# 604 - FIFTY SHADES OF GREY

FIFTY SHADES OF GREY (2015 - ROMANCE / DRAMA / FREAK FLICK) ***1/2 out of *****  or  7 out of 10

(Sarcasto, Mr. James will see you now...)

CAST:  Jamie Dornan, Dakota Johnson, Jennifer Ehle, Eloise Mumford, Luke Grimes, Max Martini, Marcia Gay Harden, Andrew Airlie.

DIRECTOR: Sam Taylor-Johnson

(WARNING: Some SPOILERS and lots of freak flags flying proud - straight ahead...)

IT'S LIKE THIS:  If you want to silence a public establishment in two seconds flat, all you have to do is say 12 words out loud.  After uttering said 12 words, I don't care where you are - cafe, restaurant, library, bookstore, grocery store - the whole place will resound with a loud, collective GASP!  And everyone's head will whip around to stare at the bizarro who would dare utter those 12 words.  You will then slowly realize that everyone is gawking at you like you have a blob of cum on your face.  Which would be entirely appropriate.  

What are those controversial 12 words?  Here they are: "You know, I kind of liked the 50 SHADES OF GREY movie."  I assure you: you will be the only one in whatever public place you are who will be saying that.  Or, at least, brave and honest enough to say it.  

Yes, folks.  I liked 50 SHADES OF GREY.  And when you make that kind of admission, a lot of other things are assumed about you.  Specifically, that you must be a depraved whore.  I should also point out, however, that the people making these assumptions are probably folks who haven't had sex in such a long time that decomposition has already set in between their legs.  So, I guess, you just kind have to consider the source and just ignore them and move on, eh?  Haters gonna hate.  Because that's all they can do.  Too bad.  So sad.

Anyhow, our liking 50 SHADES OF GREY was a large (ha ha) surprise since I kind of fucking loathed the book.  "50 Shades of Grey" as written by E.L. James (a pseudonym, wise move) was amateurishly-written and kind of like the reading equivalent of banging your head repeatedly against a spike in the wall.  I only tried to read it because I wanted to confirm how shitty it was - and boy was it confirmed.  It was so shitty I considered lining my cats' litter box with its pages.  Until Casper and Guido found out and slapped me around for insulting them that way.  Have you ever been alternately pimp-slapped and bitch-slapped by two sadistic tomcats?  Not fun.  And I will NEVER EVER forgive E.L. James for that.  

But I digress.  Anyhow, we will talk more in the BUT SERIOUSLY portion of our review about why 50 SHADES THE MOVIE is infinitely better than 50 SHADES THE CRAPFEST BOOK.  For now, let's discuss the, ahem, plot of this movie which is only a little bit more complex than your average porno (but with much better production values).  
Basically, our story pretty much follows the book closely: we have a mousy English major named Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) who looks like the kind of girl who never knew she had a clitoris.  Anastasia is persuaded by her slacker pal Kate (Eloise Mumford) to carry out a journalism assignment for her.  Kate, by the way, looks like the kind of girl who, in stark contrast to Anastasia, not only knows exactly where her clitoris is, but has also published maps and guidebooks to it.  In other words, she looks like a Grade-A Whore, folks.  

Anyway, the assignment that Kate has dumped on poor Anastasia is to go and interview mysterious Seattle entrepeneur (and hottie) Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan).  Mr. Grey is aloof and icy and enigmatic and sexy-sleek as fuck - and says things like "I exercise control in everything I do" and "I have a talent for reading people" and "Would you like me to make you cum uncontrollably like an out of control fire hydrant, Anastasia?"  Okay, he doesn't actually say that last line - not exactly - but you know it's just a matter of time.  
And let's just say that poor Anastasia falls for Christian like Carrie Bradshaw at a Manolo Blahnik firehouse clearance sale.  We know this because the minute Anastasia leaves the interview, she practically runs out of the Grey Tower and into the rain, with her face tipped up to the sky.  As if she had been trapped in fucking sauna for the last two weeks and is now only getting her first taste of oxygen.  My, it's getting hot in here.  

However, let's remember Beyonce's theme song (titled "Haunted'') for this flick so prominently featured in the trailer that goes a little something like, "if you're haunting me then I must be haunting you..." In other words, if Christian is weighing heavily on Anastasia's mind (and loins), then Anastasia is probably prancing through his thoughts, as well.  This is confirmed when Christian "just shows up" in the hardware store that Anastasis works in for college tuition.  I should mention that Anastasia's hardware store is in Portland.  As in Oregon.  As in a whole other state away.  A place that is a 3-hour drive from Seattle (if you're driving a like a bat with its ass is on fire). 

And just like that, the dance of attraction/evasion between the smoldering Christian and the naive Anastasia begins.  Will Anastasia fit in Christian's super-rarified world?  Is she in over her head? Will she find her place in his universe?  Or is their dalliance meant to be a fiery but short one?  Or will she find an unexpected soulmate in Christian?  What happens when she finds out some, uh, quirks about Christian?  Like how much time he likes to spend in a mysterious place called, um, "The Red Room" in the depths of his palatial Seattle condo?  What is in "The Red Room"?  And will Anastasia ever be the same again when she finds out?

Gosh, I hope not.  This is one chick who SERIOUSLY needs have her world ROCKED.


BUT SERIOUSLY:  The "Fifty Shades" book series by E.L. James is highly successful but also widely-panned and ridiculed.  In fact, I can't think of another book series enjoying a more inexplicable success factor right now.  To put it kindly, the books are not very well-written.  Yet, they are hugely popular and have sold innumerable copies worldwide.  If you have an explanation for that riddle, I'd be happy to hear it.  

When I heard that the first book was being turned into a movie, I wasn't very interested, having tried and given up on reading it the year before.  I simply couldn't finish it and felt I was just wasting my time.  I can forgive a badly-written book if it's entertaining, but "50 Shades of Grey" was not entertaining to me at all.  More like excruciating.  This didn't translate into any interest in the movie.  

However as pre-production on 50 SHADES OF GREY progressed, I gradually became more interested.  Largely because of the casting of Jamie Dornan, who replaced Charlie Hunnam earlier in the process. Dornan had received acclaim playing the complex, surprisingly human serial killer in the excellent BBC series THE FALL, and I was dismayed and intrigued in equal measure at his addition to the 50 SHADES OF GREY cast.  Dismayed, because I feared his association of the film might taint his promising career.  Intrigued, because part of me was curious as to how he would play the role of the elusive Christian Grey.  

With the release of the trailers of the film, culminating with the sleek, well-done final one right before the movie's release in February, I was definitely willing to give 50 SHADES OF GREY a shot.  The trailers (especially the final one) captured a simmering sensuality and playfulness that the book tried hard but failed to produce.  In past reviews, we've talked about how a good movie can be made from a bad book - as long as that book has solid core premise.  Witness THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY, an excellent movie starring Clint Eastwood and Meryl Streep that is based on what in my opinion is one of the worst books of the early 1990s.  The reason THE BRIDGES OF MADISON COUNTY worked is because the book's core premise of "a brief encounter between soulmates" is a compelling and timeless one.  Even if the book failed to execute that premise properly, the movie made the right moves and told the story the way it should have been.  The result was one the best-loved movies of the 90s - and of all time.  

