the entire contents of his litter box from one side to another. Seriously, I cannot begin to express how much this movie bored me. I agreed to go to it because I was with a group of friends who really wanted to see it - and I was raised to treat everyone with respect, and meet them halfway. Maybe my parents should have raised me to use the phrase “Fuck that shit” more often.

Anyhow, the story revolves around some brat named Mattie Ross (Hallee Stanfield), who is out to avenge the death of her father at the hands of some outlaw named Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). She contrives to have legendary lawman Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) help track down Tom, even offering to pay for his services. Given that Mattie is barely fourteen, you can forgive Cogburn for not taking her seriously.

Just because one sidekick is not enough in movies these days, Mattie ends up recruiting doofus marshal LeBoeuf (Matt Damon), who looks like he graduated from an early version of the Barney Fife Academy of Law Enforcement. It’s utterly appropriate that this guy’s name is basically the French translation of “Beef” - because he’s about as smart as a cow.

Apparently, the dramatic crux of TRUE GRIT is our trio of Mattie, Cogburn, and LeBoeuf chasing Tom through some of the ugliest country terrain I have ever seen in a movie. This is one flick with zero eye candy whatsoever. Those of you expecting pretty travelogue scenery, or expecting Jeff Bridges looking like he did in AGAINST ALL ODDS better get that cold shower ready, because you’re about to get a nasty surprise. He looks and sounds more like Billy Bob Thornton’s character in SLING BLADE.

Will they catch Tom? Will Mattie ever let up with her “smart-beyond-her-years” nagging of her pitiful sidekicks? Will Cogburn and LeBoeuf finally lose it and pistol whip Mattie then toss her into a ravine?

God, I hope so. That kid can whine.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Anyone who knows me or follows this blog know that I do not favor Westerns. I tend to find them dull and uninteresting. While what I look for in movies is entertainment coupled with some emotional and psychological insight, something about movies set in the Old West just sabotages those things for me.

That’s not to say I haven’t liked some Westerns in my time. There have been four that I’ve counted as good to very good films: (1) 3:10 TO YUMA, because of Russell Crowe’s almost supernatural charisma; (2) SILVERADO, because of Kevin Costner and Kevin Kline’ star power and Lawrence Kasdan stellar storytelling skills; (3) THE QUICK AND THE DEAD, because of director Sam Raimi’s determinedly tongue-in-cheek send-up of the genre and - again - Russell Crowe and Sharon Stone’s almost supernatural charisma; and (4) UNFORGIVEN, because Clint Eastwood is someone who can transcend genre with his stories and acting.

I haven’t seen the original TRUE GRIT, and have absolutely no desire to. Watching the current TRUE GRIT does nothing to change that. True to a Meh Movie, this film is technically well-made and well-acted. But I never found it even remotely interesting or engaging. There were occasional flashes of humor but, as with all Westerns besides the above four, I never forgot I was watching a movie or actors just spouting lines - not full-blooded characters.

Speaking of the actors, they’re okay. But their performances are just that… performances. I never forgot for a second they were acting. The fact that Jeff Bridges, an actor I admire, recently got an Oscar Nomination for this role is a bit disconcerting, when there have been more deserving performances this year.

Matt Damon is clearly having fun with his role but, again, is obviously acting. While he provides some comic relief, it wasn’t enough to pull me into the story. Then there’s Hallee Stanfield, an actress who will clearly go on to better things. Here, though, she’s playing one of those kid characters that exist only in the movies: smart way beyond her years, super-eloquent, and thoroughly unbelievable. Anyone who knows me or follows this blog knows there’s nothing more that I love than a believably strong female character whose humanity is never compromised by her tougness.

Unfortunately, the way Stanfield plays Mattie is almost a caricature. A caricature with other facets to her, but still a caricature. As with Bridges and Damon and their characters, I never once believed in her character, despite being positioned as a strong female lead. She actually got on my nerves with strident attitude and incessant nagging. Too bad they didn’t have duct tape in those days.

