Vantage Point, dir. Pete Travis (2008)

NIKKI says:
It's ambitious, I'll give it that. But this movie may have had too many oars in the water, because by the third use of the rewind-and-start-over technique, I was too busy searching for my perpetrators than engaging in these stories of vacationing kids and dads and doubled-up presidents, bitchy news producers and skitty operatives.

And, yes, I guessed our turncoat in maybe the second flashback. But you might, too, because it's so obvious. Don't filmmakers realise that you can't build suspense in a Clue-type story when a handful of your suspects are famous TV personalities and bit-part actors? As if it's not going to be one of them! Here we get to choose from a large list of potentials:

Matthew Fox
James Le Gros
Forest Whitaker
Bruce McGill
Richard T. Jones
Leonardo Nam
William Hurt
Sigourney Weaver

We can cut out Nam and Jones as, though prolific, they're just not famous enough. We can cut out Weaver, Whitaker, and Hurt -- they're too famous; they have other reasons to be here. So that leaves McGill, Le Gros, and Fox. Now, we're talking -- given the time, current cultural touchstones and the like, he sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb does he?

Anyway, it doesn't hurt the story too much to discover who's behind what. The problem here is that the movie is supposed to be one event as seen from the points of view of various people involved. Only it's never the full points of view. On Quaid's POV, he sees TWO key things occurring and reacts to both. But we don't get to see those things. So, how is it rightly his point of view?

The second issue is the film's final half. After taking us through several POVs, the movie suddenly drops that gimmick when it's time to bring everything together. Ultimately, I wondered at the necessity of the gimmick in the first place. With some time-jigging, it could have been told linearly. But then, it would have just seemed like an overwrought episode of 24.

No, it didn't work for me. It was very same-old in the political terror-movie stakes. It was all about the gimmick and very light on smarts. As a popcorn action thriller, it's not an horrific way to spend an evening, but it won't leave you reeling in a Rendition sort of way.

2.5/5

Rabid, dir. David Cronenberg (1977)

NIKKI says:
So, I see now where those movies about rage viruses ripped their ideas from. If you can think of a movie in which frothy-mouthed zombie-things scream and run at unwitting victims to gnaw at their necks, then you pretty much know the sorts of movies I'm talking about. Rabid, who knew, started quite a trend.

I was into looking at this for a few reasons -- mainly, though, because Steve said he was in the mood for zombies. I really like Cronenberg's old stuff, too, like The Brood and Scanners. His movies unsettle me, which I think has something to do with the biological and evolutionary themes that always seem to be going on. Horror zombies give me no worries -- zombies in surrounds provided by white-walled hospitals and drip-bags make my skin crawl. So, old Cronenberg is always good for a scare.

This one was good, but not great. I enjoyed the story. The horror was excellent and GROSS. The main characters were relatively intriguing. I did think it could have done with some tightening. I got a bit over Marilyn Chambers seeking out prey in new and different ways. She traverses the streets and heads into a porn theatre where we watch a sleazy guy sleaze on to her. She sleazes back, kills him, and she's off to find someone else. I might have been more into reasons and explanations for the disease and its control of her than for her killing again and again, and then writhing about on the floor.

Still, I wasn't bored. I was really sad at her eventual disposal. It was quite the downer ending. I felt for Marilyn. It wasn't her fault she needed blood to live! It was the doctor's fault! But he didn't get any real comeuppance because he was zombified early on in the piece. Hardly any real penance, that!

Good movie, a necessary part of my horror movie education, but maybe not one worth multiple watches like The Brood.

3/5

The Ruins, dir. Carter Smith (2008)

NIKKI says:
I read about three pages of the Scott Smith book last year and decided to wait for the mass-market paperback. I just have to be in the mood for trade-sized lately. Right now, I'm reading a 500-page hardcover and it's not fun, let me tell you.

So, Steve read it instead. Listening to him describe the best and worst elements of the story made me feel like I'd read it myself. I got a Stephen King vibe from Steve's descriptions, and figured my reactions would be similar to his.

Now that I've seen the movie, I'm kinda glad I didn't read the book. I know -- blasphemy, right? Well, Steve said the movie was better, and the way it had me jumping and screaming all the way through meant that NOT knowing the movie's twist and turns just made it that much more fun.

I really liked it. I was scared for most of it, horrified by the high gore-levels, and genuinely shocked when certain things began happening. I thought it was extremely well-paced. The scares came at exactly the right moments, and because it was so well-structured and tight, there was never a moment to really relax and take a breath. It just powered on, until its gruesome conclusion.

The characters, too, were all thankfully likable. The movie gets extra stars for having normal, inoffensive young people as is heroes. See, Film World, it can be done! The story was good -- the kids embark on a journey to a Mayan ruin and on arrival are freaked out by some natives who appear to be warning them against going up on the ancient pyramid-type thing that's covered in lush green vines. They go anyway, thinking their friends are on top of the ruin, and the crap hits the fan from there. There is no one to to be found atop the ruin ... no one alive anyway.

They soon discover that the natives will not let them leave the ruin, and so are stuck on it until help arrives. But help doesn't seem to be coming, and then vines start acting weird...

Ughghg... it's so horrifying. I loved it. I'm shocked that a big-budget horror film got it so right. And surprising, too, was the fact that I actually started to like Jenna Malone. Wonders will never cease. I thought the actors here were all excellent.

Just a great horror movie.

3.5/5

The Ten, dir. David Wain (2007)

NIKKI says:
Steve and I had both heard how this movie was trashed by critics. The poster over there has some positive notes on it, so it would appear not everyone hated it. Something, though, made me think it was supposed to be one of the worst stinkers in history. Still, we thought we'd give it a go because Paul Rudd is in it, and because we'll watch anything with religious satire.

Well, what do you know? This was probably the most guffaw-inducing movie we'll watch this year, second only to Hot Rod. And if you liked the random, weird humour in that movie, you might just love this, too. It really is 90 minutes of silliness tied to a central theme -- that of the Ten Commandments. Paul Rudd introduces ten stories, each featuring a commandment, as he sorts out his own rule-breaking involving infidelity.

The stories are each about seven or eight minutes jam-packed with the weirdest stuff you're ever likely to see. The first one, for instance, is about a guy who sky-dives without his parachute and ends up stuck in the ground where he landed. He becomes a celebrity, with his own catchphrases, a TV show, multitudes of girls chasing him. All from his position as a head poking out from the dirt. Thou shalt not, we learn through the guy's rise to fame and fall to shame, worship false idols.

