(Long Island, N. Y.) When it comes to the legendary icons of slasher movie history, I’m a Jason Voorhees guy. Always have been, always will be. Guys like Freddy, Michael, and Pinhead have always taken backseat to my hockey mask-wearing hero. Sure, these dudes can be entertaining in their own right, but when it comes to a high cinematic body county of stupid, drunken, sex-obsessed teenagers, Crystal Lake’s most infamous machete-wielding resident is my go-to guy.

You’ll notice that I’ve not mentioned yet another well-known slasher star- Leatherface, he of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Sure, he’s got his loyal fan base, but to me he’s always been kind of a second-string character; the kind of guy who is usually banished to the kids table when all the horror movie stars gather for Thanksgiving dinner, along with scrubs like Candyman and Chucky. He can be effective in his own right – after all, a 6’5″ maniac chasing after you with a chainsaw while wearing a human skin mask can be rather imposing – but Leatherface has (to me, anyway) been missing that “X-factor” that separates the great killers of horror from the ‘eh’ ones.

However, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t pull in the bucks at the box office, so here I am reviewing “Texas Chainsaw 3D,” the latest installment of the series. Rather than a continuation of the reboot made several years ago, this entry serves as a direct sequel to the original 1970’s film. Leatherface (Dan Yeager) and his lovely family of murderous, cannibalistic wackjobs have just been served a nice dose of vigilante mob justice after their latest victim managed to escape and alert the authorities. An honest attempt at arresting the family gets out of control and soon they are filled with many, many bullets and their backwoods Texas farm is burned to ashes; the only survivors are, unbeknownst to the mob, Leatherface himself and his infant cousin. While L-face heads for parts unknown, the infant is discovered and covertly taken by a couple who raise her as their own child.

Fast forward to the modern day, and we discover the first of the many problems that plague Texas Chainsaw 3D. Now, as I said, this is a sequel to the original movie…a movie that is set in the early 70’s, but then continues its narrative in what is clearly 2013…approximately 40 years later. Yet the infant the couple spirited away from the farm, Heather (Alexandra Daddario), appears no older than maybe 20, which begs the question: how is this possible? I mean, the film is obviously set in the 2000’s, since we have rap music, current fashions and cutting-edge slang being brandied about, and current model cars are everywhere.

The time problem gets even wackier when Leatherface pops up again, just as spry and energetic as he was…40 years ago? I mean, even if he was 20 at the time of the original movie (and that’s being kind), he’d be at least 60 now. Probably older. Yet he can still chase screaming kids through dense forest undergrowth like a pro. Hey, give me some of what he’s been eating…

Oh, wait, he’s a cannibal. Forget that.

Anyway, I haven’t even really covered the whole plot of Texas Chainsaw 3D yet! So, Heather discovers that she was adopted and that her real grandmother, a woman she has never met, has died and left her an estate in Texas. As per the norm for movies of this sort, this calls for an immediate road trip so that Heather can bring her boyfriend, her scantily-clad best friend, and a whole host of other hard-partying dolts that Leatherface can rack up an impressive body count with. ‘Cause you KNOW he’s living at grandma’s estate, right? Really, it’s no surprise…and neither is anything else that happens in this movie.

Actually, there IS a surprise…when Heather discovers the family connection between her and Leatherface, she sides with him against an evil town Mayor and his corrupt police force, despite the fact that the chainsaw-wielding psycho HAD JUST KILLED ALL OF HER FRIENDS. I was shaking my head at that one, folks. I mean, blood is blood and all, but when you’ve just watched your long-lost cousin get his kicks by hanging one of your pals on a meat hook and then slowly cutting him in two, it’s time to rethink family loyalty.

Overall, Texas Chainsaw 3D is a bad movie, and would probably would have scored even lower if it didn’t have some of the hottest women on Earth starring in it. I know ALL horror movies have hot women in them, but the producers of this one must have scoured the Earth looking for extraordinary examples of womanhood because they knew the film had no other redeeming features to its credit whatsoever. The plot is predictable and by-the-numbers; the dialogue is cliché and stupid; the characters vapid, soulless, and annoying; and the kids all do the typical horror movie activities that always get them killed, such as wandering off by themselves to investigate creepy houses, mysterious underground passages, and sealed steel doors. Hey, that door is probably sealed for a reason…oops, too late for you, buddy. Your head is gone now.

I want to at least say that, as a horror fan, I was at least satisfied by the gore effects, but even they hit stumbling blocks at points. There were instances where the filmmakers used very effective practical effects to convey the bloodletting on display in Texas Chainsaw 3D, but then they’d turn around and do a kill using horrible, PlayStation One-quality CG for some unknown reason. It was very off-putting.

If you’re a horror fiend and need a fix, I guess Texas Chainsaw 3D would be okay. It was bad, but actually not boring, so you might get some kicks out of it. However, I recommend you search out a little independent film called The Innkeepers instead. You’ll thank me for it, as it’s a far better horror experience that contains loads of quirkiness and personality and none of Texas Chainsaw 3D’s failings. The choice is yours, my friends.

