Xploitedyouth Reviews

Canon City (1948)

A Canon City Resident Reviews CANON CITY

[6/10 · 23 March 2007]

I've lived in Canon City, Colorado for the last five years or so, and the experience of watching the film is a unique, slightly surreal one for me. Not only does the film take place in my tiny little town in the middle of nowhere, it takes place in MY NEIGHBORHOOD! The prison is a mere two blocks from my house, the movie theater three blocks, the Elk's Club where the prison guards eat in the film is right next door to the restaurant where I work. Seeing these familiar landmarks (as well as the fantastic shot of Main Street, which has aged little) gives me a small rush, and makes me inclined to declare CANON CITY an under-appreciated cult classic. Without the haze of nostalgia, I realize that the film, while certainly competent, is one of a series of mostly-forgotten B-pictures, focused on mostly by film nerds like me. I was actually quite impressed with the cinematography and lighting, which was surprisingly sophisticated and compelling, and the film rarely drags, but it just feels kinda same-y. Still, how cool is it that I'm still seeing movies in that old theater that's showing Abbott and Costello in 1948?

When Stand Up Stood Out (2006)

Needs To Stand Out More

[5/10 · 17 July 2006]

Fran Solomita's documentary WHEN STAND-UP STOOD OUT chronicles the rise of the Boston stand-up scene in the late seventies and early eighties, a period that produced such talents as Dennis Leary, Steven Wright, Don Gavin, Janeane Garofolo, Lenny Clarke, Bobcat Goldthwaite, Colin Quinn and Solomita himself. It follows the scene's conception, at a crummy little Chinese restaurant called the Ding Ho, to Wright's first appearance on Carson's TONIGHT SHOW, to the mainstream success comedians like Clarke, Leary and Garofolo have enjoyed, while confronting issues of inter-comic jealously, bitter rivalries, drug and alcohol excesses, and the elusive specter of fame. The film is constructed competently, and features some really eye-popping moments (the comedian who bashes a heckler with his guitar), but it never really feels like more than a slightly longer BEHIND THE MUSIC or TRUE Hollywood STORY. Since the director is a buddy of most of the subjects, the viewer feels like an outsider on an inside joke, robbing the film of it's objectivity. The major issues (the drugs, the jealously) are dealt with in brief montages, so most of the film is dedicated to showing early (and admittedly funny) clips of the comedians performing, and no real insight is made. Ironically, WHEN STAND-UP STOOD OUT really needs to stand out more.

The Libertine (2004)

Damn, It's Ugly

[7/10 · 27 March 2006]

Johnny Depp is a truly remarkable actor who's long and fulfilling career has including roles as diverse as the worst director of all time, a chocolate factory magnate, a rogue CIA agent in Mexico, a mental patient who thinks he's Don Juan, a drag queen, a pirate, an astronaut, and a boy with scissors for hands. His Earl of Rochester in Laurence Dunmore's THE LIBERTINE is something new, and for an actor who's built his career on playing something new, that's really saying something.

The Earl is a famous poet in the 1600's, who falls out of favor with the King (John Malkovich) every now and again but is always called back into his royal service. Why? Because the Earl, while lusty, offensive and sometimes downright cruel, is a brilliant writer and a great drinking buddy. Rochester chooses to bury his gift under a mountain of wine, women and song, until his bad habits finally catch up to him and he is claimed by syphilis at the age of 33.

The film is fascinating as a portrait of a man who prides himself on wallowing in the filth, until he realizes the filth has gotten too deep to ever emerge from. While his hedonism certainly didn't help, it was ultimately his cynicism that killed him. Depp is remarkable in this role, which is one of his ugliest and most raw performances. He starts off a miserable cur, but he's fun to watch because, though he's cruel and obnoxious, he's entertaining. As the disease starts to take hold of him and his behavior becomes fatally reckless, the fun is gone but the fascination is intensified. Not since LEAVING LAS VEGAS has a character self-destructed so vividly.

While the performances are top-notch across the board, and the screenplay is witty and moves the film along crisply, I have nothing but bile in my keyboard for the production values. The film is unforgivably murky-looking, grainy and offensive to the eyes. I can't think of the last time a film looked so ugly. Not ugly in a stylistic sense, either, although the scenario certainly calls for it and the director and crew will undoubtedly try to pass it off as intentional. The film looks amateurishly ugly, like it was shot by a first-year film student who hasn't learned anything about lighting techniques. Depp's performance deserves a better showcase.

