'Hulk' has invaded Toronto!

Now circulating the net are photos taken today from the set of 'The Incredible Hulk'. While I did not take these pictures myself I was only a few blocks from this location today. I was in the neighborhood the other day and got to see the erecting of the Apollo theater sign which was pretty cool.

The following notice has been posted, saying that Yonge Street will be closed from today until Wednesday:

"Please note that Yonge Street will be closed between College Street and Dundas Street from Sunday, September 16 through Wednesday, September 19.

The closure will begin at 7:00 p.m. each night and continue until 7:00 a.m. the next morning.

Sidewalks will also be closed starting at 8:00 p.m. each night until 7:00 a.m. the next day.

The road closure is due to filming."

























'The Incredible Hulk' starring Edward Norton and Liv Tyler opens in theaters June 13th/2008.

'Superbad' review

Rating: **** out of ****

There is a shot in ‘Superbad’ that summarizes the whole movie’s mentality. It’s a stedi-cam shot that features the movie’s three heroes, Seth, Evan and Fogel on a city bus heading to a liquor store in an attempt to buy booze with a fake ID that will never pass. The team sits there among the masses, looking dejected and yet the whole scene is played to ‘Are You Man Enough’ by The Four Tops. It lets us know that being ‘Superbad’ is a state of mind; the folks on the bus can’t see it, but once our heroes get off the bus and back into high school life, they will be superbad because, after all, they have a fake ID.

‘Superbad’ falls in the tradition of movies like ‘Dazed and Confused’ where the whole story is self-contained in one day, culminating on that epic night where the characters’ lives will be changed forever, at least in their minds. This time around, it happens to be the night of the final high school party before the summer. Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill & Michael Cera) have been friends since grade school. They are now planning to go to separate colleges and be apart for the first time in their friendship. Their plans for the final party night includes getting booze for a whole party, having sex (or at least getting to third base) and secretly cherish their last times together – though in that true superbad way, they both know it without saying it. Meanwhile, their nerdy friend Fogel (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is caught up in a wild ride with some police officers (Rogen himself and Bill Hader of ‘SNL’) who commit more felonies than they prevent. A series of interlocking incidents occur and the adventure eventually leads everyone – even the officers – to the same party. Before getting to the party however, the boys go through a series of adventures that lead to car crashes, fistfights and detergent jugs filled with beer.

For a while, the high school of the movies was the most unbelievable place in the world. It was the place where mid-thirties actors played eighteen year olds, everyone was having sex, kids drove Mercedes’ to school, and every kid was wheeling and dealing drugs. ‘Superbad’, on the other hand, is the most realistic high school comedy since the original ‘American Pie’ and one of the most authentic ever made. In fact, Christopher Mintz-Plasse had to be tutored during production because he was actually in high school. ‘Superbad’ captures the youthful dreams of parties and third base that many films either fail at, or blow extremely out of proportion. Sure, some of the film is exaggerated, but that is understood; the characters in ‘Superbad’ though, like in real life, talk big but act small. They claim to be able to get booze and girls before they ever have either. There is a scene in which Seth says he’ll go get booze and fantasizes about an old woman buying it for him and then the two of them being murdered by a security guard.

Even though it does not say ‘based on a true story’ in the opening credits, you can tell that ‘Superbad’ is somewhat of an autobiographical tale, based on the high school careers of Seth Rogan and Evan Goldberg, the film’s writers. Everything about ‘Superbad’ feels authentic, from the way the teens speak to the way they interact and their immediate goals; the latter comprised of ways to get girls and alcohol.

The film has an absolutely filthy mouth, with more profanities than a Tarantino flick I’m willing to bet. Nevertheless, its heart is pure. There is a bond between Seth and Evan that comes across so naturally on screen. I believe that these friends have been together since childhood. There is a scene in which Seth and Evan are lying drunk on a floor, and in their inebriation, have a genuine moment of platonic love between friends, summarized in the simple act of a hug and a pat on the back. It comes across as more authentic than hundreds of screen kisses I have seen. The film also ends perfectly, with a quiet resolution that simultaneously offers an understanding between Seth and Evan as to the future of their relationship and gives a message of hope for our heroes.

‘Superbad’ is the latest collaboration between Seth Rogan and Judd Apatow, the dream team behind ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’. Apatow isn’t in the director’s seat this time, rather as producer, but still, this film has his name all over it. It is the funniest film I have seen all summer and I found myself laughing aloud frequently in a packed theater. Entire lines of dialogue were lost to the laughter. After ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’, ‘Knocked Up’ and now ‘Superbad’, I can confidently say that the Rogan/Apatow team is the North American equivalent of Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

(NOTE: A positive detail I noticed about the film: none of the character’s we’re supposed to care about does drugs in the film. Aside from a scene with some stoners at a party doing cocaine, there are no drugs in the film, not even marijuana. I thought this was a pleasant surprise as compared to most high school movies, which have kids casually smoking (cigarettes and pot), drinking and having sex. I know that may be the truth, but the whole point of going to the movies is to escape.)

'The Host' review

Rating: *** out of ****

‘The Host’ has gone on to become the highest grossing film in South Korea’s history and I can understand why. Joon-Ho Bong’s throwback to the classic monster movies of yesteryear (‘Godzilla’, ‘Them’) is part monster flick, part social/political commentary and part dysfunctional family comedy. That could have been a recipe for disaster in the wrong hands, but Bong balances the three so well it creates a modern monster movie that all together impresses on a modern scale and acts well as homage.

The film centers on Park Hee-bong, an elderly man who runs a small snack bar on the banks of the Han River. His oldest son Gang-du is an immature and incompetent man in his 40’s, whose wife left home long ago. Nam-il is his youngest son, is unemployed and generally seems to complain about everything that is going on. Park Hee-bong’s daughter, Nam-joo is an archery medalist and member of the national team. It’s funny how we are never exposed to Nam-joo’s archery skills until the end of the film. I assumed she would have been shooting left and right, becoming an action heroine of sorts.

One day, an unidentified monster suddenly appears from the depths of the Han River and wreaks havoc. Gang-du's daughter Hyun-seo is taken by the monster. It is assumed that the monster has killed her. However, when they find out she is still alive, they launch a mission to find her.

‘The Host’ opens impressively enough. We’re first given a minimalist explanation as to how the monster came to be. Given that it is not essential to the story, the details given are just enough so we don’t have to ask. It’s simple in that traditional way, like Godzilla being created by the atom bomb. After that, we’re treated to the most impressive scene, when the monster makes a daring daylight attack on the Han River. The creature resembles a demonic tadpole with legs, insect eyes, and a mouth harking back to John McTiernan’s ‘Predator’. It is not a creature that feels alien, but rather like something that could come from the deeps of our oceans. Though the visual effects seemed mediocre at times, I was impressed at how Bong had the courage to put his monster in the daylight, not relying on darkness to hide or create shortcuts. Since horror movies have always revolved around night, darkness and shadow, there has always been something scarier about the daylight (the original ‘Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ for example). This opening sequence starts the movie perfectly; hooking us right from the get-go and in some ways is reminiscent of the immortal opening scene from ‘Jaws’.

