(Long Island, N.Y.) I’m not a huge fan of westerns, but when a great one comes along; I can’t help but sit up and take notice. Now, while most of those great films have starred Clint Eastwood – The Outlaw Josey Wales, High Plains Drifter, Unforgiven, etc. – occasionally a non-Eastwood Western comes along that I also find enjoyable. Enter True Grit, a remake of the 1969 John Wayne film and possibly the least weird film ever made by the directing duo of the Coen brothers.

Now, I’ve never really seen the original version of True Grit, which itself was based on a 1968 novel by Charles Portis, although I have seen snippets of it here and there on TV. I know it’s considered a classic, but (and I run the risk of hate mail for saying this) I was never much of a John Wayne fan. Sure, the guy is iconic, and he had loads of presence and charisma, but once you get past all the hype, you’re left with the fact that he was also one of the worst actors in history. Sorry, but that’s why I never really made it a priority to watch what many consider to be his greatest role. But now what I’ve seen the remake by the Coen brothers, which has Jeff Bridges taking on Wayne’s famous role as U.S. Marshal Reuben J. “Rooster” Cogburn, I just might have to re-evaluate my stance.

Now, you all know how disgusted I am by the non-stop glut of remakes Hollywood is churning out on a monthly basis. Remaking a film that doesn’t need it just to cash in on nostalgia simply represents the fact that the big studios are just fresh out of ideas and afraid to take risks on unproven concepts that might just break them out of their stale rut. Still, once in a while, a remake can be a good thing

if done for artistic reasons and not at the whim of the almighty dollar. The Coen brothers stated that their goal in remaking True Grit was to be more loyal to the source novel. Now, since I haven’t really seen the original or read the novel, I can’t rightfully say if they achieved that goal. My girlfriend, who has seen the 1969 film, states that many of the scenes were actually the same. However, I doubt John Wayne’s Rooster Cogburn blasted an unarmed man in the eye with his hand-cannon at point-blank range like Bridges did, so already I’m thinking a remake wasn’t such a bad idea. After

all, look how right John Carpenter got it when he remade the hokey 50’s sci-fi flick The Thing?

So, this film, like many, has a story (yes, really!). True Grit’s starts out with 14 year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld) telling the audience about how her daddy was gunned down by the dastardly Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), who got clean away with the crime. Mattie wants justice (and mom’s not really of much use), so she gathers what cash she can and sets out to hire the most merciless dude she can find to bring Chaney in. Enter Rooster Cogburn, who, as played by Bridges, is kind of a fat, gross, and downright nasty old man, but, as Mattie’s luck would have it, he’s also one mean S.O.B. who always gets the job done.

Rooster takes some convincing, especially when it comes to Mattie’s demand that she accompany him, but eventually he agrees to take the job. Along the way they acquire a tag-along in the form of Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who has been tracking Chaney for some time. However, can this strange team even stop bickering with each other, let alone track down the evil Chaney in the middle of the badlands and bring him to justice?

I mentioned that this was the least weird movie of the Coen brothers’ career, and so it is. Their trademark bizarre characters and symbolism are strangely absent, making True Grit their most mainstream-friendly release yet. Of course, there was

that one wacko guy that made farm animal noises for no real reason…maybe that was the Coen brothers’ concession to long-time fans of their work? I dunno. But regardless, True Grit is wonderfully filmed with beautiful scenery and cinematography, and the Coen brothers’ talent for making actors’ bring their rather bland dialogue to glorious life is still there in spades.

Oh, yeah, the actors. There’s not one performance in this film that is in any way, shape or form bad. Or even average. In other words, everyone is flat-out amazing. Yes, even the extras, but let’s concentrate on the main cast, yes? Jeff Bridges’ cantankerous take on Rooster Cogburn really has to be seen to be believed…here’s one actor that’s not afraid of looking (or acting) ugly on-camera. Bridges manages to maintain a grating sandpaper-like voice without fail, and while Rooster is dirty and nasty and all, you still manage to see faint traces of his big heart underneath the rough exterior. When he’s not completely drunk, that is. Just a wonderful, wonderful role by a long-time great actor.

Matt Damon continues to build his legacy with a slightly comedic turn as Texas Ranger LaBoeuf. He’s a deadly serious character, but at the same time Damon adds little touches to his portrayal that bring a bit of silliness to the proceedings. For example, at one point he injures his tongue, and his speech for the rest of the movie sounds like he’s got a mouthful of cotton, which makes a heartfelt speech he delivers later on both stirring and amusing.

However, newcomer Hailee Steinfeld really steals the show as Mattie, a spunky, no-nonsense teen who’s wise and mature beyond her years. Josh Brolin is also great, even though his role pretty much amounts to a glorified cameo. Oh, and that one weird-looking Irish actor from Day of the Dead played an undertaker! Isn’t that cool?