As far as the direction, well, with the exception of a quirky scene in the last act of the film involving an all-night horse ride to get a snake-bitten Mattie to a doctor, the direction is surprisingly generic for a Coen movie. Their distinctive traits are missing from TRUE GRIT.

Bottom line: this movie wasn’t bad, but in my opinion it is nowhere the near the stellar film that everyone seems to think it is.

In other words: “Meh.”

REVIEW UPDATE: The New Releases and The Horror Flicks...

Hi, folks...

First off, so very sorry about the tardiness in getting the remaining New Releases posted. I've had an extraordinary spike in my social life, which we agreed in the beginning I would have to put in front of the blog.

Well, now it's time to turn back to the blog and get caught up. So, please expect the last five of the New Releases to post by tonight. The Horror Flicks will start posting tomorrow - and then we're on to February and another Girl Power week.

As a reminder please find below the reviews I owe you:

The New Releases:

# 221 - TRUE GRIT

# 222 - SEASON OF THE WITCH

# 223 - THE KING'S SPEECH

# 224 - SOMEWHERE

# 225 - THE COMPANY MEN


The Horror Flicks:

# 226 - URBAN LEGEND

# 227 - THE CHANGELING

# 228 - MUTANTS

# 229 - THE CARD PLAYER

# 230 - CURTAINS

# 231 - THE RITE

# 232 - THE FOG

Wow. The Chase Begins!

Have a great weekend, all!

# 220 - TANGLED (2010)

TANGLED (2010 - ANIMATED / / FAMILY / ROMANCE ) ***½ out of *****

(I don‘t even want to know what her monthly shampoo bill is.)



CAST: Voices of Mandy Moore, Zachery Levi, Donna Murphy, Ron Perlman, Jeffrey Tambor, M.C. Gainey.

DIRECTOR: Nathan Greno, Byron Howard.

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and pretty strong arguments for keeping a “bob” haircut.




I’ve always suspected that The Brothers Grimm must have been the John Carpenter and Wes Craven of their time.

Consider the Grimm’s Fairy Tales, the massive compendium of stories that Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm collected and unleashed upon the world for centuries to come. These grisly stories were collected and told, re-told, re-re-told, and re-re-re-told - and eventually put on paper because they could freak out more people that way. And wouldn’t have to walk all over the fucking European continent to do it.

In case you’re wondering why I chose the word “grisly” above, well, that’s because many of the original tales were. Hence the comparison of Jacob and Wilhelm to horror auteurs Carpenter and Craven. All one has to do is thumb through any copy of the complete stories to find explicit allusions to murder, kidnapping, suicide, mutilation, cannibalism, assault, and any other atrocity you care to mention. You name it, the Brothers Grimm probably peddled it in one of their stories.

For example, did you know that in the original version of Cinderella (known as “Aeschputtel”) the wicked stepsisters actually slice off parts of their feet so that they can fit into the glass slipper Prince Charming uses to track Cinderella down? Or that the big bad wolf in “Little Red Hiding Hood” did actually devour Grandma in a most graphic manner? Or that the dwarfs in “Snow White” weren’t exactly cute or adorable - and more closely resembled Gollum and his Six Drinking Buddies? Or that hag from “Hansel and Gretel” really intended to roast the trespassing and thieving little brats in her oven. That was definitely not a figure of speech when she threatened to roast them alive.

All in all, Disney pretty much sanitized the Grimm’s fairy tales when they shaped them into chirpy, giddy movies and foisted them on an unsuspecting world. So much so that many people forget their dark and utterly fucked-up origins. As a result, generations of Americans have a rather rose-colored view of these stories.

Our latest review is also Disney’s latest bastardization of a Grimm’s Fairy Tale. Having twisted CINDERELLA, SLEEPING BEAUTY, and SNOW WHITE into something sleek and polished beyond comprehension, the powers-that-be at Disney - crackhead, all of them - set their sights on… RAPUNZEL. Yes, the story of that chick with so much blonde hair that she would’ve been worshipped as a goddess in the state of California. Hell, the entire West Coast.