Though the movie, at times, seems to be a random series of events, the whole is greater than the sum. We’re treated to plenty of political commentary and satire. Bong does not hide his Anti-American sentiment and the film makes concurrent statements about the American medical establishment and the events in New Orleans. Though this aspect of the film is involving, it is vague and confusing when we find out the ‘bad guys’ true intentions. Their motives are never really made clear; we just know they’re doing something wrong and that they’re bad for doing it. Again, maybe that’s all we need to know.

‘The Host’ would have been right at home in the 1950’s, but impressively enough, makes its mark quite well in 2007. These days we don’t see many monster movies that have a political agenda. It’s nice to see. It also features a twist ending that plays against the usual formula. Also nice to see. With ‘The Host’, Joon-Ho Bong packs multiple genres into a monster flick that is simultaneously gross, funny and poignant. It has been rumored that this will be one of the next Asian horror films to have an American adaptation. I’m curious to see if it can carry over or if it becomes just another monster movie.

'TMNT' review

Rating: ** out of ****

There comes a time when you realize that the things you loved as a kid really weren’t that great. You still enjoy them in the nostalgic sense, but the realization of their overall quality sinks in over time. While the 'Transformers' may be there, I’m not sure if the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are yet. There is still something creative, rich and compelling about a story of four walking, talking turtles and their master who is a giant fighting rat. Unfortunately for those who are still fans of this franchise, ‘TMNT’ doesn’t quite take off the way it should and thusly, may be a nail in the coffin for the series.

‘TMNT’ is the fourth film in the series that follows Leonardo, Raphael, Donatello and Michelangelo as they battle evil in New York City, while feasting on pizza along the way. After defeating their arch-nemesis, The Shredder, the turtles have gone their separate ways. Leonardo has left New York and is on a spiritual quest in Central America to become a better ninja and leader. Michelangelo now works as a children’s entertainer and Donatello as a technician in a call-center. Raphael, meanwhile, has picked up the slack as a lone warrior named ‘The Nightwatcher’ who wears so much metal, it’s a wonder he can even raise his leg to kick bad guys. The would-be villain this time is Max Winters (Patrick Stewart), a billionaire with a secret who hires the Foot Clan to find him thirteen monsters that have been on Earth for thousands of years, yet no one has ever seen them. Leonardo decides to return to New York after a visit from April O'Neil - who has given up the reporting gig to become a Lara Croft of sorts. It’s then up to the turtles, with the help of their old friend Casey Jones, to stop Winters and send the monsters back where they came from. Master Splinter also comes along for the ride, occasionally offering some ancient wisdom. The voice work on him is either a blatant Asian stereotype or has been performed phonetically by the actor (Mako). Either way, every scene Splinter occupies really lets you know you're watching a cartoon.

The first three Ninja Turtle films were live action and showed the mastery of Jim Henson Studios in full effect. Even now, there is something imaginative and believable to those suits with the motorized heads. The fourth film has gone the CG way, with animation that may not be as impressive as most Pixar films, but still shows off a dark, gloomy New York City while allowing the characters to be colorful and animated in nature.

The problem with the fourth installment is that it contains two stories: one that is not developed enough, and another that is such a mess, I couldn’t have cared less about it. The first story centers on Leonardo and Raphael’s sibling rivalry - a recurring theme throughout all four films. Raphael feels abandoned and betrayed by Leo for having left, and Leo thinks Raphael is too hotheaded and stubborn. This conflict culminates in a rain-drenched, rooftop battle between the two that is far more epic than you normally see in a children’s movie. I enjoyed this plotline very much and wanted to see more of it, however it takes a back seat to the ‘monsters’ story, which makes very little sense and may be confusing to children.

‘TMNT’ contains some attractive animation, exciting fight-sequences and interesting voice work, (Kevin Smith appears in a cameo and Laurence Fishburne is the narrator). I also enjoyed how the low-level thugs were more realistic by carrying guns and not using kung-fu to carry out robberies. I’m sure this will be seen by some as a fitting reinvention of the franchise. However, with a story that plays more like a video game than a movie and a plot that may confuse its target audience, it may be a good idea if the turtles stayed in the sewers a little longer before coming out for a fifth film.

'The Simpsons Movie' review

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

No one, not even Matt Groening himself, could've imagined that ‘The Simpsons’ would become as big as it did. Nor could anyone anticipate how much of a cultural phenomenon it has become. ‘The Simpsons’ may be the only show on the air that is older than its target audience. Going into its nineteenth year on the air, ‘The Simpsons’ have raised a generation. Homer Simpson has become the most iconic cartoon character since Bugs Bunny. With such a legacy, it was inevitable the show would take the leap to the big screen. Those anticipating the movie and those who have an aversion to the idea have come in equal numbers. Many seem to think that after 18 years the movie has nowhere to go but down. But it’s not as if this film was thought up overnight. Does anyone remember the ‘Camp Krusty’ episode? I read that that story was supposed to be the original idea for the movie. That shows how long this movie has been on the creators’ minds.

“Why would anyone pay to see something they can see for free on TV?” Homer asks the audience. It’s a good question. People will pay though. If not, for any other reason, than to satisfy their curiosity as to what exactly has been brewing for 18 years. People often say that a movie made from a TV show will just feel like an extended episode. Of course it will. It is the same characters in their usual universe. Unless the creators take a long drive off the path of the show (i.e. ‘Beavis & Butthead Do America’), how could it not?

In this extended Simpsons episode, we find Springfield has become the most polluted town in the history of the world. This is due to the resident’s habitual dumping in Lake Springfield, topped off by Homer dumping an entire silo of pig waste. President Schwarzenegger, under pressure from the EPA, declares that the city be sealed off from the rest of the US. This leads to dire consequences and it is up to America’s favorite family to save the day.

The plot may sound thin, but it leaves plenty of room for the richly textured jokes and satire that the Simpsons are known for - and that shows like ‘Family Guy’ later bastardized. We see the usual types - shameless plugs for the Fox network (yes, even in a feature film), jabs at politicians, government incompetence, and Homer hurting himself in so many ways it would make the Three Stooges cringe. The show takes advantage of the newfound leeway brought with a film, pushing the envelope while not intentionally trying to offend. Its humor always feels light-hearted. It also features some of the most heart-felt and poignant moments this family has endured. There is a moment between Homer and Marge that is so quiet and affecting that Julie Kavner’s (Marge) voice even resonates differently – we hear Julie breaking down as well as Marge.

The higher budget has allowed a face-lift for the animation. Computer animation is used sparsely and creatively. It never feels distracting; rather enriching the universe the Simpsons occupy. Shots and sequences are possible now that could never work on the show. Supposedly, the movie has set a record for writers on a single script (11). Normally this many writers implies countless rewrites and modifications. Here, it just happens that 11 writers have an equal love for the material. The jokes are fresh and non-stop, from the opening Fox logo to the end of the credits (stay for them, it’s well worth it).

‘The Simpsons’ movie may be compared to the last episode of ‘Seinfeld’, where it has been built-up for so long that there is no way the fans will get what they expect. There will be die-hard fans that are impossible to satisfy. I have been a fan of the show since the beginning, have seen every episode multiple times, and am still an avid watcher. This movie did not disappoint. After 18 years of anticipation, I feel it was well worth the wait. ‘The Simpsons Movie’ is entertaining, funny, heart-warming and flat-out ridiculous. Though the small screen will suffice, I would love to see them back on the big screen. And if Maggie’s first word is any sign, they will be.

