Not only was Rian Johnson's follow up to Brick an amazing movie, but it's one that I almost don't feel comfortable writing about until I've seen it at least one more time. There are so many levels of subtext and symbolism thrown into this flick; I'm going to try to write up a more analytical piece on it after I see it again. Just know that if you enjoy con/heist movies, you'll greatly enjoy The Brothers Bloom.

The Brothers Bloom
Writer/Director: Rian Johnson
Starring: Mark Ruffalo, Adrien Brody, Rachel Weisz, Rinko Kikuchi


Writer/director Rian (pronounced like Ryan) Johnson has traded in film noir for adventure caper, and the result cements his rising status in Hollywood. This guy is equally talented with a pen or a camera in his hand, and it's amazing to me that both elements shine so clearly through in his final products. The Brothers Bloom is exactly what many before me have said - it's a demonstration of what Johnson can do with a budget. The film was shot on location in Montenegro and Prague, and is reminscient of In Bruges with its portrayal of medieval skylines and the movie's overall respect for the architechture that inhabits it.

You have no idea how terrified I was last night when I saw Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell. This was the single most intense theatrical experience I've ever had, and I don't foresee it being topped any time soon. Part of it comes from the fact that I'm not a big horror movie guy, and as such don't see a lot of horror movies in theaters. But as I was sitting there, sunken in my seat, I cursed myself for seeing the film - but at the same time loved almost every second of it.

Drag Me To Hell
Director: Sam Raimi
Starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Lorna Raver


As you all will surely remember from the solid theatrical trailer, Drag Me To Hell centers on Christine Brown (Lohman), a loan officer for a bank who refuses service to a gypsy woman (Raver) and is subsequently cursed. Christine and her cynical boyfriend (Long) must remove the curse within three days or spirits come to literally drag her to hell for eternity, where they will feast on her soul.

The plot is ridiculous and barely makes any sense. Why would this old woman take out her aggression on a loan officer? Why not, I don't know, an old boss who fired her, or any other person who has contributed to her sucky position in life? As long as you can put this logical flaw out of your mind and just allow the movie to wash over you, you'll have a much more enjoyable experience. Remember, this is a Sam Raimi flick: the same guy who once directed a Bruce Campbell movie where he ends up with a chainsaw in place of his hand. While he went on to make the Spider-Man films (number 4 is in development), he started with extremely low budget horror movies like Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2, which have since gone on to become cult classics. With this film, you could tell Raimi wanted one more shot at his favorite genre before he gets bogged down with Spidey and its inevitable sequels over the next seven or eight years.


Raimi (who wrote the script with his brother, Ivan) boils down this movie to its absolute basic elements and takes out all the BS that has been so exhaustingly stupid in horror movies over the past decade. With most of those films, it takes a solid half an hour before we really start to feel the suspense and terror building with the protagonists. Here, there is none of that - there's a quick prologue, an introduction to the characters, the gypsy woman is rejected in the bank, and from that point on there is no stopping. There are huge scare moments in 90% of the scenes following. Raimi teases us with long shots that any movie fan can recognize (ex: after turning down the gypsy, Christine goes into the parking garage alone at night. Hmm, wonder what will happen?), but does a great job of alternately rewarding our expectations and blowing them away with something far more outrageous than we would have imagined (talking goats, anyone?). And while 1408, one of my other favorite horror [well, perhaps suspense rather than horror] films from the past few years builds suspense in service of mysterious forces that haunt John Cusack's character, Drag Me To Hell gives the enemy a frightening face in Mrs. Ganush, played wonderfully by TV actress Lorna Raver.


Alison Lohman is convincing in a role originally given to Ellen Page (Juno). She devotes herself to the part and really goes for it, which is refreshing to see even if she didn't quite turn in an Oscar-worthy performance. Justin Long serves his purpose well as the loving boyfriend with the skeptical heart. But this movie isn't about winning awards - it's all about the scares, and Lohman works really well as the character with whom the audience most identifies.

