More Than a Game a Great Documentary

Following in the tradition of great basketball documentaries like Hoop Dreams and The Heart of the Game, More Than a Game is an inspiring, insightful and extremely well done sports documentary that details a true story with more excitement and drama than even the best fictional ones. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is better than those aforementioned films, it is terrific nonetheless and should be seen by any film lover or basketball connoisseur.

More Than a Game is about the "Fab Five," a group of five guys in Akron, Ohio who came together under the guise of basketball to form everlasting friendships and prove themselves worthy to the world. It follows them from middle school up until the end of high school on their journey to call themselves national champions.

This is a movie that has quickly been dubbed as "the Lebron James documentary," but it is not and should not be labeled as such. It's easy to see why the filmmakers would promote James as the star (and I suspect they welcome the "Lebron James documentary" label) and it does indeed have a focus on him, but only when prudent to the story. It would be easy to simply show his skills on display, but it goes beyond that and never boosts his ego by concentrating on him when the story doesn't call for it. It isn't until James lands the cover of Sports Illustrated, has his face plastered all over ESPN and finds himself in a bit of controversy that the movie starts to discuss his individual impact on the team. As far as it is concerned, each person on the team is as vital a part to the story as James and I loved how it restrained itself from further worshipping him as the second coming of Michael Jordan.

Though it's hard to fault it for its tight, focused story, I wish it would have further explored the boys' relationships and societal issues that they were facing at the time. After middle school, all of them decide to not go to the all black high school in their town, but rather another one with a coach they felt would help them achieve their dreams, despite it being a predominantly white school. If the fact that they didn't go to the all black school is significant enough to bring up, why not delve into race relations? The movie may have rightfully restrained itself from bowing down to Lebron, but it shamefully restrained itself from creating relevant societal connections, all of which were right in front of them, but ignored.

Because of its simple structure and its desire to solely tell the story of a high school basketball team, More Than a Game severely limits itself in scope and size. Those who are not in love with the sport may not find much to enjoy here, but those who are will find themselves lost in the drama and spectacle that unfold onscreen. It's no Hoop Dreams, but More Than a Game is a serviceable basketball documentary that is well worth seeing.

More Than a Game receives 4/5

Amelia a Terrible Biopic

It's been said that there are certain roles an actor or actress can take to garner an awards nomination. One of those roles is as a real life person in a biopic. If that person's life ended in tragedy, even better! So in this day and age where so many biopics have already been produced, who else could possibly be potrayed by an actress desperate to climb back to the top of her rapidly descending career? Why, Amelia Earhart, that's who! Since her Oscar winning role in 2004's terrific Million Dollar Baby, Hilary Swank's career has hit a standstill, appearing in crap like The Reaping and P.S. I Love You. Now, she hopes to reclaim her Oscar status as Amelia Earhart in the newest biopic, Amelia, but this atrocity certainly isn't doing her any favors.

The film, quite obviously, follows Amelia Earhart as she attempts to become the first person to circumnavigate the globe. During her years prior to the trip, she meets George Putnam, played by Richard Gere, and eventually marries him. He, being the connoisseur he is, does all he can to fund Earhart's flights, though he knows in the back of his mind that he could one day lose her forever.

To continue on seems like a frivolous waste of time because we all know where this story is heading. All we could possibly ask is that the journey to that ending be full of emotion and grandeur, but unfortunately, it is empty and meaningless.

Perhaps knowing its limitations, the film employs manipulative emotional tactics, like low key, somber music and schmaltzy dialogue, to try to trick us into caring about Amelia. It even flashes back and forth from the preparation of the doomed flight to her actual journey in its attempt to create a foreboding atmosphere, teasing us by showing little snippets of Earhart in her last days to the point where it feels insulting. It tries to create a sense of dread as if its audience is historically oblivious to the woman's final flight. We already know the events surrounding her disappearance is mysterious. We don't need that mystery forced down our throats.

All this movie really needed was a competent script with drawn out characters and emotional relationships, but it has none. The script is awful and the characters are criminally unexplored, like, for instance, Earhart's intimacy with flying being told only through badly written voiceover. We never truly get to feel her love for it. You can tell me all you want, but showing me is much more effective.

Much of the dialogue is said in a way that would never be said in real life, even in the late 20's or early 30's, like when George asks Amelia to marry him and she goes off on some nonsense tangent about how her father gave her a globe when she was young, which is really just a long, drawn out, cinematic way of saying no.

Amelia is schlocky, asinine drivel with hokey dialogue and poorly drawn out romantic relationships. There is no emotional connection in the entire movie, neither between the characters onscreen nor between Earhart and the audience. I cared so little about her that I was hoping for her to hurry up and disappear so I could get up and walk out of the theater.

The real Amelia Earhart is a terrific woman who inspired not just the country, but the entire world with her aviation adventures and she deserves a truly great biopic to chronicle her life and untimely death. Amelia, I'm afraid, is not it.

Amelia receives 1/5

This Is It Michael Jackson's Last Hurrah

June 25, 2009 was an unforgettable day. It was a day that the world felt a shock. It was a day that many people are claiming as one of the most emotionally impactful days they've ever experienced. It was the day Michael Jackson died. Since that day, the world has lost one of the most popular and successful entertainers to have ever lived. At a mere 50 years old, Jackson was preparing for a comeback tour that never happened and This Is It is here to show us what that tour may have been like.

The movie opens with three little words, "For the fans." I'll tell you straight up, I am not a fan. I appreciate what Michael Jackson has done for music and he deserves to go down as one of the greatest musicians ever, but it's just not my thing. Though I remember seeing the old Thriller video growing up and I was aware of many of his best hits, I never latched onto him like the rest of the world. Perhaps that will sway my opinion, perhaps not. I like to think it won't, but in the interest of full disclosure, no, I am not an avid listener of his music.

The footage from this movie is taken from rehearsals for his comeback tour that took place on various days from March through June of 2009. According to the text preceding the film, most of the footage was meant for Jackson's personal library, though some, like the new and improved Thriller video, was meant as a showcase for the tour. This was never planned as an after-the-fact film for all to see, bringing into question the reasoning behind its release. There's really only one answer: to capitalize on his death. Had he not died, this film would have never happened, which is all the evidence you need to know this movie does not have its heart in the right place.

The title, This Is It, refers to many things. It is the title of his new album released earlier this week. It is the title of his planned tour that never came into fruition. It is also a message to the audience because this really is it. This is the last time fans will be able to see him showcase his talent. But for me, it was more like, "This is it?"

Jackson is a multi-layered man that has had a lucrative musical career and seen his fair share of media coverage detailing his extremely controversial life. The material for a real documentary that probes every facet of him is primed and ready to be put together, but none of that is in this. This is nothing more than a pretentious ego stroke, raising Jackson up as a god-like idol, and a loathsome capitalization on his death.

Of course, it's also merely rehearsal footage. It's not like you're seeing a finished, realized version of what would have been his comeback tour. No, you are getting rough rehearsals that don't always look or sound all that great. There are mess-ups, there are blunders, sour notes are hit and Jackson isn't at his best, reserving his voice for the actual performances that never happened. The material just isn't all that interesting. The concert itself would have been an amazing spectacle I'm sure, but contrary to the title, this isn't it.

However, with all of that said, there were certain song rehearsals that were a blast to watch, particularly the ones where a plethora of dancers were onstage with Jackson practicing their fanciful choreography. I also enjoyed the extra footage that was shot prior to his death that was supposed to play on a giant screen during the tour, like Jackson's incorporation into an old Humphrey Bogart movie and the new Thriller video. It's impossible to watch Jackson perform Thriller and not get excited because it is a truly awesome sequence, in large part due to the dance, which is one of the best and most recognizable dances ever choreographed.