And so it goes. Coveting thy neighbour's goods sees Leiv Schreiber purchasing more and more cat-scan machines to beat the number his neighbour has; honouring thy mother and father has two black kids worshiping Oliver Platt as their Arnold Schwarzenegger impersonator dad; thou shalt not steal sees Winona Ryder forging a perverse relationship with a ventriloquist's dummy. And thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife takes place in a maximum security prison ... think about it.

Oh my god, it's just so WEIRD. Steve and I just kept looking at each other with freaked out looks on our faces. Really, did they really do that? Did they really go there? Yes, they do and they did, and they refuse to stop GOING THERE. And it's funnier than it should be, too, because these are well-known people doing these bizarre things. Paul Rudd marries Dianne Wiest. Bobby Cannavale nudes up, Oliver Platt does the "ice cream" bit from Delirious, Winona Ryder fucks a dummy, Adam Brody channels Joey Lawrence, Justin Theroux plays Jesus, Liev Schreiber sings. It's mental.

Ultimately rather pointless, but damn funny.

3/5

August Rush, dir. Kirsten Sheridan (2007)

NIKKI says:
Perhaps I built it up too much? I was expecting to be blown away by this movie. I'd been listening to the music for a little while, and enjoyed all the songs, so I expected, even more, to love the movie. And it's written by Nick Castle, who wrote one of my all-time favourites, The Boy Who Could Fly. Sadly, August Rush was a bit of a let down, only because I think it tried to do too much. A rewrite or two and maybe it would have worked.

As it is, I enjoyed it, I got wrapped up in bits and pieces of it, but, ultimately, it lost me a bit because everything just seemed so perfectly timed. Everyone was where they needed to be at exactly the right time, and this really removed the magic. How does a kid navigate New York City so skilfully? That's just one of the questions you'll find yourself asking. And how coincidental was it that August meets Mr. Jeffries and leaves the boys' home at the exact same time Lyla's father decides to reveal his ghastly secret that sets her on her mission to find her son? All this at the same time Louis meets up with an old bandmate and decides to go to Chicago to finally track Lyla.

I don't know. It was too much after a while. Yes, the music was great, and the fairytale aspect of the thing worked on some level. But when you examine it closely, the plotholes mount. Steve was right -- if Lyla's baby died at birth, who buried it? Why did Louis only now decide to seek out Lyla? Where was August living during his stint at Julliard? Why did no one try to stop the Wizard from taking him away from the school when he'd been there so long father-free? That's a child services issue right there.

Loose ends everywhere. I said, too, that the Wizard character would have worked a bit better had he been a good guy. An evil Machiavelli trying to make money off August did not work as the man who also stood up for the street way of learning music, caning Julliard for its text books and teachings. The music is out there! And August should be teaching you! ... it all falls on deaf ears when that same character turns his back on August to exploit his natural gifts.

So close, yet so far. I wanted to love it. At most, I just liked it.

2.5/5

Futurama: The Beast With a Billion Backs, dir. Peter Avanzino (2008)

NIKKI says:
I didn't enjoy it as much as Bender's Big Score, but it was funny nonetheless. I am really happy we get to see more Futurama. As technology advances, it's fun to see how the show responds. In this movie, someone checked a published version of the Wikipedia for an explanation -- only Futurama can make those kinds of jokes. I hope these movies go on and on.

3/5

STEVE says:
And I enjoyed it more than Bender's Big Score. Go figure.

I thought Score was very funny, of course, and the story of Fry going back in time to better himself in order to woo Leela was handled with just the right mix of bizarre and touching that I'm used to from Futurama. But the pacing was off and it dragged in the middle. Maybe Beast's story wasn't on par with Score, but it beat the snot out of it as far as pacing, so it felt like a better movie because my mind wasn't wandering halfway through. As far as the jokes went, it was as wrong as it ever was.

Example: Amy Wong ("of the Mars Wongs") is grieving the death of her husband Kif. Bender walks in and says, "What's her problem? Somebody die or somethin'?" Leela tells him that Kif is dead and instead of responding with sympathy, which would have been out of character for Bender, anyway, or even indifference, which would have been more Bender's style, he pumps his fist in the air and cries, "Nailed it!"

Up next: Bender's Game. And if I even have to tell you why that's funny, you probably don't watch Futurama anyway.

3/5

Lake Dead, dir. George Bessudo (2007)

STEVE says:
I'd have sworn there were Zombies in this movie. Go watch the trailer and see if you too aren't convinced it's a Zombie movie. I was thinking Zombie Lake, Oasis of the Zombies, Shock Waves, that sort of thing. Instead of Zombies, though, we were treated to a not-so-interesting tale of murder and incest that was strung together about as tightly as those candy bracelets you used to eat as a kid.

I won't bother to recount the plot, as I'd rather forget this whole exercise anyway. I'll say only that it wasn't as hilariously bad as Garden of Love, but it wasn't as boring and predictable as Prom Night, either. Somewhere in between lies Lake Dead.

Incidentally, this is from the After Dark Horrorfest of 2007. Most of the After Dark films we've seen have left us with the same impression: Nice effort, but way below the bar. It's like the Masters of Horror for beginners. I think we'll give them a miss after this.

1.5/5

NIKKI says:
Wow, what a let down. The trailer made this look like a genuinely scary movie reminiscent of classic slashers I Spit on Your Grave and Last House on the Left -- people getting ruthlessly tortured, while they shriek and cry in overgrown weeds.

It ended up just another bullshit knock-off that tried to take the horror that extra gruesome step, but ended up resorting to boring old hangings and gunshots for its kills. In a movie this silly, the kills need to be top-notch to keep me remotely interested. Garden of Love upped the ante with each kill, so did Mandy Lane. Here, though, right at the start, a girl gets hogtied -- a hollow metal tube inserted through her ankles which is then chained to a huge stone. After that, it all just gets boring. So boring, in fact, that some of the gunshots even have CGI blood-sprays.

As Steve might say: They just didn't care.

So... high points? The kids weren't all bad. The main couple was actually rather likable. Um... it was short -- that's a plus. The set-up was alright -- kids inherit a hotel from a grandfather they've never met. Their supposedly unloving father warns them against going to collect their inheritance, but they are feisty babes and will do whatever they like. So, that was okay.

