November 2009 Archives

Directed by Marcel Sarmiento & Gadi Harel Starring: Shiloh Fernandez, Noah Segan, Candice Accola, Eric Podner, Andrew DiPalma, Jenny Spain.Drama/Horror/Sci-Fi. Synopsis: Two high school friends skip school and spend the time messing around in an abandoned mental institution when they find a woman tied to an operating table who is alive and apparently cannot be killed. 

Now, those of you are constantly looking for something original in your horror simpy have to check out DeadGirl. I will tell you in full disclosure that, personally, I don't consider this to be straight horror but it is undoubtedly the genre  most who are looking for it online or in the video store will be likely to find it.

I also am not completely sure if the "supernatural" designation might not be better than Sci-fi, but since I think there are elements of both that would be mutually exclusive in this story, i just went with the one I think fits best.

Now, as far, as the plot is concerned, like I said, its unique. Rickey (Shiloh Fernandez) and J.T. (Noah Segan) are two high school buddies who are less than enthusiastic about their studies, and skip school to drink some beer and whatnot. (In my day, we called them "burnouts") Whether you finished high school 5 years ago or 45 years ago, these characters will be familiar to you. (As should go without saying, the actors playing these high school students are in their mid to late 20s, but that is such a staple of horror films it really isn't worth critique any more) In a move that, I'm sure, will not ring familiar to most of you, they decide to spend most of their "skip day" hanging out in an abandoned mental institution.

There, in a dark room in a small corner of the hospital, they find a young woman who is nude (Jenny Spain), and tied to an operating table under a layer of plastic. Now, that would be interesting enough, but there is a little more. She seems to still be alive. Well, as you might guess, suprise is followed by shock followed by awe, which is followed by brief thoughts, primarily from Rickey, about calling for medical or law enforcement help.

But, his pal J.T. has, if I can use the phrase, more carnal intentions. See, this woman, in addition to being tied down and nude, is incredibly attractive with a great body. Frankly, its just too tempting a set of circumstances for a virile young guy like JT to resist, and he has no intention of doing so.

Rickey objects and does not stay around for what is going to happen next. His resolve to just forget the whole thing when J.T. comes around and tells Rickey that, if what they'd seen wasn't enough, there was something else he just had to see. Rickey agrees and, with his own eyes, sees J.T. shoot and stab this woman and, guess what, she doesn't die. Hence, they give her the name-you guessed it!-the 'dead girl'.

Now, just so the more lecherous among you don't think this is the ultimate scenario, understand this about the dead girl: she is not perfect. She doesn't speak, but more annoying than that, she bites. Hard and often.And, her beautiful facial features notwithstanding, her teeth are a little on the sharp side. In fact, at one point, a menacing stray black dog (heavy smybolism) who periodically appears to growl and bear his fangs at people makes the mistake of getting too close to the dead girl. And, that was the dog's last scene.

How did she get there? A medical experiment gone bad? Something from the occult? Well, that is a good question but, frankly, our two protagonists don't spend a whole hell of a lot of time trying to figure that one out. J.T. isn't one to look a gift horse in the mouth and Rickey will deal with it, if not partake, as long as things are kept quiet.

Well, as you might guess, things aren't kept quiet, because J.T. decides to share the situation with another buddy of theirs, Wheeler (Eric Podner). Wheeler just might enjoy this more than J.T.

The only character who is really developed in terms of multi dimensions is Rickey, and he has a tough personal situation, in addition to the deadgirl, with his home life. His mother, whom we never see, is shacking up with a guy (Michael Bowen Kill Bill Jackie Brown)  whose primary functions seem to be to drink beer, lounge around the house, and get on Rickey's nerves with unwanted advice. Furthermore to that, the object of his true affections, Joann (Candice Accola) is nice enough, but she isn't particulary interested in Rickey. He gets the impression she thinks he's a little below her station, so to speak, plus she is dating the star of the football team, Johnny (Andrew DiPalma) 

These two story lines meet head on when Johnny takes physical exception to Rickey's interest in Joann. Wheeler and Rickey have the presence of mind to "invite" Johnny to the hospital. The true meaning, of course, is to expose him to the deadgirl's agressive behavior. You know, the biting and all.

Not to spoil this flick, but Johnny gets bit-in an extremely sesitive region-and it is only then that yet another truth is revealed: people who get beat by the deadgirl turn into beings like the deadgirl.

Well, you can imagine the possibilities, now, especially since J.T. and Wheeler are getting a little tired of the deadgirl. Could there be a replacement? Though this is as far from a comedic film as you can get, I will tell you that the scene where J.T. and Wheeler attempt to abduct a feisty and buxom woman (Susan Marie Keller) to take the deadgirl's place starts out as disturbing and ends up being hilarious when she beats the hell out of both of them. I don't know, maybe that says something about me.

Those of you who like your flicks to end with a twist will not be disappointed, though I predict some of you will see it coming about 2/3 of the way through.

You'll have to watch it to find these things out, but believe me when I tell you this is a well directed and well acted film. There are a couple of plot holes, not least of which is how someone can be restrained, not fed or given opportunites for other things (my euphemism for bodily functions) and still look so good. But, once you accept that she can't be killed, I guess the rest is easy.