Happily (and quite surprisingly) 50 SHADES OF GREY does the same thing - it succeeds where the book failed colossally, giving life to the core premise of an innocent girl who falls down a rabbit hole offered to her by a handsome, alluringly dark figure, leading to transformation.  Much of this film's success is because of director Sam Taylor-Johnson's adept handling of the story and its characters.  She wisely structures the film as almost a romantic comedy, focusing initially on the cat-and-mouse chase between Christian and Anastasia.  Of course, the story has to turn dark and kinky at some point, but because of the clever set-up of the leads' relationship, we are invested in them by the time the proverbial shoe drops.  Or, in this case, the whip.  

Speaking of the leads, much of this film's success should also be credited to Jamie Dornan and Dakota Johnson, whose simmering chemistry is instrumental in stoking our interest in Christian and Anastasia's journey.  As he did with his role in THE FALL, Dornan manages the neat trick of making Christian seem both open and aloof at the same time, using his eyes to convey a lot of unspoken emotion.  There's a tricky scene near the end of the film that could easily have been embarassing and brought down a lesser actor, but Dornan makes it work with confidence, charisma, and dignity.  Quite honestly, he makes the role his own and we can't wait to see what he will do next with the character.  

Also quite effective is Dakota Johnson as the innocent (but not for long) Anastasia.  She is our "portal" character - someone who is our "eyes and ears" into the story, in whose shoes we walk.  It was crucial that a young woman who is likable and relatable be cast in this role - and Johnson is perfect for it.  She lends Anastasia an open vulnerability and self-deprecating humor that often "humanizes" and defuses the proceedings by addressing up front how ridiculous and over-the-top they seem.  This makes Anastasia's (and therefore our) reactions to them very genuine.  I should also add that Johnson is the daughter of actors Don Johnson and Melanie Griffith - and that strong acting legacy is very apparent in her performance.

Jennifer Ehle, Max Martini, Elois Mumford, and Luke Grimes are okay in key supporting roles, but this movie is owned by Dornan and Johnson - the way it should be.  Had anyone else been cast as the leads of 50 SHADES OF GREY, the movie might not have risen as far above as the book as it does.  Fortunately, they got it right with these two...
Time will tell whether the next two FIFTY SHADES movies will be as accomplished as this one - or if they will be as mediocre as the books.  But with Dornan and Johnson still in the roles of Christian Grey and Anastasia Steele, we can hope for the best...

For now, let's close with a video: Beyonce's theme song for the movie, "Haunted."

# 603 - INDECENT PROPOSAL

INDECENT PROPOSAL (1993 - ROMANCE / DRAMA) ***1/2 out of *****  OR 7 out of 10

(Robert, you could've had me for $99.95 and some room service...)

CAST:  Robert Redford, Demi Moore, Woody Harrelson, Oliver Platt, Seymour Cassell, Billy Bob Thornton, Billy Connolly, Joel Brooks.  

DIRECTOR: Adrian Lyne

(WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one colossal, stupendous, utterly obvious no-brainer of a decision - straight ahead)

IT'S LIKE THIS:  You can tell a lot about a person by the what his/her favorite "Vegas Movie" is.  

If someone likes THE HANGOVER, chances are that person is an inveterate party animal who likes to laugh a lot and is easygoing and is basically a "Dude's Dude" - or a "Dudette's Dudette."  If someone likes OCEAN'S ELEVEN, chances are that person is someone who is kind of "hip" but also mainstream enough to not be too snobbish or, well, too hip.  If someone likes LEAVING LAS VEGAS, they're probably the opposite of the person who likes THE HANGOVER: a little too intellectual, brooding, cerebral, and, well, thinks to goddamn much.  And if someone's favorite "Vegas Movie" is our next review, INDECENT PROPOSAL, they're probably a fucking freak of the highest order.  Make that a "Fah-Reak!"

Folks, it will come as a staggeringly unforeseen, thoroughly unexpected revelation that my favorite Vegas Movie is none other than...  INDECENT PROPOSAL.  I know, right?  Who would've known?  

Whatever.  

Anyhow, INDECENT PROPOSAL is another example of the "Artificial Dilemma/What Exactly Is The Fucking Problem Here? Movie" that we discussed in our last review.  That was the thoroughly crappy THE BOY NEXT DOOR (review # 602), a film that was high in Eye Candy Factor (Ryan Guzman and Jennifer Lopez's asses), but low in Entertainment Quality Factor (unless you count Kristin Chenoweth's shitty haircut as 'entertainment' - meow).  

As we talked about in THE BOY NEXT DOOR, these kind of movies purport to have protagonists with serious problems - but in reality, these chuckleheads should be conga-ing the night away while pouring champagne down their naked torsos and licking it off each other.  Because, folks, these people have got it made.  In THE BOY NEXT DOOR, J. Lo played a fortysomething school teacher who could pass for 20 who begins having a red-hot affair with her hunky young neighbor who is supposedly just 19.  

However, Instead of treating this "pump-and-go-on-the-down-low" for the goldmine godsend that it is, our stupid teacher who looks exactly like Jenny From The Block basically feels "guilty" for fucking someone much younger than her and calls it all off - despite him looking as scrumptious as Ryan Guzman.  Predictably, Mr. Boy Toy doesn't take this lying down, obviously believing in that old saying that goes "If you love something, let it go.  If it comes back to you, then it was always yours to begin with.  If it doesn't come back to you - THEN YOU MAKE ITS LIFE A LIVING HELL UNTIL IT DOES!"

Wait, is that how that saying goes?  Whatever. 

Anyhow, all the trouble that ensues in THE BOY NEXT DOOR could've been avoided if its heroine would've just, you know, realized how lucky she was and, you know, kept on riding her Boy Toy's prime rib tube steak like it was attached to a bucking Bronco.  The same thing befalls the leads of INDECENT PROPOSAL: essentially, they shoot themselves in the foot - big time.   Although, thankfully, at least one of them is using her brain.  

Our leads are the drop-dead gorgeous L.A. couple David and Diana Murphy (Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore).  David is a sweet, sexy, slightly nerdy, blond architect who is building a dream house next to the Pacific in Santa Monica - a project he hopes will get him noticed and lead to other projects.  Diana is a ridiculously-gorgeous raven-haired real-estate agent who supports her man 100% and constantly reminds him that he is destined for greatness.  If you're going to have a  threesome with a couple, David and Diana are your best bets, folks.  I wouldn't know who to fuck first. 