Low points, though, were many -- aside form the boring kills, the suspense was terrible. The scene in which one character drops his wallet in the lake had the potential to be really scary -- he drops it right near the hogtied girl, now floating at the bottom -- but it's over quickly, and we have very little time to get even small goosebumps.

Then there are the baddies -- so cartoon, so stupid. There's a pair of raging twins going around offing everyone and they look like a couple of wrestlers wearing Fabio masks. Just horrid, with hair dangling in their faces presumably to hide the bad make-up.

And the plot veers off, beginning to make no kind of sense. How did this hotel exist out here for so long? Why did the grandfather decide to change his ways? What made them this way? Why is Fabio about to kill those kids at the end? Was it about the bloodline, or just a raging kill-need? I have no idea. But then, I was so bored I could barely pay attention after about halfway.

So, yeah -- the After Dark movies are nothing to scream about. This seemed to be a wannabe horror movie by a filmmaker who may only have watched horror movies made post-Cabin Fever. Boring, CGI-infused, all about the kills without tight plotting or subtext.

1/5

Margot at the Wedding, dir. Noah Baumbach (2007)

NIKKI says:
What has happened to Noah Baumbach? He used to be clever and insightful. He used to make movies about human beings, believable ones with foibles and idiosyncrasies you could relate to. He used to create characters just like you, and you laughed with them because you'd been there: Young, crazy, insecure, jealous, in love.

Now he just makes movies about reprehensible people who talk and act in ways I've never encountered. Perhaps I'm from the wrong side of Brooklyn, but I just don't know these people.

So, I understand there are crackpots out there. I also understand there are damaged men and women floating on this planet that crave destruction, of themselves or those around them, that thrive on the devastation they create. I also know there are people out there who remains utterly blind to the machinations of others, or who choose to ignore it because the pain of confrontation is just so great. I get that. What I don't get is why I'm supposed to find a story about those people that never seeks to explain them, explore them, or redeem them anything but a waste of my time.

Further, why do I want to watch a movie about these people with no discernible plot, with no beginning, middle, or end? So we open with Margot on the bus, and we leave with her on the bus. In the middle, we just get bunches of random, unexplained activities that do very little to enhance the story or its characters. It just smacked of that much pretension. Watching Margot climb the tree was embarrassing. Watching her do just about anything was embarrassing. I was forced to question how she'd ever succeeded at anything in her life. She was so horribly abusing her son with her esteem-destroying comments that I wondered how they'd even managed to co-exist together for any length of time. Why did her husband care for her? She was never presented to us as anything but a monster. How and why did anyone care enough to give her the time of day?

Is abuse in her past supposed to explain her? Make us feel sorry for her? That part of the story was alluded to and dismissed -- if the movie didn't care to go into it, did it even matter?

What good does it do me to involve myself with these people for an hour and a half? What am I supposed to get from this? A woman rolls into town and sets about destroying her sister's marriage, does that, then leaves. She leaves NOT KNOWING that her sister was about to rekindle the destroyed relationship. So, somehow everyone gets what they want, but no-one really ever comes to know why. Why did Margot have to destroy Pauline? What does it mean to her that it ultimately didn't work? How is Margot's derangement supposed to affect me when SHE WAS RIGHT from the outset that Malcolm wasn't perfect?

Why does Margot get to be right?

Ugh -- the whole thing just infuriated me. Kicking and Screaming remains an American classic. Mr. Jealousy will always be watchable and wonderful. Everything beyond that can go to hell.

1/5

STEVE says:
Noah Baumbach is dead to me.

Kicking and Screaming is and will always remain one of my favorite movies, but everything he's made afterwards has left me questioning whether he should be allowed continued access to film making equipment.

This is just revolting.

1/5

Rendition, dir. Gavin Hood (2007)

NIKKI says:
As depressing and harsh as it was -- I liked it. It's not an easy movie to watch. It's one of those two-hour experiences where all you're thinking about is how cruel the world is. Still, it's well done. It's visually impressive, the acting is first-rate, and the twisting plot is engrossing and suspenseful. It's not purely a film that reminds you how America abuses its power, it's also a thriller about the people who get caught up in that abuse.

Anwar El-Ibrahimi is a chemicals expert who is detained when deboarding a plane from South Africa. He is suspected of aiding a terrorist who killed an American operative. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Freeman, a CIA analyst who is instructed to oversee the interrogation of Anwar, and who comes to believe Anwar is telling the truth that he is not involved. Meanwhile, Anwar's wife pregnant Isabella is desperate to know where Anwar is, and enlists a Washington DC councilman to help her out.

So, from there it's all about uncovering the mystery of Anwar's disappearance and exposing the lies and cover-ups that go along with extraordinary rendition, the practice of moving terror suspects from one country to another without proper procedure for the purposes of interrogation.

I thought it was a good movie. It didn't seem to chest-thump as much as other movies like it, and that probably had something to do with it being about the people as much as the politics. You really felt for these characters, and what they were dealing with. And the movie did well to show the other side of the issue with an element of the plot told from the perspectives of the suicide bombers. I don't know how accurate it all was, or how truthful, but as a movie, it definitely entertained me.

I was really struck, too, by the scene in which Isabella's water breaks. She is walking through a big, glass building, and we see her in silhouette. The Capitol Building rises up along the horizon behind her. A brilliant shot, filled with purpose, but classy, I thought, rather than grandiose. Much like the film itself.

3.5/5

Lars and the Real Girl, dir. Craig Gillespie (2007)

NIKKI says:
Here I was thinking someone in Hollywood had finally had an original thought. Turns out this movie has been made before. Well, not exactly this movie but movies with guys who form complex relationships with human-sized dolls. One is Love Object from 1993; the other is Tamaño natural from 1974. And while the films aren't exactly the same, they're close enough in premise so that my initial adoration of Lars and the Real Girl for its originality has slightly dipped.

But that's okay. It's still a great movie. One of the best I've seen this year, in fact. One of the main reasons I liked it so much is because it is entirely free of cynicism. At so many points in the film, I expected Bianca (the doll) to get into some sort of trouble. I expected Lars to become the butt of a very elaborate joke. But this never comes to pass. The story has a goal -- to get Lars back to reality -- and it achieves that goal simply and beautifully.