My only real problem with True Grit is the ending, which was very abrupt, and, frankly, lame. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t need a happy ending where everything is neatly tied up and the hero rides off into the sunset with his main squeeze at his side and the Death Stars blows up and all that nonsense, but True Grit’s “Oh, yeah, this thing happened 25 years later, thanks, bye!” was pretty lame.

Other than that one minor complaint (is it minor, though? You’re supposed to go out strong…ah, never mind), True Grit is one of the best Westerns…actually, forget that, one of the best MOVIES (aside from the ending) made in ages. Go see it!

(Long Island, N.Y.) Oh, the agony I go through for my Long Island Exchange readers sometimes. I mean, there’s several near-classics out in theaters this week – among them True Grit and Black Swan – and here I am reviewing the celluloid equivalent of monkey excrement instead. I’m not sure exactly how this happened, other than an unfortunate scheduling conflict, but I’m certain that someone doesn’t like me, and that someone somehow clandestinely arranged for me to be forced into watching Little Fockers. Merry Christmas, Chris.

Anyway,

Little Fockers is the second sequel to 2000’s hit movie Meet the Parents, once again starring the comic powerhouse duo (*ahem*) of Robert De Niro and

Ben Stiller. This wretched series chronicles the misadventures of one Gaylord “Greg” Focker (Stiller) and the suffering he endures under the watchful eye of his overbearing Father-In-Law, Jack (De Niro), who’s convinced that he’s not good enough for his daughter, Pam (Teri Polo).

I suppose the first movie was somewhat cute and perhaps even humorous at times, making it somewhat bearable to sit through. However,

by the time the credits rolled, the premise had already worn thin. The second movie, 2004’s Meet The Fockers, I never watched, possibly sparing me great amounts of agony. However, I wasn’t so lucky this time around, and my fears have been confirmed: this series is pure death.

I’ll try to recap the plot for Little Fockers, but it’ll probably make no sense; there’s not so much a plot as a series of gags where characters have one silly misunderstanding after another, strung together by something trying to pass itself off as “comedy.” Added into that winning formula is every single character from the previous two movies (and there were a bunch), in addition to several

new ones, creating what can only be described as a mess.

Okay, in short: cranky old Jack is having problems

with his ticker, and names Greg as his successor as the family head. But then Jack, who is a real fickle guy, decides that his daughter Pam would be better off with her ex, Kevin (Owen Wilson), which leads to Greg doing what he can to get back into Jack’s good graces. There’s random tomfoolery with Greg’s parents thrown in (Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand, slumming along with the rest of the cast), not to mention a subplot where Greg’s sexy co-worker (Jessica Alba) is in love with him. Oh, and…well, never mind. I’ve given up trying to make sense of it all.

Honestly, while everyone involved in Little Fockers should be ashamed of themselves, no one should be feeling quite the sting of remorse quite as intensely as Robert De Niro, a man who used to be known for brilliantly melting into roles. Alas, he has taken to whoring himself out lately for anyone with a checkbook, churning out a string of horrible, unfunny comedies for seemingly anyone who asks. Guys like Stiller and Hoffman have all

made stinkers, so one more or less doesn’t really sully their reps very much. But Rob, come on. You even showed a glimpse of your acting mastery earlier this year in the acclaimed film Stone, but apparently it was a fluke. It’s a shame.

So, if you’re into pain, Little Fockers is your Holy Grail. Otherwise, there are plenty of great movies out, many of which I should have reviewed this week instead of this one.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Yeah, Tron: Legacy is pretty, but that’s about all it is. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a solid and at times even entertaining flick, but, unlike the 1982 Disney original, it’s not really groundbreaking visually; back in the day, Tron was one of the first films to incorporate massive amounts of computer animation, but nowadays, every movie you see is like watching a video-game, so the impact of the sequel is diluted.

Since it can’t attempt to overwhelm you with its looks (although they are rather impressive, even by today’s standards), the warts it shares with its for-bearer shine through all the more clearly. That is, the storyline, once again involving people venturing into a “computer world,” stinks.

Okay… programmer and former CEO of ENCOM International, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), the hero of the previous movie, has been missing for 20 years. His son, Sam (Garrett Hedlund), is all sad about it, and as all boys are who grow up without a father figure, he starts acting out, sabotaging ENCOM’s latest product launch and landing himself in trouble with the law. After being released from the clink, Alan Bradley (Bruce Boxleitner), a friend of Sam’s father, pops up and tells him about a mysterious signal from his dad’s old arcade, long since closed. Investigating, Sam finds Kevin’s office, and, while messing around with the computer, accidentally zaps himself into the computer world his father discovered two decades ago.

In this place, called “The Grid,” computer programs take the form of sentient humanoid beings. Captured by a program called CLU, a program who looks just like his father did 20 years ago, Sam is forced to do gladiatorial combat with the laser Frisbees used in the previous movie until he manages to escape with the help of a girl program, Quorra (Olivia Wilde…wait, why do computer programs have sexes? Is my copy of Modern Warfare 2 a boy or a girl?). With Quorra’s help, Sam finds the answers to some of the mysteries of The Grid, including the most pressing one of all…what happened to his father all those years ago.