The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

The Sad State of Horror Films Today

[3/10 · 26 March 2006]

Remakes are infinitely frustrating to me. I wish I had the capacity to forget the film on which the new version is based, if only for the duration of the film. It's just not fair to hold a remake up to the standards set by the original. Or is it? In the case of THE HILLS HAVE EYES, I think the compare-and-contrast session that ran rampant in my brain is a justified one. Because the new version stays so close to the original story, the comparison is unavoidable, and the effect is unfortunate. Wes Craven's 1977 original film was a breakthrough in horror, and one of the best genre films of the 70's (on a list with the likes of THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, DON'T LOOK NOW, and LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT). It made a bold statement about morality, humanity, the sanctity of family and the feral nature that lurked beneath the veneer of civilization. It was a fascinating and shocking character study. The only message conveyed by Alexandre Aja's remake is that a remake that looks better, sounds better and is performed better than it's source material does not make it superior. The film is lacking a soul. It is a cheap commercial cash-in on what was once a ground-breaking film. The story is not altered, nor are the characters or their struggle. The only alteration is that now the violence is much more potent, the villains much more deformed, and the settings much more stylish. This saddens me. It says that the horror genre has become an intellectual wasteland, with the innovators raped to death and left for the vultures. It says that movie-goers of my generation are much more interested in nihilism and less in irony, more in the aesthetic and less in the cerebral. I wouldn't be surprised to see a hollow-headed remake of 2004's 28 DAYS LATER within a couple years.

Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005)

Read All About It

[9/10 · 16 March 2006]

I'm not too proud to admit that much of the subject matter of George Clooney's GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK was over my head. I just never learned much about newsman Edward R. Murrow or his fight against witch-hunting junior senator Joseph McCarthy. The best thing I can say about the film, though, is that it made me want to learn more. It's a rare film indeed that has the gumption to speak over the heads of it's audience, but still bait them into discussion and further research. Clooney manages to pull this feat off through sheer artistic invention. This film is glorious to behold, presented in a rich black-and-white palate that suits the story perfectly. The fact that every character is constantly smoking only heightens the stylishness of the film, as Clooney knows precisely how to shoot smoke as an almost mystical and foreboding presence. Another great asset the film has is that marvelous character actor, David Strathairn. His Murrow is a wonder: intelligent, plain-speaking and bold on the air, introspective, compassionate and witty off the air, and amazingly charismatic at all times. His battle of wits with Senator McCarthy is captivating. McCarthy is not portrayed by an actor, but rather by himself, via real archive footage of the famous Communist hunter that shows him as a bully and a coward. Murrow's eventual triumph over him is especially rewarding, as we see the real man flailing when the lights are turned on him during the Army-McCarthy hearings. If the film has a failing, it's in it's insistence on a meaningless subplot, involving a married couple (Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey, Jr.) who must hide their status from their co-workers at CBS, where marriage between employees is forbidden. While the rest of the film is a staunchly political piece, the addition of a small personal story with no real dramatic heft simply eats up time. This is only a small failing, however, as the rest of the film is an incisive and still-relevant piece of work. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to my local library...

Do the Right Thing (1989)

There Is No Right Thing To Do

[10/10 · 13 March 2006]

Spike Lee's DO THE RIGHT THING is one of the most vibrant, upbeat tragedies of the American cinema. Set in a small neighborhood in Brooklyn's Bedford-Stuyvescant region, it's the story of the various people that inhabit the block as they try to live and work under a palpable air of racial tension, culminating in a tragic and thought-provoking climax that is still widely debated. Mookie (Spike Lee) is ostensibly the main character in a rich ensemble cast. He's a pizza delivery boy for Sal's Famous Pizzeria, a local institution run by the good-hearted Sal (Danny Aiello) and his two sons, the racist Pino (John Turturro) and the quiet and sweet-natured Vito (Richard Edson). Also living on the block is the drunken sage Da Mayor (Ossie Davis), the all-seeing Mother Sister (Ruby Dee), the local DJ Senor Love Daddy (Samuel L. Jackson), Mookie's sister Jade (Joie Lee) and his girlfriend Tina (Rosie Perez). These characters are brought vividly to life by an amazing cast, and the entire film is filled with loud, boisterous dialogue and music, and the neighborhood itself is presented in bright, ostentatious neon colors. All of these work to both offset and accentuate the senseless tragedy that the day's end will bring.

It's a record heat wave day, and trouble starts to brew when Mookie's hot-headed friend Buggin' Out (Giancarlo Esposito) angrily notices that the Wall of Fame in Sal's is decorated only with pictures of successful Italian Americans, and no black people. Buggin' tries to get the neighborhood to boycott Sal's, but most refuse, because Sal's has been in the neighborhood for 25 years and many of the inhabitants grew up on his pizza. Buggin' finally gets the hulking Radio Raheem (Bill Nunn) to join his cause, because Sal treated him rudely earlier when Radio refused to turn down the boombox he blasts twenty-four-seven. Words are exchanged, the boombox is smashed, and a riot ensues. Radio is killed by the police, and Mookie throws a trash can through the window of the pizzeria, which is eventually burned to the ground. The biggest question most viewers will be left with is why. Why would Mookie throw the trashcan, after Sal just said that he considered Mookie to be like a son to him? Was it because of Sal's affection for Jade? Was it the death of Radio Raheem? Was it because he truly believed that Sal was wrong in his actions and that the place needed to be destroyed? Or is it simply because Mookie is drifting through his life, and suddenly sees the opportunity to do something important? Why couldn't Buggin' Out have behaved less antagonistically about the pictures? Why couldn't Sal, whose clientèle is almost completely black, just have put some pictures of black people up? Lee offers no answers to any of these questions, because answering these would be deciphering human nature. The film is about ignorance in every community, and how people are too proud or too stubborn to speak out there differences and come to rational conclusions. The destruction of Sal's didn't bring Radio Raheem back to life. It didn't even make anyone feel better about the loss. But it was done in the heat of anger and it can't be taken back. The biggest tragedy for the viewer is that we all know what could have been done to prevent everything, but we also know that given the same opportunities over again, no one would have behaved differently.