Jackson is surprisingly humble in the film, never truly losing his temper even when rehearsals don't go as well as he'd like. Even when he criticizes the people performing with him, it is always constructive and he finishes each criticism with the phrase, "with the love," meaning that what he says shouldn't be taken as anger or hate. He just wants everybody to perform as well as he knows they can. Granted, if there were moments where he did lose control, the filmmakers would undoubtedly leave them on the cutting room floor, but based on the footage shown, you get a new perspective on the always ridiculed man and come to appreciate him.

This Is It isn't a bad movie because it's not really much of a movie at all. It's plainly shot rehearsal footage that was never meant to be seen by the public. While fans will enjoy it, I'm more inclined to pine for a real documentary on Michael Jackson, something that delves into the intricacies of his life, not this bland, and sometimes boring, rehearsal montage. Nevertheless, his fans will latch onto it like leeches and I do think there is enough here to please, despite its scarce content.

This Is It receives 2.5/5

Antichrist a Visual Wonder, but a Narrative Mess

When I sat down to watch the new controversial Lars von Trier movie, Antichrist, I knew I would be watching something that was going to test my limits. I knew based on the title and critical reaction thus far that I would see disturbing images I had never seen before. But nothing prepared me for this. Though a drama for the most part, two outrageous depictions of sexually explicit violence had me shielding my eyes in horror. Think along the lines of genital mutilation and you'll get the idea. One scene in particular has taken my young, easily aroused male physicality and turned it into a temporarily defunct, impotent dangle of skin that I will never quite look at the same way again. This isn't one to take your grandmother to kids.

Antichrist is split up into four chapters—Grief, Pain, Despair and The Three Beggars—but begins with a prologue that is as beautifully shot as anything I've seen all year. Shown entirely in slow motion and black and white with no sound other than an enchanting opera melody, a couple known only as He and She (played by Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg) are having sex one night while their baby, Nick, rests in its crib. However, he gets out and seems beckoned by the call of an open window, making his way over to it and tumbling to his death. She becomes stricken by the event, feeling guilty due to her negligence, and He, being a therapist, wants to help her through her grief. He employs many tactics, but none seem to be working, so he takes her to Eden (one of many not so subtle biblical references) to confront her demons.

The beginning of this film as outlined above is among the most gorgeous, well shot and downright breathtaking sequences I've seen all year. From the first shot, you know this is going to be a wonderful movie to look at. Antichrist is visual poetry at its best, an aesthetically splendid film that any cinema lover will appreciate, but as a story, it is convoluted and incomprehensible. Featuring talking foxes, subliminal imagery and shots of plants that I can only assume work as some outlandish metaphor, this film is interesting at best and poorly constructed at worst. I appreciated its effort, but I hated its inept storytelling.

As interesting as this movie starts out, it goes downhill quickly and turns into a narrative slug, moving slower than a fat kid hiking up a mountain. Once the couple arrives in Eden, nothing happens, quite literally, for a very long time. Sure, you could argue that von Trier was telling a story through his lush visuals, but I dare somebody to decipher it. The movie is like a really attractive stupid girl. It may be beautiful to look at, but it sure doesn't make much sense.

Because of its narrative incoherence, I have no doubt that this movie will create many different theories as to its meaning. What I saw was a suggestion that women are naturally evil, as evidenced by an important line of dialogue late in the movie and a body of work He found in the attic detailing the hundreds of women burned at the stake in the 1600's. But just when thought I had it figured out, just when I felt comfortable with my thoughts, Antichrist threw me for a loop. I deduced that this idea of women being evil stemmed from their sexuality, which is all too literally exorcised from the female's body in one horrifically disturbing scene, but her actions directly after this moment contradicted my theory. You can make any argument you want towards this one, but I'm going to chalk my confusion up to poor storytelling, not an inability on my part to think analytically.

If there's one thing that carries Antichrist through its own blunder of a story, it's the acting. Dafoe and Gainsbourg are terrific, taking this absurd art house picture and running with every single crazy scenario and nonsensical plot turn. Their devotion to their roles doesn't quite make up for its lack of coherence, but they do give it a sense of authenticity that may have been missing otherwise.

I went into Antichrist having never seen another movie in the director's filmography and the question I kept asking myself when it was over was, does this movie make me want to see another Lars von Trier film? Yes, but for its artistic integrity only. His eye for visual beauty is a sight to behold, but his storytelling is a complete mess and regardless of how awe inspiring the imagery may be, it isn't enough to justify sitting in a theater and subjecting yourself to such perserve acts of sexual violence, of which I've purposely been vague on throughout this review. If you're a film lover and you want to see a director mastering his visual craft, this is an absolute must see, but for everybody else, stay away. My final verdict on Antichrist? Skip it.

Antichrist receives 2.5/5

The Stepfather Remake a Poor Imitation of the Original

(This review was originally published in the October 26, 2009 issue of Broadside. This is the original draft. The score at the end is new.)

There is a brewing hatred for remakes across the movie landscape. Fans cry foul when their beloved memories are altered and filmmakers are troubled to see a new generation receive a watered down version of their work. Both should be equally upset over the newest remake, The Stepfather. The 1987 original was a surprisingly taut little thriller that effectively explored the emotional distress and psychosis of its antagonist. The remake is teen fodder toned down to a PG-13 rating to bring in crowds of delusional high school students who cannot separate quality from trash like this.

The film follows David Harris, played by Dylan Walsh of Nip/Tuck fame, a mentally unstable man who cherishes family, yet does not have one of his own. To compensate, he finds single mothers with children and marries them, placing himself into a false reality as the new father. However, when he becomes disappointed by their lack of togetherness, he murders them all, changes his identity and moves onto the next helpless family he can find. Eventually, he remarries a woman whose son has just arrived back from boarding school, an astute young kid who quickly realizes that something may be wrong with his new stepfather.

Terry O’Quinn, now most famous for his portrayal of John Locke on Lost, played the evil stepfather in the original film and he was outstanding. He blended menace and charm perfectly, to the point where you came to actually like him, though you knew something sinister was brewing beneath his superficial veneer. Walsh has the menace down pat, but he is missing the charm that is key to the character, though it may not be entirely his fault.

Every heartwarmingly appealing moment is accompanied by a brooding music to remind us how evil David is, which prevents us from taking a liking to him. It never allows us to cling onto the character and feel sympathy for him, despite his wicked ways.

The original recognized this conflicting emotion because it hinted at his troubled past as a child, perhaps explaining why he cherished the traditional family so much. The remake ignores it altogether. It doesn’t want to bother with back story. It just wants to work as a tightly wound thriller, but too many loose threads prevent that from happening.

In the 1987 film, the characters start to catch onto the stepfather through realistic, albeit slightly farfetched plot turns. In that movie, the brother of his previous wife is out to track him down and he has legitimate leads to do so. His perseverance and determination helped put a stop to him. Here, the characters catch on through arbitrary means that are brought up at the convenience of the screenplay rather than prudent timing.

As far as PG-13 horror remakes go, The Stepfather could be a lot worse. It never reaches that bottom of the barrel quality that abysmal films like One Missed Call or Prom Night do, but eventually you grow wearisome from its contrived scenarios and repeated scare tactics. If you really want to subject yourself to a mediocre remake full of plot conveniences and tired horror tropes, this is your best bet, but you would be doing yourself a favor by staying in and renting the original instead.

