And Soon The Darkness

** - I can’t imagine that the tourism board of Argentina is terribly happy with the way its native dwellers were portrayed in this 2010 film starring two skinny broads and the guy who played Éomer in the LOTR films. The basic plot is that a pair of scantily clad American girls (in their early twenties, I would guess; their prime “zoom the camera in on her ass” age) are bicycling through Argentina when they come upon a town inhabited solely by boorish rapists, sneaky murderers and snobby women who won’t even talk to you. That is the filmmaker’s portrayal of Argentina: corrupt cops, loutish brutes in bars, and servile women who just kind of stand around waiting to be ordered to do something by a man. In any event, the girls are unsurprisingly headed for trouble as one is kidnapped by an unknown assailant and the other one goes on what feels like a decade-long search for her, but was apparently actually only like 4 or 5 hours. It is quite obvious from the time they step foot in this cursed little town that things are going to end badly and it is also clear who the bad guys are (here’s a hint: it’s everybody). Anyway, the scenery is kind of nice, and if you enjoy staring at women in bikinis lying in the sun (which I must say, was probably the highlight of the movie) then you might get something out of this. Otherwise, I can’t recommend bothering with it.

The Ruins

** - This film is the absolute epitome of the cheesy clichéd modern horror flick. Start off with a scene of a scared woman in the dark screaming who is then dragged away by some unseen force. Then roll the credit sequence and immediately cut to a sunny beach in Mexico where four hot college-aged kids are frolicking and gamboling around with nary a care in the world. Enter a mysterious German stranger who cajoles them into going to a secluded Mayan ruin in the jungle to help him find his missing brother. The eventually find the ruin – which is a grandiose Mayan step pyramid – after encountering some weird little kids who just stare at them creepily. They notice a tent set up at the top and begin to scale the ruin only to notice a bizarre type of acidic vine covering it. Then a bunch of indigenous villagers run out of the woods and surround the group, forcing them to retreat to the top of the pyramid after shooting one of them in the face. I don’t want to give too much of the plot away here, but as you might imagine, while stuck at the top of the pyramid, all sorts of marginally spooky and not-too-terrifying stuff occurs that results in numerous deaths. I think one escaped, but then again maybe not, and then the film closes with another group of starry-eyed tourists wandering innocently toward the cursed pyramid. Nothing to see here; move along.

Furry Vengeance

* - I’ve tried very hard to come up with some sort of funny and catchy opening sentence for this review, but I think the movie itself so drained me of life and creativity that I continually am able to only think of one word: abomination. That is what 2010 Brendan Fraser vehicle “Furry Vengeance” is, an abomination to all that is good and decent in this universe. Perhaps, you say, I am being too harsh with this lighthearted film with apparently good intentions? I disagree. It is exactly that sort of thing – the deceptively evil – that worms its way into people’s consciousnesses and decays it from the inside out. This movie, which is ostensibly a comedy, is the broadest, lamest and most bereft of humor that I have seen in a long time. It’s like somebody got stoned, watched that one marginally entertaining scene from the John Candy movie “The Great Outdoors” that has the talking raccoons and decided that a feature length version of that would be hilarious. That person was very wrong. I’ve always felt that there is nothing worse than a bad comedy, as bad drama or action movies at least take on some unintentionally comedic elements. “Furry Vengeance” lends credence to that theory, as it is dangerously close to unwatchable.

The Town

**** - Say what you will about Ben Affleck’s acting ability (he seems to be somewhat polarizing in that respect) I think it is roundly agreed even by the most ardent of Affleck dislikers that his forays into directing and screenwriting have been of rather high quality regardless of what one thinks of his acting chops. This movie features Affleck in an acting, directing and screenwriting role and is of quite high quality on pretty much every level, which seems to indicate that anyone who feels he is a poor actor may have a bias against the movies in which he has acted. While this movie doesn’t present much that hasn’t been introduced in other films in one way or another, every facet of it is well above the standard action/drama lark, from story to cinematography to acting to characters. Those who know me would probably be surprised by my enjoyment of this, as it features a rather heavy romantic aspect quite prominently, and I tend to not be fond of those. That would be a very astute observation, but what made this part of the movie acceptable to me was that it wasn’t just thrown into the film to get a little T & A into it, but was rather a fully integrated part of the main plot. And I’m a sucker for movies that feature thick Boston accents, anyway.

The Day the Earth Stopped

* - This 90-minute low-budget quickie directed by and starring C. Thomas Howell is a blatant rip-off of the Keanu Reeves remake of “The Day the Earth Stood Still” minus the production value and star power. It features a pair of nude aliens landing in Los Angeles - along with a giant robot - with plans to annihilate the human race due to their violent and destructive nature. Luckily, despite having landed on Earth sans clothes (which, admittedly made for a fairly titillating opening bit) the female alien was able to apparently acquire copious amounts of lip gloss and eyeliner, because when one is destroying a civilization one certainly doesn’t want to look a mess. The poor quality of writing and production of this causes the viewer to continually ponder a series of questions that are raised, perhaps the most interesting being: why would the task force assigned to saving the planet from giant robots consist solely of a grumpy guy in a suit, two geeks in lab coats, a few military guys with rifles, and a 14 year old with cell phone? The studio that made this film is notorious for releasing direct-to-video garbage around the same time as similarly titled big-budget blockbusters, relying on confusion and trickery to make money. I have to question the efficacy of that business model. You’d think people would catch on at some point.

20 Years After

** - I don’t consider myself someone who has a bias against movies or TV series that have a less than average sized budget. I love the shows ‘Mystery Science Theater 3000’ and ‘Red Dwarf’ both of which are pretty low budget, and even movies like what one might see on SyFy aren’t necessarily considered bad by me, despite their lack of any sort of visual extravagance. However, I think what occasionally makes the above-mentioned media enjoyable to me is the quality of the dialogue and/or plot. Having those attributes is absolutely essential to making a less than stellar visual experience palatable. This movie – which I assume was made for TV or video, although I have no evidence of that – has the low budget look of a made-for-SyFy film but doesn’t counter that with an interesting story. It has the feel of the movie “Children of Men” without the interesting plot, characters and visuals. The biggest star in this is the guy who played the blond guy whose teeth end up in a piece of flannel shirt in “The Blair Witch Project” and it also lifts all of its plot elements from earlier and better films. In addition, this post-apocalyptic movie seems to have been filmed largely in an abandoned warehouse and a marginally scenic rocky forest, which certainly detracts from any potential gratification. I can’t imagine that there is anything here that would interest anyone but the hardcore sci-fi fan, and even that supposition is somewhat tenuous.