But, the movie is so well directed and shot, I don't think you will mind too much. And, let me tell you, we're dealing with some heavy issues here: rape and perhaps necrophilia among them. Know that you will not see those depicted directly, but it is shot close enough around the actions you will feel like you have.

To me, the film is really about friendship, and the choices people can make when someone close to them makes a different type of choice. There are also elements of how we view other people; as less or more value than ourselves, or as being there only for our personal use in more ways than one.

Any good story has something for you on multiple levels and Deadgirl is no exception. However, it needed good acting to succeed and it gets it here. Segan is exceptional as the ne'er do well and sinister-not to mention highyly intelligent-J.T. Fernandez also delivers well as Rickey is the closest thing we have to a hero in the story, but he is not necessarily likable all the time, however he is empathetic and I think that was the point.  I think mention also has to go to Jenny Spain here.

This couldn't  have been an easy role, she is completely naked throughout every scene she is in and her fellow actors are not. And she is in a good portion of the movie. In my opinion,  most of the shots of her were not meant to be overtly titillating-though some surely will find them so-but she is stark naked nevetheless. I know some of you might say, "Pay me enough and I'll lay naked without remembering any lines, too, and growl and spit fake blood a few times, what's so hard about that?" I hear 'ya. But, I just think it had to be difficult. Maybe I'm wrong. It is true that she doesn't utter a single word throughout the film, but her performance is critical.

When actors play characters who do not speak, it often becomes very imperative for them to bring their character to life through eye movement and facial expressions. (John Hurt set the standard for that, in my opinion, in The Skeleton Key, where his character didn't speak and barely moved)  Spain does that well, she is both alluring and scary.

Film buffs, you have to give this one a look see, I would love to talk to anyone who has seen it and get his/her take on the all important "underlying meaning" of the flick. As for me, this one immediately goes into the "faves".   

Well, you expect a flick with these two lead actors, not to mention a hefty supporting cast, to be pretty good and entertaining, and it is. I just don't that The Taking of Pelham 123  is going to meet your expectations because, I guessing you're like me and had very, very lofty expectations. Maybe a little too high.

The story is pretty straight forward, a fast talking and borderline psychotic mastermind who calls himself Ryder (John Travolta Pulp Fiction) and his group of henchmen (most prominently featuring Luis Guzman Q & A ) aggressively take control of an NYC subway train with the designation, as you might guess, of Pelham 1-2-3. The hold it and the passengers hostage, demanding 10 million in ransom within the hour. The thing is, they first guy the get on the line, again as you might guess, is the subway controller, Garber (Denzel Washington The Pelican Brief)  . But, Ryder is so impressed with Garver that he insists on speaking only with him during the negotiations, much to the chagrin of the lead detective on the case (John Turturro Secret Window) as well as ultimately some of the passengers.

With the lives of so many at stake and do little time-1 hour- to satisfy the demands given by Ryder the action and adrenaline getx pumping pretty fast. I thought the film did a pretty good job of injecting realism into the story: we have one of the hostages streaming the whole thing live to his girlfriend from his laptop, and when the mayor (James Gandolfini Get Shorty) is called in we see that he has the human flaws we all know powerful politicians have, but for the most part they pretend they don't, expemplified by the mayor's self assessment, "Rudy Guliani I ain't."

I refuse to be a spoiler, but I will tell you that the hijacking is not just what it appears to be from the outset, but the 'twist' is nothing to write home about, let's just say the fairly unpopular financial community takes one on the chin again.

To me, what makes Pelman 123 work to the extent it does is simply, the performance of the actors. Denzel is good in his familiar role as the good guy we all love to love, and Travolta is very good as the psychopathic criminal that, despite our best nature, we kind of like. I know we've seen John as a bad guy before, but not like this, he's really unhinged and it works, in my opinion, adding yet another layer to the depth of this great actor.

I also have to give a special shout out to Gandolfini, an actor of immense talent who will, fairly or not, always be Tony Soprano to many of us, in a role about as far from Tony (save some allegations of philandering) as you can get.

I don't have too much in the negative to say about the flick, other than it struck me as unlikely that criminals who had such a sophisticated plan for taking the subway would have such an ordinary 'get away' plan. I guess its like the New York Yankees in baseball. When you have the type of lineup they have, anything less than a World Series victory is disappointing, being merely good is an abject failure. Not fair or entirely logical, but true nevertheless. So, if I can stick with the baseball analogy, Pelham 123 has a lineup that makes you expect World Series win, but I think all you get is making the playoffs, which is good, but I think for some, won't be quite good enough.           

Live Animals is a flick, like another recent release, Gnaw, that holds a ton of promise for fans of horror in general and gore in particular. The premise can't honestly be considered to be completely fresh, but I've long that new ideas or setups were the most overrated aspect of evaluating movies. What's the old saying, "There's nothing new under the sun."? Maybe not entirely accurate, but more than a kernel of truth there, in my opinion. Anyway, I thought the premise and set up of the story was pretty good, but the flow of the story and its myriad holes in the plot keep me from telling you I thought this one was real good.

