Morning Glory - 20th November 2010

... or The Devil Cares Nada. 
The poster for this movie, see left, states that breakfast TV just got interesting, well that, at least, gets one thing right, Breakfast TV has never been interesting but as for it getting interesting in this movie? that doesn't happen either.
As I have said before, sometimes you have to go watch a film because your wife wants to go see it and this was one of those but, considering I liked the actors involved and I can sit through these sort of 'little person with a big dream' movies pretty easily and let it wash over me, I wasn't dreading it too much.
Written by the same writer behind The Devil Wears Prada, which was 'ok' and 27 Dresses, which was unlikable bilge, this is the same sort of cliche'd, obvious, undemanding, bland, repetitive, you saw it all in the trailer, throwaway tosh you've seen 100 times by someone who once owned 'The Idiot's Guide To Screenwriting' and, sadly, followed it to the letter.
Rachel McAdams, who is in every bloody scene, even when you don't want her to be, is the single, hard working but chirpy young woman who gets laid off from her producing job at a local New Jersey TV station because of those evil corporate suits and in one of many particularly uninspiring and limp montages, manages, finally, to get a meeting with another nonchalant, corporate bigwig played by a surprisingly serious, and therefor nowhere near as good or watchable as he should have been, Jeff Goldblum. On her way out of an interview, she thinks she didn't get because The Goldblum turned out to be a condescending bastard with, unusually for Jeff, no sly grim letting him off the hook, she bumps into both her future squeeze, the underused, under developed and pointlessly tedious Patrick Wilson and future nightmare, Harrison 'did I have a stroke?' Ford, in the elevator. Why yes, of course she does, how fortuitous. 
She goes on to get a job trying to revitalise a fatuous morning show on fictional network IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome?) where the talent hate her, namely Diane Keaton's well played but thinly drawn diva presenter, and the staff don't expect her to last a week. She then goes on to hire Harrison Ford's irascible old "serious news" pro, which he over plays to the point of teeth grinding annoyance, after she fires the first male co-anchor who, out of nowhere, is orange, a huge egotist and an internet pervert.
So far so obvious, of course she's going to tame the old codger, get the ratings up to some magical number before they cancel the show, find the right balance between work and home and learn some ridiculous hogwash about how people are what matter and not the job she's wanted since she was a child and oodles of cash.
Ford's character gripes, grumbles and walks about being a smart arse looking like he constantly needs a poo or a heart attack, Keaton's character bitches or occasionally does embarrassing things like dance with a rapper or wear a sumo suit (get Woody on the phone Diane!!!), McAdams flaps her arms about, talks too fast, changes her hair, cries, takes off her clothes and runs through some pigeons in slow motion, Wilson is the underdeveloped and irrelevant 'bit-of-stuff' and Goldblum talks in such a monotone nasal drawl he may well of actually slept through his entire part waking only momentarily to get paid. The laughable and unbelievable thing is the whole film is stolen, from under the various blocked noses of these hollywood royalty, by a bald weatheman character and the farcical and very funny situations McAdams, as the producer, puts him in. Just as I was thinking 'I am not sure I can handle much more of this', the scenes of him being tortured in ever increasingly hilarious ways for the sake of ratings came on and I actually found myself laughing.
The direction is all Hollywood gloss and that's fine but it's an absolute sin the way it darts around various bits of New York with no effort made to hide the fact that it's both geographically incorrect and they are doing it to show off flashy locations. At least most films have the good decency to try and disguise their tourist book version of the city but in this film, for example, I did find myself asking 'sorry, why is this work meeting with boss Jeff Goldblum taking place on the steps of The Met with an unexplained red head when A) there's no reason for it and B) it's later divulged that he's actually sleeping with the dumb girl who presents useless segments on confused mysticism and uses words she doesn't understand on the show?' or 'why is she, again, discussing ratings with ol' Jeff, surely an office based practice too, comically trying to keep up with his jogging round the reservoir in Central Park?' Absolutely none of it makes any sense at all.


The whole sorry mess is an overly-long, by-the-books shambles with 15 endings you see coming from about 20 minutes in, some homespun, obvious philosophy passed off as wisdom, an entirely irrelevant and completely shortchanged romantic subplot, so many montages featuring wishy washy pop music that are so badly put together, you'd rather saw your own ears off and some thoroughly unrealistic nonsense farce jarring with moments of supposed serious emotional stuff. Also, it has no sophistication about it at all, it tries to, for example, in some of the insulting banter that goes back and forth between Ford and Keaton, attempting, I suppose, to conjure up the rapid fire comical jibes of a 1940s Hollywood comedy but then chooses to end, and believe me I am not spoiling anything at all, with McAdams and Ford walking into a, might as well be, cartoon sunset discussing a prostate check! Oh how hilarious, a prostate check gag! how original! They should have gone the whole hog, had a little circle wipe come down, single them out and have a cartoon pig lean out of the screen and stammer "That's all folks" followed by the Benny Hill music, as Patton Oswald would say "whackety schmackety dooo!"
It just never knows what it wants to be and can't decide when to end, which is funny because I can answer both those things, it wants to be The Devil Wears Prada in a TV Station and it should have ended before it began.
The screenwriter is to blame for all of it because most of the actors try, Goldblum aside, the director tries, throwing filters, camera glare, dutch angles and slow motion at it to try and make it interesting but ultimately with such a trite, obvious plot line, that has absolutely no idea where it's going for the first two thirds of the movie, there's not much you can do but wait for the whole sorry thing to be over.
In certain circumstances (see my Soul Men review) I don't mind a cliche'd Hollywood storyline, in fact most times I expect a certain amount of it but, for this screenwriter at least, all they've done is dusted off a former hit, changed the names and the setting and then presented it again. It's so very annoyingly lazy.


The plus points, and there aren't many, actually come in the form of two secondary characters, one the kindly jewish, second-in-command producer who is genuinely likable and two, the aforementioned, put upon weatherman and also, as always, the city of New York. Even if it is the postcard image of this diverse and varied city, as one astute and, no doubt, bored patron muttered behind me during one of the helicopter shots of Manhattan at dusk, 'wow New York is a beautiful looking city'.
That it is, it's just unfortunate it seems to have lately become the back drop to an endless run of uninspiring rom-coms, so terribly awful, that it gives us all a bad name.
Oh well.
3 out of 10 rotten fruit platters
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10

Soul Men - 20th November 2010

Getting up on a Saturday morning and sitting around in your slobby house threads demands a fairly easy going, watchable comedy film that is like waking up to find a friend in the kitchen making breakfast but one that knows well enough to leave before lunch.
Flicking through the OnDemand film channels of my cable box and coming across Soul Men, a film I am sure one of my friends mentioned bizarrely on Farcebook the other day, seemed perfect as I know the basic outline, like the people involved, enjoy the music and I have never seen it before, except, essentially I have.
What I mean is that, pick a buddy comedy film about old grumpy friends with a grudge, a road movie or a movie about the music industry, especially one featuring African American 70s soul and RnB music and you've seen Soul Men. Everything from The Blues Brothers and Planes Trains and Automobiles to Grumpy Old Men have travelled this well worn road before and in one way Soul Men brings nothing new to this tattered freeway, except it does in the casting of Samuel L Jackson and Bernie Mac who are both terrifically watchable in this film. 
It was really an enormous shame that Bernie Mac died so tragically after this movie was made because, sure the gross out sex comedy bits were woefully misjudged, the story about a long lost daughter, who just happens to be a world class singer, re-uniting with her reprobate and absent father never really got the emotional airing it deserved and yes the supporting characters were either bumbling stereotypes or cardboard caricatures but I could watch a buddy comedy film with these two guys in it, no matter how many cliches there were in it (and there were a ton, like the script was manufactured using a computer screenwriting program), once every 3 years and always enjoy them.
It's a weird thing, the first Blues Brothers is the classic film with quotable dialogue and fantastic set pieces but, by now, we've all seen it so much we could recite it in our sleep whereas the sequel, however ill advised, is the guilty pleasure, the no brainer, Saturday morning flick that you can pop to the kitchen during to make toast and not worry about. Well, Soul Men is that film and all things, except remakes of 70s horror films and anything involving Michael Bay or Shia LaBeouf, have their place it seems.
Considering the rest of the writing I can't really believe that all the dialogue the leading pair spewed out at a breathless pace, was actually ever written down. It felt like the general idea was sketched out and then these two pros just had at it and styled it specifically for them, with all the cursing and slang they wanted and the film is so much better for it, especially in the driving scenes.
The music in the film is good, with leads Jackson and Mac singing all their own stuff surprisingly well and performing a few nifty dance moves to boot! None of the songs is quite as catchy as it needs to be to make the soundtrack album worth a purchase but again, like the two actors, it's good enough to elevate the movie just one little step higher out of the bargain bin of comedy death.
So, by no means a classic then but not offensively bad either, more one of those that, if it was on TV, you could enjoyably dip in and out of and laugh along with without ever needing to fully care or invest in anything. 
The viewing was made all the more poignant though by Bernie Mac's passing, as it was obvious he and Jackson had a great time making it and could have made a good screen double act. 
6.5 out of 10 roadside diner hamburgers and cold fries

Dr.No - 14th November 2010

Ahhh Sunday afternoons what are they for, as winter draws in, if not for James Bond films and where better to start but at the beginning.
I had seen Dr.No a couple of times before, growing up, and I always counted it amongst my favourites but I was surprised, watching it again, just how much I had forgotten about. 
In my memory it didn't have as many of the future established cliches of a Bond film and was more like a straight spy caper but, basically, it has almost all the cliches minus Q's gadgets and, I suppose, if you wanted to nit pick, a flashy car.
Still it contains the first and ultimately classic rendition of Bond's famous name-based catchphrase, the legendary vodka martini, the introduction of his Walther PPK, a multitude of girls seduced with ease with at least two having silly names (if you count Moneypenny), ready quips and puns, an exotic location, Felix Leiter (played by none other than Hawaii Five-0's Jack lord) and a megalomaniacal villain with a weird name, mad heritage, crazy scheme and odd clothing. Most of all, what is ultimately coolest about this film is the introduction of James Bond's theme and the way it's used: James Bond crosses the street, the theme tune comes on, he lights cigarette, the music comes on, he kisses someone, he combs his hair, everything he does is accompanied by that awesome twangy guitar and ballsy brass. It is a trait that they sort of forget to do in later films as the fantastic big band melodic tunes of the 60s and 70s gave way to the unadulterated bilge techno pop of the likes of Madonna's Die Another Day.
What we do get in Dr.No is Sean Connery's original hard nosed, no nonsense, shoot first and ask questions later, highly misogynistic Bond. This is made somewhat sickening with hindsight when you watch it with the knowledge that Connery, allegedly, in real life didn't have a problem knocking women about and generally being a bit of an arse head but if you can get past it then it's nice to see a Bond movie with some real teeth, something which would also fade slightly into the distance in later films. By the time Diamonds are Forever comes about, Sean's toupee jostling about on top of his increasingly craggy face, it's difficult to take any of it seriously, so you enjoy it for different reasons.
Dr.No remains one of the top ten Bond films mainly because of Connery's performance, the music, THAT bikini and on it's incredible style alone which, in this modern age of mix and match fashion and architecture, seems positively luxurious, chic and irresistible. The plot, which is not much more than evil mastermind with Caribbean base wants to destroy/embarrass  America, like later Bond films, is fairly throw away and just a nice loose framework on which to hang a series of adventures. 
However, Dr.No does follow the book rather closely, although it tones down the sex and violence considerably, which is almost to its detriment as stuff like the locals believing a jeep with ridiculously painted on teeth and a couple of flame throwers is an actual dragon is almost fine in a book where you can imagine any sort of dragon-like apparatus you like but in a film where you have to build something that can actually traverse the swamp beaches of a Caribbean island it renders Bond's boatman friend Quarrel and Honey Rider as ridiculous, superstitious idiots, also it's a completely unnecessary plot point. Likewise it makes no sense why Dr.No would drug his guests, have them to dinner, then strap one to a drowning ramp in her undies and then confine the other to a cell but without killing either of them. In a world post Austin Powers, unfortunately it is difficult not to see these glaring holes for what they are. 
If you can suspend disbelief sufficiently to get past this stuff then you can just enjoy it for what it is, the start of a franchise which I hope will never die and a fun, exotic, well directed comic-book, spy caper with an awesome soundtrack, some genuinely hard and gripping moments and a promising leading man.
The director, however, needed to learn how to shoot day for night, the long protracted scene of them getting to the island was terribly shot and so obviously not done at night, it was very off putting once I noticed because unless you have the bright lights of a city illuminating the sky, you do not see white clouds at night.
8 out of 10 Vodka Martini's shaken not stirred

