Fantastic Fest '06 Severance

Tongue-in-cheek? Goodness yes, why ever not? What Shaun of the Dead did for the zombie flick, Severance aims to do for the slasher genre. And I do believe they've accomplished their production goals. It's whip-smart, witty and funny. I love it!

The European sales division of Palisade Defence are on a team-building retreat. You know the kind, paintball, motivational lectures, walks in the woods... those things. But a wrong turn leads them to the wrong lodge in the woods, and its residents don't like Palisade Defence.

So they must die.

Chased thru the woods, beaten, alone (sometimes together) the surviving members of the team must survive.

Even if we might not want them to.

Don't even look for novelty here, the standard slasher conventions apply, the novelty is the quality of the comedy. It's a sharp blend of sarcasm, sunny stupidity, and sight gags- which considering the amount of blood involved in some of them, you might gag, too. The death scenes aren't the most original (although the bear trap is pretty darn funny), but they're well filmed and paced perfectly.

Danny Dyer and Laura Harris play Steve and Maggie the (respectively) stoned and good-hearted employees trapped in the woods whist sharp objects are trust in their general direction and bear traps abound in the woods. Both have a grounded approach to their characters, and both entertain and they try (with varying degrees of success) to lead their team to safety. And the killers aren't amateurs, they're seasoned professionals. The cold precision of the murders lends a genuine sense of dread and suspense to what could easily be written off as a light lark through a graveyard, and Harris is an excellent and straightforward heroine to Dyer's bumbling hero.

This was easily one of the audience favorites of the festival as the humor and the gore worked seamlessly to entertain and to educate the audience on the cutthroat business of comedy. Talk about a bad day at the office.

Famous Last Words: This is my kind of comedy. Bloody. Is that so wrong?

Fantastic Fest '06 Nightmare

In my opinion, if it looks like a bad film school project, it is about a bad film school project, and it acts like a bad film school project, then... you get the idea. I've read online reviews that love this movie, but everyone I talked to at FantasticFest (including myself) hated it. I don't get it.

(Apparetly none of us did, the script walked away with the jury award in the horror competition.)

It's daring, don't get me wrong, and the plot is fascinating. Guy and girl wake up in bed together after a party and there's a camera set up at the foot of the bed. On the tape is murder. Bloody, violent, and gleeful murder. There's no evidence, they have no memory, they have no leads. In a moment of desperation, the man pitches the scenario to his film class for a project and to his dismayed wonder, they take it. Filming begins and all hell breaks loose. The filmmaker pulls no punches with the sex, the violence, or the paranoia, but it's not enough. Or in some cases too much.

Several reviewers site the lead's acting range as a plus, and I'll admit he does have a range. But they're all to the extreme. He's not afraid- he's VERY afraid. He's not aggressive, he's VERY aggressive. He's not angry, he's VERY angry. There's a lack a subtlety that makes every emotion feel pushed, he's not asking the audience to empathize- he's demanding it. He's trying to channel Christian Bale in American Psycho (suave, powerful, only with paranoia and doubt from the first) and doing it badly.

I know the line between passion and violence is a thin one, and sex and anger are intrinsic to the plot of this piece; but the sheer amount of sex and nudity and sex and nudity (and sex and nudity) were overwhelming. I'm not a prude when it comes to movies, but parts of the piece felt like we were watching soft-core porn.

There are layers and layers to this piece, and each one is more depraved and confused than the last. Reality sheers off the surface very quickly, leaving the audience with little more than an finale montage of violence, confusion, pain and suffering with no regard to what is real or what is imagined.

If this is all a dream, can I wake up now?

Fantastic Fest '06 Isolation (with The Descendant)

Cows.

Why is it always cows?

They're everywhere, in tornadoes, shilling for cheese, being abducted, they're everywhere! (They even have guns! Cows with guns!) And now they're here to kill you- horribly, bloodily, and if they don't kill you, they'll give you their evil virus. And it's scary, folks, scary!

I'm not kidding, really. It's a movie about killer cows. Granted, it's a freakish genetic experiment gone horribly awry (big surprise), and it's technically a killer calf, not a cow, but still.

It's the old story we're all familiar with. Down on his luck man lets driven scientist into his life and doesn't ask too many questions. Financial desperation leads to complacency, and complacency leads to disaster. Science isn't always the answer, and it can't save you from the monster at the door.

The production values are excellent. It's slick, frantically paced, the sound and the effects add to the movie, not detract. Very rarely do you get a monster movie that is able to resist showing the entire monster, and here we're very glad we only get the glimpses. But what we do see, and what our imagination fills in for us, is more than adequate to make even the most jaded movie goer look over his or her shoulder. There are shadows, pools, corners, barns, and labs and the monster can be in any of them. It is a very dark movie. Dark, wet and cold. And while the ending is a cliched as any I've seen, it was still one of the most satisfying films of the festival.

Cows. Go figure.

And I have to say, it's paired excellently with The Descendant, a simple tale of a pair of hitmen on a job. Just a simple job that is anything but. It's a professional production; the actors, stunts and effects are pristine, and while I've seen this general plot before, it felt fresh and still managed to give me the chills.

Fantastic Fest '06 Hatchet (with If I Had a Hammer)

Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

There is nothing redeeming in this movie, it's glorious! It's a slasher flick in the truest sense of the word. There's a thin skin of a plot, a passel of stock characters, a freakish monster of killer, and... was that Robert (Freddy Krueger) Englund, and Tony (Candyman) Todd, in cameos? Why yes, yes it was! And there were plenty more where that came from.

I'd go into some sort of analysis, but there really isn't a point. Folks on vacation go on a tourist-trap of a haunted swamp tour. Big, bad, hard-to-kill, killer guy with a tragic back story starts hacking. Blood, guts, and a trail of bodies later and there you have it.

Famous Last Words: Fun Times!

Hatchet showed with If I Had a Hammer which is an animated look at what would happen if Thor had to replace his hammer at the local hardware store. Funny as hell.

Fantastic Fest '06 Piano Tuner of Earthquakes (with Existence)

It's not very often I walk out of a movie not knowing exactly what I've seen, but that's what's happened here.

It can be a good thing, in theory, to see something I don't quite understand. It can give me something to mull over, or something to examine. I can discuss abstract symbolism or the conflict of the rational mind and irrational art. I could ponder the nature of obsession, possession, and the dual nature of creation and destruction. I could almost admire the Phantom of the Opera-esque adaptation of a mythic morality tale like the The Nightingale.

I could marvel at the intricately animated automatons and be haunted by their purpose. I could stand awed by the dreamlike quality of the film's cinematography. I could be chilled by the isolation of the seaside setting, the nearby woods, and the elegant cage created by a brilliant madman. I could be seduced by the sultry housekeeper and protective of the naive Piano Tuner invited into this tableau.

Or I could be pissed off that I wasted this much time on a movie that began with a decent plot, OK acting, and wonderful art direction, but ultimately degenerated into a near-incomprehensible mess of sexual imagery, pretty animations, and an ending that makes the whole thing feel like it was a pastel, psychedelic hallucination brought upon by a bad night at the opera, insomnia, and a burlesque show.

Guess which one I'm leaning toward.

Famous Last Words: Huh?

Existence, on the other hand, was a wonderful short whose oddball images and cast of characters fit the premise perfectly. And the disorientation they create were perfectly suited to the journey the main character's on.

Fantastic Fest '06 AICN Screening- Apocalypto

Wow, score one for Ain't It Cool News.

AICN got Mel Gibson to let them screen a rough cut of Apocalypto for the VIP ticket holders. And to boot, Mel and his leading actor, Rudy Youngblood, stuck around afterwards for a Q&A.
For the sake of my sanity, I'm going to limit my comments to the movie; the Q&A, while entertaining, was fairly standard, and I'm sure AICN will have something up shortly.

First of all, it was a rough cut, fx weren't done, the score was temporary, and even Mel admitted he was still shaving the middle. (Which I had to admit dragged.) But even with that, I have reservations about the movie.

