At The Movies: 28 Weeks Later (2007)

by

(Long Island, N.Y.) 28 Weeks Later is a horror movie and sequel to the critically acclaimed 28 Days Later by director Danny Boyle (no relation), which itself was a sequel to the hit film 28 Days starring the always-spunky Sandra Bullock.

Okay, I’m joking about the Sandra Bullock movie. I’m also writing this review never having seen the original 28 Days Later, although the plot of the sequel is easy enough to follow for newcomers. The basic facts are laid out right in the beginning- most of the population of jolly old England has been decimated by a genetically-engineered virus known as Rage, turning its victims into violently insane creatures known as the Infected. Their only thought is to kill and/or spread the infection, and the Rage virus has an almost 100% communicability rate when passed through bodily fluids, with major symptoms appearing to manifest within mere seconds from exposure. The Infected’s eyes become blood red, they vomit copious amounts of tainted blood, and are generally rather unpleasant to be around socially.

Anyway, the virus spreads like wildfire but luckily for the Brits, those pesky Infected have one major problem- their instinct for self-preservation is all but nil, which not only makes them relentless killing machines but also numbskulls that don’t even bother to eat. Eventually, the Infected all starve and die, leaving England a deserted wasteland.

Our movie first opens during the initial Rage outbreak, where we find a frightened group hiding out from the Infected in a small cottage in the countryside. Among them are Don (Robert Carlyle) and his wife Alice (Catherine McCormack), who are worried sick about the fates of their children, separated from them in the chaos. Suddenly the Infected manage to break in, and Don does what any real man would do when the love of his life is threatened- he turns tail and runs out on her, leaving Alice to a presumably horrible death.

Now, this initial bit of character development may turn some off, but honestly, having Don abandon his wife like that was an interesting twist you usually don’t see in most movies. Sure, it was low, but people do messed-up things when they’re in a blind panic. Think about it- if you were in that situation, what would you really do? We’d all like to say that we’d go

Arnold on the Infected and take them out single-handedly with a butter knife, but reality is harsh for some people (not me, of course!).

The movie then jumps forward “28 weeks later” and a ruined London is now occupied by American-led NATO forces. A “safe” zone, called District 1, has been established and many of the British survivors are being transplanted there after having

been evacuated to elsewhere in Europe during the outbreak. It is here that Don is reunited with his missing children Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton), who naturally are curious about what happened to mommy. Don, clearly consumed with guilt, nonetheless lies and tells his children how he tried real hard to help Alice but, darn it, she got herself killed anyway. Things look bad for dear old dad, however, when his kids sneak out of District 1 to visit their old house and find mom hiding out, seemingly alive and well. Whoops!

Alice is quarantined and it is discovered that, while managing to survive, she did not do so unscathed. But despite bearing multiple bite wounds from the Infected, she exhibits no signs of being overtaken with Rage. It turns out that she has some kind of

natural, hereditary immunity to the virus, and that shocking discovery may well lead to a cure. Don, naturally feeling lower than poop, heads to the military medical headquarters and approaches his oddly unguarded wife, begging for her forgiveness. She gives it

(what a sucker), and the two kiss. Unfortunately for everyone in District 1, Alice is this movie’s version of Typhoid Mary- while she’s unaffected by the Rage virus, she’s still a carrier, and in seconds Don is fully overtaken and becomes one of the Infected. Brutally killing his wife (I bet she won’t forgive that so easily,

the in http://aliosmedstaffing.com/yyf/cialis-softabs-20mg/ me and klonapin online canadian pharmacy back probably appear.

ha ha), Don then starts randomly attacking and infecting NATO soldiers and before you know it, London is swarming with those wacky Infected once again.

Don’s children, sharing their mother’s genes, may also hold the secret to ending the Rage virus. With the help of several rouge soldiers who realize Tammy and Andy’s value to the human race, they must not only escape the Infected, but the NATO forces who have enacted their doomsday plan. Will anyone survive?

At The Movies: 28 Weeks Later28 Weeks Later is a pretty

good movie. There was a creepy, post-apocalyptic vibe permeating every abandoned, ruined street of London and you really got the feel that something truly horrible had happened. The concept of the Rage virus itself was rather frightening, considering how fast it was capable of spreading from person to person, in addition to the sheer savagery displayed by the Infected.

Acting-wise, everyone involved was very solid all-around. Still, no one’s abilities really stood out from the others, aside from perhaps the two children. Both Imogen Poots and Mackintosh Muggleton (who named these kids, and why did they hate them so?) really made a good show of freaking out realistically whenever things were looking grim.

Of course, no movie is perfect, and 28 Weeks Later has its share of problems. I’ll just list them off one-by-one and be done with it:

    1. Just when you think its safe, the Shakey Cam returns! If you’re not sure what I mean, it’s when they try to make things seem “intense” and “real” by shaking the camera around so much that you can’t see anything that’s happening. And as much as I normally despise this practice, the makers of 28 Weeks Later got creative and found a way to torment me further- they used the Shakey Cam, in a dark room, with a strobe light effect thrown in. My eyes almost bled.
    2. Once infected, Don keeps magically showing up in the most ridiculous places, over and over. It actually ends up getting pretty stupid after a while.
    3. I’m glad there were American actors in this movie, if only so I didn’t have to listen to heavy cockney accents the whole time. Mild Brit accents are cute, but voices like Don’s are annoying. His teeth are pretty horrifying as well, and that’s before he’s even infected.
    4. They’re already trying to re-populate England a mere 6 months after a viral outbreak practically destroys the whole country? That seems a wee bit fast, huh?
  1. It’s always good to see Harold Perrineau in a movie (he plays a helicopter pilot in this one), but he looks really weird with short hair.

So, in closing, 28 Weeks Later interested me enough to actually want to rent the original film, despite certain friends warning me that it’s the worst movie ever made. I certainly hope it’s not, but if 28 Days Later does end up being truly wretched, at least the sequel has raised the bar much higher for the inevitable 28 Months, Years, and Decades Later. See you then.

StarStarHalf Star

At The Movies: Distrubia (2007)

by

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s always pretty cool when you go into a movie expecting it to be somewhat generic and uninspired and come out actually having had a quality entertainment experience. That’s the case with Distrubia, a horror film released last month, and I still can’t believe that it ended up being a good movie. Part of my initial trepidation towards seeing it was that Disturbia was marketed like any other annoyingly vapid teen horror flick, but the time and length of the movie fit right in with our gang’s evening plans, so we figured, why not? It couldn’t possibly be worse than Epic Movie, which still gets my vote as one of the worst cinematic blights humanity has ever had to endure. Disturbia, in contrast, actually wound up being a very pleasant surprise.