The Stepfather receives 1.5/5

Top 10 Horror Sequels to Watch on Halloween

At about this same time last year, I did a top ten list of movies that you absolutely needed to watch on Halloween (click here to read it). With Halloween 2009 fast approaching, I've decided to dive headfirst into another holiday themed movie list, but this year, it's a little different. Being the second time doing this, I feel it is appropriate to point out the best horror sequels to enjoy on October 31st. In a year where stupid horror sequels have run rampant, some practically creating the exact same film for the umpteenth time (The Final Destination) and some most likely putting the final nail in the franchise's coffin due to its impermeable stench of terrible (Rob Zombie's Halloween II), it's never been a better time to remind everybody out there that good horror sequels do exist. However, last year I was quick to point out that the films weren't necessarily the best; they were just the most fun. Keep in mind that these movies aren't necessarily fun (especially a certain Rob Zombie film), but they work on their own terms, sometimes even eclipsing their predecessors. Without further ado, these are the Top 10 Horror Sequels to Watch on Halloween.

10. Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives—The Friday the 13th franchise isn't exactly a series known for its critical appeal. It has always been a franchise seen as nothing more than a joke in the critic community, offering little in the way of scares, emotion, character development or even competent acting and direction. Out of the now 12 movies in the series, few I would argue are truly well done. Though Freddy Vs. Jason effectively mixed the two villains together in a relatively intelligent manner, building on the mythologies of each franchise, it wasn't scary. The one and only entry in its never ending canon that I would defend as being frightening is Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives. It doesn't always work and it falls back on the same horror tropes its predecessors have (hence the 10 spot), but the director, Tom McLoughlin, went to great lengths to create a movie that stood out from the crowd. In this film, the difference is in the details. McLoughlin directs the film wonderfully, despite what uppity, naysayer critics might have you believe. It features good performances, a terrific climax that will get your heart racing, and it throws kids in the picture, allowing Jason to hearken back to that fateful day referenced in the original when he, as a child, drowned because of neglectful camp counselors. As he looms over a sleeping kid in one scene, you get the feeling he sees himself there, justifying his killing as a means to protect the children from a similar fate. Perhaps I'm looking too much into it (it is only a Friday the 13th film after all), but regardless, this is the best entry in the franchise and it is worth checking out.

9. Bride of Chucky—One of the only exceptions to my stated rule that these movies aren't necessarily fun, Bride of Chucky is a blast. After three movies of decreasing quality, writer and creator Don Mancini wisely decided to flip the Child's Play franchise on its head, turning it from a moderately effective horror thriller into a straight up comedy. Whereas in the original Chucky was rarely seen until the end, he's the star here and it is wonderful. Easily the best in the franchise, Bride of Chucky satirized your typical romantic relationship in a humorous (and murderous) way. By giving him a doll companion who loved him, it allowed the dark humor of the tale to shine through. They love each other greatly when things are good and they bicker back and forth when things are bad. Like a real couple, they spend time with each other and cooperate to reach a common goal, only that goal is usually to kill someone as horrifically as they possibly can. To Chucky, the best make-up for his bride is the blood of their victims. Granted, violence is not funny and this may sound like one hell of a depressing movie, but you'd be wrong on every account. Bride of Chucky is uproarious and a joy ride (in a dark, weird way) from beginning to end.

8. 28 Weeks Later—There's no denying that 28 Days Later revitalized the zombie genre. After years and years of standard undead fare, it seemed like the genre within a genre was all but extinct until it came along. I offer my thanks to that film, but I felt it was a tad uneven and didn't capitalize on its intriguing start. It is in no way a bad film, but its sequel, 28 Weeks Later is far superior in my book. As you'll notice throughout the majority of this list, most of the truly scary movies were released a while back. That's not done on purpose. It's just that older horror movies really tap into a sense of dread that modern horror movies don't. That isn't the case for 28 Weeks Later. This movie is absolutely terrifying. It blends the gruesome gore modern horror flicks are known for with a style reminiscent of a classic fright film. While older movies used ambient mood and subtlety to secure its scares, this film uses more of an in-your-face intensity and abrupt tonal shifts that somehow fit the bill perfectly, as seen in an early scene where a husband finds out his long thought dead wife is still alive. Happy to see her after all this time, he kisses her passionately only to turn into a zombie himself and rip her apart. It turns out she was able to carry the gene recessively without actually being infected and her spit infected him. This loving calmness that explodes into a violent rampage is one of the most memorable parts in a wholly memorable movie.

7. Halloween II—Not to be confused with the awful Rob Zombie film released earlier this year, the 1981 follow-up to John Carpenter's horrifying classic does well for itself considering that it must stand up to the scrutiny of following one of the most chilling scary movies ever made. While nowhere near as good as the 1978 original, it's still a competently made slasher film that shows a hint of filmmaking ingenuity that plays off the strengths of the original while incorporating its own new ideas into the mix. Despite one giant unintentional laugh at the back end of the movie where Michael Myers calmly walks into a glass door, making it shatter to pieces (which is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen), Halloween II still manages to provide enough terror to fit snugly into the list of good horror sequels. The film begins directly where the first left off. Laurie Strode is being carted off to the hospital after her run-in with the boogeyman. All her friends are dead, she is badly hurt and worst of all, Michael is still on the loose, even after taking six shots to the chest. The original film is nearly perfect in every way, so lengthening the night it took place is a tricky angle to play because if you fail, you could taint the legacy of the original. But this one lives up to its standards and has one hell of a tense climax that is as exciting as it is nerve-racking. You should never watch this one over the original, but if you've seen that one a few too many times, this serviceable follow-up should do the trick.

6. The Exorcist III—One of the most criminally underrated sequels in horror movie history, The Exorcist III, like Halloween II, is a tricky film to make because the original is largely regarded as one of the scariest movies of all time, and rightfully so. The 1973 classic is about as scary as scary gets, but The Exorcist III had a lucky break. It wasn't the direct follow-up. It had the good fortune to follow the abysmal Exorcist II: The Heretic which would make my list of top 10 worst horror sequels if I were to ever make one. You could follow-up that movie with a giant, stinking turd of a picture and it would still be monumentally better, but thankfully for us movie lovers, The Exorcist III went above and beyond its expectations. Directed by William Peter Blatty and based off of his book Legion, The Exorcist III is more akin to a mystery story than a horror film. It features a lot of police investigation involving strange circumstantial homicides and copious amounts of dialogue trying to piece together the odd events. It's a very talkative movie, but it doesn't lose any luster for it. In fact, it's still quite horrifying. Much of the film takes place in a secluded cell where the protagonist, played wonderfully by George C. Scott, merely sits and talks to a man dubbed The Gemini Killer, played delightfully evil by the great Brad Dourif. The story seems to be in its own timeline, not connecting to the prior movies at all, but brilliantly surprises us and creates a solid link to the original that makes the film more than just another cash-in, but a surprisingly solid, and subtly terrifying, film that is far too often overlooked.

5. Wes Craven's New Nightmare—In 1984, a little horror slasher picture emerged with a brilliant premise. What if you couldn't fall asleep because somebody was in your nightmares trying to kill you? Everybody has had a nightmare that they thought was just a little too real, and that was where A Nightmare on Elm Street took its inspiration from. In the film, Freddy Krueger, iconically played by the great Robert Englund, dove into the dreams of teenagers while they slept and killed them as revenge for his untimely death by the hands of their parents. It was a great idea executed with panache. Its director, Wes Craven, crafted a scary dreamlike world that has been unrivaled since then in the horror genre. Unfortunately, the franchise got less shocking and more jocular as it went on, making the once terrifying Freddy nothing more than a joke. It took Wes Craven returning in the 7th installment to make him scary again. In Wes Craven's New Nightmare, the setting isn't an imaginary movie world, but rather actuality. Wes Craven appears in the film as himself, as does Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy in the original. A script for a new Elm Street movie is taking shape and Freddy is using it as his portal to enter the real world and terrorize the people involved with making the movies. For a slasher flick, it is remarkably intelligent and offers up the intriguing notion that the horrors filmmakers create eventually come back to haunt them as well. The Nightmare on Elm Street franchise has seen more misses than hits, but when it hits, it hits big and Wes Craven's New Nightmare is a home run.

