Change Your Image
cinemascribe-3
Reviews
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)
Delivers what it promises and improves on the first.
I have to disagree with the majority of the mainstream critics. This movie is a darker, grittier film than the original and has a better look , as well as superior villains. Also, despite only having roughly half the budget the film makers had the first time, the "Crank" team somehow made Ghost Rider:Spirit of Vengeance visually much more impressive. As to Cage, I'm convinced that this time out he's deliberately playing to that part of the audience watching the film in the hopes of experiencing his patented over the top, bats*it insane persona. He doesn't disappoint. Actually, the performances are generally better all around this time (no Eva Mendez, thank God).
Where the film works best is in it's relentless intensity. After sketching out the skeleton(pun intended) of a plot on which to later hang the more eye popping visual effects, this flick shifts into overdrive and essentially becomes a superhero variation on The Road Warrior- once Blaze meets the woman and her child , they hit the road and that's where they remain for the majority of the film.
To be fair, the trailers for this movie pretty much sum up what you can expect going in, so any complaints seem somewhat ridiculous. The movie delivers exactly what it promises.. a feature length adrenaline rush punctuated by some truly off the hook action sequences. In the process it improves on its' predecessor. It may not be art, but it's a hell of a lot of fun.
I saw the 2D version on a drive-in screen and, honestly, it looked great.The 3D was post converted and, although I'm told it does look good, anyone choosing to skip the surcharge and go for the regular version should be fine.
The Dead (2010)
Solid, atmospheric effort which hearkens back to old school zombie cinema.
(Possible spoilers)
As a rule, I've been avoiding zombie films lately because I've grown weary of them. There's definitely been a ridiculous over-saturation of the market since Snyder unleashed the Dawn of the dead remake in 2004. As it turns out, yes, you can have too many zombie films.
So I was pleasantly surprised to have my investment of time rewarded so richly by the Ford brothers film The Dead. This a quietly terrific movie,one that represents a total departure from the current hyper-kinetic, fast edit style and a return to the old school Lucio Fulci/ George A. Romero 70's/80's era of undead cinema. this is the sort of film that-back in the 1980's- would have been accompanied by a black band with text warning audiences that " Due to the graphic nature of the violence in this film, no one under 17 will be admitted". Yet it isn't cheap, quick or hastily assembled to cash in on a craze. This is a genuine piece of horror cinema created by adults for adults, and it feels right at home when compared with the work of the visionaries mentioned above.
The story is straight forward and beautiful in it's simplicity: Two men- one an American soldier stranded after his evacuation flight crash lands , the other an African soldier whose village was decimated by a zombie attack- encounter one another and together trek across Africa in search of the local man's son and a way out of the area as, all around them, the dead are rising en masse and devouring the living.
The Dead is moody and atmospheric. There are entire sequences where little to no dialogue is spoken and no action occurs (aside from that necessary to the story,such as the travelers stopping to investigate an abandoned hut or encountering another tribe that has come together to defend themselves against the dead). Yet even during these scenes, the ever present threat of the living dead is never allowed to slip out of view- as these men drive across the African countryside, we see fleeting glimpses of the shuffling corpses wandering among the rocks and fields.
To anyone raised on the last decade of zombie cinema,with it' s focus on frenetic explosions of flesh tearing carnage or cleverly staged zombie kill gags, The Dead might actually seem too slow at times, but I loved it. It was actually shot on location and the cinematography looks amazing. The zombie makeup is convincing (these African zombies really do look like ambulatory cadavers and they all have creepy, ice blue eyes which add to that sense of something no longer human staring back at you) and the gore, when it comes, is brutal. Unlike a lot of zombie films, this one adheres to Romero's original philosophy that it's scarier to establish a pervading mood of hopelessness and increasing desperation instead of going for bloody shock after bloody shock. Make no mistake,though, much flesh is eaten throughout and many head shots are issued . There is really brutal violence (an early night time zombie attack on a village is terrifying in both it's chaotic nature and depiction of an unrelenting assault by hordes of the undead), but it's depiction is staged so as to be unsettling, not to merely please gorehounds.
There's practically no humor here- the film is played entirely straight and the tone gets really,really dark at times. The zombie outbreak is never even explained..it's happening already when the film starts ( that's why the American's plane was evacuating) and they never try to give a reason for it. Why bother? As The Dead so effectively demonstrates, all that matters in a situation such as this is that the threat exists. What caused it is irrelevant..it's happening all around the characters and is something they are forced to deal with. In that regard, this film reminded me of the original Night of the Living Dead and Fulci's Zombie, in that we're spending time with characters who are fighting to stay alive as long as they can in circumstances which they are well aware will, in all probability, eventually lead to their deaths anyway. It helps matters a lot that I also enjoyed the lead performances. No Oscar bait here, but better than average acting for the genre and the characters grow on you. I also thought the very last shot- the closing image of the film- was powerful.
