Scream 4

Some franchises wear out their welcome by going to the well once too often. That is the premise of this movie, which is in it's fourth incarnation and daring to say, "Yeah, I can do it again". Guess what, they pretty much do and get away with it. The thing that has always separated the Scream movies from other horror films is their self awareness. The killer is inspired by horror films, and follows horror film conventions up to a point. The characters are all aware of the conventions and basically act as if they are in a horror film, with the consequences being death for those that don't know or follow the rules. I've heard some mainstream horror fans complain that the movies are not scary, what I think they are really saying is, I'm not scared because the movie is doing exactly what I expect it to do and it wants me to know that. Like the previous films, Scream 4 is as much a comedy as it is a horror film. There is plenty of gore and suspense, but there is not much dread and the the surprises are usually not horror related but character based.

I saw the first Scream, by myself in the old Edwards Azuza Theaters, when they were going to seed and had not yet been taken over by the Regency Discount chain. There were maybe a dozen people in the screening and the theater was long and dark with the old style slanted floor for the seats to rise on. I was plenty creeped out by the film and jumped several times. The subsequent movies have not made me jump as much but let's face it, once the second film in a series shows up, you know what it is you are going to get. That has been the pleasure of these movies. Laughs, and an attempt to suck you in with a series of false leads as to where the resolution is heading. I saw the outcome about two thirds of the way though the movie. I did not think they tipped it too obviously, rather as the rules they set up say, you do have certain conventions that you have to follow.

All of the cast is back, at least those that survived the previous three movies. That becomes a joke again, as the seemingly unkillable characters face another chance at exiting the series. I saw one review on line that took issue with the portrayal of the cops played by David Arquette and his deputy (who I was sure was Heather Graham for the first half of the movie). The awkwardness of the acting is a deliberate attempt to make the characters feel less real so that we would suspect them as the killer in the film. There are a number of choices like this that lead down false paths. Every time there is a chase, it is designed to throw us off the scent of one suspect and onto another. As I said, it mostly works.

The characters keep talking about how the killer is trying to top the previous entries and that making it bigger and reversing the expectations is the way horror sequels work. This one works by taking the traditional "reinvention/re-imagining" of a film, and basically tells the same story with a new cast but without discarding all the previous films to reboot the franchise. Of course that is another one of the conversations that there are in the movie as well. The two false openings of the movie, play with our expectations but are delivered in such a way that we know this is not how the movie is going to develop. The characters make fun of the very things that they have done before and are trying to do again. When Courtney Cox's character actually uses a reference to meta-analysis, she turns right around and cracks us up by admitting that she doesn't know what the hell that is. All of the hipsters of horror out there, smirking because they have bought into the notion of the series being an examination of horror films themselves, have to choke on their popcorn because they just got tweaked for doing what the movie wants them to do.

The movie does not try to be too clever. The horror/slasher elements are simple, the characters are easy to keep track of, and there is enough humor so if you aren't shocked, you also are not disappointed. I jumped a couple of times, but not at the traditional scares. Those are the wand in the magician's hand that distract you from the surprise that is coming from the other hand. It is difficult to pull these kinds of tricks off a couple of times. Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson have managed to do it again. I was worried because the last couple of horror films from Craven were disappointments, but here he gets his card punched enough that he will be able to go back and make some other films instead of fading into irrelevance. He may not always find his groove but when he does the results are like a good run from an old pro.

75 Abandoned Theaters From Around The USA: Pics, Videos, Links, News

75 Abandoned Theaters From Around The USA: Pics, Videos, Links, News

Here is something that depresses the hell out of me. Hope it does the same for you

Hanna

Not Hanna Montana by any stretch of the imagination. This is a revenge movie with a high body count much of which is inflicted by a 14 year old girl. It is not comedic or as over the top violent as Kick Ass but there is gruesomeness and disturbing material. The violence here is not played for comedic effect but rather is done in a serious tone such as that found in most conventional spy movies. This is Bourne without the shaky cam effects and a protagonist that we sympathize with even though she is a pretty vicious killer. Once we get some back story, the sympathy level increases even more.