4. Aliens—Not so much a horror movie as it is a slow building action flick, Aliens still packs one hell of a visceral punch not seen in science fiction films today. It may not match the unequivocal dread of the original film, but it nevertheless stands up easily as one of the best sequels ever made, horror or otherwise. James Cameron ably steps into the director's chair for this follow-up to Ridley Scott's masterpiece and delivers a tense all out battle between the alien threat and Ripley, played once again by the talented Sigourney Weaver. However, as the title suggests, Aliens breaks the mold created by its predecessor, Alien. That film featured one creature stalking a ship, inhabiting its crevices and waiting for the perfect time to strike. It was more of a predator meets prey movie due to the animalistic nature of the alien. Aliens is more an all out war with dozens of aliens and a handful of well equipped soldiers battling it out no holds barred. It may not be the horror/science fiction film you'd think would follow Alien, but the more action oriented sci-fi angle is easily forgiven once you see the final product. This is an amazing piece of work in every sense of the word and though the fear may be stripped away, awe replaces it. Also featuring a handful of iconic lines of dialogue and one of the most memorable climaxes put to film, Aliens will more than satisfy your taste for horror on Halloween.

3. The Devil's Rejects—Perhaps the most difficult movie on this list to watch, The Devil's Rejects is nevertheless a terrific achievement in filmmaking. While most of these films aren't necessarily fun, The Devil's Rejects is downright loathsome. You won't see this kind of vile hatred in any other movie on this list. You won't see as in-depth an exploration into pure evil. You won't see the dirty, depressing filth that inhabits this movie anywhere else. But you also won't see one with dialogue this well written or direction that makes such terrible actions look beautiful or performances that truly feel alive. You may feel like taking a shower afterwards, but The Devil's Rejects is a truly well done movie no matter how you slice it. Taking place after the events of the middling House of 1000 Corpses, the film follows the Firefly family, a band of psychotic murderers, who are now on the run from the police. Even describing the awful deeds carried out in this movie makes me sick to my stomach, but you won't see a more disturbing or thought provoking scene than when Otis, played by the extremely talented, yet criminally underrated Bill Moseley, drags a man into the middle of nowhere and asks him to pray to his God to save him. Unless God intervenes, the man is surely dead. Of course, God isn't there and Otis looks at the man dead in the eyes and says, "I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work." In its own sick way, The Devil's Rejects is beautifully written, diving head first into evil and offering an uncompromising look at its true face.

2. Evil Dead II—The Evil Dead trilogy is a strange one. Starting out as a straight up horror project, its two sequels got sillier and siller, to the point where the third one was a full fledged comedy. Perhaps that is why it is so beloved by horror geeks the world over. Each movie is different in tone and offer up unique experiences. Though all are great in their own way, Evil Dead II stands head and shoulders above its brothers, mixing comedy and horror almost seamlessly into an hour and 20 minutes of pure delight. A quasi-remake of the original with a bigger budget, director Sam Raimi, most famous now for his work on the Spider-Man films, crafted a horror/comedy classic and made a cult celebrity out of star Bruce Campbell. Combining slapstick humor with hilarious sight gags (like when Ash, the main character, cuts his hand off and traps it under a bucket and a pile of books--the top one being Farewell to Arms), Evil Dead II changed what horror could be. It showed that it was possible to be creeped out while still laughing your stupid face off. Finishing with one of the most abrupt and strange endings ever in a horror film, Ash finds himself teleported back to medieval times and declared the "Hero from the Sky," perfectly setting up the even more absurd and very funny conclusion to the trilogy.

1. Scream 2—There are a few movies I regret not putting on my list last year, but none more so than Scream. At a period of time when horror flicks, especially slashers, were considered a lost cause, Scream came and proved that ingenuity and intelligence could still shine through in the horror genre. It showed that horror could be more than just blood and guts. It showed that they could have a great story, a witty satirical spin, clever in-jokes and a self-knowing way of parodying the genre while still delivering the thrills and chills it is known for. Scream spoofed itself and by playing off the horror clichés that had been established by dozens of previous slasher films, it managed to avoid them. Though not quite as good as the original, Scream 2 built upon the foundation laid by its predecessor, taking it one step further and defying what we've come to expect from sequels. Not only does it poke fun at the rules of horror sequels, it becomes a movie within a movie. In Scream 2, the events from Scream have been adapted into a "based on a true story" slasher film simply (and hilariously) titled Stab. The film's dexterity in twisting genre tenets to fit its own goals is what makes Scream 2 so special and it is guaranteed to keep your interest this Halloween.

Jigsaw is Back in Saw VI

The Saw series gets a lot of flack, some of it deserved, some of it not. As a movie fan, I'm supposed to despise films like this for their brutal gore and relentless depravity, but Saw does what no other horror franchise even tries. It gives us an overarching story that fits into the canon of the franchise. Each new entry isn't simply more of the same, much in the way the films in the Friday the 13th series are. No, these movies further along the narrative. A common term used to define the series is "torture porn," a term that I highly object to when discussing Saw. The word "porn" refers to videos where story doesn't matter. When people watch porn, they watch it for the sex. It's largely the same when people watch something like Hostel. Story matters not, blood means everything. Well, the story is vital to the Saw series. Yes, it's gruesome and borders on the brink of torture porn (especially the opening scene in this newest installment, which is disgusting and unnecessary), but that isn't all it is. It is something more.

To know exactly what is going on in Saw VI, one must be familiar with each previous entry, which is a feat even for people like myself who have seen them all. In past years, I have attended Sawfest, a marathon of each Saw movie leading up to the midnight premiere of the new one. Doing so helped me piece together the puzzles presented in each film, but I did not attend this year. With all of the little intricacies that make up this franchise, it's tough to describe the film having not seen the others in a while, but I will do my best. Keep in mind, it is impossible to discuss this installment without ruining major plot points from the previous ones. Consider that your spoiler warning.

Saw VI picks up directly where Saw V left off. Agent Strahm is dead and Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) is left as Jigsaw's replacement. After finding Strahm's fingerprints at the scene of a Jigsaw trap, the cops start to believe that he may be the person behind it all. Meanwhile, William (Peter Outerbridge), the head of a health insurance company, is being forced to play an elaborate game where he will come across people he knows in his ultimate goal to get to his family at the end.

The victims in Saw VI, as with the rest of the films, are united by one common trait. In this one, they are all insurance scum, people who will do anything to get out of covering someone when they are ill. William finds himself in Jigsaw's game not because he doesn't appreciate his own life, but because he doesn't appreciate others. He has no trouble turning people away and putting them on their deathbeds and it is this unethical business practice that the film focuses on. With the health care debate raging on in Washington and a system that benefits the wealthy while the sick suffer, this is a timely subject for comment. I'm surprised I'm saying this, but Saw VI actually makes a valid point about health care in its own sick, twisted way.

During the game, William is forced to make the same decisions he makes at his day job, taking many facts into account and deciding the value of a person's life. In one particularly inspired scene, two people are placed in front of him and he must choose which one lives. One is a healthy young man, but has no family. He has a lot to look forward to in life, but if he dies, nobody would notice or care. The other is an older woman decreasing in health, but has children and a husband who love her. According to the health care plan of his company—the plan he devised himself—he should deny the old woman her right to live, but how could he possibly justify taking a mother and a wife away from her family? The way the traps tie into the health care system is actually quite brilliant.