Look, its not a total swing and miss. Not even close. Some of the acting is pretty good, which is hard to do when the script is somewhat lacking. Gore fans will love the principal bad guy (John Still)-a dead ringer for Gunnar Hansen by the way-and the matter of a fact way he controls the abductees during the "breaking process". Horror fans will love the simmering, psychotic aura of a bad guy who can turn on the charm and talk about how nice it is to be married.

He's not alone, Patrick Cox does torture and understated lunacy as "Edgar" the chief assistant of the operation who, honest to goodness, gets a paycheck for his work.

There's some gore, too, though I don't know if it is enough to satisfy the most blood thirst of fans, but a tongue extraction is nothng to sneeze at.

My main issue is, its just hard to buy the story. How did these folks get abducted so easily? Is it really believable that all of these people could be held against their will-not to mention the collateral damage in the form of other bodies-in broad daylight while their captors shop in town and not have anyone be the wiser? Also, there is somewhat of a twist towards the end, involving the survivors last gasp at freedom, but there are just a couple of holes much too big for me to tell you its as effective as it could have been.

I know we horror fans have to suspend disbelief even a little more than other genres of film, but, to me, part of being scared or at least made to feel uncomfortable is the thought at some level that this could really happen. When that is not there, you'd better have some element of the supernatural or something like it if you want to hit it out of the park.

But, I want to make clear that this is a smaller budget film that makes one hell of a good effort to do something of quality. This isn't your normal "B" level horror flick where they producers and director get some naked girls to run around, splatter a lot of blood, try to gross us out one or twice with some gore and hope to catch lightning in a bottle. Nope, Live Animals tried to tell a horror story, one with some basis in real life events, but fell short in my view. Nothing to be ashamed of and I do hope the filmmakers go for it again.

Give it a shot, particularly if you are into small budget horror. Maybe I'm being a little too harsh on it and, if I am, please let me know. 

Directed by Oliver Stone. Drama. Biography. Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, James Cromwell, Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton. Drama/Historical

SYNOPSIS: A BIOPIC DRAMA OF THE 43RD PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, GEORGE W. BUSH, FOCUSING ON THE TIME BETWEEN HIS COLLEGE YEARS AND THE 2ND TERM OF HIS PRESIDENCY.

O.k. Take a breath. Let it out slowly. O.k. Well, here's the deal: a cutting edge director whose talent is prodigious but whose political/historical views are, to say the least, controversial in Oliver Stone (JFK, Nixon, Platoon) An ensemble cast filled with extremely talented actors. This could be something special, couldn't it?

Well, yeah, it could be...but I don't think it is.

So, am I saying its a bad film. Nope, not at all, quite the contrary, its a good film. I just don't think it's special, in the way that more than 1 Stone film has been in the past. Why do I feel this way? Well, my initial response to that question is, as opposed to some Stone films in the past that have tackled very controversial and mulit-layered historical topics, W was not made with the confortable cushion of some significant period of time between the event and the film. Platoon, Nixon, and JFK were all made with at least one decade or two of history and analysis after the monumental events at the heart of the movie.

In other words, rightly or wrongly, we pretty much knew, or thought we knew, how everything turned out with those historical events.W was made as some major things were still happening.

I know what you're thinking. 'You've missed the meaning of the film, you idiot!' JFK was not really about "JFK", and Nixon was not really about "Nixon" , they were really about the events which are most remembered about these two hugely influential and important presidents (the assassination and Watergate)! W is really about George W. Bush! Man, you're so dumb!'

O.k., I get that. (Not agreeing with the "dumb" part, but can't completely dispute it either, much as I would like to) But, still, I don't think this film hits the level of real epic cinema like, in my opinion, the other three Stone films I mentioned do. Why? Well, I already said what I think is the reason, because all the other elements of a wonderful film are there. Visually, its excellent, just as you would expect, it has those Stone trademarks that those of us who love the work of this director would expect, e.g. cutaways to the character in another setting while the character's dialogue continues

The cast is wonderful. No other way to say it. Josh Brolin (Milk, Planet Terror) is absolutely stunning as George W. Bush. To me, the highest compliment you can give an actor playing a well known celebrity, historical, or contemporary figure is to say that, while you were watching the flick, you would at times forget you were watching an actor playing the figure and though of it as the figure himself(or herself as it may be). I did that a few times when watching Brolin.

Now, I understand that many of you might have a strong visceral reaction, one way or another, to George W. Bush and your view of any actor pretending to be him might be set no matter what.

I get that, too.

In singing Brolin's praises, I'm attempting to leave my personal opinions about Mr. Bush and his presidency out of it. Also understand that this role as set up in the film was not easy to pull off, significant portions of the President's entire adult life are dealt with, events that occurred in his early 20's until his late 50's. Brolin plays the part in all of these scenarios and pulls it off well.

Not that he is alone in giving a great performance, his just stands out. Elizabeth Banks (The 40 Year Old Virgin) does very well as Laura Bush. Jeffrey Wright (Shaft, The Manchurian Candidate) is notable as Colin Powell, Thandie Newton (Crash ) is good, if slightly irritating, as Condeleeza Rice, Richard Dreyfus (Stand By Me, The Day Reagan Was Shot) is dead on as Dick Cheney. Also very good, but underutilized in my opinion, were Ellen Burstyn (The Exorcist) as Barbara Bush and James Cromwell (The General's Daughter, Salem's Lot) as George H.W. Bush.