The young actress,Saoirse Ronan, that plays our lead character is not new to films. She was nominated for her role in the movie "Atonement" a couple of years ago and was featured in "The Lovely Bones" last year. She has startling blue eyes and a young fresh face that suggests she is a beautiful woman, but still carries the expressions of a child very effectively. The opening scenes of her training in the arctic forest are very effective as is a scene set in a CIA interrogation cell. The staging of later action is not as strong. One sequence that takes place among a dock full of shipping crates is not very persuasive. Earlier she has dispatched dozens of trained soldiers but has a lot of trouble with a slightly chubby effeminate spy and his hired jack boot thugs. They should have been like butter to her, but in one of the few slip ups in story telling, they make it to a later time.

The story is strictly straightforward spy conspiracy material from the 70s. A rogue CIA operative has a unapproved action go bad. Later there are consequences that involve revenge by former allies and the product of genetic engineering. Sort of like "Three Days of the Boys From Brazil". Hanna is unique because the victim/protagonist is a young girl. She has been well trained in many things but she is clearly not socialized for the world as it is today. She speaks dozens of languages but has little knowledge of electricity and technology. She is altered to lack fear and pity, but still has a need for attention and love that a girl her age might crave. Having been denied a Mother, she does not always have the skills needed to negotiate some basic elements of life like romance and friendship.

A few years ago, the rumor was that Eric Banna had been chosen to play James Bond in the new 007 film. We now know that was false and Daniel Craig got the nod, but it is interesting to see Banna in this part because it has many of the elements of the new Bond series. The spy is a tough and resourceful killer, capable of lying and violence in short bursts. There is a nice fight scene in a German subway station which plays like a fight from the new Bond films. Banna is very good in it and he could easily have fit the role of Bond if he had ever been cast. The Director of this movie is Joe Wright, who did "Atonement" and also our favorite around the house "Pride and Prejudice". He has a good eye for the stark visuals of the arctic and the deserts of Morocco. There are some solid action scenes in the first half of the film, but I thought the tension went out of the movie when it relocates back to Europe. Having been set up for the ultimate face off between Hanna and the Evil Step Mother that pursues her, we get a less satisfying but still appropriate resolution.

Cate Blanchette and Tilda Swinton must be running into each other at auditions all the time. Each has spent the last five years playing emotionless bitches in hard ass high heels. Their red hair and fair skin must make them particularly appealing for these kind of tough as nails women. Olivia Williams and Jason Fleyming are in the film as a sort of short term foster family for Hanna, both of them add some personality to what is otherwise a pretty grim story. Their two kids connect with Hanna in a way that no one could have before, and that "fish out of water" type relationship made for some real drama before the vengeance plot line kicks back in.

The music from the film is very effective and there is some terrific photography of some very beautiful places in the world. The movie does not hang together as well as it should a couple hours after seeing it. While it was on, there is a lot of emotional investment in the outcome. Looking back on it, there are some logical issues in the story telling and a few shortcuts that undermine some of the drama in the story. I liked the movie a lot, but it is not much more than an effective thriller. It has little to say about the world, or the characters. This is a movie about style that depends on the hook of a young girl as a cold-hearted killing machine. That ultimately is it's weakness, it is a little too cold hearted for an audience to identify with for long.

Hop

Hop is an Animated film that is directed straight at kids for the Easter Break. Unfortunately, those are the only audience members that will love the movie. Unlike so many other recent animated films, there is basically nothing here for adults. The talent all went into designing the characters and the Easter Island factory of the bunny and that's as much effort as there was put into the movie. Rango which came out a few weeks ago, is so much better written and thought out that it is a surprise
that people are not still flocking to it and skipping this.