The film is called TANGLED, and almost immediately we know that, once again, those crackheads at Disney aren’t exactly concerned with being true to the fairy tale. See, in the fairy tale, the story kicks off with some woman hungering majorly for the lettuce growing in her next door neighbor’s garden. I am so fucking serious. Anyhow, the owner of the garden is some sorceress who threatens to punish anyone who dares to eat her produce. Again, I am so fucking serious.

Anyhow, true to human nature, the woman naturally hungers more and more for that which she cannot have - the lettuce that belongs to the psycho-magical chick that lives next door. Soon, she gets sick and gets weaker and weaker, because all she can think of is the lettuce next door. Once again, I am so fucking serious.

At this point, the lady’s husband decides to ignore the sorceress’s warning about nobody touching her lettuce - and sneaks into the garden in the middle of the night. This guy must seriously be pussy-whipped because I would’ve been like: “Sweetie, it’s pretty simple: that bitch next door is a sorceress who will likely turn my nuts into quail eggs and your tits into dessicated yams with a snap of her finger, if we steal her lettuce. So, six words, my dearest: Salad Bar At The Corner Deli. Five more words: Get Your Ass To It.”

Alas, our man clearly doesn’t wear the pants in that family and chooses the stupid choice: he steals the lettuce and brings it back to his dumbass wife. Who promptly devours that shit like it’s Orgasm In A Bowl. I wouldn’t be surprised if she reenacted that scene from WHEN HARRY MET SALLY. I bet the sorceress got clued in to the theft because of the Drama Queen next door’s incessant moaning and groaning over the taste of that goddamn lettuce. You’d think she was sucking James Franco’s cock or something.

Anyway, the sorceress soon discovers the theft and demands that the couple give her their first-born child. Knowing they don’t have much of a fucking choice or their collective asses will be someone’s lawn, the couple agree and nine months later, they hand over a beautiful baby girl to the witch. Who then names the tyke…. Rapunzel. Care to guess why? Well, the word “Rapunzel” is German for… lettuce.

I’ll let you folks chew on that for a second - or two, or three, or seventy-five - while I feed my cat, call my Mom, call my “Friend With Benefits # 1” to cancel our dinner plans, toss a salad (literally, schmucks), call “Friend With Benefits # 2” to come over in an hour, and take out the garbage so that the place doesn’t smell like pizza leftovers when “Friend With Benefits # 2” shows up.

So… I’m back. Anyhow, there you have it… RAPUNZEL is about a chick named after a salad green. You can actually understand Disney’s decision to eighty-six this plot point. Sure enough, in TANGLED, the inciting incident for the drama is not lettuce, but something else. Our screenwriters have concocted some colossal bullshit about a magical flower that keeps whoever eats it forever young. In other words, it’s a medieval form of Botox or some shit.

A King gets ahold of the flower somehow and decides to give it to his dying wife to rejuvenate her. Not only does it work, the flower also causes the Queen to, nine months later, squeeze out a little moppet with tons of blonde hair - whom they name Rapunzel. So far, so happily-ever-after, right? I mean, except for the fact that the kid is named after a Salad bar staple?

Wrong. Turns out that flower was actually the property of some evil witch who would periodically use it to, um, freshen her appearance up. Kind of like the way the majority of Beverly Hills makes regular visits to their local aestheticians. Except there’s hundreds of aesthetician offices in Beverly Hills - and only one of that magic flower in the whole world. Let’s just say that our evil witch wants her youth-restoring shit back - very bad.

Realizing that Rapunzel’s hair has the very same “Fountain of Youth” properties as the flower, our evil witch kidnaps the little tyke and raises her as her own, deep in a valley in the woods that no one knows exists. In this little corner of the hinterlands, our overly-maned blonde moppet grows into a seriously overly-maned blonde teen. I’m not fucking around here. With all that hair, you could literally fashion a lasso, toss it into space, and nab the Moon, Mars, Orion’s Belt, and still have some room for a few of Jupiter’s Moons.