There are some very telling implications in Stone's film, some of which have been talked about but not publicly verified, e.g. George W. Bush's arrests as a young man and his womanizing pre-Laura. But, I must say, those of you who go into this expecting the film to deal in depth with some of the more controversial and significant aspects of the Bush 43 presidency, such as the 2000 election or "mission accomplished", are going to be disappointed. This film is about the man, or more specificly, about perception of some of the man during the time he occupied the White House.

In my opinion, Stone is simply one of the most talented filmmakers we've ever seen and, fairly or not, when I see one of his films, the bar is set pretty high. I expect more from him. Did W deliver?

In my opinion, it barely did, and would not be one of Stone's best, but that is, again, largely because of the timing of the movie, we do not have the prism of decades of history to look at the film through, which keeps it from being the epic it was intended to be. On the other hand, the film is so well acted, who knows what we'll think of it in 5 years, 10 years?

That's just what I think. I know I say this a lot, but this time I can't emphasize enough: I'd love to know what you thought. 

Directed by Matt Waters. Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Michael Douglas, Emma Stone, Breckin Meyer, Robert Forster, Anne Archer. Romantic Comedy. Synopsis: A successful and womazing fashion photographer returns home for his younger brother's wedding and meets up with an old flame. Upon making his disdain for the institution of marriage very clear at the rehearsal dinner, he is visited by the ghost of his playboy uncle and, thereafter, the ghosts of previous girlfriends. 

There is a reason good stories get told over and over. Its because they are good. Seems obvious, huh? Well, of course it is. We're talking movies, here, not rocket science. Most of us born or living in any part of the second half of the 20th cenury into this century have seen countless takeoffs or adaptations of Charles Dickens A Christmas Carol (a novel that is close to two hundred years old, by the way) and the reason we have is because the story is good, compelling, and real on so many levels it became timeless.

So, why not an adaptation that takes the lessons of a Holiday out of it, replaces it with romance, and keeping the rest of the basic structure? O.k., by me, I'm always up for something new. So, you basically know the premise of the story before you even watch one second of it, plus the fact that it stars McConaughey. (No, I'm not accusing him of always playing the same type of character, if not role, since Amistad. I'm not...really. I'm just sayin')

Now that we've established that we all know how this one is going to play out before we even pick it up, the next question we need to grapple with is the age old mystery: Will I enjoy it?

I believe you will.

Why, you might ask?

Because I did, and I'm generally unsympathetic to romantic comedies as a genre. (Talk about formulaic and seeing nothing new) For reasons I can't adequately explain, even to myself, I really like McConaughey and generally enjoy his movies. For reasons that should be obvious to all when I state that I am red blooded male, I also like Jennifer Garner.

The story plays out like you know it would, beginning with a glimpse into the sexy, successful, and ultimately empty life of one Connor Mead (McConaughey Two For The Money) who juggles aspiring super model girlfriends with his aspiring super model flings and one night stands. And, to be honest, he seems to be having the time of his life. The first few minutes of the film, alone, give us enough laughs to justify the "comedy" in romantic comedy. 

Soon, Connor is off to the wedding of his little bro, Paul (Breckin Meyer) who is the polar opposite of Connor in that he wants to settle down with one woman. But, not all are awaiting Connor's arrival with bated breath. Those would include a number of the bridesmaids and Paul's slightly neurotic intended (Lacey Chabert), not to mention Jenny (Jennifer Garner), whom has known Connor since childhood, has experienced his "love 'em and leave 'em" ways up close and personal and is (HUGE SURPRISE!!!) the true love of his life.

Well, you put all those ingredients in the bowl, throw in some pre-wedding frivolity, add a little champagne, and you're going to get an interesting soup. As if our main characters are not interesting enough, the divorced parents of the bride, the sultry Anne Archer (Narrow Margin End Game) -herself a recipient of Connor's advances-and the father (Robert Forster Jackie Brown) add some serious spice and laughs to the flick. Especially Forster's character, the epitome of the stereotypical combat vet who is very reluctant to accept that the war is over.

But, my favorite character, and I bet your's too, is Uncle Wayne (Michael Douglas The Sentinel ) playing the Jacob Marley role as Connor's deceased uncle, who did raise Connor and Paul but also taught Connor his playing-the-field ways. Douglas, whom I've always thought brings a tinge of comedy to his dramatic roles, is simply hilarious and, to use a cliche, steals the show. 

We all know that romantic flicks don't work ultimately unless there is believable chemistry and empathy between the two lovebirds and Garner and McConaughey have that here. So, it woks well, largely because its hard for this story not to work if its acted well. And, it was. 

So, my verdict is predictable. You'll like it if you like the Dicken's story, romantic comedies in general, or Jennifer Garner. If you're a McConaughey or Douglas fan, I'd say its must see. 

Directed by Jesse James Miller.Starring Kalin See, Lance Henriksen, David Kopp, James Kirk, Lara Gilchrist. Synopsis: A young woman looking to find answers in the death of her father ends up on a small island with a group of friends who begin to understand that they are being hunted by some who was a vigilante in pursuit of the seamstress, a killer of children who sewed their eyes and mouths shut. 