My issue is this: one man's archetype is the basis of another man's cliche, and I tend to the latter. There really isn't anything original in the plot. Man has happy family, man is taken from happy family, man escapes, outruns the bad guys, and returns to said family. I'm sorry, but I think I've seen this a few times. The novelty here is the setting (spectacular) and the whole dialect/subtitle issue (I... got nothing, I don't speak Mayan).

That said; it will be a beautiful movie, it's visually stunning, and very well researched from what I've seen. James Horner is working on the soundtrack, and I'm sure it will be up to his usual spectacular standards, and the chase scene at the end was wonderful even in its rough form. Will it be an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon, yes. Is it going to change the world of cinema as we know it, no. And watch Youngblood, if he doesn't get stuck in a type-casting rut, he may be one to watch.

Famous Last Words:
I'm not waiting in any long lines, but if I see it again I'm sure I'll be entertained. Not necessarily a bad thing.

Fantastic Fest '06 The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning

I know, I know, I said I was going to go see something else, but when I saw the New Line security team scanning people with metal detector wands and making people turn off their cell phones, I just had to get in on the fun.

I didn't really have any great expectations. I liked the original, but nothing else (remake included) really grabbed my attention. But this, wow. I mean, WOW. I haven't seen f'd-up family values like this since House of 1000 Corpses (and the Devil's Rejects as well).

I don't really want to give anything away, but suffice it to say, this totally blew the '03 remake out of the water. You don't waste much time on back story, although what's there is perfectly suited to the plot, and once the blood starts flowing it is incessant. Horror villains are always kinda like the Energizer Bunny of Doom, but this is brutal. Gore, gore and more galore. And some of it with that dark, sick, humorous variety that almost makes you want to laugh if you weren't so busy squirming in your seat. I have to say I'm with this guy (scroll to the bottom) in wondering who did what to whom to get this an R from the MPAA. (And after, the director told the audience that two of the goriest scenes were pretty well shaved to get it, hello, DVD!) I think it was the fact that there was no nudity.

There is a bear trap, meathooks, and, of course the chainsaw. But no nudity.

And here's the kicker. Leatherface doesn't become a major player until the almost the third act. The whole movie is driven by R. Lee Ermey, who is one of those quintessential, "Hey, It's That Guy!" types. Only now he's sick, demented, and he's just trying to care for his family. Awwww, it would be sweet if it weren't completely psychotic.

Famous last words:
Nothing will ever approach the original, just by the virtue of it being the original, but this comes damn close.

And to answer the burning question: Yes, you do find out where Leatherface got his leather face.

Fantastic Fest '06 Haze (with Oculus)

Oculus is an excellent example of the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. One room, one man, one creepy-ass mirror. Clocking in at just over half an hour, it's long for a "short," but it really doesn't feel like it, as the plot unfolds at its own pace without feeling rushed. The director has paced the action/drama very well within the confines of this piece, and the actor does an excellent job of toe-ing the line between sanity and madness, right up until he crosses over it.

This piece is an excellent example of the never-ending struggle to rationalize the irrational or to prove the un-provable. It's a scientific study of a most unscientific event; and like all rational beings in the horror genre, the descent to madness comes when our protagonist's rational underpinnings are ripped out from underneath him and all he's left with is his fear. This is assuming our scientist isn't "mad" to begin with. After all, he's convinced the mirror killed his parents. But this is all theory, and let's move on...

The color palette (or in this case, complete lake thereof), works to create the clinical setting the protagonist desires for his experiment. It is clean, sterile, and away from outside influence. It is also cut-off, isolated, and completely without refuge. There are some technical sound issues, echoes and the like, but the usage of the clock alarms and phone rings add to the distortion of time and breakdown of the protagonist's awareness of anything but the mirror.

I have one major gripe with the short, and unfortunately it's somewhat linked to the ending. I'll try to keep this as general as possible, but it's still kinda spoilery. Throughout the piece the history of the mirror is relayed to the audience through a series of stories, people die, people disappear, people kill other people. Got that. Mirror bad. Check. The whole creepiness of the set-up is that no one really knows what the mirror does, and I think it should have stayed that way. Let me put it like this, the freakiest thing about The Blair Witch Project was that you never saw the witch. You saw things happen, you saw the campers freak out, but you never saw who/what was behind it. The scariest things are what we pull out of our own memories, and once you show the "monster," you're done. Glimpse it out of the corner of your eye, catch it's reflection, feel its breath on your neck, but in a piece like this, it's best left unseen. Once fear has a face and a name it's dimished. Which isn't to say that what we saw in the theatre wasn't creepy, believe me, it was, I just think it would have been much more effective in the abstract.

And speaking of abstract, let's move onto the main feature, Haze.

One part Saw, one part Cube, and Asian to boot. I should love this, but I don't. I was actually kinda disappointed. Don't get me wrong, it's creepy and claustrophobic as all hell. (I didn't immediately think, "It's the Habitrail(c) from Hell!" for nothing.) The monotone concrete walls with their blind turns, and a well-developed bleakness to the entire production design from costume to lighting adds to the paranoia and anxiety. The traps are vicious, but not entirely original. (Although I have to admit, there's one that set my teeth on edge and reminded me how long it's been since I went to the dentist.) But it seems to jump in continuity, and the ending leaves a great deal to be desired.

The concept is solid, a man wakes up with no memory, a nasty stomach wound, and only a series of trap-laden tunnels in front of him. But it's not very trap-laden, this movie is only about 50 minutes long, and that's not quite enough time to rachet up the tension to a point where the audience is squirming, anxious and desperate to know what's going to happen next. There's also a lack of exposition, which is normal for J-horror, but what we do get is mainly in a voice-over. That's not horrible, except for the fact that it is repeated almost verbatim 10-15 minutes later when the lead meets up with his fellow captive. Why have the V-O at all? And the ending...? I don't expect my horror movies to have rational endings, but I'd like to know that there is one. There's a mishmash of a montage that makes no sense of time, place, or even if it's relevant to the plot. Not cool.

Famous last words:
This may be the only time where I recommend a feature so you can see the short. Haze isn't entirely bad, but Oculus was better and worth the time.

Premier pick: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

I took me awhile, but a few years ago, I finally "got" Aaron Sorkin. I'm not saying it all made sense, or looked nice, or felt good, but I was there. I was with it, there, in the moment.

The show was The West Wing, and after a four-hour marathon, I was hooked. Unfortunately, it was his last season on the show, but after going back and seeing those first incredible seasons, I knew I had found a writer I would follow almost anywhere. Not an actor, or a concept, or a genre, but a writer.

So is it any surprise that as soon as I heard about Studio 60, I was waiting in rapt anticipation? Not really.
Is it any surprise that as soon as I found out you could get the pilot from Netflix it went to the top of my queue?
Again, not really.
Was I disappointed?
Not really.

Here's what I like about Sorkin. It doesn't have to be original material, but it sure feels that way sometimes. A Few Good Men- it's a courtroom drama, we've all seen it, but it twists and turns the definition of guilt and responsibility around and up until it hits the ceiling... and breaks through. The American President- a romance. Pretty cliche until you start adding the politics and image sculpting in. Relationships are hard, policy is harder, both can be impossible.

And while we're on policy and politics, let's look at that good 'ole West Wing. I have NEVER seen a show on the silver or small screens that has made politics look as hard and as easy as that show did. It was fast, it didn't grind to a halt every time something had to be explained, it kept moving and somehow we all kept up. It made you think, and didn't assume you're a child. We're not talking about programming for the lowest denominator and how many shows can say that today?

But let's move on to the focus of this post, shall we?

The premise is simple, a show with-in a show. This is simple. Get the show on the air, keep the show on the air. Period. End of story. Beginning of drama. We've seen it in sitcoms (Murphy Brown) we've seen it in drama (Network) and now we get to see it in both. Because like all TV a la Sorkin, there is plenty to laugh at in Studio 60, and more drama than you can shake your remote at. It's been said before, and I'm sure will be said again, but what Sorkin did for politics in The West Wing, he's doing for TV. Is he preaching? Um, yeah. If you've seen Judd Hirsh's on-air rant you catch on pretty quick, and to say that Sorkin and his co-exec and director Tommy Schlamme are bringing a little real-life baggage to the project is an understatement, but who said truth was any less strange or fascinating than fiction?

