(Long Island, N.Y.) I’ve been awaiting the release of Armored with great interest. No, not because I’ve been forced to watch the trailer 10,000 times (it’s seemingly been attached to every movie I’ve gone to see for the last six months), but an opportunity to check out the credentials of director Nimród Antal (who last made the 2007 horror flick Vacancy). My interest in exposing myself to Mr. Antal’s work is the recent announcement of his next project- he’s currently filming a direct sequel to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1987 sci-fi/action classic Predator.

As an unabashed fan of the original, I’m looking forward to seeing what Antal’s sequel (scripted and produced by Robert Rodriguez) brings to the table; hence my interest in Armored’s quality, or lack thereof. So with that said, I’m happy to report that while Armored won’t go down in history as a great cinematic achievement, it’s still a very solid movie. There are problems, yes, but they have far more to do with the warts of first-time screenwriter James V. Simpson’s script than Nimród Antal and his excellent cast’s handling of it.

Armored is a heist movie whose ensemble cast is mostly made up of great veteran actors that we sadly haven’t seen much of lately: Laurence Fishburne, Matt Dillon, Fred Ward, and Jean Reno. The plot is rather simple- young Iraqi war vet and armored car guard Ty Hackett (Columbus Short) is having trouble paying the bills and keeping a roof over the head of his delinquent younger brother Jimmy (Andre Kinney) after the death of their parents. He asks his boss Duncan Ashcroft (Ward) to throw a few extra shifts his way, but (of course- and due to Armored’s rampant predictability, you’ll find liberal use of that phrase throughout this review) there’s barely enough to go around as it is. Showing pity for his plight, the veteran guards on his crew, including long-time family friend Mike (Dillon) and his brother-in-law Baines (Fishburne), decide to let him in on a little plot they’ve been cooking up…staging a fake hold-up while transporting a bank pick-up and making off with a cool $42 million. The do-right Ty balks at such a prospect (of course), but while heading home that evening he discovers a problem (of course) that further complicates his situation: Child Welfare Services is aware they may lose the house, and is threatening to put Ty’s brother in foster care. You just knew something like that was coming, huh?

Backed into a corner, Ty decides to go along with the robbery…provided no one gets hurt. But plans go awry (of course), and while holed up in an abandoned steel mill stashing the loot, an innocent witness is dealt with in the harshest way possible (in other words, Mike and Baines shoot him). Ty’s conscience kicks in, he reneges on his end of the deal, and locks himself in one of the armored cars…the one they haven’t unloaded the cash from yet (of course).

What then transpires is a stand-off: Ty’s former friends now want to break into the truck, blast him, and make off with the dough, and Ty…well, he doesn’t want any of that to happen (of cour…oh, never mind). The arrival of a cop doing a routine patrol (Milo Ventimiglia of Heroes fame) and the fact that a nearby electrical transformer is killing any radio signals in the area only serves to make things even more intense. The next check-in with their armored car company is expected in 51 minutes, after which time the area will be swarming with police…can Ty survive that long?

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a film spoiled more by whoever cut its trailer than Armored- if you’ve seen the preview (and it’s been hard to miss), you’ve basically seen the whole movie. The remainder that you actually pay your $10 to experience is basically filler. Now, Armored isn’t the first film plagued by this malady, but it’s a testament to the film’s overall quality that it remained watchable despite the fact that several scenes that would have ordinarily generated a fair amount of tension are otherwise ruined beforehand by overzealous marketing. Of course (I said it again!), Armored’s nearly non-existent, paint-by-the-numbers plot (6 guys rob a bank shipment, one gets cold feet- that’s it) couldn’t have made putting together a spoiler-free trailer easy, but hey, that’s not my problem. My job’s just to complain about it.

But, as I said earlier, Armored’s direction and cast carry what is otherwise a very predictable script. Matt Dillon and Laurence Fishburne both turn in fine performances (I enjoy seeing Fishburne play heavies as of late…he’s quite convincing as a psycho), but Columbus Short really made me sit up and take notice. He manages to infuse Ty with a slew of believable emotions- hope, desperation, fear, and blind determination. At heart, he’s an upstanding character faced with a difficult moral choice, but in the end he does the right thing, even if it might get him killed.

The rest of the cast is good as well, but none stand out so much as the aforementioned others. Jean Reno (who was so good in Luc Besson’s The Professional) is really just in the background here, as are Amaury Nolasco and Skeet Ulrigh as the others participants in the heist. Don’t get me wrong- they are all very effective in their roles and each is given scenes to shine in, but it’s just that they wind up being upstaged by Short, Fishburne, and Dillon. Fred Ward, on the other hand…well, he’s given nothing to do, really. He’s just plays the crusty old boss in what almost amounts to a glorified cameo.

What binds all these actors together so well, however, is Nimród Antal’s direction. His approach is remarkably old-school, to the point that it’s almost refreshing in this day and age of ADD-inspired filmmaking. No shaky cameras, no rapid-fire cuts, no flashy editing…Antal just puts the camera on his subjects and lets them do their thing. I know I’ve been complaining about James V. Simpson’s barely-there script, but perhaps this is what actually helps Armored be a better movie that it has any right to be. Stripped down to the basics, Antal was free to get the most out of his actors and just tell a story. Not an original or complex story, mind you, but one told about as well it one could be in this situation. Given Antal’s emphasis on characters and their interaction, it gives me hope for his upcoming Predator sequel, as truly good action movies live and die on this sort of thing.

Besides the script, there’s some other issues I have with Armored that I haven’t mentioned:

1. Ty has about 100,000 chances to escape and doesn’t.
2. The aforementioned 51 minute time limit seems to be drawn out 10 times over.
3. Certain “trusted” characters turn into bloodthirsty killers on a dime.
4. Why do I have GPS in my cell phone but armored cars carrying millions and millions of dollars don’t?

But these are moot points, my friends. Armored is a simple yet entertaining flick with some great acting, and it’s helmed by a talented director who’s hopefully going somewhere in the business. Check it out.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Man, I love Ninjas. Actually, I love martial arts movies in general- but when you add ninjas into the mix…MAGIC HAPPENS. Clad in black and possessing a mastery of all sorts of martial arts and exotic weapons (like…throwing stars!), the origin of the Ninja dates back to 14th century Japan, where their underhanded tatics served them well as spies, saboteurs, and assassins. But despite their status as enigmatic shadow warriors, the exploits of the Ninja have survived throughout the ages, eventually becoming the stuff of pop culture legend.

Some people claim that abilities of our pajama-clad friends began to experience some slight exaggerations with the passage of time, but this is something I just don’t buy. Hong Kong Kung-Fu flicks, the American Ninja movie boom of the 80’s, and Robert Hamburger’s REAL Ultimate Power: The Official Ninja Book have all set the record straight; not only are Ninjas masters of stealth and treachery, but they can kill entire towns for no reason at all, fly, breathe fire, shoot lasers out of their eyes, teleport, travel time, and even rock out on the electric guitar if so inclined. Apparently, there’s nothing a Ninja can’t do. And that’s why I love them.

It’s been a while since a big-budget Hollywood Ninja movie’s been made (the last one was…um, was there a last one?), so it’s with open arms that I welcome the subject of today’s review- Ninja Assassin, expertly directed by James Good McTeigue. It’s a slightly redundant title (like, Ninjas ARE assassins), but at the same time it’s also very catchy. It’s the story of Raizo (played by Rain, the Justin Timberlake of Korea), a guy who’s living my life’s dream: to be kidnapped as a child and whisked away to a mountain temple to be trained as a Ninja. Via flashbacks, Raizo recalls his brutal training at the hands of Lord Ozunu (played by long-time Ninja movie vet Sho Kosugi), leader of the Ozunu Ninja Clan.

Despite becoming Lord Ozunu’s favorite, Raizo becomes disillusioned when his love interest and fellow trainee attempts to flee the Clan, only to be caught and killed for her transgression. Following his first successful assassination and the distaste he feels for it, Raizo himself absconds, branding himself forever an enemy of the Ozunu Clan. And of course, their subsequent feud leads to torrential floods of crimson goo and body parts, as should be the case with any self-respecting martial arts film.

