What happened to GOOD kids movies?

When I was a young child, my movie going experiences were always filled with fast chases, funny gags, and adventure. Honest to god adventure. When the Fratelli's pop up at the end of THE GOONIES my heart raced! When Little foot and the rest of the dino gang had the great valley in their sights only for sharp tooth to pounce at them for one final showdown I was on the edge of my (high) chair. Who can forget when all seemed lost for E.T. only to see those flowers come back to life? These moments are fondly remembered by anyone of my generation, but as of late "children's movies" seem to be void of these moments. Kids movies are for kids and no one else these days, and as entertaining as they may be they also seem to be forgotten as quickly as a bag of cotton candy. Light, fluffy, and gone in an instant, never to be remembered again. No one is revisiting CATS AND DOGS or SHREK THE 3'RD. Why is that? Does Hollywood not aspire to make great family entertainment anymore, or are they afraid to? Do they purposefully avoid making lasting memorable characters and moments for the entire family, or are they settling with the pop culture reference filled candy colored quickie’s they keep churning out these days?


"You’re dead if you only aim for kids. Adults are only kids who've grown up anyway" - Walt Disney.


Danger is an integral part in any well done drama. There needs to be a conflict great enough to warrant a story being told around it. Back in the 70's and 80's this ideology was applied to children’s films with just as much measure as the adult ones. The Fratelli family in THE GOONIES all brandished guns at some point, and often had them trained on kids. Sharp Tooth was so scary in THE LAND BEFORE TIME because we see him kill little foots mother in the opening moments of the film. The reason we care so much for E.T. is because we had to endure almost half an hour of doctors and scientists slowly and painfully poking and proding him to death, reveling in his undeserved pain.

I remember as a child being warned by my parents not to get in a car with strangers. They'd never say exactly what specifically would happen if I did and so my imagination filled in the blanks. Witches in disguise, red necks stealing kids to feed to their pet alligator and other oddball ideas came to mind. I was scared to death of what might happen. Eventually I grew up and realized I was way off course with that one, but the truth was a cold slap of reality. Pedophiles and murderers. One of my favorite books as a child was THE WITCHES by Roald Dahl. I loved the movie the Jim Henson Company made of it in equal measures. I was thrilled to see these kids my age do battle with all these evil witches who wanted to turn the world’s children into mice. Watching this film as an adult takes on an entire new meaning. The fear of losing a child is the most horrifying thing a parent can think of. There is a sequence specifically in the book and film that, upon reflection, is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen. A homely mother is walking her new born baby in a stroller at the seaside hotel the story takes place at. A witch in disguise comes up and starts doting on the newborn as women often do. Just when the mother looks away, the witch pushes the baby carriage away. It goes careening down a hill toward the rocky cliffs. As the mother screams for help and our main protagonist gives chase, the witch cackles in delight. We're about to watch a child be murdered. Luckily the baby is saved. I wish I could say the same for some of the other kids in the film, who are abducted by the witches and never seen again, with heavy implications that they were killed or worse. Pretty heavy stuff for kids right? You'd never see a scene like that in today’s children’s films. Even the IDEA of that one sequence would offend most parents these days. But what a deliciously sinister idea? To take the universal truth that kids must fear strangers, but not know why, and give them a reason that’s fantastical yes, but also dangerously close to reality. If you go with a stranger you will die. I often disobeyed my parents. After THE WITCHES I decided for myself to stay the hell away from strangers. So was I really harmed or emotionally scarred? By the movie? Absolutely not. I wasn't emotionally scarred until I was older and heard about what happens to lost children on the local news. They spared no details.


"Sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are simple." - Dr. Seuss


So what happened? What happened to the days when danger was not only an acceptable inclusion in any children’s film, but a required one? As far back as the brothers Grimm children's stories have been filled to the brim with the threat of very real danger. This threat is all but void in today’s entertainment where the biggest danger to the characters is if they are going to pass a test or if they are going to get away with a prank without their parents finding out. These are not real world dangers. These are mild every day concerns. Children may be pacified, but they walk away with no ideas or thoughts. They don’t' ask their parents any questions about what they just saw. They don’t daydream or have nightmares about the implications in what was at the theater that week. They sit. They watch. They move on. The poor parents see this act as a chore they must begrudgingly carry out from time to time. It's not that Hollywood doesn't want to aspire to make good quality family entertainment. Although the almighty dollar rules over all, I have no doubt that every project released at the very least started off with nothing but the best of intentions. The problem is they are afraid to offend.

In this day and age the most poisonous thing that can happen to anything is a negative opinion. Everyone feels like they MUST have one. And if one person thinks their kids got a little too frightened in a movie, then it's obviously to that Child's detriment. Therefore the filmmakers were irresponsible for putting it in. Then that’s a very serious problem. "But what about the children" is every pissed off parents "go to" exclamation. In my humble opinion children are faced with very real danger every day of their lives, just like every human being on the planet, they just don’t' realize how much danger they are in until they are older and more mature. Movies have the power to influence kid’s minds no doubt, but who's to say it's wrong if a movie plants seeds of maturity? What is so wrong with challenging our children and their families with ideas that they are probably already facing in their real life? I blame the parents for becoming much too politically correct. Everyone is so afraid of offending someone else that they'd rather have no stimulation at all as opposed to chancing stimulation that might be...what? Too intense? Inappropriate? Offensive?


"I asked my mum, who's a very clever psychotherapist, and she says that kids love stories about death; they need it, they need to have stories that deal with death and explain it, as a place to put their fears." - Roald Dahl


Films have a certain power over kids. They emulate what they see. They ponder what they don't. Consciously or subconscious they mull over the thoughts and ideas they are presented with. I just wish they made movies of this nature in our present time. A movie can be an invaluable resource to a child and likewise to a family. A resource that is currently going untapped I'm afraid. But the entertainment industry, like everything else, follows the trends of the times. Hopefully thought provoking and challenging family entertainment comes back into fashion once again.