The casting. Ensemble, if we're banking on anything, we're banking on Sorkin's name, not the cast's. Not that they're nobodies. Timothy Busfield and Bradley Whitford are Sorkin vets, and any one who hasn't seen Friends and Matthew Perry during its run has been living in a world without TV for over a decade now and I can't help you. Stephen Weber is a solid actor, as are most of the others.

Our weak point here is going to be Amanda Peet. Not that she's bad, I think she just has the farthest to go. Her character's a hard one, the executive who's going to be the push and pull on the show. She's going to be defending the Whitford and Perry characters while trying to keep them from going too far at the same time, and that's not a easy feat to portray. And she's young, as her character is written, and that adds another level of difficulty. Do I think she can do it? Yeah, but I think she's going to need an episode or two to get the kinks ironed out. Also to watch: The characters who play the "Big Three," or the three lead actors on the show, D.L. Hughley, Sarah Paulson and Nathan Corddry. We didn't see much of them in the pilot, but they will have a huge influence on the upcoming plots as they seem to have a great deal of influence, if not outright pull with their fellow castmates and the network.

I'm hooked, and I'm OK with that. But I'm picky and I have very high expectations for this show, as do most of the critics I've read. It's a long fall... let's hope we don't go over the cliff.

The biggest fictional history book I've ever read.

"Many books are to be read, some are to be studied, and a few are meant to be lived in for weeks. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is of this last kind." -Michael Dirda, The Washington Post

To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.

Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.

So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis a text; intransitive verb : to give a clarifying explanation. Which, in my opinion, is the whole reason this book was written. The author, Susannah Clarke, is so intent on explaining everything to us, the whys, the whos, and the whens, that I think she occasionally forgets that something has to happen in order to justify all these explanations. The book would move along for a bit and then come to a grinding halt of exposition, footnotes, "real-world" parallels, and general theory.

Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.

Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.

Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.

But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.

My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.

1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!

Today's Movie Checklist

• A plot that serves the main action (loosely if necessary)- check
• Airplane (must malfunction on cue)- check
• Stalwart Hero- check
• Stalwart Heroine- check
• Sidekick- check
• Bad Guy- check
• Passenger that's afraid of flying- check
• Passenger Asshole (preferably British)- check
• Actual Mom (with baby for peril and angst)- check and check
• Kids (without parental supervision, see above)- check and check again
  
• Actually, have Central Casting send up one of every stock character for the passenger manifest. (Hmmmm, but no Italian mobsters, Asian's in this year.)
  
• Lap Dog for the Spoiled Heiress (must have appropriate name)- check

• And for God's sake, don't forget the Motherfucking Snakes for the Motherfucking Plane or we have no movie!!!
  

I can honestly say that I haven't had this much campy fun at a movie in ages. (Well, not since Slither anyway.)
I can also honestly say I didn't know death by snakebite could occur in such, um, interesting forms.

It doesn't waste time setting up a silly plot, it's pretty much 1-2-3 and we're on the plane. We're not talking Shakespeare here. But what it does set up isn't stupid. Cliche, oh, goodness, yes. We hit just about every disaster/creature/action cliche there is: no pilot, plane breaks, rampaging, angrier-than-normal animals to hunt and kill, snarly (and snarky) passengers, harried stewardesses, brash FBI agents, all of it and more; but it's not dumb. And it works! The hype didn't lie!

It's funny. And creepy. You don't have to think, so just sit back and enjoy the flight. (Example- all you need to know about the flight attendants you learn during the emergency instructions, and none of them speak a word.) There are scenes that make you squirm in anticipation, and scenes that just jump out and grab you. You name it, we got it, about the only thing missing was the pregnant lady going into labor.

Maybe we're saving that for the sequel.

Go see it, unless you're seriously ophidiophobic in which case I feel genuinely sorry for you, you're missing out on a fun thing here.

And if you're in the Austin area, see it at the Drafthouse and get one of these. (If the snakes left any of 'em, that is.)

Yo-Ho-Ho and a Bottle of... Huh?

I liked the movie, let it be known that all of the forthcoming nit-picking comes from a place of love. It was a good way to spend an evening.

But talk about your wasted efforts. This movie was not thought out, and seemed to be slapped together just to get a sequel into the theatres to hold us over to the main event in the finale. And that annoys me to no end. (This coming from me, a fan of the make-it-up-as-we-go-along show, 24!)

So, yeah, be ye warned, there are spoilers abroad in these high seas... Yarrr!

Of all the myriad plots that get set up along the way, not one is resolved. Yes, this is the second chapter of a trilogy, but something should have ended in the two and a half hours I sat there in the theatre, amused, but waiting. After all, in Star Wars, Luke started and finished his training, the unresolved sexual tension between Han and Leia was resolved, and the Millennium Falcon stopped trying to outrun people and began chasing after them. These were all endings, and yet they still served the larger story and allowed a segue into the finale.

The center plot here is the search for the infamous "Dead Man's Chest." And yes, it is found, (about 2/3 the way through) and everyone gets to chase after it, playing "hot potato" until it comes to rest. And then it isn't used, by anyone. At all. We just get to look at it and it's freaky contents- just sitting there. Waiting for something to happen, which won't until the next movie.

So on to the subplots, which include a romantic troika consisting, unsuprisingly, of Jack, Elizabeth and Will. It's set up with innuendo, that blinky compass of Jack's, and a "stolen" kiss. But while all parties are aware of the situation to varying degrees, no accusations have been made, and no relationships have been tested. But I'm sure the ensuing conflict will be wonderful.

It just won't happen until the next movie.

Family angst is aptly represented with Will and his father (played nicely by Stellan Skarsgaard), and it manages to go in a complete circle, with both Will and Bootstrap Bill ending in the exact same places they started. (Will free, Bill, not-so-much.) The only thing that changes is that by the end, Bootstrap has "hope" that his son will rescue him.

Which won't happen until the next movie.

The blackmailing greed of the East India Trading Company in the guise of Lord Cutler Beckett is on call, and they make for nicevillainss to replace the British Navy (in the guise of Commodore Norrington) from the last movie. And while I admit the upper hand they gain at the end was nicely arranged, but we're basically left with Beckett sitting at his desk, pondering his next move.

Which won't happen until the next movie.

And, of course, we have the evil Davy Jones. Whose scenes were nicely chewed by Bill Nighy, if almost spit out again by the freakish CGI-laden prosthetics/make-up that completely obliterated almost all of the actor's fine facial expressions. (More on this later.) Davy rants, Davy kills,Davy plays his organ with his tentacles (not a euphemism!), but he doesn't have the contents of chest, he doesn't have Jack, or Will, (or a clue for that matter) and that's pretty much how he started the movie. But he is going to have a lot of fun dealing with the person who did end up with the contents of his "locker."

But not until until the next movie.

The only resolved plotline is Jack's. And it's resolved violently. More or less. But not finally. He's not exactly encased in carbonite, but he still needs a' rescuin'.

Which won't happen (say it with me folks,) until the next movie!

See where a birdy can get her little feathers ruffled?

Now, back to that character CGI issue I mentioned earlier. This is what happens when a good concept is completely run off the rails by it's own nifty-ness. As I understand it, the concept was thus: The longer you served on The Flying Dutchman, the more you began to resemble the sea creatures and creepy-crawlies of the deep. Cool! They were so pretty, and so creepy, and so overdone that they lost all facial expression, and were used for shock value, not character laughs. And they weren't even done as well as they could have been, they all looked shiny and fake. I think something went wonky in integrating the prosthetics and the CGI.

The original pirates from the franchise, the cursed crew of the Black Pearl, had their moonlit CGI freakishness, but the rest of the time you could pass them on the street and not notice. (Well, you get what I mean.) The moonlight reveal was a way to deal with budget constraints, but it served the overall plot very well. And it allowed you to connect with some of the fine character actors that were being used. Frankly, Capt'n Barbossa would not have been half as scary, had he been a skeleton all the time. All things in moderation, my dears, especially in movie tech.

(And about that nifty concept- so far as I could tell after one viewing, it is never mentioned in the movie. The skeletal curse was a cornerstone of the last installment, here it's a gimmick, and one not even worth explaining. Sigh.)