(Long Island, N. Y.) You know, in the past I’ve been rather hard on director Quentin Tarantino….I’ve often felt that he’s one of the most overrated filmmakers in history. His penchant for mixing drama with camp and for a little too blatantly wearing his cinematic influences on his sleeve were just things I had trouble hanging with. Sure, his breakout film Pulp Fiction was great, but ever since then his films have just come across as trying way too hard to be cool while his dialogue, once a strong point, seemed to have recently left its quality by the wayside.

However, Tarantino partially redeemed himself and, if you ask me, truly started living up to his reputation with 2009’s World War 2 epic, Inglorious Basterds. Tarantino crafted an intense, emotional tale that nonetheless retained his more quirky and humorous trademark touches, albeit far more effectively integrated into his overall narrative. Tarantino then followed up that fairly significant triumph with the subject of today’s review: Django Unchained, a tale of the brutality of slavery in the pre-Civil War south as a freed slave goes on a bloody quest for revenge.

Freed from the bonds of slavery by bounty hunter Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), Django (Jamie Foxx) teams up with the former dentist to track down his former slavers; men who just so happen to have a huge price on their heads that Schultz would love to collect. To entice Django (the “D” is silent, by the way), Schultz offers to help the former slave turned gunslinger to track down his beloved wife, separated from him months earlier at a slave auction. Django agrees, and his wife’s trail leads the duo to the plantation of one Mr. Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), a brutal fiend whose head slave, Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), is a cunning backstabber of a man seething with anger and deviousness. Together, they form a perfect yet deadly foil to Django and Schultz, who launch an elaborate scheme against the evil men that might just backfire and claim their lives.

Django Unchained was great…possibly the best Tarantino movie ever, and I don’t normally count myself as a huge fan of his. Only two problems: one, it was too damn long; Tarantino is that breed of filmmaker who obviously can’t bear not using every single frame he shoots. However, I can’t really say what needed to be cut, quite frankly…it’s not really a matter of cutting any one whole scene, as they all added something to the overall picture. But the film could have used tightening around the edges; little snippets here and there, if you know what I mean. As good as Django is, it would have been near-perfect if it was about 20 or so minutes shorter.

But I must say that, out of any two hour and forty-five minute long movie that I’ve ever seen, Django did indeed feel the shortest. I actually might not have minded the length at all if I didn’t have a splitting headache the entire time…I just wanted to get home and peel out my contact lenses, to be honest.

And the other problem was Tarantino’s usual horrible cameo. He’s seriously the worst actor in any film he’s ever in. But that’s just nitpicking, folks. Otherwise, I was really into this one. The over-the-top action or varied, non-period based music selection didn’t bother me as it has some critics. I will say one thing about QT…he’s a unique filmmaker, and while his tastes don’t always translate into great movie-making, I’d rather see someone take a shot at doing something different and fail than see a successful yet bland piece of crap. I think he succeeded here. I think he succeeded wildly, in fact.

I will say that the inclusion of his usual campy aspects (some of the violence is VERY over-the-top, almost cartoonishly so) did take away from the dramatic elements of Django, but whatever. Not a big deal.

BTW, the dialogue in Django was awesome. I had previously felt that Tarantino completely lost his ability to write snappy dialogue, but while Inglorious Basterds was an big improvement, he’s finally back to form here, and it helps that Tarantino had actors the caliber of Waltz, Foxx, Jackson and DiCaprio to recite it. You could probably have those guys taking turns reciting the ingredients of a box of Pop Tarts and it would sound awesome.

Oh, and it was nice to FINALLY see Sam Jackson play something that’s at least a tiny bit different from the same character he always plays. He even appeared to have gained weight for the role (unless that was just makeup). Jaime Foxx was very good, and Christoph Waltz is an acting god, no doubt, but the big surprise for me here was DiCaprio in his most outlandish role to date. He seemed to relish playing a flamboyant bad guy for once in his career, and watching him really sink his teeth into the role of Calvin Candie was a big treat.

So, Django Unchained may have some warts, but it nonetheless is an amazing and unique movie; a stunning achievement in many ways, and one that you should make certain to experience for yourself if you are a lover of cinema. Go for it.

(Long Island, N. Y.) I’m torn on Tom Cruise movies.

On the one hand, it’s almost fashionable to bash on the guy; he’s considered somewhat of an eccentric by the public at large, what with his devotion to Scientology, the infamous couch-hopping incident on Oprah Winfrey’s talk show back in the day, and other sundry quirks that have been pestering him later in his career. However, when you take a step back and judge the man solely on his work…you’ve got to admit, the man brings the goods pretty much every time he gets in front of the camera.

He’s got acting ability, charisma, intensity, physicality…as much as I may hate to admit it, the dude’s a total package, pretty much. I guess there’s a reason his career has spanned so many decades; people are able to separate the entertainer from the man and simply enjoy his performances.