There’s also some nonsense thrown in about Europol agent Mika Coretti (Naomie Harris) who investigates murders linked to the Ozunu Clan, but believe me, you won’t care. That’s just filler in-between all the Ninja stuff. I honestly don’t even know why they bothered putting it in there, unless they were just trying to prevent theater audiences everywhere from suffering from Ninja Overload (that’s an actual medical term) and start karate chopping the ushers. The character of Mika, marked for death by the Ozunu Clan and in turn protected by Raizo, is yet another example of a “normal” character needlessly plugged into an extraordinary situation to give the audience (wait for it) “someone to relate to.” Come on, like we wouldn’t relate to a human meat grinder like Raizo? Please.

Overall, Ninja Assassin is a great movie. Aside from all the fun stuff like blood and death, Raizo’s back-story is actually somewhat interesting. Training montages in martial arts movies are always cool, but the addition of the tragic relationship between Raizo and his doomed love adds a slight emotional resonance to the proceedings. Also, Mika’s storyline isn’t nearly as annoying as ones seen in other films of this type- it feels organic and related to the plot, and not tacked on. Plus, it leads to some awesome Army vs. Ninja action, so maybe it was all for the best. It actually reminded me of the first Blade movie, when Wesley Snipes protected the human doctor from the vampires, who aren’t Ninjas, which is what this review is all about. Ninjas! Did I mention that in one scene Raizo kills a floor because it creaks when he walks on it?

The acting isn’t bad, either…about par for the course for a movie of this type, maybe even a little better. People say their lines, act happy, sad or angry, and generally…well, act. No, it’s not Oscar-worthy, but it’s not Sunday morning Kung-Fu Theater caliber, either. Teen idol Rain, who soon stands to be a big action star, actually got himself pretty chiseled for this role, training for months and eating nothing but chicken breasts and vegetables. His fight scenes are totally convincing, fast-paced, complexly choreographed, and deadly. For the most part the camerawork and lighting compliment the slaughter perfectly, although a few scenes are a bit too under-lit and shaky.

Five minutes in is when I realized Ninja Assassin was the bloodiest movie I’ve seen in years- arms and legs are severed, heads lopped off, bodies are vivisected, and every sword slash results in at least a gallon of blood lost. Granted, most of the gore on display is computer generated in nature (and there’s some obvious digital assistance in a lot of the combat moves as well), but despite being a staunch advocate for practical effects in movies, the CG approach worked in this case. Ninja Assassin aspires to be a live-action Anime, and attempting to replicate the fluid and over-the-top Japanese animation style with physical effects would probably come across as clumsy. It helps that the CG is very well-done, except for the fact that none of the blood spilled ever seems to hit the floor. There was a scene where Raizo gives the Cuisinart treatment to a few dozen Ninjas with his blade-on-a-chain and the white floor underneath was virtually spotless when it should’ve looked like a UFC ring. I’m not sure how that little detail got overlooked in post-production.

One thing I learned from this movie: while they possess the supernatural ability to heal themselves, move at lightspeed, and slip in and out of shadows like ghosts, Ninjas seem to lose their powers if you shine bright lights on them, kinda like in Gremlins. And the parallel between the two movies doesn’t end there- there’s a scene where young Raizo and the other new Ninja recruits are told that if they eat their dinner, their training will be twice as hard the next day. Hearing this, everyone starts digging in EXCEPT Raizo, who winds up being the only “good” Ninja of the entire clan. Now it wasn’t expressly stated, but I have a hunch that dinner was taking place after Midnight that evening. However, at one point Raizo falls into water and DOESN’T start spontaneously reproducing, so we don’t get the Gremlins-inspired hat trick. Oh, well. The fact that the Ninjas in this movie can rapid-fire countless throwing stars faster than a minigun more than makes up for that minor quibble. Mika’s car ends up looking like a porcupine at one point thanks to this admirable trait.

Oh, another thing: no one in this movie believes in Ninjas, despite the fact that the Ninjas leave like 25 murder scenes covered with a few million throwing stars. Hmm.

Now, you may have noticed that I’m giving Ninja Assassin a rather glowing review, but when it comes down to it, is it really THAT good? I mean, in all seriousness, it’s a movie about Ninjas hacking up everything in sight, and little else…surely it’s no great cinematic work in the grand scheme of things? Well, to answer that question, I’ll simply defer to the master himself, Roger Ebert, who once said:

“When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you’re not asking if it’s any good compared to Mystic River, you’re asking if it’s any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then The United States of Leland clocks in at about two.”

In other words, reviews should stay within the context of the movie itself. In Ninja Assassin’s case, no, it’s no Citizen Kane, but when stacked up against recent action movie offerings, it easily one-ups them all. So, if you love blood, gore, and above all else, Ninjas (guilty!), then I can’t think of a better way to celebrate the hardships faced by our forefathers than so take the family to see Ninja Assassin this Thanksgiving weekend. Enjoy.

(Long Island, N.Y.) 2012, the latest in a long line of nearly-identical disaster films by director Roland Emmerich, is the ultimate “missed it by one inch” movie. By that, I mean that the main characters will get into a random vehicle, start moving, and whatever was right behind them (road / runway / building / whatever) will instantly collapse…but don’t worry, they always manage to

barely escape. And this happens over and over and over and over again for the entire 2 hour and 40 minute runtime. In other words, it’s a typical Roland Emmerich movie. And in case you were worried, all of his other clichés are present and accounted for, just as they were in his past hits (such as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow): the Everyday Joe, the Children in Peril, the Cute Doggie, the Selfless President, the Crazy Wacko Guy Who Knows About Everything (but whom no one believes, of course), the Deceitful Government Official, etc, etc, etc…

Whereas the Earth’s destruction in Independence Day was heralded by an alien invasion and by global warming/cooling in The Day After Tomorrow, in 2012 souped-up solar flares are the culprit. It seems the sun is bombarding the Earth with elementary particles called neutrinos (which, in reality, it harmlessly does every day) that are heating up the Earth’s core like a microwave burrito. Although such a thing is technically impossible (the scientists in the movie exclaim as

such, but hey, why ruin things with facts?), this in turn causes the planet’s crust to start shifting and all manner of doomsday events to occur- earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions. Faced with a 2-year deadline before the Earth is inhabitable, the world leaders (lead by American President Thomas Wilson, played by Danny Glover) converge and meet to discuss the construction of massive ships (I initially thought they were space ships, but it’s later revealed they are boats ala Noah’s Ark) to ensure the survival of the human race…well, some of it, anyway. Like all movies dealing with the end of the world, the higher-ups have all the luck, and the rest of us are fish food…well, provided the fish survive the cataclysm, that is.

You’d think this alone could provide enough fodder to pad out the running time of any movie, but of course we need a normal, run-of-the-mill guy heading up the cast so we have “someone to relate to.” This character comes in the form of divorced limo driver and failed sci-fi novelist Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), whose ex-wife took the kids and moved in with her caring, successful plastic surgeon boyfriend Gordon (Thomas McCarthy) years ago (something known in the car business as “trading up”). Of course, Jackson is somewhat aloof and estranged from his kids, preferring to work on another horrible book that he’ll probably never finish. But he attempts to mend fences by picking them up from Gordon’s posh pad in the Los Angeles suburbs and taking them on a camping trip to Yellowstone National Park. Naturally, he neglects them there as well, first to play with his laptop (apparently Yellowstone has wi-fi), and then to hang out with Charlie Frost (Woody Harrelson), a paranoid nutcase in the neighboring campground who’s broadcasting his own conspiracy theory radio show. Today’s topic: how the government is keeping the truth about the impending holocaust a secret from its citizens! But while people like Charlie are a dime a dozen, in this case…he’s actually right. Amazingly, he’s also in possession of a map showing the location of the Arks- they’re being built in China of all places (see? Everything really IS built there!).

