After the last creatively bankrupt installment of this franchise, it’s no wonder that the Weinstein boys decided to go back to the drawing board and reboot the Michael Myers saga with Rob Zombie‘s version of Halloween. Or is it a remake? Or a re-imagining? Much like the most recent Nightmare on Elm Street film, I was confused as to the point of it all. Are we trying to fill in needless backstory about Myers and his upbringing? Are we updating the tale for a more contemporary potty-mouthed audience? Does anyone have a clue at this point?

You can probably give a brief summary of the original film in one not-so-brief sentence: Michael Myers is a messed-up little kid who kills his sister, gets sent away to the nuthouse but breaks out, and then tries to kill his younger sister many years later. In fact, that same synopsis is true for this film even though you would have to make a few inserts between commas here and there to get the gist of this film. Here we learn that Michael is not some normal-ish kid who simply snaps but is raised in an environment that guarantees an outcome of either loose or psychotic depending on the gender of the child. You’d like to think that Deborah Myers (Sheri Moon Zombie) was trying hard to raise her kids right but then you are reminded that she is a stripper and is voluntarily living with an abusive asshat. You might even feel a tinge of sympathy for Michael up until he butchers a rat off-camera in the first few moments and increases his violence thereafter.

Once the initial Halloween deed is done and Michael is found guilty of murder, Dr. Sam Loomis (Malcolm McDowell) is assigned to his rehabilitation but after a few violent outbursts and a decade and a half later, Loomis resigns having failed to elicit even a rudimentary response out of the now gargantuan Myers. Depending on which version you watch, Michael escapes somehow and treks back to Haddonfield to find Laurie (Scout Taylor-Compton) for some snuggle time. Or maybe to kill her. Or maybe not. Who the hell knows?

Now, before I go all crazy negative, I will point out some of the things in Zombie’s Halloween that I like. Visually it is quite good and I hear that is the common thread between other Zombie-directed films (this being the only one I’ve seen, I’m merely going off the consensus). The direction, mostly, is spot on with little dispute from myself and most of the actors are quite good considering they are merely playing stereotypes of previously named folk in other films. Even though I didn’t care for the identical score from the first repurposed for this installment, especially in inappropriate times, the music was good as well. But sadly, for all the praise I can give to the production design or the acting, the story is the weakest link by far.

It almost seems that during the writing phase, Zombie was torn between a retelling of the original Halloween night with its subsequent aftermath and a pretty straight-forward remake of the original complete with the same characters and even identical lines of dialogue here and there. Unwilling or unable to pick between either, these two incomplete films are haphazardly sewn together into one really odd narrative to make a full movie out of. Even more sad is that it still runs way too long for a slasher film, especially considering that our final girl does not show up until almost halfway into the film.

The most aggravating thing about Zombie’s Halloween is that I see where either part of the story could have become a decent movie if separated from the other. Truthfully, I would much rather have seen a feature-length version of Michael stalking Laurie since that is where Zombie really showed the most promise with brutal attacks, not-as-hackneyed moments, and even a healthy bit of nudity (including from Danielle Harris!). My main issue with the front half of the film is that all of the characters are one-dimensional assholes with nary a redeeming quality between them. Laurie and her friends weren’t that well-drawn either but at least they were somewhat sympathetic even though I wanted to murder someone listening to their insipid dialogue about cheerleading or boyfriends or sex. If anything, for that half of the film, Zombie needed a Debra Hill for the adolescent teenage speak but he apparently went at it alone leading to some irritating results.

For every two things I liked, there were three that I did not, including the pointless trucker (Ken Foree!), the random hook-up in the Myers’ house, or the time period ambiguous settings. If he were not so beholden to throw in as many remembrances or re-stagings of the original, Zombie might have made a pretty decent entry in the Halloween franchise. But, the bifurcated nature of the story plus the horrendously drawn-out chase scenes between Michael and Laurie really distract from any enjoyment that may be obtained otherwise. But hey, at least it’s better than Busta Rhymes in Resurrection. At least Zombie has that in his corner.