INCEPTION

Christopher Nolan has made a masterpiece. HIS masterpiece. By this point everyone knows the plot so I won’t rehash it here. What I will do is try and put into words why I didn't like it. Please, before you tense up and say "whatever, you just don't get it" hear the words that are coming out of my mouth (how’s that for sacrilegious, a rush hour reference in a Nolan review, hehehe).

The basic plot of the film is a simple heist, only instead of stealing something, they have to plant something, and idea. Instead of a bank it's someone’s mind. Instead of cracking a code you have to delve into the depths of a person’s mind. What an elaborate and fascinating idea. Nolan is no stranger to playing with plot structure to help tell a story, something he did to masterful effect in MEMENTO. Where the fractured structure of the plot actually BECAME a part of the storytelling. Here he has crafted a plot structure as complex as the mind these thieves have to infiltrate. You can just sense how much fun it was for him to come up with all these rules, then play with them and twist and bend the very concept in every direction it could be taken. What I LOVED about this is how you never see a "good" example of how things should go. Usually in a film with this much exposition you have someone that explains what’s supposed to happen, you see an example of that, and your fully informed as an audience member so at the end of the film when that situation arises, and things inevitably go wrong, you know what’s going on, even when it's not going the right way. Here, every time Nolan has a character set something up, and it starts to happen, it goes wrong. You learn about the "rules" of this universe from how things SHOULDN'T have been done. It's a little detail that forces you to think even through the portions of the film that are usually reserved for expository speeches.

But therein lays my very issue with this film as a whole. People are calling it a "thinking man’s summer blockbuster" which couldn't be further from the truth. That label implies the piece inspires thought and discussion about the ideas presented therein. INCEPTION will cause debate, and many will want to go watch it again, but it'll only to gain better understanding of the plot, and how all the dots are connected, if in fact they are. I trust Nolan, and though there are a few fuzzy spots in continuity, I have no doubt that all the t's are crossed, and all the i's are dotted. My issue with him is that he made a film where the entire point of its existence was for a film to have the very nature of a labyrinth, where the point of it existing is for it to wrap end over end upon itself, with twists and turns integral to the plot. You see what I’m talking a lot about here? PLOT. There is just so much of it. So much in fact, that there is literally no time for anything else, including character. Ellen Paige’s character is a brilliant college student who is asked to join this group of thieves in this highly illegal operation to delve into someone’s mind. She doesn't hesitate. A college student with a bright future just jumps right into this thing. WHAT?!?! They don't even offer a single solitary line of dialogue to explain why she'd do such a thing that even the most dubious of people in society would at least think about first. Why not? Because the movie itself could care less about this chick, or her motivations, or anyone else’s. Maybe if I was a mathematician I’d have enjoyed it more. Its' all about the how’s and not about the why's, which is a personal preference for me. If this film gave half a damn about the characters as it did the masterwork of a plot, maybe I’d have more interest in the plot itself.

SPOILERS BELOW!!!!

Ok, now here are my two main complaints about the film:
The wife: De Caprio's wife is a psycho bitch. Well, that how he remembers it anyway. Her memory keeps coming up to get in the way of his missions. The second I saw this device, which has been used many, many times before in other far inferior films I thought "oh god, this is predictable, but Nolan being Nolan I’m sure this will play out very unexpectedly." when in fact it played out note for note exactly how I thought it would. Down to the very last scene. Granted this time it featured two of our generations’ best actors and was done so much better than before. But at the end of a nightmare on elm street heather lagenkamp looks at Freddy in her dreams and says "you’re only as powerful as I make you. I’m not afraid of you anymore" and Freddy vaporizes. High art it aint but the idea is there. That idea is used here for inception. WOW, for such a complex movie I guessed the ending of that part in the first ten minutes.

The last shot: once again a device that has been used before. The last shot makes you wonder if it was all a dream, or if it was all real. The answer is that it doesn’t matter. Either way, Leo Decaprio's struggle through the film is to come to terms with his wife’s death, which one way or another he did. So if he's dreaming in limbo or in real life with his kids, he's happy and at peace. My issue with it is that Nolan threw it in there not because it was important to the character, or even the plot, but it makes you think. It’s ambiguous, but for no other reason than to be ambiguous. Any emotion that scene could have had is robbed by that last shot. Just like the opening passages of the film never just explain anything straight through, he had to mess it up so you had to focus on what was going on. It's not an easy film to watch. You have to bring your a-game. But for what pay off? Emotionally there is none.

END SPOILERS!!!!!!

Christopher Nolan has made a masterpiece. It will no doubt be studied in film class for years to come, as it should be. There are moments of sheer bliss. The zero gravity fight is breathtaking. Many have compared it to the matrix, which is a falsehood I feel. It has more in common with 2001 a space odessy. I wish there were more moments like that, or when the city of Paris folds over onto itself. A small throwaway moment of Ellen Paige shutting mirrored doors on each other that were hidden in broad daylight. It’s a visual trick that conveys an idea. It’s quick, fun and inventive. These moments are few and far between. Obviously the film succeeds on its own terms, and there for is a resounding success. I personally don't mind investing every inch of brainpower into a thick and deep film, if there is a payoff for it. MEMENTO had that, but I was so invested in that mans journey I’d have watched and sifted through a 5 hour version of it. Here, the payoff is in the plot's construction itself. For some that is more than enough. For me, that misses the entire point of why I watch film in the first place. Clearly Nolan is still one of my favorite directors, as this is easily the longest review I’ve ever written, and it was for a film I ultimately didn't enjoy. But I do respect it.

PREDATORS

Topher Grace (yes, the dude from “that 70’s show) is running through the jungle at full speed screaming “shoot him already!” to his cohorts while an angry predator alien chases him down. Just in the nick of time a gunshot is heard and the predator drops. Once all the mercenaries gather around the body and topher grace chews them out for using him as bait, the sniper who took him out looks at her bullet lodged in a tree and ominously states “look, I didn’t hit him…I missed.” They all look down and realize they are inches away from the enemy now and completely vulnerable. This is but one of many “holy shit” moments that come at you in quick succession in PREDATORS, a pseudo sequel to the 87’ Schwarzenegger classic which also and wisely ignores the entire god awful predator vs. aliens films.