Lars buys a doll off the Internet and tells everyone it's his girlfriend Bianca from Brazil. Lars is extremely lonely, unable to hold close relationships with people because of something awful from his past. He finds it hard to touch people, and to let them touch him. He solves this problem with Bianca. His doctor informs those around him that in order to bring Lars out of his psychosis, they should treat Bianca as real. So, everyone in town befriends her until Lars finally has a decision to make about whether or not to carry on their relationship.

I hate this word, but man is the whole thing just so uplifting. You can't help but feel good and warm inside whenever Bianca is out and about. The townsfolk come to adore Bianca, and embrace her, all because they know they are ultimately helping out Lars.

There are some really funny moments in the movie, some touching moments. Ryan Gosling is really good, as is Paul Schneider who plays his exasperated but just as caring brother Gus. I loved the setting, the photography, the stillness of the whole thing, the drained colour, and the snow. Just a great spirit-lifting Winter movie.

4/5

3:10 to Yuma, dir. James Mangold (2007)

NIKKI says:
I don't really know what I expected with this one. A competent Western -- that's pretty much my pre-viewing summation. I wanted to see the movie, but I wasn't yearning for it in any great way. It was just as I anticipated, too. A good movie, with good performances, some really stand out scenes, but not a movie I would throw up there with my fave Westerns like Tombstone or High Plains Drifter. It just didn't have the emotion of those films, the urgency. I cared for the characters and everything, but they didn't get under my skin like Clint's Stranger or Val Kilmer's Doc Holliday.

I was probably thrown off by how much how movie made me think of Young Guns II. I was finding myself seeing parallels all over the place:

* Alan Ruck's character has his farm taken away by the evil businessmen, and Christian Bale's farm is threatened in this movie. Both characters take it upon themselves to fight for their land, and get mixed up with good and bad guys all looking to make their individual stands against "progress".

* Emilio's Billy the Kid spends a fair amount of time locked up, messing with the minds of his captors, proving himself smart and quick-witted, able to talk himself out of anything. Russell Crowe's Ben Wade gets into a similar circumstance. Both movies have scenes of their anti-heroes talking out a second-storey window while handcuffed.

* Ben Wade rolls into town and watches the townfolk as they go about their business -- washing clothes and kids, hanging out, working hard. The boys do the very same thing in the first Young Guns movie, and the scenes are, again, surprisingly similar in the way they are shot.

* 3.10 featured a 14 year old boy as part of the gang, learning the ropes, while (to a degree) idolising the bad guy. In Young Guns II, Balthazar Getty winds up tagging along with the regulators, and worships Billy, but also finds out, like the boy in 3.10 that there's more to being a man than meets the eye.

... I don't know, just a few things. But as I said to Steve, I felt like I'd seen it all before. Does Young Guns owe something to the original Yuma? Probably. It wouldbe worth taking a look to find out.

Still, I enjoyed the movie.

3.5/5

Penelope, dir. Mark Palansky (2006)

NIKKI says:
And the movie about the girl with the pig nose goes straight into my Top 5 for the year. It even makes me kind of mad that an overly-whimsical, bite-less, so-called subversive picture like Enchanted should be the hottest thing on the rental wall this month when this movie exists.

Penelope is a colourful, beautiful mix of fantasy and comedy, a fairytale with an edge. I expected something cute, but I just adored everything about this movie. The story is great, the actors are sensational, the production design is like nothing I've ever seen before, and the vibes the movie gives off just make you feel so good. I was fully wrapped up in it, and will be raving about it forever.

The stand-out things for me were:

1. James McAvoy's brilliant American accent.
2. The New York-or-London guessing game the movie plays, with its royal characters and old-timey buildings, set in and around a sprawling city populated with Americans.
3. Penelope's make-up -- it looked so real, it was her normal face that looked wrong.
4. Christina Ricci's eyes -- I challenge anyone not to completely love her after this movie. She's just a little fairytale princess, with the most expressive face. You can just tell this role means a lot to her -- she's so into it, and seems to really be this person, with these insecurities.
5. Reese Witherspoon NOT annoying me. I have a hard time with her in most movies, but here she was great. And I loved her hair.
6. Peter Dinklage getting hit in the face with a car door. He is so funny in this movie.
7. The colours -- everything in red and green and purple. It's SO beautiful. It's like you're in a picture-book.
8. The Joby Talbot music -- all the songs are great, especially Joby's, and the final one by James Greenspun.
9. Ronni Ancona from The Sketch Show in a real movie?! Awesome.
10. The overall theme of self-acceptance, which just had me wanting to cry every time they showed poor Penelope locked in her room, away from the world.
11. Penelope's purple coat.

Just a great movie. Absolutely loved it. Everyone should see it.

5/5

Hack!, dir. Matt Flynn (2007)

NIKKI says:
How is a film like this even allowed? It's mind-bogglingly stupid, puerile, lame, and boring. What the HELL is Winnie Cooper DOING? I can understand Adrienne Frantz -- post B&B careers are rarely that great. And Sean Kanan -- same as above, and he's only done one thing worth remembering, and if you forgot what that was, he'll remind you in this movie, only I'm probably the only one in the world to fully get it ("You're next LaRusso! I own you!"). And Gabrielle Richens isn't even an actor.

But WINNIE COOPER? Come on -- she doesn't need the paycheck from what I can ascertain. Winnie, I have lost all respect for you. And I had lots.

This is just a piece of shit, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It tries to be all cool with its movie references, but they're the kinds of references any jerkhole can make. Here's a Hack!-like movie reference:

Character A: So, Jaws was a movie.

And that's it.

Dumb.

.5/5

STEVE says:
I said as soon as this one started, "This is going to hurt." And it did.

Jesus, it did.

I kept thinking maybe it was meant to be a satire, but I couldn't entirely convince myself that it was true. Let's assume for a moment that it was, though: It even failed at that. Hack! used brute force to make you see how clever it was (the boat that carries the students to the island is called the Orca), then pushes your face in it and stands on your neck (the captain reveals that his favorite movie is Jaws). When it's done with such shameless bravado, the satirical element gets lost in the mix. (And what's the point of making Jaws references in a slasher movie, anyway?)

But Hack! wasn't clever, it wasn't funny, and it wasn't even so-bad-it's-good. It just made me want to swallow broken glass.