I was a bad horror fan when I saw Quarantine before [REC] since the latter was not yet available commercially. This remake is the same tale of some unlucky folks including a reporter and her cameraman trapped inside an apartment building with an rampant zombie problem. It might not be a fair comparison but Quarantine does not succeed to the level that [REC] does. The characters are nowhere as defined, the pacing trudges along, and even the scares are much more easily spotted in this film. It fails as a “found footage” film since almost every actor is recognizable in some way or another. There are much worse things to see since this does not blatantly insult you. But, you’d be better off with the original as long as subtitled movies aren’t a turn-off.

Remind me to keep my mouth shut the next time I say I should have been scarred. 2010′s I Spit on Your Grave is a remake of a 1978 film of the same name. I was unimpressed by the original with its bland characters, lack of tension and surprisingly boring execution of a heinous serious of events. The remake rectifies these issues, but to the complete extreme.

The story is the same; a writer named Jennifer arrives in the deep country to write her first novel. Before she gets to her cabin, she interacts with some locals, a healthy mix of creepy, retarded and seemingly harmless. An embarrassing event occurs at the gas station which establishes part of a motive for some depraved acts. This combined with a retarded chap’s misinterpretation of a kiss from Jennifer, quickly results in the go ahead for those acts. Jennifer is assaulted, mentally tortured, and ultimately raped repeatedly. Before the assailants can kill her, she jumps into the river and disappears. Her body is never recovered. About a month later she returns, to get her revenge.

There are some improvements from the original. There actually is a clearly established motive for these men to commit the acts that they do. In the original, they seemed to be a result of mostly them just being country psychos. Also, in the original, the men were lured in to the most ridiculous of traps and met there demise. The remake has them being ambushed for lack of a better term and dispatched in fairly quick and bizarre fashions. Having said those things, this version seemed more realistic.

However.

This film (I watched the unrated version) is quite vile. Needless to say, the crimes committed against Jennifer were most certainly uncomfortable and heinous. Not just the rape, but the mental abuse and games they play with her were just as evil. But, also the crimes committed against the men. Horrible, elaborate deaths. Disturbing at best.

This leads to the ultimate debate that should occur if both men and women view this at the same time. Were Jennifer’s actions justified? It’s clearly obvious her actions are revenge driven, but in case you may not pick up on that, she says the same things to each victim that were said to her during her ordeal. But does that make her right in her actions? If, not what would be fitting? Arrests and eventual death chamber? Same end result. Just not as inhumane. Possibly. I say that the debate “should” occur because it certainly will not. Everyone will be too busy washing their brains in hot water in an effort to remove some of the images. The film seems more interested in shock value than healthy discussion. Not that all films should result in a healthy discussion, but man. You have quite a controversial subject to not want to spark one.

The film is better acted, directed and just plain is better than the original. But is it good? Unfortunately, no. It goes too far. Instead of say, the A Time to Kill approach about justifiable homicide, which mostly involves a deadly reaction to something and then a trial, this film just shows repeated horrible acts, which leaves you too jarred to even discuss the subject.

Unlike the previous reviews, I will not be giving you a recap of the finale of Freddy vs. Jason. Only because it has nothing to do with the continuity of the Friday the 13th. For this is a re-something involving several of the early films.

During the credit sequence of this film we see Pamela Voorhees chasing a a young girl. It is  June, 13, 1980. She tells the girl that she must pay for letting her son Jason drown. Unfortunately for her, the young girl chops her damn head off. After the credits end, we transplanted to “present day,” which is 20 years later according to some dialogue. A group of young people are hiking, and stop near Camp Crystal Lake to find some marijuana that they heard was being grown in the woods. As tradition dictates, there is an obligatory camp scene and the legend of Jason is told.  The same poor choices are made;  some have sex, some wander off and find Camp Crystal Lake. Jason kills everyone except for Whitney. He keeps her. Flash forward several weeks later, Whitney’s brother Clay comes to town with missing person flyers, hoping to find her. Also arriving are a random group of more young people, going to Trent’s father’s cabin (Trent is a rich dick, thus we immediately hate him). Then the death. Oh my goodness, the death.

Most of the issues with this film are the same as the Nightmare remake. It is unclear what kind of “re” this is supposed to be. We never go further back than the original film. In fact, this version only shows us the decapitation of Pamela Voorhees during the credits, then moves on. Jason was never in the original film (present day), and his mother was the murderer. In this film, after the credits are over and we are in present day, Jason is the killer, wearing a sack on his head, which was in part 2. At some point in this film, Jason finds a hockey mask, which did not happen until part 3.