Due Date - 8th November 2010

Due Date, or The Hangover meets Planes,Trains and Automobiles is the second funniest move that the director, Todd Phillips, has made. He can be and has been a bit hit and miss but generally I find his sensibility funny. The first is Old School and only because you have more funny characters doing funny things, with Due Date almost the entire film is just these two actors, Zach Galifianakis and Robert Downey Jr. and so it really helps if you, like me, like these two guys as much as possible. 
I was going to say that with Downey Jr's recent reform and rise to superstardom we have sadly lost some of Downey Jr the actor because, unfortunately, with his exposure we have all got used to his rapid fire Downeyisms and wrongly assume he just plays Donwey Jr every time but that is simply not the case. It is true to say that he is not exactly stretching with his recent roles, all of them are clever smart arses with a soft side and a dollop of eccentricity but if you were to watch Iron Man, Sherlock Holmes and Due Date side by side you'd see three very different people on the screen. He really has that rare talent of subtlety where you know they are all Robert Downey Jr but when you think again and look back then whole worlds have been created within subtle character quirks, different in each performance. He is the solid semi-straightman in this film and the butt of Galifianakis' whirl wind of mishap and mayhem but has a temper to the point where you never really side with him. If it was a Larry David type then you'd side with him, you'd think, oh poor man what a terrible day he's having but Downey Jr's character doesn't start to get our sympathies till the second half of the movie where, after a mind bogglingly ludicrous series of events, it makes you stop and wonder how this character is even alive. Thinking about it, his role in the film bares a little similarity with the old John Cleese comedy Clockwise in which a tightly wound, prompt school headmaster trying to get somewhere quickly befalls indignity upon indignity, which I can see the comedy in for a while but soon you just want something to go right for the poor bastard. Luckily because the one liners in Due Date, from Zach Galifiankis' character, are so very clever, quick and funny and generally you are really enjoying his performance that the feeling that enough is enough didn't really start to creep in until the last third.
If your only exposure to Mr.Galifianakis is The Hangover then please YouTube him now or go on Funny or Die and swot up because he is really really funny and not just the next Jack Black/Chris Farley/John Candy knock off, despite the obvious comparisons. Obviously, in this role, he channels a little of John Candy in the fact that despite being a colossal annoyance he appears so happy, naive and wide-eyed that you're initially glad that he's along with the ride, in later scenes there's also something of the creepy, Jim Carrey Cable Guy about him but it's all played for laughs. John Candy's genius though, in Planes Trains and Automobiles and other films, was to play those sorts of well meaning but ultimately painfully irritating characters without ever having to resort to any real gross out humour or anything genuinely dangerous. In Due Date, however, as it's 2010, we have to have stoner jokes, masturbation jokes, death defying car crashes and vomiting, they also manage, through various, continuous misadventures to raise the level of farce in this film to catastrophically unbelievable heights.
It depends on your taste, if more is funnier then you'll love all this stuff but for me it went a little too far and if it had been anyone else in the roles I wouldn't have stuck with it. The two actors are just so good, though and the script, when it's just two guys talking, is terrific that you forgive it the ridiculous, larger than life excesses. It's also true to say though that it is its gross out, over-the-top, heightened reality nature that stops it from becoming a Planes Trains carbon copy. 
To give Zach's character some depth to him they give him a dead Dad that he has a hard time letting go of and the purpose of the trip is to get to LA for the birth of a child so underneath all the crash, bang, wallop and puke there is a real story to be told, an unlikely friendship is made and there is some heart tucked in there without ever being really too schmaltzy.
All in all I did enjoy it, it felt a little long but the scenery is great, the back and forth between the two leads is terrific and funny throughout and although it did detract from the more subtle things that were going on, car chases featuring Zach Galifianakis are generally very amusing.
7 out of 10 tea and doughnuts
Points from The Wife 8 out of 10 coffees and doughnuts

RED - 7th November 2010

A lot of people have been comparing this film, in their reviews, with The Expendables because, apparently, to most people, old people do action equal same movie. Well if I have learnt anything about 'most people' in my life and that is that people don't know anything, 'people' are, more often than not, flat out wrong. Individuals, on the other hand are fine so just thank whatever personal deity, faith or philosophy you subscribe to that you are one of those.
Apart from Bruce Willis nobody in this film is really associated with action. Yes Malkovich was in Con Air, Freeman in Robin Hood, Mirren was in one of the National Treasure movies and Brian Cox was in an X-Men movie but the likes of Stallone and Lundgren these are not.
What this movie is, is a relaxed action comedy with big name stars having a whale of a time running around playing super spies embroiled in an easy to understand plot, directed superbly, with a few good surprises and hardly any disappointments. If you saw the trailer and thought, hmmm that looks like a bit of fun on a cold Saturday afternoon, then you'd be right. It doesn't challenge, amaze or go over any particularly original turf but it doesn't over stay its welcome, doesn't attempt to be too smart arse, wrings plenty of laughs out of its situation, has a couple of pretty good set pieces and includes Dame Helen Mirren in a pristine white evening gown firing off round after round on a huge tripod mounted machine gun and looking right at home. What more could a happy-go-lucky cinema goer want?
The script is good and it rattles on at a pace, hopping all over the picture postcard version of the United States (literally, actually, in the use of nifty title cards) which is precisely what I want from an ensemble action comedy. So it's a, let's get the old gang back for one last fight movie where, at the end of it, you wouldn't mind them getting back together for yet another last fight, if the box office so allows.
The only weak link in all of it is, surprisingly, Bruce Willis. What's happened to him? where did his sense of humour go? It's like it left with his hair. Weirdly, despite being the main action hero guy, the central character and the anchor for the whole film, he doesn't exactly do a ton of action, apart from a pretty impressive hand to hand bit of business in an office which is very cool, his charisma, effort and style seems to be sitting this and many of his other recent films out on the bench and watching his performance makes you wonder if the Willis of Moonlighting, Die Hard and Twelve Monkeys will ever return. I think someone has spent too long getting his own way and if there's an actor on the planet who needs to realise his ideas aren't very good and he should probably shut his trap and get on with the job of being Bruce Willis then it's Bruce Willis. If you want to see what I mean watch Gilliam debate him on the set of Twelve Monkeys in the Hamster Factor. Listen Willis, no one is interested in your pushy attitude and coming on all bald with people, all we want is you shooting people in a vest while tossing out one liners like a stand up at a gun fight.
Also, apart from the inevitable bit when she gets kidnapped and needs saving, the whole sub-plot about Willis and Louise-Parker's burgeoning attraction for each other is utterly irrelevant and unnecessary. I know the studio want her in there so there's some sort of love interest to keep the women happy and also to have her as a naive audience substitute where we are meant to see this crazy world through her eyes and have a character we can latch on to and go through the film with but when are they going to realise that the audience for this film have seen it a hundred times over and don't need someone for Bruce Willis to explain obvious things to, we know Malkovitch is the wacky, damaged ex-spy who has mental conspiracy theories we don't need dialogue of Bruce telling his girlfriend that. We get it.
All that said though, it made me laugh, it made me cheer and the actors, all except Bruce, look like they are enjoying it all immensely. Does exactly what it says on the tin, bring on the sequel.


6.5 out of 10 mashed potatoes and gravy (comfort food for comfort viewing)
Points from the Wife - 7 out of 10 mashed potatoes and gravy

Murder by Decree - 6th November 2010

Based loosely on Jack the Ripper - the Final Solutuion, a book published in the mid-70s that also would act as inspiration behind the graphic novel and subsequent movie From Hell, this big name starring Sherlock Holmes mystery is a bit all over the place in plot and tone but does offer up some odd comedic gems in James Mason's grumbling banter from his flappy cheeked, proper British gent but fairly dim bulb of a Watson and Donald Sutherland's sunken yet bulging eyes and ridiculous, bordering on monstrously ludicrous moustache.
You'd think with names like Christopher Plumber, James Mason, Donald Sutherland and John Gielgud that the studio making this picture would have sprung for a more convincing studio set, for example cobbled streets do not sound like creaky wooden floor boards! Also you'd think that they would've done a few re-writes because none of it really makes a lick of sense as it's going on (even if, as I did, you know the rough conspiracy theory they use as a basis of the mystery) and in the end they have to resort to a big denouement where Holmes tediously goes over the whole thing in the vain hope that the audience leave the cinema happy.
Seeing the name Bob Clark come up as I was watching this I knew it rang a bell and when I looked him up, it made sense as he has dabbled in everything from low-rent horror ("Children shouldn't play with dead things" and Black Christmas) to famous teenage sex comedies (Porkys and Porkys 2) all the way to family friendly nonsense (A Christmas Story and Baby Geniuses) and his films all share that haphazard, slightly cheap and rickety quality about them. Actually when I consider that this film falls between his horror career and his so-called comedic career it makes perfect sense as, despite a serious, sometimes spooky, sometimes gory and dark tone to the proceedings, just occasionally these oddball little scenes and lines crop up that have no place really in a film of this kind but lend the whole thing a sort of surreal and charming quality. For example there is a whole scene with Watson mumbling about a pea on his plate that had me in fits of laughter. 
Check it out here : Sherlock Holmes - Murder By Decree Pea Scene
"Yes but, squashing a fellas pea..." 
Don't you just love YouTube sometimes?
There are a couple of things that really bothered me about the whole thing, firstly the supernatural elements (the black eyes, Sutherland's 'psychic' character) were never explained and in Holmes novels traditionally, even when dealing with supposedly weird and other worldly things, they are always revealed to be a hoax and clever trickery in the end, even if the explanation is a little thin. Secondly, the script, specifically in the characterisation of Holmes, seems to portray him as a bit of cocky smug bastard with a vaguely ernest streak when it comes to nut cases and he never really seems to do any actual detecting. Although it's a cliche I always liked the scenes where Holmes would explain that a man had recently returned from India, owns a ginger pussy cat, likes billiards and had Wheaty Crunch for breakfast all because of the observation of some slightly reddish dirt on the cuff at the bottom of his trousers, if you take that out of the equation and, like this film sadly does, always have Holmes running off from Watson, why make him Sherlock Holmes at all?
So it wasn't as joyous or interesting a viewing as I had remembered the film being in my childhood, where any mention of Mr.Holmes would have me bouncing in a flurry of excitement and From Hell, apart from Heather Graham's unforgivable accent, is a better examination of the conspiracy theory in general but the movie does have its moments. The spooky horse and carriage through the mist scenes are particularly evocatively shot, the humour and stilted acting are fantastic, it was good to see some actual gore used a little and the over-all, boys own adventure nature of it all was fine. Also, Donald Sutherland has never been more ridiculous looking and therefor more perfect.
6 out of 10 plates of blasted peas
Points from The Wife 5 out of 10 plates of blasted squashed peas

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans - 6th November 2010

... or How I Learnt To Stop Worrying and Love Nic Cage.
I have to first point out, no doubt to gasps of 'say it ain't so', that I haven't seen the "original". I don't mind, that puts me in good company, neither did Werner Herzog, apparently. I therefor have no idea what this is in relation to the Harvey Keitel/Abel Ferrara film, whether it's a remake, a re-working, a sequel or just a totally new film with slightly similar subject matter that takes part of the name of the other movie so as not to be labelled as a rip-off. 
This seems to be a reoccurring situation lately where films that bare only a passing resemblance to the first films use the same name or call themselves 'remakes' so they don't get criticised for being rip-offs. 
From everything I have read about the original this is not a straight remake in any sense of the word but I am sure that hasn't stopped people like me on other blogs getting their knickers in a twist about it and rightfully so, where would the world be without the counter argument (a decidedly more peaceful but less 'free' place I am sure, but that's beside the point), however as I have not seen it, this is the last we'll talk of it.
Now down to this laugh riot of a film which is just another stitch in the rich, bizarre tapestry of the utterly ridiculous, gloriously madcap, train-wreck of Nic Cage, who seems to be an industry all of his very own lately, who for the last 5 years has averaged a total of 3 films and 7 wigs a year completely inexplicably and apparently without effort and who seems to bare no relation or comparison to any other actor, although Johnny Depp may one day get there. 
Every 6 months or so he looks in danger of going actually insane, painting himself purple, singing Elvis tunes whilst spinning his utterly random toupee collection on the top of vast, electronic, shiny gold, shrunken-headed statues of himself whilst evading the IRS and seemingly never saying no to any script ever even when the end result would either be totally bonkers or so bad he may as well take a guest spot as a host on Family Feud and remove his testicles live on air in front of some children with a potato peeler!
Yet despite his apparent continuing decent into public looniness he continues to get work and continues to be an unexpected, strange, thoroughly hammy yet fiercely dedicated actor on some personal and unexplained mission to bring the world weird, wonderful and often dreadful films it never knew it needed and he seems to have a tremendous sense of humour about himself, all of which has left him laughing all the way to the bank (but without fully disclosing that fact to the American tax authorities apparently...)