The Last Airbender

** - It is almost certainly a bad omen when the most enjoyable parts of a movie were the completely innocent and highly humorous spouting of lines such as “he’s a bender!” and “I knew you were a bender” by numerous characters to each other. You see, in the this M. Night Shyamalan sci-fi/fantasy film (which is apparently based on some weird-ass Japanese cartoon series) a “bender” is not a gay man, but actually is someone from one of the Four Nations (Earth, Air, Water and Fire) that has the ability to telekinetically control that nation’s element, sort of like using The Force. It sounds kind of neat in theory (although I would have certainly considered not using the term ‘bender’ had I been in charge), but in practice it is actually very lame, due largely to the fact that to, say, fling a ball of fire at someone, it requires a lengthy string of odd martial arts poses, during which time you are easy prey for arrows or swords or any other sort of ranged or melee attack. It is a very inefficient superpower, and comes off really lame in the fight sequences in this film. In addition to that, the acting (by a mostly child/teenage group) was extremely poor, the dialogue was dopey, the story was heavy on narration and the plot seemed to jump all over the place. On the bright side, the special effects were pretty good and the scenery was spectacular, but that’s not enough to pull this one off the scrap heap.

Breach

**** - This heavily dramatized telling of the story of Robert Hansson – one of recent American history’s most notorious traitors – is highly entertaining, most likely because so many liberties were taken with the events surrounding the actual case. The two main characters in this – Hansson, played by Chris Cooper and Eric O’Neill, played by Ryan Philippe – actually had a fairly mundane course of events in their lives, as opposed to the thrilling, dramatic series of happenings in the film. While that may annoy political history purists I actually found that it greatly enhanced my enjoyment of this movie. Although this may tacitly endorse the James Bond theory of intelligence and espionage (when in reality spy stuff tends to be far less intriguing than it is portrayed on film) it is also quite effective in conveying a great deal of humanity and personality to what could easily become very dull. The acting is surprisingly solid, the plot is extremely interesting and the ending – while somewhat rote and formulaic – is highly gratifying. There is nothing here that the experienced espionage/thriller fan has not seen or read at least a few times in the past, there is something to be said for this film’s earnestness and satisfying plot elements. Falling as it does somewhere between Bond and reality, this may not be authentic but it is definitely worth watching.

Don McKay

**1/2 – What is the deal with every movie that involves any sort of murder or intrigue being billed as a ‘thriller’? Does that term draw in so much more business that movie studios need to continually and blatantly lie about the content of their product? I can’t imagine that is the case. In this particular instance – 2009’s “Don McKay” – the term thriller is so out of place that I am tempted to knock some points off its rating. I would put this film more in the slow-paced mystery drama category, as the only thing even remotely resembling thrilling action would be when Elisabeth Shue clubs someone to death with a frozen roast. Does that put it in the same league as films like “Bullitt” and “Psycho”? I think not. Anyway, despite its bald-faced false billing, this movie wasn’t so bad. It starred the three-named sidekick guy from “Sideways” as a loser janitor who goes back to his hometown after he learns his high school sweetheart is dying. But things are not quite as they seem in idyllic Mount Raven (which I assume is in Massachusetts), as the lead character finds himself wrapped up in murder, blackmail and intrigue. The plot takes some interesting twists and turns, ends kind of oddly, but is fairly entertaining overall. It’s just not a thriller is all I’m saying.

Pineapple Express

**1/2 – Being comfortable with one’s own dorkiness can be an admirable trait. Being so comfortable with it that you then become a cocky loudmouthed douchebag makes it considerably less admirable. That’s my problem with this Seth Rogen guy. He seems like he is the kind of guy that if you were friends with him he would always monopolize the conversation with that deep, booming voice of his and never let you get a word in edgewise, while simultaneously being so in love with his own hilarity that he laughs inappropriately at all his own jokes. I also get the feeling that he has made some sort of pact with Hollywood big wigs that he must have a superhot girlfriend in all the movies that he is in so that it will make it seem to real life superhot women that they should be his girlfriend as well. It’s that kind of insidious ulterior motive that most bothers me. Anyway, this move stars Seth Rogen, and seeing as I am not much of a fan of his, that obviously detracts from my enjoyment of the film. This is pretty much a modern-day stoner film a la Cheech & Chong with a couple of guys toking the ganja throughout a bizarre, lame fight-filled adventure. It has some funny parts, but this sort of thing isn’t really my cup of tea.

Tropic Thunder

**** - I’ve always found Ben Stiller’s work to be kind of hit-or-miss. I love “The Cable Guy” and a number of his other films are kind of funny, but movies like “Zoolander” and “Dodgeball” which have no redeeming qualities whatsoever make me reconsider his worth. I’m also convinced that Robert Downey Jr. could take a dump on a film strip and receive extreme critical praise for it due to his ‘method acting’ habits, troubled past, and rebellious off-screen persona. I think he is highly overrated in general, although I do admit he was good in “Sherlock Holmes” and can pull off pretty much any accent. “Tropic Thunder” not only was co-written and directed by Stiller, and co-stars Stiller and Downey Jr., but also has the highly polarizing Jack Black as a major player, and features washed-up drunk Nick Nolte, unfunny comedian/actor Danny McBride, and frequent Judd Apatow collaborator Jay Baruchel. That’s all a recipe for potential disaster, but it actually turned out to be an extremely funny movie for the most part, due largely to its tendency to satirize all the clichés that are brought in as baggage by the various participants. Oh, and Tom Cruise also has role in this (which I barely recognized him in), and he is actually very funny and extraordinarily foul-mouthed. He may be the highlight of the film, despite his odd dance sequence that runs over the closing credits.

10,000 B.C.

** - I learned a few things from this 2008 Roland Emmerich helmed historical (sort of) action film. First, I learned that Ancient Egypt was apparently run by an alien and his wise council consisting of about a dozen flaming gays with long weird fingernails and purple dresses. Second, I learned that the frigid Russian steppes and the deserts of northern Africa are only a few days walk away from each other, and were even that way at a time 12000 years ago when North Africa wasn’t yet actually a desert. Lastly, I learned if you save a vicious predatory cat from a trap that it is caught in, you can then reason with it in order to keep it from eating you (much like the old ‘lion with the thorn in its paw’ story). This movie – like most that this Emmerich idiot is responsible for – has the feel of facts being run through a Karl Pilkington filter and coming out all bizarre and making no sense. And that would be fine if this was talked about by Karl and Ricky and Steve in a podcast (which, by the way, would make a killer “Ricky Gervais Guide to…” audiobook), but when it takes the form of a completely seriously-themed, hugely-budgeted Hollywood film it isn’t all that entertaining. It has some nice scenery, though.