All of this, plus the usual sequell pitfalls: resurrected gags, the same stunts (only Bigger! and Better!), and the in-jokes. Which, in all honesty, I actually I didn't mind so much, loving the first as much as I do.

But I have to say, the scene stealer for this flick- her. I have no idea who she is (character, not actress), or where she came from, but she's really cool, and she was the only character who had any clue what was going on. At. All. And she chewed her scenery the same way Mr. Depp did in the first movie which was great. Bravo! (Also- she gets the coolest set. This was one of those movies I look at and wish I was working props in Hollywood.)

And the ending twist? Wow. But if they don't explain it in a way the audience can buy, it will kill the next movie. You DO NOT just drop something like that in an audience's lap with out a really good reason. It becomes nothing more than a REALLY cheap stunt, and there will be hell to pay.

Final verdict- we're not keel-haulin' her yet. But if the final installment fails, she's walking the plank.

And then I'll go to Disney World.

Look Ma! No wires!

I can tell it's a good action flick, if I hit the 10 minute mark and I don't care if it has a plot or not. I can tell it's a great one if a plot actually appears.

B13- all action junkies should go see this movie. It's what VanDamme and Segal desperately wanted to be back in the day. It's Jet Li without wires and art house rainshowers and bamboo forests, and Jackie Chan without the comedy pratfalls. The action is based on Parkour, which is a French-originated discipline of getting from A to B under your own power, any way you can. You go over, under, or around obstacles using only your hands, feet, agility and speed. Sound easy? Go to YouTube, search, and wince at the people who do it badly. And then go see this movie and see people doing it right.

It's not too long and it's absolutely breathtaking. (And that's just the stars, Cyril Raffaelli (warning: link has sound!) and David Belle. Couldn't resist.)

The pacing is frantically excellent, and the aforementioned plot is actually rooted pretty strongly in the present-day turbulance of the French "ghettos." Just maybe not the stuff about the neutron bomb....

And yes, I said French- there are subtitles, get over it. If I could manage not to giggle everytime they mentioned the bomb had a 24 hour timer on it- you can read a few subtitles.

Go!

Who the f&*% greenlit this; or, why is this show still on?

It's that time. The networks are reaching their season/series finales and my VCR is doing overtime. It's been a weird season. Some shows have earned my devotion, some shows give me pause, and others have, well, we don't talk about them much, we're hoping they'll go away. And no, I don't have the premium channels- this is an expanded basic listing.

My personal television s&*% list. These are the shows, a genre, and one entire network that have fallen so far, or have managed to stay so mired in the muck of their own offal, that I go surfing by them with my nose plugged and my eyes closed. I am afraid, very very afraid.

The Ghost Whisperer- CBS, staring Jennifer Love Hewitt and her, um, assets.

Ya know, I should love a show like this. Creepy kids, vengeful spirits, easy-to-follow plots. I mean, I pay to watch movies dumber than this. But I Just. Can't. Do. It. It's her voice, and her line delivery and her, well it shames me to admit this, but there is something very disturbing about her hair. She turns her head and IT DOESN'T MOVE! Sometimes it does, but occasionally, when it's been teased like a portly third-grader, it's just there.
This Sixth Sense meets Touched By an Angel blended with a WB teen drama just meanders along. At least Patricia Arquette over on Medium has a relevant job and a family to interact with along with Casper and his merry band.

Divine intervention? Yup- it's renewed. JLH gets to stay with the majors instead of being banished back to the Family Channel.

Invasion/Threshold/Surface- ABC/CBS/NBC

Oh the humanity! Or at least what's left of it. Fox Mulder told us for years that the aliens were coming, and he was right. They even cloned themselves a few network executives to use as puppets, spreading their propaganda. Reality TV isn't the only thing spawning replicas on every network possible. Yes, creepy things abounded this season as all of the main networks showed us that there is something out there... now if they can only get those things to watch this show, 'cause we're not.

Alien intervention? Invasion has a few more episodes to go before TPTB make their decision. Threshold- abducted, Surface- I fear this one is still around for I cannot find news of its cancellation. (sigh)

The All-American Sitcom- ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, UPN. Comedy, comedy, wherefore out thou comedy? A pratfall by any other actor would smell as sweet. Assuming that a) you have a concept beyond Type A meets Type B, they bond and hilarity ensues, b) a cast that can do comedy well instead of just looking vapid and pretty, and c) an audience who cares.

It seems the live-audience sitcom is falling (however temporarily) by the wayside to make room for a spate of dramedys (*sigh* Arrested Development) and no-audience comedies (The Office, My Name is Earl). This is not a bad thing. Everyone needs a breather now and again. And the genre isn't dead, How I Met Your Mother is an example of a good concept (Courting Alex-Dharma redux), good casting (William Devane- just can't see it here), and not trying too hard to continually one-up itself (Joey, Will and Grace, Two and Half Men....).

Pie in the face? Nope not yet, but Satan's put some of these puppies on life support and has made a few back-room deals the details of which have yet to appear in Variety. Thankfully, not Will and Grace which got old several seasons ago and is now, thankfully axed.

The WB- UPN is, regrettably, too easy, so the WB takes this place because it used to be a good network, or at least had shows I was willing to kill time with. Buffy, Angel, Smallville (until the last two seasons), Gilmore Girls (I know, I know, I just can't bring myself to care anymore!) heck, I even liked Roswell. And I really liked Jack and Bobby- the concept kept it from feeling too high school-y and angst-y. But alas, no more. I'll pick up Supernatural on occasion, I like cheap horror (and cute stars), but that's about it. I don't talk about Charmed anymore- it's too painful.

Permanent Hiatus? Yup! The entire network has been cancelled, to be combined with UPN. (YIKES!) Beyond Veronica Mars, no one seems to know what will survive, although everyone's laying their bets. (My money's on Everybody Hates Chris, Supernatural, maybe Smallville and maybe one or two of UPN's other comedies. Gilmore Girls only has about one season left in it- it will likely make the transition, but look for a replacement pilot next season....)

Nobody Should Mentions

Desperate Housewives, ABC- It was cute when it started. Then they solved the big mystery. And introduced a new one. And forgot about it for almost the entire season while they futzed around with the "A" cast, forgetting the things we loved best about them and destroying them. So I'm forgetting it now, too. I have Grey's Anatomy.
Reality TV, ABC/CBS/NBC/UPN/WB/Fox... Reality TV now falls into three categories- 1. My life sucks more than yours so I'll make you watch it. 2. My life sucks more than yours, but these people are going to fix it for me. 3. My life sucks more than yours, but I'm willing to make it suck even more to win neat prizes! Notable exceptions: Intervention- if this doesn't scare you, even a little, you should consider a career as an interventionist, or get your head examined- maybe both. Project Runway/Top Chef- Bravo to Bravo for coming up with reality concepts that take real, tangible skills. And for casting for more than just pretty faces with extreme personalities. There is no amount of sucking up/making deals these people can do to save their asses- "they're in", or they "pack up their knives".
Without a Trace/CSI:Miami- they forgot a cardinal rule of the procedural drama: The characters personal lives are not a central theme of the show. They are to be lived on the side, referenced in "what did you do last weekend?" snippets of snappy banter, or to explain why such-and-such character went a little Vic Mackey on that last suspect. Pay attention to CSI's Vegas crew and L&O: SVU- both have managed to give their characters fairly detailed "off-duty" lives and corresponding work conflicts without having to have any "very special" episodes.

The middle ground, or I'll catch the repeats...

It's that time. The networks are reaching their season/series finales and my VCR is doing overtime. It's been a weird season. Some shows have earned my devotion, some shows give me pause, and others have, well, we don't talk about them much, we're hoping they'll go away. And no, I don't have the premium channels- this is an expanded basic listing.

Welcome to eh-whateverville. These shows I like, but they've either fallen off, just not grabbed me yet, or they're just starting to pick up steam. I'm paying attention, but I'm not losing sleep when I miss an episode. They're often just noise in the background....

Lost- ABC, starring a lot of people who are more lost and confused than their audience- but only by a little.