The story of an Easter Bunny that has a dream of being a rock star is a little conventional but could be brought off with enough invention. There is basically nothing more to the story than that. We are barely in our seats when the bunny runs away from his responsibilities and heads to Hollywood. There we get a mix of live action and animation. At first the main live character is shocked to find a talking drum playing rabbit. As it turns out, he is the only one shocked. Everyone else in the movie takes it as a given that a rabbit can talk. This is one example of the short cuts taken in storytelling in this film. Pixar movies get all the story details right before they seep into our hearts with character and plot. This movie tries to wriggle in on cuteness but can't quite pull it off.

Russel brand is the voice of E.B. but he gets no opportunity to play up his outrageous persona, so it is basically wasted casting. James Marsden is more effective as the human star of the movie, but he is so stuck playing double takes and exaggerated reaction shots, that we never get much chance to identify with him. Everyone else is in the movie for such a short stretch of time that it is hardly worth mentioning the veteran cast. Hank Azaria does another of his patented character accents, for no reason what so ever except the character is named Carlos. Gary Cole and Elizabeth Perkins are fine actors that disappear two minutes after we see them and pop up for one or two more scenes that have nothing to do with the plot.

The look of the movie is rich on the animated side and TV production level everywhere else. It is not badly made but there was not much care in putting it together to become an Easter perennial. The music cues are not that interesting and the big dance number set to "I Want Candy" is not very extravagant. There are some charming moments but not enough to recommend it to anyone except those with pre-teens who need some time out of the house during the Spring Break. It is not as dunderheaded as the Alvin and the Chipmunks movies, but it certainly misses the mark. We had hopes based on the visuals and the subject matter, but it turned out the egg was hollow.

Win Win

Sometimes you luck out and the word of mouth you hear is exactly right. I had not seen the trailer for this movie, and I knew very little about it. It's an independent film so it was not going to be playing everywhere, but a quick search found it at the Edwards Theater in West Covina, so off we went. Basically all I knew about the movie was that it starred Paul Giamatti, he plays a lawyer and he is also a wrestling coach. This does not really sound like a set up for a great story, but it turns out that if you know much more, it might not be as appealing. I don't want to go into depth about the story but I do have some opinions that I want to share, so I will keep it focused on theme rather than plot.

Life is hard. It is really hard for some people, and most of us who are lucky enough to be blogging at all, much less about movies, probably will never know the difficulties that two thirds of the world faces on any given day. We barely get a chance to know the hard truths that face people in this country. We have crime, and emotional betrayal and poverty and drugs. They are present in different degrees in most places in the world. We also have the problems that plague the average hard working person. Those include physical maladies, financial difficulties and self loathing of one kind or another. We do what we can each day to make it work. Some days are better than others. Most of us don't whine about the issues but they trouble us and we often need the release that comes from sharing those burdens. This movie is about the attempt to do the right thing, and sometimes failing. That failure does not mean that we are wrong or worthless but that this attempt did not work. So what are you going to do then?

I know that I saw Paul Giamatti in films before he appeared in "Sideways" but he was never a lead character and I can't say any of the parts he played were memorable. Since then he has been on a winning streak that any actor would love. He has starred in major films, independent cinema, television programs and cable movies and mini-series. Not to put to fine a point on it but he may very well be the least visually arresting actor on screen ever. He looks like your next door neighbor or the guy who works a couple of offices away. He is the most average looking actor that ever starred in a film. So it is abundantly clear that his appeal in entirely in his gifts. He can bring the characters he plays to life. We feel as if we know these characters because they are portrayed by someone who got the job because he could act not because his picture will look good on the poster. He is as good in this movie as he has been in anything. I think this is the kind of performance that gets by people because he turns them in so effortlessly they don't notice. His character is trying to make it through the day, the week, the month and the year like all of us are. Some days are so tough that it is hard to function physically, other days give you a sense of pride that will leave pleasure for weeks. Everyday decisions have an impact, and the law of unintended consequences suggests that the results will be very surprising at times. The advantage is that if you are trying to do the right thing, in the long run you can recover from those things that you did that are not always as savory as you think they are.