Our witch thinks she’s got it made. With her “Youth Pimp” trapped in the tower, she just periodically pays a visit to, I guess, rub up against all that hair and make those wrinkles and fine line go bye-bye, and say “howdy” to firm, plump skin. Look, I told you the Grimm’s Fairy Tales were seriously fucked-up. Did you think this one was going to be an exception?

Anyhow, this rather strange existence between Rapunzel and her Evil Witch Stepmother is upended with the arrival of fugitive rogue, Flynn Rider. Just imagine Joey Tribbiani - but somehow more cheesy, if that’s even possible. Only then could you begin to picture Disney’s latest hero. Let’s just say that his favorite pick-up line with the ladies is, “I didn’t want to have to do this - but you leave me no choice: here comes ‘The Smoulder.’” At which point, Flynn fixes Rapunzel with a gaze so hilarious, sexy, and horrifying at the same time, that you can’t exactly blame her for using a frying pan to pound some sense into his head.

So… will Flynn be able to free Rapunzel from her captive state as the Evil Witch’s quasi-plastic surgeon? Will Rapunzel convince Flynn to take her back to the castle from whence she came? And is Flynn really, well, Flynn’s name? Will Rapunzel realize that the Evil Witch is not really her Mom? And when she does, will she use all her hair to strangle the bitch?

Actually, scratch that… the witch might enjoy it too much.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: Although I consider myself to be a connoisseur of folk tales from around the world (especially the Grimm‘s Fairy Tale because of my part-German heritage), and think of myself as somewhat of an amateur folklorist, I have to say I’ve never been much of a fan of the Disney Fairy Tale Flicks. They’re just way too, well, clean.

So, it came as a bit of surprise that I enjoyed TANGLED as much as I did. Much of the delight I derived from this movie stems from the clever way it combines the old-world feel of a fairy tale with some very modern sensibilities. This is nothing new, as the SHREK films have played this card over and over again. What makes it notable, though, is TANGLED manages to keep the technique fresh and constantly-exciting, instead of potentially tired and overdone.

While the character of Rapunzel has been updated to be appropriately tough and resourceful, the ace up TANGLED’s sleeve is the lovable doofus Flynn Rider who is not your typical hero - far from it, in fact. This is a guy who runs from fights, fights only if he has to, and isn’t afraid to condescend to the heroine. Ironically, these traits that might have been undesirable in a live-action character, come across winningly in a cartoonish one. Part of Flynn’s appeal is he doesn’t come across as some noble and uptight superman. What we get is basically a charming, slightly clueless dork who uncovers his inner hero as the story progresses. Had the creators of TANGLED given us a more polished hero, the film would not have been as effective, enjoyable, and memorable as it ultimately turns out to be.

All in all, TANGLED is a solid entry into the Disney pantheon of Fairy Tales that gains maximum mileage from a smart, sharp presentation - and a hero that is one of the best ever in a cartoon. Had Rapunzel been presented in the same unexpectedly quirky way, TANGLED would have rated a little higher. As it is, it’s fine entertainment for the whole family.

# 219 - BLACK SWAN (2010)

BLACK SWAN (2010 - DRAMA / THRILLER / MYSTERY) **** out of *****

(Is that role really worth it, sweetie?)



CAST: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder.

DIRECTOR: Darren Aronofsky

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and beautiful - but utterly nutty - ballerinas straight ahead.




I’ve always thought that ballerinas are batshit crazy. Consider the following: (1) these chicks starve themselves to almost nothing; (2) they prance around doing some seriously painful-looking moves (seriously - who came up with the idea of standing on your fucking toes, anyway?); (3) have to wear ridiculous-looking costumes; and (4) are pretty much has-beens when they hit 40.

You’d have to be either seriously passionate about ballet or a masochist of the highest order to put yourself through the above shite. Which might actually be the same thing, when you think about it.