Also, what’s with the timeline? This time around, Jason’s mother is killed in 1980 and then we flash forward 20 years. The original timeline separates the first two films by 5 years. So at this point, I peg 2009 F13 to be in the year 2000, 2 years before Freddy vs. Jason. Platinum Dunes seems to purposely mix already established storyline with “new” storyline (or stealing, but changing certain things). So, are you rebooting, re-imaging, consolidating or what?

The first 23 minutes of the film (if you can view this ignoring the other films) is awesome. Brutal deaths. Frightening scenes. Jason runs quite fast as opposed to slowly chasing you and magically appearing someplace else. There is very little comedy and it is just a dark film during this time. This was more than likely done to quickly establish a back story so that the rest of the film could linger establishing stereotypes and pretending it was like the rest of the franchise. Guess what? Uneven!

However, Jason was quite sinister in this. He does not waste time, nor does he seem to have spent time thinking of humorous ways to kill people. In fact, Jason seems very human. He has traps and a sort of alarm system set up in the woods to let him know when potential victims are present.   This was quite enjoyable.

This film’s downfall is its constant references (stealing) from  multiple earlier films, but insistence on also having original material. It is not at the same level as the Nightmare remake was, but it is in the same vein.

If you are going to update a classic (which at this point the original was) that’s fine. If you want to remake it, great. If you even want to re -imagine it, I don’t care. But, pick one. And stick to that.

Favorite kill: Jason seals up Amanda in her sleeping bag, then hovers her over the campfire and she burns.

The (new!) Karate Kid stars Jackie Chan teaching Jaden Smith what is arguably not karate. Smith takes over for Ralph Macchio in the sunny vistas of China instead of SoCal with almost everything from the original present including the cute girlfriend, the mean thugs, and a slightly aloof teacher. It is a bit troublesome to see young boys punching and kicking like they are in Fight Club but this is a well-done movie with decent performances and a feel-good ending. It would have been better though with something other than the same feel-good ending from over twenty years ago.

I think we all get that the fat cat film producers are either plum out of ideas or unwilling to take a chance on anything new. That is the reason we have about a dozen sequels, prequels, sidequels, and whatever else coming out this summer.

But who in the hell thinks a remake of Kevin Coster’s The Bodyguard is a good idea? Based on my hazy recollection from fifteen years ago or so the film itself isn’t necessarily bad albeit a little cheesy and overly-romanticized for my tastes. But is this such a high concept that it warrants a remake?

Hell, what is to stop Warner Brothers from taking the same concept, casting Usher and Lady GaGa, and calling it Absurdity: The Movie? People complain all the time that recent movies are blatant rip-offs of previous films (most recently The Roommate = SWF). I guess film studios are now going to acknowledge that something is a remake (you know, because any similarities are then intentional). Sadly, I’m sure that this will be a surefire hit just like the original was almost twenty years ago.

But I wonder, where are all the movie goers demanding to see something they haven’t already seen before? Oh, they’re probably seeing that Justin Bieber “movie.”

Deadline Hollywood: Warner Bros Remakes ‘The Bodyguard’

In the past two decades, once prolific horror director John Carpenter has made only six features, one of which has not seen a proper release here in America. If Carpenter was still making movies as creepy and effective as Halloween or The Thing, this would be bothersome. Village of the Damned typifies Carpenter’s later entries in the genre, notably bland stories, decent-to-awful acting, and very little redeeming qualities. It was a disappointment especially coming off his far superior film the year prior, In the Mouth of Madness.

The film takes place in the small California town of Midwich, population 2000 (or so the quaint sign says at the beginning). It is not long however that the population tally starts fluctuating as the entire town is struck by an unexplainable mass black-out for six hours. Shortly after the blackout occurs, all of the women of childbearing age become pregnant, some even without the corresponding act of coitus. This is not only worrisome to the residents but also to the town’s doctor Alan (Christopher Reeve) as his wife is one of the newly knocked up. With the help of a fancy government doctor Susan Verner (Kirstie Alley), nine children are delivered at exactly the same time who all grow up with the same creepy eyes, platinum hair, and drab clothing. Oh, and the children can read minds and force others to hurt themselves if they feel threatened.