I have decided that enough is enough, Nic Cage is beyond criticism, he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants and it's ok by me. He is obviously having a complete and total ball and while I obviously prefer his Wild at Heart/Leaving Las Vegas/Adaption type work, I love "Con Air" and "The Rock", actually thought "Next" was pretty watchable, time-wasting action nonsense and everything right up until the sickening religious, I have to go home and take a shower now, ending of "Knowing" was pretty good too, even if I did leave the cinema wanting to find the director/writer of that film and disembowel him.

So, if you liked his more indie spirited but just as mental past work, you will love Bad Lieutenant. It's not exactly Cage turned up to 11, that may be too much for the world to handle and it's not quite as strange or alarming as it desperately thinks it is but this film is a thoroughly watchable, hilarious take on the whole dirty cop storyline. I just wouldn't expect to learn anything by the end of it or find any hidden message or philosophy because this is all just style; cold, tasty, Englebert Humperdink singing iguana, crazy and floaty style. If there is advice I can give you going in it is 'Just.Go.With.It' This is a Nic Cage picture not high art don't be fooled into thinking everything has to have a point beyond sheer mind bending comedy. It is a Tex Avery cartoon in the flesh, an episode of Roadrunner with Cage as the ever suffering but constantly trying Wile.E.Coyote, just sit back and enjoy it for sheer entertainments sake, occasionally mutter 'oh hasn't Val Kilmer put on weight' and 'what the f?' and you'll be just fine.

When you talk about director/actor teams you wonder how this hasn't come up before, if you thought Lynch and Cage was obvious then think again because Cage and Herzog are a match made in... well... a basement jelly wrestling session between an alligator and a baboon presided over by WC Fields and Ted Dansen. 

Werner Herzog, the fantastically, side-splittingly bonkers Bavarian who has pulled a boat over a mountain, eaten his own shoe, continued with an interview with Mark Kermode while under gun fire and whose voice I could listen to for an eternity as long as it was spouting oddball stuff like 

"Everyone who makes films has to be an athlete to a certain degree because cinema does not come from abstract academic thinking; it comes from your knees and thighs" 

is a tremendous human being who radiates a sort of zen calm but you get the impression that behind his eyes are a hundred and one midgets riding pigs, dueling with artichokes over who gets to do the washing up of his dreams.

Well it's that sort of man that I want to see working with Nic Cage and if this film could've done with anything it would have been one of his marvelous Herzog voice overs describing in lofty detail the characters descent into addiction and redemption using a series of ever increasingly confusing animal based metaphors. What we get though is a standard police drama that's a bit like a deranged episode of Homicide: Life on the Streets with momentary surreal flights of fancy, set in a post-katrina, bleak New Orleans, with grainy and muted cinematography, fantastically grounded, well played and enjoyable performances all round from the supporting cast and an obvious and knowingly unhinged demonstration of Nic Cage's many and varied famous impressions, from Jimmy Stewart, through Elvis and Godzilla to James Cagney, that all actually sound like a moderately drunk Nic Cage. 

Naysayers could go on about how obvious he is being, how much he seems to want the camera to look at him and be amazed, how this is schtick he's done before and how none of it means anything or makes any sense and in a way they'd be right, they'd be missing the entire point and would be excessively boring but yes there's an element of trying too hard in Cage's floundering about and gurning. However and I am sorry to break the illusion, that is something that could be said of and leveled at every actor working in film and actually, that's what I want from my Nic Cage, just wind up the spinning top, stand back and watch it go.

While I have read others who say that Herzog's occasional slips into the world of the weird, like the view points of various reptiles in the film and the break dancing spirit scene, detracted and jarred with the films narrative I actually thought it could've done with more things like that and at least that would mean, for all you doom merchants, it wouldn't jar so much if it was consistent! I wanted Fear & Loathing in New Orleans with Nic Cage and there are certainly moments where it flirts with that idea and comes close but like I said before, despite being a hoot and a pleasingly nutty ride, it is not nearly as wild and crazy a guy as it thinks it is.

I enjoyed it and would probably watch it again but ultimately and unlike the film of Fear & Loathing, it is a throw away knockabout nonsense piece of film-making with the redeeming feature that it taught me to shut up and just appreciate that Nic Cage and his family of hair pieces is out there dancing wildly against the moon having lost the keys to his giant, castle-shaped house.

7.5 out of 10 Iguana tail soups served with face of donkey and a side order of confusion

Re-Animator - 29th October 2010

This is just one of those films that if you haven't seen it and you call yourself a horror fan then you have to see it, even if you don't like it afterwards or are indifferent to its charms it is one of those you just have to sit through and come out the other side. 
This is because it is so unassuming at first. The poster is funny, the premise is ludicrous and comic, the acting is delightfully over the top like a twisted, gonzo, end-of-the-pier, pantomime, the effects are obvious but so sticky, gross and played for gruesome laughs that it is a joy to behold and at no point is it really, truly scary as much as it is sick and silly.
However, when the film is over and you try to think back over everything you've seen, you realise just how demented, bizarre, perfectly crazy, gory, filthy and excessive it all is.
It is the Frankenstein-like tail of a medical student, Herbert West, with a dream and a stubborn ambition that is a notch below Hitler's, who attempts, at all costs, to get his re-animation serum to work and to blur the lines between life and death. Along the way he literally destroys lives, ropes a naive fellow student in to do his hideous bidding and does cruel and unusual things to a cat, all in the name of his beloved science. He turns the dean of the medical college into a mental zombie and his teacher, the malevolent, perverted, mind-controlling Dr.Hill into a headless tyrant with a psychotic lust for the dean's daughter and designs on stealing and claiming as his own, Herbert West's Re-animating agent. It's all eye-brow raisingly, hand-wringingly and scenery chewingly good fun.
Like I say, though, by the end you have sat through some of the most vividly disgusting yet blackly hilarious footage ever filmed. Along with Evil Dead, Evil Dead 2 and even American Werewolf this is some of the most comic book style, excessive gore out there but because of its sense of humour and odd-ball, almost old fashioned, gothic and dramatic acting it all flies by in no time and despite the lack of any real hero to root for, a sense of repetition to their constantly botched experiments and a few loopy plot holes it's a no-holes barred, laugh-out-loud, ridiculous and splatter-filled romp.


Although they are both technically second tier characters, because of the performances of Jeffrey Combs and David Gale, it is Herbert West and Dr.Hill that steal the show and it is surely no mistake that they show up on the poster. The main characters, if there are any, seem to be the happy couple of Dan Cain and Megan Halsey, played by the excessively brave and daring Barbara Crampton but it is difficult to invest in their story line too much once the mayhem begins and after all do we really think that a slightly dumb, rookie doctor who is schtupping the dean's daughter is going to live happily ever after with his intended bride? and do we ever really care? I know they are meant to be the heart and soul of the piece but really they make so many mistakes and especially the guy, Dan Cain, seems to spend the film continually screwing up and making the wrong decisions, how much sympathy are we really going to feel for him when West is about being so damn watchable and deliciously bonkers?


If watched too regularly the impact of all of this would gradually be diminished I am sure but watching it occasionally it is still graphic, shocking and surprising by today's standards, very funny in places and it gave the world Jeffrey Combs who through his constant genre work has, like Bruce Campbell, earned his seat in the high-court of the B Movie Kingdom.
Despite continuing to spawn lesser sequels (House of Re-Animator is currently being mooted) it never seemed to gather a group of rabid fans like the Evil Dead series and never caught a mainstream or studio's eye like the Freddys and Jasons of this world but this original movie, at least, has enough invention, extreme and entertaining set pieces and a villain you're compelled to like that it can happily stand amongst their ranks proudly like the crazy little cousin burning ants under a magnifying glass with lip-smacking glee at the horror family picnic.
8 out of 10 slices of red devil cake

Wrong Turn - 29th October 2010

Taking into account the plethora of horror remakes, sequels and rip-offs that were kicking around in 2003 (Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Final Destination 2 and Cabin Fever to name but a few), it's not surprising, that for a lot of people, Wrong Turn slipped through the cracks. Along with 28 Days Later and Switchblade Romance (High Tension in the States) it is one of the few fairly original horror films that came out that year. Now it isn't as good as either of those two, which I consider modern classics and it is a good deal sillier in a way as well but it shares a stylistic choice in common with Switchblade, in its grainy, almost documentary style cinematography.
Like the 70s survival horror films, it obviously draws much inspiration from, the premise is simple: a bunch of kids, a deserted road, thick woods, unknown territory and to cap it all off there are some mad folk trying to kill you. The reason, though, I said it was fairly original is unlike the nod nod wink wink stupidity and, by the end, out-right farce of Cabin Fever and the flat out theft and heresy of Texas Chainsaw the remake, Wrong Turn doesn't wear its influences on its sleeve, doesn't attempt to out do them and, thank you lord baby Jesus and all your minions, doesn't have a character knowingly reference them. 
It chooses, instead, to try and invent killers we haven't completely seen before. Sure there is a drop of the original Texas Chainsaw and a smidgen of The Hills Have Eyes (which would also suffer the horrendous remake train of sick that continues to rattle through hollywood spilling bile and effluent all over the place - very sadly, in this case, by the director behind the aforementioned and praised Switchblade Romance) but apart from that, the film does its own thing in an entertaining, satisfyingly gory and tension filled way.
The cast are mostly shockingly bad (although Eliza Dushku does her usual tom-boy savy-single girl act to pleasing effect, if you're someone who finds that stuff pleasing or acceptable), the script is not exactly first rate and for my money you see a bit too much of the, heavily made up and meant to be inbred back woods men in the daylight but the film and plot doesn't take a whole lot of time to get going and get exciting, the effects crew have an obvious pleasure splashing the crimson all over the place, it's solidly directed, has a few decent scares and for reasons known only to, no doubt, a grubby old man producer and the characters themselves, all the women wear fairly small tight tops.
Yes it is ultimately throw away but it's a great 80 or so minutes of exciting, scary, bloody fun with plenty of yell at the screen, no-you-didn't-just-go-and-do-that-did-you? moments.
Put it this way, I would watch this over any other horror remake of the last 15 years except maybe The Crazies because, well I liked that one. The rest can go to hell, at least the makers of Wrong Turn tried.
6 out of 10 Fettuccine Carbonaras
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10 Fettuccine Carbonaras 

Horror Movie Marathon - Day Two - 24th October 2010

Before we start here are -

Things the wife learnt from this weekend's horror movie marathon:

1) the better your apartment is, the more likely you will be killed in it;
2) beware of blonde-haired, blue eyed children;
3) bully's will be punished;
4) doors opening and closing by themselves is never the wind;
5) midget creatures cannot speak, but are amazingly strong;
6) 3am is NOT a good hour for anything.


Right, so here we are on the second day of our marathon of movies and in no way has my excitement dipped at the prospect of watching more horror movies, in fact I am beginning to think this might be a pretty wondrous way to spend every weekend. There is some discussion about what film we should watch first and then the day is underway.
First up is...

a chance for me to eat my words from yesterday evidently.
If you have read my review of Paranormal Activity you know I said that shaky camcorder/found footage horror movies must stop and, for the most part, I would I still greatly stand by that. From Cannibal Holocaust through Blair Witch to Paranormal Activity and it's head scratchingly popular sequel, 99% of them are utterly worthless but like every rule there are the few that brake it; I said that Diary of the Dead, for example, did work for me and I wasn't expecting that it would.
So here is the addendum to the rule:
If the use of camera is strictly integral to the plot, the camera and sound is good, watchable quality, if the film is paced, produced and feels like a real movie and if it is called REC then it's ok.
I have to say, I did not have high hopes going into this film, that's why I voted for it to go first, as it was a found footage/shaky cam horror film from Spain but in the middle of the day, with a group of us in the room, REC surprised, shocked, scared me and far exceeded my expectations. As with some of the other, relatively new, films that I watched this weekend I don't want to spoil too many of the surprises or shocks of this excellent piece of cinema so I will just set up the film for you like this:
The film starts with a local news team of two hanging out in a fire station after dark, doing a piece for their show 'While you were sleeping' which documents what certain people get up to in certain occupations over night. She interviews the chief and then the boys having dinner but suddenly realises that if there isn't a call it's not going to be a very interesting piece, not that she wants anyone to be in danger but filming firemen sleep is not what she had in mind. Luckily they get a call that someone has locked themselves in their flat and so off they go, camera in hand, to catch on film what should be a routine operation. Of course, from the moment they get into the building it is clear, from talks of screams etc. and the huddled mass on onlookers in the foyer, that all may not be as it seems. Before long, quite a bit of hell has broken loose and everyone, including the camera man and his host, are trapped inside by authorities outside.
What is tremendous about this film is that it turns the usual zombie/monster siege idea on it's head because instead of being a film about: we can't go outside there are hordes of zombies out there let's wait it out in here, this film is all about: we can't go outside, we're trapped and there maybe a zombie in here!
From that excellent premise which is well set up, with a good build that doesn't show off all it's tricks straight away but doesn't drag its feet either, the film goes on to include an examination of the nature of human beings reaction to illness, the idea that documentation of such events is important for the future and perpetuates a heightened sense of being trapped and the four walls and darkness closing in around you. The film-maker cleverly reducing the amount of space the protagonists have, making it smaller and a smaller till it becomes unbearably tense and claustrophobic. It even has elements of The Thing as the story unravels, with each of the survivors pointing the finger at the others as the possible starter of this contagious zombifying disease.
Along with 'Let the Right One In' this was one of my favourite films of the weekend, a startling discovery that there are still people out there breathing new, exciting and unexpected life into old ideas while maintaining classic scare techniques, plot points and making the following, not the debunking, of the rules the thing that was ultimately satisfying about both visionary films. Also, unlike a lot of modern horror attempts, especially those with a handheld, first person camera style to them, REC remembers to be bloody scary.
9 out of 10
Points from the Wife 8 out of 10