Still, I'm starting to feel the wear and tear of the franchise. Being the sixth film in six years is enough to make anybody pine for a definite ending and at this point, the movies are doing nothing but stringing us along for the ride.

As with every Saw picture thus far, there are twists at the end that force you to rethink not only the events you've just witnessed, but the entire series as a whole. One twist in this installment goes all the way back to the third film and puts reasoning behind a certain character's actions that has been left untouched until now. These smaller twists are effective and work well, but the one major twist, the one that will define the next movie, is blatantly obvious from the get go, to the point where I had no doubt in my mind what it would be, and it's not even that interesting. By the time the credits rolled around, I didn't have questions lingering in my head about what would happen in future installments because if this twist is any indication, it all gets predictable from here on out.

One of the reasons the Saw franchise has endured as long as it has is because Jigsaw, played terrifically by the excellent Tobin Bell, is a fascinating character. He was a man who appreciated life, yet his was unfairly being snatched away from him, so he took others who weren't as appreciative and tested them, forcing them to confront death in order to see the value they were squandering away.

Jigsaw has become just as much of a pop culture icon as Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees at this point, but his replacement killer, Detective Hoffman, isn't nearly as interesting. He doesn't have that multi-layered personality, calm demeanor, or gratitude for life that defined Jigsaw. He's really nothing more than just another schmoe in Jigsaw's giant game, which really takes away a lot of the impact the series previously possessed.

Although I do consider myself a fan, the Saw franchise is getting a bit too convoluted for its own good. A healthy portion of Saw VI is spent in flashbacks, giving us new back story that stacks on top of what is already an extensive history for these characters. Unless you're a die hard fan, expect to be confused at some points. Nevertheless, I got through Saw VI alive and intact, not ecstatic from its outcome, but not particularly disappointed either. If the writers, Patrick Melton and Marcus Dunstan, are to be believed, this story runs up to number eight, but I'm afraid that by that time, nobody will care anymore. Though I am recommending Saw VI, they need to step it up in number seven for this franchise to continue to enjoy the longevity its fanbase has, perhaps unwittingly, provided.

Saw VI receives 3/5

Astro Boy Fun, But Flawed

Sometimes I like to wonder where things originated from so I can compare the quality of it nowadays to its original incarnation. I wondered what the first horror movie was and found out that it is largely believed to be the 1922 silent film, Nosferatu. I wondered what the first video game was and concluded that it was Tennis for Two, though that debate still rages on. I've also wondered where anime originated and now I've got my answer. The Japanese manga series turned television show, Astro Boy, was the first that used the distinct visual style that is now known as anime. Now, 57 years after its first publication, Astro Boy is hitting the big screen in the form of computer animation and although it doesn't have the same appeal as a Pixar or DreamWorks picture, it is delightful nonetheless.

Toby (voiced by Freddie Highmore) is the son of Dr. Tenma (voiced by Nicolas Cage), a brilliant scientist who found a way to break off Metro City from Earth and float it high in the sky in response to the declining conditions of the planet below, which had gotten to the point where it was hardly habitable, despite the population who still live down there and forage through trash to find food. Now, Metro City is flourishing and its success is due to Tenma, who created robots to do the work that humans don't want to. Meanwhile, another scientist, Dr. Elefun (voiced by Bill Nighy) has found a way to harness energy into separate spheres. There's a blue core that consists of pure positive energy that is said to be able to fix the world down below. However, this has also brought forth a red core, consisting of negative energy, which is extremely dangerous, as Elefun warns. Unfortunately, his warnings are not heeded and the red core is put inside of a new military technology, turning it hostile and killing Toby. In his grief, Tenma creates an exact robotic replica of Toby, dubbed Astro, with all of his memories and puts the blue core in as a foundation, making him perfect.

There are many reasons why a movie succeeds or fails, but for one to really make a point and be special, it must have some type of prevalent theme. But that's not enough. It must also carry out that theme (or themes) intelligently. The recent Where the Wild Things Are had many and explored them well. Astro Boy brings up similar themes, like death and abandonment, but they are poorly drawn out and never hit home. Any type of message this film was trying to convey was lost in its own muddled structure (except for the unnecessary political message--that was plainly obvious).

But as an action picture, Astro Boy delivers. The action is exquisite to look at and fun to experience. It comes fast and furious, it is quite thrilling and it pulls this movie through. Even with its dramatic faults, there's a charm to this adventure that keeps you entertained.

With that said, the film begins to drag halfway through when Astro finds himself plummeting to Earth's surface. Here, it introduces uninteresting characters, creates bland relationships and features tired montages. It gives off the distinct feeling that the filmmakers didn't have enough material to cover a feature length runtime, so they threw their character down to Earth and had him participate in a number of exiguous events, including entering him into a robot brawling tournament that serves no narrative purpose other than to provide an environment for the police force of Metro City to swoop down and arrest him.

Also to pad the length of an already exhaustive movie is a side story about the RRF (Robot Revolutionary Front, whose title explains itself) that goes nowhere, to the point where one of the robots in the alliance acknowledges their uselessness. It was counterproductive to the film and worked as little more than filler.

Though the voice acting is good overall, Nicolas Cage brings this category to a screeching halt. From the moment his voice echoes through the speakers, it becomes instantly distracting. He is so bad you would think he'd never been behind a microphone before. He shows no emotion in his pivotal role, never conveying the sense of sadness a father would feel after the death of his son. He could just as easily have been talking about cheeseburgers and you wouldn't be able to spot any difference in inflection.

Despite its many problems, the film does actually get quite emotional by the end and although you certainly won't cry, you'll be surprised by just how much you've latched onto the little guy.

Astro Boy is a movie that will surely split viewers. There are enough significant problems that it would be hard to argue that the film is good. Conversely, it has enough entertaining material that it would also be hard to argue it is bad. I land in the middle, but I was charmed enough to tilt in the direction of a recommendation. If you go in expecting exactly what I've outlined here, you won't be disappointed.

Astro Boy receives 2.5/5

A Freakishly Stupid Movie

Early in Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant, Larten Crepsley, played by John C. Reilly, remarks of the crowd after his performance in the Cirque, "It's not easy to hold people's attention these days." I couldn't agree more, but his statement comes off with an air of pretentiousness, as if his poor performance wasn't to blame. My agreement with the quote carries the opposite feeling. It may not be easy to hold people's attention because it takes more than this mediocre effort to keep mine.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant follows Darren (Chris Massoglia) and Steve (Josh Hutcherson), two best friends who are in a tiff at the outset of the movie because Darren's parents think Steve is a bad influence on him. One day while standing outside of school, a flyer is tossed out of a car window inviting them to the Cirque du Freak, which they attend that night. Steve's obsession with vampires and Darren's obsession with spiders spark their fascination with the event, as both are featured in Crepsley's final performance of the night. Despite the highly concentrated venom in the Cirque spider, Darren steals it when the performance is over and hides in Crepsley's closet, where he witnesses Steve proposition Crepsley into turning him into a vampire, though he is refused the transformation because he has "bad blood." Later at school, the spider gets loose and bites Steve, putting him in the hospital under critical condition. Darren, suddenly morose from what he has caused, goes back to the Cirque and begs Crepsley for the antidote. He agrees to administer the counteragent under one condition. He will save Steve, but Darren must become his assistant. Darren reluctantly makes the deal and is turned into a type of human/vampire hybrid.