Viewing history: Previously obsessive, I-can't-have-class-that-night, now-let's-go-web-surfing-for-more-clues. Now- I missed a few weeks and came back as confused as I had been when I stopped. Besides, who needs to keep up when ABC runs a recapper show every few weeks it seems?

Why the hate?
1. (This is true of all of ABC's biggies these days.) Would it kill you to air the show regularly?! This goes way beyond a hiatus break- those are expected. ABC has been engaging its audience in a sick game of keep-away with its new episodes, and I, for one, am really tired of playing.
2. Occasionally, it would be nice if you would solve one of those little mysteries you keep dangling in front of us. The X-files got away with it for as long as they did because for most of its seasons, it remained primarily a creep-of-the-week format. The over-arcing side mysteries were just that- sides. Lost's plot seems built entirely on mysteries, and they're multiplying like bunnies.

Why do I care?
1. For all it's infuriating mysteries, it has all those infuriating mysteries. It's like the build-up to Christmas. I'm watching all these presents slowly appear under the tree. I have no idea what's inside and the suspense is killing me. I'm deathly afraid they're all socks and clothes instead of the toys and books I've wanted for the last year. But the 'rents never let me down, will the writers of Lost?
2. Matthew Fox and Terry O'Quinn. I enjoyed the whole Sawyer/Kate/Jack triangle last season, but watching Jack and Locke circle each other like wild animals encroaching on each others' territory has been electrifying. Sawyer's already taken advantage of that once, to spectacular results. But now that things are coming to a head with the Others, will Jack and Locke be able to pull it together? Or will Locke's compulsion to discover the island's secrets/powers lead him to doing something that will push Jack over the edge? (Egad, I sound like ad copy, don't I?)

Train Wreck Status: Mid-to low. The writers, while taking sadistic pleasure in the audience's frustration, do seem to know (or are acting like they know) were they're going. But if another season finale comes and goes with no major resolutions (remember the hopes we all had for that hatch?) the odds will skyrocket.

Stargate SG1/Stargate Atlantis- SciFi, starring Aliens, humans, and "whatever" tech that would make even the casts of 24 and Alias roll their eyes and say, "Yeah, right- pull the other one."

Viewing history: Previously religiously- had the VCR set every week. Even watched it with MamaRaven and the Old Crow. Now- I'm surprised (sort of) that it's still on.

Why the hate?
1. Like I said, I'm surprised it's still on, the "original" SG1 I mean. We're creeping up on 10 (?) seasons here, folks, and we've gone so far up the alien threat evolutionary ladder that we had to invent a new galaxy for the Gods to come crawling out of. We're not recycling plots anymore, we're regurgitating them en masse.
2. Franchise fatigue- it was an issue when the original series aired. SG1 got around it by using clever sci-babble to explain its existence, a minor retcon to justify its existence, some initial good multi-season series arcs to keep us interested in its existence. They also had some really good casting to replace the movie actors so it could exist on TV in the first place. Atlantis met their sci-babble, didn't really need the retcon, but it hasn't raised a good arc yet, and the casting I might fold on...

Why do I care?
1. SG1's current arc is a little better than what they've had in previous years. (I swear the Atlantis thing was just so they could do a spin-off.) The "Gods" are coming to kill/convert us all and the "Gods" that could fight them on their own terms opted out of the race aeons ago. If SG1 can somehow re-engage the Ascended Ones, I might check back in, but if the puny humans find a new whatever tech to save the day at the 11th hour, I might finally give up for good. Stunt casting Ben Browder and Claudia Black (Farscape alums) hasn't helped. (Although Black's scenes with Michael Shanks can be downright hysterical if they're played right.)
2. Atlantis has so much potential. It needs a better cast shake-up than the substitution that happened at the beginning of this season. And they need to get back to the desperate isolation they had in the early part of the season- no ship from earth, no info going back and forth, nothing. Sink or swim on your own, folks. The CSIs manage it (to varying degrees), and you should, too.

Train Wreck Status: High. SG1 was SciFi's flagship show, the first real series undertaken under it's own power. (After they acquired the series from Showtime, that is) And as such, SciFi is a bit afraid to let it go. It still has a large and loyal fanbase, nearly all of whom jumped on the Atlantis gate, too. But fans don't equal quality or originality, and these shows are being slowly, painfully run into the ground.

NCIS- CBS, starring Mark Harmon and one of TV's more colorful casts of crime-solving misfits.

Viewing History: Previously ignored. (Hey, I wasn't a JAG fan so there was no cross-over appeal) Now if I'm surfing and it's on, I'll usually stop and watch awhile.

Why the hate?
1. CSI and L&O got there first and better.
2. In general, quirky characters do not an entire series make.

Why do I care?
1. Really quirky characters can make middling fare more palatable, and NCIS runs the gamut. Geeks, Jocks, the hot foreign chick, they're all there. Drop 10-20 years off their ages and it could be American Pie, you know, only without the pie, and the sex, and the parties and the... Well, OK, not American Pie, but you get my drift, right? They're silly, hormonal, snarky and they look like they're having fun. Since all of my regular shows are all overly-serious and death-like, this is my version of a sitcom- only with guns, and a body count.
2. (Really more of an extension of #1.) Let's face it, if you could smack your co-workers around like Gibbs, wouldn't you? WOULDN'T YOU!?!?

Train Wreck Status: Low. If JAG could cruise by for years on good looks and a sweet disposition, why can't NCIS?

Middling Mentions

Bones- Fox, starring Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz. Again, it's CSI-lite with a quirky cast of misfit geeks, only where NCIS is heavy on the investigators, Bones is heavy on the geeks. Plus it's my Boreanaz fix. It's like my Buffy/Angel habit has spawned this little obsession of watching just to see what's up with the guy. (Sadly, this compulsion never made it to How I Met Your Mother or Kitchen Confidential.)
Law and Order: SVU- Mariska Hargitay, Christopher Meloni and Ice Cube. Of all the spawn of the L&O franchise, this is the only one I'll watch. Hargitay is one of the most convincing female cops I've seen in a long time. (Keep in mind I said convincing, not accurate.) And Meloni's slow and steady meltdown has made for some fascinating developments. (Will someone get that guy an Emmy already?)
Scrubs/My Name is Earl- These are both hit-or-miss with me. While both offer occasional knee-slapping humor, they often veer off into sillyville and stupidland. I can take small doses, but I can't overdo it, I'll go into a diabetic coma.
House- one of last year's must-sees, this year not so much. House = grouchy know-it-all. Check. Cameron = cute and sweet know-it-all. Check. Foreman = angry, pulled-myself-up-by-the-bootstraps-so-don't-mock-my-skillz know-it-all. Double check. And Chase = ..... he is still on this show, right? I'm still watching, but I'm not really caring. Maybe if someone actually died once in awhile, they've had, what, one fatality out of two seasons? Where's the risk = drama?
*Amended 5-3-06: They just killed a guy last night, but only to up the ante on the two leads who have/might have contracted the same disease. Personally, I'm not caring about Foreman anymore, but can someone PLEASE give Cameron a break, here?*

All hail the conquering heroes, felons, toasters...

It's that time. The networks are reaching their season/series finales and my VCR is doing overtime. It's been a weird season. Some shows have earned my devotion, some shows give me pause, and others have, well, we don't talk about them much, we're hoping they'll go away. And no, I don't have the premium channels- this is an expanded basic listing.

So here's a drive-by look at three I've been watching religiously, along with a few honorable mentions. The rest come later...

24- Fox, starring Kiefer Sutherland and whoever they haven't killed off yet...

My $0.02: It's getting its highest ratings ever, and some of the stunts it's pulled this season prove it. While previous seasons have taken their (sometimes infuriatingly sweet) time unspooling plots and segueing one villain to another, the last two seasons have moved at warp speed. Characters, villains, and plots have came, seen and gotten their asses kicked one after the other. It's worked great to draw in new fans, but older fans have often been un-impressed (to say the least).