Another great “holy shit” moment: The opening credits. After the 20’Th century fox logo, smash cut to Adrian broody waking up while he’s free falling with a parachute strapped to his back. As he struggles to find the rip cord, the clouds he’s falling through clear to reveal a dense jungle. He pulls his cord seconds before hitting the top layer, crashing through foliage and branches until slamming onto the ground. PREDATORS slaps across the screen for a few seconds, and its back to the film.

Robert Rodriguez and Nimrod Antel (what an unfortunate name, but he made VACANCY, so I’ll give him a break) have crafted a near perfect summer adult entertainment. The plot is simple and to the point. There is no attempt to re invent the wheel here. They take the first film and build off its mythology, but never is there a sit down exposition scene. The characters are in the dark as to why they landed on this strange planet, and therefore so is the audience. What works is they have cast each person with a well known character actor. Yes, they are all fodder and you can see a mile away which ones will make it and which ones won’t, but its fun to see these guys cram as much character development into their brief scenes as they can.

Speaking of getting killed off, holey shit! I won’t spoil too much as most, if not all the fun in watching this sucker is to see all the inventive and violent and GORY AS HELL ways everyone gets picked off. One highlight I will share is this: someone gets their spine ripped out of their backs from the base all the way up to the skull…..while they are still alive! And that’s not even the coolest one.
It’s fast as lightening, full of fun and interesting characters, and doesn’t get bogged down with useless exposition. For some reason this summer at the movies has been an epic failure (remember IRON MAN 2? Yea, neither does anyone else) But thankfully PREDATORS has stepped up to the plate and delivers on all fronts. I can’t recommend this enough if you’re an action or horror fan.

• Side note. Adrian Brody is JACKED in this film. As in……holy shit is that a 10 pack?!?!?!?!! Wasn’t he a skinny wiry little fellow in his last movie? Homeboy been hittin the GYM!!!!!!!!!

The Next X-MEN film is going to be a masterpiece, and here's why....

With Kevin Bacon joining the cast as an unconfirmed villian, I thought it'd be a good time to post on the upcomming X-MEN reboot which i'm actually exited about, unlike sonys SPIDERMAN reboot, which will take a duying franchise and surely run it into the ground.

Matthew vaugn is an astoundingly great director. he's made the following movies:


O.K. then, now that your all caught up and are awar of the pure amazingness this man has proven himself capable of, lets get down to business. Matther Vaugn was hired to make X-MEN 3 and wrote a script which leaked and was called "THE DARK KNIGHT" level epic and amazing, and he even cast the entire thing. However 20'th Century Fox kept incisting he make certain changes. He refused and they quickly replaced him and what resulted was hands down one of the worst comic book films of all time. X-MEN 3: The Last Stand. Well, Vaugn went off and made a comic book film independently and that film was KICK ASS which was a modest success here in the states but a smath hit all over the world. More importantly it was critically well received, and the fan community ATE IT UP! 20'th Centure Fox comes BACK to Vaugn saying basically that they acknowledge that it was them that ran the series into the ground, and want to re-boot it, and want to let him have complete creative controll this time to start over and do it right. BEST DECISION EVER! here is the cast of the upcomming X-MEN: FIRST CLASS

James McAvoy as Professor X (WANTED, NARNIA)


Michael Fassbender as Magneto (he was in 300)


Amber Heard as Mistique (she was the lead in the amazing ALL THE BOYS LOVE MANDY LANE, as well as PINAPPLE EXPRESS)

Nicholas Hoult (the guy from ABOUT A BOY and SKINS) as Beast


Lucas Till as Havoc (and yes thats the dude from the Miley Cyrus movie and the Taylor Swift video!)


Aaron Johnson as Cyclops (KICK ASS himself!)


Alice Eve as Emma Frost. (she was in "she's out of my league")


The film is written by the same team that made KICK ASS, LAYER CAKE and STARDUST. It will be hitting theaters in JUNE of 2011. I'm saying it here and now. Expect great things.........

COLDPLAY DOES KYLIE

I know this is an old video. but in honor of the release of APHRODITE, thought I'd post this awsome tribute. KYLIE was scheduled to perform at the Glastonbury festival but had to pull out at the last minute due to being diagnosed with breast cancer. Her replacements COLDPLAY lead Chris Martin has been good friends with KYLIE for many years and did this touching tribute. Simply amazing.

KYLIE APHRODITE

So here are the deal folks. I know I’ve been BLOWING my page up about this chick for ages, and no one really cares or bothers with it all, yet I persist in posting every morsel of info released on Miss Kylie Minogue, heads and shoulders above any other love I have in the music realm. Why this sick unhealthy fascination you may ask? Let me tell you. Simply put, she is consistent and positive. All her music, every song, every lyric is a positive one. The theme is always love, and almost never is it about a broken heart. It’s always hooking up, getting it on, or dancing. That’s the only thing she's ever sung about.

A few years back she was diagnosed with breast cancer and dumped by her long term partner all in the same month, and what did she do? Release a new dance album (her 10th, not including 2 sets of greatest hits) and went on a "Vegas showgirls" themed world tour. She often speaks about how she wants to be seen and remembered as a positive influence in the pop music scene. I love gaga for her gothic theatrics, and I love Madonna for her eyebrow raising antics, but Kylie has always been content with making you happy.

This, her 11’Th album, is more of the same, only for the first time ever done to perfection. The only other thing I can think to compare this to is Madonna’s CONFESSIONS ON A DANCEFLOOR. However this album is soooooo much greater. Where CONFESSIONS had 50/50 ratio of good to bad songs, KYIE's ear for hummable, catchy songs is honed to a razor edge. There is not ONE misstep here. Not one skippable track. Every song, whether fast or mid tempo, is not only perfectly executed, but perfectly placed. Never before is the listening experience better than here, where every song ebbs and flows into the next. Even on "everything is beautiful" the closest thing to a "ballad" on the album, comes off as more of a remix of a Leona Lewis torcher than anything else. But what is perfected on every single song, the thing that sets this album apart from not only gaga, Madonna, or truly any other KYLIE album to date, is the euphoric moment each song reaches. That catchy hook in "just dance"? That "it" factor, is recreated here song for song. In fact, the stand out anthem here "get outta my way" has 2 choruses. I’m not a musical expert, but it's the first time I heard a song that got to the chorus, which I LOVED, then proceeded to continue to a completely different sounding chorus, equally as amazing.

