Movie Review: SLITHER

SLITHER

2006

R

"Don't let them in your mouth!"

-- Bill Pardy

Slither is a 2006 horror-comedy written and directed by James Gunn that serves as a well-made, contemporary B-movie. When a meteorite containing an alien parasite crash lands in the woods outside Wheelsy, South Carolina, it may have gone completely unnoticed had it not been for the drunken shenanigans of Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) and Brenda Gutierrez (Brenda James). Grant stumbles upon the creeping crawling creature which shoots a dart into his stomach that maneuvers its way into his brain. Over the next few days, Grant develops a number of rashes, and his personality begins to change, much to the concern of his wife Starla (Elizabeth Banks). As more time passes, Grant's condition worsens, and it's apparent that something truly alien has started to take control of his body. He goes on a rampage, killing a number of pets and livestock around the community, and he attacks and kidnaps Brenda. In an effort to catch Grant, Starla and the local police chief Bill Pardy (Nathan Fillion) lead a group of deputies and townspeople in an effort to find him. Little do they know that Grant has laid a trap for them that will unleash an entirely new terror on the town of Wheelsy, and possibly, the entire world.

I remember seeing the trailer for this film back when it was set to be released, and I thought it was an interesting idea for a revamped B-movie. At the time, I wasn't necessarily gung-ho about seeing it, but as time went by and it managed to scare up some relatively positive reviews, I got it in my mind to give it a view. It never really dropped off my radar, but I wasn't as into the horror genre back then as I am now, so I just never took the time to give it a chance. But now, with it much more accessible to me than it has been in the past, I figured now was the best time to take this horror-comedy in.

Like many B-movies, Slither takes a look at what might happen if there were some sort of alien attack on humankind. This time, we're delving into the backwoods of South Carolina, taking a look at how one small town responded to a vicious parasitic attack on its populace. Needless to say, the film ends like so many others have before: with a very large body count and enough gleeful gore to satisfy the gore-hounds. The screenplay offers a good send-up of your classic horror B-movies, and once you can settle into that frame of mind, you can let the mindless entertainment ensue.

What I'm trying to say is that you shouldn't expect too much in terms of storyline. It's a humdrum tale of people reacting to a given situation, and that's exactly how it should be. Because of this, however, three other facets need to step up in order to make this a successful film. First, we have to have believable characters with whom we can mildly relate. Banks and Fillion fill those shoes well enough, and although I wouldn't go as far as to say I cared for their characters, I did find myself rooting for them to make it through. Second, the dialogue needs to be catchy and fresh. Slither also succeeds here. The dialogue felt realistic, and it did enough to keep me smiling from start to finish.

Finally, a successful horror-comedy has to deliver the scares as well as the laughs. While it's not as side-splittingly funny as, say, Shaun of the Dead, there's still plenty to laugh about here and there, and most of it comes from dialogue. Kudos to the screenwriter, as well as the actors, for having the comedic timing and sensibilities to pull this one off. In terms of scares, there aren't really any moments of suspense or times where you'll jump out of your seat. In true B-movie fashion, Slither instead goes for the jugular, almost literally. It attempts to shock you by its level of gore, and I do have to say that the filmmakers created a rather disgusting creature for all of us to "enjoy."

Because Slither manages to succeed on its three most important facets, it has to be considered a successful film. Each of these facets help make it an entertaining and mindless romp, and it should never be taken as more than such. Just know going in that you're going to be in for some slightly sickening images here and there, so those of you with an easily upset stomach might want to beware. Aside from that, throw Slither into your "movies to watch" list because it's a hell of a good time.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: PSYCHO

PSYCHO

1960

R

"She just goes a little mad sometimes. We all go a little mad sometimes. Haven't you?"

-- Norman Bates

Psycho is a 1960 horror film directed by Alfred Hitchcock that many consider to be one of the director's greatest achievements. The story begins in Phoenix, Arizona, where a young secretary named Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) embezzles forty-thousand dollars from her employer then skips town in the hopes of running away with her long-distance boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin), who lives in the small town of Fairvale, California. As Marion makes her way north, she stumbles upon the Bates Motel, a small establishment off the main highway, and decides to stay the night before pushing on to her destination. She meets the young Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), the caretaker of the motel, and after exchanging some pleasantries, Marion elects to turn in for the night. Before bed, however, she opts to take a shower...

I think you'd be a bit hard-pressed to find many a film fan who doesn't know the next sequence of events, as Psycho's shower scene has reached a certain stature of fame, or infamy, over the years. From that scene, the rest of the film serves more as a mystery than as a horror film, but none of that really takes away from the fact that Psycho manages to be one of the greatest films ever made. 

For me, Psycho has been a recognizable film for as long as I can remember. To be honest, my first interaction with it was a rather negative one. When I was about four years old, my family decided to take a trip to Universal Studios Hollywood. The park had a "special effects stage" attraction, where one of the rooms focused on the cinematography of Hitchcock's films. At such a young age, I was introduced to the shower scene, and I was absolutely horrified. I instantly became terrified of bathrooms and showers, and it took me quite a while to get past that fear. In addition, it took me another sixteen years before I could sit down and watch Psycho in its entirety, but boy am I glad that I did. 

The history of the film itself is a rather incredible one itself. The making of the film is chronicled well in David Thomson's book The Moment of Psycho, and Thomson offers some interesting insight on the film as well, if you have a chance to read it. One of my favorite little tidbits about the film's release is the fact that Hitchcock essentially forbade anyone from entering theaters after the film had begun to play (a tactic that is alluded to in the trailer at the end of this review). His reasoning? Hitchcock thought that a viewer needed to see Psycho from the very start lest they miss an important piece of information. It was a truly groundbreaking idea for the time, and audiences ate it up. 

Over the years, Psycho has become considered one of the most groundbreaking and important films to appear in cinematic history. Arguably Hitchcock's finest film, it does manage to live up to all the hype. The screenplay itself is a wonderfully-written mystery that almost plays as two separate stories. In the first half, we have a tale of love, crime and extortion, but as soon as the shower scene occurs and we as the audience lose our main focal point in Janet Leigh, we're left a little bit adrift. That's when storyline two kicks in, and we're thrown into the midst of a murder mystery in which we think we know the answer. The kicker? Well, I'll leave that to the film and to Hitchcock. What's truly great about the screenplay, however, is that in the midst of all this horror, confusion and mystery, we still get an ample supply of comedy. If you pay close attention, there's a number of bits of dialogue that are meant to be played out for comedic effect, and they're so perfectly-placed that they might even manage to draw a bit of out-loud laughter. Essentially, this screenplay has it all: horror, mystery, comedy, drama and romance. It brings it all together in such an effective manner that there just might be something for everyone.

