.jpg)
Labor Day weekend marks the end of the summer movie season and introduces us to Fall 2009’s lineup. This week has the premiere of three wide releases, as well as one limited release. Leading us off is Gamer, a futuristic thriller starring Gerard Butler. Opening on 2,502 screens, it is looking to pump into audiences who are still not tired of testosterone-soaked action films, despite just sitting through three whole months of them. Playing to a completely different demographic is All About Steve, starring Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper. It opens on 2,251 screens. Sandra Bullock, coming off one of her career’s biggest hits with The Proposal, is hoping to continue the success started by that film with this more bombastic and noticeably quirkier one. Whether it lives up to The Proposal has yet to be seen. Finally, we have Extract, a comedy looking to snag audiences in the mood for something a little different and less mainstream. It stars Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig and is premiering on 1,611 screens. The problem I would suspect is that most audiences are not looking for something different and will be more likely to flock to star-studded films like Gamer and All About Steve this weekend. These three films will go head-to-head at the box-office, each hoping to win the top spot and become the first success of the fall season. My reviews of them will appear by Friday of next week. This week’s lone limited release is the horror film Carriers, banking on its star Chris Pine’s recent success in Star Trek. It opens on 100 screens and with very little marketing push. That is strange, considering Pine became a full-fledged star over the summer and the online buzz for this film started in 2006. That being said, here is a fact that is even stranger: despite opening on 100 screens, it will not be shown in Los Angeles, the typical starting ground for limited releases. This could be a bad sign for the film’s quality…or possibly just a unique approach to releasing a film. Only time will tell if this film will live up to all of the chatter surrounding its release or if it will buckle under itself, and become a blemish on Chris Pine’s steadily-growing resume. My review of this film will arrive soon in the form of Late Reviews.September 4, 2009
News: This Week's Releases
Labor Day weekend marks the end of the summer movie season and introduces us to Fall 2009’s lineup. This week has the premiere of three wide releases, as well as one limited release. Leading us off is Gamer, a futuristic thriller starring Gerard Butler. Opening on 2,502 screens, it is looking to pump into audiences who are still not tired of testosterone-soaked action films, despite just sitting through three whole months of them. Playing to a completely different demographic is All About Steve, starring Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper. It opens on 2,251 screens. Sandra Bullock, coming off one of her career’s biggest hits with The Proposal, is hoping to continue the success started by that film with this more bombastic and noticeably quirkier one. Whether it lives up to The Proposal has yet to be seen. Finally, we have Extract, a comedy looking to snag audiences in the mood for something a little different and less mainstream. It stars Jason Bateman and Kristen Wiig and is premiering on 1,611 screens. The problem I would suspect is that most audiences are not looking for something different and will be more likely to flock to star-studded films like Gamer and All About Steve this weekend. These three films will go head-to-head at the box-office, each hoping to win the top spot and become the first success of the fall season. My reviews of them will appear by Friday of next week. This week’s lone limited release is the horror film Carriers, banking on its star Chris Pine’s recent success in Star Trek. It opens on 100 screens and with very little marketing push. That is strange, considering Pine became a full-fledged star over the summer and the online buzz for this film started in 2006. That being said, here is a fact that is even stranger: despite opening on 100 screens, it will not be shown in Los Angeles, the typical starting ground for limited releases. This could be a bad sign for the film’s quality…or possibly just a unique approach to releasing a film. Only time will tell if this film will live up to all of the chatter surrounding its release or if it will buckle under itself, and become a blemish on Chris Pine’s steadily-growing resume. My review of this film will arrive soon in the form of Late Reviews.
September 1, 2009
In Theaters: Halloween II (2009)
.jpg)
Directed By: Rob Zombie
Starring:
Scout Taylor-Compton as Laurie
Tyler Mane as Michael Myers
Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis
There has never been a Halloween film quite like this, a fact that is both its blessing and its curse. Rob Zombie has crafted a supremely unique film that is both groundbreaking for its series and yet undeniably odd. Zombie began his journey to remake the horror masterpiece, Halloween, in 2007 when he, equipped with a strong cast, gave new life to the iconic Michael Myers. His goal was simple: make Myers frightening again. His result: a mixed bag of good and bad that amounted to an entertaining, but uneven film. The primary problem was that Michael Myers was still not scary and the film lacked necessary suspense in favor of an excessively high body count. Zombie’s token hillbilly flare did not mix well with the subtle elegance of John Carpenter’s classic film. The good news about Halloween II, horror fans, is that it occurs solely within the world Zombie established and lacks unnecessary ties to the original franchise. The bad news is that, if you don’t like that world, you won’t like this film.
