One might be able to argue that Dane Cook or Nickelback’s success is funny, but one of the big taboos in comedy is cancer. You typically don’t see much humor derived from an ailment that affects millions each year. Screenwriter Will Reiser though effectively manages to take the topic of cancer and turn it into a honest, genuine, and surprisingly funny look on the craziness surrounding an already terrible predicament in 50/50.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, essentially a stand-in for Reiser, who learns he has a rare form of cancer along his spine in the peak of his life. Seth Rogen, from reports who basically plays himself as he did to Reiser, is the supportive, opportunistic, and (of course) foul-mouthed friend to help along the way. We also meet Adam’s super-supportive girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), his overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston), and his new-to-the-field therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they try and support Adam though the diagnosis, treatment, and aftermath.

While the previews mostly portrayed this film as more comedic in tone, 50/50 is primarily a drama with a sprinkling of comedy, usually courtesy of Rogen. There is only so much light you can make of a film about a debilitating illness without it coming across as inappropriate or crass. Fortunately, Reiser’s script walks a pretty fine line between making a mockery of the suffering of millions and taking what comes from life in stride. The film succeeds on this front as it is not a heavy-handed “live your life to the fullest” affair but also addresses the hardship that comes with the plights of Adam’s fellow cancer buddies played by Philip Baker Hall and Trashcan Man Matt Frewer.

Not many actors can pull of such a varied performance as Gordon-Levitt did as he hits every stage of the process in perfect form with scenes filled with joy, anger or grief and some all combined together. I would say it is an award-worthy performance but apparently the powers that be do not agree. The rest of the actors merely revolve around Adam in some shape or form with Rogen not breaking too much new ground and Kendrick playing the same young and sensitive, yet inexperienced role that she has in other films. Huston in minimal screentime had quite an impact as the mother that Adam purposefully distances himself from yet relies on when everything comes down to the wire.

Director Jonathan Levine takes what you would anticipate being an ensemble effort and focuses superbly on Adam and his struggle. From the first diagnosis when the “State University” doctor remarks that his cancer is quite interesting because it is rare and yada yada yada, Levine pulls back and focuses solely on the ear of the patient as he tries to comprehend the words being causally tossed at him. We follow Adam throughout the entire ordeal as he has his first chemotherapy, gets high on weed-laced macaroons, and comes to terms with the probable outcome that he will die. The emphasis on Adam and the events in his life during his treatment put you in the mindset of someone in that situation. It is not a joyous, “to hell with rules” mindset but one of reason, despair, and sorrow.

On one hand, 50/50 is not a feel-good movie as it evokes many emotions that most (including myself) would disregard while watching a film. But it is not only a strong movie off the back of Gordon-Levitt’s great performance, but also one that can help you see the bright side in even the worst situation.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows picks up close to where the last one left off. Holmes (Robert Downy Jr.) has spent an untold amount of time between films piecing together a continent wide conspiracy. With Watson (Jude Law) getting married, Holmes knows he has to finagle him into also being interested in the conspiracy. There have been bombings throughout Europe and Holmes concludes that his arch nemesis, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) is behind them. He safely stops one bomb just for the mark to be assassinated none the less by the hit man. During Watson’s bachelor party, Holmes sets out to collect more clues. Enter Noomi Rapace (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as Madam Simza, the soothsayer. Fighting ensues and a disastrous and drunk evening winds up with a disheveled Watson late for his wedding the following day. Holmes is used to being the smartest man in the chase until he tangles again with Moriarty. The professor is always two steps ahead and not shy of grand gestures to aid Holmes in meeting his maker even if innocents are hurt. The great reveal comes with Moriarty admitting that even if he didn’t start the world war he was fine taking the world over financially with supplying the weapons to maintain the wars’ destructiveness. Throughout the film, the history is slightly tweaked to fit the plot and help the audience make sense of it all. The climax and confrontation is set (where else would it be in a comic book style storyline) at the Summit Meeting between the nations.

Downy’s performance is successful in delivering the quirky, intelligent, animated, lovable performance that we received from the first film. With Law bringing his cynical, realistic outlook on life attitude back they are a match still made in heaven. There’s been some time since such a male pair shared such charisma and elegance on screen together. They both put their best feet forward. The only downside, for the writing more so than performance, is there was no depth given to Holmes’ character. There were instances where you know there is going to be more than his intellectual insanity but it fell away as quick as it appeared. Watson seemed to see through the exterior but it was never delved into further than him acknowledging non-verbally that it there. Frustratingly, there is an entire underdeveloped subplot with Watson being married at the end of their adventure that would have left Sherlock alone in the flat which could have been used to really define Sherlock’s need for companionship. The loneliness behind his smile should have been given some room to be explored. However, It was still a very well put together action film.