While the storyline tends to ebb and flow throughout the film, one thing that does remain consistent is the high level of acting performances we receive. Leigh starts out as the apparent lead, and she does an incredible job with the role. At times, she manages to seem both vulnerable and invincible at once, and it's this duality that makes her both appealing and fascinating until her untimely and sudden demise. From there, the disillusioned audience has no choice but to pick up on the film's seeming sub-lead: Perkins's Norman Bates. And let me tell you, Perkins steals the show. The more I watch the film, the more I become mesmerized by just how strong a performance Perkins manages to bring forth. It's a subtle but profound type of brilliance, and I think it's often under-appreciated. Perkins slips through so many emotions even in the course of only one scene that it might be difficult for the casual viewer to keep up with it all, but I would argue that he brought forth one of the greatest performances in cinematic history. 

The rest of the cast fills out rather well mostly because each person plays their part to a tee. Vera Miles comes in for a supporting role as Marion's distraught sister. She teams up with Gavin's Loomis hoping to find answers. Gavin is probably the weakest link in the film (a thought that Hitchcock shared), but even he isn't all that terrible. It's just that, in comparison to the talent around him, there just wasn't any way for him to keep up. Of all the supporting characters, however, I have to tip my hat most to Martin Balsam, who plays the private detective Milton Arbogast. He's a wonderfully-consistent addition to the cast, and he and Perkins combine for one of the film's best scenes. It's just a well-rounded cast all around, and I think the acting in the film has taken a bit of a back seat to the screenplay and the direction itself. Someone needs to herald it, so why shouldn't I?

One of the most effective components of Psycho, however, is its cinematic score. Composed by Bernard Herrmann, I can't quite say it's the most instantly recognizable pieces of music, but it definitely has to be high on the list. Though not quite as iconic as, say, John Williams's score for Jaws, I think Herrmann still managed to create something truly brilliant with his score. The bit from the shower sequence might be the most recognizable from the film, but the rest of the score is so splendidly-crafted that it's hard no to enjoy it from start to finish.

At the end of the day, Psycho proves to rank near, if not at, the top of the list of horror films, and it also manages to be ranked very highly on the list of greatest films of all time. I myself would have to place it within the top five greatest films I've ever seen, and that's saying quite a bit considering the amount of films I've seen. If you haven't had a chance to take in this iconic film, then maybe this Halloween season should be the time to do so. It's not as terrifying as it may have used to be, but it's still so profound that it's easy to understand why it's reached such an idolized place in cinematic history. Congratulations, Mr. Hitchcock. You created a masterpiece.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A+

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: LOOPER

LOOPER

2012

R

"The only rule is: never let your target escape."

-- Joe

Looper is a 2012 sci-fi action film written and directed by Rian Johnson that serves as his third directorial effort, and his first since 2008's The Brothers Bloom. The story tells the tale of a futuristic world in which time travel exists but is outlawed, used only by major crime syndicates for purposes of disposal. These syndicates will send victims back in time where men known as "loopers" wait for them only to execute them on sight. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is such a man, and he maintains an extravagant lifestyle as a result of his career. One day, as Joe waits for his victim, or "loop," he finds an older version of himself (Bruce Willis) kneeling before him. After a moment's hesitation, Young Joe allows Old Joe to escape, sparking a massive manhunt by Young Joe's company to find the older man. As Young Joe and Old Joe start to interact through their meetings, light is shed on the elder Joe's current agenda for transforming his future into something much more desirable.

I apologize if the above synopsis seems a little bit shoddy, but I don't want to give away too much information about the plot and the storyline. What I wrote, along with the trailer posted below, really gives away the first half of the film. It's the second act that proves to be a little bit astonishing, and I'd rather not be the one to give it all away.

I've been anxiously awaiting this film for quite a while. Many of my readers will know that I have a bit of a man-crush on Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and that might have played a part in me seeing this film as soon as I did. The real selling point for me, however, is the return of a collaboration between Gordon-Levitt and director Johnson, who first joined forces for 2005's Brick. I'm sure that fact has probably been mentioned in every single review for Looper thus far, but I figured I'd reiterate it. Because I loved that film so much, the idea of another film from the two seemed like a gift-wrapped present at Christmas. What I'm here to tell you is that Looper does not disappoint. It's opened to some fantastic reviews - it currently holds a ninety-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - and that only fueled the fire for me to get to a theater and see it as soon as I possibly could.

Let's start with the screenplay, shall we? In the past, a number of successful film franchises, such as Back to the Future and those little Terminator films, have dealt with the concept of time travel. For whatever reason, the plot device has remained a viable option for filmmakers in today's society as well, but I don't think I've ever seen it quite done like this. Johnson manages to create a cinematic world where the idea of time travel can understandably exist, and yet, he never takes the time to spell out the precise details for such an existence. Instead, he gives us just enough information for the audience to understand and believe the capability, and it's this tactic that sets Looper apart from the some of the other great time travel flicks. Rather than trying to bash the viewer over the head with drawn-out explanations, Johnson allows the explanation to be this simple: it exists, and it works. For the most part, that's all we need to know.

From there, the film plays out in a relatively straight-forward manner. Anytime you involve time travel, there are going to be a few moments where things can get a little confusing, but the screenplay does well to keep things from getting too convoluted. At the end of the day, I couldn't see any major issues with logic and continuity within the constructs of the story, but some nitpickers will surely find a few minor details here and there. The screenplay does go on to excel in the second half of the film, blending action sequences with a number of thrills and some fantastic plot twists towards film's end. While some of the storyline becomes a tad bit predictable, I can honestly say that I was not expecting the film's ultimately finale, one that just might blow your mind.

To bring this screenplay together, we'd need a pretty good cast, and that's just what we're getting. Gordon-Levitt is fantastic as Young Joe, and with a fantastic bit of make-up, he does his best Bruce Willis impression. In the early going, it's uncanny just how much the young actor mimics the likeness of the veteran, and I have to say I was thoroughly impressed. Willis himself also brings a strong performance to the screen. Always one of my favorite actors, I can honestly say that I don't think I've seen him bring forth this strong a character since his turn in 2005's Sin City. I might even go as far back as The Sixth Sense in 1999, if I think about it. Kudos to these two leading men for crafting engaging on-screen characters.

Now, the rest of the cast fills out incredibly well, and you're going to see quite a few familiar faces. Emily Blunt offers a great performance as our leading lady. She continues to impress me with her acting prowess. Also be on the lookout for the likes of Jeff Daniels, Paul Dano and Garret Dillahunt, each of whom brings a great bit to the screen. Where I was truly impressed, however, was with the performance of young actor Pierce Gagnon, appearing in only his third feature film. Even for such a young age, he brought quite a presence and power to the screen, which was definitely a necessity for his particular character. To stand toe-to-toe with the likes of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Emily Blunt is quite a feat, but the young Gagnon manages to do just that.