I strongly recommend this one to horror fans. Based on this film, the Ford brothers are a creative team to be reckoned with.
****1/2 out of *****
The Muppets (2011)
We needed this. (Mild Spoilers)
There is a specific moment in "The Muppets" where the film manages to pull off that sadly infrequent feat of cinema: It takes that one extra step beyond it's already established level of excellence and into the pantheon of the classics.
The moment is simple- some of the Muppets (led by a motivated Miss Piggy) have abducted someone (not saying who). They have arrived (as a group)- prisoner in tow- at Kermit the frog's door in the early evening to explain to him what they have done and to urge him to continue on with a planned telethon to save the Muppet Theater. One of the characters points out to Kermit "You see? You inspired us!" to which he replies, horrified, "To kidnap people!?"
He may be green, he may never give up and he may be an eternal optimist- but the frog has been around the block a few times and he knows when things may have gone a step too far.
The new film "The Muppets" understands that Kermit is wise enough in the ways of the world to temper his optimism with a sense of responsibility without losing it. It also understands that the values of friendship, loyalty, decency and honor are still worth prizing and that - in today's culture of celebrity scandals, obnoxious reality TV and downbeat news - we need an injection of the aggressive optimism Jim Henson introduced when he created Kermit and his cohorts all those years ago.
As the story opens, Gary (Jason Segel) and his Muppet brother Walter are due to head to Hollywood with Gary's girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams). Once there, they stop by the defunct Muppet Theater and discover that a twisted oil baron (Chris Cooper)has plans to level it in an effort to drill for some crude located beneath the property.
Walter (who adores the Muppets, a group who allowed him to vicariously fit in when his Muppetness placed distinct differences between himself and the human beings surrounding him every day of his life) and his human companions set about reuniting the long separated Muppet gang ,who then decide to put on a show to raise the necessary funds to save the theater..and perhaps the magic that once made them so beloved.
I could describe more, but there's really no point. With it's catchy songs (some new, some classic and at least one guaranteed to make even the most jaded adult eyes misty with memories ), dead on satire of cinematic devices ( I will never again be able to see a montage unfold without smiling after this flick) and clever nods to the inherent absurdity of the staging of production numbers in musicals , merely reading about this movie could never conceivably do it justice. It's one of those films that needs to be experienced firsthand.
"The Muppets" is a rare cinematic creature..a film that gets it absolutely right, understanding the founding principles which made the titular characters so enduring to begin with while simultaneously providing a fresh, quirky new narrative in which to reintroduce the beloved icons of the felt and fur set to another generation of audiences.
At a time when a lot of miserable dreck occupies theaters, saturates television and fills Netflix cues far and wide, it's a breath fresh air to see a film that gleefully addresses life -with all of it's peaks and valleys -by delivering a sly wink,a knowing smile and exuding unabashed hopefulness.
Whether we're four or forty, each of us has inside the desire to find the Rainbow Connection..and "The Muppets" - with it's rapid fire in- jokes, cheerful music and good natured sensibility - taps directly into that, reminding us of what we learned from Kermit, Piggy, Fozzie , Gonzo, Dr.Teeth and the Electric Mayhem, Rowf, Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and Beaker, the Swedish Chef and the rest to begin with : That joy,laughter, friendship and love are not only what make it all worthwhile, they may just be the ingredients necessary to make it work.
I am rarely this entertained when I go to the movies. I was blindsided. Consequently, I rate The Muppets a much deserved ten out of ten.
Allen Gregory (2011)
This isn't edgy, hip, wry or savage. It 's just plain bad.
In the name of all that is good and holy, please let FOX get this wretched mess off the air and give us the promised second season of the vastly superior "Bob's Burgers" already.
I'll give anything animated a fighting chance, but after watching three episodes of this crap I can safely say that not only is "Allen Gregory" not nearly as sharp or witty as it's creators apparently consider it to be, but it's one of the most aesthetically unappealing animated series ever. Jonah Hill needs to stick to live action films.
Visually unpleasant animation (seriously-this show is ugly to look at)combined with characters who are more often than not creepy (and not in a comedic way)produces a relatively laugh-free result which manages to neither be hip or walk the cutting edge of being subversive. It's simply bad. People praising this are reading a level of sophistication into the humor that isn't there. For all of the flack that "Bob's Burgers" has gotten from certain quarters, at least it possesses an element of genuine wit as well as heart.
Rude, boundary-pushing humor can be done successfully.. "South Park" has been a sterling example of this for well over a decade now. But there's an intrinsic difference between pushing boundaries with a sly grin as a cracked way of making a valid point (or ridiculing some absurd aspect of our culture) and just being flat out mean spirited
"Allen Gregory" ,with it's repulsively cold tone, falls squarely into the latter category. Watching this show is a miserable experience. This series asks us to laugh because characters are uncomfortable..not because there's a sharp, observant thread of underlying humor to their discomfort, mind you, but for the simple reason that they are suffering. Two noteworthy examples of this are the horribly miscalculated scenes in the earliest episodes where Allen's stepfather acknowledges that he's not gay and is in a relationship Allen's dad because the father is "a creeper who wouldn't quit" and an entirely bizarre and humorless moment where the resolutely unlikable father threatens to make life miserable for the school principal when she refuses to engage Allen's romantic aspirations. While there probably are viewers who got some sort of a chuckle out of these moments, my reaction was to stare at the TV,puzzled, wondering when this damned thing was finally going to generate some laughs.