.5/5

An American Crime, dir. Tommy O'Haver (2007)

NIKKI says:
This one sparked my interest because of its subject matter, and it was about a case I'd not previously heard of. The little bit I read about it, I wanted more and more to see it. Gertrude Baniszewski sounded, to me like particularly fascinating character. The case itself is horrifying, and yet Gertrude appeared to be unaware she was doing something so depraved. So, too, did the local kids (including her own kids) who assisted in torturing Sylvia Likens -- the girl Gertrude held captive in her basement for the purposes of "teaching her a lesson". That Catherine Keener and Ellen Page were the leads, I expected something really good -- introspective, scary, educational.

Instead, I got a brutal TV-ish movie, which takes the viewer through the atrocities of the crime, step by ghastly step, without ever offering any real insight into just why Gertrude acted the way she did. The film offers standard answers to the question -- it was the time, the situation (Sylvia's carny parents left Sylvia and her sister with Gertrude while they worked the carnival scene), she was wrapped up in God, she was without money, she was desperate to ensure her daughters remained pure. But how did she come to beat and abuse poor Sylvia? Why Sylvia and not her sister? Why not both? How did it come to be that Gertrude's kids abused Sylvia, too? And the neighbour kids? Who are these kids that they find nothing so bad about burning a teenager with cigarettes and whipping her? How did this go undetected for so long?

The film exists not to instruct about these things, but to show us what happened according to court transcripts. The horror of the thing is this film's main point. Or it seems to be, at least. Nothing is offered beyond a fact by fact re-enactment. And what, really, is the point of that? It could have been a 20/20 episode, for all that. The answers required here are tragically beyond this filmmaker.

I was happy to finally see Ellen Page in a different sort of role from her smarmy-teen norm. I thought she was very good here, reserved, and true to her character. It's just a pity she wasn't able to do more than scream and cry, which is all I wanted to do after watching this. If a movie is going to be this harsh, it needs some sort of balance. it needs release. This just hit us over the head with the crime and then punished the criminals. I'm not sure the real story of these two women is just so black and white.

2/5

All the Boys Love Mandy Lane, dir. Jonathan Levine (2006)

NIKKI says:
Friday the 13th... you've got to watch a horror movie. This looked like the perfect kind of movie to celebrate the date: A teen slasher with a great title, that looked like it could actually be somewhat okay. That's the best you can hope for, I reckon, with horror movies these days: Please be somewhat okay. You're so shocked when that happen, you're all: Wow, it was somewhat okay! I'm giving it five stars!

This was... somewhat okay. The script was beat-perfect. Kills and scares all coming exactly when they needed to. So, we knew whoever was behind the movie had some sense of what they were doing. The kills were good, the effects were well done. The ending was interesting. The actors weren't bad. The only thing that let them down was poor writing -- they were all sex-obsessed, pot-smoking jerks. And while that might be a staple of these kinds of films, there's a way of writing characters like that so that they're likable. That was not the case here, and really let the film down.

Still, because the script was put together so well, I walked away respecting it. I was disappointed, though, that the final twist did not have ample set up. I can understand why certain characters acted the way they did, but I think a line here and there preceding the reveal would have helped to strengthen that aspect of the movie. I think the writers might have been so afraid of showing their hands, that they refused to give off any hints of what was going on. It worked on some levels and not on others -- which is to say, the final reveal is sensational, but we'd guessed it back at the 20-minute mark.

I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt, though. In the sludge of offensive horror knock-offs, this one stands above as a movie that knows the rules, does its best to subvert them, and the genuinely shocks and thrills. If only its kids weren't so stupid -- I so wanted to care more when underwear girl was running from the car near the end. Still -- nice effort.

3/5

STEVE says:
Grading on a curve, as we have to these days, Mandy Lane was better than most slasher flicks. It was well-plotted and necessarily bloody without going overboard, and that scores it extra points. But looking at it in a vacuum, away from its progenitors and the rest of the copy-cats, it's really nothing special.

Mandy Lane plays with the conventions of the slasher genre, but doesn't do anything particularly interesting with them. I called the killer in the first scene, and Nikki called the twist - which was good, but not particularly surprising - about halfway through. The cast is pretty much the same group of reprehensible dickhead teens you've seen in a thousand other movies of this type (the stoner, the jock, the token black), and - as in those - you either want to see them dead, or couldn't care less, so there's no one to empathize with but the killer, who we can't really empathize with because we're not given a motive until the end.

Interesting but unexceptional, I thought Mandy Lane was going to raise the bar. As it is, it just cleared it.

3/5

Revolver, dir. Guy Ritchie (2005)

STEVE says:
Jesus Christ, I just want to punch Guy Ritchie in the face.

1/5

NIKKI says:
It just kept going. And going and going. It would not stop. And the longer it went, the more pretentious, more stupid, more stupefyingly boring it got.

I now understand why this received such a critical hammering. Style over substance is a massive understatement, and it's not even worth watching for its style because you've already seen Quentin Tarantino, Brian DePalma, and Tony Scott perfect these same stylistic moves in their films.

I don't quite know what Guy Ritchie thinks he's doing here. Is this a metaphysical look inside the mind of the gangster? A peek behind the gritty crime curtain with a New Age spin? Is it a rip-off of The Prisoner, only instead of "Number One", we've got "Mr. Good"? Who the hell knows. I just know the repetition of the super-deep quotes about ego and control was so dumb, it was embarrassing. It's as is Ritchie wanted you to guess the ending, he was pushing it so hard. And the whole thing says nothing about ego and mind-control, or the ravages of a depraved mind -- if indeed it was trying to say anything new about those things at all.

I hated everything about this movie, right down to Ray Liotta's butt (normally, of course, something I might not mind having a look at). I felt myself drowning in pretentiousness. Steve and I kept looking at the clock, just desperate for it to end.

It made no sense. It was boring. The action was lame. The only good thing about it was Andre 3000's wardrobe. Which you just know he picked himself.

1/5

Step Up 2: The Streets, dir. Jon Chu (2008)

NIKKI says:
They keep making them, I'll keep watching them. If there's one thing I'm addicted to more than crappy horror, it's teen dance flicks. And now that the '80s are in vogue again, there's a lot more body-popping and breakin' going on in these movies, and I just can't get enough of that.

This one was as inoffensive and standard as the first movie. In fact, it was very near a remake of its predecessor, only now it's a chick from the wrong side of the tracks who struggles to fit in with her fellow dance students at a big, special Maryland dance school.