ALL THE LOVERS = her lead single. The piano solo halfway though is killer, as is the big lush swell of a chorus that follows it.

GET OUTTA MY WAY = again with the double chorus, plus the lyrics are the most brazen she's ever sung.

PUT YOUR HANDS UP = very "old school" 90's night at the roxberry-ish. Who says that’s a bad thing?

CLOSER = my favorite track on the album. There is no beginning, middle and end here. It just kind of starts and quickly builds and builds relentlessly till it's time for the next track. It’s also the most sexual track on the album (Kylie fans will know this means borderline raunchy....just the way we like her)

EVERYTHING IS BEAUTIFUL = the "ballad" of the album, only sung at twice the speed it should be, and three times the techno tinkering. Fits perfectly with the nonstop dance vibe of the album. The lyrics are also a little bit more on the personal side.

APHRODITE = another stand out. Very marching band military hard and loud drum beats and pyrotechnics here.

ILLUSION = Very Madonna sounding, but of course KYLIE adds her own helium balloon voice to it

BETTER THAN TODAY = written with scissor sisters, this is basically an Elton john pop anthem with a little more disco flavor than even that queen would dare. Fast paced and jovial.

TOO MUCH/CUPID BOY/LOOKING FOR AN ANGEL = much like CONFESSIONS, these three all seem to run into each other. TOO MUCH doesn't even feature all that much in terms of lyrics (especially the chorus itself, which is mostly left instrumental) I think the song was left here more as a transitional piece than a standalone track.

CAN'T BEET THE FEELING = and she ends on a high note. Very high. It is as close to "can't get you outa my head" as you can get. 80's synth beats left and right, with a fast, catchy hook.

and the brits continue to do it better.....

"shark in the Water" by V.V. Brown sounds like a so cal summer jam. Suprise suprise it's from the U.K.

1,2, Freddy's Commin for you......

PLATINUM DUNES has had a checkered past with horror films. For one they’ve only made 2 ORIGIONAL films, and about a thousand remakes, including this one. They have been pretty evenly hit or miss for me. I LOVED the Texas chainsaw massacre, and its sequel. I HATED the Amityville Horror and THE Unborn, and thought The Hitcher was good, but not anything to write home about. Well, this time around they…..made the best remake possible given the source material.

I recently rewatched the first nightmare on Elm Street and was disappointed to realize how badly it has dated. Not just the “cheesy 80’s effects” that are easily overlooked for a lot of films of its time. The acting was atrocious, and the scares, though trend setting for its time, fall flat on this current jaded audience. I was actually looking forward to this remake as the actual plot is still creepy as hell and has tons of potential. This is Platinum Dunes best picture to date. That being said, I can’t help but feel like this film was held back from what it could have been had the filmmakers not felt obligated to pay homage to the original so much.

The cast is across the board good. The teens (who are all at LEAST 25 years old or older in real life, lol) are surprisingly likable, smart, and don’t waste time wondering what’s going on. Most thrillers have that obligatory scene where someone goes to the library and does some research and discovers the huge secret. That scene comes at about the half way point, and I appreciated the swift pacing. Also along the lines of pacing, the order in which the kids are killed was fantastic. Just when you start to relate to one girl, who I just assumed was the lead, gets killed in the first act! A nice “psycho”-esqu touch. However with such a swift pace comes a price, and that’s character development. The original had at least 2 or 3 scenes where the kids could just be kids, and you found out about who they were as people. Here we dive right in, which I guess is expected for a slasher film, but when it excels in every other category; I wish I was also able to say I actually LIKED some of the people dying on screen.

Jackie Earl Hailey was a genius idea to play Freddy. He won an Oscar to playing a molester in LITTLE CHILDREN after all. The writer and Hailey find the absolute perfect balance of sick twisted one liners, and foul menace. He’s not the goofball he became in the numerous and horrible sequels, but he’s not played completely straight either (he has a “wet dream” joke that was perfectly gross and funny at the same time).

Special Mention must be made to the cinematography and direction. The way the film slips into the kids dreams and back out again is really creative and handled differently every time, with lots of really cool details (like water drops running backwards as a hint to tip you off that you’re in a dream) and although there was plenty of gore, it was never gratuitous or over the top. This 'aint got nothing on hostel or saw in that department. It makes up for it though with its subject matter. They handle Freddy’s back-story head on, gross kiddy porn pics found in the basement and all. There’s even a scene where the teens remember just what Freddy had done to them, and one girl sees the photo’s Freddy took of her, and it’s disgusting and scary and…..not the kind of moment you’d find in a typical slasher.

I’d highly recommend this if you like suspense films. It’s not so much a “gore” movie, with the emphasis on visuals and creeping you out. I truly hope this film does well enough to re kick start this franchise. The “Dream” angle it has going for it really does have endless untapped possibilities, and this was a perfect reintroduction to one of film’s most famous villains.

brand new CHERYL COLE!!!!

This girl aint playin no GAMES!!!!! she's enlisted "dancing with the stars" people to coreograph and back her up in this new "retro" bond style number. the song is really good too, though not the best on her album "3 little words" and i'm not sure how i feel about how they speed up the pace so much. But here ya go:

the Devil is in the details.........

How often have you found yourself doing something that, if it was in a horror movie you’d be yelling at yourself for doing? I always yell at the dumb blond who goes to investigate the strange noise but when I’m home alone and hear something the FIRST thing I do is get up and slowly check things out. In THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL, Director, writer, and producer Ti West builds suspense out of moments like these, and sustains it for as long as possible. Just when you think the film is going to end up all build up and no pay off……..