Crepsley is a vampire, but the term "vampire" in this movie carries a positive connotation. He, along with many others, have split off from the main group and have found a way to feed on human blood without having to kill the unsuspecting donor. An evil group of vampires known as the Vampinese do not like this and prefer the traditional ways, so they wage a war against the normal vampires, which is about as logical a reason to go to war as any I suppose. You see, there's a lot going on in this movie theoretically, but none of it circles around in any significant way. It introduces a plethora of characters who are criminally unexplored, establishes weak romantic relations and is devoid of any constant theme or message.

The Vampire's Assistant is a messy movie from top to bottom and shares many correlations with the Twilight series. Both are based off of books, both are about the struggle between good and bad vampires and both have dubbed themselves as "sagas," if the online ads for this movie are any indication. The similarities are too frank to not notice. However, Twilight was a better film. It wasn't good, but it wasn't this bad either. Twilight created something to latch onto, regardless of how cheesy its "love knows no boundaries" theme may have been. It at least tried, which is more than I can say for this. The Vampire's Assistant does nothing. It's neither an interesting action picture nor a sweet romance. It's just there.

The biggest difference between the two films is that this one takes itself less seriously and tries to throw in a healthy dose of humor to liven things up a bit, but it falls flat. It is entirely unfunny, sans one joke that plays off of established vampire lore, unless, that is, you're talking about unintentional laughs, because then it's hilarious.

The largest problem with the film is its incompetent structure and poor editing. There doesn't seem to be a flow in any area other than the most basic. It has no emotional or narrative structure and the continuity between character interactions and feelings seem almost non-existent. There are sequences that are seemingly thrown in at random that are inconsequential to the narrative arc and it quickly becomes distracting.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant isn't nearly as bad as its trailers make it out to be, which is faint praise because it's still a waste of time. You just won't hate yourself afterwards. The actors look physically bored, the plot is boring, the dialogue routine and the CGI is shoddy at best. There are 12 books that can be adapted from the Cirque du Freak series and based off the quality of this one, I doubt it has franchise potential, but if it does, God help us all.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant receives 1.5/5

Where the Wild Things Are a Masterpiece

(This review was originally published in the October 19, 2009 issue of Broadside. This is the original draft. The score at the end is new.)

Every so often, a film comes along that is absolutely wonderful, marking a real achievement in filmmaking. It’s a film that delightfully taps into the imagination of a child, but allows even the adults to marvel at its grandeur. It becomes something more than what is shown on the surface and delves into real emotions and themes that reach out and touch our hearts. Where the Wild Things Are is one of those films, adeptly exploring the dynamics of life and the paths many children take to learn and grow to be born again into mature, young adults.

Based on the beloved book by Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are begins with Max, played by Max Records, facing a number of troubles. His father has long since left, his mother is too focused on other things to give him much attention and his sister is neglectful, allowing her friends to bully him without intervening. Max is lonely and friendless, his only reliable companion being his imagination. One night, his bottled up frustration explodes into aggression and he runs away only to find a sailboat which drifts him out to sea, eventually landing him on a strange island where he meets the Wild Things.

The beauty in this opening is that you cannot pinpoint the exact moment that reality turns imaginary because his imagination is his only absolute truth. His troubles carry over into his fantasies and the strong correlation between the fantasy world and real life makes his transition indistinguishable. The Wild Things and their world feel just as real to Max as his life back home, if not more so.

The parallelisms between Max and the Wild Things offer up the overarching themes that dominate the film, with the closest comparison being the crude effigy to Carol, voiced by James Gandolfini. They are both troubled souls and take no trust in anybody. They both anger quickly and decimate the things around them. They both have created works of art for the ones they love only to destroy them later when they feel emotionally betrayed.

However, each Wild Thing, outside of just Carol, represents a piece of Max or a person in his life. A quarrel that exists between two of the creatures corresponds with Max and his sister, with each drifting further apart from one another. Another creature named Alexander, voiced by Paul Dano, is hurt at one point in the movie from the bullying received by the other Wild Things, much like Max is by his sister’s friends. Whereas Carol portrays Max’s angry side, Alexander shows the timidity and fear that he lives with on a day to day basis. There are too many parallels to mention, including Max’s self proclamation as king that acts as a way for him to mask his pain from adult disregard, but their importance is not forgotten and each play a significant role in the reshaping of this young child.

With themes of death, rage, pain and loneliness, Where the Wild Things Are is very much an adult fairy tale, despite the PG rating, but age matters not in this story because its message is timeless and its artistry extraordinary. All ages will find themselves lost in this absorbing tale.

Where the Wild Things Are is magical, a tour de force of imagination and spirit. It is a true masterpiece that will be cherished for generations to come and it is one of the best movies of the year.

Where the Wild Things Are receives 5/5

Law Abiding Citizen a Torturous Affair

In what could be the most hyperbolic title of the year, Law Abiding Citizen takes into account a couple of things: the length a man will go after losing his wife and child and our corrupt legal system that lets murderers go free. Neither are handled with much care or provide us with any insight that hasn't already previously been tapped into by countless other revenge pictures. The only thing separating this one apart is that the poor soul who watches his family get murdered decides that blame should also be placed on the people involved with the criminal case, including the district attorney and judge who presided over it, which could be the most flawed, illogical train of thought any pissed off widower could possibly have, especially given the circumstances. More on that later.

The film opens under peaceful conditions in Clyde Shelton's (Gerard Butler) house with his wife and child. When the doorbell rings, he opens the door only to have his face smashed in with a bat. The next thing he knows, he is bound and gagged and watching his wife and child die from the hands of two evil men who are eventually caught and put on trial. Nick Rice (Jamie Foxx) is the prosecutor and is doing his best to put the men away for good. However, the evidence is not sufficient enough to keep both men in jail. He explains to Clyde that if brought to trial, there is a distinct chance they could lose, resulting in both men going free. The deal he makes instead is for one man to get the death penalty while another gets five years in jail. Flash forward ten years later and the execution day is upon us, but something goes wrong and the criminal suffers great pain before dying. Just as well, the other man, who is now free, goes missing before being found in pieces in an abandoned warehouse. Clyde is then arrested and admits guilt to both murders, but vows to take out everybody involved with the case and somehow keeps killing people, even while he is locked away in his cell.

The logic in this whole predicament is absolutely absurd. In other revenge movies, the protagonist is angry because the guilty men are let completely free or get a very limited time in jail. In Law Abiding Citizen, the men are punished, one severely and the other not so much, but the fact is that justice was served. Given the circumstances, with corrupted DNA and insufficient evidence, nabbing one of the two is pretty damn good, especially considering the lucky guy still does a good amount of time in jail. Does Clyde have a right to be angry? Of course he does, but the fact of the matter is that Nick, being an informed and learned lawyer, made the best possible decision he could with the many factors surrounding the case. But the movie tries to make us question that decision asking, did he really do all that he could? Well, movie, yes he did, at least according to the information you presented me with.

Still, the murder of the one man left standing is understandable. Besides, what man wouldn't want to get revenge for the brutal killings of his wife and child? But why take out the people involved with the case as well? They did, after all, give one man the death penalty, handing out as much punishment as they could under the legal proceedings. This is when the movie gets a little too ridiculous for its own good.

The problem with the overall tone of Law Abiding Citizen is that the murder and torture are played as lighthearted, even whimsically at times, and it is repugnant. Did the freed murderer deserve more punishment? Yes, of course he did, but still, there is nothing funny about what Clyde did to him. Like this year's remake of Last House on the Left, this movie relishes in pain and misery and it is difficult to watch.

There is a depressing air about it where gruesome torture and mean spirited actions abound. For example, Clyde records himself torturing the murderer and then sends the tape to Nick's family. It is then viewed by his daughter, which serves no purpose other to repulse us. Reaction achieved.