And let me just take a moment to extol the beauty of Demi Moore in this movie.  This woman was never more hypnotically-gorgeous than she was in INDECENT PROPOSAL.   She rocks that raven bob like no one's business.  She even trumps the lovely Sharon Stone from SLIVER (released the same year, two months later) who sported a similar blond bob, albeit a blond one.  As lovely as Shazza was in SLIVER (the best she has ever looked, in my opinion) she somehow can't hold a candle to Demi in INDECENT PROPOSAL.  There's just something so alluring about the right shade of raven hair on a gorgeous woman that no blonde hair (which, let's face it, is most of the time just lightened from a dishwater shade with peroxide) could ever compete with.  Go, Demi!

But I digress.  Anyhow, as INDECENT PROPOSAL starts, it does appear that David and Diana do have some legitimate problems.  The recession of the early 90s has just hit, and the construction & real-estate businesses have dried up, leading to David being laid off and Diana unable to close a sale in months.  This leads to the bank foreclosing on the land David is building his Dream House on.  Soon, it's looking like they could even lose their own house itself.  

Desperate, David borrows $5,000 from his old man - and hightails it to Vegas with Diana to try to turn it into the $50,000 they need to catch up on the property payments and save the land, their Dream House, and their own home from being gobbled up by the bank.  Jeez, David...  why don't you just buy 5,000 lottery tickets?  You've got better odds that way.  All in all, I don't think Vegas is the most sure-fire fundraising idea, folks...

Before you know it, David and Diana have jumped in their junky jalopy and made the few-hour drive from L.A. to Vegas, where they don't waste any time hitting the roulette tables.  For a time, it looks like David's crazy scheme just might work, because soon they have quintupled their five grand to $25,000.  Unfortunately, apparently never having heard that old saying that goes "Quit while you're ahead, assholes" our lovely couple keeps on tossing 'em dice.  It's my great regret to tell you that, sure enough, our hot couple's luck dries up - and they pretty much lose all of the $25,000.  Including the $5,000 they borrowed from David's pops.  Yikes.  

At this point, you're probably all like:  "why are you calling this an 'Artificial Dilemma/What Exactly Is The Fucking Problem Here? Movie' dude? These people actually DO have a dilemma and some serious problems!!!"  Patience, dear reader.  You will soon see what I mean.  

Anyway, it's at this point that a mysterious character who has been keeping mainly to the sidelines and the shadows finally takes center stage - and thankfully finally gets into the action.  He is the cool, sexy, ruthless, intriguing, charming billionaire named John Gage (Robert Redford).   Having noticed Diana with her shiny raven bob, long legs, and big tits when she was stealing chocolates earlier from a hoity-toity boutique (don't ask), Sir John approaches our down-trodden couple and asks if he can have Diana bless his dice for luck - with a kiss.  Reluctantly, Diana complies - and lo & behold when the roll of the cubes nets Sir John a cool million.  Jack-Pot!  Too bad none of that will go to David and Diana.  

Or will it?  

Now, here's where INDECENT PROPOSAL becomes a member of the "Artificial Dilemma/What Exactly Is The Fucking Problem Here? Movie":  Sir John offers David and Diana that million dollars they won for him - if Diana will spend one night with him.  Hilariously, our couple turn him down flat.  I mean, it's not like they just lost all their money and are about to lose their land and houses, right?   Let me just cut to the chase here, folks, and say that I will fuck anyone for a million dollars - whether or not I needed the money.  If that makes me a whore, then yes I'm a whore. 

Diana is apparently of the same mind (thank god) and convinces David that they need to do this in order for them to save everything they own.  She rationalizes it by saying that Sir John will only be using her body - but he won't be touching her heart or her mind.  Ha ha ha.  Good one, Diana.  Clearly, you have no idea how persuasive a few earth-shattering, Geiger-scale-registering orgasms can change you.  There's a reason why it's called "rocking your world."

I hope you know now what I mean when I say that our leads really have no problems, whatsoever.   They've just been offered a million bucks for a one-night-stand between Diana and a billionaire who is sexy as fuck.  Even if Sir John looked like Steve Buscemi or Danny DeVito, we're talking about a million bucks here, folks. Yet, David and Diana fret and furrow and hem and haw like they actually have a hard decision to make.  Right.

Meanwhile, Sir John looks as happy as a cat in a fish market when he learns that Diana has agreed.  Or sure she acts all icy and haughty and assures him she won't enjoy their night, but we know she'll be screeching like a hyena by dawn and barely be able to walk straight.  Hey, man, Johnny boy needs to get his money's worth - and he's only got 12 hours to do it in.  

So...  how will Sir John and Diana's fleeting fuck-a-thon affect her marriage to David.  Will our married couple be able to forget it ever happened - and just enjoy the money it brought them?  What happens when Diana finds out afterwards that John bought up their L.A. property and dream house project?  Is our sexy billionaire manipulating the situation because he wants to draw Diana back into his orbit?  Does he have real feelings for Diana?  And what happens when David gets increasingly jealous and insecure about Diana's "one night" with John?  Can the Murphy marriage be saved?  Was it all worth that million bucks?  

Fuck yeah, it was.  Get over it, David.   And live off the interest...


BUT SERIOUSLY:   In 1993, two films were released by Paramount Pictures within two months of each other that had generated sizable media interest in the months leading to their release: INDECENT PROPOSAL and SLIVER.  Both films had "erotic" elements, but INDECENT PROPOSAL was tamer, and more of a romantic drama, whereas SLIVER was more daring, and definitely a thriller.  Both films were greeted with controversy as they neared their release dates in the Spring of 1993.  

SLIVER had to not only contend with the MPAA over its sex scenes which had to be drastically-edited and watered down to avoid the dreaded NC-17 rating, but also had to undergo script rewrites and extensive re-shoots after a test screening resulted in preview audiences panning the original darker ending in which the heroine (Sharon Stone) crosses over completely to the dark side.  Unfortunately, the new, "safer", more PC-friendly ending that was released in theaters neutered SLIVER and made the whole affair almost pointless.  Because of these last-minute changes that significantly altered the tone and feel of the movie, as well as nonsensically changed the identity of the killer, SLIVER underperformed at the North American box-office - but still made a killing overseas.  

INDECENT PROPOSAL, by contrast, didn't have as much explicit sexuality in it, nor did it have to undergo extensive reshooting.  However, what it lacked in raunch and story revisions, it made up for with the sheer controversy its premise generated.  Many feminist groups objected to the idea of a woman being seduced into one night with a very rich man by a bribe of $1,000,000.  Many labeled the film as "disgusting" and "offensive".  Just like with SLIVER, all this hoopla ensured that INDECENT PROPOSAL would open big at the box-office in the # 1 spot.  

Unlike SLIVER, though, INDECENT PROPOSAL didn't fall off and continued to rake it in.  This is largely because INDECENT PROPOSAL didn't suffer SLIVER's fate of being almost-fatally altered at the last moment.  By contrast, this movie doesn't apologize for its racy premise of a woman spending one night with a billionaire for a million dollars.  I firmly believe the original cut of SLIVER would have fared just as well as INDECENT PROPOSAL at the box-office if Paramount had stood their ground and kept SLIVER's original, uncompromising ending that showed there could be such a thing as a happy resolution that is also dark and sinister.  