Consider the 1977 Italian horror classic SUSPIRIA, which was about a German Ballet Academy that turns out to be a witches coven. Ostensibly, we are supposed to fear for the lives of the dance students who don’t realize their teachers are actually spell-casting, throat-cutting banshees from hell. But let’s face it: those crazy witches ain’t got nothin’ on the bitchy ballerinas under their questionable care. Even before the blood starts flying we see just how nutty these dancing chicks are - so much so that when the witches start knocking ‘em off left and right, you can’t help but root a little for the old crones.

And if SUSPIRIA wasn’t enough proof that you should give ballerinas as wide a berth as possible, along comes the lovely - sarcasm alert! - film BLACK SWAN, which makes SUSPIRIA look like TOY STORY by comparison.

Our lovely - seriously speaking - heroine is Nina Sayer (Natalie Portman), a sweeter-than-cane-sugar lass who is part of the, I guess, New York Ballet Company. Nina is fiercely dedicated to her craft and has a reputation as a perfectionist. Her dedication and skills are suddenly put to the test when the company’s egotistical choad of a director, Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassell), decides to do a “reimagining” of “Swan Lake.” Nice to know the movies aren’t the only medium plagued by the Curse Of The Remakes.

Thomas, however, stresses that this won’t be your average re-do of “Swan Lake.” Those of you familiar with the story of “Swan Lake” - and I’m not one of you - will recall that it tells the story of the Swan Queen who committed suicide when her prince fell for her evil twin. Or something. Basically, we’re talking “The Young and the Restless” with tutus and feathers here, folks.

How will Thomas’s version be different? Well, for starters, the ambitious fucker plans to cast the same actress as both the Swan Queen and her evil twin, also known as… The Black Swan. In other words, he needs someone who can be both Julia Roberts… and Traci Lords. Or, in this movie’s terms, Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis.

Thomas tells Nina that if he were just casting the role of the Swan Queen, the part would be hers. However, he needs her to also be believable as a diabolical whore, AKA The Black Swan - and frankly, Thomas doubts Nina could tap her dark side enough to pull off the dual performance.

But after a bit of a struggle - and torture passing for an audition - Nina eventually lands the role. Apparently, Thomas glimpses something inside Nina that makes him think she might be able to go very “Sharon Stone in BASIC INSTICT” after all. Ecstatic, Nina shares this news with her overprotective Mom (Barbara Hershey) - who reacts like Mommie Dearest, only without the wire hangers. Sure, she smiles like she’s happy for her daughter, but her eyes clearly say she’d love to acquaint Nina with a couple of sturdy two-by-fours.

Things should be peachy, right? I mean, after all, Nina got her dream role. Well, if things got resolved that easily there wouldn’t be a movie. Sure enough, it doesn’t take long for Nina’s insecurities to surface - and Thomas’s doubts to rise concerning his casting choice. It doesn’t help matters that new student Lilly (Mila Kunis) keeps turning up everywhere to freak Nina out.

See, if Nina is the perfect White Swan (AKA Swan Queen), then Lilly is the perfect Black Swan. Where Nina is virtuous, sweet, and nice, Lilly is dynamic, forward, and ready to stick her tongue down anyone’s throat - Nina’s included. This barely-contained sexual charisma doesn’t escape the attention of Thomas, who makes Lilly the understudy for Nina’s role.

As you can imagine, this freaks out Nina even more. Soon, she’s glimpsing Lilly on every street corner - and hanging out with her in an effort to uncover her dark side. But what happens when sinister things start to happen all around Nina? What is going on?

Is Nina cracking from under the pressure of playing both the White Swan and the Black Swan? Is Lilly angling to steal the role? Can Nina unleash her inner whore? Or will Lilly steal her thunder? Is Thomas pitting these two chicks against each other? Or does he have something else up his sleeve? Who agrees that Mila Kunis going down on Natalie Portman was the sapphic equivalent of Heath Ledger cornholing Jake Gylenhaal in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?

