My Oscar Picks.

I give a shit about the Oscars.

I really do. Even though I know I shouldn’t.

I know there’s a ton of pretentious Hollywood jack-off’s who get a big kick out of all the self-adulation and insider back-slapping. I know it gets political and what should be brief, humble acceptance speeches turn into seven minute long, self-serving diatribes. I know that the fashion element gets paraded as the centerpiece of a show that was designed to be a celebration of film. And I know that ultimately the winners of the awards don’t necessarily reflect the real achievements made that particular year.

I know, I know. I don’t need you to keep fucking telling me.

The bottom line though is this: I’m a hardcore movie-geek and The Academy Awards are still the highest honor that can be paid to the artform. And I say “artform” because I truly believe that filmmaking at it’s purest is just that (no matter how much cynical, conveyor-belt bullshit the machine decides to spit out at us every year).

So with that, I take a vested interest and tune in. Good, bad or ugly, I sit back and watch the shenanigans go down. 2010 in particular has been an exceptional year at the movies and overall, I’m pretty pleased with the nods that were given out. Most of these cats are people I’d like to see recognized for their contribution to the conversation that is film. But on any given Sunday in February, someone’s gonna win and someone’s gonna lose. The point is, can you win or lose like a man?

Or woman.

So here are my picks for Oscar Bowl 2011.

(Please make the distinction, these are my picks - not my predictions.)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
BLACK SWAN
INCEPTION
THE KING’S SPEECH
THE SOCIAL NETWORK
TRUE GRIT

There’s no way I’m not going with Deakins on this one. Dude is a master of stark images and lush photography. I’d say this was easily one of the best looking films among the Coen’s career - and if you’ve followed said career(’s), you know that’s saying ALOT. In a year of very pretty pictures, this was guy was hands down responsible for the prettiest.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
INCEPTION
THE KING’S SPEECH
127 HOURS
THE SOCIAL NETWORK

I loved the work Atticus and Trent did here. It’s really just that simple. The right modern sensibility coupled with a sort of simplistic melancholy that echoes throughout at all the right moments. You feel the effects of the score without it ever calling too much attention to itself.

BEST EDITING
BLACK SWAN
THE FIGHTER
THE KING’S SPEECH
127 HOURS
THE SOCIAL NETWORK

This one seems like a lock to me because when your film requires a guy to be pinned beneath a rock for the majority of the run-time, you really have to use editing as a weapon. The fact that Danny Boyle is able to tell such a vast story under such minimalist limitations is really a credit to the editing style the flick implements and for that I believe Jon Harris should take it down this year.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Mike Leigh - ANOTHER YEAR
Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy and Eric Johnson - THE FIGHTER
Christopher Nolan, INCEPTION
Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg - THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
David Seidler, THE KING’S SPEECH

Yeah, it’s got a lot of expository dialogue and I’ve heard all the comparisons to “Dreamscape” (not to mention the Donald Duck comic strip), but c’mon! Are we going to let any of that cloud the fact that Chris Nolan is taking huge amounts of cash from Hollywood and rolling the dice in a big, bad way by actually attempting to (God-forbid) challenge a mass audience? There’s more intelligence and imagination being executed in any random five minutes of this flick than most big-budget, mainstream movies even attempt in their entire run-time. For that alone, the man would have my vote.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Danny Boyle and Simon Beaufoy - 127 HOURS
Aaron Sorkin - THE SOCIAL NETWORK
Michael Arndt - TOY STORY 3
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen - TRUE GRIT
Debra Granik and Anne Rosselini - WINTER’S BONE

I personally love dialogue-driven films and this one in particular has got a lot of words (just that verbose opening scene should tip you off to the verbal chessmatch ahead). Aaron Sorkin lends a lot of weight to those words and crafts scenes where the dialogue alone hits like a kick to the throat (“did I adequately answer your condescending question?”). He may have taken some liberties with the reality of Zuckerberg’s motivations behind inventing “The Facebook”, but what counts is that he tells a complex tale of greed and betrayal that has a solid narrative backbone.

BEST ANIMATED FILM
TOY STORY 3
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON
THE ILLUSIONIST

No-brainer. Pixar is one of the safest bets you can make these days when it comes to animation. They have an unprecedented string of four star flicks that perfectly balance adult themes and childlike imagination and never commit the cardinal sin of talking down to kids. The third entry in most trilogies end up notoriously being the worst of the bunch (sup “Back To The Future 3”? Nice haircut, Spidey. Talk to the hand, Ahhhnuld), but in my opinion Toy Story 3 is easily the best entry in the series by being the most funny and poignant. And if the incinerator scene pictured above where the toys all hold hands as the stare down certain doom didn’t get you choked up, then I’m convinced you’re dead from the heart down.

But, seriously though, not even a nod for “Legend of the Guardians”?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Melissa Leo - THE FIGHTER
Hailee Steinfeld - TRUE GRIT
Helena Bonham Carter - THE KING’S SPEECH
Amy Adams - THE FIGHTER
Jacki Weaver - ANIMAL KINGDOM

Melissa Leo and Amy Adams were insanely great in “The Fighter”, but I defy you to see “True Grit” and not be in awe of the presence of Hailee Steinfeld. Watching her square off and negotiate for her dad’s horse was by far one of my favorite scenes in any film I caught this year. This is a young lady who can handle heavy dialogue and dramatic weight like a champ. Total star-making performance. Hope she gets it.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christian Bale - THE FIGHTER
Geoffrey Rush, THE KING’S SPEECH
Jeremy Renner, THE TOWN
John Hawkes - WINTER’S BONE
Mark Ruffalo, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT

This one’s another no-brainer. If it were up to me, Christian Bale would’ve gotten some Oscar gold ten years ago for the sorely under appreciated “American Psycho”, but I digress. The dude has made a career out of playing intricate, nuanced characters. This time around he swings big with a very over-the-top performance as the real-life “Pride of Lowell” Dicky Eklund. It’s a big performance for sure and one that’s finally gonna get this cat his reservation at Dorsia.

BEST ACTRESS
Natalie Portman, BLACK SWAN
Annette Bening, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
Michelle Williams - BLUE VALENTINE
Nicole Kidman - THE RABBIT HOLE
Jennifer Lawrence - WINTER’S BONE

This one was a really tough call because as amazing as Natalie Portman’s performance was (and as much as I absolutely loved the “REPULSION on twenty hits of ecstasy” that was “Black Swan” ) I’m going with Jennifer Lawrence for playing such an understated badass in “Winter’s Bone”. This is a performance that contains absolutely no vanity and is the type of extremely heavy material that I feel like most Hollywood teenagers would shy away from. Jennifer Lawrence hits it dead-on and makes Ree Dolly one of the most well-drawn characters of the year.

BEST ACTOR
Colin Firth - THE KING’S SPEECH
Jesse Eisenberg - THE SOCIAL NETWORK
James Franco - 127 HOURS
Jeff Bridges - TRUE GRIT
Javier Bardem - BIUTIFUL

I admittedly have not seen “The Kings Speech” yet, which puts the front-runner Mr. Firth out of the running for me (nor have I gotten around to “Biutiful” yet, so I can’t weigh in on Bardem either). Eisenberg was fantastic and The Dude always kills it, but I gotta give it up to James Franco who quite honestly does some work here that I didn’t realize he was capable of. Again, despite the self-imposed limitations of the story I think Franco really nailed down a fully realized three-dimensional character that kept me caring about him all the way through (even though I knew his inevitable fate the whole time). Not an easy task and the man brought his A-game. Good luck, dude.