It starts with a plucky young college freshman getting her first apartment (from Dee Wallace stone by the way, the mom from E.T!) and needs some quick cash. Her airheaded but loyal friend is sympathetic, and points her in the direction of the college bulletin board. It’s here that she finds a “babysitter needed” post with just the above message and a phone number. She calls the guy on a pay phone (yea, remember those) and sets things up for that night. Her friend drives her to the house during a much talked about full eclipse of the moon and sits with her while the old stuttering awkward man of the house tells her he got her there under false pretences. His reasoning does add up, and for her troubles he offers her twice the original amount. A tempting bargain, especially since she’s next to broke, and needs a down payment for that brand new apartment. She agrees even though as an audience member you’re screaming “what the hell is wrong with you?” This is where the film starts its spiral down to insanity. The friend leaves, only to end up getting quite possibly the single best scare scene since that chick got hit by the bus in Final Destination. It comes out of left field, and I wont’ spoil it here, suffice to say it puts you on edge which is where you’ll stay for the rest of the film.

The girl that stays soon meets the creepy old mans wife, who comes off as an over eager lesbian which is almost funny, until it makes you uncomfortable. The whole film does this to chilling effect. For example, the father says he’s going to go upstairs to get the misses so they can leave for the evening, and walks up the grand staircase. She eavesdroppes on him speaking to what we assume is his wife about something sinister only for the real wife to slowly emerge from the basement behind her. Who was he talking to? What was she doing in the basement the whole time? And why is she all over the babysitters business? As soon as they leave the sitter does what any of us would do, and go through their stuff. You KNOW you’ve done it. If you’re ever using the bathroom at a party you totally go through their cabinets and such. Well, here she slips on her walkman and rocks out to “moving in stereo” by the cars.

I will not be divulging ANYTHING else as to do so would spoil all the fun. This is the point of the film; it’s suspense from beginning to end. There are a few clues along the way such as an old family photo album that doesn’t quite mesh with the family history lesson she received at the beginning, and then there’s the whereabouts of that pizza delivery guy. But most of the time is spent with her slowly coming to realizations that, had they all been presented at once, would have been enough to send anyone running for the hills. However they are all spread out, and given a very ambiguous angle. You know the old adage if you put a frog in boiling water he’ll simply jump out, but if you put him in cool water, and slowly rise the heat, he’ll sit there and boil to death. After that first scare scene, there really is about an hour or so of this, which may put people off. This is NOT saw or hostel or the Texas chainsaw massacre. It’s the sixth sense, the omen or rosemary’s baby. The devils in the details and your patience will be rewarded. Once again I’m not going to ruin anything at all, but the last 15 to 20 minutes of this sucker is balls to the wall INSAINE! It’s rated R, and for a while I was doubting if that rating was warranted, and then………wow. I say this only to persuade those that don’t have the patience for such films to stick with it. Your patience is most definitely rewarded.

Special mention must be made to the era it takes place in. There is never a date specified. But the opening title’s and the 80’s music and the Farah Fawcett hair and the bulky Sony walkman give off a late 70’s, early 80’s vibe that goes a long way to setting up the foreboding atmosphere. When she’s left alone at the old dark house in the woods, you FEEL alone with her. There are no cell phones or computers. Just you and your thoughts, which is a very dangerous situation.

BRAND NEW SUGABABES VIDEO AND SINGLE "wear my kiss" IS FUTURISTIC ROBOT FETISH SEXY COOL!!!!

so some gay director (literally) just made a Nazi Zombie horror film staring a guy from PRISON BREAK.......YES!!!!!!

Joel Shoemaker is a crazy mofo. He got his start in the film industry as a window dresser at Bloomingdales in New York. (Really!) Then somehow got to make THE LOST BOYS, an 80’s classic horror comedy that jump started the careers of Corey Feldman, Kiefer Sutherland, and Corey Haim. The film was hot, sexy and cool. Verhoven went on to make some really amazing pictures, like A TIME TO KILL and TIGERLAND with Colin Ferrell and PHONEBOOTH and the most recent musical THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA. There is a story that during the filming of PHANTOM, Mini Driver went up to him after a take and said “was that ok? I think I may have been a little over the top.” To which he responded with “well sweetie, people don’t pay for UNDER the top!” That sums him up perfectly. No matter what the films failings, if any, his pictures always look lavish and sumptuous and rich. After all, he also made BATMAN AND ROBIN and BATMAN FOREVER…..eek!

Enter BLOOD CREEK, a totally original hybrid of genres that come together to make one of the coolest horror films I’ve seen in a while. The films opens in sepia toned snap crackle pop 1930’s film stock, and true to form it takes place in the 1930’s. A German family is seen going about their farming duties on their barn in Wyoming; slaughtering the livestock, cleaning the house, and teaching their teenage daughter how to speak English with an American accent, so she’s not picked on at school. They have defected from the 3’d Reich, and want to start anew in America, setting up a very sympathetic group of people. Then they get a letter from Germany stating one of Hitler’s scientists needs to conduct experiments, and needs to do it in safety, outside of war torn Europe, and will pay the family handsomely if they allow this border to come live with them for a few months. Against the idea in principal. They are desperate for money, and are assured they will not have to participate or help this man in any way. The scientist, Dr. Worth shows up and starts asking about these rune stones, ancient rocks with Gaelic markings on them, brought over by the Vikings when they first landed on the American continent. It seems Hitler is obsessed with the occult, and these stone are said to hold magical powers, which this scientist is ordered to obtain and harness. Now, though the story above is fictional, all the details are in truth fact. The rune stones, Hitler doing extensive research into the occult, Germans defecting to America to start anew. See, I told you this was original!

The movie cuts to present day where a med student takes care of his ailing, abusive father, whose always going on and on about the “better son” who disappeared after a tour in Iraq, and “died like a hero.” Not long after this setup does the long lost brother (Dominic Purcell from PRISON BREAK) show up out of the blue one night, and taking his brother along for one hell of a ride. Apparently this war hero brother came home and on his way to a sweet family reunion was kidnapped by a family living in the sticks of Wyoming, and tortured. He escapes and enlists the aid of his brother to go exact revenge on this family from hell. Things take a “twilight zone-esque” twist when the family turns out to be the same from the beginning of the film, only they haven’t aged a day.