But I still enjoy it. It's a solid show, and while the writers have seemed a little less pre-occupied with the details this season, they're still doing a good job at keeping us on our action-junkie toes. The cast has greatly improved over last year's, too. Case in point- Kim Raver's Audrey Raines who spent last season a simpering, whiney, clingy girfriend-type who seemed to not have paid attention when her boyfriend told her what he used to do for a living. This season- damn. I like her, I can't help it. While not a complete 180 from last year's version, this year's Audrey has learned a thing or two and has put it to very good use. She been sneaky, deceitful, and willing to go to some pretty incredible lengths to help save the day. Of course she had to, the characters who previously played that role in the show were all killed off.

Grrrrr: My major gripe of the year is that the staple of talent and emotional Sturm and Drang that carried the first three seasons are gone, either written off, explained away, on in the case of this season in particular, killed off in droves. 24 has never been shy about killing off the talent, but even the most jaded of fan has been left slack-jawed at this year's carnage. With so many characters being killed off, where can it go from here?

Crystal Gazing: The show's star, Kiefer Sutherland, has signed a three year option deal with Fox. Which isn't to say 24 has another three seasons left in the franchise. Contractually speaking, there is one season left on the 24 time clock, if Fox decides to continue the series beyond next year Kiefer is required to be available- but only if the TPTB require it. Everyone keeps floating the idea of a 24 post-Kiefer.. is now the time to do it? Look at what happened to the X-Files, and be very afraid.

Prison Break- Fox, starring Wentworth Miller, Dominic Purcell, and some of the most, um, "interesting" felons since Oz.

My $0.02: My mind keeps telling me that nothing this far-fetched should keep my attention. I only started watching it, 'cause I really liked Dominic Purcell in John Doe. But my mind is wrong, so I check it at the door. From the moment Wentworth Miller walked into that bank, I've been hooked. Lined. And I'm sinking fast.

Part of this is the acting. Prison Break has one of the best ensemble casts I've seen in awhile. They may not all be the best actors, but they act off each other well. And while some of the material they've been given is, well, cheesy enough to keep a family of mice happy for a year, they manage to sell it. Yes, it can be VERY stereo-typical, and the writers seem to have entire passages of The Shawshank Redemption committed to memory, but it's working.

Grrrrr: Haitus sucks, there's no way around it. And a two (three?) month break can kill a lot of momentum. But that's no excuse for letting your plotlines sink into a rut. You can only have so many near-misses, set-backs, and conspiracy theories before it becomes obvious you're marking time until the season finale. While there's a lot to set up for next season, Prison Break could have started some of it sooner. Unless you're Lost on an island somewhere, you shouldn't be having entire episodes dedicated to character flashbacks in your first season.

Crystal Gazing: We know they escape at the end of the season, and season two is everyone on the run, but half the tension in the show is built around the fact that outside prison walls these men would never spend an instant in each other's company. After the escape, when everyone splits to go off on these threads the writers have been setting up, will the tension still be there?
And how long can the running last? This show seems to have a built-in self-destruct, and I think that's a good thing. But studios have a way of by-passing those pesky circuits and that's not always a good thing.....

Battlestar Galactica- SciFi, starring Edward James Olmos, Katee Sackoff, Jamie Bamber, Mary McDonnel, and a bunch of frakking toasters!

My $0.02: This could have been sooooo bad. So very, very, bad that any effort above Power Rangers would have been considered good in my book. I wouldn't have watched it, but I... oh, who am I kidding, I used to watch Power Rangers (a long, long, LONG time ago) I probably would have picked this up eventually. Especially since I had fond memories of the original. But eventually came much faster that anticipated. And stayed. BSG wasn't just good, it was easily some of the best writing, acting, directing, and editing on television. And it was Sci-Fi Action stuff.

This show isn't stupid, and thanks to some great writing, it doesn't assume I am, too. The writers have set up a vivid world of politics, religion, and warfare that interacts with all of the characters, and continually blurs the line between what is "evil" and what is "good." Sometimes we hate the good guys, and we fall in love with the enemy. It's a frakking thin line the writers have chosen, but they're not just walking it, they're doing the tango- and it's beautiful to watch.

Grrrrr: Some of the romantic character relationships have been, well rough. The writers have chosen (and wisely) to try and limit the number of "main" characters through whose eyes we see the events unfold. The downtick of this is that you can't have all your leads in relationships with each other, you become a soap opera- a bad one. So when you elevate a "minor" character to the status of boyfriend/girlfriend it leaves the viewer with the feeling that they got pulled out of a hat. I have no real beef with characters of Dualla and Anders, but I'm not buying the relationships with Apollo and Starbuck, respectively. In fact, the only relationships I've solidly been behind have been Helo/Sharon and Six/Baltar.

Crystal Gazing: Danger, BSG, danger! You have jumped an entire year in continuity. Be careful you didn't jump the shark as well. The next few episodes will tell whether this stays on my essential viewing list or not. You can't change characters so much that we can't recognize them anymore. And you can't spin them so radically without giving the viewing audience motionsickness.

Honorable Mentions

Gray's Anatomy- ABC, starring Sandra Oh, Patrick Dempsey, and lots of other folks who are very easy on the eyes. The couplings are a little all over the board, but it seems to keep things interesting instead of confusing. Again, a great and charismatic cast can overcome a lot. This show came a long way from it's initial offerings and so long as we stay away from too many stunts (I'm talking bombs here folks...) we should be just fine. I sit down, I laugh, and I am thoroughly entertained.
CSI: CBS, starring William Peterson, Marg Helgenberger, Jorja Fox, George Eads and the TMI-cam. Still one of the best written shows on TV and it hasn't fallen into the soap-opera-y trap that's killing CSI: Miami, or the lack of character chemistry that left CSI: NY D.O.A.
The Unit: CBS, starring Scott Foley, Robert Patrick, Dennis Haysbert, Regina Taylor, Audrey Marie Anderson and more military cliches than you can shake a stick at. Off to a slow start, The Unit has been a solid performer in the intervening weeks. It's a good balance for my inner action/intrigue junkie and my inner soapfiend. The downside in this one is the casting. It's the wives. Outside of Taylor, they just annoy me. And someone might want to remind Robert Patrick that he's not a Terminator anymore and a little facial expression won't kill him. Suprisingly, Scott Foley works for me. Go figure- I hated him in Felicity. (Hated the entire show actually, but that's a different subject.)

Drive-by snarkings and crouching ovations...

Oi! Been awhile. Here's some quickies.

Casting issues- If can spot the mole as soon as the actor appears, your casting needs work! The Sentinel- I'm talkin' to you! It's one thing to cast an actor with a history of playing skeevy bastards, if they can convincingly play the good guy until their big reveal. If you get the guy who oozes from the word "action," then his reveal will mean nothing. I know Martin Donovan is a fine actor, but this was just miscast.

I can forgive a lot in a movie, especially one in which the leads play off each other as well as Kiefer Sutherland and Michael Douglas did, but my celebrity obsessions only suspend my disbelief so far.

Kudos to Eva Longiria, she actually managed to keep up her end. She did her best with a one-note character, and held her own with a gun in the shooting scenes.

Overall: Pleasantly suprised, it's still 24-lite, but I'm pretty OK with that.

Sound check, please- If your movie is called Silent Hill, you might want to, oh, I don't know, try a little silence here and there. Some of what would have been the creepiest scenes were ruined by an anvil-ridden soundtrack. Someone please get these people some good Asian horror flicks to peruse. Silence may be golden, but it can also be oppressive, claustrophobic, atmospheric, and laden with the terror of what you should be hearing, but aren't.

But don't mistake soundtracks with sound fx. Some of the creepiest things in this movie were the sounds the creatures were making. I don't care who you are, you meet something on the street making those sounds and you know sh*%'s going downhill fast.

As for the casting, the cackle of Alice Krige's voice, whose silky accent dripped with honey-laced strychnine was the perfect foil for our little girl lost. If Jodell Ferland can keep that ability to balance sweet and innocent with it's darker sister, cruel and vicious, she will be a power to be reckoned with (assuming she doesn't fall by the Hollywood wayside).

Overall: Slightly disappointed. It was a solid entry to the video-game to movie pantheon, there have been worse, but it wasn't nearly as creepy as it should have been.