BEST DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky - BLACK SWAN
David Fincher - THE SOCIAL NETWORK
David O. Russell - THE FIGHTER
Joel Coen and Ethan Coen - TRUE GRIT
Tom Hooper - THE KING’S SPEECH

This is one hell of a list, one of the most deserving I’ve ever seen for this category. But I’m going with the man responsible for taking “The Facebook Movie” and making it a FILM. In a cynical film world where “brands” are looked upon as instant cash cows (so much to the point where  I swear that any day now we may see the greenlighting of “Hungry Hungry Hippos: THE MOVIE”) this guy took the daunting task of taking on what could’ve been an absolute disaster project and used that as an opportunity to create a story that actually had something to say.

Plus, let’s be honest here, the dude made “Fight Club”.

Nuff said.

BEST PICTURE
127 HOURS
BLACK SWAN
THE FIGHTER
INCEPTION
THE KING’S SPEECH
THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT
THE SOCIAL NETWORK
TOY STORY 3
TRUE GRIT
WINTER’S BONE

With the exception of “The King’s Speech” (which I didn’t see) and “The Kids Are All Right” (which I didn’t like), I’d be happy to see any of these snag the award. Personally, “The Social Network” was my favorite flick of the year (with “The Fighter” as a very close 2nd). A depiction of the inception (nice wording, natch!) of one of the most powerful social tools being utilized today coupled with one of the most insane betrayals I’ve seen put to film makes this worthy of catching a Best Picture win. The image of the youngest billionaire in the world refreshing a page as he awaits an approved friend request hits hard and makes the case for the flick’s brilliant tagline.

© Dom Portalla 2011

Paranormal Activity 2 [2010]

It only took $11,000, a nice suburban San Diego home and a tried-and-true gimmick to craft last year’s sleeper, “Paranormal Activity” - a clever first person perspective, shaky-cam “home movie” that told a rather effective haunted house story. The inevitable sequel is hitting theaters a year later and unfortunately, it finds a way to fail in all the ways its predecessor succeeded. The story is slower, the characters are dumber and of all things, the demonic entity is even assigned a motive.

In a huge series of missteps, the flick begins months before the events of the first film (which would technically file this entry as a “prequel” in my book) and centers around Katie’s sister, Kristi, who is just returning home from the hospital with her new born, Hunter. Kristi lives in an opulent home with her husband, Dan, and his teenage daughter, Ali. There’s a supposed break-in early on, which prompts the family to install security cameras throughout their house and a slow build of odd occurrences manifests shortly after. When Kristi brings up past episodes, Katie shrugs off the proverbial “things we do not speak of” and warns that even acknowledging them will only encourage more of the same. Everyone tucks their head firmly up their ass and all march blindly toward a conclusion that can only be unpleasant.

There were a lot of things I really admired about the first “Paranormal Activity”. While some would argue the validity of it’s originality (considering that the “Blair Witch Project” pioneered the home-video cam device a decade earlier – and it’s been used to death a hundred times since) what ultimately worked for me was the small scale on which the story was told.  

Two people.

One house.

One camera.

And all of the most effective images basically taking place in a bedroom.

I dug that.

The first problem with “Paranormal Activity 2”, though, is that it immediately tries to open up the scope of the film with its characters. Aside from teenage daughter Ali (who seems to be the only one with any sense at all), we get a slew of poorly drawn clichés - A brooding, worried mother who ignores all of her better judgment; a spiritual, Latino nanny who can miraculously sense and disburse of “the bad spirits” as the plot requires; and a dubious, idiotic father who won’t believe in ghosts until one is chasing him through his basement (cause, ya’ know, guys are apparently always resistant and close-minded when it comes to the existence of a demonic presence). Don’t even get me started on the dog.

That’s the thing; I don’t see the point of expanding the cast if you essentially just want to boil them down to stereotypical archetypes. For a movie that is supposed to be set in reality, no one really seems to behave the way you’d expect them to with these types of strange occurrences happening all around them (why bother to install security cameras in your house when you basically never intend on reviewing the footage?) One of the best things that the original film did was immediately set up the circumstances. Katie has been dealing with some form of haunting all of her life. Micah is skeptical, almost amused by it. They get in touch with a psychic who informs them that whatever is present is not, nor has ever been, human. It’s a demon; not specific to the house or even the town they live in, but something that will follow them wherever they go. There can be no escape. And even as aggravating as the Micah character can get, you at least understand that the reason he’s antagonizing the entity and resisting any form of help is because he’s basically just as scared as Katie and wants to feel some form of control over what’s happening.

The static nature of the security cameras in this new installment only loses the sense of immediacy that most of the original film’s hand-held camera-work brought. I know everyone is sick of the whole shaky-cam-thing at this point; but for me, the few exciting sequences in the flick were ones that put me in the place of the actual characters (Ali peeking into Hunter’s room late in the film springs to mind, as does the one truly terrifying sequence that takes place in the basement). Though derivative of “.REC” and it’s “Quarantine” remake, that’s the stuff that actually had me spooked because I wasn’t sure what the hell I was about to see. Sure beats the hell out of a levitating baby, which actually had the audience I saw the flick with laughing their heads off.  

In retrospect, I think the biggest overarching problem that this flick had is that it handcuffed itself to the first movie. If “Paranormal Activity 2” had any chance of working, it needed to move onto a different paranormal entity and a better developed set of characters. Honestly, as much as I dug their performances in the original, there was really no good reason to involve Micah and Katie in this film at all…and that ending is just absurd.

What started as an excellent exercise in effective independent horror filmmaking has spawned an unnecessary and unwelcome sequel. The first flick is a really good, low-budget ghost story; the sequel is a studio-polished cash-grab that we could’ve done without. I wouldn’t totally discourage you from ever seeing it, but unless you’re interested in what Katie’s second cousins twice removed are up to in “Paranormal Activity 3”,  you might be better off just re-watching the far superior original.

* * out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla [2010]

Top Ten 90’s Bullies

The 1980’s were a decade that established a very clear template for the beast that is the “Movie Bully”. Be it Ace Merrill (Stand By Me), Heather Chandler (Heathers) or the legendary Biff Tannen (Back To The Future), a certain aesthetic had been laid and cemented for future generations of one-line spewing vermin. But some of the most easily overlooked bullies followed up only a decade later.

These are the top ten bullies from the 90’s.

10. Buzz (Home Alone – 1990)

Aside from the dude actually owning a tarantula (immediate “bully” red flag) and spouting off unwarranted, callous quips just for the hell of it (“I wouldn’t let you sleep in my room if you were growing on my ass”), Buzz ranks among the top bullies of the 90’s by purposefully eating all of the cheese pizza and therefore setting a series of events in motion that will leave his prepubescent brother terrified and alone, left to fend for himself against burglars who want nothing more than to maim and kill him. Nice going, big bro.

