(Long Island, N.Y.) Much like director Quentin Tarantino’s last movie, Death Proof (part of the 2007 double feature Grindhouse, the review of which you can read HERE), his new film Inglourious Basterds would have been brilliant if the editor had chopped out maybe 30 minutes or so of Tarantino’s long, drawn-out, boring, go-nowhere dialogue along with some of the horribly cheesy and inappropriate music tracks peppered throughout. But that never happened, and as a result we’re denied what would have otherwise been an excellent movie. It’s a shame. But despite this, Inglourious Basterds is still well worth viewing, because when this movie is on, it is on.

A period piece set

in Nazi-occupied France during World War II, Inglourious Basterds chronicles the story-lines of several different groups of characters, all of whom are bent on assassinating the Nazi high command, up to and including that rascally scamp, Adolph Hitler. The first group, known simply as the “Basterds,” are an elite team of Jewish American soldiers led by 1st Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), out behind enemy lines

to kill as many Nazis and spread as much terror as possible. To this end, they scalp all of the Nazis they run into, save one per encounter- but they send that one lone survivor back to Berlin with a swastika carved into his head, a mute testament to his sins. The Basterds are brutal and ruthless, and soon become known as something like boogeymen all across Germany.

Also nursing a grudge against the Nazis is Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a French Jew whose family was murdered when she was still a teen by Standartenführer Hans Landa, aka “The Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz), a ruthless SS officer. Now living under an assumed name and the owner of a cinema, Shosanna discovers a means of revenge against the Nazis when she becomes the unwanted object of affection of a young German private, Frederick Zoller (Daniel Brühl). Seems Freddy is a national hero, having single-handedly sniped 300 American troops in Italy, and Joseph Goebbels has based his newest propaganda film on his exploits (and even features Frederick playing himself).

In an effort to win Shosanna’s affections, Frederick arranges for the world premiere of his film to take place at her cinema- a great honor, considering all of the German High Command will be in attendance, including ol’ Adolph himself. But Shosanna, disgusted by Frederick and Nazis in general (can ya blame her?), instead sees this as the perfect chance to settle a blood score. Little does Shosanna know, however, that the Basterds (in conjunction with a British undercover and a German turncoat) have caught wind of the big premiere and have their own plan to bring Hitler down once and for all.

Overall, Inglourious Basterds may just be Quentin Tarantino’s best movie since the classic Pulp Fiction. The characters are interesting, the acting top-notch (Brad Pitt continues to be underrated as a versatile character actor, and Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa is simply AMAZING), the production values are high, and the look and feel of 1940’s WWII France are spot-on. There’s humor, violence, and plenty of intrigue. As for the plot, please note that the trailers and commercials for Inglourious Basterds are kind of misleading- they make the film look like a generic take on The Dirty Dozen, when in fact it’s a slow-paced, character-driven tale of revenge as opposed to a simple action movie. But in the end, I’m actually glad Tarantino tried something different than rehashing old WWII “men on a mission” flicks. Inglourious Basterds is very unique, and in this era of endless remakes and franchises, it’s a breath of very fresh air indeed.

Unfortunately, it’s also very flawed, much in the same way that almost all of Tarantino’s films are. The thing that bothered me the most about Inglourious Basterds was that the individual storylines of The Basterds and Shosanna were genuinely great- what little you actually saw of

them. But because Tarantino wasted so damn much time on scenes with people just going BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH about absolutely nothing whatsoever, he took away from expanding on those storylines. As a result, the flick felt very disjointed.

Example: Some Basterds are impersonating Nazi officers, and discover themselves in a situation where they have to pass muster as the real deal while being questioned by a very suspicious SS officer. Everyone makes nice and they just start blabbing about nonsense, drinking, playing amusing trivia games, and so on. This goes on for at least 20 minutes of actual screen-time. Now, bear in

mind that this conversation doesn’t add anything to your understanding of the characters, the advancement of the plot, or anything relevant- it’s all just fluff. If you want to stretch, I suppose you could argue that getting to see the Basterds and how they deal with pretending to be Nazis in an unexpected and high-pressure situation does indeed provide them with some much-needed development in the basest sense, but the eventual all-too-brief payoff wasn’t worth the agonizing wait. I understand that Tarantino was using these long, talky scenes as a means to build tension, and at times, yes, the conversations were indeed tense because you knew something was EVENTUALLY going to happen, but they just took WAY too long to get there. Hey, Quentin- more story and character development, less verbal diarrhea, okay? Thanks.

The funny thing about Inglourious Basterds is that once the boredom subsides, something cool happens to take up the film’s slack, and I found myself being very entertained once again. And so it goes.

In closing, please be aware that this movie is kind of on the historically inaccurate side, which is obviously done on purpose. You’ll see what I’m talking about when you watch it, which, despite its aforementioned problems, you really should. There was as much right about this movie as there was wrong, and even though I’m torn about the end result, it was still a positive experience. If nothing else, Inglourious Basterds is very original, and I’ll never knock a movie for that. Go check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Finally…in a summer filled with sequels, remakes and retreads, we

actually have a truly original and off-beat film. District 9 is a science fiction flick headed up by first-time director Neill Blomkamp and

produced by Mr. Lord of the Rings himself, Peter Jackson. It stars all relative unknowns, is fairly low-budget (what are we coming to when a $30 million movie is considered “low-budget”…?), and features a rather unorthodox plot. It has none of the trappings of the typical summer blockbuster movie, but nonetheless dethroned reigning box-office champ G.I. Joe from the number one spot this past weekend. Considering that G.I. Joe is a primary example of the bland, soulless rut that Hollywood is wallowing in, I smiled inwardly at the news.

In a unusual departure from my normal way of reviewing movies, I’m not going to divulge too much about the plot of District 9. Why? Well, mainly because it’s more than likely NOT the movie you’re expecting it to be, and I’d like to preserve that mystery if at all possible. From the distinctive underground and viral advertising campaign, you’re more than likely thinking that District 9 is a modern re-telling of the old Alien Nation movie and TV show, but you’d be way

off the mark for thinking that. Yes, they do have some basics in common: both movies deal with an alien vessel appearing on Earth containing refugees who are then forced to live here, fueling prejudice and mistrust. But that’s where the similarities end. This film is not really about the aliens struggle to live and fit into our society- its more of a compelling character drama with a neat sci-fi backdrop.

District 9 takes place in Johannesburg, South Africa, former home of the anti-black apartheid movement instigated by the previous ruling white government (which makes the events of this film quite ironic). Twenty years before, an alien ship mysteriously appeared in the sky, filled with extraterrestrial creatures resembling walking cockroaches. The peaceful “non-humans” (eerily reminiscent of the term “non-white” used during the apartheid era), whose ship is missing its command module and are sadly unable to leave, are rounded up and segregated in a camp called District 9, an run-down ghetto run by Multi-National United (MNU).

MNU is a weapons research company that would just looove to figure out how to use the alien’s advanced bio-technology, and they finally get that chance when Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley, who’s shockingly never acted before in his life), one of their operatives assigned with moving the non-humans to a new District 10, is infected with alien DNA (hmm…that sounds dirty, but it’s not what you think!) after an accident. Since the aliens’ technology is partly organic, Wikus’ new non-human bits enable him to utilize alien weapons that normal humans can’t. Of

course, Wikus suddenly becomes of very great interest to many parties, and to avoid unpleasant outcomes such as dissection and experimentation, he goes on the lam in the very slum he was originally tasked with relocating, making the unlikeliest of allies there. What happens next is something you’ll have to see for yourself, but rest assured, there’s plenty of action and intrigue, in addition to lots of things that go ‘boom.’