Two words about that scene. Hot. Damn.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: I am tempted to spit out the titles of films that BLACK SWAN is reminiscent of, but I will not do that. As soon as you recognize the titles of those films, you will know BLACK SWAN’s secret. Sure the ultimate revelation of BLACK SWAN’s twist isn’t anything earth-shatteringly original. But the journey there is what makes this film remarkable. It’s intense stuff, and those easily-rattled are warned to stay away.

Those of you who can take it, though, are in for a ride. Without giving away too much, I will say that Natalie Portman is nothing short of a revelation. I must admit that I never had an especially high opinion of her prior to BLACK SWAN. After seeing it, though, I am now a fan of Ms. Portman’s. She turns Nina into the role of a lifetime. This film rests squarely on Portman’s shoulders, and she carries the whole thing flawlessly - and fearlessly.

Mila Kunis is equally impressive as Lilly, the girl who may or may not be out to steal the Swan Queen role from Portman. In the grand pantheon of ambiguous femme fatales who draw the unsuspecting to them like moths to the flame, Lilly is definitely worthy of a spot - and its due largely to Kunis’s confident, sensual performance. I have to admit that I didn’t think much of Kunis based on her lackluster appearance in THE BOOK OF ELI and FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL. Evidently, all she needed was a great script to unleash her own inner Black Swan.

Vincent Cassell, Barbara Hershey, and Winona Ryder round out the main cast with bravura acting as, respectively: (1) the ruthless, manipulative director who may or may not be driving Nina crazy; (2) Nina’s clearly-unbalanced mother; and (3) the fading star of the Ballet Company who would rather see Nina die than lose the Swan Queen role to her.

In summary, see this movie now - but only if you don’t mind leaning into the abyss - and staring right into it. But remember what Nietzsche said: “When you look into the abyss, the abyss looks into you…”

You have been warned…

UPCOMING REVIEWS FOR THE WEEK OF 1/24/11 - 1/30/11

Hiya, folks...

Our theme for next week will be... HORROR FILMS!

The reasons are two-fold:

1. Anthony Hopkins and Colin O'Donoghue's demonic possession flick THE RITE comes out next week, and our reviews will revolve around that...

2. The first two weeks of February will be devoted to Girl Power/Romance Films in honor of Valentine's Day. So we need to get some screams in to counteract the avalanche of lovey-dovey estrogen shit that will soon engulf us. God help us.

Anyhow, the list of Horror Flicks for next week are below:

# 226 - URBAN LEGEND: 1998 (AKA: Did You Hear The One About The Movie That Wanted To Be SCREAM?)

# 227 - THE CHANGELING: 1980 (AKA: You Rent A House That Looks Like That - And You're Fucking Surprised It's Haunted?)

# 228 - MUTANTS: 2009 (AKA: I Fell In Love With A Zombie And He Tried To Bite My Head Off - Rude!)

# 229 - THE CARD PLAYER: 2003 (AKA: The Most Fucked-Up Version of Poker - Ever)

# 230 - CURTAINS: 1983 (AKA: I Guess That Actress Wasn't Fucking Around When She Said She Would Kill For That Role)

# 231 - THE RITE: 2010 (AKA: Colin O'Donoghue: Hottest. Catholic. Priest. Ever.)

# 232 - THE FOG: 1980 (AKA: If The Fog Glows And Moves Against The Wind, My Advice Would Be To Run In The Opposite Direction - Fast)



















After the week is over, you'll be ready to face the horror of Valentine's Day. Trust me. I'm doing y'all a favor...

Once I deliver the seven New Release reviews from last week by Wednesday or so, we will begin our Horror Reviews...

REVIEW UPDATE: Last Week's New Release Review....

Hello, all...

Hope everyone had a fun, productive weekend. Best of both worlds.

Anyhow, all the Military Flicks are in the can. We're about seven reviews behind (the New Release Reviews from last week). But we should be caught up by Wednesday or so. Then we're on to next week's theme - to be revealed soon.

In the meantime, please see the list of New Release Reviews from last week that I still owe you. Please note that I'm pulling BLUE VALENTINE to save it for Valentine's week...