Noomi’s character should have been given more of a role than just a plot device as her talent was not used to the best of her ability. I guess when coming from such a spectacular trilogy maybe it was a personal choice to cross over to the American cinema with this type of role. She is not bad by any means and she still works well with what she was given but there should have been more provided for her character. When you take such a strong actor and give them a mediocre role it shadows their true talent. Harris kicks in the door with his performance. I have never loved and hated a character so much. He is a genius in his evil, super villain with pizzazz role. You began to root for him and his despicably absurd ploy for financial world domination. With what we know of Moriarty I was shocked that it look so long for the hand-to-hand combat to come. His devilishly handsome and overly confident self meets Holmes move for move to leave us holding our breath as they get close to the edge of the falls.

The entire film is action and adventure sprinkled with dialogue and great direction. There are moments like when they get to the Summit that seem a little dragged out to make up for too many fighting sequences. The attention to detail is lacking in the action sequences and some may never notice but I did. Sherlock Holmes resides in Britain for most of his life, so why is it that he has an Eastern fighting style? I understand it is what most movie goers these days expect but that little anachronism changes the way I see the Guy Ritchie franchise of the great detective. It is why there is so much action in the movie bringing the film more current than the actual setting to appease the audiences. If some of the extraneous scenes were dropped the two-hour-plus movie wouldn’t have felt more like three. Ritchie stayed true to his form with the slow motion this-is-what-went-down technique and flash backs to cover what had previously happened but was skipped temporarily in the film. Over all it was a very enjoyable film and I would say it is slightly better than the original but sets expectations higher for a third installment to set itself apart from this film.

I caught a lot of crap at work for “liking” the Final Destination series. Primarily, this is coming from a guy who proclaims his favorite movie ever is the original Saw, so I consider his opinion moot. Given the unevenness of the series, I would say “tolerate” is a more appropriate verb for my feelings on these films. That seems fair since Final Destination films seem to range from pretty good, like the original, to the offensively stupid, such as a large chunk of part 3 and all of part 4. Since the various writers and directors of the previous four films seem to have moved on, Final Destination 5‘s writer Eric Heisserer and director Steven Quale have almost a blank canvas to create on.

The synopses part of these reviews almost seem rote now but if you’ve seen any of the previous films, you know the gist. In this case, Sam (Nicholas D’Agosto) has a vision of a cataclysmic bridge collapse on the way to his company’s team building retreat. He manages to get everyone off the bus only for them all to get made dead via collapsing bridge decks, swinging suspension cables, or random sailboats. Fearing his premonition, Sam manages to get his girlfriend Molly (Emma Bell), friend Peter (Miles Fisher) and other company folk off the bridge before it collapses. From then, they all die. This is not a spoiler. This is expected for this type of film.

With five films in the can now, the main hook of the Final Destination series is undoubtedly the deaths and the almost far-fetched yet somewhat conceivable ways that people can die. On that front, FD5 is almost tame in respect to some of the other films as many of the deaths are fairly straight-forward bad luck such as the flying wrench to the skull or crushing blow to the head from Buddha. Only one sequence really sticks out as the typical Rube-Goldbergian style that the series is built on. This scene though in a gymnasium is full of misdirection and red herrings (not sure that this applies here but we’ll go with it) that make the final outcome completely out of the blue, especially since this part was featured heavily in the trailers.

In the review for FD3, I remarked: “it is clear for me that what makes a Final Destination good as opposed to just mediocre are the characters.” FD4 (or THE Final Destination if you must) was shit because it completely disregards characters entirely for stupid gross-out gory moments and deaths. FD5 though walks the thin line not seen since the second between characters you actually care about and over-the-top death scenes. Here we have a good few minutes to get introduced to the characters and their histories and dynamics before they are almost playing on death’s swing set. While it might seem minor, the fact that Sam and Molly are on the rocks or that Olivia is self-conscious about her glasses are far more beneficial than just padding the film’s runtime. Unlike the last film, we can connect with these characters to some extent and can appreciate their relationships or worries which make their inevitable deaths just a bit more impactful.

It certainly helps greatly that we have professional actors in the film as opposed to the bottom-of-the-casting-barrel detritus that turned up last time. I don’t know why but I am a fan of D’Agosto, probably stretching back to his performance in Election. #pbf’s unrequited love Emma Bell is no slouch either as the love interest and final girl of the group. And Jacqueline MacInnes Wood is quite fetching. And a good actress to boot! In fact, all of the cast including Courtney B. Vance and David Koechner are believable in their respective roles even though Vance’s random agent seems a bit ridiculous since he is trying to blame a natural bridge collapse on Sam.