District 9 is an excellent film. It’s not the movie of

the year like many are hailing it (the last act awkwardly abandons the story somewhat in favor of a surprising amount of action instead), but it’s still head and shoulders above pretty much any major studio release this summer. Neill Blomkamp’s documentary-style approach of the film’s style is very engrossing, and despite the aforementioned “measly” $30 mil budget, District 9 never looks low-rent. The “non-humans” are all CG, but never look low-quality or out of place in the live-action shots- apparently the production team did plenty of research into what type of looks blend and look more realistic given the run-down settings of the film, and their homework paid off. Later in the film we are treated to intense combat scenes involving humans and advanced alien battle suits and again, the physical and special effects work holds up nicely. It’s impressive how $30 million in one director’s hands can look like $150 million, and vice versa.

And despite the cast of unknowns, the acting of District 9 is never called into question- everyone is solid across the board. The events of District 9 are portrayed in a gritty and realistic way, which helps to pull you into this interesting world all the more effectively. I’ve often found that the best science fiction films focus less on the wacky tech and goofy futuristic buzzwords and more on the people themselves, who are usually the one unchanging thing in a world in constant flux. Character is key in any movie above anything else, and Distinct 9 is a film that realizes this.

So, if you’ve been wallowing through the cinematic dreck that this summer has been offering so far and are desperately looking for relief, it’s finally here. District 9 is intense, original, and engrossing. And you really don’t have to be a fan of science fiction to get into it, either. You just have to be a fan of good movies, and it’s cool to see that one can occasionally get made. How something this left-of-center ever managed to get made without some Hollywood studio getting involved and changing the characters into giant bazooka-wielding robots, pink space bunnies, or Playboy-caliber centerfolds, I’ll never guess. But let’s just hope that more directors are just allowed to run amok in the future without having to answer to Big Brother. Being allowed to take chances on unproven concepts- that’s the only way you get anything fresh and new.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, it’s been a rather lackluster summer thus far, dominated by the usual array of flashy blockbuster films, most of which are big franchise pictures based on comic books and toy lines. And in keeping with that trend comes the latest flick designed to tap into our collective sense of nostalgia: G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra. Based on the super-popular and enduring 3 3/4-inch scale Hasbro toy line that debuted in 1982 (which itself was a relaunch of the original 12-inch line that ran from 1964 to 1976), G.I. Joe is a series of military-themed articulated action figures, vehicles, and play-sets.

G.I. Joe has maintained its popularity throughout the years not only with a stream of cool and imaginative toys, but also via a great many promotional tie-ins: comic books, cartoons, video-games, you name it, Joe has it. And in case you were wondering, here’s the storyline that drives the series, as directly quoted from the narration of its popular cartoon show: “G.I. Joe is the code name for America’s daring, highly trained special mission force. Its purpose, to defend human freedom against Cobra, a ruthless terrorist organization determined to rule the world.” Pretty neat, huh?

For years fans have been clamoring for a live-action film based on the toy line that shaped their youth, and finally they have it. Helmed by Director Stephen Sommers, known for amazingly cheesy pap such as The Mummy, The Mummy Returns, and Van Helsing, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra endured a lot of harsh gossip and criticism during its production. After the initial preview trailer was considered lackluster by vocal internet fans, rumors began to surface that G.I. Joe was scoring horribly with test audiences; that it was deviating far too much from the toy line and comic book that inspired it; that Sommers was secretly fired; and that the film was even responsible for famine and drought in Africa (okay, maybe not that last one). The truth of those rumors is unimportant, as the G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is now here. The question is, does it live up to its detractor’s venom, or is it actually a decent movie?

Now, I have to admit that I’m probably going to sound like a giant nerd while reviewing this. You see, G.I. Joe was a HUGE part of my childhood. I was a rabid fan of the Marvel Comics-published funny book, the toys, the games, you name it. So it’ll be hard for me to remain objective when doing my write-up, but I assure my loyal fans that I’ll be doing my best to retain my keen sense of professionalism. Seriously, I’ll just try to point out if The Rise Of Cobra succeeds as a stand-alone movie based on its own merits, although here and there I may pepper my review with some geeky critiques of some way they failed in translating my youthful memories correctly to the silver screen. I can’t help it, as based on the previews a great deal was changed for the adaptation, especially in terms of visual design. The Joes and Cobra had very unique and colorful uniform designs when represented in their respective comic and toy lines, and the movie appeared to abandon that aesthetic completely for generic combat suits apparently stolen from Batman’s closet- black and grey body armor. All of the characters we knew and loved appeared to have lost their individuality. However, Bryan Singer’s excellent films based on the X-Men comic books took a similar visual departure from their origins and that worked out okay, so I tried to have an open mind about all this. Sort of.

Now that I’ve seen G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra, I must say that despite taking huge liberties with the look and some storyline details involving the characters and their relationships with each other, the movie DOES feel like G.I. Joe in the basest sense. I mean, they had G.I. Joe and Cobra fighting each other with high-tech weapons and gadgets all over the world. That’s GI Joe in a nutshell. To purists it’s almost unrecognizable, yeah, but if you took a person that knew nothing whatsoever of G.I. Joe, had them casually flip through a few issues of the comic, and then showed them the movie, they’d probably swear it was a picture-perfect translation. But at least they got some of the little basics right: The Baroness wears black leather and glasses, Scarlett is a redhead with a crossbow, Snake-Eyes is a silent ninja in black (although his mask has really big rubber lips, which look super-goofy), Storm Shadow is a ninja in white…considering how often Hollywood needlessly re-interprets their adaptations of other media, we’re lucky they at least got that right.

The story: In the near future, a Scottish guy who sounds a lot like Mike Myers doing his Shrek voice named James McCullen (Christopher Eccleston) owns a company called MARS (Military Armament…something-or-other) that has created nanotechnology-based weapons. Nanobots are basically microscopic robots that can do anything, like eat an entire city, reprogram people’s brains, cure cancer, and create really delicious low-calorie Root Beer. Anyway, McCullen sells four warheads to NATO, but the US Army has to make the delivery. Duke (Channing Tatum, wooden as a Pirate’s peg-leg) and Ripcord (Marlon Wayans, who was far less annoying than I expected him to be) get the honors, but are promptly spanked and relieved of the warheads en route by unknown assailants using advanced technology that they simply can’t cope with, lead by The Baroness (Sienna Miller). In the first of many bizarre coincidences, Duke recognizes The Baroness as Ana Lewis, the girl he dumped at the altar. Hell hath no fury, huh?

So, The Baroness is chased off sans warheads by the G.I. Joe team, consisting of Scarlett (Rachel Nichols), Snake Eyes (Ray Park) and Heavy Duty (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, who you might remember as Adebisi from HBO’s Oz, although for some odd reason in this movie he doesn’t wear a little knit hat, talk with a Nigerian accent, or violate anyone). Duke, Ripcord, and the warheads are taken to the Joe’s command center (AKA The Pit), where they meet General Hawk (Dennis Quaid), who explains that G.I. Joe is a multinational force comprised of the best of the best of the best of the…well, you get the idea. “We’re the Alpha Dogs,” Hawk boasts, and it’s explained that the Joe team is called in to save the world when all else has failed. Duke and Ripcord, having insight into the origin of The Baroness, are invited to stick around and help investigate the mysterious new syndicate she now belongs to and the global threat it represents.