While not claiming to be a remake, Disturbia nonetheless seems to have taken a great deal of inspiration from the Alfred Hitchcock classic Rear Window. The story involves Kale Brecht (Shia LaBeouf) as a troubled teenager with a history of running afoul of the law. His problems had started one year prior, when Kale and his father were involved in a car accident (one that proved fatal for dear old daddy), and he hasn’t Robe demoiselle d’honneur rose been the same since. Upon his latest illegal escapade (punching out his high school Spanish teacher, although the guy kinda deserved it), he’s sentenced to spend his summer vacation under house arrest. Kale is outfitted with an ankle sensor that prevents him from venturing from his property. If he does, the ankle unit explodes, killing him. Oh, wait, wrong movie- I mean it just beeps and summons the police.

Kale’s mother Julie (Carrie-Anne Moss, AKA Trinity from the Matrix movies, although she oddly
Robe demoiselle d’honneur violettedisplays no kung-fu or reality-altering powers here) furthers the punishment by depriving him of his iTunes account, Xbox360, and television set, forcing him to find alternate means of passing the time of his sentence. Me, I might read a book, draw, or perhaps write some very articulate and informative movie reviews for a certain website. Kale, however, becomes a Twinkie sculptor and peeping tom, using binoculars to spy on his surrounding houses daily until he has the routines of their various occupants virtually memorized. Of special interest to him is Ashley (Sarah Roemer), the cute teenaged daughter of the new neighbors in the house next to his. Eventually, they become friendly and she comes over to the house, where Kale introduces her to his friend Ronnie (Aaron Yoo), in addition to his creepy peeping hobby. Fueled by TV news reports involving a series of missing women, the gang notices some strange coincidences involving the ongoing case and Kale’s other neighbor, an eccentric named Robert Turner (David Morse). Is Robert a maniacal serial killer, or misunderstood loner? Unlike most movies of this type, the answer isn’t 100% clear.

Disturbia-DVDThe television commercials really don’t accurately reflect Disturbia’s end product well at all, as it actually possesses an abundance of personality, in addition to actually doing something different from the norm. I’d say the current advertising campaign (which merely highlights its horror aspects and nothing else) is doing the film a major disservice, but considering that Disturbia locked up the #1 spot at the box office for its first 3 weeks in wide release (only to be finally knocked off the top by the juggernaut known as Spider-Man 3), I guess a lot of people got to experience this fact for themselves.

I think the main thing it did right that so many other horror movies do wrong is that it spent a lot of time on establishing the personalities of the main characters and actually making them likable. 99% of horror movies don’t bother to do this with their characters and what you get are faceless cardboard cut-outs that you don’t care about in the least. In fact, you usually ROOT for the bad guy to kill them (I sure do)! But the first 2/3rds of Disturbia would almost be considered a light-hearted drama, and by the time the ball gets rolling horror-wise, you actually find yourself concerned about the fates of the characters, which in turn creates…actual tension! Wow! It was a refreshing change from your average scary flick, and it also helped that the performances of all involved were great across the board.

There’s a fair amount of product placement in this movie- Xbox360 (including its online service, XboxLive), and various Apple products (iPod, iTunes, Mac notebook) are actual plot points, believe it or not. However, while having products rampantly shoved down your throat is annoying in most movies (like in Men in Black 2 when Will Smith piloted his stupid flying car with a Sony PlayStation 2 controller), in Distrubia, it kind of had a legit purpose. They were showing kids doing what kids do. They watch TV, play video-games, download music to their MP3 players, etc. Hey, I do that stuff and I’m a grown-up. But they needed to establish all of those entertainment options for Kale just so we could see what he resorts to when they’re all taken away from him. I mean, if his mom was content to let him spend his entire house arrest blowing away other kids on the internet, he wouldn’t have taken a sick, voyeuristic interest in his neighbors and we’d have no movie, right?

Anyway, VERY decent flick. Recommended.

StarStarHalf Star

At The Movies: Spider-Man 3 (2007)

by

(Long Island, NY) First off, I feel compelled to mention that Spider-Man 3 has Venom in it,

the best Spider-Man villain ever.

Okay, on with the review. Comic book based movies have been enjoying a huge string of success lately. For years, movie-makers had attempted to translate the medium to the silver screen, with little or no success. Why? Because they typically approached the subject matter as campy children’s movies, not realizing the level of sophistication comic book storytelling has achieved over the years.

Comic book movie development finally started being taken seriously with 2000’s X-Men, followed closely by 2002’s Spider-Man, and their success speaks for itself. Personally, as a former avid reader of comics for years, this recent boom of super hero movies has been, with a few exceptions, a total joy to me. Many of these movies have not only remained true to the spirit of the books that inspired them, but elevated comic book movies from cheesy B-level children’s fare and into the realm of intelligent entertainment. Now, the super-successful Spider-Man series has its second movie sequel, and guess what? It’s the subject of this review. Oh, and did I

mention that Venom is in it?

Spider-Man is one of the most iconic comic book characters in history. For the

two or three freakish hermits on the planet who don’t know who Spider-Man is, he’s a nerdy college student and photographer named Peter Parker. Bitten on the hand by a genetically engineered mutant spider, he gains the arachnid’s powers, such as superhuman strength, agility, the ability to stick to walls and shoot webbing out of his wrists (as opposed to the area where a real spider shoots its web, thankfully). After tragically witnessing the murder of his beloved Uncle Ben, Peter learns a great lesson- “With great power comes great responsibility.” He then adopts the identity of Spider-Man to fight crime, protect the innocent, and prevent tooth decay.

Director Sam Rami, who got his start with low budget horror movies such as the Evil Dead series, has become a major Hollywood player in recent years, and his amazing work on bringing Spider-Man to the screen is the main reason. Part of Spider-Man’s appeal has been Peter Parker’s struggle to balance the trials of everyday life with his crime fighting, and Rami captures that duality perfectly. Spidey has to juggle work, school, a turbulent love life, and fighting the bizarre rogue’s gallery of super villains that constantly threaten his home town of New York City. Rami’s trademark frenetic camerawork is also a perfect fit for capturing the high-energy fights and the exaggerated physicality of the wall crawler, producing some of the most breathtaking action scenes in movie-making history.