At the end of the day, Looper is a fantastic film, as well as an incredible addition to the science-fiction canon. Sure, it has a few minor flaws here and there, but with any film involving time travel, a bit of disbelief is a bit necessary. If you can let yourself get lost in this world and this story, I don't think there's any reason you won't enjoy the film. Rian Johnson strikes yet again, and I can't wait for his net endeavor.

 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Status: Should See

Movie Review: MELANCHOLIA

MELANCHOLIA

2011

R

"Hold my hand. Close your eyes."

-- Justine

Melancholia is a 2011 dramatic arthouse film directed by Lars von Trier that delves into the concepts of depression and disaster. In the midst of her wedding celebration, new bride Justine (Kirsten Dunst) unwittingly falls victim to a number of outside circumstances that keep her from enjoying what should be the happiest day of her life. Her sister Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and her husband John (Kiefer Sutherland) continually pester her about her mood, and she withstands a number of confrontations from her employer (Stellan Skarsgård) about work-related issues. Her mood swings affect her new husband Michael (Alexander Skarsgård), and at the end of the night, Justine finds herself without a husband and without a job. The film then transitions to its main story: Justine has fallen into a deep depression, and the world watches as a rogue planet called Melancholia heads on a course for a fly-by of Earth. Justine comes to stay with Claire and her family, and she slowly gets back on her feet. Around the same time, Claire begins to worry that Melancholia might, in fact, collide with Earth, causing the end of the world as she knows it.

I first heard about Melancholia as it made its way through the film festival circuits back in early 2011. Dunst managed to nab the Best Actress Award at the Cannes Film Festival, a feat which sparked early Oscar buzz for her performance. The film itself would go on to be selected as the best film of 2011 by the U.S. National Society of Film Critics, and it managed to score a number of nominations and wins at ceremonies around the world. But it was the performance of Dunst, whom has been both good and bad over the years, that truly drew my personal interest in the film. Little did I know that von Trier had something truly special hidden up his sleeve.

I think I need to start with this disclaimer before I get into my overall review: Melancholia is an arthouse film, and it's not going to appeal to all viewers and audiences. Fortunately, the film's opening sequence will set the stage for whether or not you are personally going to make it through the over two-hour venture. The film opens in true arthouse fashion with a number of seemingly random sequences that are sure to confuse many. I myself was scratching my head at the very outset, wondering what exactly I was getting myself into. If you're already turned off by the opening sequence, then Melancholia might not be the flick for you, but if it offers you a sense of intrigue, I implore you to keep watching.

As I previously stated, the film delves into the deepest realms of depression and disaster. It's not the easiest film to watch, and it certainly doesn't offer any real happy ending. It's going to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth, but I think that's the point. The storyline itself is relatively rudimentary, but it's the subtle nuances about the screenplay that bring this film to life. The events taking place in the world outside of the film's characters are merely the pieces that keep time moving forward. Melancholia is more about investing yourself in the characters and the emotions they convey. The brilliance in the screenplay stems from the wonderfully-written characters. Even the characters we only see for a moment seem perfectly-placed, and it gives the film a true sense of reality and validity.

The best part of the screenplay, in my opinion, is von Trier's look at the world of depression. Having had my own issues with mental illness, I'd be lying if I said I didn't take a personal emotional interest in the cinematic look at this world so familiar to me. Von Trier himself has had his own issues with depression, and it was these circumstances that led him to craft this particular film. What he creates is one of the most honest and heartbreaking looks at a person with depression, and for that alone, I have to applaud the filmmaker and writer.

This character-driven creation would have never come to life were it not for the stellar cast that von Trier was able to bring together. Dunst is a revelation as one of our principal leads, and I'm left scratching my head, wondering how she was left off last year's Oscar ballot. This is a role unlike any she has ever taken before, and she knocks it out of the park. I laughed with her Justine, I cried with her, I fell to the very depths of sanity with her. When an actor is capable of bringing the viewer on that kind of emotional ride, you know they're doing something right. What's incredible is that Gainsbourg is just as good as Dunst, and it's almost unfair to think that this film managed to snag two fantastic performances. Between the two, it's easily one of the best pairs of performances I've seen together in one film in the last few years. Dunst may take the cake, but Gainsbourg is definitely having a slice or two. The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely, with both the elder and younger Skarsgård offering solid, albeit small, performances. Sutherland also does well with his bit, but he's overshadowed by his female counterparts. Also be on the watch for a great bit piece from John Hurt.

As I said before, Melancholia is not going to be a film that everyone will enjoy. If you've watched other arthouse fare and had trouble remaining engaged, then you might want to pass this one by. However, I personally found it to be an incredible cinematic feat, and Dunst's performance alone is enough to give it recommendation. If you have the patience for it, I'm sure Melancholia will deliver for you in the way it delivered for me.
 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: LAWLESS

LAWLESS

2012

R

"I'm a Bondurant. We don't lay down for nobody."

-- Forrest Bondurant

Lawless is a 2012 crime drama directed by John Hillcoat that is adapted from Matt Bondurant's 2008 novel, The Wettest County in the World. The story follows the Bondurants, a family of three brothers led by the eldest Forrest (Tom Hardy), who run an illegal moonshine business in Franklin County, Virginia in the midst of the Prohibition era. With the help of his brothers Jack (Shia LaBeouf) and Howard (Jason Clarke), Forrest has become one of the biggest suppliers of moonshine in the county. One day, a special deputy from Chicago named Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce) is brought into the county in order to destroy the bootlegging businesses, and he immediately clashes with the Bondurant clan. He starts to rid the county of its numerous illegal distilleries, and he soon starts a personal vendetta against Forrest Bondurant. Youngest brother Jack finds a way to keep the business afloat, only increasing the tension between the brothers and the ever-present Rakes.

I first heard about this film about a year ago when it was still to be titled The Wettest County in the World. At the time, I took a passing glance, noticing it merely for its casting star power, but it didn't necessarily ring a bell as a must-see. When the film's trailer was released, however, something about the stylistic grittiness compelled me to at least give it a view. The film has opened to moderately positive reviews, but I can't quite say they've been entirely stellar thus far.

One of the biggest issues most critics - including myself - have had with Lawless is its screenplay. While there's definitely a strong and emotional story of family bonds and revenge hidden beneath it all, there seems to be a little too much extra storyline given to the film. At its core, the story should be about the three brothers and their loyalty to one another, regardless of how much they drive one another crazy. There were a few ancillary characters that turned out to be more important than they should have been, and it ultimately helps to bog down the story a little bit. Despite this, the film's climax and finale still prove to be quite strong, even with the obstacles along the way.

Where this film's strength truly lies is in its cast. Now, I have to start by saying that I have never been much of a fan of Shia LaBeouf. I'm sure I've mentioned this before, but there have been times where I have downright hated his presence on-screen. However, I think Lawless will ultimately be the film where we as the audience see LaBeouf mature into a legitimate actor right before our very eyes. At the start of the film, he almost seems a little bit of touch, as he often does, but by film's end, there's a power and a grace to his acting ability that I haven't seen him convey before. I have to tip my hat to the young actor for breaking out of his acting shell and transforming (pun intended) himself into something entirely different.