9. Joey Donner (10 Things I Hate About You – 1999)

In an effort to try and bang Alex Mack, this guy sets up an elaborate scheme attempting to have Heath Ledger (RIP) date her sister, to whom he is a constant asshole towards (can’t really blame him, Kat herself technically could qualify to be on this list as well). I suppose that’s all well and good, but when you start exuding self-serving, smug arrogance about being an underwear model and sketching dicks on people’s faces, that’s where I draw the line.

8. The O’Doyles (Billy Madison – 1995)

There seems to be a family tradition of hazing and harassment embedded deep in the blood stream of the O’Doyles, which these mean-spirited mutants never miss an opportunity to display. If the ginger’s in question had lived to discover the joys of alcohol it may have literally been the apocalypse. Luckily, Adam Sandler ends up getting the last laugh. O’Doyle Rules!!!

7. Charlie Dillon (School Ties – 1992)

Not only a bully; an Anti-Semite as well. Charlie Dillon makes no bones about the fact that he dislikes that David Green is a Jew. In fact, right up to the final scene, Charlie is still the same bigot he is at the flick’s start (proving not every bully must learn a life lesson). Enjoy your tour at Harvard, prick.

6. Rex Manning (Empire Records – 1995)

The only bully on this list that’s well beyond his adolescent years, one could argue that Rex Manning is really more of a tool than a bully. However, look no further than the autograph signing sequence in the flick where one fan makes the mistake of claiming that he was her “favorite singer in highscool”. Behind his smarmy grin and well measured reaction (“who’s your favorite singer now?”) is a stone-cold, bitter a-hole who in all probability spent his youth pushing kids off of swingsets. Plus, the fact that Liv Tyler throws herself at him hoping for love and instead is asked for a BJ (in so many words) is just flat out mean. Say no more.

5. Nancy Downs (The Craft – 1996)

Oh sure, Nancy’s not so bad at first. A poor young girl from a broken home toying with some Wiccan black magic to try and fit in with her own little clique. But once this chick gets drunk on power, she’s off and running; chucking dudes out of windows and slitting her friends wrists just for kicks. And you thought wedgies were bad.

4. Fred O’Bannion / Shannon Hamilton (Dazed &
Confused – 1993 / Mallrats – 1995)

Though Dazed & Confused was made in the 90’s (but set in the 70’s), I still feel O’Bannion still deserves to make the list. If you object (you dick!) then I can just as easily point you in the direction of Affleck’s other “heavy” character, Shannon Hamilton. One is a dope who can’t pass the twelfth grade and likes to kick the shit out of underclassmen, the other a pompous proprietor of the pretentiously named “Fashionable Male” retail store who has a real problem with anyone with no shopping agenda. What do these two characters have in common? A proclivity to abuse a very uncomfortable place (what, like the back of a Volkswagon?). O’Bannion’s weapon of choice is a hand crafted paddle, Hamiltion’s is….well, you know.

3. Rick Sanford (Angus – 1995)

Before James Van Der Beek was well known as the WB’s poster boy for angst-ridden emotional teenage train wreckage, he was football star and all around douche, Rick Sanford. Rick was a guy so mean that he’d have kicked Dawson’s sorry ass all over that creek and then made his girlfriend date the fat kid in school, just so he and his jock friends could laugh about it afterwards. Rick’s one sole set-back was unwittingly setting himself up for the biggest laugh in the flick when offering Angus his T-shirt but then slyly adding “it might rip on you”, only to have the Sherminator fire back with “that’s cause it’s cheap, like your mother!” You walked right into that one, Rick.

2. Stifler (American Pie – 1999)

Sure, he’s the most liked character in the entire franchise and maybe that scores him some points, but anyone who gives ex lax to a kid whose sole hangup is that he’s deathly afraid of shitting in public restrooms undoubtedly qualifies among bully stature. Steven does get his comeuppance, however, when Finch gives his mom a “stiffmeister” of his own. Payback’s a bitch, eh?

1. Mike Dexter (Can’t Hardly Wait – 1998)

Mike Dexter is to the 90’s what Johnny Lawrence was to the 80’s – the end-all-be-all biggest dickhead that you absolutely loved to hate. The kind of guy who’d beam you in the eye with a raisin just so you couldn’t see the third dimension at a 3-D film festival. The kind of guy who’d self-assuredly proclaim that he’ll “kick everyone’s ass in this room!”. The kind of guy who’d dump Jennifer Love Hewitt on the day of their graduation. Why? Because he CAN. Because he’s Mike-fucking-Dexter. And you know what they say about Mike Dexter, don’t you?

Mike Dexter is a GOD. MIKE DEXTER IS A ROLE MODEL!!!

© Dom Portalla (2010)

A Nightmare On Elm Street [2010]

Before I attempt to check my biased opinion at the door, allow me to state upfront that I dislike the notion that every classic horror film needs an update. I’m all for a good remake/re-imagining, but I think they should be reserved for films that have not aged well (looking at you “Children of the Corn”). I’ve despised the “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, “Halloween” &  “Friday the 13th” remakes. None of them seemed to have any awareness of what made the original movies so good and they inject pointless backstory where it is absolutely unwanted and unneeded. I don’t want Leatherface to have a motive (Skin cancer? Please.) Michael Myers was ten times scarier when he was just a sweet looking blonde kid from the suburbs who killed his sister and her boyfriend for no good reason (Oh, his dad’s an alcoholic and his mom’s a stripper now? Nice. Any more cliche’s you wanna throw at us, guys?)

With all that said, we’re talking about “Nightmare on Elm Street” here and I grew up with these movies and believe out of all the 80’s/90’s slasher flicks, these ones were the most imaginative and frightening. The notion of a bogeyman who kills you in your sleep is truly terrifying and it opens the door for a lot of creativity. Jason Vorhees only gets to conduct his murders at a camp (unless he makes the trek to Manhattan or space) but Freddy Krueger operates his death spree’s in your dreams, which can take any form and move in all sorts of random, strange directions. Don’t want to get chopped up with a machete by a pissed off goalie? Skip the trip to Crystal Lake this summer. Afraid you might be stalked by a Shatner-faced lunatic with a proverbial axe to grind? Conduct your trick-or-treating elsewhere of Haddonfield. But no matter what you do or how much coffee you suck down, you will be falling asleep at some point.

Then you’re fucked.

My biggest problem with the film is that is simply is not entertaining when it should be. The concept works and has worked before, (the original was inventive and eerie, the sequels were tongue-in-cheek fun) but the movie gets bogged down with way too many boo-scares and uninteresting characters early on. I am so sick of seeing that same shot of the long hallway where a character stands at the end of it calling out “is anyone there?” only to have a figure quickly pass by the foreground with a quick music strike. It’s manipulative, redundant and audiences are too aware of it now. Oldhat trick. Let’s knock that shit off, Hollywood. You’ve got the money and the know-how, try scaring me with the images instead. The teenagers, who were bubbly kids-next-door types in the 80’s have been turned into mopey, morose cardboard cutouts in this version. I guess it’s supposed to be a reflection of this generation, but there’s only so many times I can see them pout on screen before I stop caring whether or not they make it out of this alive. Why does everyone have to look and behave like glum, vacant rejects from the “Twilight” movies? It’s not engaging and once we start to go through the motions of the paper-thin, setup-and-kill plot, I’m pretty much rooting for Freddy to take these sullen sad-sacks out.