At The Movies: Spider-Man 3 (2007)Spider-Man 3 is somewhat of a slight departure for the series. The first two movies centered on one villain at a time, leaving plenty of room for character development. But upon hearing of the various plots points that the third movie would be tackling, I got worried. After all, Spider-Man

3 throws a whopping THREE bad guys into the mix for Peter to handle, in addition to a storyline involving an evil, symbiotic alien life form masquerading as Spidey’s spiffy new black costume, a love triangle involving Peter’s girlfriend and another woman, a rivalry with a fellow photographer vying for his job at the Daily Bugle, and a conflict with his former best friend who is convinced that Spider-Man killed his father. On paper, that sounds like a lot to cram into any movie, and I was convinced that Spider-Man 3 would be a fractured, incoherent mess as a result. However, I underestimated the storytelling abilities of Sam Rami- instead of a mess, I was treated to a movie that managed to weave all of those storylines seamlessly without jumbling anything. The result is a Spider-Man film that, at the very least, is as good as the previous two.

Our movie opens soon after the events of Spider-Man 2- Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire, who was seemingly born to play the part) and his girlfriend, Broadway actress Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), are enjoying a romantic moonlit evening in Central Park when a meteorite crashes nearby. The passenger of said meteorite, a black, tar-like goo-thing that looks like one of those Wacky Wall Walkers, crawls away from the crash zone and hitches a ride on Pete’s mo-ped. It turns out that this creature is a symbiote, a shape-shifting alien that seeks to bond with and control a host in order to survive. Later in the movie, the symbiote envelops Peter in his sleep and takes the form of his Spider-Man costume, only black in color. At first, Peter is confused by the new, unexplained outfit, but soon relishes the additional strength and power it seems to grant him. The symbiote’s influence also starts causing Peter’s personality to take a dark turn- he grows cocky, arrogant, and eventually even violent. At these times he also starts sporting an Emo hairdo and appears to wear eyeliner(?). The changes are sometimes played for laughs, but at others they take on far more gravity, indicating that something is most definitely wrong. Tobey seemed to enjoy cutting loose while playing “Mean Spidey” and these scenes are really entertaining to watch, aside from a really lame dance number (no, that’s not a typo).

And, of course, we have our villains. First off, we get The Sandman (Thomas Haden Church), a character from the comics that no one cares about. He’s an escaped convict that got caught in some wacky experiment and became living sand castle, able to reshape his body at will except at high tide, when he’s swept out to sea. It’s such an incredibly stupid concept for a bad guy, but Church’s performance as Sandy was excellent, invoking a human quality to the character reminiscent of horror great Boris Karloff.

Then we have Peter’s former best friend Harry Osborn (James Franco), son of the evil Green Goblin (Spider-Man’s foe from the first movie). Harry mistakenly believes that Spidey is responsible for his father’s death, appropriates some of daddy’s old Goblin gear and sets out on a vendetta against Peter, having discovered his identity in the last movie. I was never a big fan of Franco in the previous movies, but he really turned up his game in this installment and his storyline is one of its many highlights.

And now we finally come to your hero and mine, Venom. Later in the movie, Peter realizes that the symbiote is making him naughty and, after a struggle, finally manages to free himself of it. Spurned, the alien creature merges with someone whose hatred of Spider-Man and Peter Parker equals its own- disgraced photographer Eddie Brock (That 70’s Show’s Topher Grace, who does a fine job here). Together they form Venom, which is basically a stronger, scarier, cooler version of Spider-Man, but sporting a gaping maw filled with big, sharp teeth. Venom has been one of Spider-Man’s most popular opponents in the comics for years, and it was exciting to finally see him come to life on the big screen.

Overall, Spider-Man 3 is a great movie. If you’ve been reading my past reviews, you’ll know that I’m not a fan of Hollywood’s current trend of making movies 2 ½+ hours in length, as more often than not the excessive running time only serves to hurt the film. But this is a rare case where the 2 1/2 hours just effortlessly flew by- I was really shocked. There was so much going on, yet I never got lost, confused, or frustrated. Achieving that with a movie of this length takes real talent.

However, Spidey 3 isn’t perfect. I know I said that the movie isn’t a mess, considering all of the content packed into it, but that still doesn’t mean that it doesn’t suffer because of it. Simply put, The Sandman really shouldn’t have been in the movie. Neither he nor Venom were fleshed out sufficiently because they had to divide the screen time between them. As Venom figured directly into the storyline involving the alien, not to mention that’s he’s really awesomely cool, the movie should have just concentrated on him. As I stated above, Thomas Haden Church’s take on The Sandman is intriguing, but he ultimately feels shoehorned into the story- he could have easily been removed and it wouldn’t have mattered. As he is, he just steals some of Venom’s well-deserved screen-time.

Other annoyances include how fickle Mary Jane is when problems crop up in her relationship to Peter- the second anything goes wrong, she runs right into the arms of another man. Women, huh? Also, while the black suit does make Peter act pretty mean at times, I think it should have driven him over the edge a little more than it did- this way, the drama when he finally struggled to remove it would

have been far more poignant.

But these complaints are minor- Spider-Man 3 is a more than worthy addition to the series. It flowed well, had a lot of great action scenes and some excellent acting and

drama. Of special note is Maguire, whose performance runs the emotional gamut, from unbridled joy to harrowing sorrow. And considering that Spider-Man 3 had the highest grossing opening weekend of any movie ever to date, Spider-Man 4 is pretty much inevitable. Keep ‘em coming, I say.

StarStarStar

At The Movies: The Condemned (2007)

by

(Long Island, NY) I love action movies. Movies that make no pretense of being high art- just good, old-fashioned blood, death, and violence. This magical genre saw its heyday in the late 80’s through to the early 90’s. Theatergoers of that era could, for the mere price of a movie ticket, watch in pure childlike wonderment as stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Steven Segal, and Jean-Claude Van Damme played invincible killing machines, sending millions of deserving villains to visceral, brutal deaths. Sadly, however, our heroes have aged and their time has past. Some have moved on to entirely new endeavors, while others cling to their glory days and eke out a sad existence in the direct-to-video market.

However, the action movie genre has not died out, but merely changed- and not for the better. There’s a new generation of actors ready to inherit the action star mantle from Arnold and company, but so far none of these pretenders have even proven worthy of getting their butts kicked by them, let alone being their replacements. That, coupled with our current era of sensitivity and political correctness, has produced action movies where the hero won’t kill people unless it’s in self-defense. They don’t have huge, oiled muscles. They get sad and want to talk about their feelings. They will even spare a defeated opponent instead of decapitating them and playing soccer with the head! What kind of sick garbage is this?!?

So far, the wannabes have come and gone: The Rock? Pathetic. Vin Diesel? He had something going for a little while, but can never be taken seriously again after the instant career death that was XXX. Marky Mark Wahlberg? He has potential, but the lad still has a long way to go. And now a new contender (and the subject of today’s review) enters the arena- “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, star of The Condemned.