Even the dialogue is pretty bad…especially in the case of Jeff Bridges, which is surprising. His Flynn character just keeps coming up with gems like “far out!” and “you’re messing with my Zen, man.” It’s like the movie was dubbed over with an episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles or something.

So Tron: Legacy is ‘eh’ on a script level, and we’ve already covered the fact that, while spiffy looking, in this era where moves are overrun with

near-unlimited gobs of super high-quality

CG, a Tron movie doesn’t hold quite the same distinction as it used to back in the 80’s. Still, it does look good. The computer world of The Grid, as well as its citizens and their vehicles, is sleekly and imaginatively realized. The much-touted soundtrack, composed and performed by Daft Punk, is probably the best thing about this

movie. Mixing their own electronic sound with fully-orchestrated pieces, I got the distinct feeling while watching that the score would have been better served by being in another movie.

Tron: Legacy mixes cutting-edge visuals with somewhat ‘blah’ and at times even annoying storytelling. If you turn your brain completely off, and I mean completely, it might make for some base fun, so I can’t completely say you shouldn’t see it, especially if you’re a fan of the original (which wasn’t really any better). Otherwise, just hit Ctrl-Alt-Delete on this one.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Unstoppable is a movie directed by Tony Scott and based on a true story about some dunce of a train operator in Pennsylvania who decided to hop out of his moving choo-choo to manually switch tracks while idling out of a train yard. However, while he was ghost-riding the whip, a break lever he had set popped off, sending the train hurdling down the track without its engineer. Like I said…dunce.

So, while the train is careening off into the sunset, promising death and destruction in its wake, the career of engineer Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) is slowly entering its twilight. Given his 90-day notice just shy of retirement, he’s stuck training rookie Will Colson (Chris Pine, AKA Captain Kirk from the 2009 Star Trek reboot…does anyone really know him from anything else?) in the ways of a rail man. The elder statesman and his young protégée bicker like newlyweds at first, but we all know that eventually this will give way to rampant camaraderie and cuddling once they start opening up about their personal lives, which by the way, are both dysfunctional. Yes, Barnes is estranged from his kids, and Captain Kirk is estranged from his girlfriend, who’s keeping him from seeing their daughter. The two swap stories, and the next thing you know, they’re best buddies.

Meanwhile, yardmaster Connie Hooper (Rosario Dawson) is dealing with how to stop the runaway train while saving the innocents who are in its way. A valiant attempt to stop the train results in disaster, and in the midst of the chaos, Barnes and Captain Kirk, who just so happen to be on the same track, decide to do the right thing and set out to stop the evil train before it causes more destruction. However, they not only have to contend with 300 tons of raw steel traveling at over 75 miles per hour, but the greedy and callous owners of the train line who are more worried about stock prices than human lives.

Unstoppable is a pretty tight and intense thriller. It fires along non-stop, and manages to juggle the main plot-line with a few of the character’s back stories without jumping the rail, so to speak. Yeah, these back stories aren’t exactly deep – they’re more for filler than anything else – but whatever. It’s more development than most movies bother to give their leads these days, which is actually kinda sad when you think about it.

The only thing that sort of bothered me about the plot of Unstoppable was how Barnes and Captain Kirk’s messed-up personal relationships with respective families improved just because they were seen on television being heroes. All transgressions forgiven, whatever they may be. We find out what Captain Kirk did that irked his girl (which wasn’t so bad), but what did Barnes do to get his kids to hate his guts? We’re never told, but it couldn’t have been that bad…one glimpse of daddy jumping from train car to train car and his daughters (both of whom work at Hooters!) are ready to throw the guy a party.

But despite the film’s breakneck pace and great action pieces, it would still fail if the acting was crap, as a movie like this with Z-grade stars in it would probably even be rejected by the Sci-Fi Channel (but probably not). Denzel (who’s playing Denzel, which is fine) and Captain Kirk (who’s playing Captain Kirk, also fine) bring the goods, displaying great chemistry with each other. In fact, a yearly Unstoppable series where they have to chase down various out-of-control vehicles might be fun. You know; a jet plane, a submarine, a horse-drawn carriage, etc.

Oh, and Rosario Dawson is quite solid in her supporting role as well. So’s the Banjo and Sullivan guy from The Devil’s Rejects, who’s in this movie as well. Forgot to mention that.

As far as visuals go, Tony Scott’s usual overblown attempts to be stylish are present and accounted for, but the shaky cam isn’t nearly as nauseating as it usually is in his movies this time. Maybe his brother Ridley advised him to dial it down a tad or something, but whatever the case may be, the result is a sharp film, visually; gritty and kinetic, without overdoing it.