Now lets talk about the bastard son of 100 maniacs for a moment. This is Robert Englund’s signature character. He’s played him in eight films that spanned over two decades. These are tough shoes to fill, but I think Jackie Earle Haley is inspired casting. He played a sympathetic creepshow in “Little Children” and a gravel-voiced vigilante in “Watchmen” (this incarnation of Krueger is almost a merger between both of those characters). I think he’s quite good for what he’s given. One of the updates of the character is that Freddy is no longer a child murderer, but a child molester instead - which does slightly change the game. Englund’s Krueger was a menacing, over-the-top lunatic who loved torturing his victims and then gleefully spouting off a catchy one-liner. Haley’s is a bit more understated and sinister. They’re both monsters, but in a different sense and the fact that this version of Krueger has a pre-existing relationship with the actual children of Springwood (as opposed to just their parents) does put a bit of a unique twist on the story. It’s not necessarily better, just different. And that is one of the few things that this remake brings to the table - an interesting spin on the familiar story. I’ll give it points for that alone.

The micronaps idea is a decent one and I liked the fact that the movie essentially allowed Freddy to pop up at any unexpected moment because one of the characters is basically dozing off. One of the few decent scenes in the film is a very brief, but spooky shot where Nancy is trying to stay awake while sitting in a car and Krueger shows up out of nowhere ripping her out from the passenger seat. It lasts about three seconds, but it was genuinely surprising. But really, does every dream sequence have to ultimately end up in a steam filled, boiler-room/warehouse? Part of what made the original flicks so fun was the fact that we slipped into a dreamlike state where the situations (and kills) could be executed with some imagination. Everything is so straight forward in this version. The fantastical element has been completely drained from practically any scene that isn’t a wink or nod to the original movies (and even though we get a few of those, they mostly just feel photocopied anyways).

So I walked into this flick skeptical, but hopeful. However you cut it, though, this new Nightmare is quite simply a mediocre, lukewarm effort. It is not nearly as bad as the other remakes I mentioned earlier, but even that’s not really saying much. This is paint by numbers, slasher-movie fare. Serviceable, but not very creative, which is a shame because you can sense that the elements were all there but the filmmakers weren’t quite sure how to put them together. While it was fun to see Freddy on the big screen again in a new form, at the end of the day this just ends up another unnecessary trip back to the well. You’ll sleep just fine.

* * 1/2 out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla [2010]

Cop Out [2010]

The Beastie Boys “No Sleep Till Brooklyn” rips up on the soundtrack while Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan walk toward us in slow-motion during the opening images of “Cop Out”, Kevin Smith’s latest flick and his first real foray into big budget studio filmmaking. Smith has spent the better part of the last fifteen years stealing the thunder from anyone who would beat him to the punch by railing on himself for his lack of directorial style and talent. Unfortunately, this has already armed critics and audiences alike to shoot holes through anything that he does. That’s the only justification I can come up with for why this movie has taken so much shit right out of the gate. “Cop Out” is a totally funny and entertaining popcorn movie.

The basic plot pairs mismatched police officers, Jimmy Monroe and Paul Hodges, together for your standard issued buddy cop formula. It’s revealed that these guys have been partnered up for nine years and in a hilarious opening sequence, we’re taken into an interrogation room where Paul has begged to be allowed to play the “bad cop”. Jimmy watches him through a two-way mirror as he overacts several different scenes from “Heat”, “Training Day” & “Scarface”. Naturally, Kevin gives him some lines from “Star Wars” to spew off as well. By the end of the scene, the situation has completely derailed into total comedic farce.

As you may have guessed, Jimmy and Paul get the information they need which sets in motion a series of events that will lead to gun fights, car chases and stolen baseball cards. All of it ends up being a pretty fun time.

I’ll come right out and say that the biggest surprise to me in this flick was Tracy Morgan. I’ve never seen an episode of “30 Rock”, so my knowledge of Morgan is mostly limited to SNL (of which I was only ever a casual viewer while he was on it). Now, I’ll be honest - all of the marketing material from this movie left me feeling like he was going to be an extremely annoying character. The biggest attribute to this being the “knock-knock” joke seen in the trailer (which actually works much better in context). I’m happy to report, however, that this is certainly not the case. In fact, I think so much of the flick’s strength rests on how funny and charismatic Morgan ends up being. Even for all of his mugging and winking at the camera, the guy is always still likable. I think Kevin Smith has found a kindred comic spirit in Tracy Morgan and I really hope they will continue to work together in subsequent films.

Bruce Willis also gives a very evenhanded performance. I’ve read things claiming he’s phoning in his performance or sleepwalking through the role which seems a little unfair after having seen the film for two reasons. 1.) Willis is the anchor to Tracy Morgan’s over the top performance & 2.) Aside from having some well timed comedic moments himself, he also handles some dramatic weight like the pro that he is (one scene that comes to mind is a very sweet moment where he explains his whole predicament with his daughter to a character named Gabrielle, who doesn’t speak or understand English).

All of the performances, in fact, are very good here. Kevin Pollack and Adam Brody do well as two investigators who love to break Paul and Jimmy’s balls. Sean William Scott steals scenes as an irritating, parkor-skilled burglar who has a proclivity to bowel evacuations in the homes that he robs. Even Jason Lee shows up as the smug, well-to-do, new husband of Willis’ former wife who wants nothing more than to humiliate Jimmy by providing his daughter with a wedding he knows only he can afford.

This film marks the first time Kevin Smith has ever directed a movie that he didn’t write, although while watching it almost seems easy to forget that. From the witty banter to the signature Smith-staples (minor Catholic undertones, baseball cards = comic books?) this still feels like a Kevin Smith movie. With the exception of one scene that feels a little too “loose”, all of the action sequences are competently handled. The flick looks a lot less stagy than some of Smith’s previous films with much more hand-held camera work and far less two-shots with people lined up against a wall talking to each other. You can definitely feel that Kevin is growing as a visual storyteller.

Obviously, “Cop Out” is by no means perfect. It feels about 10-15 minutes longer than it needs to be and given the fact that it’s a movie operating within a formula, there is a general predictability to it. You never really feel that the good guys are in any real danger. But what counts is that the flick is funny, and it is. Funnier than I expected. Here, Kevin has proved that he can go out and make a totally serviceable studio film. Let’s hope that he doesn’t forget that what made him significant as a filmmaker was the fact that he was an unconventional voice in cinema (even with the bad language and sex talk aside). I really hope he’ll take all that he’s learned here and bring it over to his long-awaited indie horror flick “Red State”, which seems like the most interesting and best possible 180-degree move he could make with his career.

Regardless, you should still see a couple of dicks in “Cop Out” - because the movie itself doesn’t.

* * * 1/2 out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla [2010]

Let’s back off Tiger’s wood.

One of my favorite websites (cracked.com) recently ran a hilarious article called “If Tiger Woods’ Apology Was Honest.” Definitely give it a read; it’s hysterical and right on the money, in my opinion. After reading it, I felt oddly inspired to weigh in with a few of my own thoughts on the matter.