There is a kid in the story that comes into the main character's life. He is played by a newcomer named Alex Shaffer. This is the second performance I've seen in the last few months from a new actor, that really suggests that this is someone with some ability. Hailee Steinfeld from "True Grit" was a find who commanded the screen because her's was the starring part. This guy is memorable because he is so much the character he played and his personality meshes so well with the story arc. Nothing is ever over the top, but a real personable character emerges. The part is very well written because he acts like a kid in his situation might, if given a chance to be a solid human.

I don't know what Burt Young has been doing lately, but if you are a casting director in Hollywood, please remember him more often. This is another guy that is a natural when given a chance. In 1974 he played Curly in "Chinatown", a big lug that helps out Jack Nicholson's character, but we know he has also roughed up his wife who was cheating on him. In "Rocky" he is the self-pitying brother of Adrian, Rocky's friend who is prone to violent outbursts. Here, he plays a version of the same character, a guy who has had a hard life and may not have always been a good guy. Having lived with someone with dementia, I thought he was spot on with the underlying suspicion but also the docile charm that a person in that part of life can experience.

All of the actors do a solid job showing the daily struggles that make living a chore but also a gift. There is abundant humor in the story but it really is a drama in the end. We care about the outcome, and not just of the wrestling matches. Somewhere, years ago, someone found a way to make wrestling a part of Hollywood story telling. It seems an unlikely background for a film yet it seems to work repeatedly. Here, the reason is plain, it is about the struggle to get though the challenge and the question you must constantly ask yourself. "What are you going to do about it?" This movie has some good answers, they are not always the things we would hope for, but they do tell us about our true character.

Rubber 2011

If you have ever spent time at a college with a cinema department, you have probably seen some student films that have a clever idea and run just a few minutes. They can be frightening, hilarious or perhaps poignant. Those films usually benefit from a tight budget which forces creativity. They are also strengthened by a dedicated crew of film makers, that are anxious to show off what they can do. Some student films have been adapted to the big screen over the years as commercial projects, the most famous of which is probably George Lucas's THX 1138. The movie I saw today, feels like a student project, that has been fattened up and extended to make a theatrical film. It suffers from the same problems that any good idea is subject to, too much of a good thing.

Rubber is at it's heart a horror movie with a ridiculous premise. An old tire becomes animated and can kill with the force of it's concentration. Watch the trailer above and you will get the idea. There is inherent humor in the notion of a tire wandering across the desert, looking for meaning, but it is even funnier when the tire has a killer psychokinetic personality. There, that's your movie idea, and it can be done in a twenty minute or less film and have a great memorable impact. Here, it is almost ninety minutes, and it is undermined by a mixture of satire on movie going (maybe at the expense of the very audience that might embrace such a film), drama involving unrequited love, and then comedy featuring the cast from a minor league version of Reno 911.

I will be honest, I laughed several times. There are some good jokes in the movie and there are several actors that play their parts just daffy enough to get away with some pretty stupid stuff. The problem is that it is all an exercise in meaningless audience manipulation. As soon as we get set for one consistent idea, the movie veers off on another twisted loop and as the film makers themselves would say, "for no good reason." There are some movie conventions that are observed, and others that are subverted, but it is entirely arbitrary as to which one will be next. I can't say I hated the movie, it was not terrible and at times I was entertained. I can say I was frustrated by it because there are so many potentially great ways the movie could go, but it never follows up on any of them.

If you are a regular reader, you know that I like exploitation films as much as the next person. A little crap is a good way to clear the mind and remind yourself what makes real movies so valuable. I enjoy creativity, but the direct approach is often the better way to go and this is one of those places where directness would have succeeded more than what is finally given to us. "Drive Angry", "Snakes on a Plane", "Machete" or even "Sharktopus" tell us what we are getting and deliver on the promise. Sometimes those films get sidetracked and they lose something as a result. "Machete" is a good example, an exploitation picture that features gratuitous sex and violence, got bogged down by a pseudo-political theme that did not belong in the movie. Rubber is a horror comedy that makes the mistake of trying to break down the fourth wall between the film and the audience, and instead becomes less than it should be.