Evil Alien Conquerors

*1/2 – A pair of inept aliens come to Earth in order to annihilate human civilization in this extremely broad and largely unfunny sci-fi comedy. My’ik and Du’ug (yes, pronounced like Mike and Doug) come from the planet Kabijj (yes, pronounced like Cabbage) which is ruled by a fat giggly guy in a robe who never stands up, and his chief administrator Phil Lamarr who yells all of his lines for some reason. They task the idiotic title duo to destroy the Earth and kill all of its inhabitants in order to provide food for some giant wearing a diaper whose name I did not catch, despite it being repeated about 50 times. I think it began with a ‘k’. In any event, all this leads to the awkward pair wandering around the planet with swords the size of toothpicks threatening to behead people. They befriend a human, fall in love with women with unibrows, drink Smirnoff Ice, and wind up in all sorts of other situations that are supposed to provide humor. Pretty much none of them succeed. There are a couple of decent lines, but overall this movie seems like the kind that some stoner dude would find hilarious for about 20 minutes until he fell asleep on the couch with his hand inside a bag of Cheetos Paws.

Eden Log

** - This is a very damp movie, probably one of the dampest I’ve seen. I would guess it falls somewhere between “The Abyss” and “Waterworld” in terms of overall dampness. Not only is it damp, but it is also dank and dark and it takes place in a world where everything looks very muddy and filth-smeared. That is not to say that its level of moisture made it a bad movie, although it wasn’t in actuality particularly good. I chalk that up less to its soggy attributes (although they certainly didn’t help) than to its complete aimlessness and utter lack of characterization. It involves some guy who is covered in filth wandering around in tunnels and labs and such in search of nothing more than a way to get out. He runs across various characters including a woman in some weird space suit, a guy stuck to vines on a wall, a number of guards in full battle dress and an unending stream of weird zombie-mutant-freak creatures. To that end, it seemed a lot like playing a “Resident Evil” game, except you don’t have a weapon and it isn’t the least bit enjoyable. On the bright side, it has a kind of stylish quality and while I can’t claim that I understood what exactly was going on at all points in the film, I think I pretty much had it figured out by the end, and the story turned out being fairly neat. I highly recommend this for those who like dirt.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

*1/2 – The understanding of this movie seems to be fairly dependent upon seeing the first two films in the series. Luckily, anyone who sees this is probably a young girl who not only has seen but has actually memorized every line from the prior movies or is a curmudgeonly middle-aged man who watches shit movies in order to review them, both groups having likely seen the prior movies. Unsurprisingly, this film features scene after boring scene of banal melodramatic dialogue broken up occasionally by scenes featuring dull stares and cuddling in an open field. There are few things in this world that I find more irritating than people taking themselves and their interactions with others as being the most important thing currently occurring anywhere. The young people these days, however, seem to eat that crap up, due largely to the fact (in my opinion) that their idiot parents instill them with a sense of false over-importance. If you like watching people overestimating their self-worth (and guys wandering around shirtless) you may like this, but if you are like me and despise those sorts of things, I suggest avoiding this 3rd in the series of what is apparently going to be four. There were a couple of halfway decent action sequences featuring nifty albeit unexplained limb-lopping in this (clearly tossed into the film in order to placate the bored boyfriend who was dragged to see this), which I guess is worth a half of a star. Otherwise, it’s an unredeemable overly hormonal emotion-fest.

Fringe: The Complete 1st Season

***1/2 – After the first two or three episodes of this series I was on the verge of giving up on it. It seemed to heavily focus on relationships; that between the main protagonist - FBI agent Olivia Dunham - and her partner/lover, and that between Dr. Walter Bishop, a brilliant yet wacko scientist just released after 17 years in a mental ward, and his transient (yet almost equally brilliant) son Peter. It also threw plot points out seemingly at random and with no background given whatsoever, such as the mysterious series of events called “The Pattern” and a terrorist group called ZFT. However, by the time the season was halfway over, the tide had turned, and all the things that were dropped on the viewer unawares in the beginning began to make sense through elucidation and connection of plot strands. In addition, most of the relationship stuff completely fell by the wayside. By the time the season finale rolled around (featuring special guest star Leonard Nimoy!), I had become fully immersed in the world(s) created by the writers. While the characters remain somewhat aloof and - with the possible exception or Walter - largely unlikable, there is a modicum of humor tossed in and a story arc that is engrossing enough make me look forward to season 2.

Juno

**1/2 – This is one of those movies that tries way too hard too seem cool. There are few things sadder than that in my opinion. Perhaps there was a time when liking 70s slasher pics and The Stooges was thought of as being way outside the box and rebellious, but now it has become normal for the people who are slightly to the left of actual normal. Trying to pawn that off as being super weird and quirky – in the context of this movie anyway – is really rather off-putting. And I blame that on the writing, because I thought the performances were pretty darn good for the most part, especially that of the always reliable J.K. Simmons as the father. The gist of this movie is that a ‘weird’ girl gets pregnant and searches for a family to adopt the kid - ending up choosing Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner – and then has all sorts of shenanigans in the meantime. I guess not so much shenanigans as goings-on. There is a fair amount of humor in it, mainly provided by peripheral characters like Simmons’ and a few others. The attempts at humor from the lead character generally annoyed more than anything as it smacked of 16-year-old-trying-to-sound-cool – which, in fairness, it actually was. In any event, this film was decent but not as good as most of the reviews of it seemed to indicate.

Troy

*** - Homer’s “Iliad” is one of the most popular, famous and iconic of the stories to have come down to us from the classical Greeks. This 2004 epic starring Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom and Brian Cox stays fairly faithful to the basic plotline of the Homeric original, but also falls into the same trap of modernization that many film adaptations of ancient works fall into. Taking place over 3000 years ago, this movie and the epic poem it’s based on take place in a Greece (actually, mainly in modern-day Turkey) that has morals, beliefs and sensibilities far different from those of today’s western cultures. Like most of its predecessors, “Troy” attempts to give the ancient ways modern spins, and I think that does a disservice to both the original work and the audience. Not only does it do that by giving the characters modern emotions and thought processes, but other than a few references, it completely cuts the Greek Gods out of the story, who play a major and active role in Homer’s poem. But comparing this to an earlier version is probably somewhat unfair in light of the fair amount of entertainment value it provides. It is along the lines of movies like “Braveheart” and “Gladiator” but probably a notch or two below in quality, and a bit longer. But if you enjoy those sorts of movies, you might like this one.

The Squid and the Whale

**1/2 – This is the 2nd of Wes Anderson protégé Noah Baumbach’s films that I have seen (the first being the more recent “Greenberg”), and I am starting to notice a pattern. His movies are sort of offbeat and quirky like Anderson’s, but are filled with characters that are extremely unlikeable and contain a lot more graphic sexual content. In this film, Jeff Daniels plays an asshole writer who is married to (then separated from) a cheating slut, who have two kids that are equally horrifying. The older son is a mirror image of his smug father, who apparently has no self-esteem and poses as an artsy type of person while in actuality being a complete sham that plagiarizes Pink Floyd and hasn’t read any of the literature he claims to have. The younger son is even weirder, as he drinks beer, masturbates constantly (and smears his ejaculate in various locations around school), swears like a longshoreman, and wanders around shirtless. If ever there was a family of four that is the poster family for complete dysfunctionality, it is the one in this film. Disliking all the characters (including one of the Baldwin brothers playing a strange tennis club pro who is bopping the wife and refers to everyone as ‘brother’) certainly makes this film hard to watch. All that saves it from being as bad as “Greenberg” are a few more laughs.