Touchez pas au grisbi (1954)

Gangsters In Their Pajamas

[10/10 · 12 March 2006]

For fans of American gangster films, Jacque Becker's TOUCHEZ PAS AU GRISBI may seem like a radical departure from the violence and excess of films like THE GODFATHER and GOODFELLAS. It's a quiet film about quiet men, living out their golden years in a dignified manner. Much of the film is spent watching Max (Jean Gabin) as he dines with friends, cavorts with his mistresses and listens to his favorite tune on his old record player. The amazing thing about the film is that there's never any question that Max can be a dangerous man. There's a famous scene where Max and his long-time partner Riton (Rene Dary) eat pate, set up their sleeping quarters, dress in their pajamas and go to sleep without exchanging a word. There's an amazing, soft tension playing through this entire scene. Riton has screwed up a business deal, as he has done many times in the past, and Max is getting fed up. I was reminded throughout this scene of the famous line from GOODFELLAS about assassins coming as friends. This certainly would have been the right time for Max to whack Riton, if that were what he wanted. But he doesn't, because honor and loyalty are important aspects of Max's life, and he will protect his friend even though their big retirement job may be jeopardized. Max is, quite simply, the least Americanized gangster in film history, and he's a remarkable character. Jean Gabin solidifies his reputation as the greatest French film actor of all time through subtlety, nuance, and natural charisma. The film itself is painted with the rich black-and-white brush strokes of the best film noir, and truly succeeds in transporting the viewer to another place and time. A genuine, under-appreciated masterpiece.

Psychonauts (2005 Video Game)

You'd Be Crazy To Miss It

[11 March 2006]

Why hasn't everyone played this game yet? It's original, funny, intelligent and a total blast to play. The story of Raz, a pre-adolescent psychic training to become a mental warrior at a deranged summer camp, is brilliantly conceived by madman Tim Shaffer, voiced by top-quality actors and written with a biting wit. The worlds you visit are the minds of insane people, and pack enough innovation in each one to easily carry ten games. From the Stratego-esquire levels of a man who thinks he's Napolean to the trippy, black-lit velvet villa of an artist with rage issues to the paranoid, topsy-turvey suburban neighborhood populated by double-agents, you'll find your greatest challenge in the game will be choosing which part you like the best. So people, please, track this down!

Doom (2005)

DOOMed from Day 1

[1/10 · 11 March 2006]

DOOM is the most faithful video game to movie adaptation yet. The smash hit game was about a nameless and faceless Marine on Mars who walks through dark corridors shooting monsters. The film is about a group of Marines who might as well be nameless and faceless who walk around dark corridors and, eventually, shoot monsters. Of course, the monster shooting doesn't really begin until about three-fourths of the movie is over, and a damn near endless amount of time is spent on genuinely pointless and stupid exposition. But there certainly are corridors. Dark corridors. So dark that you almost can't tell that it's the same twenty-foot stretch of corridor shot at a different angle each time a character walks down one. So dark that you almost can't tell that the monsters are nothing more than actors in cheap rubber suits. So dark that you can't even see where the estimated $70 million budget went. If only the darkness were enough to erase this movie from the screen forever, then we'd have something.

Reality Bites (1994)

Better Left In The Time Capsule

[4/10 · 11 March 2006]

If I were a less responsible critic, I'd recommend Ben Stiller's REALITY BITES, merely on the basis of good intentions. It is a fairly harmless movie, and it certainly means well. However, I can't in good conscience condone the smug, self-appreciating dialogue, selfish and obnoxious characters and pathetic (yet forgone) conclusion. The story revolves around Lanie (Winona Ryder), a recent college grad trying to make it in the "real world." She works as a production assistant on an early-morning talk show, hosted by a man so peppy and sappy on screen that movie law forbids him to be anything but a total asshole when the cameras are off. In her free time, Lanie assembles footage for a documentary about her friends, a melting pot of mid-nineties hipsters that completely cover the gamut of common social problems: Sammy (Steve Zahn), who's gay; Vickie (Janeane Garofolo), who works for minimum wage at the Gap and worries she has AIDS; and Troy (Ethan Hawke), an intellectual slacker who fronts a third-rate grunge band and is secretly in love with Lanie. Of course, Lanie's in love with Troy, too, but she's involved with Michael (Stiller), who is a total Baxter. Rather than tell each other their feelings, though, Lanie and Troy choose to bicker incessantly between singing along to the hits of the '70's and waxing philosophical about TV sitcoms. I realize this film was considered a benchmark in capturing the mid-90's slacker culture, but looking at it now, it's a dated timepiece, and a rather tired one at that.