The gang's all here! 'The Simpsons Movie' is in theaters now.

'Knocked Up' review

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

Coming from a small town, my friends and I didn’t have much to do except go to work, come home and party, BBQ and talk about our big plans for the future. It’s fitting then that I could instantly relate to the characters in ‘Knocked Up’. That’s what makes Judd Apatow’s follow-up to ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ so great – anyone can understand it. It is so instantly relatable on a wide scale that anyone (working professional, slacker seasonalist, stay at home parent) can understand who the characters are and what their motivations are. Moreover, they are likeable people that I wouldn’t mind knowing and hanging out with. Apatow guaranteed this by making them multi-layered people of right here and now. There is no generation gap here. This movie is so current the characters literally talk about going to see ‘Spider-man 3’, and re-watching ‘Munich’.

Seth Rogan stole the show in ‘Virgin’, at times upstaging the great Steve Carell. Here he plays Ben, a slacker who lives with his friends. Ben has a career goal: start a website highlighting all the best nude scenes from movies. Had he done a quick search on Google, he’d find several already in existence. One night at a bar, Ben meets Alison (Katherine Heigl), an up and coming executive at E! who has just been promoted and is out celebrating. After a few too many, they end up back at Alison’s apartment and due to a miscommunication, end up having unprotected sex. Sure enough, a few weeks later Alison is calling Ben to fill him in that she’s (drum roll…) pregnant! Ben’s reaction to the news is priceless. Meanwhile, Alison lives with her sister, Debbie (Leslie Mann) and her husband, Pete (Paul Rudd), who question Ben’s abilities as a father. They’re having problems with their own marriage. Their relationship is a nice juxtaposition to Ben and Alison’s. While one relationship is struggling to begin, the other is almost ending. Paul Rudd once again is brilliant as he plays a man who feels as if life kicked in a little too quickly. In one scene, he summarizes marriage to Ben as an unfunny version of ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’ that lasts forever. Personally, some episodes of ‘Raymond’ can feel that way, but I digress.

From here, the story follows Ben and Alison over the nine months trying to develop a relationship but mostly trying to get to know one another. A lesser film would have had Ben trying to find any and every excuse to skip out on his duties or doing the bare minimum. Not here, as Rogan makes Ben a young man willing to change and mature due to his newfound responsibilities. You can tell that behind the profanity and razor-sharp wit, Apatow is a true romantic. The chemistry between Ben and Alison feels real. They grow to care for one another, never feeling forced or schmaltzy. Like ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’, here is a film that finds the perfect balance between bawdy, gross-out humor and a sweet, relationship comedy. It walks the line well, spilling equally into both territories.

Apatow has a talent for taking complex situations, which take place everyday, and placing them at the forefront of his movies. For example, he covered lifelong sexual/social ineptitude in ‘Virgin’. ‘Knocked Up’ handles the issue of ill-legitimate children. Apatow does not shy away from taboo subject matter; he places it right on display without it feeling gratuitous or exploitative. He’s making the freshest, most honest mainstream comedies today. Take the issue of abortion. It is inevitable that in this story – as in life – the question of abortion would rise. Apatow handles the situation so maturely that both left and right wings will be satisfied.

Running a little long (129 minutes), ‘Knocked Up’ feels like the extended edition of the DVD that made it to theaters. Nevertheless, I could sit and watch these characters time and time again. Should Apatow decide to revisit them, it’ll feel like catching up with old friends – they’ll just be taking their kids to go see ‘Indiana Jones 4’.

'28 Weeks Later' review

Rating: ** out of ****

(*NOTE* - I am fully aware that in this franchise, the ‘infected’ are not technically zombies. Whatever. For argument’s sake, we will call them zombies, as beyond that technicality they share many zombie traits.)

‘28 Weeks Later’ may be the horror film with the most political commentary since George Romero’s ‘Dawn of The Dead’. Though its messages are obvious and thinly textured to those of a Romero classic, I was glad they were there. We normally are not given those privileges with the average zombie film. The film gets an ‘A’ for effort.

‘28 Weeks Later’ is the sequel to the 2002 modern day classic ‘28 Days Later’. Danny Boyle reinvented the zombie film with his low budget, intimate account of a zombie plague infecting Britain. Perhaps Boyle’s film worked so well because it had a lower budget than most horror films, and so they relied on the excellent script by Alex Garland. It featured complex ideas on wartimes and survivalism, appealing relationships and true jump-out-of-your-seat scares, producing one of the scariest modern horror films. This time around, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo takes the reigns as director with Boyle serving as an executive producer. Fresnadillo and Boyle approach similar material very differently. One with substance and style, the other more style. It made me wonder of what ‘Aliens’ would have been like had it been directed by Tony Scott.

‘28 Weeks Later’ picks up, well, 28 weeks after the Rage virus has spread throughout the city of London. The city has been quarantined, all those infected either starved to death or wiped-out by American military forces. The US army declares that the war against infection has been won, and that the reconstruction of the country can begin. In the first wave of returning refugees, a family is reunited – the father (Robert Carlyle) left his wife to die in the outbreak and is now coming together with his children (Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton), who we assume were evacuated before things became really bad. Why the father and his wife did not evacuate with them is never really made clear. The children must be secret agents though, because they are able to sneak past American forces and travel to their old home in the danger zone. Here they find a survivor who comes back into the safe zone with them. The survivor does not show signs of infection. Later, it is discovered that the survivor is infected, though shows no signs. The theory is presented that their blood may contain natural biological immunities to the plague. One thing leads to another and the virus is once again spreading like wild fire through the safe zone. A race against time ensues between the US government’s alarmist plans to ‘shoot them all and let God sort them out’, and a military nurse (Rose Byrne) who wants to experiment with the immune blood to find a cure.

Where the first film succeeded so well with its small scale, well-developed relationships and choice scares, the sequel kicks it into overdrive with more blood, more jumps, and more action - with cameras so shaky I honestly could not tell what was happening until the moment was over. That being said, that same technique is also useful in selling some of the films freakiest moments. ‘28 Weeks Later’ is a political parabol, exemplifying everything from the war in Iraq to Hurricane Katrina – though it never decides what point it’s trying to make with its analogies. It begins well enough with a man who seems somewhat passive about leaving his wife to die and lying to his children about it. This would have been a great story to develop further. Unfortunately, the film leaves this point behind when the chasing and killing begins. The characters are left underdeveloped and the film has an ending that feels vague, with no hope of a cure - even with the potential of one. It also can’t seem to make up its mind on how smart or strong these zombies really are. Some are killed by being shot once or twice - as they are still human after all. Others seem near invincible. Most of the zombies are pure rage and instinct. Hunting humans and feeding is all they know. Yet one such zombie seems to be smart enough to evade all authorities and traps, popping up whenever the plot needs him to. Some fans of the film suggest that the strain of the disease is evolved and more potent this time around, yet the film puts forth no theories or points to back up such a claim.

Where the first film was compelling and thoughtful with very scary moments, this film is a video game. Every scene and new situation feels like a level of a game, ranging from streets and cemeteries to fields and subways. The infected are merely targets. There is even a scene shown in the first person, and though it is the most suspenseful of the film, I bet some people in the theater were reaching for joysticks that were not there. If only ‘Doom’ could have been this much fun!