The rest of the cast fills out quite nicely as well. Tom Hardy continues to prove to me that he is one of the better actors working in Hollywood today. You can place his performance in Lawless right next to his noteworthy turns in 2009's Bronson and 2011's Warrior. Pearce is also great as the film's central villain, and I thought he brought the film's second-best character (behind Hardy's Forrest) to the screen. Also worth mention for their smaller, albeit not entirely necessary, roles are Gary Oldman, Jessica Chastain and Mia Wasikowska, who all manage to bring strong performances to the film.

At the end of the day, Lawless manages to bring together a very strong ensemble cast that ultimately falls prey to a less-than-stellar screenplay. Still, the strength of the performances helps to keep this film afloat, and an emotional second act gives the audience an opportunity to stay engaged and involved with the events on-screen. See it for Hardy and Pearce's performances, and be surprised by the growth of Shia LaBeouf into a legitimate actor.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B+

Status: Should See

Movie Review: THE BRIDGE

THE BRIDGE

2006
R



"I don't know why people kill themselves. And yet, it's a small step to empathize... to say... well, because I think we all experience moments of despair."

-- Caroline Pressley

The Bridge is a 2006 documentary directed by Eric Steel that offers a rare insight into the taboo subject of suicide. In 2004, Steel and his crew set up a number of cameras around the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California in order to capture victims of suicide jumping to their deaths. After gaining over ten thousand hours of footage, the crew learned they had caught twenty-three of the reported twenty-four suicides that took place over the course of the year. In the aftermath, Steel and his fellow filmmakers chose to interview the family and friends of the victims in order to gain insight into both the minds of the deceased as well as their own perspectives on the tragic situation. 

Those of you who have been reading my reviews for quite some time may remember my original review of this film nearly two years ago. I had mixed feelings about the film, but ultimately found it to be a hauntingly brilliant look at the thoughts and emotions that come forth at the hands of a suicide. After watching it tonight for the second time, I am reaffirmed in my stance, and I continue to think that The Bridge is one of the greatest - as well as one of the bravest - documentaries ever brought to the silver screen.

I don't think I can get away with saying that yesterday's tragic death of director Tony Scott helped influence my decision to give this film another go-around. Since then, I've heard a lot of people, including some of my readers, question why Scott would choose to take his own life. I've made it no secret that I myself have struggled with depression and mental illness in the past, I can understand just how low a person needs to be to consider this option. Still, it can be mind-boggling for an individual who has never reached that level of despair. 

That's why I think The Bridge is both so beautiful and so important. Through the numerous interviews with family and friends - as well as one with a jump survivor - we as the audience experience the full range of imaginable emotions tied to losing a loved one to suicide. From anger to guilt to acceptance, each interviewee offers another piece of the puzzle. And yet, at the end of the day, the film does not offer any answers, but it never truly sets out to give them.

The Bridge is not a film you're going to enjoy. It's a heart-wrenching look at a very real subject, and it's definitely not for the faint of heart. However, I think the stories it tells are vital to raising awareness for problems such as mental illness. There's so many people in the world who don't understand the concept of depression, and sometimes, it takes a drastic measure for someone to start to think about it. That's not the way the world should be. When I first watched the film in 2010, my closest friend watched it simultaneously from about five hundred miles away, and after finishing the film, we had a chance to discuss it at length. In my previous review, I brought up a number of her comments, and I'd like to bring one back in this review, as I think it sums up my thoughts on the film perfectly: 

I don't think you're supposed to like [The Bridge], but I do think it was beautifully and tastefully done. As beautiful and as tasteful as you can get with suicide, at least.

I don't think I could agree more.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Status: Must-See

Movie Review: THE PLEDGE

THE PLEDGE

2001

R

"I made a promise, Eric. You're old enough to remember when that meant something."

-- Jerry Black

The Pledge is a 2001 dramatic film directed by Sean Penn that centers around one man's obsession with solving a murder mystery. On the day of his retirement, Detective Jerry Black (Jack Nicholson) tags along on a call for the rape and murder of a young girl. It falls into his hands to tell the girl's parents of the tragedy, and to give them assurance and peace of mind, he promises to bring the culprit to justice. The police soon find their prime suspect, but Jerry doesn't believe this man to be the true perpetrator. Still, he lets bygones be bygones and starts on his retirement, ultimately settling in a small Nevada town. He starts a relationship with a young waitress named Lori (Robin Wright) and her daughter, and though his life is moving forward, he can never shake the case from his mind. It continues to gnaw at him until a string of events occur that cause him to look into the case once again.

I first heard about The Pledge after reading about it in Leonard Maltin's book, 151 Movies You've Never Seen. I started to see it listed on NetFlix's Instant Watch, and I was ultimately drawn to the film by its loaded cast. What I couldn't really know was just what type of film I'd be getting myself into.

The film's screenplay is a slow but delicate piece that manages to keep the viewer engaged despite its plodding pace. In the first part of the film, things seem to move quickly, but as soon as Jerry makes his move to retirement, everything slows down to a crawl. It's only in the film's seemingly anti-climactic finale that the speed kicks up again, but we're left scratching our heads as the credits start to roll. However, the pacing seems to work within the constructs of the film. The manic start and end satisfy the need for a bit of action, but the slow-moving pieces in between help give us a sense of Jerry's character. At the same time, we can see him formulating a plan for catching this mysterious monster, and it all helps work toward the effectiveness of the finale. I previously stated that the ending seemed a tad bit anti-climactic, but that's only true to the untrained eye. The Pledge's story actually offers a completely devastating and depressing conclusion, giving a somewhat satisfying finish to the entire endeavor.

Bolstering the solid screenplay is the fantastic work of the cast, which is essentially a who's-who of big-time Hollywood stars. Nicholson is the film's centerpiece, and he provides one of the better roles of his career, bringing a slew of emotions to the Jerry character. His work with the conclusion helps bring the brilliance of the film as a whole, and simply have to applaud the three-time Oscar winner. Wright also manages to bring forth a great turn in her supporting role, and I also thought the young Pauline Roberts did a splendid job as well. Also be on the watch for a number of great small or cameo appearances from the likes of Aaron Eckhart, Benicio Del Toro, Patricia Clarkson, Vanessa Redgrave, Mickey Rourke, Helen Mirren and Tom Noonan.