All right, this one was really a lost opportunity. I hate to say that, because some of the acting was extremely good, especially in the "low budget horror" genre. But, the story, which made a legitimate effort to be different and thought provoking, is just too uneven and poorly explained for us to follow it coherently and completely enjoy the film.

Horror & gore fans will get their hopes up in the opening scene of the movie when a victim (who we soon find out is the father or our heroine and later learn was a vigilante)  is getting tortured as a precursor to his imminent killing and is begging "not the eyes, please not the eyes!" Like I said, some fans will get their hopes up for this one, but it will likely disapoint.

We next meet protagonist Allie (Kalin See) who is returning to her hometown in search of answers in the disappearance and presumed death of her father. It is at this point that the back story begins to take shape as a major part of the unfolding story, and it is just poorly explained. Just what is going on here and why is Allie so certain of some answers when she is not even sure what the questions are?

Some veteran horror buffs might think that I'm making too much out of this, that the first few minutes of any "B" horror movie,  as far as plot is concerned, is nothing more than the quickie setup/excuse to get the young, nubile group of actos sufficiently located so we can get to the naked girls and the murderous mayhem that we expect.

But, The Seamtress doesn't do that, I think the director, as well as the screenwriter, made a conscious effort to not be formulaic, but although that is enough in and of itself to remove this one from "Dud" consideration, if it doesn't work well-and it didn't-its going to prevent the movie from being a good one.

Not wanting to be a spoiler, but needing to give you some examples of what I'm talking about, just who is the seamstress anyway? We don't see her(if it really was a her) in the flick by way of flashback. And, for the life of me, after two viewings of the flick, I'm still not clear on what the hell the crew was doing on the island, or why they didn't turn tail when the creep inhabitant told them to and seemed to know a lot about them; not to mention when they started getting offed.

Now, I mentioned that the acting was good, and it was. The whole cast pulled their weight but Kalin See really stands out as Allie. You will believe and understand her, if not the rest of the story. And, of course, the always reliable Lance Henriksen is as creepy and fun in his role as the Sheriff with a secret as you would expect him to be.

I can't recommend this flick nor would I tell you to stay away from it. I guess, when you really think about it, I didn't really help you out at all, did I?

Sorry.   

Directed by Lori Petty. Starring: Bokeem Woodbine, Jennifer Lawrence, Sophia Barley, Selma Blair, Chloe Moretz, David Alan Grier. Synopsis: A biopic of a teenaged girl who is the oldest of three daughters, living with her alcoholic mother and her pimp in the 1970's midwest.Based on the life experiences of the director. Drama/Biographical

This is a very interesting film, basically the story of  actor and first time director Lori Petty's (A Leauge Of Their Own) turbulent childhood in 1970s Iowa. The first thing you will notice that is interesting about this biopic is that, though the fact that it is the story of Lori Petty isn't really hidden in the promotion of the film, its easy to miss that fact as the character names are different. And, though those of us who are old enough to remember 1976 will certainly give props to the film for capturing the authentic "feel" of the mid 70's,right down to the excellent score. I must say that those of you who are not very familiar with Iowa-not to mention a few of us who've been there a time or two-will be surprised that it looked/looks like this.

The Lori Petty character, named Agnes in the film, is wonderfully played by Jennifer Lawrence. Agnes is the protagonist, narrator, and almost every scene is told from her point of view. We get an idea of her life right from the opening scene, sunrise in the wintry midwest, living in a home that is obviously worse for the recent wear with bottles and the refuse of a late night party strewn all over. Agnes, after a couple hits on that morning doobie, is up and about, telling an "overnight visitor" that he needs to get out right now, its a school day. After scooping a mouse out of the bathtub, we see her get up her two little sisters and...her mom.

Mom is played very well by Selma Blair (Cruel Intentions).Blair makes us both mad and empathetic with her character, a young, 30-something mother who is awash in booze and drugs right in the midst of her three daughters. But, that's not all. She's also turning tricks in the house (known around town, as you might guess, as the 'Poker House', due to all of the late night poker, fun, and, uhhh...frivolity taking place there) The relationship between Agnes and her mom is tense and inappropriate, but there is love there, and I think that was Petty's point, conscious or not.

In point of fact, we can easily see that Agnes is the actual mother figure to her two younger sisters (Chloe Moretz and Sophia Barley), despite the fact that Agnes is still a child herself, not even done with high school.

What about the father, you might wonder? Well, some brief back story is given to the situation with Agnes' real father, with strong implications of abuse. But, he's out of the picture. The father "figure" in the home, if you will, is the mother's pimp, Duval. (Bokeem Woodbine Edmond) .

There's more.

You see, if this setup is not already dysfunctional enough, we learn that Agnes is-ready or not-in love with Duval. Yep, believe it or not, and if you didn't know this story was true, you might have a hard buying that one, but there is no way anyone would make this up about themselves unless it were true.

I never want to play the spoiler (nor the fool, though I have played that role on multiple occassions), but I will say that those of you who are thinking that a romance between a high school girl and her mother's pimp can't possibly work out long term are absolutely....correct.