INDECENT PROPOSAL works because, at its core, it is a true romance - despite its rather unorthodox set-up.  It also sidesteps that pesky thing that plagues many a romantic drama or romantic comedy: "The Lopsided Love Triangle."  This is a romanic situation wherein a character is torn between to potential lovers - when one is clearly much, much, MUCH better than the other.  This renders the object of affection's confusion and indecision rather pointless and, worse, unbelievable.  In real life, you or I would know exactly who to choose.  

Here, Diana's indecision whether to choose John or David is very credible, since both men are ideal choices in their own way.  While John has a formidable magnetism and charisma that hypnotic and irresistible, he also has wistful, noble melancholy that just stops short of making him truly vulnerable.   By contrast, David has a shyer, more boyish quality that is tempered by real backbone and fire when the occasion warrants it.  Both Robert Redford and Woody Harrelson effectively sell their characters, making Diana's dilemma understandable.  

Speaking of Diana, as I mentioned before, Demi Moore never looked more beautiful than she did in this movie.  Casting Moore was critical because we have to understand why a man as powerful and rich as John Gage - someone who could have any woman he wants - would fall under Diana's spell at first sight.  The role needed someone unforgettably beautiful, but also intriguingly and interestingly complex.  As she proved in GHOST, Moore has the ability to be both tough, assertive, and flinty - while also being thoroughly vulnerable and tender at the same time.  It also helps considerably that Moore, with her raven hair and slightly-exotic looks, and Redford, with his rugged California Boy blondness, make for one aesthetically-pleasing couple with serious chemistry.   

Moore's chemisty with Harrelson is of a less-combustible variety, but it is still a strong one.  This is completely appropriate because Diana and David have been married for five years, and their connection is a more mellow one, rather than the fresh, smoldering one between John and Diana.  All in all, this is one of the stronger love triangles in Movie History, and there is some real suspense all the way to nearly the end about who Diana will choose.  

As INDECENT PROPOSAL nears its resolution it becomes more and more of a conventional romance.  Because of this, it stops just short of hitting a **** / 8 rating.  However, it is definitely still a solidly good film that takes a very atypical route to telling the age-old story of "boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-wins-girl-back."  In this day and age, that is something to reward.   

Up next, our review of FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, which is as controversial as INDECENT PROPOSAL and SLIVER were in 1993.  In fact, SLIVER basically paved the way for FIFTY SHADES OF GREY.  The only difference is SLIVER is much more of a murder-mystery/thriller - and was clearly ahead of its time.  

# 602 - THE BOY NEXT DOOR

THE BOY NEXT DOOR (2015 - THRILLER) *1/2 out of *****  OR  3 out of 10

(Why the fuck don't my next door neighbors look like this guy?)

CAST:  Jennifer Lopez, Ryan Guzman, John Corbett, Kristen Chenoweth, Ian Nelson, Hill Harper, Lexi Atkins, Adam Hicks

DIRECTOR: Rob Cohen

(WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one stupid bitch making things more complicated than they should be - straight ahead...)

IT'S LIKE THIS:  There's a sub-genre of film that I like to call the "Artificial Dilemma Movie."  Or, more accurately, the "What Exactly Is The Fucking Problem Here? Movie."  Basically, in these films, the protagonists hem and haw over some allegedly horrible scenario that you or I would actually welcome with open arms in real life - and have absolutely no issue with.  Our next three reviews are prime examples of the "Artificial Dilemma/What Exactly Is The Fucking Problem Here? Movie."  

They are THE BOY NEXT DOOR, INDECENT PROPOSAL, and FIFTY SHADES OF GRAY.  In all three of these films, we have main characters who bitch and moan about some awful pickle they're supposedly in - when in reality they should be celebrating and gargling tequila while doing victory fist-pumps in the air.  Or, as I said at least twenty times while watching each of these films:  "What exactly is the fucking problem here?"

Out of these three flicks, the shittiest one is THE BOY NEXT DOOR.  J.Lo plays Claire Peterson, a cuckolded mother and teacher who begins boning Noah Sandborn (Ryan Guzman), the hot 19-year-old who lives next door.  But then she has a crisis of conscience and tries to pull the "wish-you-well-have-a-great-life-best-of-luck-don't-call-me-I'll call you" routine on him.  Only problem is, Mr. Boy Toy will not be discarded that easily.  Sure enough, he's popping over to J.Lo's, er, Jenny From The Block's, er, Claire's house unannounced and dropping hints of their illicit fuck-a-thon to her cheating husband Garrett (John Corbett) and her wimpy-ass son Kevin (Ian Nelson) - just to fuck with Claire and humiliate her.  

Clearly, Noah has been boning up on movies like PLAY MISTY FOR ME, FATAL ATTRACTION, and UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  Glad to know he's boning up on something besides J.Lo, er Jenny From The Block, er, Claire.  

Speaking of PLAY MISTY FOR ME, FATAL ATTRACTION, and UNLAWFUL ENTRY, I should point out that, in addition to being an example of a "What Exactly Is The Fucking Problem Here? Movie",  THE BOY NEXT DOOR is also a throwback to yet another sub-genre of the Thriller Genre that thrived in cinemas in the late-80s and early-90s: the "Fill-In-The-Blank-From-Hell Thriller."  Essentially, in these thrillers, the hero or heroine meets and befriends a person who initially seems likable and sympathetic - but who then rapidly turns into a cross between the Kraken from CLASH OF THE TITANS and the velociraptors from JURASSIC PARK. 

Basically, PLAY MISTY FOR ME  was the "One-Night-Stand-From-Hell Thriller".  FATAL ATTRACTION was the "Two-Night-Stand-From-Hell Thriller".  UNLAWFUL ENTRY was the "LAPD-Cop-From-Hell Thriller".  THE TEMP was the "Secretary-From-Hell Thriller".  SINGLE WHITE FEMALE was the "Roommate-From-Hell Thriller".  THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE was the "Nanny-From-Hell Thriller".  FEAR was the "Boyfriend-From-Hell Thriller".  PACIFIC HEIGHTS was the "Tenant-From-Hell Thriller".  LAKEVIEW TERRACE and ARLINGTON ROAD were the "Neighbors-From-Hell Thrillers".  THE RESIDENT was the "Landlord-From-Hell Thriller".  

And now, with the arrival of THE BOY NEXT DOOR, we finally have the entry that I have been waiting for my whole life: the "Boy-Toy-From-Hell Thriller".  Terrorize me, you big stud...

Unfortunately, Claire isn't a freak like me who doesn't mind being stalked as long as my stalker looks like Ryan Guzman or Theo James.   Nope, she runs around wringing her hands and whining to her irritating best pal Vicky (Kristin Chenoweth) that she should never have slept with Noah, despite him looking exactly like, you know, Ryan Guzman.  I have to be honest and tell you that I spent 3/4ths of this movie squeezing my eyes shut, pinching the bridge of my nose, and shaking my head while saying those words: "What. Exactly. Is the. Fucking problem. Here?"  