Go see Thank You For Smoking. You will thank me- if you can get over Katie Holmes' sex scenes, that is. Dawson would be shocked. Tom probably fainted. I thought it was hysterical.

Ewwwww! That was so funny!

OK, I make no claims to having any taste when it comes to movies, but this sh*^'s just funny.

Slither.

The name alone is amusing, (not Snakes on a Plane, amusing, but nifty nonetheless) and early comparisons to the The Evil Dead movies put it on my must see list. And there it will stay, for not since the heyday of Freddy Krueger, have I found something so disgusting, so very, very funny.
Think of all the snarky, WTF?!, things you think during the course of a normal sci-fi, gross-out, creepfest and you have the majority of Nathan Fillion's lines right there. And the ick factor, oh, my- classic B-movie stuff done with A-movie effects.

And I pity that a couple of my friends, who would enjoy the humor, will not EVER see this movie, for I know the exact scene where they both check out- and it is even before the slugs begin the requisite slithering.

See there's this guy who gets cut up the middle, and the inside stuff just kinda, well, falls out. Slowly. (Hey, guys? Where are you going? It's not that... oh, never mind.)

The Scream movies tried to be really scary while being tongue-in-cheek, and sometimes it worked, but a lot of times it didn't. Slither doesn't seem to try to be scary, but sometimes it really is. The casting is great, if cliche'd. Nathan Fillion's got bumbling and snarky down to a science, Gregg Henry's town mayor is appropriately stupid, cowardly, and egotistical, and you actually manage to feel a little pity for Michael Rooker, who usually plays villains with a gusto. I wish our female lead, Elizabeth Banks, had toned down the Botox a bit, a little more facial expression would have been nice. And Tania Saulnier was criminally underused. Other than a plethora of small-town, hick rednecks to fill the rest of the set dressing, that's the cast.

And, yeah, hick redneck cliches abound. And a bit about using a grenade to go fishing becomes very important later. (And also served to identify a Firefly/Serenity fan sitting behind us- "No, Jane, no grenades." Hee.)

If you can take the gross-out, go see this movie. It's funny. Funny ha-ha, funny ewwww, and just enough funny stupid.

Added 4-4-06
Hee- Even the AP reviewer loves it!
'“Slither” also lets Fillion cut loose and get really goofy, all the while maintaining his boyish rogue’s charm. This guy deserves to be a major star.'
'Gunn revels in the absurdities of horror conventions but also clearly loves them.'
'And a scene where zombies do “A Streetcar Named Desire,” coming after Starla uttering her name instead of Marlon Brando’s “Stella,” is just priceless.'

Love it/Hate it...

Two movies, two dystopian futures.
One I liked, but not for the plot/writing, and the other I hated, because there was no plot/writing of which to speak.
OK,The Love goes first:
V for Vendetta- If you've read my House of Wax reviews, you know how a voice can get to me, and boy does Hugo Weaving have it in spades. And it wasn't just the voice. (That hypnotic, icy, creepy and still vulnerable voice.) Weaving's one of those classically-trained actors who has learned to use his entire body to make a point. And when you spend an ENTIRE movie in a mask, those subtle body movements, a tilt of the head, a hand gesture, a strut in the walk... they make all the difference. So much so, I actually tuned out of the movie a bit, and just focused on the attitude expressed through movement. His Matrix experience was a definite plus, but not just for the kung-fu aspects of V. There's a certain "disconnect" with reality that Weaving expresses very well. All the major characters Weaving's been associated with in the last few years (I'm thinking LOTR's Elrond, Matrix's Agent Smith, and now V) have been "outside" the main reality, yet an intricate part of it's goings-on. The "integral outsider" as it were. A puppet-master of sorts.

A similar kudos go to Natalie Portman, whose tear-laden eyes can be pissed and heartbroken at the same time. Screw the hair (or lack thereof)- look at her eyes, folks! While her character would have had farther to travel if she had been more of a gov't tool in the beginning, I was able to buy the initial external "guilt by association" and internal "my parents were right" versions that we saw, first through the inspector and later through Evey herself. Portman's line at the end to the Inspector about who V was (father, mother, brother, self) was believable only because you could see the echoes and transference in her eyes. I never saw V and Evey as a romantic pairing, but more symbiotic. She- his lost humanity, and He- her lost beliefs. Neither existed fully without the other, but each was able to subsist on its own, weakened, but independent.

And, yea! for making us actually believe an entire year had gone by, instead of feeling like it was rushed or forced.

As for the actual plot- meh. Been there, Fahrenheit 9-11'd that. The W'boys ditch Thatcherism for Bushism and there ya have it. An instant dystopian, paranoid future dictatorship plot. Read Orwell, you'll be happier, or at least more aware.

But I still loved it.

And now for The Hate:
Ahhh, Ultraviolet, you could have been so, so much more.

I don't care what you think, Mila Jovovich is a decent actress, good at action and not bad to look at. And I love playing H!ITG with William Fichtner, but this plot and this writing is crap. Oh, the humanity!

Set up a decimating virus story, set up a gov't human weapon story, set up a medical-freak-of-nature story, set up a vampire story, but for crying out loud if you're going to use all of them, use all of them at once- don't pick and choose depending on what works for the scene at hand! We had an intro voice-over that introduced the freak/virus story, and retconned the weapon/vampire bit about halfway through.

Here's my fix for almost the entire movie, and I can do it in 6 sentences to be uttered in V-O Scene One, while Mila's walking up to the gov't building for the courier-infiltration scene:
"They thought they were creating a perfect, human weapon.
Instead they got a highly virulent catastrophe.
The virus made the vampire-like weapons the government wanted, but they couldn't control it's spread.
Blood, tears, sweat, it was too contagious.
So they tried to destroy it- all of it and those who carried it.
And I got caught in the middle."

(Wait a minute! Isn't this the plot to Resident Evil?)

Bam! Innocent, infected heroine with tragic circumstances to be relayed in flashbacks where appropriate, not at the beginning where they sit there and are wasted for half the movie.

(Yeah, R.E. did this one better.)

Love the kid, hate the way he was ultimately useless and good only for looking forlorn and tugging at our heart-sleeves.

And haven't digital backgrounds and tracking shots gotten better than this, yet? Or did you embezzle part of the budget somewhere and we got stuck with this?

(I still want one of those negative space, belt buckle-thingies with the anti-grav drive, though. That looked cool! TechieToys!!!)

(Sigh!) It could've been sooooo gooood! But it wasn't!!!!

Stop Me If You've Heard This Before

A young woman wanders around a museum filled with the most lifelike wax figures she has ever seen. They could be real people, and, big surprise, they used to be. The creator of the museum has a few issues and he’s taking them out on the rest of the world. And guess what? Our heroine is just perfect for the new display. Welcome to 1953's House of Wax vs. 2005's House of Wax- further proof that Hollywood missed the day in class where they covered plagiarism (sort of).

I recently sat down and watched the original* House of Wax. It’s something I’ve been meaning to do for awhile now. Why, you may ask? Mr. Vincent Price.
Before I even knew what a horror movie was, “classic” or otherwise, Vincent Price made me shiver. My parents used to have an old 8-track player (yes, I said 8-track) and a tape of Mr. Price narrating an essay on witchcraft, demons and other things that go bump in the night. I was fascinated. I loved listening to it, and I remember it vividly to this day. But it’s not the content that I recall, that I barely remember. It’s his voice. It hit all my creep-out buttons and yet, I was absolutely mesmerized. It is urbane, articulate, and had a light rasp that gives it a depth and darkness. If I walked into a dark, dark room and I heard that voice purr, “Welcome-” Game Over. Mourners please omit flowers. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve started to go back and watch some of his movies and if I close my eyes, I can still feel the chills. He got me then, he has me now.

Dark Castle Entertainment is something else which gets to me, but for another reason. Created in 1999 by Robert Zemickis and Joel Silver, the production company (named after horror director William Castle) has been churning out horror movies about once a year. Most of these movies are “remakes” of older horror films. I say “remakes” because for the most part, other than title, genre, and a few plot points, these movies have little in common with their predecessors. They are a collective homage, re-imaginings of old ideas, which is really their only saving grace. In general, I abhor straight remakes- really, what’s the point? (Yes, Gus Van Sant- I’m looking at you!) But DCE is trying to produce cinematic valentines to the past, and I’m pretty OK with that. And while I’ve enjoyed most of them, 2005’s House of Wax stands out as an odd duck.