Many people in my screening were laughing, but if any laughs are produced within this movie, they are unintentional because Clyde's uncaring mannerisms are an inclination of his apparent psychosis, which is nothing to laugh about. If anything, it should have been disturbing and unsettling, but ends up coming across as merely stupid.

With that said, there are some flashes of brilliance, including a great court scene where Clyde defends himself and spouts legal mumbo jumbo, citing court precedents and convincing the judge to let him go. He then abruptly flips his words and explains that the corrupt court system is the reason they are there to begin with. If they had given both men who murdered his family the death penalty, he wouldn't be there today. This was wonderfully written, well acted and showed a hint of inspiration, but it all came crashing down rather quickly.

The problem with Clyde's huge overarching plan is that everything would have to go perfectly for it to be pulled off. If one person calls in sick or calls a cab instead of hopping in that car wired with a bomb or doesn't pick up the phone that is triggered with a trap, his plans are botched.

The final twist casually rectifies these shortcomings in some instances, but its ludicrousness knows no bounds. So many factors would have to fall into place--negligent prison guards, inept FBI agents, luck, perfect timing, and more--for it to happen anyway that the explanation of prior events ends up meaning nothing. Law Abiding Citizen isn't nearly as intelligent as its bloated ego would have you believe.

Law Abiding Citizen receives 1.5/5

Retreat From This Movie

As a lover of film and a person who is devoted to writing about them here for my adoring crowd (all three of you), I try to pay attention during movies. I take a notepad and jot down my thoughts as the picture goes on. It helps immensely, ensuring that I am able to properly convey how and why a movie succeeds or fails. When Couples Retreat started, my journalistic tactic was all but forgotten. After about 20 minutes of this dismally unfunny movie, I stopped taking notes because I was in shock from its enormous stupidity. Having only been hours since I walked out of the theater, I have already begun to erase this movie from my mind. Therefore, I don't have much to say. Just keep in mind that there is no reason, under any circumstance, that you should ever watch Couples Retreat.

The set-up of the movie is about as contrived as anything I've seen recently. Jason (Jason Bateman) and Cynthia (Kristen Bell) are having marital problems. They are considering a divorce, but feel that it is best to try to work through their problems before they make that decision. They decide that their best bet is to go to a tropical island called Eden where they can take part in relational activities that they hope will give them the answers they are looking for. Unfortunately, it's a tad expensive and they can't afford it, but there is a special group rate if four couples go together. So they talk their friends, who include fellow couples Dave (Vince Vaughn) and Ronnie (Malin Akerman), Joey (Jon Favreau) and Lucy (Kristin Davis), and Shane (Faizon Love) and Trudy (Kali Hawk), into going with them, as a kind of vacation.

There are so many problems with just the initial set-up that it boggles the mind. Why, pray tell, is there a discount rate for couples of four or more? I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a discount rate for multiple couples going to marriage counseling, that all have the same marital problems, no less.

Then you can take into account the never quoted, but assumably high price of the island resort and the impossibilities that should impede certain characters from going. The trip costs seemingly thousands of dollars once all is said and done. It's all inclusive, which means you never have to pay for drinks, food, or anything else. One can only assume that the price of the resort coupled with the plane tickets is enough to put a dent into anybody's pocket. Shane doesn't even have the money to buy a motorcycle, yet he has enough to go on this expensive trip. Dave works overtime most days as a video game publisher and the newest iteration of their flagship franchise is due out in less than a month. This is the most crucial time of the year for his business, but he takes a week off anyway to go to the resort. Does any of this make sense?

Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau, two of the three writers of this catastrophe (the third is Dana Fox, the woman responsible for the putrid What Happens in Vegas--I'm still waiting for an apology for that one), went from Swingers to monogamy at a couples retreat. How quickly the mighty have fallen. Despite their mostly impressive resumes in writing, acting and, for Favreau, directing, this is a huge misstep.

The fact is that the talents of this terrific ensemble cast are completely wasted. The excellent comedic chemistry Favreau and Vaughn displayed in Swingers and Made is completely absent. Jason Bateman, whose hilarity knows no bounds, is relegated to jokes about his excessive slide slow presentations. The film is loaded to the brim with immature sexual and gay jokes, including an entire scene devoted to a yoga instructor who basically dry humps the entire gang while saying "Boom" during every thrust. Sophisticated, this is not. One, maybe two jokes land in the entire movie. The rest produce a confused, cocked eyebrow look, partly out of frustration and partly because everything you're looking at is so insipid and insulting.

There is a Guitar Hero sequence in the back half of Couples Retreat that is as embarrassingly bad as they come. Just when you think the film can't get any less funny--bam!--it does. Quite frankly, it's shocking. There's no prudent character development, no emotion and not a shred of humor to be found in the entire thing. Everyone involved in this movie has had their fair share of stinkers, but this is one they should all be ashamed of.

Couples Retreat receives 0.5/5

Good Hair Fails to Make a Point

I know very little about hair. I'm a guy who wakes up, showers and lets it do what it wants. I could really care less about how my hair looks and the only things that go in it are shampoo and water. The subject of hair does not interest me, but nevertheless, I have seen some great pieces of entertainment that probe our infatuation with it. Good Hair, a new documentary from comedian Chris Rock, is not one of those.

The movie focuses solely on African American hair and why a vast number of black women deem it necessary to buy weaves and use hair products like relaxers (which are filled with sodium hydroxide and can actually dissolve through the skin), but it doesn't effectively delve into their fascination with hair. The hit Showtime show, Penn & Teller: Bullshit! accomplished more in its 30 minute exploration than the entirety of Good Hair. That episode really spoke to what was wrong with our culture and the way we think of hair. This movie doesn't really make much of a point at all. Go watch that episode instead and save yourself an hour.

If you choose to not heed my warning, you will see the movie throw out data without backing it up or explaining why it is important. Through various interviews, we are told that the "black hair business" is a nine billion dollar industry and that African Americans consume 80% of hair products, despite only making up about 20% of the population. That's a great statistic, but what are the implications of it (outside of the obvious notion that African Americans buy a lot of hair products)? Why is it this way? Is it our culture? What has caused the black community to shun their own hair and embrace others?

At one point in the movie, Rock asks a little three year old girl whether or not he should let his daughter of the same age get a perm. She tells him he should because, "Everybody is supposed to." This one line gets to the core of what this documentary should have been about. It seems that younger and younger children are getting the idea that they must do these types of things to fit in and look "normal," but at what cost? How are these children going to be affected? What is causing them to think this way? This little girl offered up the hardest hitting line in the entire movie that really tapped into the societal obsession with hair, perfectly laying the foundation for further exploration into the topic, but that opportunity is squandered.

The film culminates into a hair stylist battle in Atlanta, Georgia where four stylists go head to head in a flashy competition to see who will take home the grand prize, a hefty chunk of cash. As it turns out, the show isn't really about the hair styling; they actually cut very little hair. It's about the theatrics of it all, which, if anything, makes a valid connection to what the rest of the documentary ignored: it's not about being skillful and excelling in a particular area. It's all about looking good. That is the poor message we are sending and this finale properly defines it, but by this point, it was too little, too late.

Chris Rock, though undeniably funny, is not a good host in Good Hair. Instead of probing his subjects further to get to some deep rooted belief like the best documentarians do, he ends up standing around aimlessly cracking jokes that really aren't that amusing. The only truly humorous part in the entire thing is when he tries to sell "black hair" by taking it around to various sellers who explain that nobody wants that type. They want something else, allowing Rock to assert that it is only African Americans who seem to be unhappy with what is on their heads. Although a valid point, it doesn't go much further than that, making it a documentary that isn't worth it's weight in hair.