I’ve admittedly not followed much about what’s been going on with Tiger Woods, although I’ve gotten the basic gist of the whole situation. He’s had some crazy extramarital affairs, the details seemingly get steamier and steamier and you can’t change the channel without one of these women that he’s been with on T.V. telling their side of the story or demanding an apology. Does that sound about right? Maybe I’ve got it all wrong, I’m not too sure.

But truth be told – I don’t care. And you shouldn’t either. Really, let’s think about this for one second.

My favorite filmmaker of all time is Martin Scorsese (as you will not doubt be able to tell from my recent review of ““Shutter Island”). Now, if you asked me honestly if I gave two shits about whether or not Martin Scorsese cheated on his wife, do you know what my answer would be? Not really. Does he cheat on his taxes; beat his kids; save ten percent on his insurance by switching to Geico? Not really my concern. All I want from Martin Scorsese is to be entertained every time I sit down in a movie theater and watch one of his films. That’s it.

Now, I can’t stand golf. I think it’s pretty boring, if I may be honest (unless it’s Mario Golf on Nintendo 64, which I could actually play for hours on end). But let’s say that I was an avid golf enthusiast – my only concern for Tiger Woods would take place on the links. Did he have a good game? Is he playing to the best of his ability? Do I find his golf pants amusingly stupid? That’s about where it would begin and end.

Of course infidelity is a terrible thing, I’m not trying to say that it isn’t. But that’s not really what this is about. This is about our voyeuristic culture’s obsession with celebrity and wanting to stick our noses into everyone’s business (and naturally, our love, love, love of scandal). People can pretend all they want to be shocked and appalled, but the juicier the particulars get, the more addicted we become to the tabloids. If people were really as offended as they claim to be, they’d change the channel and ignore it. If I stood outside your house all night screaming “FUCK YOU” into your living room, you’d eventually close your blinds or call the cops on me. You wouldn’t stand by the window idly watching me, or invite your friends over to have a coffee table discussion about what I was doing (although, given the example I’ve used here, that would be pretty funny). The reality is that we are the masters of faux indignation. You’re not offended or angry. You’re just bored.

And for all of the people who’s outrage has been over the fact that “Tiger Woods is supposed to be a role model for my kids!” - look, that’s just complete bullshit. The problem I have with that is it sounds like the kind of attitude that comes from people who are too lazy to try and be a role model to their kids themselves and find it easier to sit them in front of a television and let them idolize whatever athlete, musician or movie star is popular at the moment. Now I’m not saying you’re children shouldn’t have pop culture icons that they can look up to in a sense (what would my childhood have been like without Arnold Schwarzenegger?) but if you raise your kids to model themselves after anyone who’s on television, you’re just asking for a world of trouble. I’m not a parent and I can only imagine what a difficult job that is (and my hat is off to all of the hard-working, responsible adults who are out there bringing up good kids), but I can say this - when I do have kids of my own, I will try and lead them by example rather than give examples of people who I think should lead them.

So, in closing I’d just like to say that I’m not defending Tiger Woods’ honor or saying that he was justified in stepping outside his marriage. What I’m saying is that it really shouldn’t matter. It seems like this has been in the news for months now and I’m really hoping it will go away so I’ll stop having to hear pointless heated discussions between people about who’s right, wrong, smart or stupid. Let’s make way for the inevitable new scandal of the week for our peeping-tom culture to cozy up to while we ignore all of the truly important things in life – like whatever stupid fucking outfit Lady Gaga wore to the latest award show!

To quote the great George Carlin, “When you’re born into this world, you get a ticket to the freak show. When you’re born in America, you get a front-row seat.”

Welcome to the freak show, kids. Hope you brought your own popcorn.

Shutter Island [2010]

I just got back from my second screening of Martin Scorsese’s latest opus “Shutter Island” (saw it on opening day as well). I truly felt as though I couldn’t give any sort of intelligent criticisms about the film without having seen it for at least a second time. Now that I have, I believe my honest opinions of it have snapped into clearer focus. I will do my best to tread very lightly, but if you do intend on seeing this film, I would recommend not reading any further.

Let’s get this right out of the way - the twist of the film is fairly obvious just from the trailer. I think the marketing behind the film made a huge faux pas with the first preview they released (which they subsequently corrected with their second pass on it). If “Shutter Island” had come out twenty years ago, I think it would have been one of the most shocking experiences ever and would’ve left audiences with mouths agape. But in the post-era of films like “The Usual Suspects”, “The Sixth Sense” & “Fight Club”, I believe moviegoers have been conditioned to arm themselves from the onset by trying to figure out the mystery before they even know there’s one to decipher. “Shutter Island” tips its hand a little too early in the game.

With that said, Martin Scorsese is a master filmmaker - in my opinion, maybe the greatest American filmmaker of all time. I do not believe that he is capable of making a bad movie. On his worst day he’s still better than 90% of most directors on their best day, so do not mistake this criticism as dismissing “Shutter Island” as  a predictable piece of cinema off of the Hollywood conveyor-belt. It’s not that at all.

The story involves two United States Marshall’s being brought onto an island in Boston Harbor where the infamous Ashecliff mental hospital for the criminally insane resides. Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo play the respective leads and are charged with the mission of locating a missing patient who seems to have literally evaporated straight through the walls of her room. The always excellent Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow also star as the two doctors with vastly differing ideologies, who are running the asylum. As all of the promotional material suggests, nothing is quite as it seems.

First and foremost, all of the performances are near perfect across the board. DiCaprio continues to prove his worth as one of the most in demand actors of his generation. His work here walks a very fine line between intensity and vulnerability and he’s never not completely convincing. Ted “Buffalo Bill” Levine and Jackie Earle Haley both swoop in with scene stealing sequences (the latter seems to be making a killing on playing total creepshow roles these days, while the former has a line of dialogue that echoes in your head throughout the rest of the movie - “If I were to sink my teeth into your eye right now, do you think you could stop me before I’ve blinded you?” Jesus…) Michelle Williams, Mark Rufallo, Emily Mortimer & Patricia Clarkson all put their acting chops on full display. Scorsese has a knack for getting great performances out of his actors and you can truly see that these folks show up with their A-game. Kingsley and Sydow are amazing as psychiatrists with dueling schools of thought. When news of a hurricane rolls in, Kinglsey’s main concern is the safety and well being of the patients. Sydow is more than willing to shackle them all in their cells, even if it means possibly drowning the lot of them.

The cinematography is stark and gorgeous. This feels like Scorsese’s version of “The Shining” in many ways. Flashbacks to DiCaprio’s memories of liberating a concentration camp are some of the most haunting images I’ve ever seen committed to film. Dream sequences that take place between Teddy and his dead wife, Dolores, are easily the most powerful in the entire movie. The music is both bombastic and morose and there is such a melancholy undercurrent working at all times that it’s hard not to get swept up in it.

There are problems that I had with the flick, however. By the end of my first viewing I couldn’t help but feel that the resolution was sort of anticlimactic. Having anticipated how things would play out, the movie does feel like it hits a wall in it’s last act and I was especially surprised by a moment where a purposefully lit chalkboard is unsheathed with a rather important plot-point literally spelled out on it. For such a skilled filmmaker who can command weighty dramatic moments with understated subtlety, it really felt like a big revelation was way too on the nose. There also is a sense that certain sequences that have come before would no longer seem realistic - although, I supposed much of what we’ve seen throughout the film could now be called into question in regards to what was illusion vs. reality.