Anyway, if you've seen PLAY MISTY FOR ME, FATAL ATTRACTION, UNLAWFUL ENTRY and the rest of their brethren, you pretty much know that Noah is increasingly angered by Claire's decision to keep their relationship platonic (e.g., sweaty rumpy-pumpy and boning-free).  This leads him to basically do the following: call her up over and over again, show up in her class as a student, and - my favorite - releasing still images of the secret sex tape he made of them.  Claire, for some reason, is especially horrified about this last bit. I, on the other hand, was all like: "Girl, you need to just own it.  If I was on a sex tape with a guy who looked like Ryan Guzman, I would be giving interviews."

But, like I said, Claire is not a freak like me and decides to, you know, fight back.  Fucking yawn, Claire.  Boooooooooring.

So... will Noah ever stop terrorizing Claire and just accept that she doesn't want to continue their Boning Marathon?  Or will her avoidance of him actually motivate him more?  Will Garrett intervene?  Or will Noah make mincemeat out of him?  And what happens when Noah strikes up a friendship with Kevin?  Is he using Kevin to get to Claire?  And the most important question of all:  is Claire the dumbest woman in the Western Hemisphere for breaking up with someone who looks like Ryan Guzman?

Survey says: "Hell, Yes."  And let's be honest here:  can you really call Claire a cougar when she looks younger than the 19-year-old she's fucking?  Don't think so....

Should've just kept fucking him on the Down Low, Claire.  Stupid, stupid bitch...

Oh, and please find below the trailers for our next two reviews.  Like THE BOY NEXT DOOR, they have characters who act like they are in bad situation - when they're really not.  In INDECENT PROPOSAL, Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson play a cash-strapped couple who are desperate to save their house from foreclosure - but then receive an offer from a handsome billionaire who looks like Robert Redford of $1,000,000 for just one night with Moore's character.  Inexplicably, our dense couple don't know what to do.  Duh, folks....

Then, in FIFTY SHADES OF GRAY, Dakota Johnson plays a mousy Seattle chick who is drawn into a wildly passionate and torrid affair with a gorgeous billionaire who looks like Jamie Dornan - but doesn't know if she should stay with him because he's into spanking, bondage, public sex, and other kinky stuff.

Altogether now:  "What exactly is the fucking problem here?"  

Let's just say that if I was in these movies, I'd be having a threesome with Robert Redford and Jamie Dornan.  In a heartbeat...

BUT SERIOUSLY:   Despite a respectable central performance from the ever-reliable and eternally-lovely Jennifer Lopez, THE BOY NEXT DOOR is a remarkably dull and mediocre film.  Here is a suspense/thriller that is almost entirely devoid of either suspense or thrills.  Part of the problem is that the premise of the story is thoroughly stale and the execution utterly uninspired.  All the story beats of this kind of thriller have been done before - and done much better.  You have to wonder if director Rob Cohen and the producers were hoping no one would remember far superior similar films like FATAL ATTRACTION and UNLAWFUL ENTRY.  

Had their even been a trace of danger and menace in the story, THE BOY NEXT DOOR might have rated on the average mark with a passing grade.  However, Noah Sandborn as played by Ryan Guzman, is flat and one-note, and is distinctly unthreatening - except for one scene discussed below.  Guzman is one handsome guy but he doesn't really sell the character.  To be fair, the script doesn't really attempt to flesh out Noah's backstory and pathology, and Guzman doesn't have much to work with.  You could argue that a true talent takes what little there is on the page, and makes it sing.  However, that's not being fair to Guzman who is fairly new to the acting scene after having been a model for several years.  

The one scene that offers a hint that Guzman is capable of doing more with better material is the sequence where he is confronted by Kristin Chenoweth's principal character, Vicky.  She tries to intimidate him with threats of expulsion - but Noah suddenly turns the tables on her.  With just a few intense, well-chosen words, he cuts her down to size - shaking her to the core and effectively destroying her.  Guzman nails this scene and its psychological impact - and it seems to promise a stronger third act where Noah finally shapes up to be a truly formidable baddie.  

Unfortunately, the third act of THE BOY NEXT DOOR is its worst element.  The climax plays out in such a completely unsurprising, by-the-numbers way that it almost feels like a parody of all the similar, much better thrillers that came before, from FATAL ATTRACTION all the way to the most recent "Fill-In-The-Blank-From-Hell Thriller":  THE RESIDENT.   I mentioned to my buddy afterward that it felt like we were watching the end of a Scooby-Doo episode.  His response:  "That's an insult to the Scooby-Doo cartoons."  

Another huge reason this movie fails is because no one comes across as a believable human being.   Instead, we feel like we're watching movie characters being manipulated like pawns by a tired script.  Contrast this shortcoming with the characters in FATAL ATTRACTION - who felt like living, breathing, quirky, multi-dimensional people.  Michael Douglas and Anne Archer were heartbreakingly believable as the besieged couple.  Even Glenn Close's villainess was portrayed with nuance and pathos, resulting in a tragic figure who was irredeemable but still human.  In THE BOY NEXT DOOR, we instead have caricatures and ciphers - and banal ones, at that.  

In the end, THE BOY NEXT DOOR is a movie that is undeserving of Jennifer Lopez's presence.  She's much better than this material, and hopefully Ryan Guzman will move on to better showcases, because he also deserves better.  

# 601 - THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH

THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH (2015 - HORROR / GHOST / HAUNTED HOUSE) ** out of *****   OR   4 out of 10

(She's baaaaaaaaaaack....)

CAST:  Phoebe Fox, Jeremy Irvine, Helen McCrory, Oaklee Pendergast, Amelia Crouch, Casper Allpress, Adrian Rawlins, Pip Pearce, Leila DeMeza.

DIRECTOR:  Tom Harper

(WARNING: Some SPOILERS and very bad examples of how to wear "basic black" - straight ahead...)

IT'S LIKE THIS:  Proving the old adage that you can't keep a bad girl down, our femme phantom villainess from THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 (review # 600) is back to unleash more mayhem - and the four decades she spent in semi-retirement have clearly not made her more forgiving.  More like an even bigger Mega-Biyatch From Beyond The Grave.

Oooooooooo-weeeee-ooooooooo!

By the way, if any of you haven't seen either the excellent 1989 original or it's surprisingly good 2012 remake, you may want to check out of this review because some nasty secrets will be revealed.  Fair warning...

Okay.  You had your shot.  Anyway, THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH (like this bitch could be an angel of anything else) opens 40 years after the first movie ended in 1904.  Which would make it right towards the end of World War II.  We meet our new hero, er, heroine in the form of cute and sweet teacher Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox).  Phoebe, like the rest of war-torn London, has to hide in the bomb shelters because of the constant mortar rounds the Nazis are dropping on them.  