Grimm

** - I am nowhere near being an expert on fairy tales, but this 2003 Dutch film that is supposedly based on one or more of them has very little similarity to any fairy tales that I am familiar with, Brothers Grimm authored or otherwise. The beginning has a bit of a “Hansel and Gretel” feel to it, and I suppose someone with a very open mind could interpret other parts as being similarly parallel, but that is about as far as I could go with any sort of comparison. This is advertised (on the front of the NetFlix sleeve, anyway) as a “darkly comedic, absurdist take” on traditional fairy tales. I definitely see the absurdist aspect, but I found about as much dark comedy in this as I did in “Schindler’s List” (i.e. none). Perhaps it has something to with the Dutch-to-English translation, or the somewhat similar yet very clearly demarcated nuances between what Americans find funny and what Europeans do (eg. Jerry Lewis), but the long and the short of it is that I just didn’t laugh at all while watching this. I didn’t really enjoy it all that much either, although I must admit that I found the direction and cinematography to be pretty good, and I couldn’t really find any fault with the acting either. Still, I can’t really recommend watching this movie.

The Expendables

** - A bloated and largely incoherent Sylvester Stallone stars along with an all-star action film cast in this 2010 attempt to create a sort of ‘perfect action movie.’ I am assuming that was the intention, and if it truly was, then I’d have to say it failed miserably for a number of reasons. Firstly, I have to debate the quality of the cast here. The youngest of the stars featured is the nearly 40-year old Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren and Mickey Rourke are tossed in for some reason, and there are at least a few ex-wrestlers in there somewhere, including ‘Stone Cold’ Steve Austin (who is thankfully burned to death toward the end). Add to that bizarre and very out of place cameos from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis and a supporting role for Eric Roberts, and I highly doubt anyone would get too excited by the overall cast. Whether or not one agrees with me on that aspect, it is almost certain that the lack of character background, random introduction of plot points, and the meandering and unfocused story is likely to turn off even the most ardent of action fans. The action sequences – especially those featuring Stallone and the badly aging Jet Li – aren’t even very entertaining. There are loads of explosions and gunfire and extremely graphic shots of bodies being blown to pieces and being cruelly slaughtered, though, if you like that sort of thing.

Predators

**1/2 – My dad thinks that 1987’s “Predator” is the best movie of all time. While my praise for it doesn’t reach quite that level, I do find it to be a highly enjoyable film to watch. It is the quintessential guy movie featuring big guns, big explosions, big muscles and lots of swearing, macho one-liners and off-color jokes. It’s like a cocktail of adrenaline and testosterone injected directly into the heart sack. The 1990 follow-up – “Predator 2” - starring Danny Glover and featuring the reprehensible Morton Downey Jr. is probably one of the worst movies of all time. After a lame two movie tangent into the world of “Aliens”, Robert Rodriguez brings the Predator series back towards decentness with this 2010 effort directed by Nimrod Antal (if that is his real name). The characters didn’t have the same interesting intangible qualities that the original had, and I’m not sure if that is because of the characters themselves, the actors or portraying them, the script, or a combination of all those things. It had plenty of explosions and gunplay - and even featured a rather unlikely sword fight – but it couldn’t quite capture the magic of the first movie. I think part of the reason is that in the end the final body count is 6 dead humans and 4 dead predators. That sort of death ratio removes some of the mystique of what used to be a nearly unstoppable alien killing machine.

Endgame

*** - Starring the black guy with the upper class English accent that played that bad-ass bad guy in “Serenity”, this 2009 film set in mid-80s South Africa is kind of neat despite the fact that it is extraordinarily slow moving and has no real action or tension of any kind. It is kind of like an extended version of one of the dramatizations from “Unsolved Mysteries” minus the ghosts, UFOs and/or murder. What makes this political drama neat is that everything about it seems to indicate that it was purposefully made to feel like it was filmed contemporaneously. The film stock was a little grainy, the camera was kind of shaky (but more in a sloppy 80s TV show kind of way than in a purposeful edgy steady-cam kind of way) and the score was full of the meaty synth lines and ambient electronic noodling that was so prominent in the early to mid 80s. I can’t say for certain that this was a result that was intended by the filmmakers, or if it – being a relatively low budget made for British TV movie – is just all they had to work with. Because it starred two of my favorite actors (the afore-mentioned black guy and the always outstanding Mark Strong) I choose to believe that it was a choice of the filmmakers. That alone makes it worth a few stars.

The Girl Who Played With Fire

***1/2 – This second film in the Swedish-made adaptations of Stieg Larsson’s ‘Millennium Trilogy’ of books isn’t as entertaining as the first (“The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo”) but is pretty good and well worth watching. With a bit of a buzz surrounding these films due at least in part to their imminent American remakes, I think it’s going to be interesting to have seen the Swedish versions first, if for no other reason than having the ability to compare. The first film had a very fresh feel to it, and although it had some slow spots, the engaging mystery plot easily made up for the lulls. In this sequel the dull spots seem to be a bit more prominent since the plot isn’t quite as interesting and borders a bit on being hackneyed, as it deals with the somewhat media-saturated sexual slavery market. I can’t deny the quality acting that this film contains, although the actors (or perhaps more accurately, the characters that the actors play) aren’t particularly appealing, especially the faux-cyberpunk lead actress (Noomi Rapace) and the rather lumpy and pock-marked male lead (Michael Nyqvist). I don’t consider myself a superficial person, but seeing people that are a bit easier on the eyes in the lead roles probably wouldn’t be unwelcome.

Antichrist

* - German weirdo Lars Von Trier takes a clumsy stab at ‘high art’ with this revolting and barely watchable 2009 train wreck. While there does indeed seem to be some sort of plot at the beginning – a man (Willem Dafoe) and his wife (French singer Charlotte Gainsbourg) grieving over the loss of their toddler son, who threw himself out of a window after seeing his parents fornicating (probably not a bad choice in the long run) – it is soon dropped and replaced with a series of images and scenes that are probably meant to be shocking and eminently artistic. Sadly, these scenes – which include the wife masturbating the unconscious husband until he squirts blood and then hacking off his member, her snipping off of her own clitoris with a pair of scissors, and her poking a hole in her husband’s lower leg with a hand drill – are less shocking and artistic then they are gross and completely unexplained. The movie is about an hour and fifty minutes long, but I couldn’t sit through any more than an hour and a half. This is the first time since I’ve been reviewing movies that I have been unable to finish a film. That’s how bad this movie is.