When huge fissures start opening all over LA, Jackson (who, of course, still loves his wife) takes his family (including Gordon, who, against the protocol of movies of this type, is actually a pretty stand-up guy) on a desperate race halfway around the world in a bid to get to the Arks before its too late. Along the way we’re treated to about 100,000 of the close brushes with certain death that I outlined in my opening paragraph. Again, you’d think this was enough to drive a film, but we also have something like two dozen other sub-plots and characters interwoven into 2012’s narrative. An aging jazz duo doing a gig on an ocean liner, a Chinese monk and his family, the President’s daughter, various international scientists, a Russian businessman/mobster and his family…the list goes on, and many of their relationships are bizarrely and impossibly connected, like something out of a

Star Wars movie.

For example, one of the scientists knows John Cusack’s character because he was one of the less than .0005% of the population that had actually read (and been inspired by!) his book. That same scientist’s father, who gave him the book, is one-half of the jazz band. The Chinese monk’s brother helped build the Arks. The Russian, who has a ticket to get on an Ark, is John Cusack’s boss. The scientist that helped Cusack research his novel is the same one that gave Charlie the Ark map. And so on. One might think such an overload might create a complete mess of a picture, but to 2012’s credit, the scenes containing all these characters are generally quite effective at conveying the global devastation to the viewer on a more personal and emotional level, mostly because the excellent actors involved all make the most of their limited screen time.

Oh, remember when I mentioned

all the stock Roland Emmerich characters/plot devices earlier? I forgot to mention one: the Obnoxious, Morally-Upstanding Scientist, such as the one played by Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day. In 2012, it’s in the form of Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), the chief scientist responsible for uncovering Doomsday. I loved how he constantly chided the President’s Chief of Staff, Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), for making the hard decisions that NEEDED to be made in such a horrible crisis. Yet no matter how annoying Adrian gets, Carl calmly and coolly shoots down each and every one of his ridiculous objections each time he blubbers them (tell the public? But it’ll cause anarchy! The Ark workers should be allowed to come on board? Okay, give one your ticket and he can!). But the best part was when Adrian insisted that they let all the passengers from a disabled Ark on board theirs, not caring that they probably only had provisions to support just the passengers they had and not a few thousand extra. I could imagine fast-forwarding a few months and finding everyone on board eating each other because they had no food left, but alas, that didn’t happen. There’s a lot of dumb, tugging on your heartstrings bunk like this in 2012, and the outcome of any scene is no surprise- nothing happens that you can’t call at least 1/2 an

hour in advance. Like I said, typical Roland Emmerich.

I suppose you’ve been waiting through this entire article for me to get to the amazing

special effects that are basically the public’s sole draw to see

2012, and yes, they’re amazing. It’s hardly even worth mentioning how amazing they are…suffice it to say, every cent of 2012’s 200 million dollar budget was spent on convincingly destroying the planet with a level of detail never seen

before. In fact, I don’t think anyone can ever make a worldwide disaster flick ever again, because 2012 can’t be topped, at least in terms of scale. Buildings topple, continents split

in two, and lava and tidal waves run rampant all over everything. It’s glorious.

Overall, despite the somewhat negative tone of my review, 2012 was very entertaining in the end. It didn’t waste any time getting rolling and just kept going full-steam ahead until the end, which is probably why it didn’t really seem overly long despite being over 2 1/2 hours in length. In addition to the fine acting and beautiful computer-generated carnage, there’s also some good laughs along the way, including one especially clever gag involving starting a Bentley. So turn your brain off and you’ll be fine, but if you’re hoping for more than just beautiful, eyeball melting, non-stop CG destruction, you’re outta luck.

(Long Island, NY) The Box, a new sci-fi/horror film written and directed by Richard Kelly, ended up almost nothing like I expected. Never having read the 1970 Richard Matheson short story “Button, Button” that The Box is based on, the preview trailers made me think this was a modern re-telling of W. W. Jacob’s “The Monkey’s Paw.” Not so- much like Kelly’s surreal 2001 cult hit Donnie Darko, The Box starts out as one thing and quickly and perplexingly morphs into an entirely different beast altogether.

Recapping The Box’s storyline will prove daunting, as it’s really all over the place. About halfway through watching I began to get a dull ache in the pit of my stomach- the feeling I get when I’m watching a movie that I fear is posing far more questions than it will have the decency to answer by its conclusion. Sure, such an approach can be intriguing, although more often it just makes me want to set the movie screen on fire. Luckily for my fellow patrons at the movie theater (who probably weren’t in the mood to start scrambling for the emergency exit), The Box politely manages to wrap most of its loose threads up by the time the credits roll. At least, I think they were tied up. I’m not quite sure.

Set in the 1970’s, The Box starts out simply enough: Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden, the guy with laser eyes in X-Men) Lewis appear to be a moderately successful married couple (she teaches at a swanky private school, he works at NASA) who tend to live a bit beyond their means. Despair sets in when it appears that their inability to economize will threaten their son Walter’s (Sam Oz Stone) pricey education and possibly even their home, but just when things are looking their bleakest, a strange package is left at their front door early one morning. Containing an odd wooden box with a button enclosed in a locked glass dome and a note informing them that a “Mr. Steward” will come calling at 5:00 pm, Norma and Arthur are bewildered at first, but soon continue with their everyday routines. That is, until Mr. Steward (Frank Langella) actually shows up as advertised. A calm, well-spoken man grotesquely missing a chunk of his face (eew), he presents the Lewis family with a bizarre proposition and 24 hours to decide on it: if they press the button on the enigmatic wooden box, they get one million dollars, but someone they don’t know will die. Now, to their credit, Norma and Arthur agonize for almost the full 24 hours before hitting the button, whereas your average Dick and Jane would probably start tapping out Morse code on the thing instantly.

The deed done, Mr. Steward re-appears with a briefcase filled with one million smackers, but being decent folk, Norma and Arthur immediately regret their decision and try to take it back. Sorry guys- no go. However, this is just the beginning…soon the lines of reality start to blur as the couple and their son become central to a plot hatched by unknown alien forces to decide the very fate of mankind(!). As it progresses, The Box starts to get very trippy, and it’s to director Richard Kelly’s credit that he manages to keep all the threads of the plot-line from unraveling completely. Yeah, you’ll be sitting there wondering just what the heck is going on for most of the movie, but rest assured, it’ll all come together in the end. Well, sort of.

The Box is a very solid, unique and compelling film. It has a strange, nightmarish quality which is more unsettling than actually frightening, but it works to keep the viewer guessing until the very end. And yes, you will be guessing, because for the first 3/4ths of The Box, the storyline gives you nothing, and I mean NOTHING to go on. If you paid for your ticket, just realize that you’re along for the ride- my trying to explain how the plot progresses with its many dreamlike twists and turns would simply be an exercise in futility.

One of the main reasons The Box works so well, despite being fairly disconcerting, lies squarely on the strength of its cast. Cameron Diaz and James Marsden display amazing chemistry with one another as a couple damned by a moment of moral weakness. Frank Langella’s performance creates a aura of mystery, charm, and menace as he tackles the role of a grim redeemer with an unknown agenda. The rest of the cast is solid as well, but the film revolves around these three, and it would have completely fallen apart if left in the hands of less capable actors.

Of course, The Box’s other strength- it’s uniqueness- is also it’s greatest downfall, depending on your viewing tastes. If you like things straightforward and well explained, this ISN’T the movie for you. I could certainly see some people not enjoying The Box’s unconventional narrative, and when the payoff finally does come, it’s somewhat underwhelming. Not HORRIBLE, mind you, but just not worth the extended and rather overwrought buildup. Yes, there’s a huge emotional climax and it is rather heart wrenching, but the hows and whys are fairly unsatisfying, if only because they’re a bit hokey.