Steve Austin (real name Steven Williams) should be well-known enough to all- although this is his first major starring role in a motion picture, he had competed for years on the pro wrestling circuit and (aside from Hulk Hogan) was the biggest name in the history of the sport. World Wrestling Entertainment, Austin’s employer, recently decided to start producing terrible movies to serve as starring vehicles for their wrestlers. The first two unholy results of this plan aren’t even worth mentioning here, but since I’m reviewing The Condemned, I guess I have to mention it, right? Okay. But relax- this movie doesn’t produce quite as much nausea as WWE Films’ first two efforts.

At The Movies: The Condemned (2007)The movie started out promising enough. Realizing that modern action movies are all pretty rotten and that Hollywood’s creativity is completely bankrupt, the makers of The Condemned decided to simply rip-off a plot device from a successful action movie of a bygone era- namely, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s classic, The Running Man. Hey, if you’re going to steal, why not steal from one of the better entries of the genre? Anyway, the plot is summed up fairly easily- an evil, wealthy tycoon named Ian Breckel (Robert Mammone) gathers 10 death-row inmates from all over the world to fight to the death on an isolated island, live over streaming subscriber webcams. Last one standing gets set free, presumably to resume the antisocial activities that landed them in jail to begin with. One such contestant is Jack Conrad, played by ole’ Stone Cold himself. He’s tough, surly, has a bad attitude and a plentiful supply of one-liners. Another contestant of note is Ewan McStarley (played by Englishman Vinnie Jones), an evil, sadistic madman and obvious foil to Austin’s character. The remaining inmates are an eclectic bunch, both male and female, and all vying for the chance to kill their opponents and go free (presumably to…well, kill yet again).

The stage is set- the players in the game are deposited in random locations on the island by helicopter and are given 30 hours to win the game. In another page ripped out of The Running Man’s book, each inmate has a bomb strapped to their ankle. If there isn’t a winner after 30 hours, boom. If you tamper with it, boom. However, the bombs can be used offensively, as well- each of the explosive devices has a grenade-like pin that, when pulled, really ruins the wearer’s day. This element adds an interesting twist to the numerous conflicts.

So, like I said above, things started off on the right foot. 10 socially irredeemable characters, forced to fight to the death. The battles were sufficiently harsh and hard-hitting and the pace of the movie just whisked along. But then the problems started creeping in. The first one that reared its ugly head was something I like to call the “shaky-cam.” Whenever any of the characters fought each other, the camera started shaking like the operator was being shocked with a double-strength cattle prod while having a major epileptic fit. It honestly gave me a headache and made it impossible to tell what was going on whenever anyone got into a brawl.

Then, problem number two popped up, and this one was the deal-breaker for me- Stone Cold attacks one of his opponents, has the guy at a disadvantage, and then…lets him go?!? I couldn’t believe it, he actually let him go! If this was an Arnold movie, he not only would have killed the guy, but everyone else on the island, the people running the contest, and anyone living on the surrounding islands just for good measure. But Steve Austin, one of our new breed of “nice” action heroes, lets the guy live. And to make matters worse, Austin runs into the same guy later that evening, weeping and huddled up helplessly against a log. Does Stone Cold make up for his earlier folly and dismember the crybaby? Of course not, he instead gives him a reassuring pat on the shoulder and asks him if he wants to discuss what’s wrong. I’m surprised he didn’t start making out with him while he was at it. I mean, the movie’s going at 60 miles an hour and suddenly just hits a brick wall. They later reveal the reason why Austin isn’t mindlessly hacking up everyone in sight, but it’s an annoying cop-out. His character was presented as morally ambiguous at first and this revelation ruined whatever unpredictability he had possessed up until that point.

Meanwhile, back home, Steve’s estranged girlfriend Sarah (Madeleine West), who was unaware that he had been sitting in an El Salvadorian prison for the past year, catches wind of the contest and is shocked to discover that her missing beau is involved. This leads to a ridiculous scene later in the film when Steve manages to get to a phone and calls her. Instead of expressing any concern over how he is involved in a televised life-or-death struggle with homicidal maniacs or that he has high-explosives strapped to his body, Sarah instead decides that she wants to go right into a tearful, heart-to-heart discussion about their relationship. My friend and I got so confused by this scene that we thought for a minute that Steve had called one of his other girlfriends or something.

So the pace slows a great deal, one-by-one the contestants are killed off, leaving the sole survivor to seek retribution against the diabolical orchestrators of the event. The movie is nothing if not predictable.

As a film judged on its own merits, The Condemned is okay. However, as an attempt to recapture the glory of the pure 80’s action flick and establish Stone Cold Steve Austin as a legitimate action star, The Condemned is a total failure. It’s lacking personality, humor, pacing, plot, and, most importantly, a protagonist that just kills and kills and kills without any thought or remorse. In 1985’s cinematic masterpiece Commando, Arnold Schwarzenegger assaulted an island and slaughtered an entire army single-handedly- Stone Cold, I think, kills 2 or 3 people, tops. And guys he killed didn’t even have the benefit of military training! Steve Austin wouldn’t last 10 seconds in Arnold’s world. Who would? When we find that out, we’ll finally have our new action star.

StarHalf Star

At The Movies: The Reaping (2007)

by

(Long Island, NY) There are a lot of instantly forgettable films released into theaters nowadays. Movies that are neither good nor bad, movies that decline to stand out in a special or memorable way, lost in a vast abyss of mediocrity. In my humble opinion, this is the very worst fate that can befall a motion picture. I’d rather sit through a movie so bad that it makes me want to wash out my eyeballs with a bag of thumbtacks than randomly drift in and out of consciousness because it failed to get me involved on any level whatsoever. Sadly, the latter is

the case when it concerns The Reaping, a new religion-themed horror movie starring 2-time Oscar winner and former Karate Kid Hillary Swank.

In a movie where the 10 Biblical Plagues of Egypt are visited upon a small southern town and actual heavenly Angels

are running around in its woods, the plot point I found hardest to swallow was that a hot young woman with a supermodel-caliber body was not only an ordained minister who had done missionary work in third-world countries, but also a college professor who is considered one of the lead experts in her field. Hey, I’m not being a chauvinistic pig and saying women aren’t capable of such things, but the ones I’ve seen that are sure don’t look anything like Hillary Swank.

Anyway, the name of Hillary’s character is Katherine Winter, and

while they never actually bothered to explain what exactly her field of expertise is, it apparently requires her to travel all over the world disproving alleged religious miracles. Her services are called upon by a man named Doug Blackwell (David Morrissey) while teaching at Louisiana State University- it seems that the river in his local town of Haven has turned to blood. Finding this to be odd behavior for a river, Katherine grabs her assistant, Ben (Idris Elba), and heads to the afflicted town.