Let's see: Andie is a member of the 410 gang that goes about dance-vandalising property. The crew is all about family and togetherness, yet when Andie gets this huge opportunity at the school, all her 410 crew members do is slam her for not being loyal to them. Them being loyal to and supportive of HER never comes into question. It just becomes a street dancers vs. school dancers thing, and you know how that's going to go.

Andie finds her own crew in the school, and starts to fit in with nice kids. So, it's all very cute and nice. It attempts edge through its crazy dancing, and a little street-fighting scene, it's costuming and it's "urban"-ness (the tagline, for instance). But it owes more to Kids, Inc. than Fame. There's no grit, and perhaps that's what I'm missing? These movie need a charge of some kind, to bring them into the real world. And the writers could perhaps try and find a way to tweak the subject matter -- like they did with Roll Bounce, which even Steve kinda enjoyed.

Still, I liked the music, the actors were good, and I'll watch groups of kids dance-fighting 'til the end of time.

2/5

Steve did not view.

Barton Fink, dir. Joel Coen (1991)

STEVE says:
You can have Fargo and No Country for Old Men. This is the best Coen Brothers movie out there. I'm not sure I completely understand it, but that's part of its appeal: Barton Fink is like a cinematic Rorschach test - it's going to be different things to different people.

I've never had the guts to do it, but I always thought Barton Fink would make a great triple bill with Naked Lunch and Eraserhead. We could make t-shirts up and give them away as prizes to anyone who makes through all three without becoming a drooling mass in the end.

5/5

Nikki did not view.

My Spy (aka. My Mom's New Boyfriend), dir. George Gallo (2007)

NIKKI says:
Somebody needs to talk to Meg Ryan. Don't be fooled by the shot of her over there on the poster, which looks like it could be from City of Angels or, as Steve guessed, Proof of Life. In this movie, Meg's face looks like a ghostly mess of plastic pulls and tugs. When she smiles, she creates creases on her face that weren't there before. Creases like when you're putting contact on a book and you get that stretchy bubble. You just wanna press it down, but that looks ugly, so you have to cut it, make a long hole, and delicately stick the edges down.

Meg Ryan looks like the she needs her face cut open and her edges stuck down.

It is distracting, her weird mouth and crazy demon-eyes. Every second character in this movie, too, described her as so beautiful. She had men lusting after her, and yet she looks like a bag of bones with a fish head. I'm sorry Meg Ryan -- but what have you done?!?! All I could think about was that it made sense for Antonio Banderas to find her beautiful since he's married to the second most ridiculous new face in Hollywood. Meg Ryan looks like Goldie Hawn in First Wives Club. It's embarrassing.

Anyway, the movie... I could not feel more "meh" about this one. It was pretty standard -- mom is a flighty babe who loves younger men, her son in the FBI wants her to act her age, his fiancee reckons they should set her up, along comes Antonio who is just divine, until the son discovers hes an art thief. Then the son goes about bugging the mom's home and listening to her have sex. Almost...

I don't know, perhaps the comedy was just too broad in this one for me? I didn't care for Meg bouncing around trying to be 21, and I got tired of the exasperated son, and his character-less fiancee. Antonio held my interest, but his great love for Meg was underdeveloped -- or maybe just unrealistic when taking her bubbles into account. The story played out as expected, and Steve picked the twist ending before we were even halfway through.

Nothing to rave about. This makes me want to watch that Michelle Pfeiffer movie, I Could Never Be Your Woman -- now there's a woman growing old with style.

2.5/5

STEVE says:
I had this whole thing I was going to do about how Meg Ryan looks like a blow-up sex doll, but I don't think I can beat "bag of bones with a fish head", so I'll let it go.

My Spy was inoffensive, but not very good in the end. The intrigue aspect wasn't all that intriguing because you just knew Bandaras wasn't going to be a real art thief. There's no way the filmmakers were going to let Meg go off in the end with the bad guy, and there's equally no way she was going to have her heart broken by said bad guy. What are the options? Clearly, he's not a bad guy. Indeed, he ended up being an undercover CIA agent - which was pretty much telegraphed from the pre-title sequenced when Bandaras gets busted for trying to steal a statue from a museum in France, gets busted, but is absolutely certain he's going to be free after one phone call. Seriously, not even five minutes into the movie.

Then, there was the mildly creepy plot device of having Colin Hanks listening in on his mom as she and the "art thief" are hooking up. Ew. He'd never be put in charge of this case because his emotional attachment would compromise the integrity of the investigation. But as ever, uncomfortable comic situations win out over logic. What are you gonna do?

Did I say this was inoffensive? I take it back: My Spy was offensive, but in a way that's forgivable because it's not being lauded as one of the greatest movies ever (*cough* Juno).

2/5

Conspiracy, dir. Adam Marcus (2008)

NIKKI says:
It's been so long since we've watched a Val Kilmer movie. When I saw this cover, it was the last thing I expected to see him in -- the big gun, the fire in the background. That cover looks more like a Van Damme pic, or, at the very least, Vin Diesel.

But covers can be deceiving. This is not a shoot 'em up, but the story of a decorated veteran searching for his friend. It has its share of violence and blood, but it's really about a man solving a mystery, forging on through the barriers in New Lago that want him out of town and far away from the secrets of the small imitation-Western town.

Val, really, made the film enjoyable. Were Vin Diesel or Van Damme in the lead, it may not have been so successful, because apart from the humanness of the main character, little about the film was truly memorable. The bad guys were just too over the top, and the fact that the town was decked out to look like the OK Corral added a heavy-handedness to the whole thing about good and evil and right and wrong and black coats and white coats. That aspect of it bordered on the absurd, and I don't think that's what the movie was going for.

"This cowboy hat is all the protection a man should ever need," says Gary Cole as he walks onto a construction site. Right.

Cole and his cronies were way over the top, too. Just beating Val senseless whenever they could. I don't know of anywhere in the world where the authorities have that sort of power, or bloodlust, even. It could have been authentic, but here we had battles in public, Cole never once trying to hide his disdain for Kilmer, and then they shoot him (or do they?) and you think: Who in this town is NOT going know who did that?

So, the movie had its issues. But it was interesting enough, and Val was good to watch as the stealthy vet with one leg who gets his own back at every turn. The ultimate message? War is bad? America is run by evil megalomaniacs who will go to outrageous lengths to ensure their wells of cash keep flowing? Tell us something we don't know.