Less of a horror movie and more of a court room drama, The Exorcism of Emily Rose has no idea what it really wants to be. Is it a modern update of the 'girl gets possessed' story line with all new CGI effects, polished Hollywood sheen and a startling performance by newcomer Jennifer Carpenter? Is it an earnest 'based on a true story' drama about belief and the law starring a couple of serious heavy weights like Linney and Wilkinson? or is it a completely unbelievable slice of old hooey in which the only way to really go with the story is to surrender rationality and believe in god?
I don't know. It felt like all three at different points of the film.
Now, the idea of taking something like The Exorcist and extrapolating what would happen, realistically, if the girl died and the priest was convicted of a crime is a pretty good one, I don't mind suspending disbelief for a good ridiculous court room drama and I love a good creepy possession movie full of bone cracking sound effects and eerie contortions of the body but despite being pretty much all that and an ok paced, well acted film I can't say that The Exorcism of Emily Rose did anything for me.
My main problem with it was the tag-line 'based on a true story'. Now we all know that when we read that what follows is likely to be about as truthful as a politician on a chat show but in this case the disclaimer that this was 'based on a true story' conflicted so violently not just with the ludicrous, Hollywood style plot of the film but the over-the-top visuals and directorial style too that it ultimately ended up spoiling my enjoyment. Then to include a so-called twist and climax that is entirely predicated on whether you believe in god or not and an absolutely laughable moment when an earnest jury member interrupts a previously strict judge that facilitates a Disney ending to the whole thing, only goes to make the entire endeavor completely worthless. This is no more based on a true story than the bible itself.
Like I said before though, if you get rid of that stupid bit about it being a true story, it is a competently put together bit of courtroom hokum with some effective flashback sequences depicting some rather cool possession effects. Just nothing new or interesting here and after REC it really fell flat for me.
5 out of 10
Points from The Wife 4 out of 10

After the other two successes we'd had with original foreign language movies this weekend I had high hopes for Ju-On or 'The Grudge' as we call it. This is a film I'd never seen but I knew that it was apparently so good the Director himself made it a total of 7 times, 8 if you include the computer game. It was also a film that came with the high recommendation of none-other-than Sam Raimi (he even lends a praise filled commentary to the American DVD of the Japanese version) but, for whatever reason, I found the whole thing underwhelming, boring and needlessly confusing.
Many times we stopped the film during its run to check just what the hell was going on and each time it was explained I would think, yes, that's what I thought was going on too, is that really all there is to this film? It keeps playing like there is so much more to it but really, no.
It's just a not-very-scary, mostly downright bland, inconsistent and silly haunted house movie.
Call me weird but I don't find Japanese children painted white particularly frightening, especially when shot against a stunningly, depressingly boring, beige background doing absolutely nothing. There was no use of lighting to speak of, no attempt to build atmosphere or scares using sound design or camera angles and maybe, yes, I am too used to the traditional Western way of doing things in horror movies and yes maybe the subtly of the score or the use of real lighting as opposed to 'scary movie lighting' was a bold, brave, cool Eastern way to approach horror, I don't know. What I do know is, I didn't like it and it wasn't scary. Also the attempt to make the thing remotely interesting by cutting up a tediously simple linear plot into lots of little stories seen from individual characters perspectives, jumping all over the timeline with a lazy disregard for the audience, ended up with the whole thing leaving me with an annoyed, gritted-teethed 'did I miss something?', "that was it?' vibe.
It's a shame because I wanted to like it but the whole thing was a difficult mess of nothingness to wade through.
3 out of 10
Points from The Wife 1 out of 10

So, this weekend we had three foreign language movies that all shared the dubious distinction of being deemed good enough to warrant having been remade for American audiences at some point, a couple of disappointing possession movies, one Canadian melodrama from the 70s and three, what I would call, classic American teen horror movies from the late 70s early 80s, the sort of which I grew up on a steady diet of. The last of these final category of movies and the film that, for the wife and me ended our marathon, was the highly underrated Sleepaway Camp. I am sure that, at first glance, to the common horror movie goer of the 80s this looked like just another poor rip off attempt to cash in on Friday 13th. In reality it plays more like a bizarre, twisted, x-rated version of Meatballs. Firstly it's the dictionary definition of politically incorrect, it covers subjects that make you rub your eyes, shake your head and say 'wow did they just go there and do that?!' and it is gloriously irreverent and strange. To attempt to describe this scattershot, bonkers and pleasingly weird little film would be futile, all I can say is that, if you can find it, watch it because it really does do things that no other film of its style or genre barely bother to go near. When you think of all the horror films of this period, all of them in one way or another pushed the envelope on gore, violence, special effects, death set pieces and nudity but rarely do they go beyond the theme of: there's a bad person, with no morals or much reason coming after me in the dark but Sleepaway Camp is sort of entirely the opposite. The deaths are not exactly the most inventive on film, although they are rendered competently enough, there aren't that many deaths through out the film anyway and the plot itself, people come to camp, there are bullies and sluts and they are punished by a killer that stalks them in the woods, is as rigidly adhered to and formulaic as can be but it's in the dialogue, the characters and the nutty crap they get up to that makes this film stand apart from the likes of Friday the 13th and have its very own little, unique corner of this wild and inventive genre.
To watch this and really 'get it' you have to have a healthy sense of humour, an appreciation for the left field or off-kilter and a love of ridiculous horror or B movies. It is also the perfect film to watch in a group as the reactions of others to the strange and quirky unfolding of the story will be as much of a joy as the film itself. It, therefor, made a perfectly fitting end to a tremendous weekend of movies that, whether they were good or bad, all added up to a fantastic experience that I am, already, dying to repeat this weekend.
7 out of 10
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10

Horror Movie Marathon - Day One - 23rd October 2010

This weekend two friends of ours hosted a horror movie weekend of the following 9 films. I thought I would put them into one blog per day as the experience of viewing these films is so intrinsically linked to this occasion. I also have to say, before I start with the individual films, that I don't think I've ever sat down and watched this many films back to back. With plenty of people about, a gap between each one and a pile of munchies in front of me like Cleopatra's breakfast buffet, it was not as grueling as one might imagine and a fantastic time was had by all. Horror films perfectly lend themselves to a marathon viewing like this because they are very diverse for a genre and unlike comedy films, where you get tired of laughing after about an hour, even if you cease to be scared by the 50th jump in the 5th film, the films themselves are endlessly inventive, creative, intriguing and enjoyable.


Saturday 23rd October:

Ok, so the first film up was American Werewolf in London and, whilst I know John Landis claims it's a straight horror movie, there is way too much silliness in this for it not to be considered a horror/comedy and a great one at that. In parts it's almost like Monty Python made a werewolf picture from the silly policeman, doddery doctor, uptight American embassy man, ridiculous northerners to the highly comical clips of John Landis' recurring in-joke, the porn film 'See You Next Wednesday'.
It is often the way with horror films that they need a sense of humour, a thrilling set piece or two or some pretty riveting characters to survive because after the first viewing you know where all the scares are, something else has got to hold your attention when viewing it for the 10th time (or whatever this is for me) and asides from that, you need something to balance out the often horrific images you are being bombarded with. 
It was the jokes, which, in their way, are very English in their sensibilities, for an American screenwriter and director that I enjoyed the most this time round, that and the terrifically violent climax in Piccadilly Circus. Other aspects in the film, while it is still an undisputed classic of the genre, tend to fall flat now on repeat viewings. The love story, for example, between David and Alex is fairly stilted and unbelievable, despite the radiant walking-adolescent-fantasy Miss Agutter, and, as a friend of mine today pointed out, so is the fact that a doctor, with patients, just jaunts off up north to follow some unsubstantiated claptrap about a vicious beast. The kills, too, while vicious and fun, are, by today's standards, predictable and lack the punch or jump of a really scary set piece. The make up is still impressive though, the soundtrack a joy and in places it's still a visceral and disturbing treat. 
Landis doesn't have the polish here as a director that he has in later works but that all adds to the ramshackle charm of the film and it's nice to feel, as a Brit, that Landis has done his homework a bit and doesn't put too much of a foot wrong presenting England fairly authentically. The only exception to this is the scene where three tramps stand around a burning oil drum, surrounded by junked cars, by the side of the Thames. It does look spectacularly out of place and unlike anything I've ever seen in England.
Small quibbles aside, I love this film and will return to it again and again because it is a simply inventive, funny slice of gory horror with classic lines and classic scenes.
8 out of 10
Points from The Wife 8 out of 10

50,000 Paranormal Activity fans can't be wrong... er actually, it turns out they can be and are.
I have to say that before I started Paranormal Activity I was highly skeptical and now having sat through this turgid bilge it gives me great pleasure to say I was right. 
I am sorry but I just don't understand the hype on this one at all. I put it right up there with "why the hell do people watch Celebrity Idol Island Survivor Apprentice?" 
This hand held camera craze, that was sort of forced on the world with the tragically dismal and downright boring Blair Witch Project, has got to stop. I have only seen it done remotely well once and that was Diary of the Dead and that alone does not justify the handful of tedious crap that was Paranormal Activity. The premise, so you don't have to go out and waste your time, money and energy on this laughable tosh, is that a self important, overly confident, arrogant and annoying  man named Mikah (yes, like that's a name) buys a camcorder to video tape him and his irritatingly voiced, whiny and antagonistic girlfriend doing knitting, beading, strumming an unplugged electric guitar badly, swimming, eating lunch, cleaning their teeth and, oh yes, occasionally getting harassed by a demon or whatever... You've honestly ceased caring by night 3.
The demon in question spends most of the film acting like a grumpy room mate or a prankster fraternity member doing a series of underwhelming and not-very-scary-despite-what-the-poster-says things to the "unsuspecting" couple. Like turning a light on and then off, placing car keys on the floor, pulling their sheet off, waggling the door a bit and breaking a picture frame. When the demon does anything remotely bordering on scary it lasts but a second and then for some reason you are sat watching a 10 minute scene of these two wastes of clothes arguing or sitting at a computer reading a website as your brain screams "what? can some set fire to these people soon before I chew my own foot off in sheer agonising boredom".
I will say, in its meagre defense that there are a couple of legitimately impressive effects in the film, the ouija board catching fire and the woman being dragged out of bed by an unseen force and I can accept that in a darkened theatre, first time around, if you made it through the first 60 minutes of the movie without vomiting out of sheer brain-numbing tedium, that some of the later bits may have been frightening but in this setting, with a group of jokey friends about, if the film isn't good right off the bat then we get restless and the film doesn't stand a chance. 
If you want to blame my dislike of the film on the fact that I was disrupted and it wasn't in the right setting then go ahead but consider this, when other films came on over the course of the day, good films, better films and exciting films, this group just shut up and watched, commenting only to say how eerie or good something was. Paranormal Activity stunk to high heaven, please don't bother watching this or its sequel as it only encourages them. 
When a studio suit stumbled over this film for $3.25 in his local movie flea market, he took it home, marketed the hell out of it and then retreated to a big steel room to count his vast wealth. If you want to buy that hideous grey-faced man another jet then go ahead but unlike American Werewolf and like a lot of crap, handheld, throw away reality TV rubbish, in 5 years or less this film will disappear and become completely irrelevant, we can only hope.
1 out of 10
Points from The Wife 1 out of 10