Jack Reacher is the name of Cruise’s latest cinematic effort (he plays the eponymous title role), and again, he surprises me. The previews and trailers, I thought, looked horrible…just total cheese-fests oozing with clichéd dialogue, describing Jack Reacher more or less as “a man who doesn’t play by the rules” and “who just cares about right and wrong” or something dumb like that. My opinion further soured when I found out that Reacher is based on a series of crime novels by a guy named Lee Child, wherein the character being brought to life by Cruise is supposed to be an unstoppable force of nature who clocks in at 6’5″ and 250lbs; stats that Cruise clearly fails to even closely achieve. It just seemed like a classic case of miscasting, and one that

would render the film unwatchable, I figured.

Yet, hadn’t Cruise been seemingly miscast before, only to prove the naysayers wrong? I remembered back when he had been announced as playing Lestat in the film adaptation of Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire, causing an uproar with fans of the novel…I myself being one of them. After all, how could this prissy little pretty boy play such a devious and complex character? Even Anne Rice herself was furious by the casting choice. However he ended up being great in the role (even Rice herself apologized after seeing the finished film), and successfully opened up my mind to the idea of actors effectively being cast against type. It’s a glorious thing when it works.

But every few years it appears that I need to be reminded of that idea…thankfully Cruise has done so yet again.

Jack Reacher (Cruise) is a direct, no-nonsense, former Army Military Police officer who gets caught up in an investigation of a former army sharpshooter (Joseph Sikora) accused of murdering five random people. Obviously it’s a setup, as the case against this guy is just TOO perfect, but no one is buying his proclamations of innocence. So, who does the suspect call for help? Jack Reacher, of course, who is sort of like a one-person A-Team; he lives life now as a drifter and only pops up when he’s needed to right wrongs. Or something.

But not only is Reacher a great military detective who gets to the bottom of things, he’s also a monster of a human being who can dismantle five bar thugs in a brawl like it’s nothing. Despite not possessing the supremely imposing measurements of his literary counterpart that would make such a feat easy to believe, Cruise instead has to rely on other physical gifts. But in the end, he still gets the job done. I suppose I might feel differently if I was a fan of the books, but as an outsider

to the whole Jack Reacher thing, I just didn’t care…today’s action heroes unfortunately aren’t giant, massively muscled Austrians who can body-slam men occupying actual phone booths (remember those, cell phone users?), so I guess I have to be satisfied with tight editing and good choreography instead. Luckily, Reacher has plenty of both.

The inclusion of awesome German filmmaker and occasional actor Werner Herzog as the villain only kicked things up into the stratosphere for me, and as Reacher beats bad guys and

pieces together the mystery behind his friend’s frame-job, Herzog provides one of the scariest characters since his fellow countryman Diter Laser (greatest name ever) starred in The Human Centipede. Why are Germans so damn scary?

Jack Reacher is fast-paced, well-acted, and is pretty much just a fun film to watch. The fights and stunts are well-done and edited with an eye for fluidity and detail, and

there’s a pretty darn nifty car chase scene that pretty much tops any I’ve seen in the last year or so. No, when the movie ended I didn’t step out of the theater thinking I had just witnessed the birth of the next great action franchise, but I nonetheless felt I had spent my time wisely and would certainly enjoy seeing a sequel down the line. You might as well, so I recommend that you give Mr. Cruise’s latest effort a shot.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Well, here we are with a nice holiday film for the family to enjoy that I just so happened to take my nephew to go see. What I’m trying to say is that Rise of the Guardians isn’t a movie that I myself would choose to see for my own entertainment, but as kid’s fare, it’s pretty solid and should provide ’em with about 90 minutes or so of enjoyment. You? You probably think it’s decent, but if not, bring a fully-charged smartphone or Nintendo 3DS to keep yourself occupied just in case.

Rise of the Guardians, which is based on William Joyce’s The Guardians of Childhood book series and The Man in the Moon short film by Joyce and Reel FX, tells a story about the Guardians (Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Sandman), who enlist Jack Frost to stop Pitch from engulfing the world in darkness. It features the voices of Chris Pine (Jack Frost), Alec Baldwin (Santa Claus), Hugh Jackman (The Easter Bunny), Isla Fisher (The Tooth Fairy) and Jude Law (Pitch).

Overall, it’s okay. I found it to be humorous, but Pixar remains the reigning champ of devising jokes that appeal to kids while including slightly more risqué material that will sail right over their heads while their adult companions get a chuckle. Rise of the Guardians is more kid-oriented fare, so while I did get some amusement out of it, this was really a show more geared to my nephew, who did get a kick out of it.

One weakness of the story is that the Guardians are given this long, convoluted, elaborate back story that goes on and on and on, at the expense of the actual story that’s supposed to be driving the film, which comes across as more of an afterthought. I know, I’m whining about the plot structure of a kid’s film, but honestly, any good movie should display solid development in all aspects of its creation. Pixar movies don’t do this. It’s not a

deal breaker, and it doesn’t ruin the experience, but it is annoying that so much effort is spent establishing the hierarchy and history of the Guardians for such a bland and simple tale once the film finally gets going.