There's just a little too much to overcome, though Duval, in his own way, seems to reciprocate the feelings of amour. I said "in his own way" because Duval's first spoken words to Agnes in the film (after flipping her an Egg McMuffin fished out of his pocket on the table in front of her)  are a soft, gentle "F*** y**" in response to her question "Are you breaking into people's houses again?"  

Assuming that most, if not all of you, will not see Duval as the Romeo that Agnes does, but rather a Lothario, the question then becomes, does Duval have an ulterior motive and what does Mom think about all of this? Well, the answer to one of those questions should be obvious, the answer to the other not so much, but hopefully this review has been clear enough to let you understand this wasn't the Brady Bunch, Iowa style.

There is an unusual arc to this film because it is basically just a day in the life of Agnes ( Petty tells us on the director's commentary that though everything in the film is accurate, it didn't all take place in one day) without a huge ending or twist or resolution. There are several powerful scenes, including at least one most people, I predict, will find quite disturbing.

But, this is a moving film, not least because we have some real life knowledge, or can find out, what happened to 'Agnes' after her unusual daughter of a prostitute/caretaker of a whorehouse/care giver of her two sisters/main squeeze of a pimp/high school basketball star teen age years.

Lawrence was stunningly good, in my opinion, an Oscar worthy performance from a teen aged actress. And this role had to be played by a teen aged actress, in my view, part of the pathos of the story is the relative youth of the mother, and it just wouldn't have worked had Petty tapped-in true mainstream Hollywood form-a 24 year old actress, told us she was 14, then tried to have us believe she was the daughter of a 30 year old Blair. If you look up the real ages of Blair and Lawrence they are still a little too close in age, but visually and given the lifestyle of Blair's character, we can buy it.

The other child actors are wonderful as well, even the ones with minor roles as we get the picture of a time when children grew up too fast, which is interesting because those of us old enough to remember the time now or where pre-teens then (like your humble blogger)  likely think of it, compared to today, as relatively innocent...if sartorially challenged.

Woodbine is excellent, as well. You hate him, as you should, but also you can grudgingly see how an impressionable teen ager could fall for him. He is the epitome of quite rage, polyester- shirt- wearing- cool. 70s style.And without a whole lot of dialogue for so central a character.

 Also look for a couple of small scenes from an almost unrecognizable David Alan Grier, who also got a writing credit for this one. This is an excellent directorial debut for Petty, and I hope she does more. Some of the harder-to-impress among you might say, "Heck, its her story, she should be able to direct it well." Fair point, but I disagree. I think this might be among the hardest things she ever does. 

I think this is one you should see. 

I'll start with the obvious: this one is not going to be for everyone. The idea of outwardly making the act of killing anyone in general, and multiple serial killings in particular, is not going to 'play in Peoria' among the masses...nor countless other places, for that matter.

On the other hand, there will be some folks in the great city of Peoria, and countless other places, who just might like this one quite a bit because it is kind of funny.

Mike Wilson (Dameon Clarke) is your typical, upwardly mobile and handsome L.A. guy (isn't everyone in Southern California beautiful and/or handsome, or is that just a stereotype?) who has a good looking girlfriend and a positive outlook on life. There is just one thing that really helps to keep him grounded. He's a serial killer. And, if he does say so himself, a pretty good one. Like anyone in any walk of life who is very good at his/her trade, Mike is dedicated to his craft and is always looking to improve upon it.

And, not surprisingly, he also has the itch to share it with others. He does so by taking an erstwhile video store clerk (Ryan Smith) under his wing. He shares it with the audience in the form of a mock infomercial-complete with ten lessons-on how to master the craft.

The infomercial effect is achieved by cutaways from the ongoing story, plus interviews/testimonials from those close to Mike, including his devoted but unsuspecting girlfriend, Abigail (Laura Regan) and the expert psychologist who gives us the low down on just what the heck is really going on inside Mike's-or any serial killer's-head. 

Like I said, the format will likely not appeal to a large number of people, but it is fresh and relatively different. I don't think How To Be A Serial Killer  is trying to glorify violence in any way, nor does it by effect, in my opinion. What is really doing, in my view, is making fun of our current celebrity pop culture, in which, when you really think about it, almost anyone can become famous or notorious for a while. Whether they do it by making a voluntary/involuntary appearance on Youtube, by being in a cheesy infomercial, or by killing a bunch of people really isn't all that important.

And, there could be some humor in that and I think Ricci finds it. Inappropriate? Yeah, probably. I could have done without references to some victims of real life serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, for example. No need for that in a movie trying so hard to be darkly funny.

Clarke is really good as Mike, the psychopath who-altogether now-seems "so normal" on the outside. One thing those of you looking for blood and guts who might start panting when you hear the title or see the box cover should know is, there is very little on screen violence or killing. There is almost no gore, we do see blood, but for the most part, the most extreme thing we see is shooting, which doesn't even move the needle on violence by today's standards. No decaptitations onscreen. No torture. No evisceration. That might come as a relief to some of you, perhaps a bit of a disappointment to others. Just thought I should let you know if that type of thing plays into whether or not you check this one out.

I thought it was o.k., somewhat innovative and funny in many spots. I'd be interested to know what you think after you see it.      

