Movie Review Grindhouse

Grindhouse (2007) 

Directed by Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarentino 

Written by Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarentino'

Starring Rose McGowan, Freddie Rodriguez, Kurt Russell, Tracy Toms, Zoe Bell, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Release Date April 6th, 2007

Published April 5th, 2007

Director Robert Rodriguez knows a little something about high camp. His Spy Kids movies, earnest as they were, often drifted across the line from family comedy to high camp gobbledygook. The same could be said for portions of his cult vampire flick From Dusk Till Dawn; a film that wavers between horror and high camp Roger Corman feature.

For his latest feature, half of the Grindhouse double feature, Planet Terror Rodriguez takes camp well beyond Roger Corman's wildest dreams. This off the charts nutty sci fi zombie flick flies so far off the rails, in terms of camp kitsch, that it's difficult to tell if his attempt is at homage or parody.

An ex-military unit, just back from Iraq unleashes a deadly toxin that turns citizens into flesh eating zombies in Planet Terror, Robert Rodriguez's contribution to the Grindhouse double feature. Rose McGowan stars as Cherry Darling, a go go dancer who aspires to be a stand up comic. Freddy Rodriguez is her ex-beau El Wray, a former sniper turned criminal. Somehow both Cherry and El Wray are resistant to the zombie toxin and with a small band of survivors set out to battle the military behind the attack.

That is a rather straightforward description of a not very straight forward effort. From interviews you get the impression that Robert Rodriguez intends to pay tribute to the low budget sci fi trash that he grew up watching. However, much of Planet Terror plays like bad parody in the vein of 2004's forgotten Lost Skeleton of Cadavra, another lame attempt at a sci fi send-up.

There are a few cool things about Planet Terror Planet, the coolest being Rose McGowan's kick ass M-16 leg. After Cherry is attacked by zombies and loses a leg El Wray first fashions a table leg, which she puts to good violent use. However, later she gets another new leg and this one has awesome firepower and makes for one very cool visual.

The rest of McGowan's performance is a relative disaster of overly arch delivery and poorly delivered punchlines. The trailers for Grindhouse played up the gun leg and the badass action elements of her performance. Watching Planet Terror you may be quite surprised how ineffectual and often in the background Ms. McGowan is.

The badass of the movie is the slight, babyfaced Freddy Rodriguez. Not the most likely action star, Freddy Rodriguez is actually an inspired bit of casting. Back in the day when this type of low budget flick was made, directors could rarely get the actor they wanted for the money they could play and often ended up with miscast leads. Rodriguez as a bad boy action stud is a cute little inside joke nod to those low budget days.

The troubles of Planet Terror fall squarely with director Robert Rodriguez who fails to establish a consistent tone of sincere homage or high camp send up. There are little touches that work, like the small role for legendary special effects man Tom Savini and the occasional use of his old school effects rather than CGI.Then there is plenty that doesn't work like most of Rose McGowan's performance and the film's many gross out moments which are so stomach turning disgusting that many will want to walk out. These gross out moments further muddy the waters of Robert Rodriguez's intentions with Planet Terror, the homage versus parody battle that unsettles the entire picture. Some of the gross out is funny; some is merely off putting.

When compared with the film it shares the double bill with, Quentin Tarentino's Death Proof, Planet Terror is an utter disaster. Where Tarentino provides sincere homage combined with highly skilled filmmaking, Rodriguez can't decide what he's doing and ends up just tossing anything and everything at the screen to see what sticks.

When it comes to Grindhouse, wait for the DVD. That way you can skip Planet Terror and just watch Death Proof.

Quentin Tarentino is the preeminent film artist of the modern era. A savant like talent who learned filmmaking by watching movies, Tarentino has turned applied knowledge into great art and even now in his tortured partnership with Robert Rodriguez on the twin bill Grindhouse, Tarentino takes his applied knowledge of low filmmaking and turns it into yet another masters class in filmmaking.

Death Proof is an homage to a certain kind of 1970's drive in slasher movie that is actually still being made today on the fringes of the straight to video biz. The film stars Kurt Russell as Stuntman Mike, a Hollywood stuntman well past his prime.

With the advent of CGI guys like Stuntman Mike are a dying breed and you can hear the resentment in his voice as he recounts his history in the business, back in the day when he was a double for Lee Majors! He still works from time to time but he knows that his days are numbered.

It is this resentment that may explain, in some odd way, why Mike takes his anger out on unsuspecting women. Luring them into his tricked out stunt car which he claims is death proof, Stuntman Mike intentionally crashes the car and kills his passenger. The car is only death proof if you're in the driver's seat.

Setting his sights on a verbose group of women in a bar, a radio DJ and her three friends, Stuntman Mike first seems like just another creepy patron hitting on younger girls. When they end up rejecting his advances he takes it out on them in a horrifying car chase.

Then the scene shifts to a diner in Tennessee where four different women; working on a film crew, are sitting around discussing movies and men. Abbie (Rosario Dawson) is the makeup girl, Lee (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and Kim (Tracie Toms) and Zoe (Zoe Bell) are stunt women.

Zoe is visiting and has heard that a local man is selling a 1970 Dodge Challenger, just like the one Barry Newman drove in the movie Vanishing Point, pristine condition, right down to the color and the four barrel engine. Zoe wants a test drive and something more. Little do the girls know that Stuntman Mike is nearby and wants a piece of the action.

That scene leads to one of the greatest car chases you have ever seen in a movie. Tarentino's filmmaking skills create a visceral, emotional, physical experience. These chases are as good as his dialogue which is, as usual, dense and filled to overflow with pop culture bacchanalia.

The characters in the first half of Death Proof, aside from Stuntman Mike, are a verbose and intelligent lot who have interesting, involving conversations that sound mighty familiar. Peppered with references to the Acuna Boys (Kill Bill), foot massages (Pulp Fiction) and Red Apple Cigarettes (every Tarentino film), these conversations are so inside baseball they could make Kevin Smith Blush.

I'm not saying that Death Proof is for Tarentino fans only, it just deepens the experience if you get the references. This is a terrifically smart and entertaining and exciting movie regardless of whether you are a Tarentino fan. Besides, the chase scenes are essentially wordless and are the most entertaining and invigorating part of the film.

Everything about Death Proof works. This is among the best works of Tarentino's career and one of the best movies you will see in 2007.

Movie Review The Incredibles 2

The Incredible 2 (2018) 

Directed by Brad Bird

Written by Brad Bird 

Starring Craig T. Nelson, Holly Hunter, Samuel L. Jackson, Bob Odenkirk, Sarah Vowell

Release Date June 15th, 2018

Published June 14th, 2018

Why don't I love The Incredibles? I have been racking my brain trying to come up with reasons why I have fallen out of love with the Pixar franchise and there really are too many little issues with the story, characters and lack of laughs for me to narrow it down. After sitting through nearly 4 hours of an Incredibles 1 and Incredibles 2 double feature I walked out baffled that the magic I felt back in 2004 was missing.

The Incredibles 2 picks up the story of the Parr family led by Bob Parr AKA Mr. Incredible (Craig T. Nelson) and Helen Parr AKA Elastigirl and including their three children, oldest daughter Violet (Sarah Vowell), middle child Dash (Huck Milner) and baby Jack Jack (Eli Fucile). Like their parents, the kids have superpowers as well with Violet possessing invisibility and being able to create force fields and Dash having super speed.

And then there is Jack Jack whose powers only came out at the end of the first Incredibles movie and only when mom and dad couldn't see them. In Incredibles 2 a significant subplot is dedicated to Jack Jack's developing more than half a dozen superpowers, none of which he can seem to control and some of them incredibly dangerous. Jack Jack's powers are the bright light of this otherwise drab outing.

The main story of Incredibles 2 centers on Helen taking a job as a superhero and leaving Bob at home to care for the kids. The CEO of a major corporation, Winston Deavor (Bob Odenkirk) has dedicated some of his vast fortune to helping bring superheroes out of hiding. If you remember the original film, Supers were driven underground following a series of catastrophes and lawsuits. Deavor wants to use Elastigirl to show the world it still needs superheroes.

Helen immediately finds a nemesis in The Screenslaver, a villain who uses screens to hypnotize people into doing his bidding. Using her smarts Helen is able to make quick work of The Screen Saver but she wonders why it turned out to be so easy, considering how brilliant the villain had seemed as he was executing his plan for world domination. The answer is rather unsurprising, I had the villain guessed rather quickly and had to hope that the movie would find a clever subversion of expectations. Sadly, that never comes.

There is nothing all that remarkable about the story being told in Incredibles 2. Where most other Pixar movies have invention and humor on their side, The Incredibles relies on vague allusions to deep issues intended to flatter the audience for recognizing them. This is however, only puddle deep philosophizing. The makers of Incredibles 2 claim to have something to say about gender roles as they put Helen in the workforce and Bob at home but there isn't much beyond that presentation of the idea.

Helen is a terrific hero, smart and tough and a great role model of how a woman can be both a world class superhero and a great mom. This isn't exactly new ground that we are covering here, The Incredibles 2 is set in a vague early to mid 60's aesthetic and is deeply rooted in the aged politics of the time which seem quaint in today's environment. The Incredibles 2 director Brad Bird brings nothing new to this and the lack of depth in the characters is exposed by how simple the empowerment message is.

Yes, it's a movie for kids, I can hear and I am well aware of what The Incredibles 1 & 2 are. Toy Story is also a movie for kids and yet the makers of that film franchise still find deep and meaningful messages about family and aging and acceptance that go beyond the surface while maintaining a story simple enough for kids to follow. The Toy Story movies are also wildly funny on top of the deep themes, something that neither of The Incredibles movies are.

There is a distinct lack of laughs in The Incredibles 1 & 2. In fact, Incredibles 1 is downright disturbing at times in its lack of a sense of humor. A running bit about the dangers of capes features multiple deaths of superheroes and eventually the death of the film's lead villain. Then there is the Razer Blade scene wherein our hero hides behind the rotting corpse of a former friend to escape detection by a high tech hunting gadget. Incredibles 2 doesn't have anything that rivals those dark moments but it's not much brighter in tone either.

Watching this double feature of The Incredibles I was taken aback by the lack of fun. There is a dourness that hangs over these films, an oppressiveness that edges into the movie in the subplot about superheroes forced into hiding. The stories nod toward Ayn Rand of all people in blatant talking points about how super people have to sublimate themselves to make average people feel better about themselves.

In The Incredibles 1 the super villain, Syndrome (Jason Lee), wants to give everyone high powered gadgets so that everyone can be super and thus no one can be super. The Incredibles 2 turns Winston Deavor into a John Galt like figure who aims to create a utopia where superheroes can once again take their rightful place in society, out of the shadows. I'm not here to argue Randian philosophy, I'm just expressing how off-putting it is to endure such mediocre philosophy during what should be a fun adventure.

In The Incredibles 2 there is an attempt to hypnotize supers and use them for villainy. Some have pointed out that this is akin to the government using the best and the brightest to further the agenda of the mediocre. I'm not saying that was Brad Bird's intention but the film is so obvious in the Randian comparisons that I can see how people would arrive at the conspiracy theory. Here again, even if there is an agenda at play, there is no depth or commitment to it just as there is no commitment or depth to notions about gender roles.

The makers of The Incredibles 1 and 2 seem to want credit for depth without actually having to be deep. The defenders of these movies want to claim they are 'just kids movies' while still wanting to claim they have deeper themes. None of it works because neither The Incredibles or The Incredibles 2 commits to a specific idea of what the movie is supposed to be beyond a pastiche of superhero cliches dressed up with the talent of Pixar animation.

Then there is the villain, The Screensaver. This is not a particularly compelling villain. I already mentioned how obvious the identity of the villain is and how the film fails to make the character or the plot all that interesting beyond the predictable reveal. What I haven't yet discussed is the very notion of The Screensaver as a character. The character uses screens to hypnotize people. The movie is set in the 60's so the screen in question is the television screen, for the most part.

The obvious joke however is like a dad joke observation at its most lame. The Screensaver is a puddle deep comment on our addiction to our screens, our phones, tablets and other such modern technology. Like the attempts at Randian philosophizing and gender role questions, this idea is underwritten and relies on surface level observations. Obsessing over screens is bad, put away your screens and spend time with your family and blah, blah, blah. Thankfully, this a mostly unformed idea and we don't spend too much time on it but it's another failed attempt at a deeper theme, a hallmark of The Incredibles movies.

I have long been a Pixar apologist, one who has gone as far as defending the quality of The Cars franchise, which yes, I do believe is a better and much funnier series than The Incredibles. I have loved nearly everything Pixar has done and back in 2004, I was a big fan of The Incredibles. I had misgivings then but I brushed them aside to focus on how fun the movie was. It's less fun on a rewatch however as its flaws stand out more now that I am so familiar with it.

The Incredibles 2 underlines the flaws of the original and piles on even larger flaws. Brad Bird's baby is filled with underwhelming ideas and a lack of laughter. There is a distinct joylessness to The Incredibles 2. The filmmakers need to lighten up a bit and while scenes involving baby Jack Jack have a light funny feel, the rest of the movie is rather drab and obvious. Worst of all, the fun is undermined by the faint notions of depth, ideas dressed up as deeper themes but lacking actual depth.

Movie Review Stomp the Yard

Stomp the Yard (2007) 

Directed by Sylvain White 

Written by Gregory Anderson

Starring Columbus Short, Meagan Good, Ne-Yo, Darrin Henson, Brian White, Laz Alonzo, Harry Lennix

Release Date January 12th, 2007

Published January 16th, 2007 

MTV Films has pioneered a new kind of filmmaking. It's a low budget, high teen appeal style that involves formula stories about young protagonists and killer soundtracks that drive the film's marketing. It began with the dance drama Save The Last Dance and continued through the surprise 2004 dance hit You Got Served. The new movie Stomp The Yard is not an MTV film but it follows the MTV Films business plan. Made on the cheap, with a killer hip hop soundtrack and cameos by hip hop stars, Stomp The Yard made its budget back over the opening weekend.

That is great for business but the formula filmmaking is tired and the cheapness shows in the low quality of the filmmaking. Stomp The Yard may have youth appeal but it lacks greatly in story and filmmaking appeal. 

In Stomp The Yard Columbus Short plays D.J, a wrong side of the tracks kid from the L.A streets who finds himself in college in Atlanta after the violent death of his brother Duron. At Truth University his hard ass uncle Nate works on the campus landscaping and had to pull every string imaginable to get D.J in. Once there, D.J's culture shock includes a crash course in stepping, a dance competition among historic African American fraternities.

D.J knows how to step, he and his late brother and a team of friends were battle dancers back in L.A before Duron was killed after a competition. Now in Atlanta, D.J is shy about getting into stepping but after showing off for a girl in a bar, D.J becomes a hot commodity among the top two frats on campus, who also happen to be the top two stepping frats in the country.

The girl D.J danced for is April (Meagan Goode) and she happens to be the girlfriend of a top stepper, Grant (Darrin Henson) and the daughter of the school provost. If you think both of these attributes will be laid out as romantic obstacles and then easily overcome, then you have likely seen a few of these formula films in the past. Indeed, those on the wrong side of the tracks always seem to get the girl, especially when the upper crust of society forbids it.

There are few clichés that Stomp The Yard doesn't stomp all over on the way to its rote conclusion. Director Sylvain White, like most directors of January filler material, isn't so much a director as he is a vessel for transporting this cliché ridden script to the screen with little innovation. His style choices are sloppy and he seems to have no interest in the story beyond the opportunities it offers to film elaborate dance scenes.

Throughout Stomp The Yard White opts for a shaky handheld camera work that is sloppy and distracting, especially during the dance scenes where the camerawork makes you doubt just how spectacular the dancing really is. Throughout the film there are confusing scenes where one person or a team dances and one is alleged to be better than the other but we have no idea why. Each side is precise and athletic, even charismatic, but why one is better than the other is left completely subjective to individual taste. The way these scenes are put together however, it seems like we are supposed to understand that one side has been shown up, but for the life of me I had no idea why.

There is an interesting idea buried beneath the retread plot of Stomp The Yard. A movie that focuses its energy on why stepping is so venerated and why it is such a marvelous tradition. Stomp The Yard simply wishes for us to assume stepping is an important part of the culture, it never bothers to explain why. An education in the styles and grading of stepping might make an interesting movie or a better documentary.

For an education in battle dancing, more specifically a battle between krumping and clowning, check out David LaChappelle's documentary Rize. That film is gorgeously shot with no cuts during the dance scenes to prove that indeed no tricks were used, these dancers really did those amazing things. The crew of Stomp The Yard could have learned a lot watching Rize.

As it is, it seems that the Stomp The Yard crew watched how successful the clichés of 2005's You Got Served worked as a business model and simply copied them with slightly less skill. Yes, Stomp The Yard makes You Got Served look better by comparison. That is really saying something.

Movie Review Repo Men

Repo Men (2010) 

Directed by Miguel Sapochnik

Written by Eric Garcia, Garrett Lerner

Starring Jude Law, Forest Whitaker, Liev Schreiber, Alice Braga, RZA, Yvette Nicole Brown

Release Date March 19th, 2010 

Published March 20th, 2010 

Warning: The movie Repo Men has been sitting on a studio shelf for nearly three years. The film starring Jude Law and Forest Whitaker never developed a reputation as a troubled project but for some reason the studio never saw fit to put it on the screen until now. This is, generally, a bad sign. Films that sit on studio shelves for a while have an almost literal stench of failure attached to them.

Repo Men stars Jude Law as Remy, a man with a very unique and disturbing profession. It is Remy's job to retrieve property but not just any property, Remy retrieves internal organs. A company known as The Union has developed mechanical organs to replace failing human organs of all types, lungs, heart, kidney et cetera.

The catch is that  these mechanical organs are unbelievably expensive, so expensive that the company offers an exorbitant payment plan. If you default on your payments for more than three months the Union sends Remy and or his pal Jake (Forest Whitaker) to retrieve the organ by any means necessary. Bloody gutting and death are the usual result.

As you may have learned from the trailers and commercials, Remy has an accident and ends up with a mechanical heart courtesy of The Union. Becoming a transplant patient changes Remy and he can no longer be a repo man. Also helping change Remy's perspective is another former patient (Alice Braga) who Remy falls in love with and eventually goes on the run with in order to escape the repo of both of their important parts.

Repo Men has an interesting idea, one that could be played to capitalize on the current debate over health care reform in America. What better way to parody the heartless insurance and HMO conglomerates than with the mass, bloody retrieval of organs that patients fail to pay for. The satire practically writes itself. 

That, however, is for another movie, as noted above Repo Men was made nearly three years ago before the battle over health care reform became a daily lead story on the national news. What Repo Men is really about is hardcore bloody violence reminiscent of the recent blood and guts epics coming out of Japan and South Korea. Repo Men apes a number of Asian action and horror conceits, especially the bloody violence of Chan Wook Park's Oldboy.

A scene late in Repo Men seems entirely lifted from Oldboy. In it Jude Law takes on several bad guys in a narrow hallway with a knife, a saw, and some sweet Kung Fu. It's a terrific scene but also derivative and in the end pointless. I won't spoil the ending but trained film watchers will be disappointed at how Repo Men tips its hand early on and cheats to the finish in a most irritating way.

I don't know exactly why Repo Men was left on the shelf for three years. There is little that could have been done in that time to improve it. My guess has less to do with production trouble than with marketing challenges. The studio (Universal) was likely holding the film until Jude Law regained his status as a marketable leading man.

In 2007 Jude Law was coming off of a series of box office disappointments and indie movies that barely made it beyond the art house. He was also a rising tabloid star having had a troubled marriage and well publicized affair that kept him from making many movies from 2004 to 2007.  In 2009 Jude Law came back to the top of the marquee starring opposite Robert Downey Jr in Sherlock Holmes. With Law's name recognition once again on the rise, and his tabloid troubles seemingly behind him, Universal likely felt they finally had a marketing hook and Repo Men arrived.

None of this means much to the quality of Repo Men. It's merely one of those notable Hollywood stories; a peculiarity of the Hollywood system where stars are coveted for their ability to sell a movie with their name and persona but shunned at the mere mention of potential scandal or perceived lack of appeal..

Repo Men is the result of that bizarre Hollywood system where marketing means as much or more than the quality of the movie. No one seemed to care whether Repo Men was any good, it's not great but not terrible. The more pertinent concerns for executives were whether the movie could be sold. In 2007 it wasn't an easy sell. In 2010 it became an easier sell.

Putting aside the Hollywood junk, if you are a fan of hardcore, blood and guts violence or a fan of Jude Law you will find a lot to like about Repo Men. If you prefer movies with strong story, characters and motivations skip Repo Men which pushes aside an interesting cast and story in favor of more blood and more guts and more spectacular ways of displaying them on screen

Movie Review Ratatouille

Ratatouille (2007) 

Directed by Brad Bird 

Written by Brad Bird

Starring Patton Oswalt, Ian Holm, Janeane Garofalo, Brad Garrett, Peter O'Toole, Will Arnett 

Release Date June 29th, 2007

Published June 28th, 2007

Brad Bird began his career as an animator on some lesser Disney efforts in the early 80's. He then moved briefly to the art department for The Simpsons and has since taken what he's learned in both of those unique arenas to feature films. His Iron Giant was a wondrous combination of classical animation and lovely storytelling. Sadly that film was never appreciated upon its release and only now seems to be gaining the classic status it so richly deserves.

His follow up, 2004's The Incredibles, thrust him to the forefront of modern animated artistry. His take on the all too real lives of superheroes was humorous, heartwarming and action packed and combined Bird's talent for beautiful animation with deeply human animated characters in extraordinary situations.

That film was, of course, a Pixar animation effort. The company that leads the way in computer animated artistry has once again teamed with Brad Bird for another exceptional film. Ratatouille, the story of a French food loving rat, is a loving tribute to food lovers everywhere and a supremely entertaining movie for anyone who enjoys movies. Not just animated movies or kids movies, Ratatouille is entertainment for everyone.

Remy (Patton Oswalt) is a rat in species only. In his heart Remy is a foodie, a lover of the greatest culinary delights. When he finds that he is living in the sewers beneath Paris, Remy see's a whole new world of foodie delights. Accidentally separated from his family, Remy seeks a new home and finds one in the kitchen of the late world famous Gusteau (Brad Garrett).

Gusteau is world famous for his cookbook ``Anyone Can Cook", a book that Remy has read cover to cover and taken to heart. Separated from his family, Remy develops an imaginary friendship with Gusteau who leads him to his restaurant now run by the miserly tyrant Skinner, Gusteau's ex-second in command. Skinner has turned Gusteau's into a money machine, marketing microwave food under Gusteau's world famous name.

Remy arrives at Gusteau's at the same time as a timid young man named Linguini who has his own connection to Gusteau. Linguini has been fired from numerous jobs and see's Gusteau's as his last chance to find something he can make a living at. A letter from Linguini's mother convinces him to hire Linguini as a garbage boy. However, when Linguini decides to help out with the soup, Remy has to step in and help him out.

When the soup is a hit, Linguini is put in charge of the soup and the two form a partnership and a friendship that could return Gusteau's restaurant to its former glory.

The key to Ratatouille is establishing its heart. We are talking about a movie whose star is one of the most reviled characters in the animal world. When you add the fact that our lead rat character is going to be involved with food and you have an awkward mix. However, the power of animation can tend to soften our feelings toward any species, but the real reason we come to love Remy is the terrific voicework of comedian Patton Oswalt.

The caustic comic surprisingly finds the perfect mix of winning humor, and passion that makes Remy a lively lovable character. Listening to Oswalt as Remy talking about food; you hear excitement and the purest of all joy. Remy has a desire not just to taste great food but to create and share great food with anyone and everyone and you hear that zeal in the voice of Patton Oswalt.

Credit director Brad bird for recognizing that passion and genuine enthusiasm in Oswalt's voice when he happened to hear Oswalt giving an interview on the radio. Oswalt was doing a bit from his act about the Black Angus Steakhouse chain and Bird decided then and there he wanted this guy's eager, earnest, enthusiasm for Remy.

The rest of the voice cast is equally well placed with the legendary Sir Peter O'Toole oozing worldly expertise as the tough as nails French food critic Anton Ego. It is O'Toole as Ego who is at the climax of the movie, its most important character and he delivers the climax in a wonderfully unexpected way.

As with all Pixar creations, the animation of Ratatouille is first rate. I mention Pixar because their stamp of quality brings an extra bit of credibility to Ratatouille. But, even working for Pixar, director Brad Bird has put his own stamp on the film. As he did with his previous Pixar produced work, The Incredibles, Bird brings his talent for traditional hand drawn animation to the world of computers and creates his own unique palette.

The look and feel of Ratatouille and its animated Paris milieu is warm and inviting with just a hint of the traditional Paris attitude. The look is timeless, not unlike the real city of lights, thus why you can't really get a sense of the time of Ratatouille. It has both modern and classic touches to the storytelling and the animated locations. It's in no way alien, just unique, its own sort of universe.

So many wonderful things stand out about Ratatouille and one of the most pleasurable is the genuine love of food. The film is a carnival of carnivorous delights making it the perfect movie to see right before going out to a nice dinner. If this movie doesn't stoke your appetite, you simply don't know how to enjoy good food.

Ratatouille is yet another triumph for Brad Bird and the team at Pixar. A joyous celebration of characters, story and animation. What a delight it is to see a movie that delivers in nearly every way imaginable from direction, to storytelling to casting. Nothing is left to chance and we in the audience are the ones who reap the rewards.

Not just a movie for the kids, but by no means over their little heads, Ratatouille is a complete movie. The rare treat of a movie that all audiences can enjoy.

Movie Review Pride and Prejudice

Pride & Prejudice (2005) 

Directed by Joe Wright 

Written by Deborah Moggach

Starring Keira Knightley, Matthew Macfadyen, Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone, Dame Judi Dench

Release Date November 11th, 2005

Published November 10th, 2005 

My initial reaction to hearing that Pride & Prejudice would once again be adapted to the big screen was a massive groan. How many times can filmmakers tap this same material for a movie; I whined. I was rather surprised then, in my research, to find that Pride & Prejudice had been adapted for the big screen, in its original form and setting, only one other time. In 1940 Greer Garson essayed the role of romantic heroine Lizzy Bennett opposite Sir Laurence Olivier's stolid Mr. Darcy.

The familiarity that induced my groan of reluctance and apathy was actually related to the various attempts to update Pride & Prejudice over the years. In 2003 Lizzy became a New York college student and in 2004 a Bollywood style song and dance romantic. And let us not forget the many offspring that, while they are not straight adaptations, owe their various romantic cliches and complications to Jane Austen's seminal work.

Movies such as Bridget Jones' Diary, the multiple pairings of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and really any attempt Hollywood has made at creating romance on the big screen owes a nod, in one way or another, to the conventions cemented by Pride and Prejudice and Jane Austen.

How this brand new adaptation of Pride & Prejudice overcomes this over-familiarity is extraordinarily simple. The film, directed by big screen novice Joe Wright, remains as faithful as possible to Austen's work and casts exceptional actors to bring the already stellar material to life. The result is a movie that does not redefine Austen's masterpiece on the big screen, but rather allows it to exist anew for audiences who may never have experienced it before.

Keira Knightley stars in Pride & Prejudice in the role of Lizzy Bennet the 2nd of five daughters of Mr. and Mrs. Bennet (Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn). As we join the story Mrs. Bennet is obsessed with marrying off at least one of her daughters, preferably her oldest Jane (Rosamund Pike), because, with no male heir to take over the family land, when Mr. Bennet passes, the family stands to lose all of the land and their wealth upon his death.

Only a rich husband who can provide for the Bennet woman until each is married off, can save the girls from destitution. Thus it is big news when a new neighbor, a moneyed young nobleman, Mr. Bingley (Simon Woods); announces his intention to appear at a formal occasion the next weekend. Each of the Bennet women will have to be on their best behavior to help Jane attract Mr. Bingley whose wealth is far more attractive than his slight and awkward appearance.