Also, I must take a moment to relay a personal annoyance to me concerning the “Mr. Steward” character. You see, as I mentioned above, he’s missing a nice big piece of his face. It ain’t pretty- we’re talking a good chunk of jawbone gone, a hole in his cheek exposing his teeth, the works. But all this was done via rather poor computer graphics, and it’s not convincing- in fact, I found it took away from Frank Langella’s performance a great deal. Here he is, being all chilling and creepy, and all I can do is stare at the unbelievably fake CG plastered across his puss. I could just picture the green placeholder paint used on his mug during filming, and when your CG provides a distraction of that magnitude, perhaps you’d best re-think the benefits of traditional, physical make-up effects. Okay, maybe you couldn’t make 1/3rd of Frank Langella’s head go completely bye-bye, but at least it’d look real.

So, in the end, The Box is an example of refreshing yet flawed film-making- it’ll be loved by some, hated by others, and all for the same reasons. But if you like you’re a thinking man’s science fiction fan, I highly recommend it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Hi folks. Since I’m both a huge fan of Halloween (not to mention spooky stuff in general), I’m going to do something a little different with my column this week. Instead of just reviewing one film, I’m going to compile a whole list of my own personal horror movie recommendations, past and present, to get you in the mood for this dark and evil season. This way, after you’re done partying or trick-or-treating, you can head on down to your local video store and pick up a few of these 13 creepy selections, comprised of both mainstream hits and obscure cult classics:

The Thing-
Starring Kurt Russell and directed by the great John Carpenter back in 1982, The Thing is probably my all-time favorite horror movie. Based on the short story “Who Goes There?” by John W. Campbell Jr., it’s the tale of a naughty shape-shifting alien that terrorizes a remote American artic research outpost, killing the men stationed there one by one and leaving nearly-undetectable doppelgangers in their places. Naturally, this breeds intense paranoia among the dwindling survivors, who must overcome their fear and find a way to destroy ‘The Thing’ before it finds a way to get to civilization, where it’s sure to eventually assimilate the entire planet. Dark and relentlessly grim, The Thing is blistered by a great ensemble cast (including Wilford Brimley and Keith David) and Rob Bottin’s legendary creature and gore effects work. One of the most involving and intense horror movies ever made.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes-
Almost any film starring the late horror icon Vincent Price is a safe bet for Halloween, but if I had to pick one, it would be this tongue-in-cheek masterpiece. Price stars in the bizarre tale of Dr. Anton Phibes, a famous musician thought dead who slowly stalks and murders the surgical team responsible for his wife’s accidental death on their operating table. Do these nice people, who were only trying to save the poor woman’s life, really deserve such a fate? Who cares! Using the ancient Ten Plagues of Egypt (as depicted in The Bible) as the basis for his murders, the twisted Dr. Phibes shows us all a good time as he foils the bumbling police time and again as he exacts his misguided revenge. Campy, creepy, and over-the-top, The Abominable Dr. Phibes is an underrated classic.

The Silence of the Lambs-
Okay, everyone should know this one. Serial killer Buffalo Bill has been kidnapping women, holding them hostage, and eventually skinning them, something the FBI doesn’t like. However, they’ve hit a dead end in their investigation and, when a senator’s daughter ends up Billy’s newest victim, they get desperate. The FBI sends trainee Clarice Starling to gain the assistance of the brilliant yet cannibalistic psychiatrist, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, incarcerated in an asylum for many years. A former criminal profiler for the FBI, Lecter’s keen insight and powers of deduction appear to be the key to stopping Bill’s killing spree, but does the sinister Lecter have ulterior motives in helping the naive Starling? Who knows, all I care about is that actor Sir Anthony Hopkins’ charming yet feral turn as Lecter still manages to make me nervous despite his character being imprisoned through inch-thick Plexiglas. If that’s not the hallmark of a true horror icon, I don’t know what else is. A finely directed (by Jonathan Demme)

and shot thriller, The Silence of the Lambs remains one of the very few horror films to win multiple Oscars, an honor it rightfully deserves.

The Evil Dead-
Way before director Sam Rami found success with the Spider-Man series, he was eking out low-budget splatter flicks in the woods with his friends and trying to make a name for himself. This film, the first of the Evil Dead trilogy, gets my personal pick for Halloween viewing mainly because it’s the only one of the three that can be classified as true horror. You see, as the series went on, the scares gave way to campiness and slapstick instead, which is all well and good if you dig that sort of thing. But if you’re looking for a creepy and atmospheric tale of demon possession with a side of blood and guts, it’s hard to top the film that basically launched Rami’s career (not to mention the career of B-Movie god Bruce Campbell). It’s crude and rough around the edges, but that’s all part of The Evil Dead’s charm.

The Mist-
I reviewed the Frank Darabont-directed adaptation of Stephen King’s novella back in 2007, and assigned it my first (and, to date, only) 4-star rating. In retrospect, giving The Mist 4 stars and Pixar’s WALL-E only 3 1/2 was a bit off- looking back, the scores probably should be transposed with one another- but you know what they say about hindsight, right? Anyway, none of that takes away from The Mist’s quality one iota- it still remains one of the best horror movies released in years. The tale of a group of shoppers trapped in a supermarket after a mysterious monster-infested mist envelops their small town, it does what so few horror flicks bother to do: give you characters you care about, so when they’re placed into a dangerous situation, you don’t actually root for the CREATURES to kill THEM like you do when watching Friday the 13th (although that’s fun too). A top-notch cast lead by Tom Jane, some great camera work, and really freakish monster design help to overshadow some of the (surprisingly) poor CG effects.

Paranormal Activity-
In theaters currently, and now that it’s finally gone into wide release, you don’t have an excuse not to see it anymore. And no, that whole “Um, but I have to do my laundry, feed my cat, trim my toenails…” bit ain’t gonna cut it, either. Yes, the somewhat obnoxious advertising campaign billing it as the “SCARIEST MOVIE EVER” might make you think the film is all hype, but trust me, it’s not. It’s the real deal, and you haven’t lived until you’ve seen this disturbing tale of a couple videotaping a malevolent demon who just won’t leave with a rabid, live audience. Chances are you’ll be screaming along with them.

Re-Animator-
Released back in 1985 and based on a short story by H. P. Lovecraft, director Stewart Gordon fashioned a quirky gore-fest that could be considered one-half horror film and one-half black comedy. Re-Animator is the story of mad scientist Dr. Herbert West (a character that has achieved cult status due to actor Jeffrey Comb’s portrayal) and his quest to perfect his invention, known as the re-agent- a fluorescent green formula capable of re-animating dead tissue, at times with disastrous (or humorous) results. Aided by his long-suffering assistant, Dr. Dan, Herbert gets into all sorts of outlandish situations, including confrontations with an arrogant, bubble-headed co-ed obsessed, talking decapitated head and the somewhat annoyed body it used to be attached to. Re-Animator is both fun and freaky.

Halloween (John Carpenter and Rob Zombie’s versions)-
For a good one-two punch, watch John Carpenter’s slasher genre-defining 1978 original about masked murderer and escaped mental patient Michael Myers and his quest to get back home to Haddonfield, IL to wish his baby sister a Happy Halloween. Couple that screening with Rob Zombie’s excellent 2007 re-make (and I normally HATE remakes), which delved deeper into Myers’ childhood and his relationship with his therapist, Dr. Loomis, and you should be all set for a sickenly good time. The sequel to Carpenter’s version isn’t so hot, but at least he can rest easy because he wasn’t the director on that one. Alas, Rob Zombie has no such excuse, as his follow-up, Halloween 2, was pretty terrible. Stick with the originals and you’ll be

okay.

Friday the 13th (any film in the series)-
Now, if you’ve been reading my column for any length of time, you’d know that I’m a big fan of one Mr. Jason Voorhees. The hulking, hockey mask-clad, machete-wielding, mass murdering momma’s boy and most-hated county resident of the Crystal Lake tourism board, Jason is one of the most iconic monsters in cinematic history. While his films all have varying degrees of creepiness, you watch them more for the blatant fun factor, over-the-top and imaginative kills of brainless teenagers out to party, and the abundance of 80’s cheese. The recent 2009 remake/reboot of the series has taken it in a slightly darker and more realistic direction, but it still captures the essence of what made Jason the king of slasher movies. As long as you avoid the blight to humanity known as Jason Goes to Hell, any entry in the series (if not all of them in a row!) will make for excellent viewing this Halloween.