Based on the 1957 novel The Midwich Cuckoos as well as the 1960 movie of the same name, Village has an abundance of potentially creepy aspects to it that do not actually go anywhere. The concept is neat enough and there are some unsettling moments that play well like when little toddler Mara wills her mother to jump off a cliff. But even with an increasing number of “accidents” as the children come into contact with more people, the town is mostly oblivious of the danger or even willing to question the existence of the near-identical group of kids. It isn’t until the final act of the movie that the children become the overt aggressors and that plays well as they stand motionless in the middle of a street while a woman sets herself on fire or a gaggle of police and military gun each other down.

Imagine The Happening (it’s painful, I know) with children instead of trees and that is almost exactly what we get here right up to the sometimes cringe-worthy acting. Reeve and Alley are decent enough but mostly they both look bored. Mark Hamill plays a Catholic priest with some of the most ridiculously over-the-top dialogue ever (WE NEED FINGERPAINTS!). The rest of the cast is very broad but I cannot place too much fault with them as the story gives no one else an opportunity to stand out. Much like the children, all the adults of the town are cookie-cutter Caucasian Catholics that I kept getting confused with other similar-looking cast members. Was it the redneck, bearded dad that drives his truck into an oddly placed gas tank or was it the scholarly, bearded dad? I don’t remember but it doesn’t really matter.

Its clear that this isn’t Carpenter’s best film but it isn’t his worst either. That frustratingly makes it such an unmemorable proposition to watch that you begin to wish for some truly hammy performances or goofy lines to at least make it stand out.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is the first of many remakes by Platinum Dunes. While I feel it is better than most of their others, I still question the need of making any sequel, remake or otherwise to the original.

In this “chapter,” we are taken to August 18, 1973, two days before the police archive video we watch takes place, complimented with narration by, once again, John Larroquette. 5 young people are travelling to a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert in a van all stoned and having a good time. The driver, Kemper (Eric Balfour), almost hits a girl wandering in the middle of the rural road they are travelling. They pick her up, only to be subjected to her ramblings about a “bad man” and eventually her suicide, via a handgun produced from her crotch. Traumatized they attempt to find local law enforcement in the backwoods that they are travelling in and come across a gas station. The old lady working there says that the sheriff is at the mill but he will be there in 2 hours. Not wanting to haul around a carcass, the group of young people seek out the mill, with the hitchhiker’s body in tow. They come across a young boy, who tells them that the sheriff is at home getting drunk. Erin (Jessica Biel) and Kemper go the house, which merely produces an amputee in a wheelchair, who states that the sheriff does not live there, but Erin, and only Erin may go in to use the phone to call the sheriff. She is told that he will be there in 30 minutes, but he (R. Lee Ermey) actually shows up at the mill, “investigates,” and wraps up the hitchhiker’s body in cling wrap, stuffs her in the trunk  and drives off. While this is going on, Kemper is killed by Leatherface (now called Thomas Hewitt, as opposed to just Leatherface, or  Leatherface “Bubba” Sawyer, Leatherface  ”Junior” Sawyer or Leatherface Slaughter as he has been up to this point) unbeknown to Erin as she makes her way back to the mill. Guess what? More chainsaw massacre!

I am really over this shit. Not only does the bizarrely weird timeline of this franchise bother me, I just don’t get the point of going on. I mean, I can buy that this one could be an attempt to redeem the series from where it went awry, but even so I can’t help but compare it to the original from which it is a supposed remake. If I do that, it sucks. Indeed, there are not many films (of any genre) if any at all, that compare to such a film as the 1974 original.

As an autonomous horror film, it isn’t bad. Jessica Biel, and everyone else is good.  I mean it doesn’t stand out, but it plays the formula well. False scares, gruesome murders. But, the original is special (at least to me). Why keep attaching its name? Oh, I see. Because Leatherface is in every one. Doesn’t matter that he seems to float through time and end up with different families.  Doesn’t matter that the story may change or stay the same or even be non linear; as long as his name is on it, who gives a shit? Well, it bothers me. And as each one applies the TCM name, it just angers me more that it is related to such a perfect film as the original.

I mean, Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th (both remade by Platinum Dunes) were not aesthetically great films, but their sequels were in kind. The original Chainsaw was a brilliant vision. Years ahead of the aforementioned less quality sequelheads, and it just seems to be an insult a chapter.