At the party Mr. Bingley arrives with his sister Caroline (Kelly Riley) and a fellow nobleman Mr. Darcy (Matthew Macfadyen); a stuffed shirt with an air of superiority that surpasses mere arrogance. Darcy clearly feels everything and everyone is below his standards and even after meeting the spirited and lovely Lizzy; he scoffs that she is not handsome enough to tempt him. Regardless of Darcy's attitude, Bingley is smitten with Jane Bennet and it is Bingley and Jane that keep our antagonistic lovers, Darcy and Lizzy in contact.

The dislike expressed by Darcy for Lizzy is mutual. She overheard his 'handsome' quip; and has vowed to loathe him for all eternity. However, after a number of paths crossings and numerous misunderstandings and missed intentions it's clear that Darcy and Lizzy are meant for one another. The plot, adapted by Deborah Moggach, throws in some well reasoned roadblocks to keep our two lovers apart but it is Austen's shrewd dialogue and the performances of Knightley and MacFadyen that make Pride & Prejudice rise above typical romantic cliches.

Keira Knightley is absolutely radiant in the famed role of one of literature's shining lights of romantic optimism. Helping us forget her misanthropic turn in the ugly and forgettable Domino, Knightley reestablished herself as a star of the future and an actress to be reckoned with.

Matthew Macfadyen, in his first major international role, essays an aristocratic, measured, and intelligent Mr. Darcy whose romantic side is cloistered in a wall of self defense. Darcy's money has made him suspicious of romance and looking toward marriage as an arrangement of interests and not in any way related to destiny, fate or love. Macfadyen, like his character, comes to life in Lizzy's presence and his wall of defenses crumble in a beautifully acted scene where Darcy and Lizzy argue in the rain.

The supporting cast of Pride & Prejudice is equally as delightful as its two leads. Brenda Blethyn is the standout as Lizzy's busybody mother. Her desperate need to see her daughters wed to wealthy men is the film's driving force. Is she annoying? Yes. But, it's part of who this character is and if you accept this story you have to accept her. Each of the remaining Bennett sisters make lesser impressions but not so much that they hurt the rest of the picture. Best of the rest is Jena Malone as the impetuous Lydia Bennett who runs off and marries the foul soldier boy Mr. Wickham.

A period romance is a tough sale to modern audiences, even one with the literary cache of Pride & Prejudice. Look at Shakespeare, his plays have been successful in movie theaters only when updated with modern reimagining's or in the case of Romeo and Juliet, a bumping soundtrack and some cool looking guns in place of Shakespearean-swords.

Pride & Prejudice itself has been reimagined with modern trimmings but as this new film version shows, the original is an untouchable masterpiece. That is because; more important than her romantic ideals, Jane Austen's words are her true subject. It is the way her characters communicate their feelings that is as much or even more entertaining than how they act on those feelings. You can update the plot; it is a clever romantic plot -especially by modern romantic comedy standards- but without the words the impact is lost.

The words of Jane Austen, only slightly altered here by screenwriter Deborah Moggach, are smart, funny, warm and witty. Every word has its own sub-textual joy. There is joy and pain in every syllable, a deep meaning in every phrase and a romantic sigh in every pause. The words of Jane Austen have stood the test of time for a reason folks.

One of the great things about the written word is its ability to last forever. The words of Jane Austen in Pride & Prejudice will, no doubt, last forever because of their beauty, wit, and romance. Now those words are also immortalized in a cinematic form that also can last a lifetime in DVD collections of millions of romantics and fans of great words.

Movie Review National Treasure 2 Book of Secrets

National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets 

Directed by Jon Turteltaub 

Written by Cormac Wibberley, Marianne Wibberley, Ted Elliott, Terry Rossio 

Starring Nicolas Cage, Jon Voight, Ed Harris, Diane Kruger, Justin Bartha, Helen Mirren, Harvey Keitel

Release Date December 21st, 2007 

Published December 19th, 2007

2004's National Treasure came out of nowhere to become a late season blockbuster. With its popular take on legendary conspiracies, big time action and stunts and its family safe PG rating, National Treasure was like a perfect map to blockbuster success.

Naturally, with a film so successful there would have to be a sequel and the crew of National Treasure is indeed back. Nicholas Cage returns to the role of Benjamin Franklin Gates, historian, adventurer and most of all treasure hunter. With his electronics wiz pal Riley (Justin Bartha), Ben has been chasing all sorts of treasures for years.

The latest adventure has an important personal connection. As Ben is lecturing to a group of students on the history of his famous family of adventurers and treasure hunters, he is confronted by Mitch Wilkerson (Ed Harris) who claims a scrap of paper from the diary of John Wilkes Booth proves that Gate's great great grandfather conspired to kill President Lincoln.

Knowing that his family history proves otherwise, Ben sets out on a new adventure to track down the evidence that proves his great great grandpa's innocence. The trail leads Ben, Riley and Ben's dad Patrick (Jon Voight) to an ancient book passed down through the ages from one President to another. It's the legendary presidential Book Of Secrets.

Home to all of the greatest conspiracies in history, the book holds the key to whether great great grandpa Gates was a traitor or not. Hot on the trail of the book as well is Wilkerson and his secret society of thugs and Harvey Keitel as an FBI agent whose job has long been keeping on what Ben Gates is up to.

It is impossible to deny the fun of the National Treasure movies. With their goofball stunts and good humor, the movies are inoffensive and easily digestible. While you are watching them you smile and chuckle and for most that will be enough to call it successful.

If you like your movies with low brain power and plenty of distracting explosions and diversions, you will love National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets. You won't recall the experience 10 minutes after it's over, but at least it won't take up space in your memory as it didn't in mine. I have seen National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets twice now and I still needed the Wikipedia plot description and Rottentomatoes reviews of my fellow critics to remind me that the film existed.

Forgettable, low watt entertainment, if you like movies the way you like a good candy bar or a can of soda, you'll like the disposable entertainment of National Treasure.... uh, what was that subtitle again? I forget?

Movie Review: The Wolfman

The Wolfman (2010) 

Directed by Joe Johnston 

Written by Andrew Kevin Walker, David Self 

Starring Emily Blunt, Benicio Del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Hugo Weaving 

Release Date February 12th, 2010 

Published February 11th, 2010 

Andrew Kevin Walker is one of the most daring and dark screenwriters Hollywood has ever known. As famous as his script for Seven is, Walker may be known better as the most rewritten screenwriter in history. Rewrites of Walker screenplays include 8Mm, Sleepy Hollow and countless un-produced properties from Superman to X-Men.

His work has been criticized for being too dark and violent for mainstream audiences, despite Seven having made more than 300 million dollars worldwide. It was with this in mind that Walker went to work on a remake of The Wolfman in 2007. Today, The Wolfman is ready for the big screen and, no surprise, Walker's work has once again been rewritten into a compromised, mainstream ready version.

The Wolfman 2010 remixes Lon Chaney's classic creature with modern day special effects wizardry. It is directed by Jumanji and Jusassic Park 3 director Joe Johnston as a wild ride of techno factory dreariness. Benicio Del Toro takes the lead role of Lawrence Talbot an actor raised in America but born in Wales.

Lawrence happens to be touring in England when his brother Ben is mauled to death by some unknown creature. Ben's fiancee Gwen (Emily Blunt) informs Lawrence of his brother's death and calls him back to his childhood home where Gwen is staying with Lawrence's estranged father Sir Jon Talbot (Sir Anthony Hopkins). Father and son parted ways when Lawrence was a child and witnessed the aftermath of his mother's suicide by cutting her own throat.

Lawrence spent years in a mental health facility before going overseas. His return is warm enough for a father who put his son in a psych ward but the undercurrents of discord are resonant in their halting conversations. Lawrence gets on far better with Gwen whose grief rather quickly gives way to a sad flirtatiousness that Lawrence welcomes.

Unfortunately, the romance has to be put on hold as Lawrence searches for the beast that murdered his brother. The townsfolk blame a dancing bear owned by local gypsies but Lawrence, visiting the gypsies, encounters a woman, Maleva (Geraldine Chaplin) who has a different and far more terrifying theory: a Werewolf did it.

Lawrence has no time to be skeptical of Maleva as soon the camp is overrun by villagers and then the angry, ravenous beast himself. Lawrence chases the beast into the forest and is bitten. When his wounds heal startlingly fast there is only one conclusion, he will become a beast himself.

While Lawrence ponders his fate, Inspector Abberline (Hugo Weaving) arrives and with suspicions cast on Lawrence he aims to keep a close eye on him.

The plot puzzle that emerges in The Wolfman fits together well enough. Sadly, director Joe Johnston's hyper-kinetic style does not seem to fit a story that thrives on atmosphere and heightened emotions. Johnston cuts to quickly, whirls and tilts his camera and relies on too many cheeseball effects scenes for the gothic atmosphere to set in.

Watch The Wolfman and you find that stars Benicio Del Toro and Sir Anthony Hopkins are making one movie while director Joe Johnston seems to be making another. Del Toro and Hopkins halt and suspect and busily feel each other out as fits a movie of a slower, more deliberate pace. There are important father/son issues they hope to seed into the story. Director Johnston leaves them no time for that however.

Johnston's charge is to make a fast paced monster movie with modern tech and modern gore. Neither approach is wrong really but the two together are ill-fit and the film falters for a lack of a singular vision. That vision likely could have been writer Andrew Kevin Walker’s whose script the cast signed on for and then saw rewritten when director Johnston came on board by the more by the more mainstream horror writer David Self (The Haunting, Thirteen Days).