To go any further into the plot would spoil the fun. But just know that things get weird. I mean SUPER weird. For example, there is a possessed horse at one point that smashes through a window plucking out a poor guy and eats him. THE HORSE EATS HIM!!!!!! There are crazy exorcisms. There are decapitations by barbed wire. There are people killed, only to immediately reanimate as zombies and attack the very people they were fighting to protect moments earlier. OH and a full moon play an important part as well. Oh, and did I mention the monster chained in the basement? Yea, it’s weird, taking a page from the EVIL DEAD series of films, or even the most recent DRAG ME TO HELL. Anything goes, including the kitchen sink. The only thing missing is the jokey fun those other features had. There are no light hearted winks at the audience in this, it’s played straight.

I HIGHLEY recommend you see this movie, for the sheer audacity of it all. Think RUNNING SCARED only in horror film mode. Oh, and Verhovens panache and style are on full display, with every sequence being overlite, under cranked, or glossy. He goes berserk with the visual flourishes, but it only adds to the mad cap nature of this. Its one wild ride and a refreshingly original horror film.

And here is an OBNOXIOUS trailer that really doesn't do it any justice:

P.S. did they really mis-spell "magic" in there? WOW!!!!

KICK ASS just may be the coolest comic book film EVER!!!!

So there is the brand new poster for the action comedy from the director of LAYER CAKE, which was amazing by the way. If that doesn't do it for ya, then check out this clip:


HA-MAZING!!!!!! if your not sold on this after that clip (in spite of the fact that nicolas cage is for some reason wandering around on set while they filmed it apparently) then you don't have a pulse! here is the regular trailer that sells the film as a whole, but also doens't have any bad ass gunshots tot he face at point blank range like the above clip had:





KICK ASS comes out APRIL 16

SUGABABES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is a song from 3 albums ago that recently went BACK into the top 20 charts in europe cause they recently did an acustic version of it at a funeral for one of the royals. here is the origional version:


And as i wait for the full version of WEAR MY KISS' video, here is the vid for their last number one hit "ABOUT A GIRL" featuring the hotty McHottness guy from the famous jett jackson and FLASHFORWARD!!!

The Not So Lovely Bones

Like the title character in the lovely bones, this film is lost. There are entire sequences that are so expertly handled and so well crafted you’re swept away in its storytelling. Unfortunately each and every moment is squandered with a really poor organazation of ideas and concepts. The plot is familiar by the trailer, or if you read the celebrated novel. Suzy Salmon is raped and killed, and stuck in the in-between while she watches her family back on earth fall apart, as well as her murderer slowly plan another attack.

There is a lot to work with here, but Peter Jackson has no idea what to focus on. Suzy’s afterlife is an often very scary place, which reflects her inner feelings of the turmoil she had to endure at the hands of a very scary pedophilethe. Her family life reflects this with the mom “not being able to cope” and abandoning the family. The father becomes a shell of a human, spending his days alone in total seclusion. However once Suzy starts to accept the fact that she’s dead, and she might want to move on to heaven, her family life picks up. The mom, inexplicably moves back home. The father learns how to love his wife again and not obsess over who the killer is. Everything gets all fine and dandy. So, is the moral of the story every time a family suffers a tragedy, if they don’t handle it well, it’s the fault of the deceased who just can’t let go? Or is it the other way around.

The film never gives a clear answer, which I suppose could be the point, but when it’s just so broad an interpretation there just doesn’t seem any reason for it. There is no closure in the ending, no revelations. She just decides of her own accord that “she’s ready.” That’s it. So why did we just follow you and your family for over a year, through ups and downs, all seemingly random events, for literally no meaning. This may be an elementary example, but it works: Remember in mighty morphing power rangers when the rangers would each individually get in elaborate fights with a monster, each one failing, only to at the very end say “let’s combine our forces and use out zords” and get the job done in no time flat? Well, same goes for here. There is no rhyme or reason for the events, as none are explored in any depth. So as a whole the film fails quite miserably, with little to no interest in a satisfying ending. It starts, keeps going, then suddenly and without reason stops. All the characters make decisions seemingly at will, with no motivation. I'm told the wife has an affair with the police investigator in the book, THEN leaves the family behind because she is not only unable to cope with her shilds death, but also unable to come to terms with her infedelity. Such character work is not found in the film however, with her departure and subsequent return given absolutly no reasoning.

That being said, Peter Jackson is a great storyteller, if not woefully misguided. There are sequences filled with such beauty or suspense, you’ll be transfixed for whole minutes at a time. A scene where the little sister sneaks into a neighbor’s house to find evidence of him being the killer is of Hitchcock caliber. I haven’t been on the edge of my seat like that in ages. Also, a scene where Suzy floats past all the crime scenes of all the people her murderer had killed. It’s scary, it’s sad, and it’s beautiful all at the same time. There are also some deep and interesting moral questions going on. In life Suzy was most looking forward to her first kiss. While in a dark, grey, garbage filled afterlife that reflects her inner struggle, She gives a moving and gut wrenching speech about how most people get married and have kids, all she wanted was a first kiss and “he took that away from me. No matter what happens, even if I go to heaven, I’ll never get that.” It’s sad and heartbreaking, and there isn’t an easy answer.

As I said before, the movie just kind of stops, with no rhyme or reason as to why she’s suddenly “ready to move on.” I’d say it’s worth a rental for sure, but if you want my expert opinion, go watch WHAT DREAMS MAY COME. It’s infinitely better and tackles much the same ground as this does. I’d be interested to read the book of which this is based, and see what came first, the book or the WHAT DREAMS MAY COME film script, because there are entire passages in both film that mirror each other totally. Even down to how the afterlife is represented. In the end Peter Jackson still comes out relativly unscathed as a filmmaker. His skill and craft are still on display in spades, however he needs to choose his projects more carefully. His previous film of a similar nature HEAVENLY CREATURES (Kate Winslet's first film by the way) was tender, sad, and at times downright scary. Two very unstable teenage girls become very dependent on one another, and when the parents seperate them, they take matters to the extreem. It was focused, sharp, and quick (even at well over 2 hours, every scene had a purpose and meaning). I for one would like to see Jackson return to even EARLIER roots and make a balls to the wall splatter gore-fest to end all gore-fests. He needs to stop fishing for awards and stick to what he loves, because his heart really isn't in the lovely bones.