Where The Pledge most succeeds, however, is in the atmosphere it creates. Penn does a great job in crafting a realistic world where we can believe everything that's happening. As time continues to pass and another meeting with our mysterious killer looms on the horizon, the film slowly gains this very disgusting feeling, almost as though you know what's going to happen but still don't want it to come across the screen. There was a number of moments where I was sure I knew the direction the film was headed but was surreptitiously proven wrong. You just get this knot in your stomach as the film progresses, and you can only hope that, by the film's end, it will have gone away. What makes this film stand apart, however, is that it doesn't take that knot away. Instead, it gives you something to chew on and ponder well after you've finished watching. I think Maltin put it best in his book when he said the following:

The Pledge is the kind of movie that stays with you, precisely because it poses as many questions as it answers - and because Jack Nicholson makes such a lasting impression.

The combination of a stellar screenplay, a superb cast and an eerie atmosphere makes The Pledge one of the better movies I've seen of late. Kudos to Mr. Penn on this one. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A-

Status: Should See

Movie Review: PROMETHEUS

PROMETHEUS

2012

R

"Big things have small beginnings."
-- David

Prometheus is a 2012 sci-fi horror film directed by Ridley Scott that serves as a quasi-prequel to Scott's 1979 film, Alien. After archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover a string of clues to the origin of human life on Earth, they enlist the help of the Weyland Corporation to make their way to a distant planet where they believe they will find the alien species that created humanity. Once there, they find the remains of what looks to be an old colony, but as they continue to explore the caves, they start to realize that there may be a menace amongst them that's more powerful and more terrifying than they could have ever imagined.

Those of you who follow my blog will know just how excited I have been for the release of Prometheus. As a huge fan of Scott's original Alien, I waited (im)patiently for his return to the franchise after thirty-three years. And for most of the film, I have to say that I was filled with an awkward giddiness that kept me engaged from start to finish. It's only in the time after the movie ended that I've started to realize that Prometheus wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

The first major issue with the film is its place as a "quasi-prequel" to 1979's Alien. In recent months, Scott had claimed that while the film would not directly precede the events of Alien, it would take place within the same cinematic universe and would explore the mythologies behind the creatures and events he created within that universe. And so, I was prepared for a film similar to Alien but not necessarily connected to it in any way, shape or form. Where the film goes wrong is in its execution of this idea. Rather than steering clear of the Alien storyline, Prometheus acts as though it's going to answer all the questions left resonating by its predecessor. It has all the pieces to do so, but it's only in the final act that it becomes clear that the situations aren't exactly the same. In a way, the film hypes up the story as a direct prequel but then ungraciously reminds the viewer that it isn't by taking the story in a different direction right at the end. Perhaps I was just put off by this idea, but it took me out of the film and made for a bit of a disappointment.

The second issue is the screenplay itself. While the story proves to be inventive, and it does manage to channel some familiar plot pieces from previous Alien films, it doesn't seem as though the situations are interconnected or plausible. We go from one scene to the next, but we're never quite sure why anyone is doing any particular thing at any given time. I suppose the real issue is that we're never given a clear sense of any character motivation. In past Alien films - especially in the original flick - we always had a great sense of character development. We knew who was doing what, and why they wanted to do it. In Prometheus, however, these things prove to be a bit clouded. Our two archaeologists seem straight-forward enough: they want to learn the origins of human life. But it's some of the ancillary characters who act in strange and peculiar ways, and there really isn't a reason given for some of their actions. And aside from Michael Fassbender's David (an android), we never really get to know any of the characters on an intimate level. Maybe that was the idea, and the joke. Let's make the audience know the most about the only non-human character on board the ship. My biggest issue with the screenplay, however, is that it tried to force emotion onto the audience in blatant and over-the-top ways. Because we couldn't establish any real connection to the characters, it seemed as though tiny plot pieces were added here and there to make us feel some sort of emotion to a given character from time to time. Unfortunately, these moments just seemed gimmicky and proved annoying after a while.

What's sad about all this is that the screenplay actually spoils some rather fine attributes about the film. For starters, I thought the special effects were incredibly well-done, and although they're nothing ground-breaking, it definitely looks realistic, and for that, Prometheus should be applauded. We're also getting a slew of decent performances from the cast. Rapace is good as our apparent lead, although I know she's capable of stronger work (see: 2010's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). Fassbender offers the best performance in the film, bringing forth an android that is both the most and least human-like in the franchise. That's quite a feat considering we've gotten some great android performances in past films in the franchise from the likes of Ian Holm and Lance Henriksen. I also thought that Charlize Theron and Idris Elba played their parts well, but both were a tad bit under-utilized, in my opinion. Also be on the watch for a fine supporting performance from Guy Pearce, who you may not recognize under all his makeup.

Still, despite everything I've just said, I have a strong desire to return to the theaters to give this one another chance. Part of me thinks that the only reason I'm so put-off by the film is because it hyped itself up to be a direct prequel then left even more questions unanswered. It's almost as though Scott wanted to leave this film open-ended for a potential sequel, and I can see where they might have the possibility. I suppose we'll have to wait and see about that, but I very well may give this one another view, and should I do so, my thoughts and opinions could very well change drastically. But as it currently stands, I'd go into this one a little wary because, despite all the issues I have with its "quasi-prequel" status, there are still a few negative aspects that simply cannot be overlooked.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You See It? Maybe

Movie Review: DEATH RACE 2000

DEATH RACE 2000

1975

R

"Even the fearsome Frankenstein has a one-hundred percent red-blooded American sense of humor."

-- Harold

Death Race 2000 is a 1975 B movie action film directed by Paul Bartel that presents a strange dystopian future. After a massive financial meltdown and a military takeover, the United States has transformed into the United Provinces of America, a land where church and state have become one entity, and the government has become all-powerful. To satiate the mass public's hunger, a series of horrifically exciting sporting events takes place throughout the year, and the centerpiece of these events is the Annual Transcontinental Road Race, more commonly known as the "Death Race." Each year, five racers make their way across the country in the hopes of reaching New Los Angeles first. Along the way, they are awarded points for mercilessly killing any innocent bystanders they might pass by. In the film's race, two-time winner Frankenstein (David Carradine) is back to defend his title, but he'll have stiff competition from the likes of Machine Gun Joe Viterbo (Sylvester Stallone) who's ready to take home the crown once again. Little do the racers know that a group of anti-government rebels has set out to stop the race once and for all.

When I was a child growing up in the early 1990s, I can distinctly remember my aunt making a number of crude jokes about scoring points for hitting pedestrians along the side of the street. The number of points would vary from person to person, but I can recall my fear as I pleaded with her not to take such action. Now, I may just be reading into it, but I would say there's a distinct possibility she may have gotten such an idea from Death Race 2000, which employs a similar strategy for the racers. At the time, I obviously didn't know that such a film existed, but after the release of the 2008 remake Death Race, this source film came into my consciousness. And now, I've finally had the opportunity to take in this cult classic.

To start, I would like to remind everyone that this is, in fact, a B movie. For those of you who aren't quite sure what that means, I'll offer you this definition from Wikipedia:

A B movie is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not definitively an arthouse or pornographic film. 