David Cronenberg has serious mummy issues and attacks psychiatry in this 1970s Canadian melodrama about family separation due to psychosis, alcoholism and physical abuse masquerading as a killer baby/body horror that owes a little to Don't Look Now and Village of the Dammed and features Oliver Reed in a series of roll neck sweaters and furry collared coats whispering creepy things a lot.
David Cronenberg's films are mostly weird and The Brood is no exception but it's not surreal with no reasoning, the whole film is simply a metaphor for the trials and tribulations of life and how everything parents do can mentally and physically effect a child much deeper than they may think. In fact there are so many things going on in this clever and carefully written film that to market it sheerly as a horror movie unfortunately doesn't do it justice, although at the same time it is horrific and disturbing enough to warrant that tag. 
It comes as no surprise to learn that the film was written after a bitter divorce and custody battle between Cronenberg and his ex-wife and it is the Dad in the film that comes off the best as a sad, frantic, nobel man trying to protect his daughter at all costs. The rest of the characters are either strange psychiatric patients, a selfish, overly determined and deluded psychiatrist (the aforementioned Oli Reed) and the completely rage filled, unhinged, totally bonkers ex wife. The true horror and sadness of the film is that, by the end, it is obvious that despite all of her Dad's efforts his little girl will probably grow up with some problems of her own mother just has she did from her mother before her.
Yes the metaphors and analogies in the film are fairly simple, like anger literally bubbling under the surface to explode externally as a rage baby and yes there are the usual faults of the genre like gaping plot holes and questionable character decisions (for example: if a woman was completely mental and had amniotic sacks of fury children growing on her abdomen that burst forth, grew up and lived in a shed owned by a dubious psychologist and then those same a-sexual deformed brats beat the hell out of your daughters back and you had polaroids of this, I am not sure a court would really side with the mother just because she was female) but, when all is said and done, it beats the hell out of something serious and worthy like Kramer Vs. Kramer, features enough ridiculous 70s clothing to make the owner of a Salvation Army shop rub his hands with unbridled glee, contains some tremendously icky make up work in the closing act and is put together, overall, skillfully.
From what I have seen of earlier, horror Cronenberg, I think there is something very unnerving, graphic, sickening and eerie about his work that is unlike anybody else and if anything could turn my stomach, apart from airline food, it would be a Cronenberg movie but that is, of course, his appeal. The Brood, however, was light on the overtly sick visuals of something like The Fly but maintained that grimy, off putting undertone that accompanies a lot of his work. For people looking to become a fan of his work, this film is a good entry point.
7 out of 10 but not sure I'd watch it again
Points from The Wife 7 out of 10

So, this is the Swedish vampire film that was so good and so grasped the critics attention that the American remake was coughed up, packaged and shipped out before you could say 'eh?' and it is precisely because that happened that they almost spoilt my enjoyment of this artistic, beautiful, realistic and strangely touching, snow drenched Swedish horror film.
I had already decided to wait and see the original before I would even touch the remake but while sitting in the cinema waiting for a completely different film, one evening, the trailer for the remake came on and gave away everything. I can only imagine how amazingly cool this film would've been had I known nothing.
Still I tried to put all that rubbish to the back of my mind and promised myself I would commit to this film. Which is really what you have to do because not only is it subtitled, of course, but this being an artistic European movie set in the white and beige world of a Swedish council estate (or 'the projects' for the Americans), full of grubby old, cardigan sporting, men and snotty, little, tracksuit wearing bullying kids it doesn't exactly zip along and instead, chooses to let the story unfold naturally and slowly. It's the sort of thing that would be done in a really good atmospheric American TV show in 45 minutes.
So, go into the film wanting to immerse yourself fully into its seemingly dull but, under the surface, rich and beautiful world. 
The key to the visuals in this film are the subtle and authentic details. You can feel the cold bite of the snow, the chilly, slippery tile of the swimming pool changing rooms, the grimy peeling walls of the concrete flats and smell the stale smokey air and frying food of the local cafe.
I won't go over the story too much here but I will say that it is one of the only horror films I have ever seen where it's not its sense of chaos or crazy fear that makes it so watchable and frightening but rather it's bleak, bare calm. You are not frightened for the victims in this but rather the survival of the vampire herself and that is a genius twist. Also, in the relationship between the bullied boy and the vampire girl, it is not the soppy, romantic, supposedly doomed but annoyingly easy love of a Buffy and Angel or, christ help us, a Twilight movie but rather some genuine emotion, something slightly perverse, something completely understandable, something dangerous yet freeing and altogether more human than any similar relationship committed to film. It perfectly encapsulates the feeling of a first love and even first lust better than any serious or indeed romantic comedy, coming of age film I have ever seen.
The one thing that was so utterly mind blowing and refreshing about this film was that for someone who, obviously, watches lots and lots of films and always has, it showed me incredible special effects, mostly practical and in-camera, that I had never seen before. Everything about this film from the performances, to the realism of the setting and the effects worked absolutely perfectly. 
I really don't want to pick it apart too much or go on about anything to the point where it might spoil it, as it should be experienced as fresh as possible and so I will keep this short, just please rent or go see this version, I haven't seen the remake and I am not sure if I will but this original deserves to be seen, marveled at and appreciated before they take a finally grilled slice of tender steak and turn it into a tasty but essentially hollow Big Mac burger.
10 out of 10 
Points from The Wife 8 out of 10

To round out the first day of films in which we'd laughed with American Werewolf, laughed AT Paranormal Activity, got serious with the Brood and marveled at Let the Right One In, people coming and going all the time and a truck load of foodstuffs consumed, we decided to go a little left field with the late 70s utterly bonkers, independent and very cult classic Phantasm.
Directed by Don Coscarelli, it is a creepy but confused film which is packed full of ideas, has a killer soundtrack, some tremendous visuals but lacks much of a point beyond hooded dwarfs and tall, baggy and pale faced men with ludicrous hair are weird and scary.
The plot is some mental, fun, nonsense about aliens running a mortuary who are turning corpses into little robe wearing midgets. Some who are shipped back in tubes to another world, via a cosmic tuning fork, to be enslaved and others who roam about growling like banshees and generally causing mischief. Along the way we also find out that Angus Scrimm's delightfully loopy and bizarre looking Tall Man can shape shift into a heavily made up trollop, who lures young men into the graveyard for hanky panky before stabbing them and that his body parts, once severed, ooze mustard and turn into little animatronic flying bugs with glowing red eyes that can't be killed by garbage disposal units. Also in their weapon arsenal the fiendish inter-dimensional, weirdly body-proportioned alien crew have little shiny spheres that whizz about the mortuary at will and occasionally embed themselves into peoples faces and a little drill empties them of their skull blood.
All that stand in their way are a girly haired but fiercely determined teenage boy, his wayward, wannabe rock star, older brother and their friend, Reggie the hipster ice cream man and mean acoustic blues guitar player. Throw in an odd and fairly pointless scene with an old gypsy woman and her daughter (who translates) who the boy goes to sometimes for guidance and you pretty much have one of the most enjoyably nutso films that would pave the way for more crazy 80s neon horror fare like the Nightmare series and Hellraiser.
What was I saying at the beginning of the blog about the horror genre being one of the most inventive? because Phantasm proves that and then some. Yes it's all over the place, yes it doesn't make a lick of sense but all the cast seem to be game and for a low budget production the film looks great and, as I have said before, the soundtrack is brilliant and could easily stand shoulder to shoulder with a John Carpenter or George A Romero score.
All in all this is still one of my favourites, for lots of reasons and it was fun to revisit it this weekend.
8 out of 10
Points from The Misses 6 out of 10


Yes, Phantasm was a perfect way to end our day of horror movies which varied from some old classics, to a new dud and featured one genuine stand out film in Let the Right One In.
We watched four more films on Sunday which I will review in the next blog and then next week, my appetite well and truly whetted, I will no doubt continue in the horror vain all the way up to Halloween next Sunday.

Piranha - 21st October 2010

Joe Dante's semi-Jaws rip off for Roger Corman's legendary low rent but high fun studio is not unlike the fish equivalent of Kingdom of the Spiders and for those who have read my review of that below I won't repeat the point too much but basically this is a film that when the fish turn up and start attacking people it frolics on at a mean old pace and is several large industrial drums worth of pure fun with great, obviously cheap but perfectly acceptable effects and solid set pieces. 

It suffers, like Kingdom of the Spiders, with a bit of a slow and, at times, silly build up but its ace up its sleeve is its sense of humour. Joe Dante (Gremlins, The Burbs, Innerspace) is a film maker with a knowledge of cinema past and a great, cheeky and sometimes black sense of humour. It is this willingness to go a bit ridiculous and have fun with the cliches of the monster picture genre that saves Piranha from becoming a) just another rip off and b) a bad B movie.

It is helped in this endeavour by the glorious over acting of its cast. From Invasion of the Body Snatcher's extraordinarily hammy Kevin McCarthy to comedy camp leader Paul Bartel but the extra special mention has to go to the outrageously bat shit crazy and almost demonic eye rolling performance of Barbara Steele who steals the show "ahem! pardon the pun" by being an actress who seems to use the "I'm acting in another movie, altogether more gothic and mysterious, all by myself" method of screen performing. It's like watching a local amateur dramatics player from your aunts tea-party production of the life and times of Edgar Allen Poe wander aimlessly onto the set of a fun little monster movie and far from destroying it, actually giving you something to guffaw over till your trousers burst. Sheer, unbridled genius. 
This comes as no surprise when you IMDB her back catalogue. Barbara Steele is the gothic scream queen to rival all others.


The film plays out much as you would suspect from the title and the poster and is filled with lots of highly gory and unnerving effects in a series of more and more gruesome set pieces. The finale, where the main character appears to hold his breath for over three minutes and continues to carry out his objective despite lacking oxygen and being nibbled to death by hungry fish defies all realms of logic but that's a small price to pay for a film where the whole thing is filmed nicely, edited well and a simply joyous viewing for all the right reasons.
The only other thing I'd like to mention about it is the wonderfully old fashioned stop motion animation creature in the science lab near the beginning of the movie is a fantastic touch, never repeated or explained in the film but obviously and desperately needs its own spinoff!


7.5 out of 10 fish finger sandwiches
Points from the Misses 7 out of 10 fish finger sandwiches

Kingdom of the Spiders - 17th October 2010

William Shatner stars in B Movie about rampant tarantulas taking over a small town with their increased, doubly powerful venom. That's about all you need to know about this wonderfully kitsch, 70s classic. If you don't like the sound of that then, firstly have yourself checked for the existence of a soul and if that doesn't work, avoid this fun film at all costs and leave it for the rest of us who crave little oddities like this.
When the Misses mentioned having grown up seeing this film before I couldn't believe I'd never heard of it, a horror/monster B Movie staring William Shatner as a cowboy womanising veterinarian? This was going to be right up my street, I hoped.
As any fan of B Movies knows, it is a tricky tightrope we walk between the ideas for these films sounding wondrous and the execution being about as entertaining or polished as a folding chairs display on the home shopping network from 1985. I did fear, during the first 10 minutes of Kingdom of the Spiders that despite the splendid presence of The Shatner that this was going to be a dud, that without the requisite childish nostalgia, this was going to be a turkey. That's because B Movies do scripting and character development just a slight notch above porn films and often you have to fidget and cough through 40 minutes of tedium whilst the second assistant director's cousin flashes her acting chops and sets wobble before finally you get a glimpse at a bad rubber beastie, with obviously fake gnashers trying to chase a puppy or something. 
Luckily, with Kingdom, this was not the case because despite a pretty poor opening with a lot of unnecessary waffling (we don't need to know what the local inn keeper charges for cabins!), clips of Shatner trying to flirt in cowboy duds and a dull, sandy Arizona back drop, once the tarantulas show up properly and really get going the film just throws more and more creepy crawlers at the screen until literally the screen is covered in spiders. Job, as they say, done.
The film makers boast that they had 5,000 real live orange kneed tarantulas for this film (at $10 a spider, apparently) and the cast must have had nerves of steel coated in lead and glazed in gold the way these hairy critters are dropped with gay abandon all over them, even Shatner gets a ton dumped on his head and back towards the end. Thank goodness CGI had not been invented then because the real thing, mixed with the odd animatronic model in the distance, or in stunt shots, is so much more effective. This film also contains a couple of real stand out moments like the scene where, in slight homage to The Birds, a swing set goes from being devoid of spiders to slowly covered in them, trapping a terrified little girl in the process, a scene in which the sheriff drives through a small town gone mental as people frothing, swelling and dying from toxic spider bites throw themselves at the car and out of shops like deranged zombies, a crop dusting plane crashing into a barn as the pilot is over run with spiders and so on and so on for scene after scene. For a low budget B picture, it has some marvelous, uncomplicated but wholly effective set pieces.
The film even managed to whip in an anti-pesticide/environmental message that was a decade ahead of its time! 