You could definitely do worse as a horror film in general, but this remake only serves to show the gore that the original did not (and incidentally was so successful for not showing) in quite a less tension filled execution. It really feels like we are getting robbed more, each film after another.

I am not sure if this poster is from the new A Nightmare on Elm Street. In a similar fashion, I really was not sure what I was watching when I saw the film.

I would like to say that the only reason I am reviewing this, as opposed to Puck, is because I just happen to have seen it first. Puck has given us an incredibly insightful and brilliant analysis of the original franchise thus far, and I am eager for the remaining installments. I also, having not had a computer for a while, have not contributed anything to the site as of late. So, with Puck’s approval, here is my review.

I will spare you a plot synopsis, as it is the same story. Freddy hunting and killing teenagers in their dreams as revenge. Between the 8 other movies that feature Freddy and Puck’s recent reviews, if you are not already familiar with the plot, I question your comprehension skills and you will not find this review helpful at all.

So, I guess the thing that bothered me the most about this movie, is trying to figure out what the hell the point of it was. Not the story, the movie specifically. It was some bizarre cross breed of re-imagining, remake, and reboot. All I know is that I kept re asking myself, “What the fuck?” during this thing. While the basic plot is the exact same as the original, there were many differences. There is a Nancy, but her last name is Holbrook rather than Thompson. Other than her and Freddy, no other characters were named the same. Oddly enough there was a Jesse, and as I neglected to notice while watching the movie, Puck pointed out that the main character in Nightmare 2 is named Jesse. Also, there was a character named Kris, perhaps a reference to Kristen in Nightmare 3. Also, Nancy worked at a diner, like Alice did in Nightmare 4. These facts alone can be used to argue that the remake category is out the window. However, the choice was made to include the some of the same scenes, some as they were in the original and some slightly altered. This really distracted me. I could not help comparing the movie to the original and asking myself why certain choices were made. For example, there is a scene in which Kris, who is closest to being the Tina character from the original, has a nightmare in class and wakes up screaming. This happened to Nancy in the original. Yet the rest of the events of the film that involve her, were more close to (if not the same as) the events that involved Tina in the original. What purpose did making that choice serve? Was it solely to be able to classify this as a re-imagining?  I would say no, as this movie was not so much “imagined,” as it was “stolen” This was a really lazy re-whateveritwas. I would have preferred that they fully committed to something. Remake it scene by scene even, at least I would not be confused. I would have liked if they had completely different events happening, but say, left the bathtub scene in there (not because of nudity, jackass, there isn’t any in that scene) as an homage or something.  I also think the fact the Freddy is dressed exactly the same also disqualifies this as a re-imagining. In my opinion, I think he looked more like an actual burn victim than Robert Englund did (no offense to him, he is and will always be the only Freddy as far as I am concerned. Also that would be a make up issue, not an acting issue). There were other things that I took issue with, such as the absence of Nancy’s father (but I guess technically that was not really Nancy, so that may be irrelevant) but I think I have made my point.

As far as the film outside of the pre-existing universe it was lifted from, I would say it was passable. Jack Earle Haley did a decent enough job. Freddy was quite mean, and even swore regularly in this one. He made some jokes, but was hardly the the stand up comedian that Freddy was in the later films of the franchise. No one else in the film was especially good, but the writing was not that particularly great. The only time I actually felt bad when someone died was not because I connected with them, but rather because of the brutality of their death.  This film was quite gory. I was kind of hoping for that and was rewarded, but the suspense was sacrificed a little. That whole, “someone looking around, saying ‘Hello?’ then someone jumps out of some place” wears a little thin after the 10th time it happens.  Besides the fact that it is not a new technique. The use of “micronaps” was a tad annoying in that respect as that is where a lot of this activity took place. I did like the way that Freddy’s origin was told, and that the kids all somehow knew each other, but they had to figure out how. That was executed pretty well I thought. Another thing I liked was that this was set in modern times but there was no emphasis on that. As opposed to say, Platinum Dunes’s (and New Line Cinema for that matter) other re-whateveritwas, Friday the 13th. That film was rampant with iPods, glowsticks and GPS devices, as if to scream, “Look at me! I am Friday the 13th, but 29 years later!” This one was not. The gadgets that were in this were all used minimally and simply as products of the time. Nothing really new here, just your typical slasher film. While it did not break any ground, on the whole, and again ignoring the original franchise, it was a popcorn movie at best.