HALLOWEEN 2: DIRECTORS CUT review/comparison

Halloween 2 has a lot more going on than you’d think. The first outing was a really fun, grim slasher with Rob Zombies signature “white trash hell-billy deluxe” outlook on everything. You either loved it, or you HATED it for throwing away all the classy suspense of the original in favor of straight up gore and filth. With the director’s cut of part 2, Zombie definitively ends his vision of the Halloween mythos. Also, not straddled with an origin story, tells a completely original story of life after trauma, and how people cope.

The film starts out literally the second after the first one ended. Laurie strode is walking down main street blood soaked and broken, having just shot Michael Myers in the head. Myers, thought dead, breaks out of the police van he’s being transported in and chases Laurie to the hospital to finish her off. Of course she escapes his clutches and he disappears into the night. Cut to two years later where the movie starts proper and Laurie is living with her besty Annie Bracket, a survivor of the first film, and her sheriff father.
Right off the bat things are different in the director’s cut. Not only is it 20 minutes longer, but dialogue has changed, and some scenes in the original have even been cut out. In the theatrical movie, it’s not clearly explained if the Meyers escape and hospital chase were a dream or not. Here it is specifically pointed out that it all really happened. Also of note is the general atmosphere. The director’s cut emphasizes the hostility between all the survivors, and revels in the fact that none of them are coping with the events of the last film very well.

Unlike last time, this is truly an ensemble pick. Annie, the best friend of Laurie and once "party animal" is now a doting motherly figure to not only to Laurie but also to her father, who is living with the lie that Laurie is really Michael Meyer’s sister. She cooks and cleans and is afraid to death of leaving the house. They even mention she hasn’t left it in two years. Laurie herself is suicidal, drug addicted, and angry, unlike last time when she acted as teh virginal brave one of the bunch. Now she has a wall sized poster of Charles Manson hanging over her bed!!!!! She keeps having nightmares of Michael, and this creepy woman in white stalking her. When she finds out her biological secret, she realizes maybe she is destined to become a murderer as the rest of her family had. Things get even weirder when she starts blacking out in broad daylight while she’s awake and having full blown conversations with her long lost mommy.

Dr. Loomis hasn’t dealt with the tragedy well either. He’s become a national sensation with a gaudy tell all book, and has no remorse when using the victims to his own gain. In one added scene at a book signing has him confronted with a very normal looking man, Until the man reveals himself to be the father of one of the dead girls from the first film and pulls a gun on him (a nice touch is the photo of the actual actress from the previous outing). Loomis is unfased, and uncaring of this poor mans grief. In a way, just like Laurie, He has lost his soul aswell.

Throughout all of this is a theme of a white horse signifying an unstoppable force, or fate. This aspect was briefly mentioned a few times in the theatrical cut, but now is expanded upon in lengthy therapy discussions between Laurie and her therapist (Margot Kidder, the original LOUIS LANE!!!!!!!).

All this leads to an ending that is much more…..final. I can see why the studio would want room left open for a sequel, and the theatrical ending isn't all that bad to begin with.However this new ending not only closes the book on this specific chapter, but is also a more logical ending. Also of note are all the little details thrown in. For example, in the first film there is a Montage of Michael trick or treating alone, while his mother strips all set to the classic rock song “love hurts.” Here, a main characters death, and ending of the film, has an “enya” style cover of that song playing, bookending the family dynamic perfectly. Also over the end credits are police crime photos of every one of Michaels victims, in order, from the first film, giving these last two entries a “stand alone” feel from the rest in the franchise.

* Also of note is the gore. I didn’t think it was possible, but there is quite a bit more added. Not even that, a main characters death is not only drawn out longer here, with her naked and blood covered body whimpering back to life for a final gut wrench apology to Laurie, but as the father screams over the victim, zombie plays home video footage spliced in, almost as subliminal glimpses, of the victim happy, playing with a puppy, and opening Christmas presents. This could quite possibly be the first time in slasher movie history where you actually CARE about the person duying.

In conclusion the Directors cut is not only gorier and harder, as expected, but it VASTLY improves upon not only the characters and their motivations, but the themes and over arching ideas that were started in the previous film. I highely recommend it if you can stomach it, and there is a reason why it was on my "top ten" list this year.

SPIDERMAN IS DEAD

So let me begin by saying that I never really cared for Spiderman at all. With me it's all about consistency. If your going to make a film based on a comic book, you need to decide from the beginning if your going to stay as faithful as humanly possible (300, sin city, dick Tracy) or if your going to take aesthetic liberties but stay true to the source material (X:Men, Iron Man, The Dark Knight). The Spiderman franchise never had a very good handle on this. Slapstick goofy comedy shared screen time with operatic soapy dramatics. Sometimes the action was hard hitting, and sometimes it looked like a Looney Tunes cartoon. Why update the spidey suit to look all cool, but keep the green goblin looking identical to his comic book form? The dichotomy was very off-putting. That being said, they were an all right group of films.