The one complaint I have with the film is the fact that almost every big jump scare moment is accompanied by a THUNDEROUS sound effect that makes it impossible for you NOT to react. [You all know what I mean by "jump scare," right? Where something just comes out of nowhere and everyone screams? Making sure.] Even if you weren't scared at all by the images on the screen, you'd be a corpse yourself if you didn't jump due to the out-of-nowhere burst in volume that Raimi and Co. decided to turn up to 11. That said, I didn't feel the same sense of "being cheated" that I normally feel during these jump scare moments. You knew nearly every time one was coming, but the fun comes in trying to predict exactly when and what would happen, only for my expectations to be subverted every time.


I thought this would be simply a suspense movie, but there were so many gross things involved here that I didn't expect. If I listed them all out for you, some of you would never see this movie, and that would be a shame - so I'll keep them to myself. But suffice to say that if you're grossed out easily, you may want to bring a vomit bag. Also, if you get uncomfortable with the notion of spirits and things of that sort, you may want to skip this one. (But come on people - it's just a movie!) The thing is, for a horror movie to be rated PG-13 like this one, you'd think it'd be rather tame. While I was in the theater, I could have sworn it was riding that hard line between PG-13 and R, but after I got out and started playing the scenes back in my head, I think the MPAA made the right call on the rating here. Nothing realistically gruesome happened, and it was all about the build-up to those moments anyway; if you isolated all the "scary stuff" into one clip, it wouldn't be that bad.

The ending? Oh, the ending - totally awesome. I wouldn't dare give it away, but it's the only ending I would have been happy with and they didn't let me down. If you're a horror buff or just want a good scare, this is definitely the movie for you. Until next time...

Kyle Newman's Fanboys was supposed to hit theaters in August of 2007. Thanks to development problems, it managed to squeak into a few theaters in February of 2009 and finally arrive on DVD this past Friday. Since a lot of you have never heard about this movie, I'll give a brief plot synopsis: Set in 1998, the film follows five friends as they travel across the country with one goal in mind - to break into Skywalker Ranch and watch an early print of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.
Fanboys


If you're a Star Wars fan, you will definitely find something to appreciate in this movie. The film is a labor of love created by a director who has clearly been heavily influenced by Star Wars and the ensuing cultural phenomenon it inspired. The direction is amateurish, but still has enough skill to make this look like an actual film and not something that you or I would throw together in our backyards. There isn't much going on visually, and the music is practically nonexistant. But with all that said, I had a great time watching this and it managed to keep me laughing all the way through.

[Note: I'm not including this film in the "Countdown From Judgment Day" series we ran a few months ago. In case you missed those entries, check them out - that omnibus is one of our best, if I do say so myself. Start with the First Impressions for Terminator Salvation, then move onto thoughts of the now-cancelled Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV show, a retrospective about the T2: 3D Terminator experience at Universal Studios, and reviews of the three previous films: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and Terminator.]


Terminator Salvation
Anton Yelchin turned in his membership card from The Cheesy Impersonation Academy that he used in Star Trek and subsequently churned out a great performance as Kyle Reese in this movie. Aside from Marcus, his character was the only one that was interesting to me. As I was trying to realize why this was the case, I came to this conclusion - in Terminator Salvation, Kyle Reese serves as a kind of surrogate John Connor from the earlier films. He is the one that needs protecting this time around. Unlike Connor, though, who is totally aware of his impending future and the responsibility that holds, Reese is just a ballsy kid trying to survive and make it through another day. I liked the juxtaposition of those two iconic characters and give the writers some credit for shaking up our expectations a little.*


As much respect as I have for John Connor in other Terminator incarnations, this time around he was stale and bland. The thing that makes Connor such a great character is this ticking time bomb down to Judgment Day and the future, when he has to finally step up and become the man that he knows he is prophesied to be. The inner struggle with that legacy and the pressure put on him as a kid makes his arc so interesting to watch. But in Salvation, he's already reached his peak and the mystery of how he got there is gone. All we're left with is a grizzled military soldier who retreats to back rooms to listen to tapes that his mom made for him. As much as I rag on Christian Bale for his growling and snarling, that was the least of my worries when it came to this version of Connor - originally Bale was supposed to play Marcus, but when he took a liking to John Connor, the script had to be rewritten (again) to give the role a little more substance. FAIL. No wonder Jonathan Nolan (Chris' brother, and co-writer of The Dark Knight and The Prestige) didn't have his name show up in the credits - I'm guessing he knew how this would turn out and wanted to keep a perfect track record (he was brought on late in the game for some rewrites).