Seeing it a second time, though, I realized something. “Shutter Island” is not a movie that is meant to be fully digested in just one sitting. Knowing the exact details of the twist, the next viewing becomes more about absorbing the minutia. There were several things that were slipped in right under my nose that I was able to catch the second time around. I suspect that upon multiple viewings, there will be even more subtext meant to be unearthed. I can’t say that the ultimate payoff of the movie is wholly original, but I can say that the intelligence behind it is worth revisiting.

So what’s the bottom line? I saw “Shutter Island” twice. The first time, I enjoyed it but felt that it lacked the Scorsese one-two punch I had grown accustomed to over the years. The second time, I enjoyed it much more and appreciated the quiet nuances that hid beneath the surface. I have a good feeling that it will improve even more with a third go-around. As I said earlier, Scorsese is incapable of making a bad film - his movies only exist in varying degree’s of greatness. This one may not be among his all time best, but at the end of the day you still owe it to yourself to go out and see a Martin Scorsese picture.

Because there’s only one guy in the world who can make one of those.

* * * * out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla

“Frozen” [2010]

[very minor spoliers may ensue]

“Frozen” is the type of movie that would work great in an elevator pitch because it’s basic premise can be summed up in one simple question - “What would happen if three kids got stuck on a ski-lift after a mountain had closed for the week?”

When I saw the trailer to the film my first reaction was that I thought it looked like “Open Water” on a ski-lift. I happen to like “Open Water” and found it to be a pretty effective little movie, mostly because I am absolutely terrified of sharks. My second biggest fear are heights. “Frozen” had me at hello.

The flick begins with two best friends, Lynch & Dan, preparing to hit the slopes. Dan’s girlfriend, Parker, has tagged along, which Lynch is not too keen on (although she proves to be quite useful when she’s able to bribe the ski-lift operator into letting them all by without lift tickets). Since Parker is not much of a snowboarder, they spend the majority of the day on the bunny hill watching her fall on her ass. By the end of the evening, Lynch just wants to get in one real run before they have to leave. This ends up being a big mistake.

In order for a film like to this to work, there are two very important pieces of criteria that must be met. First, there has to be a plausible reason as to how these kids get left behind. Now, I’m sure there is a certain amount of protocol in place at real ski-resorts that exist to ensure that things like this don’t ever happen. However, for the purposes of this movie, I was sold on the believability of the mix-up. Without going into too much detail, a string of events cause the lift operator to abandon his post and a very unfortunate coincidence makes it appear as if everyone is safely off of the mountain.

Secondly, and more importantly, we have to be given characters that we care enough about to be invested in their plight. Luckily, we spend enough time with these kids beforehand to get to know and like them and are even more engaged as they settle into their harrowing predicament. Credit for that goes to writer/director Adam Green, who crafts a very strong script that doesn’t cheat on development and also to the three actors who flesh out the characters and turn in very solid performances (actress Emma Bell gives a heart-breaking monologue at one point about what she believes will be the fate of her new puppy). The one recognizable face is actor Shawn Ashmore. The irony is that he played Iceman in the X-Men movies (tehehe).

Once the flick locks into it’s main conflict, things become tense and emotionally exhausting. The marketing of this movie suggests that it’s a horror film and I would normally tend to disagree with that labeling - but the film gets brutal, folks. It becomes all too clear that if these people don’t figure out something quick, they will most likely freeze to death. The fifty-plus foot fall may not kill them, but it sure doesn’t help when a pack of wolves emerge from out of the woods. Placed in this dire situation, these panic-stricken characters are forced to make some hasty decisions and without giving too much away, not all of them pan out.

I’ve always been partial to films that either are self-contained in an isolated environment or can approach the material with a minimalist take on the story. “Frozen” is not a big budget film with explosions and car chases - it’s a small movie where the three main characters are confined to sitting in a chair for the majority of the film. What’s commendable about it is the fact that even within those limitations, it can create pure suspense and terror. I honestly felt as though I was stuck on that lift myself the entire time.

The only difference is that I would’ve brought my cell phone.

* * * * 1/2 out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla

“Mystery Team” [2010]

I first heard of Derrick Comedy a few years ago when I stumbled across one of their youtube skits called “Girls Are Not To Be Trusted”, where a character named Kevin uses his film class and all of his classmates short flicks to exact revenge on his cheating girlfriend Melanie (“What the fuck Bellanie!?”) I was instantly a fan. Over the next few months, I’d anticipate new videos from the sketch comedy group and was surprised one day to find that a trailer had been released for a full length Derrick Comedy film. These guys had easily and often kept me entertained for six to seven minutes at a time with their shenanigans, but could their shtick self-sustain for an entire feature? After almost a year or so of waiting for my chance to see, I’m happy to say that yes, “Mystery Team” is a damn good flick.

The basic premise involves three life long friends who have grown up to be a trio of man-children pretending to be real-life detectives. They specialize in solving cases along the lines of “who stuck their finger in Mrs. Kimmel’s pie?” and are great at striking fear into the local kids on the playground. They always carry a trusty magnifying glass & slingshot on hand and seemingly have a disguise ready for almost any situation.

It’s not until a little girl shows up at their doorstep asking if they can help find the people responsible for murdering her parents that the Mystery Team are thrown into waters way out of their depth. Even though this is really a job for the police, they still accept believing that it’s just as simple as finding the clues and solving the case without reading comic books in bed (they’ll need their rest). An evening at a gentleman’s club, a botched drugdeal and a rough encounter with a stop-sign later, they realize that nothing is ever that easy.

The best way to describe what Derrick & co. have crafted here is an unconventionally conventional comedy. There’s enough puke, stripper shit and dog urine to satisfy the gross-out fans, but there’s also a real emphasis on character and a pretty sweet coming-of-age story skating on the surface. That’s not to say that this is a movie of which the likes you’ve never seen before (although, I’ve never heard a flick that actually contained a line like “You know, sometimes I really wish you didn’t beat that cancer.”) There is a standard movie formula at work here. Friendships will be challenged, compromises will be made and life lessons will be learned all before the credits roll - but what makes “Mystery Team” special is the way it operates within that formula. We’re given enough time to spend with these hopelessly clueless characters in order to be won over by them and enough good jokes to keep the flick moving at a decent click.

I caught “Mystery Team” at the Brattle theater in Cambridge, MA. last night at a 7:30pm screening where actor D.C. Pierson and producer Meggie McFadden were in attendance and gave a great Q&A. This flick was accepted to Sundance last year and is currently touring the country in spots where you can DEMAND it. I strongly urge people to make an effort to see this film if it is playing at a theater near you. The guys from Derrick Comedy will be household names within the next decade, I’m certain of it. But for the time being, these kids have gone out and made a film with all the appeal of a mainstream Hollywood movie without having a well known cast or a big budget. This is exactly the type of movie that deserves to be supported. I took two trains and trekked through freezing cold weather to see it (not vying for sympathy, I asked people to make the same trip in October to see my own film “The Darkness Within” at this same theater). But I am glad that I made the effort and was not let down by the film - and neither will you. See this movie and support your local, independent film scene.