Vance’s role seemed to be a not very well conceived callback to the first where Alex is suspected of involvement in the airplane blowing up. That worked, to an extent, in that film but the notion that a mild-mannered guy could cause a freak natural disaster bridge collapse is stretching things a bit. There are other underlying callbacks to the first with the mentions of Paris and occurrences of the number 180 but there was no moment where the survivors figured out how their situation tied into the first film which was almost a staple in this series (the last film notwithstanding to my recollection.) Yet, without giving too much away, the final sequence ties in nicely with Devon Sawa and Kerr Smith from the original in a way I was pretty happy with.

At this rate, there isn’t too much new that can be done with these films but I was pleasantly surprised with how effectively Heisserer and Quale are able to balance the characters with the expected death scenes. Given that this was an online rental, I did not have the benefit of 3D while watching it but the effects sans one dimension were great (especially with the opening bridge collapse) so I was not missing too much. If I had to pick, I’d probably put this entry on par with part 2. It’s amazing how having realistic, albeit someone douchey, characters can make a mindless movie like this so much more enjoyable.

Pure and simple, this movie is an unadulterated mess. Coming six years after the sloppy fifth film, the Halloween series had certainly seen its better days as it changes hands to yet another production company, this time the genre upstart Dimension Films. Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers also is notable for being one of the most awkwardly put together films courtesy of studio or dumbass filmmaker interference and even spawned its own alternate cut which ran rampant on VHS many years ago as the “Producers’ Cut.” Just like any relationship, this movie has a lot of baggage. And I have a love/hate relationship with it.

Remember the relative simplicity of the story in the original film? Yeah, Michael Myers apparently murdered that as well as the six in the title. Jamie Lloyd returns for a brief moment to birth a child that may or may not be Michael’s (creepy!). The town of Haddonfield has banned Halloween since its latest bloodbath six years ago (or is it five?). Laurie Strode’s previously unmentioned uncle John Strode has now moved his family into the old Myers house. His daughter Kara (Marianne Hagan) has recently moved back in with her young son Danny for reasons unmentioned. Across the street in a boarding house lives Tommy Doyle (Paul Rudd) who has been obsessed with Michael after his encounter Halloween night many years ago. Dr. Loomis (Donald Pleasence) is apparently retired and nowhere near as enthusiastically crazy as before. All of these kooky characters merge together though as Michael reappears to help reduce the dumb character population.

I have much appreciation for the one credited writer of this film, Daniel Farrands. We’re far removed from the greatness of the original but you can tell that Farrands is not only a fan of the series but understands what a Halloween movie needs. Sadly, the behind-the-scenes shenanigans undermine some of the story but for most of the first fifty minutes or so, Curse has what should be standard in a slasher film, namely decently drawn characters and tense sequences showcasing its main psychopath. I must also acknowledge Joe Chappelle (yes, the one who also did Phantoms) who has a keen visual eye for shots and sequences that go hand-in-hand with the best of the sequels. Yet, allegedly this is the same Joe Chappelle (along with the always menacing studio suits) who absolutely destroyed the final act of the film. We can’t win them all I guess.

The film does much to correct problems with the last, especially as it comes to creating the best autumn atmosphere of the entire series (original included) and ditching the gothic Myers mansion for a quaint little suburban house more similar to the original. Even though some of the characters are completely worthless and/or assholes, most of the others are fleshed out enough to care about when the Boogeyman comes knocking. A stilted performance here and there (cough, Rudd!) results in some occasional bumps in the narrative but not enough to derail your enjoyment. Until the final act that is.

While I haven’t seen the Producers’ Cut, the reported major differences start as Kara (and all common sense from the film I suppose) is flung out of a window. This is painfully apparent as the relative successes of the beginning are maimed like Myers going after a group of random doctors and nurses for no explicable reason. All of the sudden it seems, Alan Howarth’s creepy recalling of the series’ theme is replaced with screeching guitars and the delightfully tense moments from before are replaced with other random shit for no other reason than to make it “cool.” Granted there are some good moments in the final act (I especially enjoy Rudd’s facial expressions when coming across Myers) but so much is done that tonally does not match the rest of the film nor does it make a lick of sense.

For every effective kill sequence the know-it-alls counter with a head exploding because, well we all expect that from a Halloween film. For all the eery slo-mo shots of Tommy walking past the 90s version of #OccupyHaddonfield, we are treated with dumb shit like a little girl saying “It’s raining. It’s raining red. It’s warm.” And for every moment of Danny being a creepy little kid we get this crap about Michael being controlled by Druids and a specific constellation. Even with its faults, there are far too many great moments here to dismiss this one as crap. It may not be as effective a sequel as Part 4 but you get the feeling that at least someone tried to make a worthwhile film.