Event Horizon-
A science fiction film released in 1997, Event Horizon is only good movie directed by Paul W. S. Anderson, but that’s most likely because it’s one of the few films he’s helmed where he didn’t actually write the script as well. But regardless of Anderson’s (lack of) credentials, Event Horizon remains an underrated and effective romp through a great big haunted spaceship, complete with hellish imagery and some rather nightmarish set design (that “meat grinder” corridor…eek!). Plus, it has Laurence Fishburne as a feisty rescue ship captain and Sam Neill ripping his own eyes out! What more do you need to know?

Orphan-
I reviewed Orphan earlier this year and gave it all-around high-marks, and I still stand by that review. And, luckily for you, it’s out on DVD in time for the Halloween season. It’s not the most original movie in the world- I mean, how many flicks can they make about charming, evil children and the one adult who discovers their true nature but that no one believes? Quite a few, actually. But that doesn’t change the fact that Orphan is expertly made and readily plays with the standard horror movie conventions by lulling the viewer into thinking it’s going in one obvious direction, then winking and pulling a fast one on us. Talented child actor Isabelle Fuhrman helps make the eponymous Orphan pretty believable…and scary. I’m sure not adopting some brat any time soon, and it’s all thanks to this movie.

May-
A little-known film directed in 2002 by Lucky McGee, May is about a really, really weird girl (played by Angela Bettis) who just wants to make a friend. The problem, as I just stated but must reiterate, is that she’s really, really weird. Relating more to a glass-boxed doll named Suzy given to her

by her mother than to real people, May nonetheless tries over and over establish relationships with actual people, only to be rejected time and time again. So lonely that she’s finally driven to the brink of madness, May sets out to make a friend, no matter what the cost to herself…or them. Overall, a very good movie with an odd, quiet atmosphere that has a thick underlying sense of dread underneath, but sadly it falls apart somewhat near the end. Still, well worth seeing if you’re looking for something offbeat.

Session 9-
Another sleeper, released in 2001 and directed by Brad Anderson, it’s about an abandoned mental hospital and the asbestos removal crew that arrives to clean it up before it can be demolished. Once the job has started, however, strange and startling things start happening, and the ominous past of the hospital and its patients slowly start to reveal themselves. Filmed in an actual ruined asylum, the dilapidated surroundings (dust, broken furniture, peeling paint) help to generate a thick, foreboding atmosphere over the proceedings. The terror in Session 9 is more psychological than physical, but in some ways that makes it all the more menacing. This movie was one of the inspirations cited by the creator of the excellent Silent Hill series of Survival Horror videogames, and if you’ve ever played them, you can easily see the influence Session 9 had on their look and feel.

Well, there you have it…13 scary film suggestions to keep you busy this Halloween. Enjoy

(Long Island, N.Y.) The movie business, just like most things in life, is rife with politics, and at times like these politics can prevent otherwise groundbreaking films from achieving the success they so richly deserve. Sometimes, they can be set up to fail by a studio bigwig looking to prove that his own mundane projects are the way to go.

Other times, they can fall prey to clueless marketing types who clearly don’t know what to do when something unusual comes along, and as a result simply do the bare minimum to promote it (which can be nothing at all). After all, in their minds, it’s best to save money on advertising and let the offending movie die a quick death at the box office so they can get to generic garbage they think the public really wants to see- usually something involving big explosions and lots and lots of computer graphics. It’s sad when someone’s had work ends up on the chopping block like that.

Now, along comes Black Dynamite. A spoof of “Blaxploitation” movies (an action genre created in the early 1970’s featuring black casts for black audiences, and one I‘m a big fan of), BD is one of the funniest and most original movies I’ve seen in years. But alas, I haven’t seen any posters for it in theaters, commercials on TV, or trailers attached to any of the movies I’ve seen recently (and I see an average of 1-2 a week). It’s also getting a very limited release- as of this writing, it’s only showing at two theaters on Long Island (Commack and Valley Stream) and a small handful in Manhattan. It’s obvious that, for whatever reason, Black Dynamite is a victim of the above-mentioned studio politicking, and it’s a total shame. Marketed correctly (read: at all), I think this could have done really well. It’s a damn fine movie.

First off: Black Dynamite, as played by veteran actor Michael Jai White, is perhaps one of the greatest bad-asses ever to appear on the silver screen. Why? I’ll list off why, point-by-point. Black Dynamite:

• Is cool
• Is tough
• Is buff
• Is an ex-CIA agent
• Is a Vietnam Vet
• Is a Kung-Fu master
• Has a big afro
• Drives an even bigger Caddy
• Owns a fine polyester wardrobe
• Has no qualms about beating up stubborn old ladies for info (always a plus)
• Can service 5 women at a time (!!!!)
• Wields a big Magnum (the gun, not…oh, never mind)

We’ll stop our little list there. This IS a family website, after all.

Black Dynamite, a suave ladies man who “drives a $5000 car and wears $100 suits,” is called back into action by the CIA when the Mafia kills his brother, delivers heroin to the orphanage, and floods the ghetto with bad malt liquor. To avenge his brother, protect the kids, and clean up the streets, Black Dynamite must use his wits, hands, feet, nunchucks, and an assortment of real big guns, eventually uncovering a conspiracy leading all the way to the White House! But if any man is up to the task, it’s Black Dynamite!

Calling Black Dynamite a “parody” wouldn’t be accurate- it’s more of a loving, tongue-in-cheek homage to the entire Black Action genre. Unlike 1988’s lackluster I’m Gonna Git You Sucka, BD doesn’t make fun of its source material- for the most part this movie plays it straight, while adhering to all the little details you’d expect from 70’s Blaxploitation- guns, bellbottoms, hot ladies, kickin’ tail, and stickin’ it to The Man! You can tell that writer/director Scott Sanders and co-writer/star Michael Jai White were big fans of movies like the late Rudy Ray Moore’s Dolemite and Richard Roundtree’s Shaft, and set to re-create that type of experience (fun, warts, and all) for modern audiences.

What’s really amazing is that this movie looks like it was actually shot back in the 70’s! Film grain, bad editing, wacky camera work, porn-style wah-wah music, stock footage, you name it. A lot of work obviously went into the production of Black Dynamite in terms of nailing its authentic Blaxploitation feel, and aside from some bad CG (which stands out rather harshly when everything else is so vintage), the filmmakers really pulled it off. In fact, if you were flipping through the channels one night and came across Black Dynamite, you’re never suspect it was a modern movie- you’d swear it was the best Blaxploitation movie you never saw.

And while the cast is great all-around (especially Byron Minns as Bullhorn, a character clearly inspired by Dolemite), the main reason that Black Dynamite succeeds is star Michael Jai White, in what SHOULD have been his big break-out role (had Apparition, the film’s lame-duck distributor, done ANYTHING to support this film). Unlike most actors nowadays trying to play tough guy roles, White actually possesses the charisma, physicality and legit real-life martial arts abilities to make pulling off such a character a breeze- Black Dynamite is one BAD man! Here’s a good example why: In one scene, Black Dynamite confronts a pool hall full of mean dudes who threaten him with a butt whoopin’ unless he leaves. BD turns and walks towards the door, but instead of leaving he slides the gate shut and flips the “closed” sign. Carnage ensues.

Of course, even a flick as awesome as Black Dynamite can have a few minor issues- it does have a few spots where it loses the authentic feel and goes a bit overboard on the spoof, and there are those aforementioned bad CG shots- there’s one scene where a man’s running around on fire that looks horribly fake. But overall, these are minor quibbles and not really worth dwelling on.