The Rules of Attraction (2002)

Sickening

[1/10 · 11 March 2006]

This is one of the ugliest films to come out in quite a while. It's not the sex, the drugs, the drinking, or even the palpable sense of immorality. It's the nihilism that ultimately renders the film unwatchable. How can people of this age, of these backgrounds, and of these obviously high level of intelligence be so goddamn jaded? I'm sure I'll be accused of making base generalizations, but these people have everything going for them, not a care in the world, and yet they still find reasons to be moody at best and downright reprehensible at worst. The main focal point of every characters' lives is sex, but none seem to enjoy it. They're not even keeping track of who they screw and when, so that rules out the trophy-seeking motive. At least one character (James Van Der Beek) is pursuing these carnal relations in a predatory sense. That explains the why, but doesn't excuse it. Another character (Shannyn Sossamyn) claims to be seeking love and saving her virginity, and seems to be fairly sharp, but still she associates with scum-of-the-earth frat boys who she knows will screw her and forget her name the following day. There's a void in logic that these characters seem to exist in, so the film is ultimately an excuse to watch despicable people doing despicable things to other despicable people. It's an endless chain of nihilism, narcissism and just plain bad taste.

Videodrome (1983)

Huh?

[5/10 · 11 March 2006]

David Cronenberg is an acquired taste which I have not quite acquired. That isn't to say I don't admire his films, as movies like NAKED LUNCH, CRASH and SCANNERS have proved memorable and bold. His work, however, is almost frustratingly obtuse, punctuated by grisly, bizarre and perverse imagery that can turn the most hardened of stomachs. VIDEODROME is no exception. Starting as a satire on man's fascination and obsession with television, it evolves rapidly into a hallucinogenic mind-warp that left me scratching my head more often then picking my brain. Cronenberg trademarks, like phallic and vaginal imagery, kinky heroines and sleazy heroes, are all here in graphic display, but their portrayal alternates between oddly beautiful to fetishistic and obscene. Obviously, this is all part of the plan, and like I said before, I admire much of it. It's when the film lowers itself to pseudo-psychobabble and heavy-handed contemporary mysticism that I lose focus, and the entire film just rates as a large question mark.

Lost (2004–2010)

An Intricate Tapestry

[3 March 2006]

LOST is a genuine rarity these days: a television show with the gravity and production values of a film, the fresh ideas, fantastic dialogue and appealing cast of a Broadway play, and the brilliantly manipulative cliff-hangers of the best old-time serials. It's bold, brilliant, and one of the best shows on TV today or ever. The seemingly basic premise of a group of plane crash survivors trying to make it on a deserted island is inlaid with a fascinating supernatural undercurrent. Issues of fate and faith permeate every episode, and each person in the large cast has a backstory that feeds into the mythology. Seemingly pointless characters sometimes prove to be essential. Everything ties together so well that it takes exhaustive viewings and re-viewings to keep the intricate tapestry in check. Everything has been crafted together into this beautiful, ominous and gripping tale that is about far more than just survival. How much more is still coming into focus for me, as I've only seen the first season. However, if creator JJ Abrams can maintain the same meticulous level of detail throughout, it's building to something mind-blowing, and I for one can't wait to get to the bottom of the mystery.

Waiting... (I) (2005)

God Help Me

[7/10 · 27 February 2006]

I'm a fairly intelligent moviegoer. I know when a movie is bad, and I can tell you precisely why, if you'd like to hear it. For example, I know that Rob McKittrick's WAITING... is a bad film, and I can tell you that it's because the characters are nothing but loose caricatures of real people, the film is thrown together rather sloppily, there's no real plot drive, and most of the humor achieves a sub-SCARY MOVIE level of tastelessness. The problem for me is this: while I can tell you clearly why I should hate this film, I can't explain clearly why I don't. In fact, I was really rather taken by the whole thing ("charmed" is probably too extreme of a term). I suppose it could have to do with the appealing cast (including Justin Long, Anna Faris, Dane Cook, Luis Guzman, David Koechner, Kaitlin Doubleday and the incomparable Ryan Reynolds), or maybe it could be that I am currently employed as a waiter. Whatever the reason, I laughed long and hard at the on screen Shenanigans (and it's employees), and God help me, I'm recommending it.

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (2004 Video Game)

Que?

[25 November 2004]

Am I dreaming? Could it be that this licensed game, based on a Vin Diesel movie, is actually good? Doth my eyes and ears speaketh sweet lies? Actually, no. They're telling the truth. This game is amazing. Taking a page from METROID PRIME, one of the best next-gen games ever made, BUTCHER BAY is a first-person adventure game, with equal emphasis on side quests, character interaction, stealth action and balls-to-the-wall shooting, all showing off the superior graphical prowess of the Xbox. It also acts as a great prelude to the whole RIDDICK series, which this game forced me to take interest in. Riddick (voiced by the man himself, Vin Diesel) is captured by the bounty hunter Johns (Cole Hauser) and brought to the triple-max penitentiary, Butcher Bay. Butcher Bay has three levels: the standard population, well guarded but allowing some freedom; the mines, a bleak and dangerous underground world reserved for the worst of the worst; and the cryo chamber, which allows only two minutes of exercise a day in a small, tightly guarded cell. Riddick eventually pisses off enough guards to be stowed in each of the three levels, but naturally, none can hold him. The biggest thrill of the game comes from the inventive escape methods you can use to get out of each level. A lot of time is spent crawling through vents and sewers, recovering shivs and guns and finding packs of cigarettes that reveal bonus material, like design stills from the movies and game. But that's hardly the limit of your abilities. You can negotiate with inmates to do tasks for money or smokes, duke it out in the arena (with amazingly intuitive first-person fight controls), or stealth-attack guards from the confines of the shadows. I'd much sooner see another RIDDICK game than movie, but either way, I have more respect for the series, and for licensed games as a whole.