Despite seeing all the other movies in the franchise multiple times, I had never seen the Friday the 13th: A New Beginning of the Halloween series, Halloween III: Season of the Witch. Sure, I could deny that is because Michael Myers is absent in this installment but that would not be exactly accurate. Yet, over the years I have heard time and time again that this film would have a much better reputation if it did not have Halloween in the title. That may in fact be true. But it is still a shitty movie.

I cannot fault the filmmakers for jettisoning the lone silent, stalking killer after Halloween II. For starters, that was not really a great film to begin with and the Michael Myers story had come to a pretty conclusive ending. Even taking the Halloween title and shifting it to other stories of the season would have been a neat idea if the first attempt did not turn out as poor as this one did. Perhaps producer John Carpenter was trying his hand at crafting lackluster films that he would perfect a decade or so later. Or maybe Carpenter just slapped his name onto this as a quick money grab. Either way, the real culprit here is not Conal Cochran (Dan O’Herlihy), a man who wants to destroy the wholesome fun of Halloween but writer and director Tommy Lee Wallace.

The start of the story is actually decent beginning with Harry Grimbridge desperately running from silent and well-dressed killers while clutching a pumpkin mask. After a close call or two, Grimbridge escapes and winds up in a hospital under the care of Dr. Dan Challis (Tom Atkins). One of the well-dressed men enters the hospital and kills Grimbridge before fleeing from Challis and setting himself ablaze in his car. Challis is approached by Grimbridge’s daughter Ellie (Stacey Nelkin) who has suspicions about her father’s murder (you think?) and the two head off to Santa Mira, home of the Silver Shamrock novelty company headed by Cochran. The fantastical plot elements start withering away at my enjoyment as Challis and Ellie poke around the town, encounter some colorful locals, even more colorful visitors and the Old Man himself before he made his way up at OCP.

As I said, I had hopes for this towards the beginning in spite of the distinct lack of a notable modern monster. There were enough chase scenes and creepy encounters and music stings as the suited men dramatically enter the frame to keep me engaged for a bit. Yet, I can fully appreciate and agree with the #halloween3sucks hashtag that PBF used while watching this last year. I trust you all know of the magical way that we buy into movies, even ridiculous movies through our “suspension of disbelief.” I’m not sure what the opposite of that would be called but whatever it is, this movie has it in spades.

I could not get over just how ridiculous everything after the half-hour point or so was. Challis (a doctor, not a cop) has a strange encounter with a dead patient and a “flamer,” meets up with some chick and all of the sudden they are on the road to investigate. And then they’re shagging in the hotel room. And then they’re just staying in the hotel room instead of … well, investigating. And they don’t really seem to question the strange and almost abandoned town, the curfew, or the fact that a woman with her face blasted off is taken to a toy factory, not a hospital or even a damn veterinarian. Even though Atkins has more charisma than I do in my entire existence, these dumb-as-rocks characters only exist to provide me something to do while watching this film such as shaking my head in disbelief or gawking at the absurdity of it all.

Even worse though is the character of Cochran. He gives a fairly detailed explanation to a restrained and masked Atkins why he wishes to turn the heads of little trick-r-treaters into worms and snakes but … to be honest I wasn’t really paying attention. But what kind of business model does this man have? He spends his entire life amassing great wealth through novelty items like sticky toilet paper (someone get on this!) or wind-up whatevers for this sole purpose? Or was he really trying to just steal a piece of Stonehenge and that just happened to come about thereafter? His business practices aside, Cochran is worse than every Bond villain combined as he guides a leisurely stroll through the bowels of his factory to Challis saying things like “You’ll figure it out soon enough” before explaining every damn thing?

I really cannot imagine the purpose of this film. Is it a form of social commentary on evil businessmen and how they will do anything to get a buck? Or is it to speak on the silliness of kids dressing up and getting candy on a day traditionally tied to the slaughter of livestock for winter survival? Or is it simply to churn out something, anything, with the Halloween name on it to cash in on unsuspecting theater patrons? I don’t know and I really could care less. Even with PBF’s disdain for this film, I was hoping it would at least continue the series’ result of entertaining me. While admittedly this film did, it was assuredly for the wrong reasons.

When I first heard about a Predator sequel being made, it seemed like there were daily updates for the members of production, the cast, and then the release date approximately two weeks later. I may be truncating the timeframe a bit but it came together rather quickly in my swiss-cheese-like memory. The concept had promise with the predator foe, hunting in groups, having the homefield advantage against a rag-tag gang of militants and ne’er-do-wells. Sadly, while that premise is accurate, the final product, or at least half of it, leaves much to be desired. At least, until you watch the original Predator.