Good Hair receives 2/5

A Serious Man Lacks Something Special

There's a strange fascination surrounding the Coen brothers' newest movie, A Serious Man. It's needlessly convoluted at times, but simple enough to understand the gist of what is going on. It doesn't seem to be about anything, but you get the feeling there's a lot brewing under the surface. A dark comedy in theory, but more a tonal experiment than anything else, A Serious Man shoots high. Although I am recommending it, it's one of the weaker Coen brothers movies and doesn't quite seem to reach those lofty goals it set for itself.

Larry (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a Jewish professor of physics at a local college. He bases his life around Judaism and tries to be a good person, but when we meet him, everything begins to fall apart. His wife wants a divorce, his kids steal money from him to buy drugs, he gets in a car accident, his brother is in trouble with the law, his neighbor is building a boathouse that stretches over into his property, he is having money problems, he is being threatened with a lawsuit by one of his students who believes his F on the midterm was unwarranted (too much math he says--it's supposed to be physics, not math!), and it looks like he may not be getting the tenure he so desires. To top it all off, he has unpaid fees from a record club he was unaware he was even a member of.

And that's about it. The goal of the film is to dive into this man's head and watch it break apart for an hour and 45 minutes. It's certainly not a new concept, but nevertheless, it becomes fascinating to watch as Larry slips even deeper into an emotional distress most of us will never experience. As things continually spiral downwards, so does he, distraught by the never ending pile up of unimaginable events. Some may seem minor in comparison to others, but when all are stacked together simultaneously, it becomes a burden and the Coen brothers do a great job of making us sympathize with this broken soul.

The problem is that it's supposed to be a comedy, albeit a dark one, but a comedy nonetheless. Too bad it is rarely funny. The predicament with some of the Coen brothers' films, especially similar dark comedies like last year's Burn After Reading (which I did not take a liking to) is that the humor is shrouded in a cloud of depression and it's very hard to make light of things such as death and destruction. Other times, the humor is very subtle, so subtle that it sometimes feels non-existent. There were moments when I wasn't even aware a joke was happening until the laughter began, and even then it was usually only a few people. For instance, the side of the school bus that picks up Larry's children is emblazoned with Hebrew letters. Apparently, if judging by audience reaction, this was supposed to be funny. It wasn't. Even the jokes that aren't subtle mostly don't work, like in an early scene when a doctor says to Larry, "You're in good health," as he lights up a cigarette. I laughed a few times, but those instances are far outweighed by the many times I was supposed to, but didn't.

Some of the jokes served a thematic purpose, but too many are stale and overused, which practically negate the prevalent themes. One scene depicts a rabbi as he tells Larry a story. Once he gets to the end, he abruptly stops, just shy of the big conclusion, inducing a strange look from Larry and a laugh from the audience. You could argue that this serves as a parallelism, showing that Larry is confused with life and unable to find an ending to his story of emotional declination, but all I saw was a joke that's been used too many times in too many other movies.

Naturally, the worst script in the world could be adapted by the Coen brothers and they would still somehow make it visually exciting. Despite my squabbles with much of A Serious Man, it's hard not to admire its stunning direction, which ranks among the best I've seen this year. The Coen's frame shots so beautifully and implement canted camera angles so effortlessly that one tends to revel in the film's artistry despite its morbid tone. To make such a dark movie so beautiful is difficult and the Coen brothers have succeeded beyond expectations and deserve to be nominated for an Oscar.

Like their Best Picture winner, No Country for Old Men, this film is a bit confusing. Though not to the same extent, it is still not an easy pill to swallow. Much like that aforementioned film, I get the feeling lots of themes are being presented here, but are explored with such mystery and subtlety that I wasn't able to spot them all in one viewing. Also like No Country for Old Men, this film demands a second viewing, but then again, that movie was vastly superior to this one. As soon as the credits rolled on No Country for Old Men, I knew I absolutely had to see it again and did soon after, gaining a better understanding of its complicated themes. I just can't see myself doing that with A Serious Man. In fact, were it not for the lavish direction, I'm not sure this would be worth seeing at all.

Being a Coen brothers film, I'm sure I'll be in the minority by not praising every inch of A Serious Man, but I appreciate their work too much to relegate myself to such behavior. Though not a bad picture (remember, I am recommending it), it can't match up to some of their best films like No Country for Old Men, Fargo, The Man Who Wasn't There, or even The Big Lebowski. In a way, I feel like it's just disappointment stemming from the high expectations we've all bestowed upon the talented duo. But conversely, I feel like a great effort was spent on the look of the film while the somewhat uneven story fell to the wayside. It's still worth seeing, but you wouldn't be hurting yourself by just staying in and renting Fargo instead.

A Serious Man receives 3/5

Whip It Review

(This review was originally published in the October 5, 2009 issue of Broadside. This is the original draft. The score at the end is new.)

Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut, Whip It, is like an online gaming avatar. It allows us to step into the shoes of somebody else and live vicariously through them, even if only for a brief period of time. It is a coming-of-age story told with equanimity and aplomb, a story that is likely to resonate within many of us who have had a desire to follow our dreams, but have never realized them.

Based on the book Derby Girl by Shauna Cross, Whip It stars Ellen Page as Bliss, a 17 year old high school student in desperate need of a new life. She lives in a small, desolate town in Texas, has a miserable job at The Oink Joint (a local restaurant where she is forced to wear an embarrassing pig apron in front of her peers), and she participates in a myriad of pageants to please her mother, despite her secret hatred for them. She is emotionally lost and unsure of where life is taking her until she finds a flyer for a roller derby league promoting the upcoming pre-season game. She attends the event and falls in love, eventually trying out for the team and making it due to an intense determination and a speed they had previously never encountered. Because she would never be given permission from her parents, she keeps it a secret as long as she can, but the championship game and the biggest pageant of the year have conflicting dates, so she is forced to choose between her happiness or her mother’s.

Whip It is yet another sports movie that follows the same genre conventions so many previous films have followed. It is about overcoming hardship. It is about dealing with emotional pain. It is about following your dreams. The difference between this and others, though, is that there is no revelatory experience. There is no message about racism or the fragility of life. No, Whip It is just pure fun, a feel good movie that doesn’t bombard you with guilt or sadness, but rather whimsy and wit.

The film is mostly a comedy, and a good one at that, but it is not always entertaining, as seen with the mediocre romance that feels inauthentic in an otherwise perfectly convincing world. Page is wonderful in her role and exuberates the same bubbly charm that she displayed so wonderfully in Juno, but her romantic counterpart, played by Landon Pigg, is a poor match to her charisma and allure. Despite the prominence of the romantic theme throughout much of the story, it felt forced. Bliss is a girl who wants to be on her own, away from her parents and the drudgery of school and work. She wants to join the team so she can truly feel alive for the first time in her life. This is what the movie is really about and the relationship seems misplaced.

The emotional center of the film explores opposing viewpoints in the mother/daughter relationship. Bliss’s mother is somewhat of a Christian conservative type who believes in a 50’s era style of womanhood where the women were prim, proper and orderly and she hates to see Bliss venture down a path that she deems crude and unruly. She is too hard on her at times, but Bliss mistakes her love and compassion for selfishness. Bliss feels as if she is doing these pageants to live out the life her mother had, but it is really only her desire to see Bliss succeed that drives her to push her daughter so hard.

Though simple in concept, each part of Whip It combines into an absorbing tale whose appeal is undeniable. It is a strong directorial debut for Drew Barrymore, Page is beautiful and fun as usual, and Jimmy Fallon plays a small role as the commentator for the derby events and gains more laughs in his few brief scenes than in his whole tenure on his late night show. It won’t turn any heads, but Whip It will delight those with light hearts and pure minds.

Whip It receives 3.5/5