Until Part 3. That was hands down one of the worst things I’ve ever seen in my life. Why you may ask? Because it suffered from the same things batman and robin, batman forever, and fantastic four all suffered from. Too many cooks in the kitchen. The Studio always wants certain things that some test group told them would sell. They have to balance that with a director who has certain creative ideas and aspirations. Its art meets commerce. HOWEVER, when one outweighs the other, the shit hits the fan. Case in point? The X-Men franchise. Bryan Singer had a plan, and it was a long and intricate plan. He loved the comics, and wanted to bring a faithful, epic, layered story to the screen. He started with the first one, and then reached new heights with the second. At the time I honestly feel X-Men 2: X Men United was the best comic book film ever made at the time (obviously the dark knoght and sin city share that title now). Then what happened? Even though he had creative control, and was obviously doing a good job, the studio was spending soooo much money on it, they felt they had the right to some input (and shouldn't they have?). So Singer complained about the changes they wanted with the third installment, the studio said bend to our will or leave, and he left. Fuck you very much. Peace out bitches. So the studio hires a goon by the name of Brett Rattner to make the third one. Brett's not a bad guy, and a very competent director, but he's what they call a "director for hire." he has no vision. He has no creative drive. He does know how to agree with the studio suits and point the camera and say action and deliver whatever they want. Hence x men 3 was a marked step down in the franchise. Did they use any of the outlines or story ideas Bryan Singer had mapped out? No, screw that, we want MORE VILLANS!!!!!! so Cyclopes gets killed in the first 3 minutes, the jugernaught is there for absolutely no reason in the lamest power rangers leftover muscle suit only cause it was cheap, and Rattner knows cheap. The third film made money, but not like the first two. An if you ask anyone, I doubt part 3 was their favorite.

So Sam Raimi, despite my own misgivings about the spidey films, was the man in charge. Having made the classic Evil Dead series in the 70's, he knew how to squeeze the most bang out of a buck. Studios like that. He was also endlessly creative, as evident in his DARKMAN films, pseudo comic book films in their own right (albeit on a much smaller scale). So he had plans and outlined motives for the Spiderman universe he was creating. He introduced marry Jane to that astronaut guy in part two, with the plan that in part three he'd be up in space and bring the venom down with him. Well, the studio didn't want to waist time on character development and things like that, so part 3 started with it for no reason just falling out of the sky. The astornaut fiancé left at the alter? No time for that either. No explanation just cut it out. What about peter parker proposing to her? He kept trying to pop the question in part 3, and originally he was going to, but the studio didn't want to deal with a wedding, there wasn't going to be any action or VILLANS, so he never did. Raimi made these compromises against his better judgment, and it showed. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.....

So here we are at part 3. A release date has already been established for early 2012, and raimi was busy nailing out a script with the studio reared its ugly head once again. However this time he stood up for himself. The studio felt people want the character Spiderman, and it doesn’t necessarily matter who plays him or who makes it. So Raimi left, and the entire cast agreed and walked with him. That release date is still in place by the way, with the studio planning on quickly hiring a director for hire and having peter parker in high school dealing with his superpowers. So are they just rebooting it altogether like the incredible hulk (a very smart move in regards to the hulk, I still say that movie was better than iron man, no question), or are they going to pretend like nothing happened, and for no reason peter parker became 10 years younger. Who knows, but with a focus group making the decisions and not a singular creative force, you can bet it's going to suck!

I have to mention MARVEL studios at this point. They sold the rights of Spiderman, so they are not in control of it, but they are building their own universe of films in a way that everyone else should emulate. They hired Jon Favruea to make Iron man, a passionate and experienced filmmaker and writer with strong ideas. They hired Robert Downey Jr., a legitimate actor. And they have them complete creative control. That worked didn't it? Unhappy with how the first hulk turned out, they reboot it, pretending the first never happened. They get Louis leterrier, a famed French action film director and Edward Norton, a notorious perfectionist and control freak to not only star, but WRITE the film, and they both had creative control. That turned out to be a critical and commercial success. Now they have THOR in production, with Kenneth Branna directing. Oh, and Anthony Hopkins and Renee Russo, and about a dozen other amazing actors in it. Ryan Reynolds is currently prepping to be in their captain America reboot as well, collimating in an AVENGERS film featuring all of them together in 1012 or 13'. That’s how you do it. Invest in a very strong, proven creative force for both in front of and behind the camera, and then trust them. If they have a reputation, their going to want to uphold it. They’ll take pride in what they do, not just collect a paycheck.

lesson learned? Studios should stick with what their good at: Spending money. Directors and writers and actors should be trusted with what their paid for, creativity. If everyone just stuck to those rules, not only would comic book films be in a better shape than they are right now, the quality of movies in general would improve.

The Most Freakin Amazing Thing from the 80's EVER!!!!!

so Roland Emmerich is famous for making 2012, independence day, godzilla, stargate, the day after tomorrow....BIG HUGE MOVIES!!!! now they all pretty much suck story wise, but they all look great. WELL, did you knwo he made a movie in germany where he's from in the mid 80's called "JOEY" about... Well, i'm not quite to sure what it's about. but i CAN tell you from the trailer that it looks AWSOME!!!!! we're talkin' full blown Speilberg rip off-a-go-go!!!! little boy talking to his dead dad on a toy phone? poltergeist 2. Sceintists from the local college investigating the paranormal activity? poltergeist one. a bunch of kids complete with the smart-ass and the fat one going on crazy subterranian adventures? the goonies. The government covering the house in plastic and guys walking around in hazmat suits? E.T. evil doll attacking kids?...erm, well, i guess that parts origional. point is, it looks SICK!!!!!


interesting of note is it WAS released limited here in the states, although dubbed and cut down by 20 minutes. what did they change? well, for one at the end of the origional the kid DIES!!!!!!!!!!! also, at one point the vision of darth vader shows up and attacks the children. i guess the doll knows what scares them (so is that a stephen kings IT refrence?). I guess someone was afraid of a lawsuit. I mean, at one pont the millenium falcon and death star toys go soaring through the house of their own accord blowing shit up. talk about BLATANT RIPOFF!!!! ANYWAY, here's the american trailer.....


So now i'm seriously exited abuot seeing it. only one hitch. it's not available. well, it IS, but at a price. it was released on dvd a while back with BOTH versions on a mega two disc special edition, which quickly got discontinued and now goes for hundreds of dollars on ebay (DAMN YOU EBAY!!!!!!!! but i promise you this, someway, somehow, i WILL see this magical 80's kids movie on acid!!!! (the movie's on acid, not me...)