Not all of the parts fail, in fact taken on their own, they might make good ideas for other films. I got the impression that the film makers did not feel like they would get another chance at financing, so they went ahead with all the ideas they had, even though they do not go well together. If you are intrigued by the trailer and the poster, go ahead and see the movie. My advice though is to catch it this week on the free preview being offered on HD Net You don't have to pay for parking and if you hate the movie at least you did not pay to see it.

The Adjustment Bureau

The Adjustment Bureau - #1 Trailer by hawkbcn

We actually saw this movie yesterday, right after we had gone to "Battle Los Angeles". My daughter Allison is an English major, and she wants to do a dissertation on Phillip K. Dick when she gets into grad school. This is a story based on one of his many works and adds to the legacy of movies inspired by his writing. At some point Hollywood will run out of Stephen King and Phillip K. Dick, and then no more movies can be made. She was very enthusiastic about seeing this and I was not. This film was originally scheduled to come out back in September of last year. I saw the first trailer nearly a year ago. When a delay like this happens there is often a reason, and not a good one. While it did not turn out to be a disaster, I can see why they waited to release it,they needed to find a way to market a chase film without any excitement in it.

Allison quite liked the movie, but I was indifferent to it. As we talked after the film, I said that it seemed a little bi-polar, never sure if it believed in religion or was dismissive of the concept. Her answer is that a lot of Dick's work is about the uncertainty of whether there is a god or whether we have tricked ourselves into believing in God. (In fact according to her, Dick saw God but did not know if it was a real experience or a drug induced experience, thus inspiring a series of stories.) So, this film would be great for college theology or philosophy students, high on grass, to spend a late night speculating over. If you are interested in story or entertainment, seek out something else.

If you watch the trailer above, you have a reasonable grasp of the story. Everything else that happens, simply repeats itself. This couple, is not supposed to get together, and each time they do they get separated again. And then it happens again, and then again, and then again and.., while you get the point. Ultimately the climax of the movie is a series of chases through doors that take you on a tour of New York City, for no particular reason except the film makers have scouted some amazing vistas and architecture for the protagonists to run through. There is very little sense to it, and the point of the story is to challenge the ideas of determinism, and free will. I have determined that I will not see this movie again of my own free will.

Access to the inner sanctum of the agents of the universe, who are trying to manipulate our lead characters, is granted by wearing a hat while going through the right door. That's the secret password, wear a hat. One of the supporting characters, acts completely against the nature of their character, to cause events to change, for no particular reason. After it is all gone on for a long, long time, the unseen "Chairman", makes an arbitrary decision, that they should have seen coming two hours earlier. This story was a spinning hamster ball of nonsense that might be interesting to read for a few minutes as a short story, but goes nowhere as a movie.

The actors in the movie are fine, in fact Allison's main justification for enjoying the film is the love story that is going on in the movie. The leads are appealing, but every time they start to connect in an interesting or meaningful way, we go back to the metaphysical baloney that the film makers want to make the movie about. I saw "Billy Budd" on channel nine (KHJ TV), some time in the early 1970s and became a fan of Terrance Stamp. After "Superman", I would watch for him in other films and remember when he was so young. His best film was "The Limey" from a few years ago, where he gets to play a real person. I'm glad he works, and he makes most pictures better, but in this movie he is a piece of scenery, masquerading as a person. All of the "Adjustment Bureau" bureaucrats are interchangeable, so he is wasted in the movie as an actor. His face though is used very well with his solemn mouth and deep penetrating eyes, he is the epitome of determinism. He is the best thing in the movie when he shows up, but he could just have easily been a cue card or a book page with exposition written all over it.

I know I am giving the impression that I hated the movie, but I did not. I just did not care about anything that was going on in it and I was bored. I can enjoy some bad movies for what they are, if they are entertaining along the way. This movie made me want to put on a hat and walk out the door. Whatever was on the other side would be more compelling that the two hours I spent watching this.