‘28 Weeks Later’ cannot hold a flame to its predecessor. I bet many die-hard fans will be calling for Danny Boyle to come back. If you leave your brain at the door while picking up your vomit bag, you can enjoy its aesthetic qualities and political undertones - all the while cringing pleasurably. I’m sure many zombie-lovers will eat it up with a blood-dripping spoon. One has to wonder what the fate of ‘28 Months Later’ will hold. ‘28 Years’? ‘28 Decades’? Who knows?

'F4 - Rise of The Silver Surfer' review

Rating: *** out of ****

There is a clever scene in Wes Craven’s ‘Scream 2’ that has a classroom of characters sitting, debating sequels and whether many hold up to their successors. It’s a funny little scene with some well thought dialogue. In it, they debunk that ‘Aliens’ is not better than Ridley Scott’s first film, that ‘T2’ is not better than ‘The Terminator’, but they all agree that ‘The Godfather: Part II’ is better than the first. I agree with the first point and disagree with the second two.

Tim Story's ‘Fantastic Four – Rise of The Silver Surfer’ may not deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as ‘Aliens’, ‘T2’ or ‘The Godfather’, but it is a sequel that overshadows its predecessor quite significantly. I would have listed the first ‘Fantastic Four’ with my top ten worst films of the year, had I compiled said list that year. The second may not make my ‘best of’ list, but it won’t make the worst either.

‘F4 – ROTSS’ picks up some time after the first film. We see the current adventures of The Fantastic Four, comprised of Reed Richards (Mr. Fantastic, who can stretch his body out ‘till next week), Sue Storm (The Invisible Woman, self-explanatory), Johnny Storm (The Human Storm, who can spontaneously combust as well as fly), and Ben Grimm (The Thing, who is literally a walking hunk of granite). In the last film, the team developed super-powers by being exposed to ‘cosmic radiation’, and all they could say is ‘cool!’ This time around, we’re on the eve of Reed and Sue’s wedding, which is on its fifth attempt –superheroes have busy lives and can’t always fit a wedding in to their schedules. Meanwhile, the Earth is experiencing mystifying activities that take shape in the forms of snow in Egypt, massive blackouts and craters large enough to suck in a city. The Human Torch discovers in an impressive chase sequence that the cause of these activities is a figure known as The Silver Surfer. The surfer is paving the way for Galactus, a giant being that comes in the form of a storm and devours planets. Now, the Fantastic Four must team up with the US Government as well as their nemesis Dr. Doom – making an obligatory return from the first film – to capture the surfer and save the Earth.

While the sequel plays with the same cartoonish logic and humor as its predecessor, the fresh elements in this chapter elevate the movie. In this day, where more people care that Paris Hilton goes to jail than what’s happening with the war, the obsession over a superhero’s wedding is played off as a witty satire on our celebrity obsessed culture. I also enjoy the way the Fantastic Four deal with authority and government figures. They aren’t rogue heroes above the law. They collaborate with the military, and thusly the military seeks their help. You’d never see Batman or Spiderman do that. There are also deeper elements within the group of heroes. There is a subplot where Reed and Sue contemplate leaving to lead ‘normal’ lives, leaving Ben and Johnny to contemplate the future of the team. It was curious to me why Sue complained so much about being in the public eye, when she could make herself invisible.

The high point of the film is the title character. The surfer – played by Doug Jones and voiced by Lawrence Fishburne - excels the story. He has an element of mystery and wisdom to him and contains powers that make Reed Richards look like Stretch Armstrong. His action sequences are more exciting than all others are, and when he brings Galactus to Earth, it involves some breathtaking visuals of the planet literally being swallowed in a storm. I would like to have known a bit more about him though. Alas, we’re given just as much as we need to know in order to empathize with him, but without a look at his home world or knowing how he came to work for Galactus’, we really can’t care or hate the character as much as it feels we’re supposed to.

The major hindrance on the picture though is the rehash of Dr. Doom. His lackluster return feels tacked on as a shameless ‘guess-who’s-back’ motive and lowers the bar for the film. He was not required in any fashion and that puts a damper on an otherwise fine climactic battle. The writers would have been well advised to wait and bring him back in the third installment.

Still, ‘Fantastic Four – Rise of The Silver Surfer’ is a pleasant surprise given my disdain for the first installment. After a summer of mostly letdowns, it was nice to sit back, let go and actually feel that inner child in me excited about what was happening on screen. When the surfer skids down the side of a building, shattered glass flying like mists of water, all I could say was, ‘cool!’

The Anti-Spielberg Movement?

The other day I was reading an article by Rick McGinnis, the Entertainment writer for ‘The Metro’. In his article entitled ‘Studio closed, but not forgotten’, he mentions how TV writer/executive producer Aaron Sorkin has a deal that may see one his scripts directed by Steven Spielberg. McGinnis goes on to say, and I quote, “which is, to be frank, no longer the big deal it used to be.” A few days ago, my friend Bryan and I were talking about George Lucas and the innovations he has brought to the world of film, technically speaking. Bryan claimed that George Lucas has done more for the world of film than Steven Spielberg has, and that Spielberg hasn’t really done that much. I am not here to debate the Lucas matter, though I’m interested in people’s opinions. However, what he said struck a chord with me. In the last few years I’ve been hearing plenty of comments like those of Bryan’s and Mr. McGinnis’; people saying that Spielberg doesn’t hold the weight he used to, or that his hey-days are behind him and that he should sit back and produce for Dreamworks; that he’s only making ‘Indiana Jones 4’ as a ‘back-to-the-well’ move. I say that just because things change, doesn’t mean they haven’t stayed the same.

People’s basis for these Anti-Spielberg statements tends to be two points: economic and artistic. People think that just because a Spielberg film may not have grossed ‘Jurassic Park’ sized numbers, it means it’s not a success. As well if he’s not making ‘Schindler’s List’ every year then he’s making unimportant work. Sure, ‘The Terminal’ may have been a financial let-down, but ‘War of The World’s’ broke box office records, raking in hundreds of millions worldwide. Sure, he may have been phoning it in with ‘Catch Me If You Can’, but don’t forget ‘Munich’ – arguably one of the most poignant political films in decades.

Spielberg is criticized all too often for making movies that are too ‘mainstream’. He is a businessperson as well as a filmmaker, a fact he has never tried to hide. He is a tycoon in the truest sense of the word. He believes in making commercially viable art, yet art all the same. Moreover, in spite of his missteps, he has never had significant or prolonged failure.

If a filmmaker wants to branch out and try some different things, maybe smaller things, does not make those things terrible. Spielberg seems to have a stigma attached to him that everything he does must be ‘Close Encounters’ or ‘Jaws’. ‘A.I.’ may have missed the mark, but many critics commended him for trying something as far away from his normal style as he could, though dealing with familiar subject matter. He took a risk and risks don’t always work. But this is the man who brought us ‘Indiana Jones’, ‘E.T.’, has held the record of ‘highest grossing film of all time’ at least twice, and was the first filmmaker to break $100 million at the box office while simultaneously inventing the summer blockbuster (‘Jaws;). After what he has done, he deserves to take some risks.