In his recent Monster Scum marathon, Digger proclaimed Predator to be “one of the greatest action movies of all time.” While it has been far too long since seeing the original to agree or disagree, Predators however follows its source material far too closely. Straight down to the music by John Debney which is almost a carbon-copy of Alan Silvestri’s great score from the original, I felt a great sense of deja vu while watching Predators, either to the original or to any other generic action movie. We start with Royce (Adrien Brody) free-falling into a jungle only to run into other people of varying ethnicities and backgrounds as they try to figure out where they are and why they are there.

It doesn’t take long for standard action tentpoles to come in effect as the group is hunted by the trio of Predator-folk. From being split up during an attack by weird alien dog-things, a trap being set for the humans in which Classic Predator™ appears, and the group being picked off one by one, I was completely detached from the first half of the movie. It literally feels like the original Predator with just a modicum of tweaking to avoid outright plagiarism. When the group meets up with Nolan (Laurence Fishburne), a previous victim stranded on the world, it gets on track with a bit more originality. It helps that Nolan is almost completely insane from being stuck on the alien planet for so long that he has concocted an imaginary friend to combat the loneliness.

The back half of the movie turns around as the human prey decide to turn tables on the Predators led by Brody. When it was first announced, I had my doubts about Brody as an action hero but it works here with Royce being rather cunning in the thick of it and pretty much an ass to boot. Royce’s main concern is survival and getting to the aliens’ ship and if things are not conducive to his plan (mainly Topher Grace) he is more than willing to cut ties and move on. The rest of the humans are pretty flimsy in the characterization department but certain things can be overlooked as Yakusa-member Hanzo (Louis Ozawa Changchien) and Russian Nikolai (Oleg Taktarov) are pretty bad ass in their respective ways. Even though Walton Goggins’ death-row inmate Stans does not offer much assistance in the kick-assery, he gets a few good lines in as comic relief. Topher Grace annoys the shit out of me for some reason and I cannot buy him as a doctor in any capacity so his Edwin did nothing for me. And Alice Braga is pretty enough but does not come off as a hardened Israeli sniper.

For as interesting as it was to set the movie on an alien planet, it added little to the story that could not have been accomplished on earth. Early on as the characters are trying to figure out their location, Braga’s Isabelle remarks that she has seen many jungles but not this one. Problem is, even with the beautiful cinematography, it still looks like any jungle we’ve seen before. Other than the Predator’s dogs and the other creatures that are dropped on the planet with the humans, it is just a bunch of people running around in the woods that could as much be in my backyard as it is elsewhere in the galaxy. And even though there are three predators (not the dozen or so that the trailer would make you think) they mostly play tag team with only one going after the group at a time.

I expected more from this being produced by Robert Rodiguez and directed by Nimród Antal who was hand-picked based on his previous works. It’s competently produced, beautifully shot, and the cardboard cutout characters do their part in the story. But I would recommend seeing the classic original instead. It has a bit more heart and originality and without Topher Grace.

Original publication date: July 18, 2010
If you read this site or have watched any of our episodes, you will know the level of respect and … love we have for Chris Nolan. Yes, PBF may have a sick fascination with Weekend at Bernie’s but even he does not particularly laud Robert Klane because WAB does not equal Dark Knight, Batman Begins, Memento, and now Inception on any level. Here we have a rare movie from a gifted filmmaker that is able to transcend multiple genres and their corresponding cliches and deliver one of the most intellectual films to overshadow anything else this year and probably many years’ films to come.

Even after watching the damn thing, the plot of Inception is rather dense but it boils down fairly simply even though it strips out the very nature of the film. Cobb is a theif trained in the art of extracting thoughts and ideas from a person’s head while they dream. However, he is tasked with a job that even many on his team describe as impossible: implanting an idea into one’s head that is conceived to be genuine by the subject. As a much more complex task than simple extraction, Cobb and his team go to great lengths to create multiple landscapes to coerce the subject into accepting the notion and considering it one of his own.

Like Nolan’s previous film, Dark Knight, Inception works on a great number of levels. The casting is spot on with each member of the principals bringing a grounding seriousness which normally is desperately needed in a film as ambitious as this. Leonardo DiCaprio portrays Cobb as a man who is both confident and broken, a teacher and yet still a student when it comes to affairs with Mal, his wife played by Marion Cotillard. They have a complicated relationship to say the least but the two exert a fierce chemistry as they mingle in the dreams. Everyone else including Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Page, and Tom Hardy play their respective roles with poise and confidence that truly sell their characters and the skills they bring. The one thing that Nolan can be faulted for here is the utter lack of development that the characters receive other than Cobb and Mal. We see the inner workings of the group and how they react to each other but Cillian Murphy as the main target for their job receives far more heavy-lifting in the way of depth than the rest of the crew.