O.k., let's get real, here. You're a gore/horror/b movie fan and you see the box cover and decide to give this one a shot. I know if you make that decision, you are, by definition, a fan of one or all of those genres/sub-genres because if you weren't, the cover alone might turn your stomach.

So, we know we're looking at this one through the eyes of someone who knows these types of movies, not someone looking to compare it to Schindler's List or Raging Bull.

So, how does it do when measured against the appropriate standard?

Well, o,k.

Just, o.k., you might ask?

Yup.

Look, nothing new or original here, not that that's a necessity, but it sure helps if you don't have compelling characters or a story. Sadly, Gnaw does not.Now, make no mistake. It certainly tries, but there is just not enough of a back story or believable scenes to get us to be truly attached to any of the characters.

So, is this a complete dud, you might ask? Well, no, not even close. Like I said, when judging this movie by the proper standard, one thing you have to say is that we have more than enough gore to satisfy all but the ceritifable among us. Tongue extraction with pliers, acid thrown on the face, stabbings galore, not to mention the good old cannibal angle, complete with the obligatory ring in the soup and hair in the meat pie scenes.

Its just that, well, some of the scenarios are so silly and some of the formulaic stuff falls so flat, I can't see this one really jazzing up anyone unless they haven't seen this type of flick before, and are truly impressed by the "five young friends out in the middle of nowhere running into psychos/serial killers/cannibals" angle. And, like I said, if you are new to that well worn theme, you probably have made a conscious decision to avoid them, in which case you won't give Gnaw a second glance. 

I mean, what is the effect of putting the main killer in some kind of animal mask, when we see him without the mask-including during some of the kills- for most of the flick? The use of constant shots of the actors eating as well as shots of, presumably, good meat along with the cannibal theme and gore scenes was overdone, in my opinion. Warning: if you're only a casual eater of meat, viewing this film might push firmly into the vegetarian camp.

So, you probably know that I didn't think a whole lot of this British take on that well known slice of Americana: the cannibalistic gore flick. But, like I said, some who would consider this movie just want gore and to be grossed out a little and that it delivers.

Nothing more.       

Directed by Peter Jobson. Starring Kevin McKidd, Laura Fraser, Susan Lynch. Drama. Synopsis:  A happy child turns into a troubled teen and an angry, violent adult  after his disillusionment at discovering the absence of love between his parents and beginning his reliance on alcohol. As an adult, he meets two women who give him a chance at love and redemption, but will he be able to fully let his past go so that he can face a brighter future?

Although this British film was released in '03, I just recently saw it in the new release section of the local vid store and decided to check it out because it had two actresses whose work I really liked in previous films: Laura Fraser (Iron Jawed Angels) and Susan Lynch (From Hell), so I picked it up.

This movie is hard to describe, because its told in an unusual way, you won't see anything you have not seen somewhere else before, but Jobson definitely has a style all his own. The story is set in Edinburgh, Scotland, and we are introduced to Frankie as a boy who idolizes his heroic like father and loves his mom (mum?)  That is all shattered when Frankie catches his dad philandering and realizes that his hero has feet of clay. Nothing eccentric here, but Jobson employs narration throughout the film and, as we see from the get go, the narration of Frankie often tells us what is going to happen before it does or, worse, tells us the meaning of what we are watching. Not a deal breaker for me, I like narratives when done in a certain way, but I could have done without that.

Next we jump to Frankie (Kevin McKidd) as a tough, violent teenager who is the leader of a group of skin heads who is not above pounding on a pub owner or a fellow gang member at the slightest provocation. That is, he is pretty set in his ways until he meets Helen (Laura Fraser) and an improbable romance blooms between the artistic, thoughtful Helen and the vodka swilling, tough guy Frankie. Well, as you might guess, Helen gradually changes Frankie, who starts to let his hair grow out and even pounds on one of his boys in defense of Helen's honor, and ultimately declares his willingness to forgo violence as well as drink for Helen, if not his love.

Things go swimmingly for a few minutes until we find Frankie and Helen at an art show, where Frankie ends up being pretty descriptive to a condescending older couple who are looking at art along side Frankie. Well, Helen witnesses this and, convinced that Frankie will never change, dumps him right there and then. Back to the flask for Frankie, who does still think enough of Helen to beat up and disfigure a former gang buddy who communicates his less than honorable intentions about Helen to Frankie.

After this, its on to acting classes and AA for Frankie, who meets a woman also trying to forget her past named Mary (Susan Lynch From Hell). This romance seems to have real promise, but Frankie can't seem to let himself be completely loved by Mary, as his past demons relating to his father's adultery and being dumped by Helen haunt him to the conclusion of the film, which includes a memorable ending that I will not spoil for anyone.

Overall, I liked the film, but I did have some problems with it. I thought it tried too hard to be artsy, relying on too obvious scenes of symbolism-such as Frankie's parents being covered by icicles as he sits and watches them in silence as a boy- and the use of still pictures to fill in the progression of the stories within the story like some sort of slide show. I also thought the movie could have done a better job of setting itself up for us: how old is Frankie? When is this taking place? What is the period of time involved? To me, these are simple things to set forth that help us to better identify with the characters or get into the story. Did Frankie meet Mary one week after his relationship with Helen ended, or five years? I'm not sure,  its not clear at all in the film. To me, this makes a difference in how I might empathize with him and understand his actions.