The Terminal (2004)

The bestworst goodbad movie of 2004

[25 November 2004]

Steven Spielberg's THE TERMINAL is a sweet, annoying, well-performed, over-long, heartwarming, schmaltzy, charming, sugary, cute mess. As you can probably tell, I'm pretty torn about what to think of it. While most of my adjectives about sound like contradictions, anyone who's seen the film will know that they're all pretty accurate. And it's not like it's alternating, like it's sweet, then annoying. No, it's all these things at the same time.

The film is about Victor Navorsky (Tom Hanks), an immigrant from the fictional nation of Krakhozia. During his flight to America, his country went to war, and a military coup left the nation unrecognized by the United States. So, as the smug customs agent who greets Navorsky (Stanley Tucci) explains, Victor is without a country. So, technically, they can't issue him a Visa, so he can't go into New York. They also can't deport him. So, Victor is stuck in the terminal indefinitely. He fashions a bed out of two rows of those nasty padded airport chairs, makes money for food by returning luggage carts for quarters, and learns to speak English through magazines. In the meantime, he makes friends with some of the janitorial staff, including Joe (Chi McBride), Enrique (Diego Luna), and Gupta (Kumar Pallana), and falls in love with the stewardess Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Victor eventually lands a contracting job at the airport, where he makes $19 and hour, under the table. Tucci, meanwhile, tries to encourage Victor to leave the airport, so that he's America's problem, and not his. For unknown reasons, Victor stays behind. For nine months.

I don't find the premise entirely unbelievable. This is actually based on a true story, and the real guy allegedly lived in the airport for 17 years. That's not the problem I have. The problem comes with… well, everything else and nothing else.

Let's start with the performances, particularly Hanks. At first, hearing him speak broken English or some ridiculous made-up language that sounds like drunken mumbling is annoying. Eventually, we get used to it and can appreciate the subtleties of his performance. We get to like Victor, but from there, more problems arise. Why doesn't he just leave the terminal? He's given every opportunity, told that he will not be penalized for leaving, and yet he stays behind. Why? It's never explained. Next, Tucci's bureaucratic villain. Again, the performance is competent, but we don't really know what motivates him. Why would he want to expedite someone from the airport so badly, when he's not causing a problem? For example, when he learns that Victor is returning carts for quarters, he hires somebody to put the carts away instead. So now, Victor is still stuck in the airport, but he can't eat. What purpose does this serve? On to Catherine Zeta-Jones, who, again, gives a good performance, but her character is obnoxious. She's whiny, she's needy, she's clearly using Victor, but for what, we don't know. Companionship? A shoulder to cry on? When the romance between them doesn't pan out, we don't really care, because we like Victor, not Amelia, and we're sure he can do better.

There are problems with tone, as well. The whole ordeal is very muted, until the last third of the movie, where Victor becomes a sort of airport folk hero and all the food court employees rally to his aid. I liked it better early on, when we're left to just observe Victor. Hanks proved in CAST AWAY that he can carry a film on his own, without any subplots or arbitrary supporting characters. This one throws too much at us. The subplot about Enrique and a beautiful customs agent (Zoe Saldana) falls completely flat on it's face. Are we really supposed to believe that a woman could fall in love with someone she's never met, all because some cryptic messages are delivered to her in fragmented English by a middle-aged man who lives at the airport? I suppose the message is about love at first site, but love at first, 'What you do, in free time?' I highly doubt it. Then there's Gupta, who seems to be the comic relief but isn't funny.

There were several moments that made me smile. I liked Victor's explanation for being in New York, and I liked the scene where Hanks translated for a desperate immigrant trying to get medicine back to his dying father. But the whole thing is so sloppy thrown together, so manipulative and inconsistent, that I can't help but bunch it with 1941 and THE LOST WORLD as one of Spielberg's costly misses.

Jeepers Creepers 2 (2003)

Filmmakers Take Note

[25 November 2004]

Jesus Christ, people, it isn't that hard to make a good horror film! You just have to adhere to these simple rules:

1.) Give us sympathetic, well-rounded out characters, so we give a damn whether they live or die.

2.) Replace gory death scenes with suspense.

3.) Stop making your characters wander stupidly and without motive into dangerous situations (i.e.: checking to see if the monster/killer is dead).

4.) Give us a cool, interesting and genuinely frightening monster/killer.

Four rules. That's not too hard to remember, is it? It's not like I'm asking for too much of a genre shake-up. M. Night Shyamalan and Alfred Hitchcock figured it out years ago. And I thought that JEEPERS CREEPERS director Victor Salva had figured it out, too. The first film was flawed, but contained these four elements and forced us to be involved. Where did things go wrong between there and here?