And, hey, congrats to the writers who, with the advent of Allen's father, managed to conceive one of the worst gay television characters in the history of the medium. These people need to take a few days and watch multiple episodes of the (exponentially funnier) series "Soap" so they can get some sort of a clue as to how to write a reasonably plausible gay character, a feat that was successfully navigated with a role which made Billy Crystal a star some thirty years ago.
Better yet, just skip the history lesson and cancel this regrettable misfire. It really astounds me that this ever made it onto television.
2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams (2010)
Awful sequel (some spoilers)
2001 Maniacs : Field of Screams
In 2006, some people got together and decided to update H.G. Lewis's gorehound cult classic 2000 Maniacs for the modern era.
The result was 2001 Maniacs, an often genuinely funny, gleefully gruesome exercise in horror comedy that featured a terrific leading performance from Robert Englund as George W. Buckman, undead mayor of Pleasant Valley. The basic premise behind this is that -back during the civil war- some errant union soldiers who were part of Sherman's march wandered into the unsuspecting town and murdered every living thing within its borders. So now the restless dead arise every year to exact their cannibalistic revenge on anyone hailing from the north until the number of their victims matches the number killed in Pleasant Valley- 2001.
Now fast forward to 2010 and Sullivan and Kobin (assisted by producer Christopher Tuffin) have brought us a sequel , bearing the nifty little title 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams . Eli Roth, however, did not choose to return for producing duties on this one. I have to wonder how much of the magic the first time around was due to his behind the scenes influence, because - despite having the same writers and director- this sequel sucks.
What's really heartbreaking is that the premise is a good one. The ghouls of Pleasant Valley, having once again made preparations for another year of slaughter, realize that this time they have no takers. After a promising opening sequence where they deal with the local sheriff, Mayor Buckman (a scene stealing Bill Moseley, who proves he's a horror superstar by making the role entirely his own) decides that they will gather en masse' on the town bus and take their festival on the road.
At this point the film introduces us to to a group of travellers cruising in an RV as part of a reality TV show along the lines of MTV's Real World.
The RV comes across a detour sign and is re-routed right into the newly christened Pleasant Valley Travelling Jamboree. From there the film slips into essentially the same territory as the first, as the northerners are picked off in a variety of extremely gory ways .
The acting sucks. I've seen Troma flicks with performances that put the ones in this movie to shame. Moseley is terrific, as are Lynn Shaye and Ryan Fleming (both of whom return from the original as , respectively, Granny and Hucklebilly) - but in all other regards this is strictly amateur hour.
Since there are some good gore set pieces, I might have tended to overlook the acting- after all, this isn't great art. But Field of Screams also manages to commit the unforgivable sin of cult gore cinema- it's boring.
We spend scene after scene watching the idiots from the RV wander around and behave in a manner suggesting that they actually died at birth and -though their brains are inoperative- their nerves have been firing for twenty odd years since, giving the appearance of life. Nothing they do is particularly funny (which is really annoying in the instance of a pair of Paris and Nicole clones, since Hilton and Ritchie are so out of the spotlight at this point culturally that the inclusion of their personality types is lame to begin with) and so many moments unfold with only these people on screen (minus any sign of the Pleasant Valley folk) that they begin to feel like torture.
Then there's the pacing. I kid you not..at times it's as if the people in this film are sleepwalking through a river of molasses.
Case in point: there's a moment inside of one of the festival tents where Buckman informs several of the surviving northerners (who have all been bound together) that they have a chance to live if they search for and find various weapons hidden around the jamboree site while the ghouls hunt them. If they arm themselves and can fight their way out before being killed, they're free to go. So what happens? We get a shot of these people walking -not running, mind you, but walking -away from the tent after being sent out to locate the weapons while two banjo players idly stroll behind them . Now, personally, if a town full of cannibalistic shades had just untied me and told me that all I had to do to avoid ending up on the menu was find the gun hidden somewhere close by, walking wouldn't enter into it. I'd be rocketing into the night looking for something to whack a hillbilly with.
Throw in some second rate, racially charged attempts at comedy, a horrendous and ill considered Flashdance parody and a character who can apparently shrug off being impaled on a pitchfork as if it were a paper cut and you end up with a film that misses the mark disastrously. Excellent splatter effects and a top notch turn by genre great Moseley are not enough to cover the multitude of pacing and performance issues prevalent in this sequel. A definite disappointment.