And don’t fuck the bread. Someone’s always gotta clean that up.

* * * * out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla

“The Catcher In The Rye” - Prologue

Just dug this up. For my senior year of highschool, our big final English project was to write a prologue to any of the books that we had read. Basically the goal was to try and somewhat replicate the writing style or the voice of the narrator, but with our own spin on it and also to imagine what may have come before the first chapter.

I naturally went with “Catcher”. Here’s what I came up with.

“The Catcher In The Rye” Prologue

By Dom Portalla

So here I am walking down this long, crazy white hallway. This place is full of long white hallways. I guess white is supposed to be a good color to have in one of these places because it’s light. They don’t want the hallways to be black or any other dark colors because people are supposed to respond all crazy to darkness. They said that was my problem. This one psychoanalyst guy was telling me that one of the reasons I was having so much trouble coping with all the madman stuff that happened to me last Christmas was because of the darkness. December is the darkest month of the year apparently.  He was a real asshole, the psychoanalyst guy. These people are always making excuses for the way you feel. If you’re depressed it’s because of what month it is of what color the wall is. I tried telling him that wasn’t the case, but he said he went to school for like ten years and he knew what he was talking about. You can’t teach those guys anything. They like to wrap everything up into neat little packages. He knows everything, he went to school for ten years. Big deal.

Anyways, I’m walking down this white hallways and I’m heading over to this guy Dr. Bickle’s office. Dr. Bickle, this guy was going to be a piece of work. He was going to be my “personal therapist”. He was supposed to tell me how to feel better and concentrate and all that jazz. What a crock. I don’t think there’s anything worse than a shrink; someone who pretends to listen to your problems and care about you and then charges you for his time. Phony bastards. My parents made me go see one of these guys when Allie died. He was such a moron. He kept asking me questions like, “how does that make you feel”? and “why do you think you felt that way?” How was I supposed to know? I felt like telling him, “why don’t you tell me, that’s what my parents are paying you for”, but I was too yellow to say it.

Anyways, this place that I’m in, they call it a rest home. That killed me, rest home. Who the hell here was resting? With all the crumby questions they ask you who the hell had time to rest. Besides, most of the people here were crazy anyways, so it wasn’t like they could rest, they were too busy being nuts. I hated that, the way they had to give this place a fake name like “rest home”. They should just call it a “nut house” since that’s really all it was. This one day, when we were in the visiting room, that’s the room where everyone here in the hut house goes when people come to visit, this little kid and his mom came in. I heard the kid keep asking his mom, “is this the looney-bin?” That killed me. What a funny kid. His mom kept telling him to be quiet because he was kind of shouting it. She didn’t want all the crazy bastards in the place to hear the kid calling the rest home a looney-bin. She must have thought they’d all break down and have a conniption if they knew they were in a looney-bin. He quiet down for a second and ask her again, “but mom, isn’t this the looney-bin?” It was funny, it really was. That was the great thing about kids, they never worried about what some nut would do if they heard him call the place a looney-bin or a nut house. They just said what they thought. You’re only like that when you’re a kid, though, once you grow up you either become a phony or an asshole like that psychoanalyst guy. People should never grow up, you get ruined when you get older, you really do.

So the kid kept asking that question and his mother got so angry at him. She must have been real nervous one of these morons would snap. I tried so hard not to laugh, I don’t know why. I should’ve just laughed now that I think about it, but I guess I didn’t think it would be appropriate at the moment. It really didn’t matter though, what the kid was saying. I figured if you were in here you ought to know that you’re nuts. There was no reason to pretend like you weren’t. I’m not nuts though, I’m really not. I’m only here because my parents wanted me to go, but I’m not like any of these fools.

Anyways, I walk into this Dr. Bickle’s office and he’s sitting there behind his desk. Right when I got in the room he said hello and asked me to take a seat on this little couch. He didn’t even get up from his chair or try to shake my hand or anything. What a rude son of a bitch. I’m supposed to trust this guy and he doesn’t even have any manners. I hate when people don’t have manners. Maybe he thought I was nuts like the other morons in here and he didn’t want to touch me, but he should have at least stood up when I came in. I think I already hate him, I really do. That’s the problem with people, they never act the way they should. They just sit at their desks and don’t even move when someone comes into their office. They’re all the same.

I sat down on his crumby couch. He didn’t say anything for a few minutes. He was reading something in a manila folder. It must have been my file because right on the folder in big letters I could see “HOLDEN CAULFIELD”. I wonder what he was reading about me. I bet it said something stupid like “reacts crazy to dark rooms”. What a bunch of crap.

“Holden,” he said, “how are you feeling today?”

“Fine sir,” I said. I bet he really cared about how I felt. At least I was trying to be polite, though.

“So, is there anything you want to talk about?”
There was a lot I wanted to talk about, but I didn’t feel like talking about it with this phony. I really didn’t. I hated him;

“Not really, sir. I’m actually kind of tired. I just had a visit from my father and he’s been sort of giving me hell.”

“For anything in particular?”

“Just about school. He keeps telling me I need to do better next fall when I start again. I don’t think he’s fully forgiven me for getting kicked out of Pency.” Why am I telling him this? People always tell me I’m a talker. Once someone gets me started I don’t stop. This one guy, Brendt, that I went to school with at Silden Academy told me I talked a lot. We’d get into a conversation that I thought was half way intellectual and I’d get going about something and and he’s stop me mid-sentence and tell me to shut up. He said I could talk someone’s ear off. He told me I could never stay on subject either; I’d always start talking about something else. I was a “digresser”, that’s what he called me. What the hell did he know anyway? He was a real ignorant moron. He really was. I hate when someone tells you to shut up when you’re in the middle of making a point. People are really ignorant.

“Are you angry that your father hasn’t forgiven you?”

“I’m not angry, I can’t exactly blame him for being mad at me, but I just don’t think he understands.” Damn, this guy is getting me going. I really don’t think that I want to get into this. He didn’t say anything for a minute. He looked like he was thinking real hard. I wanted to tell him not to think too hard, it only gets you into trouble. If you think too hard you might end up in a rest home.

“What’s that?” he asked, pointing to my jacket. My red hunting hat that I had bought last year was sticking out of my pocket. I’ve carried it around with me every say since the day I went to the fair with old Phoebe. It’s a good type of hat, it gives you a lot of protection if you’re in the middle of a really bad rain storm.

“That’s my hat,” I told him. I knew he only asked me because he wanted to take a break from thinking so hard so he wouldn’t end up a nut like everyone in this place, but I was kind of glad he reminded me that I had it with me.

“Holden,” he started slowly. He was obviously going to say something very profound. Big deal. I bet he went to school for ten years, too. I was damn well impressed.

“…Sometimes a person lives inside his mind too much. They have too much to say without ever using words. Sometimes that’s a good thing, but sometimes it’s good to talk about the things you’re thinking about. If you harbor too many thoughts all at once you can grow to be a very angry and confused person and if you talk about what’s bothering you, by the end of what you want to say you might realize something very prolific. You might come up with something that would sound great at the end of a book. So Holden, I’ll ask you again, is there anything you want to talk about?”