# 219 - BLACK SWAN (Thriller)

# 220 - TANGLED (Animated)

# 221 - TRUE GRIT (Western)

# 222 - SEASON OF THE WITCH (Horror)

# 223 - THE KING'S SPEECH (Drama)

# 224 - SOMEWHERE (Drama)

# 225 - THE COMPANY MEN (Drama)



Next week's theme and movies to be revealed shortly...

# 218 - BODY SNATCHERS (1993)

BODY SNATCHERS (1993 - HORROR / SCI-FI / MILITARY FLICK) ***½ out of *****

(Wipe out those Pod People, Gabrielle baby…)



CAST: Gabrielle Anwar, Terry Kinney, Meg Tilly, Billy Wirth, R. Lee Ermey, Forest Whitaker, Christine Elise, Reilly Murphy.

DIRECTOR: Abel Ferrara.

WARNING: Some SPOILERS and unsurprisingly collectivist-acting army personnel straight ahead…. Of course, they might be aliens.




In our review for STRIPES (review # 96), I stated that Basic Training was surprisingly one of my most enjoyable times in the military. Another surprisingly fun experience was the month and a half that I spent at Leadership School. During the course of over five weeks that military attempted to turn me and twenty-four other airmen into Non-Commissioned Officers. In other words, it’s the military’s version of a “coming-of-age.” As one of my supervisors told me, “you go in a kid, you leave an adult.”

Which is utter horseshit, because I did some of the hardest partying of my life at Leadership School. If anything, I left there more of a kid than when I went in. The trick is to act like an adult during the classes. In other words, I knew when to take my “Party Hat” off and put the “Business Hat” on. Work Hard. Play Hard.

Another warning from another colleague was that the Leadership School instructors would basically brainwash us into becoming the perfect NCOs. More horseshit. Our instructors were the coolest individuals ever who basically led by example - instead of intimidation.

All in all, Leadership School was like a Spa Vacation where I had to wear a uniform half the time. Oh, and through some miracle of fate, I won the coveted “Leadership Award” - which is based on the vote of your peers. I was touched by this act of appreciation by my fellow drunks and miscreants. Apparently, I made an impression. Imagine that.

Bottom line: I would do it again in a heartbeat. No one converted me. No one brainwashed me. No one turned me into a robot. A group of people saw my fucked-up individuality and rewarded me for it. Which is probably the most surprising bit. In short, Leadership School was a blast.

Which is considerably more than I can say about the military base that is the setting of our latest review, BODY SNATCHERS. If Leadership School was Club Med filled with hot, interesting, funny people, this place is like Bucky’s Motor Inn filled with some really bizarre jackasses who scream like banshees on crack.

The third remake in the terrifying INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS series, this flick changes the action to a military base in the Deep South where some truly wacky shit is going down. Our heroes are a family of civilians who have relocated to the dump because Dad’s an environmental inspector who is evaluating the base over the summer. They are: (1) Steve Malone (Terry Kinney), aforementioned Pop; (2) Carol (Meg Tilly), kooky and quirky second wife; (3) Andy (Reilly Murphy), Steve and Carol’s wussy son; and (4) our heroine Marti (Gabrielle Anwar), Steve’s teenage daughter from his first marriage who is ready to go Cat O’Nine Tails on Carol’s ass.

From the moment they arrive on post, weird crap starts to rain down like February in Seattle. To wit, the following occur: (1) a terrified-out-of-his-pants soldier attacks Marti and warns her that “THEY GET YOU WHEN YOU SLEEP!”; (2) the other kids at Andy’s day care all draw the same drawings and the teacher gives him a “She-Devil” glare when she sees his drawing is different; and (3) Major Collins (Forest Whitaker), the base psychiatrist questions Steve on whether or not chemicals can cause people to, ahem, change. In other words, this ain’t exactly Hickam Air Force Base in lovely Hawaii, folks. Not even close.