That does not really matter much as even though the film is billed as a tale of thievery, it is mostly about Cobb and his redemption. Cobb wants nothing more than to be reunited with his remaining family after a terrible incident and planting a seed of thought inside Murphy’s head is the only way to achieve that. DiCaprio superbly manages the barrage of emotions needed to sell this point of the story in his quest. Very subtle lines of dialogue that seem superfluous at first glance become very telling of Cobb and his guilt of the consequences of previous journeys into this world.

Visually it is quite stunning, likely even more so if any of you are lucky enough to see it in IMAX. Though the majority of the movie takes place either in the real world or in a dream state designed similarly, various effects infiltrate the dream world with pretty spectacular results, a good deal of which have been shown in the previews. The grounding of the dreams in reality makes for pretty cool effects as buildings crumble, water rushes through, and Gordon-Levitt has a zero-G fight with a henchman. Each of the stages of dreams are filmed in stark contrast with one another which not only alleviates any confusion that might be had but also gives a stark contrast between a metropolis during a storm, a swank dimly-lit hotel, and a vast snowy outpost, each populated by minions of the subject’s unconscious who act as our disposable bad guys trying to stop the team.

Unless you are in a Nightmare on Elm Street film, moving through the dreamworld does not often pose many risks. This is even acknowledged early on as one of the characters is killed in the dream only to wake up unharmed in reality. However, during the task as the characters are heavily sedated to prevent the destruction of the fragile dreamscape, they face an eternity of solitude in limbo if something bad should befall them. This clever workaround elevates the story from the simple failure of a mission to a lifetime of abstract despair as the unnamed thugs lurk with large caliber weapons. This as well as many other facets of the script show the care in which it was created, not only to create a fantastic sci-fi concept, but to move beyond a simple tale of dreaming to one with a true emotional core for our main protagonist.

I was worried that the narrative would be dense and as hard to crack as your normal David Lynch film called Lost Highway. However, the story is relatively easy to follow throughout with a nice dash of flashbacks and recollections to further develop the Cobb and Mal relationship. This is not however a film that you can check your brain at the door as elements are introduced, observed, and then jettisoned as the complexity of the storytelling increases. Of course, this is one of the smartest high-concept summer blockbusters in years so you should not dare miss a minute for fear that a key element will be shown which will change the outlook of the film.

Is Inception a perfect film? Not at all but Nolan’s biggest strength lies in creating an engrossing tale that will make you forget about any shortcomings during the picture as you are too damn entertained to care. I worry that, just like Dark Knight, subsequent viewings will show the cracks in the foundation and oversights in the story. These things though will not stop you from enjoying the film. Really, Inception really does not need validation of its efforts by random people on the interwebs like myself. The caliber of everyone involved should seal the deal.

With over a dozen films written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (not to mention the several dozen nominations and awards as well), it is fun to go back and watch their first venture into filmmaking and see the same traits that make their movies stand out now implanted in film over twenty five years ago. One of the most powerful movies I have watched over the past few years was the Coen’s No Country For Old Men and even with two decades separating them, I saw a lot in Blood Simple. that would come into play again and again in their films.

The title comes from the novel Red Harvest by Dashiell Hammett to describe the behaviors and actions of a person after a particularly traumatic experience. The first half of the movie is a slow burn as we are introduced to Ray and Abby, two budding lovers much to the chagrin of Abby’s husband who happens to be Ray’s boss. After Marty, the husband, receives confirmation of their adultery from a private investigator, he decides to have Ray and Abby killed and tasks the PI with the job. If you do not know more about the plot already, just skip any other reviews of synopses most of which give away what would be a superb dramatic turn leading into the back half of the film.

Much like No Country, Blood Simple is paced in a slow and methodical way that serves to heighten the tension without relying on cheap gimmicks or rapid-fire editing, almost coming across similiar to an adaption of a stage play. Throughout the film, a vast majority of the scenes are played out with a stationary camera and a quiet audio track as characters are either contemplating their next move or examining what they have previously done (or at least thought that they have done). This is the equivalent of sitting on a front porch in the country watching cars or livestock or something like that. It is slow, delicate, but oddly entertaining as while you might initially think nothing is happening, you would be quite wrong. Frequent Coen brothers collaborator Carter Burwell provides the music which is very deliberate and haunting in its minimalist approach just like the movie itself.