The failure to meld two visions into one movie is the failure of The Wolfman and yet it is hard to call the whole film a disaster. Makeup and effects legend Rick Baker's work on Del Toro, what little we see of it in the final CGI heavy edit, is solid as is the work of Del Toro who cuts a strong figure as the titular Wolfman.

It's unfortunate that once again Andrew Kevin Walker finds his work compromised into a by-committee, safe for the simpleton mainstream crowd horror movie. Hollywood studios it seems are the first to underestimate the brains and taste of the majority of audiences and that is part of the downfall of The Wolfman.

Movie Review Hellboy (2019)

Hellboy (2019) 

Directed by Neil Marshall

Written by Andrew Cosby

Starring David Harbour, Milla Jovovich, Ian McShane, Daniel Dae Kim, Thomas Haden Church 

Release Date April 12th, 2019 

Published April 11th, 2019

Do we really need a Hellboy reboot? No, no we do not. But, Hollywood does not appear to care for our opinion on this matter. Hellboy is a character that many people recognize and thus may pay money to see and regardless of the compromised state of the character and the story, his marketability is what truly matters. Hellboy has a Q-rating that rings a bell in marketing meetings among the right demographic of desirable young consumers. That’s why we have a new Hellboy.

Stranger Things breakout star, David Harbor, picks up the mantle of Hellboy, for this reboot. In this re-imaging of Hellboy, we join the story with our hero, already a member of the Paranormal Bureau of Investigation and working for his father, Professor Bloom (Ian McShane). Hellboy is out on a personal errand as we join his story, he’s traveled to Mexico to locate a friend and fellow agent who has gone missing in the world of Lucha Libre wrestling.

This is a clever and colorful way to start the movie but, sadly, it’s all downhill from here. Hellboy finds his friend and is forced to kill him when he becomes a demon bat. Before he dies, the friend warns Hellboy that the end of the world is coming. In a prologue to the story, we meet the Blood Queen (Milla Jovavich). The Blood Queen intended to bring monsters and demons out of the shadows and destroy humanity thousands of years ago before she was stopped by King Arthur and Merlin.

Now, The Blood Queen is about to make a comeback. Despite having been beheaded and having her body carved into several pieces and locked inside boxes, The Blood Queen is set to return and only Hellboy and his friends can stop her from destroying humanity. Aiding Hellboy are his long time friend Alice (Sasha Lane), a psychic with ever changing and growing powers, and Major Ben Daimio, an English secret agent who claims to hate monsters like Hellboy while harboring a monstrous secret of his own.

Together, reluctantly, they will battle The Blood Queen and several other deathly threats put forward by director Neil Marshall, a man with a known knack for quality monsters. Neil Marshall was the director of one of my favorite monster movies of recent memory, 2005’s The Descent. Where that remarkable talent has gone since then is anyone’s guess. Marshall followed up The Descent with a mediocre Mad Max knock off called Doomsday and has never again looked like the director who crafted The Descent.

Hellboy demonstrates some of the craft that Marshall was once known for but it is also lacking in many of the same ways that Marshall’s post-The Descent features are lacking. Much like Doomsday, which cribbed heavily from the worst tropes of the Mad Max movies, Hellboy feels overly familiar with an arc that is indistinguishable from any number of fantasy adventure or superhero-comic book movies. There is little to no invention in this story.

David Harbour cuts a giant figure as Hellboy but the choice to direct him as a larger, slower, version of Deadpool is perhaps the film's biggest failing. The R-Rating for Hellboy essentially gets second billing to Hellboy himself with the film using the freedom of the R-Rating to attempt to appeal to hardcore comic fans. Unfortunately, Hellboy lacks the skill and intelligence of the makers of Deadpool and there is simply no wit and not nearly enough style to the R-Rated violence in Hellboy as there was in Deadpool.

Hellboy doesn’t need an R-Rating. The violence that director Neil Marshall has employed that earns the film that rating never feels organic or necessary. The violence of Hellboy somehow fails to even induce shock and without that pinch of shock it comes off as merely gross. Hellboy comes off as childish and infantile in comparison to other R-Rated heroes such as Logan and Deadpool, and that’s saying something given the level of juvenile in Deadpool 2. In Deadpool, the hardcore violence is delivered with such style and humor that no matter what Deadpool the character does, the film feels mature. Hellboy never achieves anything similar.

Hellboy is a kid brother’s version of an R-Rated fantasy comic. It’s all flash and no style. It’s all blood and guts and no character or wit. Hellboy has all the pretension toward something edgy without ever actually becoming edgy or even controversial. Small kids might lose sleep over some of the gory images of Hellboy 2019, but anyone with fully developed sensibilities will find the film witless, charmless and infantile, especially when compared to other R-Rated comic book hero stories

Movie Review Hellboy

Hellboy (2004) 

Directed by Guillermo Del Toro 

Written by Guillermo Del Toro 

Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, David Hyde Pierce, Doug Jones, Karl Roden, Rupert Evans

Release Date April 2nd, 2004

Release Date April 1st, 2004 

What Director Guillermo Del Toro went through to realize his vision of the comic book Hellboy on the big screen is the textbook definition of perseverance. Del Toro survived dozens of pitch meetings, copious amounts of idiotic studio notes about everything from “Why is Hellboy red?” to “Can he have a hellmobile?” to the biggest battle over the casting of Hellboy himself. From day one, Del Toro wanted Ron Perlman. Various studios kept suggesting The Rock, Vin Diesel or even Schwarzenegger (pre-Governator).

If only the vision that Del Toro finally realized was as interesting as the battle to realize it.

Ron Perlman is Hellboy, born in the fires of hell and brought to Earth via a portal opened by the Nazis in 1944. You see, Hitler was a devout occultist and hoped to use a portal created by the legendary Russian bad guy Rasputin (Karl Roden) to unleash the 7 chaos of blah blah whatever. Rasputin was interrupted in his attempt to destroy the world by a group of US Army soldiers, led by President Roosevelt's top advisor on paranormal activity, Professor Broom (John Hurt). The interruption prevented the end of the world and killed Rasputin, sort of. One thing did survive and that was Hellboy.

Sixty years later, Dr. Broom has raised Hellboy as his son and the two fight evil as part of a secret FBI division dedicated to the paranormal. With the help of other freaks like the psychic fish-man Abe Sapien (Doug Jones with the voice of David Hyde Pierce) and the pyro-kinetic Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), Hellboy fights evil. Well at first Liz isn't much help, unable to control her fire making capability, she has left the group and is trying to forget her past. Hellboy, nursing a serious crush on Liz, won't let her forget.

The group’s newest member is just a regular guy, Agent John Myers (Rupert Evans). His assignment is to take over Dr. Broom's daily assignment of attempting to cover Hellboy's huge tracks. The media has been hounding FBI Director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor) about Hellboy for years. Still, the FBI always denies his existence with graceful dodges. That task is complicated by Hellboy's constant escapes to retrieve beer, cigars and to see Liz. It's Myers' job to keep Hellboy in line.

When Rasputin rises from the grave, with the help of his henchwoman, an immortal named Ilsa (Biddy Hodson) and a surgery freak dome-wearing Nazi, he brings with him a group of squid-like dogs that feed on human flesh and multiply when killed. The squids are meant to occupy and capture Hellboy and Liz for some convoluted end-of-the-world scheme. If you think my plot description is complicated, see the film and try to figure it out for yourself.

What I liked about Hellboy is Ron Perlman. Perlman plays Hellboy like your average world-weary cop who happens to be seven foot tall and from Hell. Sadly resigned to his fate Hellboy sets about each task in front of him as if this were just another average day. Perlman gives Hellboy humor and depth with the way he delivers his lines and the way he regards the camera and the other actors. Hellboy is the one and only fully fleshed out character in the film.

The rest of the cast is a wash, especially Rupert Evans as Agent Myers. Evans is the first actor I have seen who makes Ben Chaplin look animated. His blank stare and damsel in distress poses should be played for laughs but sadly it's obvious he was playing it all straight. The character of Myers is given a subplot as a romantic rival to Hellboy for Liz Sherman, but it's never a fair fight. As for Selma Blair, one of my absolute favorite actresses, she is sadly on autopilot in this film. She can conjure fire but her eyes never show any flame of interest in the story.

Oddly, the one interesting character aside from Hellboy is the Nazi in the helmet who keeps himself alive through gruesome means. That character is uncredited on IMDB so I know neither the character or the actor’s name, but he was pretty good. He’s a better villain than Karl Roden's Rasputin who is basically Alan Rickman minus charisma.

I will say this for director Guillermo Del Toro, his eye for special effects, makeup and CGI is spectacular. The CGI in Hellboy is some of the best outside of George Lucas and Star Wars. Seamlessly integrated with the actors, very little of the digital shadowing that haunts so much of the CGI effects employed in this type of picture.

If as much work had been put into creating a coherent story as was put into the incredible effects, then Hellboy could have been spectacular. As it is, it's worth seeing for Perlman and the work of Del Toro's special effects, makeup and graphics teams.

Movie Review Never Die Alone

Never Die Alone (2004) 

Directed by Ernest Dickerson 

Written by James Gibson

Starring DMX, David Arquette, Michael Ealy, Clifton Powell 

Release Date March 26th, 2004

Published March 25th, 2004 

For rapper DMX, Hollywood has been difficult to navigate. Stuck with B-movie plots and co-stars (Steven Seagal, Jet Li), DMX has managed to show raw potential but little else. The most notable things about his film career thus far are his multi-platinum soundtrack albums that have been better than the films they accompany. Now, however, teamed with director Ernest Dickerson in Never Die Alone, DMX gets an opportunity to realize some of that raw potential.