For once one of these films had obvious ambitions and achieved them without the thing looking too hokey. The real shame these days, with CGI getting cheaper and cheaper, is that independent low budget movies have turned to using ridiculously bad CG effects that look completely awful rather than having to find inventive, simple, old fashioned and effective techniques to achieve their objective. I think that's why Kingdom of the Spiders was so refreshing and fun for me because it seemed to achieve everything it set out to do, some of it very big and exciting and you never felt it was made out of the back of a caravan for a handful of crisps and a can of soda (which no doubt Shatner kept all to himself).


Yes the script was absolutely awful and no there weren't enough Shatner as a hero moments but as spider movies go I think I'll make it my top one. Stick with it and this movie has a lot to love about it. Just look at the poster, it's pure genius!


7 out of 10 sushi spider rolls
Points from The Misses 7 out of 10 sushi spider rolls

Bubba Ho-Tep - 10th October 2010

I just finish The 'Burbs blog bemoaning the fact that they don't make interesting inventive films with a sense of humour any more and then I realise that on the Sunday after I watched The 'Burbs, I watched Bubba Ho-Tep. That puts a whole spanner in the works of my theory about recent cinema.
Bubba Ho-Tep is maybe one of the weirdest and most outrageous plots ever committed to film: An old man who is coming out of a coma caused by a shattered hip, in an East Texas rest home, with cancer of the penis claims to be the actual Elvis Presley, he meets and befriends a wheelchair bound African American guy who claims to be JFK, dyed black and with a bag of sand for a brain and together they fight a 2000 year old Mummy in a cowboy outfit. Add to the fact that Elvis is played by, none other than, B-Movie genius Bruce Campbell and Jack Kennedy by the legendary Ossie Davis and if that synopsis doesn't make you want to either rush out and buy the film right away or get it out and watch it for the 100th time then there is something medically wrong with you.
The miracle with Bubba Ho-Tep is just how Don Coscarelli, the director, Joe R Lansdale, the original story writer and the cast manage to ring every ounce of emotion, sentiment, message and pathos from this, admittedly, ludicrous sounding premise. If you want a genuinely affecting buddy movie, then it's here, if you want a statement on how we treat old people in our society, then it's here and if you want comments on life, death, fame, the meaning of being a hero and the nature of nobility then it's all here but without, in any way being preachy or taking itself too seriously. Now, for cinema, that may just be the greatest trick anyone ever pulled.


In fact, Bubba Ho-Tep, for all it's wild sounding notions, is a lesson in stripped down, simplistic, narrative driven storytelling. That's not to say that Coscarelli's style is simple, far from it, but the film just plays out slowly, sweetly and without any fuss. He makes it look entirely effortless, keeps your attention and the result is a mature, funny, engaging and strangely touching movie about two fallen icons being given one last chance.
At the same time as seemingly being a softer paced, dialogue driven character piece it also has moments of sublime, surreal humour, knock about slapstick, explosions and action which  never feel out of place or over-the-top. It's also one of the funniest movies of the last 10 years. Also, I defy anyone, not to get a single solitary man tear by the end of the film. It gets really sad in places.


In his performance, Bruce Campbell, not only proves himself to be an actor that is far more versatile than he is usually given credit for (lets see De Niro pull of an elderly Elvis with a growth on his penis and maintain such a high level of dignity) and mirrors the film, in that he is subtle, restrained, simple and 100% effective. Thirty minutes into the film you are not watching Bruce, you are watching Elvis, such is the immersive quality of Campbell's acting, ability to work with make-up, take on anything the role demands and lack of star ego. If the Oscar's were given out honestly then he really should've won because I can't think of a better more believable performance given by an actor in the last decade, let alone just in 2002. For all the people who think Bruce Campbell just plays his 'Ash' persona in everything, the swaggering loud mouth, prat-falling idiot, then they are not only mistaken, missing the true underlying subtlety in a lot of his work but have to flat-out change their opinion after watching Bubba Ho-Tep, such is the honest genius of his portrayal. If only there were more roles like this for him to sink his teeth into. It's a real shame that they couldn't agree on part two, oh well.
Ossie Davis, also, is perfectly cast as Jack Kennedy and at no point, once the friendship is fully established, do you ever not believe him. It is a really tricky role to pull off and it requires a certain stature and grace to portray it as believably as possible and Ossie has all that as well as the authority of screen presence, sense of history and sheer brilliant acting ability. He also mixes in a little sense of the absurd and is obviously having tons of fun with the role.
The supporting actors too, are all perfectly cast and provide a solid, amusing ensemble to back up the two leads but this is definitely the Ossie and Bruce show.


The other joy of this film is that the effects are, almost all, practical, gloriously low tech and work perfectly. The work that Coscarelli and his crew do with lighting, for example, is tremendous and completely suitable as it harks perfectly back to the mummy picture of the 30s. 
KNB's make-up is superb and, like always, subtly compliments the film without ever becoming showy or threatening to take over the piece. They also came up with a new, dramatic, skeletal depiction of the mummy and a faultless aging effect for Bruce. 
Finally, finishing the film off in a truly inspired and, in places, transcendent way is Brian Tyler's score which can not be praised enough. It was a tall order to make a film about Elvis without using any of his music (it would be too expensive) and the only way to overcome that and not disappoint the audience or even let them notice was to have a fantastic score/soundtrack and that's what Tyler gives us. It is haunting and poignant when it needs to be, light, loose and inspiring in the right places, dramatic, catchy and compliments the style of the film perfectly.


The best thing about all of it is that the film was completely independently financed and filmed, then when it was released it was taken around the country, state by state, using the internet and Bruce's fans to get the word out by forming street teams of promoters and all that effort paid off as it wound up being successful enough to get a distribution deal in Europe and receive an MGM released, no less, deluxe DVD. It really was the little movie that could, proving, once again, that what an intelligent audience seems to want is original, interesting movies.
Yes, as I have said before, it's a shame this sort of film doesn't get made more often but the fact that one seems to squeeze out every few years is, to paraphrase Hunter S Thompson, a sign that someone, somewhere is tending to the light at the end of the tunnel.


10 out of 10 tins of old fashioned chocolates
Points from The Misses 9 out of 10 tins of old fashioned chocolates
  

The 'Burbs - 9th October 2010

This is, as far as I am concerned, one of the best films you've probably never heard of. That is, of course, unless you are one of the select view of 80s babies who can remember watching this once when they were young, falling for it's tremendous charm and then watching it frequently with their close and like minded friends after that. I was luckily one of those.
It is one of those films that when you find someone else who loves it, then you have a friend for life. They, not just studios but also everyone involved with the flick, just don't make them like this anymore and that is an absolute crushing shame but also makes this era, on which I have waxed rhapsodic before, a unique and special one in the history of quirky and cult cinema.
There was a time when Tom Hanks hadn't saved Private Ryan, hadn't got aids in Pennsylvania and where, if he'd worn a straight, mullet haired wig in a film it would've been a sublime moment of comic genius and not a colossal, laughable mistake of the costume department. There was a time when Tom Hanks seemingly only picked films if they were a little odd, a little curious and comically inclined. These include the highly underrated Volunteers, Dragnet and of course, his crowning achievement in cinema, The 'Burbs. Tom Hanks was, for one brief shining moment, the finest comic actor of his generation. We, those of us who love his old stuff and are often bemused by his new stuff, miss that Tom Hanks but maybe the reason he doesn't do stuff like that anymore is that stuff like that just isn't written anymore. 
I have said many times on this blog about how, when I see a modern film in the cinema, I am often left feeling cold by the lack of recognisable or relatable characters in films these days and that the writing just isn't as good. Well there is no shortage of well played, well written, inventive, side-splittingly hilarious, nuanced and crazy characters in The 'Burbs that the, never bettered, ensemble cast mine for every last dollop of genius in their fantastic performances.

It is directed by Joe "Gremlins" Dante and is, without a doubt, his best film. His second best, as far as I'm concerned is Gremlins 2 which features a funnier and superior script to the first. He is a clever and mischievous director, throwing all sorts of lunacy up on the screen whilst never letting sight of the overall picture. He'd be hard pressed to loose his way considering the wonderfully tight and clever script.
Dante packs the screen with numerous nods to horror and thriller titles of the past like the name of the movie, a clever play on words of Alfred Hitchcock's 'The Birds', the look of the house which is reminiscent of the Bates Motel from Psycho, the lightening effects and purposefully shoddy wind effects which recall scenes from the Universal monster movies like Frankenstein and the score, surely one of the greatest ever composed and actually one of the films characters, which is one minute part Addams family part jolly sitcom and the next minute a spritely but sinister pipe organ as if played in some old black and white castle by a caped hunchback. Dante also has a lighter touch and is a superb director of cartoonish slapstick. This film features some truly hilarious and heroic pratfalls and set pieces, often featuring the, sadly now unappreciated and woefully underused, Rick Ducommun. As this was the blissful, happy days, prior to CGI, the effects in this film are all practical and gloriously old school. The same goes for the elaborate street set, which, perfectly in keeping with the throwback elements of this simple tale about the neighbours from hell, is both obviously a studio backlot and at the same time realistic and authentic enough that you can see yourself living there. 

Back to the script for a moment. It is, when you really think about it, one of the most perfect scripts out there. It takes place in one setting, has the neat, tight and well thought out plotting and dialogue of a play and its genius lies in all the little subtle comic asides and mumbles that would easily be missed on a first viewing. An example of this is, if you don't remember that Tom Hanks' character, Ray, writes on his note to Walter 'I have your dog' then you don't get the joke at the end of the film where the police detective, when listing off Ray's charges, says that the 'old man claims you kidnapped his dog!'. What other modern comedy would trust the audience to be on-the-ball enough and wait 45 minutes to pay off a joke? That is obviously one of the definitely scripted ones but there are so many character moments and comments in this film that seem naturally improvised but may well also be just more genius scripting. Also, it is one of the most quotable American films happily standing shoulder to shoulder with the likes of The Big Lebowski or Groundhog Day. Looking at his other credits, which are just terrible, it is hard to believe that Dana Olsen, the writer, came up with this but maybe this was his one good story and he just wrote the hell out of it or maybe it was saved by the extremely talented cast and crew. Unfortunately, seeing as this was prior to the days of 'making ofs' and commentaries we may never know.

Lastly, the cast, as you've probably gathered by now, I think, is tremendous. Bruce Dern, as the vietnam vet with the trophy wife but a further lust for excitement, relishes every ridiculous line and presents an eccentric but well intentioned lunatic who despite claims of being able to 'snap you neck in a heartbeat' also plays the character like a scolded child when Carrie Fisher as Mrs.Peterson stops them from seeing Ray (Tom Hanks). 
Rick Ducommun, as the, probably, normally henpecked and portly Art Weingartner who, with his wife away, is gung ho to try any ludicrous scheme to uncover a mystery on his own doorstep, is fantastic and practically steals the show. It is a crime of modern cinema that, despite a bit part in Groundhog Day, we were denied more of his terrific comedy creations.
The three actors who play the suspicious, malevolent Klopeks (what is that? slavic?) are absolutely pitch perfect from the blank eyed naivety of Courtney Gains as Hans (a good Christian name!), through the creepy clipped stillness of the marvelously loopy Henry Gibson, to the bizarre aggression of the oddly named Brother Theodore as Reuben (bout a 9 on the tension scale there Rube!). If you ever want to be amazed by the weird paths people take to wind up in films then just look up Brother Theodore on Wikipedia, the man sure lived some life!
The only weak-link in the film, cast wise, would be Corey Feldman and not because  his performance isn't good and enthusiastic, it is but because it does, unfortunately date the film and he's the only thing that does. His hair, wardrobe and Bill and Ted way of talking unfortunately does stick the film slap bang in a time zone at the end of the 80s.
I was having a discussion with a colleague of mine about The 'Burbs before I finished this review and was surprised that he didn't like it or seemingly had written it off as just another bad 80s comedy. That is of course fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion but in the course of our talk about the film, me defending it at all costs of course, I came to realise, again, what it is that I love about it is what I really miss from modern cinema. Modern cinema, even with its comedies, takes itself way too seriously and there isn't that quirky sense of adventure and the feeling that anything is possible. It's easy to write off films like The 'Burbs but, as I said in the beginning,it would never be green-lit now and if it was they would cast intentionally "funny" people rather than just the best actors for the job. Everything now is in such an obvious, easy to categorise (or should that be 'market') box, even low budget, independent films seem hopelessly similar and formulaic, the only film I can think of, in recent memory that has such an imagination is Dr. Parnassus, the last Terry Gilliam effort. 
So getting a film like The 'Burbs down from the shelf, not only fills me with personal nostalgia (as I said, it was a frequent favourite with me and my friends growing up) but a nostalgia for days when films like Man With Two brains, Labyrinth and yes, what the hell, even Howard the Duck presented an unashamedly different, exciting, experimental, odd and off-beat type of film-making and a time when people didn't take everything so seriously.
10 out of 10 Roast beef hero sandwiches with au jus
Points from The Misses 8 out of 10 Roast beef hero sandwiches with au jus

Final Destination - 8th October 2010

The Misses and I have recently been on a binge of buying horror/thriller movies in readiness for a mad scare session leading up to and following on from Halloween, my favourite time of year.