We soon discover, to the surprise of no one, that the mysterious new syndicate is the predecessor to the Cobra organization, currently headed up by James McCullen. A guy wearing a Darth Vader scuba mask called The Doctor (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has been developing the nanobots for McCullen and using them to brainwash dissidents, augment soldiers into superhumans, and even assist covert ops specialist Zartan (Arnold Vosloo, who’s always fun to watch) to impersonate anyone. Using a hidden homing beacon located in the warhead case, McCullen dispatches The Baroness and evil ninja Storm Shadow (Lee Byung-hun, who’s really cool in this) to retrieve his weapons (but if he needed them, why sell them?). Despite being the “Alpha Dogs,” the Joes are taken completely by surprise, whupped like little kids, and lose custody of the deadly warheads, which are then used against various targets around the world to create panic and help usher in McCullen’s era as ruler of the world.

The remaining members of G.I. Joe band together in an effort to stop McCullen, and their attempts to thwart his plans take them from Paris to Antarctica. But during the Joe’s last-ditch assault on McCullen’s underwater base, The Doctor reveals his secret past and usurps the wacky Scot, rechristening the organization “Cobra” and himself its Commander. Can even the best of the best of the best of the best stand up against a seemingly unstoppable high-tech army and their diabolical new leader?

Overall, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra was okay.. It’s just your typical mindless summer blockbuster- instantly forgettable, devoid of any story, personality, or charisma, and chock full of really, really bad computer graphics (some of the worst I’ve seen in years), non-stop action, and things that go boom. Vapid and soulless, but certainly not horrible. I mean, it was never boring, it had fun weapons and vehicles on display, intense fight scenes, and a pretty simple yet straightforward plot. Sadly, that’s about the best we can hope for nowadays. Character development or a bit of intelligent complexity in the story might be nice, but that apparently doesn’t sell tickets to the mainstream. One might argue that it IS a movie based on toys, but the comic book tie-in managed to flesh out its characters and spin a nuanced tale, so why not a multi-million dollar film? I’m bummed thinking of the awesome movie they could have made if they had just stuck with the unique look and more sophisticated storyline of the comics, but it’s nothing that can’t be fixed in a sequel by a different director, scriptwriter, production design team, and several tons of TNT.

The acting was solid across the board, although perhaps “solid” is being too kind, as this movie, despite being director Stephen Sommers most “serious” film yet, still oozed a fair amount of cheese everywhere. No one really stood out in a positive or negative way, save perhaps Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander, who really seemed to embrace the over-the-top villain he was portraying. The scenes with his character really are quite fun. It’s just a shame that, out of all the characters that received a visual overhaul compared to their plastic counterparts, Cobra Commander suffered the most aesthetically. His new goldfish bowl mask just doesn’t compare to his original mirrored battle helmet at all, which was just plain awesome. Wow…that last sentence really sounded nerdy. I warned you that might happen.

And despite being a film based on toys, G.I. Joe still manages to test the limits of your suspension of disbelief. Characters keep popping up that are unexpectedly related to one another ala Star Wars; Ripcord can pilot a highly-advanced prototype jet that he’s never seen before like a pro; Scarlett figures out that said jet’s weapons are voice activated AND respond only to Celtic, because McCullen is Scottish (ripping off Clint Eastwood’s Firefox in a really dumb way); and the previously-mentioned computer graphics need mentioning again. There are shots that are truly embarrassing in this day and age- many of the vehicles (including multiple helicopters and an aircraft carrier) look like they were rendered on an Etch-A-Sketch. And there’s a chase scene in Paris involving a CG Scarlett on a CG motorcycle and 2 CG guys bouncing around the streets in robotic CG battle suits that look incredibly fake. And poor effects aside- the lack of any noticeable human stunt work whatsoever just means that you’re watching a videogame and nothing more. The excitement of real stunt people performing real stunts is non-existent.

Like I said, G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra is solid and entertaining, but brainless and forgettable at the same time- the very epitome of the summer blockbuster. If you go in expecting a live-action cartoon you’ll do fine, but don’t expect any more than that.

(Long Island, N.Y.) I’ll let you in on a little secret: I LOVE reviewing bad movies. Why? Well, nothing unleashes a torrent of emotions more than being forced to sit through some rancid piece of garbage. I mean, it’s EASY to sit through a great flick, and you can even find things to enjoy about an average one if you look hard enough. But a bad movie? That can get a critic very vindictive, and I tend to cut loose more when writing the review than at any other time. In other words, you’ll usually find a film critic at the very pinnacle of their wit when reviewing a movie that they out-and-out hate.

Take the subject of today’s review: The Collector. It sucks. It sucks long and hard, but I was fairly happy while subjecting myself to it’s spectacle. Why? Because while I hated the experience of actually watching this piece of garbage, I knew I’d love writing the review. I couldn’t wait to get home and start writing.

Now, don’t get me wrong- I don’t look forward to trashing a filmmaker’s work. It takes a lot of effort and luck to even get to create a film for a major studio, and I appreciate that, so I always try to find positives in any movie I watch. And, in that respect, The Collector indeed has some positives. It has a beginning, a middle, and (most thankfully) an ending. But those are the only positives I noticed. However, you can’t really have a movie without those three things, so kudos to first-time director Marcus Dunstan for getting at least that right. The ending was the most important part, because that was my cue to finally get the heck out of the theater.

The Collector is a horror movie about a guy called…well, The Collector. He’s a scrawny masked guy with zero back-story whatsoever, other than he “collects” people. This basically consists of torturing them to death in the most gruesome ways possible. Who is The Collector? Why does he do this? We’ll never know, because A) the story has all of 4 seconds of plot, and B) the movie failed to even make a dent in the top ten on its opening weekend, all but guaranteeing there’s no sequel on the way. Lucky me. Lucky everybody, actually.

So, the story goes like this: Arkin (Josh Stewart), a low-life burglar, is working as a handyman for a wealthy family as a way of casing their house. The family goes on a vacation, and Arkin breaks in to rob something valuable in their safe to pay off his deadbeat wife’s debt to some loan shark. Yet when Arkin enters the abode, he notices that the family is still there and being held hostage by The Collector (Juan Fernández), who looks a lot like The Gimp in Pulp Fiction. Also, every square inch of the house is littered with complex traps: the dining room floor is filled with bear traps; the windows are boarded up and lined with razors and guillotines; hooks and bladed chandeliers hang from the ceiling; common household items are connected to catapults that launch their prey into spiked walls; the stairs have nails driven through them; webs of piano wire abound; and so on. It’s like the production guy from Hellraiser started doing interior design or something.

Now, let me stop here for a moment to point out the problem with all this: Arkin was working at this house a mere few hours before coming back to break in. At that time, the family was fine and there were no traps evident anywhere. In the 5 or 6 hours between Arkin leaving and returning, The Collector shows up, takes the family hostage, and rigs the entire home with enough Rube Goldberg-style booby traps to put Wile E. Coyote to shame. I half expected to see empty boxes that said “ACME” lying all over the place. I mean, the guy even changed the locks and lined the doors with additional deadbolts! It’s just beyond stupid to believe that one man did all this so fast.