I found it outright impossible not to compare this to the Wes Craven Nightmare. So much so, that it was distracting. If you have not seen the original, then you might like this. But I do not think it is possible to like them both. For if you like one, you will find the other inadequate (and by inadequate I mean “much like parts 2-Freddy vs Jason”).

Check out Puck’s rant on the movie here.

Here we are less than a week away from the release of the latest part of my childhood to be repackaged and resold to me. Rest assured, I will be there to see Nightmare 2010 on opening day but let us forget about that for now as I cannot say I have high hopes for it. Instead, just like every other horror and/or movie related website, I will revisit the original films and see how they hold up … or don’t.

It is quite astonishing that Wes Craven was able to create such an iconic character with a budget reportedly of less than $2 million. Equally amazing is that through the various production and financial issues, the original Nightmare on Elm Street still remains as a highly regarded tentpole in the slasher subgenre twenty five years later along with the Halloween and Friday the 13th franchises. I would argue the Nightmare series did not fair as well as the Myers and Voorhees based ones due to studio interference and rushing production to maximize revenues at the expense of the stories themselves.

Forgetting the rest of the series though, this movie stands up relatively well even to today’s horror standards. While the film is not without its flaws (more on those to come), it is still creepy as hell. I can safely say that the original has never come close to being “scary” to me personally, but that is more due to my pre-teen self seeing the thing a billion times and becoming desensitized. The overall concept of the killer coming after you in your dreams lends itself quite well to things that would normally be off-the-wall in more grounded entries. Sure, Michael Myers got shot six times and burned to a crisp and Jason can seemingly teleport anywhere, but overall those series were made up of events that could possibly happen.

Now, as you and I can attest almost anything can happen in a dream though. One moment you may be having brunch with the President, the next falling down an elevator shaft onto some bullets, and finish off with talking zombie gardeners. Craven uses the randomness and complexities of a typical dream to the advantage of the film as it cannot be damned for drastic location or tone shifts. Even the basic premise of being murdered in your sleep is horrifying enough as there is little that you could do to prevent that from happening. Everyone sleeps at some point and everyone has dreams. On the other hand, people could learn to stay the hell away from Crystal Lake and not be related to psychotic nutjobs (or at least do a better job of hiding that fact).

The general rule of “less is more” applies beautifully here as the minimal budget did not allow a great emphasis on showboating. In stark contrast to some of the later sequels featuring Freddy in a brightly lit place like … I don’t know, a beach or a television studio, Freddy is mostly relegated to the shadows with only a brief glimpse of his burned, disfigured face. Freddy is also more of an impending threat than a direct antagonist. His screen time is limited to the fairly infrequent nightmare world as opposed to being in every other scene. This is a much more effective manor of creating a menacing villain, scaring you with the unknown as opposed to putting it all out there, good or bad.

So with all of that acclaim being said, there were things here that irked the hell out of current me that previous me had never really picked up on. For starters, no one in this damn movie (save Johnny Depp, John Saxon, and possibly Robert Englund) can act. I sincerely like Heather Langenkamp and feel she really grew with this franchise but some of her scenes are downright awful, especially for a feature film like this. With the exception of a few scenes in the back half of the movie after everyone thinks she is crazy, Langenkamp awkwardly overacts and delivers her lines in a way that even Kristen Stewart would be embarrassed for her. Her cinematic mother, Ronee Blakley is even worse. I can forgive to a certain extent as the character is supposed to be a barely functioning alcoholic but that excuse even pushes the line frequently.

Craven also plays pretty loose with the rules of the dream world. While the infringements here are not as blatant as in some of the latter films, Freddy’s ability to transcend the dream world even when his victims are fully awake is a bit much without further explanation. With what we know, Nancy was wide awake when she received her unwanted makeout session with Freddy and Rod was more than likely aware as he was being pulled out of his cell and hung by the rafters. You can chalk these minor quibbles up to Freddy’s surging power as more fear is directed his way but again, these things are not really addressed here.

All of that is not really a problem though. Chances are if you are watching this you have seen it before. If you haven’t, you likely already know the basic premise where the most random shit can happen in a quick succession. As it stands, Nightmare ’84 is an excellent movie that is fully capable of elevating itself over its somewhat inconsequential flaws.