DMX stars as King David, a bad-ass drug dealer who has returned to New York to settle old debts and reestablish his home. After ten years on the West Coast rolling up huge amounts of cash selling heroin to starlets, David has more than enough cash to pay off New York's top drug dealer Mr. Moon (Clifton Powell). The deal is he will give the money to Moon's top thug Mike (Michael Ealy from Barbershop) and once Moon has the cash, King is free.

Young Mike however, has other plans. Mike and the King have a history that King doesn't know about. A dangerous secret leads to Mike stabbing King. As Mike makes his escape, a writer named Paul (David Arquette) witnesses the stabbing and runs to the aid of King. As Paul drives King to the hospital, the dying man pledges all of his possessions to Paul with the caveat that Paul uses them to locate King's son. At the hospital King dies and Paul is left to put the pieces of King's life back together with the audio tapes King left behind in a hollowed out bible.

It's convenient that Paul happens to be a writer living in the King's old neighborhood for research on a gritty crime novel. Not many writers are lucky enough to have a gritty urban crime story fall into their lap like that. Paul is merely a convenient device through which to tell King's cold, hard, thug story. The King's tapes take us back to when he left for LA and eventually why he ran, which sets up the main plot of the film.

The scenes in LA are a frightening examination of the kind of sociopath it takes to be a cold hard killer. King uses the drugs and money he lifted off of Moon to wine and dine a Hollywood actress (Jennifer Sky), willing to front drugs to her TV co-stars and a young med student (Reagan Gomez-Preston). King met the college girl at her job as a waitress and with the cool cunning of a snake he gets into her bed and his drugs into her veins. Watching the way King slowly deconstructs the once promising student reminded me of a moment from the movie Fight Club where Edward Norton maims Jared Leto in a fight and coolly explains that he felt like destroying something beautiful.

Many critics are faulting Director Ernest Dickerson's choice of visual style. Dickerson, the former cinematographer for Spike Lee, abuses his film stock with scratches and washed out color to give the film a classic seventies Blaxploitation look. The look evokes that early seventies feel but the story is a modern hard edged urban noir in the vein of Sugar Hill or New Jack City. All that is missing is a Wesley Snipes cameo to pass the torch of urban menace to DMX.

That said there is more than one way to look at King's portrayal. On the one hand, this is an unglamorous end that teaches, if you live hard you die hard. On the other hand, DMX's powerful, charismatic cool could earn cult status among those predisposed to admire such things. DMX is powerful, his tattooed, muscled presence and serial killer mentality is as intimidating as a horror film villain should be. His charm and charisma is so enticing you would admire him if the film didn't demonstrate what a bastard he really is. This is DMX's best performance thus far though too many more roles like it will lead to typecasting. For now though DMX wears the hardcore gangster persona like a perfectly fit Italian suit and that comfort is part of his charm.

For young Michael Ealy, Never Die Alone is a chance to establish some dramatic cache to match his well liked comic performance in Barbershop and he does a terrific job. Ealy's heartfelt sadness and tortured existence is the perfect counterbalance to DMX's cold, sociopathic, and charismatic performance. Though the film’s twist near the end calls logic into question, Ealy sells it well and we accept it because he does. David Arquette is far less successful in his role as plot device. Arquette's Paul is entirely a function of the plot and never an interesting participant.

Ernest Dickerson has yet to make the masterpiece that I'm sure his former protégé Spike Lee is expecting him to make. But, Never Die Alone is a step in the right direction. Expect Dickerson to do something spectacular very soon. For now, Never Die Alone is a terrific genre piece, a gritty urban drama worthy of comparison with other great gangster films.

Movie Review Secret Window

Secret Window (2004) 

Directed by David Koepp 

Written by David Koepp 

Starring Johnny Depp, John Turturro, Maria Bello, Charles S. Dutton, Timothy Hutton 

Release Date March 12th, 2004 

Published March 11th, 2004

In an interview with Time Magazine, Secret Window writer-director David Koepp wondered aloud why Johnny Depp had chosen to star in his movie. He was grateful but said it's hard to be certain what motivates Depp, it's possible he just wanted to play a guy named Mort. That’s a statement that perfectly captures Depp's unique approach to Hollywood. An actor who does things his own unique way, Depp makes Secret Window a strange and unique Hollywood thriller.

Depp is Mort Rainey, a successful mystery writer whose life is upended when he finds his wife in bed with another man. Cut to six months later and Mort is living in a cabin on a lake in some nondescript small town. The solitude should help him working on his next novel but it's more helpful in providing time for his long naps and general malaise.

The solitude is interrupted by a menacing stranger named John Shooter (John Turturro), an oddball farmer from Mississippi who claims that Mort stole one of his stories. Shooter's story is definitely similar to one Mort wrote years earlier called Secret Window, but Mort is sure he can prove the story is his own. Shooter meanwhile sets about making Mort miserable, including killing his dog and threatening Mort's ex-wife Amy (Maria Bello).

Eventually Mort figures out that there is far more to this story than mere plagiarism and he begins to suspect his wife's new boyfriend, Ted (Timothy Hutton), may have put Shooter up to it. In fear, Mort hires an ex-police officer (Charles S. Dutton) to watch his back. When the cop turns up dead, Mort is on his own in the scary old cabin.

It's a very conventional thriller setup that sounds predictable but David Koepp, the writer of Panic Room, and the director of the underrated Kevin Bacon thriller Stir Of Echoes, has something up his sleeve. Employing camera moves he must have lifted from working with David Fincher, Koepp sails his camera around the tiny cabin in ways that some might call showy but I would say are just cool. He's helped greatly by a classic Philip Glass score and most of all…

…by his star Johnny Depp.

What Johnny Depp does in Secret Window is difficult to describe. It's so delightfully odd and yet perfectly sensible that it defies description. Mort spends the first third of the film essentially in solitude, napping and laying about, talking to his dog or to himself. There is one fascinating inner monologue, darkly humorous, witty, angry and frustrated. Watch the way he reacts while talking to his wife on the phone.

In some scenes you can see that Depp is finding actorly motivation where none is called for, such as a scene where he hides his cigarette from his cleaning lady. There is no reason why Mort would hide his smoking except that Depp assumed that the character would do that. In another scene, Depp and Charles Dutton exchange dialogue while hitting a chess clock as if marking who's turn it is to talk. It's the kind of character shorthand that most writers and actors neglect.

It's as if while the supporting cast was making a typical Hollywood thriller, Johnny Depp was jamming to some totally different vibe. Depp is riffing like a jazz combo and the film is forced to bounce along to his beat. It's safe to say that much of what Depp does in the film wasn't in the original script and certainly not in the Stephen King novella on which the film is based. That it works is a testament to his considerable skills.

Movie Review Spartan

Spartan (2004) 

Directed by David Mamet 

Written by David Mamet 

Starring Val Kilmer, Derek Luke, William H. Macy, Ed O'Neill, Kristen Bell 

Release Date March 12th, 2004 

Published March 15th, 2004 

"Where's the girl?"

A line tersely delivered, often through the gritted teeth of aggravated men. This is the writing of David Mamet in his newest incarnation, the action thriller Spartan. Minimalist, to the point, and exciting when delivered by actors with conviction, Mamet's writing is the highlight of all of his films (State and Main, The Spanish Prisoner, House of Games) and when teamed with a capable cast it's sublime in it's simplicity, smarts and humor. Spartan is the latest example of Mamet at his best.

Val Kilmer stars as John Scott, some sort of secret agent though I'm at a loss to figure out who he works for exactly. Scott is first seen on a military training mission with a pair of recruits (Derek Luke and Tia Texada) acting out some exercise that is important to Scott but apparently not the audience. Once the exercise is over, Scott gets a phone call that takes him into the film’s real plot.

Scott is called in to join a task force to search for the daughter of the President, (Kristen Bell). The first daughter was kidnapped, the who and the what is a twist-laden trip into typical thriller territory except smarter and more interesting because David Mamet doesn't know how to do anything typical. First rate dialogue, whip smart plot turns, and a terrific cast make Spartan far better than the usual thriller fare.

In what some are calling a comeback performance, Val Kilmer shines, biting into Mamet's dialogue with the necessary sharpness and clarity. Anyone who calls this a comeback obviously missed his brilliant work in 2002's The Salton Sea, but then sometimes I feel like I'm the only one who ever saw that one. Scott is a rare part for Kilmer's recent outings, it's his first hero role since The Saint.

For Mamet, Spartan seems like an attempt to fit his rather esoteric style into a mainstream film. It's a surprisingly good fit. I have for years belabored the idea that even the most clichéd retread plot can be made well if written, acted and directed with intelligence and the commitment not to fall into the familiar rhythm. Spartan is a mainstream thriller with Mamet's brains in place of the usual thickheaded clichés and that works for me.

I'm tempted to compare Mamet to John Sayles in that both are the preeminent writers of my mind. However, Sayles is more of an artist than Mamet. Where Mamet has a longing for mainstream acceptance, Sayles has a more secular point of view. Sayles isn't interested in appealing to anyone other than himself, Mamet wants to appeal to the populace. It's a dangerous gamble because it can cause a director to compromise vision for demographic.