2.5/5

STEVE says:
Nikki is spot-on when she compares this to a Van Damme flick. It had the same kind of over-the-top violence and leftist agenda that his films tend to have. Throw Val Kilmer into the mix, and I can't help thinking that maybe this movie knew it was going down that road and might have been something of a satire. But probably not, huh?

Y'know what else it reminded me of? An episode of The Incredible Hulk. Not any specific episode, just Hulk in general. That show (most shows that follow the Les Miserables template, actually) followed the same basic premise for most of it's five-year run: David Banner stumbles into a new town in search of a cure, befriends a waitress, ends up on the wrong side of the law, generally overseen by a corrupt sheriff who happens to be the waitress' abusive father, brother or husband, and Hulks out halfway through, only to get bested by the sheriff and his men, run away, recover, and come back to Hulk out again in the end, saving the waitress and kicking the sheriff's ass.

Conspiracy followed that formula to a T. It was uncanny, really. Kilmer stumbles into New Lago in search of his friend, befriends a shop owner, ends up on the wrong side of the law, overseen by a corrupt businessman who happens to be the shop owner's abusive boyfriend, and Hulks out halfway through, only to get bested by the businessman and his men, run away, recover, and come back to Hulk out again in the end, saving the shop owner and kicking the businessman's ass.

This is so cool - these things write themselves! Check it out:

Van Damme stumbles into town in search of some loot, befriends Rosanna Arquette, ends up on the wrong side of the law, overseen by a corrupt sheriff who happens to be Rosanna Arquette's sometime lover, and Hulks out halfway through, only to get bested by the sheriff and his men, run away, recover, and come back to Hulk out again in the end, saving Rosanna Arquette and kicking the sheriff's ass.

It's like Mad-Libs! Try it at home, it's fun!

2.5/5

Street Kings, dir. David Ayer (2008)

NIKKI says:
If I didn't know better, I would have thought this movie was about hockey. I'm hating the title. The movie, I thought, wasn't that terrible. It's been very poorly reviewed in the major papers, most complaints leveled at Keanu and the film's brutal, "dirty" violence. One review said it was like Lethal Weapon meets The Shield, but not a very good rip-off of either.

Well, I can see the issues here. It would appear the film is supposed to be a mystery, with Keanu's character, Ludlow, having to figure out who is behind a cop shooting that's being pinned on him. He has the motive, he was there, everyone already hates him, but he didn't do it -- we know that, and without too much effort, we can guess who did do it. So it's less a who-done-it and more a why-and-how-done-it.

Does that make the thing predictable? In a way, but it's not so bad that it ruins the entire film. I enjoyed the team-up between Keanu and Chris Evans. They created some good drama, and I believed their search. I don't think Ludlow would have realistically pinpointed the bad guys right away. So I was convinced when he was leaning on known drug-runners, and digging for the answers.

The eventual showdown between Keanu and the bad guys was tense and exciting, even if the message behind it was slightly stale. The script, by James Ellroy, is supposedly based on the OJ Simpson trial, so that might be why it feels so dated. Maybe back when Lethal Weapon came out, we would have been shocked to find bad guys like these, but we've had The Shield over five years now, so NOTHING shocks us anymore.

The best thing about this movie? Keanu was just great. I know everyone bags him for his apparent lack of acting talent, and I can see what they mean. I've never felt, though, that he can't act, just that his speech patterns are a bit strange, and make it sound like he can't act. Throw him in Bill and Ted where his slow drawl fits with the character, and he's great. Here, though, he was just excellent. I don't think I've ever seen him as angry as he was here, and his face-offs with Chris Evans and Hugh Laurie and Forest Whitaker were really something to see.

Not a great movie, but certainly deserving of more than its 36% over at Rotten Tomatoes.

3/5

STEVE says:
Keanu Reeves as a tough-guy cop. I've seen Speed and I'm still not sure I buy it. But he made it work in Street Kings.

The comparisons to The Shield and Lethal Weapon are pretty obvious, but making those comparisons is like a short-cut to thinking. There's more going on in this movie than seems at first - even though it becomes pretty clear what's going on well-before midpoint - and watching how it all comes out in the end is half the fun. Sure, we can see what's going on with Forrest Whitaker and the rest of the crew, but we don't know how or why (well "why" is pretty much always answered with "money" or "power", and that's not contradicted here), and that's what kept me watching.

I must note, though, that this movie had a case of Timothy Hutton Syndrome. I said to Nikki, "Jay Mohr's not in the movie for nothing", to which she replied, "Neither is John Corbett". And guess who turned out to be bad cops? Uh huh. They were, for all intents and purposes, featured extras, but by casting "names" their characters were put in the spotlight. I wonder if the twists would have been so easy to pick if they'd been played by less recognizable faces.

2.5/5

Garden of Love, dir. Olaf Ittenbach (2003)

NIKKI says:
Just look at that poster... as if I'm not going to rent it. I was hoping for an undiscovered horror classic and got a movie worthy of the MST3K treatment. This was shockingly awful. But not in you typical shockingly awful way. The writing was so misguided that it almost became endearing. Just try to watch the scene where Rebecca is told of her father's crimes in detail and tell me you don't just want to give the movie a big hug for trying.

But the plot is not the point here. It's background, really, with the effects taking centre stage. This one is all about the kills, and they're actually very effective. The director is apparently a modern-day German Tom Savini, responsible for the gore work on Bloodrayne, Seed, and Uwe Boll's new Tunnel Rats.

The basic, basic plot is this: a girl starts seeing her dead father in TV screens and learns she is the sole survivor of a massacre 12 years before in which her father slaughtered about eight of his friends. Rebecca lived, but lost all memory of the event... until now! Now she hears her father beckoning to "join him" at their old farm, because things are not as they seem. Cue lightning strike.

Rebecca gets a few people killed on her way to learning the truth about the Garden of Love Massacre. You'll guess the ending a mile off, and marvel at the script that lets a guy get an electric drill several time to the face and live to converse.

The acting is poor, the direction is terrible, the editing is almost non-existent (five-minute soliloquys without cuts or coverage -- it's like a play!), and the plot holes are so big, my entire head could fit through them. (They kill a guy for his daughter's inheritance, get it all, then have to kill her to get her inheritance?!?!?)