At The Movies: The Reaping (2007)Once in the midst of their investigation, Katherine and Ben discover that the town of Haven is being confronted with the very same plagues that were unleashed upon Egypt by God in the Biblical story recounted in the book of Exodus. Why the very same thing would be happening in modern times to a town of back wood hicks is anyone’s guess, but this seems to be the case and Katherine can’t come up with a logical explanation that doesn’t involve fire and brimstone. From this point forward, however, the film started losing me.

Did The Reaping lose my interest because it was unoriginal? Maybe. I want to avoid spoiling The Reaping for you, so all

I’ll say is that the main plot of the movie seems to be lifted almost directly from 2006’s The Wicker Man (itself an unoriginal remake of a 1973 feature). If you’ve seen that movie, then I’m sure you’ll notice the similarities- an evil cult lures an innocent to their town under the false pretenses, one of them involving a little girl believed to be in grave danger. Whoops, I guess I did spoil part of the plot. But believe me, you won’t care.

Did The Reaping lose my interest because the story was uninteresting? I suppose. It was presented in a somewhat disjointed fashion and the information that it actually managed to reveal during the course of the narrative was sketchy at best. It basically reduced The Reaping to a series of random events, tied together by repeated shots of Hillary Swank looking either confused, scared, or both. I thought it seemed that way because I was having a hard time staying awake (the movie was the cause of that malady), but a friend of mine sitting next to me managed to stay alert and was having the very same issues.

Did The Reaping lose my interest because the acting was bad? Not at all. Remember, Hillary Swank is a 2-time Oscar winner. She won her first for 1999’s Boys Don’t Cry, and followed up with her second for 2004’s Million Dollar Baby, so it’s not like she can’t act. In addition, her co-stars hold up their end of the bargain as well. But sadly, all their talents are wasted on this endeavor, as none of the cast has very much to work with in terms of the story or script.

In the end, good and evil collide and it all gets silly beyond words. Early in The Reaping my movie-going chum compared the character of Katherine to Indiana Jones, in that she’s a world-traveling adventurer who teaches college on the side. At the finale I noticed another similarity to Dr. Jones- this movie borrows heavily from the ending of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where evil gets its fiery comeuppance directly from The Lord himself, only it’s not nearly as cool here as when it happened to the Nazis in Raiders.

So, The Reaping isn’t good, it isn’t bad- it’s just kind of…there. I forgot most of what happened by the time I made it to the parking lot of the movie theater, and that’s NOT what I call an evening’s entertainment. I really can’t recommend The Reaping, but there’s nothing sufficiently horrible about it that compels me to warn you away, either. However, if this movie sounded appealing to you despite the overwhelming indifference I’ve displayed towards it throughout the entire course of my review, I guess you must REALLY be bored. Go for it, then.

StarHalf Star

At The Movies: Grindhouse (2007)

by

(Long Island, N.Y.) Grindhouse is, if nothing else, an interesting experiment. It’s a testament to two men’s love of the Exploitation film genre and a throwback to the 70’s when sleazy, violent, sex-filled movies used to play paired as double features to packed urban theaters, commonly referred to as “Grindhouses.” Exploitation movies spanned sorts of genres- Kung-Fu, Zombie, Slasher, Women In Prison, Blaxploitation…any film where there was a chance to show some blood and skin was included.

I was a bit too young to have experienced going to a 1970’s grindhouse, but as someone who has always had a soft spot for the over-the-top B-movies, I was looking forward to the new collaborative effort by directors Robert Rodriguez (Desperado, Once Upon a Time in Mexico) and Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill), appropriately titled Grindhouse. Two feature-length films, one by each director, played back-to-back in one sitting, with faux trailers advertising fictional films preceding each one. But much like when your Mom used to make that casserole using random weird leftovers from the fridge, the end result is a mixed bag. However, the good outweighs the bad and the overall experience is unusual, yet fun. Let’s get our hands dirty, shall we kids?

Grindhouse opens up with Robert Rodriguez’s Planet Terror, a zombie movie. The story involves go-go dancer Cherry Darling (Rose McGowan) as she encounters the end result of a rouge military unit’s bio-weapon experiment gone awry- flesh-eating zombies, of course. A gas that transforms normal humans into the undead is accidentally released into the air, and soon her entire town is swarmed with the ugly, rotting, badly-mannered creatures. Cherry is attacked and loses a leg, but is saved at the last second by her boyfriend, El Wray (Freddy Rodriguez). He takes Cherry to the local hospital, where they discover it packed both with people affected by the toxic gas and their many unfortunate victims. Barely escaping with their lives, the couple bands together with a rag-tag group of survivors, all of whom are strangely immune to the effects of the zombie gas. Armed to the teeth (by this point Cherry has had her leg replaced by a high-powered machine gun/grenade launcher), the group must escape the hell their community has become while also contending with the aforementioned military unit, lead by Lt. Muldoon (Bruce Willis).

As a director, Rodriguez is a true jack of all trades- his credits commonly include director, writer, producer, musical composer, film editor…you name it, this guy does it. He’s always been known for his charismatic, high energy film-making, but (in my opinion) has fallen into a bit of a slump lately, quality-wise. However, Planet Terror is an excellent return to form and a great movie. It’s fun and fast paced, in addition to being incredibly violent, sick, and gory. It strikes the perfect balance of cheesiness without going too far over the line and becoming an outright parody of itself. A great opener for our double feature.

At The Movies: Grindhouse (2007)On we go to Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof, and the fun almost comes to a “grinding” halt. The movie’s premise looked great on paper- Stuntman Mike, played by the always awesome Kurt Russell, is a serial killer who preys on beautiful young women with his “death proof” stunt car. By “death proof,” we mean that the car is reinforced so that Mike can walk away from any crash- however, his passengers or the people in the cars he hits aren’t quite so lucky. After a string of successful kills, Mike picks a group of girls out test driving a muscle car to stalk and soon finds the tables turned on him. Who will come out on top?

In my opinion, Quentin Tarantino is probably the most overrated director in history. 80% of Death Proof consists of long, bland, uninteresting dialogue scenes that are so bad that they almost ruined the Grindhouse experience as a whole. I’ve seen movies that were dominated by talk and they’ve managed to be quite engaging, but Death Proof is NOT one of those movies. Tarantino used to be able to write snappy dialogue- go and rent Pulp Fiction to re-visit a time then Quentin could do so- but after watching the recent Kill Bill 1& 2 and now Death Proof, it’s clear that time is loooong past.