It gets so bad that Eve and her uptight boss, the unfortunately-named Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory), are ordered by the British War Authorities to take a bunch of kids out of London and deep into the countryside.  There, they will remain in hiding until the war is over.  

Not a bad plan, considering most of the shelling and bombing is aimed at the major cities, especially the capital of London.  Too bad the idiots behind the evacuation of Eve, Jean, and their coterie of tykes chose the least appropriate house in the entire British isles for them to seek refuge in: the haunted house from the first movie.  Good one, guys.  Assholes.  

Anyhow, Eve, Jean, and their little wards travel for what seems like eternity until they arrive at the now-deserted seaside burg of Crythin Gifford and the run-down house commonly known as Eel Marsh House AKA Y'All Are So Fucked Manor.  Those of you who saw the first movie know that this house is basically like the paranormal equivalent of sailing on the Titanic: either way, you're getting off that ship badly.  

Sure enough, it doesn't take long for Eve, Jean, and the little kids to detect that there's something, um, very wrong at Eel Marsh House.  Eve does the Nancy Drew thing and with the aid of hunky displaced Royal Air Force pilot Harry Burnstow (Jeremy Irvine), she follows a trail back to the deserted town of Crythin Gifford.  Apparently, our titular villainess did such a thorough job of wiping out the younger residents in the first film that everyone moved away.  Probably afraid she'd start in on the adults.  

Then, one by one, terrible accidents begin to claim the lives of the kids that Eve and Jean are taking care of.  Seems the sanctuary they escaped to isn't so safe, after all.  Fucking duh.   Soon, it also becomes clear that "the woman in black" has her sights on young Edward (Oakley Pendergast), an orphaned boy whom Eve is very protective of.  Before you know it, our lady ghost and our lady teacher are locked in a battle of wills over the life of young Edward.  

Who will win?  Will Eve be able to save Edward and the rest of the kids?  Will that useless bitch Jean do anything to help?  Or is it all up to Eve?  Will Harry pitch in?  What secrets from his past are haunting him?  For that matter, what secrets from Eve's own past tie her unexpectedly to the woman in black?  How will all this end?

Hard to say.  One thing I know for sure: let's hope those Japanese ghosts from THE GRUDGE don't find out that THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2 stole the tagline of their movie.   See below:  

THE GRUDGE (2004): "It Never Forgives.  It Never Forgets."

THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2 (2015):  "She Never Forgives.  She Never Forgets."

I feel a Ghost Catfight coming, yo.  Outta here...

Oooooooo-weeeeeeee-ooooooooooo!!!


BUT SERIOUSLY:  In our last review for THE WOMAN IN BLACK (review # 600), we discussed how the Japanese horror hit JU-ON (review # 74) and its even better American remake THE GRUDGE (review # 75) were clearly influenced by its source novella's tale of a vengeful ghost who just wants to hurt as many people as possible, without regard to who they are or if they are innocent.   Interestingly, though, as mentioned above, THE WOMAN IN BLACK's recent sequel rips off THE GRUDGE's chilling tagline.  I guess everything comes full circle in Hollywood.  This just underscores how similar these films are with their inversion of the usual Haunted House Movie cliches.  In these movies, unlike many other ghost films, absolutely no one is safe.  I'm looking at you, POLTERGEIST and THE HAUNTING 1999.  

Susan Hill's 1983 book was turned into an excellent 1989 British TV movie (review # 328) that is the very definition of terrifying.  Just thinking of that ending gives me goosebumps.   With such a great premise, it was inevitable that Hollywood would come-a-calling and give the story the "Big Studio" treatment in 2012.  The result, surprisingly, was quite good.  It wasn't as scary as the 1989 version, but it held its own, anchored by some solid frights and a respectable adult turn by Daniel Radcliffe.

Because THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 was a definite box-office hit, it was inevitable that there would be a sequel - even though things were tied up quite succinctly (and bleakly) at the end of the movie.  Leave it to Hollywood to find a way to resurrect the dead - or at least, their ghosts.  Now, along comes THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH to try to continue the tale of the vengeful Jennet Humfrey and her lost son.  

Is the sequel as good as the 2012 remake and the 1989 original?  The answer, quite frankly, is "NO."  There are some good ideas here, and some intriguing atmosphere with the occasionally creepy setpiece - but the overall effect is tired and routine.  And, dare I say, downright boring.  I never thought I'd think that about a movie featuring probably the scariest ghost in horror movie history.  Somehow, the woman in black is just not as frightening here as she was previously.

Much of this has to do with the face that the script doesn't tell us anything new about her.  We found out everything - her past, her heartache, her loss, her rage - in the first film as Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) investigated.  Here, Phoebe Fox's heroine Eve is put through the same paces, as if we hadn't seen this before.  The result is utter tedium.  I actually fell asleep a couple of times and had to be nudged awake by my buddy.  Again, I honestly never thought that would happen to me while watching a flick with the probably the scariest horror movie ghost ever.  

We mentioned some interesting ideas suggested in the early going of the film, but fumbled or outright dropped in the latter half.  One of the fumbled threads deals with Eve's troubled history that actually dovetails with that of the ghost's.  However, instead of effectively mining this sub-plot, the movie deals with it in the most mundane way possible.  Too bad, because it could've made for an effective narrative spine to rest the film on. 

The cast does their best, but they're short-changed by the script that keeps upstaging character development for yet another "scary" setpiece.  Fox and her male lead Jeremy Irvine have a nice rapport, but we never really get a strong sense of them as a couple.  More scenes of them getting to know one another would've been nice and given the film some depth.  As it is, whenever something interesting begins to happen with the characters, we cut away to another boring shot of a door or shadow moving.  Haven't we seen this all before?  

In the end, THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2: ANGEL OF DEATH is a dull sequel to the strong 2012 remake.   It has an interesting premise that is ultimately led nowhere by the script.  If there is a third film, let's hope that the makers put some energy into it.  Just because a movie is about ghosts and phantoms, doesn't mean it should feel dead.  

# 600 - THE WOMAN IN BLACK

THE WOMAN IN BLACK (2012 - HORROR / GHOST / HAUNTED HOUSE FLICK) ***1/2 out of *****  OR  7 out of 10

(I think I'll be staying behind in London, thank you very much...)

CAST: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet McTeer, Misha Handley, Sophie Stuckey, Roger Allam, Shaun Dooley, Mary Stockley, Alfie Field, Victor McGuire, Alice Khazanova, Liz White, Lu Cornfield.

DIRECTOR:  James Watkins.

(WARNING: Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to defy your boss - straight ahead...)

IT'S LIKE THIS:  In 2004, THE GRUDGE came out and basically turned the entire Haunted House Sub-Genre onto its head.  Prior to THE GRUDGE, which was actually a remake of the Japanese horror hit JU-ON (which means, um, 'the grudge' in Japanese), haunted house horror flicks were essentially beset by one major problem:  no matter how bad things got, the characters could solve their problems just by... walking out the fucking door.