Here’s a quick story for you: I originally saw Black Dynamite over 4 months ago at a test screening in Manhattan. After the movie was over, questionnaires were handed out and 25 people were selected to be interviewed by the marketing people for their in-depth opinions. The focus group was kind of an odd insight to how the studios do some of their research- the 25 people were obviously cherry-picked, 25/25 loved the movie, and the marketing dudes seemed to have trouble understanding why. They were just so out of touch, despite asking us every question they could think of (why we all thought it was excellent, what made it excellent, what got us interested, what the best scenes were, what age group it should appeal to, if it would appeal to guys or girls, etc). No wonder Black Dynamite is getting no advertising.

So, in closing, I have to say that Black Dynamite is more than worth the effort you’ll expend in tracking down a theater it’s actually playing at. In going to see it, you’ll be accomplishing two things: One, you’ll be helping support an entertaining, independent film that’s getting no help whatsoever from its distributor; and Two, you’ll be telling The Man that he can’t tell you what movies YOU want to see! So don’t be no jive turkey, brothers and sisters- show Black Dynamite some love.

(Long Island, N.Y.) To start off, Paranormal Activity lives up to the hype- and then some. And aside from being a truly engrossing and disturbing horror movie, it’s also important in the sense that it was made “outside the system.” It’s the brainchild of one Mr. Oren Peli, a regular Joe with no formal film training at all. One day, Oren decided to make his very own movie, tapping into his own fear of the supernatural (supposedly even Ghostbusters scared the poor man) for the subject matter.

To that end, he fixed up his house (the film’s sole shooting location), bought a high-end camcorder, auditioned a few actors, came up with a framework for his story, and just cut loose, free of any of the constraints normally imposed upon films by their backing studios. Heck, the guy didn’t even have a script, instead relying on his actors to interpret his storyline and ad lib to their heart’s content. The whole thing cost 15 grand and Peli edited it himself, most likely all on his home PC. And who would a thunk it? It worked.

Starting out in a very limited release, positive buzz and word of mouth is ensuring that Paranormal Activity is opening in more and more cities every weekend. If it’s not playing in your area yet, keep an eye out- it will be soon. I sure hope the director is at least getting a percentage of the take, ’cause this movie is raking in the dough….

Paranormal Activity can be classified in the “found footage” genre, ala 1999’s vastly inferior Blair Witch Project. That is, it takes the form of camcorder footage recorded by the characters involved that is supposedly “found” and made public so that you, the audience, can watch what happened. The plot is simple:

Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat (both their real-life names) are a couple that have recently moved in together. Now, fellas- we’ve ALL had a girl at one point in our lives that came with…shall we say…”baggage.” Sometimes this baggage comes in the form of “daddy issues” or a psycho ex-boyfriend, stuff like that. Well, consider yourself lucky if that’s all you have to deal with, as Micah has the end-all be-all of girlfriend baggage to contend with- a DEMON. Yes, an actual DEMON. As it turns out, Katie has been stalked on and off by an evil demonic menace since the tender age of 8, a fact that she didn’t bother telling poor Micah until she and Beelzebub had moved into his nice, big house. Gee, thanks Katie.

Anyway, once the demon makes itself at home it starts its shenanigans, creating various disturbances and whatnot each evening after the couple have gone to sleep. Micah, the more inventive member of the relationship, decides he’s going to buy a camcorder and get this all on video, even going so far as to set it up on a tripod near their bed while they slumber. Not having been harassed by this unknown creature for years, Micah takes the making of his documentary very lightly, something that upsets Katie. She considers his constant jovial antics insensitive, but as an audience member, I personally found Micah to be a lighthearted reprieve from the ever-darkening atmosphere. And darken it does, as the nocturnal activity of their otherworldly guest continues to escalate, leading to grim and disturbing discoveries each morning when reviewing the previous evening’s camera footage. Soon it becomes clear that their lives are in danger, but since the demon is tied to Katie and not the house, running away would prove useless. The duo struggle in vain to discover the intentions of the creature and how to possibly vanquish it, but each night brings them closer and closer to doom…

Paranormal Activity is similar to The Blair Witch Project in how it was made (hand the actors a camera and let ’em rip), but otherwise it has 100x the atmosphere, tension, humor and overall “creep” factor, and unlike Blair Witch, it actually has a great payoff at the end. The key is that Katie and Micah aren’t your usual beautiful and perfect Hollywood archetypes, but normal people doing normal things, making them far easier to relate to. The movie starts off slow, but only to establish how “normal” everything is and to set up the pieces that will be going into play later- Katie and Micah, the limited back-story that is given to the haunting, and the house itself, which becomes as much a character as the actors. That slow start becomes a slow burn, and eventually you’ll be equally anticipating and dreading bedtime, as each night only gets worse for the unfortunate couple. The mounting atmosphere of dread and fear becomes almost too much to bear, and as a jaded horror movie fan I loved every second of it.

What also makes Paranormal Activity so effective are the fears it plays upon. For the most part, it doesn’t rely on things jumping out and going boo like most films. No, it’s far craftier than that. It speaks to our most primal fears…those of the unknown, of malevolent forces completely beyond our control, forces from which the best we can hope for is indifference. Geez, even the childhood notion of your bedsheets forming an impregnable barrier against all evil is violated in this movie. Oren Peli sure knows what scares people, that’s for certain. The fact that he also managed to find two lead actors that are 100% believable in their roles and exhibit great chemistry with each other helps as well. After all, in the end, this is basically a movie about two people and a camera. Aside from two other characters that barely get a combined total of 10 minutes of screen time, Katie and Micah are the only human beings you’ll be seeing for PA’s 96 minutes, and they never bore you. Not for a second.

Paranormal Activity and its success have me hyped. It’s a great example of a film that didn’t cost $150 million, has no major special effects (unlike another recent movie involving demonic stalking, Drag Me To Hell, which failed on every level PA succeeds on), no big-name actors (barely any actors at all, in fact), yet is generating buzz and audience reactions like no film I’ve seen in years. This thing is selling out theaters like crazy and audiences I’ve seen it with go completely nuts- one frightened patron even went so far as to walk out after an especially grueling scene and not come back. Seriously! And in the lobby afterwards I found groups of people huddled together, shaking their heads and discussing what they just saw. Do you think drivel like Transformers 2 had this effect on people?

The sad fact is that you’ll never see a million-dollar film that’ll be allowed to take a chance on a concept that hasn’t been focus-tested to death to appeal to everyone and anyone. Our entertainment salvation lies with cheap little nothing flicks like this that can take risks because they cost nothing to make and the director isn’t getting bullied by studio head honchos during production. Paranormal Activity is engrossing from start to finish and does what it sets out to do to near-perfection. I welcome it as a breath of fresh air.

As for the directing future of newcomer Oren Peli, I always wonder what kind of success these kind of filmmakers will enjoy once they transition from their guerrilla-style, low-budget beginnings to mainstream projects with actual funding behind them. The Blair Witch guys both still work as directors, albeit mostly on lame, direct-to-video stuff (including Blair Witch 3, which according to Wikipedia is slated for 2010. Oh, boy!). As for Oren Peli, he’s already working on his next movie. He’s using the same “found footage” premise, but this time it takes place at Area 51. Based on the quality of his debut, that’s got me pretty interested.

Go see Paranormal Activity now. Even if you have to drive five towns over to do it.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Mixing film genres can be a difficult task to get right. Usually there’s not enough of one, too much of the other, and so on. And the two genres I notice being melded the most throughout the years are horror and comedy. Sure, you’ll get the success stories like Creepshow, Ghostbusters, or Sean of the Dead, but that’s only after wading through toxic sludge like Scary Movie, Killer Condom, or Zombie Strippers (no, I didn’t make those last two up). Like Reese’s realized when they invented the venerated Peanut Butter Cup, you have to walk a fine line when mixing two very different ingredients in order to get it right.

And that brings us to today’s review: Zombieland, directed by Ruben Fleischereich (his first feature-length endeavor). It’s a lighthearted film about (if the title didn’t clue you in) zombies starring Woody Harrelson. The plot itself is as simple and clichéd as any zombie flick you’d care to mention: Earth is consumed by an undead apocalypse and only small pockets of humanity remain. A college student called Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is heading to Columbus, Ohio to try and find his parents, and along the way he runs into a Twinkie-obsessed zombie hunter called Tallahassee (Harrelson). The two hit it off (sort of) and become traveling companions.