Anyway, all of Death Proof’s blathering eventually leads to a pretty cool car chase scene, but it’s almost not worth sitting through the set-up. It’s a shame too- the concept of a Slasher movie where the killer uses a car is brilliant.

Also of note are the phony trailers that I mentioned in the first paragraph, which play before each main feature. There are four in total: Machete (also directed by Rodriguez), Werewolf Women of the S.S. (by Rob Zombie), Don’t (by Shaun of the Dead director Edgar Wright), and Thanksgiving (by Hostel director Eli Roth). All four trailers are hilarious and an absolute blast to watch, and their inclusion really serves to tie Grindhouse together into a cohesive package. They left me wanting more.

I’m known for hating unnecessarily long movies, but personally I LOVED the whole concept of Grindhouse and I was totally buying into the length- it seemed completely warranted, given what they were trying to do. I greatly enjoyed Planet at Quentin Tarantino for mucking up Death Proof so badly and partially spoiling the experience. When a movie’s total running time is over three hours, you can’t have a large chunk of it drag like that. But if one of the segments does, at least put it first instead of second. Believe me, I was ready for a 3+ hour movie. Death Proof made it feel like 7 or 8.

Nonetheless, even with that glaring problem, Grindhouse remains a very cool and unique experience- go watch it. Just feel free to take unlimited bathroom breaks during the first 2/3rds of Death Proof.

StarStar

At The Movies: Blades of Glory (2007)

by

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s been a while since I’ve seen a good comedy- the best one in recent memory was 2003’s Old School. That movie also starred Will Farrell, playing pretty much the same character he plays in every movie- a wild yet childlike middle-aged guy without any impulse control whatsoever.

Lately, Will has taken the formula one step further by making basically the same movie over and over- talk about typecasting. It started with Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, went on to Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, and now continues with the subject of this review, Blades of Glory. All three movies chronicle larger-than-life public figures at the top of their game who experience a major downfall, and their subsequent successful attempts to recapture their former glory. Anchorman wasn’t bad. Talladega Nights was an abomination. Blades of Glory, however, has refined the formula of the previous two movies, keeping the good while distilling out the bad, and actually succeeds in standing on its own as an excellent comedy.

Will plays Chazz Michael Michaels, the hard-drinking, womanizing bad-boy of the professional Figure Skating world. His arch rival is one Jimmy MacElroy (Jon Heder, who’s quickly becoming typecast himself as the go-to man when you want a hardcore nerd in your movie), an effeminate pretty boy raised by his cold, filthy-rich adoptive father. They are evenly matched, not just in their unparalleled skill on the ice, but in their mutual hatred of one another. That hatred comes to a head when they tie scores in a competition and engage in an all-out brawl during the award ceremony when they are forced to share a gold medal. Consequently, both are banned from men’s singles competition for the rest of their lives. Chazz sinks deep into depression, becoming a vomit-spewing drunkard on the children’s ice-show circuit, while Jimmy is disowned by his over-achieving father and reduced to an Al Bundy-like existence selling ice skates to bratty little girls.

Informed of a loophole in the lifetime ban by an obsessive fan- that he’s merely banned from singles competition, but not doubles- Jimmy sets out to find a partner mere weeks before a qualifying contest. However, time is running out and eligible skaters of his caliber are in short supply.

BladesGloryMeanwhile, Jimmy’s former coach, played by Craig T. Nelson and credited only as “Coach” (the typecasting continues), has an epiphany: that the ideal partner Jimmy is looking for is, in fact, his worst enemy- Chazz Michael Michaels. Disgusted at the prospect but eager to escape the hell their lives have become, Jimmy and Chazz set aside their differences and team-up for the qualifying event and a chance to skate for the World Championship. Facing stiff competition from the evil brother/sister team of Fairchild (Amy Poehler) and Stranz (Will Arnett) Van Waldenberg, can the previously individualistic Jimmy and Chazz train in record time to gel as a cohesive figure skating unit without killing each other first?

This movie was almost non-stop fun. You’ll probably think so too, if your tastes are as low-brow as mine are. This is a rare example of a film where they don’t really try to redeem its characters- Farrell’s Chazz is as wretched a human being by the end of the movie as he is at the beginning, which is refreshing, not to mention hilarious. I’m sure Farrell’s act will wear out its welcome sooner or later, but right now the guy’s mucho bankable as a comedic leading man. Jon Header is simply channeling Napoleon Dynamite for yet another role, only this time more gay. Only he’s not gay, as his character falls for the Van Waldenberg’s little sister (played by the adorable Jenna Fischer), so go figure. Speaking of gay, there’s a great deal of homoerotic humor in Chazz and Jimmy’s skating routines, but if you’re secure in your manhood (or, um, just like watching that kind of stuff), you won’t be able to hold back the laughs.

At a mere one hour and 33 minutes, the movie is lean and not bogged down by unfunny filler that would only serve to detrimentally pad its running time. I can’t count the number of movies that would have been great if they were only 20-30 minutes shorter- I despise this current trend of making films longer and longer when 90% of the time it works against them. Leave ‘em wanting more, not looking at their watches wondering when the hell it’ll all end.

Anyway, based on how bad Talladega Nights was, I went into Blades of Glory fully expecting to want to kill everyone around me before the opening credits had ended. Little did I realize how totally enjoyable it would turn out to be, thus sparing my fellow moviegoers a grisly fate. But honestly, I don’t think I would have harmed anyone, even if the movie was indeed bad. But I would have wanted to. Regardless, let’s reward Blades of Glory for sparing audiences from the wrath of crazed movie reviewers nationwide by going to see it many, many times and making it a great success.

StarStarStar

At The Movies: Shooter (2007)

by

(Long Island, NY) Shooter. I hate the name (it’s super-generic), but I guess it wraps up what the movie is all about. It’s about a guy who shoots stuff with guns, and he’s real good at it. I mean, if someone released a movie about a garbage man and called it “Garbage Man,” it would functionally be right, but where’s the pizzazz?

Anyway, terrible name aside, Shooter is an action movie that closely follows a lot of the conventions you’d expect of the genre. The eponymous title character is one Bobby Lee Swagger (with that name he should have a thick Southern drawl, but he doesn’t), played by none other than former rapper, underwear model, and Funky Bunch member Mark Wahlberg (yeah, I keep forgetting about his somewhat embarrassing past as well). Bob is a highly-skilled U.S. Army sniper on assignment in Ethiopia. The mission is botched and Bob and his partner are abandoned by their unit. While Bob manages to escape, his buddy is not so fortunate and dies in a hail of gunfire from a helicopter. This, of course, is quite upsetting to Bob.