In a sense, the "B movie" genre just refers to any film that might not be entirely mainstream or big-budget. They're usually aesthetically pleasing but offer little in terms of screenplay or acting, but at the same time, many B movies manage to garner quite a cult following. Death Race 2000 falls into that category, and it has been praised by many as one of the more entertaining B movies ever made.

The storyline actually offers an interesting look at a fictional future where the government has become so powerful that it completely keeps the public at bay. In a way, they use their graphic sporting events like the Annual Transcontinental Road Race to instill fear into the hearts of the people, reassuring them that the government is still in charge. Throughout the films, it almost seems like we have two separate stories moving forward. On one side, we have the race itself, which proves to be the more entertaining half of the film. One the other hand, we have the story of the resistance trying to stop the race and bring down the government. Where the screenplay truly succeeds, however, is in the blend of these two stories. When they finally come together, it proves to be a clever twist that was only slightly expected. For that, I think the film should be applauded. The script also succeeds in crafting interesting and relatable characters that the audience can cheer for or against readily. There's a clear sense of right and wrong, even when the characters bounce from side to side.

I also think we're getting a rather splendid cast. Although the actors seem to be a bit over-the-top, I think that's more a telling sign of the genre rather than their ability. Carradine turns in a fine performance as our lead, bringing a steady presence to the screen. Simone Griffeth plays opposite Carradine as his navigator Annie Smith. She brings a decent performance as a woman whose allegiances are constantly suspect. We're getting an entertainingly fascinating turn by a pre-Rocky Sly Stallone, who works as one of the film's main antagonists. Sure, it's just a lot of anger and screaming, but within the constructs of this film, it works wonderfully. The rest of the racers are portrayed by Mary Woronov, Roberta Collins and Martin Kove (whom you might recognize from 1984's The Karate Kid), and they all bring decent performances. I also wanted to give credit to Don Steele, who portrays the race's announcer, for being perfectly annoying in his part.

(Fun fact: Carradine reprised his role as Frankenstein - in a vocal cameo - in the 2008 remake.)

At the end of the day, Death Race 2000 is a fun-filled, silly adventure into a fictional dystopian landscape. It offers plenty of action, explosions and gore, and it's sure to have you rolling with laughter. It's miles ahead of the 2008 remake, so do yourself a favor and give this one a view first. Don't think too much about this one, though. Just sit back and enjoy the ride (pun intended).

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: RISKY BUSINESS

RISKY BUSINESS

1983

R

"You've done a lot of solid work here, but it's just not Ivy League, now is it?"

-- Rutherford

Risky Business is a 1983 drama written and directed by Paul Brickman. It tells the story of Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise), a high school senior who is left home alone while his parents go on vacation. Always careful not to step on any toes, Joel's friend Miles (Curtis Armstrong) finally talks him into taking a few risks. This leads Joel to calling on call girl Lana (Rebecca De Mornay) who proceeds to steal one of his mother's prized pieces of art. He chases her down and learns that she is trying to escape the clutches of her "manager" Guido (Joe Pantoliano). The two evade capture and begin a working relationship that puts into motion a plan to generate a large amount of revenue for the two of them. At the same time, feelings start to grow between Joel and Lana, and their relationship leads Joel to neglect his studies, forcing his educational prospects to spiral out of control.

When the thought of Risky Business comes to mind, most people are immediately drawn to the iconic dance scene that shows a half-naked Cruise romping around to Bob Seger's "Old Time Rock & Roll." It's an image that's been often parodied, and for that reason, it stands out prominently in our minds. In all reality, it's a somewhat inconsequential scene that occurs towards the film's beginning before we get into the thick of the storyline. Still, any review of Risky Business would be incomplete without a mention of Cruise's rock 'n roll rampage.

I had a little bit of trouble finding a way into Risky Business. It starts out relatively slowly, and there's a dry humor that's difficult to follow at times. From the start, I could only see Cruise's Joel as a whiny teenager trying his best not to get caught with doing anything wrong, but at the same time, I desperately wanted him to break out of his shell and do something for himself for a change. We get an interesting look at the dynamics of his relationship with his parents (portrayed by Nicholas Pryor and Janet Carroll), and it sets the stage for his ultimate unwinding. But the story that follows is a strange one that I admittedly may not fully understand. It tells the tale of Joel's decision to take up a night of prostitution, working as a pimp for Lana and her fellow call girls. The whole idea is tied into the fact that Joel has been trying to prove he can be a successful businessman, but the whole concept just takes a strange turn here and there, and it all left me a little bit perplexed. Maybe this film would have resonated in the capitalist-friendly culture of the early-1980s when it was released, but in today's society, I don't think it would strike as strong a chord as it did back then.

That's probably the one thing that Risky Business definitely has going for it: it has a very 1980s feel to it, and in that respect, it's actually a fascinating look at the lifestyle of a teenager in that time period. Libidos were high and so was the cash flow, but there was still a strong desire to increase personal wealth as well. That's exactly what Risky Business portrays, and for that, it should be applauded.

The acting within the film is decent, although there really isn't anyone blowing away the competition. Cruise does well as our lead, although there were a few times where I simply couldn't stand his presence. He goes between solid and over-the-top, and it doesn't always blend well. That being said, it's still a stronger performance than quite a bit of what we get nowadays. Rebecca De Mornay does well as Lana, bringing a soft but powerful grace to the screen. If anyone steals the show, however, it's Pantoliano in his limited role as one of the film's chief antagonists. He manages to be both funny and menacing, creating a character that's completely believable while being entirely over-the-top. Some of Cruise's on-screen friends make for a few good bits of comedic relief, but there really isn't anyone else worth mention.

At the end of the day, Risky Business is a decent film that wonderfully showcases a specific time period in United States history. Although the storyline often becomes muddled and the acting isn't necessarily top-notch, there are still a few things to like about the story. It just isn't a movie that I'm going to go back and watch over and over again. If you're looking for a movie that features a teenager who goes on a spree after his parents go away, I'd check out the far superior 1986 film, Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: THE WEATHER MAN

THE WEATHER MAN

2005

R

"Hello, America."
-- Dave Spritz

The Weather Man is a 2005 dramatic comedy directed by Gore Verbinski. It tells the story of a TV weatherman named Dave Spritz (Nicolas Cage) who is desperately attempting to land a job on the nationally-syndicated show Hello, America. Recently separated - and possibly divorced? - from his wife Noreen (Hope Davis), Dave has a slew of issues that are keeping him from both pursuing his dream as well as being happy as an individual. He is constantly working to impress his father Robert (Michael Caine), an accomplished and awarded author who develops a rapidly-spreading case of lymphoma, leaving Dave little time to gain his ultimate approval. At the same time, he must handle the troubles of his son Mike (Nicholas Hoult) and his daughter Shelly (Gemmenne de la Peña), who are both struggling to find happiness in their own lives. As his world starts to spiral out of control, Dave tries to keep everything together as Hello, America comes knocking at his door.

