In Theaters: Halloween II (2009)

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.

In Theaters: The Final Destination (2009)

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.

In Theaters: Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

Starring:
Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Rain
Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna
Christoph Waltz as Col. Landa

For those familiar with the work of Quentin Tarantino, you will recall that he admires the use of chapters for dividing a film’s narrative into more easily-digestible parts. He employs the technique once again with Inglourious Basterds, and titles the first of these chapters in a most appropriate way: “Once Upon a Time in Nazi Occupied France…” Some might look at this just as a catchy slogan, used for stylistic purposes exclusively. But, Tarantino means it quite literally; this is not World War II as history books would describe it, but rather a fairy tale of the war that ends with a drastically-different and far more appropriate conclusion. I shall put it this way: for those of you who believe in karma, this is how you probably believe World War II should have ended. But, really, this movie is not even about World War II…it is about, as Brad Pitt’s character so elegantly states, the “killin’ Nazi business.” And yes, business is a-boomin’ here.

The aforementioned Brad Pitt character, played by the actor with just the right amounts of flamboyancy and satire, is named Lieutenant Aldo Rain, the leader of a group known as the “Basterds.” They are a ragtag bunch of individuals who sweep across France, killing Nazis and plotting the permanent downfall of the Third Reich. But, even this colorful clan, including a member nicknamed “The Bear Jew” (played with gusto by acclaimed horror director Eli Roth) who becomes legendary for his brutal baseball skills, is overshadowed by Shosanna Dreyfus (Laurent), a young Jewish girl thirsty for revenge following the murder of her family. She now runs a movie theater and strategically allows it to be used for the premiere of a Nazi propaganda film, an event that will play host to both the man that killed her family, Colonel Hans Landa (Waltz), and Adolph Hitler himself.

Tarantino effortlessly weaves these two storylines together, both leading up to a stunning and rather awe-inspiring climax. Some may fault the film for its perceived excessive use of dialog. But I implore you to remember that Quentin Tarantino wrote the screenplay and, therefore, it can be correctly assumed that the conversations his characters have are far more interesting than most of the action sequences you have seen this summer. They are foul-mouthed and yet poetic, rugged and yet brilliant. That Tarantino has assembled a top-notch cast to speak this dialog is another reason for its overwhelming success. Brad Pitt is exceptionally good as the film’s primary source of dark humor; he clearly loves the art of acting and his overwhelming devotion to the craft is vividly apparent in this performance. But the highest honors must go to Mélanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, both of whom are so electric in their respective roles that they practically leap off of the screen.

Though this is my first review for The Cinema Issue, one of the things you will quickly learn about me is that, if nothing else, I crave innovation in cinema. I desire to see new material or old material presented in a new way. If you were skeptical before, Inglourious Basterds proves without a shadow of a doubt that Quentin Tarantino is a master innovator. Very few screenwriters or directors would dare to drastically alter such well-known history in favor of a more satisfying film; even fewer would venture to present World War II in such a satirical manner. That all of the risk pays off and makes Inglourious Basterds one of the best and most fascinating films of the year is a testament to the skill and precision of Tarantino and his cast. It might be too early to make predictions for the upcoming Oscar competition, but I imagine it will be difficult for the Academy, having shut Tarantino out ever since Pulp Fiction in 1994, to completely ignore a film like Inglourious Basterds.

In Theaters: Post Grad (2009)

Directed By: Vicky Jenson

Starring:
Alexis Bledel as Ryden
Michael Keaton as Walter
Zach Gilford as Adam

Post Grad is the kind of movie that depends on its main character to be a complete moron for the first hour and then to become a suddenly enlightened individual in the last act. This time around, a casket, a soap box derby, and an Eskimo Pie bring about the character’s contrived enlightenment. The character is Ryden Malby (Bledel), a college student who has elaborate plans for her post-graduation life. We meet her as she prepares to accept her diploma, smiling and giddy with excitement. Then, a string of terrible things happen all at once: she wrecks her car, doesn’t get her dream job, is denied for her dream apartment, and is forced to move back in with her borderline psychotic family. Yes, it would seem that it sucks to be Ryden Malby…but I would happily wager that her life sucks a little less than the experience of having to watch it all happen.

Prior to viewing Post Grad, I had a theory that is as follows: no film featuring the charms of Alexis Bledel, Jane Lynch, and the great Carol Burnett could ever be bad. Needless to say, I was very wrong. In fact, these three talented ladies come off looking worse than anyone else involved in this film’s production. They are just too talented and intelligent to choose material as bad and as thoroughly boring as this. Michael Keaton, on the other hand, has become notorious for making poor decisions when selecting roles and his blatant overacting suggests that films like Post Grad are the only ones still clamoring to employ him. Perhaps his upcoming role as the voice of Ken, Barbie’s longtime plastic companion, in the highly-anticipated Toy Story 3 can remind audiences why we liked him in the beginning and, even more importantly, remind him that it is beneficial to be selective when choosing roles.