M. Emmet Walsh steals the show as the unnamed investigator who starts off as an obnoxious, and possibly drunk loud-mouth yet over the course of the story transforms into a violent sociopath as he attempts to cover up his involvement in a murder. The shift in the character is done in a very convincing manner where he believes he has gotten away with everything until he realizes there is damning evidence to link him to the events. I thought at first that his character was merely supposed to be a joke to his goofy demeanor but that was just a front to mask the real horror behind his crazy-Texan act as he becomes unhinged to clear up the mess that was not supposed to be.

Francis McDormand is in it as well (I know that’s a shocker) but while her character really has little to do until the final few scenes she gives it her all with a sense of innocence and naivety that few actress could have realistically pulled off. We also have Dan Hedaya, also known as the hairiest man on Earth, as Marty who is excellent in the many stages of his performance from jilted lover, revenge-thirsty fiend, and the man who literally has everything to lose. The most surprisingly excellent member of the cast was John Getz as Ray, who you may know better as Gus from Don’t Tell Mom The Babysitter’s Dead. Getz’s performance as such is full of anguish and guilt as he technically is guilty of a heinous crime but is believing he has acted to protect Abby.

Because of the leisurely pace that the Coens’ use to show the events, the main crux of the movie falls on these very flawed characters. In such a tale, there is really no protagonist and no antagonist, just real people faced with the situation at hand. Even with the possible exception of Abby, all of our principal cast are of dubious morals at best, downright dangerous at worst. The story is constructed in such an intricate way that while the audience knows exactly what is going on, the characters do not. And while a few simple conversations between the key individuals would set everything straight to find out who’s right, who’s wrong, and what the hell is going on, all of the characters are acting in the moment, trying to hide behind their misdeeds or complacent in their inaccurate theory of the events. This is a movie which does not have traditional character development in the sense of their background and underlying driving factors. But much like the title explains, these are real, breathing characters trying to make sense of madness and plan their next step ahead under their false interpretations of events.

Much like any other Coen Brothers’ movie I have seen, this is an engaging tale with very tense, climatic scenes interspersed with character elements to give the film a very human touch.

It would be an understatement to say that Puck does not like spiders. Having a traumatic experience where a probably harmless spider dropped onto my pillow at the tender age of six or so and watching Arachnophobia shortly thereafter, I was terribly afraid of these eight-legged demons sent straight from the depths of hell. Fortunately, old age has calmed my general distaste for these abominations but sadly watching Eight Legged Freaks has resurrected this fear.

It is funny how horror is such a subjective term. On one hand, the thought of a random serial killer lurching out at you in an abandoned mansion or in the middle of the woods is silly because most serial killers are more methodical than that and not to mention I will never be in an abandoned mansion or anywhere outdoors. Spiders on the other hand are real and demonic and as such, this was one of the more horrific movies I have seen in a while. But then again, I am a wuss.

After Piranha 3D opened and relatively underperformed at the box office, I saw many mentions of Eight Legged Freaks and comparing the two films, at least in financial terms. They actually share a great deal of similarities as both films are in the same over-the-top, monster attack movies with a sense of cheesy throwbacks to a previous moviemaking era. Sure, just like Piranha, this is not an Oscar worthy film but what can one expect from a movie called Eight Legged Freaks?

With copious amounts of references to other films, Freaks offers a pretty humorous look at an incident where mutated spiders become the size of station wagons, willing to pluck any ostrich, chain-smoker, or biker without prejudice for sustenance. The humor not only comes from the self-referential qualities as Them! is playing on the Sci-Fi Channel (remember that?) but also from the absurdity of the story. If Scream was a satire of generic slasher movies, Freaks is a companion to many improbable scenario movies where the adults are reluctant to listen, the kids are always right, and most everyone else in the movie is just monster fodder.

The great thing about the movie though is that it is comical enough to not take itself seriously. This movie would have been pretty fucking awful if it were played straight with a tank-sized Tarantula toppling a mobile home. This probably cannot be said seriously too many times but David Arquette‘s presence is perfect as he sells the absurdity of the film. His goofy, inept shtick that he carried over from the aforementioned Scream series works quite well here with him as the unlikely hero, the prodigal son, and the resident bad-ass all in one. The rest of the cast here is pretty amazing to be able to deliver such performances against largely CGI man-eating spiders and deliver it seriously but with the hint of a smirk just seconds away.

The film is somewhat by the numbers as the geeky kid Mike is introduced to a myriad of rare and exotic spiders by his creepy older “friend” Josh (an uncredited Tom Noonan) who explains the spiders are growing due to a local toxic waste spill. Unsurprisingly, the biggest name in the film and his parrot become dinner for the spiders who mutate into the hideous beasts featured in the film. But, whereas you might expect the butthead boyfriend, the major-dick mayor, or the dopey deputy to bite it by way of venom, writer/director Ellory Elkayem throws some curveballs at you while still racking up the rampant ruckus as townspeople are mowed down by the above-average arachnids.