Thankfully Mamet isn't so desperate as to compromise, at least not in a film he directs himself. His writing assignments for others are questionable. Spartan is not a compromise but an uneasy entreaty into mainstream fare. Let's hope that its box office returns don't lead to future compromise.

Movie Review Italian for Beginners

Italian for Beginners (2000) 

Directed by Lone Scherfig 

Written by Lone Scherfig 

Starring Anders Berthelsen 

Release Date December 8th, 2000

Published November 4th, 2002

Unless you are a film student or scholar, you probably have never heard of Dogme 95. Dogme is a movement begun by a group of European directors at a conference in 1995. The goal was to counter certain tendencies in cinema by returning to its simplest, most basic forms. A Dogme 95 manifesto was created to define how a Dogme film was to be shot. All shooting must be done on location. The film must be shot on video, using natural light and sound. No music is allowed unless it is played on location during shooting. No sound effects are permitted unless they come from the ambient noise of the location. No genre movies and various other rules meant ensure that characters and story are stressed above all else. Italian For Beginners is the first Dogme 95 film I have seen, and based on this film I will seek more Dogme films.

Set in Denmark, Italian For Beginners follows the interconnected lives of six people who attend the same Italian language class. Anders Bertelsen plays Andreas, the new pastor of the local church. Peter Gantzler is Jorgen a schlubby Hotel clerk. Lars Kaalund is Halfinn, Jorgen’s best friend and the new teacher of the Italian class. Ann Eleonora Jorgensen is Karen, a hairdresser who is dating Halfinn. Anette Stovelback is Olympia, a bakery worker, who, after the death of her father and mother finds out she has a sister who just happens to be Karen. Sandra Indio Jensen is Giulia, a friend of Halfinn’s who has a crush on the clueless Jorgen.

Italian For Beginners is about these unusual characters and the far more unusual connections. It is a very realistic film, the story is plausible, and the Dogme style gives the film a voyeuristic feel, as if you were watching real lives in progress. The style of shooting overwhelms the attention to the story (something that I assume happens in most Dogme films.) As a viewer, your attention is more often drawn to the locations, lighting, and sound than it is to the story and characters. At times, you lose track of characters and their back stories, which can be confusing. Still, the story is heartfelt and humorous and the characters are engaging and likable (save for Hafinn, though I’m sure that is by design.)

Italian For Beginners is most notable for it’s Dogme 95 affiliation and based on that alone I could recommend it. As an introduction to Dogme, this film is a valuable tool. That it also has a good heart and interesting characters is a bonus.

Movie Review Hijack'd

Hijack'd (2003) Cabin Pressure

Directed by Alan Simmonds 

Written by Douglas Schwartz 

Starring Craig Scheffer

Release Date March 11th, 2003

Published March 16th, 2003 

Robert Redford once saw something in actor Craig Sheffer. So much so that he cast him opposite Brad Pitt in his 1992 film A River Runs Through It. However, Sheffer wasn't able to capitalize on this opportunity and since has been relegated to the straight to video market. His latest straight to video feature, Hijack'd is yet another head scratcher that will leave you wondering what happened to this actor who seemed to have such a bright future.

In Hijack'd (no I'm not misspelling it, that is the title), Sheffer is drunk former airline pilot who returns to his hometown to start his life again. Once home he finds his ex-wife Reece (Rachel Hayward) is about to test an experimental new airplane. It's a plane that flies without a pilot. The plane can take off and land on it's own needing a pilot only if something goes wrong.

The airline has tried this once before and electrical problems caused the plane to crash and kill it's pair of pilots. That crash caused the boss (John Pyper) to fire the man whom designed the plane's computer system. The programmer unfortunately is an unstable nut who seeks his revenge by hacking his own system and taking control of the plane which just happens to be carrying a US Senator, his son, daughter in law and his former boss. Why they would fly on a plane no one is sure about is one of the film's many leaps?

Well you don't need a map to follow this plot. The nutjob tips off the good guys to his plot and through some amazing plot contrivances, Sheffer's ex-husband character is left to search for the madman before he crashes the plane and kills everyone on board.

The potential that Robert Redford once saw in young Craig Sheffer flashes one time in an early scene in Hijack'd where he sits in a bar drunk attempting to pick up a blonde bimbo. For a moment his charisma shines through. Unfortunately it is crushed under the weight of the plot which forces him into thriller mode shenanigans.

By the way if your looking for this one on IMDB it's listed under it's original title, Cabin Pressure. Why they changed it to the ridiculous alliteration Hijack'd is anyone’s guess.

Movie Review He Loves Me He Loves Me Not

He Loves Me He Loves Me Not (2003)

Directed by Laetitia Colombani 

Written by Laetitia Colombani 

Starring Audrey Tautou, Samuel Le Bihani 

Release Date February 14th, 2003 

Published March 15th, 2004 

Since 2001's sweet, romantic fable Amelie, star Audrey Tautou has fought being typecast as a pixie-ish romantic. The gritty Stephen Frears movie Dirty Pretty Things about foreigners skirting the edges of British lower classes was a complete and welcome departure. In the movie He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not however, Tautou uses her perceived romantic flightiness to sell us a character who by the end of the film is almost completely different. The film turns entirely on Tautou's believability and almost works save for a ridiculous ending that flies completely off the rails.

Tautou stars as Angelique and when we first meet her, she evokes the memory of our beloved Amelie by being surrounded in roses and flashing those signature saucer eyes. Her smile is so sincere as she plots to send one single rose to her beloved, a doctor named Loic (Samuel Le Bihan) who accepts it happily without reading the card. Angelique is a ball of romantic fantasy as she shows up late for work buzzing with euphoria. In her art class forgets the model she's supposed to sculpting and instead sculpts Loic from memory. At this point, her devotion seems to border on obsession but we have little idea of what we are in for.

There are problems in the relationship, not the least of which is that Loic is married. According to Angelique, he has repeatedly promised he will leave his wife but he can't while she is pregnant. Loic continuously stands up Angelique on dates, except for a party where the two avoid each other save for a little eye contact so as not to arouse suspicion among his colleagues. The couple’s only interaction is a quickie bathroom tryst that oddly happens off-screen. In fact, we have yet to have seen the two speak to each other....hmm.

Hold that thought because half way through the film co-writer/director Laetitia Colombani pulls the rug out from under the story switching the perspective from Angelique to Loic and the entire tone of the picture with it.

It's a gimmick unquestionably and a slightly unfair gimmick at that. If it works, it's only because Samuel Le Bihan as Loic is so believable. Le Bihan sells the film’s central gimmick with his controlled, logical, natural performance. Le Bihan doesn't react like your typical clueless movie character, save for one of those boneheaded scenes where he goes somewhere he is not invited.

Director Colombani and co-writer Carloline Thivel take a huge risk hanging their entire story on this one gimmick that could come off as showy or annoying. I thought it was an intriguing way to toy with genre convention and film structure. If the ending had a better payoff, I could be more definitive in recommending the film. However, the overly creepy ending they chose cheapens the characters and undercuts the drama.

He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not is an interesting exercise in how writers and directors can toy with an audience and manipulate their perspective and rooting interest. Rent it for it's experimental nature. You may be disappointed in the ending or even annoyed with the central gimmick but at least it's different from most modern films.

Movie Review Happy Accidents

Happy Accidents (2001) 

Directed by Brad Anderson

Written by Brad Anderson 

Starring Vincent D'Onofrio, Marisa Tomei, Anthony Michael Hall, Holland Taylor 

Release Date August 24th, 2001 

Published December 21st, 2002 

Good romantic comedies are becoming very rare. Movies like Secretary or Shallow Hal show the potential in the genre to still be vital and funny. But more often, we see trash like Sweet Home Alabama and Maid In Manhattan; assembly line tripe slapped together with big stars and attractive posters. Happy Accidents, which stars Vincent D'Onofrio and Marisa Tomei, belongs to the first group of films I listed--a romantic comedy that is unique and funny.

Tomei is Ruby Weaver, a woman in her early 30s, who is on quite a losing streak with men; plenty of frogs and no princes. She and her circle of friends have taken to keeping track of the bad boyfriends by taking pictures of them and filing them in the a box they call the Ex files. For Ruby, her recent strikeouts include a guy with a rubber fetish and a guy in his 30s who still lives with his parents. Then Ruby meets a strange, sensitive guy named Sam Deeds (D'Onofrio). Sam works with the elderly and likes to draw. He is strange because he reacts to everyday things like dogs and perfume as if they were foreign to him. As Sam and Ruby's relationship develops, Sam decides to be honest with Ruby and tell her where he's from. He had previously explained to Ruby that he was from Dubuque, Iowa. The part he left out was that he is from Dubuque, Iowa in the year 2447. 

Of course, Ruby thinks he is a mental patient but Sam's charms lead her to think that maybe it's just a kinky little game. As Sam explains more about time travel, his family, and why he decided to back in time, Ruby is intrigued by the fantastic stories and, as long as they stay just between the two of them, is okay to let Sam live his fantasy. However, Sam isn't content to keep quiet. Even though he says it's against time travel protocol to talk about it, he begins telling friends about it and Ruby comes to believe he is really sick

Writer/director Brad Anderson toys with the audience throughout the film, dropping clues in all directions. Follow one set of clues and Sam is telling the truth. Look at another set of clues and it seems likely that he is likely a mental patient. It's a difficult balancing act, but Anderson is blessed with the talented and charismatic D'Onofrio, who easily balances charm and insanity.