One of the box-sets we picked up cheaply was the first 3 Final Destination films, which is about all there ever should've been. These are fun, frivolous, stupid-teens-get-maimed-in-hideous-ways movies and as the Misses hadn't seen them and I was game, it seemed like a sensible purchase.

We sat down to watch the first one on Friday night and it was a good revisit, for me, of this old, kind of hokey and a bit tame horror/thriller. Meaning that ultimately I enjoyed it but really it's not up to much.

It starts well, very well in fact, and sets up the group that escapes death nicely. It doesn't hurry it along at all and, unlike other teen fare, it allows you a chance to get to know the group a little and care for them a bit but only, really a bit. There are also nice little bits about folks being freaked by the boy with the premonition, the teacher falling apart through the guilt of telling the other teacher to  get back on the plane and the two cliche slightly comical FBI guys chasing the main guy who keeps showing up at murder sites. 

All that said, however and once it has been established that the group are going to start dying anyway, it sort of abandons any pretense at movie logic and slowly, in my opinion, starts to slide downhill. The cameo from, Candyman himself, Tony Todd illustrates this nicely. Despite Tony Todd being phenomenally cool in the scene, you watch it first thinking 'oh wow it's Candyman' and then wonder how he knows their names, how he knows all the mumbo jumbo about death's design, why he doesn't care that they've broken in to his mortuary and what is he doing, that late at night, working on the body in a dingy basement anyhow? Ok so really he is just a clunky exposition device and what am I doing looking for even a scrap of logic in a film this obviously stupid but enjoyable?

The rest of the cast gamely fumble with their bland, unoriginal parts and the only one who sort of stands out at all is the best friend who sadly is the first one to bite the dust. I was also left wandering how Ali Larter ever got any sort of career from this overwhelmingly underwhelming and sloppy performance, it is clearly the work of some pact made with a demon somewhere.

It's directed ok and the elongated, death-could-come-in-many-forms, set pieces are fun to watch but sadly in some cases the cheap-looking use of green screen heralds an imminent death way before it happens.

Despite the Final Destinations certainly having some promise and being a good, brain numbing, Friday night viewing, I may now, as I am older, be looking for more from my horror movies but back when they first came out I used to like their ridiculous death scenes and the laughable audacity of the incredibly weak plotting. 

Still, even though, the movies really have nowhere to go plot wise, no epic back story to mine and a faceless and uninteresting killer in death itself, they continued to churn them out for the next decade with such ingenious plot twists as in the second one - oh this time the plan goes backwards, ooooh that cheeky and tricksy death! 

I guess others, like me, must still be watching and when I next have free time that needs to be plugged up with silly, gory fun, I shall watch part 2 because, well, why not?

6.5 out of 10 average chicken wings

Points from The Misses 6 out of 10 average chicken wings

Easy A - 2nd October 2010

The best way to describe Emma Stone is that she is like someone took the successful comediennes and actresses from the last 40 years of movies, fed them into some vast, clunky, steam belting machine in the basement of some giant Hollywood studio and out she popped. What's more miraculous is that it worked out just great. 

She is able to be hip, cool and desirable whilst being kooky, awkward and physically funny like a young Diane Keaton, she is able to pull off intelligent and witty dialogue or be hard and sarcastic like a Candice Bergen, she can do happy abandon, charm, laughter and has great emotional chops like a Julia Roberts and even has the husky, smokes 3 packs a day, voice of Demi Moore. In Zombieland she showed she might even make a half-decent action chick like Sigourney Weaver and if, in the future, she shows the ability to improvise like she must've had to do on the set of Superbad then there might even be a streak of Jane Lynch in there also. 

That's not to say that she is fully matured into anything like these people yet and she still hasn't found a movie vehicle that would show all of these talents off properly but there is great potential there, I think.

It is certainly a good sign that after a while of playing second or third fiddle, that she has finally been given a leading role in something, it's just a shame that, in terms of story-line at least, Easy A feels like a bit of a step back. Basically, like the film all but admits, it attempts to be a John Hughes tinged, 80s alike high school comedy. Which is what it should've been without heralding its homages or references like a fog horn strapped to fire siren. 

If the people watching it don't understand the bit where the male romantic interest stands on top of a lawn mower, holding speakers above his head which are blaring Simple Minds hit "Don't you forget about me" then they've either been under a rock for the last 30 years or they are too young to care.

However, despite the annoying habit of the script to go "oh look I made a Ferris Bueller reference" it is actually fairly funny, smart in places and well directed. 

Apart from Emma Stone, who wanders through the movie hitting all the right notes but also hinting at being a little bit above it all at this point, the rest of the high school kids are fairly anonymous and seem to be divided into religious right-leaning, loony hypocrites or tartish gossip-mongers who are really judgmental prudes. I am not sure how realistic any of this is and neither do I particularly care, I don't have to go back to high school and deal with these annoying brats. The point is, unlike a John Hughes or a Cameron Crowe movie, it doesn't feel realistic in the slightest and while an 80s high school film by either of the two aforementioned directors may have no more real substance to it than Easy A, they always felt like a very realistic slice of American teen life because of the diversity and recognisability of the characters. 

I am too old, of course, to make any judgements on any of this.

The only other characters in the kids camp that we get brief glimpses at are the sorry sad sacks who pay Miss Stone's character, with crappy store vouchers, to say that they had some form of sexual relation with her. This apparently increases their popularity but slowly corrodes hers, again, I am not sure if that makes any actual sense. These kids in question are the typical cliche list of movie losers, a gay, a fatty, a spotty, an indian and so on. If we spent any more screen time with any of them it might not seem so, well, old fashioned and cringy. 

Also, in the light of the recent furor over the bullying of gays in school to the point of suicide, in some cases, that has just hit the states, I am surprised there haven't been more comments about the character in this film who pleads that because he's routinely bullied for being gay, the best thing for him to do is pretend to be a sexually active hetrosexual. Despite the highly depressing underlying truth to that, is that a message to put out there?

Ok, so I got a little serious there for a moment and I apologise. 

To the adult characters now and it seems, from the supporting cast, like the studio panicked, weren't sure if Emma Stone could pull this off all by herself (she could probably do it in her sleep actually), and so surrounded her with every sort of quirky B list character actor doing their clever b list quirky thing. We get Stanley 'I am secretly in every movie made in the last 6 years' Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as the wisecracking, carefree, sexually open, liberal parents, Thomas Haden Church and Lisa Kudrow as the requisite understanding, yet flawed, dead pan teachers in a failing marriage, Fred 'what am I doing here' Armisen (from SNL) as a rubbish priest and bizarrely, rounding it all out, Malcolm Mcdowell, in a 'what were they thinking?' cameo as a stern, weird headmaster.

Out of this odd bunch of misfits, it is, of course, Tucci that comes off best, reprising the role of 'Hey I am laid back comedy man' Stanley Tucci that he has played in 9 of his last 10 films. Someone please get him and Oliver Platt back together for another film like The Impostors before they become repetitive caricatures of their former selves (too late!?!)

Overall then it's a bit of a mess. The morals are all over the place, the reactions of people, to the lies she's telling, are strange and over-the-top, the fact that there'd be so many losers in one place to the point where she would be branded such a slut is a little hard to swallow, the weird veering between happy go lucky high school sex comedy to scenes where a guidance councilor admits to sex with a pupil, albeit an old one, that leads to a divorce and a scene where a guy misses the point and tries to force himself on Emma Stone in a parking lot, seems not to be handled so smoothly and fairly out of place and, finally, with its tacked on, the guy I've always liked suddenly notices me romantic sub-plot, I was wandering at the end what the point in any of it was.

All that said, mind you, the jokes came thick and fast, I was trying to follow it all the way, I stayed awake, the acting, where it counted, was good, the director competent and if you are 18 and with a good sense of humour, while this will never be your Sixteen Candles or your Say Anything, it's still worth a look in.

If not, stay home and rent The Breakfast Club instead, you won't regret it.

6.5 out of 10 veggie burgers
Points from The Misses 8 out of 10 veggie burgers

The Town - 25th September 2010

Occasionally, when I sit down to watch a film and then later when I am attempting a review of it and I start to think through the plot, I begin thinking, are films getting less and less original or have I just watched way too many films that of course you can join the dots between any number of story-lines if you want to. 
There is, of course, that old theory that states there are only really 7 stories in the world anyway. In fact, researching that, there is also another theory that states all writing of any kind is built upon the foundation of just one single plot idea: Conflict and boy is there a lot of that in The Town.
The reason I say all this is because my feeling as the lights came up in the cinema directly after watching this film and the feeling that still lingers today, a week later when I write this, is that this film is basically Heat but set in gritty, monochrome Bawstan (or Boston for anyone without that accent). I don't think this would bother me so much if it didn't seem to strive so hard to let you know just how authentic it was, how gritty the streets really are and how if you step one foot into this part of Boston without being a ridiculously aggressive, tattooed Irish man then you're liable to get raped because that's just the way it is and you better get used to the idea. Meaning that, if a working class, isn't life hard, I just wish I had it better, earnest drama is what you want to make, then great but don't have such a cliched, obvious, usually reserved for lighter less important films type plot. Also, don't cast yourself, millionaire Ben Affleck, in the lead, but I'll get to that later.

First, the Heat comparison, I think, is valid: 
1. Criminal who is really nice deep down and wants out - check, 
2. Policeman who is a bit of a swine who will do anything to get his man - check, 
3. Criminal falls in love with woman and wants to take her away from all this - check and 4. Film includes a large gun shoot out between crims and cops on busy streets - check. 
Where The Town differs is, instead of Michael Mann's over-the-top, neon drenched, shiny Los Angeles, with exaggerated hammy performances from it's famous leads, that ends on an ambiguous, possibly down, ending; what you get is an earnest, striving to be taken seriously, supposedly realistic and dangerous portrayal of Boston lowlifes that ends like a normal Hollywood film. You can decide, by watching Heat and The Town back to back, which approach you prefer, both are perfectly valid and while both have some big flaws both are well made, engaging movies.


I use Heat as an example but, thinking about it further, my point really could be applied to any of the multitude of cops and robber films out there, not just Heat. They all have their standard plot beats and The Town is no different.


So, to The Town's plus points. Firstly, the direction. I have never really been an Affleck hater, I guess because I was a fan of Kevin Smith, I actually liked Jersey Girl, have never seen Gigli and never cared who he was or wasn't sleeping with or engaged to. While he has surely made tons of terrible films, the ones that I have chosen to watch with him in it, have been, for the most part, ok. I really liked his last, isn't Bawstan just the grittiest place on earth, film as a director, Gone Baby Gone and since he has taken his career down a notch from his Armageddon, J-Lo loving days, I think people are finally seeing what he can actually accomplish and where his talent lies. The Town is a well shot and well paced cops and robbers movie, with fine performances. I just wish it didn't take itself so seriously.
As for the actors, just as Casey Affleck seemed a little miscast, mainly because of his age and not his talent, in Gone Baby Gone, similarly Ben Affleck seems a little miscast in The Town. This is not to say he isn't good, he is, in fact the acting all round is superb, and he tries his damned hardest to pull off the soulful, I just want the money for a new life, Bank Robber but watching it, I couldn't help thinking 'Why's Ben Affleck trying to play it all tough and blue collar? he's Ben Affleck.' 
I am not normally affected by people's personas, or previous work when I watch a film, especially if the acting is good but, imagine, if Jeremy Renner, the second lead in this film and an actor who is becoming known for aggressive, intense and action orientated roles suddenly did a happy-clappy, the sun is always shining, romantic comedy. Wouldn't you be watching it thinking "no, don't go out with him! runaway! within days you'll be hooked on smack, holding up liquor stores and having deep inner torment". Let me put it another way, you know when DeNiro tries to do comedy and it should work but it doesn't because he's Robert DeNiro, well there is an element of that in Ben Affleck's performance. 
It also begs the question, why is Ben Affleck even making gritty crime dramas? If it was a more carefree caper then fine but I really think the over-furrowed brow, behold my pain style of this movie spoils it for me. Also why does the entire film have to look like an hour before dusk on a grey miserable day, can want-to-go-straight, violent thieves not feel angst and pain on a sunny day?