The Good Shepherd

***1/2 – My understanding is that this movie got some mixed reviews from critics due to its length, lack of action and somewhat slow pace. I can see the point of many of these critics who felt this way, but quite frankly, I found myself surprisingly entertained by this film. Matt Damon stars as a somewhat fictionalized version of one of the founders of the CIA while Robert DeNiro directs and also has a small role. The acting was all quite good, and the plot that heavily involves the Cold War, espionage, intelligence and counter-intelligence is interesting enough to keep my interest through it’s over two and a half hour length. And I think that is pretty high praise from a guy who gave Oscar Winner “There Will Be Blood” a **1/2 rating due to its length and boringness. “The Good Shepherd” is certainly not without its faults, though. The main issue I had with it was the lame Angelina Jolie subplot as the wife of Damon’s character. She had a relatively small role at the beginning, which I was fine with, but became far too prominent near the end and became nearly the dominant figure at the film’s conclusion. Part of that shift also moved the plot away from espionage and toward family drama, which annoyed me a bit. But overall, this was a pretty good movie.

Jonah Hex

** - Ahhhh… the hubris of the evil super villain. How often have we seen the arrogance and need to rub a hero’s nose in his anticipated defeat end up being the ultimate undoing of the seemingly victorious antagonist? I’d have to say that that type of occurrence is a staple of superhero media, very common in thrillers, and the final outcome of roughly 90% of all Bond films and books. Add 2010’s “Jonah Hex” to that list. Based on a DC Comics property, this movie features Josh Brolin as a disfigured Civil War veteran who seeks out revenge on a garishly evil John Malkovich and his Irish lackey (who inexplicably has a beard tattooed on his face) after they roast his family to death in their own wooden Unabomber-style shack. Meanwhile, some sort of clumsy romantic subplot is flailed at between Hex and the skanky broad from the “Transformers” movies to no particular resolution (other than her becoming the requisite damsel in distress in the film’s climax). There’s a fair amount of action and gun slinging and explosions, but none of it is either grandiose or original enough to be very memorable. I like action movies to be short, but if you subtract the ending credit sequence this movie clocks in at just over 70 minutes. It could probably have used a bit more meat in it in order to flesh out a decent plot.

Avalon

** - If one were to ask me which two countries I would find least likely to collaborate on a film project I might very well say Poland and Japan. As unlikely as that pairing is, 2001’s “Avalon” is one of what I think I can safely assume is a very small number of Japanese-Polish science fiction films. Written, directed and designed by Japanese folks and acted and produced by Polish people (and also a Polish-language film), this movie has a very odd feel to it. It is set in a kind of Matrix-esque near future where people spend inordinate amounts of time strapped to a gurney with odd metal contraptions attached to their faces while playing a video game called “Avalon”, which seems to be a fairly by-the-numbers quest-based 3rd person shooter. Various things in this movie confused me. One thing was whether the dank industrial landscape was supposed to portray a dystopian future, or if that is just how Poland actually looks. Also, a strange yellow/orange enhancement filter was used on the camera. Was that a stylistic choice or a clumsy attempt at foreshadowing the ending? Why was there an extended shot of a guy scarfing down some sort of weird Polish meat-based breakfast? What happened to the main character’s dog? Why was there a Polish guy named Murphy, a clearly Irish name? Anyway, I think you get the point. It was confusing and left many unanswered questions.

Centurion

** - I am at a bit of a loss as to how to categorize this film exactly. I guess you could call it an action movie, or perhaps a historical drama. It might fall into the genre of war movies, although this doesn’t take place during an actual declared war per se. I think the best way to describe it would be to call it an adventure movie. It’s one of those films where guys are running around in the woods and mountains fighting people as they go with swords and daggers and axes as they are being chased by an evil band of savages. Kind of like the LOTR movies when Sam and Frodo are going to Mordor, but less gay. It takes place in Roman Britain during the 2nd century when the empire was at its zenith and the legions were fighting to maintain and/or expand their frontier into modern day Scotland. Specifically, the infamous 9th Legion is featured, and after they are shredded by the Picts, a small band of survivors have to fight their way back to a garrison in order to go home. It’s full of extremely gory violence, lots of running, some yelling and grunting, and all the other stuff one might expect from this type of flick. I didn’t find it particularly fun to watch, but it might be worth seeing if you like watching people get hacked to death with dull swords.

Splice

*1/2 – Vincenzo Natali, the Canadian writer/director of the excellent “Cube” and horrible “Cypher”, shows off his more perverted side in 2010’s “Splice” by prominently featuring bestiality, incest and rape all in one movie. Thankfully, none of said sexual deviances are shown too graphically, but it is all very clearly hinted at and/or displayed in some minor to moderate detail. In what I assume is the relative near future, Adrien Brody and the girl from “Go” who gets hit by a car in that one scene are some sort of bizarre creature makers who accidentally on purpose create an odd being by combining human DNA with a number of other animals, resulting in something that looks like a cross between a human female, a kangaroo rat, a scorpion and a bat. Unsurprisingly to everyone except the two mad scientists, the creature goes on an out of control murder/rape spree after it decides that it is sick of living in a big tank of water in a musty old barn (can’t really blame it, there). I guess the main message here is “don’t mess with nature.” I disagree with that. After all these years of floods, plagues, typhoons, earthquakes and poison monkeys, we can’t jab back a little bit? Screw that. I say go ahead and make all the weird, murderous creatures you want.

Castle: The Complete 2nd Season

****1/2 – Attempting to mix humor into a show in the mystery/thriller/procedural drama can be tricky business. One way to be sure that you are going to get it right is to hire the always hilarious Nathan Fillion as your lead actor. If you then surround him with a supporting cast that are almost equally as comically talented, and you have yourself a surefire winner. Having such a great cast of talented actors wins half the battle, but in order to be truly successful as a show, there still needs to be solid storylines and interesting mystery plots. “Castle” is about a mystery writer who follows detectives around the city on their investigations in order to do research for his upcoming books. The writers of the show are not only able to distill the basic plots of what could easily be an entire mystery novel into about 42 minutes, but they do it in a way that no other similarly themed show has done in the past. I can honestly say that the plots from this show’s episodes are as interesting and entertaining as any I have ever seen on a show like “Law & Order” or “CSI” or other like shows. Add in Fillion – and Stana Katic as his lovely (despite her series of bizarre ever-changing hairdos) and brilliant comic foil - to the rest of the cast of talented folks and you’d be hard-pressed to find a better show currently on TV

Toy Story 3

**** - As spectacular as the animators are over at Pixar - who have released an unending stream of popular and critically praised movies and shorts over the past 15 or so years – they just can’t seem to get the look of humans right. Toys, cars, bugs, fish, rats, monsters and just about everything else imaginable has made an appearance in a Pixar film, and they have all looked spectacular except for humans. The closest they got was with “The Incredibles” and frankly I found their over-stylized look to be pretty off-putting. I bring this up because their latest feature-length film portrays humans in the same creepy and unconvincing way that they were portrayed in the 1st film of the venerated series well over a decade ago. Some progress in that area would be nice. With that out of the way, the movie itself was very entertaining, as is usually the case with this studios’ work. The beginning was a bit dull, and the tail end was almost excruciatingly drawn out in an unsuccessful attempt to try to evoke some sort of emotional response through maudlin schlock, but the action plot of the midsection was probably the best of the three movies that have been made thus far. I wouldn’t mind a “Toy Story 4” being Pixar’s next film. Unfortunately, I have just learned that their next one is actually going to be “Cars 2.” What the hell are they thinking?