Fast-forward 3 years and we find that Bob has done

what every single ex-Special Forces one-man-army type has done in the movies since the beginning of time- he’s living alone in an isolated log cabin in the mountains. His hair is long, he’s unshaven, he has a loyal doggie, and he even has a vegetable

garden! It’s like he had the Official Instruction Book for Washed-Up Battle-Scarred Military Guys and was following it to the letter.

At The Movies: Shooter (2007)Keeping the cliché train rolling, a group of Government officials lead by Colonel Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) shows up, asking Swagger to come out of retirement for “one more mission.” It seems that a plot to assassinate the President has been uncovered. The reason the Government is keen to enlist Bob is because the plot involves a sniper placed over a mile from the Commander-In-Chief, and Mr. Swagger is the only man in the world qualified to make such a shot, thus making him the only man qualified to anticipate the would-be killer’s moves and stop him.

Swagger eventually agrees and starts scouting out locations on the President’s travel itinerary, hoping to discover the ideal location the assassin would choose. He finds such a place, and helps to coordinate security to ensure the President’s safety during a public appearance. During his speech, a shot rings out- however, the Arch Bishop, scheduled to speak next to the President, is killed instead. Suddenly, Bob’s world is turned upside-down- he’s shot and wounded by a corrupt cop, framed for the assassination attempt, and on the run. Bob turns to the only person he can trust- Sarah (Kate Mara), the widow of his dead Army buddy. With her help he heals up his wounds, joins forces with a rookie FBI agent (Michael Peña) who for some bizarre reason totally thinks Bob is innocent despite the massive amount of evidence to the contrary, and sets out for revenge against those who framed him.

The best word to describe Shooter was contributed by my friend Don right after the film ended- “Solid.” The pacing is pretty tight, and the action scenes exciting (though they do get somewhat implausible at times, but I know, it’s a movie), and it has your typical slam-bang Hollywood ending. Marky Mark is always (well, I guess I’ll use that word again) solid in his performances. He’s typically underrated as an actor (go watch the excellent Boogie Nights to see a true measure of his talent) and plays everyman-type characters very well- it’s a combination of his acting abilities and the fact that he’s actually kind of an ugly guy which makes him believable in such roles.

The other actors are strong in their parts as well. It’s always nice to see Danny Glover still popping up in movies these days, but for some reason he now slurs like a drunken hobo when he speaks, and it’s very distracting. Maybe it’s a speech impediment, or maybe he’s truly “getting too old for this stuff.” Michael Peña is good as the bumbling FBI rookie who for no reason whatsoever ignores his superiors, common sense, and any chance of career advancement simply because Bob told him “I didn’t do it.” It’s not worth saying Kate Mara is very

hot, because in today’s Hollywood if she wasn’t she’d be working at the craft services table or something and not in front of the camera. But she IS hot, so she gets to act instead. And she can actually manage to do it pretty well, luckily enough.

So, Shooter is indeed worthy of your hard earned dollar (well, 10 of them actually). While Mark Wahlberg doesn’t quite approach the hard-as-nails quality of such action stars of yesteryear like Arnold Schwarzenegger

(do I have to mention him in every review? Yeah, I guess I do), he’s sure a lot better than the current crop of lame wannabes like Vin Diesel or The Rock. Personally, I think this is a good career path for him. Keep shooting people and blowing stuff up, Mark!

StarStarHalf Star

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

by

(Long Island, N.Y.) Last night, my movie-going cohort and I were trying to decide on a new film to view this week. There were, as always, a plethora of various releases to decide upon, but the showtimes of the vast majority of them were pretty inconvenient, save one – an independent movie in limited release called Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon. I’d never heard of it, but the plot synopsis I read online sounded interesting enough, so we gave it a whirl. It ended up being a fun little movie, through not without its flaws. Read on!

Basically, Behind The Mask is a “fake documentary” of sorts, alas The Blair Witch Project. The premise of the movie is that supernatural serial killers like Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger and Michael Myers are real and are actually out there killing people in their respective film neighborhoods. A film crew is contacted by Leslie Vernon (Nathan Baesel), an up-and-coming psycho-slasher, who invites them along as he plans his very first mass-murdering spree. The crew, headed up by intrepid reporter Taylor Gentry (Angela Goethals), shadows Leslie as he stalks his intended victims, tours the lonely country house the killings will occur at, and even meet with Leslie’s mentor, himself a retired maniac killer from the 60’s who is now settled down and happily married.

All of Leslie’s careful planning comes to a head at the end of the movie, when the stereotypical wild teens are lured to an isolated location to drink, do drugs, and have sex- you know, all the things that you’re NOT supposed to do in horror movies. Anyone who knows anything about this genre knows that these acts always lead to certain death. If anything, your typical slasher movie can be seen as a thinly-veiled public service message about staying on the straight and narrow- straying from that path will ultimately result in dismemberment by a masked, blade-wielding lunatic. So stay home and study, kids.

Behind-The-Mask-The-Rise-Of

However, there’s a twist at the end of Behind The Mask- it turns out that Les wasn’t being completely forthcoming with the film crew on his real motivation for the evening’s festivities. What could his true intentions be?

Overall, the movie has some novel ideas. It’s not every day we get to watch someone planning out homicides in such a lighthearted manner, and Behind The Mask’s protagonist leaves no stone unturned, sticking to every major horror movie cliché and convention while gearing up towards his big day. Watching Leslie explain how he’s rigged possible on-location weapons to break if the teens attempt to use them on him or how he chooses his “Survivor Girl” is funny, and his childlike eagerness towards his “career path” can be endearing at times. Well, as endearing as a man planning to eviscerate innocent teenagers can be, anyway.

On the negative side, the movie drags on way too long, which is strange because it’s only 90 minutes in length- short by today’s standards. The main problem is that exposition is kept at a maximum, and while keeping an audience informed is nice, they generally don’t enjoy being led by the hand through every single plot point like they’re brain-dead. Film is a visual medium- find a way to express things as they’re happening, instead of just talking about it the whole time.

Also, the film is low-budget and amateurish and it shows. However, it never gets too bad- I’ve seen more expensive-looking movies made with a whole lot less talent, believe me.

In closing- Leslie is a likable guy (for a serial killer) and Behind The Mask worth watching, especially if you’re looking to see something a little different. Horror fans (like me) will especially get a kick out of all the slasher movie references and cameos. There’s very little blood and gore in the film, which is odd considering its subject matter. In fact, it doesn’t really do much at all to deserve its ‘R’ rating, aside from its characters spouting out a few choice potty-mouth phrases here and there, but even that’s infrequent. The movie could have easily gotten away with PG-13, but the MPAA’s ratings system rarely makes sense nowadays.