So, if you’re looking for a good action/drama, direct your feet to the nearest theater showing Unstoppable. It won’t change your life, but who says every movie you see has to be unmitigated classic? Sometimes just being entertaining will do fine.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Faster is the best movie Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson has made in years, possibly ever. That’s not to say that it’s perfect, however; we’re talking about a man whose post pro-wrestling film career seems to have been guided by the desire to accept the worst scripts available, consistently generating bomb after bomb at the box office. But not only is Faster, directed by George Tillman, Jr., a return to the action movie roots Johnson first embraced early on (before the kiss of death collectively known as Disney family films), but it’s actually fairly intense and well-made, also. But, alas, it does have a few nagging problems.

The plot is pretty simple…or, rather, I should say “plots.” You see, there are three of them playing out at the same time, and they all come together at the end. Since the characters in Faster are too cool to have real grown-up names, we have “Driver” (Johnson), an ex-con who’s gunning for the gang that killed his brother after a botched bank heist; “Killer” (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), a self-made millionaire and hit-man who’s looking for a new challenge; and “Cop” (Billy Bob Thornton), a sleazy drug-addicted detective who’s days away from retirement.

So, Driver gets sprung from the pen and immediately starts driving around in his hot rod from place to place, publicly killing said gang members and attracting the attention of both Cop (actually, a lot of cops) and Killer, both of whom pursue Driver for their own reasons. There’s more to it than that (not much, however), but I’ll let you find that out on your own.

Overall, Faster does it right. Mostly. It’s got some good, juicy violence and a lean-yet-solid story to back it up. It’s not Shakespeare, but it’s enough to keep the movie moving forward to the next car chase or fight scene while remaining entertaining for the most part. The acting is surprisingly good; Thornton plays his usual bumbling drunk, but with an edge, and Johnson has always had decent skills that he usually sees fit to squander in crap movies like The Tooth Fairy. Faster is the first R-rated, pure action movie Johnson’s made in a while, and he still shows the same potential he used to in this genre. He’s also a real big guy…I mean, he dwarfs every other character in the movie. Seeing him in his former career as a pro-wrestler, play-fighting with 300 pound guys night after night, doesn’t really prepare you for how

huge the dude is next to a normal human being. And he does a great job being really mean and intense in this flick…but then, as per the norm in Johnson’s movies, something always screws it up.

If you’ve read my column for a while (and you know you have!), you’d know of my love for the relic known as the 80’s action movie. The pure, uncompromised ruthlessness of 80’s action stars such as Stallone, Seagal, Van Damme, and, of course, the Austrian Oak himself, Arnold, has been woefully unequaled in our sadly wussified modern era where leading men let enemies live and are in touch with their feminine side. The closest any recent movie has come to evoking the feeling of awe and splendor I would feel when watching a single man brutally tear through hordes of enemies while not showing a shred of mercy was 2008’s Taken, starring the godlike Liam Neeson. Now, here’s an actor, in his 50’s and not at all muscle-bound, and he was kicking more butt than the entire current crop of action-movie wannabes combined. I’m talking Diesel, Johnson, Statham, et al.

I can only pray with all my heart and soul that the rumors of Neeson doing Taken 2 at some point are true.

But as bad-ass as Johnson actually can be in Faster, he still commits some cardinal sins that will forever deny him the action hero torch that he at one point seemed destined to inherit. First, in one scene, he has the drop on Killer, but instead of putting a bullet through his eye like he should, he goes soft and blows out his tire instead. Of course, this stupidity costs him later. Next, he catches up to one of his targets and, seeing that the guy has turned his life

around, DOESN’T KILL HIM. What kind of movie is this, seriously? And to top it off, Johnson CRIES. SEVERAL TIMES. I mean, with tears and everything. Actually, Killer gets all weepy too. It’s disgraceful.

Another problem I had with Johnson’s character in this movie is that he spends an inordinate amount of time staring at a picture of his deceased brother. I mean, like intensely. Now, never having had a brother, maybe I just don’t understand the bond that can develop between them, but Driver’s obsessiveness bordered on weird. I mean, I’m not saying that a character spending about 90% of a movie’s running time gazing longingly at a picture of himself embracing another man is a little gay…or am I? It’s hard to say.

Otherwise, Faster is a pretty good action movie that teases being a throwback to the days of 80’s action, but in the end comes up short, retreating back to the safe, morality-based film-making that has kept action films from having the grapefruits they used to back in Ronald Reagan’s glorious era. But, until Liam Neeson blesses us with Taken 2: Taken To The Cleaners (or whatever they end up calling it), you could do worse by getting your action fix from Faster.

(Long Island, N.Y.) The Next Three Days is a really solid little film that, for me, really flew in under the radar. Of course, I’d seen the trailers, but I didn’t really have high expectations, despite the fact that one of my all-time favorite actors, Liam Neeson, appeared to have a co-starring role. I’m not sure why…it’s just that something about the trailer didn’t click with me. So, imagine my surprise when I actually sat down and found myself liking The Next Three Days. Really!