*The 1953 House of Wax is really a remake itself of the 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum, starring Lionel Atwill, an actor who resembled Vincent Price so strongly, my roommate asked me why I was watching House of Wax again!

Spoilers abound- ye have been warned.

Let’s look at the actors (not the characters), for a moment. Back in the day, we had the studio system. Nearly all of the 1953 cast were contract players, veterans coming from the studio system, stage, or radio. Vincent Price, well he’s Vincent Price and the movie rested on his shoulders. But his supporting cast, including radio and TV regular Frank Lovejoy, and Phyllis Kirk and Carolyn (Morticia Addams)Jones were hardly rookies, and it shows. Yet, in the 2005 version, DCE made its biggest mistake to date. DCE’s other features starred mostly adult actors with solid experience. (Gabriel Byrne, Tony Shalhoub, and Geoffrey Rush, are a few.) Yet here they went straight to the teens. In trying to draw in a younger crowd, they lost acting credibility. I mean, really- Paris Hilton?! Paris Hilton, veteran of red carpets, reality TV, and movies of a more- let’s say- homemade variety. Chad Michael Murray and Elisha Cuthbert are both TV regulars (One Tree Hill and 24, respectively). They have experience, and both are currently making bids for big-screen stardom, but they still have a long way to go. In fact, the only cast member with what I would call significant movie experience would be Brian Van Holt, our villain(s).

Advantage- 1953. Say what you will about the studio system, in this case, at least it managed to put together solid ensemble casts instead of a mishmash of pretty faces and celebrity names. The adults give the movie a seriousness that fluffy, pretty-looking teens on the cusp just don’t have.

Both movies take the concept of vengeance to its homicidal extreme. 1953’s Dr. Henry Jarrod (Price) loses his beloved wax museum to a greedy business partner’s flames. In retribution, a horribly scarred Dr. Jarrod kills his former partner and begins killing others to replace his lost figures. Ultimately, he fixates on Sue-Allen (Phyllis Kirk), the girlfriend of one of his assistants, (coincidentally, also the roommate of one of his victims,) as the replacement for his most cherished figure, Marie Antoinette. It’s a paint-by-number mystery/thriller, and Dr. Jarrod is the only character that gets to show more than one side to his personality. The other characters exist to serve the plot- the sensitive artist boyfriend, the innocent female heroine, the “loose” female victim, and the stalwart, but skeptical cop. They’re all there. Price is at his skeevy best when with Sue-Allen, his Marie Antoinette. And it’s that creepiness along with her reactions, her disbelief at seeing her friend in one of the tableaus, and the way everyone tries to convince her she’s mistaken, are what really sell what is essentially a watered-down version of the 1933 original “original.” Along for the ride are little vignettes (a paddle-ball barker [an awesome Reggie Rymal] and a can-can number) that are distracting asides meant to showcase the 3-D hook of the original release. The make-up by George and Gordon Bau was amazing for its day, and the burning of Jarrod’s original exhibit was intense and well-staged. The death scenes, as was tradition, are mostly off-screen, with the notable exception of Dr. Jarrod’s crooked partner.

2005 tosses out both pictures in favor of a new, more modern approach to the plot- albeit one that takes it down the teen slasher-flick road. Teens get stranded, teens end up in creepy town complete with a House of Wax, teens meet up, and are subsequently killed by, homicidal brothers who have turned the entire town into a waxy showcase of human/wax figures. (They even include wiggling puppies in the pet store window.) The current usual suspects are all there: the virginal heroine, the cute (yet asshole) boyfriend, the snarly (but cute) “bad twin” hero-brother, the funny sidekick friend, and the sparring lovers. We even have our red-herring, dirty redneck, looks-like-a-serial killer mystery guy. However, instead of avenging a single event, like 1953’s Dr. Jarrod, the villains (“good” twin Vincent and “bad” twin Bo, who are separated Siamese twins to boot) are avenging their entire childhood. The artistic one, the “good” one, is as physically disfigured as the “bad” one is emotionally disfigured. All the while, the boys are trying to impress a dead mother by taking her beloved museum and, well, expanding and improving upon the original concept. Instead of little 3-D showcase bits, we have B-plots in abundance, including a ridiculous pregnancy scare for Paris, a small-town boyfriend not willing to go to the big city with his girlfriend, and the “evil twin” hero-brother harping on his sister for busting him with the cops. Take ‘em or leave ‘em, it’s at least an attempt to flesh out the dimensionality of the characters. The chase scenes are hectic, the death scenes are fairly original, and the melting of the entire set at the end was a pretty impressive justification for the CGI budget.

Advantage- 2005. Having seen the 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum, I was disappointed in 1953’s version. Gone was the spunky reporter/heroine, and the who-done-it element was weakened at best. 2005 gets points for (dare I say it?) plot originality. Your established heroine doesn’t usually get hurt as bad or as early as Carly (Elisha Cuthbert) does in this picture (kudos to the writer who came up with that LOVELY use for super-glue, everyone I watched the movie with squirmed in unison), and having the entire town made of wax made for a nice sense of isolation- if only the writers could have come up with a better way to explain it.

And now we arrive at the always important climax and “happy ending.” The 1953 version has your traditional it’s-all-over, everything’s-OK-now ending. The “mask” Price wears is shattered, revealing the scarred psychopath beneath. The stalwart cop realizes the heroine was right all along, and arrives in the nick of time to save her, sending the killer into his own vat of boiling wax. Afterwards, you have the final recap/we’re off to our happy ending scene the next day at the police station. What I liked best about the whole climax and dénouement was the sensitive boyfriend was a complete loser who got his ass kicked by Dr. Jarrod’s deaf-mute assistant, Igor. (Who's played by a very young Charles Bronson.) And there’s a cute little bit at the end with Sue-Ellen thanking the cop for putting his coat over her as she lay (hidden from view) naked in Jarrod’s lab.

Where 1953 started with a museum-destroying blaze, 2005 ended with it- and then some. Hero and heroine fight off the deadly twins and the wax museum (made entirely of wax- walls and all) burns, well actually, melts down. You get the next morning scene with cops all over the place. They’re a little late at catching onto all of the people disappearing because, well, they forgot the town was there. Yeah, not kidding, they lost the entire town, but token black guy’s GPS was able to find the shortcut through it just fine. Oi! And as our heroes ride off in their ambulance, one of the cops turns to the other and throws us our "gotcha!" hook- the twins had a brother, and he’s still out there. Cut to (not-so) red-herring redneck guy, waving good-bye to our heroes.

Advantage- neither. I hate the way 1950’s heroes and heroines just go about their business the next day like nothing happened, but hearing the cops admit they lost a town in the 2005 version killed whatever tension had been built up during the flaming climax in the museum. The endings of horror movies have become so cliché that I tend to dismiss them, unless something truly spectacular and unforeseen happens.

I’ll overlook a lot in a movie with a good cast, and 1953 has a good cast. The characters are stock, but the actors play them well, and with absolute conviction. And while the plot was watered down from the original, it was still mostly intact and I could follow it without too much trouble. The problem with 2005’s movie is that most of the cast seemed to be too cool for their roles, and therefore come off as sleepwalkers. It’s a common curse of the young actor. The only ones who seemed to really go for it with a gusto were Elisha Cuthbert and Brian Van Holt who get points for being the leads (heroine and villain), but they aren’t enough to carry the entire movie. Especially when foiled against Vincent Price and Phyllis Kirk. And fancy effects, while exciting and pretty to look at, tend to throw me out of movies like this. While watching an entire building melt around the heroes in 2005 is exciting and really, really cool, watching Vincent Price witness the fiery destruction of his precious creations, unable to save a single one just hits you in the heart.

The winner- 1953’s House of Wax. I liked them both, but Vincent Price, you just can't beat him.
Check out Mystery of the Wax Museum if you get the chance- it’s a wonderful 1930's thriller!

Filmography links and data courtesy of The Internet Movie Database.