I loved ‘The Terminal’. I thought it was a small, sweet film that was poignant in its own way. It brought to mind ‘Forrest Gump’, though on a smaller scale. I also thought ‘War of The Worlds’ had many glaring problems and was not his finest, but it was a huge financial success - which would hopefully silence many critics who say Spielberg can’t pull in a crowd anymore. Then there’s ‘Minority Report’, which I thought was one his best works in a decade, and as Roger Ebert stated, “This film is such a virtuoso high-wire act, daring so much, achieving it with such grace and skill…"Minority Report" reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place.”

The point is that just because he may make some movies that are creatively askew from his normal endeavors, doesn’t make them worse. Moreover, if some of them flop, you know he’ll come back, as he’s done multiple times. Never forget that he is the most financially successful and legendary director of all time (I’m not going to say ‘greatest’ because that is very subjective); therefore he is not going to bow out so easily.

And as for the ‘back-to-the-well’ statement about ‘Indy 4’, just because you may be going back to the well, it doesn’t mean you can’t draw fresh water.

'Transformers' review

Rating: *1/2 out of ****

Who knew that super advanced robots from outer space would be so shallow? If I traveled across the gulf of space, over god knows how many millions of light-years, I’d have something better to say. Alas, the Transformers have come all this way to spout cheesy one-liners, cornball dialogue and advertisements for EBay. Oh well, at least a lot of stuff blows up real good.

Michael Bay’s ‘Transformers’ is the live-action adaptation of the classic Hasbro toy line, which has earth vehicles transforming into giant fighting robots. That’s about the extent of the film’s storyline too, the rest of it being a non-stop car commercial and showcase of explosions, everything we’ve come to expect from a Michael Bay flick.

What little story we’re given involves an on-going battle between The Autobots and The Decepticons over the All-Spark, the MacGuffin of the story (Google it). It is a device that can create life out of anything mechanical – including Mountain Dew machines, X-Boxes, and any other product that is convenient for product placement. The All-Spark has found its way to Earth and so the Autobots and Decepticons must duke it out here over their prize. A brief back-story is provided about an explorer who stumbled upon Megatron (the leader of the Decepticons) buried in a glacier a couple hundred years ago. The US government has Megatron now, and so the Decepticons must find him and release him as well as find the All-Spark. The information as to the location of the All-Spark has been imbedded into the lenses of the explorer’s eyeglasses (some how), whose modern day descendent, Sam Whitwicky possesses and is trying to sell on EBay. If the Transformers got their info from EBay and the web, then why couldn’t they set up an EBay account and purchase the glasses?

The audience would be better off learning about the Autobots from the internet, as the movie spends very little time establishing any of them. Most of the human characters suffer the same fate. At least there’s a nice ‘worlds apart yet the same underneath it all’ message tacked on in the end to make us feel warm and fuzzy.

Since the Decepticons will surely destroy Sam to get the glasses, The Autobots have sent a guardian to protect him until the rest of them can arrive in a self-referential ‘Armageddon’ inspired sequence. This guardian is Bumblebee, an old Chevy Camaro who seems to be very sensitive about his aesthetic appearance.

After that, ‘Transformers’ becomes a slick commercial with pockets of non-stop explosions. My hat goes off to Industrial Light and Magic for creating some of the most realistic digital creatures ever seen on film. That being said, many of the battles are shot in extreme close-ups, with shaky cameras and choppy editing that you get lost in the mess of it all. Even when you can see what's happening, a lot of the action goes on and on and on ad nauseam.

The script is uninspired and contains dialogue that almost made me laugh aloud - and not in the good way. I enjoy Shia LeBeouff as an actor and he does what he can with the material given, but I did not believe that his character would be considered a nerd or be picked on at school. I also didn’t believe his attraction to Megan Fox’s character. There is no chemistry between them, besides her being extremely physically attractive, but a blind man could see that.

Almost every government or military character is moronic, making decisions that only endanger humans further. Would the US Secretary of Defense (Jon Voight) be left with no military bodyguards while an invasion of Decepticons is going on? If the military held the All-Spark, why decide to hide it in a major populated city where the Decepticons will come to get it, destroying the city and its inhabitants in order to retrieve it? Because the script calls for it as an excuse to get the Transformers into an urban area for the climax and an urban setting is always more exciting than a desolate one. Why sink some vanquished Decepticons to the bottom of the ocean as a cover-up? Did it not occur to the government that studying them would help battle them in the sequel? I guess the military doesn’t think as far ahead as Hollywood does.

Many people I talk to say that I’m reading excessively into this; that it’s based on a toy line, it’s a Michael Bay film, and so I should accept it for what it is and not expect too much from it. I don’t think expecting certain elements of realism or character is expecting too much. If you want to adapt a toy/cartoon into a live action film and make it believable in a live action world, then there are basic rules of realism, physics and common sense that must apply. ‘Transformers’ gets the physics and realism of the robots accurate. They look and feel real; textured with thousands of moving parts, with real gravity and weight to them. It’s everyone and everything else around the robots that are not believable. The filmmakers spent so much time making the Transformers themselves seem real that it’s the characters, story and plot that feel fake.

Perhaps 'Transformers' makes a good statement about the state of modern movies. After all, when every one of the digital characters are more believable than every flesh and blood character, that must be saying something.

'1408' review

Rating: *** out of ****

“Hotel rooms are a naturally creepy place”, Mike Enslin utters into his tape recorder, practically his only form of outward communication in Mikael Hafstrom’s ‘1408’. John Cusak plays Mike, a horror writer who spends his time traveling across America debunking supposedly haunted hotels, writing about it and raking in the dough from the fan boys. ‘1408’ is the most recent adaptation of a Stephen King thriller, and one of the best to come along in a while.

One day Mike gets an anonymous postcard telling him not to stay in room 1408 of The Dolphin Hotel, New York City. The fact that the numbers in 1408 add up to 13 is sure to be a popular trivia question somewhere in the near future. Mike being the brazen type, immediately hops a plane to New York to stay in the room. “It’s an evil f-ing room”, warns Gerald Olin, the Manager of the hotel played by Samuel L. Jackson in a role that didn’t necessarily require a star such as him. He makes more than due however, dutifully warning Cusak’s character and the audience with the horror stories of the 56 people who have died in room 1408 since the hotel opened. It is true that the imagination is far scarier than anything that can be shown. I found myself more anxious during Jackson’s tales than any other time, visualizing scenes more intense and horrific than anything the film had to offer. That is how ‘1408’ gets its scares. It is purely psychological, and even though its effects run thin over the course of its run-time, it is still relatively effective up until the last frame.

Enslin – almost mocking Olin – refuses to be persuaded and enters 1408. Almost immediately the shocks begin, subtly and then building ever more intensely. The beauty of ‘1408’ is the ingenious use of the hotel room. I was reminded of two other recent hotel thrillers, ‘Vacancy’ and ‘Bug’, in the creative ways to use the same set repeatedly and yet the setups always seem fresh. We’re always in the same room, but at times it feels like separate environments.

One of the most interesting aspects of ‘1408’ is how Cusak remains alone for two thirds of the film and yet has consistent dialogue. It is very easy to have a character speaking to themselves and have it come across as forced, but here it works. The film takes a page from Zemeckis’s ‘Cast Away’, using the tape recorder as Cusak’s ‘Wilson’ – an inanimate device that allows us to know what he is thinking and feeling. As the story progresses and Mike descends further into madness, the tape recorder becomes less involved as the character just thinks aloud. This is believable by now, as much of what he says is reactionary and often has him babbling almost incoherently.