It was a nice surprise to see Michael Ironside (Jester from Top Gun) as the Resistance leader on the nuclear sub. Everyone other actor in the movie was pretty worthless, including Ben's Movie Reviews favorite Bryce Dallas Howard. Taking over for Claire Danes as Kate Connor, Bryce was pregnant and barely in the film at all. Not only that, but they didn't mention her pregnancy at all. No one even glanced at her stomach. That shot from the trailer, where John pats her stomach as they share a tender moment? Never happened. Way to go, writers. Moon Bloodgood was violently stupid, parading under the guise of the "kick ass girl," but in actuality serving to hurt the female presence in the film with her idiotic actions. [I'm thinking specifically of releasing Marcus and running with him through a mine field, although there were others that I can't recall at the time of this writing.] Common (who? Oh, that guy from Smokin' Aces) was laughably awful with the thankfully small part he had. Someone named Jadagrace (who I'm guessing is related to Halle Berry due to the same surname) played a mute child who accompanied Kyle Reese everywhere, and I'm grateful to her for keeping her mouth shut. Helena Bonham Carter jumped in her Weirdsmobile again and gunned the engine, coming off as equally cold while she was alive as when she wasn't. (That'll make sense if you've seen the movie.)

Danny Elfman's score was such a nonfactor that I can't even remember one track in the entire film. McG's direction was passable - it's not like he was Brett Ratner or anything. He showed some pizazz with the long shots and made some good decisions with the big action scenes. I also credit him for not using the shaky cam technique that is prevalent in action movies these days. Would I be down for watching another McG-directed Terminator movie? If they get really solid writers, then sure, I'll give the guy another shot. I'm convinced that the script was the major problem here. The special effects were fantastic, especially evident in the robots themselves. They finally have reached a point where stop-motion endoskeletons aren't the norm, and the film's aesthetic is greatly improved because of it. It was great to finally see the T-600's that were mentioned in previous films, and the Harvester and its motorcycle minions were really badass. [I will say that I liked the idea of Arnold's cameo, but the digital representation that we saw in the final cut left me shaking my head at how cheesetastic the CG was in that scene.] And whoever designed Skynet Central should be heralded as a visual genius and get work for the rest of his/her life. That shot where the camera comes over the top of Connor and the city is revealed for the first time was breathtaking.

Sadly, the few little things that Terminator Salvation got right are not enough to give this movie a free pass from me. The film completely lost its roots (sci-fi and horror blended together), instead opting for a more crowd-pleasing formula that failed to hit its target. The loss of one major Terminator hunting someone down hurt the movie in the end, since the Resistance was fighting a surge of never-ending machines that we couldn't identify as a singular villain.

This is probably worth seeing at some point in your life, but I'd have a hard time recommending that you drop 10 dollars in a theater to accomplish that. The summer has just begun, and there are many more movies on the horizon. Until next time...

*Yes, I'm aware that there is a reveal at the end that suggests ulterior motives. I didn't want any spoilers in this review.

It's become cliche over the past couple years to refer to Ron Howard's The Da Vinci Code by using some variation of the following: "Every time the characters went anywhere, they would pause to give you a history lesson." While mostly true, this statement belies the fact that The Da Vinci Code was actually rather entertaining. Yes, it was rooted in Dan Brown's brand of fictionalized history, but it balanced speeches with car chases and, more importantly, offered a character arc for Hanks' Robert Langdon that was arguably as important as the controversial subject matter for which he was searching.