While the story was decent but sorely lacking in development, jokes solid, and the action fun, one area I really think that Rise of the Guardians kinda flopped in was character design; everyone has this sharp, blocky thing going on, aside for Jack Frost, who

has this slightly effeminate, emo Japanese Anime look, and I found it all rather unappealing. And everyone had these big, black, bushy Grocho Marx eyebrows, and each character seemed to have been designed by a completely different artist, giving us a cast that oddly lacked visual cohesion…I don’t know what was up with that.

So, overall, Rise of the Guardians is an okay children’s flick that won’t torture adults roped into coming along, but it won’t universally entertain like some of the better examples of the genre manage to. The story is fun but shallow, but there’s

enough action and humor to keep the kids glued to their seats while you try and level up to 37 in Cthulhu Saves The World on your cell phone before your battery gives out. While this isn’t a video-game review column, I highly recommend that one to keep yourself occupied while accompanying your kids to decidedly average kiddie-oriented cinematic fare.

(Long Island, N. Y.) I must preface this review of The Hobbit by pointing out that I am not a Lord of the Rings fan; this applies to both the cherished medieval fantasy novels written by J.R.R. Tolkien and the flashy film adaptations made by director Peter Jackson a few years back. I prefer my tales of swords and sorcery more Conan-like; it’s just a personal preference. But The Hobbit…that I have decisively more mixed feelings on.

I tried getting into the Lord of the Rings trilogy of novels a few times, but Tolkien’s droning, overly-detailed writing style layered with endless exposition…I just couldn’t hang with it. I apologize to Tolken fans, but I found the tales set in his imaginary realm of Middle-Earth unbearably boring. Jackson’s movies, in contrast, seemed more interested in cramming countless battles into every frame of film while forgetting to give us characters we gave a damn about; all flash and very little substance. I’m not sure which is worse.

However, I do have fond memories from my childhood of reading the Hobbit, which was the predecessor to the Rings series. It was a simpler, more child-friendly tome, and at a mere 400 pages, it had no choice but to get to the point quickly, maintaining a fun, fluid pace throughout. But, loyal readers, that was many, many years ago, and I have since moved on. So, imagine my horror when Peter Jackson announced that he was not only adapting The Hobbit, but adapting it into THREE MOVIES. Yes. THREE.

Now, please remember this is one very short, fairly simple book skewed more towards children. The idea of it being stretched into THREE films, each nearly three hours in length…I sensed doom. Filler and doom. Well, the first installment of The Hobbit trilogy is here, sub-titled “An Unexpected Journey,” and sadly, I’m pretty much proven right.

Set in the land of Middle-earth some sixty years before the main Lord of the Rings films, the Hobbit tells the tale of a hobbit (think- a little person played by a full-sized dude made to look small) Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is hired by the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to accompany thirteen dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) on a quest across Middle-earth to reclaim the Lonely Mountain from Smaug the dragon.

Jackson seems to have reversed film-making gears, as his approach to The Hobbit (shown in 3D in select locations) is radically different than his approach to Lord of the Rings; whereas Rings glossed over a great deal of the story in favor or visuals and battles, The Hobbit instead appears to be a real-time conversion of almost each and every word from the book. In other words, Jackson comes across as padding the film with as much filler as humanly possible in order to stretch out something best served by a single film into three. It takes the movie at least an hour before it actually gets moving at all…a boring, agonizing hour filled with poop humor and all manner of silliness.

Yes, eventually The Hobbit gets on track and starts moving, with the last hour or so comprised of what felt like one long chase scene. I still never felt engaged, nor did I ever feel like I knew any of the characters (seemingly millions are introduced, but not fleshed out or made memorable in any way), but at least the experience had ceased being completely boring.

The visuals are a mixed bag. There’s lots and lots of CG in The Hobbit; the ratio of CG-to-live action is actually far higher than it was in the Rings movies. This is unfortunate, because Jackson chose to replace actors in makeup with CG beasts this time, and having your characters swinging their swords at invisible monsters that will be added in during post-production is never as good as having them fighting real people. The quality of the CG ranges from mind-blowing to PlayStation One quality. It’s an odd mix, and it makes me wonder why the quality was so inconsistent. I only saw the 24 frame-per-second version; I’m interested in seeing what the highly-touted 48 frame-per-second version looks like, since the higher frame rate is supposed to aid in the clarity of the 3D version, at the expense of making the film itself appear similar to camcorder footage in terms of movement.

I remember fairly little from the book, having read it when quite young, but one segment that remains firmly ingrained in my memory is the riddle contest between Bilbo and the creature known as Gollum in a dark, dank cave. It’s a tense, clever scene indeed, and it’s one that Jackson really managed to nail beautifully, portraying it as if he had reached into my subconscious and rendered it exactly as I had envisioned it so long ago.

But otherwise, The Hobbit ain’t so hot. I also remember enough of the book to know that there’s little of it left after An Unexpected Journey to support another TWO WHOLE MOVIES. Expect yet more filler to come, folks.

Now, uber-talented writer/director Guillermo Del Toro was originally going to be the one to give us the film version of The Hobbit, but the poor man ended up wasting something like a year or two of his life doing pre-production work on a film that eventually went on hiatus due to the parent studios’ financial troubles. By the time that mess was sorted out, Del Toro had wisely flown the coop; I can only wonder how much or little of his input remained when Jackson took over the project, or how much better the resulting film/s would have been. Despite not being a Tolkien fan, the idea of Tolkien filtered through Guillermo Del Toro is an intriguing idea indeed.

Unfortunately, instead of what could have been, we have what is; and what The Hobbit is, despite a few bright spots, is disappointing.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Every now and again a little film comes along that catches me by surprise. Seven Psychopaths is such a film. It’s been out in limited release for several weeks, and if you look around, you can still find it playing in select locations. It’s a pretty crazy crime/comedy film

with an ensemble cast that includes Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Woody Harrelson, Tom Waits, and Christopher Walken. The plot, which probably sounds rather nuts on paper, is, in reality, just that: nuts. However, it makes for a hell of an entertaining film. It’s all in the execution, kids.

The story centers

on Farrell’s character, unusually playing the straight man to a pack of insane characters

for once, instead of the other way around. Farrell even seems to be using his native Irish accent for once, which is yet another nice departure for him as an actor. Farrell plays Marty, a struggling and alcoholic scriptwriter who combats a severe case of writer’s block by trying to draw upon the deeds of seven real-life psychos and murderers in order to finish his screenplay, dubbed (you guessed it) “Seven Psychopaths.” His friends include Billy (Rockwell), a professional dog thief who sends his partner Hans (Walken) to collect the rewards offered for the pooches he makes off with.

Things get bad when Billy and Hans steal a dog belonging to violent gangster named Charlie (Harrelson), who has an especially strong fondness for his lost poochie. Things ramp up from there, with

Charlie tearing a path of destruction while trying to find out who took his dog while Marty, when not drinking too much or ignoring his screenplay, is sucked into Billy and Hans’ dilemma, and soon all three are on the run with Charlie’s dog, who honestly is a really cute little fella…I can see why Charlie wants him back so much.

Oh, and there’s

the seven psychopaths referenced by the film’s title all running around, doing various and sundry antisocial activities…all of which figure into the plot in varying ways. Let’s not forget that, or the fact that they all eventually start figuring into Marty’s slowly-evolving screenplay. That is,

if he lives to finish it!

If the plot of Seven Psychopaths sounds a little confusing and odd to you, that’s probably my fault as much as the fault of Seven Psychopaths’ writer/director Martin McDonagh. The plot is actually quite simple…how it plays out, however, is

not.

Seven Psychopaths is an insane montage of activity, people, and out-and-out lunacy that is nonetheless masterly woven into a coherent mess that will, by the end credits, amazingly make total sense. Characters and situations are introduced that seem to serve no purpose, but will ultimately all weave together and complete the film as a whole. It’s not without its warts, but overall, Seven Psychopaths is an example of some pretty slick film-making.

And it helps that it’s pretty much hilarious. There’s one scene late in the movie where Sam Rockwell’s character (who is awesome and basically steals the film) is fantasizing out loud about the assumed “final shootout” with Charlie and his goons that is played out in his head for the audience to see, and…well, I won’t spoil anything, but I was almost crying I was laughing so hard. Just pure insanity.

Meanwhile, Walken plays his character with a bizarre and calm strangeness that almost borders on a parody of his normal film persona, and

like I said earlier Farrell dials it back and as a result, is actually semi-likable for once. Harrelson, meanwhile, impressively tiptoes between amusing and scary with ease, making for a memorable villain.

Slick, stylish, chaotic, unpredictable, oddly touching and unrelentingly brutal when it isn’t side-splittingly funny, Seven Psychopaths is a great and somewhat overlooked film that you should track down and check out ASAP. You won’t regret it.

(Long Island, N. Y.) Pointless, pointless, pointless…can you say pointless? Hollywood, in all its creative bankruptcy, is choking on pointless remakes in recent years, churning out carbon copies of movies that were, for the most part, usually pretty good-to-great the first time around. But the horror of constantly having to come up with something new, coupled with the desire to cash in on nostalgia, has compelled studios to keep the retreads rolling (retreads…rolling…tire humor, get it??). However, when you start remaking films such as 1984’s Red Dawn, whose highly- topical subject matter (for 1984, that is) isn’t even relevant in today’s world, then you know you’re in trouble.

Written and directed by the great John Milius (known for selflessly giving the world Arnold Schwarzenegger’s first true starring role in the delightful family film Conan the Barbarian), Red Dawn played upon the paranoia generated by the Cold War and the ever-looming red threat of the Soviet Union.

Based on the premise that the USSR was actually invading American soil, Red Dawn chronicled the struggle of the Wolverines, high school students turned underground guerrilla resistance fighters. It was a solid and quite memorable entry into the 80’s Action genre that boasted a fun cast and, despite being somewhat hokey and implausible, it was made all the more gripping by the fact that the Russians actually were the big, bad bogeymen in those days.

Fast-forward to 2012. The Iron Curtain has fallen, the Soviet Union is no more, and the automation and destructiveness of modern warfare has all but ruled out the concept of invasion between Superpower nations. In today’s society, we don’t live in fear of enemy paratroopers raining from the sky in suburban America; we’re more worried about some terrorist leaving a suitcase nuke in the shopping mall down the road. But, despite this being the case, some idiot thought it was just a FANTASTIC time to remake Red Dawn, but swapping the Russians for the Chinese as the vile invaders of US soil this time.

Oh, wait! China has like, what, a billion people living there? People with wallets and eyes? Eyes that can watch movies, and wallets full of money to buy tickets to do so? Better not offend them by making them the baddies in our new invasion flick! But when Hollywood can cleverly swap those Chinese flags and insignia with North Korean ones (because North Korea has an army big enough to conquer the United States, apparently) via CG in post-production, you can rest assured that the grosses will be safe, and all those nice Chinese moviegoers will be able to experience this crappy and forgettable action movie along with the rest of the world.

Populated with a very pretty cast consisting of Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki, Isabel Lucas, Connor Cruise and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, what we get with the Red Dawn remake is the original Red Dawn, but played on fast-forward. It hits the same beats and plot points as the original, while adding in some stupidity and sacrificing even the marginal character development the Milius movie had. Also missing is the slow transition of the kids from being innocent acolytes to battle-hardened pros, the hardship of having to scavenge for food and supplies while on the run, and an overall sense of total desperation that the original conveyed so well.

In contrast, the cast of the remake scurry into the woods after the initial invasion, and Hemsworth’s character, an ex-Marine, gives them basic training in the brush that turns them from Xbox Live junkies to born-again killing machines in the space of what appears to be hours. Then they visit their pals in the city and get all the guns and gear that they need, no problem buddy!

The only thing that really makes the new Red Dawn at all compelling is the presence of Hemsworth, who is actually proving himself to be a fairly effective and charismatic actor without having to fall back on the safety net of his popular Thor role. Sadly, he didn’t play Thor here, which would have been cool – seeing him flying through the skies swatting North Korean paratroopers with his mystical hammer would have ruled all – but even as a mere mortal, Hemsworth holds his own as an action hero. The rest of the cast, however, was pretty much instantly forgotten.

Taken on its own, Red Dawn doesn’t even make any sense. North Korea successfully invades the United States in conventional ground warfare, and does so totally by surprise? In this day and age of unmanned drones, smart guided missiles, and pinpoint satellite surveillance? It just makes the film impossible to buy into. The action scenes are at least done well enough, but just when the movie starts feeling like it’s finally finding its feet and has a story to tell that might actually start differing from the source material its’ been flawlessly aping up until this point, it abruptly ends. It’s incredibly unsatisfying and, honestly, quite stupid.

So, another day, another pointless remake…what’s next? Robocop? Ha, that’s a good one. Wait, they’re seriously remaking Robocop? Damn it!

(Long Island, N. Y.) There’s something horrible yet riveting about watching a man’s slow, inevitable, and self-inflicted decent into his own personal hell. Flight, a drama film directed by Robert Zemeckis and featuring an ensemble cast including Denzel Washington, Don Cheadle, Melissa Leo, Bruce Greenwood, Kelly Reilly, and John Goodman is one such harrowing but ultimately emotionally absorbing experience, and one I absolutely suggest you take on yourself.

Washington plays airline captain William “Whip” Whitaker, a pathetic wreck of a human being that nonetheless manages to bed super-hot stewardesses and successfully crash land a malfunctioning passenger plane while drunk and coked up out of his mind, saving 96 of the 102 people on board. As a result, Whitaker is hailed as a hero, although an investigation into his actions threatens to expose him for the degenerate that he is and land him in jail.

However, it must be pointed out that the crash of the plane under his command was in no way due to his inebriated stupor; in fact, in the ensuing investigation, it’s proven via simulated crashes piloted by ten other captains that the fact that Whitaker was able to successfully land the plane without splattering the passengers and crew was not only an incredible feat, but an almost impossible one. As evidenced by this, as well as the great deal of drunk automobile driving he does throughout the remaining course of the film, it seems that Whitaker is the only man on Earth that operates vehicles BETTER when smashed off his derriere. It’d be impressive if it wasn’t so disgusting.

The crash itself happens early on in the film, and is easily one of the most intense and frightening scenes out of any movie that I’ve seen in quite some time. Whitaker wakes up drunk the day of the flight, snorts cocaine to sober up and, after taking off in the middle of a violent storm, provides informative in-flight announcements to the passengers while discretely mixing a Screwdriver for himself at the same time. It’s impressive, actually! And, after chugging the vodka and OJ concoction, he dozes off while his co-pilot takes over piloting duties.

Later, nap-time is interrupted by a mechanical failure and, via some deft and innovative flying, Whitaker glides the plane into a meadow with a minimal loss of life and only minor personal injuries. Over the course of the investigation that follows, Whitaker is commanded by his company’s defense attorney, Hugh Lang (Cheadle), not to drink; it seems that the airline knows Whitaker is a boozehound and is doing their best to cover it up…up to and including Lang getting a toxicology report deemed inadmissible by technicality.

However, going off the sauce isn’t easy for an addict like Whitaker, whose problems with alcohol had previously cost him his relationships with his wife and son; he moves to his late father’s abandoned farmhouse to get out of the media eye and proceeds to get into a relationship with a heroin junkie, consumes gallons and gallons of booze, and harasses his former family. Swell guy, right?

Whitaker is clearly a man who is out of control, and continues to spiral further and further down into depravity and damnation throughout the course of the film. With the big investigative federal hearing into the plane crash looming closer every day, will Whitaker be able to not only maintain his image as a squeaky-clean hero and avoid jail time, but even remain alive?

Denzel Washington, simply put, brings it big time here. His portrayal of a man enslaved by booze to the point where he is helpless to do anything but drink, even when it’s obvious that it’s killing him and destroying his life, is nothing short of amazing. Flight is worth seeing for his performance alone, but it helps that he has an equally impressive cast backing him up. Melissa Leo, who plays Washington’s love interest, is a standout, as is Don Cheadle, who is unfortunately underused in his role as a legal shark hired to clear Washington’s character of any wrongdoing; obviously, he has his work cut out for him.

Bruce Greenwood and John Goodman round out the impressive acting on display, but Washington…wow. Just when you think his character can’t sink any lower he does, and yet he still manages to play the role with enough emotional nuances and humanity that you still find yourself rooting for him…even when he lets you down over and over again. It’s heartbreaking and yet fascinating at the same time.

Flight is a must-see, and one of the best films not only of the year, but of Washington’s career as well. Highly recommended.

(Long Island, N. Y.) I hate to go against the grain here, as everyone is showering Steven Spielberg’s biopic Lincoln with near-universal praise. And, in many ways, it’s very deserving of it. It features a stunning performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, whose near-obsessive method acting technique is once again brought to the fore as he tackles a role he was seemingly born for: portraying Abraham Lincoln, one of our nation’s truly great leaders.

In addition to Day-Lewis, Lincoln also features an expansive cast of revered acting names, such as Sally Field, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Hal Holbrook, Tommy Lee Jones, Jackie Earle Haley…the list goes on and on and on. The locations, garb, and everything else are painstakingly period-accurate. It’s been ages since we’ve seen a historical epic of this degree in a major motion picture. Even Steven Spielberg, who I consider well past his prime as a filmmaker, has kicked his game up a notch here.

So why don’t I just love Lincoln to death like everyone else on planet Earth, then?

Honestly, it has a lot to do with the film’s scope- it’s narrow. I mean, NARROW. How narrow? Apparently, it only concentrates on perhaps the most well-known aspect of his political existence: his quest to pass the Emancipation Proclamation and free the slaves. But, while a vitally important turning point in our nation’s history, the film concentrates on this singular aspect of Lincoln and nothing else; it assumes that everyone watching already knows everything about the 16th president of the United States, and while we all pretty much do (at least those of us who stayed awake in school), a film shouldn’t rely on the audience having prior knowledge of its subject matter to this degree…especially when they breeze over or just outright eliminate so very much of that history as Spielberg does.

That’s right…this film is about the passing of the Emancipation Proclamation and NOTHING ELSE. We learn precious little about Abraham Lincoln the man; nothing of his youth, what shaped him into a great leader, nothing. We merely view him through rose-colored glasses while he’s in the very prime of his presidency, with no warts on display. Yes, we do get a glimpse of his problems with his emotionally-unbalanced wife, played by Sally Field, but it’s a moot point. I want to know not just what makes the man tick, but why he ticks, if that makes any sense…and Lincoln doesn’t deliver. I mean, this guy was a bad-ass wrestler in his youth…I would have LOVED to have seen that aspect of him tackled on film!

I came away with no new understanding of the man himself, nor any new revelations into history itself; Lincoln himself is portrayed as having very selfless and altruistic motivations for freeing the slaves, but there are naysayers out there who claim he had other ideas. I’m not saying that he had any desires other than equality on his mind, but if there are other legitimate viewpoints, I’d like them explored and/or debunked. Lincoln doesn’t bother to do this.

Also, Spielberg would have you believe that Abraham Lincoln spoke exclusively in clichés and analogies; and while this may or may not be historically true, it’s nonetheless annoying to have to decipher everything he says. Not difficult, mind you, because the clichés are blatantly obvious and well-worn, but still annoying.