Since this film was released in 2005, I've always been drawn to watching it. Whenever there proved to be a time, however, I usually dismissed it and chose something that seemed a tad bit more entertaining. Fortunately for the film, I have finally taken the time to sit down and give it a view; unfortunately, I cannot say that all my waiting was worth it.

I'm going to start with the acting because that's where I have the least issue. I know that there are plenty of people out there who are adamantly against Nicolas Cage as an actor, but I do think that he has quite the performing ability when given a proper script and character. One need only look toward films like 2002's Adaptation. or 2005's Lord of War, where he was able to bring forth fantastic performances. Sure, in recent years, he's delved into some questionable roles, but my opinions and views of Cage are not for this time or this post. Rather, I would like to say that he's serviceable here in The Weather Man, but I think he could have brought a little bit more to the screen. Our supporting cast works well, with special mention going to ever-splendid Caine and to the young Gemmenne de la Peña, who proved to be one of the better actors on-screen. Davis and Hoult are okay, but they're not really bringing much. Also be on the watch for a relatively funny cameo from Bryant Gumbel as the host of Hello, America.

No, the issue with The Weather Man isn't the acting; it's the screenplay. The films is billed as a dramatic comedy, which generally fashions some interesting films. Some recent examples of splendid dramatic comedies include the 2011 films Beginners and The Descendants. Where those films - as well as other films in the genre - succeed is in their script and their tone, which is ultimately dictated by the screenplay. The storyline in The Weather Man proves to be just a little too muddled for the audience's attention. There's so many things happening all at once that it's a tad bit difficult to maintain one's focus on one facet of the storyline. Should we care about Dave's job aspirations? Or his attempts to appease his father? Or perhaps we should focus on his failing marriage? There are ways to blend all of these things together, but The Weather Man doesn't find a way to do just that.

One of the biggest problems, however, is the issue of one. As the genre dictates, a dramatic comedy will have ample doses of both drama and comedy. Successful films will find a way to blend the two together in such a manner that keeps the storyline flowing seamlessly. We'll be able to laugh at the dramatic moments, and we'll feel emotion at the comedic bits. That's the sign of a great dramatic comedy. The Weather Man, however, feels a little bit jumpy, almost as though it can't quite figure out which type of film it wants to be. One moment, we're watching a drama. The next, we're delving into drama. And we go back and forth and back and forth, never quite getting that wonderful blend that we so desire. Instead, we're getting a choppy look at a man's life that's filled with dry humor, but it doesn't flow continuously. The film just has a strange feel to it.

At the end of the day, The Weather Man is a serviceable film that doesn't really burst off the screen. I had high hopes for the flick, but I do have to say that it underwhelmed. Still, we're getting a solid performance from Nic Cage, and the movie does have its moments. Just don't expect it to blow you away or anything.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: C

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3DD

PIRANHA 3DD

2012

R

"Welcome to rock bottom."

-- David Hasselhoff

Piranha 3DD is a 2012 horror-comedy directed by John Gulager that serves as a sequel to the 2010 film, Piranha 3D. The film opens with a news story telling us that the Lake Victoria massacre has left the town abandoned, and the reporter questions whether another such incident could possibly happen again. Fast forward one year, and we're now in the confines of a small Arizona town, where Chet (David Koechner) is preparing to re-open his late wife's water park as a not-so-family-friendly play-place, much to the chagrin of his step-daughter Maddy (Danielle Panabaker). After a close friend goes missing, Maddy discovers that the now-infamous piranha have migrated to the lake just outside the water park. Fearing for a spree similar to the spring break massacre, Maddy, her friend Barry (Matt Bush) and deputy Kyle (Chris Zylka) make their way to Lake Victoria to seek the aid of Carl Goodman (Christopher Lloyd). What they learn from him incites a new level of terror, and Maddy rushes back to the water park to plead with Chet to postpone the grand re-opening.

As I've said on so many different occasions, I couldn't begin to express my excitement for this sequel to the smash 2010 hit. I became an instant fan of Piranha 3D, and after I heard that a sequel had been greenlit, I waited (im)patiently for its ultimate release. There were to be a lot of changes: Alexandre Aja would not be returning to direct, and we were losing the basic setting of Lake Victoria. At the same time, we would see some familiar faces with returns from Lloyd, Ving Rhames and Paul Scheer. And, ultimately, we were going to have piranhas wreaking havoc. What's not to like, right? It took nearly two years, but I finally had the opportunity to sit down and watch Piranha 3DD.

What I'm about to say is a little bit discouraging: I don't know how I feel about the film. On the one hand, I thought that there was enough to make this an entertaining film, but at the same time, I honestly think that I've been gypped of so many months of waiting for something that's even a shell of what it predecessor achieved. Sadly, that can't necessarily be said about Piranha 3DD.

While the first film didn't necessarily have a plot, there was still a series of events that the audience was able to follow. This time around, however, nothing truly seems to be interconnected. We have one scene where something happens, then another where something else happens, then another and another. And yet, there's no flow to the narrative. It's simply one attack to another, with a little bit of exposition here and there. But there's nothing really to which the audience can cling, and that's going to leave a few people dazed and bored. 

One of the other reasons that Piranha 3D proved so entertaining is that we could actually care about the characters on-screen. Sure, the film didn't offer the greatest acting, but the characters were fleshed out just enough to make them redeemable and endearing. We knew who to love and who to hate, and that worked quite well in swaying us towards cheering for or against certain characters. In Piranha 3DD, we never get that. We know who we're supposed to like and who we're supposed to hate, but we just can't muster enough energy to have those emotions towards any of the characters. Some of the cameos prove to be rather entertaining, but even those are a little bit fleeting. Still, Lloyd gets to have a little more screen-time this time around, and even David Hasselhoff manages to evoke a few chuckles here and there. And yes, Gary Busey is in this movie, but his scene is over so quickly that you'll forget about it a few minutes later.

At the end of the day, Piranha 3DD is, at best, a shell of its predecessor, and a hollow shell at that. While there are a few redeemable moments, there just isn't enough to keep the film moving along as well as it should. Perhaps Piranha 3D was meant to be a novelty success, and although I can't completely hate this new piranha-centric film, I can't say that I love it either. I'm just on the fence, and sometimes, that's the last place a film wants a viewer to be. 