Oh, sure, there may be financial reasons keeping them from simply abandoning the house (THE AMITYVILLE HORROR).  Or the ghosts may actually be trying to keep them inside (THE HAUNTING 1999).  Or they may be snowbound and isolated (THE SHINING).  Or they may actually just be fairly stupid (SINISTER).  Bottom line, though, is that if they really, really, REALLY wanted to, these assholes could save their sorry asses just by... leaving the house.

Then JU-ON and THE GRUDGE came out, and all that changed.   You see the particular hauntings in these films were like the paranormal version of being targeted by the Mafia: once you have entered the haunted house, you are in the crosshairs of the phantoms - who will follow you wherever you go until they ice your sorry ass.  In short, these ghosts make the ones in THE AMITYVILLE HORROR and THE SHINING look like sedentary book club members.

However, it turns out that while JU-ON and THE GRUDGE were welcome inversions of the Haunted House Sub-Genre, they were not exactly 100% original.  You see, the idea of a vengeful phantom not interested in peace or being laid to rest, but craving relentless and unstoppable revenge, had been first introduced in a 1983 novella by Susan Hill called "The Woman In Black."  A British TV movie was made from the book in 1989 - and in 2012 a Hollywood remake (shoot me now) starring none other than Harry Potter himself was made.

How does THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 compare to THE WOMAN IN BLACK 1989?  Well, do a search above because we reviewed the first film back in 2011 (review # 328), and found it to be awesome and pants-wettingly scary.  However, let's save our assessment of the Hollywood remake for the BUT SERIOUSLY portion of our review.

For now, just know that Harry Potter, er, Daniel Radcliffe plays London's Most Baby-Faced Solicitor (Lawyer) Ever, Arthur Kipps..  As the movie starts, Arthur's having a bad day: he's still mourning the death of his wife Stella (Sophie Stuckey) in childbirth years ago, his lovable son Joseph (Misha Handley) is still going around asking where Mommy is (get used to it, kid), and his law firm boss Mr. Bentley (Roger Allam) is kind of being a prick.

You see, it appears that Arthur's endless moping over Stella's death has been distracting him from his work.  As in, shit ain't getting done - and his superiors are losing their patience.  Finally, Mr. Bentley tells Arthur that he needs to get his act together and work on a new project that will redeem him in the eyes of his employers.

This project involves going out of town to some seaside burg in the ass-crack of England called Crythin Gifford.  Turns out some old crone named Alice Drablow (Alisa Kazhanova) passed away, and her legal affairs need to be sorted out.  Oh, and once you see what Crythin Gifford looks like, it'll become painfully clear why none of the partners at Arthur's law firm decided to take on the project themselves - and instead dumped it on poor, morose Arthur: the place is kind of a shithole.

Further adding to the charm of the place are the locals who, not exactly rays-of-sunshine to begin with, turn even more assholish to Arthur when they find out he will be spending time at Drablow Manor going through the dead crone's papers.  The only who's even remotely nice to our hero is Sam Daily (Ciaran Hinds), a country solicitor who takes a paternal shine to Arthur.  Sam is married to Elizabeth (Janet McTeer), who is still mourning the loss of their young son Nicholas (Sidney Johnston) years ago.

Soon, Arthur finds out there have been other horrible deaths involving children over the last few years - and the awful trend is continuing.  What's worse is he starts to realize that it all may be related to Alice Drablow, Drablow Manor, and a mysterious figure named Jennet Humphreys (Liz White) whom no one seems to want to talk about.   Before you know it, Arthur is wishing he basically told Mr. Bentley to ram a fire poker up his own ass back in London and turned in his two-minute notice.

What exactly is going on in Crythin Gifford?  Why are the children of the village dying in terrible ways, one by one?  What role does the Drablow clan have in the terrifying events?  And what part of Jennet Humphreys' past is driving this all?  Is she the mysterious "woman in black" that Arthur starts glimpsing around every corner?  Will he be pulled into the deadly events, as well?  How will this all end?

Let's just say that our boy Arthur better make sure his life insurance coverage is up to date. For his son's sake...


BUT SERIOUSLY:  In 2011, we reviewed THE WOMAN IN BLACK 1989 (review # 328), a made-for-British television movie that was an adaptation of Susan Hill's terrifying novella published in 1983.  THE WOMAN IN BLACK 1989 was a spare, chilling ghost story that boasted some truly frightening images and setpieces - and wasn't afraid to end the story with an uncompromising sucker-punch to the viewer's stomach.  No happy ending here....

When news broke around 2010 that Hollywood had acquired the rights to Hill's novella and were planning a glossy, big-screen, much-bigger-budgeted remake starring Daniel Radcliffe in his first "grown-up" role, we viewed the news with elation and some trepidation.  Elation, because this genuinely scary story was going to reach a larger audience finally - and trepidation, because Hollywood has been known to de-fang and often outright botch classic horror originals with watered-down PG-13 versions meant to snag younger audiences.   In short, there was a very real chance that THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 could wind up a misguided re-do - like THE HAUNTING 1999, which was a weak remake of THE HAUNTING OF HILL HOUSE from 1963, despite a strong cast and some otherwise intriguing aspects.

Happily, though, THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 is a stronger remake that can stand proudly next to the earlier, but admittedly still more superior, version.  While this remake boasts some solid scares and creepy atmosphere, it still lags behind those of the 1989 original - mainly because the titular "woman in black" was far more horrifying in the first film.  However, this was always going to be the case.  The best the folks behind this film could hope for was to not damage the original story the way THE HAUNTING 1999 did with its premise - and simply tell it again with enough conviction.  They largely succeed: THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 is a solid horror film.

Much has been made of the young Daniel Radcliffe being cast (or miscast, as some have said) in the role of up-and-coming lawyer Arthur Kipps.   In the original, Kipps was played by the clearly-much older Adrian Rawlins.  It's obvious why Radcliffe was cast: to draw in younger crowds.  The good news is that Radcliffe actually passes for much older than he really is, and acquits himself quite well.  The movie could've easily failed if he didn't have the gravitas to pulls off the role - fortunately, he does.

Ciaran Hinds and Janet McTeer are similarly-good as Sam and Elizabeth Daily, the local couple who befriend Kipps.  They themselves are also victims of the "woman in black" - and the subplot involving Elizabeth and her lost son Nicholas gives this film some welcome depth and pathos.  Sam also plays a bigger role here than he did in the 1989 version, and it's always nice to see the handsome and talented Hinds get more screen time.

Ultimately, THE WOMAN IN BLACK 2012 is a good horror remake that may not be as scary as the original, but has enough chills and frights of its own to recommend it.  Unlike the recent sequel, which trotted out the same ghost tropes - to significantly less effect.   But more on that in our next review....

# 599 - THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR

THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR (2014 - ANIMATED / ADVENTURE / FAMILY) ***1/2 out of *****  OR  7 out of 10  

(More like FACEPLANT OF THE PENGUINS...)