Anyway, Arkin is into the safe and has his prize, but takes pause when he hears the pitiful screams and cries of the family being slowly mutilated. You see, despite being a slimy thief, our boy Arkin is still a stand-up guy deep down, so he forgoes the quick getaway in favor of attempting a rescue. Trying to remain undetected by the masked weirdo running the show, Arkin covertly sneaks through the house, but can he succeed in saving anyone (including himself) when The Collector appears to have every possible contingency accounted for?

Now, if you still insist on watching this atrocity, you might find that something about it reminds you of the Saw series. And you’d be right, since director Marcus Dunstan and screenwriter Patrick Melton are responsible for the rotten scripts for Saw 4 and 5, as well as the upcoming 6th installment (in fact, The Collector was originally supposed to be a Saw prequel, but that was aborted by the studio). Now that this duo have the creative reigns associated with the director’s chair in their hands, it only cements their obvious lack of any talent whatsoever.

Much like the Saw series, The Collector is centered around elaborate traps designed to kill and dismember in the most gruesome ways possible, but at least Saw had a antagonist that had an actual agenda, back-story, and reasons for why he did what he did. The Collector has nothing. It’s not revealed how he chooses his victims, why he gets off on slicing them up, or why he feels the need to rig their houses with countless deadly pitfalls. And while I consider myself a huge horror fan, I’ve never enjoyed films that focus on the slow and painful torture of helpless people. As I was watching The Collector deliberately sew a woman’s mouth shut while she wept and sobbed, all I could think about was how the deranged filmmakers must be compensating for their lack of any real skill. I mean, not just anyone can create tension and suspense in a horror movie, but anyone can go for the easy out of making the audience queasy.

Speaking of suspense, The Collector has not one shred of it. Not one second is spent on introducing you to the hostage family, aside from brief obligatory introductions at the start of the film. As a result, you feel no connection with these people, so when The Collector starts going to town on them it’s just hunks of meat he’s hacking up. It’s still disturbing, but there’s no emotional attachment or drama at all. The only character to get anything resembling development is Arkin, but even that’s bordering on threadbare. Still, it amounts something at least, but you’ll still find yourself shaking your head in disbelief at some of the silly things he does that no one in real life would ever, ever do in a million years.

So, The Collector is bad, you shouldn’t bother seeing it, yadda, yadda, yadda. There’s really nothing more to say, other than this was one of the easiest reviews I’ve ever written. Like I said,
it’s fun to review bad movies!

(Long Island, N. Y.) Forget flicks like The Bad Seed, The Omen, or The Good Son… Orphan is the ultimate evil kid movie. Kate (Vera Farmiga) and John Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard) are married with two kids: a deaf daughter, Max (Aryana Engineer), and a fairly annoying son, Daniel (Jimmy Bennett). On the surface, the Coleman family lives the good life. They have a large, beautiful home out in the countryside and no problem providing their children with everything that they could want.

I’m not sure what John does for a living (it appears he’s an architect), but it seems to be a cushy enough gig that Kate (a recovering alcoholic) can feel free to quit an assuming high-paying job teaching music at a college and just loaf around the house all day. Anyway, deciding that two children alone aren’t enough of a financial burden with only one working parent, the couple decides to try for kid #3, with disastrous results- the baby ends up stillborn.

The loss is hard on the family, but they decide to take the love they had saved up for the departed child and instead adopt. While visiting a home for orphaned girls, John and Kate meet Satan…um, rather, Esther (Isabelle Fuhrman), an adorable 9 year-old Russian girl with a charming yet unusual air about her. Immediately smitten, the couple haul Esther home and make her part of the family. All seems fine at first, but as time goes on, Kate starts noticing something wrong with Esther. First, it’s the little things, like the fact that she lies a bit and seems to know quite a lot about the birds and the bees for a kid her age. But eventually, things take a darker turn- children that cross Esther wind up getting hurt in “accidents.” Nuns that trash talk her wind up with hammers sticking out of their skulls. And let’s not forget that the last family to adopt her was killed in a fire. Oh my, this kid might be trouble!

But, in true horror movie tradition, Kate’s the only one that’s suspicious- while the kids blatantly see Esther for the manipulative psychopath she is, all the grown-ups think Kate’s a crazy drunken sod, enthralled as they are by sweet little Esther’s charms. Hey, even I wouldn’t take Kate’s word over Esther’s, and I’m blessed with the god-like omniscience granted to all movie audiences. The kid’s THAT good.

But since her husband won’t believe her and the children are scared stiff, Kate alone has to face off in a battle of wits against Esther, with the lives of her family hanging in the balance. But the evil child is far more cunning and devious then her diminutive stature would suggest, and she hides a shocking secret, a secret that may stack the deck against Kate and cost her everything. And yes, by “everything” I mean “including her life.”

I found Orphan to be a really effective horror/thriller. You could tell director Jaume Collet-Serra is very familiar with all the standard, tired horror movie tricks and tactics and tries to play off of them in rather amusing and unexpected ways. Fake scares are set up but pay off exactly the opposite of what you’ve been conditioned to expect by years of bad, clichéd horror movies. Deft camerawork helps to establish mood and time is taken to actually establish intriguing back stories for the characters. And the pacing of Orphan isn’t rushed, unlike most modern horror films- instead, tension is built slowly but steadily and brought to a boiling point by the film’s climax.

Dark humor abounds in Orphan, and when used it’s genuinely clever and funny. Collet-Serra also shows a knack for taking the absurd and presenting it seriously, all while punctuating it with a subtle, knowing wink to the audience. Displaying this type of respect to viewers is rare- a lesser director would embrace the easy out of over-the-top campiness in such a scene. And when Esther unleashes her wrath, Orphan becomes a movie that is not only willing to cross the line of good taste, but does so gleefully. This is a movie that will make you think “Oh no, it won’t go THERE.” And then it will. Over and over and over. Once I realized how far Orphan was willing to go in terms of shirking any shred of morality, the film made me do something I haven’t done in years: I started covering my face when I knew something horrible was coming. Because I knew it would probably be even worse than I was expecting.

Of course, a movie such as this lives and dies on its lead actress, and Isabelle Fuhrman is really impressive as Esther. She comes across as sweet and innocent at first, although far more articulate and knowledgeable of the world than your standard 9 year-old. She also manages a solid Russian accent. But when she reveals her dark side, you truly have to wonder about what this Isabelle Fuhrman girl is like in real life. I mean, what kind of kid can summon the dark forces necessary to play such a creature? Certainly no one normal, that’s for sure. It’s a given that the actress, really aged 12, isn’t going to be starring in any Disney flicks anytime soon.

The rest of the cast was excellent as well, but special note must be taken of Vera Farmiga as Kate, who effortlessly conveys a wide array of genuine emotions in her demanding role as a doomed mother, and Aryana Engineer (that’s really her last name?) as Max, a little deaf girl torn between her love for her family and Esther. Despite appearing to be no older than perhaps 6, the kid already has more accomplished acting abilities than the entire cast of 12 Rounds combined.

Before closing, I really have to address the controversy Orphan is generating- and it’s not coming from where you’d expect. Proving that we as a society are becoming way, way, WAY too politically correct, a film that depicts a child hammering nuns to death and putting the moves (yes, THOSE moves) on drunken middle-aged men is rising the ire not of church groups or parent organizations, but of the adoption community! Yes, it seems they think that this film will convince couples thinking of adopting that it’s probably safer to roll in Gravy Train and adopt a starving Pit Bull than a child. It’s really amazing how thin-skinned people are getting.

So, does Orphan signal that the modern horror scene will actually start producing quality movies once again? Probably not, as the genre has stagnated lately, overrun with pointless remakes and adaptations of mediocre Japanese films. But at least the occasional gem like Orphan (and hopefully the upcoming film The Collector) can tide me over until things pick up. Very recommended.

(Long Island, N.Y.) In my recent review for Crank: High Voltage, I called it (among other things) the “craziest movie I’ve ever seen.” Well, it’s not anymore.

First off, I have to say that British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen is one of the bravest people alive today. This man is willing to do anything, and I mean ANYTHING to get a laugh, including putting himself in situations where he could possibly be arrested, sued, hurt, or killed. I’m not going to go into what I think makes Cohen tick and why he would constantly put himself in these situations, but suffice it to say that he’s either a genius or completely insane (the likely answer: both).

Long-known in his native Britain for Da Ali G Show, a TV program where he played three separate journalists (Ali G, a wanna-be gangster; Borat, a well-intentioned but clueless reporter from Kazakhstan; and Brüno, a flamboyantly gay Austrian fashion correspondent), Cohen conducted ridiculous interviews with unsuspecting celebrities and politicians. The genius of Da Ali G show is that no matter how angry a guest got, or how outrageous a situation turned, Cohen never ever broke character. Unfortunately, Cohen became too well-known in England to continue conducting his covert interviews, which hinged on his subjects not knowing who he really was. Thus, he hightailed it to America where he was still relatively unknown, and continued his series for another two seasons on HBO. To date, he has starred in films based on all three of these characters- Ali G Indahouse (2002), Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006), and the subject of today’s review, Brüno.

Brüno, directed by Larry Charles, is a fake documentary-style comedy where Cohen reprises his role as the title character (albeit with a slightly different look from the TV show- gone is the fauxhawk in favor of a wispy emo hairdo). Host of the Austrian fashion program “Funkyzeit mit Brüno” (Funkytime with Brüno), Brüno is fired after a bizarre runway mishap involving a Velcro jumpsuit. Despondent, he decides to head to America to become a celebrity, accompanied by his assistant’s assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammarsten).

What follows is a series of interviews, skits and pranks, all connected by Brüno’s desperate desire to become world-famous. Among the things you’ll find yourself subjected to are comedically over-the-top gay sex scenes, bondage, American Idol’s Paula Abdul using Mexicans as furniture (while talking about how important it is to help people), Southern swinger parties, a staged talk show where Brüno unveils his fashionable adopted African baby (named “OJ”) to a hostile black audience, the most offensive (and hilarious) test screening of a television pilot ever, professional gay converters, attempts to mend Middle-East relations, and an Ultimate Fighting event turned blatantly homoerotic before the horrified eyes of an outraged redneck audience. In Brüno, nothing is taboo or out-of-bounds- this is a film that pushes the boundaries of the “R” rating as far as it’s like to ever be pushed. It makes me laugh when I think of the old 1980’s R-rated Friday the 13th films and how sanitized they were (by today’s standards) to avoid an X rating. It’s a testament to how relaxed the modern ratings system has become when Brüno’s bare penis can literally look into the camera and scream his name (I am not joking).

Brüno is one of the few films that have actually made me laugh so hard I cried. But, after it was all over, I felt almost…violated. It’s hard to explain- I had been bombarded by visuals I never thought I’d see in a major studio release. Yes, there is a lot of blatant homosexual humor, but Sacha Baron Cohen ingeniously uses it as a ploy to uncover gay prejudice in his subjects much in the same way he used the Borat character to uncover misogynistic and anti-Semitic traits. Borat as a character was (to me) funnier and more likeable, but he certainly didn’t push the buttons that Brüno does. Borat’s outrageous behavior was tempered by the innate compassion his victims often felt for simple foreigners unfamiliar with American customs, whereas Brüno more often than not just disgusts his prey with his sexualized antics. While one might argue that this proves homophobia is still very much alive and well in our country, but considering how hard Cohen tries to adhere to every gay stereotype in existence it’s hard to cite Brüno as concrete proof. I understand that this is the point of the character, but anything taken to its extreme is likely to cause an uproar.

Brüno is a film that gleefully crosses the line time and time again, so much so that I experienced equal amounts of shock and awe. Yes, it’s super-offensive and certainly not for your kindly old grandma (and if you actually bring your kids to see it you should be shot), but it’s also fresh and enthralling to see a movie break free of the confinements of the hum-drum garbage that we’re force-fed on a daily basis. I’ve heard of people storming out in the middle of Brüno fully disgusted, but if they went into this movie not knowing what they were in for beforehand I have no pity for them.

In closing, Brüno is a must-see, but only if you’re open-minded and 100% sure of your own sexuality. It’s a shame that this is probably the last movie of this type that Sacha Baron Cohen can ever do, as Brüno wrings the very last drop out of The Ali G Show characters (all of which are now too engrained in pop culture to continue to be effective, unless Cohen travels to Antarctica next). But considering the man’s raw talent and fearlessness, I’m sure his career in Hollywood is far, far from over.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Okay, folks, today we go a wee bit off the beaten path with this review. However, always remember that it’s important to give the little films a chance every now and then, especially when you’re tired of the cookie-cutter fluff the major Hollywood studios shell out on a weekly basis. Small in scope yet freed of the constraints of having a big studio breathing down their neck at every turn, independent filmmakers can often take chances with their product that others juggling 200 million dollar budgets can’t. It doesn’t always produce an excellent film, but every now and then you’ll come across something really fresh and original. Or horribly stinky. Or both!

Dead Snow is a Norwegian horror film starring actors you’ve never heard of and directed by Tommy Wirkola, whom you’ve also never heard of. The film made its US premiere at the Sundance Film Festival where it was snapped up by IFC Films for distribution, and is currently enjoying a limited theatrical release (in addition to being available at home to In Demand subscribers). While not the most amazing horror flick you’ll ever see, Dead Snow is gory fun that’s sure to please fans of the Evil Dead films (which it is CLEARLY inspired by, from the plot all the way to the camera work). Oh, by the way, this film (or at least the version I watched) has been dubbed into English, evoking pleasant memories of Godzilla movies from my youth.

The premise is as simple as they come- in the middle of winter, a group of guys and girls (ensuring some nookie, although surprisingly very little occurs) make their way to a snowbound, isolated cabin in the mountains. Once there, they party hardy until the Old Guy Who Knows Everything (à la Crazy Ralph in Friday the 13th) shows up to warn them of the evil in the woods. In this case, flesh-eating NAZI ZOMBIES! Yes, it seems that the area they’re camping in is home to undead Nazis who had frozen to death out in the wild after being vanquished from a village they were occupying (and robbing) in World War 2. But despite having been dead for over 60 years, they’re still running around in the snow to this day looking for their ill-gotten gold. Of course, no one believes the Old Guy Who Knows Everything, not even when they find a box of gold belonging to the Germans. However, Nazi Zombies don’t take kindly to suckas that mess with their bling, so they decide to pay a visit to the cabin to explain this in a rather harsh manner. And from this point onward, blood and guts start flowin’ like the mighty Mississippi.

Dead Snow (is there living snow somewhere?) is an interesting film. It’s not really scary or suspenseful, but that obviously wasn’t the filmmaker’s intent- the majority of the movie is firmly tongue-in-cheek and at times borders on comedic. However, it never quite sheds its horror roots either, creating an odd hybrid reminiscent of Sam Rami’s Evil Dead series, as stated above. The characters all commit stereotypical horror movie blunders (they wander outside alone, they split up when its clearly safer to

stick together, they ignore helpful warnings) and aren’t really given any development at all, but this isn’t supposed to be a realistic character study- it’s just an excuse to tear bodies limb from limb. And Dead Snow doesn’t waste any time getting down to business, as evidenced early on when a victim of the Nazis has his head torn in half and his brains splattered on the floor (at which point his friend whines that he had wanted to go to the beach instead). And this is just the tip, my blood-hungry friends…the disembowelings and be-headings aplenty that follow clearly make a case for Dead Snow not being family-friendly viewing. But since this flick doesn’t take itself seriously at all, the carnage (which is admittedly very well-done with practical, physical effects and not CG) is more likely to make you laugh then recoil in horror.

And while Dead Snow’s plot (unlike it’s execution) is fairly unoriginal, there are a few elements that may catch you off-guard. First of all, in these types of movies it’s usually fairly obvious who’s going to survive to see to the end, but Dead Show pulls the rug out from under your feet several times in this instance. Also, the one guy you’d LEAST expect to land in bed (or, rather, an outhouse) with a hot babe scores, which personally blew me away. Then there was this weird scene where a guy playfully starts smothering his girlfriend, eventually requiring their friends to intervene when it’s clear that she can’t breathe. You’d think she’d be angry with her man, but two seconds later all is forgotten, the couple reverting back to happy lovebirds. This scene was pointless and went absolutely nowhere, and it makes me wonder if perhaps some edits were make to the film for it’s American release (or if it was just a brain hiccup on the part of the screenwriter).

So, let’s sum up our review as follows: If you’re a fan of horror movies or extremely black comedies, enjoy capacious amounts of blood and gore and a high level of campiness, then Dead Snow is clearly for you. It’s not overly original (yes, even Nazi Zombies have been done before!), but it tackles its tried and true concepts with a willingness to happily cross the line of good taste with such intensity that one can’t help but be overtaken by its charms. Either track it down in theaters, or order it on In Demand, but one way or another it would be worth it to support this film, even just to help the independent film scene as a whole get some well-deserved exposure.

(Long Island, N.Y.) As far as I’m concerned, there’s one constant in this universe of ours…Pixar always brings the goods. If you’ve read my review for 2008’s WALL-E, you’d know the high esteem I hold this animation studio in. With 10 theatrical releases under their belt to date and numerous short films, Pixar’s track record is spotless so far, and it’s getting to the point where everyone awaits their new films with baited breath, scanning relentlessly for Pixar to finally put out a dud. Well, it ain’t happened yet, folks.

I understand that Disney/Pixar’s Up has already been in theaters for a few weeks now, hardly making this review what you would call “timely,” but having just seen it for the first time this past weekend, I felt it was my duty to write about it. Besides, the two earlier showings my girlfriend and I tried to see were sold out, and the 10:30 showing we attended was packed, so obviously Up is still doing big business. If you’re holding out for any reason, then hopefully this review will convince you to get out there and see this. So…go already!

Okay, you’re still here. I guess you might need a bit more prodding. Although I don’t see why…Pixar is the premiere crafter of computer animated films in the industry. Oh, not just because of their technical abilities, which are impressive to be sure- no, Pixar is one of the few studios to whom having a thoughtful, emotional, well-crafted story with heartwarming characters that grow and develop is probably more important than the pretty visuals. After all, I can’t count the number of CG movies that contain mind-blowing graphics yet dull, clichéd stories, cardboard-cutout characters, and jokes laced with inane pop-culture references that’ll be hopelessly dated in 2 weeks. It’s like most of these films are created by evil, crusty old marketing types to appeal to whatever they think is hot at the moment and as a result, their diabolical concoctions are pretty but utterly soulless. But not Pixar, no sir. If anything, the premises in Pixar’s films are unconventional and, on paper, not what you expect to generate blockbuster revenue. Take their latest release, titled simply “Up,” about an old man trying to fulfill his late wife’s childhood wish of moving their house to overlook an exotic waterfall in South America. No exactly the type of plot most films aimed at children retread over and over, is it? Yet Pixar takes that premise and creates an exciting, heartwarming and funny tale that will appeal to everyone young and old alike (except for my friend’s brother who is a heartless crank).

Up is the story of Carl Fredricksen. We first meet Carl when he’s 8 years old, a painfully shy kid enraptured by the exploits of famed explorer Charles Muntz (who looks a lot like Patches O’Holulihan from Dodgeball). While wandering home one day, Carl runs into another rabid Muntz fan, a weird yet she made Carl promise to help move their clubhouse there) always seems just out of reach due to sundry financial obligations. Ellie sadly dies of old age before they can realize their dream, leaving Carl a lonely, bitter, cranky old man (aren’t they all?). Spending several years alone in the house, stewing in his own memories, Carl (voiced by Ed Asner) is finally given the inspiration needed to keep his childhood promise to Ellie when a confrontation with construction workers bent on demolishing his home for a new mall results in a judge deeming him a “menace to society.” Sentenced to be to be confined to a retirement home, Carl instead, in the space of a few hours, rigs his and Ellie’s house with thousands of balloons (Carl used to sell them for a living…no wonder they couldn’t afford the trip) and sailed off into the sky, destination: Paradise Falls.

Things get complicated (they weren’t already?) when Carl discovers an accidental stow away: a Wilderness Explorer named Russell (Jordan Nagai, in a rare instance in Hollywood where an animated Asian character is actually voiced by an Asian), trying to earn his final merit badge for “Assisting the Elderly.” With his help, Carl manages to navigate the house to South America, but unforeseen complications (and really, you’re flying your house to another continent using children’s balloons- you HAVE to expect complications) result in the house hovering within sight of just short of Paradise Falls. With Ellie’s dream driving him on, Carl and Russell start hiking through the jungle, towing the house to its final resting place. Along the way, they unexpectedly run into a host of colorful characters: Dug, a loveable and playful dog (that is now my girlfriend’s all-time favorite Pixar character) with a collar that allows him to voice his thoughts (voiced by co-director Bob Peterson); Kevin, a strange and colorful 13-foot tall bird that takes a liking to Russell; and a surprise appearance by Charles Muntz himself, disappeared in the jungle of Paradise Falls years before, searching for the one fabled creature that would have brought him the legitimacy in the scientific world he had so long sought. But when a man is driven to paranoia and beyond, long-time heroes can become dastardly villains and there comes a time when a man must choose between honoring the memories loved ones long-since departed, and helping new friends in the here-and-now fight for what’s right.

In many ways Up is Pixar’s deepest film yet, and while it’s not quite as good as WALL-E (in my opinion…my girlfriend thought differently), it certainly more than lives up to the Pixar canon.

More than anything else, Up is a story about not putting off your dreams until it’s too late. But it’s also about appreciating what you have. And eventually moving on to another chapter in your life after losing a loved one. And never being too old to go on one last adventure. And…well, it’s about a lot of things, actually. Certainly more than I can cover in one measly review. Just trust me when I say that it’s one of Pixar’s most multi-faceted films to date. But despite its central story of a man mourning the death of his wife, Up manages to not come across as heavy-handed. Sure, there’s parts that’ll make even the most jaded of moviegoers misty-eyed, but director Pete Docter (of Monsters, Inc.) manages to perfect balance the melancholy with comedy, excitement, and danger. Carl Fredricksen is a lovable old coot, striking the right degrees of cantankerousness and charm, and Russell, despite seeming simple and none too bright at first, tugs on your heartstrings as well with his revelation of family problems at home and his determination to selflessly help others. And Dug…don’t get me started on Dug. When a character introduces himself with the line “I have just met you, and I love you,” you know they’re going to be too adorable for words.

It’s odd…in the past, most animated flicks were geared totally towards children. Over the years, some elements have been leaking in to keep parents occasionally engaged, but most recently, Pixar films in particular are becoming geared more towards adults in some ways. Sure, there still slapstick humor and cute animals to keep the kids entertained, but Pixar keeps introducing deeper aspects into their scripts, and I think that’s a big part of their continued success. It breeds films that parents actually WANT to take their kids to. Heck, most of the occupants in the packed theater I saw Up in were adults sans any kids.

And I suppose some of you were wondering about the visuals…yes, they’re great. Pixar has pushed the envelope yet again, creating detailed yet cartoony computer-generated characters with loads of personality that have the ol’ “bend and stretch” like Looney Tunes did back in the day, which is impressive. Also impressive is what appears to the individual animation on each balloon on Carl’s house, each with its own individual string connecting it to the chimney, in addition to the uncanny and realistic texture of the clothing the characters wear. I’m not going to even pretend to comprehend the programming and design know-how it takes to achieve that. The movie is a sight to behold.

So, you’re STILL here? I can understand why you’d want to finish reading my brilliant review, but now that you’re pretty much done, you don’t have any other excuse. Go out and see Up now.

(Long Island, NY) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen learned nothing from its predecessor, 2007’s Transformers. Directed by Michael Bay and based on the popular toy line and cartoon about sentient alien robots from the planet Cybertron (the good Autobots and evil Decepticons) living on Earth with the ability to shape-change into every-day vehicles, it’s still all about big, loud, expensive action scenes. Again, the giant robots we came to see are cast into the background and never given any character-building moments. Again, the humans are all completely bland, one-dimensional, and take up far too much screen-time from the giant robots. Again, the fight scenes are almost impossible to follow because the robots all look alike and the camera is just

too close to the action and shakes far too much. All of this was forgivable in the original, a film I actually enjoyed (it had problems, but it was also charming and fun, and for a movie based on a kid’s toy line, it treated the source material with a fair amount of respect), but for a sequel not to learn, grow and evolve at all is something that is not as easily forgiven.

All in all, Revenge of the Fallen isn’t a bad film- if you enjoyed the first one, chances are (barring some warts to be covered shortly), you’ll enjoy this one too. The new film simply ups the ante on everything you’ve seen in the previous movie, throwing more robots, more explosions, and more characters than ever. But man, does it all look pretty! Like the original Transformers, this film features some awe-inspiring effects, tons of action, and the most seamless blend of CG and live-action I’ve ever seen. It’s almost too easy to put your brain in

neutral and just sit back and enjoy the endless assault on your eyes…that is, until some major problems come creeping in, issues that existed in the original Transformers, but not nearly to the degree that they do now. These problems take a film that would at worst be the epitome of the mindless summer action flick and point it in a direction that some might find downright offensive, and are centered directly on what Michael Bay considers “humor.”

So, what does Michael Bay find funny and appropriate for a film aimed mainly at young boys, you may ask? Folks, be prepared for dogs having sex, Transformers farting out parachutes, showing their robo-testicles (I know you’re not buying that, but I swear to you I’m not kidding), and mothers getting zonked out on pot brownies, not to mention that not one female in the film (other than the aforementioned mother, thank goodness) owns anything longer than a micro-micro-miniskirt (I actually don’t mind that one so much). But once you think Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen can’t sink any lower in that regard, it introduces you to Mudflap and Skids, twin Autobots that embody every offensive and negative African-American stereotype you an imagine. They have gold teeth, speak Ebonics, can’t read, are gorilla-shaped…the list goes on. Now, I’m all for thumbing my nose at being politically correct in our straight-laced society, but there’s lines you just shouldn’t cross, and Mudflap and Skids cross the hell out of ’em. Personally, I can’t decide if the filmmakers either didn’t know what kind of hole they were digging for themselves with these characters, or just didn’t care. But even if you ignore that horrific bit of racism for a moment, the twins also happen to be VERY annoying, as if Bay watched the Star Wars prequels and decided to out-do George Lucas with what are essentially TWO Jar Jar Binks (one of whom is actually voiced by Spongebob Squarepants actor Tom Kenny…!). Regardless of how you look at it, these characters are a detriment to Revenge of the Fallen, especially considering that Mudflap and Skids have more screen-time allotted to them than any other robot in the movie. Geez.

Oh, wait, I suppose I should take a quick break and recap the plot, right? Okay. In the first Transformers movie the Autobots

and Decpticons both converged on Earth, looking for an all-powerful artifact called the Allspark which could either be used to save their dying homeworld (which the good guys wanted to do) or conquer the galaxy (which the bad guys wanted to do). It is revealed that Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf), a teenage human, holds the key to its whereabouts. The Autobots befriend Sam, lots of big robots beat each other up, the good ones win, the end. Fast-forward to the sequel, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen- the remaining Atuobots on Earth, lead by the wise and powerful Optimus Prime (voiced again by fan favorite Peter Cullen, returning from the cartoon), have teamed up with the military to hunt down rogue Decepticons wreaking havoc across the globe. Meanwhile Sam is preparing to go away for his first year of college in an attempt to live a normal life, leaving behind

his girlfriend Mikaela (Megan Fox, reprising her role) and his protector, the Autobot Bumblebee (who vocal module injury oddly seems to have resurfaced since the last movie- he can’t talk again, but communicates via pop songs from his radio), both of whom are pretty bummed out about it. Still, the planet is safe, so no one really has anything to complain about too much, do they?

But unbeknownst to everyone, my favorite Decepticon, Soundwave (who is sadly no longer an 80’s boombox, but at least is voiced as he was in the cartoon by the great Frank Welker), has hacked into Earth’s satellites and is busy tracking down the last remaining shard of the Allspark, thought destroyed when it was used to kill Decepticon leader Megatron (Hugo Weaving) in the climax of the first movie. Soundwave dispatches Decepticons to retrieve the Allspark shard (which is still in the pocket of the sweatshirt Sam was wearing two years before- doesn’t he wash it? Eeww) and revive Megatron, whose robo-corpse was dumped into the ocean by the Navy (Why? Wouldn’t it benefit mankind to study his technology instead? Eh, whatever).

The cyberpanther-like Ravage is successful in stealing back the remaining fragment of the Allspark, but not before Sam discovers the shard which magically fills his mind with ancient Cybertronian mumbo-jumbo that the Decepticons need, otherwise no one would care about him and he wouldn’t have been needed for the sequel. Led by Megatron’s master The Fallen, the Decepticons invade Earth, demanding Sam (well, his brain, anyway) and threatening to extinguish the sun just for kicks. Sam, Mikaela, and Bumblebee, along with Mudflap and Skids (AKA Car Car Binks) seek out assistance in learning the secret of the Allspark and the hidden history of Transformers on Earth. Cue the return of John Turturro as Agent Simmons, the character who almost single-handedly ruined the first movie, now running an alien conspiracy website. As a former secret government agent, Simmons knows all about Transformer activity on Earth, and with his help (along with a talking RC Truck named Wheelie, also voiced by Tom Kenny), the gang locates an aging old Transformer named Jetfire hiding out in the Smithsonian Aid and Space Museum in Washington D.C. who in turn directs them to Egypt to discover something called the Matrix of Leadership, meanwhile Decepticon reinforcements arriving from deep space for the final battle…ah, never mind. Just forget it. I’ve already wasted more time trying to explain the story of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen than the movie actually does in its 2 ½ hour

running time. Honestly, the film treats the plotlines as inconsequential- it’s all just an excuse to get to the next explosion.

There’s not really much else to say. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen has plenty action, things blowing up, people screaming, and giant robots beating the tar out of each other, all of which can be considered as good things, especially for a summer blockbuster. For that reason alone it would be a solid recommendation, if not for the out-of-place risqué humor (why did they have to show Devestator’s cyber-junk? Why?), the racist homeboy bots, the lack of any real plot at all, and too many characters to keep track of or care about. I’d comment on the acting, but there wasn’t any that I was aware of.

Overall, Revenge of the Fallen is a disappointment, although not nearly to the degree that Terminator: Salvation was to me personally (now that film REALLY missed the mark). But like I said above, there’s certainly some good to be found in the new Transformers flick. Actually, the movie eventually gets so over-the-top that you might not care about the things I’m nit-picking about- the non-stop robo-carnage and things going boom will eventually numb you to any stimulus from the outside world, which might make Revenge of the Fallen an excellent alternative to Novocain the next time you visit the dentist’s office. Consider it.

(Long Island, NY) Yes, yes, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is yet another remake. Actually, it’s a remake of a remake originally based on a book. Confusing? Not really. It all started with a 1973 novel by Morton Freedgood that was adapted into a film in 1974 starring Walter Matthau and Robert Shaw.

Despite the excellent movie’s status as a classic and the fact that film remakes weren’t really en vogue at the time, Pelham 1 2 3 was remade as a television movie in 1998 starring Edward James Olmos. But apparently, this wasn’t enough, as director Tony Scott felt the need to dust off this tense tale yet again for the 21st century. I was initially prepared to hate The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, but shockingly enough, it wound up being a solid and effective romp through New York’s subway systems. Let’s dissect it, shall we?

By the way, while writing this review, I’m munching on some Kraft Macaroni and Cheese crackers. Yes, crackers. They’re amazing. If you’re at all an aficionado of cheese and crackers, I highly recommend them. No, Kraft isn’t giving me kickbacks.

Now, I’m as sick of Hollywood’s penchant for remaking films that were done perfectly the first time around (if the rumored remake of John Carpenter’s The Thing ever sees the light of day, I’ll REALLY be upset- and YES, I’m aware that the film itself

is already a remake)- it represents a complete creative bankruptcy on their part. Is it really THAT hard to come up with something new and fresh? To take a chance on an unproven concept? There are countless young and talented independent film-makes out there waiting to have their ideas heard. It’s a shame, really.

The only instance where I’ve found remakes to be effective is when the source material is not copied scene-for-scene, but used as a loose framework for a different approach. Good examples of this would be Al Pacino’s Scarface, or the aforementioned The Thing. The 2009 version of The Taking of Pelham

1 2 3 is also such a film. The basic plot is still in place- a NYC subway 6 train and its passengers are being held for ransom by a madman- but it’s given a modern facelift and a direction that deviates from previous incarnations at key points. It works well enough, despite some problems that plague it throughout its running time.

Four armed men hijack a single car of the NYC subway 6 train (aka the Pelham Line) and hold its passengers hostage for a 10 million dollar ransom, to be paid within 60 minutes (with a “one passenger is shot per minute late” penalty- these guys don’t mess around). The leader of the hijackers is Bernard Ryder (John Travolta in full “wacky villain” mode ala Face/Off). After uncoupling the remaining train cars and sending them back to the nearest station, Ryder begins a radio dialogue with the MTA dispatcher in charge of the Pelham Line, Walter Garber (Denzel Washington). Ryder relays his list of demands and insists on communicating only through Garber, having established a rapport of sorts with the civil servant. But just to show that he means business, the cold-blooded Ryder kills the Pelham train operator who was a friend of Garber, giving him a personal stake in the crisis. Despite a top NYPD hostage negotiator (John Turturro) and the Mayor himself (James Gandolfini) getting involved in the situation, Ryder still demands

only to speak with Garber.

It’s eventually revealed that Garber is currently demoted to working the Rail Control Center pending an investigation into a bribery scandal he was allegedly involved in, a fact that was revealed by Ryder, who manages to somehow secure an internet connection in the tunnels and dig up some info on the web about his new friend. This fact coming to light initially sheds some suspicion on Garber’s possible involvement with the hijackers and their plot. Nonetheless, Garber tries to do what he can to prevent innocent people from being killed by the maniacal Ryder, who has made it clear that he’s neither afraid of killing his hostages or dying himself. With time running out, can Garber prevent Ryder from carrying out his nefarious plot (which just may simply be a red herring for an even grander scheme…), even as he himself is personally thrust into harm’s way by the deranged madman?

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a very good, yet flawed movie. At its heart, it’s an intimate tale of two men talking over the airways and figuring out what makes the other tick. Unfortunately, Tony Scott’s flashy and kinetic cinematography lessens the impact of any such scene. Apparently afraid of his actor’s abilities to enthrall an audience by means of their acting alone, Scott’s camera is constantly drawn back, roving around the set, cutting to and fro, never focusing on any one spot or person for more than a second. I feel the radio scenes between Travolta and Washington would have been far more effective if the camera just drew in close and allowed them to take center stage. Still, the dialogue remains tight and effective, and the acting’s there in spades (Washington always delivers the goods, and Travolta, who is normally less consistent, also steps up), but Tony Scott’s ADD-inflicted cameraman tries to do everything in his power to take away from it. Just pull in tight and let your actors act, man!

Actually, the ONLY real flaws of Pelham 1 2 3 are visual. Tony Scott has a thing about fast edits, cutting between sped-up and headache-inducing low-framerate footage, odd color filters, and freeze-frames. His style is overly flashy in a forced way, as if he watched all the stuff hip young filmmakers were doing and tried to cram it all into one movie in a desperate attempt to be “cool.” The rap music-style opening credit sequence is a prime example of this, and it ill-fits the film he was trying to make. At its heart, Pelham 1 2 3 is a tense drama, not a music video. Then there’s the ill-conceived ending, where Denzel Washington’s character suddenly becomes an action-film star. It’s like Scott didn’t know what kind of a movie he wanted to make, so he threw everything into a blender. Weird.

All that aside, Pelham 1 2 3 is still an entertaining and gripping movie, with a lightning-fast pace and characters that are actually fleshed-out, enabling you to actually care for them. As I already stated, Travolta and Washington not only avail themselves individually, but they gel together perfectly as well. It’s an accomplishment considering the majority of their interaction takes place not face-to-face, but over the radio- it invokes memories of the relationship between Bruce Willis’ character and the cop in the first Die Hard movie, although (naturally) more adversarial in nature. It makes the inevitable meeting between the two all the more interesting when it finally happens. The supporting cast

is equally excellent, with Turturro and Gandolfini standing out. Luis Guzmán also shows up as one of Travolta’s gang, and I’m always happy when this underrated actor gets a chance to pop up in a major motion picture like this.

So, the verdict? The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is a good flick. Does it reach the lofty heights of the gritty 1974 original? Not quite, but it is a worthy attempt and certainly goes beyond merely being a run-of-the-mill remake in the basest sense of the term. Go check it out.