Adventureland

**1/2 – Angst-ridden teenager (or, in this case, college-aged kid) melodrama has always been an annoyance of mine. The pomposity and self-centeredness of the characters in those types of movies is consistently staggering to me. People acting like their bad hair day or relationships are the most important things in the world. That’s the sort of crap that has been on the rise in this country, and I chalk it up to the fact that parents are beating the snot out of their kids less than they used to, and therefore instill them with no sense of discipline or humility. Or it could be the result of the tight pants and odd hairdos that are so popular with the kids these days. Anyways, this movie had a lot of that kind of rubbish in it, which would have certainly resulted in a lower rating had there not also been some genuinely funny parts in it. This film starred the guy who also starred in “Zombieland”, marking his second consecutive starring role in a movie called something-“land”. This is certainly the less entertaining of the pair, but it was kind of watchable if you can get around all the whinging and moping. The couple who owned the titular theme park was probably the highlight of the movie for me as they had most of the funny lines. The guy who went around punching people in the nuts was pretty funny, too.

Tell-Tale

*1/2 - Supposedly ‘inspired by’ the classic Edgar Allen Poe story “The Tell-Tale Heart”, the only connection that I can detect between 2008’s “Tell-Tale” and that famous literary work is that they both feature a heart rather prominently. Some guy who looks vaguely familiar stars as a heart transplant recipient who starts to act strangely - and then ramps it up a notch by going around killing people - after the heart he received begins taking over his body and tracking down those who caused its original host’s death. At least, I think that’s what happened. I’m not sure, though, as I started to lose it toward the end, after Brian Cox dressed up like a mobster gets stabbed in the neck and some guy in doctor scrubs shoves some other guy into an ice bath and injects him with something. The muddled and confusing plot seems less like the fantastic Poe work and much more akin to something that Karl Pilkington would come up with after seeing a headline that says “Series of Deaths Connected to Bad Heart”. Anyways, whether or not I fully grasped the lame plot is pretty immaterial, because all the other aspects of the film stunk, too. It also didn’t support closed captioning, which annoys me a bit since I always like to watch with subtitles.

Get Smart

**1/2 – Steve Carell takes an extremely bland stab at the classic role of Maxwell Smart – aka Agent 86 – in this modern rehash of the classic 60s spy spoof sitcom. Carell has some funny bits, but most of the biggest laughs come out of the callbacks to the catchphrases and situations that originated with the late Don Adams’ portrayal of the character in the original series. Co-star Anne Hathaway takes on the role of Agent 99 – Smart’s partner/love interest – and while she is an undeniable beauty, she is far from an effective comedienne, and her chemistry with Carell is lukewarm at even their best moments. I generally enjoy Alan Arkin (particularly as the foul-mouthed grandfather in ‘Little Miss Sunshine’), but as The Chief, he seems to struggle with too large of a role and doesn’t have the somewhat antagonistic quality toward Max that Edward Platt imbued the role with. Most of the comedy is pretty broad and silly, but for a comedic movie it seemed like there was an awful lot of emphasis on action. With this being a slapstick-y sort of comedy, having a nearly two hour run time is probably a bit overly ambitious. You have to keep these things around 90 minutes or so. Bill Murray has an ok cameo as a guy disguised as a tree, though.

The New World

**1/2 – Frolicking around in the tidal marshes of Virginia at the dawn of the 17th century with a bunch of people who spend most of their time whooping and hollering and covering themselves in some sort of paint/mud/goo congealment is not my idea of the idyllic life. However, 2005’s epic “The New World” starring Colin Farrell is another in a long line of films that plays up the Native American lifestyle as far superior to that of Europeans. While you’ll get no argument from me regarding the pitfalls and numerous less-than-stellar aspects of 1600’s Europe, I am getting pretty annoyed at the continued portrayal of Native Americans and perfect beings ‘at one with nature’, and the eastern interlopers as raping and pillaging conquerors who are constantly infighting. The truth is that both lifestyles were hard and brutal and savage and sad in many ways. So where this retelling of the Pocahontas/John Smith story falls down is in its unfortunate one-sidedness. Also, it was very long and had very little dialogue other than Farrell’s occasional oddly flowery narration. The score was nicely done and the scenery was pretty spectacular but the story it’s based on is pretty stale, and the romantic aspects of this film were more heavily featured than I anticipated. It’s not a bad film, I guess, but it is a bit of a challenge to sit all the way through, especially with its extreme bias.

The Ghost Writer

*** - This was one of those movies which was nicely filmed, had a decent plot, added in a little mystery and intrigue, and featured fine acting from an excellent cast, but all that good stuff just didn’t add up to an entertaining film for some reason. I can’t quite put my finger on why it ending up being not as good as it should have been other than possibly its slow pace and extremely stuffy British feel. Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams and Tom Wilkinson all do an outstanding job with their roles, and Kim Catrall – apparently taking a break from constantly talking about sex in that god awful, horrifyingly shallow, estrogen-spewing woman show she was on – was even halfway decent in her supporting role as Pierce Brosnan’s assistant, despite her phony sounding English accent. The plot meandered a little, and didn’t seem to really decide which way it was going until well over an hour into it, which probably didn’t help combat its inability to maintain my interest. In addition, the end didn’t have the impact that I think it was trying to have, while also not tying up the loose ends that opened up earlier in the film. I had a lot of ‘why’-based questions that went unanswered. I hate to be too hard on it, so I’ll give it three stars, even though that is probably extremely generous of me.

Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children

** - It’s a bad sign if one continually asks oneself things like “who is this guy?” and “what the hell is going on?” while watching a movie. This is something that I find to be a frequent occurrence when watching anything animated that originates in Japan, and “Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children” certainly fits that bill. The Final Fantasy franchise is apparently quite the phenomenon in its native Japan, spawning something like 20 video games, several animated series, action figure lines, apparel, and two super-advanced CG films based on the seventh video game installment, the movie reviewed here being the second of those. I saw the first one a while back, and was not overly impressed, and this follow-up is both more boring and more confusing. The only things about it that were more confusing than the plot were the fight scenes, which were exceedingly choppy and very hard to follow. The film seems to assume that the viewer knows who all the people who show up in it are, and doesn’t provide any explanation of who these characters are, what their motivations are, or why all the guys look super woman-y and have weird spiky haircuts and carry swords that are twice the length of their bodies. It might be worth a look for the animation - which is admittedly excellent - but the story makes no sense and if you are able to follow what the hell is going on you deserve some kind of award.