‘1408’ does take some steps off the path. What actually takes place in the room is not as foreboding as the buildup given by the Manager. You can feel the terror dialed down a bit by the PG-13 rating. There is a false ending sequence, which seemed unnecessary and actually takes us out of the film for an awkward moment. Jackson shows up once again in the third act for an obligatory cameo, which, once again breaks some great tension. The largest curiosity I had however was that it seemed the room could not hurt Mike, it just attempts to drive him mad or to hurt himself. There is a point where a ghost appears, swings a weapon at him, and does not connect. There is another moment when a ghost seems to be trying to push him out a window, but is actually just trying to scare him into falling. It seemed to me that Mike would clue in to this fact relatively quickly and then slowly become desensitized to the room’s threats – making it ineffectual. The room felt like a bully, where if you stood up to it and showed you weren’t afraid of it, it would leave you alone.

Nevertheless, ‘1408’ provides some strong thrills and cold chills, coupled with strong performances by Cusak and Jackson. It may not be as great a shocker as some of King’s others (The Shining, The Stand, IT) but it does its job well and with enthusiasm - and in a time of countless by-the-numbers thrillers and timid horror films, that's fine by me.

'Live Free or Die Hard' review

Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I often find myself asking a very important question when it comes to films in a franchise: Should each film be compared to the others in the series, or should each film be allowed to stand on its own legs? The answer is both. You must look at a film on its own merits, but a sequel or prequel is inevitably going to be compared and contrasted to its predecessors – and so it should. They have a reputation to uphold and a responsibility to its fans. ‘Live Free or Die Hard’ tries so hard to keep its fans happy and to live up to the series and I wish very much that this wasn’t a ‘Die Hard’ film, but another Bruce Willis action flick. Had it been, I would give it a stellar review urging people to go see it. Unfortunately as a film in the franchise, it may be seen as more of a hindrance than anything else. As a 'Die Hard' movie it is not the best nor the most exciting. As an action movie, it is a lot of fun.

Bruce Willis returns to the role that launched his career into superstardom. He’s back as John McClane, the rough-and-tough New York cop who continuously finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time. This time, McClane has to stop an organization of terrorist hackers who intend on shutting down the country, creating total chaos. All the while he has to protect a hacker named Matt Farrell (Justin Long...yes the guy from the Mac ads), who is inadvertently instrumental in the terrorist’s plot. The main villain this time around is Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), an ex-government employee who feels the US government's systems are so fallible he is willing to crash them all to prove his point. Olyphant pails in comparison to the great ‘Die Hard’ villains, most notably Alan Rickman. He never feels menacing or dangerous, more disgruntled and even whiny at times.

We’re dealing with a different McClane in the fourth installment. He looks older; more grizzled and has a melancholy tone. We learn he has alienated his children along side his wife. Willis brings a very real sense that the character has aged, being 52 years old himself. It does a great job in utilizing real actors in lieu of stunt people, as well as containing some amazing action scenes that are actually done practically. While this installment contains far more computer-generated effects than any in the series, it does contain far less than average summer films. In that fact, it echoes the good old days where action movies contained real stunts performed by real people and a sense of danger is implied.

Ironically, the action brings down ‘Live Free or Die Hard’, with each sequence becoming more absurd than the last. Though McClane looks and feels older, his is stronger than ever before. Where he was once a hero for real people, he now seems indestructible. When he was hurt in the past, you felt his pain. To this day, few scenes still are as wince inducing as when he had to walk barefoot across the floor of broken glass. Along the same line, the action in ‘Die Hard’ films has never been long or drawn out. They have always been small pockets of action that start and finish relatively quickly and are necessary to what McClane needed to do. The action evolved from the plot and not the other way around. Here, there are action sequences so long and absurd, I thought Bruce Willis crash-landed into another Michael Bay movie. The first ‘Die Hard’ was an ‘average man’s action movie’. Whenever you found yourself saying, “Why doesn’t he do this?” he would do it and you believed he could do it. Here I found myself asking, "How is that possible?"

I think director Len Wiseman felt compelled to over-compensate with the action due to the fact that 20th Century Fox ordered the film to be PG-13 in order to make it available to the widest possible audience (hence the widest amount of money). The rating difference is very noticeable (the previous three films had hard R ratings). The overall tone is different. This is your little brother’s ‘Die Hard’, not your dad’s. McClane’s foul-mouthed machismo has been dialed down to the point where he cannot even deliver his trademarked catch phrase without some censoring. I was amused at how they used the ‘Jaws’ technique to cover his profanity.

There have been franchises hindered by mediocre sequels and prequels. While I would not say that ‘Die Hard’ falls under the umbrella of some (‘Star Wars’, ‘Terminator’), I have a feeling it will leave some of the die hard ‘Die Hard’ fans wanting a little more of the good ol’ days. If this were just another Bruce Willis action flick, I’d recommend it highly. All they had to do was change the name of the movie and the name of his character and I’d be recommending a solid action film. Unfortunately, 'a rose by any other name' doesn't always apply. Maybe next time they’ll take a hint and toss some broken glass McClane’s way instead of a fighter jet. Yippee-ki-yay…

The pointless political debates over '300'

Critics and pundits need to stop theorizing, debating and making excuses for the 'political ideologies' or 'historical inaccuracies' in Zack Snyder's '300', because, simply put, there are none. People seem to be forgetting that above all the movie is based on a COMIC BOOK (I'm not trying to start a debate over whether there's a difference between graphic novels and comic books, I'm just simplifying for argument's sake). Sure, it may be based on an historical event, but great liberties were taken with that event when Frank Miller wrote the comic book/graphic novel for '300'. Even more liberties were taken when Zack Snyder adapted it to the movie. So to sit and argue over the historical inaccuracies, or political messages within the film is a moot point. Personally, I loved the movie, but this film is far too over-the-top, out of this world, and just plain silly for any educated mind to sit and seriously theorize or debate over it's political allegories - especially comparisons to the Iraq war. In this day, if a war movie is made about any war from any point in time, there will be folks who can't wait to tear it apart with comparisons and metaphors to the Iraq war. People just need to stop reading so much into it and accept it for what it is, a well made piece of ENTERTAINMENT made out of a very well made and entertaining COMIC BOOK. So if you're looking for political allegory, look somewhere else.

GENE SEYMOUR of Newsday got it right when he wrote this in his review for the film:

"One hears of allegedly serious minds grappling over what the "politics" of "300" are. Bloggers, pundits and others with too much time on their hands have spent the weeks leading to the opening of this revved-up and outlandish retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae arguing over which present-day parallel best fits the ancient combatants.

For the moment, we'll bite: Are the 300 Spartans, led by King Leonidas (Gerard Butler), correlatives for freedom-loving Americans holding the line against Middle East terror as personified here by the massive Persian army? Or are the nation-gobbling Persians, led by King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), analogous to what some believe to be imperialistic Americans?