Okay, the plot goes like this: a woman named Lara Brennan (Elizabeth Banks) is accused of murder. Her husband, John Brennan (Russell Crowe), refuses to believe she did it, despite a pile of damning evidence that would even convict the Pope. While raising their son alone, John fights on her behalf for several years until her appeals dry up, getting desperate after Lara unsuccessfully attempts suicide.

John, normally a nebbish, law-abiding kind of guy, cracks and hatches a plan to bust his wife out of the big house. To do that, he consults Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson), a former criminal who is well known for having escaped prison several times. Armed with Damon’s detailed advice, John begins obsessively planning, determined to reunite with his beloved wife, no matter what the cost.

What I liked so much about The Next Three Days was the way it slowly builds to its climax, which was refreshing. In the hands of another filmmaker, I’m sure this would have played out like a rap video, with John becoming a hardened gangsta and breaking his wife out of

the pen quite possibly no more than ten minutes after the opening credits had finished rolling. But director Paul Haggis takes his time; he realizes that John, as a character, is at first ill-equipped to handle this undertaking, and thus slowly and realistically chronicles his transformation. The actual escape attempt doesn’t happen until the last quarter of the movie, and while some critics found the build-up to be too slow, I personally thought it made me buy the premise that much more.

But when the movie DOES start moving, it’s…hmm, what would be a good film review cliché to use? How about, “It’s a thrill ride that will grab you and never let go!” Yeah, that about sums it up.

The acting helps with this believability. Russell Crowe, as John, is at the top of his game…now that he’s firmly in his middle age; he seems comfortable playing characters with an aura of vulnerability about them. Of course, speaking of believability, The Next Three Days does stretch that concept rather thin in the sense that every female character in the film finds the saggy, grey-bearded, pot-bellied John the most attractive man they’ve ever met, and take every opportunity to tell him so. These scenes are just awkward and out-of-place (although they don’t happen too often, so whatever).

Elizabeth Banks is solid as Lara, but since she’s cooling her heels in jail most of the time and the film is told from John’s perspective, she really isn’t given that much to do. But when the script calls for a few tears or whatnot, she certainly holds her own. Oddly, Brian Dennehy has a role as John’s father, but is given no lines for most of the film, to the point that I thought that some real-life tragedy had befallen Dennehy, robbing him of his ability to speak. But, thankfully, he does start blabbing eventually.

By the way, if you’re planning on going to see The Next Three Days just because you’re a big Liam Neeson fan (like me!), don’t bother. Sadly, if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen about 99.779% of his screen time in this movie. I think maybe they left out a

shot of him sipping coffee or something, but that’s it; his character gives Brennan a crash course in staging a jailbreak while sitting in a diner, and that’s all we ever see of him.

My one other gripe about The Next Three Days is a common theme I see

in films of this type. Man loses girl, and goes to insane lengths to get her back. Do we EVER see these roles reversed? I can’t think of any movie where I’ve seen a woman do for her man what John does

for Lara. I know women can be this devoted in real life, but in Hollywood Lara would have ran off with the milkman 72 minutes into John’s jail term (while saying something like, “You’re never there for me!!”). Chicks get a bum rap in film, I’m telling ya.

So, you want an involving, well-paced film that actually takes the time to realistically build up to an exciting and rewarding climax? Then The Next Three Days is for you.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Movies are funny in the sense that, while a below-average flick can be somewhat redeemed by a great ending, an otherwise solid outing can be dragged right straight down into the toilet by a bad ending. No matter if it’s a happy “Hollywood style” conclusion, a tragic death scene, or anything in-between, going out strong is paramount when it comes to movies. You’ve just gotta do it.

That brings me to Skyline, a new alien invasion movie directed by the Brothers Strause, the duo responsible for 2007’s so-so Alien Vs. Predator: Requiem. As a sci-fi fan, I had been looking forward to Skyline based on the really cool-looking trailers. But since it had been getting a lot of horrible press from my fellow film critics, I felt it was best to brace myself for some real physical pain, just in case. The lights dimmed, the trailers ran, and then the movie began. And, lo and behold, Skyline was actually shaping up to be a really decent, action-packed experience.

It’s about a group of twenty-somethings in Los Angles who, after a night of partying, wake up to find alien spaceships floating outside of their high-rise, sucking up people like a giant vacuum cleaner. The kids all decide to stay in the apartment building, except one, who insists that they’d be safer on a boat for some stupid reason. It doesn’t work out well when the others try out his dumb suggestion, and they all end up back in the apartment, waiting to see what happens next.