It's kind of embarrassing how desperate Howard and Co. are to trick the audience into believing something interesting is happening. The camera is always moving, panning, sweeping, implying motion and big things when nothing really takes place. Sure the characters move from location to location, but when they do it's in the most boring manner possible. (Hanks gets in a car, camera cuts to headlight as it peels out. Cut to car arriving.) In the "talky" scenes, the camera circles the actors, trying to lure us into believing the pace is a lot faster than it really is. Why can't Ron and his crew realize that this type of film really isn't that much different from his recent Frost/Nixon? There's not much action in that, either - but the difference is that he knows what kind of film that is and doesn't try to dupe the audience. He relishes in the long takes, the slow camera movements, the close ups, the static shots. If only he could have employed some of those tactics here, A&D might have been a movie that I would consider watching again.



Spoilers ahead.

J.J. Abrams has accomplished his goal with Star Trek, providing an entertaining spectacle that should satisfy die hard Trek fans and newcomers alike. I'm going to preface this review with a reminder that one of my staff writers and I reviewed the first seven films here and here back in 2008 (I recommend you watch all those films and read the reviews if you've got a boring summer ahead), and say in summary that I really enjoyed the original crew of the Starship Enterprise. The fact that I respect almost all of J.J. Abrams' work, combined with my affection for Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, lead to my inevitable appreciation and admiration for his vision realized in Star Trek.

Star Trek
Director: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Zoe Saldana


I don't want to build your expectations too high for this movie, but it was definitely my favorite of the summer so far. [To be fair, the only other "summer" movies I've seen as of this posting have been Fast and Furious and Crank 2: High Voltage.] The best part about this film is that even if you have no idea what the heck Star Trek is about, you can appreciate it nearly as much as the Trek-initiated. Sure, there are some built in crowd pleasers for the Trekkies (Kobayashi Maru, etc), but writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (quickly approaching levels of celebrity not unequal to Abrams himself) have done their best to craft a popcorn summer action flick out of material considered sacred by its most intense fans and geeky by the casual observer. They largely succeed - I would say this is one of the best written projects the two have embarked on in recent years (beating out the rather weakly-written Eagle Eye and Transformers). Some film critics will undoubtedly rag on these guys, telling you that they write nothing but mindless crap and feed the corporate studio system by pumping out blockbuster content. While the latter has certainly been true in the past, the duo have proven themselves capable producers, writers, and television show creators ("Fringe" is their brain child, along with co-creator Abrams). And say what you will about their past work, but I really dug Mission Impossible: III and The Island even though those are not popular films to like in the movie reviewing world. The pacing in Star Trek was perfect for this type of movie - a great blend of character work for Kirk and Spock and wild space battles for those of you with ADD.


Speaking of Mission Impossible: III, that was the only feature film J.J. Abrams had to his name before this project hit theaters this past Thursday. That film, which had the highest budget of any film by a first-time director, was a movie that allowed Abrams to translate his visual skills cultivated in TV's "Alias" to the big screen. Star Trek, therefore, is the next logical step (pun intended) in his path to Hollywood domination. Given a substantial budget and a clean slate for Star Trek history thanks to a clever writing gimmick involving time travel and alternate realities, Abrams took the material and turned into a viable property again. The use of lens flares (bright shines of light directly into the camera lens) has been called excessive by some, but after reading his explanation of why he included so many, I wasn't distracted by them in a negative way during my experience watching the movie. The camera work was outstanding, with Abrams and Co. equally adept at filming huge space action and close-up oriented character moments. Many of the space shots, by the way, feature the snap zoom that was the call sign for Joss Whedon's Firefly (and subsequent Serenity).

As great as the CG was (and it was phenomenal at points), the acting was what really set the film apart for me. It reminded me of Iron Man in that regard, featuring some exceptional special effects but still relying heavily on character to carry us through the film so that we cared about what was happening on screen. Abrams and his casting team tried to replicate their success on Cloverfield by hiring relative unknowns for the crew of the Enterprise, and I think this was a great idea. That was a huge part of Cloverfield's success for me; we didn't recognize these actors and therefore could attach them directly to the characters they were supposed to be portraying. The cast of Star Trek wasn't quite as unknown as that of Cloverfield, but I found the tactic just as effective for most of the cast. It was hard to watch John Cho and not think of his cult role as Harold in the Harold and Kumar films, but he wasn't on screen enough for it to become a real problem for me. The only cast member I had a real problem with was Anton Yelchin (who I thought was great in Charlie Bartlett) - that kid did a horrible Walter Koenig impression (the original Chekov) that deserves a Razzie nomination for Worst Acting. Let's hope he doesn't come near that level of suckage as Kyle Reese in the next big blockbuster of Summer '09, Terminator Salvation.