One could easily compare Happy Accidents with another movie about space aliens masquerading as mental patients--K-Pax. The difference is where K-Pax is maddeningly vague and ends with no resolution, Happy Accidents skates and charms, and its resolution is welcome, if not surprising.

D'Onofrio is becoming one of the most consistently fascinating actors working today. I would highly recommend Happy Accidents based on his role alone. That the film is also charming and romantic might be considered a Happy Accident.

Movie Review Gravesend

Gravesend (1997) 

Directed by Salvatore Stabile

Written by Salvatore Stabile 

Starring Tony Tucci, Tom Malloy

Release Date January 1st, 1997

Published June 15th, 2003

There is a pretty terrific story behind the making of Gravesend, this is how it was told to me. It was written and Directed by then 19-year old Salvatore Stabile in 1997. Starring a few of his buddies from his old neighborhood, the film cost about $5,000 to make. Somehow it got into the hands of Oliver Stone who helped the film find a studio and get the film a more polished look without having to do reshoots.

The film made it to a small number of festivals and theaters and was reviewed by major critics across the country, though it went mostly unnoticed by mainstream moviegoers. The really odd thing though is that despite some good notice, Salvatore Stabile hasn't worked since according to IMDB.

Gravesend is a small community in Brooklyn, New York, a dead end where drugs and violence are the only distraction from poverty and depression. Our story begins with four friends sitting around in the basement, Zane (Tony Tucci), Mikey (Thomas Brandise), Chicken (Tom Malloy) and Ray (Michael Parducci). The house belongs to Ray's brother who wants the kids to leave because they are being to loud. Zane, being a belligerent prick, mouths off to Ray's brother who doesn't back down. Unfortunately, Zane has a gun that he didn't think was loaded until it went off and killed Ray's brother.

Now would be the time to sober up, call the police and tell the truth. Of course if they did that there wouldn't be a movie. So these four morons load the body in the trunk of Mikey's car and drive it over to a local junky that Zane says can help them dispose of the body quietly. But again it can't be that simple. The junky won't do it unless they give him five hundred dollars and the dead guy’s thumb.

From there, the guys have a number of close calls with cops and a tow truck driver, a couple fistfights, a robbery attempt and two more dead bodies. Along the way they trade some Tarentino inspired dialogue, and trade on a number of influences from Scorsese to Stone. Unfortunately the young director and cast are in way over their heads.

Rather than the strident confidence of the directors that provide the film’s inspiration, Gravesend is simply angry, childish and belligerent. The characters are so depressingly stupid they make the characters in Dumb and Dumberer look brilliant in comparison. It's not the situation that makes them stupid, it's the grunting caveman style of their actions. These characters disprove evolution with their stupidity, they preen and pose and fight like baboons.

That said, the young director who also narrates the film does have a nice visual approach to the film. His handheld camera is a little tiresome but it does lend itself to the out of control characters and narratives. By some miracle the film does develop a sort of narrative inertia that carries you to the end of the film, sort of like being stuck to something as it rolls down a hill that you can't stop.

That however doesn't excuse these horribly stupid and unlikable characters and a story that grows more and more ridiculous as it goes along. Still, this young director shows he has some talent. He shows that he could do some fine work in the future if circumstances come together right.

So what ever happened to Salvatore Stabile? He made Gravesend and hasn't done anything since. A Google search turns up a number of reviews of Gravesend but nothing about what he has done since the film was released some 6 years ago. It's anyone’s guess but I hope he gives directing another chance, just maybe leave the writing to someone else. 

Movie Review Goodbye Lenin

Goodbye Lenin! (2003) 

Directed by Wolfgang Becker

Written by Wolfgang Becker 

Starring Daniel Bruhl, Katrin Sass, Alexander Beyer

Release Date February 13th, 2003 

Published July 18th, 2004 

Imagine a staunch Democrat who falls into a coma shortly after seeing Al Gore win Florida and be pronounced the next President of the United States. That person awakens months later not knowing the election was disputed and that somehow George W. Bush is President and you can't tell them because the slightest shock could kill them. That might make an interesting American version of the German film Goodbye Lenin! in which a staunch communist falls into a coma right before the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany.

Daniel Bruhl stars as Alex Kerner, the loyal, devoted son of Christiane (Katrin Sass) a party loyalist in 1980's East Berlin. Christiane is completely devoted to the state and has involved her children, Alex and sister Ariane (Maria Simon), in state activities. For Christiane, love of country replaced the love of her husband who escaped to the west years earlier.

As East Germany was beginning to see more and more uprising against the state, Christiane herself is attending state dinners honoring party leaders. It is on her way to a party function that she sees her son beaten by police for marching in a freedom parade. The sight causes Christiane to have a heart attack and fall into a coma. For eight months as Alex visited daily, Christiane slept through her country’s most historic changes. The wall falls, Germany is reunited, and communism is defeated.

However, because Christiane's condition is so fragile her doctors want Alex to slowly reveal these changes so as not to excite her. Alex feels she should not be told at all and thus conceives a massive lie that East Germany never fell and that communists still hold power. There are other changes to deal with as well that cannot be covered up. Alex's sister has a baby and a live in boyfriend Rainer (Alexander Beyer) and Alex himself has fallen in love with a nurse named Lara (Chulpan Khamatova).

I found the idea of Alex keeping these historic changes a secret from his mother to be almost cruel but as the film goes on and the lies become more intricate and elaborate you begin to sympathize with Alex. While you may not understand the lengths he goes to extend his lies, you can't help but feel for him. That has much to with Daniel Bruhl whose quiet demeanor and sensitive stare ease the sharp edges of Alex's misguided determination.

The premise sounds almost farcical but director Wolfgang Becker and writer Bernd Lichtenberg do not play the story for laughs. There is some comedy but the laughs are a natural outgrowth of the story and not forced. The mood of the picture is at times somber and yet you can't help but get caught up in these characters and this story. It also helps to have such a terrific supporting cast headed up by Katrin Sass who's dignified devotion to her beliefs really makes you believe the fall of the Berlin Wall could kill her.

I drew a correlation to start this review as to what an American version of this movie might be like but in reality, I don't believe it would work. This is a story very of its time and place. East Germany as it was just before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall is a character in this film and a necessary one. I would be very interested to hear a German perspective of this film, to hear it from someone who experienced this remarkable change and could compare it with this movie would be fascinating. Even still as an American, I can appreciate a good movie and Goodbye Lenin! is a very good movie.

Movie Review The Girl Next Door

The Girl Next Door (2004) 

Directed by Luke Greenfield

Written by Luke Greenfield, Stuart Bloomberg, 3 Other Screenwriters

Starring Emile Hirsch, Elisha Cuthbert, Timothy Olyphant, James Remar, Paul Dano 

Release Date April 9th, 2004 

Published April 10th, 2004

When do you think Hollywood ran out of original ideas? It's been awhile I know that, but I never imagined just how bad things were until I saw the latest commercial campaign for the teen sex comedy The Girl Next Door. The ad campaign actually touts the film’s lack of an original idea, calling the film American Pie meets Risky Business. This isn't the first unoriginal idea but it's the rare example of a film that doesn't try to hide it in some way. The Girl Next Door comes right out and admits that it has not one original idea and watching the film reinforces just that.

Emile Hirsch stars as Matthew. He’s class president, valedictorian and on his way to law school at Georgetown University. That is until he meets the titular girl next door, Danielle (Elisha Cuthbert). The two kids meet cute as Matthew spies on Danielle from his bedroom window. She catches him and turns the tables on him, taking him out for some public humiliation, the funniest moment in the film.

From there begins a rather dull movie courtship where the straight-laced Matthew comes out of his shell with the help of the wild child Danielle. Like every romantic comedy, there is a roadblock and this one is a doozy. It seems that in a previous life, Danielle was a pornstar and her past is catching up with her in the form of her former director Kelly (Timothy Olyphant). Kelly wants her back in front of the camera and will do anything to get her back. It's up to Matthew and a pair of his high school buddies to help her find a way out.

I will give the ad campaign of the film a little credit, it doesn't lie. The film does indeed lift liberally from both American Pie and Risky Business. In fact, Risky's writer-director Paul Brickman should be seeking a writing credit and some compensation for the direct rip-offs employed by director Luke Greenfield and writers David Wagner and Brent Goldberg. Simply switch the film’s porno storyline with Risky's hooker storyline and you have nearly the same film. 

Whereas Tom Cruise's character becomes a pimp in order to pay off Rebecca Demornay's debt to Joe Pantoliano, Emile Hirsch's Matthew directs a porn film with the help of Danielle's porn star friends to pay off her debt to Timothy Olyphant’s Kelly. Where Cruise and Demornay have sex on the subway, Hirsch and Cuthbert have sex in a limousine. And on and on.

There was one good thing about Girl Next Door and that was the lovely Elisha Cuthbert who, despite a weak script that does her few favors, manages to shine with a sweet and sexy performance. Cuthbert helps Hirsch's rather weak performance when they are on screen together, but when it's just Hirsch, the star of the terrific indie film The Secret Lives Of Altar Boys, he and the film struggle mightily. Hirsch may have a bright future ahead of him but he needs to choose his scripts better. More Alter Boys style stuff and no more teen sex comedies.

The Girl Next Door is yet another example of cynical Hollywood filmmaking that puts demographics ahead of actual filmmaking. This is a film that was approved in the pitch meeting by executives who didn't care if there was a good script as long as they had the right amount of T&A; to parade in front of the camera and enough familiar elements to lull audiences into mindless nostalgia. I can't register honest surprise about this film but I can lament it and decry it.