The movie remains from their perspective the entire time, giving an “everyman” view to the proceedings (ala Cloverfield, minus the annoying hand-held camcorder), instead of doing cool stuff like showing the military fighting the aliens (although this does happen a tiny bit later in the film). I guess they’re the big-time Army vs. Alien action up to the next upcoming alien invasion movie, 2011’s Battle: Los Angles (why are they all attacking California?). Sure, there’s hardly any plot, the characters are paper-thin and interchangeable, and precious little is explained about who the aliens are (or anything else, for that matter), but Skyline combats those shortcomings by being fast-paced, well-shot, and generally exciting to watch.

The alien design in Skyline borrows greatly from films like Independence Day and the Matrix, but whatever. It works here. Also, as a “low budget” film made for a “mere” $10 million, Skyline looks like a million bucks. Um, wait…that doesn’t make any sense. Damn clichés. Here, let me try again: I’ve seen films made for $100 million that don’t look half as good as Skyline (that’s more like it!). Say what you want about the infamous Brothers Strause, but these guys get the most out of every dime they get their hands on. It helps, of course, when you own the effects company that’s doing the CG for your movie. Nonetheless, visually, Skyline delivers big-time.

Plus, the aliens in Skyline are here to EAT OUR BRAINS. Well, not exactly…they sort of run on brains like they were batteries, so there’s multiple scenes where the aliens are shown ripping out the grey matter of helpless human beings and replacing their old “worn-out” brain for the spiffy new one (by the way, you can tell it’s a nice, fresh brain if it glows blue). I LOVE cheesy 1950’s-style sci-fi kitsch like that.

All was going well, but then…that ending. Whoa.

To say that Skyline has one of the most mentally-challenged endings ever committed to a digital recording medium would be saying…well, the truth. I’m not about to spoil anything, but DAMN,
was it beyond stupid, and, you guessed it, all the good feelings Skyline had been generating within me during its run-time were flushed out like I had just ingested a shot of liquid Draino. It
was just SO exquisitely stupid.

So, if things had remained on course, I probably would have dished out a 2 and-a-half star rating for Skyline. But for that dingle berry of an ending, I really have to penalize it a full star. But, if you walk out of the theater about 10 minutes early, say right after the scene where the one dude lays into an alien with a cinder-block, not only will you have had a far more enjoyable experience than I did, but you can feel free to add that star back on as well. It’s win-win.

Otherwise, only bother seeing this is you’re a super die-hard sci-fi geek who’s hard-up for his or her next monster movie fix.

(Long Island, N.Y.) The first ten minutes or so of Stone, directed by John Curran and starring Robert De Niro, Edward Norton and Milla Jovovich, are actually pretty incredible. I was all set to write what I knew would be a gushingly positive review, but – at the eleven minute mark – that idea slowly started going down the tubes.

Jack Mabrey (De Niro) is a world-weary (and possibly mentally ill, since flashbacks showed him threatening to toss his daughter out a window Michael Jackson-style when his wife once threatened to leave him) correctional officer who handles parole reviews, and Gerald “Stone” Creeson (Norton) is an arsonist who’s next on Mabrey’s list. Creeson, desperate for release, attempts to manipulate Mabrey, and enlists his wife Lucetta (Jovovich) in the cause, and to that end she starts stalking Mabrey and his wife, and…well, that’s really about it. There’s this side-plot about Creeson having some kind of religious awakening in prison during all this, but it’s just too goofy for words.

The problem with Stone is that it starts off strongly, with large doses of grit, realism and intrigue, but without warning, it suddenly goes boring out of nowhere. And from that point on, it just kind of grates on you, never letting up until the closing credits. I’ve seen far worse movies, but those first ten minutes of Stone really set up a far better movie than it finally delivered, and I guess that’s gotten me somewhat angry.

What upset me the most was the promise of yet another defining role by Norton, who, after a brilliant early acting career, has come across as phoning in his performances in recent years. Yet in Stone, Norton initially melts into his role so convincingly that you really do believe he’s this whacked-out street weirdo as he rambles on and on at his parole hearings. It’s seriously brilliant. It also helps that De Niro actually shows a tiny bit of the fire he possessed years ago, and that Jovovich is not playing a super-human fighting machine in a movie for once, giving audiences a rare glimpse of her greatly-underrated acting skills.

But, as Stone progresses, Norton and De Niro seem to lose their focus and intensity, the plot starts to drag and meander, and pretty soon the movie is reduced to strange slow-motion scenes where Norton is trying to find somewhere quiet in the prison to practice the humming his new religion requires while De Niro sits on a porch boozing it up with his depressive wife. Jovovich is the only one who holds it together throughout the entire movie, but one has to question if her effort was worth the end result that you see up on the screen. I don’t think it is, but I appreciate you giving it the ol’ college try, Milla.

I have to admit, I’m having a problem padding out this review…there’s just not too much to talk about. Stone is not memorable, nor is it not engaging, and, aside from the first ten minutes that I keep blabbing on endlessly about, it’s not even that well acted (again, aside from Jovovich). I don’t think I’ve ever reviewed a movie that I’ve turned against is such a way before; considering the load of talent involved, Stone is a movie that should have been a landmark picture, but in the end, it’s just a waste of time.