What a son of a bitch. He had to go and do it. He was going to get me started and I really didn’t want to, but I had to now. I couldn’t help myself. Christ, it was going to come down to this, wasn’t it? I was going to sit here with someone I hate and pour my stupid heart out. The hell with it, I might as well. No reason to resist anymore. I’m sitting in some rest home surrounded by a bunch of psychotic screwballs; I might as well just spill it. Maybe he was right anyways. Maybe you shouldn’t think too much. Who cares? I’ll just tell him. He was a ten year graduate who knows everything. Big fucking deal. I needed to get all of this off my chest, I really did. I took out my red hunting had, put it on and I let go.

“If you really want to hear about it….”

“Legion” [2010]

God’s finally tired of all our bullshit and is dispatching a fleet of angels to take out the failed experiment that is human-kind. However, one renegade angel by the name of Michael disobeys his orders as he falls to Earth, cuts off his wings and arms himself to the teeth while planning to save humanity’s only hope which is the unborn child of a waitress.

Kinda sounds like “The Terminator”, right? Yeah, I thought so too.

“Legion” is a totally serviceable B-flick. If you approach it with that mindset, you’ll enjoy it for exactly what it is. It’s biggest sin, though, is that it is not trying to bring anything new to the table. If you’ve seen “The Terminator”, “Demon Knight” or “From Dusk Till Dawn”, you’ve essentially seen this flick too. It’s sole spin on the story is that it makes God the ultimate badguy.

Right from the start we’re given the stock characters for the “holed-up-together-in-the-middle-of-nowhere” movie scenario. There’s the grisled shop owner, the true believer, the reluctant hero, the yuppie couple, the rebellious teenager, the stranger from out of town and of course the [not so] virginal heroine who is completely oblivious to how important the life is that’s growing inside of her. The bare essential amount of development and backstory are done in order to set up who everyone is and what their motivations are before this lady shows up and literally all hell breaks loose.

Yes, that’s Gladys Foster and you probably recognize her sweet little face from the tv spots where she tears someone throat out and then spider walks up a wall. Gladys Foster is an example of what “Legion” does right [and no, I’m not talking about it’s goofy CGI]. Right before Gladys transforms into a spidermonkey hellbeast, she spends a decent amount of time chewing on a raw piece of fly-covered steak, telling everyone in the restaurant how all the little babies are gonna burn. When the yuppie lady tries to interject she calls her a “fucking cunt” among other things. The point I’m making is that where as many studio’s would’ve taken this little B-flick and toned it down to make it a PG-13 scarer for the kids, “Legion” totally embraces itself as a hard R with all of it’s language and violence. And I certainly appreciate that sort of thing.

Gladys Foster, however, represents what’s wrong with “Legion” as well. See, one big question I had when leaving the theater was this: If God wants to wipe out humanity by using his all-powerful angels with razor sharp wings and balls of steel, why the hell does he have them possess feeble human-beings? When it comes to shuffling off the mortal coil, we’re basically playing by Romero Zombie rules - one good shotgun blast to the head and the games over. I guess the easy answer is that without stacking the humans against a human force, there is no movie. As you’ll see in the third act, if God had sent even a dozen Gabriels to wipe out the world, the flick may have been over in the first half hour.

Where it counts though, “Legion” is definitely fun enough to sustain itself. The action is good and even with the feeling that you’ve sort of seen this all before, it’s still an entertaining piece of cinema. If you’re in the market for a decent action/thriller that doesn’t take itself too seriously, you’ll dig it. Just don’t go in expecting a big Man vs. God epic - because if you do then this flick has FOOLED YA!

* * * out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla

“The Lovely Bones” [2010]

Let me first start out by saying that I have not read the book on which this flick is based. I am aware of how popular and loved it is, so I understand some of the backlash it is receiving simply based on the fans expectations (believe me, if anyone other than me gets to make a “Catcher In The Rye” movie, I’m going to have my own $.02 to throw in about it). So I’m approaching this review solely as a guy who knew nothing about this story other than what was presented to me in film form.

With all that being said, is it a good flick? I think so. It’s certainly not perfect and even though things do not fully tie together, I still believe there is a lot to admire about Peter Jackson’s efforts here.

The plot of the film centers around a 14 year-old girl, Susie Salmon (played very well by Saoirse Ronan), who is growing up in the suburbs during the 70’s. Her life is cut abruptly short when she is murdered by a very disturbed man living in her neighborhood and she spends the majority of the flick narrating to us from a place called “the in-between”, which is a sort of limbo-esque waiting station for people who have not fully crossed over to the other side.

Now I’ll come right out and say this: the biggest reason to see “The Lovely Bones” is for the performance from Stanley Tucci. From his carefully measured but awkward demeanor, right down to the cadence in his peculiar voice - this guy is the ultimate creepshow.

This is one hell of a scary character. A self-proclaimed hunter and outdoorsman who hides behind the guise of an unassuming everyman, but peers out from behind the curtains of his home to watch the neighborhood kids walk to school every morning. It’s just a well executed and terrifying portrayal of a real life monster and all of the best sequences in this film involve him, including an incredibly tense moment where he comes home and realizes he has an unexpected guest somewhere in his house.

The murder in the film itself is handled extremely well. I was grateful that the specifics of what happened were mostly left to the imagination and I really like how Susie escapes from the scene only to realize soon after that she actually never did get out of the underground bunker that she was lured into.

My biggest problems with the movie were pretty simple. First off, the relationship between Susie and her crush, Ray, was exceptionally cheesy (“You are beautiful, Susie Salmon.”). I’m sure what we got in the flick was an abbreviated version of their romance in the book, but as it stands it felt really goofy and probably should have either been handled with more care, or left out completely. I also thought some of the scenes in “the in-between” were somewhat unbalanced. Sometimes “the in-between” was a very dark place where Susie would watch the world from a  gloomy gazebo, other times it felt like a retro take on an iPod commerical. It seemed a little jarring and I wasn’t really sure what type of world Susie was supposed to be in. The relationships with the surviving family members also felt “off” at times. Mark Whalberg does a great job as the father who cannot cope with the loss of his daughter, but Rachel Weisz is given a pretty flat role and literally disappears halfway through the movie. Susan Surrandon, Rose Mclver & Christian Thomas Ashdale are all competent as the grandmother and siblings, but again these characters almost feel like abridged roles as they’re not given all that much to do (especially considering the title itself is supposed to refer to the lives and relationships of the people that formed in the wake of the main characters death). It just seems like there must have been some scenes laying on the cutting room floor that would’ve bonded the family closer together.

Overall though, “The Lovely Bones” is still a good flick that borrows elements from other movies like “What Dreams May Come” and even Jackson’s own “Heavenly Creatures”. The cinematography by Andrew Lesnie is often outstanding and I personally think the editing of certain sequences should be pointed out (the post-murder realization, Susie’s encounter with all of Stanley Tucci’s prior victims, the wheels turning in Mark Whalberg’s head as he decides who the actual perpetrator is, etc.) If you’re a diehard fan of the novel, I’m not sure how you’ll react to this adaptation, but for anyone who want’s to see a decent film about life, death and the world beyond - trust me, you can do alot worse.

* * * out of * * * * *

-d0m portalla