Gone Baby Gone

***1/2 – In some circles I am well known for my extraordinary memory. Over the last 5 years or so, I have managed to pretty much memorize every farm and farmer in Burlington, Camden and Ocean counties. Also, I can often recite quotes from movies and TV shows verbatim, with very little effort. However, Ben Affleck’s directorial debut film “Gone Baby Gone” has caused me to question my recall skills. All through watching it I had the nagging feeling that I have seen it before. Seeing as it was released in 2007, if I have seen it, it was some time in the last 3 years. So, I either (a) have seen it before and I am gradually losing my one skill of use, (b) have seen it before, but was hammered when I watched it, or (c) haven’t seen it, and it was just very predictable. I am going to assume it was option (b) because I don’t want the result to be option (a), and option (c) would cause me to lower my rating on what I thought was a pretty darn good film. It wasn’t perfect, seeing as it was peppered with phrases like “what about the child?” and “do it for the child” and “for the sake of the child” and all that child-centric crap which annoys me, but it had a good plot, was nicely filmed, and I have a soft spot for movies in which people speak with New England accents.

Frailty

** – These days it seems like a large number of filmmakers have gotten the mistaken impression that throwing a twist ending into their movie will make it an instant classic. Bill Paxton’s 2002 directorial debut “Frailty” (in which he also stars) is one such movie. I am not immune to the charms of surprising turns in films, but when they are done as clumsily and seemingly out of nowhere as they are in this movie - which tells the tale of a crazy guy who thinks God is telling him to kill demons (i.e. murder people) along with his two pre-teen sons - the charm quickly veers into semi-insulting cheesiness. While the story and plot certainly won’t win this any awards, it’s really the wretched directing of Paxton (who I continually hoped would spout out some gems from the only movie has been good in, “Aliens,” such as “we’re all gonna die, man!”) that makes this so hard to watch. Using techniques like pushes and long, laborious pans up a person’s body are gimmicky and overused even when done well, and here they are done exceedingly unprofessionally. Maybe I am being too hard on this because of Paxton’s heavy involvement, but I found it to be deficient in many respects and a fairly poor entry in a genre I am generally pretty fond of.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

*** - All I can say to Jeff Anderson is this; I sure hope that’s pudding! This is in reference to a scene in this 2008 Kevin Smith movie in which Anderson, while filming a scene of anal intercourse, is blasted in the face by what appears to be a completely full small intestine worth of poop. That scene rivals the one in “Austin Powers 2” in which Mike Myers drinks a cup of poop as the most disgusting poop-related scene in cinema history. Putting that aside, and the numerous shots of Jason Mewes’ ass (and a shot of his ding dong), and “Zack and Miri Make a Porno” is actually a pretty funny movie, and a definite improvement over Smith’s previous film “Clerks II” and “Jersey Girl.” The dialogue is outstanding and the actors do a fantastic job delivering it, especially Anderson, Mewes, the black guy from the US version of “The Office” and Justin Long as a gay porn star. Even Seth Rogen – who I normally can’t stand – is fairly funny in this despite the fact that his main selling points as an actor are, as far as I can tell, his abilities to be loud and hairy. There is a lot about the film that is highly implausible, the romantic plotline is hackneyed and dull, and it is filmed without much artistry, but all of that is par for the course for a Smith film. The key is the dialogue, and Smith is at his raunchy, funny best here.

Iron Man 2

***1/2 – Having a movie both begin and end with someone or something flying into or out of the picture accompanied by the annoying strains of an AC/DC song is not the way for a filmmaker to impress me. Luckily, those two parts of Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man 2” are arguably the worst two in a film that is otherwise pretty enjoyable on most levels. Yeah, there’s a lot of largely unbelievable technology - such as Tony Stark’s creation of a highly advanced particle accelerator in his living room over the course of an evening - but it’s a sci-fi superhero film, so that sort of thing is to be expected. And, yeah, all the shots of women in the movie seem to rather immaturely focus on the hinder region for a little longer than is probably natural, but this is a movie that is supposed to be appealing to adolescent male nerds, so, again, that is to be expected. And, yeah, there are lots of huge explosions and gunfire and corny one-liners being spouted, but… well, I actually like that sort of thing. The plot is a little on the weak/hackneyed side, and seeing as it seems to eschew the comic book’s continuity by combining a couple of Iron Man villains into one, it probably tends to anger the nerdish side of me. But Sam Rockwell was awesome as Tony Stark’s rival Justin Hammer, and lent a much needed breath of fresh air to what could have easily become a rather stal

The Wild Blue Yonder

** - German filmmaker Werner Herzog has always reminded me a little bit of John Banner’s portrayal of Sergeant Schultz in “Hogan’s Heroes” (which also starred deviant sex practitioner Bob Crane, by the way). Kind of a big, jolly, genial, lovable Bavarian type of guy, who seems like he might at any moment throw his huge head backwards in a loud, guttural belly laugh and wrap his enormous arms around you in a beer-fueled outburst of pure friendship and brotherhood. The reason I mention this is because that quality about him makes it very difficult for me to trash one of his movies, such as his 2005 fake documentary stinkburger “The Wild Blue Yonder”. However, I feel that I must overcome my hesitance and move forward with the insulting critique, even though it could potentially cause Herzog to drop his doughy head to his chest and slump sadly into a large, well-worn recliner. This movie attempts to tell some sort of goofy narrative about aliens living on Earth and a human voyage to an ice planet in the Andromeda Galaxy through a series of randomly strung together shots taken from NASA archival footage and an Antarctic deep sea expedition. These dull scenes are connected by a number of faux-interviews with Brad Dourif (playing an alien, which is certainly not a stretch for him) set in what appears to be a junkyard. The movie is crap, but the score – which is a collaboration of Dutch cellist Ernst Reijeseger, Senegalese singer Mola Sylla, and a Sardinian choir – is phenomenal.

Repo Men

**1/2 – This thinly veiled commentary on American consumer culture, corporate domination and health care malfeasance has a concept with some legs beneath it, but fails to maintain enough entertainment value to make it a very good picture. It’s the not-too-distant future and a gigantic conglomerate controls the manufacture, sale and surgical insertion/extraction of the artificial organs and body part replacements that have become nearly ubiquitous amongst the populace. They’re own force of hired goon ‘repo men’ go around maiming, killing and recovering organs from people who are unable to pay the exorbitant fees that are charged for things like new livers, hearts, kidneys, extremity joints and sensory organ enhancements. There seems to be little or no actual law enforcement or governmental control, which struck as odd while watching the repo men run rampant through the streets. Jude Law is one of these repo men who has a change of heart (both literally and figuratively) and goes on the lam while being hunted down by Forest Whitaker and Liev Schreiber. This movie had a lot of what I felt was unnecessary gore and also featured a pretty cheeseball ending that was fairly predictable given that it is frequently hinted at clumsily during the earlier stages of the film. It’s an okay flick, but I certainly don’t have any plans to add this one to my own DVD library.