CAST:  Voices of Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Christopher Knights, Conrad Vernon, John Malkovich, Benedict Cumberbatch, Annet Mahendru, Peter Stormare, Ken Jeong.

DIRECTORS:  Eric Darnell, Simon J. Smith.

(WARNING:  Some SPOILERS and compelling reasons to doubt any documentaries narrated by Morgan Freeman - straight ahead)

IT'S LIKE THIS:  If Morgan Freeman and that popular documentary he loaned his voice to (MARCH OF THE PENGUINS) are to be believed, penguins are majestic, quirky, intelligent, adorable creatures who are much-needed pockets of cuteness to offset all the other utterly inhospitable elements of the North and South Poles.  You would be forgiven if, by the end of MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, you were ready to volunteer on an Arctic-or Antarctic-bound ship to observe the tuxedoed-fowl in their natural (and colder-than-a-witches'-tit) environment.  

Our next review, the much-anticipated THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR, begs to differ.  This flick showcases a quartet of popular supporting characters of the MADAGASCAR series:  four penguins who are, shall we say, about three ice cubes shy of a full tray.  They are Skipper (Tom McGrath), Kowalski (Chris Miller), Private (Christopher Knights), and Rico (Conrad Vernon).   Ostensibly, there four are supposed to have different personalities, but they are all essentially variations on the same sensibly-challenged doofus, so let's not waste our time, shall we?

We meet our quartet of feathered fuck-tards as juvenile penguins in the South (or is it North - oh, who gives a fuck) Pole.  They are engaging in one of those awesome-to-behold pilgrimages where the penguins march, single-file, throughout the frozen tundra - as if they heard the local Macy's was passing out free Calvin Klein wool coats.  Fuck, I'd fall in step, too.

Anyhow, through a turn-of-events so utterly stupid and contrived it could only exist in a MADAGASCAR spin-off, Skipper, Kowalski, Private, and Rico wind up getting separated from the pack.  After a near-death encounter with a pack of shipwrecked walruses (don't even ask), our four "heroes" find themselves adrift on a glacier and eventually wind up in Venice, Italy (!) where it becomes very convenient that they look like they are wearing tuxedoes.  

You see, it's at this point that THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR turns into a parody of one of the goofier Bond movies (think anything with Roger Moore in it, except FOR YOUR EYES ONLY), with our four black-and-white-clad protagonists encountering a super-villain who wants to unleash some spectacular evil plan on the unsuspecting world.  A super-villain named...  Dave.

Somehow, I don't think Elektra King or Blofeld are too worried about losing their status are Best Villains Ever.  I mean, seriously:  Dave?  

At least Dave sounds a lot like John Malkovich, which is always a plus when you need a voice for a villain. I should also add that Dave is an octopus and he has a shared history with our four birds (Are penguins birds?  Again - who gives a fuck) - and a serious grudge against them.  You see, it turns out Dave used to live in the same zoo that Skipper, Kowalski, Private, and Rico wound up in, between their escape from the frozen tundra - and landing in Venice, Italy.  

It turns out that Dave is a little miffed that our four idiots stole all the limelight from him at the zoo, which led management to send to some third-rate aquarium somewhere.  This, apparently, is Dave's deep motivation for unleashing... well, whatever the fuck he's unleashing onto the unsuspecting world.  

So... will Rico, Private, Kowalski, and Skipper be able to stop Dave from whatever the hell he's planning?   Can a secret society of animal secret agents called The North Wind (again - don't even ask) help them?  Or is the world doomed from Dave... and, well, what the fuck he's got up his sleeve?  

Time will tell.  In the meantime, never underestimate the power of stupid creatures in groups of four.  

BUT SERIOUSLY:  The MADAGASCAR trilogy is one of the best-loved animated series in recent memory, and one of the reasons it's so memorable isn't just because of its quartet of crazy-funny leads voiced by Ben Stiller, Jada Pinkett Smith, David Schwimmer, and Chris Rock - but also because of a colorful supporting cast led by the wonderfully loony King Julian (Sacha Baron Cohen), his practical advisor Maurice (Cedric The Entertainer), the meek & put-upon Mort ( Andy Richter), and last, but certainly not the least, the quartet of hilariously insane penguins, Skipper, Kowalski, Private, and Rico (Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Christopher Knights, and Conrad Vernon).  

It was only a matter of time before those four nutty penguins got their own movie.   How well do they do with a lion's share (no pun intended) of the limelight?  Well, let's just say that the results are mixed.  As part of the MADAGASCAR ensemble, these four are a welcome addition and provide a bizarro touch to the already-ribald goings-ons.  However, given center stage in THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR, our four feathered tuxedo birds are somehow not quite as funny as they were in the MADAGASCAR movies.  

That's not to say that the movie is weak, or that these guys don't deserve their own film.  THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR is actually a solid film, and has many hilarious lines (including a surprisingly-raunchy quip about "wet kabooms" aimed at all the adults in the audience that was apparently only appreciated by me as I seemed to be the only who one who laughed). However, it somehow fails to catch that "wave" that elevates a solid film into the ranks of very good movies - and higher ( 8 or **** and above).  As it is, it is a respectable, enjoyable entry into the MADAGASCAR franchise.  

The voice actors are all good, with the likes of Benedict Cumberbatch, Ken Jeong, Peter Stormare, and - best of all - John Malkovich joining MADAGASCAR veterans like Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Christopher Knights, and Conrad Vernon.  As good as the voice cast is, they are somehow a bit better than the script.  Had they been given something truly inspired (instead of another James Bond send-up) THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR might've been more than a merely "good" movie.  

In the end, it's a decent addition to the MADAGASCAR universe.  Somehow, we just feel these four nutjobs would have a far loonier showcase.   Oh, well....

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!

Sorry for the belated greeting folks.  It was a tremendously busy Holiday season.  : )   With that in mind, please note that our reviews for 2015 will post intermittently and if time is available.  It promises to be a very active year, creatively, and so some juggling must be done.  Let's just say that we have to be very flexible with our movie review schedule for 2015.

For now, please accept our apologies and expect the following film reviews to post by this weekend.  Also, take a sneak peek at some of the Winter and Spring 2015 films that we have our eyes on...

# 599 - THE PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR (2014)

# 600 - THE WOMAN IN BLACK (2012)

# 601 - THE WOMAN IN BLACK: ANGEL OF DEATH (2015)

# 602 - PADDINGTON (2015)

# 603 - THE BOY NEXT DOOR (2015)

# 604 - MORTDECAI (2015)

# 605 - THE VOICES (2015)

# 606 - FIFTY SHADES OF GREY (2015)

# 607- KINGSMAN: THE SECRET SERVICE (2015)

# 608- HOT TUB TIME MACHINE 2 (2015)

# 609- CINDERELLA (2015)

# 610 - INSURGENT (2015)

# 611 - IT FOLLOWS (2015)

# 612 - THE AGE OF ADALINE (2015)

Happy, happy, happy New Year, folks!  Once again, sorry for the delay.  Have a wonderful 2015!