Oh, and in case you were wondering: their names aren’t REALLY Columbus and Tallahassee…that’s just where they’re both respectively heading, geographically speaking. In a world where every second could be your last, the way our heroes avoid painful attachments is to keep their names to themselves. You see, Columbus and company live by a set of safety rules (keep up with your cardio, check the back seat, etc) which are referenced throughout the movie, similar to what you’d find in Max Brook’s humorous book “The Zombie Survival Guide” (available for sale at your local retailer! And no, I’m not getting kickbacks). You see, you need to follow strict guidelines to increase your chances of survival when living in a world filled with re-animated flesh-eating corpses. It’s just common sense, folks.

Anyway, our duo start ransacking a grocery store in search of delicious creme-filled sponge cakes when they meet Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), two girls headed to…well, Wichita and Little Rock. Now, over the course of Zombieland, these two ladies basically con Columbus and Tallahassee over and over, but in typical stupid male movie character fashion, the dim-witted guys keep falling for it. Eventually, an uneasy truce is declared and, after a change of plans, the group decides to head to an abandoned amusement park called Pacific Playland, a supposed safe haven in a world gone to hell. But uncertainty abounds- even if they manage to make it there in one piece, what will they find? Romance? Human survivors? Vicious zombie clowns? Twinkies? Actor Bill Murray pretending to be a zombie so he can work on his golf game without interruptions?

Nahh, that last one is too silly to be real. Or…IS it?

Zombieland is funny, fast-paced, and for fans of gratuitous violence and gore, there’s plenty to ensure that Zombieland easily earns its “R” rating. After all, it’s a movie about cannibalistic living corpses and humans with lots of guns, gardening equipment, and banjos. Put the two together, add water, mix, and you’re sure to have yourself one heck of a mess. However, Zombieland never goes too far with the guts and sinew- if the bloodstained climax of George Romero’s Day of the Dead still gets you a little queasy, Zombieland might be a bit more your speed.

Zombieland also eschews the annoying habit of modern film running lengths going over the 2 1/2 hour mark- it’s a scant 87 minutes long, a length which can make even a bad movie almost watchable (simply because there’s less pain), but a good movie even better. After all, I can’t count the number of flicks I’ve seen that would have been enjoyable had they not obnoxiously outstayed their welcome by as long as 20-40 minutes. Zombieland wisely doesn’t fall prey to the annoying “more is more” trend adopted by more and more filmmakers. Always leave ’em wanting more, folks.

Okay, I’m not using the word “more” again in this review. Sorry.

I’m happy to finally see Woody Harrelson in a leading role once again after a long series of smaller roles in recent years. Hopefully Zombieland’s box office success will continue this trend, as Woody still possesses the charisma and physicality to carry a leading role, even when pushing 50. The rest of the cast does a fine job as well, all of them establishing characters that you actually grow to care about. Harrelson and Eisenberg possess good chemistry together, and Stone and Breslin provide excellent foils for them. And Bill Murray’s cameo is a joy- they guy just continues to get better and better with age.

But that’s not to say that Zombieland is a home run. The characters of Wichita and Little Rock keep screwing over Columbus and Tallahassee so often that it’s hard to feel any sympathy for them when they finally get into a legit bad situation and need bailing out. And the situation they get themselves into will basically leave you shaking your head at their complete lack of brains…if keeping a low profile is the key to survival in a world overrun by the undead, you don’t start up every light and ride in an amusement part, genius.

But other than that minor annoyance, Zombieland delivers. It manages to enter the rather overcrowded zombie film market and successfully carve out its own unique and entertaining niche in it. Highly recommended.

(Long Island, NY) I’m tired, and honestly, not very much in the mood to be writing at the moment. But I feel I owe it to you, my loyal readers, to persevere and deliver yet another one of my engrossing movie reviews. Such is my dedication to this wonderful website known as Long Island Exchange. Despite my fatigue, I’ll do my best to make sure my writing this week is up to my usual standards (take that as you will).

So…today we’ll be dissecting the new Bruce Willis film, Surrogates, directed by Jonathan Mostow (of Terminator 3 fame). It’s a science fiction movie based on a 2005 comic book series (which I was initially unaware of…I might have to track it down) that takes place in the year 2017. The idea behind Surrogates is interesting…you know how a lot of people nowadays are obsessed with the internet and living through their online personas? Well, in the future, imagine being able to lie back in the safety of your home and remotely control a stronger, faster, better-looking robotic version of yourself (known as a “Surrogate”)? Sound more fun than World of Warcraft or The Sims? Well, in Surrogates, the vast majority of human beings worldwide are living out their lives in that very way, thanks to new technology invented by a reclusive scientist named Dr. Lionel Canter (James Cromwell).

Despite the fact that Dr. Canter originally invented the Surrogates as a means for disabled people to regain their mobility, the social use of Surrogates by the general public eventually becomes all the rage. While turtled up in their apartments and houses, your average Joe or Jane can work their jobs, go out on the town, make whoopee with total strangers, take death-defying leaps onto dance floors, and all without risk. You see, since any damage sustained by a Surrogate never carries over to its user, their actions have no consequences in real life (lucky stiffs!). The world becomes a safe yet sterile and cold place, free of crime or fear.

That is, until the first murder in years is committed. The victim? Jarod, the college-age son of Dr. Canter who was inhabiting the body of a Surrogate at the time. The young man was done in by an unknown assailant wielding a new weapon capable of not only destroying a user’s robotic doppelganger, but it’s user as well. The FBI dispatches Agent Tom Greer (played by Willis) and his partner Agent Jennifer Peters (Radha Mitchell) to investigate these shenanigans. Using his own Surrogate, Greer looks into the mystery surrounding Dr. Canter, the company he founded and was subsequently forced out of, and an anti-Surrogate community lead by a big dreadlocked guy known as The Prophet (Ving Rhames).

Compounding the case is the fact that Dr. Canter’s son just so happened to be using one of dad’s deluxe Surrogates at the time of his death, leading to the speculation that the target was actually the scientist himself.

Despite the distraction of Greer’s problems at home- his son previously died in a car crash and his depressed wife prefers interacting with him only though her Surrogate (considering that she’s pretty beat-up looking in real life, maybe that’s a plus)- the veteran agent pushes on with the investigation, until an encounter with the killer and his weapon (resembling a Star Trek phaser) disables his Surrogate. Having to literally take matters into his own hands, Greer, much older and more follically-challanged than his youthful Surrogate would suggest, physically ventures outside of his apartment for the first time in years. Adjusting to the unease and anxiety of life unplugged from his mechanized stand-in, Greer continues his probe into the case, and soon discovers a plot that could cost millions their lives. But can a mere human like Greer survive when faced with robotic enemies more than his physical match?

Okay, I’ve made it this far through the review. I took a short break, watched some Law and Order: SVU, and had a protein drink. I feel a bit refreshed, ready to push on, finish my review, and hit the hay. Onward.

Surrogates is a pretty solid film, but one that has the odd distinction of sharing exact, major plot elements with another recently-released sci-fi movie…in this case Gamer (which I also reviewed). In Gamer, humans also enjoyed shutting themselves indoors in their underwear while controlling outside avatars to live out their fantasy lives, although in this case they were human volunteers and not robots. Still, it’s strange coincidence, but not one that harms either film, as they each have totally different vibes. Surrogates is more of a gritty, futuristic detective story, while Gamer was just goofy and stupid. While not perfect, Surrogates is clearly the better of the two. It has better story, character, and tension, and I found it fairly engaging from start to finish.