Salva failed to follow all the rules but one. His first failure, and perhaps the most crippling one, is that the victims in this movie are a bunch of asshole high school athletes trapped in a school bus. The main character Scotty, who we'll say is played by Anonymous Teenage Boy #1, is a racist, sexist, whiny homophobe. There are three cheerleaders on the bus, two of whom barely get enough screen time to make an impression and one of whom (Anonymous Teenage Girl #1) inexplicably has psychic powers. There's a stereotypically nerdy team manager, an allegedly gay school reporter, and the rest of the team, who are blatantly homoerotic, as they remove their shirts unprovoked and pee within a two-inch radius of one another.

Next, the action scenes fail to scare. Any suspense there might have been is squashed by the fact that we don't give a rat's ass whether these people live or die, so Salva opted for gore. But the gore isn't even plentiful enough or inventive enough to be entertaining.

Next, we have characters who make multiple suggestions to go outside the bus and make a break for shelter that may not even exist. At least four different characters on four separate occasions poke their head out of a hole in the roof to see what the monster is doing. I would have loved to see any of them get their just deserts after that, but the film again disappointed.

The one thing Salva did do right was supply us with an interesting monster.

The Creeper (Breck) is a very well designed beast, one that harvests human organs to supplant it's own missing body parts. There's a scene where the Creeper looks in through the bus window and sets aside individual characters for a later harvest. There's a chance for an interesting spin that is only briefly explored: the 'selected' and the 'non-selected' forming separate units, with one forcing the other out of the bus. There could have been an interesting LORD OF THE FLIES type of situation developing here, but the premise is squandered by more bickering.

I give the film half a star because of it's great monster and a fast-paced last half hour. The rest of the film, though, is a boring, predictable mess. Too bad, too. This series had a lot of potential.

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Wonderful

[25 November 2004]

TOY STORY 2 can now proudly join the ranks of films that made me cry. This is a proud collective of films, and very exclusive, including only LADDER 49, SIMON BIRCH, and OLD YELLER. The element that sets this one apart from the other tearjerkers on my list is that TOY STORY 2 isn't trying to be manipulative, while the others, well-crafted and heartfelt as they may be, were. This film pulled some genuine tears out of me because its characters were so endearing, and their pain so palpable, that I could easily identify with them. This feat is all the more impressive considering that the characters are computer animated dolls.

Also enhancing the experience is that the rest of the film is a joyous, funny and surprisingly insightful joy ride. It may well be the best of the Pixar films (the recent THE INCREDIBLES being a close second). The story involves the characters from the original hit TOY STORY. Favorites like Woody the Cowboy (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), Rex (Wallace Shawn), Hamm (John Ratzenberger), Mr. Potato Head (Don Rickles), and Slinky Dog (Jim Varney, may he rest in peace) are all back, and in a completely original, genre-defining story. Woody has long been the favorite toy of young Andy, but a small rip on his arm gets him shelved and left behind while the boy goes to cowboy camp. One thing leads to another, and Woody is accidentally sold off in a yard sale to Al (the invaluable Wayne Knight), a slovenly toy collector who owns a local toy store. While Buzz and company plan a dangerous rescue mission, Woody is placed in a Lucite case and discovers more about himself than he ever knew. It turns out, he was the star of his own marionette children's show in the fifties, Woody's Round-Up, and that the round-up also included Jessie (Joan Cusack), Stinky Pete the Prospector (Kelsey Grammar, in Sideshow Bob mode), and Bullseye the horse. His arrival to Al's apartment signals the completion of the set, and now the four toys are going to be sold to a toy museum in Japan. Now Woody has to face a dilemma: go back to Andy and wait for the kid to grow up and forget him, or spend eternity behind glass to be admired by children forever.

This conundrum represents some of the most adult thinking in a children's cartoon ever written. Cusack is responsible for the tear-jerking moment, as she reminisces about her life with her previous owner, Emily, before the girl grew up and abandoned her under the bed. There's a lovely song, 'When She Loved Me,' playing over the background, and beautiful computer-animated shots of sunlight pouring through autumn leaves while Jessie and Emily go for car rides through the country. I finally lost it at the sight of Jessie peering forlornly though a slot in a box marked 'donations,' while the car they shared so many rides in drives down the dirt road. It's rare that a film with real people can have that effect on me, so all the more credit to director John Lasseter and his crew.

The film concludes with a frantic, ten-minute chase/escape, and Buzz, Rex, Slinky, Hamm and Potato Head try to save Woody and friends from the case headed for Japan. They commandeer a truck, battle villainous toys on the conveyor belt, chase the luggage transport on horseback and finally leap out of a moving jet liner to safety. It's all quite un reasonably thrilling. There are also several laugh-out-loud moments, such as the identity of Buzz's father, the Barbie go-go party, and the implementation of a Buzz Lightyear video game strategy guide as an essential plot device.

Pixar's record seems to be untouchable, as they churn out quality animated films like they were minting money. TOY STORY 2 stands as their crowning achievement, one that should be mimicked but likely never will be.