Even for a film being 96% comedy, it still managed to throw in some decent scares as the spiders lurk in shadowy places (never turn your back to a tent!) and cocooned bodies fall at the most inopportune times. But, the horror here is more or less a by-product of the story where the comedy really stands out such as a cat being propelled into making a literal impression in drywall or Doug E. Doug playing the resident paranoid conspiracy theorist who believes the spiders are really aliens equipped with anal probes.

Not to mention the film features Kari Wuhrer and a young Scarlett Johansson who reign at the top of the most attractive on-screen mother-daughter combo ever.

Just like Piranha, Eight Legged Freaks is a movie that revels in its absurdity and is not concerned with logic, only with having an enjoyable time.

**THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS**

If watching Inside can be expressly cautioned for pregnant women and generally squeamish people, Grace is the natural extension of that film putting to film the notion that I am sure all new mothers wonder: “What if my baby is really a bloodsucking demon/zombie child?”

Directed by Paul Solet, Grace is a feature length version of his short of the same name and concept starring Brian Austin Green and Liza Weil as soon-to-be new parents Jimmy and Madeline. Sadly Jimmy (well, Michael in the full-length) dies in a car accident which also leaves Madeline badly hurt and the baby dead as well. Some either miraculous or creepy event happens after Madeline carries the deceased child to term but it comes back to life as she attempts to breastfeed it. She then shuts herself in with no one but her midwife Patricia to turn to when Grace starts taking a liking to Mommy’s blood rather than the breastmilk.

Even though I had not seen the short film (but who wouldn’t with BAG in it??) or read too terribly much about the film, I was aware of the basis for the plot thus it is kind of a spoiler but not really. I mean, you probably can take a really good guess from the poster alone. Really even though Grace is the driving force in the movie, it hinges on the lengths that Madeline, a vegan mother who preferred to spend her days watching the dead animal carcass channel, will go to to ensure the “health” of her child. Seeing as how the bulk of the story seems to take place in the course of just a few months after the birth, this is not as much a killer kid movie as it is a look at denial and delusions and what some people will do for their children.

Madeline is played here by Jordan Ladd and was a strong choice for the character as she and her actions take up a bulk of the film. Some of the strongest performances come in the weeks after Grace’s birth where Madeline is not only depressed over the loss of her husband and worn out from attending to the needs of a newborn but also joyous for the miracle baby. In many instances, these emotions are present and overlapping as one might expect a woman in her situation would have. Even as Madeline discovers Grace’s hunger and begins to sacrifice her health for the baby, she begins to waste away like a malnourished child in a third-world country. Madeline’s mother-in-law played by Gabrielle Rose is overbearing and likely just as deranged (in a less homicidal way) as a post-menopausal woman who still expresses breast milk with a pump hidden in her son’s former room. She poses a menacing presence to Grace’s secret as she is constantly pestering Madeline and sending people to check on her and the baby.

For a movie that was expanded from a six minute short, it does not feel padded as the pacing is brisk and the movie clocks in at less than an hour and a half. One element that seemed either thrust into the original story or one that was not expanded past what was in the original short was of Patricia, the midwife played by Samantha Ferris. She is in a great deal of the first act of the film but is conspicuously absent not long after the birth, dodging Madeline’s phone calls yet acting all stalker-y sitting outside the house. A love affair the two women had is fleetingly mentioned and then not paid off until the end of the film. I certainly would have preferred to see Patricia involved in the task of handling Grace throughout the movie as opposed to just appearing moments before the ending scene. One thing that I did like was the uncertainty about Grace and if she was really alive or if everything was in Madeline’s mind. The ambiguity is ushered by flies constantly gathering around Grace, phantom stinky smells with no corresponding baby output, and no one interacting with her other than Madeline. Some may point to the doctor’s visit as evidence that Grace is really alive as he hears sounds that she makes but I would even chalk that up to the fact that Madeline was crazy as fuck and could have a tape recording playing to help her delusions. Maybe at the end even Patricia is in on it. Who knows?

Grace was a good movie as even without a large amount of deaths it had some gore but mostly an unnerving message. There may be a dig in there at veganism as a non-meat-eating mother will go to the ends of the earth to destroy humans to feed her child but even without the social subtext it is quite disturbing. This is almost a perfect compliment to Inside, this time complete with a cameo by producer Adam Green. Just make sure to get your jollies on after seeing it.