Chris Pine, where the heck did you come from? After wallowing in Lindsay Lohan movies and TV shows over the past few years, this is without a doubt his breakout role and one that will shoot him to the top of casting directors' piles for the next few years. Look, taking on William Shatner's most iconic role is no easy task. Shatner's performances, while campy and cheesy at times, possessed both a bad ass brashness and a cool charm that is impossible to mimic. Luckily for Pine, he doesn't even try. He embodies James Tiberius Kirk with the cockiness, charm, intelligence, and wit that are necessary elements for my favorite types of film characters [see: Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday in Tombstone]. It's obvious the writers favored Kirk's character, giving Pine the best lines in the movie ("You are fine without it," "Go get more guys and then it'll be a fair fight.") But he deserves those lines, and as much as this film keeps up the pretense that it's about the ensemble cast, Kirk, as always, shines above the rest. Zachary Quinto, apparently from Heroes on NBC (of which I've only seen one episode), is a solid pick for young Spock, filling in adequately for Nimoy even when acting opposite the legend himself (yep, thanks to that alternate reality thing I mentioned).


The supporting cast (aside from Cho and Yelchin) was nicely chosen also, especially the sexy-but-not-sex-object-because-she's-smart-and-qualified communications officer Uhura, played by Zoe Saldana. (Side note: She's going to be in Cameron's Avatar coming out in December - I'm guessing her phone's about to blow up.) Simon Pegg, from Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead, was funny and entertaining as Montgomery "Scotty" Scott, but I'm glad we weren't subjected to any more of his character than we were; I think he would have become annoying rather quickly in the confines of the story being told here (next time, Scotty). The other complaint I have is that there wasn't enough of Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, played very capably by Karl Urban. In the other Trek films, Kirk, Spock, and McCoy form a triumvirate - all parts are nearly equal to each other, and the characters form the central bond around which the Star Trek universe is based. In this incarnation, however, it seemed that Kirk and Spock had the forefront and all the other characters were relegated to the sidelines. Like I said - I'm thankful this is the case for some characters, but I thought Bones deserved a little more time in the spotlight. It was great seeing Bones and Jim hanging out briefly in Starfleet Academy, though. Urban delivered his lines with deadpan humor that surely would have pleased DeForest Kelley (RIP). The seeds were planted for the triumvirate - Bones and Spock had a little verbal sparring along the way - so I'm hoping we see those relationships develop quickly in the sequel(s).


Bruce Greenwood was a quality addition to the cast as Captain Christopher Pike, and gives a performance that I can't imagine coming from anyone else. His powerful presence added a commanding seriousness to the film that sorely needed a legitimate authority figure (even though he does basically turn into Captain Amazing from Mystery Men by the end). The depth of the cast kept getting more shocking as the film progressed. Was that Winona Ryder? Been awhile, ma'am. Tyler Perry? Is this a joke? No? All right, fine. And kudos to Eric Bana's makeup person, who managed to turn the relatively recognizable actor into a Romulan that I wouldn't have known was him had I not possessed previous knowledge of his casting before seeing the movie.


The score, by "LOST" composer Michael Giacchino, was both hugely epic and quietly personal at appropriate times, and accentuated Abrams visual flairs throughout the movie. Great filmmaking all around. The editing was pitch perfect - no frame lingered too long, no cutaway came too soon. The lighting was fantastic, especially in the villainous Romulan ship where a green tinge barely illuminated the faces of the bitter aliens.


I'm not going to go into the plot of the film here - you'll just have to see it if you're curious - but I will highly suggest that if you have any interest in science fiction or big summer action movies, to go see this in the theater. There are few movies worth paying exorbitant prices to see on the big screen, but in my opinion this is definitely one of them. Until next time...