Super Metroid (1994 Video Game)

Brilliant Gameplay

[27 September 2004]

This is probably my all-time favorite video game. With the exception of the recent CASTLEVANIA games, not other series has integrated action and exploration so seamlessly, and at the same time provided a story that is deep and involving. Controls are intuitive, even to the greenest of gamers, and there are hundreds of little nooks and crannies to explore, so even though you can beat the game fairly quickly, it pays to be patient and thoroughly explore every room. All of these element alone make for a great game, but this one has the edge over the competition: Samus Aran. Samus is easily the most interesting of all video game characters. A female bounty hunter equipped with a technologically enhanced spacesuit and arm cannon, Samus always works alone, never speaks, and has a vendetta against the race of blood-sucking parasites known as Metroids. Her desire to eliminate them from the entire universe goes beyond the battle between good and evil and becomes an obsession. In the beginning of the game, she is commissioned to bring back the last Metroid in existence for scientific research. Something goes wrong, though, and the specimen is stolen by Ridley, a horrific winged beast and the right hand man of the Mother Brain, a mysterious evil force from the planet Zebes. Samus goes to Zebes to hunt down the Mother Brain and recapture the baby Metroid, but is faced with much more than she bargained with. I've heard that there's a filmed adaptation of the series in the works. IMDb shows no cast, screenwriter or director yet, but word has it Hong Kong action filmmaker John Woo is interested in the project. This is perhaps the first video game with a legitimate shot at becoming a good movie, and I hope that the filmmakers don't overlook certain opportunities. Samus must be portrayed not as a brooding, one-liner spewing action heroine, but as a human being, troubled but not emotionless. There must be a real sense of isolation in her journeys, and maybe some insight on why she must always work alone. While I don't hold out a lot of hope that anyone involved in the film will be reading this review, I feel it important that I get my views out there into the open, so at least someone will know that it could have been done.

Irreversible (2002)

Yikes

[13 February 2004]

If there was ever a film that made you want to take a shower afterwards, this is it. I felt dirty, and upset, and confused, but mostly disgusted. Within the first twenty minutes, we witness some various depravities at a gay S&M club called The Rectum, a man get his head crushed in by a fire extinguisher, and a she-male prostitute being assaulted at knife point. Within the following twenty minutes, we see a woman getting savagely raped and beaten for ten plus minutes. The trick here is, we see these events backwards. Like MEMENTO, Christopher Nolan's brilliant 2000 film, IRREVERSIBLE has a reverse chronology. So really, the depravity and beatings I mentioned are really the end of the film, and the beginning is the end. The story revolves around Marcus (Vincent Cassel) and Alex (Monica Belluci), a young couple who are deeply in love. She is the woman who was raped and beaten, and Marcus spends the first (last) half of the movie seeking revenge, with his best friend and her ex-lover Pierre (Albert Dupontel) in tow. The first half of the film is extremely tough to get through. The scenes in the gay bar and Alex's rape seem to never end, and we're forced to take in some truly disgusting sights. The man who is killed with the fire extinguisher suffers the no-exaggeration most violent death in film history. I'm not sure quite how the effect was done, but it made me cringe, and I've seen it all. Usually, in scenes where people are beaten to death, we see quick cuts of their bloody face, followed by some shots of the attacker from the back as they do their deed. Here, director Gaspar Noe keeps the camera stationary, right next to the victim's head. It's an amazing shot, but one that will deeply disturb me the rest of my days. By the end of the film, things are more pleasant, but a great sense of melancholy still covers the scene because we know what's going to happen later. The ultimate goal of the film proves not to be a violent exploitation piece but a portrayal of the tragic crime of rape. I can't, in good conscience, recommend this film. It's too disturbing, and what's more, features some of the most nauseating camera-work I've ever seen. I don't have a problem, per se, with trick photography, but I'd like it to have a point. The camera moves underneath people, a couple stories above them, and sometimes just spins around and around in a stationary position. There's a shot at the end (beginning) of a spinning lawn sprinkler, with a child running around it, while the camera spins like Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, as operated by a crack fiend. In the end, I understand what the film wanted to do, and I respect it. But there are subtler ways to make a point, and when you're going to use the most graphic images ever put on film, you'd better have a stronger and more oblique message than 'Rape is bad.'

Freddy vs. Jason (2003)

Way Better Than It Has Any Right To Be

[21 January 2004]

This one is moving to the top of my guilty pleasures list for 2003. This is far better than it has any right to be. I'm a hardcore horror movie fan boy, and this represents one of my ultimate geekgasms. It's not high art, and I wouldn't dream of defending it as such. But put your brain on the shelf for an hour and a half and you're in for a hell of a time. Freddy Kruger (Englund), the iconic star of the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series, is frustrated by how jaded modern youth has become. Since he draws his power from their fear, he's rendered useless. That is, until he requisitions Jason Voorhees (Kirzinger) of FRIDAY THE 13TH fame to put the fear back into the kids of Elm Street. This, inevitably, leads to much blood spilling. However, after Freddy gets his power back, he finds the victims getting scarcer, because Jason refuses to reign it in. Now we have the setup for one of the most inventive and visually impressive grudge matches ever. Recently, I criticized JEEPERS CREEPERS 2 for adhering to tired old genre conceits, such as gratuitous bloodletting in place of suspense and characters who wander into dangerous situations without motivation. However, FVJ's insistence on sticking with the old stand-by's is part of it's charm. The difference is that this film isn't trying to scare anyone, merely give us a roller-coaster ride. It's an action movie with it's tongue planted firmly in it's cheek. As he did previously with the horror sequel BRIDE OF CHUCKY, director Ronny Yu keeps the pace quick and the blood-letting outlandish. It's clear from frame one that style is king in this castle . One of the biggest surprises here is just how intelligent the film is, particularly in it's portrayal of it's two villains. Freddy (who I would previously have crowned the winner hands-down) is the leering, remorseless psychopath, and Englund throws himself into the part with more enthusiasm and energy than in previous installments. Jason, strangely enough, is portrayed as the sympathetic one. We see flashbacks of his childhood, where he was tormented by the other children and left to drown in Crystal Lake. Through a couple of inventive twists and turns, the playing field is leveled and we're given someone to root for. But the film never sells out and doesn't forget the rules laid down by each of the individual franchises. Everything that happens only happens within the film's dynamic.