I will now stop harping on about the serious drama/bank robber caper disconnect that keeps rearing its head in this review, it's just every time I get close to stating positive things about this film which, I did enjoy, it just keeps popping up in the form of a loud resounding "BUT", however I shall endeavour to put that to rest and assume the point has been put across. 
Despite all that, I can recognise its good points, John Hamm turns in a solid performance that hopefully will be the start of many in his future, post Mad Men film career, both actresses are excellent, with parts that seem to be trying to show the extreme of the different places life can take you, depending on which choices you make and Pete Postlethwaite steals the film in an extended cameo as a genuinely unnerving, black hearted evil florist. Finally, the multitude of greys in the colour palette of the cinematography, while not entirely to my taste, is consistent, giving the film an atmosphere that's akin to that coldish feeling you get coming home slightly damp from the drizzling rain which is difficult to shake.


Ultimately though, for me, the film was just too throwaway and I would never really need to see it again. I didn't love it but I didn't hate it, it was fine for what it was but it's not the searing in-depth portrayal of a society in decay drama that it thinks it is, it is a by-the-books, cliche filled cops and robbers movie that only lacks a charming, camera-winking, ladies man, comic relief.


6.5 out of 10 average Belgian waffles
Points from the Misses 9 out of 10 obviously tastier that I realised Belgian Waffles

Darkman 2 & 3 - 21st September 2010

Let us just be clear on one thing. 

The only reason to do two Darkman, straight-to-video, sequels, if you were executive producers Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert, would be so that Bruce Campbell (sorry to bring him up AGAIN!), who was robbed, originally, of the part by studio bigwigs with brains of a sponge, finally got to be Darkman. Afterall his face is the one Darkman dons at the end of the first film so it could, in a round about way, make sense. 
If you still think I am just bleating on about the tremendous Campbell because I am a snotty little fanboy who wants to see him star in everything, which let's face it I probably am but that's besides the point, then consider that his casting would've at least been a more obvious choice than Arnold Vosloo.
Yes. Arnold Vosloo. 
(please feel free to say "who?" in a loud voice and look him up on IMDB)


The warning signs about these movies is that it's Larry Drake and Jeff Fahey who get lead billing, above the title no less, and I know that's because for 2/3rds of the film the character of Darkman is either in heavy prosthetics, and so essentially could be any old stuntman, or is impersonating someone else by donning their face but even so, when you take away a charismatic and interesting hero and essentially focus on the villain of the piece, why should we care about any of it.
Look, I am aware, these are straight-to-video sequels, the same heading that would feature such gems as Slap Shot 2: Breaking the Ice and Free Willy 3: The Rescue but if you were a unknown film-maker and someone gave you the reigns of their franchise, a modest budget and said go on, get on with it, why wouldn't you want to just make some amazing, crazy, fantastic film that would guarantee work in the future, the continuation of the franchise and, first and foremost, be a bloody good viewing experience.
To the films in hand, very briefly, Darkman 3 is a little better than Darkman 2, which makes little or no sense.


In Darkman 2 the object is to finally 'get' Durant, the villain from the first one, who essentially is responsible for creating Darkman. The trouble is it contains a finale where, basically, Darkman runs around a giant warehouse and eventually kills everyone. This is, of course, fine because they are the bad guys, they have killed his friends and disfigured him, and he is the good guy but when that comes at the end of a film where he tries to infiltrate the gang by knocking a member out, donning his face, somehow, miraculously, making himself shorter or fatter as needs be, only to then, of course, be discovered when the real henchman wakes up, thus blowing his cover, endangering his friends and sending the bad guys to him, it does make you wonder why he doesn't just impersonate a cook, pour some arsenic in their soup and be done with it.
The whole thing is an absolute joyless shambles, with feeble attempts to re-do Raimi's angry psyche montages from the first one, really, really bad sets and a plot that doesn't even bare repeating that involves Durant trying to purchase some newfangled and futuristic laser gun which is simply ludicrous.  What is worse and more crushing about sitting through this, simply, boring film is that the whole affair feels like such an incredible missed opportunity. Seems like the story of Bruce Campbell's life.


As for Darkman 3, well, when I said it was slightly better, it is but only slightly. This is probably to do with the acting and the fact the direction isn't quite as badly paced and sloppy as the previous sequel.
The whole thing hinges on Jeff Fahey's manically evil businessman trying to get hold of the formula for Darkman's increased strength because he needs to win an election or some such nonsense. You know Jeff Fahey's character is evil because he is rich, wears silk scarves, is horrible to his wife and child and plays the piano. Darkman gets back at him by wearing his face, pretending to be him and showing his wife and child what a good father and husband is like. Yes the old, I will get back at you for kidnapping me and putting an electric shock chip into my spine so that you can control me by making your wife and daughter love you again. Then, as himself (now the strangely Egyptian looking Arnold Vosloo), he turns up and terrorizes the pair of them by revealing that his love was all a sham. Meanwhile Fahey is feeling up some hideous nurse in a science lab bathed in ridiculous eighties pink neon lights on a set shoddier than the set of the third most successful day time soap in Bulgaria, while his rent-a-goons are running about like whacked our steroid junkies having been injected Darkman's DNA or something. Did I say Darkman 3 was better? now I am recounting the plot it sounds a lot worse. The film ends, like the previous one, in a warehouse, with him killing all the villains. 
A one way ticket to snoozeville.


Just to be clear, I bought the trilogy box set, on sale for $7.99 for Darkman 1, which is why I even own these wretched sequels and because we were visiting my in-laws in Oregon and my brother-in-law likes fantasy/horror films I took this boxset and some others, like Drag me to Hell, to show him Darkman 1. Well by the time I woke up he had just started watching Darkman 2 so I lay down on the sofa to watch the rest of it. 
That's how I came to even viewing these, although, I must admit, since purchasing it I had considered a back to back viewing of all three myself so I guess I would've got round to this review eventually.
In conclusion, then, I suppose, if you had a few hours to kill and some mates round the trilogy wouldn't be the worst thing to watch and laugh at but anyone who loves the first film, is thinking they are missing out by only having seen the first one and there is some great mythology expanded apon in the later films, you're not and there isn't.


Darkman 2 - 3 out of 10 breakfast burritos filled with disappointing cardboard
Darkman 3 - 3.5 out of 10 chicken caesar wraps with old cruddy lettuce

Drag Me To Hell - 20th September 2010

Sam Raimi has the ability to be and was on his way to becoming the most visually agile and interesting director of his generation, sadly, for me, he has become one of the most frustrating film-makers on the planet. 

Despite starting off with films in the horror/fantasy genre, like The Evil Dead trilogy and Darkman, and showing a flare for original, exciting storytelling through the use of genuinely unique visuals, somewhere along the way, for reasons known only to himself, he's tried to be both dark and edgy like the Coen brothers and populist and sappy like Steven Spielberg.

Then, inexplicably and for most of the audience, seemingly coming out of nowhere, he directed 3 of the most expensive and popular films the world has seen, the Spiderman trilogy.

His original style, camera work, sound mixing and editing from his earlier and, in my opinion, much better and more interesting work seemed to be a perfect fit for a comic book movie, especially one about a man who swings about in exciting ways, high above one of the most filmed cities in the world. 

Spiderman 1 and 2 would, mainly, be studio movies through and through with surprisingly weak scripts and bland acting. If it wasn't for the odd montage sequence, an inventive set piece here and there, a bit of silly humour and the reassuring Bruce Campbell cameos, you wouldn't know they were Sam Raimi films at all. Spiderman 3 is barely recognisable as a movie, let alone a Sam Raimi movie.

Which brings us to Drag Me To Hell.

When Drag Me To Hell was first announced, as the film that was originally going to bridge the gap between Spidey 3 and 4 & 5, people seemed to be excited by Sam Raimi's return to horror and I was just happy this was going to be a horror movie that wasn't a sequel, a remake or a rip off of previous, better movies. I was, also, interested to see if Raimi still had it in him to do this kind of work.

Before I go on, I want to explain something. More than almost any other film-maker, apart from maybe Terry Gilliam, I really really care what Sam Raimi makes. The Evil Dead trilogy are amongst my very favourite films and the directing style he continued to exhibit in films like Darkman and the Quick and the Dead I found to be incredible in their ingenuity and unlike anything I had ever seen before. 

I am hard on Sam Raimi for several reasons: A - I know what he's really capable of, B - he seemed to, at one point in his career, actively turn away from what was so interesting and unique about his work and turn towards just wanting to be a success at any cost and C - despite having no actual intention of ever doing it (not that I want him to) he won't shut up about Evil Dead 4. 

Now I can't begrudge someone for wanting to be successful and I don't care about good people doing things just for the money if they then can use that power to do something more true to themselves and I think a lot of fans thought that Drag Me To Hell was going to be just that.

What I want, as a big selfish fan, is for Sam to direct, Sam and Ivan Raimi to write, Rob Tapert to produce, Jo LoDuca to do the score and Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi to star in a whole bunch of exciting, interesting and original films year after year, a bit like a Scorcese/DeNiro thing from the late 70s, but as a reasonable fan if there was one of those films a decade, it would be ok. I am really attracted to the idea of friends all working together, I love directors who keep a returning stable of actors in their films and the hope is still, especially as with every passing year the Evil Dead and Bruce seem to get more and more fans, that this will happen again with this group. This is because, as a rabid fan, it does feel like all these other things they are doing are all fine and good but ultimately treading water until the chance will come again when it'll be more than just a cameo as a snooty usher or the mention of Evil Dead 4 at Comic-Con.

All that said, hopefully you can see my dilemma with Drag Me To Hell as it came so close to being that film, what with the directing, writing and producing credits but, for me at least, failed ultimately because the cast, except the excellent Dileep Rao, was pretty rubbish and the direction lacked the full Raimi spark, coming across as a bit lazy and predictable. 

What wasn't predictable, however, was the plot. Like the Evil Dead there is a short and simple set-up: a young lady works in a bank, refuses mad old gypsy a loan, gets cursed and then all hell breaks loose and like the Evil Dead, it's the simplicity that allows Raimi the chance to step in and fill the rest of the film with what he does best, wild, unpredictable and highly enjoyable set pieces. These can get a little repetitive, though and there are certainly things here that we've seen before but there are also fantastically funny and original bits, like the scene in the garden shed that involves a roadrunner cartoon inspired anvil, that for no reason is strung up to a pulley system and hanging from the ceiling, that, if they hadn't used some unfortunate CGI, would've been near to perfection.

Watching it this time round (maybe my 4th time with this film) Allison Lohman isn't quite as annoying as I had originally found her, although she still looks 12 and I don't buy her as being experienced enough in the job to be up for a big promotion. Dileep Rao is endlessly watchable as the fortune teller come soul saviour, Lorna Raver is deliciously disgusting and loopy as the old gypsy woman and the rest of the cast, such as it is, do an ok job but it is staggering just how truly awful and awkward Justin Long is in this. Now, ok, he doesn't have much of a part at all but every time he is on screen it takes me completely out of the movie.

If I was to step out of my fan shoes for a moment and view this film purely as a one off horror movie then, at least, it has more originality, visual flare and a better sense of humour than 90% of other horror related films that have come out in the last decade. In the style of cinematography, score, costuming and the theme of gypsy curses, it seems to hark back to a time, even before the 70s and 80s rash of horror films, like the 40s and 50s maybe, it has that vibe, or even earlier where it could have easily been a silent picture, especially if you removed all the gross out effects.

As a fan, though, it fell short of what it could've been and what I hoped it was going to be. If Sam had used his money and power, post those web-slinger movies, to get the people involved that I listed above it could have, with very little tweaking, been a masterpiece. Instead of the bland, what looks like, teenage couple of Lohman and Long, you cast Bruce Campbell as a middle aged, grumpy, feeble, push-over bank teller who, because he keeps getting passed over for promotion by young upstarts, one day refuses a loan to an old gypsy woman. The rest of the film could then play out more or less the same but with the added bonus of Bruce Campbell in the lead role of a Sam Raimi movie and more than that even I think you'd be adding a much more interesting character, someone who really deserves their redemption, which would make the ending actually surprising and tragic. Before you denounce this as just being a dopey fan suggestion, I honestly, even if they cast a different middle aged actor and you take BC out of the equation, think it would be a more interesting, dynamic film that would work on so many different levels.

As it is, Drag Me To Hell missed a trick in my opinion but despite that still turned out to be an exciting, scary, unexpected, haunted roller coaster of a picture. 

As for the announced future projects of Sam Raimi, I am a little depressed that nothing really enticing has materialised yet and with Bruce Campbell tied up for at least the next 3 years with Burn Notice, The Sam Axe Movie and Bruce Vs Frankenstein, we fans have to go back to waiting and waiting for any film that features the pairs talents again in the future.

7.5 out of 10 green salads with worms in them

Points from The Misses 9 out of 10 green salads without worms in them