It’s not perfect by any means, but give Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon a shot – you may be surprised. Or you may hate it, but hey, don’t blame me then.

StarStar

At The Movies: Ghost Rider (2007)

by

(Long Island, N.Y.) The wave of movies based on comic books just keeps coming. And for someone whose childhood was greatly influenced by reading of the exploits of larger-than-life superheroes, I couldn’t be happier. I’m not saying that all the movies produced thus far are all great- for every Spider Man, Blade, or X-Men movie we get, we also get handed such horrific drivel as Electra or The Punisher. But regardless, I go and see them all anyway. I don’t really read comics much anymore, but the memories these movies stir always make me feel like a kid again. Well, unless the movie’s really, really bad, that is.

Ghost Rider, based on the Marvel comic book created back in 1972, is the newest superhero to get the cinematic treatment. Ghosty is basically a demon from hell that manifests itself in a human host as a fiery skeleton who raided The Terminator’s wardrobe (meaning he runs around in a leather biker outfit). He’s probably considered one of Marvel’s second or third-tier characters (certainly not on par with cool guys like Spider Man), but don’t let that fact alone turn you off to him. Blade the Vampire Hunter was pretty much considered a total scrub in the funny books until he was revamped and brought to life on the silver screen by Wesley Snipes himself, so there’s always hope.

When our movie opens we join 17-year-old Johnny Blaze (Matt Long) and his father Barton, both of whom are motorcycle stuntmen, as they entertain the patrons of a traveling carnival by jumping through a flaming hoop in tandem. Johnny has a cute teen girlfriend named Roxanne (Raquel Alessi) who he’s planning on running away with until he learns that daddy has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. It’s kind of funny- right before he learns Barton is dying, they do this nice scene where Johnny is looking through his dad’s family photo album to try to establish how close the two of them are. Then Johnny finds the fateful doctor’s letter, pretty much has no reaction, then goes to casually work on his motorcycle. Okay.

So, while Johnny’s toiling away on his chopper, Mephistopheles (AKA Satan) himself shows up in the form of Peter Fonda and all I’m having are flashbacks from “Easy Rider” of the scene where Fonda’s character is tripping on acid while frolicing about in a New Orleans cemetary. But I’m getting off track here. Mephistopheles does his devil thing and offers to save Johnny’s father in exchange for his (duh) soul. Teenagers do a lot of stupid things- they skip school, try pot, shoplift, and often, when offered, they will barter away their soul to the Prince of Darkness without much in the way of hesitation. Johnny Blaze is no different. The contract is signed and the next morning Barton is completely healthy again. But, shockingly, Satan isn’t 100% trustworthy and ends up screwing over Johnny anyway, leaving him fatherless. And just like in The Godfather, Satan informs Johnny that one day he will ask a “favor” of him. Until then, Johnny’s living on borrowed time.

At The Movies: Ghost Rider (2007)So Johnny leaves everything behind (including the heartbroken Roxanne) and hits the road. Fast forward a number of years and Johnny has grown up into a world-famous motorcycle daredevil played by Nicolas Cage. Johnny has made a name for himself by routinely pulling off seemingly impossible stunt jumps. Some of these jumps would make Evel Knievel drop dead at the very thought of attempting them, yet somehow Johnny always manages to walk away unscathed. While preparing for his latest and greatest stunt, the now grown-up and nicely filled-out Roxanne (Eva Mendes) walks back into Johnny’s life as a news reporter looking to get the big scoop on her interview-shy ex. This re-ignites the flames between the two, but being the spoilsport he is, Mephistopheles decides to finally show up and demand his part of the bargan they struck all those years ago.

It seems that Mephistopheles’ wayward son (Blackheart, played by Wes Bentley) is also on Earth now, and is attempting to gain access to a long-hidden contract for 1000 evil souls in a bid to wrest away his father’s power. In response, Mephistopheles transforms Johnny into the “Ghost Rider,” which means at night he becomes Satan’s grim redeemer. Oddly enough, the Rider, when not following Satan’s orders, is really a halfway decent guy who helps mugging victims and punishes the guilty. Not what you’d expect from “The Devil’s bounty hunter,” but whatever.

Not being a huge fan of Nicolas Cage, Ghost Rider’s initial transformation from human to demon was personally amusing for me as Nick’s face slowly melted off while he screamed and writhed in agony. Ghosty himself is actually pretty bad-ass looking, what with his flaming skull and all, and he proceeds to hunt down Blackheart and his wacky demonic cohorts. And in an impossibly convienent set of circumstances, Sam Elliot suddenly shows up as the Wise Old Man Who Knows Everything to provide valuable exposition to the audience as to what exactly is going on. Armed with this knowledge, Johnny tries to control the demon within, defeat the bad guys, and win back his girl. Or something.

As far as comic book movies go, Ghost Rider sits somewhere in the middle. It’s fun at times, moves as a good pace, and manages to be fairly entertaining for the most part. Plus a lot of the computer generated effects look really nice, especially Ghost Rider himself and his flaming motorcycle. But at the same time the movie can be very, very cheesy and packed with the normal clichés you’d expect to find in your average superhero movie, including:

  • The hero, soon after discovering his abilities, happens upon some random street crime and stops it.
  • Someone the hero saves is interviewed by the news and goes on to describe the hero’s outlandish appearance to the disbelieving reporter.
  • The police mistake the hero for a villain and chase him.

Eva Mendes looks hot but can’t act worth a damn. Sam Elliot is basically playing the Whistler character from the Blade movies. Nicolas Cage is…well, Nicolas Cage. He’s fine at playing quirky characters like this but there’s some intangible quality about him that makes me not like him that much. I just can’t put my finger on it. And then there’s the fact that he has a bodybuilder-like super-jacked upper body and spindly little polio legs. But I do love it when he acts all crazy and starts laughing while flashing those massive white teeth of his. That’s funny. If he did nothing but that in all his movies I’d probably be his biggest fan.

So, Ghost Rider. Well, a lot of people must have liked it, as it was the #1 grossing film for its opening weekend and even broke some box office records for this time of year. But Epic Movie was also #1 its opening weekend so you certainly can’t use that as a test of a film’s overall quality. What I will say is this- based on the commercials, I was sure that Ghost Rider would be horrible. Perhaps even physically painful to watch. But much to my surprise, it wasn’t. So already it has something going for it. Ghost Rider isn’t amazing, but it makes for a fine evening out if all you’re looking for is an average movie to munch popcorn to without engaging your brain too much. Especially recommended if you like super hero films.

StarStar

To advertise your business on Long Island Exchange ® please call 631-592-4425