So pass Stone on by. I hear Megamind 3D is a good movie…try that one instead. I know it’s a CG kid’s flick, but I doubt it’ll have you leaving the theater filled with apathy like Stone will, and that’s the worst crime any film can commit. I’d rather walk out hating a movie with all my heart and soul and just forgetting it instantly.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Whew…thank goodness, it’s finally over. Well, at least, that’s what they’re claiming: that Saw 3D is indeed the last installment of the Saw series. But we all know Hollywood…they’re a dishonest lot who swoon to the tune of the almighty dollar, and if Saw 3D makes a ton of dough, you can bet we’ll still be tortured by this horrible series for years to come. After all, there have been eight Friday the 13th films since 1984’s “The Final Chapter.” Of course, I actually LIKE that series, so I’ll forgive them in this case for hoodwinking me so.

You know, I’ve always felt the Saw series had huge potential that it never lived up to. The basic premise is interesting: a crazed madman known as the Jigsaw Killer kidnaps people who he thinks are “wasting their lives” (it was probably easy for him to find victims when

maybe 90% of the population does this) and places them in elaborate traps to mutilate them and test their will to live. If they survive, it’s supposed to give them a “greater appreciation for their life.” Hmm…you know, when I spell it out like that, the

premise

isn’t THAT great. It sounds kind of stupid, actually.

But, as seen in the first film of the series, it WAS a unique idea and created a fairly dense atmosphere of gloom and dread…at least when director James Wan didn’t foul up the proceedings with idiotic things like rapidly spinning and rotating cameras, super-fast rapid-fire edits, and a script that had more holes and stupid reveals than…well, something that has a lot of holes and stupid reveals that I can’t think of right now. Saw needed to be handled with subtlety to be

truly effective, but…this is a series that knows nothing of subtlety. And alas, the series has only gotten more heavy-handed, incomprehensible, and just plain bad with each installment.

So, now we find ourselves at entry number seven, titled Saw 3D (ooh, it’s in 3D now, is anyone surprised?). Apparently the series was meant to go on, but after the box office dropped for part six I guess the studio finally decided to pull the plug. So, Saw 3D is meant to tie up all the loose ends and provide closure, and believe me, this is a series that needs it. But guess what? Saw 3D leaves as many new questions unanswered as it provides answers to old ones.

So, the original Jigsaw Killer died in Saw 3, but one of his apprentices, Mark Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), is still running around causing trouble. Saw 3D picks up right where the last film left off, which left me wondering what the heck was going on. You see, I had actually seen the previous Saw movie, but it was so bad I must have somehow forcibly expunged if from my memory as some sort of defensive mechanism. That must be it, since I’ve seen plenty of sub-par movies that I remember perfectly.

Anyway, Hoffman wants to kill Jill Tuck (Betsy Russell), the widow of the original Jigsaw Killer (Tobin Bell, who shows up in flashbacks), for some reason that escapes me. And Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), a character from the very first Saw film whose fate was left unknown, is shown six sequels later to have actually survived, and he’s got some weird cloak-and-dagger things going on in this movie. Oh, yeah, there’s this

other plot where a self-help guru named Bobby Dagen (Sean

Patrick Flanery

) is getting rich and famous by lying about having escaped Jigsaw’s clutches. Hoffman doesn’t like that, so he kidnaps Dagen and those close to him to make him actually live the lie.

Of course, this exposes the main flaw in Jigsaw’s plan…he thinks he’s helping people, but he wastes all this time and money constructing all these silly Rube Goldberg-style traps, and for what? So one guy, IF he lives through them, might go back to school or start writing a novel or something? And what about all the innocent people he kills along the way? It’s just so stupid.

In the end, director Kevin Greutert, who’s only directing gigs have been Saw movies (he served as editor on the earlier installments, “graduating” to director for Saw 6), has constructed an ode to gore that is truly impressive (I still can’t believe what they can get away with nowadays in an R-rated movie compared to the 80’s). But as a film, it’s total garbage. As per the norm for the series, plot twists come flying that are neither set up before, nor do they make any sense whatsoever (a certain character is revealed to have been in cahoots with the original Jigsaw Killer all along, but it makes no sense whatsoever that this person would do such a thing), the atmosphere is marred by the non-stop attempts to be visually cutting edge, and the ending, which was supposed to effectively end the series, instead leaves lingering doubts, nothing resolved, and a hole for an eventual sequel so large that you can drive a truck through it. And that’s all if the plot even made sense, which it really doesn’t…it’s like they made it up as they went along.

Oh, and the highly-touted 3D effects? They barely even make their presence known. Useless.

So, if you can’t get enough of people being eviscerated and cut in two while characters and situations fly by with nary an explanation, then Saw 3D is for you…and you are a person that officially scares me. What started out with the potential of becoming a brutal yet intelligent and (dare I say) elegant horror series (similar to Silence of the Lambs) has degraded into the trailer trash of scary movies. And unlike the chronicles of a certain hockey mask-wearing screen villain, I can only hope this really IS the “Final Chapter” for the Jigsaw Killer.

At The Movies: Paranormal Activity 2

(Long Island, N.Y.) Last year, I gushed endlessly about the original Paranormal Activity, a groundbreaking horror film directed by a guy named Oren Peli in the comfort of his own house. It was the story of a couple named Katie (Katie Featherston) and Micah (Micah Sloat), who were dealing with a haunting of sorts that turns out to actually be a demon.

The movie was from the point of view of Micah’s camcorder; during the day, he was one of those annoying types who liked to film whatever was going on around the house, but at night, he’d set up the camera to film the couple while they slept…and that’s when the creepy stuff would start to happen. And it would get worse and worse, night by night. By the end of the movie Katie, now possessed by the demon, murdered Micah and took off for parts unknown.

Director Peli hit a gold mine with Paranormal Activity; with no film-making experience and very little money, he nonetheless created a unique, gripping, and horrific movie that ending up becoming one of the most profitable films ever made (budget: $15,000, gross: 193 million, baby!). Based on the buzz it was generating, audiences demanded the indie film be given a wide release in theaters, and they flocked to see it based on word of mouth alone…a rare example of a flick made outside of the stale studio system that went on to achieve the success it so richly deserved.

Of course, once said studio system got its grubby little paws involved, you knew they would do everything they could to capitalize on Paranormal Activity’s fame, hence the inevitable sequel, titled…well, Paranormal Activity 2, of course. Peli declined to direct this one, instead taking a producer’s role and concentrating on his new movie, titled “Area 51” (man, I hope it’s good). Instead, Tod Williams took over directing duties, and for everyone wondering how it turned out, here’s the short answer: the first half pretty much sucks, but the second half suddenly gets great out of nowhere. That’s weird…usually, movies either start out strong and end on a weak note, or just suck and just go on sucking. I can’t remember the last time a movie pulled out of a tailspin like Paranormal Activity 2 does. But wait, I’m getting ahead of myself.

Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel and sequel all rolled up into one that deals with Katie’s sister Kristi (Sprague Grayden…wait, Sprague? Huh?), her husband Dan (Brian Boland, who, as far as I know, is not the famed comic book artist of the

same name), daughter Ali (Molly Ephraim), and infant son, Hunter (played by two twins, but I don’t know their names…sorry!). As revealed in the first movie, Katie and her sister first had a run-in with the ol’ demon when they were kids, and now he’s back, ransacking the house and generally being a pain in the butt. Of course, Dan doesn’t believe in that supernatural bunk, so he installs a network of security cameras, which, of course, is how we the viewers experience the movie. In addition, we also get in more close and

personal via the family camcorder, which brings me to my major gripe with movies presented this way…who the heck bothers to film boring crap like dad talking to the security camera guys? I know, we need to see this to move

the plot along, but it’s just a weakness of the “found footage” genre as a whole; people do dumb stuff.

You might have noticed that I said the first half of the movie sucked. Well, it did, mainly because it starts out as a 100% carbon-copy of the first Paranormal Activity. Same progression- boring day scenes of the family acting like fools, followed by creepy night scenes where you’re frantically scanning every inch of the screen to look for that coffee cup that might be moving on its own or something. Paranormal activity was so effective because no one had really quite taken that approach before, but doing the same thing in the sequel just gave it that “been there, done that” feeling. It didn’t help that the daytime storyline footage appeared to be somewhat disjointed, rushed, and all-too dependent on having seen the original movie (although what sequel isn’t guilty of that?).

But halfway through, things get off the hook. The increased budget makes for some wackier stuff happening, but the film wisely makes sure it doesn’t go off the deep end and beyond the realm of believability. It’s just freaky, and it draws you in…especially with the way the demon appears to be focused on young Hunter. It just increases the sense of dread when a child is threatened, you know? And not just in a ‘wacko with a knife’ kinda way- here, it’s something far more vague, sinister, and evil. Having “Aunt Katie and Uncle Micah” show up to visit a few times is also

interesting, considering we already know their eventual fates.

And while

the movie starts out with a disjointed narrative, the plot threads are slowly woven into a cohesive tapestry, effectively joining the first and second films. Explanations are given for some of the things that happen in the first Paranormal Activity, and the sequel leaves itself wide open for yet another installment. But in this case, Paranormal Activity is becoming a franchise I want to see more of, as long as great care is taken in how each movie ties in with the next. If they’re going to churn out more of these, I’d rather not see it turn into generic garbage like the Saw series.

Despite starting off pretty poorly, Paranormal Activity 2 ends up becoming a worthy sequel in the end. It’s a perfect movie for this Halloween. Go see it.