Soon, all hell begins to break loose. Such as: (1) Carol changes from “kooky and quirky” to “creepy and scary” and spends her days just staring at Andy and Marti like they’re ants just begging to be squashed; (2) Marti’s rebellious friend Jenn (Christine Elise) has an alcoholic mother that suddenly starts drinking water instead of vodka and - most terrifying of all - takes up playing bridge; and (3) everyone on the base starts walking around not only wearing the same uniforms like before, but now they even have the same expression. Like I said, it ain’t Hickam.

So what the hell is going on at Hellhole Base? Why is everyone changing and losing their individuality? Why are they acting all the same? Who is behind these events? Is it a secret military experiment? Is it the chemical spills that Steve has been investigating? Or is it something… else? Something - gasp! - not of this Earth? Something that makes Botox users look downright expressive?

Find out for yourselves. Just don’t blame me if your face goes numb.


BUT, SERIOUSLY: I’ve mentioned before that I love good horror films. I think they are a cathartic way of releasing our tensions and fears in a safe environment. When people ask me what my favorite horror films are, invariably I respond, “INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, 1956 and 1978, as well as the original STEPFORD WIVES.”

My reasons are two-fold: (1) watching people slowly change around you - one by one - until only you and a few others are the minority who have to avoid ending up the same way; and (2) they’re about the importance of humanity and individuality - and the urgent need to fight and hold on to them. That’s more compelling to me than rampaging monsters, psycho axe murderers, or haunted houses.

BODY SNATCHERS is the third remake in this esteemed series, with Nicole Kidman’s underrated THE INVASION from 2006 being the latest. In the order of quality, BODY SNATCHERS is just a little bit ahead of THE INVASION, while behind the 1978 and 1956 versions. They are, however, all good films.

This version overtakes the solid Nicole Kidman version because of the novelty of being set on a military base. This confined setting harkens back to the isolated small-town environment of the 1956 original. While the 1978 and 2006 versions were both set in big cities (San Francisco and Washington D.C., respectively), BODY SNATCHERS and the original film benefit from having the action unfold in a limited area - which creates a sense of stifling dread and unease. While the big city settings of the other two generated their own sense of fear and disorientation, there’s just something claustrophobic about watching a small populace slowly - then rapidly - undergo sinister changes.

Gabrielle Anwar as the sweet-yet-spunky Marti is also an unexpected protagonist, and her perspective is a fresh one. The first two films had a male adult as the lead character (played by Kevin McCarthy and Donald Sutherland), and those stories unfolded through their eyes. With BODY SNATCHERS, we see the events through Marti’s viewpoint, a teenager initially just trying to juggle a new stepmom, a half-brother, and a new home that is less than appealing. Her life is already hectic before the alien invasion hits. Anwar keeps us firmly on Marti’s side by keeping the character level and low-key, and we root for her and her family’s survival. This trend of putting a strong female character front and center would thankfully continue with Nicole Kidman’s psychiatrist heroine in THE INVASION - a film that is considerably better than it’s often made out to be.

The supporting cast is just as good. Terry Kinney, Meg Tilly, Reilly Murphy, R. Lee Ermey, Forest Whitaker, and Christine Elise all take ownership of their roles. The standout is Meg Tilly, who makes Carol’s transformation from loving and eccentric housewife, to icy and deadly alien impostor, a very frightening one. Her “Go where?” speech to Steve, Marti, and Andy when they are trying to escape is truly scary stuff. It will get under your skin - trust me.

In the end, BODY SNATCHERS is a worthy installment in the venerable series that is different enough from its predecessors and the 2006 version to stand on its own - with its very own flavor and tone. The structured and sterile military setting is utilized effectively and creates a sense of anxiety and foreboding - even before the alien invasion begins. And, in keeping with the first two films, the ending will leave you on the edge of your seat. The 2006 version chickens out in this regard, and gives us a less edgy ending, which is its only major flaw.

After all, downbeat or ambiguous endings are a staple of the INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS series. Don’t expect any warm sunsets here…