Occurring one year after the Halloween slayings covered in the previous film, Halloween II picks up with a traumatized Laurie Strode (Taylor-Compton) doing a terrible job of piecing her shattered life back together. Living with Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) and her equally-troubled friend Annie (Danielle Harris), Laurie alternates between being practically comatose at times to being recklessly rebellious at others. As Halloween approaches, she finds herself plagued by horrifying visions that seem strangely ominous and foreboding. All of this becomes even worse when, while reading the new tell-all book by Dr. Samuel Loomis (McDowell), she discovers the truth about her identity and about her relationship to Michael Myers (Mane), himself. When Michael, having been missing but presumed dead since the last time he tried to kill Laurie, reemerges with his blood-soaked knife firmly in hand, Laurie will once again have to face her worst nightmare.
Perhaps this film’s largest departure from the Halloween legacy is the introduction of glimpses into Michael Myers’s mind. Haunted by visions of his mother, Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie), gowned only in white, Michael now has a reason for his madness: he hopes to bring Laurie back to his long-dead family. Rob Zombie unleashes a unique visual style in all of the nightmares that plague Laurie and the visions of Deborah in Michael’s minds. Though his creativity is admirable and these scenes are undoubtedly beautiful, they also seem wildly self-indulgent and, dare I say, egotistical. After watching the first nine films in quick succession prior to viewing Halloween II, it was refreshing to see a unique approach to the same old, tired Halloween story and I surprisingly did not mind the theory behind these scenes, but Zombie should have spent more time on his characters and less time on hellish dream sequences and nightmarish visions.
Zombie also attempts to bring a fresh glimpse into the life of Laurie Strode, but has put himself into an awkward situation that does not work out well. At times, Laurie is nonresponsive and depressed. At others, she is rebellious and borderline psychotic. Had he taken either approach exclusively, it would have worked; when the two are combined however, they lack cohesion and present Laurie, despite the valiant efforts of Scout Taylor-Compton, as a bit of a brat. The same cannot be said, however, for the characters of Sheriff Brackett and Annie, played superbly by Dourif and Harris respectively. They are the film’s only truly sympathetic characters, and Zombie excels in his ability to realistically portray how the tragic events of the last film have marked their lives. It may seem like I did not like Halloween II, but I actually did…despite its many problems. It is an original, intriguing film that will appeal to those who, like me, didn’t think that Zombie’s remake was bad. Zombie has made a strange and yet oddly fascinating film that, to my surprise, does indeed work well.
Occurring one year after the Halloween slayings covered in the previous film, Halloween II picks up with a traumatized Laurie Strode (Taylor-Compton) doing a terrible job of piecing her shattered life back together. Living with Sheriff Brackett (Brad Dourif) and her equally-troubled friend Annie (Danielle Harris), Laurie alternates between being practically comatose at times to being recklessly rebellious at others. As Halloween approaches, she finds herself plagued by horrifying visions that seem strangely ominous and foreboding. All of this becomes even worse when, while reading the new tell-all book by Dr. Samuel Loomis (McDowell), she discovers the truth about her identity and about her relationship to Michael Myers (Mane), himself. When Michael, having been missing but presumed dead since the last time he tried to kill Laurie, reemerges with his blood-soaked knife firmly in hand, Laurie will once again have to face her worst nightmare.
Perhaps this film’s largest departure from the Halloween legacy is the introduction of glimpses into Michael Myers’s mind. Haunted by visions of his mother, Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie), gowned only in white, Michael now has a reason for his madness: he hopes to bring Laurie back to his long-dead family. Rob Zombie unleashes a unique visual style in all of the nightmares that plague Laurie and the visions of Deborah in Michael’s minds. Though his creativity is admirable and these scenes are undoubtedly beautiful, they also seem wildly self-indulgent and, dare I say, egotistical. After watching the first nine films in quick succession prior to viewing Halloween II, it was refreshing to see a unique approach to the same old, tired Halloween story and I surprisingly did not mind the theory behind these scenes, but Zombie should have spent more time on his characters and less time on hellish dream sequences and nightmarish visions.