But, the film is nonetheless very well-made and, while annoyingly narrow in scope, is still very entertaining in spots. A lot of that entertainment value comes directly from Daniel Day-Lewis, who physically and spiritually embodies Lincoln so perfectly that it’s hard to believe that Spielberg didn’t just build a time machine, pluck Abraham out of the past, and simply slap Day-Lewis’ name on the poster so as not to around suspicion of his blatant violation of the laws of nature.

However, the cast uniformly delivers the goods, and the story, while bland and pedestrian in its attempt to deliver a vision of Lincoln that is in-line with every second grader’s history book, is still well done and engaging to a degree. And again, great pains were made to make the period and its trappings as authentic as possible, and at times it’s pretty darn impressive.

So, while I’m not bonkers over Lincoln as the rest of the universe, I still think history buffs can still enjoy it if they go in with moderate expectations. The story goes that, early in Lincoln’s development, Liam Neeson was originally cast in the role, but withdrew during the film’s protracted development because he felt he had aged out of the part. It makes me wonder if the film would have fared better or worse, because while it’s hard to believe that Day-Lewis’ performance could be topped in any way, perhaps the god-like Neeson’s rugged physicality would have drawn the film in a different direction? Who knows, but as it is, Lincoln is adequate, but it could have been so much more.

(Long

Island, N. Y.

) I’m a massive James Bond fan…always have been. Whether he was played on the silver screen by Sean Connery, Roger Moore, or even George Lazenby (but not so much Timothy Dalton…sorry, Tim), I’ve always enjoyed the cinematic tales of author Ian Flemming’s British MI6 agent with a penchant for tuxedos, ladies, exotic gadgets, and vodka martinis as he battles the evils of the world with suave and style.

However, the awful Pierce Brosnan era almost killed Bond for me. It was marked by forced adherence to every single tired Bond cliché ever…every film had to shovel in the stupid puns, the progressively sillier and sillier gadgets, the instant sexual conquests, the over-the-top video-game stunts, the maniac-of-the-week determined to rule the world, the lame catchphrases…it felt like the filmmakers had an endless checklist they were compelled to mindlessly follow.

And among it all, Brosnan’s Bond himself never felt like an actual human being- just a cold collection of established traits and mannerisms. He wasn’t a character that ever grew or changed, and while the same could be said of pretty much all of the previous actors who had taken

on the iconic role, at least they made up for it in charisma; in the case of Brosnan, both Bond and the overly “extreme” situations he was constantly thrust into had just become boring, cheesy, and impossible to take seriously.

But Bond, as played by actor Daniel Craig, IS a genuine character who expands, changes, and possesses emotional depth; as a result, he’s a million times more engaging, and possibly the best Bond to date. Considering his competition, that’s certainly saying something.

Craig’s first outing as Bond, in 2006’s Casino Royale, was an unbridled success, effectively rebooting the

series and ushering in a grittier, more realistic take on the mythos. However, 2008’s follow-up, Quantum of Solace, was considered by many a bit of a misstep for the newly-revived franchise, and financial problems at parent studio MGM prevented work from proceeding on the sequel for several years. But, it’s now 2012 – the 50th anniversary of the first Bond film, Dr. No – and Skyfall is finally here, and believe me…it was well worth the wait, kids. Bond is back, and he’s better than ever.

Dumping bad CG in favor of practical stunts and effects and delving more into Bond’s history and psyche than ever before, Skyfall, directed by Sam Mendes, is a complex tale that acknowledges the rich past of the previous 22 films in the series while at the same time making a bold statement that this is a NEW Bond…a fresh Bond, stripped down to the basics, that will take the franchise boldly into the future.

Skyfall matches Bond against bad guy Raoul Silva (played by the amazing Javier Bardem) a dangerous former agent gone rouge and who has sworn revenge against the head of MI6, M (Judi Dench). It’s a surprisingly personal tale, foregoing a radical global threat in favor of an intimate and deadly game of chess not only between Bond and his foe, but his personal demons as well. It’s a long, emotional, and deep trek through Bond’s recovery from past injuries, both physical and mental, while nonetheless maintaining the trappings that make him what he is. The core basics of the character are there, to be sure, but they never come across as forced or needlessly shoehorned into the plot; indeed, the script is expertly crafted in a way that they organically drive the plot.

Daniel Craig, with his chiseled features, icy blue stare, rugged physicality, and wide array of emotions, is easily the best Bond ever. He embodies the best aspects of the character while giving him a soul and a human personality at the same time. Javier Bardem serves as one of the most memorable Bond villains in ages, and Judi Dench gives an inspired performance as the plucky M in perhaps her biggest role in the series to date.

The plot itself is beautifully woven, and while the film is long, it never feels that way. The ending is

both draining and, at the same time, sets up an extremely intriguing future for the series, and I for one can’t wait to see where it goes. Skyfall is fun, exciting, and engaging; it’s one of the very best of the Bond film series, and a fantastic way to celebrate its 50th anniversary. Here’s to the next 50 years!