If "300" carried any intellectual heft (if, in other words, it was scrupulous with historic details), one could see the point of thrashing these provocative notions to their metaphoric nubs. But this movie in no way pretends to be a replication of historical events. It is, instead, a willed hallucination of ancient history goosed with mutant warriors, rhinos outfitted like Sherman tanks and a King Xerxes who's dolled up with enough glittering threads and glossy makeup to make every David Bowie wanna-be from the mid-1970s chew his knuckles in fuming envy.

Put bluntly, the movie's just too darned silly to withstand any ideological theorizing. And "silly" is invoked here, more or less, with affection."

You can read the entire article here: http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/ny-etlede5121896mar09,0,2850452.story?coll=ny-moviereview-headlines

I'll stop ranting now. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I highly suggest you do. It is very entertaining.

'Spiderman 3' review

Rating: * out of ****

WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

'Spider-Man 3' really should have been the second film in the series for two reasons. Number one: it is the darkest of the three and has many of the signs of a dark second chapter (characters killed, relationships/reputations damaged, secrets revealed). It was very reminiscent of 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Batman Returns' in that way. Number two: it would have made 'Spider-Man 2' (already in the top 3 comic book movies of all time in my opinion) even better when it over-shadowed this chapter. It is so unfortunate that it is this movie that signs off such an epic franchise as the 'Spider-Man' series. Almost in the way that 'X3' was a let-down for that franchise.

A quick synopsis as provided by iMDB: "Peter Parker has finally managed to piece together the once-broken parts of his life, maintaining a balance between his relationship with Mary-Jane and his responsibility as Spider-Man. But more challenges arise for our young hero. Peter's old friend Harry Obsourne has set out for revenge against Peter; taking up the mantle of his late father's persona as The New Goblin, and Peter must also capture Uncle Ben's real killer, Flint Marko, who has been transformed into his toughest foe yet, the Sandman. All hope seems lost when suddenly Peter's suit turns jet-black and greatly amplifies his powers. But it also begins to greatly amplify the much darker qualities of Peter's personality that he begins to lose himself to. Peter has to reach deep inside himself to free the compassionate hero he used to be if he is to ever conquer the darkness within and face not only his greatest enemies, but also...himself."

From the beginning of the series, director Sam Raimi has always prided himself on being a lover of the comic, a fan of the material and it's universe. You'd never guess by looking at 'Spider-Man 3'. So much has been changed, altered, or added for eye candy reasons alone that it all ends up feeling like a muddled mess.

For starters, did anyone notice how pointless the ENTIRE Sandman plot-line was? You could have literally cut him out of the movie completely and not lost a single step of the way. He really served no purpose to the story except to provide more special effects moments, a poor attempt at a redemption story (which failed due to the minimalist back-story provided for his character), and a laughable moment that I half-expected to pop up in a new Godzilla movie. One word kept coming to mind every time Sandman was on screen: 'Perfunctory'.

Moving on to the Venom story. First off, they completely changed the origin story of Venom. In the story, John Jameson (J. Jonah Jameson's son) comes back from space and has the 'Venom-goo' attached to his ship. Am I the only one who assumed that that was why they bothered introducing the John Jameson character in the second movie?? But no, there is no reference of him in the third chapter, and they use a convenient and cliched 'it crashed to earth in a meteor' story to explain where it came from. I could forgive that injustice as long as Venom himself lived up. But alas, no great use was made of him either. How could they have such an epic villain as Venom at their disposal and use him for so little. Venom is one of the darkest, meanest and coolest villains, perhaps in the history of comic books. But here, they use him for so little and what he does do just comes off as corny and flat, considering the character. He is only used to set up a large ending sequence (which I will speak more about in a bit), which didn't really succeed in the thrills it was clearly aiming for. Furthermore, his alter-ego (Eddie Brock) was so one-dimensional that I couldn't believe the filmmakers expected us to feel for his plight and sympathize. I honestly felt nothing for him, which in turn made Venom less interesting. You must like the secret-identity in some way in order to like the alter-ego. The reason Spider-Man is such a good character is because he's human and contains human characteristics that average people can relate to and empathize with. I can't be expected to like, or fear, a villain who comes from such a shallow, one-dimensional character in the first place.

A few elements felt very 'thrown-in' as well. The Gwen Stacey character was relatively useless and they completely changed her character from the story. Originally, Gwen was the first true love of Peter Parker and the Green Goblin murdered her. This has always been a pivotal point in Spider-Man’s history. To this day there are still large debates over who is Spider-Man's 'one true love', Gwen or Mary Jane Watson. That would have made for an interesting subplot - introduce her as Peter's first love, then have the Goblin kill her and have Peter mourn her and be torn over who he really loved more. But no, they make her 'some girl' who shows up to make Mary-Jane jealous and to try and fuel the 'Eddie Brock anger' plot-line, but falls flat in doing so. Perhaps had the character been Felicia instead of Gwen it would have worked better.

Another 'tossed in' element is Harry's butler, Bernard, who shows up last minute with some interesting news. I will not divulge this news, suffice it to say it would have been helpful had he told Harry this news maybe 2 YEARS AGO!!

Now back to that aforementioned ending sequence. The best way I can describe it is to say that it felt like something out of one of the bad 'Batman' movies. I'm talking Schumacher's 'Batman' ('Batman Forever' & 'Batman + Robin'). It was so contrived and over-the-top that I found myself laughing out-loud at many moments. It was just one large excuse to showcase special effects, have the villains team up (for some reason?), and to force the obligatory "i forgive you, now lets team up for the greater good" plot.

I am a huge fan of Sam Raimi and will continue to be. However, I have a strong feeling that the reason behind the lackluster 'Spider-Man 3' is the introduction of Sam and his brother Ivan as screenwriters in this chapter. Sam Raimi's writing style is a unique and creative one, but I don't feel his style lends itself to the Spider-Man series. 'Spider-Man' walks a very fine line between being fun *wink-wink* kind of cheesy and full out cheesy. Sam Raimi's material doesn't always walk that line very well and often falls flat out into full cheesy territory.

The movie does have it's up-points. It has some amazing action sequences (such as an out of control crane against a skyscraper) and the special effects are top notch (even though I found they took a step down from the second film to the third). The acting is on par with what you've come to expect from the first two films. It is an entertaining summer action movie that many audiences, especially children, will surely enjoy. Many comic book fans on the other hand...

I wouldn't recommend 'Spider-Man 3' to any fan of the books or the animated series. I would recommend it to people who just want a summer action flick with cool effects. Had they seen either of the first two films, I would give them a stern warning before they entered the theater.

Ironically, Venom is part of the poison that brings down 'Spider-Man 3'.

'Hostel: Part II' review

Rating: *** out of ****

I've learned that often times a person is either a horror fan, or not. If people don't care much for horror movies, there's little that can be done (or should be done) to try to convince them otherwise. It also goes for the fans of the genre - they love them in spite of many factors (flaws, violence, etc.) and there's little that can be done (or should be done) to convince them otherwise. I like horror movies. To me, horror movies are one of the purest forms of escapism. Often times they're a chance to see things that you would never get to see (or should ever see) in any civilized society. The 'Hostel' flicks have this in spades. Now, if you were not a fan of 'Hostel', you will probably not like the second and I expect you may not even read this review. I know many horror fans who liked the first film and so I hope this review is helpful.