Do I have any complaints? Of course I do. But as I said, this isn't art and therefore doesn't require me to go into those. The film did it's job by me, and I didn't leave it feeling like my intelligence had been insulted. I've heard rumors of a sequel, entitled FREDDY VS. JASON VS. ASH. Oh, be still my beating heart.

Battle Royale (2000)

Masterful

[30 September 2003]

BATTLE ROYALE succeeds as more than a mere action movie by doing something that most action films forget: it portrays human characters in situations where actions have consequences. The story begins as a random ninth grade class is drugged and taken to an abandoned island. They're promptly fitted with tracking collars and told that they will be forced to hunt and kill one another to survive. There can only be one survivor; if there is more than one person standing at the end of the competition, explosive charges in their neck collars will be detonated. Now, the kids are forced to make decisions. Should they kill those that they've called their friends to survive? Should they forge alliances that they know will be futile? Each of the 42 students in the class are forced to face these choices under conditions of mounting tension and paranoia. Two young lovers jump from a cliff. A group of girlfriends exterminate one another in a panicky rage. Old grudges are acted upon, new friendships are formed, and the kids discover their true humanity. While the film excels in realistically portraying this intense situation, that doesn't mean it's lax in the thrills department. While most of the students try to avoid killing, or enter into it unwillingly, there are two students that seem to be hunting for the pleasure of it. Kiriyama (Masanobu Ando) has actually participated in previous contests, and has asked to be transplanted to this one simply because he has taken a living to murder. His presence creates some incredible tension throughout. BATTLE ROYALE is a masterpiece that should not be missed.

Gummo (1997)

Disgusting

[29 September 2003]

GUMMO is one of the reasons that independant films still have trouble earning respect from the mainstream. It's pretentious, plotless and ugly, and we're expected to embrace it because it does something different. It comes built in with it's own fanbase, as director Harmony Korine wrote the powerful cult classic KIDS, but people who go into GUMMO expecting the same thing should prepare for a shock. GUMMO is a mass of incoherencies, strewn together in a sloppy episodic fashion. We're introduced to characters that have nothing to do with anything, but spout off poorly written, ill-conceived dialogue. We're forced into this disgusting world of low-life losers, and what do we learn about them? Nothing that we didn't already know. If these people have any real thought, emotions, or ambitions that extend beyond living in the trailer park, we're never given that information. We just watch these people rot, but Korine never gave us enough of a reason to care whether they live or die. GUMMO is to be avoided by any serious film fan, as it's likely to be loved by mainstreamers who want to boast to their friends that they saw it.

Futurama (1999– )

So What If It's Not Perfect?

[3 August 2003]

It seems impossible these days for any animated show to be released without it's comparison to countless other animated shows. Why can't we just base these shows on their own merit (or lack thereof)? Sure, FUTURAMA lacks the wit of THE SIMPSONS, it doesn't have the raw belly laughs of FAMILY GUY, and it doesn't have as sharp a satirical edge as SOUTH PARK. What it does have is some of the most beautiful, colorful, and inventive animation on television today, a collection of endearingly oddball characters, and a talented group of voice actors bringing them to life. I realize I'm contradicting my earlier statement by weighing this series against the others, but I really don't care. If I was a professional critic, I'd be getting paid. No, I'm just a geek with an opinion, and my opinion is that FUTURAMA is a lot of fun.

Mitchell (1975)

Novel Concept

[15 May 2003]

While this film is undeniably bad, one can't help but respect the filmmakers for trying something new. Movie cops are usually strong, resourceful, quick-thinking and quick-acting. They don't usually play by the rules, but they get the job done. They're usually played by attractive, young, popular actors that people like, and usually get the classiest ladies. Now, take a look at MITCHELL. MITCHELL stars Joe Don Baker as Mitchell, a cop who fits none of the above, "cookie-cutter" prerequisite stereotypes. Mitchell is fat. Mitchell is sloppy. He's an alcoholic. His apartment is filthy and littered with porn. The only woman he can get is a prostitute, and he treats her like a lowly dog. Mitchell is stupid. He's incompetant. The only way he gets any crimes solved is purely by accident, and because the villains in the movie overestimate him. Joe Don Baker is not a hot young actor. He's not popular and he's not good looking. So, kudos to the filmmakers! Way to break down barriers.