However, those complaints, while they took away from the film for me, do not ruin it completely and the acting of the three main characters more than carries the film above the average movie, and Jobson clearly has something to say, although I'm not sure at all that the title does the film justice, as this is really not a film about alcohol abuse, its there, but its just a symptom for Frankie, not a cause of his problems. To me, it's really about the inability, or unwillingness, to give and accept love and the consequences and effects of this.

Judging from excellent and in depth feature with Jobson and the actors in the special features of the DVD, I think that might have been one of the things the movie was trying to say. I would say that most who watch 16 Years will appreciate its seriousness, superb acting, and good cinematography in making us feel Edinburgh. The film has flaws and might be a little too pretentious for some, but I, for one, would definitely check out a Jobson film in the future.  

Synopsis: Two high school girls with widely different backgrounds and goals come to know each other in the aftermath of a shooting at the high school that they both attend. Directed by Paul F. Ryan. Starring Busy Phillips, Erika Christensen, Victor Garber, James Pickens, Agnes Bruckner 

Low budget does not equal low quality when you have a great story, good acting, and good direction. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that is the best recipe for a good flick.

The story begins in the aftermath of a school shooting...we see the distraught S.W.A.T officer, some bodies laying around, but never the shooter or the shootings themselves. After that morbid start, we meet Alicia (Busy Phillips White Girls)  a goth dressing girl who is not popular with her classmates and is a little older, having missed a couple of years of school for reasons that are not made clear until later in the movie.

Alicia is thought to be the girlfriend of the now deceased shooter, and therefore attracts a lot of attention from the lead investigator (Victor Garber Titanic) on the case. Alicia seems strangely detached and unemotional about the massacre, in fact pitching a fit when she comes to school the next day only to find the school, understandably, closed.

After going off on her principal about the lack of a place to study-after all, she is failing English and desperately wants to finally graduate. Instead she reluctantly agrees to be the only student from the school who will go the hospital to visit the bright but unpopular Deanna (Erika Christensen Traffic).

And there we have the movie, the strained beginnings of a deep and difficult friendship between two young women who are so alone for such different reasons. It works because of the work of Phillips and Christensen. The premise upon which there meeting is based is a little far fetched...Alicia is the only person to regularly visit Deanna, even her parents (Huh? The girl's been shot!)  But, when you put that aside, there is the nice story of how these two come to view each other and, of course, themselves.

Really, the film is not about a school shooting so much as it is about the way we relate to other people and how easy it is to see someone every day and not really know them. Yeah, all of this sounds kind of corny, but its real and when you can tap into that fact with a compelling script, its going to be pretty good.

The two lead actresses have to carry this and they do, especially Phillips. It doesn't work otherwise and fans of these two actresses will definitely want to see this one if at all possible. Also, one of the special features in the DVD deserves note, which is the screening of the film at Columbine High School, the site of probably the most infamous school massacre. Powerful stuff, to say the least.

So, my suggestion-if you decide ot accept it- is to channel your old school days and go to Home Room.

Directed by Mary Pat Kelley. Starring Ossie Davis, Albert  Jones, Jeffrey Nash, Denise Nicholas, Eric Laray Harvey. Synopsis:A historical drama about some of the real life sailors on the USS Mason, the first and only all African American crew warship to engage the Germans in World War II.

This is a feel good, relatively low budget historical film that portrays some of the actual sailors from the USS Mason, an all African American crew warship that saw action and performed well in World War II, but were not official recognized for their actions until a half century later.

The film is told in flashback, with the late, venerable, and wonderful Ossie Davis (an actual World War II vet himself, but not on the Mason) , being a grandfather who is at his wits end with his grandson's habit of listening to loud hip-hop music (which Ossie's character refers to as "noise", a scene that any of us who have been on both sides of the generation gap will appreciate) with his college buddies late at night when Ossie is trying to get some sleep. He tries to culturally upgrade the youngsters in the form of Billie Holliday records, and soon the talk turns to his service in World War II, something he had not spoken of  much to his grandson before, and soon we are in a flashback to 1944 with, in a neat little twist, the actors portraying Ossie's grandson and buddies are the same actors portraying a young Ossie and his buddies on the Mason.

The story touches on the racism encountered by the men, both covert and subtle, but it does not portray to the depth or length of a movie like the Tuskeegee Airmen or Glory, the focus here is more on the young men involved and their thoughts, hopes, and pride in serving their country, as well as the dreams for the postwar.

The ship and battle sequences are o.k., part of that is the fact that, of the three types of warfare to film, naval is by far the hardest, especially without a huge budget. Real footage of WWII naval battles is used, although I am not sure it is footage of the actual Mason. The acting is decent, most of the faces will be new to most viewers, with the exception of Ossie Davis, of course, and the still striking Denise Nicholas from Room 222 and In the Heat of the Night fame.

What I liked is that the director gave some screen time to the modern day part of the story, the struggle by the members and their descendants to get long overdue recognition in the form of a unit commendation, including some actual footage of actual Mason sailors receiving their recognition from then President Clinton.