Although I enjoyed Eli Roth's 'Hostel', I found its major weakness was a somewhat one-dimensional story: American guys go to Eastern Europe, go to hostel, are abducted, are killed, one guy escapes, the end. It felt as if Writer/Director Eli Roth was just going through the motions - A leads to B leads to C, etc. This weakness is corrected in part II. The story follows three simultaneous plots, interweaving between them as we go. The first of the three is the same story as the first 'Hostel', substituting the guys for gals, though adding quite the twist at the end. I'm sure there will be some major debates as to whether or not 'Hostel: Part II' is seen as misogynistic or empowering to females. The second story follows two American men who are paying customers of the death business - shelling out thousands of dollars to live out their sickest fantasies. The third story follows the business itself. We get to see how the business works, how victims are selected, how they're paid for, the eBay-like bidding war that ensues for certain victims, etc. This was by far the most interesting sub-plot of the film. There is also a brief fourth story (more of an intro really) where we find out what Paxton (the lone survivor of the first film) has been up to since his Eastern European getaway. Roth is able to juggle these stories without ever letting the film feel convoluted (unlike two other recent summer films that will go unnamed).

Writer/Director Eli Roth ups the anti yet again with 'Hostel: Part II', outdoing himself in the shock, thrills and gore departments. Roth is quickly climbing his way up the Hollywood ladder (his 'Thanksgiving' trailer in 'Grindhouse' was one of the most talked-about parts of the film) and he is becoming a force to be reckoned with - it doesn't hurt that Quentin Tarantino cuts the cheques for his movies either. According to Boxofficemojo.com, Roth is considered one of the most profitable directors working in film today. Both of his first films, 'Cabin Fever' and 'Hostel' earned over five times their production cost at the box office in their opening weekends. Neither film boasted major stars, proving that Roth's name guarantees a built in audience. I have little doubt that 'Hostel: Part II' will follow in this tradition.

While 'Hostel: Part II' is not as riveting, clever or well crafted as some other recent horror films ('The Descent', 'Severance') it is better than the first and is sure not to disappoint many of the fans of the genre who will go see it for what it is: a sick, twisted, demented splatter-fest. However, unlike with other genre films, these are all GOOD qualities that the fans crave!

(Note: 'Hostel' received **1/2 out of **** from Jeff)

'Vacancy' review

Rating: *** out of ****

Nimród Antal's 'Vacancy' is a minimalist thriller in the tradition of Hitchcock's 'Rear Window', with a few dashes of 'Psycho' thrown in. I want to stop right here and adamantly illustrate that I am NOT saying this film is within the same level of quality as those masterpieces - far from it. However, some elements of the story and the ways in which the directors utilize their small, claustrophobic sets are somewhat similar. Moving on.

'Vacancy' stars A-listers Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale as Amy and David Fox, a couple on the verge of a divorce who are traveling home on their way from Amy's parents' anniversary party. Along the way, we get glimpses of back-story including how they had a son together who died in a tragic accident and that Amy blames herself. David, however, accepts that it was an accident and deals with the pain. While driving, their car breaks down on a dark deserted road (a cliché I am willing to overlook) and they end up crashing overnight at the Pinewood Motel. The motel is inhabited by an overly friendly mechanic and a manager with a slight attitude. It is in the motel that things go terribly awry. David and Amy soon discover that they are about to become the victims in a snuff film, and a game of cat and mouse ensues in which they must escape the motel. This proves more difficult than expected, as the captors control every aspect of the motel and have enough hidden cameras to see their every move.

What helps 'Vacancy' work is how tight the film is. It clocks in at a mere 1 hour and 25 minutes, and while this could prove lacking in some films, the brief run-time is exactly what it needs and uses it well. The movie builds a momentum and keeps it, hardly letting up. Another plus is how violence was not used as a crutch. Often times, filmmakers fall back on violence, substituting it for story or real suspense. Antal could have easily copped-out and fallen back on gore as a crutch but relied on actual thrills, not just a splatter show. It was also good to see villains that were not super-villains. I see so many movies where the killers are 'real' people and yet they continuously get back up, survive and keep going - even after getting shot, stabbed, etc. I liked how the killers were real people and were not invincible. When these people get hurt, they stay down - and with that, Antal was able to sidestep clichés like the 'killer gets back up for one last scare', which he did not do (though he had many an opportunity).

'Vacancy' had its down notes though. The attempt at back-story was weak and Kate Beckinsale seemed useless next to Luke Wilson who pulls off panic quite believably. All Beckinsale seemed to do was cry, scream and whimper. You can really tell that she was hired on for her star power and to attract an audience. Clearly, the film did not need a high paying lead actress like her in the role - kind of a waste of money. If they were going to shell out for an A-lister, they should have written a better character that deserves one.

Still, 'Vacancy' offers some decent thrills and good performances while using very little resources when compared to many of the new, big-budget horror thrillers. I have seen this little movie described as 'Psycho meets Saw'. Sounds about right.

'SiCKO' review

Rating: ***1/2 out of ****

"People need dramatic examples to shake them out of apathy."
- Bruce Wayne/Batman

I am sure it seems unusual to open a review for a hard-hitting documentary with a quote from Batman, but it is actually quite fitting. It seems that Batman and Michael Moore have two things in common: they are both looked upon by many as exaggerations or caricatures, and they both have a flair for using dramatics and theatricality to make a point.

'SiCKO', the new documentary by Moore, examines the U.S. Health Care System - as well as those from several other countries - and begs the question, "Why has America not adopted a universal health care system if so many other countries have proven that it can work?" The quick answer is because the American Health Care system is a business like any other, and their #1 priority is to make money, and shelling it out to heal people is not considered cost-effective. To build this argument, Moore takes us from the U.S. to Canada, France and even Cuba, comparing medical systems along the way, trying to find out exactly why the U.S. is ranked #37 in the world in terms of health care...just above Slovenia. The most dramatic example is when he takes a boat-load of 9/11 rescue workers - who now suffer the physical and psychological repercussions of their actions - to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba so that they may receive the same universal health care that the U.S. government gives Al-Qaeda terrorists. I will not divulge all information, but I will say it is shocking to see the differences between the health care system of the world’s richest nation and that of a supposed third world nation.

'SiCKO' may not have the wit and spark of 'Bowling For Columbine', which can make it feel a bit lagging at times, but thankfully it also doesn't contain the partisan rhetoric of 'Fahrenheit 9/11', which may make it Moore's most effective documentary to date. He seems to have stepped down off his soapbox a bit, if not entirely. There is a sense of a subdued arrogance here, which is a sign of a maturing filmmaker. What makes the film work so well is that he is not asking people to pick a side, but consider an issue and really examine what it is that’s going on. It is not about Democratic or Republican, but right or wrong. Its down side is that he does not, for one minute, allow an opening for a rebuttal or opposing argument. That may be a moot point, as by now we should all know what to expect from a Moore documentary - it is his film, his opinion and his argument he wants us to consider, not theirs. If you want their side of the story, go watch their movie. He is biased as hell, but he does not try to hide that fact.

Michael Moore has been called everything from a genius to anti-American, pundit to extremist. I will admit that I am not always a fan of his over-the-top, often-questionable methods, but both his topics and methods spark debates and I cannot ever see that being a bad thing. As long as people are talking about these issues rather than not, than I say by any means necessary. If people need dramatic example, than Moore sure brings it.