Zombie also attempts to bring a fresh glimpse into the life of Laurie Strode, but has put himself into an awkward situation that does not work out well. At times, Laurie is nonresponsive and depressed. At others, she is rebellious and borderline psychotic. Had he taken either approach exclusively, it would have worked; when the two are combined however, they lack cohesion and present Laurie, despite the valiant efforts of Scout Taylor-Compton, as a bit of a brat. The same cannot be said, however, for the characters of Sheriff Brackett and Annie, played superbly by Dourif and Harris respectively. They are the film’s only truly sympathetic characters, and Zombie excels in his ability to realistically portray how the tragic events of the last film have marked their lives. It may seem like I did not like Halloween II, but I actually did…despite its many problems. It is an original, intriguing film that will appeal to those who, like me, didn’t think that Zombie’s remake was bad. Zombie has made a strange and yet oddly fascinating film that, to my surprise, does indeed work well.
In Theaters: The Final Destination (2009)
.jpg)
Directed By: David R. Ellis
Starring:
Bobby Campo as Nick
Shantel VanSanten as Lori
Nick Zano as Hunt
If The Final Destination is any indicator of the quality we can expect from future sequels in this franchise, then I pray that this truly is the final one. I have never disliked a film in this blood-splattered, but always fun series…until now. For the first time, the material feels tired and uninspired. For the first time, the death scenes feel cheaply-made and badly-designed. For the first time, I could predict every death prior to it occurring. Admittedly, most of them were already spoiled in the trailer or television spots, but the ones that were not are tepid and dull, including one borrowed almost directly from one of the entries in the Final Destination novel series. Perhaps its biggest area of disappointment is the initial catastrophic event that sets the rest of the untimely deaths into motion. This time it occurs during a Nascar race. David R. Ellis staged one of the best car crashes in cinematic history in Final Destination 2; this accident, complete with faulty CGI and redundant blood sprays, looks like a cheap and exploitive rip-off.
Sporting a plot that is exactly what we have come to expect from this series, The Final Destination has nothing to distinguish itself from any of its predecessors. Final Destination introduced us to the idea that Death had a plan that could not be broken or else. Final Destination 2 upped the ante in terms of creative deaths, as well as alluding to the fact that someone who escapes Death’s design affects the fate of everyone he or she meets along the way. Even Final Destination 3, believed by many to be the weakest of the original three, developed the use of photographs to act as premonitions for the coming deaths. But, The Final Destination, rumored to be the final entry in the series, lacks any of this creativity. Rather, it is all about teenagers getting killed. This would not necessarily be a problem, if the death scenes were fresh and imaginative. Instead, the film makes its fatal mistake: its deaths, though certainly bloody, are boring and one even poorly copies the most memorable death scene of the entire series.
It is quite easy to trash a film like The Final Destination, ripping it apart for all of its most basic flaws. But, really, I am not doing that. I am only looking at the big picture and the fact that this film does not do what, on a very basic level, it must do in order to entertain. We never expect things like Oscar-worthy performances from a film like this. We don’t expect brilliant characterization. We don’t expect a plot that is going to completely reinvent the wheel. That being said, the cast is quite good, especially considering that the screenplay rarely gives them anything to do other than scream, run, or die. In fact, I wish that the principle cast members, including Bobby Campo as the character who has the premonition that disrupts Death’s design, were in a better movie. This one, plagued by technical incompetence, exhibits nothing from them except for their good looks and perfectly-toned bodies.
As I write this, I have learned that The Final Destination has topped this weekend’s box-office, garnering approximately 28.3 million dollars. It is disappointing that a film should be rewarded for being so lackluster, but not totally unexpected. Teenagers will probably enjoy the film and its use of 3-D. They will not know that this is a sad waste of that technology, used exclusively to produce the gimmick of things popping off the screen and not to fully immerse them in a different world, or that the decision to use 3-D in the first place was, no doubt, decided upon so that they could tack on an extra financial charge. They will enjoy the dumb fun that this film offers. Things do come flying off the screen and I did jump in my seat at a few of these gags. I was especially amused by a scene set at a movie theater, when an explosion sends nails and twisted metal slashing through the screen and into the soon-to-be-dead audience. It is delightfully self-aware and surprisingly well-done. I just wish the rest of the film had been that good.
Sporting a plot that is exactly what we have come to expect from this series, The Final Destination has nothing to distinguish itself from any of its predecessors. Final Destination introduced us to the idea that Death had a plan that could not be broken or else. Final Destination 2 upped the ante in terms of creative deaths, as well as alluding to the fact that someone who escapes Death’s design affects the fate of everyone he or she meets along the way. Even Final Destination 3, believed by many to be the weakest of the original three, developed the use of photographs to act as premonitions for the coming deaths. But, The Final Destination, rumored to be the final entry in the series, lacks any of this creativity. Rather, it is all about teenagers getting killed. This would not necessarily be a problem, if the death scenes were fresh and imaginative. Instead, the film makes its fatal mistake: its deaths, though certainly bloody, are boring and one even poorly copies the most memorable death scene of the entire series.