The main attraction of Surrogates is Bruce Willis, who conveys a gruff, angry, yet emotionally burdened sensibility in his role. He remains the ultimate everyman in his performances, dishing out as much as he takes, and this helps the audience buy into his character and see things from his perspective. Radha Mitchell continues to add to her sci-fi resume (Pitch Black is a favorite of mine), and the Aussie actress proves yet again that she is quite talented at her craft. I’d comment on James Cromwell and Ving Rhames, but neither is given much to do in this movie- you only see them occasionally. Cromwell’s character actually does most of his emoting through the other actors that play his various Surrogates, which is a shame because I’ve always found him personally to be very entertaining.

Starting to get tired again, but I’m gonna make it…

I think one of the main attention-getters of Surrogates are the interesting ways the special effects are utilized. Since the Surrogates themselves appear almost completely human, the CG is used sparingly, and only to give them a slightly “plastic” look. It’s subtle, but effective. And while the de-aging done on Bruce Willis’ Surrogate is pretty impressive, I have to admit that I found it pretty disturbing at times. Remember how Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen were de-aged via the miracle of CG in X-Men 3? Or how they pasted Arnold’s 1984 mug onto Roland Kickinger’s body in Terminator Salvation? Now picture that done with Bruce, complete with a full head of blond hair and a nice saran-wrap sheen to his skin. It was just weird. And I’ve mentioned before in this column the implications of this kind of technology…we could really end up raising long-gone actors from the dead for new movies! Just get a stand-in and map John Wayne’s face onto ’em…BAM! The Duke’s alive again, for all intents and purposes. Personally, I don’t know how I feel about that. One hand it’s exciting, but on the other…it’s just plain morbid, and perhaps even disrespectful.

Time for the wrap up…

So, Surrogates. Yeah. It’s good. And I’m tired. But I found the energy to write this review, and that’s not something I could have done with a movie that just plain sucked. Unless it was horrible to the degree that it sapped my will to live (in which case I would have found the energy to exact my revenge somehow), writing a review for a run-of-the-mill bad movie would have had me asleep by the second paragraph. But Surrogates was decent enough that it made me want to tell you about it. It does have some problems (the Surrogate tech developing from scratch to the point seen in the movie in a mere 13 years seemed a bit silly), and it isn’t totally original (how many other movies have we seen where people “plug-in” to virtual reality?), but it does execute its plot well and it contains a few twists and turns that actually kept you guessing. Feel free to give it a whirl.

Good night readers, and pleasant dreams. Zzzzz….

(Long Island, N.Y.) I’ll state it right up front- the worst possible sin a film can commit is to be boring. Now, I’m not saying bad- I’m saying BORING. The two don’t always go hand in hand, you see. While a just plain bad movie may draw the ire of the general movie going public, I find there are usually some (usually unintended) golden nuggets of entertainment contained within if you look closely enough. But when a movie is boring…now that’s true pain. I’d say it’s safe to say a movie qualifies as boring when more than two of the following occur:

• You find yourself struggling to stay awake, or worse, struggling to fall asleep
• You take a keen interest in probing the floor with your sneakers so as to properly identify which spots are stickier than others
• You start thinking about all the vegetables you’d rather be eating, and you hate vegetables
• You text anyone you can think of, even people you don’t know or like
• You constantly have to wake your friends so you don’t have to suffer alone

Alas, I found myself having to deal with all of the above when watching Steven Soderbergh’s latest, The Informant. A black comedy based on true events surrounding naughty corporate price-fixing scandals, The Informant had intrigued not that I’d been hoodwinked by more than one dishonest trailer in the past and grown bitter. Jaded, even. But The Informant would be different, I declared. I just had a feeling. Drat. I fell for it again.

Imagine my disappointment when The Informant (it’s actually called “The Informant!” but I’m leaving out the explanation point because it makes for odd and annoying sentence structure, at least for me) turned out to be the cure for insomnia. Literally. I’d been sleeping pretty poorly for the last few days but I had to endure repeated elbows from my friend Don throughout the first 40 minutes or so of The Informant until I finally caught my second wind. Then he conked out and I had to start elbowing him. But we’ll get into the hows and the whys of this in a minute.

The Informant is centered around a real-life international price-fixing conspiracy in the mid-1990s to artificially inflate the price of an animal feed additive called lysine. Mark Whitacre (Damon) is a successful young officer at Archer Daniels Midland (AMD), a company at the center of the conspiracy. Forced by his goody two-shoes wife to blow the whistle on the happenings at AMD, Whitacre soon finds himself a willing and eager participant in the growing case against its top executives, collecting hundreds of hours of audio and video during meetings with AMD’s competitors to fix the price of lysine. Working directly with FBI agent Brian Shepard (Scott Bakula), Whitacre seems at first to be the perfect stoolie, happily spending years of his life aiding in the investigation against his bosses at AMD and their Japanese counterparts. However, his behavior eventually starts to turn bizarre and erratic, and as time goes by, it’s discovered that Whitacre himself is weaving a tangled web of lies and deception to cover his own indiscretions at AMD. Could he’s helping to take down?

The Informant had potential. I mean, gobs of it. It tells the interesting true-to-life tale of the beginnings of the world-wide movement by governments against price-fixing (a practice where rival companies secretly agree to uniformly drive up the prices of their product), a crime that was all but ignored up until that point. As a result of Mark Whitacre’s aid AMD was initially fined $100 million, the largest antitrust fine in U.S. history at the time. To date, billions of dollars of price-fixing fines have been paid by various sundry companies, representing a major modern crack-down on corporate crime. Thus, The Informant tells a tale of a significant turning point in legal history, making it ripe for an entertaining trip to the cinema. Unfortunately, the movie itself is a total bore. I know I’m going against the critical grain here, as The Informant is generating fairly positive reviews, but it takes all kinds, folks. And I’m the kind that just doesn’t get the film’s critical appeal at all.

First of all, I have to say that The Informant has an excellent lead. Matt Damon, always a solid actor (remember Good Will Hunting?), is the main reason I didn’t have to prop my eyelids open with matchsticks while watching. I’m not sure what Mark Whitacre was like in real life, but I’d bet at least $10 that Damon nailed him perfectly. I’ve always been especially impressed by actors that are willing to physically transform themselves for a role- the aforementioned weight gain, along with an off speech pattern reminiscent of a Kids In The Hall sketch really enabled Damon to lose himself in the part. As a character, Mark Whitacre is a far cry from Jason Bourne- you can tell a lot of work went into Damon’s preparation. Scott Bakula and Melanie Lynskey also turn in effective performances as FBI agent Shepard and Whitacre’s wife, respectively. Oh, and the guy that played Biff (Thomas F. Wilson) from Back to the Future is in this as well, but he didn’t bully anyone around or make them do his homework. I was bummed about that, but I guess I can’t blame him because he’s probably trying not to get typecast. Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that The Informant’s cast is uniformly good.

No, the problem with The Informant isn’t with the actors, it’s with the plodding and ineffective direction. As mentioned above, the subject matter is very compelling, but the material is presented in such a bland and uninteresting fashion and the pace so grating that I wondered how and when director Steven Soderbergh (responsible for the sturdy Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13) became so hopelessly milquetoast. I’m sure The Informant was a great movie when it originally existed purely in script form, but somewhere along the way to the screen all the life was just sucked out of it. It’s a shame- instead of being enraptured by The Informant’s twists and turns, you’re just counting the minutes until it mercifully ends.

Also to The Informant’s detriment is how hard Soderbergh attempts to make it “zany” and “madcap.” The movie is filled with hokey jazz lifted straight out of a 60’s late-night comedy act and strange monologues by Whitacre that are always completely irrelevant to whatever’s happening at the moment…but it all comes across as supremely forced, as if The Informant’s desperately trying to sell you on how damn funny it is. But, aside from a few decent laughs, it’s not.

In the end, The Informant is a missed opportunity. On paper, it had it all- a good cast, a good story, a well-known director- but in the end, it produced a film far below the level of its esteemed pedigree. Still, I’d almost (and by almost I mean not quite) say it’s worth it to see Matt Damon’s performance, but if you do I suggest loading up on the caffeine beforehand, or you’re likely to snooze straight through it. Otherwise, skip it.