Castle: The Complete 1st Season

**** - Captain Reynolds plays a roguish mystery novelist who is contracted by the NYPD to shadow a detective team and help them solve murders in the 10-episode first season of this rather light-hearted procedural/mystery/drama show. That summary may sound a bit contrived, and while I would probably agree with that assessment, I think it works well enough as the season proceeds that it can be forgiven. Fillion is always good for a few laughs and the female lead is appealing enough (wink, wink), but I don’t necessarily buy her as an NYC detective, seeing as she is mega-beautiful and often wearing tight jeans and heeled shoes, which I can’t imagine is standard NYPD procedure. The more peripheral characters are a bit hit and miss as far as their effectiveness, with the other detectives being mostly hits, but Fillion’s family (daughter, mother, ex-wife) being mostly misses. Story-wise, I don’t think you’ll find more engrossing 42-minute mystery plots anywhere on TV. And while I’ve always felt an hour long (minus commercials) show isn’t really long enough to make a fully fleshed out mystery that works, most of the episodes of this series are making me rethink that stance somewhat. Overall, it is an interesting and humorous addition to the brand of shows that include L&O, CSI, NCIS and other series with goofy acronyms.

S. Darko: A Donnie Darko Tale

** - The girl who played the foul-mouthed little sister in Richard Kelly’s excellent “Donnie Darko” is all grown up… and super hot! That is pretty much all I took away from this sadly misguided and unnecessary attempt to turn a rather intriguing intellectual property into what I assume was intended to be turned into a franchise. This movie added absolutely nothing to the original and was pretty much just a rehash of its ideas in a different setting. “Donnie Darko” auteur Richard Kelly had nothing to do with this dull, ham-fisted, confusing and unforgivably lame direct-to-video clunker. The original film has a fairly limited following of sci-fi nerds, and I can’t imagine them (including myself) not being alienated by such a subpar effort, in which all the neat time travel ideas brought over from “Donnie Darko” are turned into gimmicky slop. One of the few bright spots was the solid score and the inclusion of several excellent shoegaze-type songs from the mid-90s by bands such as The Catherine Wheel, Dead Can Dance and The Cocteau Twins. I don’t think I can recommend this movie even for fans of the genre or for fans of the original film.

The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra

**1/2 – This 2004 black and white film written, directed, produced and starring a fellow named Larry Blamire is less a spoof of 1950’s sci-fi/horror B-movies than it is a faithful recreation of one. That being the case, a viewer’s appreciation for this film will be largely dependent upon their appreciation for said genre. After years of watching (or at least attempting to watch) the uncut original versions of movies that were riffed on by the show “Mystery Science Theater 3000” I have come to the eventual conclusion that my appreciation for the genre is a lot more linked to the MST3K riffing than it is to the actual films themselves. However, I do have some fondness for those movies that have cheesy effects, big rubber monsters, wooden acting, stilted dialogue, plots that make no sense, and extreme scientific speciousness. And, quite purposefully, “The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra” has all of these things, and very accurately mimics those old films. It doesn’t go for campy spoof at all, instead relying on attempts to recreate the atmosphere, characters and situations that made 50s B-movies occasionally hilarious. To that end, though, the film is only marginally successful in creating comedy. But you can tell that the small cast and crew truly love the genre and made a genuine effort to recapture those days, so I have trouble being too hard on this one.

Spirited Away

**1/2 – In general, I don’t do ‘whimsy’. I have found that pretty much every attempt a film makes at achieving that quality ends in a miserable failure resulting in a horrifying nightmarish ordeal filled with creepy creatures and bizarre situations. “Spirited Away” – a critically acclaimed 2001 Japanese animated film – is the absolute epitome of the above-mentioned failed whimsy, and provides more nightmare fuel per minute than any given freaky European circus or freaky European puppet show. I must admit that there is a great degree of creativity and imagination shown here (or at least a lot of evidence of psychotropic drug use) in the forms of fantastical creatures and landscapes, but the whole deal has the confusing, frustrating and disorienting elements of a fever dream. Now that I think about it, I don’t think I’ve ever watched any Japanimation that hasn’t had that quality. So I’m going to go ahead and rack that up to the wacky culture of the Japanese and their inability to translate it into something that a normal human would find enjoyable. It’s either that or a large quantity of drugs, and the Japanese are not known as big time users, as far as I am aware. In any event, getting back to the film at hand, I found it pretty dull, extremely odd and lacking in depth. It looked pretty nice, but that can only get a film so far in my book.

Das Lieben der Anderen (The Lives of Others)

****1/2 – Set in 1984 East Berlin, the 2007 German-language film “The Lives of Others” delves into the consequences that an extreme authoritarian government have on the artistic community and the public in general. Director Florian von Donnersmark and the production team do an outstanding job in recreating the East Germany of the Soviet era, while also maintaining a rich and vibrant visual style. I often find it very difficult to judge the quality of acting jobs done by performers who are working in a language that I do not speak. That is not the case in this film, though, as all the players clearly do an outstanding job, especially the unfortunately deceased Ulrich Mühe, who plays a Stasi captain whose newfound appreciation for art in its many forms is awoken while monitoring the activities of a playwright and his actress girlfriend. While it is rather lengthy (about 2 hours and 20 minutes) and not the most fast-paced film you will ever watch, it manages to stay engrossing throughout. The dialogue is difficult to comment on due to it being in German, and certain nuance may be lost in translation, but the English subtitles were of a high enough quality to do the acting justice, anyway. The movie jumps around a little bit at the end, but that doesn’t detract a great deal from a movie that is an outstanding accomplishment.

Robin Hood

***1/2 – While substantial liberties are taken with both history and the legend upon which it is based, Sir Wiggly Scott’s adaptation of the classic English folk tale manages to add more realistic elements than most of its predecessors and still retains a relatively consistent level of entertainment value. Being a history scholar, I am well aware that early Robin Hood tales were fairly dark, but the fact remains that most people nowadays associate Robin Hood with the happy-go-lucky overly saccharin portrayals by Douglas Fairbanks and Errol Flynn which are set in a 12th century England where things are pretty much okay except for a high tax rate, an overbearing sheriff and a slightly power-crazed monarch. This version, however, reintroduces a more believable world in which there is constant poverty, illness, famine, brutality, oppression and warfare. That will probably not please those out there who are looking for a good ole family-friendly fairy tale, and may be the reason that the film was met with some critical backlash. Personally, I found the relative darkness and addition of more detailed historical elements (discounting the extreme license taken with factual events) to be some of the best aspects of this take on Robin Hood. It had some cornball dialogue and a number of cheesy scenes - not to mention relying pretty heavily on fight scenes - but it ended up being quite watchable for the most part.