It is quite easy to trash a film like The Final Destination, ripping it apart for all of its most basic flaws. But, really, I am not doing that. I am only looking at the big picture and the fact that this film does not do what, on a very basic level, it must do in order to entertain. We never expect things like Oscar-worthy performances from a film like this. We don’t expect brilliant characterization. We don’t expect a plot that is going to completely reinvent the wheel. That being said, the cast is quite good, especially considering that the screenplay rarely gives them anything to do other than scream, run, or die. In fact, I wish that the principle cast members, including Bobby Campo as the character who has the premonition that disrupts Death’s design, were in a better movie. This one, plagued by technical incompetence, exhibits nothing from them except for their good looks and perfectly-toned bodies.
As I write this, I have learned that The Final Destination has topped this weekend’s box-office, garnering approximately 28.3 million dollars. It is disappointing that a film should be rewarded for being so lackluster, but not totally unexpected. Teenagers will probably enjoy the film and its use of 3-D. They will not know that this is a sad waste of that technology, used exclusively to produce the gimmick of things popping off the screen and not to fully immerse them in a different world, or that the decision to use 3-D in the first place was, no doubt, decided upon so that they could tack on an extra financial charge. They will enjoy the dumb fun that this film offers. Things do come flying off the screen and I did jump in my seat at a few of these gags. I was especially amused by a scene set at a movie theater, when an explosion sends nails and twisted metal slashing through the screen and into the soon-to-be-dead audience. It is delightfully self-aware and surprisingly well-done. I just wish the rest of the film had been that good.
Special Item: Taking Woodstock
.jpg)
Taking Woodstock opened on 1,300 screens last Friday, following its limited release that Wednesday. Though a 1,300 screen distribution is enough to make the film qualify as a wide release, it is not enough to put it at a theater near me. Ultimately, the demands of college and my responsibility to review the other two films released last weekend (Halloween II and The Final Destination) has made a two-hour trek to the closest theater playing Taking Woodstock nearly impossible. However, “nearly impossible” is not “completely impossible.” Therefore, there might be time for me to see the film sometime later this week. However, because I had already viewed Halloween II and The Final Destination, written my reviews, and edited them, I decided that it would be better to simply go ahead and publish my thoughts. If I am able to review Taking Woodstock prior to Friday of this week, I will post my review just above this announcement. If not, then it will be treated as a limited release and will be reviewed as a Late Review. August 28, 2009
News: This Week's Releases
.jpg)
Rejoice, horror fans, because Christmas has come early this year! Leading this week’s slate of wide releases are two of the most highly-anticipated horror films of the year. Rob Zombie once again revives the iconic Michael Myers in the sequel to his remake of the genre masterpiece, Halloween. Halloween II, which Rob Zombie promises is a distinct departure from the rest of the series, is hoping to draw in huge audiences thirsty for the promised blood and carnage. Still, its screen count of 3,025 is less than that of the other genre offering making its premiere, The Final Destination. The fourth film in the popular franchise about Death knocking off teenagers will make its debut in glorious 3-D on most of its 3,121 screens. Which film will come out on top? Which film, if either (or perhaps if not both) will impress this hardened horror fan? Only time will tell, but I imagine that this is going to be a bloody weekend at the box-office. Of course, for those of you who do not like scary movies, don’t worry. Ang Lee is around to ensure that you will not leave this weekend empty-handed. His much-talked about Taking Woodstock is also opening on 1,300 screens. Though this film is technically a wide release, its significantly lower screen count might mean that I will not have the opportunity to review it this week. If that is the case, it will be handled just like a limited release and will be covered as soon as possible as a Late Review. Hopefully, though, I will be able to commute to a theater and catch it in time for my Friday deadline. As for limited releases, The Cinema Issue will be covering two this week. The first is The September Issue (which happens to be the film that inspired the title of this blog), the documentary about Anna Wintour and her career at Vogue. It opens on six screens in New York this weekend and will expand to a wider, but still limited run on September 11th. The other is the comedy Big Fan, starring Patton Oswalt. Arriving with no marketing and, as far as I can tell, no word of mouth, it will be opening on two screens. Reviews of these films will arrive soon in the form of Late Reviews. Coverage of the two wide releases (and possibly of Taking Woodstock) will appear by Friday of next week, just in time for a whole new array of films to be released.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