But we laughed and laughed. I said to Steve -- I'll remember this one fondly for as much as we laughed during it. So bad, so silly, so brutal.

1.5/5

STEVE says:
Short of outright recommending Garden of Love, I will say that it wasn't a complete waste of time. I mean, it was complete and utter shite, but it did have two things going for it: 1) the effects, which were kick-ass, in-camera splatter and gore effects and not CGI, thank the maker, and 2) the unintentional hilarity-bordering-on-absurdity of the script.

I have to give a heads-up to the film's costume designers, Cordula Jung and Barbara Schwarz. I knew this movie was going to be a laff-riot when the professor/love interest came sauntering in wearing a cravat without a hint of irony. Thank you, ladies.

1/5

Sometimes They Come Back, dir. Tom McLoughlin (1991)

NIKKI says:
It's no secret -- back in the day, I had the majorest thing for Robert Rusler. He was just so tanned and manly, and cool and evil in pretty much everything. I first saw him in, I guess, Vamp, which I watched over and over because of him. And he was in a Nightmare on Elm Street movie, which I watched over and over because of him. And he was in Thrashin', which I watched over and over because of him and Brooke McCarter, who I thought was cool until I found out he was responsible for this.

He was just showing up all over between 1988 and 1992. Sometimes They Come Back was on high rotation for me because of him, too. I couldn't get enough. I remember just fast forwarding to the bits he was in. Those were the days.

Tonight, Steve called him a low-rent Matt Dillon. He just doesn't understand. Man, my taste in men was weird when I was 12.

So, the movie... not the worst Stephen King adaptation, but not great, either. We realised last night that the problem is really the cheesiness of the kids and how it conflicts with Tim Matheson's ultra-serious performance. It's hard to balance the high-pitched laughing and dog howling of the deadly teens with Matheson's great drama. Still, it's a decent watch. King adaptations have been much worse.

It was a fun night of nostalgia, this one.

3/5

Sex and the City: The Movie, dir. Michael Patrick King (2008)

NIKKI says:
Okay, let me start by saying one thing:

Sarah Jessica Parker -- I think you're gorgeous.

There. That's out of the way. God, what is it with all the ugly-talk surrounding poor SJP? So she's not classically, wonderfully beautiful. Who cares? I don't even find her ugly. So her face is a bit long, I don't get why that's ugly? This movie only proved how brave a woman she is, getting "old" with style. When I watched her in Mexico, rip of those sunglasses, I wanted to cry -- not for Carrie's sake (as if she wasn't going to be happy in the end), but purely for the awesome girl-power fuck-you-ness of the scene. Yes, SJP seemed to be saying, I'm 43 -- so fucking what?

She's actually the reason I wasn't disturbed about seeing this film. I went on invitation from my co-worker, Steph. She's a huge fan of the TV show, and I'm sure would shop like the women in the movie if Video Ezy raised her salary by about four million dollars. Every other week she's got herself a new bag, new shoes, new wallet, new pants. It works out for me, because I've started to get all the cast-offs. And I hate buying wallets, shoes and handbags, so it's great.

I, of course, have no idea of anything that has gone on in this show since about episode four, when I tuned out. I don't remember actively turning away from the show, I just remember not really caring if I missed it. The only episodes I made sure to catch were those with Jon Bon Jovi and Timothy Olyphant. But I like SJP a lot, and was happy to watch her big movie.

And I actually liked it. It was smart, funny, emotional, and surprisingly well-written. It doesn't make me want to rush out and get the series on DVD, but if I had the time, I wouldn't say no to a marathon or two.

All the things I remember not liking about the show were present, too, though. I still don't like Samantha. I find her hopelessly sad. I also think Kim Cattrall is a terrible actress. I do think they did the only believable thing by breaking her and her boyfriend up. That seemed very silly. And I still hated Charlotte. She's just so dumb. Why are these women only stupid when it's necessary for a joke? She's really that ignorant about Mexico? Is she really that dumb? And I also don't think I'll ever get this obsession with material things these women have. It's so weird. I did find it hard to feel bad for Carrie with all that money at her disposal. Poor rich people, whatever will they do!?!

But I did like Carrie, and I thought Miranda was good. I didn't like that Miranda went back to her husband, but I don't know him very well, so I could be wrong on that. I also liked Jennifer Hudson thrown in there -- she's so beautiful. And her song at the end... I'm so getting this soundtrack. The version of "Auld Lang Syne" was amazing, too. And the Al Green song! I know someone who cried right then!

So, a success. Even for someone with no knowledge of anything about it.

3/5

Steve did not view.

Cassandra's Dream, dir. Woody Allen (2007)

NIKKI says:
Even with the standard credit sequence, the expert pacing, and the un-Hollywood ending, it just didn't feel like a Woody Allen film. The best Woody movies feature multifaceted characters; nuanced, intriguing, complex people. The main characters here couldn't have seemed more cardboard had the words "Corn Flakes" been printed on their foreheads.

Two working class English guys need money -- one has to pay off gambling debts, the other wants to move up and out of his small town and on to bigger things, with the girl of his dream on his arm -- and she's in dire need of impressing.

What do we do? We take a rich uncle's offer to help us out of our scrapes by killing someone.

It's been done, right? And this one re-did it without any Woody Allen wit, no subtext whatsoever, and very little in the way of punch. It was all very predictable. From the second one character references Bonnie and Clyde, I knew the fates of our heroes. And while I was impressed with the ending, I didn't feel at all satisfied. And so... I kinda felt. Now what? Also, the uncle character was foreshadowed to death as not the man we might think he is. Over-development is very un-Woody.

I don't know quite what I think about Woody's new career as a maker of British caper flicks. I didn't care for Match Point and Scoop, while fun, was nowhere near the Woody Allen standard I am so used to. Where did our Woody go? His dialogue has lost its snap, his characters have lost their individuality and realism, and his plots have lost their ferocity and their absurdity. Is Woody Allen so purely an American writer that his British works can't help but feel inferior?

I agree with many of the film's reviews that the actors were very good. I've never liked Colin Farrell in anything before this. For the first time, I saw him as a real actor. He is actually the most compelling thing about this film. Still, his character is riddled with cliches.

I don't know -- even bad Woody Allen is still pretty good, but I want more. Anyone could have made this movie, not the single greatest writer/director in the history of cinema.

2.5/5