Movie Review Summary

Grade: D

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: PIRANHA 3D

PIRANHA 3D

2010

R

"The first bite draws blood. The blood draws the pack."
-- Mr. Goodman

Piranha 3D is a 2010 horror-comedy directed by Alexandre Aja that serves as a remake of the 1978 film of the same name. When an underwater earthquake causes a rift to open on the floor of Lake Victoria, another subterranean lake is exposed to the surface. Within those depths lie thousands of allegedly extinct piranha who come up to feast right around the time of the annual Lake Victoria spring break festivities. Saddened by the fact that he's stuck babysitting his younger siblings, Jake Forester (Steven R. McQueen) willingly accepts an invitation to be a "location scout" for Derrick Jones (Jerry O'Connell) and his Wild Wild Girls film crew. The son of local sheriff Julie Forester (Elisabeth Shue), Jake knows that what he's doing goes against everything she probably wants; what he doesn't know, however, is that there is a very fishy menace lurking just beneath the water's surface. And with the throngs of college co-eds partying out on the lake, it's only a matter of time until the massacre can ensue.

I wanted to re-watch Piranha 3D in anticipation of the sequel, Piranha 3DD, which is set for release tomorrow. As many of you may have seen in my 2012 Summer Movie Preview, I'm rather excited for the sequel, and all of that excitement stems from the fact that I loved its predecessor oh so much. Now, I'm sure there are a lot of you scratching your heads, wondering why anyone could ever love a movie like Piranha 3D, but if you'll allow it, I shall explain.

Now, I could start off by talking about the screenplay or the acting or any of those typical facets of film that I usually like to talk about, but the point would be a bit moot. The acting is decent considering the genre - although, I was then and still am impressed with O'Connell's superbly comedic performance - and we're getting a slew of fantastic cameo appearances from the likes of Richard Dreyfuss, Christopher Lloyd and Eli Roth, as well as a pitch-perfect over-the-top bit by Ving Rhames. There are a few other actors who play more important plot roles - namely, Adam Scott and Jessica Szohr - but it's really the bit appearances and the leads who steal the show. And the screenplay is your run-of-the-mill horror creature tale: creature escapes, creature kills people, heroes fight back. That's really all it boils down to. However, there's something about this film that makes it just a little bit better.

At its very base, the film industry relies on one standard: to entertain the audience. When we go to the movies, we can have a slew of emotions. Sometimes we laugh, sometimes we cry, sometimes we scream in terror. But a good film will deliver whatever emotion it hopes to convey, and in that moment, we as the audience can be entertained. This is where Piranha 3D excels. Yes, the story and the concept are ridiculous. Yes, the special effects are shoddy and over-the-top. And yes, there's nothing terribly profound about anything that happens. But it still proves to be one of the more entertaining films in recent years. It goes all out and never lets off the gas, and although it's ridiculous, I still can't help but smile and laugh and cringe along with it all.

To be fair, I should probably say that my biggest love for this film is the fact that it directly references Jaws - admittedly my favorite film of all time - on many an occasion. From the very get-go, we're getting a steady stream. In the opening scene, we see an elderly Richard Dreyfuss essentially reprising his role from Jaws (although it isn't credited as such, most likely for copyright reasons and all that jazz). He's singing along to "Show Me the Way to Go Home" on the radio whilst attempting to catch a "fast fish." Fast-forward a little bit, and we see Ving Rhames' deputy talking about how the spring break season is a "big financial week for our town." Any fans of Jaws will be squealing with glee at these references. Or maybe it's just me being a fanatic. I'll admit that's definitely a possibility.

When it was released in 2010, Piranha 3D actually became one of the surprise critical and commercial successes of the summer. After spending a modest budget of $24 million to make the film, it returned over $83 million worldwide, and a lot of that success had to do with positive word of mouth. As of today, the film holds a seventy-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Playing exactly to expectations for a movie about killer fish run amok, Piranha 3D dishes out gore, guffaws and gratuitous nudity with equal glee.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: JACKIE BROWN

JACKIE BROWN

1997

R

"Half a million dollars will always be missed."

-- Max Cherry

Jackie Brown is a 1997 crime drama written and directed by Quentin Tarantino that served as the follow-up to his 1994 smash hit, Pulp Fiction. When flight attendant Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is stopped by A.T.F. detectives Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), they desperately try to press her for information regarding a small arms dealer named Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), for whom she traffics money. Initially, she gives them nothing in terms of intel, and the two men ensure she's imprisoned. Ordell posts her bail, and after meeting with her, the two devise a plan that will allow her to bring the rest of his money - over half a million dollars - back into the country from Mexico. At the same time, however, Jackie makes a deal with the A.T.F. agents that will keep her out of prison as long as she can give them Ordell. In addition, she teams with her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster) so that they can reap the rewards and bring home the money for themselves. As all three factions put their plans into play, a number of things go wrong for each side, only leading to further complications.

If someone would have asked me my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino only a few years ago, I probably would have dismissed his work as ridiculous and too far off the mainstream. It took his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds to bring me around to his style of filmmaking, and after giving a few of his other ventures another viewing - namely, Pulp Fiction and 1992's Reservoir Dogs - I have to say that I've come full circle and can now call myself a full-fledged fan of the director. That being said, I had always wanted to give Jackie Brown a view, and I've only now been able to do just that.

The first thing I have to say is that one should not expect this film to measure up to some of Tarantino's greater films. As the first film post-Pulp Fiction, Tarantino had set quite a bar for himself, and it was going to be difficult to reach that lofty goal regardless of the type of film he created. It garnered generally positive critical reviews upon its release, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Tarantino's third film, fashioned as a comeback for star Pam Grier, offers typical wit and charm -- and is typically overstuffed.

What comes out of Jackie Brown is a legitimate film that still stands head-and-shoulders over most of what hits theaters nowadays, but in relation to the director's other efforts, this one's definitely on the lower end of the spectrum. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its merits.

The film's screenplay proves to be engaging and entertaining, and although it's lacking in the profundity that some of Tarantino's other films enjoy, it still offers a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. We're given our nearly-obligatory scenes of mixed-and-matched timeline, but it's not quite as fresh as it has been in other films. Still, I have to say that there were a few moments where I thought I knew what was going to happen and was quickly proven incorrect. And for that, I have to commend Tarantino for not falling into the rote ideas that Hollywood had by that time established. Instead, he made a realistic film in which the bad guy often manages to take home the cake.

The film's cast proves to be decent, but I think we could've gotten a little bit more from some of the stars here. Grier has never been known for her acting prowess, but she does well as our lead in this one. She managed to nab a nomination at the Golden Globes for her performance, so that's saying something, I suppose. Jackson is fine as our central villain, but he's definitely been better before and since. Robert Forster might be the best on the screen this time around, as is evidenced by his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Also be on the watch for some bigger names like Keaton, Chris Tucker and Robert De Niro to offer some interesting turns.

At the end of the day, Jackie Brown is a serviceable film that proves to be entertaining, but it just doesn't quite have that Tarantino "feel" to it. In a way, Tarantino almost seems "Tarantino-esque" this time around, almost as though he's trying to mimic himself in the hopes of crafting something extraordinary. It doesn't quite fire on all cylinders, but you'll still manage to be entertained throughout. That's why I say it's worth a watch, if only if you need to kill a few hours.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes