The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)

"Once you've looked into the darkness I think you carry it with you for the rest of your life.", 3 December 2008

Supposedly based on (or should that be "inspired by"?) real events, The Exorcism of Emily Rose tells the story of a priest put on trial for the murder of a girl who died while undergoing an exorcism. Despite what the ads that ran when it was in the theater would have had you believe, it is not the story of Emily as much as it is the story of Father Moore's trial. Included in the many twists in the plot is whether or not the court will accept scientific evidence to support the claim of possession by demons. It's really an interesting and, for the most part, well done film. I had no problems with the plot, the logic behind the central themes in the movie, the acting, or most anything else. I actually quite enjoyed the movie. And as a bonus, I found that much of the film succeeded in being scary. I know a lot of people find these movies about God and demons to be unbelievable, but I think if you grew up with the Church and believing in Jesus, these movies can still be effective. If it weren't for a couple of issues I had with the movie, I could have easily rated it an 8/10. Where the movie really falters is in some of the character motivation and the lighting. Movies with horror themes are usually darkly lit – I understand that. But there were some scenes where I had trouble seeing what was going on. I'm beginning to think I've got a problem with my eyes, but, for example, I could barely make out what was going on in the barn during the exorcism scenes. Or take the scenes of Father Moore in prison. What real prison is so dimly lit? Most prisons I've seen will burn your retinas with the overhead fluorescents you can't escape. And the characters didn't make things any easier on me with the ridiculousness of some of their actions. Suppose you were like Emily and thought you might be possessed by demons. Do you really think you would walk down a dark hall without once trying to turn on the lights? Or what if you were the attorney, Erin Bruner, and you had started experiencing freaky things at 3:00 am every morning. Would you really stumble through your house looking for things that go bump in the night without once turning on a light? The answer to both questions – no you wouldn't. Please, somebody turn on a light! It was so frustrating. I was ready to pull out what little hair I have left.

6/10

Chicken Little (2005)

"I hear some teenagers get a major rush out of stamp-collecting!", 7 April 2008

For my family's second official Family Movie Night, we went with Chicken Little. In the movie, Chicken Little is hit in the head and causes a great deal of panic and confusion in the town of Oakey Oak with his claim that the sky is falling. When it appears that it was nothing more than an acorn that hit Chicken Little, he becomes the laughing stock of the town. One year later, still attempting to redeem himself, fate strikes once again when Chicken Little is hit on the head. This time, however, he's got the evidence. Even so, is anyone really going to believe Chicken Little's story of an alien invasion?

Going into the movie I had read some of the negative reviews, but wasn't sure whether to believe them or not. I mean, this is Disney after all – how bad can it be? Well the answer is that while Chicken Little isn't the worst movie I've seen recently, it's got way too many problems to call it a winner. Calling it "mediocre" is about the best I can do. While there were a lot of problems I had with the movie, the biggest was with the plot. It just lays there – lifeless. The movie gets off to a good start, but by the time Chicken Little wins the baseball game it becomes quickly apparent that the movie has nothing to offer. The movie's message is handled so ham-fisted that it puts a damper on the whole thing. And who decided to hire Garry Marshall to do the voice of Chicken Little's dad? He's terrible. So I the end, as much as I enjoyed the animation, some of the set-pieces, Don Knotts, and some of the cute characters, they're not near enough to save Chicken Little from the dreaded, unexciting, and mundane 5/10 rating.

And for what it's worth, I'm not sure the movie did much better with my 5 year-old. If he likes a movie, he'll usually watch it again as soon as possible. It's been almost three days now and we've had no mention of a re-watch. Instead, he's back to watching Surf's Up.

5/10

Poirot "The Mystery of the Blue Train" #10.1 (2005) (TV)

"If you seek corroboration, interrogate my pillow.", 31 March 2008

When the daughter of a wealthy American industrialist is murdered aboard the Blue Train from Calais to Nice, Hercule Poirot (David Suchet) is pressed into service to assist the local police in finding a killer. With plenty of suspects, an attack on another passenger, and a missing world famous ruby, Poirot has his hands full.

As a little background, it has been ages since I last read Agatha Christie's book on which this movie is based. Therefore, I am in no position to comment on its faithfulness (or lack thereof) to the source material. Instead, all I can do is comment on the story presented in the movie. Watching The Mystery of the Blue Train is like watching a tale of two movies. The first, involving the film's plot, the acting, the look, etc., is quite enjoyable. The plot unfolds nicely and the film's resolution makes sense. And I always enjoy watching Poirot gather the suspects together for a final reveal. The acting was actually a step above what I've come to expect from the Poirot series. The sets and costumes are very nicely done. I was particularly impressed with the French villa.

But as I indicated, this is a tale of two movies. What I've thus far described would have made for one of the better entries in the Poirot series. Unfortunately, the direction is PATHETIC. I don't know who decided to try to make a Hercule Poirot mystery look like an episode of NYPD Blue, but they should be drummed out of the entertainment industry immediately. There are so many hand-held camera shots that I thought I might get seasick. Why not shoot this traditional, grand story in a more traditional style? The editing doesn't help matters any. It's all MTV-style quick cuts that do not lend themselves well to what should have been a slow-burn, drawing room style mystery. It's unfortunate that the direction and editing have made The Mystery of the Blue Train almost unwatchable.

5/10

Æon Flux (2005)

"We're meant to die. Its what makes everything about us matter.", 24 March 2008

Aeon Flux (Charlize Theron) is an assassin in the year 2415. She works for a group of rebels intent on overthrowing the government. Her target is Trevor Goodchild (Marton Csokas), the leader of what's left of Earth. But before Aeon can pull the trigger, something strange happens. A memory is sparked of a previous life when she knew Goodchild. She discovers that for the past 400 years everyone on Earth has been infertile. The human race has carried on through an intricate system of cloning. Trevor tells her that he is near to finding a solution to the problem. But there are some who would have things stay as they are. Trevor Goodchild's brother, Oren (Jonny Lee Miller) has plans to overthrow Trevor to maintain the status quo. Aeon changes her mission – now she must protect Trevor, stop Oren, and end the cycle of cloning.

I'm really starting to hate the modern brand of action movies. What happened to the good old days when it was all about shooting people and blowing things up? Why do filmmakers feel the need to hide their action movies behind a faux sense of intelligence? Despite all the weird flashback scenes, the annoyingly vague character motivations, and the intentionally muddled plot points, Aeon Flux is no smarter than any other action movie. In fact, all this pseudo-intellectual garbage does is confuse matters to the point the movie becomes incredibly dull. Scene after scene of people talking nonsense does not make for a good action film. And that's just what you get in Aeon Flux. Add to that some of the most uninteresting characters I've seen recently and you've got the makings of an infuriatingly boring movie. The worst offender in this regard has to be Jonny Lee Miller (though if truth be told, no one comes out looking good – and that includes Charlize Theron). Miller is so dry, so white bread, he's hardly menacing at all. Laughable would be a better description.

And why do filmmakers today feel the need to make every action movie look like The Matrix? I'm no physicist or human physiologist, but people and things don't move and/or behave in nature like they do in these movies. There's a scene where Aeon is about to fall on sharpened blades of grass (oh, how clever). The way she holds herself just inches above the ground with nothing but the insides of her feet is impossible. I'm so tired of seeing this kind of thing.

For what it's worth, I'll rate Aeon Flux a 3/10.

3/10

Fantastic Four (2005)

"It's clobbering time!", 8 February 2008

Fantastic Four (2005) is essentially the origin story of this band of Marvel superheroes. The four soon-to-be heroes are sent into space, subjected to cosmic radiation, shocked at the resulting effects on their bodies, and band together to stop a would-be evil villain. An origin story like this would seem to be a good place to begin a franchise. Unfortunately, the results are incredibly mundane. For the first in a series, Fantastic Four felt awfully tired. There's just nothing here to get all that excited about. Special effects – seen 'em before. Characters – 2-D and paper thin. Comedy – lame. Plot – predictable. Acting – is that what they were doing? I can't think of one moment in the movie that made me sit up and take notice. There wasn't a single "Wow" moment for me.

A lot has been made about the casting of Jessica Alba in the role of Sue Storm. Besides the fact that I've never understood the attraction of this Barbie of a woman, I thought she was terribly miscast. She's supposed to be Johnny's older sister? Ridiculous! I just love the scene where she scolds her "younger" brother. Watching Alba attempt to act mature is hilarious. And her relationship with Reed has all the chemistry of oil and water. Again, she's too young to pull it off. Finally, Jessica Alba as a genetic researcher? Yeah, right. The worst case of casting since Denise Richards played a nuclear scientist in The World is Not Enough. Unbelievable!

4/10

The Descent (2005)

"Hey, there's something down here...", 23 August 2007

Sometimes I feel like I'm a couple of years behind everyone else. I had read the reviews from my online "friends", but for whatever reason, I had a hard time believing what they were writing about The Descent. I thought there was no way it could be that good! Well, they were right and I was wrong because The Descent is surely one of the best horror films this century has thus far produced. I've been watching horror for 35 or so years and it takes a lot to frighten me. I mention this not as a boast, but to put some credence behind my statement that The Descent is one of the scarier movies I've ever seen. It's frightening because it works on several different levels. There's the fear of closed spaces. There's the fear of the dark. There's the fear of the unfamiliar. And there is the fear of some unknown creature. Director Neil Marshall masterfully plays with each one of these types of fear. I was literally on the edge of my seat. In addition, most everything else about The Descent is first rate – acting, special effects (nice to see so much non-CGI on display), sound, editing, lighting, cinematography, etc. It's a very nice job indeed!

Another thing that Marshall did that I really like was he kept it "real". What I mean is that everything worked within the framework of reality as the audience knows it (well that is if you accept the notion of the underground creatures). The women were real and most of their reactions to the situations they found themselves in were real. The cave felt real even though it wasn't. The cave lighting was real and justified given the equipment the women were carrying. Even the albino mutants seemed to operate and function in a manner I would expect from such creatures. It's this realism that Marshall put into The Descent that goes a long way to making it as frightening as it is.

As good as The Descent is and as much as I enjoyed the experience, it's not a perfect movie. There are a couple of areas where I thought Marshall should have done something differently. First, did there have to be a final showdown between two of the women? I realize it was necessary for the subplot of Sarah taking control of her life, but did it have to be so clichéd? Second, some of the foreshadowing all but slaps you in the face with its obviousness. Yeah, she left the map in her car – do you have to beat me over the head with it? I realize these are very minor quibbles and hardly take anything away from the movie.

Finally, I can't wait to see what Neil Marshall comes up with next. He is truly one of the most promising directors working in horror today.

9/10

King Kong (2005)

"Monsters belong in B movies.", 25 May 2007

I saw the remake King Kong the other night for the first time and have to say I was disappointed. I had recently read some positive things about the movie from some people I trust, so my hopes of discovering a good and enjoyable movie were up. But in the end I had way too many problems with the movie. I could make a rather long list, but I'll stick to highlighting a few things that really bugged me -

1. If I had to watch one more scene of Ann Darrow making googly eyes with a gorilla, I think I might have hurled.

2. Good idea, sport. Close your eyes and shoot bugs off your friend with a machine gun.

3. Ann Darrow certainly can take a licking and keep on ticking. I mean how was she not seriously injured, let alone killed, after the handling she received during the T-Rex fight.

4. The CGI in the dinosaur stampede scene was dreadful.

5. Jack Black!

It's not that the whole movie was a complete waste. There were some very nice things about King Kong to enjoy (the CGI Kong, Naomi Watts, some of the opening sequence). I suppose the biggest fault I find with King Kong relates directly to the director, Peter Jackson. How in the world he thought he could take 60 or so minutes of material and stretch it to fill a 3+ hour movie is beyond me. Sometimes less is more.

4/10

Do You Like Hitchcock? (2005) (TV)

- Ti piace Hitchcock?
I can't help but feel a bit disappointed, 17 August 2006

Maybe I get myself too worked up over a new Argento release because, once again, I'm somewhat disappointed. I wasn't expecting a return to the grand old days of Deep Red or Tenebre. I would have been satisfied with something along the lines of Sleepless. What I got with Do You Like Hitchcock? was something just barely above average. Yeah, I know, it's a TV movie. So what? Mediocre is mediocre. While there are some enjoyable moments in the film and instances where flashes of the old Argento shine through, these aspects of Do You Like Hitchcock? are offset by some equally unenjoyable, uninspired moments in the film.

The concept of a film that pays homage to Hitchcock is an interesting idea. For the most part, Argento and co-scriptwriter Franco Ferrini do an acceptable job of setting up tense and thrilling moments that would have made Hitchcock proud. The first kill scene is classic Argento. You know what's coming, but Argento drags it out and builds the tension until it's almost unbearable. Again, it's a classic Argento moment. Unfortunately, there are places where Do You Like Hitchcock? drags. Despite Argento's best efforts, the scene where the protagonist is trying to make a getaway on his moped in the rain goes on and on far too long. You know the character is in no real danger at this point in the film, yet Argento seems to insist on dragging out this non-suspenseful sequence with no payoff. It's a real low point in the movie.

The film's main Hitchcock inspirations are Rear Window and Strangers on a Train. And while Argento successfully plays the Strangers on a Train plot aspects, the Rear Window bits felt more like Argento paying homage to Brian De Palma paying homage to Hitchcock. The final scenes in Do You Like Hitchcock? have much more in common with De Palma's Body Double than they do Hitchcock's Rear Window.

Argento's films are known for their "look". Bright, vivid colors dominate much of Argento's earlier, more successful work. And there are moments in Do You Like Hitchcock? where you can see the Argento "look". The night scenes feature a variety of colors and interesting angles and are a throwback to Argento's previous films. There is one scene in particular of a red staircase with a purple handrail and unique lighting that could have been from Suspiria. But the daytime scenes are just the opposite. In comparison with the nighttime scenes, those shot in the day are downright pedestrian. They look as if anyone with a camera could have filmed these scenes.

There are a lot of aspects (acting, special effects, score, etc.) that I haven't even touched on, but I'll end this here anyway. Overall, I'm glad to have gotten the chance to see Do You Like Hitchcock? And while I was reasonably entertained throughout, I can't help but feel disappointed. Those hoping for a return to Argento's glory days will most likely feel the same disappointment.

6/10

House of 9 (2005)

This stretches believability to the breaking point., 18 July 2006

The plot to House of 9 is uncomplicated and straightforward. Nine complete strangers are abducted and taken to a house. Their kidnapper wants this varied group to play a game for his amusement. Think of it as a life-or-death game of reality television. The last person alive wins $5 million dollars.

There appears to be a recent trend with this kind of horror/thriller movie that seem to have gotten a big boost form the movie Saw. House of 9 shares some common themes with Saw of being trapped against your will and at the mercy of an unknown, unseen madman, but nowhere near as good or interesting (not that Saw was very good itself). The biggest problem with House of 9 is the utter predictability of the whole situation. For example, how could anyone not spot the game's "winner" five minutes into the movie? Where's the suspense in that?

The acting is another weak aspect of House of 9. While there were one or two decent performances (Morven Christie being the highlight for me), most of the cast seems to be in over their heads. The bad acting extends to the one "name" in the film, Dennis Hopper. His "accent on – accent off" priest is very convincing. I've never been one to kneel before the Dennis Hopper altar and I'm not about to start after having seen House of 9.

I don't mean to imply that it's all bad. There are a few moments and set-pieces throughout the film that I actually enjoyed. But whatever enjoyment I derived from these moments was off-set completely by the twist in the finale of House of 9 and the beyond ridiculous ending. It stretches believability to the breaking point.

4/10

An American Haunting (2005)

A big time disappointment, 14 May 2006

Growing up a couple hours away from Adams, TN, I've been aware of and fascinated by the Bell Witch as long as I can remember. I've heard all the stories and read all the books. So when I first heard about the movie An American Haunting, I knew I had to see it. To say I was disappointed would be a gross understatement.

I'll get the positives out of the way upfront. Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek are tremendously gifted actors. Their abilities shine regardless of the dreck they're given. Watching these two is about the only positive aspect of An American Haunting. It's a shame that these talented actors were presented with material that's so obviously beneath them.

On to the bad. I'll start with the cheap scare tactics employed by Director and Co- Screenwriter Courtney Solomon. If jump scare after jump scare makes for a good horror movie in your mind, An American Haunting is the movie for you. There's no attempt made to frighten the audience in any way other than with these cheap tactics. There's no atmosphere, there's no psychological horror, and there's nothing to get under your skin and disturb you after the movie ends. It's about as unsophisticated a brand of horror as you'll find.

Next, the movie begins by telling us that there is only one known case in history of a ghost killing a person. Unfortunately, however, the movie spends the next 91 minutes debunking this theory. I thought this was a movie about a haunting, not a dysfunctional family. The ending takes the whole legend of the Bell Witch and tosses it out the window. Why change the story? Have modern audiences become so jaded that they demand an explanation that fits their modern sensibilities? As I've already mentioned, the Bell Witch story is an interesting one and the mystery behind it seems to me to be far more entertaining than the explanation to Betsy's torment presented in An American Haunting. It's rubbish!

Finally, as far as creatively goes, An American Haunting is bland and pedestrian. The editing is sloppy, the direction is amateurish, and the cinematography is uninspired. I've seen made-for-television movies that were more exciting and better made from a creative standpoint. It's what I call "cut and paste" film-making.

3/10

Hostel (2005)

"I don't want to drink. I want to look at art!", 19 April 2006

I'll skip to normal intro and jump right into this one. It's been awhile since I was this disappointed in a film. Eli Roth had an opportunity to make a classic with Hostel, but as far as I'm concerned, he failed miserably. Before I get to where Roth went wrong, I'll start with what he got right. The scenes of torture at the factory are as grueling and intense as I've seen. These scenes have an incredibly dark tone and feel to them. Many of these moments are difficult to watch. I was squirming in my seat on more than one occasion. These 30 or so minutes are top notch stuff.

Unfortunately, there's another hour of this movie that is so poorly written with so many moments that I can only describe as dumb that I did not enjoy Hostel as a whole. Let's start with the three main characters traveling around Europe looking for sex. They're about as shallow a group as you'll find. There's nothing presented about any of the three that led me to care in the least whether they lived or died. There was no emotional attachment. It was like watching a sophomoric Spring Break movie set in Europe. And when our hero goes out of his way to describe the young girl he watched die, it was so out of character (as if he had any character) that I just knew Roth was beating me in the head to set me up for something yet to come.

Or take the whole getaway at the end of the movie. Are we supposed to believe that our hero just happens to pick the one car with the keys in the ignition and a bag of gum and candy on the floor? Sorry, I'm not buying it. And how convenient that the three people who were responsible for luring our hero and his friend into the factory should step out in front of his getaway car. Again, Roth might be selling, but I'm not buying. Finally, our hero trades the convenient bag of candy to the gang of pint-size street thugs in exchange for their help in stopping the bad guys. Oh boy! It's one of the dumbest moments I've seen in a movie in a long time. A lot of people will look at a moment like this and see Roth's attempt to inject humor into Hostel. I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Either your movie is a gruesome, gut-wrenching affair or it's a teenybopper film on the same level as Scream. A change from something like the Guinea Pig series to National Lampoon is startling, forced, and poorly handled.

You don't have to look very hard to find other problems with Hostel's script. For example, how does our hero manage to kill several people and drag around a girl missing part of her face without getting a noticeable and suspicious amount of blood on the perfectly fitting suit he so conveniently found? And wasn't it a great coincidence that our hero should happen to wind up on the same train with the "main" killer who so conveniently goes into a deserted bathroom? There are other examples, but you get the idea. It's insulting and, as I've said repeatedly, dumb.

Finally (I say finally because I could ramble on forever), I've got to agree with the critics of Hostel who are upset with Roth's portrayal of the Slovakian people. Yes, bad things can happen anywhere. I'm not saying that Slovakia is exempt from barbarous murder, but Roth would have us believe that most everyone in the town was complicit with what was going on. Apparently we're supposed to believe that a few dollars is all it takes to get a whole town to accept murder as their primary source of income. Wasn't there one decent person in town to speak up about what appears to have been going on for what appears to have been a considerable period of time? And don't you think the travel agents and guidebooks would steer travelers away from this town after the first couple of people went missing? As dumb as this movie is, I wonder how dumb Roth thinks his audience is.

4/10

Wolf Creek (2005)

"Nothing like rain water from the Top-End.", 12 April 2006

If the intent, as some claim, of the makers of Wolf Creek was to do something similar looking or in style to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, for the most part it was a success (and much more successful than the TCM remake from a couple of years ago). Wolf Creek has that same sort of raw, brutal power found in TCM. The violence is quick and decisive. Both are very visceral experiences. The films' structures even mirror each another. Both movies feature a long, slow build to the anticipated mayhem. And both are better off for having taken this approach. The films' moments of horror are more effective because the directors do no play their hands too early. I admire Greg McLean for being so patient in the modern horror world of "all action all the time".

For the most part, the acting in Wolf Creek is exceptional. Cassandra Magrath and, to a lesser extent, Kestie Morassi play "frightened" about as good as anyone I've seen since Marilyn Burns in TCM. I could believe both characters and, as a result, the terror they faced was more effective. And what could I possibly add about John Jarratt that hasn't already been written? His Mick Taylor is one of those horror icons that I won't soon forget. He is all the more frightening because of the way Jarratt and McLean decided to present him. His good-natured, friendly exterior is an effective cover for one of the most sadistic and twisted killers I've seen. It makes for the worst kind of killer – one you feel you can trust.

There were a couple of problems I had with Wolf Creek, however, that kept me from completely enjoying the film. First, the ending. How anticlimactic! I can't believe that the film built and built to this moment. What a letdown! I won't ruin it for anyone – I'll just say that I was completely underwhelmed. Second, I had real problems with Nathan Phillips as Ben. As presented, he's a difficult character to have any good feelings for. He got on my nerves from the moment he first appeared on screen. It's not a good sign when you don't care at all if the male protagonist lives or dies.

Overall, I found Wolf Creek a nice return to the look and style of the films of the past. Even though I had a couple of problems with the film, Wolf Creek is a solid 7/10 in my book and that rating could improve on repeat viewings. It's well done Aussie fun!

7/10

Rings (2005) (V)

This should have been The Ring Two, 21 December 2005

This is the movie that The Ring Two should have been. It's the story of a group of young people playing a dangerous game with the videotape from The Ring. Each takes a turn watching the tape knowing that another member of the group will bail them out before their seven days are over. But no one appears willing to help out Jake when his experiences prove too frightening for the other members of the group. Jake has to find someone quickly, or he'll die.

Although this short is less than 17 minutes long, it's packed with entertainment and more than a few scares. The whole concept of a group of young people essentially playing Russian Roulette with Samara and tempting their fates seems like a natural progression. A fleshed out feature length movie would have been great. More time could have been spent on Jake's experiences and his frantic efforts to find his savior.

Instead, we got the mess that is The Ring Two.

6/10

The Ring Two (2005)

Horrible, 21 December 2005

I usually begin one of these with a short synopsis of the plot, but with The Ring Two, I don't see any point. There's very little new ground covered or explored in this movie. While I found The Ring reasonably entertaining, it's a veritable masterpiece when compared with the sequel. The Ring Two lacks almost everything that made the first film enjoyable. Gone is the suspense and horror created by Samara. This is a problem with a lot of sequels, but in The Ring Two, Samara is presented with little fanfare or any real surprise from any of the characters. She's just there. Gone is the atmosphere. Atmosphere is replaced by cheap CGI effects and cheap jump scares. A CGI Samara is bad enough, but what was the idea behind those crazy CGI deer? Gone is any mystery. The search for Samara's origins was one of my favorite aspects of The Ring. The attempt at mystery here is hardly worth the effort. Most of it is a rehash of what we saw in the first movie.

But the part that bugged me the most was the decision to change the rules. In The Ring, Samara is tied to the videotape. She would appear seven days after the tape was watched to kill the viewer. Ten minutes into The Ring Two, the videotape is all but forgotten. Instead, we are presented with a whole new set of rules for Samara. She can now appear at any time. She can affect dreams. She can physically affect reality in some major ways.

Finally, what was Sissy Spacek doing in this movie? Have things really gotten so bad for actresses of Spacek's caliber that they have been reduced to making cameos in drivel like this?

2/10

Shadows in the Dark: The Val Lewton Legacy (2005) (V)

Fascinating, 18 October 2005

When there's something I enjoy as much as the Val Lewton movies, I simply cannot get enough information. Shadows in the Dark: The Val Lewton Legacy is a fascinating look at the man and his work. The documentary covers everything from Lewton's arrival in America as a child to his early work for David O. Selznick to the nine horror films he made for RKO. The stories and details of Lewton's life and films are presented through a series of interviews with experts on cinema, directors and screenwriters working today, and Lewton's son. The documentary obviously focuses and spends most of its runtime on the RKO period. The film makes it clear that what I've come to know as the "Lewton Look" was as much a budgetary issue as a conscious decision on his part. The only complaint I have is that it wasn't longer.

9/10

The Devil's Rejects (2005)

"What's the matter, kid? Don't ya like clowns?", 23 July 2005

These days, it takes something that I think is going to be really special to get me to go to the theater. From everything I had heard and read, The Devil's Rejects seemed like that kind of movie. Plus, I'm one of those who loved Rob Zombie's first movie, House of 1000 Corpses. So I went in with high expectations. Usually when you do this, you come away disappointed. Not only was The Devil's Rejects everything I had hoped it would be, it far exceeded even my lofty expectations. It's a balls-to-the-wall, butt-kicking, good time.

Everything about the movie was spot on. Zombie put everything in the movie that I wanted. It's gritty, brutal, sadistic, and one helluva fun ride. Sid Haig, Bill Mosely, and Sheri Moon ARE their characters. It was easy for me to forget that I was watching actors. And Sid simply steals every scene in which he appears. It's not to say that Mosely and Moon aren't good, but next to Sid it's tough to compete. The characters have gone through some changes since House of 1000 Corpses. If it's possible, they have a darker edge to them.

I could literally write pages on everything that worked for me in the film. I could discuss the excellent supporting cast or the choice of music or some of the great set pieces or the sick, violent action or Zombie's growth as a director, but I'll just mention one of my favorite moments - the ending. Without giving too much away, the final face-off between our favorite serial killers and the police is one of the coolest moments ever put on film. I was immediately reminded of movies like The Wild Bunch and its nihilistic ending. It's a film moment that I'll never forget.

I, for one, can't wait to see what Rob Zombie does next.

9/10

Madagascar (2005)

Not as good as it could have been, 4 June 2005

The story of a group of animals from a zoo in New York who want to find the Wild. With the help (or possibly in spite of) some penguins, they manage to crash on Madagascar - the Wild. It's not long before their natural instincts start to show themselves. Can a zebra and a lion coexist when one of them is hungry?

Very hit or miss. Had the movie focused on the penguins, it might have been a winner. Instead, the "stars" are Alex the Lion and Marty the Zebra as voiced by Ben Stiller and Chris Rock. Is there a more annoying person on the planet who thinks he's funny than Stiller? I just don't get it. I find him dull and unfunny. Chris Rock is okay, he just seems out of place in this kind of movie.

5/10