Post Grad seems to be composed of one miscalculation after another. Certainly, none of the actors should have ever dared to touch this material, and director Vicky Jenson, best known for co-directing Shrek (the first film to win the Academy Award for “Best Animated Feature”) and Shark Tale, would have done well to steer clear of making this film her second live-action project. She is able to direct Post Grad with able clarity, creating a polished-looking and solid-feeling film. The problem is not in the director or most of the cast, but in the simply sophomoric screenplay by Kelly Fremon. It relies on every cliché imaginable to pad its already scant runtime and, unfortunately, underemphasizes its main idea. I didn’t know how Ryden would cope without a job and practically without a life whatsoever, but I knew from the very first moment that the film introduced her doting best friend, Adam (Gilford), that they would end up in love. Sadly, their relationship is at the center of the entire film.

I’ll tell you exactly what would have changed my mind about Post Grad. There comes a moment in the film when Ryden must choose either Adam, the friend she always demanded was “just a friend,” or her Brazilian neighbor, David (Rodrigo Santoro, another actor who should have known better), who she actually does have intimate feelings for. Formula demands that she choose Adam; the best friend almost always ends up being the true love in disguise. In fact, I quite liked Adam as a character. Zach Gilford plays him with complete sincerity and utter dignity, lacking the over-the-top zaniness that plagued much of the rest of the cast. Still, Ryden insisted that she did not love him and only wanted to be best friends. When she chooses him, it feels as though she is solely choosing to follow formula, rather than choosing the person she really loves. Had she booked a flight to Brazil to find David, I believe this review would have gone differently.

In Theaters: Shorts (2009)

Directed By: Robert Rodriguez

Starring:
Jimmy Bennett as Toe
Jake Short as Nose
James Spader as Mr. Black

Shorts is technically far worse than the other bad movie released this week, Post Grad…and yet I am awarding them equivalent star ratings. As I mentioned in my review of Inglourious Basterds, I want to see innovation in films, and Robert Rodriguez doesn’t settle with the same old, tired routine for Shorts. He bends the rules of traditional family movies, telling a nonlinear story that is perhaps one of the strangest I have ever seen. Though it is indeed still bad, this film has the benefit of being surprisingly unique and inventive. From scenes where a monstrous booger tries to engulf a horde of children in a germaphobe’s house to scenes where a giant wasp attacks a destructive robot, I never knew exactly where Shorts was headed next. The fact that its destination is almost always repulsively silly and awfully dumb is quite unfortunate.

To describe Shorts is a bit like describing insanity or perhaps stupidity. The film’s basic plot deals with the arrival of a wishing rock in the freakish Texas community of Black Falls, home to the company that makes the “Black Box,” an invention that can turn into almost anything (as long as its batteries aren’t dead). Toe Thompson (Bennett) is the son of two of the company’s developers (Leslie Mann and Jon Cryer), who have recently learned that they will be fired if they can’t somehow make the Black Box perfect. Toe finds the wishing rock and uses it to, amongst other things, wish for friends. These friends come in the form of inch-tall martians flying in tiny spaceships. Their arrival sparks chaos and, right from the beginning, we learn that this wishing rock isn’t all its cracked up to be. Eventually, it gets passed to every member of the community in a series of short stories told, for some inexplicable reason, out of order.

Ultimately, the super-stylized production values, the obnoxiously bright color scheme, and the nonlinear storytelling are all masks trying to cover up the fact that Shorts is really quite hollow. Certainly, the film is whacky and creative, but it doesn’t really tell a truly fascinating story. All of the vicious crocodiles, flesh-eating boogers, and pea-sized aliens in the world cannot save a film, unless they are somehow strung together in a comprehensible and interesting storyline. And that is where Robert Rodriguez takes his fatal misstep. He makes the entire film about breaking the rules and being creative, instead of making the film about a story that features rule-breaking and creativity. The only reason we are ever invested in the images put on screen is because we can’t wait to see what off-the-wall thing Rodriguez is going to throw at us next. By the time a man is turned into a giant Oscar Meyer wiener, I was exhausted and ready to leave.

I would imagine that there will be many children who will thoroughly enjoy this film. To them, boogers are always funny, and so a giant one that eats children will probably be hilarious. But, they deserve better films than this, and parents will find very little to enjoy about this frantic and hyper-kinetic experiment conducted by Robert Rodriguez. Why else would he have made this movie, except for it to act as an experiment, testing just how far he could push boundaries before people finally walked out of the theater, turned off the DVD, or changed the channel? Why else would people like Leslie Mann, Jon Cryer, William H. Macy, and James Spader do a film like this, unless there was some grander scheme behind the scenes that we are not seeing? Much like the cast of Post Grad, I cannot see why anyone who starred in this film would be willing to do so. I imagine it must be because Robert Rodriguez wrote and directed it. Little did they know, this would be one of his career’s biggest mistakes.